Rolex Sub C Black Vs Omega LM PO...

[thesmallwave]

Hi Guys,Wich one do you preffer and why?So if you will be given the option to choose between the New Sub C Black(only) and the Omega PM PO wich one?We know Rolex is more expensive but let's try to compare those face off.
Also who have then both came post some photos?
Cheers

[sandybax]

I prefer SubC. Main reason it being a Rolex. :)

[thesmallwave]

Originally Posted by sandybax

I prefer SubC. Main reason it being a Rolex. :)

So you belive that all in all Rolex are better as quality and movement and last longer then Omega?
Can you please explain why you choose Rolex?

[esm]

had a close look at and offrered a LM PO while pulling the trigger on a 116610LN.

while bthe LM edition looked great and sleek, i kindly refused the offer because i believe the 116610LN will be the right choice in the long run and i already have an Orange 42mm PO.

BUT - if i didnt have the Orangy, then i will probably be very tempted. at 1949 pieces (if i have remembered correctly)... they can be difficult to come by. not too sure of their re-sale values though if you are a keen flipper. the past Omega "limited edition" records hasnt been all that great.....

[sandybax]

No I do not believe that there is a huge technological difference between Rolex and Omega (although there may be). It is pure Marketing which Rolex happen to do better and consequently be able to charge a premium. Simple as that.

[toph]

Omega PO 45mm is certainly more of a wrist presence. I am currently wearing slightly bigger watches but if 40mm is good fro you, then it is a tough tough choice.

[Eric88]

Originally Posted by toph

Omega PO 45mm is certainly more of a wrist presence. I am currently wearing slightly bigger watches but if 40mm is good fro you, then it is a tough tough choice.

The LM PO comes only in the 42mm size, but it is still a substantial watch.

I have previously owned 3 POs and know them well. I was very interested in the PO LM, but darn near impossible to find one...so it is a more exclusive watch. I chose the Sub-C and believe I will be happier with it in the long run for a couple of reasons that subjectively please me.

• More comfortable on the wrist
• Does not have a He valve
• Has higher BPM movement for smoother sweep on the seconds hand
• Glide lock clasp

[GEO_79]

I have the sub c and i am very happy

[thesmallwave]

Originally Posted by GEO_79

I have the sub c and i am very happy

Putem sa vedem niste poze?May we see some photos?

[Rolexsd4000]

The sub C for me...

[Frogman4me]

Win win both are awesome, i tried on the LM and was quite impressed. The boutique in NYC has one for sale if anyone is looking.

[karmatp]

They are both amazing watches that will serve you for a lifetime. The reality is that you are paying a premium for it saying Rolex on the dial over the PO, and if the PO said Rolex on the dial, I bet many people would chose it over the sub.

You really can't make a bad choice here, they are both stunning watches.

[chris russell]

Not sure what the initials 'PM' stand for in connection with the PO. If you mean LM as in Liquid Metal, that watch surpasses gorgeous with its ceramic bezel and enamel dial. It's still available at list if you do a little hunting. I easily located two by phoning around a week ago, just out of curiosity. If only it had the 8500 movement, I would be all over it like a cheap suit. I consider the 8500 to be close to the epitome of mechanical timekeeping for the wrist in the 21st century, on a par with the Rolex 4130 and 3130 Series. And that ain't hay.

As it stands, the PO LM has the 2500 mvmt., and thus is a bit less interesting to me. The 8500 has the full Daniels treatment, (his 3-layer escapement design), and was of course purpose-built from scratch. The 2500 is a hybridized ETA 2892 with the slightly less optimal 2-layer variant on the Daniels escapement, for space reasons.

So for now I'm sticking with the Sub-c. It has the ceramic bezel, and the one I have came from the factory keeping time to +/-0 seconds per day. I'm good with that.

[swish77]

I love Omega, and have owned several, including a pre-moon Speedmaster that I still wear at times. However, there is no contest. Rolex is Rolex.

[Singslinger]

The Liquid Metal Planet Ocean is a nice watch but I'd pick the Rolex ceramic Sub any time. For me, the Sub simply looks better and has a superior bracelet (with the Glidelock).

[chris russell]

Originally Posted by Frogman4me

Win win both are awesome, i tried on the LM and was quite impressed. The boutique in NYC has one for sale if anyone is looking.

I'm off to NYC tomorrow, and will quite likely drop in to see the PO LM. Wish me luck that I can resist it!

[Shade]

They're both nice watches, but I would go for the Rolex, the design is more classic and iconic. The planet ocean is abit too modern for my tastes. However the liquid metal sure is interesting..

[Cabaiguan]

Loved the PO, but hated the fit on my wrist. Simply couldn't stand the lack of adjustment nor the annoying sharp circular ridge on the caseback. I would've kept mine if not for this one important issue.

I'm really happy with the Sub-C. Can't think of a better all around watch.

