Is Rolex THAT much better than Omega?

[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

[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.

[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

[Manamana]

Originally Posted by Krash

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sure there are if they could sell them that is. Check around, but from the top of my head a gold Speedmaster. I'm not talking about steel Speedmasters or Seamasters. By the way I got 25% discount on a gold Rolex DD, 10% on Air King, and 20% on a Z Blue Milgauss in 2019/2020.

[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 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

[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".

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[Cru Jones]

Does it matter?

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

[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.

[Marcjvr]

FWIW I wear my Speedy more than my 2 Rolexes

[Manamana]

Originally Posted by Marcjvr

FWIW I wear my Speedy more than my 2 Rolexes

Yes me too, but I have more Rolex. Maybe because I like Chronographs, but I still wear my Speedmasters more than my Daytona. If you have an older model Speedy try replacing the bracelet with the new one with the extension, and nice tapper. You would wear your Speedy even more.

[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.

[majidessa]

Short answer is yes in almost every aspect of watch.

I own multiple watch from each brand

[worldofoyster]

Omega makes great watches, very accurate movement. on the other hand, Rolex has better brand recognition.

[6172crew]

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

My only issue with my planet ocean is how thick it is. Fit it into a 12mm thin case and I would have no complaints. I’m not a watch seller so I’m not really concerned with how much I can make off my watches but it does feel nice knowing it holds value.
Even the speedmaster automatic are too thick.

[Gearjockey]

Originally Posted by 6172crew

My only issue with my planet ocean is how thick it is. Fit it into a 12mm thin case and I would have no complaints. I’m not a watch seller so I’m not really concerned with how much I can make off my watches but it does feel nice knowing it holds value.
Even the speedmaster automatic are too thick.

Is the SD and DSSD or challenge too thick as well?

[cdmorenot]

I own Omega and Rolex watches and no, Rolex is not that much better than Omega. I actually think Omega makes a better watch but Rolex, as a brand represents so much more. I could go 100% Rolex or Omega and I’d feel fine either way.

[fskywalker]

No


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Dr. Robert]

Omega makes great movements but I am not a fan of their modern watches. Their designs, looks. The classic speedy is my favorite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Marcjvr]

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

In this case Omega was better when it really mattered

[Jackie Daytona]

Originally Posted by Marcjvr

In this case Omega was better when it really mattered

Although I see your point in the matter, many of the early astronauts did indeed wear Rolex to the moon as well. Although in an unofficial capacity more as a personal watch/good luck charm. So I see the point in it, but I wouldn’t say that they didn’t go to the moon or space.


I think on the original debate. A lot of the design language combined with marketing comes into play. I really do like Omega as a brand, but I never can quite find the one that is really perfect for me. The Rolex design language IMO is a bit more classic and timeless.

Additionally I think Omega to an extent has kind of diluted their own brand value a bit. How many special editions and random variants of every line are available?

Take the Seamaster for instance. How many variants of that model have there been over the years that are so vastly different they really should t even be in the same line? I think it is a bit confusing for the average consumer or to an extent like me where you just can’t quite find the right one. Where Rolex with a very consistent mode range has stayed classic and in demand.

Great watches and quality is consistent and on par with Rolex, they are just doing too much I think. However it is a bit of the Omega culture it seems to do so as well.