Rolex = Omega (While Being a Better Value)?

[youinthehat]

I know this has been beaten to death.

And I know i'll probably get slaughtered for this topic but I genuinally curious. Well curious for the month of April 2014 because Im sure there are a multitude of topics spanning throughout the years.

So im a sub lover. Have on myself. Adore it.

I also am interested in eventually getting a PO. The thing I see alot is that Omega is just a better bang for the buck watch. The 8500, according to alot of people, have almost an advantage in every category. They say its "technologically state of the art" while the Rolex is still using the bread and butter.

With that being said, why would someone want a rolex then? I know some of the reasons would be heritage and icon but at the same time, a reason that frequently pops up is "for the name." Im sure there is some truth to it, but tbh, it makes Rolex owners sound extremely vain. Do we really purchase Rolex just because we can say we wear a Rolex? When there is a company like Omega that produced a state of the art movement with quite a number of technological advances that is almost half the price?

Many people would say "I like the PO8500 but its just too thick." Well Omega showed off the Seamaster 300M with Master Co-Axial which is based off of the 8500 and its quite a bit thinner than the 8500. This just goes to show that eventually, the 8500 will be come as thin as the Rolex movements. What would be the excuse then?

I don't know. I guess the constant "why would you buy a rolex when an omega is better in everyway, including cost" is starting to nag me.

Actually no , I would never give up my sub but still, just curious on ya'lls opinion.

[MP5]

First I dispute Omega is better. I don't feel in any way. Where are the thickness specs for the new sm300? The clown watch thickness have gotten old. BTW ever take a look at resale?

[brandog]

Well, to start I would say the new Omega 300M is similar in quality and bang for buck as the Rolex Sub, but that watch is what somewhere around $8,000 (i think) so I don't see your point. If Omega was offering the same quality product at a cheaper cost then you would have something.

Omega has been around longer then Rolex yet everyone knows Rolex because along the road they did it better. Just like Ferrari did it better then Alfa Romeo. To answer your question "Do we really purchase Rolex just because we can say we wear a Rolex?", in some degree yes. Do people who drive Ferrari's drive them to pick up chicks and to flaunt their success, yes. But there is a certain accepted quality and performance that comes with these elite products. Omega has spent millions of dollars in marketing the past couple years to try to compete with Rolex, but at the end of the day they will never be Rolex. Everyone knows Rolex, not everyone knows Omega, it has already been imbedded in everyones brain, just like Ferrari will forever be the ultimate dream car company no matter how much marketing Porsche, Alfa, Mercedes do. When was the last time you even saw a Ferrari commercial or magazine ad? I rest my case.

Just my 2 cents.

[the dark knight]

I guess the 8500 is more technologically advanced than the 3135, but what I struggle with sometimes is these aren't exactly computers we are talking about here. For a simple 3-handed wristwatch, how much more "technology" do you really need here? Both an 8500 Omega or a Rolex will run within COSC specs and offer good shock protection. Both have enough power reserve. So beyond that, what does that advanced technology offer?

Not being rhetorical for the sake of argument, I'm just genuinely curious.

Omega is a terrific brand that stands on its own merits, but I guess reality dictates that it always will be compared with Rolex, and is often seen as a "better bang for buck" Rolex. It offers brand prestige, versatile models that can dress up or down, and durable waterproof watches very much like Rolex.

Interestingly, imo, I think Omega has done enough now to stand alone as its own brand without Rolex comparisons. What Omega did about 10-15 years ago, offer Rolex like range at a cheaper price using decorated ETA movements, I think Tudor does better now.

[Broker Boy]

Great response.

I've known about Omega for as long as I've known about Rolex.

And I've always wanted a Rolex. Never thought twice about Omega.

[the dark knight]

Also, as crazy as this sounds, I like Rolex because I feel it is more of a "stealth" luxury brand. I think Omega's more recent offerings stand out a bit more. If I see a guy in the mall wearing a Sub or a DJ, I don't really look twice. If I see someone wearing an 8500 PO, it does stand out a bit to me.

Also, at least among my non-WIS friends now, Omega seems to get as much respect as Rolex for name prestige.

