Rolex vs omega quality

[214270Explorer]

To be rather blunt, you are comparing apples and oranges.
Manufacturers have different views, standards, and design policies.

[fwoomp]

I really want to like Omegas as much as Rolex (certainly would make it a lot easier to get what I want!) but they just don't even feel close in my opinion. My first 2 watches were Omegas (moonwatch and Aqua Terra), but since I've picked up a few Rolexes I basically never wear my Omegas anymore.

The biggest differences for me are in the overall feel of operation. The easylink system in the oyster/OF bracelets are a huge deal for me, and the feel of snapping the clasp open and shut is so much more satisfying than the spring release on the Omegas. But I think the starkest difference is in the feel of winding the crown. The Omegas both feel incredibly stiff and it's a huge pain to wind them and set the time (especially if I haven't worn the AT in awhile and the date is a few days behind). The Rolexes, on the other hand, are super smooth and easy to set; advancing the date on my GMT is a breeze, even without a quick date advance function.

Visually, the Omegas still look great, and I know the movements are on par with Rolex, but when I'm handling my AT, it feels like a cheap toy compared to my GMT. Moonwatch vs. DaytonaC isn't exactly a fair comparison, but those aren't even close. In terms of the finishing, the bracelets (both oyster and OF), ceramic bezels, and WG indices just blow the Omegas out of the water in my opinion. I'll never get rid of my moonwatch because it was my first ever "real" watch and it's an all-time classic, but I'm leaning towards selling my AT because at this point it never gets any wrist time over the Rolexes.

[Krash]

Rolex is better than Omega, but Omega is still my 2nd favorite brand.

I have a Speedmaster on a leather strap. I love the watch, but I don't like it on a bracelet at all.

Submariner bracelet is far superior in every way.

Generally speaking, when it comes to watches under $15,000, Rolex bracelets can't be beat (IMHO). I do think the Omega Seamaster on a bracelet is top notch though...

Also, I was about to buy a JLC Reverso, but it felt really cheap and fragile compared to both my Submariner and Speedmaster. I was really disappointed.

[brandog]

Having owned both brands my opinion is that Rolex is better quality than Omega. Especially when you compare Sub to Seamaster. On the wrist the differences are hard to see, but if you use a loupe the Seamaster is riddled with imperfections.

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by brandog

Having owned both brands my opinion is that Rolex is better quality than Omega. Especially when you compare Sub to Seamaster. On the wrist the differences are hard to see, but if you use a loupe the Seamaster is riddled with imperfections.

Damn it. I'll have to get a 20x loupe cause my 10x obviously isn't cutting the mustard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[brandog]

Originally Posted by watchmavan

Damn it. I'll have to get a 20x loupe cause my 10x obviously isn't cutting the mustard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

No problem, allow me to do it for you.

You will see the Bezel specifically on the newest Seamaster is riddled with imperfections. Rolex would never allow a Sub to leave the factory like this.




Also grease all over the balance on a brand new movement. Unacceptable.

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by brandog

No problem, allow me to do it for you.

You will see the Bezel specifically on the newest Seamaster is riddled with imperfections. Rolex would never allow a Sub to leave the factory like this.




Also grease all over the balance on a brand new movement. Unacceptable.

Using my limited 10x loupe getting window light in, just as the magnification begins to blur I can see these bubbles on my own Seamaster. Given I wear eyeglasses myself it's not something I'm going to either worry about or let it diminish my view of the Seamaster. But I'll certainly look at this on others to see if it's consistent.

I knew there was a reason to get a 20x loupe!

Made me curious though... Here's a GMT ceramic. Wouldn't say it was any better myself.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[duquephart]

Ahem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTVBp_1Ddxw&t=63s

[asiparks]

Originally Posted by brandog

No problem, allow me to do it for you.

You will see the Bezel specifically on the newest Seamaster is riddled with imperfections. Rolex would never allow a Sub to leave the factory like this.




Also grease all over the balance on a brand new movement. Unacceptable.

Riddled indeed....

Perhaps surprisingly, you don't need a loupe to catch the misaligned rehauts on some Rolex that escape the factory, or the uneven finish in the painted hands on my 216570 or the scratches on some sunburst dials...

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by duquephart

Ahem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTVBp_1Ddxw&t=63s

Agreed. Under enough magnification any mass produced products will show plenty of imperfections. Mind you some of them wouldn't require a lot. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Saoirse32]

Originally Posted by brandog

No problem, allow me to do it for you.

You will see the Bezel specifically on the newest Seamaster is riddled with imperfections. Rolex would never allow a Sub to leave the factory like this.




Also grease all over the balance on a brand new movement. Unacceptable.

What flavor of Rolex kool-aid do you enjoy the most?

[Saoirse32]

Originally Posted by DJ2020

I have never seen a Submariner look this good, Metas certification, 15,000 gauss, see threw case back, excellent bracelet (which is extremely substantial) 316L steel. 5 year warranty, available and 1/2 the cost of a Rolex.

Seriously is there really any doubt which is better quality and value?

Beautiful, but you forgot the one demerit of most Omega divers- they’re too thick IMO

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by Saoirse32

Beautiful, but you forgot the one demerit of most Omega divers- they’re too thick IMO

Agreed for Planet Ocean varieties. Seamaster 300m Professional Divers... Not really.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[rolexalias]

Originally Posted by francist

recent rolex bracelets are the finest in the industry.
They hold together firmly, especially the jubilee

+1

[Oyster Perp]

The "316 v 904" argument continues. 316L is considered "surgical" quality and is not just used for knives and forks, the 904L is a harder compound and has a greater 'shine' capability, but for what the majority of us need its a moot point. Rolex are not the only watch manufacturer to use 904L. Isnt the Omega Proplof 904L ?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Oyster Perp

The "316 v 904" argument continues. 316L is considered "surgical" quality and is not just used for knives and forks, the 904L is a harder compound and has a greater 'shine' capability, but for what the majority of us need its a moot point. Rolex are not the only watch manufacturer to use 904L. Isnt the Omega Proplof 904L ?

