Submariner vs Seamaster

[Art 1]

The Rolex vs Omega thing is funny to me. Been going on for so many years. Both make a great watch. It's usually fan boy types on the Rolex side who say Omega is no good, Omega is a historic watch company. If you enjoy watches in general you will see the value in both.

[forcinitijp]

Omega is missing Marketing and sending fewer clocks to the AD to create the demand created by Rolex and thus inflate prices ...
Omega has historical wristwatches, like those of space missions, it is used by the Royal Navy of England (the future King does not take it out even for his wedding his Blue Seamaster) among others.

Rolex beyond the first historical wristwatches such as the Explorer in their expeditions and the design of the submariner copied by all watch brands and flooded with copies ... it has nothing new beyond what an athlete uses because it is They gave free to be ambassador of the brand .... PURE MARKETING.

In short ... if Omega sends 5 clocks to each AD and creates demand, as does Rolex, the prices will be even because everyone will want one.

After sales service is relative ... Rolex RSCs also have many disadvantages ... browse this forum and you will find them.

[SilverJackHammer]

I too own the Hulk and the Seamaster 300 with the matte blue dial. Love both of these watches and will not part with either, ever.

I’m curious about the comment Rolex has more marketing than Omega. I see Rolex in magazine ads and Omega in James Bond movies. Both cost the manufacturing company a lot in marketing.

[m j b]

Originally Posted by superdog

And you don’t have the Rolex stigma.

Thanks for pointing that out, super. Or should I call you dog?

We (most of us) forget that to a lot of people, wearing a Rolex is like driving a Ferrari; it's pretentious and a vulgar display of wealth. Yes, it's unfair and undoubtedly fed by jealousy and resentment.

Maybe that's a topic for another thread. But it's reality. Unfortunately.

[alphasports]

Originally Posted by 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.

Finally a comment that isn't brainwashed, ignorant or delusional.

[jeffgo888]

I had the ceramic smp 300 and still love it but I sold it when I got the sub. I don’t miss it.
Oh...I’d rather get the speed master rainbow side of the moon ..lol


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MinMay]

Rolex fanboys vs Omega fanboys lol.

[TimeOnHand]

I like both... however, since I have smaller wrist size of 6.5", the Submariner works better on me!

[Moggo]

The Seamaster master co-axial without the helium escape valve looks lovely (not entirely sure of the model)

But not sure I could spend nearly £5K on it, seems a bit strong as it will lose money quickly I would guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Justingtr]

The bracelet on the Seamaster is horrible. To me it looks like a bad attempt at a jubilee

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[superdog]

Originally Posted by m j b

Thanks for pointing that out, super. Or should I call you dog?

We (most of us) forget that to a lot of people, wearing a Rolex is like driving a Ferrari; it's pretentious and a vulgar display of wealth. Yes, it's unfair and undoubtedly fed by jealousy and resentment.

Maybe that's a topic for another thread. But it's reality. Unfortunately.

Sir, going forward...you can call me Mr. Dog. That suits me. Stupiddog works too. lmao

I am not familiar enough with the world of Ferrari. From what my limited experience tells me, most of the people driving them appear to be humble and very aware of the fact that they are standing out...and likely a little uncomfortable with it.

I am very familiar with Rolex, and from my experience, the fanboys tend to be enamored by themselves protesting loudly that they like to fly under the radar but desperately seeking acceptance in the Rolex "club" because they can afford one.

I have a few Rolex watches. One is green, one is rose gold (loud and vulgar)...and they are both fantastic. But I will admit I sometimes feel self conscious wearing them.

Both (Rolex and Ferrari), as you say, are a vulgar display of wealth. Lately, I actually struggle with the reasons that people are so against showing wealth. Or even spending their hard earned money. Everyone is afraid of what the next guy is going to think or say, even if they won't admit it.

What is the point of working so hard and taking risks if you can't enjoy the things you want because you feel how it is going to be received by others?

My concern is not the display, no matter how vulgar, but rather the douche baggery that comes along with it. And sadly, Rolex is a brand that is known for people that have "made it" to go out and buy one. A crown for every achievement. It certainly has a stigma. Similar to the, also potentially unfair, stigma of a BMW.

Omega on the other hand, I don't feel has that stigma. Personal opinion here, for sure.

I do think that Rolex watches are unparalleled. But often times so is the snobbery that comes along with it. And that is something that their marketing machine also created.

[thewheel82]

Neither watch is necessarily better. You could make an easier argument that the Omega SMP is the better watch from a technical perspective, as others have already described. I own the new SMP and Rolex Explorer. I chose the SMP over the Sub, but still love the Sub.

