# Rolex Submariner vs Omega Seamaster 300m



## aperturevx (Jan 8, 2012)

To clarify, this is _not _one of those "Help me pick a watch to buy!" threads. (Although I wish it were...) I also don't want a long rambling thread on the pros and cons of one vs the other. IMO they're both great watches. I'm just curious about fellow forum member's opinions. If you had to pick just one, which would you rather own, and why? For those of you lucky enough to own both, do you have a favorite?

And just for the sake of comparing apples to apples, I'm pitting the Sub against the Seamaster 300m chronometer (same depth rating, rotating bezel, very similar styling, etc.) While the Planet Ocean and Aqua Terra are part of the Seamaster line, I don't think they have as much in common with the Submariner.

Cheers,

aperturevx

P.S. Obligatory pics:


----------



## cs12 (Aug 19, 2012)

I prefer the wave dial on the Omega but prefer the strap on the Rolex.

Both great watches though but Rolex wins it for me.


----------



## geoffbot (Mar 12, 2011)

I prefer...everything about the Rolex. Except the price.


----------



## omega1234 (May 17, 2012)

I think the Omega is the better buy, like geoffbott said the Sub price is so high and every other wealthy non-WIS has one. Although the Sub is iconic, gorgeous, and a wonderful timepiece the Omega wins in my mind.


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

The Sub it's my favourite Diver on it's price range...the SMP 300M(c) it's my favourite Diver on it's price range...

If it was a gift I would pick the Sub...

(BTW this poll compares Ceramic In-House apples vs Aluminium ETA modified apples ;-))


----------



## Nato060 (Oct 31, 2011)

Omega Seamaster 300m. But then again... look at my signature.


----------



## masbret (Mar 21, 2012)

I would pick the SMP, but I might be biased!


----------



## WnS (Feb 20, 2011)

I think the Omega has the slight edge here.

Rolex - high value retention / easy to sell, cyclops magnifier for reading the date when you get old, easier to grip bezel, 914 steel is more corrosion resistant than 316 steel (supposedly).
Omega - Value, value, value. I actually prefer the new version with ceramic bezel and glossy dial. It's still about 40% the price of the Rolex. Spend the savings on a holiday.


----------



## Cal8500 (Jun 21, 2012)

Submariner if I win the lottery. SMP if I'm spending my hard earned cash.


----------



## MZhammer (Feb 27, 2009)

I would pick the Omega based on the connotations a Rolex often brings. Otherwise I actually find the designs equally appealing and think the Rolex is a somewhat better built timepiece. But like some have said the price would play a big part if this was a real life decision.


----------



## Perseus (Mar 25, 2010)

I would rather have the new 300m with the ceramic dial and bezel and a wad of cash.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

geoffbot said:


> I prefer...everything about the Rolex. Except the price.


Ditto

Will


----------



## wristclock (Jul 5, 2010)

I will take te sub every time. One of the most perfect watches ever made IMO.


----------



## bacari (Nov 14, 2007)

I would go with the Sub if price were no object. I love my Omega and I think the bracelet quality is far better than the Sub but.... DeepSea is my next purchase so I would go Sub.


----------



## KevL (Feb 2, 2010)

Prices aside, my vote is the rolex.


----------



## mattjmcd (Oct 2, 2010)

Sub for me unless I could swap the handset on the Omega for the olde style.


----------



## 9573 (Aug 9, 2012)

Since the question is "only one" I'd have to say the sub without question. The Rolex is iconic and will always be a classic, whereas the Omega will most likely be out of fashion at some point like many of their previous models. That's not to say I don't like the Omega, I think its a great piece and has exceptional initial value.


----------



## Michael the Psycho (Jul 8, 2011)

Both watches require aftermarket mods IMO

Sub:

Flat crystal replacement
Display-back from TP
Blue dial
Blue bezel
Gold minute hand from a two-tone Sub

SMP:

Display-back
Titanium bracelet

If I had more money to play with, I'd mod the Sub. The SMP is already near-perfect.


----------



## Swingline888 (Sep 8, 2011)

Check out my sig to find my grail!


----------



## CCCP (Jul 1, 2006)

I picked the Submariner... the Seamaster is a nice try, but I don't like its hands, I don't need (nor like) the HE valve, and co-axial movements can be quirky. The rolly is high priced but easy to sell too.


----------



## spyderco10 (Mar 21, 2011)

this is hardly an apples to apples comparison


----------



## christre (Mar 2, 2012)

Ive got the DSSD and PO so if i had to chose from the Sub and Seamaster it would be the Seamaster. Main reason, with the blue dial it looks different to the 2 i have and in fact its 1 of the watches on my next to buy wish-list.


----------



## Mathew J (Oct 18, 2006)

Between these two the Rolex as I feel it is the iconic diver, however had you put the PO in the mix then that would have presented a challenge....

Between the Speedy and the Sub I would take a speedy all day every day...but two very different watches.


----------



## marchone (Dec 20, 2007)

I like them equally well. They're both great watches. Given the cost difference I'd have to give the nod to Rolex for a marginally superior product. For value alone it is the one I would choose. But I would not be unhappy owning a new cal 2500 ceramic Omega Seamaster 300M Chronometer 212.30.41.20.01.003 I think, in their present respective iterations, the Omega Seamaster is a dressier slimmer watch compared to the chunkier case of the Rolex.

Omega has used the Seamaster name since 1947 on more different models than anyone can count. This included dress watches, dive watches, and chronographs with manual, automatic and quartz movements. Then they inexplicably attached the name to the Aqua Terra and Planet Ocean lines.

