Rolex vs omega quality

[Tanalasta]

Steels are all in the eye of the beholder. Similar to the knife steels where we can discuss chemistry and steel properties ad nauseam ; the practical sides. are that Rolex steel takes a higher polish but may be softer and easier to scratch than 316 steel. All steels scratch. if knocked against other steels to some degree.

https://www.keepthetime.com/blog/316...el-in-watches/

I find that Rolex movements are usually long-stay movements (e.g 3135) and have a proven track record. The new movements are still relatively new. External finish on Rolex watches has usually been of a very high quality. Omega are approaching Rolex in terms of price, and it is in the eye of the beholder re: quality. Rolex for the moment still hold their value better particularly with the professional watches.

[Oxfordian]

I have an old Omega Seamaster from 2010, the bracelet is wonderful and a 2019 Speedmaster and that bracelet is so comfortable.

My Rolex bracelets, one Oyster and a Jubilee are also great and again very comfortable.

In fact I have no issues with any bracelets on my watches, even an old Citizen beater feels great on my wrist.

Is one better than the other, no, the modern Oyster on my Sub is probably my favourite simply because it has the glide-lock, but none of the other watches have a poor bracelet and all are fine when I am wearing them.

None of the bracelets are badly made, all have stood up to lots of use so I would have no hesitation buying a modern Omega with a bracelet.

[rambo99]

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

Rolex and Omega are equals in terms of build quality of the watch body and movement. Omega takes a fancier approach to achieve the same result in timekeeping.

Where Rolex is superior is in brand recognition and subjective perception (i.e. design). Materials used is a wash. 904L isn’t superior to 316L.

why did you say 904L is no better than 316L steel? anything to support your view?

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by rambo99

why did you say 904L is no better than 316L steel? anything to support your view?

There's lots of info online, but 904L is only truly superior if you're in a highly corrosive/acidic environment, which is what 904L was originally designed for. In the watch world it's nothing but a marketing gimmick as you'd have considerably more to worry about if you find yourself in a situation where you need resistance to acid!

There are claims that 904L holds a polish better, but it is also generally very slightly softer than 316L so will scratch slightly more. Swings and roundabouts really, but ultimately it's just a marketing gimmick to allow Rolex to say "we use more expensive steel".

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by rambo99

why did you say 904L is no better than 316L steel? anything to support your view?

He's correct in that it is not a definitively better steel. It has pros and cons just like 316L. If it were substantially better, companies have had 20+ years to develop. People think Rolex so it must be better. It's greatest strength and probably the real reason Rolex went with it is that it holds a higher sheen. The Rolex published reason is that it is less susceptible to corrosion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

Rolex and Omega are equals in terms of build quality of the watch body and movement. Omega takes a fancier approach to achieve the same result in timekeeping.

Where Rolex is superior is in brand recognition and subjective perception (i.e. design). Materials used is a wash. 904L isn’t superior to 316L.

This ^ 100%.

Yes this is a Rolex forum so we can expected considerable bias, but believing that Rolex is somehow a million miles ahead of the likes of Omega is nothing but Rolex Kool-Aid I'm afraid.

[Harry-57]

Originally Posted by Pentameter

No I don’t agree. Rolex bracelets are very nice now but it wasn’t that long ago that they were garbage and probably close to the cheap Seiko straps you’re talking about.

This is why I passed on the 16610 when it was available to buy in ADs. I couldn't believe a Rolex bracelet could feel so tinny and cheap. And the diving extension was a joke. The 11 series bracelets were a transformation, but in truth no better than they should have been already. I don't find Omega bracelets particularly comfortable as a rule, compared to Rolex. Clunky is how I would describe them.

I think Omega did well enough at their price points but lately they have been pumping the price and not delivering a quality improvement. They are also going for hype via novelty value and limited editions, sometimes charging more for less. This is the sort of clumsy marketing that Rolex deftly avoids and smacks a bit of desperation. If they are now allegedly reducing material quality to increase or protect profit margins, they are potentially in trouble.

The only Omega I own at the moment has a bracelet which is very light and insubstantial. because it's all titanium. Under light and magnification it is very nicely formed and finished.

