Rolex vs omega quality

[tquieng]

I recently went to an AD of Omega and held the new moon watch- It feels like a piece of junk compaired to Rolex metal. I have the prior version and the band feels like an expensive band but this newer one, the band feels.like a cheap Seiko band. Is it me or you guys feel the same.

[Pentameter]

No I don’t agree. Rolex bracelets are very nice now but it wasn’t that long ago that they were garbage and probably close to the cheap Seiko straps you’re talking about. Personally I think Omega bracelets are very well made - just slightly below Rolex In quality IMO.

[Francist]

Recent Rolex bracelets are the finest in the industry.
They hold together firmly, especially the jubilee

[Radbloke]

Strongly disagree. I would say Omega overall build quality is as good, if not better, than Rolex in general. As for the bracelet specifically, the twin trigger release is better than fliplock and I've found Omega bracelets to be incredibly well made and finished.

[Fencer28]

Rolex metals, especially their steel, is better than Omega. Omega bracelet is good quality, however the lack of any micro adjustment method and the butterfly clasp are annoying and make the bracelet inferior to the Rolex bracelets. It’s unfortunate because the bracelet is a big deal when it comes to wrist experience.

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by tquieng

I recently went to an AD of Omega and held the new moon watch- It feels like a piece of junk compaired to Rolex metal. I have the prior version and the band feels like an expensive band but this newer one, the band feels.like a cheap Seiko band. Is it me or you guys feel the same.

It's you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Saoirse32]

Originally Posted by Radbloke

Strongly disagree. I would say Omega overall build quality is as good, if not better, than Rolex in general. As for the bracelet specifically, the twin trigger release is better than fliplock and I've found Omega bracelets to be incredibly well made and finished.

This ^^^

The Glidelock is great, but Omega's version is just as good.
In my experience, Omega quality is on par with Rolex, in some ways "better," in all aspects except...value retention.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wcs2229]

I bought an Omega Moonphase for my son's birthday 2 years ago and the quality is excellent.

The Omega case that it comes with is even much nicer than the Rolex case.

[macplee]

i TOTALLY disagree - i sold my omega cause it felt inexpensive vs my rolex bracelets - the jubilee and oyster are on an different level.

side note, i thought the cartier santos would be similar w the integrated bracelet to my AP RO - not even close - so i sold that too. just felt so much cheaper - and the curved glass on the cartier made it visually not good esp from angles

[subdownunder]

I chose the Omega diver 300 over a Sub.
The quality is on par, the movement is more advanced and it came in at a third of the grey market price.

In additionRolex is way behind in the quality of the dial and the anti reflective coating quality.

The bracelet is nearly on par also, with the new Sub slightly better for adjustment, but once dialed in the Seamaster in nearly as good.

As for value retention, if you are buying either used, the Omega is the better buy.
My reasoning is that the Rolex is in a bubble and the downside is huge compared to the chances of a profit.

The Omega is already priced below MRP and if Omega keep raising prices the downside is negligible.

[TheVTCGuy]

The Rolex uses 904L steel, I suppose I could look it up but just off my memory Omega uses a lesser-grade steel, I think it’s the same as Tudor(?) 215?

This is all un-researched, just from a conversation I had at the AD a while ago. If someone knows better please correct me.

[spacedinvader]

Originally Posted by tquieng

I recently went to an AD of Omega and held the new moon watch- It feels like a piece of junk compaired to Rolex metal. I have the prior version and the band feels like an expensive band but this newer one, the band feels.like a cheap Seiko band. Is it me or you guys feel the same.

The Timeless Watch Channel (YouTube) was also very critical of the new moonwatch bracelet and said it didn’t feel like a bracelet for a premium watch, and he’s a big moonwatch fanboy.

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

The Rolex uses 904L steel, I suppose I could look it up but just off my memory Omega uses a lesser-grade steel, I think it’s the same as Tudor(?) 215?

This is all un-researched, just from a conversation I had at the AD a while ago. If someone knows better please correct me.

Yes Rolex uses 904L steel which is considered as ultimate.

Omega uses 316L steel which is for forks and spoons, not a precious luxury steel..

[1sttimerolex]

I thought Rolex bracelets were the best...that's until I tried on ss sports models from the trinity+als.... my sub felt like a cheap kid's toy watch in comparison.

As for the new moonwatch, never seen it so not sure of its quality or feel, but looks a bit less sturdy than the oyster bracelet.

[OrangeSport]

I've not handed that particular watch, but the Omegas I have are at least as good as Rolex..

[logo]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

Yes Rolex uses 904L steel which is considered as ultimate.

Omega uses 316L steel which is for forks and spoons, not a precious luxury steel..

