Omega Seamaster or Rolex Submariner

[4vCoupe]

Planet ocean is a very nice watch. I tried on the new 8500 a few weeks after I purchased my sub and almost made me regret not going after the omega especially for the price. My next watch will either be the PO or Pepsi GMT.

[WatchingTime]

Great story. I appreciate the OP's honesty, and feel he made the right decision. While the vast majority of comments supported that the Sub is more recognizable, few said it is actually better. In fact, I have been reading quite a bit where the new 8500 movement in the Omega PO and the ceramic bezel are actually better than the Sub. I am not a candidate for a SUB (too small at 40mm, when watches are now getting BIGGER) and too many people have them. I am trying to decide between the new Explorer II (like the 42mm!) and the Omega PO 45.5 mm w/ ceramic bezel.

Enjoy your new time piece ss3Walkman... you've earned it!

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by WatchingTime

Great story. I appreciate the OP's honesty, and feel he made the right decision. While the vast majority of comments supported that the Sub is more recognizable, few said it is actually better. In fact, I have been reading quite a bit where the new 8500 movement in the Omega PO and the ceramic bezel are actually better than the Sub. I am not a candidate for a SUB (too small at 40mm, when watches are now getting BIGGER) and too many people have them. I am trying to decide between the new Explorer II (like the 42mm!) and the Omega PO 45.5 mm w/ ceramic bezel.

Enjoy your new time piece ss3Walkman... you've earned it!

I think that is the crux of the Submariner argument, they point to heritage, perceived prestige and popularity. That only interests me up to a point - if I'm spending my money on a watch, I want the very best option available to me. I don't think the Submariner is the obvious choice any more, and hasn't been for the past decade or so now. I think Rolex are suffering a hangover from the days where they could produce whatever they wanted without any serious competition - the market has sorted itself out, are producing a lot of superb models. Instead of asking "why not Rolex," it's time to start asking "why Rolex?"

For me, the Submariner right now is like Elvis in his Vegas days. A bit too chubby, a bit too spangly, and living on past glories long gone - didn't stop him from being popular, though. But we all know how Elvis ended up...

Chris

[tlbarrs]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

I think that is the crux of the Submariner argument, they point to heritage, perceived prestige and popularity. That only interests me up to a point - if I'm spending my money on a watch, I want the very best option available to me. I don't think the Submariner is the obvious choice any more, and hasn't been for the past decade or so now. I think Rolex are suffering a hangover from the days where they could produce whatever they wanted without any serious competition - the market has sorted itself out, are producing a lot of superb models. Instead of asking "why not Rolex," it's time to start asking "why Rolex?"

For me, the Submariner right now is like Elvis in his Vegas days. A bit too chubby, a bit too spangly, and living on past glories long gone - didn't stop him from being popular, though. But we all know how Elvis ended up...

Chris

Love Elvis comparison! Out of the curent Rolex line up do you think that the new Explorer II is the way to go bigger and the case is more proportioned or the GMT II

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by tlbarrs

Love Elvis comparison! Out of the curent Rolex line up do you think that the new Explorer II is the way to go bigger and the case is more proportioned or the GMT II

I think both the GMT and the Explorer II are the only steel sports models genuinely worth buying - ones that really stand out and are significantly better than their rivals. I'm finding it very hard to choose between the two, I'm a sucker for a splash of orange on a watch dial, but the GMT is a watch that is ridiculously versatile. I would personally go for the GMT, but neither is a bad choice

[capote]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

For me, the Submariner right now is like Elvis in his Vegas days. A bit too chubby, a bit too spangly, and living on past glories long gone - didn't stop him from being popular, though. But we all know how Elvis ended up...

That comparison is priceless, IMO that goes for the GMT-c as well.