So the name part really didn't factor into the equation, cause I'd rather people just think I'm wearing an Invicta or something, and draw less attention that way.

[scarlet knight]

I have 3 Omegas, 2 Rolexes. None are better or worse. They are different from each other and I appreciate them all.

[youinthehat]

Originally Posted by brandog

Well, to start I would say the new Omega 300M is similar in quality and bang for buck as the Rolex Sub, but that watch is what somewhere around $8,000 (i think) so I don't see your point. If Omega was offering the same quality product at a cheaper cost then you would have something.

Omega has been around longer then Rolex yet everyone knows Rolex because along the road they did it better. Just like Ferrari did it better then Alfa Romeo. To answer your question "Do we really purchase Rolex just because we can say we wear a Rolex?", in some degree yes. Do people who drive Ferrari's drive them to pick up chicks and to flaunt their success, yes. But there is a certain accepted quality and performance that comes with these elite products. Omega has spent millions of dollars in marketing the past couple years to try to compete with Rolex, but at the end of the day they will never be Rolex. Everyone knows Rolex, not everyone knows Omega, it has already been imbedded in everyones brain, just like Ferrari will forever be the ultimate dream car company no matter how much marketing Porsche, Alfa, Mercedes do. When was the last time you even saw a Ferrari commercial or magazine ad? I rest my case.

Just my 2 cents.

You bring up a good point regarding MSRP but look around. Omega watches are being discounted almost 25-30% from sticker. Yeah you can't get that price from the Boutique but its the fact that you could still obtain it for that much cheaper. Even the marketplace here, the most you can save on a rolex is probably 10% from sticker price when comparing apples to apples (brand new).

I guess its the fact that people make Rolex owners come off as some kind of snooty, douche, type people who only get it for the name.

I don't think Rolex could be compared to Ferrari's because exotic cars, at least to me, always seem to be progressing. They always have some kind of upgrade, whether it might be more horsepower, better tech etc. The movement inside the rolex has been almost the same for decades. It would be like buying a 1980 vintage ferrari vs a 2013 GTR. The ferrari would give the driver "yeah. I drive a ferrari" but the GTR would have an upgrade in almost every category.

[the dark knight]

Also, this is purely my opinion of course and many will disagree. But so far the reason I've always flipped my considerable number of Omega acquisitions is that compared to Rolex, I've always gotten the feel that Omega's watches are less than the sum of its parts. Take the PO 8500. The movement looks nice and by all accounts is superb. Great case, finishing, terrific bracelet, etc. But as a whole, the watch just didn't "come together" in the way that a Rolex always seems to do so.

[youinthehat]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Also, this is purely my opinion of course and many will disagree. But so far the reason I've always flipped my considerable number of Omega acquisitions is that compared to Rolex, I've always gotten the feel that Omega's watches are less than the sum of its parts. Take the PO 8500. The movement looks nice and by all accounts is superb. Great case, finishing, terrific bracelet, etc. But as a whole, the watch just didn't "come together" in the way that a Rolex always seems to do so.

I mean, resale value is very important. I understand what the appeal is for a person to buy a watch and then be surprised he got almost the same amount he paid back.

But in my eyes, resale value should rarely be factored into a watch decision. Again thats only my opinion. I go into every watch purchase with the mentality of, I will give this to my kids one day. Resale value is a moot point to me.

[Rickn]

Taken on it's own, many Omega watches can stand on its merits. However the brand is erratic. Outside the Speedmaster Professional series, their modern watches lack the same continuity and history of Rolex pieces. 40 years from now a sub is still going to look like a sub. A planet ocean may be a long since discontinued model.

[MaxCargo]

MRSP for the Omega Seamaster 300 Master Co-Axial is 5500 CHF in dollars its 6240 $
The 114060 is 7500$

[dysondiver]

own both ,,, wear both ,,, omega generally bought for less and sell for less ,, both much of a muchness ,, but , if you need cash quick ,, you can trade a rolex in a heartbeat ,,,
best value omega has to be the seamaster 120 , slightly smaller than a sub , and a lot thinner , serviced by anyone with a hammer , deadly accurate , a really nice watch , but







its not a rolex.

[MP5]

Originally Posted by youinthehat

I mean, resale value is very important. I understand what the appeal is for a person to buy a watch and then be surprised he got almost the same amount he paid back.

But in my eyes, resale value should rarely be factored into a watch decision. Again thats only my opinion. I go into every watch purchase with the mentality of, I will give this to my kids one day. Resale value is a moot point to me.

In fact it does matter when you spew terms like value, bang for the buck, ect. Unless this is a move the goalpost type discussion you are having here. I for one will think omega has made a modern watch when they can finally match the precise bezel action of a 1970s Rolex. Until then they bought the rights to an escapement and bought an off the shel movt so the public could R&Dt for them then made an in house movt twice as thick and some call it "innovative" and "high tech"

[joe100]

First things first, they are two different brands with two different images. Rolex makes the same watch, mostly unchanged, year after year. I can name every Sub reference number off the top of my head in a single breath. I can name every GMT Master I and II reference with bezel codes in the same way. Can you name every watch with the name Seamaster on the dial? Only if you're Rain Man. Rolex made the ref 5500 for 37 years before they decided to change it, Omega watches of the same era carried a case reference for months, if that, before being changed, discontinued, or replaced. Remove the name from the dial and it's still recognizable as a Rolex product, with a few exceptions, Omega is more difficult. What am I getting at? Well Rolex has created a continuity with their product and they started in the 50s. Omega took the tack of changing watches often and releasing special editions and limited editions. It really does water down the brand a bit when comparing them to Rolex. Omega still does this today. It's what they do and what they've always done. If you compare my vintage Air King to my Vintage Omega Seamaster 30 you will see the same build quality, the same overall fit and finish, the same sort of wonderfully made movements, but the Omega is worth $600 on a good day while the AK is edging $1800+. Rolex has created a stronger brand and their residual values reflect this. That said, I do love Omega and I find them excellently made but I'd never buy one new.

I enjoy Omega because their pre-2500 caliber watches are still affordable in the sense that you do get a lot of watch for your money. The prototype coaxials are maintenance intensive (and don't say they aren't, because they are), the 8500 hasn't been out long enough to prove itself. Omega needed a leg up on Rolex and decided this was the route. I'm not a fan of Omega's direction. There was nothing wrong with the ETAs of old and nothing wrong with the pre-1000 calibers either. If Omega had simply put the old movements into production again folks would have swooned. But it had to be coaxial. Which to me seems gimmicky. Rolex movements progress naturally and they've earned their place as workhorses, while Omega's true lineage died with the cost saving 1000s. Omega only recently decided to force themselves back into forefront.

Both brands can exist quite happily together, don't get me wrong, I like both. A lot. I've owned Omega watches from every era from the wonderful 50s and 60s, to the dark 70s.

The PO GMT costs nearly the same as the GMT Master, and if I had a gun to my head, I know which one I'd choose

[youinthehat]

Originally Posted by MP5

In fact it does matter when you spew terms like value, bang for the buck, ect. Unless this is a move the goalpost type discussion you are having here. I for one will think omega has made a modern watch when they can finally match the precise bezel action of a 1970s Rolex. Until then they bought the rights to an escapement and bought an off the shel movt so the public could R&Dt for them then made an in house movt twice as thick and some call it "innovative" and "high tech"

Not really spew.

Bang for the buck is the best quality that can be obtained for the least amount of money.

Resale value doesn't play into that. No need to super defensive man.

[MaxCargo]

Originally Posted by Rickn

Taken on it's own, many Omega watches can stand on its merits. However the brand is erratic. Outside the Speedmaster Professional series, their modern watches lack the same continuity and history of Rolex pieces. 40 years from now a sub is still going to look like a sub. A planet ocean may be a long since discontinued model.

good point

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by youinthehat

I know this has been beaten to death.

You are correct and if you actually search through those threads you'll get the same answers all over again.
Why is Rolex better...yadda yadda yadda.
If you want the Omega get it, don't need to justify it's purchase over the Rolex.
If you want the Rolex then get that.
Each one has something to offer....why bother with what's going to happen with the new master co-axials. It hasn't happened, you want a watch today and have a criteria....use that to pick the one you want.

Just get what you want, better is very subjective, what do you need, what do you want, what is your criteria....do you want me to tell you what I want and need. You'll still get the one you want in the end.

I like the Rolex, because it's thinner, better resale, richer history, prefer the aesthetics of the case and the bracelet, prefer 40mm, prefer the 3135 movement.....the Omega has things I like, but not enough over the Rolex. I had the PO 2500(wish I hadn't sold it) great watch but not comparatively better based on my criteria than the SubC, had the PO8500, but too thick, could not see me having a DSSD which has a reason to be thick and a PO8500 which has no business being thick, sold it, don't miss it one bit.

At some point I want the new Seamaster 300 Master Co-Axial and decided I like it better than the 114060, but I have two other Rolexes, and what if what if I threw AP in the mix....I pick my battles...

[omx5o]

I own as many Omega as Rolex watches. Both brands are exceptionally well made and I enjoy wearing both. However, for me, the big difference is in the product range. Rolex have a well balanced spread of very classic and iconic pieces. Many of which I find desirable. Whereas Omega, while also having some iconic pieces, manage to dilute the range with too many tenuous "limited" editions and associations, such as James Bond. Rolex would never bring out a watch with a 007 logo on it. And that cheapens the whole Omega brand by quite some way.

[youinthehat]

Originally Posted by joe100

First things first, they are two different brands with two different images. Rolex makes the same watch, mostly unchanged, year after year. I can name every Sub reference number off the top of my head in a single breath. I can name every GMT Master I and II reference with bezel codes in the same way. Can you name every watch with the name Seamaster on the dial? Only if you're Rain Man. Rolex made the ref 5500 for 37 years before they decided to change it, Omega watches of the same era carried a case reference for months, if that, before being changed, discontinued, or replaced. Remove the name from the dial and it's still recognizable as a Rolex product, with a few exceptions, Omega is more difficult. What am I getting at? Well Rolex has created a continuity with their product and they started in the 50s. Omega took the tack of changing watches often and releasing special editions and limited editions. It really does water down the brand a bit when comparing them to Rolex. Omega still does this today. It's what they do and what they've always done. If you compare my vintage Air King to my Vintage Omega Seamaster 30 you will see the same build quality, the same overall fit and finish, the same sort of wonderfully made movements, but the Omega is worth $600 on a good day while the AK is edging $1800+. Rolex has created a stronger brand and their residual values reflect this. That said, I do love Omega and I find them excellently made but I'd never buy one new.

I enjoy Omega because their pre-2500 caliber watches are still affordable in the sense that you do get a lot of watch for your money. The prototype coaxials are maintenance intensive (and don't say they aren't, because they are), the 8500 hasn't been out long enough to prove itself. Omega needed a leg up on Rolex and decided this was the route. I'm not a fan of Omega's direction. There was nothing wrong with the ETAs of old and nothing wrong with the pre-1000 calibers either. If Omega had simply put the old movements into production again folks would have swooned. But it had to be coaxial. Which to me seems gimmicky. Rolex movements progress naturally and they've earned their place as workhorses, while Omega's true lineage died with the cost saving 1000s. Omega only recently decided to force themselves back into forefront.

Both brands can exist quite happily together, don't get me wrong, I like both. A lot. I've owned Omega watches from every era from the wonderful 50s and 60s, to the dark 70s.

The PO GMT costs nearly the same as the GMT Master, and if I had a gun to my head, I know which one I'd choose

Thanks for the well thought out answer. I can see why many appreciate the heritage and history of the rolex brand. This was also a prominent reason that comes up in these discussions, how Omega has an influx of models.

[youinthehat]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

You are correct and if you actually search through those threads you'll get the same answers all over again.
Why is Rolex better...yadda yadda yadda.
If you want the Omega get it, don't need to justify it's purchase over the Rolex.
If you want the Rolex then get that.
Each one has something to offer....why bother with what's going to happen with the new master co-axials. It hasn't happened, you want a watch today and have a criteria....use that to pick the one you want.

