ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

haakon59 · 4 June 2007, 07:10 AM

If you own both, do you favor one or the other? The PO has better lume, I realize, and the new co-axial escapement is a nice innovation too. How does the PO compare to Rolex in the way it feels on the wrist, i.e., is one heavier or bulkier than the other? Do you like both after wearing them or wind up heavily favoring one over the other? I am just wondering because I am considering both of these models--I hope it works out this summer. They are both great brands, great models, I think, but was wondering about your experiences. Thanks in advance.

BondandBigM · 4 June 2007, 11:12 AM

I have both, the PO is a nice watch but bigger and heavier than the sub. A couple of things I did notice was that the PO seems to start within seconds of picking it up from the box whereas the Sub needs a couple of turns on the winder. I would also say that the second hand on the sub appears to sweep smoother than the PO.

I also think somewhere down the road if you are ever in a corner and need some quick bail out money you will definately get more for a Sub that a PO.

B.

ohlins · 4 June 2007, 01:05 PM

the sweep on the rolex is smoother cos the 3135 is a higher beat movement at 28,800 vph.......omega has tuned down their movement to better match the co-axial escapement....

leopardprey · 4 June 2007, 01:23 PM

Well, after having owned a Sub and an Omega SMP, and now examining the PO at several dealers, I would have to say the Omega PO is a better buy.

Don't get me wrong, the SUB is great watch.

But here is why I like the PO better:

Cost about $1500-$2000 less

Strong, proven ETA 2982 base movement reworked with the Co-axial movement is just as reliable as the Rolex 3135 movement, and maybe even better since uses ball bearings for the rotor. Also, if Omega's claim is right, needs less lubrication and less time between service intervals.

The bracelet fits flush against the skin. The bracelet is also more smoothed out, no rough edges at all. Also bracelet has no taper.

The case as well is very smoothed out, no rough edges at all, unline the Sub which as sharp lugs and also the edges of the case are sharp that eat into some's wrist. Case of the PO is very comfortable on the wrist.

The PO 42mm is the perfect size (I think the 45.5mm version is too big unless you have massive 8.5"wrist or greater)

I like the domed bezel on the PO. Very nice look.

Crystal has anti-reflective coating. Easier to see, no glare. Also not having to constantly wipe off fingerprints and smudges as you have to with the Sub.

MUch better lumination on the hands and dial than the Sub. Can read the dial all night long. Where as with the sub, very difficult to see. Also the minute hand is in general larger and easier to see at a quick glance, especially good when checking your time while lap swimming or diving.

For the $1500 - $2000 you save in Buying the PO, you could take a week long SCUBA diving course or do some serious travel.

If you want you can buy Omega Rubber strap, synthetic strap with deployment clasp, or leather strap made specifically for the PO.

Blue Bull · 4 June 2007, 01:24 PM

I compared my Dweller next to a 42mm PO,steel bracelet,at the AD.The Dweller looks small against the 42mm PO.At a later date,I compared the Orange PO,leather strap to the Sea-Dweller.Rediculous size,even for me who have large wrists.Talk about top heavy.There is no contest.Its Rolex all the way for me.I bought a white Expl II,as my third Rolex.

Only one Omega worth considering,IMO and thats the Speedie Prof "Moonwatch".

Go for a ss sport Rolex !!

TARDIS · 4 June 2007, 02:45 PM

I had a brief (5 month) ownership of a 42mm PO with an orange bezel and steel bracelet. Shortly after I bought it I regretted not getting the black bezel model as I found the orange a bit lairy for me. The watch itself was very good value for money from an AD who gave me a substantial discount of about 24% off RRP. The movement was co-axial and very accurate. No problem there.

PROS:
good price (for me)
nice dial
lovely caseback
Very good Lume
Excellent movement
well known brand
3yr warranty
COSC certificate obtained from Omega Switzerland

CONS:
depreciation
weight [I found the watch heavy on the wrist and it was prone to getting bumped as I had to wear it loose because the bracelet was either too tight or too loose. I found this irritating on a watch of this class not having a clasp adjustment.]
steel was noticeably more scratch prone being 316L

Finally there's the personal aspect of whether one is a fan of Omega or Rolex. No-one else can determine that for you. You have to look and try on each model. I always favoured Rolex at the back of my mind for personal reasons.

That's why I went back to the Submariner. Like an old friend.

JPSUB · 4 June 2007, 03:20 PM

I was in this same situation about 3 weeks ago. I had been a fan of Omega and had decided I would go with the PO. Then I remembered how I had once wanted the SS Sub. I really like the look of the PO and the price makes it seem even better. Ultimately after reading many reviews and talking to several people I was sold on the Sub. Here are some of the reasons why I ended up with a Rolex over the Omega.

- Resale value. My AD convinced me I would be able to regroup most of my money if I needed to sell the Sub. Said for the PO would not be able to get nearly as much back. I have since read this else where and even on this forum. With this I figured if I wasnt satisfied I could always flip it for the PO.

- Size. I have a smaller wrist so the Sub just seemed to fit better.

- Prestige The quality of the Rolex brand and recognizability also made it an attractive buy.

- Classic look.

- Was Bond's original watch, the one I grew up wanting until Omega appeared in the newer movies.

All in all after years of wanting an Omega I ended up with the Sub and could not be happier. The AD's have been great so far and the Rolex community has been great as well. Every time I look at the watch I am satisfied and feel that I own one of the best and most sought after wrist watches in the world. Seems like there is a certain sense of pride that comes with owning a Rolex.
Anyway that is just my story with the same situation. Good luck and let us know what you decide on.

ADISMO · 4 June 2007, 04:49 PM

I'm a long time Omega, Breitling, and Panerai fan. Mostly because of movies. I was convinced to buy an Omega as my first luxury watch, until the AD brought up the term "resale value"

Out of curiosity, anyone know how Panerai's hold resale value?

