# rolex submariner vs omega seamaster limited edition (james bond)



## essawi

i will buy one of them
which u guys suggest for me?
which is more luxury and better
the seamaster limited




or

the submariner


----------



## RODJER007

both are great watches for me the atention to detail in the finished product puts the omega a mile in front.
first the clasp both are extendable folding clasps but where the omega has a solid piece of metal that has been beutifully krafted and enginered to house the spring loaded release mechanism and give a solid feel that it does.
And the rolex oh deer it would appear that they chose to bend some tin to the shape of a clasp.

the other big notiseable difference is the case back on the omega a mesmerising laser engraved work of art.

the rolex PLAIN,BLANK, NOTHING


----------



## gaopa

While I am crazy about Omega watches, I would go for the Rolex Submariner. The Sub is a Rolex classic and in a different league, I think, than the Bond. Just my view. Cheers, Bill P.


----------



## M4tt

And yet somehow the Rolex Submariner has been in continuous production since 1954 (oops).

Both are fine watches which will give a lifetime of pleasure. No doubt you will hear a wide range of advice but ultimately you need to try them both on. 

The new Rolexes have a massively improved clasp while the earlier clast was a perfectly satisfactory solution. I have an original Rolex clasp from 1963 and it is in perfect working order. I have an eleven year old Seamaster and have had to replace the bracelet once already. It is a great bracelet but with enthusiastic use it is worn out in a decade or so. The head of the watch is an entirely different matter. Mine has a new bezel and, on a strap, can be mistaken from new, from a few feet.

My only other comment is that you may wish to consider buying the standard edition. Bond currently wears a Planet Ocean and I suspect that the OO7 theme may well feel less attractive in years to come while the new standard will remain a refreshing twist on a modern classic. 

For me the most important thing is the movement. While there is a lot of discussion on this, my opinion is that the 2500 with the unique Daniels' Coaxial Escapement is a better movement by virtue of that fabulous escapement. However, the 3135 is also a fine movement that looks great and performs brilliantly.

Ultimately they are both great watches. Personally I prefer the blue Bond and suspect that this will be the one people remember. However the Sub is an iconic watch. Choose the one which speaks loudest to you. you simply cannot lose! 

Me, I own the blue Bond in quartz and this fills the space a Sub would take. I wouldn't swap it for a Sub. (Well I would, but then I'd sell it and buy a new Bond!)


----------



## Anthony

Submariner hands down.


----------



## vbuskirk

I wouldn't consider anything marred by advertising for a movie as a true luxury item.


----------



## 23fengshui

Between those two? Anthony is right; Sub hands down. Espcially if money is no object.


----------



## dkpw

RODJER007 said:


> both are great watches for me the atention to detail in the finished product puts the omega a mile in front.
> first the clasp both are extendible folding clasps but where the omega has a solid piece of metal that has been beautifully crafted and engineered to house the spring loaded release mechanism and give a solid feel that it does.
> And the rolex oh deer it would appear that they chose to bend some tin to the shape of a clasp.
> 
> the other big noticeable difference is the case back on the omega a mesmerising laser engraved work of art.
> 
> the rolex PLAIN,BLANK, NOTHING


I'm new here and a Rolex Sub owner, so bear that in mind when considering my reply.

True the Rolex case back is plain and not engraved. Some say that a case back engraving helps retain the watch in position on the wrist. I'm not sure if there is that much of a difference in the real world. I can tell you that I do not remember the time that I last looked at the back of my watch. I'm sure if you did pick the SMP you would probably go for months without looking at the case back, once the novelty of your purchase has evaporated.

The Sub has been in production since 1953, and features a robust and tested 3135 calibre, COSC certified at -4/+6 secs per day. Mine averages about 1.8 seconds fast a day.

Like the calibre, the clasp is tried and tested. It has been seen as a weak point by some, appearing tinny compared to the rest of the watch. All I can say is it that I find it to be secure and comfortable. The bracelet is easy to adjust, not only with the comfort micro-adjustments, but I can add or remove links in a minute or two with nothing more complicated than a jeweller's screwdriver.

The SMP LE does look great, I personally do not care for the 007 branding but it is popular and may add some resale value to the watch. Generally speaking Rolexes command a higher resale value.

Good luck on your choice.


