# Rolex vs. Omega Quality



## bovie

Here is a question to those that own both. If you had to compare build quality on like models
Omega Seamaster or a PO vs a Rolex Sub or a sea dweller
Omega Speedmaster vs Rolex Daytona

What would you have to say? Better, Worse, the same?


----------



## goheel

I have the Electric Blue, Great White, PO and SD. I can honestly say I can't really tell the difference between the built quality. I haven't had any problem with any of them. I would assume the Rolex would be higher built quality since it costs more than twice as much, but you're talking about between 99% and 100% here. Omega is definitely better bang for the bucks.


----------



## IvanDrago

uh oh, here we go =/


----------



## Triton9

goheel said:


> I have the Electric Blue, Great White, PO and SD. I can honestly say I can't really tell the difference between the built quality. I haven't had any problem with any of them. I would [BOLD]assume[/BOLD] the Rolex would be higher built quality since it costs more than twice as much, but you're talking about between 99% and 100% here. Omega is definitely better bang for the bucks.


ASSUME!!!


----------



## EmpireCity

I have owned both a PO and a Sub and this is still an unanswerable question.


----------



## Triton9

I owe role and omega. Build quality is the same but the lime of omega is miles ahead.


----------



## Vakane

I always get trolled on questions like these..

I like the omega looks better.


----------



## FOOGauzie

I think I'll go hit the Hershey Bar forum now, and ask if they like Hershey or Cadbury better.


----------



## joeuk

Come on Jake you know Cadbury is better


----------



## mjk778

I recently ran into this situation when I purchased a Rolex yachtmaster a month or so ago. Now a few months prior, I purchased a seamaster 300 2255.80 which I absolutely love. When I got the Rolex home, I spent hours comparing it to the omega and lo and behold I preferred the quality of the omega, especially the bracelet. Now, I'm not Saying the Rolex was not high quality because it was, but there is also a HUGE price difference and IMO for this particular model I was quite disappointed. Next day I returned the Rolex, the omega remains my daily driver.


----------



## Dakota2cSRT4

I don't think quality is the determining factor between Omega and Rolex... they are both very well known, established brands that are known for their fantastic time pieces. I feel this question is not the question to be asked because there is no clear answer.


----------



## FOOGauzie

joeuk said:


> Come Jake you know Cadbury is better


Of course it is... That's just a given, isn't it? ;-)


----------



## aardvarkbark

Can't speak to 'build quality' but service at Rolex service center has been miles better than anything I've experienced at Swatch.


----------



## ajb83




----------



## EmpireCity

Cadbury sucks.


----------



## FOOGauzie

EmpireCity said:


> Cadbury sucks.


Hey, go suck an egg!! :-d


----------



## bovie

Sorry guys I didn't mean to start anything. I was just looking for the is there anything obvious between the two that one does better or one was doing that the other wasn't. I guess this is like Mercedes Benz vs BMW.


----------



## edb4164

IMHO the Omega's are built and finished just as nicely as Rolex watches are. Accept a Rolex is much more expensive because of the brand.


----------



## perdu

I think you couldn't split a hair between the built quality of the new Omegas and the new Rolex models.


----------



## ekim1980

I have an Omega and my folks have Rolexes. I have no clue or idea on which is higher quality, both are great and I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Vakane

like I said... we always get trolled on this threads 

now who is better Justin bieber or lady gaga.... THATS A THREAD..


----------



## copperjohn

So far, the politest flame war I have ever seen.


----------



## Mathew J

I have owned a Datejust, Explorer 1, and a Submariner...all the older style.

I currently own the Sub still and from Omega owned a Speedy Pro for a few weeks and now an Aqua Terra.

Personally I find that beyond the name brand and the in house movement (for what that is worth) there was very little that the Rolex excelled at...in fact beyond the bracelet and how it attached to the head I would say Omega was on the whole the better watch.

The new Omega pieces look even nicer.


----------



## jaytaylor

Onto it now...










Yep, the rolex has more R than Omega.


----------



## lvt

bovie said:


> What would you have to say? Better, Worse, the same?


The 2500 based Omega watches can't really be compared to current Rolex because they are discontinued, only those with the 8500 could be as they have Si14 balance spring and balance wheel with 4 screws for better regulation (the 2500 only has a pair of screw and no Si14). However the dual-barrel setup with only a couple of hours more than a single-barrel movement doesn't sound like a winner in term of power reserve to me (they are automatic after all).


----------



## gt0279a

Omega - I have previously owned several Speedies & Seamasters, 2 POs and currently have a 3570.50 Speedy and an X-33

Rolex - I have a 16610 Sub and Tudor Big Block Chrono

Honestly, the crown is the main detail on the Rolex that is substantially better. Buttery smooth to wind and screw down. 

Most other details seem fairly equal, really comes down to personal preference. Even between the less expensive Tudor vs. Rolex, both of the watches have the same exact oyster style bracelet, the Tudor in 316 steel and the mythical 904 steel for the Rolex. No discernible difference between either, yet the Rolex Oyster will fetch nearly double on the sales forum.


----------



## pogiguy

Dude did you post this question on the rolex forum? What are they saying over there?


----------



## Ozy

copperjohn said:


> So far, the politest flame war I have ever seen.


Give it time, I'm sure the bat-signal has gone up and someone has fired up old cranky.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

both should be considered as forever competitors since the 30's and both great watch brands


----------



## vjb.knife

I don't buy anything unless I think the quality is extremely good. I have owned eight Rolex and three Omega watches. Now I own one Rolex and three Omegas, as well as a few others. I think the they are very comparable in quality, but the current new offerings from Omega appeal more to me than Rolex. Before the 8500/9300 movements and the new maxi-cased Rolex models I preferred Rolex.


----------



## Mathew J

lvt said:


> The 2500 based Omega watches can't really be compared to current Rolex because they are discontinued, only those with the 8500 could be as they have Si14 balance spring and balance wheel with 4 screws for better regulation (the 2500 only has a pair of screw and no Si14). However the dual-barrel setup with only a couple of hours more than a single-barrel movement doesn't sound like a winner in term of power reserve to me (they are automatic after all).


2500 is still a production movement, and regardless of dual barrel the fact is the PR is longer at 60+ hours, LVT it seems there is nothing Omega can do right in your book.



gt0279a said:


> Omega - I have previously owned several Speedies & Seamasters, 2 POs and currently have a 3570.50 Speedy and an X-33
> 
> Rolex - I have a 16610 Sub and Tudor Big Block Chrono
> 
> Honestly, the crown is the main detail on the Rolex that is substantially better. Buttery smooth to wind and screw down.
> 
> Most other details seem fairly equal, really comes down to personal preference. Even between the less expensive Tudor vs. Rolex, both of the watches have the same exact oyster style bracelet, the Tudor in 316 steel and the mythical 904 steel for the Rolex. No discernible difference between either, yet the Rolex Oyster will fetch nearly double on the sales forum.


I remember when in the old style Rolex so many used to think they were all 904, it wasn't until someone did a steel analysis did they show that only the head was 904....while they are all supposedly 904L now I don't put alot into that as really who will ever see the benefit if there is any


----------



## lvt

Mathew J said:


> 2500 is still a production movement, and regardless of dual barrel the fact is the PR is longer at 60+ hours, LVT it seems there is nothing Omega can do right in your book.


I know that the 8500 has 60 hours of PR, but modern Rolex movement already 50 hours with a single barrel, so I wouldn't use the 8500's power reserve as a valid argument.

Unless you ignore most of my posts, I always like Omega watches with the 1120 (especially the 2254 / 2531), I also appreciate the 8500/9300 in some aspects.


----------



## lvt

The 2500 is made for entry-level of Co-ax watches, while Rolex doesn't have entry-level watches.

The 8500 is made to compete with Rolex's 3135, some significant facts include :

- Si14 vs Rolex's Parachrom.

- Free-sprung balance, four balance screws vs Rolex's Micro-stellar.

- 39-jewels vs 31-jewels.

- 60-hour vs 50-hour (not significant as not all new calibers have dual-barrel).


----------



## Gharddog03

Both are awesome.


----------



## FOOGauzie

lvt said:


> The 2500 is made for entry-level of Co-ax watches, while Rolex doesn't have entry-level watches.
> 
> The 8500 is made to compete with Rolex's 3135, some significant facts include :
> 
> - Si14 vs Rolex's Parachrom.
> 
> - Free-sprung balance, four balance screws vs Rolex's Micro-stellar.
> 
> - 39-jewels vs 31-jewels.
> 
> - 60-hour vs 50-hour (not significant as not all new calibers have dual-barrel).


The 2500 is made for entry-level of Co-ax watches, while Rolex doesn't have entry-level watches. *The SMP is an entry level watch? So, you'd say that a stainless steel explorer or a no-date Sub with folded end links bracelet is not an "entry level" watch compared to a platinum Daytona, or a solid gold president?

*The 8500 is made to compete with Rolex's 3135, some significant facts include :

- Si14 vs Rolex's Parachrom.

- Free-sprung balance, four balance screws vs Rolex's Micro-stellar.

- 39-jewels vs 31-jewels.

- 60-hour vs 50-hour (not significant as not all new calibers have dual-barrel). *I'd argue that it is VERY significant if you take your watch off on friday night, and don't want to put it back on until Monday morning.

So, in your world and according to your logic, Omega would never improve upon their products if Rolex did not exist, and no improvement that they make is significant*.

*To add to this, I enjoy both brands, and both make excellent watches. These threads are lame, and that's why we started it off with some joking around. *​


----------



## iinsic

I believe the OP was sincere in wanting opinions on this from those who have owned, or currently own, both brands. And that is a fair expectation.

I have owned Rolexes - now more than a dozen all told - for more than 30 years. I have owned Omegas - and almost as many - for 45 years.

Based solely on the latest versions of these watches - and I currently own three of each - I would give Rolex a slight edge on overall build quality (which includes design). For years I have marveled at Omega bracelets, clasp, case, etc. And I still love these watches. But I am even more in awe of the improvements Rolex has made to their watches, especially the bracelets and clasps, in the last few years.

Moreover, I give Rolex an even greater edge on reliability. My friend and Rolex technician loves working on Rolex movements. He takes them apart, cleans them, replaces the occasional worn-out part, and puts them back together. It's effortless for him. And, if anything, Rolex has improved this aspect of their product even more in the last decade or so. There is much to be said for providing movements that work ceaselessly, are simple to service and keep on working for another 5-7 years. I believe that Omega will be in that same place in time, but Rolex is there right now.

As someone who has owned and loved Omegas for nearly a half century, I believe I can assess their strengths and weaknesses as well as anyone. I don't mean to diminish the brand when I say that Rolex edges them out in the quality department, because Omega still produces one of the finest watches available. But Rolex is the better watch overall.

Now ... let the ostracism begin. ;-)

Rob


----------



## Mathew J

lvt said:


> I know that the 8500 has 60 hours of PR, but modern Rolex movement already 50 hours with a single barrel, so I wouldn't use the 8500's power reserve as a valid argument.
> 
> Unless you ignore most of my posts, I always like Omega watches with the 1120 (especially the 2254 / 2531), I also appreciate the 8500/9300 in some aspects.


LVT the more you post the more I am convinced your sole purpose here is to stir the "s" and not much more....

Regardless the Omega has a longer power reserve than the Rolex, really it is up to any potential buyer to consider that "fact" in their decision...though for most I think anything over 40 hours is usually plenty enough...for myself the dual barrel design is just one small aspect of the new movement design that I personally feel is nicer than what Rolex is currently doing...you clearly aren't much of a fan of Omega and thus I am not overly suprised in your less than enthusiastic attitude towards what they are doing now.



lvt said:


> The 2500 is made for entry-level of Co-ax watches, while Rolex doesn't have entry-level watches.
> 
> The 8500 is made to compete with Rolex's 3135, some significant facts include :
> 
> - Si14 vs Rolex's Parachrom.
> 
> - Free-sprung balance, four balance screws vs Rolex's Micro-stellar.
> 
> - 39-jewels vs 31-jewels.
> 
> - 60-hour vs 50-hour (not significant as not all new calibers have dual-barrel).


Ummm last I checked the Airking, Oyster, and Oyster Date were all pretty entry level....even by Rolex standards...really just a statement like that shows where you stand on this topic and your clear bias.

And here I thought the 2500 was going to handle their need for a thinner movement in certain applications, but sure whatever LVT if you say it is for the cheapo entry level watches Omega is making then I guess it must be true.

The curious thing is that most Rolex forums weed out the posters that put up opinions like yours LVT yet for whatever reason here you persist.

As for Robs comment, fair enough...Rolex really hasn't changed much of their standard movment technology in decades and as such they have become pretty routine for most watchmakers to service, Omega is really breaking some new ground with the addition of the co axial as well as pretty radically changing movements over the years....I could see why watch mechanics might get frustrated with this but hopefully the persuit of a better mousetrap pays off not only for omega but also us as enthusiasts/consumers.

I also feel Rolex has come along way with their bracelets and such, but the sad thing for me is that I feel it wasn't because they wanted to improve, rather they started to feel compelled to because of other brands...I'd always hope a company would want to do better just because, but decades of Rolex using the beer can clasp to me suggest that they were comfortable riding it out as long as they could. I often wonder if I like their new bracelets for the design or just the sheer fact that I am amazed they actually and finally upgraded them.

I'd be curious to see what owners of both the new Rolex models and the new updated Omega models think, I only have experience with older styles from each company, and many I see have newer Rolex pieces but typically 2500 based Omegas...though the chances of true objetivity are most likely slim.


----------



## I Like Watches

*Figured I post a comment before this thread gets shut down...*

A few years ago, I walked into a jewelry store that also sold Rolex watches (no Omegas). The salesclerk noticed that I was wearing my PO. We began chatting about watches when he made the following statement: "If you want a better movement, go with Omega. If you want a better piece of jewelry, go with Rolex".


----------



## premoon

Yes, there is an answer.... there is no difference at all in manufacturing quality between Rolex and Omega, stricly same level of finish and material. 
The only difference is that at the moment China and chinese are MAD about Rolex and 90% of the Rolex production is going to China (here in UAE Rolex shops are full of Chinese...) and this make Rolex looking more and more above Omega quality, but there is no difference at all........just a smart marketing appropriately targeted....


Cheers, Phil.


----------



## J.JUN

premoon said:


> The only difference is that at the moment China and chinese are MAD about Rolex and 90% of the Rolex production is going to China (here in UAE Rolex shops are full of Chinese...) and this make Rolex looking more and more above Omega quality, but there is no difference at all........just a smart marketing appropriately targeted....
> 
> Cheers, Phil.


+1 marketing does wonders! Honestly, minus the forum lads and perhaps some other watch enthuists, how many ppl really care about the quality... Most people will just go for the brand... Marketing...


----------



## Nishant

Rob .. 
Reading through the thread, I couldnt have agreed more with your astute observations ..

In my book, *Rolex* is indeed a small notch above Omega in it handling of materials, case design & finish, and overall durability. Their designs appear more measured, more refined to me ... One could call many of their signature timepieces as 'timeless' .. targeting _a not so young but successful professional_

*Omega* offers high quality timepieces with designs that are more contemporary .. they are sportier with multiple dial/color/bracelet options ... targeted, it seems, at _a young aspiring professional_

Different watches, Different marketing games, Different Targets .. but all in all, very cool watches that one should not hesitate to put money on ( However, for all that I have read so far, Omega watch service SUCKS )



iinsic said:


> I believe the OP was sincere in wanting opinions on this from those who have owned, or currently own, both brands. And that is a fair expectation.
> 
> I have owned Rolexes - now more than a dozen all told - for more than 30 years. I have owned Omegas - and almost as many - for 45 years.
> 
> Based solely on the latest versions of these watches - and I currently own three of each - I would give Rolex a slight edge on overall build quality (which includes design). For years I have marveled at Omega bracelets, clasp, case, etc. And I still love these watches. But I am even more in awe of the improvements Rolex has made to their watches, especially the bracelets and clasps, in the last few years.
> 
> Moreover, I give Rolex an even greater edge on reliability. My friend and Rolex technician loves working on Rolex movements. He takes them apart, cleans them, replaces the occasional worn-out part, and puts them back together. It's effortless for him. And, if anything, Rolex has improved this aspect of their product even more in the last decade or so. There is much to be said for providing movements that work ceaselessly, are simple to service and keep on working for another 5-7 years. I believe that Omega will be in that same place in time, but Rolex is there right now.
> 
> As someone who has owned and loved Omegas for nearly a half century, I believe I can assess their strengths and weaknesses as well as anyone. I don't mean to diminish the brand when I say that Rolex edges them out in the quality department, because Omega still produces one of the finest watches available. But Rolex is the better watch overall.
> 
> Now ... let the ostracism begin. ;-)
> 
> Rob


----------



## kramerica

Comparison of that kind is mostly difficult and always subjective. 
However, you can sum most impressions to pretty much objective conclusions:

1. Build and case quality: I'm only judging the quality feeling of the materials, from an average Joe point of view since I have no idea if materials are really different. I can't tell the difference. Both feel like top notch materials and build quality. Furthermore, let me tell you that there are watches that cost no more than 400$ and have the same top notch quality feeling. 

2. Movements: Harder to judge today, but no doubt that until recently, Rolex had the upper hand without any doubt. The rather new 85XX/93XX movements could maybe signal a change, but Omega still has to prove itself on that part.

3. Dial/Lume: Rolex are very conservative, and it shows. In general, Omega dials seem better than their Rolex counterparts. I have no doubt that Rolex uses great materials, but they don't look as attractive as Omega's.

4. Service: Here I must take some points off Omega. Rolex understood that a luxury product should mean luxury all the way. From purchase to service centers, Rolex is much more professional and luxurious than Omega. Omega must improve on that subject, if they ever want to really be regarded on the same level as Rolex.

To sum it up, Rolex still has the upper hand. Quality isn't only the case and movement, but the entire aspects that you deal with, when you own the watch. Omega is still cheaper and offers more bang for the buck, but pricing trends shows that it might not always be the case, and unless Omega improves drastically in buying experience and more important, in service, they will lose every advantage they might have vs. Rolex.


----------



## GaryF

Mathew J said:


> The curious thing is that most Rolex forums weed out the posters that put up opinions like yours LVT yet for whatever reason here you persist.


The reason is that he isn't breaking any rules. When he makes these posts, there are always posters around that are educated enough to point out the inconsistencies and agendas. Look at it this way: If it weren't for lvt, a noob reading the thread wouldn't have found out that the 8500 has a ten-hour power reserve advantage. He can dismiss it but but let's give everyone enough credit to let them draw their own conclusions.
If tediousness or bias was banned then these threads would probably be prohibited as a point of principal. 
As it is, anyone clicking on this thread knows what they are probably going to get just as they know which posters are going to give it to them. No one has to play. Those that do are welcome as long as they stay within the rules.


----------



## GaryF

I'm not persuaded by the argument on the movements. Old car engines are relatively easy to work on and keep going compared to modern ones but that doesn't make them better. When setting my Explorer, I've been struck often but the agricultural feeling of it. There is a sloppiness when trying to precisely place the minute hand which is disappointing but this is rather balanced out when I screw in the crown and feel that I'll be able to do that for the life of the watch. That isn't the case with my Omegas.
But I don't have any reason to believe that the 8500 won't last as long. If they start dying after ten years then obviously this will change but I don't feel comfortable drawing any conclusions at this stage simply on the grounds that one movement is older and, therefore, more proven than the other especially given that the Rolex movement has had its own issues.

Personally, I find the general argument to be a case of swings and roundabouts. Both brands excel in different areas and I think that, if anyone is honest, it mostly comes down to which watch one _likes _best rather than which watch _is_ best . I do find kramerica's point about the quality of service to be persuasive though and if there is a point which could be considered to decisively give Rolex an edge, that is it for me. It's a shame that Rolex don't currently offer any models that I actually _like_ enough to buy.



iinsic said:


> I believe the OP was sincere in wanting opinions on this from those who have owned, or currently own, both brands. And that is a fair expectation.
> 
> I have owned Rolexes - now more than a dozen all told - for more than 30 years. I have owned Omegas - and almost as many - for 45 years.
> 
> Based solely on the latest versions of these watches - and I currently own three of each - I would give Rolex a slight edge on overall build quality (which includes design). For years I have marveled at Omega bracelets, clasp, case, etc. And I still love these watches. But I am even more in awe of the improvements Rolex has made to their watches, especially the bracelets and clasps, in the last few years.
> 
> Moreover, I give Rolex an even greater edge on reliability. My friend and Rolex technician loves working on Rolex movements. He takes them apart, cleans them, replaces the occasional worn-out part, and puts them back together. It's effortless for him. And, if anything, Rolex has improved this aspect of their product even more in the last decade or so. There is much to be said for providing movements that work ceaselessly, are simple to service and keep on working for another 5-7 years. I believe that Omega will be in that same place in time, but Rolex is there right now.
> 
> As someone who has owned and loved Omegas for nearly a half century, I believe I can assess their strengths and weaknesses as well as anyone. I don't mean to diminish the brand when I say that Rolex edges them out in the quality department, because Omega still produces one of the finest watches available. But Rolex is the better watch overall.
> 
> Now ... let the ostracism begin. ;-)
> 
> Rob


----------



## ithehappy

This is an Omega section, so Ω will have priority, same question in Rolex forum will be otherwise. But still, when I drive my A4 and a 320d passes by me, I always look at it, but I know the person in 320d is doing the same.


----------



## acdelco

Having owned/own quite a few models of both brands, I'd conclude this way. My opinion:

*Cases and Dialwork*--Omega wins ( combined brushed and polished cases, great detail on the dials of the HV and AT 8500s, lume, twisty lugs, look at the brushed hour indices and hands on the AT 8500s and faceted indices on the PO 8500s, for example)

*Movements*-Omega wins ( if you're looking at the 8500 and its advancements)

*Bracelets and Clasps *--Rolex wins ( the new EXP I has the best bracelet I've ever owned--flip lock makes it seem more secure. Extraordinarily comfortable. Thin yet very solid feeling. Microadjust mechanisms.)

*Service*-- Rolex wins.

I prefer Omega b/c of the *LOOKS*. Generally, Rolex has classic and timeless designs yet are a little stale to me compared to Omega. Omega has classic and timeless designs that have a bit more sporty flair and style! Simply more handsome.


----------



## OTX

acdelco said:


> Having owned/own quite a few models of both brands, I'd conclude this way. My opinion:
> 
> *Cases and Dialwork*--Omega wins ( combined brushed and polished cases, great detail on the dials of the HV and AT 8500s, lume, twisty lugs, look at the brushed hour indices and hands on the AT 8500s and faceted indices on the PO 8500s, for example)
> 
> *Movements*-Omega wins ( if you're looking at the 8500 and its advancements)
> 
> *Bracelets and Clasps *--Rolex wins ( the new EXP I has the best bracelet I've ever owned--flip lock makes it seem more secure. Extraordinarily comfortable. Thin yet very solid feeling. Microadjust mechanisms.)
> 
> *Service*-- Rolex wins.
> 
> I prefer Omega b/c of the *LOOKS*. Generally, Rolex has classic and timeless designs yet are a little stale to me compared to Omega. Omega has classic and timeless designs that have a bit more sporty flair and style! Simply more handsome.


Thank you for being brave and saying that. I too Have owned both Rolex and Omega and agree with everything you said 100%. The casework on the new Omegas with the brushed/polished accents is higher than Rolex and takes more manufacturing than the simple Rolex case. The 8500 movement is better than the Rolex movement. For some reason people are not brave enough to say it. I know some people say the 8500 is not time tested but in the 5 years its been out it looks to be a solid reliable movement. Omega also beats Rolex when it comes to lume. Dial detail is also higher on Omega. People call Rolex designs classic and timeless. I call them stale and boring. Again to say Rolex is higher quality than the new Omegas is pure opinion. The facts actually show it the other way around.


----------



## Mark Standen

I don't own a Rolex because I'm not a fan of their look, but I still did a lot of research before buying my SPM and SM. Here are a couple of differences that I could discern between the two:

1. The Rolex's run at 36,000vph (the vintage ones with the Zenith movements do, at least), whilst the the Omegas run at 28,800vph. However, the double barrel co-axials are supposed to compensate for this.
2. Rolex use a different grade of steel which is more expensive because of its composition (it has more nickel in it from memory). Rolex also has it own gold foundry so that it can make its own alloys. 

I prefer Omega's just for the way they look.


----------



## OTX

Mark Standen said:


> I don't own a Rolex because I'm not a fan of their look, but I still did a lot of research before buying my SPM and SM. Here are a couple of differences that I could discern between the two:
> 
> 1. The Rolex's run at 36,000vph (the vintage ones with the Zenith movements do, at least), whilst the the Omegas run at 28,800vph. However, the double barrel co-axials are supposed to compensate for this.
> 2. Rolex use a different grade of steel which is more expensive because of its composition (it has more nickel in it from memory). Rolex also has it own gold foundry so that it can make its own alloys.
> 
> I prefer Omega's just for the way they look.


As far as Rolex using 904l steel, you have to remember unless you like to soak yourself in some sulfuric acid before you go to work every morning then it's pointless. Even if it's 3 times more expensive than 316l steel we are talking about 2 more dollars in raw materials per watch. Also, Patek, JLC, AP, VC all use 316l steel like Omega so I would say its a Rolex gimmick. After all they are the king of marketing.


----------



## NMGE17

joeuk said:


> Come on Jake you know Cadbury is better


Well it was until it was sold to you know who!

Nigel


----------



## Undersköterskan

According to Marc-Andre Miche, who participated in a leading position when it came to the R&D of the 8500 caliber between the years 2000 and 2007, the twin barrel construction is not primarily about getting a longer PR; instead, it's all about achieving a stable supply of power from when the mainsprings are fully wound until they run out of power. If you compare the precision of the 8500 during its last 10 hours of power, you'll find it alot more stable and hence more precise than most single barrel movements. This is the main advantage of the twin barrel construction.

Regards
Undersköterskan


----------



## GaryF

Mark Standen said:


> I don't own a Rolex because I'm not a fan of their look, but I still did a lot of research before buying my SPM and SM. Here are a couple of differences that I could discern between the two:
> 
> 1. The Rolex's run at 36,000vph (the vintage ones with the Zenith movements do, at least), whilst the the Omegas run at 28,800vph. However, the double barrel co-axials are supposed to compensate for this.
> 2. Rolex use a different grade of steel which is more expensive because of its composition (it has more nickel in it from memory). Rolex also has it own gold foundry so that it can make its own alloys.
> 
> I prefer Omega's just for the way they look.


Rolexes don't in general run at 36,000 bph and it has been many years since they put Zenith EP movements in them. High beat rates were traditionally used for higher accuracy but that was when everyone was using variations of the same lever escapement. The co-axial is more stable and runs optimally at a lower beat rate so you can get better accuracy with less wear.


----------



## FOOGauzie

eloburg said:


> As far as Rolex using 904l steel, you have to remember unless you like to soak yourself in some sulfuric acid before you go to work every morning then it's pointless. Even if it's 3 times more expensive than 316l steel we are talking about 2 more dollars in raw materials per watch. Also, Patek, JLC, AP, VC all use 316l steel like Omega so I would say its a Rolex gimmick. After all they are the king of marketing.


Indeed...If it was so much more expensive and valuable because of the extra nickel, you'd think that nickels would be worth more than, well, a nickel.


----------



## OTX

Jake B said:


> Indeed...If it was so much more expensive and valuable because of the extra nickel, you'd think that nickels would be worth more than, well, a nickel.


Not only that, The main differences are that 316L has less Nickel and a sligtly higher Rockwell value and 904L has a greater resistance to strong reducing acids, particularly sulphuric acid. Please note that these are NOT skin produced acids but skin dissolving ones. The advantage is useless but the disadvanges do exist. For example, 904L contains 23.0-28.0% Nickel where as the 316L used in watches has 10-12% nickel so there is a much less chance of an allergy. Other advantages of 316L are that is is brighter and tends to stay that way. It also lends itself to surface hardening which the copper in 904L complicates. 904L is used by Rolex mainly to set is apart; for marketing reasons. It's a marketing gimmick!. 904l steel is useful in very specific applications and watches is not one of them.


----------



## martin_blank

I think people can an should be able to tell the difference in build quality and finishing between a 400 dollar and a 4000 watch. I know I can..

Ive only compared a speedy pro to a sub no-date and IMO the case just felt sharper in terms of lines, the brushed pieces feel smoother/softer, the crown action is more secure when winding or changing time..the winding itself felt better on the sub even though its an auto.

But IMO its all small degrees and both are great watches.

(I'll never get how an omega fan can knock rolex for marketing..? Seems out of touch with current times)


----------



## Vakane

Rolex is AGES AHEAD OF OMEGA... in marketing....

INTRODUCING THE NEW ROLEX EXPLORER III

NOW WITH ZERO DEATH CRYSTALS!!


----------



## Mark Standen

eloburg said:


> Not only that, The main differences are that 316L has less Nickel and a sligtly higher Rockwell value and 904L has a greater resistance to strong reducing acids, particularly sulphuric acid. Please note that these are NOT skin produced acids but skin dissolving ones. The advantage is useless but the disadvanges do exist. For example, 904L contains 23.0-28.0% Nickel where as the 316L used in watches has 10-12% nickel so there is a much less chance of an allergy. Other advantages of 316L are that is is brighter and tends to stay that way. It also lends itself to surface hardening which the copper in 904L complicates. 904L is used by Rolex mainly to set is apart; for marketing reasons. It's a marketing gimmick!. 904l steel is useful in very specific applications and watches is not one of them.


Thanks for the detail. I agree that it's marketing and that the double barrel compensates for the accuracy of the 36,000 vph - just pointing out the differences for the OP.


----------



## AAP

GaryF said:


> The reason is that he isn't breaking any rules. When he makes these posts, there are always posters around that are educated enough to point out the inconsistencies and agendas. Look at it this way: If it weren't for lvt, a noob reading the thread wouldn't have found out that the 8500 has a ten-hour power reserve advantage. He can dismiss it but but let's give everyone enough credit to let them draw their own conclusions.
> If tediousness or bias was banned then these threads would probably be prohibited as a point of principal.
> As it is, anyone clicking on this thread knows what they are probably going to get just as they know which posters are going to give it to them. No one has to play. Those that do are welcome as long as they stay within the rules.


Gary rocks.


----------



## copperjohn

Ozy said:


> Give it time, I'm sure the bat-signal has gone up and someone has fired up old cranky.


I need this picture!!


----------



## eptaz

Mathew J said:


> LVT the more you post the more I am convinced your sole purpose here is to stir the "s" and not much more....


The more of his posts I read, the more I think that part of the problem must be some degree of language barrier. A couple of his main contentions are so obviously incorrect, that I just can't come up with another explanation. For example, in this thread, he once again states that the 2500 is discontinued:


lvt said:


> The 2500 based Omega watches can't really be compared to current Rolex because they are discontinued&#8230;


This is simply not true. It seems clear to everyone else that the 2500 is still being used in various Seamaster and Constellation models and is not discontinued. Yet, he fairly regularly states the opposite. Perhaps, he means to say that the 2500C variant of the 2500 is discontinued. This would be a clear and accurate statement.

I don't mean this to sound insulting (I don't speak French, or whatever his native language is), but I think there is a certain lack of precision in his understanding or expression of certain ideas, which really makes it frustrating to read some of his comments and why it appears to be difficult to carry on a useful discussion with him.

I could be wrong about this. It's just a theory, but I can't come up with a more reasonable explanation.

eric


----------



## Statick

NMGE17 said:


> Well it was until it was sold to you know who!
> 
> Nigel


That said, the supply you Britons get is much better than what is offered over here...


----------



## Mathew J

Nishant said:


> Rob ..
> In my book, *Rolex* is indeed a small notch above Omega in it handling of materials, case design & finish, and overall durability. Their designs appear more measured, more refined to me ... One could call many of their signature timepieces as 'timeless' .. targeting _a not so young but successful professional_
> 
> *Omega* offers high quality timepieces with designs that are more contemporary .. they are sportier with multiple dial/color/bracelet options ... targeted, it seems, at _a young aspiring professional_


I guess this is just what I don't personally see, granted I only owned examples of their older pieces and also have examined their new stuff, but personally my Omega was better finished on the whole than my Rolex pieces ever were and from what I can tell the same is for the newer items....everything from the casework, dial details, down the movement decoration.

Rolex always seemed more no nonsense finish but at times to the point I was like "wow this is expensive for not much" wheras with Omega I am always impressed by the crisp case lines, little details in the dial work, and other small details.

Also somewhat funny that you peg Rolex as going after those already successful wheras Omega is chasing down those who are not...I would venture a guess that Omega is going after those who are newly successful and or are wealthy from emerging markets whereas I am not really sure who Rolex is going after these days, my guess is that they just feel so comfortable with where they are that they aren't really targeting any one group though I do remember a few years back they were pushing pretty heavily to women.


----------



## TSC

To anyone who owns the Sub, how many times has the crown fallen off of it?


----------



## iinsic

TSC said:


> To anyone who owns the Sub, how many times has the crown fallen off of it?


I have owned four Subs over the last 31 years. While Rolex had problems with rotor attachment at one time, I have never heard of a crown falling off (or any other external part of the watch).


----------



## Chibatastic

TSC said:


> To anyone who owns the Sub, how many times has the crown fallen off of it?


zero thankfully.

Owning both brands it's hard for me to say which company is higher quality. At this stage of the game, finishings, movement and materials used are all high quality and it boils down to being subjective.
I do have a favourite and that's what ever is on my wrist at the time.









No matter what you end up choosing you will observe a very high level of quality.

Chibatastic


----------



## CCJ

This thread's comparisons of Omega and Rolex led me to think of the parallel between Omega and the 2004 Red Sox. Both Omega and the Red Sox were underdogs to the big-money competitor (the Yankees had twice the payroll, Rolex has the prime place among luxury brands). Omega and Red Sox fans felt like they were supporting something special, something with heart, and they liked the idea of not just following the big money. After the 2004 World Series win, the Red Sox payroll grew, and some would say they became a lot like the Yankees. Omega is dropping Quartz and refining movements to become a peer competitor to Rolex. Not a criticism against either brand or either team, just observing interesting similarities&#8230;

For the record, I think Omega and Rolex are both outstanding, I just personally prefer Omega.


----------



## FOOGauzie

CCJ said:


> This thread's comparisons of Omega and Rolex led me to think of the parallel between Omega and the 2004 Red Sox. Both Omega and the Red Sox were underdogs to the big-money competitor (the Yankees had twice the payroll, Rolex has the prime place among luxury brands). Omega and Red Sox fans felt like they were supporting something special, something with heart, and they liked the idea of not just following the big money. After the 2004 World Series win, the Red Sox payroll grew, and some would say they became a lot like the Yankees. Omega is dropping Quartz and refining movements to become a peer competitor to Rolex. Not a criticism against either brand or either team, just observing interesting similarities&#8230;


Now, if Omega's Co-ax tech (the heart of their watches) contract didn't work out, and it was picked up by Rolex, Like Damon left to join the Yankees, then you'll REALLY have something with that analogy. ;-) (Since someone else started a thread saying a watch vendor told him Omega's rights run out in a couple of years)


----------



## TSC

iinsic said:


> I have owned four Subs over the last 31 years. While Rolex had problems with rotor attachment at one time, I have never heard of a crown falling off (or any other external part of the watch).





Chibatastic said:


> zero thankfully.
> 
> Owning both brands it's hard for me to say which company is higher quality. At this stage of the game, finishings, movement and materials used are all high quality and it boils down to being subjective.
> I do have a favourite and that's what ever is on my wrist at the time.
> 
> View attachment 644582
> 
> 
> No matter what you end up choosing you will observe a very high level of quality.
> 
> Chibatastic


Settled then!! The Rolex is better quality! : )
Mine is not the first crown to part ways with a PO, Over they years on here I have read of more then several.


----------



## FOOGauzie

TSC said:


> Settled then!! The Rolex is better quality! : )
> Mine is not the first crown to part ways with a PO, Over they years on here I have read of more then several.


Comments like this are silliness. Google "Rolex crown fell off" and you'll get hits. I think that to get an accurate answer about whether a Rolex crown has ever come off, you'd need to get input from more than two people. ;-)

Again, I like and enjoy both brands... Mechanical things can and will break sometimes, whether expensive or not.


----------



## TSC

Jake B said:


> Comments like this are silliness. Google "Rolex crown fell off" and you'll get hits. I think that to get an accurate answer about whether a Rolex crown has ever come off, you'd need to get input from more than two people. ;-)
> 
> Again, I like and enjoy both brands...


Trouble with forum posting is irony and sarcasm is lost in the written word. I was kidding


----------



## iinsic

TSC said:


> Trouble with forum posting is irony and sarcasm is lost in the written word. I was kidding


Another example of why I maintain we need a "tongue-in-cheek" emoticon....


----------



## BaCaitlin

AAP and GaryF ....Are you guys waiting for Nick to do your dirty work with this thread? :-d


----------



## Zidane

BaCaitlin said:


> AAP and GaryF ....Are you guys waiting for Nick to do your dirty work with this thread? :-d


This is the best "Omega versus" thread in a long while - no dirty work to be done.


----------



## lvt

Mathew J said:


> LVT the more you post the more I am convinced your sole purpose here is to stir the "s" and not much more....


It's your opinion, not fact.



Mathew J said:


> Regardless the Omega has a longer power reserve than the Rolex, really it is up to any potential buyer to consider that "fact" in their decision...though for most I think anything over 40 hours is usually plenty enough...for myself the dual barrel design is just one small aspect of the new movement design that I personally feel is nicer than what Rolex is currently doing...you clearly aren't much of a fan of Omega and thus I am not overly suprised in your less than enthusiastic attitude towards what they are doing now.


The dual-barrel is already discussed while ago, there is no advantage of having 60 hours of PR versus 50 hours.



Mathew J said:


> Ummm last I checked the Airking, Oyster, and Oyster Date were all pretty entry level....even by Rolex standards...really just a statement like that shows where you stand on this topic and your clear bias.


I don't know how you checked them but your method might be wrong. Look at the PO/2500 and the PO/8500, don't they appear to you as an entry level vs higher-end level ?



Mathew J said:


> And here I thought the 2500 was going to handle their need for a thinner movement in certain applications, but sure whatever LVT if you say it is for the cheapo entry level watches Omega is making then I guess it must be true.


But it's true, the 2500 have neither Si14 balance-spring nor 4 balance screws, don't expect a high-end movement with just a pair of opposite screws, it's not simply about accuracy but it's about how much attention you put in a movement's part when you create it.

And most of all, the 2500 still remains a 28xx-base movement with a different escapement and some more jewels.


----------



## AAP

lvt said:


> The dual-barrel is already discussed while ago, there is no advantage of having 60 hours of PR versus 50 hours.


How can you say that? It's ten hours more. Why would a longer reserve _*not*_ be an advantage? In the arena of watchmaking, where the most subtle differences and solutions to theoretical/uncommon problems are proclaimed as breakthroughs, more of something positive is a definite advantage. It may not make a practical difference to you specifically, but I don't think you can say that it is not an absolute advantage when comparing like for like.


----------



## lvt

Jake B said:


> The 2500 is made for entry-level of Co-ax watches, while Rolex doesn't have entry-level watches. *The SMP is an entry level watch? So, you'd say that a stainless steel explorer or a no-date Sub with folded end links bracelet is not an "entry level" watch compared to a platinum Daytona, or a solid gold president?*


*

I don't talk about case material, you could find plenty of Casio G-shock that cost more than $10,000 because they are covered with diamonds.



Jake B said:



60-hour vs 50-hour (not significant as not all new calibers have dual-barrel). I'd argue that it is VERY significant if you take your watch off on friday night, and don't want to put it back on until Monday morning.

Click to expand...

So do you mean other 8xxx caliber with single-barrel and 55 hours of PR are junk ?

The dual-barrel really can't be used as argument here, it's just a fancy option.



Jake B said:



So, in your world and according to your logic, Omega would never improve upon their products if Rolex did not exist, and no improvement that they make is significant.

Click to expand...

In the mass-produced luxury watches sector they are the two major players, from what I know Rolex was always ahead in term of innovation and brand image, the fact that Omega suddenly needs a new technology in watchmaking reflects that. There is an old proverb saying "if you can't make it better, make it different".



Jake B said:



To add to this, I enjoy both brands, and both make excellent watches. These threads are lame, and that's why we started it off with some joking around.

Click to expand...

You are perfectly right on this.*


----------



## drunken monkey

is 60 hours more than 50 hours.
yes.

is 60 hours of power reserve that provides a more constant torque better than 50 hours of power reserve that suffers from the usual variance in torque depending on actual power reserve?
yes.

considering how you seem to want to focus on facts, I find it interesting that now, when it suits you, you say this:


lvt said:


> The dual-barrel is already discussed while ago, there is no advantage of having 60 hours of PR versus 50 hours.


which is your opinion.


----------



## lvt

AAP said:


> How can you say that? It's ten hours more. Why would a longer reserve _*not*_ be an advantage? In the arena of watchmaking, where the most subtle differences and solutions to theoretical/uncommon problems are proclaimed as breakthroughs, more of something positive is a definite advantage. It may not make a practical difference to you specifically, but I don't think you can say that it is not an absolute advantage when comparing like for like.


AFAIK there is no practical advantage for an automatic watch for having 60 hours of PR vs the another with 44 or 50 hours of PR because if you don't wear the watch long enough the power reserve will drop and this would result in an escapement running less consistently.

From my personal experience with my ETA-2836 COSC : it runs +/-2s per day if the power reserve is optimized (I wear the watch everyday), but once the watch is left unworn for more than 30 hours, it starts losing 1 sec per hour until it stops completely, I've done this type of experiece a dozen of times and there is nothing mystery about it, it's just mechanical. There is no mechanical watch even a Rolex or an Omega that could overcome this natural problem by itself.


----------



## Ruche

"The Rolex's run at 36,000vph (the vintage ones with the Zenith movements do, at least), whilst the the Omegas run at 28,800vph."

Actually... Rolex modified the Zenith EP movement by removing the date wheel and (detuned) slowing down the beat rate to the traditional 28,800vph for use in the Daytonas.


----------



## Zidane

lvt said:


> AFAIK there is no practical advantage for an automatic watch for having 60 hours of PR vs the another with 44 or 50 hours of PR because if you don't wear the watch long enough the power reserve will drop and this would result in an escapement running less consistently.
> 
> From my personal experience with my ETA-2836 COSC : it runs +/-2s per day if the power reserve is optimized (I wear the watch everyday), but once the watch is left unworn for more than 30 hours, it starts losing 1 sec per hour until it stops completely, I've done this type of experiece a dozen of times and there is nothing mystery about it, it's just mechanical. There is no mechanical watch even a Rolex or an Omega that could overcome this natural problem by itself.












The practical advantage is that at hour 51, the 8500 would still be running.


----------



## lvt

drunken monkey said:


> is 60 hours of power reserve that provides a more constant torque better than 50 hours of power reserve that suffers from the usual variance in torque depending on actual power reserve?
> 
> yes.


Not necessarily, the mainspring gradually loses torque as it unwinds, once you are out of the optimized torque curve the watch's accuracy will drift.


----------



## Zidane

lvt said:


> Not necessarily, the mainspring gradually loses torque as it unwinds, once you are out of the optimized torque curve the watch's accuracy will drift.


But wouldn't that be another advantage of having two barrels and a longer power reserve - the torque curve would remain flatter and allow the accuracy to remain more consistent for a longer period of time w/out dropping off?


----------



## lvt

Zidane said:


> The practical advantage is that at hour 51, the 8500 would still be running.


Yes, but out of COSC specs, is it practical too ?


----------



## Undersköterskan

drunken monkey said:


> is 60 hours more than 50 hours.
> yes.
> 
> is 60 hours of power reserve that provides a more constant torque better than 50 hours of power reserve that suffers from the usual variance in torque depending on actual power reserve?
> yes.
> 
> considering how you seem to want to focus on facts, I find it interesting that now, when it suits you, you say this:
> 
> which is your opinion.


Gentlemen, as I've said before; according to Marc-Andre Miche who participated in the development of the 8500-series of movements, the twin barrel construction is all about achieving a stable flow of energy even when the power supply is getting really low and hence a perfectly precise timekeeping. LVT (why do we listen to this guy anyway ? He claimed Omega will go up to 28.800 bph a couple of moths ago which is bs and in this thread he claims the 2500-series of calibers have been discontinued which is also bs) has somehow mistaken all this; Omega could get alot more energy from the barrels and thus a longer power reserve but it's not about getting a very long power reserve, it's about getting perfect timekeeping no matter if the barrels are fully wound or has less than an hour left of its power reserve. Period.

Regards
Undersköterskan


----------



## lvt

Zidane said:


> But wouldn't that be another advantage of having two barrels and a longer power reserve - the torque curve would remain flatter and allow the accuracy to remain more consistent for a longer period of time w/out dropping off?


That's the Co-ax's problem, other watches don't need a dual-barrels to run accurately.

If you don't wear your watch often, just buy a quartz, the 8500's dual-barrel is to help its own escapement, not to encourage us to drop our watches off more often.


----------



## GaryF

lvt said:


> Not necessarily, the mainspring gradually loses torque as it unwinds, once you are out of the optimized torque curve the watch's accuracy will drift.


Which is why two barrels are nice because theyhave a flatter curve.

60 hours is more than 50. That's a fact.
It might make no difference to you if you wear the same watch every day, all day, but some people actually own more than one watch. Some people wear no watch for long periods at a time.
To state that an extra ten hours on the reserve offers no advantage because your own wearing pattern doesn't require it seems to betray a breath-taking degree of narcissism.

What else? 
Good lume offers no advantage over poor lume because *you* sleep with the light on?
300m water resistance offers no advantage over 10m because *you* can't swim? 
Perhaps a Ferrari 599 offers no speed advantage over a Yaris because *you* don't drive fast?

Maybe you should submit your requirements to all of the watchmaking houses tomorrow so that they can stop wasting their time making watches to meet the needs of people other than yourself.


----------



## lvt

Undersköterskan said:


> Gentlemen, as I've said before; according to Marc-Andre Miche who participated in the development of the 8500-series of movements, the twin barrel construction is all about achieving a stable flow of energy even when the power supply is getting really low and hence a perfectly precise timekeeping. LVT (why do we listen to this guy anyway ? He claimed Omega will go up to 28.800 bph a couple of moths ago which is bs and in this thread he claims the 2500-series of calibers have been discontinued which is also bs) has somehow mistaken all this; Omega could get alot more energy from the barrels and thus a longer power reserve but it's not about getting a very long power reserve, it's about getting perfect timekeeping no matter if the barrels are fully wound or has less than an hour left of its power reserve. Period.
> 
> Regards
> Undersköterskan


You give false information here.

I said that the 2500 will be discontinued more than 1 year ago, 6 months before the very first info about the 2500D.

The D is very different from the A, B and C and part like escapement assembly, main plate... are not compatible, if you care about details, yes the 2500 is over. Anyway how could you say a caliber with 3-level escapement is the same like the one with 2-level escapement and different parts ? It's beyond me.

Of course they will go 28,800bph, I never said "a couple of months", this is another false information from you, there is no hurry because it's a sensible issue.

Anyway when the 8500 goes 28,800bph it won't be 8500 anymore but it will have another name.


----------



## GaryF

lvt said:


> You give false information here.
> 
> I said that the *2500* will be discontinued more than 1 year ago, 6 months before the very first info about the *2500*D.
> 
> The D is very different from the A, B and C and part like escapement assembly, main plate... are not compatible, if you care about details, yes the *2500 *is over. Anyway how could you say a caliber with 3-level escapement is the same like the one with 2-level escapement and different parts ? It's beyond me.
> 
> Of course they will go 28,800bph, I never said "a couple of months", this is another false information from you, there is no hurry because it's a sensible issue.
> 
> *Anyway when the 8500 goes 28,800bph it won't be 8500 anymore but it will have another name*.


Amazing. I can't think of any better way to counter this than to repeat it.


----------



## lvt

Undersköterskan said:


> Omega could get alot more energy from the barrels and thus a longer power reserve but it's not about getting a very long power reserve, it's about getting perfect timekeeping no matter if the barrels are fully wound or has less than an hour left of its power reserve.


If you read attentively all my posts this is exactly what I want to say, I don't talk about "60 hours is longer than 50 hours" problem.


----------



## GaryF

lvt said:


> That's the Co-ax's problem, other watches don't need a dual-barrels to run accurately.


So, the torque-curve issue only affects co-axials now?


----------



## Zidane

lvt said:


> *The 2500 based Omega watches can't really be compared to current Rolex because they are discontinued*, only those with the 8500 could be as they have Si14 balance spring and balance wheel with 4 screws for better regulation (the 2500 only has a pair of screw and no Si14). However the dual-barrel setup with only a couple of hours more than a single-barrel movement doesn't sound like a winner in term of power reserve to me (they are automatic after all).





lvt said:


> *You give false information here.
> 
> I said that the 2500 will be discontinued more than 1 year ago, 6 months before the very first info about the 2500D*.
> 
> The D is very different from the A, B and C and part like escapement assembly, main plate... are not compatible, if you care about details, yes the 2500 is over. Anyway how could you say a caliber with 3-level escapement is the same like the one with 2-level escapement and different parts ? It's beyond me.
> 
> Of course they will go 28,800bph, I never said "a couple of months", this is another false information from you, there is no hurry because it's a sensible issue.
> 
> Anyway when the 8500 goes 28,800bph it won't be 8500 anymore but it will have another name.


Undersköterskan is only commenting on what he read in your post, in bold above. I don't see where you mentioned anything about the 2500D; only the 2500.


----------



## lvt

GaryF said:


> Amazing. I can't think of any better way to counter this than to repeat it.


Better way ? Maybe just play the "D" trick again, it's simple as it.


----------



## Mathew J

lvt said:


> It's your opinion, not fact.


Hmm, I am guessing it may be one that others share as well...but yes that is my opinion, if you seemed to show interest in wanting to own an Omega I might think otherwise but have yet to see that....



> The dual-barrel is already discussed while ago, there is no advantage of having 60 hours of PR versus 50 hours.


Beyond actually offering a longer power reserve?



> I don't know how you checked them but your method might be wrong. Look at the PO/2500 and the PO/8500, don't they appear to you as an entry level vs higher-end level ?


You're talking a watch being phased out and replaced vs one that is new and current, like comparing an older series submariner to the latest with the ceramic bezel....I view it as evolutionary rather than lower vs higher level.



> But it's true, the 2500 have neither Si14 balance-spring nor 4 balance screws, don't expect a high-end movement with just a pair of opposite screws, it's not simply about accuracy but it's about how much attention you put in a movement's part when you create it.


I used to use the same agument of 4 vs 2 screws when I was a big Rolex fanboy but ultimately came to terms with the fact that it just didn't matter, my 2500 is as accurate as my Rolex which has 4 and the breguet overcoil....no doubt the 2500 isn't as advanced as the 8500 but it is I would argue at least on par with the Rolex calibers with the 8500 being leaps and bounds ahead of them.



> And most of all, the 2500 still remains a 28xx-base movement with a different escapement and some more jewels.


This is subjective but for me that only matters in the minds of the movement snobs....personally I don't put much weight into that but I can understand that some do....


----------



## iinsic

Here in America, we have a political subset that I refer to as "fact impermeable," because they are so devoted to their ideology that it transcends any facts that contravene that ideology.

I think we can apply that term - "fact impermeable" - to *lvt*. No matter what you offer by way of facts, it appears not in the slightest to diminish his zeal for his own misguided beliefs. That is, except for the occasions where he claims that the counter-argument was what he actually was saying all along. :roll:

He has admitted previously to being self-taught in English. I'm guessing, comparing how he expresses himself and his dogmatic defense of fanciful notions about Omega and its corporate strategies, that he is self-taught in watchmaking, too.


----------



## drunken monkey

and maybe maths as well because somehow while 50 is less than 60, 60 isn't more.


----------



## M4tt

The Air King Is Rolex's entry level watch.



> In the mass-produced luxury watches sector they are the two major players, from what I know Rolex was always ahead in term of innovation  and brand image,


It would have been hard for Rolex to *always *be ahead as Omega were producing over a quarter of a million watches a year when the Rolex trade name was first registered. Rolex didn't actually actually have any share in their own watch factory until 1920 and didn't own it outright and until 1930 when they finally bought out Gruen - The Rebberg watch movements continued to be used until the mid fifties while the 12xx series which replaced them seem to have been developed directly from the movements Hans Wilsdorf purchased from the Aegler family before Rolex even existed.

By the end of the Golden age in the Early seventies Rolex were a medium sized but respected mass market watchmaker, competing with brands like Certina, Favre Leuba, Eterna, Girard Perregaux, Cyma, Hamilton, Elgin, Waltham, Bulova, Zenith and so on and so on similar watchmakers offering similar quality movements and cases - they were one player and a significant way behind Omega's SSIH group. To put it in context, but by the time the 30 series of handwind movements was retired in the early sixties, it had been used in more watches than Rolex had produced in its entire history.

It is a matter of mere economics that Rolex's slow evolutionary approach to movement development and lack of shareholders and debt served it well during the nineteen seventies recession, while Omega had just developed the ten series, the f300, f720, several quartz including the legendary 15xx and less legendary (later)13xx series from scratch. In short Omega made some brilliant movements but overspent at precisely the wrong moment.



> the fact that Omega suddenly needs a new technology in watchmaking reflects that. There is an old proverb saying "if you can't make it better, make it different".


This is what I don't get. You prefer Rolex to Omega. So why don't you live on the Rolex forum where you can discuss Rolex? Why troll the Omega forum? More to the point why can't you enjoy Rolex without having to constantly undermine Omega?


----------



## RacingGreen

I personally think that while build quality is likely to be comparable in terms of robustness, there is a lot more to the average (new) Omega. Cases will typically have a lot more finishing - not to mention the obvious gulf in case-backs. Movement technology is now more advanced - which is certainly not the be all and end all, but I think it's fair to note given Rolex previously use to score on the dubious merits of in-house vs ETA movements. Omega were well ahead on bracelets although Rolex have now caught up. In models where it applies, liquid metal rather outdoes rolex bezel innovations IMHO. Omega dials typically appear to have more detailing to my eye.

I genuinely believe then, that Omega offers more on average. And the fact that you can get an Hour Vision for less than a bog standard Datejust is almost comical, whatever brand cachet brings to the table.


----------



## jaytaylor

Lol, LVT trolling the Omega forum again.
Relentless in his quest of misinformation, BS and winding folks up.

LVT, so how many Omega & Rolex watches do you own?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## M4tt

> Yes, but out of COSC specs, is it practical too ?


Apart from the obvious point that it will remain accurate longer too, are you really saying that moving a minute hand a few minutes is as much of a chore as resetting a watch from scratch?


----------



## M4tt

> Which is why two barrels are nice because they have a flatter curve.


I'm pretty sure that the twin barrels is a red herring. Using a range of different springs I'm pretty certain that you can get whatever curve you want - where twin barrels may come in useful in the 8500 is allowing you to hide them in a corner leaving more room for other stuff - like a larger escapement... In short, Omega might claim they were serving one compromise but when you look at the movement my guess is that form factor was the driving criteria. (as well as mind bling)


----------



## lvt

Mathew J said:


> Beyond actually offering a longer power reserve?


Come on, people don't buy Omega watch because it has 10 hours more of power reserve (60 vs 50), right ?

People don't buy Rolex watch because it has 10 hours more than a regular ETA (50 vs 40), right ?



Mathew J said:


> You're talking a watch being phased out and replaced vs one that is new and current, like comparing an older series submariner to the latest with the ceramic bezel....I view it as evolutionary rather than lower vs higher level.


No, a 8500 PO is completely different from a 2500 PO, evolutionary or not it's just a way to make you pay more, don't tell me you pay like $2,000 more for the same thing, same level but evolutionary in price.



Mathew J said:


> I used to use the same agument of 4 vs 2 screws when I was a big Rolex fanboy but ultimately came to terms with the fact that it just didn't matter, my 2500 is as accurate as my Rolex which has 4 and the breguet overcoil....no doubt the 2500 isn't as advanced as the 8500 but it is I would argue at least on par with the Rolex calibers with the 8500 being leaps and bounds ahead of them.


I repeat what I said ealier about the screws, it's not about accuracy but it's about how you make things.

It's just an example for saying that in term of detail and finish, only the 8500 could compete with Rolex's.



Mathew J said:


> This is subjective but for me that only matters in the minds of the movement snobs....personally I don't put much weight into that but I can understand that some do....


When you go completely "in-house", it's different level.


----------



## M4tt

> Now ... let the ostracism begin. ;-)


I think I lightly disagree with you about the movements - the differences in quality reliability and timekeeping are so minimal that one would really have to compare specific movement with specific movement. Part of my problem is that I don't really like the 8500, it's huge, I don't like the twin barrels - they have been tried and dropped already by FL - and I really don't like non metallic coatings inside movements - they never ever seem to stand the test of time. If Omega really wanted to move up a level they should have made the whole damn thing out of invar rather than brass. However, I don't like the 3135 either - in trying to 'domesticate' a classic toolwatch movement they spoiled the second best Rolex movement ever made (after the 1570 IMHO) However, if I had to choose between the 3035 and the 2500 I'd be torn and it really would come down to application. Likewise, the 1570 and the 565 or the 1225 and the 601.

However, where I agree heartily is the cases - forget about fit and finish - the oyster case is simply the nicest and most versatile case ever made - the AT case draws together all the finest styling cues of Omega's classic watches to make a one off work of genius, but the variations on the Oyster (and there have been plenty) just do that over and over again for generations.

Mind you, it doesn't do to show off too loudly about fit and finish. Grand Seiko has everyone in this price point beat by far and has since the late sixties.


----------



## M4tt

> but this is rather balanced out when I screw in the crown and feel that I'll be able to do that for the life of the watch.


Having had to replace the crown and pendent on both my Omlex and AirKing recently I can assure you that you may be replacing stuff sooner than you think - more to the point the crown and pendent has twice cost me the price of a decent service alone. Rolex parts prices are nuts (and non dealer availability close to nil)


----------



## GaryF

M4tt said:


> Having had to replace the crown and pendent on both my Omlex and AirKing recently I can assure you that you may be replacing stuff sooner than you think - more to the point the crown and pendent has twice cost me the price of a decent service alone. Rolex parts prices are nuts (and non dealer availability close to nil)


Yes, I'm sure. I went with "feel" rather than "know" because I was trying to convey the sensation (compared to that of my Seamasters) rather than a realistic expectation. Still, poor wording on my part.


----------



## M4tt

> Lol, LVT trolling the Omega forum again.


I found it far more irritating when I thought he was sincere, I was slow to catch on, but now...



> Relentless in his quest of misinformation, BS and winding folks up.


This is what I don't get, if this was his aim, then he's be less blatant adn stop aiming directly at his own feet. It's odd (and when not trolling, he seems a nice guy!)



> LVT, so how many Omega & Rolex watches do you own?


I'm not sure that ownership is the ante for joining in. My question is why he posts here about watches he is less keen on rather than the Rolex forum and watches he aspires to. Surely it would be better to discuss the watches he likes rather than demean the ones he doesn't


----------



## Thomas Miko

bovie said:


> Sorry guys I didn't mean to start anything. I was just looking for the is there anything obvious between the two that one does better or one was doing that the other wasn't. I guess this is like Mercedes Benz vs BMW.


Having owned 3 different Rolexes, and now the proud owner of my first Omega, let me say this: Yes, Rolex are very well made, as are Omega. To me, the price difference reflects not some intangible difference in quality of materials, construction, or workmanship, it reflects Rolex's powerful advertising campaign of the last several decades. I got hooked on Rolex for the same reason as others: some movie or TV star (in my case, Tom Selleck on "Magnum P.I.") was constantly flashing his Rolex, and I wanted that watch.
The general public knows that Rolex is some kind of expensive, high-quality watch that rich people or people of status wear. Drive around the freeways of LA, and you will see gigantic billboards for Rolex. In the months before Christmas, the sports, political, and news magazines will have gigantic, full-page ads for Rolex. Through its advertising efforts, Rolex has become the 800 pound gorilla of wristwatches. It looks like Omega wants to muscle into this territory, and to me the watches, themselves, are every bit as good as Rolexes (Rolexi?). Looking at the 2500D Planet Ocean on my wrist, right now, I cannot tell you why someone should pay thousands more for a Submariner, even if money is no object.
The lady in the office next to me is very nice, I like her, but she is one of those people who wears alternate $5,000 watches on various days of the week, and for her (and her husband, who buys them) these watches are jewelry, not watches. She checks the time on her cell phone, while wearing a Bulgari on Monday, a Cartier on Tuesday, or a Rolex on Wednesday.
One thing I must say is that the lume on this watch (the Planet Ocean) is beyond my wildest expectations.

So the question isn't which watch is better: the question is why are you buying a watch? Is it because you want a well-made Swiss watch, or because you want a status symbol? Where do you fall on a continuum between those 2 ideas? I believe that DOXA owners fall at one end (well-made tool watch), Omega owners to the right of them i.e. in the middle of that continuum, and Rolex owners (those who are not Watchuseek members!) fall far to the right. Bear in mind that DOXA owners buy their watches knowing that the average Rolex owner (along with most people, in general) never heard of DOXA, while most (not all, but most) Rolex owners buy their watch for the brand recognition. I think that we Omega owners fall along a wide spread along the continuum.


----------



## Mathew J

lvt said:


> Come on, people don't buy Omega watch because it has 10 hours more of power reserve (60 vs 50), right ?
> 
> People don't buy Rolex watch because it has 10 hours more than a regular ETA (50 vs 40), right ?


Did I say people buy a watch because of the PR, if I did please show me where...rather I said if you're nit picking (which obviously you seem to be) then the Omega regardless of having twin barrels has a longer power reserve than the Rolex.

I honestly don't think most buyers care about any of that though and put more importance in looks and name brand, but that isn't what is being discussed here.



> No, a 8500 PO is completely different from a 2500 PO, evolutionary or not it's just a way to make you pay more, don't tell me you pay like $2,000 more for the same thing, same level but evolutionary in price.


I am missing your argument LVT...the 2500 came first, at a period when Omega was in a transitional phase, from lower cost pieces with somewhat modified ETA bases at often times heavily discounted prices, they used the 2500 to start their move upmarket as it was built off a solid foundation that was familar to them and easy enough to do what they wanted...

once they saw this was working from a marketing and sales perspective they took it to the next level and built the 8500 and what we are seeing now from a movement standpoint.

I don't view the 2500 as "entry level" as really it was representative of a specific time and continues to fill a void that the larger co axial movements cannot.



> I repeat what I said ealier about the screws, it's not about accuracy but it's about how you make things.
> 
> It's just an example for saying that in term of detail and finish, only the 8500 could compete with Rolex's.


LVT it is clear that you're not big on alternate opinions....you could make the same argument about Omega not using a full balance bridge in the 2500 vs that of the 8500....but the reality is that for most, myself included these details just don't matter....

I used to get hung up on Rolex use of 4 micro stella screws mounted on the inside of the race (as everyone knows that is the optimal placement) their breguet overcoil along with the full balance bridge...but after thinking about it I really just stopped caring, my 2500 keeps time just as well, is better finished, has some solid features, and cost alot less money....the 8500 on the other hand is in my limited assesment technically superior to both that of the 2500 and the 31XX series Rolex movements and it is still on average less expensive...

If you want to find a reason not to like the Omega designs be it balance adjustment screws, balance mounts, pins in the links, no micro adjusts, or whatever it is you can...and the same can be said of any brand, from Rolex with their lack of bearings in the rotor arbor, high cost for minimal finish work, poorly proportioned cases and bracelets in the case of the deep sea...to breitling with their old Rider Tab bezels...everyone can find something wrong if they look hard enough.



> When you go completely "in-house", it's different level.


Really, care to say that about Seiko which is arguably one of the most in house companies yet is regarded by many as low cost.

The only difference is perception from marketing and public opinion...plenty of upper end brands use sourced base movements and are still popular, Rolex has a nice movement but honestly they aren't anything amazing especially when you consider the prices, they are like a Randall knife...get the job done and expensive but aren't that heavy on the decoration.


----------



## M4tt

> Yes, I'm sure. I went with "feel" rather than "know" because I was trying to convey the sensation (compared to that of my Seamasters) rather than a realistic expectation. Still, poor wording on my part.


Not at all, more bitter pedantry on my side - I spent three years finding a vintage crown tube for my Oyster Royal (which to be fair had made it all the way from 1965) and then had the other two go in quick succession one of which had been completely rebuilt to as new spec for the Omlex project (or not as it seems!). However, I totally agree that they have a smoothness that you don't get with much else.


----------



## Dixan

lvt said:


> The dual-barrel is already discussed while ago, there is no advantage of having 60 hours of PR versus 50 hours.





lvt said:


> Come on, people don't buy Omega watch because it has 10 hours more of power reserve (60 vs 50), right ?


Look, lvt, the *main advantage* of having the twin barrels is added stability and consistency, in terms of power delivery, throughout more of the power reserve range.

Please read this informative post:



Undersköterskan said:


> ... the twin barrel construction is not primarily about getting a longer PR; instead, it's all about achieving a stable supply of power from when the mainsprings are fully wound until they run out of power. If you compare the precision of the 8500 during its last 10 hours of power, you'll find it alot more stable and hence more precise than most single barrel movements. This is the main advantage of the twin barrel construction.


In addition to that, having an additional ten hours of reserved power (when compared to that specific movement you write of) is still an advantage, regardless of whether or not you are willing to recognize the point.


----------



## Terri288

I have owned both a PO and a Sub and this is still an unanswerable question.​


----------



## Dixan

lvt said:


> Not necessarily, the mainspring gradually loses torque as it unwinds, once you are out of the optimized torque curve the watch's accuracy will drift.


AGAIN, that's why having two barrels is advantageous... They release power in a more controlled and consistent manner throughout more of the power reserve range.

Prior to this post of yours, about half a dozen posters _had just replied_ to you explaining the advantages of having the two barrel setup. Are you _choosing_ not to comprehend? Honestly, lvt, your modus operandi is getting quite tiresome. Please give the constant trolling a rest....


----------



## JimInOz

My Rolex v Omega Quality input.

I wore a Subbie for 15 years or so as a daily beater when I worked on jets. Climbing from a cockpit one day I slipped on the ladder and the bracelet of my Subbie caught on the canopy lock and I was suspended about a foot above the deck by my left wrist.

I managed to get my foot back on the ladder, unhook myself and check everything out. Aside from some cuts and bruising on my wrist, the bracelet looked a teeny bit stretched but was still in one piece. A change of springbars and it was just like normal.

I can vouch for the quality of that Rolex.

I'm now addicted to my Speedie which I wear almost constantly, however I have no intention of subjecting it to any similar quality test.

NASA did that for me.


----------



## JimInOz

And while I'm in a story telling mood, here's another Rollie testimonial.

I'd returned to Penang from Singa's with my new Subbie and got invited to a party at short notice. As the invite was made in a bar late at night I should've known better but hell, I was young and dumb.

Arrived at the party which was in full swing, gallons of beer going down and much banter being tossed around.

One of the old NCOs came across to heckle us and noticed my watch, "new Rolex?" he inquired.

Proudly I took it off and gave it to him to admire. "Shockproof is it?" he asked with a grin, and then tossed it at the wall about ten feet away where it bounced to the tiled floor.

He walked off laughing and left me in dismay staring at what I thought would be an expensive pile of bits.

I picked it up and checked it all over but couldn't see any damage, looking closely I could see it was still working so I put it back on and proceeded to drown my sorrows and plot revenge with my buddy.

And for the next 15 years, that watch never failed me, was never serviced, was worn swimming, showering, working and partying and kept time to within a second or two a week.

Another example of why I respect the quality of the brand.


----------



## jaytaylor

JimInOz said:


> And while I'm in a story telling mood, here's another Rollie testimonial.
> 
> I'd returned to Penang from Singa's with my new Subbie and got invited to a party at short notice. As the invite was made in a bar late at night I should've known better but hell, I was young and dumb.
> 
> Arrived at the party which was in full swing, gallons of beer going down and much banter being tossed around.
> 
> One of the old NCOs came across to heckle us and noticed my watch, "new Rolex?" he inquired.
> 
> Proudly I took it off and gave it to him to admire. "Shockproof is it?" he asked with a grin, and then tossed it at the wall about ten feet away where it bounced to the tiled floor.
> 
> He walked off laughing and left me in dismay staring at what I thought would be an expensive pile of bits.
> 
> I picked it up and checked it all over but couldn't see any damage, looking closely I could see it was still working so I put it back on and proceeded to drown my sorrows and plot revenge with my buddy.
> 
> And for the next 15 years, that watch never failed me, was never serviced, was worn swimming, showering, working and partying and kept time to within a second or two a week.
> 
> Another example of why I respect the quality of the brand.


Ouch....did you get that [email protected]#$#% back? What do you do to him?


----------



## lvt

Dixan said:


> Look, lvt, the *main advantage* of having the twin barrels is added stability and consistency, in terms of power delivery, throughout more of the power reserve range.
> 
> Please read this informative post:
> 
> In addition to that, having an additional ten hours of reserved power (when compared to that specific movement you write of) is still an advantage, regardless of whether or not you are willing to recognize the point.


It's a technical advantage over the 2500, not a practical advantage to use against other watches.

And like someone has pointed out, this technical advantage actually has a disavantage : its size.


----------



## lvt

Dixan said:


> AGAIN, that's why having two barrels is advantageous... They release power in a more controlled and consistent manner throughout more of the power reserve range.
> 
> Prior to this post of yours, about half a dozen posters _had just replied_ to you explaining the advantages of having the two barrel setup. Are you _choosing_ not to comprehend? Honestly, lvt, your modus operandi is getting quite tiresome. Please give the constant trolling a rest....


Like I just posted above, it certainly has some advantages over other Co-ax calibers with single barrel like the 2500.


----------



## lvt

jaytaylor said:


> LVT, so how many Omega & Rolex watches do you own?


No thanks, no Rolex or Omega in near future for me, I'm aiming at something higher-end than them both.


----------



## lvt

Mathew J said:


> Really, care to say that about Seiko which is arguably one of the most in house companies yet is regarded by many as low cost.


You looked at the wrong place, you should look at the Grand Seiko instead.


----------



## GaryF

lvt said:


> It's a technical advantage over the 2500, not a practical advantage to use against other watches.


 So only the 2500 can suffer from an uneven torque curve without two barrels? Why is that?


----------



## GaryF

lvt said:


> Like I just posted above, it certainly has some advantages over other Co-ax calibers with single barrel like the 2500.


Again with this? Why are lever escapements immune to torque-curve issues? Please give us your explanation.


----------



## I Like Watches

Thomas Miko said:


> and for her (and her husband, who buys them) these watches are jewelry, not watches.


HA! Just like what the Rolex AD said to me: "If you want a better movement, go with Omega. If you want a better piece of Jewelry, go with Rolex.".


----------



## rbranston

edit


----------



## jimmer42

He's just winding you all up....probably doesn't believe what he's saying himself


----------



## devilva

lol lvt upsetting the Omega fanboys.. love it.

When I compared my SeaDweller to my PO 2500C I felt that the SD took the edge as the better build but the PO did have some aspects I liked such as the crystal's AR and the bracelet was very comfortable.

And when I compared my Sub to my SMP I felt that the Submariner is the iconic Divers watch and will always be special to me but that the SMP really held its own. Same depth rating, simplistic and beautiful waved dial and most comfortable bracelet ive ever worn.


----------



## jaytaylor

lvt said:


> No thanks, no Rolex or Omega in near future for me, I'm aiming at something higher-end than them both.


Let me guess....Invicta?

Or maybe something more appropriate for you ...










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## scamp007

I'll tell you my observations on this thread as an owner of both Omega and Rolex watches, if it wasn't for lvt arguing about the relative merits of dual barrels over fuel injection or whatever it is he's on about, (is he now just arguing with himself..?), this thread would of run out of legs about 4 pages ago, there really aren't any genine Rolex owners arguing the case that Rolex is the superior watch, I see little evidence of any Kool aid being drunk (aside from you know who, who isn't a Rolex owner anyway), just a pretty balanced, 'no clear winner when it comes to quality', which was the original question, if I remember rightly.

Sean


----------



## GaryF

Excellent post. This thread had been ticking along in a considered, thoughtful and admirable way (especially considering the theme) before lvt, once again, managed to drag everyone into responding to his... you know, I honestly don't know what word I can use here. We've all read enough threads in which he has done this to know better than to feed him.
I don't know what causes him to do this, whether he actually believes the stuff he comes out with, whether he just likes the attention it brings him or what but, for now at least, I'm going to think carefully about whether I can expect anything other than exasperation before replying to him. 
Maybe if enough of us do that, he'll get bored and leave us alone.



scamp007 said:


> I'll tell you my observations on this thread as an owner of both Omega and Rolex watches, if it wasn't for lvt arguing about the relative merits of dual barrels over fuel injection or whatever it is he's on about, (is he now just arguing with himself..?), this thread would of run out of legs about 4 pages ago, there really aren't any genine Rolex owners arguing the case that Rolex is the superior watch, I see little evidence of any Kool aid being drunk (aside from you know who, who isn't a Rolex owner anyway), just a pretty balanced, 'no clear winner when it comes to quality', which was the original question, if I remember rightly.
> 
> Sean


----------



## OzO

jaytaylor said:


> Let me guess....Invicta?
> 
> Or maybe something more appropriate for you ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Jay, that is friggin terrifying.


----------



## M4tt

I hate to say it, but I'm with LVT on this one - I really cannot see why the precise behavior of twin barrels cannot be achieved by a single barrel. The only advantage I can see is changing the form factor to a clearly more convenient one at the expense of added complication and friction. If it was really such an advantage, why did Favre Leuba experiment with it and drop it?


----------



## gt_5454

I own both Rolex and Omega and I love both brands.... and I am suprised that this thread lasted so long... maybe thanks or no thanks to lvt.... I wont bother with him since he dosent own any of those 2 brands currently... and it dosent bother me whether he goes for something higher or lower end ( looking at his sig it seems he is opting for the latter now) as I think I have better things to do


----------



## OTX

gt_5454 said:


> I own both Rolex and Omega and I love both brands.... and I am suprised that this thread lasted so long... maybe thanks or no thanks to lvt.... I wont bother with him since he dosent own any of those 2 brands currently... and it dosent bother me whether he goes for something higher or lower end ( looking at his sig it seems he is opting for the latter now) as I think I have better things to do


+1. That's a lot of talk for someone who doesn't own either a Rolex or an Omega. I know it's not a requirement to own an Omega to post on the Omega forum but for someone to post that much it's almost a requirement. From his sig I can tell there is jealousy and I am sure he wouldn't turn down an Omega 8500 or a Rolex sub if someone gave it to him but since he can't get one he talks trash about it. It's a classic case of the Aesops fables sour grapes story where the fox couldnt reach the grapes so he said they were sour to make himself feel better. I am beginning to believe he is from the moon like he says. Maybe automatics work different over there .


----------



## joeuk

M4tt said:


> I hate to say it, but I'm with LVT on this one - I really cannot see why the precise behavior of twin barrels cannot be achieved by a single barrel. The only advantage I can see is changing the form factor to a clearly more convenient one at the expense of added complication and friction. If it was really such an advantage, why did Favre Leuba experiment with it and drop it?


+1 on this, I tried a zenith and it was ulra thin and had 1 barrel and had a power reserve of 50 hrs, could understand if it gave you 100 hrs but to give 10 hrs more is just a waste.


----------



## HiggsBoson

I'm lucky enough to own both, i *really *like both brands.
I don't understand why people feel the need to put down either brand. :-s
*Both *have positive & negative points, Just like anything else we care to 
spend our money on!


----------



## GaryF

Really? I'm not saying your point is wrong but it isn't _his_ point.



> It's a technical advantage over the 2500, not a practical advantage to use against other watches.





> That's the Co-ax's problem, other watches don't need a dual-barrels to run accurately.





> Like I just posted above, it certainly has some advantages over other Co-ax calibers with single barrel like the 2500.





M4tt said:


> I hate to say it, but I'm with LVT on this one -


----------



## Dixan

eloburg said:


> +1. That's a lot of talk for someone who doesn't own either a Rolex or an Omega. I know it's not a requirement to own an Omega to post on the Omega forum but for someone to post that much it's almost a requirement. *From his sig I can tell there is jealousy* and I am sure he wouldn't turn down an Omega 8500 or a Rolex sub if someone gave it to him but since he can't get one he talks trash about it. It's a classic case of the Aesops fables sour grapes story where the fox couldnt reach the grapes so he said they were sour to make himself feel better. I am beginning to believe he is from the moon like he says. Maybe automatics work different over there .


Regardless of the true motivation behind lvt's incessant need to disparage Omega, I don't think it's anyone's place to speculate about another member's financial standing, and whether or not they can afford this or that watch. I think it's in bad taste to take the discussion in that direction.


----------



## OTX

Dixan said:


> Regardless of the true motivation behind lvt's incessant need to disparage Omega, I don't think it's anyone's place to speculate about another member's financial standing, and whether or not they can afford this or that watch. I think it's in bad taste to take the discussion in that direction.


I'll say whatever I feel like saying. It's my opinion and let's not talk about taking the discussion in a bad direction. I have seen numerous posts where all you seem to do is get into arguments with others. Again, I am reponsible for what I write and don't need your opinion.


----------



## GaryF

If you two want to go for a round two, do it in PM, please.



eloburg said:


> I'll say whatever I feel like saying. It's my opinion and let's not talk about taking the discussion in a bad direction. I have seen numerous posts where all you seem to do is get into arguments with others. Again, I am reponsible for what I write and don't need your opinion.


----------



## OTX

GaryF said:


> If you two want to go for a round two, do it in PM, please.


Hey Gary. I have no interest or energy for a round two so as far as I'm concerned I'm done with him and have nothing else to say.


----------



## jimmer42

OzO said:


> Jay, that is friggin terrifying.


Ah...The new Omega Basel release the Omega Circusmaster!


----------



## edb4164

jimmer42 said:


> Ah...The new Omega Basel release the Omega Circusmaster!


LOL


----------



## iinsic

scamp007 said:


> I'll tell you my observations on this thread as an owner of both Omega and Rolex watches, if it wasn't for lvt arguing about the relative merits of dual barrels over fuel injection or whatever it is he's on about, (is he now just arguing with himself..?), this thread would of run out of legs about 4 pages ago, there really aren't any genine Rolex owners arguing the case that Rolex is the superior watch, I see little evidence of any Kool aid being drunk (aside from you know who, who isn't a Rolex owner anyway), just a pretty balanced, 'no clear winner when it comes to quality', which was the original question, if I remember rightly.
> 
> Sean


:-s Which is it? Am I not a "genuine Rolex owner," or did you simply not understand my first post in this thread? Or perhaps you're one who can't be bothered with reading everything in a 140+ post thread before posting yourself?

Rob


----------



## scamp007

iinsic said:


> :-s Which is it? Am I not a "genuine Rolex owner," or did you simply not understand my first post in this thread? Or perhaps you're one who can't be bothered with reading everything in a 140+ post thread before posting yourself?
> 
> Rob


Of course you are a 'Genuine Rolex Owner' Rob, and your original post (i never post without reading the whole thread) illustrated my point perfectly, which was, that the 'Genuine Rolex Owners' could see the merits of both and that generally the opinions were pretty balanced, there was no, histrionic, 'of course my Rolex is better' posts, just reasoned opinion, in your case you feel that Rolex edge it and stated your reasons why, for what it's worth, I agree with you, it's actually you who seem to have got the wrong end of the stick with my post.

Sean


----------



## iinsic

scamp007 said:


> Of course you are a 'Genuine Rolex Owner' Rob, and your original post (i never post without reading the whole thread) illustrated my point perfectly, which was, that the 'Genuine Rolex Owners' could see the merits of both and that generally the opinions were pretty balanced, there was no, histrionic, 'of course my Rolex is better' posts, just reasoned opinion, in your case you feel that Rolex edge it and stated your reasons why, for what it's worth, I agree with you, it's actually you who seem to have got the wrong end of the stick with my post.
> 
> Sean


Fair enough.


----------



## lvt

M4tt said:


> I hate to say it, but I'm with LVT on this one - I really cannot see why the precise behavior of twin barrels cannot be achieved by a single barrel. The only advantage I can see is changing the form factor to a clearly more convenient one at the expense of added complication and friction. If it was really such an advantage, why did Favre Leuba experiment with it and drop it?


From what I know the two barrels unwind at the same time, so they aren't there specially for power reserve because 10 hours of power reserve is a very little gain and I think it's not worth creating such complicated mechanism, especially when it results in a bigger caliber (inconvenient).

So the main reason for the dual-barrel to exist is to make the power flow smoother and controlled, something crucial for the Co-ax escapement.


----------



## akasnowmaaan

GaryF said:


> Excellent post. This thread had been ticking along in a considered, thoughtful and admirable way (especially considering the theme) before lvt, once again, managed to drag everyone into responding to his... you know, I honestly don't know what word I can use here. We've all read enough threads in which he has done this to know better than to feed him.
> I don't know what causes him to do this, whether he actually believes the stuff he comes out with, whether he just likes the attention it brings him or what but, for now at least, I'm going to think carefully about whether I can expect anything other than exasperation before replying to him.
> Maybe if enough of us do that, he'll get bored and leave us alone.


Well, from reading this one thread all I know is the moment I see lvt, I will hit the 'back' button and go somewhere else, because the thread is just going to degenerate into a tiresome slog with one person with an agenda playing dirty debate tactics and a few other people fruitlessly trying to score a point with him.

If you call that 'legs', that's your call.


----------



## Undersköterskan

lvt said:


> From what I know the two barrels unwind at the same time, so they aren't there specially for power reserve because 10 hours of power reserve is a very little gain and I think it's not worth creating such complicated mechanism, especially when it results in a bigger caliber (inconvenient).
> 
> So the main reason for the dual-barrel to exist is to make the power flow smoother and controlled, something crucial for the Co-ax escapement.


Well, you're wrong as usual; the two barrels are wound sequentially. The barrel without the slip-spring (the so-called "handwinding barrel") is wound first and as soon as it's full, winding energy is conveyed only to the barrel with a slip-spring (the "selfwinding barrel". In the opposite direction, the selfwinding barrel first discharges its store of energy directly to the center wheel, it's only if the stockpile of energy is equal in both barrels that the two barrels discharge their reservoirs of energy at the same time.

Can't you stop commenting on things you know nothing about, like for instance the above mentioned ? What if someone actually believed the nonsense you write about Omega increasing their bph to 28.800 or that the 2500-series of calibers are out of production ? You give a fairly serious impression, so there's an obvious risk that newcomers to Omega WUS would actually start to believe you, dude. So you can rest assure that I will monitor your threads closely in the future and making sure there are correct information posted whenever you get out of line (which you almost always do)

Regards
Undersköterskan


----------



## M4tt

> Well, you're wrong as usual; the two barrels are wound sequentially. The barrel without the slip-spring (the so-called "handwinding barrel") is wound first and as soon as it's full, winding energy is conveyed only to the barrel with a slip-spring (the "selfwinding barrel". In the opposite direction, the selfwinding barrel first discharges its store of energy directly to the center wheel, it's only if the stockpile of energy is equal in both barrels that the two barrels discharge their reservoirs of energy at the same time.


Um, much as I hate to do this, but so are you, at least about the way the 8500 winds and unwinds, not about LVT. You are spot on about him. The 'stockpile of energy' in the two barrels will always be _extremely _close to equal courtesy of being freely linked by a cog and the good old second law of thermodynamics. Thus both barrels will contribute torque to the train at all times. We did it here:

https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/powertrain-info-thread-cal-8500-%85-561915.html

Sorry.

Oh and LVT, While I accept that reality isn't your first language and translation must be tricky, my answer is: No, NO, no, wrong, how many ligne is the single barrel 3135? and what is the reserve of a Cal.565? In something like that order. As I said last time:



> However (and this is the important point) I cannot see how any of these layouts will make any difference to the torque available to the escapement. I see how the twin barrels allow a more compact form factor, leaving more space in the centre of the watch while taking up the dead space on the edges of the watch. This alone is a good reason for twin barrels, especially if you wanted to leave plenty of room for the coaxial escapement to avoid the charge that it is 'fiddly'. As such twin barrels (with the automatic cost in reduced efficiency) might be a good compromise if what you really want is more space!)


----------



## ssalb

Jake B said:


> Comments like this are silliness. Google "Rolex crown fell off" and you'll get hits. I think that to get an accurate answer about whether a Rolex crown has ever come off, you'd need to get input from more than two people. ;-)
> 
> Again, I like and enjoy both brands... Mechanical things can and will break sometimes, whether expensive or not.


My dads GMT Master had the screw down crown fall off his watch a few years ago. The bracelet also broke and basically fell apart, which I expected. Now the watch is almost 35 years old and he has worn it basically every day since he bought it in 1978. Can't fault it after all this time.


----------



## ManMachine

Omega vs. Rolex is a bit like BMW vs. MB. All nice and expensive. Each appeals to different crowds.


----------



## Ozy

Quoted for emphasis.



Ozy said:


> Give it time, I'm sure the bat-signal has gone up and someone has fired up old cranky.


----------



## Guest

about basel releases, including Omega, the sole survivor is 114060


----------



## JimInOz

jaytaylor said:


> Ouch....did you get that [email protected]#$#% back? What do you do to him?


Ummmm....I heard on the grapevine that "someone" had poured a bottle of this










into this bit on his car










For those too young to know, "this bit" is the cabin air intakes where outside air goes into your car. All of the cavities and ducts collect stuff and are impossible to clean out properly without gas axing the car from the firewall.

Well that's what I've heard.


----------



## lvt

Undersköterskan said:


> Well, you're wrong as usual; the two barrels are wound sequentially. The barrel without the slip-spring (the so-called "handwinding barrel") is wound first and as soon as it's full, winding energy is conveyed only to the barrel with a slip-spring (the "selfwinding barrel". In the opposite direction, the selfwinding barrel first discharges its store of energy directly to the center wheel, it's only if the stockpile of energy is equal in both barrels that the two barrels discharge their reservoirs of energy at the same time.


Am I wrong ?

I think that if a person wears his watch everyday the level of power reserve should be equal most of the time because the slipping clutch on the self-winding barrel will only work if the hand-winding barrel is full and blocked as it doesn't have the clutch.

Doesn't it sound logical for you ?

I also think that the dual-barrel concept in the 8500 results from studies on how people wear watches, they didn't make it to teach people how to wear watches.



Undersköterskan said:


> What if someone actually believed the nonsense you write about Omega increasing their bph to 28.800


Of course they will, the Co-ax based chronograph movements already run at 28,800bph.

It's not a technical issue but strategical and timing issues, the escapement assemblies cost very expensive to make, if you stop using the produced parts now it's millions of wasted money.



Undersköterskan said:


> or that the 2500-series of calibers are out of production


The 2500 is out of production for years now, the 2500D is a different caliber with the same initials 2500, I talked about the 2500's discontinuation 1 year ago here and no one believed. I knew that the old Co-ax won't last.

It's up to you to think that the 2500D is a 2500, there is nothing wrong with that, it's just a movement. But if you care about technical details you will see that there is a huge different (escapement assembly, mainspring, movement plate...).

And most of all, according the SilentWatchMaker the 2500D has the Ninja Co-ax wheel like the the 93xx, I actually like it.



Undersköterskan said:


> You give a fairly serious impression, so there's an obvious risk that newcomers to Omega WUS would actually start to believe you, dude.


I don't think that it's your job to care about what people think.



Undersköterskan said:


> So you can rest assure that I will monitor your threads closely in the future and making sure there are correct information posted whenever you get out of line (which you almost always do)


Given your rare presence on WUS, I think I could stay relaxed.


----------



## jimmer42

jimmer42 said:


> Ah...The new Omega Basel release the Omega Circusmaster!


With engraved caseback 'first watch worn on the trapeze'


----------



## hidden by leaves

lvt said:


> I don't think that it's your job to care about what people think.
> 
> Given your rare presence on WUS, I think I could stay relaxed.


Your troll is showing lvt, keep it up. I'm sure there are quite a few more with their eye on you...


----------



## lvt

hidden by leaves said:


> Your troll is showing lvt, keep it up. I'm sure there are quite a few more with their eye on you...


I don't need them keeping their eyes on me, it won't change the reality.

To resume :

- The 2500D is too different to call it 2500 (look at the 85xx and 86xx), the 2500 is in fact a defunct caliber.

- The 8500 is far better than the 2500 and able to compete with Rolex in long term.

- Omega will go the 28,800bph way with all its calibers.

- The 3-tier co-ax will still subjective to small changes and will be Omega's work horse movement.


----------



## sk0eric

lvt said:


> - Omega will go the 28,800bph way with all its calibers.


....When did Omega say this?


----------



## jaytaylor

lvt said:


> I don't need them keeping their eyes on me, it won't change the reality.
> 
> To resume :
> 
> - The 2500D is too different to call it 2500 (look at the 85xx and 86xx), the 2500 is in fact a defunct caliber.
> 
> - The 8500 is far better than the 2500 and able to compete with Rolex in long term.
> 
> - Omega will go the 28,800bph way with all its calibers.
> 
> - The 3-tier co-ax will still subjective to small changes and will be Omega's work horse movement.


You'd better call Bienne, I think Omega SA would like to be in on this info.


----------



## mazman01

@lvt, it's not up to you to say that a 2500D movement is not a 2500 movement, regardless of what differences you can point out. Leave that to the folks at omega.


----------



## GaryF

lvt said:


> I don't need them keeping their eyes on me, it won't change the reality.
> 
> To resume :
> 
> - The 2500D is too different to call it 2500 (look at the 85xx and 86xx), the 2500 is in fact a defunct caliber.
> 
> - The 8500 is far better than the 2500 and able to compete with Rolex in long term.
> 
> - Omega will go the 28,800bph way with all its calibers.
> 
> - The 3-tier co-ax will still subjective to small changes and will be Omega's work horse movement.


Okay, everyone.

We can all see what he's doing here. If any of you think that he is being sincere and that you want to address his points, you are of course free to do so.

If you don't think that is the case then, before you respond, could you please read rule 9 and bear it in mind. The moderators are aware of the situation and, if there is an action to be taken, we will take it.

Thank you.


----------



## drunken monkey

the reason why the 8500 beats faster is because the original 21,600bph doesn't give a "useful" division of time for the chronograph.
regular three hand watches don't need to go to 28,800bph unless they want a smoother sweep of the second hand, in which case case, why not go for 36,000bph?
after all, 36,000 will give you a better sweep and at the same time, give you a neat 1/10 second division for chronographs.

if 28800 bph was the goal, and the new three tier "ninja" escapement _can_ work at 28,800bph as it does in the 9300, then they would have made the 2500D run at 28800bph.


----------



## iinsic

A lot of Omega owners on this forum also own Rolex, which is why this is a unique venue for a serious discussion of a question such as posed by the OP. In fact, some very thoughtful subjective and objective contributions have been made. Sure, the thread got hijacked - just like every discussion of Omega calibres for as long as I can remember - but that doesn't alter the validity of our comparative analysis of Omega and Rolex, or diminish the value of many contributions here for one contemplating buying either brand.

Keep up the good work:-!


----------



## drunken monkey

What I see in being difficult to compare the designs of the Submariner against the Seamaster watches is that one hasn't really changed since its inception and the other has been in a constant state of re-design.
I see a lot of comments about how the Planet Ocean is better finished and has better surface treatments but as I see it, that is simply because it has more design to it in the first place. That however, isn't really a measure of whether or not it is better made or not. More design also isn't necessarily better design.

Part of the appeal of the Submariner to me is precisely that it hasn't really changed over the years.
I can imagine three generations of Submariner owners each with their watch that is the same watch but at the same time, different due to advancements made over the years and there's something nice about that continuity.

Unfortunately, not everyone thinks like how I do and that continuity is often seen as simply being old-fashioned and even staid.


----------



## GaryF

drunken monkey said:


> Unfortunately, not everyone thinks like how I do and that continuity is often seen as simply being old-fashioned and even staid.


There is that but I think it's also valid to not feel that all of the changes are improvements. Using the Submariner as the example, many (myself included) like the new bezel and think that the bracelet and clasp are fantastic but many (again, including me) dislike the blocky case and maxi-dial. 
Likewise, the Planet Ocean has been improved in several areas but not all of the changes are positive from everyone's POV.

Conservative is fine. Evolution is fine. But, if the watches begin to evolve in a direction that you don't personally like, disliking them is fine, too.


----------



## drunken monkey

GaryF said:


> There is that but I think it's also valid to not feel that all of the changes are improvements.


I'm with you on that one, which is one of the things that bugs me about the new Submariner. As far as I can see, it serves no purpose other than to make the 14060M be in line with the other now wide-lugged cased models. As I said in the other thread, there is/was nothing wrong with how the 14060M looked AND they haven't even bothered to make the bracelet match the new sized lug/case.
Bad and lazy design.
In terms of Submariner models, I think the 14060M is the last modern Sub I would consider.

Looking at the Planet Ocean as a counter, yes there are elements favoured by some and not by others but it is at least a coherent re-design of the same elements. It's more complete which is why it's harder to decide between 2500 and 8500 because they both still work visually. How anyone can say the new fat lug Subs look as good let alone better than the old narrow lugs is beyond me.


----------



## GaryF

I agree with you on the Sub. I really hoped against hope they'd leave the lugs on the no-date alone. I also think the new PO is great in every area except the one that was the deal-breaker for me. The size.


----------



## zhan

i own both omega and rollie - i cant tell if one is better than the other...
BUT
i'd like to think that the rollie is better made because i paid a lot more for it ...... (self-comforting thoughts?)


----------



## KringleKriss

Jake B said:


> Of course it is... That's just a given, isn't it? ;-)


No f...... way. Herschey rules!


----------



## GaryF

KringleKriss said:


> No f...... way. Herschey rules!


Yeah, it rules the world of chocolate with a very faint taste of vomit.

I love M&Ms, though. Weird.


----------



## iinsic

GaryF said:


> Yeah, it rules the world of chocolate with a very faint taste of vomit.
> 
> I love M&Ms, though. Weird.


And I love Ghirardelli. :-!


----------



## perdu

I think the down side of Omega is not quality, it is service reputation and resale value. If anyone thinks Omega resale is as good I'd like to know, genuinely.


----------



## M4tt

perdu said:


> I think the down side of Omega is not quality, it is service reputation and resale value. If anyone thinks Omega resale is as good I'd like to know, genuinely.


Up until about nineteen fifty or so, I'd say they are neck and neck but the more recent you get until very recently I wholeheartedly agree. However, it isn't until the late seventies that Rolex really started to outproduce Omega and so the comparative rarity of Rolex pieces throughout the Golden Age helps Rolex prices hold up better. The most recent Omega and Rolex I suspect are holding value about as well as each other.


----------



## zhan

M4tt said:


> Up until about nineteen fifty or so, I'd say they are neck and neck but the more recent you get until very recently I wholeheartedly agree. However, it isn't until the late seventies that Rolex really started to outproduce Omega and so the comparative rarity of Rolex pieces throughout the Golden Age helps Rolex prices hold up better. The most recent Omega and Rolex I suspect are holding value about as well as each other.


negative...
my planet ocean (1st gen) is worth about $1500 on the forums right now...
and there are pieces going around for low 1's...
that is "cow-dung"


----------



## Dixan

zhan said:


> negative...
> my planet ocean (1st gen) is worth about $1500 on the forums right now...
> and there are pieces going around for low 1's...
> that is [removed]


Last I checked, your figures would've been off by about a grand....


----------



## Lilac1

drunken monkey said:


> I'm with you on that one, which is one of the things that bugs me about the new Submariner. As far as I can see, it serves no purpose other than to make the 14060M be in line with the other now wide-lugged cased models. As I said in the other thread, there is/was nothing wrong with how the 14060M looked AND they haven't even bothered to make the bracelet match the new sized lug/case.
> Bad and lazy design.
> In terms of Submariner models, I think the 14060M is the last modern Sub I would consider.
> 
> Looking at the Planet Ocean as a counter, yes there are elements favoured by some and not by others but it is at least a coherent re-design of the same elements. It's more complete which is why it's harder to decide between 2500 and 8500 because they both still work visually. How anyone can say the new fat lug Subs look as good let alone better than the old narrow lugs is beyond me.


And the hour and minute hands of the PO line _totally _don't look like they're designed by the creators of comic sans? Anyone who can't envision Wile.E.Coyote holding that hour hand pointing downwards while holding a "Help!" sign needs to get their heads examined.

I'm surprised they're not exclusively produced in red anodized aluminum.


----------



## M4tt

> And the hour and minute hands of the PO line _totally _don't look like they're designed by the creators of comic sans? Anyone who can't envision Wile.E.Coyote holding that hour hand pointing downwards while holding a "Help!" sign needs to get their heads examined.
> 
> I'm surprised they're not exclusively produced in red anodized aluminum.


When I stop chuckling, I may try to unsuccessfully disagree! That's an image I have a horrible feeling is going to stick in my mind.


----------



## Tired_Yeti

Seems to me that Rolex is a household name thanks at least in part to all the celebrities who sport them (i.e. rap stars, athletes, etc.) and that keeps them at the top of the coveting tree no matter how any other brand compares. Watch collectors and connoisseurs know other names like Omega, etc. but anyone walking down the street knows the name Rolex. I'm not saying that Rolex watches aren't superb--I'm just saying that Rolex watches can stay extremely expensive regardless of how they compare to another maker's watches partly because they simply have name recognition among the masses.

The moral of the story: While you often "get what you pay for", the cost of an item alone can't be the measure of its quality.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.


----------



## RacingGreen

Tired_Yeti said:


> Seems to me that Rolex is a household name thanks at least in part to all the celebrities who sport them (i.e. rap stars, athletes, etc.) and that keeps them at the top of the coveting tree no matter how any other brand compares. Watch collectors and connoisseurs know other names like Omega, etc. but anyone walking down the street knows the name Rolex. I'm not saying that Rolex watches aren't superb--I'm just saying that Rolex watches can stay extremely expensive regardless of how they compare to another maker's watches partly because they simply have name recognition among the masses.
> 
> The moral of the story: While you often "get what you pay for", the cost of an item alone can't be the measure of its quality.
> 
> IMHO, YMMV, etc.


Mmmm. I have a feeling the Rolex may have a 'generational issue' coming. I work in the upper slopes of IT where people command a high salary but not mega bucks such as in some areas of finance. In other words the sort of people who would end up with something like a Rolex (instead of something like a PP).

There's plenty Rolexes around in the later 40s to 50s age range, but later 30s to early 40s (around the age people are typically buying into this price range) it's Omegas all round and to a lesser extent Breitling.

Now maybe all these guys will all buy Rolexes in 10 years but I'm not convinced - especially if Omega's rep continues to grow with them. Those presently looking to spend more than an Omega costs are more likely to be looking at the likes of IWC.


----------



## zhan

Dixan said:


> Last I checked, your figures would've been off by about a grand....


I meant, preowned 2500 PO.
People here brag about how they got it from another member for $1500.


----------



## zhan

RacingGreen said:


> Mmmm. I have a feeling the Rolex may have a 'generational issue' coming. I work in the upper slopes of IT where people command a high salary but not mega bucks such as in some areas of finance. In other words the sort of people who would end up with something like a Rolex (instead of something like a PP).
> 
> There's plenty Rolexes around in the later 40s to 50s age range, but later 30s to early 40s (around the age people are typically buying into this price range) it's Omegas all round and to a lesser extent Breitling.
> 
> Now maybe all these guys will all buy Rolexes in 10 years but I'm not convinced - especially if Omega's rep continues to grow with them. Those presently looking to spend more than an Omega costs are more likely to be looking at the likes of IWC.


People in IB/Fin usually get their rolex pretty early. Maybe 25-27 for their first submariner?
I think Rolex to the normal folks is like a Porsche 911, mid-life crisis item.
Get the divorce, buy the 911, floss the Rolex, etc. 
If you get a Rolex at 40-50, then how old do you have to be to get your Patek minute repeater? You really have to reach biblical ages... :think:


----------



## hidden by leaves

zhan said:


> People in IB/Fin usually get their rolex pretty early. Maybe 25-27 for their first submariner?
> I think Rolex to the normal folks is like a Porsche 911, mid-life crisis item.
> Get the divorce, buy the 911, floss the Rolex, etc.
> If you get a Rolex at 40-50, then how old do you have to be to get your Patek minute repeater? You really have to reach biblical ages... :think:


Believe it or not, many people, even the "normal folks" (would love to hear your definition of that), get certain watches simply because they enjoy and appreciate them; without all the presumptive stereotypical existential baggage you attach to such things. What a sad way to look at this great hobby!

I'd love to have a Rolex simply because I'd love to have a Rolex...


----------



## scamp007

hidden by leaves said:


> Believe it or not, many people, even the "normal folks" (would love to hear your definition of that), get certain watches simply because they enjoy and appreciate them; without all the presumptive stereotypical existential baggage you attach to such things. What a sad way to look at this great hobby!
> 
> I'd love to have a Rolex simply because I'd love to have a Rolex...


Couldn't agree more!


----------



## iinsic

zhan said:


> People in IB/Fin usually get their rolex pretty early. Maybe 25-27 for their first submariner?
> I think Rolex to the normal folks is like a Porsche 911, mid-life crisis item.
> Get the divorce, buy the 911, floss the Rolex, etc.
> If you get a Rolex at 40-50, then how old do you have to be to get your Patek minute repeater? You really have to reach biblical ages... :think:


When I was a child, I thought 40-50 was really old, too. You might be interested to know that many members of this forum are quite a bit older than 40-50 ... or what you refer to as "biblical age."

People, especially "normal people," buy Rolexes at many different ages and for many different reasons. And, I suspect, for none of the puerile rationalizations offered above.


----------



## Dixan

zhan said:


> I meant, preowned 2500 PO.


Exactly. I did too.



zhan said:


> People in IB/Fin usually get their rolex pretty early. Maybe 25-27 for their first submariner?
> I think Rolex to the normal folks is like a Porsche 911, mid-life crisis item.
> Get the divorce, buy the 911, floss the Rolex, etc.
> *If you get a Rolex at 40-50, then how old do you have to be to get your Patek minute repeater? You really have to reach biblical ages... :think:*


O_kay_....

POTD. :roll:


----------



## Zidane

iinsic said:


> People, especially "normal people," buy Rolexes at many different ages and for many different reasons. And, I suspect, for none of the puerile rationalizations offered above.


Exactly. I'm 25 and enjoying my Sub-C tremendously. I only have one friend who's my age that is "into" watches; the rest couldn't care less. I bought it because I like it - that goes for anything, not just a Rolex or Omega.


----------



## DesertGoon

i never had an omega but i bought a submariner because of its look and recognition. in my country, a rolex is as good as money. :-d omega has quartz models but rolex doesn't so perhaps rolex might be better or offers more prestige. :roll:


----------



## OTX

DesertGoon said:


> i never had an omega but i bought a submariner because of its look and recognition. in my country, a rolex is as good as money. :-d omega has quartz models but rolex doesn't so perhaps rolex might be better or offers more prestige. :roll:


Patek Philippe sells quartz watches yet they are a lot more prestigious than Rolex. Rolex is the king of marketing and spend more on marketing than any other company. That's why they are known everywhere not because they are better. Omega is catching up quick.


----------



## M4tt

> i never had an omega but i bought a submariner because of its look and recognition. in my country, a rolex is as good as money.


I'm sure that a Rolex is a better liquid asset than an Omega, but then gold is a better liquid asset than either. Personally I buy a watch to tell the time.



> :-d omega has quartz models but rolex doesn't so perhaps rolex might be better or offers more prestige. :roll:







































Here are a small selection of the movements in the quartz models that Rolex never made...


----------



## spyderco10

DesertGoon said:


> i never had an omega but i bought a submariner because of its look and recognition. in my country, a rolex is as good as money. :-d *omega has quartz models but rolex doesn't* so perhaps rolex might be better or offers more prestige. :roll:





M4tt said:


> I'm sure that a Rolex is a better liquid asset than an Omega, but then gold is a better liquid asset than either. Personally I buy a watch to tell the time.
> 
> *Here are a small selection of the movements in the quartz models that Rolex never made*...


----------



## RacingGreen

DesertGoon said:


> i never had an omega but i bought a submariner because of its look and recognition. in my country, a rolex is as good as money. :-d omega has quartz models but rolex doesn't so perhaps rolex might be better or offers more prestige. :roll:


Given quartz is the most accurate form of watch movement, and the best choice for many serious tool watches, it could be argued that a watch company (unless they're sticking to dress only) which is serious about watchmaking rather than marketing, should have a good in-house quartz movement. Omega now have this with the cal 5666.

The Omega / Rolex argument can go on all day if people are so inclined. It would be pretty hard to argue that Rolex are ahead on actual watchmaking though. I think in the last few years with the 8500, 8520, 9300, 5666, Omega can objectively to be said to be ahead in this respect.


----------



## iinsic

DesertGoon said:


> i never had an omega but i bought a submariner because of its look and recognition. in my country, a rolex is as good as money. :-d omega has quartz models but rolex doesn't so perhaps rolex might be better or offers more prestige. :roll:


When the conversation is about quality, it should be clear to anyone that we're talking about such things as fit-and-finish, new watch return defects, long-term durability, fitness for intended purpose, and the like.

Motivations of buyers, market prestige, quartz vs. mechanical, marketing prowess, price (including "affordability"), and the like have no part in such a discussion. They have nothing to do with _quality_.


----------



## hidden by leaves

DesertGoon said:


> i never had an omega but i bought a submariner because of its look and recognition. in my country, a rolex is as good as money. :-d omega has quartz models but rolex doesn't so perhaps rolex might be better or offers more prestige. :roll:


Then what are you doing slumming with the likes of us over here in the Omega forum?! But thanks for digging up a thread that reminds me of how grounded I am along with many of the good folks here!

Now back under your bridge, little one...


----------



## mparker

joeuk said:


> Come on Jake you know Cadbury is better


+1


----------



## vbomega

M4tt said:


> I hate to say it, but I'm with LVT on this one - I really cannot see why the precise behavior of twin barrels cannot be achieved by a single barrel. The only advantage I can see is changing the form factor to a clearly more convenient one at the expense of added complication and friction. If it was really such an advantage, why did Favre Leuba experiment with it and drop it?


High cost, low ROI at the time?


----------



## bailey19

Build for build, id say theyre more or less the same. Design wise, its a toss-up, depending on the wearer's preferences. One thing, however, which Rolex has a leg up on Omega ( as some have already mentioned) is continuity. Most models like the sub, exp i, datejust can be traced back to their lineage which gives many owners a sense of heritage with Rolex. As for Omega, they seem to lack this characteristic (which they are seemingly trying to establish right now). Had they done what they did with the speedmaster (i.e. establish a distinct line with a distinct looktrough the years) with all their other lines, the story may have been significantly more different today when we compare Rolex with Omega.


----------



## Archer

lvt said:


> But it's true, the 2500 have neither Si14 balance-spring nor 4 balance screws, don't expect a high-end movement with just a pair of opposite screws, it's not simply about accuracy but it's about how much attention you put in a movement's part when you create it.


I have to say I normally try to stay out of these, but some of this is just too much....

So are you saying that all Rolex 1570 series are not high end? They only have two micro-stella screws on the balance for adjusting the timing....all you need to adjust the rate is one pair of opposite screws as shown on this Rolex Cal. 1575 balance:










Your lack of real knowledge is showing....

And before you respond with "but there are others screws there" you should probably learn what they are actually for.

Cheers, Al


----------



## Mathew J

Archer said:


> I have to say I normally try to stay out of these, but some of this is just too much....
> 
> So are you saying that all Rolex 1570 series are not high end? They only have two micro-stella screws on the balance for adjusting the timing....all you need to adjust the rate is one pair of opposite screws as shown on this Rolex Cal. 1575 balance:
> 
> Your lack of real knowledge is showing....
> 
> And before you respond with "but there are others screws there" you should probably learn what they are actually for.
> 
> Cheers, Al


I often feel the same when people make arguments in favor of a full balance bridge over that of what the 2500 is equipped with, sure a full bridge seems nicer and more robust but I often wonder who really "cares" as some of the most highly regarded movments didn't have that configuration, nor did they have much of what we consider important today.

I'd rather focus on the looks of the piece as a whole and the movements interest to me, than get hung up on 2 vs 4 adjustment screws, if they are inside or outside, breguet coils....etc.


----------



## Mathew J

bailey19 said:


> Build for build, id say theyre more or less the same. Design wise, its a toss-up, depending on the wearer's preferences. One thing, however, which Rolex has a leg up on Omega ( as some have already mentioned) is continuity. Most models like the sub, exp i, datejust can be traced back to their lineage which gives many owners a sense of heritage with Rolex. As for Omega, they seem to lack this characteristic (which they are seemingly trying to establish right now). Had they done what they did with the speedmaster (i.e. establish a distinct line with a distinct looktrough the years) with all their other lines, the story may have been significantly more different today when we compare Rolex with Omega.


Agreed, but hindsight is always 20/20....I am sure when they made their moves in the 70s they thought it was right, only after they were shown it was a mistake did they try to recover, something they are thankfully doing now...many other companies don't get this luxury.

With that said I think the Speedy is an awesome watch but Omega to me did themselves a disservice by pricing it so low for so long...they should have charged way more for this and held the line with discounting IMHO.


----------



## bailey19

Mathew J said:


> Agreed, but hindsight is always 20/20....I am sure when they made their moves in the 70s they thought it was right, only after they were shown it was a mistake did they try to recover, something they are thankfully doing now...many other companies don't get this luxury.
> 
> With that said I think the Speedy is an awesome watch but Omega to me did themselves a disservice by pricing it so low for so long...they should have charged way more for this and held the line with discounting IMHO.


For sure! And they should have retained that beautiful applied Omega logo found in the earlier speedies ( just to enhance the lineage and connection).Nonetheless, I do think that, at the very least, the Speedmaster trumps the Daytona ( design-wise and particularly the history and gravitas behind it). The next time youre wearing your Speedy, just look at the moon and you'll understand.

As an additional note, some people try to discount the Speedy's moon heritage by saying that its " a mere schoolboy fascination" of some people with space, rockets and the moon. I beg to disagree: at its very essence, the moon missions have become part of man's higher and loftier endeavours ( not that much different-maybe even greater- than the expeditions of the Trieste or the Everest expedition). And im very pleased that the Speedy was an integral part of it. Moving forward, Omega just needs to reign in some of their tendencies with the Speedy (in releasing too many LEs and Special Editions) and just concentrate with the standard 357050 as well as the new coaxial variant and maybe 2 other variations of it just too maintain and define the identity of this awesome piece.


----------



## TimeChaser

Well put and spot on.



bailey19 said:


> For sure! And they should have retained that beautiful applied Omega logo found in the earlier speedies ( just to enhance the lineage and connection).Nonetheless, I do think that, at the very least, the Speedmaster trumps the Daytona ( design-wise and particularly the history and gravitas behind it). The next time youre wearing your Speedy, just look at the moon and you'll understand.
> 
> As an additional note, some people try to discount the Speedy's moon heritage by saying that its " a mere schoolboy fascination" of some people with space, rockets and the moon. I beg to disagree: at its very essence, the moon missions have become part of man's higher and loftier endeavours ( not that much different-maybe even greater- than the expeditions of the Trieste or the Everest expedition). And im very pleased that the Speedy was an integral part of it. Moving forward, Omega just needs to reign in some of their tendencies with the Speedy (in releasing too many LEs and Special Editions) and just concentrate with the standard 357050 as well as the new coaxial variant and maybe 2 other variations of it just too maintain and define the identity of this awesome piece.


----------



## Mathew J

bailey19 said:


> For sure! And they should have retained that beautiful applied Omega logo found in the earlier speedies ( just to enhance the lineage and connection).Nonetheless, I do think that, at the very least, the Speedmaster trumps the Daytona ( design-wise and particularly the history and gravitas behind it). The next time youre wearing your Speedy, just look at the moon and you'll understand.
> 
> As an additional note, some people try to discount the Speedy's moon heritage by saying that its " a mere schoolboy fascination" of some people with space, rockets and the moon. I beg to disagree: at its very essence, the moon missions have become part of man's higher and loftier endeavours ( not that much different-maybe even greater- than the expeditions of the Trieste or the Everest expedition). And im very pleased that the Speedy was an integral part of it. Moving forward, Omega just needs to reign in some of their tendencies with the Speedy (in releasing too many LEs and Special Editions) and just concentrate with the standard 357050 as well as the new coaxial variant and maybe 2 other variations of it just too maintain and define the identity of this awesome piece.


The more I read about it, the more I am of the belief that there is nothing "we" have done from a technilogical standpoint that trumps what was done with the moon landings given what they had at the time.

Truly a shame that space exploration has been deprioritized.


----------



## Chris_Himself

Rolex vs Omega... they both have the same fit and finish as far as I'm concerned...

Rolex is for the name but it's also for the engineering that goes into the in-house movements. Omega uses the modified ETA and on the 8500 movement watches, it's where they can catch up to Rolex... but only to Omega enthusiasts. Watches are about legacy and Rolex has been using their formula for decades and they don't use Valjoux or ETA from what I know.


----------



## akasnowmaaan

Mathew J said:


> The more I read about it, the more I am of the belief that there is nothing "we" have done from a technilogical standpoint that trumps what was done with the moon landings given what they had at the time.
> 
> Truly a shame that space exploration has been deprioritized.


Space exploration is chugging along pretty well in some ways...it's the _manned_ exploration that's as good as dead.

I grew up with the manned space missions. They're a touchstone to me. It's sad to see it falter.

(edit completeness)


----------



## Mathew J

Chris_Himself said:


> Rolex vs Omega... they both have the same fit and finish as far as I'm concerned...
> 
> Rolex is for the name but it's also for the engineering that goes into the in-house movements. Omega uses the modified ETA and on the 8500 movement watches, it's where they can catch up to Rolex... but only to Omega enthusiasts. Watches are about legacy and Rolex has been using their formula for decades and they don't use Valjoux or ETA from what I know.


They used a sourced movement in the old daytona, I think the in house movements really have little to do with it, its more about marketing...look at cartier, they are held in a pretty high regard and didn't do much in house from a movement standpoint.

If Omega ups their game with marketing I think they will do well in moving up in the public eye.


----------



## Watch-U-Say?

There's some great information in this thread, thanks to those that shared the more technical points.

What I want to know is who is generally the best group of watch owner, Rolex or Omega? 

Omega wins in my book.


----------



## es335

Chris_Himself said:


> Rolex vs Omega... they both have the same fit and finish as far as I'm concerned...
> 
> Rolex is for the name but it's also for the engineering that goes into the in-house movements. Omega uses the modified ETA and on the 8500 movement watches, it's where they can catch up to Rolex... but only to Omega enthusiasts. Watches are about legacy and Rolex has been using their formula for decades and they don't use Valjoux or ETA from what I know.


Prior to the early 1970s, weren't most Omega movements in-house?


----------



## ROBERT A

YEP. they certainly were.


----------



## iinsic

We seem to have difficulty in not straying into matters of design or marketing prowess, which are not part of "quality." Admittedly, a discussion of true quality issues will be somewhat subjective, because we are not privy to such matters as corporate returns for defects or warranty issues. But most of us have enough of a discerning eye to compare fit-and-finish, for example.

I've always thought Rolex did an excellent job of fit-and-finish, but they reached an apex with their latest models, featuring the new bracelets and clasps. But my Broad Arrow is nonpareil in that regard. I have never worn nor held a watch which had a finer finish or better execution ... and that includes watches such as AP or Lange, which I have tried on in stores but likely could never afford.

As Matt has pointed out numerous times in other threads, the manufactured cost of either a Rolex or Omega is a small fraction of either's retail price, so that refinement of fit-and-finish does not inflate costs but so much. Thus, the brand that exhibits this particular quality with the greater consistency would be superior in my estimation.


----------



## Apneadiver

iinsic said:


> We seem to have difficulty in not straying into matters of design or marketing prowess, which are not part of "quality." Admittedly, a discussion of true quality issues will be somewhat subjective, because we are not privy to such matters as corporate returns for defects or warranty issues. But most of us have enough of a discerning eye to compare fit-and-finish, for example.
> 
> I've always thought Rolex did an excellent job of fit-and-finish, but they reached an apex with their latest models, featuring the new bracelets and clasps. But my Broad Arrow is nonpareil in that regard. I have never worn nor held a watch which had a finer finish or better execution ... and that includes watches such as AP or Lange, which I have tried on in stores but likely could never afford.
> 
> As Matt has pointed out numerous times in other threads, the manufactured cost of either a Rolex or Omega is a small fraction of either's retail price, so that refinement of fit-and-finish does not inflate costs but so much. Thus, the brand that exhibits this particular quality with the greater consistency would be superior in my estimation.


Diplomatic and well said. Why can't every corner of wus be as such?


----------



## iinsic

Apneadiver said:


> Diplomatic and well said. Why can't every corner of wus be as such?


That this thread has gone on for more than 200 posts - when its peers tend to be locked in far less time - says a great deal about the thoughtfulness and sincerity of almost every poster to this thread. However long it lasts, this thread will always serve as a useful resource for anyone contemplating a Rolex or Omega purchase. :-!


----------



## GaryF

I continually struggle with the idea of comparing brands rather than products. If someone asks how good is an Omega, the first question should be "Which Omega?". How does it compare to a Rolex? "Which Rolex?".
Every company has a range of models that have completely different levels of quality and finish. Does anyone think that a Central Tourbillon is rattling off the same type of production line as an SMP? JLC, no matter how much they would like us believe that they are, are not finishing Master Controls to the same standard as their Hybris Mechanica stuff.

Even moving away from the extremes there is variation. A Speedmaster Pro' today may not be a million miles away from a new Planet Ocean but, when it was appearing alongside some awful Seamaster travesty in the eighties, it would have been unrecognisable as any kind of sibling in terms of quality. Same brand though.

Judge the watch. Compare and contrast two models from two manufacturers and you might have some kind of meaningful comparison but all of this obsession with the brands involved is next to pointless if one is genuinely interested in the quality of the products involved.


----------



## BHL

Very well said Gary.



GaryF said:


> I continually struggle with the idea of comparing brands rather than products. If someone asks how good is an Omega, the first question should be "Which Omega?". How does it compare to a Rolex? "Which Rolex?".
> Every company has a range of models that have completely different levels of quality and finish. Does anyone think that a Central Tourbillon is rattling off the same type of production line as an SMP? JLC, no matter how much they would like us believe that they are, are not finishing Master Controls to the same standard as their Hybris Mechanica stuff.
> 
> Even moving away from the extremes there is variation. A Speedmaster Pro' today may not be a million miles away from a new Planet Ocean but, when it was appearing alongside some awful Seamaster travesty in the eighties, it would have been unrecognisable as any kind of sibling in terms of quality. Same brand though.
> 
> Judge the watch. Compare and contrast two models from two manufacturers and you might have some kind of meaningful comparison but all of this obsession with the brands involved is next to pointless if one is genuinely interested in the quality of the products involved.


----------



## Mathew J

iinsic said:


> We seem to have difficulty in not straying into matters of design or marketing prowess, which are not part of "quality." Admittedly, a discussion of true quality issues will be somewhat subjective, because we are not privy to such matters as corporate returns for defects or warranty issues. But most of us have enough of a discerning eye to compare fit-and-finish, for example.
> 
> I've always thought Rolex did an excellent job of fit-and-finish, but they reached an apex with their latest models, featuring the new bracelets and clasps. But my Broad Arrow is nonpareil in that regard. I have never worn nor held a watch which had a finer finish or better execution ... and that includes watches such as AP or Lange, which I have tried on in stores but likely could never afford.
> 
> As Matt has pointed out numerous times in other threads, the manufactured cost of either a Rolex or Omega is a small fraction of either's retail price, so that refinement of fit-and-finish does not inflate costs but so much. Thus, the brand that exhibits this particular quality with the greater consistency would be superior in my estimation.


This is where subjectivity comes into play I believe as having owned a few Rolex pieces and also a few Omega (even if one for a very short time) my assessment was that the Omegas in both cases were finished to a higher degree even though they were only lower end models. While Rolex has made great strides to improve their product with the current iterations, I personally don't see them being any better executed than what Omega is also currently doing, you could argue some minor points such as functional variances (thinking of micro adjustable clasps), but having examined both new offerings I personally don't see one being tangibly better than the other in the finish department.


----------



## Apneadiver

GaryF said:


> I continually struggle with the idea of comparing brands rather than products. If someone asks how good is an Omega, the first question should be "Which Omega?". How does it compare to a Rolex? "Which Rolex?".
> Every company has a range of models that have completely different levels of quality and finish. Does anyone think that a Central Tourbillon is rattling off the same type of production line as an SMP? JLC, no matter how much they would like us believe that they are, are not finishing Master Controls to the same standard as their Hybris Mechanica stuff.
> 
> Even moving away from the extremes there is variation. A Speedmaster Pro' today may not be a million miles away from a new Planet Ocean but, when it was appearing alongside some awful Seamaster travesty in the eighties, it would have been unrecognisable as any kind of sibling in terms of quality. Same brand though.
> 
> Judge the watch. Compare and contrast two models from two manufacturers and you might have some kind of meaningful comparison but all of this obsession with the brands involved is next to pointless if one is genuinely interested in the quality of the products involved.


Definitely a more reasonable approach to evaluating watches rather than blanketing the appraisal.


----------



## GaryF

Thanks but, at the risk of banging on a bit, I have another point in relation to judging brands against one another. We often see people trying to move the debate into technical areas rather than sticking to what the "brand" actually means because they feel that it makes them sound less shallow. I'm sure most of us will have seen this and known it for what it is ( and, no, I'm not mentioning names) in the past.
The fact is, preferring a brand for some ephemeral reason is okay. When someone says "I think of Omega as a poor man's Rolex" or "Rolex is a brand for the poseur," or "If I buy a Grand Seiko, people won't know how much it cost,'" then at least those are honest reasons. I have more respect for that stuff then when someone tries to justify their preference with some half-understood rubbish about beat rates and accuracy or push pins being cheap.
I have an affection for JLC which is out of proportion to my desire to actually own one. I like the company better than Omega. I like their way of doing things better than I like Omega's. I like the attention to detail and the fact that they sometimes make decisions that are idiosyncratic to the point of silly. I prefer the way they deal with competitors, partners, retailers and, most importantly, customers to the way Omega deals with them. They seem like a _nice_ company and the make beautiful, clever, likeable pieces.

And yet, somehow, I've never bought a JLC while I have a nice little collection of Omegas. There are JLC watches that I like hugely but there is always some quirk that makes me hesitate. Then I see an Omega that I just _want_ to wear more. And I'm happy. And one day that irresistible JLC will come along for me and everything will fall into place.

So, what I'm trying to say is, buy the watch you like. Don't get hung up on the brand but, if you do, be honest about it with yourself and everyone else. You'll enjoy it more.


----------



## iinsic




----------



## Zidane

GaryF said:


> Thanks but, at the risk of banging on a bit, I have another point in relation to judging brands against one another. We often see people trying to move the debate into technical areas rather than sticking to what the "brand" actually means because they feel that it makes them sound less shallow. I'm sure most of us will have seen this and known it for what it is ( and, no, I'm not mentioning names) in the past.
> The fact is, preferring a brand for some ephemeral reason is okay. When someone says "I think of Omega as a poor man's Rolex" or "Rolex is a brand for the poseur," or "If I buy a Grand Seiko, people won't know how much it cost,'" then at least those are honest reasons. I have more respect for that stuff then when someone tries to justify their preference with some half-understood rubbish about beat rates and accuracy or push pins being cheap.
> I have an affection for JLC which is out of proportion to my desire to actually own one. I like the company better than Omega. I like their way of doing things better than I like Omega's. I like the attention to detail and the fact that they sometimes make decisions that are idiosyncratic to the point of silly. I prefer the way they deal with competitors, partners, retailers and, most importantly, customers to the way Omega deals with them. They seem like a _nice_ company and the make beautiful, clever, likeable pieces.
> 
> And yet, somehow, I've never bought a JLC while I have a nice little collection of Omegas. There are JLC watches that I like hugely but there is always some quirk that makes me hesitate. Then I see an Omega that I just _want_ to wear more. And I'm happy. And one day that irresistible JLC will come along for me and everything will fall into place.
> 
> So, what I'm trying to say is, buy the watch you like. Don't get hung up on the brand but, if you do, be honest about it with yourself and everyone else. You'll enjoy it more.


I think I'll just copy and paste your post as my response for future threads. EXCELLENT post.


----------



## M4tt

> Thanks but, at the risk of banging on a bit, I have another point in relation to judging brands against one another. We often see people trying to move the debate into technical areas rather than sticking to what the "brand" actually means because they feel that it makes them sound less shallow. I'm sure most of us will have seen this and known it for what it is ( and, no, I'm not mentioning names) in the past.
> 
> The fact is, preferring a brand for some ephemeral reason is okay. When someone says "I think of Omega as a poor man's Rolex" or "Rolex is a brand for the poseur," or "If I buy a Grand Seiko, people won't know how much it cost,'" then at least those are honest reasons. I have more respect for that stuff then when someone tries to justify their preference with some half-understood rubbish about beat rates and accuracy or push pins being cheap.


I'm really not sure I see this. For someone who doesn't understand the complexity behind beat rates but also doesn't understand the complexity behind brand development, it seems to me that both justifications are pretty well equivalent. For someone who understands both, the same situation obtains etc. Personally it seems to me that there are a huge range of reasons for preferring one watch over another and, just like brands and watches, those reasons have to be considered on a case by case basis.



> I have an affection for JLC which is out of proportion to my desire to actually own one. I like the company better than Omega. I like their way of doing things better than I like Omega's. I like the attention to detail and the fact that they sometimes make decisions that are idiosyncratic to the point of silly. I prefer the way they deal with competitors, partners, retailers and, most importantly, customers to the way Omega deals with them. They seem like a _nice_ company and the make beautiful, clever, likeable pieces.


I couldn't agree more.



> And yet, somehow, I've never bought a JLC while I have a nice little collection of Omegas. There are JLC watches that I like hugely but there is always some quirk that makes me hesitate. Then I see an Omega that I just _want_ to wear more. And I'm happy. And one day that irresistible JLC will come along for me and everything will fall into place.


You will not be disappointed when you do. I'm sure you remember my explanation of the way that JLC use _much better push pins_ to make for a much more supple bracelet... ;-)



> So, what I'm trying to say is, buy the watch you like. Don't get hung up on the brand but, if you do, be honest about it with yourself and everyone else. You'll enjoy it more.


Again, I'm just not sure, to assume that anyone who gets hung up on the brand for whatever reason is not being honest with themselves seems unfair. In this specific case, iinsic put forward a generic assertion about depreciating quality, but when challenged supported it with some very specific photographs of particular models that (personally) made his case for me. I agree that this doesn't prove that all Omega are worse or that Rolex are now better, but it does seem to support the general thrust of his argument. If someone wants to argue that all Rolex are better than all Omega, or that Omega quality has declined across the board they have a pretty hard climb, but the way to do it would be on a representative sample of the models produced by each brand. I seems that iinsic has at least begun this process for the assertion that Omega has slipped on quality and, if he can continue to provide examples he might make a more convincing case. Likewise, it seems to me that anyone who wants to argue the contrary needs to do it on a case by case basis.


----------



## GaryF

M4tt said:


> I'm really not sure I see this. For someone who doesn't understand the complexity behind beat rates but also doesn't understand the complexity behind brand development, it seems to me that both justifications are pretty well equivalent. For someone who understands both, the same situation obtains etc. Personally it seems to me that there are a huge range of reasons for preferring one watch over another and, just like brands and watches, those reasons have to be considered on a case by case basis.


Actually, I think you_ do_ see it because my point is not that different to yours. The point I'm making is that the criteria are not seen as having equal validity. When people come to express a preference, there is a pressure to have a technical reason to support it because an emotional response will somehow be seen as less valid. It's odd given that the purchase of an expensive mechanical watch is, for the vast majority, an emotional one and yet still we seek to rationalise it. 
I'm sure you can imagine someone with very little understanding of, say, the role of the beat rate in timekeeping, who will argue _ad nauseum _that the a watch with a low rate is inherently less accurate than one with a high rate. With no real understanding of the factors involved, isn't it more likely that the person would be rationalising a preference which has an emotional origin than being guided by technical merits?



M4tt said:


> Again, I'm just not sure, to assume that anyone who gets hung up on the brand for whatever reason is not being honest with themselves seems unfair. In this specific case, iinsic put forward a generic assertion about depreciating quality, but when challenged supported it with some very specific photographs of particular models that (personally) made his case for me. I agree that this doesn't prove that all Omega are worse or that Rolex are now better, but it does seem to support the general thrust of his argument. If someone wants to argue that all Rolex are better than all Omega, or that Omega quality has declined across the board they have a pretty hard climb, but the way to do it would be on a representative sample of the models produced by each brand. I seems that iinsic has at least begun this process for the assertion that Omega has slipped on quality and, if he can continue to provide examples he might make a more convincing case. Likewise, it seems to me that anyone who wants to argue the contrary needs to do it on a case by case basis.


Actually, I wasn't thinking about Rob at all when I wrote my post. I don't think that he has come to this with an emotional response/preference/prejudice that needs rationalising. 
And I wasn't saying that I "assume that anyone who gets hung up on the brand for whatever reason is not being honest with themselves". I was saying that anyone who gets hung up on a brand but tries to justify the hang up with a technical argument should relax and be honest with themselves about the reasons for their preference. Rereading the last paragraph of my post, I can see how it could have been misinterpreted but I thought at the time that it was clear enough given my earlier points.


----------



## akasnowmaaan

My Rolex and Omega experience is limited, I've only seen a few models of each in person, so I'm not terribly qualified to speak of it in general terms. 

However, I find myself being disappointed in the back side of a Rolex more than I should.

I look at the current PO, and marvel at all the wonderful detail. A buddy at work showed me his Seadweller, and the sheer plain-ness of the back kind of underwhelmed me. I was expecting some writing or at least a little something that says 'Rolex' and not some completely plain thing. 

I think those 'above and beyond' details are where Omega is stepping up their game in a way Rolex isn't. Heck, even some of my cheapest models have SOMETHING going on in the back that makes me feel like the piece is considered part of the whole and gets some attention. The Rolex watches I've seem seen like some unnecessarily old 'throwback' because of the plainness of the back. My reaction to seeing the back of the case seems to be 'oh, is that it?' every time.

In the big scheme of things it's... not part of the big scheme. However, it's one area I see a clear distinction.


----------



## iinsic

GaryF said:


> Originally Posted by *M4tt*  I'm really not sure I see this. For someone who doesn't understand the complexity behind beat rates but also doesn't understand the complexity behind brand development, it seems to me that both justifications are pretty well equivalent. For someone who understands both, the same situation obtains etc. Personally it seems to me that there are a huge range of reasons for preferring one watch over another and, just like brands and watches, those reasons have to be considered on a case by case basis.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I think you_ do_ see it because my point is not that different to yours. The point I'm making is that the criteria are not seen as having equal validity. When people come to express a preference, there is a pressure to have a technical reason to support it because an emotional response will somehow be seen as less valid. It's odd given that the purchase of an expensive mechanical watch is, for the vast majority, an emotional one and yet still we seek to rationalise it.
> I'm sure you can imagine someone with very little understanding of, say, the role of the beat rate in timekeeping, who will argue _ad nauseum _that the a watch with a low rate is inherently less accurate than one with a high rate. With no real understanding of the factors involved, isn't it more likely that the person would be rationalising a preference which has an emotional origin than being guided by technical merits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *M4tt*
> 
> Again, I'm just not sure, to assume that anyone who gets hung up on the brand for whatever reason is not being honest with themselves seems unfair. In this specific case, iinsic put forward a generic assertion about depreciating quality, but when challenged supported it with some very specific photographs of particular models that (personally) made his case for me. I agree that this doesn't prove that all Omega are worse or that Rolex are now better, but it does seem to support the general thrust of his argument. If someone wants to argue that all Rolex are better than all Omega, or that Omega quality has declined across the board they have a pretty hard climb, but the way to do it would be on a representative sample of the models produced by each brand. I seems that iinsic has at least begun this process for the assertion that Omega has slipped on quality and, if he can continue to provide examples he might make a more convincing case. Likewise, it seems to me that anyone who wants to argue the contrary needs to do it on a case by case basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, I wasn't thinking about Rob at all when I wrote my post. I don't think that he has come to this with an emotional response/preference/prejudice that needs rationalising.
> And I wasn't saying that I "assume that anyone who gets hung up on the brand for whatever reason is not being honest with themselves". I was saying that anyone who gets hung up on a brand but tries to justify the hang up with a technical argument should relax and be honest with themselves about the reasons for their preference. Rereading the last paragraph of my post, I can see how it could have been misinterpreted but I thought at the time that it was clear enough given my earlier points.
Click to expand...

I believe that at the nexus you both actually are quite in agreement on these points. To me, there are two camps interested in the minutiae of horology in general and the specific attributes of a particular brand/model in particular: One is the WIS, who revels in the mysteries of a tiny little engine that for centuries has - in a remarkably accurate fashion - kept track of the passage of time. To this person, the exploration of aspects unknown and the exhaltation of admired innovations are the "meat-and-potatoes" that keeps him or her glued to a forum such as WUS. The other is one who might be a tad uncomfortable parting with a significant portion of a year's salary to acquire one of the timepieces extolled on this forum and finds it necessary to engage in a self-rationalising process to assuage any residual misgivings at such an extravagance. As Gary has pointed out, the latter would be far happier with his or her purchase if it were confessed that acquiring the watch in question was a wild-and-crazy thing to do that could only be ascribed to "I couldn't help myself," rather than engaging in a complex quest to create a justification that neither is to be had nor is, in the final analysis, necessary.

As Matt frequently reminds us, Rolex and Omega watches are Veblen goods and our interest in them can never be explained by a cost-benefit justification. We're just turned on by a particular watch (or watches) and, once enchanted, engage in a headlong rush to acquisition, the devil take the hindmost.

Still, as much as I respect where Gary is coming from (for, as Garfield might say, "I resemble that remark" ;-)), we really can't help ourselves when it comes to this or any other debate about the objective (or subjective) merits (or demerits) of a particular watch or brand. A WIS is the horological equivalent of a Talmudic scholar, adept at endless debate about the most arcane points. But one would never engage in a Talmudic discourse unless one was intimately familiar with all of the major (and many of the minor) Talmudic commentaries. Likewise, one would be wise not to get into horological minutiae for the sole purpose of creating a self-justification for an extravagance that, at least to most of us, requires no justification.

As much as we all might tire of an endless stream of "Which brand is better?" or "Is the co-axial better than the lever?" or "Is the 2500D better than the 2500C?" or the many other threads of what one might characterize as "eternal questions" (at least on WUS), we all find ourselves pulled back into these discussions (often like Michael Corleone in GF3 ... just when we think we're "out"). :-d


----------



## GaryF

I think there's another reason that some of us come back to these endless comparison threads and discussions about motivation. Speaking for myself, I find that they help me to reflect on why _I_ might have a particular preference as well as allowing myself to be exposed to (and, sometimes, influenced by) the thoughts, opinions, preferences of others. In the years since I've been coming here, I've certainly evolved a lot of my likes and dislikes in response to a well thought-out endorsement, a passionate defence or an insightful demolition. 
Taking part in what can seem like a tired debate can help to clarify my thoughts. A Rolex/Omega thread is a bit like performing an endless, repetitive mantra and then finding some personal truth within the monotony.:-d:-d:-d


----------



## iinsic

GaryF said:


> A Rolex/Omega thread is a bit like performing an endless, repetitive mantra and then finding some personal truth within the monotony.:-d:-d:-d


OOOOMMMMMMMM ... ega! :-d


----------



## M4tt

> Actually, I think you_ do_ see it because my point is not that different to yours. The point I'm making is that the criteria are not seen as having equal validity. When people come to express a preference, there is a pressure to have a technical reason to support it because an emotional response will somehow be seen as less valid. It's odd given that the purchase of an expensive mechanical watch is, for the vast majority, an emotional one and yet still we seek to rationalise it.


Ah, yes, I see your point that I see your point.



> I'm sure you can imagine someone with very little understanding of, say, the role of the beat rate in timekeeping, who will argue _ad nauseum _that the a watch with a low rate is inherently less accurate than one with a high rate. With no real understanding of the factors involved, isn't it more likely that the person would be rationalising a preference which has an emotional origin than being guided by technical merits?


For some reason I'm managing to imagine it... However couldn't it simply be that they are simply ignorant rather than rationalising? (Actually I'm not even that convinced by this...)



> Actually, I wasn't thinking about Rob at all when I wrote my post. I don't think that he has come to this with an emotional response/preference/prejudice that needs rationalising.
> And I wasn't saying that I "assume that anyone who gets hung up on the brand for whatever reason is not being honest with themselves". I was saying that anyone who gets hung up on a brand but tries to justify the hang up with a technical argument should relax and be honest with themselves about the reasons for their preference. Rereading the last paragraph of my post, I can see how it could have been misinterpreted but I thought at the time that it was clear enough given my earlier points.


Yup, I misread it! 


> I believe that at the nexus you both actually are quite in agreement on these points. To me, there are two camps interested in the minutiae of horology in general and the specific attributes of a particular brand/model in particular: One is the WIS, who revels in the mysteries of a tiny little engine that for centuries has - in a remarkably accurate fashion - kept track of the passage of time. To this person, the exploration of aspects unknown and the exhaltation of admired innovations are the "meat-and-potatoes" that keeps him or her glued to a forum such as WUS. The other is one who might be a tad uncomfortable parting with a significant portion of a year's salary to acquire one of the timepieces extolled on this forum and finds it necessary to engage in a self-rationalising process to assuage any residual misgivings at such an extravagance. As Gary has pointed out, the latter would be far happier with his or her purchase if it were confessed that acquiring the watch in question was a wild-and-crazy thing to do that could only be ascribed to "I couldn't help myself," rather than engaging in a complex quest to create a justification that neither is to be had nor is, in the final analysis, necessary.


I'm not sure the two are even remotely mutually exclusive...


> As Matt frequently reminds us, Rolex and Omega watches are Veblen goods and our interest in them can never be explained by a cost-benefit justification. We're just turned on by a particular watch (or watches) and, once enchanted, engage in a headlong rush to acquisition, the devil take the hindmost.


I'm with you on the first part, but I'm not sure that I said that our interest can't be explained as a cost benefit justification. as with any explanation, that really depends upon the relative cost and the specific benefits being aimed for. I have an old colleague who entertains herself at my expense by pointing out some of the more recent research on conspicuous consumption being an artefact of sexual selection not unlike a peacock's tail: by buying obscenely expensive watches, she argues, men are trying to demonstrate their reproductive fitness: they can afford that sort of waste and thus would be more than capable of supporting offspring. Sadly, she is of the opinion that the semiotic content is not quite the same for women as for peahens...


> Still, as much as I respect where Gary is coming from (for, as Garfield might say, "I resemble that remark" ;-)), we really can't help ourselves when it comes to this or any other debate about the objective (or subjective) merits (or demerits) of a particular watch or brand.


That's painfully true.



> A WIS is the horological equivalent of a Talmudic scholar, adept at endless debate about the most arcane points. But one would never engage in a Talmudic discourse unless one was intimately familiar with all of the major (and many of the minor) Talmudic commentaries.


I bet I would you know...


> Likewise, one would be wise not to get into horological minutiae for the sole purpose of creating a self-justification for an extravagance that, at least to most of us, requires no justification.


I can't think why else I treat the 30 series movements as something like pokemon - gotta catch them all...


> As much as we all might tire of an endless stream of "Which brand is better?" or "Is the co-axial better than the lever?" or "Is the 2500D better than the 2500C?" or the many other threads of what one might characterize as "eternal questions" (at least on WUS), we all find ourselves pulled back into these discussions (often like Michael Corleone in GF3 ... just when we think we're "out"). :-d


Less and less these days...


----------



## akasnowmaaan

iinsic said:


> As Matt frequently reminds us, Rolex and Omega watches are Veblen goods and our interest in them can never be explained by a cost-benefit justification. We're just turned on by a particular watch (or watches) and, once enchanted, engage in a headlong rush to acquisition, the devil take the hindmost.


I've been delving into anthropology and ethnography lately, and one thing that's a common thread through all cultures is the value of ornament and display.

EVERY culture that has ever been found from antiquity to present has this. People adorn their body with things, and those things have cultural or personal meaning. Even the most destitute cultures - those amazing people finding ways to survive in the harshest conditions with the fewest resources - find some way of decorating themselves.

I see watches as just this - it's an emblem of the highest cultural achievement of a previous era, and remains one of the few machines around us that is ultimately understandable and perceivable. Quartz watches have reached the point where they are now 'magic' - you cannot see how they work or why, and the means of production require a level of technology that is several steps removed from the mechanical. A traditional watch, although more delicate than most of us have the skill to create, gives us enough evidence that we can wrap our heads around how it was made, and why, and we can imagine ourselves being capable of making one.

I think that's why we collect these talismans in an age where we frankly don't need them.


----------



## iinsic

M4tt said:


> To me, there are two camps interested in the minutiae of horology in general and the specific attributes of a particular brand/model in particular: One is the WIS, who revels in the mysteries of a tiny little engine that for centuries has - in a remarkably accurate fashion - kept track of the passage of time. To this person, the exploration of aspects unknown and the exaltation of admired innovations are the "meat-and-potatoes" that keeps him or her glued to a forum such as WUS. The other is one who might be a tad uncomfortable parting with a significant portion of a year's salary to acquire one of the timepieces extolled on this forum and finds it necessary to engage in a self-rationalising process to assuage any residual misgivings at such an extravagance. As Gary has pointed out, the latter would be far happier with his or her purchase if it were confessed that acquiring the watch in question was a wild-and-crazy thing to do that could only be ascribed to "I couldn't help myself," rather than engaging in a complex quest to create a justification that neither is to be had nor is, in the final analysis, necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure the two are even remotely mutually exclusive...
Click to expand...

Oops. Sorry, I didn't realize I was implying a mutual exclusivity. I meant that the two groups exhibit discreet characteristics that make them distinctive, and the latter group might have been the focus of Gary's recommendation to, in a manner of speaking, lighten up. I even have found _myself_ as part of each subgroup, not infrequently simultaneously.



M4tt said:


> As Matt frequently reminds us, Rolex and Omega watches are Veblen goods and our interest in them can never be explained by a cost-benefit justification.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with you on the first part, but I'm not sure that I said that our interest can't be explained as a cost benefit justification. as with any explanation, that really depends upon the relative cost and the specific benefits being aimed for. I have an old colleague who entertains herself at my expense by pointing out some of the more recent research on conspicuous consumption being an artefact of sexual selection not unlike a peacock's tail: by buying obscenely expensive watches, she argues, men are trying to demonstrate their reproductive fitness: they can afford that sort of waste and thus would be more than capable of supporting offspring. Sadly, she is of the opinion that the semiotic content is not quite the same for women as for peahens....
Click to expand...

I really must be more careful with my punctuation. A comma should precede a coordinating conjunction joining an independent clause. Even better, I should have made the two independent clauses into complete sentences and removed any ambiguity. For, in fact, I was crediting you only with the observation about Veblen goods, whilst I was making the observation about the difficulty of a cost-benefit justification for the acquisition of said Veblen goods. I probably should have qualified that further by referring to a "_rational_ cost-benefit justification," as many of us are capable of an impressive cost-benefit _rationalisation_. ;-)


----------



## sager

akasnowmaaan said:


> My Rolex and Omega experience is limited, I've only seen a few models of each in person, so I'm not terribly qualified to speak of it in general terms.
> 
> However, I find myself being disappointed in the back side of a Rolex more than I should.
> 
> I look at the current PO, and marvel at all the wonderful detail. A buddy at work showed me his Seadweller, and the sheer plain-ness of the back kind of underwhelmed me. I was expecting some writing or at least a little something that says 'Rolex' and not some completely plain thing.
> 
> I think those 'above and beyond' details are where Omega is stepping up their game in a way Rolex isn't. Heck, even some of my cheapest models have SOMETHING going on in the back that makes me feel like the piece is considered part of the whole and gets some attention. The Rolex watches I've seem seen like some unnecessarily old 'throwback' because of the plainness of the back. My reaction to seeing the back of the case seems to be 'oh, is that it?' every time.
> 
> In the big scheme of things it's... not part of the big scheme. However, it's one area I see a clear distinction.


Could not have put it better myself.


----------



## M4tt

> I really must be more careful with my punctuation. A comma should precede a coordinating conjunction joining an independent clause. Even better, I should have made the two independent clauses into complete sentences and removed any ambiguity. For, in fact, I was crediting you only with the observation about Veblen goods, whilst I was making the observation about the difficulty of a cost-benefit justification for the acquisition of said Veblen goods. I probably should have qualified that further by referring to a "_rational_ cost-benefit justification," as many of us are capable of an impressive cost-benefit _rationalisation_. ;-)


While both I, and Sir Ernest Gowers, agree with your grammatical analysis, even if it entails an 'Oxford comma', I still disagree with the dependent clause whether it is attributed to me or not. To be rational (a technical term in philosophy) is to act on your beliefs to bring about your desires and I was pointing out that the appropriate belief or desire set could make the purchase of veblen goods entirely rational. To rationalise (an entirely _different _technical term in psychology) is a psychological defence mechanism by which someone grasps at ad hoc _explanations _to attempt to make something irrational look rational. Thus my point was that, while rationalisation in the face of cognitive dissonance is perfectly possible, the choice to buy a veblen good to achieve some further end, for example to impress a potential mate or to suggest that a business is doing so well as to be able to afford such conspicuous consumption, can be entirely rational. More to the point, following the economic theories of Nash, it can be entirely rational to buy a scarce good in the knowledge that the irrational behaviour of others will continue to hike the value. Rolex resale is a perfect example: while Rolex second hand prices are silly considering the relative average quality compared to say Certina or Eterna, and yet there is noting irrational about buying a watch you know will hold its value - for whatever reason.

My worry with this whole debate is that it is really difficult to distinguish between an explanation of rational behaviour and the rationalisation of irrational behaviour from the first person, let alone the third person. In fact, to be honest, I'm not remotely sure that genuine rationality is possible or that the notion of rationalization will exist in the ontology of a mature science of psychology...


----------



## georges zaslavsky

Mathew J said:


> I often feel the same when people make arguments in favor of a full balance bridge over that of what the 2500 is equipped with, sure a full bridge seems nicer and more robust but I often wonder who really "cares" as some of the most highly regarded movments didn't have that configuration, nor did they have much of what we consider important today.
> 
> I'd rather focus on the looks of the piece as a whole and the movements interest to me, than get hung up on 2 vs 4 adjustment screws, if they are inside or outside, breguet coils....etc.


It is better to have a rolex movement than just another eta. Rolex is superior to ETA in any aspects. The 15xx series from Rolex are highly regarded by watchmakers.


----------



## joeuk

georges zaslavsky said:


> It is better to have a rolex movement than just another eta. Rolex is superior to ETA in any aspects. The 15xx series from Rolex are highly regarded by watchmakers.


Can people explain to me whats wrong with an ETA movement, forget the fact they are in a lot of other watches , do they do the job well? are they less realiable? are they harder to work on etc, and I am talking about the ETAs used in the omega range.


----------



## OTX

georges zaslavsky said:


> It is better to have a rolex movement than just another eta. Rolex is superior to ETA in any aspects. The 15xx series from Rolex are highly regarded by watchmakers.


Hey George, let's assume those modified ETA movements were never made by ETA and instead were Rolex made calibres. Would you say the same?. Just look at the 2892 and the 7750 movements. They are used from everybody from Omega to Iwc and are solid calibres and I doubt the cost of production between the Rolex and Eta movements is that much different.


----------



## joeuk

This is what bugs me about people that slag off eta, not having a go at just you georges but many people bring this up all the time. This company as been going for a long time now and should have respect by others, if it wasnt fot eta I dont think we would have such a great option of watches to pick from. Dont forget Rolex bought companies so no better then swatch group buying the companies they did and placing the eta movements in its other makes.


----------



## Mathew J

joeuk said:


> This is what bugs me about people that slag off eta, not having a go at just you georges but many people bring this up all the time. This company as been going for a long time now and should have respect by others, if it wasnt fot eta I dont think we would have such a great option of watches to pick from. Dont forget Rolex bought companies so no better then swatch group buying the companies they did and placing the eta movements in its other makes.


Georges is notorious for this

As I said above, Rolex in the past didn't use a full balance bridge, nor did they use 4 adjusters, and they weren't mounted inside the race and those were regarded by many as some of the best and most robust movements Rolex ever built, yet ETA/Swatch/Omega uses similar design aspects and they "suck" just because I presume they are ETA or because someone read an article somewhere (guilty of this myself) and now presume themselves capable of leveling a technical criticism.

I think the short is some people regardless of what information is available will believe what they want to believe, and if they feel that ETA is just horrible then anything to convince them of the contrary is wasted effort.


----------



## iinsic

M4tt said:


> While both I, and Sir Ernest Gowers, agree with your grammatical analysis, even if it entails an 'Oxford comma', I still disagree with the dependent clause whether it is attributed to me or not. To be rational (a technical term in philosophy) is to act on your beliefs to bring about your desires and I was pointing out that the appropriate belief or desire set could make the purchase of veblen goods entirely rational. To rationalise (an entirely _different _technical term in psychology) is a psychological defence mechanism by which someone grasps at ad hoc _explanations _to attempt to make something irrational look rational. Thus my point was that, while rationalisation in the face of cognitive dissonance is perfectly possible, the choice to buy a veblen good to achieve some further end, for example to impress a potential mate or to suggest that a business is doing so well as to be able to afford such conspicuous consumption, can be entirely rational. More to the point, following the economic theories of Nash, it can be entirely rational to buy a scarce good in the knowledge that the irrational behaviour of others will continue to hike the value. Rolex resale is a perfect example: while Rolex second hand prices are silly considering the relative average quality compared to say Certina or Eterna, and yet there is noting irrational about buying a watch you know will hold its value - for whatever reason.
> 
> My worry with this whole debate is that it is really difficult to distinguish between an explanation of rational behaviour and the rationalisation of irrational behaviour from the first person, let alone the third person. In fact, to be honest, I'm not remotely sure that genuine rationality is possible or that the notion of rationalization will exist in the ontology of a mature science of psychology...


Rather than allow this discussion to veer off into the theoretical with regard to the psychology of such purchases, I'd rather bring it down to a more earthy level, to wit: You are facing your wife (and not yours, literally, but a reasonable mean of the spouses described by other members of this forum). She is interested in your new PO 8500 and, now that you have truthfully answered her question as to its cost, you must - by rational cost-benefit analysis - justify to her this particular extravagance. You have failed if she goes on a shopping spree for new clothes and accessories, redecorates the house, plans a family skiing vacation to Gstaad in a private chalet ... or locks you out of the house.

I submit that self-justification is rationalisation if that justification (regardless of its brilliance) is unacceptable to our partners - in life or in business - and we had a pretty good idea that was the case when we bought the dang thing. :-d


----------



## M4tt

> I submit that self-justification is rationalisation if that justification (regardless of its brilliance) is unacceptable to our partners - in life or in business - and we had a pretty good idea that was the case when we bought the dang thing. :-d


I totally agree that the difference between a reason and an excuse is in the ears of the listener!


----------



## GaryF

Come on, Joe. It's just Georges being Georges. Were you expecting objectivity on the subject of ETA? ;-)



joeuk said:


> Can people explain to me whats wrong with an ETA movement, forget the fact they are in a lot of other watches , do they do the job well? are they less realiable? are they harder to work on etc, and I am talking about the ETAs used in the omega range.


----------



## TheRegulator

iinsic said:


> , I'd rather bring it down to a more earthy level, to wit: You are facing your wife (and not yours, literally, but a reasonable mean of the spouses described by other members of this forum). She is interested in your new PO 8500 and, now that you have truthfully answered her question as to its cost, you must - by rational cost-benefit analysis - justify to her this particular extravagance. You have failed if she goes on a shopping spree for new clothes and accessories, redecorates the house, plans a family skiing vacation to Gstaad in a private chalet ... or locks you out of the house.


I didn't realize that you and my wife are aquatinted


----------



## joeuk

Yes Gary its just so many people say things like "yes nice watch but its only an eta" and.................you just never seem to get any sort of explaination on whats wrong with the eta


----------



## georges zaslavsky

joeuk said:


> Can people explain to me whats wrong with an ETA movement, forget the fact they are in a lot of other watches , do they do the job well? are they less realiable? are they harder to work on etc, and I am talking about the ETAs used in the omega range.


Out of the box it is a middle of the range movement, with a mediocre to an average finish, even in its élaboré grade, it is nothing comparable top a rolex 3135 or a iwc 80110 or a jlc 899. Lots of firms are simply assembleurs, they buy an eta ebauche that they slighltly modify by engraving the rotor and with other aesthetic enhancement but not with mechanical enhancements. The best eta modified bases are the 2500 and IWC's version of the 2892 which have a significantly improved winding systel and accuracy.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

Sniper said:


> Hey George, let's assume those modified ETA movements were never made by ETA and instead were Rolex made calibres. Would you say the same?. Just look at the 2892 and the 7750 movements. They are used from everybody from Omega to Iwc and are solid calibres and I doubt the cost of production between the Rolex and Eta movements is that much different.


Roelx has a particular philosophy and Rolex would never make calibers like the 2892-7750. Except the eta 2892 and 7750 versions highly modified by Omega and IWC, the other 2892 and 7750 are not worth the money


----------



## georges zaslavsky

joeuk said:


> This is what bugs me about people that slag off eta, not having a go at just you georges but many people bring this up all the time. This company as been going for a long time now and should have respect by others, if it wasnt fot eta I dont think we would have such a great option of watches to pick from. Dont forget Rolex bought companies so no better then swatch group buying the companies they did and placing the eta movements in its other makes.


Wehn I and other people slag off eta, it is about other brands (not OMEGA and not IWC) that are not modifying the eta ebauches (a basic eta costs at least 120$) but who are just decorating them and not improving them mechanically and then sell a whole watch at 2000$. A 2000$ watch with just another eta is pure crookery and it is still a middle of the range watch, nothing else.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

Mathew J said:


> Georges is notorious for this
> 
> As I said above, Rolex in the past didn't use a full balance bridge, nor did they use 4 adjusters, and they weren't mounted inside the race and those were regarded by many as some of the best and most robust movements Rolex ever built, yet ETA/Swatch/Omega uses similar design aspects and they "suck" just because I presume they are ETA or because someone read an article somewhere (guilty of this myself) and now presume themselves capable of leveling a technical criticism.
> 
> I think the short is some people regardless of what information is available will believe what they want to believe, and if they feel that ETA is just horrible then anything to convince them of the contrary is wasted effort.


Fact is that the rolex 3035, 3135, 3185 an 3186 have beaten every of their competitors until the apparition of new calibers IWC 80110, omega 8500 and jlc 899. Omega until the apparition 2500 wasn't really in the same league than Rolex. But now it is and some say it is even better because of several technical evolutions and outstanding watches. Omega 8500 is a specific design built partly at Longines's Grenchen but assembled in Bienne. Omega's 8500 is a completely different thing from an ETA.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

GaryF said:


> Thanks but, at the risk of banging on a bit, I have another point in relation to judging brands against one another. We often see people trying to move the debate into technical areas rather than sticking to what the "brand" actually means because they feel that it makes them sound less shallow. I'm sure most of us will have seen this and known it for what it is ( and, no, I'm not mentioning names) in the past.
> The fact is, preferring a brand for some ephemeral reason is okay. When someone says "I think of Omega as a poor man's Rolex" or "Rolex is a brand for the poseur," or "If I buy a Grand Seiko, people won't know how much it cost,'" then at least those are honest reasons. I have more respect for that stuff then when someone tries to justify their preference with some half-understood rubbish about beat rates and accuracy or push pins being cheap.
> I have an affection for JLC which is out of proportion to my desire to actually own one. I like the company better than Omega. I like their way of doing things better than I like Omega's. I like the attention to detail and the fact that they sometimes make decisions that are idiosyncratic to the point of silly. I prefer the way they deal with competitors, partners, retailers and, most importantly, customers to the way Omega deals with them. They seem like a _nice_ company and the make beautiful, clever, likeable pieces.
> 
> And yet, somehow, I've never bought a JLC while I have a nice little collection of Omegas. There are JLC watches that I like hugely but there is always some quirk that makes me hesitate. Then I see an Omega that I just _want_ to wear more. And I'm happy. And one day that irresistible JLC will come along for me and everything will fall into place.
> 
> So, what I'm trying to say is, buy the watch you like. Don't get hung up on the brand but, if you do, be honest about it with yourself and everyone else. You'll enjoy it more.


I have purchased last two years two vintage jaeger le coultre which are at my watchmaker for restoration and I can agree with your statement regarding this firm. The finish of movements whether it is new or an old one is outstanding.The classic lines and sober dials is always synonym of good refined taste. The case, the dials and the overall finish even in their vintage timepieces is extremely high. I would say that the jlc brand is for the connoisseur.
New jlc watches are expensive but they offer a more than a lot for the money and they are rivaling with haute horlogerie names. Customer service of jlc can be a pain in the ass, expensive and a real nightmare, on a french watch forum called forum a montres, there has been several threads dedicated to the incomptence of jlc when it comes to servicing watches.


----------



## Mathew J

georges zaslavsky said:


> Fact is that the rolex 3035, 3135, 3185 an 3186 have beaten every of their competitors until the apparition of new calibers IWC 80110, omega 8500 and jlc 899. Omega until the apparition 2500 wasn't really in the same league than Rolex. But now it is and some say it is even better because of several technical evolutions and outstanding watches. Omega 8500 is a specific design built partly at Longines's Grenchen but assembled in Bienne. Omega's 8500 is a completely different thing from an ETA.


I was referring to the 15XX series of Rolex movements....also I would debate your statement, who makes that determination? and how have those specific Rolex calibers done that? I think alot of this is highly subjective at best, the ETA calibers have proven themselves over time just as the Rolex calibers have, why make any more out of it than that....seems like a waste of time.


----------



## Ozy

georges zaslavsky said:


> Out of the box it is a middle of the range movement, with a mediocre to an average finish, even in its élaboré grade, it is nothing comparable top a rolex 3135 or a iwc 80110 or a jlc 899. Lots of firms are simply assembleurs, they buy an tea ebauchges that they slighltly modify by engraving the rotor and with other aesthetic enhancement but not with mechanical enhancements. The best eta modified bases are the 2500 and IWC's version of the 2892 which have a significantly improved winding systel and accuracy.





georges zaslavsky said:


> Roelx has a particular philosophy and Rolex would never make calibers like the 2892-7750. Except the eta 2892 and 7750 versions highly modified by Omega and IWC, the other 2892 and 7750 are not worth the money


I believe you were asked what was wrong with ETA movements. you still havent said whats wrong with them.

Finishing? Is that the basis of your predjudice?


----------



## omega1962

I own a Rolex Datejust 16233 with the 3135 and a Omega SMP with the caliber 1120, both watches are chronometers and keep time within COSC spec. When I manually wind both watches the Omega feels smoother than the Rolex, and it is easier to screw the crown back on the Omega as well. The dial finish goes to Rolex my tapestry dial looks great and the stick markers look amazing. The case finish is a tie, the Rolex is elegant and simple using 904L SS, and the Omega has the lovely twisted lugs that I adore. When it comes to the movement decoration both are the same with the gold inlay lettering and Perlage and Geneva stripes. Eventhough the Rolex has a better setup for the balance than the Omega, both keep time within COSC specs. I think that both watches are great in their own ways and both companies have rich histories.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

Ozy said:


> I believe you were asked what was wrong with ETA movements. you still havent said whats wrong with them.
> 
> Finishing? Is that the basis of your predjudice?


Not only the finishing, the poor accuracy, poor power reserve (42 hours) and the poor efficiency of their winding system. The fact that these movements need to be serviced every 5 years unlike 15 or 20 years for some Rolex movements


----------



## georges zaslavsky

Mathew J said:


> I was referring to the 15XX series of Rolex movements....also I would debate your statement, who makes that determination? and how have those specific Rolex calibers done that? I think alot of this is highly subjective at best, the ETA calibers have proven themselves over time just as the Rolex calibers have, why make any more out of it than that....seems like a waste of time.


The higly qualified watchmakers make that determination, the cosc as well as the several watches used by Rolex in different expeditions and by the Comex as well. The 2824 and the 2892 are not playing in the same ground than the 3135 or the 3035 or the 15xx, they are in an inferior category at all levels. ETA is not a prestige movement manufacturer like Valfleurier, Piguet or Lemania.


----------



## GaryF

I'm sorry Georges but, as so often, your opinions on the subject of ETA vs. Rolex movements are coming across as prejudice with lots of weak justification, firmly stated.

Accuracy? What do you have to back the up? Your vague impression? The opinion of a watchmaker or two? How many 2892-a2s are less accurate than 3135 and by how much?

Poor power reserve? 42 hours? Can you tell me the power reserve in a Rolex 3135?

Winding efficiency? This is a compromise. The 3135 has skinny, little pillar that that grinds itself (and, consequently, the plate it is affixed to) to uselessness once the lubricant has deteriorated. A significant compromise for the sake of winding efficiency, I think you'll agree.

Which brings us to service schedules. The recommended service schedule for any _equivalent_ movement is based on the functional life of the lubricant. Rolex use the same lubricants as ETA. You can certainly let any watch run beyond the interval and you may be lucky but, if you have a movement with a known weakness like the 3135, it wouldn't be wise.

You say that "ETA is not a prestige movement manufacturer like Valfleurier, Piguet or Lemania." Would that be the same Piguet that provide the base for your beloved 3313? Most of these "prestige" manufacturers are now part of Swatch anyway and alongside ETA.
It strikes me that you simply have some brands that you prefer because of the the history and the 'prestige' (which I would urge you to look up the original meaning of) associated with their names.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

GaryF said:


> I'm sorry Georges but, as so often, your opinions on the subject of ETA vs. Rolex movements are coming across as prejudice with lots of weak justification, firmly stated.
> 
> Accuracy? What do you have to back the up? Your vague impression? The opinion of a watchmaker or two? How many 2892-a2s are less accurate than 3135 and by how much?
> 
> Poor power reserve? 42 hours? Can you tell me the power reserve in a Rolex 3135?
> 
> Winding efficiency? This is a compromise. The 3135 has skinny, little pillar that that grinds itself (and, consequently, the plate it is affixed to) to uselessness once the lubricant has deteriorated. A significant compromise for the sake of winding efficiency, I think you'll agree.
> 
> Which brings us to service schedules. The recommended service schedule for any _equivalent_ movement is based on the functional life of the lubricant. Rolex use the same lubricants as ETA. You can certainly let any watch run beyond the interval and you may be lucky but, if you have a movement with a known weakness like the 3135, it wouldn't be wise.
> 
> You say that "ETA is not a prestige movement manufacturer like Valfleurier, Piguet or Lemania." Would that be the same Piguet that provide the base for your beloved 3313? Most of these "prestige" manufacturers are now part of Swatch anyway and alongside ETA.
> It strikes me that you simply have some brands that you prefer because of the the history and the 'prestige' (which I would urge you to look up the original meaning of) associated with their names.


Weak justification, certainly not. Count how many certified chronometers were built by Rolex from the mid seventies till today, you will have a number exceeding the 6 millions of certified chronometers which makes of Rolex, the biggest producer of officially certified chronometers since three decades.
Power reserve of the 3135 is 50 hours Under the Loupe/Rolex 3135 - Alliance Horlogère and here Rolex Caliber 3135 Movement so that is 8 hours more than the eta. Perhaps I will run the watch beyond the service intervals, but it will still be ticking perfectly well, I have seen some 20 years old 3035 powered rolexes that have never been serviced and that tick at +1 sec per week . Ask any highly experienced watchmaker,how stable is a rolex compared to an eta movement over the long run, he will tell you what I am telling you as well, a better stability from the Rolex over the long run
When I am talking about prestige piguet movements, I am talking complications like flying tourbillons, minute repeaters, perpetual calendars used in Blancpain most prestigious models as well as the famous caliber 1315 with a power reserve of 5 days found in the new 50 fathoms or the famous caliber 1735 found in the famous blancpain 1735 which has the following complications: tourbillon, minute repeater, chronograph, perpentual calendar and chronograph which has a power reserve of 80 hours. The 3313 isn't prestigious in the sense that it had a very questionable over the long run reliability and poorly efficient undirectional winding system.
We don't have the same definition of prestige, and prestige manufactures in the swatch group rank as the following








and here is the definition of high range brands according to the swatch group









Breguet bought the nouvelle lemania back in 1999 and started to use lemania bases for their minute repeaters, chronographs, flying tourbillons, handwound movements, perpetaul calendar and moonphases.
Blancpain was directed by Mr Biver who integrated Frederic Piguet to the brand back in 1986 with some specific movements kinda like minute repeaters, chronographs, flying tourbillons, handwound movements, perpetual calendar and moonphases as it is the case for Breguet. In the past in the 50's till the late 70's, Blancpain used massively AS movements which were known for their high reliability and indestructibility.
Glasshütte Original was always synonymous of haute horlogerie in Germany and a big competitor of Lang & Söhne, they were always a manufacture. 
Omega, a brand that has won numerous several chronometric awards and which was the first officially certified chronometers producer in 1972 in front of Rolex. Omega lost its manufacture in 1984 when Hayek and Ernst Thomke decided to get rid of all the remaining inhouse movements and destroy the tooling, then they decided to stick to eta ebauches. It is only almost 24 years later that Omega understood that being a manufacture would be again an advantage.
Longines was once a brilliant manufacture reknown for calibers like the 13zn, 30ch, the 12.68 or the l990 but when it lost its manufacture status, it became just another eta powered watch.
Rado was known in the past for making the diastar but it was also known for making fine mechanical watches using modified AS movements which were highly reliable and accurate. Now Rado sticks to ETA but lost of what made its appeal back in the days.
Union Glasshütte, before 2006 and 2007, the brand used to be a manufacture making its own movements with a very nice finish and of the highest quality, now it is just a name of a highly respected german brand sticking to eta ebauches with nothing special.
So as you can see, ETA isn't found in the prestige brands of the swatch group


----------



## joeuk

So I own a 8 day clock does this make it better then a rolex or eta because it last longer. A timex watch does not see any oil most of their working life and yes that includes a 30yr old one that still run does this make it a better watch movement then a rolex or eta. My answer would be no and what I am trying to say the reasons you give dont cut it for me and others. If a person is a one watch guy or as a winding machine do you really really think he cares for the power reserve of 1 watch to another and you will find an eta could last longer inbetween services that still run fine and also some will not and that includes rolex watches. It can be a hit and miss some will be fine but then some wont. An eta movement is still a strong movement no matter what you say, some dont like eta because you can find them in many watches but this does not make them a bad movement. Another great thing about an eta is they can be easily adjusted to the wears habits to very good accuacy and can be adjusted by anybody who can take the back off. I have done this with many watches I own. Eta have a good history behind them with some good movements thrown in. Forget your or anybodies prejudice against this company because they are owned by the swatch group and make so many movements per year then most, they still and can make a great movement. I strongly think eta could if they wanted for their own amusement make a movement that could blow the socks off any rolex or even their own movements seiko did this with the grand seiko so dont see why eta cant. Like I said the movements they do make are still great movements, they can compete with the others in their specific designed movements from the cheap to the more expensive movements. My god I have really come to like the company even more nowafter writing this so thanks georges and the others that slag off eta.


----------



## Mathew J

georges zaslavsky said:


> The higly qualified watchmakers make that determination, the cosc as well as the several watches used by Rolex in different expeditions and by the Comex as well. The 2824 and the 2892 are not playing in the same ground than the 3135 or the 3035 or the 15xx, they are in an inferior category at all levels. ETA is not a prestige movement manufacturer like Valfleurier, Piguet or Lemania.


I have yet to read anything from a true watchmaker that is negative towards ETA, sure some have their preferences and I have seen/spoken with both those who seem to like ETA and those who like others....

The simple fact is that many many prestige brands have entrusted their movement selection to ETA, I have a hard time thinking these brands would do so if the movements weren't top quality as it would put them at risk, and this is an arena where you never want to be percieved as anything but the highest quality.

And again I was speaking of a few design aspects of the movements, not whether people consider them prestigious on the whole.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

Mathew J said:


> I have yet to read anything from a true watchmaker that is negative towards ETA, sure some have their preferences and I have seen/spoken with both those who seem to like ETA and those who like others....
> 
> The simple fact is that many many prestige brands have entrusted their movement selection to ETA, I have a hard time thinking these brands would do so if the movements weren't top quality as it would put them at risk, and this is an arena where you never want to be percieved as anything but the highest quality.
> 
> And again I was speaking of a few design aspects of the movements, not whether people consider them prestigious on the whole.


Name me prestige brands who are using eta?
Patek, De Bethune, Parmigiani fleurier, Chopard Luc, Vacheron Constantin, Speake Marin, Jaeger Lecoultre, IWC, Blancpain, Lange & Söhne, Glasshütte Original, François Paul Journe and Roger Dubuis are all prestige watch manufactures and they aren't using ETA ebacuhes, so your statement is false and unvalid because not only you don't have knowledge about what the prestigious firms are but you also have zero knowledge about who is a manufacture or not.
In the luxury range, the manufactures are Omega, Rolex, Zenith, Jaeger Le Coultre and Panerai.
Cartier, Tag Heuer, Breitling (except for its b01 and b04 models) and Longines are not having a manufacture status and are mostly relying on eta ebauches. When you speak about prestige then you have to know what prestige is. You certainly buy things according to advertisements whereas other people don't. Also you lose more money by selling an eta powered watch than by selling a Rolex or a Jaeger Lecoultre or a Zenith or a Patek .


----------



## iinsic

georges zaslavsky said:


> Name me prestige brands who are using eta?
> Patek, De Bethune, Parmigiani fleurier, Chopard Luc, Vacheron Constantin, Speake Marin, Jaeger Lecoultre, IWC, Blancpain, Lange & Söhne, Glasshütte Original, François Paul Journe and Roger Dubuis are all prestige watch manufactures and they aren't using ETA ebacuhes, so your statement is false and unvalid because not only you don't have knowledge about what the prestigious firms are but you also have zero knowledge about who is a manufacture or not.
> In the luxury range, the manufactures are Omega, Rolex, Zenith, Jaeger Le Coultre and Panerai.
> Cartier, Tag Heuer, Breitling (except for its b01 and b04 models) and Longines are not having a manufacture status and are mostly relying on eta ebauches. When you speak about prestige then you have to know what prestige is. You certainly buy things according to advertisements whereas other people don't. Also you lose more money by selling an eta powered watch than by selling a Rolex or a Jaeger Lecoultre or a Zenith or a Patek .


With all due respect, Georges, you have hijacked this thread. It is not - and never has been - about ETA movements. It is a consideration of quality differences between Rolex and Omega. It would be nice if you would stay on topic, or at least add an 'OT' marker to your posts so others can just skip over them.

FWIW, both Omega and Rolex use ETA movements (last time I checked, Tudor still was part of Rolex). So ETA-bashing definitely has no place here in the context of this particular thread topic.

Rob


----------



## GaryF

georges zaslavsky said:


> Weak justification, certainly not. Count how many certified chronometers were built by Rolex from the mid seventies till today, you will have a number exceeding the 6 millions of certified chronometers which makes of Rolex, the biggest producer of officially certified chronometers since three decades.


That tells us how many movements Rolex and ETA sent to get COSC certified. It tells us exactly *nothing* about the relative quality of those movements. Are you contending that the difference in numbers is down to ETA movements failing the tests? I assume not. That would be ridiculous.



georges zaslavsky said:


> Power reserve of the 3135 is 50 hours Under the Loupe/Rolex 3135 - Alliance Horlogère and here Rolex Caliber 3135 Movement so that is 8 hours more than the eta.


And from that you conclude that the ETA has " poor power reserve (42 hours)"? Eight hours less? What is not "poor" 43? 44? Or is it anything less than the movement offered by the brand that you like?



georges zaslavsky said:


> Perhaps I will run the watch beyond the service intervals, but it will still be ticking perfectly well, I have seen some 20 years old 3035 powered rolexes that have never been serviced and that tick at +1 sec per week . Ask any highly experienced watchmaker,how stable is a rolex compared to an eta movement over the long run, he will tell you what I am telling you as well, a better stability from the Rolex over the long run


 This all anecdotal stuff. "I have seen a watch that didn't get serviced and still runs...." etc, etc "Ask anyone and they will tell you....". We can all do that. I was hoping that you might have some actual data or evidence. I ran a 1120 (based on an ETA 2892) for twelve years without a service and it was fine. I doesn't meant that a 2892-A2 doesn't need a service until twelve years have passed. I'd like to see that little pillar in a 3135's winding mechanism after 30 years with no lubrication (or, rather, I wouldn't).

As for the rest, it seems to me that you have simply shifted the goalposts on the Piquet question by saying "some are, some aren't prestigious" and then given a whole load of superfluous history to obscure that fact (and without the pretty pictures of old movements that you usually use). 
If you want to buy into the Swatch Groups definitions of "Prestige" then good luck to you (I wonder how they would feel about applying the word to Rolex. ;-)). For me, it's a load of by-numbers brand positioning designed to categorise their marques and efficiently work their markets. I love G.O. as much as the next guy. I think that their watches are beautiful (and beautifully made) but the company today has very little in common with the company it was resurrected from. It's actually a very good example of the ease with "prestige" can be applied to a product along with the application of a logo.



georges zaslavsky said:


> When I am talking about prestige piguet movements, I am talking complications like flying tourbillons, minute repeaters, perpetual calendars used in Blancpain most prestigious models as well as the famous caliber 1315 with a power reserve of 5 days found in the new 50 fathoms or the famous caliber 1735 found in the famous blancpain 1735 which has the following complications: tourbillon, minute repeater, chronograph, perpentual calendar and chronograph which has a power reserve of 80 hours. The 3313 isn't prestigious in the sense that it had a very questionable over the long run reliability and poorly efficient undirectional winding system.
> We don't have the same definition of prestige, and prestige manufactures in the swatch group rank as the following
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and here is the definition of high range brands according to the swatch group
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breguet bought the nouvelle lemania back in 1999 and started to use lemania bases for their minute repeaters, chronographs, flying tourbillons, handwound movements, perpetaul calendar and moonphases.
> Blancpain was directed by Mr Biver who integrated Frederic Piguet to the brand back in 1986 with some specific movements kinda like minute repeaters, chronographs, flying tourbillons, handwound movements, perpetual calendar and moonphases as it is the case for Breguet. In the past in the 50's till the late 70's, Blancpain used massively AS movements which were known for their high reliability and indestructibility.
> Glasshütte Original was always synonymous of haute horlogerie in Germany and a big competitor of Lang & Söhne, they were always a manufacture.
> Omega, a brand that has won numerous several chronometric awards and which was the first officially certified chronometers producer in 1972 in front of Rolex. Omega lost its manufacture in 1984 when Hayek and Ernst Thomke decided to get rid of all the remaining inhouse movements and destroy the tooling, then they decided to stick to eta ebauches. It is only almost 24 years later that Omega understood that being a manufacture would be again an advantage.
> Longines was once a brilliant manufacture reknown for calibers like the 13zn, 30ch, the 12.68 or the l990 but when it lost its manufacture status, it became just another eta powered watch.
> Rado was known in the past for making the diastar but it was also known for making fine mechanical watches using modified AS movements which were highly reliable and accurate. Now Rado sticks to ETA but lost of what made its appeal back in the days.
> Union Glasshütte, before 2006 and 2007, the brand used to be a manufacture making its own movements with a very nice finish and of the highest quality, now it is just a name of a highly respected german brand sticking to eta ebauches with nothing special.
> So as you can see, ETA isn't found in the prestige brands of the swatch group


----------



## GaryF

I missed the wood for the trees. I wish I could "like" this twice.



iinsic said:


> With all due respect, Georges, you have hijacked this thread. It is not - and never has been - about ETA movements. It is a consideration of quality differences between Rolex and Omega. It would be nice if you would stay on topic, or at least add an 'OT' marker to your posts so others can just skip over them.
> 
> FWIW, both Omega and Rolex use ETA movements (last time I checked, Tudor still was part of Rolex). So ETA-bashing definitely has no place here in the context of this particular thread topic.
> 
> Rob


----------



## Mathew J

georges zaslavsky said:


> Name me prestige brands who are using eta?
> Patek, De Bethune, Parmigiani fleurier, Chopard Luc, Vacheron Constantin, Speake Marin, Jaeger Lecoultre, IWC, Blancpain, Lange & Söhne, Glasshütte Original, François Paul Journe and Roger Dubuis are all prestige watch manufactures and they aren't using ETA ebacuhes, so your statement is false and unvalid because not only you don't have knowledge about what the prestigious firms are but you also have zero knowledge about who is a manufacture or not.
> In the luxury range, the manufactures are Omega, Rolex, Zenith, Jaeger Le Coultre and Panerai.
> Cartier, Tag Heuer, Breitling (except for its b01 and b04 models) and Longines are not having a manufacture status and are mostly relying on eta ebauches. When you speak about prestige then you have to know what prestige is. You certainly buy things according to advertisements whereas other people don't. Also you lose more money by selling an eta powered watch than by selling a Rolex or a Jaeger Lecoultre or a Zenith or a Patek .


Really Georges, you know how long I have been here and elsewhere on the forums....prestige is all in the eye of the beholder, while you now might cite some brands that you probabily will never own, I on the other hand would rather be realistic and consider brands which everyone out there holds in high regard as being "well regarded"

Also it seems you're a bit too tied to the hip with Swatch's definition of "prestige" vs "luxury"...for many it isn't solely about manufacture status or not.

Companies like IWC, Ulysee Nardin, Breitling, Panerai, and Cartier are all held in high regard and all have used ETA movments in their pieces

The fact is that ETA makes a fine reliable movement, if they didn't no one would use them, period.


----------



## aardvarkbark

iinsic said:


> With all due respect, Georges, you have hijacked this thread. It is not - and never has been - about ETA movements. It is a consideration of quality differences between Rolex and Omega. It would be nice if you would stay on topic, or at least add an 'OT' marker to your posts so others can just skip over them.


No. Sorry. Must call foul here. Georges hijacked this thread? From whom? The OP hasn't appeared here for over two months now. And if multiple members, including a moderator, repeatedly challenge Georges for his posts, why is it only he who is accused of hijacking the thread? Off topic or not, I've enjoyed the dialogue that's been here. Many other than Georges have conspired to take it OT.


----------



## Runitout

georges zaslavsky said:


> Roelx has a particular philosophy and Rolex would never make calibers like the 2892-7750. Except the eta 2892 and 7750 versions highly modified by Omega and IWC, the other 2892 and 7750 are not worth the money


Georges

Absent the nebulous and utterly subjective term 'prestige', the only objective criticisms I can see that you appear to lay at the foot of Eta movements are the power reserve and the winding efficiency. That _some_ Rolex movements are _slightly_ superior in these criteria is without doubt; that the Eta movements are in any way less than superb has not been established. What data can you rely on to support your proposition that a 44 hour power reserve, such as is found on a Valjoux 7750, is in any way inadequate? Or the 48 hour power reserve found on the 2892a2 based Omega 2403B? I would be careful in your answer, given that there are several Rolex movements made with a 42 hour power reserve, including the 15## series that you are so enamoured of...

The phrase 'not worth the money' seems to be a bit odd, given that you admit that the Eta movement can be procured for $120, which strikes me as being spectacularly good value for the money. Although, I doubt you'll find a chronometer 2892a2 for $120, (if you can, I'd love a link to your source, and I'll buy ten).

I question your use of the phrase 'philosophy'. You baldly state, 'Rolex would never make calibers like the 2892-7750'. The two calibres are very different beasts. What 'philosophy' do they share? In any event, the Valjoux 'philosophy' was clearly good enough for Rolex, who fitted the Daytona for many years with a Valjoux chronograph movement, and still equip their Tudors with Eta movements.

It seems to me that each of Omega, Eta and Rolex make movements designed to accommodate cheap mass production, little or no adjustment by hand, relatively spartan or rudimentary finish, all while working within or about chronometer specification. (The 8500 series seems to me to be the exception to that rule, in that the visible finishing is of a higher level than the others). Is that what you mean by 'philosophy'?

The only sin that the Eta movements have committed, by my reckoning, is the unpardonable sin of being available on less expensive watches. That means that regardless of their inherent quality, they will never have the requisite 'prestige' to satisfy some snobs.

In passing, and as the owner of Lemania, Eta, Omega, Rolex, Seiko, and Valjoux movements, among others, I think the best movement I've ever owned is the Omega 2403.


----------



## OzO

Since Rolex manage to sell a stainless steel three hand diver with date for AUD$9,000+ I would hate to imagine what they would charge for a chronometer rated chronograph with a full triple calendar and 24hr indicator (which omega sells for about $4,400)

Thanks Valjoux! Helluva movement you made in that crummy watch (v7751 base calibre)


----------



## iinsic

aardvarkbark said:


> No. Sorry. Must call foul here. Georges hijacked this thread? From whom? The OP hasn't appeared here for over two months now. And if multiple members, including a moderator, repeatedly challenge Georges for his posts, why is it only he who is accused of hijacking the thread? Off topic or not, I've enjoyed the dialogue that's been here. Many other than Georges have conspired to take it OT.


You can call "foul" all you like. The fact remains that this thread is established by its title, regardless of the identity of the OP or his presence or absence from the discussion. Threads are not fiefdoms ruled over by their OP's. And, further, Georges introduced an off-topic opinion about something that was not germane to the thread, so it is difficult to deny he hijacked it.

As for the other members and the moderator who called him out on this, I'm not sure I follow your logic. If a man robs a bank and the citizenry rise up to accost the villain, how does their defense of propriety exonerate the robber?

Georges is entitled to his disdain for ETA movements ... just not in a thread that is a discussion of Rolex and Omega quality issues. The two are not related, ergo his accroachment is inappropriate.


----------



## critical

I tried on a Rolex Deep Sea today and found it clunky and not very appealing. Also hit up the Omega boutique and was blown away. The new Planet Ocean's are absolutely beautiful. I found the Rolex watches to be very dated, small and boring in comparison. The Speedmaster Professional and the Speedmaster 9300 were also fabulous, and I am actually torn between the 9300 Speedy and the 8500 45.5 Planet Ocean. 

Not trying to be a hater, but style wise the Omega's speak to me. I think it's a combination of my youth and also my stature-being 6'3 and a bodybuilder.


----------



## Mathew J

critical said:


> I tried on a Rolex Deep Sea today and found it clunky and not very appealing. Also hit up the Omega boutique and was blown away. The new Planet Ocean's are absolutely beautiful. I found the Rolex watches to be very dated, small and boring in comparison. The Speedmaster Professional and the Speedmaster 9300 were also fabulous, and I am actually torn between the 9300 Speedy and the 8500 45.5 Planet Ocean.
> 
> Not trying to be a hater, but style wise the Omega's speak to me. I think it's a combination of my youth and also my stature-being 6'3 and a bodybuilder.


I also tried the Deep Sea and found it to be a train wreck but others seems to love the piece....the writing on the encyclopedia Brittanica of a dial, the small bracelet, and just the whole thing for me was a mess....

Contrast that with much of what Omega is doing and man, I am shocked that the compnay which made so few changes are making so many which I don't like. My biggest pet peeve is the writing on the rehaut...sure people talk of how you can't see it at the right angles or a distance, but I buy these watches for me and simply knowing it is there is enough to sour me on it.

One reason I am hesistant to sell my Sub is that I know the days of clean rehauts are over, well that and pieces under 5K new


----------



## Chibatastic

I can agree with some of you on the Deep Sea. I seriously considered it for however long it took to put on my wrist. Unfortunately the proportions and extra writing didn't fit my personal style. A lot of people pull them off nicely however and the same can be said for the new 8500 PO. A shame I don't have larger wrists..

Omega making high quality thermo compensated quartz should not be looked down upon, juanljal55.

Chibatastic


----------



## joeuk

I dont think georges hijacked the thread as the thread title is rolex v omega quality, and as omega still make a watch with a ETA based movement and so he is still sticking to the thread. I think it was great someone mentioned this in the thread as this is most thing mentioned about omega watches and still is with people still saying the new movement is not an in-house movement because its still made in the eta factory, come on how many of us have heard people say this.


----------



## iinsic

joeuk said:


> I dont think georges hijacked the thread as the thread title is rolex v omega quality, and as omega still make a watch with a ETA based movement and so he is still sticking to the thread. I think it was great someone mentioned this in the thread as this is most thing mentioned about omega watches and still is with people still saying the new movement is not an in-house movement because its still made in the eta factory, come on how many of us have heard people say this.


Both Omega and Rolex use ETA movements in some watches, so I think it is a very narrow path to be trod. But, aside from that, I'm not at all clear why anyone would denigrate the most ubiquitous and reliable movements in the world, the ones other movements are represented as "as good as" (e.g.-"This Seiko/Miyota/Seagull movement is produced to the same exacting standards as ETA in Switzerland, but at a lower price. It's just as good as that expensive Swiss movement.").

Any watchmaker of repute will tell you that the 2892-A2 stacks up admirably against the 3135 - in design, execution, reliability and serviceability. Even if the 2500D was virtually unchanged from its base - and it is significantly modified - it still would be a great movement for any watch.

ETA is not a purveyor of slipshod movements. They are the standard by which the overwhelming majority of mid- and upper-price watches on this planet are judged. Perhaps the real reason for this sudden - and undeserved - outbreak of anti-ETAism is a parochial resentment because a favorite brand is facing oblivion as a result of sticking their proverbial heads in the sand with regard to self-sufficiency. It certainly is not because ETA movements aren't good enough (and if you want to debate that last point, at least make it meaningful by including the condemnatory words of Tudor, Oris, Doxa, Ebel, Cartier, Edox, et al - I'm sure they _must_ have said it _somewhere_ - that ETA movements are junk). :roll:


----------



## Runitout

juanljal55 said:


> i never had an omega but i bought a submariner because of its look and recognition. in my country, a rolex is as good as money. :-d *omega has quartz models but rolex doesn't so perhaps rolex might be better or offers more prestige.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :roll:


You might want to do a bit of research before saying things like that. Rolex has, and does, make watches with quartz movements, for both men and women.


----------



## GaryF

Aardvarkbark does have a point in that one us should have posted what you posted straight away rather than indulge Georges's usual ETA-bashing. Georges took the thread off-topic but we didn't so much "rise up and accost the villain" as run down the road kicking his getaway car.



iinsic said:


> You can call "foul" all you like. The fact remains that this thread is established by its title, regardless of the identity of the OP or his presence or absence from the discussion. Threads are not fiefdoms ruled over by their OP's. And, further, Georges introduced an off-topic opinion about something that was not germane to the thread, so it is difficult to deny he hijacked it.
> 
> As for the other members and the moderator who called him out on this, I'm not sure I follow your logic. If a man robs a bank and the citizenry rise up to accost the villain, how does their defense of propriety exonerate the robber?
> 
> Georges is entitled to his disdain for ETA movements ... just not in a thread that is a discussion of Rolex and Omega quality issues. The two are not related, ergo his accroachment is inappropriate.


----------



## weaverthebeaver

I am not sure about quality, both make beautiful watches. However, with Rolex the first question anybody asks you when you are wearing one is 'is that a real Rolex?' The brand has just become associated with copies, wannabe rich people, and people who want to press their stature on your face. (I realise this is a generalisation)

This is not so with Omega. Although their branding style has become a lot moreike Rolex in recent years, and am not sure if I will be saying the same thing in ten years time.

Someone recently told me that when he sees someone wear a Rolex he thinks, 'either the watch is fake, or the person is....' this made me sell my Rolex datejust, and I bought an Omega SMP instead, and I love it to bits. 

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2


----------



## OzO

weaverthebeaver said:


> I am not sure about quality, both make beautiful watches. However, with Rolex the first question anybody asks you when you are wearing one is 'is that a real Rolex?' The brand has just become associated with copies, wannabe rich people, and people who want to press their stature on your face. (I realise this is a generalisation)
> 
> This is not so with Omega. Although their branding style has become a lot moreike Rolex in recent years, and am not sure if I will be saying the same thing in ten years time.
> 
> Someone recently told me that when he sees someone wear a Rolex he thinks, 'either the watch is fake, or the person is....' this made me sell my Rolex datejust, and I bought an Omega SMP instead, and I love it to bits.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2


Wasnt it Jeremy Clarkson that said "the only thing worse than a fake Rolex is a real one" :-d


----------



## Mathew J

weaverthebeaver said:


> I am not sure about quality, both make beautiful watches. However, with Rolex the first question anybody asks you when you are wearing one is 'is that a real Rolex?' The brand has just become associated with copies, wannabe rich people, and people who want to press their stature on your face. (I realise this is a generalisation)
> 
> This is not so with Omega. Although their branding style has become a lot moreike Rolex in recent years, and am not sure if I will be saying the same thing in ten years time.
> 
> Someone recently told me that when he sees someone wear a Rolex he thinks, 'either the watch is fake, or the person is....' this made me sell my Rolex datejust, and I bought an Omega SMP instead, and I love it to bits.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2


For me it is more the latter in most cases...and I own one.

I said in another thread I would be so happy if I didn't see this stereotype played out with virtually every owner I have met, but sadly not the case, least not for me, and I too have thought of selling mine as well, but for reasons in addition to this one mentioned.


----------



## teeritz

I learnt long ago not to give a rat's about what anybody thinks. If people want to think that I'm wearing a fake Rolex, great! Lessens the chance of somebody macheteing (is that a word? Is now.) my arm off for it. 
Of course, at the moment, nobody's gonna think I'm wearing a fake Rolex because I don't own one. Yet.

But back to the topic, which I have to say has been done to absolute death here in recent years. Why, oh why, can't folks just let these two brands co-exist? Fit, finish, time-keeping accuracy, ETA-based movement vs in-house, and the dreaded (and extremely shallow) 'status' aspect of each brand. At the end of the day, you buy one brand or the other (or if you're a real special breed of cat, you get both, because you just happen to love watches and a Rolex Submariner or Daytona can sit in your watch box next to your Oris Classic, Junghans Max Bill hand-wound or Tissot quartz chrono and, while you're asleep, they all get along just fine) because you prefer certain aspects of one over the other. 
I like pretty much most of what both brands are doing these days. I'm no real fan of the use of ceramic and Liquid Metal, but that's just me. I feel it takes away from both brand's tool watch origins. But they _do_ look nice. The build quality is visible in both brands. 
Buy one or the other.
Buy both!
Put on wrist (one at a time, unless you're H. Norman Schwarzkopf).
Enjoy.


----------



## teeritz

Oh, and as for the Cadbury vs Hershey debate, I have one word for you all.
Lindt.


----------



## iinsic

teeritz said:


> Oh, and as for the Cadbury vs Hershey debate, I have one word for you all.
> Lindt.


The States might not be a major player in horology any longer, but the best chocolate is - for anyone who has tasted it - Ghirardelli. Hershey is so pedestrian. It's like Hamilton vs. Timex in the '50s. ;-)


----------



## joeuk

Cadbury makes some great designed chocolate, and is far the best finish with great combo of flavours to make a good choice for all, also as by far the best gloss finish with a smoother taste. Any other makes are just cadbury wannabees


----------



## SerialQiller

It's funny, I was just on Aintitcool.com (movie website) where the comment sections are riddled with fanboys clamoring how great the Avengers was and how it will 'pwn' Dark Knight Rises and Prometheus and Spiderman and whatever other tentpole movies are coming out this summer. I just can't help but shake my head and think: why don't you just sit back and enjoy them all. There will never be winners in debates like these. There are people who slept through Avengers, there are people that bought a bad Rolex, there are people that will think Dark Knight Rises is akin to the second coming, there will be those that think Omega has created the greatest watch of all time. We don't have to pick a winner. We def don't need to try and convince anyone else that our 'winner' has to be someone else's. 

We have some amazing options to enjoy, pick the one(s) you like and savor the life that has so many wondrous options to enjoy.


----------



## billdob62

For the money, the Omega.


----------



## macleod1979

Well said Serial!


----------



## iinsic

SerialQiller said:


> It's funny, I was just on Aintitcool.com (movie website) where the comment sections are riddled with fanboys clamoring how great the Avengers was and how it will 'pwn' Dark Knight Rises and Prometheus and Spiderman and whatever other tentpole movies are coming out this summer. I just can't help but shake my head and think: why don't you just sit back and enjoy them all. There will never be winners in debates like these. There are people who slept through Avengers, there are people that bought a bad Rolex, there are people that will think Dark Knight Rises is akin to the second coming, there will be those that think Omega has created the greatest watch of all time. We don't have to pick a winner. We def don't need to try and convince anyone else that our 'winner' has to be someone else's.
> 
> We have some amazing options to enjoy, pick the one(s) you like and savor the life that has so many wondrous options to enjoy.


Ahhh ... the voice of reason. Some might resent your effort to inject common sense into a perfectly irrational discussion. But I certainly appreciate where you are coming from. ;-)

I tried that strategy several times already in this thread:



> A lot of Omega owners on this forum also own Rolex, which is why this is a unique venue for a serious discussion of a question such as posed by the OP. In fact, some very thoughtful subjective and objective contributions have been made. Sure, the thread got hijacked - just like every discussion of Omega calibres for as long as I can remember - but that doesn't alter the validity of our comparative analysis of Omega and Rolex, or diminish the value of many contributions here for one contemplating buying either brand.





> That this thread has gone on for more than 200 posts - when its peers tend to be locked in far less time - says a great deal about the thoughtfulness and sincerity of almost every poster to this thread. However long it lasts, this thread will always serve as a useful resource for anyone contemplating a Rolex or Omega purchase.


But, for better or worse, the following observation addressed why these types of threads not only exist, but durably persist:



> [W]e really can't help ourselves when it comes to this or any other debate about the objective (or subjective) merits (or demerits) of a particular watch or brand. A WIS is the horological equivalent of a Talmudic scholar, adept at endless debate about the most arcane points. ...
> 
> As much as we all might tire of an endless stream of "Which brand is better?" or "Is the co-axial better than the lever?" or "Is the 2500D better than the 2500C?" or the many other threads of what one might characterize as "eternal questions" (at least on WUS), we all find ourselves pulled back into these discussions (often like Michael Corleone in GF3 ... just when we think we're "out"). :-d


As the proverb tells us, "If you can't beat them, join them." (aka "I have nothing better to do.") :-!


----------



## georges zaslavsky

iinsic said:


> With all due respect, Georges, you have hijacked this thread. It is not - and never has been - about ETA movements. It is a consideration of quality differences between Rolex and Omega. It would be nice if you would stay on topic, or at least add an 'OT' marker to your posts so others can just skip over them.
> 
> FWIW, both Omega and Rolex use ETA movements (last time I checked, Tudor still was part of Rolex). So ETA-bashing definitely has no place here in the context of this particular thread topic.
> 
> Rob


The eta bashing is constructive because until the 1120, the calibers used by Omega which were based on eta ebauches like the 1110 and 1111 were not so modified and not as good as the 1120 and its successors. Every "bashing" has a constructive part. Tudor was always considered as the poor man's Rolex except for models made prior to 1964 which were using Rolex movements. Rolex is a manufacture but not Tudor


----------



## biotechee

Seriously cannot believe this thread is still going! Wow!

Now, did someone mention chocolate...?!


----------



## joeuk

biotechee said:


> Seriously cannot believe this thread is still going! Wow!
> 
> Now, did someone mention chocolate...?!


Yes we are trying to break a omega forum record


----------



## iinsic

georges zaslavsky said:


> The eta bashing is constructive because until the 1120, the calibers used by Omega which were based on eta ebauches like the 1110 and 1111 were not so modified and not as good as the 1120 and its successors. Every "bashing" has a constructive part. Tudor was always considered as the poor man's Rolex except for models made prior to 1964 which were using Rolex movements. Rolex is a manufacture but not Tudor


I understand completely what you are saying here. I just don't understand what any of it has to do with a thread that examines quality issues of contemporary Rolex and Omega offerings. Were ETA-based Omega movements less reliable than in-house Rolex movements, then I'd say you have just cause to belabor this point. But I am not aware that such is the case. The least reliable Omega calibres are the 2500C and the 3313, and that is a tremendously liberal definition of the phrase "least reliable," as these movements are amongst the most widely distributed movements made by either firm, and initial defects are quite rare as a percentage of total units produced.

As has been pointed out several times already, a personal belief that Omega movements are not as good as Rolex does not constitute a "quality issue" within the scope of this thread.


----------



## sk0eric

biotechee said:


> Seriously cannot believe this thread is still going! Wow!
> 
> Now, did someone mention chocolate...?!


Stop the madness!


----------



## stevend101

OzO said:


> Wasnt it Jeremy Clarkson that said "the only thing worse than a fake Rolex is a real one" :-d


This was one of Clarkson's more memorable quotes. I also recall him saying one time that if you were ever to buy a Range Rover Sport, you would one day find yourself sitting at the lights next to a Range Rover Vogue and wishing you had paid the extra for the real one. I agreed with this at the time as I had the Vogue and it was worth the extra to me.

Anyways back to the comments regarding the Deep Sea and thats why I didn't buy the PO. Because one day I would be wearing my PO and sitting next to someone with a deep Sea and know I should just have paid the extra for the real one. Comparing the two the PO was just not at the races. The deep sea was therefore well worth the extra to me and I have found it on my wrist every day for the last few months.

With regards quality, this is pretty much subjective between all of the brands at this price point. Some elements have been recently changed on various models from each range, some for the better and some not.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

iinsic said:


> I understand completely what you are saying here. I just don't understand what any of it has to do with a thread that examines quality issues of contemporary Rolex and Omega offerings. Were ETA-based Omega movements less reliable than in-house Rolex movements, then I'd say you have just cause to belabor this point. But I am not aware that such is the case. The least reliable Omega calibres are the 2500C and the 3313, and that is a tremendously liberal definition of the phrase "least reliable," as these movements are amongst the most widely distributed movements made by either firm, and initial defects are quite rare as a percentage of total units produced.
> 
> As has been pointed out several times already, a personal belief that Omega movements are not as good as Rolex does not constitute a "quality issue" within the scope of this thread.


I never heard bad press on the 1120, 2500a, 2500b and 2500d but on the 33xx, it includes also the 3301,3303 and even 3603 which were also suffering of the fragility of their winding system and chrono resetting to zero mechanism.Now Omega is toe to toe with Rolex with the 8500 and the 9300, I hope marvels to come. The 8500 has nothing to envy to the 3185 or 3186. The 9300 has nothing to envy to the b01, to the rolex 4130 or the iwc 89360.


----------



## Chris_Himself

I feel that Georges has some valid points on "prestige" brands. You have to think of ETA as a hard-use workhorse movement. All those prestige brands you named have in-house movements which are expensive and difficult to service. Omega still builds the working man's watch and I will always consider it an equal to Rolex even though Rolex does their own movements which are equally easy to service.


----------



## JP Chestnut

RacingGreen said:


> I personally think that while build quality is likely to be comparable in terms of robustness, there is a lot more to the average (new) Omega. Cases will typically have a lot more finishing - not to mention the obvious gulf in case-backs. Movement technology is now more advanced - which is certainly not the be all and end all, but I think it's fair to note given Rolex previously use to score on the dubious merits of in-house vs ETA movements. _*Omega were well ahead on bracelets although Rolex have now caught up*_. In models where it applies, liquid metal rather outdoes rolex bezel innovations IMHO. Omega dials typically appear to have more detailing to my eye.
> 
> I genuinely believe then, that Omega offers more on average. And the fact that you can get an Hour Vision for less than a bog standard Datejust is almost comical, whatever brand cachet brings to the table.


The older style bracelets absolutely let down Rolex. The newer ones are finally reasonably nice.


----------



## aardvarkbark

You resurrected a 2-week-old thread that had become a discussion on the merits of the ETA movement to opine on the recent improvements in the Rolex bracelet? So cruel. Your Memorial Day weekend musta started early.


----------



## dj00tiek

I have to reply on this thread also. I think rolex has proven it's movements to be so durable and stable, which Omega couldn't have done yet with its 8500 inhouse movement. 

On the outside, it's all very hard steel and finish/detailling is both awesome, so not much difference there. Although i'v read more stories on Omega having a dust spot or whatever on there, then i'v read on Rolex. Maybe that's just because Omega watch enthausiasts are more critical and pay more attention to detail, and does Rolex have a more "I want a Rolex" fanbase (this is not flame intended but pure and only my opinion).


----------



## Mr.Kane

G-shock


----------



## Thomas Miko

dj00tiek said:


> ...Maybe that's just because Omega watch enthausiasts are more critical and pay more attention to detail, and does Rolex have a more "I want a Rolex" fanbase (this is not flame intended but pure and only my opinion).


Couldn't have said it better, myself! I am guilty of wanting a Rolex merely because I wanted the status and recognition. I was in my 20s. I see young guys today doing that with Panerais. You know that old joke about the car salesman who says, "Mercedes Benz: It's the Cadillac of cars!"? Well, Panerai is now the Rolex of watches. I inspected a hospital this week, and made sure to wear my PO Large, because I knew that the hospital would be full of WISs. On other days I wore my Doxa 600T because (a) it's a cool watch and (b) I don't care if the guy next to me on the train doesn't know what a Doxa is and is/is not impressed with my watch. Lots of Omegas, Rolexes, and TAGs (stop laughing) on my commuter train and most of these guys bought a high-end watch to impress others, not because they are WISs. The Rolex Owners here and other WUS forums are not representative of the overall Rolex owning population in their level of knowledge, etc.


----------



## devilva

Thomas Miko said:


> Couldn't have said it better, myself! I am guilty of wanting a Rolex merely because I wanted the status and recognition. I was in my 20s. I see young guys today doing that with Panerais. You know that old joke about the car salesman who says, "Mercedes Benz: It's the Cadillac of cars!"? Well, Panerai is now the Rolex of watches. I inspected a hospital this week, and made sure to wear my PO Large, because I knew that the hospital would be full of WISs. On other days I wore my Doxa 600T because (a) it's a cool watch and (b) I don't care if the guy next to me on the train doesn't know what a Doxa is and is/is not impressed with my watch. Lots of Omegas, Rolexes, and TAGs (stop laughing) on my commuter train and most of these guys bought a high-end watch to impress others, not because they are WISs.


I buy/wear watches for myself and not for status or recognition (99% of the time the watch is under a shirt or jacket anyway). You think too much about what other people think. Buy what you like, wear what you want. Its that easy.



> The Rolex Owners here and other WUS forums are not representative of the overall Rolex owning population in their level of knowledge, etc.


The same obviously can be said for Omega.


----------



## SMP89

Vakane said:


> like I said... we always get trolled on this threads
> 
> now who is better Justin bieber or lady gaga.... THATS A THREAD..


TRICK QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NEITHER!


----------



## Thomas Miko

devilva said:


> I buy/wear watches for myself and not for status or recognition (99% of the time the watch is under a shirt or jacket anyway). You think too much about what other people think. Buy what you like, wear what you want. Its that easy.
> The same obviously can be said for Omega.


That's why I wore quartz watches for 7 years, after the last time my GMT Master died. Since the title of this thread is Rolex vs Omega quality, let me just say that having that Rolex die on me every 4 years, then get charged ever-increasing sums of hundreds of dollarso|--often at the most inopportune moment, was why I swore never to own a mechanical Swiss watch, again. 
(1) I live and work in L.A., where it's all about what kind of car you drive, what neighborhood you live in, and what kind of watch you wear. The nerd physicists I work with in the department know nothing about watches. When we show up at hospitals with our equipment, the hospital employees look like they are employees of a luxury watch shop.
(2) I live in L.A., and wear short-sleeved shirts to work 12 months a year.b-)


----------



## hydrocarbon

I'm glad that Omega has the sense not to mess with the handwound acrylic Speedmaster too much, but both companies have issues. Between Omega's ridiculous product placements in Bond films, mindless limited editions, and vapid celebrity endorsements, and Rolex's design team that evidently consists of flat-brim-hat-wearing rappers, it's not a pretty picture.

Design snobbery aside, I've personally seen far more quality issues with newer Omegas than newer Rolexes. It stands to reason, since I don't expect much from Swatch Group in the first place. Omega's vintage ones are great, but there's no way I'd choose _any_ late-model Omega over a late-model non-ceramic steel Rolex sports watch, for both quality and desirability reasons.


----------



## 80talisten

hydrocarbon said:


> I'm glad that Omega has the sense not to mess with the handwound acrylic Speedmaster too much, but both companies have issues. Between Omega's ridiculous product placements in Bond films, mindless limited editions, and vapid celebrity endorsements, and Rolex's design team that evidently consists of flat-brim-hat-wearing rappers, it's not a pretty picture.


I can agree with what you write. It is a pity that the Omega run with that celebrity marketing, I think, considering how nice watches that Omega manufacturing and the excellent quality that Omega watches have, they could well hold its own with no mass celebrity nonsense.

This is the main reason that I rather buy Highend Seiko watches, where the focus is on the watches and the quality itself.

But that does not mean that it prevents me from drool over Omega divers like Ploprof 1200m or Planet Ocean 8500.


----------



## hydrocarbon

80talisten said:


> I can agree with what you write. It is a pity that the Omega run with that celebrity marketing, I think, considering how nice watches that Omega manufacturing and the excellent quality that Omega watches have, they could well hold its own with no mass celebrity nonsense.
> 
> This is the main reason that I rather buy Highend Seiko watches, where the focus is on the watches and the quality itself.
> 
> But that does not mean that it prevents me from drool over Omega divers like Ploprof 1200m or Planet Ocean 8500.


Thanks! I expect that we're going to be in the minority on this forum, but it's good to know that I'm not the only one who doesn't think Omega is all they try to puff themselves up to be - while selling their watches in half the suburban malls on the planet along with trinkets like Omega cologne and keychains. And then there's the whole thing with having a make-believe spy's agent number on the dial or the seconds hand; are they joking?

I'm not saying that modern Omegas are bad watches or anything, some are definitely decent and they do a respectable job when they want to. But compared to a proper non-bling Rolex, there's not even a debate as to which one to get if initial cost isn't the main issue. The market prices on used watches reflect it, end of story.


----------



## Mathew J

hydrocarbon said:


> I'm not saying that modern Omegas are bad watches or anything, some are definitely decent and they do a respectable job when they want to. But compared to a proper non-bling Rolex, there's not even a debate as to which one to get if initial cost isn't the main issue. The market prices on used watches reflect it, end of story.


Trollin trollin trollin....

Just to humor it I would respectfully disagree with your entire statement, but I openly admit this is completely subjective.


----------



## 80talisten

hydrocarbon said:


> Thanks! I expect that we're going to be in the minority on this forum, but it's good to know that I'm not the only one who doesn't think Omega is all they try to puff themselves up to be - while selling their watches in half the suburban malls on the planet along with trinkets like Omega cologne and keychains. And then there's the whole thing with having a make-believe spy's agent number on the dial or the seconds hand; are they joking?
> 
> I'm not saying that modern Omegas are bad watches or anything, some are definitely decent and they do a respectable job when they want to. But compared to a proper non-bling Rolex, there's not even a debate as to which one to get if initial cost isn't the main issue. The market prices on used watches reflect it, end of story.


You are right about the celbrity marketing, but Omega still makes fantastic watches and I will not say any more now. I do not want any trolling stamp here.


----------



## hydrocarbon

Mathew J said:


> Trollin trollin trollin....
> 
> Just to humor it I would respectfully disagree with your entire statement, but I openly admit this is completely subjective.


No trolling intended, it's just my take on present-day Omega. As I've said, I prefer their vintage models, but I think they still make some decent watches. And they're vastly preferable to other semi-well-known ETA-movement-heavy brands like TAG Heuer, for instance. My critique is meant constructively because I know they can do better in some areas. I like both, I wear both, but there's no way I'd personally opt for a new Omega over a well-looked-after used Rolex for similar money.

Obviously this is just my opinion on man-jewelry, which isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things. This is definitely subjective territory, which is why this discussion is endless on watch forums - although there's not much debate to be had (in my opinion). I do enjoy reading and considering different opinions; that's how I learn stuff.


----------



## GaryF

hydrocarbon said:


> But compared to a proper non-bling Rolex, *there's not even a debate as to which one to get* if initial cost isn't the main issue. The market prices on used watches reflect it, end of story.


I guess you missed the other 16 pages in this thread, then.
In my experience, those who are least open to debating a point are those who have the least to contribute.

As for the story ending with the prices on the used market, do you seriously think that this is entirely down to quality of the product? Nothing to do with the fact that Rolex have very cleverly developed one of the most recognised brands in the world? 
Plenty of companies make far better watches than Rolex without the residuals.


----------



## Mathew J

So in your eyes the "smart buyer" would easily select a base level Airking over say a Speedmaster pro or a Seamaster Pro?

I don't want to take a guess at this but having seen the lack of interest for the former, and the abundance of intrest for the two latter I would suggest that the market strongly disagrees with you.

Further putting Omega in the same bucket as "Other eta-movement heavy brands" to me suggests you're more than a little out of touch, especially given how few models which are now available actually rely on ETA movements in their stable.

And as for used market pricing, well if anything I have seen a steady increase for Omega there as well...however as Gary said, I feel much of this for Rolex was bourne of their marketing and price control efforts and not so much the quality of their product.

To each their own but as a contrast I would easily take a new Omega over a used Rolex any day of the week, and in many cases would take a new Omega over a new Rolex.

Further, to touch on your posts above, not that it is a statistically relevant sample, but personally I have read more posts around quality gripes with new Rolex watches than Omegas as of late...and personally have had a few less than stellar Rolex pieces whereas my lone Omega is flawless...

I think each company has their missteps, the big concern is how they handle them, and with Omega from everything I have read it appears they are moving in the right direction, whereas with Rolex I have read far too many recent not so good warranty reports to feel any level of comfort.



hydrocarbon said:


> No trolling intended, it's just my take on present-day Omega. As I've said, I prefer their vintage models, but I think they still make some decent watches. And they're vastly preferable to other semi-well-known ETA-movement-heavy brands like TAG Heuer, for instance. My critique is meant constructively because I know they can do better in some areas. I like both, I wear both, but there's no way I'd personally opt for a new Omega over a well-looked-after used Rolex for similar money.
> 
> Obviously this is just my opinion on man-jewelry, which isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things. This is definitely subjective territory, which is why this discussion is endless on watch forums - although there's not much debate to be had (in my opinion). I do enjoy reading and considering different opinions; that's how I learn stuff.


----------



## hydrocarbon

GaryF said:


> I guess you missed the other 16 pages in this thread, then.
> In my experience, those who are least open to debating a point are those who have the least to contribute.
> 
> As for the story ending with the prices on the used market, do you seriously think that this is entirely down to quality of the product? Nothing to do with the fact that Rolex have very cleverly developed one of the most recognised brands in the world?
> Plenty of companies make far better watches than Rolex without the residuals.


Definitely no illusions about the prices being directly linked to the quality itself, and I'm certainly not labouring under the misapprehension that Rolex is anywhere close to the top of the heap when it comes to horlogerie. Like Omega, they do a good job with robust, generally well-made, versatile watches that are popular for a reason. They both appeal to the masses, as well as people who are interested in the history and development of watches. It's nice to have options, and as I've said, I enjoy wearing both. I have a 1948 30T2-equipped Omega on my wrist as I type this and it's still beating like the day it was new, in fact.

You're right, though, there's not heaps that I - or anyone else - can contribute that hasn't been done ad infinitum on watch forums before. I say enjoy whatever you choose wear as part of a healthy, balanced life and use them as they were intended to be used!


----------



## hydrocarbon

Mathew J said:


> So in your eyes the "smart buyer" would easily select a base level Airking over say a Speedmaster pro or a Seamaster Pro?
> To each their own but as a contrast I would easily take a new Omega over a used Rolex any day of the week, and in many cases would take a new Omega over a new Rolex.
> [...]
> I think each company has their missteps, the big concern is how they handle them, and with Omega from everything I have read it appears they are moving in the right direction, whereas with Rolex I have read far too many recent not so good warranty reports to feel any level of comfort.


Thanks for the well-reasoned post. You have valid points all around, and I'm not keen on any current Rolex models either. I should mention that I'd take a vintage 321-equipped Speedmaster over _any_ new Rolex. The buying comment was strictly on my own behalf, not to generalize about a smart buyer. I would never claim to be a representative of a "smart" anything! I'm well aware that Omega is taking steps to distinguish itself mechanically from its Swatch Group stablemates lately, which is a positive development for the continued development of the mechanical watch. They certainly have the resources to do it.

Anyway, you are absolutely correct in your sig line about not being defined by products and how a brand is not a lifestyle. There is definitely a massive element of hype and marketing fluff when it comes to any mainstream watch company. I've met enough folks to know not to make any inferences based on what's on their wrist.


----------



## stevend101

Typical! Poster dares to suggest that Rolex might be better "subjectively" than Omega and the muppets come out in force. Cant remember the names of the two old guys in the box were called but on here they are Mathew J and Gary F.


----------



## iinsic

stevend101 said:


> Typical! Poster dares to suggest that Rolex might be better "subjectively" than Omega and the muppets come out in force. Cant remember the names of the two old guys in the box were called but on here they are Mathew J and Gary F.


Ummmm ... Rule 2.


----------



## GaryF

I didn't object to anything "subjective". Try reading it again.
Also, try reading the rules and guidelines -particularly rule 2- so that no one has to waste their time giving you an infraction.



stevend101 said:


> Typical! Poster dares to suggest that Rolex might be better "subjectively" than Omega and the muppets come out in force. Cant remember the names of the two old guys in the box were called but on here they are Mathew J and Gary F.


----------



## Mystro

Owning both Omega and Rolex....Both watches are of equal quality but you get more watch and a fresher design with Omega. The PO is the way to go if you want a SS diver. Gold and platinum go Rolex. Rolex"s SS models are way over priced.


----------



## weaverthebeaver

Both make amazing watches. Only difference is, if you buy the Rolex you will be perceived as an 'in your face' rich dude wannabe fake, whilst with an Omega you will be perceived as someone who has quiet classy taste for a beautiful timepiece.

If you don't care about perception, then get what you want. Either watch will make you happy. 

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Taswell

Are red M&Ms better than yellow?


----------



## iinsic

Mystro said:


> Owning both Omega and Rolex....Both watches are of equal quality but you get more watch and a fresher design with Omega. The PO is the way to go if you want a SS diver. Gold and platinum go Rolex. Rolex"s SS models are way over priced.


That is because Rolex's business model prefers precious metal watches over stainless steel. Rolex has its own specialized foundry and creates its own gold and platinum alloys (including their proprietary Everose pink gold, which includes platinum in the alloy to create a lighter-colored, harder gold).

As a consequence, Rolex tightly controls the production of SS watches and attaches a price tag that, admittedly, is quite high, especially compared to their precious metal counterparts. Because of that, certain SS watches are in higher demand than their two-tone or solid gold counterparts, especially when dealers add a premium to the price for hard-to-find models. A good example is the Daytona, which frequently can be bought in two-tone for the same (or sometimes even less) than a stainless model, despite the TT model listing for almost 42% more than the SS model.

I suspect the only real exception is the Sea Dweller Deepsea, which likely is a more expensive watch to produce - as a percentage of its selling price - than the Submariner or other stainless sport watches. Once we know the pricing for the Deepsea Challenge, we likely will find the same applies to it as well. Neither of these watches was designed to be sold in precious metals.

Clearly, Omega excels in providing a high-quality stainless watch that is not artificially overpriced to spur greater interest in two-tone or solid gold models. In fact, Omega is pulling back somewhat on the two-tone models, offering only gold highlights on otherwise all-stainless watches. That, frankly, is a good strategy, because Omega could not be equally profitable selling watches made with precious metals, given Rolex's metalurgical vertical integration.

Of course, none of the foregoing has _anything_ to do with the _quality_ of either brand. ;-)


----------



## dlhussain

edb4164 said:


> IMHO the Omega's are built and finished just as nicely as Rolex watches are. Accept a Rolex is much more expensive because of the brand.


And Rolex uses higher grade steel which makes the cost of making the watch relatively more...


----------



## stevend101

weaverthebeaver said:


> Both make amazing watches. Only difference is, if you buy the Rolex you will be perceived as an 'in your face' rich dude wannabe fake, whilst with an Omega you will be perceived as someone who has quiet classy taste for a beautiful timepiece.
> 
> If you don't care about perception, then get what you want. Either watch will make you happy.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2


Both make amazing watches. Only difference is, if you buy the Omega you will be perceived as an 'in your face' rich dude wannabe fake, whilst with an Rolex you will be perceived as someone who has quiet classy taste for a beautiful timepiece.

If you don't care about perception, then get what you want. Either watch will make you happy.

See what I did there? Now both of the above statements could be true.


----------



## Mathew J

stevend101 said:


> Typical! Poster dares to suggest that Rolex might be better "subjectively" than Omega and the muppets come out in force. Cant remember the names of the two old guys in the box were called but on here they are Mathew J and Gary F.


Klassy....interesting is the guy who I actually commented on seemingly has less of an issue with my post that you do, also subjective yes but it didn't read that way, it read as a statement of fact, basically stating that only reason to consider an Omega to Rolex is based off cost savings....had he said something to the effect of "for me buying an Omega is only an exercise in cost savings" then my reply would have been very different.

But given the nature of your reply I highly doubt reason is a top consideration for you.


----------



## Mystro

All do respect. The home team is OMEGA. You are on a *OMEGA FORUM*. If you don't like the answer, then leave. Or better yet, pony up and buy both and you won't have to choose. Live with both and then form a opinion which is a better watch. I would bet if you owned both you wouldn't care.


----------



## GinGinD

weaverthebeaver said:


> if you buy the Rolex you will be perceived as an 'in your face' rich dude wannabe fake


Oh, dear. Guess I missed that memo. ;-) :-d

Jeannie


----------



## aardvarkbark

hydrocarbon said:


> .... and Rolex's design team that evidently consists of flat-brim-hat-wearing rappers....


Based on their respective offerings at BaselWorld this year, I'd argue that Omega's design team still puts a healthy curve in their brims...


----------



## stevend101

Mathew J said:


> But given the nature of your reply I highly doubt reason is a top consideration for you.


Says the guy who immediately accused the poster of being a troll when his opinions didn't entirely match your own. Lol


----------



## stevend101

Mystro said:


> All do respect. The home team is OMEGA. You are on a *OMEGA FORUM*. If you don't like the answer, then leave. Or better yet, pony up and buy both and you won't have to choose. Live with both and then form a opinion which is a better watch. I would bet if you owned both you wouldn't care.


With respect to you it was not the answer I objected to, but the dismissive rebutle of the guys opinion, just because it didn't match their own. There is a history of this happening on here, but that doesn't make it right.

So, I'm on the Omega forum and should only post if I have either something positive to say about Omega or something negative to say about other brands. Mmmm! Ok I stand corrected.


----------



## weaverthebeaver

stevend101 said:


> Both make amazing watches. Only difference is, if you buy the Omega you will be perceived as an 'in your face' rich dude wannabe fake, whilst with an Rolex you will be perceived as someone who has quiet classy taste for a beautiful timepiece.
> 
> If you don't care about perception, then get what you want. Either watch will make you happy.
> 
> See what I did there? Now both of the above statements could be true.


Only difference is most none WUS people don't really know of Omega. Whilst most people's reactions to Rolex are negative I.e he/she is only wearing it to rub in your face their 'supposed' wealth.

As a wise man once said. "If I see someone wearing a Rolex, I think.... either it is fake or the person is..."

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2


----------



## GaryF

stevend101 said:


> With respect to you it was not the answer I objected to, but the dismissive rebutle of the guys opinion, just because it didn't match their own. There is a history of this happening on here, but that doesn't make it right.
> 
> So, I'm on the Omega forum and should only post if I have either something positive to say about Omega or something negative to say about other brands. Mmmm! Ok I stand corrected.


When someone states an opinion with which you disagree using phrases like "there's no debate" then of course people are going to offer a rebuttal, and probably in a dismissive way since that is how every single poster here was treated in the original remark. Are they supposed to agree out of politeness? 
In this thread alone there is a huge amount of disagreement expressed, tolerated and responded to in an adult way.

I'm not sure what you think is the point of this kind of discussion or why you are hanging around with nothing to add but snarky comments. If you want to contribute to the discussion at hand, please do so. If you are just here to try and start a fight, please, don't.


----------



## GaryF

weaverthebeaver said:


> Only difference is most none WUS people don't really know of Omega. Whilst most people's reactions to Rolex are negative I.e he/she is only wearing it to rub in your face their 'supposed' wealth.
> 
> *As a wise man once said. "If I see someone wearing a Rolex, I think.... either it is fake or the person is...*"
> 
> Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2


I'm not sure how "wise" that man is. I would hope that he'd be wise enough not to say that to me when I'm wearing mine.


----------



## weaverthebeaver

GaryF said:


> I'm not sure how "wise" that man is. I would hope that he'd be wise enough not to say that to me when I'm wearing mine.


I think this wise man was also a kung fu master.

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Mystro

Has this thread ran its course yet??? Time to close perhaps.....


----------



## stevend101

weaverthebeaver said:


> Only difference is most none WUS people don't really know of Omega. Whilst most people's reactions to Rolex are negative I.e he/she is only wearing it to rub in your face their 'supposed' wealth.
> 
> As a wise man once said. "If I see someone wearing a Rolex, I think.... either it is fake or the person is..."
> 
> Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2


It is my experience that the only place I have heard anything negative said about Rolex is on this here forum. Out in the wild I have never heard anything at all. The perception may be more balanced than you might imagine as many of my "none WUS" friends wear Omega. Bond appeal.

As for the wise man comment, this may be the first and only time Jeremy Clarkson has been referred to as such.


----------



## GaryF

Until the last day or so, I was amazed at how we had gone so long without the usual pettiness and insults. Something of a record for this subject. Now you may be right. 
I'll call forth the other mod' spirits to the Temple of Justice and see what they will.



Mystro said:


> Has this thread ran its course yet??? Time to close perhaps.....


----------



## stevend101

GaryF said:


> When someone states an opinion with which you disagree using phrases like "there's no debate" then of course people are going to offer a rebuttal, and probably in a dismissive way since that is how every single poster here was treated in the original remark. Are they supposed to agree out of politeness?
> In this thread alone there is a huge amount of disagreement expressed, tolerated and responded to in an adult way.
> 
> I'm not sure what you think is the point of this kind of discussion or why you are hanging around with nothing to add but snarky comments. If you want to contribute to the discussion at hand, please do so. If you are just here to try and start a fight, please, don't.


Not trying to start a fight at all, I just don't like the way your responses came across. So I said so.

As for me hanging around, I do not intentionally search out the Omega forum. My interest in watches is broad so I just read thru the latest posts and contribute as I see fit. If I could exclude the Omega forum I would as I gain nothing positive from it at all.


----------



## Zidane

stevend101 said:


> Not trying to start a fight at all, I just don't like the way your responses came across. So I said so.
> 
> As for me hanging around, I do not intentionally search out the Omega forum. My interest in watches is broad so I just read thru the latest posts and contribute as I see fit. If I could exclude the Omega forum I would as I gain nothing positive from it at all.


Which post(s) came across the wrong way?


----------



## weaverthebeaver

GaryF said:


> Until the last day or so, I was amazed at how we had gone so long without the usual pettiness and insults. Something of a record for this subject. Now you may be right.
> I'll call forth the other mod' spirits to the Temple of Justice and see what they will.


Aside from the kung fu comment, no pettiness intended. The original question was Rolex V Omega build quality, such a damned hard question to answer, as they are both so good.

My point was not just to focus on one thing, but to take another factor into account and that's perception of the brand. Perception bothers some, others don't care, but it still needs to ne evaluated.

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jimshockz

GaryF said:


> I'm not sure how "wise" that man is. I would hope that he'd be wise enough not to say that to me when I'm wearing mine.


Thats how it should be,I agree mind ones business,if you dont like what you see then dont look,to the haters out there.:-d

-JS


----------



## Mystro

We all know how threads on this topic usually end up.... It's like riding in a car with no brakes on a sheet of ice. Sooner or later we are going to crash. It just depends on how bad the damage will be to the spirit of the forum at the end of the ride.



GaryF said:


> Until the last day or so, I was amazed at how we had gone so long without the usual pettiness and insults. Something of a record for this subject. Now you may be right.
> I'll call forth the other mod' spirits to the Temple of Justice and see what they will.


----------



## iinsic

GaryF said:


> Until the last day or so, I was amazed at how we had gone so long without the usual pettiness and insults. Something of a record for this subject. Now you may be right.
> I'll call forth the other mod' spirits to the Temple of Justice and see what they will.


This is not my thread, but it has been something of a point of honor that the Omega forum could host such a spirited discussion with relatively little rancor but lots of useful information. That's why I have both marveled at - and hoped for - its longevity.

Sadly, it is so long that it has gained "TLDR" status with some of the newer arrivals. Many recent comments would seem to confirm that ... and confirm the sagacity of George Santayana. So - reluctantly - I agree that the thread perhaps has run its course. A shame, really. :-(


----------



## weaverthebeaver

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2


----------



## aardvarkbark

I was hoping this would become a thrilling ultimate three-way smack-down between lvt, georges and a kung fu master. Would've been a fitting conclusion.


----------



## jaytaylor

LOL, this old dinosaur still beating?!?!?

These threads have an amazing ability to attract trolls, like flys to @#$t


----------



## Mathew J

stevend101 said:


> Says the guy who immediately accused the poster of being a troll when his opinions didn't entirely match your own. Lol


it wasn't as much about the opinion as it was the delivery...and unlike you I contributed more to my point to explain my stance, so much so that the OP got engaged in the discussion further.



stevend101 said:


> It is my experience that the only place I have heard anything negative said about Rolex is on this here forum. Out in the wild I have never heard anything at all. The perception may be more balanced than you might imagine as many of my "none WUS" friends wear Omega. Bond appeal.
> 
> As for the wise man comment, this may be the first and only time Jeremy Clarkson has been referred to as such.


I really have read this same malarkey like a million times bleated by the Rolex apologists and kool aid drinkers abound...but having been on these here forums for upwards of 12 years now I can say for certain Omega fans are far more tolerant of the mention of Rolex and greatness than die hard Rolex zealots are of Omega even being remotely placed in the same space as their beloved crown...try starting a "my Omega is just as nice or better than my Rolex" thread in a Rolex forum and see what happens and how civil that discussion remains.

I really do feel the Omega crowed are much more accepting and willing to acknowledge other brands and their strong points which is what makes this community great.


----------



## Chibatastic

Mathew J said:


> try starting a "my Omega is just as nice or better than my Rolex" thread in a Rolex forum and see what happens and how civil that discussion remains.
> 
> I really do feel the Omega crowed are much more accepting and willing to acknowledge other brands and their strong points which is what makes this community great.


Now I think that would be an interesting experiment, Matthew.
Perhaps on Rolex Forums - Rolex Watch Forum as the Rolex forum here on wus isn't as populated.. Once it's locked or exceeds 2 or 3 pages we could compare attitudes and discuss the quality of Omega / Rolex personalities 

Chibatastic


----------



## devilva

Chibatastic said:


> Now I think that would be an interesting experiment, Matthew.
> Perhaps on Rolex Forums - Rolex Watch Forum as the Rolex forum here on wus isn't as populated.. Once it's locked or exceeds 2 or 3 pages we could compare attitudes and discuss the quality of Omega / Rolex personalities
> 
> Chibatastic


Thats actually the opposite to what ive found in regards to the different brand communities. There are countless threads on here (WUS Omega) with (what I like to call little man syndrome) people belittling the brand Rolex at any chance they can get and sitting Omega on some pedestal like it was god's gift to watches.

Where as you go to the Rolex communities (TRF) and to be honest I cant even recall anyone bad mouthing Omega to try and elevate Rolex like what happens here. Most of the guys are just happy with whatever watch they own and dont feel the need to sh*t on any other brands or choices people make. I mean saying this place is tolerant of all brands is laughable. To me its off putting being an Omega fan and being represented by so many tools.


----------



## Thomas Miko

stevend101 said:


> It is my experience that the only place I have heard anything negative said about Rolex is on this here forum. Out in the wild I have never heard anything at all...


Check the date that I wrote "Confessions of a former Rolex owner" on my blog and compare that to when I joined WUS. At the time I had no serious i.e. realistic plans of ever buying an Omega, and was wearing an Ollech & Wajs 3095.


----------



## Chibatastic

devilva said:


> Thats actually the opposite to what ive found in regards to the different brand communities. There are countless threads on here (WUS Omega) with (what I like to call little man syndrome) people belittling the brand Rolex at any chance they can get and sitting Omega on some pedestal like it was god's gift to watches.
> 
> Where as you go to the Rolex communities (TRF) and to be honest I cant even recall anyone bad mouthing Omega to try and elevate Rolex like what happens here. Most of the guys are just happy with whatever watch they own and dont feel the need to sh*t on any other brands or choices people make. I mean saying this place is tolerant of all brands is laughable. To me its off putting being an Omega fan and being represented by so many tools.


Like I said, an interesting experiment


----------



## GaryF

Okay. I think this one has officially turned to plops. RIP our best chance of a rolling Omega/Rolex thread. Closing.


----------

