Is Rolex THAT much better than Omega?

[Talon84]

Tbh i often ask myself this when considering watch purchases.

2024 UK Prices

Sub Date £9000.....but it will probably be 10% more by time youre allocated one

Seamaster £5600.....and you can get a 10% discount

Is the Sub twice as good as the Seamaster? hell no!

Same works for the Speedy Vs Daytona.

I actually think the Datejust is worth the premium over an Aqua Terra though

Rolex make great watches but its USP for a large section of society is Resale value and Brand Cache (Veblen goods). If Rolex ramps up production so resale value is taken away as a reason to buy one, and they become less aspirational because everyone is wearing them, then what does Rolex have left?

A good, solid watch.....but that it....no real USP, theyre slightly better than Omega but not by much and certainly not worth the MSRP over Omega in my opinion

Perfect watch catalogue in my opinion would be

Oyster Perpetual
Seamaster
GMT or Explorer 2
Speedmaster
Datejust

Controvertial no doubt ;-P

[Tylerlsu2008]

Originally Posted by omar-rye

History: Tie
Quality: Tie
Timekeeping: Tie
Servicing & Customer Service: Omega by a mile
Design: Subjective
Innovation: Omega by a landslide

Things that matter less:
Brand Prestige: Rolex
Value Retention: Rolex, but only recently

This is a very fair assessment IMO

[Tim Plains]

Originally Posted by wm82

The only thing keeping water out from an Omega is Loctite glue.

Have you bothered searching this forum for Locktite?

[Colorado_kid]

I don’t think it’s fair to put design language aside when debating between the two. As that’s a massive factor in desire, resale value… etc.

Rolex is an exercise in restraint. Every new update we all geek out over the tiniest adjustments.

We can’t say the same for Omega besides maybe one model, the Speedmaster.

Some say Rolex designs are tired and boring. Omega is definitely more experimental and fun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyanJ]

It is pretty simple. To many people, the brand on the dial is the ONLY thing that matters.

Rolex watches are great but they are mid tier mass-produced watches just like Omega and many other brands. Not saying this in a negative way. Many brands in the same price category as Rolex make great watches that last.

However, the Rolex brand is incredibly strong and Rolex understands how important that is and does everything it can to protect the image.

[watchwatcher]

Originally Posted by Wingman244

I just flipped my Daytona for a Omega Speedmaster Racing. What I like about the Omega better.
Packaging, presentation box all better with Omega v. Rolex.
Better accuracy. My gosh the Omega 9900 coaxial is just dead on.
Design language such that your can actually read your watch with just a glance.
I want a date! And Omega gives me the choice to buy a chronograph with or without a date.
I see no difference in case finishing - Omega finishes their cases between the lugs so you can actually wear a straight ended strap like the one in the picture.
Omega will sell you a bracelet, a strap or a NATO for your watch - what a concept. They will actually sell you a bracelet from another model if it will fit.
Omega wears much better at 44.25mm case on my 7.5" wrist. No comparison with the Daytona which just flopped from side to side.
Exhibition case back - come on Rolex. It's a mechanical watch - I want to see the movement.
Choice - Omega offers me a lot of choice.
Value - My Speedmaster was 1/5th the grey market price of my Daytona. I'm financially blessed enough to buy a grey market Daytona, but the current market price is hyped way out of reality.
My Daytona was my 3rd Rolex and probably my last, I keep flipping them and getting an Omega.
2 lines of text above and below. 1 line below would have been better. Daytona, my gosh.

Good looking watch.

[Gearjockey]

Originally Posted by wm82

Rolex quality is much higher. Case construction and fit and finish is streets ahead.
The only thing keeping water out from an Omega is Loctite glue.

Lol!

Stick to the pole vault, my friend


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[PenDelicate]

Originally Posted by Lesnerelli23

Is it just a marketing thing?

For me, yes.

When I finally decided to buy a luxury watch, without ever having handled a luxury watch, it was 100% going to be a Rolex, and the only connection to the brand I could possibly have had was through marketing.

Of course, if the watch had been a disaster, I'd have switched; so the product must deliver to some degree.

Omega leave me completely cold. Love that they exist, love the variety they produce, love the quality of their watches, love that they're popular: but I'll never buy one. I wish I could evaluate a watch purely on the reality of the watch itself (shorn of brand), but I can't.