----------



## Texcowboy9

I traded my Omeaga Seamaster Pro (2254.50) and my Omega Seamaster GMT (Great White) for a Rolex Submariner. I am perfectly happy with the trade. I recently had a chance to buy another Great White at a real good price but decided not to as I wear my Submariner every day and did not want to have the GMT just to have it sit in the watch box. 

With that said, the 2254.50 and the Great White are very nice watches, I just personally prefer the Sub.;-)


----------



## Gray C

I prefer the Omega. 

As a well respected watch repairer once said to me "With a Rolex you are getting half as good a watch for twice the money"

OK, I would not go that far! . In my opinion, in the Rolex, you are getting an equal quality watch at twice the money


----------



## Neil(UK)

Sub obviously IMO.

It's a classic, an icon, very few watches can say that.

And as I have previously asserted, in the future when the current Seamaster has been replaced many times and the model shown is worth 2p ;-) the Sub will still look right and be worth far more than you paid for it.

Plus it's far better looking. ;-)


----------



## Henkan

I love Omega but i would take the Sub anyway. Its a true classic. ( i wouldnt buy anything that has a 007 logo)


----------



## vrolok

sub hands down (14060m though) ;-)


----------



## Wytnucls

The sub is a great watch with history and its value will appreciate in time. The Omega is a fine watch but, in my view, rather gimmicky. I don't get the whole 'Bond' thing...
I'd go with the sub in a heartbeat.


----------



## GJ

The Sub has my vote as well..


----------



## M4tt

I'm prepared to bet money that the blue bond will come around again. It's a modern classic as opposed to a classic classic, if you see what I mean. 

Not so sure about the black one, and the black LE, I wouldn't give Neil 2p for it right now!


----------



## Sappie66

The Sub and the non-LE SMP would be a far better comparison. Definitely the Sub, no question, if compared to the LE -- this Bond LE stuff (all editions) drive me mad! -- cheapens the image IMO.

As between the Sub and the SMP, I would still take the Sub, but I would have far more respect for the second-place contestant.


----------



## Naturally

I would go for the Sub.

My Rolex GMT Master II finish (including clasp) is superior to the Omega.

New rolexes are also made of a higher grade of Steel.

Sub is a classic.

I am thinking about getting one if I can afford it.


----------



## 46and2

I vote Sub too. I tried on the Bond LE at an AD. While it feels like a nice watch, the whole "Bond" thing just rubs me the wrong way.


----------



## M4tt

> I vote Sub too. I tried on the Bond LE at an AD. While it feels like a nice watch, the whole "Bond" thing just rubs me the wrong way.


Lucky that the Rolex Submariner has no Bond connection then, isn't it...


----------



## 46and2

M4tt said:


> Lucky that the Rolex Submariner has no Bond connection then, isn't it...


If you can point me to some limited edition "James Bond" Submariners with 007 logos and what-not, I'll be happy to dump on them as well. :-d I like the non limited edition Seamaster just fine.


----------



## jmsrolls

Between the LE Bond and a new Sub Date, I would have to go with the Sub. There is nothing I like about the LE Bond.

Between the 2254.50 and a new Sub Date, I prefer the 2254.50. The SMP does everything better for a lot less money: $2,300 vs. $6,000 MSRP.

Omega's big mistake in 2008 was discontinuing the 2254.50. Rolex's big mistake was replacing the Sea Dweller with the Deep Sea. I would much rather have a Sea Dweller Date than the Sub Date with the its Cyclops.

Fr. John†


----------



## katmando

The classic of classics, IMO, is the Rolex Submariner. I like SMPs, but I'm not a fan of the "007" on the second hand. I prefer subtle. 
That said I do have a Rolex Sub:-! AND an Omega SMP (2254.50):-!


----------



## DaveInLA

I think Omega is really tarnishing their name by using gimmicks like this. A company that makes mid-high end watches shouldn't have to resort to this type of thing. I feel Omega is really trying to establish their association with Bond, and may have gone too far.


----------



## M4tt

> If you can point me to some limited edition "James Bond" Submariners with 007 logos and what-not, I'll be happy to dump on them as well.


Your point, I concede.

And yes, furthermore, I agree: whoever is in charge of the product development department has no idea whatsoever. Either that or we Omega owners have significantly less taste than we would like to admit.


----------



## Madrox

i gotta go with the majority here and vote for the Sub. while the SMP is a classic no doubt, that 007 on the second hand really makes it look hokey. 2254.50 is another story. much closer race and i'd go with the omega just because i've never had a sub grace these girly wrists of mine.











