Submariner vs Seamaster

[bgolfo]

Both are great watches you cannot go wrong. I would say if your able to get a sub go with the sub!

[tmmii]

Plain and simple, the looks not there.

[bob78h]

The Seamaster is a nice watch, my first luxury watch was an older Bond model. The new one does look nice and at half the price of a Sub its a great value, but I still don't think it matches up to the Sub.

[Seibei]

Never compromise your values!

[Blackdog]

I think the new SMP300 is an excellent watch and comparable quality wise with the Sub.

But the Sub exudes classic design values and I find the design of the new SMP300 a bit too loud and detracting from it ever becoming a classic.

I prefer the style of this Seamaster instead. And an added advantage: NO HEV !!



But there's no better or worse at this level. It's more about personal preferences and design choices.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by Blackdog

I think the new SMP300 is an excellent watch and comparable quality wise with the Sub.

But the Sub exudes classic design values and I find the design of the new SMP300 a bit too loud and detracting from it ever becoming a classic.

I prefer the style of this Seamaster instead. And an added advantage: NO HEV !!



But there's no better or worse at this level. It's more about personal preferences and design choices.

I forgot about this one, it's a great value and a worthy competitor.

[Loevhagen]

I've practically stopped wearing my Rolexes as I almost wear my Seamaster 300m 2018 blue instead.

[rkim11]

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???

Brilliant

[997]

easily the ugliest watch out there...

[Bizcut1]

I tell you, the accuracy of my Seamaster M is deadly. It's running +/- 0 consistently.

It is a bit loud...but it is beautiful.

Ben

[Bizcut1]

Also...it doesn't feel as "tool watch" as the Sub.

Love 'em both.

[brandog]

Why would you want to buy a watch that's worth almost half of what you paid for it only after a few years?

[Shihan]

Originally Posted by brandog

Omega will always be chasing Rolex's shadow

indeed

[Shihan]

Originally Posted by 997

easily the ugliest watch out there...

Easy there my friend..Some even find the Batman attractive...

[SN13]

Originally Posted by brandog

Why would you want to buy a watch that's worth almost half of what you paid for it only after a few years?

PROTIP:

Buy it used. ;)

[Montremoi]

Originally Posted by brandog

Why would you want to buy a watch that's worth almost half of what you paid for it only after a few years?

Err... because not everyone is a flipper ? o_O

[Yobber76]

Originally Posted by mgsooner

I really, really want to like Omega but there’s just so much here that I can’t get past. The HEV, the hands, the waves, the cheesy bracelet with the ugly clasp...I just can’t.

Before I convinced myself to buy my first Rolex, I went to an AD with every intention of buying a Seamaster. I tried it on, and after all my mental preparation and excitement, I just didn't like it. The AD also had a Rolex section, back when there was still inventory. I tried on a SubC, and I was hooked. I can't give you specifics as to why, but the Seamaster just didn't meet my expectations.
I still would like to own an Omega, I just can't pull the trigger.

[Wcdhtwn]

In 1998 I chose a Seamaster over a Sub. Sub felt cheap, 5- digit bracelet didn’t compare to the Omega. Resale-wise the Rolex is much better, but since I am not selling my Omega I don’t care. My 1998 Seamaster keeps time with my GMT2 and my SD43. I won’t commit to one being better than the other, but for the price...

And availability...

[legedema]

def. submariner , it is not even close

[othertbone]

Originally Posted by greengold

Can I ask you guys how you compare the new diver 300 to the current Submariner? Many of the reviews think it's actually BETTER than the submariner which I find hard to believe but interested as I used to have the previous Seamaster model but got shot of it the moment I got a Sub as it felt inferior in every way

I am sure this has already been said, so please excuse me, but there is nothing to compare. I'm sure this would be the same answer on the omega forum though, lol.

[R G]

Originally Posted by brandog

Why would you want to buy a watch that's worth almost half of what you paid for it only after a few years?

Well, thank goodness that some watch people still buy what they actually like, rather than letting the ‘market’ steer their choice! Otherwise we would all be in ownership of the same mundane set of SS Rolex sports models (and yes I do own some of those models as well).

Watch collecting for many has seemingly turned in to an investment strategy, which isn’t in my opinion what the primary interest should be.

[Onikage]

This thread got funnier.

[Bizcut1]

Originally Posted by brandog

Why would you want to buy a watch that's worth almost half of what you paid for it only after a few years?

Because price and relative worth are just one aspect of this hobby...IMHO.

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by mgsooner

I really, really want to like Omega but there’s just so much here that I can’t get past. The HEV, the hands, the waves, the cheesy bracelet with the ugly clasp...I just can’t.

+1 Omega misses the mark for the reasons you mention.

If Omega made a Planet Ocean GMT the size of a Rolex GMT, it would kill. Of course it would also have to lose the skeleton hands and the helium valve.

[Panych]

Seamaster is too flashy for me and I do not like HEV crown. So, my choice is Sub. If Sub is the only watch - Sub Date, otherwise - ND.

[Rolex Essex]

Since the beginning of the year I’ve tried to persuade myself to like and buy the SMP. I’ve visited my local Omega AD numinous times to try it on, I even tried both bracelet and rubber strap. The TT version of SMP looked nasty IMO.





After months of deciding, I just can’t get over the skeleton hands, HEV and clumsy looking bracelet. Although the SMP is technically more advanced than Sub and SERIOUSLY a lot cheaper as one other AD I know were offering a massive discount on Omegas it just still wasn’t enough to convince me.

In the end I saved up and held it for Bluesy
In terms of fitment, quality, charm and presence, the Submariner comes out on top.

[Pangit]

I have both. I bought the watches about two months apart about 9 months ago and love both but one win for the seamster is the clasp which allows easy on the wrist micro adjustments and is better than the glidelock in my opinion. I spent a month Island hopping in the Philippines back in April and I chose to take the Seamaster.

[Rolex Essex]

Watchfinder video

Omega Seamaster Pro vs Rolex Submariner
https://youtu.be/NoRstEITESg

[jvb.nc]

i bought a SM PO 2500 in 2008, because i wasn’t in a position then to acquire a sub. still have it, it’s climbed mountains and all kinds of crazy stuff. i love the caseback, and i wear it often at the beach (today, in fact, it’s on my wrist!). the dial-matched date window is also great.

but a submariner it ain’t.

[Montremoi]

Originally Posted by Rolex Essex

After months of deciding, I just can’t get over the skeleton hands, HEV and clumsy looking bracelet.

Preach it. Also the 42mm size.

Now, if they put that gorgeous sun-brushed wavy dial on a 38mm Aquaterra, fitted with regular hands... that would be very tempting