Having said that, isn't it odd that Rolex's marketing is so good? Rolex, of course, don't make advertisements: they farm all that out to advertising firms (I'm guessing). If Rolex's marketing is that good, doesn't this just mean that their advertising firm is that good? And why doesn't Omega hire them?

Is it just a question of money? Does Rolex spend more on advertising than everyone else? It's hard to believe that LVMH couldn't out-punch Rolex in advertising-spend.

A history of the advertising firms that Rolex has used throughput the ages would be a great read.

This is probably all far more chaotic than we suspect. Yes, you have to have a minimum quality product to get you in the public eye, but once there, markets move according to sensitive and unpredictable factors, which probably become self-reinforcing for reasons no one understands and voilá: one Swiss watch-maker gobbles-up 30% of the entire Swiss watch-industry.

[Krash]

I only have Rolex and Omega watches. They’re my two favorite brands. I love Omega, but I prefer Rolex.

BTW, the most accurate watch I have is my Submariner 114060 with the 3130 movement.

Also, people over exaggerate Rolex marketing. Omega has great marketing, too. But great marketing only takes you so far. You still have to deliver great products.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Lesnerelli23

I’m just curious what people here think, design language aside. And I know this gets discussed in other threads but I wanted to start one concise thread about it.

I feel like, usually, resale value dictates how a product is perceived in quality. Most “men’s” Rolex can fetch 100% MSRP or better in used condition. Some may fall to like 80% but even that is WAY better than any other product I can think of.

Omega on the other hand drops around 50% or more. And, one can even find discount on brand new pieces.

The Bond seamasters are just as recognizable to collectors as Rolex models. The Speedmaster has a very high regard. And there are many more Omega pieces with history and prevalence in the community.

So my overall question is, what’s up with that? Isn’t the quality comparable? ETC…

I have a 40mm Speedy Racing and I had a Planet Ocean. Both extremely accurate and had, maybe, better finishing than the Rolexes I have. Very impressive.

What do you all think? Is it just a marketing thing? Is Rolex better for quality and longevity?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Resale value is all about demand. Quality may or may not be one of the factors that determines that demand. But equally quality may play no part whatsoever.

To answer your question, I would say no. Not at all. When Rolex watches sat in dealer's display cabinets unsold and could be had with discounts not that many years ago, it was not because they were of lesser quality then. It was purely about demand.

The Omega watches I have handled feel to be of a very similar quality. The Cartier Santos I'm wearing right now is as as good quality wise as any Rolex.

Rolex watches retain value because they are in high demand. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Pw92676]

The fact that this topic is back is actually very refreshing! It used to be all about these silly debates, Daytona vs Speedmaster etc etc before the forum/market morphed into frustration with AD, nicknames and the like.


My two cents: both are good brands, I think Omega diluted itself with many iterations. I have both in my collection and don’t foresee ever not having both brands

[L_S_SHOE]

I think only in the last 10-15 years has Rolex quality surpassed Omega, but it’s only with certain references and the difference is minimal.

To me, Omega is a much better value and more fun to buy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by wm82

Rolex quality is much higher. Case construction and fit and finish is streets ahead.
The only thing keeping water out from an Omega is Loctite glue.

Nonsense.

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by Lesnerelli23

Is it just a marketing thing?

Yes.

Back in the 1960s, and before that, Omega was the "prestige" posh watch brand, and Rolex was the cheaper option. I think nowadays in terms of quality of the product, they are about equal, but Rolex has better brand perception in the minds of the general public.

Hans Wilsdorf's business philosophy was "only great marketing is needed to make a company successful".

[Manamana]

Originally Posted by omar-rye

History: Tie
Quality: Tie
Timekeeping: Tie
Servicing & Customer Service: Omega by a mile
Design: Subjective
Innovation: Omega by a landslide

Things that matter less:
Brand Prestige: Rolex
Value Retention: Rolex, but only recently

Agree 100%. I may add that even brand prestige is recent for Rolex. Omega brand prestige was > or at least = to Rolex until late Sixties or early Seventies. It's the quartz crises then Swatch ownership of Omega, and finally the Paul Newman Daytona charity sale, the introduction of the Panda Daytona 2016, and Insta Rolex hype that really flipped it unanimously to Rolex favour. What about old tiny sports Rolex bracelets, I'm sure a lot here have or remember them.

[h20addict]

You can argue Rolex vs Omega all day long.
Owning both there's one department that Omega absolutely dominates Rolex and that is the presentation boxes their watches arrive in.

I wish for the day Omega brings back a 300c GMT.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

Yes.