Yet


----------



## AAP

M4tt said:


> Either that or we Omega owners have significantly less taste than we would like to admit.


Speak for yourself, Matt. I taste delicious.


----------



## J.L.Hudson

The whole Bond thing is silly to me,I would rather have the Sub.

My preferences are the Sea-Dweller and the 2254 which are my favs from my collection.IMHO the 2 ultimate tool divers.


----------



## laxexquis

Whats the crown on the top left of the Omega for?


----------



## mlevinson

DaveInLA said:


> I think Omega is really tarnishing their name by using gimmicks like this. A company that makes mid-high end watches shouldn't have to resort to this type of thing. I feel Omega is really trying to establish their association with Bond, and may have gone too far.


Agreed.


----------



## OddE

laxexquis said:


> Whats the crown on the top left of the Omega for?


-Geek gadget. A helium release valve, manually operated as opposed to the automatic operation of the Rolex one.

Just an extra entry point for water to well near 100% of PO owners.


----------



## Paperbill

I love Omega ..own 3, but the SUB is a better watch and better investment


----------



## Sappie66

Paperbill said:


> I love Omega ..own 3, but the SUB is a better watch and better investment


uh oh, :-x


----------



## Paperbill

Now, if you said a PO of a Sub, I would have gone with the PO


----------



## bradb

get the regular black seamaster


----------



## sfrolex

I'm looking to get a beautiful Speedmaster. I like James Bond (Roger Moore) but I'm not crazy about that logo on the series. Seems to lessen the brand.


----------



## spogehead

I'd take the sub, the bond LE does nothing for me at all.

Big price difference though in the UK sub £3700 LE around £2000


----------



## esm

Sub > SMP LE.

i'd get the Sub first and then get my hands on a non LE version of the SMP. not too keen on the 007 branding thingy.


----------



## razer

The plain PO with no bond insignia or other branding is what I prefer.

The Submariner? Well that's truly a legend, a great watch. But I'd go with the no-date version if I were pulling the trigger—don't particularly like the cyclops.

From the two, I'd pick the PO every time.

Happy hunting, and best of luck!


----------



## BenL

esm said:


> Sub > SMP LE.
> 
> i'd get the Sub first and then get my hands on a non LE version of the SMP. not too keen on the 007 branding thingy.


My thoughts, exactly. :-!


----------



## ulackfocus

I'd agree with the majority that the _007_ on the second hand has to go. Any reference to a movie or other endorsement should be left off a proper watch IMO. Lose that and I'd buy the Omega. Plenty of WIS (even Rolex guys) have said the Sub is the best $2000 watch out there. Problem is it costs 3 times that. How it holds its value so well is a mystery to me.


----------



## perdu

Easy - the Sub.


----------



## Jim3

Rolex


----------



## dlite1873

Submariner.


----------



## Guest

I have a SUb and a Seamaster. The "007" second hand is a bit too chessy for me. But, the Omega IMO is a far superior quality than the Rollie.


----------



## Sperry

Put highly stylized features on a watch,
and they are less attractive when fashions change.

Start with a classic, and you have a classic five decades later.


----------



## geckobros

Sub against the cheesy "007".

2254.50 > sub IMHO.


----------



## AIKO

:-d


geckobros said:


> Sub against the cheesy "007".
> 
> 2254.50 > sub IMHO.


You dug this thread out of the basement.:-d


----------



## tomee

easily the submariner.
will hold its value for years to come


----------



## geckobros

AIKO said:


> :-d
> 
> You dug this thread out of the basement.:-d


DOH!!! So I did.. o|


----------



## jbw52

Personally I would buy the *212.30.41.20.01.002, *non LE Bond style in black and take the money I saved from not buying the Rolex and buy my wife something special. I just like the looks of the Omega better and I feel that it is every bit as good a watch as the more expensive Rolex.

PS I think that the LE Bond is just a bit too gimmicky for my tastes.


----------



## sk001

i wouldnt get a new sub.. but an older t-dial.. you wont take a hit on new price, and chance of further appreciation down the line.


----------



## hernan1304

I would say the Sub - no contest. HOWEVER, I wouldn't buy a submariner right now. The new design should be coming out in the next couple of years with quite a few upgrades.

I would buy the GMT Master II if I were buying today, since that one has already received all the upgrades. Unless of course you are a diver, in which case you could go for the Deepsea, which has also been upgraded.

EDIT: hahaha just realized how old this thread is.


----------



## OzO

2254.50

Seamaster Pro with the sword hands is just head and shoulders a nicer watch than the Bond IMHO

or a Sub ;-)


----------



## AIKO

hernan1304 said:


> I would say the Sub - no contest. HOWEVER, I wouldn't buy a submariner right now. The new design should be coming out in the next couple of years with quite a few upgrades.
> 
> I would buy the GMT Master II if I were buying today, since that one has already received all the upgrades. Unless of course you are a diver, in which case you could go for the Deepsea, which has also been upgraded.
> 
> EDIT: hahaha just realized how old this thread is.


Or, if they ruin the Sub with polished links and a ceramic bezel, all bets are off.


----------



## hernan1304

Haha those are some of the "upgrades" that I was talking about... I'm sure that's coming, considering that the all-gold subs that came out last year have ceramic and polished links, right?


----------



## Chev James

M4tt said:


> Lucky that the Rolex Submariner has no Bond connection then, isn't it...


I've gotten two of the "Bond" watches, the Quantum of Solace and the black dialed SMP. Of the two, I prefer the Quantum of Solace because its 007 connection is more . . . well, understated.

My regular wear Omega is the SMP with the blue wave dial. I feel that it is a classic in its own right.

I do think that Rolex made a huge marketing mistake by not supplying watches to "James Bond" for the movies. And now with the Madoff scandal and a shakeup at Rolex, one wonders if the brand will survive. I hope it will. It's a fine watch. My nod goes to Omega for being more innovative and taking a chance on George Daniel's coaxial escapement. I'm glad that the NIH ("Not Invented Here") syndrome was not affecting Omega!


----------



## huntershooter

While having both, if forced to own just one; I would choose the Sub.
Both are great watches. My feeling is the Sub has the better pedigree.


----------



## children

if it was a standard seamaster pro, I would have a good think on which one I prefer.
But that "007" on the hands or any kind of 007 on the watch ruins it for me. If I wanted somethings 007, I would go to a dvd store. beyond that, its kind of sad.. 

sorry if ive offended anyone


----------



## WIS_Chronomaster

MMMM Rolex wins.


----------



## paduncan

RODJER007 said:


> both are great watches for me the atention to detail in the finished product puts the omega a mile in front.
> first the clasp both are extendable folding clasps but where the omega has a solid piece of metal that has been beutifully krafted and enginered to house the spring loaded release mechanism and give a solid feel that it does.
> And the rolex oh deer it would appear that they chose to bend some tin to the shape of a clasp.
> 
> the other big notiseable difference is the case back on the omega a mesmerising laser engraved work of art.
> 
> the rolex PLAIN,BLANK, NOTHING


If this were the primary criteria for purchasing a watch we would all be wearing Invictas, which also have nice solid clasps / links, etc.


----------



## paduncan

Sub all the way.

Even if you were to change your option to the black non LE SMP, I would still say Sub, even with the "tinny clasp" and the hollow end links.

About the only thing the Omega has that could be argued "better" is the bracelet.
However, said bracelet, is heavy, and lacks the micro adjustments possible on the Rolex clasp - any adjustment to the bracelet needs to be taken to a jeweler unless you have the necessary tools. The pins are also pretty hard to push out and put back in. Rolex super easy.
The rotating bezel is smoother on the sub, and mechanism feels of higher quality.
Triplock crown and the crown itself just feels more solid on the Rolex than the crown on the SMP.
Extra crown at 10:00 is gimmicky, and takes away from an otherwise clean look.
Date changes at EXACTLY 12:00am on the Rolex. It does not on the Omega SMP.
Engraving on the back side of the watch only serves (for me) to leave a nice indentation in my wrist, when the heavy bracelet doesn't allow the watch to "float" with the motion of my wrist.
The sub is an INCONIC design - no telling when Omega will discontinue this version of the SMP, or drop it altogether in favor of the PO.
Oh, and if the bracelet is a showstopper, I believe the new Subs address this issue as well.
Submariner all the way (if you had to choose).

I own:

Rolex Submariner 16610
Rolex Datejust 116234
SMP 2220.80
SMP 2254.50
SMP GMT 2234.50
SMP Aqua Terra 39mm 2503.50
SMP 200m
Omega cal 354 Constellation Pie Pan


----------



## blackstallion

Putting aside the "bond" issue for now (I also agree this is a cheap marketing gimmick with no place in a luxury watch), I too would pick the Sub IF....and that's a BIG IF....money were no issue. I'm not sure you can put the Omega SMP and the Sub in the same category when one is more than DOUBLE MSRP than the other, and I'm not even referring to the quality of either watch (I have a feeling the quality of both is equal). IF money were no issue for me, I have a feeling I wouldn't even be considering the Omega and would have gone DIRECLTY for the nearest Rolex AD. I must admit, haveing just purchased my first Omega, price WAS a big factor, and is the reason I did not even consider a Rolex. That being said, the Sub has been growing on me, and maybe if could afford to drop $6k, I would consider it.


----------



## SafetyStop

I don't think it's a fair comparison. In the case of your stated comparison, I would pick the Sub. If you put a non-007 branded Seamaster on there I'd pick the Seamaster. But if you put up a Sea Dweller, I'd pick that over any one of those comparisons. I guess it doesn't help that I have my mind set on an SD right now either :-d


----------



## roger0770

ss sub!!!


----------



## Spree_8

Rolex...


----------



## 1watchaholic

Not a difficult decision for me...the Rolex submariner hands down. I'd have to think a while regarding a Rolex Submariner and a PO. :think:


----------



## ulackfocus

If I had a dollar......


----------



## M4tt

ulackfocus said:


> If I had a dollar......


You'd only go and spend it on watches! :-!


----------



## Double 0 Se7en

I'd go for the Submariner...But if you have 8k go for the sea dweller deep sea...today I took a look at it .. it is so thick and wonderful...my next watch will be that one....


----------



## qfox

jbw52 said:


> personally i would buy the *212.30.41.20.01.002, *non le bond style in black and take the money i saved from not buying the rolex and buy my wife something special. I just like the looks of the omega better and i feel that it is every bit as good a watch as the more expensive rolex.
> 
> Ps i think that the le bond is just a bit too gimmicky for my tastes.


haha. That just what i did. |>


----------



## Watch Fan

I have them both. I love my Omegas (5), but if I were making the same choice you are, it would have to be the Sub for me. It is truely an iconic watch, simple yet robust. There is a reason it has been around as long as it has and is still as popular as it is. Just my opinion.


----------



## jamoss75

DaveInLA said:


> I think Omega is really tarnishing their name by using gimmicks like this. A company that makes mid-high end watches shouldn't have to resort to this type of thing. I feel Omega is really trying to establish their association with Bond, and may have gone too far.


For what its worth, I agree with you.
I was glad to see Craig wearing a standard Planet Ocean in Casino Royale and don't like the 007 counterweight on the seconds hand.


----------



## migboy

sub


----------



## wjgesq

The Seamaster. But not that Seamaster. Something with the 007 hands. Like the Seamasters and the movies, but it would be a bit odd to walk around with 007 on your watch. Unless of course you are...


----------



## capp325

I find the whole James Bond gimmick quite silly, so I would pick the Sub for that reason alone. Otherwise, they are both great watches. In terms of accuracy and fit and finish, Omega and Rolex are equals. Rolex has a more "prestigious" name and naturally costs more.


----------



## GravityZ

Bond LE black looks way cooler(yes the 007 hand really has to go)
the rolex looks like an old mans watch with that magnifying thing on the glass

both compared i also think the omega wears bigger.

true the rolex is a classic but when i had that amount of money i would not spend it on the rolex.


----------



## kingsford911

Well I've got a sub so I'm biased....but I really do think it's not only nicer, but a better watch. :-x oops... And after all it's the watch of the BEST bond!!

BTW, I'm looking for an Omega, also a super watch..

So, which one did you choose?


----------



## kappa8620

*2254.50 seamaster in black for me*, i like the sub by i prefer the 2254.

+ i wouldnt buy anything that has a 007 logo


----------



## deskdiver

Henkan said:


> I love Omega but i would take the Sub anyway. Its a true classic. ( i wouldnt buy anything that has a 007 logo)


my sentiments exactly.


----------



## modyblu

I was torn between those 2 plus the Sea Dweller and the PO, I ended up buying the SMP, though not the LE.