[sportsmaven20]

Originally Posted by WatchingTime

Great story. I appreciate the OP's honesty, and feel he made the right decision. While the vast majority of comments supported that the Sub is more recognizable, few said it is actually better. In fact, I have been reading quite a bit where the new 8500 movement in the Omega PO and the ceramic bezel are actually better than the Sub. I am not a candidate for a SUB (too small at 40mm, when watches are now getting BIGGER) and too many people have them. I am trying to decide between the new Explorer II (like the 42mm!) and the Omega PO 45.5 mm w/ ceramic bezel.

Enjoy your new time piece ss3Walkman... you've earned it!

You will not go wrong with either the Exp II 42mm or the PO Ceramic 45.5mm!

I have the Exp II and really like it alot and a PO will be my next purchase.

[Jake B]

Congrats.

[Rocco22]

Go Rolex,I can't stand the omegas. Jmo.

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by Rocco22

Go Rolex,I can't stand the omegas. Jmo.

Why, out of interest?

[Bernie.H.]

Originally Posted by Rocco22

Go Rolex,I can't stand the omegas. Jmo.

There is nothing like an interesting read that has had a lot of thought put into it.
It seems that even on a Rolex forum the Planet Oceans are holding there own, that speaks volumes ! .......I think the New Submariner is a nice looking piece but at 40 mm is too small for a modern sports/dive watch. (IMO)
GMT Master I alway enjoy your posts re the Planet Ocean, Submariner debates, I envisage fanboys sulking Everytime they read them.

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by Bernie.H.

There is nothing like an interesting read that has had a lot of thought put into it.
It seems that even on a Rolex forum the Planet Oceans are holding there own, that speaks volumes ! .......I think the New Submariner is a nice looking piece but at 40 mm is too small for a modern sports/dive watch. (IMO)
GMT Master I alway enjoy your posts re the Planet Ocean, Submariner debates, I envisage fanboys sulking Everytime they read them.

Thankyou! My philosophy is to recommend and chase watches that are true greats - either new or vintage. Branding only plays a very small part in my rationalisation of watches, I judge them as if there was no branding at all. I think it's very easy to get caught up with Rolex-mania (I did as well, and it was responsible for getting me into watches), but I do think the current Rolex lineup isn't as strong as it could be. Rolex need to decide whether they are more interested in the strength of their brand, or the strength of their product, and I think the product has been suffering in recent years. It's a shame that the pioneering spirit that made Rolex great in the first place has been replaced by an ultra-conservative approach to product

[WatchingTime]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

"I think it's very easy to get caught up with Rolex-mania (I did as well, and it was responsible for getting me into watches), but I do think the current Rolex lineup isn't as strong as it could be. Rolex need to decide whether they are more interested in the strength of their brand, or the strength of their product, and I think the product has been suffering in recent years"

The Sub's strength is unfortunately also its weakness. It's basically the same watch it was 50 years ago, and 10 years ago, and today. While the sports cars from 50 years ago are legendary, they cannot hold there own against a modern day sports car. I have been doing ALOT of research and reading, and I came into the forum entirely unbiased. I have owned two Rolex's (a DJ and the Presidential DD w/ diamond dial). I too bought into the Rolex mystique, but I am older and wiser now. If I want someone to notice me, I'll wear my Presidential. The fact is, I DON"T want someone to notice my Presidential in the outdoorsy town I live in, so it is getting sold for either a Rolex Explorer II, or the Omega Planet Ocean. IMHO, two of the most modern sport watches you can buy.

One thing is for sure on the Rolex Forum... no one questions the technology and quality of the new Planet Ocean w/ the 8500 movement and ceramic bezel. The only thing the sub seems to have going for it is the Glidelock clasp. As for just the Rolex brand, I am reading of more Rolex aficionados switching to the new Explorer II from the SUB, then the opposite.

Hmmm... so I can buy a Planet Ocean, which reportedly is a better, more modern watch than the SUB for less money? The PO offers a better, more modern movement, and it is offered in a "full size" 42 and 45.5mm (sorry, but a 40mm SUB is just too small Rolex!) AND it is also a VERY well respected timepiece in the watch community which is gaining market share?

