Submariner or new Seamaster 300m diver

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by doramas

Everyone talks about subjective and non-objective things. Nobody talks about movements because the Omega Seamaster is superior. Opinions of the movements please

I gave you my take on the movement.

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

The 8800 movement is essentially the same as the 8500, but now subject to METAS certification. I had an 8400-based Seamaster 300 (8500 without date complication), and while the movement was fine, it kept worse time than the 3135 in my Sub. I'll grant that the jumping hour hand was convenient, as was the longer power reserve, but I really wouldn't call it "superior" in any meaningful sense. Where the rubber meets the road - that is to say, actual timekeeping - the specific 8400 I had was actually inferior to my 3135.

Moreover, movements are usually secondary considerations for most people. Aesthetics almost always come first. If you don't like how a watch looks, you won't wear it, no matter how good the movement may be. I suspect that's why most comments in this thread center on aesthetics.

[dkg1616]

To each his own, but I am not a fan of the dial, bracelets or valve whatsoever. The sub is much more clean, and to my opinion, genuinely looks much nicer, I think these new seamasters look like $100 watches from Walmart.

[Greenwich Mean Time]

I like the Sub better.

• I’m not a huge Omega fan although I do like the PO and Aqua Terra
• I don't care for the bracelet.
• I don't like the fart valve.
• The dial is okay but I prefer the Sub's dial over the SM's dial.

No disrespect. Just my honest opinion.

[Tony-GB]

Originally Posted by doramas

Everyone talks about subjective and non-objective things. Nobody talks about movements because the Omega Seamaster is superior. Opinions of the movements please

You're the one thats raised the issue of movements and stated the Omega is superior. Why don't you give your reasons?

[thesharkfactor]

Originally Posted by Jsanders1985

That watch does absolutely nothing for me. Sub for me.

I agree with this.

[Wcdhtwn]

Obviously on a Rolex forum you're going to get a strong slant towards Rolex. Omega is a fine watch, I have a Seamaster, bought in 1998, that is referred to as the Bond. I've had it serviced once in 20 years and keeps excellent time. The new movements with the co-axial escapement are superior to the movement in mine.

People can debate until the cows come home which movement is superior, New Seamaster or Sub. But if we all agree that both watches offer excellent, accurate, highly durable movements it comes down to which watch you like best. In your first post you said something to the extent you fell in love. That sounds to me like the answer to which to purchase. Additionally the Seamaster is readily available and the Sub probably not.

[vritra]

From what I've read and heard, the Rolex Submariner is the archetype for dive watches. Countless other dive watches have taken their inspiration from the Submariner, and many are outright homages or imitations of the Submariner. If I had to choose a single dive watch, it would be the Submariner.

Just my two cents.

[Derkuhlmann]

The planet ocean is nice but that one looks cheap. The HE and the bracelet are ugly.

[Roll the Lex]

Neither.

For my money it’s the omega planet ocean-39.5mm please.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AK DeepSea]

Regardless of what anyone says, the quality between the two is identical.

[jps3b]

For sure Omega up’d the game with the release of these watches. I bought my very first high end time piece back in 1997. I was 26 years old and it was a Rolex submariner. A year later, I bought the Omega Seamaster 300. I definitely have love for the Omega brand and I see a place in every collection for an Omega time piece. I would say if you could only have one, and you have the funds, I would buy the submariner. Omega brand to me is kinds a second watch. An adjunct brand to add to a collection. Those new Seamasters are beautiful no doubt, but I think that you will always be craving the crown. Good luck and to be honest, you can’t really go wrong with either watch.



Fresh back from its first service. Waited 19 years.



My first watch.

[Sebastian5]

Originally Posted by Rolex Essex

I can see why people would prefer sub over this omega.
The sub has more ‘charm’
It fits better on smaller wrists,
It doesn’t have that silly muffin cup HEV sticking out,
The sun burst dial on Hulk and Bluesy is just mesmerising,
It has a cleaner design, the oyster bracelet is much neater than the Omega.
Finally it’s a ROLEX.

I agree, the sub has an utilitarian simplicity which just works for a tool watch. The Omega looks cluttered

[doramas]

Originally Posted by Tony-GB

You're the one thats raised the issue of movements and stated the Omega is superior. Why don't you give your reasons?