It doesnt matter anyways, I'm picking up the Rolex. Its a great daily wearer, no uneccesary bulk, with more than enough class and substance. Now to decide between the Seadweller and GMT.

leopardprey · 4 June 2007, 05:40 PM

JPSUB, some really good points you make of why some choose a Rolex Sub over an Omega. The history, reputation, prestige and tradition of Rolex has a lot going for it.

To be honest, if we aonly wanted a watch that was tough, reliable and told us the time, we would jsut all pay $100 and get a good Casio G Shock.

But, the reason we pay more and buy a Rolex or Omega, is more for prestige, tradition, recognition, and fashion looks.

ohlins · 4 June 2007, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leopardprey

F. Piguet base movement reworked with the Co-axial movement is just as reliable as the Rolex 3135 movement, and maybe even better since uses ball bearings for the rotor. Also, if Omega's claim is right, needs less lubrication and less time between service intervals.

pardon my ignorance.....when did the OP start using a FP movement...?? isnt that a ETA inside all along..?

leopardprey · 4 June 2007, 08:15 PM

I read that the new Co-Axial movements are using F. Piguet bases and then are fine tuned with the co-axial part for their Planet Ocean Chronograph. For just the plain Diver Chronmeter, ETA 2892 is used (which technically is an in house movement, since ETA and Omega are both of the same company)as the base, then it is reworked and the co-axial is added.

ohlins · 4 June 2007, 11:23 PM

so u r talking about the PO or the PO chrono.......?

your earlier posting was about the PO .....not the PO chrono, which incidentally uses omega 3313 caliber that was based on a FP chrono movement.....

black_hole · 5 June 2007, 06:11 AM

I also have own both. I would go for the Rolex : more reliable and better feeling on the wrist...

leopardprey · 5 June 2007, 10:57 AM

more reliable and better feeling on the wrist

I would have to disagree with you on that. With the Omega's case and bracelet being better smoothed out and no sharp edges like the Rolex, the Omega is much more comfortable. Also the Rolex inner deployment clasp sits above the rest of the clasp, unlike the OMegas which folds into the bracelet, making it all around smoother fit on the underside of the wrist.

haakon59 · 6 June 2007, 04:20 AM

Thank you for sharing your experiences and advice on these two models--I appreciate it.

leopardprey · 6 June 2007, 01:23 PM

As for the argument on resale value, I do not really see it. The Rolex cost more so you will get more when you sell it, but you are also loosing more.

Should not buy a watch for re-sale value, you are going to loose money when you sell unless you wait a long long time. Better to buy a watch that has the function, looks, and fit you want and then use.

I do like the Rolex watches I have. But, lets be honest, if it said "timex" on the dial instead of Rolex, would the Rolex really be worth several thousand dollars more than the Omega. Rolex is a fine watch, but IMHO the Omega is a much better buy. I have had an Omega SMP which I paid $1900 for and a Roex Sub which cost me $4500. The SMP was the better watch in many ways, and I could not see how the Rolex was worth the extra $2600. It is a name, recognition, history, and tradition you are buying with the Rolex.

Blue Bull · 6 June 2007, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leopardprey

As for the argument on resale value, I do not really see it. The Rolex cost more so you will get more when you sell it, but you are also loosing more.

Should not buy a watch for re-sale value, you are going to loose money when you sell unless you wait a long long time. Better to buy a watch that has the function, looks, and fit you want and then use.

I do like the Rolex watches I have. But, lets be honest, if it said "timex" on the dial instead of Rolex, would the Rolex really be worth several thousand dollars more than the Omega. Rolex is a fine watch, but IMHO the Omega is a much better buy. I have had an Omega SMP which I paid $1900 for and a Roex Sub which cost me $4500. The SMP was the better watch in many ways, and I could not see how the Rolex was worth the extra $2600. It is a name, recognition, history, and tradition you are buying with the Rolex.

Yes Sir,but it does not say Timex on the dial.I suppose Omega is a good watch,just like Seiko is,but sorry,Omega isnt Rolex and will never be .... I nearly bought a PO,but the Expl II was the better buy,especially in my part of the world,where Omega has absolutely no resale value.When taking out the big money stay with Rolex.

leopardprey · 6 June 2007, 01:54 PM

I agree Rolex is a great watch. But, what I am saying is you are buying the name. If Timex made an exact to the minute detail copy of a Rolex, you would not pay $2500 more for it than an Omega. It is the name Rolex you are paying the extra money for, as yes it does hold value. But, if you are not interested in future resell value, then the Omega is a much better deal. (BTW, I am wearing my White Exp II as I type this as well, which I really like, but looking at a White dial Omega GMT that is only going to cost me $1500, do not again see the $2500 difference and there are actually features that I like on the Omega that I wish Rolex would have.).

Now lets look at value. If I buy the Omega and decide to sell, I can probably sell for lets say $1000 - so I am out $500. If I sell my Explorer II, that I bought for $4100, I can probably sell for $3600. Ia m still out $500 both ways. If I keep the Explorer II for 10 years, I can probably sell for the same price I bought it. If I keep the Omega for 10 years, can probably sell for the same price as well? Maybe, maybe not. But, probably can since a discontinued model. So in some ways the same value. Where the Rolex has an advantage, is that it is easier to resell.

Now in terms of the inner movement, I would say they are equal. In terms of the bracelet and clasp design, I would say Omega is better. Even if you think Rolex is better, is it $2500 better. We are paying for name. Now, me> i like that name, as it brings recognistion, history, sense of acheivement, and a tradition.

But, if you took an uninformed person, took the brand names off both watches and put them side by side, I think the Omega would come out ahead. Especially when the Sub was priced at $2000 more than the PO.

Blue Bull · 6 June 2007, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leopardprey

I agree Rolex is a great watch. But, what I am saying is you are buying the name. If Timex made an exact to the minute detail copy of a Rolex, you would not pay $2500 more for it than an Omega. It is the name Rolex you are paying the extra money for, as yes it does hold value. But, if you are not interested in future resell value, then the Omega is a much better deal. (BTW, I am wearing my White Exp II as I type this as well, which I really like, but looking at a White dial Omega GMT that is only going to cost me $1500, do not again see the $2500 difference and there are actually features that I like on the Omega that I wish Rolex would have.).

Now lets look at value. If I buy the Omega and decide to sell, I can probably sell for lets say $1000 - so I am out $500. If I sell my Explorer II, that I bought for $4100, I can probably sell for $3600. Ia m still out $500 both ways. If I keep the Explorer II for 10 years, I can probably sell for the same price I bought it. If I keep the Omega for 10 years, can probably sell for the same price as well? Maybe, maybe not. But, probably can since a discontinued model. So in some ways the same value. Where the Rolex has an advantage, is that it is easier to resell.

Now in terms of the inner movement, I would say they are equal. In terms of the bracelet and clasp design, I would say Omega is better. Even if you think Rolex is better, is it $2500 better. We are paying for name. Now, me> i like that name, as it brings recognistion, history, sense of acheivement, and a tradition.

But, if you took an uninformed person, took the brand names off both watches and put them side by side, I think the Omega would come out ahead. Especially when the Sub was priced at $2000 more than the PO.

I'll leave Omega for the uniformed ...

Hey,Chad,didnt know you had a white Explorer II ... !!

Thats why you have been talking about the good pricing on the used ones in the East..

leopardprey · 6 June 2007, 02:08 PM

Have both the White and Black Exp IIs. Likethem both, but after also having owned Omega, do have to be honest and think Omegas are better deals for the money and more Tool Watch, (better lum, etc..)

If I had to choose between my White and Black Exp IIs, would be very hard pressed, but would probably go with the Black due to better visibility in low light conditions. The white Exp II is very classy though and is my Sport and DRESS watch!

Buying today, a White Omega GMT. (sad part is this watch as I stated is $2500 less than my Exp II., but fits better on the wrist and has much better lum and an anti-reflective crystal). Will then get a manaul wind Omega Speedmaster with see through back, to compliment.

Blue Bull · 6 June 2007, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leopardprey

Have both the White and Black Exp IIs. Likethem both, but after also having owned Omega, do have to be honest and think Omegas are better deals for the money and more Tool Watch, (better lum, etc..)

If I had to choose between my White and Black Exp IIs, would be very hard pressed, but would probably go with the Black due to better visibility in low light conditions. The white Exp II is very classy though and is my Sport and DRESS watch!

Buying today, a White Omega GMT. (sad part is this watch as I stated is $2500 less than my Exp II., but fits better on the wrist and has much better lum and an anti-reflective crystal). Will then get a manaul wind Omega Speedmaster with see through back, to compliment.

White dial ... sporty,dressy classy !!

ohlins · 6 June 2007, 04:13 PM

before i bought my first rolex watch, i had fiddled with the idea of buying an omega watch, specifically the omega speedmaster.....

as i learn that little bit more about watches, i decided that i wanted a rolex watch....it was not about the movement, bracelet or resale blah blah blah.....it was down to my fundamental need for i love the look of the explorer 2 in white dial....as simple as that......and i bought the explorer 2.......

at that point in time, i had zero knowledge of SEL, no-hole case, triplock/twinlock .......and all those WIS stuff....

today i own more than a couple of rolex watches ....and still no omega.....why is that so? not bcos they are not good value or have bad resale or whatever.....i just do not like their designs/models/looks ......

and if u wanna talk about value for money.....i think hamilton, ball and sinn watches are way better value than omega...........there could be many subjective criteria for each one of us.......to me, omega has no appeal bcos their watches dun look good.........

if you think omega is better value....then go ahead and buy more......i am not going to stop you.....likewise if anyone else wishes to buy a lange, it's his choice.......

leopardprey · 6 June 2007, 05:50 PM

If it is only the look you are after, then why not buy an Ivicta copy?

Lets all be honest, it is not so much the look, as it is the Rolex Logo. Knowing that you have an expensive watch that is known by others on your wrist.

Most of the world does not know about Omega or other watches as much as they know about Rolex, and recognize the name as first rate.

But in honesty, after having owned both Omega and Rolex, I do think Omega in many ways makes a better watch, especially for the money.

Now, if it is all about looks and the Rolex appeals to you then that is the one you should get. I do like the classic old style looks of some of the Rolex watches. Don't care much for the Blue Omegas in the looks department (same as I personally don't favor the TT blue Sub), or James Bond 007 editions which I think is a bit tacky. But, I do like the classic vintage look of their POs and Speedmaster professionals. Their SMP and GMTs are also very good looking as well. I can say, I used to get actually more compliements on my old Omega SMP than I did on any of my Roelxes.

Now the watch I have got the most compliments on- and have only owned it a short time -and I think has one of the best looking dials I have seen, is the Ulysse Nardin Maxi Marine Diver that I own. But that again cost around the same as a Rolex Sub. But it had one of the best Bezels, great Lum, and the best finished case I have come across.

Arturo · 6 June 2007, 06:01 PM

I have Omega SMP, Rolex GMT ll and Rolex LV. Modest collection. All great watches, but when I look at the Rolex, I see just a bit higher quality. I do not like the ungraspable bezel of the Omega. I do like its lume and love the bracelet. But I gotta say, I am more mezmerized by the Rolexes than the Omega these days, but indeed those wavy black lines on the SMP are also seductive. Basically both great watches. Traveling with Omega may be wiser as you will be less likely a target of lobotomized cretins who will take your life for a nice watch for their crack habit.

ohlins · 6 June 2007, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leopardprey

If it is only the look you are after, then why not buy an Ivicta copy?

Lets all be honest, it is not so much the look, as it is the Rolex Logo. Knowing that you have an expensive watch that is known by others on your wrist.