A few interesting things comparing 316L to 904L steel:

- 904 has more chromium, more copper, more molybdenum, all of which contribute to higher shine and corrosion resistance
- the above also makes 904L about 30% less hard than 316L steel. All those nice swirly lines on the clasp and door handle scuffs on a shiny Daytona are due to the 904L.
- 316L has about 50% less Nickel. Whether that helps people with Nickel allergy is hard to say but it is possible.

I own a Speedmaster and Datejust, and both feel well built. More attention to detail on the Rolex, and the jubilee bracelet is obviously way more comfortable, but the Omega feels very sturdy, just not as refined or “finished” as the Rolex. Though, I’ve never had any concern with quality, and both brands are most certainly over-engineered to high standards.

[TimeAZ]

Rolex is leagues above Omega from the standpoint of comfort on wrist, quality of bracelet, and overall elegance/class. I have always preferred the design language of Rolex, in terms of case design, dial elements, and overall aesthetic/look of the watch. Hard to find anything in Omega's catalog of thousands of limited editions that comes close. Maybe the Moonwatch and maybe the Deville Tresor. That's about it.

Having said that, I think Omega is still a good brand and makes some fine watches. They could benefit from more bracelet refinement... good example is the Seamaster professional diver 300m. Definitely a high quality piece with great construction, awesome movement, nice ceramic components... BUT, that bracelet is just too bulky, outdated with its 90's styling, has sharp edges, and an awfully bulky clasp. The rubber strap is far superior. I used to own one and quickly discarded the bracelet because it was far too uncomfortable. Rubber strap was a vast improvement. The watch was still too bulky and just a little juvenile in its appearance. I could not bond with it (heh couldn't resist the pun). I wound up going for a BB58, which I found was a far better fit, more comfortable, and simply spoke to me, strikes me as a far more classic and beautiful watch.

[kieselguhr]

Rolex and Omega are equals in terms of build quality of the watch body and movement. Omega takes a fancier approach to achieve the same result in timekeeping.

Where Rolex is superior is in brand recognition and subjective perception (i.e. design). Materials used is a wash. 904L isn’t superior to 316L.

[BLNR Nairobi]

Originally Posted by subdownunder

In additionRolex is way behind in the quality of the dial and the anti reflective coating quality.

.

You do know the way Omega gets that ‘anti reflective coating quality’ is by coating BOTH sides of the Sapphire? Which is ludicrous. Yes, sure, it makes the crystal appear to disappear and the dial can be seen in all its glory. But having the AR coating on the upper side of the crystal means that it will scratch.

And thus you have a highly scratch-resistance crystal that is covered with a scratchable AR coating. There are YouTube videos of how those Seamasters look after a while.

The new Rolex approach of coating the underside makes much more sense in the long run.

Omega’s approach also makes sense however …that is, the short-term approach of the SWATCH Group.

[escobar144]

I wouldnt say that Omega in general is worst than Rolex. The new Seamasters are built very well. You could truly buy a Seamaster and make it a one and done. Now this is coming from a Speedmaster fan. But I dont think you could compare the quality of a Speedmaster to anything From the rolex line. Speedmaster bracelets cheap (especially the new ones). And it makes it hard to justify paying retail. However, that is the charm to the Speedy. Great history. But not worth 6k.

[OG1982]

Originally Posted by BLNR Nairobi

You do know the way Omega gets that ‘anti reflective coating quality’ is by coating BOTH sides of the Sapphire? Which is ludicrous. Yes, sure, it makes the crystal appear to disappear and the dial can be seen in all its glory. But having the AR coating on the upper side of the crystal means that it will scratch.

And thus you have a highly scratch-resistance crystal that is covered with a scratchable AR coating. There are YouTube videos of how those Seamasters look after a while.

The new Rolex approach of coating the underside makes much more sense in the long run.

Omega’s approach also makes sense however …that is, the short-term approach of the SWATCH Group.

Agree with this sentiment. Omegas look wonderful when new but the AR coating on the exterior is a move which really only helps in the short term. The first time my new Seamaster took a hit the crystal looked awful and I spent days fretting and I eventually ended up polishing off the AR coating, not what I was expecting to have to do with my new luxury watch I’d saved hard for!

I have AR on the underside of my Sub (124060) and its wonderful, subtle but really makes a difference. I also own a Jubilee BLNR which has no AR coating and the overall aesthetic suffers as a result.

I’ve owned two Omegas and two Rolex, I would say the overall quality of Omega is very good. Both eventually got traded in along the way to Rolex ownership. Rolex in my view is superior, but in no way inline with current market pricing.

[htc8p]

the way omega is i would say are of the same quality.

steel qualitywise i would rate them the same. there are no significant difference other than 904 being more blingy

omega movement i think is even better than rolex.

rolex has a better bracelet point on point but omega offers straps options

omega offers more value for money but doesnt hold value as well as rolex

Omega is definitely on it's way up. time will tell their success or failure.

