# Will Omega ever be as good as Rolex



## imlying (Jan 13, 2014)

At a redbar meet-up I was lucky enough to handle the new Globemaster on the metal bracelet. I'll be the first to say that I am very excited by them bringing back that constellation, and the blue looks stunning in photos but better in the steel. But at a price of around 9k +/-(cad) I don't see what's the draw. At that point, why not go for a 16014, 1603 Datejust or IWC Portofino or even a JLC MUT. I get that the Co-Ax isn't something we can just go out and get for the price that Omega offers them at, and the 15,000 gauss protection means it's as go anywhere do anything as their sports line but why not put in a simple modified ETA and milk the lower end entry luxury market? Am I missing something? I would love to know if any other people think that Omega can ever get to that level of market share, even with the brands that are in the Swatch family.


----------



## Gunnar_917 (Feb 24, 2015)




----------



## Stoshman (Jun 26, 2015)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

You need to just decide on your own which watch you like the most and hand over the credit card. Don't look for others to justify the conclusion you seem to be struggling with.

Once you have the watch post some pictures and a review. We promise not to pick on your choice.


----------



## I Like em BIG ! ! (Feb 10, 2012)

Never... oh, I don't know... always....


----------



## Skitalets (Oct 22, 2008)

Omega has mostly succeeded in moving upmarket, whether WIS like it or not. They don't need to "milk" markets that other brands in their group are already successful in, because they've convinced mid luxury customers to pay Globemaster/PO/AT prices. Who knows if they're stealing market share from Rolex but the world is getting richer anyway. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

At around $5k US, the Globemaster seems like a pretty good deal. I could care less about its antimagnetic properties, but the 60 hour power reserve is nice. It's also refreshing to see Omega making reasonably sized watches. It's not my cup of tea, but you get a lot for the money when compared to the other watches you listed. The IWC Portofino, in particular, seems like a lot poorer value proposition. When will Omega be as good as Rolex? It probably already is. Whether one should buy an Omega over a Rolex is purely a question of personal preference.


----------



## rkubosumi (Apr 22, 2015)




----------



## chefmhf (Jan 22, 2015)

I'm not really sure what you're asking. If you're asking if Omega will reach Rolex-level market share, as the text of your post suggests, I suggest the answer is no. It will take generations to achieve what Rolex has in the eyes of the typical consumer (read: non-WIS). It's the general public that buys the lion share of watches, even in the luxury range, after all. Omega will have to be seen as the finest watch in the world by the average Joe. This is highly unlikely. I don't see Rolex taking any steps backwards in this regard.

If, on the other hand, you're asking if Omega can produce a watch "as good as" Rolex, as the thread title suggests, I think they can, and likely do. The co-Axial movement is pretty top notch stuff. It shows a level of innovation that Rolex has in its distant history, but not as much recently. This is not to say that Rolex is incapable. They clearly are capable. They've just taken a different approach. To Rolex, I suspect, innovation is achieved in perfecting that which they do best....bullet-proof movements in classic cases that will last for a century or more.

In large part, I think we have to decide what makes Rolex the "leader" in the industry that they are. Is it sales in the luxury watch market, recognition by the public at large or horologic innovation resulting in re-imagined movements or other complications? Once we do that, we can ask who does what best. Until then, the answers posted here consist of a lot of apples-to-oranges comparisons.


----------



## JamesGu208 (Aug 15, 2013)

But what about GS? If we're going to compare Rolex and Omega, we need to include Grand Seiko in the conversation as well...


(I'm just kidding btw)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ugly-Nugget (Feb 12, 2013)

Whether Omega will be as good as Rolex is purely subjective at this point in time. There is one field that Rolex has mastered and probably will aways be the king in, marketing. They have the world convinced they are the best so they are the best. 

People that are into watches know this to be subjective but to the average Joe, Rolex is king. If some one is rewarding them selves with a nice watch for what ever occasion (Birthday, success, anniversary, gift) the word Rolex pops into their head with out having to do an ounce of research.


----------



## spidaman (Dec 24, 2011)

People buying the new higher end Omegas, that rival Rolex prices, have already decided this question for themselves. Yes--now. 

The secondary market, where Rolex generally retain value better than Omega, has decided--not yet. 

"Ever" can be a long time. Perhaps. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CMSgt Bo (Feb 12, 2006)

JamesGu208 said:


> But what about GS? If we're going to compare Rolex and Omega, we need to include Grand Seiko in the conversation as well...
> 
> (I'm just kidding btw)


This reminds me of the Rocky Marciano bit on the movie Coming to America.


----------



## JamesGu208 (Aug 15, 2013)

CMSgt Bo said:


> This reminds me of the Rocky Marciano bit on the movie Coming to America.


Hahaha. Very fitting as I happen to be the Asian bringing up GS.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nemoskywalker (Sep 12, 2014)

They can and they do produce top notch quality stuff as good as Rolex, they just need to tone it down with the limited editions and forty five different versions of the seamaster and speedy 


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

No


----------



## schrauth (May 1, 2015)

Talking about market share I am assuming you mean sales volume?

I don't think Omega is ever going to reach Rolex's level in terms of brand recognition hence sales volume. Most sales worldwide would come from non-WIS and what Rolex has done marketing wise over the last few decades has put them in pole position for many years and decades to come.

Ask any non-WIS "what's the best luxury watch in the world" or "what's the most expensive watch in the world" and see how many people say Omega...

I am not talking quality of the watches itself, I am talking perceptions of the non-WIS...


----------



## Tom Carey (Jul 5, 2007)

I have got to say. I sure thought the first post was going to set off quite a storm and it really has not. =)


----------



## Wizkid (Feb 6, 2013)

For me they are as good or maybe better!?


----------



## zuiko (May 17, 2016)

I've personally never owned an Omega but I've never thought of them as a lesser brand than Rolex before either. 

In fact in my research of timekeeping innovations that might be worthy of my future watchbuying attention the co-axial and anti-magnetic technology Omega has is very compelling. 

When looking at their respective current collections there are many more Omega designs that interest me vs Rolex nowadays.


----------



## zuiko (May 17, 2016)

JamesGu208 said:


> Hahaha. Very fitting as I happen to be the Asian bringing up GS.


When reading another thread about GS I considered a link to the old joke about Asian appearance played out in many films....

"GS? They all look the same..."


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

schrauth said:


> Talking about market share I am assuming you mean sales volume?
> 
> I don't think Omega is ever going to reach Rolex's level in terms of brand recognition hence sales volume. Most sales worldwide would come from non-WIS and what Rolex has done marketing wise over the last few decades has put them in pole position for many years and decades to come.
> 
> ...


In terms of sales volume, Omega is almost there, selling 720,000 watches in 2014 versus 780,000 for Rolex, according to Le Temps. It has been that way for quite a while. Now in terms of prestige among the general public? Who knows. Doesn't matter anyway. You wear what you like, or at least, you are supposed to.


----------



## Bobby75 (Jun 26, 2011)

If you look in the mirror and say Rolex 5 times the candy man will appear and start an Internet thread that will run into 30 pages.

When Omega and Grand Seiko are able to do the same, that's when they will know they have made it.


----------



## CabbageHead (Feb 15, 2016)

My Omega Seamaster 300 is better than my Rolex Submariner ceramic. But it doesn't matter...and won't matter for 15+ years as mass markets ALWAYS lag behind quality. For that matter, the "best" watch the Rolex group makes does not read "Rolex" on the dial, it reads "Tudor Pelagos" (yes I have it too and yes it is better than a submariner).


----------



## Triton9 (Sep 30, 2011)

Omega needs to keep the resale value of their watches strong. One top reason of Rolex is their retain value is strong with lost of estimate 10%. Widely accepted in many pawnshop. Some pawnshop even stated, they accept only Rolex watch and no others. Some pre-owned watch shop just make money basically by selling Rolex model only.

When can Omega reaches such level? But I think Omega is going into Rolex direction. It has start controlling spare parts to third party. Control the retail prices , limit supply and stop steep discount. Omega needs to dig deep into their pocket to jerk up their resale value by buying back some of their watches with high resale value. Its all part of the marketing strategy. Once a watch has high resale value, the recognition and prestige will come in slowly.


----------



## whogotmeintothis (May 12, 2010)

This is a silly question. Period. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HTown (Jan 5, 2015)

Omega watches are already better. Seems unlikely they will ever catch up to Rolex's marketing power, though.


----------



## Pride (Apr 19, 2014)

Aren't they? I really like the Omega De Ville Tresor.


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

imlying said:


> At a redbar meet-up I was lucky enough to handle the new Globemaster on the metal bracelet. I'll be the first to say that I am very excited by them bringing back that constellation, and the blue looks stunning in photos but better in the steel. But at a price of around 9k +/-(cad) I don't see what's the draw. At that point, why not go for a 16014, 1603 Datejust or IWC Portofino or even a JLC MUT. I get that the Co-Ax isn't something we can just go out and get for the price that Omega offers them at, and the 15,000 gauss protection means it's as go anywhere do anything as their sports line but why not put in a simple modified ETA and milk the lower end entry luxury market? Am I missing something? I would love to know if any other people think that Omega can ever get to that level of market share, even with the brands that are in the Swatch family.


Yes......No.......Maybe......


----------



## cmac06 (Mar 13, 2016)

If Omega spent the same amount on marketing as Rolex, then you pay a lot more for the same quality watch. The new coaxial chronographs is one of the few most advanced chronos available, and sells for a very competitive price. Personally I prefer that they are not as well known as brands like Rolex. Rolex is like the Lexus of the watch industry, just way too many of them to be interesting. Even if you have never owned one, I can bet you've recommended one to a friend or acquaintance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

in the general watch buying public market, no Rolex isn't going anywhere, as for quality I believe that's in the eye of the beholder and views differ from person to person depending on what's important to them.


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

As long as Omega is part of Swatch, they will never be as good as Rolex.


----------



## paskinner (Dec 27, 2015)

Rolex were perceived as superior when I first bought an Omega in the sixties. when marketing was minimal. Little has changed. The position of Rolex is not achieved by marketing...Omega probably spend just as much. The 'oyster perpetual' ruggedness and durability is probably the real key. People just trust the brand.


----------



## BJJMark (Dec 24, 2014)




----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Pointless discussion as there are many ways of defining best. Granted Rolex brand today is probably the strongest watch brand, period.
But, that does not mean it can't change. Once Longines was a top brand, vastly more respected than Rolex - nowdays it is but a shadow of its former glory. Omega on the other hand has been steadily but surely climbing up the tiers of horological world and general brand awareness.

Rolex marketing over the years has been very powerful. But Omega is not holding back either. As Sean Connory recedes in our memories, Daniel Craig's Bond has been a huge help to Omegas public image





Frankly though, back to my original point - it's all BS. Different people value things differently. Some consider Sub to be the ultimate watch, others dream of Sub and settle for Steinhart or Invicta, and others still see a whole wide world beyond Rolex.

For me, if I had to choose to only ever have a single-brand collection with Omega and Rolex as only choices, or if I was forced to pick 5 single-brand watches from either Rolex or Omega (that I could not flip\resell) - I know that I would go with Omega as their lineup is just a lot more appealing to me.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

cmac06 said:


> If Omega spent the same amount on marketing as Rolex, then you pay a lot more for the same quality watch. The new coaxial chronographs is one of the few most advanced chronos available, and sells for a very competitive price. Personally I prefer that they are not as well known as brands like Rolex. Rolex is like the Lexus of the watch industry, just way too many of them to be interesting. Even if you have never owned one, I can bet you've recommended one to a friend or acquaintance.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This argument seems to come up a lot... It's not as if Omega isn't marketing aggressively or spending significant amounts. Clooney, Kidman and the Olympics don't come cheap. I submit that Omega markets less effectively.

Exhibit A :


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

chuasam said:


> As long as Omega is part of Swatch, they will never be as good as Rolex.


Really? I find this an intriguing POV. Can you please explain? Is it you think Swatch will hold back Omega in some way, quality or marketing wise? It can't be based on general public brand perception because only we minority WIS are aware that Omega are part of the Swatch group.


----------



## Skitalets (Oct 22, 2008)

One thing for the "never" folks to consider -- timeless designs do not actually stay the same over time. The Datejust, Sub, Daytona, et al. feel timeless because there is a very clear design "DNA" throughout the decades, but Rolex has been slightly evolving them. Tastes change -- Rolex has done incredibly well at starting with iconic designs and making slight tweaks to stay relevant. There is no guarantee that they will continue to do that. One can imagine a future in which Omega continues to evolve the Aqua Terra line, Rolex misses a few steps, and the AT is now the must-have "I've made it" watch instead of the Datejust.

They are also selling into a much more global market with far more varied tastes than have been prevalent over the past 50 years or so. A handful of seemingly timeless designs may not be able to capture as large a chunk of the market as before.

I feel like you can see Rolex adapting to this in their revival of the Tudor brand. To my eye, the Pelagos, BB, and Heritage Chrono are gorgeous, but they appeal to a very different audience than the Sub and Daytona. Rolex does not sell the Sub on NATO straps -- but you can buy the BB on a stock Tudor NATO. Rolex does not believe that the dominance of Rolex is as certain as some folks on forums do -- and they are intelligently re-diversifying their portfolio of brands and watches.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Omega as good as Rolex? You must be kidding me. Rolex will never be able to make a functional manual He valve, it's too complicated.

_I'm a professional [desk] diver._


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

These threads aren't going anywhere soon, it's human nature to be competitive and everyone likes to think they've made the smart choice and will die arguing the point.


----------



## the.watchdoc (Apr 23, 2015)

This thread is desperately missing an inflammatory post. Everyone is being wayyyy too polite.

Have we become... civil? :-d


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

PhantomThief said:


> This thread is desperately missing an inflammatory post. Everyone is being wayyyy too polite.
> 
> Have we become... civil? :-d


Hmmm... Sorry to have disappointed you.

Let me think of something.... Daniel Craig can kick Sean Connerys ass - so something or other Omega Rolex.
Here you go... Rolex and Omega suck - get an Invicta - 99% quality at 5% price. Or just go all out and upgrade to BagelSport Nautillus, cause that is truly an iconic design, unlike all repetitive black dial/bezel divers. 
Or perhaps ... will Rolex ever offer the bang-for-the-buck value of Steinhart?
Even better still.... All Rolex\Omega wearers are suckers. Grand Seiko is vastly superior to both. I heard from a reliable source that SpringDrive never has to be serviced and can power an apartment with electricity entire Spring from March to May, or something like that.


----------



## Jefferson Overlin (Mar 4, 2013)

I love me some juicy clickbait! Thanks for posting this novel topic, OP. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

When talking about Rolex superior marketing strategy, it should be appreciated that a great deal of their success is based on how they manage to retain value compared to every other mass produced brand. This is not mysterious magic but a result of extreme conservatism in design language (same old boring shot but hugely recognisable to the envious public) and the extremely slow release of any updates to their line-up. This is a directly opposite strategy to how (for example) TAG Heuer release new models and updates to their current models almost yearly.
Whether Rolex had achieved this by design or accident, this is not about simply dumping advertising revenue or about innovation (in fact one can argue the opposite) or fit and finishing but about a decades old strategy and the determination to see it through

Can Omega do the same? Perhaps, but it will be a gamble and will take a lot(!) of time before results can be seen and evaluated. I wonder if Swatch shareholders will have the stamina.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

"This is how you stir the pot"


Well to be fair we are all suckers, none of us need a luxury watch, it's not like computers/phones or camera's where high prices buy you better functionality. Luxury watches are basically jewellery, the choices we make say a lot about the person. 

For the most part the buying public buy a watches to create an Image. 

Rolex = uneducated rich boy that wants to fit in with all the other BMW owners 

Omega = I'm super cool just like James Bond. 


(Of course I'm joking "honest")


----------



## the.watchdoc (Apr 23, 2015)

EnderW said:


> Hmmm... Sorry to have disappointed you.
> 
> Let me think of something.... Daniel Craig can kick Sean Connerys ass - so something or other Omega Rolex.
> Here you go... Rolex and Omega suck - get an Invicta - 99% quality at 5% price. Or just go all out and upgrade to BagelSport Nautillus, cause that is truly an iconic design, unlike all repetitive black dial/bezel divers.
> ...


What? How dare you! *waves fist*

I'm going to debunk you point by point!

1) Sean Connery could slap around Daniel Craig the same way he slaps his wife around! The same way a Rolex would absolutely crush Omega!
2) Invicta? Bagesport? Are you forgetting Alpha and no-name blank dials! Now *those* are truly value for money!
3) Steinhart not only offers bang for the buck, it offers buck for the bang too! ...not quite sure what that meant, but it sure sounds very wrong.
4) SD movements are an absolutely eco-disaster! They're the equivalent of plug in hybrids! The power they get comes from horribly ecologically damaging source, moving bags of meat!

Wake up sheeple!

:-d


----------



## sumanbhadra (Jul 5, 2014)

its a good question -expert opinion is most welcome rather than reference to a film we have not heard of--


----------



## Covenant (Apr 22, 2009)

PhantomThief said:


> This thread is desperately missing an inflammatory post. Everyone is being wayyyy too polite.
> 
> Have we become... civil? :-d


Omega is crap, only kids who want to be Bond or are like, totally into astronauts wear them.
Rolex is crap, only rich kids with too much money or trust funds wear them.
Breitling is crap, who cares if your dad/grandad/uncle or whatever was a pilot?
Cartier is crap, jewelers can't make watches LOL.
Tag Heuer is crap, only accountants, lawyers and other soulless professionals wear them.

To truly be a WIS, you must wear the biggest, ugliest AND most expensive G-Shock you can find. /solemnly nods

 ...is that better?


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

Covenant said:


> ...is that better?


Yep that's not bad, but you forgot that fact that Rolex owners are completely superficial and will bill buy any junk that's got Rolex on the dial.

Lets be be honest this is why Tudor is popular, "I can't afford a Rolex but I'll buy this because I can tell everyone it's a Rolex".

(I'm stepping it up,to include a wider audience)


----------



## HTown (Jan 5, 2015)

Covenant said:


> Omega is crap, only kids who want to be Bond or are like, totally into astronauts wear them.
> Rolex is crap, only rich kids with too much money or trust funds wear them.
> Breitling is crap, who cares if your dad/grandad/uncle or whatever was a pilot?
> Cartier is crap, jewelers can't make watches LOL.
> ...


A good start, but how can you leave out Nomos and GS if you truly want to start a fire?


----------



## Covenant (Apr 22, 2009)

Richerson said:


> Lets be be honest this is why Tudor is popular, "I can't afford a Rolex but I'll by this because I can tell everyone it's a Rolex".
> 
> (I'm stepping it up,to include a wider audience)



I've totally done this with my North Flag... "You say it looks like a Rolex? Well spotted, good Sir, for Tudor is indeed a subsidiary of Rolex! So in a way, I'm kind of, sort of, wearing a Rolex-like-thing, you know?"

>.> <.<


----------



## Covenant (Apr 22, 2009)

HTown said:


> A good start, but how can you leave out Nomos and GS if you truly want to start a fire?


*Blinks at you uncomprehendingly* Sorry kid, I don't keep up with the _fashion _brands these days.

#sunglasses


----------



## HTown (Jan 5, 2015)

Covenant said:


> *Blinks at you uncomprehendingly* Sorry kid, I don't keep up with the _fashion _brands these days.
> 
> #sunglasses


Cue the applause.


----------



## Leekster (Aug 7, 2015)

How many Rolex have been on the moon?

Just curious...

Please excuse spelling errors...I'm not very smart.


----------



## TimeWizard (Oct 13, 2013)

paskinner said:


> Rolex were perceived as superior when I first bought an Omega in the sixties. when marketing was minimal. Little has changed. The position of Rolex is not achieved by marketing...Omega probably spend just as much. The 'oyster perpetual' ruggedness and durability is probably the real key. People just trust the brand.


I find this very interesting, as every book and essay on the topic that I have come across has said that Omega was considered superior until around 1969, when Rolex began to get the upper hand with the help of publicity campaigns orchestrated by Rolex's advertising agent, J. Walter Thompson. Certainly, Omega was producing more chronometer grade watches in in the 1960s (not that that has any real correlation to quality, it's more a marketing tool). I don't mean to discredit you, but your opinion does seem to flow against the grain.


----------



## Covenant (Apr 22, 2009)

Leekster said:


> How many Rolex have been on the moon?
> 
> Just curious...
> 
> Please excuse spelling errors...I'm not very smart.


Don't you realize that Man has never been to the Moon? It was faked to protect American pride during the space-race, and funded by Omega. NASA is secretly an Omega factory.

...I should stop now.


----------



## the.watchdoc (Apr 23, 2015)

The moon actually does not exist, it is a distorted mirror image of the sun from certain angles thanks to refraction, reflection and other totally true and plausible scientific processes.

NASA subsequently landed on the Sun, which is a stone's throw away from the Earth, but once there they couldn't take any photos due to the overall brightness. All the resulting images looked like the results of a wannabe hipster using instagram filters to produce "art".

Fearful of being labelled as "hippies" in the 70s, they proceeded to expand on the myth of the moon and the rest is history.

Little known fact: an Omega employee accidentally discovered this scheme, and NASA was blackmailed into conducting an "experiment" with the Omega, Rolex and Wittnauer, where the Omega was magically the only one to "survive".



Leekster said:


> How many Rolex have been on the moon?
> 
> Just curious...
> 
> Please excuse spelling errors...I'm not very smart.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

Covenant said:


> Don't you realize that Man has never been to the Moon? It was faked to protect American pride during the space-race, and funded by Omega. NASA is secretly an Omega factory.
> 
> ...I should stop now.


so who put the flag there, it's possible to see it with a amateur telescope.

You must own a Tudor and be in denial.

(This is also a joke)


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

Covenant said:


> I've totally done this with my North Flag... "You say it looks like a Rolex? Well spotted, good Sir, for Tudor is indeed a subsidiary of Rolex! So in a way, I'm kind of, sort of, wearing a Rolex-like-thing, you know?"
> 
> >.> <.<


 They are still great watches


----------



## Covenant (Apr 22, 2009)

Richerson said:


> so who put the flag there, it's possible to see it with a amateur telescope.
> 
> You must own a Tudor and be in denial.
> 
> (This is also a joke)


It's all part of the conspiracy. Omega bought controlling shares in all telescope companies, and engineered in an image of a flag when its angled just right.









That's why Tudor changed their logo to a shield, to protect the masses against the Men-in-Blackesque shenanigans of Omega and "NASA".


----------



## Triton9 (Sep 30, 2011)

TimeWizard said:


> I find this very interesting, as every book and essay on the topic that I have come across has said that Omega was considered superior until around 1969, when Rolex began to get the upper hand with the help of publicity campaigns orchestrated by Rolex's advertising agent, J. Walter Thompson. Certainly, Omega was producing more chronometer grade watches in in the 1960s (not that that has any real correlation to brand popularity outside of marketing). I don't mean to discredit you, but your opinion does seem to flow against the grain.


The Rolex way of doing, insist of In house movement and parts and the fact Rolex survive the quartz crisis all helps Rolex to attain those status.


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

Triton9 said:


> Omega needs to keep the resale value of their watches strong. One top reason of Rolex is their retain value is strong with lost of estimate 10%. Widely accepted in many pawnshop. Some pawnshop even stated, they accept only Rolex watch and no others. Some pre-owned watch shop just make money basically by selling Rolex model only.


Resale. Perception of value. Omega doesn't have it.

I attended the recent Phillips Watch Auction in Hong Kong. No, I didn't buy anything - bit too rich for my blood  But out of a 400 lot auction of important pieces or atleast pieces that an auction house thought worth selling to well heeled collectors, only 8 pieces were Omegas - and almost all of them were Speedmasters(!). In this depressed climate, what sold - and often at record breaking prices? Rolex and Patek.

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/a...is-from-the-phillips-hong-kong-watch-sale-two

Does Omega not make watches easily the equal of Rolex? Of course they do. But if you are asking are they "as good" as Rolex - then I personally think resale value (and the perception of their worth) is part of the definition. Someone else earlier in this thread said oh it's just Johnny "No Nothing about Watches" Public that thinks Rolex is better. Buzzzzzz - wrong. In a depressed global market, well heeled collectors who do their homework and know what is worth adding to their collections still think it's Rolex and Patek uber alles. All other brands? Meh.

Could that change in the future? Sure. Maybe.


----------



## mharris660 (Jan 1, 2015)

Cool, I just ordered pizza


----------



## Ramblin man (Feb 7, 2011)

answer: They already are.


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

Covenant said:


> It's all part of the conspiracy. Omega bought controlling shares in all telescope companies, and engineered in an image of a flag when its angled just right.
> 
> View attachment 8336642
> 
> ...


Gosh!

Well I tell you what. I'll never buy a watch from a telescope maker


----------



## pyiyha (Aug 9, 2006)

I think they could have been close if they stop trying to BE Rolex instead.
The great draw of Omega was iconic pieces at affordable price, but they hiked up the prices and tried to be Rolex and I don't see their draw anymore...
Just my 2 cents.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Omega doesn't fully understand the value of timeless designs, and their watches become dated more easily as a consequence. It is precisely because Rolex designs change so slowly that it has such strong value retention.


----------



## pyiyha (Aug 9, 2006)

Datejust, Submariner, Daytona... with Rolex there is a definite evolution of design pedigree that is recognizable from their inception to the present versions which give each in the line validation of value and perception of continuation of pedigree.
Now, certain Omega line does have similar pedigree like that of Speedmaster Pro, but instead of keeping the line singular, Omega branches to many different versions of Speedmasters which just dilutes the whole line.
Similar with Seamaster... there's just so many different kinds that general populace would have very difficult time figuring the 'family tree' of Seamasters.
Now, with Constellation, this is whole different story with the iconic pie pan versions which gets abandoned altogether and turns into Constellation 95 (by the way, I love my Constellation '95  then Double Eagle and then the whole design DNA gets diluted into Globemaster...
Just feels that Omega lacks the 'focus', for lack of better word, that is present with Rolex lines.


----------



## mykii (Oct 22, 2010)

pyiyha said:


> Now, certain Omega line does have similar pedigree like that of Speedmaster Pro, but instead of keeping the line singular, Omega branches to many different versions of Speedmasters which just dilutes the whole line..


I really hate this isolating argument of "milking the speedy" ; has anyone ever stopped and counted how many DJ variations there are?

I don't otherwise disagree with your illocutionary intent; I just think this is a reflection of how Omega _isn't_ trying to be Rolex. Rather than stick to a conservative design mantra, they are aiming to offer more unique and time-appropriate pieces in addition to their conserved collection which is largely the Speedmaster series. The constellation also remains well conserved. I think Rolex has caught up to Omega's new business direction, and that is why we now see Tudor being the 'creative arm' of Rolex with their inception of the BB & Pelagos and their now many variations (specifically the former).

There isn't a right or wrong approach, they're just different business models that seek to attract buyers in different brackets and markets.


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

Three quick reasons that Omega will never be as good as Rolex


----------



## Bahoomba (May 1, 2010)

Is my bicycle pump as good as chocolate cake?
Is it cheaper to walk to work, or bring my lunch?
Will my wife ever learn to make coffee as good as the neighbors?

Sorry, just trying to keep up with this learned level of discourse. Hoo, boy.


In all seriousness - there's no "best," and how much of a market share that the brand on my wrist may accumulate doesn't have a thing to do with how it ended up on my wrist.

Brand this, brand that, yadda yadda. With me, it starts with a sapphire crystal, quality casework, a style I like, a company that stands behind its products, and a movement than I can get fixed without sending the watch to Pago Pago - then, I work from there. Notice the word "price" doesn't enter into the discussion. I seek a certain level of quality, and it's the main factor, not "brand recognition" or "trends." Newbies need to figure out that buying a watch because it's popular is like rooting for your mayor to raise your taxes - you only end up looking cool to people who aren't cool in the first place.


----------



## mykii (Oct 22, 2010)

chuasam said:


> Three quick reasons that Omega will never be as good as Rolex


Is dabbling with what was, at the time, pretty cutting edge tech really a bad thing? Plus, that first Quartz Omega is friggen cool as!


----------



## pyiyha (Aug 9, 2006)

mykii said:


> I really hate this isolating argument of "milking the speedy" ; has anyone ever stopped and counted how many DJ variations there are?
> 
> I don't otherwise disagree with your illocutionary intent; I just think this is a reflection of how Omega _isn't_ trying to be Rolex. Rather than stick to a conservative design mantra, they are aiming to offer more unique and time-appropriate pieces in addition to their conserved collection which is largely the Speedmaster series. The constellation also remains well conserved. I think Rolex has caught up to Omega's new business direction, and that is why we now see Tudor being the 'creative arm' of Rolex with their inception of the BB & Pelagos and their now many variations (specifically the former).
> 
> There isn't a right or wrong approach, they're just different business models that seek to attract buyers in different brackets and markets.


Fair enough, and I don't disagree with that there isn't a right or wrong approach, but just a different business models...

However, it is rather difficult to retain value without coherence in the line.
Again, a prime example would be the Constellation '95 which when released was one of their top lines with various precious metal versions to compete with datejust line I imagine, but their retention in value is just not the same... almost ubiquitously picked as the 'forgettable' Omega, 'last Omega that I would buy', 'ugliest Omega' (again, I love mine! it truly has to be worn to be appreciated).


----------



## dimman (Feb 10, 2013)

Maybe once they can develop a proprietary hairspring material such as Parachrome Blue. I mean Omega uses silicon, the same so Tudor. The Poorman's Rolex. So long as all Omega can do is barely keep up with Tudor, they'll never get to the big leagues like Rolex. 










Heh...


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

chuasam said:


> Three quick reasons that Omega will never be as good as Rolex


Are those quartz movements in-house ?


----------



## dimman (Feb 10, 2013)

chuasam said:


> Three quick reasons that Omega will never be as good as Rolex


I counter with this :

















An early wristwatch with tourbillon, 1947. Chronometry champion. How many of these do Rolex have?


----------



## Robinjohn (Nov 15, 2015)

I thought this thread was boring and pointless. I'm off to eBay to look for digital omegas.


----------



## C4L18R3 (Jan 7, 2013)

What makes the OP think that Rolex is 'better' than Omega in the first place?!? 

Will Omega be as popular? Maybe that question has more connection to reality... 
still, it doesn't really say anything about one being better than the other. Pffft.


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

Domo said:


> No


What happened Domo? Why don't you write the Truth: "...because GS is already better". 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

paskinner said:


> Rolex were perceived as superior when I first bought an Omega in the sixties. when marketing was minimal. Little has changed. The position of Rolex is not achieved by marketing...Omega probably spend just as much. The 'oyster perpetual' ruggedness and durability is probably the real key. People just trust the brand.


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

Dimman said:


> Maybe once they can develop a proprietary hairspring material such as Parachrome Blue. I mean Omega uses silicon, the same so Tudor. The Poorman's Rolex. So long as all Omega can do is barely keep up with Tudor, they'll never get to the big leagues like Rolex.












Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

Alex_TA said:


> What happened Domo? Why don't you write the Truth: "...because GS is already better".
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


yeah Grand Seiko are nices watches, but because seiko also make cheap watches none WIS people just think you have a cheap watch on, too be honest that's the opposite to what Rolex owners are trying to achieve.


----------



## I Like em BIG ! ! (Feb 10, 2012)

mykii said:


> Is dabbling with what was, at the time, pretty cutting edge tech really a bad thing? Plus, that first Quartz Omega is friggen cool as!





lvt said:


> Are those quartz movements in-house ?





Robinjohn said:


> I thought this thread was boring and pointless. I'm off to eBay to look for digital omegas.


I guess HP had 'em all beat... huh, go figure...


----------



## hotmustardsauce (Sep 19, 2012)

This forum has just hit a new low 

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


----------



## mykii (Oct 22, 2010)

I Like em BIG ! ! said:


> I guess HP had 'em all beat... huh, go figure...


Well, that is uber cool too if I may say so. I love me some vintage funk.


----------



## Shutterbug57 (Nov 15, 2013)

Pride said:


> Aren't they? I really like the Omega De Ville Tresor.


Me too. I just wish it were 2.5+ mm thinner.


----------



## dimman (Feb 10, 2013)

Alex_TA said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The 'Heh' at the bottom Indicates a joke. Sigh...


----------



## Legion681 (Sep 1, 2012)

Shutterbug57 said:


> Me too. I just wish it were 2.5+ mm thinner.


Same here, but I wish it was $2.5k+ cheaper! Eh eh eh


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

Dimman said:


> The 'Heh' at the bottom Indicates a joke. Sigh...


Godzilla is not very serious too... Double sigh 


Shutterbug57 said:


> Me too. I just wish it were 2.5+ mm thinner.


10.4mm is not enough thin?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## the.watchdoc (Apr 23, 2015)

Forget Rolex and Omega, I'm going HP!



I Like em BIG ! ! said:


> I guess HP had 'em all beat... huh, go figure...


----------



## G26okie (Jul 1, 2010)

pyiyha said:


> I think they could have been close if they stop trying to BE Rolex instead.
> The great draw of Omega was iconic pieces at affordable price, but they hiked up the prices and tried to be Rolex and I don't see their draw anymore...
> Just my 2 cents.


This. I love the new Globemaster and some of their other offerings. But with prices at 8-9k+, more than many iconic Rolex, it just isn't going to happen.


----------



## Gunnar_917 (Feb 24, 2015)

I've had another look through this thread; I stand by my first post


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

obomomomo said:


> When talking about Rolex superior marketing strategy, it should be appreciated that a great deal of their success is based on how they manage to retain value compared to every other mass produced brand. This is not mysterious magic but a result of extreme conservatism in design language (same old boring shot but hugely recognisable to the envious public) and the extremely slow release of any updates to their line-up. This is a directly opposite strategy to how (for example) TAG Heuer release new models and updates to their current models almost yearly.
> Whether Rolex had achieved this by design or accident, this is not about simply dumping advertising revenue or about innovation (in fact one can argue the opposite) or fit and finishing but about a decades old strategy and the determination to see it through
> 
> Can Omega do the same? Perhaps, but it will be a gamble and will take a lot(!) of time before results can be seen and evaluated. I wonder if Swatch shareholders will have the stamina.


^^^Totally this.

Look at all the Rolex models. The vast majority (maybe with the exception of Cellini) share common designs: oyster case, oyster or jubilee bracelet, Cyclops if there is one, Mercedes hour hand or baton hands, and fluted bezel if one chooses to pay more for additional recognizability for models that could have it.

These designs that are common between many different models of Rolex maximizes Rolex recognizability. If a non-WIS wants a prestige watch, it needs to be recognizable to everyone in the general public. To be recognizable, the designs need to be unique, obervable from further away, and need to stay the same over the long-term. Rolex does all of that.

I think that is intentional design rather than accident because giving common designs that do not change much over time might have started out as an accident, but to continue doing so over the long-term is no accident.

GS also seem to show common design elements over most models of GS (e.g. metallic stick hour markers for the most part, dauphine hands, oyster-type-looking bracelet if the watch is on bracelet). What GS lacks is unique designs observable from further away. GS looks rather generic from further away. For the general public who want a prestige watch, GS with generic designs will probably never be it. GS will probably always be stealth luxury, only recognized by those-in-the-know, or valued more for its technical aspects rather than social aspects.

Omega could spend gobs of money to advertise current models every year, but as long as most models do not share in-common design elements between them, those advertising dollars are wasted once they come out with totally different looking models and have to spend money on ads to make those models recognizable again next year. If Omega wants to be the equal of Rolex in public perception, they need to introduce in-common, unique, recognziable-from-further-away, same-over-long-term design elements that just shout "Omega" even from like 3 meters away. Otherwise, Omega will never achieve the resale value (due to same-over-long-term, unique, in-common designs) and prestige status that Rolex enjoys. Omega models have designs that change all the time, they are not in-common designs between models, and while I as a watch fan could recognize a Constellation or a Seamaster from further away, not all of Omega's models look similar to Constellation or Seamaster such that a non-watch person might recognize it. Omega needs to unify unique, in-common, recognizable-from-further-away design elements that shout "Omega" from further away to everyone in the general public for them to even get close to Rolex in terms of prestige perception with the general public.


----------



## Shutterbug57 (Nov 15, 2013)

Alex_TA said:


> Godzilla is not very serious too... Double sigh
> 
> 10.4mm is not enough thin?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My Zenith Elite is 8.28 mm thick. I really like thinner watches. If the Tresor was in the 8s, it would be in my box. As it is, I am still considering.


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

While the Rolex's success can be explained by clever marketing and continuous design, I personally see two important parameters: reliability and service.

Simply put, the quantity of problems per 1,000 Rolex watches is lower than in watches of any Swiss competitor. I have no statistics but this is my feeling.

Second, the quality of service. You can find Omega / Swatch SC virtually in any place in the world, you can be lucky and get a good service, and you can find the mediocre level. 
But the level of Rolex service is almost exclusively good anywhere. It's stable. Stability for years - this is the name of the game. 
Disclosure: I do not own Rolex.


----------



## Tickstart (Oct 30, 2015)

Alex_TA said:


> Disclosure: I do not own Rolex.


Pretty sure no one assumed so either.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

chuasam said:


> Three quick reasons that Omega will never be as good as Rolex


Actually, those three are more exciting than anything Rolex has produced recently, save for the new Air King.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

One trollish-inflammatiry-but-true idea: pretige watches are not as much about the quality of the watch or quality of service as it is about the person. The way prestige watch works is that others in the general public see the watch, and then they are able to make some assumptions about this person. E.g. that person is rich-successful-capable-intelligent-desirable-etc. High quality of watch and high quality of service justify high price, but it's high price and recognizability that make a prestige watch. When the general public sees a prestige watch, the first thought is not high quality watch or high quality service. The first thought is, wow, pricey watch, that person must be rich. For women genetically programmed to look for a good provider, or genes from a partner that shows capability of success, prestige watch makes one attractive as a sex or long-term partner. Almost all men are genetically programmed to want to get laid. (Those who are not do not pass on their genes.) The pricier the watch, the more sexual interest one gets. Omega and GS just do not generate as much sexual interest as Rolex. But then it's not about the man, it's about the money. A watch company makes a prestige watch, they could get tons of money. More sex for watch executives!

To troll some more, George Clooney does not need a Rolex to attract women, an Omega or no watch or no money works just fine. He's just hot, no watch or money required, though money of course adds to the hotness.


----------



## SomeAssemblyRequired (Jan 19, 2015)

rdoder said:


> ...The way prestige watch works is that others in the general public see the watch, and then they are able to make some assumptions about this person. E.g. that person is rich-successful-capable-intelligent-desirable-etc...When the general public sees a prestige watch, the first thought is...wow, pricey watch, that person must be rich. For women looking for a good provider, prestige watch makes one attractive. All men want to get laid. The pricier the watch, the more sexual interest one gets. Omega and GS just do not generate as much sexual interest as Rolex. But then it's not about the man, it's about the money...money of course adds to the hotness.


Damn -- if that's the case, all these years I've been buying the wrong watches.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

rdoder said:


> One trollish-inflammatiry-but-true idea: pretige watches are not as much about the quality of the watch or quality of service as it is about the person. The way prestige watch works is that others in the general public see the watch, and then they are able to make some assumptions about this person. E.g. that person is rich-successful-capable-intelligent-desirable-etc. High quality of watch and high quality of service justify high price, but it's high price and recognizability that make a prestige watch. When the general public sees a prestige watch, the first thought is not high quality watch or high quality service. The first thought is, wow, pricey watch, that person must be rich. For women genetically programmed to look for a good provider, or genes from a partner that shows capability of success, prestige watch makes one attractive as a sex partner. Almost all men are genetically programmed to want to get laid. (Those who are not do not pass on their genes.) The pricier the watch, the more sexual interest one gets. Omega and GS just do not generate as much sexual interest as Rolex. But then it's not about the man, it's about the money. A watch company makes a prestige watch, they could get tons of money. More sex for watch executives!
> 
> To troll some more, George Clooney does not need a Rolex to attract women, an Omega or no watch or no money works just fine. He's just hot, no watch or money required, though money of course adds to the hotness.


The scary thing is, I believe you are being serious in this post.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

SomeAssemblyRequired said:


> Damn -- if that's the case, all these years I've been buying the wrong watches.


The underlying subconscious mechanisms are there. For sure when one buys a watch, one is not thinking about sex, but maybe the subconscious motivations are there.

Or it's not just about sex, it's about self-pleasure in general. Men I guess also love beautiful things (because beauty represents good genetic and good overall health condition in a sex partner? But then this pleasure from beauty gets generalized into art, music, etc.), including beautiful watches.

Maybe the point is to examine something in-depth and understand better what is going on with oneself and others.

Why do people want or love what they do? It comes down to human nature and nature of life.


----------



## the.watchdoc (Apr 23, 2015)

EnderW said:


> The scary thing is, I believe you are being serious in this post.


I really don't see what problem you could have with this.

George Clooney is uncategorically hot.


----------



## BEEG (Jan 28, 2016)

Both Rolex and Omega are mass produced dogs for peasants, riff-raffs, savages and plebes. If your watch is not 50+ years old, handmade watch and has more than 50 pieces of it made, you might as well strap a Casio homage on.

jk


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

Whatever.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

mykii said:


> I really hate this isolating argument of "milking the speedy" ; has anyone ever stopped and counted how many DJ variations there are?
> 
> I don't otherwise disagree with your illocutionary intent; I just think this is a reflection of how Omega _isn't_ trying to be Rolex. Rather than stick to a conservative design mantra, they are aiming to offer more unique and time-appropriate pieces in addition to their conserved collection which is largely the Speedmaster series. The constellation also remains well conserved. I think Rolex has caught up to Omega's new business direction, and that is why we now see Tudor being the 'creative arm' of Rolex with their inception of the BB & Pelagos and their now many variations (specifically the former).
> 
> There isn't a right or wrong approach, they're just different business models that seek to attract buyers in different brackets and markets.


Well, in fairness, there aren't that many variations of the DJ asides from different dials over the decades and, more, recently an additional size option with the DJII. A 36mm DJ from 20 years ago is largely the same today and still in production. There is value in this type of longevity for some, including myself. To others, it's too staid and conservative.

In contrast, I've lost count of the number of Speedies that currently exist and, more importantly, those that have come and gone over the years. For example, I honestly don't even know how many different ceramic Speedies Omega currently makes. Many, however, value Omega's contemporary designs and willingness to constantly evolve their lines. Others think this constant change dilutes the brand. In the end, both make very good watches. Omega and Rolex simply cater to different types of buyers and having more options as enthusiasts is a good thing.


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

Twelve pages and counting. Will we hit twenty this time?


----------



## beeman101 (Nov 16, 2013)

So this happened eh! 11 pages and counting.....hmmm
Troll out...carry on


----------



## starbrown (Mar 2, 2015)

Omega makes fine watches, but they have a ways to go to catch Rolex. On resale value alone, Rolex is head and shoulders better.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

When will Rolex make a Central Flying Tourbillon; Omega has.


----------



## eliz (Apr 5, 2012)

Amongst the WIS community, maybe.

Amongst the general public, *never*. 
No other brand will ever be as good as Rolex. Simply because they are the best damn marketed brand in the business.


----------



## RobyJ (Feb 10, 2016)

eliz said:


> Amongst the WIS community, maybe. Amongst the general public, never. No other brand will ever be as good as Rolex. Simply because they are the best damn marketed brand in the business.


What about the product itself?


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

mykii said:


> Is dabbling with what was, at the time, pretty cutting edge tech really a bad thing? Plus, that first Quartz Omega is friggen cool as!


But innovation and cutting edge is the opposite of luxury. You're looking at a premium product but it isn't luxury.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

If you believe all that marketing bull-manure.


eliz said:


> Amongst the WIS community, maybe.
> 
> Amongst the general public, *never*.
> No other brand will ever be as good as Rolex. Simply because they are the best damn marketed brand in the business.


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

RobyJ said:


> What about the product itself?


Vastly overpriced to pay for the marketing machine.

The only Rolex I would ever wear is one obtained by winning it as a trophy at a Rolex sponsored event. This is how my brother got his Sub. In this family, Rolex are won, not bought. Buyers are paying for sports sponsorship.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Rolex are the masters of marketing of fine watches just as DeBeers is the master marketer for diamonds. Diamonds sell - per carat - for more than other gems that are more rare. They sell at a premium because of decades of marketing (brainwashing) to the public. Not unlike Rolex.

Rolex raises prices every year, milks out only so many watches, just as DeBeers does. When all of the blood diamonds flooded the market a decade ago, how did DeBeers respond? They bought them all up and put them in the basement in Antwerp and Tel Aviv. Not unlike Rolex.

Rolex and Omega are ridiculously overpriced for what you get, the rest is all marketing.

So far as who's better: Rolex is the better marketer.

Who has better resale? Point again to Rolex.

Who makes the better watch? Who really cares, if one is 1 or 2% better, does it really matter?

Its all about the marketing; the fact that there is a debate here at all is just proof of how good they are at their game.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Behind the counter I was asked many times, "What id your opinion of Rolex"? Got it down to, a very-very good watch at a very poor price.


yankeexpress said:


> Vastly overpriced to pay for the marketing machine.
> 
> The only Rolex I would ever wear is one obtained by winning it as a trophy at a Rolex sponsored event. This is how my brother got his Sub. In this family, Rolex are won, not bought.


----------



## PatagoniaDan (Aug 20, 2012)

Lol pretentious much "in this family" followed by a picture no one is likely to be impressed by. Get off the high horse.


----------



## CMSgt Bo (Feb 12, 2006)

sumanbhadra said:


> its a good question -expert opinion is most welcome rather than reference to a film we have not heard of--


You should Google the film, it is almost as entertaining as this thread.


----------



## Mr. Orlando (Dec 24, 2012)

Subjective topic. In my opinion, I see Omega and Rolex as equals. Thats just me!


----------



## RobyJ (Feb 10, 2016)

yankeexpress said:


> Vastly overpriced to pay for the marketing machine. The only Rolex I would ever wear is one obtained by winning it as a trophy at a Rolex sponsored event. This is how my brother got his Sub. In this family, Rolex are won, not bought. Buyers are paying for sports sponsorship.


I meant would the product of Omgea be as good as Rolex? If you didn't follow in your brothers footsteps in winning a Rolex event (amazing story by the way), what other brand do you choose to wear?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

PhantomThief said:


> George Clooney is uncategorically hot.


I think women also know he is rich, and endorsing that Omega makes him richer still.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

yankeexpress said:


> Vastly overpriced to pay for the marketing machine.
> 
> The only Rolex I would ever wear is one obtained by winning it as a trophy at a Rolex sponsored event. This is how my brother got his Sub. In this family, Rolex are won, not bought. Buyers are paying for sports sponsorship.


I've lost track of how many times you bring this up... it seems like you mention it on almost every thread where Rolex is discussed. I guess you're the disappointment in the family then, seeing that you haven't won a Rolex?

I guess if you had an astronaut in the family, you would go onto every thread discussing the Speedmaster Professional and dismissively say that in you family, you only wear Speedmasters that are issued to you by NASA.

Look, Rolex spends a great deal on marketing, but in the grand scheme of things, given the number of watches it sells, it's on the order of a few hundred dollars a watch at most, which represents a small percentage of the retail price of a Rolex.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

yankeexpress said:


> Vastly overpriced to pay for the marketing machine.
> 
> The only Rolex I would ever wear is one obtained by winning it as a trophy at a Rolex sponsored event. This is how my brother got his Sub. In this family, Rolex are won, not bought. Buyers are paying for sports sponsorship.


Nobody cares.


----------



## _MS_ (Jun 25, 2015)

Rolex and Omega are like Coke and Pepsi!


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

yankeexpress said:


> Vastly overpriced to pay for the marketing machine.
> 
> The only Rolex I would ever wear is one obtained by winning it as a trophy at a Rolex sponsored event. This is how my brother got his Sub. In this family, Rolex are won, not bought. Buyers are paying for sports sponsorship.


Lasers are fun little boats though

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Omega are great watches but not the same quality as rolex... when I compare the bracelets and case feel of my rolexes vs omega you can feel the quality difference clearly... all " good watches" are pretentious overpriced bling ( and practically defunct) but loving watches is a bug that's hard to stop and stop wasting money on.
And lastly I really think that up to rolex,upward price indicates some upward movement of quality but when you head into the luxury market it's harder to see the increased quality and price leaps of say breguet....AP .....patek etc etc 
.....are they fair comments?


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

I though Rolex was Royal Crown.


_MS_ said:


> Rolex and Omega are like Coke and Pepsi!


----------



## dimman (Feb 10, 2013)

mleok said:


> I've lost track of how many times you bring this up... it seems like you mention it on almost every thread where Rolex is discussed. I guess you're the disappointment in the family then, seeing that you haven't won a Rolex?
> 
> I guess if you had an astronaut in the family, you would go onto every thread discussing the Speedmaster Professional and dismissively say that in you family, you only wear Speedmasters that are issued to you by NASA.
> 
> Look, Rolex spends a great deal on marketing, but in the grand scheme of things, given the number of watches it sells, it's on the order of a few hundred dollars a watch at most, which represents a small percentage of the retail price of a Rolex.


Gotta admit that if I won a Rolex in a sailing competition I'd be pretty proud of it. To the point where I'd probably rub it in to my siblings if they were to buy one.

"You paid how many thousands for a Rolex that I got for free for just being more awesome than you? "

That's just me though...


----------



## Legion681 (Sep 1, 2012)

yankeexpress said:


> Vastly overpriced to pay for the marketing machine.
> 
> The only Rolex I would ever wear is one obtained by winning it as a trophy at a Rolex sponsored event. This is how my brother got his Sub.* In this family, Rolex are won, not bought.* Buyers are paying for sports sponsorship.


Dude advertising himself & his family of "supermen" in the Internet = instant & total loss of credibility.

"In this family, Rolex are won, not bought".


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

Fortunately for Ω their reputation doesn't entirely depend on their "fans" here because the lengthy diatribes and posturing haven't made a single convincing argument that Ω is level or higher than Rolex. 

Way to lose credibility guys.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Dimman said:


> Gotta admit that if I won a Rolex in a sailing competition I'd be pretty proud of it. To the point where I'd probably rub it in to my siblings if they were to buy one.
> 
> "You paid how many thousands for a Rolex that I got for free for just being more awesome than you? "
> 
> That's just me though...


If yankeexpress won a Rolex in a sailing competition, I would have no issue with him lording it over all of us, after all, it would be his accomplishment that he is justifiably proud of. But it quite another thing to justify being a ..... about something based on their accomplishments of others, even if they happen to be a close blood relation.


----------



## Tsujigiri (Nov 28, 2008)

Well the thread didn't explode to 13 pages in under a day because people agree with the OP's premise.

It seems like the people who think that Rolex is unparalleled primarily bring up resale value and public perception. Personally I'd rather think for myself when I evaluate a product. But I was never one to buy into beanie babies, pokemon cards, or any of the other groupthink fads.

If similarly priced brands have poor resale value relative to Rolex, I don't mind. That just means I can get a better deal on a used or gray market watch that I already thought was more interesting than a Rolex at the original retail price. Win-win.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

I think a great part of Rolex's success had to do with how well managed it is, raising prices at a rate that the market can bear, so that they can maintain control on the level of discounting in their AD network, without the grey market being flooded with substantially discounted stock. Thus, they have the unusual combination of being readily available, but with relatively consistent and minimal levels of discounting. Their consistency in their movement design, and the emphasis on robustness and serviceability, mean that there are a large number of independent watchmakers who can easily service their in-house movements. They have also substantially reinvested in their core manufacturing capabilities, and acquiring their component suppliers to increase their quality control and streamline their processes.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

rdoder said:


> One trollish-inflammatiry-but-true idea: pretige watches are not as much about the quality of the watch or quality of service as it is about the person. The way prestige watch works is that others in the general public see the watch, and then they are able to make some assumptions about this person. E.g. that person is rich-successful-capable-intelligent-desirable-etc. High quality of watch and high quality of service justify high price, but it's high price and recognizability that make a prestige watch. When the general public sees a prestige watch, the first thought is not high quality watch or high quality service. The first thought is, wow, pricey watch, that person must be rich. For women genetically programmed to look for a good provider, or genes from a partner that shows capability of success, prestige watch makes one attractive as a sex or long-term partner. Almost all men are genetically programmed to want to get laid. (Those who are not do not pass on their genes.) The pricier the watch, the more sexual interest one gets. Omega and GS just do not generate as much sexual interest as Rolex. But then it's not about the man, it's about the money. A watch company makes a prestige watch, they could get tons of money. More sex for watch executives!
> 
> To troll some more, George Clooney does not need a Rolex to attract women, an Omega or no watch or no money works just fine. He's just hot, no watch or money required, though money of course adds to the hotness.


i can you for a fact that some of the Rolex wearing males within my office are nothing more than turds, you can't polish a turd but you can roll them in glitter, the Rolex being the glitter, no amount of glitter is getting them laid anytime soon.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

No matter how you slice it, nothing says "poser" more than a guy wearing a Rolex while flying coach.

If you can't afford Business or 1st, you probably have bigger financial worries than a watch worth 3 months salary.

Of course, unless you "won" it LOL.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Ticonderoga said:


> No matter how you slice it, nothing says "poser" more than a guy wearing a Rolex while flying coach.
> 
> If you can't afford Business or 1st, you probably have bigger financial worries than a watch worth 3 months salary.
> 
> Of course, unless you "won" it LOL.


What??? This thread has officially jumped the shark.


----------



## dr3ws (Jun 9, 2015)

Does that mean everyone who wears Rolex has to drive luxury cars, fly first class? Really?


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

I have never owned an Omega yet but my Mom has owned a few. I am guessing that Omega's have to be pretty decent in quality and market share if they mention them in the same league as Rolex.

The non watch people know Omega, maybe not as much they know Rolex, but they know them. Unlike JLC or something no one has heard of. In Canada I think Tag is probably 3rd to the non watch people. Lol

Everyone else is happy with the Michael Korrs and the Movado/Nixon/Apple watch crap.

So I would have to say Omega is up there.


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

My mom owns an Ω also. She's had it service ONCE in the past 45 years. Once.


----------



## Dancing Fire (Aug 16, 2011)

this thread will hit 30 pages ..:-d


----------



## nevada1995 (Dec 24, 2014)

I presume they are going after each others customers. I do think that their respective lineups and brands are quite different. I don't think omega will catch Rolex in marketing. I do think that younger buyers will not be as easily influenced by today's marketing.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

I just saw this thread.

It makes me pause to think that Rolex has better QC than Omega.

Rolex quality control no better than other brands apparently


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

dr3ws said:


> Does that mean everyone who wears Rolex has to drive luxury cars, fly first class? Really?


When I had my Sub i drove a white Ford Escort van two hundred thousand miles on the clock and one door didn't work, so yeah pure luxury.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Dancing Fire said:


> this thread will hit 30 pages ..:-d


Very likely. Thread length (post quantity) is inversely proportional to the usefulness of the content (post quality)


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

EnderW said:


> Very likely. Thread length (post quantity) is inversely proportional to the usefulness of the content (post quality)


The big arguments and key points have already been made in the first 10 pages. The next 30 will just be rehashing of those key points, occasional sparring matches between members, a few jokes, and non-sequitors for the hell of it. And when Chronopolis finally appears, you know the thread is done done done.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> The big arguments and key points have already been made in the first 10 pages. The next 30 will just be rehashing of those key points, occasional sparring matches between members, a few jokes, and non-sequitors for the hell of it. And when Chronopolis finally appears, you know the thread is done done done.


Someone send him some directions on over then


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> The big arguments and key points have already been made in the first 10 pages. The next 30 will just be rehashing of those key points, occasional sparring matches between members, a few jokes, and non-sequitors for the hell of it. And when Chronopolis finally appears, you know the thread is done done done.


Ah yes... I think it was written in an ancient text that when Chronopolis appears, the end time is near.


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

Chronopolis, not gonna lie, we are calling you out! 
Is there another member with such popularity!?


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

mleok said:


> I've lost track of how many times you bring this up... it seems like you mention it on almost every thread where Rolex is discussed. I guess you're the disappointment in the family then, seeing that you haven't won a Rolex?
> 
> I guess if you had an astronaut in the family, you would go onto every thread discussing the Speedmaster Professional and dismissively say that in you family, you only wear Speedmasters that are issued to you by NASA.
> 
> Look, Rolex spends a great deal on marketing, but in the grand scheme of things, given the number of watches it sells, it's on the order of a few hundred dollars a watch at most, which represents a small percentage of the retail price of a Rolex.


Atleast he stopped name dropping about the ivy league schools he and/or his family have attended.

What a total bore. Zzzzzzzz


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

yankeexpress said:


> Vastly overpriced to pay for the marketing machine.
> 
> The only Rolex I would ever wear is one obtained by winning it as a trophy at a Rolex sponsored event. This is how my brother got his Sub. In this family, Rolex are won, not bought. Buyers are paying for sports sponsorship.












"You know, sport, Rolex are only won, never bought. Why I won my Datejust at last year's easter egg hunt at the Union League Club. Had to fight off all those 5 and 6 year old ragamuffins."


----------



## anton561 (Jul 23, 2014)

IMO rolex will always be rolex and omega has a style that is somewhat similar to rolex in that the watches are pretty simple clean looking designs and have sporty and dressy watches that look professional, just look at the seamaster vs sub and datejust vs aqua terra. Other well known brands like iwc or breitling have their own look, but omega seems to always compete with rolex and given the name of rolex and their marketing omega will never catch up.


----------



## piningforthefjords (May 15, 2016)

Sevenmack said:


> And when Chronopolis finally appears, you know the thread is done done done.


How do we call him over? Stand in front of a mirror at midnight holding a candle and say his name five times?

Maybe he hasn't appeared yet because he can't decide between this and the Grand Seiko thread that's running concurrently. Both seem equally deserving of a mercy killing.


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

Ticonderoga said:


> No matter how you slice it, nothing says "poser" more than a guy wearing a Rolex while flying coach.


Any way you slice it, that's a pretty stupid assumption.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Watch Fan in Beijing said:


> Any way you slice it, that's a pretty stupid assumption.


Or is it the assumption that people want others to make about them when they wear a Rolex?

99% of people (non WUS at least) don't wear a Rolex because they like it, they wear it so that others will make assumptions about them.


----------



## Chascomm (Feb 13, 2006)

"Will Omega ever be as good as Rolex?"

Will a grenade lobbed into the forum ever be as good as a civilised discussion?


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

piningforthefjords said:


> How do we call him over? Stand in front of a mirror at midnight holding a candle and say his name five times?
> 
> Maybe he hasn't appeared yet because he can't decide between this and the Grand Seiko thread that's running concurrently. Both seem equally deserving of a mercy killing.


Chronopolis does not struggle which Grand Seiko to buy. HE build his own watch. (running Chuck Norris joke)


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

Ticonderoga said:


> Or is it the assumption that people want others to make about them when they wear a Rolex?
> 
> 99% of people (non WUS at least) don't wear a Rolex because they like it, they wear it so that others will make assumptions about them.


Disagree. Mainly because people inform them that Rolex maintain its value better (investment). ((No watch is a good investment.))


----------



## Chbir (Jun 6, 2016)

Ticonderoga said:


> No matter how you slice it, nothing says "poser" more than a guy wearing a Rolex while flying coach.
> 
> If you can't afford Business or 1st, you probably have bigger financial worries than a watch worth 3 months salary.
> 
> Of course, unless you "won" it LOL.


yikes


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

Ticonderoga said:


> Or is it the assumption that people want others to make about them when they wear a Rolex?
> 
> 99% of people (non WUS at least) don't wear a Rolex because they like it, they wear it so that others will make assumptions about them.


I don't want anyone to make any assumption about me when I wear a Rolex except that I have good taste in watches.  That's it.

Actually I'm not a big fan of this stereotypical image that Rolex supposedly projects - but what can I say? I do like their steel sports watches. It's a solid well built, albeit somewhat overpriced watch. And I don't want something similar looking or a homage. That's me.

Maybe I'll get a Tudor next time.


----------



## Legion681 (Sep 1, 2012)

Ticonderoga said:


> *No matter how you slice it, nothing says "poser" more than a guy wearing a Rolex while flying coach.
> 
> If you can't afford Business or 1st, you probably have bigger financial worries than a watch worth 3 months salary.*
> 
> Of course, unless you "won" it LOL.


This was an ironic post, right?


----------



## publandlord (Aug 15, 2006)

Ticonderoga said:


> Or is it the assumption that people want others to make about them when they wear a Rolex?
> 
> 99% of people (non WUS at least) don't wear a Rolex because they like it, they wear it so that others will make assumptions about them.


That's also bollax. Were you cuckolded by A Rolex Wearer


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Ticonderoga said:


> No matter how you slice it, nothing says "poser" more than a guy wearing a Rolex while flying coach.
> 
> If you can't afford Business or 1st, you probably have bigger financial worries than a watch worth 3 months salary.


+1

Recently I took a $10 both-ways bus ride to go on an out-of-town trip. Saw a guy on the bus for the same $10 both-ways bus trip wearing something that looked like a Rolex DateJust with fluted bezel, Cyclops, and jubilee bracelet. Later upon a closer look, I don't think I saw a Rolex logo or the Rolex brand. It didn't even say Steinhart. It probably was a non-branded copy watch, which correlates well with a $10 bus trip.

Some people just want to look rich without paying through the nose for it. In a way, that is wise, in terms of saving money, because one doesn't have money to burn.

Flying coach might suggest that one might not have more money than one knows what to do with. In that case, wearing a Rolex suggests that one might have had to stretch oneself a bit financially to buy that Rolex. I guess if someone loves the Rolex for oneself, then it's okay, to each their own. The thing with Rolex is that the prestige factor is in play anytime anyone notices the watch. It's hard for anyone to deny that there might be an element of wanting prestige in that case. So when people notice things like Rolex-looking watch on a $10 bus trip or Rolex while flying coach, it's hard to deny that an average human being might have thoughts along the lines of, hey, there is some sort of mismatch or discrepancy there, or make some sort of judgment about the person. That's just human nature, to think about things and to judge things.

Back in the past, when humans lived like other primates, maybe males judge each other to see who could become alpha male that could have sex with all the females and father most of the kids that come out to be the next generation. This need to appear rich/resourceful, and this thinking and judging and sizing up others are evolutionary remnants from human's past. It's probably human nature to do all of these things. The nature of life is to compete to survive and have the most sex in order to have one's genes represented in as high proportion of the next generation as possible. Humans that did that and do that probably pass on their genes the most. So these traits/behaviors survive because they are crucial to survival. In the wild, in the past, to misjudge an alpha male, or to step out of line, could mean serious injury or death. It's about survival of oneself and one's genes.

Both in the past and in the present, for humans and many other species (if you watch the show Nature, you would know), males physically fought and fight for access to females. In the present, human males mentally fight each other about watches in a watch forum. The same drives exist, just applied to something a bit less life-endangering, but still fun in a way. It's the nature of life to compete for survival, so it's not surprising that it's the nature of life to enjoy competition, like play-fighting.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

rdoder said:


> +1
> 
> Recently I took a $10 both-ways bus ride to go on an out-of-town trip. Saw a guy on the bus for the same $10 both-ways bus trip wearing something that looked like a Rolex DateJust with fluted bezel, Cyclops, and jubilee bracelet. Later upon a closer look, I don't think I saw a Rolex logo or the Rolex brand. It didn't even say Steinhart. It probably was a non-branded copy watch, which correlates well with a $10 bus trip.
> 
> ...


Get real!

Affording a mid-level luxury watch like Rolex, or any of the other numerous mid-level brands, doesn't mean one can/should also afford to fly business class everywhere.

I wear Rolex, Omega, and other mid-level luxury watches because I like watches. I certainly don't exclusively fly business class.

Some of you guys are getting ridiculous.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

cedargrove said:


> Get real!
> 
> Affording a mid-level luxury watch like Rolex, or any of the other numerous mid-level brands, doesn't mean one can/should also afford to fly business class everywhere.
> 
> ...





rdoder said:


> +1
> 
> Recently I took a $10 both-ways bus ride to go on an out-of-town trip. Saw a guy on the bus for the same $10 both-ways bus trip wearing something that looked like a Rolex DateJust with fluted bezel, Cyclops, and jubilee bracelet. Later upon a closer look, I don't think I saw a Rolex logo or the Rolex brand. It didn't even say Steinhart. It probably was a non-branded copy watch, which correlates well with a $10 bus trip.
> 
> ...


He does have one good point.... This forum gets me sex with ALL the girls 

They're all like, "Do me, watch man!"


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

cedargrove said:


> Get real!
> 
> Affording a mid-level luxury watch like Rolex, or any of the other numerous mid-level brands, doesn't mean one can/should also afford to fly business class everywhere.
> 
> ...


I guess the point is, prestige watches match the image of people the best when they truly have more money than they know what to do with, e.g. oil sheikhs, so they burn money on everything, like watches, mode of transportation like luxury cars, fancy dining, huge mansions, etc. One good example is probably Veda, if he is truly what he appeared to be. A prestige watch does not match the image of people who need to save money on for example mode of transportation like regular car or public transit, regular dining or cooking for oneself, regular home or renting, etc. For sure everyone is free to burn money on one thing but not the others, regardless of amount of wealth. To each their own.


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

Despite the amount of stupidity, this thread has not yet reached the scale of any "Grand Seiko vs. World" thread.

We should try harder 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Watchdudeman said:


> Omega are great watches but not the same quality as rolex... when I compare the bracelets and case feel of my rolexes vs omega you can feel the quality difference clearly...
> 
> ...


I too own both and the difference in quality is far from clear or obvious to me. What aspects of the "feel" should I be looking for? Weight? Smoothness of finish? Use a 10x loupe or the naked eye?


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Oh man, just when you think you've seen it all.
I think people are confusing Rolex\Omega with some $400K+ supercomplications. 
One can afford a $10K watch and still fly economy. Seriously, the quality of comments is plunging at exponential rate.

PS. I wear expensive watches and routinely take mass transit - because in NYC it can take 2 hrs to drive 2 miles, while a subway train gets you anywhere in 10 mins. I routinely fly economy - because 1) I fly for work a lot and company policy dictates economy tickets, 2) I don't care about business\1st class, especially since all the classes get the same treatment as prison inmates when going through TSA or being delayed for 5 hrs on the runway. I routinely cook at home - because I love to cook. Lets stop with "assumptions" folks, especially dumb assumptions.


----------



## Micro (Apr 20, 2016)

Prestige wise, Rolex has Omega beat. Hands down. IMHO, Rolex represents quality in full in-house designs. Not always original, but some of the best built watches on the market at a reasonable luxury price. While, I still picture the Omega's as a poor man's Rolex, remembering the Omega commercials of old.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

mleok said:


> *If yankeexpress won a Rolex in a sailing competition, I would have no issue with him lording it over all of us, after all, it would be his accomplishment that he is justifiably proud of. *But it quite another thing to justify being a ..... about something based on their accomplishments of others, even if they happen to be a close blood relation.


I agree in theory but how many times can you parade your pride before it becomes tiresome? After a couple of times, give it a rest, already.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Ticonderoga said:


> No matter how you slice it, nothing says "poser" more than a guy wearing a Rolex while flying coach.
> 
> If you can't afford Business or 1st, you probably have bigger financial worries than a watch worth 3 months salary.
> 
> Of course, unless you "won" it LOL.


Nahhh. It all depends on how one chooses to spend one's money. Financial priorities and all that...


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Seaswirl said:


> What??? This thread has officially jumped the shark.


Huh, it took longer than usual. Threads like this usually go off the rail much sooner...


----------



## Token19 (May 20, 2016)

rdoder said:


> +1
> 
> Recently I took a $10 both-ways bus ride to go on an out-of-town trip. Saw a guy on the bus for the same $10 both-ways bus trip wearing something that looked like a Rolex DateJust with fluted bezel, Cyclops, and jubilee bracelet. Later upon a closer look, I don't think I saw a Rolex logo or the Rolex brand. It didn't even say Steinhart. It probably was a non-branded copy watch, which correlates well with a $10 bus trip.
> 
> ...


I don't think it's weird at all to wear a Rolex while flying coach. First of all Rolex is a mid-luxury level watch, it's not like we're talking about Greubel Forsey here. Second, a lot of rich people are rich because they're smart with their money, and flying coach instead of business / first-class represents huge cost savings. By your logic, anyone who's rich enough to buy a Rolex should never step foot into a Costco, Target, Walmart, etc.


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

BigSeikoFan said:


> I too own both and the difference in quality is far from clear or obvious to me. What aspects of the "feel" should I be looking for? Weight? Smoothness of finish? Use a 10x loupe or the naked eye?


Come on can't you see it and feel it, seriously I am there w you my Exp II bracelet wears good, so does the Omega PO and so does the GS. Not sure exactly what that feel thing is aside maybe the ratcheting clasps which none of my watches aside from MM300 have

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Well, we've got the Bernie Sanders of threads. From Ivy League educated international sailing champions to bus riding and coach flying proletarians all hating Rolex. None of these comments have been responsive to the OP or about the watches themselves, but fascinating nonetheless. Who knew it was okay to fly coach with a $12k Omega DSOTM, but not with a $5k Rolex Oyster Perpetual??? Tough to keep up with all these rules of etiquette... especially when based on stupidity.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

No need for people to call others names like "stupid", "dumb", etc. Just make one's points and be a gentleman, no need to get personal. (Is this troll enough?)

Everyone has different view points. To each their own. I guess the way I look at it sometimes is, if we look at watches more objectively, watches are unimportant, unnecessary things, given that people use cell phones a lot. To spend a lot on an unnecessary thing might suggest that one has a lot of money to burn. To be truly rational about watches, one should not spend a large proportion of one's wealth on these unnecessary things. The outlook could be something like, a $10k watch is to a wealthy person as a $10 watch is to a regular person. When one buys a prestige watch, one should have enough money to comfortably afford it. Otherwise, to need to stretch one's finances for it, is a bit of reaching beyond one's station, and not a good way to spend money. Sure, you could sell it to recover the money a bit, but from my understanding, there is still some loss of money. The attitude when buying a watch could be, this cost so little!, relative to one's wealth, because one could argue they are objectively unimportant, unnecessary things, if one has a cell phone. To each their own thinking.

Sometimes I do think that prestige watches are for people who have the money to be prestigious about. Sure, everyone else is free to buy them, but the look is a bit off when one wears a prestige watch to for example the food bank to get free food, to bring the example to an extreme. You know what I mean?

"Seriously? This guy is so stupid!"


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Watch Fan in Beijing said:


> Atleast he stopped name dropping about the ivy league schools he and/or his family have attended.
> 
> What a total bore. Zzzzzzzz


Well, my nephews attended (or are attending) Yale, Harvard, Yale and Dartmouth.

My five nieces all went to Wellesley or Dartmouth.

Notice how I didn't say where my kids or I went...? :-d


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

rdoder said:


> Everyone has different view points. To each their own. I guess the way I look at it sometimes is, if we look at watches more objectively, watches are unimportant, unnecessary things, given that people use cell phones a lot. To spend a lot on an unnecessary thing might suggest that one has a lot of money to burn.* To be truly rational about watches, one should not spend a large proportion of one's wealth on these unnecessary things. *The outlook could be something like, a $10k watch is to a wealthy person as a $10 watch is to a regular person.


There's your mistake right there; where does it say this hobby is (or should be) rational??



> When one buys a prestige watch, one should have enough money to comfortably afford it. Otherwise, *to need to stretch one's finances for it, is a bit of reaching beyond one's station,* and not a good way to spend money. Sure, you could sell it to recover the money a bit, but from my understanding, there is still some loss of money. The attitude when buying a watch could be, this cost so little!, relative to one's wealth, because one could argue they are objectively unimportant, unnecessary things, if one has a cell phone. To each their own thinking.


Wow. Shades of Downton Abbey...!


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Rallyfan13 said:


> Fortunately for Ω their reputation doesn't entirely depend on their "fans" here because the lengthy diatribes and posturing haven't made a single convincing argument that Ω is level or higher than Rolex.
> 
> Way to lose credibility guys.


Conversely, I haven't seen a convincing argument that Rolex is demonstrably better either.

Can you point me to those convincing arguments?


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

BigSeikoFan said:


> There's your mistake right there; where does it say this hobby is (or should be) rational??
> 
> Wow. Shades of Downton Abbey...!


It's true though, right? e.g. I recall someone who I knew from the past who is from a regular family who worked a regular job but drive a prestige car. Sure, anyone could do that, but that is why many people live pay cheque to pay cheque, are in debt, and have no savings. To me, to feed one's desires rather than one's necessities, just doesn't make sense. To each their own.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

A luxury item is indeed an indulgence, but for those of us without unlimited means but some sense of fiscal responsibility, we have to choose what specifically to indulge in. I am an academic, and I travel regularly to international conferences, and this travel is either paid by the conference organizers, or out of my federal grants. In either case, this only reimburses travel in economy class. If I paid for business class out of pocket, I would be able to buy several Rolexes with the additional fare I would pay over the course of a year, and that doesn't make fiscal sense to me. I might feel differently when I have a Dufour or a Patek perpetual calendar.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

rdoder said:


> It's true though, right? e.g. I recall someone who I knew from the past who is from a regular family who worked a regular job but drive a prestige car. Sure, anyone could do that, but that is why many people live pay cheque to pay cheque, are in debt, and have no savings. To me, *to feed one's desires rather than one's necessities,* just doesn't make sense. To each their own.


Assuming facts not in evidence, counselor. They are not mutually exclusive; we do not live in a binary world and resources are not allocated in a all-or-nothing fashion.

But if one chooses to think along those lines because it simplifies life, then have at it. It's a free country.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Well, my nephews attended (or are attending) Yale, Harvard, Yale and Dartmouth.
> 
> My five nieces all went to Wellesley or Dartmouth.
> 
> Notice how I didn't say where my kids or I went...? :-d


My wife went to a state-run historically black college and university. She's the general counsel for her company's foundation affiliate.
My sister-in-law went to the same HBCU. She's an information technology executive at a health insurer.
My mother-in-law also went to that HBCU. She just stepped down as chair of her state's health agency board. 
My father-in-law also went to that HBCU. He was the former principal of one of the nation's most-famous high schools.

What I am getting to -- and you have essentially pointed out -- is that going to an Ivy doesn't mean you won't end up in the same places as those who didn't. And many of those folks will surpass those Ivy Leaguers.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Vlance said:


> He does have one good point.... This forum gets me sex with ALL the girls
> 
> They're all like, "Do me, watch man!"


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Assuming facts not in evidence, counselor. They are not mutually exclusive; we do not live in a binary world and resources are not allocated in a all-or-nothing fashion.
> 
> But if one chooses to think along those lines because it simplifies life, then have at it. It's a free country.


Simply put, it's a question of priorities.


----------



## Pun (Sep 2, 2015)

rdoder said:


> BigSeikoFan said:
> 
> 
> > There's your mistake right there; where does it say this hobby is (or should be) rational??
> ...


Sir with all due respect and without meaning any offense, I am constrainted to say that your verbosity is exemplary. I may be wrong but in many threads concerning Rolex your many arguments looked like as if they were made just for arguments' sake only; howsoever hard you tried to justify them.


----------



## lmleveille (Jun 6, 2016)

JamesGu208 said:


> But what about GS? If we're going to compare Rolex and Omega, we need to include Grand Seiko in the conversation as well...
> 
> (I'm just kidding btw)
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hahaha. This is something that I don't understand but for sure, everybody has a different taste.

Envoyé de mon LG-H812 en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


>


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Sevenmack said:


> My wife went to a state-run historically black college and university. She's the general counsel for her company's foundation affiliate.
> My sister-in-law went to the same HBCU. She's an information technology executive at a health insurer.
> My mother-in-law also went to that HBCU. She just stepped down as chair of her state's health agency board.
> My father-in-law also went to that HBCU. He was the former principal of one of the nation's most-famous high schools.
> ...


Dude! You married very very well!

How did you get her to say "yes"? :-d


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Dude! You married very very well!
> 
> How did you get her to say "yes"? :-d


It starts by being successful yourself. Success attracts success and the privileges accumulate thereafter.


----------



## HoroloRobert (May 15, 2016)

Gentlemen, we are severely off-topic. Interesting discussion, but a little off-topic. So to try to recover a little the title of the thread: what makes a Rolex good"?, how to define "good"?. Is it the intangible brand value built over long time marketing?. Is there something truly objectively better at Rolex?.
Some "facts" that I am aware:
Rolex uses a little special steel alloy, harder than the "industry standard" and less susceptible to corrosion. Omega uses the "regular" alloy.
All Rolex are COSC certified. For Omega not all are certified (but in this regard even all Brietlings are certified).
Rolex even makes the cases. Omega I don't know?.
Omega uses, for better or not, but at least is good marketing, the famous co-axial escapement, for Omega, nobody really cares 
Omega has the 15000 Gauss resistance, Rolex only 1000, but nobody really cares.
Omega has the new METAS certification, Rolex "only" some internal "certification", for me at least for me is VERY nice to have. 
Rolex, to my understanding, has very few or none transparent back-cases, while Omega has so many models and with decorated movements.
Rolex designs are associated with "classic" and change very little over time. Omega designs are a little more dynamic over the years and Omega identity is mostly associated with Planet Ocean, which look "too" sport compared to a Rolex.
About the after sales and purchase experience in Rolex I don't know, but for Omega the purchase experience is quite non-remarkable, at least in my country AD.
Finally, I think Rolex made a very good marketing during the 60s and 70s, which helped establish it as a "luxury" brand in the common mind, opposed to Omega that has relatively shorter time doing clever product positioning.
But, alas, in China the most sought watch brand is Omega, or Rolex.

When I showed my AT to some colleagues at a lunch, some told me "for that price, why not a Tag?" Or "Did you see the Brietlings?", so, "good" or "nice" are often used interchangeably.

So,in my opinion Rolex is perceived as "better" mostly because of word it mouth, while Omega has not reached that status -yet.
Omega needs to continue trying to be more independent from Swatch group to be able to sell is the idea of "better" watch maker able to control every aspect of the production chain, as Rolex is perceived. 

That's my two cents to this thread 


Sent via Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

The fact that Rolex owners feel threatened by the notion of the original topic is telling.


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

oak1971 said:


> The fact that Rolex owners feel threatened by the notion of the original topic is telling.


Have they posted a "will Rolex ever be as good as Ω" thread?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

HoroloRobert said:


> Gentlemen, we are severely off-topic. Interesting discussion, but a little off-topic. So to try to recover a little the title of the thread: what makes a Rolex good"?, *how to define "good"*?
> 
> Sent via Tapatalk


We can't agree (it seems from past attempts) so it leads to these kinds of threads, as interesting/or not as they may be . . .


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

HoroloRobert said:


> Gentlemen, we are severely off-topic. Interesting discussion, but a little off-topic. So to try to recover a little the title of the thread: what makes a Rolex good"?, how to define "good"?


That's how threads work. Occasionally, we try to get back to topic, especially as a rhetorical tactic to stop others from trying to rephrase and refashion the initial question at hand. But that rarely works, humans being sentient beings and whatnot.


----------



## Maiden (Sep 19, 2014)

Grab one Omega one Rolex of comparable style and price. Handle each, inspect each, the answer is obvious.


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

BigSeikoFan said:


> I too own both and the difference in quality is far from clear or obvious to me. What aspects of the "feel" should I be looking for? Weight? Smoothness of finish? Use a 10x loupe or the naked eye?


Tbf My daughter has a speed master professional which we bought her for her sixteenth birthday. The bracelet is lighter and feels less substantial and rugged than my rolexes or even tudor watches (I wear it occasionally on its nato so I don't know how it feels on the bracelet)I love both brands ....but I admit I don't have a huge amount of omega experience bar trying other models on but I'd say the difference while not huge is noticable


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

HoroloRobert said:


> Gentlemen, we are severely off-topic. Interesting discussion, but a little off-topic. So to try to recover a little the title of the thread: what makes a Rolex good"?, how to define "good"?
> 
> Sent via Tapatalk


The problem is not that we are off-topic, the problem is that topic is meaningless. As you said - how does one define good?
Will Sushi ever be as good as Steak? Will winter ever be as good as summer?

There were ways of asking a different question that could be reasonable, but that was not the case here.
Which brand sells more watches? Which specific watch (not brand) has highest resale value? Which 2 specific watches have better WR, accuracy variation, scratch resistance?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Maiden said:


> Grab one Omega one Rolex of comparable style and price. Handle each, inspect each, the answer is obvious.


yes, they're both quality, nice watches . . .


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

EnderW said:


> There were ways of asking a different question that could be reasonable, but that was not the case here.
> Which brand sells more watches? Which specific watch (not brand) has highest resale value? Which 2 specific watches have better WR, accuracy variation, scratch resistance?


The first one is easily answerable: Rolex by a mere 60,000 watches (780,000 versus 720,000 for Omega). The second one becomes harder to answer, and honestly, is more-interesting to collectors (who flip watches like crazy) than to anyone else.

The last ones are more-interesting and could end up being very interesting threads, especially as fanboys from each side offer dueling stats and "requirements" issued by the brands that aren't independently verified by some observatory or other organization. Which would then get into some discussion about the 1968 Neuchatel time trials and the birth of COSC decades later.

Of course, we did this last week with the Grand Seiko thread.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Assuming facts not in evidence, counselor. They are not mutually exclusive; we do not live in a binary world and resources are not allocated in a all-or-nothing fashion.
> 
> But if one chooses to think along those lines because it simplifies life, then have at it. It's a free country.





Bhakt said:


> Sir with all due respect and without meaning any offense, I am constrainted to say that your verbosity is exemplary. I may be wrong but in many threads concerning Rolex your many arguments looked like as if they were made just for arguments' sake only; howsoever hard you tried to justify them.


It's true, what I think is over-simplified, and what I write is just for fun.

Here's one idea that I had: a prestige car or prestige watch for a regular person might be the tip of the iceberg in terms of prestige-type spending, or maybe not. It depends on the person for sure. I just think that if I start crazy spending on watches, then I might be tempted to crazy spend on something else, or crazy spend for more pricey watches, slippery slope and all that, but that's just me. For sure it's possible to spend a lot on one thing only and have priorities such that one is fiscally responsible. Everyone is different, to each their own.

As far as I know, there's no watch forum rule that says viewpoints need to be irrational or absolutely-pro-watch-buying, and people must never think critically about beloved watch brands.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

drhr said:


> yes, they're both quality, nice watches . . .


Which leads to the only question that matters: What's your preference. Of course, there are questions about finishing and tolerances, objecive matters about which Dinman can discuss at length. But that won't convince the fanboys on either side anyway.


----------



## Legion681 (Sep 1, 2012)

rdoder said:


> +1
> 
> Recently I took a $10 both-ways bus ride to go on an out-of-town trip. Saw a guy on the bus for the same $10 both-ways bus trip wearing something that looked like a Rolex DateJust with fluted bezel, Cyclops, and jubilee bracelet. Later upon a closer look, I don't think I saw a Rolex logo or the Rolex brand. It didn't even say Steinhart. It probably was a non-branded copy watch, which correlates well with a $10 bus trip.
> 
> ...


If this post is serious, this way of thinking might be a disease that is spreading...


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

oak1971 said:


> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?


Are angels bosons or fermions?


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

depends


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

oak1971 said:


> depends


On whether they're being frisky or anti-social?


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Watchdudeman said:


> ...The bracelet is lighter and feels less substantial and rugged than my rolexes or even tudor watches (I wear it occasionally on its nato so I don't know how it feels on the bracelet...


That's not really a great way to judge "quality" or "better" though. Especially without accounting for the design and materials used. Weight serves as a proxy for high quality for a lot of people, but in some cases it's a psychological thing.

"Lighter and less substantial" could just mean heavier and thicker in design. There are people who can't/won't wear titanium watches because they're so light, regardless of how well built they are, because they can't get past the "it's light, therefore it's cheap or poorly made" psychology.

I'll admit, that heft can be an indicator (comparing hollow versus solid links on otherwise similar bracelets, for instance) but it's just one small piece of evaluating things.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

dbostedo said:


> That's not really a great way to judge "quality" or "better" though. Especially without accounting for the design and materials used. Weight serves as a proxy for high quality for a lot of people, but in some cases it's a psychological thing.
> 
> "Lighter and less substantial" could just mean heavier and thicker in design. There are people who can't/won't wear titanium watches because they're so light, regardless of how well built they are, because they can't get past the "it's light, therefore it's cheap or poorly made" psychology.
> 
> I'll admit, that heft can be an indicator (comparing hollow versus solid links on otherwise similar bracelets, for instance) but it's just one small piece of evaluating things.


Okay, well, then the speedmaster bracelet is more flimsy and rattly than the Rolex bracelet. Since the Rolex bracelet is neither of those, it suggests to me that it is better engineered and to tighter tolerances.

But does that even make it better??

You'll probably still get people saying, "well, I prefer it loose and Rattly".


----------



## Tyrantblade (Jan 18, 2016)

Omega was more towards "entry level luxury" (with modified ETA movements) they decided to do in-house movements on their whole range of watches (AFAIK), so they could move up market and charge more.

Some like this move, others don't.

Im not big on in-house movements.


----------



## I Like em BIG ! ! (Feb 10, 2012)

rdoder said:


> One trollish-inflammatiry-but-true idea: pretige watches are not as much about the quality of the watch or quality of service as it is about the person. The way prestige watch works is that others in the general public see the watch, and then they are able to make some assumptions about this person. E.g. that person is rich-successful-capable-intelligent-desirable-etc. High quality of watch and high quality of service justify high price, but it's high price and recognizability that make a prestige watch. When the general public sees a prestige watch, the first thought is not high quality watch or high quality service. The first thought is, wow, pricey watch, that person must be rich. For women genetically programmed to look for a good provider, or genes from a partner that shows capability of success, prestige watch makes one attractive as a sex or long-term partner. Almost all men are genetically programmed to want to get laid. (Those who are not do not pass on their genes.) The pricier the watch, the more sexual interest one gets. Omega and GS just do not generate as much sexual interest as Rolex. But then it's not about the man, it's about the money. A watch company makes a prestige watch, they could get tons of money. More sex for watch executives!
> 
> To troll some more, George Clooney does not need a Rolex to attract women, an Omega or no watch or no money works just fine. He's just hot, no watch or money required, though money of course adds to the hotness.


Darwinism at work, right here on our little forum.



PhantomThief said:


> I really don't see what problem you could have with this.
> 
> George Clooney is uncategorically hot.


All of these and similar posts..., I think I need a cigarette...

I've been going to all the wrong Web sites and getting all these nasty viruses, when I could've just logged on here.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Off topic but since I am here and I am too lazy to start a new thread and all the Rolex and Omega cheerleaders are here in one thread....

Rolex Explorer fat hands or Omega Speedmaster CK 2998?

I already have a deposit on the Rolex but I am tempted to switch that deposit over to the Speedmaster. And no both isn't an option. Lol. Besides, in a loaded Omega vs Rolex thread like this, it's only fitting that there is a winner.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Off topic but since I am here and I am too lazy to start a new thread and all the Rolex and Omega cheerleaders are here in one thread....
> 
> Rolex Explorer fat hands or Omega Speedmaster CK 2998?
> 
> I already have a deposit on the Rolex but I am tempted to switch that deposit over to the Speedmaster. And no both isn't an option. Lol. Besides, in a loaded Omega vs Rolex thread like this, it's only fitting that there is a winner.


I that particular case? Omega all day every day, and twice on Sunday.

If it had been a standard Speedy, I'd have said neither.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

dbostedo said:


> Tomatoes11 said:
> 
> 
> > Off topic but since I am here and I am too lazy to start a new thread and all the Rolex and Omega cheerleaders are here in one thread....
> ...


Yes in that case, I think I can rock the blue panda quite well. The only two I would even entertain is that one or the FOIS. No scratch magnet hesalite for me no matter how iconic it is.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Off topic but since I am here and I am too lazy to start a new thread and all the Rolex and Omega cheerleaders are here in one thread....
> 
> Rolex Explorer fat hands or Omega Speedmaster CK 2998?
> 
> I already have a deposit on the Rolex but I am tempted to switch that deposit over to the Speedmaster. And no both isn't an option. Lol. Besides, in a loaded Omega vs Rolex thread like this, it's only fitting that there is a winner.


Only one choice for me if those 2 and it's not the Omega . . .


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Off topic but since I am here and I am too lazy to start a new thread and all the Rolex and Omega cheerleaders are here in one thread....
> 
> Rolex Explorer fat hands or Omega Speedmaster CK 2998?
> 
> I already have a deposit on the Rolex but I am tempted to switch that deposit over to the Speedmaster. And no both isn't an option. Lol. Besides, in a loaded Omega vs Rolex thread like this, it's only fitting that there is a winner.


Speedy for me. But I am a huge fan of chronographs and contrasting panda dials


----------



## pyiyha (Aug 9, 2006)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Off topic but since I am here and I am too lazy to start a new thread and all the Rolex and Omega cheerleaders are here in one thread....
> 
> Rolex Explorer fat hands or Omega Speedmaster CK 2998?
> 
> I already have a deposit on the Rolex but I am tempted to switch that deposit over to the Speedmaster. And no both isn't an option. Lol. Besides, in a loaded Omega vs Rolex thread like this, it's only fitting that there is a winner.


With the above two, I would go with Speedy.
Now, if we are talking about older Explorer II, I would go with the Explorer polar.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Off topic but since I am here and I am too lazy to start a new thread and all the Rolex and Omega cheerleaders are here in one thread....
> 
> Rolex Explorer fat hands or Omega Speedmaster CK 2998?
> 
> I already have a deposit on the Rolex but I am tempted to switch that deposit over to the Speedmaster. And no both isn't an option. Lol. Besides, in a loaded Omega vs Rolex thread like this, it's only fitting that there is a winner.


Forget them both. Go for the North Flag.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Sevenmack said:


> Forget them both. Go for the North Flag.
> View attachment 8353978


I like the modern styling of the Northflag but I prefer no date and no power reserve.


----------



## BusyTimmy (Jul 24, 2009)

I think most modern Omegas are way too big/thick. It's such a turnoff... Doesn't matter how good the movement is IMO


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

BusyTimmy said:


> I think most modern Omegas are way too big/thick. It's such a turnoff... Doesn't matter how good the movement is IMO


The annoying thing is that this has nothing to do with the thickness of the 8500 calibre, which is 5.5mm vs. the 6mm of the Rolex 3135. So, the thickness of modern Omegas seem to be more an issue of design choices like the display caseback, and the excessive water resistance.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Off topic but since I am here and I am too lazy to start a new thread and all the Rolex and Omega cheerleaders are here in one thread....
> 
> Rolex Explorer fat hands or Omega Speedmaster CK 2998?
> 
> I already have a deposit on the Rolex but I am tempted to switch that deposit over to the Speedmaster. And no both isn't an option. Lol. Besides, in a loaded Omega vs Rolex thread like this, it's only fitting that there is a winner.


I'd probably go with the CK, but I'd swap out the strap for a different color. I don't think I could pull off blue leather.


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

Own watches from both brands and this thought never across my mind. Reading posts, there are a lot of narrow minded generalization and forget that many on this forum are their watch hobby brothers. Sad.


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

BusyTimmy said:


> I think most modern Omegas are way too big/thick. It's such a turnoff... Doesn't matter how good the movement is IMO


Agree with you on the PO line, but that's about it. The Aqua Terra, Speedy, etc. are all fine.

I went to an Omega Boutique inside Lotte Duty Free this weekend and was surprised at how thick even the 42mm planet ocean was. It looked ridiculous.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

WatchingYou77 said:


> Agree with you on the PO line, but that's about it. The Aqua Terra, Speedy, etc. are all fine.
> 
> I went to an Omega Boutique inside Lotte Duty Free this weekend and was surprised at how thick even the 42mm planet ocean was. It looked ridiculous.


Yea, way too thick compared to its diameter. I really don't understand the proportion logic on most of their pieces.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

deleted


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

rdoder said:


> blah, blah, blah...


Or maybe people prefer nice things to rubbish and don't need a huge salary to tell the difference?


----------



## publandlord (Aug 15, 2006)

Speedy these daisy - from 41.5-44.5mm, 16-17 thick. Also huge. But that's to suit a certain market.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

It all comes down to which watch you like the most, if it comes down to cost and you simply couldn't afford the Rolex model then I don't really see where you can argue the points mentioned. 

The of reason for this is both Rolex & Omega make different style watches meaning if you went for the cheaper option your are buying a watch purely on name basis alone & not for the love of the watch. 

You then also have some Rolex owners that know they over paid & for some it's a big Financial commitment and they need to justify their choice. 

If you are turely happy with the watch you brought there's no need to justify the choice in pointless threads like these. 

I don't like any Rolex designs bar the Sub, but frankly I feel while it's a classic design other watches have done the style better, i even think the original designs better, I like a date but don't like the Cyclops, I don't like the maxi case or Mercedes hands and feel the bezel to watch face is out of proportion. I could go for a sea dweller but it's to thick which is also the planet oceans issue for me. 

Why has the joy of owning a watch been bought down to a company logo, no one talks anymore about the styling of watches and what's important to them, instead they build a wall and talk as if they own every model the company's even made. 

quailty wise ive owned both, I admit I've not owned a Rolex for sometime but respected both for the quality. So to answer the original question of will Omega ever be as good as Rolex, in terms of raw brand recognition the answer is no, in terms of build quality both have attributes, from the display back and great case designs Omega make to the simple raw I don't need to show off Rolex cases, time proven Rolex movements next to the Co-axial omega.

just pick the watch you like most, in most cases it won't include either Rolex of Omega.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

Sevenmack said:


> Forget them both. Go for the North Flag.
> View attachment 8353978


im not keen on power reserve indicators, I don't need reminding I've had a lazy day.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

WatchingYou77 said:


> Agree with you on the PO line, but that's about it. The Aqua Terra, Speedy, etc. are all fine.
> 
> I went to an Omega Boutique inside Lotte Duty Free this weekend and was surprised at how thick even the 42mm planet ocean was. It looked ridiculous.


The Speedy 9300 is pretty darn thick at 16mm.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Vlance said:


> Yea, way too thick compared to its diameter. I really don't understand the proportion logic on most of their pieces.


As I mentioned before, on another thread, the POs are thicker proportionately than a hockey puck.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

mleok said:


> As I mentioned before, on another thread, the POs are thicker proportionately than a hockey puck.


Haha, I actually do remember that.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

JamesGu208 said:


> But what about GS? If we're going to compare Rolex and Omega, we need to include Grand Seiko in the conversation as well...
> 
> (I'm just kidding btw)
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Loool nice one.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

All Omega needed to do to win my heart was to reissue the pie pan Constellation with a modern co-axial movement. I know the Globemaster comes close, but that fluted bezel just reminds me too much of the Datejust. For me, a dress watch should have at most one element of whimsy, on a Calatrava, it would be the hobnail bezel, and on the Constellation, it would be pie pan dial itself. Pairing a pie pan dial with the fluted bezel pushes it over the edge for me.


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

Richerson said:


> The of reason for this is both Rolex & Omega make different style watches meaning if you went for the cheaper option your are buying a watch purely on name basis alone & not for the love of the watch.
> 
> You then also have some Rolex owners that know they over paid & for some it's a big Financial commitment and they need to justify their choice.
> 
> ...


Hahaha, yes we discuss about that too. There are lots "homage" thread that comes every so often LOL.


----------



## Orex (Jul 17, 2012)

WatchingYou77 said:


> BusyTimmy said:
> 
> 
> > I think most modern Omegas are way too big/thick. It's such a turnoff... Doesn't matter how good the movement is IMO
> ...


I find the mid size AT still too thick. Stopped shopping at Omega for a sport watch because of it.


----------



## GlennO (Jan 3, 2010)

Orex said:


> I find the mid size AT still too thick. Stopped shopping at Omega for a sport watch because of it.


Once or twice I've thought about trading in my 2500 series AT. I'm glad I haven't.


----------



## auspuffturbolader (Dec 25, 2010)

Domed sapphire crystals? AR coating? Silicon Hairsprings? Anti magnetic movments? Pushers that can be used underwater? Rolex needs to join the rest of us in the 21st century.


----------



## mlacer (Apr 2, 2011)

After seeing this watch and finding out it's real, my answer is........yes.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

mlacer said:


> After seeing this watch and finding out it's real, my answer is........yes.
> 
> [iurl="https://www.watchuseek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8356258&d=1465272111"]
> 
> ...


Lol I would rock that if I was the owner of all the Domino Pizza chains. I would be too rich to care what was on my dial.


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

Mr Rolex, until you haven't upgraded your watches to 3255 movement, transparent back covers and AR coated crystals - please don't call me


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)




----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

Token19 said:


> I don't think it's weird at all to wear a Rolex while flying coach. First of all Rolex is a mid-luxury level watch, it's not like we're talking about Greubel Forsey here. Second, a lot of rich people are rich because they're smart with their money, and flying coach instead of business / first-class represents huge cost savings. By your logic, anyone who's rich enough to buy a Rolex should never step foot into a Costco, Target, Walmart, etc.


This. I can't speak for how it is in the USA, but in Hong Kong, Rolex is like the proverbial "Texas Timex". People buy a Rolex because it's perceived as good value for the buck and Hong Kongers are for the most part, fairly practical folks. You see Subs, datejusts, all the time on the subway and the bus. I've seen them on young kids, clerks, salespeople and the restaurant head waiter/waitress. Just too common.

If you're really trying to show off the money - it's got to be an AP or a PP. That's serious stuff. Now that would make my head turn in seeing in coach class on a plane. Not some plain jane datejust. Okay, if we're talking Rolex in more detail, maybe a Daytona or a President does seem to imply the owner has serious cash, but everyone here is making general statements about Rolex. Any Rolex.

Equating ownership of a common Datejust or even a Sub as big stuff, type A personality, king of the world is total nonsense. Anybody who lives in a city that has a lot of showy wealth knows this. As much as I dislike bringing up Veda because he was a total blowhard, he made that same point - and he was right on the money.


----------



## MDKane (Dec 12, 2014)

Im pretty sure the op was being sarcastic with the question.


----------



## publandlord (Aug 15, 2006)

Alex_TA said:


> Mr Rolex, until you haven't upgraded your watches to 3255 movement, transparent back covers and AR coated crystals - please don't call me


It's funny how Omeega has made display backs on sport watches _de rigueur_. Personally I find them pointless. You have to wonder who's "showing off" with what...!


----------



## publandlord (Aug 15, 2006)

mleok said:


> The annoying thing is that this has nothing to do with the thickness of the 8500 calibre, which is 5.5mm vs. the 6mm of the Rolex 3135. So, the thickness of modern Omegas seem to be more an issue of design choices like the display caseback, and the excessive water resistance.


Except that other brands wallop Omega for WR and need smaller cases to do it. Omega's cases are big and fat because their buyers like them that way, so they go clunk... clunk... clunk with their heavy sport-watch-that-isn't-a-Rolex on the boardroom table. Let's not forget, the size and sheer bling vs Rolex is a deliberate move to attract a certain buyer.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

oak1971 said:


> Or maybe people prefer nice things to rubbish and don't need a huge salary to tell the difference?


The questions could be, why do people want nice things, and why are nice things considered nice things?

The curves of lugs and side case profile are like the curves of legs and buttocks.

Good finish is like blemish-free, beautiful skin.

High price is like a desirable woman who is hard to get.

Dial symmetry is like the beauty of a symmetrical face.

We know what a tight fit is good for!

Why is what is nice considered nice? What does high quality mean? I think it comes back to human nature. Seeing this, one could see the genetic strings attached to oneself, and see the strings played by watch companies (or any other type of company or individual person out to make money, basically in a way out to out-survive you). We are all puppets, driven by desires, but one could choose to not be played by oneself and others. One could choose to play with oneself in a more masterful way! ;-)

It is natural to like pleasure and desire pleasure. Yes, one does not need a huge salary to appreciate quality. I think about whether it makes sense or not to spend a certain way, given my limited resources. It's economics. To each their own.

In terms of thinking about the prevalence of certain watches somewhere, I think just because everyone else does it, doesn't mean that one should do it too. One should judge for oneself.

As for whether something is a disease or not, it depends on the perspective. One who does not want to see and be cured might see a cure as a disease. I see no harm in questioning and examining oneself.

We are physical creatures preoccupied with physical things. These things appear unchanging, but everything are changing all the time. The self changes, the watch changes. They age, rust, become inaccurate, etc. Everything are changing arrangements of atoms in time and space. A watch that was once desired after awhile is no longer desired. That's interesting. One could pay a lot for some things (self's desires, the watches) that change, while money paid is used by others to buy other things that also do not last (self's desires, other things). Everyone go around and around, grasping at air.


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

publandlord said:


> It's funny how Omeega has made display backs on sport watches _de rigueur_. Personally I find them pointless. You have to wonder who's "showing off" with what...!


I just wear my Omeeeega reverse side up!




publandlord said:


> Omega's cases are big and fat because their buyers like them that way, so they go clunk... clunk... clunk with their heavy sport-watch-that-isn't-a-Rolex on the boardroom table. Let's not forget, the size and sheer bling vs Rolex is a deliberate move to attract a certain buyer.


Well I'm the other kind of buyer. Going clunk... clunk from [email protected] to the courtroom.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Watch Fan in Beijing said:


> Equating ownership of a common Datejust or even a Sub as big stuff, type A personality, king of the world is total nonsense.