Market demand and styling are personal preferences. So many fanboys on here say watch ABC is "better" than watch XYZ simply because they like it better but provide zero factual statements as to why. It can be quite comical but is also tiresome due to lack of objective reasoning.

[007timer]

I have both. I love both. Omega keeps better time than Rolex, but not by much. They are equally good but Rolex holds better value.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lhawli]

I do not own the SM (rather the original 42mm PO); however, looking at build, technology, value and bulletproof-ness, I can safely say that the SM is a notch ahead of the Sub. Styling, status, history and recognition is a whole other game and that's where the Sub gets the upper hand.

Having said that, I cannot seem to get over the bracelet style and the fact it does not tapper as well as the skeleton hands of the SM - they are just ugly! And why change the He crown to look like a Reeses cup!!!

[forcinitijp]

It gives me a lot of laughter as they try to defend the SUB, even knowing that they are so scamming with the price ...

supposedly with a watch from another league as many say ... they seem many defenses for what they argue

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LigerBelair]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

On aesthetics alone, the Sub wins, hands-down. IMO, the Seamaster is hideous.

Throw in the history, residual value, brand standing, and Omega's penchant for "limited" releases, and it's not even a race.

Well said.

[Onikage]

At least it's not just people who bought the one steel Rolex who are tearing into Omega and we're all enthusiasts who've owned several of each.

[schoolboy]

Originally Posted by ninjin

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.

I like that comparison

[drtii]

There are Omega's that I like, such as the Speedmaster Professional, but the Seamaster IMO is one of the ugliest watches I've ever seen. I just can't get over how ridiculous it looks. From the bezel to the dial. It's just...not right.

That's not a knock on the brand. I would most definitely wear Omega, I simply can't even look at the Seamaster without thinking it looks hokey. The black model is a bit more understated and I can start see why people would buy one, then you see the blue and it's like holy...no. just no.

[seabreeze60]

While you are on the subject, what is your opinion of this version of the Seamaster Aqua Terra?

[Finslayer83]

Originally Posted by Seibei

Omega is trying to be something.
Rolex is something.

I suppose which one you like may reflect where you are in life. One brand is suitable/best for one group of people while the other brand is suitable for another group. Great news, since everyone can have the watch that is appropriate for who they are.

Define this further please, would love to know more.

[greengold]

Originally Posted by herts9

There's plenty of room for both!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

No offense but I don't think the old one compares to the sub - my post was referring to the new one with inhouse movement, ceramic dial etc

[42itus]

Originally Posted by Seibei

Omega is trying to be something.
Rolex is something.

I suppose which one you like may reflect where you are in life. One brand is suitable/best for one group of people while the other brand is suitable for another group. Great news, since everyone can have the watch that is appropriate for who they are.

Interesting point of view. By your analysis I might have an identity crisis as I own Rolex, Omega, AP, Grand Seiko, Tudor, Hamilton, Hublot, Longines, and a Shinola... or maybe I just have a spending problem.

[Seibei]

Originally Posted by 42itus

Interesting point of view. By your analysis I might have an identity crisis as I own Rolex, Omega, AP, Grand Seiko, Tudor, Hamilton, Hublot, Longines, and a Shinola... or maybe I just have a spending problem.

Spending problem I think.

[Seibei]

Originally Posted by seabreeze60

While you are on the subject, what is your opinion of this version of the Seamaster Aqua Terra?

Reminds me of something like a gold plated Casio. What kind of sea master has a leather strap and gold case anyway?

[seabreeze60]

Originally Posted by Seibei

Reminds me of something like a gold plated Casio. What kind of sea master has a leather strap and gold case anyway?

Thanks! This thread is saving me lots of money.

[Seibei]

Originally Posted by seabreeze60

Thanks! This thread is saving me lots of money.

[forcinitijp]

Originally Posted by Seibei

I understand that people who are only from one brand, or who cost them a lot to buy one of their products, feel like their guardians and defenders, instead of the people for whom Rolex is just one more brand in the market appreciates several brands of wristwatches and how I find them all attractive, from a Japanese watch like the Grand Seiko to one of the brands of the Holy Trinity, finding and appreciating the work of each watchmaker even more than one home with as much history as Omega is.

[seabreeze60]

The problem is with forums and other brands is that there is little participation. Rolex fans are by far the most passionate.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by forcinitijp

It gives me a lot of laughter as they try to defend the SUB, even knowing that they are so scamming with the price ...

supposedly with a watch from another league as many say ... they seem many defenses for what they argue

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m a big fan of the Seamaster. I might get one, but honestly, in real life, there is no comparison. On the internet and on YouTube videos, they might look like equals, but not in real life. The Sub is in a different league.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk