Submariner vs Seamaster

[AJMarcus]

Originally Posted by Mystro

The horological ignorance is embarrassing. I guess sticker talk is as far as some owners want to learn about the industry.

Then please enlighten us O Great Wisdom :

[R G]

Originally Posted by AJMarcus

Then please enlighten us O Great Wisdom :

He has. Just read...

[eltonbalch]

Surprised no one has mentioned this Seamaster. No He valve, no wave dial, great bracelet and (at current street prices) about 1/3 the cost of the Rolex Sub. Trust me, the Sub just isn’t three times better than this Seamaster...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[AJMarcus]

Originally Posted by lawrence1

Really? i'd be curious to hear the details. I've owned several of each and can't say i've noticed this.

First Omega I ever owned years ago was a brand new Bond Blue auto Seamaster. Had it six months and one day the minute hand just fell off inside the dial. I watched it float around inside in disbelief. It had never been dropped or anything. I returned it immediately to the AD where I bought it. They wanted to send it in for service but I said no way. They gave me full price I paid towards my first Rolex, a ND Sub 14060. From that day on I was strictly a Rolex guy. It all depends on your individual experience.

[AJMarcus]

Originally Posted by eltonbalch

Surprised no one has mentioned this Seamaster. No He valve, no wave dial, great bracelet and (at current street prices) about 1/3 the cost of the Rolex Sub. Trust me, the Sub just isn’t three times better than this Seamaster...Attachment 1066418


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The 300 MC is the true Seamaster heir. It’s a fine piece.

[marcusp23]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Own both. In fact 30 years of Rolex ownership and 15 years of Omega ownership.
I think the new Omega Master Chronometer METAS crushes Rolex in their movements. I didn’t know how much better their movements were until recently owning one of their new METAS certified movements and actually testing it. I have ran a lot of the latest Rolex movements through accuracy and Power Reserve tests but none can touch the Omega Cal. 9900 movement in performance.
The new Rolex 3285 is good and just now using industry standards of ceramic rotor bearings but the Omega 9900 is on another level of excellence in construction and end performance. It’s practically antimagnetic.
As far as build quality, it is a equal draw but actual materials used is where Omega clearly wins. Look at a Rolex dial under a loupe and then a Omega ceramic dial. Rolex dial is sloppy and printing is slightly foggy by comparison. A gloss ceramic dial has to be perfect as any imperfection is magnified significantly. Omega is clearly working to make the best watch possible pushing technical advancements where Rolex is coasting on their reputation and their movements are just keeping up to the industry standards. Rolex brilliance is in their business strategy making the most money for them. Omega is making the better watch but at the cost of releasing a higher variety of collections that water down their brand. I own both and have a lot respect for both brands. The arrogance of some Rolex owners toward Omega is embarrassing and unnecessary. The smugness is major baggage to the Rolex brand many enthusiast wont deal with anymore. My guess is the illusion of harder to get makes it a better product somehow to some people??? Not sure the seasoned enthusiast believes it or is even in Rolex targeted demographic.
Omega has been around a lot longer than Rolex and with some amazing achievements. The horological historical time line gets lost with talk of stickers and polishing I guess???

Well....just for that, you’re gonna have to turn in your CHNR :)

[AJMarcus]