It's not nonsense; it's classic cognitive dissonance mixed with martyr complex.

The thing with BS is that rather than as the term suggests, it is usually quite transparent, no matter how high they choose to pile it.


----------



## the.watchdoc (Apr 23, 2015)

drunken monkey said:


> It's not nonsense; it's classic cognitive dissonance mixed with martyr complex.
> 
> The thing with BS is that rather than as the term suggests, it is usually quite transparent, no matter how high they choose to pile it.


Having stepped in BS before, I can very confidently say that it's actually rather opaque.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

PhantomThief said:


> Having stepped in BS before, I can very confidently say that it's actually rather opaque.


One should have the self awareness to understand that simple words are often a means to convey an image rather than what is naturally presented and typically understood by oneself so even if one understands that the presented representation does not necessarily match ones own understanding, that it doesn't mean that an alternative and equally valid representation doesn't also exist that can also be understood to convey, conceptually, the same meaning to one.

Or

"tru dat"


----------



## the.watchdoc (Apr 23, 2015)

Tru dat indeed.

I do find some joy in writing posts of no value in threads of no value. Sometimes, one must appreciate the simple things in life.



drunken monkey said:


> One should have the self awareness to understand that simple words are often a means to convey an image rather than what is naturally presented and typically understood by oneself so even if one understands that the presented representation does not necessarily match ones own understanding, that it doesn't mean that an alternative and equally valid representation doesn't also exist that can also be understood to convey, conceptually, the same meaning to one.
> 
> Or
> 
> "tru dat"


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

auspuffturbolader said:


> Domed sapphire crystals? AR coating? Silicon Hairsprings? Anti magnetic movments? Pushers that can be used underwater? Rolex needs to join the rest of us in the 21st century.


You forgot:

Corrosion resistant metals, Parachrom, Overcoil hairspring, Instantaneous date change, Reasonable case thickness, Clasps with micro adjustments, Easylink extension.

I guess maybe that's why I like both brands.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

cedargrove said:


> You forgot:
> 
> Corrosion resistant metals, Parachrom, Overcoil hairspring, Instantaneous date change, Reasonable case thickness, Clasps with micro adjustments, Easylink extension.
> 
> I guess maybe that's why I like both brands.


how many people have had any stainless steel watch rust, my omega has instantaneous date change & reasonable case thickness.

Then again unlike like many here I don't own every model.

you can't get away from the fact Omega's tec is ahead of Rolex


----------



## arogle1stus (May 23, 2013)

Not until Omega can devise a watch that functioned like the Rolex Pierce Brosnan wore in the film "Die Another Day"
Bond is in the clutches of N Korean baddies. Bond twist the bezel on the Rolex and all hell breaks loose. Allowing Bond
a brief reprieve from incarceration for 14 months.

IMO the diff between Rolex and Omega is apples n oranges. Luv em both!!!

X traindriver Art


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

If a thread has no value or is rather meaningless, one could try to add value or meaning rather than simply criticizing others' attempts at adding value and meaning.

The question "Will Omega ever be as good as Rolex" assumes that Omega and Rolex are good in the first place. I don't know about you, but after having been here for awhile, and see how all of this operates (i.e. watches, watch forum, people), I find myself thinking that good watches are not defined by the brands or the qualities of the watches. Good watches could be defined by good aspects that one could appreciate in a watch. Good watches defined by good intrinsic qualities of the watches are valid too and more obvious, but being attached to that, one is at the mercy of watch companies that come out with ever changing and "better" qualities to entice people to buy.

Experientially, that means that now when I go look at watches (e.g. this past weekend, I looked at some Omegas, Cartiers, etc.), I do find that I feel less desire for them compared to before, whereas when I went to see Seikos, I find myself tempted to buy, but I don't buy of course, I have enough already, I tell myself. So to me, regular Seiko is "better" than Omega or Rolex, if we define "better" as "more desirable", my desire based on criteria that I come up with for myself, not for others or based on what others think. Desire is within oneself, not within the watches.

A watch forum is a 24-hour infomercial, with content created by genuine watch buyers, the best advertising there is (i.e. word-of-mouth from consumers). People talk about which watches are great for whichever reasons, promoting desire and buying. Watch forum is also addictive, because it's fun to socialize, think, read, write, learn, joke around, and maybe compete and one-up each other. The addictiveness keep people coming back. When they do, they buy watches. It's a beautiful marketing platform.


----------



## publandlord (Aug 15, 2006)

Richerson said:


> how many people have had any stainless steel watch rust, my omega has instantaneous date change & reasonable case thickness.


it's probably the only one 

Omega is the Apple of watches - LiquidMetal (tm), ceramic, rubber and so on. High-tech (ignoring that it's still ultimately steampunk!), appeals to people who drink funky coffee, dive-watch-n-flip-flops sort of thing. All Tesla/Prius/BMW, also extremely popular with the Chinese. nothing wrong with that (they know their market), but very different to Rolex, really.


----------



## the.watchdoc (Apr 23, 2015)

Any possible value this thread had has been expressed in the first 5 pages, maybe 10.

Anything since then consists of the same points being repeated ad nauseum. In fact, this very point has probably been made so many times as to be exhausting.

Discussion is fun when it engages and interests with new points of view and information. Not when it's rife with some pseudo-scientific and pseudo-philosophical opinions. None of which address the original question.

No thanks, I'll just be having my fun.



rdoder said:


> If a thread has no value or is rather meaningless, one could try to add value or meaning rather than simply criticizing others' attempts at adding value and meaning.
> 
> The question "Will Omega ever be as good as Rolex" assumes that Omega and Rolex are good in the first place. I don't know about you, but after having been here for awhile, and see how all of this operates (i.e. watches, watch forum, people), I find myself thinking that good watches are not defined by the brands or the qualities of the watches. Good watches could be defined by good aspects that one could appreciate in a watch. Good watches defined by good intrinsic qualities of the watches are valid too and more obvious, but being attached to that, one is at the mercy of watch companies that come out with ever changing and "better" qualities to entice people to buy.
> 
> ...


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

My efforts remind me of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra_(metaphor) Oh well, maybe I'm crazy. To each their own.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

rdoder said:


> The questions could be, why do people want nice things, and why are nice things considered nice things?
> 
> The curves of lugs and side case profile are like the curves of legs and buttocks.
> 
> ...


Well, rdoder isn't wrong at least on this part. The rest? My next meeting calls...


----------



## I Like em BIG ! ! (Feb 10, 2012)

rdoder said:


> The questions could be, why do people want nice things, and why are nice things considered nice things?
> 
> The curves of lugs and side case profile are like the curves of legs and buttocks.
> 
> ...


I think I need a cigarette...


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

rdoder said:


> The questions could be, why do people want nice things, and why are nice things considered nice things?
> 
> The curves of lugs and side case profile are like the curves of legs and buttocks.
> 
> ...


Hmmmm... Let me guess - is your collection all hand-crankers?
Love your watches, just don't "make love to" your watches


----------



## publandlord (Aug 15, 2006)

EnderW said:


> Hmmmm... Let me guess - is your collection all hand-crankers?
> Love your watches, just don't "make love to" your watches


Over on f20, that be fightin' talk


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

I Like em BIG ! ! said:


> I think I need a cigarette...


I wish my wife was working from home today...


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

rdoder said:


> The questions could be, why do people want nice things, and why are nice things considered nice things?
> 
> The curves of lugs and side case profile are like the curves of legs and buttocks.
> 
> ...


Yes we do!


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

I don't know about you but I like mechanical watches because a simple clockwork device satisfies my curiosity with old fashioned craft and artisanal traditions.

As per my current sig. line, the things I find interesting about watches, isn't the stuff you make up about them.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> I don't know about you but I like mechanical watches because a simple clockwork device satisfies my curiosity with old fashioned craft and artisanal traditions.


This is fine. Others like watches, mechanical and otherwise, because they are in many ways, the original nanotechnology, computing time and day and other functions in a small case. Others are fans of watches because they are objects of art and beauty as well as appreciate symmetry in the world around them. Some are collectors because they are pure hoarders.

Doesn't really matter either way. Everyone is entitled to come to this hobby from whatever perspective they want.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

rdoder said:


> The questions could be, why do people want nice things, and why are nice things considered nice things?
> 
> The curves of lugs and side case profile are like the curves of legs and buttocks.
> 
> ...





EnderW said:


> Hmmmm... Let me guess - is your collection all hand-crankers?


My nomination for Best Reply of the Year!


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

rdoder said:


> The questions could be, why do people want nice things, and why are nice things considered nice things?
> 
> The curves of lugs and side case profile are like the curves of legs and buttocks.
> 
> ...


A very Freudian view of the world. Do not make the mistake of extrapolation from your individual motivations and desires to a universal truth.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

drunken monkey said:


> One should have the self awareness to understand that simple words are often a means to convey an image rather than what is naturally presented and typically understood by oneself so even if one understands that the presented representation does not necessarily match ones own understanding, that it doesn't mean that an alternative and equally valid representation doesn't also exist that can also be understood to convey, conceptually, the same meaning to one.


I saw what you did there.


----------



## I Like em BIG ! ! (Feb 10, 2012)

Sevenmack said:


> Yes we do!
> View attachment 8361610


I think I need another cigarette...


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

mleok said:


> A very Freudian view of the world. Do not make the mistake of extrapolation from your individual motivations and desires to a universal truth.


I was just trying to think of why certain qualities are desirable.

Let's try to think of another theory then: high quality seems to correlate with what is considered right or correct. e.g. Timing accuracy is probably the most objective, quantifiable measure of quality. How about other more subjective qualities? How does one judge? What is the right or correct shape? I would say the right or correct shape would be one that appeals to most people. What appeals to most people? Certain things that most people are bound to like. What are things that most people are bound to like? Sex. So sexy, curvy shapes most people are probably bound to like.

e.g. Recently, I was looking at my cheapest watch. The lugs and side case profile looked almost like that of the oyster case, except it's kind of pointy at the ends. Not round enough, looks kind of cheap. Would look better if it's rounder. Why? Something about curves and roundness that I like. Etc. etc. to the sexy stuff. Related read: Breasts in the McDonald's Logo? | Magnetic State

I guess people could like blocky, rectangular watches. I might argue that cars nowadays are for the most part very curvy because curvy is appealing (because underlying that, it's sexy), and most watches are round instead of rectangular because curves are more appealing to most.

My theory was an attempt to objectivize the subjective a bit, by asking why. I was trying to come up with universal truth because if there is some sort of universal truth or at least a good theory, then people would not need to argue in circles and not get anywhere. Understanding the causes help to predict the effects.

If others have other theories, would be interesting to read them.

Maybe another theory is how well an object matches its function would determine what is high quality. Maybe shapes that hug the wrist the best would not stick out and bump into things, so lugs that curve and not stick out are higher quality. This line of thinking is not emotional or intuitive enough though. What is appealing needs to be automatic, without thinking, to reach the emotional level.

Or higher quality is something that takes more work to make. Probably curvy shapes are harder to make than pointy or rectangular shapes. Embryonic development and the growth of the body are probably much harder to do or more complex phenomena than any watchmaking out there. The body has these curvy shapes. Curves are probably the most appealing.


----------



## jlondono77 (Aug 16, 2011)

Wow, not even worth commenting buy I would say Omega is arguably better than Rolex, I certainly like the designs much better.... I guess if you have to ask maybe you need to do some homework in the forums....


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

BigSeikoFan said:


> I saw what you did there.


The important bit, is the bit you omitted.

My former English tutor taught me this, the more words you need/use to convey a simple idea, the more you have failed. I suppose you could say that was an alternate version of the oft cited "that which is understood" quote.

Strip away the manure and you're left with this:

People should only buy things they can afford.
Over-stretching your finances to buy non-essentials is a bad idea.
Peer/social/cultural pressures should be resisted.

Why what do you know, no need for hundreds of words or high-school psychology required.


----------



## adin1978 (Oct 14, 2010)

Having owned both brands I would say no. Omega quality is not on par with Rolex and therefore is in a different class. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

mleok said:


> A very Freudian view of the world. Do not make the mistake of extrapolation from your individual motivations and desires to a universal truth.


Automakers have long produced ads featuring gorgeous women paired up with nice cars. Revolution, the watch magazine, has numerous covers and photo shoots featuring hot women with expensive watches. Your individual motivations for collecting watches may not involve beauty or women. But apparently, marketers and magazine editors have figured out that this does play with other men out there.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

jlondono77; (Florida said:


> Wow, not even worth commenting buy I would say Omega is arguably better than Rolex, I certainly like the designs much better....





adin1978; (Georgia USA) said:


> Having owned both brands I would say no. Omega quality is not on par with Rolex and therefore is in a different class.


Peaches and Oranges....


----------



## Legion681 (Sep 1, 2012)

jlondono77 said:


> Wow, not even worth commenting buy* I would say Omega is arguably better than Rolex*, I certainly like the designs much better.... I guess if you have to ask maybe you need to do some homework in the forums....


Do expand on that, please...


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Sevenmack said:


> Automakers have long produced ads featuring gorgeous women paired up with nice cars. Revolution, the watch magazine, has numerous covers and photo shoots featuring hot women with expensive watches. Your individual motivations for collecting watches may not involve beauty or women. But apparently, marketers and magazine editors have figured out that this does play with other men out there.


Don't conflate images used to sell a watch magazine with images used to sell a watch.
I don't think I've ever seen an advertising image of a woman wearing a Submariner or a Planet Ocean.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> Don't conflate images used to sell a watch magazine with images used to sell a watch.
> I don't think I've ever seen an advertising image of a woman wearing a Submariner or a Planet Ocean.


Apparently, you have never heard of this thing called marketing. One way you market: Lend watch to magazine for photo shoot. This is also known as earned media.

By the way: Speaking of ads for watches (and cars) featuring women:


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Sevenmack said:


> View attachment 8362762
> 
> View attachment 8362738


Photoshopped with the subtlety of 5 pound mallet.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Sevenmack said:


> Apparently, you have never heard of this thing called marketing. One way you market: Lend watch to magazine for photo shoot. This is also known as earned media.
> 
> By the way: Speaking of ads for watches (and cars) featuring women:
> View attachment 8362946


Royal Oak comes in women's sizes too.
Let me know when you find watch advertising for the Submariner or Planet Ocean using women in a sexual role.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> Royal Oak comes in women's sizes too.
> Let me know when you find watch advertising for the Submariner or Planet Ocean using women in a sexual role.


Yet you still find yourself conceding on both ads and also on earned media. My point stands. Or as the old saying goes, sex sells.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

jlondono77 said:


> Wow, not even worth commenting buy I would say Omega is arguably better than Rolex, I certainly like the designs much better.... I guess if you have to ask maybe you need to do some homework in the forums....


He did, no consensus, thus he thought just one more time and the heavens would open up and settle it once and for all . . . as you can see, this will go on long after you, me and a bunch of others are gone, literally and figuratively . . .


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Sevenmack said:


> Yet you still find yourself conceding on both ads and also on earned media. My point stands. Or as the old saying goes, sex sells.


What?
I suggest that you are conflating the images used to sell watch magazines and the images used to sell watches; specifically (or perhaps more accurately implicitly) women in a sexual role to sell watches to men.

You follow by showing me an image of a woman used to "sell" a watch to women and an image of a woman used to "sell" a car.

In what way does that refute my initial suggestion of your conflation?


----------



## I Like em BIG ! ! (Feb 10, 2012)

Sevenmack said:


> Automakers have long produced ads featuring gorgeous women paired up with nice cars. Revolution, the watch magazine, has numerous covers and photo shoots featuring hot women with expensive watches. Your individual motivations for collecting watches may not involve beauty or women. But apparently, marketers and magazine editors have figured out that this does play with other men out there.
> 
> View attachment 8362754


Ewwwwww... she's all dirty.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

I Like em BIG ! ! said:


> Ewwwwww... she's all dirty.


Some like 'em dirty. Or like Rosy the Riveter.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> What?
> I suggest that you are conflating the images used to sell watch magazines and the images used to sell watches; specifically (or perhaps more accurately implicitly) women in a sexual role to sell watches to men.


Let's restate this again: Earned media is getting promotion or advertising for your product through channels a marketer or company doesn't "own" or paid for (advertising). One way this is done is by lending products to a magazine that are featured, either on covers or in inside spread photo shoots. Certainly the magazine gets some benefit. But as you see when you read the fine print with names of the watches and their prices, the benefits also accrue to the company selling the product. Because awareness is key to ultimately selling the product.

There is no conflation. There is something called marketing. I can provide you a few books on that topic.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

so you still can't see the difference between selling a magazine and selling watches.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Technically not selling men's watches, but I'm sure Rolex or Omega would be equally happy if men look at them too. If you take out the women's watches, I would have sworn that they are targeted at men (or lesbians).


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> so you still can't see the difference between selling a magazine and selling watches.


And you still don't understand earned media and media placement. Not shocking, of course.

Meanwhile, here are some inside spreads from Revolution.


----------



## JSI (Dec 12, 2012)

Wow........some people in this thread are seriously ....ed up.


----------



## LikeClockWork (Jun 7, 2016)

I don't see that happening in our generation, the history is just too strong for Rolex IMHO. Obviously Omega makes great watches and has had an important historical impact, but I think it would take a lot for them to pull ahead of Rolex


----------



## dan4138 (Oct 9, 2015)

The thread is thirty pages now, as predicted twenty pages ago. Time to stop?


----------



## Sublime (Sep 15, 2011)

Guys, in light of this hilarious thread, I decided to have my assistant weigh in with her commoner insight (i.e. she couldn't care less about watches). I asked her "name the best two high/end fancy watch brands you can think of." Her answer was "Rolex and.... uhh, Omega?" This anecdote provides the following-

Rolex owners: you can be rest assured that most people think Rolex makes the best, most high end watches in the world.

Omega owners: wipe the sweat off your forehead, because many people recognize the Omega brand and think it's super high end, too! Congrats to you!

Patek, AP, Vacheron, JLC, and ALS owners: most people have never heard of your watch brands. Don't worry, though, no commoner has ever heard of Tudor either and that doesn't stop me from loving the brand. Cheers!


----------



## Chris Stark (Sep 21, 2015)

dan4138 said:


> The thread is thirty pages now, as predicted twenty pages ago. Time to stop?


And seems to be morphing into soft .........

I think this thread with the exact same title was posted last year...with the same result.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Hmm.. I predict 50 pages. Material is A+.
Post quality dropping at roughly same rate as volume increasing


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Sublime said:


> Guys, in light of this hilarious thread, I decided to have my assistant weigh in with her commoner insight (i.e. she couldn't care less about watches). I asked her "name the best two high/end fancy watch brands you can think of." Her answer was "Rolex and.... uhh, Omega?" This anecdote provides the following-
> 
> Rolex owners: you can be rest assured that most people think Rolex makes the best, most high end watches in the world.
> 
> ...


Ask her to name a third and I think she might say Tag Heuer or some fashion brand like Gucci or something.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Rolex Inappropriate? | Wall Street Oasis...


----------



## Sublime (Sep 15, 2011)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Ask her to name a third and I think she might say Tag Heuer or some fashion brand like Gucci or something.


I just asked her and she said Cartier.

Sorry, TAG! :-d


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Sublime said:


> I just asked her and she said Cartier.
> 
> Sorry, TAG! :-d


My wife quickly responded Rolex, Patek, Cartier.


----------



## Benolio (Dec 31, 2014)

I Like em BIG ! ! said:


> Ewwwwww... she's all dirty.


Sophie Marceau?

Sent from my Wileyfox Swift


----------



## Pakal (Jun 6, 2016)

I am new in the forum. Lived here and there in EU. Owned several Omega an more Rolexes (still 1 O and 2 R in collection) and still cannot say which one is better.

Point is that no matter what: for watch freaks all over the world Omega vs Rolex is THE topic (and it always ends up in.... nothing and nonsenses)! LOL


----------



## Sublime (Sep 15, 2011)

cedargrove said:


> My wife quickly responded Rolex, Patek, Cartier.


Props to your wife for dropping Patek! :-!

I will ask my wife tonight.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Meh, Swiss is junk anyway.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

The Omega Speedmaster CK2998 is apparently all accounted for with a waiting list in the Greater Vancouver area in Canada already. Looks like Omega is doing well enough despite not being at the so called Rolex tier. 2998 watches sold at about 7000 usd that probably cost them a 1000 usd tops is quite good.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Tomatoes11 said:


> The Omega Speedmaster CK2998 is apparently all accounted for with a waiting list in the Greater Vancouver area in Canada already. Looks like Omega is doing well enough despite not being at the so called Rolex tier. 2998 watches sold at about 7000 usd that probably cost them a 1000 used tops is quite good.


Yeah. Omega sells 60,000 fewer watches than Rolex. It's not that far behind in the category that matters most to Swatch Group's top and bottom lines.


----------



## Bobby75 (Jun 26, 2011)

I like Rolex and I like Omega too. But then l like apples and pears.

I like Cartier, Seiko and sometimes Nomos.

But then I also like fruit salad with evaporated milk. But I was also born in the UK in the 1970s and remember school dinners.

Sorry I got bored after page 5 and drifted off, so anyway yeah Rolex and Omega, personally I would just get an Invicta, just as good if not better.


----------



## shemp55 (Oct 15, 2011)

I own both, I like both, my Omega AT gets worn more frequently because I prefer the design and the feel on my wrist. Too close to call, IMO.


----------



## Bobby75 (Jun 26, 2011)

oak1971 said:


> Meh, Swiss is junk anyway.


True dat

I have got over 50 Vostok watches.

They are tough as a shovel and about as pretty as an old shovel but as least I keep the Tatar economy afloat.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

cedargrove said:


> My wife quickly responded Rolex, Patek, Cartier.


Lol just asked my a gf and I got verbatim:

"Tag....

And the one with the crown on it"

Ok and name the third

"Shinola?"

Yep, that's all right! Excellent

Smh


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Vlance said:


> Lol just asked my a gf and I got verbatim:
> 
> "Tag....
> 
> ...


My wife said she didn't give a f--k. Then she asked about power-washing the deck and the new, bigger diamond for her engagement ring.

Priorities.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Vlance said:


> Lol just asked my a gf and I got verbatim:
> 
> "Tag....
> 
> ...


Well, it's settled then.

The universal luxury watch pecking order according to our society. And since we have a democratic society, the list is gospel.

1. Rolex
2. Omega
3. Tag Heuer
4. Michael Korrs/Shinola *tie*


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

cedargrove said:


> My wife quickly responded Rolex, Patek, Cartier.


Mine just said Rolex Tag Heuer

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## teddyfigo (Mar 14, 2014)

If u like it buy it as Long as it pleases you... Buying because of hopping resale value will be on par as Rolex then this hobby isn't for you ... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## piningforthefjords (May 15, 2016)

dan4138 said:


> The thread is thirty pages now, as predicted twenty pages ago. Time to stop?


----------



## publandlord (Aug 15, 2006)

jmanlay said:


> Mine just said Rolex Tag Heuer
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I just asked mine she said "the Speedy is iconic and marks you out as a true WIS".

LOL

She told me this was just a ruse to justify buying another watch, and it was pretty lame.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

I can typing! Let's troll for 50 pages, even though this will happen again next week, month, year, or years from now, after we are gone (good point, trying to convince others is rather pointless, no need to get upset about it)! Just some thoughts.

The two brands offer different appealing characteristics.

Omega offers innovative features like co-axial and see-through caseback, and embrace change.

Rolex offers on-the-surface sameness-over-time and more prestige.

Both play relatively hard to get.

The thing that is good about changing all the time is that one could adapt to changing conditions. In nature, mutations give rise to species and variations that win out in survival of the fittest. Change is one advantage that Omega has over Rolex, and one advantage that Seiko or some other brands have over both Omega and Rolex.


----------



## publandlord (Aug 15, 2006)

rdoder said:


> The thing that is good about changing all the time is that one could adapt to changing conditions. In nature, mutations give rise to species and variations that win out in survival of the fittest. Change is one advantage that Omega has over Rolex, and one advantage that Seiko or some other brands have over both Omega and Rolex.


How come Rolex was the only one that doggedly persisted with the same old unchanging designs, pausing only to develop a high-end, low-volume quartz movement duringt the crisis, introduced virtually nothing new but ended up as the only one that came out stronger and fitter?

Nature's one thing, fickle luxury product quite another! However, Omega very good for selling watches like iPhones at five grand a pop to trustafarians (must have this moddle year's latest update with the sport pack bezel and go-faster stripes)


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

publandlord said:


> How come Rolex was the only one that doggedly persisted with the same old unchanging designs, pausing only to develop a high-end, low-volume quartz movement duringt the crisis, introduced virtually nothing new but ended up as the only one that came out stronger and fitter?
> 
> Nature's one thing, fickle luxury product quite another! However, Omega very good for selling watches like iPhones at five grand a pop to trustafarians (must have this moddle year's latest update with the sport pack bezel and go-faster stripes)


Human nature changes slowly? Evolution and natural selection happen over billions of years. Humans who are more capable tend to have lower number of children (e.g. due to preoccupation with education and career), while those less capable ironically have more kids (my partner sees that at work everyday), so human population does not change much over time. Currently there's little selection pressure that would drastically change human nature.

Maybe Rolex is not stronger and fitter. It is perceived as top dog, but most watch buyers do not buy Rolex. e.g.:

Rolex 2012 revenue: US$7.4 billion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolex) (2012 is used because I only found 2012 revenue for Rolex.)

Swatch Group 2012 revenue: CHF 7.8 billion (Previous Annual and Half-Year Reports - Swatch Group, under "Annual Report 2012 - Financial Statements: 2012_annual_report_finance_en.pdf", page 176) (Citing Swatch Group because I couldn't find Omega revenue by itself.)

Seiko 2012 revenue (year ended March 31, 2012): US$10.7 billion (http://global.epson.com/IR/report/ar2012/pdf/ar2012.pdf, page 85) (Yes, this includes other Seiko products besides watches, but still, this applies if we are strictly comparing brands and their fitness?)

The dinosaurs ruled the earth for 185 million years.(Dinosaur - The Canadian Encyclopedia) **** sapiens has a history of 100,000-200,000 years.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens) Just because some thing has had dominance for a long time, does not mean it will dominate forever. e.g. Fantasy scenario: someday, artificial intelligence might replace humans, and any jewelry that the workers would wear would cost nothing, because they are part of a hive, with no richer or poorer between workers.


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Now it's just getting a bit out there ...is 40 pages possible?


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Watchdudeman said:


> Now it's just getting a bit out there ...is 40 pages possible?


The latest Grand Seiko thread has reached 36 pages and last week's dress watch thread hit 31. Why not 40. Or 50.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Sevenmack said:


> The latest Grand Seiko thread has reached 36 pages and last week's dress watch thread hit 31. Why not 40. Or 50.


I guess Rolex and Omega owners are just more passionate about their watches than Seiko owners?


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Ticonderoga said:


> I guess Rolex and Omega owners are just more passionate about their watches than Seiko owners?


Or it could be that Rolex and Omega owners get into more pissing matches. You never know.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Sevenmack said:


> Or it could be that Rolex and Omega owners get into more pissing matches. You never know.


I think it's because, in terms of quality, GS is a little closer to Rolex than Omega is, so a shorter argument.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Ticonderoga said:


> I guess Rolex and Omega owners are just more passionate about their watches than Seiko owners?


Oh, I would venture so far as to say, that many commenters don't own either Rolex or Omega....
Dunning-Kruger effect is strong with this thread.


----------



## publandlord (Aug 15, 2006)

rdoder said:


> Maybe Rolex is not stronger and fitter. It is perceived as top dog, but most watch buyers do not buy Rolex. e.g.:
> 
> Rolex 2012 revenue: US$7.4 billion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolex) (2012 is used because I only found 2012 revenue for Rolex.)
> 
> Swatch Group 2012 revenue: CHF 7.8 billion (Previous Annual and Half-Year Reports - Swatch Group, under "Annual Report 2012 - Financial Statements: 2012_annual_report_finance_en.pdf", page 176) (Citing Swatch Group because I couldn't find Omega revenue by itself.)


Profitability is not size (a fat man with loads of bloat is neither fit nor strong!) Swatch Group was bailed out by the Swiss banks at the order of the government, merging SSIH and ASUAG to prevent meltdown. Seiko operating income - you can discern the profit of just the watch division, which you can't unless you're their auditor - is less than 1% of revenue in 2015.


> The dinosaurs ruled the earth for 185 million years.


Rolex will die out in 185 million years and be replaced by Omeeega as the best jewellery watch brand for the wealthy middle classes, sure I'm ok with that.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

I guess the phrase "the dinosaurs ruled the Earth" is not quite true. They might have been prevalent and noticeable (big) at that time, but other species existed and thrived in other niches as well. Dead dinosaurs (and currently dead humans) still got/get eaten by smaller animals and/or bacteria. Similarly, Rolex might be prevalent in the minds of many, but other brands exist and thrive in other niches as well. There is no king of species, or king of watches.


----------



## Jefferson Overlin (Mar 4, 2013)

cedargrove said:


> I think it's because, in terms of quality, GS is a little closer to Rolex than Omega is, so a shorter argument.


Where is a good old-fashioned gun emoji when you need it? Shots have been fired :O


----------



## I Like em BIG ! ! (Feb 10, 2012)

cedargrove said:


> I think it's because, in terms of quality, GS is a little closer to Rolex than Omega is, so a shorter argument.


Nice one... you just tacked on 20 pages.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Time to summarize the whole thread with a universal truth that applies across all space and time such that no more heated arguments are necessary? Comparing watches and watch brands are futile and pointless because:


-Everyone's opinions/preferences/reasons are different. (i.e. to each their own)

-Ever changing desires within oneself means there is no stable "good", "better", "best", or "Grail".

-Different watches or watch brands serve different roles/functions (e.g. beater, prestige), none of which are better or worse than other functions, just different. Like how different humans should in theory be equal in terms of human rights or human dignity.

-The Queen stripped of her title is just a person. A watch stripped of the brand and logo is just a watch. Watches fundamentally do the same thing, to tell time. Humans and companies fundamentally do the same thing, to compete and survive.

-Conventional human understanding of things obscure truths. Truths are: everything change and interchange over time (impermanence). Trying to own a watch is like trying to live forever. From that flows unsatisfactoriness. Desires are fulfilled only temporarily. From impermanence also flows no-self. The self seems real, but is made of components such as senses and thoughts. Stop thoughts, stop desires and suffering.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

I Like em BIG ! ! said:


> Nice one... you just tacked on 20 pages.


I just don't see what the big deal with the GS is, they have automatics that look about the same. I can't see paying huge money for .2 seconds a week better timekeeping.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

I'll bite. The two GS pieces I have owned, looked more expensive and better built than the two Rolex that I have owned. Not by a little either, like by quite a bit...

Unfortunately, I have never owned an Omega so for all I know Omega watches curb stomps and takes a deuce on both GS and Rolex.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

I Like em BIG ! ! said:


> Nice one... you just tacked on 20 pages.


Thanks


----------



## publandlord (Aug 15, 2006)

cedargrove said:


> Thanks


Keep it up - pump this baby all the way to three figures and make it the biggest internet-only O vs R smackdown - greater than the sum of all other O vs R smackdowns


----------



## Gunnar_917 (Feb 24, 2015)

rdoder said:


> Time to summarize the whole thread with a universal truth that applies across all space and time such that no more heated arguments are necessary? Comparing watches and watch brands are futile and pointless because:
> 
> 
> -Everyone's opinions/preferences/reasons are different. (i.e. to each their own)
> ...


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

I have never handled a GS in the flesh ...but I'm going to the first chance I get. the love for them is pretty overwhelming on these forums


----------



## publandlord (Aug 15, 2006)

Tomatoes11 said:


> I'll bite. The two GS pieces I have owned, looked more expensive and better built than the two Rolex I have owned. Not by a little either, like by quite a bit...
> 
> Undortunately, I have never owned an Omega so for all I know a Omega watches curb stomps and takes a deuce on both GS and Rolex.


In terms of marketing expense per watch sold? Or sales to China? I do believe that Omega does indeed hold down both Rolex and GS simultaneously, and repeatedly palm-heel-strikes them in the face until they're smackin' concrete.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Ticonderoga said:


> 99% of people (non WUS at least) don't wear a Rolex because they like it, they wear it so that others will make assumptions about them.


96.34% of people that talk with certainty about Rolex wearers are projecting.



Sevenmack said:


> What I am getting to -- and you have essentially pointed out -- is that going to an Ivy doesn't mean you won't end up in the same places as those who didn't. And many of those folks will surpass those Ivy Leaguers.


True. I went to an Ivy League school and now i am a beach bum.



Sevenmack said:


> It starts by being successful yourself. Success attracts success and the privileges accumulate thereafter.


So you wore a Rolex as a dress watch with a tux? 



oak1971 said:


> The fact that Rolex owners feel threatened by the notion of the original topic is telling.


Ah yes, that old trick: claim that the counter-arguments are b/c other side is being threatened, and therefore wrong. It is a slightly more sophisticated version of "if you have nothing to hide, why are you denying it so vociferously".

Speaking purely for myself, I feel threatened by the stupidity i am reading on this thread.


----------



## MrCheeky (Dec 10, 2012)

"Will Omega Ever Be As Good As Rolex"

WIS Baiting at its best.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

One great thing with anonymity is that it allows people to be themselves. What we do not say to people in real life, we could write freely here. It is an opportunity to learn from people's honest opinions and reactions. (Or are people just trolling?)

drunken monkey has a good point about succinctness. My first reaction was to be offended and fight back, but realized that I could learn from it instead. One reaction leads to sameness in oneself, because one thinks oneself is right. The other reaction leads to self-improvement.

One could judge others' thinking as stupid, or one could ask, is there any truth in it that I could learn from?

Feeling threatened is natural, because one views oneself in a positive light. I was raised to not think positively about myself, that I am never good enough, so there's always room for improvement. People who see oneself as good enough to deserve some things in life might judge views different from one's own as stupid, instead of trying to learn, because one is good enough already. To each their own.


----------



## Tseg (Mar 29, 2014)

So what was the right answer again?


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Birds tweet.


----------



## Herbalizer (Jul 24, 2010)

Dude... they are there! Have you been to an Omega boutique? They dropped the Co-Axial in the modified ETA at the low end, done that, It's in the store!


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Herbalizer said:


> Dude... they are there! Have you been to an Omega boutique? They dropped the Co-Axial in the modified ETA at the low end, done that, It's in the store!


You mean the 2500 calibres, which are ETA 2892-A2s modified with a free sprung balance, and a co-axial escapement?


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

vkalia said:


> True. I went to an Ivy League school and now i am a beach bum.


Nothing wrong with that. Some of the best people in the world are beach bums. So are some of my closest friends.



vkalia said:


> So you wore a Rolex as a dress watch with a tux?


No. The Seiko 5 (right of the Cocktail Time) my grandfather wore for years while serving wealthy people as a chef. Wearing it taught me humility. Which is a good preparation for marriage.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Tseg said:


> So what was the right answer again?


Invicta.


----------



## I Like em BIG ! ! (Feb 10, 2012)

rdoder said:


> Time to summarize the whole thread with a universal truth that applies across all space and time such that no more heated arguments are necessary? Comparing watches and watch brands are futile and pointless because:
> 
> 
> -Everyone's opinions/preferences/reasons are different. (i.e. to each their own)
> ...


I think I need another cigarette... and I don't even smoke.


----------



## jlondono77 (Aug 16, 2011)

I've owned both brands too and I've handled many that I did not own, and I disagree, the quality is definitely on par and in some circles Omega is the better brand. To me Rolex has tired designs and all the clones just cheapens the brand. But that's my opinion, if you like Rolex better, good for you, that's why anyone can argue either side because it's subjective at the end of the day. For me I would take an Omega over a Rolex any day.



adin1978 said:


> Having owned both brands I would say no. Omega quality is not on par with Rolex and therefore is in a different class.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

And some honk.


rdoder said:


> Birds tweet.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Watchbreath said:


> And some honk.


LOL I read this today: Canada goose 'Spawn of Satan' terrorizes University of Waterloo - Kitchener-Waterloo - CBC News


----------



## jlondono77 (Aug 16, 2011)

Legion681 said:


> Do expand on that, please...


I've never meet a Rolex that I liked better than this...


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Tseg said:


> So what was the right answer again?


There appears to be a multiple of/many and we each get to choose the one we like . . . I went with 7's Invicta choice myself . . .


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

I'm always amused when a "good" thread like this comes up. It gets bashed and bashed, criticized for trolling and stupidity. But, in the end, we read other's experiences and we learn something (if our brain is open). And, when there are funny/sarcastic replies, we get a chuckle. Despite the complaining that this is a "low quality" thread, people continue to post, share their *opinions*.

I've learned a thing or two about both brands, more specifically, I had thought that both were near 99.9% issue free and I see that folks have failures here and there and I see that any watch company isn't perfect.



Time Exposure said:


> A pusher popped out on an Omega PO chrono I was looking at in an Omega boutique.
> My Broad Arrow with its caliber 3303 needed two repairs under warranty and one on my wallet. When I sent it in the third time I bought a Speedy Pro to keep me happy in its absence. But....
> The Speedy Pro failed five times under warranty.
> From my perspective? Contemporary Omega is absolute crap.
> Just to stir the pot: 25 years and 24 Rolexes later, I have had ZERO issues with 23. One was broke when I bought it and my watch guy couldn't get parts for it (a 1950's example).


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Agree. They have to distant themselves from Swatch group. Join Richemont probably?  


chuasam said:


> As long as Omega is part of Swatch, they will never be as good as Rolex.


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## dantan (Dec 16, 2014)

I doubt that Rolex or Omega would lose any sleep over the angst between Rolex fan boys and Omega fan boys. 

I am sure that there are many people here who realise that both Rolex and Omega manufacture and sell good-quality Watches.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

"Would you sell both your eyes for a million dollars...or your two legs..or your hands...or your hearing? Add up what you do have, and you'll find you won't sell them for all the gold in the world. The best things in life are yours, if you can appreciate them." - Dale Carnegie (1888-1955) American Author and Speaker

Watches are nowhere near the top of that list. What is within oneself is much more important than what is within watches. If one can appreciate regular watches, luxury watches would lose their allure a bit. Appreciation is more worthwhile than ownership. e.g. Appreciating one's eyes is more worthwhile than just owning eyes.


----------



## Gunnar_917 (Feb 24, 2015)

rdoder said:


> Birds tweet.


The correct quote is "and birds go tweet"


----------



## Gunnar_917 (Feb 24, 2015)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Agree. They have to distant themselves from Swatch group. Join Richemont probably?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Sometimes you gotta crawl before you ball


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Gunnar_917 said:


> The correct quote is "and birds go tweet"


I totally missed the reference!

"In "Little Girl in the Big Ten," Lisa Simpson attends a class at the local university - "Anthropology 101: Passive Analysis of Visual Iconography." After watching the usual Itchy & Scratchy fare, the following discussion takes place.

Professor: So what does this cartoon mean?
Tina (a student): It shows how the depletion of our natural resources has pitted our small farmers against each other.
Professor: Yes, and birds go "tweet." What else?"

I assume some student wrote: "Birds->tweet"


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Gunnar_917 said:


> Sometimes you gotta crawl before you ball


Other times, you have to psycho, go Michael. Take your pick. Jackson. Tyson. Jordan, Game 6.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

rdoder said:


> The underlying subconscious mechanisms are there. For sure when one buys a watch, one is not thinking about sex, but maybe the subconscious motivations are there.
> 
> Or it's not just about sex, it's about self-pleasure in general. Men I guess also love beautiful things (because beauty represents good genetic and good overall health condition in a sex partner? But then this pleasure from beauty gets generalized into art, music, etc.), including beautiful watches.
> 
> ...


I beg to differ. One of my female friend (my wife's friend actually), she preselect her dating partner from his watch. She's already loaded from birth actually.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Rolex plays with people's emotions in all the right or wrong ways, depending on one's perspective. Optimistic person loves Rolex. Pessimistic person hates Rolex. Emotional manipulation is why reason does not work on Rolex lovers or haters. Most wives are crazy about shoes and diamond rings instead.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

I had a brief, beer-fueled discussion about watches with a couple people at a Happy Hour last week. I told one of them -- a classmate of mine -- that I'd take him shopping for watches when he gets signed up for a new job. A new friend of ours brought up Patek as THE watch to strive for. She and I showed my classmate some prices online and he was flabbergasted. I told him, "Look, just get a Rolex Datejust and be done with it."

He and she chatted for another dozen seconds, then she asked me, "Okay, which is better: Rolex, or Omega?" What shot through my mind was pretty much all _perception_ -- reputation, perceived build quality, style, longevity, repairability -- and after a few seconds, I replied, ".... Rolex."

I'd say that the choice is still about what the owner wants in their watch. With Omega, I now wonder how well-supported their watches will be in the future, although I think their co-axial tech and new materials are pretty great. With Rolex, I feel that their slow approach to change has given the idea of stability to their model ranges.

New, cutting-edge mechanical tech and regularly updated designs? Omega. Proven internal tech and a well-established visual identity? Rolex.

IMO, as usual.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

This one might it to 100 by the end of the year.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Ticonderoga said:


> I guess Rolex and Omega owners are just more passionate about their watches than Seiko owners?


I have a Speedy and I was not blown away. Yep, it's a watch.


----------



## Gunnar_917 (Feb 24, 2015)

rdoder said:


> I totally missed the reference!
> 
> "In "Little Girl in the Big Ten," Lisa Simpson attends a class at the local university - "Anthropology 101: Passive Analysis of Visual Iconography." After watching the usual Itchy & Scratchy fare, the following discussion takes place.
> 
> ...


Hahahahaha I'm super impressesed you know where I ripped that off from!


----------



## Gunnar_917 (Feb 24, 2015)

Sevenmack said:


> Other times, you have to psycho, go Michael. Take your pick. Jackson. Tyson. Jordan, Game 6.


New thread time?

Is buying a watch from the Swatch group crawlin' whilst in Richemont you're ballin'?


----------



## osanilevich (Jul 20, 2013)

Unless they undergo massive pr changes, I don't think so. They're 'the moonwatch/James Bond' guys. Every young startup or even experienced chairman likely aspires for a Rolex of some kind. It evolved from just a watch into a symbol of status, like patek but with far simpler movements

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## cmac06 (Mar 13, 2016)

Why is air better than water? I have nothing useful to add, but love the perspectives shared. If I ever bought for recognition, I'd be a sheep and get a Rolex [pick any model, they all look alike]. Omega has more diversity; I'd take a Seamaster over any Rolex except for when they were using Zenith movements in the Daytonas, but when there are other options far more interesting that didn't bother to disfigure it, why bother. Omega puts too much emphasis on the Speedy that you almost forget about the rest of the collection.

There you have it; a few chops on both brands.

Now to my collection this year; I'll be adding a Rolex Datejust, and an Omega GSOTM Meteorite edition, and getting rid of all my Zeniths (that'll never happen); how's that for hypocrisy...

The views and opinions expressed by this poster are complete nonsense, and are for no purpose other than to increase my post count. If you find the views offensive or threatening in any manner, please remove your hands from the keyboard, and go get a life.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Most people subconsciously want to live forever. Since that's not possible, watch companies sell an object of emotional attachment that with maintenance could "live forever".

One alternative is to own a cheap watch. When it dies, buy another one. A person could do this like 50 times before one would spend anything close to the amount for a luxury watch. Most likely, one would die before one buys a new cheap watch consecutively for anything close to 50 times. To each their own.

As for something to remember oneself by for one's kids and grandkids, memories are just as good if not better than a watch. Or a book, a toy, or a heartfelt letter. Doesn't have to be an expensive object that needs expensive maintenance.


----------



## dantan (Dec 16, 2014)

When people ask me which Watch is better or which Car is better, my first words are usually, "There is no short answer". 

Then, I proceed to provide a long-winded explanation as to what better might mean. That term already brings up certain complexities. 

What does "better" mean? 

Unless it can be quantified, it's all subjective. 

There is no short answer, and again, it boils down to a person's PREFERENCE. There is no universal right or wrong or best or better.


----------



## publandlord (Aug 15, 2006)

oak1971 said:


> I have a Speedy and I was not blown away. Yep, it's a watch.


Burn the heretic!


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Low price and high accuracy are objectively better. Low price allows one to save money for other important things. High accuracy is a watch doing what it's supposed to do. Other choices only make sense if emotional attachment to permanence, satisfaction, and self enters the equation.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Gunnar_917 said:


> New thread time?
> 
> Is buying a watch from the Swatch group crawlin' whilst in Richemont you're ballin'?


Ball so hard, this watch crazy. Speedmaster, that don't phase me. Rolex can go all Air King and I look at you like s--ts gravy.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

rdoder said:


> Low price and high accuracy are objectively better. Low price allows one to save money for other important things. High accuracy is a watch doing what it's supposed to do. Other choices only make sense if emotional attachment to permanence, satisfaction, and self enters the equation.


Rdoder, I'm really curious as to what watches you own. Trying to read into your posts, leaves me confused sometimes - are you into quartz Timex which is objectively superior to Lange Datograph, or do you go for watches with curves and sex appeal?
Having read many of your posts - I can't even fathom a guess at your collection... Would love a peek.


----------



## ShortOnTime3 (Dec 23, 2013)

I have both an omega and rolex. I like them both quite a bit. They are both high quality pieces and neither get any attention when I wear them. Although the rolex likely doesn't look like a traditional rolex to most, which is good. The finishing is a bit better on the rolex, but I vastly prefer the clasp on the omega.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

EnderW said:


> Rdoder, I'm really curious as to what watches you own. Trying to read into your posts, leaves me confused sometimes - are you into quartz Timex which is objectively superior to Lange Datograph, or do you go for watches with curves and sex appeal?
> Having read many of your posts - I can't even fathom a guess at your collection... Would love a peek.


What I own does not matter to me as much as what I think about them, but I have one Tudor, one Citizen, and a bunch of regular Seikos. My favorites are SRP023 (because it's from my partner, who bought it for me after I showed interest in it but didn't buy it for myself), and SRH015 and SUN025 (kinetics get most of my wrist time, and these are curvier and nicer than the rest of what I have, though each one of what I have has its own pluses and minuses).

I like to keep watches with minuses as well, because I learn something new even from them over time, and no watch has all pluses with no minuses, so I might as well stick with what I have, as I reach the same place with any watch anyway.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

rdoder said:


> What I own does not matter to me as much as what I think about them, but I have one Tudor, one Citizen, and a bunch of regular Seikos. My favorites are SRP023 (because it's from my partner, who bought it for me after I showed interest in it but didn't buy it for myself), and SRH015 and SUN025 (kinetics get most of my wrist time, and these are curvier and nicer than the rest of what I have, though each one of what I have has its own pluses and minuses).
> 
> I like to keep watches with minuses as well, because I learn something new even from them over time, and no watch has all pluses with no minuses, so I might as well stick with what I have, as I reach the same place with any watch anyway.


Cool. Thanks for sharing. If I can comment on something..."*My favorites are SRP023 (because it's from my partner, who bought it for me after I showed interest in it but didn't buy it for myself)*"... This makes perfect sense to me. 
What makes many watches special may not be the watch itself, but who gave it to you, or the occasion it was used to commemorate, or achievement that triggered a nice "let me spoil\reward myself" moment.

Hence, I'm always cautious not to assume anything about a wearer of a nice watch (which may have been an anniversary or graduation present, a heirloom from the relative or present-to-self following some achievement). It is also why I think applying very "objective" criteria to luxury watches is a pointless activity - these are jewelry and a lot of value is aesthetic and\or sentimental. 
I think if one were to ask Prince William which is better - his quartz mid-size Omega SMP Bond (that was a present from his late mother) or a brand new ceramic Rolex Sub, his answer will be unequivocal.

Discussions asking to compare merits of the clasp and microadjustment between Sub and SMP, or comparing whether distortion is better or worse between hesalite vs sapphire Speedmaster, or relative merits of anti-magnetic properties between Milgauss and Aquaterra 15000 gauss - all have their place and can have some objective criteria applied to them.
Any thread asking whether Rolex or Omega or GS brand is better, serves little purpose beyond trolling and generating controversy around purely subjective tastes and opinions.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Subjectively, my affection for SRP023 or Prince William's affection for the Omega from his late mother makes sense. (There is emotional self-manipulation.) Objectively, it's just a watch. The gifting of the watch from my partner or from Princess Diana respectively was in the past. The self assigns extraneous meaning to the watch that does not exist inherently in the watch. The watch that was gifted is not the same watch as the currently owned watch: scratches have been added, oils have dried a bit, etc. Objectivity allows one to sees things as they truly are.

"Objective, adj. 1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

One purpose of such a thread could be to arrive at some objective truth. Objective truth about luxury watches: everything about them was designed by watch companies to create desire, to make relatively a lot of money from those who view them subjectively as "better".


----------



## Pride (Apr 19, 2014)

One week later, 39 pages. Wow. Omega IS as good as Rolex. From what I hear, back in the 60s, the question was will Rolex ever be as good as Omega.


----------



## GlennO (Jan 3, 2010)

Pride said:


> From what I hear, back in the 60s, the question was will Rolex ever be as good as Omega.


The answer was 1969 according to this author:

1960s | Vintage Watches

"By 1969, after a decade of playing second fiddle to Omega in terms of market share, Rolex had finally achieved the pole position in the marketplace that it still occupies today. The outline shape of its waterproof Oyster models was unchanged from the previous decade, but the movements in these were continually and subtly upgraded to take advantage of any advances that had been made by Rolex engineers. Rolex quality at this time was impossible to fault, as was, in fairness, that of close competitors Omega, IWC, Longines, Jaeger LeCoultre and Breitling".

B


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Just changed my classic ss date for this classic beauty on its nato for a week or so.....love them both but still have this niggling notion that tudor are in many ways the best...... boom more pages lol


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

publandlord said:


> In terms of marketing expense per watch sold? Or sales to China? I do believe that Omega does indeed hold down both Rolex and GS simultaneously, and repeatedly palm-heel-strikes them in the face until they're smackin' concrete.


----------



## Mathew J (Oct 18, 2006)

EnderW said:


> Oh man, just when you think you've seen it all.
> I think people are confusing Rolex\Omega with some $400K+ supercomplications.
> One can afford a $10K watch and still fly economy. Seriously, the quality of comments is plunging at exponential rate.
> 
> PS. I wear expensive watches and routinely take mass transit - because in NYC it can take 2 hrs to drive 2 miles, while a subway train gets you anywhere in 10 mins. I routinely fly economy - because 1) I fly for work a lot and company policy dictates economy tickets, 2) I don't care about business\1st class, especially since all the classes get the same treatment as prison inmates when going through TSA or being delayed for 5 hrs on the runway. I routinely cook at home - because I love to cook. Lets stop with "assumptions" folks, especially dumb assumptions.


Hell the founder of Sam Adams beer only flies Coach, Warren Buffett (who wears a day date) lives in a 500K house and drives American cars, the old CEO of my company used to dive a 15 year old Volvo and made millions of dollars a year.

I am getting into this late but some of the posts here are amazing in their level of absurdity.


----------



## Mathew J (Oct 18, 2006)

Vlance said:


> Okay, well, then the speedmaster bracelet is more flimsy and rattly than the Rolex bracelet. Since the Rolex bracelet is neither of those, it suggests to me that it is better engineered and to tighter tolerances.
> 
> But does that even make it better??
> 
> You'll probably still get people saying, "well, I prefer it loose and Rattly".


which you did for years when Rolex only had the stamped hollow bracelets and pressed clasps.

The speedy is a true classic that hasn't changed much since its inception, the whole point of that watch is that it is made as the original was, though I do believe Omega has updated the speedy bracelet so if its the older style then possibly it is lighter and a bit less solid, I have not seen nor handled the new screwed version.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Pot calling the kettle black. Time spent obsessing about watches and self-trapping into doing this, luxury pricing of watches, buying into the tricks and marketing, and lack of objectivity can be absurd. I'm a pot and I'm black.

Watch companies are not your friends. They are drug dealers, dealing drugs in your head. Some people have no problem with drinking, some do. Know thyself.

"In Plato's Phaedrus, Socrates uses the maxim 'know thyself' as his explanation to Phaedrus to explain why he has no time for the attempts to rationally explain mythology or other far flung topics. Socrates says, "But I have no leisure for them at all; and the reason, my friend, is this: I am not yet able, as the Delphic inscription has it, to know myself; so it seems to me ridiculous, when I do not yet know that, to investigate irrelevant things.""

"Plato also alluded to the fact that understanding 'thyself,' would have a greater yielded factor of understanding the nature of a human being. Syllogistically, understanding oneself would enable thyself to have an understanding of others as a result."

To each their own.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Fundamental truth about life: life is wondrous, but it is a sexually transmitted addiction to life. We are all addicts at the heart of it: addicted to food, water, shelter, sex, life.


----------



## publandlord (Aug 15, 2006)

Mathew J said:


> Hell the founder of Sam Adams beer only flies Coach, Warren Buffett (who wears a day date) lives in a 500K house and drives American cars, the old CEO of my company used to dive a 15 year old Volvo and made millions of dollars a year.
> 
> I am getting into this late but some of the posts here are amazing in their level of absurdity.


I agree. The assertion that the insanely rich only wear expensive watches is dumb, dumber than the assumption that only - ONLY, no correlation, we're talkin' zero per cent - the insanely rich wear expensive watches


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

More plato and socrates please I feel that has always been missing in my life


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Mathew J said:


> Hell the founder of Sam Adams beer only flies Coach, *Warren Buffett (who wears a day date) lives in a 500K house and drives American cars,* the old CEO of my company used to dive a 15 year old Volvo and made millions of dollars a year.
> 
> I am getting into this late but some of the posts here are amazing in their level of absurdity.


Mr. Buffett drives an Acura when he's home (if it's okay for me to be pedantic this time), but your point is correct -- he doesn't drive a Bentley or Ferrari despite his massive assets.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

rdoder said:


> Birds tweet.


But what does the fox say?


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

vkalia said:


> But what does the fox say?


He told me this thread needs a mercy killing.


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

No someone is gonna definately prove one better than the other ...it's real close now ...I can sense it


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Godzilla or Voltron? Who wins that fight?


----------



## Sublime (Sep 15, 2011)

It always makes me laugh when someone tries to drive home his purely subjective opinion by saying something is "objectively better"


Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

oak1971 said:


> Godzilla or Voltron? Who wins that fight?


Voltron of course. Hes the defender of the universe. Godzilla is an oversized lizard.

The real question is... Voltron vs. ufo grendizer... Hum!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Watchdudeman said:


> No someone is gonna definately prove one better than the other ...it's real close now ...I can sense it


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

Will SMP300 still sell if it's $7500?
Will moonwatch still sell if it's $14k?

The fact that omega can be had for a bigger discount off MSRP says it all. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Badbebe said:


> The fact that omega can be had for a bigger discount off MSRP says it all.


What does it say? Not sure I follow.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

dbostedo said:


> What does it say? Not sure I follow.


I guess it speaks to the brand equity.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

It says that Rolex has real control, give points and we'll take back the franchise.


mleok said:


> I guess it speaks to the brand equity.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

One can have JLC, GO, VC, AP, Patek, etc.. at discounts similar to Omega (not price similar to Omega though)... 
Discounting off MSRP does not signify that a brand is good or bad, but is more a reflection of how realistic MSRP is, if there is excess supply or excess demand, and how tightly sales distribution channel is controlled. I have no doubt that many Rolex ADs would move watches at higher discounts if they could, but they risk losing their AD license. Precious metal models, ladies watches - Rolex discounts these. Even with more popular models -ADs would rather make smaller profit if they can keep inventory turning..


----------



## fuzzyarrow (Apr 1, 2016)

Honestly I had never even heard of omega before taking an interest in watches.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

I had.


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

EnderW said:


> One can have JLC, GO, VC, AP, Patek, etc.. at discounts similar to Omega (not price similar to Omega though)...
> Discounting off MSRP does not signify that a brand is good or bad, but is more a reflection of how realistic MSRP is, if there is excess supply or excess demand, and how tightly sales distribution channel is controlled. I have no doubt that many Rolex ADs would move watches at higher discounts if they could, but they risk losing their AD license. Precious metal models, ladies watches - Rolex discounts these. Even with more popular models -ADs would rather make smaller profit if they can keep inventory turning..


Well I have had a few discounts from AD and when I was there last was offered a 3k jewllery sweetener/free bee with a patek instead of a discount which apparently isn't uncommon if you are in the know.. these brands aren't discounted like omega or tudor and not even like rolex(where any of their models outside the sport range are reasonably negotiable ) so if you could tell me who is discounting patek like omega ...let me know because there is money to be made here


----------



## Legion681 (Sep 1, 2012)

fuzzyarrow said:


> Honestly I had never even heard of omega before taking an interest in watches.


That's not on Omega...


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Watchdudeman said:


> Well I have had a few discounts from AD and when I was there last was offered a 3k jewllery sweetener/free bee with a patek instead of a discount which apparently isn't uncommon if you are in the know.. these brands aren't discounted like omega or tudor and not even like rolex(where any of their models outside the sport range are reasonably negotiable ) so if you could tell me who is discounting patek like omega ...let me know because there is money to be made here


Indeed, if you know an AD offering 30% off a blue Patek Nautilus 5711 or an AP Royal Oak 15202ST, let me know!


----------



## dantan (Dec 16, 2014)

Even though this is clearly a troll thread, we still enjoy taking bites at it! It is a pointless exercise; Rolex lovers will prefer Rolexes and Omega lovers will prefer Omegas. The rest of us; we buy what we love, which could be Rolex AND Omega, not to mention Grand Seiko, Zenith, Casio, A. Lange & Sohne, Patek Philippe, you name them!


----------



## bbjwho (Oct 12, 2014)

I prefer Omega styling over Rolex. 

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk


----------



## Mediocre (Oct 27, 2013)

40 pages.....no surprise there

All to realize that Omega does not aspire to be Rolex.....nor does Rolex aspire to be Omega lol


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

The longer the thread and the more pontificating by Omegans, the worse Ω looks. 

If Ω had a chance of equalling Rolex a simple "yes" would have done. One response, end of thread.

Instead fashion victims and watch idiots have taken it upon themselves to "defend" a corporation that cares neither about them nor their collections and hobbies -- just their money. It's not working guys. You're trying too hard. 

Example: leader of the free world resigns -- "I hereby resign the presidency of the United States." That's it. Gets in a helicopter and leaves. Done. In contrast, Omegans need 40 pages to grasp at straws and history and boutiques and coaxials.

Could they emulate Nixon and fly off after a single poignant statement instead? Maybe to the moon with their Speedmaster?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Mediocre said:


> All to realize that Omega does not aspire to be Rolex.....


I think Omega very much aspires to be as strong a brand name as Rolex, and be able to command the price premium and value retention that Rolex does.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

EnderW said:


> One can have JLC, GO, VC, AP, Patek, etc.. at discounts similar to Omega (not price similar to Omega though)...
> Discounting off MSRP does not signify that a brand is good or bad, but is more a reflection of how realistic MSRP is, if there is excess supply or excess demand, and how tightly sales distribution channel is controlled. I have no doubt that many Rolex ADs would move watches at higher discounts if they could, but they risk losing their AD license. Precious metal models, ladies watches - Rolex discounts these. Even with more popular models -ADs would rather make smaller profit if they can keep inventory turning..


This is a great point, and goes to show just how well Rolex does control their product and price points. They have their business model down to a science.


----------



## fuzzyarrow (Apr 1, 2016)

Legion681 said:


> That's not on Omega...


Oh I know that lol.


----------



## seiko_1 (Dec 27, 2015)

it is mindset....... people already made up their mind which is not easy to change


----------



## adin1978 (Oct 14, 2010)

Let me ask you. When is the last time you have seen an entire series of Rolex stop working (PO 2500)? Or should I ask then have you seen a Rolex with a bezel that doesn't align with the dial? Or maybe a whole new line (New Speedy Auto) that is constantly breaking? I have seen and read too many stories about Omega quality issues with their new lines. I do agree that Omega designs are much more refined and Rolex are dated. Quality is however an issue with Omega. I know this because I have had the pleasure of experiencing it first hand. I believe if Omega wasn't owned by Swatch today that may be a different story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

They certainly don't make it easy to defend the brand. 45.5mm to boot.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Seaswirl, that's the one which just got released, isn't it?

Wow. Uh... wow.

I think it's bold enough to intimidate me.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

bbjwho said:


> I prefer Omega styling over Rolex.


Are you going to stand by this statement after today? 

(kidding... kinda! ;-P )


----------



## bbjwho (Oct 12, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> Are you going to stand by this statement after today?
> 
> (kidding... kinda! ;-P )


What was special about today?

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Seaswirl said:


> They certainly don't make it easy to defend the brand. 45.5mm to boot.


No. Just no.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> Seaswirl, that's the one which just got released, isn't it?
> 
> Wow. Uh... wow.
> 
> I think it's bold enough to intimidate me.


Oh it's bold baby. It's even got a rubber bezel insert. Rubber I tell ya! Will be a bargain at $12k and certain to be a timeless classic.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Seaswirl said:


> They certainly don't make it easy to defend the brand. 45.5mm to boot.


Yeah... not sure what they are thinking here. Trying to be all things to all people I guess - serious horology, classics, modern, fashion, oversized...
Granted it seems many a brand are going a bit crazy this week - new GS line up is no better -46mm+, 15mm thick, black ceramic cases...

I guess both GS and Omega decided that competing w Rolex is too much effort and are now pursuing Hublot customer-base... (ok, I may be exaggerating, but seriously - big departures from brand DNA by both of them)


----------



## Mediocre (Oct 27, 2013)

mleok said:


> I think Omega very much aspires to be as strong a brand name as Rolex, and be able to command the price premium and value retention that Rolex does.


Maybe they do.

My statement was based on the thought that Omega has its place in the Swatch lineup, and it does not look to overstep its place and damage the position of one of the other, established luxury brands in the Swatch lineup......and Rolex is its own brand, not owned by one of the big groups, and (as a brand), it services a much wider array of customers/price points than Omega serves in the Swatch lineup.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Some Chinese billionaire will buy Rolex just for fun. Oh boy i can hear the crying already.

Introducing the new Rolex General Tso Edition with fried rice bracelet.


----------



## dr3ws (Jun 9, 2015)

BarracksSi said:


> Seaswirl, that's the one which just got released, isn't it?
> 
> Wow. Uh... wow.
> 
> I think it's bold enough to intimidate me.


It's not as intimidating as the Avenger II Seawolf though


----------



## dimman (Feb 10, 2013)

dr3ws said:


> It's not as intimidating as the Avenger II Seawolf though


*Threatening


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Seaswirl said:


> They certainly don't make it easy to defend the brand. 45.5mm to boot.


I think this watch illustrates the issue I have with Omega's contemporary lineup. The approach is very aggressive and fashion forward, but at a premium price. For me, I don't mind getting a niche watch that might not fit my lifestyle in a decade, but it would have to be at a more modest price. At a $3K to $4K Tudor level price point, things like the Black Bay, Black Bay Bronze, Pelagos, or Black Shield make sense to me, but at $12K, I would rather get a watch like the new Rolex Daytona with a more timeless aesthetic.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Mediocre said:


> Maybe they do.
> 
> My statement was based on the thought that Omega has its place in the Swatch lineup, and it does not look to overstep its place and damage the position of one of the other, established luxury brands in the Swatch lineup......and Rolex is its own brand, not owned by one of the big groups, and (as a brand), it services a much wider array of customers/price points than Omega serves in the Swatch lineup.


I think that Omega has pretty broad latitude within the Swatch group, and Omega has arguably a broader range of price points and customers than Rolex does. In particular, Omega has a more traditional presence in dress watches, and Rolex for the most part tends to focus on their Oyster line of sports and dressy sports watches. Omega also has a much more aggressive range of design aesthetics, whereas the more avant garde designs tend to show up as a Tudor branded watch.


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

I am confident that if we just devote 10, maybe 15 more pages to this question we will finally reach a definitive answer as to whether or not Omega will ever be as good as Rolex. 

We're almost there.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

I had thought that this thread was finally dying at page 41, but no, there's plenty of life still in it. I predict page 50 by next Monday.


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Sorry I know I shouldnt ( especially because I like omega watches)......but are omega even as Good as tudor? With a fully independent in house movement ..even from rolex .... and with the great build quality and styling plus the value compared to Omega it seems that little brother is better than omega .
And yes I know the co axial is a marvel but really it's a bad idea that omega wouldny let go off until it worked ...for the sake of a great USP...perhaps?


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Come on 100 pages!


----------



## piningforthefjords (May 15, 2016)

Watchdudeman said:


> And yes I know the co axial is a marvel but really it's a bad idea that omega wouldny let go off until it worked ...for the sake of a great USP...perhaps?


Let's face it, this whole thread began as a troll (hint: the OP hasn't been back since he started the thread), but I can't let your last statement slide without responding.

The following ~5-minute interviews with George Daniels are really interesting in this context (especially #44-50):
George Daniels - Master watchmaker - Did the Swiss watch industry accept the co-axial escapement? - Web of Stories

According to Daniels, he had ironed all the bugs in his co-axial movement and it was a fully-working movement before he began showing it around to other watchmakers (which makes sense). Any suggestion that it was a problematic movement was due to entrenched positions within the Swiss watch industry, and in fact he even threatened to sue Patek when they began suggesting that the movement was problematic. Patek immediately backed down and apologised to Daniels, which they wouldn't have done if he wasn't right.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Omega, George Daniels or the co-axial movement, Daniels deserves credit for inventing it and Omega deserves credit for taking it on and figuring out how to consistently mass-produce it.

As a side-note, anyone can now build a co-axial movement of their own since the patent's now expired. My personal feeling is that it could be the best movement in the world (I don't know enough to say whether or not it is), but no-one other than Swatch will use it because they'd be admitting that Omega and Daniels were (are?) right. The commercial and reputational repercussions would be unthinkable.

(NB. I only own one Omega and I'm most definitely not an Omega fanboy, but credit where credit's due, I think.)


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Ticonderoga said:


> I had thought that this thread was finally dying at page 41, but no, there's plenty of life still in it. I predict page 50 by next Monday.


Well, in fairness, we should get a -5 page credit given that at least 5 pages were generated by your nonsensical post that anyone wearing a luxury watch while flying coach is a poseur.


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

publandlord said:


> I agree. The assertion that the insanely rich only wear expensive watches is dumb, dumber than the assumption that only - ONLY, no correlation, we're talkin' zero per cent - the insanely rich wear expensive watches


+1

Often, those in first class did nothing more than earn a lot of miles and status by flying a lot. I know because I often get upgraded for doing nothing.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Seaswirl said:


> They certainly don't make it easy to defend the brand. 45.5mm to boot.


AND 17.2mm thick!!


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

BarracksSi said:


> Seaswirl, that's the one which just got released, isn't it?
> 
> Wow. Uh... wow.
> 
> I think it's bold enough to intimidate me.


But does it _threaten_ you? It doesn't count unless it threatens you...


----------



## publandlord (Aug 15, 2006)

Seaswirl said:


> Well, in fairness, we should get a -5 page credit given that at least 5 pages were generated by your nonsensical post that anyone wearing a luxury watch while flying coach is a poseur.


"Business class" is proof, if more were needed which surely it doesn't, the money and class are not on the same vector.

Yep, 50 pages


----------



## publandlord (Aug 15, 2006)

BigSeikoFan said:


> AND 17.2mm thick!!
> 
> View attachment 8438442


A full cream 19.2mm for the chrono, and clarified-buttermilk 20mm for the Spacemaster although I believe it is at least splashproof .

There's just no need.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

bbjwho said:


> What was special about today?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk


Check page... uh... 42 -- post #419. Can't miss it.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Grab your Tec if you see Rolex... Call the feds if you see Rolex...


----------



## Pun (Sep 2, 2015)

rdoder said:


> Pot calling the kettle black.
> 
> Watch companies are not your friends. They are drug dealers, dealing drugs in your head. Some people have no problem with drinking, some do. Know thyself.
> 
> ...


Another viewpoint but a very pertinent and deep in understanding. I appreciate your views. Know Thyself encompasses all. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Watchdudeman said:


> tudor? With a fully independent in house movement


Is it a definitive fact that the Tudor in-house movement was developed completely independently from Rolex? From a business sense, it strikes me as having the potential to be pointlessly inefficient.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Seaswirl said:


> Well, in fairness, we should get a -5 page credit given that at least 5 pages were generated by your nonsensical post that anyone wearing a luxury watch while flying coach is a poseur.


... its kept me up late these last few nights,

thinking of something else to post that could elicit as much ire as that line brought...

is that trolling?


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Ticonderoga said:


> ... its kept me up late these last few nights,
> 
> thinking of something else to post that could elicit as much ire as that line brought...
> 
> is that trolling?


Nah. Just adding some more fuel and fun to an otherwise insane thread. It's all good.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Seaswirl said:


> Nah. Just adding some more fuel and fun to an otherwise insane thread. It's all good.


I was reading the Grand Seiko vs. regular seiko thread and one guy went on and on explaining why GS was the best watch in the world, best fit and finish, even better than Rolex.

I was soooooo tempted to reply, "But one says "Seiko," and the other says "Rolex" ...

maybe on Friday, after third beer I'll go and add it...


----------



## Call_me_Tom (Jul 20, 2007)

[looks left] - [looks right]


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

vkalia said:


> Is it a definitive fact that the Tudor in-house movement was developed completely independently from Rolex? From a business sense, it strikes me as having the potential to be pointlessly inefficient.


I agree, it would be very silly is there was no sharing of information between Rolex and Tudor in making the new Tudor movements. The design of the new movements do seem to suggest a strong Rolex influence, so in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I would assume that the movements have not been developed completely independently of Rolex.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

piningforthefjords said:


> Let's face it, this whole thread began as a troll (hint: the OP hasn't been back since he started the thread), but I can't let your last statement slide without responding.
> 
> The following ~5-minute interviews with George Daniels are really interesting in this context (especially #44-50):
> George Daniels - Master watchmaker - Did the Swiss watch industry accept the co-axial escapement? - Web of Stories
> ...


Patek wasn't particularly interested in the co-axial escapement because there did not seem to be a way to realize it in a thin movement that is suitable for a dress watch, and there was definitely an element of "not invented here" syndrome. But, as Daniels admits, he was was not particularly keen on making the co-axial escapement thinner, because he was primarily interested in everyday wear watches. As for Patek withdrawing their claims and apologizing, I suspect it's just a simple matter of it not being worth the effort of being caught up in a lawsuit regarding a matter that was not critical to their business interests.

Omega's trouble with the co-axial escapement had a great deal to do with them ignoring everything Daniels told them about the co-axial escapement, be it in terms of the beat rate, or the minuscule (but non-zero) levels of oiling that were required.

As to the question of whether it is worth the effort to adopt the co-axial escapement more broadly, Omega has already performed the hypothetical for you, in the form of the early Omega 2500 calibres, which were essentially ETA 2892-A2s with the two level co-axial escapement and a free-sprung balance. Comparing the performance of these two movements should help isolate the specific benefits of the co-axial escapement. The later 2500 calibres adopted a three-level co-axial escapement, but they also reduced the beat rate, so the comparison is a bit less direct, particularly if one is attempting to compare movement longevity.

The 8500 calibre movements are excellent, but their performance is definitely enhanced by the twin barrel design, which flattens out the torque curve, and the silicon hairspring, which eliminates the skill intensive task of shaping the hairspring.

As a practical matter, the co-axial escapement has a very precise oiling requirement, and unlike a traditional Swiss lever escapement, it's impossible to tell from the performance of the movement if the oil had migrated and needs to be replaced, which could result in costly part replacements if preventive maintenance is not done regularly.


----------



## dimman (Feb 10, 2013)

mleok said:


> *Patek wasn't particularly interested in the co-axial escapement because there did not seem to be a way to realize it in a thin movement that is suitable for a dress watch, and there was definitely an element of "not invented here" syndrome. But, as Daniels admits, he was was not particularly keen on making the co-axial escapement thinner, because he was primarily interested in everyday wear watches*. As for Patek withdrawing their claims and apologizing, I suspect it's just a simple matter of it not being worth the effort of being caught up in a lawsuit regarding a matter that was not critical to their business interests.
> 
> Omega's trouble with the co-axial escapement had a great deal to do with them ignoring everything Daniels told them about the co-axial escapement, be it in terms of the beat rate, or the minuscule (but non-zero) levels of oiling that were required.
> 
> ...


From 'Watchmaking':



> *Extra Flat Co-Axial Escapement*
> The height of the escape wheels of the co-axial escapement was considered to be a disadvantage for use in very thin watches that are currently fashionable. To overcome this objection, the elevation of the components has been lowered by dispensing with the escape pinion whose function is then performed by the small impulse wheel.


A bunch of technical stuff...



> For the first of these escapements, fitted to a movement of 2 mm overall height, the escaping angle was increased to 36° for a lever angle of 17°, with the train altered to 21,600 from the original count of 28,800. These thin watches, fitted with small balances and regulator indexes, are not intended to be precision timekeepers but this particular example has been in regular use for ten years without attention and can maintain a usefully close rate.


So it's probably a precision/accuracy issue with the thin co-axial.* Because 2 mm is fantastically slim, even for a handwind.

*Plus this sounds like a conversion rather than scratch designed, a larger balance diameter could probably offset the rate reduction, and it seems the base he converted was probably not a chronometer to begin with.


----------



## Herbalizer (Jul 24, 2010)

yes... the 2500d version is heavily modified --- and has the triple level escape wheel just like the 8500


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Independent from rolex?? Apparently the development of the tudor movement is independent but even if it wasn't ...the two companies are the same really so a few pointers are OK. Omega and the rest of those swatch companies have forfeited a lot of their independence whereas tudor is a legitimate child of rolex.
But look at the developments tudor are making...progress towards full independence.....the pelagos bracelet ,70hours power reserve ,full bridge , silicon etc etc .... I see great things coming from tudor


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

I think this post is getting really long 😃.

In an automotive kind of sense, 

Omega = Buick (est. 1899)
Rolex = Cadillac (est. 1902)

Like American car. Drink a helluva gasoline that drains your money. You buy it and have it but going around the city with your Japanese. You have them just to show that you can afford to and show your true American spirit.

Back in a watch business kind of sense. Both are a good and reputable watch. But Rolex manage to maintain the market perception. They have the upper hand due to their long term market strategy and risk taking initiative during quartz crisis. When people sell their mechanical watch cheap, they purchase it higher.

Rolex manage to see that human tertier needs actually their craved for attention. We (WIS) need to show that we have something that the peasants don't. Whereas Omega cave in and try to step in the quartz game with extra price tag against the Jap. 

The other reason that Rolex stand on their own foot. Therefore, provide availability and freedom to move up and maintain their prestige status. Omega, they have to eat the target market of Breguet, Glashütte OR or Blancpain (BP is a reboot brand by JC Biver actually) to grow and level up their status. Thus, in a holding company kind of sense, Swatch creates their segmented market on their products. Omega target market and purspose is to close the gap with Rolex but not above. Swatch targeted and segmented you lot (Omegans) to be below Rolexers (I'm just guessing you fans name 😆). Hence, our current Omega vs Rolex debacle.

Quality wised, Omega and Rolex, not so different. We (WIS) just a means to make them richer. Believe you me that their FOB might be only 1/5th of the MRP.

PS: I'm an Omegans BTW.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## TheJackel2013 (Dec 28, 2013)

LOL. One brand is usually worn by people who care more about what other people think, and the other brand is worn by people desperately trying to show the first camp that they don't care what those people think. /Flame suit on


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

TheJackel2013 said:


> LOL. One brand is usually worn by people who care more about what other people think, and the other brand is worn by people desperately trying to show the first camp that they don't care what those people think. /Flame suit on


Funny and somewhat true.

I have stayed away from this thread but now I see its ballooning. So...

Rolex makes over advertised, over priced watches that are made out of cutlery and are not as accurate as a casio or apple watch.

Omega makes over advertised, over priced watches that are made out of cutlery and are not as accurate as a casio or apple watch.

I own one of each. They are both good watches. we buy these watches because as WIS there is something fundamentally wrong with us mentally or emotionally. Take ur pick. With me its probably both!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Crate410 said:


> Funny and somewhat true.
> 
> I have stayed away from this thread but now I see its ballooning. So...
> 
> ...


There is indeed a narcissism of small differences at play here. Rolex and Omega are much more alike than their fans are willing to admit.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

mleok said:


> There is indeed a narcissism of small differences at play here. Rolex and Omega are much more alike than their fans are willing to admit.


That's true whenever we talk about watches at this level -- and we can add the Grand Seiko fanboys to this as well. But not shocking. As collectors, many of us make the inanimate objects we enjoy parts of our identities. Also, human beings like pecking orders and hierarchies, even as we try to fight against them. "Narcissism of small differences" will always result.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

4 posts in a row that are all in agreement? Quick, someone post something inflammatory!


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

mleok said:


> There is indeed a narcissism of small differences at play here. Rolex and Omega are much more alike than their fans are willing to admit.


Correct, they are both garbage worn by trash. It was getting boring anyway.


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

Ticonderoga said:


> 4 posts in a row that are all in agreement? Quick, someone post something inflammatory!


Nomos is crap and a grand seiko is a rolex wannabe!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## edhchoe (Mar 2, 2010)

Ticonderoga said:


> 4 posts in a row that are all in agreement? Quick, someone post something inflammatory!


The last alphabet, Omega vs meaningless made up name, Rolex.
They both suck as far as the name goes.


----------



## cmac06 (Mar 13, 2016)

Omega keeps passing off the Speedy as the moon watch, then why did one astronaut decide his personal watch was better than the one issued by NASA. They didn't even have faith in it, and changed the movement out. So enjoy your replica moon watches...

As far as Rolex, they couldn't develop their own automatic chrono until 2000; so much for innovation. Rolex may be something, but it's not innovative. It's like calling Apple innovative; they may take someone else's innovative idea, and implement it better, but innovate they don't do.

A name is worth a lot, but these two carry a very low premium.

Oops, I'm riding the fence, but too lazy to erase all of what I typed on this tiny keyboard, so you're going to have to read it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

Rallyfan13 said:


> The longer the thread and the more pontificating by Omegans, the worse Ω looks.
> 
> If Ω had a chance of equalling Rolex a simple "yes" would have done. One response, end of thread.
> 
> ...


I'm sensing a lot of resistance to the Omega logo hahhahahahaha


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

TheJackel2013 said:


> LOL. One brand is usually worn by people who care more about what other people think, and the other brand is worn by people desperately trying to show the first camp that they don't care what those people think. /Flame suit on


Well said. I laughed out loud.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

Deleted


----------



## Gunnar_917 (Feb 24, 2015)

Crate410 said:


> Nomos is crap and a grand seiko is a rolex wannabe!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


He said inflammatory, not post the truth


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Ticonderoga said:


> 4 posts in a row that are all in agreement? Quick, someone post something inflammatory!


Your Rolex is the muck in horse stalls. Your Omega is only an ornament for public toilets. And both are expensive ****e.


----------



## piningforthefjords (May 15, 2016)

Ticonderoga said:


> 4 posts in a row that are all in agreement? Quick, someone post something inflammatory!


Why bother wearing a Rolex when anyone who notices will just assume it's a fake (sorry, _homage_) anyway?

And everyone knows that Omega-wearers are just glorified man-children indulging their James Bond and astronaut fantasies, while completely ignorant of the fact that the _real _James Bond wore a Rolex and NASA never landed on the moon.

(EDIT: Sarcasm, people. Wear what the hell you want and damn the haters.)


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

piningforthefjords said:


> Why bother wearing a Rolex when anyone who notices will just assume it's a fake (sorry, _homage_) anyway?


Depends on where you are. There are places in the world where a rolex is almost a birthright by the age of 20 so no one assumes its fake. Just saying this generalization isnt universal.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dantan (Dec 16, 2014)

Anyone that knows me knows that I do not buy and wear fakes of anything, especially not Watches. 

Anyone else, whatever they think, does not bother me.

No one notices or cares what Watch I wear, anyway, except some of my close friends who know that I am a Watch person.


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

cmac06 said:


> Omega keeps passing off the Speedy as the moon watch, then why did one astronaut decide his personal watch was better than the one issued by NASA. They didn't even have faith in it, and changed the movement out. So enjoy your replica moon watches...
> 
> As far as Rolex, they couldn't develop their own automatic chrono until 2000; so much for innovation. Rolex may be something, but it's not innovative. It's like calling Apple innovative; they may take someone else's innovative idea, and implement it better, but innovate they don't do.
> 
> ...


Ironic that your post was sent from your overpriced and inferior iPhone.


----------



## piningforthefjords (May 15, 2016)

Crate410 said:


> Depends on where you are. There are places in the world where a rolex is almost a birthright by the age of 20 so no one assumes its fake. Just saying this generalization isnt universal.


Absolutely, but I thought it was obvious I never intended for that to be taken seriously, being so OTT. I was being very, very sarcastic, lampooning some of the criticisms of Rolex and Omega that I've heard over the years.

Although... I did once hear about a guy (this is second or third-hand so could be BS) who decided to sell all his Rolexes because he got tired of being constantly asked "is it real?". I believed it when I got told because it was a good friend telling me, and I've also personally seen that question being asked many times of Rolexes. Always thought it was kind of a rude question to ask. Or maybe that's the point.

Will go back and edit my post to make it clearer.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

I like both and own/owned Omegas however could not manage to talk my self into buying a Rolex yet.
Whenever I see Joma out of stock pricing for previous models and the currently excessive inflated pricing for the same model I struggle to rationalise the 30 to 50% price increase over the past couple of years where models did not change much. 
I feel its almost like daylight robbery and walk away.
That being said the BLNR is the only Rolex I may buy once I get over that pricing absurdity and switch my brain off the rest is very boring (sorry had to stick a knife in going by the thread theme)


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

No.


----------



## cmac06 (Mar 13, 2016)

WatchingYou77 said:


> Ironic that your post was sent from your overpriced and inferior iPhone.


Apple is the savior of all mankind. Without Apple there would be no smart anything. You're talking about the company that brought us streaming music, handheld integrated cameras and let's not forget the best of all, the camp out for new device events. The best Google could do was release a device prematurely to create artificial demand by having no supply. Besides, where else can you get all this with 16gb of non-expandable memory for less than $600. Your precious Rolexes nor Omegas and especially Google can hold a candle to anything THIS phone can do as long as you are close to a proprietary USB cable at least once every 6-8 hours. The reason the keyboard sucks is so Android has a fighting chance. After all, even Google makes better iPhone apps than native apps for their own OS...just saying.

If you want to dispute the superiority of iPhone, just grab yourself a bottle of the most expensive champagne you can find, and begin pouring it over your device. If it still works when the bottle is done, you're still an idiot because you wasted a bottle of champagne. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

The only thing worse than a Fake Rolex is a Rolex


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

While over 10 years old now you should read the "Walt Odets" very famous Rolex review. It goes into macro level detail and it's shocking what he finds. Rolex isn't so great after reading that.

The Rolex case back is removed and the pictures of how poor the Rolex movement is finished are shocking, to the point it's just embarrassing. 


That's why Rolex have solid case backs


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Richerson said:


> The only thing worse than a Fake Rolex is a Rolex


... move along people, nothing to see here, nothing inflammatory at all...


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

cmac06 said:


> Apple is the savior of all mankind. Without Apple there would be no smart anything. You're talking about the company that brought us streaming music, handheld integrated cameras and let's not forget the best of all, the camp out for new device events. The best Google could do was release a device prematurely to create artificial demand by having no supply. Besides, where else can you get all this with 16gb of non-expandable memory for less than $600. Your precious Rolexes nor Omegas and especially Google can hold a candle to anything THIS phone can do as long as you are close to a proprietary USB cable at least once every 6-8 hours. The reason the keyboard sucks is so Android has a fighting chance. After all, even Google makes better iPhone apps than native apps for their own OS...just saying.
> 
> If you want to dispute the superiority of iPhone, just grab yourself a bottle of the most expensive champagne you can find, and begin pouring it over your device. If it still works when the bottle is done, you're still an idiot because you wasted a bottle of champagne.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I was commenting on his post haha.... I use an iPhone and Apple computers. No complaining here. Love Apple products.


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

piningforthefjords said:


> And everyone knows that Omega-wearers are just glorified man-children indulging their James Bond and astronaut fantasies, while completely ignorant of the fact that the _real _James Bond wore a Rolex and NASA never landed on the moon.


But there was no laser beam built in in his Rolex, while Omega has it.
And only Omega could count exactly 14 seconds during the filming of the moon landing in Hollywood


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Richerson said:


> While over 10 years old now you should read the "Walt Odets" very famous Rolex review. It goes into macro level detail and it's shocking what he finds. Rolex isn't so great after reading that.
> 
> The Rolex case back is removed and the pictures of how poor the Rolex movement is finished are shocking, to the point it's just embarrassing.
> 
> That's why Rolex have solid case backs


Too funny. We just had a thread about this where it was discussed how desperate people need to refer to an article almost two decades old about a watch movement that's no longer produced.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Richerson said:


> The only thing worse than a Fake Rolex is a Rolex


Added Jeremy's quote before I could.

Although I would buy a Rolex today under the right circumstances, I totally agreed with this line when it was new. I still think it's correct, too, but now I don't care so much about what other people think.


----------



## IGotId (Feb 14, 2012)

This thread is now #10 all-time post wise...quite a way to go to catch number 9 at 652 posts.


----------



## Keithcozz (Oct 10, 2014)

No.


----------



## copperjohn (Feb 5, 2010)

HOW is this thread still going? 

I ask, as I post, thereby sending it back to the top....


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Richerson said:


> The only thing worse than a Fake Rolex is a Rolex





Richerson said:


> While over 10 years old now you should read the "Walt Odets" very famous Rolex review. It goes into macro level detail and it's shocking what he finds. Rolex isn't so great after reading that.
> 
> The Rolex case back is removed and the pictures of how poor the Rolex movement is finished are shocking, to the point it's just embarrassing.
> 
> That's why Rolex have solid case backs


After 10 years on the forum, you should know by now to add /sarcasm tags to such posts, lest have people add another 10 pages thinking you are serious


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

EnderW said:


> After 10 years on the forum, you should know by now to add /sarcasm tags to such posts, lest have people add another 10 pages thinking you are serious


yep, I know, but they aren't bothering people on other worth while threads. ;-)


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

dantan said:


> Anyone that knows me knows that I do not buy and wear fakes of anything, especially not Watches.


Eh... that's probably just a long con so when you break out the fake Pateks and Richard Milles no one suspects anything. ;-) :-d


----------



## RDK (Mar 11, 2011)

TheJackel2013 said:


> LOL. One brand is usually worn by people who care more about what other people think, and the other brand is worn by people desperately trying to show the first camp that they don't care what those people think. /Flame suit on


Which puts me exactly where..? 😉


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

RDK said:


> Which puts me exactly where..? 


Suffering from an identity crisis!


----------



## Gunnar_917 (Feb 24, 2015)

RDK said:


> Which puts me exactly where..? 


You must be the only one on the forum who has one of each; thanks for sharing!


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

RDK said:


> Which puts me exactly where..? 😉


You need to pick sides and send me the one you don't want. I'll pay for postage.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

cedargrove said:


> Too funny. We just had a thread about this where it was discussed how desperate people need to refer to an article almost two decades old about a watch movement that's no longer produced.


The Walt Odets saga...

I wish people would bother to learn the back story and understand the context of the review.

Walt was setup by Richard Paige with the absolute expected resulting review. It did have much more far reaching ramifications than Richard expected including Rolex attempting to get Walt's home address from Timezone.

If anyone cares the backstory is easier to find than the review.

In short Walt a self taught watchmaker (and a very good one by all accounts) only had exposure to the movements of Trinity level (or near) movements and it was his first time aiming his microscope at anything lower than high end movements. He was disappointed with the Rolex just as Richard expected and intended. After this Walt began to review a much wider range of watches and came to the conclusion that Rolex was indeed a good value proposition. It was akin to a car guy ask to review a Honda having only driven and been in Rolls, Maybach and Bentleys.

Walt is a well know clinical psychologist so watch relating things can be difficult to google just by his name but he was active on TZ for years.


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

The back story neither alters nor invalidates the conclusions. Unless photos were doctored the conclusions stand.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

ilitig8 said:


> The Walt Odets saga...
> 
> I wish people would bother to learn the back story and understand the context of the review.
> 
> ...


What were Rolex going to do with his home address?


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

Have their lawyers send him a love letter?


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

Rallyfan13 said:


> Have their lawyers send him a love letter?


with lots of kisses


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

To be fair the review was along time ago in 2002, now the automated factories make them in China I'm sure the quality Is better :-d


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Rallyfan13 said:


> The back story neither alters nor invalidates the conclusions. Unless photos were doctored the conclusions stand.


LOL You think lack of proper perspective doesn't taint a review?

Consider how his opinion and conclusions changed when he did indeed have a more complete perspective. You can wish it away if you like but lack of perspective left his conclusions invalid and he said as much later.

Now conclusions one makes based on the pictures alone are valid within their own perspective but it does not mean they have the experience to compare it to other watches of the time in the same price bracket.

Consider this, if a person's only experience with cars was driving a Mercedes F1 WO4 then you ask them to review a Ferrari 488 you are going to hear a LOT about how slow the car is and how poor the brakes are but without knowing and understanding the reviewers background the relative conclusions are useless. If they provide the performance metrics then you have a better basis for making your own conclusions if YOU have the requisite background to make legitimate conclusions.

Again, Mr. Odets changed his opinion and conclusions about the watch when he had proper perspective which he did not have at the time of the review, if you don;t think this overshadows his earlier comments then you are simply being a contrarian.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

RDK said:


> Which puts me exactly where..?


I think many would assume I'm a Rolex fanboy, but I do have both as well.



















If I had to explain my preferences, I would say I prefer vintage Omegas and modern Rolexes. In particular, if someone has a minty Omega Pie Pan Constellation to sell, let me know.


----------



## GlennO (Jan 3, 2010)

ilitig8 said:


> Again, Mr. Odets changed his opinion and conclusions about the watch when he had proper perspective which he did not have at the time of the review, ...


I've read this from second hand sources but I'm curious, is there a more reliable source for his later conclusions?


----------



## Calvinjenkins (Jun 17, 2016)

Been told time hanges everything, but I don't see this change happening....ROLEX!!!!!!!!


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> LOL You think lack of proper perspective doesn't taint a review?
> .


What did I write?

No amount of automotive examples (non sequitur, though I suspect you knew that) will change the pictures.

*Were the pictures altered? Were they doctored to make the movement finish look worse than it was in reality*.

If yes, then maybe Rolex ought to have gone after Odets.

If no, then the pictures are not a matter of opinion.

Which is it?


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

Some solid references to such back story would be good.


----------



## Toothbras (Apr 19, 2010)

RDK said:


> Which puts me exactly where..?


A guy with a sunburn?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Rallyfan13 said:


> What did I write?
> 
> No amount of automotive examples (non sequitur, though I suspect you knew that) will change the pictures.
> 
> ...


Most people are not qualified to tell if those pictures correspond to a well or poorly finished movement. They don't have a sense as to what should be expected of a movement at that price point. Without that contextual information, the photos while objective, give very little useful information about the value proposition of a Rolex.


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

Richerson said:


> To be fair the review was along time ago in 2002, now the automated factories make them in China I'm sure the quality Is better :-d


You're right, Omega's parts suppliers/vendors in China must be pretty decent quality. Those metal bracelets are great. I haven't heard any complaints on this site about them.

Omega.


----------



## BostonWatcher (Jun 28, 2012)

Ticonderoga said:


> No matter how you slice it, nothing says "poser" more than a guy wearing a Rolex while flying coach.
> 
> If you can't afford Business or 1st, you probably have bigger financial worries than a watch worth 3 months salary.
> 
> Of course, unless you "won" it LOL.


My company insists I fly business or first and I always fly coach, domestically and internationally, as I can't see the point in spending several thousand dollars on doing so. I know many people that make millions of dollars per year and have the same notion I do....your statement is ridiculous.



Ticonderoga said:


> Or is it the assumption that people want others to make about them when they wear a Rolex?
> 
> 99% of people (non WUS at least) don't wear a Rolex because they like it, they wear it so that others will make assumptions about them.


This I agree with, as long as we keep it to non WIS because all of us here know that Rolex makes a mighty fine watch.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

mleok said:


> Most people are not qualified to tell if those pictures correspond to a well or poorly finished movement. They don't have a sense as to what should be expected of a movement at that price point. Without that contextual information, the photos while objective, give very little useful information about the value proposition of a Rolex.


Most here with even a small amount of experience knows the difference between something that's executed well or not. We all spend an unhealthy amount of time looking at detailed macro shots.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Richerson said:


> Most here with even a small amount of experience knows the difference between something that's executed well or not. We all spend an unhealthy amount of time looking at detailed macro shots.


Of cases and dials, perhaps, less so of movements, particularly parts of the movement that are hidden behind the main plate, and are therefore not visible through a display caseback. It should be mentioned that display casebacks were not very common prior to 2000, and superficial movement decoration has improved since then in response to the increased prevalence of the display caseback. For example, the Omega Speedmaster Professional with the display caseback uses an 1863 calibre instead of the 1861 used in the one with the solid caseback, and the main difference is that it uses a metal break instead of a plastic break, and it has Geneva stripes.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

mleok said:


> Of cases and dials, perhaps, less so of movements, particularly parts of the movement that are hidden behind the main plate, and are therefore not visible through a display caseback.


Sorry I disagree & I'm sure many others will as well.

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Richerson said:


> Sorry I disagree & I'm sure many others will as well.


Out of curiosity, which movements from that era have you seen completely dissembled under similar magnification to the ones in Odet's article.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

GlennO said:


> I've read this from second hand sources but I'm curious, is there a more reliable source for his later conclusions?


As you may know much of the old TZ info is poorly archived, poorly organized and some seems to just be plain missing. I think the best you are going to be able to do at this point is find the posts/interviews with Richard Paige. Walt has not been around (at least identifiable as Walt) for a few years, he hung out on TZ and did many more "articles" after that (often this episode is cited to have run him off) and he gained a much wider perspective and tore apart many more main-stream movements. Richard has been vocal he was not a Rolex fan and set Walt up pretty much knowing what the outcome of his review would be but not the extent of the hysteria that ensued. From all accounts Walt was/is a brilliant man and weathered a serious internet excoriation.

In the end I think this is a interesting chapter in internet watch forum lore and one thing to keep in mind it is roughly 15 year old review of the then long in the tooth caliber 3000 and has only historical implications today.


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

52 pages when the answer is clearly *no* from a consumer perception of the BRAND standpoint.

Personally, I am not a big fan of Omega as of late. They seem desperate to position themselves relative to Rolex and they are making the wrong moves in an attempt to do this.

Omega is ramping up their retail prices over a very short period of time, hitting ludicrous levels with the new ceramic PO, and they are continuing to push the marketing envelope, but they seem to lack the restraint and class that makes Rolex, Rolex. They are trying to build a watch for every consumer rather than getting every consumer to desire their watch. Jacking up your price to Rolex levels does not make you Rolex, especially when people obviously are not buying at those prices.

Many people complain Rolex is boring, but therein lies what has allowed them to maintain such a premium image over the years. They are methodical in their releases, they manage supply in an amazingly effective way to increase demand for the more coveted models, and they are extremely clever in the way they market the brand.

I bought a GMT Master because they created the GMT, the watch is timeless in its design, and also because as someone who works in marketing and spends his life developing brands, you have to tip your hat to these guys for how insanely smart they are in creating an icon brand... every Rolex related thread on this forum starts a firestorm of posts with both those who love and hate the brand... it's a billion dollar watch company, and we sit here arguing over the watches as if the brand was a member of our family. Fantastic really.

The hatred for the brand is just as beneficial as the love for the brand because it intensifies the emotion and the status that is ROLEX. Emotion is what sells products. People buy brands, especially luxury brands because of emotional reasons. Rolex is a master in creating this feeling. Omega has a bit of nostalgia with the MOTM and the Bond tie ins, but not the raw emotion.

In terms of Omega, they are less methodical, and they are clearly reaching at the moment given their flurry of line extensions. The new ceramic PO looks like an 18mm hockey puck. 10 years from now people will wonder why the hell they bought it. This of course does not apply to the MOTM, Aqua Terra, and many other watches, but their new extensions are tarnishing the legacy of the moon watch, the PO, etc. and will long-term have the opposite effect as what they want.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Rallyfan13 said:


> What did I write?
> 
> No amount of automotive examples (non sequitur, though I suspect you knew that) will change the pictures.
> 
> ...


What did you write you ask? The word "conclusion" stands out as the salient word in your previous post. Pictures are not conclusions the conclusions were drawn by Mr. Odets based on his first hand viewing of the watch and movement, the pictures were to illustrate the basis of the conclusions to the reader. If a person forms their own conclusion based on the pictures that is a different matter and can be weighted by third parties based on the bias/experience/perspective of the one drawing the conclusion.

Hoisted by one's own petard comes to mind here, the petard in this case was "conclusion".

The key is understanding how perception/experience impact a reviewers ability to form accurate and relevant conclusions, at the time Odets lacked experience with similar priced movements and simply compared them to the Trinity level movements he was used to viewing under his microscope.


----------



## Pun (Sep 2, 2015)

ilitig8 said:


> Rallyfan13 said:
> 
> 
> > What did I write?
> ...


BTW nothing succeeds like success goes the saying.

I've owned PP, JLC, Omega, Chopard LUC XPS, IWC, TAG AND Rolex watches. I used to hate Rolex till 6 months ago reading such reviews and enjoying them deriding Rolex with all possible angles.

Then to be fair to the brand I bought a Rolex Explorer 1 only to personally experience the much hated brand called Rolex.

Now in 2 months I realized the quality of the watch inherently has unmatched accuracy, reliability, robustness and above all a great sense of 'value for money' brand. No wonder these watches retain better value in pre-owned market as well.

I must say Rolex has successfully delivered it's products that are great in value and that package includes a fantastic marketing strategy as well. Reviews like under discussion here have not made any dent in that quality image. Recently Rolex was declared the most valuable brand.

Few disgruntled persons, no offence intended, can says whatever they wish, and few others may relish their views with pleasure yet selling close to a million watches, still retaining quality delivery to the consumers and increasing the value of the brand is unparallel and can't be done without a strong basis. You can't fool all people all the times.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Something else I think germane to the Odets review:

Either the movement in the watch in question was a manufacturing anomaly or it was representative of the quality of the movement at the time.

If it was an anomaly then it is simply that and merely points to a single manufacturing issue.

More likely it was at least reasonably representative of the particular movement quality from Rolex at the time. Now consider this. That movement is now 40 years old and that movement has proved to be nothing but a solid workhorse movement known to be very accurate for the time and able to shrug off extended service intervals. The one in question also showed very good time keeping in Walt's hands. In this case a watch with poor "under ground" finish with a solid case back has simply proven to work at least as well as would be expected for a movement of that price and time period. While one may prefer better under the hood finishing than it provided the utility of the movement (in relation to other mechanical watches of the era) is hard to impune.


----------



## GlennO (Jan 3, 2010)

Yes I read much of it a long time ago. I thought I may have missed some later comments on the matter by Walt, rather than others putting words in his mouth. In any case I agree it has little relevance today and I certainly can't be bothered spending any further time researching it.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

GlennO said:


> Yes I read much of it a long time ago. I thought I may have missed some later comments on the matter by Walt, rather than others putting words in his mouth. In any case I agree it has little relevance today and I certainly can't be bothered spending any further time researching it.


While I didn't make it clear nor should it add any weight to the argument I do remember him discussing this, I believe on the TZ watch school forum (he set up the school) but all that first hand information has been lost to the ether, well unless one is in the NSA because they probably have every key stroke of the internet logged somewhere, the REAL wayback machine.


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

Richerson said:


> While over 10 years old now you should read the "Walt Odets" very famous Rolex review. It goes into macro level detail and it's shocking what he finds. Rolex isn't so great after reading that.
> 
> The Rolex case back is removed and the pictures of how poor the Rolex movement is finished are shocking, to the point it's just embarrassing.
> 
> That's why Rolex have solid case backs


I know you're probably sitting back enjoying taunting the Rolex fanboi base and yes, it probably doesn't take much to get people riled when it comes to this divisive brand.

However, in the context of this thread, the question isn't whether Rolex does or doesn't offer a decent watch for the money or has shoddy QC. The question of OP is "Will Omega ever be as good as Rolex?"

As such, the Odets article in question is irrelevant to the OP's question (or point) unless Odets did a strip down of a standard Omega movement at that same general time period, and from a watch that was considered a similarly positioned watch within the Omega product range as the Rolex Explorer - maybe a Seamaster?. AFAIK, the only article Odets clearly discusses an Omega is the Omega Co-Axial Deville, which yes, he gave positive comments about, but was a limited edition and pricey model that could be considered a flagship of their product line, and the first to use the Co-Axial movt. Seems unlikely that Omega would have been sloppy with such a watch.

My point being that maybe Rolex was being inexcusably sloppy with its calibre 3000 movement, or maybe Odets was too used to seeing real serious high end stuff and a Rolex workhorse of that time can't measure up. Either way, a review of a particular Rolex movement no longer used BTW, doesn't really add to the discussion of whether or not Rolex as a brand is surpassed in quality by Omega - assume "as good" is in reference to "quality".


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

wschofield3 said:


> My company insists I fly business or first and I always fly coach, domestically and internationally, as I can't see the point in spending several thousand dollars on doing so. I know many people that make millions of dollars per year and have the same notion I do....your statement is ridiculous.





Ticonderoga said:


> Or is it the assumption that people want others to make about them when they wear a Rolex?
> 
> 99% of people (non WUS at least) don't wear a Rolex because they like it, they wear it so that others will make assumptions about them.





wschofield3 said:


> This I agree with, as long as we keep it to non WIS because all of us here know that Rolex makes a mighty fine watch.


Never did I get so much hate mail as when I made that first statement. Perhaps I should have also added the caveat to include the 99% of the NON WUS crowd, because when I wrote it, I was talking about a certain "type," and we all know well this "type" of Rolex wearer. But then again, what's the point of this thread if not to provoke, satirize and make comedy?

I'm talking about the person who knows nothing about watches and bought the Rolex because they know it to mean "affluence." This person has two mortgages, $38,000 in credit card debt, child support and alimony payments, is on the verge of losing their job and bought a Rolex on a near maxed out credit card in order to impress the ladies at the bar. And now, he's going to Cancun flying coach being sure to point here and there with an outstretched arm with his sleeves rolled up so that everyone can see his new submariner.

Now, Rolex folks, before you get in a huff, you now what I'm talking about, we've all seen this guy somewhere (dare I say it? there are even a few here). For the rest of the WUS crowd who buy Rolex because they REALLY like the style (I'm in this camp) and because it is a well made watch (I'm also in this camp), then my poser comments aren't directed at you :-!

Coming from a finance background, I'm always impressed that people who can't make a contribution to their 401(k) or personal IRA always seem to have an extra $5k for a _________ (insert watch brand here).

Yes, I know that there are many who must (or choose to) fly coach and can still afford a Rolex or choose to over-reach (financially) to own one because they see real value, but for the average schmoe without a savings account, with no funded retirement account, who has a lot of debt and rents rather than owns, and then forks over $5,000 to $25,000 for a watch _*to impress others*_, that guy is a poser all day and twice on Sunday.

I even saw a few comparisons of this and that billionaire who fly coach: the difference is, they can afford a Rolex, my described "poser" can't.

And this last line is my humble opinion only, take it as you will:

Watches are meant to be bought with disposable cash, money left after finance is cared for. For those who over-extend themselves to buy a watch - financially speaking - are posers.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Ticonderoga said:


> Coming from a finance background, I'm always impressed that people who can't make a contribution to their 401(k) or personal IRA always seem to have an extra $5k for a _________ (insert watch brand here).


I wish I had put all my retirement savings from the 90s into 4 digit Daytonas...


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

WatchingYou77 said:


> 52 pages when the answer is clearly *no* from a consumer perception of the BRAND standpoint.
> 
> Personally, I am not a big fan of Omega as of late. They seem desperate to position themselves relative to Rolex and they are making the wrong moves in an attempt to do this.
> 
> ...


Short version, there's still a lot of country clubbers and used cars salesperson that like to wear a perceived expensive watch


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

AAMC said:


> Short version, there's still a lot of country clubbers and used cars salesperson that like to wear a perceived expensive watch


Hahahaha... I actually laughed out loud.

This thread is awesome.


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

Ticonderoga said:


> Never did I get so much hate mail as when I made that first statement. Perhaps I should have also added the caveat to include the 99% of the NON WUS crowd, because when I wrote it, I was talking about a certain "type," and we all know well this "type" of Rolex wearer. But then again, what's the point of this thread if not to provoke, satirize and make comedy?
> 
> I'm talking about the person who knows nothing about watches and bought the Rolex because they know it to mean "affluence." This person has two mortgages, $38,000 in credit card debt, child support and alimony payments, is on the verge of losing their job and bought a Rolex on a near maxed out credit card in order to impress the ladies at the bar. And now, he's going to Cancun flying coach being sure to point here and there with an outstretched arm with his sleeves rolled up so that everyone can see his new submariner.
> 
> ...


I think the point being made by commenters is that judging someone by what kind of watch they are, or are not wearing is just as bad as only wearing said watch for image purposes. You never know what someone's background is or how they may have come to acquire such a watch.

If I had a dime for everyone in LA that looked like they could be a potential poser, I would be a rich man, and able to afford business class flights plus a solid gold Rolex.

It's better to just be open and not judgmental. Maybe the other guy thinks you/I/we are the posers with the Rolex. I sure as hell look like one in a t-shirt and sneakers most days.

The average savings rate in the USA is negative, so you are probably somewhat right. Better to be positive.


----------



## Call_me_Tom (Jul 20, 2007)

copperjohn said:


> HOW is this thread still going?
> 
> I ask, as I post, thereby sending it back to the top....


Touché


----------



## Call_me_Tom (Jul 20, 2007)

I own both Omega and Rolex but the new PO has me running away.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

mleok said:


> Out of curiosity, which movements from that era have you seen completely dissembled under similar magnification to the ones in Odet's article.


None


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

Watch Fan in Beijing said:


> I know you're probably sitting back enjoying taunting the Rolex fanboi base


Yes very much so :-d

you have to give people what they want, the thread was fading out. There's nothing wrong in sparking passion in people.


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

Call_me_Tom said:


> I own both Omega and Rolex but the new PO has me running away.


I went to try one on, really wanting to love it (not the ceramic version), and it sat so high on the wrist I just could not get over it.


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

WatchingYou77 said:


> Hahahaha... I actually laughed out loud.
> 
> This thread is awesome.


Hehehe....OK, OK... it was a tongue in cheek post... but then do you want to know the story of the recent OP 36 and 39 development?

How to get a few more CHF from the poor losers that go on credit and compromise other family expenses in order to show a Rolex to the front door lady or "pals" while they're washing their cars during the lazy weekends in the suburbs... well they were doing this since ages with the DJ's and Subs but these new target market was even poorer that really couldn't buy a proper fluted DJ not even on credit....

They decided to revamp/relaunch the entry level Rolex but making sure that these new watches were "marked" as a Rolex for the poorer people, with the dial colors and the funky color dots on the OP 39. Black and/or white dials are the combination if you're seriously launching this type of watch but in this case was a watch for the poorest of the poor losers that couldn't be mistaken for the more upscale Rolex watches.

I'm telling you, Rolex marketing guys were genius on this one, it's a win / win / win situation:

Win for Rolex: they already had the cases, movements, dials... promotional budget was kept to a minimum, how costly are that painted dots?

Win for the poorest poor losers: they are sporting a small pee colored dial watch...but it's a ROLEX and that's impressive and may worth a one night stand

Win for the poor losers that have credit for a proper fluted DJ: "have you seen that guy's watch?...how ridiculous, it's an entry level sh$t... it's worst than a fake one... it's not a proper Rolex...what a loser..."

Disclaimer: everyone one in here that bought an OP, please don't get offended...we know you're different and certainly not losers


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

WatchingYou77 said:


> 52 pages when the answer is clearly *no* from a consumer perception of the BRAND standpoint.
> 
> Personally, I am not a big fan of Omega as of late. They seem desperate to position themselves relative to Rolex and they are making the wrong moves in an attempt to do this.
> 
> ...


Well said, I agree with everything that you've mentioned. Whatever one might personally feel about Rolex, I think the strength of Rolex's brand perception is readily apparent from the fact that every other mid-luxury brand ends up being compared to Rolex as the benchmark.


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

Wow! Fifty-four pages on whether _Omega Will Ever Be As Good As Rolex_. Will we hit the magic hundred?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

ilitig8 said:


> Something else I think germane to the Odets review:
> 
> Either the movement in the watch in question was a manufacturing anomaly or it was representative of the quality of the movement at the time.
> 
> ...


On January 15, 2010, lysanderxiii on tz-uk.com (assuming it's the same one that hangs out here as well) made the following comment (post #37),

walt odets rolex calibre 3000 review - comparison with 3135



> Yes, we agree on the fundamentals.
> 
> *As I recall, the movement showed a very small positional variation and was very stable.* That is something a $30 Alpha Explorer will not do, their positional variation is upwards of 20 - 30 seconds, sometime more, the worse ones will not maintain a stable rate, but vary about a second or two over the course of a timing run. Yes, you can average out these variations over the course of a day with these inexpensive watches, but with tight positional variation you done have to. *To my mind, good positional variation and stability are the indications of a good well built movement.*
> 
> ...


In particular, I think it makes the important point that the design of the movement is likely to be excellent if it able to achieve excellent performance despite lapses in quality control or precision of manufacturing. Robust design, where one is able to achieve very reliable performance from components which are somewhat inconsistently produced, is actually very difficult to achieve, and most engineering design practice is content to ensure that small variances in component quality result in small variances in performance.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

As this post morphs into a debate about the _Odets review_, it is sure to hit 200 pages.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

Ticonderoga said:


> I'm talking about the person who knows nothing about watches and bought the Rolex because they know it to mean "affluence." This person has two mortgages, $38,000 in credit card debt, child support and alimony
> 
> Coming from a finance background, I'm always impressed that people who can't make a contributionYes, I know that there are many who must (or choose to) fly coach and can still afford a Rolex or choose to over-reach (financially) to own one because they see real value, but for the average schmoe without a savings account, with no funded retirement account, who has a lot of debt and rents rather than owns, and then forks over $5,000 to $25,000 for a watch _*to impress others*_, that guy is a poser all day and twice on Sunday.


isnt this Tudors target market ;-)


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

mleok said:


> Well said, I agree with everything that you've mentioned. Whatever one might personally feel about Rolex, I think the strength of Rolex's brand perception is readily apparent from the fact that every other mid-luxury brand ends up being compared to Rolex as the benchmark.


True that Rolex brand awareness is unbeatable and the market is driven by the poor losers, poorest poor losers on credit, country clubbers and used cars salesperson (so no one in this forum), making Rolex business easier than others.

Rolex day-to-day is pretty much like this:

Boss: what do we have ready for Basel?
Employee: well, we have a new ceramic bezel...
B: ceramic bezel? hum...? A full one or just half color change?
E: this year is a full ceramic bezel...but it's for the Daytona 
B: Daytona? Good...good...make sure you control the supply, this is a proper Rolex and I don't wanted it to be mistaken by a watch for that poor losers on credit..... anything else is ready?
E: no, not really....we had a new rubber strap while ago...
B: hummm... that's kind of short we need to develop something else...
E: well, the Milgauss is not selling very well maybe we can..
B: yes that's it! Take the Milgauss parts and create a new model, it's just design a new dial, grab some Mercedes hands from the bin, there are plenty around since we are using them across several models...I'm such a genius...just make sure you engrave the case backs with the new model's name....wait a minute? We don't engrave case backs! Even better... really I'm just a genius 
E: hummm...OK boss...
(Two hours later)
E: boss here it is the new model, I've called it Air King
B: hummm...what? Air King? But that was...never mind we are late to the board meeting

(At the board meeting)

Boss: gentlemen allow me to introduce the new Air King that we are going to showcase at Basel besides a full new ceramic bezel
Board: hummm...what? Air King?...hummm...looks a bit off and the AK was...
Boss: I know I know, but the development cost was ZERO it's made of existing parts from other models, we just had to paint a new dial with stuff...the poor losers gonna love it, it's new and says Rolex it's all that matters 
Board: zero costs? Nice job, go grab your bonus and buy yourself a nice Hublot with that complex case construction and several types of finishing.... hahahah...that Hublot guys are killing me... spending so much effort on that cases ...who does that? What a bunch of losers

Board: now, where are the Tudor guys? We need to know what bezel color it's ready for the Black Bay after the red, blue and black...
Tudor guys: we don't have a new bezel color, just a downgraded bracelet to make sure that the BB it's not mistaken for a proper Rolex....
Board: nice job Tudor guys (sorry but we don't even know your names), grab your bonus and go buy one of that column wheel Longines chronographs.... really, who puts a column wheel caliber on a watch so cheap...what a bunch of losers


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

AAMC said:


> True that Rolex brand awareness is unbeatable and the market is driven by the poor losers, poorest poor losers on credit, country clubbers and used cars salesperson (so no one in this forum), making Rolex business easier than others.


So pretty much the same market segment as Omega is targeting?


----------



## T1meout (Sep 27, 2013)

55 pages debating a simple conclusion, which according to the masses is no.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

WatchingYou77 said:


> I went to try one on, really wanting to love it (not the ceramic version), and it sat so high on the wrist I just could not get over it.


As I've mentioned before, a hockey puck is 76mm in diameter and 25mm in thickness, i.e., a thickness that is 32.9% of its diameter. In contrast, the Planet Ocean 8500 45.5mm is 45.5mm in diameter and 16.9mm in thickness, i.e., a thickness that is 37.1% of its diameter, so the PO 8500 is proportionately thicker than the hockey puck.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

I haven't been so entertained by a thread as this in a long time.


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

mleok said:


> So pretty much the same market segment as Omega is targeting?


Yes, Omega, Cartier and others.... it's not just regarding watches, several luxury businesses, cars, tourism, have high dependency on persons that rationally speaking can't afford the products but are buying them anyway.... although this market segment must be bigger on the Rolex case due to the much higher brand image... it's clear that someone compromising other life needs for an expensive watch in order to get social cred will do it for a Rolex instead of something less recognizable.... stereotypes don't happen without a reason


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

T1meout said:


> which according to the masses


Ah! Key sentence here


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

The love of watches and the status they provide is clearly irrational...but we love them anyway we pay for them anyway...those of us with the addiction..
It's clear to see that once stricken with the wis bug we spend up to and often beyond our means on a watch ...this is why watches can run into the millions of pounds/ $ and watch brands wait eagerly to relieve us of our cash/credit.
Brand perception is what we are paying for with rolex and omega talk of oyster cases and co axial movements is just the way we excuse it and try and rationalise it...
To conclude rolex is a more desirable brand than omega And it's hard to see that changing anytime soon while rolex stick to classic designs and robust movements while omega try to create a new grail


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

Watchdudeman said:


> while omega try to create a new grail


To be fair, if the Omega's new 2016 planet oceans are anything to go by I think they are failing at this miserably


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

One can dream of Rolex and Omega collaborating to make one ultimate diver for charity, Limited edition could be the most collected watches of all time.

it would look like this stunner









Invicta are the only brand to recognise potential of such a magic union.

Invicta offer cutting edge quality comparable & beyond even Rolex.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Richerson said:


> To be fair, if the Omega's new 2016 planet oceans are anything to go by I think they are failing at this miserably


Omegas new PO's with META certified master co-axials are just as good as any sub sea dweller 4000......not everyone likes the block square case of rolexes subs and 40mm diameter.....

maybe Omega should have went off the board and get super creative like Rolex and stick a ceramic bezel on the speedy pro.....people would lose their minds.......

you can thank Omega for Rolex releasing a new movement.......Omega keeps pushing the envelope.......

Omega is already as good as Rolex but people just want the NAME in Rolex......

does anyone ever notice that ROLEX only impresses those NOT in the know???????? WIS are no more impressed by Rolex than GS IWC OMEGA etc.....just saying


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Ticonderoga said:


> I haven't been so entertained by a thread as this in a long time.


I have, but the topic was not safe for this forum.

And I was single.

TMI?


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

snakeeyes said:


> Omegas new PO's with META certified master co-axials are just as good as any sub sea dweller 4000......not everyone likes the block square case of rolexes subs and 40mm diameter.....
> 
> maybe Omega should have went off the board and get super creative like Rolex and stick a ceramic bezel on the speedy pro.....people would lose their minds.......
> 
> ...


Sure, while Omega has a technically superior watch in the new PO's, design-wise, it's an utter mess. I love Omega, owned several Omega watches, but the original PO2500 still wins.

Will Omega be as good as Rolex? Some will argue that they technically already are better. But when Rolex is virtually synonymous with the word "watch", it's hard to beat.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

As I sit and ponder how we can attain a 100 pages of horological enlightenment, it has occurred to me...perhaps the wrong question is being asked and answered. 
I think what we should really be asking ourselves is whether Rolex or Omega will ever be as good as Stauer?








Mr. Bigshot rolled up in a roaring high-performance Italian sports car, dropping attitude like his $22,000 watch made it okay for him to be rude. That's when I decided to roll up my sleeves and teach him a lesson.
"Nice watch," I said, pointing to his and holding up mine. He nodded like we belonged to the same club. We did, but he literally paid 100 times more for his membership. Bigshot bragged about his five figure purchase, a luxury heavyweight from the titan of high-priced timepieces. I told him that mine was the *Stauer Corso, a 27-jewel automatic classic.* And just like that, the man was at a loss for words.
*Think of Stauer as the "Robin Hood of Watchmakers."* We believe everyone deserves a watch of uncompromising precision, impressive performance and the most elegant styling. You deserve a watch that can hold its own against the luxury classics for a fraction of the price. You'll feel the quality as soon as you put it on your wrist. This is an expertly- crafted time machine... not a cry for attention.
*Wear a mechanical masterpiece!* We surveyed our customers. As intelligent, high net worth individuals, they have outgrown the need to show off. They have nothing to prove; they already proved it. They want superb quality and astonishing value. And that's exactly what we deliver.
*The Stauer Corso is proof that the worth of a watch doesn't depend on the size of its price tag.* Our factory spent over $40 million on Swiss-made machinery to insure the highest quality parts. Each timepiece takes six months and over 200 individual precision parts to create the complex assembly. Peer through the exhibition back to see the 27-jeweled automatic movement in action and you'll understand why we can only offer the Corso in a limited edition.

*Our specialty is vintage automatic movements.* The Corso is driven by a self-winding design, inspired by a 1923 patent. Your watch will never need batteries. Every second of power is generated by the movement of your body. The blue dial features a trio of date complications including a graphic day/night display. The Corso secures with a two-toned stainless steel bracelet and is water-resistant to 3 ATMs.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

EnderW said:


> View attachment 8494930


Wow! "Two tone stainless steel" and pushers that operate the subdials? Rolex and Omega are BOTH being left in the dust.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

EnderW said:


> Peer through the exhibition back to see the 27-jeweled automatic movement in action and you'll understand why we can only offer the Corso in a limited edition.


This is that amazing 27-jeweled automatic movement...


----------



## OmegaDoom (Jun 3, 2015)

IMO it already is


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

mav said:


> Sure, while Omega has a technically superior watch in the new PO's, design-wise, it's an utter mess. I love Omega, owned several Omega watches, but the original PO2500 still wins.
> 
> Will Omega be as good as Rolex? Some will argue that they technically already are better. But when Rolex is virtually synonymous with the word "watch", it's hard to beat.


I don't disagree overall, however I for one think the new PO's are incredible and much nicer than Rolexes SD4000, SUB offerings......that said...I too much prefer the 2500PO as its the original...a classic in the making......and obviously 'thinner'........

Omega keeps pushing the bar and Rolex has answered the bell...this is a good thing......

interesting your comment on rolex being synonymous with the word watch because it is so true.....but is this really what determines a better watch these days??perception???......sadly it seems for many this is true....

again...i will say it.....Rolex only impresses those NOT in the know......WIS know better.......

Im in it for the watch...the facts.....I love me some Rolex for their history and reliability and quality.....not because of its 'perception'........Omega is pepsi Rolex is Coke....yeah...its that close.....


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

snakeeyes said:


> I don't disagree overall, however I for one think the new PO's are incredible and much nicer than Rolexes SD4000, SUB offerings......that said...I too much prefer the 2500PO as its the original...a classic in the making......and obviously 'thinner'........
> 
> Omega keeps pushing the bar and Rolex has answered the bell...this is a good thing......
> 
> ...


Speak for yourself. I'm pretty impressed with the new movements and designs coming out of Rolex. I guess I'm not a WIS like you.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

snakeeyes said:


> again...i will say it.....Rolex only impresses those NOT in the know......WIS know better.......
> 
> Im in it for the watch...the facts.....I love me some Rolex for their history and reliability and quality.....not because of its 'perception'........Omega is pepsi Rolex is Coke....yeah...its that close.....


WIS know that if you go beyond the baggage of perception, Rolex makes robust, reliable, well-made watches with timeless designs that are extremely wearable. For a WIS, wearing a Rolex indicates that you don't really care what others think of your watch, and you're confident in your ability to recognize and appreciate quality.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Seaswirl said:


> Speak for yourself. I'm pretty impressed with the new movements and designs coming out of Rolex. I guess I'm not a WIS like you.


so am I...i said Rolex answered the bell.......

try learning to read....


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

mleok said:


> WIS know that if you go beyond the baggage of perception, Rolex makes robust, reliable, well-made watches with timeless designs that are extremely wearable. For a WIS, wearing a Rolex indicates that you don't really care what others think of your watch, and you're confident in your ability to recognize and appreciate quality.


yes. agreed 1000%....for a WIS only of course.......a WIS would also recognize Omega for this as well....


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

snakeeyes said:


> yes. agreed 1000%....for a WIS only of course.......a WIS would also recognize Omega for this as well....


I don't find the modern Omegas to be timeless designs that are extremely wearable. Also, an Omega doesn't indicate to me that one doesn't care about what others think, because it doesn't carry the emotional baggage that Rolex has amongst pseudo-intellectual WIS.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

to be clear.....WIS recognize Rolex for what it is......but these same WIS do not put Rolex on a pedestal over the likes of GS or Omega......they recognize these brands for what they are....PERCEPTION never comes into the equation.....


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

mleok said:


> I don't find the modern Omegas to be timeless designs that are extremely wearable. Also, an Omega doesn't indicate to me that one doesn't care about what others think, because it doesn't carry the emotional baggage that Rolex has amongst pseudo-intellectual WIS.


i think we are starting to get off track....im not claiming Omega is better...or worse......

I think those who wear Omega do so because they like the 'brand'...its not like Omega is short on history.......


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

mleok said:


> WIS know that if you go beyond the baggage of perception, Rolex makes robust, reliable, well-made watches with timeless designs that are extremely wearable. For a WIS, wearing a Rolex indicates that you don't really care what others think of your watch, and you're confident in your ability to recognize and appreciate quality.


+1. My Rolex is my most comfortable and most accurate watch, and that's by a fair margin. It is averaging -.2s per day, which is pretty darn good.

They offer a 5-year warranty, are robust and reliable, and have a design style that will look good 40 years from now. Sure, the movement is not spectacular to look at and a bit boring, but it works.

I love my other watches as well, but appreciate the Rolex. The only Omega I could see fitting this same niche would be the Aqua Terra, MOTM, or possibly a PO 2500. The new offerings would be old news in about 5-10 years, and Omega is marketing themselves in a way that will ensure most of their models become old news.

Agree with some posters that Rolex carries a stigma, and I choose not to wear mine in certain situations for this reason, especially with lower paid employees, etc. It is a blatant luxury symbol to most.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

snakeeyes said:


> so am I...i said Rolex answered the bell.......
> 
> try learning to read....


Learn how to type and write. Your answering the bell comment was unrelated to the WIS comment in placement and context. You wrote it. Not me.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

WatchingYou77 said:


> +1. My Rolex is my most comfortable and most accurate watch, and that's by a fair margin. It is averaging -.2s per day, which is pretty darn good.
> 
> They offer a 5-year warranty, are robust and reliable, and have a design style that will look good 40 years from now. Sure, the movement is not spectacular to look at and a bit boring, but it works.
> 
> ...


i just can't see how a PO 8500 will look anymore outdated than a timeless submariner in 20 yrs? ...Rolex has already angered purists with their 'maxi'case'......many consider the 16610 timeless but not the 116610........


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Seaswirl said:


> Learn how to type and write. Your answering the bell comment was unrelated to the WIS comment in placement and context. You wrote it. Not me.


nope....i stated that Omega was pushing the envelope with their new movements....Rolex answered the bell........this is a GOOD thing.....competition between hulk hogan and Ric Flair is a good thing.....not my problem you 'misunderstood'


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

snakeeyes said:


> i just can't see how a PO 8500 will look anymore outdated than a timeless submariner in 20 yrs? ...Rolex has already angered purists with their 'maxi'case'......many consider the 16610 timeless but not the 116610........


Do I need to remind you of my hockey puck comparison?


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

snakeeyes said:


> nope....i stated that Omega was pushing the envelope with their new movements....Rolex answered the bell........this is a GOOD thing.....competition between hulk hogan and Ric Flair is a good thing.....not my problem you 'misunderstood'


"again...i will say it.....Rolex only impresses those NOT in the know......WIS know better......."

Yeah, my... misunderstanding... Weird.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

mleok said:


> Do I need to remind you of my hockey puck comparison?


great comparison..but unless you have a time machine we don't know about than timeless is an 'assumption' and more than likely will not be fact......its anyones guess what the 'world' of watches will look like in 20 yrs......maybe the 'thicker' look will be the timeless look.....maybe it will be 40mm watches.......hard to say......


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Seaswirl said:


> "again...i will say it.....Rolex only impresses those NOT in the know......WIS know better......."
> 
> Yeah, my... misunderstanding... Weird.


yes. WIS don't drool over Rolex...they recognize it for what it is and do not place it on a pedestal over equivalent brands like Omega GS IWC etc.....non wis? they drool or think its a fake


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

snakeeyes said:


> to be clear.....WIS recognize Rolex for what it is......but these same WIS do not put Rolex on a pedestal over the likes of GS or Omega......they recognize these brands for what they are....PERCEPTION never comes into the equation.....


The point I'm trying to make is that many so called WIS are dismissive of Rolex, because they feel that it is simply a product of marketing, and believe that those "in the know" would choose an Omega or GS instead. If it's not readily apparent, Rolex owners are repeatedly the target of flak on this forum, so it does take a certain strength of conviction to choose a Rolex over an Omega or GS on WUS.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

mleok said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that many so called WIS are dismissive of Rolex, because they feel that it is simply a product of marketing, and believe that those "in the know" would choose an Omega or GS instead. If it's not readily apparent, Rolex owners are repeatedly the target of flak on this forum, so it does take a certain strength of conviction to choose a Rolex over an Omega or GS on WUS.


its a good point. It also take a certain strength of conviction to choose an Omega over Rolex or GS over Rolex. Go both ways.

cheers


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

snakeeyes said:


> its a good point. It also take a certain strength of conviction to choose an Omega over Rolex or GS over Rolex. Go both ways.


Nobody on WUS would attempt to insult your intellect or character if you chose an Omega or GS over a Rolex. The converse is not true.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

mleok said:


> Nobody on WUS would attempt to insult your intellect or character if you chose an Omega or GS over a Rolex. The converse is not true.


disagree. GS gets 'ripped' on WUS by many...remember.."its just a Seiko"....


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

snakeeyes said:


> disagree. GS gets 'ripped' on WUS by many...remember.."its just a Seiko"....


Fair enough, but what about Omega, what flak do they receive? But, I should also add, GS owners do not get insulted, although their watches might get dismissed. On the other hand, Rolex owners get insulted rather consistently.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

snakeeyes said:


> its a good point. It also take a certain strength of conviction to choose an Omega over Rolex or GS over Rolex. Go both ways.
> 
> cheers


does it? Are you sure it's not because Omega are cheaper and they just couldn't afford a Rolex


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

Ω are not always cheaper. Pricing on recent watches is comfortably in the realm of idiocy. One can pay as much for an Ω with a cartoon dog on it as a... Daytona.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

Was not easy to find but here we go Sir Odet's Rolex review for those not in the know like myself.

http://www.timezone.com/2002/09/16/the-rolex-explorer-ref-14270-part-1/

http://www.timezone.com/2002/09/16/the-rolex-explorer-ref-14270-part-2/


----------



## DustinS (Nov 3, 2013)

mleok said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that many so called WIS are dismissive of Rolex, because they feel that it is simply a product of marketing, and believe that those "in the know" would choose an Omega or GS instead. If it's not readily apparent, Rolex owners are repeatedly the target of flak on this forum, so it does take a certain strength of conviction to choose a Rolex over an Omega or GS on WUS.


Only if you ONLY show it to WIS and to a certain group of wis. And with that said, Rolex wins nearly every vote "this watch or that watch" on here. This is a forum that loves rolex, just not nearly as much as people outside the internet.


----------



## DustinS (Nov 3, 2013)

mleok said:


> Fair enough, but what about Omega, what flak do they receive? But, I should also add, GS owners do not get insulted, although their watches might get dismissed. On the other hand, Rolex owners get insulted rather consistently.


Omega is kinda vanilla here imo. Though you certianly give a LOT of flak to the moon watch.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

DustinS said:


> Omega is kinda vanilla here imo. Though you certianly give a LOT of flak to the moon watch.


I'm the exception that proves the rule, and even then I don't insult the intellect or character of Omega owners.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

mleok said:


> WIS know that if you go beyond the baggage of perception, Rolex makes robust, reliable, well-made watches with timeless designs that are extremely wearable. For a WIS, wearing a Rolex indicates that you don't really care what others think of your watch, and you're confident in your ability to recognize and appreciate quality.


+1, well said.

And if you're not WIS, you're probably an insecure poser.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

mleok said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that many so called WIS are dismissive of Rolex, because they feel that it is simply a product of marketing, and believe that those "in the know" would choose an Omega or GS instead. If it's not readily apparent, Rolex owners are repeatedly the target of flak on this forum, so it does take a certain strength of conviction to choose a Rolex over an Omega or GS on WUS.


... oh yeah, I'm in that boat.

However, you can get right past that feeling over "overpaying" for all that marketing because you know that with a Rolex (unlike most other watches), if you buy it on the used market, and you sell it later, you can usually get back exactly what you paid for it. So, while Rolex may have propped the price due to marketing, that the elevated prices hold in the secondary market, it works out in the end...


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

People do know Rolex gives a lot of its profits to charity, you may not even agree with the charities they donate, Rolex is a Tax on he rich.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Richerson said:


> does it? Are you sure it's not because Omega are cheaper and they just couldn't afford a Rolex


Well that sounds dumb.....thats like saying someone buys Rolex because they cant afford AP............

Shame on you for being so narrow minded and ignorant......

And this folks is the type of rolex owner that gives the brand its bad rap.......


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

I'd not change the status of Rolex for that exact reason: mine is currently "free" for the reasons stated. High resale. 

In that sense, those that insist their blinders offer them... objectivity and that Odets lacked "perspective" (read: didn't share their biases...) are doing me a favour. Talk it up, boys. The more people you convince, the less it costs to own a Rolex. Are you illogical? Yes. Are you complicating the simple in an effort to square the circle? Yes. Do you realize it? Potentially. That doesn't matter though. What matters is that owning a Sub is actually not very costly over time because of your free marketing -- having pictures that entirely deflate the notion of a refined movement in a Rolex hasn't let the facts get in your way for 15 years. Bravo. 

Ω owners don't benefit as much from highly biased fans, except for specific models. I could sell my SMP for the same amount I bought it new, but that doesn't account for variations in value of the $ between then and now. I suspect some of those variations were partially due to self-centered and marginally legal actions of Rolex fans during the junk loan boom, and they probably got approval from people wearing watches that watch idiots call "Trinity" pieces... Anyway, if your Ω isn't a Speedmaster pro or an SMP I'd not expect resale to be proportionally high.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

snakeeyes said:


> Well that sounds dumb.....thats like saying someone buys Rolex because they cant afford AP............
> 
> Shame on you for being so narrow minded and ignorant......
> 
> And this folks is the type of rolex owner that gives the brand its bad rap.......


keep walking past the Rolex AD & wishing.


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

Richerson said:


> People do know Rolex gives a lot of its profits to charity.


Good joke.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Alex_TA said:


> Good joke.


Pretty much. Rolex is owned by the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation. But as with many "foundations" in Europe as well as a few in the United States (most-notably the Ford Foundation until Ford Motor Co. bought out its shares over a 19-year period), the Wilsdorf Foundation was created to keep control of Rolex out of both public hands as well as that of future owners who may have decided to change the company's strategic direction. The Wilsdorf Foundation may engage in charity. But its real purpose was to allow Rolex's founder to be able to dictate its direction from his grave.

As for Rolex's corporate donations? As with any company, Rolex uses charity as a marketing tool for its business. Nothing wrong with that; everybody wins. But as with Shinola (which is a for-profit business that also happens to have a mission of bringing jobs to Detroit), people should not pretend that Rolex has solely altruistic intentions.


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

Sevenmack said:


> Pretty much. Rolex is owned by the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation. But as with many "foundations" in Europe as well as a few in the United States (most-notably the Ford Foundation until Ford Motor Co. bought out its shares over a 19-year period), the Wilsdorf Foundation was created to keep control of Rolex out of both public hands as well as that of future owners who may have decided to change the company's strategic direction. The Wilsdorf Foundation may engage in charity. But its real purpose was to allow Rolex's founder to be able to dictate its direction from his grave.
> 
> As for Rolex's corporate donations? As with any company, Rolex uses charity as a marketing tool for its business. Nothing wrong with that; everybody wins. But as with Shinola (which is a for-profit business that also happens to have a mission of bringing jobs to Detroit), people should not pretend that Rolex has solely altruistic intentions.


It's written is their ads, so it should be true 
Also I read that to be successful you should wear Rolex, to be astronaut you must buy Omega, an actor must wear JLC, you will be a rock star buying Zenith, and even samurai with Grand Seiko...


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Richerson said:


> keep walking past the Rolex AD & wishing.


I own and have owned a few rolex...

Again......your the guy that gives rolex owners a bad name. Shame


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

At the turn of the century in my area wearing a Submariner was strictly for those celebrating their first album just dropping. 

Ω, perhaps due to their lower desirability, were spared this humiliation. OTOH some Ω watches were genuinely ugly so that kept bling seekers away too I suppose. 

In any case the bling crowd have now moved en masse to Audemars and Hunbot, leaving us to argue whether Rolex or Ω is better etc.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

snakeeyes said:


> I own and have owned a few rolex...
> 
> Again......your the guy that gives rolex owners a bad name. Shame


could you please exspand in detail why people like myself give Rolex a bad name, My peronality and perdict what i wear & my job

Just interested ? its not my fault i like wearing the finest watch brand in the world


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

Richerson said:


> its not my fault i like wearing the finest watch brand in the world


So you wear Omega?


----------



## starter (Aug 21, 2010)

Sixty pages in two weeks? For this ancient saw? Seriously? Anyone involved in perpetuating this thread should kill themselves.

Wait. I just did. Dammit! Where's a tall bridge?..


----------



## starter (Aug 21, 2010)

Also... https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/omega...atch-too-small-help-me-spend-$10k-876965.html


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Richerson said:


> could you please exspand in detail why people like myself give Rolex a bad name, My peronality and perdict what i wear & my job
> 
> Just interested ? its not my fault i like wearing the finest watch brand in the world


Well for starters assuming one who buys an Omega cannot afford a Rolex is laughable......


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Richerson said:


> could you please exspand in detail why people like myself give Rolex a bad name, My peronality and perdict what i wear & my job
> 
> Just interested ? its not my fault i like wearing the finest watch brand in the world


Many brands just as fine or finer

Your passion for rolex is fine......your attitude is a joke and is a textbook example of the type of person that gives rolex a bad name

Your job requires you wear a rolex? I you had a better job would you require AP PP or VC or ALS?

Your embarassing yourself. Pathetic.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Ticonderoga said:


> Never did I get so much hate mail as when I made that first statement. Perhaps I should have also added the caveat to include the 99% of the NON WUS crowd, because when I wrote it, I was talking about a certain "type," and we all know well this "type" of Rolex wearer. But then again, what's the point of this thread if not to provoke, satirize and make comedy?
> 
> I'm talking about the person who knows nothing about watches and bought the Rolex because they know it to mean "affluence." This person has two mortgages, $38,000 in credit card debt, child support and alimony payments, is on the verge of losing their job and bought a Rolex on a near maxed out credit card in order to impress the ladies at the bar. And now, he's going to Cancun flying coach being sure to point here and there with an outstretched arm with his sleeves rolled up so that everyone can see his new submariner.
> 
> ...


Agree with most of your points here, but if that "poser" is flying down to Cancun with a young hot babe, _all is forgiven!_


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

I will get a Rolex, but an older one. I don't care if it has a inferior movement or poly crystal. In fact, I'd prefer some grunge. My only fear is the Service center will try to make it look new and ruin the whole idea.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

snakeeyes said:


> Many brands just as fine or finer
> 
> Your passion for rolex is fine......your attitude is a joke and is a textbook example of the type of person that gives rolex a bad name
> 
> ...


Can't find where he said that...

Too agitated to think clearly right now perhaps?


----------



## starter (Aug 21, 2010)

I would imagine he is... He keeps spelling "you're" as "your"... These combative threads are the worst...


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Alex_TA said:


> So you wear Omega?


I though he was going to boast about his SKX.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

I don't own a Rolex, I've been joking since the start of the thread, I've switched sides 3 times now I think. I would have assumed everyone would have known what I was upto by now. 

I hope this shows how pointless these topics are. 

Now im off to lick some Rolex dealers window.


----------



## piningforthefjords (May 15, 2016)

Omega vs Rolex... Battle of the Bastards, anybody?


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

I have a ton of time on my hands today, so thought I'd look into this pi$$ing match some more...



snakeeyes said:


> its a good point. It also take a certain strength of conviction to choose an Omega over Rolex or GS over Rolex. Go both ways.
> 
> cheers





Richerson said:


> does it? Are you sure it's not because Omega are cheaper and they just couldn't afford a Rolex





snakeeyes said:


> Well that sounds dumb.....thats like saying someone buys Rolex because they cant afford AP............
> 
> Shame on you for being so narrow minded and ignorant......
> 
> And this folks is the type of rolex owner that gives the brand its bad rap.......





snakeeyes said:


> Well for starters assuming one who buys an Omega cannot afford a Rolex is laughable......


Uhhh, Snakeeyes, Richerson never *assumed* any such thing. He just suggested the *possibility* of someone buying an Omega because it was cheaper; nothing factually incorrect with that and I don't see any assumption being made. It was just a conclusion you somehow reached...

And he certainly didn't say that everyone who bought an Omega did so because they couldn't afford a Rolex. Not even close.

Btw, he wasn't the guy who started the namecalling...

Here's a suggestion: Don't post until you take your meds.

Ok, that was some namecalling. Mea culpa.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Richerson said:


> I don't own a Rolex, I've been joking since the start of the thread, I've switched sides 3 times now I think. I would have assumed everyone would have known what I was upto by now.
> 
> I hope this shows how pointless these topics are.
> 
> *Now im off to lick some Rolex dealers window.*


Ewww.


----------



## starter (Aug 21, 2010)

Attention jealous people: this question has been answered a thousand times before. 

Obviously Rolex is in no danger of a poor person's company like Omega taking their business. The question "Will Omega ever be as good as Rolex?" is akin to asking "Will whatever company that makes the forms which poor people fill out at the welfare office ever be as good as Lear Jet?" Obviously not.

My servant (who once memorably volunteered his services as a human toilet during last season's fox hunt once it was discovered that the shrimp at the pre-hunt brunch had turned) wears an Omega. Why? Because it's the only watch he can afford to wear at the wages I pay him. He's poor, he wears an Omega. I'm rich, I wear a Rolex. There is no great mystery here.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

I think its absurd to argue that Rolex retains its value better than Omega. 
I know the thought of flipping Rolexes at a loss petrifies current owners especially if they bought new but that generalisation is only limited to specific models e.g. GMT Master, Submariner, Hulk.

Same generalisation applies to specific Omega models e.g. AT, Speedmaster, Seamaster (Specific Models).

Below are preowned Rolexes at 50% discount so its total BS that all and any Rolexes retain their value.

Having reviewed Odits review I think the sentiment he conveyed that the brand is over-valued for the product produced is true and I think most would agree the top premium to pay is for the crown logo. However, such sentiment doesnt apply to all models as some dont manage to maintain that premium.


----------



## starter (Aug 21, 2010)

Attention snobs: this question has been answered a thousand times before.

Obviously Omega is already as good as Rolex, a company that exists mostly on snobbery. In fact, Omega is better. Asking "Will Omega ever be as good as Rolex?" is like asking "Will modern tanks ever be as effective in combat as a girl scout troop?" Obviously yes.

My boss (who once memorably stood on a table at the company picnic, whipped out his less-than-impressive member, and began crying "This is why I wear a Rolex... It's tiny! It's so tiny!") wears a Rolex. Why? Because he's a snobby jackass. He wants to feel important, so he spends more on a lesser watch. He's a poser, he wears a Rolex. I'm a true WIS and well-endowed, I wear an Omega. No great mystery here.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

mleok said:


> Fair enough, but what about Omega, what flak do they receive? But, I should also add, GS owners do not get insulted, although their watches might get dismissed. On the other hand, Rolex owners get insulted rather consistently.


It's all psychological, you just notice the Rolex Defense Force being attacked more because you are a member. If you were not a member, you would view them as being left alone just like you view Omega and GS fans getting no flak. The truth is, there is venom all over the place in these fanboy wars. That tsicondra guy did a lot GS trolling and Rallyfan belittled Omega owners like crazy and you can see this as soon as in their most recent posts. You just chose to overlooked them. lol


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Richerson said:


> I don't own a Rolex, I've been joking since the start of the thread, I've switched sides 3 times now I think. I would have assumed everyone would have known what I was upto by now.
> 
> I hope this shows how pointless these topics are.
> 
> Now im off to lick some Rolex dealers window.


And I thought I was the only one.

Quick, someone call me a troll.

200 pages or bust!


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

starter said:


> Attention snobs: this question has been answered a thousand times before.
> 
> Obviously Omega is already as good as Rolex, a company that exists mostly on snobbery. In fact, Omega is better. Asking "Will Omega ever be as good as Rolex?" is like asking "Will modern tanks ever be as effective in combat as a girl scout troop?" Obviously yes.
> 
> My boss (who once memorably stood on a table at the company picnic, whipped out his less-than-impressive member, and began crying "This is why I wear a Rolex... It's tiny! It's so tiny!") wears a Rolex. Why? Because he's a snobby jackass. He wants to feel important, so he spends more on a lesser watch. He's a poser, he wears a Rolex. I'm a true WIS and well-endowed, I wear an Omega. No great mystery here.


Ooh ooh... can I try? I like stealing other's bits...

_Attention plebes: this question has been answered so many times that you deserve to be pushed into a bog, just for thinking about asking it.

Obviously Omega is so far ahead of Rolex that they can't be bothered worrying about "history" or "classic" frippery. Asking "Will Omega ever be as good as Rolex?" is like asking "Will Tom Brady ever be as good at football as my dog, Rex-capement?" Obviously, the question doesn't even make sense.

My private pilot (who once memorably threw a parachute at a passenger mid-flight, opened the door, and screamed "Get out!!" when he saw a Yachtmaster) wears a DeVille. Why? Because he's a legend. He simultaneously puts Indiana Jones, Chuck Norris, and the Dos Equis guy to shame, so he wears a lesser loved Omega just to prove that it's still better than any Rolex. If you want to test him, I can book you on a flight, but I can't guarantee there will be a parachute this time.
_

D. "I'm also stealing RDenney's thing for like the 10th time" Bostedo


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Ticonderoga said:


> And I thought I was the only one.
> 
> Quick, someone call me a troll.
> 
> 200 pages or bust!


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

starter said:


> Attention snobs: this question has been answered


TL;DNR but cool story bro.

Rolex isn't for you, that's ok. Don't hate the player, hate the game.


----------



## rfortson (Feb 18, 2012)

Not sure if I've posted this before, but in this thread I don't think it matters. This thread is the equivalent of a hockey fight. The refs (mods) let it go for a while just to reduce pressure and wear everyone out.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

BigSeikoFan said:


> I have a ton of time on my hands today, so thought I'd look into this pi$$ing match some more...
> 
> Uhhh, Snakeeyes, Richerson never *assumed* any such thing. He just suggested the *possibility* of someone buying an Omega because it was cheaper; nothing factually incorrect with that and I don't see any assumption being made. It was just a conclusion you somehow reached...
> 
> ...


you wouldn't make good detective bigseikofan......you didn't go back far enough.....

this was the original exchange basically implying go buy your omega and keep wishing for that Rolex.......

not sure why i am doing this but than again not sure why you feel the need to play detective.....

_







Originally Posted by *snakeeyes* 
Well that sounds dumb.....thats like saying someone buys Rolex because they cant afford AP............

Shame on you for being so narrow minded and ignorant......

And this folks is the type of rolex owner that gives the brand its bad rap.......

_

Richardson - keep walking past the Rolex AD & wishing.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

BigSeikoFan said:


> I have a ton of time on my hands today, so thought I'd look into this pi$$ing match some more...
> 
> Uhhh, Snakeeyes, Richerson never *assumed* any such thing. He just suggested the *possibility* of someone buying an Omega because it was cheaper; nothing factually incorrect with that and I don't see any assumption being made. It was just a conclusion you somehow reached...
> 
> ...


if i take some meds will you stop playing detective....your horrible at it.....

_







Originally Posted by *snakeeyes* 
Well that sounds dumb.....thats like saying someone buys Rolex because they cant afford AP............

Shame on you for being so narrow minded and ignorant......

And this folks is the type of rolex owner that gives the brand its bad rap.......

_
*
Richardson - keep walking past the Rolex AD & wishing.*

yeah...that pretty much implies I'm a peasant with my omega wishing for my rolex ** I have a couple and have owned a few......

#mindyourownbusiness


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

starter said:


> I would imagine he is... He keeps spelling "you're" as "your"... These combative threads are the worst...


its a good thing grammar has went the way of the dinosaur......somewhere a 18 yr old is laughing at you and your grammar police force...


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Rallyfan13 said:


> TL;DNR but cool story bro.
> 
> Rolex isn't for you, that's ok. Don't hate the player, hate the game.


BR;TDYS into the track that goes with it.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

snakeeyes said:


> its a good thing grammar has went the way of the dinosaur......somewhere a 18 yr old is laughing at you and your grammar police force...


I can't said it better me.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

snakeeyes said:


> its a good thing grammar has went the way of the dinosaur......somewhere a 18 yr old is laughing at you and your grammar police force...


yeS.... LaUghing.... HystericallY................ InDeed.............. Oh, the... irony......


----------



## mdaclarke (Jan 31, 2015)

It appears to me that Rolex and Omega are becoming the 2 dominant brands for Mid-High level luxury. Tag have tried and are now repositioning. They will keep spurring each other on. I think it's a good thing for consumers as it means better quality watches.


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

mdaclarke said:


> It appears to me that Rolex and Omega are becoming the 2 dominant brands for Mid-High level luxury. Tag have tried and are now repositioning. They will keep spurring each other on. I think it's a good thing for consumers as it means better quality watches.


Two bad that it's mainly between the two....we still have Breitling, Zenith, IWC...

I have high hopes regarding IWC...they will launch new in-house calibers (a new 3 hands coming next year) but they're also repositioning themselves a bit lower

Not so regarding Breitling and Zenith, with their sales value and the market decreasing like crazy, I'm afraid they will turn into zombie brands


----------



## mdaclarke (Jan 31, 2015)

AAMC said:


> Two bad that it's mainly between the two....we still have Breitling, Zenith, IWC...
> 
> I have high hopes regarding IWC...they will launch new in-house calibers (a new 3 hands coming next year) but they're also repositioning themselves a bit lower
> 
> Not so regarding Breitling and Zenith, with their sales value and the market decreasing like crazy, I'm afraid they will turn into zombie brands


I think Breitling with maintain their aerospace following but they definitely seem to be losing market share to Rolex and Omega.


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

mdaclarke said:


> I think Breitling with maintain their aerospace following but they definitely seem to be losing market share to Rolex and Omega.


I think Breitling sales are quite low for this type of segment, you can't even compare it to IWC (let alone Omega, Cartier and much much higher Rolex)... Breitling sales are like 1/3 of Longines sales in VALUE...
Omega, Cartier, IWC...belong to groups, with synergies and fire power, Breitling is alone, with low sales there isn't much room for product development nor promotional budget to address to this crowded and competitive market that isn't growing any longer, meaning less sales..and this cycle goes on and on

Who remembers this year Breitling 's Basel releases without googling it?

Frederique Constant founders understood really well the upcoming challenges that's why they've decided to sell the brand


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Will chicken ever be as good as steak?


----------



## DustinS (Nov 3, 2013)

mleok said:


> I'm the exception that proves the rule, and even then I don't insult the intellect or character of Omega owners.


In defense of those who insult the owners of rolex. No group as large as rolex owners, is can be that smart  Just simple laws of averages.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

snakeeyes said:


> its a good thing grammar has went the way of the dinosaur......somewhere a 18 yr old is laughing at you and your grammar police force...


It hasn't.
You just don't know it because you're not old enough to be looking for a real job yet.


----------



## DustinS (Nov 3, 2013)

Sevenmack said:


> Will chicken ever be as good as steak?


No, never, ever ever ever ever. But we're talking watches!


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> It hasn't.
> You just don't know it because you're not old enough to be looking for a real job yet.


I also take grammar seriously but I would like to emphasize that English isn't my native language so I'm excused for grammar and spelling errors 

(Carry on)


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

The CEO of Omega routinely mispronounces Omega. 

Advantage: Rolex, and anyone that can read.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

DustinS said:


> No, never, ever ever ever ever. But we're talking watches!


Well, the question is about as meaningful to watches as the first. Which is not at all.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> Will chicken ever be as good as steak?


Three words: chicken fried steak. It will likely kill you, but what a way to go.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

maxixix said:


> Below are preowned Rolexes at 50% discount so its total BS that all and any Rolexes retain their value.


Dude, those are terrible examples. Three of the four are ladies watches. The men's model has been discontinued, and it's possible he's getting most of his money back, depending on when he bought it.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

drunken monkey said:


> It hasn't.
> You just don't know it because you're not old enough to be looking for a real job yet.


huh? im not 18....it was a statement implying that 18 yr old kids today could care less about grammar in their Facebook, twitter spheres.......most jobs today don't require writing of grammar never mind 10 yrs from now.......

back on topic


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

AAMC said:


> I also take grammar seriously but I would like to emphasize that English isn't my native language so I'm excused for grammar and spelling errors
> 
> (Carry on)


can't believe i actually worked someone up by typing your instead of you're......lolololol


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

cedargrove said:


> Dude, those are terrible examples. Three of the four are ladies watches. The men's model has been discontinued, and it's possible he's getting most of his money back, depending on when he bought it.


whats bizarre is some are dumping their ss bezel daytonas on the cheap and others are paying through the nose for ceramic daytonas...yet....they are the same watch!!!!!!!!!

when did ceramic become a precious metal!!!!


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

snakeeyes said:


> ......most jobs today don't require writing of grammar never mind 10 yrs from now.......


Really? You keep telling yourself that and maybe it'll come true, but I doubt it.


----------



## mykii (Oct 22, 2010)

I don't even know what this thread is about anymore, but I'm pretty sure it isn't about Omega vs Rolex.


----------



## starter (Aug 21, 2010)

mykii said:


> I don't even know what this thread is about anymore, but I'm pretty sure it isn't about Omega vs Rolex.


It's a mad house! A maaaaaaaad house!! Lord of the flies on watchuseek island! Where's piggy? I'm going to put his fat, stupid head on a stick!


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

mykii said:


> I don't even know what this thread is about anymore, but I'm pretty sure it isn't about Omega vs Rolex.


However you want to paint it, it boils down to SNES vs Genesis/Megadrive.


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

snakeeyes said:


> its a good thing grammar has went the way of the dinosaur......somewhere a 18 yr old is laughing at you and your grammar police force...


You should be using "it's" or "it is" in this sentence rather than "its."


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

mykii said:


> I don't even know what this thread is about anymore, but I'm pretty sure it isn't about Omega vs Rolex.


Pretty much every thread (at least in public) gets side tracked so it's par, though/so I do agree with your assessment . . .


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

cedargrove said:


> Really? You keep telling yourself that and maybe it'll come true, but I doubt it.


personally i could care less.....has no bearing on me.........that said.......all kinds of businesses out there that don't require 'proper grammar' already, never mind in 10-15 yrs as the 'millennial' get older......they have different 'values'


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

mykii said:


> I don't even know what this thread is about anymore, but I'm pretty sure it isn't about Omega vs Rolex.


its my fault.......i screwed up big time....i typed your instead of you're...........grammar police came out en masse


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

WatchingYou77 said:


> You should be using "it's" or "it is" in this sentence rather than "its."


yeah umm no....im on a watch forum typing a mile a minute while watching TV....im not typing an email to the CEO........i refuse to type i am


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

mleok said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that many so called WIS are dismissive of Rolex, because they feel that it is simply a product of marketing, and believe that those "in the know" would choose an Omega or GS instead. If it's not readily apparent, Rolex owners are repeatedly the target of flak on this forum, so it does take a certain strength of conviction to choose a Rolex over an Omega or GS on WUS.


That is why I own one of each that way my Rolex snobbism is counter balanced by his evil twin the PO and made neutral but it's friend the sbgm027

In pictures just for fun




























Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

jmanlay said:


> That is why I own one of each that way my Rolex snobbism is counter balanced by his evil twin the PO and made neutral but it's friend the sbgm027


Well I guess if you're not embarrassed to wear an Ω then it's probably ok. I'd keep a receipt for the Rolex though to prove you have one just in case you're called out.


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

Rallyfan13 said:


> Well I guess if you're not embarrassed to wear an Ω then it's probably ok. I'd keep a receipt for the Rolex though to prove you have one just in case you're called out.


No idea what this means but ok then

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Toothbras (Apr 19, 2010)

drunken monkey said:


> However you want to paint it, it boils down to SNES vs Genesis/Megadrive.


SNES was the way to go, except for Mortal Kombat 1 and 2. They cut out the blood! Otherwise that's an easy one


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

I like Triscuit's


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

snakeeyes said:


> yeah umm no....im on a watch forum typing a mile a minute while watching TV....im not typing an email to the CEO........i refuse to type i am


Typical Omega consumer.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Toothbras said:


> SNES was the way to go, except for Mortal Kombat 1 and 2. They cut out the blood! Otherwise that's an easy one


Ooohhhh..... you are so WRONG! I can't even BELIEVE IT! Sports games on SNES SUCKED! Genesis was better simply for NHL and Madden... add in SF2 and MK games and Genesis beats SNES WAY WORSE than Omega beats ROLEX! LOUD NOISES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## starter (Aug 21, 2010)

Vlance said:


> I like Triscuit's


You snobby SOB... You trying to say I can't afford Triscuits? Maybe Cheez Its are less expensive, but I prefer them... I don't have to eat Triscuits to prove anything...


----------



## DustinS (Nov 3, 2013)

snakeeyes said:


> huh? im not 18....it was a statement implying that 18 yr old kids today could care less about grammar in their Facebook, twitter spheres.......most jobs today don't require writing of grammar never mind 10 yrs from now.......
> 
> back on topic


I'm in finance, I'm paid to work with numbers. I've been completely ripped a new one by my boss over comma placement. Where is this magical world you live in?


----------



## DustinS (Nov 3, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> Ooohhhh..... you are so WRONG! I can't even BELIEVE IT! Sports games on SNES SUCKED! Genesis was better simply for NHL and Madden... add in SF2 and MK games and Genesis beats SNES WAY WORSE than Omega beats ROLEX! LOUD NOISES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Until you get into RPG's where SNES just killed every system ever! And sorry but platforms still go to SNES, all do respect to Sonic but you can't top mario AND donkey kong.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

starter said:


> You snobby SOB... You trying to say I can't afford Triscuits? Maybe Cheez Its are less expensive, but I prefer them... I don't have to eat Triscuits to prove anything...


Town House Crackers. Always the Town House.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Vlance said:


> I like Triscuit's


Who doesn't?

I think this is the one point that all of WUS can agree upon.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

DustinS said:


> I'm in finance, I'm paid to work with numbers. I've been completely ripped a new one by my boss over comma placement. Where is this magical world you live in?


He ain't working as a programmer, that's for sure. A stray comma can break a whole Web app.

I should know, because it happens to me over and over&#8230;


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

BarracksSi said:


> He ain't working as a programmer, that's for sure. A stray comma can break a whole Web app.
> 
> I should know, because it happens to me over and over&#8230;


Agree with you guys. At my office and in my industry, poor grammar is a no no. If you are a foreigner, mistakes are OK, but as a native speaker, it shows a lack of professionalism and attention to detail.

In text messages or in very short communication with a colleague, OK, but if done day to day it would impact your ability to move up the ladder.


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

BarracksSi said:


> He ain't working as a programmer, that's for sure. A stray comma can break a whole Web app.
> 
> I should know, because it happens to me over and over&#8230;


Agree with you guys. At my office and in my industry, poor grammar is a no no. If you are a foreigner, mistakes are OK, but as a native speaker, it shows a lack of professionalism and attention to detail.

In text messages or in very short communication with a colleague, OK, but if done day to day it would impact your ability to move up the ladder.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

DustinS said:


> I'm in finance, I'm paid to work with numbers. I've been completely ripped a new one by my boss over comma placement. Where is this magical world you live in?


I'm an academic mathematician, and I would say that a blatant disregard for grammar would be a professional impediment for all but the most gifted mathematicians.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Just wanted to take the spot for post number SIX SIX SIX.

(now that I secured the post marked by the Beast!...)

The discussion about grammar makes me think about why it matters.

The way I see it, if someone isn't paying attention to basic grammar rules and elementary spelling, I start to wonder how many other potentially important details they're missing.

When the [email protected]!& hits the fan, two things matter the most: numbers and documents. Missing details in numbers can throw off financial calculations, construction measurements, and all kinds of other things. Misspelled or badly-written documents can cause problems when a company is audited or taken to court.

If you're going to be in charge of more than the French fry machine, you're going to have to pay attention to these kinds of details. Blow it, and you can cost the company money, or worse.


----------



## DustinS (Nov 3, 2013)

BarracksSi said:


> He ain't working as a programmer, that's for sure. A stray comma can break a whole Web app.
> 
> I should know, because it happens to me over and over&#8230;


screw one up in excel man. Or SQL. Or SAS. Or R. Or hell....work with a CSV, lol. Send a client a fixed width file and send them a space instead of a zero or a zero instead of a space in the wrong field. Sure I didn't really "make" the field that went to the client, but it was full of loan data and I was their "contact"....live and learn, get note pad ++ and go review your developers export files in the raw before they go out.

But those are a lot easier for me. But in writing....that's not my strength.


----------



## DustinS (Nov 3, 2013)

mleok said:


> I'm an academic mathematician, and I would say that a blatant disregard for grammar would be a professional impediment for all but the most gifted mathematicians.


At the end of the day, virtually everyone has to explain their work in writing. Maybe I'm just that bad, but Word isn't going to fix everything.


----------



## cmac06 (Mar 13, 2016)

snakeeyes said:


> could care less about grammar


The correct usage would be "could NOT care less"; think about it a while, and it'll all make sense. Everyone's heard it said it incorrectly for so long that it pervades into everyday conversation. No wonder arguments never end... If you really do care then you're correct, but if you truly do not care, spend a little extra time to add one little three letter word.

Now let's continue to bash Rolex and Omega.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DustinS (Nov 3, 2013)

WatchingYou77 said:


> Agree with you guys. At my office and in my industry, poor grammar is a no no. If you are a foreigner, mistakes are OK, but as a native speaker, it shows a lack of professionalism and attention to detail.
> 
> In text messages or in very short communication with a colleague, OK, but if done day to day it would impact your ability to move up the ladder.


I dunno, it's pretty bad when a programmer has to make sure the text fields he's adding are right, and they're totally screwed up. Something I've seen before....


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

snakeeyes said:


> its my fault.......i screwed up big time....i typed your instead of you're...........grammar police came out en masse


Earlier (when u first posted this) I started to type "don't flatter yourself . ." . . good thing I didn't :think: ;-) . . .


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Toothbras said:


> SNES was the way to go, except for Mortal Kombat 1 and 2. They cut out the blood! Otherwise that's an easy one


Genesis does what nintendon't! Best slogan ever back then. Lol

That said Street Fighter 2 and Mario Kart swung it towards SNES. But to be fair, the SNES was much newer and it was like comparing an atom with a low resolution monitor to core i5 with an HD monitor. Not fair at all. The Genesis did extremely well considering the handicap.


----------



## GlennO (Jan 3, 2010)

cmac06 said:


> The correct usage would be "could NOT care less"; think about it a while, and it'll all make sense.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

AAMC said:


> Ah! Key sentence here


Yes. It seems that is the conclusion. Rolex is an act of money spending driven based on blatantly following the general masses and Omega only for people that care for the value of the watch where based on the function is still an act of money wasting.
Viva Seiko kinetic!!!!!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

Vlance said:


> I like Triscuit's


I eat Triscuits in first class with Grey Poupon.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Watch Fan in Beijing said:


> I eat Triscuits in first class with Grey Poupon.


Did you see the last Grey Poupon commercials? They did a series of maybe four, each playing off the theme with a different gag.

---
Rich guy #1 pulls up and asks Rich Guy #2, "Pardon me, but do you have any Grey Poupon?"
Rich Guy #2 replies, "But of course," and _immediately drives away._
---
Rich guy #1 pulls up and asks Rich Guy #2, "Pardon me, but do you have any Grey Poupon?"
Rich Guy #2 replies, "But of course," and tries to hand the jar to Rich Guy #1... but accidentally drops it, and they sadly watch it roll away from their cars.
---
etc.

Edit: Found a compilation:


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Yes. It seems that is the conclusion. Rolex is an act of money spending driven based on blatantly following the general masses and Omega only for people that care for the value of the watch where based on the function is still an act of money wasting.
> Viva Seiko kinetic!!!!!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


While I would agree the Seiko is a great watch, I think you may have a difficult time defending your position in this thread. Good luck to you.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

BarracksSi said:


> Just wanted to take the spot for post number SIX SIX SIX.
> 
> (now that I secured the post marked by the Beast!...)
> 
> ...


As someone who just finished editing a book replete with spelling errors (and a couple of citations that didn't actually match), I fear what else may be wrong with it. The lack of respect for the rules of grammar is a real problem within both the policy and nonprofit worlds.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

WatchingYou77 said:


> While I would agree the Seiko is a great watch, I think you may have a difficult time defending your position in this thread. Good luck to you.


Well, I am just trolling lol. Someone already mentioned GS before. I picked on Seiko cause it is very affordable. I own and prefer Omega BTW. But, most of my friend don't really care of my Omega. They tent to awe when we gather and someone wore Rolex or PAM sadly.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

starter said:


> You snobby SOB... You trying to say I can't afford Triscuits? Maybe Cheez Its are less expensive, but I prefer them... I don't have to eat Triscuits to prove anything...


Eat it with Vegimite. Lots of it.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

BarracksSi said:


> He ain't working as a programmer, that's for sure. A stray comma can break a whole Web app.
> 
> I should know, because it happens to me over and over&#8230;


You have to stay in Indonesia mate. We wrote 1.000.000,00 instead of 1,000,000.00.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

snakeeyes said:


> huh? im not 18....it was a statement implying that 18 yr old kids today could care less about grammar in their Facebook, twitter spheres.......most jobs today don't require writing of grammar never mind 10 yrs from now.......
> 
> back on topic


And you said it with such perfect grammar that at first we were actually surprised to learn that you were 18.

And now we know that you're not.

Thanks for clearing that up :roll:


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Since I went to bed last night:

"Heads up, I saw a bargain," had gained two new pages,

whereas "Will Omega ever be as good as Rolex" gained 5 pages...

Even though I own Omega (a few) and I don't (yet) own a Rolex, deep down inside, I just "know" that Rolex is better. Superior marketing or a 6th sense?

getting closer to those 200 pages...


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

snakeeyes said:


> _could care less about grammar_





cmac06 said:


> The correct usage would be "could NOT care less"; think about it a while, and it'll all make sense. Everyone's heard it said it incorrectly for so long that it pervades into everyday conversation. No wonder arguments never end... If you really do care then you're correct, but if you truly do not care, spend a little extra time to add one little three letter word.
> 
> Now let's continue to bash Rolex and Omega./QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

mdaclarke said:


> I think Breitling with maintain their aerospace following but they definitely seem to be losing market share to Rolex and Omega.


 I tried dozens of breitling before I got a pelagos....brieghtling are just ugly


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

So - did we reach a consensus? 

Just wanted to revive this for some refreshing intellectual stimulation with a healthy dose of objective thinking (at least in comparison to the Shinola thread).

The more I think about it, the more I believe the question provide an answer in itself. Omega will not be as good as Rolex, until people start asking "if Rolex is still as good as Omega". The question itself implies that Rolex is the benchmark for Omega to try to beat, hence not there yet.


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

I really like that rolex now only make mechanical watches. This adds to the allure of their brand..a quartz watch ,no mater how much you polish it up, is just a fancy casio( I hope my grammar is correct for the grammar mafia).
In reality i believe all luxury watches are overpriced but at least rolex are purists. In fact rolex have generated their sales, brand dominance and mystique by focusing on producing and refining the great mechanical classics that many others copy and emulate.


----------



## raquinus (Jan 28, 2015)

Will Omega ever be as good as RolexThe title suggest to me that Omega was never as good as Rolex. Let's not forget that both the American & Russian space programs chose Omega. I wonder what the crew of Apollo 13 would say. Anyway, my 65 speedy still does the job for me. 
Signed: totally biased


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Ticonderoga said:


> And you said it with such perfect grammar that at first we were actually surprised to learn that you were 18.
> 
> And now we know that you're not.
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up :roll:


why so obsessed with grammar on a watch forum?

lmfao

#getalife


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Watchdudeman said:


> I tried dozens of breitling before I got a pelagos....brieghtling are just ugly


well at least you gave ticonderoga a good laugh.....

personally it doesn't bother me and makes me laugh at how 'grammar' riles some people up

on a more serious note however it really makes me wonder what type of people circulate on these forums....making fun of others grammar....NOT everyone is educated......some have to got to where they are in life from good old fashioned hard work and being sociable and well liked...generous, friendly etc.....is it really fair to knock someone on these forums because of grammar errors? are these people not 'good enough' for some? are they 'lesser' people because they have a high school education but not a degree or doctorate?

I could go on but you get my point. whether you care or not is irrelevant to me because personally to 'judge' someone because of grammar and make assumptions is awfully 'shallow'

we see stories like this all the time on this forum about the 'scruffy' guy walking into rolex ads looking for a rolex only to be 'judged' and 'ignored' YET that individual wipes his arse with $$$$ and is self made with hundreds of employees.....

do you see the correlation and how its similar?

just wanted to point that out for the next time someone decides to 'educate' someone on their 'grammar'.......you could be educating your boss or someone who has busted their ass their entire life to get where they are today....lots of people can spell and have proper grammar...last i checked that guarantees one nothing.....

is this about me? nope....i have no interest in disclosing what i do.....i think the grammar police on a watch forum is ridiculous.......and yes i know i should use capitals after a period and i should be I...i or I just simply don't really care about grammar on a watch forum or spelling for that matter......

se


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

snakeeyes said:


> why so obsessed with grammar on a watch forum?
> 
> lmfao
> 
> #getalife


Could be insecurity or Rolex envy?


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

snakeeyes said:


> why so obsessed with grammar on a watch forum?
> 
> lmfao
> 
> #getalife


Because I want to be able to understand what you have written. If you cannot communicate properly, then it becomes more-difficult to address your arguments seriously. The rules of life don't end at the door of some Web forum.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

"If you can't say what you mean, then you don't mean what you say."


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

BarracksSi said:


> "If you can't say what you mean, then you don't mean what you say."


Truth!


----------



## m00k (Mar 20, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> Because I want to be able to understand what you have written. If you cannot communicate properly, then it becomes more-difficult to address your arguments seriously. The rules of life don't end at the door of some Web forum.


Says the guy who hyphenates "more difficult".


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

m00k said:


> Says the guy who hyphenates "more difficult".


You can hyphenate two words when used as an adjective. Such as "more-difficult". There are no hard and fast (or hard-and-fast) rules on hyphenation.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

snakeeyes said:


> well at least you gave ticonderoga a good laugh.....
> 
> personally it doesn't bother me and makes me laugh at how 'grammar' riles some people up
> 
> ...


The conviction of your impassioned narrative of the down-trodden (just for you Seven) uneducated man would be so much more believable if you hadn't gone and announced to the entire world that the "Millennials" are illiterate by choice. You make it sound as if they "don't need no silly grammar," and will be able to fly planes, build ships, perform surgery, and run companies without being able to spell or create entire sentences.

Perhaps if you spent a little less time broadcasting that ignorance is "cool" and more time understanding why some of the worlds have a red dotted line below them and learn to type without creating them, then maybe you wouldn't get such flak from the dreaded "grammar police."

Either way, this entire thread is nothing but troll bait, so take this, and every other comment here as just that.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Ticonderoga said:


> The conviction of your impassioned narrative of the down-trodden (just for you Seven) uneducated man would be so much more believable if you hadn't gone and announced to the entire world that the "Millennials" are illiterate by choice. You make it sound as if they "don't need no silly grammar," and will be able to fly planes, build ships, perform surgery, and run companies without being able to spell or create entire sentences.


The key to discussing political and sociological concerns in a watch thread lies in understanding context. Or to put it bluntly: I'm not mentioning the issues of poor and minority communities in an Omega versus Rolex thread unless it manages to come up in some way that makes sense.

Unfortunately for the young lad, his inability to understand context is as unsurprising as his grammatical errors.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

m00k said:


> Says the guy who hyphenates "more difficult".


I agree, this is the first time I have ever seen a hyphen used this way. But, he is a writer after all, they are known to take artistic license, and petty rules of grammar and convention do not apply to such talented individuals.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

mleok said:


> I agree, this is the first time I have ever seen a hyphen used this way. But, he is a writer after all, they are known to take artistic license, and petty rules of grammar and convention do not apply to such talented individuals.


I'm sensing some hint of "a tone" there


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

EnderW said:


> So - did we reach a consensus?


Yes... we decided that the Sega Genesis is clearly superior to Rolex, because you can't even fit cartridges in those things. Also, Omega is inferior because pronunciation is everything, and even the company CEO pronounces the company name differently that what everyone here thinks it should be, just like the SNES. All of this makes perfect sense if you just think about it.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

snakeeyes said:


> ...we see stories like this all the time on this forum about the 'scruffy' guy walking into rolex ads looking for a rolex only to be 'judged' and 'ignored' YET that individual wipes his arse with $$$$ and is self made with hundreds of employees.....


Actually, I seem to read about people talking about that happening, without anyone having any first hand experience. I suspect that either an old wives tale, or perhaps a bygone era of ADs when formal, or at least "proper", attire was more of an assumed requirement for consumers.

I would doubt it happens very often anymore, and have seen plenty of stories (my own included, so there may be some selection bias) of wearing shorts and a tshirt, looking at high end watches, and being treated very well.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Vlance said:


> I'm sensing some hint of "a tone" there


Oh, Mleok is a little sore from the Shinola thread. That's his problem.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Omega can read words fine while *Ro*dy*lex*ic.

Okay. That isn't as cool as Genesis does what Nintendon't. Let me go back to the drawing board.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Sevenmack said:


> Oh, Mleok is a little sore from the Shinola thread. That's his problem.


Says the person who's unable to come up with any evidence to substantiate the assertion which is at the very heart of his argument, and instead avoids the question like an ostrich.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

mleok said:


> Says the person who's unable to come up with any evidence to substantiate the assertion which is at the very heart of his argument, and instead avoids the question like an ostrich.


yeah but hes got good grammar

oops

he's or he has

whatever...who cares? 3 people???? lololololol


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

dbostedo said:


> Actually, I seem to read about people talking about that happening, without anyone having any first hand experience. I suspect that either an old wives tale, or perhaps a bygone era of ADs when formal, or at least "proper", attire was more of an assumed requirement for consumers.
> 
> I would doubt it happens very often anymore, and have seen plenty of stories (my own included, so there may be some selection bias) of wearing shorts and a tshirt, looking at high end watches, and being treated very well.


nope....lots of threads from people with first hand experience.....either way....it was making a point about 'judging' people because of 'grammar' or 'clothes' they wear.......

anyways this thread has worn out......wake me up when the next omega vs rolex thread gets started


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

snakeeyes said:


> yeah but hes got good grammar


I don't know, he uses "could care less" and "more-difficult," both of which give me the heebee jeebees.


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

WatchingYou77 said:


> Agree with you guys. At my office and in my industry, poor grammar is a no no. If you are a foreigner, mistakes are OK, but as a native speaker, it shows a lack of professionalism and attention to detail.
> 
> In text messages or in very short communication with a colleague, OK, but if done day to day it would impact your ability to move up the ladder.


Government work in DC area in some circles is like that for sure

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

mleok said:


> I don't know, he uses "could care less" and "more-difficult," both of which give me the heebee jeebees.


Any sharp disagreement with you gives you the shakes and three-martini meanies.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

mleok said:


> Says the person who's unable to come up with any evidence to substantiate the assertion which is at the very heart of his argument, and instead avoids the question like an ostrich.


I presented my evidence. Including dictionary definitions. But last I checked, you and others said evidence is irrelevant. Because it is all about "preferences". Or the feels. Or whatever excuse that suits.

Methinks you need some of that red whine*.

*Deliberate.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Sevenmack said:


> Any sharp disagreement with you gives you the shakes and three-martini meanies.


It's just you, because you're special. Still waiting on that evidence, whenever you're ready to argue on the merits of the case.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

mleok said:


> Says the person who's unable to come up with any evidence to substantiate the assertion which is at the very heart of his argument, and instead avoids the question like an ostrich.


I'm sure by now you've learned that Seven refuses to be wrong.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Damn it. I'm hoping to see this to 100 pages, but people bringing their disagreements from that nightmare Shinola thread are bound to attract the attention of Mods. 
Lets keep it at the same idiotic, but inoffensive and non-personal level we've managed for 71 pages...:roll:


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Sevenmack said:


> Because I want to be able to understand what you have written. If you cannot communicate properly, then it becomes *more*-*difficult* to address your arguments seriously. The rules of life don't end at the door of some Web forum.





Sevenmack said:


> You can hyphenate two words when used as an adjective. Such as "more-difficult". There are no hard and fast (or hard-and-fast) rules on hyphenation.


Yes, when the compound adjective precedes the noun it's describing, which is not the case in your sentence.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

EnderW said:


> Damn it. I'm hoping to see this to 100 pages, but people bringing their disagreements from that nightmare Shinola thread are bound to attract the attention of Mods.
> Lets keep it at the same idiotic, but inoffensive and non-personal level we've managed for 71 pages...:roll:


Sorry, my bad.

Back to the topic at hand, this is an Omega Deville I used to have, it's similar to one that my dad gave me when I was in junior high. He had received it as a partial payment for a debt he was owed, so it didn't have any particular emotional attachment.

I was never very fond of the case shape of the watch, and as such I didn't wear it regularly. But, I was always fascinated by the manual wind 625 calibre that was within in, and I would often take the caseback off and look at the movement under a magnifying glass.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

EnderW said:


> Damn it. I'm hoping to see this to 100 pages, but people bringing their disagreements from that nightmare Shinola thread are bound to attract the attention of Mods.
> Lets keep it at the same idiotic, but inoffensive and non-personal level we've managed for 71 pages...:roll:


Well, I'll do my part to stop the madness.










I prefer the Omega ad myself.


----------



## dr3ws (Jun 9, 2015)

Is this thread still about watches or grammar now


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Sevenmack said:


> Well, I'll do my part to stop the madness.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Both videos are cool. But Omega one is way cheezier - using CGI rather than focusing on the actual watches\movements. It also tells absolutely nothing about the watch - except "Omega Coaxial - the most perfect mechanical watch movement in the world." Now that is a big claim to make - really no movements are better? nothing more perfect? That is Omega dipping their toes in Shinola advertising waters 

Me, I like these videos:
Credor is butt-ugly, but video is amazing





This one is good too - Seiko: Dedicated to Perfection, no words needed.





This one is the most bad-ass of them all





*When the watch can speak for itself, no words or catchphrases are necessary!*


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

dr3ws said:


> Is this thread still about watches or grammar now


There's a really bad pun there.

But I'll leave her out of it.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


>


RE: 7 seconds in.... you mean to tell me that their designers really have to draw that same bracelet by hand over and over and over and over and over and over and over....


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

EnderW said:


> Damn it. I'm hoping to see this to 100 pages, but people bringing their disagreements from that nightmare Shinola thread are bound to attract the attention of Mods.
> Lets keep it at the same idiotic, but inoffensive and non-personal level we've managed for 71 pages...:roll:


That's the spirit!


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

EnderW said:


> Both videos are cool. But Omega one is way cheezier - using CGI rather than focusing on the actual watches\movements. It also tells absolutely nothing about the watch - except "Omega Coaxial - the most perfect mechanical watch movement in the world." Now that is a big claim to make - really no movements are better? nothing more perfect? That is Omega dipping their toes in Shinola advertising waters


Two things: 1. You are a watch collector (i.e. watch nerd), so CGI doesn't interest you. My father-in-law, wife, and mother-in-law, on the other hand, saw both ads and preferred the Omega by a wide margin. [Don't ask how I got them to watch.] So did my son; he wanted me to play it again. Collectors aren't the rest of the general public, and the general public likes sizzle. 2. Rolex's ad showing how designers drew the same bracelet over and over again was laughable. As if Rolex changes anything year to year (like Omega).

Of course, all marketing is sleight-of-hand. The best marketing, like the best magicians, make it effortless.



EnderW said:


> Me, I like these videos:
> Credor is butt-ugly, but video is amazing
> 
> 
> ...


Seiko always comes up with the best watch collector ads. Whether or not they translate with the public is a different story. But they are delightful.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> Two things: 1. You are a watch collector (i.e. watch nerd), so CGI doesn't interest you. My father-in-law, wife, and mother-in-law, on the other hand, saw both ads and preferred the Omega by a wide margin. [Don't ask how I got them to watch.] So did my son; he wanted me to play it again. Collectors aren't the rest of the general public, and the general public likes sizzle. 2. Rolex's ad showing how designers drew the same bracelet over and over again was laughable. As if Rolex changes anything year to year (like Omega).
> 
> Of course, all marketing is sleight-of-hand. The best marketing, like the best magicians, make it effortless.
> 
> Seiko always comes up with the best watch collector ads. Whether or not they translate with the public is a different story. But they are delightful.


So, you're saying Rolex is more for the watch nerd/connoisseur, and Omega just feeds off the general public... Starting to make a lot more sense now.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> Two things: 1. You are a watch collector (i.e. watch nerd), so CGI doesn't interest you...Collectors aren't the rest of the general public, and the general public likes sizzle...


But...but.... I'm a watch collector, and I MUCH, MUCH prefer the Omega ad.

Perhaps I should close my account here and disappear forever.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Vlance said:


> So, you're saying Rolex is more for the watch nerd/connoisseur, and Omega just feeds off the general public... Starting to make a lot more sense now.


Wasn't necessarily thinking about that; just commenting on the particular spots itself, which may not be fully representative of the advertising and marketing each company does. In this case, the Rolex commercial is more-appealing to collectors because it focuses on the kinds of story they enjoy, while Omega's spot appeals more to the general public because it tells a story that resonates more with casual buyers.

I would also note that Rolex itself plays to the general public by connoting prestige. When you have promotions featuring the Dalai Lama and David Beckham and the image of Martin Luther King wearing your watches, you are communicating to the general public that you are the proverbial cream of the crop. Given that Rolex has held the top spot since 1969, the company has done real well reaching the hoi polloi.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

dbostedo said:


> But...but.... I'm a watch collector, and I MUCH, MUCH prefer the Omega ad.
> 
> Perhaps I should close my account here and disappear forever.


As I noted earlier, I find the Omega spot more-appealing, too. But I'm an iconoclast when it comes to watch collecting (which should be obvious given how I defend certain companies), so I figure that I may not be representative of the majority of collectors. Which is fine by me. I like starched shirts, not starched minds.

Guess we are in good company.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

DustinS said:


> I'm in finance, I'm paid to work with numbers. I've been completely ripped a new one by my boss over comma placement. Where is this magical world you live in?


Ones where they don't have prospectuses?


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> Wasn't necessarily thinking about that; just commenting on the particular spots itself, which may not be fully representative of the advertising and marketing each company does. In this case, the Rolex commercial is more-appealing to collectors because it focuses on the kinds of story they enjoy, while Omega's spot appeals more to the general public because it tells a story that resonates more with casual buyers.
> 
> I would also note that Rolex itself plays to the general public by connoting prestige. When you have promotions featuring the Dalai Lama and David Beckham and the image of Martin Luther King wearing your watches, you are communicating to the general public that you are the proverbial cream of the crop. Given that Rolex has held the top spot since 1969, the company has done real well reaching the hoi polloi.


I would disagree with your assessment. I don't think it matters if you're an enthusiast or part of the general public, I think the ads appeal to different mindsets. The Rolex one lets me know that I'm buying into an exceptionally made watch, that provides me with the sound knowledge, that every step is taken to ensure that. 
The Omega plays a little more with the heart strings, and delivers more on the wonderment/adventurous/youthful scale.
While I do appreciate some aspects of the Omega commercial, the more conservative, genuine, Rolex approach is what appeals to me.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Sevenmack said:


> As if Rolex changes anything year to year (like Omega).


You say that as if it's a bad thing. So, change for the sake of change?


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Ticonderoga said:


> ...
> 
> Perhaps if you spent a little less time broadcasting that ignorance is "cool" and more time understanding why some of the _*worlds*_ have a red dotted line below them and learn to type without creating them, then maybe you wouldn't get such flak from the dreaded "grammar police."


This is why relying on spell check is not always a great idea either; the software is not smart enough (yet) to understand context and make the appropriate corrections.

Btw, not picking on you, Ti.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

cedargrove said:


> Yes, when the compound adjective precedes the noun it's describing, which is not the case in your sentence.


I've just promoted you to Chief of the Grammar Police. :-!

Ten hut!


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

cedargrove said:


> You say that as if it's a bad thing. So, change for the sake of change?


You are reading more into my comment than I wrote. I'm just noting the absurdity of Rolex supposedly having its designers draw the same bracelets year after year. Companies are entitled to engage in any strategy or tactic that appeals to its corporate culture and meets the demands of its clientele.

As for change: Some would argue that there is nothing wrong with trying new ideas and new designs, especially in a market in which the demand for you products may not merely be as robust as it was a few years ago. Even Rolex conceded that this year with the introduction of the new Air King. How each company pursues that change (or doesn't) is a matter about which we can have comment, but is ultimately the decision of the company. Personally, I could give two wits about what either Rolex or Omega do.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Vlance said:


> I would disagree with your assessment. I don't think it matters if you're an enthusiast or part of the general public, I think the ads appeal to different mindsets. The Rolex one lets me know that I'm buying into an exceptionally made watch, that provides me with the sound knowledge, that every step is taken to ensure that.
> The Omega plays a little more with the heart strings, and delivers more on the wonderment/adventurous/youthful scale.
> While I do appreciate some aspects of the Omega commercial, the more conservative, genuine, Rolex approach is what appeals to me.


Maybe. Maybe not. But in my view, it does matter in this context. Watch collectors, by and large, are philosophically conservative, change-adverse, preferential to what they consider to be the "tried and true" (even if it is fairly new in the grand scheme of horology). Collectors also think they are more-sophisticated and more-knowledgeable than casual buyers (even though they may end up making the same choices in watches despite the latter doing less homework). Because of this, the Omega commercial will not play well to many collectors. The Rolex spot, on the other hand, is a winner because it plays to the conceits of the watch collector class.

How this extends to the general public may be more-interesting. If one looks at what is actually bought in the marketplace (you know, so-called fashion watches), there is some evidence that perhaps casual watch buyers aren't nearly so conservative. When you look at some of the Rolex watches those folks buy (especially the rhinestone-encrusted offerings), it could be that Rolex knows how to sell sizzle well by selling it different. Of course, plenty of people buy Submariner-styled watches, so that also suggests that the public also likes the familiar.


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

dbostedo said:


> Actually, I seem to read about people talking about that happening, without anyone having any first hand experience. I suspect that either an old wives tale, or perhaps a bygone era of ADs when formal, or at least "proper", attire was more of an assumed requirement for consumers.
> 
> I would doubt it happens very often anymore, and have seen plenty of stories (my own included, so there may be some selection bias) of wearing shorts and a tshirt, looking at high end watches, and being treated very well.


This of course still happens, and from my experience depends on the situation. I have been in shorts and a t-shirt and treated great in many cases, but also not given the time of day in others. A lot of it comes down to the training of the employees and the customer service orientation of the shop. Making generalizations never works and each situation is unique.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> Maybe. Maybe not. But in my view, it does matter in this context. Watch collectors, by and large, are philosophically conservative, change-adverse, preferential to what they consider to be the "tried and true" (even if it is fairly new in the grand scheme of horology). Collectors also think they are more-sophisticated and more-knowledgeable than casual buyers (even though they may end up making the same choices in watches despite the latter doing less homework). Because of this, the Omega commercial will not play well to many collectors. The Rolex spot, on the other hand, is a winner because it plays to the conceits of the watch collector class.
> 
> How this extends to the general public may be more-interesting. If one looks at what is actually bought in the marketplace (you know, so-called fashion watches), there is some evidence that perhaps casual watch buyers aren't nearly so conservative. When you look at some of the Rolex watches those folks buy (especially the rhinestone-encrusted offerings), it could be that Rolex knows how to sell sizzle well by selling it different. Of course, plenty of people buy Submariner-styled watches, so that also suggests that the public also likes the familiar.


Why are you talking about collectors anyway? And as if you can obtusely peg their traits solely on that aspect? 
The strong majority of us here are "enthusiasts" anyway. 
You're really starting to just come across as an argumentative troll.


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

Vlance said:


> I would disagree with your assessment. I don't think it matters if you're an enthusiast or part of the general public, I think the ads appeal to different mindsets. The Rolex one lets me know that I'm buying into an exceptionally made watch, that provides me with the sound knowledge, that every step is taken to ensure that.
> The Omega plays a little more with the heart strings, and delivers more on the wonderment/adventurous/youthful scale.
> While I do appreciate some aspects of the Omega commercial, the more conservative, genuine, Rolex approach is what appeals to me.


It is also a mistake to look at a specific ad in isolation and then assume that is the overarching brand perception the company is trying to convey. Companies like Rolex, with very deep pockets, segment their consumer base and will use slightly different ads for different situations.

An ad displayed during Formula 1 will not be the same as inside a technical magazine.

Take Nike as an example. They have lifestyle ads, pure functional sports ads, ads featuring no products and only good will messaging, etc.

I would argue Rolex and Omega are targeting similar consumers, but Rolex is playing off of prestige, class, and heritage a bit more, whereas Omega is playing off a bit more youth, coolness, and tech/innovation.

Similar consumer, but slightly different approach.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

WatchingYou77 said:


> It is also a mistake to look at a specific ad in isolation and then assume that is the overarching brand perception the company is trying to convey. Companies like Rolex, with very deep pockets, segment their consumer base and will use slightly different ads for different situations.
> 
> An ad displayed during Formula 1 will not be the same as inside a technical magazine.
> 
> ...


Ok. I don't disagree that that approach is often utilized, but ultimately, you're not arguing, you're agreeing that they are targeting the same market, but preying off alternate mindsets/individual perspectives for purchasing.


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

Vlance said:


> Ok. I don't disagree that that approach is often utilized, but ultimately, you're not arguing, you're agreeing that they are targeting the same market, but preying off alternate mindsets/individual perspectives for purchasing.


Hahaha... agreeing may be more apt. The key to good marketing is understanding the emotional reasons why people buy products. The fact that we debate the brands for 70+ pages is a sign they are both doing a decent job!

However, they do target slightly different segments with different ads. In my job, I use music specific ambassadors and marketing for music fans, video game collaborations for esports fans, and so on.

If we removed all logos and branding from all watches, and everything was generic and valued only on style, fit and finish, technical aspects, etc. which would we all buy?

Probably, Hublot, but it would be fun to see what people would actually prefer.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Vlance said:


> Why are you talking about collectors anyway? And as if you can obtusely peg their traits solely on that aspect?
> The strong majority of us here are "enthusiasts" anyway.
> You're really starting to just come across as an argumentative troll.


Given that I've just logged my 2,200th post (yeah, me, I guess), I'm hardly a troll. [Of course, troll, when used in disagreements, merely means that you just disagree with what I have to say.] Argumentative? I present my views and disagree with those of others when I have disagreement with them. That's called having a discussion. If you want someone who will just agree with you, then perhaps you should grab a tape recorder so you can listen to your own voice.

I'm talking about watch collectors in this case because the initial discussion about the Omega and Rolex commercials was about the reaction of three different collectors to them. Given that this is a forum for watch collectors, or enthusiasts or whatever term of art you want to use, it makes sense to talk about how collectors react to advertising and marketing, which has been discussed elsewhere.

As for the general mindset of many collectors? That's based on my own observations, including those collectors I do know in real life. This includes the preference of mechanical over quartz (and the reasons for that preference), and even your own admission of preferring what you consider to be more "conservative" and "genuine". I am entitled to think that. You are entitled to your own views.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

cedargrove said:


> You say that as if it's a bad thing. So, change for the sake of change?


Variety is the spice of life. Change is always welcome if it improves upon the product. Sometimes change is even welcome if it doesn't harm the product in anyway and provides a fresh spin on it. It doesn't have to improve it actually.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

snakeeyes said:


> on a more serious note however it really makes me wonder what type of people circulate on these forums....making fun of others grammar....NOT everyone is educated......some have to got to where they are in life from good old fashioned hard work and being sociable and well liked...generous, friendly etc.....is it really fair to knock someone on these forums because of grammar errors? are these people not 'good enough' for some? are they 'lesser' people because they have a high school education but not a degree or doctorate?
> 
> I could go on but you get my point. whether you care or not is irrelevant to me because personally to 'judge' someone because of grammar and make assumptions is awfully 'shallow'
> 
> ...


Bahahahaha. Aren't you the one who told me to "learn how to read" after I "misinterpreted" one of your jibberish/poorly written posts? Now you're claiming to be the victim? Rolex? Omega? I don't care which is better at this point. I simply enjoyed the very public beat down you received from multiple members. So richly deserved.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> Given that I've just logged my 2,200th post (yeah, me, I guess), I'm hardly a troll. [Of course, troll, when used in disagreements, merely means that you just disagree with what I have to say.] Argumentative? I present my views and disagree with those of others when I have disagreement with them. That's called having a discussion. If you want someone who will just agree with you, then perhaps you should grab a tape recorder so you can listen to your own voice.
> 
> I'm talking about watch collectors in this case because the initial discussion about the Omega and Rolex commercials was about the reaction of three different collectors to them. Given that this is a forum for watch collectors, or enthusiasts or whatever term of art you want to use, it makes sense to talk about how collectors react to advertising and marketing, which has been discussed elsewhere.
> 
> As for the general mindset of many collectors? That's based on my own observations, including those collectors I do know in real life. This includes the preference of mechanical over quartz (and the reasons for that preference), and even your own admission of preferring what you consider to be more "conservative" and "genuine". I am entitled to think that. You are entitled to your own views.


There are people that have opinions, and there are those that like to adversely argue for the sake that it allows them to participate.

There was never a talk of collectors... You pegged Ender as a collector....That's it. People can be watch collectors, gun enthusiasts and vice versa... It doesn't equate them to ONLY having constrained observations when viewing ads.

Collectors are often strategic too, which would make them open to any and all movement types.... If they were smart collectors, anyway ... But I probably shouldn't generalize.. . .


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Variety is the spice of life. Change is always welcome if it improves upon the product. Sometimes change is even welcome if it doesn't harm the product in anyway and provides a fresh spin on it. It doesn't have to improve it actually.


Who's to say that "fresh spin" of yours doesn't eventually harm the product once past expiry?


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Seaswirl said:


> Bahahahaha. Aren't you the one who told me to "learn how to read" after I "misinterpreted" one of your jibberish/poorly written posts? Now you're claiming to be the victim? Rolex? Omega? I don't care which is better at this point. I simply enjoyed the very public beat down you received from multiple members. So richly deserved.


victim?

not me....i think your a moron.lmfao!

beat down? by who? the grammar police!!!!!....

i was making a point that grammar police should be careful of who they are judging.....

beatdown!!!! lmao!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Seaswirl said:


> Bahahahaha. Aren't you the one who told me to "learn how to read" after I "misinterpreted" one of your jibberish/poorly written posts? Now you're claiming to be the victim? Rolex? Omega? I don't care which is better at this point. I simply enjoyed the very public beat down you received from multiple members. So richly deserved.


3 members?

one of them told me you need to have 'perfect' grammar to fly a plane!!!!!!

lolololololololol


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Vlance said:


> Who's to say that "fresh spin" of yours doesn't eventually harm the product once past expiry?


Hey, I see the benefits of both keeping the status quo and taking chances on change. I am not taking any hardline stance on which is better. I am okay with both strategies as long as there are no double standards. Unfortunately, when it comes to Apple and Rolex, double standards abound. Take Apple using the same design for two years in a row for their iPhone and the media not subtracting any marks for this in their reviews. While if an Android manufacturer tries this, they get subtracted like 2 whole points for a similar design(there are changes still, just not a lot but still better than the EXACT same design Apple uses)from the previous generation smartphone.

If Rolex reuses the same movements for years and years, there should be some savings passed onto the consumer for using old design/technology. If they want to charge the same or more, I personally feel that the consumer deserves something new and different for the money that they pay. Something that shows money has gone into R&D at least and not straight to their pockets. That's where change is good and Omega has the advantage over Rolex. They are trying new things with this master co-axial stuff and I applaud them for that.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Vlance said:


> There are people that have opinions, and there are those that like to adversely argue for the sake that it allows them to participate.


Oh, let's do this again: I posted two commercials from Rolex and Omega. Ender, dbostedo and I each had comments anoyt the ads. I offered some thoughts. You chimed in. Conversation ensued.

Now, from my perspective, I could argiue that you chimed in to "adversely argue" for the sake of participating. After all, nothing was said to you until you responded. But then, I tend to rank people based on the arguments they make, not on assumptions of their motivations.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

snakeeyes said:


> victim?
> 
> not me....i think your a moron.lmfao!
> 
> ...


Ok... "Snakeeyes", is it? It's not really your bad grammar that everyone is preying on... If your were a nice, positive, contributing dude, no one would notice! .... Unfortunately, I don't know how to tell you this, but you're not behaving in a respectable manner, and the name calling won't get you far. Best of luck.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

snakeeyes said:


> victim?
> 
> not me....i think your a moron.lmfao!
> 
> ...


If you're going to insult me, please have the decency to do it correctly so all can properly understand. You should have written "you're a moron" or "you are a moron". Not "your a moron". Dear lord. Well, at least we can now hopefully agree that I can read.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Vlance said:


> Ok... "Snakeeyes", is it? It's not really your bad grammar that everyone is preying on... If your were a nice, positive, contributing dude, no one would notice! .... Unfortunately, I don't know how to tell you this, but you're not behaving in a respectable manner, and the name calling won't get you far. Best of luck.


sorry grammar police is not name calling

i contribute as much as you....ive read your posts.....

sorry i've.....


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> Oh, let's do this again: I posted two commercials from Rolex and Omega. Ender, dbostedo and I each had comments anoyt the ads. I offered some thoughts. You chimed in. Conversation ensued.
> 
> Now, from my perspective, I could argiue that you chimed in to "adversely argue" for the sake of participating. After all, nothing was said to you until you responded. But then, I tend to rank people based on the arguments they make, not on assumptions of their motivations.


I hope, for your sake, you don't rank your own arguments...


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Seaswirl said:


> If you're going to insult me, please have the decency to do it correctly so all can properly understand. You should have written "you're a moron" or "you are a moron". Not "your a moron". Dear lord. Well, at least we can now hopefully agree that I can read.


we get it....your the type of person who tells other how to set the dinner table......

im cool with that


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Hey, I see the benefits of both keeping the status quo and taking chances on change. I am not taking any hardline stances on which is better. I am okay with both strategies as long as there are no double standards. Unfortunately, when it comes to Apple and Rolex, double standards abound. Take Apple using the same design for two years in a row for their iPhone and the media doesn't subtract any marks for this in their reviews. While if an Android manufacturer tries this, they get subtracted like 2 whole points for a similar design from the previous generation smartphone.
> 
> If Rolex reuses the same movements for years and years, there should be some savings passed onto the consumer for using old design/technology. If they want to charge the same or more, I personally feel that the consumer deserves something new and different for the money they pay. Something that shows money has gone into R&D at least and not straight to their pockets.


I am also agnostic about Rolex's penchant for changing little. For me, its main lineup is dull. But the brand knows its customers well and understands how many design changes it can make across the line without harming the top and bottom lines.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Vlance said:


> There are people that have opinions, and there are those that like to adversely argue for the sake that it allows them to participate.


No, there isn't!


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

snakeeyes said:


> sorry grammar police is not name calling
> 
> i contribute as much as you....ive read your posts.....
> 
> sorry i've.....


Well, you're literally not allowed to name call, as in call people, "morons".


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Vlance said:


> I hope, for your sake, you don't rank your own arguments...


I'm my own harshest critic. But that doesn't mean I think that I'm the best one. That's what wives are for.

Aren't we supposed to talk about Rolex and Omega?


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Hey, I see the benefits of both keeping the status quo and taking chances on change. I am not taking any hardline stance on which is better. I am okay with both strategies as long as there are no double standards. Unfortunately, when it comes to Apple and Rolex, double standards abound. Take Apple using the same design for two years in a row for their iPhone and the media not subtracting any marks for this in their reviews. While if an Android manufacturer tries this, they get subtracted like 2 whole points for a similar design(there are changes still, just not a lot but still better than the EXACT same design Apple uses)from the previous generation smartphone.
> 
> If Rolex reuses the same movements for years and years, there should be some savings passed onto the consumer for using old design/technology. If they want to charge the same or more, I personally feel that the consumer deserves something new and different for the money that they pay. Something that shows money has gone into R&D at least and not straight to their pockets. That's where change is good and Omega has the advantage over Rolex. They are trying new things with this master co-axial stuff and I applaud them for that.


make no mistake...rolexes latest movement was in response to Omega.......


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Vlance said:


> Well, you're literally not allowed to name call, as in call people, "morons".


oh. ok. sorry V.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

snakeeyes said:


> we get it....your the type of person who tells other how to set the dinner table......
> 
> im cool with that


I think YOU'RE just making up arguments at this point for the sake of it. I have no idea what YOUR post above even means. I'M cool with that as well.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Seaswirl said:


> I think YOU'RE just making up arguments at this point for the sake of it. I have no idea what YOUR post above even means. I'M cool with that as well.


im confused....that was a 'statement' an 'observation' not an 'argument'

we done?


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

snakeeyes said:


> im confused....that was a 'statement' an 'observation' not an 'argument'
> 
> we done?


What?


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Seaswirl said:


> What?


who why where when


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

snakeeyes said:


> who why where when


what.

845 posts. Impressive.


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

II've noticed a few people saying rolex developed their new movement in response to Omega......I really doubt that considering how monumentally slowly and thoughtfully rolex change designs and movements ...I imagine rolex have been developing these ideas for years and it's hardly a knee jerk reaction to a new swatch movement........come on 100 pages


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> If Rolex reuses the same movements for years and years, there should be some savings passed onto the consumer for using old design/technology.


Not if they're trying to run a business that maximizes revenue or profit (as almost all businesses do). The price is not set based on being good to the consumer in any way. It's set to maximize revenue (over the short of long term) regardless of input or investment costs.

I.e. if people are willing to pay the same price even if Rolex does no investment at all, then they shouldn't lower the price.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

BigSeikoFan said:


> This is why relying on spell check is not always a great idea either; the software is not smart enough (yet) to understand context and make the appropriate corrections.
> 
> Btw, not picking on you, Ti.


touche; the difference is, I'm a bit embarrassed that I missed that. In contrast, snakeyes would be proud of it.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Sevenmack said:


> I am also agnostic about Rolex's penchant for changing little. For me, its main lineup is dull. But the brand knows its customers well and understands how many design changes it can make across the line without harming the top and bottom lines.


I beg to differ. Rolex does not know their customer. The customer knows Rolex. Rolex has the upper hand to influence the market demand and perception without doing anything. Customers work their butt off, head over heels, somersaulting and lying dead on the floor just to earn money to get their first rolex. Trusting the brand over their reasoning.
Omega in the other hand, knows that they do not have Rolex power and privileged. Thus, they provide better movement and features that cost way more modest than Rolex. Ergo, quality and value for money wised, Omega is on par or maybe better than Rolex. However, Rolex has a better brand power and market perception. That my friend is an intangible value that money cannot ((very) hard to) buy.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

dbostedo said:


> Not if they're trying to run a business that maximizes revenue or profit (as almost all businesses do). The price is not set based on being good to the consumer in any way. It's set to maximize revenue (over the short of long term) regardless of input or investment costs.
> 
> I.e. if people are willing to pay the same price even if Rolex does no investment at all, then they shouldn't lower the price.


Totally agree with you. The basic principle of a business is to make more money with investment as minimum as possible.
Rolex is a giant business (company). In time and correct marketing, out of 100, Omega might be once or twice to knocks them out of the porch.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

dbostedo said:


> Not if they're trying to run a business that maximizes revenue or profit (as almost all businesses do). The price is not set based on being good to the consumer in any way. It's set to maximize revenue (over the short of long term) regardless of input or investment costs.
> 
> I.e. if people are willing to pay the same price even if Rolex does no investment at all, then they shouldn't lower the price.


Yes, I know. Too bad we live in this type of world. People would be a lot richer and prices would be a lot lower if we set companies to the standard of put out or get out by voting with our wallets. That's the underlying issue here. We let Rolex and Apple slide, whether you think it is because of good marketing or not is up to you, but we don't give the same courtesy to say Motorola and just let them close up the factories if they don't give us something new or different. I find that disturbing but maybe that's just me.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Yes, I know. Too bad we live in this type of world. People would be a lot richer and prices would be a lot lower if we set companies to the standard of put out or get out by voting with our wallets. That's the underlying issue here. We let Rolex and Apple slide, whether you think it is because of good marketing or not is up to you, but we don't give the same courtesy to say Motorola and just let them close up the factories if they don't give us something new or different. I find that disturbing but maybe that's just me.


It's one of our 7 sins mate, Envious. We envy others from seeing them have something that we don't own. Enviously, we purchase something that they don't own. Thus, they envy us and will buy other things that we don't have.
Unbeknownst to us, we've that traits since we are in elementary school. Remember when we used to compare our fathers? My dad is richer then others dad. Should we can control our passion, desire and life in modesty, I kid you not, we will be able to tell Rolex what to do and make the best out their knowledge and asset.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## GregoryD (Jan 31, 2009)

Vlance said:


> I like Triscuit's


Triscuit's what, exactly?


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

GregoryD said:


> Triscuit's what, exactly?


"'Triscuit's what exactly' what? Over."


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

GregoryD said:


> Triscuit's what, exactly?


I like Triscuits to perform aerial stunts using f16 freedom fighters.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Shan_Farandy said:


> It's one of our 7 sins mate, Envious. We envy others from seeing them have something that we don't own. Enviously, we purchase something that they don't own. Thus, they envy us and will buy other things that we don't have.
> Unbeknownst to us, we've that traits since we are in elementary school. Remember when we used to compare our fathers? My dad is richer then others dad. Should we can control our passion, desire and life in modesty, I kid you not, we will be able to tell Rolex what to do and make the best out their knowledge and asset.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Well he's not really saying we should buy less... he's saying we should be more selective. I think? I'm not quite sure.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Yes, I know. Too bad we live in this type of world. People would be a lot richer and prices would be a lot lower if we set companies to the standard of put out or get out by voting with our wallets. That's the underlying issue here. We let Rolex and Apple slide, whether you think it is because of good marketing or not is up to you, but we don't give the same courtesy to say Motorola and just let them close up the factories if they don't give us something new or different. I find that disturbing but maybe that's just me.


I'm confused.

On one hand, you want people to refuse to pay for Rolex unless they continually add value.

On the other hand, you want people to prop up Motorola no matter what they do so they don't go out of business.

Which is it? Should we support companies we like no matter what they do? Or should we be very selective and vote with our wallets, putting companies out of business who don't innovate/market/create demand?


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Shan_Farandy said:


> I beg to differ. Rolex does not know their customer. The customer knows Rolex. Rolex has the upper hand to influence the market demand and perception without doing anything. Customers work their butt off, head over heels, somersaulting and lying dead on the floor just to earn money to get their first rolex. Trusting the brand over their reasoning.


I would disagree. As a company, Rolex has sales data and other intelligence on their customers, more than we would know. That's what smart companies in the 21st century do. Sure, Rolex has played a part in influencing its perception among its customers and others. But it doesn't come out of thin air. You learn what your customers want (including designs and levels of customer service). You learn how to serve those customers (from improving the quality of bracelets and movements, to addressing customer service, to elevating standards for product performance). Then you market to those customers and the various segments in which they are based on their aspirations, desires, and demands (including crafting mythologies around the brand and making ownership seem like an exclusive club).

There is demand for Rolex and loyalty to the brand. But that is because Rolex has spent decades sticking to its knitting, something that many other brands have done with lower levels of success. This includes Omega.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

dbostedo said:


> I'm confused.
> 
> On one hand, you want people to refuse to pay for Rolex unless they continually add value.
> 
> ...


I prefer one standard. If Rolex and Apple can dick around and just rake in profits with no effort and by using old movements and designs. Then Motorola's actual real efforts to innovate and efforts that cost them money should be valued more than they are. They aren't valued at all and got put out of business basically and they put in a lot more effort than Apple. Businesses can innovate and still fail hard, Motorola is just one example.

Of course, I am aware that double standards will exist no matter what. I am just voicing my displeasure. Summary is basically I would like to see effort rewarded. Whether it is a blue collar worker or a large company. That and I don't like seeing no effort being rewarded like it appears to be with large companies like Rolex and Apple.


----------



## rfortson (Feb 18, 2012)

Yes.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

dbostedo said:


> I'm confused.
> 
> On one hand, you want people to refuse to pay for Rolex unless they continually add value.
> 
> ...


The thing is that consumers want improvements at the margins, especially once a product has become a proven winner in the marketplace. In the case of Rolex and Apple, they offer marginal improvements in design and product features because their average customers have little interest in any kind of radical innovation. For the Apple customer, they want a smartphone that just works with some new features (Apple Pay) that improve the ownership experience, while with Rolex, the customer wants a watch that also just works with some incremental improvements such as ceramic bezels and tighter end links on bracelets. Neither firm could stay in business without continuing to meet those marginal demands.

On the other hand, the problem for new entrants and firms that are in second or third (or last) place is that the benefits of success continually accrue to the winner. In the case of Motorola, their early innovations (including the Razr and the Q) were not strong enough to take on options, first from BlackBerry, and then, Apple, that met customer demands and were well-marketed. Even with the new phones such as the Moto G, the company (and its current parent, Lenovo) are playing catch-up as Apple (and now, Samsung) continue to improve their offerings and marketing. The watch market is significantly different from the smartphone market in many ways, but the benefits of top position for Rolex also continue to accumulate. Omega has managed to catch up on sales (720,000 units for Omega versus 780,000 for Rolex in 2014). But in other areas, Omega is still playing second-fiddle to Rolex.

None of this matters to Rolex and Omega owners at the end of the day. Because both brands offer great watches those consumers enjoy.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

rfortson said:


> Yes.


Ha ha ha ha ha. Of course, among the owners of both brands, it's just narcissism anyway.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> I prefer one standard. If Rolex and Apple can dick around and just rake in profits with no effort and by using old movements and designs. Then Motorola's actual real efforts to innovate and efforts that cost them money should be valued more than they are. They aren't valued at all and got put out of business basically and they put in a lot more effort than Apple. Businesses can innovate and still fail hard, Motorola is just one example.
> 
> Of course, I am aware that double standards will exist no matter what. I am just voicing my displeasure. Summary is basically I would like to see effort rewarded. Whether it is a blue collar worker or a large company. That and I don't like seeing no effort being rewarded like it appears to be with large companies like Rolex and Apple.


Personally, I think that's exactly how things should work. No matter how hard you work, if you don't make what people want - or at least decide to buy - then that's on you.

If Apple invented something so good that they don't need to improve it in order to sell it, they've simply done a fantastic job at their business and product creation. Why should that be any less valuable than - or even equally valuable to - putting in hard work making something no one wants?


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

I beg to differ. Rolex does not know their customer. The customer knows Rolex. Rolex has the upper hand to influence the market demand and perception without doing anything. Customers work their butt off, head over heels, somersaulting and lying dead on the floor just to earn money to get their first rolex. Trusting the brand over their reasoning.
Omega in the other hand, knows that they do not have Rolex power and privileged. Thus, they provide better movement and features that cost way more modest than Rolex. Ergo, quality and value for money wised, Omega is on par or maybe better than Rolex. However, Rolex has a better brand power and market perception. That my friend is an intangible value that money cannot ((very) hard to) buy.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

Well I beg to differ ...rolex are an independent watch maker that control every aspect of their product ,even steel development and research,and focus on making a product that they know is great .A product that they want to make purely because they know it's great and they continue to develop watches that are reflective of their original ethos and exudes the rolex heritage..tbf this does have a certain marketing strategy of take it or leave it.
On the other hand omega is part of swatches hierarchy so omega has to make great quality watches that are better than tag heuer .....tag makes better than tissot and everybody is a winner of course there is some overlap before everyone points out tags new tourbillion etc etc. 
I do love omega watches but this makes rolex more appealing to me in general....


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

I think I messed that quote up


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

dbostedo said:


> Personally, I think that's exactly how things should work. No matter how hard you work, if you don't make what people want - or at least decide to buy - then that's on you.
> 
> If Apple invented something so good that they don't need to improve it in order to sell it, they've simply done a fantastic job at their business and product creation. Why should that be any less valuable than - or even equally valuable to - putting in hard work making something no one wants?


True, I think Omega and Rolex are two-side of a coin. They are in the same class. They are a rival for each other and each of them knew their strengths and weaknesses. They always try to share the same spoil of war. Omega with their better innovation and price for value. Rolex with their "just enough" innovation and strong market view and perception. Ergo, retracing back to our main argument. Omega is on par with Rolex. We WIS knows it. But the non-WIS, they only have/know one brand on their mind, Rolex.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

dbostedo said:


> Personally, I think that's exactly how things should work. No matter how hard you work, if you don't make what people want - or at least decide to buy - then that's on you.
> 
> If Apple invented something so good that they don't need to improve it in order to sell it, they've simply done a fantastic job at their business and product creation. Why should that be any less valuable than - or even equally valuable to - putting in hard work making something no one wants?


Well, that's more a question of value. I think Apple products are crap and much inferior to less popular products from different companies. I don't believe that is "on" the company getting their ass kicked by Apple, I put that more on ignorant consumers but that's another topic for another day. These companies do fantastic jobs, in my opinion they provide more quality and effort but get totally different less flattering results. Sometimes you just have to shake your head at the popularity of certain products, Justin Bieber for example. I don't think it is as cut and dry as popularity equals value and that's how the way it should be. There is lots of grey or gray here like there is with anything.

For example, if it costs me $100 to manufacture a product and each year that manufacturing cost drops by half due to the parts being older and outdated. Each year my profit grows if I keep the price the same. However, if the consumer stands up to me with their wallet and refuses to buy my old product without a discount, I have to either discount the item or use newer technology or put some effort in to justify the price. Rinse and repeat to remain an equilibrium that benefits both the company and the consumer and encourages innovation. I am held accountable by the consumer which is exactly how the way it should be if we want a healthy and fair competitive environment.

With Rolex and Apple, it's definitely more of the Justin Bieber model where milking unexplained(not necessarily earned, well at least not compared to more hardworking companies or artists) popularity to ridiculous levels with no accountability to the consumer, in my opinion of course.


----------



## alessandro132 (Feb 16, 2016)

How is this 'debate' still alive and kicking?


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Omega are not these amazing innovators that everyone is making out....yeesh new technologies and innovation is a load of crap ....mechanical watches are OLD technology and watches like rolex and omega are status symbols and jewelry. If you want a watch that keeps good time buy a 20 quid quartz. 
The only reason omega is doing so much faffing about with new " technology " Is to find a USP that can give it lasting sales and a marketing edge.
Rolex has all the marketing it needs and does little tweeks so fans can have something to squawk about.
The co-axial is a technological marvel no doubt and it's a great movement but in reality it's no better than the other top mechanical movements so omega haven't been able to establish themselves like rolex have.
Rolex don't change as fast because they don't have too ...it's really that simple. We know the make bomb proof cases and bulletproof movements that work and work and work(my dads 1968 date two services.last one 6 years ago. barely misses a second and is still waterproof Is proof of that)


----------



## clarken (Nov 30, 2013)

The moon landing has run its course so no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Well, that's more a question of value. I think Apple products are crap and much inferior to less popular products from different companies. I don't believe that is "on" the company getting their ass kicked by Apple, I put that more on ignorant consumers but that's another topic for another day. These companies do fantastic jobs, in my opinion they provide more quality and effort but get totally different less flattering results. Sometimes you just have to shake your head at the popularity of certain products, Justin Bieber for example. I don't think it is as cut and dry as popularity equals value and that's how the way it should be. There is lots of grey or gray here like there is with anything.
> 
> For example, if it costs me $100 to manufacture a product and each year that manufacturing cost drops by half due to the parts being older and outdated. Each year my profit grows if I keep the price the same. However, if the consumer stands up to me with their wallet and refuses to buy my old product without a discount, I have to either discount the item or use newer technology or put some effort in to justify the price. Rinse and repeat to remain an equilibrium that benefits both the company and the consumer and encourages innovation. I am held accountable by the consumer which is exactly how the way it should be if we want a healthy and fair competitive environment.
> 
> With Rolex and Apple, it's definitely more of the Justin Bieber model where milking unexplained(not necessarily earned, well at least not compared to more hardworking companies or artists) popularity to ridiculous levels with no accountability to the consumer, in my opinion of course.


I don't think it matters whether or not Apple products are any good. I didn't say anything about actual "value". That's not what I was commenting on; I was saying that companies that successfully sell their products for whatever reason, whether they continue to innovate or not, are doing the better job.

And I wasn't commenting on consumers or what they should or shouldn't do. People choose to spend their money for many, many reasons - none more valid than any other despite someone's personal take.

I think we're talking at cross purposes.... I was making a point about how companies should behave and why they deserve to be successful. And I think that you're commenting on how you'd like all consumers to behave based on what you value.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Simply put, a company shouldn't be penalized for getting it right the first time.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

dbostedo said:


> Tomatoes11 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that's more a question of value. I think Apple products are crap and much inferior to less popular products from different companies. I don't believe that is "on" the company getting their ass kicked by Apple, I put that more on ignorant consumers but that's another topic for another day. These companies do fantastic jobs, in my opinion they provide more quality and effort but get totally different less flattering results. Sometimes you just have to shake your head at the popularity of certain products, Justin Bieber for example. I don't think it is as cut and dry as popularity equals value and that's how the way it should be. There is lots of grey or gray here like there is with anything.
> ...


I don't think it is as simple as whoever sells more is doing the better job and deserves all the success they get. There is always some luck involved and some unexpected change in society that sparks a big run of success. Apple would have died for example if Microsoft didn't bail them out and their strategy was the same or similar back then. Sure most good companies don't factor in luck and ignore it like they should, but it doesn't mean it still doesn't play a part.

I am not sure what you are getting at exactly but are you saying companies milking their good fortune for all they are worth and not innovating unless sales drop is exactly how it should be? Then you can't complain about Omega milking limited edition speed masters for all they are worth like I believe you have done in the past. I hope that's not how conpnies should be because it certainly doesn't benefit the consumer if that's how all businesses are operated.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

mleok said:


> Simply put, a company shouldn't be penalized for getting it right the first time.


They shouldn't but most companies often are penalized for not innovating but Apple and Rolex seem to be the exception. Double standards.

And if you don't hold a company accountable for improving their product. You get old ass ETA movements in 90% of the Swiss watches. They got it right the first time and that's why it's still wide spread. I don't know about you but I like it better with different movements from different companies. Call me an idealist but I think ETA's are now boring and maybe just maybe it's time to change just for the sake of change. Everything has a shelf life no matter how good it is.

Then there is the philosophical side of how do you know there isn't something better if you assume the Rolex is perfect and doesn't need any changes? Maybe someday an innovative change will happen that blows current Rolex out of the water but we will never know if we don't push them to improve and innovate by voting with our wallets.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

60 years ago one could pose the exact opposite question.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> I am not sure what you are getting at exactly but are you saying companies milking their good fortune for all they are worth and not innovating unless sales drop is exactly how it should be?


Yes - or rather I'm saying it's fine and a valid approach. As long as they are getting sales and making money, then they're doing their job. If not innovating will eventually hurt that position, then no, that's not doing their job. They're under no obligation to do anything particularly good for the consumer, beyond not outright hurting them or lying to them.

And I don't believe I've ever had too much of an opinion on Speedmasters one way or the other - I think that might be someone else you're thinking of. (Don't particularly like them, in fact.) But I couldn't care less if they have 1000 different LEs.

That said, as a consumer though, it's OK for me to prefer that they not make a lot of LEs if that's how I feel. But if the LEs are making them a lot of money, then they shouldn't listen to me. Those are two different and separate concepts. One is my personal take, and one is running a business.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Tomatoes11 said:


> They shouldn't but most companies often are penalized for not innovating but Apple and Rolex seem to be the exception. Double standards.


I am not a techie, and truly have very little knowledge about who developed what.

My first Apple product was an iPod, and I loved it because it was easy to use and just worked. I'm on my second iPad and love it - very intuitive and once again, it just works - never any problems. I don't have an iPhone, so can't comment, but I know my Blackberry does not always work.

I have to admit, I've always been under the impression that Apple was innovative. Out of curiosity, and I'm asking honestly, did other companies develop products such as the iPod or iPad before Apple? And I'm not asking who first invented and MP3 player or tablet, but rather who first produced such devices that are as intuitive, easy to use and work virtually flawlessly.


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

Tomatoes11 said:


> I prefer one standard. If Rolex and Apple can dick around and just rake in profits with no effort and by using old movements and designs. Then Motorola's actual real efforts to innovate and efforts that cost them money should be valued more than they are. They aren't valued at all and got put out of business basically and they put in a lot more effort than Apple. Businesses can innovate and still fail hard, Motorola is just one example.
> 
> Of course, I am aware that double standards will exist no matter what. I am just voicing my displeasure. Summary is basically I would like to see effort rewarded. Whether it is a blue collar worker or a large company. That and I don't like seeing no effort being rewarded like it appears to be with large companies like Rolex and Apple.


You are missing out on the intangibles here. If consumers always awarded brands that pushed technological innovation at the expense of all else, the world would of course be a different place, but perhaps not for the better, and that is not how consumers function.

Apple for example offers something that other companies have not been able to achieve: design, user experience, and style/emotion.

Sure, there may be a phone or PC with more processing power, a better graphics card, etc. but consumers like the design of the Apple products, the user experience, and the feeling they get carrying and/or using their Apple machines. That accounts for a lot.

The same goes for watches, and at a certain point, increased tech has diminishing returns for the average consumer. Can I do email and surf the web? Does it tell time and function ok? Check.

Apple stores generate more revenue per square ft. than any other branded store in the world. There is a reason why.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

cedargrove said:


> I am not a techie, and truly have very little knowledge about who developed what.
> 
> My first Apple product was an iPod, and I loved it because it was easy to use and just worked. I'm on my second iPad and love it - very intuitive and once again, it just works - never any problems. I don't have an iPhone, so can't comment, but I know my Blackberry does not always work.
> 
> I have to admit, I've always been under the impression that Apple was innovative. Out of curiosity, and I'm asking honestly, did other companies develop products such as the iPod or iPad before Apple? And I'm not asking who first invented and MP3 player or tablet, but rather who first produced such devices that are as intuitive, easy to use and work virtually flawlessly.


There were smartphones long before the iPhone. And there were tablet or phablet-like devices long before the iPad (like the old Palm Pilots, for instance.) But the iPhone and associated infrastructure was ground-breaking in it's usability and feel. Having iTunes (which I personally hate) manage everything, and having stupidly simple (as I think of it) design and operation was a breakthrough. Apple deserved every sale they got in my opinion.

Some would argue that the iPhone is still the best. A lot of people wouldn't. But either way, iPhone sales continue to be strong, so whatever they're doing (for now at least) is correct. Will they be able to maintain? Time will tell.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

dbostedo said:


> There were smartphones long before the iPhone. And there were tablet or phablet-like devices long before the iPad (like the old Palm Pilots, for instance.) But the iPhone and associated infrastructure was ground-breaking in it's usability and feel. Having iTunes (which I personally hate) manage everything, and having stupidly simple (as I think of it) design and operation was a breakthrough. Apple deserved every sale they got in my opinion.
> 
> Some would argue that the iPhone is still the best. A lot of people wouldn't. But either way, iPhone sales continue to be strong, so whatever they're doing (for now at least) is correct. Will they be able to maintain? Time will tell.


I remember Palm Pilots, but I was only familiar with the small ones that required a stylus and the user to learn a new alphabet. Was there something that was as large as a regular iPad that was extremely easy to use?

As for iTunes, count me as one who loves it. I need something stupidly simple.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

cedargrove said:


> I remember Palm Pilots, but I was only familiar with the small ones that required a stylus and the user to learn a new alphabet. Was there something that was as large as a regular iPad that was extremely easy to use?
> 
> As for iTunes, count me as one who loves it. I need something stupidly simple.


I don't really know the history too well, but I doubt there was anything with a large table-like screen back in the Palm Pilot days... I guess I should have left it at "phablet". Screens were poor and expensive, and not really touch screens. That technology had to mature to make all these modern devices possible.

Apple (or at least Steve Jobs) had some ideas about tablet-like devices and future possibilities back in the eighties. Then they produced this video in 1995, which is pretty forward thinking IMO :


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

cedargrove said:


> I am not a techie, and truly have very little knowledge about who developed what.
> 
> My first Apple product was an iPod, and I loved it because it was easy to use and just worked. I'm on my second iPad and love it - very intuitive and once again, it just works - never any problems. I don't have an iPhone, so can't comment, but I know my Blackberry does not always work.
> 
> I have to admit, I've always been under the impression that Apple was innovative. Out of curiosity, and I'm asking honestly, did other companies develop products such as the iPod or iPad before Apple? And I'm not asking who first invented and MP3 player or tablet, but rather who first produced such devices that are as intuitive, easy to use and work virtually flawlessly.


Apple did streamline software because they were smart enough to capitalize on the fact that most consumers find Windows and MP3 software either poor or overkill. They deserve a lot of credit on the software front. They are geniuses. The question is more about ethics. If you streamlined software 10 years ago. Is it still okay for them to charge you for something they made 10 years ago? Or more accurately, is it okay for them to charge you 2016 hardware/software prices for 2006 software and 2012 hardware just because it still runs well? I personally take issue with that. I would feel cheated personally which is why I would never buy an iPhone. Especially when you have companies like Samsung giving you 2016 hardware/2016 software for less than what Apple charges.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

WatchingYou77 said:


> You are missing out on the intangibles here. If consumers always awarded brands that pushed technological innovation at the expense of all else, the world would of course be a different place, but perhaps not for the better, and that is not how consumers function.
> 
> Apple for example offers something that other companies have not been able to achieve: design, user experience, and style/emotion.
> 
> ...


I do feel that a lot of that is because people are resistant to change and tied down to their ecosystem because they already bought so many apps and are integrated in the Apple ecosystem.

I hope someone else takes over soon because I really find Apple pricing for what they offer very distasteful. My work phone is an iPhone and my parents have an iPad and they ar nice and intuitive enough, but I still think we are getting scammed for what they offer.

However, the Apple Watch, which is anything but intuitive is dominating smart watch sales when much more user friendly and intuitive smart watches yet. Go figure. Apple just wins no matter what they do or what philosophy they use. User friendly and intuitive won them the smart phone wars and unecessarily complicated and difficult to use is winning them the smart watch wars. Go figure. I just want someone that puts more money into R&D to dominate. It will benefit us the consumer.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> The question is more about ethics. If you streamlined software 10 years ago. Is it still okay for them to charge you for something they made 10 years ago? Or more accurately, is it okay for them to charge you 2016 hardware/software prices for 2006 software and 2012 hardware just because it still runs well?


I see absolutely nothing unethical about that. In fact, I'm not even sure that has anything to do with ethics. I don't know why a company would have any moral obligation to lower prices on something that's not, say, life-giving. Nobody has to pay Apple a cent. And as I mentioned, Apple is just better than other companies if they can operate that way.

They _might_ have a moral obligation to do right by their stockholders "contractually" and make as much money as possible. (Though that may be stretching the definition of morals too.)


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

dbostedo said:


> I see absolutely nothing unethical about that. In fact, I'm not even sure that has anything to do with ethics. I don't know why a company would have any moral obligation to lower prices on something that's not, say, life-giving. Nobody has to pay Apple a cent. And as I mentioned, Apple is just better than other companies if they can operate that way.
> 
> They _might_ have a moral obligation to do right by their stockholders "contractually" and make as much money as possible. (Though that may be stretching the definition of morals too.)


True. Ethics was the wrong word. How about greed? Or con artistry? That works better.

What do you think about the people getting rich bottling Canadian air and selling it in China? Any issues with it?

Or hypothetically. If you packaged your own manure and sold it for $100 a gram and people bought it in droves. Would you consider that something the government should look into stopping? That is approaching cult territory and those are in fact generally illegal.


----------



## cvera (May 24, 2015)

I'll just buy both when I can afford it. 

And to the majority of people, they would consider it crazy to spend more than the average American monthly wage ($3,769 2011 data, maybe I lied maybe I didn't...look it up if you want) on a watch, and both companies charge upwards of that. A better question would be what are the differences. They are both great. 

So Ultimately I believe it just depends who is judging.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> True. Ethics was the wrong word. How about greedy? Or con artists? That works better.
> 
> What do you think about the people getting rich bottling Canadian air and selling it in China? Any issues with it?
> 
> Or hypothetically. If you packaged your own manure and sold it for $100 a gram and people bought it in droves. Would you consider that something the government should look into stopping? That is approaching cult territory and those are in fact illegal.


Well those particular examples may have other issues that may be immoral or illegal. Scams are immoral and illegal. That falls under the outright lying I mentioned above.

Although hypothetical, how is a company making good software - so good that it doesn't need to be improved - any kind of scam or con? As you have mentioned, people can vote with their wallet. If it's something they would like to buy, they pay what the company asks, or the company doesn't make any sales.

(BTW, what would be illegal about selling your own manure? Doesn't seem like it should be if people want to buy it. And I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but you can in fact donate your own waste in some cases : https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../you-can-earn-13000-a-year-selling-your-poop/)


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Since we're on an Apple kick now, here's an early check by Andrew Cunningham at Ars Technica on the macOS Sierra developer preview. He says they'll dig into the OS in more detail later -- and knowing Ars, it'll probably be the definitive rundown you'll see outside of Apple's own offices. To stay at least somewhat relevant to wristwatches, the link I'm posting goes to the third page where he talks about how the Apple Watch's ability to unlock your Mac is likely to work:

The macOS Sierra developer preview: Different name, same olâ€™ Mac | Ars Technica



> Even then, simply having your watch within range of your Mac isn't enough. The watch has to be unlocked-once you unlock an Apple Watch it stays unlocked for as long as you're wearing it, and it locks instantly when removed-and within three meters of your system. To confirm the distance between your watch and your Mac, Apple measures the amount of time it takes the two devices to communicate, which is what Apple is referencing when it talks about "time of flight."
> 
> The result is an auto-unlocking feature that, while much more secure than the equivalent Android feature, is accordingly much more restrictive. It definitely makes sense for Apple to err on the side of caution here. Android phones and tablets running version 5.0 or later can be set to unlock whenever any paired Bluetooth accessory is within range. But with Apple's setup, a thief or law enforcement official needs your phone _and_ your watch to gain access.
> 
> Apple also believes that an iPhone-based version of the same system that used TouchID for authentication would be too cumbersome, given that iPhones would need to be unlocked each and every time you wanted to get into your Mac. Your phone might be in your pocket or even in another room at any given time.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Or hypothetically. If you packaged your own manure and sold it for $100 a gram and people bought it in droves. Would you consider that something the government should look into stopping? That is approaching cult territory and those are in fact generally illegal.


No government interference is warranted, IMHO, as long as it doesn't break any statutes (selling human feces may be illegal in some jurisdictions) AND you are not being deceptive, ie saying ingesting it cures cancer. If a company builds a product people continue to be happy with even if some engineer/techie/enthusiast considers another companies product significantly better continuing to profit on what people WANT is fine IMO, even if this means obscene profits. This changes when a company has some relative monopoly or there is a "necessity" and there is no similarly priced option. Rolex nor Apple meet these requirements. While a mobile phone may well be considered a necessity now there are certainly several options many of which are cheaper. I continue to use Apple phones since I am no longer geeky about phones and they allow me to shift seamlessly to a new phone as well as do everything I  want in a phone.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

dbostedo said:


> Well those particular examples may have other issues that may be immoral or illegal. Scams are immoral and illegal. That falls under the outright lying I mentioned above.
> 
> Although hypothetical, how is a company making good software - so good that it doesn't need to be improved - any kind of scam or con? As you have mentioned, people can vote with their wallet. If it's something they would like to buy, they pay what the company asks, or the company doesn't make any sales.
> 
> (BTW, what would be illegal about selling your own manure? Doesn't seem like it should be if people want to buy it. And I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but you can in fact donate your own waste in some cases : https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../you-can-earn-13000-a-year-selling-your-poop/)


Well if the software actually sucked but people were brainwashed by marketing into thinking it was so good that could be a very minor issue. I am not saying that's what Apple does but sometimes it seems like it and that is how the term Isheep was created on the Internet. The Canadian government took issue with how Cigarette companies were advertising to children for example. And made them change the way they asvertised.

For example, cults are illegal because you have people giving away every last cent of their paycheque and their homes to a cult leader willingly. They are technically giving away all their assets willingly(voting with their wallet if you will) but in this situation, the government and the law deems it disruptive enough to step in. The cult leader is selling a purpose and the government deems it illegal.

I am just wondering where would you draw the line is all. I am not saying selling canned air and poop is illegal, it's not in most cases. I just find it ridiculous that companies can get away with making lots of money off of things like that.

I am just wondering where would you draw the line when it comes to how a company or cult leader makes a lot of money off of people. When does it get to the point where you think the company or cult leader is taking advantage of the consumer? Anything goes or even you have issues with some business practices? Where would you personally step in if you were the president? When a teenager spends his entire education savings on a piece of poo or would you be fine with that?

I have no issues with monopolies by the way. I think Microsoft was smart enough to build that empire and the government shouldn't have stepped in because Netscape lawyers were *****ing. Their product was solid and they should be able to include whatever software they like on the computers that they sell. I do have issues with Apple selling outdated software and hardware for the price of the best hardware and software on the planet though.

So where do you stand? Anything goes like you said earlier as long as people are willing to buy it? Or would you protest something like the cigarette companies all getting together and agree everyone sells for $50 a pack, no exceptions. Some chain smokers would still buy it. Would you be cool with that? Just curious.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

ilitig8 said:


> No government interference is warranted, IMHO, as long as it doesn't break any statutes (selling human feces may be illegal in some jurisdictions) AND you are not being deceptive, ie saying ingesting it cures cancer. If a company builds a product people continue to be happy with even if some engineer/techie/enthusiast considers another companies product significantly better continuing to profit on what people WANT is fine IMO, even if this means obscene profits. This changes when a company has some relative monopoly or there is a "necessity" and there is no similarly priced option. Rolex nor Apple meet these requirements. While a mobile phone may well be considered a necessity now there are certainly several options many of which are cheaper. I continue to use Apple phones since I am no longer geeky about phones and they allow me to shift seamlessly to a new phone as well as do everything I  want in a phone.


Was the Microsoft/Internet explorer/ Netscape government intervention thing warranted in your legal opinion? Personally, I had no issue with that one and more issue with Rolex and Apple for some reason.


----------



## cmac06 (Mar 13, 2016)

Tomatoes11 said:


> I do feel that a lot of that is because people are resistant to change and tied down to their ecosystem because they already bought so many apps and are integrated in the Apple ecosystem.
> 
> I hope someone else takes over soon because I really find Apple pricing for what they offer very distasteful. My work phone is an iPhone and my parents have an iPad and they ar nice and intuitive enough, but I still think we are getting scammed for what they offer.
> 
> However, the Apple Watch, which is anything but intuitive is dominating smart watch sales when much more user friendly and intuitive smart watches yet. Go figure. Apple just wins no matter what they do or what philosophy they use. User friendly and intuitive won them the smart phone wars and unecessarily complicated and difficult to use is winning them the smart watch wars. Go figure. I just want someone that puts more money into R&D to dominate. It will benefit us the consumer.


As far as smartphones go, Apple is the only consumer product that still retains complete control of the environment. Sure other companies may have better hardware, but many of these are obsolete within months due to the hardware manufacturers inability to move quickly in releasing patches. I don't see how the prices for Apple are anymore out of line than for similar products. I've tried both sides of the fence, and the only impressive feature on other devices such as the Android based devices is a slightly better keyboard. Phone innovations suffers from the Microsoft syndrome in that in every release there are too many ergonomic changes and usability changes in general that make it feel like a complete relearn from the consumers' perspective.

I've said this before, but Apple doesn't innovate. Instead they take innovation and make them usable to the masses, not just techies. They are the master of ergonomics, and intuitive design.

Rolex has done essentially the same with watches; otherwise there wouldn't be so many Rolex homages. I personally don't like the style, but I appreciate the fact that a design could last as long as their's essentially unchanged, yet still popular. This is also what will turn a lot of people away that are in the know. You don't just want to be another Rolex wearer unless you truly like the design or plan on selling in the future.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## starter (Aug 21, 2010)

cmac06 said:


> As far as smartphones go, Apple is the only consumer product that still retains complete control of the environment. Sure other companies may have better hardware, but many of these are obsolete within months due to the hardware manufacturers inability to move quickly in releasing patches. I don't see how the prices for Apple are anymore out of line than for similar products. I've tried both sides of the fence, and the only impressive feature on other devices such as the Android based devices is a slightly better keyboard. Phone innovations suffers from the Microsoft syndrome in that in every release there are too many ergonomic changes and usability changes in general that make it feel like a complete relearn from the consumers' perspective.
> 
> I've said this before, but Apple doesn't innovate. Instead they take innovation and make them usable to the masses, not just techies. They are the master of ergonomics, and intuitive design.
> 
> ...


Rolex didn't come up with the first iPhone, Blancpain did. The Rolex iPhone was just an homage to the Blancpain iPhone.

Everybody knows that... Sheesh.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

alessandro132 said:


> How is this 'debate' still alive and kicking?












Short answer.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

This thread is GRRRRREAT! Free market economics yeeooooooo...... the truth is all companies shamelessly profiteering is what makes their product desirable because otherwise we would all wear the same communist clothes and desire no worldly possessions. Sure we may all be going to hell and none faster than the evil corporate boards ....but all this consumerism is what we live for .
How many people realise that Starbucks profit on coffee is 90-95% or bought a replica sports kit for their child and wondered about the shameless profiteering ..

I've said it before these watches are jewelry..they are defunct technology...I don't know why I love them or why I spend what I do on them but the way some of you are talking about public brand perception as if it's a trick of rolexes to sell us an inferior watch is insane ...Brand perception is literally what watches are about .its why we buy them .
Buying a rolex or an omega ,a patek or jaeger s about style and status.... they are all great mechanicals and they are all overpriced...all this talk of movements and +/- sec etc is bull if we wanted value and a watch that was truly accurate we would buy a cheap quartz and be done.
Many contributers here are in denial! We all need to accept and love our bling and be proud to be asses showing it off either subtlety at board meetings a la American psycho. Or dazzling the jealous masses by thrusting it in their faces!


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Watchdudeman said:


> This thread is GRRRRREAT! Free market economics yeeooooooo...... the truth is all companies shamelessly profiteering is what makes their product desirable because otherwise we would all wear the same communist clothes and desire no worldly possessions. Sure we may all be going to hell and none faster than the evil corporate boards ....but all this consumerism is what we live for .
> How many people realise that Starbucks profit on coffee is 90-95% or bought a replica sports kit for their child and wondered about the shameless profiteering ..
> 
> I've said it before these watches are jewelry..they are defunct technology...I don't know why I love them or why I spend what I do on them but the way some of you are talking about public brand perception as if it's a trick of rolexes to sell us an inferior watch is insane ...Brand perception is literally what watches are about .its why we buy them .
> ...


Couldn't agree more.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Just like Marvel movie, I think we could reboot the thread lol.

(In less than 50 words) Will Omega ever be better than Rolex?

Yes. Quality and Value wised, they already are. Brand image, a slight off on the loosing side. But, I love my Omegas. Hence, they are better than Rolex.

28 words in answering the thread. Wohoo.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

YYes 28 words ...but where is the fun?the confrontation? Pearls of wisdom?pearls of idiocy?


Shan_Farandy said:


> Just like Marvel movie, I think we could reboot the thread lol.
> 
> (In less than 50 words) Will Omega ever be better than Rolex?
> 
> ...


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Watchdudeman said:


> YYes 28 words ...but where is the fun?the confrontation? Pearls of wisdom?pearls of idiocy?


LOL.

Will McDonald's ever be better than Hungry Jack?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## piningforthefjords (May 15, 2016)

...something Grand Seiko! somethingsomething...

Just helping this thread reach 100 pages.


----------



## alessandro132 (Feb 16, 2016)

Shan_Farandy said:


> LOL.
> 
> Will McDonald's ever be better than Hungry Jack?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


You cannot beat a Whopper!


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

alessandro132 said:


> You cannot beat a Whopper!


But Macca's chips is better. They fry it with Co-axial deep fryer. It'll keep you full for 60 hours. LOL.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

... every time I think this thread is about to jump the shark...

It went from a debate about Rolex/Omega to a nice 7th grade "your mama" bash fest and then evolved into an argument about some report written 50 years ago that no one really read wherein some amateur says that Rolex (or was it Omega?) wasn't "as nice" as he expected, then rolled to a lesson in grammar and now seems to be shifting to whether or not Apple is a true innovator (edit to add: and now, what's better, McDonalds or Burger King!).

It really is like watching Jerry Springer, you just don't know what will happen next, and you know that you should just turn off the TV and do something productive, but you just can't ...


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Ticonderoga said:


> ... every time I think this thread is about to jump the shark...
> 
> it went from a debate about Rolex/Omega to a nice 7th grade "your mama" bash fest and then evolved into an argument about some report written 50 years ago that no one really read wherein some amateur says that Rolex (or was it Omega?) wasn't "as nice" as he expected, then rolled to a lesson in grammar and now seems to be shifting to whether or not Apple is a true innovator (edit to add: and now, what's better, McDonalds or Burger King!).
> 
> It really is like watching Jerry Springer, you just don't know what will happen next, and you know that you should just turn off the TV and do something productive, but you just can't ...


And don't forget you've got the tag team duo, tomatoes and sevenmack, doling out some of the most illogical posts imaginable.... that of course sparking debate from sensible members, and further driving this madhouse of a thread.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Vlance said:


> And don't forget you've got the tag team duo, tomatoes and sevenmack, doling out some of the most illogical posts imaginable.... that of course sparking debate from sensible members, and further driving this madhouse of a thread.


Only "illogical" because you disagree. But then, if I am so "illogical" to you, there is the ignore list. I've just put you on mine.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Was the Microsoft/Internet explorer/ Netscape government intervention thing warranted in your legal opinion? Personally, I had no issue with that one and more issue with Rolex and Apple for some reason.


Not being a Sherman Act expert nor even remembering much about the browser wars nor the "case" (aside from the media antics of the trial judge mucking up what could have been more useful "clean" case) I don;t have much if any legal opinion. I do think the MS situation needed looking at but it was governed by 100 year old analog laws in a digital world.

As for Apple I am not a fanboy, I have an iPhone and one old iPod I leave in the boat cabin because I can control it remotely via the stereo remote from the helm and can have my phone topside. The iPhone plays nice with my Windows computers so I don;t feel monopolized.

I personally see no issue with Rolex and their pricing as it is a quality product they people don't have to have. To me it is like a Eames lounge chair (and many things Herman Miller sells) they are absolutely iconic pieces and I think it is fully reasonable to pay for design. In stock colors and woods they run $5k for the chair and ottoman and are better built now than in the past and while they are a quality product you are still paying some amount purely for design and reputation. While many see Rolex as near glacial in R&D pace Jack Forster's article of yesterday gives to insight into their world in this regard.

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/a...n-what-makes-for-real-advances-in-watchmaking


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

UUmmm double whopper bacon and cheese?


alessandro132 said:


> You cannot beat a Whopper!


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Watchdudeman said:


> UUmmm double whopper bacon and cheese?


Jeez quit with the food! My breakfast is wearing off and BK doesn't switch to lunch for 3 hours! F it, going to get a sausage egg and cheese biscuit, my training regimen thanks you...


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

here is my tudor vs omega picture boom 100 pages


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Vlance said:


> And don't forget you've got the tag team duo, tomatoes and sevenmack, doling out some of the most illogical posts imaginable.... that of course sparking debate from sensible members, and further driving this madhouse of a thread.


I am just sparking a philosophical discussion. If you actually consider yourself a sensible and logical person compared to me, I am damn glad that I am illogical.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

truth be told.....'marketing' aside....will rolex or omega ever be as good as Grand Seiko?

GS mechanicals rival both
GS has 'Spring Drive'...like it or not its state of the art and unique
GS has hi-beat
GS finish rivals or exceeds both...depending on who you ask

we are almost at 100


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

ilitig8 said:


> Not being a Sherman Act expert nor even remembering much about the browser wars nor the "case" (aside from the media antics of the trial judge mucking up what could have been more useful "clean" case) I don;t have much if any legal opinion. I do think the MS situation needed looking at but it was governed by 100 year old analog laws in a digital world.
> 
> As for Apple I am not a fanboy, I have an iPhone and one old iPod I leave in the boat cabin because I can control it remotely via the stereo remote from the helm and can have my phone topside. The iPhone plays nice with my Windows computers so I don;t feel monopolized.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. Since I have you here what were your thoughts on this dragged out Apple vs Samsung lawsuit. Am I observing it wrong or did Apple just get away with stealing 1 billion from Samsung for prior art, patenting rounded edges, and packaging materials. They seemed to use a picture of a Samsung device that was never released in North America for their trial too.

It looked like a pretty pathetic farce on my end. Can you shed any light on the trial? Did you follow it at all?


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Watchdudeman said:


> View attachment 8529138
> here is my tudor vs omega picture boom 100 pages


Rolex knock-off vs 40 year old milk?


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

drunken monkey said:


> Rolex knock-off vs 40 year old milk?


Tudors new in-house mechanicals are just an ETA knockoff with a longer PR


----------



## Apollo83 (Mar 22, 2012)

This thread is still going? Wow.

Now I know I'm contributing to the malaise by posting, but...

It has to stop!

We can not let this thread become a 100 page legend.

WE ARE BETTER THAN THIS!

That's it. No more posts. Mine is the last one. By all that is horological in WUS I plead...

*STOP!*

(please...)


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Fair enough. Since I have you here what were your thoughts on this dragged out Apple vs Samsung lawsuit. Am I observing it wrong or did Apple just get away with stealing 1 billion from Samsung for prior art, patenting rounded edges, and packaging materials. They seemed to use a picture of a Samsung device that was never released in North America for their trial too.
> 
> It looked pretty pathetic farce on my end. Can you shed any light on the trial? Did you follow it at all?


I don;t follow tech cases very closely since they aren't my area and are usually filed where any appellate rulings would not be direct precedent for my geographic practice area. While I think your view is an oversimplification I think on the whole Apple did very "well". In the end it is a huge "cluster" spread out over about 10 countries and a testament to the fact patent cases probably should not be tried in front of a lay jury. It also points out the question of how much media should "retry" cases since the jury foreman's later interviews threw the whole case into disarray.

I am sorry to disappoint but this is just an area of law I care no more about than to read the mainstream press coverage and even that at a skimming pace. Now if you want to discuss the People vs Orenthal James Simpson, Liebeck vs McDonalds (hot coffee case) or landmark US Sup Ct cases I could likely provide more salient insight, though those are far less likely to populate a watch forum, at least until an iWatch is accused of murder, melts someone's crotch or denies someone their civil liberties.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Apollo83 said:


> We can not let this thread become a 100 page legend.


It will only hit 100 pages for those that use noob settings for viewing...


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Tomatoes11 said:


> I am just sparking a philosophical discussion. If you actually consider yourself a sensible and logical person compared to me, I am damn glad that I am illogical.


There is nothing wrong with that. While I may disagree with most of your argument, I know enough about tech to also think that you may have some points.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Apollo83 said:


> This thread is still going? Wow.
> 
> Now I know I'm contributing to the malaise by posting, but...
> 
> ...


Not when we're so close! Neil Armstrong didn't say, "I dunno guys, let's turn back. I'm hungry," did he? Hell no!


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Well if the software actually sucked but people were brainwashed by marketing into thinking it was so good that could be a very minor issue. I am not saying that's what Apple does but sometimes it seems like it and that is how the term Isheep was created on the Internet. The Canadian government took issue with how Cigarette companies were advertising to children for example. And made them change the way they asvertised.


If you're "brain-washed" by honest advertising, that's your fault as a consumer. No blame on the company IMO. Products like cigarettes that have other restrictions and issues (like health and age restrictions) have different rules/laws to follow to be "honest" - I'm fine with that too.



Tomatoes11 said:


> For example, cults are illegal because you have people giving away every last cent of their paycheque and their homes to a cult leader willingly. They are technically giving away all their assets willingly(voting with their wallet if you will) but in this situation, the government and the law deems it disruptive enough to step in. The cult leader is selling a purpose and the government deems it illegal.


I'm completely unfamiliar with where you're located or what cult laws you're referring to. Certainly just the existence of a "cult" is not illegal - depending on your definition of "cult". Members may call it a "religion" in many cases I'd imagine. If they are promising a product or service based on payment, then we're back to issues with honest, versus dishonest or illegal, advertising or product claims. (I realize that there are probably some cults or religions out there promising that you'll get to heaven if you pay them - or something like that. I don't think I'm necessarily OK with that - but if they're up-front about the fact that that's their _belief_ and not a guarantee, then maybe I'm OK with it?)



Tomatoes11 said:


> I have no issues with monopolies by the way.


Really? That seems incongruous with many of your other thoughts. "Naturally occurring" monopolies (i.e. a business that puts everyone else out of business without doing anything to actively create a monopoly) _could_ be fine. But in practice, most monopolies that have occurred have been bad for consumers, bad for other businesses, bad for their workers, and bad for the overall economy. Most monopolies aren't "naturally occurring", and actively take steps to thwart competition, which ultimately thwarts innovation, improvement, natural price fluctuation, efficiency, etc. If you really want innovation, you *don't* want monopolies.



Tomatoes11 said:


> So where do you stand? Anything goes like you said earlier as long as people are willing to buy it? Or would you protest something like the cigarette companies all getting together and agree everyone sells for $50 a pack, no exceptions. Some chain smokers would still buy it. Would you be cool with that? Just curious.


I believe "anything goes" is putting words in my mouth - or at least twisting what I've said. In the example you give with cigarette companies, that's clearly collusion, and is illegal, and should be. I'm not OK with that, and I don't know why you think I may be. In general, I think the restraints on capitalism that have been developed over the last couple hundred years are pretty good.

But consumers are free to choose, just like companies are free to compete for that choice. Except for some very unique and rare cases, as long as the companies are following the rules, it's on the consumer to make their buying decisions based on their personal preferences.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Fair enough. Since I have you here what were your thoughts on this dragged out Apple vs Samsung lawsuit. Am I observing it wrong or did Apple just get away with stealing 1 billion from Samsung for prior art, patenting rounded edges, and packaging materials. *They seemed to use a picture of a Samsung device that was never released in North America for their trial too.*
> 
> It looked like a pretty pathetic farce on my end. Can you shed any light on the trial? Did you follow it at all?


What kicked Samsung in the butt was Samsung's internal documents and emails discussing how they need to change their interfaces to match Apple's iPhone interface. Side-by-side photos and screenshots were included in these documents, complete with markings highlighting what the differences were.


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

drunken monkey said:


> Rolex knock-off vs 40 year old milk?


Yeesh you are so mean!lol 
Of course you are wrong, the tudor movement is a statement of intent by tudor a clever bit of tech developed independently of rolex and of a very decent standard . BOOM. I can see tudor doing very well over the next 5-10 years and maybe the question being asked will be if omega is as good as tudor?


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Yes, I know. Too bad we live in this type of world. People would be a lot richer and prices would be a lot lower if we set companies to the standard of put out or get out by voting with our wallets. That's the underlying issue here. We let Rolex and Apple slide, whether you think it is because of good marketing or not is up to you, but we don't give the same courtesy to say Motorola and just let them close up the factories if they don't give us something new or different. I find that disturbing but maybe that's just me.


Maybe Motorola should have "built in Detroit".


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

ilitig8 said:


> Jeez quit with the food! My breakfast is wearing off and BK doesn't switch to lunch for 3 hours! F it, going to get a sausage egg and cheese biscuit, my training regimen thanks you...


Glad to help.

People who love to eat are always the best people
- Julia Child -

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Watchdudeman said:


> Yeesh you are so mean!lol
> Of course you are wrong, the tudor movement is a statement of intent by tudor a clever bit of tech developed independently of rolex and of a very decent standard . BOOM. I can see tudor doing very well over the next 5-10 years and maybe the question being asked will be if omega is as good as tudor?


We have Tissot to beat Tudor. I wanna say Hamilton but you don't wanna squash an ant with a giant mallet don't you? LOL.

I think this going to make this thread longer than 100 😆.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> I prefer one standard. If Rolex and Apple can dick around and just rake in profits with no effort and by using old movements and designs


Regardless of what you think of Apple's products, to say what Apple does is "zero effort" and "old designs" seriously misses the plot. Apple has re-invented itself by focusing not on technology but usability. Usability doesnt sound as impressive as hardware, but it was (and still is) a radical change from how tech was sold. And it isnt easy: consistent - absolutely amazingly consistent - interface requires an obsessive level of attention. Your statement that this is "2012 software" while Samsung is "2016 software" just shows an ignorance of how complicated smart design can be.

Apple isnt for you? That's cool. But to say that they rake in profits with no efforts is laughably inaccurate. You are flattering yourself if you think that all the millions of Apple users are brainwashed (the only point of that line is to make you feel superior about your own choices, and it is a reflection of either your insecurities or your unwillingness to realize that not everyone has the same preferences as you).

The reason for those large margins is b/c they are the only ones to have figured out what a lot of people - such as me - truly want out of their devices: it isnt 64-bite over-cocked jail-baited hardware or whatever, but Stuff That Works Without Needing Any Futzing Around. I hate paying Apple's prices but in the end, after trying other products, I've always come back to Apple - and will continue to do so till some other manufacturer cracks the code.


----------



## starter (Aug 21, 2010)

vkalia said:


> Regardless of what you think of Apple's products, to say what Apple does is "zero effort" and "old designs" seriously misses the plot. Apple has re-invented itself by focusing not on technology but usability. Usability doesnt sound as impressive as hardware, but it is a radical change. And consistent - absolutely amazingly consistent - interface requires an obsessive level of attention. Your statement that this is "2012 software" while Samsung is "2016 software" just shows an ignorance of how complicated smart design can be.
> 
> Apple isnt for you? That's cool. But to say that they rake in profits with no efforts is laughably inaccurate. You are flattering yourself if you think that all the millions of Apple users are brainwashed (the only point of that line is to make you feel superior about your own choices, and it is a reflection of either your insecurities or your unwillingness to realize that not everyone has the same preferences as you).
> 
> The reason for those large margins is b/c they are the only ones to have figured out what a lot of people - such as me - truly want out of their devices: it isnt 64-bite over-cocked jail-baited hardware or whatever, but Stuff That Works Without Needing Any Futzing Around. I hate paying Apple's prices but in the end, after trying other products, I've always come back to Apple - and will continue to do so till some other manufacturer cracks the code.


Whatever. You're just too snobby to buy Android. People like you aren't even real PIS (Phone Idiot Savants).


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Shan_Farandy said:


> We have Tissot to beat Tudor. I wanna say Hamilton but you don't wanna squash an ant with a giant mallet don't you? LOL.
> 
> I think this going to make this thread longer than 100 .
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


I love tissot lol I've bought my kids tissot lol the same way I bought the speedmaster for my daughters 16th birthday ( although I put it on the nato so I can borrow it occasionally and she takes my tudor) ...but back to the point that's why I buy the kids tissot and omega ....they are a bit like toys but when you handle the pelagos or yatchmaster you know it's the real deal


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

ilitig8 said:


> Jeez quit with the food! My breakfast is wearing off and BK doesn't switch to lunch for 3 hours! F it, going to get a sausage egg and cheese biscuit, my training regimen thanks you...


You better be doing anaerobic intervals before AND after that meal. Think about what your powermeter will say.

(I started sprint work this week for a crit next month which i most likely will not be able to attend. Talk about needless pain).


----------



## starter (Aug 21, 2010)

Watchdudeman said:


> I love tissot lol I've bought my kids tissot lol the same way I bought the speedmaster for my daughters 16th birthday ( although I put it on the nato so I can borrow it occasionally and she takes my tudor) ...but back to the point that's why I buy the kids tissot and omega ....they are a bit like toys but when you handle the pelagos or yatchmaster you know it's the real deal


Do you hate your kids or something? If I had kids, I'd only buy them white gold Subs _at the minimum_. Any six-year-old of mine is going to be wearing at least a $30k watch, or no watch at all. Anything less would be irresponsible parenting. Omega?.. I've half a mind to call child services on you.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Watchdudeman said:


> I love tissot lol I've bought my kids tissot lol the same way I bought the speedmaster for my daughters 16th birthday ( although I put it on the nato so I can borrow it occasionally and she takes my tudor) ...but back to the point that's why I buy the kids tissot and omega ....they are a bit like toys but when you handle the pelagos or yatchmaster you know it's the real deal


Okay... I admit it. You got me over there. Tissot and Omega for the young ones. And Tudor and its big brother for the OLD generation. 

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Okay... I admit it. You got me over there. Tissot and Omega for the young ones. And Tudor and its big brother for the OLD generation.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Its terrible right ?someone shoot me when I think solid yellow gold is a good look!then I know I'm old...


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

starter said:


> Do you hate your kids or something? If I had kids, I'd only buy them white gold Subs _at the minimum_. Any six-year-old of mine is going to be wearing at least a $30k watch, or no watch at all. Anything less would be irresponsible parenting. Omega?.. I've half a mind to call child services on you.


I am a horrible person ...


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Watchdudeman said:


> Its terrible right ?someone shoot me when I think solid yellow gold is a good look!then I know I'm old...












Gold does look good on his wrist. LOL.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Gold does look good on his wrist. LOL.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


I was respecting your comments right...Until....then ...doh!


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

snakeeyes said:


> truth be told.....'marketing' aside....will rolex or omega ever be as good as Grand Seiko?
> 
> GS mechanicals rival both
> GS has 'Spring Drive'...like it or not its state of the art and unique
> ...


That all might be true, GS may be the best watch in the world, but in the end, one watch says Seiko and the other one says Rolex.

... can I hear 200 pages?


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

vkalia said:


> Regardless of what you think of Apple's products, to say what Apple does is "zero effort" and "old designs" seriously misses the plot. Apple has re-invented itself by focusing not on technology but usability. Usability doesnt sound as impressive as hardware, but it is a radical change. And consistent - absolutely amazingly consistent - interface requires an obsessive level of attention.


This is true -- and companies are starting to get this. The reason why Google's Chromecast is the number one video streaming device (with 35 percent of market share versus 20 percent for Apple's offering) is because it is simple to set up and use. All you do is pull out your phone, choose YouTube or Netflix or any other streaming app, click the Chromecast box and watch television. In an age of so much complex technology, the one that is as easy to use as driving a car is the one that will win. Apple won, and I say that as an Android user.

Going back to watches: At the high end, customers regardless of who they are seem to value both consistency in product design and consistently top-notch customer service. That feeds into the esteem and prestige folks have for a particular brand. Doing both well is why Rolex has won the prestige battle so far.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

vkalia said:


> You better be doing anaerobic intervals before AND after that meal. Think about what your powermeter will say.
> 
> (I started sprint work this week for a crit next month which i most likely will not be able to attend. Talk about needless pain).


It got worse, the biscuits were 2 for $5... so you can imagine the end of that story.

No intervals for me!!!! I have been riding with my wife for the last month and she refuses anaerobic work (she is a Tri/century kinda girl), I can't even goad her into sprinting to road signs. We started LSD training because she is trying to increase peripheral adaptations. As much as I miss banging shoulders around 90 degree turns I don't miss all the training swimming in lactic acid and (almost) wishing Dr. Ferrari would make a house call with a bag full of EPO.

Will SRAM ever be as good as Shimano?

As to the OP's question which I haven't answered in the thread I see them as having very similar overall quality with Rolex having a slight edge and having better QC. Both companies are capable of building better watches at higher prices if they so choose but they are both sitting where they want to be at the current time in quality and while Omega sells in similar volume they want to increase the point of sale price and claw back the prestige parity they once held.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

I was going to buy a Shimano Stradic reel a few weeks ago, but they have doubled in price since I bought the last one in 1998 (i know long time ago). After handling a current model and comparing the specs to my old one, which still works great, I got a Pfluger Supreme instead. Great reel. Half the price. Caught a very heavy turtle by mistake the other day. Sucker was over 1ft in diameter. Pluger did just fine as did my reconditioned St Croix I got for half price. Sometimes you do pay more a name.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

ilitig8 said:


> No intervals for me!!!! I have been riding with my wife for the last month and she refuses anaerobic work (she is a Tri/century kinda girl), I can't even goad her into sprinting to road signs. We started LSD training because she is trying to increase peripheral adaptations. As much as I miss banging shoulders around 90 degree turns I don't miss all the training swimming in lactic acid and (almost) wishing Dr. Ferrari would make a house call with a bag full of EPO.
> 
> Will SRAM ever be as good as Shimano?


I introduced my better half to road biking last year in the Alps. On her 4th ride, she climbed Alpe d'Huez in 90' (I took 64'). Later, in Italy, she was complaining that the Al road bike she had rented wasnt as nimble as the high-end carbon Wilier we had rented in France. The roadie is strong in her!

And I am hoping to hell SRAM ends up being better - i plan to get eTap later this year or next year. A new Venge frameset would be nice, but I need to get off the trainer. I live in the frigging tropics and have only done 2 rides outdoor this year - a long climb and a TT.

Now the question is - is a 'Made in China' Specialized as good as a 'Made in WI' Trek or a 'Designed in CA' Cervelo?


----------



## BEEG (Jan 28, 2016)

Speaking about Made in China...parts of the Omega bracelet are Made in China, what's your take on this? Ever seen are Rolex bracelet like that?


Let's push it to 100 pages till the end of the day!


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

BEEG said:


> Speaking about Made in China...parts of the Omega bracelet are Made in China, what's your take on this? Ever seen are Rolex bracelet like that?
> 
> Let's push it to 100 pages till the end of the day!


904l steel bracelets that are entirely manufactured in house? Don't think that's the same as omega


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

BEEG said:


> Speaking about Made in China...parts of the Omega bracelet are Made in China, what's your take on this? Ever seen are Rolex bracelet like that?
> 
> Let's push it to 100 pages till the end of the day!


Rolex makes the finest bracelets in Switzerland, now they just need to learn how to align bezels, "cooking dials" and make the cyclops magnifying the date properly, heheh

There's no need, the cyclops is just a prop for people know that is a Rolex from afar....in fact even if the watches had no movement inside their sales would be huge still....Omega watches are not Rolex competition, Cartier bracelets on the other hand...

Enviado do meu iPhone usando o Tapatalk


----------



## JSI (Dec 12, 2012)

^^^^^^^ says a guy that owns four Omegas.


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

JSI said:


> ^^^^^^^ says a guy that owns four Omegas.


And a few Cartier bracelets in the future hehe

Enviado do meu iPhone usando o Tapatalk


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

vkalia said:


> I introduced my better half to road biking last year in the Alps. On her 4th ride, she climbed Alpe d'Huez in 90' (I took 64'). Later, in Italy, she was complaining that the Al road bike she had rented wasnt as nimble as the high-end carbon Wilier we had rented in France. The roadie is strong in her!
> 
> And I am hoping to hell SRAM ends up being better - i plan to get eTap later this year or next year. A new Venge frameset would be nice, but I need to get off the trainer. I live in the frigging tropics and have only done 2 rides outdoor this year - a long climb and a TT.
> 
> Now the question is - is a 'Made in China' Specialized as good as a 'Made in WI' Trek or a 'Designed in CA' Cervelo?


Alpe d'Huez in 90 mins on the 4th time out is spectacular! I was always good in rolling hills but the sustained 8% grade stuff just wasn't my forte, I never minded the suffering of locking in and driving at 40kph in a relatively flat TT for an hour but the grinding along at 18kph when a single soft pedal loses a ton of momentum was just torture for me.

I used to be a Campy only guy but in the last 5 or so years I have used them all. I really like the SRAM RED and Force groups I have but haven't tried the RED eTap yet.

I haven't bought a "American" bike in probably 15 years after I finished my Cannondale phase. It has been Colnago steel and (real Italian) Wilier carbon, both have off the rack geometry that works perfectly for me.


----------



## alessandro132 (Feb 16, 2016)

I love how we've moved onto other passions aside from watches  

Sooo, who likes a good single malt Scotch whisky?


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

alessandro132 said:


> I love how we've moved onto other passions aside from watches
> 
> Sooo, who likes a good single malt Scotch whisky?


As long as it isn't Islay, too peaty for me, like my stuff from farther north.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> As long as it isn't Islay, too peaty for me, like my stuff from farther north.


Try Bunnahabhain, no peat.

Home - Bunnahabhain - Bunnahabhain


----------



## IGotId (Feb 14, 2012)

Update, this thread is now solidly at #4 on the most posts ever list...quite a bit behind #3 at 1465 posts


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Watchdudeman said:


> 904l steel bracelets that are entirely manufactured in house? Don't think that's the same as omega


They were working on Adamantium, but lost the formula when the Winter Soldier attacked. Wakanda refuses to sell them any Vibranium. However, R&D is working on something called Unobtanium that looks promising. Hard to get though.


----------



## alessandro132 (Feb 16, 2016)

ilitig8 said:


> As long as it isn't Islay, too peaty for me, like my stuff from farther north.


You sound like a Macallan man


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Brand ambassadors?


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

oak1971 said:


> Try Bunnahabhain, no peat.
> 
> Home - Bunnahabhain - Bunnahabhain


I have had some of those and several Bruichladdich Scotches w/o much if any peat and do like them. I like the Speysides best (Macallen, Balmenach, Glenfiddich, BenRiach, Balvenie etc). My favorite cheapy lately is Speyburn Bradan Orach.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> I have had some of those and several Bruichladdich Scotches w/o much if any peat and do like them. I like the Speysides best (Macallen, Balmenach, Glenfiddich, BenRiach, Balvenie etc). My favorite cheapy lately is Speyburn Bradan Orach.


I have some Balvenie 15 year. Eying up some 21 year next.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

starter said:


> Whatever. You're just too snobby to buy Android. People like you aren't even real PIS (Phone Idiot Savants).


I read all your posts in Sterling Archer's voice. Or sometimes Cyril's depending on content.

Just thought you might like to know that...


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

oak1971 said:


> I have some Balvenie 15 year. Eying up some 21 year next.


Have you tried the 14 Caribbean Cask? It is aged in old rum barrels and quite tasty.


----------



## starter (Aug 21, 2010)

dbostedo said:


> I read all your posts in Sterling Archer's voice. Or sometimes Cyril's depending on content.
> 
> Just thought you might like to know that...


Cyril? Seriously? Cyril?! What have I ever done to you?

Actually wait. Did I ever do something to you? Because whatever it was, it wasn't bad enough to call me Cyril.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> Have you tried the 14 Caribbean Cask? It is aged in old rum barrels and quite tasty.


I'll pick some up.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

ilitig8 said:


> As long as it isn't Islay, too peaty for me, like my stuff from farther north.


Love Islay. Laphroaig is my favourite.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

starter said:


> Cyril? Seriously? Cyril?!


Don't yell at me.... YOU"RE NOT MY SUPERVISOR!!!!!!


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Omega is on par with Rolex. We WIS knows it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Is that right? WIS know that Omega is on par?

No wonder this thread only has a few posts in response on such a resolved issue. Oh wait - 88 pages so far? ;-)


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

IGotId said:


> Update, this thread is now solidly at #4 on the most posts ever list...quite a bit behind #3 at 1465 posts


No problem. Just need to post more unduly provocative posts with no basis in facts. I'll do my bit....










From a display in the City of Angels of course (although yeah, there is an out of place Panny there as well).










Note that if it said "Omega", the above phrases wouldn't make any sense.

Conclusion: superiority of Rolex (and Rolex owners).

Game. Set. Match.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Watch Fan in Beijing said:


> No problem. Just need to post more unduly provocative posts with no basis in facts. I'll do my bit....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Poor Rolexers. You need to wear a Rolex to get laid? Or to compensate something small maybe? 

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Poor Rolexers. You need to wear a Rolex to get laid? Or to compensate something small maybe?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


It's funny how the whole time I've been on WUS, I almost never hear Rolex owners talk about comparisons with Omega unless prodded about the subject, only insecure Omega owners like to talk about such comparisons.

Shhhh now, it's okay, don't get worked up - Omega is nice as well. I hear James Bond wears one now ;-)


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

I don't think it's insecure omega owners ..more like optimistic...very optimistic..


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

IGotId said:


> Update, this thread is now solidly at #4 on the most posts ever list...quite a bit behind #3 at 1465 posts


Where does one find stats like that?

Not that I can't find it myself, just feeling weekend lazy.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

davitd said:


> Well thank you all for your responses. Before taking a watch to an AD i just bought a 40* magnifier and looked at the movement. It turnes out that what I was seeing was a slight stain, probably some oil residue. Since it is cosmetic issue and the watch is only two years old, I will wait for the service time and correct the problem afterwards. On a positive note I just decided to compare the quality of my watches and went over them with the magnifier. I can say that the GO is on an absolutely different level in terms of case, dial, hands and movement finishing quality compared to my three other watches. Nomos is the only other watch that has a see through caseback and I can compare the finishing of the movement. The main differance is in attention to details. The screws are much better polished on GO, the beveled edge of the 3/4 plate is immaculate, the finish itself has a bit warmer feel, like it was done by a human rather than a machine, although both of this movements were most probably finished by machine. Nomos has a beautyful movement to look at on its own but compared to GO I think that it is a league or two below. On the dial side the indexes of Nomos Orion are a bit dull with slight imperfection, but it is nothing compared to *Omega deville from early 2000. Now this is where things get interesting. When I looked closer at Omega I was shocked how poorly its dial and hands were finished. The indexes are polished terribly, with lots of scratches, there is planty of dust under the dial. The watch was serviced a year and half ago by Omega and this could be the result of poor service but I do not believe that everything can be blamed on the service. All in all I would rate GO as a clear winner. It is followed by a rolex explorer 114270 that stands out for its mirror finished 904l steel case and pretty decent dial and hands. Rolex is closely followed by Nomos Orion Datum. On the last place is my Omega Deville.*


I just saw this on another thread; I'd be curious to see side by side shots of a modern Rolex and Omega at 40x.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Interesting post from davitd about potential imperfection after servicing. I think servicing is the downfall of all luxury or mechanical watches. Servicing is done by hand. Humans are imperfect. Anything other than a by-chance perfect service job in a dust-free room is going to introduce some degree of imperfection with dust, scratches, etc. Going after perfection in a watch is futile when the watch is always one imperfect service away from being "ruined". 

Having a cheaper watch that doesn't need servicing might be less frustrating. It's probably going to have microscopic dust and scratches to begin with, but so what? It's a cheap watch. When it gets scratched up, so what? It's a cheap watch. When it dies in like >20 years, if it's not repairable, just get a new one, for the price of a service.

If Omega is imperfect to begin with, with microscopic dust and scratches, in a way that's better than Rolex, because pre-existing imperfections would render subsequent imperfections introduced from servicing less devastating. Along with cheaper inevitable pricing as the result of these inherent imperfections, Omega is better than Rolex. ;-)


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

rdoder said:


> If Omega is imperfect to begin with, with microscopic dust and scratches, in a way that's better than Rolex, because pre-existing imperfections would render subsequent imperfections introduced from servicing less devastating. Along with cheaper inevitable pricing as the result of these inherent imperfections, Omega is better than Rolex. ;-)


So, because Omega has more imperfections it's better? Well, at least you're good for the occasional laugh.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

cedargrove said:


> So, because Omega has more imperfections it's better? Well, at least you're good for the occasional laugh.


The point is, chasing after perfection in an imperfect world that tends towards chaos is inevitably a dissatisfying experience. Instead, one could to some degree accept imperfection as the natural, normal state of things, which leads to less mental suffering.


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Ok Buddha lay off the cheech


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Ok Buddha lay off the cheech


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

ilitig8 said:


> Alpe d'Huez in 90 mins on the 4th time out is spectacular! I was always good in rolling hills but the sustained 8% grade stuff just wasn't my forte, I never minded the suffering of locking in and driving at 40kph in a relatively flat TT for an hour but the grinding along at 18kph when a single soft pedal loses a ton of momentum was just torture for me.
> 
> I used to be a Campy only guy but in the last 5 or so years I have used them all. I really like the SRAM RED and Force groups I have but haven't tried the RED eTap yet. I haven't bought a "American" bike in probably 15 years after I finished my Cannondale phase. It has been Colnago steel and (real Italian) Wilier carbon, both have off the rack geometry that works perfectly for me.


Yay, a fellow TTist! My coach keeps telling me that my power curve is better suited to crits and sprinting, but i dont get enough time riding in packs to really focus on this. So I do TTs and curse myself the entire time. Ironically, @ 170lb, I am a relatively crappy climber here (most of the roadies here are 145lb or lighter), but i enjoy climbing the most. Put a 30t rear to go with the compact on my Lynsky and actually enjoyed at the Alps. Gonna go back with a 32t next year.

Hadnt you NOT recommended the Colnago Master X Light? If i move somewhere where i can ride regularly, i want that to complete my stable.


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

Watch Fan in Beijing said:


> No problem. Just need to post more unduly provocative posts with no basis in facts. I'll do my bit....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fine! I'll put out if she buys me one. But no cuddling after, unless she buys me a Tudor too.

*of course I'm kidding, it doesn't have to be a Rolex. I'm also willing to put out for any 4R36 class Seiko or better.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

chuasam said:


> Fine! I'll put out if she buys me one. But no cuddling after, unless she buys me a Tudor too.
> 
> *of course I'm kidding, it doesn't have to be a Rolex. I'm also willing to put out for any 4R36 class Seiko or better.


Basically, you are a wristwatch manwhore. Which is fine. But to be at the top of your class, you must also wear a suit, ride in an Aston Martin, and be Her Majesty's Killer.

Oh yeah, and wear an Omega. Like this guy:


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> ...Oh yeah, and wear an Omega. Like this guy...


Umm... I'm pretty sure that's an Omeega...

And Roleex is way better than those though.


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> Basically, you are a wristwatch manwhore. Which is fine. But to be at the top of your class, you must also wear a suit, ride in an Aston Martin, and be Her Majesty's Killer.
> 
> Oh yeah, and wear an Omega. Like this guy:
> View attachment 8546362


Oh crap! My cover is blown. And thanks to some idiots who don't find out what the EU is before voting, I'll no longer have jurisdiction in Paris, Berlin and some say parts of Barcelona.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> Umm... I'm pretty sure that's an Omeega...
> 
> And Roleex is way better than those though.


It looks more like a Chreeestopher Ward...

(I think; the Photoshop is a little wonky, but the date at 4:00, tho....)


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Rolex Ambassadors Are hotter


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> It looks more like a Chreeestopher Ward...
> 
> (I think; the Photoshop is a little wonky, but the date at 4:00, tho....)


Yea, someone photoshopped a ward on there for some reason... Keeping it British?


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

waaaaaaaay hotter


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

Watchdudeman said:


> View attachment 8548226
> waaaaaaaay hotter


Ugh. Gold Daytona.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

You sure it's not an Invicta?


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> You sure it's not an Invicta?


I thought it was an invicta at first so I had to stare harder to discern what Rolex it was.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> It looks more like a Chreeestopher Ward...
> 
> (I think; the Photoshop is a little wonky, but the date at 4:00, tho....)


It's weeeeird that I didn't seeeeeee that. I'm usually more aware of cheeeeeeky monkeeeeeys meeeesing with pics. For a moment, I did think it might be a JLCeeeeeeeeeee. Or perhaps a Pateeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek (they get extra e's 'cause they're the beeeeeeeeeest).


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Watchdudeman said:


> View attachment 8548082
> Rolex Ambassadors Are hotter


Washed-out icon?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

chuasam said:


> I thought it was an invicta at first so I had to stare harder to discern what Rolex it was.


Yeah, I need to buy a loupe. My reading glasses aren't helping. My wife's eyes aren't any better -- she must think I need a closer look because she pushed my head closer.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Watchdudeman said:


> View attachment 8548226
> 
> waaaaaaaay hotter


I think this is a dude, they Photoshoped from waist under. Look at "her" right leg. It looks weird. And.... who cares whether it invicta or rolex? They all looks the same.

When wearing invicta:
Wow, you're wearing a rolex? Ups, no, it's just an invicta.

When wearing rolex:
Wow nice invicta, looks like a rolex.

When wearing Omega:









Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

You know, I'm tempted to make 92 more posts to get this thing to 1000.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

I may post a new thread for this, but it's cool any time you'd read it --

Over at Reddit, a watchmaker who says he's with Piaget is given a 35-year-old Van Clef & Arpels quartz watch for servicing. He documented the process with photos and a narrative here:

Van Cleef & Arpels Concord Quartz Restoration - Album on Imgur


----------



## billyp7718 (Nov 7, 2011)

Do we have any audio guys on here? I feel like Bose is the Rolex of the audio industry. Everyone thinks it is the best of the best when in reality it is a good product in the upper mid teir of their respective industries. Ok.... maybe Rolex is more upscale, but it just proves the power of brand recognition. Rolex can build a watch with a Timex Quartz movement and sell it for $5k and folks will buy it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

If I followed hot representatives I should wear Hublot, because of Bar Rafaeli


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Sorry if I have missed something but what is the verdict ?


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Alex_TA said:


> If I followed hot representatives I should wear Hublot, because of Bar Rafaeli


Bar, why the long face?


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

Ticonderoga said:


> Bar, why the long face?


Because it's Hublot !


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Washed-out icon?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Tut tut she hardly washed out, just a bit more mature . ....


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Ahhh hublot vs audemars that's far too classy for this working class omega/rolex fisticuffs ....


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

rdoder said:


> The point is, chasing after perfection in an imperfect world that tends towards chaos is inevitably a dissatisfying experience. Instead, one could to some degree accept imperfection as the natural, normal state of things, which leads to less mental suffering.


War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Omega is Rolex
Imperfection is Perfection

Wrong on so many levels...


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

billyp7718 said:


> Do we have any audio guys on here? I feel like Bose is the Rolex of the audio industry. Everyone thinks it is the best of the best when in reality it is a good product in the upper mid teir of their respective industries. Ok.... maybe Rolex is more upscale, but it just proves the power of brand recognition. Rolex can build a watch with a Timex Quartz movement and sell it for $5k and folks will buy it.


I'm not much of an audiophile, but I do own a lot of headphones. In my experience, Bose's headsets are overhyped. My Audio-Technica ATH-ANC9s do a better job of noise-cancelling and are better on the mids and base than Bose's offerings. And my Sony MDR-XB950BT Bluetooth cans have better sound quality (despite being heavy on bass) than Bose's Soundlink. [I can compare the ATH-M50x that I own to Bose' SoundTrue; but honestly, the Bose doesn't even rank.]

This isn't saying that Bose doesn't offer a decent product. Its design aesthetic is usually more-refined that Audio Technica's and Sony's; Audio-Technica's headsets sometimes look like they were designed for someone with a gigantic head, and Sony's headphone design can sometimes be too bold. But on sound quality, there are better offerings than Bose even at lower price points.

I would say that Bose is the Rolex of the audio segment, while Beats is the Omega. Except that I would rather buy a Rolex or Omega than a Bose or a Beats.


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

chuasam said:


> Ugh. Gold Daytona.


There's a Daytona in that pic? I didn't notice.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

billyp7718 said:


> Do we have any audio guys on here? I feel like Bose is the Rolex of the audio industry. Everyone thinks it is the best of the best when in reality it is a good product in the upper mid teir of their respective industries. Ok.... maybe Rolex is more upscale, but it just proves the power of brand recognition. Rolex can build a watch with a Timex Quartz movement and sell it for $5k and folks will buy it.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Depends on how you look at it, but in general I say the comparison is poor.

From a general public point of view both "Blows" and Rolex are products that are considered better than they actually are, the difference is Rolex is a very high quality watch, Bose on the other hand is a low quality product pretending to be a SOTA product.

In the audio world I would proffer that B&W is the Rolex of speakers. They make very good products that a lot of non-audiophiles buy. They do very good product placement and their design language is strong enough that a even a small pair of 805s in a background shot are immediately recognizable by the Nautilus tweeter. The key with Rolex and B&W is if you buy them even just for the name you still have bought a very high quality product with Bose you have simply bought some cheap plastic speakers that can be bested by some of the cheap Chinese gems from Monoprice et al. With B&W like Rolex while you pay a premium for the name you also potentially benefit from the higher resell compared to many of the other brands both above and below them in price.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

lvt said:


> Sorry if I have missed something but what is the verdict ?


The Verdict:
Omega is actually better than Rolex. Rolex is better in term of brand recognition (even a person who don't have a clue on watch brand knows them). Hence, depend on your preference. If you like Omega, buy one even though the retain value is sucks. If you want acknowledgement and good value retention, buy Rolex.

#reignitetheflame

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Gianna's Dad (Jan 24, 2009)

Rolex is an old man brand. 

Old and and played out.

Tudor is the future for Rolex until they turn the marketing machine toward a different generation.

In the meantime Omega is the best...


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

billyp7718 said:


> Ok.... maybe Rolex is more upscale, but it just proves the power of brand recognition. Rolex can build a watch with a Timex Quartz movement and sell it for $5k and folks will buy it.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Maybe. But the point why Rolex is difficult to dismiss in collecting circles is that Rolex doesn't do that - it builds a solid decent quality watch. We may disagree as to whether Omega is an equal or not, or whether Rolex designs are boring as drying paint - but I think most of its critics here (most, not all of course) will atleast concede that factoring in its in-house and reliable movts, its iconic design, its history and its generally strong resale value - for the most part, it's price is well, for the most part, fair.

If Rolex put in a Timex-like movement, it may fool the consumers for a bit, but the collecting world would notice and the message would eventually filter to the public and seriously damage the brand's image. Brand recognition only goes so far and even the mightiest brands can seriously tumble from public desire.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Aww... you guys are no fun, trying to stay on topic and have a real discussion 93 pages in. How dare you!

Instead, here's some comics (an XKCD, and a Cyanide and Happiness, and something I found Googling for wristwatch comics) :


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Gianna's Dad said:


> Rolex is an old man brand.
> 
> Old and and played out.
> 
> ...


I nearly gave this a like .....for acknowledging tudor but I don't think rolex is really the old man brand


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

dbostedo said:


> Aww... you guys are no fun, trying to stay on topic and have a real discussion 93 pages in. How dare you!
> 
> Stay on topic ?more like maximum posts....any auld rubbish is welcome as long as omega or rolex are mentioned once


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Gianna's Dad said:


> Rolex is an old man brand.
> 
> Old and and played out.
> 
> ...


1 like from me. LOL.

I agree in your tudor part that they will lay the foundation for the younger generation. However, rolex made a bit of blunder tho. Thus the public calling that tudor is a poor man's rolex.

I think now it's a good time for Omega to shine again. Flood the younger generation market with Omega. Make them loves and choose Omega instead of rolex.
I think they need to use Mark Zuckerberg and the Founder of Google as their icon. Once the younger generation gets old and successful, we will flush out rolex. Too bad the young executives got influence by their "expired" executives/senior partner thinking that they need to use rolex to shine.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

WatchingYou77 said:


> War is Peace
> Freedom is Slavery
> Ignorance is Strength
> Omega is Rolex
> ...


Imperfection is not perfection, of course. Observing imperfection and chaos as the natural state of things in the absence of using energy to build order is just an observation. Choosing to accept this observation is not perfection, it is just accepting reality as it is.

The reality is, it is a struggle to maintain order. Seeking perfection from Omega or Rolex or any watch might be a symptom of life's desire to struggle to maintain order and survive. But if nothing lasts forever, some could choose to not struggle as much, at least when it comes to one's watch.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

This is taken from Wikipedia history of watch.

rolex should be an affordable watch. Whereas at that time, Omega were and always at luxury watch.
Too bad Omega caved in during quartz crisis and rolex took the risk to stay at what they can do (mechanical watch making and prepare for the worse (bankruptcy)). Thus, rolex up until now kept being conservative, stay in their comfort zone and very reluctant to innovate.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Bobby75 (Jun 26, 2011)

Will Branston brown sauce ever be as good as HP, that's the real question everyone is asking.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Bobby75 said:


> Will Branston brown sauce ever be as good as HP, that's the real question everyone is asking.


No one in the US is. :-d

Throw A1 and Heinz 57 in there, and we might be able to cobble together an argument.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

dbostedo said:


> No one in the US is. :-d
> 
> Throw A1 and Heinz 57 in there, and we might be able to cobble together an argument.


Jack Daniel barbecue sauce?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## starter (Aug 21, 2010)

It's very easy to perfectly trim the nails on my left hand using my right. However I can't do quite as neat a job on my right using my left. Because of this, I've concluded that my right hand has a natural predilection to menial labor, while my left hand is used to being catered to. 

In short, my right hand is the servant, and my left hand the master. So I wear an Omega on my right, and a Rolex on my left.

Come on, 100 pages. Go baby, go!


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

starter said:


> It's very easy to perfectly trim the nails on my left hand using my right. However I can't do quite as neat a job on my right using my left. Because of this, I've concluded that my right hand has a natural predilection to menial labor, while my left hand is used to being catered to.
> 
> In short, my right hand is the servant, and my left hand the master. So I wear an Omega on my right, and a Rolex on my left.
> 
> Come on, 100 pages. Go baby, go!


So the left hand gets the lotion or is it the right? Because I'm not sure if we are filing under menial labour or mutual labour....


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Watchdudeman said:


> So the left hand gets the lotion or is it the right? Because I'm not sure if we are filing under menial labour or mutual labour....


In Arab countries, the left hand always does the nasty bathroom work. Fitting that starter chose to put the Rolex on the left.

What should be on the right? I say Eterna.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

937


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

I'm not sold on Omega just yet. I may get there, but right now, they are not on my good side.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

oak1971 said:


> I'm not sold on Omega just yet. I may get there, but right now, they are not on my good side.


Well relationships can be hard. They take work, and patience, and listening. Perhaps Omega will start by giving you a call to see how you're doing, maybe remind you about why you fell for Omega in the first place - that trip you and Omega took to Miami, or the time Omega surprised you with that antique you were pining for. And Omega may remind you of the way Omega always seems to be there for you; and is SUCH a good listener. Maybe you'll meet up for drinks... and pretty soon, Omega will be back on your good side. I know you can get there, if you want to. But more importantly, you know you can.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> Well relationships can be hard. They take work, and patience, and listening. Perhaps Omega will start by giving you a call to see how you're doing, maybe remind you about why you fell for Omega in the first place - that trip you and Omega took to Miami, or the time Omega surprised you with that antique you were pining for. And Omega may remind you of the way Omega always seems to be there for you; and is SUCH a good listener. Maybe you'll meet up for drinks... and pretty soon, Omega will be back on your good side. I know you can get there, if you want to. But more importantly, you know you can.


She's becoming an expensive mistress.


----------



## billyp7718 (Nov 7, 2011)

Watch Fan in Beijing said:


> Maybe. But the point why Rolex is difficult to dismiss in collecting circles is that Rolex doesn't do that - it builds a solid decent quality watch. We may disagree as to whether Omega is an equal or not, or whether Rolex designs are boring as drying paint - but I think most of its critics here (most, not all of course) will atleast concede that factoring in its in-house and reliable movts, its iconic design, its history and its generally strong resale value - for the most part, it's price is well, for the most part, fair.
> 
> If Rolex put in a Timex-like movement, it may fool the consumers for a bit, but the collecting world would notice and the message would eventually filter to the public and seriously damage the brand's image. Brand recognition only goes so far and even the mightiest brands can seriously tumble from public desire.


I can agree with that. I do have a Sub, a wonderful watch, but from a horology standpoint, there are much better timepieces when it comes to movement tech and fit and finish at lower price points. There are other factors at play. Some stated above. "Better" is subjective and in the end, there is no right answer. It is a personal choice.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

oak1971 said:


> She's becoming an expensive mistress.


Will the mistress ever be better than the wife? Or the escort?


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Rolex is established. Rolex is SOLID. You will never just hatch into that position of fortification. Omega is a brand, and they do their thing, but they will never match the stronghold that is Rolex.... 
Of course.... That is in, my ever so f...ing humble opinion, folks.


----------



## Horologic (Apr 26, 2012)

I think Rolex will always be considered the more desirable brand. The designs are so enduring. 

And the Rolex corporate structure and history is more romantic than Omega's.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Sevenmack said:


> Will the mistress ever be better than the wife? Or the escort?


Idk,but the botox and silicone are going to break the bank.


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

Here is the antidote to "will omega be as good as rolex" now let's pull this thread further










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Vlance said:


> Rolex is established. Rolex is SOLID. You will never just hatch into that position of fortification. Omega is a brand, and they do their thing, but they will never match the stronghold that is Rolex....
> Of course.... That is in, my ever so f...ing humble opinion, folks.


Actually, Omega pre-dates Rolex, but has not done enough to cash in on that history. Rolex has learned how to bank heritage while remaining relevant.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

oak1971 said:


> Actually, Omega pre-dates Rolex, but has not done enough to cash in on that history. Rolex has learned how to bank heritage while remaining relevant.


I'm aware, but will add nothing more than that I agree with that assessment.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Vlance said:


> I'm aware, but will add nothing more than that I agree with that assessment.


As I said earlier. rolex was a small company during quartz crisis. They don't have much capital to invest in new knowledge and technology (quartz). They're like a captain who refuse to abandon the sinking ship. Ready to sunk, they won't die quietly. In dying moment, they market themselves as luxury mechanical watch and so on and so forth, justifying the need for the market to keep buying mechanical watch. Omega on the other hand, they trying to adapt.

Lucky for rolex most of the other brands dies while the rest of the other survivors trying to adapt to quartz. Henceforth, rolex being viewed as luxury items and Omega being viewed as one of the quartz proponents. In a sense, I respect rolex for that (watchdudeman might be happy with this, LOL).

My resentment towards rolex is they refuse to change and adapt. They charge a premium price for outdated movement and designs.

Their improvement only by using 904L as their case material. Compare with 316L, it is more rust by acid proof (higher PRE). Well, when 316L already damaged by acid, we're a gonner anyway. Further, 904L has more nickel (some people might have nickel reaction because of it) which makes it more harder. rolex has higher cost since 904L is more expensive and more costly to manufactured.

Don't believe me? Open rolex website, in any language. They "sell" their 904L, "workhorse" movement and "timeless" design.

I am a change engineer, a LEAN practitioner to be exact. Agreeing with rolex, somehow against my principles. Their product is not "valuable" LOL.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Shan_Farandy said:


> As I said earlier. rolex was a small company during quartz crisis. They don't have much capital to invest in new knowledge and technology (quartz). They're like a captain who refuse to abandon the sinking ship. Ready to sunk, they won't die quietly. In dying moment, they market themselves as luxury mechanical watch and so on and so forth, justifying the need for the market to keep buying mechanical watch. Omega on the other hand, they trying to adapt.
> 
> Lucky for rolex most of the other brands dies while the rest of the other survivors trying to adapt to quartz. Henceforth, rolex being viewed as luxury items and Omega being viewed as one of the quartz proponents. In a sense, I respect rolex for that (watchdudeman might be happy with this, LOL).
> 
> ...


Yea, they refused to abandon ship and sailed into significant prosperity. 
All you are is another hater. No substantiating argument... Just that you're mad that they do so well. Don't hate bro.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Vlance said:


> Yea, they refused to abandon ship and sailed into significant prosperity.
> All you are is another hater. No substantiating argument... Just that you're mad that they do so well. Don't hate bro.


Hate is a strong word. I'm towards dislike. I might (almost) have bought a rolex. But the feeling wasn't there.

Call me cheap, I bought Master Aqua Terra instead of rolex OP/explorer 1 since at the similar price, I receive more technology. More value for money.

If I had to choose within a similar price point, I tend to stick with Omega. A 44mm DSSD is one of my grail tho (I found it beautiful). Still, before that, I'll get a PO XL first.
Put it in "laid man" term, my Omegas are the queens and DSSD is my only mistress. Probably flirt a while with 1940 Panerai. A glance to Hublot and say "ugh.... why did they put a fat stripper on the pole". LOL.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Shan_Farandy said:


> As I said earlier. rolex was a small company during quartz crisis. They don't have much capital to invest in new knowledge and technology (quartz). They're like a captain who refuse to abandon the sinking ship. Ready to sunk, they won't die quietly. In dying moment, they market themselves as luxury mechanical watch and so on and so forth, justifying the need for the market to keep buying mechanical watch. Omega on the other hand, they trying to adapt.
> 
> Lucky for rolex most of the other brands dies while the rest of the other survivors trying to adapt to quartz. Henceforth, rolex being viewed as luxury items and Omega being viewed as one of the quartz proponents. In a sense, I respect rolex for that (watchdudeman might be happy with this, LOL).
> 
> ...


They obviously have a pretty good continuous improvement system going, it forces everyone else to make radical changes while they make incremental improvements. 
Honda does the same and does it well.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

oak1971 said:


> They obviously have a pretty good continuous improvement system going, it forces everyone else to make radical changes while they make incremental improvements.
> Honda does the same and does it well.


rolex = Toyota. Omega = Honda.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Shan_Farandy said:


> rolex = Toyota. Omega = Honda.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Honda is not big on radical design changes. I'm talking motorcycles primarily because I have owned quite a few. I also have a few years (25) in automotive crash testing and destructive testing for R&d and Quality. (TPS) Toyota Production System is great as long as they use it. Don't forget it's key principles came from American's though.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

oak1971 said:


> Honda is not big on radical design changes. I'm talking motorcycles primarily because I have owned quite a few. I also have a few years (25) in automotive crash testing and destructive testing for R&d and Quality. (TPS) Toyota Production System is great as long as they use it. Don't forget it's key principles came from American's though.


Ah. In motorcycle kind of sense,
rolex = Honda, Omega = Yamaha, Panerai = Ducati, Patek Phillipe = BMW, Graham = Harley Davidson.
LOL

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Ah. In motorcycle kind of sense,
> rolex = Honda, Omega = Yamaha, Panerai = Ducati, Patek Phillipe = BMW, Graham = Harley Davidson.
> LOL
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


You're equating Harley Davidson to Graham. A venerable brand (albeit sometimes contreversial brand amongst motorcyclists) that has been around for more than a 100 years. A brand that created and developed distinctive and iconic bikes and motors with a sound so unique that HD has trademarked it

You're comparing HD to a very recent watch brand that is best known for piggybacking on the whole Panerai big watch with unusual crown bit.

That makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## MDKane (Dec 12, 2014)

Imho. Never.


----------



## flame2000 (Jun 27, 2007)

Omega has poor resale value. But there are way more 2nd hand Rolex in those second hand dealers stores than any other watch brands. Somehow, the price of Rolex just don't drop a lot like other watches. That's why dealers don't mind keeping those large 2nd hand inventory. 
IMHO, Omega can never be as good as Rolex.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Watch Fan in Beijing said:


> You're equating Harley Davidson to Graham. A venerable brand (albeit sometimes contreversial brand amongst motorcyclists) that has been around for more than a 100 years. A brand that created and developed distinctive and iconic bikes and motors with a sound so unique that HD has trademarked it
> 
> You're comparing HD to a very recent watch brand that is best known for piggybacking on the whole Panerai big watch with unusual crown bit.
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense.


Graham watch actually an old watch brand. George Graham is well known for the "father of chronograph". They do have a history.

Well.... my bad to compare HD with Graham. Let me revise.

Graham = Triumph, Ball = HD. Brits for Brits and US for US ?.

Keep the post further. 100 here we come.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

flame2000 said:


> Omega has poor resale value. But there are way more 2nd hand Rolex in those second hand dealers stores than any other watch brands. Somehow, the price of Rolex just don't drop a lot like other watches. That's why dealers don't mind keeping those large 2nd hand inventory.
> IMHO, Omega can never be as good as Rolex.


Agree. There are a lot of 2nd hand rolex. Cause once they try them, they know it's boring. Better leave early. LOL.
#quickjabandrun

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

I'm starting to think that in the absence of personal attacks and NSFW content, this thread might just go on forever... :roll:


----------



## kmmohann (Jun 26, 2016)

oak1971 said:


> Honda is not big on radical design changes. I'm talking motorcycles primarily because I have owned quite a few. I also have a few years (25) in automotive crash testing and destructive testing for R&d and Quality. (TPS) Toyota Production System is great as long as they use it. Don't forget it's key principles came from American's though.


Key principle came from Americans... yes. Those Americans (Deming, Juran, Crosby etc.) who would not be allowed to implement their principles in the US industry and had to go to Japan for recognition...


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Graham watch actually an old watch brand. George Graham is well known for the "father of chronograph". They do have a history.
> 
> Well.... my bad to compare HD with Graham. Let me revise.
> 
> ...


Point taken. They even claim "est 1695". Although I doubt current Graham has anything to do with old Graham and is just the usual story of a company that for all effective purposes didn't survive the quartz crisis and was a name bought by its current management - the so-called "zombie" brand. HD certainly has been close to death at times, but never completely out, and I believe still has some of the original Harley and/or Davidson family members involved in some aspects of management.

100 pages here we come.


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Shan_Farandy said:


> As I said earlier. rolex was a small company during quartz crisis. They don't have much capital to invest in new knowledge and technology (quartz). They're like a captain who refuse to abandon the sinking ship. Ready to sunk, they won't die quietly. In dying moment, they market themselves as luxury mechanical watch and so on and so forth, justifying the need for the market to keep buying mechanical watch. Omega on the other hand, they trying to adapt.
> 
> Lucky for rolex most of the other brands dies while the rest of the other survivors trying to adapt to quartz. Henceforth, rolex being viewed as luxury items and Omega being viewed as one of the quartz proponents. In a sense, I respect rolex for that (watchdudeman might be happy with this, LOL).
> 
> ...


I am quickly losing all respect for your posts lol ..... rolex helped develop the quartz movement and when they realised that high end mechanicals is where the money is they abandoned it for a nice USP of mechanical only watches.... the use of the harder steel was a very expensive move on rolexes part a move that differentiates them from other manufacturers......you a crazy fool!and I pity da fool!


----------



## harald (Jun 26, 2016)

I guess the right question is.. Will Omega be one day popular like Rolex. Both Watches have a high Quality.
Just my 2 Cents


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Watchdudeman said:


> I am quickly losing all respect for your posts lol ..... rolex helped develop the quartz movement and when they realised that high end mechanicals is where the money is they abandoned it for a nice USP of mechanical only watches.... the use of the harder steel was a very expensive move on rolexes part a move that differentiates them from other manufacturers......you a crazy fool!and I pity da fool!


Referring to Wikipedia. LOL.

"Swiss Beta21, which was developed by 16 Swiss Watch manufactures and used by Rolex, Patek and famously Omega in their electroquartz models"

rolex does some research. But they do not really take the plunge. They do create the oysterquartz, but not to save the company. They, along with Patek are moving up in the pricing range to distinguish themselves with the peasants who purchase the quartz. As I said, it's a bold move and I respect them for that.

But my point is, looking at the price, shouldn't they justified their pricing for more technological advantage?

904L does have a better physical properties. But, related to what is useful for human day-to-day wear, doesn't really do much difference. Breitling brutally test their watches. They literally hammered their watch. Yet, they're using 316L. Using 904L on a wrist watch is like squashing a bug with a tactical nuke. It's strong, rrrrrrrgh, but should the customer pay for something that is not really benefit them?
Pricing strategy is essential in business. Once you set the price, you can never go back. Thus, rolex stuck with their 904L.

Well, most of rolex's innovation is in its casing. Waterproof stuffs. Date changing automatically, GMT function.

From Wikipedia:
In 1947, Omega created the first tourbillon wristwatch calibre in the world with the 30I. Unlike conventional Tourbillion movement's whose cages rotate once per minute, the 30I's cage rotated one time each seven and a half minutes.

In 1999, with the successful own development of Calibre 2500,[16] Omega made history by introducing the first mass-produced watch incorporating the coaxial escapement.

On January 24, 2007 Omega unveiled its new Calibres 8500[19] and 8501, two coaxial (25,200 bph) movements.

On January 17, 2013 Omega announced the creation of the world's first movement that is resistant to magnetic fields greater than 1.5 tesla (15,000 gauss).

Beat that. LOL. Choosing 904L for casing is not an innovation. Putting an oil pipe material as a watch case? Just a marketing gimmicks isn't it? Looking for a stronger steel? SS 254 SMO that'll beat 904L.

Come on 100. Wohoo.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Referring to Wikipedia. LOL.
> 
> "Swiss Beta21, which was developed by 16 Swiss Watch manufactures and used by Rolex, Patek and famously Omega in their electroquartz models"
> 
> ...


Wikipedia is written by the same people who post on these threads. I always laugh when I see a bunch of armchair experts arguing about this or that and then someone refers to Wikipedia, written by other armchair "experts," as some sort of infallible proof.


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

904 isn't just harder ....it is a much ,much better finish and Polish and yes it is nuke proof.
When rolex make changes they are significant .trying to keep on point here the change up in steel made significant change to a rolexes quality and finish I have a 68 date and 2015 oyster to compare and they steel work is phenomenal on new steel rolex. The co-axial is amazing but didn't surpass other top movements significantly so Rolex win again


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Watchdudeman said:


> 904 isn't just harder ....it is a much ,much better finish and Polish and yes it is nuke proof.
> When rolex make changes they are significant .trying to keep on point here the change up in steel made significant change to a rolexes quality and finish I have a 68 date and 2015 oyster to compare and they steel work is phenomenal on new steel rolex. The co-axial is amazing but didn't surpass other top movements significantly so Rolex win again


Looks like this discussion will never end. LOL.

Like Canon vs Nikon. Canon always better than Nikon.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

jmanlay said:


> Here is the antidote to "will omega be as good as rolex" now let's pull this thread further


How is discussing Rolex homages relevant?


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Hate is a strong word. I'm towards dislike. I might (almost) have bought a rolex. But the feeling wasn't there.
> 
> Call me cheap, I bought Master Aqua Terra instead of rolex OP/explorer 1 since at the similar price, I receive more technology. More value for money.
> 
> ...


You're welcome to prefer different watch brands, but it's always you omega owners reaching for Rolex respect. Just enjoy your watches and stop trying to compare.


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

vkalia said:


> How is discussing Rolex homages relevant?


Perfect exactly what we need here to push this thread to the max

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

A homage is a fake. Period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

oak1971 said:


> She's becoming an expensive mistress.


I have yet to come across an _inexpensive_ mistress.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Sevenmack said:


> Will the mistress ever be better than the wife? Or the escort?





oak1971 said:


> Idk,but the botox and silicone are going to break the bank.


Put me down for whatever needs less preventative maintenance...


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

kmmohann said:


> Key principle came from Americans... yes. Those Americans (Deming, Juran, Crosby etc.) who would not be allowed to implement their principles in the US industry and had to go to Japan for recognition...


That is another can of worms that if opened would result in another endless thread.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Put me down for whatever needs less preventative maintenance...


There is the rub. Quartz wins that battle yet we hates it, yes we does.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

oak1971 said:


> There is the rub. Quartz wins that battle yet we hates it, yes we does.


Quartz watches have great personality.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Shan_Farandy said:


> But my point is, looking at the price, shouldn't they justified their pricing for more technological advantage?


Nope. Not at all. That's not how product pricing works. The price is set based on what people will pay. That can be based on technology, marketing, style, brand recognition, etc. If Rolex believes they're running their business the best possible (maximizing revenue and profit, short and long term) then they're doing exactly enough innovation and adding exactly enough technology.

You may as well ask why diamonds are so expensive, and shouldn't they somehow have added technology?


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Crate410 said:


> A homage is a fake. Period.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The you better disrobe and we're all big fakers because regardless of whatever brand is on your shirt, pants, shoes and underwear, they were COPIED from something previous. Your shirt has a hole for a head and two arms? Yup, its an HOMAGE.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Ticonderoga said:


> I'm starting to think that in the absence of personal attacks and NSFW content, this thread might just go on forever... :roll:


Forever? You're an idiot. These threads can't go on forever for f%$k's sake. It's a website with a finite existence!! Look up the definition of forever sometime. Geez.

And as far as NSFW :









D'oh.... stupid WUS nudity filters.... ;-)

How'd I do? Will this get the thread locked? :-d


----------



## mdaclarke (Jan 31, 2015)

I personally think Omega have had a very strong 2016. I liked their Basel watches and I really like the new planet Ocean watches. They are really pushing Rolex hard.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Looks like this *discussion* will never end. LOL.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Might be stretching the definition quite a bit :think::think: ;-)


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

Does the first person on page 100 get an award?


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

mdaclarke said:


> I personally think Omega have had a very strong 2016. I liked their Basel watches and I really like the new planet Ocean watches. They are really pushing Rolex hard.


Finally, an ally.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

drhr said:


> Might be stretching the definition quite a bit :think::think: ;-)


Stretch it just enough to reach 100 pages.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

WatchingYou77 said:


> Does the first person on page 100 get an award?


Yes. "Type till you bored" trophy and the OP being promoted to senior member and win an exclusive interview with ablogtowatch.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

WatchingYou77 said:


> Does the first person on page 100 get an award?


I keep expecting a mod to jump in at the last second.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

*dbostedo*, which game is that shot from, anyway?


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Come on, 3 more heated topics and meaningless jabs.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

100 

Almost there.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

I tell ya, it's the image of Rolex coupled with the "tried-and-tested" perception of its movements that made me gravitate towards the Rolex case, and _away_ from the Omegas, at a local dealer yesterday.

That's not to say I'm not interested in one of the new Globemasters, though.


----------



## Call_me_Tom (Jul 20, 2007)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Looks like this discussion will never end. LOL.
> 
> Like Canon vs Nikon. Canon always better than Nikon.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Girly men use white lenses.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

WatchingYou77 said:


> 100
> 
> Almost there.


100 finally.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Call_me_Tom said:


> Girly men use white lenses.


So? Almost all of the famous Photographers use Canon.










Taken using Canon G10.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> *dbostedo*, which game is that shot from, anyway?


No idea... I just googled nsfw something or other, and it came up.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Shan_Farandy said:


> So? Almost all of the famous Photographers use Canon.


Or Leica, or Hasselblad, or Deardorff, or Nikon, or Pentax, or....


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

dbostedo said:


> Or Leica, or Hasselblad, or Deardorff, or Nikon, or Pentax, or....


(Gen) Leica, Hasselblad, Deardorff are in a different league my friend.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Shan_Farandy said:


> (Gen) Leica, Hasselblad, Deardorff are in a different league my friend.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


But are you saying famous photographers never used those brands?


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Post 1000!!!!! What do I win?


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

dbostedo said:


> But are you saying famous photographers never used those brands?


Previously, I said "almost" all.
They do have others. But should they choose Canon, it is highly unlikely that they will use Nikon. Using 2 system at the same time is very tedious. The PC Suite is different, colour signature is different, lenses is not interchangeable.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

dbostedo said:


> Post 1000!!!!! What do I win?


Perhaps the luxury/joy of getting to read another thousand ;-) . . .


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Previously, I said "almost" all.


Fair enough... then I'll take exception with your use of "almost all". That would imply a very high percentage - say something over 90% using Canon? But even if you dropped that to, oh, say 50%, I'd be willing to bet it would be too high. (Although we probably have to define "famous" too.)


----------



## dimman (Feb 10, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> Post 1000!!!!! What do I win?


You now have the honour of choosing, definitively, who is better.

You may now choose. But choose wisely.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> Post 1000!!!!! What do I win?


My foot in your a$$.?


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Dimman said:


> You now have the honour of choosing, definitively, who is better.
> 
> You may now choose. But choose wisely.


In that case, I'll choose this :


----------



## dimman (Feb 10, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> In that case, I'll choose this :
> 
> View attachment 8564834


Nailed it!


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

So everyone is in agreement the final answer is 'yes,maybe,definately not'?


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

borrowed daughters speedie for the day ...God it's a great watch really love it and although I've never worn it on the bracelet because I couldnt be bothered putting the links back in.....I'm always a bit disappointed how insubstantial the bracelet feels compared to my rolex or tudor or even cal16 link I used to have .....sorry I know I'm repeating myself a little but can we dare to dream of 200 pages ?


----------



## Pakal (Jun 6, 2016)

I got 1 Omega and 3 Rolexes but I can't tell which is the best one!


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

dbostedo said:


> Fair enough... then I'll take exception with your use of "almost all". That would imply a very high percentage - say something over 90% using Canon? But even if you dropped that to, oh, say 50%, I'd be willing to bet it would be too high. (Although we probably have to define "famous" too.)


Art Wolfe, George Lepp, Jim Brandenburg. Monte Zucker, James Natchwey, Steven Eastwood, many more and the huge lot of pro's on the side of any football / sports matches using white lenses.
Google it! "Why photographer use Canon" you'll get a lot of answers.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Art Wolfe, George Lepp, Jim Brandenburg. Monte Zucker, James Natchwey, Steven Eastwood, many more and the huge lot of pro's on the side of any football / sports matches using white lenses.
> Google it! "Why photographer use Canon" you'll get a lot of answers.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


True, if you go purely with sports and wildlife (and some PJ applications too) then there's a majority of Canon users because of the prevalence/dominance of the super-telephoto lenses. (Though it's maybe not so big as to qualify for "almost all".)

But I was talking also about the art and fashion and macro and other photography worlds. And I was referring to all of photo history. Are you talking about current photographers only? Because there are definitely a lot of famous photographers that are not Canon users. This list for 1 : Pantheon of famous photographers who used Leica cameras: - Leica Wiki (English)

And even if talking current photographers only, if you step into the art world you'll find a much wider variety of cameras.


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

I wish i knew more about those pesky omega cameras


----------



## raquinus (Jan 28, 2015)

WatchingYou77 said:


> 100
> 
> Almost there.


Really? All the posts off topic should not be counted (grammar, cameras...)


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

raquinus said:


> Really? All the posts off topic should not be counted (grammar, cameras...)


Good point. I nominate you to go back and count how many posts are on-topic, determine how many pages that would make, and tell us how far we have to go.

And to keep this post on topic, let me add that Omega is way better than Rolex.

No, wait. I really like the Milgauss. Rolex is way better than Omega.

No, no, no... wait again. I own an Omega, so Omega must be better.

No! Argh.... the Cellini! I love the Cellini Cestello! And the Prince! Gotta go Rolex.

Wait, wait, wait... there is that DeVille line....


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

dbostedo said:


> True, if you go purely with sports and wildlife (and some PJ applications too) then there's a majority of Canon users because of the prevalence/dominance of the super-telephoto lenses. (Though it's maybe not so big as to qualify for "almost all".)
> 
> But I was talking also about the art and fashion and macro and other photography worlds. And I was referring to all of photo history. Are you talking about current photographers only? Because there are definitely a lot of famous photographers that are not Canon users. This list for 1 : Pantheon of famous photographers who used Leica cameras: - Leica Wiki (English)
> 
> And even if talking current photographers only, if you step into the art world you'll find a much wider variety of cameras.


Agree. Pro's on portrait use Leica and/or Hasselblad. Leica S007 and Hasselblad H5D are badass.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Sometimes I wonder how much tech sharing there is between Swatch Group brands, too. The Globemaster bezel is a hardened metal -- what's Rado's Hardmetal made from? I also wonder whether the plates and other pieces used in the Master Co-Axial movements are just rhodium-plated versions of the alloys used in the Sistem51, which I've been told is antimagnetic. And the plastic escapement used in the Powermatic 80 -- is it the same parts as the Sistem51's escapement?


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

dbostedo said:


> True, if you go purely with sports and wildlife (and some PJ applications too) then there's a majority of Canon users because of the prevalence/dominance of the super-telephoto lenses. (Though it's maybe not so big as to qualify for "almost all".)
> 
> But I was talking also about the art and fashion and macro and other photography worlds. And I was referring to all of photo history. Are you talking about current photographers only? Because there are definitely a lot of famous photographers that are not Canon users. This list for 1 : Pantheon of famous photographers who used Leica cameras: - Leica Wiki (English)
> 
> And even if talking current photographers only, if you step into the art world you'll find a much wider variety of cameras.


Pretty much this. Trey Ratliff, who does a lot of travel and landscape photography and a pioneer of HDR photography, uses Sony's A7R mirrorless cameras; he switched over a few years ago after using Nikon for many years. A few others such as David McLain (who does photography for National Geographic) also use Sony. There was an article last year on 10 sports photographers who use Sony and other mirrorless cameras.

Canon has been dominant in photography for a long time in large part because of its strong customer service for professional shutterbugs. As with Rolex, it has gotten a lot of things right. But unlike Rolex, Canon doesn't have a strong a position and some would argue that it has wasted its prime spot. Sony is nipping at its heels, especially when it comes to mirrorless, while Leica and Hasselblad also have strong relationships with photographers as well as the legacies resulting from being used by many famous artists.


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

I've always thought Sony cybershot was the best ...


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

this is probably the best camera on the market bar none ...5x zoom 20 mp and possibly a carlito ziessmundo lens BOOM another debate sorted


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

starter said:


> It's very easy to perfectly trim the nails on my left hand using my right. However I can't do quite as neat a job on my right using my left. Because of this, I've concluded that my right hand has a natural predilection to menial labor, while my left hand is used to being catered to.
> 
> In short, my right hand is the servant, and my left hand the master. So I wear an Omega on my right, and a Rolex on my left.
> 
> Come on, 100 pages. Go baby, go!


True story: yesterday I saw a girl on the subway with a Rolex (or Rolex look-alike, with fluted bezel, magnification bubble, and jubilee bracelet) on her left wrist, and a smart watch (with white plastic-looking strap) on her right wrist. One says I'm trendy and with the "in" crowd, and the other says my parents have money, please kidnap me!


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

rdoder said:


> One says I'm trendy and with the "in" crowd, and the other says my parents have money, please kidnap me!


Funny... I've never thought that Rolex was that popular with the "in" crowd.

Oh... you meant....

Nevermind.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

dbostedo said:


> Funny... I've never thought that Rolex was that popular with the "in" crowd.
> 
> Oh... you meant....
> 
> Nevermind.


9/10 fashion designers and stylists wear a Rolex.


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

Shan_Farandy said:


> ... the peasants who purchase the quartz...
> 
> ...904L does have a better physical properties. But, related to what is useful for human day-to-day wear, doesn't really do much difference...


By that logic all of your omega's innovation are also marketing gimmicks. So sad you wasted thousands on omega's gimmicks that does not benefit your everyday life, should of just bought a g-shock.

Hater or a peasant, which one are you?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Badbebe said:


> By that logic all of your omega's innovation are also marketing gimmicks. So sad you wasted thousands on omega's gimmicks that does not benefit your everyday life, should of just bought a g-shock.
> 
> Hater or a peasant, which one are you?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Rolex disliker.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

PPeople who are watch "lovers" and yet hate or strongly dislike rolex are a strange breed... rolex are a great watch manufacturer in every way...even back in the day when they were rocking outside movememts (nothing unusual btw).
Rolex are the pinnacle of widely known middle luxury brands and the thing about middle luxury brands is that they are all shouting "look at me!""know me""WANT ME!" AND NONE DO IT BETTER THAN ROLEX! 
as we are comparing rolex to Omega and looking at all aspects of the watches omega fails miserably here ....regardless of what is true ...let me repeat that regardless of what is TRUE 99 percent of the public who don't own either or care to, KNOW rolex is the better watch...


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Watchdudeman said:


> PPeople who are watch "lovers" and yet hate or strongly dislike rolex are a strange breed... rolex are a great watch manufacturer in every way...even back in the day when they were rocking outside movememts (nothing unusual btw).
> Rolex are the pinnacle of widely known middle luxury brands and the thing about middle luxury brands is that they are all shouting "look at me!""know me""WANT ME!" AND NONE DO IT BETTER THAN ROLEX!
> as we are comparing rolex to Omega and looking at all aspects of the watches omega fails miserably here ....regardless of what is true ...let me repeat that regardless of what is TRUE 99 percent of the public who don't own either or care to, KNOW rolex is the better watch...


Agree. That's why I hate them. I'm in a place where people always see what you wear on your wrist. I love my Omegas. IMO they are a better watch. Better value. Better movement (that's why I love mechanical watch at the first place). No guilty feeling when you beat the yellow crab out of them. Though as he'll (my 20 yo Omega still purring just fine, last time I service it is 10 years ago).

Don't get me wrong. I'll get my Rolex someday just to prove to the people around me that I can. Not because I like. Probably you all think why do I have to do that. Well, to make money, you have to stay where the money is. The pecking order to get around is: get a decent rolex, then Daytona, then any Gold rolex, then Patek and finally RM.

Once you're in a circle, they'll start calling you bro, then the dealing going on.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

dbostedo said:


> Post 1000!!!!! What do I win?


A life without self-respect?


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Rolex disliker.


So you are going with 'peasant' then?


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

dbostedo said:


> In that case, I'll choose this :
> 
> View attachment 8564834


Seriously? You picked the Steinhart???


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

vkalia said:


> A life without self-respect?


Oooooooooohhhhhhhhh..... touché!

Maybe I could get some self-respect if I bought a Rolex....


----------



## Pakal (Jun 6, 2016)

dbostedo said:


> Oooooooooohhhhhhhhh..... touché!
> 
> Maybe I could get some self-respect if I bought a Rolex....


LoL


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Agree. That's why I hate them. I'm in a place where people always see what you wear on your wrist. I love my Omegas. IMO they are a better watch. Better value. Better movement (that's why I love mechanical watch at the first place). No guilty feeling when you beat the yellow crab out of them. Though as he'll (my 20 yo Omega still purring just fine, last time I service it is 10 years ago).
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I'll get my Rolex someday just to prove to the people around me that I can. Not because I like. Probably you all think why do I have to do that. Well, to make money, you have to stay where the money is. The pecking order to get around is: get a decent rolex, then Daytona, then any Gold rolex, then Patek and finally RM.
> 
> ...


Lol so you aren't a rolex hater your just jealous of rolex and insecure about your omega AND in denial. ......I'm sooooooo sorry


----------



## Bobby75 (Jun 26, 2011)

Neither will ever be as good as invicta.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Watchdudeman said:


> Lol so you aren't a rolex hater your just jealous of rolex and insecure about your omega AND in denial. ......I'm sooooooo sorry


Well, I just don't really like to be driven by someone else LOL.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Well, I just don't really like to be driven by someone else LOL.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


But you are .....by buying an omega you are casting a protest vote


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Watchdudeman said:


> But you are .....by buying an omega you are casting a protest vote


Because I like Omega. The dislike because people ask "such a pity, why don't you get a rolex?". And I, (-_-!).
But, getting back at them, "nice rolex, is it real?". LOL.

Kinda imagining when someday I'll cave in and get my self a rolex. They'll be like "finally, you're getting yourself a rolex, is it real?". And I, (-_-!!). Then I'll be, .........., speechless.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

You are really overthinking this whole watch thing, most people will not notice or care.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Don't get me wrong. I'll get my Rolex someday just to prove to the people around me that I can. Not because I like. Probably you all think why do I have to do that. Well, to make money, you have to stay where the money is. The pecking order to get around is: get a decent rolex, then Daytona, then any Gold rolex, then Patek and finally RM.
> 
> Once you're in a circle, they'll start calling you bro, then the dealing going on.


Veda, is that you?

Again?


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

I just picked up a SubC No Date over the weekend. After 36 hours, the accuracy is spot on, +/- 0 seconds. It's supplanted my Omega SM300 (+2 seconds) as my most accurate in my collection. Yes, it's pure luck of the draw but just saying.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

mav said:


> I just picked up a SubC No Date over the weekend. After 36 hours, the accuracy is spot on, +/- 0 seconds. It's supplanted my Omega SM300 (+2 seconds) as my most accurate in my collection. Yes, it's pure luck of the draw but just saying.


Congrats on stepping up


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Agree. That's why I hate them. I'm in a place where people always see what you wear on your wrist. I love my Omegas. IMO they are a better watch. Better value. Better movement (that's why I love mechanical watch at the first place). No guilty feeling when you beat the yellow crab out of them. Though as he'll (my 20 yo Omega still purring just fine, last time I service it is 10 years ago).
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I'll get my Rolex someday just to prove to the people around me that I can. Not because I like. Probably you all think why do I have to do that. Well, to make money, you have to stay where the money is. The pecking order to get around is: get a decent rolex, then Daytona, then any Gold rolex, then Patek and finally RM.
> 
> ...


I think you need new friends


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

oak1971 said:


> I think you need new friends


Their not friends. They are "mutual" friends. Somebody you know for an end of your means.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

dbostedo said:


> Oooooooooohhhhhhhhh..... touché! Maybe I could get some self-respect if I bought a Rolex....


I dunno about self-respect but a Sub adds 3 inches to you-know-what (Daytonas add 4, OPs add 2).

I am thinking of trading in my Explorer 2 for a Sub.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Vlance said:


> Congrats on stepping up


Are you channeling Tyrantblade?


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

dbostedo said:


> Are you channeling Tyrantblade?


If he REALLY wanted to step it up... He should have got the Avenger II Seawolf, by Breitling Inc.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Their not friends. They are "mutual" friends. Somebody you know for an end of your means.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Those are the types I avoid, watch your back.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

All things being equal, has anyone ever chose Omega over another brand because of the crazy packaging and boxes? 

After experiencing the hardcore packaging of Zenith I kind of want the full package experience that Omega offers but I don't really want any Omega watches at the moment. Lol

Oh well, Omega will be around for awhile, so one day it might happen.


----------



## rfortson (Feb 18, 2012)

Not sure if this thread is lagging or not, so I'll just say that I'm glad Omega is the first and only watch worn on the moon.









 That should be good for another 50+ pages, I guess.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

rfortson said:


> Not sure if this thread is lagging or not, so I'll just say that I'm glad Omega is the first and only watch worn on the moon.
> 
> That should be good for another 50+ pages, I guess.


Isn't Rolex Explorer the First and Only Watch worn on Everest

PS 105 pages... haven't checked in since 80s. Lets get it to 200.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

EnderW said:


> Isn't Rolex Explorer the First and Only Watch worn on Everest
> 
> PS 105 pages... haven't checked in since 80s. Lets get it to 200.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Shan_Farandy said:


> ...
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I'll get my Rolex someday *just to prove to the people around me that I can. Not because I like. *Probably you all think why do I have to do that. Well, to make money, you have to stay where the money is. The pecking order to get around is: get a decent rolex, then Daytona, then any Gold rolex, then Patek and finally RM.
> 
> Once you're in a circle, they'll start calling you bro, then the dealing going on.


For ANYONE who ever doubted the power off effective marketing.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

mav said:


> I just picked up a SubC No Date over the weekend. After 36 hours, the accuracy is spot on, +/- 0 seconds. It's supplanted my Omega SM300 (+2 seconds) as my most accurate in my collection. Yes, it's pure luck of the draw but just saying.


What does Goose wear?


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

rfortson said:


> Not sure if this thread is lagging or not, so I'll just say that I'm glad Omega is the first and only watch worn on the moon.
> 
> That should be good for another 50+ pages, I guess.


_So I say that it is most likely that most, if not all the Speedmasters worn on or near the moon were c.321's. It is__possible that a c.861 slipped aboard some of the later missions, but not terribly likely and definitely not certain. It is also known that Speedmasters were not the only watch worn on (Scott's Waltham) or near (Swigert's Rolex) near the moon. So even Omega's assertion that the Steel Back moonwatches assertion of being "the First (true) and only (false) watch worn on the moon" is incorrect even if you consider the c.861 (and 861 family) as legitimate "moonwatches".

_What watches were worn on or near the moon?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Ticonderoga said:


> _So I say that it is most likely that most, if not all the Speedmasters worn on or near the moon were c.321's. It is__possible that a c.861 slipped aboard some of the later missions, but not terribly likely and definitely not certain. It is also known that Speedmasters were not the only watch worn on (Scott's Waltham) or near (Swigert's Rolex) near the moon. So even Omega's assertion that the Steel Back moonwatches assertion of being "the First (true) and only (false) watch worn on the moon" is incorrect even if you consider the c.861 (and 861 family) as legitimate "moonwatches".
> 
> _What watches were worn on or near the moon?


I assume rfortson already knew that the Omega Speedmaster was not the only watch ever worn on the moon when he posted that, and it was merely an attempt to rile things up.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

mleok said:


> I assume rfortson already knew that the Omega Speedmaster was not the only watch ever worn on the moon when he posted that, and it was merely an attempt to rile things up.


noooooooo waaaaayyyyyyyy


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

vkalia said:


> I dunno about self-respect but a Sub adds 3 inches to you-know-what (Daytonas add 4, OPs add 2).
> 
> I am thinking of trading in my Explorer 2 for a Sub.


My gf asked me to trade in my Daytona for an OP...


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Their not friends. They are "mutual" friends. Somebody you know for an end of your means.


You _sure_ you're not Veda??


----------



## rfortson (Feb 18, 2012)

mleok said:


> I assume rfortson already knew that the Omega Speedmaster was not the only watch ever worn on the moon when he posted that, and it was merely an attempt to rile things up.


You wound me with statements like this.

No matter how true they are. 

But I'm totally, no kidding, honest when I say how glad I am that Rolex invented the entire dive watch industry.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

BigSeikoFan said:


> My gf asked me to trade in my Daytona for an OP...


Getting a head start of being married, eh?


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

Ticonderoga said:


> What does Goose wear?


Doesn't matter, Goose is dead.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

BigSeikoFan said:


> You _sure_ you're not Veda??


Who is Veda?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Who is Veda?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


The Ghost of Watch Straps Past.


----------



## HoroloRobert (May 15, 2016)

EnderW said:


> Isn't Rolex Explorer the First and Only Watch worn on Everest
> 
> PS 105 pages... haven't checked in since 80s. Lets get it to 200.


And the only one(?) to go the bottom of the Marianas at almost 11000meters below the surface of the ocean!. Please note the massive crystal. Is the real deal.









Sent via Tapatalk


----------



## HoroloRobert (May 15, 2016)

After all has been said I think an alternative way of capturing the spirit of the original question would have been: "will Omega ever reach the CULT status level that Rolex currently enjoys?". At least in China, Omega is the most desirable watch brand of both...


Sent via Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

HoroloRobert said:


> And the only one(?) to go the bottom of the Marianas ...


https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/here-are-the-two-deepest-diving-watches-ever-next-to-each-other


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Who is Veda?


Good answer...you don't want to get banned again. And don't forget, no wrist shots with incriminating scars.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

cedargrove said:


> Good answer...you don't want to get banned again. And don't forget, no wrist shots with incriminating scars.


Totally don't understand what you mean mate. My name is Shan. Don't really know who os Veda and how a scar can be incriminating by the way?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

HoroloRobert said:


> And the only one(?) to go the bottom of the Marianas at almost 11000meters below the surface of the ocean!. Please note the massive crystal. Is the real deal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


if I were 11,000 meters under the sea the watch would be the least of my worries.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Richerson said:


> if I were 11,000 meters under the sea the watch would be the least of my worries.


If you were 11,000 meters under the sea, you'd probably just wear a normal watch because you'd be in a deep submersible (or dead).

The two Rolex's that have been to the bottom of the Mariana Trench were both strapped to the outside of a submersible.... which is kind of.... pointless? silly? stunt-erific? an achievement of some type? I'm not sure.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

cedargrove said:


> Good answer...you don't want to get banned again. And don't forget, no wrist shots with incriminating scars.


Or incriminating carpet for that matter but he scrubbed those when I mentioned and I forgot to save them as evidence...


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

What's Veda? Is that some type of cheese?


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Before anyone replies, I know who he is. Lol


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Sounds like he called the suicide hotline and was put on hold.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

BigSeikoFan said:


> My gf asked me to trade in my Daytona for an OP...





vkalia said:


> Getting a head start of being married, eh?


Nah, if I _really_ wanted a head start, I'd get a Breitling Avenger II Seawolf instead.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

ilitig8 said:


> Or incriminating carpet for that matter but he scrubbed those when I mentioned and I forgot to save them as evidence...


I'm totally lost mate. What and who is Veda? Further, why do I get to be associated with him?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Nah, if I _really_ wanted a head start, I'd get a Breitling Avenger II Seawolf instead.












And on another point - this thread, it's like Highlander. Never will die. ever!


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Shan_Farandy said:


> I'm totally lost mate. What and who is Veda? Further, why do I get to be associated with him?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Veda, good answers. So long as you keep this up mate, maybe the mods will overlook past transgressions and let you stay this time.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Ticonderoga said:


> Veda, good answers. So long as you keep this up mate, maybe the mods will overlook past transgressions and let you stay this time.


Whatever....👍. The mods can check my profile anytime 😆. As long we can all agree that Omega quality is better than rolex. LOL.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Whatever..... The mods can check my profile anytime . As long we can all agree that Omega quality is better than rolex. LOL.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


I don't recall Veda ever liking Omega or Rolex that much.

If one went into mid-tier luxury price range, he was a big Grand Seiko fan... in particular, the spring drive Snowflake.

Anyhow, bringing up Veda every so often is getting a bit tiresome. He got banned. Let it all go, Veda fanboys. Your boyfriend ain't coming back - thank goodness.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Watch Fan in Beijing said:


> Your boyfriend ain't coming back.


But he did come back! With a different name. Before getting banned again. Which is making folks suspicious.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Watch Fan in Beijing said:


> I don't recall Veda ever liking Omega or Rolex that much.
> 
> If one went into mid-tier luxury price range, he was a big Grand Seiko fan... in particular, the spring drive Snowflake.
> 
> Anyhow, bringing up Veda every so often is getting a bit tiresome. He got banned. Let it all go, Veda fanboys. Your boyfriend ain't coming back - thank goodness.


Sounds like a bitter moment in your life, heartbreak you want to share?


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

dbostedo said:


> If you were 11,000 meters under the sea, you'd probably just wear a normal watch because you'd be in a deep submersible (or dead).
> 
> The two Rolex's that have been to the bottom of the Mariana Trench were both strapped to the outside of a submersible.... which is kind of.... pointless? silly? stunt-erific? an achievement of some type? I'm not sure.


being in a submersible or dead still means my watch would be the least of my worries.

I can can see the scene now as you hear the creaking sounds of the submersible haul at 11,000 feet.

Thats is a nice Rolex you have there, yes it's a Rolex Cellini, I don't want it getting wet.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

So why did Veda get banned?


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Tomatoes11 said:


> So why did Veda get banned?


He thought spring drives were mechanical watches.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

ilitig8 said:


> He thought spring drives were mechanical watches.


They are.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Tomatoes11 said:


> They are.


Only if you failed physics.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

mleok said:


> Only if you failed physics.


Nope. A car with a gps, a heater, or a radio is still a car. Even if you have one sitting in your garage that you use mainly as a heater. One teeny tiny Quartz part doesn't change a mechanical into a Quartz. If anything mr math professor, the math and physics is on the side of the spring drive being mechanical.

At least 90% of the spring drive exactly mirrors how a mechanical works. Probably more like 98%.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> So why did Veda get banned?


I actually don't remember for sure... I think it was trolling via having multiple accounts under different names?


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Nope. A car with a gps, a heater, or a radio is still a car. Even if you have one sitting in your garage that you use mainly as a heater. One teeny tiny Quartz part doesn't change a mechanical into a Quartz. If anything mr math professor, the math and physics is on the side of the spring drive being mechanical.
> 
> At least 90% of the spring drive exactly mirrors how a mechanical works. Probably more like 98%.


Ooh... let's start this again...

But quartz watches have a lot of gears too. And they aren't referred to as "mechanical" when classifying. So how much non-mechanical stuff is enough? Some would say anything related to regulating the time. In which case spring drive wouldn't be mechanical. Others would say that it's still a mechanical power source, and the regulation is still done via mechanical braking of sorts, so it's still mechanical.

What side you come down on may vary.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Before this turns into another spring drive is Quartz nonsense thread again, lets just end this once and for all.

We are all familar with IQ tests right?

Let's add this question into one of the standard Global tests.

We get a watchmaker to take apart a spring drive movement, take apart a mechanical movement, and we get them to take apart a Quartz movement.

Then we get an artist to sketch each part of each movement and label the A diagram as mechanical, B diagram as spring drive, and C diagram as Quartz.

Then the question would be worded like this. Choose the best answer.

Which two diagrams belong in the same group?

A. Both A and B

B. both B and C

C. both A and C

D. Both A, B, and C.

We all know full well that all the smart logical people would pick A and get a mark. And anyone that picked the rest wouldn't get a mark.

So there you go. Case closed.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Before this turns into another spring drive is Quartz nonsense thread again, lets just end this once and for all.
> 
> We are all familar with IQ tests right?
> 
> ...


The question of what Spring Drive is quartz or mechanical isn't about intelligence. It is about philosophy, specifically what leads people to collecting watches.

For many people, watch collecting is a retreat from the demands of modern technology, hearkening to an imagined and nostalgic time in which the demands of electronics weren't so prominent in life. This idealized vision ignores the reality that even then, life was hectic with the technologies of that time (including the wristwatch). It is also selectively Luddite: Mechanical collectors disdain quartz, but want hairsprings and other parts made of silicon, which cannot be fashioned by hand or by old-school machinery. Anything with quartz, therefore, is an anathema.

Because Spring Drive has a quartz oscillator to regulate timekeeping and uses electricity to operate (even though the electricity is kinetically provided, as with mechanicals, by rotors and springs), there are those who argue that it is quartz. Others argue it is mechanical because the oscillator and magnets cannot function without the rotors and other old-school parts. Some of us just view it as a hybrid on its own terms.

As a result, there will never be a consensus on Spring Drive is. Drawing and picking from diagrams won't change the philosophical divide at the heart of the question.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Case closed.


But a spring drive is still not a mechanical movement. It shares significant characteristics with both mechanical and quartz. The only industry definition I have ever seen revolves around the escapement. If you focus on timekeeping it is a quartz movement, if you focus on the whole it is a hybrid movement, the one thing it is not is a fully mechanical movement.

Speaking of testing I have always seen this like a child presented with a box with different shaped holes in it and different shaped pegs in to place in the holes. If the holes are a square and a circle but the peg is a similarly sized dodecagon the smart child will immediately see it fits neither hole. The "argument" then becomes is it more like the square or the circle, some will argue the square because they both have flat side, some will argue the circle since it appears more round than square. Some will say it is neither but simply shares some characteristics of both. Those that see this will then decide which characteristic is most important geometry or visual. In the end which ever they decide the dodecagon will still not fit in the hole and is neither a square or a circle.

From an accuracy POV it is at best an average "quartz" movement but it a extremely good "mechanical" movement. To me it is a hybrid movement but forced to beat it into a round or square hole it has to be a quartz movement because the timekeeping function is quartz controlled which in my eyes is the very definition of a quartz movement.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Nope. A car with a gps, a heater, or a radio is still a car. Even if you have one sitting in your garage that you use mainly as a heater. One teeny tiny Quartz part doesn't change a mechanical into a Quartz. If anything mr math professor, the math and physics is on the side of the spring drive being mechanical.
> 
> At least 90% of the spring drive exactly mirrors how a mechanical works. Probably more like 98%.


A mechanical watch can be understood using just classical mechanics, whereas a Spring Drive requires a knowledge of electromagnetism as well, at the very least.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Nope. A car with a gps, a heater, or a radio is still a car. Even if you have one sitting in your garage that you use mainly as a heater. One teeny tiny Quartz part doesn't change a mechanical into a Quartz. If anything mr math professor, the math and physics is on the side of the spring drive being mechanical.
> 
> At least 90% of the spring drive exactly mirrors how a mechanical works. Probably more like 98%.


Well all quartz watches have mechanical components, so I guess they are all mechanical watches.

But to distinguish between those mechanical watches that are regulated by quartz versus purely mechanical means, let's refer to the former as quartz and the latter as mechanical.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Before this turns into another spring drive is Quartz nonsense thread again, lets just end this once and for all.
> 
> We are all familar with IQ tests right?
> 
> ...


Why is a quartz movement called as such? All the smart logical people would know it's because the movement is regulated by quartz. Case closed.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

ilitig8 said:


> He thought spring drives were mechanical watches.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

This is what is responsible for the timekeeping in a SpringDrive movement.











Seiko said:


> its accuracy is controlled by the precise signal of a quartz oscillator


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

cedargrove said:


> Why is a quartz movement called as such? All the smart logical people would know it's because the movement is regulated by quartz. Case closed.


Lol please, that is the weakest case closed argument I ever heard. Classifications are all arbitrary but the materials used to build a product are not.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

It is a quartz regulated mechanical. Next.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

This is such a great thread, I'm learning new things every day :-!

For example, today, I learned that the GS isn't really a mechanical watch ;-)

Looking at this from an outsider's perspective (not knowing much about spring drive watches), I can say this: it isn't truly a mechanical if it uses electricity to regulate the movement to better accuracy than a "true" mechanical.

It would be like trying to say that your slide rule is a mechanical slide rule because the microchip that processes the math doesn't use a battery but instead a solar panel or inertia motor. Imagine a calculator, that after you put in your equation, instead of rendering a number on an screen, it mechanically slide a slide rule to give you the answer. Would we call this a mechanical or electronic slide rule?

Looking at this from the outside, it seems pretty obvious that the spring drive is a hybrid.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

drunken monkey said:


> This is what is responsible for the timekeeping in a SpringDrive movement.


Is that one part to rule them all like one ring to rule them all? Jeez I could have sworn that a spring drive was made up of more parts than that...


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Is that one part to rule them all like one ring to rule them all? Jeez I could have sworn that a spring drive was made up of more parts than that...


Well, considering that's the part that is doing the regulating (i.e timekeeping) yes, it literally is rhe one part that rules the rest of the movement.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Okay here is a fun hypothetical.

Let's just say the inventor of the Quartz movement wasn't an entrapraneuer and didn't want to bother selling it and just called it a mechanical or mechanical plus movement. Would cedar grow and drunken monkey and illig grab the pitch forks and lynch him for arbitrarily calling it a mechanical or would they finally just accept that the spring drive is 95% mechanical?

Or let's say Seiko didn't bother renaming the spring drive in order to market its superior accuracy and just called it the 10S mechanical movement. Would the pitch forks be out and would we see on the news that the Seiko headquarters has been burned down? 

Discuss!


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

drunken monkey said:


> Well, considering that's the part that is doing the regulating (i.e timekeeping) yes, it literally is rhe one part that rules the rest of the movement.


It's more jewelry or art/soul though and time keeping is secondary now though. We even had a thread where most people look at their watch a lot but don't even bother looking at the time.

So I disagree, it's just one teeny tiny part where the rest are cough...mechanical...


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

My point has always and only been this.

Call it what you like but the timekeeping part of the SpringDrive is quartz. When you talk about the accuracy of Springdrive, you are talking about quartz timekeeping.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

It's truly as simple a question as to what makes a quartz watch a quartz watch. Let me give you a hint, it's right in the name.

What distinguished a quartz watch from mechanical watches of the time was its superior accuracy, which is directly attributable to the much higher frequency and far greater predicability of the piezoelectric quartz oscillator as opposed to the mechanical oscillator. The entire issue of the mechanical mainspring vs. the battery as a power source is a red herring.

As I mentioned previously, an automatic mechanical watch connected to a battery-powered watch winder would have its mechanical power reserve replenished by a power source that stores its power chemically, does that make it a quartz watch? Of course not. So, just because a Spring Drive replenishes its electrical energy that is at the very heart of how it functions using a mechanical spring, does not make it a mechanical watch.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Okay here is a fun hypothetical.
> 
> Let's just say the inventor of the Quartz movement wasn't an entrapraneuer and didn't want to bother selling it and just called it a mechanical or mechanical plus movement. Would cedar grow and drunken monkey and illig grab the pitch forks and lynch him for arbitrarily calling it a mechanical or would they finally just accept that the spring drive is 95% mechanical?
> 
> ...


I certainly wouldn't lynch anyone, but I would wonder why the inventor would want to call it something that has a completely different meaning. But I'd realize it's because he is secretly ashamed of it, and is trying to convince himself (and others) that it's something else. Fortunately the inventor wasn't ashamed (with good reason) and called it what it is.

It's sort of like how some people are ashamed of copies so they call them homages, whereas those of us who truly have no problem with copies simply call them what they are.

I just wonder why so many GS fans are ashamed of quartz.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

dbostedo said:


> Ooh... let's start this again...


HOLY COW! When I wrote that above, I didn't really MEAN it!

My apologies to everyone else reading these arguments for the 847th time.

Actually, now that I think about it, those posting are probably the only ones reading this. :-d


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

dbostedo said:


> HOLY COW! When I wrote that above, I didn't really MEAN it!
> 
> My apologies to everyone else reading these arguments for the 847th time.
> 
> Actually, now that I think about it, those posting are probably the only ones reading this. :-d


Pretty much! As usual, the argument will lead to nothing. Because it is an argument on the Internet. About archaic devices many view as just something to wear.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

cedargrove said:


> I certainly wouldn't lynch anyone, but I would wonder why the inventor would want to call it something that has a completely different meaning. But I'd realize it's because he is secretly ashamed of it, and is trying to convince himself (and others) that it's something else. Fortunately the inventor wasn't ashamed (with good reason) and called it what it is.
> 
> It's sort of like how some people are ashamed of copies so they call them homages, whereas those of us who truly have no problem with copies simply call them what they are.
> 
> I just wonder why so many GS fans are ashamed of quartz.


Naw, I believe it is because fans of other brands do not want Seiko to have the most accurate mechanical title by being smart enough to swap one single part that makes up only 2% of a mechanical watch.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

mleok said:


> It's truly as simple a question as to what makes a quartz watch a quartz watch. Let me give you a hint, it's right in the name.
> 
> What distinguished a quartz watch from mechanical watches of the time was its superior accuracy, which is directly attributable to the much higher frequency and far greater predicability of the piezoelectric quartz oscillator as opposed to the mechanical oscillator. The entire issue of the mechanical mainspring vs. the battery as a power source is a red herring.
> 
> As I mentioned previously, an automatic mechanical watch connected to a battery-powered watch winder would have its mechanical power reserve replenished by a power source that stores its power chemically, does that make it a quartz watch? Of course not. So, just because a Spring Drive replenishes its electrical energy that is at the very heart of how it functions using a mechanical spring, does not make it a mechanical watch.


Naw, like I said. Classifications are simply arbitrary. I believe someone once called a genome he discovered the Sonic the hedgehog gene but that since has changed. What isn't arbitrary is that spring drives and mechanical watches share 95% of their components with each other. So therefore a spring drive is 95% mechanical and 5-10% Quartz if we want to be generous. More like 2% Quartz.

Sorry but classifications are subjective. The person or organization deciding a classification could be a group of Veda's for all we know.

What isn't arbitrary and can't be argued is that a spring drive is 95% mechanical. So yeah 95% pretty much means is mechanical, it's safe to say I would assume everyone agrees 95% is majority and greater than 5%? Simple math right? You would think a Math professor would go with the facts and the math, not his heart.Go figure.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Anyways, I am done with that discussion. You Spring drive is Quartz people win.

Any hockey fans here care to discuss the terrible trades made by the Edmonton Oilers and Montreal Canadians today? I thought the Vancovuer Canucks GM was bad. Lol :-d


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

It also can't be argued that the thing responsible for the accuracy isn't whatever percentage of mechanical parts there are.

You can have a stupid 30 wheel gear train rendering the quartz part 0.5% of the watch; it's accuracy will still be down to that 0.5%. Or are you really going to pretend that the quartz part isn't there to keep the timing in the movement?


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Naw, I believe it is because fans of other brands do not want Seiko to have the most accurate mechanical title by being smart enough to swap one single part that makes up only 2% of a mechanical watch.


If accuracy is the issue then the part that regulates the timing is the key component, in the SD's case it is quartz. If you want to argue a SD is only 2% quartz (which I think is a terribly difficult argument) you still have to keep in mind the quartz portion is the entire reason why it is more accurate than a GS mechanical watch. Without quartz the the 9R would have very poor accuracy.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Naw, I believe it is because fans of other brands do not want Seiko to have the most accurate mechanical title by being smart enough to swap one single part that makes up only 2% of a mechanical watch.


I don't think that you actually believe this yourself, but your trolling is occasionally entertaining.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

cedargrove said:


> I don't think that you actually believe this yourself, but your trolling is occasionally entertaining.


Trolling: The word used by folks when they simply disagree with someone else's opinion, but are too lazy to either engage argument or just accept disagreement.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Naw, like I said. Classifications are simply arbitrary. I believe someone once called a genome he discovered the Sonic the hedgehog gene but that since has changed. What isn't arbitrary is that spring drives and mechanical watches share 95% of their components with each other. So therefore a spring drive is 95% mechanical and 5-10% Quartz if we want to be generous. More like 2% Quartz.
> 
> Sorry but classifications are subjective. The person or organization deciding a classification could be a group of Veda's for all we know.
> 
> What isn't arbitrary and can't be argued is that a spring drive is 95% mechanical. So yeah 95% pretty much means is mechanical, it's safe to say I would assume everyone agrees 95% is majority and greater than 5%? Simple math right? You would think a Math professor would go with the facts and the math, not his heart.Go figure.


I understand what is responsible for the accuracy and proper functioning of the Spring Drive, and even if it is one part, that one part is the defining characteristic of the movement. Not every part is equally important, and finding the appropriate metric is often critical in classification problems.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

mleok said:


> I understand what is responsible for the accuracy and proper functioning of the Spring Drive, and even if it is one part, that one part is the defining characteristic of the movement. Not every part is equally important, and finding the appropriate metric is often critical in classification problems.


Oh, that part deemed so important would be pretty useless without the 100 or more other parts. That's especially true of mechanical watches. One thing off and it just doesn't work. While a Quartz movement might get away with a chrono hand not being aligned properly the automatic and spring drive would be dead as a door nail with any piece being off. Hey look, another thing that spring drives and mechanicals have in common! Along with the 98% of the other commonalities!

Okay, I said I was done with this. Last one I promise. Lol


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Oh, that part deemed so important would be pretty useless without the 100 or more other parts. That's especially true of mechanical watches. One thing off and it just doesn't work. While a Quartz movement might get away with a chrono hand not being aligned properly the automatic and spring drive would be dead as a door nail with any piece being off. Hey look, another thing that spring drives and mechanicals have in common! Along with the 98% of the other commonalities!
> 
> Okay, I said I was done with this. Last one I promise. Lol


Just demagnetize the rare earth magnet in the Spring Drive and see the movement disintegrate before your eyes due to the loss of eddy current damping which prevents the mainspring from releasing all its stored energy catastrophically.


----------



## engr.pol (Jul 12, 2014)

Hypothetical scenario: Let's say there's a classical mechanical watch that has an added module that receives GPS signal and automatically resets the hands to 00:00 every midnight..take note that everything else is mechanical in terms of timekeeping (outside of the GPS "auto-correct" module) and even powering the watch (either hand wound or automatic)..

Would it still be considered non-mechanical?


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

engr.pol said:


> Hypothetical scenario: Let's say there's a classical mechanical watch that has an added module that receives GPS signal and automatically resets the hands to 00:00 every midnight..take note that everything else is mechanical in terms of timekeeping (outside of the GPS "auto-correct" module) and even powering the watch (either hand wound or automatic)..
> 
> Would it still be considered non-mechanical?


I'd think that it would just be a mechanical watch that's automatically set every day. Nothing about the how the watch actually regulates time is affected by the theoretical GPS module. There's a difference between something controlling the speed at which the watch runs, versus setting it to make sure it stays on the right actual time.

But I'm sure someone will be along momentarily to disagree.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

engr.pol said:


> Hypothetical scenario: Let's say there's a classical mechanical watch that has an added module that receives GPS signal and automatically resets the hands to 00:00 every midnight..take note that everything else is mechanical in terms of timekeeping (outside of the GPS "auto-correct" module) and even powering the watch (either hand wound or automatic)..
> 
> Would it still be considered non-mechanical?


No, it shouldn't be considered non-mechanical but you know the traditionalists will find some kind of issue with it being called a mechanical. Case in point, the spring drive. It would be still regulating time, even though only at midnight with one big regulation rather than regulating throughout the day.

So unless the chip is for strictly ornamental purposes and does absolutely nothing, I know for a fact, 100% without a doubt, the same people who have an issue with the spring drive would have issue with it. They might claim they don't, but if it's ever released they would or just say it lacks a soul or come up with a new sticking point or excuse.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

dbostedo said:


> I'd think that it would just be a mechanical watch that's automatically set every day. Nothing about the how the watch actually regulates time is affected by the theoretical GPS module. There's a difference between something controlling the speed at which the watch runs, versus setting it to make sure it stays on the right actual time.
> 
> But I'm sure someone will be along momentarily to disagree.


I would tend to agree with this. But, even if one views the Spring Drive's correction in rate from the Quartz oscillator as being morally equivalent to this hypothetical, it might be worthwhile to view the accuracy of the movement as being the intrinsic accuracy of the movement in the absence of the correction. You'll find that the Spring Drive will run extremely fast without the correction signal.


----------



## GlennO (Jan 3, 2010)

It would be a GPS assisted mechanical, assuming it retains a traditional harmonic oscillator for primary timekeeping.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

When it comes to IQ-test-type thinking (e.g. Which of these are the same? Which of these are different from the others? How are they classified?), Tomatoes11 might be on the right track.

Sundial is powered by the shadow of a pointer cast by the sun.
Mechanical watch is powered by the mechanical mainspring.
Manual winding watch is powered by manual winding.
Automatic watch is powered by automatic winding from the rotor.
Solar or Eco-Drive watch is powered by the sun or light.
Kinetic watch is powered by movement.
Spring Drive watch is powered by the mechanical mainspring.

These are the exceptions:

Quartz watch is named after the material of the oscillator.
Tuning fork watch is named after the mechanism of the oscillator.
GPS watch is named after the cesium atoms (EDIT: correction, not cesium atoms, it's radio waves) oscillator being inside the satellites as the sources of updates of accurate time.

If watches are classified by the material of the oscillator:

Sundial becomes Earth dial (Earth spinning around is the oscillator, the whole Earth is the material).
Mechanical watch becomes metal or silicon watch (the material of the balance wheel and/or hairspring in the oscillator).
Manual winding watch becomes metal or silicon watch.
Automatic watch becomes metal or silicon watch.
Solar or Eco-Drive watch becomes quartz watch.
Kinetic watch becomes quartz watch.
Spring Drive watch becomes quartz watch.
GPS watch becomes quartz and cesium (EDIT: correction, not cesium, it's radio waves) watch.

Technically, quartz watch becomes SiO4 silicon-oxygen tetrahedra watch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz), which becomes silicon watch.
With silicon and/or silicon oxide composite used in some balance wheel or hairspring for some watches (Baselworld 2014: The new Rolex Syloxi silicon hairspring), those watches are also silicon watches.

All watches become metal or silicon watches. Good luck telling the different types of watches apart!

200 pages, here we come!

Fun info:

"A mechanical watch is a watch that uses a mechanical mechanism to measure the passage of time, as opposed to modern quartz watches which function electronically. It is driven by a spring (called a mainspring) which must be wound periodically. Its force is transmitted through a series of gears to power the balance wheel, a weighted wheel which oscillates back and forth at a constant rate. A device called an escapement releases the watch's wheels to move forward a small amount with each swing of the balance wheel, moving the watch's hands forward at a constant rate. This makes the 'ticking' sound characteristic of all mechanical watches. Mechanical watches evolved in Europe in the 17th century from spring powered clocks, which appeared in the 15th century.

Mechanical watches are typically not as accurate as modern electronic quartz watches, and they require periodic cleaning by a skilled watchmaker. Since the 1970s, quartz watches have taken over most of the watch market, and mechanical watches are now mostly a high-end product, purchased for aesthetic reasons, appreciation of their fine craftsmanship, or as a status symbol."(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_watch)

"Since 1967, the official definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation that gets an atom of the element called cesium to vibrate between two energy states.

Inside a cesium atomic clock, cesium atoms are funneled down a tube where they pass through radio waves . If this frequency is just right 9,192,631,770 cycles per second then the cesium atoms "resonate" and change their energy state.

A detector at the end of the tube keeps track of the number of cesium atoms reaching it that have changed their energy states. The more finely tuned the radio wave frequency is to 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, the more cesium atoms reach the detector.

The detector feeds information back into the radio wave generator. It synchronizes the frequency of the radio waves with the peak number of cesium atoms striking it. Other electronics in the atomic clock count this frequency. As with a single swing of the pendulum, a second is ticked off when the frequency count is met."(How Does an Atomic Clock Work?)


----------



## GlennO (Jan 3, 2010)

rdoder said:


> When it comes to IQ-test-type thinking (e.g. Which of these are the same? Which of these are different from the others? How are they classified?), Tomatoes11 might be on the right track.
> 
> Sundial is powered by the shadow of a pointer cast by the sun.
> Mechanical watch is powered by the mechanical mainspring.
> ...


But those are not the full names as commonly described such as:

Hand winding mechanical
Automatic mechanical
Electric tuning fork
Electro-mechanical
Solar/eco-drive quartz
Kinetic/auto quartz
Spring Drive quartz ;-)

Where the timekeeping method is the main category. The power source is a sub-category.


----------



## dantan (Dec 16, 2014)

I would love to know if someone has just seen this thread, and proceeded to read all 1,100+ posts (and counting)!


----------



## Apollo83 (Mar 22, 2012)

That's all very well, but let's get back on topic... Will Seiko ever be as good as Omega and Rolex?

*Sent from my SM-G800F using Forum Fiend v1.3.3.*


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

engr.pol said:


> Hypothetical scenario: Let's say there's a classical mechanical watch that has an added module that receives GPS signal and automatically resets the hands to 00:00 every midnight..take note that everything else is mechanical in terms of timekeeping (outside of the GPS "auto-correct" module) and even powering the watch (either hand wound or automatic)..
> 
> Would it still be considered non-mechanical?


I reset my watches whenever I see they are noticeably off.
That doesn't make me a cyborg.
It doesn't make my watches "organic".

Edit:
Because I am reminded of this by your Hypothetical.

EMC


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

engr.pol said:


> Hypothetical scenario: Let's say there's a classical mechanical watch that has an added module that receives GPS signal and automatically resets the hands to 00:00 every midnight..take note that everything else is mechanical in terms of timekeeping (outside of the GPS "auto-correct" module) and even powering the watch (either hand wound or automatic)..
> 
> Would it still be considered non-mechanical?


This is a fantastic idea! Spring drive astron! Cheers!

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk


----------



## engr.pol (Jul 12, 2014)

drunken monkey said:


> I reset my watches whenever I see they are noticeably off.
> That doesn't make me a cyborg.
> It doesn't make my watches "organic".
> 
> ...


If you can adjust/auto-correct your watch every second (considering in this hypothetical scenario that it's possible) is it still a mechanical watch?


----------



## engr.pol (Jul 12, 2014)

lethaltoes said:


> This is a fantastic idea! Spring drive astron! Cheers!
> 
> Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk


As long as "Seiko" is nowhere near the dial..I'm kidding..

Or am I?


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

engr.pol said:


> As long as "Seiko" is nowhere near the dial..I'm kidding..
> 
> Or am I?


https://techcrunch.com/2014/06/27/this-mechanical-watch-has-a-magic-button-that-sets-it-by-gps/

No seiko? Then you'll have to settle for one of these. Cheers!

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

engr.pol said:


> If you can adjust/auto-correct your watch every second (considering in this hypothetical scenario that it's possible) is it still a mechanical watch?


The problem with your original and amended hypothetical is that doesn't match the way the different movements actually work.

Your subsequent question quoted above isn't detailed enough to form a response.
I assume you are still putting a mechanical movement on one end and now place me as the resetting element. The missing part is what i am referencing in order to perform the reset.

The flaw in your new concept is that by bringing down the reset period to once per second, you can effectively remove the mechanical watch completely because you now have a thing (me) that is accurate to one second.
I am now the timekeeper (in lieu of knowing what my source is).

On the other hand the reality is, no matter what my source is, the reference on one side, is still separate from the mechanical movement on the other.

As I said, your Hypothetical does not match how the movements actually work.

One is regulated spring balance oscillator
One is regulated by a quartz oscillator


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

engr.pol said:


> Hypothetical scenario: Let's say there's a classical mechanical watch that has an added module that receives GPS signal and automatically resets the hands to 00:00 every midnight..take note that everything else is mechanical in terms of timekeeping (outside of the GPS "auto-correct" module) and even powering the watch (either hand wound or automatic)..
> 
> Would it still be considered non-mechanical?


Hybrid


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Naw, like I said. Classifications are simply arbitrary. I believe someone once called a genome he discovered the Sonic the hedgehog gene but that since has changed. What isn't arbitrary is that spring drives and mechanical watches share 95% of their components with each other. So therefore a spring drive is 95% mechanical and 5-10% Quartz if we want to be generous. More like 2% Quartz.
> 
> Sorry but classifications are subjective. The person or organization deciding a classification could be a group of Veda's for all we know.
> 
> What isn't arbitrary and can't be argued is that a spring drive is 95% mechanical. So yeah 95% pretty much means is mechanical, it's safe to say I would assume everyone agrees 95% is majority and greater than 5%? Simple math right? You would think a Math professor would go with the facts and the math, not his heart.Go figure.


What classifications are arbitrary?no they aren't....a mech watch is mech only...no electric no quartz it really is as simple as that


----------



## engr.pol (Jul 12, 2014)

lethaltoes said:


> https://techcrunch.com/2014/06/27/this-mechanical-watch-has-a-magic-button-that-sets-it-by-gps/
> 
> No seiko? Then you'll have to settle for one of these. Cheers!
> 
> Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk


Great, now I know where to spend that 41K I have under the mattress


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> *What* *isn't arbitrary* and *can't be argued* is that a spring drive is 95% mechanical.


For starters, 95% is a number you have pulled out of your rear end - it is the sodding *DEFINITION* of arbitrary.

Second, how are you coming up with this number? Based on what criteria? Number of parts? Price? Time to manufacture? Complexity? Or importance to the function? As Drunken Monkey has said, since this is the part that contributes to the time-keeping - ie, the very function of a time piece - you can make the argument that THIS is more important than a mechanical power reserve (that's just a spring - that's probably 5% of the watch's function).

Third, 95% != 100%. For you, it is pretty much the same - and that's cool. However, what are you unable to wrap your head around the idea that someone else may feel differently?

So - it CAN be argued, see (your failure to accept those arguments is a reflection on you, not the arguments).

So how about we expand our mind a little and accept that there can be watches that are neither purely quartz or purely mechanical, and stop trying to stuff those hybrids into the pre-existing slots (that comes across as arguing whether a tablet should be classified as a smart phone or a computer)?


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

engr.pol said:


> Hypothetical scenario: Let's say there's a classical mechanical watch that has an added module that receives GPS signal and automatically resets the hands to 00:00 every midnight..take note that everything else is mechanical in terms of timekeeping (outside of the GPS "auto-correct" module) and even powering the watch (either hand wound or automatic)..
> 
> Would it still be considered non-mechanical?


This watch is combining mechanical and non-mechanical components as part of its functionality. That makes it a *hybrid*.

Seriously, why are people continuing to create this false dichotomy - that a watch has to be classified as either PURELY mechanical or PURELY quartz? Is it really that much of a mental stretch to add a third category?


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

YYeesh this thread has went a bit looney tunes ...... I didn't know GS had a quartz regulator....I have went from maximum interest in handling one to absolute zero .....if I'm getting conned out of crazy money for a watch it had better be a mechanical


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

vkalia said:


> This watch is combining mechanical and non-mechanical components as part of its functionality. That makes it a *hybrid*.
> 
> Seriously, why are people continuing to create this false dichotomy - that a watch has to be classified as either PURELY mechanical or PURELY quartz? Is it really that much of a mental stretch to add a third category?


I agree totally that this is a hybrid...doesn't mean I'm going to think of it as a hybrid ....I think of it as a quartz first and foremost. I wouldnt buy a quartz watch I have a phone for great time keeping I love the romance of mechanicals which as I have found out Gs aren't


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Watchdudeman said:


> YYeesh this thread has went a bit looney tunes ...... I didn't know GS had a quartz regulator....I have went from maximum interest in handling one to absolute zero .....if I'm getting conned out of crazy money for a watch it had better be a mechanical


Why?

The genius of the SpringDrive is that is turns the traditional quartz concept on its head.

Previous uses of it had it is the thing that determined how and when the central seconds hand moved. This is completely opposite to how the traditional escapement works, which controls the rate at which the mainspring unwinds (moving the seconds hand).

The SpringDrive on the other hand, has a situation that mirrors that of the traditional escapement where the mainspring moves the seconds hand. The quartz part of the tri-synchro regulator is the reference which determines how strong a resistance needs to be applied to the glide wheel in order to achieve the correct rate of rotation.

In other words, the tri-synchro regulator uses the quartz to control the rate of unwinding kinda like how a traditional escapement does. Instead of a pallet fork ticking away doing the stopping in steps, the glide wheel that would otherwise spin freely is slowed down to the correct, controlled rate.

The equally genius part is how the thing uses the glide wheel's rotation to generate the current required to power the circuitry.

As a little piece of trickery, it is far beyond a traditional quartz movement.

The flaw (if you can call it that) in it, is that for all the trickery, it is only ever as accurate as the quartz allows it to be.


----------



## Tseg (Mar 29, 2014)

Watchdudeman said:


> YYeesh this thread has went a bit looney tunes ...... I didn't know GS had a quartz regulator....I have went from maximum interest in handling one to absolute zero .....if I'm getting conned out of crazy money for a watch it had better be a mechanical


Only some GS use this technology.


----------



## GlennO (Jan 3, 2010)

Watchdudeman said:


> What classifications are arbitrary?no they aren't....a mech watch is mech only...no electric no quartz it really is as simple as that


I don't see it so cut and dry. I view the SD as a mechanically driven quartz, and many years ago we had electro-mechanicals, for example, which were battery powered with a mechanical oscillator. No quartz at all in those. There's a whole lot of interesting ways to power and regulate the hands on a watch and the SD is one of the most interesting, albeit with dubious practical benefits to me.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Apollo83 said:


> That's all very well, but let's get back on topic... Will Seiko ever be as good as Omega and Rolex?
> 
> *Sent from my SM-G800F using Forum Fiend v1.3.3.*


Casio is better than all of them with the "world's first timepiece to incorporate a hybrid of GPS and atomic timekeeping technology the Gravitymaster GPW-1000 connects with both satellites and radiowaves to deliver accurate UTC time across all the world's timezones"(| Casio - G-Shock) for a relatively cheap price (https://www.amazon.com/G-SHOCK-GPW-1000-1AJF-COCKPIT-JAPANESE-RELEASED/dp/B00L8M9HMG)!

It's a silicon (quartz) and double radio waves (GPS and radio-controlled) watch! Take that, Seiko, Omega, and Rolex!


----------



## engr.pol (Jul 12, 2014)

vkalia said:


> This watch is combining mechanical and non-mechanical components as part of its functionality. That makes it a *hybrid*.
> 
> Seriously, why are people continuing to create this false dichotomy - that a watch has to be classified as either PURELY mechanical or PURELY quartz? Is it really that much of a mental stretch to add a third category?


To be fair, I did say "non-mechanical"..it doesn't mean that the only other option is "purely Quartz"..hybrid is an acceptable answer..

in any case, I asked the question because I'm curious what other people consider mechanical watches and what aren't..


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

I find it funny that Omega vs Rolex thread now has multi-page GS content 

Speaking of Invicta\Shinola\Stuhrling....


----------



## rfortson (Feb 18, 2012)

Watchdudeman said:


> YYeesh this thread has went a bit looney tunes ...... I didn't know GS had a quartz regulator....I have went from maximum interest in handling one to absolute zero .....if I'm getting conned out of crazy money for a watch it had better be a mechanical


Only the spring drives have the quartz regulator. The quartz and mechanical GS are exactly what they say.

Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Apollo83 said:


> That's all very well, but let's get back on topic... Will Seiko ever be as good as _*Omega and Rolex*_?
> 
> *Sent from my SM-G800F using Forum Fiend v1.3.3.*


Finally. Another dude admit Omega are the same quality with rolex.
And it is not me. LOL.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Had this idea of actress analogy.

Casio is like Meryl Streep. On average, maybe not the greatest to look at, most men might not think about sleeping with her, but damn can she act.

Seiko is like Jennifer Lawrence. On average, pretty good looking, pretty sure some men want to sleep with her, and damn she can act, IMO.

Omega and Rolex are like Megan Fox, Sofia Vergara, or Angelina Jolie. On average, so hot, so well known, most men would want to sleep with her if given the chance, so trophy wife material, but not so sure about the acting.

The question is, which is Omega and which is Rolex, out of Megan Fox, Sofia Vergara, and Angelina Jolie? All of them to me are a bit like Rolex, they do pretty much the same thing in every role. Rachel McAdams might be more like Omega, who plays different roles over time, comedy, thriller, action, serious role, etc., she shows more dynamic and innovative acting. But not as good as Jennifer Lawrence or Meryl Streep.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

rdoder said:


> Had this idea of actress analogy.
> 
> Casio is like Meryl Streep. On average, maybe not the greatest to look at, most men might not think about sleeping with her, but damn can she act.
> 
> ...


What a weird analogy. Let me see if I can work this out. Desirability of the woman, trophy wife whatever is similar to Rolex and Omega being status symbols? Then surely Rolex and to a lesser extent Omega are like actresses who play sexy, racy roles very well. Don't see why they'd be bad actresses since Rolex and Omega are perfectly good watches.

Casio would be an average looker who mostly plays boring roles but has had a couple of good parts in low budget films (Oceanus, maybe Edifice?). Seiko would be...a woman whose hotness depends on the role and has done some pretty routine stuff but also some more interesting films? (Credor, Grand Seiko, Ananta, Astron).

It still seems really weird and I don't think I even fully understand what I just typed, but anyway...


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

rfortson said:


> Only the spring drives have the quartz regulator. The quartz and mechanical GS are exactly what they say.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using Tapatalk


clever marketing: "spring drive" (suggests mechanical)

instead of, say, "electronically aided" LOL


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

paulopiper said:


> What a weird analogy. Let me see if I can work this out. Desirability of the woman, trophy wife whatever is similar to Rolex and Omega being status symbols? Then surely Rolex and to a lesser extent Omega are like actresses who play sexy, racy roles very well. Don't see why they'd be bad actresses since Rolex and Omega are perfectly good watches.
> 
> Casio would be an average looker who mostly plays boring roles but has had a couple of good parts in low budget films (Oceanus, maybe Edifice?). Seiko would be...a woman whose hotness depends on the role and has done some pretty routine stuff but also some more interesting films? (Credor, Grand Seiko, Ananta, Astron).
> 
> It still seems really weird and I don't think I even fully understand what I just typed, but anyway...


To each their own thinking.

Actress is to acting, as a watch is to time telling. A good actress is good at acting, a good watch is good at time telling. A good actress is judged on her function in acting, a good watch is judged on its function in time telling.

Along with time telling, a good watch should be robust/durable/can-take-a-beating/reliable/dependable/good power reserve (i.e. to continue time telling, its main function), and affordable to buy and maintain (i.e. able to serve most users, not so bad if damaged/lost/stolen and need replacing, good for its function).


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

rdoder said:


> To each their own thinking.
> 
> Actress is to acting, as a watch is to time telling. A good actress is good at acting, a good watch is good at time telling. A good actress is judged on her function in acting, a good watch is judged on its function in time telling.
> 
> Along with time telling, a good watch should be robust/durable/can-take-a-beating/reliable/dependable/good power reserve (i.e. to continue time telling, its main function), and affordable to buy and maintain (i.e. able to serve most users, not so bad if damaged/lost/stolen and need replacing, good for its function).


Ah ok I understand your line of thinking a bit better now, cheers. Sorry for using the word 'weird', I've been called weird a fair few times, including by a few girls who actually seemed to dig the weirdness...maybe...


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Did I say I think this thread is awesome?awesome all the way to 200


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

rdoder said:


> Had this idea of actress analogy.
> 
> Casio is like Meryl Streep. On average, maybe not the greatest to look at, most men might not think about sleeping with her, but damn can she act.
> 
> ...


I am sorry, can you rephrase this analogy with cars?


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

vkalia said:


> I am sorry, can you rephrase this analogy with cars?


Unfortunately, I'm not a car guy (was interested in cars as a kid, but currently not a gearhead). I lust way more after actresses than cars. Someone else could come up with a good car analogy, I'm sure.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

vkalia said:


> I am sorry, can you rephrase this analogy with cars?


LOL


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

I won't be buying any more Omega products due to the policy of forcing everyone to use Omega service. I like my local watch maker.


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

Back on topic...

The ultimate showdown - Rolex vs Omega.










Both are mortal enemies but are frenemies in my watch box.


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

mav said:


> Back on topic...
> 
> The ultimate showdown - Rolex vs Omega.
> 
> ...


that faux patina lume... 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

mav said:


> Back on topic...
> 
> The ultimate showdown - Rolex vs Omega.
> 
> ...


Hem.... I like the way you define them as frenemies in your watch box. Maybe I should adapt to your way of thinking. Omega and rolex together in the same box.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Badbebe said:


> that faux patina lume...


And those PCLs...


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

Badbebe said:


> that faux patina lume...





BarracksSi said:


> And those PCLs...


I hated the faux patina look in the photos that Omega shown when the watch was announced. But in person, it actually works well with the watch and fairly subtle.

There's no defending the PCL's, but I have to admit that they have grown on me over the past year and a half. I do have the Omega Bond NATO that I occasionally swap in when the PCL's get annoying.

This is the classic debate - The Omega SM300 is technically a better watch, based on a longer power reserve, 15K gauss fully anti-magnetic movement, etc. But the Submariner is a Submariner, arguably the most iconic watch in the world.


----------



## alessandro132 (Feb 16, 2016)

The Sub doesn't do it for me. The case looks massive compared to the relatively undersized oyster bracelet.


----------



## Tseg (Mar 29, 2014)

IBTL


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Tseg said:


> IBTL


Yep... you and 200 other posters.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Tseg said:


> IBTL


Tried that, doesn't work . . .


----------



## GlennO (Jan 3, 2010)

drhr said:


> Tried that, doesn't work . . .


----------



## Apollo83 (Mar 22, 2012)

Tseg said:


> IBTL


If the mods had any decency they would have locked this thread about 800 posts ago...

As they didn't we can only assume they are just laughing at us...

Sitting in their mountainside HQ near Geneva sipping Scotch and looking down on us lower mortals... laughing.


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

Ticonderoga said:


> Sounds like a bitter moment in your life, heartbreak you want to share?


Awwww. But it does seem you guys are obsessed with him.

Tell me, did he promise to be gentle with you, take you on long walks in the park, and a new Springdrive on the holidays? Is that why guys love bringing him up?


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

vkalia said:


> [...]Seriously, why are people continuing to create this false dichotomy - that a watch has to be classified as either PURELY mechanical or PURELY quartz? Is it really that much of a mental stretch to add a third category?


Well, if it makes the quartz deniers feel special, SD could be accurately classified as "High-Maintenance Quartz". 

Back on topic, Omega is the best...

...among also-rans.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Apollo83 said:


> ...Sitting in their mountainside HQ near Geneva sipping Scotch and looking down on us lower mortals... laughing.


Hmm... I always imagine them sitting in a dim dark basement, illuminated by the light of their monitor, covered in potato chip crumbs, greasy fingers eagerly flipping through threads searching for replicas and spammers and inappropriate posts, a strange sly grin on their faces that could be satisfaction or joy ...... or madness.


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

alessandro132 said:


> The case looks massive compared to the relatively undersized oyster bracelet.


I can't believe it ..you might be right ...in 5he photos at least . I'd still rather the submariner


----------



## Chris Stark (Sep 21, 2015)

After 1176 posts, is there a general consensus to the OP's question? For those of you who have read them all, and you know you're out there, please reply.


----------



## captainmorbid (Mar 3, 2016)

The op's question:

Answer: yes.

Explanation: Marketing and longevity.

WIS answer: spring drive?


Sent from my iPhone accidentally, due to the gate being left ajar


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

hydrocarbon said:


> Back on topic, Omega is the best...
> 
> ...among also-rans.


That's like saying Omega is the First Place&#8230;

&#8230;LOSER!


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Ginger or Mary Ann?


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> Hmm... I always imagine them sitting in a dim dark basement, illuminated by the light of their monitor, covered in potato chip crumbs, greasy fingers eagerly flipping through threads searching for replicas and spammers and inappropriate posts, a strange sly grin on their faces that could be satisfaction or joy ...... or madness.


'









On a related note I hear Cartman prefers Rolex but Kyle and Stan prefer Omega but Kenny likes Panerai.


----------



## piningforthefjords (May 15, 2016)

ilitig8 said:


> On a related note I hear Cartman prefers Rolex but Kyle and Stan prefer Omega but Kenny likes Panerai.


The only opinion that matters is TIMMMMAAAAYYYY's!


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Will Rolex ever be as good as it thinks it is?


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Looks like this thread is finally losing its steam...


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Ticonderoga said:


> Looks like this thread is finally losing its steam...


Nah, that happened 112 pages ago. Now it's puttering along on a long level run without any power at all... seems to be coasting OK though. Wonder how long it will go?


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

Will Omega be even as good as Seiko?


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

chuasam said:


> Will Omega be even as good as Seiko?


Hell... I'm no longer sure Omega is even as good as, say, Tag Heuer or Breitling.


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

dbostedo said:


> Hell... I'm no longer sure Omega is even as good as, say, Tag Heuer or Breitling.


Of course it is. Tag Heuer is hardly as good as regular Seiko.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

chuasam said:


> Of course it is. Tag Heuer is hardly as good as regular Seiko.


If you say so... but Seiko is just a cheap mall-type brand.

Tag Heuer is the higher end brand at my local Macy's, so I'd say they're definitely better. And Omega is no where to be found!


----------



## SomeAssemblyRequired (Jan 19, 2015)

dbostedo said:


> If you say so... but Seiko is just a cheap mall-type brand.
> 
> Tag Heuer is the higher end brand at my local Macy's, so I'd say they're definitely better. And Omega is no where to be found!


Impeccable logic. Now it's only a matter of moments before the Seikopaths descend on the thread. And inject some life into it...


----------



## Pakal (Jun 6, 2016)

SomeAssemblyRequired said:


> Impeccable logic. Now it's only a matter of moments before the Seikopaths descend on the thread. And inject some life into it...


I had 2 Seikos: traded them with a Rolex and an Omega....

Lol


----------



## Nemoskywalker (Sep 12, 2014)

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Nemoskywalker said:


> Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

Seiko, to a large extent, is an inexpensive mall brand. It's just when you delve deeper there's so much more...and even among non-WIS I think many are still aware it's quality. (Cue another 20 pages?  )


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

dbostedo said:


> If you say so... but Seiko is just a cheap mall-type brand.
> 
> Tag Heuer is the higher end brand at my local Macy's, so I'd say they're definitely better. And Omega is no where to be found!


This means Waaaaaar
(The way Benedict Cumberbatch says it)


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

My Seiko is great, it works perfect for that uneven leg on my coffee table, Rolex was too short and Omega was too tall.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

ilitig8 said:


> My Seiko is great, it works perfect for that uneven leg on my coffee table, Rolex was too short and Omega was too tall.


LOL


----------



## Call_me_Tom (Jul 20, 2007)

dbostedo said:


> If you say so... but Seiko is just a cheap mall-type brand.
> 
> Tag Heuer is the higher end brand at my local Macy's, so I'd say they're definitely better. And Omega is no where to be found!


You can buy a Rolex from Costco...


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Call_me_Tom said:


> You can buy a Rolex from Costco...


And you can buy Patek, Breguet, Porsche, Mercedes, Maserati etc at Costco.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

ilitig8 said:


> And you can buy Patek, Breguet, Porsche, Mercedes, Maserati etc at Costco.


Well those are all crap brands too... Farrari and ALS are where it's at. They wouldn't stoop to Costco. Isn't that obvious?


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

dbostedo said:


> Well those are all crap brands too... Farrari and ALS are where it's at. They wouldn't stoop to Costco. Isn't that obvious?


I like Costco. Pick up a PP with a side of Wagyu porterhouse steak.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

chuasam said:


> I like Costco...


Well of course YOU do...


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

chuasam said:


> Wagyu porterhouse steak.


But, Wagyu means little if anything (well other than Japanese cattle literally), look for Japanese import grade 12 Kobe or Wagyu (these is the ALS/Patek of beef) if "Japanese beef" is to your taste.


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

Make sure it's dry aged


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

ilitig8 said:


> ...Japanese import grade 12 Kobe or Wagyu (these is the ALS/Patek of beef)...


And nearly as expensive - a $1500 roast :

D'Artagnan Japanese Wagyu Boneless Ribeye Roast A-5 Grade

It may not even be grade 12... from what I read (though I know nothing really about this), "A5" could still score an 8 (out of 12) on marbling.


----------



## Bobby75 (Jun 26, 2011)

"Seiko is an inexpensive mall brand" Interesting theory especially as "Malls" Are quite a new thing in the UK and most of them are full of Rolex and Omega dealers so presumably Rolex and Omega are just moderately prices mall brands based upon the same logic.


----------



## Bobby75 (Jun 26, 2011)

On a far more important note though, the Dandy was never as good as the Beano. Desperate Dan could never compete with heavyweights like Dennis the Menace and the Bash Street Kids.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> And nearly as expensive - a $1500 roast :
> 
> D'Artagnan Japanese Wagyu Boneless Ribeye Roast A-5 Grade
> 
> It may not even be grade 12... from what I read (though I know nothing really about this), "A5" could still score an 8 (out of 12) on marbling.


Grade 12 is extremely rare and ludicrously expensive, comparatively most USDA Prime is about 5/6 out of 12.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Bobby75 said:


> "Seiko is an inexpensive mall brand" Interesting theory especially as "Malls" Are quite a new thing in the UK and most of them are full of Rolex and Omega dealers so presumably Rolex and Omega are just moderately prices mall brands based upon the same logic.


I think the pejorative use of "mall brand" has more to do with them being sold in the large departments stores in malls. Most mid to upscale malls in the US have watch and/or watch-jewelry specialty stores that sell mid-tier watches like Rolex and Omega. I would say most cities/towns with 50K+ population in the area will have a mall selling Rolex.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

The nearest "mall brand" to my apartment is the Smithsonian.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> The nearest "mall brand" to my apartment is the Smithsonian.


AND you can pick up a watch there :

Leather Strap Watch | Smithsonian Museum Store


----------



## Call_me_Tom (Jul 20, 2007)

I own both.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Call_me_Tom said:


> I own both.


Do you ever heard weird fighting or arguing noises late at night coming from your watch box? Has one ever tried to sabotage the other by, like, setting the other 10 minutes slow, or changing the date? Ever find a loose springbar and wonder how it got loose?


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> AND you can pick up a watch there :
> 
> Leather Strap Watch | Smithsonian Museum Store


So, a Cartier Tank homage?


----------



## starter (Aug 21, 2010)

dbostedo said:


> Do you ever heard weird fighting or arguing noises late at night coming from your watch box? Has one ever tried to sabotage the other by, like, setting the other 10 minutes slow, or changing the date? Ever find a loose springbar and wonder how it got loose?


Shut up, you old snobby youthful innovator.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> So, a Cartier Tank homage?


Yep... of the one Jackie Kennedy wore while mourning JFK, which seems a little weird and morbid to me.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

starter said:


> Shut up, you old snobby youthful innovator.


I thought I told you... YOU'RE NOT MY SUPERVISOR!!!!


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

having both is fun ......


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

Bobby75 said:


> On a far more important note though, the Dandy was never as good as the Beano. Desperate Dan could never compete with heavyweights like Dennis the Menace and the Bash Street Kids.


Well, agreed there anyway.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> Yep... of the one Jackie Kennedy wore while mourning JFK, which seems a little weird and morbid to me.


Yeah, it's a weird story to tell someone if they ask about it. Other historically relevant watches can be had brand new anyway.


----------



## raquinus (Jan 28, 2015)

To get this thread back on track & to bring some objectivity to the debate, I would like to suggest that Accuracy should be a key determinant.

I have been an Omega fan since the moon landing - got me a 1965 105 012 (previously posted) in 1970 & 7 other Omegas since. I am not turned on by Rolex but there is one I would buy if I had 25 Gs to spare - currently on Ebay - see picture below.

I currently owns 28 watches: wind up, automatic & hybrid (my view of quartz ones). My reason for getting the latter was accuracy, so it stood to reason that I would eventually acquire a radio controlled timepiece; just did (Citizen Skyhawk). I wear them all, 2 at a time

Back to the topic at hand, perhaps the determining criterion should be: how many World Accuracy title has each company earned? Assuming that Rolex comes on top, then, maybe, some of us Omega fans would grudgingly accept that it would appear that Rolex is potentially superior.;-)


----------



## kamilof (Jan 15, 2013)

imlying said:


> Will Omega ever be as good as Rolex.


Both OMEGA and ROLEX have their own long 20th century history, timeless classic watches, and plenty of other merits.

In my opinion, it is quite difficult to determine which brand is better, but I think is reasonable to be able to consider both brands.

Below is my ROLEX Explorer and my wife's OMEGA Constellation.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

raquinus said:


> To get this thread back on track & to bring some objectivity to the debate, I would like to suggest that Accuracy should be a key determinant.
> 
> ...


uh, then you should be talking about quartz watches...

Whether one automatic is a second better than the other one each week is really moot.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

kamilof said:


> Both OMEGA and ROLEX have their own long 20th century history, timeless classic watches, and plenty of other merits.
> 
> In my opinion, it is quite difficult to determine which brand is better, but I think is reasonable to be able to consider both brands.
> 
> ...


Is it just me or does the watch on the left look like a Grand Seiko?

I suppose if I was going to drop as much change on a watch, I'd buy something (that I think) that is better looking. But, in my mind, the Sub looks better.

And, before you flame away, my question really is, does the Sub look better to me because of effective marketing, 007 movies or does my brain just like that style better?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Ticonderoga said:


> And, before you flame away, my question really is, does the Sub look better to me because of effective marketing, 007 movies or does my brain just like that style better?


Does it matter why, so long as it does look better to you?


----------



## raquinus (Jan 28, 2015)

That is one point of view.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

mleok said:


> Does it matter why, so long as it does look better to you?


I guess it matters about as much as whether or not Omega is as good as Rolex.

There seems to be a consensus with most folks here that Rolex markets better than Omega but who's watch is better seems to be up for debate.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Ticonderoga said:


> I guess it matters about as much as whether or not Omega is as good as Rolex.
> 
> There seems to be a consensus with most folks here that Rolex markets better than Omega but who's watch is better seems to be up for debate.


I think it's a matter of whether you value the latest movement technology or case and bracelet quality.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Ticonderoga said:


> And, before you flame away, my question really is, does the Sub look better to me because of effective marketing, 007 movies or does my brain just like that style better?


Maybe all three -- marketing, 007 (which has a touch of marketing), and your brain likes it better.

The 007 connection was not planned as marketing initially, I know, but it's been exploited since the time of the original novels.

The visual appeal of the design of the Sub can be mostly chalked up to the design already being pretty good. But there's no reason an inexpensive watch couldn't have been designed the same, either.

I'll suggest that a big part of the appeal is due to marketing&#8230; but what does the marketing say?


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

I sense the end of thread ...it makes me sad


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Watchdudeman said:


> I sense the end of thread ...it makes me sad


Maybe we could talk about the end of the thread for 80 more pages.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Watchdudeman said:


> I sense the end of thread ...it makes me sad


LOL


----------



## Bigdaftboy (Jul 28, 2014)

surely not the end, it's only been 124 pages!b-)b-)


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

^
Unfortunately, it's so typical of Omega to grind to a premature halt these days.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Was looking at the new posts and I saw this thread; seems that the GS isn't even as accurate as the lowly Rolex.


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

Ticonderoga said:


> Was looking at the new posts and I saw this thread; seems that the GS isn't even as accurate as the lowly Rolex.


No surprise there.

But it seems that many people underestimate just how good a Rolex movement actually is, especially when they're relatively new to watches. The rest of the industry hasn't even caught up to the 31XX series of movements yet, let alone the new 32XX family.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Ticonderoga said:


> Was looking at the new posts and I saw this thread; seems that the GS isn't even as accurate as the lowly Rolex.


You're good at this!

That's another crazy thing with mechanical luxury watches: people might know going in that no matter how good a watch was adjusted/regulated initially, over time, the accuracy and precision inevitably get worse as the result of dropping the watch, knocking the watch, magnetism, wear and tear of the movement, etc. But people still go for these mechanical watches. And then people are unhappy with the declining accuracy and just can't leave it alone. People then send it for regulating. The watch comes back scratched up, have dust on the dial, with the wrong hands put in, all sorts of things could go wrong, and/or is no better than before in terms of accuracy. Then people need to send it in to fix whatever again. It's paying more and more to buy a lot of aggravation.

New theory: I wonder if watch companies deliberately hire incompetent service personnel to make more money from repeated servicing, and/or get the consumer so exasperated that they give up and buy yet another new luxury watch! But reality might be that exceptional service personnel are rare, and mediocrity is normal. But then one wonders why a new watch seems so much better than a serviced watch which could have things go wrong with it. Makes me question whether these mechanical luxury watches really have so much hand craftsmanship, or if they're mostly put together by machines. Or it seems most watch companies put most of their effort upfront to come out with high quality new watches, but not so much effort into servicing??

Grand Seiko or any other mechanical luxury watch are not as good as any solar watch in terms of lack of aggravation and ease of use. +20 pages!


----------



## Bigdaftboy (Jul 28, 2014)

Was talking to an employee from an ad, who had just came back from a factory visit and was shocked to see so many rival brands being made in this particular om's facility, are we just paying for the name. My job alows me to visit a lot of manufacturing sites and have seen low cost items eg whiskey on the same production lines as "the good stuff" being told only difference is sometimes just the colour. 
What i'm getting at, is are we all getting conned a little? Is there more than meets the eye? 
Apart from that does anybody else think Omega has moved away from being affordable to the working man?


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

Very good short video on the History of Rolex. Marketing genius.


----------



## Bigdaftboy (Jul 28, 2014)

There's 7m 28s of my life I will never get back lol


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Bigdaftboy said:


> ...
> My job alows me to visit a lot of manufacturing sites and have seen low cost items eg whiskey on the same production lines as "the good stuff" being told only difference is sometimes just the colour.


Whiskey = low cost item, whisky = the good stuff. :-d



> Apart from that does anybody else think Omega has moved away from being affordable to the working man?


No doubt whatsoever. Omega is clearly targeting a much more upscale demographic...


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

hydrocarbon said:


> But it seems that many people underestimate just how good a Rolex movement actually is, especially when they're relatively new to watches. The rest of the industry hasn't even caught up to the 31XX series of movements yet, let alone the new 32XX family.


Omega Co-Axial movement leaves Rolex movement lying in the dust and crying for mommy.


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

Bigdaftboy said:


> There's 7m 28s of my life I will never get back lol


Well, we all seem to have some free time if we are browsing watch forums, and I think the video does a decent job of introducing the brand...

Not sure why you are complaining, especially given it may have prevented you from posting more about Raymond Weil.


----------



## Bigdaftboy (Jul 28, 2014)

Why, don't you have a lunch break and wouldn't it be boring if we all liked the same things and what's wrong with Raymond Weil?!


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Ooh ooh... *will Raymond Weil ever be as good as Omega or Rolex?*


----------



## Bigdaftboy (Jul 28, 2014)

Sorry bigseikofan whiskey was purely a typo lol


----------



## Bigdaftboy (Jul 28, 2014)

No pleasing some people lol


----------



## Bigdaftboy (Jul 28, 2014)

dbostedo said:


> Ooh ooh... *will Raymond Weil ever be as good as Omega or Rolex?*


lol sorry didn't mean to make it a 3 way, but some one obviously has a problem with my other posts maybe he doesn't like Scotsmen pmsl


----------



## WatchingYou77 (Jan 31, 2016)

Bigdaftboy said:


> lol sorry didn't mean to make it a 3 way, but some one obviously has a problem with my other posts maybe he doesn't like Scotsmen pmsl


Nothing against Scotsmen... I am actually drinking a glass of Aberlour right now.


----------



## Bigdaftboy (Jul 28, 2014)

WatchingYou77 said:


> Nothing against Scotsmen... I am actually drinking a glass of Aberlour right now.


Ha ha alky its not even 3pm here lol

obviously a little bit of my dry humour was lost in translation, no offence was meant, life's too short to fall out over differences of opinion lol, try a laphroaig if you get a chance!


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

Alex_TA said:


> Omega Co-Axial movement[...] lying in the dust and crying for mommy.











_image source: 8500 movement service_

Fixed that for you. 

And it perfectly describes this photo of a cal. 8500 that needed an overhaul after a mere year and a half of wearing. Nice!


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Bigdaftboy said:


> Ha ha alky its not even 3pm here lol
> ...
> try a laphroaig if you get a chance!


Laphroaig, the Avenger II Seawolf of whiskies. For manly men...


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

hydrocarbon said:


> _image source: 8500 movement service_
> 
> Fixed that for you.
> 
> And it perfectly describes this photo of a cal. 8500 that needed an overhaul after a mere year and a half of wearing. Nice!


I would believe this BS if I didn't owned and still own a number of Omegas.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Alex_TA said:


> I would believe this BS if I didn't owned and still own a number of Omegas.


The issue with the co-axial escapement is that its performance is unaffected by lubrication failure, and it will happily continue to function while it grinds itself to dust.


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

mleok said:


> The issue with the co-axial escapement is that its performance is unaffected by lubrication failure, and it will happily continue to function while it grinds itself to dust.


Maybe. From my customer's point of view, if the process will take 10 years and meanwhile a watch functions flawlessly and keeps perfect time, I'm satisfied.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

mleok said:


> The issue with the co-axial escapement is that its performance is unaffected by lubrication failure, and it will happily continue to function while it grinds itself to dust.


I don't think that's accurate.
Namely, given that modern lubricants tend to evaporate rather than gum up, any movement that is well engineered will continue to run until something breaks.

There are a few stories from watchmakers who took a look inside old-ish bone dry movements that demonstrated good timekeeping but had severe wear.
i.e observation of its performance is no indicator of its condition.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

drunken monkey said:


> I don't think that's accurate.
> Namely, given that modern lubricants tend to evaporate rather than gum up, any movement that is well engineered will continue to run until something breaks.
> 
> There are a few stories from watchmakers who took a look inside old-ish bone dry movements that demonstrated good timekeeping but had severe wear.
> i.e observation of its performance is no indicator of its condition.


It's not to say that a Swiss lever escapement based movement won't continue to keep good time when the lubrication dries out, but it's likely that the performance characteristics will change, and that change is much less noticeable on a co-axial escapement, since the role of the lubrication in the co-axial escapement is less about reducing the resistance to sliding friction, but to cushion impact.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Being bone dry did not affect the observed performance of those bone dry watches.
The damage wasn't known until it was opened. You say it's "likely" but in the cases mentioned on WUS regarding servicing ae a preventative measure, it clearly isn't (always) the csse.

My point is, you're reaching a bit in trying to pin this as a disadvantage of the co-axial.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Alex_TA said:


> Maybe. From my customer's point of view, if the process will take 10 years and meanwhile a watch functions flawlessly and keeps perfect time, I'm satisfied.


If you're happy, that's great but I would prefer a movement that won't self-destruct between service intervals. All within in the context of "[email protected] happens" of course...


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

BigSeikoFan said:


> If you're happy, that's great but I would prefer a movement that won't self-destruct between service intervals. All within in the context of "[email protected] happens" of course...


This self distraction seems to me a new urban legend, but we'll wait and see.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

drunken monkey said:


> Being bone dry did not affect the observed performance of those bone dry watches.
> The damage wasn't known until it was opened. You say it's "likely" but in the cases mentioned on WUS regarding servicing ae a preventative measure, it clearly isn't (always) the csse.
> 
> My point is, you're reaching a bit in trying to pin this as a disadvantage of the co-axial.


I am saying that if you track the performance of a movement regularly using a Timegrapher, you should be able to observe a difference in its behavior, say its amplitude, once the lubrication dries out. Again, this might not necessarily translate into a dramatic difference in timekeeping performance, but to say that it has no impact on the amplitude of oscillation implies that the sliding friction that the co-axial escapement was designed to overcome is not a significant issue in a Swiss lever escapement.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

21 hours and not a a single post to this thread...

save the last two bullets, one for you and one for your horse...


----------



## Bigdaftboy (Jul 28, 2014)

Got fed up with the sarky comments lol


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

I bet I can break both of them. Never met anything I couldn't break.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

oak1971 said:


> ...Never met anything I couldn't break.


Hmm... that's got me wondering what in my house is the hardest thing to break.

I'm thinking my cast iron pan...


----------



## Bigdaftboy (Jul 28, 2014)

dbostedo said:


> Hmm... that's got me wondering what in my house is the hardest thing to break.
> 
> I'm thinking my cast iron pan...
> 
> View attachment 8662386


The wife, after 2 hips, 2 shoulders, 2 knees and 1 ankle replacement, she just keeps going!!!!!


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Bigdaftboy said:


> Got fed up with the sarky comments lol


you must be new here


----------



## Bigdaftboy (Jul 28, 2014)

Ticonderoga said:


> you must be new here


Yip, sensitive soul too lol


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Bigdaftboy said:


> The wife, after 2 hips, 2 shoulders, 2 knees and 1 ankle replacement, she just keeps going!!!!!


Trade for a new one then.

*FSOT:* Wife. USD 15000 OBRO to cover lawyer fees. Recently serviced with new joints. Willing to trade with Omega or Rolex.

LOL

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Bigdaftboy (Jul 28, 2014)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Trade for a new one then.
> 
> *FSOT:* Wife. USD 15000 OBRO to cover lawyer fees. Recently serviced with new joints. Willing to trade with Omega or Rolex.
> 
> ...


Tempting, but she gets me to the front of queue at Disney and the free parking is great lol


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Yeah, this thread has just about died.

In the end, I come away with it having a better feeling about Rolex for the quality of their watches. I read again and again how so many are dead on or only off by a second or two each day.

On that note, I've learned that the GS spring drive isn't a "true" mechanical (hybrid) & that Seiko has just as many (more) problems than other "high end" watch makers:



new2watchuseek said:


> When I bought my GS more than 10 years ago it was very accurate, I believe it was around +1 s/day.
> After the second service performed in Japan it ran fast +10 seconds /day.
> Plus I got several scratches on the hands.
> At the last service (also in Japan) I asked them to regulate it so it would be closer to 1-2 seconds/day. It's settled to ~6-7 seconds/day (oh, they charged me for the scratches _they _put there in the first place).
> ...


I guess my opinion about Omega is improved a bit also; I've learned some interesting bits about their technological advancements as well.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

imlying said:


> I was lucky enough to handle the new Globemaster on the metal bracelet. But at a price of around 9k +/-(cad), at that point, why not go for a 16014, 1603 Datejust or IWC Portofino or even a JLC MUT.
> I get that the Co-Ax isn't something we can just go out and get for the price that Omega offers them at, and the 15,000 gauss protection means it's as go anywhere do anything as their sports line. But why not put in a simple modified ETA and milk the lower end entry luxury market?
> I would love to know if any other people think that Omega can ever get to that level of market share, even with the brands that are in the Swatch family.


Yes. I agree that we're reaching the end of this thread. But, aren't we got side tracked too far from the OP's concerns and get fixated to the title only?
I think, at the end of this thread, we could address his concerns .

If I can sum it up,

1. At +/- 9k CAD, is Omega Globemaster worth the price? Why not go for a 16014, 1603 Datejust or IWC Portofino or even a JLC MUT?

2. Instead of using Co-axial movement with the 15000 gauss protection, why don't Omega put the cheap ETA movement and aim for the entry level luxury market only?

3. Can Omega really enter the High End luxury market?

(Have no idea how all of OP's concerns relate to the title tho)

PS: 200 pages, here we go again. LOL.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Bigdaftboy said:


> lol sorry didn't mean to make it a 3 way


First time in the history of humanity those words have been uttered by a guy.


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

vkalia said:


> First time in the history of humanity those words have been uttered by a guy.


You're infringing on my role of chief innuendo officer.


----------



## u2bdet (Mar 5, 2011)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Jack Daniel barbecue sauce?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Peter Luger's steak sauce


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Shan_Farandy said:


> If I can sum it up,
> 
> 1. At +/- 9k CAD, is Omega Globemaster worth the price? Why not go for a 16014, 1603 Datejust or IWC Portofino or even a JLC MUT?
> 
> ...


1. At that price, Omega finally has a business suit watch in the same price bracket at the others. The owner doesn't have to fear appearing "cheap" to his colleagues, much like how they wouldn't buy an entry-level Mercedes.

2. Omega's made a commitment to going all-antimagnetic, at least apart from the Speedmaster Pro. Besides, Swatch Group has other brands to fill the entry level luxury market.

3. Ehhhhh..... maybe.



> PS: 200 pages, here we go again. LOL.


I'm with ya, man!


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

u2bdet said:


> Peter Luger's steak sauce


How's it compare to A1?


----------



## Bigdaftboy (Jul 28, 2014)

vkalia said:


> First time in the history of humanity those words have been uttered by a guy.


I really should think my replies through a bit more lol


----------



## T1meout (Sep 27, 2013)

128 pages, and still the answer is no.


----------



## ddavidsonmd (Apr 14, 2013)

Why can't Omega and Rolex fans just get along 

Michael

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

I don't think Omega will ever be as good as Rolex in terms of ubiquity.

Yesterday, I had lunch at a restaurant, and saw a Datejust. This morning, I was out, and saw a Daytona. I've seen e.g. Speedy before, but not on a daily basis. If I'm out and about for long enough and I look at everyone's wrists, I'm almost guaranteed to see a Rolex, they are just so common.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

ddavidsonmd said:


> Why can't Omega and Rolex fans just get along


I think the pride of ownership just overwhelms everything else. Can't think clearly at that point...


----------



## Brofessor (Jun 11, 2016)

imlying said:


> At a redbar meet-up I was lucky enough to handle the new Globemaster on the metal bracelet. I'll be the first to say that I am very excited by them bringing back that constellation, and the blue looks stunning in photos but better in the steel. But at a price of around 9k +/-(cad) I don't see what's the draw. At that point, why not go for a 16014, 1603 Datejust or IWC Portofino or even a JLC MUT. I get that the Co-Ax isn't something we can just go out and get for the price that Omega offers them at, and the 15,000 gauss protection means it's as go anywhere do anything as their sports line but why not put in a simple modified ETA and milk the lower end entry luxury market? Am I missing something? I would love to know if any other people think that Omega can ever get to that level of market share, even with the brands that are in the Swatch family.


Hmmm, the Lion or the Tiger? 1961 NY Yankees or the 1976 Cincinnati Reds? Muhammad Ali or Rocky Marciano? Ginger or Mary Ann? Its all subjective. Rolex and Omega are both very fine watches. Wear what you like and forget the hype.


----------



## billr (Aug 10, 2013)

Brofessor said:


> Hmmm, the Lion or the Tiger? 1961 NY Yankees or the 1976 Cincinnati Reds? Muhammad Ali or Rocky Marciano? Ginger or Mary Ann? Its all subjective. Rolex and Omega are both very fine watches. Wear what you like and forget the hype.


Agree. Oh, and Mary Ann, definitely Mary Ann.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

rdoder said:


> I don't think Omega will ever be as good as Rolex in terms of ubiquity.
> 
> Yesterday, I had lunch at a restaurant, and saw a Datejust. This morning, I was out, and saw a Daytona. I've seen e.g. Speedy before, but not on a daily basis. If I'm out and about for long enough and I look at everyone's wrists, I'm almost guaranteed to see a Rolex, they are just so common.


Think we just found a new slogan:

Be bold, be better, be different, be special.
"Omega. Not for Common People"

(Background Song: Pulp - Common People)



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

T1meout said:


> 128 pages, and still the answer is no.


WHAT?!?!? I thought the answer was no, then yes, then no, then hell no, then you don't know what you're talking about, then yes, the YES, then maybe, then maybe not, then some stuff about cars, then no, no, no, yes, no, yes, yes, no, no, yes, then a some more car stuff, then video game debates, then something about whiskey, then Raymond Weil is the best, then MORE car stuff, then your answer. Right?


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

rdoder said:


> I don't think Omega will ever be as good as Rolex in terms of ubiquity.
> 
> Yesterday, I had lunch at a restaurant, and saw a Datejust. This morning, I was out, and saw a Daytona. I've seen e.g. Speedy before, but not on a daily basis. If I'm out and about for long enough and I look at everyone's wrists, I'm almost guaranteed to see a Rolex, they are just so common.


Indeed, it seems most conclude that if you're already paying that much for a wristwatch, you might as well get the real deal instead of trying to save a bit with the budget substitute.


----------



## raquinus (Jan 28, 2015)

BarracksSi said:


> 1. At that price, Omega finally has a business suit watch in the same price bracket at the others. The owner doesn't have* to fear appearing "cheap*" *to his colleagues*,
> 
> Or to anyone else for that matter. Appearance is the key word here.
> In the business world, where I earned a living, the panoply of a "successful" sales rep included a Rolex watch, a Montblanc pen & a Tumi black briefcase. It was rather sad, when attending a conference or some similar events, to see them all trying hard to impress by displaying what was perceived by some as status symbols.
> ...


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

rdoder said:


> I was out, and saw a Daytona


No you didn't, the majority of "Daytona's" out there are fakes due to:

1- Rolex doesn't want to sell Daytonas, it's more like an "anchor" product helping with their positioning

2- several ones who can easily afford a Daytona go for a more high end watch known just in the inner circle


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

AAMC said:


> No you didn't, the majority of "Daytona's" out there are fakes due to:
> 
> 1- Rolex doesn't want to sell Daytonas, it's more like an "anchor" product helping with their positioning
> 
> 2- several ones who can easily afford a Daytona go for a more high end watch known just in the inner circle


kijiji Toronto is selling a ceramic daytona for $350

#rolexproblems


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

snakeeyes said:


> kijiji Toronto is selling a ceramic daytona for $350
> 
> #rolexproblems


Yes, yes, and rose gold Daytona's for less than 2.000$....there are fakes of every well known "luxury" brand/model....but in the Daytona's case the ratio fake/original is really high due the numbers of real ones sold


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

AAMC said:


> Yes, yes, and rose gold Daytona's for less than 2.000$....there are fakes of every well known "luxury" brand/model....but in the Daytona's case the ratio fake/original is really high due the numbers of real ones sold


bottomline rolex also wins in another category....MOST fakes by far.....not even close....dime o 12 dozen

#rolexproblems


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Whiskey = low cost item, whisky = the good stuff. :-d
> 
> No doubt whatsoever. Omega is clearly targeting a much more upscale demographic...


Disgrace and from new York too ..... I'm disgusted... Irish are the original and greatest makers of whiskey


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

raquinus said:


> BarracksSi said:
> 
> 
> > 1. At that price, Omega finally has a business suit watch in the same price bracket at the others. The owner doesn't have* to fear appearing "cheap*" *to his colleagues*,
> ...


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

raquinus said:


> In the business world, where I earned a living, the panoply of a "successful" sales rep included a Rolex watch, a Montblanc pen & a Tumi black briefcase. It was rather sad, when attending a conference or some similar events, to see them all trying hard to impress by displaying what was perceived by some as status symbols.


Hey, it's all part of the "school uniform." When in Rome...


----------



## raquinus (Jan 28, 2015)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Hey, it's all part of the "school uniform." When in Rome...


Well, uniformity was never my thing, standing out is. To succeed in sales you have to differentiate yourself from the competition.


----------



## raquinus (Jan 28, 2015)

Watchdudeman said:


> raquinus said:
> 
> 
> > Are you kidding that's a great watch ....you crazy ..my local AD have that watch mint and I drooled over it for a long time and when it was sold to some lucky dude ......I lamented it wasn't me
> ...


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

raquinus said:


> Well, uniformity was never my thing, standing out is.


Raquinus, may I introduce you to Rdoder? The two of you will have _many _fascinating topics to discuss...



rdoder said:


> ... I like brands better that say nothing about me, or say that I'm an average person, which I am.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

There are different ways to stand out. One is to put up the appearance of being better than others. Another is to do something better than one's previous self. Some watches and people put up the appearance of being better than others. Some watches and people do something better than one's previous self.


----------



## raquinus (Jan 28, 2015)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Raquinus, may I introduce you to Rdoder? The two of you will have _many _fascinating topics to discuss...


Do I detect some sarcasm here?


----------



## Bigdaftboy (Jul 28, 2014)

dbostedo said:


> WHAT?!?!? I thought the answer was no, then yes, then no, then hell no, then you don't know what you're talking about, then yes, the YES, then maybe, then maybe not, then some stuff about cars, then no, no, no, yes, no, yes, yes, no, no, yes, then a some more car stuff, then video game debates, then something about whiskey, then Raymond Weil is the best, then MORE car stuff, then your answer. Right?


You forgot something about the wife and disney and things you can't break or something lol


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Brofessor said:


> Hmmm, the Lion or the Tiger? 1961 NY Yankees or the 1976 Cincinnati Reds? Muhammad Ali or Rocky Marciano? Ginger or Mary Ann? Its all subjective. Rolex and Omega are both very fine watches. Wear what you like and forget the hype.


1) The tiger. Why is this even a question?
2) Neither. The 1992 and 1993 Toronto Blue Jays.
3) Ali. Always The Greatest.
4) Meaningless to me. Because it's all about Taraji versus Gabrielle...















I'll take both of them.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> ...it's all about Taraji versus Gabrielle...


Oh c'mon!!! It's Gabrielle any day of the week, and twice on Sunday!


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Sevenmack said:


> 4) Meaningless to me. Because it's all about Taraji versus Gabrielle...
> View attachment 8714514
> 
> View attachment 8714578
> ...





dbostedo said:


> Oh c'mon!!! It's Gabrielle any day of the week, and twice on Sunday!


Sorry, guys. You're _both_ wrong.


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

*Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

Let's see...























































Mind that we are talking about specific watches with their own flair




























We are talking about dedicated parts for specific models, we are not talking about watches made of leftovers from other models


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

A bit late for the party don't you think?


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



John MS said:


> A bit late for the party don't you think?


No, this is fun, the other thread belongs now to the café

Anyway...back to cool things




























Do you want to know who is cool? Member Ken G is cool!


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

Old 2500 days showcasing a new material technology...yep that's cool


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

Back to the present now...


----------



## brrrdn (Jun 16, 2008)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

Never. The Datejust will always be a grandpa watch


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



brrrdn said:


> Never. The Datejust will always be a grandpa watch


Hey, not so fast, I may want to buy the new 41mm Datejust if they ever release it in full steel 😇

In the meantime, back to coolness....uuuhhh that dial


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

Looks like a no to me.


----------



## T1meout (Sep 27, 2013)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

Do we really need another hundred and thirty some pages of this crap?


----------



## gangrel (Jun 25, 2015)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

And beyond the pics, is this anything much more than trolling?


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



T1meout said:


> Do we really need another hundred and thirty some pages of this crap?


No we don't! I'm taking a break from watches and this forum so I thought about doing my first troll thread/post ever.

Anyway, in case you didn't notice this industry had it's days but not anymore, Baselworld 2016 was a bit of confirmation...in the end it's all about Omega and Rolex

F2 it's about Omega or Rolex (and a bit of Tudor...lol)... mixed with troll posts, nonsenses, personal issues between members and so on....it changed a lot in 6 years... there was a generalized knowledge/interests about watches despite price or style but I don't see that anymore. Maybe is the silly season or maybe it's just me.

Anyway


----------



## qwertyhilly (Jul 11, 2016)

Here we go again...


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

View from the other side of the market. Nice photos.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

To be fair, Rolex can't alienate their sheep, err I mean fan base. The few odd times they tried like with the OP with coloured lume dots, pelagos, the Air King, fast rider, and northflag. They get ripped to shreds with criticism or regulated to the black sheep of the family.

So let Rolex be the boring old man design company and let Omega be the pubescent pimple faced design company. 

Leave the contemporary designs to Seiko and Tag.

Flame on!


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



AAMC said:


> No, this is fun, the other thread belongs now to the café
> 
> Anyway...back to cool things
> 
> ...


You had me convinced until you posted the Ploprof - sorry, anything but cool.

Add a watch with Snoopy and/or 007 and you've lost me forever.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



gangrel said:


> And beyond the pics, is this anything much more than trolling?


If so, this makes this no different than the other Rolex versus Omega thread.


----------



## CastorTroy3 (Dec 24, 2015)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

We can play nice together.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

7


BigSeikoFan said:


> Sorry, guys. You're _both_ wrong.
> 
> View attachment 8715546


Since you bring Rihanna into the conversation...








I must add Meagan to the mix...


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



Tomatoes11 said:


> To be fair, Rolex can't alienate their sheep, err I mean fan base. The few odd times they tried like with the OP with coloured lume dots, pelagos, the Air King, fast rider, and northflag. They get ripped to shreds with criticism or regulated to the black sheep of the family.
> 
> So let Rolex be the boring old man design company and let Omega be the pubescent pimple faced design company.
> 
> ...


If the Rolex fan base were truly sheep, then they could be lead anywhere. The behavior you describe seems to indicate that they know what they like.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

the real question is will either ever be as cool as Grand Seiko?


----------



## dantan (Dec 16, 2014)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

Will we get to over 1,300 posts in this thread?


----------



## UberDave (Jan 13, 2015)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

To me the companies and the watches they make are just different. Both make winners and losers. Both are cool.

FWIW, when I was in my late teens / early 20's I spent a lot of time dreaming about owning an Omega (First the Planet Ocean, later the Speedmaster). By the time spending thousands on a watch felt reasonable (a bit over a decade later), I'd joined the Rolex camp.


----------



## nevada1995 (Dec 24, 2014)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

I like Rolex but I love Omega. Had both, that's why.


----------



## jlondono77 (Aug 16, 2011)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

Good Thread  I say no!


----------



## starter (Aug 21, 2010)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

I think both can be cool...

It's cool to wear an Omago (is that how it's spelled?) and play Xbox so you can meet guys to play Call of Duty with online.

It's also cool to wear a Rolex and play with fast cars and boats so you can meet super models.

Just different kinds of cool. But I agree Omogo (or whatever) is definitely very cool.


----------



## mharris660 (Jan 1, 2015)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

Some buy a watch for the name, some buy a watch that's great. Me, I bought the great watch.


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

I don't know if Omega will ever be 'as good' as Rolex (especially in the eyes of the general public) but to me Omega is definitely the cooler watch.


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

^
Trendier, for sure.

And like most trendy things, soon to be forgotten.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Sevenmack said:


> 7
> Since you bring Rihanna into the conversation...
> View attachment 8717978
> 
> ...


Dammmnnnn, Meagan Good. +1 from me. Wonder she wears Omega or Rolex? I think she's an Omega fans. LOL

If I could give an input, I'll vote for......

nathalie emmanuel










Still fresh and natural looking.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



AAMC said:


> No, this is fun, the other thread belongs now to the café
> 
> Anyway...back to cool things
> 
> Do you want to know who is cool? Member Ken G is cool!


Looks like someone thought otherwise and merged the identical threads. Quick...start another one...

I don't know about coolness but Omega makes watches that are every bit as good as Rolex.


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



John MS said:


> [...]I don't know about coolness but Omega makes watches that are every bit as good as Rolex.


I'm not so convinced that tarted-up ETA movements in cases of unclear manufacturing origin (attached to Chinese-sourced bracelets) are every bit as good as even Tudor, let alone Rolex.

Also, trying so desparately to be cool isn't very cool.


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



hydrocarbon said:


> I'm not so convinced that tarted-up ETA movements in cases of unclear manufacturing origin (attached to Chinese-sourced bracelets) are every bit as good as even Tudor, let alone Rolex.
> 
> Also, trying so desparately to be cool isn't very cool.


Oh but the movements are every bit as good and possibly better with coaxial. Performance is what counts. 
Rolex is a staid manufacturer of good watches that remains planted in the 1950's.


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

John MS said:


> Oh but the movements are every bit as good and possibly better with coaxial. Performance is what counts.
> Rolex is a staid manufacturer of good watches that remains planted in the 1950's.


Well, on a strictly-performance basis, Rolex is offering better timing specifications than Omega, so it can't be claimed as an advantage for the Swatch Group product.

But Rolex's real advantage is higher fundamental quality, which isn't nearly as easy to convey using simplistic numerical comparisons.


----------



## rfortson (Feb 18, 2012)

hydrocarbon said:


> Well, on a strictly-performance basis, Rolex is offering better timing specifications than Omega, so it can't be claimed as an advantage for the Swatch Group product.
> 
> But Rolex's real advantage is higher fundamental quality, which isn't nearly as easy to convey using simplistic numerical comparisons.


So, you can somehow tell it's higher quality, just not in any quantifiable way?

Guess you have to justify the cost somehow.


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

rfortson said:


> So, you can somehow tell it's higher quality, just not in any quantifiable way?
> 
> Guess you have to justify the cost somehow.


You don't have to take my word for it. Here's a full-time WOSTEP-certified watchmaker's:

"Having to work with both brands on a daily basis, I struggle to understand how Omega stays in business... They're so far behind it's unreal, especially when it comes to after sales service and parts... They're still miles better than Cartier, mind."

And the better timekeeping is quantifiable.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

hydrocarbon said:


> Well, on a strictly-performance basis, Rolex is offering better timing specifications than Omega, so it can't be claimed as an advantage for the Swatch Group product.
> 
> But Rolex's real advantage is higher fundamental quality, which isn't nearly as easy to convey using simplistic numerical comparisons.


Please define "higher fundamental quality"? Because there is no such term in any dictionary or any lexicon of watch collecting. Seems like you're just coming up with a justification for your preference. Which is fine. But it is a justification that has no objective basis in fact.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

hydrocarbon said:


> You don't have to take my word for it. Here's a full-time WOSTEP-certified watchmaker's:
> 
> "Having to work with both brands on a daily basis, I struggle to understand how Omega stays in business... They're so far behind it's unreal, especially when it comes to after sales service and parts... They're still miles better than Cartier, mind."
> 
> And the better timekeeping is quantifiable.


Source?

(I'm not trying to shut you down, I just like to hear from people deeper inside the industry)


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

hydrocarbon said:


> You don't have to take my word for it. Here's a full-time WOSTEP-certified watchmaker's:
> 
> "Having to work with both brands on a daily basis, I struggle to understand how Omega stays in business... They're so far behind it's unreal, especially when it comes to after sales service and parts... They're still miles better than Cartier, mind."
> 
> And the better timekeeping is quantifiable.


Nothing in that quote speaks to the quality of the design or parts... just the service aspect and availability of parts. That's very different than saying one watch is better than another. Was there more content around that quote?

The thing I've been wondering about timing specs, service intervals, and warranties is how interlinked are they all? Could a company decide to offer tighter specs, longer service intervals, and longer warranties knowing that a small percentage of buyers are going to care and make use of it? If so, they could trade off the additional warranty and service costs they may have to eat, if it's less than the marketing boost they get from claiming they hit better numbers.

I.e. has Rolex or Omega done anything better in the movement to make their watches more accurate (lately) to support tighter specs? Or are they just willing to spend more to be able to claim tighter specs?


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> Nothing in that quote speaks to the quality of the design or parts... just the service aspect and availability of parts. That's very different than saying one watch is better than another. Was there more content around that quote?


This is something I've been wondering about, too. They're all still mechanical watches, they're not as durable or accurate as a quartz watch from Wal-Mart, blah blah&#8230;

&#8230; but how well do Rolex or Omega take care of things when the proverbial sh*t hits the fan?

None of them last forever, and there's the occasional lemon that gets out of the factory, so which company is easier to deal with?


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

hydrocarbon said:


> You don't have to take my word for it. Here's a full-time WOSTEP-certified watchmaker's:
> 
> "Having to work with both brands on a daily basis, I struggle to understand how Omega stays in business... They're so far behind it's unreal, especially when it comes to after sales service and parts... They're still miles better than Cartier, mind."
> 
> ...


Unless the watchmaker is speaking on behalf of WOSTEP and all their watchmakers, this is still just one man's opinion.

Good to get his perspective; it sounds like he's experienced some problems with getting parts and an acceptable level service from Omega. However, that's probably irrelevant to the watch buyer. The buyer is paying him to go through the process (and whatever hassles) on his behalf. So long as the watchmaker ultimately does his job, the consumer's happy.


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

hydrocarbon said:


> Well, on a strictly-performance basis, Rolex is offering better timing specifications than Omega, so it can't be claimed as an advantage for the Swatch Group product.
> 
> But Rolex's real advantage is higher fundamental quality, which isn't nearly as easy to convey using simplistic numerical comparisons.


Rolex and Omega produce watches with COSC graded mechanical movements. And they produce lesser graded mechanical movements. Omega keeps it's feet firmly in the 21st century with watches having quartz movements. For some unknown reason Rolex regressed by abandoning watches with quartz movements after having produced a show stopper movement. There apparently is money to be made with staid designs. Omega has for decades taken a different route and regularly refreshes it's product line.


----------



## Bahoomba (May 1, 2010)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



mleok said:


> If the Rolex fan base were truly sheep, then they could be lead anywhere. The behavior you describe seems to indicate that they know what they like.


Yeah, that's about right. "Sheep" that tend to like a company that absolutely refuses to issue a watch with even the slightest thing wrong with it, with QC that's the envy of virtually all manufacturing? Bahhh, baby._ Bahhh._

Pity the poor commoners, they know not what they do.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

John MS said:


> Rolex and Omega produce watches with COSC graded mechanical movements. And they produce lesser graded mechanical movements. Omega keeps it's feet firmly in the 21st century with watches having quartz movements.


21st century?? I would argue quartz watches are firmly planted in the 20th century, which just happens to have survived into the 21st... Otoh, mechanical watches are very much an artifact from the 19th century, which has also survived into the 21st. Not sure what your point is...



> For some unknown reason Rolex regressed by abandoning watches with quartz movements after having produced a show stopper movement. There apparently is money to be made with staid designs.


Rolex knows its market and the niche they wish to serve. I would suggest they concluded a quartz watch is not in line with their desired image and dropped it for that reason. Why keep making something that dilutes their otherwise coherent message? 
_
"You can have your Ford in any color, so long as it's black."_



> Omega has for decades taken a different route and regularly refreshes it's product line.


And that's fine for Omega. There's more than one way to skin a cat and one way is _not_ better than the other. In other words. Omega doesn't get "extra credit" for deciding to refresh its product line.


----------



## rfortson (Feb 18, 2012)

I can't believe this is actually being debated, or that people actually feel so strongly one way or the other.

They both make extremely nice watches. They have for many years. They have different ways of going about their business, but they are both successful.

Buy what you like, and like what you wear.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

rfortson said:


> I can't believe this is actually being debated, or that people actually feel so strongly one way or the other.
> 
> They both make extremely nice watches. They have for many years. They have different ways of going about their business, but they are both successful.


But this wouldn't be F2 -- and many of us wouldn't be proper materialistic narcissists --without a Rolex versus Omega argument.


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

John MS said:


> Rolex and Omega produce watches with COSC graded mechanical movements[...]


You do realize that Rolex is now certifying -2/+2 on all their wristwatch movements, yes?



BarracksSi said:


> Source?
> 
> (I'm not trying to shut you down, I just like to hear from people deeper inside the industry)


No problem.

I'd genuinely recommend having a few beers with a watchmaker sometime if you'd like a proper discussion about this stuff; it's quite enlightening. Put it this way... not a single one I've yet met wears modern Omega or recommends them over Rolex.











dbostedo said:


> Nothing in that quote speaks to the quality of the design or parts... just the service aspect and availability of parts. That's very different than saying one watch is better than another. Was there more content around that quote?[...]


Knowing Chris personally, I can assure you that he's referring to the overall product, and not only referring to the servicing and parts availability. Those are just two areas in which Omega is especially deficient compared to Rolex.


----------



## rfortson (Feb 18, 2012)

hydrocarbon said:


> You do realize that Rolex is now certifying -2/+2 on all their wristwatch movements, yes?
> 
> No problem.
> 
> ...


You're an ad-man's dream.


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

^
Indeed, I should probably trust self-appointed internet experts and Omega's marketing claims over my own experiences and the real-life professional opinions of experienced watchmakers.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

hydrocarbon said:


> Well, on a strictly-performance basis, Rolex is offering better timing specifications than Omega, so it can't be claimed as an advantage for the Swatch Group product.


How would you know that Rolex performance is better? Both of them claims that they pass the COSC testing. Rolex do not share their COSC certificate. On the contrary, Omega willing to share your NEW watch certificate should you asked. You have to pay for that I think. In term of transparency, Omega wins. If you say you test them side-by-side by yourself, how can you possibly say that you have a credible testing method? Are you comparing them apple to apple?
Did you buy a new Omega Aqua Terra and rolex oyster perpetual at the same time, then wind the watch to the exactly same full spring rate, wear it one on the left and one on the right and compare them to an atomic clock every single day until day 15th?



> But Rolex's real advantage is higher fundamental quality, which isn't nearly as easy to convey using simplistic numerical comparisons.


I think you should know that "Quality" is an elusive concept. You cannot say a good quality without a good parameters and standards. What are your parameters and standards? How can you say that rolex is better.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



Bahoomba said:


> Yeah, that's about right. "Sheep" that tend to like a company that absolutely refuses to issue a watch with even the slightest thing wrong with it, with QC that's the envy of virtually all manufacturing? Bahhh, baby._ Bahhh._
> 
> Pity the poor commoners, they know not what they do.


Omega by Ariel Adams on Forbes 

Rolex maintain their level with no improvement. Omega tried with Co-Axial breakthrough and succeed. Yes their early Co-axial have problems. But, they're improving. Have no idea they will opt to improve the case material in the future or not. Should they do that, movement and case wise, they will be better than rolex.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Legion681 (Sep 1, 2012)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



Shan_Farandy said:


> Omega by Ariel Adams on Forbes
> 
> *Rolex maintain their level with no improvement*. Omega tried with Co-Axial breakthrough and succeed. Yes their early Co-axial have problems. But, they're improving. Have no idea they will opt to improve the case material in the future or not. Should they do that, movement and case wise, they will be better than rolex.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Re bolded... Are you sure????


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

BigSeikoFan said:


> 21st century?? I would argue quartz watches are firmly planted in the 20th century, which just happens to have survived into the 21st... Otoh, mechanical watches are very much an artifact from the 19th century, which has also survived into the 21st. Not sure what your point is...
> 
> Rolex knows its market and the niche they wish to serve. I would suggest they concluded a quartz watch is not in line with their desired image and dropped it for that reason. Why keep making something that dilutes their otherwise coherent message?
> _
> ...


By retreating from quartz watches Rolex consigned itself to producing the horological equivalent of a Ford Deluxe sedan with a flathead v8 powerplant in more colors than black. Repitition is a coherent message.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



Legion681 said:


> Re bolded... Are you sure????


The new 3255 vs Co-axial? Like an automatic car improve the max gear from 5 speed to 6 gear. Omega, they shift to CVT with Co-Axial. Rolex improve the parts not the movement.

Millgaus and the new Air King have to rely on anti magnetic case. Omega master co-axial movement is fully anti magnetic.










904L vs 316L? They chose harder oil pipe material on watch to increase PER. Which increases the manufacturing cost. For what? It's not truly beneficial for customer. Customer pay the price of material change.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

_"Manufacturers have learned that consumers are easily misled and will buy based on features that have specifications attached to them, since they lack the skills and experience to appreciate more subtle, but more fundamental, quality differences."_


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

John MS said:


> By retreating from quartz watches Rolex consigned itself to producing the horological equivalent of a Ford Deluxe sedan with a flathead v8 powerplant in more colors than black. Repitition is a coherent message.


How about firms that never retreated from quartz watches since they never made them in the first place? How should one view them relative to Rolex then? Thinking of ALS, VC and others of that ilk... Would they need to introduce quartz (or radio-controlled or GPS) models to demonstrate their relevance in the 21st century? _

Still_ not sure what your point is.

And while repetition may not be your cup of tea, many value a coherent design aesthetic. It's ok if you don't like that aesthetic. And that's from the perspective of someone who's not a particularly big Rolex fan...


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



Shan_Farandy said:


> ...
> Rolex improve the parts not the movement.
> 
> Millgaus and the new Air King have to rely on anti magnetic case. Omega master co-axial movement is fully anti magnetic.
> ...


I tend to agree with you on the 316 vs 904 argument, but if we're judging features by the value they _actually_ provide to the customer, what then is the benefit of having a magnetic resistance of 15k gauss vs. only 1k? How often do consumers (other than MRI techs) actually encounter magnetic fields that strong? This strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Very much like watches rated for 300m vs. 1000m of WR.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



hydrocarbon said:


> _"Manufacturers have learned that consumers are easily misled and will buy based on features that have specifications attached to them, since they lack the skills and experience to appreciate more subtle, but more fundamental, quality differences."_


Again: stop saying *quality* when you cannot define what it means.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

BigSeikoFan said:


> How about firms that never retreated from quartz watches since they never made them in the first place? How should one view them relative to Rolex then? Thinking of ALS, VC and others of that ilk... Would they need to introduce quartz (or radio-controlled or GPS) models to demonstrate their relevance in the 21st century? _
> 
> Still_ not sure what your point is.
> 
> And while repetition may not be your cup of tea, many value a coherent design aesthetic. It's ok if you don't like that aesthetic. And that's from the perspective of someone who's not a particularly big Rolex fan...


The point is that Rolex is held up as a producer of watches having superlative movements. The fact is their movements reflect 1950's technology and cases show dated styling. They walked away from an opportunity to be among the producers of modern high performing quartz movements. More forward thinking companies such as Omega and Seiko incorporate modern movement technology into their lineup.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

John MS said:


> The point is that Rolex is held up as a producer of watches having superlative movements. The fact is their movements reflect 1950's technology and cases show dated styling. They walked away from an opportunity to be among the producers of modern high performing quartz movements. More forward thinking companies such as Omega and Seiko incorporate modern movement technology into their lineup.


Are you sure you know anything about Rolex movements? Let's say for example, Rolex made a finely engineered movement in the 1950's that kept absolute perfect time.... Would that be doing its job or would it need improvement? 
The thing is, Rolex has been improving their movements and they are keeping within greater tolerances than Omega and Seiko. So, no need for any more modern gimmicks at the moment.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



BigSeikoFan said:


> I tend to agree with you on the 316 vs 904 argument, but if we're judging features by the value they _actually_ provide to the customer, what then is the benefit of having a magnetic resistance of 15k gauss vs. only 1k? How often do consumers (other than MRI techs) actually encounter magnetic fields that strong? This strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Very much like watches rated for 300m vs. 1000m of WR.


1 gauss = 100 μT. Based on test conducted in Germany, should you don't work in a power plant, radiology, pilots, several engineers (common people). Normally being exposed to +/- 0.10 μT.
Thus, both of the anti magnetic seems irrelevant and somewhat marketing gimmicks. Dully noted tho. Somehow our watch might get a direct exposed to a magnet. Take the magnet therapy bracelet for example. It can reach 1000 gauss easily. Some bracelet manufacturer statement event up to 11000 gauss. Thus, hide your watches should you wear one. If you are wearing Omega Master Co-axial, then you'll be save.










I assume that either rolex and Omega expose their watches to certain degree of magnetic field and wrote them as a general spec.
My argument on the anti magnetic actually not on the 0.1T vs 1.5T stuffs. But on the fact that Omega do not need to put their watch movement in a bunker. Without anti magnetic bunker, the movement itself already anti magnetic. Thus, they can create an opening for the movement. Provide transparent casing and date window to the watch.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Vlance said:


> Are you sure you know anything about Rolex movements? Let's say for example, Rolex made a finely engineered movement in the 1950's that kept absolute perfect time.... Would that be doing its job or would it need improvement?
> The thing is, Rolex has been improving their movements and they are keeping within greater tolerances than Omega and Seiko. So, no need for any more modern gimmicks at the moment.


From what you were saying, can I conclude that the rolex fans paying a hefty amount of money for something that were built on the fifties? They still buy it and willingly to pay the price hike as well? They're so smart aren't they?

If people kept on the "if it works, don't change it" mentality, then we should say goodbye to progression and improvement.

*"Long lived the smart manufacturer and dumb customer"*

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Birky1 (Feb 13, 2015)

In one word NO !!!

Sent from my Harrier Tab from EE using Tapatalk


----------



## Birky1 (Feb 13, 2015)

I'm sorry but Omega can't match this

Sent from my Harrier Tab from EE using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Birky1 said:


> I'm sorry but Omega can't match this
> 
> Sent from my Harrier Tab from EE using Tapatalk












Already did.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



Shan_Farandy said:


> 1 gauss = 100 μT. Based on test conducted in Germany, should you don't work in a power plant, radiology, pilots, several engineers (common people). Normally being exposed to +/- 0.10 μT.
> Thus, both of the anti magnetic seems irrelevant and somewhat marketing gimmicks. Dully noted tho. Somehow our watch might get a direct exposed to a magnet. Take the magnet therapy bracelet for example. It can reach 1000 gauss easily. Some bracelet manufacturer statement event up to 11000 gauss. Thus, hide your watches should you wear one. If you are wearing Omega Master Co-axial, then you'll be save.


High resistance to magnetism is one thing I wish I could get in more mechanical watches besides Omega (and, they say, the Sistem51). I downloaded a couple magnetometer apps for my iPhone (I think they tap into the compass chip), and at various places on my laptop (never mind my iPad and its cover, which is back at home), they give me some readings around 4000+ μT. There are strong magnets in the display frame, a magnet at the MagSafe power socket, and some other weaker fields in the keyboard. Even my Apple Watch rings up beyond 4000 μT at its caseback (not that I'll ever wear two watches on the same wrist).

These are right at the limit of the ISO standard for being able to call a watch resistant to magnetic fields, but they're still enough for me to not park my mechanical watches next to, or on top of, my electronic devices. Omega's insanely high antimagnetic rating is still a selling point for me.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Shan_Farandy said:


> From what you were saying, can I conclude that the rolex fans paying a hefty amount of money for something that were built on the fifties? They still buy it and willingly to pay the price hike as well? They're so smart aren't they?
> 
> If people kept on the "if it works, don't change it" mentality, then we should say goodbye to progression and improvement.
> 
> ...


You couldn't be further from the mark. There are two kinds of consumers: the ones wooed by new and fancy (unproven) features and ones that buy for reputable performance and proven reliability.

So yea, I still own a Webber BBQ from 15 years ago, that works the same as when I bought it for $1100. 
Even the lighter mechanism still works, just requires a battery change once in awhile. 
Would I change anything on that BBQ? No, cause it just works. 
I also have a friend that's purchased a BBQ, with ceramics and other non sense... Well, guess who's grill is falling apart?
So you tell me, who's the smarter purchaser?

"Long live the quality, proven manufacturers and their wise customers"


----------



## Legion681 (Sep 1, 2012)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



Shan_Farandy said:


> The new 3255 vs Co-axial? Like an automatic car improve the max gear from 5 speed to 6 gear. Omega, they shift to CVT with Co-Axial. Rolex improve the parts not the movement.
> 
> Millgaus and the new Air King have to rely on anti magnetic case. Omega master co-axial movement is fully anti magnetic.
> 
> ...


Come on. Are you really saying that Rolex makes no improvement whatsoever to their watches? Seriously now.

As far as the co-axial is concerned (you brought it up)... Guess what? Omega actually * purchased* it. It was made by a British watch maker, George Daniels. Omega didn't *invent* it.

Oh and by the way, concerning the 15k Gauss wonder watch of Omega... Just today Hodinkee did a magnetic test between an AT 15k & a Milgauss vs a 4k Gauss rare earth magnet. Guess what? The Milgauss (1000 Gauss...) performance was the same as the (on paper) much superior anti magnetic AT 15k. Zero effect on either.
Here: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/a...15000-gauss-and-a-4000-gauss-neodymium-magnet
You are welcome.

It's also ironical how you go on to rail against Rolex for using 904L because it increases cost to the customer while not bringing any particular benefit and proceeded yourself to tout Omega's 15k Gauss as some amazing thing instead: how many folks do you think are exposed to 15k+ Gauss magnetic fields? I thought so...

PS: I own both Rolex AND Omega... Not biased here. I wonder if you can say the same though...


----------



## rfortson (Feb 18, 2012)

Vlance said:


> You couldn't be further from the mark. There are two kinds of consumers: the ones wooed by new and fancy (unproven) features and ones that buy for reputable performance and proven reliability.
> 
> So yea, I still own a Webber BBQ from 15 years ago, that works the same as when I bought it for $1100.
> Even the lighter mechanism still works, just requires a battery change once in awhile.
> ...


Yeah, but will Weber ever be as good as a Kalamazoo Hybrid Fire Grill?


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

rfortson said:


> Yeah, but will Weber ever be as good as a Kalamazoo Hybrid Fire Grill?


No


----------



## Legion681 (Sep 1, 2012)

Shan_Farandy said:


> From what you were saying, can I conclude that the rolex fans paying a hefty amount of money for something that were built on the fifties? They still buy it and willingly to pay the price hike as well? They're so smart aren't they?
> 
> If people kept on the "if it works, don't change it" mentality, then we should say goodbye to progression and improvement.
> 
> ...


Are you trolling now? Don't start questioning the intelligence of folks based on what they purchase because you are going down a very bad road. Be aware of that.

First of all, buying Rolex or buying Omega isn't mutually exclusive. Folks can appreciate different things from different manufacturers. Look at my list below and you will find all sorts of brands and there's others not included simply for reasons of space. So far in my life I bought watches from $10 to $10k.

I don't know why people who buy Rolex buy them. I know why I buy them: because I like them, I can afford them and I know that I am buying something that will do its job admirably for decades to come, maybe forever with proper care and maintenance. All this while looking extremely good too. For me that's good enough.

The "Made in the fifties" argument is a pile of crap too. Rolex, like all major watch makers, has their own R&D department. I remember reading that for the Sky Dweller they patented the calendar mechanism 15 years ago (!!!) and thoroughly tested it for years upon years before using it for a watch. That's the kind of dedication I like. The dedication that generates products that withstand the test of time and are prized - rightfully so - by many.
Lastly, I care about quality of a product. I don't expect a company to introduce new innovations constantly just for the sake of it. One of the best bolt action rifle's action is still the Mauser model 98. *Made in 1898*. I hope you get what I am trying to convey.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

John MS said:


> The point is that Rolex is held up as a producer of watches having superlative movements. The fact is their movements reflect 1950's technology and cases show dated styling. They *walked away from an opportunity to be among the producers of modern high performing quartz movements.* More forward thinking companies such as Omega and Seiko incorporate modern movement technology into their lineup.


Outdated technology and styling notwithstanding, I'll leave it to Rolex to determine if they've left a huge opportunity on the table or not, but I don't get the sense they're terribly distressed. I think they're quite happy to leave that opportunity to others. It is simply not a market in which they choose to compete, that's all.

More to the point, unless you're a Rolex shareholder, I don't see why you're even criticizing Rolex for their "poor" (my word, not yours) choices. It's fine if you want to applaud other companies for the choices they make but there's no need to criticize Rolex for not making those same choices.

Now if you've wanted a Rolex quartz all your life and a used Oysterquartz doesn't fit the bill, then I can understand your disappointment and need to rail at them...


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



Legion681 said:


> Oh and by the way, concerning the 15k Gauss wonder watch of Omega... Just today Hodinkee did a magnetic test between an AT 15k & a Milgauss vs a 4k Gauss rare earth magnet. Guess what? The Milgauss (1000 Gauss...) performance was the same as the (on paper) much superior anti magnetic AT 15k. Zero effect on either.
> Here: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/a...15000-gauss-and-a-4000-gauss-neodymium-magnet
> You are welcome.


That's cool, but I want to see a Datejust and a Globemaster in the same test.

Maybe I'll start yet another account just to post a comment there. Meh...


----------



## Hands90 (Jun 8, 2015)

1 POINT OMEGA

- Had to make it large so I wouldn't get shuffled into the crowd. I just bought my second Omega. I'm a young guy. If I wear a Rolex at work it will send the wrong message. I really feel (for where I work) it will only be negative if I bought a Rolex. (also not to mention I'm crazy about all the scratches I have on my Seamaster). 
Anyway
The 1 POINT I'd say OEMGA has that ROLEX Does not. 
I went into an Omega Shop Omega Boutique
711 5th Ave
(212) 207-3333

There was so much going on. The displays were amazing and they love to talk about innovation. Do I think it's wise with all the PVD...

No but they make changes and take risks. They were NICE to me. I talked to the people at Rolex and after one look they
thought "he's not buying anything f*** him".
Literately the security guard didn't want to open the door.

1 week later I bought a brand new Omega Seamster 300 coaxial


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



Shan_Farandy said:


> Again: stop saying *quality* when you cannot define what it means.


That's a rather presumptuous statement for someone that uses Arial Adams as a reference.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



hydrocarbon said:


> That's a rather presumptuous statement for someone that uses Arial Adams as a reference.


Ariel Adams seriously needs a good copy editor.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



Shan_Farandy said:


> ...Somehow our watch might get a direct exposed to a magnet. Take the magnet therapy bracelet for example. It can reach 1000 gauss easily. Some bracelet manufacturer statement event up to 11000 gauss. Thus, *hide your watches should you wear one.* If you are wearing Omega Master Co-axial, then you'll be save.


Yes, you're right but how many people do you think fall into the category of wearing a watch (let's say an Omega) AND a magnetic bracelet? I'm betting it's pretty small.









Another market segment that Rolex is willing to cede to others...


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



Legion681 said:


> ...
> It's also ironical how you go on to rail against Rolex for using 904L because it increases cost to the customer while not bringing any particular benefit and proceeded yourself to tout Omega's 15k Gauss as some amazing thing instead: *how many folks do you think are exposed to 15k+ Gauss magnetic fields?* I thought so...
> 
> PS:* I own both Rolex AND Omega...* Not biased here. I wonder if you can say the same though...


Ditto on both points. |>


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

rfortson said:


> Yeah, but will Weber ever be as good as a Kalamazoo Hybrid Fire Grill?


Hybrid? Does that mean it's the grill version of a GS Spring drive??


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

not that it matters but Kijiji Toronto is already selling BNIB 'ceramic' Daytona's by the boatload for $350.....i see no Omega Baselworld 2016 releases for sale......

Kijiji Toronto has been selling deepseas, gmts, and submariners for years now at $200-$1000 a pop......i dont see and Omegas for $300....maybe the odd 1 ** its always the orange bezel PO!!!

anyways...it seems Rolex always wins in all categories.....even the replica category...

Omega will never be as dominant as Rolex in the fake luxury category....

#rolexproblems


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Hands90 said:


> ...
> The one point I'd say Omega has that Rolex does not.
> I went into an Omega Boutique (711 5th Ave)
> 
> ...



+10

Hell, the guys at the Tourneau's Rolex mini-boutique on 53rd and Madison wouldn't even talk to me this weekend! They looked up and went back to talking to each other. The place was empty.

_"Big mistake. Big. Huge."_


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

BigSeikoFan said:


> +10
> 
> Hell, the guys at the Tourneau's Rolex mini-boutique on 53rd and Madison wouldn't even talk to me this weekend! They looked up and went back to talking to each other. The place was empty.
> 
> _"Big mistake. Big. Huge."_


lol...we have a Rolex AD here in TO at yorkdale mall called 'Raffis'....I mindf*** them every time im there....i ask "do you sell Omega?"....the look of disdain and disgust is hilarious......

"no sir we do NOT sell Omega".......


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

rfortson said:


> Yeah, but will Weber ever be as good as a Kalamazoo Hybrid Fire Grill?


Forget Weber and Kalamazoo. A Backwoods Smoker Chubby for slow-cooking greatness. A Napoleon Rogue 425 for gas grilling. And dig a pit in the backyard for the real charcoal experience.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

For what it's worth, Roger Smith, the intellectual heir to George Daniels' (inventor of the co-axial escapement) legacy, had this to say when asked about which watch under $10K to recommend.

https://www.revolution.watch/budget-recommendations-from-watchmaking-grandmasters/



> "I don't know if this would surprise people, but personally, it would have to be a Rolex. They are exceptional watches and what impresses me about Rolex is that they're not very adventurous, which is good, because they know they have a great movement. The movements that they use are tried and tested. They've been around forever - why change the wheel? They have a watch that you can use for dress, sports, and it's a great all-rounder. Put one on your wrist and you'll probably die with that watch on your wrist. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but I look at the mechanics of a watch, the case and how all the components are constructed; to me, [the Rolex is] bulletproof, and I don't think you can get much better than that. They don't sponsor me, by the way."
> 
> (Editor: When I visited Roger at his studio in the Isle of Man, he showed me the 39mm Rolex Explorer that he had been given to him for his 40th birthday by his wife. Roger has always been an admirer of Rolex primarily because of the brand's philosophy when it comes to making their watches, prioritising durability and reliability above all else. These are traits that you can also find in the watches that he makes, with the Series 2 movements for example featuring a very strong and thick three quarter plate. All the better for a lifetime of worry-free service, just like a Rolex. The Rolex Explorer he owns remains as a faithful everyday watch, that is until the day he finds time to make a Roger Smith watch for himself.)


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Sevenmack said:


> Forget Weber and Kalamazoo. A Backwoods Smoker Chubby for slow-cooking greatness. A Napoleon Rogue 425 for gas grilling. And dig a pit in the backyard for the real charcoal experience.


Oy. Now we're getting into BBQ p0rm...

Deliberate typo to get around the filters...


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



BigSeikoFan said:


> I tend to agree with you on the 316 vs 904 argument, but if we're judging features by the value they _actually_ provide to the customer, what then is the benefit of having a magnetic resistance of 15k gauss vs. only 1k? How often do consumers (other than MRI techs) actually encounter magnetic fields that strong? This strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Very much like watches rated for 300m vs. 1000m of WR.


Many think of me as a Rolex fanboy, but in this case, I think there is value in increasing the magnetic resistance of the movement, if only to allow highly magnetically resistant watches to have display casebacks. As a practical matter, the rare earth magnets used in electronics and cases are strong enough to magnetize a watch if you happen to place your watch on top of one of these. The issue I have with Omega is their insistence on issuing ridiculously thick watches just so that they can be rated at 600m or higher water resistance.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

mleok said:


> For what it's worth, Roger Smith, the intellectual heir to George Daniels' (inventor of the co-axial escapement) legacy, had this to say when asked about which watch under $10K to recommend.
> 
> https://www.revolution.watch/budget-recommendations-from-watchmaking-grandmasters/


Roger Smith would love Seiko than as well.....

at the end of the day really what is the difference between Rolex and Seiko? both are known for being rock solid and tough as nails.....

everything Roger Smith said Seiko offers and meets his criteria!b-)


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

snakeeyes said:


> Roger Smith would love Seiko than as well.....
> 
> at the end of the day really what is the difference between Rolex and Seiko? both are known for being rock solid and tough as nails.....
> 
> everything Roger Smith said Seiko offers and meets his criteria!b-)


I've never heard any watchmaker rave about the design of the Seiko movement insofar as the ease of servicing is concerned, but that might just be because most of their entry-level movements just end up getting replaced instead of serviced.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

mleok said:


> I've never heard any watchmaker rave about the design of the Seiko movement insofar as the ease of servicing is concerned, but that might just be because most of their entry-level movements just end up getting replaced instead of serviced.


bottomline...roger smith hyped rolex over durability and reliability...the exact same things that Timex stood for in the 70's 80's.....seiko fits this bill as do most ETA based watches.....im pretty sure todays rolex sub will last no longer or lesser than an eta 2824 breitling superocean.....


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

snakeeyes said:


> bottomline...roger smith hyped rolex over durability and reliability...the exact same things that Timex stood for in the 70's 80's.....seiko fits this bill as do most ETA based watches.....im pretty sure todays rolex sub will last no longer or lesser than an eta 2824 breitling superocean.....


And you know this for a fact, because you're one of the world's greatest watchmakers?


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

mleok said:


> And you know this for a fact, because you're one of the world's greatest watchmakers?


shame...i know you dont drink the fool aid.....ive read your posts....you know a 3135 rolex wont last any longer or less than an eta 2824 based breitling..

both reliable..both easy to service....both robust.....both meet rogers smiths 'criteria'

lol

roger smith gave a simple answer to a simple question


----------



## hidden by leaves (Mar 6, 2010)

snakeeyes said:


> lol...we have a Rolex AD here in TO at yorkdale mall called 'Raffis'....I mindf*** them every time im there....i ask "do you sell Omega?"....the look of disdain and disgust is hilarious......
> 
> "no sir we do NOT sell Omega".......


How old are you?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

snakeeyes said:


> shame...i know you dont drink the fool aid.....ive read your posts....you know a 3135 rolex wont last any longer or less than an eta 2824 based breitling..
> 
> both reliable..both easy to service....both robust.....both meet rogers smiths 'criteria'
> 
> ...


I value the free sprung balance, variable inertia balance spring, and Breguet overcoil, and Rolex has an exceptionally robust instantaneous date change complication that can be quickset at any time. I think these characteristics are worth something, and the ETA 2824-2 does not feature them.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

mleok said:


> I value the free sprung balance, variable inertia balance spring, and Breguet overcoil, and Rolex has an exceptionally robust instantaneous date change complication that can be quickset at any time. I think these characteristics are worth something, and the ETA 2824-2 does not feature them.


doesen't mean that the 3135 will outlast a 2824

i never said the 2824 was as good design wise.......i said it will last just as long....2824 is pretty 'robust'......a breitling superocean 2824 will last just as long as a rolex sub.....it is what it is.....


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

hidden by leaves said:


> How old are you?


sorry bro...i get a chuckle out of the arrogant clowns at Raffis....i prefer claudio at Damiani or ferret/doug from humbertown......


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



mleok said:


> The issue I have with Omega is their insistence on issuing ridiculously thick watches just so that they can be rated at 600m or higher water resistance.


What I find silly about the thickness was when I visited an Omega AD (or was it a boutique? I forget...), took a look at a PO 8500, and made a remark about how it was kinda thick. "Yes, it has to be made sturdy enough for six hundred meters of water resistance."

I didn't try to talk back with, "Well, wasn't the 2500-based model thinner than this?" because I would've just annoyed them.


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Already did.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Pffft. Not even close. But I'm sure the kids love the bright colors and the "007" gimmick on the dial.

Omega is good at gimmicks.


----------



## Morrisdog (Dec 12, 2014)

Happy family here!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GlennO (Jan 3, 2010)

Watch Fan in Beijing said:


> Pffft. Not even close. But I'm sure the kids love the bright colors and the "007" gimmick on the dial.
> 
> Omega is good at gimmicks.


Superlatively good?


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



Legion681 said:


> Come on. Are you really saying that Rolex makes no improvement whatsoever to their watches? Seriously now.


They make a minimal improvement. Not worth the price hike they charge the consumer.



> As far as the co-axial is concerned (you brought it up)... Guess what? Omega actually * purchased* it. It was made by a British watch maker, George Daniels. Omega didn't *invent* it.


Took it from Wikipedia on George Daniels, "Although the horological industry was first introduced to the concept in 1976, Daniels' escapement was met by scepticism and lack of interest. It was not until the 1980s that Swatch Group chairman Nicolas Hayek adopted the concept using it in his upmarket Omega brand. The company unveiled - to great acclaim - its first automatic watch using Daniels' coaxial escapement at the 1999 Basel Watch and Jewellery Fair".

Co-axial is Considered by some to be one of the most significant horological advancements since the invention of the lever escapement. But, this invention won't come into surface if nobody using and apply it into the production line isn't it? Co-axial patented on 1976. Omega gave a leap of faith to purchase the rights of use on 1980. On 1993, they purchase the patent. They release the first product on 1999 in calibre 2500. They perfected it on 2007 in a shape of caliber 8500.

Yes they purchase it. But, they purchase the concept only on 1980. 13 years, up till 1993 they researched it until they confidence to fully purchase the patent. From 1980 till 2007 (27 years) they perfected it.

What did rolex do on the new 3255?
THE NEW CHRONERGY ESCAPEMENT








OSCILLATOR WITH PARACHROM HAIRSPRING








HIGH CAPACITY BARREL








ACCELERATED SELF-WINDING









All of this decade, with twice or thrice price hike every year, they only come up with that?



> The Milgauss (1000 Gauss...) performance was the same as the (on paper) much superior anti magnetic AT 15k. Zero effect on either


Thanks for the knowledge. But aren't I also agree that 1000 gauss or 15000 gauss is irrelevant to our daily lives?



> It's also ironical how you go on to rail against Rolex for using 904L because it increases cost to the customer while not bringing any particular benefit and proceeded yourself to tout Omega's 15k Gauss as some amazing thing


I assume that Omega do not intend to reach 15000 gauss. Their aim actually to create full anti magnetic movement. When they tested it, their movement withstand >15000 gauss. Thus, they print ">15000 gauss".

Quoting from your Hodinkee article, "the deciding factor may well be less to do with resistance to magnetism, and more to do with whether or not you want a date window". Now, can rolex present an anti magnetic watch without anti magnetic bunker or with windowed dial?



> PS: I own both Rolex AND Omega... Not biased here. I wonder if you can say the same though...


Out of all the rolex line that I know, I only like the DSSD. That's my aim within the next 3 years. Owning that beast.
With rolex, I just want to purchase to proof to people that I "can" purchase a rolex. Omega on the other hand, I like multiple models. Thus, owning Omega is to satisfy my self. PO over Sub, Speedy over Daytona, Double Eagle Constellation over something (will get them after DSSD tho, LOL).

I don't think I'm that biased. I'm a tech guy. I read the spec and compare it to the economical (luxury) value of the product.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

rfortson said:


> Yeah, but will Weber ever be as good as a Kalamazoo Hybrid Fire Grill?


The best BBQ is a DIY split in half steel drum with wooden charcoal inside it.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



hydrocarbon said:


> That's a rather presumptuous statement for someone that uses Arial Adams as a reference.











I'm just asking, what is your exact parameter to say "quality"

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Legion681 said:


> Are you trolling now? Don't start questioning the intelligence of folks based on what they purchase because you are going down a very bad road. Be aware of that.
> 
> First of all, buying Rolex or buying Omega isn't mutually exclusive. Folks can appreciate different things from different manufacturers. Look at my list below and you will find all sorts of brands and there's others not included simply for reasons of space. So far in my life I bought watches from $10 to $10k.
> 
> ...


Well received!

For the record:
1.
I presented a reverse conjuction statement relating to a "smart manufacturer".
Dully noted that I'm not saying that Rolex customers is dumb.

2.
Made in the fifties, is not my word, it's the word from the person I quoted from. "Rolex movement made 1950 such and such."

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

mleok said:


> I've never heard any watchmaker rave about the design of the Seiko movement insofar as the ease of servicing is concerned, but that might just be because most of their entry-level movements just end up getting replaced instead of serviced.


A Japanese watchmaker from Japan and stays in Japan? LOL.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

mleok said:


> And you know this for a fact, because you're one of the world's greatest watchmakers?


He is.









Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Birky1 (Feb 13, 2015)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Already did.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Not for me I'm afraid there is just too much going on on the Omega

Sent from my Harrier Tab from EE using Tapatalk


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



Shan_Farandy said:


> I don't think I'm that biased. I'm a tech guy. I read the spec and compare it to the economical (luxury) value of the product.


For a "tech guy", you don't seem to quite understand much about the "tech".


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

It's probably worth mentioning that the Milgauss retains the same name as when it was introduced in 1956, but the Parachrom Bleu hairspring which has dramatically improved resistance to magnetism was introduced within the last two decades, so one can reasonably assume that the modern day Milgauss is magnetic resistant to more than the 1000 gauss that its name would suggest.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



Shan_Farandy said:


> Out of all the rolex line that I know, I only like the DSSD. That's my aim within the next 3 years. Owning that beast.
> With rolex, I just want to purchase to proof to people that I "can" purchase a rolex. Omega on the other hand, I like multiple models. Thus, owning Omega is to satisfy my self. PO over Sub, Speedy over Daytona, Double Eagle Constellation over something (will get them after DSSD tho, LOL).


I have never really understood the contention that Rolex is a status symbol. In particular, it's absolutely silly to buy a Rolex just to prove to anyone that you can, because quite honestly it doesn't prove anything. In particular, if people don't think that you're successful, then they'll simply assume that the authentic Rolex that you have on your wrist is a fake, and if they think that you're successful, then they'll assume that you're wearing an authentic Rolex, even if it happens to be a fake.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



mleok said:


> I have never really understood the contention that Rolex is a status symbol. In particular, it's absolutely silly to buy a Rolex just to prove to anyone that you can, because quite honestly it doesn't prove anything. In particular, if people don't think that you're successful, then they'll simply assume that the authentic Rolex that you have on your wrist is a fake, and if they think that you're successful, then they'll assume that you're wearing an authentic Rolex, even if it happens to be a fake.


True. So true mate.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



mleok said:


> I have never really understood the contention that Rolex is a status symbol. In particular, it's absolutely silly to buy a Rolex just to prove to anyone that you can, because quite honestly it doesn't prove anything. In particular, if people don't think that you're successful, then they'll simply assume that the authentic Rolex that you have on your wrist is a fake, and if they think that you're successful, then they'll assume that you're wearing an authentic Rolex, even if it happens to be a fake.


I really think this whole "people buy Rolex to show off" is something that is extrapolated by Rolex haters onto Rolex wearers.

I do not deny that many people may buy Rolex to mark a milestone in their life, or as a statement piece of man jewelry or whatever. But that isnt limited to just Rolex - it applies to any luxury watch brand. Rolex probably is more successful at getting such buyers, b/c they are the alpha brand in the watch industry by a huge margin.

However, to go from there to showing off is such a big jump. Most people buy nice things if/when they can - nice car, nice house, nice clothes, nice shoes, nice sunglasses, nice watch, etc etc. That doesnt mean every single purchase that falls in the category of "indulgence" is made with the primary purpose of showing off to others. This isnt a black-and-white thing, something that many people here seem unable to process.

Who the hell notices what that tiny font on your watch says???

[And on a different note, speaking about showing off: even the boldest of Hublots and AP ROOs, which looks heinously overdone when seen in isolation, look quite ok when set against someone's wrist. The person's physique and the rest of their clothes, play a much larger role in their appearance. A bold watch against a conservative suit or whatever just adds a little bit of individuality, just like a tie.]


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Guess in the end there'll be no end of this aye. Omega fan boys (me included) will consider Omega is on par with rolex and rolex guys will consider that Omega is not better or closed to their status.

Tsk....tsk...tsk.....

Should we continue this post until 200?

Flame on!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



vkalia said:


> *I really think this whole "people buy Rolex to show off" is something that is extrapolated by Rolex haters onto Rolex wearers.*
> 
> I do not deny that many people may buy Rolex to mark a milestone in their life, or as a statement piece of man jewelry or whatever. But that isnt limited to just Rolex - it applies to any luxury watch brand. Rolex probably is more successful at getting such buyers, b/c they are the alpha brand in the watch industry by a huge margin.
> 
> ...


Spoken from the point of view of a WIS. Most non-WIS Rolex owners know nothing about watches; they're just like the girlfriend/wife that replies to the question, "Which watch is best," with a knee-jerk "Rolex."

An overwhelming majority of (non-WIS) Rolex owners bought ONLY for the reason of status. Next time you're at a party and someone is wearing a Rolex, ask them why they bought it versus an Omega, an Eterna or a Tissot and they will give you a deer in the headlights stare and then a feeble reply of, "But, its a Rolex."


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

I love how much it annoys watch nerds when a normal person buys a great watch without obsessing about the meaningless technical stuff first.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



Ticonderoga said:


> Spoken from the point of view of a WIS. Most non-WIS Rolex owners know nothing about watches; they're just like the girlfriend/wife that replies to the question, "Which watch is best," with a knee-jerk "Rolex."
> 
> An overwhelming majority of (non-WIS) Rolex owners bought ONLY for the reason of status. Next time you're at a party and someone is wearing a Rolex, ask them why they bought it versus an Omega, an Eterna or a Tissot and they will give you a deer in the headlights stare and then a feeble reply of, "But, its a Rolex."


BS.
Most people who bought a Rolex, did so because they wanted a nice watch.
The same applies to all other brands and the people who bought them.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



Shan_Farandy said:


> All of this decade, with twice or thrice price hike every year, they only come up with that?


All of these posts, and I'm still not sure you understand how retail prices are set/work...


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

"Conspicuous consumption is the spending of money on and the acquiring of luxury goods and services to publicly display economic power-of the income or of the accumulated wealth of the buyer. To the conspicuous consumer, such a public display of discretionary economic power is a means either of attaining or of maintaining a given social status.

The development of Thorstein Veblen's sociology of conspicuous consumption produced the term invidious consumption, the ostentatious consumption of goods that is meant to provoke the envy of other people; and the term conspicuous compassion, the deliberate use of charitable donations of money in order to enhance the social prestige of the donor, with a display of superior socio-economic status."(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption)

If a non-WIS just wanted a nice watch, when browsing for a watch online or in-store, there are tons of cheaper options that are just as nice if not nicer in their quality-to-price ratio, and there are tons of more expensive options that are also "nice" but unrecognized by the general public. The choice of a certain brand or other similarly cohesively designed brands that are recognizable (like the whole thing was designed to be distinctive: the case and lugs, the bracelet, fluted or some other recognizable bezel, magnification bubble, PCLs, etc. all combined together to give a recognizable watch) suggests conspicuous consumption.

The very fact that people talk about this suggests that this type of thing is of social concern to people:

Do you think wearing a Rolex watch impresses people???

Rich Kids of Instagram: these are more obvious examples of conspicuous consumption, but I think human nature is the same across most humans, and possession and wearing of prestige watches in front of others to some degree is a bit like this if not totally like this:


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

People who know nothing about watches buy Rolexes because they have a well earned reputation for quality, robustness, reliability, and value retention. In particular, the exceptional value retention is tied to the consistent design language that allows a thirty year old Datejust to look like it might be a part of the current production lineup, so that increases in the current retail price percolates to the preowned market. Quite honestly, for all this talk of people who know nothing about watches, they seem to choose to buy a Rolex for rather sensible reasons.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



Ticonderoga said:


> Spoken from the point of view of a WIS. Most non-WIS Rolex owners know nothing about watches; they're just like the girlfriend/wife that replies to the question, "Which watch is best," with a knee-jerk "Rolex."
> 
> An overwhelming majority of (non-WIS) Rolex owners bought ONLY for the reason of status. Next time you're at a party and someone is wearing a Rolex, ask them why they bought it versus an Omega, an Eterna or a Tissot and they will give you a deer in the headlights stare and then a feeble reply of, "But, its a Rolex."


All of this. Rolex has spent most of the past century marketing itself as the premiere watch for those who can afford it; this has accelerated since the 1980s. Everything Rolex does, from its adherence to its conservative design aesthetic, to the improvements in its bracelets and bezels, to marketing how its watches grace the arms of the likes of Tiger Woods and the Dalai Lama, to its clamping down on discounting by ADs and grey market, is geared towards prestige.

Most casual watch buyers believe it as do many collectors. Remember this: Unlike collectors, average watch buyers don't flip their watches like crackheads; so arguing that they buy Rolex because they retain value upon resale is pure balderdash. Many will buy a Rolex for the same reason they buy an S-Class Mercedes or X-5 BMW or a Louis Vuitton bag: Because it marks status and prestige, which in the minds of many, equals quality. Nothing wrong with that. Their wallets. Their choice.

Arguing that people don't buy Rolex to show off, to mark that they have "arrived", that they have reached a certain social class, is akin to arguing that the Sun revolves around the earth. Some collectors may want to argue that Rolex doesn't equal high status. But based on the very existence of this thread alone, even they don't think their argument is true.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

On WUS, I notice far more showing off of not wanting or liking of Rolex than any other brand.
That tells you pretty much all you need to know about showing off.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



drunken monkey said:


> On WUS, I notice far more showing off of not wanting or liking of Rolex than any other brand.
> That tells you pretty much all you need to know about showing off.


I don't know about anyone else. But I can argue that I dislike Rolex watches honestly. The brand deserves respect for what it has done as a business. But outside of the Cellini collection and the new Air-King, its aesthetic is dull to me.

But since Rolex critics like myself are such show-offs, in your mind, here's some proper showing off...


----------



## starter (Aug 21, 2010)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

Okay, so every time this tired subject is brought up, I always post something snarky, either from the standpoint of a snobby Rolex backer or a fanatical Omega aficionado... But this time I'm actually going to say something (somewhat) serious, insomuch as it's a real observation...

Firstly, while my daily wearer is a Rolex, I'm an Omega fan. The Speedy Pro is one of my all-time top 5 watches ever (novel of me, I know), and the (older, non-teak dial) AT is definitely top 10 if not top 5. So I'm not an Omega hater. I like both brands.

Secondly, I want to re-tell a little story, because I think it's pertinent to the environment here.

I was with a girl in an Omega boutique, she was thinking about getting a watch. I was wearing my Rolex Sub LV ceramic. One of the sales guys figured he'd try and sell me a watch as well, even if I wasn't in the market. His tactic was to retrieve this or that from the case and tell me how much better it was than the Rolex on my wrist... More innovative, younger and hipper, etc. etc. etc... After about the third watch I said something like: "You know, we were at the Rolex boutique earlier, and do you know what they had to say about Omega?" He said no, he didn't. "Nothing at all."

Now I get that this story is probably inflammatory and makes me sound like an Omega hater, but again, I'm not. I'm a hater of insecurity. The fact of the matter is, I have seen a thousand threads opining that Omega is the equal of or better than Rolex. But I've yet to see one where some guy with a new Rolex is talking about how glad he is he didn't go for an Omega. These threads make me want to pull out my eyeballs with chopsticks like some sushi-loving, horology-obsessed Oedipus Rex. Seriously, enough. If you have an Omega and are happy with it, good for you. Fan-[expletive deleted]-tastic. Just wear the damn thing. And realize that Rolex has nothing to do with your experience of that watch.


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

Vlance said:


> Are you sure you know anything about Rolex movements? Let's say for example, Rolex made a finely engineered movement in the 1950's that kept absolute perfect time.... Would that be doing its job or would it need improvement?
> The thing is, Rolex has been improving their movements and they are keeping within greater tolerances than Omega and Seiko. So, no need for any more modern gimmicks at the moment.


It's a design that was for all practical purposes mature in the 1950's. What ever fiddling around the edge that Rolex did with the spring powered balance wheel governed movement since then did nothing to make a significant improvement in it's performance. Accuracy is still measured in seconds per day and power reserve in hours. Superlative indeed. A highly accurate quartz movement in a modern case would be an attractive addition.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Watch Fan in Beijing said:


> Pffft. Not even close. But I'm sure the kids love the bright colors and the "007" gimmick on the dial.
> 
> Omega is good at gimmicks.


Forget the James Bond reference. But there's nothing wrong with a little bold color. Spices life up. Who wants a dull-as-dirt watch? Oh, yeah, forgot, Rolex and Patek owners. [Sorry.]


----------



## windupp (Sep 21, 2015)

"After about the third watch I said something like: "You know, we were at the Rolex boutique earlier, and do you know what they had to say about Omega?" He said no, he didn't. "Nothing at all."

Exactly -- and I don't get why salespeople think that badmouthing is a good sales tactic. It's like with athletes, musicians, politicians or anyone, really: he who badmouths looks weak and insecure.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

ive read 143 pages...i think?...maybe 123....

what i keep reading though is not how omega is as good as rolex but how rolex is better

what i have learned

1) no other brand of watch will last as long as a rolex

2) no other brand of watch keeps as good time

3) no other brand of watch screams "im da man"

and finally 

4) no other brands come to close to having as many fakes as rolex


im not a rolex hater. im a fan. i own/have owned a few..... they get it.....but so do many other brands.....rolex is a mass marketing behemoth and it shows in this thread........

and honestly, as nice as a diver the submariner is....its everywhere.....dime o 24 dozen......IF i was to own a sub again....and i will...it will be the LV because its 'unique'......

ask a WIS what the best brands are and he will rhyme off many explaining the different attributes

ask a non-wis what the best brands are and you get 'ROLEX'

it is what it is folks.....

#allhailrolex


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

windupp said:


> "After about the third watch I said something like: "You know, we were at the Rolex boutique earlier, and do you know what they had to say about Omega?" He said no, he didn't. "Nothing at all."
> 
> Exactly -- and I don't get why salespeople think that badmouthing is a good sales tactic. It's like with athletes, musicians, politicians or anyone, really: he who badmouths looks weak and insecure.


It really is. Many companies have an explicit policy against trash-talking competitiors for exactly that reason.

Patek appears to be extremely insecure recently, by the way:



> At least one man thinks TAG is going to live to regret its current strategy: Thierry Stern, CEO of Patek Philippe. In an interview with Bloomberg Pursuit's Corinne Gretler, published last March just before Baselworld, Stern was bluntly critical of TAG's approach to its Connected Watch, saying: "It's hard to compete with brands who are very powerful, we're talking about Apple . . . with TAG, again, it's not their field." Stern was also skeptical with regard to the TAG Heuer Carrera Heuer-02Tchronograph tourbillon, priced at $15,950, saying (in the same interview) that the watch is ""nearly a joke to me . . . if they're willing to try to kill the quality of the Swiss product, I think they're on a very good track."


_source: Hodinkee_

It's a stunning blunder for the head of the company that considers itself to be the top name in watchmaking to blame its problems on TAG Heuer, who are undoubtedly delighted that he'd even acknowledge them publicly, let alone give free publicity to their product.

There's not even any possible benefit to Patek from that statement, either. They must be seriously worried that the bubble is going to burst, which they've ironically made more likely to happen with such a bush-league gaffe.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Sevenmack said:


> Who wants a dull-as-dirt watch? Oh, yeah, forgot, Rolex and Patek owners.


...and there's that showing off again.


----------



## windupp (Sep 21, 2015)

"It's a stunning blunder for the head of the company that considers itself to be the top name in watchmaking to blame its problems on TAG Heuer, who are undoubtedly delighted that he'd even acknowledge them publicly, let alone give free publicity to their product. 

There's not even any possible benefit to Patek from that statement, either. They must be seriously worried that the bubble is going to burst, which they've ironically made more likely to happen with such a bush-league move."

That really was an incredible statement. Whatever one thinks of Tag, they've managed to build a very successful brand (and even I'm here saying "Tag" ha), and certainly haven't harmed the "Swiss product" in the least. Rather, they've gotten young men to shell out for mechanical watches and, you know, maybe eyeball a Patek as a grail where they otherwise wouldn't have given Patek or watches a second thought. He should be thanking them.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

The only thing I've learned so far is we apparently all work for Rolex but without compensation . . .


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> ...and there's that showing off again.


No. That's an opinion. I think Rolex and Patek watches are dull. Some prefer that. Others like myself prefer some color and bold styling for our watches. Others think that's too much.

We are all entitled to our opinions. We are all entitled to our preferences. Expressing them isn't "showing off". It is doing what humans do. Except maybe for you, since you do call yourself a drunken monkey.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

drhr said:


> The only thing I've learned so far is we apparently all work for Rolex but without compensation . . .


But of course. We also work for Omega, Seiko, TAG, and the rest without proper compensation.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

Interesting discussion. I've been following the past 10+ pages pretty closely.

I'm going to give my perspective on Rolex and Omega just to contribute something, I'm not claiming any expertise at all though.

Modern Omegas have very limited appeal to me. I don't like the hands on basically all the modern Seamasters, the watches seem to be too thick, their current direction has put me off. What I do really like is the quartz Seamasters from the 80s/90s - imho a much better size, more timeless styling, cases as thin as 4mm...because they're now all vintage I've had a lot of trouble getting problem-free examples on the used/NOS market, but I'll probably keep trying until I do.

With Rolex, quite a few of their current models appeal. I'm not huge on the Sub and similar, but the dressier watches, Air-King, OP, to an extent the Milgauss - they're designs I like. I'm hoping to own a 36mm OP one day.

With regards to brand recognition, status symbols etc. - to my mind Omega would be associated with prestige to non-WIS, Rolex too and more so. That's currently not a huge concern for me, except that if I do get an OP it may well be to mark a personal milestone, actually starting to make some decent money, which is also what would allow me to buy one comfortably. With regards to perception I think I'd prefer if the Rolex accompanied me having better spending power, although I know a lot of people wouldn't notice, but I think a few might, too.

In terms of quality and innovations, from following the discussion it sounds like both have both...


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



Ticonderoga said:


> Spoken from the point of view of a WIS. Most non-WIS Rolex owners know nothing about watches; they're just like the girlfriend/wife that replies to the question, "Which watch is best," with a knee-jerk "Rolex."
> 
> An overwhelming majority of (non-WIS) Rolex owners bought ONLY for the reason of status. Next time you're at a party and someone is wearing a Rolex, ask them why they bought it versus an Omega, an Eterna or a Tissot and they will give you a deer in the headlights stare and then a feeble reply of, "But, its a Rolex."


Fine, I agree. So what? BFD.

Doesn't change the fact that I still think Rolex makes a classic watch design that is solidly engineered and is a great day-to-day watch.

A lot of people own a Porsche, a BMW or some other "luxury" car brand and knows next to nothing about the product they own (which is sort of sad IMHO). The point of the thread is the questioning of the quality of the brand in comparison to another.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

hydrocarbon said:


> It really is. Many companies have an explicit policy against trash-talking competitiors for exactly that reason.
> 
> Patek appears to be extremely insecure recently, by the way:
> 
> ...


There are dissatisfied Patek owners who would argue that the brand suffers from many problems of its own making -- including selling ordinary Calavatras at prices higher than that for a Carrera or Oyster Perpetual. Of course, since people keep buying Pateks, the prices are apparently appropriate to market demand. But Patek needs to look at its own issues, not complain about TAG's efforts.


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

Sevenmack said:


> There are dissatisfied Patek owners who would argue that the brand suffers from many problems of its own making -- including selling ordinary Calavatras at prices higher than that for a Carrera or Oyster Perpetual. Of course, since people keep buying Pateks, the prices are apparently appropriate to market demand. But Patek needs to look at its own issues, not complain about TAG's efforts.


Spot-on.

I get the sense that they've been resting their laurels too long, and have become complacent as a result. It's remarkable to see long-term owners starting to raise concerns about weak designs, poor service and quality-control lapses. These are most definitely issues of their own making.

They've built a deservedly great reputation under previous generations of owners, but it seems that the current one is neglecting to maintain it. Continuing to aggressively increase prices and production while letting standards slide is not going to end well.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Sevenmack said:


> No. That's an opinion.


Nope.
That is a logical fallacy.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Sevenmack said:


> But of course. We also work for Omega, Seiko, TAG, and the rest without proper compensation.


Yeah, but apparently Rolex pays better :think: . . .


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> Nope.
> That is a logical fallacy.


All disagreement is logical fallacy to you.

By the way: Watchbreath does that one line response thing better than you ever will.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

hydrocarbon said:


> Patek appears to be extremely insecure recently, by the way:
> _source: Hodinkee_
> It's a stunning blunder for the head of the company that considers itself to be the top name in watchmaking to blame its problems on TAG Heuer, who are undoubtedly delighted that he'd even acknowledge them publicly, let alone give free publicity to their product.
> 
> There's not even any possible benefit to Patek from that statement, either. They must be seriously worried that the bubble is going to burst, which they've ironically made more likely to happen with such a bush-league gaffe.


"Bush league gaffe"? Made the bubble more like to burst?" You think 30+ years of booming luxury is a bubble? You think that article was about Patek blaming *its* problems on Tag?

That's a lot of projections.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> No. That's an opinion. I think Rolex and Patek watches are dull.


And that's fine. Not sure how that is/was relevant to Drunken Monkey's point.

Presumably, there are other brands which also make products that people find dull. Yet you dont see people coming out in droves and starting threads about them. You dont see Rolex fans starting threads about how awesome Rolex is - there are far more threads started by Rolex haters. THAT is his point. Your liking or not liking Rolex isnt relevant.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*

and bam! from the edge of the brink to 3 new pages in 3 hours. This thread just doesn't want to die :-!



mleok said:


> *People who know nothing about watches buy Rolexes because they have a well earned reputation for quality, robustness, reliability, and value retention.* In particular, the exceptional value retention is tied to the consistent design language that allows a thirty year old Datejust to look like it might be a part of the current production lineup, so that increases in the current retail price percolates to the preowned market. Quite honestly, for all this talk of people who know nothing about watches, they seem to choose to buy a Rolex for rather sensible reasons.


This is why you buy a watch. People who know nothing about watches don't know that Rolex has a "well earned" reputation for the items you describe. You know this and you buy a watch for (partially) this reason. The vast majority of non-WIS buyers have no idea about the Rolex history, that it is a "robust" watch - they buy it because, well, "It's a Rolex."



starter said:


> ...
> 
> I was with a girl in an Omega boutique, she was thinking about getting a watch. I was wearing my Rolex Sub LV ceramic. One of the sales guys figured he'd try and sell me a watch as well, even if I wasn't in the market. His tactic was to retrieve this or that from the case and tell me how much better it was than the Rolex on my wrist... More innovative, younger and hipper, etc. etc. etc... After about the third watch I said something like: "You know, we were at the Rolex boutique earlier, and do you know what they had to say about Omega?" He said no, he didn't. "Nothing at all."


This story just captures, perfectly, the brilliant marketing of Rolex. They've done such a good job of creating demand that they are now the benchmark by which most of the population measures watches.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Sevenmack said:


> All disagreement is logical fallacy to you.


No.
Your thinking they are ugly, is opinion.

Moving onto saying therefore people who like them must like ugly watches, is logical fallacy.

And so we are back ad hominems eh?
How quickly we revert to type.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

vkalia said:


> And that's fine. Not sure how that is/was relevant to Drunken Monkey's point.
> 
> Presumably, there are other brands which also make products that people find dull. Yet you dont see people coming out in droves and starting threads about them. You dont see Rolex fans starting threads about how awesome Rolex is - there are far more threads started by Rolex haters. THAT is his point. Your liking or not liking Rolex isnt relevant.


How about reading what drunken monkey was responding to before commenting, comprehension being what it is?


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> How about reading what drunken monkey was responding to before commenting, comprehension being what it is?


I did. Did you read my point? I'll state it again: Of all the brands out there, Rolex is the only one which compels people to come out of the woodwork and hate on not just the watch but also their owners.

You know, the way you did by saying 'Rolex and Patek owners like ugly watches'.

That's DM's point and you very neatly made it for him.

Free tip - if you are going to act like a supercilious twit, try having some kind of logical argument first. "Comprehension being what it is", indeed. The God of Irony is very fond of your posts.


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

vkalia said:


> And that's fine. Not sure how that is/was relevant to Drunken Monkey's point.
> 
> Presumably, there are other brands which also make products that people find dull. Yet you dont see people coming out in droves and starting threads about them. You dont see Rolex fans starting threads about how awesome Rolex is - there are far more threads started by Rolex haters. THAT is his point. *Your liking or not liking Rolex isnt relevant*.


Actually liking or disliking either brand is what this 145 page thread is all about.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

This is what Rolex does:

-They make high quality, beautiful watches that justify the high price.
-They make watches with distinctive designs so that they are recognizable.
-They keep with the same designs across different models and throughout time so they could be universally recognizable.
-They spend the most on advertising out of all watch brands so that they are the most well-known prestige watch brand in the world: Million Dollar Club 2012: Watch Advertising at All-Time High › WatchTime - USA's No.1 Watch Magazine
-All of the above create and maintain demand, so maintaining resale value, another selling point.

They strive to appeal to everyone on all levels: aesthetically they are beautiful, functionally they are supposed to be relatively reliable and accurate compared to other mechanical watches, socioeconomically they are status symbols, and financially they maintain resale value well if not the best.

Rolex gets at some people's goat a bit because they are clearly not the best watch (i.e. not the most accurate, reliable, durable, etc.), but they are so valued and loved by people, because of what it does for them. It's like a CEO hiring a hot young person instead of the old but experienced person as a secretary.

Myths of Rolex: Chronocentric

The better functioning quartz watch should be the more prized watch, but that's not how things work in the real world.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

vkalia said:


> I did. Did you read my point? I'll state it again: Of all the brands out there, Rolex is the only one which compels people to come out of the woodwork and hate on not just the watch but also their owners.
> 
> You know, the way you did by saying 'Rolex and Patek owners like ugly watches'.


What I said was that Rolex and Patek owners like dull watches. They are dull to me. Of course, aesthetics being what they are, personal and subjective, those who own Rolex and Patek watches can disagree. Given that the subject of the thread is about Rolex (as well as Omega) and that Patek and other brands have been mentioned throughout all 145 pages, mentioning aesthetic preferences is acceptable.

No one is coming out of the wood work here. Given that those who are critics of Rolex have various reasons for their criticism (mine are purely aesthetic, which I have mentioned), drunken monkey cannot really argue that those folks are "showing off".

Perhaps it's time for you to get off whatever island you are on. Apparently it isn't helping you attain any kind of tropical chill.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

John MS said:


> Actually liking or disliking either brand is what this 145 page thread is all about.


Admitting that would require a levelheadedness some don't have.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

John MS said:


> Actually liking or disliking either brand is what this 145 page thread is all about.


I am referring to the specific sub-discussion re the point raised by DM.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> What I said was that Rolex and Patek owners like dull watches. They are dull to me. Of course, aesthetics being what they are, personal and subjective, those who own Rolex and Patek watches can disagree. Given that the subject of the thread is about Rolex (as well as Omega) and that Patek and other brands have been mentioned throughout all 145 pages, mentioning aesthetic preferences is acceptable.


Are you really saying that you dont see a difference between "I find Rolex and Patek watches dull" and "Rolex and Patek owners like dull watches"?



> No one is coming out of the wood work here. Given that those who are critics of Rolex have various reasons for their criticism (mine are purely aesthetic, which I have mentioned), drunken monkey cannot really argue that those folks are "showing off".


"People who like Rolex and Patek like dull watches".

That dig at Rolex owners, as opposed to Rolex watches, is *exactly* the kind of "showing off" that Rolex attracts and other brands dont.



> Perhaps it's time for you to get off whatever island you are on. Apparently it isn't helping you attain any kind of tropical chill.


When i want your opini-- oh wait, i never will.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

vkalia said:


> Are you really saying that you dont see a difference between "I find Rolex and Patek watches dull" and "Rolex and Patek owners like dull watches"?


There is a difference. The first statement is about my perspective on those watches. The second is assuming what those owners think. I would argue that Rolex and Patek owners enjoy and adore their watches as do I. My opinion on the aesthetics are based on my preferences and therefore, as irrelevant to them as their opinions about the Seiko Cocktail Time are to me.



vkalia said:


> That dig at Rolex owners, as opposed to Rolex watches, is *exactly* the kind of "showing off" that Rolex attracts and other brands dont.


Again, that's not "showing off". That is opinion. As human beings, we have them. I have plenty of opinions on plenty of watches; in the case of Rolex, I do applaud their Cellini line and the new Air-King, and dismiss the rest of the lineup. In this case, the discussion is about Rolex because the thread is about Rolex (as well as Omega).



vkalia said:


> When i want your opini-- oh wait, i never will.


Tricks are for kids, son. For kids! And for those with Shinola Derangement Disorder, I guess.


----------



## Legion681 (Sep 1, 2012)

Sevenmack said:


> Forget the James Bond reference. But there's nothing wrong with a little bold color. Spices life up. Who wants a dull-as-dirt watch? Oh, yeah, forgot, Rolex and Patek owners. [Sorry.]


Like there's nothing wrong with tradition either.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

rdoder said:


> This is what Rolex does:
> 
> *-They make high quality, beautiful watches that justify the high price.*
> -They make watches with distinctive designs so that they are recognizable.
> ...


Conversely, it could be said that they sped more on advertising than any other brand convincing people that their beauty justifies their price.

If they just cut out all of the advertising, would their watches be as pretty? as functional?

A large part of the price is the advertising.

And clearly, it works.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Legion681 said:


> Like there's nothing wrong with tradition either.


No one said that. To each their own. But I care little about tradition; in most non-familial contexts, traditions are merely placeholders for something better to come along. If anything, as seen in the United States and in many nations, traditions are mere covers for bigotries based on fears of the other. In the case of watches, traditions are merely things those who value them hold onto because that's what they choose. Tradition doesn't mean better and often doesn't.

Those who enjoy their watches should. I enjoy mine. You enjoy yours. Opinions about them from each other are meaningful only to ourselves.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

...and we have a hat-trick.

Logical fallacy.
Ad-hominem.
Straw Man.

I guess that's why writers have editors.


----------



## hpark21 (Oct 8, 2007)

eeekkkk!!! (made a mistake of opening this thread).

Slowly backs out and clicks back button in a hurry to get out....

Clicks on Rolex vs GS thread seeking some comfort..


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> ...and we have a hat-trick.
> 
> Logical fallacy.
> Ad-hominem.
> Straw Man.


Again, any disagreement is "logical fallacy", "Ad-hominem", or "Straw Man". And again, leave the brevity business to Watchbreath, the master of it. Your efforts are weaker than a bottle of Zima.


----------



## Legion681 (Sep 1, 2012)

Sevenmack said:


> No one said that. To each their own. But I care little about tradition; in most non-familial contexts, traditions are merely placeholders for something better to come along. If anything, as seen in the United States and in many nations, traditions are mere covers for bigotries based on fears of the other. In the case of watches, traditions are merely things those who value them hold onto because that's what they choose. Tradition doesn't mean better and often doesn't.
> 
> Those who enjoy their watches should. I enjoy mine. You enjoy yours. Opinions about them from each other are meaningful only to ourselves.


What you said is that Rolex and Patek owners like dull watches. Forgetting for a moment that painting a whole group of people with the same brush doesn't sound very smart, what to you is "dull", to others - including me - it's traditional. 
A tradition or traditional thing to me is about the heritage/legacy of great folks / populations and family members who were there before me and their era. I am fond of the idea of keeping the memory of that alive in any possible way, including by having a watch that looks like for example like the Zenith my father purchased just out of the air force, after WW2. If I can do anything to preserve that even in the slightest, I will. That is an important priority for me. For you, the priority seems to be a bit of color here or there.To each his own indeed.

You also seem to think that traditions = obsolete ("placeholders for something better to come along") = bigotry/fear. Another big, sweeping statement that just fails to represent reality and I am sure that you are very well aware of it.


----------



## JSI (Dec 12, 2012)

I love all the Rolex hate in this thread, great for a laugh. But Omega owners are not that far off. You would be surpirised. Not every owner is a die hard WIS.

A friend of mine has a Speedmaster, we were out for drinks and I noticed he had the chronograph running.

So I asked "What are you timing"
He looked at me a little funny and said "I don't even know how this thing works"

So he hadning me the watch and I showed him how to stop and reset the chronopraph and also set the date that was incorrect.

So yes, people also buy Omega's that know nothing about watches other than, Omega is an "good" watch.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Legion681 said:


> What you said is that Rolex and Patek owners like dull watches. Forgetting for a moment that painting a whole group of people with the same brush doesn't sound very smart, what to you is "dull", to others - including me - it's traditional.
> A tradition or traditional thing to me is about the heritage/legacy of great folks / populations and family members who were there before me and their era. I am fond of the idea of keeping the memory of that alive in any possible way, including by having a watch that looks like for example like the Zenith my father purchased just out of the air force, after WW2. If I can do anything to preserve that even in the slightest, I will. That is an important priority for me. For you, the priority seems to be a bit of color here or there.To each his own indeed.
> 
> You also seem to think that traditions = obsolete ("placeholders for something better to come along") = bigotry/fear. Another big, sweeping statement that just fails to represent reality and I am sure that you are very well aware of it.


Aesthetically, to me, Rolex and Patek watches are dull. This isn't a matter of looking at watchmaking tradition, but a matter of aesthetic preferences. You have your own preferences. Having an aesthetic preference doesn't mean dismissing or upholding tradition. It simply means having a preference of design based on whatever experiences or social forces that shape your mind.

As for tradition: First and foremost, I made clear I wasn't talking about family traditions. Wrote that first off. Secondly, to go further, in most contexts, including in public policy, traditions are based not on any objective or measurable evidence that practices are effective, but on a series of practices that emerged as a result of many matters. In the case of societies, it is often based on fear of those who look different than those within your tribe or race or ethnic group. In the case of watchmaking, it is based on the limitations of technology at a given time.

In both cases, the traditions may or may not be valid and worthy of being defended. They also may be invalid based on what evidence or technology emerges over time. With societies, genetic and cognitive evidence disproves traditions based on prejudice. With watches, traditions in watchmaking and timekeeping may no longer be valid because new technologies offer better and more-effective solutions to producing watches and keeping time. The use of assembly lines in producing watches over crafting by hand is example of the former. Quartz and atomic timekeeping are examples of the latter.

Traditions can be obsolete. Over time, they usually are. In many cases, they are used to justify fears. This doesn't mean people aren't entitled to their traditions. It does mean that some of us, myself included, are allowed to dismiss those traditions based on what we know now.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

JSI said:


> I love all the Rolex hate in this thread, great for a laugh. But Omega owners are not that far off. You would be surpirised. Not every owner is a die hard WIS.
> 
> A friend of mine has a Speedmaster, we were out for drinks and I noticed he had the chronograph running.
> 
> ...


:facepalm: 

I'd say this is what happens when mechanical watch ownership skips a generation (or two). I was born in 1971, just before the quartz era took hold. Most of what I know about operating watches comes from my dad.

Where'd your friend buy his Speedy?


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

hpark21 said:


> eeekkkk!!! (made a mistake of opening this thread).
> 
> Slowly backs out and clicks back button in a hurry to get out....
> 
> Clicks on Rolex vs GS thread seeking some comfort..


lol..no doubt....

at least GS gos punch for punch with Rolex....essentially identical with GS actually probably winning the movement category......rolex winning the 'bracelet fitment' category......

essentially a draw....heavyweight japanese vs heavyweight swiss....

Omega has suffered a severe beatdown in this thread at the hands of Rolex....

#thealmightyrolex


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Wow, history really does repeat itself. After almost 90 pages of idiotic but fun banter in good humor, the "serious" arguments are back and anti-Rolex trolls return with the vengeance.
And as always - it's not Rolex vs Omega, but how much Rolex sucks and how people with taste or uniqueness or special snowflake mindset or what have you avoid it... Sad really


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

EnderW said:


> Wow, history really does repeat itself. After almost 90 pages of idiotic but fun banter in good humor, the "serious" arguments are back and anti-Rolex trolls return with the vengeance.
> And as always - it's not Rolex vs Omega, but how much Rolex sucks and how people with taste or uniqueness or special snowflake mindset or what have you avoid it... Sad really


my next watch..another rolex will be a submariner 116610LV or the new TT 41 Datejust on jubilee **best release at Basel imo**


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

rdoder said:


> ...
> 
> Rolex gets at some people's goat a bit because they are clearly not the best watch (i.e. not the most accurate, reliable, durable, etc.), but they are so valued and loved by people, because of what it does for them. It's like a CEO hiring a hot young person instead of the old but experienced person as a secretary.


In my experience, experience is overrated. However...









Ignore the fashion watch.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Sevenmack said:


> Who wants a dull-as-dirt watch? Oh, yeah, forgot, Rolex and Patek owners.


This is logical fallacy.
Your opinion is that they are ugly.
The conclusion (above) is false.



Sevenmack said:


> By the way: Watchbreath does that one line response thing better than you ever will.





Sevenmack said:


> Admitting that would require a levelheadedness some don't have.





Sevenmack said:


> And again, leave the brevity business to Watchbreath, the master of it. Your efforts are weaker than a bottle of Zima.





Sevenmack said:


> Tricks are for kids, son. For kids!


these are all pish poor attempts at ad-hominem attacks

and even this:


Sevenmack said:


> But since Rolex critics like myself are such show-offs, *in your mind*, here's some proper showing off


is your idea of a "clever" little jab.



Sevenmack said:


> Aesthetically, to me, Rolex and Patek watches are dull...blah blah blah...
> 
> ...Traditions can be obsolete. Over time, they usually are. In many cases, they are used to justify fears. This doesn't mean people aren't entitled to their traditions. It does mean that some of us, myself included, are allowed to dismiss those traditions based on what we know now.


is a deflection of my initial pointing out of your logical fallacy, hence straw man.

...and to finish, you're now moving on to simply being verbose.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

In case anyone was wondering where Sevenmack elevated his personal aesthetic opinion to universal truth, it's this particular gem:



Sevenmack said:


> Who wants a dull-as-dirt watch? Oh, yeah, forgot, Rolex and Patek owners. [Sorry.]


Sevenmack fancies himself as a force for social change, and like many such social crusaders, he views the current social norms and traditions as being the instruments of oppression. At the risk of doing a bit of armchair psychoanalysis, this is perhaps why he is naturally predisposed against brands like Patek and Rolex, even if he isn't necessarily conscious of this or willing to admit that prejudice.

One thing which is readily apparent is that most people form opinions about brands viscerally, and only attempt to justify that opinion rationally after the fact.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

It should also be said that mechanical watches are all about tradition, being the anarchic form of timekeeping that it is. Unless you're truly concerned about your watch continuing to function after a electromagnetic pulse, there is little reason to prefer a mechanical watch unless there is some appreciation for traditional methods of keeping time.


----------



## windupp (Sep 21, 2015)

"One thing which is readily apparent is that most people form opinions about brands viscerally, and only attempt to justify that opinion rationally after the fact."

Hmm, I had the opposite experience. Before I got into watches I thought what most people think about Rolex -- good quality, a bit status-y, the big brand yadda yadda. I didn't really care much for them and admired more quirky watches I saw on people. Then I got into watches, and eventually bought a couple of Rolex. It was then that I really started to appreciate the brand. They just stood out: the detailing on the dial, the aesthetic qualities of the steel, the way the bracelet fit. Just a whole bunch of things. Oh, and the fact that I don't have to re-set them for months.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

This threads starting to look like a creation vs darwin argument. 

what I don't understand is, if you take the retail value of all the Swiss watches made in the last 12 months it adds up to more money than the watch buying public own pro rata. 

Competition is good for the industry with brands striving to better each other just means we get a better product.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

mleok said:


> Sevenmack fancies himself as a force for social change, and like many such social crusaders, he views the current social norms and traditions as being the instruments of oppression. At the risk of doing a bit of armchair psychoanalysis, this is perhaps why he is naturally predisposed against brands like Patek and Rolex, even if he isn't necessarily conscious of this or willing to admit that prejudice.


Or perhaps I have an opinion about the aesthetics of watches, one based on my own experiences as a child with my grandfather's watches, furthered by other experiences as well as knowledge about matters of art such as the Baroque period and the Bauhaus School. As usual, your efforts at armchair psychology are a miserable failure.

You did once again demonstrate, as many so-called academics and professors do, that you hide your pomposity and pedantism in the form of faux erudition.


----------



## rfortson (Feb 18, 2012)

Please, for the love of dog, someone close this down.

Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using Tapatalk


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> This is logical fallacy.
> Your opinion is that they are ugly.
> The conclusion (above) is false.
> 
> ...


That's a lot of time you took when you could have just said "I think you are wrong, wrong, wrong and your brain is made of poo". Because that is all that you are saying. A five year old can do better.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

rfortson said:


> Please, for the love of dog, someone close this down.


They will. Eventually. But even the mods are enjoying this mess.


----------



## ConfusedOne (Sep 29, 2015)

Is this thread Digiorno? Because this thread does not deliver.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Sevenmack said:


> That's a lot of time you took when you could have just said "I think you are wrong, wrong, wrong and your brain is made of poo". Because that is all that you are saying. A five year old can do better.


Aww, Diddums, 
did I hurt your feelings?
Is that why all you can do is name call?


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> Awesome
> Diddles, did I hurt your feelings?
> Is that why all you can do is name call?


Is that all you got? A five year old can still do better.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

rfortson said:


> Please, for the love of dog, someone close this down.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using Tapatalk


Agreed at this stage. The personal attacks are getting a little ugly.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

*apologies for the late edit.
I was literally taking a dump when I was posting that and I didn't notice the bad auto-correct.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

ConfusedOne said:


> Is this thread Digiorno? Because this thread does not deliver.
> View attachment 8738826


Which raises this question: Will Chicago deep-dish pizza ever be better than New York Neapolitan? [Answer: No.]


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

rfortson said:


> Please, for the love of dog, someone close this down.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using Tapatalk


lmao:-d


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Sevenmack said:


> You did once again demonstrate, as many so-called academics and professors do, that you hide your pomposity and pedantism in the form of faux erudition.


The funny thing is that if your posts are any indication, I would have said exactly the same thing about self-professed editors, journalists, and writers.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Sevenmack said:


> Is that all you got? A five year old can still do better.


Incidentally.
You're the one who is stomping his little feet and saying "no, no, no"; I just listed your instances of the initial fallacy, the subsequent ad-hominems and later straw man that you deny.


----------



## ConfusedOne (Sep 29, 2015)

Sevenmack said:


> Which raises this question: Will Chicago deep-dish pizza ever be better than New York Neapolitan? [Answer: No.]


Personally they both have their positives.
Chicago deep-dish is just too filling while New York style can be too thin.
Out of the two I would prefer New York because it is made faster and it is never cold.
However, most pizza I eat is delicious.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> Incidentally.
> You're the one who is stomping his little feet and saying "no, no, no"; I just listed your instances of the initial fallacy, the subsequent ad-hominems and later straw man that you deny.


Yawn! I would tell you to try brevity. Maybe Watchbreath could give you some lessons.

Anyhow, the original argument you made (as if it deserves to be called such) is that critics of Rolex are "showing off" because they are critics of Rolex. That was a generalization and I pointed that out. You said nothing until I mentioned how I found the designs of Rolex and Patek watches to be dull. You claimed that it was an example of "showing off".

Since then, you have offered nothing to defend your point. I have defended my point. [Not that there really was much to point out since you offered nothing anyhow.] Now you are sulking when you could have easily put me on your ignore list.

Petulance, look thyself in the mirror.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

if it matters....and it doesent.....

when i go to a party i never wear a Rolex...why?....because the first 3 people i see have one on.......i wear a speedy pro....or AP....or IWC......or dare i say it!!!..GRAND SEIKO!!!!

same on vacation....rolex stays home.....

its not that i dont think rolex makes a good watch....they do....they are the best.....**everyone has told me this...

** i dont necessarily agree **

i just hate wearing a watch somewhere where everyone has the same watch!!....i wear my rolex to work, casual, weekends etc in rotation of course

i also chose a porsche cayenne over a BMW because for every cayenne i see...i see 20 beamers.......

#rolexproblems

#allhailrolex


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

ConfusedOne said:


> Personally they both have their positives.
> Chicago deep-dish is just too filling while New York style can be too thing.
> Out of the two I would prefer New York because it is made faster and it is never cold.
> However, most pizza I eat is delicious.


That's a great answer.... now can you please tie it back to watches?

What is the New York style of watches?
What's the Chicago deep dish?
It's a given that Invicta, is, of course, the Stouffer's pizza of watches


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

looking forward to picking up a sub 116610LV though....i still have yet to see one in the 'wild' after that i will add the new SS master co-axial blue bezel/dial planet ocean.....

a collection MUST have many different shapes, colors, bracelets etc......my IWC is a white dial

Rolex really needs to make a white dial submariner with black bezel:-!


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

dbostedo said:


> That's a great answer.... now can you please tie it back to watches?
> 
> What is the New York style of watches?
> What's the Chicago deep dish?
> It's a given that Invicta, is, of course, the Stouffer's pizza of watches


New York Pizza would claim Rolex because it is number one. And New York City is number one.
Chicago would claim Omega because, as it does, it really thinks number two is number one. 
The Stouffers Pizza of watches wouldn't be Invicta. It would be Lucien Piccard. 
As for Invicta: It would be some Guy Fieri joint of pizzas. I'd rather eat a Stouffers and wear a Piccard.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> New York Pizza would claim Rolex because it is number one. And New York City is number one.
> Chicago would claim Omega because, as it does, it really thinks number two is number one.
> The Stouffers Pizza of watches wouldn't be Invicta. It would be Lucien Piccard.
> As for Invicta: It would be some Guy Fieri joint of pizzas. I'd rather eat a Stouffers and wear a Piccard.


wrong...omegas not #2....Grand Seiko is......


----------



## ConfusedOne (Sep 29, 2015)

dbostedo said:


> That's a great answer.... now can you please tie it back to watches?
> 
> What is the New York style of watches?
> What's the Chicago deep dish?
> It's a given that Invicta, is, of course, the Stouffer's pizza of watches


New York style pizza would be Rolex.
Chicago deep-dish would be Omega.
Tombstone would be Orient.
Freshetta would be Timex.
Totino's Pizza would be Invicta.
Domino's would be Seiko.
Papa Johns would be Hamilton.
Little Cesar's would be Tissot.
Pizza Hut would be Movado.

That is at least how I would tie pizza joints to watch brands.
Interpret it however you want.
My personal favorite pizza types are microbrand pizza.
An example of this would be Dion's as it relates to Halios.
It can be a little pricey, but they offer great variety and perfection.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

For a writer, you sure do have problems understanding simple words.

The showing off isnt the criticism of Rolex.
The showing off, is your incessant repeating how Rolex and whatever are dull; positioning yourself as a person of superior taste. This is further supported by the nature of your continued belittling of those that point out the hypocrisy, fallacies and errors in your posts.

Of course, there is that other guy who "likes" your posts who is very proud to no like Rolex and other expensive watches.

FYI.
You're not the only person in this thread.

FYI 2.
Defended what point?
All I see is denial of your fallacy.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> For a writer, you sure do have problems understanding simple words.


For a drunken primate, you sure have problems with flinging feces.



drunken monkey said:


> The showing off, is your incessant repeating how Rolex and whatever are dull; positioning yourself as a person of superior taste.


Again, simple one, what I offered were my aesthetic opinions of Rolex's designs. I have an opinion. Others have their own. Doesn't mean that one opinion is superior to another. We all have preferences and have a right to express them, both in words and in choices of watches.

Understand? No. Oh well, go back to school.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

ConfusedOne said:


> New York style pizza would be Rolex.
> Chicago deep-dish would be Omega.
> Tombstone would be Orient.
> Freshetta would be Timex.
> ...


That list, pleasantly, surprisingly, makes a ton of sense.

Around here, I could add 2 Amy's as, maybe, Glashutte Original? Not a microbrand, and not that well known, but extremely well regarded by people that do know it.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Sevenmack said:


> For a drunken primate, you sure have problems with flinging feces.


We're back to that?
As I said, you so easily revert to type, especially when people see through you.

Name calling and a bunch of words sayng "I'm better than you".


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> We're back to that?
> As I said, you so easily revert to type, especially when people see through you.


Seriously, what is your damage? I have heard that not getting enough attention as a child can lead to people seeking love in unloving ways.

Again, as I mentioned above, what I offered were my aesthetic opinions of Rolex's designs. I have an  opinion. Others have their own. Doesn't mean that one's aesthetic opinion is superior to another. We all have preferences and we can express them.

The problem is that you don't believe that people are entitled to their aesthetic opinions because you yourself believe that your tastes are superior to others. In short, the problem is that you are projecting your own complex upon others.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

ConfusedOne said:


> New York style pizza would be Rolex.
> Chicago deep-dish would be Omega.
> Tombstone would be Orient.
> Freshetta would be Timex.
> ...


I can work with that.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Just in case your original quote is forgotten amidst the babble



Sevenmack said:


> Who wants a dull-as-dirt watch? Oh, yeah, forgot, Rolex and Patek owners.


That is hardly the same as what you are attempting to present now.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> Just in case your original quote is forgotten amidst the babble
> 
> That is hardly the same as what you are attempting to present now.


Again, it is still an opinion about aesthetics. And Rolex and Patek owners find their watches appealing. I don't. That's fine. There are folks who think my Seiko Cocktail Time is too gaudy and my Citizen Calibre 9000 is ugly as sin. [Mark Carson of Ablogtowatch was quite adamant in expressing the latter opinion.] I could care less.

As I mentioned earlier, the problem is that you are projecting your own feelings of superiority when it comes to aesthetic opinions on watches. Your problem, not mine. Bye, Felicia.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

snakeeyes said:


> looking forward to picking up a sub 116610LV though....i still have yet to see one in the 'wild' after that i will add the new SS master co-axial blue bezel/dial planet ocean.....
> 
> a collection MUST have many different shapes, colors, bracelets etc......my IWC is a white dial
> 
> Rolex really needs to make a white dial submariner with black bezel:-!


A white dial Sub with black bezel is a Sub I can see myself liking...:think:


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

snakeeyes said:


> ...
> i also chose a porsche cayenne over a BMW because for every cayenne i see...i see 20 beamers.......


Dude, _*this*_ is a Porsche...


----------



## UberDave (Jan 13, 2015)

Have you ever found yourself pulling into your driveway and wondering "How did I get here?"


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

snakeeyes said:


> if it matters....and it doesent.....
> 
> when i go to a party i never wear a Rolex...why?....because the first 3 people i see have one on.......i wear a speedy pro....or AP....or IWC......or dare i say it!!!..GRAND SEIKO!!!!
> 
> ...


I finally get why some dislike Rolex owners. They really can be showy blowhards who feel compelled to convey their wealth. I'm selling mine.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Dude, _*this*_ is a Porsche...
> 
> View attachment 8739498


nice.....my cayenne isn't basic equipped like some soccer moms....i have the diesel w PASM and air-suspension w BOSE...thats what I love about Porsche.....you can get a matchbox on wheels or customize for yourself like thy did in the 80's.......I just sold my 2003 Ferrari 360 spider convertible last year and picked up a 2015 Z06 corvette w 650HP for my summer sports car......

i hope you were not implying that a porsche SUV is not a porsche......those guys are lame.......cheers....


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

UberDave said:


> Have you ever found yourself pulling into your driveway and wondering "How did I get here?"


Good a place as any for this...


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

drunken monkey said:


> Just in case your original quote is forgotten amidst the babble
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sevenmack*
> _Who wants a dull-as-dirt watch? Oh, yeah, forgot, Rolex and Patek owners._
> ...


You know, I don't really see the difference between Sevenmack's quote there, and saying "Because I find Rolex and Patek watches boring, it's my opinion that Rolex and Patek owners like dull-as-dirt watches."

Read that way, I don't see why all this arguing is going on. :think:


----------



## UberDave (Jan 13, 2015)

dbostedo said:


> Good a place as any for this...


Suddenly this thread is looking much better!


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

dbostedo said:


> You know, I *don't really see the difference between Sevenmack's quote there, and saying "Because I find Rolex and Patek watches boring, it's my opinion that Rolex and Patek owners like dull-as-dirt watches."*
> 
> Read that way, I don't see why all this arguing is going on. :think:


The same thing occurred to me too.

_
"Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop drinking."_


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

snakeeyes said:


> ...
> i hope you were not implying that a porsche SUV is not a porsche......those guys are lame.......cheers....


Nope, no worries there. Go out and enjoy the new ride!


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

dbostedo said:


> You know, I don't really see the difference between Sevenmack's quote there, and saying "Because I find Rolex and Patek watches boring, it's my opinion that Rolex and Patek owners like dull-as-dirt watches."
> 
> Read that way, I don't see why all this arguing is going on. :think:


The argument is that some people think having an opinion about the aesthetics of a watch is "showing off". Whatever that means. Personally, I think the issue is that some Rolex owners are displeased that there are folks who don't like the aesthetics of their special snowflake. Why they should care is something I cannot fathom in the least.

Of course, if they really wanted a snowflake, Seiko sells them for around $5,900 through their authorized dealers. But then, that raises the whole question of the movement that shall not be named.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> The argument is that some people think having an opinion about the aesthetics of a watch is "showing off". Whatever that means. Personally, I think the issue is that some Rolex owners are displeased that there are folks who don't like the aesthetics of their special snowflake.


But that's all speculative, not what anyone actually said I don't think.

Anyway, I just wanted to add that I love the spring drive and hope to own such a wonderful mechanical watch one day. |>


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

dbostedo said:


> But that's all speculative, not what anyone actually said I don't think.
> 
> Anyway, I just wanted to add that I love the spring drive and hope to own such a wonderful mechanical watch one day. |>


The issue of showing of was written by the drunken haplorhine himself (and cheered on by his rabble) especially after my aforementioned quote.



drunken monkey said:


> ...and there's that showing off again.


Why he and others are so bothered speaks to other insecurities.

As for Spring Drive: Hopefully, I will have a Snowflake in a couple of years, if not sooner. It is a beautiful watch and an exciting movement.


----------



## DavidM1 (Feb 13, 2006)

Yes. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

*Re: Will Rolex ever be as cool as Omega*



Ticonderoga said:


> and bam! from the edge of the brink to 3 new pages in 3 hours. This thread just doesn't want to die :-!
> 
> This is why you buy a watch. People who know nothing about watches don't know that Rolex has a "well earned" reputation for the items you describe. You know this and you buy a watch for (partially) this reason. The vast majority of non-WIS buyers have no idea about the Rolex history, that it is a "robust" watch - they buy it because, well, "It's a Rolex."
> 
> This story just captures, perfectly, the brilliant marketing of Rolex. They've done such a good job of creating demand that they are now the benchmark by which most of the population measures watches.


That isnt marketing. That is strategy. Rolex has (second to none in the world of watches) developed, implemented, and reaped the benefits of a well thought out strategy that is really probably a case study in strategic management textbooks of a success.

And thats great. If you can drum up all of your functions (marketing being one) and have them worked like a well oiled macine towards the same goals thats a good thing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

snakeeyes said:


> i hope you were not implying that a porsche SUV is not a porsche......those guys are lame.......cheers....


Oh then I must be the devil to you. Not only do I not consider it a porsche (its a dressed up taureg) but it isnt an SUV.

I live in the middle of the desert. We know SUVs. They are called the Toyota Land Cruiser and the Nissan Patrol. Anything else is fluff.

The porsche is a glorified station wagen. As is the Q7 and X5 and ML (now called god knows what)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jlondono77 (Aug 16, 2011)

*Omega vs Rolex showdown - vote your choice between the brands.*

Omega
vs
Rolex

2016 election year showdown!

My vote goes to Omega


----------



## dantan (Dec 16, 2014)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex showdown - vote your choice between the brands.*

Another Rolex vs Omega thread!


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex showdown - vote your choice between the brands.*



dantan said:


> Another Rolex vs Omega thread!


I AM SO HAPPY IM GOING TO DIE!!


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex showdown - vote your choice between the brands.*

A common non-medical definition of insanity is repetition of a behavior with the expectation of a different result. Repetitive posting of Rolex versus Omega threads on this forum is a manifestation of this definition of insanity.


----------



## dr3ws (Jun 9, 2015)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex showdown - vote your choice between the brands.*



Nom de Forum said:


> A common non-medical definition of insanity is repetition of a behavior with the expectation of a different result. Repetitive posting of Rolex versus Omega threads on this forum is a manifestation of this definition of insanity.


Is that from Einstein?


----------



## always on time (Oct 5, 2015)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex showdown - vote your choice between the brands.*

This one is a tough one for me. I want to choose Rolex, but it is important to me that I point out that all my interactions with Rolex have been consensual. Well, almost all...


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

I voted Rolex but that could change if I ever see an Omega I like enough to buy. I am open to it happening one day.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex showdown - vote your choice between the brands.*

YAAAAAWN zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzsnort-snortzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

Anyone can own a Porsche on finance when they live at home with their parents rent free.

i do. :roll:


----------



## T1meout (Sep 27, 2013)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex showdown - vote your choice between the brands.*

Predictable outcome.


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex showdown - vote your choice between the brands.*



dantan said:


> Another Rolex vs Omega thread!


There are always snobs, fanboys, anti reality humans from the planet glarthox that want to by any means bring down a company that has run marvelously like a well oiled movement (hah)

To everyone except for the fan boys a rolex is a mercedes S500 (550 to those in the US)

An Omega is an S400.

Those who own the S500 take pride in the fact that they have a V8 and that they drive something that costs the same as a small apartment. There is a bit of showing off and they regard people who drive an S400 as those who simply couldnt afford the S500 (which is true in some cases and untrue in others)

Thise who own the S400 point out the fact that it is every bit as nice as its big sister (it is) but the smaller engine means that 1. It is more fuel efficient and 1. It disnt break the bank (as much as the S500) because it has enough power (it does) and the differences arent worth the price (plus what will you do with the V8? A click above 120kmph and snap! A fine)

That is the best analogy of this while rolex vs omega crap. Owners of these two brand are more similar than they would like to admit.

But both will agree somewhat to the fact that both an S400 and S500 is far superior to a Lexus 460 (a grand seiko)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

Richerson said:


> Anyone can own a Porsche on finance when they live at home with their parents rent free.
> 
> i do. :roll:


My brother did about a decade ago.

He now owns a ferrari on finance and lives at his dads.

Not having bills was good as I recall.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

dbostedo said:


> You know, I don't really see the difference between Sevenmack's quote there, and saying "Because I find Rolex and Patek watches boring, it's my opinion that Rolex and Patek owners like dull-as-dirt watches."
> 
> Read that way, I don't see why all this arguing is going on. :think:


Sevenmack's statement is more akin to, "Because I find Rolex and Patek watches boring, Rolex and Patek owners like dull-as-dirt watches."


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

The difference is tone.



Sevenmack said:


> Forget the James Bond reference. But there's nothing wrong with a little bold color. Spices life up. Who wants a dull-as-dirt watch? Oh, yeah, forgot, Rolex and Patek owners. [Sorry.]


What was said is essentially
"who buys this sh.t oh yeah, those guys buy it".

When was that sort of thing ever said, in that manner without being meant as derision or without being said from a position of superiority? There's even acknowledgement that is/can be taken to be offensive, hence the [sorry].

FYI, that is also exactly what a logical fallacy is and how they "work" as a device in discussion.

I think avocados are disgusting = opinion
Those guys like avocado = fact
Those guys like disgusting foods = fallacy

If it was meant just as an expression of an opinion, it would have ended at "i think they're a bit boring" or in the case of the post


Sevenmack said:


> Forget the James Bond reference. But there's nothing wrong with a little bold color. Spices life up.


The additional line is nothing but a thinly veiled insult. Nudge nudge wink wink and all that.

As for the additional accusation of me projecting my aesthetic preference and me being the one positioning myself as superior; that's just more nonsense to literally deflect. I'll just ask for examples of that, where I have said anywhere about what I think of the watches.

My observations have been on what has been said by people, which is in fact, what started this.

I stated something along the lines of:
I see more instances of people showing off their dislike of Rolex than with any other brand.

The retort was that people can criticise without showing off, which is something I don't disagree with but the point is, that wasn't what was demonstrated.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

Re avocadoes, could one not argue 'those guys like disgusting foods' is an opinion also? This all seems to be coming down to different kinds of subjectivity.

I don't like Rolex/Patek designs - subjective opinion.
Those guys do like Rolex/Patek designs - objective fact containing a subjective opinion.
Those guys like watch designs I don't like - kind of 2 objective facts which are also subjective opinions?
Those guys like horrible watches - subjective, seems more like an opinion than a fallacy. However, contains the somewhat hidden subjective opinion that those guys have bad taste. Therefore, something of an insult if shared rather than kept private?

The way I score it, it's not a fallacy but it is a thinly veiled insult, except not even all that thinly veiled, considering the additional 'dull as dirt' and the 'sorry'.

Anyway that's all, not taking sides, just trying to figure it out.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

paulopiper said:


> Anyway that's all, not taking sides, just trying to figure it out.


Avocados.
The latter statement isn't opinion.
If you add "I think" to the front, it becomes a question of whether they like avocado or not, instead of qualifying it to form an opinion.

Eg:
Adidas Superstars are uncomfortable.
I think Adidas Superstars are uncomfortable.

Both are the same.

Those guys like Adidas Superstars (that I think are uncomfortable).
I think those guys like Adidas Superstars (that I think are uncomfortable)

Both are not the same.
(subordinate claus in brackets to highlight the syntax)

This is why grammer matters.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

rfortson said:


> Please, for the love of dog, someone close this down.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using Tapatalk


If you don't like boxing, why would you go to a boxing match?

If you look around on this site, you'll find kick boxing, golf & swimming.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

snakeeyes said:


> wrong...omegas not #2....Grand Seiko is......


Sorry, the grown-ups are talking about *automatic* watches in this thread :roll:


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

Sevenmack said:


> Seriously, what is your damage? I have heard that not getting enough attention as a child can lead to people seeking love in unloving ways.
> 
> Again, as I mentioned above, what I offered were my aesthetic opinions of Rolex's designs. I have an opinion. Others have their own. Doesn't mean that one's aesthetic opinion is superior to another. We all have preferences and we can express them.
> 
> The problem is that you don't believe that people are entitled to their aesthetic opinions because you yourself believe that your tastes are superior to others. In short, the problem is that you are projecting your own complex upon others.


If anyone will get the thread shut down, it will be Seven.

Come on dude, relax with the personal stuff. This is the equivalent of calling the police during a girl fight at Walmart. Sure, someone should, but where's the harm in just sitting back and watching? :-!

#threadWillOmegaeverbeasgoodasRolex


----------



## Bradjhomes (Jun 18, 2011)

It's getting close...


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

drunken monkey said:


> Avocados.
> The latter statement isn't opinion.
> If you add "I think" to the front, it becomes a question of whether they like avocado or not, instead of qualifying it to form an opinion.
> 
> ...


Ok i went to a weird international school and was never really taught grammar (or sex education), but i would have thought 'Adidas are uncomfortable' would be a universal statement, objective while putting the 'i think' in front makes it subjective?


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

vkalia said:


> "Bush league gaffe"? Made the bubble more like to burst?" You think 30+ years of booming luxury is a bubble? You think that article was about Patek blaming *its* problems on Tag?
> 
> That's a lot of projections.


Unquestionably it's a gaffe to make such a counterproductive statement; it's a very unprofessional thing to do, particularly for a luxury company that should understand the importance of perception and reputation.

And yes, I think Patek has created a pricing bubble; both their quantity and pricing have increased dramatically at the same time that their quality has decreased. It's not too difficult to see that it's an unsustainable situation. With certain long-term clients starting to lose confidence in the company and discussing their concerns publicly, Theirry Stern has good reason to be nervous. But why he'd effectively say so in print is genuinely baffling.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> The difference is tone.
> 
> What was said is essentially
> "who buys this sh.t oh yeah, those guys buy it".
> ...


It's an opinion, inherently subjective, on a watch thread, an arena for all kinds of opinion. If there were any attempts at making said opinion as fact, it would have been qualified with a poll or other data point and source citation. You know, how facts or attempts at making opinions fact usually are presented. You need not say "I think" every time because, unless you use such data points, it is clear that is what you think. Context always matters.

Again, you seem to be projecting. Which is fun to watch from the comfy confines of the Internet.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

Yeah I may be a weird case though, I had some autistic traits growing up. I would only say (out loud) 'adidas are uncomfortable' if I considered it a universal truth or at the least, if I knew many or most people found the shoes uncomfortable.

If I were giving a personal opinion, I would say something like 'I find adidas shoes uncomfortable'.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

paulopiper said:


> Yeah I may be a weird case though, I had some autistic traits growing up. I would only say (out loud) 'adidas are uncomfortable' if I considered it a universal truth or at the least, if I knew many or most people found the shoes uncomfortable.
> 
> If I were giving a personal opinion, I would say something like 'I find adidas shoes uncomfortable'.


Again, context matters. Watch forums are inherently arenas for all kinds of subjective opinions. Which is an oxymoron since opinions are subjective by nature.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Ticonderoga said:


> If anyone will get the thread shut down, it will be Seven.
> 
> Come on dude, relax with the personal stuff. This is the equivalent of calling the police during a girl fight at Walmart. Sure, someone should, but where's the harm in just sitting back and watching? :-!
> 
> #threadWillOmegaeverbeasgoodasRolex


I finish fights. Not start them. Don't start none, don't get none.


----------



## GlennO (Jan 3, 2010)

paulopiper said:


> Yeah I may be a weird case though, I had some autistic traits growing up. I would only say (out loud) 'adidas are uncomfortable' if I considered it a universal truth or at the least, if I knew many or most people found the shoes uncomfortable.
> 
> If I were giving a personal opinion, I would say something like 'I find adidas shoes uncomfortable'.


Both of those statements are different to saying "those guys like uncomfortable shoes (or disgusting food)" which is demeaning and doesn't respect the preferences of others.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

Sevenmack said:


> Again, context matters. Watch forums are inherently arenas for all kinds of subjective opinions. Which is an oxymoron since opinions are subjective by nature.


I guess even if it was an insult, a large part of the forum spends a lot of time insulting Invictas and sometimes their owners. It's the exact same thing...I can also imagine you must get a bit sick of it...


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

paulopiper said:


> I guess even if it was an insult, a large part of the forum spends a lot of time insulting Invictas and sometimes their owners. It's the exact same thing...I can also imagine you must get a bit sick of it...


The Invicta is a gift from my wife. It is a beauty. I don't feel a need to defend it because it is a gift from someone I love. Also, opinions about Invicta are dull because many who dismiss the brand tend to do it as buyer's remorse; it was their first watch and hate that it was.

[By the way: If someone thinks that a statement about finding Rolex designs to be dull is an insult, then perhaps those sensitive souls should get out more. These are watches, not anything that matters in real life. Politics, for example, involves actual insults, often about whole groups of people and their circumstances, often not of their own making.]

Now there are aspects of F2 that are tiresome. But I can go elsewhere if it was that exhausting.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

drunken monkey said:


> This is why grammer matters.


I really wish you'd change your avatar, it's started to appear in my nightmare's.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

paulopiper said:


> Ok i went to a weird international school and was never really taught grammar (or sex education), but i would have thought 'Adidas are uncomfortable' would be a universal statement, objective while putting the 'i think' in front makes it subjective?


This forum given posts here a context where it is understood mostly, that posts are nearly always opinions and thus not necessitating the the use of "I think" to qualify it. The problem is when people forget that their opinion isn't fact and starts to argue it as such, which is the case here.

As I illustrated earlier.
The first is an opinion.
The second is a fact.
The third (drawn conclusion from the former two) is neither an opinion or a fact.

I'm pretty sure this false logic has a name but that was A-Level stuff and that was an age ago. And for what it's worth, I went to one of them smancy selective grammer schools.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

drunken monkey said:


> This forum given posts here a context where it is understood mostly, that posts are nearly always opinions and thus not necessitating the the use of "I think" to qualify it. The problem is when people forget that their opinion isn't fact and starts to argue it as such, which is the case here.
> 
> As I illustrated earlier.
> The first is an opinion.
> ...


Yeah I need proper grammar lessons to really understand why it would be considered a fallacy. Currently not making much sense to me.

I did UCLES board AICE (essentially international A levels) English (combined Language and Literature) and ended up with an A...at IGCSE level though I only got a B in English Language (A in Literature though). My teacher barely mentioned grammar and also couldn't spell that well...for 5 years my spelling went uncorrected and it still sometimes shows.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

paulopiper said:


> Yeah I need proper grammar lessons to really understand why it would be considered a fallacy. Currently not making much sense to me..


Its why I placed the subordinate (opinion) part in brackets previously, as an attempt to break down the sentence to explain the syntax.

It's like this:
"I think those guys like uncomfortable shoes"

Isn't an expression of the opinion of the writer; it is an expression of the opinion of the guys who like the shoes.
In other words, that line is saying that those guys also find the shoes uncomfortable but like them anyway. That is why the "I think" doesn't turn it into the writer's opinion but into a question and why the omission of "I think" doesn't make it a fact (because those guys don't find them uncomfortable)

The line isn't the same as
"I think the shoes those guys like are uncomfortable"
Nor is it the same as
"Those guys like Adidas, that I think are uncomfortable"

But I'll concede that this is proper old school (literally) grammer and is one of those things that is overlooked.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

drunken monkey said:


> Its why I placed the subordinate (opinion) part in brackets previously, as an attempt to break down the sentence to explain the syntax.
> 
> It's like this:
> "I think those guys like uncomfortable shoes"
> ...


Oh ok, I get it now, despite still being unsure what syntax is. But yeah, I think that maybe is a bit old-fashioned, and I don't think that's how Sevenmack intended it.

But yeah, it's like 'those guys like shoes which they find uncomfortable' vs 'those guys like shoes which I find uncomfortable'. I see now how it could be taken either way.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

Drunken monkey like uncomfortable shoes. :-d


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

paulopiper said:


> Oh ok, I get it now, despite still being unsure what syntax is. But yeah, I think that maybe is a bit old-fashioned, and I don't think that's how Sevenmack intended it.


It's worse than that. The entire "grammar lesson" drunken monkey is giving fails to consider the matter of context, which is as important (and in some cases, more important) as grammar.

When you write an op-ed for a newspaper, an authoritative source for readers, you will clearly distinguish fact from opinion. So you may write "I think" or "I believe" or "In my experience" before a statement to distinguish an opinion from a fact. [Given that it is an op-ed, it is still an opinion, but those opinions are being based on whatever facts being laid out.] This is also true when writing for other authoritative sources, including review journals, with all the qualifying required.

On forums such as those of Watchuseek, which is not authoritative, everything that doesn't come qualified with a data point or citation is clearly opinion. If anything, you need to cite a source in order to distinguish a statement that is subjective (opinion) from information based on an objective source (fact).

But the grammatical and contextual discussions are beside the point because these aren't issues in the first place. The issue is that drunken monkey was annoyed that I stated my opinion about the aesthetics of Rolex and Patek watches. To him, making such a statement is evidence of "showing off". The issue is that he has an opinion about those who may have their own critiques of Rolex and its watches, one which he himself conflates with facts.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Annoyed?
Me?

Funny bit of selective memory there.

I stated that I see more instances of showing off if dislike of Rolex more than any other brand.
You're the one who jumped in at that and then proceeded to make sweeping generalisations (the fallacy) about Rolex owners, claiming it as merely your opinion when it was in fact a fallacy (unless of course the truth us you don't know what logical fallacy is). The one who got angry, wasn't me.

How about instead of making empty accusations you show with quotes,things in my posts that illustrate that which you accuse me of? Yknow, kinda like how i plainly show your fallacy, ad hominems and straw man arguments previously, in that post that you attempted to dismiss by presenting it as saying something that it clearly doesn't. 

For a guy who claims they don't start fights, it sure looks like you did here.
For a guy who claims to finish fights, you sure do dance around a lot avoiding things you cant answer.


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Ticonderoga said:


> Sorry, the grown-ups are talking about *automatic* watches in this thread :roll:


When did grand seiko stop making automatics?

Please let us all know


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

rdoder said:


> This is what Rolex does:
> 
> -They make high quality, beautiful watches that justify the high price.
> -They make watches with distinctive designs so that they are recognizable.
> ...


Thank you for the knowledge and reference. Based on that:

"The big spender last year, as usual, was *Rolex, with a U.S. ad buy of $52.14 million*. Rolex has vastly outspent all of its competition since 2000, when it took the #1 spot on the list from Timex. In 2012 Rolex reached a new milestone, spending over $50 million on advertising. No brand has ever spent this much on advertising before. As has been true since 2007, Breitling followed Rolex at #2 on the list. Both brands increased their spending by about 11 percent.

The next largest spender was *Omega. It spent $23.2 million* last year, up 137 percent from 2011, and jumped from ninth to third place, its highest ranking in a decade."

Half of the ad spending and on 2014,









Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Sevenmack said:


> They will. Eventually. But even the mods are enjoying this mess.





drunken monkey said:


> Aww, Diddums,
> did I hurt your feelings?
> Is that why all you can do is name call?


There, there, grab your ears and say











Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> I stated that I see more instances of showing off if dislike of Rolex more than any other brand.
> You're the one who jumped in at that and then proceeded to make sweeping generalisations (the fallacy) about Rolex owners, claiming it as merely your opinion when it was in fact a fallacy (unless of course the truth us you don't know what logical fallacy is). The one who got angry, wasn't me.


Let's go through the timeline again, simple one:



drunken monkey said:


> On WUS, I notice far more showing off of not wanting or liking of Rolex than any other brand.
> That tells you pretty much all you need to know about showing off.





Sevenmack said:


> I don't know about anyone else. But I can argue that I dislike Rolex watches honestly. The brand deserves respect for what it has done as a business. But outside of the Cellini collection and the new Air-King, its aesthetic is dull to me.
> 
> But since Rolex critics like myself are such show-offs, in your mind, here's some proper showing off...
> View attachment 8733322


Then came my response to a statement by Watch Fan in Beijing...


Watch Fan in Beijing said:


> Pffft. Not even close. But I'm sure the kids love the bright colors and the "007" gimmick on the dial.
> 
> Omega is good at gimmicks.





Sevenmack said:


> Forget the James Bond reference. But there's nothing wrong with a little bold color. Spices life up. Who wants a dull-as-dirt watch? Oh, yeah, forgot, Rolex and Patek owners. [Sorry.]


Which then led to this: 


drunken monkey said:


> ...and there's that showing off again.


Now, oddly enough, if you look at the timeline again, it is clear I didn't even start a fight with you. On the other hand, you jumped into a response, an opinion stated about the aesthetics of Rolex and Patek watches, I gave to someone else.

Since then, you have argued about "logical fallacies" and "ad hominems". When there was nothing to argue about. Because the point you jumped on wasn't the direct response I gave to you (which pointed out your over-generalization of Rolex critics), but a response I gave to someone else. Honestly, you come off petulant, petty, and in many ways, a tad creepy.

Now, do you actually have something to say?


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

I could understand Sevenmack's point about Rolex's dullness. I went through a phase when I was infatuated with Rolex Datejust II, went to see pre-owned Rolexes at Hudson's Bay, and they looked so good to me. After the infatuation passed, I went to see the exact same models of Rolexes again (apparently those pre-owned Rolexes were not flying off the shelves), and they lost their appeal a bit. A lot of this watch thing has to do with state of mind.


----------



## Legion681 (Sep 1, 2012)

Sevenmack said:


> For a *drunken primate*, you sure have problems with flinging feces.
> 
> Again, *simple one*, what I offered were my aesthetic opinions of Rolex's designs. I have an opinion. Others have their own. Doesn't mean that one opinion is superior to another. We all have preferences and have a right to express them, both in words and in choices of watches.
> 
> Understand? No. Oh well, *go back to school*.





Sevenmack said:


> *Seriously, what is your damage? I have heard that not getting enough attention as a child can lead to people seeking love in unloving ways.*
> 
> Again, as I mentioned above, what I offered were my aesthetic opinions of Rolex's designs. I have an opinion. Others have their own. Doesn't mean that one's aesthetic opinion is superior to another. We all have preferences and we can express them.
> 
> The problem is that you don't believe that people are entitled to their aesthetic opinions because you yourself believe that your tastes are superior to others. In short, the problem is that you are projecting your own complex upon others.





Sevenmack said:


> The issue of showing of was written by the *drunken haplorhine* himself (and cheered on by his rabble) especially after my aforementioned quote.
> 
> Why he and others are so bothered speaks to other insecurities.
> 
> As for Spring Drive: Hopefully, I will have a Snowflake in a couple of years, if not sooner. It is a beautiful watch and an exciting movement.





Sevenmack said:


> Let's go through the timeline again, *simple one*:
> 
> Then came my response to a statement by Watch Fan in Beijing...
> 
> ...


I have something to say: enough with personal attacks, please do stop. This is not the way one should conduct himself. You instantly disqualify yourself and what you are trying to say when you approach it this way. Be civil or be gone.


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

snakeeyes said:


> When did grand seiko stop making automatics?
> 
> Please let us all know


Oh, let me correct that, I meant spring drive GS.

As for a GS traditional mechanical being 2nd to Omega's third, I have to laugh after reading again and again that Seiko considers +10 seconds a day "normal."


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Legion681 said:


> I have something to say: enough with personal attacks, please do stop. This is not the way one should conduct himself. You instantly disqualify yourself and what you are trying to say when you approach it this way. Be civil or be gone.


Yawn! Civility is earned, not given. Funny thing is I have been more civil than some folks deserve.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

So basically, you actually don't understand the concept of fallacies and you deny that your "dull as dirt" was posturing (showing off).

Gotcha.

So anyway, where exactly is my generalisation of rolex critics? 
My statement:
"I notice far more showing off of... Etc."

Is not:
All Rolex critics are just showing off.

Really, if you're going to accuse other people of poor comprehension, you should first make sure you are aware of what is actually said.
What do i have to say?

Simple.
People should have a backbone and admit and take responsibility for the things they say/type.

FYI.
I've not argued over anything.
Those things are clearly there; all I've done is highlight them. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person to notice your eagerness to name call and otherwise attemp to belittle people who disagree with you. Or are you actually denying the existence of those things I quoted?


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> My statement:
> "I notice far more showing off of... Etc."


And that is a generalization. As I mentioned earlier, not every critic of Rolex is a critic to show off. As with so many folks, there are different reasons why people may find a brand or its aesthetic not to their liking. Given that this site exists to express all kinds of opinion, offering an opinion on a brand isn't necessarily showing off. It is an opinion.

Oddly enough, by continuing to make this argument (Rolex critics are showing off whenever they state their disdain for the brand), you are engaging in a logical fallacy. Apparently you should read your own writing and read it again.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Sevenmack said:


> Yawn! Civility is earned, not given. Funny thing is I have been more civil than some folks deserve.


And you have repeatedly demonstrated that you deserve none.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

mleok said:


> And you have repeatedly demonstrated that you deserve none.


You are the one with the most-recent infraction, am I right?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Sevenmack said:


> You are the one with the most-recent infraction, am I right?


That had nothing to do with my lack of civility. But, way to go with the ad hominem attack, that does seem to be your default mode of discourse. Are you playing logical fallacy bingo?


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

mleok said:


> That had nothing to do with my lack of civility. But, way to go with the ad hominem attack, that does seem to be your default mode of discourse.


I was just asking a question. Now, we can actually have a discussion. Or we can keep doing this nonsense. I'm fine either way.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Sevenmack said:


> And that is a generalization. As I mentioned earlier, not every critic of Rolex is a critic to show off.


I notice more of that sort of posturing compared to other brands. How is that a generalisation? 
I did not say all criticism is that sort of posturing.

This is in contrast to your phrasing of things regarding dull as dirt watch fans (or whatevs)
Really, accusing others or poor comprehension?

I wonder when I'll get my hoity toity privileged education thown at me as an insult?


----------



## Legion681 (Sep 1, 2012)

Sevenmack said:


> Yawn! Civility is earned, not given. Funny thing is I have been more civil than some folks deserve.


Gentlemen will remain gentlemen, irregardless of external input and/or conditions. But whatever. Just please stop with things like those bolded examples in my previous post.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

rdoder said:


> I could understand Sevenmack's point about Rolex's dullness. I went through a phase when I was infatuated with Rolex Datejust II, went to see pre-owned Rolexes at Hudson's Bay, and they looked so good to me. After the infatuation passed, I went to see the exact same models of Rolexes again (apparently those pre-owned Rolexes were not flying off the shelves), and they lost their appeal a bit. A lot of this watch thing has to do with state of mind.


All of which is valid. Watches can appeal to you aesthetically. Or not. Expressing those opinions isn't engaging in a "logical fallacy". It is stating an opinion. Ultimately, the choice in a watch is up to the person paying the dollars for it, and the opinions on it from others shouldn't matter one bit.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> This is in contrast to your phrasing of things regarding dull as dirt watch fans (or whatevs)... I wonder when I'll get my hoity toity privileged education thown at me as an insult?


I care less about your education. Everyone should be educated regardless of whether they apply what they have been taught.

And again, stating that one finds Rolex to be dull aesthetically is not a "logical fallacy", and it isn't a "logical fallacy" to say that Rolex owners own what I find to be dull watches. It is an opinion. We are all entitled to have them.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Legion681 said:


> Gentlemen will remain gentlemen, irregardless of external input and/or conditions.


Gentlemen also argue and fight. Or have you forgotten the Marquess of Queensberry. They just do it gentlemanly.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Sevenmack said:


> I was just asking a question. Now, we can actually have a discussion. Or we can keep doing this nonsense. I'm fine either way.


You were asking a loaded question, and any writer worth their salt would realize that. To me, civility is something which should be a default mode of behavior, I think it is absolute poppycock to believe that one should behave in a civil manner only when it is earned. Put another way, if everyone thought the way that you did, and acted uncivilly as a default, then how would civility ever arise? There are strong parallels between this and the tit-for-tat strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma as a model for how cooperation arises. If you had instead said that respect is earned, I would be more inclined to agree with you.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Sevenmack said:


> Gentlemen also argue and fight. Or have you forgotten the Marquess of Queensberry. They just do it gentlemanly.


The Marquess would remind you not to hit below the belt, and an ad hominem attack is the intellectual equivalent of that.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Sevenmack said:


> And again, stating that one finds Rolex to be dull aesthetically is not a "logical fallacy", and it isn't a "logical fallacy" to say that Rolex owners own what I find to be dull watches. It is an opinion. We are all entitled to have them.


That is not the fallacy.

You think Rolex are dull = opinion.
Those guys like Rolex = fact.
Those guys like dull watches = logical fallacy.

What you typed and you claim to be saying, are also not equivalent and no context changes the rules of grammar in the way you suggest.

It isn't an expression of your opinion.
I would've thought a writer would understand that as it is pretty much the standard form of it. Of course because I am generous, I hesitate to suggest the usual option of it be simple trolling but given how many times I've typed that, or similar, and how it still goes over your head, it's hard to come to any other conclusion.

Or maybe your grammar is just lacking.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

mleok said:


> You were asking a loaded question, and any writer worth their salt would realize that. To me, civility is something which should be a default mode of behavior, I think it is absolute poppycock to believe that one should behave in a civil manner only when it is earned. Put another way, if everyone thought the way that you did, and acted uncivilly as a default, then how would civility ever arise?


Here's the thing: If I am so "uncivil" in your eyes, why don't you put me on your ignore list? This is easy to do; I already have several on mine.

Last I checked, not one expletive was uttered on my part. At most, there are sharp statements, and honestly, I'm cool with such back-and-forth; it isn't as if you have insulted my wife or mother or child.


----------



## Legion681 (Sep 1, 2012)

Sevenmack said:


> Gentlemen also argue and fight. Or have you forgotten the Marquess of Queensberry. *They just do it gentlemanly.*


Exactly. You have failed to adhere to that stipulation. I am not saying that you shouldn't "fight" for what you believe in. I am saying that you must absolutely stop, like Mleok said in post #1577, doing it "by hitting below the belt". Are we in agreement on this, finally, then?


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> That is not the fallacy.
> 
> You think Rolex are dull = opinion.
> Those guys like Rolex = fact.


Still not a logical fallacy. We aren't even sure all Rolex owners like Rolex. Plenty of people inherit Rolex watches and keep them, not because they like the watches, but out of sentimental attachment to a loved one. This does happen.

Again, at the end of the day, what I stated was an opinion. Nothing more. You can disagree with that opinion. You can dislike that opinion. You can even scream across F2 about how my opinion is an insult if you want. But it is still just an opinion. Breaking it down in small chunks so you can make an argument that doesn't hold up on scrutiny doesn't change it.


----------



## raquinus (Jan 28, 2015)

I could not care less about all the ad hominen arguments, regardless of where they come from


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Legion681 said:


> Exactly. You have failed to adhere to that stipulation. I am not saying that you shouldn't "fight" for what you believe in. I am saying that you must absolutely stop, like Mleok said in post #1577, doing it "by hitting below the belt". Are we in agreement on this, finally, then?


You think I'm hitting "below the belt" largely because we disagree on other matters (including tradition and other things). As far as I'm concerned, I am arguing viciously and strongly. But not one expletive or invective has been uttered. Thanks for your concern.


----------



## CMSgt Bo (Feb 12, 2006)

Gentlemen, civility is not earned, it is the minimum standard by which each member of this community is expected to conduct themselves.

Websters simple definition of civility: polite, reasonable, and respectful behavior

From our rules: 2. Members will be kind and courteous, and respectful to other members and the moderators. No direct or indirect personal attacks or insults of any kind will be allowed. Posts which antagonize, belittle or humiliate other members and/or the moderators will not be tolerated, nor will racism, sexism, bigotry or foul language. Members who have personal issues with other members and moderators must resolve their differences outside the forum. Watchuseek policy is not to discuss issues with other forums.


----------



## CMSgt Bo (Feb 12, 2006)

Get it back on topic please.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

dbostedo said:


> Good a place as any for this...


Also...


----------



## Legion681 (Sep 1, 2012)

Sevenmack said:


> You think I'm hitting "below the belt" largely because we disagree on other matters (including tradition and other things). As far as I'm concerned, I am arguing viciously and strongly. But not one expletive or invective has been uttered. Thanks for your concern.


Calling people "drunken primate" and wondering aloud about any possible childhood trauma influencing their way of thinking is not me *thinking* that you are hitting below the belt. It objectively *IS* hitting below the belt.

I like this website, I enjoy the conversations. I am not fond of the idea of things like I just mentioned in the above paragraph become commonplace. THAT is my concern. Please stop, OK?


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Legion681 said:


> Calling people "drunken primate" and wondering aloud about any possible childhood trauma influencing their way of thinking is not me *thinking* that you are hitting below the belt.


Okay.


----------



## raquinus (Jan 28, 2015)

Further to my earlier response, here is the watch I would love to have & I would wear it, I think it is less obvious than 1957 re-edition mentioned.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Legion681 said:


> Calling people "drunken primate" and wondering aloud about any possible childhood trauma influencing their way of thinking is not me *thinking* that you are hitting below the belt.


If your handle is drunken monkey, there is nothing wrong with also saying "drunken primate" since a monkey is, well, a primate. But if that hurts your tender mercies, I won't say it again. Because I care.

Anyhow, since the mods have told us to get back on topic, the question remains _*will Omega ever be as good as Rolex*_? Personally, both Omega and Rolex are fine brands that offer plenty of dull watches in their lineups, as well as some aesthetically appealing ones, at least to me. Since their owners are satisfied, our opinions matter not one bit. Other to the small numbers of both camps who happen to be on Watchuseek.


----------



## Legion681 (Sep 1, 2012)

raquinus said:


> Further to my earlier response, here is the watch I would love to have & I would wear it, I think it is less obvious than 1957 re-edition mentioned.


Nice one. I too think that their "Specialties" collection offers some really nice stuff. Tbh, I find that another one that gets little mention around here but I really love it's the De Ville Trésor: hands & indices remind me of Vacheron Constantin and the clous de Paris dial is very eye catching. The only problem for me, is that I would prefer if it was an auto...



Sevenmack said:


> If your handle is drunken monkey, there is nothing wrong with also saying "drunken primate" since a monkey is, well, a primate. But if that hurts your tender mercies, *I won't say it again*. Because I care.
> 
> Anyhow, since the mods have told us to get back on topic, the question remains _*will Omega ever be as good as Rolex*_? Personally, both Omega and Rolex are fine brands that offer plenty of dull watches in their lineups, as well as some aesthetically appealing ones, at least to me. Since their owners are satisfied, our opinions matter not one bit. Other to the small numbers of both camps who happen to be on Watchuseek.


Re bolded (first paragraph), thank you.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

I've still got a month to cast a vote. Sway me.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> If your handle is drunken monkey, there is nothing wrong with also saying "drunken primate" since a monkey is, well, a primate. But if that hurts your tender mercies, I won't say it again. Because I care.
> 
> Anyhow, since the mods have told us to get back on topic, the question remains _*will Omega ever be as good as Rolex*_? Personally, both Omega and Rolex are fine brands that offer plenty of dull watches in their lineups, as well as some aesthetically appealing ones, at least to me. Since their owners are satisfied, our opinions matter not one bit. Other to the small numbers of both camps who happen to be on Watchuseek.


I always had the impression you were a solid member, until this thread presented itself. Glad we all got to see your true colours revealed.

BTW, in case you haven't read this article, have a gander:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackfor...he-worlds-most-recognized-watch/#59c87212708e

We've all seen this a million times. You fit perfectly in stage 2. 
Even the most stubborn seem to come around at some point!


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

> There are currently 18 users browsing this thread. (13 members and 5 guests)


This may be a record...


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

BigSeikoFan said:


> This may be a record...


One time, I was looking at this thread (https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/what-billionaire-wears-his-wrist-3348130.html), and if I remember correctly, there were ~450 guests at one point. Where did all those people all of a sudden come from?


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Vlance said:


> I always had the impression you were a solid member, until this thread presented itself. Glad we all got to see your true colours revealed.


Actually, I didn't think much about you before this thread. Haven't thought about you since. There is a world outside of this forum.



Vlance said:


> Forbes Welcome
> 
> We've all seen this a million times. You fit perfectly in stage 2.


As for Rolex: As I have stated over and over, I don't hate Rolex or think it is overpriced; price is a matter between a brand (who sets the price) and customers (who decide whether or not to pay it). The brand deserves respect for being a leading watchmaker, for its innovations, for continuing to improve its wares, and for serving its customers well.

At the same time, outside of the Cellini collection and the new Air-King, I think the watches are dull as ranch houses, built for aesthetically conservative types who prefer them. There are other criticisms of the brand expressed by others, but those aren't my concerns; on the subject of watches, I ultimately only care about what I think.

This is where I also sit with Omega. The brand deserves respect. It produces fine watches. But outside of the Aqua Terra and maybe the DeVille, I wouldn't wear most of its watches. The Speedmaster is too much of a tool watch for my tastes. The Seamaster is just another dreadfully dull diver with a marked bezel. Omega also deserves respect for its products, for its innovations, for continuing to improve its wares, and for how it conducts its business. It serves its slightly less aesthetically conservative clientele well. But again, Omega's wares, for the most part, are not for me.

You can respect a brand and yet not be a fan of it. You can respect how it does business and yet think the brand's offerings are not your cup of tea. There's a middle ground between being a rabid fan of a brand and hating it irrationally -- and that's the ground I occupy.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

Sevenmack said:


> Actually, I didn't think much about you before this thread. Haven't thought about you since. There is a world outside of this forum.


I think it's disappointing you've taken such a stance.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

Vlance wears a Rolex sea dweller, the watch is very nice but it's not 100% my cup of tea, Vlance used to own an Omega SMPc which for a few valid reasons the watch wasn't for him, it's the watch I currently wear. 

Its nice having a great discussion on the pro's and cons of each watch and what's personally important to the individual. 

Regardless of where you stand this forum it to discuss the love of watches and have a little fun on way, to reduce a good standing member of the community reflects more on yourself then anyone else.

you make it hard for anyone to take your opinions seriously.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

BarracksSi said:


> I've still got a month to cast a vote. Sway me.


I'll sway you.

I am the Alpha and Omega (not rolex)









Omega (not rolex) Weapon









Omega (not rolex) Man









Omega (not rolex) the Unknown









Omega (not rolex) Red

 (peace out)









Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Richerson said:


> I think it's disappointing you've taken such a stance.


But that's the reality. I have family, friends, colleagues, communities that exist outside of this forum. They are more important to me because they are a part of my life, have known me during the good times and been with me through the bad. Today, I'm flying out to Western Washington State to console my best friend; his dad and new wife are going through medical issues. This guy flew out nearly three years ago to help my family when my son was born.

There are some folks within WUS with whom I have interacted outside of the forums and they are good folks. I always strive to treat everyone well and pray for people when they announce that they are going through the issues of life. But there are more than several thousand members -- and there's no way I can think of everyone beyond a few interactions on this forum. I don't expect you to think of me beyond whatever conversations we have, either.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

Sevenmack said:


> But that's the reality. I have family, friends, colleagues, communities that exist outside of this forum. They are more important to me because they are a part of my life, have known me during the good times and been with me through the bad. Today, I'm flying out to Western Washington State to console my best friend; his dad and new wife are going through medical issues. This guy flew out nearly three years ago to help my family when my son was born.
> 
> There are some folks within WUS with whom I have interacted outside of the forums and they are good folks. I always strive to treat everyone well and pray for people when they announce that they are going through the issues of life. But there are more than several thousand members -- and there's no way I can think of everyone beyond a few interactions on this forum. I don't expect you to think of me beyond whatever conversations we have, either.


I get that, most here are in the same situation, this is just a hobby after all. there's just no reason to try and come across so blasé and nasty.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Richerson said:


> I get that, most here are in the same situation, this is just a hobby after all. there's just no reason to try and come across so blasé and nasty.


As for Vlance: He could have said nothing. He didn't. I wasn't being blasé or nasty in my response. Just being honest without rancor in my response. It would be a different story if I were sniping with him. But I merely responded honestly and without rancor. And I actually addressed the _Forbes_ column he cited, offering my own perspective, also clearly, honestly, and without rancor.

But, of course, this isn't the subject of the thread. The thread is about Omega and Rolex. The mods have already issued their warning about staying on topic.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> But that's the reality. I have family, friends, colleagues, communities that exist outside of this forum. They are more important to me because they are a part of my life, have known me during the good times and been with me through the bad. Today, I'm flying out to Western Washington State to console my best friend; his dad and new wife are going through medical issues. This guy flew out nearly three years ago to help my family when my son was born.
> 
> There are some folks within WUS with whom I have interacted outside of the forums and they are good folks. I always strive to treat everyone well and pray for people when they announce that they are going through the issues of life. But there are more than several thousand members -- and there's no way I can think of everyone beyond a few interactions on this forum. I don't expect you to think of me beyond whatever conversations we have, either.


I don't care if you think of me or not. Doesn't mean we don't develop impressions of people from being on, and using the forum.

Yea, we all have family, friends and issues outside of the forums but that doesn't make it ok to use it as an outlet to be rude to members.

All that being said, this is probably the most reasonable and honest thing I've ever seen you write.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

It is on topic in a way, moving away from the watches I think it's interesting to see why people dislike Rolex and their reasons, I've openly stated Rolex isn't the brand for me, I agree that the designs are a little played out, if I were a man of wealthy means I'd own a Rolex, however I'm not and have to save my money and take consideration on my purchases, Rolex just don't offer what I want at thier price point, I can't justify the asking price for something I'm not 100% in love with. 

Ive brought and flipping watches over the years for a quick profit to fund my hobby but I've never felt the desire to hang onto any of the Rolexes. It comes down to cost vs I don't get that buzz when I pick one up. 

I agree sometimes Rolex owners don't help themselves and earlier on in this topic I did a parody of the fact. I think it's great that such a trivia topic can create such big debate.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Vlance said:


> I don't care if you think of me or not. Doesn't mean we don't develop impressions of people from being on, and using the forum.
> 
> Yea, we all have family, friends and issues outside of the forums but that doesn't make it ok to use it as an outlet to be rude to members.


Except that I don't have an impression of you at all. I do have an impression of some other folks, some of whom are, as you describe it, rude at the very least, and others who aren't. But that is limited --and there are lots of people who are just here. At the end of the day, I don't take much of anything on here seriously. It's the Internet, not day-to-day life.



Vlance said:


> All that being said, this is probably the most reasonable and honest thing I've ever seen you write.


As I said, impressions are limited. After all, I have more than 2,400 posts. You can't read them all.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Richerson said:


> I agree sometimes Rolex owners don't help themselves and earlier on in this topic I did a parody of the fact. I think it's great that such a trivia topic can create such big debate.


Perhaps. I know more than a few Rolex owners. Some fit the stereotype, a lot of others don't. In fact, I dismiss criticisms of Rolex based on the perceptions of its owners mostly because we don't know what every Rolex owner is like. We can surmise what they prefer aesthetically based on what they buy, and we know why some buy Rolex. But that's about it. Honestly, similar statements can be made about Omega owners and even that may be a stretch.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> Except that I don't have an impression of you at all. I do have an impression of some other folks, some of whom are, as you describe it, rude at the very least, and others who aren't. But that is limited --and there are lots of people who are just here. At the end of the day, I don't take much of anything on here seriously. It's the Internet, not day-to-day life.
> 
> As I said, impressions are limited. After all, I have more than 2,400 posts. You can't read them all.


I guess it's hard for you to develop impressions for the community from so far up on your pedestal.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

Sevenmack said:


> Perhaps. I know more than a few Rolex owners. Some fit the stereotype, a lot of others don't. In fact, I dismiss criticisms of Rolex based on the perceptions of its owners mostly because we don't know what every Rolex owner is like. We can surmise what they prefer aesthetically based on what they buy, and we know why some buy Rolex. But that's about it. Honestly, similar statements can be made about Omega owners and even that may be a stretch.


i agree many the brands could have the same statements levelled at them, I guess it's just more pronounced with Rolex because how strong the brand is.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Vlance said:


> I guess it's hard for you to develop impressions for the community from so far up on your pedestal.


Pedestal? Hardly. Just another member. Unless you are a boisterous personality (there are a lot of them) or been around this place forever, few of us stand out. Compared to Chronopolis, I'm not even a blip on most members' radar.

But I guess you are forming an impression in my mind. A negative one. Time to put you on the ignore list.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Richerson said:


> i agree many the brands could have the same statements levelled at them, I guess it's just more pronounced with Rolex because how strong the brand is.


True. If there was no Rolex, someone would have to invent it. In any case, in many ways, the Omega versus Rolex argument is tiresome, narcissistic really, because it is an argument about nothing. Both are fine brands, both engender strong loyalty among their respective customer groups, and all charge a lot of money for outdated and obsolete technology.

Given these points, the only question that matters is which fine, strongly-supported brand selling outdated watch technology do you prefer. For some folks, of course, this question isn't enough.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> Pedestal? Hardly. Just another member. Unless you are a boisterous personality (there are a lot of them) or been around this place forever, few of us stand out. Compared to Chronopolis, I'm not even a blip on most members' radar.
> 
> But I guess you are forming an impression in my mind. A negative one. Time to put you on the ignore list.


Of course.... Ignorance is bliss.... A running theme with most of your posts.


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Vlance said:


> Of course.... Ignorance is bliss.... A running theme with most of your posts.


Ignorance is what you call things with which you disagree.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

Sevenmack said:


> True. If there was no Rolex, someone would have to invent it. In any case, in many ways, the Omega versus Rolex argument is tiresome, narcissistic really, because it is an argument about nothing. Both are fine brands, both engender strong loyalty among their respective customer groups, and all charge a lot of money for outdated and obsolete technology.
> 
> Given these points, the only question that matters is which fine, strongly-supported brand selling outdated watch technology do you prefer. For some folks, of course, this question isn't enough.


it's a bit unfair to say both Rolex & Omega sell outdated technology, the same could be said about the 98% of the watch trade, after all we now the time on our phones.

I know mechanical movements aren't anything new but both brands you strive to improve on what they have which is good for us all.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> Ignorance is what you call things with which you disagree.
> View attachment 8744354


Haha, ok "peace out" 7... I guess your recess is over


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Richerson said:


> it's a bit unfair to say both Rolex & Omega sell outdated technology, the same could be said about the 98% of the watch trade, after all we now the time on our phones.


That it the point. Mechanical watches were rendered obsolete with the perfection of quartz at the end of the 1960s. It became even more obsolete in the following decades, first with efforts such as solar-powered quartz watches, then radio- and GPS-controlled watches, and network time protocol (leading to the smartphone and the smartwatch).

Rolex and Omega, along with Seiko, Citizen, and a bunch of other firms, sell timekeeping technology that is less accurate and precise than your smartphone. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with owning such technology, either; if I thought otherwise, I wouldn't own 19 watches and be on a forum. But we should keep these realities in mind as we debate which watch or brand is the "best" or our favorite.


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Sevenmack said:


> That it the point. Mechanical watches were rendered obsolete with the perfection of quartz at the end of the 1960s. It became even more obsolete in the following decades, first with efforts such as solar-powered quartz watches, then radio- and GPS-controlled watches, and network time protocol (leading to the smartphone and the smartwatch).
> 
> Rolex and Omega, along with Seiko, Citizen, and a bunch of other firms, sell timekeeping technology that is less accurate and precise than your smartphone. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with owning such technology, either; if I thought otherwise, I wouldn't own 19 watches and be on a forum. But we should keep these realities in mind as we debate which watch or brand is the "best" or our favorite.


 Tbf what you should do is sell those nineteen trinkets save up for a few years and buy a real watch..... like say ..... a rolex


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

Sevenmack said:


> That it the point. Mechanical watches were rendered obsolete with the perfection of quartz at the end of the 1960s. It became even more obsolete in the following decades, first with efforts such as solar-powered quartz watches, then radio- and GPS-controlled watches, and network time protocol (leading to the smartphone and the smartwatch).
> 
> Rolex and Omega, along with Seiko, Citizen, and a bunch of other firms, sell timekeeping technology that is less accurate and precise than your smartphone. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with owning such technology, either; if I thought otherwise, I wouldn't own 19 watches and be on a forum. But we should keep these realities in mind as we debate which watch or brand is the "best" or our favorite.


Mechanical is timeless tho, with care they should far outlast a quartz watch. Although I admit I've never personally worn out a quartz watch.

i love to see Rolex come out with a quartz sports watch, make them small and use loads of bright plastic, never hurt Tag Heuer.


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

Richerson said:


> it's a bit unfair to say both Rolex & Omega sell outdated technology, the same could be said about the 98% of the watch trade, after all we now the time on our phones.
> 
> I know mechanical movements aren't anything new but both brands you strive to improve on what they have which is good for us all.


Indeed, a great part of the appeal of a quality mechanical watch is that it's a mature technology.

Refinements are always welcome, but it's nice to have something that's essentally immune to neomania. Unlike so much of the planned-obsolescence disposable consumer junk out there, a good watch's service life tends to be measured in decades. The whole point is that they're not like electronic gadgets.

My oldest Omega and Rolex examples both predate mass-produced quartz and have a combined age of over 100 years, yet they still do their jobs perfectly. I can't think of a single other wearable item that can provide daily service like that and still maintain its value and relevancy. They're incredible machines if you really think about it.


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

Richerson said:


> ..
> 
> 
> > > This threads starting to look like a creation vs darwin argument.
> ...


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

Ignore the first two points, looking at these retrospectively I was talking trash. I was trying to be clever and looking at the way you've put them it hasnt come off that way at all


----------



## CMSgt Bo (Feb 12, 2006)

Last warning...keep it up and I'll be passing out red cards.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> That it the point. Mechanical watches were rendered obsolete with the perfection of quartz at the end of the 1960s. It became even more obsolete in the following decades, first with efforts such as solar-powered quartz watches, then radio- and GPS-controlled watches, and network time protocol (leading to the smartphone and the smartwatch).
> 
> Rolex and Omega, along with Seiko, Citizen, and a bunch of other firms, sell timekeeping technology that is less accurate and precise than your smartphone. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with owning such technology, either; if I thought otherwise, I wouldn't own 19 watches and be on a forum. But we should keep these realities in mind as we debate which watch or brand is the "best" or our favorite.


Who says they are obsolete? Do you we say artwork, such as paintings, are obsolete because we have graphic design?

Most of us here aren't just wearing watches to tell time.


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

I thought I'd rock this little beauty on the bracelet,which I adjusted myself ...and was sorry as soon as I started ,not noticing that each link is two tiny tiny screws ...

It's still not as good as rolex

Or even tudor

It's like a marginally better tag heuer ...

But a least I would wear omega with pride ....

I wouldnt even hide a christopher ward under my bed


----------



## Sevenmack (Oct 16, 2011)

Richerson said:


> Mechanical is timeless tho, with care they should far outlast a quartz watch. Although I admit I've never personally worn out a quartz watch.
> 
> i love to see Rolex come out with a quartz sports watch, make them small and use loads of bright plastic, never hurt Tag Heuer.


My cousin owns a Seiko King Quartz inherited from my grandfather. It is over 40 years old and it still tells great time. There are plenty of watch collectors with vintage quartz going back five decades who can talk about how those watches are still running at high levels of accuracy.

On the other hand, I have several busted mechanicals in my watch draw, all once owned by my grandfather, in irreparable condition. Some of them are damaged by water, others by over-winding, and a few (including a Waltham from the 1960s) were junk before my grandfather bought them

The point I'm making is that, on one hand, "timeless" is something human beings conjure up in their mind to justify whatever preference they have. A quartz watch can be just as timeless as a mechanical if that's what you want it to be. A watch can be kept around for decades, centuries even, with proper care.

At the same time, I also will argue that almost no technology is "timeless". Nearly all technology obsolesces, becomes no longer useful for whatever modern times come around, and is replaced by better technology, especially on a mass scale. There are few timeless tools, just those which remain around because they are the best for whatever use they are slated.


----------



## jalfreem (Mar 26, 2014)

To the OP question, from the perspective of what a watch does in displaying time in a non complicated way, Omega can and does as good a job as Rolex. This has been covered in previous posts, along with Apple product comparisons. What sets Rolex apart has been a marketing and engineering strategy set forth from the founding of the company to build watches for "Adventure" either in the wilderness or in the boardroom. Then they attached themselves to real world adventures of both types. But the watches were also engineered to be used for adventures. So when non celebrity world conqueres were using a Rolex to tell time when accuracy was necessary, the Greatest Generation ate it up, and passed it onto the Babyboomers, and now to millenials who should be saving $ instead of mortgaging their futures on such "things" (but the Rolex is still cool!). Omega has had just as rich a history but is now being marketed as Rolex has always been. What comes to mind is the Moon watch and the Space race, and that's about it except for modern James Bond. Not everyone can go to space or be like Bond, but a lot of Dads can go on a hike with their kids and wear their Explorer, or go snorkeling in the ocean with their family all while pretending to be mountain climbers or Deep Sea explorers wearing a Sub or Sea Dweller, or sit at their accounting desk and look at their Datejust and know presidents and Nobel prize winners wear this watch. Omega is cool now, but their stuff will eventually look dated, Rolex professionals look the same now as they did during the modern age of Adventure. Now with social media, everyone is on some kind of life adventure, what will you be telling time with? A G-Shock can handle it all, but (no criticism) will it be as cool as the Sub that will look cool in 40 years too, or will your cool Aqua Terra worn by a fictional character in action movies and 1 professional golfer that comes to mind, be?


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Sevenmack said:


> There is a difference. The first statement is about my perspective on those watches. The second is assuming what those owners think. I would argue that Rolex and Patek owners enjoy and adore their watches as do I. My opinion on the aesthetics are based on my preferences and therefore, as irrelevant to them as their opinions about the Seiko Cocktail Time are to me.
> 
> Again, that's not "showing off". That is opinion. As human beings, we have them. I have plenty of opinions on plenty of watches; in the case of Rolex, I do applaud their Cellini line and the new Air-King, and dismiss the rest of the lineup. In this case, the discussion is about Rolex because the thread is about Rolex (as well as Omega).
> 
> Tricks are for kids, son. For kids! And for those with Shinola Derangement Disorder, I guess.


Now you are just typing without making any sense. I'll leave you to it.


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

jalfreem said:


> [...]Omega is cool now, but their stuff will eventually look dated, Rolex professionals look the same now as they did during the modern age of Adventure. Now with social media, everyone is on some kind of life adventure, what will you be telling time with? A G-Shock can handle it all, but (no criticism) will it be as cool as the Sub that will look cool in 40 years too, or will your cool Aqua Terra worn by a fictional character in action movies and 1 professional golfer that comes to mind, be?


Quality post. (Though I agree with its entirety, I truncated it because this forum lacks a spoiler tag for long quotes.)

That's about as close to a perfect answer as I've seen on this well-worn subject.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

-redacted-

Not worth it.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex showdown - vote your choice between the brands.*



Crate410 said:


> There are always snobs, fanboys, anti reality humans from the planet glarthox that want to by any means bring down a company that has run marvelously like a well oiled movement (hah)
> 
> To everyone except for the fan boys a rolex is a mercedes S500 (550 to those in the US)
> 
> ...


Ironically the opinion about Grand Seiko would be a shared self-deception. The only real superiority one of these three brands has is in general public perception of superior performance (really a misperception) and expectation of social status enhancement. Rolex is superior only in these two characteristics.


----------



## somery (Dec 18, 2012)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex showdown - vote your choice between the brands.*

This is the dumbest thread I've ever seen on WuS. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex showdown - vote your choice between the brands.*



Nom de Forum said:


> Ironically the opinion about Grand Seiko would be a shared self-deception. The only real superiority one of these three brands has is in general public perception of superior performance (really a misperception) and expectation of social status enhancement. Rolex is superior only in these two characteristics.


This is not true .I own rollies tudors tag and tissot and we bought our daughter an omega but I handled many Omegas before we went with a speedie .....
I love omegas but they are just not as well finished as rolex 
I bought my second tudor this year and I swear I searched high and low before buying another rolex/tudor because I feel I'm in a rut I tried omega and brieghtling and really wanted something to sway me but the fact is tudor are noticeably better than omega And rolex a notch above that ....
Why do omega diehards insist they are as good (I know all watches are ridiculously overpriced btw) but they aren't and they aren't priced like rolex to reflect this... omega could be as good as rolex eventually especially as they seem to be getting into the fight a bit more these days ... but they have a bit to go yet...


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex showdown - vote your choice between the brands.*



Watchdudeman said:


> Why do omega diehards insist they are as good (I know all watches are ridiculously overpriced btw) but they aren't and they aren't priced like rolex to reflect this... omega could be as good as rolex eventually especially as they seem to be getting into the fight a bit more these days ... but they have a bit to go yet...


Inferiority complex?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex showdown - vote your choice between the brands.*



Nom de Forum said:


> Ironically the opinion about Grand Seiko would be a shared self-deception. The only real superiority one of these three brands has is in general public perception of superior performance (really a misperception) and expectation of social status enhancement. Rolex is superior only in these two characteristics.


Your opinion. Not shared by many, shared by many others.

I think what I said was honest and truthful.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

CMSgt Bo said:


> Get it back on topic please.


 Fancy having a crack at answering the OP oracle?


----------



## starter (Aug 21, 2010)

I'm amazed this is still going.

And how anyone in their right mind can honestly believe that wearing a Rolex is about "showing off" while wearing an Omega is somehow less so.

Explain to a starving kid in sub-Saharan africa why your $15k Omega isn't about showing off.

Tell you what, I'll spoil the surprise and save you the plane ticket- you can't. ALL luxury watches are about showing off. For men, they represent one of the last bastions of jewelry. And that's what jewelry is designed to do- to accentuate and enhance for the benefit of others. To show off.

I understand the argument that Rolex is a behemoth worn by non-WIS who dully repeat in zombified tones that "It's the best". But if you have a problem with that, a much cleaner solution is a $35 dollar quartz from Target. Not a similarly priced watch from a similarly behemoth company like Omega.

At the end of the day, Rolex and Omega are nearly identical to any non-WIS. That's just the way it is. Sure, they like the branding of Rolex, but they don't know a thing about the product. Omega could send a bunch of Planet Oceans over to Rolex, Rolex could glue a crown on the dial, and every single non-WIS you know would think it was the best.

This thread is arguing, ad-nauseum, _about the perceptions of others, whose thoughts on watches, being non-WIS, we don't really care about. _It's literally as stupid as debating whether or not tweeners who listen to Ke$ha could appreciate the kind of music we listen to. Who cares? They listen to Ke$ha. Their generation is doomed.


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

starter said:


> I'm amazed this is still going.
> 
> And how anyone in their right mind can honestly believe that wearing a Rolex is about "showing off" while wearing an Omega is somehow less so.
> 
> ...


OK not that fond of Kesha but yeesh you really tried to suck the life out of this thread! It's just fun .witty and not so witty banter ....I can't believe this thread is still going but some of us are willing it on to 200 pages or dare I say it 300 pages!

Come on people keep donating your two cents


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

starter said:


> I'm amazed this is still going.
> 
> And how anyone in their right mind can honestly believe that wearing a Rolex is about "showing off" while wearing an Omega is somehow less so.
> 
> ...


OK not that fond of Kesha but yeesh you really tried to suck the life out of this thread! It's just fun .witty and not so witty banter ....I can't believe this thread is still going but some of us are willing it on to 200 pages or dare I say it 300 pages!

Come on people keep donating your two cents


----------



## CMSgt Bo (Feb 12, 2006)

Watchdudeman said:


> Fancy having a crack at answering the OP oracle?


I own both...the answer you seek is within yourself.


----------



## urbino (Jun 28, 2015)

This thread is an excellent argument for having an "Ignore Thread" button. Son of a gun just _won't _stop showing up in "New Posts."


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

starter said:


> I'm amazed this is still going.
> 
> And how anyone in their right mind can honestly believe that wearing a Rolex is about "showing off" while wearing an Omega is somehow less so.
> 
> ...


So... We dont care what the non-WIS think cause... We r who we r?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

You think you can stop this train? 



starter said:


> Explain to a starving kid in sub-Saharan africa why your $15k Omega isn't about showing off.


If the Omega is one of the Orbis editions, a bit of the money from the sale helps bring eyesight to children of impoverished areas.

(and Rolex is a top sponsor of TED, if it matters)


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

starter said:


> I'm amazed this is still going.
> 
> And how anyone in their right mind can honestly believe that wearing a Rolex is about "showing off" while wearing an Omega is somehow less so.
> 
> ...


Well said.

Going to have to agree with 98% of what you wrote - with the exception of the last paragraph. How often can you really troll here and the mods let you get away with it? This thread is gold!

Back to the rest of your post, my new $59 Timex arrived yesterday and I showed it off all day at the beach :-!


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

starter said:


> ALL luxury watches are about showing off. For men, they represent one of the last bastions of jewelry. And that's what jewelry is designed to do- to accentuate and enhance for the benefit of others. To show off.


Do you think Rolex or Omega will be coming out with a non-functional $10K watch or jewelry soon? Because a jewelry has no function other than being jewelry.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

watchRus said:


> Do you think Rolex or Omega will be coming out with a non-functional $10K watch or jewelry soon? Because a jewelry has no function other than being jewelry.


Omega already sells jewelry (and cufflinks, and leather bags, etc)...


----------



## windupp (Sep 21, 2015)

Nice, I use my Timex Expedition to time-test my other watches. Only the Rolexi come close -- and for only another $6,000.


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

BarracksSi said:


> Omega already sells jewelry (and cufflinks, and leather bags, etc)...


At the same price level as their watches?


----------



## starter (Aug 21, 2010)

watchRus said:


> Do you think Rolex or Omega will be coming out with a non-functional $10K watch or jewelry soon? Because a jewelry has no function other than being jewelry.


Jewelry can display one's marital status, beliefs concerning a greater power and the creation of the universe, military or police rank, blood type, disabilities, and medical conditions... Even how long one has been sober.

All a watch can do is display the passage of time as we narrowly define it.


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

starter said:


> Jewelry can display one's marital status, beliefs concerning a greater power and the creation of the universe, military or police rank, blood type, disabilities, and medical conditions... Even how long one has been sober.
> 
> All a watch can do is display the passage of time as we narrowly define it.


Again with the joy! the pure sense of fun! The craic!


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

watchRus said:


> At the same price level as their watches?


Probably not the same price tag numbers, but they're expensive for being non-mechanical accessories. I'm thinking they're in Tiffany territory.

Oh, and perfume, too.


----------



## UberDave (Jan 13, 2015)

Crate410 said:


> So... We dont care what the non-WIS think cause... We r who we r?


I see what you did there...



watchRus said:


> Do you think Rolex or Omega will be coming out with a non-functional $10K watch or jewelry soon? Because a jewelry has no function other than being jewelry.





watchRus said:


> At the same price level as their watches?


Why should the price of their non-watch jewelry be relevant to your point?


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

1650 posts later and the answer is still no 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

starter said:


> Jewelry can display one's marital status, beliefs concerning a greater power and the creation of the universe, military or police rank, blood type, disabilities, and medical conditions... Even how long one has been sober.
> 
> All a watch can do is display the passage of time as we narrowly define it.


I believe you are listing these things to establish that some jewelry serves a different function than that of just jewelry? But then again, everything you listed has primary function of conveying its message *to the public*, akin to that of jewelry, so, are you wearing a watch to announce _time_ to the world? This is certainly a new way of looking at big watches. ;-)


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

watchRus said:


> ... so, are you wearing a watch to announce _time_ to the world? This is certainly a new way of looking at big watches. ;-)


Some people don't like the Apple Watch because its display turns off when it's facing away from you and other people can't see it. ;P


----------



## starter (Aug 21, 2010)

watchRus said:


> I believe you are listing these things to establish that some jewelry serves a different function than that of just jewelry? But then again, everything you listed has primary function of conveying its message *to the public*, akin to that of jewelry, so, are you wearing a watch to announce _time_ to the world? This is certainly a new way of looking at big watches. ;-)


I believe your original point was that jewelry inherently serves no function, therefore a functional item such as a watch cannot be deemed jewelry. As far as being for the individual or the public, how about lockets which remind us of a loved one with small photo inside? Or pendants which have a pill inside? Or wearable mini-USB drive jewelry?

I like your avatar, by the way. Reminds me of a Rothko.


----------



## EsbenOpen (Dec 20, 2014)

I don't really care which brand is better or if they are as good as one another, but one day I hope to have an AT to go along with my Rolex.

This thread however, is a train wreck; there's some really disappointing behavior in here. Can't we just leave the insults for the playground?


----------



## windupp (Sep 21, 2015)

Bringing America -- and the world -- together with over-priced jewelry that tells time:


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

BarracksSi said:


> Probably not the same price tag numbers, but they're expensive for being non-mechanical accessories. I'm thinking they're in Tiffany territory.
> 
> Oh, and perfume, too.


Never studied French, but to my eye, they're selling the fragrance, "Air of the toilet?"

sign me up!


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Underwear is worn on the inside, with a functional purpose, mostly for oneself (and maybe for one's partner). Outerwear is worn on the outside, with a functional purpose (so one is not naked), but also could be worn to convey some sort of message about oneself or about a cause, if one chooses to do so. Others might or might not notice. One might or might not intend any message by any clothes or shoes or watch, but for others who see them, they are free to interpret any way they like, in their own minds. Knowing this, most people dress partially with others' thinking in mind. "Do these pants make me look fat?" "Does this watch look good on me?"


----------



## raquinus (Jan 28, 2015)

All those same arguments, presented ad nauseam, are getting tiresome. ;-)


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Ticonderoga said:


> Never studied French, but to my eye, they're selling the fragrance, "Air of the toilet?"
> 
> sign me up!


I studied French a long time ago and I believe l'eau is French for water ..so it's water of the ......


----------



## NathanielGoodtimes (Jul 22, 2014)

Are we arguing with brand is better or which company produces a better watch. Not to add fuel to the fire but these are two entirely different subjects....

Let the games begin!


----------



## codeture (Oct 12, 2014)

Agree. 

I don't think they are trying to best each other (other than in sales number).

I feel that Rolex and Omega are exist to be different - to be complimentary to each other and the watch collector is not obliged to have only one of those - sometime it's to collect both since they are unique to each other just like we are with our friends 

Sent from my Mi 4i using Tapatalk


----------



## Birky1 (Feb 13, 2015)

I own both but think Rolex is better than Omega IMO the build quality is better

Sent from my Harrier Tab from EE using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

NathanielGoodtimes said:


> Are we arguing with brand is better or which company produces a better watch.


Both!


----------



## NathanielGoodtimes (Jul 22, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> Both!


In that case there is one way to solve this questions once and for all!

Sadly not a gladiator battle to the death...though that would be far more entertaining!

TAKE THE TWO WATCHES!

BEER BATTER THEM!

DEEP FRY THEM!

Add a sprig or parsley to both.

HAVE A DOG EAT THEM!

WHICH EVER ONE MAKES IT BACK OUT OF THE DOG AND ON TO MY WRIST FIRST IS CLEARLY THE BETTER ENGINEERED AND MOST AWESOMEST WATCH EVER!


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

NathanielGoodtimes said:


> In that case there is one way to solve this questions once and for all!
> 
> Sadly not a gladiator battle to the death...though that would be far more entertaining!
> 
> ...


I believe Rolex actually did this for one of their magazine ads.


----------



## I Like em BIG ! ! (Feb 10, 2012)

It all came out in the end...


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

I Like em BIG ! ! said:


> It all came out in the end...


So did the tacos I ate last night.

Thank you, thank you. Please remember to tip your bartenders and waitresses.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

NathanielGoodtimes said:


> Are we arguing with brand is better or which company produces a better watch. Not to add fuel to the fire but these are two entirely different subjects....
> 
> Let the games begin!





BarracksSi said:


> Both!


But really, though --

The watches themselves can be directly compared if you just judge them on:

- build quality (let's say you find a way to quantify manufacturing tolerances, parts longevity, finish consistency, maybe even gemstone quality, etc);
- performance (timekeeping precision and accuracy, case integrity, etc);
- and aesthetics (purely opinion, but so what).

The _brand_ can probably be split in two parts: the business side and the public perception side.

Or maybe "brand" is based purely on public perception -- what do people think when they see the logo? It's been said that logos by Nike and Apple are two of the most widely-recognized in the world. How do Rolex and Omega stack up, and what do people imagine when they see them?

Back to the business side, I'd look at how healthy their financials are, how they treat dealers, how they manage repairs (both in and out of warranty), and how they treat customers. These things are just as important _to me_ when perceiving the brand as a whole, but I think they're the most difficult to discover, too.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

starter said:


> And how anyone in their right mind can honestly believe that wearing a Rolex is about "showing off" while wearing an Omega is somehow less so.


My wife doesn't know Omega exist before I bought the watch with her and till she saw the "luxury" watch price. She said "with a price like that, you should've bought a rolex". She once thought my constellation is on par with Tag.
Mostly, for common people, they don't consider a watch to be a luxury item unless the logo is a Joker Hat. I once browse for a PAM and my coworker wonders what is that "OFFICINE watch"? Why is it so expensive? LOL.
Amongst some of my friend as well, the brand that they know are Rolex, B&R, B&M, Hublot, Panerai, Cartier, IWC. Why? Because in Indonesia, "Time Place" with its lower store "In Time" is literally the only AD of luxury watch and those brands are sold by them. There is no competition in Jakarta. The price and brand monopoly is strong. Torneau should open their store in here and let us Indonesian get more discount.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

^
Your wife was right.

Though the AT is certainly a decent watch, I hope you didn't pay too close to Rolex price for it. 

Also, for how much Omega spends on advertising, I'm genuinely surprised they wouldn't be better-known.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

This thread is beyond dumb.

That said - something caught my eye - the argument for last 168 pages is not really which watches are better, or even which brand is better, but which brand can people bash more and which owners are more gullible to advertising. It does seem that many hold Rolex marketing budget against them (even though marketing makes perfect business sense and increased sales allow for reinvestment of profits into engineering, manufacturing, design etc), as well as, hold Omegas "ambassadors" and "product placement" against them (even though that helped Omega recover in the last decade or two and profits are reinvested in new tech, design, manufacturing, etc.).

Overall there seems to be some weird resentment against marketing\advertisement spend by brands, as if that inflates watch price or takes money away from consumers. Marketing does add to costs of watches, but also can reduce the cost if it helps drive up volume. Heck, McDonalds and Coke outspend Rolex when it comes to advertising by many X, but nobody complains that their advertising is driving up prices of Big Macs and soda. Rolex and Omega pricing is not a function of their advertising, but a function of product positioning and market willingness to pay.

And while Rolex brand is probably (heck, definitely) the best known luxury watch brand - that position may not last. Omega appears to have a more effective marketing - in terms of $ spent on advertising vs units sold.

In 2014, US ad spend by Rolex was $56.38MM, while Omega spent $34.49MM.
Which Watch Brands Spent the Most on Advertising in 2014? › WatchTime - USA's No.1 Watch Magazine

In 2014, Rolex sold 780K watches, while Omega sold 720K units.
https://monochrome-watches.com/business-analysis-of-the-swiss-watchmaking-industry-in-2014/

While the ad spend is US, and unit sales are for world-wide exports, and there are different prices among 2 brands, we can still look at ad effectiveness.... 
Omega spent $48 on advertising per unit sold, Rolex spent $72 on advertising per unit sold.

One could conclude that 1) Omega advertising is more effective than Rolex - and Omega may catch up to Rolex in terms of market-share and unit sales within next few years, and 2) Advertising\Marketing is so small on per unit basis, that it certainly is not driving up watch prices


----------



## Legion681 (Sep 1, 2012)

EnderW said:


> This thread is beyond dumb.
> 
> That said - something caught my eye - the argument for last 168 pages is not really which watches are better, or even which brand is better, but which brand can people bash more and which owners are more gullible to advertising. It does seem that many hold Rolex marketing budget against them (even though marketing makes perfect business sense and increased sales allow for reinvestment of profits into engineering, manufacturing, design etc), as well as, hold Omegas "ambassadors" and "product placement" against them (even though that helped Omega recover in the last decade or two and profits are reinvested in new tech, design, manufacturing, etc.).
> 
> ...


My same exact feelings, I really don't understand why some people are so up in arms about marketing.


----------



## Legion681 (Sep 1, 2012)

EnderW said:


> This thread is beyond dumb.
> 
> That said - something caught my eye - the argument for last 168 pages is not really which watches are better, or even which brand is better, but which brand can people bash more and which owners are more gullible to advertising. It does seem that many hold Rolex marketing budget against them (even though marketing makes perfect business sense and increased sales allow for reinvestment of profits into engineering, manufacturing, design etc), as well as, hold Omegas "ambassadors" and "product placement" against them (even though that helped Omega recover in the last decade or two and profits are reinvested in new tech, design, manufacturing, etc.).
> 
> ...


My same exact feelings, I really don't understand why some people are so up in arms about marketing.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Legion681 said:


> My same exact feelings, I really don't understand why some people are so up in arms about marketing.


My guess? People here already know the brands well so they don't need (or think they don't need) to be marketed _to. _So the marketing money then becomes money that _could_ have been spent making watches better, or making the watch they want (or, presumably, lowering prices - thought that's not how that works, as EnderW pointed out).


----------



## Ticonderoga (Apr 4, 2015)

EnderW said:


> This thread is beyond dumb.
> 
> That said - something caught my eye - the argument for last 168 pages is not really which watches are better, or even which brand is better, but which brand can people bash more and which owners are more gullible to advertising. It does seem that many hold Rolex marketing budget against them (even though marketing makes perfect business sense and increased sales allow for reinvestment of profits into engineering, manufacturing, design etc), as well as, hold Omegas "ambassadors" and "product placement" against them (even though that helped Omega recover in the last decade or two and profits are reinvested in new tech, design, manufacturing, etc.).
> 
> ...


Welcome to the dumb club LOL

Interesting stat on the advertising per unit - did not know that and it makes me rethink my dislike for Rolex advertising. I guess, the only thing that I would hold against them is their (what I consider) artificially inflated price. But then again, a house on the beach is worth 20x the same house in the valley. Its all about perception. That being said, as the house on the beach holds its value, so does the Rolex. So, in many ways, you get what you pay for.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

You know, I've just realized that there's a perfectly logical answer to the original question...

Will Omega ever be as good as Rolex?

I think the correct answer is yes... it maybe sooner, but at least in a 100 or a 1000 or a million years, when both companies are defunct, Omega will be exactly as good as Rolex.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Guess our stalemate is because of us Omega fans consider Omega on par quality with rolex. Whereas rolex fans always think that they're the best and Omega is unworthy to be said that they have succeeded to close the gap. Guess which side that are more snobbish.
Let's review some of the checklist. Based on the 2014 data, *Ender* presented a good marketing statistic that Omega is closing-in in terms of market sales volume. Omega also becoming more effective than rolex in term of the market awareness through ads. Omega starting to use their own movement instead of ETA. Thus, if you can see the model life cycle, for the past 2 decades, Omega line up do not change much. Their variant is small. If you check the list, Omega is already in its path to be 
I agree rolex is a marketing genius. They excel in it. Thus, Omega learned from rolex and trailing them closely.
Ergo, my answer to this thread is *YES *. Omega will be better than rolex. I'm guessing they will tople rolex in the next 10 years.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## snakeeyes (Jan 23, 2014)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Guess our stalemate is because of us Omega fans consider Omega on par quality with rolex. Whereas rolex fans always think that they're the best and Omega is unworthy to be said that they have succeeded to close the gap. Guess which side that are more snobbish.
> Let's review some of the checklist. Based on the 2014 data, *Ender* presented a good marketing statistic that Omega is closing-in in terms of market sales volume. Omega also becoming more effective than rolex in term of the market awareness through ads. Omega starting to use their own movement instead of ETA. Thus, if you can see the model life cycle, for the past 2 decades, Omega line up do not change much. Their variant is small. If you check the list, Omega is already in its path to be
> I agree rolex is a marketing genius. They excel in it. Thus, Omega learned from rolex and trailing them closely.
> Ergo, my answer to this thread is *YES *. Omega will be better than rolex. I'm guessing they will tople rolex in the next 10 years.
> ...


topple rolex is unlikely.....be on par in 10? probably.....considering generations change and the younger generation buy more Omega that Rolex i would think.....

some here love to throw out 'technical' horseshite....but at the end of the day the master co-axial 8500's at the very least are on par with the NEW Rolex 3235 nevermind the 3135.....

if Omega used the mystical 904L steel than im sure many would agree they are on par already.....but as many know the magical 904L steel really doesent make a difference of any significance......

this thread is jokes. Ender posted the stats and the stats dont lie.....


----------



## Marco77 (Jan 27, 2016)

Sorry, I couldn't help it!! :joy::joy::joy: 

I wish you all a fantastic weekend :blush::blush:


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

You know I'm sorry to say, but if this is 'wit', it's not a very high form...:roll:


----------



## LikeClockWork (Jun 7, 2016)

I'm confused


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

Thanks all the same, good weekend to you too.


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Guess our stalemate is because of us Omega fans consider Omega on par quality with *rolex*. Whereas *rolex *fans always think that they're the best and Omega is unworthy to be said that they have succeeded to close the gap. Guess which side that are more snobbish.
> Let's review some of the checklist. Based on the 2014 data, *Ender* presented a good marketing statistic that Omega is closing-in in terms of market sales volume. Omega also becoming more effective than *rolex * in term of the market awareness through ads. Omega starting to use their own movement instead of ETA. Thus, if you can see the model life cycle, for the past 2 decades, Omega line up do not change much. Their variant is small. If you check the list, Omega is already in its path to be
> I agree *rolex * is a marketing genius. They excel in it. Thus, Omeg a learned from *rolex *and trailing t hem closely.
> Ergo, my answer to this thread is *YES *. Omega will be better than *rolex* . I'm guessing they will tople *rolex *in the next 10 years.
> ...


*Rolex. Come on. :roll:


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

Wanna bet? 

Swatch Plunges as Luxury Malaise Spreads From Asia to Europe


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Shan_Farandy said:


> ...in Indonesia, "Time Place" with its lower store "In Time" is literally the only AD of luxury watch and those brands are sold by them. There is no competition in Jakarta. The price and brand monopoly is strong. Torneau should open their store in here and let us Indonesian get more discount.


Uhh, good luck getting a discount at Tourneau...


----------



## Marco77 (Jan 27, 2016)

paulopiper said:


> You know I'm sorry to say, but if this is 'wit', it's not a very high form...


1'682 posts!! That is a high form of wit!


----------



## ConfusedOne (Sep 29, 2015)




----------



## Marco77 (Jan 27, 2016)

ConfusedOne said:


> [iurl="https://www.watchuseek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8756938&d=1468618289"]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We can rewrite history!!


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Guess our stalemate is because of us Omega fans consider Omega on par quality with rolex. Whereas rolex fans always think that they're the best and Omega is unworthy to be said that they have succeeded to close the gap. Guess which side that are more snobbish.


As a fan and owner of both Omega and Rolex, I consider the overall quality of Rolex to be better, but I still love my Omega. I don't need everything to be equal.

My observation is that Omega fans are usually the ones initiating the comparison to Rolex. Guess which side is more insecure about their watches.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

The real question is - will Rolex or Omega ever be as good as Invicta.

Units sold - Invicta beats both Rolex and Omega easily
Brand awareness - Invicta is tops - just check # of Amazon SKUs and reviews
Design - Invicta has all of Rolex and Omega designs, plus some merged ones (8926 scallop bezel combines Rolex and Omega design elements), plus about 50 other brands' designs
Size & weight - Invicta has some of the biggest and heaviest watches on the market today
History - Invicta watch company was founded in 1837 by Raphael Picard in La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland. Rolex and Omega are relatively young in comparison with Omega founding in 1903 and Rolex in 1905.

"Go America" - Invicta is a̶n̶ ̶A̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶(̶w̶a̶i̶t̶,̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶S̶w̶i̶s̶s̶?̶)̶,̶ ̶n̶e̶v̶e̶r̶m̶i̶n̶d̶, a Swiss-American company with FL HQ - bringing jobs to US and reviving economy or something


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

snakeeyes said:


> if Omega used the mystical 904L steel than im sure many would agree they are on par already.....but as many know the magical 904L steel really doesent make a difference of any significance......


It's not the type of steel that's the issue, but the build quality. My steel and titanium Omegas don't compare to the fit and finish of my Rolexes.


----------



## onoffats (Jul 13, 2016)

I think if you do some research you would come to the conclusion that they are as good as Rolex.

Just 2 totally different price points with the same quality

Is all about Branding and marketing


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

cedargrove said:


> My observation is that Omega fans are usually the ones initiating the comparison to Rolex. Guess which side is more insecure about their watches.


It's because in their heart of hearts, they know the answer to their question, but they're just not willing to admit it.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Spot on Ender!!!! ;-) . . .


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Guess our stalemate is because of us Omega fans consider Omega on par quality with *rolex*. Whereas *rolex *fans always think that they're the best and Omega is unworthy to be said that they have succeeded to close the gap. Guess which side that are more snobbish.
> Let's review some of the checklist. Based on the 2014 data, *Ender* presented a good marketing statistic that Omega is closing-in in terms of market sales volume. Omega also becoming more effective than *rolex * in term of the market awareness through ads. Omega starting to use their own movement instead of ETA. Thus, if you can see the model life cycle, for the past 2 decades, Omega line up do not change much. Their variant is small. If you check the list, Omega is already in its path to be
> I agree *rolex * is a marketing genius. They excel in it. Thus, Omeg a learned from *rolex *and trailing t hem closely.
> Ergo, my answer to this thread is *YES *. Omega will be better than *rolex* . I'm guessing they will tople *rolex *in the next 10 years.





watchRus said:


> *Rolex. Come on. :roll:


_
"We don't need no steekin' grammar police." - snakeeyes

_See what I did there?


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

"If I had a hammer, I'd hammer in the mourning".


drhr said:


> Spot on Ender!!!! ;-) . . .


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

BigSeikoFan said:


> _
> "We don't need no steekin' grammar police." - snakeeyes
> 
> _See what I did there?


There's a difference when it's done on purpose. (He didn't forget to capitalize Omega.)


----------



## Purple Hayz (Jan 21, 2015)

EnderW said:


> The real question is - will Rolex or Omega ever be as good as Invicta.


I certainly hope not.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Thanks, posting those two has ruined the rest of my day!


Purple Hayz said:


> I certainly hope not.
> 
> View attachment 8757538


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

onoffats said:


> I think if you do some research you would come to the conclusion that they are as good as Rolex.
> 
> Just 2 totally different price points with the same quality
> 
> Is all about Branding and marketing


You seem rather obsessed about this issue, if you truly believe it is all branding and marketing, which specific watch do you think offers equal or better quality at a significantly lower price?

That's all that really matters at the end of the day, what the competition is capable of offering, as opposed to what it costs the manufacturer to produce an item. Put another way, why should you reward a brand for being inefficient in its manufacturing process? And why should you penalize a brand for their substantial capital investments to improve their ability to produce an exceptionally high quality product at a lower per unit incremental cost.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

I've not priced out any Omegas in a while, but are their MSRPs that much cheaper than their comparable Rolex counterparts? I recall the retail prices being somewhat similar with Rolex's, albeit a bit less. Grey market prices were another story, but that, to me, suggested that Omega's pricing was out of line with market realities.


----------



## cmac06 (Mar 13, 2016)

watchRus said:


> There's a difference when it's done on purpose. (He didn't forget to capitalize Omega.)


So a Rolex fan could spell it in all lowers. Putting it in lower case makes it equivalent to "watch". There's Rolex and the other watch brands which happen to include Omega. At least that's how I would interpret it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

cmac06 said:


> So a Rolex fan could spell it in all lowers. Putting it in lower case makes it equivalent to "watch". There's Rolex and the other watch brands which happen to include Omega. At least that's how I would interpret it.


When you fail to capitalize the first letter of a proper noun, it might be taken to indicate that you are using it to refer to a generic term, so saying "rolex" instead of "Rolex" might refer to a generic mid-luxury watch. So, in your interpretation, it is Omega which should not be capitalized.


----------



## molarface (Oct 12, 2009)

Is it true that due to the constant reposting of this shot there is no longer anyone publically going by the name "Phil" in Oklahoma?


Purple Hayz said:


> View attachment 8757538


----------



## molarface (Oct 12, 2009)

I agree with everyone.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Watchbreath said:


> "If I had a hammer, I'd hammer in the mourning".


At least mine exists . . .


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

molarface said:


> I agree with everyone.


LMAO


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Purple Hayz said:


> I certainly hope not.


But this is exactly why Invicta is superior. Can either Rolex or Omega offer 30-day money back guarantee? NO.
Can either Rolex or Omega make shopping easy and convenient allowing returns for any reasons? NO. With them you have to schlep to AD, dress up, and if you buy a watch and not like it within 30 days - flip at a loss.

That is what makes Invicta superior...

Besides Rolex and Omega are both for image-obsessed snobs trying to show off. They target snobs like Alastair from Windsor or Reginald from Bienne. Invicta sells to real Americans like Phil from Oklahoma.


----------



## ConfusedOne (Sep 29, 2015)

Invicta>Rolex+Omega


----------



## Purple Hayz (Jan 21, 2015)

molarface said:


> Is it true that due to the constant reposting of this shot there is no longer anyone publically going by the name "Phil" in Oklahoma?


I wouldn't know.

Cheers,
Phil "Purple" Hayz (formerly of Tulsa)

;-)


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

watchRus said:


> *Rolex. Come on. :roll:


LOL.

Sorry mate, I think there's a problem with my Samsung. Honestly, this is me writing a sentence about rolex and Omega. Without doing anything to fixed the word. I'm only depended to the auto correct. I'm guessing my Samsung is an Omega fans.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

Rolex cannot produce Omega reflections like these.

https://www.watchuseek.com/forum.php#/forumsite/20758/topics/3396306?page=1


----------



## Call_me_Tom (Jul 20, 2007)

I thought I'd throw this here to add to the discussion.

Swatch Group Half-Year Profit Plunges
http://watchesbysjx.com/2016/07/swatch-group-half-year-profit-plunges.html


----------



## T1meout (Sep 27, 2013)

And the beat goes on.......l


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

T1meout said:


> And the beat goes on.......l


Speaking of beats...

The real question is, "Did Taylor do Calvin wrong?"


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Taylor Swift is a talented drama queen maneater. She's the Rolex of maneaters.





REVIEW: Taylor Swift is THE drama queen | GIG CITY
Swift: "I'm not a serial-dating man eater"

View attachment TAYLORSWIFT_large.jpg


----------



## DavidM1 (Feb 13, 2006)

Omega is far more progressive than Rolex. Rolex reminds me of a Rolls Royce - built to an excellent standard, extraordinary tradition and consequently unsurpassed name recognition. However, for innovation look elsewhere. Omega continues to develop the technology and their new movements resistant to magnetism are simply the latest example. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Speaking of beats...
> 
> The real question is, "Did Taylor do Calvin wrong?"
> 
> View attachment 8762018


I heard she wanted to get serious till tying the knot but Calvin still wanted to focus on his career.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Bigdaftboy (Jul 28, 2014)

If I started a new thread entitled "WILL ROLEX EVER BE AS GOOD AS OMEGA" would anyone comment?


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

Bigdaftboy said:


> If I started a new thread entitled "WILL ROLEX EVER BE AS GOOD AS OMEGA" would anyone comment?


Not favourably.


----------



## Richerson (Jun 18, 2006)

Bigdaftboy said:


> If I started a new thread entitled "WILL ROLEX EVER BE AS GOOD AS OMEGA" would anyone comment?


No because it would just get locked


----------



## Bigdaftboy (Jul 28, 2014)

No sense of sarcastic humour?


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

Bigdaftboy said:


> No sense of sarcastic humour?


Sure it's just it's been overdone. You'd be the 3rd or 4th person already doing basically the same thing.


----------



## Bigdaftboy (Jul 28, 2014)

paulopiper said:


> Sure it's just it's been overdone. You'd be the 3rd or 4th person already doing basically the same thing.


Was only meant to be a joke to lighten the mood, some people are taking this to far lol


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

Bigdaftboy said:


> Was only meant to be a joke to lighten the mood, some people are taking this to far lol


Hey feel free to try, if you can pull it off well I might still have a giggle. There's been at least 3 parody threads of this thread already, 2 were merged, 1 was closed. Unfortunately none were particularly witty but I believe in you bigdaftboy!


----------



## okcmco (Jan 7, 2016)

imlying said:


> At a redbar meet-up I was lucky enough to handle the new Globemaster on the metal bracelet. I'll be the first to say that I am very excited by them bringing back that constellation, and the blue looks stunning in photos but better in the steel. But at a price of around 9k +/-(cad) I don't see what's the draw. At that point, why not go for a 16014, 1603 Datejust or IWC Portofino or even a JLC MUT. I get that the Co-Ax isn't something we can just go out and get for the price that Omega offers them at, and the 15,000 gauss protection means it's as go anywhere do anything as their sports line but why not put in a simple modified ETA and milk the lower end entry luxury market? Am I missing something? I would love to know if any other people think that Omega can ever get to that level of market share, even with the brands that are in the Swatch family.


Yes..... No.... Yes...... No

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

Bigdaftboy said:


> Was only meant to be a joke to lighten the mood, some people are taking this to far lol


Sure will omega be as good as rolex is clicbait and I suspect a little tongue and cheek .....but also a little debatable..... will rolex ever be as good as omega?.....post that tread and people will think you are stoooooopid


----------



## Twelve Crows (Mar 29, 2011)

I'm sure it's been said here already, but I just have to say that from a technical standpoint I'm convinced that Omega produces more advanced movements than Rolex already. Notice I didn't say better or worse. It's just like Jeremy, Richard, and Captain Slowly on the once great Top Gear: everyone thinks something different about a watch/car/spouse/pet/job, etc., makes said "better" or "worse". It's the never ending quest to make ourselves feel superior to others...more refined and eriudite in the eyes of other people. Why should it matter what other people think? If you like Omega, buy Omega...The same is true for TAG, Tudor, Tutima, or Timex. Wear and utilize what you like. Appreciate what you have and the skill that went into producing it. 

Omegas are more advanced. Rolex sells more watches (or so we're told). But Glashutte is hard to pronounce, so they must be the best!


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

^
You seem to be conflating "more advanced" with "more gimmicky".


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Twelve Crows said:


> I'm sure it's been said here already, but I just have to say that from a technical standpoint I'm convinced that Omega produces more advanced movements than Rolex already. Notice I didn't say better or worse. It's just like Jeremy, Richard, and Captain Slowly on the once great Top Gear: everyone thinks something different about a watch/car/spouse/pet/job, etc., makes said "better" or "worse". It's the never ending quest to make ourselves feel superior to others...more refined and eriudite in the eyes of other people. Why should it matter what other people think? If you like Omega, buy Omega...The same is true for TAG, Tutor, Tutima, or Timex. Wear and utilize what you like. Appreciate what you have and the skill that went into producing it.
> 
> Omegas are more advanced. Rolex sells more watches (or so we're told). But Glashutte is hard to pronounce, so they must be the best!


Not disagreeing with you on Omega movements, but they now need to focus on improving the fit and finish of the case and bracelet, to match the quality of the inside.


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

cedargrove said:


> and finish of the case


huuuummm...


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

cedargrove said:


> Not disagreeing with you on Omega movements, but they now need to focus on improving the fit and finish of the case and bracelet, to match the quality of the inside.











_ETA Omega 8500 movement_

Ah - you mean finished as cheaply as possible, just like ETA's lowest-grade $50 6497?


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

AAMC said:


> huuuummm...


Wish my PO looked like that. But if it makes you feel better, I'll agree their cases are better than their bracelets.


----------



## Jeff Meyer (Jun 3, 2015)

I always felt that Omega has been overlooked and underrated and I'm not sure why.


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

Jeff Meyer said:


> I always felt that Omega has been overlooked and underrated and I'm not sure why.


because it's not as expensive as Hublot, IWC, Panerai, Cartier, Rolex...


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

AAMC said:


> because it's not as expensive as Hublot, IWC, Panerai, Cartier, Rolex...


depends a lot i guess, i overlook hublot and panerai . . .


----------



## Twelve Crows (Mar 29, 2011)

One man's Ferrari is another man's Fiat.


----------



## Twelve Crows (Mar 29, 2011)

Of course it's all anecdotal, but my brother's Seamaster Chrono is holding up very well after 20+ years--internally and externally. I just hope my Carrera 1887 43mm holds up as well.


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

drhr said:


> depends a lot i guess, i overlook hublot and panerai . . .


I dont blame you.

Still those two are much better than grand seikos.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JSI (Dec 12, 2012)

Rolex = Coke

Omega = Pepsi

Sorry, but that is much better than any car analogy. As good as Omega is they just can't compete with the public perception that Rolex has put in place.

I wonder if there is a soda/pop forum where they have epic threads discussing the minor details of how Pepsi is just as good as Coke??


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

JSI said:


> I wonder if there is a soda/pop forum where they have epic threads discussing the minor details of how Pepsi is just as good as Coke??


I looked, but couldn't find one.  If there was such a forum, I wonder how well a Rolex Vs Omega thread would run there.

Coke and Pepsi are both friggin' disgusting anyway. At least Coke is owned by Warren Buffett, and he's a nice guy; but Coke's senior leadership hawks sugary chemical water while saying, "We're in the business of hydration," which is total BS.

So we get into which brand is better -- Coca-Cola or PepsiCo&#8230;


----------



## Genebe (Aug 30, 2011)

BarracksSi said:


> I looked, but couldn't find one.  If there was such a forum, I wonder how well a Rolex Vs Omega thread would run there.
> 
> Coke and Pepsi are both friggin' disgusting anyway. At least Coke is owned by Warren Buffett, and he's a nice guy; but Coke's senior leadership hawks sugary chemical water while saying, "We're in the business of hydration," which is total BS.
> 
> So we get into which brand is better -- Coca-Cola or PepsiCo&#8230;


Pepsi GMT over the Coke bezel, any day!


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Again, I thought Rolex was Royal Crown.


JSI said:


> Rolex = Coke
> 
> Omega = Pepsi
> 
> ...


----------



## JSI (Dec 12, 2012)

Watchbreath said:


> Again, I thought Rolex was Royal Crown.


Come on now, RC cola........

P.S Best thread ever on the whole internet.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> ...while saying, "We're in the business of hydration," which is total BS...


Aren't you forgetting Dasani?

You know, Coke's "in-house" water - as in "it's the same water that's piped into your house"?


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

Crate410 said:


> I dont blame you.
> 
> Still those two are much better than grand seikos.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't know enough to comment on build quality differences between the three brands but I find the Grand Seikos much better looking. I doubt I am the only person to disagree with you.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> Aren't you forgetting Dasani?
> 
> You know, Coke's "in-house" water - as in "it's the same water that's piped into your house"?


Don't anyone badmouth Dasani! It's my favorite brand of bottled water (seriously), and I will defend Dasani to online WUS death!

Dasani definitely tastes better than tap water. To me, it tastes best at room temperature. Chilled Dasani does not taste as good.

Dasani is definitely better than Coke. Drinking too much soft drink loads up on sugar, which will give you type 2 diabetes: Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. - PubMed - NCBI No such problem with Dasani! Tap water is probably best though for the wallet.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Or Evian, which kicked off the whole single-serving bottled water craze by getting celebrity endorsements (and no other reason), with a fancy-sounding name which is just another word spelled backwards.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

(I have a deep personal hatred of bottled water based on multiple issues, like oil companies selling plastic, rampant consumerism, disregard of the environment, filtered tap water costing more than _gasoline_, on and on&#8230


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> Or Evian, which kicked off the whole single-serving bottled water craze by getting celebrity endorsements (and no other reason), with a fancy-sounding name which is just another word spelled backwards.


They could have called it Macs, or Citoidi (pronounced See-Twa-Dee of course), or maybe Loof-u. So many possibilities... though I do buy it on occasion for convenience and availability reasons.

My least favorite though is Fiji Water. The need to ship water half way around the world, and for people to drink water that's been shipped half way around the world, is really hard to explain.

And there's this... starting about a minute in :


----------



## Jefferson Overlin (Mar 4, 2013)

There are enough bad jokes in this thread for a Father's Day every day of the year... lol

Did we ever come to a conclusion to OP's question? 

I thought of an interesting point this morning while reading Ofrei's website homepage, which contains a major diss to Omega and Swatch that seems totally valid to me. Ofrei and other independent watchmakers are no longer able to get the omega parts because of omega's attempt to be as exclusive as Rolex is. From now on, you will have to send your watch in for that sweet 8 week service with the upcharge for manufacturer.

After thinking about this a bit, I realized that I can no longer buy an omega watch from the 8500 movement onwards because I support my local omega-certified watchmaker, who gives me a discount and a 3-4 week turnaround on full services. It's not about money--it's about big businesses attempting to monopolize the industry. Sure, watches are a "luuuuxury" item and not a necessity like a vehicle, but can you imagine if you had to send your car back to the manufacturer to get it fixed every time, and they could charge you whatever they wanted because they were the only people who could do it? 

As much as I can appreciate the quality of the newer models, i can confidently say that I wish omega didn't want to be as "good" as Rolex. And if Rolex was the brand to start this exclusivity trend, then screw them too. I'll find a different brand to enjoy. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

I like that. Screw them both. Enough other alternatives out there to make the argument superfluous.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Speaking of repairs, service, and exclusivity -- 

It's still possible to get a Rolex serviced locally with genuine Rolex parts, right?


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)




----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

And companies taking our water and selling it back to us with the attitude of, "we pay for our water and why shouldn't you"?


BarracksSi said:


> (I have a deep personal hatred of bottled water based on multiple issues, like oil companies selling plastic, rampant consumerism, disregard of the environment, filtered tap water costing more than _gasoline_, on and on&#8230


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

Jefferson Overlin said:


> There are enough bad jokes in this thread for a Father's Day every day of the year... lol
> 
> Did we ever come to a conclusion to OP's question?
> 
> ...


You know that "local" Omega Certified watchmakers CAN and always WILL be able to get OEM Omega parts for their job. (Emphasis on Certified)

Enviado do meu iPhone usando o Tapatalk


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

drhr said:


> depends a lot i guess, i overlook hublot and panerai . . .





Crate410 said:


> I dont blame you.
> 
> Still those two are much better than grand seikos.


Annnddd we're off! 200 pages, here we come...


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Crate410 said:


> ...
> Still those two are much better than grand seikos.


-100!


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Jefferson Overlin said:


> I thought of an interesting point this morning while reading Ofrei's website homepage, which contains a major diss to Omega and Swatch that seems totally valid to me. Ofrei and other independent watchmakers are no longer able to get the omega parts because of omega's attempt to be as exclusive as Rolex is. From now on, you will have to send your watch in for that sweet 8 week service with the upcharge for manufacturer.


I believe Ofrei is just an independent parts supplier; I don't think they repair watches. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I also believe Omega will continue to supply parts to certified independent watchmakers, so there's no need to worry on that front. For example, the Al Archers of the world should be fine.



> After thinking about this a bit, I realized that I can no longer buy an omega watch from the 8500 movement onwards because I support my local omega-certified watchmaker, who gives me a discount and a 3-4 week turnaround on full services.


See above.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Omega *Certified *watchmakers will get parts. Watchmakers with Rolex *Parts Account* will get parts. Heck, my understanding is that Richemont Group brands are actually way more restrictive w parts than either Rolex or Omega.
But yes, luxury watch buyers should understand what they are getting, the service requirements and costs, and the parts availability. However, I don't see it as a "con" against either Rolex or Omega...it is not like your local watchmaker can change parts on Patek or Lange or Grand Seiko or even Nomos. Heck - it is way harder to get Spring Drive repaired than just about any Rolex. And pre co-axial Omegas are super easy to service (I like ETA on entry-level tool diver like SMP).

At the end of the day - these are all "luxury" items though - consumers are not entitled to sh*t. Yes, one can get their Toyota Corolla or BMW 3 series serviced pretty much anywhere and any bodyshop can replace parts - but these cars are "necessities" with potentially luxury spin on them. I don't know if a Tesla or Lambo can be serviced or have bodywork done at your local garage. And with watches - if you drop that kind of $ on a jewelry item - be prepared to understand the costs involved (servicing, parts, that at some point parts may be discontinued and not repairable, BS WR ratings, etc..)


----------



## Bahoomba (May 1, 2010)

176 pages and this thread is _still_ going on?

Sniff.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Crate410 said:


> I dont blame you.
> 
> Still those two are much better than grand seikos.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well, I suppose that's why they can all survive . . .


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Bahoomba said:


> Sniff.


Are you crying because of how beautiful this thread is?


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

rdoder said:


> Don't anyone badmouth Dasani! It's my favorite brand of bottled water (seriously), and I will defend Dasani to online WUS death!
> 
> Dasani definitely tastes better than tap water. To me, it tastes best at room temperature. Chilled Dasani does not taste as good.
> 
> Dasani is definitely better than Coke. Drinking too much soft drink loads up on sugar, which will give you type 2 diabetes: Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. - PubMed - NCBI No such problem with Dasani! Tap water is probably best though for the wallet.


Dasani is just for poseurs who want to be noticed and display their wealth.


----------



## onkyo (Oct 21, 2008)

No offense to Omega owners.... but the answer is 'NO'


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

cedargrove said:


> Dasani is just for poseurs who want to be noticed and display their wealth.


Perrier comes to mind: How water became a status symbol, dividing those who drink tap water, and those who drink designer | National Post

"Will our thirst for trendy waters ever run dry? Now that marketing pros have successfully tied water to our identities and social status, it's not likely. Going forward, it might be more helpful to think of these waters as designer [email protected], rather than drinks.

"There's a real classist system going on here, especially when celebrities are involved. It divides the population into haves and have-nots: those who drink tap water, and those who can afford fancy waters," says Sharp. "It's about claiming a place in the system, and we now do it through water.""


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

rdoder said:


> Don't anyone badmouth Dasani! It's my favorite brand of bottled water (seriously), and I will defend Dasani to online WUS death!
> 
> Dasani definitely tastes better than tap water. To me, it tastes best at room temperature. Chilled Dasani does not taste as good.
> 
> Dasani is definitely better than Coke. Drinking too much soft drink loads up on sugar, which will give you type 2 diabetes: Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. - PubMed - NCBI No such problem with Dasani! Tap water is probably best though for the wallet.


Best water is San Benedetto. Dasani not so much. Too gimmicky


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Vlance said:


> Best water is San Benedetto. Dasani not so much. Too gimmicky


Holy smokes, that's expensive.


