# Omega VS IWC



## Mockingbird

What are your opinions of each brand side by side and in comparison? I personally find that IWC is ranked higher both in quality and design. Some good models to contrast would probably be: AT and Mark XVI.

I think IWC is a better brand, and makes better watches than Omega does. That's just my opinion though, and I know lots of people who disagree. Which one do you like more, is better quality, and why?

Also IWC gets a plus by being virtually unrecognizable outside of WIS's.


----------



## DaBaeker

My first post was maybe too cheeky. My point is really- [my fascination with Omega aside] there are SO many fantastic watches out there in just the mass-market high end arena-before you even get to the astronomically priced brands like PP, BP, VC, etc.

I find it so difficult to compare brands. I really would love to own an Omega 45 PO right now but I'd also really like to own the IWC portuguese ,pilot chrono and about 10 other watches of various brands off the top of my head.

It much easier (but still not always that easy-e.g. PO vs Sub) to compare high-end mass market watches that at least have similar function/style/etc.

This is an Omega forum and it not that surprising to find that the bias is just a wee bit tilted towards Omega. But I don't think too many posters here would turn their noses up at the whole range or entire brand line of IWC, or Breitling, or Seiko, etc. There are just too many fine watches out there. Omega may be my preference but I'm sure I could find room for an IWC with ease

But just to be fair to OP: If it came down to my only having ONE watch and the choice was the best Omega or the best IWC I would probably go with an Omega based mainly on how much I like how it looks as opposed to any worried the IWC wouldnt perform as well


----------



## SpringDriven

Mockingbird said:


> What are your opinions of each brand side by side and in comparison? I personally find that IWC is ranked higher both in quality and design. Some good models to contrast would probably be: AT and Mark XVI.
> 
> I think IWC is a better brand, and makes better watches than Omega does. That's just my opinion though, and I know lots of people who disagree. Which one do you like more, is better quality, and why?
> 
> Also IWC gets a plus by being virtually unrecognizable outside of WIS's.


IWC is a better brand... But really only to a point. Heritage wise, I still think Omega's History is very hard to beat. And some of the new Omegas comming out are closing these gaps...

However the IWC watches that are similar in price to an Omega are just modified ETA movements, same as the Omega Cal 1120 and 2500, except I would put the edge on Omega with the 2500 and the Co-Axial escapement. When I think of the Omega Cal. 8500 based watches, well, those are just better movements, and they are not ETA based, so that is a plus for Omega.

For me really, the IWC watches I like, I can't afford. The ones I can afford, I would rather buy an Omega with that money, especially if it is a Cal. 2500 or better yet, a Cal. 8500...

In the end, the IWC I want on my wrist would be vintage... When their movements, like Omega, were in-house and wonderfully finished. Modern IWC watches just don't do very much for me...


----------



## MSNWatch

Historically, it's absolutely no contest. IMHO, omega is head and shoulders above IWC and probably second only to patek in this regard. The relatively low value of vintage omegas has to do with two things - the regard for the brand today and the sheer number produced for certain models - 60s connies are perfect examples. 

I think for modern watches, the quality level is similar - I know IWC makes a good watch but the similarly priced omegas - ploprof and hour vision come to mind match up very nicely. Some may prefer IWC due to the style of the watch - that's a purely subjective choice but objectively, I'm not ready to say that at a given price point, IWC is a superior watch.


----------



## acdelco

IWC is a more prestigious brand and if you compare across the entire lines of both brands, IWC is probably better. But, the above posters make very good points. At the same price points, I don't think IWC makes a better watch. Many IWC watches contain modified eta movements, and a strong argument can be made that Omega's eta based movements are on par ( if not "better") . There currently seems to be less modification on the IWC eta based watches. ( Apparently eta makes the current IWC 30110 movements to IWC's specs w/o having IWC modify the movement itself. ) Omega is closing the gap with the 8500s. I think the 8500 watches will prove to be equal to the IWC in house watches.

What I don't like about many IWC's is the styling on their _sport _watches ( Ingenieurs and _most _Aquatimers and Fliegers). For the most part, IMO, they are very very plain and non-descript with little flair. Almost ugly.

I think you can make a simple dial more beautiful with just a little style and flair. It almost seems as if IWC went out of their way to NOT do this.


----------



## Vikinguy

I'd just get a Hamilton Maestro and save myself the 5K on the gese.


----------



## Runitout

acdelco said:


> IWC is a more prestigious brand and if you compare across the entire lines of both brands, IWC is probably better. But, the above posters make very good points. At the same price points, I don't think IWC makes a better watch. Many IWC watches contain modified eta movements, and a strong argument can be made that Omega's eta based movements are on par ( if not "better") . There currently seems to be less modification on the IWC eta based watches. ( Apparently eta makes the current IWC 30110 movements to IWC's specs w/o having IWC modify the movement itself. ) Omega is closing the gap with the 8500s. I think the 8500 watches will prove to be equal to the IWC in house watches.
> 
> What I don't like about many IWC's is the styling on their _sport _watches ( Ingenieurs and _most _Aquatimers and Fliegers). For the most part, IMO, they are very very plain and non-descript with little flair. Almost ugly.
> 
> I think you can make a simple dial more beautiful with just a little style and flair. It almost seems as if IWC went out of their way to NOT do this.


I don't think Omega makes a watch as beautiful as the Portuguese Chronograph. Omega make wonderful watches, one of which I own, but the best IWC watches are in another league, in my opinion.

As far as dressy sport watches go, however, Omega are difficult to beat.


----------



## glimmer

Different to really compare. It's really not which is better but which you like better.


----------



## NightScar

glimmer said:


> Different to really compare. It's really not which is better but which you like better.


I think this is the best answer to this question. There will always be pros and cons on both sides.

I'll give my quick .02 cents though...

IWC is more expensive with modified ETA movements, which IWC doesn't modify themselves anymore (because Swatch Group stopped selling their kits) but it was still to their specification and within COSC specs. Take into consideration though how many of these are made a year? Sure the new 8500 "in-house" movement is good (I still think it is too early to tell how robust it is because it is fairly new) but how many of these does Omega make? Just the overall brand vs. brand alone, Omega makes almost a million watches annually iirc, while IWC only makes about 80k watches annually.

So really, how exclusive do you want your watch to be?

I think Omegas clear advantage is that their price point made it very attractive but with the current price increases and it is a big increase, plus more future increases are coming for sure based ont heir plans, and it makes kind of killed one of Omegas selling point. Most of IWC watches has stayed the same price and doesn't icnrease annually like Omega and other watch companies does. IWC has been pretty consistent in pricing.

Before, Omega feels more of a bargain but now it feels a bit overpriced (no flaming, this is a personal opinion) because of an earlier image that it was cheaper.

For in-house movements, everyone is familiar with the Cal 5000's in the Big Pilot and 7-Day Port but forget that the Cal 80110 in the Ingenieur , based off of Cal 8541 developed several decades ago. It is also reasonably priced at $6,600 compared to the $10k+ retail of the BP and 7-Day Port. Not only that but the watch is a beauty and the movement is truly robust and has been proven (so far) that is still being built in IWCs facilities.

IWC does offer a well price in-house movement for those interested.


----------



## acdelco

Which is why I specifically referenced _sport watch_ in my initial post;-) And yes, I agree that the Portuguese line is quite beautiful.



Runitout said:


> I don't think Omega makes a watch as beautiful as the Portuguese Chronograph. Omega make wonderful watches, one of which I own, but the best IWC watches are in another league, in my opinion.
> 
> As far as dressy sport watches go, however, Omega are difficult to beat.


----------



## Runitout

IWC's problem, as I see it, is simply that their cases are often too big these days. I could not buy a new model Ingenieur or Portuguese Auto - they are much too big for me. 

I would buy an IWC for the bracelets alone, if I could afford one.


----------



## jaytaylor

As another poster has already mentioned, I would choose an Omega over an IWC at the same price point or at the lower end of the range, but when it comes to higher end of both brands it is IWC for me.

The IWC range does little to nothing for me, but the Big Pilot and Portuguese leave me lusting to own them, mainly the BP.

I have already decided that one day a 5004 will be mine......oh yes, it will be mine.......(evil laugh)


----------



## M4tt

Don't forget that up until comparitively recently IWC used Jaeger le Coultre movements in many of their watches. So, for example, I would argue that a MKXII is in a different league to a MKXV.

I guess my point is that, movement wise, IWC were clearly superior to Omega a decade or more ago but have slipped downhill in moving to ETA ebauches, while Omega have improved; they have uprated ETA movements to a higher standard and then returned to manufacture status.


----------



## John_in_MA

For me if was older sports watches, it's IWC hands down. Two of my grail watches I'll never own are: (images stolen from net)

The IWC GST Aquatimer in Ti










And the PD IWC Ocean 2000










I would seriously consider selling all my Omegas to get either of these.

For modern sports watches, I would say Omega pre-price increase as they were fantastic value for the price. Post-price increase and it is harder to decide. I really like the modern aquatimer design aesthetic.


----------



## saintv90

Simpe answer to a simple question. IWC > Omega.


----------



## acdelco

THE GST Aquatimer (and Big Pilot) is the only IWC sport watch I like and I really like it.

In terms of looks, as I implied previously, I think Omega sport watches simply blow away virtually any IWC diver, ingenieur, or flieger in a beauty contest. Put a PO, Speedy, 2254, or Bond next to any of these, and it's no contest.



John_in_SC said:


> For me if was older sports watches, it's IWC hands down. Two of my grail watches I'll never own are: (images stolen from net)
> 
> The IWC GST Aquatimer in Ti
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PD IWC Ocean 2000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would seriously consider selling all my Omegas to get either of these.
> 
> For modern sports watches, I would say Omega pre-price increase as they were fantastic value for the price. Post-price increase and it is harder to decide. I really like the modern aquatimer design aesthetic.


----------



## Aquaracer1

As far as mid-level automatics go, Omegas are more affordable, hence more appealing to me. And IWC is more exclusive. If I am spending 2500-3000 on a watch, I would rather have an Omega. Getting into higher end territory - the IWC 7 days is a stunner indeed.


----------



## NightScar

acdelco said:


> THE GST Aquatimer (and Big Pilot) is the only IWC sport watch I like and I really like it.
> 
> In terms of looks, as I implied previously, I think Omega sport watches simply blow away virtually any IWC diver, ingenieur, or flieger in a beauty contest. Put a PO, Speedy, 2254, or Bond next to any of these, and it's no contest.


Do people really consider the Speedmaster as flieger or are you talking about something else? Maybe I am just reading that statement incorrect? :-s

Anyways, I know looks are subjective but in my humble opinion, the 3536 and new ATs stomps all over the PO/SMP. The Mark XVI/Big Pilot/3717 just looks so much better than the Speedy (and I love the Speedy). The Portuguese, I wouldn't even think twice about an AT or DeVille over it. I'd probably even take the Inge 3227 over most Omegas. Over the Portofino and Da Vinci, ok I give Omega a little edge over it and I'd probably choose an Omega over those first.


----------



## NightScar

Aquaracer1 said:


> As far as mid-level automatics go, Omegas are more affordable, hence more appealing to me. And IWC is more exclusive. If I am spending 2500-3000 on a watch, I would rather have an Omega.


I have a feeling by the way Omega is planning to go higher up and compete with Rolex, that that statement won't hold true in a year or two outside of buying used.