[QUOTE=Mystro;9930417]Own both. In fact 30 years of Rolex ownership and 15 years of Omega ownership.
I think the new Omega Master Chronometer METAS crushes Rolex in their movements. I didn’t know how much better their movements were until recently owning one of their new METAS certified movements and actually testing it. I have ran a lot of the latest Rolex movements through accuracy and Power Reserve tests but none can touch the Omega Cal. 9900 movement in performance.
The new Rolex 3285 is good and just now using industry standards of ceramic rotor bearings but the Omega 9900 is on another level of excellence in construction and end performance. It’s practically antimagnetic.
As far as build quality, it is a equal draw but actual materials used is where Omega clearly wins. Look at a Rolex dial under a loupe and then a Omega ceramic dial. Rolex dial is sloppy and printing is slightly foggy by comparison. A gloss ceramic dial has to be perfect as any imperfection is magnified significantly. Omega is clearly working to make the best watch possible pushing technical advancements where Rolex is coasting on their reputation and their movements are just keeping up to the industry standards. Rolex brilliance is in their business strategy making the most money for them. Omega is making the better watch but at the cost of releasing a higher variety of collections that water down their brand. I own both and have a lot respect for both brands. The arrogance of some Rolex owners toward Omega is embarrassing and unnecessary. The smugness is major baggage to the Rolex brand many enthusiast wont deal with anymore. My guess is the illusion of harder to get makes it a better product somehow to some people??? Not sure the seasoned enthusiast believes it or is even in Rolex targeted demographic.
Omega has been around a lot longer than Rolex and with some amazing achievements. The horological historical time line gets lost with talk of stickers and polishing I guess???[/QUOTE

Clearly you don’t think much of Rolex. That’s your prerogative. But why buy the CHRN

[sillo]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Own both. In fact 30 years of Rolex ownership and 15 years of Omega ownership.
I think the new Omega Master Chronometer METAS crushes Rolex in their movements. I didn’t know how much better their movements were until recently owning one of their new METAS certified movements and actually testing it. I have ran a lot of the latest Rolex movements through accuracy and Power Reserve tests but none can touch the Omega Cal. 9900 movement in performance.
The new Rolex 3285 is good and just now using industry standards of ceramic rotor bearings but the Omega 9900 is on another level of excellence in construction and end performance. It’s practically antimagnetic.
As far as build quality, it is a equal draw but actual materials used is where Omega clearly wins. Look at a Rolex dial under a loupe and then a Omega ceramic dial. Rolex dial is sloppy and printing is slightly foggy by comparison. A gloss ceramic dial has to be perfect as any imperfection is magnified significantly. Omega is clearly working to make the best watch possible pushing technical advancements where Rolex is coasting on their reputation and their movements are just keeping up to the industry standards. Rolex brilliance is in their business strategy making the most money for them. Omega is making the better watch but at the cost of releasing a higher variety of collections that water down their brand. I own both and have a lot respect for both brands. The arrogance of some Rolex owners toward Omega is embarrassing and unnecessary. The smugness is major baggage to the Rolex brand many enthusiast wont deal with anymore. My guess is the illusion of harder to get makes it a better product somehow to some people??? Not sure the seasoned enthusiast believes it or is even in Rolex targeted demographic.
Omega has been around a lot longer than Rolex and with some amazing achievements. The horological historical time line gets lost with talk of stickers and polishing I guess???

Stop, you're making too much sense.

[alphasports]

Originally Posted by greengold

Actually his SMP was a gift from his mother Diana Princess Of Wales hence it has great sentimental value to him. Interesting she chose it over the Submariner..

Yes, and curiously it's a quartz midsize, quite an inexpensive watch at the time.

[LuminousMaximus]

I’m going to go dig up my old sword-hands, and an 18kt Omega thanks to this thread

I think it would be cool if ROLEX bought Omega from it parent co...

[joyfultrade]

Omega is a nice watch still!!

[Gprotein]

Own and love both. Neither is perfect and like all things in life, they have pros along with cons. I can’t see myself letting either one go

[shaunylw]

[QUOTE=AJMarcus;9930508]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Own both. In fact 30 years of Rolex ownership and 15 years of Omega ownership.

I think the new Omega Master Chronometer METAS crushes Rolex in their movements. I didn’t know how much better their movements were until recently owning one of their new METAS certified movements and actually testing it. I have ran a lot of the latest Rolex movements through accuracy and Power Reserve tests but none can touch the Omega Cal. 9900 movement in performance.

The new Rolex 3285 is good and just now using industry standards of ceramic rotor bearings but the Omega 9900 is on another level of excellence in construction and end performance. It’s practically antimagnetic.

