ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

AlbyCrowned · 8 December 2011, 01:48 AM

Hello everybody! I'm back!

After having seen and touched the brand new Omega PO I was wondering what did you think about this watch.
I opened this thread here just because the PO is the direct competitor of the Sub, of course. It's a nice watch, but not as much as the Sub, in my opinion.
They have copied the ceramic bezel.. I didn't appreciated that.

I think the liquidmetal was a more personal and innovative choice. Why do they have to copy Rolex's way???
But we know, Omega is just the follower, Rolex is the ruler!
Whay do you think about that?

dsio · 8 December 2011, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlbyCrowned

Hello everybody! I'm back!

After having seen and touched the brand new Omega PO I was wondering what did you think about this watch.
I opened this thread here just because the PO is the direct competitor of the Sub, of course. It's a nice watch, but not as much as the Sub, in my opinion.
They have copied the ceramic bezel.. I didn't appreciated that.

I think the liquidmetal was a more personal and innovative choice. Why do they have to copy Rolex's way???
But we know, Omega is just the follower, Rolex is the ruler!
Whay do you think about that?

God people write some nonsense at times...

AlbyCrowned · 8 December 2011, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsio

God people write some nonsense at times...

This is your opinion! Explain please!

dsio · 8 December 2011, 01:57 AM

The PO is not a copy of the Sub, the PO is a copy of the SM300 Omega's diver from 1957, if you don't believe me you can do some research.

The liquid metal bezel was not made of liquid metal, it was ceramic, the indicies were inlaid liquid metal, the non liquid metal bezels are the same, just with different indicies. If you want to get historical, Rado used ceramics 40 odd years ago, Rado is Swatch Group, as is Omega, so you could say Rolex lost by almost half a century, if johnson measuring contests about who planted their flag first are seen as a measure of quality.

Every couple of weeks there's this same thread, Sub vs PO, "Omega copies Rolex" "Oh but it'll still never be a Rolex" "Hi 5 ya'll" etc etc. As a sub owner it makes me cringe, the sub is a good enough watch without trying to start a brand war.

esm · 8 December 2011, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlbyCrowned

Hello everybody! I'm back!

After having seen and touched the brand new Omega PO I was wondering what did you think about this watch.
I opened this thread here just because the PO is the direct competitor of the Sub, of course. It's a nice watch, but not as much as the Sub, in my opinion.
They have copied the ceramic bezel.. I didn't appreciated that.

I think the liquidmetal was a more personal and innovative choice. Why do they have to copy Rolex's way???
But we know, Omega is just the follower, Rolex is the ruler!
Whay do you think about that?

really?

which part of the PO was a copy of Sub?

why didnt you say that the Rolex ceramic bezel was a copy of Rado's ceramic watches?

did you know Rado owns by The Swatch Company, which also owns Omega.... so in that case... will it make Rolex a follower and The Swatch Company/Omega the ruler?

dsio · 8 December 2011, 02:03 AM

capote · 8 December 2011, 02:09 AM

I wonder how many posts before the comment: "An Omega is just a watch, a Rolex is a Rolex". My bet is third page, four posts from the lock.

As far as ceramic bezels go, the matte finish on the PO is way nicer than the shiny Rolex one. Of course you also have the new movement with superior power reserve and rubberstrap options that I like for a divers watch. The case and lugs are also nicer. Everything IMO as usual.

AlbyCrowned · 8 December 2011, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsio

The PO is not a copy of the Sub, the PO is a copy of the SM300 Omega's diver from 1957, if you don't believe me you can do some research.

I'm not saying that the Seamaster is the copy of the Submariner! I'm just comparing the features of the last 2 models!

Quote:

The liquid metal bezel was not made of liquid metal, it was ceramic, the indicies were inlaid liquid metal, the non liquid metal bezels are the same, just with different indicies.

Yes, you're right! Just I don't like the new "mat" ceramic bezel! I prefer the liquidmetal version!

Quote:

If you want to get historical, Rado used ceramics 40 odd years ago, Rado is Swatch Group, as is Omega, so you could say Rolex lost by almost half a century, if johnson measuring contests about who planted their flag first are seen as a measure of quality.

I was not discussing on the first use of ceramic in watches, but I was considering the fact that after Rolex have used the ceramic for bezels Omega just did the same!