To me, the big price jump just really changed my view of Omega. I do not feel they are a sign of prestige but instead became a bit overpriced instead. I guess it is kind of a buyers remorse feeling I will have knowing that I bought an Omega for $1,000-$1,500 more today than I could have less than a few months ago. It just doesn't feel worth it. That may change in the future but for now, with the AT 8500 retailing for close to $5k, it is difficult not to get something else especially now that it is more difficult to get a discount on Omega and the ADs are becoming more scarce.


----------



## acdelco

Hey, you're in an Omega forum so what do you expect, Nightscar. Hell, even a few IWC lovers ( like FlypenFly ) in the poll over in the public forum admitted that the AT was better looking than the Pilot. Though, of course, he did say the Pilot was more "timeless" to him. I think _any_ AT is timeless.

Bottom line: looks are subjective. To me, Omega has more style and flair while retaining classic timeless looks in its sports watches.

IWC sports watches looks more pedestrian to me--with form following function with very little style. That "philosophy" shows up in its sports line.

As I mentioned, the Portuguese line is beautiful, okay? ;-)



NightScar said:


> Do people really consider the Speedmaster as flieger or are you talking about something else? Maybe I am just reading that statement incorrect? :-s
> 
> Anyways, I know looks are subjective but in my humble opinion, the 3536 and new ATs stomps all over the PO/SMP. The Mark XVI/Big Pilot/3717 just looks so much better than the Speedy (and I love the Speedy). The Portuguese, I wouldn't even think twice about an AT or DeVille over it. I'd probably even take the Inge 3227 over most Omegas. Over the Portofino and Da Vinci, ok I give Omega a little edge over it and I'd probably choose an Omega over those first.


----------



## acdelco

I've seen you say this a couple times. But, why? *If* Omega feels that its top line 8500 movements are comparable to say, a 3135 movement in a Rolex ( and I'm sure Omega does...I' m sure they think it's _*better*_), why are you "begrudging" Omega to move up its prices to a price range that still falls significantly below Rolex?



NightScar said:


> I have a feeling by the way Omega is planning to go higher up and compete with Rolex, that that statement won't hold true in a year or two outside of buying used.
> 
> To me, the big price jump just really changed my view of Omega. I do not feel they are a sign of prestige but instead became a bit overpriced instead. I guess it is kind of a buyers remorse feeling I will have knowing that I bought an Omega for $1,000-$1,500 more today than I could have less than a few months ago. It just doesn't feel worth it. That may change in the future but for now, with the AT 8500 retailing for close to $5k, it is difficult not to get something else especially now that it is more difficult to get a discount on Omega and the ADs are becoming more scarce.


----------



## GaryF

John_in_SC said:


> For me if was older sports watches, it's IWC hands down. Two of my grail watches I'll never own are: (images stolen from net)
> 
> The IWC GST Aquatimer in Ti
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PD IWC Ocean 2000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would seriously consider selling all my Omegas to get either of these.
> 
> For modern sports watches, I would say Omega pre-price increase as they were fantastic value for the price. Post-price increase and it is harder to decide. I really like the modern aquatimer design aesthetic.


That last generation of Aquatimers with the internal bezels was great. Such a shame that the new ones look like lego. Another worry is that I saw an older Cousteau model where the orange had faded to a blotchy yellow.
The Vintage Aquatimer is nice apart from the the strap which has the look of a cheap aftermarket piece.

Is it just me or is anyone else starting to feel like a lot of the great manufacturers are deliberately trying to help me save my money with their latest offerings? Maybe it's called "getting old".


----------



## GaryF

I have no problem with price increases if I can see where it's going. The 8500s seem to me to be okay but it's harder to look at the older watches getting the hikes for no reason other that brand-positioning. I'd prefer Omega left that kind of thing to the competition.


----------



## acdelco

I was referring to Nightscar's reference to an AT going for $5000 ( actually $4500 from what I know) . My feeling is that price ( in comparison to its competition) should theoretically reflect quality. There are plenty of people here, me included, who think that a PO, for example, is actually better quality than a Sub ( I've owned two subs), and even with the price increases, you can get 2, maybe 3 POs for a Sub.

Obviously, from a selfish standpoint, Omega's lower prices are great for the consumer. But, there ain't nothing wrong with Omega trying to increase its prestige.



GaryF said:


> I have no problem with price increases if I can see where it's going. The 8500s seem to me to be okay but it's harder to look at the older watches getting the hikes for no reason other that brand-positioning. I'd prefer Omega left that kind of thing to the competition.


----------



## hiro1963

glimmer said:


> Different to really compare. It's really not which is better but which you like better.


Exactly! Watch collecting is not a "Brand vs Brand" thing. I like some certain models from Tag, Breitling, Rolex, BP, JLC etc... I inherited a vintage solid gold IWC watch from my grandfather (it's just sitting at my parent's house) and I like it, but it's not a everyday watch. And I just prefer Omegas to wear everyday.


----------



## GaryF

acdelco said:


> I was referring to Nightscar's reference to an AT going for $5000 ( actually $4500 from what I know) . My feeling is that price ( in comparison to its competition) should theoretically reflect quality. There are plenty of people here, me included, who think that a PO, for example, is actually better quality than a Sub ( I've owned two subs), and even with the price increases, you can get 2, maybe 3 POs for a Sub.
> 
> Obviously, from a selfish standpoint, Omega's lower prices are great for the consumer. But, there ain't nothing wrong with Omega trying to increase its prestige.


I agree completely. I still think that the PO or SMP is incredible value compared to a Sub'. I'd just prefer to see the hikes only applied when they're warranted by the model.


----------



## NightScar

acdelco said:


> Hey, you're in an Omega forum so what do you expect, Nightscar. Hell, even a few IWC lovers ( like FlypenFly ) in the poll over in the public forum admitted that the AT was better looking than the Pilot. Though, of course, he did say the Pilot was more "timeless" to him. I think _any_ AT is timeless.
> 
> Bottom line: looks are subjective. To me, Omega has more style and flair while retaining classic timeless looks in its sports watches.
> 
> IWC sports watches looks more pedestrian to me--with form following function with very little style. That "philosophy" shows up in its sports line.
> 
> As I mentioned, the Portuguese line is beautiful, okay? ;-)


It's all good, I didn't mean to pick a fight. I completely agree with you about looks being subjective, I didn't mean to make my post sound snobbish or conceited. I still am not sure how timeless the new AT with the teck will be in 10 years. It is quite a modern look for Omega and it was also a big change from the last generation AT so if Omega releases a new AT, the teck dial might look dated as well although to some it will be classic. For me, I don't see it, not yet at least.



acdelco said:


> I've seen you say this a couple times. But, why? *If* Omega feels that its top line 8500 movements are comparable to say, a 3135 movement in a Rolex ( and I'm sure Omega does...I' m sure they think it's _*better*_), why are you "begrudging" Omega to move up its prices to a price range that still falls significantly below Rolex?


Thats the thing, I am not sure the price jump from the 2500 is significant enough and with the price increase, the difference is even greater. AT 8500 is retailing for $4,850 according to AuthenticWatches and even though it isn't quite at Rolex price range yet, I could see it being that way in a year or two. Plus the 8500 is still pretty new, to me I am not comfortable with new things right away, not that I don't like change but the 8500 isn't tried and proven yet. I am sure some kinks and problems will surface and I do not want to be on the receiving end of that yet. I guess thats the Apple Ipod mentality, never buy the first generation until they work out the problems. :-d



acdelco said:


> I was referring to Nightscar's reference to an AT going for $5000 ( actually $4500 from what I know) . My feeling is that price ( in comparison to its competition) should theoretically reflect quality. There are plenty of people here, me included, who think that a PO, for example, is actually better quality than a Sub ( I've owned two subs), and even with the price increases, you can get 2, maybe 3 POs for a Sub.
> 
> Obviously, from a selfish standpoint, Omega's lower prices are great for the consumer. But, there ain't nothing wrong with Omega trying to increase its prestige.


Definitely nothing wrong with them moving up in prestige but they will have to regulate their discount like Rolex, which they already started buy pulling in some ADs. So in a year or two, if the Omega PO were the same price as a Sub, (how much did Omega increase the PO this year by the way?) would you still pick it over Rolex? I mean the big selling point of the PO right now is that it is cheaper and you get plenty from it but what if the price increased to almost the same (Subs start at $5,500 and POs start at $4,000) and they regulated minimal discount on it like Rolex, would you still consider the PO? Sure some will say of course since it is better but again, if the PO cost $5k how many would still buy it? Again, for that price I could be looking at other brands and not just IWC, I'd look at Zenith, GO and JLC. This is nothing but a hypothetical guess but it seems that it is only a matter of time before Omega takes that one step up to the next price bracket.

Like some said, the Speedy got a price increase but there really wasn't much upgraded. Same with the SMP and PO, the new AT 8500 already had a big price difference then with the price increase (of about $1k iirc) the piece became a little bit less appealing to me.

I mean for the price, of all the watches I've held the fit and finish on the IWC is one of the best of the bunch and I do find it better than Omega, Tag and Rolex. Even though most have a modified ETA, the details and the double AR and the bracelets are really up there as one of the best and I've handled VC, GO, AP, JLC, Patek, etc... Now before someone jumps on me I am not saying IWC are on the same level as the ones I've mentioned because overall they are not but fit and finish-wise, it is comparable to those.

I guess this just means I should purchase an Omega now because who knows how big the price increase will be next year. :-d


----------



## acdelco

I can't keep up with you, Nightscar;-). All I know is this....I've had an IWC Spitfire and currently have the IWC AT Aquatimer Titanium but am thinking of selling it. BUT, I'm keeping my Seamasters and PO's...not only do I think they look better.... but quality wise, in terms of timekeeping and finish, I don't really see a difference.

Now, there's a _prestige_ difference between IWC and Omega, but you can't begrudge Omega for increasing its prices. They're probably hoping that sooner or later, people will like you will choose Omega at the same prices over some of the other brands.... based on quality and perception. Not saying that's going to happen ( it wont based on what you've said).

But as you can see from my initial statement above, I've chosen. And yeah...if you're thinking about getting an Omega and if you think that they're going to continually increase prices, you better get them now. : )



NightScar said:


> It's all good, I didn't mean to pick a fight. I completely agree with you about looks being subjective, I didn't mean to make my post sound snobbish or conceited. I still am not sure how timeless the new AT with the teck will be in 10 years. It is quite a modern look for Omega and it was also a big change from the last generation AT so if Omega releases a new AT, the teck dial might look dated as well although to some it will be classic. For me, I don't see it, not yet at least.
> 
> Thats the thing, I am not sure the price jump from the 2500 is significant enough and with the price increase, the difference is even greater. AT 8500 is retailing for $4,850 according to AuthenticWatches and even though it isn't quite at Rolex price range yet, I could see it being that way in a year or two. Plus the 8500 is still pretty new, to me I am not comfortable with new things right away, not that I don't like change but the 8500 isn't tried and proven yet. I am sure some kinks and problems will surface and I do not want to be on the receiving end of that yet. I guess thats the Apple Ipod mentality, never buy the first generation until they work out the problems. :-d
> 
> Definitely nothing wrong with them moving up in prestige but they will have to regulate their discount like Rolex, which they already started buy pulling in some ADs. So in a year or two, if the Omega PO were the same price as a Sub, (how much did Omega increase the PO this year by the way?) would you still pick it over Rolex? I mean the big selling point of the PO right now is that it is cheaper and you get plenty from it but what if the price increased to almost the same (Subs start at $5,500 and POs start at $4,000) and they regulated minimal discount on it like Rolex, would you still consider the PO? Sure some will say of course since it is better but again, if the PO cost $5k how many would still buy it? Again, for that price I could be looking at other brands and not just IWC, I'd look at Zenith, GO and JLC. This is nothing but a hypothetical guess but it seems that it is only a matter of time before Omega takes that one step up to the next price bracket.
> 
> Like some said, the Speedy got a price increase but there really wasn't much upgraded. Same with the SMP and PO, the new AT 8500 already had a big price difference then with the price increase (of about $1k iirc) the piece became a little bit less appealing to me.
> 
> I mean for the price, of all the watches I've held the fit and finish on the IWC is one of the best of the bunch and I do find it better than Omega, Tag and Rolex. Even though most have a modified ETA, the details and the double AR and the bracelets are really up there as one of the best and I've handled VC, GO, AP, JLC, Patek, etc... Now before someone jumps on me I am not saying IWC are on the same level as the ones I've mentioned because overall they are not but fit and finish-wise, it is comparable to those.
> 
> I guess this just means I should purchase an Omega now because who knows how big the price increase will be next year. :-d


----------



## NightScar

acdelco said:


> I can't keep up with you, Nightscar;-). All I know is this....I've had an IWC Spitfire and currently have the IWC AT Aquatimer Titanium but am thinking of selling it. BUT, I'm keeping my Seamasters and PO's...not only do I think they look better.... but quality wise, in terms of timekeeping and finish, I don't really see a difference.
> 
> Now, there's a _prestige_ difference between IWC and Omega, but you can't begrudge Omega for increasing its prices. They're probably hoping that sooner or later, people will like you will choose Omega at the same prices over some of the other brands.... based on quality and perception. Not saying that's going to happen ( it wont based on what you've said).
> 
> But as you can see from my initial statement above, I've chosen.