Most of the world does not know about Omega or other watches as much as they know about Rolex, and recognize the name as first rate.

But in honesty, after having owned both Omega and Rolex, I do think Omega in many ways makes a better watch, especially for the money.

Now, if it is all about looks and the Rolex appeals to you then that is the one you should get. I do like the classic old style looks of some of the Rolex watches. Don't care much for the Blue Omegas in the looks department (same as I personally don't favor the TT blue Sub), or James Bond 007 editions which I think is a bit tacky. But, I do like the classic vintage look of their POs and Speedmaster professionals. Their SMP and GMTs are also very good looking as well. I can say, I used to get actually more compliements on my old Omega SMP than I did on any of my Roelxes.

Now the watch I have got the most compliments on- and have only owned it a short time -and I think has one of the best looking dials I have seen, is the Ulysse Nardin Maxi Marine Diver that I own. But that again cost around the same as a Rolex Sub. But it had one of the best Bezels, great Lum, and the best finished case I have come across.

gosh....dun mean it as an insult to invicta but no thanks...........

its your problem if you think its about the rolex crown or logo.....i stated clearly it's about the looks in plain english.....and i did precisely that many times more......i.e. i bought a few more rolex watches......and i still own all of them....

i dun need compliments from others to vindicate my choice of watches....the most important is that i bought it for my pleasure....and i think you bought your omega watches bcos u like them sufficiently to warrant a purchase....

leopardprey · 6 June 2007, 08:10 PM

I was not insulting your view, but I am just saying that if our Rolex watches said something other than Rolex on the watches, would we be willing to pay $5000 for the watch? Or do many of us not want to admit, that there are actually much better watches out there than our Rolex watches at a fraction of the price, and that we really just bought the watch for the Name and the looks and the recognition it gets from others. I know that here in Asia, watches are a real status symbol, it is all about recognition.

Arturo, I agree that the SMP bezel is harder to grasp than the Sub. But the PO seems similiar to the Sub (and my UN MMD or a GP SeaHawk is better than both the PO or Sub)

But as to the original question this post asked, as a comparison between the PO and the Sub, I would have to say the Omega PO is overall a better watch and also cost about $2000 less. (BTW, I currently own a Rolex Sub and do not own my Omega SMP anymore as I gave it to my brother. But I base this on my experience wearing both in some pretty bad environments and also on close examination of the new PO) Now, why am I keeping my Sub? I like the name, history, and tradition of the Sub. But it leaves a lot to be desired (poor lum, no non reflective coating, small minute hand, not the best bracelet and clasp).

And if buying a watch has nothing to do with it's functions, tool watch capabilities, brand name recognition, etc. but only for looks and fashion, then there are a lot of really good looking watches out there that costing less than $500. So why do we pay $5000 for a watch? THe name.

idoitsavant · 6 June 2007, 11:23 PM

Hi folks,

I agree with a lot of things mentioned by Chad and Ohlins.

I owned a PO before and it was a pre-owned piece. So I sold it off at very close to the price I bought and threw in a couple of grands to buy the Pepsi GMT.

The PO is really value for money. The accuracy was spot on. Differed from my casio G shock by a mere 4s per week. Nice bracelet and clasp. Definitely beats the GMT hands down. However the size was really a tad larger then what I want my watch to be. And I kept knocking it onto furniture or something. Then I got persuaded into Rolex by a good friend of mine.

Without regrets, I sold off the PO and get the Pepsi. I loved it. But it screwed up on me and stopped on my wrist a couple of times, so much so that I sent the damn thing back to RSC. Now it is running at 4s/day (not week).

Both are meant for different things. Which is better? God knows. But The PO is definitely value for money be it pre-owned or not.

My point is if we are getting a mechanical watch and would potentially want to keep it forever (heirloom or other reasons), it doesn't make sense to spend 300-400 on average for 5 years just to service a 1 grand watch. We are getting a Rolex so that we are well assured of the top notch service that will be made available to us or our children in our life time (or theirs) to ensure the longevity of the watch (30 years of spare parts etc...).

Besides that, the NAME of cos! We all love it for various reasons. I associate that with quality only to be let down by my own experience. As of now, I am thinking of flipping my new GMT to get a pre-own Explorer 1 which I think has got a more robust movement (correct me if I am wrong).

One final point. It always tickles me when some of the forum folks say that Sub/GMT/Explorer is a good tool watch blah blah blah.. I agree some do use the functions and swear by it. But as far as durability and functions are concerned, absolutely NOTHING beats the CASIO PROTREK or G Shock.

Come on guys, some of the Protrek models can SYNC with the atomic clock over the air and gives very accurate time. Can a mechanical watch do that? You can ditch a G Shock from the 4th floor and it probably only picks up some scratches (I had done that before just to test if the G Shock is BS or not). No Omegas and Rolexes can take that unscathed. A Protrek has a compass, stop watch, barometer, altimeter, alarm, dual time zone, illum and water proof to a depth most people don't dive to and uses a rubber strap that don't give you problems in summer for the expanding wrist all for a nifty price tag of USD 400.

And we spend 10 times that amount just for the five letters across the gorgeous looking dials. It is really an emotional thing. No doubts about it.

Cheers.

ohlins · 6 June 2007, 11:27 PM

pls refer to the next post....

ohlins · 6 June 2007, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leopardprey

I was not insulting your view, but I am just saying that if our Rolex watches said something other than Rolex on the watches, would we be willing to pay $5000 for the watch? Or do many of us not want to admit, that there are actually much better watches out there than our Rolex watches at a fraction of the price, and that we really just bought the watch for the Name and the looks and the recognition it gets from others. I know that here in Asia, watches are a real status symbol, it is all about recognition.