----------



## pbubsy

I'd go with the Omega. Why? Not because I believe it is better, but rather you can find one at a third the price on the used market (sorry....PREowned:-d). I don't believe the Rolex is three times as good as the Seamaster....it's quite obvious that is isn't. To me, the Seamaster is more visually appealing, has more of a wrist presence (size), I like the bracelet a bit more and I believe, while the movement might not be as good as the Rolex, it's a stones throw away from it. The Rolex on the other hand has been around forever. It's a classic, that's undisputable. It's instantly recognizable by nearly EVERYONE with with the Submariner being the forerunner of their line. That's how much of an institution Rolex has become over the years. It's a bullet proof watch that's not only handsome, but performs just as well strapped to a wetsuit as it would hidden under a tux. They're timeless....I see the old ones going for more than the new ones on Ebay....that's something to think about. They don't lose value. That must mean Rolex did something right in my book. To me, I just couldn't justify the price difference in my current income bracket ;-). Apart from that, Rolex in my opinion needs to get with the program and size up their case....I personally like a watch around 42-47mm so if they were to make say a 43-44mm Sub I'd be more interested in a Rolex. It's not the "big watch" style thing for me. I'm a BIG guy. It just fits me like a 40mm fits many other guys. I don't like looking at something that looks like womens jewelry when on my wrist. I like something more substancial.

I didn't completely understand the attraction to Rolex until I looked into the movements more and the whole in house process....and ALSO looked at the Deep Sea, which to me is everything a dive watch should be while filling out my wrist just the way I like. 

If money were no object, I'd be wearing a Deep Sea. I'm positively enchanted with that watch. But money is an object and I've got a Seamaster Bond Chrono, a Speeder sapphire sandwich and a Planet Ocean. All on Ebay, all three for less than what I'd pay for a used Deep Sea (about $2000-3000 less) and I KNOW I get more pleasure out of owning three watches that I absolutely LOVE rather than one.

I just see Omega as more of a value...if you get the right deal on one. Yes, Rolex will hold it's value over time and the Omega won't come close to retaining as much of its value. And yes, the Rolex probably has a Superior movement...but the Omega meets the size, styling, quality, performance, value and price that I look for in a watch.


----------



## tony99508

this is a comparative riview of the omega smp and the rolex sub enjoy...
http://www.rolexreferencepage.com/smpvssub.html


----------



## cestommek

I don´t like Rolex,and a 40mm diver is small for me..
i prefer Omega...but i don´t like the 007 logo...
greetings


----------



## ayres

HA HA... wow, did the author of this post ever even mention what he/she purchased?!?! amazing that this thread has continued... i guess we're an opinionated bunch here. so i'll throw in my thoughts...

that smp? are you kidding me? with that second hand? you might as well tattoo a corporate logo on your arm while you're at it... would you really want to be reminded of bond ever time you check the time? i don't understand the appeal of such a dumb gimmick...

i really like the seamasters - especially the 2254, which i used to own. then i sold it for a sub no date z-serial and never looked back. triplock crown, superior caseback screwing mechanism, better steel, better, adjustable bracelet, and the movement? i could never compare the superior consistancy of the 3130 with the 1120 of the 2254.

as for the 2500 movement? coincidentally, i just returned from the local tourneau, where i was receiving some opinions on a speedy pro. as our conversation meandered, he mentioned to me that he has seen many returns/problems with this 2500 movement. i mention this b/c i see a lot of threads about co-ax problems... cheers,


----------



## es335

If the choice is between these two watches, then Sub.

But both Omega and Rolex have lost their way. Let me explain.

Rolex is more of an innovator in deep diving watches as they beat Omega to market by a couple of years in the 50s. 

However, the 1960s Seamaster 300 is considered a classic in it's own right.

But Omega kept facelifting it's designs, while the Sub has retained it's iconic designs through the decades, with a simple, classic utilitarian appearance.

Here's where both brands went really wrong.

In the 70s Omega went bankrupt. When they emerged from bankruptcy they began purchasing movements from others, instead of producing them in house.

Omega lost brand cachet.

In the 80s, Rolex began "blinging the dial" of their sportswatches, the process of adding very feminine and "flashy" white gold hour surrounds on a highly polished black dial.

Meanwhile Omega rebounded financially and has developed a roadmap to alleviate their inferiority complex and boost brand cachet. Their goal --> to command higher prices and chase Rolex down the "prestige pricing" path to oblivion. Prestige pricing is the act of inflating the price of watches each year to boost exclusivity and perceived brand value, as well as cachet.