As far as build quality, it is a equal draw but actual materials used is where Omega clearly wins. Look at a Rolex dial under a loupe and then a Omega ceramic dial. Rolex dial is sloppy and printing is slightly foggy by comparison. A gloss ceramic dial has to be perfect as any imperfection is magnified significantly. Omega is clearly working to make the best watch possible pushing technical advancements where Rolex is coasting on their reputation and their movements are just keeping up to the industry standards. Rolex brilliance is in their business strategy making the most money for them. Omega is making the better watch but at the cost of releasing a higher variety of collections that water down their brand. I own both and have a lot respect for both brands. The arrogance of some Rolex owners toward Omega is embarrassing and unnecessary. The smugness is major baggage to the Rolex brand many enthusiast wont deal with anymore. My guess is the illusion of harder to get makes it a better product somehow to some people??? Not sure the seasoned enthusiast believes it or is even in Rolex targeted demographic.

Omega has been around a lot longer than Rolex and with some amazing achievements. The horological historical time line gets lost with talk of stickers and polishing I guess???[/QUOTE



Clearly you don’t think much of Rolex. That’s your prerogative. But why buy the CHRN

Makes a lot of sense! I love both, wearing a 2254.50 right now, which i think might be the best dive watch made period. It sits low on the wrist, has a fantastic bracelet, and outside of the helium valve looks amazing. Omega is no slouch, i look forward to buying more!

The one thing Omega doesn’t do well, IMO, is their case sizing. The co-axial is 44mm, way too big. It’s one of the best looking Chronos made but the size kills it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bfd70]

Originally Posted by Stew7

Rolex will always have the marketing edge but notoriety and a higher price doesn't dictate engineering superiority or value. The new Seamaster is a fantastic watch and is a better value than the Rolex considering you effectively get equal technology and features for half the Rolex price (factoring in street prices).

"Better" means different things to different people. Sure the Sub is more valuable but it's not a better value. And it's definitely not engineered any better or worse than the Omega. They are both bulletproof.

Very well put. I honestly did not expect any unbiased responses.

[eltonbalch]

Originally Posted by R G

I’ve never been an Omega man, but, I managed to acquire this mint 2002 Seamaster the week before last.

It’s in a league of its own and is really different to the other modern Seamasters.

White gold bezel. Anyone recognise the style??

This was originally sold as a limited edition of 9999 called the America’s Cup in 2000 and then re-issued without the America’s cup wording but is otherwise identical. I owned the America’s cup and sold it after about five years of ownership. I have pictures somewhere but I’m too lazy to dig them out. I wore it in rotation with my no-date Sub 14060. I was not a fan of the bracelet and grew to hate the He valve but the dial, white gold bezel and sword hands made this one of my all time favorites. Nice pick up!

[ilyknarf]

A Rolex is a Rolex! I waited so many years to finally get my first sub and kept contemplating on buying a cheaper alternative. I am glad I finally waited as it feels so much more special.

[sillo]

[QUOTE=shaunylw;9930568]

Originally Posted by AJMarcus

I love both, wearing a 2254.50 right now, which i think might be the best dive watch made period. It sits low on the wrist, has a fantastic bracelet, and outside of the helium valve looks amazing. Omega is no slouch, i look forward to buying more!

It is an awesome watch and relatively cheap when compared to a sub from the same era. Omega also isn't stingy with their parts and a quick call to an omega boutique and you can get the micro adjust clasp to make it even better. The only thing keeping it from being absolutely perfect is the HEV.

[Gary.]

Originally Posted by Seibei

The Omega wins on value for money? On what planet is that? I have had my Sub for a year and I could sell it, in the state it is for thousands of $ more than I paid for it. Essentially I would be paid thousands of $ for wearing my watch. As far as value for money is concerned it has Omega beat by a long long way.

Shocking, I know, but some people buy a watch to keep and wear.