It's really not a contest between the PO and the SUB. It's a contest between the Explorer II and the PO (I don't need a divers watch, just like the look).

P.s. If anyone has anything negative to say about the new Planet Ocean, I WANT to hear both sides of the argument. Love the forum, and I enjoy a constructive, spirited discussion (it is what makes us all the wiser). Cheers.

[mrallen13]

Originally Posted by WatchingTime

The Sub's strength is unfortunately also its weakness. It's basically the same watch it was 50 years ago, and 10 years ago, and today. While the sports cars from 50 years ago are legendary, they cannot hold there own against a modern day sports car. I have been doing ALOT of research and reading, and I came into the forum entirely unbiased. I have owned two Rolex's (a DJ and the Presidential DD w/ diamond dial). I too bought into the Rolex mystique, but I am older and wiser now. If I want someone to notice me, I'll wear my Presidential. The fact is, I DON"T want someone to notice my Presidential in the outdoorsy town I live in, so it is getting sold for either a Rolex Explorer II, or the Omega Planet Ocean. IMHO, two of the most modern sport watches you can buy.

One thing is for sure on the Rolex Forum... no one questions the technology and quality of the new Planet Ocean w/ the 8500 movement and ceramic bezel. The only thing the sub seems to have going for it is the Glidelock clasp. As for just the Rolex brand, I am reading of more Rolex aficionados switching to the new Explorer II from the SUB, then the opposite.

Hmmm... so I can buy a Planet Ocean, which reportedly is a better, more modern watch than the SUB for less money? The PO offers a better, more modern movement, and it is offered in a "full size" 42 and 45.5mm (sorry, but a 40mm SUB is just too small Rolex!) AND it is also a VERY well respected timepiece in the watch community which is gaining market share?

It's really not a contest between the PO and the SUB. It's a contest between the Explorer II and the PO (I don't need a divers watch, just like the look).

P.s. If anyone has anything negative to say about the new Planet Ocean, I WANT to hear both sides of the argument. Love the forum, and I enjoy a constructive, spirited discussion (it is what makes us all the wiser). Cheers.

WatchingTime,

I have owned both - 2 Sub and one PO. The PO 8500 is an amazingly beautiful watch. While the hands aren't the best in my opinion, the rest of the watch's styling made them perfectly acceptable. I owned that watch for just about 10 days and it was with great difficulty that I ended up trading it in. The watch was so incredibly thick and top heavy for me and without the bracelet having a micro adjustment, it simply beat my wrists to death, which is something I've never experience with any other dive watch. By the time I took it back, my plastic Timex Ironman watch hurt to wear.

All that said, I still find it a beautiful watch and find myself thinking it wasn't that bad and force myself to walk away when I see one in a shop. Maybe find a PO Anonymous meeting. Hi, I'm Matt. I haven't worn a PO in 3 months...

The new SubC ND has really grown on me though. I had previously owned a Sub Date that had been my father's and the change in dial and case took getting used to, but now I couldn't see going back.

Both watches are great for what they are supposed to do - keep accurate time underwater and look good doing it. Whichever one best meets your style/desire is the best. The rest is just noise.

Matt

[Feras]

Sub.

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

[speedo]

Originally Posted by ss3walkman

Now being honest I want one of two (three if you include the DJ) for all the evil of owning one. I want to be flashy. I want to be seen. I want it to be noticed. I want to go to a club and a woman who knows her style to see my watch and know what I'm about. I want it to get respect. I want to be apart of the exclusive expensive watch club. I want to be popular among those who know their watches. I want to use the watch for evil and naughty things (Just being truthful)

get the omega. or rather get a breitling, that will just do the job.

[floater156]

I prefer the styling of the sub, and Rolex in general.

[stusrt]

I think the Sub is better - because it's a Rolex.

however, I've owned 2 PO's - and you get A LOT more watch for your money.

they are both great investments, if that is a concern.