Again, it's all good. This is actually one of the more mature discussions I've had here so got no complaints here.

As for the price/prestige, I think they will have to wait for the next generation to discover them before they are sitting right there with Rolex in terms of how they sell their products. Right now, for me I've always liked Omega for what they are, offering a good product at the fraction of the price of Rolex. Equal in quality, maybe a bit better, so overall it does seem like I get more with the Omega for the same price point and since I have been exposed to the Omega of past (past meaning great quality at a cheaper price point) I don't think my mentality will change unless I start seeing AT 8500 still running smoothly when I am 60 yrs old (35 yrs from now) and then I would say, "hey, that Omega is on par with Rolex, I should have paid that $5k back in 2010 instead of the $15k-$20k I have to pay to get one now."

_Disclaimer: Future price was adjusted due to inflation._ :-d


----------



## wilfreb

SpringDriven said:


> IWC is a better brand... But really only to a point. Heritage wise, I still think Omega's History is very hard to beat. And some of the new Omegas comming out are closing these gaps...
> 
> However the IWC watches that are similar in price to an Omega are just modified ETA movements, same as the Omega Cal 1120 and 2500, except I would put the edge on Omega with the 2500 and the Co-Axial escapement. When I think of the Omega Cal. 8500 based watches, well, those are just better movements, and they are not ETA based, so that is a plus for Omega.
> 
> For me really, the IWC watches I like, I can't afford. The ones I can afford, I would rather buy an Omega with that money, especially if it is a Cal. 2500 or better yet, a Cal. 8500...
> 
> In the end, the IWC I want on my wrist would be vintage... When their movements, like Omega, were in-house and wonderfully finished. Modern IWC watches just don't do very much for me...


Isnt the cal 8500 made by ETA anyway?


----------



## georges zaslavsky

Different brands and different targets.
IWC has introduced some completely innovative and top notch quality calibers like the IWC 5000 with 7 days power reserve, IWC 5011 (specific variant of the 5000 for the big pilot watch), IWC 50611 with perpetual calendar, IWC 80110 (based itself on the legendary 8531-8541 IWC calibres) and IWC 89360 (column wheel chrono using the samuel pellaton winding system). OMEGA which was manufacture which ceased the production of its own movements(thank you Hayek) started to used ETA movements, the first step of improving the 2892-a2, was the 1120 launched in 1993 and later the 2500 a in 1999, the 2500 has known three versions in less than 10 years of production and the service intervals which were rumored of 10 years has been downsized to 8 and then 6 years. There has been several sudden stop threads concerning the 1120 and other threads relative to the 2500 problems. Of course the 1120 and the 2500 were ETA based movements that were modified by ETA for OMEGA and not modified by OMEGA themselves. The 8500 was not a really a full inhouse developpment but more a developpment with the concertation of comadur, piguet and eta, it wasn't a 100% inhouse idea from Omega but more or less a subcontracted partnership. When you pay 10000€ or $, the exclusiveness is primordial as is something unique not something common or made by a middle of the range movement manufacture that is ETA. ETA has always been known for being a 
entry level-mid range movement manufacturer, even their elabore grade is no match to a lemania or a claret movement. OMEGA did also a big mistake with the 33xx, time will tell us if OMEGA will definitely correct the mistake. OMEGA is not what it used to be, the quality is neither what it used to be as well. I consider the OMEGA of before 1984 to be something special, but now OMEGA is more or less a typical product of marketing hype thanks to HAYEK. Vintage OMEGA is top quality investment as is vintage IWC with the older ingenieur and dive watches. Oh well, tastes are different as are people.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

wilfreb said:


> Isnt the cal 8500 made by ETA anyway?


 yes, it is subcontracted and its is modified in Omega workshops. It was a a result from the concertation of eta, piguet and comadur.


----------



## NightScar

Great info georges zaslavsky.



georges zaslavsky said:


> The 8500 was not a really a full inhouse developpment but more a developpment with the concertation of comadur, piguet and eta, it wasn't a 100% inhouse idea from Omega but more or less a subcontracted partnership.


With this said, is the 8500 considered in-house movement though? As in they make (manufacture, assemble, etc...) the movements themselves or is it still made by ETA and just modified? I could see it being much easier to do being within the Swatch Group family, I could also see them actually supplying kits to Omega and Omega actually modifying it themselves, but can it be confirmed?


----------



## John_in_MA

In a degree I am with NightScar regarding the Omega price increases. It's not that they are bad and that they are attempting to position themselves as a strong competitor to Rolex at that level of prestige and price point as that makes sense. It has more to do with the idea of them *STARTING* to increase the price quickly across the board by a significant amount on even product that does not change in any way.

Rolex throws out a 15% price increase and people ..... but it is expected as they have slowly over years built the prestige and raising prices to the next level has become a norm. IWC is another example of a watch brand that has the prestige to go with the price increases that they demand. Typically if Rolex wants to really raise a price on a watch, they discontinue a previous version, offer some vast improvements and then release the later version ala (Seadweller vs. DeepSeaDweller and the vast price differences or the GMTII vs. the GMTIIc).

Omega still to a degree hasn't done this but the fear is that they will go that way in the attempt to catch up with Rolex.. They didn't release a "new" Planet Ocean to justify say a 30% hike and discontinue the old one. They didn't do it on the Speedmaster (and discontinue the original).

Rolex releases the Rolex powered Daytona and did away with the Zenith powered Daytona. Along with that came what....a 35% price increase? They discontinue their smaller case sizes and increase the size and increase the price by a lot. They change steel from 316 to 904 and increase the price above their normal yearly amount.

That is how you build brand prestige IMO. If you're going to do a drastic price increase, do it with some improvements or changes to the line but do it over time. Every time Rolex released a newer version of the sub, they raised the price by quite a bit. Taking a watch that sold for $3500 on say Feb. 28th and tell the consumer, that "Oh, nothing changed on the watch but today you have to pay $3950" can piss some people off and cause fears for what happens in the future.

To me, Rolex or IWC doing this is ok as they have the exsting pedigree to ask for it and receive it. Omega, used to have it but IMO lost it and are now trying to get it back. They went from a Rolex/IWC contender ot a Rolex/IWC follower and now are trying to be a contender again. It's going to take a while to change perception and convince consumers that the 130g hunk of steel on their wrist is now worth $500 more then it was yesterday.

I'm unfortunately in that camp. Omega's are great watches. I really like mine. I do have an issue being told though that a Planet Ocean is worth $450 more now then it was a few months ago as I don't personally see it. If they hike the price again next year by 11% to $4384 I will have an even harder time.

Of course, one thing to consider is that they haven't done a price increase in what, 2 years? So that is going to hurt them by doing a large amount all at once. If it goes back to say 5% next year, I'll ..... but won't be too put off by it.


----------



## SpringDriven

The Cal. 8500 is NOT made by ETA. There is no base ETA model that the 8500 is referenced from, nothing in the ETA lineup, not even close. There are no other manufacturers that can have the 8500 in their watch, unless Swatch Group changes their mind about the availability of this movement to other brands.

YES ETA was ONE of the people who helped design the 8500, as well as other brands as Georges stated, but this does not make it an ETA movement, it is a Swatch Group movement, designed for Omega. Right now the movement is sourced from Swatch Group and assembled by Omega, but they WANT the 8500 to be made and assembled completly within Omega at some point. I do not believe that ETA makes ALL the parts for the 8500. I believe the 8500 parts are sourced from several companies within Swatch Group at the moment.

To say it is an ETA movement is to imply that there is an ETA movement available that the Cal. 8500 is based on, which is not the case.


----------



## NightScar

SpringDriven said:


> The Cal. 8500 is NOT made by ETA. There is no base ETA model that the 8500 is referenced from, nothing in the ETA lineup, not even close. There are no other manufacturers that can have the 8500 in their watch, unless Swatch Group changes their mind about the availability of this movement to other brands.
> 
> YES ETA was ONE of the people who helped design the 8500, as well as other brands as Georges stated, but this does not make it an ETA movement, it is a Swatch Group movement, designed for Omega. Right now the movement is sourced from Swatch Group and assembled by Omega, but they WANT the 8500 to be made and assembled completly within Omega at some point. I do not believe that ETA makes ALL the parts for the 8500. I believe the 8500 parts are sourced from several companies within Swatch Group at the moment.
> 
> To say it is an ETA movement is to imply that there is an ETA movement available that the Cal. 8500 is based on, which is not the case.


Thanks for the detailed info, appreciate it. You can never really learn too much.

Omega being with Swatch Group and producing movements is definitely a big plus because they have the manufacturer on their side so they can pretty much make many in-house movements or share, kind of how Tag Heuer being under LVMH with Zenith has based their Cal 36 movement from the El Primero movement.

I guess the question is how many of 8500 movements are they producing? Because the exclusivity factor should certainly play a part. The market being saturated with it kind of dilutes the meaning of in-house movement, kind of how Rolexes movements being mass produced.


----------



## MSNWatch

*The 8500 is an amazing movement*

It is probably one of the most accurate mechanical movements produced today. The 8500 in my HV has gone +2 seconds in 30 days. The 8500 in my previously owned AT was similarly accurate. There are also many owners of the cal. 8500 watches who have reported a similar accuracy level. It is IMHO at the level of any non-hand finished time only mechanical movement made today.


----------



## Aquaracer1

NightScar said:


> I have a feeling by the way Omega is planning to go higher up and compete with Rolex, that that statement won't hold true in a year or two outside of buying used.


They are well on their way to competing with other high end shops with the intro of 8500 and the in house gig. This is just my opinion, but I think Omega competed with Rolex even before the price increase. My personal preferance is Omega over Roller


----------



## NightScar

Aquaracer1 said:


> They are well on their way to competing with other high end shops with the intro of 8500 and the in house gig. This is just my opinion, but I think Omega competed with Rolex even before the price increase. My personal preferance is Omega over Roller


True, Omega competed but if you really look at it, they are still in different markets and are viewed differently. Rolex is just overall at a higher price point and take into consideration that discount is scarce on Rolexes in comparison to Omega, where a hefty discount can be had from an AD. With Rolexes, you'd be lucky to get 10%. Accounting the discount on Omega, the price discrepancy becomes more clear between the two. It'll be difficult to say that they competed with each other with such a price difference and that is why Omega is making huge price increases. At least that is how I view it.