Not that you'd know that from a good percentage of the Rolex chat over the last few years. Rolex used to have to engineer their watches for diving or flying. Now it seems that they are mostly built to survive someone vigorously slapping themselves on the back.

[jeffgo888]

I had 2 seamasters , the blue and black dials before the sub....and I loved the blue dial...but once I got the sub, I never looked back and sold both of them seamasters.
Thought about getting another one last weeek but then said no.

[R G]

Originally Posted by eltonbalch

This was originally sold as a limited edition of 9999 called the America’s Cup in 2000 and then re-issued without the America’s cup wording but is otherwise identical. I owned the America’s cup and sold it after about five years of ownership. I have pictures somewhere but I’m too lazy to dig them out. I wore it in rotation with my no-date Sub 14060. I was not a fan of the bracelet and grew to hate the He valve but the dial, white gold bezel and sword hands made this one of my all time favorites. Nice pick up!

Yes, I was aware of its history and there are quite a few of the America’s Cup versions for sale but I specifically didn’t go for any of those because of the peculiar engraving of the case, and the lack of wording on the dial (simply ‘America’s Cup’).

The ‘non America’s’ version that I own is far less common - the workshop manager at the Omega service centre said he hadn’t seen this version before I took it in there last week, so that was interesting.

Funnily enough, the HE valve doesn’t bother me. My favourite things about it are the little accents like the red tip seconds hand and the wave dial which is really subtle compared with the other modern iterations I’ve seen, and of course, the white gold bezel. As for the bracelet, i actually think it’s a little similar to the older style Daytona’s, (apart from the clasp itself), and was still miles ahead for its time back in the early 00’s.

I rotate it alongside a SubC and a DJ41, so a nice mix.

It’s strange as I’ve never really opted for any of the Omega line up but when I put this on for the first time, I was blown away by it.

Cheers

[Scott Cali]

My Seamaster was my first luxury watch bought brand new in 1997, it's been a great watch with no issues....picked up my new Sub Date at the end of June...Rolex gets my vote...It's as close to a perfect watch that there is....the Omega now resides in my box, I do see a speedy in my future.

[Bizcut1]

Originally Posted by Rocket launcher

Omega is next to the Tudor stand
And Tudor ain't no Rolex

[Bizcut1]

Originally Posted by Gary.

Shocking, I know, but some people buy a watch to keep and wear.

Not that you'd know that from a good percentage of the Rolex chat over the last few years. Rolex used to have to engineer their watches for diving or flying. Now it seems that they are mostly built to survive someone vigorously slapping themselves on the back.

[Clinton Ave]

The lugs vs. bracelet on the six digit subs are god awful.

[avalvo]

The newest SMPs are awesome values. You get a phenomenal movement, a very high grade of movement, an adjustable clasp, ceramic face, bezel and inlays. And, one of the most comfortable bracelets out there. The watches look great on the metal bracelet or rubber and have a nice presence to them either way.

All for about $4.2k, after a dealer discount. That is way better than the current Sub. In fact for the price of a Sub you can get the SMP and a Grand Seiko Gmt quartz, also a great watch.

Sent from my LYA-L29 using Tapatalk

[Jamie1111]

lol, screw down helium valve on the other side of the case.........

[cannawatch]

Choose the watch that makes you smile every time you look at it!

[Jefferyasher]

I purchased a Seamaster in 2004 and returned it within 3 days to get my 14060m. Have NEVER regretted the decision.

[brandog]

I've owned both Rolex and Omega and Omega will never dethrone Rolex.

Everyone in the world knows what a Rolex is and its been that way for 70 years. Omega makes a great watch, and their movements are impressive, but the Rolex Submariner is and will always be the most iconic watch in the world. Omega can update their calibers every 2 years and offer 100 different colorful strap options for their watches but they will always be in Rolex's shadow.

[shaunylw]

Originally Posted by Jamie1111

lol, screw down helium valve on the other side of the case.........

It’s literally the dumbest decision they could ever make. Without it would be better for 99.9% of the people wearing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk