Rolex vs omega quality

[fdm79]

Originally Posted by Driver8

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.

You are absolutely right ! As for the OP, ridiculous wrong. Bought myself a Sapphire 3861 last Friday. The watch is fantastic. Bracelet indeed feels slightly less solid I must admit but people confuse this with quality. However, the Micro Adjustment is really annoying as you said. The AD adjusted mine for my wrist but it's not 100% the way I wanted. It feels a tad lose but there is no chance I remove another link, otherwise, it will be unbearably tight. Owning a Seamaster 300M Ceramic since 2013 and now the new Speedy 3861, I can say Omega's quality is nowhere behind Rolex. IN FACT, to be quite honest and not wanting to go off topic, my Navitimer 01 beats both in finishing, detail and overall feeling not to mention the 01 movement !!! Problem is that Navitimer are more rejected by Rolex owners in general. It's a more love or hate watch. Before I had mine, I never gave enough attention to them. Nowadays....

[Geckobros]

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.

It's you. Cheap Seiko band? It's hard to take your post serious.

Not much to add to what others have said except the modern Rolex jubilee is the best bracelet I have encountered however I don't feel the Omega bracelets I have worn are dramatically inferior, if at all.. When did men's wrists become so sensitive?

[AK797]

Really not much in it quality wise, I prefer the slimmer Rolex Sub bracelet and the design to the Seamaster and PO, but I do like their Push adjust clasp more than the Glidelock, just so easy to use.

[BLNR Nairobi]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

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

I saw that link on another thread.

Please give me an example of a Rolex reference that has AR coating on both sides.

Otherwise, it’s like another thread that was claiming 100m resistance is only good for swimming pools.

[Rori]

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.

Not only the bracelet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by BLNR Nairobi

I saw that link on another thread.

Please give me an example of a Rolex reference that has AR coating on both sides.

Otherwise, it’s like another thread that was claiming 100m resistance is only good for swimming pools.

Are you proposing that Rolex put out documentation showing a possible LEC that does not actually exist? And it's my burden to disprove this? From what I understand, it is certain Cellini models which have the tops and bottoms coated which exactly matches my earlier statement that certain applications will prioritize aesthetics over durability.

[DJ2020]

I have never seen a Submariner look this good, Metas certification, 15,000 gauss, see threw case back, excellent bracelet (which is extremely substantial) 316L steel. 5 year warranty, available and 1/2 the cost of a Rolex.

Seriously is there really any doubt which is better quality and value?

[BLNR Nairobi]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Are you proposing that Rolex put out documentation showing a possible LEC that does not actually exist? And it's my burden to disprove this? From what I understand, it is certain Cellini models which have the tops and bottoms coated which exactly matches my earlier statement that certain applications will prioritize aesthetics over durability.

No, I am questioning if that documentation is from Rolex or not. Hence the comparison to other information on the 100m being for a pool.

So - I am not proposing that ‘Rolex put out documentation showing a possible LEC that does not actually exist.’

I am asking if that documentation is from Rolex or other parties.

[duquephart]

Originally Posted by DJ2020

I have never seen a Submariner look this good, Metas certification, 15,000 gauss, see threw case back, excellent bracelet (which is extremely substantial) 316L steel. 5 year warranty, available and 1/2 the cost of a Rolex.

Seriously is there really any doubt which is better quality and value?

The Omega is the better watch by any objective measure with the possible (and very minor) exception of the bracelet. But, the Rolex zombies here will never admit that.

[DJ2020]

Originally Posted by duquephart

The Omega is the better watch by any objective measure with the possible (and very minor) exception of the bracelet. But, the Rolex zombies here will never admit that.

I was just thinking of a couple that I have in reference to build quality. The SMP chronograph come to mind. Omega has the 300M and 600M, Rolex - 0, The chronograph can be operated at there maximum depth as well, Rolex - 0 That's engineering and build quality.

Just saying ya know.

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by duquephart

The Omega is the better watch by any objective measure with the possible (and very minor) exception of the bracelet. But, the Rolex zombies here will never admit that.

I own both. I wouldn’t say that. Throwing out price points, Rolex tactile fit and finishing is better than Omega. I own the top POC model and it’s a spectacular piece but it’s the little things Rolex does better like bezel click and feel, etc.. Each brand has its strengths and weaknesses. Omega is all over the place with their designs but does give you more bells and whistle if that matters. It also gives them the freedom to try very new designs and see if it works.

Rolex is just the opposite in where they will go with designs. Rolex gives a unmatched traditional image and timeless designs.

Here is where this can get fun when really chest thumping what each company can do outside of the models that pay the bills. I am a movement snob and if you go above the mainstream watches and workhorse movements into the very top tier movements from Rolex like the Yachmaster II, it blows away anything in the Omega’s movement wheel house. It’s fit and finish and technical innovation with robustness is crafted in a way that is next level. Most know nothing about the Yachmaster II and if they did, would know it’s on a completely different level of watch than the mainstream Rolex catalog. This where and when we start to pull out the big guns of what Rolex movements can achieve on the highest level. The issue is most of what their mainstream customers buy a Rolex for only wants the traditional conservative designs with workhorse movements.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by BLNR Nairobi

No, I am questioning if that documentation is from Rolex or not. Hence the comparison to other information on the 100m being for a pool.

So - I am not proposing that ‘Rolex put out documentation showing a possible LEC that does not actually exist.’

I am asking if that documentation is from Rolex or other parties.

It is Rolex official documentation. It has been shown in threads that had 2 Rolex trained watchmakers participating and neither cried foul. The link I posted came from another professional watchmaker. But they are all the same image, screenshots of online Rolex docs.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=707488

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by DJ2020

I have never seen a Submariner look this good, Metas certification, 15,000 gauss, see threw case back, excellent bracelet (which is extremely substantial) 316L steel. 5 year warranty, available and 1/2 the cost of a Rolex.

Seriously is there really any doubt which is better quality and value?

Those are great pics for sure. Kind of funny though, the one on the left actually looks like the case leaked and the watch is half filled with water.

My 10 year old Speedmaster is outperforming my 10 month old Submariner so you'll never hear me say a foul word about Omega.

[DJ2020]

Originally Posted by Mystro

I own both. I wouldn’t say that. Throwing out price points, Rolex tactile fit and finishing is better than Omega. I own the top POC model and it’s a spectacular piece but it’s the little things Rolex does better like bezel click and feel, etc.. Each brand has its strengths and weaknesses. Omega is all over the place with their designs but does give you more bells and whistle if that matters. It also gives them the freedom to try very new designs and see if it works.

Rolex is just the opposite in where they will go with designs. Rolex gives a unmatched traditional image and timeless designs. I am a movement snob and If you go above the mainstream watches and workhorse movements into the very top tier movements from Rolex like the Yachmaster II, it blows away anything in the Omega movement wheel house. It’s fit and finish and technical innovation with robustness is crafted in a way that is next level. Most know nothing about the Yachmaster II and if they did, would know it’s on a completely different level of watch than the mainstream Rolex catalog. This where and when we start to pull out the big guns of what Rolex movements can achieve on the highest level.

Omega 9900 series? Hmmm

[Bizcut1]

Love this thread.

[asiparks]

Rolex bracelets, at least from this past decade, are fine. Omega bracelets are likewise fine.
IWC has been making superlative bracelets with simple adjustability and link removal, plus push button micro adjustment since about '06.

But I don't think I've ever bought, or not bought, a watch on the strength of it's bracelet.

The new Speedmaster is gorgeous, as are most of Omega's dive watches.

"Rolex Zombies" Ha- too true!

[DJ2020]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Those are great pics for sure. Kind of funny though, the one on the left actually looks like the case leaked and the watch is half filled with water.

My 10 year old Speedmaster is outperforming my 10 month old Submariner so you'll never hear me say a foul word about Omega.

I also wonder, if anyone has thought, as I have. Spending $10k on a Rolex, take it home and start to unbox it. Then it dawn's on you that they present it in a cheap recyclable cardboard box? Oh my, what have I done!

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by DJ2020

Omega 9900 series? Hmmm

Yup, I own it and it’s a great tradition chronograph movement but the Rolex 4161 is another level up in innovation and execution. The command ring bezel connected to the movement with a mechanical programmable function is industry leading. We are way above a CoAxial escapement and vertical clutch complexity. Just look at The complexity of parts in each movement and it’s not even a contest between the 4161 and 9900. Where Rolex spikes the ball in the comparison is Rolex manages to take a far more complex movement and make it thinner that what Omega does with their complex movements.

It is what it is and when we are comparing the mainstream workhorse movements that most people tend to buy, we can get a closer comparison in performance between the two companies.

I don’t make watch predictions but if they ever discontinue the undiscovered and under the radar Yachtmaster II, it will be like finding a 1932 Duesenberg in your barn simply because this watch is in its own league out of the entire Rolex catalog.

[DJ2020]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Yup, I own it and it’s a great tradition chronograph movement but the Rolex 4161 is another level up in innovation and execution. The command ring bezel connected to the movement with a mechanical programmable function is industry leading. We are way above a CoAxial escapement and vertical clutch complexity.

It is a pretty movement.

[Bizcut1]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Yup, I own it and it’s a great tradition chronograph movement but the Rolex 4161 is another level up in innovation and execution. The command ring bezel connected to the movement with a mechanical programmable function is industry leading. We are way above a CoAxial escapement and vertical clutch complexity. Just look at The complexity of parts in each movement and it’s not even a contest between the 4161 and 9900. Where Rolex spikes the ball in the comparison is Rolex manages to take a far more complex movement and make it thinner that what Omega does with their complex movements.

Great shot! Beautiful!

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by BLNR Nairobi

I saw that link on another thread.

Please give me an example of a Rolex reference that has AR coating on both sides.

Otherwise, it’s like another thread that was claiming 100m resistance is only good for swimming pools.

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Are you proposing that Rolex put out documentation showing a possible LEC that does not actually exist? And it's my burden to disprove this? From what I understand, it is certain Cellini models which have the tops and bottoms coated which exactly matches my earlier statement that certain applications will prioritize aesthetics over durability.

Originally Posted by BLNR Nairobi

No, I am questioning if that documentation is from Rolex or not. Hence the comparison to other information on the 100m being for a pool.

So - I am not proposing that ‘Rolex put out documentation showing a possible LEC that does not actually exist.’

I am asking if that documentation is from Rolex or other parties.

Originally Posted by HiBoost

It is Rolex official documentation. It has been shown in threads that had 2 Rolex trained watchmakers participating and neither cried foul. The link I posted came from another professional watchmaker. But they are all the same image, screenshots of online Rolex docs.
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=707488

Interesting discussion, the answer is:

Rolex Cellini Time (Ref. 50505) - Technical Specifications

Crystal: "Domed sapphire with double anti-reflective coating”

[DJ2020]

https://jrdunn.com/blog/rolex/6-thin...lex-submariner

This doesn't specify if the AR coating is on the inside, outside or both.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Interesting discussion, the answer is:

Rolex Cellini Time (Ref. 50505) - Technical Specifications

Crystal: "Domed sapphire with double anti-reflective coating”

Thanks, Saxo! I had "find proof of Rolex being ludicrous" on my lunch break todo list for today but hadn't gotten there yet. Now I can enjoy my PB&J stress free ;)

Originally Posted by DJ2020

https://jrdunn.com/blog/rolex/6-thin...lex-submariner

This doesn't specify if the AR coating is on the inside, outside or both.

We know from the LEC on these that it is not on the outside at all, but fully on the inside.

[DJ2020]

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

I believe this chart is from Rolex.

[dannyp]

My conclusion is that it is difficult to determine an objective winner of the "Rolex vs. Omega" debate, but one thing is true without a doubt: Both produce better watches today than they did 20 years ago, with the single greatest influencer being the rivalry between them.

[DJ2020]

Originally Posted by dannyp

My conclusion is that it is difficult to determine an objective winner of the "Rolex vs. Omega" debate, but one thing is true without a doubt: Both produce better watches today than they did 20 years ago, with the single greatest influencer being the rivalry between them.

I agree, each is better than the other depending on personal point of view. Rolex has a loyal following and a more Prestigious persona..... For now, Omega has more advanced movements and more variety. Just a FEW points here. Arguments can be made both ways. Omega can not compete with the demand for a Rolex...... at the moment an may never. Rolex can not compete with Omega technology...... for now and may not ever. Perception of value may change for both in the future...... to be determined. But one thing is for sure there both top notch watches. Bottom line is to say one is better than the other is a futile argument. Hard to get a Rolex now and more and more people are definitely looking at Omega. Both being excellent watches......... I wonder what the future will hold? Who will be on top in 20 or 30 years? Omega, Rolex or maybe Apple. ONLY time will tell. But for now, I am glad we have these powerhouse brands to wear and enjoy.

[kieselguhr]

Originally Posted by rambo99

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

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...s-12-00987.pdf

https://www.assda.asn.au/images/2015...less_Steel.pdf

Here you go

[duquephart]

Originally Posted by dannyp

My conclusion is that it is difficult to determine an objective winner of the "Rolex vs. Omega" debate, but one thing is true without a doubt: Both produce better watches today than they did 20 years ago, with the single greatest influencer being the rivalry between them.

Then there's GS, which blows them both out of the water.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by duquephart

Then there's GS, which blows them both out of the water.

Well, they come from the place that gave us both the samurai sword and the Honda, what do you expect?

[asiparks]

Originally Posted by duquephart

Then there's GS, which blows them both out of the water.

And cue the dismissing of GS, as the bracelets don't meet the expectations of Rolex owners.....

This is almost too incredibly painful to wear, but on the bright side I'm informed that it's trash and will probably fall apart soon...