Submariner vs Seamaster

[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

[Rentalcarman]

I have one of each and they are both unique in their own way. The Seamaster that I have is the titanium, tantalum and Sedna gold so that makes it unique to begin with. My other watch is a basic black sub date. They weigh about the same but wear very differently. I like the look of each one, although as a favorite, I lean towards the sub. I like the tightness of the bezel and the history that goes in to it. For most of my 54 years I always wanted a submariner and now have the ability to have one. I do get what you say about the Seamaster feeling a bit inferior to the submariner, but I think in reality they are fairly close to each other in quality, comfort, uniqueness.

[Seibei]

They are not in the same league as far as I am concerned. If you want a real comparison just look at the street price of the watches. What people are actually paying for them.

[brandog]

Omega will always be chasing Rolex's shadow

[Etschell]

Well there is some reviews comparatively on YouTube.

[Boostmiser]

Seamaster is a great watch. However, it’s thicker. And the re-sale value isn’t as good. For those reasons, I chose the Sub.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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.

[Tools]

I haven't bought an Omega since they went to those hideous skeleton hands, and I don't intend to.

[Bladeshot]

Originally Posted by Tools

I haven't bought an Omega since they went to those hideous skeleton hands, and I don't intend to.

I had the current version, blue wave dial, blue rubber straps, earlier this year. Sold it immediately. Could not live with the skeleton hands! I was in love with the idea of this piece, but absolutely could not stand the hands, once on my wrist.



As for overall build, quality, feel, etc., Submariner wins hands down, for me.

My first premium watch was an Omega Seamaster GMT, during about the year 2000. Loved it. It was a great place to start the hobby, but I have become a Rolex enthusiast, and I won’t be going back to Omega. Nothing wrong with Omega. It’s merely personal preference.

YMMV.

[burnthesehills]

I like the Sub much better. Also the helium escape valve is a bit ugly and unnecessary.

[Justinmg]

Originally Posted by Seibei

They are not in the same league as far as I am concerned. If you want a real comparison just look at the street price of the watches. What people are actually paying for them.

Yeah price is the only factor that determines quality Rolex kool-Aid

[BradSomrak]

The Seamaster wins hands down in technology. A metas co-axial is an objectively better movement than the 3135.

The Sub is obviously the much more “historical” piece. It’s an icon for a reason. It’s timeless.

To each their own. But to claim the sub is “better” because it costs more or the resale value is higher is lazy, and lacks nuance.

I’ve owned both, FWIW.

[seabreeze60]

Originally Posted by Oceanlover914

I have one of each and they are both unique in their own way. The Seamaster that I have is the titanium, tantalum and Sedna gold so that makes it unique to begin with. My other watch is a basic black sub date. They weigh about the same but wear very differently. I like the look of each one, although as a favorite, I lean towards the sub. I like the tightness of the bezel and the history that goes in to it. For most of my 54 years I always wanted a submariner and now have the ability to have one. I do get what you say about the Seamaster feeling a bit inferior to the submariner, but I think in reality they are fairly close to each other in quality, comfort, uniqueness.

Good post!

[Onikage]

I don't like that thingy that doesn't do anything. Plus it looks like those 007 ones from the noughties. 2254 was my favourite Seamaster. Even with the extra crown thingy. And ETA movement. That's the one Omega should be modernising imo. In fact I'd probably take any over a maxicased Sub.

[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.

[golfski]

As an actual diver watch there is probably more to compare apples to apples, I personally wouldn’t know. But as a luxury watch, one looks luxury and one doesn’t.

[Onikage]

Originally Posted by burnthesehills

I like the Sub much better. Also the helium escape valve is a bit ugly and unnecessary.

Indeed. Remove the extra crown and have the HEV laser welded up. Big improvement.

[Tom5518]

I have both. I am a big Omega fan. I am a bigger Rolex fan. The Omega is a beauty of a diver. The Co-Axial Metas movement is spectacular, the ceramic dial is stunning, the adjustable bracelet is ideal, yet it's not the Rolex Submariner. Don't ask me to explain, because I can't, but there is just something about the Submariner that makes my heart skip a beat every time I strap it on.

[Frank McKay]

Not a fan of the odd circular shape of the case/bezel on the Omega. It’s sort of bumpy as opposed to the perfect circle on the Sub.

[Rocket launcher]

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

[gttime]

Originally Posted by Rocket launcher

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

Oh please.

[42itus]

I own both and I wear the Seamaster more often. When you look at ten closely, the Omega looks and feels like a better made watch. Just my opinion.

[SilverJackHammer]

I own both and love them both, but IMO the Sub is a superior watch. The Seamaster had to go in for repair after 3 years, it’s under warranty so I’m not concerned. The Sub feels and looks like a more robust timepiece. I’m wearing either my Sub and Seamaster every day.

I like the dark blue shade of the Seamaster better than any Rolex, both have the ceramic bezel. My Omega has lost value while my Sub has increased in value.

[scubadiver1]

I have both, albeit my Seamaster is the older model and is now 19 years old, has been used as it should and had many dives using it as well, however I do prefer the Sub purely based on the fact its a watch I have always admired and the Seamaster now is tucked away in its box and comes out for a few times a year but relatively unused now to be honest as I do prefer the Sub

[Krash]

Omega Seamaster is under-rated on TRF. It’s a great watch. I especially love the new white dial / black bezel version. With that said, I definitely prefer the Sub.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ninjin]

I also have both and can't say which is better. The SMP is a bargain for what you get (especially at pre-price increase) and looks very bling, with the light refracting off the polished cermaic dial and bezel. I've got rubber straps and metal bracelets for both watches too, so I can compare like for like.

It's like saying which is better, Honda NSX, Maclaren 570, Hurrican or 488.

We know which is cheapest and which is most expensive. But which is the 'best' car taking everything into consideration, that's a hard call.

[jimcameron]

Originally Posted by Seibei

They are not in the same league as far as I am concerned. If you want a real comparison just look at the street price of the watches. What people are actually paying for them.

People overpay for things all the time. It has more to to with ego and fashion than with value.

[Seibei]

Originally Posted by Justinmg

Yeah price is the only factor that determines quality Rolex kool-Aid

Who said anything about the only factor? I could throw in the silly hands, stupid wart and dated design if you like but I was just trying to be polite to owners of those watches.

[Piefacerecords]

The tech that goes into modern Omegas is streets ahead of what Rolex are doing and gets better every year.

On the other hand the Sub is a design icon, the usability is really well refined and you can get your money out again along with having the status of the Rolex badge (if that’s your thing).

I guess it comes down to what matters to you.

[Number3]

Originally Posted by Seibei

Who said anything about the only factor? I could throw in the silly hands, stupid wart and dated design if you like but I was just trying to be polite to owners of those watches.

Dated design? And yet the Sub is revered as it’s aesthetics have remained true to the original? Sounds like a double standard.

The new Seamaster is a fantastic update in my opinion. The fit, finish and movement at that price point make it incredible value, especially as you can actually walk in to an AD and buy one!

As an aside their anti reflective coating is amazing. It’s as though the crystal isn’t there - wish Rolex would do this.