Just put yourself in this position (although a bit difficult), you are a regular guy (or gal) just walking around the mall. Do not look at yourself as a WIS and simply as a consumer and base your decision on what you see in the movie, ads, general perceptions, etc... if you have $5k to spend on a watch and you see an Aqua Terra and a Submariner and the AD offers it you for the same price, $5k out the door. Again, as a general consumer who aren't thinking the WIS way, which would you pick? If I put myself in that position, sad as it maybe but I will be lured with Rolex name. Again, that is just me and there is absolutely nothing wrong with Omega but I think the price is still part of their selling point. A great watch for a more reasonable price than the Rolex, Omega is still cheaper now but not by that much and for how long?

Again, that is just my .02 cents.


----------



## hiro1963

From my personal experience, I switched the Non Date Sub to the Speedmaster Reduced. To me the price difference didn't matter. Both watches are quality watches. I don't think that Rolex is better because it's more expensive. So, for me they are competing each other. I bet some people are like that too.


----------



## vtsnowplow

Aquaracer1 said:


> As far as mid-level automatics go, Omegas are more affordable, hence more appealing to me. And IWC is more exclusive. If I am spending 2500-3000 on a watch, I would rather have an Omega. Getting into higher end territory - the IWC 7 days is a stunner indeed.


I would tend to agree. IWC is more of a premier watch brand designed for the elite, while omega is made for the masses.


----------



## acdelco

I didn't know that vermont was like beverly hills or park avenue;-)


vtsnowplow said:


> I would tend to agree. IWC is more of a premier watch brand designed for the elite, while omega is made for the masses.


----------



## SpringDriven

vtsnowplow said:


> I would tend to agree. IWC is more of a premier watch brand designed for the elite, while omega is made for the masses.


Both IWC and Omega have watches for the 'Elite' and the 'Masses'. 
Just curious, because your statement was very vague. Both companies offer readily available market watches and very expensive limited number watches, so they both really cater to the same markets and people.


----------



## codymac

Mockingbird said:


> What are your opinions of each brand side by side and in comparison? I personally find that IWC is ranked higher both in quality and design. Some good models to contrast would probably be: AT and Mark XVI.


For me, there's really not much room for comparison. I'd rank IWC much higher in quality and better in design as well.


----------



## NightScar

SpringDriven said:


> Both IWC and Omega have watches for the 'Elite' and the 'Masses'.
> Just curious, because your statement was very vague. Both companies offer readily available market watches and very expensive limited number watches, so they both really cater to the same markets and people.


It's hard to agree since Omega produces a much higher number of watches compared to IWC. Plus Omega does offer a $2k quartz in the SMP as their entry level watch while IWCs entry level watch is the Portofino at $3k.


----------



## GaryF

In 2002 and 2007 Rolex gave a significant price hike to their range despite most of the models being unchanged.

This is the sort of thing that I don't want to see Omega doing. New movements/models? Fair enough.

But chasing Rolex is stupid. If they get a form of the SMP or PO into Rolex Sub' price territory in the next few yew years, what will Rolex do? They will always adjust their prices to stay ahead of the pack an maintain their carefully nurtured brand image.



John_in_SC said:


> In a degree I am with NightScar regarding the Omega price increases. It's not that they are bad and that they are attempting to position themselves as a strong competitor to Rolex at that level of prestige and price point as that makes sense. It has more to do with the idea of them *STARTING* to increase the price quickly across the board by a significant amount on even product that does not change in any way. It's a snobbery arms race.
> 
> Rolex throws out a 15% price increase and people ..... but it is expected as they have slowly over years built the prestige and raising prices to the next level has become a norm. IWC is another example of a watch brand that has the prestige to go with the price increases that they demand. Typically if Rolex wants to really raise a price on a watch, they discontinue a previous version, offer some vast improvements and then release the later version ala (Seadweller vs. DeepSeaDweller and the vast price differences or the GMTII vs. the GMTIIc).
> 
> Omega still to a degree hasn't done this but the fear is that they will go that way in the attempt to catch up with Rolex.. They didn't release a "new" Planet Ocean to justify say a 30% hike and discontinue the old one. They didn't do it on the Speedmaster (and discontinue the original).
> 
> Rolex releases the Rolex powered Daytona and did away with the Zenith powered Daytona. Along with that came what....a 35% price increase? They discontinue their smaller case sizes and increase the size and increase the price by a lot. They change steel from 316 to 904 and increase the price above their normal yearly amount.
> 
> That is how you build brand prestige IMO. If you're going to do a drastic price increase, do it with some improvements or changes to the line but do it over time. Every time Rolex released a newer version of the sub, they raised the price by quite a bit. Taking a watch that sold for $3500 on say Feb. 28th and tell the consumer, that "Oh, nothing changed on the watch but today you have to pay $3950" can piss some people off and cause fears for what happens in the future.
> 
> To me, Rolex or IWC doing this is ok as they have the exsting pedigree to ask for it and receive it. Omega, used to have it but IMO lost it and are now trying to get it back. They went from a Rolex/IWC contender ot a Rolex/IWC follower and now are trying to be a contender again. It's going to take a while to change perception and convince consumers that the 130g hunk of steel on their wrist is now worth $500 more then it was yesterday.
> 
> I'm unfortunately in that camp. Omega's are great watches. I really like mine. I do have an issue being told though that a Planet Ocean is worth $450 more now then it was a few months ago as I don't personally see it. If they hike the price again next year by 11% to $4384 I will have an even harder time.
> 
> Of course, one thing to consider is that they haven't done a price increase in what, 2 years? So that is going to hurt them by doing a large amount all at once. If it goes back to say 5% next year, I'll ..... but won't be too put off by it.


----------



## Mathew J

GaryF said:


> In 2002 and 2007 Rolex gave a significant price hike to their range despite most of the models being unchanged.
> 
> This is the sort of thing that I don't want to see Omega doing. New movements/models? Fair enough.
> 
> But chasing Rolex is stupid. If they get a form of the SMP or PO into Rolex Sub' price territory in the next few yew years, what will Rolex do? They will always adjust their prices to stay ahead of the pack an maintain their carefully nurtured brand image.


Yeah the above referenced post is a bit off base imho...

For years Rolex drastically raised prices whereas Omega sat stagnant, I remmeber on my entry into this hobby the price variance (retail) between a SMP and a Rolex was about a thousand USD, then in no time and with no upgrades on Rolex's part the MSRP of the Sub was double that of the SMP and the PO....

Even today they charge a phenominal amount for their no date sub, a watch that hasn't improved for nearly a decade and still features their rather cheap bracelet.

I think Omega by closing certain dealers and trying to get a handle on their distribution is a good move, I am also not against small price increases, but if they jump too high too quick then that would stink.


----------



## pacchi

John_in_SC said:


> For me if was older sports watches, it's IWC hands down. Two of my grail watches I'll never own are: (images stolen from net)
> 
> The IWC GST Aquatimer in Ti
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PD IWC Ocean 2000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would seriously consider selling all my Omegas to get either of these.
> 
> For modern sports watches, I would say Omega pre-price increase as they were fantastic value for the price. Post-price increase and it is harder to decide. I really like the modern aquatimer design aesthetic.


I have been in and out of IWC in the last 10 years.

I had the pleasure to own and wear the 3 above, an Ingenieur and a couple of Pilot chronographs. Although I wore them pretty often and always looked forward to owning one for as long as I had to save for the next to come, I never really 'warmed up' to any of the models. (The O2000 still has a special place in my heart though..:-()

And this is main point and my advise, try the watches, get the feeling for it, weigh it on your wrist, get a feedback if it suits you.

If you buy an expensive suit (and any IWC is more expensive than any BRIONI suit out there, including shirt, tie and shoes!), one would expect to look nice in it AND be comfortable.
So run to your next AD and try them out!

PS: I never let go of my Speedys in all the years, and my 89' 863 with a 1450 bracelet is still my absolute favorite watch for everyday wear...;-)


----------



## Aquaracer1

NightScar said:


> True, Omega competed but if you really look at it, they are still in different markets and are viewed differently. Rolex is just overall at a higher price point and take into consideration that discount is scarce on Rolexes in comparison to Omega, where a hefty discount can be had from an AD. With Rolexes, you'd be lucky to get 10%. Accounting the discount on Omega, the price discrepancy becomes more clear between the two. It'll be difficult to say that they competed with each other with such a price difference and that is why Omega is making huge price increases. At least that is how I view it.
> 
> Just put yourself in this position (although a bit difficult), you are a regular guy (or gal) just walking around the mall. Do not look at yourself as a WIS and simply as a consumer and base your decision on what you see in the movie, ads, general perceptions, etc... if you have $5k to spend on a watch and you see an Aqua Terra and a Submariner and the AD offers it you for the same price, $5k out the door. Again, as a general consumer who aren't thinking the WIS way, which would you pick? If I put myself in that position, sad as it maybe but I will be lured with Rolex name. Again, that is just me and there is absolutely nothing wrong with Omega but I think the price is still part of their selling point. A great watch for a more reasonable price than the Rolex, Omega is still cheaper now but not by that much and for how long?
> 
> Again, that is just my .02 cents.


Good example. In the world outside of watch enthusiasts, Rolex generally wins due to brand prestige, perception and overall recognition. Even in the watch enthusiast world, Rolex may still win. And thats great! Everyone is entitled to thier own opinon. Some will favor Rolex, some will favor Omega.

Agree that Rolex and IWC are perceived differently than Omega. And thats true, they are also at different price points. Rolex and IWC both seem like excellent brands. Omega does not need any justification. Price increase or not. They make a hell of a watch - with excellent value for what you get. I do however think that the 8500 movement (along with the price increase) will move them up the ranks of exclusivity. Which means that new Omegas will only be purchased by those that are willing to pay the premium and perceive more value in the 8500 movement.


----------



## acdelco

That's a very nice collection you have there! I actually have the same Titanium Aquatimer ( may sell it but it's an awesome piece). However, you ain't gonna convince me that the PO is of inferior quality. My subs have gone before the PO... and perhaps the AT as well will go before the PO. The PO is a keeper in my book.



codymac said:


> For me, there's really not much room for comparison. I'd rank IWC much higher in quality and better in design as well.


----------



## codymac

acdelco said:


> That's a very nice collection you have there! I actually have the same Titanium Aquatimer ( may sell it but it's an awesome piece). However, you ain't gonna convince me that the PO is of inferior quality. My subs have gone before the PO... and perhaps the AT as well will go before the PO. The PO is a keeper in my book.


Cheers!

We agree to disagree, then. Bringing Rolex into the mix adds another interesting dimension to the discussion though.

Based on comparison against my own, personal standard, the PO is the one in that view that I'm the least impressed with. I'd likely put the Aquatimers over the Sea-Dweller and that over the Seamasters. That's as a general rule although it depends on the standard they're measured against and what aspects of each is being measured. (IWC: best bracelet, best bezel - Omega: best clasp - etc.)

If I were to get rid of them, the 3536 would be the last to go and my Sea-Dweller would almost certainly be next to last.

FWIW, I wear a SD almost exclusively during the week.


----------



## acdelco

Gotcha Cody. I love the AT's titanium bracelet as well. From a diving perspective, I'd think the bezel would be great, but I find the push in bezel quite hard to turn.

