# Speedmaster Vs. Submariner



## Tyrannesaurus Rose

Clash of the titans. Granted they serve different purposes, they seem to be the two most iconic of sports watches. While I cherish my Sub, my vote goes to Speedy. So timeless and unpretentious.










How about you?

b-)


----------



## Heat

Sppedy for me:-! It has even been on the surface of Moon:-d


----------



## DaveInLA

I have both these watches. I created a thread several months ago asking which one I should get, and decided on the Sub because I felt it was more "classic" of the two. I dont' regret that decision at all (though I wonder if I should've gotten a GMT Master II at times), but then went out and bought a Speedy Pro shortly after. 

I'm more intrigued by the Speedy for whatever reason. It's the more interesting watch, IMO. Don't know if it's better-- that's debateable-- but it is more fascinating.


----------



## 23fengshui

I think they are equal. If I had to choose... I still don't know.


----------



## Cujucuyo

Speedmaster, I'd take a Speedy over a Submariner any day.


----------



## Mike1066

I'd go for the sub over the Speedy. I'm a water-oriented guy, not an air-oriented guy. Don't get me wrong though, the Speed is iconic and a fantastic looking watch.


----------



## teeritz

No self-respecting collector should be without either of these two watches. Even if you only own them for a week, at least you can say that you've been there, done that, and gotten it out of your system. I have a Speedy, but I have wanted a Submariner since I was a kid and have thus elevated this watch to mythic status in my subconcious.
The Speedmaster took me a few weeks to love. Then I looked at it one day to see the time and it all made perfect sense to me. Classic '60s chronograph, even if you remove the NASA/Moon-landing association.
I still don't have a Sub due to its price, whether new or second-hand, but I'll get one someday.
I just hope that after all the yearning for it, I don't wind up buying it, slipping it over my wrist and thinking-"Gee, it's just a watch."
I doubt that'll happen.

teeritz


----------



## AIKO

Sub by far for me.


----------



## Cujucuyo

teeritz said:


> No self-respecting collector should be without either of these two watches.


That I agree, that's why I have both! :-d However the guys over at the Rolex forum would kill me if they found out I had my AD remove the cyclops from the Subs' crystal. Can someone say lynching [j/k ;-)]? :-x


----------



## zeppelin

Cujucuyo said:


> That I agree, that's why I have both! :-d However the guys over at the Rolex forum would kill me if they found out I had my AD remove the cyclops from the Subs' crystal. Can someone say lynching [j/k ;-)]? :-x


Personally, I just don't _get _the Sub.

There are countless watches I would rather wear before a Sub, and they are probably all cheaper, too.


----------



## Cujucuyo

zeppelin said:


> Personally, I just don't _get _the Sub.
> 
> There are countless watches I would rather wear before a Sub, and they are probably all cheaper, too.


Well it's an iconic watch, worn by James Bond in Dr.No [Goldfinger as well if I'm not mistaken]. Besides, it's a model that almost everyone grew up to like, I used to see it in National Geographic as a kid on the Ads it had between pages and fell in love with it. :think:


----------



## Texcowboy9

I love my Sub! I had a Speedy Reduced and sold it, I would like to try on a Speedy Pro though. :think:


----------



## Presario

teeritz said:


> No self-respecting collector should be without either of these two watches. Even if you only own them for a week, at least you can say that you've been there, done that, and gotten it out of your system. I have a Speedy, but I have wanted a Submariner since I was a kid and have thus elevated this watch to mythic status in my subconcious.
> The Speedmaster took me a few weeks to love. Then I looked at it one day to see the time and it all made perfect sense to me. Classic '60s chronograph, even if you remove the NASA/Moon-landing association.
> I still don't have a Sub due to its price, whether new or second-hand, but I'll get one someday.
> I just hope that after all the yearning for it, I don't wind up buying it, slipping it over my wrist and thinking-"Gee, it's just a watch."
> I doubt that'll happen.
> 
> teeritz


Teeritz,

my sentiments are very similar to yours. I've wanted one for as long as I can remember. I'm waiting to see the 2010 iteration before I pick one up.


----------



## teeritz

Presario said:


> Teeritz,
> 
> my sentiments are very similar to yours. I've wanted one for as long as I can remember. I'm waiting to see the 2010 iteration before I pick one up.


Presario, if I could afford it, I'd get a 5513/5512 or 1680 model from the eighties. I grew up seeing those models advertised in National Geographic, Reader's Digest and TIME Magazine all my early life (I spent a lot of time in doctor's waiting rooms back then). But the prices of these watches have skyrocketed in the last ten years and I have a hard time convincing myself to spend more than four or five grand on a watch. In actual fact, it was the GMT Master that got me hooked. Until I realised that I had no real need for a watch with two time zones. Also, being a Bond fan from way back, once I realised that he wore the Sub, then that settled it. But I draw the line at going for the exact same model that Connery wore in "Dr No" because that model is both rare and expensive. I could buy myself a nice Triumph Bonneville for the price of that watch. Of course, I should probably get riding lessons first. ;-)
I'll get a Sub one day, but I think I'll have to move quite a few watches to do so.
Ah well, at least I'm not shooting the money up my arm, as my darling wife once said. It took her about ten years to give in to the fact that watches are my main (and expensive) hobby.
Regarding the 2010 model, if it's going to be along the same lines as the Deep Sea,then I hate it already.

teeritz


----------



## GJ

I am also *very* lucky to own both the Speedmaster and the Submariner.
Both classic timepieces with a shipload of history.
What I also like about the both of them that they still look very similar to the original design, very little has changed.
So, both excellent movements, both a fantastic design, both a shipload of history and not too forget, both extremely comfy on the wrist..:-!


----------



## Deucer

Deleted.


----------



## vbuskirk

I don't get the sub either (or the James Bond infatuation). Speedy for me! :-!


----------



## Anthony

So, the participants, few words before my judgement, (owning both of them)

IMHO, 
1) Rolex submariner presents very very durable, reliable and good movement, the whole watch is a "tank of a watch", waterproof with sapphire crystal. Its kinda "live and let it hang on your wrist the rest of your life with amazing precision" -watch.

2) Omega Speedmaster Professional, very elegant and beautiful chronometer, tried and proven , excellent movement. While not as tank as submariner, and does not give THAT secure feeling, it is very relialble and has very easy readable dial, not to mention its history.

So I have to say its very tough call ! ITs so tough that I need to show some percentages of how much I like them over other watches, 100% being full love :

Citizen 2%
Casio 2%
Seiko 3%
Breitling 4%
Sinn 6%
Omega Speedmaster Professional 96%
Rolex Submariner 96%

So as you can see, its tie. But If I would have to choose only one.....well, even for my own suprisement, my vote would go to *Speedmaster Professional.*


----------



## WIS_Chronomaster

My thoughts >>

I dont own a Submariner (Yet), i do own a 3510.50 Speedmaster which is more suited to me than the professional, to choose between the 2 i have which is a Rolex DateJust and a Speedmaster, would be very difficult. I like the Rolex DateJust because simply i think its a fine watch always Has been and always will be and the way the piece looks appeals to me more than anything else. The Speedmaster i like that watch due to its styling, the Chronograph function and the overall fit of the watch does it for me. Now to choose between either one of them im 50/50 i really cant decide which i would rather have or not have in this case.

My 2

Speedmaster









Rolex


----------



## raydin

This'll help...hehe. Sold the Sub to fund my BMW. Kept the Speedy though.



















Enjoy.


----------



## Tyrannesaurus Rose

Love these responses so far. I think the reason why these two stand above the others is, like many have mentioned, the fact that they have stuck to a formula and have just run with it for decades. The movement is time proven, as is the aesthetic. Both companies have subscribed to "KISS"- Keep It Simple Stupid. Perhaps design sensibilities were just stronger in the 50's and 60's, but think about it. A black dial with white contrasting markers- how can you go wrong with that? Despite my allegiance with the Speedy, I must say that these two compliment each other. When viewed side by side, it appears almost as if they were made by the same brilliant company. Either way, I'd say if you want a diver, get a Sub. If you want a chronograph, get a Speedmaster. Their popularity is completely justified in my mind.


----------



## jmsrolls

Cujucuyo said:


> That I agree, that's why I have both! :-d However the guys over at the Rolex forum would kill me if they found out I had my AD remove the cyclops from the Subs' crystal. Can someone say lynching [j/k ;-)]? :-x


Have no fear! Overall the response to my EXPII on the Rolex forums has been favorable:









Fr. John†


----------



## vbuskirk

Ummm sorry, I made a mistake above. Sigh, "Submariner" not "Seamaster". That's what I get for scanning the forum while I'm supposed to be working. (sorry SMP fans; but, what do I know anyway?)

Okay yes, I guess I do "get the sub", but it is still speedy for me. :-!


--
just "Idiot" (no 'W', no 'S')


----------



## beebox

i will choose the sub over the speedie just because of the water resistant it offers.

The speedmaster is a beautiful watch, but to wear it and worry about getting wet is really a turn off.


----------



## esm

both variants are fine timepieces.

i have both - just a Sub LV and a Speedy Date (blue dial).
both great watches, and love them all.
i prefer the bracelet on the speedy date than the sub LV. it is much more comfortable to wear.

you cant go wrong with either one:-!










ps - thats my wife's white dial speedy date


----------



## dlite1873

Submariner :-!


----------



## eptaz

They're both fantastic, supremely rugged, iconic watches. I've worn a Speedy almost every day for years, and I'm currently failing my third attempt to introduce a Sub into the rotation. As much as I can appreciate it, I have problems that I really can't identify. Maybe the Sub's too shiny? A bit flashy? I really don't know. It's no more flashy than modern Omega divers (which I can't warm up to, either). Maybe I should try harder this time...

eric


----------



## AAP

eptaz said:


> They're both fantastic, supremely rugged, iconic watches. I've worn a Speedy almost every day for years, and I'm currently failing my third attempt to introduce a Sub into the rotation. As much as I can appreciate it, I have problems that I really can't identify. Maybe the Sub's too shiny? A bit flashy? I really don't know. It's no more flashy than modern Omega divers (which I can't warm up to, either). Maybe I should try harder this time...
> 
> eric


What's the definition of insanity again?:think:b-)


----------



## eptaz

AAP said:


> What's the definition of insanity again?:think:b-)


Does it have something to do with driving without pants?

I know...I know...

eric


----------



## GMT-II

Is speedmaster still self winding only?


----------



## OddE

GMT-II said:


> Is speedmaster still self winding only?


-The Speedy Pro is manual-wind. The Reduced is an auto.

As far as the theme of the thread goes, I'd really like to have both at some point - watches simply don't get much more iconic than either of them.

If I had to choose, I'd go with the Speedy - basically, I already have a couple of excellent divers (The Breitling Chrono Shark and my PO), whereas I could really use another dress watch. IMHO, few watches are as versatile as a Speedy Pro, whether you are going out for a barbecue and a few beers or to an inaugural ball in D.C. - it doesn't look out of place.


----------



## 3Dials

I love this photo!  The only one I have from this picture is the Marathon GSAR though. I'm working on a Speedy, but the Seamaster is nice too. Hmm...



raydin said:


> This'll help...hehe. Sold the Sub to fund my BMW. Kept the Speedy though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy.


----------



## M4tt

> Does it have something to do with driving without pants?


Nope, that's the definition of discomfort!


----------



## jnewell

Both are iconic, but they were designed for different purposes and have different (but in my opinion equally significant) functional and historical appeal. 

One thing - if you want a Sub, you need to reach back to the pre-sapphire days when acrylic reigned. ;-)


----------



## es335

Anthony said:


> So, the participants, few words before my judgement, (owning both of them)
> 
> IMHO,
> 1) Rolex submariner presents very very durable, reliable and good movement, the whole watch is a "tank of a watch", waterproof with sapphire crystal. Its kinda "live and let it hang on your wrist the rest of your life with amazing precision" -watch.
> 
> 2) Omega Speedmaster Professional, very elegant and beautiful chronometer, tried and proven , excellent movement. While not as tank as submariner, and does not give THAT secure feeling, it is very relialble and has very easy readable dial, not to mention its history.
> [/B]


Not sure I would call a modern day Sub "a tank." If you drop a modern day Submariner from a height of 4 feet onto a kitchen floor, the sapphire crystal will explode.

The Speedy has been to the moon. That's pretty darn rugged.


----------



## Xaltotun

For the kind of dough you have to fork for a Submariner, I'd buy a Sapphire Sandwich Speedy instead!

Rolex has nice watches, but there is something about the brand that screams "_nouveau riche_" and that is a turn off. Well, maybe except the Air King (blue dial).


----------



## Cujucuyo

es335 said:


> Not sure I would call a modern day Sub "a tank." If you drop a modern day Submariner from a height of 4 feet onto a kitchen floor, the sapphire crystal will explode.
> 
> The Speedy has been to the moon. That's pretty darn rugged.


+1

My speedy had gone 35 years without the need of being serviced [bought in 1972] until the winding spring [I think that's what it's called] snapped and I couldn't wind it anymore in 2007... it has gone through West Point, Airborne, Ranger and Green Beret training, the Civil War in El Salvador strapped to my fathers wrist, even during combat lol, and the biggest test of all, my teen years when it was given to me on my 14th Birthday :-d. If the speedy is not built like a tank then I don't know what it is. ;-)

I love my 16610 too, but I wouldn't say it's that tough. Hell, I chipped my 16803 crystal [very, very tiny chip] a few weeks ago while partying on the beach... :-(


----------



## kingsford911

So much has already been said so well and definitely both is the way to go but first things first. The Sub was first........


----------



## Buzz

kingsford911 said:


> So much has already been said so well and definitely both is the way to go but first things first. The Sub was first........


That's right. It's hard to say anything new.
Personally, I'd pick the Speedy, as I have enough divers, I believe!

I remember an article in the Australian GQ mag a while back pointing out THE 4 ICONIC watches, it referred also to these 4 as Signature watches.
A safe bet, for any watch buyer.

1. Rolex Sub
2. Omega Speedmaster Pro.
3. Cartier Santos
4. Tag Heuer Monaco

I reckon a lot of appeal of these 4 are due to the fact that they are designed purely as a reading instrument, and maybe little regard for the 'fashion' of the day. (with exception of the Heuer) and thus, have stood the test of time.
Just my thoughts... Interesting topic! :roll:


----------



## josephc78

I would choose a Speedy over a Sub.

While it is a classic, I feel that the asking price of the Sub is just too high to justify it. 

Moreover, I guess that seeing so many fake Subs on the street makes me a little bit more hesitant to get one, granted that there are fake Speedys as well but for some reason, I find it easy to tell between a fake Speedy and a real one but have a harder time distinguishing a fake and a real Sub.


----------



## es335

Another problem with the modern day sub is that they ruined the tool watch appearance by adding white gold to the hour indices in the 1980s.

In contrast, the Speedy retains matte dial with zero cheesy white gold indices.

If the choice was between a 5513 and a Speedy, it would be a tougher choice.

But new Sub vs new Speedy--but vote goes for the Speedy.


----------



## Anthony

Cujucuyo said:


> +1
> 
> My speedy had gone 35 years without the need of being serviced [bought in 1972] until the winding spring [I think that's what it's called] snapped and I couldn't wind it anymore in 2007... it has gone through West Point, Airborne, Ranger and Green Beret training, the Civil War in El Salvador strapped to my fathers wrist, even during combat lol, and the biggest test of all, my teen years when it was given to me on my 14th Birthday :-d. If the speedy is not built like a tank then I don't know what it is. ;-)


Whoa, thats a great story! I am interested to know, what kind of strap/bracelet combo it had during that so extensive wear ? Did the original bracelet really held and stay intact in Airborne, Ranger, Greenberet training?


----------



## Cujucuyo

Anthony said:


> Whoa, thats a great story! I am interested to know, what kind of strap/bracelet combo it had during that so extensive wear ? Did the original bracelet really held and stay intact in Airborne, Ranger, Greenberet training?


Glad you liked it, my father never changed the bracelet, I think it came with the *Ref. 1450 Bracelet*:




























*Pictures borrowed from: http://www.omega-addict.com/reviews/bracelets/*

The Bracelet is very lightweight but very sturdy as well, it does open from time to time now due to wear, I don't believe it was like this all the time or it would've been a pain to have during all it went through. 

Edit:

Here's a pic I took last year, I don't have any more recent pics:










https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=208912


----------



## FrankinCA

*Submariner>>>*

I prefer autos to manual wind. I don't have a Speedy Pro. It will probably be my next Omega. That said, my Submariner is one of my favorite watches, right along with my Planet Ocean.

In general, I prefer dive watches.

best,

Frank


----------



## Anthony

Cujucuyo said:


> Glad you liked it, my father never changed the bracelet, it came with the *Ref. 1450 Bracelet*:
> Here's a pic I took last year, I don't have any more recent pics:


Hmm..1450 bracelet came in markets 1980, so it could not be on your fathers watch when he bought the watch 1972.

Anyway, nice photo, lets see more !


----------



## Cujucuyo

Anthony said:


> Hmm..1450 bracelet came in markets 1980, so it could not be on your fathers watch when he bought the watch 1972.
> 
> Anyway, nice photo, lets see more !


Thanks! That's odd since that's the bracelet it always had, I *think* it's the 1450, I don't know the bracelet Ref to be honest, so I just Googled 'speedmaster bracelets' and put the one that looked like it, lol, he bought it in West Point in 1972, I still have the receipt and original box somewhere I need to look for it... :think:


----------



## AIKO

Good job digging up a 6 month old thread. Sub by a mile, not even close.


----------



## Cujucuyo

Thread was revived 3 days ago by someone else. :roll:


----------



## Anthony

Cujucuyo said:


> Thanks! That's odd since that's the bracelet it always had, I *think* it's the 1450, I don't know the bracelet Ref to be honest, so I just Googled 'speedmaster bracelets' and put the one that looked like it, lol, he bought it in West Point in 1972, I still have the receipt and original box somewhere I need to look for it... :think:


You may want to take a look at the clasp, i believe it should NOT say "Speedmaster" on top of it engraved...

I think the bracelet could well be 1171 !


----------



## Cujucuyo

Anthony said:


> You may want to take a look at the clasp, i believe it should NOT say "Speedmaster" on top of it engraved...
> 
> I think the bracelet could well be 1171 !


Oh my, you're absolutely right, how careless of me. It doesn't have Speedmaster engraved on it, here's a pic I just took, sorry, I don't have a camera right now [but not to worry I just ordered one 20min ago, lol] so my notebook's cam will have to suffice for now:










Thank you for pointing it out.


----------



## Anthony

Cujucuyo said:


> Oh my, you're absolutely right, how careless of me. It doesn't have Speedmaster engraved on it, here's a pic I just took


Just for the heck of it, take a look INSIDE the clasp, there should be the model number engraved. Maybe its 1171 (not 1171/1) or then something even more older....


----------



## Presario

Both are so iconic it's hard to choose. You can't lose either way! :-!


----------



## Cujucuyo

Anthony said:


> Just for the heck of it, take a look INSIDE the clasp, there should be the model number engraved. Maybe its 1171 (not 1171/1) or then something even more older....


Yes, it says 1171.


----------



## es335

AIKO said:


> Good job digging up a 6 month old thread. Sub by a mile, not even close.


Reasons?


----------



## Hansch99

I'd go with the Sub. The lacquer dial, applied markers, automatic movement, thickness (thin-ness, rather), and water resistance set it apart for me. I like the Speedmaster for a lot of things, but it's really not close for me between the two. 

The only things I don't like about it are the price, the less-than-stellar bracelet, and the fact that everyone and his uncle has one (but that's also a testament to how good of a watch it is).


----------



## AIKO

es335 said:


> Reasons?


I prefer diving watches in general. I like the SMP and PO more than the Speedy. Really not a Speedy fan but respect the history, ect... Have been very happy with my Sub for the past year.


----------



## vrolok

have both, and 14060m gets way more wirst time


----------



## Anthony

Hansch99 said:


> I'd go with the Sub. The lacquer dial, applied markers, automatic movement, *thickness (thin-ness, rather)*, and water resistance set it apart for me.


I understood everything else except the thickness part. With common sense, the more thicker watch, less comfortable it is. And submariner is very thick and heavy watch. So thats why I really did not get your point  (Or did I missunderstood something, you meant to say you like watch which is extremely heavy?)


----------



## cestommek

*Re: Submariner>>>*

I don´t like very much manual wind watches,and i like the divers...but i prefer Omega:-! than Rolex...I`m sorry subb-)

Greetings


----------



## Hansch99

Anthony said:


> I understood everything else except the thickness part. With common sense, the more thicker watch, less comfortable it is. And submariner is very thick and heavy watch. So thats why I really did not get your point  (Or did I missunderstood something, you meant to say you like watch which is extremely heavy?)


I'm pretty sure the Submariner (13mm) is thinner than the Speedmaster (14mm). My perception of the Sub is that it wears thinner and lighter than the Speedmaster.


----------



## es335

I've never seen a Speedy in the wild (on someone's wrist in public). They are quite rare compared to the Sub.

I can't go to a mall without seeing half a dozen Sub dates on people's wrists every 30 minutes.

Everyone has a Sub.


----------



## Anthony

Hansch99 said:


> My perception of the Sub is that it wears thinner and lighter than the Speedmaster.


Ah, ok. It may also depend of bracelet or strap used. I found submariner with its bracelet one of the heaviest and chunkiest watches I ever tried on, maybe because I usually wear Speedmaster with strap which feels thinnest and most comfortable (light) watch. Speedy on a strap just "feels" twice as smaller and lighter than Submariner. But yes, these are all just opinons.


----------



## GJ

Anthony, aren't you mixing up the Seadweller and the Submariner here?
The Seadweller is thicker and heavier then the Sub, that's what made me choose the Submariner.


----------



## children

they are both great, and I would buy both.
but the Sub has the slight advantage for me ;-)


----------



## Anthony

GJ said:


> Anthony, aren't you mixing up the Seadweller and the Submariner here?
> The Seadweller is thicker and heavier then the Sub, that's what made me choose the Submariner.


Thanks GJ, but I did know that allready. Lucky I never tried SD on....But I do find Sub date (16610) on a bracelet chunky and somehow heavy. I find Speedy with strap quite "average" weight, and it sits well on my wrist, but sub seems a heavyweight with its bracelet, and it got somehow high profile on wrist and sits very much differently on wrist....maybe its just me then? Do you guys think 16610 is small & light watch?


----------



## Hansch99

Anthony said:


> Thanks GJ, but I did know that allready. Lucky I never tried SD on....But I do find Sub date (16610) on a bracelet chunky and somehow heavy. I find Speedy with strap quite "average" weight, and it sits well on my wrist, but sub seems a heavyweight with its bracelet, and it got somehow high profile on wrist and sits very much differently on wrist....maybe its just me then? Do you guys think 16610 is small & light watch?


The Sub is thinner (13mm v. 14mm), narrower (40mm v. 42mm) and its bracelect tapers narrower (17mm v. 18mm). There's just not enough metal there for it to be chunkier than the Speedmaster.