It is superior in power reserve and antimagnetic to 15,000 gauss

[lenfried29]

Originally Posted by Wcdhtwn

Obviously on a Rolex forum you're going to get a strong slant towards Rolex. Omega is a fine watch, I have a Seamaster, bought in 1998, that is referred to as the Bond. I've had it serviced once in 20 years and keeps excellent time. The new movements with the co-axial escapement are superior to the movement in mine.

People can debate until the cows come home which movement is superior, New Seamaster or Sub. But if we all agree that both watches offer excellent, accurate, highly durable movements it comes down to which watch you like best. In your first post you said something to the extent you fell in love. That sounds to me like the answer to which to purchase. Additionally the Seamaster is readily available and the Sub probably not.

+1. Just to add. IMO, besides all that said above, when I choose the watch I also consider the value of it. And why not - have the cake and it it.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by doramas

It is superior in power reserve and antimagnetic to 15,000 gauss

Have you ever had a problem with magnetization on a Rolex?

[doramas]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Have you ever had a problem with magnetization on a Rolex?

No, and I have two Rolex. But it's good to be more protected

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by doramas

No, and I have two Rolex. But it's good to be more protected

Theoretically, yes. But would it be enough to sway your purchase decision? Would twelve hours additional power reserve? Those are points in Omega's favor, but they aren't enough to get me to buy a watch I fundamentally dislike.

[Finfin]

Yes on paper the SMP 300 diver has a superior movement. And Omega deserve credit for innovating. But for Omega to "win" based on the movement the Rolex movement would need to be proven deficient in accuracy, anti-magnetism and durability. No one is aware of any deficiency in the Rolex movement.

With the new adjustable bracelet and other attributes at this price point the SMP 300 is a great watch. But all else being equal, more people will prefer Rolex, because Rolex.

[doramas]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Theoretically, yes. But would it be enough to sway your purchase decision? Would twelve hours additional power reserve? Those are points in Omega's favor, but they aren't enough to get me to buy a watch I fundamentally dislike.

But that is a subjective opinion. The opinion of the movement is objective.

[JeremyS]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

I gave you my take on the movement.



Moreover, movements are usually secondary considerations for most people. Aesthetics almost always come first. If you don't like how a watch looks, you won't wear it, no matter how good the movement may be. I suspect that's why most comments in this thread center on aesthetics.

The 8800 is completely different from the 8500. The 8500 is a twin barrel movement with a 60hr power reserve. The 8900 is based on the 8500—in fact, they’re arguably identical except for the additional METAS certification. The 8800 is a smaller, single barrel design. Also, the 8800 doesn’t have the jumping hour hand like the 8400, 8500 and 8900. The rotor is mounted on ball bearings. None of these things make the 8800 better or worse than the 8900, but those are the main differences.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by doramas

But that is a subjective opinion. The opinion of the movement is objective.

I'm not sure what your point is. There is nothing objective about watch collecting. In objective terms, mechanical watches are inferior to quartz in nearly every respect, and it makes no sense to pay more than the price of a G-Shock for a wrist-borne timepiece. We all do it, though, not because it makes objective sense, but because we have a subjective appreciation of finer timepieces. So you lose when you start trying to make objective arguments that supersede subjective preferences when it comes to watch buying.

Objectively speaking, I can say that the 8400 Omega I had kept worse time than my 3135 Sub. Also, the winding on the 8400 was much stiffer. Combined with its double-barrel configuration, it took 60 to 70 turns of the crown for a full wind, and it was literally a pain to do. The 3135 winding action is buttery smooth, and only needs 40 turns for a full wind. It's much easier to do, and in fact is a pleasure. The so-called "objective" superiority of the in-house Omega calibers simply aren't enough to make the sale for me. And that's not even taking into account that Rolex upped the game with the 3235, which will be in a Sub imminently.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by JeremyS

The 8800 is completely different from the 8500. The 8500 is a twin barrel movement with a 60hr power reserve. The 8900 is based on the 8500—in fact, they’re arguably identical except for the additional METAS certification. The 8800 is a smaller, single barrel design. Also, the 8800 doesn’t have the jumping hour hand like the 8400, 8500 and 8900. The rotor is mounted on ball bearings. None of these things make the 8800 better or worse than the 8900, but those are the main differences.

