Rolex VS Omega

[R_Lui]

Hello,

I was wondering if any one knows which is better...

Rolex Explorer 2

or

Omega 300 M GMT


and why is it better?

[Kanger]

Explorer II is better... but I'm biased because I own a EXP II. The movement beats faster at 28800 per hour, while the co axial on the Omega makes the beat movement slower, therefore the sweep is less smooth. Both are great watches as Omegas are VERY accurate, but I love the EXP II look.

[DWdrummer]

Im an Omega lover myself and I dont care for the Omega GMT myself.

I would much prefer the Exp II out of those two choices.

[icnbne]

Ahh. Hard choice..
I can't decide.. Both beautiful watches..
Yeah.. I can't decide

[nauticajoe]

Both great watches, but would probably lean more towards the Exp.

Happy Hunting!

[sturgeon123456]

Tough choice. I'd go explorer. I am a rolex and omega owner so I like to think I am making an unbiased decision. Here are the reasons why

In house rolex movement

That's it. No other reason other than that I can think of.

[avekat]

I see no reason for which one is significantly better than the other, so i would say choose the one you think looks best.

My choice would be the explorer.

[Mystro]

Both are fine watches and in the same league. Buy what look you like best.

[MortgageGuy]

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX ROLEXROLEX

Come on now, this is TRF Rolex always wins!

[Tools]

Of course the Rolex Explorer II is "better"..

. Full balance bridge vs a half cock in the Omega

. 31 jewel movement vs only 23 in the Omega

. Larger balance wheel, more mass more stability.

. solid fixed bezel vs insert and ring that may come off on the Omega

. screw links with 1/8" studs vs. pins half that size on the Omega.

. White gold hands and surrounds vs. steel and paint on the Omega

. The worlds best watch service organization........

[TheVTCGuy]

Larry pretty much nailed it, the Omega is an outstanding watch, but Rolex is just one step better.

[chris russell]

Aqua Terra, it would be a closer fight.

[Hooper]

Explorer all the way baby !!

[flathead59]

Extremely subjective. I have been hunting for the watch I want, in the most inefficient manner possible. I've bought watches I thought were what I wanted until I wore them for a while, then I sell those and try again. I started out with Omega, then had a chance to pick up a 16710 GMT Master II. I have an Omega 300m GMT that I'm wearing until it gets back from service. When it does, the Omega will probably go on the block. I just bought an Explorer II to wear in rotation with the 16710, it should be here tomorrow. They are essentially the same watch, except for the bezel.

Better? Don't know. I do know that I like the size and wearing characteristics of the Rolex better. To me it just looks "right", what ever that means. I'm sure this doesn't help, but it's part of my therapy.

Mark

[Perdu]

I choose the Explorer for the 3135/3136 movement. But, I don't complain about having one of these either. Mine is super accurate. It is thicker and heavier than the Rolex, so try them both on.

[Ebruner]

Rolex wins everyday, and twice on Sunday!!!

-Eddie

[bret440]

I don't have an EXP2 but I do have an Omega 2535.80 GMT. The Seamaster is really a dive watch with a GMT function. It has a 300M rating. It also has a unidirectional rotating bezel. The 24hr scale is on the dial instead of on the bezel. It really is a versatile piece. It also has a display caseback. The EXP2 by comparison has a 100M rating. The bezel is fixed and has a 24hr scale engraved on it. It is a dedicated GMT watch without the typical divers features.

[RXPete]

Originally Posted by Tools

Of course the Rolex Explorer II is "better"..

. Full balance bridge vs a half cock in the Omega

. 31 jewel movement vs only 23 in the Omega

. Larger balance wheel, more mass more stability.

. solid fixed bezel vs insert and ring that may come off on the Omega

. screw links with 1/8" studs vs. pins half that size on the Omega.

. White gold hands and surrounds vs. steel and paint on the Omega

. The worlds best watch service organization........

-Machined and more substantial clasp on the omega vs stamped steel on the Rolex

-Solid end links on the Omega vs hollow on the Rolex

-Solid center links on the Omega vs hollow on the Rolex

These are the reasons I haven't purchased the Explorer II yet. The bracelet feels very cheap for a $5000 watch. I'm hoping it will be improved on the redesign -- something like the milgauss.