But, you're right. It depends on what features are most important to the user. I like my PO's legibility, lume. It's my best timekeeper as well.



codymac said:


> Cheers!
> 
> We agree to disagree, then. Bringing Rolex into the mix adds another interesting dimension to the discussion though.
> 
> Based on comparison against my own, personal standard, the PO is the one in that view that I'm the least impressed with. I'd likely put the Aquatimers over the Sea-Dweller and that over the Seamasters. That's as a general rule although it depends on the standard they're measured against and what aspects of each is being measured. (IWC: best bracelet, best bezel - Omega: best clasp - etc.)
> 
> If I were to get rid of them, the 3536 would be the last to go and my Sea-Dweller would almost certainly be next to last.
> 
> FWIW, I wear a SD almost exclusively during the week.


----------



## Kyle L

I really love some of IWC's design, right now this is going for $2600, looks very nice. :-!


----------



## Michael Schott

M4tt said:


> Don't forget that up until comparitively recently IWC used Jaeger le Coultre movements in many of their watches. So, for example, I would argue that a MKXII is in a different league to a MKXV.
> 
> I guess my point is that, movement wise, IWC were clearly superior to Omega a decade or more ago but have slipped downhill in moving to ETA ebauches, while Omega have improved; they have uprated ETA movements to a higher standard and then returned to manufacture status.


I'm a little late getting to this but it's been a long time since IWC used JLC movements. The Mark XII has been out of production for at least 12 years and the alarm watch and mechaquartz watches that used JLC movements are long gone as well. By the way many Mark XII owners with the JLC movement find it to be a rather fussy movement which is not the case with the 30110. So whether it's a better movement is debatable. More exclusive yes.

Regarding IWC vs Omega, the advantage Omega has is in value. The AT with the 8500 is getting pricier but still a bargain used. I own an AT with the 2500 movement and that watch watch is a bargain. However vs an entry level IWC, the craftsmanship of the watch is lacking. Compare a Mark XVI case to the previous model AT. The IWC case is in a different league as are IWC bracelets. I will also say that the 2500C movement IMO is more interesting than the IWC 30110 (modified 2892). Mine runs less than +1 sec/day.

You should also know that I moderate the IWC Forum on another website but over the years I've owned 3 IWC pieces and at least 7 Omega's.


----------



## M4tt

> I'm a little late getting to this but it's been a long time since IWC used JLC movements. The Mark XII has been out of production for at least 12 years and the alarm watch and mechaquartz watches that used JLC movements are long gone as well.


As I said:



> IWC were clearly superior to Omega* a decade or more* ago but have slipped downhill in moving to ETA ebauches.





> By the way many Mark XII owners with the JLC movement find it to be a rather fussy movement which is not the case with the 30110. So whether it's a better movement is debatable. More exclusive yes.


I don't know about IWC as I don't own any modern ones but I do have both a JLC889 in one of the JLC dive watches and a JLC mecaquartz chronograph and have found both to be supremely stable and reliable. I would be curious to read of people who have had issues, if you have links.


----------



## Mockingbird

Kyle L said:


> I really love some of IWC's design, right now this is going for $2600, looks very nice. :-!


On the web, or at a local store?


----------



## Mathew J

Michael Schott said:


> I'm a little late getting to this but it's been a long time since IWC used JLC movements. The Mark XII has been out of production for at least 12 years and the alarm watch and mechaquartz watches that used JLC movements are long gone as well. By the way many Mark XII owners with the JLC movement find it to be a rather fussy movement which is not the case with the 30110. So whether it's a better movement is debatable. More exclusive yes.
> 
> Regarding IWC vs Omega, the advantage Omega has is in value. The AT with the 8500 is getting pricier but still a bargain used. I own an AT with the 2500 movement and that watch watch is a bargain. However vs an entry level IWC, the craftsmanship of the watch is lacking. Compare a Mark XVI case to the previous model AT. The IWC case is in a different league as are IWC bracelets. I will also say that the 2500C movement IMO is more interesting than the IWC 30110 (modified 2892). Mine runs less than +1 sec/day.
> 
> You should also know that I moderate the IWC Forum on another website but over the years I've owned 3 IWC pieces and at least 7 Omega's.


As the owner of a similar AT I would agree, great bargain even when they were new but not to be compared to the casework and bracelet on an IWC, then again I would have leveled the same criticism of Rolex with their previous offerings.

I love alot of what IWC does however I can never spring for one, the biggest turnoff for me is the fact that the bezel is part of the case on the pilots watches and that is the part I seemingly inflict the most damage on.

Also Omega is comming a long way with their new models, with quality that is much better than before.


----------



## Runitout

I see a lot of posts comparing Omega to Rolex in a thread about IWC - as if Rolex are the only other player in the market.

Rolex can afford to price themselves as they do because their advertising and marketing over the last sixty years has been so effective. You buy the name as much as the product. 

To move one's price point past a certain level, in my opinion cachet becomes the most important thing. (For example, I have read some well respected WIS on this forum saying that they would not pay $# for a Seiko no matter how wonderful the watch is. The same people are happy to shell out $(#+y) for a dive watch with a folding link bracelet and Rolex on the dial). 

The danger is that by increasing one's prices to a level equivalent to, say, IWC, either one's watches must be as well finished, or one's brand cachet must be superior. I see neither of these with Omega at the moment. 

I am hopeful that the new generation of Omega watches improve to a level commensurate with the inevitable price increase. Certainly, the 8500 movement looks like a good basis upon which to do just that.


----------



## M4tt

> The danger is that by increasing one's prices to a level equivalent to, say, IWC, either one's watches must be as well finished, or one's brand cachet must be superior. I see neither of these with Omega at the moment.


Surely the movement is at least as important as the cachet or finishing? When it comes to the sort of complex quality of finish that IWC have made a fetish of Grand Seiko are really the benchmark in my opinion.

I agree that Omega Bracelets don't bear comparison to JLC, IWC or top end Seiko (and have done a short photo essay to demonstrate this assertion). In the same way, when it comes to finish, I would be really curious to see a short photo essay comparing, say, a MKXV with an AT and even perhaps a GS Seiko.

It is easy to assert that something is the case, but it would be nice to see a supporting argument. As it happens I am not sure either way. IWC do look sharp, but it isn't clear to me why they are better. More to the point, I have compared the casework by Fricker on a Timefactors product with an IWC and felt that there wasn't enough iin it to justify the order of magnitude price difference. To be fair I feel the same way about the Seiko Spirit casework compared to the AT as well. In both cases the movement and cachet provide the differentiation.

The bottom line is that it would be fascinating to see support for the opinions here. I have done the work on the movement comparison and bracelet comparison in the past, it would be really nice if someone could do a case comparison to demonstrate the putative superiority of IWC products.

The problem in the watch world is that for every person who is making authoritive sounding statements that are defensible there is another in the grips of cognitive dissonance. As I say, I suspect that IWC cases are better, I'm ready to be convinced, however I would really like to see more than assertion and the assumption of common knowledge.


----------



## MSNWatch

I too am not sure I buy the argument that IWC has better fit and finish. One only needs to look at the omega hour vision and the reborn ploprof and I dare say they match up to any IWC (or surpass it) in the 5-10k price range. I own an IWC mk XII and have handled the XVI and while nice they are IMHO not better than say the omega PO which I have also previously owned. 
And I've already said my piece about the movement - I am of the opinion that the cal. 8500 is the equal or superior to any time only non-limited edition IWC movement produced today.


----------



## Michael Schott

M4tt said:


> Surely the movement is at least as important as the cachet or finishing? When it comes to the sort of complex quality of finish that IWC have made a fetish of Grand Seiko are really the benchmark in my opinion.
> 
> I agree that Omega Bracelets don't bear comparison to JLC, IWC or top end Seiko (and have done a short photo essay to demonstrate this assertion). In the same way, when it comes to finish, I would be really curious to see a short photo essay comparing, say, a MKXV with an AT and even perhaps a GS Seiko.
> 
> It is easy to assert that something is the case, but it would be nice to see a supporting argument. As it happens I am not sure either way. IWC do look sharp, but it isn't clear to me why they are better. More to the point, I have compared the casework by Fricker on a Timefactors product with an IWC and felt that there wasn't enough iin it to justify the order of magnitude price difference. To be fair I feel the same way about the Seiko Spirit casework compared to the AT as well. In both cases the movement and cachet provide the differentiation.
> 
> The bottom line is that it would be fascinating to see support for the opinions here. I have done the work on the movement comparison and bracelet comparison in the past, it would be really nice if someone could do a case comparison to demonstrate the putative superiority of IWC products.
> 
> The problem in the watch world is that for every person who is making authoritive sounding statements that are defensible there is another in the grips of cognitive dissonance. As I say, I suspect that IWC cases are better, I'm ready to be convinced, however I would really like to see more than assertion and the assumption of common knowledge.


Judging casework quality can be very subjective. However IMO the previous model AT that I own is not close to the quality of that of an IWC Mark XV or XVI. If you study the cases you will see that the IWC cases are more intricate, the lines where the polished and brushed surfaces are crisper and the etchings on the caseback are better defined.

I'm pretty sure that newer Omega products have jumped a class in this regard and the PO that I owned was significantly better made than the 2254 SMP that I owned. I haven't seen a new AT with the 8850 movement so I reserve judgement on that model.

I haven't seen a Timefactors piece to compare with an IWC but I did own an Archimede Chronograph with Ickler made case which was very nice, especially for the money. However it was relatively simple compared to the comparable IWC 3717 case.


----------



## John_in_MA

For fit and finish I can't offer a judgement between the two as i have not owned an IWC...yet. What I can say is that Omega has quite good fit and finish (my personal experience with the PO bezel notwithstanding).

Where I personally feel IWC has the upper hand is in the user experince and design aesthetic of the cases, not so much the fit and finish.

Let's compare these two:

IWC Aquatimer 3568 (44mm)









and the Omega Planet Ocean 45mm










What is it about the IWC *I* find more appealing from a user experience?


the IWC has NO HE valve. This is a huge dislike of mine on the Omega SMP line and one I wish they did away with.
Quick release bracelet release which makes changing straps easier
Easy bracelet adjustment

The planet ocean has many pro's as well and I won't go into them here. Both use as a base the same movement though the Co-Ax adds on the Omega though owning one a 2500 and an 1120, I personally see no real benefit from a user standpoint.

As you can get both for very good prices (though the IWC is a bit more) on the used market, I strongly would consider one of these for the right price knowing these features that hte Omega lacks and the fact that it is...an IWC.


----------



## M4tt

While I agree about the sharpness, from what I remember, it would be really nice to see a couple of Hi Res photos to demonstrate this. If you want to pop up a couple of an IWC and I would be happy to pop up an old AT and a Seiko GS. This would move the discussion to a far more interesting level.


----------



## Michael Schott

M4tt said:


> While I agree about the sharpness, from what I remember, it would be really nice to see a couple of Hi Res photos to demonstrate this. If you want to pop up a couple of an IWC and I would be happy to pop up an old AT and a Seiko GS. This would move the discussion to a far more interesting level.


I don't have any pics at this time to show and don't currently have an IWC in my collection. Plus, the best way to make this judgement is in person not through pictures.


----------



## Dixan

John_in_SC said:


> IWC Aquatimer 3568 (44mm)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the IWC has NO HE valve. This is a huge dislike of mine on the Omega SMP line and one I wish they did away with.
> Quick release bracelet release which makes changing straps easier
> Easy bracelet adjustment
> 
> As you can get both for very good prices (though the IWC is a bit more) on the used market, I strongly would consider one of these for the right price knowing these features that hte Omega lacks and the fact that it is...an IWC.


That's funny... I just tried on the black/white version of this watch a few days ago. Compared to my 42 mm PO, it's h-u-g-e. I think it's because the bezel and crystal are all on one plane, meaning it's essentially a completely flat surface from bezel edge to bezel edge. Looked great. Just a bit too big for me, though.

I did notice those details you mentioned as well. I felt, overall, that there was a... different kind of quality feel about it. I won't say it felt of _higher_ quality, necessarily, but the tactile experience is simply _different._ It's as if the areas that you would touch or handle are consciously addressed, and therefore finished, in their own unique ways.

For example, Audi has a dedicated team of designers and engineers whose only job is to develop the tactile sensations a user would experience in normal operation. I'm sure Mercedes-Benz have a similar type of design team. The resulting interior cabins therefore have very different feeling detailing. It would be hard to say that one would be clearly better than the other, they were just designed from the start to be different.

Likewise, it's hard to say which watch, the AT 2000, or the PO is "put together" or designed better - they are both of very high quality. Simply stated, the PO and this IWC each have their own unique character. It's truly more of a subjective thing... Does that make sense?

Anyway, I love my PO, but if IWC made this watch in a 41 or 42 mm size, I would probably buy one as well.


----------



## NightScar

M4tt said:


> While I agree about the sharpness, from what I remember, it would be really nice to see a couple of Hi Res photos to demonstrate this. If you want to pop up a couple of an IWC and I would be happy to pop up an old AT and a Seiko GS. This would move the discussion to a far more interesting level.


I agree with Michael that it is easier to judge in person but when it comes to hi-res pics, I always use this as a reference. It may not be the easiest to see but if you look by the lug, the top part is polished while the sides are brushed. The distinction is between the two is crisp and very clean as Michael said. I am actually wearing the 3714 right now and just by looking at it the finish is just superb.

Here's the link, I didn't want to post the pic directly so it won't slow down the load time of the thread: *HI-RES Portuguese 5001 Pic*


----------



## MSNWatch

The 5001 is clearly a superb watch but for a fair comparison, take a look at the ploprof 1200 - same price range and the omega in this case does not take a backseat to the 5001:

https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=339589


----------



## NightScar

No offense to anyone who likes it for it's looks or movement or function or history but the Ploprof is one ugly watch. I know look is subjective but it is just really ugly to me. :-x


----------



## Dixan

NightScar said:


> No offense to anyone who likes it for it's looks or movement or function or history but the Ploprof is one ugly watch. I know look is subjective but it is just really ugly to me. :-x


...And, thanks for sharing.

Once again, "To each, his own." My dad's been trying to give me his Portuguese (TBH, not sure of the exact model number; white dial, blued hands; haven't seen it in a few years) and I may gladly accept it one day, but I haven't been able to get very excited about it. Part of it is because I want him to enjoy it more (I know he really likes it, even though he rarely wears it), but part of it is because I'm really just disinterested in it. If he was going to give me a PloProf, well... I'd fly across an ocean to pick it up tomorrow.


----------



## NightScar

Dixan said:


> ...And, thanks for sharing.


You're welcome. :-!


----------



## MSNWatch

I actually prefer the looks of the 5001 to the Ploprof - my contention was whether or not you like the way the ploprof looks, the fit and finish of the watch is the equal or superior of any IWC (or any brand for that matter) in the same price range.


----------



## SpringDriven

M4tt said:


> While I agree about the sharpness, from what I remember, it would be really nice to see a couple of Hi Res photos to demonstrate this. If you want to pop up a couple of an IWC and I would be happy to pop up an old AT and a Seiko GS. This would move the discussion to a far more interesting level.


WOOT and HUZZAH for Macro shots!


----------



## Runitout

M4tt said:


> Surely the movement is at least as important as the cachet or finishing?


 To me? Yes. To the market - I don't think so.

Hence your perfectly correct statement of



> When it comes to the sort of complex quality of finish that IWC have made a fetish of Grand Seiko are really the benchmark in my opinion.


is contrasted to the fact than brands with cheap movements sell for a lot of money. That disgraceful Graham SAS Chronofighter with a bog standard 7750 is $12,000... You could buy a couple of Grand Seikos for that, and an Omega to be your beater.:-d


----------



## Runitout

Dixan said:


> ...And, thanks for sharing.
> 
> Once again, "To each, his own." My dad's been trying to give me his Portuguese (TBH, not sure of the exact model number; white dial, blued hands; haven't seen it in a few years) and I may gladly accept it one day, but I haven't been able to get very excited about it. Part of it is because I want him to enjoy it more (I know he really likes it, even though he rarely wears it), but part of it is because I'm really just disinterested in it. If he was going to give me a PloProf, well... I'd fly across an ocean to pick it up tomorrow.


And that very same Portuguese is just about my ideal watch. Whack a column wheel movement in there and I would sell every watch I own for it.


----------



## M4tt

Here's a couple to look at:









(apart from being a dire warning about lint free polishing cloths and checking before you shoot, this captures some fine finishing by Omega from a while back) It also illustrates an important concern: how well will a finish take Wabi?









Seiko rather show the way in a GS. 









While JLC show that you don't need to have sharp edges to finish a case well.










And one reason why I rate Fricker's work so highly:










Incidentally, while talking about bracelets, Any guesses who made what here?










Personally I hadn't realised how much I had challenged the finish of my AT until I went back to pictures of it. Personally I think that the AT handles Wabi as well as the Sub does...









Lucky really!

Ultimately, a finish no matter how simple or complex, stands or falls by the overall look of the watch, although good light and a good shot can make anything look fantastic!










In thinking about this I guess I have come to the conclusion that casework isn't simply good or bad, there needs to be a context. Once you have some idea of what the designers were trying to achieve you can ask how well they achieve it. Mere technical virtuosity without a consistent vision is pointless. Seiko with the GS and IWC seem to be on a similar mission; in both cases I think that they suceed magnificently . JLC as usual are somewhere very different while the AT uses complex forms simply presented. The point is that they simply are not comparable on asingle continuum; to criticise the JLC because it has no sharp finishes is to miss the point.

Personally I think it is Omega's best all round watch for a generation. My main reason for thinking that is that I know of few watches in which all the design elements are so simple and yet consistently harmonious. To my my mind any fancy finishes would have detracted from the simplicity. But that, for a change, is merely an aesthetic opinion.


----------



## M4tt

> To me? Yes. To the market - I don't think so.
> 
> Hence your perfectly correct statement of
> 
> Quote:
> When it comes to the sort of complex quality of finish that IWC have made a fetish of Grand Seiko are really the benchmark in my opinion.
> is contrasted to the fact than brands with cheap movements sell for a lot of money. That disgraceful Graham SAS Chronofighter with a bog standard 7750 is $12,000... You could buy a couple of Grand Seikos for that, and an Omega to be your beater.:-d


Nicely put! I guess that is the problem with veblen goods and a docile trade press.


----------



## NightScar

Nice picture illustration M4tt.

Fit and finish is more than just the look but how the whole watch is made. Here is a review on the fit and finish on the Portuguese from an Article in Watch Time Magazine.



> Another pleasant surprise occurs after the back has been unscrewed and lifted off. When you replace it atop the case, it fits there with absolute precision and without even the slightest hint of a wiggle. Precision of this high degree is a welcome (and sometimes sadly lacking) attribute on diver's watches. Its presence on the Portuguese lends credence to this watch's claim of being reliably water-resistant all the way down to 50 meters' depth.
> 
> After screwing the back into place, we can turn our attention to the watch's exterior details. The fine craftsmanship of the stainless steel case is immediately evident. You can search in vain for filigreed edges and angles, but you won't find any.


Also, here's a good pic of the finish on my Spitfire, you can clearly see how the polished to brushed to polished to brushed sequence from the bezel to the case. I think it enhances the look and adds a great detail to the watch but again, look is subjective (I can't seem to say that enough :-d ).


----------



## acdelco

Hey Nightscar, are you trying to turn this into an IWC forum? ;-) Seriously, though, your Spitfire shows very fine detail and is great quality. No doubt about that. I just didn't bond with it from an aesthetic standpoint. 
I like the detail of the AT 8500.










And the back of the AT aint too shabby either....












NightScar said:


> Nice picture illustration M4tt.
> 
> Fit and finish is more than just the look but how the whole watch is made. Here is a review on the fit and finish on the Portuguese from an Article in Watch Time Magazine.
> 
> Also, here's a good pic of the finish on my Spitfire, you can clearly see how the polished to brushed to polished to brushed sequence from the bezel to the case. I think it enhances the look and adds a great detail to the watch but again, look is subjective (I can't seem to say that enough :-d ).


----------



## NightScar

acdelco said:


> Hey Nightscar, are you trying to turn this into an IWC forum? ;-) Seriously, though, your Spitfire shows very fine detail and is great quality. No doubt about that. I just didn't bond with it from an aesthetic standpoint.
> I like the detail of the AT 8500.
> 
> And the back of the AT aint too shabby either....


Of course not, I figured it was appropriate since it was in the title. :-d:-!

I love that AT, I wish I managed to pull the trigger before the price increase. Even the used market is adjusting their prices to the current retail instead of what they paid. :-(

The particular detail that I love with that AT is the date window, I love the raised frame that goes with the indexes. One of the best details in the AT 8500. One day I hope to own one. I love the look so much that I even considered the quartz version until I noticed the date window frame is removed in the quartz version. :-| The chopped index looked horribly.

And the case back is so nice, one thing I wish my Portuguese had but who really wants to see an undecorated ETA. :-(


----------



## Mathew J

John_in_SC said:


> For fit and finish I can't offer a judgement between the two as i have not owned an IWC...yet. What I can say is that Omega has quite good fit and finish (my personal experience with the PO bezel notwithstanding).
> 
> Where I personally feel IWC has the upper hand is in the user experince and design aesthetic of the cases, not so much the fit and finish.
> 
> Let's compare these two:
> 
> IWC Aquatimer 3568 (44mm)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the Omega Planet Ocean 45mm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it about the IWC *I* find more appealing from a user experience?
> 
> 
> the IWC has NO HE valve. This is a huge dislike of mine on the Omega SMP line and one I wish they did away with.
> Quick release bracelet release which makes changing straps easier
> Easy bracelet adjustment
> The planet ocean has many pro's as well and I won't go into them here. Both use as a base the same movement though the Co-Ax adds on the Omega though owning one a 2500 and an 1120, I personally see no real benefit from a user standpoint.
> 
> As you can get both for very good prices (though the IWC is a bit more) on the used market, I strongly would consider one of these for the right price knowing these features that hte Omega lacks and the fact that it is...an IWC.


Personally I feel this is quite possibly one of the worst IWCs to select as a comparison, and mostly because of the braclet...don't know why but not only does it look a bit cheap to me but I am conflicted on the quick release, sure it is a neat gimmick but you're really limiting yourself to what straps you can use on it.

Not to mention a pretty basic movement when compared to the Omega...

And then there are the things which shouldn't matter but do to me, specifically that for Omega the ETA movement is owned by Swatch, the IWC is a different conglomerate, for some reason I like keeping it all in the family so to say.


----------



## Mathew J

acdelco said:


> Hey Nightscar, are you trying to turn this into an IWC forum? ;-) Seriously, though, your Spitfire shows very fine detail and is great quality. No doubt about that. I just didn't bond with it from an aesthetic standpoint.
> I like the detail of the AT 8500.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the back of the AT aint too shabby either....


Its amazing how awesome both of these can look but they appear to be so very different...

From a finish standpoint even they appear to be approaching things very differently, the IWC appears clean and crisp with its sharp cut lines in the brush/polish and just screams high quality machinework.

The Omega appears robust, polished, and smooth...slightly more bulbous to me if that makes any sense.

The one thing I still can't get past on the IWC though is the bezel....love the watch and I would have owned one if the darn bezel wasn't formed from the case.


----------



## Mathew J

...


----------



## NightScar

Mathew J said:


> Personally I feel this is quite possibly one of the worst IWCs to select as a comparison, and mostly because of the braclet...don't know why but not only does it look a bit cheap to me but I am conflicted on the quick release, sure it is a neat gimmick but you're really limiting yourself to what straps you can use on it.


But IWC's AT series has always had their own unique bracelet that prevent you from using any old straps.


----------



## Dixan

acdelco said:


>


Hey, AC. That's the best photo of the 8500 AT I've ever seen. I like the gray dial much better than the already very nice white dial. Stunning watch! |>


----------



## tomr

I just finished reading every post in this thread, as, coincidentally, I have been, trying to decide between the Railmaster or the IWC Mark XVI. I am a fan of both Omega and IWC, with both having their respective qualities. I feel the IWC is a more understated watch in its design, which probably is why I am attracted to the Railmaster, also. 

It is good to see such objective discussion here, as comparatively, there is much less activity on the IWC forum.


----------



## lucretius

Speaking to fit and finish for Omega's, before they started puting coaxial movements in Seamasters, it was not uncommon for dials to have hairline cracks or have off-centered lume. (Take a look at some Bond SMPs from the 1990's.) Further, often the end-pieces didn't mate perfectly with the watch case, leaving some type of gap. (One prominent Rolex fanbuy had it out against Seamasters for this very reason). Even post-coaxial, I still see some less than perfect bracelets, e.g. I had to purchase a new end-piece for my Aqua Terra (cal. 2500C) in order to get rid of a gap. Even though the watch was under warranty, the Omega service centre didn't think a tiny gap was an issue.

I agree that Omega's fit and finish has been steadily improving over the years. I also don't think we can judge overall fit and finish either from (a) pictures, or (b) a single sample.



Michael Schott said:


> Plus, the best way to make this judgement is in person not through pictures.


----------



## erico

lucretius said:


> Speaking to fit and finish for Omega's, before they started puting coaxial movements in Seamasters, it was not uncommon for dials to have hairline cracks or have off-centered lume. (Take a look at some Bond SMPs from the 1990's.) Further, often the end-pieces didn't mate perfectly with the watch case, leaving some type of gap. (One prominent Rolex fanbuy had it out against Seamasters for this very reason). Even post-coaxial, I still see some less than perfect bracelets, e.g. I had to purchase a new end-piece for my Aqua Terra (cal. 2500C) in order to get rid of a gap. Even though the watch was under warranty, the Omega service centre didn't think a tiny gap was an issue.
> 
> I agree that Omega's fit and finish has been steadily improving over the years. I also don't think we can judge overall fit and finish either from (a) pictures, or (b) a single sample.


The dreaded gap! Don't remind me. Probably the only thing that irks me.


----------



## BaCaitlin

there was a poll done on the IWC forum to see how much the 5001 gained each day. Here is the link

https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=331774

Reading the posts made by the owners of IWC 5000 series, it looks like there are some issues with the movement w.r.t. it gaining too much time/day. To me, spending $8000.00 on a watch that gains more than 15 sec/day would be unacceptable.

I vote Omega. My speedmaster with moonphase complication gains 2 sec while on my wrist, and loses that 2 seconds overnight while sitting on my nightable.

In terms of how the watch is finished, IWC is nice but some of the higher end Omegas are nicer.


----------



## Mathew J

lucretius said:


> Speaking to fit and finish for Omega's, before they started puting coaxial movements in Seamasters, it was not uncommon for dials to have hairline cracks or have off-centered lume. (Take a look at some Bond SMPs from the 1990's.) Further, often the end-pieces didn't mate perfectly with the watch case, leaving some type of gap. (One prominent Rolex fanbuy had it out against Seamasters for this very reason). Even post-coaxial, I still see some less than perfect bracelets, e.g. I had to purchase a new end-piece for my Aqua Terra (cal. 2500C) in order to get rid of a gap. Even though the watch was under warranty, the Omega service centre didn't think a tiny gap was an issue.
> 
> I agree that Omega's fit and finish has been steadily improving over the years. I also don't think we can judge overall fit and finish either from (a) pictures, or (b) a single sample.


This could have been me as I used to give Omega a hard time for their bracelet end links, specifically the wings under the SEL to keep it in place vs the Rolex system which is flush.

However as a current Omega owner I can honestly say it is a non issue for me, both my Rolex and Omega bracelets are about the same when it comes to fitment against the case but the Omega bracelet feels nicer and wears better.

I never heard of Hairline cracks on Omega but off center lume was common with the printed dials, now that they are boardered in metal it is better...however even Rolex has had issues with this in the past, my Explorer had crooked numbers on the dial FWIW and cost far more than my Omega.


----------



## John_in_MA

Mathew J said:


> Personally I feel this is quite possibly one of the worst IWCs to select as a comparison, and mostly because of the braclet...don't know why but not only does it look a bit cheap to me but I am conflicted on the quick release, sure it is a neat gimmick but you're really limiting yourself to what straps you can use on it.
> 
> Not to mention a pretty basic movement when compared to the Omega...


I chose this one as it is the current "flagship" of the Aquatimer line. The only thing to me honestly that doesn't fly is the fact the bracelet doesn't taper.

I guess I'm not seeing the issue with the bracelet being cheap as IWC is known for having some of the best bracelets on the market. Solid, robust, and easy to adjust.

I love the Omega clasp but to be honest, they wear out. On a bond bracelet I had for my 2204.50 the diver extension wouldn't stay shut. Constantly popped open. I know two guys at work (one with a standard Bod the other with the Bond chrono) that has the same issue. Not to mention push pins.....:rodekaart I hate push pins.$3850 retail and they still use push pins in the bracelet of the PO.....

Yeah, the movement might be viewed as basic but you gotta look at it this way....What is the 2500 without the co-ax (who's added benefit is what really since you still have to service the watch every 5-6 years) is the 1120.

IWC replaces parts in the 2892 which I think Omega does as well. So they aren't different except for the marketing hyped Co-Ax.

Apples to apples, from a technological standpoint I say they are very similar. From an End User interaction standpoint, I personally think IWC addresses more issues with their watch then Omega does with the Planet Ocean.

As for bracelet to strap issues. You are right, they are limited but that has always been an IWC thing. They designed the aquatimer to work with 3 options....metal, rubber, or nylon. No leather.


----------



## M4tt

> Yeah, the movement might be viewed as basic but you gotta look at it this way....What is the 2500 without the co-ax (who's added benefit is what really since you still have to service the watch every 5-6 years) is the 1120.


The added benefit of the Coaxial is first, massively increased stability which translates into greater accuracy. It is just a more stable sort of escapement.

In addition the winding bridge is substantially improved with a higher jewel count and the movement in finished both functionally and decoratively to a higher standard. Apart from that... The IWC uses a 2892 with identical but higher quality (largely case hardened) parts fitted and improved functional finishing.


----------



## John_in_MA

M4tt said:


> The added benefit of the Coaxial is first, massively increased stability which translates into greater accuracy. It is just a more stable sort of escapement.
> 
> In addition the winding bridge is substantially improved with a higher jewel count and the movement in finished both functionally and decoratively to a higher standard. Apart from that... The IWC uses a 2892 with identical but higher quality (largely case hardened) parts fitted and improved functional finishing.


Thanks. didn't really know the finer details. Just sold my one co-ax watch. To me, stuff like what you posted isn't a big deal to me. All I care about are the basics. Is it a good movement and does it tell time well and be able to take my abusive nature. If it does, I'll go for what looks better to me personally based on pricing.


----------



## John_in_MA

Oh the faults of being a WIS. All this talk about IWC got me to increase my time table on owning one. I just bought one of these for a little bit more then what a used 42mm PO sells for. Once I get it this week, I'll actually do a comparison between this and the 2254.50 I have. Can't use a PO to do it though I've owned a PO in the past and the case finish of the PO is like the bond GMT I just sold to fund this and the SMP 2254.50 I still own.

I went for the 3538 instead of a 3536 or the 3568 for 2 main reasons.


Cost. Big one. 3536's right now are too rich and the one I was eyeing went for more then the $3500 I was willing to shell out for it.
3568's are still relatively new and thus used prices are still high. Not to mention the 44mm and the stainless steel makes for one helluva heavy watch.
I like the design aesthetic of the internal bezel of the 3548, it's titanium (a big plus for me) and the price was just under $2500 with service and Box and Papers.


----------



## codymac

A bit confused... the 3538 is titanium. The 3548 is steel. Hoping you've just made a typo there.

Congrats! The Ti IWCs absolutely disappear on your wrist. You won't know you've got it on - especially if you're coming from a PO.


----------



## John_in_MA

codymac said:


> A bit confused... the 3538 is titanium. The 3548 is steel. Hoping you've just made a typo there.
> 
> Congrats! The Ti IWCs absolutely disappear on your wrist. You won't know you've got it on - especially if you're coming from a PO.


YEp. Should be 3536 and 3538. I fixed it.


----------



## lucretius

Correct me if I'm wrong but it is claimed that a benefit of the coaxial escapement is the greater stability of the watch's precision over time. The jury is still out on this. However, you claim that it is "a more stable sort of escapement." What do you mean?



M4tt said:


> The added benefit of the Coaxial is first, massively increased stability which translates into greater accuracy. It is just a more stable sort of escapement.
> 
> In addition the winding bridge is substantially improved with a higher jewel count and the movement in finished both functionally and decoratively to a higher standard. Apart from that... The IWC uses a 2892 with identical but higher quality (largely case hardened) parts fitted and improved functional finishing.


----------



## Mathew J

John_in_SC said:


> I chose this one as it is the current "flagship" of the Aquatimer line. The only thing to me honestly that doesn't fly is the fact the bracelet doesn't taper.


Interesting, personally I always think of their Vintage model as their most interesting Aqua Timer but to each their own.



> I guess I'm not seeing the issue with the bracelet being cheap as IWC is known for having some of the best bracelets on the market. Solid, robust, and easy to adjust.


The initial pictures for whatever reason didn't seem that impressive to me, however having seen some better ones by Michael Sandler on TZ I have to say it looks nice, the only negative I have with IWC bracelets like that on the whole are that they are always "round" since they don't fold down or bend, but other than that the workmanship seems amazing.



> I love the Omega clasp but to be honest, they wear out. On a bond bracelet I had for my 2204.50 the diver extension wouldn't stay shut. Constantly popped open. I know two guys at work (one with a standard Bod the other with the Bond chrono) that has the same issue. Not to mention push pins.....:rodekaart I hate push pins.$3850 retail and they still use push pins in the bracelet of the PO.....


I have yet to see a spring loaded clasp which won't eventually wear out with enough use, the diver extension is another thing all together as with the IWC I don't believe it even has one, though you have to ask does it really matter. As for the Omega bracelet, I think if more people had problems I would care more.

Push pins used to be something I didn't like, however now comparing my Aqua Terra bracelet to my screw link Rolex I can honestly say it is another non issue.



> Yeah, the movement might be viewed as basic but you gotta look at it this way....What is the 2500 without the co-ax (who's added benefit is what really since you still have to service the watch every 5-6 years) is the 1120.


