What if the best Rolex is now an Omega

[Innocenti]

So if we accept that 1016 with a nice patina is the best Rolex ever.

But its age and value mean it’s no longer a practical everyday watch.
Then is the omega railmaster 60th the one?

[Innocenti]

?

[Waisun]

If they had lumed it in white, maybe yes.

[Walster]

The Railmaster is a great watch. I think the aged lume looks good on that watch.

[bp1000]

When people manage to get past the status of the crown, you really do start to wake up to some truly incredible watches from other brands.

This omega rail master is certainly one of them. As is their aqua terra (strangely priced) as the 300m on rubber is cheaper I believe and one hell of a watch.

Many options from JLC too.

But I think, when it comes to it, despite the Omega being technically superior and a fraction of the price. For most, the logo wins.

[j-watch]

Originally Posted by bp1000

When people manage to get past the status of the crown, you really do start to wake up to some truly incredible watches from other brands.

This omega rail master is certainly one of them. As is their aqua terra (strangely priced) as the 300m on rubber is cheaper I believe and one hell of a watch.

Many options from JLC too.

But I think, when it comes to it, despite the Omega being technically superior and a fraction of the price. For most, the logo wins.

I whole heartedly agree with all your comments. Being an owner of both brands, I find they each have their pro's and con's. I'm glad I have the pleasure to decide which to put on every AM. It's amazing how much watch you actually get from "O" versus the the crown when comparing price tags.

I am bummed that I just found out I have no chance at the Speedy 321 in SS. Put a deposit down on one at a local AD back in the summer of last year. Was just informed all the deposits are being returned and their chain (big jewelry store chain) will not be receiving any allocations of the Ed White. Sounds like the same story all over again except different brand...........

[psv]

A Rolex is a Rolex, an Omega is an Omega.

I hate to say it, I've owned many Omegas but they just never stick - they just don't give me the same satisfaction of ownership.

[BLNR Nairobi]

Originally Posted by Innocenti

So if we accept that 1016 with a nice patina is the best Rolex ever.

But its age and value mean it’s no longer a practical everyday watch.
Then is the omega railmaster 60th the one?

Omega makes good watches.

But Omega is not Rolex (in the same way Rolex is not Omega).

They scratch different itches, and that’s a good thing. However it is disingenuous to claim the best Rolex is now an Omega in the same way it would be silly to suggest the best Omega is now a Rolex.

I can understand people have hurt feelings about Rolex accessibility (seen the other thread), but that doesn’t warp reality.

With that said, I like the Railmaster. Even though Omega has a somewhat muddled lineup (eg 45.5mm Planet Ocean 600m divers with a chrono function …!!!), I’ve always had a liking for many of the Railmasters.

[CKLinLA]

Lookswise, the Railmaster wins IMHO.
But, the 1016 is a vintage with some history, so it has that 'pull', more 'pull', or less more depending on thr individual.

For me, its for the current models where much better availability of Omega vs 'jump-thru-hoops' for a Rolex makes more of a impact.

Being at an AD and examining more than one model of interest is something that can and should be enjoyed.

[DJ2020]

Originally Posted by bp1000

When people manage to get past the status of the crown, you really do start to wake up to some truly incredible watches from other brands.

This omega rail master is certainly one of them. As is their aqua terra (strangely priced) as the 300m on rubber is cheaper I believe and one hell of a watch.

Many options from JLC too.

But I think, when it comes to it, despite the Omega being technically superior and a fraction of the price. For most, the logo wins.

What if you switched "logo's" Then who would win?

[Omarion07]

Originally Posted by bp1000

When people manage to get past the status of the crown, you really do start to wake up to some truly incredible watches from other brands.

This omega rail master is certainly one of them. As is their aqua terra (strangely priced) as the 300m on rubber is cheaper I believe and one hell of a watch.

Many options from JLC too.

Can you explain how modern Coaxial Omega is technically superior to a modern Rolex? Aside from the 15000 gauss anti-magnetism which is useless in real life situations unless you're a radiographer who operates mri machine?

But I think, when it comes to it, despite the Omega being technically superior and a fraction of the price. For most, the logo wins.

Can you explain how modern Coaxial Omega is technically superior to a modern Rolex? Aside from 15000 gauss anti-magnetism which is useless in real life unless you're a radiographer who operates a MRI machine.

[Innocenti]

Originally Posted by BLNR Nairobi

Omega makes good watches.

But Omega is not Rolex (in the same way Rolex is not Omega).

They scratch different itches, and that’s a good thing. However it is disingenuous to claim the best Rolex is now an Omega in the same way it would be silly to suggest the best Omega is now a Rolex.

I can understand people have hurt feelings about Rolex accessibility (seen the other thread), but that doesn’t warp reality.

With that said, I like the Railmaster. Even though Omega has a somewhat muddled lineup (eg 45.5mm Planet Ocean 600m divers with a chrono function …!!!), I’ve always had a liking for many of the Railmasters.

Mr literal

[Innocenti]

Originally Posted by Omarion07

Can you explain how modern Coaxial Omega is technically superior to a modern Rolex? Aside from 15000 gauss anti-magnetism which is useless in real life unless you're a radiographer who operates a MRI machine.

More efficient maybe =less wear fewer services and less replacement parts.