Arturo, I agree that the SMP bezel is harder to grasp than the Sub. But the PO seems similiar to the Sub (and my UN MMD or a GP SeaHawk is better than both the PO or Sub)

But as to the original question this post asked, as a comparison between the PO and the Sub, I would have to say the Omega PO is overall a better watch and also cost about $2000 less. (BTW, I currently own a Rolex Sub and do not own my Omega SMP anymore as I gave it to my brother. But I base this on my experience wearing both in some pretty bad environments and also on close examination of the new PO) Now, why am I keeping my Sub? I like the name, history, and tradition of the Sub. But it leaves a lot to be desired (poor lum, no non reflective coating, small minute hand, not the best bracelet and clasp).

And if buying a watch has nothing to do with it's functions, tool watch capabilities, brand name recognition, etc. but only for looks and fashion, then there are a lot of really good looking watches out there that costing less than $500. So why do we pay $5000 for a watch? THe name.

it's ok u didnt insult my view......and i have nothing against invicta.....i dun like them that's all

what u asked was a pointless hypothetical question cos there is nothing from another brand/manufacture that looks identical to a rolex watch ...........

pls dun generalise asia and asians cos there are people from other countries or continents that look upon rolex and luxury watches as status symbols........do u have any statistics to back your claim about asia...??

i readily admit and acknowledge that i find rolex watches to be worthy of the prices i paid for them.....every dollar and cent .....this is my personal view and i dun bother about the recognition from others....i dun even care if other ppl recognise my watch......

i will pay top dollars for the things i like.....as simple as that

you have your reasons for thinking that the omega po is better value than the sub......and i have my reasons for thinking that the sub is a better watch than the omega po.......i may not own the po but i have handled the watch and took many a close look ......

features that u think are good cut no ice with me.....i dun like AR coatings....

and i think the rolex lume is adequate.....come on i bought a watch not a mag-lite......i dun need my watch to illuminate the streets.....

small seconds hand on a rolex??? i dun get it at all.......how big do you want it to be......

i find the oysterlock bracelet to be a masterful design of pure brilliance.....its light and comfortable to wear, looks wonderful, easily sized with the 5 adjustment holes....uses screw for the links.....

so name me those $500 watches that u think look so beautiful ....i would love to see your choices.....

ADISMO · 7 June 2007, 03:28 AM

Rolex means never having to say your sorry. Rolex means never having to say anything. I dont know what other slogans I can come up with today, but the principle is the same. Quality, tradition, clean understated but effectively brilliant design, and the almost universal recognition of these attributes by others are just some of the reasons I went with Rolex as my first watch.

As someone who mired in the world of "replicas" for a while, I found that my Rorexes (fakes do come from TW and CN) gave me more satisfaction but didn't invite the question a fake Panerai would. The Pam felt blingy and sporty but was big and bulky and nearly unwearable with dress shirts. The blue TT and pepsi fakes I had never failed to impress ME.

I think thats what I'm trying to say. If you need for people to be impressed by bling, get an Orange PO. I like the shiny dial, the AR, the more lume, bigger size but ultimately those are the same reasons I would hate it when it stops being a watch and starts to be a conversation piece. I'd go further and say if you wanted a conversation piece, get the better values like Hamilton or Sinn.

But like everyone says, get the watch you cant live without.

4 June 2007, 07:10 AM	#1
haakon59 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Seattle Posts: 1,571	Omega PO versus Rolex Submariner If you own both, do you favor one or the other? The PO has better lume, I realize, and the new co-axial escapement is a nice innovation too. How does the PO compare to Rolex in the way it feels on the wrist, i.e., is one heavier or bulkier than the other? Do you like both after wearing them or wind up heavily favoring one over the other? I am just wondering because I am considering both of these models--I hope it works out this summer. They are both great brands, great models, I think, but was wondering about your experiences. Thanks in advance.

4 June 2007, 01:05 PM	#3
ohlins "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Singapore Watch: Rolex Posts: 1,213	the sweep on the rolex is smoother cos the 3135 is a higher beat movement at 28,800 vph.......omega has tuned down their movement to better match the co-axial escapement.... __________________ the hype is true. a crown for every achievement. visit my audio and watch blog & how to use the rolex comfort link?

4 June 2007, 01:23 PM	#4
leopardprey Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Chad Location: Around the world Watch: Panerai 233 Posts: 4,204	Well, after having owned a Sub and an Omega SMP, and now examining the PO at several dealers, I would have to say the Omega PO is a better buy. Don't get me wrong, the SUB is great watch. But here is why I like the PO better: Cost about $1500-$2000 less Strong, proven ETA 2982 base movement reworked with the Co-axial movement is just as reliable as the Rolex 3135 movement, and maybe even better since uses ball bearings for the rotor. Also, if Omega's claim is right, needs less lubrication and less time between service intervals. The bracelet fits flush against the skin. The bracelet is also more smoothed out, no rough edges at all. Also bracelet has no taper. The case as well is very smoothed out, no rough edges at all, unline the Sub which as sharp lugs and also the edges of the case are sharp that eat into some's wrist. Case of the PO is very comfortable on the wrist. The PO 42mm is the perfect size (I think the 45.5mm version is too big unless you have massive 8.5"wrist or greater) I like the domed bezel on the PO. Very nice look. Crystal has anti-reflective coating. Easier to see, no glare. Also not having to constantly wipe off fingerprints and smudges as you have to with the Sub. MUch better lumination on the hands and dial than the Sub. Can read the dial all night long. Where as with the sub, very difficult to see. Also the minute hand is in general larger and easier to see at a quick glance, especially good when checking your time while lap swimming or diving. For the $1500 - $2000 you save in Buying the PO, you could take a week long SCUBA diving course or do some serious travel. If you want you can buy Omega Rubber strap, synthetic strap with deployment clasp, or leather strap made specifically for the PO. Last edited by leopardprey; 4 June 2007 at 08:24 PM..