Just get what you want, better is very subjective, what do you need, what do you want, what is your criteria....do you want me to tell you what I want and need. You'll still get the one you want in the end.

I like the Rolex, because it's thinner, better resale, richer history, prefer the aesthetics of the case and the bracelet, prefer 40mm, prefer the 3135 movement.....the Omega has things I like, but not enough over the Rolex. I had the PO 2500(wish I hadn't sold it) great watch but not comparatively better based on my criteria than the SubC, had the PO8500, but too thick, could not see me having a DSSD which has a reason to be thick and a PO8500 which has no business being thick, sold it, don't miss it one bit.

At some point I want the new Seamaster 300 Master Co-Axial and decided I like it better than the 114060, but I have two other Rolexes, I pick my battles.

I did buy the rolex

This convo doesn't sway me in either direction. Its to gain some insight.

If you think about it, any topic has been beaten to death over time. I guess some just crop up more frequently (such as this).

[dysondiver]

joe100 ,,, a post well worth the read ,, again i wear a dynamic3 as a daily wear ,, and love it ,,, but the co ax was when omega stopped making something that was comparable with rolex.

[brandog]

Rolex has been pumping out millions of six figure watches for a very long time, Omega has just recently entered this market.

[rolexnub]

Originally Posted by Rickn

Taken on it's own, many Omega watches can stand on its merits. However the brand is erratic. Outside the Speedmaster Professional series, their modern watches lack the same continuity and history of Rolex pieces. 40 years from now a sub is still going to look like a sub. A planet ocean may be a long since discontinued model.

I totally agree

[mike]

Originally Posted by Rickn

Taken on it's own, many Omega watches can stand on its merits. However the brand is erratic. Outside the Speedmaster Professional series, their modern watches lack the same continuity and history of Rolex pieces. 40 years from now a sub is still going to look like a sub. A planet ocean may be a long since discontinued model.

Well said.

I'm a huge fan of the Speedmaster. I do wish they would let up on the limited editions though.

[Wesley Crusher]

Originally Posted by Rickn

Taken on it's own, many Omega watches can stand on its merits. However the brand is erratic. Outside the Speedmaster Professional series, their modern watches lack the same continuity and history of Rolex pieces. 40 years from now a sub is still going to look like a sub. A planet ocean may be a long since discontinued model.

Agreed. Omega is all over the place with their models. They go through movements like there is no tomorrow, they have tons of limited editions, etc...

I used to be a big Omega fan, but that quickly changed when I found Rolex. There really is no comparison between both brands. I love my Omega 2254.50 and I will never get rid of it. It is my first, only, and last Omega that I will ever buy.

[ronricks]

Had both. I prefer Rolex. The fit and finish of the Rolex is just better in my opinion. Not everyone is going to feel that way.

[5253Reynolds]

In the past I owned a Seamaster 300 Co-axial wave-dial non-ceramic version. I wore the watch 24/7 for 2 years and absolutely loved it. It kept great time, was quite comfortable, and looked awesome on the wrist. As luck would have it I was given a gmt ii c as a gift from my father. The Seamaster was never worn again and eventually sold for about $1,200 less than I paid for it. I can't put my finger on exactly why I preferred the gmt more; I just did. Maybe it was the fact it was a gift from my father, maybe Rolex marketing indoctrinated me to the point were I preferred their watches more? I guess what I'm trying to say is it was simply a matter of personal preference for me. Once I had the gmt ii c on I just subconsciously knew it was the watch for me.

[alanc]

Excellent points here, and I don't have much to add. I recently bought a blue "Skyfall" Aqua Terra with the idea of selling my Explorer I, and a week later returned the Aqua Terra; and I still lust for the OMEGA DIVER 300 M CO-AXIAL CHRONOGRAPH 41.5 MM in blue, which is a gorgeous chrono for 6000 US.

In general, Rolex has more history and continuity than Omega. Value retention is an added plus. That said, particular Omega watches are good values and very desirable.

[strafer_kid]

You'll always end up back with a Rolex!