Thank you for the information. I stand corrected. I guess because I have zero interest in the new SMP, I didn't pay close attention to the movement. Actually, the differences you note negate at least one of the things I liked about the 8400 - the jumping hour hand - making it even less attractive an option. That said, the single-barrel construction might make for less taxing winding. According to Watchbase, it only has 55 hours of power reserve, making it only 7 hours more than the 3135, and 15 hour less than the 70 hours of the 3235. Once the movement change happens in the Sub, I see nearly no objective advantage of the SMP in terms of movement.

[thepress83]

I won an Omega seamaster 300 in sedna gold/titanium and it's a great watch but it's no Rolex. If you want a Rolex only a Rolex will scratch the itch. For me the HEV is a deal breaker on my small wrist despite the fact that I'm an actual diver I would never go deep enough to need it and I think it really distracts from the watch.

[doramas]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

I'm not sure what your point is. There is nothing objective about watch collecting. In objective terms, mechanical watches are inferior to quartz in nearly every respect, and it makes no sense to pay more than the price of a G-Shock for a wrist-borne timepiece. We all do it, though, not because it makes objective sense, but because we have a subjective appreciation of finer timepieces. So you lose when you start trying to make objective arguments that supersede subjective preferences when it comes to watch buying.

Objectively speaking, I can say that the 8400 Omega I had kept worse time than my 3135 Sub. Also, the winding on the 8400 was much stiffer. Combined with its double-barrel configuration, it took 60 to 70 turns of the crown for a full wind, and it was literally a pain to do. The 3135 winding action is buttery smooth, and only needs 40 turns for a full wind. It's much easier to do, and in fact is a pleasure. The so-called "objective" superiority of the in-house Omega calibers simply aren't enough to make the sale for me. And that's not even taking into account that Rolex upped the game with the 3235, which will be in a Sub imminently.

I return to speak objectively. My Datejust is in +2 and my Explorer ll is +5. I have a Seamaster 300m diver from the first edition at +1 second and even a humble Seiko Monster also at +2 seconds.
That you like more aesthetically the
Oyster bracelet, I think it's fine but it's totally subjective. That the 8800 is higher than 3135 is objective

[Roger Lococco]

I don't like the styling on the Omega, so it would definitely be the Submariner for me.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by doramas

I return to speak objectively. My Datejust is in +2 and my Explorer ll is +5. I have a Seamaster 300m diver from the first edition at +1 second and even a humble Seiko Monster also at +2 seconds.
That you like more aesthetically the
Oyster bracelet, I think it's fine but it's totally subjective. That the 8800 is higher than 3135 is objective

So buy the Seamaster and enjoy it. I don't like it, and won't buy it, no matter the movement. (For the record, my Sub is +1.)

[doramas]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

So buy the Seamaster and enjoy it. I don't like it, and won't buy it, no matter the movement. (For the record, my Sub is +1.)

I have doubts because I already have a Seamaster of great sentimental value. I do not know if having two Seamaster is logical.

Thanks for the debate, it has been interesting to exchange opinions.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by doramas

It is superior in power reserve and antimagnetic to 15,000 gauss

Originally Posted by doramas

No, and I have two Rolex. But it's good to be more protected

Really, if we're going to go stat for stat using marketing gimmicks then lets talk about 904L which has superior corrosion resistance, the lume on the Sub is easier to read, the bezel is easier to use with wet hands, the bracelet is more comfortable and the clasp is superior in security and use...
Blahblahblah....

But, you could talk 'til the cows come home about a million things the Omega has, I don't need that much anti-magnesim and the watch is rather unattractive and too large. Next year Omega will release a "new" version, a new movement, a new something...this one will take a dump in value and look dated. Omega will themselves forget this model like the last one.

Aesthetics is a huge first concern and the Sub looks better and it's heritage is directly still intact, this looks like a new features rich watch, no thanks.

If you fell in love then nothing will sway you, go for it. Enjoy your purchase.
You won't know until you know.

Submariner for me all day.

[Justinmg]

It’s a Rolex forum and when people say because it’s a Rolex, you can’t really compete with that kinda bias. I love both, my love of watches started with omega and I’ve owned a few subs and they are amazing! I own the new Seamaster and it’s equally nice. For 1/3 the price I can’t justify the price for Rolex on the dial. One big plus for Seamaster, doesn’t come with the Rolex stigma that draws me away from the brand, just spend some time on this forum

[toolr]

I have both. The new Seamaster is stunning and a lot of watch for the money, but the Submariner would still be my choice between them.