Quote:

Every couple of weeks there's this same thread, Sub vs PO, "Omega copies Rolex" "Oh but it'll still never be a Rolex" "Hi 5 ya'll" etc etc. As a sub owner it makes me cringe, the sub is a good enough watch without trying to start a brand war.

I,m sorry I don't wanna start a brand war! Just wanna know impressions and comparisons between the 2!

Cru Jones · 8 December 2011, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsio

you had me, but, then, you lost me there.....there's even a debate? never heard of it. how could anyone mention keira in the same breathe as natalie??!

Gharddog03 · 8 December 2011, 02:14 AM

Both Rolex and Omega make awesome watches. Each have their pros and cons IMO.

AlbyCrowned · 8 December 2011, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gharddog03

Both Rolex and Omega make awesome watches. Each have their pros and cons IMO.

That's the point! I agree with you, but which one in this case has more pros and cons?

Chris B · 8 December 2011, 02:17 AM

Vaxe · 8 December 2011, 02:17 AM

Funny how folks always claim Rolex is 100% superior to Omega.

... I guess the marketing department must be doing something right?

dsio · 8 December 2011, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

you had me, but, then, you lost me there.....there's even a debate? never heard of it. how could anyone mention keira in the same breathe as natalie??!

Natalie is a great actress, but Keira is a Knightley.

AlbyCrowned · 8 December 2011, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsio

Natalie is a great actress, but Keira is a Knightley.

ah ah ah ah!!! funboy!

Sorry, I'm just kidding! ;)

The GMT Master · 8 December 2011, 02:24 AM

Ashley has made some good points - the Planet Ocean is a superb diver's watch, as is the Sub. It is mainly down to personal preference - I personally think that the Planet Ocean just pips it. I, too, like the matte bezel, it gives the watch more of a "tool" feel to it. Other little details, like the contrast lume on the minute hand and bezel pip, the lume on the date, the sapphire caseback, and, of course, the cal. 8500. If you compare the two on paper, the Planet Ocean is superior - double water resistance, double the guarantee, and a movement that is arguably the finest mass-produced movement available today. Yet, as with anything, it is more the decision of the heart rather than the head.

For me, the Sub C was a much needed evolution of the Submariner, and I still think the Glidelock clasp is a joy to behold. But, if it were my money on the table, it would be the Planet Ocean I'd be spending it on

capote · 8 December 2011, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsio

Where can I get in on that debate? Its NO debate really. One is extremely talented, the other one is just another actress

RedBaronF2001 · 8 December 2011, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

Ashley has made some good points - the Planet Ocean is a superb diver's watch, as is the Sub. It is mainly down to personal preference - I personally think that the Planet Ocean just pips it. I, too, like the matte bezel, it gives the watch more of a "tool" feel to it. Other little details, like the contrast lume on the minute hand and bezel pip, the lume on the date, the sapphire caseback, and, of course, the cal. 8500. If you compare the two on paper, the Planet Ocean is superior - double water resistance, double the guarantee, and a movement that is arguably the finest mass-produced movement available today. Yet, as with anything, it is more the decision of the heart rather than the head.

For me, the Sub C was a much needed evolution of the Submariner, and I still think the Glidelock clasp is a joy to behold. But, if it were my money on the table, it would be the Planet Ocean I'd be spending it on

Great points here. On paper the PO is arguably superior. "In the metal", however, is really up to personal preference. Both are fine timepieces.

I voted with my wallet and went with the Sub-C.

AlbyCrowned · 8 December 2011, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vaxe

Funny how folks always claim Rolex is 100% superior to Omega.

... I guess the marketing department must be doing something right?

In this case the brand name makes the difference.. It's an important advantage that Rolex obtained during its history!
There are lots of manufactures better than Rolex, but the brand name is too much strong, and in this times it's the most important thing..!

dsio · 8 December 2011, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlbyCrowned

In this case the brand name makes the difference.. It's an important advantage that Rolex obtained during its history!
There are lots of manufactures better than Rolex, but the brand name is too much strong, and in this times it's the most important thing..!

Well, Patek might beg to differ ;)

The GMT Master · 8 December 2011, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlbyCrowned

In this case the brand name makes the difference.. It's an important advantage that Rolex obtained during its history!
There are lots of manufactures better than Rolex, but the brand name is too much strong, and in this times it's the most important thing..!

