Submariner vs Seamaster

[Justinmg]

Originally Posted by moneymike83

Once you have a Rolex on your wrist you don’t want to try any other brands. Rolex is king of all watches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I love this forum! The power of Rolex kool-aid yum yum

[Panych]

If you need a tool watch - diver, take a PO, otherwise get a sub. I like my sub, but I cannot treat it as a diver...

[Dsmith1974]

Originally Posted by Justinmg

I love this forum! The power of Rolex kool-aid yum yum

Mike has a good point though. Once I bought my first Rolex it didn’t take long to sell most of my Omegas to buy more Rolex. Kept the Speedy, Hour Vision and a couple of vintages, but the POs all got traded in - haven’t regretted it for a moment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[subtona]

Originally Posted by Justinmg

I love this forum! The power of Rolex kool-aid yum yum

Give him a few more days, he just found the forum.

Of course there are other brands but the plain truth is, if a person stuck with rolex sport models over the years, relative to most other brands they made a very wise decision.

[Oldwoods]

Originally Posted by UnicoJG

So does anyone regret buying the new 2018 Omega SMP 300 or is it a keeper?

I received one recently as an insurance claim replacement for the previous Seamaster with the flat blue dial that I really liked and wore a lot.
Couldn’t get on with the new version and I have already moved it on.

[lawrence1]

Originally Posted by forcinitijp

The Royal Navy use Seamaster in blue ...

The SUB in gold diamond, now, is used by Ronaldo... out of the soccer field...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rashid.bk]

The Submariner just has that special magic sauce that no matter what Omega does to the Seamaster or PO, I just still prefer the simplicity and classic looks of the Submariner.
Besides, if you wait a few months Omega will release another LE or some new something or other but what ever it this time around, it still won't be better in my eyes.

Omega had a really good chance of at least matching the Submariner when they made the PO 2500. That was an amazingly beautiful watch with very classic and timeless aesthetics, but did Omega build on this....noooooo, they went ahead and ruined it. Made it fatter, thicker, bulbous thick hands etc...just ruined it.
Then they made the Seamaster in ceramic, with no date...I held my breath, I think we have something here....they made it larger(dumb founded)...what is wrong with this company.

Submariner, it's just simple, timeless and....special.
Better.

[R G]

Originally Posted by Stew7

Rolex will always have the marketing edge but notoriety and a higher price doesn't dictate engineering superiority or value. The new Seamaster is a fantastic watch and is a better value than the Rolex considering you effectively get equal technology and features for half the Rolex price (factoring in street prices).

"Better" means different things to different people. Sure the Sub is more valuable but it's not a better value. And it's definitely not engineered any better or worse than the Omega. They are both bulletproof.

Very well said. Really well said.

[SN13]

I'd be hard pressed not to try out an Omega.... the dang HE valve keeps me second guessing.

[lawrence1]

Originally Posted by SN13

I'd be hard pressed not to try out an Omega.... the dang HE valve keeps me second guessing.

not a big deal, really. Go try one on and you may be surprised.

[R G]

I’ve never been an Omega man, but, I managed to acquire this mint 2002 Seamaster the week before last.

It’s in a league of its own and is really different to the other modern Seamasters.

White gold bezel. Anyone recognise the style??

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

The Submariner just has that special magic sauce that no matter what Omega does to the Seamaster or PO, I just still prefer the simplicity and classic looks of the Submariner.
Besides, if you wait a few months Omega will release another LE or some new something or other but what ever it this time around, it still won't be better in my eyes.

Omega had a really good chance of at least matching the Submariner when they made the PO 2500. That was an amazingly beautiful watch with very classic and timeless aesthetics, but did Omega build on this....noooooo, they went ahead and ruined it. Made it fatter, thicker, bulbous thick hands etc...just ruined it.

Strange thing is Omega were making two mens sizes unlike Rolex so they really didn't need to fall down this trap on both models of making them so thick but fall they did. Could have just kept the smaller one slim to compete with Rolex and the larger one thicker to compete with Breitling and PAM.

[SN13]

Originally Posted by R G

I’ve never been an Omega man, but, I managed to acquire this mint 2002 Seamaster the week before last.

It’s in a league of its own and is really different to the other modern Seamasters.

White gold bezel. Anyone recognise the style??

Who wore it better?

[AJMarcus]

Is a Honda Accord better than a Mercedes E class? Is a Camaro better than a Porsche 911?, If you must compare the Seamaster with something it’s closer nowadays to the Tudor Black Bay divers in quality and build. Imo if it’s value you want then the new Seamaster is a fantastic choice. However, if it’s timeless quality you want than it is the Rolex Submariner. Each has a much different vibe and demographic customer base.

[Gary.]

Originally Posted by SilverJackHammer

I own both and love them both, but IMO the Sub is a superior watch. The Seamaster had to go in for repair after 3 years, it’s under warranty so I’m not concerned. The Sub feels and looks like a more robust timepiece. I’m wearing either my Sub and Seamaster every day.

The Seamaster in question didn't exist three years ago. The current model is a very different beast.

[Mystro]

The horological ignorance is embarrassing. I guess sticker talk is as far as some owners want to learn about the industry.

[AJMarcus]

Originally Posted by Gary.

The Seamaster in question didn't exist three years ago. The current model is a very different beast.

I think the point of the post you responded to is that Omega QC is not on par with Rolex. My personal experience is that it’s not either.

[AJMarcus]

Originally Posted by Justinmg

I love this forum! The power of Rolex kool-aid yum yum

That’s an over generalization and not fair. But you do know you’re on the premier Rolex forum called TRF

[Mr.Rolex1]

I prefer Rolex

[Montremoi]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

The Submariner just has that special magic sauce that no matter what Omega does to the Seamaster or PO, I just still prefer the simplicity and classic looks of the Submariner.

This. There's no over-detailed, over-engineered feature on the dial or the case of the Sub, because its designers have found the pretty perfect balance that is needed to make a timeless toolwatch.

Also I find the hands of the Seamaster 300 extremely ugly, but that's just me.

[R G]

Originally Posted by Mystro

The horological ignorance is embarrassing. I guess sticker talk is as far as some owners want to learn about the industry.

Genuinely, I’d like to hear your take on it?

[AJMarcus]

Originally Posted by Seibei

She probably wasn't a watch person.

Back in the day Omega sold them in mall department stores in the US next to Tags. They were a step up from a fashion watch with all the hype from brosnan at the time. The quartz Seamaster was a big seller for omega at that time. Seriously....

[lawrence1]

Originally Posted by AJMarcus

I think the point of the post you responded to is that Omega QC is not on par with Rolex. My personal experience is that it’s not either.

Really? i'd be curious to hear the details. I've owned several of each and can't say i've noticed this.

[Mystro]

Own both. In fact 30 years of Rolex ownership and 15 years of Omega ownership.
I think the new Omega Master Chronometer METAS crushes Rolex in their movements. I didn’t know how much better their movements were until recently owning one of their new METAS certified movements and actually testing it. I have ran a lot of the latest Rolex movements through accuracy and Power Reserve tests but none can touch the Omega Cal. 9900 movement in performance.
The new Rolex 3285 is good and just now using industry standards of ceramic rotor bearings but the Omega 9900 is on another level of excellence in construction and end performance. It’s practically antimagnetic.
As far as build quality, it is a equal draw but actual materials used is where Omega clearly wins. Look at a Rolex dial under a loupe and then a Omega ceramic dial. Rolex dial is sloppy and printing is slightly foggy by comparison. A gloss ceramic dial has to be perfect as any imperfection is magnified significantly. Omega is clearly working to make the best watch possible pushing technical advancements where Rolex is coasting on their reputation and their movements are just keeping up to the industry standards. Rolex brilliance is in their business strategy making the most money for them. Omega is making the better watch but at the cost of releasing a higher variety of collections that water down their brand. I own both and have a lot respect for both brands. The arrogance of some Rolex owners toward Omega is embarrassing and unnecessary. The smugness is major baggage to the Rolex brand many enthusiast wont deal with anymore. My guess is the illusion of harder to get makes it a better product somehow to some people??? Not sure the seasoned enthusiast believes it or is even in Rolex targeted demographic.
Omega has been around a lot longer than Rolex and with some amazing achievements. The horological historical time line gets lost with talk of stickers and polishing I guess???

[Chewbacca]

Ugh. All watch forums have had this Sub vs SMP discussion.