4 June 2007, 11:23 PM	#12
ohlins "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Singapore Watch: Rolex Posts: 1,213	so u r talking about the PO or the PO chrono.......? your earlier posting was about the PO .....not the PO chrono, which incidentally uses omega 3313 caliber that was based on a FP chrono movement..... __________________ the hype is true. a crown for every achievement. visit my audio and watch blog & how to use the rolex comfort link?

6 June 2007, 04:13 PM	#22
ohlins "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Singapore Watch: Rolex Posts: 1,213	before i bought my first rolex watch, i had fiddled with the idea of buying an omega watch, specifically the omega speedmaster..... as i learn that little bit more about watches, i decided that i wanted a rolex watch....it was not about the movement, bracelet or resale blah blah blah.....it was down to my fundamental need for i love the look of the explorer 2 in white dial....as simple as that......and i bought the explorer 2....... at that point in time, i had zero knowledge of SEL, no-hole case, triplock/twinlock .......and all those WIS stuff.... today i own more than a couple of rolex watches ....and still no omega.....why is that so? not bcos they are not good value or have bad resale or whatever.....i just do not like their designs/models/looks ...... and if u wanna talk about value for money.....i think hamilton, ball and sinn watches are way better value than omega...........there could be many subjective criteria for each one of us.......to me, omega has no appeal bcos their watches dun look good......... if you think omega is better value....then go ahead and buy more......i am not going to stop you.....likewise if anyone else wishes to buy a lange, it's his choice....... __________________ the hype is true. a crown for every achievement. visit my audio and watch blog & how to use the rolex comfort link?

4 June 2007, 11:12 AM	#2
BondandBigM "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Vauxhall Cross Posts: 330	I have both, the PO is a nice watch but bigger and heavier than the sub. A couple of things I did notice was that the PO seems to start within seconds of picking it up from the box whereas the Sub needs a couple of turns on the winder. I would also say that the second hand on the sub appears to sweep smoother than the PO. I also think somewhere down the road if you are ever in a corner and need some quick bail out money you will definately get more for a Sub that a PO. B.

4 June 2007, 01:24 PM	#5
Blue Bull Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,887	I compared my Dweller next to a 42mm PO,steel bracelet,at the AD.The Dweller looks small against the 42mm PO.At a later date,I compared the Orange PO,leather strap to the Sea-Dweller.Rediculous size,even for me who have large wrists.Talk about top heavy.There is no contest.Its Rolex all the way for me.I bought a white Expl II,as my third Rolex. Only one Omega worth considering,IMO and thats the Speedie Prof "Moonwatch". Go for a ss sport Rolex !!

4 June 2007, 02:45 PM	#6
TARDIS "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Real Name: Steve Location: Queensland, AUST Posts: 2,003	I had a brief (5 month) ownership of a 42mm PO with an orange bezel and steel bracelet. Shortly after I bought it I regretted not getting the black bezel model as I found the orange a bit lairy for me. The watch itself was very good value for money from an AD who gave me a substantial discount of about 24% off RRP. The movement was co-axial and very accurate. No problem there. PROS: good price (for me) nice dial lovely caseback Very good Lume Excellent movement well known brand 3yr warranty COSC certificate obtained from Omega Switzerland CONS: depreciation weight [I found the watch heavy on the wrist and it was prone to getting bumped as I had to wear it loose because the bracelet was either too tight or too loose. I found this irritating on a watch of this class not having a clasp adjustment.] steel was noticeably more scratch prone being 316L Finally there's the personal aspect of whether one is a fan of Omega or Rolex. No-one else can determine that for you. You have to look and try on each model. I always favoured Rolex at the back of my mind for personal reasons. That's why I went back to the Submariner. Like an old friend.

4 June 2007, 03:20 PM	#7
JPSUB "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2007 Real Name: James Location: Houston TX Watch: 16610 Posts: 332	I was in this same situation about 3 weeks ago. I had been a fan of Omega and had decided I would go with the PO. Then I remembered how I had once wanted the SS Sub. I really like the look of the PO and the price makes it seem even better. Ultimately after reading many reviews and talking to several people I was sold on the Sub. Here are some of the reasons why I ended up with a Rolex over the Omega. - Resale value. My AD convinced me I would be able to regroup most of my money if I needed to sell the Sub. Said for the PO would not be able to get nearly as much back. I have since read this else where and even on this forum. With this I figured if I wasnt satisfied I could always flip it for the PO. - Size. I have a smaller wrist so the Sub just seemed to fit better. - Prestige The quality of the Rolex brand and recognizability also made it an attractive buy. - Classic look. - Was Bond's original watch, the one I grew up wanting until Omega appeared in the newer movies. All in all after years of wanting an Omega I ended up with the Sub and could not be happier. The AD's have been great so far and the Rolex community has been great as well. Every time I look at the watch I am satisfied and feel that I own one of the best and most sought after wrist watches in the world. Seems like there is a certain sense of pride that comes with owning a Rolex. Anyway that is just my story with the same situation. Good luck and let us know what you decide on.

4 June 2007, 04:49 PM	#8
ADISMO Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Real Name: Adrian Location: Cali Watch: Seadweller Posts: 122	I'm a long time Omega, Breitling, and Panerai fan. Mostly because of movies. I was convinced to buy an Omega as my first luxury watch, until the AD brought up the term "resale value" Out of curiosity, anyone know how Panerai's hold resale value? It doesnt matter anyways, I'm picking up the Rolex. Its a great daily wearer, no uneccesary bulk, with more than enough class and substance. Now to decide between the Seadweller and GMT.

4 June 2007, 05:40 PM	#9
leopardprey Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Chad Location: Around the world Watch: Panerai 233 Posts: 4,204	JPSUB, some really good points you make of why some choose a Rolex Sub over an Omega. The history, reputation, prestige and tradition of Rolex has a lot going for it. To be honest, if we aonly wanted a watch that was tough, reliable and told us the time, we would jsut all pay $100 and get a good Casio G Shock. But, the reason we pay more and buy a Rolex or Omega, is more for prestige, tradition, recognition, and fashion looks.