But Omega couldn't achieve this end ($1000 per year MSRP price hikes like Rolex) by continuing to modify stock ETA movements. So they purchased the IPR for the co-axial escapement as a stop-gap cachet booster and long term marketing differentiator on their roadmap to producing in house movements once again.

The impact is that fantastic, moderately priced modern day no-nonse dive watches like the 2254.50 (matte dial, no white gold hour surrounds) are discontinued so Omega can introduce garbage like the "co-axial" James Bond, with it's "derivative of 1980s Rolex" high gloss dial and white gold hour surrounds, plus silly movie marketing branding.

If you ask me, both watches are garbage. I give an edge to the modern day sub because of what it once was.

If you want a real classic dive watch, unco-opted by bling, pretension and cheese, buy a Rolex Sub 5512, 5513 or 1680 etc. Or get an Omega Seamaster 2254.50 (recently discontinued by the knuckleheads at Omega to introduce, shinier, pricier, blingier and more feminine metrosexual sports watches and compete with Rolex more directly in the prestige pricing market sector).


----------



## Zidane

This thread has been brought back from the dead SOOOO many times.


----------



## Mystro

gaopa said:


> While I am crazy about Omega watches, I would go for the Rolex Submariner. *The Sub is a Rolex classic and in a different league*, I think, than the Bond. Just my view. Cheers, Bill P.


----------



## Marendra

I'm almost afraid to keep this thread alive, but I need to get something out there......

RolesRolexRolexRolexRolexRolex

What's up with that?

I'm not a fan of any LEs that Omega has put out - absolutely detest 007 or olympic second hands. Sorry, just me perhaps, but the 'Rolexing' turns me off for the same reasons. 

Older Submariner ND (don't like the cyclops and not senile yet, so can remember the date). Either that or a 42mm PO black/white face, but I'm biased, since I already have one. PO, not Sub ND.

Cheers.


----------



## Chev James

I've got the Omega James Bond LE, and it truly is a superb watch! I love the deep, black lacquered dial. In fact, I got it precisely because it IS a limited edition, and I actually like the "007" counterweight on the second hand! Only 10,007 were made. And it does have the Daniels' coaxial escapement. So, in terms of mechanical aptitude, the Omega is better. I also like the Submariner, and wouldn't mind having one, but for me Omega connotes more of a discerning buyer, as too many people "default" to Rolex once they have "arrived" in that sense of the word. 

I did have the LE regulated, as it was gaining about 10 seconds per day. Now it is down to about 1 - 2 seconds per day. It's a very striking watch . . . and the Rolex is, too. 

But if I could have only one, I'd take the Omega. That dial is so beautiful that even if you objected to the 007 logo on the second hand, you could easily have the second hand replaced with a "stock" one. 

Ultimately, it's how you feel the watch looks on your wrist! The "right" watch will speak to you! You'll know it's the right one as soon as you put it on your wrist!


----------



## GravityZ

i also love that watch

plesase note when replacing the second hand

the LE vrsion has blue lume and the 007 logo

the standard version has GREEN lume an no logo

as far as i can tell there is no blue lume without the 007 logo



Chev James said:


> I've got the Omega James Bond LE, and it truly is a superb watch! I love the deep, black lacquered dial. In fact, I got it precisely because it IS a limited edition, and I actually like the "007" counterweight on the second hand! Only 10,007 were made. And it does have the Daniels' coaxial escapement. So, in terms of mechanical aptitude, the Omega is better. I also like the Submariner, and wouldn't mind having one, but for me Omega connotes more of a discerning buyer, as too many people "default" to Rolex once they have "arrived" in that sense of the word.
> 
> I did have the LE regulated, as it was gaining about 10 seconds per day. Now it is down to about 1 - 2 seconds per day. It's a very striking watch . . . and the Rolex is, too.
> 
> But if I could have only one, I'd take the Omega. That dial is so beautiful that even if you objected to the 007 logo on the second hand, you could easily have the second hand replaced with a "stock" one.
> 
> Ultimately, it's how you feel the watch looks on your wrist! The "right" watch will speak to you! You'll know it's the right one as soon as you put it on your wrist!


----------



## georges zaslavsky

the rolex of course, because of the legendary 3135 and because a rolex is never decreasing in value.