Back in the 1960s, and before that, Omega was the "prestige" posh watch brand, and Rolex was the cheaper option. I think nowadays in terms of quality of the product, they are about equal, but Rolex has better brand perception in the minds of the general public.

Hans Wilsdorf's business philosophy was "only great marketing is needed to make a company successful".

Brand perception and marketing are two different things.

What would be the outcome if the Rolex marketing department left and worked for Invicta? Very simple. Invicta would still be Invicta and Rolex would still be Rolex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cru Jones]

Does it matter?

Both brands make some great models and some not-so-great models. Buy what you like.

[Number3]

Originally Posted by wm82

Rolex quality is much higher. Case construction and fit and finish is streets ahead.
The only thing keeping water out from an Omega is Loctite glue.

Little early for a drink, no?

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by Krash

Brand perception and marketing are two different things.

What would be the outcome if the Rolex marketing department left and worked for Invicta? Very simple. Invicta would still be Invicta and Rolex would still be Rolex.

What if they flipped across to Omega though? Brand perception is surely the result of marketing.

I don't own an Omega, but I'm Omega-curious.

[Calatrava r]

Rolex is on a par with both Omega and Breitling. Rolex has had the better marketing and used brand Ambassadors to fullest from the start. Ian Flemming's partiality to Rolex did not hurt it, for sure. On resale value Rolex is king, but on build quality it is among the group of its peers. One cannot overlook the fact NASA choose Omega over Rolex for their space flight. Rolex leads the pack on PM and jeweled models. Omega leads the pack on complicated movement offerings.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

What if they flipped across to Omega though? Brand perception is surely the result of marketing.

I don't own an Omega, but I'm Omega-curious.

Omega already has a world class marketing organization. They do things that Rolex doesn’t do. For example, they have marketing arrangements with major movies (i.e., James Bond).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Marcjvr]

FWIW I wear my Speedy more than my 2 Rolexes

[m j b]

Originally Posted by Lesnerelli23

I wanted to start one concise thread about it.

LOL. Good luck with that!

Yes, it's all marketing.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by L_S_SHOE

To me, Omega is a much better value

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I dont understand how anyone can say Omega offers much better value.

My Seamaster after-market value dived like a rock after I bought it.

My Submariner increased in value after I bought it.

Not that it matters to me, because I’m not a flipper. I keep all my watches

But facts are facts…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Manamana]

Originally Posted by Krash

I dont understand how anyone can say Omega offers much better value.

My Seamaster after-market value dived like a rock after I bought it.

My Submariner increased in value after I bought it.

Not that it matters to me, because I’m not a flipper. I keep all my watches

But facts are facts…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can buy Omega at 40-50% below retail for some models. Also it will be hard to gain from a Submariner in a couple of years or even less, the black Sub would probably go under retail. Even now it would be hard to gain anything substantial for a new black Sub, you may even lose or break even if you wear it and decide to sell depending on the condition of the watch.

[L_S_SHOE]

Originally Posted by Krash

I dont understand how anyone can say Omega offers much better value.

My Seamaster after-market value dived like a rock after I bought it.

My Submariner increased in value after I bought it.

Not that it matters to me, because I’m not a flipper. I keep all my watches

But facts are facts…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t think we’re defining value in the same way.

To me, value is what I get in return for the money I spend. If I get a lot for the money I spend, that’s better value. If I don’t get as much for the money I spend, that’s lower value.

Omega is a better value because you get a watch nearly as good or maybe just as good as a Rolex (depending on the reference), but it costs much less than a Rolex.

Value is not the same as return on investment or appreciation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Manamana

You can buy Omega at 40-50% below retail for some models. Also it will be hard to gain from a Submariner in a couple of years or even less, the black Sub would probably go under retail. Even now it would be hard to gain anything substantial for a new black Sub, you may even lose or break even if you wear it and decide to sell depending on the condition of the watch.

Which models can you get 40%-50% below retail?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Krash]

Originally Posted by L_S_SHOE

I don’t think we’re defining value in the same way.

To me, value is what I get in return for the money I spend. If I get a lot for the money I spend, that’s better value. If I don’t get as much for the money I spend, that’s lower value.

Omega is a better value because you get a watch nearly as good or maybe just as good as a Rolex (depending on the reference), but it costs much less than a Rolex.

Value is not the same as return on investment or appreciation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, they cost less in most cases.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[majidessa]

Short answer is yes in almost every aspect of watch.

I own multiple watch from each brand