4 June 2007, 08:15 PM	#11
leopardprey Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Chad Location: Around the world Watch: Panerai 233 Posts: 4,204	I read that the new Co-Axial movements are using F. Piguet bases and then are fine tuned with the co-axial part for their Planet Ocean Chronograph. For just the plain Diver Chronmeter, ETA 2892 is used (which technically is an in house movement, since ETA and Omega are both of the same company)as the base, then it is reworked and the co-axial is added.

5 June 2007, 06:11 AM	#13
black_hole "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: france Posts: 60	I also have own both. I would go for the Rolex : more reliable and better feeling on the wrist...

5 June 2007, 10:57 AM	#14
leopardprey Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Chad Location: Around the world Watch: Panerai 233 Posts: 4,204	more reliable and better feeling on the wrist I would have to disagree with you on that. With the Omega's case and bracelet being better smoothed out and no sharp edges like the Rolex, the Omega is much more comfortable. Also the Rolex inner deployment clasp sits above the rest of the clasp, unlike the OMegas which folds into the bracelet, making it all around smoother fit on the underside of the wrist.

6 June 2007, 04:20 AM	#15
haakon59 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Seattle Posts: 1,571	Thank you for sharing your experiences and advice on these two models--I appreciate it.

6 June 2007, 01:23 PM	#16
leopardprey Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Chad Location: Around the world Watch: Panerai 233 Posts: 4,204	As for the argument on resale value, I do not really see it. The Rolex cost more so you will get more when you sell it, but you are also loosing more. Should not buy a watch for re-sale value, you are going to loose money when you sell unless you wait a long long time. Better to buy a watch that has the function, looks, and fit you want and then use. I do like the Rolex watches I have. But, lets be honest, if it said "timex" on the dial instead of Rolex, would the Rolex really be worth several thousand dollars more than the Omega. Rolex is a fine watch, but IMHO the Omega is a much better buy. I have had an Omega SMP which I paid $1900 for and a Roex Sub which cost me $4500. The SMP was the better watch in many ways, and I could not see how the Rolex was worth the extra $2600. It is a name, recognition, history, and tradition you are buying with the Rolex.

6 June 2007, 01:54 PM	#18
leopardprey Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Chad Location: Around the world Watch: Panerai 233 Posts: 4,204	I agree Rolex is a great watch. But, what I am saying is you are buying the name. If Timex made an exact to the minute detail copy of a Rolex, you would not pay $2500 more for it than an Omega. It is the name Rolex you are paying the extra money for, as yes it does hold value. But, if you are not interested in future resell value, then the Omega is a much better deal. (BTW, I am wearing my White Exp II as I type this as well, which I really like, but looking at a White dial Omega GMT that is only going to cost me $1500, do not again see the $2500 difference and there are actually features that I like on the Omega that I wish Rolex would have.). Now lets look at value. If I buy the Omega and decide to sell, I can probably sell for lets say $1000 - so I am out $500. If I sell my Explorer II, that I bought for $4100, I can probably sell for $3600. Ia m still out $500 both ways. If I keep the Explorer II for 10 years, I can probably sell for the same price I bought it. If I keep the Omega for 10 years, can probably sell for the same price as well? Maybe, maybe not. But, probably can since a discontinued model. So in some ways the same value. Where the Rolex has an advantage, is that it is easier to resell. Now in terms of the inner movement, I would say they are equal. In terms of the bracelet and clasp design, I would say Omega is better. Even if you think Rolex is better, is it $2500 better. We are paying for name. Now, me> i like that name, as it brings recognistion, history, sense of acheivement, and a tradition. But, if you took an uninformed person, took the brand names off both watches and put them side by side, I think the Omega would come out ahead. Especially when the Sub was priced at $2000 more than the PO.

6 June 2007, 02:08 PM	#20
leopardprey Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Chad Location: Around the world Watch: Panerai 233 Posts: 4,204	Have both the White and Black Exp IIs. Likethem both, but after also having owned Omega, do have to be honest and think Omegas are better deals for the money and more Tool Watch, (better lum, etc..) If I had to choose between my White and Black Exp IIs, would be very hard pressed, but would probably go with the Black due to better visibility in low light conditions. The white Exp II is very classy though and is my Sport and DRESS watch! Buying today, a White Omega GMT. (sad part is this watch as I stated is $2500 less than my Exp II., but fits better on the wrist and has much better lum and an anti-reflective crystal). Will then get a manaul wind Omega Speedmaster with see through back, to compliment.

6 June 2007, 05:50 PM	#23
leopardprey Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Chad Location: Around the world Watch: Panerai 233 Posts: 4,204	If it is only the look you are after, then why not buy an Ivicta copy? Lets all be honest, it is not so much the look, as it is the Rolex Logo. Knowing that you have an expensive watch that is known by others on your wrist. Most of the world does not know about Omega or other watches as much as they know about Rolex, and recognize the name as first rate. But in honesty, after having owned both Omega and Rolex, I do think Omega in many ways makes a better watch, especially for the money. Now, if it is all about looks and the Rolex appeals to you then that is the one you should get. I do like the classic old style looks of some of the Rolex watches. Don't care much for the Blue Omegas in the looks department (same as I personally don't favor the TT blue Sub), or James Bond 007 editions which I think is a bit tacky. But, I do like the classic vintage look of their POs and Speedmaster professionals. Their SMP and GMTs are also very good looking as well. I can say, I used to get actually more compliements on my old Omega SMP than I did on any of my Roelxes. Now the watch I have got the most compliments on- and have only owned it a short time -and I think has one of the best looking dials I have seen, is the Ulysse Nardin Maxi Marine Diver that I own. But that again cost around the same as a Rolex Sub. But it had one of the best Bezels, great Lum, and the best finished case I have come across.