1 Free Sprung Micro Regulated Balance
2 Longer Power Reserve than standard 2892s
3 Manufacturered and supported in house by Swatch/ETA/Omega
4 Technically more interesting than generic 2892s
5 On average lower service costs than IWC



> IWC replaces parts in the 2892 which I think Omega does as well. So they aren't different except for the marketing hyped Co-Ax.


So I used to know IWC did this however I read somewhere that IWC was now contracting out some of this work to ETA, don't know if there is any truth in that but it was something I remember reading.



> Apples to apples, from a technological standpoint I say they are very similar. From an End User interaction standpoint, I personally think IWC addresses more issues with their watch then Omega does with the Planet Ocean.


This is interesting as personally I would say that on the technical side they were a bit night and day given the impact the balance/escapement mod has on the movement...and for the "end user" standpoint I guess it comes down to what one considers "Issues", don't get me wrong I love IWC but I have a hard time pitting an Aqua Timer against a PO, the PO to me is more of a no nonsense luxury diver wheras the IWC seems more of the country club set.



> As for bracelet to strap issues. You are right, they are limited but that has always been an IWC thing. They designed the aquatimer to work with 3 options....metal, rubber, or nylon. No leather.


Conceptually I like the design, just wish they had an adapter to use standard straps or offered more options.

Although I do like this one, too bad I cannot find any info on it...










Thanks


----------



## M4tt

> Correct me if I'm wrong but it is claimed that a benefit of the coaxial escapement is the greater stability of the watch's precision over time. The jury is still out on this. However, you claim that it is "a more stable sort of escapement." What do you mean?


I am afraid that I will have to correct you as you are wrong. While those who do not understand the consequences of sample bias may feel that the 2500 is unreliable, no one can credibly deny that it is preternaturally stable. I have a standard speil to explain why it is, both in theory and practice, more stable and thus potentially more accurate. Sadly I'm a bit busy to search for it right now but I will add it later tonight.

Just to check, it looked as if you might be conflating the notion of 'stability' with the notion or 'reliability'?

Either way, here you go:

Here is the short version; The key advantages of the escapement in the 2500 are:

* Due to a rolling rather than a sliding action the pallet stones do not need lubrication and friction is reduced by about 95%. obviously this removes two major areas of instability in one: variations in the sliding surface due to bedding in and variations in the oil consistency due to age and temperature.

* The freesprung balance is far, far nearer to the mathematical ideal as it doesn't have a regulator interfering with the spring. This helps with all forms of stability, including, of course, positional stability.

* The impulse from the pallet stones is identical in both directions, unlike the 1120, oh, and every other watch on the planet. This gives a smoother more regular swing to the escapement and reduces the effects of position still further.

* The escapement is in contact with the balance for a far shorter period allowing more of the balance's swing to be free of interference, once again far closer to the mathematical ideal. (this, of course, can also reduce the effect of position)

* Wear on the contact surfaces of the escapement has been almost entirely eliminated.

* The jewel count also goes up from 21 to 27.

The overall effect is reported here:

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:L...lnk&cd=3&gl=uk

I think that the key words here are:



> comparable to that of a marine chronometer in gimbals.


----------



## John_in_MA

This is a fantastic response Mathew. Thanks. :-!



Mathew J said:


> Interesting, personally I always think of their Vintage model as their most interesting Aqua Timer but to each their own.


Oh no. I agree 100. GST is the way to go if I could afford it. Then the 3638 and then this one. Just that this is the current offering from IWC, not that it's the best. Forgot to mention that I'm not too keen on the 44mm size either.



> I have yet to see a spring loaded clasp which won't eventually wear out with enough use, the diver extension is another thing all together as with the IWC I don't believe it even has one, though you have to ask does it really matter. As for the Omega bracelet, I think if more people had problems I would care more.


it's one of those end user things I'm picky about. The clasp itself is great but the diver extension is the problem. It is annoying as a consumer to have to adjust the diver extension BEFORE I can put the wtach on. Being a designer by trade I get caught up on these things.



> Push pins used to be something I didn't like, however now comparing my Aqua Terra bracelet to my screw link Rolex I can honestly say it is another non issue.


It is for me. I wear my watches tight so my wrist swells in the summer and thus, my Omega bracelet won't fit without the addition of a half link. If it was screws, it would be easier. Again, an end user issue for me personally.



> 1 Free Sprung Micro Regulated Balance
> 2 Longer Power Reserve than standard 2892s
> 3 Manufacturered and supported in house by Swatch/ETA/Omega
> 4 Technically more interesting than generic 2892s
> 5 On average lower service costs than IWC


To me personally, this doesn't mean much. As long as it keeps time, does what it is supposed to do and doesn't break, I have no issue. The 2500 has what, 3-6 hours longer power reserve? I honestly don't know. What I do know is that my watches are worn in rotation and if it runs down, it runs down so no biggie to me.

I don't view it as an "in house" movement as while being owned by the same company, ETA and Omega are different companies.



> So I used to know IWC did this however I read somewhere that IWC was now contracting out some of this work to ETA, don't know if there is any truth in that but it was something I remember reading.


Interesting.



> This is interesting as personally I would say that on the technical side they were a bit night and day given the impact the balance/escapement mod has on the movement...and for the "end user" standpoint I guess it comes down to what one considers "Issues", don't get me wrong I love IWC but I have a hard time pitting an Aqua Timer against a PO, the PO to me is more of a no nonsense luxury diver wheras the IWC seems more of the country club set.


I can't say I agree or diagree. with the current Aquatimer I would say yes. with the older ones, I'm more inclined to say no.

I see it like this:


Pre-Richemont GST: Tool diver with a hint of luxury in the stainless models
2. Post Richemont 3538: Tool diver with more luxury
3548: More a luxury diver
3568: Country club with a hint of luxury diver thrown in



> Conceptually I like the design, just wish they had an adapter to use standard straps or offered more options.


i'm not a big fan of divers on leather so I don't view this as an issue personally.



> Although I do like this one, too bad I cannot find any info on it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks


That is nice.


----------



## lucretius

M4tt said:


> I am afraid that I will have to correct you as you are wrong. While those who do not understand the consequences of sample bias may feel that the 2500 is unreliable, no one can credibly deny that it is preternaturally stable. I have a standard speil to explain why it is, both in theory and practice, more stable and thus potentially more accurate. Sadly I'm a bit busy to search for it right now but I will add it later tonight.
> 
> Just to check, it looked as if you might be conflating the notion of 'stability' with the notion or 'reliability'


No. My understanding always was that when "stability" is discussed, it was referring to how closely a timekeeper can maintain its rate from one given rating period to another. This is also how it is defined in the article you referenced. I was somewhat confused by what you wrote, e.g. "massively increased stability which translates into greater accuracy" and in the last post, "more stable and thus potentially more accurate". it seems you speak of stability and accuracy as separate notions.



M4tt said:


> Either way, here you go:
> 
> Here is the short version; The key advantages of the escapement in the 2500 are:
> 
> * Due to a rolling rather than a sliding action the pallet stones do not need lubrication and friction is reduced by about 95%. obviously this removes two major areas of instability in one: variations in the sliding surface due to bedding in and variations in the oil consistency due to age and temperature.
> 
> * The freesprung balance is far, far nearer to the mathematical ideal as it doesn't have a regulator interfering with the spring. This helps with all forms of stability, including, of course, positional stability.
> 
> * The impulse from the pallet stones is identical in both directions, unlike the 1120, oh, and every other watch on the planet. This gives a smoother more regular swing to the escapement and reduces the effects of position still further.
> 
> * The escapement is in contact with the balance for a far shorter period allowing more of the balance's swing to be free of interference, once again far closer to the mathematical ideal. (this, of course, can also reduce the effect of position)
> 
> * Wear on the contact surfaces of the escapement has been almost entirely eliminated.
> 
> * The jewel count also goes up from 21 to 27.
> 
> The overall effect is reported here:
> 
> http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:L...lnk&cd=3&gl=uk
> 
> I think that the key words here are:


I will try to respond to this on the weekend, when I have a chance to think more clearly. To me, the key statement appears in the article you referenced:
"such stability could never be approached in a lever watch due to its absolute dependence on lubrication." There's nothing in the article that (1) proves the performance is repeatable, and (2) proves the performance was not a fluke. And I must object to the author's suggestion that he is "assessing rate variations scientifically" -- too little testing if you ask me. Also there is no specific mention of the fact, in Omega's case, that the locking jewels have a small amount of oil on them, to absorb part of the shock from the locking action, if left off, may result in damage to the upper coaxial wheel teeth over time.


----------



## M4tt

I certainly do see stability and accuracy as different notions. Stability is precisely as you defined it. As such, a watch can be entirely stable at, say, +22 a day. This is stable, but it is not accurate.

Another watch might post +1 0 -1 -1 +1 0 and so on. this would be less stable but more accurate.

In short, Stability is to do with regularity of rate. Accuracy is to do with agreeing with the rest of the world.

Am I missing something?

I would take the time to discover the writer's credentials before being too scathing. He is one of the finest scientists, horologists and statisticians in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Woodward

This is not merely an internet opinion. I agree that the sample set is small but to say that he isn't following a legitimate method seems odd. If you think that the performance shown could occur by any credible fluke then I really think you need to look at the data again.

The locking jewels would have no significant effect on the balance, which is where the timekeeping happens. It is the impulse pallets that are critical. These are unlubricated and don't have an issue with shock as they roll rather than impacting.

Finally, I know that the way I write can appear to be brusque and combative, but that really isn't my intention. I enjoy a good argument, not a row. I look forward to your weekend response with genuine interest.


----------



## MrOmega

To give a conclusive reply to this thread, i had the portuguese chrono and 7 days.

I found out that the aqua terra 8500 was slightly better made, hence i disposed of the iwcs. I hope this solves all questions relating to Omega vs IWC.

Cheers.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

Aquaracer1 said:


> Good example. In the world outside of watch enthusiasts, Rolex generally wins due to brand prestige, perception and overall recognition. Even in the watch enthusiast world, Rolex may still win. And thats great! Everyone is entitled to thier own opinon. Some will favor Rolex, some will favor Omega.
> 
> Agree that Rolex and IWC are perceived differently than Omega. And thats true, they are also at different price points. Rolex and IWC both seem like excellent brands. Omega does not need any justification. Price increase or not. They make a hell of a watch - with excellent value for what you get. I do however think that the 8500 movement (along with the price increase) will move them up the ranks of exclusivity. Which means that new Omegas will only be purchased by those that are willing to pay the premium and perceive more value in the 8500 movement.


Omega and Rolex have always been competing each other since 7 decades. IWC is actually ranked higher than Omega and Rolex


----------



## BadApple

saintv90 said:


> Simpe answer to a simple question. IWC > Omega.


Do you have a simple formula to support your simple answer?


----------



## AAMC

Old thread but anyway...
I'm not saying witch one is better (better it's so subjective) but the fact is that a Mark xvii (3 hands) on bracelet it's about 1200Euros more than an AT (3 hands), for me they are not competing on the same tier...I like some of IWC models but at that prices I would buy a Rolex or a J-LC.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## Vakane

Price means nothing. If that's the case then Hublot is higher than JLC LOL!,


The new gen omegas > iwc on every aspect except the iwc dressier stuff is dressier and pricier. That's it!

I've lived this first hand.


----------



## LtCol_Greg

JLC are superb no argument. The Omega versus IWC debate is a bit pointless IMO.


----------



## beeman101

I am watch noob at this..............but price point wise .......
All the iwc's i like are beyond 
All the Omega's that i like are.....and then some which i cant at the moment...
So win win for Omega for me!!


----------