Regards,

Peter

[petespendthrift]

Originally Posted by RXPete

-Machined and more substantial clasp on the omega vs stamped steel on the Rolex

-Solid end links on the Omega vs hollow on the Rolex

-Solid center links on the Omega vs hollow on the Rolex

These are the reasons I haven't purchased the Explorer II yet. The bracelet feels very cheap for a $5000 watch. I'm hoping it will be improved on the redesign -- something like the milgauss.

Regards,

Peter

For the last ten years the bracelets have featured solid end links - so you're a bit out of date on that point. As regards the hollow centre links and less solid feeling clasp - it's all down to perception as the critical components are in fact the pins holding it all together. The Rolex has heavy duty screws and the Omega has thin friction pins. Engineers generally regard light weigh combined with high strength as a virtue - whilst the Omega's solid weight is solely concerned with aesthetics. That said at it's far lower price the Omega is still a great watch.

[matt.wu]

Originally Posted by RXPete

-Machined and more substantial clasp on the omega vs stamped steel on the Rolex

-Solid end links on the Omega vs hollow on the Rolex

-Solid center links on the Omega vs hollow on the Rolex

These are the reasons I haven't purchased the Explorer II yet. The bracelet feels very cheap for a $5000 watch. I'm hoping it will be improved on the redesign -- something like the milgauss.

Regards,

Peter

Regarding the bracelet on the Omega, I've often thought Omega produced a higher quality bracelet, and that was always a con toward Rolex for me.

However, in dealing extensively with both, I've changed my opinions.

Yes, Omega has the machined clasp and solid center links, but it also has THIN tiny pins holding the links together, no fliplock security on the clasp, and no micro adjustments on the clasp. BIG cons to me, especially because 2 out of 3 of them are related to bracelet integrity, whereas the Rolex cons are more related to "feel" and aesthetic.

So I've really come around on the whole bracelet thing and have an even deeper respect for the classic oyster bracelet.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Perdu

I choose the Explorer for the 3135/3136 movement. But, I don't complain about having one of these either. Mine is super accurate. It is thicker and heavier than the Rolex, so try them both on.

Think you mean the cal 3185 or 3186

[acce1999]

My choice is the ExII. Actually I picked it twice :-).

The Omega is very nice. I wouldn't use the word "better" to describe any of them. They both have their benefits.

Best,

A

[Denver Dick]

All very interesting. Both are excellent watches. The Explorer II is a great watch and I considered buying one. I also considered buying a 36mm Explorer. However, here's how I ended up seeing it.

Rolex Explorer II (assuming I could find an AD and get a discount):
MSRP $5,925 less 10% = $5,332.50

Omega 300M GMT (Ref. 2234.50) (purchased from AD in Dec. 2009):
MSRP $2,680 less 30% = $1,876.00

Omega 39mm Railmaster (Ref. 2503.52) (purchase from AD in Mar. 2010)
MSRP $3,250 less 30% = $2,275.00

Omega Speedmaster Date (Ref. 3210.50) (purchased from AD in Apr. 2010)
MSRP $3,150 less 30% = $2,205.00

So, I got any two of the above Omegas for well under the price of an Explorer II. However, another way to look at it is that I acquired all three of the lovely Omegas above for only $1,020.50 more than one Explorer II.

Now, if I didn't already have my Rolex TT DJ 16013 that I purchased new in 1987 and just had refurbished by the RSC in PA last November, I might feel different, but from my position, the Omegas made real sense . . . as in dollars and cents.

[SSSS]

Just curious but which one has better resale? I would think with a new version next year, the EXP II should do well in the future, but how do Omegas do in the resale market?

[DanteBrandolini]

Rolex Baby!!!!!!!!!!

[Roselló]

My choice would be the Explorer II all the way .

[gmh1013]

I have an Omega Elec blue Seamaster and its one of my fav's ....have it own right now.
Over a months time it keep better time than my GMT Pepsi by 15 seconds or so.
My BIGGEST complaint is the non adjusting bracelet ....in the summer here in AZ
gain about a link in size

[Perdu]

No Padi, I meant the Omega.

[RXPete]

Originally Posted by petespendthrift

For the last ten years the bracelets have featured solid end links - so you're a bit out of date on that point.

My terminology of all the bracelet parts is not that great. What I meant is that the curved end link connecting the bracelet to the watch is hollow, not the outer links of the bracelet which are solid.

Again, I love the Explorer II watch but I'm hoping it will soon have an updated bracelet like the milgauss or the new gmtIIc.

[Eric88]

I like Omega & Rolex!