[Nairn1980]

Originally Posted by thesmallwave

Hi Guys,Wich one do you preffer and why?So if you will be given the option to choose between the New Sub C Black(only) and the Omega PM PO wich one?We know Rolex is more expensive but let's try to compare those face off.
Also who have then both came post some photos?
Cheers

Rolex for me :)

To me, it is not that the Omega is an inferior watch, as it is not, it is just that Rolex is the more prestigious and powerful brand. Despite what people say, people DO buy brands.

E.G - Toyota build amazing cars. Would most people rather have a Toyota Camry or a BMW 5-series/mercedes e-class?

The Toyota is probably just as good in every way, possibly even more reliable, possibly with even more features, but some brands are just more powerful.

People who say brands don't matter are certainly in the minority.

[jeremyam]

prefer rolex to omega in general, the po is a nice watch, prefer the rolex bracelet though. also i like no ar coating at all and rolex color scheme is more appropriate for formal occasions.

[isap63]

I like both, prefer Rolex

[le_baroudeur]

The PO liquidmetal is a stunning watch.
However, it's movement is a basic movement, in its best finish, with coaxial added... But it wasn't entirely made for the watch. The rolex is.
Aesthetically, the rolex has (imho) a more classical bracelet, and generally purest design...

[Stitch]

Crouch Cardiff also have a LM PO on display.

[RFXMM]

Father J?

[Traveler]

The Submariner..no contest.

[psv]

Originally Posted by chris russell

Not sure what the initials 'PM' stand for in connection with the PO. If you mean LM as in Liquid Metal, that watch surpasses gorgeous with its ceramic bezel and enamel dial. It's still available at list if you do a little hunting. I easily located two by phoning around a week ago, just out of curiosity. If only it had the 8500 movement, I would be all over it like a cheap suit. I consider the 8500 to be close to the epitome of mechanical timekeeping for the wrist in the 21st century, on a par with the Rolex 4130 and 3130 Series. And that ain't hay.

As it stands, the PO LM has the 2500 mvmt., and thus is a bit less interesting to me. The 8500 has the full Daniels treatment, (his 3-layer escapement design), and was of course purpose-built from scratch. The 2500 is a hybridized ETA 2892 with the slightly less optimal 2-layer variant on the Daniels escapement, for space reasons.

So for now I'm sticking with the Sub-c. It has the ceramic bezel, and the one I have came from the factory keeping time to +/-0 seconds per day. I'm good with that.

My thoughts are along Chris. The Cal 2500, while accurate and dependable, is not an in-house movement, thus paying $5K+ for this watch becomes a non-starter. The rumor has it that they are putting the Cal 8500 in the PO next year (still, the 8500 in not an in-house either, it is made from various parts within the Swatch Group).

Well, the real deal killer for me is the super shiny dial. If flashes and reflects like crazy, which is completely un-tool like. It is suppose to be a tool/dive watch after all - try bringing that bling in the water and wait around for a Barracuda...

Overall, the design of the PO is quite pleasing, the size if very nice, but I'd much rather put less than 1/2 the money towards a regular 42mm PO, or towards a Sub-C if you can swing the money.

The Planet Ocean, LM or not, is a nice watch, but it ain't no Submariner.

[EchoBlueUK]

Rolex for me. Omegas are nice watches and postioned correctly for their price point and target market. I'm not a big fan of the PO bezel. Size is good but little things like they still don't use screws in the bracelet etc. bug me. And everyone seems to have a PO these days.

[autofiend]

Tough call...I own a standard PO in 42mm, and love it. Definitely comes down to personal preference, as you can't go wrong with either.

I would not let the movement in the PO be a detractor as some have stated: the 2500c is a great movement in its own right: yes, it is 2892 based, but has a free-sprung balance and of course the aforementioned coaxial escapement. The 8500 is a thoroughly modern movement and better in many respects, but in real world use I don't think many would be able to tell the difference in accuracy or performance: the 2500c in my PO has been more accurate than the 3130 and 3135 in the Rolexes I've owned.

The Rolex will hold its value better, no doubt.

[MNDZA]

Originally Posted by EchoBlueUK

Rolex for me. Omegas are nice watches and postioned correctly for their price point and target market. I'm not a big fan of the PO bezel. Size is good but little things like they still don't use screws in the bracelet etc. bug me. And everyone seems to have a PO these days.

I've had my PO for between 2 and 3 years and I have only seen one other person wearing that watch. I've seen many, MANY Rolexes though. Still, I love Rolex and just bought my first one!

[jnkay]

Originally Posted by EchoBlueUK

Rolex for me. Omegas are nice watches and postioned correctly for their price point and target market. I'm not a big fan of the PO bezel. Size is good but little things like they still don't use screws in the bracelet etc. bug me. And everyone seems to have a PO these days.

+1. Plus I don't love the bracelet design or HE valve. Actually much prefer the rubber strap.