----------



## myltz400

I've heard rumors that Bond and Omega will part company soon. I hope this is true, never been a fan of the "movie watches".

+1 for the sub over 007


----------



## Harpoonio

Gray C said:


> I prefer the Omega.
> 
> As a well respected watch repairer once said to me "With a Rolex you are getting half as good a watch for twice the money"
> 
> OK, I would not go that far! . In my opinion, in the Rolex, you are getting an equal quality watch at twice the money


I have to say that thats what Ive been told too. A jeweller and two watch repairers I have spoken to have had very strong negative opinions about rolexes and their actual quality worth compared to other brands. My own opinion of rolexes is bound to keep cropping up on watchuseek - to me theyre the watch of a wannabe - "a ten-bob millionaire". However, to buy a watch with a 007 logo... please dont do it mate! Back when rolexes image was less tacky, James Bond was portrayed as wearing one, but Im dead certain that Ian Fleming would have had a stroke at the thought of him wearing movie merchandising! Amazingly Im going to say that, IF IT HAS TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER, then go rolex, but, I implore you, try to find a third option.


----------



## Ultraman

The Sub wins hand down in this comparison.


----------



## Choclatay

_*Omega:*_














_*Rolex:*_














I would never wanna be seen wearing a Rolex, sends out the wrong message.


----------



## M4tt

> I would never wanna be seen wearing a Rolex, sends out the wrong message.


While using selective photographs to reinforce your prejudice in a three year old zombie thread gives the right message? Please try and enjoy your watch without having to put down other watches.


----------



## Zidane

M4tt said:


> While using selective photographs to reinforce your prejudice in a three year old zombie thread gives the right message? Please try and enjoy your watch without having to put down other watches.


His post makes no sense. Just a troll trying to create drama.


----------



## WatchMeSpend

Choclatay said:


> I would never wanna be seen wearing a Rolex, sends out the wrong message.


Shave and don't smoke Cuban cigars and you will be OK...;-)


----------



## accurate

M4tt said:


> While using selective photographs to reinforce your prejudice in a three year old zombie thread gives the right message? Please try and enjoy your watch without having to put down other watches.


I found it rather amusing. Sense of humor people?


----------



## accurate

Even now the SMP is 50% of the Rolex. However I feel the need to say you guys who can drop thousands on watches need to realize that you would gain more from helping your fellow human. I mean really..you wouldnt have your money unless soceity supported you. So.. now its time to give back..


----------



## camb66

accurate said:


> Even now the SMP is 50% of the Rolex. However I feel the need to say you guys who can drop thousands on watches need to realize that you would gain more from helping your fellow human. I mean really..you wouldnt have your money unless soceity supported you. So.. now its time to give back..


You would be wrong to assume just because you spend money on watches means that you don't contribute to worthy causes.


----------



## jaytaylor




----------



## Spit161

Zidane said:


> His post makes no sense. Just a troll trying to create drama.


Sadly he is not the first, or the last, we will see on the forum.
It's a shame - they spoil everyone enjoyment of this great resource.

cheers.


----------



## Hammondo

well as it's a direct comparison between the hideous 007 model and the Sub, then even I would go for the sub. However, any normal Seamaster model, I would get the Omega every time


----------



## 4counters

Is there a "Neither" option? ;-)


----------



## Pilot2

Hey if the 007 floasts your boat, then get it. Its a very nice, quality Seamaster. If given the choice between the 007 marked SMP and a plain jane Sub, I'd personally go Sub. If given the choice of a vintage 300, or even a 4250.50, I'd go with the Omega. For me, price is an issue, and I do think you get the better value with the Omega 4250.50 over the Sub. Tough choice though if the money isn't an issue.


----------



## teeritz

No offence intended to those of you who've responded recently (_"Too late!", _I hear you say) to this resurrected thread, but the OP posted his/her query two-and-a-half years ago. And this thread has devolved into the usual Omega vs Rolex clap-trap that many of us have read again and again. Plus we've had a couple of bonus visits from some suspected or possible trolls. Yet again.
So let's give this thread a rest before some jerk comes along to tell us we should all buy ourselves a Sub.
Some days are just like Groundhog Day on WUS.

Just my 2c.


----------



## GinGinD

A 2 1/2 year old thread? Really? :roll:

Closed pending forum mods' review.

Jeannie


----------



## AAP

No, no. Closed is just fine, thank you.


----------