I kindly think it's all in your head ;-)


----------



## Bwana

I just mothballed my Submariner due to my purchase of the Speedmaster Pro. I had worn it everyday for the last decade.

I had started to look at Rolex Daytonas and the next thing I know I am jonesing for a Speedmaster.


----------



## fluppyboy

Cujucuyo said:


> Speedmaster, I'd take a Speedy over a Submariner any day.


What he said.


----------



## WiscOmega

I am lucky enough to have a couple of Speedies, but I too have lusted over 2 material things since I was a teenager:

A Rol*x Submariner watch
A BMW M3 coupe

I have since become an Omega fan, but am in the process of trading a Blue Bond SMP, SMP GMT and few other trinkets for a mint 14060M ND COSC Sub. Why you ask? Neither of these 2 Omegas were getting much wrist time (Just love those Speedies!), I have a MKII LRRP to serve as the GMT of my small collection and I was itching to buy something but am currently cash poor.

The BMW may never happen, sigh...., but I'll tell you about the Sub after is it is sitting on my wrist later this week.;-)



Ciao,


----------



## scarlet knight

I think that the Speedy is more comparable to the Daytona and the Sub is more comparable to the Seamaster Pro Diver or the PO.

Personally, I would rather have the Daytona than the Speedy, but I don't think I would pay what it costs. I like the Speedy's price point better.

I don't like cyclops and I would prefer the PO or the SMP to the Sub. I even prefer the PO and the SMP to the dateless Sub.

I also have a thing against Rolex. I think many people buy them because they convey status and not for the beauty of the watch or the intricacies of the movement. 

I think that Omega is more successful in the design of its watches. Rolex watches are mired in the past. They are generally too small, although I understand that they are picking up on the modern trend and making some bigger.

I own an AT and a Seamaster Pro 300m in black (quartz). I prefer them to comparable Rolex models. I respect the opinion of Rolex fans. It's personal taste.


----------



## crypto80

teeritz said:


> No self-respecting collector should be without either of these two watches.


Weird, I'm not into either watch, so does that mean I don't have self-respect?:roll:


----------



## Nato060

*Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

Alright I'm pretty sure this has been discussed and SOMEONE is gonna point me to the search function, but I like discussions, and I like fresh new opinions. So basically I ran into a bit of money. By a few months I should have around $5000 saved up. And I am debating in my head between a Speedmaster Pro, or a Submariner 14060. It's driving me crazy. one minute I'm sold on the Sub, another I'm sold on the Speedmaster. The Sub has been my dream since I was a little kid, and the Speedy was just recently discovered by me but it is an INCREDIBLE watch with amazing history. I mean, this has been one of the hardest decisions I've had to make as they're two completely different watches. I can see myself using one watch in certain situations, and the other in other situations. It's so hard to chose. If you were in my situation what would you chose? (And do not suggest I get both, as I can't afford both). It is literally driving me crazy. Someone help me!


----------



## panamamike

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*



Nato060 said:


> Alright I'm pretty sure this has been discussed and SOMEONE is gonna point me to the search function, but I like discussions, and I like fresh new opinions. So basically I ran into a bit of money. By a few months I should have around $5000 saved up. And I am debating in my head between a Speedmaster Pro, or a Submariner 14060. It's driving me crazy. one minute I'm sold on the Sub, another I'm sold on the Speedmaster. The Sub has been my dream since I was a little kid, and the Speedy was just recently discovered by me but it is an INCREDIBLE watch with amazing history. I mean, this has been one of the hardest decisions I've had to make as they're two completely different watches. I can see myself using one watch in certain situations, and the other in other situations. It's so hard to chose. If you were in my situation what would you chose? (And do not suggest I get both, as I can't afford both). It is literally driving me crazy. Someone help me!


Go with the childhood dream.


----------



## OrangeSport

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

Tough choice, which I also have been through. I chose the Sub, just because it was a life-long dream. The Speedmaster is still on the radar, and is about the only chrono I would go for. It looks great, and has a great pedigree. I have held back because, although very different to the Sub, for me they would share the same space (as a daily wearer). I am trying not to duplicate in that way....

Not much help I guess, but you can't go wrong with either. Both have huge pedigree, history and style. Perhaps grab a new Sub before they are all gone? It could be your last chance...


----------



## drunken monkey

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

Easy for me.
In my mind, the only Speedmaster I would get is a vintage ST105 model with the correct CAL.321

All other "Moon watches" are imitators.
With that, the current 3570 is therefore a no to me so of your two choices, it's 14060M.


----------



## omega1234

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

Wow, hard choice. You probably won't like this answer, but I would look used JLC. Between the two, it's hard but, I'd go sub, solely because it will retain value and someday if you want you could get most of your money back.


----------



## akasnowmaaan

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*



panamamike said:


> Go with the childhood dream.


What he said.


----------



## Formerguide

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

Sub = more respect by far in the real world.

Speedy = more respect amongst WIS types.

Can't go wrong with either, I'd like to own both of them at some point. I guess I'll say Sub based upon resale, harder to find a good deal on one, and the seemingly endless supply of used Speedmasters on the sales forum. But gee, you wont go wrong with either one, will you? Good luck!

Dan


----------



## camb66

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

Speedmaster- Classic style and nowhere near as commonly seen as the Sub. Sure, people talk about resale on Subs but I buy watches to keep, not sell and anyway, i would pretty much get back what I paid for my Speedy 6 years ago anyway.Some people would have you believe a Rolex is the only thing that will hold value-now Omega is in the same price increasing strategy as Rolex, second hand prices are rising.


----------



## bacari

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

Sub. Childhood dreams seldom fade; particularly when they are still attainable.


----------



## Nato060

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

Thanks for all the replies guys, I'm leaning slightly more toward the Sub now, it is my childhood dream. It has always been just out of my reach and now that I have the chance to own one, I'm 100% positive I'd regret it if I didn't go for it. I'll let you guys know what I go with in the end, as I still have quite a bit of time to make my decision. As of right now, I'm going with the Sub. The Speedy is here to stay at a decent price, I'm sure I'll have the opportunity to pick one of those up as well in the near future.


----------



## howard4tex

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

Sub... It's not my childhood dream but it will probably always be a dream.


----------



## OrangeSport

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*



Nato060 said:


> Thanks for all the replies guys, I'm leaning slightly more toward the Sub now, it is my childhood dream. It has always been just out of my reach and now that I have the chance to own one, I'm 100% positive I'd regret it if I didn't go for it. I'll let you guys know what I go with in the end, as I still have quite a bit of time to make my decision. As of right now, I'm going with the Sub. The Speedy is here to stay at a decent price, I'm sure I'll have the opportunity to pick one of those up as well in the near future.


Good choice! I'm sure you'll not regret it!


----------



## JP Chestnut

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

Have you tried on either or both watches? The older style Rolex bracelet is *really really* sub-par for the price. On the other hand, of all the older style Rolex watches, the no date Sub is really a classic model. I've passed on both these watches in the past, but they're still on my radar. So, I think you'll be happy in either case.


----------



## rockmastermike

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

having owned and enjoyed both, I would vote for the Speedy......but having said that - you can't ignore your childhood dream. It is your mythic destiny. 
If you hang around watch forums long enough, you will eventually have both, maybe not at the same time, but both at some point
Each are icons for a reason, good luck


----------



## marchone

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

You've made the right choice. Childhood dream. Now save up for the Speedie.

A lot of WISs will argue this but when I hear "20th century horological icons" I first think both Submariner no date and Speedmaster Professional.


----------



## mleok

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

The no date Submariner is indeed a classic, and with it being discontinued, now is the time to get it. I don't think the Speedmaster Pro is going anywhere yet.


----------



## shameless

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

im lucky enough to own both but i am quite old! they are both superb and quite different in character -either will be fine but you will of course work toward getting the other in due course - thats good because it gives you a purpose to work toward -in my view the most desirable pair to own to us mere mortals - before anyone shouts at me i said in my opinion!!


----------



## BrentYYC

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

I am also lucky enough to own one of both, and my comments relate to the issue of choosing based on how you plan to use your watch. This important issue hasn't been addressed yet.

I find the Speedmaster to be a more versatile 'look' than the Sub, meaning it looks just as great with a suit as it does with jeans and a polo shirt. The slimmer profile will fit nicely under the cuff of a dress shirt when the situation calls for it. The Sub isn't as good in dress situations. If you want greater versatility in terms of dressing up or down with your watch, then the Speedmaster is the way to go.

If you're looking for something that has greater 'physical' versatility, then the Sub is my choice. The Speedmaster is no good in water, so don't buy it if you need a watch you can wear to the beach or at the pool. The hesalite crystal is also susceptible to scratching (minor scratches can be buffed out), so if you want a watch where you don't want to cringe every time you brush it up against anything, then the Sub is again the better choice.

That's my two cents concerning deciding based on how you will be using the watch you ultimately choose.


----------



## Mike Rivera

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

Like most others, I recommend the Sub. It's very versatile and holds it's value. The bracelets of any vintage are fine - really. I love mine and hope to have a Speedy someday also. That's the fun of our hobby.

Here's mine (why do we love showing our watches so much, it looks like all the other Subs in the world ...):









- Mike


----------



## lvt

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*



panamamike said:


> Go with the childhood dream.


+1

Not to fulfil your chidhood dream when you can is a crime.


----------



## Perseus

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

First of all I'm not a Rolex fan. The public's perception of the brand turns me off and the styling has never really grabbed me. I LOVE Omega. That being said I'd for the Sub. If for no other reason that it costs more money and you have that money now. It would be easier to pick up the Speedy down the road. Second, like others have said it's your childhood dream. One of mine young dreams is a Monaco and I'll own one sooner than later!

At the end of the day they are both great watches so go with what your heart, or childhood dreams, tell you. As always POST PICS!


----------



## bubzter

I, too, would say go with your dream. Both are fantastic watches. But you clearly have lusted for one way longer than the other. The satisfaction you will get will definitely be more too.


----------



## acdelco

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

Despite what many on the forum (i.e. Rolex enthusiasts who bemoan the hate) like to think, there's a TREMENDOUS amount of love for Rolex and the Submariner. After all, it's prestigious and an icon and even most watch enthusiasts bow down. And chances are that absolutely no one on WUS will influence what you already believe in your heart...that the Sub is the one to get. After all, it's your childhood dream, it's a quality watch, and the prestige and power that go with Rolex is unsurpassed.

If you're anywhere near the water and honestly plan on wearing your watch in the water, I'd go Submariner.

My two cents and FWIW, I don't wear my watches into the water very much and am at the point of collecting where "looks" matter more than relative prestige. I figure at this level of quality and luxury ( Rolex/Omega), it's what 1) looks best and 2) what's more "original".... that trumps any other criteria. To me, the Speedmaster wins on both counts. IMO, the domed crystal is simply more unique and interesting to look at...and the Speedy is much much less common than the Sub. I owned the Sub and still have the Speedy. No regrets here. BTW, I like Rolex...and love my Explorer. For this comparison, however, I take the Speedy.

Good luck with your choice. Either one is a great watch to have.


----------



## RTea

My childhood dream was to own a Rolex sub, but it was also to be a bowling alley maintenance guy. So it's safe to say that I don't really chase my childhood dreams. 

However, I would still get the Sub. It is the watch icon of icons. Omega prices are going up like Rolex so either one won't be as cheap to pick up down the road but the Speedy should be cheaper and will give you something to aim for next!


----------



## baronrojo

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

I own both...perhaps my two favorite watches ever. If I had to only choose one...definitely the Submariner. Nothing compares to that watch...I've always had an affinity for it...and it is more versatile. The Submariner can get more wrist time in a row than the Speedmaster...not sure why but I think it's the simpleness of the Sub that just makes it a bit more appealing to me.

You can find pre-owned Speedmasters for around $3K with box and papers...you can never find a Submariner at that price. Get the Sub...start saving up for the Speedy. These are two of the best watches you can own.

Good luck...post pics of whatever you decide.


----------



## Triton9

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

Go for sub too.


----------



## ed21x

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

Sub for now, and wait for the new omega movements to be time tested before taking the plunge on the new co-axial smp. I plan on having an omega one day as well, but the sub just feels more essential to any collection.


----------



## Balidaan

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

If you go for the speedy, you'll eventually get the sub.
So get the Sub.


----------



## LJUSMC

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

I've had both, and they're both excellent watches. I thoroughly enjoyed owning each one, but if I had to choose, I would pick the Sub. I personally prefer the 16610 Sub Date, because I can never remember which day it is, but I would still pick the 14060 over the speedy if I could only have 1.



Nato060 said:


> Alright I'm pretty sure this has been discussed and SOMEONE is gonna point me to the search function, but I like discussions, and I like fresh new opinions. So basically I ran into a bit of money. By a few months I should have around $5000 saved up. And I am debating in my head between a Speedmaster Pro, or a Submariner 14060. It's driving me crazy. one minute I'm sold on the Sub, another I'm sold on the Speedmaster. The Sub has been my dream since I was a little kid, and the Speedy was just recently discovered by me but it is an INCREDIBLE watch with amazing history. I mean, this has been one of the hardest decisions I've had to make as they're two completely different watches. I can see myself using one watch in certain situations, and the other in other situations. It's so hard to chose. If you were in my situation what would you chose? (And do not suggest I get both, as I can't afford both). It is literally driving me crazy. Someone help me!


----------



## marchone

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

Fait accompli.


----------



## HERSKO

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

No one seems to want to mention the fact that the speedy is a chronograph. I don't know about the rest of you but when i find myself wearing a chronograph it tends to get a lot of use (the chronograph function that is). Having said that, I have owned the speedy and am a HUGE omega fan so it's really up to you to decide but i'd go with the speedy.


----------



## lvt

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*



HERSKO said:


> No one seems to want to mention the fact that the speedy is a chronograph. I don't know about the rest of you but when i find myself wearing a chronograph it tends to get a lot of use (the chronograph function that is). Having said that, I have owned the speedy and am a HUGE omega fan so it's really up to you to decide but i'd go with the speedy.


From what I know the Speedy is the perfect item for wedding gift, people could find it useful during the honey moon, but after that most of them usually use the Speedy for egg boiling.


----------



## usa

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

Both are nice and beautiful time pieces. Not sure why but lately I tend to prefer simple-dial watches. If I were in your shoes (and I do wish that, although I don't see that coming anytime soon), I'd pick the Submariner. Not every Rolex looks nice, but the Submariner is quite an elegant watch. That's my opinion.
Since you mentioned that it's your childhood dream ... there's no more question to ask, IMHO.


----------



## sierra11b

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

Get the 14060M now while you still can as it's being replaced with the 114060. It's a great watch! You can find a pre-loved 3570.50 Speedmaster later at a great price.

Go crazy on Nato combos (based on your handle) like I did as strap changes are a breeze. Then once you save half that you can look for a nicely used Speedy and use the same straps!


----------



## dbakiva

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*



Nato060 said:


> ...The Sub has been my dream since I was a little kid....


Pay attention to this. And another factor you can consider regarding a good used Sub is that, should you want something else instead at some point, it is highly marketable.



lvt said:


> From what I know the Speedy is the perfect item for wedding gift, people could find it useful during the honey moon, but after that most of them usually use the Speedy for egg boiling.


What exactly is it you intend to be timing on the honeymoon? And why?

Unless you have a pressing need for a chronograph, you can pick this one up later. (My one chronograph is a Seiko quartz, and it usually lives in the glove compartment in my car.)


----------



## IGotId

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

I'm a little suprised by this comparison as IMO they are 2 different types of watches at 2 different price points...

As you can tell by my sig I'm a big Omega/Speedy fan. Although I don't like most of Rolex's lineup I am a fan of the Exp I & II.

That being said, I would recommend the Sub given that it's the one you've wanted for so long...you can always pick up a Speedy later (I'd recommend the 3572.50)


----------



## ken_sturrock

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

I own a Speedmaster but I gotta agree with you - go for the dream. If you don't, you'll always wonder.


----------



## DJHolland

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

Both great watches in my opinion. Get the Rolex Sub, regardless of if people like Rolex (they all have their reasons, some valid, some kinda odd), it is or can be an heirloom piece that lasts a lifetime, I know, mine is now 35 years old and regardless of dollar value, one of my most personal and cherished items. Get the Speedmaster later, as it too is a great watch, but, again in my opinion, if you have the means, get the Rolex first.


----------



## DEP21

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

Sub for me. That model is the last of the old case models so may be sought after. Also goes with anything and if it's a proper grail piece, there is no argument.


----------



## Sea-Wolf

^ A mechanical wind Speedy was chosen by NASA for the Apollo mission (NASA at the time were biased against automatic movements, until a combined German team went up with a Sinn powered by Lemania; since then, NASA relaxed the rules, but the Speedy has long since been replaced by the X-33 quartz as a space certified watch (civilian model was a poor seller, and long since discontinued); it, along with Breitling's Aerospace, Timex and G-Shock are all official space watches. That said, first Swiss maker into space was Heuer followed by Breitling, with the last watch actually to touch down on the moon being a Rolex GMT (during what was and remains the last manned mission to the moon). In addition to being part of the US space program, Breitling itself invented the modern chronograph as we know it, and was the official supplier to numerous air forces and also AOPA, etc. Also, first to market with an automatic chrono (together with Heuer and Hamilton; understand that Zenith-Movado were working on their own version around that time, and apparently Seiko was as well). 

The Rolex Sub is a dive watch, having dived every ocean, and still does. It was the official watch of HRM British Navy for decades, among others, with the French Navy among others going with the Tudor Sub (Tudor being Rolex' little brother). Rolex invented the genre (dating all the way back to the 1920s--Waterproof (WR) Oyster case and crown, etc., along with among other things the automatic winding movement, bezel, etc. etc. etc.). Rolex is a true in-house movement maker, and the Sub is not only a classic but also an icon, and it is a tank: tried, tested and true in real life/harsh diving conditions and has been since its debut more than 1/2 century ago. Continuously tweaked and improved over the years of course, such that what already was tough is today even tougher, thus fit for its intended purpose. (Rolex movements are proven workhorses, and incorporate Rolex' patented parachrom springs--10x more shock resistant than traditional springs and completely immune to magnetic fields, too, with more patented tech in store for it very soon). All this, yet remaining true to its original design. 

Notwithstanding, one must give Omega their due--the Speedy was and remains the only "official" moon watch, such that it's an icon in its own right, I agree. 

Myself, I love the Sub (then, I am also a diver and love the Sea, too). Ah, but I am also an aviation/Star Trek fan, meaning: already have a Breitling Navi, and may very well one day just have to replace my Speedy ... 

Cheers.


----------



## cuthbert

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

Speedmaster.

No doubt about it.


----------



## Mathew J

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

I have a Sub Date, it is my third Rolex....

Back in 2000 or so I started getting interested in watches, both my Parents had Rolex but I never paid attention until I was about to graduate college and I wanted something "nice" to remember the moment, wanted a Rolex but settled for a Tag I got on a discount...

Came into Omega at that point having never heard of the brand, was torn between getting that Tag for $450 or shelling out more for a SMP, didn't even consider the Speedy pro because it was manual wind and the low water resistance along with Hesalite (sapphire sandwhich I don't think was around then)....

Almost bought an omega dynamic but they discontinued them right as I gained interest....

Well that is the long....had three Rolex with the latest being the older style Subdate, also had a Speedy for a week but it had an issue and I returned it for an Aqua Terra....

With that said, if I could go back and do it all over, and if I didn't have a family that brainwashed me into thinking owning a Rolex was a "must"...I would easily take the Speedy over the Sub.

My Sub is ok, though even with what I paid for it which is considerably less than what they are now the bracelet is a bit of a joke...the new models have much better bracelets but I heard they have issues from time to time with the glidelock clasps and screws backing out getting them jammed.

I have said it countless times before but the Speedy is about as close as one can get to a modern vintage piece....really the most classic offering that you can get new.

On top of that the price still isn't that bad....contrast that with the Sub which is pretty ridiculous now.

IMHO if you can get a non date sub older style for a super discount then that is something to consider, keeping in mind the bracelet is possibly one of their worst with the hollow end links, older clasp, and hollow center links....

If you're thinking of getting a modern Sub no date then IMHO skip it and fork out the additional cash for the subdate as the resale and or demand are far better

Otherwise if you want a great watch with an amazing history for a good price the speedy is an awesome choice.

Good luck


----------



## Xaltotun

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*



Nato060 said:


> Thanks for all the replies guys, I'm leaning slightly more toward the Sub now, it is my childhood dream. It has always been just out of my reach and now that I have the chance to own one, I'm 100% positive I'd regret it if I didn't go for it. I'll let you guys know what I go with in the end, as I still have quite a bit of time to make my decision. As of right now, I'm going with the Sub. The Speedy is here to stay at a decent price, I'm sure I'll have the opportunity to pick one of those up as well in the near future.


IMHO, that "decent price" concept is (rather rapidly) fading away in the case of Omega, so you might want to reconsider based on this "timing" aspect.

In their stupid quest to "race Rolex to the top", Omega has sacrificed "relative" affordability and their "best bang for the buck" position to play "me too" to the Rolex "nouveau chic" concept. Which is a shame, as Omega used to be a high end watch that most people could dream about, and save up to afford, since their models were not stratospherically priced. Their market position, and indeed the initial spirit of the company, was to be the high end watch for the (financially comfortable) middle-upper class. Now they have abandoned that philosophy (it's their right, I'm not saying otherwise - it's just too bad). I guess they now prefer to make a lot of profit on a smaller amount of watches sold, instead of a smaller-but-decent profit on many more watches. In doing so, they are unfortunately squeezing the smaller high-end horology shops out of the market...

And for the record, I'm not trolling; just have a look at my collection (click on banner below) and you'll see I know a bit about this problem. In the past few months, I have turned to Doxa and Aquadive to find a fair value for the buck.


----------



## Xaltotun

Cujucuyo said:


> it has gone through West Point, Airborne, Ranger and Green Beret training, the Civil War in El Salvador strapped to my fathers wrist, even during combat (...).


That is [email protected]!!!!!! :-!


----------



## SwedishElite22

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

Did I miss a serious revival to this thread or is it a random post that brought this 2009 topic back to the front page?


----------



## lorsban

I think the 2nd hand market for Speedmasters is phenomenal. Awesome value for a watch with this kind of pedigree.

However, I need a date feature on all my watches so that rules out the Speedy for me.

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Mathew J

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*



SwedishElite22 said:


> Did I miss a serious revival to this thread or is it a random post that brought this 2009 topic back to the front page?


Lets do the time warp again....


----------



## hidden by leaves

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*



SwedishElite22 said:


> Did I miss a serious revival to this thread or is it a random post that brought this 2009 topic back to the front page?


If I'm not mistaken it started in the public forum, but there have been so many threads of this type that I'm guessing a mod found one and tacked it on here.


----------



## SwedishElite22

*Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*

I got caught up reading parts of it and then realized it was 3 years old... the discussion is good, just old.


----------



## Kringkily

They are different watches and kind of hard to compare. Rolex and Omega are a little different in their pricing structure. I believe for watches under 4k, Omega presents a very high value to what you are getting, especially a Speedmaster Pro which in my opinion is unbeatable for its price. In the 5k - 8k range Rolex gives unsurpassed value for your money and only until you break the 10k threshold other brands compete better. This is just my opinion.


----------



## china

I have them both, a modern Speedy Pro and a SubC. I wear the SubC maybe a bit more during summer, but I love the Speedy Pro on leather in winter. 

If I had to sell one, I'd let the Sub go. The Speedy Pro is a birth year watch for my son, and I could never sell it.


----------



## Hansch99

I'm one of those who has owned both. I've bought and sold the Speedmaster three times, but the Sub is here to stay. It's movement is IMO more reliable and more accurate, and the watch can go anywhere with its superior water resistance. I find them equally comfortable, with the Speedy slightly more comfortable on a leather strap and the Sub slightly more comfortable on its bracelet. Speaking of the bracelet, I have the 14060M with the hollow center and end links, and it is the lightest and most comfortable bracelet I've ever owned. The only Omega bracelet that comes close to its comfort, in my opinion, is the Bond SMP (pre-ceramic) bracelet. The one gripe I have about the Rolex is how expensive it is to obtain and maintain, which has become ridiculous in recent years. But if you truly want one, as I did, it's only going to keep getting more expensive to get one. Now, two years into ownership, I could re-sell my Sub for more than I paid for it brand new (not that its going anywhere, but it's nice to know that the watch is an appreciating asset that I have the pleasure of wearing every day).

Here are some comparison shots:

On bracelet:

















On leather:

















On nato:


----------



## gippo

Best Watch Ever :-!


----------



## Mathew J

Hansch99 said:


> I'm one of those who has owned both. I've bought and sold the Speedmaster three times, but the Sub is here to stay. It's movement is IMO more reliable and more accurate, and the watch can go anywhere with its superior water resistance. I find them equally comfortable, with the Speedy slightly more comfortable on a leather strap and the Sub slightly more comfortable on its bracelet. Speaking of the bracelet, I have the 14060M with the hollow center and end links, and it is the lightest and most comfortable bracelet I've ever owned. The only Omega bracelet that comes close to its comfort, in my opinion, is the Bond SMP (pre-ceramic) bracelet. The one gripe I have about the Rolex is how expensive it is to obtain and maintain, which has become ridiculous in recent years. But if you truly want one, as I did, it's only going to keep getting more expensive to get one. Now, two years into ownership, I could re-sell my Sub for more than I paid for it brand new (not that its going anywhere, but it's nice to know that the watch is an appreciating asset that I have the pleasure of wearing every day).


I know it is subjective but to me the bracelet on my Aqua Terra is far more comfortable than the hollow link on my Sub Date, the stamped clasp is somewhat sharp and has scratched my daughter inadvertently before, it just seems and feels to me cheap, even worse was my old A series Datejust which is similar to the non date sub with the non SEL links, rattled so badly my wife asked one day when I got it if the watch was broken.

That speedy just looks great too...sub is nice but to me they are a bit ho hum at this point especially with how many of them I see on a daily basis.


----------



## samanator

I've owned both but the speedy has one issue I can't get over. It's a chronograph! Regardless of how great I think it looks I just find all Chronographs too busy for me. The all green sub is the next piece I intend to bring into my collection. Now liquid metal PO would be a harder call.


----------



## imranbecks

I'd rather have a Seamaster vs Submariner thread... Is there one? No offense, but the Speedmaster and the Submariner are two different watches making them tough to go head to head. Now the Seamaster, now that one is in the same category as the Submariner.... Head to head, it'll be pretty close....


----------



## bertberr

I own both, a newer 3570.50 which I mainly wear on leather, and a couple of older plexi Subs, a 5513 and a 1680. I love all of them for different reasons, but the Subs (even vintage ones like these) are certainly the more practical, and the watches I tend to wear when I'm working outside, building bikes (they wear the scars proudly!) and anything that involves submerging my mitts in water. I tend to wear the Speedy more in the evening, almost like a dress watch.

IMO they're two of the most iconic watches of all time, due in part to their history, but also because they have both stayed remarkably loyal to their original '50s designs (well at least until the launch of the ceramic Sub).


----------



## imranbecks

Love that Sub!!!


----------



## Handy

A few years ago I bought my dream watch, it was a 14060 Submariner.
Two weeks later, I flipped it. Why, because it was just so disappointing. A Seiko 6309-7040 has more wrist appeal.
So, I now have a 2009 Speedmaster Professional. I love it! The NASA connection is irrelevant to me. It's just the best looking watch I have ever owned.
The only Rolex I owned that actually impressed me, was an Oysterquartz.

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## bertberr

Handy said:


> A few years ago I bought my dream watch, it was a 14060 Submariner.
> Two weeks later, I flipped it. Why, because it was just so disappointing. A Seiko 6309-7040 has more wrist appeal.
> So, I now have a 2009 Speedmaster Professional. I love it! The NASA connection is irrelevant to me. It's just the best looking watch I have ever owned.
> The only Rolex I owned that actually impressed me, was an Oysterquartz.
> 
> Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2


Whatever floats your boat, I suppose. I feel the two watches discussed here are both classics, and even before I saw this thread, I was never really surprised by how many people seem to own both. In my mind they are both iconic pieces, and compliment each other perfectly. Understated yet classically elegant designs, true to their heritage (until 2009 ish at least for Rolex), I really struggle to see how either could ever be described as 'so disappointing'... but each to their own, makes the whole game a lot more interesting.

BTW, I'm wearing my 6390-7290 as I type. Love it to bits, great watch. More wrist presence than a 5513? Not really, but it's close, and I would never sell this one, wanted one since I was a kid.


----------



## speedycosmograph

These two watches really shouldn't be compared. The real comparison would be between the Daytona and the Speedmaster. I wore a Daytona for about 15 yrs, and in that time, I had it serviced three times to the tune of about 700 per service. After about 5 years it would just stop, and it was never abused. I own 7 or 8 vintage Speedmasters, and even though it is poor policy, some of them had not been serviced for 20 or more years when I got them, and they were still running strong. In fact, I have yet to have a Speedmaster stop running. There have been minor chrono issues with recorders, but the movement chugs on. I still have the Daytona, in a safe, and it is running...for now. It is a great watch, but it does appear more pretentious than the Speedmaster, and I will never really trust it to run every day. I'd get rid of the Daytona before any of the Omegas. As for the Sub...it's a dive watch, and it's a pretty good one. I owned one in the 80s but didn't care for it unless I was diving. In my opinion, it is not half as attractive and it does not wear well with a suit. The Speedmaster looks good with everything. If I bought another dive watch, I'd probably buy a quartz with great gaskets for a couple hundred. James Bond spent a good bit of time in the water or he'd have worn a Speedmaster, too.


----------



## Mathew J

bertberr said:


> Whatever floats your boat, I suppose. I feel the two watches discussed here are both classics, and even before I saw this thread, I was never really surprised by how many people seem to own both. In my mind they are both iconic pieces, and compliment each other perfectly. Understated yet classically elegant designs, true to their heritage (until 2009 ish at least for Rolex), I really struggle to see how either could ever be described as 'so disappointing'... but each to their own, makes the whole game a lot more interesting.


Um I can relate with the disappointing...had the same feeling with virtually all of the Rolex pieces I have had though the last two I knew what to expect so not so much as the first....the cost with what you used to get really = a letdown, least for me...

New ones are better but when compared to other brands they don't see as exciting to me...


----------



## Xaltotun

Kringkily said:


> They are different watches and kind of hard to compare. Rolex and Omega are a little different in their pricing structure. I believe for watches under 4k, Omega presents a very high value to what you are getting, especially a Speedmaster Pro which in my opinion is unbeatable for its price. In the 5k - 8k range Rolex gives unsurpassed value for your money and only until you break the 10k threshold other brands compete better. This is just my opinion.


I really like this way of looking at it! But the "under 4K" bracket keeps shrinking at Omega, and fast. :roll:


----------



## PunkJr

The Speedy gets my vote. My first Rolex was a 1675 GMT Master, but I regrettably sold it. I have owned a few Rolex's since, but I just don't like the later ones, and now I can't justify a vintage Rolex (the price really shot up since I sold mine). The Sub is no different to other modern Rolex's - with the gloss dial and gold rings around the hour markers, the watch seems a little lost. Is it a dress watch or a sports watch? The Speedy has stayed true to it's roots, it's looks are timeless, and is unpretentious. A nice strap can really change the look of the watch (it can be dressed up or down), where as a Sub only really looks okay on the bracelet. 

Now if we're including vintage Sub's, well that's another story all together - I would call that one a tie.


----------



## Mathew J

PunkJr said:


> The Speedy gets my vote. My first Rolex was a 1675 GMT Master, but I regrettably sold it. I have owned a few Rolex's since, but I just don't like the later ones, and now I can't justify a vintage Rolex (the price really shot up since I sold mine). The Sub is no different to other modern Rolex's - with the gloss dial and gold rings around the hour markers, the watch seems a little lost. Is it a dress watch or a sports watch? The Speedy has stayed true to it's roots, it's looks are timeless, and is unpretentious. A nice strap can really change the look of the watch (it can be dressed up or down), where as a Sub only really looks okay on the bracelet.
> 
> Now if we're including vintage Sub's, well that's another story all together - I would call that one a tie.


The bit about the straps is definately true in my eyes, the Rolex lugs are so long I have yet to see any which looks good on a strap without those filler pieces they add in, whereas all Omega watches look great with a strap.


----------



## impalass

Happly rotated a Speedy Pro and Submariner for over 30 years. Thats all I ever needed till retiring a few years ago and discovering watch forums. 
Since then I've added a SS Daytona (black), Omega SMP (2254), Submariner LV (anniversary) to the watch box, and I'm still on the fence about picking up a Sea-Dweller 4000 to complete all my personal "must haves". 
If forced to choose the Submariner would be the last to go.


----------



## gdigenis

i have owned both watches and they are both excellent. i purchased a brand new sub in 2006 as a reward for hitting a target i had set for myself when i was self employed. i loved the look but i also knew that it is a watch that people aspire to own, myself included. my plan was to keep it and pass it down to a son or nephew but i also thought that if i ever needed to sell it the sub would be an easy sell. i found it to be very comfortable, reliable, and durable while i owned it (sold it last month) only showing minimal wear on the clasp and very few hairline scrathes on the band. the reason i sold it is because i got tired of seeing so many people wearing it, including female celebrities. i stopped wearing it and found myself not enjoying it any more so i sold it and decided to by a speedmaster. i figured that if i was not going to wear it as my primary watch (i also own a seamaster gmt) i could find good use for the money i could make selling it. 

i love the look and design of the speedmaster but i find it slightly less comfortable on my wrist. i have only had diving wathces before, so i was a little worried about the speedmaster but i am really not going to swim in water deeper that 20 feet so the speedmaster will be fine. the biggest advantage the sub has is resale value. i sold my sub for $400 less than my purchase price after wearing it for 6 years (i got a great deal when i bought it)!! there is no way that a speedmaster will have that kind of resale value, which makes a used speedmaster a great value since the prices are so reasonable.

i dont think you can go wrong with either watch, but after owning both i am happy with my decision to sell the sub and buy the speedmaster


----------



## Chazman1946

It's a simple choice, if it was a gift, take the Sub, sell it, the money you would have could buy a Speedy and a Seamaster.


----------



## Sea-Wolf

Chazman1946 said:


> It's a simple choice, if it was a gift, take the Sub, sell it, the money you would have could buy a Speedy and a Seamaster.


And then there's the flip-side: take the speedy and seamaster and sell them (such a sad re-sale story, not a true manufacturer and all that that means, much less no real pedigree or provenance such as has Rolex, especially its Sub). Put that money from both which make a nice downpayment on the Sub (which only goes up in value, what it means to be a true manufacturer, along of course with that pedigree and provenance and why when it comes to auctions/re-sale values it is what it is, always will be, and always was  Then, your comment does point out that it takes two (or more) watches (that depreciate/go down in value) to get what it is that you get from only one (i.e., the Sub, which appreciates/goes up in value). Of course, if you're a space nut, as opposed to a lover of the drink/diver like me, then the choice is clear: Rolex GMT, Omega Speedy, Breitling Navi/Cosmo, Sinn 142, among so many other space watches (Omega X-33 displaced the Speedy, along with the Breitling B-1, Timex and G-shock). All along with many others have been to space (Heuer being the first Swiss watchmaker into space, an Heuer stop watch followed by Breitling actually), but the Speedy prior to being displaced by the X-33 was the official watch selected by NASA for moon missions so as to make it a first in that sense (although it was a GMT that went up along side it and which was also the last to actually touch down on the moon on what is and remains the last manned mission to the moon, however). Still, give Omega it's due. Meantime, the Sub isn't for space, silly, but for diving: Rolex being the first, last and ONLY watchmaker to make it to the Trench, too.  All depends on what you want, and whether you're a Star Trek/NASA fan and interested in space exploration, or a Bond/Dive/Cousteau/Navy fan and interested instead in ocean exploration. But when it comes to the Sub--hang on. Not only a true icon (and all that that means), but only going up in value, for reasons already noted, and unlike the affordables/semi-affordables, I'm afraid. Doesn't mean one can't dream about both space and the deep blue sea, though. Reason why most watch boxes fit more than just one watch, yes? 

Cheers


----------



## georges zaslavsky

both are proven watches with lots of history and reliability. Can't go wrong with either of them.


----------



## Mathew J

Sea-Wolf said:


> And then there's the flip-side: take the speedy and seamaster and sell them (such a sad re-sale story, not a true manufacturer and all that that means, much less no real pedigree or provenance such as has Rolex, especially its Sub). Put that money from both which make a nice downpayment on the Sub (which only goes up in value, what it means to be a true manufacturer, along of course with that pedigree and provenance and why when it comes to auctions/re-sale values it is what it is, always will be, and always was  Then, your comment does point out that it takes two (or more) watches (that depreciate/go down in value) to get what it is that you get from only one (i.e., the Sub, which appreciates/goes up in value). Of course, if you're a space nut, as opposed to a lover of the drink/diver like me, then the choice is clear: Rolex GMT, Omega Speedy, Breitling Navi/Cosmo, Sinn 142, among so many other space watches (Omega X-33 displaced the Speedy, along with the Breitling B-1, Timex and G-shock). All along with many others have been to space (Heuer being the first Swiss watchmaker into space, an Heuer stop watch followed by Breitling actually), but the Speedy prior to being displaced by the X-33 was the official watch selected by NASA for moon missions so as to make it a first in that sense (although it was a GMT that went up along side it and which was also the last to actually touch down on the moon on what is and remains the last manned mission to the moon, however). Still, give Omega it's due. Meantime, the Sub isn't for space, silly, but for diving: Rolex being the first, last and ONLY watchmaker to make it to the Trench, too.  All depends on what you want, and whether you're a Star Trek/NASA fan and interested in space exploration, or a Bond/Dive/Cousteau/Navy fan and interested instead in ocean exploration. But when it comes to the Sub--hang on. Not only a true icon (and all that that means), but only going up in value, for reasons already noted, and unlike the affordables/semi-affordables, I'm afraid. Doesn't mean one can't dream about both space and the deep blue sea, though. Reason why most watch boxes fit more than just one watch, yes?
> 
> Cheers


Kinda ridiculous no? the only reason subs appreciate was due to the iron fist product/price controls Rolex puts on their dealers combined with heavy marketing, two things Omega is steadfastly attempting to replicate themselves.

People will say it isn't possible but I am not so sure, having seen a number of brands "manufacture" their "status" into a higher bracket (take Audi for example) through heavy marketing, price maneuvers, and a quality product it can be done, just takes time.


----------



## Sea-Wolf

Not at all; based on the fact that Rolex is a true watch manufacturer (and all that that means), with the pedigree and provenance to back it all up, etc. As I've said before and will say again: go to an auction some time and see what the real deal is, where next only to condition pedigree and provenance are what matters. 

Rolex is the king of sport watches for a reason and when it comes to dive watches, it created the genre. Omega? Nice, but not in the same league. That said, I do like the Speedy and whilst I am a diver, I am also a Trekkie. But please don't get me started on marketing/price maneuvers--because frankly, that would be Omega (renting the new guy's wrist when we all know HRM Royal Navy wore the Sub and so, too, did the literary Bond as a member of HRM's Secret Service which just made sense; paying the new guy is product placement not to mention false horology (a fictional character? Really?); then, there's all the limited editions released in such numbers as to be in no way shape or form limited, celebrating the same old thing again and again; don't see Tag Heuer who was actually the first Swiss watchmaker in space doing that, now do we? Sigh. Could go on but I won't. Rolex is Rolex. Has the provenance and the pedigree, and is a true watch manufactory. Omega does not. Can cry and scream all it wants, but I don't care much for false horology and marketing tactics as that's not a substitute, at all, and doesn't fool anyone, much less collectors (seriously, go to an auction and see what the real deal is; Omega can cry and scream all it wants). Do I find that stuff ridiculous? You bet; is Omega the only one to play that game? Nope. (Tag Heuer comes to mind, though like Omega it has an icon, too: i.e., its Monaco). Still like the Speedy, though, despite all this and do try so hard to ignore all that other stuff. Comparing the Sub to the Speedy is truly apples and oranges, yet both are an icon in their own right and I like both myself (then, I'm an actual real life diver but also enjoyed Star Trek ... all good!  In other words, I do like both. 

Cheers

.


----------



## Mystro

This ought to be be good....I don't even know where to start with this comment??? :-x. "Rolex is a true watch manufacturer".......Really now??.o|.

Here is a free horilogical history lesson.....Omega is a much much older and established watch making company started in 1848. Rolex started its company in London in 1905 by importing Swiss movements and didn't even register the made up name of Rolex until 1915.

Owning both watches, I think you may have drank from the the Rolex "Coolaid of wonder and superlative marketing"....












Sea-Wolf said:


> Not at all; based on the fact that Rolex is a true watch manufacturer (and all that that means), with the pedigree and provenance to back it all up, etc. As I've said before and will say again: go to an auction some time and see what the real deal is, where next only to condition pedigree and provenance are what matters.
> 
> Rolex is the king of sport watches for a reason and when it comes to dive watches, it created the genre. Omega? Nice, but not in the same league. That said, I do like the Speedy and whilst I am a diver, I am also a Trekkie. But please don't get me started on marketing/price maneuvers--because frankly, that would be Omega (renting the new guy's wrist when we all know HRM Royal Navy wore the Sub and so, too, did the literary Bond as a member of HRM's Secret Service which just made sense; paying the new guy is product placement not to mention false horology (a fictional character? Really?); then, there's all the limited editions released in such numbers as to be in no way shape or form limited, celebrating the same old thing again and again; don't see Tag Heuer who was actually the first Swiss watchmaker in space doing that, now do we? Sigh. Could go on but I won't. Rolex is Rolex. Has the provenance and the pedigree, and is a true watch manufactory. Omega does not. Can cry and scream all it wants, but I don't care much for false horology and marketing tactics as that's not a substitute, at all, and doesn't fool anyone, much less collectors (seriously, go to an auction and see what the real deal is; Omega can cry and scream all it wants). Do I find that stuff ridiculous? You bet; is Omega the only one to play that game? Nope. (Tag Heuer comes to mind, though like Omega it has an icon, too: i.e., its Monaco). Still like the Speedy, though, despite all this and do try so hard to ignore all that other stuff. Comparing the Sub to the Speedy is truly apples and oranges, yet both are an icon in their own right and I like both myself (then, I'm an actual real life diver but also enjoyed Star Trek ... all good!  In other words, I do like both.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> .


----------



## Mathew J

Sea Wolf -

Rolex is only a "true manufacture" in the sense that they bought up all of their suppliers, much the same as what Swatch has done and is still in process of doing. Only relatively recently did Rolex truly move outside of sourcing when they started finally making the bits and pieces but even with that they still source a good deal of parts (Screws etc.), the irony is that the most independent company (and one that has been for a long while) is possibly one of the least aspired to brands with Seiko. It should also be noted that the movements currently used in Omega are exclusive to the brand and Rolex wasn't truly a fully independent manufacturer until about 2000 as they still sourced movements from Zenith for their Daytona series.

I'd agree with Mystro that it seems you're hitting the Rolex Kool Aid rather hard as all of this talk around "pedigree" and provenance is making my head spin, and suggesting that Omega, and more specifically the Speedmaster has none of this, well is rather laughable as the Speedy has quite possibly one of the longest unbroken lineages in modern watch history and is arguably the closest example of a vintage watch one can buy new today, compare a modern Sub with that of the original and they look nothing alike.

As for Auctions, I could as are you into this hobby for resale or enjoyment, as it always amazes me the number of Rolex and other big brand fans and how much they rely on value retention and or resale, as if that is the only true selling point for a piece. However as mentioned before the auction price, resale price, MSRP are all in essence manufactured by the controls Rolex has placed on their products and distribution network over the years, and again Omega is just now doing the same which is why we are starting to see prices on the secondary market of Omega go up considerably, just look at the Omegamania auction from Antiquorium a while back and what a success it was and or the recent sale of Elvis' Omega piece, interest in the brand is growing considerably amongst collectors, however one has to take into account the fact that in the past Omega was the top dog and made alot of "regular" pieces whereas Rolex had much lower volume and their sports pieces back then were a bit of a niche market so very limited supply.

Rolex is the "king" of marketing and current brand perception by the public as a result of said marketing, sure they have some great historical moments, many around the sea, and on the wrists of debutantes and celebrities, just as Omega has in the Sea, Space, and beyond. Some will find the Aquatic history of Rolex to be more prestigious and may give the nod to Rolex, others may feel that Omega's contributions in space are of far more interest and hold that in a higher regard, but painting with a broad brush and not at least acknowledging that a lot of this "hype" is manufactured to me is a clear sign of either zealotry or nativity.

And I find it curious that you take issue with Omega trying to better their position in the market but seemingly had no issue when Rolex did much the same for the past three decades because they were unchallenged in their respective market demographic. For years Rolex jumped their prices by huge percentages with little to no product improvement, at least with Omega as of late the price increases have coincided with tech improvements on a large scale.

I am tempted not to touch on the Bond point as I feel it is kinda silly, but my position is and always has been if Rolex felt it was worth pursuing then it then they would have ponied up the money to put their product on Bond, there is also a part of me that feels some people at Rolex HQ felt not going after this was a mistake, but that is all speculation on my part and the company seems to do fine without the connection. Ultimately it is all marketing, and I don't see any reason to fault Omega for going after a Bond connection given that Rolex clearly didn't see it as worth it, there is no argument that the Bond affiliation has done amazingly well for Omega, so like it or not, Omega's decision in this space was seemingly a smart and profitable one. Not to mention Flemming himself owned a Rolex so I can say if I am writing a book and I like something then the chances are high I would give it a nod.

You don't see people getting their undies in a bunch when Fifty Shades of Grey features Omega and it is one of the most popular books currently selling, they are all fictional and it's just a book or a movie in the case of some of the bond work.

To say that Rolex has more "provenance" and "pedigree" than Omega I truly feel is disconnected with reality, sure Rolex has a larger perception in the eyes of the public, and collectors who put resale and other matters as top priority will cite these things as being important, but both companies have a storied past with many great accomplishments, both companies are doing amazingly well now and are highly popular.

The limited edition bit is again subjective, look at other well respected companies like Montblanc, they do a ton of limited editions and it works well for them, I am willing to bet Omega's limited pieces do well for them also or else I would presume they would stop the practice of making them, just because one company does one thing doesn't mean it is a one size fits all model, and the LE pieces aren't necessarily marketed to this crowd.

I do feel a lot of this will be wasted on you as you seem pretty strong in your convictions to Rolex and your criticisms of Omega, and I would somewhat question why you'd even bother contributing here given your convictions, but I just wanted to state publicly that I am in complete disagreement with your entire assessment of the two brands, and this is as someone who used to be a very large Rolex supporter in the past.



Sea-Wolf said:


> Not at all; based on the fact that Rolex is a true watch manufacturer (and all that that means), with the pedigree and provenance to back it all up, etc. As I've said before and will say again: go to an auction some time and see what the real deal is, where next only to condition pedigree and provenance are what matters.
> 
> Rolex is the king of sport watches for a reason and when it comes to dive watches, it created the genre. Omega? Nice, but not in the same league. That said, I do like the Speedy and whilst I am a diver, I am also a Trekkie. But please don't get me started on marketing/price maneuvers--because frankly, that would be Omega (renting the new guy's wrist when we all know HRM Royal Navy wore the Sub and so, too, did the literary Bond as a member of HRM's Secret Service which just made sense; paying the new guy is product placement not to mention false horology (a fictional character? Really?); then, there's all the limited editions released in such numbers as to be in no way shape or form limited, celebrating the same old thing again and again; don't see Tag Heuer who was actually the first Swiss watchmaker in space doing that, now do we? Sigh. Could go on but I won't. Rolex is Rolex. Has the provenance and the pedigree, and is a true watch manufactory. Omega does not. Can cry and scream all it wants, but I don't care much for false horology and marketing tactics as that's not a substitute, at all, and doesn't fool anyone, much less collectors (seriously, go to an auction and see what the real deal is; Omega can cry and scream all it wants). Do I find that stuff ridiculous? You bet; is Omega the only one to play that game? Nope. (Tag Heuer comes to mind, though like Omega it has an icon, too: i.e., its Monaco). Still like the Speedy, though, despite all this and do try so hard to ignore all that other stuff. Comparing the Sub to the Speedy is truly apples and oranges, yet both are an icon in their own right and I like both myself (then, I'm an actual real life diver but also enjoyed Star Trek ... all good!  In other words, I do like both.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> .


----------



## Sea-Wolf

Hey, that's pretty funny. It's a joke, right? Otherwise, don't know where to start except to say that you are wrong. Omega, staving off bankruptcy in the 30s by merging with Tissot, only to go belly up in the whole quartz thing (uh, reason why it is owned by Swatch--you know, that group put together by Swiss bankers (to save all their investments) with the permission of the Swiss Regulators (to save all those Swiss jobs). Not even going to go through the patent and tech record except to say that by using other's tech (such as Rolex', etc.) doesn't make Omega (or any other affordable/semi-affordable) a leader in the industry but a follower, not to mention that product placement/marketing isn't horology either. Meantime, Omega does scant little when it comes to making movements. What you say is not history (fact) at all, and you realy should brush up on such things before trying to "school" anyone. (Try the library and patent office, that's where the real facts are; heck, use the search engine here even, a good start, and you'll learn tons! 

That said, Omega does have its Speedy, whereas Tag Heuer has its Monaco. Frankly, I place those two on an equal footing in every sense. Rolex, AP and JLC are real watch manufactories; Rolex is king of sport watches but not a Patek (only Patek is Patek). Omega? Once again, nice, but not in the same league for the above noted reasons. Still like the Speedy though. Had one once, and let it go. Considering a Snoopy; think it's just plain fun. 

All the best with your studies.


----------



## Mathew J

Sea Wolf,

I can't tell if this is serious for you or an attempt at getting a "rise" is some form of entertainment, hoping the latter as if the former then that is rather sad.

With that said I will leave it to others to bother with the rest of your drivel, I would however strongly suggest you take a step back and as you said "study up" before suggesting others do so.

Kind of chuckling of your reference to the Tissot -omega happenings of the 30s, when Rolex wasn't even truly a major player at the time and that was a move to boost sales with Omega being the market leader and Tissot taking a lower position, but if you want to buy into the fantasy that it was to stave off bankruptcy then by all means.

Won't disagree with JLC as I do find them to be an excellent manufacture, AP I don't find overly appealing on the whole and seems there is alot of "new" interest in this brand, typically with the set that also admires Rolex and Panerai. Also would hardly consider Omega to be affordable/semi affordable nor would I lump them with Tag Heuer, whose only true advancements have come from their acquisition and implementation of Zenith movements in their pieces. If one truly wants to talk of brand manufacturing, false history, and uninteresting pieces I think Tag is a great contender for a top spot, and I rather like some of their watches having owned one.

Discrediting Omega for anything is fine so long as one is honest about it, if you don't like their product then simply saying so is acceptable, but one cannot deny their progress with the Co Axial, new calibers, and vastly improved products, nor can one deny their contributions to history, be it with the chronometer trials, their marine watches, and as already noted contributions to the space program, speaking for their current products on the whole I find them as a Rolex owner to be far superior from a fit, finish, and technology standpoint.

And the company is making the right moves so that eventually they may very well be held in the same or a higher regard than their competition, just look at what Audi, Hyundai, and Lexus did in such short order...brands which snobbist critics loved to deride and are all now held in high esteem in their respective segments.

Good day.


Sea-Wolf said:


> Hey, that's pretty funny. It's a joke, right? Otherwise, don't know where to start except to say that you are wrong. Omega, staving off bankruptcy in the 30s by merging with Tissot, only to go belly up in the whole quartz thing (uh, reason why it is owned by Swatch--you know, that group put together by Swiss bankers (to save all their investments) with the permission of the Swiss Regulators (to save all those Swiss jobs). Not even going to go through the patent and tech record except to say that by using other's tech (such as Rolex', etc.) doesn't make Omega (or any other affordable/semi-affordable) a leader in the industry but a follower, not to mention that product placement/marketing isn't horology either. Meantime, Omega does scant little when it comes to making movements. What you say is not history (fact) at all, and you realy should brush up on such things before trying to "school" anyone. (Try the library and patent office, that's where the real facts are; heck, use the search engine here even, a good start, and you'll learn tons!
> 
> That said, Omega does have its Speedy, whereas Tag Heuer has its Monaco. Frankly, I place those two on an equal footing in every sense. Rolex, AP and JLC are real watch manufactories; Rolex is king of sport watches but not a Patek (only Patek is Patek). Omega? Once again, nice, but not in the same league for the above noted reasons. Still like the Speedy though. Had one once, and let it go. Considering a Snoopy; think it's just plain fun.
> 
> All the best with your studies.


----------



## Mystro

Sea Wolf, 
*I own both a Rolex and Omega* and my personal reputation is well regarded as being a big supporter for both brands of watches on many forums.

I am embarrassed how superior you project Rolex is among this educated group of watch enthusiast.
If Rolex is your be all, end all, thats fine. Do it on a Rolex forum, but dont bring that crap in a Omega forum and disrespect our intelligence and the well respected Omega brand with backhanded complements.

This is the delusional "Superiority complex" that is negatively associated with many Rolex owners. 
Its not a flattering image.

Here is a easy to follow Omega time line.
http://www.omegawatches.com/spirit/history/


----------



## Mathew J

Mystro said:


> Sea Wolf,
> This is the delusional "Superiority complex" that is negatively associated with many Rolex owners.
> Its not a flattering image.


Hey Mystro, had to quote this line of yours and say I agree absolutely, I used to contribute heavily in many forums and it was this type of attitude that permeated a few and made it so unbearable that I just couldn't even consider posting in them any longer...seems to engulf a select few brands, at least from my experience, keep hoping in time it will diminish and glad in most forums I contribute now it isn't often, but occasionally as seen here it rears its ugly head. Its like reading a certain "blog" and trying not to have your stomach churn.


----------



## Watch_guy

Wouldnt it make more sense to compare the sub to the seamaster? Or maybe the speedmaster to the daytona? Either, way I am thinking Rolex. I like the Omega a lot, but tough to touch the timeless classic look of a sub


----------



## Mathew J

Watch_guy said:


> Wouldnt it make more sense to compare the sub to the seamaster? Or maybe the speedmaster to the daytona? Either, way I am thinking Rolex. I like the Omega a lot, but tough to touch the timeless classic look of a sub


The only reason I think this comes up is because both watches represent the pinnacle of sports pieces for their respective brands....

For Omega the speedy is about as timeless as it gets, having changed very little from the original, or rather the one most people associate with NASA and the Apollo missions.

For Rolex the Sub is their most known diver, which that style is what I presume many/most equate with the Rolex sports watch, while it has undergone a lot of transitions and in my opinion now has little in common with the original other than the basic overall shape, its name, and possibly the movement. The new case, finishing of said case, and all or most of the aesthetics are a pretty radical redesign, but I am probably in the minority as I would have rather seen Rolex just give the watch a nicer bracelet and clasp and be done with it.

The Daytona is really a different animal as is the Seamaster and the PO, all three of these while having classic roots have changed so much over the years its hard to call any one of them as much of a "classic" as you could the Speedy or the Sub, sure they have classic styles but they aren't directly tied to their older original models as much as either the Sub or the Speedy are, but if you're talking function alone and putting aside history and all that other intangible stuff then you are correct, both comparisons would be far more fitting.

I've said it before, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but to me, as the owner of an older style Sub, the new model isn't the classic that it once was, its to me the same as the new Planet Oceans when compared to the older Seamaster 300s, wheras the Speedy Pro is again to me quite arguably the most vintage modern watch one can buy new from a dealer for even now a reasonable price, and the good thing with the speedy is I don't see that changing, at most they will swap the bracelet for one with screws.


----------



## Sea-Wolf

You couldn't be more wrong, sorry to say. 

Seems someone else really needs to go to the library, patent office, etc. and read up on real facts and history, before opening their mouth and trying to school anyone, opining on things they know little or nothing about: also repeat that one can/will learn a lot from real auctions where, in time, it will all become quite clear to you when you do, provided you're actually interested. That some here haven't done any homework much less visited a real auction house is quite apparent, and ehough said about that. (Again, Omega can cry, whine, and scream all it wants. Changes nothing, but do find it to be off-putting, really. Not sad, but rather comical and seriously off-putting).

Not fair to compare Omega to Rolex (a different league), though, anymore than it is to compare a Ford or Toyota with a Porsche, etc. Why on earth people feel a need to try and do such things is beyond me, and nonsensical. As I've also said before, there are different categories of goods, namely, basic, ordinary and luxury with the latter itself having a whole range; back to first principles, it seems. An Audi is a nice car and that it's not a Porsche doesn't make it any less so, etc. Seriously. 

I am well aware that not everyone has the same tastes much less budgets. If the affordables/semi-affordables do it for you, then that is terrific. Whilst I am not an in-house movement snob, when it comes to these prices, I demand not only true in-house manufactories and all that that means, but also the pedigree and provenance that goes along with it. I like Omega as said, but it would be foolish for anyone to spend any thing over $5,000 on one. Like Tag Heuer, Omega makes some nice watches each and both of them also having one icon apiece (namely, the Speedy and the Monaco, as has already been said). Not in the same league as Rolex, JLC or AP, with Rolex being the King of Sport watches but not a Patek to repeat. When it comes to chronos, personally, I prefer the Breguet Type XX/XXI (bought it over the Daytona, which itself I'd choose over a Speedy but not a Type XX/XXI  . But the Speedy is still fun all the same, and an icon in its own right as said. In the final analysis, it's your money and your wrist, so buy what it is that you want, yes?  

Oh, and BTW: As to kool-aid and other such comments, isn't that that sugary junk that Americans drink? Not in the EU, thanks. Nor do we do that sugary alcohol garbage either--only the real stufff, and that'll be top drawer for me, thanks. Not surprising that I should find such comments from some--not all, but some--on an Omega board. Carry on then. 

Cheers


----------



## Mitch339

To be honest, i think Rolex is indeed a superior brand and most likely a superior product, however, with that said. I LOVE my speedmaster 40th anniversary and the reason I chose it over a Rolex is because it looks fantastic (imho), comes with a tremendous history AND does not have the usual stigma of "being a Rolex." When I bought a watch, I did so not to impress others and I believe my speedy flies more below the radar.

Anyway, just me 2 cents


----------



## Mathew J

Sea-Wolf,

I would say I am saddened to see your continual condescending replies, but after doing a little digging I noticed you were a patent attorney so all I can say in the spirit of making flagrant generalizations and negative comments, I am not overly surprised, wonder if there are dashed dreams of having been a litigator, ahh ...what could have been I guess.

As for schooling, I really don't get into the details of patents and auction costs, if your sole concern with these items is how much others perceive them to be, how much you can flip them for, or who held what patent then I personally would question your true interest in these goods&#8230;really sounds kind of sad.

With that said I fail to really see the point of your reply other than to again solidify your position that in your eyes (which you try to extend to the rest of the universe) that Rolex is a more prestigious brand and to you is a "true" in house manufacture. If you want to completely ignore their past use of Zenith movements, or that technically Aeglar for years was the true manufacturer of movements for Rolex, only relatively recently being officially brought under the fold, and that Rolex again only until recently sourced various components from others and still continues to do so leaving the only true manufacture being Seiko, then that is your prerogative. However to completely dismiss the opinions of others which differ from yours seems a bit how should I say, ridiculous and juvenile. I don't think anyone would disagree that Rolex has a stronger brand perception, and that they are in house, however for some, such as myself, these two things aren't the most critical points in the universe...if they are for you then great, but delivering that opinion in such a manner that you have been doing is really kind of sadly funny.

I will say as a Rolex owner, and having owned more than one, including that Explorer 1 you recently acquired (sold it as I found it boring and overpriced), the bits about cost and affordability are rather funny. I would easily put Rolex in the same bracket price wise as Omega, and most certainly on a quality standpoint. Brands like JLC, GO, Blancpain, and others are done a big disservice by being lumped into the same price demographic as Rolex given the amount of workmanship and true craft that goes into those pieces.

Just as Omega is really being short changed by those who lump the brand with the likes of Tag Heuer, which is a fine brand but IMHO not nearly as sophisticated as Omega, and that is on all fronts, however this is seemingly reflected in the price as Tags are considerably less expensive on average and they sell really cheap models with the F1 series. Whereas Omega are considerably more expensive, and offer exceptionally rare and expensive pieces such as their central tourbillon. I'd even have a hard time putting either Breitling or Cartier in the same range as Omega at this point, Breitling is closer given their new chrono movement but that is truly the only thing even remotely putting them into the same league as Omega, but on average I consider them a lower tier brand. Same with Cartier, good solid jewelery pieces which have appeal with women, the roadster is nice but polarizing, this is reflected in the amount of interest expressed in the brand though on forums such as this. See how fun generalizations can be 

At this point I figure it is fair to agree to disagree, personally I see much of Rolex's "pedigree" as manufactured and recent, they only became popular in the 80s as they were still a niche product in the 70s, to me that is a very short period of time to now, especially when one considered Omega has been around since the 1800s&#8230;if Rolex can gain the popularity they have in less than 40 years I think it is fair to say anything can happen with enough focus on product and marketing.

Omega is making some excellent moves with their sponsorships, their watches are considerably better quality featuring "in house" movements of a superior design than what their direct competitors are offering, and on average they are still something of a better price/value than said competitors, though good luck finding too many of them for under 5K going forward.

For Mitch, when one defines superior product I believe with products such as these that are both high quality it depends on the buyer....I have owned and continue to own both and find on every tangible level my Omega is nicer than my Rolex, the finish work was better, keeps time just as well if not better, more comfortable, I can go on and on....

The new Rolex models are nice, much nicer than the series I have and have had in the past, however the new Omega models compare very nicely.

the difference is I feel a few years back the only thing Rolex had "going" for them was their in house movement and the supposed status that brought along with it, if Omega had been using in house calibers their product would have been far superior.

Now with the new models I feel the movement and overall tech in the Omegas is much more advanced, the only area the Rolex pieces truly excel is in the bracelet adjustment area but again that is just to me, others like Sea Wolf above will care about things like patents, auction sale prices, and how many other people care about what brand he is wearing, and for some that is seemingly important.

Oh well, off to drink some extra sugary drinks, eat fast food, and watch lots of bad TV.



Sea-Wolf said:


> You couldn't be more wrong, sorry to say.
> 
> Seems someone else really needs to go to the library, patent office, etc. and read up on real facts and history, before opening their mouth and trying to school anyone, opining on things they know little or nothing about: also repeat that one can/will learn a lot from real auctions where, in time, it will all become quite clear to you when you do, provided you're actually interested. That some here haven't done any homework much less visited a real auction house is quite apparent, and ehough said about that. (Again, Omega can cry, whine, and scream all it wants. Changes nothing, but do find it to be off-putting, really. Not sad, but rather comical and seriously off-putting).
> 
> Not fair to compare Omega to Rolex (a different league), though, anymore than it is to compare a Ford or Toyota with a Porsche, etc. Why on earth people feel a need to try and do such things is beyond me, and nonsensical. As I've also said before, there are different categories of goods, namely, basic, ordinary and luxury with the latter itself having a whole range; back to first principles, it seems. An Audi is a nice car and that it's not a Porsche doesn't make it any less so, etc. Seriously.
> 
> I am well aware that not everyone has the same tastes much less budgets. If the affordables/semi-affordables do it for you, then that is terrific. Whilst I am not an in-house movement snob, when it comes to these prices, I demand not only true in-house manufactories and all that that means, but also the pedigree and provenance that goes along with it. I like Omega as said, but it would be foolish for anyone to spend any thing over $5,000 on one. Like Tag Heuer, Omega makes some nice watches each and both of them also having one icon apiece (namely, the Speedy and the Monaco, as has already been said). Not in the same league as Rolex, JLC or AP, with Rolex being the King of Sport watches but not a Patek to repeat. When it comes to chronos, personally, I prefer the Breguet Type XX/XXI (bought it over the Daytona, which itself I'd choose over a Speedy but not a Type XX/XXI  . But the Speedy is still fun all the same, and an icon in its own right as said. In the final analysis, it's your money and your wrist, so buy what it is that you want, yes?
> 
> Oh, and BTW: As to kool-aid and other such comments, isn't that that sugary junk that Americans drink? Not in the EU, thanks. Nor do we do that sugary alcohol garbage either--only the real stufff, and that'll be top drawer for me, thanks. Not surprising that I should find such comments from some--not all, but some--on an Omega board. Carry on then.
> 
> Cheers


----------



## Sea-Wolf

Once again, not correct, although your comment is not exactly worthy of a response. 

To disabuse you of all such notions and/or perceived privilege, I am indeed a senior attorney, and long ago finished my judicial clerkship/articling slave days, thanks. I also teach. We all look forward to reviewing your curriculum vitae. And no, I have zero intention of going through all of the patents, etc. here (see, search engine, and WIPO registry, which will take you to your local patent office should you wish to read the public files for yourself on your own dime and time; the information is out there, just have to reach out and actually do the research for which the Internet is a terribly poor substiture). Not my fault either if you don't understand it, and I am not about to do your homework for you.

Short answer: Omega makes some nice watches, but it is not in the same league as Rolex, JLC or AP. To the extent that some here think it's trying to chase Rolex, it's only chasing its tail. Wish it the best with that, but doesn't change a thing. To each their own needs/tastes/preferences and budgets. 

Cheers.


----------



## Mathew J

[

Figured you could use another of these.....

With that said all I will add is that I personally take exception to your mention of JLC and AP being in the same 'league' as Rolex, something I find rather laughable.

Seems you were taken to task in another thread on your continual repeating of patents around Rolex and their supposed "importance" to your arguments so no sense in repeating that here.

As for my resume, well I am just someone who works with lowly technology, but then again I try to refrain from making absolute statements on things such as this realizing instead that opinions vary and everyone has that which they consider important and not...so while to you Rolex is in a different "league" to someone else, such as myself they are not. Whereas you seem rather comfortable putting forward very condescending and rather insulting remarks suggesting that your the arbiter of all that is "correct" and just ..which again is funny and sad.

Good luck with that though.

the bit about chasing a tail is interesting given that Omega has just reported a record year, their botiques seem rather successful, their models have been greatly improved, discounts are getting fewer and further between, and their prices are getting ever closer to their targeted competition...

But again this thread was a question between that of the Speedy and the Sub, not about pedigree, brand ambitions, patents or anything else.

So to bring it back around, again as a Sub owner I would prefer a Speedy and hopefully will have one at some point again.



Sea-Wolf said:


> Once again, not correct, although your comment is not exactly worthy of a response.
> 
> To disabuse you of all such notions and/or perceived privilege, I am indeed a senior attorney, and long ago finished my judicial clerkship/articling slave days, thanks. I also teach. We all look forward to reviewing your curriculum vitae. And no, I have zero intention of going through all of the patents, etc. here (see, search engine, and WIPO registry, which will take you to your local patent office should you wish to read the public files for yourself on your own dime and time; the information is out there, just have to reach out and actually do the research for which the Internet is a terribly poor substiture). Not my fault either if you don't understand it, and I am not about to do your homework for you.
> 
> Short answer: Omega makes some nice watches, but it is not in the same league as Rolex, JLC or AP. To the extent that some here think it's trying to chase Rolex, it's only chasing its tail. Wish it the best with that, but doesn't change a thing. To each their own needs/tastes/preferences and budgets.
> 
> Cheers.


----------



## Sea-Wolf

Nevermind. Carry on.


----------



## LesserBlackDog

Honestly, as someone without any real dog in this fight, I have to say that Sea-Wolf is the clear loser of this argument, in my opinion.

Mathew J refers to actual facts, including the previous reliance of Rolex on outside manufacturers for parts. Sea-Wolf makes sweeping generalizations but cites to no evidence, vaguely instructing others to visit "patent offices" and "libraries" to learn "real facts" and "real history." He also refers to his job(s), as though that is somehow relevant to this discussion...?

If you have evidence to back up your claims, Sea-Wolf, then it is upon YOU to provide it here. It isn't anyone else's job to make your argument for you. All I see are your opinions regarding Rolex's supposed superiority - with no fact or evidence to support them.

Maybe (probably) Rolex DOES make nicer watches than Omega, but you're not doing a very good job advocating for that position. You simply sound like the average Rolex fanboy, happy to swallow and regurgitate Rolex's marketing mantras, convinced that his watch is the best ever made, and incapable of admitting otherwise.

Furthermore, if in-house manufacture is truly the be-all, end-all of _haute horologie_, then Seiko is at least as good as Rolex and other Swiss manufacturers. Yet you neglect to name Seiko when listing high-end manufacturers. Looks to me like you have, indeed, indulged in the Rolex Kool-Aid if you believe their in-house manufacturing puts them in the same league as JLC, yet you simultaneously refuse to recognize Omega's recent endeavors in in-house manufacturing, much less even mention Seiko, which does ALL its production in-house and makes high-end watches on par with virtually anything coming out of Switzerland.

But like I said, I have no dog in this fight... I've owned a couple quartz Omegas and regularly borrow my dad's vintage Rolex, and frankly, neither strikes me as being markedly superior to the other. Lest you think I'm an Omega fan in sheep's clothing, I am more than happy to say that my grail watch is a tuxedo dial Datejust. As I mentioned above, Rolex probably does make a slightly nicer watch, but the difference between the two brands is marginal for most purposes. Choosing between the two largely boils down to a matter of taste and budget. That's my $.02.


----------



## Sea-Wolf

Can lead a horse to water but can't make them drink, anymore than one can take a student to the library but can't make them "think" either, I guess.  

Discussed ad nausea, see: search engine for e.g. (a good start, and hardly news). Check out a real auction while you are at it (see, above). Designs are subjective, as are comments when it comes to fit/finish to a great extent; patents, pedigree and provenance, however, are not. One either has it or one does not, and a trip to the patent office, etc. sets that out. Meantime, and in commenting about Swiss in-house makers, we now want to throw Seiko into the mix, do we? Sure, why not. But you are aware that Seiko is not in Switzerland, yet. (Well, unless you count their deal with Tag Heuer who have developed some rather interesting movements as of late based on Seiko movements, for which Tag Heuer acquired the rights. Good move on their part, and think you'll find that Tag Heuer agrees with what it is that you have to say about Seiko as well. 

Otherwise, it is and remains my belief that Tag Heuer and Omega are equal on every level (likewise discussed), but with prices being what they are these days, I would honestly have to say I prefer Tag Heuer (i.e. Monaco) over the Omega (i.e. Speedy). Again, both make some nice watches, though, having quite a range from which to choose. Then, why not throw the Breitling Navi into the mix as well (inventing the chronograph as we know it, with Longines improving upon same, Breguet itself inventing the forerunner with Breitling also being the first to announce/show an auto chrono movement that it along with Heuer, Hamilton-Buren developed, with both Seiko and Movado-Zenith also working on tneir own versions of the latter at the same time). So Seiko? Why not. This whole Rolex Sub vs. Omega Speedy thing has been going on for what? 2 years. Done to death. 

Why not mix it up a bit and throw Seiko into the mix--shall we discuss it's Spring Drive Spacewalk for e.g., being the one worn by a wealthy gamer/space tourist who hitched a ride into space with the Russians, perhaps? Sounds promising, given that it did go into space and thus in-theme, I believe, too. Also think that, by releasing a LE SD Spacewalk (limited to only 100 pieces only) that some Swiss might actually learn a thing or two as to what exactly LE means (hint: not released in the thousands, much less what seems like every other or so year  

Cheers.


----------



## Mathew J

LesserBlackDog said:


> Honestly, as someone without any real dog in this fight.....


Hey Ben,

The interesting thing is that the thread was innocent enough and for the most part no one was arguing, just what people preferred and why....it wasn't until statements of "certainty" were thrown around that I got a bit worked up...

the short is both companies make great products, which depending on ones perspective may be superior to the other.

And if in ones criteria for greatness things like status, and being completely in house, or patent submission matter then that is fine...but at least be at one with the fact that while these things matter to "you" they might not matter to others as much or at all, and be respectful of differing opinions so long as they are presented in a non combative or insulting way.


----------



## Mathew J

Sea-Wolf said:


> Designs are subjective, as are comments when it comes to fit/finish to a great extent; patents, pedigree and provenance, however, are not.


You repeatedly speak of this yet offer no examples. Again someone else took you to task in another thread on your continued repetition of the importance of patents and I fail to see why they would indicate any level of "superiority" beyond it is an area of the law with which you are familiar with and attribute some type of "respect" for Rolex because of their submissions.

Also the mentions of "pedigree and provinance" I have yet to see any points from you that explain why I or anyone here should just accept that this is "important"

I have already addressed this in a previous post and can't type any slower in the hopes it sinks in, but having looked at the histories and accomplishments of both Rolex and Omega extensively I fail to see how one handily trumps the other, both have very storied pasts with their own accomplishments.

The only area I won't dispute is that of Brand recognition and demand on the secondary market, but again much of that is manufactured and also directly related to the fact that Rolex was more of a niche product up until the 70s- early 80s and their lack of direct competition in the 80s-90s allowed them to control dealers and prices with an iron fist driving costs/values/and demand up exponentially, similar to what occurred with Montblanc and other utilitarian brands turned luxury.

As for the bit about Tag, well again that is your right to consider them on par, however the price points do not seem to support that given that on average Omega pieces are more expensive and have greater value and demand on the secondary markets.

I know you painted Omega issues in 82 as negative and certainly it wasn't the height of times for the brand, however keeping it in perspective you're speaking of a company with an unbroken lineage from 1848, which as Mystro stated is far older than that of Rolex which wasn't founded until 1905. The Tissot merger was essentially before Rolex ever even did much of anything, and again even before Rolex had a chance to do much more Omega had already established themselves as the official timekeeper of the Olympics...pretty impressed that a brand/company that old is still around and thriving today and is still the official timekeeper of the Olympics.


----------



## Sea-Wolf

Patent and inventors: the one who invents the thing and brings something new and/or improved, etc. to market, to which that inventor gets exclusive rights for a limited time in exchange for a enabling disclosure (after which time it falls into the public domain, and others are free to use, modify, etc. that invention, including of course the original inventor itself). Patents advance and contribute to the watchmaker's art, moving everyone forward. The more patents, the greater the advancement/contribution to the watchmaker's field, and the more prestige/pedigree has such watchmaker in turn. This is authenticity, and those with a track record of such and make in-house movements, etc. are more likely to innovate, etc. in future. From an objective point of view, these things do matter (personally support such efforts myself, those with a proven track record of innovation, etc. continue to do so, and I support same via my patronage). Also reason why it is that Rolex and Patek sell everything they make at the prices they ask. Nothing subjective about it, and not marketing. Fact. (So let's cut the marketing comments as they have no bearing on any of this. All watchmakers, candlestick makers, butchers, bakers and automakers, etc. advertise, nature of the beast these days; but it's a totally different thing than are and has nothing to do with pedigree and provenance, etc., which one either has or they don't). 

Note: I've done a community service here, placing patents and explanations on WUS, in plain easy to understand English, providing sources, etc. for those who are actually interested in furthering their knowledge/acquiring more detailed information, and which I am not going to repeat or say anything further here about, having already along with others deposited info here, and what in fact the search engine is all about, yes?  

That said, if one doesn't care about such things, basing their decision on subjective factors (like design, being an astronaut, or whatever) then that's totally fine and no quibble since in all such cases it's only one's own wrist that knows one best, as I've said before. Sure, I like design elements, too, but I care as much or more about objective factors, espeically at certain price points. As to Heuer vs. Omega, based on objective factors as well (discussed). Honestly in past, I would have said that Omega is a better buy over Heuer, but not so anymore, on account of their respective prices, depending exactly on which exact watch we are tallking about, though, true. Both have a large range of offerings, and this plays out also in terms of re-sale values, also true. Then, if you're a race fan, you just gotta have a Monaco, but if you're a Trekkie/space fan, it's gotta be a Speedy, right?  

In the final anaylsis, we all have different needs/tastes/preferences/budgets/etc. (and yes, re-sale/auction values are important to me, even if I never intend on selling my watch, such things are relevant to me). Then, only one's own wrist knows one best, as I like to say, too. 

Cheers


----------



## Mathew J

Sea Wolf -

At least now we are getting some acknowledgement that much of this for you is nothing more than personal preference which is great.

With that said believe the meat of the other argument was that nothing truly new and or better had to come from a patent, rather much of it was the perception of being better which was never truly shown, whereas you contended that because it was patented it must be "better" wheras in that thread it was shown in more than a few occasions this was not the case so forgive me if I don't put as much weight into the act of simply patenting something. And I would presume though it is a guess on my part having never looked into it, Omega patented much of their work with the new calibers as well as the Co Axial work they have done, arguably some of the greatest advancements in the past few decades.

Won't bother with much of the rest of it other than to again state how I feel differently on Tag Heuer, and would put Omega not only above them but also a number of other brands which were mentioned before, where you consider these (seemingly) as value brands, I would suggest that clearly based on price and other factors Omega no longer falls into this category (really was at best on the cusp of it in the past with a handful of models)

I also love it how you feel you have done us all a service... too rich.



Sea-Wolf said:


> Patent and inventors: the one who invents the thing and brings something new and/or improved, etc. to market, to which that inventor gets exclusive rights for a limited time in exchange for a enabling disclosure (after which time it falls into the public domain, and others are free to use, modify, etc. that invention, including of course the original inventor itself). Patents advance and contribute to the watchmaker's art, moving everyone forward. The more patents, the greater the advancement/contribution to the watchmaker's field, and the more prestige/pedigree has such watchmaker in turn. This is authenticity, and those with a track record of such and make in-house movements, etc. are more likely to innovate, etc. in future. From an objective point of view, these things do matter (personally support such efforts myself, those with a proven track record of innovation, etc. continue to do so, and I support same via my patronage). Also reason why it is that Rolex and Patek sell everything they make at the prices they ask. Nothing subjective about it, and not marketing. Fact. (So let's cut the marketing comments as they have no bearing on any of this. All watchmakers, candlestick makers, butchers, bakers and automakers, etc. advertise, nature of the beast these days; but it's a totally different thing than are and has nothing to do with pedigree and provenance, etc., which one either has or they don't).
> 
> Note: I've done a community service here, placing patents and explanations on WUS, in plain easy to understand English, providing sources, etc. for those who are actually interested in furthering their knowledge/acquiring more detailed information, and which I am not going to repeat or say anything further here about, having already along with others deposited info here, and what in fact the search engine is all about, yes?
> 
> That said, if one doesn't care about such things, basing their decision on subjective factors (like design, being an astronaut, or whatever) then that's totally fine and no quibble since in all such cases it's only one's own wrist that knows one best, as I've said before. Sure, I like design elements, too, but I care as much or more about objective factors, espeically at certain price points. As to Heuer vs. Omega, based on objective factors as well (discussed). Honestly in past, I would have said that Omega is a better buy over Heuer, but not so anymore, on account of their respective prices, depending exactly on which exact watch we are tallking about, though, true. Both have a large range of offerings, and this plays out also in terms of re-sale values, also true. Then, if you're a race fan, you just gotta have a Monaco, but if you're a Trekkie/space fan, it's gotta be a Speedy, right?
> 
> In the final anaylsis, we all have different needs/tastes/preferences/budgets/etc. (and yes, re-sale/auction values are important to me, even if I never intend on selling my watch, such things are relevant to me). Then, only one's own wrist knows one best, as I like to say, too.
> 
> Cheers


----------



## drunken monkey

I wonder where the saying resting on one's laurels comes from?


----------



## Haddock

@Seawolf I read your posts, and although I can really appreciate the fact that you go through such effort to display your opinion, to me it reads as... just an opinion. Your tone comes across as a bit patronizing. But that's just an opinion. Mine that is.


----------



## Watch_guy

Wow...this is tough to follow.
i think it is a waste of time to argue which brand is better, when you are on a forum dedicated to one of the brands!
I happen to like and respect Rolex, Tag, Omega and Breitling....
i will offer my opinion, which is just that.
i think of the 4 brands above , Rolex sits atop the pack for exclusivity of movement, and overall reputation, as well as investment/ value retention.
the other 3 are easily argued, but I will certainly say that Tag Heuer deserves to be in the conversation based on longevity and innovation. I dont find my seamaster to be any better quality than my Tag Carrera (opinion), but I certainly notice a difference in quality with my sub...just a cut above.
now, I would put Panerai at the top of my personal list with Rolex, but again, just opinion......


----------



## Mathew J

Watch_guy said:


> Wow...this is tough to follow.
> i think it is a waste of time to argue which brand is better, when you are on a forum dedicated to one of the brands!
> I happen to like and respect Rolex, Tag, Omega and Breitling....
> i will offer my opinion, which is just that.
> i think of the 4 brands above , Rolex sits atop the pack for exclusivity of movement, and overall reputation, as well as investment/ value retention.
> the other 3 are easily argued, but I will certainly say that Tag Heuer deserves to be in the conversation based on longevity and innovation. I dont find my seamaster to be any better quality than my Tag Carrera (opinion), but I certainly notice a difference in quality with my sub...just a cut above.
> now, I would put Panerai at the top of my personal list with Rolex, but again, just opinion......


Watch Guy,

I think the big difference is that you and I can say these things and then point back to our own opinion/preferences...speaking for myself I too like Tag, Breitling, and Omega, however in my personal assessment Omega is the top of the three given their overall styles, the workmanship, and the technology. I do think Tag has some nice watches, and love the Zenith based models, just as I love the Navitimer and the in house chrono based heritage, but on the whole I don't find those two brands as appealing.

Further with my Sub and having owned an older A series Datejust and K series Explorer 1 I saw absoutely nothing which put any of those three above the quality of my current 2500 based Aqua Terra from a tangible standpoint, the only thing that may have would be the in house movement, but the 2500 in my AT appears nicer finished, and keeps time as well, plus its considerably less money than even the Datejust was and I got that grey market.

The new Rolex pieces are very nice, but I wouldn't compare my AT to that series, rather the new AT compares more favorably.

The difference with Sea Wolf is that he is trying to put for an absolute stance based on a few criteria which he finds to be important, namely patents that a company files (seemingly completely dismissing that companies like Omega also routinely submit similar patents), auction prices, lineage (seemingly being unbroken/undesturbed is important regarrdless of how long or short a company has been in existence) and status perception/value retention.

It's fine to hold these things important and to justify to oneself as to why they may be, but to make the assumption that others will consider them just as important (if at all) seems kind of silly to me.

As for Panerai I feel from a workmanship standpoint they are good, but personally can't warm up to their styling as to me it still seems to in the moment, but again that is my personal take and clearly something the market disagrees with me on.


----------



## Sea-Wolf

Omega and Tag Heur when it comes to innovation are relatively equal, not on par with that of Rolex. Again, this is pedigree and is important to most (especially collectors, and why it is that re-sale values are what they are, and always have been). Sure, some people don't care, just want a watch, seeing it as jewelry. Reason why Kobold among others exist as well. Personally, I like to know what it is that I am paying for, based thus not on subjective but objective factors. As to history, spoken about ad nausea (by the 30s, Rolex was already the prestigious maker, one of if not the chief reasons as to why it is that men finally switched over from pocket watches to wristwatches, which prior to the Rolex chronometer standing (which it started, no one in their right mind believing a wrist watch could be so accurate until Rolex proved them wrong; same with the water proof Oyster case and crown (WR today) 20s, and whole reason behind the perpetual automatic movement which Rolex also developed (1931, modifying/substantially improving Harwood's bumper, which if one bothers to actually look at one--used to have one in my vintage collection, long since sold at auction--one will readily see why it is it wasn't suited for wearing on the wrist, etc. and didn't work all that great either; then, innovation/R&D doesn't happen in a vaccum, but rather a problem to be solved; for Wilsdorf, not just a problem but out to change the way modern man if you will interacts with time, getting them to put away their pocket watches and take up a wrist watch by providing them with an accurate, reliable and durable time piece which is in fact what Rolex did: a game changer in turn. 

Whilst others were scrambling and going bankrupt, Rolex didn't feel the pain at all, its charming Prince for e.g. selling for more than the price of a new car at a time when the majority of people were unemployed and couldn't even afford a bowl of soup (Rolex, Hamilton pocketwatches, JLC (Reverso) and Longines (tanks, etc.) were the top makers by then, the world now wearing wrist watches first man's watch made by Cartier, all of which and also discussed ad nausea on the boards). Rolex developed the dive watch (all of the above, Rolex' movement forming the basis of all modern movements in the market today, and since improved by itself and others (Eterna, Buren, etc. etc. etc.), along with waterproof cases and crowns, which are also the standard and to be found in all modern watches today; add other Rolex' inventions such as the turn-o-graph (bezel), helium release valve (which it developed and tested with Doxa), etc. et voila: Rolex Sub/DS/DSSD. It developed the genre in turn, others --including Omega--using Rolex tech in turn. That's what innovation, etc. is all about--moving everyone forward, and indeed important to me and why I support it. (see above).

That said, as a real honest-to-goodness diver (wow, I actually dive with my dive watches, not made for a suit as that's simply all wrong, but anywho), I have respect for Breitling, Omega and Doxa as well. Rolex focused on military and pro/commercial divers (HRM British Navy, the French and US used Tudor (Rolex' little brother) Subs, Coustea and the legendary COMEX going with the DS, etc. which is cultural provenance which, along with pedigree (patents, etc.) are the only things next to condition once again and for the last time matter when it comes to the re-sale value/auction prices of antiques and vintage, including thus watches. Going to an auction and seeing what the real deal is would be educational for many, truly would); the others focussed primarily on the recreational market. As I diver, I love them all; however, not in the same league as is Rolex, which is also a true in-house movement maker and all that that means as is JLC and AP. Rolex is King of Sport watches, but not Patek, ALS (the latter post war stopped making i.e. pilot B-uhrs, focusing on high-end complicated dress watches instead, whereas Rolex post-war pretty much dropped it high end dress watch line (its Prince line-up, etc.), focusing on its tough Rolex Oyster Perpetual (sports) line-up instead, and which is the most sought after, copied, knicked-off and knocked-off line-up on the planet there is, the Sub itself being the most respected and recognised dive watch there is. Alas, this is an Omega board though, why let objective factors get in the way .... 

As such and regardless: Omega, Breitling, Tag Heuer are all nice and have contributed to the watchmaker's art qua watchmakers, and as such I respect them, but are not in the same league. (Objective factors); if none of that or related re-sale values, etc. (which are all closely tied together) mean anything to you, caring only about design, etc., well then, that's subjective and entirely your call. 

Finally, and to repeat once more: only your own wrist knows you best, I say once again--it also being a truism that we all have different needs/tastes/demands/desires and of course budgets. 

Enjoy your watches; they are fun.


----------



## Mathew J

Finally something with a little bit of substance&#8230;thought we'd never get there.

As for your first point I'd hardly put Omega and Tag together when it comes to innovation, given the former had a storied history under Heuer until they were acquired by TAG and then later again by LVMH, both seeming exercises in filling out product portfolios. The 80s saw nothing of "interest' from Tag, just a collection of sourced components put together and pushed through heavy marketing, and even now with LVMH while the pieces are improving there is nothing truly of substance there beyond the tech they are porting over from Zenith . Which all leads to them just not being in the same league as Omega which has not only successfully mass produced possibly the most significant advancement in horology with the Co Axial escapement, but also had developed numerous in house calibers and significantly improved their range on the whole.

Again this disparity is noted in the variance in MSRP where Tags are on average considerably less expensive than Omega and equally on the secondary market don't hold their value nearly as well. I truly feel Tag under LVMH is comfortable holding a more value position than Omega which is why we don't see much beyond nicer case and dial work on their better range and a continued support of lower end pieces such as the F1, wheras Omega clearly is a premium/luxury brand for the Swatch Group who they intend to go toe to toe with Rolex.

As for history I'd question a few of your points, most notably about Rolex and their position in the market in the 30s, sure they moments in history at this time but I have yet to see any supporting evidence that suggests they were considered and accepted universally as a premium brand until after the late 30s at best, with widespread knowledge not comming until the 50s-60s-70s and even then their sports watches weren't that in demand, rather niche pieces which is why so "hot" today given the limited supply and brand popularity wheras others like Omega dealt more with dress and multipurpose pieces such as the Constellation and Seamaster dress series.

I also have yet to see anything which suggests Rolex was the catalyst for people moving away from pocket watches, would like a bit more supporting evidence, there were plenty of wrist watches in and around the timeof WW1 of which Rolex was one of them which didn't even have its brand fully solidified by then.

I won't argue the points about the automatic movement and the oyster case as both were solid contributions, however would note that from a water resistance standpoint Omega bested the oyster with their Marine, and as you said Rolex simply modified Harwoods bumper movement to include an oscillatingweight, by the same token Eterna further improved this by adding ball bearings to said rotor, something Rolex did not and still doesn't employ in many of their watches.

The rest of that bit sounds too propaganda for my tastes, as the financial issues didn't occur for many until the 70s, , My understanding is that even then and Omega out sold Rolex in sheer volume though on average Rolex watches cost "slightly" more at this point, it wasn't until after the 70s that many brands began to falter as they decided to compete with the quartz pieces whereas Rolex made a very smart decision in focusing on the luxury segment, truly one of the most risky moves they ever took as at that point there was nothing to suggest that people would move from practicality to decadence.

Further I see you giving ample credit to Rolex for their contributions to certain areas, yet one cannot deny Omega's notable achievements which are as follows:

First mass produced movement
First Minute repeater
First watch for impaired sight
Official Olympic timekeeper since 1932 (before Rolex waseven truly on the radar of many) and all of the various technology they developed in this space such as touchpads, electronic recordings, and theability to super impose the time of competitors on screens)
Amelia Earhart's crossing the Atlantic (all of the timers were Omega) 
Their Contributions to the Apollo missions and beyond
The marine chronometer
The co axial escapement in mass production
And beyond&#8230;.

Even during their financial challenges they managed to deliver some amazing technology and deliver in their respective space. One could argue that while Rolex seemingly took a hiatus from advancing in theircraft Omega continued to push forward which is what led them to where they are today and I would argue their success is why we eventually have seen the improvements from Rolex which we are seeing now.

So I'd again stress that I do feel both Rolex and Omega are from a product standpoint very close in terms of quality/design/andachievements throughout their companies lifespan, the only areas Rolex truly excels are those which revolve around marketing, brand awareness, and resale -value because of said brand awareness and product control, an area Omega is seemingly working very hard at closing the gap in. Much of Rolex's success in this area I attribute to their decision in the 70s which allowed them to go unchallenged throughout the 80s, and it wasn't truly until the 90s that Omega started to focus again on moving back upmarket, something they have seemingly done and continue to do at breakneck speed but only time will tell how successful they are.

Brands like Breitling, Cartier, and Tag, while nice, I just don't see them currently being at the same level as Omega given what thecompany has accomplished at this time.

And again to your point of "King of Sport watches" I don't think anyone, myself included will deny the Sub is a heavily borrowed from style and Rolex truly advanced task specific timepieces, but the sheer act of your putting them along with a few others at the pinnacle of swiss watchmaking is clearly an exercise of subjectivism at best, as I can't stress enough what may be imporant to you may not be important to others...where you give credit to Rolex for their work with the Submariner, others may equally give credit to Omega for their countless contributions as well. 



Sea-Wolf said:


> Omega and Tag Heur when it comes to innovation are relatively equal, not on par with that of Rolex. Again, this is pedigree and is important to most (especially collectors, and why it is that re-sale values are what they are, and always have been). Sure, some people don't care, just want a watch, seeing it as jewelry. Reason why Kobold among others exist as well. Personally, I like to know what it is that I am paying for, based thus not on subjective but objective factors. As to history, spoken about ad nausea (by the 30s, Rolex was already the prestigious maker, one of if not the chief reasons as to why it is that men finally switched over from pocket watches to wristwatches, which prior to the Rolex chronometer standing (which it started, no one in their right mind believing a wrist watch could be so accurate until Rolex proved them wrong; same with the water proof Oyster case and crown (WR today) 20s, and whole reason behind the perpetual automatic movement which Rolex also developed (1931, modifying/substantially improving Harwood's bumper, which if one bothers to actually look at one--used to have one in my vintage collection, long since sold at auction--one will readily see why it is it wasn't suited for wearing on the wrist, etc. and didn't work all that great either; then, innovation/R&D doesn't happen in a vaccum, but rather a problem to be solved; for Wilsdorf, not just a problem but out to change the way modern man if you will interacts with time, getting them to put away their pocket watches and take up a wrist watch by providing them with an accurate, reliable and durable time piece which is in fact what Rolex did: a game changer in turn.
> 
> Whilst others were scrambling and going bankrupt, Rolex didn't feel the pain at all, its charming Prince for e.g. selling for more than the price of a new car at a time when the majority of people were unemployed and couldn't even afford a bowl of soup (Rolex, Hamilton pocketwatches, JLC (Reverso) and Longines (tanks, etc.) were the top makers by then, the world now wearing wrist watches first man's watch made by Cartier, all of which and also discussed ad nausea on the boards). Rolex developed the dive watch (all of the above, Rolex' movement forming the basis of all modern movements in the market today, and since improved by itself and others (Eterna, Buren, etc. etc. etc.), along with waterproof cases and crowns, which are also the standard and to be found in all modern watches today; add other Rolex' inventions such as the turn-o-graph (bezel), helium release valve (which it developed and tested with Doxa), etc. et voila: Rolex Sub/DS/DSSD. It developed the genre in turn, others --including Omega--using Rolex tech in turn. That's what innovation, etc. is all about--moving everyone forward, and indeed important to me and why I support it. (see above).
> 
> That said, as a real honest-to-goodness diver (wow, I actually dive with my dive watches, not made for a suit as that's simply all wrong, but anywho), I have respect for Breitling, Omega and Doxa as well. Rolex focused on military and pro/commercial divers (HRM British Navy, the French and US used Tudor (Rolex' little brother) Subs, Coustea and the legendary COMEX going with the DS, etc. which is cultural provenance which, along with pedigree (patents, etc.) are the only things next to condition once again and for the last time matter when it comes to the re-sale value/auction prices of antiques and vintage, including thus watches. Going to an auction and seeing what the real deal is would be educational for many, truly would); the others focussed primarily on the recreational market. As I diver, I love them all; however, not in the same league as is Rolex, which is also a true in-house movement maker and all that that means as is JLC and AP. Rolex is King of Sport watches, but not Patek, ALS (the latter post war stopped making i.e. pilot B-uhrs, focusing on high-end complicated dress watches instead, whereas Rolex post-war pretty much dropped it high end dress watch line (its Prince line-up, etc.), focusing on its tough Rolex Oyster Perpetual (sports) line-up instead, and which is the most sought after, copied, knicked-off and knocked-off line-up on the planet there is, the Sub itself being the most respected and recognised dive watch there is. Alas, this is an Omega board though, why let objective factors get in the way ....
> 
> As such and regardless: Omega, Breitling, Tag Heuer are all nice and have contributed to the watchmaker's art qua watchmakers, and as such I respect them, but are not in the same league. (Objective factors); if none of that or related re-sale values, etc. (which are all closely tied together) mean anything to you, caring only about design, etc., well then, that's subjective and entirely your call.
> 
> Finally, and to repeat once more: only your own wrist knows you best, I say once again--it also being a truism that we all have different needs/tastes/demands/desires and of course budgets.
> 
> Enjoy your watches; they are fun.


----------



## es335

Sea-Wolf said:


> Omega and Tag Heur when it comes to innovation are relatively equal, not on par with that of Rolex.
> 
> That said, as a real honest-to-goodness diver (wow, I actually dive with my dive watches, not made for a suit as that's simply all wrong, but anywho), I have respect for Breitling, Omega and Doxa as well. Rolex focused on military and pro/commercial divers (HRM British Navy, the French and US used Tudor (Rolex' little brother) Subs, Coustea and the legendary COMEX going with the DS, etc. which is cultural provenance which, along with pedigree (patents, etc.) are the only things next to condition once again and for the last time matter when it comes to the re-sale value/auction prices of antiques and vintage, including thus watches. Going to an auction and seeing what the real deal is would be educational for many, truly would); the others focussed primarily on the recreational market. As I diver, I love them all; however, not in the same league as is Rolex, which is also a true in-house movement maker and all that that means as is JLC and AP. Rolex is King of Sport watches, but not Patek, ALS (the latter post war stopped making i.e. pilot B-uhrs, focusing on high-end complicated dress watches instead, whereas Rolex post-war pretty much dropped it high end dress watch line (its Prince line-up, etc.), focusing on its tough Rolex Oyster Perpetual (sports) line-up instead, and which is the most sought after, copied, knicked-off and knocked-off line-up on the planet there is, the Sub itself being the most respected and recognised dive watch there is. Alas, this is an Omega board though, why let objective factors get in the way ....
> 
> As such and regardless: Omega, Breitling, Tag Heuer are all nice and have contributed to the watchmaker's art qua watchmakers, and as such I respect them, but are not in the same league. (Objective factors); if none of that or related re-sale values, etc. (which are all closely tied together) mean anything to you, caring only about design, etc., well then, that's subjective and entirely your call.


And most Omega movements prior to the 1970s were all in house like Rolex. Tag Heuer pretty much uses off the shelf ETA movements. So how can you claim Omega and Tag Heuer are on the same plane in terms of historical innovations?

Morever, the Omega Speedmaster was chosen as a more robust timepiece than a Rolex chronograph to go to the moon after extensive testing by NASA.

RE: Divers. It's not that clear cut. Blancpain preceded both the Submariner and the Seamaster 300 to market. Yet, both Rolex and Omega both borrowed ideas from it. Check out the dial markers. Yes, the Seamaster 300 diver was introduced a few years after the Sub, but Rolex also stole ideas from the Seamaster 300. Don't believe me?

Note that 1970s Rolex Milsub copies innovations from the 1968 Seamaster 300 -- namely the sword hands and seconds sweep. Rolex copied the Omega hour, minute and seconds hands for the Milsub. See below photos to witness how Rolex stole an Omega innovation.

The Sub has rightly earned it's place as a legendary diver. But Rolex has also stolen ideas from Omega. You're very passionate, but obviously mistaken on some things, and full of hot air.

One could argue the modern day Sub is just a piece of jewelry (like a Seamaster) given the maxi case (larded lugs which serve zero practical purpose, but are meant to make the watch look bigger), white gold hour feminine hour markers to generate a metrosexual bling effect. It's an irrelevant bourgeois status icon popular with douc.h.e.bags. See bottom image to witness what the Sub has devolved into. A piece of crap.


----------



## Mathew J

es335 said:


> One could argue the modern day Sub is just a piece of jewelry (like a Seamaster) given the maxi case (larded lugs which serve zero practical purpose, but are meant to make the watch look bigger), white gold hour feminine hour markers to generate a metrosexual bling effect.


Great post though don't want to see this devolve into a mud slinging fest (though hard to avoid it with some of the previous comments by Sea Wolf)

With that said thank Goodness Omega still offers a true classic in the Speedy Pro, at least one company out there is comfortable gently improving upon a classic instead of bending towards fashion trends, the irony is that a few years back this was the argument by many a Rolex fan in favor of their brand...now I feel they are just as guilty as any other given their revisions whereas Omega has arguably the most classic piece available today.


----------



## Sea-Wolf

That is what Blancpain would like us to belive, but it's not true, I'm afraid. (Rolex turn-o-graph equals the bezel, and first Sub (that didn't say "Sub" just "Oyster Perpetual" on the dial) in or about 1950, and what in fact Ian Fleming chose as the Bond watch, knowing of the Sub as a former British Naval Intelligence officer himself, with Rolex' case/crown etc. in the public domain by then ...  

Then, Blancpain wasn't the "first" to come to market with Harwood's bumper (who went bankrupt) either, despite what Swatch-Blancpain ads would have us believe (that would be Fortis). Sure, everyone took up that bumper once Harwood went belly up (including SSIH (Tissot-Omega) and Blancpain subsequently, falling into the public domain as it did; however, Rolex had a patent on its perpetual (substantial improvement) meaning only Rolex could use that until such time that its patent expired, thereafter free for others to use, modify, etc. including of course Rolex itself, and its that which forms the basis of all modern movements today as said. 

As to the original PloProf? Yes, I quite like that watch. Would I choose it over a Rolex Sub? Nope. But would I choose it over a Breitling, Doxa or Tag Heuer dive watch? YOU BET!! As a diver (as said), nothing but respect. 

Cheers


----------



## Mathew J

Ehem, there is nothing which states Ian Flemming referenced the Submariner in his works, if anything popular opinion here and elsewhere is that he was referring to an Explorer much like the one he owned. But don't take my word for it as I have never bothered to read the Bond books, just going off what countless posts here have pointed out.

The only time the Sub was imparted onto the Bond character directly was in the movies and that is when the association was born.

Just thought you'd like you know that you might not be correct here either.

Also you can't have it both ways Sea....

As stated by es the FF was released to market before the Sub, popular theory is that both the Sub and the FF were being designed in parallel, the reality is Blancpain got it out the door a little faster, the difference was Rolex apparently had a better marketing/distribution model at the time.

While Rolex may have ported the rotating bezel from their TOG for the Sub, the reality is that others were using the same or a similar design (Blancpain), so while you might want to attribute credit solely to Rolex because they used that loose design element first, the reality is that Blancpain delieverd this style diver before Rolex if ever so slightly.

And Rolex's patent on the auto rotor ended in the late 40s...before the release of the FFs.



Sea-Wolf said:


> and what in fact Ian Fleming chose as the Bond watch, knowing of the Sub as a former British Naval Intelligence officer himself, with Rolex' case/crown etc. in the public domain by then ...


----------



## es335

Sea-Wolf said:


> That is what Blancpain would like us to belive, but it's not true, I'm afraid. (Rolex turn-o-graph equals the bezel, and first Sub (that didn't say "Sub" just "Oyster Perpetual" on the dial) in or about 1950, and what in fact Ian Fleming chose as the Bond watch, knowing of the Sub as a former British Naval Intelligence officer himself, with Rolex' case/crown etc. in the public domain by then ...
> 
> Then, Blancpain wasn't the "first" to come to market with Harwood's bumper (who went bankrupt) either, despite what Swatch-Blancpain ads would have us believe (that would be Fortis). Sure, everyone took up that bumper once Harwood went belly up (including SSIH (Tissot-Omega) and Blancpain subsequently, falling into the public domain as it did; however, Rolex had a patent on its perpetual (substantial improvement) meaning only Rolex could use that until such time that its patent expired, thereafter free for others to use, modify, etc. including of course Rolex itself, and its that which forms the basis of all modern movements today as said.
> 
> As to the original PloProf? Yes, I quite like that watch. Would I choose it over a Rolex Sub? Nope. But would I choose it over a Breitling, Doxa or Tag Heuer dive watch? YOU BET!! As a diver (as said), nothing but respect.
> 
> Cheers


The Blancpain Fifty Fathoms diver was commercially issued by 1953 in France. The Rolex Turn-o-Graph model was introduced in 1954 as an award given to US Air Force pilots returning from combat missions. It featured a rotating bezel marked to 60 minutes, which can be used to measure time intervals

Yet, Longines had a watch with a rotating elapsed time bezel by the 1940s if not earlier. See picture below of 1940s Longines and the 1950s Rolex Turn-o-Graph. The Turn-o-Graph was not an innovation. It consolidated concepts other brands had already put on the market.


----------



## Sea-Wolf

The Rolex turn-o-graph preceded the first Sub we know to be a Sub [1952-53 through 54 as I recall and was then discontinued only to come back (on the DJ, as I also recall)]. The first Sub was in or about 1950, and was an experimental model (along with the Early explorer--which shared the same 3-6-9 dial), with the oyster case and crown dating back to the 20s, the perpetual self-winding movement to the 30s, etc. The Sub as we know it today did not appear until 1954, although preceded by an earlier model which shared the EXP dial and did not have "sub" on the dial, as said.

As to the Longines-Weems Navigator's watch, it's neat--I had one in my collection once, former RCAF issue! (Among other things, not WR along with a locking bezel, not the same or appropriate as a dive watch, now is it?  Note: Canadian officers, solidiers and allied forces prefered Rolex Oyster watches (Skyrocket, etc.) over their inferior standard issues, buying them out of their own funds from PX. (Likewise discussed). Still, a neat watch (and Longines is under-rated in my books, too).

Cheers


----------



## drunken monkey

Rotating bezels existed before Rolex used one.
Not all automatic watches use a rotor.
Rolex's perpetual is to do with the use of the spinning rotor to actuate the winding instead of the bumper. The underlying works is the same.
Part of the reason why military personel bought Rolex watches was because they were given big discounts and Rolex were willing to sell to POWs and that payment was deferred until the end of hostilities. In other words, Rolex said, "here, have a watch and pay up back whenever this fighting stops".


Also, the similarity between in the details of the Milsub and 300m Seamaster is because of the specific requirements of the British military commission.
Among them is the use of the sword hands, minute markers on the bezel, use of specific lume pattern on dial and water resistance.
It was not a case of anyone copying anyone else.



Patents are not the be all.
Ferrari hold very few if any historic patents but they arguable make the finest sports cars in the world.
Mercedes Benz made many innovations in automotive engineering but made a lot of sub (Mercedes) standard cars in the nineties.
Yes history is great but that is no guarantee as to what a company does today.

It seems to me the Rolex is a case of resting on its laurels when Omega is moving forwards.

Of course, through your Rolex tinted glasses you'd say that it was because they are chasing Rolex but I see the reality as it being because that is the direction the market dictates they should go.
And that is the problem I have with your posts. Every bit of history you cite is taken with a Rolex-centric slant.
As with the automatic winding.
Rolex did not invent it, they invented the spinning rotor to go on Harwood's bumper's place but you cite that as being them inventing automatic winding itself.

You continually mention Rolex as being totally in-house but neglect to mention since when this happened.
Remind me again what movement is used in the super desirable Newman Daytona?


----------



## Sea-Wolf

Every thing I cite is well documented, in real books written by actual real researchers and authorities, and patent files/documents. It is not my fault once again if people do not understand it, choose not to learn, and/or choose to use the Internet/Wiki, etc. which is a very poor substitute (aka not research, at all), and I will thank you once again not to put words in my mouth or erroneously quote me as saying things I did not in fact say, or at all. 

Rolex hardly rests on its laurels, continues to innovate and improve, and that includes not only tweaking and improving but also and especially patents. First to the patent office/marketplace wins, and always has. Rolex is king of sport watches for a reason as said. As to in-house, not just in-house movements but just about everything it does it done in-house, in Switzerland, right down to its bracelets, cases and crowns, patented springs and shock absorption system. I also remind you that the only other Swiss watchmaker to do that in fact is Patek, both watchmakers selling everything they make at the prices they ask; based once again on pedigree and provenance, which next to condition are the only things that matter when it comes to re-sale/auction values (one more time perhaps is the charm, and for the very last time in any event). It is also a fact that Rolex based on same no more felt the pain of the Depression, than it did the Great Wars or quartz crisis, either. Success does not equal bankruptcy, my friend; never did. Excuses do not equal success either, neither does using the tech of others (that makes you a follower, not a leader, always did). First one to the patent office/marketplace wins once again. 

In past, watchmakers either made watches OR they made movements, few did both and how the Swiss industry was set up. Rolex was one of the select few that did both, with the exception of the pre-2000 Daytona (Rolex used base Val. and base Zenith--which it modified: accurate! Everything else in-house, and since 2000 its Daytonas (Cal. 4130) now, too (and which are exceptionally well done, true work horses especially with the new patented spirngs, not to mention its new patented shock absorbers, too; already tough, and now even tougher). Meantime, AP in past used JLC base, not to mention that Patek, Breguet, VC likewise all used base movements in past, too. And your point is? Thought so since it really has no bearing on the price of tea in China, or the record of patents, pedigree and provenance, or that all Rolex movements, etc. are in fact in-house. 

That said, watches are fun, yes? The hour is late and this argument has been done to death. Back to the initial question: Rolex Sub for all of the above reasons and more (not to mention its an excellent dive watch, since further improved for its intended purpose whilst staying true to its iconic, classic design which I personally appreciate myself; then, I am also a diver as said; reason why I have a lot of respect for Omega, Breitling, and Doxa, too, but not in the same league for reasons already discussed). 

I remind you again that there is a search engine, as well as libraries and public records available (on your own dime and time) at your local patent office, too. 

All the best, and enjoy your watches.


----------



## drunken monkey

What did I erroneously quote you on?

My previous post addresses things I had read from various others and wanted to clarify. Not all are directed at you, hence the three breaks.


----------



## Mathew J

Sea_Wolf,

Though just because you only follow Rolex and their patent activity does not mean other companies don't submit Patents as well.

And I hardly think as you so rudely suggest that people have difficulty following your logic, rather they just don't see things the same way you do.

As for Rolex resting on their laurels, I have heard this time and time again, that they were a company which was always innovating, and that is fair enough to believe for the die hard supporters, and may have some truth to it, but for those of us who saw decades of nothing but continual price increases with their product range it is a hard pill to swollow.

In my eyes they had a solid twenty years plus where they went for the most part uncontested in their market and because of this they could do little to nothing and still be highly successful. Is this a bad thing? absolutely not, but I don't attribute their current success to that of their history nor their patent activity, rather it was a successful gamble they took in the late 70s to buckle down and hope people bought expensive luxury watches, one which paid off greatly.

And to go over the in house bit again, you keep ignoring it but the fact of the matter Rolex and their in house capabilities which you tout repeatedly are only a result of them having purchased all of their suppliers capabilities, the most recent being that which manufactured their bracelets, its not like this was build from the ground up for Rolex with them at the helm.

So while it is commendable that they are in a financial position to undertake such a move, its also not out of line to say Omega and by extension Swatch has done much the same as they now own much of their suppliers as well, and only until recently were they sourcing mainsprings to Rolex as well as other pieces.

And for Rolex not suffering during the great depression, well at that point they still weren't that major of a player in the market place as they were still building their brand, which is a stark contrast to already well established makers such as Omega.



Sea-Wolf said:


> Every thing I cite is well documented, in real books written by actual real researchers and authorities, and patent files/documents. It is not my fault once again if people do not understand it, choose not to learn, and/or choose to use the Internet/Wiki, etc. which is a very poor substitute (aka not research, at all), and I will thank you once again not to put words in my mouth or erroneously quote me as saying things I did not in fact say, or at all.
> 
> Rolex hardly rests on its laurels, continues to innovate and improve, and that includes not only tweaking and improving but also and especially patents. First to the patent office/marketplace wins, and always has. Rolex is king of sport watches for a reason as said. As to in-house, not just in-house movements but just about everything it does it done in-house, in Switzerland, right down to its bracelets, cases and crowns, patented springs and shock absorption system. I also remind you that the only other Swiss watchmaker to do that in fact is Patek, both watchmakers selling everything they make at the prices they ask; based once again on pedigree and provenance, which next to condition are the only things that matter when it comes to re-sale/auction values (one more time perhaps is the charm, and for the very last time in any event). It is also a fact that Rolex based on same no more felt the pain of the Depression, than it did the Great Wars or quartz crisis, either. Success does not equal bankruptcy, my friend; never did. Excuses do not equal success either, neither does using the tech of others (that makes you a follower, not a leader, always did). First one to the patent office/marketplace wins once again.
> 
> In past, watchmakers either made watches OR they made movements, few did both and how the Swiss industry was set up. Rolex was one of the select few that did both, with the exception of the pre-2000 Daytona (Rolex used base Val. and base Zenith--which it modified: accurate! Everything else in-house, and since 2000 its Daytonas (Cal. 4130) now, too (and which are exceptionally well done, true work horses especially with the new patented spirngs, not to mention its new patented shock absorbers, too; already tough, and now even tougher). Meantime, AP in past used JLC base, not to mention that Patek, Breguet, VC likewise all used base movements in past, too. And your point is? Thought so since it really has no bearing on the price of tea in China, or the record of patents, pedigree and provenance, or that all Rolex movements, etc. are in fact in-house.
> 
> That said, watches are fun, yes? The hour is late and this argument has been done to death. Back to the initial question: Rolex Sub for all of the above reasons and more (not to mention its an excellent dive watch, since further improved for its intended purpose whilst staying true to its iconic, classic design which I personally appreciate myself; then, I am also a diver as said; reason why I have a lot of respect for Omega, Breitling, and Doxa, too, but not in the same league for reasons already discussed).
> 
> I remind you again that there is a search engine, as well as libraries and public records available (on your own dime and time) at your local patent office, too.
> 
> All the best, and enjoy your watches.


----------



## Jamiesutto

es335 said:


> And most Omega movements prior to the 1970s were all in house like Rolex. Tag Heuer pretty much uses off the shelf ETA movements. So how can you claim Omega and Tag Heuer are on the same plane in terms of historical innovations?
> 
> Morever, the Omega Speedmaster was chosen as a more robust timepiece than a Rolex chronograph to go to the moon after extensive testing by NASA.
> 
> RE: Divers. It's not that clear cut. Blancpain preceded both the Submariner and the Seamaster 300 to market. Yet, both Rolex and Omega both borrowed ideas from it. Check out the dial markers. Yes, the Seamaster 300 diver was introduced a few years after the Sub, but Rolex also stole ideas from the Seamaster 300. Don't believe me?
> 
> Note that 1970s Rolex Milsub copies innovations from the 1968 Seamaster 300 -- namely the sword hands and seconds sweep. Rolex copied the Omega hour, minute and seconds hands for the Milsub. See below photos to witness how Rolex stole an Omega innovation.
> 
> The Sub has rightly earned it's place as a legendary diver. But Rolex has also stolen ideas from Omega. You're very passionate, but obviously mistaken on some things, and full of hot air.
> 
> One could argue the modern day Sub is just a piece of jewelry (like a Seamaster) given the maxi case (larded lugs which serve zero practical purpose, but are meant to make the watch look bigger), white gold hour feminine hour markers to generate a metrosexual bling effect. It's an irrelevant bourgeois status icon popular with douc.h.e.bags. See bottom image to witness what the Sub has devolved into. A piece of crap.
> 
> View attachment 789203
> 
> 
> View attachment 789202
> 
> 
> View attachment 789208


Wow is that a piece of crap! Love that I am an aspiring d-bag, here I was under the illusion I was a nice guy...all that volunteering and donating I do, wanting a Rolex trumps everything...man am I an ass!

In all honesty the anger people have towards Rolex makes me not worry about threads attacking them...too emotional. And it's rare that I see it the other way around. I see that Sea is calling omega little brother, but never did he attack the owners character. Tone of the arguments may have been a little...condescending...but not calling people dbags or the watches crap. But I am relatively new here so maybe I haven't been around long enough? Mr E, I would avoid statements like the above (and I need to as well, I made the same one regarding BMW, and I apologize). The biggest hole I ever met in life didn't wear a watch and the majority of dbags I have met have diesel or other crap...
But then there is me...and the inexcusable fact I would like a exp2


----------



## Jamiesutto

By the way, I am no where near in the league you all are in, and to be honest a lot of that doesn't mean much to me. Ifi disk would go insane I think. I like the watches for what they are today, provided there was no major transgression committed in the past (.... prison camp testing for example). But it is fascinating and I thank all of you for the info.


----------



## Mathew J

Jamiesutto said:


> I see that Sea is calling omega little brother, but never did he attack the owners character.


Jamie, go back a few posts and you will see that Sea, while not as direct, is no better.

Insisting that people "study up" or how they have no clue, and how he is doing everyone here a public service....really ridiculous IMHO.

I do agree though that this type of behavior does nothing for the discussion.


----------



## Mathew J

drunken monkey said:


> Remind me again what movement is used in the super desirable Newman Daytona?


Or the Tudor Homeplate Monte Carlo....both of which used Valjoux movements and both are in very high demand, another example of where in house production has little or nothing to do with interest and price.


----------



## scamp007

es335 said:


> RE: Divers. It's not that clear cut. Blancpain preceded both the Submariner and the Seamaster 300 to market. Yet, both Rolex and Omega both borrowed ideas from it. Check out the dial markers. Yes, the Seamaster 300 diver was introduced a few years after the Sub, but Rolex also stole ideas from the Seamaster 300. Don't believe me?
> 
> Note that 1970s Rolex Milsub copies innovations from the 1968 Seamaster 300 -- namely the sword hands and seconds sweep. Rolex copied the Omega hour, minute and seconds hands for the Milsub. See below photos to witness how Rolex stole an Omega innovation.
> 
> The Sub has rightly earned it's place as a legendary diver. But Rolex has also stolen ideas from Omega. You're very passionate, but obviously mistaken on some things, and full of hot air.
> 
> .
> 
> View attachment 789203
> 
> 
> View attachment 789202
> 
> 
> View attachment 789208


The Rolex Milsub didn't copy the Seamaster 300, they were produced to a rigid Military Specification, ( which is why they are also referred to as Milspec ). Rolex fitted hands, bezel inserts and dial markers ( I think they fitted fixed strap bars as well ) at the factory to the exact requirements of the MoD, they had no say in the design, that's why non Milspec 5513 Subs look completely different.

There is no doubt that the MoD liked the Seamaster 300 sword hands which they had been issuing previously, that's why they changed the specs on future Milspec watches to resemble them, but to accuse Rolex of copying them is simply not true, they just built what the MoD asked them to, which is evidenced by the fact that Rolex did not use the sword hands on any non military watches.


----------



## Jamiesutto

Mathew J said:


> Jamie, go back a few posts and you will see that Sea, while not as direct, is no better.
> 
> Insisting that people "study up" or how they have no clue, and how he is doing everyone here a public service....really ridiculous IMHO.
> 
> I do agree though that this type of behavior does nothing for the discussion.


Matt, would you rather be called a dbag or told to study up? I acknowledged that the tone he used was suspect. Nevertheless...totally agree that this doesn't help the discussion.

Cheers!


----------



## Mathew J

Jamiesutto said:


> Matt, would you rather be called a dbag or told to study up? I acknowledged that the tone he used was suspect. Nevertheless...totally agree that this doesn't help the discussion.
> 
> Cheers!


Jamie, personally I think I have a bit more tolerance for the former than the latter as at least with the former it is direct, and in this case the comments weren't targeted at any one individual.

The latter is to me even more insulting as it implys a greater sense of superiority on the whole, which to me is stomach churning, especially when its surrouded by subjective points as to why one individual feels a company is the cats meow and others are just a bunch of followers.


----------



## es335

scamp007 said:


> The Rolex Milsub didn't copy the Seamaster 300, they were produced to a rigid Military Specification, ( which is why they are also referred to as Milspec ). Rolex fitted hands, bezel inserts and dial markers ( I think they fitted fixed strap bars as well ) at the factory to the exact requirements of the MoD, they had no say in the design, that's why non Milspec 5513 Subs look completely different.
> 
> There is no doubt that the MoD liked the Seamaster 300 sword hands which they had been issuing previously, that's why they changed the specs on future Milspec watches to resemble them, but to accuse Rolex of copying them is simply not true, they just built what the MoD asked them to, which is evidenced by the fact that Rolex did not use the sword hands on any non military watches.


Did Omega innovate the sword hands in the 1960s Seamaster 300 before there was even MoD standard?

If Rolex had to adopt the MOD hands in the 1970s to win the MoD gov't contract, that means gov't felt the thinner Rolex "Mercedes hands" were inadequate in lume readability and felt Omega approach was the superior hand design for diving if they spec'd the 1960s Omega sword hands into the tender. The point is that Rolex was forced to adopt what the MoD considered to be a superior innovation (by Omega) in order to win a government contract.

Ironically, in the 1980s, the Omega Seamasters began copying the Rolex Sub Mercedes hands. The 80s were a period when Omega really lost sight of it's own innovations and designs and copied Rolex. A very sad time. See below.


----------



## scamp007

es335 said:


> Did Omega innovate the sword hands in the 1960s Seamaster 300 before there was even MoD standard?
> 
> If Rolex had to adopt the MOD hands in the 1970s to win the MoD gov't contract, that means gov't felt their "Mercedes hands" were inadequate and felt Omega was the superior hand design for diving if they spec'd the 1960s Omega sword hands into the tender. The point is that Rolex was forced to adopt what the MoD considered to be a superior innovation (by Omega) in order to win a government contract.


No, that isn't what you said, quote:

"Note that 1970s Rolex Milsub copies innovations from the 1968 Seamaster 300 -- namely the sword hands and seconds sweep. Rolex copied the Omega hour, minute and seconds hands for the Milsub. See below photos to witness how Rolex stole an Omega innovation."

You're saying that Rolex deliberately 'stole' ( your word ) Omega's design, they didn't, the Ministry of Defence did, who ever had won the contract would have had to fit those hands, no one is debating which is the superior hand design, but you cannot accuse Rolex of 'stealing an Omega innovation' when they quite clearly had no choice in the matter. The powers that be at Rolex obviously didn't prefer that design as they didn't use them in their commercially available watches.


----------



## es335

scamp007 said:


> No, that isn't what you said, quote:
> 
> "Note that 1970s Rolex Milsub copies innovations from the 1968 Seamaster 300 -- namely the sword hands and seconds sweep. Rolex copied the Omega hour, minute and seconds hands for the Milsub. See below photos to witness how Rolex stole an Omega innovation."
> 
> You're saying that Rolex deliberately 'stole' ( your word ) Omega's design, they didn't, the Ministry of Defence did, who ever had won the contract would have had to fit those hands, no one is debating which is the superior hand design, but you cannot accuse Rolex of 'stealing an Omega innovation' when they quite clearly had no choice in the matter. The powers that be at Rolex obviously didn't prefer that design as they didn't use them in their commercially available watches.


Do you have a copy of the 1970s contract tender you can share?


----------



## scamp007

es335 said:


> Do you have a copy of the 1970s contract tender you can share?


Of course, I'll just download a copy from the Ministry of Defence main frame after I've logged in with my Mi6 password....

Seriously though, the 5517 is one of the most written about watches in the world, there are hundreds of articles on it's history and design, all of them will say the hands were definitely the same as the Seamaster 300, they will also all say that this was specifically at the request of the British Navy, it's not really a matter of any debate, they decided they wanted to use the 5513 Submariner but wanted different hands, a different bezel and fixed strap bars, they gave Rolex the design/specification and Rolex produced them like that and gave them the 5517 designation.


----------



## es335

It appears you don't like the word "stole." Fair enough. I'll rephrase.

_"In order to win a UK government contract of approximately 1200+ dive watches in the 1970s, Rolex "adopted" hour, minute, and second sweep design innovations first commercially issued by Omega in the 1960s, which the UK MoD had specified in the 1970s tender. The MoD apparently believed these hour, minute and second innovations, first available in the Omega Seamaster 300, were more legible and therefore superior to the thinner Mercedes hands on the civilian Submariner 5513. By adopting these innovations by competitor Omega, Rolex was able to comply with the MoD tender specifications and win the government contract via reference 5517."_


----------



## scamp007

es335 said:


> It appears you don't like the word "stole." Fair enough. I'll rephrase.
> 
> _"In order to win a UK government contract of approximately 1200+ dive watches in the 1970s, Rolex "adopted" hour, minute, and second sweep design innovations first commercially issued by Omega in the 1960s, which the UK MoD had specified in the 1970s tender. The MoD apparently believed these hour, minute and second innovations, first available in the Omega Seamaster 300, were more legible and therefore superior to the thinner Mercedes hands on the civilian Submariner 5513. By adopting these innovations by competitor Omega, Rolex was able to comply with the MoD tender specifications and win the government contract via reference 5517."_


You could phrase it like that, but I still don't think you'd be right, for one thing, I haven't seen any reference that there was an open tender to be won by competing manufacturers, everything I've read on the subject suggest the Navy approached Rolex, told them they wanted to use the 5513 but with the changes mentioned, I could certainly be wrong about that, but I've never come across any document that states any other manufacturer was ever competing for that specific contract, so, Rolex didn't win it as such, they were selected as the preferred supplier, and once they were onboard they were then asked to make the changes which it appears they were happy to do.

It's probably worth noting as evidence of the above that not all of the 1200 watches had sword hands, quite a lot were delivered as standard 5513's with Mercedes hands, but are still correct Milsubs.


----------



## scamp007

Interestingly, this page from the 1972 RN Divers manual suggests you could be issued with either an Omega or a Rolex, the idea I suppose is that they were standardised with the same dial, hands and bezel markings so it didn't really matter which one you were issued with as they were both as good as each other..









Oh, and don't read the bit about not wearing them in Hot showers!!!!!


----------



## scamp007

Duplicate


----------



## Mystro




----------



## Jamiesutto

Mathew J said:


> Jamie, personally I think I have a bit more tolerance for the former than the latter as at least with the former it is direct, and in this case the comments weren't targeted at any one individual.
> 
> The latter is to me even more insulting as it implys a greater sense of superiority on the whole, which to me is stomach churning, especially when its surrouded by subjective points as to why one individual feels a company is the cats meow and others are just a bunch of followers.


I guess it's all context...I would rather the latter, but mainly because I admittedly I'd need to study up on this...


----------



## Sea-Wolf

There is a lot being ignored, but I am not the one ignoring it. (Already asked and answered).

In any event, take it you enjoy your Speedy then, and that's fine. I enjoy the Sub, as a diver, and would be and remain my pick as also already said. 

All the best.


----------



## woundedtiger40

Tyrannesaurus Rose said:


> Clash of the titans. Granted they serve different purposes, they seem to be the two most iconic of sports watches. While I cherish my Sub, my vote goes to Speedy. So timeless and unpretentious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you?
> 
> b-)


is that the brown leather strap?


----------



## dukerules

So which is better, the Submariner or the Speedmaster?


----------



## Mystro

dukerules said:


> So which is better, the Submariner or the Speedmaster?


----------



## woundedtiger40

dukerules said:


> So which is better, the Submariner or the Speedmaster?


I own both, submariner is an excellent watch but speedmaster is much more classy & elegant than any other brand therefore I prefer to wear it all the time


----------



## FOOGauzie

Jamiesutto said:


> Wow is that a piece of crap! Love that I am an aspiring d-bag, here I was under the illusion I was a nice guy...all that volunteering and donating I do, wanting a Rolex trumps everything...man am I an ass!
> 
> In all honesty the anger people have towards Rolex makes me not worry about threads attacking them...too emotional. And it's rare that I see it the other way around. I see that Sea is calling omega little brother, but never did he attack the owners character. Tone of the arguments may have been a little...condescending...but not calling people dbags or the watches crap. But I am relatively new here so maybe I haven't been around long enough? Mr E, I would avoid statements like the above (and I need to as well, I made the same one regarding BMW, and I apologize). The biggest hole I ever met in life didn't wear a watch and the majority of dbags I have met have diesel or other crap...
> But then there is me...and the inexcusable fact I would like a exp2


Agreed...E just won himself a permanent space on my ignore list. Life's too short to read the type of ignorant vitriole he spews.


----------



## Jamiesutto

Jake B said:


> Agreed...E just won himself a permanent space on my ignore list. Life's too short to read the type of ignorant vitriole he spews.


It's a good reminder for me, I did make a similar comment about BMW and was called out about it but like a stubborn ass held to my guns...my bad. Hope Metlin doesn't ignore me for it. We can all make brash statements...


----------



## Jamiesutto

Jamiesutto said:


> It's a good reminder for me, I did make a similar comment about BMW and was called out about it but like a stubborn ass held to my guns...my bad. Hope Metlin doesn't ignore me for it. We can all make brash statements...


That said,at least I was actually run over by a BMW...so my prejudice is somewhat warranted. Never saw a Rolex kill someone...


----------



## Darth Hotdog

Awesome photos, thanks for taking the time to post!
Based on the pics I must say that it's Speedy Pro all the way.
The SMP has remained true to its roots and the "sexy plexi" looks fantastic!
The sub is a great watch but the Speedy Pro has the horo-stealth cool factor in spades.



Hansch99 said:


> I'm one of those who has owned both. I've bought and sold the Speedmaster three times, but the Sub is here to stay. It's movement is IMO more reliable and more accurate, and the watch can go anywhere with its superior water resistance. I find them equally comfortable, with the Speedy slightly more comfortable on a leather strap and the Sub slightly more comfortable on its bracelet. Speaking of the bracelet, I have the 14060M with the hollow center and end links, and it is the lightest and most comfortable bracelet I've ever owned. The only Omega bracelet that comes close to its comfort, in my opinion, is the Bond SMP (pre-ceramic) bracelet. The one gripe I have about the Rolex is how expensive it is to obtain and maintain, which has become ridiculous in recent years. But if you truly want one, as I did, it's only going to keep getting more expensive to get one. Now, two years into ownership, I could re-sell my Sub for more than I paid for it brand new (not that its going anywhere, but it's nice to know that the watch is an appreciating asset that I have the pleasure of wearing every day).
> 
> Here are some comparison shots:
> 
> On bracelet:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On leather:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On nato:


----------



## GaryF

Do you realise you're answering a question posed four years ago?



Darth Hotdog said:


> Awesome photos, thanks for taking the time to post!
> Based on the pics I must say that it's Speedy Pro all the way.
> The SMP has remained true to its roots and the "sexy plexi" looks fantastic!
> The sub is a great watch but the Speedy Pro has the horo-stealth cool factor in spades.


----------



## Darth Hotdog

As the photos I was commenting on were posted only just this last year I thought I would throw caution to the wind and venture a response... My apologies for an ill timed post.



GaryF said:


> Do you realise you're answering a question posed four years ago?


----------



## fluppyboy

Darth Hotdog said:


> As the photos I was commenting on were posted only just this last year I thought I would throw caution to the wind and venture a response... My apologies for an ill timed post.


No need to apologise! AFAIK there is no rule against replying to old threads, and occasionally it brings a thread back to life that deserves it.


----------



## Ricardinho4

Jamiesutto said:


> That said,at least I was actually run over by a BMW...so my prejudice is somewhat warranted. Never saw a Rolex kill someone...


Its possible haha when a thief wants to kill you for your rolex perhaps


----------



## Ricardinho4

Btw I am leaning towards the Speedy atm, because of the some negative attention you get around my place if you wear Rolex...


----------



## rwbenjey

I would say buy whichever one you want (one or both). When it comes to buying things, I don't really give a damn about brand power, social status, patent kings, or rainbows of gold; I care about the quality of the item itself and _my_ perception of it. It really comes down to what you want to spend your money on and the value _you_ assign to that want.


----------



## Haddock

Couldn't have said it better. Big thumbs up.



rwbenjey said:


> I would say buy whichever one you want (one or both). When it comes to buying things, I don't really give a damn about brand power, social status, patent kings, or rainbows of gold; I care about the quality of the item itself and _my_ perception of it. It really comes down to what you want to spend your money on and the value _you_ assign to that want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## iam7head

Very different watch, both are classic in their own realm ;-)

With that said I did purchased a Submariner date 16610 first, then the 3570.50

Sold them both at some point and recently gotten both back(14060 ND and 3572.50)


----------



## Zidane

^ Hard to beat that combo.


----------



## Monocrom

With the current update to the Co-Axial 9300, two sub-dials instead of three, and the date feature combined all into one ... Speedmaster.

A few months ago, I would have said Submariner. But that cyclops on the date version is just ridiculous-looking to me. Plus, I don't go swimming as much as I used to. Also, I can still get a Speedmaster without any ceramic parts on the outside. Not so with the Submariner.


----------



## pjsayer

Obviously two icons of the watch world and both absolute musts in any collection if you can justify the costs involved.

The trouble with the Submariner is it's ubiquity. It is the default watch purchase for anyone and everyone that has made some money and quite rightly wants to show the world that they have 'made it'.

The Speedy on the other hand is much more a darling of the WIS community and far less prevalent in my experience - more of a thinking man's timepiece. If I have a patient coming in to me packing a Speedy (I'm an optometrist) I would be far more likely to strike up a watch conversation than a Sub wearer (unless of course it was a nice vintage model!).

Here's my 145.022 which happens to be exactly the same age as it's owner ;-)


----------



## Monocrom

I'm going to point to the giant elephant in the room.

Another consideration is that the Submariner has developed a reputation for being the watch of choice of rich A-holes. Obviously not justified. Still, the perception exists. Speedmaster doesn't have that reputation among the masses.


----------



## randb

If I could only keep two watches from my collection it would be these two. Don't ask me why but they are noth perfect in their own ways. It's all about the classic design and build quality for me. 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


----------



## JPfeuffer

Although I love the Speedy there is one thing that bothers me about it and makes me say Sub. I cannot buy a sport watch that doesn't have a screw down crown.


----------



## iam7head

Monocrom said:


> I'm going to point to the giant elephant in the room.
> 
> Another consideration is that the Submariner has developed a reputation for being the watch of choice of rich A-holes. Obviously not justified. Still, the perception exists. Speedmaster doesn't have that reputation among the masses.


The said the same about Panerai, I had some of the best GTG experience with PAM owners than any other brands tho'


----------



## fluppyboy

iam7head said:


> The said the same about Panerai, I had some of the best GTG experience with PAM owners than any other brands tho'


Yeah, but you also own a Submariner. Can you see why we can't take you at your word? ;-) :-d j/k


----------



## DennisJ

Ok firstly, congrats everyone, this thread is on it's fifth year!
Secondly, Speedy vs. Sub, IMO a very close call, but the favor goes to the Sub as I cannot live without the date. I currently have a Sub, and used to have a Speedy which I flipped due to the no date issue. However, I will get another Speedy as I do miss it a lot. Weird I know...


----------



## Monocrom

DennisJ said:


> Ok firstly, congrats everyone, this thread is on it's fifth year!
> Secondly, Speedy vs. Sub, IMO a very close call, but the favor goes to the Sub as I cannot live without the date. I currently have a Sub, and used to have a Speedy which I flipped due to the no date issue. However, I will get another Speedy as I do miss it a lot. Weird I know...


It's not the classic Speedmaster, but there have been variations in the past as well as today with a Date feature.


----------



## HRC-E.B.

Indeed: at current street prices, you could get a brand new 9300 Speedmaster with in-house chrono movement, date, and close to two grands in your pocket, for the same money as a Sub. Ouch!


----------



## clover4studio

HRC-E.B. said:


> Indeed: at current street prices, you could get a brand new 9300 Speedmaster with in-house chrono movement, date, and close to two grands in your pocket, for the same money as a Sub. Ouch!


Specs don't always tell the whole story. Sometimes it comes down to how a watch fits and looks on the wrist.


----------



## oak1971

My answer is both, just need a wealthy benefactor.


----------



## entropy96

I know I'm gonna get a lot of backlash with this post, but the Sub-C gets the edge over the Speedy Pro.

Reasons:
- More durable now w/ ceramic bezel & 904L steel
- Movement is as sturdy as ever, w/ upgraded blue parachrom hairspring
- Re-sale value is above any other watch model.
- Same (or above) level of pedigree and provenance as the Speedy Pro.

Not saying that the Speedy Moonwatch is a worse watch, but to me it is outdated compared to the rest of its competitors.
It's all subjective, though. May or may not be a deal breaker for the end consumer.


----------



## Monocrom

entropy96 said:


> I know I'm gonna get a lot of backlash with this post, but the Sub-C gets the edge over the Speedy Pro.
> 
> Reasons:
> - More durable now w/ ceramic bezel & 904L steel ...


I've posted this before. Ceramic, even the most advanced formulas, have absolutely no give to them whatsoever. Hard enough hit, and they break. Ceramics are used primarily so that your new watch looks newer, longer. Not for durability purposes. It'll be a few years though before we see if ceramic bezels live up to the hype or if they start breaking after taking accidental hits.


----------



## iam7head

entropy96 said:


> I know I'm gonna get a lot of backlash with this post, but the Sub-C gets the edge over the Speedy Pro.
> 
> Reasons:
> - More durable now w/ ceramic bezel & 904L steel
> - Movement is as sturdy as ever, w/ upgraded blue parachrom hairspring
> - Re-sale value is above any other watch model.
> - Same (or above) level of pedigree and provenance as the Speedy Pro.
> 
> Not saying that the Speedy Moonwatch is a worse watch, but to me it is outdated compared to the rest of its competitors.
> It's all subjective, though. May or may not be a deal breaker for the end consumer.


1)How is ceramic more durable than aluminum insert in an event of hard impact? The printed aluminium insert will ding, deform and bent while ceramic bezel will most likely to break into multiple pieces. The benefit of using 904L over 316L in a real world situation is microscopic, my old 16610 and current 14060 has 904L and they scratch, ding no more or less than 316. In fact I just picked up a scratch last week on the case. The usage of 904L steel have little merit for desk driver like myself, the increase of MOH is hardly noticeable in a real life situation. Don't get me wrong I love my sub but I don't buy the 904 wonder steel story one bit.

2)That's debatable, the Lemania has proven itself to be accurate and very robust.

3)Better than NON-LE speedy for sure but you can fetch some serious dollar with the right LE(such as snoopy)

4)Subjective


----------



## HRC-E.B.

entropy96 said:


> I know I'm gonna get a lot of backlash with this post, but the Sub-C gets the edge over the Speedy Pro.
> 
> Reasons:
> - More durable now w/ ceramic bezel & 904L steel
> - Movement is as sturdy as ever, w/ upgraded blue parachrom hairspring
> - Re-sale value is above any other watch model.
> - Same (or above) level of pedigree and provenance as the Speedy Pro.
> 
> Not saying that the Speedy Moonwatch is a worse watch, but to me it is outdated compared to the rest of its competitors.
> It's all subjective, though. May or may not be a deal breaker for the end consumer.


I can totally understand how you might prefer the Submariner. I like that watch quite a bit. Classic design, quality build, versatility, etc.

But the points you make to justify your preference are far from being as clear cut as you put them.

More durable? Come on! There are countless stories of watches of both kinds being worn everyday with little or no service by active people, mechanics, and the like, and both will survive the same everyday beating just as well. The only exception being if someone uses the watch underwater regularly, in which case a diver's watch is of course better. But that is not an issue of durability; more of fitness for a specific purpose.

Movement sturdiness? Yeah, a Rolex will keep on ticking without service for a long time. It will also wear out the steel post holding its perpetual rotor in place, causing the rotor to hit the movement bridges... As far as resistance to shocks, vibration, isn't the Speedmaster the most tested of all mechanical watches? How would you put the Rolex ahead of it? It may be just as sturdy, but more so?

Resale value: the Rolex better be superior, given the initial cost of purchase. A new Submariner is the price of two and a half new Speedmasters, which aren't exatly bad at retaining value. The do depreciate a bit, but if you compare the value of both purchases over time, taking into consideration the initial cost, actual depreciation, inflation, etc., I think you run pretty much neck and neck over, let's say, 10 years.

Same level of pedigree: the Sub is popular because Rolex watches are popular. It's got street cred with most people, including non-WIS. Is that pedigree or simply brand awareness of the general public?

Again, not ditching the Sub-C. I will probably own one eventually (or a GMTII-C or an Explorer, or both...), but to imply that it is superior to the other watch, expecially given that it's 2.5x the price, is questionable.


----------



## TitanCi

I was at a restaurant in Newport the other day...

As I glance over at the bar, must have seen 3 black Sub(-C) with dates, a few Pams, and the under-the-radar Exp II (which I like). No signs of Omega 'cept the one I'm wearing. 

Point? None, other than it seems everyone and their mom has a Sub, whether it's because it's popular or because it's iconic or because its one of the best built watches... Iono. Too many, dime a dozen... although I won't lie: If I had the money for it or if it was given to me, I'd probably love it.

The WG with blue bezel and dial is mighty handsome though!


----------



## tomatoes

TitanCi said:


> The WG with blue bezel and dial is mighty handsome though!


We've been going on about just how expensive subs are and the regular steel models are already carry a hefty price tag!

You've got expensive taste! :-d Care for the same model with diamond indices? ;-)


----------



## entropy96

TitanCi said:


> The WG with blue bezel and dial is mighty handsome though!


Indeed. Just look at the beaut.


----------



## iam7head

HRC-E.B. said:


> Indeed: at current street prices, you could get a brand new 9300 Speedmaster with in-house chrono movement, date, and close to two grands in your pocket, for the same money as a Sub. Ouch!


in that sense I would rather get a El Primero Zenith than the 9300 speedmaster, don't get me wrong I like the 9300 and speedmaster but the 9300 speedmaster is not _*the *_speedmaster for me.

I guess it all goes back what do you really want and how much you willing to pay for it 

The good thing about both of the watch is that the used market price is very stable, a used sub and speedy will always have the demand in most part of the world.

Truth be told both my 14060 sub and 3792.50 Speedmaster costs less than the MSRP of a new sub-ND and I don't sell how I cannot sell them for the price I paid.


----------



## clover4studio

IMO, they are both iconic watches in their own ways. If i have to pick one over the other, I would choose the Sub mainly because i prefer the look and comfort slightly more to the Speedy. It also feels more rugged.


----------



## dmaddox

Apologies for waking a sleeping thread - but to any of you going through the decision making process - read on.

October of 2014, I bought (stupid mistake) from an Omega boutique a Coaxial Moonwatch 9300 movement. I loved it - felt like James Bond (yes, I know he wears seamasters) but just really felt like a million bucks. It was far out of my price range, but I was just out of a divorce and it was a nice "im free" gift to myself.

A year later, I bought a white explorer II from Rolex and now, have just purchased a Rolex sub ceramic, second hand.

PURCHASING EXPERIENCE:
Winner: Omega
Omega's boutique was very well staffed, with prompt white glove service. It was a beautiful experience with champagne, tasteful pampering and fun historical gifts and print materials. In short, it was a lot of fun feeling like a king. The follow up service, classy contacts (christmas card, etc..), invitation to Specter premier with gifts and so forth, was all really really fun. I really joined a fun community and loved sporting my speedy at the events. 

Rolex on the other hand....."would you like a bottled water" (dasani....) the guard hovered over my buying experience....there was no pampering or making me feel special.....no history or print material or really anything other than "what brings you to town". No different buying a pair of pants at JCREW or Dillards.

USE:
Winner: Rolex
While its sure nice to feel the crisp "click" of the chrono marking the take off time and how much time is left on my flight, or keeping track of laps etc...just the look of the two dials and date at the bottom looks clean and classy. Very classy. However, no one ever said anything about it - not that I need "oh, sweet Speedy or Omega - love it" no, I just mean it blends in with any stainless watch people have. Its for YOU not for anyone or anything else. The Rolex? People notice, people comment, and it is a very classic and functional cornerstone of luxury timepieces. It is an unmistakable watch. I LOVE the bezel of the Rolex - it pops. The smooth bezel of the omega (while classy looking) is rather boring I feel in comparison.
The omega feels chunkier and heavier....and I'm periodically having to adjust it on my wrist (likely a fitment issue, I wear them slightly loose). The rolex is crisper....if that makes sense....it just feels more precise and clean....the links...the snap of the clasp....everything. The crown as well, Rolex feels very meticulously engineered. And while I know Omega's is too, omega's feels like a fossil crown.

PRICING:
Because I chose to buy from boutiques, my ass got pummeled for retail. Check my numbers and you'll see. Omega, with tax, 9200.00 - current value? 4200.00. Rolex? (explorer II) with tax, 6700.00 - current value: 5500 (it is unworn). I also believe that over time, the Omega will slip down and eventually maybe bottom out round 3ish - while the rolex explorer and sub will both hang around the 4-6k range if not higher over time. In short, the Rolex is a better investment if you plan on selling or trading up later on in the future.

CONCLUSION:
While I clearly prefer the Rolex, I have now owned both, worn both, used both, and just personally believe the value, long term use, resale value, etc.. is better suited toward the Rolex. 
If you are really trying to decide - pick the Rolex.....because if you go Omega - you'll love it, don't get me wrong....but will always be wanting the Rolex in your heart. And who knows....if you really want the omega later on you can find them at a steal right now.

I hope this helps you, good luck.


----------



## Mike Rivera

Wow, this is an old thread. I own both a Speedy and a Sub and if I had to choose only one to keep, it might be the Speedy. I love them both and didn't buy either for resale or for others to notice. I think you really wanted a Rolex but bought the Omega first. To each his own ... that's why there's so many brands!


----------



## aslan

Both of them are fantastic watches and never go wrong with either of them ,on the other hand this is theys disadvantage ,you see them too often .


----------



## friedricetheman

I love both just as much. So much so that I am slowly consolidating my collection to just two brands - Omega and Rolex..

Omega and Rolex do tend to hold their value over time. And they are both equally easy to liquidate when you are in need of fast cash.


----------



## riverst

I like both, but I would lean towards the Submariner over the Speedy.


----------



## Owlsu

I can't remember if I even commented on this in past or not but I think of the two the Submariner is the better watch. It has better value retention, better quality/construction, better materials such as white gold, sapphire glass and is more useable daily with its water resistance and automatic movement...

However I wouldn't choose one over a Speedmaster. The Speedmaster is a rare breed in watches, in the sense that since about 1970 it hasn't changed in the slightest looks-wise other than a few different bracelets and the move from tritium to Luminova. Everything else externally is identical and has been for almost 50 years.

The Submariner in 2017 is not the same watch as it was in the year 2005 and the Submariner of 2005 was not even the same watch as the one of 1985. 

They look close enough but once you look into it the differences between generations can feel huge.

Buying a Speedmaster is like being able to go buy a vintage car brand new from the dealer and everything externally is identical to how it was in the past - the only slight difference perhaps being a slightly downgraded yet more efficient to produce engine (321 vs 861/1861).

I hate what the Submariner has become and I'm the kind of person that just can't move on from the past so the Speedmaster wins my heart.


----------



## Ragna

Avoid dilemmas. Get both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bradfordcharles

This is in the Omega forum, so I'll say Speedmaster. Now, go ask me in the Rolex forum, and you may get a different answer.

That said, go with what sings to you... If you have the room and funds for both, you have a great 2 watch collection. Personally, neither sings to me as is. For the Speedmaster, I dislike the lug shape and crown guards, and greatly prefer the case chape and size of the FOIS/CK2998 (which I own). I know that may be sacrilege to some, but whatever. As to the Submariner, the maxi case is a disappointment, and I'm not too much a fan of a cyclops date window. A no date 5513, however, is about as classic as you can get.


----------



## powerband

The defining moment when I decided to stop wearing my SubC (as wonderful as it is) was when I was signing closing papers at a title company while seated next to my long-time loan officer, a wonderful lady who's a single mother of three, working long hours at two jobs to make ends meet for her and her family. She sat to my left to assist me in the extended procedure, yet I felt like all I was doing in return was brandishing my Rolex Submariner in her face the entire time.

Had I been wearing my Speedmaster, I would have felt less pretentious.

My wife has been wearing the Sub ever since.

Both watches are great and carry deep history, but one comes without the pretentiousness. I prefer that one.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## egwatchfan

powerband said:


> Both watches are great and carry deep history, but one comes without the pretentiousness. I prefer that one.


You make a very good point here... I find myself feeling similarly.


----------



## Fatz028

Even though I don't own a Sub and own the Speedy. I still wouldn't knock it. They are both awesome watches.


----------



## BUCKSHOT1969

> Both watches are great and carry deep history, but one comes without the pretentiousness. I prefer that one.


I thought the same thing. I've actually had a person w/ Bulova watche compliment me by saying "Your watch is nice too" like Omega is some cheapo brand. It doesn't matter to me, the Moonwatch is cool to me and that's good enough.


----------



## TudorKnight

Love both, but if I had to choose only one, I would go with with the Sub. It just feels amazing on my wrist. Both are great, but the Sub wins for me.


----------



## lorsban

Speedy seems to be a better buy.:

1. More dynamic case. 

2. Real history and not just "Hollywood History." 

3. Bigger, better fit. 

4. Just as iconic and equally good value retention. 

5. And more importantly, far cheaper. 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## Hands90

I have both. It's hard to say. I wouldn't give up either but if I have too choose one I'd keep my Speedy.


----------



## Morgan24

Speedy first, then get the Submariner.... Both fantastic watches I wish I had...


----------



## wsbarr

Since this thread is still going, my vote is for the Sub. The Speedy is a close second. Both would be keepers and belong in any collection without looking out of place.


----------



## Costra

My vote to sub..Yeah! cause it's Rolex.


----------



## powerband

Costra said:


> My vote to sub..Yeah! cause it's Rolex.


Choosing a Rolex simply because it's a Rolex would be an insult to Rolex, yet that's what most buyers of Rolex do.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Araziza

Both are fantastic watches. Personally, as much of an Omega fan as I am, I'd choose the sub because it doesn't have the additional service cost of being a chronograph. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Super Fuzz

Araziza said:


> Both are fantastic watches. Personally, as much of an Omega fan as I am, I'd choose the sub because it doesn't have the additional service cost of being a chronograph.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Except it probably costs as much to service because Rolex's service costs are ?


----------



## powerband

Super Fuzz said:


> Except it probably costs as much to service because Rolex's service costs are ?


That is correct. My SubC costs $900 for a scheduled service.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Araziza

powerband said:


> That is correct. My SubC costs $900 for a scheduled service.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If this is the case, I'm completely ambivalent. Both are great.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Colin G

I am huge Seamaster fan and have 2 of them but I am not a fan of the Speedmaster so I'll go Submariner.

A new Sub may be my next purchase if I don't get a Seamaster 300 8400. I just can't decide which.


----------



## ogbv

When I was a kid every salesperson worth his wooden chest worth of norwegian kroners had a gold Rolex. Now at every meeting I go to I see the Speedmaster, even the bartender at my local pub have it. Speedie is the new Rolex in Oslo. So I choose the Speedmaster. The ceramic looks cool but it is a lot of kroners. Just kidding I would chose the submariner. Black Submariner.


----------



## cfracing

Since this thread has been resuscitated, I guess I will comment. Probably because I am a car guy and not a water sports guy, I would choose the Speedy. If I were to get a Rolex, it would be the Explorer I over the Sub, or even the Daytona.


----------



## MossEisley

I just went through this very decision and ended up going with the Speedy. The sub just didn't really do it for me so I went with what I had the connection with. Obviously both watches are fantastic and I intend on getting a sub at some point, but the speedy won out on what to get first.


----------



## Q-street

The submariner never really appealed to me for some reason; I never saw anything special about it, but the Speedy caught my eye the first time I saw it. I like the case design and proportions of the subdial layout. Was apprehensive about getting the speedy d/t the manual wind at first, but after owning one, it's not even an issue.


----------



## tritto

Here's a factor that may not have been discussed - comfort. 
I have a vintage Tudor Sub (same case as the equivalent Rolex Sub) and the crown is rather sharp and digs into my wrist. It's uncomfortable to wear for long periods. I just acquired a vintage Speedmaster and the slightly recessed and not as sharp crown makes it much more comfortable to wear. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Theognosis

cfracing said:


> Since this thread has been resuscitated, I guess I will comment. Probably because I am a car guy and not a water sports guy, I would choose the Speedy. If I were to get a Rolex, it would be the Explorer I over the Sub, or even the Daytona.


The Speedmaster versus the Explorer I?

Now that's one very tough competition!


----------



## Morgan24

Love the Sub, but you see it everywhere, every guy with a nice paycheck has one. I choose the Speedmaster!!


----------



## treiz1337

I would get the HULK Submariner. Its more rare in the wild than the regular black Sub.


----------



## munichblue

When this thread has been created back then in 2009 the Submariner was one of the most iconic and beautiful watches and one could easily chose the Sub instead of a Speedy.

But since the introduction of the six digits references and the unbelievable ugly Big Oyster Cases there's no more a question! Who would really consider this hideous monster Sub over the classic and clean look of a Speedy?


----------



## WIS_Chronomaster

I am the same with my Omega Speedmaster Pro and my White Gold DJ, the winner is too close to call/


----------



## Grantdavidjones

speedy all day. It's been said before anybody that wants to show off their money buys a Sub. The Speedmaster is a classic that I think doesn't do too much to try and show off. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Negan68

Just joined the "I got both" club today.


----------



## Negan68

View attachment 13931433

Just joined the "I got both" club today.


----------



## Negan68

Speedy does look better, but sub makes you feel like Bond.


----------



## kezcub

Negan68 said:


> View attachment 13931433
> 
> Just joined the "I got both" club today.
> View attachment 13931437


I agree! Why not both?


----------



## kezcub

Negan68 said:


> View attachment 13931433
> 
> Just joined the "I got both" club today.
> View attachment 13931437


I agree! Why not both?


----------



## jodanjo

plot twist: id take the seamaster over the the sub, and the daytona over the speed


----------



## Ron521

Which watch has the greatest number of imitators? I would argue the Submariner does...there are just SO many "homages" to the Sub, and far fewer, but still some, to the Speedy. 

If you say the words "dive watch" you immediately think of something that looks like a Sub. But if you say the word "chronograph" you may not necessarily think of a Speedy, as there are many popular chronographs, and even several Omegas, which don't look exactly like the Speedy.

By this standard, I would say the Sub is somewhat more iconic than the Speedy.


----------



## centaur

Both are classic in their own right so I think it's a tie. Now, Speedy vs. Daytona could turn into a riot around here.


----------



## N.U.V

Very hard to compare these two, different genres.


----------



## N.U.V

Buy both.


----------



## Technarchy

Ron521 said:


> Which watch has the greatest number of imitators? I would argue the Submariner does...there are just SO many "homages" to the Sub, and far fewer, but still some, to the Speedy.
> 
> If you say the words "dive watch" you immediately think of something that looks like a Sub. But if you say the word "chronograph" you may not necessarily think of a Speedy, as there are many popular chronographs, and even several Omegas, which don't look exactly like the Speedy.
> 
> By this standard, I would say the Sub is somewhat more iconic than the Speedy.


The Submariner is one of the most trite and banal watches one can buy.

The Speedmaster is the bolder, more interesting purchase.


----------



## Negan68

The Rolex will appreciate at a faster rate than the Speedy, so if you are ever looking at selling in the future the Rolex is the more sensible choice.


----------



## Wunderbro

I'm a member of the club that "owns both" as well. I would never be so bold to say one is better than the other. Each has its own characteristic that I love. And each has a wonderfully storied history that adds to the emotional appeal.


----------



## Wunderbro

Obligatory pics...









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 14060

An impossible choice! As a collector, I had to have both.


----------



## [email protected]

Hey! There's _that_ WATCH with some dude attached....

or

What's that you are wearing today? "Haven't seen too many of those..."

It's nearly impossible, not to appreciate the Rolex; I love them. But yes, the Sub has been way over-played IMO.


----------



## Klip88

Reading through this as I owned a speedy just picked up a new sub from ad… I need to sell speedy but your post is prophetic lol


Balidaan said:


> *Re: Speedmaster vs. Submariner?*
> 
> If you go for the speedy, you'll eventually get the sub.
> So get the Sub.


----------



## bigclive2011

The Op left 11 years ago so don’t think he’s listening.


----------



## Klip88

Eh whoever’s listening is fine


----------



## kritameth

Klip88 said:


> Eh whoever’s listening is fine


I'm listening, but all I hear is the hollow sound of the missing 98 posts still needed to sell the Speedy.


----------



## Klip88

Eh I have it on Chrono24 and a friend in NY posted it in his social media (he has a large following) no big rush but yea this would be another Avenue to post watches that I sell 




kritameth said:


> I'm listening, but all I hear is the hollow sound of the missing 98 posts still needed to sell the Speedy.


----------



## Klip88

kritameth said:


> I'm listening, but all I hear is the hollow sound of the missing 98 posts still needed to sell the Speedy.


Btw RIP lahey


----------



## kritameth

Klip88 said:


> Btw RIP lahey


The man, the myth, the liquor. R.I.P. 🥃🥃


----------



## Balidaan

and I'm still here, contemplating buying a speedmaster at some point since Daytonas are out of reach lol


----------



## Skahung

Sub all day, everyday


----------



## kritameth

Balidaan said:


> and I'm still here, contemplating buying a speedmaster at some point since Daytonas are out of reach lol


And no one would blame you. Do it!


----------



## jjlweber

The Speedy's are more interesting watches.


----------



## ATXWatch

I own both and love both. For different reasons. There are times when a Rolex is too much to walk into a room with. And there are times when the Speedy isn't quite cutting it (like when you know you'll be in the water a lot). No right or wrong.


----------



## zengineer

I can't say I've ever thought to put those two very different watches against each other. If it came down to which is a better only watch I'd say the Speedmaster only because the Submariner is a dive watch that will never feel right to me under a dress shirt cuff. The Speedmaster is no dress watch but has a more sleek profile.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## wus7

Both great but if only one, its sub for me every time. Speedy is still awesome though


----------



## Patrick_R

I’ve had both.
Both were 70’s vintage. A high top plexi Sub, and a numbered edition manual wind Speedmaster.

The Speedmaster was very comfortable and fitted under my shirt cuff easily. 
The Sub was a bit of a horror to wear and work with, especially in the yard. 
I sometimes put it on my right wrist so the crown didn’t dig into my hand, when working hard on the property. 

I traded and sold them long ago 
What would I buy again?
The Speedmaster for sure.
What should I have kept due to value?
The Sub.

PS
I had a triple date moon phase Speedmaster, but the dial was way to small and fiddle to view all the details easily for me, so moved it on pretty quickly.


----------



## TK222

Own both. Speedy is a strap monster and can work as one and only. Dresses up and down easy. 

Sub feels more casual and slightly less versatile. Still ok dressed up, but feels more out of place. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## anonymousmoose

There should be a rule where no one can bump a > year old thread. Too many of them are bumped by people just trying to get into the sales corner.

I, and I'm sure others do too, check sellers activities and stay away from those who just join to sell. Too risky to deal with.. I'll only buy from genuine enthusiasts and long term members


----------



## Patrick_R

anonymousmoose said:


> There should be a rule where no one can bump a > year old thread. Too many of them are bumped by people just trying to get into the sales corner.
> 
> I, and I'm sure others do too, check sellers activities and stay away from those who just join to sell. Too risky to deal with.. I'll only buy from genuine enthusiasts and long term members


I’m new here. 
What do I look for to identify older threads and possibly not reply to?


----------



## bounce

Had both a few times, this is the one that is still with me.


----------



## anonymousmoose

Patrick_R said:


> I’m new here.
> What do I look for to identify older threads and possibly not reply to?


Welcome! Great to have you here.

Good question. There is usually a date on each post


----------



## arcentaur

I still have both but would keep the speedy if I had to let go of one, mainly for sentimental reasons.


----------



## Pj66

If I had to choose it would be the speedy. The sub is an absolutely great watch but when it comes to dive watches there are a lot that can scratch the itch for me but not for chronographs hence my choice for the speedy. In an ideal situation a collector should have both but we all know it’s not ideal for most.


----------



## 5thLegion

I have bumped some old threads myself due to the mobile format. 😆
Speedy for me. More versatile and actually attainable right now.


----------



## zengineer

They don't always look that much alike...









Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## anonymousmoose

5thLegion said:


> I have bumped some old threads myself due to the mobile format.
> Speedy for me. More versatile and actually attainable right now.


Sure - but your not here chasing 100 posts just to sell. The sales corner is not what the WUS community is all about. It used to be a way for collectors to trade watches. Now it's becoming a place for scams and people just out to profit


----------



## mhs91

Would love to own both - omega is my fav brand by far and I dislike Rolex however the sub is the most iconic watch of all time


----------



## bigclive2011

mhs91 said:


> Would love to own both - omega is my fav brand by far and I dislike Rolex however the sub is the most iconic watch of all time


The Op left the room eleven years ago…….


----------



## zengineer

bigclive2011 said:


> The Op left the room eleven years ago…….


He's going to be surprised at the prices.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## Klip88

I agree speedy on leather is a good dress watch, sleek and cool. Sub all day overall though it’s a tank


----------



## SlowhandBuzz

They both have their place in my rotation and I love each one for unique reasons. That said, I would choose my Speedy over my Kermit if only keeping one of the two.


----------