Well, it's easy to forget that Rolex hasn't always been top dog - indeed, up until they lost their way during the quartz crisis of the 1970s, it was Omega who were regarded as 'the best' Swiss watch brand. Perceptions can change, and it is happening again right now. China, which is rapidly becoming by far the most important watch market in the world, regards Omega as a superior brand to Rolex. It'll take some time to shift some of the remaining misconceptions about Omega (i.e. that they're inferior) here in the West, but I believe there will be a rebalancing of the market. Rolex do have a very big advantage with brand perception, and they do have a strong model line up right now, but Omega are very much snapping at Rolex's heels

AlbyCrowned · 8 December 2011, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedBaronF2001

Great points here. On paper the PO is arguably superior. "In the metal", however, is really up to personal preference. Both are fine timepieces.

I voted with my wallet and went with the Sub-C.

Maybe under the movement aspect! i agree that the 8500 is a great caliber, but it's new. We must wait before say something more!

AlbyCrowned · 8 December 2011, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsio

Well, Patek might beg to differ ;)

Of course Patek is the other manufacture with the greatest brand name! Even in this case there are lots of better manufactures.
And I can say that probably Patek offers the lower quality given the prices! ;)

AlbyCrowned · 8 December 2011, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

Well, it's easy to forget that Rolex hasn't always been top dog - indeed, up until they lost their way during the quartz crisis of the 1970s, it was Omega who were regarded as 'the best' Swiss watch brand. Perceptions can change, and it is happening again right now. China, which is rapidly becoming by far the most important watch market in the world, regards Omega as a superior brand to Rolex. It'll take some time to shift some of the remaining misconceptions about Omega (i.e. that they're inferior) here in the West, but I believe there will be a rebalancing of the market. Rolex do have a very big advantage with brand perception, and they do have a strong model line up right now, but Omega are very much snapping at Rolex's heels

Not sure about that..

Dan2010 · 8 December 2011, 02:43 AM

I like cheesy poofs. Anyone have any?

Ebruner · 8 December 2011, 02:43 AM

Omega is just to pop culture-ish to me. Way too many models and options.

I think the market speaks for itself as well.

I buy lots of watches across my counter, and the vast majority of older Omegas( 60's and 70s') are almost throw away. I chop up 10-15 Gold Omegas for scrap a month. Rolex is a completely different story.

-Eddie

snowpea · 8 December 2011, 02:49 AM

Why a need for debate they both make great watches and with the new Omega caliber they step up in class and prices to mimic Rolex so now it all depends on the preference of the buyer which way to hand over the money.

STEELINOX · 8 December 2011, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris B

Perfect !

p_mcgee · 8 December 2011, 03:48 AM

Usually the recurring Rolex v Omega threads are just annoying. This one is hysterical. Thanks, guys!

speedo · 8 December 2011, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsio

The first page of the fourth most monotonous debate in the history of fanboyism (after Chevy Vs Ford, iPhone Vs Android, and Natalie Portman Vs Keira Knightley).

Don't care about cars or phones but is there anyone that would pick keira knigthley over natalie portman?

8 December 2011, 01:48 AM	#1
AlbyCrowned Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Italy Posts: 128	Sub vs the new PO Hello everybody! I'm back! After having seen and touched the brand new Omega PO I was wondering what did you think about this watch. I opened this thread here just because the PO is the direct competitor of the Sub, of course. It's a nice watch, but not as much as the Sub, in my opinion. They have copied the ceramic bezel.. I didn't appreciated that. I think the liquidmetal was a more personal and innovative choice. Why do they have to copy Rolex's way??? But we know, Omega is just the follower, Rolex is the ruler! Whay do you think about that?

8 December 2011, 01:57 AM	#4
dsio "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Real Name: Ashley Location: Brisbane Watch: Rolex Sub 1680 '79 Posts: 2,301	The PO is not a copy of the Sub, the PO is a copy of the SM300 Omega's diver from 1957, if you don't believe me you can do some research. The liquid metal bezel was not made of liquid metal, it was ceramic, the indicies were inlaid liquid metal, the non liquid metal bezels are the same, just with different indicies. If you want to get historical, Rado used ceramics 40 odd years ago, Rado is Swatch Group, as is Omega, so you could say Rolex lost by almost half a century, if johnson measuring contests about who planted their flag first are seen as a measure of quality. Every couple of weeks there's this same thread, Sub vs PO, "Omega copies Rolex" "Oh but it'll still never be a Rolex" "Hi 5 ya'll" etc etc. As a sub owner it makes me cringe, the sub is a good enough watch without trying to start a brand war. __________________ -- Omega Seamaster Grand-Lux Stepped Pie-Pan 14K Gold OJ2627 '53 -- -- Omega Cal 320 Chronograph 18K Gold OT2872 '58 -- -- Omega Cal 321 Speedmaster Pro 145.012 '67 -- -- Rolex Submariner 1680 "Ghost" '79 -- -- Rolex SS Daytona 116520 '04 --