Agree but there are many myths on the net about the special 904L steel now called Oystersteel mainly by those who only look through Rolex blinkered glasses, and yes 316L its a surgical grade steel, AND THE STEEL USED IN THINGS LIKE KNIVES AND FORKS IS MOSTLY A MUCH LOWER GRADE SS. 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 mainly 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.

[Andad]

It is possible that Omega would be superior to Rolex on TOF.

I have noticed a reference to a LEC.

Note that the crown referred to is not an etching?

[Richard Carver]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yet here we are, 52 years later still in daily use. :)

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by Oyster Perp

Isnt the Omega Proplof 904L ?

No, the original and the first version of the reissue were 316L, and the current reissue version is grade 5 titanium (although the bracelet is grade 2 ti).

[Marcjvr]

Threads like this put me off Rolex.

“My watch is superior to your junk watch”…ugh

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by Marcjvr

Threads like this put me off Rolex.

“My watch is superior to your junk watch”…ugh

Agreed. Enjoy YOUR watch and leave others to enjoy theirs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[mfnj]

Originally Posted by 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

Apples and oranges! The AP at retail is multiples more than the Cartier and at market the price comparisons go up almost geometrically!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[APPRF]

I own several Rolexes and Omegas. Omega Speedmaster has better movement and history than the Daytona, and I'm talking about the new Speedmaster 3861, the 321 blows the Daytona out of the water. Rolex Sub is definitely better than any Omega diver, you cannot talk about all Omega models vs all Rolex models, and make a fair comparison that way. Some here always talk about value retention with Rolex versus Omega forgetting that Omega has several models that hold value at a minimum or even go 2x 3x retail like Snoopies, Alaska, Tin Tin, 50th Anniversary models, 321, etc. Most Rolex models didn't hold value 4-5 years ago. It's all marketing, and who plays it better wins. Omega is learning from Rolex marketing, and supply restriction ways, and people who like Omega and are hesitating about value retention will regret it soon. Also what's the deal with Rolex boxes it's getting ridiculous.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by Marcjvr

Threads like this put me off Rolex.

“My watch is superior to your junk watch”…ugh

Yes, but it’s sadly what happens when people blindly believe the marketing spin and hype without actually spending any time learning about watches in general.

[warrior]

The general respect ( of course there are exceptions) given to Omega in this thread on a ROLEX! forum….tells you all you need to know. No doubt Rolex has more prestige for the masses but on a pure quality level, the difference isn’t much. Each brand has their strengths and I’d say that most watch enthusiasts know.

[Mystro]

Oh yes, the timeless “Rolex vs Omega”. We have been having these on TRF for as long as the forum started. The older threads got a lot more heated and insulting to both camps. No one wins these threads and they eventually burn themself out with the general consensus of Omega=value Rolex=prestige.

[Chiboy]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Oh yes, the timeless “Rolex vs Omega”. We have been having these on TRF for as long as the forum started. The older threads got a lot more heated and insulting to both camps. No one wins these threads and they eventually burn themself out with the general consensus of Omega=value Rolex=prestige.

I just read this whole thread and found it pretty interesting and informative, and relatively civilized for TRF. It sure beats 90% of the other threads on here these days that generally touch on 2 or 3 of the same old subjects.

[NoVaSubowner]

The Rolex Forums... Land of the fanboys.

Do any of you honestly believe there is a difference in quality between the current generation of Omegas and Rolex???

It's going to shock the Rolex acolytes on this forum but there was a time in history when Omega was considered the superior watch to Rolex... Horrifying, I know.....

The dip in status probably took place in the late 60's -70's when Omega became schizoid in their designs instead of sticking with a consistent product line. Something they are starting to finally do again.

Don't seriously tell me that there is a disparity between say the latest generation SMP and a Submariner, other then retail price. Because after owning both I can safely say there is none.

[Mystro]

Omega is their worst enemy with way too many watches watering down their own core lines and then there is the not so "limited editions" as well huge AD discounts. What this does is keep the preowned market very low and in turn gives a great watch at a unbeatable used price point. The Snoopy watches are a dip into the Rolex territory of retained value which will be interesting if Omega tries to do this successfully with other truly limited models.

[Posh Gentleman]

Originally Posted by NoVaSubowner

The Rolex Forums... Land of the fanboys.

Do any of you honestly believe there is a difference in quality between the current generation of Omegas and Rolex???

It's going to shock the Rolex acolytes on this forum but there was a time in history when Omega was considered the superior watch to Rolex... Horrifying, I know.....

The dip in status probably took place in the late 60's -70's when Omega became schizoid in their designs instead of sticking with a consistent product line. Something they are starting to finally do again.

Don't seriously tell me that there is a disparity between say the latest generation SMP and a Submariner, other then retail price. Because after owning both I can safely say there is none.

luxury goods are priced based on desirability, demand, and supply.

can anyone reason why certain paintings from Picasso sells for $50-100 million bucks? that's right. extreme scarcity and huge demand.

I am no rolex fanboy. however, in my opinion rolex is far more desirable than anything omega, primarily due to case sizing and the design of the watch. more so than "quality".

to my eyes, Omega seamaster is the ugliest SS swiss watch right after Breitling navitimer. I wouldn't wear it if it is given to me for free, as I think it is a monstrosity.

if omega makes rolex-like beauties with comparable quality at $3-5k price points, let me know. I will sign up for that.