[ThatOtherGuy7]

Many other watch brands are better built than Rolex and they sell for less. I knew this going in. The main difference is that with Rolex you’re not afraid of depreciation.

[duquephart]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

Yes Rolex uses 904L steel which is considered as ultimate.

Omega uses 316L steel which is for forks and spoons, not a precious luxury steel..

By whom? Possibly just more Rolex hype?

[Xerxes77]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

Yes Rolex uses 904L steel which is considered as ultimate.

Omega uses 316L steel which is for forks and spoons, not a precious luxury steel..

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by duquephart

By whom? Possibly just more Rolex hype?

Yep.

[White Collar Boy]

Originally Posted by BeoET

Hi, I'm new to this forum.

Hi, and welcome! Nice first post BTW.

I have the previous iteration of the Speedmaster Professional and my only complaint is that the bracelet isn’t tinny/cheap-feeling enough! It’s a little chunky and doesn’t noticeably taper. Think I might try an Uncle Seiko or Forstner reproduction of the vintage bracelets.

[rambo99]

in terms of case polishing, I think rolex, panerai, omega and IWC are at the same level.

[saxo3]

Just to help some "material specialists" here …

Search (for example) "stainless steel 316L vs 904L" and one will obtain about 929'000 results within 0.38 sec.

Much better than speculating w/o knowing?

The joking winner so far is "316L is for forks and spoons"

[Oxfordian]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

Yes Rolex uses 904L steel which is considered as ultimate.

Omega uses 316L steel which is for forks and spoons, not a precious luxury steel..

904L is only considered ultimate by Rolex otherwise it is basically the same as 316L.

So I guess that Rolex make posh spoons and forks.

[garyk]

Originally Posted by J-E

so tired of the 'so tired' comments. JUST DONT READ IT IF YOU DONT LIKE IT!!!!!

You don’t need to shout…

[Lukebennett21]

I do think the tolerances of how the metal components integrate is better with Rolex. Only bc on Rolex it’s essentially perfect. Omega is very good and I really enjoyed my current Gen Seamaster while I had it.

[alllexandru]

The only real difference is perception of any individual, both Rolex and Omega fine, both not worth the current prices, actually almost no watch worth the current price tag.

Rolex superior in image / branding
Omega superior mvt
Rolex not available for the mortals
Omega available
Instagram loves Rolex
Rolex has iconic pieces so does Omega

I do think that the bracelet of Rolex it is better than Omega but not huge difference.

Love for both, peace!

[Mr Biggles]

Quality wise they are equal.

Rolex had the better brand image.

[Gazoak]

As an owner of Rolex, Tudor and Omega, I would say that both Rolex and Tudor build quality is better than Omega. The bracelets in particular are stronger and I much prefer how they are put together. The screw and post are a single unit whereas both Omega watches I own have tiny screws either side of the post.

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by watchmavan

It's you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

+1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[beshannon]

Originally Posted by tquieng

I recently went to an AD of Omega and held the new moon watch- It feels like a piece of junk compaired to Rolex metal. I have the prior version and the band feels like an expensive band but this newer one, the band feels.like a cheap Seiko band. Is it me or you guys feel the same.

No I completely disagree.

I recently bought a new 3861 and the quality is superb. I love the new bracelet, far mor comfortable on my wrist than my old 1861. The movement is far better than anything Rolex makes for far less money.

[stewester]

When it comes to the bracelet, you may be equating 'heft' with quality. The new Omega bracelet is light but that also makes it very comfortable, in a similar way to older Rolex bracelets.

Many prefer the heft and feeling of solidity that modern Rolex bracelets give, but I personally prefer a light bracelet for comfort.

[samson66]

Love my Omegas and love my Rolexes but the bracelet is one place Rolex just does it better. The look, the feel, the adjustability. Nobody does a bracelet better than Rolex IMO. They just feel "right" on the wrist. My moonphase bracelet is terrific and it does have on the fly micro adjustability. But as far as comfort, the Rolex oyster is on another level. And the jubilee is the most comfortable bracelet I own.