The automatic Seamaster 300 of 1957 through 1969 was a rival to the Rolex Submariner of those years. In my opinion, Omega made too many changes from the 1960s Seamaster 300M to the present Seamaster Professional 300M Chronometer to stay viable comparable to the Rolex Submariner.

In other words, Omega itself diluted the name. Forgive the pun.


----------



## PJR (Apr 25, 2012)

Between the two watches shown in the first thread I'd choose the Submariner. However when I was deciding between the two 10 years ago I preferred the Omega and it's been pretty much my daily wearer ever since.


----------



## Crater (Sep 11, 2011)

I would go for both if I had the money atm, because I like watch collection and diverstiy. But if I had to choose only one, it would be Omega SMP. I really like the looks of Submariner, but it's too common and it's Rolex, not my favourite brand.

SMP on the other hand looks great with that bezel, wave dial and bracelet design. Really versatile watch for every occassion.


----------



## Dwelch83 (Jul 7, 2011)

Can't get a good fit with the SMP due to the bracelet not having micro adjustments. That said its a beautiful watch and I like the idea of the co axial, just nice to know its got something different inside. 

Sub is most comfortable watch I've worn. Seems to melt into my wrist. 

I'd go with the sub if I could have just one. But if I could have only 2 it would be sub an SMP.


----------



## honestlygreedy (Jun 20, 2012)

If money's no object then the Sub otherwise the SMP. They're both really nice looking divers and draw similar enough perceptions that it makes little difference to me. I don't like the idea of spending a whole lot on a diver and would rather put the difference towards something else.


----------



## marchone (Dec 20, 2007)

Rolex vs Omega means Sub and Speedy.


----------



## Mr.Kane (Mar 6, 2012)

Apples vs apples? Hardly..... Which one would I and every person here take? The sub of course, unless money was an issue which wasn't addressed by the op. If you hate the sub you could sell it and buy 2-3 seamasters.


----------



## skype88 (May 5, 2012)

Personally I think you can't go wrong either way.. The prestigious label of Rolex is going to make anything shine... But if you want to be unique, the bold move would be the Omega. If it were me, I'd take the Omega!


----------



## Kittysafe (Nov 28, 2011)

I chose the Seamaster 300M


----------



## pala10 (May 29, 2012)

Seamaster is my choice


----------



## Ramblin man (Feb 7, 2011)

The SMP, especially in titanium is really comfortable. But by the barest of margins I'd choose the Sub.


----------



## Mr. Panerai (Aug 5, 2012)

Not a huge fan of the Submariner, or that Omega for that matter, I'd choose the Rollie just so I could sell it and buy a PAM


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

I wish both Rolex and Omega stuck with their Milsub designs.



















I think the new ceramic Seamaster 300 is a good deal, and I prefer the glossy dial over the older wave dial. Having said that, I'm not a fan of the screw-down Helium valve, the fussy looking bracelet, and the lack of microadjustment on the bracelet/clasp.

In any case, there is greater stylistic continuity in the Rolex Submariner line compared to the Omega Seamaster 300 line, and for that reason, I would go with the Rolex Submariner if I could only have one.

The Omega Planet Ocean seems to exhibits a closer affinity to the vintage Seamaster 300, with the exception of the lack of the sword hands, and the Helium valve.


----------



## eple (Jun 1, 2011)

Submariner. The brand's negative connotations that we talk about at WUS is a little over the top - it's nothing like that in everyday life. I wear mine everyday (only watch), and have had absolutely zero regrets owning it. The bracelet does feel...flimsy, but its fit is superb.

If we're talking vintage, like a 5513 versus a Seamaster 300...well, that's a _whole_ other ball-game.


----------



## JM-B (Mar 19, 2012)

*S*eamaster Professional 300m is my first choice on style alone. I actually like the older 2007 SMP model with the waves rather than the new omega release without them. As for the ceramic black bezel I agree it's a plus on the new version.

*R*olex will be my second choice when I get some spare cash.


----------



## Kittysafe (Nov 28, 2011)

I did buy a Seamaster 300M Automatic, Ceramic Black, and I absolutely adore this watch,
but if I buy a Rolex, what i want is a vintage late '50s, early '60s Cellini Cellinium like
this one:


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

show a bit more of personality and bring price down a bit, I'll pick a Vintage Submariner.
I like those vintage lume turn slight yellow


----------



## entropy96 (Nov 9, 2010)

I've had the opportunity to try on my brother-in-law's piece and I have to say, it's the Submariner for me. No doubt about it.
Sure, there are millions of junkies and d-bags wearing it, but that connotation is only influenced by some WIS avantgardes.

This watch just oozes with quality, refinement, and class.
The design: iconic and truely timeless.

The stock bracelet is one of the most comfortable bracelets I have ever worn; on par with my lower-end Grand Seikos.


----------



## mpalmer (Dec 30, 2011)

Rolex Submariner. No brainer decision here. One is the perhaps the most iconic dive/sports watch ever produced, the other is not. It can be argued that in at least in a historical roundabout way, the Seamaster is a homage to the Submariner.


----------



## marchone (Dec 20, 2007)

The definition of homage gets stretched further every time I open a new WUS thread.


----------



## georges zaslavsky (Feb 11, 2006)

None of both, submariner 5512, 5513, 1680, 168000 or 16800


----------



## suffolk009 (Jun 14, 2012)

The watch, Rolex?

_Omega._

Beautiful.

I tried on both twelve years ago and bought a seamaster. Didn't like the clasp on the Rolex. That said, when I can afford it a 5513 is my next big watch purchase (think I'll probably wear it with a Bond nato).


----------



## Harmo80 (Dec 30, 2012)

Omega is probably better value for money..... But the Sub is classic... So Sub for me


----------



## Paolo B (Aug 19, 2012)

14060M will do it for me. I'm not a fan of Rolex's current case shape or their showier stuff.

But you can't really compare Rolex and Omega. Rolexes never appealed to me until I saw them with my own eyes and touched them with my own hands. Sorry to say, Omegas just don't feel the same.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Paolo B said:


> 14060M will do it for me. I'm not a fan of Rolex's current case shape or their showier stuff.
> 
> But you can't really compare Rolex and Omega. Rolexes never appealed to me until I saw them with my own eyes and touched them with my own hands. Sorry to say, Omegas just don't feel the same.


IMHO I'd say the newest Rolexes and Omegas are pretty comparable in looks (depending on personal preferences of course) with a few show stoppers in the Hour Vision and AT models. The Rolexes have a little better case finishing but not enough to be noticeable under casual observation or after a few months of regular wear.

The big difference for me is Rolexes fit better- they're just more comfortable. That, combined with higher corrosion resistance, lower case thickness and a bomb proof movement that can be serviced locally is why I like them better.

If we're talking vintage, I'd rather get an Omega. Better quality for the price and easily serviced by my local watchmaker.

Will


----------



## marchone (Dec 20, 2007)

The Planet Ocean is the new challenger to the throne. The feeble Seamaster 300M abdicated.


----------



## HaleL (Dec 3, 2012)

Omega because of its design, history, and the fact that anyone with the money to buy a decent watch will reach for a rolex.


----------



## HaleL (Dec 3, 2012)

Edit: anyone who doesn't know watches..*


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Will_f said:


> IMHO I'd say the newest Rolexes and Omegas are pretty comparable in looks (depending on personal preferences of course) with a few show stoppers in the Hour Vision and AT models. The Rolexes have a little better case finishing but not enough to be noticeable under casual observation or after a few months of regular wear.
> 
> The big difference for me is Rolexes fit better- they're just more comfortable. That, combined with higher corrosion resistance, lower case thickness and a bomb proof movement that can be serviced locally is why I like them better.
> 
> ...


I get a sense when reading this thread that a few people don't realize that Rolex has updated their bracelet and clasp. The new Rolex bracelet is indeed very well made, and extremely comfortable. In particular, the Glidelock clasp makes it trivial to get an excellent fit, whereas the lack of microadjustments on the Omega poses an issue for some owners. As I've said before on another thread, the microadjusting Glidelock clasp might seem like a minor thing if you've never experienced the joy of a well fitting bracelet, but try the watch for a week, and going back to a watch without this just seems like a compromise in comparison. It is the combination of being able to adjust the bracelet by 2mm increments, combined with the tool-free ease of doing this that makes all the difference.

For example, I have a Rolex Ceramic Submariner No Date, and a Vacheron Constantin Overseas. The bracelet on the VC Overseas is simply sublime, but it lacks microadjustments, so when it fits, it's possibly the most comfortable bracelet I've ever had the opportunity to experience, but the size of my wrist changes with the weather and my diet, so the quality of the fit and comfort of the VCO changes with that. So while the Rolex bracelet is not quite as exceptional as the VCO's, the presence of the Glidelock clasp allows me to adjust the fit easily (and without tools), and so on average, the on wrist experience of the Rolex is superior to that of the VCO.


----------



## Lava Lamp (Apr 4, 2008)

I have the Omega SMP in blue. Love it.

I will eventually buy a Rolex Submariner, but even as a watch enthusiast it seems like an awful lot of money for what you get. That's true of the SMP, too, but it's twice as bad with the Rolex.


----------



## Mr. Panerai (Aug 5, 2012)

They're both great watches, but I've always thought of the SMP as kinda boring... I see them a lot in the wild and they dont look that great to me... Obviously that's not to say they aren't great watches, they are, I'm just not a huge fan of their design. I also HATE the SMP's bracelet. I dont know why I just find it very unattractive.

In this case I much prefer the rolex. I like the dial, I like the bracelet, and although I'm not a huge fan the modern sub I really like pre 1970 Subs. 

Between these two I just like the classic look of the Sub more. A lot more (Especially if we're talking vintage).


----------



## wristclock (Jul 5, 2010)

I think it is funny that some people here are picking the seamaster based on it being less common. I have to say that in my experience samasters are very common definitely up there in the top three lux watches I spot in the wild right behind subs and datejusts. I also don't buy the idea that there are more omega owners that are WIS than rolex owners, and for people on WUS that always tout how they wear what they like and dont care about what others think there always seem to be a lot of folks that chime in on these threads saying that brand X is more of a WIS brand or brand Y is for people that don't know watches and make their choices based on such silly statements....just a personal observation that may or may not be accurate just sayin.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

wristclock said:


> I think it is funny that some people here are picking the seamaster based on it being less common. I have to say that in my experience samasters are very common definitely up there in the top three lux watches I spot in the wild right behind subs and datejusts.


In the hinterlands where I live Seamasters are nonexistent. Probably because there's a Rolex dealer and no Omega dealers. That said, that's not a good reason to me for deciding which brand watch to buy. Buy the watch you like.


----------



## Sextant (Oct 27, 2012)

I am biased, very biased and will definitely go with Rolex. Actually it's on my wrist now.


----------



## RacingGreen (Feb 26, 2010)

PO over deep sea and sub, but sub over smp - preferably an old style no-date.


----------



## ShaggyDog (Feb 13, 2012)

If you offered me one of those watches as a gift I'd say Sub by a million miles. I couldn't care a less about what anyone's perception of Rolex wearers is or how it it supposedly common amongst non WIS rich watch buyers, or how people just buy it for the name etc. I just know that I think it is a timeless iconic classic, that to me looks just that little more special than a SMP.


----------



## gt7834a (Dec 21, 2012)

The submariner is what got me loving watches as a kid. I have always wanted one. I bought an homage as a 12 year old with my own money I loved it so much. That said, over time I have grown to love the design of the Omega. While certainly not rare, there a million homages, fakes and actual Rolex Submariners out there, which makes it feel a little common, even if that isn't reality. 
If someone was giving it to me, I would take the sub because it fulfills a childhood dream is a better quality watch in my opinion. If I was buying, I probably buy the Omega since it can be had for less than half the price and I think it is a better value. The Rolex probably has better resale value but I doubt I would ever sell either so I don't really care about that.


----------



## Memphis1 (Feb 19, 2011)

I'm also biased, rolex for me. The bracelet and HE valve kills the omega


----------



## Connoistre (Mar 13, 2012)

Memphis1 said:


> I'm also biased, rolex for me. The bracelet and HE valve kills the omega


Ditto. I don't like the wave dial on the Omega either.


----------



## HaleL (Dec 3, 2012)

Connoistre said:


> Ditto. I don't like the wave dial on the Omega either.


The new ceramic model does not have the wave dial...
Although I personally love it.


----------



## SkiBum (Jan 9, 2013)

The wave dial, unique blue, and gorgeous caseback pattern of the SMP seal the deal for me, especially at the price point. Although I have never worn either, so wrist time could change my mind. The Rolex is a wonderful watch, but I just don't feel like you get nearly as much for your dollar with it, with the ludicrous prices they are charging now; the Omega is a little crazy too, but not as crazy, plus the used market is more reasonable.

If I ever go for a Rolex (which at their price point is unlikely), it will be an Explorer - an understated classic.


----------



## jimmer42 (Feb 18, 2011)

I'm an unashamed dive watch and Omega fan. Having said that I have just sold my SMP.....but I do admit to sellers remorse and if money had not been tight I'd never have sold it.

Even though I'm not a real Rolex lover, if I could have just two watches to see me through it would be the new ND Sub and the 42mm orange 2500d PO I already own. One absolute classic and just maybe a future classic......I hate the Rolex v Omega thing


----------



## akit110 (Jan 12, 2008)

9573 said:


> Since the question is "only one" I'd have to say the sub without question. The Rolex is iconic and will always be a classic, whereas the Omega will most likely be out of fashion at some point like many of their previous models. That's not to say I don't like the Omega, I think its a great piece and has exceptional initial value.


This is also my gut sentiment. Look at the quintessential 90s Seamaster...the Pierce Brosnan Bond Seamaster. Ten or fifteen years ago, it was the value priced "Sub killer" darling of the watch fora - but now it looks as contemporary, well as Brosnan does as Bond. I mean it is already starting to look dated (not classic). Prices have flattened pre-owned reflecting this, imho.

(incidentally, no offence to Pierce Brosnan the actor who I liked very much in the Matador and I hear is a decent guy)


----------



## hpark21 (Oct 8, 2007)

late to the game, but I say Sub over SMP (just because of the bracelet, SMP bracelet is PAIN to make it fit correctly), that said, SeaDweller with ceramic bezel and new bracelet will be a PERFECT watch.


----------



## Slats (May 11, 2013)

Omega SMP wins for me...
Awesome sword hands (older model)
Beautiful bracelet (again older non bond)
I like the HE valve - It's sexy. 

Rolex on the other hand has just as nice of a bracelet, and I love the coin bezel edge (wish the smp had this). However I despise the huge "cyclops" as someone called it magnifier thing on the date just subs. Makes me feel like I should be in line at the pharmacy for some .........


----------



## Slats (May 11, 2013)

^ small triangle shaped pill!!


----------



## Figgy1R22R (Dec 9, 2012)

Submariner gets my vote. Bracelet is so sex.


----------



## samanator (Mar 8, 2008)

I own the Rolex LV Sub C so that would be my vote. However, I would add a SMP back into my collection if Omega would see fit to give it the 8500 movement minus the display back of the AT/PO versions. With the ceramic bezel update I love the dial and hands on the SMP so much more than the ones on the PO (Which I see as a downgrade). Since it was not at Basel again this year I guess I'll just have to wait longer?


----------



## Skitalets (Oct 22, 2008)

I like everything about the SMP better than the Rolex, though the Sub is undoubtedly a fine watch. Double hash marks over the triangle at 12, better looking bracelet, MUCH better hands, and I like the wave dial over flat black. 

The one positive about the Sub is the lack of an exterior helium valve. 

That said, I doubt a two tone SMP would look as good--if they made one--as the two tone black or blue Sub. Those are great watches.


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

I realize it's an old thread, but that's a fake Submariner in the original post.


----------



## Slats (May 11, 2013)

They make the Submariner without a date display and the crystal looks so much better. But if you need the date you are stuck with that damn googled eyed window... But yes bracelet is beautiful.


----------



## Slats (May 11, 2013)

Also, said window as i understand it is actually an integral part of the crystal itself; it cannot be chipped or pried off.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Slats said:


> Also, said window as i understand it is actually an integral part of the crystal itself; it cannot be chipped or pried off.


Not true, it's glued on and can be removed. It's just that there is an AR coating under the cyclops which needs to be removed as well.

It might however be better to install a new crystal (the one from the no date Sub will fit) without the cyclops and retain the factory crystal in the event you wish to sell the watch.


----------



## Slats (May 11, 2013)

Beautiful! There is hope yet! Love the watch other than that.


----------



## BusyTimmy (Jul 24, 2009)

mkay then.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Slats said:


> Omega SMP wins for me...
> Awesome sword hands (older model)
> Beautiful bracelet (again older non bond)
> I like the HE valve - It's sexy.
> ...


You can always get the no date Submariner, or the SeaDweller.

I have the Ceramic No Date Sub, and I love the symmetry of the dial, the absence of the cyclops, and the new bracelet with the Glidelock clasp. I think the matte ceramic bezel with embedded lume they used in the Tudor Pelagos would have been a cool change from the shiny ceramic bezel, but I guess both Rolex and Omega have been leaving behind the pure tool watch aesthetic for some time. I don't really mind the Maxi case and Maxi dial, although a less pronounced taper on the bracelet, say 20/18 instead of 20/16 would have been preferred.

The new Ceramic No Date Submariner is not without its detractors (even from Rolex fans), but on the balance, I felt that the bracelet and clasp were significant and worthwhile upgrades, and I prefer the clean and balanced dial (and no cyclops) to the Ceramic Date Submariner.


















I do like the older Seamaster Pros, which look very much like the Great White GMT, with the sword hands, and less fussy bracelet. Not a fan of the HEV though. If I get a watch with a HEV, it should have an automatic HEV, instead of a manual HEV. If they still had the Great White GMT BNIB, I would get that in a heartbeat, but alas it's only available preowned and prices keep creeping up.

I prefer the sword hands to the current hands on the Planet Ocean to the current hands on the Seamaster Pro.


----------



## Slats (May 11, 2013)

Agreed. Sword hands are nicer than any other omega. And that is a sweet sub. I too though would prefer the bracelet not taper as much or even not taper at all.


----------



## akit110 (Jan 12, 2008)

By and large, despite the higher upfront cost, I see the Rolex as the better buy. Not due to resale but because of styling and how Rolex manages its product line. In 20 years, I know with a high degree of certainty that a 114060 Sub will still look good on the wrist. Maybe even better in some ways than it does now. As I can look back 10, 20, 30, 40, even 50 years and say the same about vintage Sub models today. 

In comparison, I can look back on the famed blue 90s Bond Seamaster or the 80s pre-Bond and get the impression they already look dated today. The used market prices reflect this too (in comparison to the Subs of the same vintage too).


----------



## Dienekes (Dec 22, 2012)

akit110 said:


> In comparison, I can look back on the famed blue 90s Bond Seamaster or the 80s pre-Bond and get the impression they already look dated today.


I agree with this. Just don't get the SMP in any way. The 2500 or 8500 PO for me over the Sub or SMP.


----------



## copperjohn (Feb 5, 2010)

Okay. Everyone else has been posting and you haven't said a word. What did you pick?


----------



## IrixGuy (Feb 22, 2013)

I've owned my Seamaster for over 10 years and it's a real tank! I've worn it in hot tubs, pools and oceans. It has never leaked and keeps great time. I just added a Submariner NON-DATE and swam with it in the Cayman Islands for a week. It has not failed and is rock-solid too! Check out my comparison video that I filmed in the water in Grand Cayman. Both are excellent watches! Cheers! Rolex Submariner vs. Omega Seamaster - YouTube


----------



## cyberwatchcafe (Jul 4, 2013)

Yep As a big watch fan I like both brands. You pay good money for a rolex watch and in return it will never let you down for value. A second hand vintage or recent rolex model is the best value for your money! Keep 'em for few years and if you decide to sell it.... Then bang! It will be an investment. Now with the omega's I have owned a lot of them in the past. I became addicted to it coz to me they were watches I can easily afford. In terms of resale value... The brand new nowadays costs so much to buy so the resale value has gone up too! I will give you an example... I have owned 23 omega seamaster 2531.80 in 2011 and sold them all at the same time. There were SMP I bought dated back to 2001 with a price tag of £900 and if you go to sites like eBay they now fetch £1500 at least. Now that's unbelievable! Knowing this model has been discontinued but sure is worth investing! I still have a few watches with me (to be honest I don't care what people say "it's a common watch etc etc"). But here's the deal if you want a watch you can abuse daily I would definitely go for the omega SMP as you would get value for your money but if you want a jewellery I would go for the Rolex... The problem with the latter majority of rolex owners tend to keep their watch in a box, in their wardrobes and its just sat there not doing anything ie "I will only wear it for special occasions" because its just an expensive thing and you don't want it scratched or something. Worse is you become a slave to it! I read this blog somewhere about scottish f1 driver jackie Stewart when he won his first f1 race he bought himself a rolex oyster day date and every time he races he leaves it with his friend (ken).....and somebody commented "if he bought a tag he could have worn it during the race".... Does make sense! So really in my opinion for a start and in terms of quality the Omega SMP is a lot of watch you can have for its price. But if you can afford it I would get a rolex!

My watch collection
Rolex GMT 2
Rolex sub 16610
Rolex explorer 1 14270
Rolex oyster perpetual bimetal
Rolex Tudor oysterdate white dial
Omega seamaster 2531.80
Omega planet ocean 22015100
Omega speed master mark 2
Omega speed master moonwatch
Vintage Omega geneve, dynamic, seamaster 300, pocketwatches
Tag heuer 2000 series and formula 1
Hamilton khaki chrono
Longines conquest
Panerai Luminor
Techno Marine chronograph
Casio G shock Ga100


----------



## Macro (Mar 7, 2013)

Rolex Submariner Date 116610LN is streets ahead of the Omegas and the older Subs.

The skeleton hands on the Omega make no sense. 

The 2254.50.00 with a coaxial movement would be close (if it existed) but otherwise even considering the price you are getting twice the watch with the Rolex.


----------



## Macro (Mar 7, 2013)

You do see a lot of Jack the lad types wearing the blue Bond SMPs (probably the quartz ones) which is another reason to go Rolex!


----------



## hpowders (Apr 20, 2013)

cyberwatchcafe said:


> Yep As a big watch fan I like both brands. You pay good money for a rolex watch and in return it will never let you down for value. A second hand vintage or recent rolex model is the best value for your money! Keep 'em for few years and if you decide to sell it.... Then bang! It will be an investment. Now with the omega's I have owned a lot of them in the past. I became addicted to it coz to me they were watches I can easily afford. In terms of resale value... The brand new nowadays costs so much to buy so the resale value has gone up too! I will give you an example... I have owned 23 omega seamaster 2531.80 in 2011 and sold them all at the same time. There were SMP I bought dated back to 2001 with a price tag of £900 and if you go to sites like eBay they now fetch £1500 at least. Now that's unbelievable! Knowing this model has been discontinued but sure is worth investing! I still have a few watches with me (to be honest I don't care what people say "it's a common watch etc etc"). But here's the deal if you want a watch you can abuse daily I would definitely go for the omega SMP as you would get value for your money but if you want a jewellery I would go for the Rolex... The problem with the latter majority of rolex owners tend to keep their watch in a box, in their wardrobes and its just sat there not doing anything ie "I will only wear it for special occasions" because its just an expensive thing and you don't want it scratched or something. Worse is you become a slave to it! I read this blog somewhere about scottish f1 driver jackie Stewart when he won his first f1 race he bought himself a rolex oyster day date and every time he races he leaves it with his friend (ken).....and somebody commented "if he bought a tag he could have worn it during the race".... Does make sense! So really in my opinion for a start and in terms of quality the Omega SMP is a lot of watch you can have for its price. But if you can afford it I would get a rolex!
> 
> My watch collection
> Rolex GMT 2
> ...


Well said. I love my Rolex Submariner, Ceramic Dateless 114060 and even though it cost me just under $7k, I feel I got my money's worth. It looks terrific, makes me feel good when wearing it and is off by only 1.2 seconds per day, a great showing for a mechanical watch. Money well spent, IMO!!!


----------



## jamesbond1 (Feb 25, 2013)

This is a tough call and there will never be a correct answer. Let me chime in, as objectively as I can. Perhaps my views are shared.

To start with, they are both great watches and both phenomenally well built. You can't go wrong with either.
----

In 1994, I purchased a pre-bond Omega Seamaster midsize. I confess that the only reason I bought it is because it looked like the Submariner for a much lower price. I liked the bracelet and the style and was happy with the watch.

In 1995 Goldeneye came out and I knew I had to have the new Seamaster SMP 300. I found the bracelet a little girly (it even looked that way on Brosnan as Bond - too shiny) but I liked the beveled bezel and the blue face. Bought a mid size auto that year and kept it until 2011.

In 2011 I sold it primarily because I found it was too small for me (the trend towards bigger watches made it look ridiculous on my wrist - in my eyes given the new trends). Interestingly, I knew then that I was going to buy one again, because I loved the quality of the watch. I had owned Baume and Merciers, Longines and Tags during the Omega's 16 year tenure with me, but nothing came anywhere close to the sheer build quality of the piece - bracelet, face, the way it catches the eye with the shiny vs. matt metal, weight, clasp lock - just superb engineering.

Last Friday, I finally bought an SMP again - this time a used 2254.50. I wrestled with the idea of getting one of these vs. the 2220.80 (I'm sorry but I'm not a fan of the ceramic SMP - I've tried it on in the store and think the discontinued co-axial non-ceramic 2220.80 is superior - removing the wave pattern was a mistake). I must say the 2254.50 is everything people say it is. In my humble opinion it is the best designed SMP ever. The sword hands, the bracelet (better than the Bond in my view stylistically because it has more of a tool look to it than the Bond, which as I mentioned before seems a little girly in my eyes - almost like jewellery). So I'm happy that I've finally got an SMP again. I will never get rid of my 2254.50. It's a keeper forever.

---

Now, after all that, let me get to the point finally. Even though I've owned two SMPs (3 if you count the pre-Bond) and currently also own another Omega (the Railmaster - another classic), the Submariner squarely wins. Period. One day I will buy one - and it will be the 16610 due to the perfect proportions and style (and not the 116610 which is an unfortunate styling mistake - In my view this is Rolex's Planet Ocean - too bulky and it will not be a classic going forward).

Why do I say that the Sub (16610) is superior?
1. the style is iconic. It's almost like Mercedes-Benz. Small changes throughout the ages helps to define the brand. Always imitated. Never equalled.
2. the watch just looks better on the wrist. I've seen others with Submariners and they always look perfect on the wearer's wrist. Rolex perfected that watch with the 16610.
3. the bracelet also looks (I repeat- looks) better on the wrist. I know that comfort wise the Omega is superior (despite lack of fine adjustment) but the proportions of the Rolex bracelet are better
4. the slightly thicker case (compared to the SMP) gives it a better look again on the wrist.
5. the 16610 is going to appreciate (like the 2254) due to poor stylistic replacement choices Rolex has made with the 116610 Ceramic
6. Omega have cheapened the SMP by bringing the Planet Ocean out and letting that be the new Bond watch - why have two divers in your line? 
7. Omega continue to copy Rolex style wise (applied indices etc. are all relatively new to the SMP and the Sub had it first. Even the new anti-magnetic Aqua Terra has a second hand that's trying too hard to be like the Milgauss). Rolex has the edge brand wise and Omega is trying too hard (almost like Lexus vs. Benz). And this is coming from a guy who has two Omegas!
8. When a layman thinks 'diver', he/she thinks Submariner first. Seamaster second. Even Vesper Lynd guessed "Rolex" first in Casino Royale. Bond had to correct her: "Omega". And that's with Omega paying for sponsorship!
9. Arguably the Sub is the definitive Rolex. It can be argued that the definitive Omega is in fact the Speedmaster, due to its Moon heritage.
10. As a previous poster has noted, and forgive me if this comes across as arrogant, but I too have seen a lot of 'tools' wearing Seamasters, particularly banged up Quartz versions. Far less so (can't think of an instance actually) with the Submariner, perhaps due to the price.

If however, one is talking about value for money - then the SMP wins hands down. Not even close. Particularly the older SMPs (pre-coaxial) are the ones to go for. 2531 or 2254 (if you can find one). I think Omega is only helping the value of these older 1120 movement SMPs by continually jacking up prices of the newer SMPs without any substantial improvements (co-axial 2500, Rolex style applied indices, and ceramic dials notwithstanding).


----------



## eddiea (Mar 26, 2006)

I'm sure the OP is kidding ;-).....


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 9, 2008)

cyberwatchcafe said:


> Yep As a big watch fan I like both brands. You pay good money for a rolex watch and in return it will never let you down for value. A second hand vintage or recent rolex model is the best value for your money! Keep 'em for few years and if you decide to sell it.... Then bang! It will be an investment. Now with the omega's I have owned a lot of them in the past. I became addicted to it coz to me they were watches I can easily afford. In terms of resale value... The brand new nowadays costs so much to buy so the resale value has gone up too! I will give you an example... I have owned 23 omega seamaster 2531.80 in 2011 and sold them all at the same time. There were SMP I bought dated back to 2001 with a price tag of £900 and if you go to sites like eBay they now fetch £1500 at least. Now that's unbelievable! Knowing this model has been discontinued but sure is worth investing! I still have a few watches with me (to be honest I don't care what people say "it's a common watch etc etc"). But here's the deal if you want a watch you can abuse daily I would definitely go for the omega SMP as you would get value for your money but if you want a jewellery I would go for the Rolex... The problem with the latter majority of rolex owners tend to keep their watch in a box, in their wardrobes and its just sat there not doing anything ie "I will only wear it for special occasions" because its just an expensive thing and you don't want it scratched or something. Worse is you become a slave to it! I read this blog somewhere about scottish f1 driver jackie Stewart when he won his first f1 race he bought himself a rolex oyster day date and every time he races he leaves it with his friend (ken).....and somebody commented "if he bought a tag he could have worn it during the race".... Does make sense! So really in my opinion for a start and in terms of quality the Omega SMP is a lot of watch you can have for its price. But if you can afford it I would get a rolex!
> 
> My watch collection
> Rolex GMT 2
> ...


sorry but you are rather exaggerating the prices of used 2531's. a decent one can still be had for 8-900 pounds. e-bay sellers may be asking 1500 but I bet most sell for far less than that.


----------



## robi516 (Dec 30, 2012)

I faced this choice a few months ago and chose the new SMP-C (ceramic bezel). For about half the price the SMP-C is a better watch in many ways. First, the "cyclops" date magnifier on the Sub is an outdated and ugly blemish on an othewise beautiful design. Second, the dial on the Sub has too much text on it, and the chapter ring with the repeating "Rolex" on the new versions is just all too busy. Third, the Omega co-axial 2500 movement is every bit as good as, if not better than, the Rolex movement. In terms of functions and aesthetics, not to mention cost, the SMP-C is the clear winner in my opinion. The ONLY reason to buy the Sub over the SMP-C is the investment/resale value. Rolex has achieved that level of name recognition that surpassess the material value of the watch, and because of that will hold its value and appreciate better than of any of its competitors. If you intend to keep the watch for life, however, the Omega is the better value for sure.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

robi516 said:


> I faced this choice a few months ago and chose the new SMP-C (ceramic bezel). For about half the price the SMP-C is a better watch in many ways. First, the "cyclops" date magnifier on the Sub is an outdated and ugly blemish on an othewise beautiful design. Second, the dial on the Sub has too much text on it, and the chapter ring with the repeating "Rolex" on the new versions is just all too busy. Third, the Omega co-axial 2500 movement is every bit as good as, if not better than, the Rolex movement. In terms of functions and aesthetics, not to mention cost, the SMP-C is the clear winner in my opinion. The ONLY reason to buy the Sub over the SMP-C is the investment/resale value. Rolex has achieved that level of name recognition that surpassess the material value of the watch, and because of that will hold its value and appreciate better than of any of its competitors. If you intend to keep the watch for life, however, the Omega is the better value for sure.


The only reason to buy a Sub-C over the SMP-C is you like it better. That's my reason anyway. I like the SMP-C but prefer the aesthetics and bracelet of the Sub. If you're buying watches based on their ability to hold value, I would suggest that past performance is not a good predictor of future returns.


----------



## Crunchy (Feb 4, 2013)

I went for a titanium smp 300. Rolex doesnt make anything titanium, and I dislike mercedes hands. Never been happier, the smp is truly the most comfortable watch I ever owned.


----------



## KazeKei (Jan 11, 2012)

The sub hands down. But that is much more expensive than the SMP, so I guess not much of a comparison..


----------



## Hatman14 (Dec 6, 2012)

The fit and finish are too close( tho I think the omega edges it, the new ceramic bezel and gloss dial look nicer then the rolex, I hate the Mercedes hands hands. The fact you have to pay an extra 1k for the date. The cyclops looks ugly and ruins the symmetry of the watch, the clasp annoys me, then the fact it's nearly double the cost! Omega all the way for me!


----------



## Bmickdewey (Aug 7, 2012)

I'd like to add a twist to the discussion.

I think the SMPc with a slight modification is the overall winner. Considering the price difference, I think this modification should be allowed....but I'm biased.

The SMPc on a Speedy could be "crowned" the king.


----------



## DCOmegafan (Nov 2, 2010)

Yawn.

If someone offered me either/or, I think I'd pick the Rollie and then flip it to buy something interesting.


----------



## Bmickdewey (Aug 7, 2012)

This posting is for DCOmegafan....

If by "interesting" you mean something like this wrist zit.









I think your posting is a moot point. You might not be able to flip this one, but you might be able to pop it.


----------



## DCOmegafan (Nov 2, 2010)

Bmickdewey said:


> This posting is for DCOmegafan....
> 
> If by "interesting" you mean something like this wrist zit.
> 
> ...


That is a more interesting watch, although to be honest I wouldn't trade a Rolex Sub for one. Your point?


----------



## Bmickdewey (Aug 7, 2012)

DCOmegafan said:


> That is a more interesting watch, although to be honest I wouldn't trade a Rolex Sub for one. Your point?


What's my "interesting" point?

I defined "interesting" for you above. Your taste in watches is "interesting". Your snide comments are "interesting".


----------



## Avro Arrow (Jul 17, 2013)

I do prefer the Submariner but only because it has a two-tone blue on blue/gold version. Seeing it was the reason I bought my Invicta Grand Diver 3049. I LOVE that colour scheme! From a quality standpoint, in my opinion, they are both beyond reproach so that wouldn't really factor into my choice. Of course, the Omega is definitely the better buy money-wise.


----------



## lmcgbaj (Aug 7, 2012)

Avro Arrow said:


> I do prefer the Submariner but only because it has a two-tone blue on blue/gold version. Seeing it was the reason I bought my Invicta Grand Diver 3049.


Ok. Really? The TT Sub inspired you to get an Invicta? Ahhhhhhh... Serenity now...

Never mind.


----------



## watchamatic (Jul 27, 2013)

Sub for me against the Seamaster but it may be a different story against the planet ocean.


----------



## VoltesV (Dec 27, 2011)

The Seamaster wins my vote. Never been a fan of Rolex's cyclops and mercedes hands, also way overpriced IMO.


----------



## knafel1983 (Oct 30, 2015)

As far as quality, I'd give the Rolex a slight advantage. As far as value, I'd give the Seamaster a huge advantage. The Sub may be a grail watch for many, but it won't take care of that itch.


----------



## clarosec (May 18, 2014)

Avro Arrow said:


> I do prefer the Submariner but only because it has a two-tone blue on blue/gold version. Seeing it was the reason I bought my Invicta Grand Diver 3049. I LOVE that colour scheme! From a quality standpoint, in my opinion, they are both beyond reproach so that wouldn't really factor into my choice. Of course, the Omega is definitely the better buy money-wise.


+1 for the Invicta homage here.

The better question is: What three watch collection would you have, money no object? And most people would say: 1) Sub; 2) Speedy 3) IWC Ingénieur Ladies (my wife's a mechanical engineer - Milgauss is too big).

And we'd all ride off into the sunset happy. But let's be realistic. My dive watch is my Citizen Aqualand Duplex or my Seiko SKX007. If they get fried oh well.

2-tone sub is $15.5k MSRP. I got the Invicta on a sale on Amazon for $62. Hacking and winding movement. I wanted to hate it and myself, but I don't.

If I was going to dive with it, I'd get the Omega. If I'm wearing it with a suit... GMT Master II (I travel a bit so GMT complications are becoming my thing.)

Aside: Damn you Rolex - why couldn't you print the 24 hour scale on an inner chapter ring and give me a normal dive bezel? That way I'd know what time it was at home and how long before I have to flip the steaks on the BBQ...

Wait - I have an Orient Star Seeker. Problem solved!


----------



## TwentiethCenturyFox (Mar 8, 2014)

I own both. Why choose?


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

Seamaster wins easily for me.

The design I find is much nicer than the Rolex. There is no cyclops. The bezel is fully marked and the bracelet is more comfortable and fits the watch very well in style.


----------