You should really try to get both - they are both in my top 5

[Tudor66]

Long live the k

[MrLee]

Ss3walkman nothing wrong with a bit of flash/bling, I would go sub-c or ds, both amazing watches and whenever I give my sub a wash it just sparkles and looks stunning

Omegas don't have the lustre of a Rolex, I think it's the 904l with the nickel in it that Rolex use that makes the steel really bright and stand out, and along with the ceramic bezel it's a stunning combo

For me with my 6 3/4 inch wrist I find the ds absolutely massive (just tryed one on yesterday) and the thickness I found just to much, made me realise the sub-c was the perfect watch for me

If you want the x-factor of brand, looks, history then it's sub-c or ds all the way. Omega just will not impress any where near as much, and are becoming really common (uk)

[TheCanadian1]

Congrats on the PO. I've been looking at the PO and the PAM000 lately to add to my collection.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by MrLee

Ss3walkman nothing wrong with a bit of flash/bling, I would go sub-c or ds, both amazing watches and whenever I give my sub a wash it just sparkles and looks stunning

Omegas don't have the lustre of a Rolex, I think it's the 904l with the nickel in it that Rolex use that makes the steel really bright and stand out, and along with the ceramic bezel it's a stunning combo

Dunno, my PO LM LE has more than enough lustre to go toe to toe with my GMTIIc:

[MrLee]

Originally Posted by improviz

Dunno, my PO LM LE has more than enough lustre to go toe to toe with my GMTIIc:

It does do ok but even in this picture the gmt is shining louder

[Vincent65]

Originally Posted by improviz

Dunno, my PO LM LE has more than enough lustre to go toe to toe with my GMTIIc:

Nice pair and great comparison pic. Ignoring the PCLs on the GMT, the steel still does look a little whiter and brighter to me than the Omega.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

Nice pair and great comparison pic. Ignoring the PCLs on the GMT, the steel still does look a little whiter and brighter to me than the Omega.

I think it is a bit lighter in color, probably due to the nickel content.

Originally Posted by MrLee

It does do ok but even in this picture the gmt is shining louder

I think that the steel is lighter in color, but I don't think reflectivity/shine/bling is appreciably different in either piece, and I have the luxury of being able to wear both at the same time in front of a mirror to compare.

Trust me, in person both are stunners, and I'm proud to own either one, let alone both.

[Vincent65]

Rolex wins, much as I love Omega too.

[superdog]

I think the proportions of the omega are all wrong. I always like the look, but when I get close it feels as though it has a lack of balance. Lugs in comparison to case thickness just doesn't go.

Personally, as long as my watch tells time, can take a beating, and I can swim with zero concerns, all I really care about are the aesthetics. And to me, I much prefer the look, style and balance of pretty much the entire rolex line.

I want to like the omega and I respect the brand, but so far I just can't get on board.

[DJJon]

OP: Keep your sights on adding a Sub as time goes on. It is a light watch and smaller, but as time goes on you may find these to be strengths. Get the Maxicase Sub-C or new SubND-C if you want that incremental increase in perceived size.

The black face/black dial DEFINES what a diver watch is.
Anything else is a variation on the theme - The Rolex Submariner theme, to be exact.

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by DJJon

OP: Keep your sights on adding a Sub as time goes on. It is a light watch and smaller, but as time goes on you may find these to be strengths. Get the Maxicase Sub-C or new SubND-C if you want that incremental increase in perceived size.

The black face/black dial DEFINES what a diver watch is.
Anything else is a variation on the theme - The Rolex Submariner theme, to be exact.

The BP 50 Fathoms and the Rolex Sub were both produced in 1953 (maybe 1954 for Rolex, depending on how you count). They both had black dials. How exactly did Rolex define the dive watch theme?

[improviz]

Originally Posted by JP Chestnut

The BP 50 Fathoms and the Rolex Sub were both produced in 1953 (maybe 1954 for Rolex, depending on how you count). They both had black dials. How exactly did Rolex define the dive watch theme?

Yup:
http://people.timezone.com/jmerino/history50.pdf

Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_watch