ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

dalew · 29 August 2011, 06:20 AM

Got the chance to see and try on the new Omega PO ceramic today. In shop window robinsons jewelers at Liverpool one. Thoughts on this new Omega! Dial looked cheap, ceramic bezel was matt and hard to tell it's ceramic at all, weight is light in comparison with rolex, crystal back to the watch is not really in keeping with a divers watch...overall IMO rolex have nothing to fear from omega, although the sub-C is £1.5k dearer it certainly looks it as regards quality...! Anyone else seen the new PO yet, opinions please...?! The old Omega PO looks better, £1k cheaper and 10-20% discount now the new one is out....

capote · 29 August 2011, 06:25 AM

I've seen it and like the color of the bezel and overall dial, especially on the chrono. But it is way too large and tall for me. I'm not a fan of the Sub-c, but I would get a 16610 over the new PO.

The Prodigy · 29 August 2011, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalew

.... , weight is light in comparison with rolex ...

Sure you did take a look on a PO?

The old PO as well as the new PO (even more) are way(!!) heavier than a Sub! Even as the DSSD!

I can't sign what you said.

For me it is exactly the other way around.

The new PO seems to me quality wise way superior compared to the sub. (in any ways).

Once again (in case some haven't seen the new PO):

dalew · 29 August 2011, 06:38 AM

Looks cheap in comparison to rolex, no one would be able to tell the dial is ceramic. The liquid metal one looks far more impressive and stands out more and looks better quality. A crystal back on a divers watch is not really in keeping IMO...! If this is Omegas challenge to the Sub-C then rolex have nothing to fear...! The price is all it has going for it...

colpol · 29 August 2011, 06:42 AM

Not saw the new PO in the flesh but certainly looks good in the pictures above

esm · 29 August 2011, 06:46 AM

Saw the new POs (except for the blue Ti ones) at the shops last week.

Although it looked some sort of "nice", but I prefer the previous models and IMO, the 116610 is a better looking piece and probably will have a better resale value.....

As much as an Omega fan, I can't say I fancy any of their 2011 Basel offerings.

The Prodigy · 29 August 2011, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalew

Looks cheap in comparison to rolex, no one would be able to tell the dial is ceramic. The liquid metal one looks far more impressive and stands out more and looks better quality. A crystal back on a divers watch is not really in keeping IMO...! If this is Omegas challenge to the Sub-C then rolex have nothing to fear...! The price is all it has going for it...

This might be your perception and you sure have the right to think like that.

Let me ask you this:

What does the Sub better than the new PO:

- Movement?

- Bezel?

- Case?

- Bracelet?

- Clasp?

- Lume?

....

....

?

karmatp · 29 August 2011, 06:47 AM

Lets face it, if it said Rolex on the dial most who discard it would love it. I think it is stunning but the price tag is a bit of a turn off for me.

Time2time · 29 August 2011, 06:50 AM

Looks like a cheap wannabe.

dalew · 29 August 2011, 06:51 AM

Had my dssd on when I tried this omega on, dssd felt way heavier. Wasn't really in the same league as the dssd I'm afraid and not even comparable. I'd be paying the extra for the sub-C as a comparison to the omega...!!!

dalew · 29 August 2011, 06:54 AM

Karmatp
"Lets face it, if it said Rolex on the dial most who discard it would love it. I think it is stunning but the price tag is a bit of a turn off for me."

I don't think rolex would put there name on it, not in same league quality wise...!

The Prodigy · 29 August 2011, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalew

"Lets face it, if it said Rolex on the dial most who discard it would love it. I think it is stunning but the price tag is a bit of a turn off for me."

I don't think rolex would put there name on it, not in same league quality wise...!

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prodigy

Let me ask you this:

What does the Sub better than the new PO:

- Movement?

- Bezel?

- Case?

- Bracelet?

- Clasp?

- Lume?

....

....

?

You can't just claim something without giving any information why ...

landroverking · 29 August 2011, 06:57 AM

As much as I don't care for the Subc I care even less for the modern Omegas.

dalew · 29 August 2011, 07:00 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalew
Looks cheap in comparison to rolex, no one would be able to tell the dial is ceramic. The liquid metal one looks far more impressive and stands out more and looks better quality. A crystal back on a divers watch is not really in keeping IMO...! If this is Omegas challenge to the Sub-C then rolex have nothing to fear...! The price is all it has going for it...

This might be your perception and you sure have the right to think like that.

Let me ask you this:

What does the Sub better than the new PO:

- Movement?

- Bezel?

- Case?

- Bracelet?

- Clasp?

- Lume?

....

....

?
The only thing the omega compares with the sub-c is the movement which is debatable! As for the rest the sub-c shows it is better quality...!

esm · 29 August 2011, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prodigy

This might be your perception and you sure have the right to think like that.

Let me ask you this:

What does the Sub better than the new PO:

- Movement?

- Bezel?

- Case?

- Bracelet?

- Clasp?

- Lume?

....

....

?

I would really love to see the comparison between the new PO and the 116610.

Pls, whoever owns both or have had an extended play time with both please stand up

capote · 29 August 2011, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Time2time

Looks like a cheap wannabe.

Wannabe what? It looks nothing like a sub-c.

dalew · 29 August 2011, 07:02 AM

Poor man's porsche springs to mind as a comparison. Save up and buy the real thing....!

The Prodigy · 29 August 2011, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalew

Poor man's porsche springs to mind as a comparison. Save up and buy the real thing....!

Ok, I see where you're coming from ....

Time2time · 29 August 2011, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by karmatp

Lets face it, if it said Rolex on the dial most who discard it would love it. I think it is stunning but the price tag is a bit of a turn off for me.

Errrrrr....... No. I wouldn't for one!!

capote · 29 August 2011, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prodigy

Ok, I see where you're coming from ....

Clearly alot of people just buy the brand. Sad but true.

spuds · 29 August 2011, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalew

Poor man's porsche springs to mind as a comparison. Save up and buy the real thing....!

Oh FFS........

Polemic · 29 August 2011, 07:08 AM

I would go for SubC.

oneon3putts · 29 August 2011, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Time2time

Looks like a cheap wannabe.

Wannabe what?

esm · 29 August 2011, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalew

Poor man's porsche springs to mind as a comparison. Save up and buy the real thing....!

I think this comment is some sort of "out of the line" (of course it is only IMO).

I don't think Omega's intention was to create something to look alike, feel alike a Rolex Submariner....

Why can't we all appreciate different things. Each to his/her own springs to mind

Time2time · 29 August 2011, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capote

Clearly alot of people just buy the brand. Sad but true.

Especially when the "brand", Rolex, is far superior.

dalew · 29 August 2011, 07:10 AM

Capote.
"Clearly alot of people just buy the brand. Sad but true".

Clearly alot of people are prepared to pay for quality. Sad but true...!!!

Time2time · 29 August 2011, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneon3putts

Wannabe what?

Errrr..... wannabe a Rolex?

Time2time · 29 August 2011, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capote

Wannabe what? It looks nothing like a sub-c.

Wannabe a Sub. Bezel? You think?

The Prodigy · 29 August 2011, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalew

Capote.
"Clearly alot of people just buy the brand. Sad but true".

Clearly alot of people are prepared to pay for quality. Sad but true...!!!

hit and run? huh?

You gotta hit with quality shots and not with poor 1st-grader-punchlines ....

esm · 29 August 2011, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Time2time

Errrr..... wannabe a Rolex?

Err... Did you know Rolex was not the one came out with the Sub design back in the days...

Does this make Omega wanted to be a wannabe of a wannabe?

29 August 2011, 06:20 AM	#1
dalew Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: london Posts: 81	Sub-C v New Omega PO Got the chance to see and try on the new Omega PO ceramic today. In shop window robinsons jewelers at Liverpool one. Thoughts on this new Omega! Dial looked cheap, ceramic bezel was matt and hard to tell it's ceramic at all, weight is light in comparison with rolex, crystal back to the watch is not really in keeping with a divers watch...overall IMO rolex have nothing to fear from omega, although the sub-C is £1.5k dearer it certainly looks it as regards quality...! Anyone else seen the new PO yet, opinions please...?! The old Omega PO looks better, £1k cheaper and 10-20% discount now the new one is out....

29 August 2011, 06:47 AM	#8
karmatp "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Real Name: Trevor Location: Arizona Posts: 5,740	Lets face it, if it said Rolex on the dial most who discard it would love it. I think it is stunning but the price tag is a bit of a turn off for me. __________________ My grails:

29 August 2011, 06:25 AM	#2
capote "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Real Name: Daniel Location: Sweden Watch: 16570 Posts: 7,315	I've seen it and like the color of the bezel and overall dial, especially on the chrono. But it is way too large and tall for me. I'm not a fan of the Sub-c, but I would get a 16610 over the new PO.

29 August 2011, 06:38 AM	#4
dalew Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: london Posts: 81	Looks cheap in comparison to rolex, no one would be able to tell the dial is ceramic. The liquid metal one looks far more impressive and stands out more and looks better quality. A crystal back on a divers watch is not really in keeping IMO...! If this is Omegas challenge to the Sub-C then rolex have nothing to fear...! The price is all it has going for it...

29 August 2011, 06:42 AM	#5
colpol "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Scotland Posts: 2,895	Not saw the new PO in the flesh but certainly looks good in the pictures above

29 August 2011, 06:46 AM	#6
esm "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: Eric Location: Location,Location Watch: this, bro... Posts: 15,340	Saw the new POs (except for the blue Ti ones) at the shops last week. Although it looked some sort of "nice", but I prefer the previous models and IMO, the 116610 is a better looking piece and probably will have a better resale value..... As much as an Omega fan, I can't say I fancy any of their 2011 Basel offerings.

29 August 2011, 06:50 AM	#9
Time2time Banned Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: U.K Watch: Milgauss GV, Sub-C Posts: 2,178	Looks like a cheap wannabe.

29 August 2011, 06:51 AM	#10
dalew Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: london Posts: 81	Had my dssd on when I tried this omega on, dssd felt way heavier. Wasn't really in the same league as the dssd I'm afraid and not even comparable. I'd be paying the extra for the sub-C as a comparison to the omega...!!!

29 August 2011, 06:54 AM	#11
dalew Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: london Posts: 81	Karmatp "Lets face it, if it said Rolex on the dial most who discard it would love it. I think it is stunning but the price tag is a bit of a turn off for me." I don't think rolex would put there name on it, not in same league quality wise...!

29 August 2011, 06:57 AM	#13
landroverking "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Real Name: Jay Location: TEXAS Watch: Daytona Posts: 7,648	As much as I don't care for the Subc I care even less for the modern Omegas.

29 August 2011, 07:00 AM	#14
dalew Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: london Posts: 81	Quote: Originally Posted by dalew Looks cheap in comparison to rolex, no one would be able to tell the dial is ceramic. The liquid metal one looks far more impressive and stands out more and looks better quality. A crystal back on a divers watch is not really in keeping IMO...! If this is Omegas challenge to the Sub-C then rolex have nothing to fear...! The price is all it has going for it... This might be your perception and you sure have the right to think like that. Let me ask you this: What does the Sub better than the new PO: - Movement? - Bezel? - Case? - Bracelet? - Clasp? - Lume? .... .... ? The only thing the omega compares with the sub-c is the movement which is debatable! As for the rest the sub-c shows it is better quality...!

29 August 2011, 07:02 AM	#17
dalew Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: london Posts: 81	Poor man's porsche springs to mind as a comparison. Save up and buy the real thing....!

29 August 2011, 07:08 AM	#22
Polemic "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Turkey Watch: 116610 LN Posts: 356	I would go for SubC.

29 August 2011, 07:10 AM	#26
dalew Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: london Posts: 81	Capote. "Clearly alot of people just buy the brand. Sad but true". Clearly alot of people are prepared to pay for quality. Sad but true...!!!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)