ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
18 April 2013, 05:48 AM | #31 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2013
Real Name: Kerry
Location: (GMT -5:00)
Watch: 1991 Submariner
Posts: 230
|
I bought an Omega Seamaster in high school in the 1960's and went scuba diving with it many times. The Omega SM was a fine watch and within my price range at the time. Later in life when I could easily afford Rolexes I bought a new Submariner. It's sort of like, while my Mustang GT500 is a fine car for the money and gets the job done, if I could afford a new Ferrari F12berlinetta I wouldn't be driving the Mustang. Nuff said.
|
18 April 2013, 06:59 AM | #32 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: alabang
Posts: 211
|
both looks nice in picture and in metal.....
i like the omega in every way... if it was as thin as the sub i think it would be a winner.... the sub sits lower when in the wrist and tend to have the "hugging the wrist" feeling with the 8500 movement of omega... it tends to float at my wrist... almost bought one last week.... nice finish and all.... its just the thickness that set me off... |
18 April 2013, 07:09 AM | #33 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Real Name: Chris
Location: England
Posts: 8,150
|
Well written review, and the right conclusion. I think I would personally have marked down the Submariner a few extra points, but the arguments raised are spot on, for the most part
Chris |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.