Having said all this I’m kidding myself I’d still pick the 1016

[BLNR Nairobi]

Originally Posted by DJ2020

What if you switched "logo's" Then who would win?

Let’s see:
1. Omega DaytonaC vs Rolex Speedmaster
2. Omega SeaDweller 43 vs Rolex Planet Ocean 600m
3. Omega BLRO GMT vs Rolex Seamaster Diver Co-axial GMT
4. Omega Submariner Date vs Rolex Seamaster Diver 300m
5. Omega Cellini vs Rolex De Ville

I feel if the switch happened Omega would be far stronger with Rolex brands than Rolex would be with Omega brands.

Just my opinion though …

[DramaTurtle]

The Railmaster is incredible tbh. I've come to prefer the more modern size as well. The GF always tells me that the larger watches look better on me and I believe that has tainted my previous classicism!

[Pauln]

I’ll stick with the Explorer. Don’t like the faux patina.

[jerryguo]

interesting perspective, but fake patina is not good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TTbluesy]

Originally Posted by jerryguo

interesting perspective, but fake patina is not good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree. Love Omega, but this little awful trend needs to die right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jster]

I like Omega (I have an SMP and a Speedy), but the Railmaster does nothing for me. I'd much rather have an Explorer. I guess that's why I got the 39mm Mark II.

[myc ritz]

Bracelet with polished outer links and big ass clasp is the only knock. Oh...and water resistance blows on this one.

[FTX I]

I really like this Railmaster. I'd be happy with one.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Walster

The Railmaster is a great watch. I think the aged lume looks good on that watch.

I agree with you

[bp1000]

Originally Posted by Omarion07

Can you explain how modern Coaxial Omega is technically superior to a modern Rolex? Aside from 15000 gauss anti-magnetism which is useless in real life unless you're a radiographer who operates a MRI machine.

The Rolex cal 3000 was state of the art in the 80s and has stayed that way since. A few recent modern updates such as a longer mainspring / parachrom hairspring for better durability and longer power reserve. It’s a 30 year old movement.

The omega calibre 8500 and subsequent 8806 which is master chronometer certified is regarded as one of the most sophisticated and modern movements available. It was completely re engineered in 2007 and puts forth some of the latest technologies for long term durability and improved time keeping in most real world situations.

Whilst it’s gauss rating might not be applicable in the real world for most of us, it is simply a bi product of its materials and design.

The position of the movement hardly affects its amplitude. It is therefore accurate within spec no matter how it is used or worn

It uses a double barrel mechanism for its power reserve so it stays accurate even when low on power. It hardly looses any precision until it runs out. COSC certification measures accuracy but it doesn’t account precision with low power reserve

It is also more resilient towards shock and therefore maintains accuracy through stresses.

And of course the genius of the co-axial escapement for durability

I’ve probably missed other things. This is why i said technically. On paper it is superior to all the nuisances of time keeping. Eg power reserve, position, impact, shock etc. But in reality the difference is less in the real world.

[Seddyspaghetti]

Looks wise i prefer the rolex

[JP.]

Think about this:

When the "Bond Seamaster" was brand new, it was considered a competitor of the 16610 Submariner. Back then the Sub was 2 1/2 times more expensive.

Now the full set Submariner is 4-5 times more expensive in the preowned market.

Bond SMP will never be as desirable as the Sub but at least Omega offers superb value. Sub is definitely not 4-5 times better watch (if at all).

Oh yeah... I'm happy to say that I own both.

[jerryguo]

Originally Posted by JP.

Think about this:

When the "Bond Seamaster" was brand new, it was considered a competitor of the 16610 Submariner. Back then the Sub was 2 1/2 times more expensive.

Now the full set Submariner is 4-5 times more expensive in the preowned market.

Bond SMP will never be as desirable as the Sub but at least Omega offers superb value. Sub is definitely not 4-5 times better watch (if at all).

Oh yeah... I'm happy to say that I own both.

Stunning SMP!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thefollandgnat]

Originally Posted by BLNR Nairobi

Rolex De Ville

That's got both a nice ring and look to it.

[johnorpheus]

Originally Posted by psv

A Rolex is a Rolex, an Omega is an Omega.

I hate to say it, I've owned many Omegas but they just never stick - they just don't give me the same satisfaction of ownership.

I don’t see it, unless satisfaction of ownership simply means bragging that you’re wearing a Rolex.

Unrelated, most non-WIS people do know Omega as the “James Bond” watch.

[JRell]

Originally Posted by johnorpheus

I don’t see it, unless satisfaction of ownership simply means bragging that you’re wearing a Rolex.

Unrelated, most non-WIS people do know Omega as the “James Bond” watch.

I don’t agree at all. Non watch people always relate the Rolex sub to bond. Omega came in late as a PR effort. I agree with the above comments. Omega feels like a 500 watch compared to Rolex. Also the dials and bezels are just awkward looking. If you have an Omega it better be a speedmaster.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by Innocenti

More efficient maybe =less wear fewer services and less replacement parts.

Having said all this I’m kidding myself I’d still pick the 1016

Not really though. They tried to re-invent the wheel and judging by how many different updates have come out on the co-axial it is not superior in any way.
It is different and technically pretty cool, but there's no advantage in the real world.

That said, Omega has definitely been a great watchmaker for decades and decades, my early 1940s Omega 30T2 movement and late 60s 565 are still ticking strong and will probably do so for the next few decades.