6 June 2007, 06:01 PM	#24
Arturo "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Arturo Location: Pacific Northwest Watch: Black GMT ll Posts: 1,271	I have Omega SMP, Rolex GMT ll and Rolex LV. Modest collection. All great watches, but when I look at the Rolex, I see just a bit higher quality. I do not like the ungraspable bezel of the Omega. I do like its lume and love the bracelet. But I gotta say, I am more mezmerized by the Rolexes than the Omega these days, but indeed those wavy black lines on the SMP are also seductive. Basically both great watches. Traveling with Omega may be wiser as you will be less likely a target of lobotomized cretins who will take your life for a nice watch for their crack habit.

6 June 2007, 08:10 PM	#26
leopardprey Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Chad Location: Around the world Watch: Panerai 233 Posts: 4,204	I was not insulting your view, but I am just saying that if our Rolex watches said something other than Rolex on the watches, would we be willing to pay $5000 for the watch? Or do many of us not want to admit, that there are actually much better watches out there than our Rolex watches at a fraction of the price, and that we really just bought the watch for the Name and the looks and the recognition it gets from others. I know that here in Asia, watches are a real status symbol, it is all about recognition. Arturo, I agree that the SMP bezel is harder to grasp than the Sub. But the PO seems similiar to the Sub (and my UN MMD or a GP SeaHawk is better than both the PO or Sub) But as to the original question this post asked, as a comparison between the PO and the Sub, I would have to say the Omega PO is overall a better watch and also cost about $2000 less. (BTW, I currently own a Rolex Sub and do not own my Omega SMP anymore as I gave it to my brother. But I base this on my experience wearing both in some pretty bad environments and also on close examination of the new PO) Now, why am I keeping my Sub? I like the name, history, and tradition of the Sub. But it leaves a lot to be desired (poor lum, no non reflective coating, small minute hand, not the best bracelet and clasp). And if buying a watch has nothing to do with it's functions, tool watch capabilities, brand name recognition, etc. but only for looks and fashion, then there are a lot of really good looking watches out there that costing less than $500. So why do we pay $5000 for a watch? THe name.

6 June 2007, 11:23 PM	#27
idoitsavant Member Join Date: May 2007 Real Name: Ivan Location: singapore Watch: WGDJ Posts: 177	Hi folks, I agree with a lot of things mentioned by Chad and Ohlins. I owned a PO before and it was a pre-owned piece. So I sold it off at very close to the price I bought and threw in a couple of grands to buy the Pepsi GMT. The PO is really value for money. The accuracy was spot on. Differed from my casio G shock by a mere 4s per week. Nice bracelet and clasp. Definitely beats the GMT hands down. However the size was really a tad larger then what I want my watch to be. And I kept knocking it onto furniture or something. Then I got persuaded into Rolex by a good friend of mine. Without regrets, I sold off the PO and get the Pepsi. I loved it. But it screwed up on me and stopped on my wrist a couple of times, so much so that I sent the damn thing back to RSC. Now it is running at 4s/day (not week). Both are meant for different things. Which is better? God knows. But The PO is definitely value for money be it pre-owned or not. My point is if we are getting a mechanical watch and would potentially want to keep it forever (heirloom or other reasons), it doesn't make sense to spend 300-400 on average for 5 years just to service a 1 grand watch. We are getting a Rolex so that we are well assured of the top notch service that will be made available to us or our children in our life time (or theirs) to ensure the longevity of the watch (30 years of spare parts etc...). Besides that, the NAME of cos! We all love it for various reasons. I associate that with quality only to be let down by my own experience. As of now, I am thinking of flipping my new GMT to get a pre-own Explorer 1 which I think has got a more robust movement (correct me if I am wrong). One final point. It always tickles me when some of the forum folks say that Sub/GMT/Explorer is a good tool watch blah blah blah.. I agree some do use the functions and swear by it. But as far as durability and functions are concerned, absolutely NOTHING beats the CASIO PROTREK or G Shock. Come on guys, some of the Protrek models can SYNC with the atomic clock over the air and gives very accurate time. Can a mechanical watch do that? You can ditch a G Shock from the 4th floor and it probably only picks up some scratches (I had done that before just to test if the G Shock is BS or not). No Omegas and Rolexes can take that unscathed. A Protrek has a compass, stop watch, barometer, altimeter, alarm, dual time zone, illum and water proof to a depth most people don't dive to and uses a rubber strap that don't give you problems in summer for the expanding wrist all for a nifty price tag of USD 400. And we spend 10 times that amount just for the five letters across the gorgeous looking dials. It is really an emotional thing. No doubts about it. Cheers.

6 June 2007, 11:27 PM	#28
ohlins "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Singapore Watch: Rolex Posts: 1,213	pls refer to the next post.... __________________ the hype is true. a crown for every achievement. visit my audio and watch blog & how to use the rolex comfort link? Last edited by ohlins; 6 June 2007 at 11:35 PM.. Reason: forgot to quote msg

7 June 2007, 03:28 AM	#30
ADISMO Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Real Name: Adrian Location: Cali Watch: Seadweller Posts: 122	Rolex means never having to say your sorry. Rolex means never having to say anything. I dont know what other slogans I can come up with today, but the principle is the same. Quality, tradition, clean understated but effectively brilliant design, and the almost universal recognition of these attributes by others are just some of the reasons I went with Rolex as my first watch. As someone who mired in the world of "replicas" for a while, I found that my Rorexes (fakes do come from TW and CN) gave me more satisfaction but didn't invite the question a fake Panerai would. The Pam felt blingy and sporty but was big and bulky and nearly unwearable with dress shirts. The blue TT and pepsi fakes I had never failed to impress ME. I think thats what I'm trying to say. If you need for people to be impressed by bling, get an Orange PO. I like the shiny dial, the AR, the more lume, bigger size but ultimately those are the same reasons I would hate it when it stops being a watch and starts to be a conversation piece. I'd go further and say if you wanted a conversation piece, get the better values like Hamilton or Sinn. But like everyone says, get the watch you cant live without.

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