[watchmavan]

So tired of these Rolex v Omega threads.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[J-E]

if i compare my 114060 Sub with my Speedmaster moonwatch, the Submariner is way better in built quality. It just feels like a chunk of solid metal (because of the solid end links of course). So yes, i feel the same!

[J-E]

Originally Posted by watchmavan

So tired of these Rolex v Omega threads.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

so tired of the 'so tired' comments. JUST DONT READ IT IF YOU DONT LIKE IT!!!!!

[padi56]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

The Rolex uses 904L steel, I suppose I could look it up but just off my memory Omega uses a lesser-grade steel, I think it’s the same as Tudor(?) 215?

This is all un-researched, just from a conversation I had at the AD a while ago. If someone knows better please correct me.

There are many myths on the net about the special 904L steel now called Oystersteel first Rolex do not manufacture their own steel its got from a third party in billets,and there is nothing magical about 904L or Oystersteel today. Most of the watch industry like say Patek, Omega, and Tudor use 316L .It was mainly a brag factor and marketing by Rolex as they were once the only watch manufacturer using it, so now called oystersteel to make it sound more exclusive. Today several other companies use 904L SS in watches XOSKELETON for one and Girard-Perregaux .But in the real world 904L steel was not developed by any watch brand, it was developed to be used in high salt/acid factories like for instance vinegar pickling factories, and factories that use high acid products etc. And the only difference between 904L and 316L is simply this, the main difference between 316L over 904L it has slightly more Molybdenum(Mo)approx 2% more, approx 1-2% more Crome(Cr), 1% copper(Cu), and approx 10% more nickel and that's it all quite cheap commodities. And today far more 316L is sold than 904L, now if it was the other way round 904L would be cheaper than 316L.There are a few disadvantages to 904L it will scratch and show scratches more easily than 316L.The only advantage is, it's a bit more corrosion resistant, but in the real world with today's pampered watches it's doubtful if any real advantage over the industry norm 316L.And the internet myth that 904L is harder than 316L its not true, its how the metal is finally tempered defines its overall hardness, so 316L can be harder than 904L.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by fleetlord

...316l steel which is for forks and spoons...

lol

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by J-E

so tired of the 'so tired' comments. JUST DONT READ IT IF YOU DONT LIKE IT!!!!!

Forums are for options. Also the post was more bashing Omega than a comparison piece. This just invites people who are fan boys to participate a lot of the time. You don't need to bash a brand if you have no affinity for it. If you've got nothing good to say...

Didn't your parents teach you this! No question mark as I think it's already answered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Dirt]

Take this for what it's worth.

I have only ever owned two Omega watches which I still have and they are both on straps.
The first was bought new on the strap option. Partly because I have always been of the belief the Omega bracelets are not in accordance with my idea of what is required nor my style/tastes.
The second was bought on a bracelet because it was the best value package, but the bracelet was removed before it was ever worn or sized and it was replaced with a genuine strap as soon as I possibly could and before the stickers were taken off the watch head.
I'm still not a fan of Omega bracelets though I think I might like the new Moonwatch bracelet even if I would only ever buy one with the strap.
Having said that I consider the Omega twisted lug case to be the ultimate strap monster

Alternately all my Rolex watches have only ever been purchased on an Oyster bracelet.
I liked the bracelets on the 5 digits very much whether they had SELs or not as they were entirely fit for purpose and more than adequate as well as nicely made.
The 6 digit Rolex bracelets are way over engineered but on a DSSD with its Glidelock design and in the context of the 116660 reference I'm entirely satisfied. So much so that I doubled down on the reference

My wife tried on a good many high end watches including but not limited to JLC, Cartier, Omega and Rolex.
For a broad range of very sound reasons, she eventually settled on the Rolex with a Jubilee bracelet after a long search well in excess of 12 months.
One of the reasons was the feel and sheer quality of the bracelet and clasp despite the watch being in excess of double the price limit she had previously strictly imposed.
I suppose the whole watch sung to her despite handling and trying on some impressive watches in their own right.

I'm not and never have necessarily been a fan of Seiko bracelets despite having had a couple of them over the decades I've been playing in this space.
The Seiko bracelets are reasonable, but IMO once one has had a Rolex on a bracelet, it's hard to go back to or seriously consider anything else

[BeoET]

Hi, I'm new to this forum. Joined because I'm in the process of buying a new watch.

I've owned & used an Omega Seamaster Prof 2254.50 since 2003, but the last year I've used my Garmin Fenix 6X Sapphire w titanium bracelet more or less daily. I inherited a vintage Rolex Datejust from my father, and after refurbishing it at the local AD, I gave the DJ to our son.

I think the quality of my Omega is amazing, it is an accurate, elegant and robust watch. The vintage Rolex DJ is even better, IMO, even after 50 years it is still very accurate, and it looks great after 40+ years of daily use!

Rolex has even more timeless watches, IMO - it's a very good thing that they don't change models and variants all the time.