8 December 2011, 02:03 AM	#6
dsio "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Real Name: Ashley Location: Brisbane Watch: Rolex Sub 1680 '79 Posts: 2,301	The first page of the fourth most monotonous debate in the history of fanboyism (after Chevy Vs Ford, iPhone Vs Android, and Natalie Portman Vs Keira Knightley). http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=197201 http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=179080 http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=184187 http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=159957 http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=159954 http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=149509 http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=189216 http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=140622 http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=111805 __________________ -- Omega Seamaster Grand-Lux Stepped Pie-Pan 14K Gold OJ2627 '53 -- -- Omega Cal 320 Chronograph 18K Gold OT2872 '58 -- -- Omega Cal 321 Speedmaster Pro 145.012 '67 -- -- Rolex Submariner 1680 "Ghost" '79 -- -- Rolex SS Daytona 116520 '04 --

8 December 2011, 02:43 AM	#26
Ebruner "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Real Name: Eddie Location: Kentucky Watch: 118208 Posts: 2,510	Omega is just to pop culture-ish to me. Way too many models and options. I think the market speaks for itself as well. I buy lots of watches across my counter, and the vast majority of older Omegas( 60's and 70s') are almost throw away. I chop up 10-15 Gold Omegas for scrap a month. Rolex is a completely different story. -Eddie __________________

8 December 2011, 02:49 AM	#27
snowpea "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Real Name: Steven Location: Jazoom Watch: Milgauss GV Posts: 1,092	Why a need for debate they both make great watches and with the new Omega caliber they step up in class and prices to mimic Rolex so now it all depends on the preference of the buyer which way to hand over the money. __________________

8 December 2011, 02:09 AM	#7
capote "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Real Name: Daniel Location: Sweden Watch: 16570 Posts: 7,315	I wonder how many posts before the comment: "An Omega is just a watch, a Rolex is a Rolex". My bet is third page, four posts from the lock. As far as ceramic bezels go, the matte finish on the PO is way nicer than the shiny Rolex one. Of course you also have the new movement with superior power reserve and rubberstrap options that I like for a divers watch. The case and lugs are also nicer. Everything IMO as usual.

8 December 2011, 02:14 AM	#10
Gharddog03 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Real Name: Genaro Location: Fresno Ca. Watch: R O L E X Posts: 4,466	Both Rolex and Omega make awesome watches. Each have their pros and cons IMO.

8 December 2011, 02:17 AM	#12
Chris B "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Peterborough Posts: 9,631

8 December 2011, 02:17 AM	#13
Vaxe "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Austin TX Posts: 2,122	Funny how folks always claim Rolex is 100% superior to Omega. ... I guess the marketing department must be doing something right?

8 December 2011, 02:24 AM	#16
The GMT Master "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: Chris Location: England Posts: 8,150	Ashley has made some good points - the Planet Ocean is a superb diver's watch, as is the Sub. It is mainly down to personal preference - I personally think that the Planet Ocean just pips it. I, too, like the matte bezel, it gives the watch more of a "tool" feel to it. Other little details, like the contrast lume on the minute hand and bezel pip, the lume on the date, the sapphire caseback, and, of course, the cal. 8500. If you compare the two on paper, the Planet Ocean is superior - double water resistance, double the guarantee, and a movement that is arguably the finest mass-produced movement available today. Yet, as with anything, it is more the decision of the heart rather than the head. For me, the Sub C was a much needed evolution of the Submariner, and I still think the Glidelock clasp is a joy to behold. But, if it were my money on the table, it would be the Planet Ocean I'd be spending it on

8 December 2011, 02:43 AM	#25
Dan2010 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: South Carolina Watch: Panerai 914 Posts: 6,540	I like cheesy poofs. Anyone have any?

8 December 2011, 03:48 AM	#29
p_mcgee "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Chicago Posts: 2,150	Usually the recurring Rolex v Omega threads are just annoying. This one is hysterical. Thanks, guys!

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