[Wrist Watcher]

Originally Posted by stewester

When it comes to the bracelet, you may be equating 'heft' with quality. The new Omega bracelet is light but that also makes it very comfortable, in a similar way to older Rolex bracelets.

Many prefer the heft and feeling of solidity that modern Rolex bracelets give, but I personally prefer a light bracelet for comfort.

The new Speedmaster bracelet is awesome imo. It makes that watch so much better in my mind. I compare that bracelet to the jubilee which I also love. Having said that, I haven’t found any other omega bracelets that come close to the oyster with glidelock or any other Rolex bracelets.

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by samson66

Love my Omegas and love my Rolexes but the bracelet is one place Rolex just does it better. The look, the feel, the adjustability. Nobody does a bracelet better than Rolex IMO. They just feel "right" on the wrist. My moonphase bracelet is terrific and it does have on the fly micro adjustability. But as far as comfort, the Rolex oyster is on another level. And the jubilee is the most comfortable bracelet I own.

X2. Bracelet win goes to Rolex. With comparing diver watches and the micro adjustments, Omega has a metal solid piece that slides in and out of the clasp that makes the clasp longer and more bulky. The Rolex glide lock is a better design as it uses the links to slide in and out and allows the links to flex at the end of the clasp unlike the bulkier Omega. I also like the flip lock clasp design as it offers more security from accidental opening because it uses a different locking redundancy system. If the center pin on the Omega gets bent or breaks, the clasp will fail with no other locking redundancies as a back up. I dive with my watches and look for weaknesses even if they are a remote possibility.

Omega’s dual head design for link adjustment is a pia. It requires using two screwdrivers at the same time.
The “only” reason I can think Omega uses this system is to have heads of the screws on both sides of the bracelet and is cheaper to manufacture not having to have internal link threads. That said, it’s miles better than the friction/collar system they use to use in the gen 1 Planet Ocean and SMP. Rolex link adjustment has used their one threaded pin design for decades and is more simple with less chance of failure. It’s a better system earlier on but improved the link pin making it larger and beefier. IMO, Rolex makes the best bracelet in the industry since improving to solid links.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by beshannon

No I completely disagree.

I recently bought a new 3861 and the quality is superb. I love the new bracelet, far mor comfortable on my wrist than my old 1861. The movement is far better than anything Rolex makes for far less money.

The one silly thing Omega did on the new 3861 bracelet though is omit any fine adjustment on the clasp. Crazy decision IMO, because apart from that the 3861 is the finest iteration of the Speedy otherwise.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by BLNR Nairobi

You do know the way Omega gets that ‘anti reflective coating quality’ is by coating BOTH sides of the Sapphire? Which is ludicrous. Yes, sure, it makes the crystal appear to disappear and the dial can be seen in all its glory. But having the AR coating on the upper side of the crystal means that it will scratch.

And thus you have a highly scratch-resistance crystal that is covered with a scratchable AR coating. There are YouTube videos of how those Seamasters look after a while.

The new Rolex approach of coating the underside makes much more sense in the long run.

Omega’s approach also makes sense however …that is, the short-term approach of the SWATCH Group.

Just be aware that Rolex offers crystals with coating top and bottom as well. Some applications may prioritize aesthetics over durability. Shouldn't really be too shocking for what is, effectively, jewelry. You can see the various crystal+coating combos here:

https://nobswatchmaker.com/blog/how-...ective-coating

[Lesnerelli23]

I have a 2019 Sub, a Speedmaster Racing 40mm, and a Tudor BB58. IMO, the Sub bracelet is far superior to the others. The Tudor actually felt cheap and disappointing. I still bought it because I just love that vintage look so much and the Omega felt more substantial than the Tudor but the clasp has basically no adjustments and it still didn’t feel as tuff as the oyster bracelet.

I wear my Speedy on a rally strap because I can’t get a good fit with the bracelet. The metal quality and link flexibility may be close to Rolex but the engineering isn’t even close! The hinged lock on the oyster clasp and the glide lock system are genius!

[donas]

I think Rolex may be slightly more refined feeling, I'd guess this is due to the material difference. I definitely disagree that Omega falls into the junk category.