It always ends with get a Seiko Sumo SPB077J1.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Own both. In fact 30 years of Rolex ownership and 15 years of Omega ownership.
I think the new Omega Master Chronometer METAS crushes Rolex in their movements. I didn’t know how much better their movements were until recently owning one of their new METAS certified movements and actually testing it. I have ran a lot of the latest Rolex movements through accuracy and Power Reserve tests but none can touch the Omega Cal. 9900 movement in performance.
The new Rolex 3285 is good and just now using industry standards of ceramic rotor bearings but the Omega 9900 is on another level of excellence in construction and end performance. It’s practically antimagnetic.
As far as build quality, it is a equal draw but actual materials used is where Omega clearly wins. Look at a Rolex dial under a loupe and then a Omega ceramic dial. Rolex dial is sloppy and printing is slightly foggy by comparison. A gloss ceramic dial has to be perfect as any imperfection is magnified significantly. Omega is clearly working to make the best watch possible pushing technical advancements where Rolex is coasting on their reputation and their movements are just keeping up to the industry standards. Rolex brilliance is in their business strategy making the most money for them. Omega is making the better watch but at the cost of releasing a higher variety of collections that water down their brand. I own both and have a lot respect for both brands. The arrogance of some Rolex owners toward Omega is embarrassing and unnecessary. Omega has been around a lot longer than Rolex and with some amazing achievements. The horological historical time line gets lost with talk of stickers and polishing I guess???

I like this.

[nighthawk77]

Both are great watches in their own rights, but for me, SMP wins on value, movement and availability. Plus you don't need to play any games to actually own one of these.

Rolex wins in terms of brand recognition, value retention and desirability.

Design is subjective - imo SMP is a great looking modern diver and the Submariner is a timeless classic. Build quality and functionality are also up for debate with each having pros and cons.

I own the previous version SMP and I think it's great. I'm also on a 'waitlist' for a Submariner, but plan on keeping the Omega in the collection once I have the Sub.

[R G]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Own both. In fact 30 years of Rolex ownership and 15 years of Omega ownership.
I think the new Omega Master Chronometer METAS crushes Rolex in their movements. I didn’t know how much better their movements were until recently owning one of their new METAS certified movements and actually testing it. I have ran a lot of the latest Rolex movements through accuracy and Power Reserve tests but none can touch the Omega Cal. 9900 movement in performance.
The new Rolex 3285 is good and just now using industry standards of ceramic rotor bearings but the Omega 9900 is on another level of excellence in construction and end performance. It’s practically antimagnetic.
As far as build quality, it is a equal draw but actual materials used is where Omega clearly wins. Look at a Rolex dial under a loupe and then a Omega ceramic dial. Rolex dial is sloppy and printing is slightly foggy by comparison. A gloss ceramic dial has to be perfect as any imperfection is magnified significantly. Omega is clearly working to make the best watch possible pushing technical advancements where Rolex is coasting on their reputation and their movements are just keeping up to the industry standards. Rolex brilliance is in their business strategy making the most money for them. Omega is making the better watch but at the cost of releasing a higher variety of collections that water down their brand. I own both and have a lot respect for both brands. The arrogance of some Rolex owners toward Omega is embarrassing and unnecessary. The smugness is major baggage to the Rolex brand many enthusiast wont deal with anymore. My guess is the illusion of harder to get makes it a better product somehow to some people??? Not sure the seasoned enthusiast believes it or is even in Rolex targeted demographic.
Omega has been around a lot longer than Rolex and with some amazing achievements. The horological historical time line gets lost with talk of stickers and polishing I guess???

Brilliant.

Nothing more to say here guys.

[Heartlandblaster]

Originally Posted by Mystro

The horological ignorance is embarrassing. I guess sticker talk is as far as some owners want to learn about the industry.

I don't have the most impressive collection by far, SubCD, DJII, and the wife has a DJ31. With that being said, I really enjoy some of the variety in my collection. I have several Ball watches that hold their own in mixed company. Fit, finish, and accuracy for the price point is pretty substantial in my opinion. Wear em in great health folks!!

[LigerBelair]

Aesthetics matters to me perhaps more than most and in terms of aesthetics I find the SMP to be absolutely hideous (the wart, the waves, the hands, the bracelet) while the Sub is classically attractive. It's not a close call imo. I go with the Sub everytime.