Rolex vs omega quality

[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.

[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. Personally I think Omega bracelets are very well made - just slightly below Rolex In quality IMO.

[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.

[Richard Carver]

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. Personally I think Omega bracelets are very well made - just slightly below Rolex In quality IMO.

Yet here we are, 52 years later still in daily use. :)

[Francist]

Recent Rolex bracelets are the finest in the industry.
They hold together firmly, especially the jubilee

[rolexalias]

Originally Posted by francist

recent rolex bracelets are the finest in the industry.
They hold together firmly, especially the jubilee

+1

[Radbloke]

Strongly disagree. I would say Omega overall build quality is as good, if not better, than Rolex in general. As for the bracelet specifically, the twin trigger release is better than fliplock and I've found Omega bracelets to be incredibly well made and finished.

[Saoirse32]

Originally Posted by Radbloke

Strongly disagree. I would say Omega overall build quality is as good, if not better, than Rolex in general. As for the bracelet specifically, the twin trigger release is better than fliplock and I've found Omega bracelets to be incredibly well made and finished.

This ^^^

The Glidelock is great, but Omega's version is just as good.
In my experience, Omega quality is on par with Rolex, in some ways "better," in all aspects except...value retention.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fencer28]

Rolex metals, especially their steel, is better than Omega. Omega bracelet is good quality, however the lack of any micro adjustment method and the butterfly clasp are annoying and make the bracelet inferior to the Rolex bracelets. It’s unfortunate because the bracelet is a big deal when it comes to wrist experience.

[watchmavan]

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!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by watchmavan

It's you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

+1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[wcs2229]

I bought an Omega Moonphase for my son's birthday 2 years ago and the quality is excellent.

The Omega case that it comes with is even much nicer than the Rolex case.

[macplee]

i TOTALLY disagree - i sold my omega cause it felt inexpensive vs my rolex bracelets - the jubilee and oyster are on an different level.

side note, i thought the cartier santos would be similar w the integrated bracelet to my AP RO - not even close - so i sold that too. just felt so much cheaper - and the curved glass on the cartier made it visually not good esp from angles

[mfnj]

Originally Posted by macplee

i TOTALLY disagree - i sold my omega cause it felt inexpensive vs my rolex bracelets - the jubilee and oyster are on an different level.

side note, i thought the cartier santos would be similar w the integrated bracelet to my AP RO - not even close - so i sold that too. just felt so much cheaper - and the curved glass on the cartier made it visually not good esp from angles

Apples and oranges! The AP at retail is multiples more than the Cartier and at market the price comparisons go up almost geometrically!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[subdownunder]

I chose the Omega diver 300 over a Sub.
The quality is on par, the movement is more advanced and it came in at a third of the grey market price.

In additionRolex is way behind in the quality of the dial and the anti reflective coating quality.

The bracelet is nearly on par also, with the new Sub slightly better for adjustment, but once dialed in the Seamaster in nearly as good.

As for value retention, if you are buying either used, the Omega is the better buy.
My reasoning is that the Rolex is in a bubble and the downside is huge compared to the chances of a profit.

The Omega is already priced below MRP and if Omega keep raising prices the downside is negligible.

[BLNR Nairobi]

Originally Posted by subdownunder

In additionRolex is way behind in the quality of the dial and the anti reflective coating quality.

.

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.

[OG1982]

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.

Agree with this sentiment. Omegas look wonderful when new but the AR coating on the exterior is a move which really only helps in the short term. The first time my new Seamaster took a hit the crystal looked awful and I spent days fretting and I eventually ended up polishing off the AR coating, not what I was expecting to have to do with my new luxury watch I’d saved hard for!

I have AR on the underside of my Sub (124060) and its wonderful, subtle but really makes a difference. I also own a Jubilee BLNR which has no AR coating and the overall aesthetic suffers as a result.

I’ve owned two Omegas and two Rolex, I would say the overall quality of Omega is very good. Both eventually got traded in along the way to Rolex ownership. Rolex in my view is superior, but in no way inline with current market pricing.

[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

[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.

[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.

[TheVTCGuy]

The Rolex uses 904L steel, I suppose I could look it up but just off my memory Omega uses a lesser-grade steel, I think it’s the same as Tudor(?) 215?

This is all un-researched, just from a conversation I had at the AD a while ago. If someone knows better please correct me.

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

The Rolex uses 904L steel, I suppose I could look it up but just off my memory Omega uses a lesser-grade steel, I think it’s the same as Tudor(?) 215?

This is all un-researched, just from a conversation I had at the AD a while ago. If someone knows better please correct me.

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..

[1sttimerolex]

I thought Rolex bracelets were the best...that's until I tried on ss sports models from the trinity+als.... my sub felt like a cheap kid's toy watch in comparison.

As for the new moonwatch, never seen it so not sure of its quality or feel, but looks a bit less sturdy than the oyster bracelet.

[logo]

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..

A few interesting things comparing 316L to 904L steel:

- 904 has more chromium, more copper, more molybdenum, all of which contribute to higher shine and corrosion resistance
- the above also makes 904L about 30% less hard than 316L steel. All those nice swirly lines on the clasp and door handle scuffs on a shiny Daytona are due to the 904L.
- 316L has about 50% less Nickel. Whether that helps people with Nickel allergy is hard to say but it is possible.

I own a Speedmaster and Datejust, and both feel well built. More attention to detail on the Rolex, and the jubilee bracelet is obviously way more comfortable, but the Omega feels very sturdy, just not as refined or “finished” as the Rolex. Though, I’ve never had any concern with quality, and both brands are most certainly over-engineered to high standards.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by fleetlord

...316l steel which is for forks and spoons...

lol

[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?

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by duquephart

By whom? Possibly just more Rolex hype?

Yep.

[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..

[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.

[hambone1983]

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..

I think they use 304 for cutlery. But your point stands, 316L has much lower corrosion resistance