----------



## hpark21 (Oct 8, 2007)

~~~Creak~~, looks in, see it is pretty much over - as usual the posts belonging to "cafe" has dominated in last page or so..

Ah, nothing to see here now folks, move on to next one - there is usual 1 watch to wear thread started somewhere.

BTW, 1 sentence summary of entire thread. of majority opinion.:
No, but they want to be.

EDIT: Here is black hole inducing pic of mine as parting gift. Enjoy!!


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

^^^^^ Pff. No Datejust, no Speedy. Move along.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

hpark21 said:


> ~~~Creak~~, looks in, see it is pretty much over - as usual the posts belonging to "cafe" has dominated in last page or so..
> 
> Ah, nothing to see here now folks, move on to next one - there is usual 1 watch to wear thread started somewhere.
> 
> ...


Nice ! I believe it's our duty to keep this topic alive no matter what. It's the resident WUS thread now.


----------



## Jefferson Overlin (Mar 4, 2013)

I wonder if we'll get a sticky and they'll rename the thread "How to debate important topics concisely and objectively"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hpark21 (Oct 8, 2007)

Jefferson Overlin said:


> I wonder if we'll get a sticky and they'll rename the thread "How to debate important topics concisely and objectively"


Your standard of "concisely" or "objectively" appear to differ from my own, but I suppose it is in the eye of beholder.


----------



## Jefferson Overlin (Mar 4, 2013)

hpark21 said:


> Your standard of "concisely" or "objectively" appear to differ from my own, but I suppose it is in the eye of beholder.


One might even call such a standard as mine "sarcasm"



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hpark21 (Oct 8, 2007)

BarracksSi said:


> ^^^^^ Pff. No Datejust, no Speedy. Move along.


But but.. I DO have the snowflake... Damn it!!

On second thought.. Hmm... It would be interesting trio shot if we get DJ, Snowflake and Speedy in one shot.. Someone DO IT!!


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Jefferson Overlin said:


> One might even call such a standard as mine "sarcasm"
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well anyone named "One" is bound to have a finely tuned sarcasm meter. Others, not so much apparently.


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

the omega is more expensive .....but my tudor is ....better built ...better tech....and okay it's not a looker,more like a bouncer than an astronaut,but it's not meant to be that superficially pretty AND as useless as the these two watches would be it's probably more suitable for space than the speedie.........the speedie is pretty though


----------



## Watchdudeman (Sep 21, 2015)

YYes I know it's not technically a rolex but thats the point ... tudor are better than omega buck for buck!


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

Watchdudeman said:


> YYes I know it's not technically a rolex but thats the point ... tudor are better than omega buck for buck!


A 30 dollar casio is better than an omega buck for buck in some instances.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Pakal (Jun 6, 2016)

Doubled post


----------



## Pakal (Jun 6, 2016)

Crate410 said:


> A 30 dollar casio is better than an omega buck for buck in some instances.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


A casio is far better also than a Rolex.
The 30 usd casio is the best watch for 99% of the people in the world. There is a 0.999% of people that think a swatch is better than a casio.

And then there is the remaining 0.001%. All the watch freaks like us... LOL


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Pakal said:


> And then there is the remaining 0.001%. All the watch freaks like us... LOL


Never mind "the one percenters" -- we're The 0.001-percenters! Everyone else sucks! ;-)


----------



## TurboHarm (Aug 24, 2014)

Really what exactly is the big deal with Rolex? The name? Its not like they have done much to change the brand they live on an old story IMHO..Most people look at them and think they are fake anyway?? Sorry not for my money...Hmmm


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

Pakal said:


> A casio is far better also than a Rolex.
> The 30 usd casio is the best watch for 99% of the people in the world. There is a 0.999% of people that think a swatch is better than a casio.
> 
> And then there is the remaining 0.001%. All the watch freaks like us... LOL


Agreed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

Let me help w pushing this thread to comical levels in terms of length

Never thought I would own one omega but now I have three go figure. I have to say that 2nd hand there are some great deals to be had w O that you would not get w R










And then this one










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

jmanlay said:


> Never thought I would own one omega but now I have three go figure.
> 
> And then this one (Rolex)


So 3 Omegas = 1 Rolex? Sounds about right.

At some point, you'll be ready to turn in your 3 Omegas and upgrade to another Rolex.


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

vkalia said:


> So 3 Omegas = 1 Rolex? Sounds about right.
> 
> At some point, you'll be ready to turn in your 3 Omegas and upgrade to another Rolex.


No way! Upgrading what? Why not upgrading to a Panerai? This hobby doesn't work like that, it's an "expensive" hobby so you'd better go with the ones you bond with! It's about the vibe! Blonde, brunette, all good in the end it's about the vibe.
Could have bought some IWC, or a Breitling, maybe a Cartier of some kind...could have bought a GMT Master II and a Datejust....could have bought several Tudor's ...oh no...not Tudor, I'm not feeling good vibes from them 










Enviado do meu iPhone usando o Tapatalk


----------



## Morrisdog (Dec 12, 2014)

AAMC said:


> No way! Upgrading what? Why not upgrading to a Panerai? This hobby doesn't work like that, it's an "expensive" hobby so you'd better go with the ones you bond with! It's about the vibe! Blonde, brunette, all good in the end it's about the vibe.
> Could have bought some IWC, or a Breitling, maybe a Cartier of some kind...could have bought a GMT Master II and a Datejust....could have bought several Tudor's ...oh no...not Tudor, I'm not feeling good vibes from them
> 
> 
> ...


This might be off topic but I really like that collection !!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

AAMC said:


> No way! Upgrading what? Why not upgrading to a Panerai? This hobby doesn't work like that, it's an "expensive" hobby so you'd better go with the ones you bond with! It's about the vibe! Blonde, brunette, all good in the end it's about the vibe.
> Could have bought some IWC, or a Breitling, maybe a Cartier of some kind...could have bought a GMT Master II and a Datejust....could have bought several Tudor's ...oh no...not Tudor, I'm not feeling good vibes from them
> 
> Enviado do meu iPhone usando o Tapatalk


I like your style maybe because I grew up so close to Portugal 
Could not agree more with you, it is about vibe it is about what appeals and speaks to you.
By now sure I could have one piece that may appeal to the forum darlings yet would not do a thing to me. So I will stick to my trifecta and lonely R. it is about the connection and it is very personal. I couldn't care less what is better R or O or RO or whatever else is out there. It is subjective.
What speaks to me is like an Alfa Romeo engine noise vibe some out there know what I mean. Maybe not be the most reliable and sure it will rust but man does it have soul, something that just speaks to the heart.
can't buy soul fellows.

AND THIS just does it for me


----------



## RDK (Mar 11, 2011)

TurboHarm said:


> Really what exactly is the big deal with Rolex? The name? Its not like they have done much to change the brand they live on an old story IMHO..Most people look at them and think they are fake anyway?? Sorry not for my money...Hmmm


Rolex have not done much to change te brand..?

How about:
- Parachrom blue hairspring
- Paraflex shock absorber
- 904L steel
- Easylink clasp
- Glidelock clasp
- Chronergy escapement

..to name a few..

Cheers,
Rob


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

AAMC said:


> No way! Upgrading what? Why not upgrading to a Panerai? This hobby doesn't work like that, it's an "expensive" hobby so you'd better go with the ones you bond with! It's about the vibe! Blonde, brunette, all good in the end it's about the vibe.
> Could have bought some IWC, or a Breitling, maybe a Cartier of some kind...could have bought a GMT Master II and a Datejust....could have bought several Tudor's ...oh no...not Tudor, I'm not feeling good vibes from them
> 
> 
> ...


That's a really great collection. Don't trade them for Joker Hat. It's not worthed.   .

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Morrisdog said:


> This might be off topic but I really like that collection !!


So do I. With a little cash top up, he should be able to convert that into a ceramic Sub AND an older-gen Explorer 2. #Winning.

(200 pages, here we come).


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

vkalia said:


> So do I. With a little cash top up, he should be able to convert that into a ceramic Sub AND an older-gen Explorer 2. #Winning.
> 
> (200 pages, here we come).


Hehehe...that would be....
...just boring














































Enviado do meu iPhone usando o Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

AAMC said:


> Hehehe...that would be....
> ...just boring


Just kidding, jefe. Those are very nice watches.


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

vkalia said:


> Just kidding, jefe. Those are very nice watches.


I'm kidding also, I quite like Rolex not to the point of justifying one yet but I don't rule them out. 
Although, I will never ever get a Sub just because there's the GMT Master II

In the minority here but I'm liking the new Air King way more than the Explorer I 

Enviado do meu iPhone usando o Tapatalk


----------



## Legion681 (Sep 1, 2012)

TurboHarm said:


> Really what exactly is the big deal with Rolex? The name? Its not like they have done much to change the brand they live on an old story IMHO..Most people look at them and think they are fake anyway?? Sorry not for my money...Hmmm


Educate yourself, come back, post again.


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

Legion681 said:


> Educate yourself, come back, post again.


I agree with him. Whats so special about rolex? Over priced hunks of metal made for those fat cats (them, those ones over there)

They arent any better made than a swatch ir flik flak.

Stop paying for a name and get a real watch that is wirth its price.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

Omega has been around longer than Rolex.

Still contemplating whether I should pay for Rolex marketing. Maybe the only way to get it is to take the plunge.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Crate410 said:


> I agree with him. Whats so special about rolex? Over priced hunks of metal made for those fat cats (them, those ones over there)
> 
> They arent any better made than a swatch ir flik flak.
> 
> ...





maxixix said:


> Omega has been around longer than Rolex.
> 
> Still contemplating whether I should pay for Rolex marketing. Maybe the only way to get it is to take the plunge.


Ohhh... Nicely done, both of you!!! That should get us another 4 or 5 pages. Nonsense followed by understated back-handing is a potent combo.


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

#1801 

View attachment 8904778

View attachment 8904786


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Gotta be a slow day to keep this one going.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

RDK said:


> Rolex have not done much to change te brand..?
> 
> How about:
> - Parachrom blue hairspring
> ...


Totally agree with you. They also try to be creative and put colours on their logo. This is what it looks like.









Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

Does this help?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

jmanlay said:


> Does this help?


Which side of the argument?

(I kid, i kid)


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

dbostedo said:


> Ohhh... Nicely done, both of you!!! That should get us another 4 or 5 pages. Nonsense followed by understated back-handing is a potent combo.


We aim to please!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

jmanlay said:


> Does this help?


Only if you're the co-driver and helping to time the pace to the next waypoint.

But because you have that sippy cup in the center console, I wonder if you're just in the minivan heading to the petting zoo.


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

BarracksSi said:


> Only if you're the co-driver and helping to time the pace to the next waypoint.
> 
> But because you have that sippy cup in the center console, I wonder if you're just in the minivan heading to the petting zoo.


No minivan thank goodness and the manly sippy cup is mine 
Got to ride passenger not allowed to drive my wife's company car

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

RDK said:


> TurboHarm said:
> 
> 
> > Really what exactly is the big deal with Rolex? The name? Its not like they have done much to change the brand they live on an old story IMHO..Most people look at them and think they are fake anyway?? Sorry not for my money...Hmmm
> ...


Based on my calculations from 1905, 9 years more to go for Rolex to invent a new ............ clasp? Cant wait.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

dbostedo said:


> Crate410 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with him. Whats so special about rolex? Over priced hunks of metal made for those fat cats (them, those ones over there)
> ...


I do apologise I have only discovered Rolex was a 1900's watch recently.

I have new found respect for Raymond Weil and Tissot.


----------



## RDK (Mar 11, 2011)

maxixix said:


> Omega has been around longer than Rolex.
> 
> Still contemplating whether I should pay for Rolex marketing. Maybe the only way to get it is to take the plunge.


You're right.
Maybe you should pay for Omega marketing.

I did both


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

RDK said:


> You're right.
> Maybe you should pay for Omega marketing.
> 
> I did both


Pfft. Grand Seikos are far superior.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## the.watchdoc (Apr 23, 2015)

Crate410 said:


> I agree with him. Whats so special about rolex? Over priced hunks of metal made for those fat cats (them, those ones over there)
> 
> They arent any better made than a swatch ir flik flak.
> 
> ...





Crate410 said:


> Pfft. Grand Seikos are far superior.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You're on a roll, mate!

This thread is truly amazing. It will never die. Long live the thread!

I want to add more fuel to this fire, but I think anything I could say would pale in comparison to some of the word bombs that've been dropped in the past few pages.


----------



## Legion681 (Sep 1, 2012)

Crate410 said:


> I agree with him. Whats so special about rolex? Over priced hunks of metal made for those fat cats (them, those ones over there)
> 
> They arent any better made than a swatch ir flik flak.
> 
> ...


Educate yourself, come back, post again <-- it should work for you too.

In any case, I have been buying watches (for me, for my loved ones as presents) for 30+ years. I think I know a thing or two. But by all means, do tell what is a "real watch that is wirth (sic) its price". I am all ears.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

RDK said:


> You're right.
> Maybe you should pay for Omega marketing.


----------



## the.watchdoc (Apr 23, 2015)

Legion681 said:


> Educate yourself, come back, post again <-- it should work for you too.
> 
> In any case, I have been buying watches (for me, for my loved ones as presents) for 30+ years. I think I know a thing or two. But by all means, do tell what is a "real watch that is wirth (sic) its price". I am all ears.


Lighten up, mate, I'm fairly certain he was joking.


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

Crate410 said:


> Pfft. Grand Seikos are far superior.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That is true










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

Same watch, different price (double?). Did they start using gold or something in the past couple of years?

Reminds me of the subprime mortgage crisis. 

Hence why the hesitation to take the plunge.

PS: Might be the.... clasp?

Apologies, just realised the added a "1" infront of the model number. Thats a bloody expensive "1".


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Legion681 said:


> ... do tell what is a "real watch that is wirth (sic) its price". I am all ears.


Clearly, it has to be this one :


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

Legion681 said:


> Educate yourself, come back, post again <-- it should work for you too.
> 
> In any case, I have been buying watches (for me, for my loved ones as presents) for 30+ years. I think I know a thing or two. But by all means, do tell what is a "real watch that is wirth (sic) its price". I am all ears.


So you are an old guy who picks up on typos. We dont all use morse code pops. Im typing with one hand while laughing at your rolex and pointing at them with my invicta on my wrist.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

jmanlay said:


> That is true
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It was meant to be a joke. You took the fun out of it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

jmanlay said:


> That is true
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, a GS wins over Omega and rolex. Must be a Girard Serregaux. LOL.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

PhantomThief said:


> Lighten up, mate, I'm fairly certain he was joking.


One look at my watch list would have told him I was joking.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

dbostedo said:


> Clearly, it has to be this one :
> 
> View attachment 8912482


Woah man is that the new Invicta?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Crate410 said:


> So you are an old guy who picks up on typos. We dont all use morse code pops. Im typing with one hand while laughing at your rolex and pointing at them with my invicta on my wrist.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Oooooohhhh..... bringing up Invicta.... that's evil.


----------



## Birky1 (Feb 13, 2015)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Already did.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Sorry mate but there is no comparison

Sent from my Harrier Tab from EE using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Birky1 said:


> Sorry mate but there is no comparison
> 
> Sent from my Harrier Tab from EE using Tapatalk


Really? No comparison? I mean, they're not identical, but surely they're similar enough to be compared... and contrasted. Go ahead, give it a shot... it might do some good.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

I currently own one Rolex and have a deposit down on another. I have zero Omegas and never owned one in my life.

So the question is, should I flip a Rolex for an Omega just for fun or should I just get another GS or The Citizen NA0000-59B?


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

Crate410 said:


> It was meant to be a joke. You took the fun out of it.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ok then thought it was all in fun but obviously you are taking this game way too seriously. May want to cool off a bit

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Birky1 said:


> Sorry mate but there is no comparison
> 
> Sent from my Harrier Tab from EE using Tapatalk


Has the current Air King and/or Milgauss manage to have a date window let alone transparent case back? Wait for the last part, none of the rolex has transparent case back? Why? To maintain water tightness? Cause their movement looking is ugly? LOL. 

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Legion681 (Sep 1, 2012)

Crate410 said:


> So you are an old guy who picks up on typos. We dont all use morse code pops. Im typing with one hand while laughing at your rolex and pointing at them with my invicta on my wrist.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Your sarcasm has no bite, your humor is not funny, your typing is below par (pro tip: turn autocorrect back on), I fail to see anything interesting in what you have said so far. Why again should I have any interest in all this? Indeed I do not.


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

Legion681 said:


> Your sarcasm has no bite, your humor is not funny, your typing is below par (pro tip: turn autocorrect back on), I fail to see anything interesting in what you have said so far. Why again should I have any interest in all this? Indeed I do not.


And yet you keep responding to my posts...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

Tomatoes11 said:


> I currently own one Rolex and have a deposit down on another. I have zero Omegas and never owned one in my life.
> 
> So the question is, should I flip a Rolex for an Omega just for fun or should I just get another GS or The Citizen NA0000-59B?


Two Rolex(es)? Have you graduated twice or something?

Enviado do meu iPhone usando o Tapatalk


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Shan_Farandy said:


> Has the current Air King and/or Milgauss manage to have a date window let alone transparent case back? Wait for the last part, none of the rolex has transparent case back? Why? To maintain water tightness? Cause their movement looking is ugly? LOL.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Probably to keep the thickness down, for durability purposes, and to save money on decorating the movement. I have no issues with any of that but I do have a slight issue with Rolex fan boys knocking other brands for thickness when the thickness would be pretty much the same if Rolex used transparent case backs. They seem to get credit for omitting things but Omega gets ripped a new A hole for any little thing they don't do. I think it's probably because Rolex fans outnumber everyone but your guess is as good as mine.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

AAMC said:


> Two Rolex(es)? Have you graduated twice or something?
> 
> Enviado do meu iPhone usando o Tapatalk


Oh, I have all sorts of useless degrees and certificates but plenty of people have more than one Rolex here. The question is should I keep both or flip the least favourite just to have a bit more variety in my collection?


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Oh, I have all sorts of useless degrees and certificates but plenty of people have more than one Rolex here. The question is should I keep both or flip the least favourite just to have a bit more variety in my collection?


What models do you have? Can't see sigs on Tapatalk

Enviado do meu iPhone usando o Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Probably to keep the thickness down, for durability purposes, and to save money on *decorating the movement*. I have no issues with any of that but I do have a slight issue with Rolex fan boys knocking other brands for thickness when the thickness would be pretty much the same if Rolex used transparent case backs. They seem to get credit for omitting things but Omega gets ripped a new A hole for any little thing they don't do. I think it's probably because Rolex fans outnumber everyone but your guess is as good as mine.


Well I brought up current 2016 Air King and Milgauss cause rolex anti magnetic watch doesn't have anti magnetic movement. So, they *cannot* create any features with window holes on their dials and transparent case. Hence, the added thickness for current 2016 Air King and Milgauss.

And what movement decoration that rolex has? Are there any? Thought it's just a plain old vanilla. 
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

I like the appearance of more Rolex models than Omega models. Some Rolexes and Omegas I find down right ugly. Disregarding aesthetics, has anyone ever created a list of the component parts of any comparable Rolex and Omega models that quantifiably identifies which are superior compared to the competing brand?


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

AAMC said:


> What models do you have? Can't see sigs on Tapatalk
> 
> Enviado do meu iPhone usando o Tapatalk


They both have some obvious overlap. Currently own a blue dial OP 39mm and will be getting the new Explorer once it comes in. I am pretty sure I'll like the Explorer better but you never know. The OP is thinner at 11.3mm vs the 12mm Explorer. And the OP is my only colour dial.

If I do flip one I am probably thinking either the citizen or a blue dial older thinner model Aqua Terra or a seamaster. Unless a new thinner Aqua Terra is coming out soon, I'll just wait for that.


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

Tomatoes11 said:


> The OP is thinner at 11.3mm vs the 12mm Explorer. And the OP is my only colour dial.


Thanks for that tidbit. I never knew that. I assumed they were spot on but then noticed the bezels look slightly different shaped. Didn't know the OP was slightly thinner.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

Nom de Forum said:


> I like the appearance of more Rolex models than Omega models. Some Rolexes and Omegas I find down right ugly. Disregarding aesthetics, has anyone ever created a list of the component parts of any comparable Rolex and Omega models that quantifiably identifies which are superior compared to the competing brand?


I started doing this I called my local watch maker and asked him to send me pictures of the latest Rolex movement .

He sent me the picture below and told me nothing has changed much apart from the instructions no longer says how to unscrew the screws and no longer says patented. Apparently the patent paper work was lost during the great depression. I am still chasing wikipedia for answers.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

maxixix said:


> I started doing this I called my local watch maker and asked him to send me pictures of the latest Rolex movement .
> 
> He sent me the picture below and told me nothing has changed much apart from the instructions no longer says how to unscrew the screws and no longer says patented. Apparently the patent paper work was lost during the great depression. I am still chasing wikipedia for answers.


Ha!


----------



## RDK (Mar 11, 2011)

maxixix said:


> I started doing this I called my local watch maker and asked him to send me pictures of the latest Rolex movement .
> 
> He sent me the picture below and told me nothing has changed much apart from the instructions no longer says how to unscrew the screws and no longer says patented. Apparently the patent paper work was lost during the great depression. I am still chasing wikipedia for answers.


Yeah, it hasn't changed much over the years. Here's my Explorer movement


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

maxixix said:


> I started doing this I called my local watch maker and asked him to send me pictures of the latest Rolex movement .
> 
> He sent me the picture below and told me nothing has changed much apart from the instructions no longer says how to unscrew the screws and no longer says patented. Apparently the patent paper work was lost during the great depression.* I am still chasing wikipedia for answers.*


I would be looking for a more definitive source. For all you know veda is writing the wikipedia articles on rolex.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

eblackmo said:


> I would be looking for a more definitive source. For all you know veda is writing the wikipedia articles on rolex.


I agree that Wikipedia is unlikely to be a definitive source.

Is there anyone here on WUS that can authoritatively tell me that if just one component part of comparable Rolex and Omega designs is clearly superior to the other?


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

Nom de Forum said:


> *I agree that Wikipedia is unlikely to be a definitive source.*
> 
> Is there anyone here on WUS that can authoritatively tell me that if just one component part of comparable Rolex and Omega designs is clearly superior to the other?


When I was at university some of the lecturers would deduct marks if students used wikipedia as a reference. Not that I have an axe to grind some of it is good and it's a quick reference. I just find the whole having articles on fictional characters from TV shows and comic books etc. Next to articles about real people and then having wikipedia try and claim they are a serious source a little perplexing. They are allowing the blurring of reality and fiction........


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

eblackmo said:


> They are allowing the blurring of reality and fiction........


Not at all - that doesn't make any sense. The articles themselves are factual, even if about fictional characters. It's not like they're claiming the characters are real people or anything. A standard encyclopedia has plenty of entries about fictional characters as well. (For instance, here's Encyclopedia Britannica's online entry for the Marvel character, Wolverine : https://www.britannica.com/topic/Wolverine-fictional-character)

I find it a bit surprising that points could be lost for using Wikipedia. As long as it's backed up by other references, Wikipedia is a fantastic resource. It seems a bit short-sighted of professors to restrict it's usage. (Although I guess they may have been inundated by research _only_ being done on Wikipedia, so maybe it's a good idea just to force some additional research to occur.)

In any case, Wikipedia's overall accuracy is typically good... the main issue being that the user model of editing can lead to some _very_ wrong entries occasionally, though they're generally caught quickly. And of course, it allows for different biases or slants to creep in as well, so there's not a consistent tone or editing - and that can be a problem.

Some reference articles (the first one is intentional!) :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET
Forbes Welcome
How Accurate Is Wikipedia?


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

eblackmo said:


> When I was at university some of the lecturers would deduct marks if students used wikipedia as a reference. Not that I have an axe to grind some of it is good and it's a quick reference. I just find the whole having articles on fictional characters from TV shows and comic books etc. Next to articles about real people and then having wikipedia try and claim they are a serious source a little perplexing. They are allowing the blurring of reality and fiction........


Yes, defo. The way I use Wikipedia is to follow the source of the citation. That little number at the end of the sentence. Which link to the reference below the page. rolex on Wikipedia has 46 references.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

dbostedo said:


> Not at all - that doesn't make any sense. The articles themselves are factual, even if about fictional characters. It's not like they're claiming the characters are real people or anything. A standard encyclopedia has plenty of entries about fictional characters as well. (For instance, here's Encyclopedia Britannica's online entry for the Marvel character, Wolverine : https://www.britannica.com/topic/Wolverine-fictional-character)
> 
> I find it a bit surprising that points could be lost for using Wikipedia. As long as it's backed up by other references, Wikipedia is a fantastic resource. It seems a bit short-sighted of professors to restrict it's usage. (Although I guess they may have been inundated by research _only_ being done on Wikipedia, so maybe it's a good idea just to force some additional research to occur.)
> 
> ...





ShanDaMan said:


> Yes, defo. The way I use Wikipedia is to follow the source of the citation. That little number at the end of the sentence. Which link to the reference below the page. rolex on Wikipedia has 46 references.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Sure. I find some of the technical articles quite useful. I think academics problem with it is it's anonymous authors.....i.e. it's not peer reviewed or even written by actual experts in the field. They are big on that sort of thing. That having been said I had one lecturer who thought it was great. Just not by final year. They should split the fictional stuff out as in fictional character wikipedia and factual wikipedia and also identify authors and list their credentials. If they want to be taken seriously. They are trying to position themselves as a serious source for serious people after all.......IMHO. 

For example: 
1. Joe Bloggs wrote an article on machine learning and he has a PHD in computer science from harvard.
2. John Doe wrote an article on wolverine and he has watched days of future past 53 times.

Both of them are clearly qualified. ;-P

That's why there are sites like this one:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

eblackmo said:


> Sure. I find some of the technical articles quite useful. I think academics problem with it is it's anonymous authors.....i.e. it's not peer reviewed or even written by actual experts in the field. They are big on that sort of thing. That having been said I had one lecturer who thought it was great. Just not by final year. They should split the fictional stuff out as in fictional character wikipedia and factual wikipedia and also identify authors and list their credentials. If they want to be taken seriously. They are trying to position themselves as a serious source for serious people after all.......IMHO.
> 
> For example:
> 1. Joe Bloggs wrote an article on machine learning and he has a PHD in computer science from harvard.
> ...


Well we're not talking about peer reviewed papers or journals... we're talking about encyclopedias. Throwing them together is mixing your source types. The Encyclopedia Britannica is not really peer reviewed either.

And I don't think Wikipedia is trying to position themselves as anything but the most comprehensive possible crowd-sourced encyclopedia. They do have a paid staff that act as editors/reviewers, and they are a non-profit - nothing more than that.

And I still think it's weird to care about fictional characters in an encyclopedia... do you have a problem with, say, entries on Medusa? Or Beowulf? Or Sherlock Holmes? Or Odin? Shouldn't people get general knowledge about them as well? Isn't that the point of an encyclopedia?


----------



## jaeva (Dec 4, 2015)

maxixix said:


> I started doing this I called my local watch maker and asked him to send me pictures of the latest Rolex movement .
> 
> He sent me the picture below and told me nothing has changed much apart from the instructions no longer says how to unscrew the screws and no longer says patented. Apparently the patent paper work was lost during the great depression. I am still chasing wikipedia for answers.


Patents only last 20 years from date of application (in the US) or, under the old rules, for 17 years from the date of issuance. Either way, any patent from the great depression has long ago expired. Perhaps that's why they dropped the "patented" inscription.

Oh, and patent applications are public documents - so that once the patent expires anyone can use the invention disclosed by the application - so I'm not sure how one could "lose" the patent.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Birky1 said:


> Sorry mate but there is no comparison
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No offense, but it looks like a carnival ride.


----------



## soslow (Jan 4, 2013)

I prefer an Omega myself but to each their own.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

ShanDaMan said:


> Well I brought up current 2016 Air King and Milgauss cause rolex anti magnetic watch doesn't have anti magnetic movement.


Just to correct you, the 3131 movement in the current Milgauss (and most recent Air King)
is in fact an anti-magnetic movement with fully anti-magnetic components (i.e. balance wheel, hairsprings, escapement, pallet fork, etc.). This is in addition to the shield.


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

dbostedo said:


> Well we're not talking about peer reviewed papers or journals... we're talking about encyclopedias. Throwing them together is mixing your source types. The Encyclopedia Britannica is not really peer reviewed either.
> 
> And I don't think Wikipedia is trying to position themselves as anything but the most comprehensive possible crowd-sourced encyclopedia. They do have a paid staff that act as editors/reviewers, and they are a non-profit - nothing more than that.
> 
> And I still think it's weird to care about fictional characters in an encyclopedia... *do you have a problem with, say, entries on Medusa? Or Beowulf? Or Sherlock Holmes? Or Odin? Shouldn't people get general knowledge about them as well? I*sn't that the point of an encyclopedia?


Well. If we are talking about wikipedia as a source of general knowledge. Then no. As I said I find it useful particularly to refresh my knowledge on certain subjects. As an idea I also think it is pretty nifty. Although mixing source types is precisely what I am complaining about and why some lecturers will deduct marks if it's used as a reference for e.g. in a final year research paper but then I wouldn't have been referencing Encyclopedia Britannica either. 

Actually I had one lecturer who was so vehemently anti-wikipedia she told us not to use the article's references either. Love it or hate it I guess.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Nom de Forum said:


> Is there anyone here on WUS that can authoritatively tell me that if just one component part of comparable Rolex and Omega designs is clearly superior to the other?


Two things come to mind. The double barrel design on the newer Omega movements flatten the torque curve of the mainspring, resulting in better isochronism. The other thing is the sleeve bearing for the rotor on the Rolex 3135 movements, which are more prone to wear than the now common ball bearing designs.

Other aspects tend to reflect differences in how one chooses to trade off between non-independent choices. The Breguet overcoil on the Rolex movements are a traditional means of improving isochronism, but they increase the height of the movement, and prevent the use of silicon hairsprings. Silicon hairsprings are antimagnetic, and can be shaped much more consistently, but the practical benefits over the Parachrom Bleu hairspring is minimal.

The co-axial escapement vs. Swiss lever escapement discussion revolves around robustness, longevity, ease of service, thickness of design, and mechanical efficiency. The mechanical efficiency issue has been addressed by Rolex in the new 3225 calibre with the Chronergy escapement, which appears to be a redesign of the teeth on the escapement coupled with a skeletonized design reminiscent of the one used by Grand Seiko using MEMS fabrication technology.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

mleok said:


> Two things come to mind. The double barrel design on the newer Omega movements flatten the torque curve of the mainspring, resulting in better isochronism. The other thing is the sleeve bearing for the rotor on the Rolex 3135 movements, which are more prone to wear than the now common ball bearing designs.
> 
> Other aspects tend to reflect differences in how one chooses to trade off between non-independent choices. The Breguet overcoil on the Rolex movements are a traditional means of improving isochronism, but they increase the height of the movement, and prevent the use of silicon hairsprings. Silicon hairsprings are antimagnetic, and can be shaped much more consistently, but the practical benefits over the Parachrom Bleu hairspring is minimal.
> 
> The co-axial escapement vs. Swiss lever escapement discussion revolves around robustness, longevity, ease of service, thickness of design, and mechanical efficiency. The mechanical efficiency issue has been addressed by Rolex in the new 3225 calibre with the Chronergy escapement, which appears to be a redesign of the teeth on the escapement coupled with a skeletonized design reminiscent of the one used by Grand Seiko using MEMS fabrication technology.


Thank you that is a very informative post. Does the debate over which brand uses the better technology boil down to differences that have so little practical advantage that physical appearance and brand prestige are the most influential factors affecting the opinion of not just the general public but also WIS?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Nom de Forum said:


> Thank you that is a very informative post. Does the debate over which brand uses the better technology boil down to differences that have so little practical advantage that physical appearance and brand prestige are the most influential factors affecting the opinion of not just the general public but also WIS?


Mechanical watchmaking is a very mature technology, and the improvements are incremental, certainly when compared to the accuracy that is achievable using quartz regulation. Variations in performance within samples of the same movement are often greater than the mean performance differences attributable to a specific technological advance.

At the end of the day, mechanical watches are anarchic devices, and their appeal to enthusiasts primarily rest on the degree of hand craftsmanship and finishing which go into the movement. Part of the problem with the most recent advances is that they utilize techniques which are not achievable by hand, so they lose a bit of the nostalgic appeal of a mechanical timepiece.

There are certainly those who strongly value chronometry over other aspects of the watch, and are willing to accept improvements like the presence of magnets to suspend movement components, but for me, I prefer something that could conceivably be produced by hand using classical techniques, and for which a competent watchmaker could fabricate replacement parts by hand.


----------



## Pun (Sep 2, 2015)

Nom de Forum said:


> mleok said:
> 
> 
> > Two things come to mind. The double barrel design on the newer Omega movements flatten the torque curve of the mainspring, resulting in better isochronism. The other thing is the sleeve bearing for the rotor on the Rolex 3135 movements, which are more prone to wear than the now common ball bearing designs.
> ...


YES!!


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

mleok said:


> ...Part of the problem with the most recent advances is that they utilize techniques which are not achievable by hand, so they lose a bit of the nostalgic appeal of a mechanical timepiece.
> 
> There are certainly those who strongly value chronometry over other aspects of the watch, and are willing to accept improvements like the presence of magnets to suspend movement components, but for me, I prefer something that could conceivably be produced by hand using classical techniques, and for which a competent watchmaker could fabricate replacement parts by hand.


While I agree with that, I also appreciate movements that achieve time-keeping through purely mechanical means, even if they aren't quite able to be hand made. What I mean is, a mechanical movement, to me, is still interesting regardless of the means of manufacture; And somewhat more interesting than, say, a spring drive or quartz watch. (Though I like those too, for various reasons.)

I guess I would rate movements, in terms of being "interesting" to me, as follows :

-- Fully mechanical and able to be hand-made
-- Fully mechanical, not able to be hand-made
-- Mostly mechanical, with some electrical content (a la spring-drive)
-- HAQ
-- Solar quartz, non-HAQ
-- Kinetic quartz, non-HAQ
-- All other quartz

I'm excluding a few others, as I'm less familiar (tuning fork or nuclear, for instance). And, as far as I'm concerned, radio or GPS controlled is a method of setting the watch, not a different movement.


----------



## GlennO (Jan 3, 2010)

dbostedo said:


> I guess I would rate movements, in terms of being "interesting" to me, as follows :
> 
> -- Fully mechanical and able to be hand-made
> -- Fully mechanical, not able to be hand-made
> ...


It's not so easy for me. I have to consider each movement on its merits, not just the category or type. For example a high end quartz would generally be more interesting to me than an entry to mid level mechanical. But the same mechanical would be more desirable than a cheaply made disposable quartz movement.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

dbostedo said:


> While I agree with that, I also appreciate movements that achieve time-keeping through purely mechanical means, even if they aren't quite able to be hand made. What I mean is, a mechanical movement, to me, is still interesting regardless of the means of manufacture; And somewhat more interesting than, say, a spring drive or quartz watch. (Though I like those too, for various reasons.)
> 
> I guess I would rate movements, in terms of being "interesting" to me, as follows :
> 
> ...


I guess my attitude is that I value movements that are unusually accurate given the underlying technology used, and it is something which I tend to attribute to unusual care, craftsmanship, or design. So a purely mechanical movement that has an accuracy that is comparable to a quartz movement is impressive to me, but the fact that the Spring Drive is able to achieve quartz accuracy is simply to be expected.

This is not to say that I don't find aspects of the Spring Drive design to be highly innovative, such as the tri-synchro regulator which combines power generation, conversion, and regulation, but I don't find the level of accuracy of a Spring Drive to be at all surprising, and I find comparisons of the accuracy of a Spring Drive to a mechanical movement to be analogous to comparing the accuracy of a quartz movement to a mechanical movement.

At the end of the day, the accuracy of a movement is only one (relatively small) aspect of what I consider when purchasing a watch.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Crate410 said:


> A 30 dollar casio is better than an omega buck for buck in some instances.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Because your Omega doesn't charge under sunlight?

_I'm a professional [desk] diver._


----------



## Medusa (Feb 6, 2010)

No. I think Omega will always be better than Rolex from a performance perspective. If Omega lessened their quality and increase their advertising to be on par with Rolex.


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

lvt said:


> Because your Omega doesn't charge under sunlight?
> 
> _I'm a professional [desk] diver._


My omega doesnt charge at all. I have to wind it. Imagine that. This is why an Invicta is far superior.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

Relax guys, both brands are now defined as Haute Horlogerie according to the FHH 


Enviado do meu iPhone usando o Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

AAMC said:


> Relax guys, both brands are now defined as Haute Horlogerie according to the FHH


So is TAG.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

mleok said:


> Nom de Forum said:
> 
> 
> > Is there anyone here on WUS that can authoritatively tell me that if just one component part of comparable Rolex and Omega designs is clearly superior to the other?
> ...


Your valuable input Sir is greatly appreciated.

And since people here do agree with the above analysis which I am going to summarise to the average Joes out there (cause it sounds too complicated including to myself):

"The co-axial escapement vs. Swiss lever escapement discussion revolves around robustness, longevity, ease of service, thickness of design, and mechanical efficiency. The mechanical efficiency issue has been addressed by Rolex."

Therefore, we can conclude that once Rolex decides to work on robustness, longevity, ease of service and thickness of design (yes them ugly backs), only then they will become at par with Omega?


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

mleok said:


> So is TAG.


Anything wrong with that? In addition to their everyday mass market watches Tag has some truly advanced pieces.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

jaeva said:


> maxixix said:
> 
> 
> > I started doing this I called my local watch maker and asked him to send me pictures of the latest Rolex movement .
> ...


I could not agree with you more. According to my local watch maker when he phoned up Rolex it was either that or the dog ate it . Personally I think they are a bit embaressed with the principle of why change when you can charge double.


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

mleok said:


> [...]I find comparisons of the accuracy of a Spring Drive to a mechanical movement to be analogous to comparing the accuracy of a quartz movement to a mechanical movement.[...]


It's not merely analogous; it's the exact same comparison. The Spring Drive system uses quartz timekeeping, just in a higher-maintenance format:


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

obomomomo said:


> Anything wrong with that? In addition to their everyday mass market watches Tag has some truly advanced pieces.


Agreed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

cedargrove said:


> Just to correct you, the 3131 movement in the current Milgauss (and most recent Air King)
> is in fact an anti-magnetic movement with fully anti-magnetic components (i.e. balance wheel, hairsprings, escapement, pallet fork, etc.). This is in addition to the shield.


Thought we already discuss this issue several page ago.



Legion681 said:


> Oh and by the way, concerning the 15k Gauss wonder watch of Omega... Just today Hodinkee did a magnetic test between an AT 15k & a Milgauss vs a 4k Gauss rare earth magnet. Guess what? The Milgauss (1000 Gauss...) performance was the same as the (on paper) much superior anti magnetic AT 15k. Zero effect on either.
> Here: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/a...15000-gauss-and-a-4000-gauss-neodymium-magnet
> You are welcome.


https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/a...15000-gauss-and-a-4000-gauss-neodymium-magnet

rolex has several anti magnetic components. But, their movement is not anti magnetic. Omega on the other hand, they have anti magnetic movement. 
And previously, we agreed on Hodinkee conclusion, *"both watches will make magnetic field pollution irrelevant to their respective owners, and that the deciding factor may well be less to do with resistance to magnetism, and more to do with whether or not you want a date window"*.
Since rolex doesn't have anti magnetic movement, they used thicker material to cover their movement. Hence, no dial windows.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

ShanDaMan said:


> Since rolex doesn't have anti magnetic movement, they used thicker material to cover their movement. Hence, no dial windows.


Not true but whatever.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

drunken monkey said:


> Not true but whatever.


Yes true but whatever  .

"Most anti-magnetic watches encase their movement within soft iron, like Rolex's Faraday cage, which distributes electromagnetic radiation in a way that *cancels the field's effect on what lies inside*"

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/omega-introduces-worlds-first-anti-magnetic-movement

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Apollo83 (Mar 22, 2012)

mleok said:


> [quote name="Nom de Forum" post=31999074]Is there anyone here on WUS that can authoritatively tell me that if just one component part of comparable Rolex and Omega designs is clearly superior to the other?


Two things come to mind...[/quote]

Woah! 
Hold it right there Sonny Jim.
1856 posts in and you're suddenly going to try and turn this into a useful discussion?
That's not on. 
Now take you and your intelligent comments off to some other thread where they won't be lost in drivel.

;-)


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

ShanDaMan said:


> Yes true but whatever  .
> 
> "Most anti-magnetic watches encase their movement within soft iron, like Rolex's Faraday cage, which distributes electromagnetic radiation in a way that *cancels the field's effect on what lies inside*"


And that is why whoever first used the term Faraday Cage for watch use should be hung.

The reason why Rolex does not have crystal case backs is because of the design of their case and case-back. Incorporating a crystal back onto the existing caseback would result in an undersized (for the movement) display. Having a suitably sized display back would necessitate a redesign of the case and caseback.


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

drunken monkey said:


> And that is why whoever first used the term Faraday Cage for watch use should be hung.
> 
> The reason why Rolex does not have crystal case backs is because of the design of their case and case-back. Incorporating a crystal back onto the existing caseback would result in an undersized (for the movement) display. Having a suitably sized display back would necessitate a redesign of the case and caseback.


And perhaps that is exactly what Rolex should do, a redesign to improve the actual product. Even though this would be at odds with their marketing strategy of resisting or minimising change in order to keep used watch values up.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

obomomomo said:


> drunken monkey said:
> 
> 
> > Rolex should do, a redesign to better ....
> ...


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

I am with him.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

obomomomo said:


> And perhaps that is exactly what Rolex should do, a redesign to improve the actual product. Even though this would be at odds with their marketing strategy of resisting or minimising change in order to keep used watch values up.


Display back does not improve a watch.
What it often and usually does, is make a watch thicker which is, in most people's books, a bad thing.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

drunken monkey said:


> And that is why whoever first used the term Faraday Cage for watch use should be hung.
> 
> The reason why Rolex does not have crystal case backs is because of the design of their case and case-back. Incorporating a crystal back onto the existing caseback would result in an undersized (for the movement) display. Having a suitably sized display back would necessitate a redesign of the case and caseback.


If you are afraid that saphire case back make you precious rolex getting fat, let's start with a small step first.
D-A-T-E W-I-N-D-O-W.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Pun (Sep 2, 2015)

ShanDaMan said:


> drunken monkey said:
> 
> 
> > And that is why whoever first used the term Faraday Cage for watch use should be hung.
> ...


NO. NO. NO. Date window is NOT A prerequisite for a decent superior watch. Period.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Nom de Forum said:


> Thank you that is a very informative post. Does the debate over which brand uses the better technology boil down to differences that have so little practical advantage that *physical appearance and brand prestige are the most influential factors affecting the opinion of not just the general public but also WIS*?


Quite honestly, i think posters with the encyclopedic knowledge of watch movements that *mleok* has are far and few in between. Even among most WIS, i think appearance and branding/image* are probably the most important factors.

*And by branding & image, I dont mean something as simplistic as "this brand is well know, i will wear and people will be impressed by wealth". When someone buys a watch that he considers no-nonsene, good value for money and not showy, he is still being affected by brand/image: he is buying a watch that matches his sense of self-belief. Choosing to purchase a non-brand is still a image-driven choice.

I'd argue that WIS, with their greater involvement in the hobby, are more attuned to branding and image than the general public.

I am sure there are a few people who buy an Omega b/c of its coaxial movement, but for most people, the benefit isnt in the slightly better time-keeping - it is from the satisfaction of buying a watch that has a more innovative movement (again, the image aspect). Same reason people pay a big premium for in-house, even though rationally it doesnt make sense.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

mleok said:


> So is TAG.


I would rank the brands as follows:

Tier 1: ALS, Patek, Vacheron, AP, Breguet
Tier 1a: The HH independents
Tier 2: Blancpain, JLC, Piaget, FM, GO, Ulysse Nardin, Franch Muller, Richard Mille, Cartier
Tier 3: Rolex, IWC, Vulcain
Tier 4: Omega, Breitling, Panerai, Steinhart
Tier 5: Tudor, Longines, Sinn, Oris, Tag
Tier 6: Rado, FC, B&M, Raymond Weil

[My contribution towards another 30 pages]


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

maxixix said:


> Actually my dream job is to work for Rolex research and development team.
> *Or maybe start one.*


Lol. *burn*. Well played!! 

Jokes apart, I am sure they have a R&D team - someone has to observe the variants Steinhart puts out of the Ocean One and go "hey, this one would work for us too".


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

vkalia said:


> I would rank the brands as follows:
> 
> Tier 1: ALS, Patek, Vacheron, AP, Breguet
> Tier 1a: The HH independents
> ...


Corrected


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

vkalia said:


> I would rank the brands as follows:
> 
> Tier 1: ALS, Patek, Vacheron, AP, Breguet
> Tier 1a: The HH independents
> ...


Steinhart is in tier 4?! lol that explains everything....


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Hey look! The poll is tied! After all the Rolex circle jerking posts you would think it would be 99% Rolex and 1% Omega.

I guess Omega fans just vote rather than post replies.


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

vkalia said:


> I would rank the brands as follows:
> 
> Tier 1: ALS, Patek, Vacheron, AP, Breguet
> Tier 1a: The HH independents
> ...


I really hate people who think that if you pay more that you get better stuff... all you did is sort them by price.

Patek watches are all hand made, that's why thy have so big price. In fact they aren't even as prceise as rolex or omega. Because even bearing holes are hand polished and you never know if they guy doing it is consistent and doing the pefect job on every watch. Obviously he's not.
It's the same with other overhyped watch brands.

In my opinion omega and rolex are about the same and on the top of the list, because their serial production is practically flawless and every single piece is totaly identical.


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

Also I am giving an edge to omega, because of their daring new innovations they implement into watches on a serial scale.


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

ShanDaMan said:


> Thought we already discuss this issue several page ago.
> 
> https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/a...15000-gauss-and-a-4000-gauss-neodymium-magnet
> 
> ...


wrong. rolex doesn't use "ticker" material because thickness doesn't block magnetic fields. rolex uses a highly magnetic steel cage with high magnetic flux around the movmenet. The magnetic field travels via the cage. But... the cage is also emmiting small magnetism on it's own when exposed to magnetic field. That's why only 1k gauss resistance. While omega uses non magnetizable materials which can withstand much stronger magnetic fluxes.


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Hey look! The poll is tied! After all the Rolex circle jerking posts you would think it would be 99% Rolex and 1% Omega.
> 
> I guess Omega fans just vote rather than post replies.


Tied? I haven't voted yet! Damn Tapatalk 

Enviado do meu iPhone usando o Tapatalk


----------



## cuchulain (Jun 5, 2014)

Omega as good? They already are. As expensive? Probably not.

Rolex and Omega both make very nice watches, but I don't see anything Rolex puts out other than pedigree that make it a better watch.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Steinhart is in tier 4?! lol that explains everything....


Cry havoc... and good spot.



Tomatoes11 said:


> Hey look! The poll is tied! After all the Rolex circle jerking posts you would think it would be 99% Rolex and 1% Omega. I guess Omega fans just vote rather than post replies.


All the Rolex haters are coming out and voting for Omega - and only the top brand has haters. Ergo, Rolex > Omega.


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

vkalia said:


> Cry havoc... and good spot.
> 
> All the Rolex haters are coming out and voting for Omega - and only the top brand has haters. Ergo, Rolex > Omega.


you should visit the factories of this 2 companies. you'll see that their production is basically identical.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Damir Galic said:


> I really hate people who think that if you pay more that you get better stuff....


You really hate these people? I know you only recently joined WUS, but maybe it's time to take a break.


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

cedargrove said:


> You really hate these people? I know you only recently joined WUS, but maybe it's time to take a break.


You must feel really important because you joined the forum 5 years ago.


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

Damir Galic said:


> You must feel really important because you joined the forum 5 years ago.


oh snap.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Damir Galic said:


> I really hate people who think that if you pay more that you get better stuff... all you did is sort them by price.
> 
> Patek watches are all hand made, that's why thy have so big price. In fact they aren't even as prceise as rolex or omega. Because even bearing holes are hand polished and you never know if they guy doing it is consistent and doing the pefect job on every watch. Obviously he's not.
> It's the same with other overhyped watch brands.
> ...


I think you might misunderstand what he was ranking there... very high quality hand finishing will generally rank you higher in this case.

And I also think you are wrong in general. They aren't _exactly_ sorted by price, though it's close. And while the hand finishing cannot be as consistent as machine finishing (as least not for any kind of sane price), it doesn't necessarily lead to a better watch by any objective measure. (Unless you really value repeatability at a very small (loupe at least, maybe microscopic) scale.)


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

cedargrove said:


> You really hate these people? I know you only recently joined WUS, but maybe it's time to take a break.


Good grief! The guy used a common casual expression of frustration and annoyance. Nobody thinks he really hates "these people"! Nobody is buying into your exaggeration of his frustration to emotional instability requiring therapeutic rest.:roll:


----------



## jlondono77 (Aug 16, 2011)

Hilarious!! This would be my ranking:

Tier 1: JLC, Patek, Blancpain, AP
Tier 2: Omega, Rolex, Breitling, Sinn, Oris
Tier 3: Hamilton, Victorinox, Tissot, Tag, Steinhart
Tier 4: Fashion brands, Movado
Tier 5: Invicta, Fossil



vkalia said:


> I would rank the brands as follows:
> 
> Tier 1: ALS, Patek, Vacheron, AP, Breguet
> Tier 1a: The HH independents
> ...


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

vkalia said:


> Cry havoc... and good spot.
> 
> All the Rolex haters are coming out and voting for Omega - and only the top brand has haters. Ergo, Rolex > Omega.


I wonder if it is a high turnout of people who are not really Rolex haters but are instead people who dislike Rolex lovers who are baiters and bullies?


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

...and Omega takes the lead...total turnaround in this poll. Myself, I voted for Rolez.


----------



## jlondono77 (Aug 16, 2011)

I believe the poll answers the thread (at 100 votes) Omega is better than Rolex! 
We'll see what the final tally is on the 14th!


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

obviously. same quality machining, except omega has it's co-axial and completly non-magnetic movement. not just that, in my opinion omega has better design.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Damir Galic said:


> You must feel really important because you joined the forum 5 years ago.


No, not important. But I wouldn't be here if I got as easily upset as you.


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

vkalia said:


> I would rank the brands as follows:
> 
> Tier 1: ALS, Patek, Vacheron, AP, Breguet
> Tier 1a: The HH independents
> ...


:-O


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Damir Galic said:


> obviously. same quality machining, ....


I only wish that was the case with my PO 8500.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

jlondono77 said:


> I believe the poll answers the thread, Omega is better than Rolex!
> We'll see what the final tally is on the 14th!


The poll question is will Omega ever be as good as Rolex. Apparently a small majority feel that Omega will eventually be as good as Rolex, and the rest don't feel Omega will catch up.


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

cedargrove said:


> I only wish that was the case with my PO 8500.


well you should have thought about it before you bought chinese fake.


----------



## WMC300 (Jun 10, 2015)

Imlying,

This is a really good post, I too loved the Globemaster but the price range just is not worth it for me. There is a lot you can get for $9000 from many other brands. However, I did just pick the the CK2998 and I must say that I do love the watch more than I thought I would.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

Damir Galic said:


> well you should have thought about it before you bought chinese fake.


Le Locle? Is that really you? (for newer members, before Veda...there was Le Locle. A master of Tissot and friendship for everyone)


----------



## jlondono77 (Aug 16, 2011)

I started the poll Omega vs Rolex, which brand do you prefer? The moderator added it to this thread.



cedargrove said:


> The poll question is will Omega ever be as good as Rolex. Apparently a small majority feel that Omega will eventually be as good as Rolex, and the rest don't feel Omega will catch up.


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

true.

maybe we should make anotehr pool: "will rolex ever catch up to last least 10% of what omega is?"


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Nom de Forum said:


> I wonder if it is a high turnout of people who are not really Rolex haters but are instead people who dislike Rolex lovers who are baiters and bullies?


I wonder if you've actually read this whole thread. It might make things clearer.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

dbostedo said:


> I wonder if you've actually read this whole thread. It might make things clearer.


I have endured that chore. No doubt there are some Rolex haters involved, but considering the way some Rolex lovers behave I am confident some people who are neutral vote against Rolex just to tweak their noses. :-d


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

Here is my ranking

Tier 01 : watches I simply cannot and never will be able to afford (think Laurent Ferrier)
Tier 02: watches I could probably afford If saved for a while yet will most likely not shell out the cash for them (think VC overseas)
Tier 03: Rolex Omega GS Hebring and other ones in the range aka the sweet spot 
Tier 04: the reasonable spot 
Tier 05: fun ones (tactico Helberg and the sort )


There happy now 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## the.watchdoc (Apr 23, 2015)

Damir Galic said:


> I really hate people who think that if you pay more that you get better stuff... all you did is sort them by price.
> 
> Patek watches are all hand made, that's why thy have so big price. In fact they aren't even as prceise as rolex or omega. Because even bearing holes are hand polished and you never know if they guy doing it is consistent and doing the pefect job on every watch. Obviously he's not.
> It's the same with other overhyped watch brands.
> ...


Haute horlogerie = hand made. I'm paraphrasing here, but you pay for years of hard work and experience concentrated unto square centimeters of microfinishing and polish.

And are you sure they're not as precise? The degree of adjustment and regulation that goes into each watch boggles the mind.

Quick question here, have you ever handled any of these pieces you dismiss so nonchalantly, or are you an armchair enthusiast?


----------



## ConfusedOne (Sep 29, 2015)

Come on guys we can get this thread to 200 pages!
Believe in yourselves and never give up your hopes and dreams!


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

PhantomThief said:


> Haute horlogerie = hand made. I'm paraphrasing here, but you pay for years of hard work and experience concentrated unto square centimeters of microfinishing and polish.
> 
> And are you sure they're not as precise? The degree of adjustment and regulation that goes into each watch boggles the mind.
> 
> Quick question here, have you ever handled any of these pieces you dismiss so nonchalantly, or are you an armchair enthusiast?


It's basically statistics from https://toolwatch.io/

And like I said, does a hand do a better job than a machine? I don't think so.
And you can't figure out a quality just from holding or having a watch.
Besides hand made decorations does not equal to better quality. It just adds value to the watch.


----------



## the.watchdoc (Apr 23, 2015)

Damir Galic said:


> It's basically statistics from https://toolwatch.io/
> 
> And like I said, does a hand do a better job than a machine? I don't think so.
> And you can't figure out a quality just from holding or having a watch.
> Besides hand made decorations does not equal to better quality. It just adds value to the watch.


So your point here, in essence, is that being hand made adds value without adding quality. By value do you mean adding to the price tag or an intrinsic value? And the primary measure of quality is precision timekeeping.

If you think haute horlorgerie is a high price tag for fine but microscopically imprecise handwork and no practical timekeeping gain, congratulations. You have earned your promotion to Captain Obvious. The price is paid for the equivalent of a functional art piece. Not a time standard.

Might I introduce you to a little known technology called the quartz watch? Cheap as chips, every single part is machine made and assembled, and more accurate than the most accurate tourbillon or constant force escapement out there. I particularly recommend the Grand Seiko 9F and Citizen Chronomaster line of watches, but those involve a high degree of imprecise hand finishing. Perhaps a radio controlled g-shock might be more your speed? Almost fully machine made, as far as I know.

Or perhaps radio control and GPS is just cheating. You want the watch to keep its own time, not receive corrections from an outside source! Consider Hoptroff watches. Atomic timekeeping on the wrist. That's about as precise as it gets, I should think. Though there's some debate there as to exactly how precise it really is...

Maybe just stick with a phone and app for NIST time? But you would then have to correct for ping time and lag...

Ah crud. I'm out of ideas.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

ConfusedOne said:


> Come on guys we can get this thread to 200 pages!
> Believe in yourselves and never give up your hopes and dreams!



[video=youtube;P0zVPZBykSE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0zVPZBykSE[/video]


----------



## engr.pol (Jul 12, 2014)

cedargrove said:


> The poll question is will Omega ever be as good as Rolex. Apparently a small majority feel that Omega will eventually be as good as Rolex, and the rest don't feel Omega will catch up.


You forgot about the portion that thinks Omega is already as good as, if not better than Rolex..


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

Its slowing down again might be time to switch sides. Diappointed with Rolex fans.

I can imagine the board of directers sitting down and discussing plans for 2017 Baselworld and different ideas being thrown at them.
However, I think they go like "naaah I just bought mine 2 years ago will think it over after I sell mine on WatchRecon in 6 years time and maybe pump the price a bit more for the suckers to bite in".


----------



## qcjulle (Jun 5, 2013)

jlondono77 said:


> Hilarious!! This would be my ranking:
> 
> Tier 1: JLC, Patek, Blancpain, AP
> Tier 2: Omega, Rolex, Breitling, Sinn, Oris
> ...


My personal ranking would not place Sinn at the second tier (even though I really like Sinn). I look at it this way: what is the crappiest model that the manufacturer dares to sell using it's own name? The Sinn 556, although a really nice watch, is nothing special and does not belong on the second tier, even though their high-end offerings are awesome. Oris is borderline as well.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

paulopiper said:


> Le Locle? Is that really you? (for newer members, before Veda...there was Le Locle. A master of Tissot and friendship for everyone)


Some people are all about making friends. That's just what they do. They can't help themselves. Group hug!


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

I almost feel sorry for ppl buying vintage Rolexes thinking its still a Rolex. They almost pay double because Rolex management changed the goalposts for new stock with new technology (i.e
20 years old or so in Rolex terms) yet they are paying double for obsolete technology and maintenance on top of it.

Buy new at least you are getting something extra in return i.e. box and paper.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

maxixix said:


> I almost feel sorry for ppl buying vintage Rolexes thinking its still a Rolex. They almost pay double because Rolex management changed the goalposts for new stock with new technology (i.e
> 20 years old or so in Rolex terms) yet they are paying double for obsolete technology and maintenance on top of it.
> 
> Buy new at least you are getting something extra in return i.e. box and paper.


Is there a consensus among WIS that for Rolexes 20 years or older is the point where technological differences define modern Rolexes from obsolescent Rolexes?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

maxixix said:


> I almost feel sorry for ppl buying vintage Rolexes thinking its still a Rolex. They almost pay double because Rolex management changed the goalposts for new stock with new technology (i.e
> 20 years old or so in Rolex terms) yet they are paying double for obsolete technology and maintenance on top of it.
> 
> Buy new at least you are getting something extra in return i.e. box and paper.


I get the point but in fairness, when they sell them for another doubling I don't think they care (well maybe they care and wished they had purchased more) . . .


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

Nom de Forum said:


> maxixix said:
> 
> 
> > I almost feel sorry for ppl buying vintage Rolexes thinking its still a Rolex. They almost pay double because Rolex management changed the goalposts for new stock with new technology (i.e
> ...


Well based on my local watch maker which one day I will be asking him to join WUS, he said the 20 years ballpark is based on market research of spiderweb thread construction found inside vintage Rolex movement.

I know I know, your next question will be how the hell did it get there. I asked the same thing.

My local watch maker says its all due to how often a vintage Rolex owner has to open the case to make sure it isnt fake. He says on average it would be twice a week.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

drhr said:


> maxixix said:
> 
> 
> > I almost feel sorry for ppl buying vintage Rolexes thinking its still a Rolex. They almost pay double because Rolex management changed the goalposts for new stock with new technology (i.e
> ...


Question is though who will end up holding the basket when the Rolex bubble bursts. At least with new stock you may have a chance.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

maxixix said:


> Question is though who will end up holding the basket when the Rolex bubble bursts. At least with new stock you may have a chance.


Agreed, though I've heard of the bursting bubble for awhile now, just wish it would hurry if so cause I'm not getting any younger (really) . . .


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

maxixix said:


> Well based on my local watch maker which one day I will be asking him to join WUS, he said the 20 years ballpark is based on market research of spiderweb thread construction found inside vintage Rolex movement.
> 
> I know I know, your next question will be how the hell did it get there. I asked the same thing.
> 
> My local watch maker says its all due to how often a vintage Rolex owner has to open the case to make sure it isnt fake. He says on average it would be twice a week.


:-d, thanks for the laugh.

Seriously, is there a specific year when Rolex made such a significant change in the construction of their watches that it defines the modern era of Rolex?


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

drunken monkey said:


> Display back does not improve a watch.
> What it often and usually does, is make a watch thicker which is, in most people's books, a bad thing.


While it's debateable whether a display back actually 'improves' a watch, it would seem that the majority of buyers of mid and high end mechanicals do prefer a display back, even if the compromise is a marginally thicker case. Exactly how much thicker I have no idea, but I suspect it is marginal. I believe part of the reason Rolex resists fitting display backs on their watches is that their movement is rather basic and undecorated compared to say, something like the 8500. There are of course watches with decorated inhouse movements and display backs that are no thicker than the equivalent Rolex Datejust. Zenith comes to mind.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

obomomomo said:


> Exactly how much thicker I have no idea, but I suspect it is marginal.


The 3135 is thicker than the 8500 but the Seadweller in thinner than the Planet Ocean.


----------



## jlondono77 (Aug 16, 2011)

Agreed, Sinn and Oris are arguably Tier 2 or 3, I put them in 2 since my Sinn and Oris watches have been exceptional.



qcjulle said:


> My personal ranking would not place Sinn at the second tier (even though I really like Sinn). I look at it this way: what is the crappiest model that the manufacturer dares to sell using it's own name? The Sinn 556, although a really nice watch, is nothing special and does not belong on the second tier, even though their high-end offerings are awesome. Oris is borderline as well.


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

PhantomThief said:


> So your point here, in essence, is that being hand made adds value without adding quality. By value do you mean adding to the price tag or an intrinsic value? And the primary measure of quality is precision timekeeping.
> 
> If you think haute horlorgerie is a high price tag for fine but microscopically imprecise handwork and no practical timekeeping gain, congratulations. You have earned your promotion to Captain Obvious. The price is paid for the equivalent of a functional art piece. Not a time standard.
> 
> ...


you are twisting my words in an attempt to present them to your liking.
1. yes handwork only gives a watch a high price tag. along with precious materials and some other stuff that involves whole process from creating a watch to sales and marketing.
2. The stuff about accuracy was a reply to "_And are you sure they're not as precise? The degree of adjustment and regulation that goes into each watch boggles the mind. " _I mean I could teach you about quality, what it means.
3. 1 month of swiss/person work is 10000€, 1 month of japanese/person work is 4000€, 1 month of chinese/person work is 200€.
1 hour of swiss/macine work is 150€, 1 hour of japanese/machine work is 50€, 1 hour of chinese/machine work is 1€.
From that you can extract the cost to make a watch. along with cost from point 1.
4. I have no clue what you are trying to say except tying to be a smartass.
5. you had no idea to start with.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

obomomomo said:


> I believe part of the reason Rolex resists fitting display backs on their watches is that their movement is rather basic and undecorated compared to say, something like the 8500.


I doubt this is their reason. Other than a somewhat boring rotor, the Rolex movement is well finished and reasonably well decorated (although not as nicely decorated as the 8500 I admit, but probably better finished than the 8500).

It wouldn't take much for Rolex to add some simple engraving/design to the rotor, which seems to be all it takes for some people to gush over movements that aren't as well finished.

I believe their reasons are more to do with not compromising the balanced case dimensions with something so unnecessary.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Nom de Forum said:


> I wonder if it is a high turnout of people who are not really Rolex haters but are instead people who dislike Rolex lovers who are baiters and bullies?


Where are all these so-called Rolex lovers you see? Do check to see how many Rolex bashing threads are started here compared to threads by Rolex fans?

The amount of hate Rolex gets vs Omega very clearly tells you who is superior.

To put it another way:
- Those who buy a Rolex chose it over Omega, and so are secure in their purchase, and don't need to reinforce their decision with polls and stuff
- Many of those who bought an Omega did so b/c they couldn't afford a Rolex, so they are are searching for validation.

@DBostedo - between this and the tiers, you owe me a beer if we ever meet

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

maxixix said:


> I almost feel sorry for ppl buying vintage Rolexes thinking its still a Rolex.


Actually, to get serious for a bit - people that pay 85% of the price of a new Sub for a previous gen Sub: STOP IT! What the hell is wrong with you sheeple?

And stop raising the price of the Pepsi GMT before I get around to buying it too, jackasses.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

drhr said:


> Agreed, though I've heard of the bursting bubble for awhile now, just wish it would hurry if so cause I'm not getting any younger (really) . . .


If only it had burst several years ago when people were predicting it - I would own a couple vintage Rolexes. Instead I've just watch the prices continuously climb.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Nom de Forum said:


> Seriously, is there a specific year when Rolex made such a significant change in the construction of their watches that it defines the modern era of Rolex?


There's not one specific year, but for me it would be roughly a decade ago when they greatly improved the bracelets, introduced ceramic bezel inserts, and switched to the parachrom hairspring.


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

vkalia said:


> Where are all these so-called Rolex lovers you see? Do check to see how many Rolex bashing threads are started here compared to threads by Rolex fans?
> 
> The amount of hate Rolex gets vs Omega very clearly tells you who is superior.
> 
> ...


Oh boy, just spend some months/years checking the f20 and f23 or the threads history and you'll find the difference

(I want a beer too)


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

cedargrove said:


> If only it had burst several years ago when people were predicting it - I would own a couple vintage Rolexes. Instead I've just watch the prices continuously climb.


Yep, and again, at my age ain't never gonna be able to get what I want (cost/availability) so will have to make do with the Steinhart, quite satisfied but you know, it's not the "real thing" . . .


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

vkalia said:


> Where are all these so-called Rolex lovers you see? Do check to see how many Rolex bashing threads are started here compared to threads by Rolex fans?
> 
> The amount of hate Rolex gets vs Omega very clearly tells you who is superior.
> 
> ...


dude plz. I had 50k€ to spend on a watch. i bought omega de-ville with annual calendar over rolex (and yes I did my research). co-axial and antimagnetic convinced me. also because I knew rolex is overhyped and overpriced, just like companies in the usa which are selling for 100 times higher than their actual value.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

vkalia said:


> Where are all these so-called Rolex lovers you see? Do check to see how many Rolex bashing threads are started here compared to threads by Rolex fans?
> 
> The amount of hate Rolex gets vs Omega very clearly tells you who is superior.
> 
> ...


I don't know the whereabouts of all the Rolex lovers. I do have personal experience with Rolex lovers who are baiters and bullies. I have seen enough comments from others to confirm that my experience is not unique. From some of what I have read on WUS, I am getting the impression that some Rolex lovers, and Rolex Customer Service have the same reputation with many people as some Heckler & Koch lovers and Heckler & Koch Customer Service. A common joke about Heckler & Koch's attitude toward customers with questions or suggestions they don't what to hear is "You suck and we hate you".

The amount of "hate" something has directed at it does not determine superiority.

For someone who really wants a Rolex I don't believe purchase price makes the difference between buying a Rolex or Omega. Used Rolexes that are the same or lower price of a new Omega are very available. I am sure you know that some new Omega models are more expensive than some new Rolex models.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Damir Galic said:


> dude plz. I had 50k€ to spend on a watch. i bought omega de-ville with annual calendar over rolex (and yes I did my research). co-axial and antimagnetic convinced me


I didn't know they had extended the Master Co-Axial into the annual calendar movement already.


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> I didn't know they had extended the Master Co-Axial into the annual calendar movement already.


Yes they have like since Baselworld or something, with the METAS certification


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

AAMC said:


> Yes they have like since Baselworld or something, with the METAS certification


Must've missed that.
Last time I spoke to them about anything they were a little behind their 2017 target.


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> Must've missed that.
> Last time I spoke to them about anything they were a little behind their 2017 target.


DM, just don't forget...next time speaking with them, the outstanding question is: there will be a Railmaster CK2914 reissue?

Tell them that a LOT of people are eyeing Rolex if they don't


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

AAMC said:


> DM, just don't forget...next time speaking with them, the outstanding question is: there will be a Railmaster CK2914 reissue?
> 
> Tell them that a LOT of people are eyeing Rolex if they don't


If I were told things like that, I'm not sure I'd be "free" to disclose....
Besides, my main interaction with them is mainly to do with vintage models.


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> If I were told things like that, I'm not sure I'd be "free" to disclose....
> Besides, my main interaction with them is mainly to do with vintage models.


No need to disclose anything...

Just do a thread @f20 saying "there's a partridge in the casserole"


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

vkalia said:


> @DBostedo - between this and the tiers, you owe me a beer if we ever meet


The tiers was genius! I'll buy you two. Really.

(Also, I wish there was a real "@" notification feature on these forums.)


----------



## the.watchdoc (Apr 23, 2015)

Damir Galic said:


> you are twisting my words in an attempt to present them to your liking.
> 1. yes handwork only gives a watch a high price tag. along with precious materials and some other stuff that involves whole process from creating a watch to sales and marketing.
> 2. The stuff about accuracy was a reply to "_And are you sure they're not as precise? The degree of adjustment and regulation that goes into each watch boggles the mind. " _I mean I could teach you about quality, what it means.
> 3. 1 month of swiss/person work is 10000€, 1 month of japanese/person work is 4000€, 1 month of chinese/person work is 200€.
> ...


Not so much twisting as replying to what was said in your post, but sure. Point form is fun!

1) Speaking purely in terms of machining accuracy, as the name suggests, a machine would ideally do better. But are you sure that is always the case? And how much of an effect does a small imperfection on the watch's precision, as compared to the significant amount of work that goes into its regulation and adjustment? The latter of which is not achievable by a machine.

2) Have not really seen this site, thanks for the introduction. I shall spend some time poring over the details when I get the chance. But having said that, I would more often depend on the manufacturers guarantee of accuracy, because all brands get watches that are out of spec, but it is that guarantee that will ensure you get the proper precision.

Yes, please teach me about what _you think quality is._

3) Beyond salary and nationality, how well trained are these individuals? Are they working in a clean, dust free environment? Are their tools up to par? And for that matter, while I don't have any actual documentation to prove it, I'm fairly certain that a GS watchmaker would be getting at least close to a Swiss watchmaker's salary.

For that matter, do you believe all machines are made equal?

Please, extrapolate the manufacturing cost of a watch. The only example I've seen so far is your fantasy diamond movement, which you estimate would cost $10000000, which really seems like a number you pulled out from a hat.

4) Yes, good job picking up on that!

5) I never do when it come to you. That's what makes you special ;-)


----------



## hidden by leaves (Mar 6, 2010)

Damir Galic said:


> dude plz. I had 50k€ to spend on a watch. i bought omega de-ville with annual calendar over rolex (and yes I did my research). co-axial and antimagnetic convinced me. also because I knew rolex is overhyped and overpriced, just like companies in the usa which are selling for 100 times higher than their actual value.


Overpriced and overhyped? Yes, you've just described your precious coaxial perfectly! I'd love to hear, in real terms, what makes it better than anything at this point...

Lots of pudding, no proof. Rolex aren't the only ones out there manipulating through marketing.

(And just for the record for the hotheads - I own and have owned Omega and Rolex - but I never bought one for the coaxial, or the other for the image etc.)


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Damir Galic said:


> dude plz. I had 50k€ to spend on a watch. i bought omega de-ville with annual calendar over rolex (and yes I did my research). co-axial and antimagnetic convinced me. also because I knew rolex is overhyped and overpriced, just like companies in the usa which are selling for 100 times higher than their actual value.


You had 50K Euros to spend and you were looking at Omega vs. Rolex? Hmm...


----------



## Pun (Sep 2, 2015)

mleok said:


> Damir Galic said:
> 
> 
> > dude plz. I had 50k? to spend on a watch. i bought omega de-ville with annual calendar over rolex (and yes I did my research). co-axial and antimagnetic convinced me. also because I knew rolex is overhyped and overpriced, just like companies in the usa which are selling for 100 times higher than their actual value.
> ...


Perhaps buyer was not a regular WUS visitor... 50k and those brands don't gel here to say the least. I'd have gone for ALS, PP or VC greedily and would've enjoyed them thereafter for the rest of my life.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Keep feeding the trolls. In a homestretch for 200 pages....


----------



## Pun (Sep 2, 2015)

My guess is that it might be a typographic error: instead of 5k, 50k was typed by the poster. Then it makes sense. Just my 2 cents...


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Judging by the amount of Omega homages I have seen popping up (and I am wearing one while my real Omega sits neglected needing service), I'd say Omega already has taken over.


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

oak1971 said:


> Judging by the amount of Omega homages I have seen popping up (and I am wearing one while my real Omega sits neglected needing service), I'd say Omega already has taken over.


Good move, the homage move that should extend this thread about 59 more pages  so is the homage volume of a brand directly proportional to how much better Brand a is to brand b ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

drunken monkey said:


> The 3135 is thicker than the 8500 but the Seadweller in thinner than the Planet Ocean.


Agreed, a display back has no place on a dive watch claiming 600m WR, the crystal must be massively thick. Unlike the earlier PO2500 versions. I guess Omega just couldn't resist showing off their new movement.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Are there really that many Rolex haters to guarantee the win for Omega? From what I am seeing it's the opposite and Rolex lovers outnumber everyone by a wide wide margin.

This is why I am genuinely shocked that Omega is winning this poll.

I voted Rolex btw.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

I voted Rolex to make it 51-49, hoping a few others would step in and keep it even.

We've got both at home -- Dad's Omega and Mom's OP.

Oh, and IBTL.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> Oh, and IBTL.


I find your lack of faith most disturbing.


----------



## the.watchdoc (Apr 23, 2015)

My guess? He was hard pressed looking for a machine made watch that cost 50k, so his options were pretty limited. Omega and Rolex use a lot of machines, and adding a precious metal case adds significantly to the price. Then throw out the overhyped and overpriced Rolex, and you're left with Omega.

Who wants imprecise handmade rubbish like VC/PP/AP when you can have a fantastic machine made Omega anyway?



mleok said:


> You had 50K Euros to spend and you were looking at Omega vs. Rolex? Hmm...


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Rolex lovers outnumber everyone by a wide wide margin.


There you go. That proves it is better.



> This is why I am genuinely shocked that Omega is winning this poll.


It's a consolation prize.: "You may not be better, Overpriced Swatch, but you can win the poll as consolation."

Pity vote.


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

PhantomThief said:


> [...]Who wants imprecise handmade rubbish like VC/PP/AP when you can have a fantastic machine made Omega anyway?


Most of the 50000+ watches that Patek cranks out each year are very much made by automated machines these days, too. There's some hand finishing, but probably not as much as most people think.

Sure, they're not cheaping out by making parts in China like Omega does, but that's the very least you'd expect for the price.


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Are there really that many Rolex haters to guarantee the win for Omega? From what I am seeing it's the opposite and Rolex lovers outnumber everyone by a wide wide margin.
> 
> This is why I am genuinely shocked that Omega is winning this poll.
> 
> I voted Rolex btw.


Hate? I don't see any hate. Just a lively 200 page discussion:-d with a lot of it coming from people who own both brands.


----------



## the.watchdoc (Apr 23, 2015)

hydrocarbon said:


> Most of the 50000+ watches that Patek cranks out each year are very much made by automated machines these days, too. There's some hand finishing, but probably not as much as most people think.
> 
> Sure, they're not cheaping out by making parts in China like Omega does, but that's the very least you'd expect for the price.


What?! Machines?! Patek?! Philippe?!?!

Treason!! I had it on good authority that every aspect of a Patek was handmade, from the iron ore carved from the mountains by hand, to the sapphire crystals grown via pressure by a guy squeezing his hands together (very tightly)

Unless they handmade their machines, so by the transference of property, the machine-made watches are handmade as well?

;-)


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

Brexit is on its way, Maurice Lacroix trying to sell their business for a while , Fred. Constant sold to Citizen ..... the bubble is brewing.

I can see it now Omega will buy Rolex and for every Omega you buy, you will get a Rolex for free.


----------



## the.watchdoc (Apr 23, 2015)

maxixix said:


> Brexit is on its way, Maurice Lacroix trying to sell their business for a while , Fred. Constant sold to Citizen ..... the bubble is brewing.
> 
> I can see it now Omega will buy Rolex and for every Omega you buy, you will get a Rolex for free.


If you already have enough sense to buy an Omega, why would you want to have anything to do with a Rolex? Unless it's for you to unceremoniously destroy with the heel of your foot ;-)

200 pages, almost there!


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

mleok said:


> You had 50K Euros to spend and you were looking at Omega vs. Rolex? Hmm...


Probably he got scammed by a black market dealers.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

drunken monkey said:


> Must've missed that.
> Last time I spoke to them about anything they were a little behind their 2017 target.


Aren't you went to rolex dealer and ask that?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

vkalia said:


> Actually, to get serious for a bit - people that pay 85% of the price of a new Sub for a previous gen Sub: STOP IT! What the hell is wrong with you sheeple?
> 
> And stop raising the price of the Pepsi GMT before I get around to buying it too, jackasses.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


LOL, so true. Paying 85% for used watch? Touche for that.
In their defence, "that is a smart move for the smart people. It proves rolex is a good investment".

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Jefferson Overlin (Mar 4, 2013)

One of the reasons I don't particularly like Rolex and the way valuation works with them is the whole idea of psychological value. Rolexes are not better at keeping time than omega, they are not more "handmade", 904L steel is not appreciably different than 316L in practicality, and even at that, Rolex isn't the new materials innovator that omega is. It's all brand perception.

IMO, omega should strive to maintain their prices where they are or lower them a bit to sell more watches. They already have plenty of publicity with bond and the Olympics. Watches are making a comeback in terms of everyday men's style, and going up in price will alienate a potential consumer base and pop the modern Rolex bubble. Omega will join them if they don't make themselves as accessible as they are recognizable. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

Crate410 said:


> I agree with him. Whats so special about rolex? Over priced hunks of metal made for those fat cats (them, those ones over there)
> 
> They arent any better made than a swatch ir flik flak.
> 
> ...


Casio FW91 then?


----------



## engr.pol (Jul 12, 2014)

chuasam said:


> Casio FW91 then?


He said "real watch"..Everyone knows Casios (G-Shocks in particular) are just kids toys..



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## the.watchdoc (Apr 23, 2015)

Grand Seiko, of course. Twice the watch for half the money!



chuasam said:


> Casio FW91 then?


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

PhantomThief said:


> Grand Seiko, of course. Twice the watch for half the money!


I wish Grand Seiko would hire someone from Nomos to teach them about typography.


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

chuasam said:


> I wish Grand Seiko would hire someone from Nomos to teach them about typography.


don't think that Nomos guys have anything to teach GS's


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Jefferson Overlin said:


> One of the reasons I don't particularly like Rolex and the way valuation works with them is the whole idea of psychological value. Rolexes are not better at keeping time than omega, they are not more "handmade", 904L steel is not appreciably different than 316L in practicality, and even at that, Rolex isn't the new materials innovator that omega is. It's all brand perception.
> 
> IMO, omega should strive to maintain their prices where they are or lower them a bit to sell more watches. They already have plenty of publicity with bond and the Olympics. Watches are making a comeback in terms of everyday men's style, and going up in price will alienate a potential consumer base and pop the modern Rolex bubble. Omega will join them if they don't make themselves as accessible as they are recognizable.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Omega doesn't decide that though, neither does Rolex. The market decides what has resale value which is why I never give Rolex any points for it when ranking them with another brand. Just like in that Blancpain vs Rolex thread. Blancpain is simply better and resale won't sway it in Rolex' favour to me because Rolex doesn't decide it, the sheep or the market does.

That said, it is nice when you sell one and lose the least money on resale. With me however, it has the weird effect of if I flip something, the Rolex probably goes first because I take the smallest hit doing so. Lol


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

Jefferson Overlin said:


> One of the reasons I don't particularly like Rolex and the way valuation works with them is the whole idea of psychological value. Rolexes are not better at keeping time than omega, they are not more "handmade", 904L steel is not appreciably different than 316L in practicality, and even at that, Rolex isn't the new materials innovator that omega is. It's all brand perception.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


One of the reasons I don't particularly like Omega and the way valuation works with them is the whole idea of psychological value. Omegas are not better at keeping time than Casio, they are not more "handmade", 316L steel is not appreciably different than "stainless steel" in practicality, and even at that, Omega isn't the new materials innovator that Casio is. It's all brand perception.

fixed that for you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

vkalia said:


> There you go. That proves it is better.
> 
> It's a consolation prize.: "You may not be better, Overpriced Swatch, but you can win the poll as consolation."
> 
> Pity vote.


That doesn't prove anything because Rolex lovers who post replies outnumber everyone by a large margin but the Omega lovers that vote outnumber the Rolex lovers who post replies. Judging from the poll at least.

Go Omega! Now where is my Omega flag? I should go buy a giant foam hand that says Omega too. Do they sell those anywhere?


----------



## Jefferson Overlin (Mar 4, 2013)

Badbebe said:


> One of the reasons I don't particularly like Omega and the way valuation works with them is the whole idea of psychological value. Omegas are not better at keeping time than Casio, they are not more "handmade", 316L steel is not appreciably different than "stainless steel" in practicality, and even at that, Omega isn't the new materials innovator that Casio is. It's all brand perception.
> 
> fixed that for you.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Forgive me, I don't really understand this... None of those things are true except for the stainless steel fact, which didn't make sense. Omega is made with much higher quality materials than Casio like ceramics and antimagnetic alloys and silicon ...

If I were to read between the lines, I would say that perhaps you're implying that I said ALL the value of expensive watches versus Casio is in functionality, and since a quartz watch is technically more accurate, then it must be better, by my previous "logic". I wasn't saying that at all, and I love how that argument always finds its way into these debates. Cmon friend, we're on a watch forum website LOL. If any of us believed that, we wouldn't be here.

My point is that omega and Rolex are at least equal in level of craftsmanship, design, and quality. Additionally, I don't know if there's been a scientific study on it, but +/-1s/day on omega coaxials from the 2000s even after those years is not unheard of. People from the Rolex camp have never bragged about accuracy, and I've looked for that in the forums when I was deciding which brands to like when I first got into them. For a mechanical watch, you'd be totally kidding yourself if you didn't find that kind of accuracy impressive. Furthermore, omega's liquidmetal, ceramic DSOTM case, and sapphire case in the Deville hour vision are much more interesting than a new kind of stainless steel. But of course, if you are really that interested in types of stainless steel, then you must be the type of person to like Rolex 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

Jefferson Overlin said:


> Forgive me, I don't really understand this... None of those things are true except for the stainless steel fact, which didn't make sense.


is my Casio waveceptor not better at time keeping than your Omega?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jefferson Overlin (Mar 4, 2013)

Badbebe said:


> is my Casio waveceptor not better at time keeping than your Omega?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You found my mistake! Thanks, I ceded that point later in my rant but I did miss that part initially. Yeah my omega is only about 1 second per day fast sometimes and I'm assuming that your Casio is not mechanical so it's probably more accurate.

Fair enough though, the rest of my argument is invalid. I take it all back.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

Jefferson Overlin said:


> You found my mistake! Thanks, I ceded that point later in my rant but I did miss that part initially. Yeah my omega is only about 1 second per day fast sometimes and I'm assuming that your Casio is not mechanical so it's probably more accurate.
> 
> Fair enough though, the rest of my argument is invalid. I take it all back.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


just messing with ya lol, my last Casio died I middle school.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jefferson Overlin (Mar 4, 2013)

Badbebe said:


> just messing with ya lol, my last Casio died I middle school.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Phew! I thought this was getting to be a real Internet Mexican standoff.

But really though, I don't hate rolexes at all. I really like the vintage and 90s Rolex sub no-date and will totally get one at some point in the future. I just don't like the market for them I guess. I'm really not a fan of "feaux-better" and some of the ways Rolex sells itself, like the whole "this watch took a year to make by hand" deal. Then again, omega is really getting into that too, and as much as I love the PO 2500 and the 8500 in terms of looks, I'm quickly losing interest in the brand as a whole. Microbrands, here I come!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Citizen just bought both Rolex and Omega so now they are the same.


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

engr.pol said:


> He said "real watch"..Everyone knows Casios (G-Shocks in particular) are just kids toys..
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


See, he gets it. The only watch more tailored to kids is a... Grand Seiko.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

200 pages. And a poll w Omega leading Rolez /sic/ 52.5 to 47.5
It is a commentary on a sad state of humanity


----------



## Pun (Sep 2, 2015)

oak1971 said:


> Citizen just bought both Rolex and Omega so now they are the same.


Breaking News!! Who knows what can happen in crazy days in future when the economies of the West opt for a swing... why Citizen? Why not some Chinese conglomerate??


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

Bhakt said:


> Breaking News!! Who knows what can happen in crazy days in future when the economies of the West opt for a swing... why Citizen? Why not some Chinese conglomerate??


I think it was a joke referencing recent acquisition of Frederique Constant \Aplina by Citizen.
That said China Haidan Holdings owns Corum and Eterna - so what? Corporate ownership structure has little to do with watch quality, innovation, or service


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Omega doesn't decide that though, neither does Rolex. The market decides what has resale value which is why I never give Rolex any points for it when ranking them with another brand. Just like in that Blancpain vs Rolex thread. Blancpain is simply better and resale won't sway it in Rolex' favour to me because Rolex doesn't decide it, the sheep or the market does.
> 
> That said, it is nice when you sell one and lose the least money on resale. With me however, it has the weird effect of if I flip something, the Rolex probably goes first because I take the smallest hit doing so. Lol


True. And Blancpain is Omega's rich baby brother. LOL.








Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

EnderW said:


> I think it was a joke referencing recent acquisition of Frederique Constant \Aplina by Citizen.
> That said China Haidan Holdings owns Corum and Eterna - so what? Corporate ownership structure has little to do with watch quality, innovation, or service


Yes. i was joking. Like you say though, never say never.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

Well, Omega would never screw this up.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

maxixix said:


> Well, Omega would never screw this up.


I assume this is a joke? Because virtually every watch brand using Roman numerals uses IIII rather than IV for a 4 marker. It has to do with symmetry of the dial.


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

IIII is also legal roman numeral. I remember our 50 year old wall watch had IIII instead if IV.


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

Probably so you don't confuse VI with IV...


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

Is it even possible for this thread to get more silly. Roman numeral IV and IIII are both accepted symbols for Arabic numeral 4.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Jefferson Overlin said:


> One of the reasons I don't particularly like Rolex and the way valuation works with them is the whole idea of psychological value. Rolexes are not better at keeping time than omega, they are not more "handmade", 904L steel is not appreciably different than 316L in practicality, and even at that, Rolex isn't the new materials innovator that omega is. It's all brand perception.


I'd argue all your points:

Timekeeping - Rolex is rated to -2/+2, Omega is not that tight on even their most accurate watches

Handmade - they are both largely machine made and hand assembled, however for the hairspring (the heart of the movement) Omega's is machine etched (in fact can not be handmade) whereas part of the Rolex parachrom process is hand made

904L pitting resistance equivalent number (PREn) is higher than that of salt water / sweat, whereas 316L PREn is lower - if given a choice I'd pick 904L

Material Innovation - Rolex developed both parachrom and silicon hairsprings (the later jointly with Patek and Swatch) - Omega now benefits from this

These differences don't mean that much to me, and I own and enjoy both brands, but it's you who is being influenced by brand perception.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

engr.pol said:


> He said "real watch"..Everyone knows Casios (G-Shocks in particular) are just kids toys..


Real watches have soul.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

AAMC said:


> don't think that Nomos guys have anything to teach GS's


How about "How to milk the hell out of one design"?

Oh wait. Panerai PWNS everyone else there.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

cedargrove said:


> .......904L pitting resistance equivalent number (PREn) is higher than that of salt water / sweat, whereas 316L PREn is lower - if given a choice I'd pick 904L .........These differences don't mean that much to me, and I own and enjoy both brands, but it's you who is being influenced by brand perception.


http://thesydneytarts.blogspot.com/2011/08/tech-talk-no2-316l-vs-904l-grades-of.html
"So what about everyday wear as divers'watches? Well 316L is not actually designed for continuous submersion in seawater. But that's not to say it's not any good. It is still extremely resistantto corrosion, nearly impervious to atmospheric and other mild corrosive agents,and it is more than adequate for things like boat railing and exposure to seawater spray.

So would this mean that if you really wanted to go diving, you'd strap a Rolex to your wrist? _Unless you're planning to dive into sulfuric acid or sodiumhydroxide, it won't make a lick of difference._ Plus, the seals, the movement,and most importantly, your body, would've dissolved long before that."

https://www.watchuseek.com/f23/904l-vs-316l-steel-1474489.html
Post #2
"About 30years ago Rolex changed the Seadweller case to 904L, as the Seadweller wascommonly used by professional divers. 904L has a PREn (pitting resistance)higher than that of the corrosive effect of sea water, whereas the PREn of 316Lis lower. 

In more recent years Rolex changed alltheir models to 904L, but I suspect this has more to do with its superiorpolishability."

If theinformation from the first link is correct, perhaps the original choice of 904Lfor the Rolex Seadweller was also a marketing decision not an engineeringdecision.


----------



## gzpermadi (Sep 8, 2015)

Just to add more flame to discussion: solid end/center link bracelet and stamped metal clasp. Rolex was late into the game.

As for the modern Rolex, still doesn't have the domed crystal with AR coating. I don't know if this design decision but for me looks cheap.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

I dont get the big deal with 904L. Most Rolex owners will put it on a nato or a leather strap in less than 6 months anyhow.

I know its mind boggling.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

gzpermadi said:


> As for the modern Rolex, still doesn't have the domed crystal with AR coating. I don't know if this design decision but for me looks cheap.


For durability reasons, I think a flat, uncoated crystal makes more sense. It'll be less exposed to damage and doesn't have a coating to show scratches. It's one thing I appreciate about my SKX009.

Still, many of Rolex's crystals are set a bit proud of the bezel, making them vulnerable to nicks and chips, rare as they may be.

Now, why Rolex hasn't added an AR undercoating, I can't explain. Unless they have already and the Internet has made me think otherwise.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

I think a Steinhart vs. Rolex would be more appropriate. Omega is in a league of its own.


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

vkalia said:


> How about "How to milk the hell out of one design"?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Not even that, GS's are all the same, only Domo can distinguish between GS models


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Jefferson Overlin said:


> One of the reasons I don't particularly like Rolex and the way valuation works with them is the whole idea of psychological value. Rolexes are not better at keeping time than omega, they are not more "handmade", 904L steel is not appreciably different than 316L in practicality, and even at that, Rolex isn't the new materials innovator that omega is. It's all brand perception.
> 
> IMO, omega should strive to maintain their prices where they are or lower them a bit to sell more watches. They already have plenty of publicity with bond and the Olympics. Watches are making a comeback in terms of everyday men's style, and going up in price will alienate a potential consumer base and pop the modern Rolex bubble. Omega will join them if they don't make themselves as accessible as they are recognizable.


I agree that there's a lot of psychological stuff that goes into luxury brands.

"This paper documents the multifaceted nature of pride in consumer behavior. Drawing on recent psychological research on pride, we provide evidence for two separate facets of pride in consumption. In a series of studies, we propose a model wherein luxury brand consumption and pride are systematically interrelated. Whereas authentic (but not hubristic) pride leads to a heightened desire for luxury brands, hubristic (but not authentic) pride is the outcome of these purchases, and is the form of pride signaled to observers by these purchases. Further, we show that these effects are generally exacerbated for those low in narcissism. These findings shed new light on why consumers purchase luxury brands, highlighting a paradox: these purchases may be sought out of heightened feelings of accomplishment (and not arrogance), but they instead signal arrogance to others (rather than accomplishment)."(Evidence for two facets of pride in consumption: Findings from luxury brands)

TL;DR:

Feelings of accomplishment motivate people to buy luxury goods, but luxury brand consumers are seen as snobbish by observers. More details here for those interested: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...uy-luxury-brands-and-how-do-they-make-us-feel

Since Rolex is "better", it is the brand that attracts more lovers and detractors (pic from Internet):


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

cedargrove said:


> I'd argue all your points:
> 
> Timekeeping - Rolex is rated to -2/+2, Omega is not that tight on even their most accurate watches
> 
> ...


based on data on toolwatch.io, rolex is pratically the same as omega in time accuracy.
You don't benefit in anything from 904L, only if you swim in acid. (I know because I work in a company that produces equipment for food industry. We use A.316 for acid storage, or A.316Ti). But... omega produces also titanium versions... so basically this material argument is totaly irrelevant.
Innovation... then why does rolex use parachrom instead of silicon hairspring, if silion is totaly antimagnetic.
You want to hype up rolex, but there is simply nothing better on it.


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

BarracksSi said:


> For durability reasons, I think a flat, uncoated crystal makes more sense. It'll be less exposed to damage and doesn't have a coating to show scratches. It's one thing I appreciate about my SKX009.
> 
> Still, many of Rolex's crystals are set a bit proud of the bezel, making them vulnerable to nicks and chips, rare as they may be.
> 
> Now, why Rolex hasn't added an AR undercoating, I can't explain. Unless they have already and the Internet has made me think otherwise.


nah... its probably flat because of the reflections. that's why don't bother giving it antrireflection coating. While domed crystal will reflect something into your eye from any angle...


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Damir Galic said:


> We use A.316 for acid storage, or A.316Ti). But... omega produces also titanium versions... so basically this material argument is totaly irrelevant.
> Innovation... then why does rolex use parachrom instead of silicon hairspring, if silion is totaly antimagnetic.
> You want to hype up rolex, but there is simply nothing better on it.


"Practically the same in time accuracy" sounds suspiciously like 'slightly worse'.

Sorry, but 316Ti is not the same as 316L. The former has more corrosion resistance. I realize Omega uses titanium in a handful of watches (grade5). This is why I own the PO 8500 Ti as I wanted my diver to have a higher PREn than sea water (904L would accomplish the same). Again, I'm not suggesting 904L is leads and bounds better than 316L, but if given a choice I'd pick 904L.

As for why Rolex uses parachrom instead of silicon, they first developed silicon but it couldn't be properly formed into a Breguet overcoil, so they then developed parachrom which is also totally antimagnetic. Again, not saying parachrom is better than silicon (except for the overcoil bit) but it refutes the notion that Rolex doesn't innovate - in fact they even helped innovate something for Omega.

If you're going to argue that Rolex is all hype versus Omega, then pick some better examples. I could help you with a few, but yours are working against you.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

gzpermadi said:


> Just to add more flame to discussion: solid end/center link bracelet and stamped metal clasp. Rolex was late into the game.


So you're talking about Rolex over a decade ago?

Let's  talk about Omega now. My very current Omega PO 8500 has no micro adjustments in the clasp, no quick extension, and no glidelock. If I want any kind of quick adjustment I have to remove/add a link.


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

cedargrove said:


> "Practically the same in time accuracy" sounds suspiciously like 'slightly worse'.
> 
> Sorry, but 316Ti is not the same as 316L. The former has more corrosion resistance. I realize Omega uses titanium in a handful of watches (grade5). This is why I own the PO 8500 Ti as I wanted my diver to have a higher PREn than sea water (904L would accomplish the same). Again, I'm not suggesting 904L is leads and bounds better than 316L, but if given a choice I'd pick 904L.
> 
> ...


About stainless steel it's all in your head, trust me. 904L on a watch is "practically" not better in any way than A.316. You can put both watches in a salt water for 50 years and when you pick them out they'll look the same. Except if you leave it in pure acid.
You are clearly trying to uplevel rolex with basically obsolete technology. good try, I am not just some ignorant consumer like 99% of people here.


----------



## Alysandir (Jun 29, 2016)

As I have not (yet) read all 202 pages of responses at this point, I don't know if anyone has yet brought this comparison up, so apologies if it's already been made. (Full disclosure, I own both a Speedmaster and a Datejust.)

Back when VCR technology was in its infancy (you all *do* remember VCRs, right?) you had two choices: VHS and Betamax. In terms of quality and performance, Betamax was lauded by technology critics and reviewers alike as being the better platform due to the higher quality construction of the players, and superiority in image resolution, sound, and image stability. 

So of course, VHS won. Why? Simply put: it was marketed better. While Sony was focusing on the multimedia connoisseur by providing the best performance available, JVC was focused on the masses by producing cheap players (relatively speaking). 

I would submit that Rolex has focused on the masses by producing recognizable status symbols, that also happen to be darn good (if a bit uncomplicated) watches. If Rolex can be accused of not innovating or trying new things, it's likely because they have found their formula for success and aren't eager to tinker with it under the theory of, "why fix what isn't broken?" 

Conversely, I observe that the sheer number of model variations Omega produces suggests that they are still trying to find an identity and in the interim, attempting to stretch their proven winners as far as they can be stretched. They made a conscious decision to invest heavily in the co-axial escapement, hoping that this would give them a competitive edge, only to learn that the masses largely do not care about what's in the case nearly as much as they care about the case being recognized by friends, co-workers, and strangers as being a symbol of luxury and refinement. At this point, what can Omega possibly do that's going to change the minds of the masses, without at least one critical misstep on the part of Rolex?

My $0.03, adjusted for inflation.

Regards,
Alysandir


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Damir Galic said:


> I am not just some ignorant consumer like 99% of people here.


But you are. Most of your points regarding Rolex are based on your perception only, and are factually incorrect. That is ignorance.


----------



## jlondono77 (Aug 16, 2011)

Poll is indicative of my perceived sentiments on watchuseek. Most people think Omega is better than Rolex.


----------



## jlondono77 (Aug 16, 2011)

Pretty lame responses there Cedargrove are you a Rolex salesman?!



cedargrove said:


> But you are. Most of your points regarding Rolex are based on your perception only, and are factually incorrect. That is ignorance.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

jlondono77 said:


> Pretty lame responses there Cedargrove.


Wait, what? Aren't you to blame for this mess of a thread?



jlondono77 said:


> I started the poll Omega vs Rolex, which brand do you prefer?


----------



## NorCalCruzin (May 24, 2016)

Think that Omega is already as good as Rolex, if not better. The poll shows that so far. Beside Omega has the moon and James Bond. You can't beat that.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

jlondono77 said:


> Pretty lame responses there Cedargrove *are* *you* *a* *Rolex* *salesman*?!


Ooooh, I like your edit. Very clever. Not lame at all.


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

Alysandir said:


> As I have not (yet) read all 202 pages of responses at this point, I don't know if anyone has yet brought this comparison up, so apologies if it's already been made. (Full disclosure, I own both a Speedmaster and a Datejust.)
> 
> Back when VCR technology was in its infancy (you all *do* remember VCRs, right?) you had two choices: VHS and Betamax. In terms of quality and performance, Betamax was lauded by technology critics and reviewers alike as being the better platform due to the higher quality construction of the players, and superiority in image resolution, sound, and image stability.
> 
> ...


Would agree for the masses all they want is Rolex and could care less how they work and what goes In a parachron hairspring . Only a very small percentage of folks will argue on technological advancements between O and R and R and O know this which is why it will always be difficult for O to catch up on the image front period

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

This cedargrove isn't presenting us with any facts, he's just preaching here about rolex. You know... the way they do it in churches.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

VHS vs Betamax --

Betamax lost because Sony didn't want to license the format to pr0n publishers.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

cedargrove said:


> Wait, what? Aren't you to blame for this mess of a thread?


No... he's not actually! "imlying" started it... jlondono77 started the poll as a separate thread when this one was already well along (50 pages? 100? I don't remember).

The mods merged the two.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

vkalia said:


> Real watches have soul.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Oh just stop it!! STOP!

Sigh... How many beers do I owe you now?


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

AAMC said:


> don't think that Nomos guys have anything to teach GS's


that's because you don't understand typography.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

chuasam said:


> that's because you don't understand typography.


Actually Nomos is a product from typo. They intend to write Nomore

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Woah! Omega is laying the beat down on Rolex by a decent margin. 53.28% for Omega to only 46% for Rolex.

I wonder how GS would fair with their superior, well pretty much everything.


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

204 pages! Nice work WUS!


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

Wait, you guys are still browsing this hyperactive forum at the 10 posts/page setting? 

Considering that only about one post out of ten is generally worth reading, that's gotta get tedious.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

I would be pissed throwing 10 k away like this.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

maxixix said:


> I would be pissed throwing 10 k away like this.












Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Morrisdog (Dec 12, 2014)

Ok time for me to pitch in. I have both a Rolex and an Omega.. They are both good in their own ways. I like my the 8400 movement in my SM 300 better than my 3132 in my OP. They are both accurate but the omega has a better power reserve and I like how I can advance the hours independently to the minute hand. I won't even get into the anti magnetic properties. My omega is 20 months old and has only lost 15 seconds in the last 8 months . The Rolex is pretty good too but it's too new to report on its accuracy. 

Now I think the casework of the Rolex is a little better . To me there is a definite feel of superior quality with the Rolex case and bracelet. They have a buttery smooth feel to them that my omega lacks. I also like their commitment to make well proportioned watches. 

But, I like the more interesting designs of the Omega . I find my SM 300 more interesting than say a submariner. However i can't deny the high quality feel of a modern Sub. 

So I like them both. Others have mentioned this but i do have an issue with the pricing of modern omegas.. They are getting very close to Rolex . This does loose a little of their underdog appeal to me. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Damir Galic said:


> ...
> You are clearly trying to uplevel rolex with basically obsolete technology. good try, I am not just some ignorant consumer like 99% of people here.


Nice.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Alysandir said:


> As I have not (yet) read all 202 pages of responses at this point, I don't know if anyone has yet brought this comparison up, so apologies if it's already been made. (Full disclosure, I own both a Speedmaster and a Datejust.)
> 
> Back when VCR technology was in its infancy (you all *do* remember VCRs, right?) you had two choices: VHS and Betamax. In terms of quality and performance, Betamax was lauded by technology critics and reviewers alike as being the better platform due to the higher quality construction of the players, and superiority in image resolution, sound, and image stability.
> 
> ...


Agree with everything said here. Very well put. |>

As for VCRs, I believe JVC also won out because it had a longer recording capability (twice that of Betamax, IIRC). The first Betamaxes were only able to record one hour and they were done. That put it at a severe disadvantage from Day 1.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

cedargrove said:


> But you are. Most of your points regarding Rolex are based on your perception only, and are factually incorrect. That is ignorance.


Let's brush those inconvenient facts aside and call it a grand sense of self-assuredness instead. :-d


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Woah! Omega is laying the beat down on Rolex by a decent margin. 53.28% for Omega to only 46% for Rolex.
> 
> I wonder how GS would fair with their superior, well pretty much everything.


Of course it's lopsided ... Rolex fans know they've got nothing to prove and therefor don't participate.

Edit:spelling


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

Vlance said:


> Of course it's lopsided ... Rolex fans no they've got nothing to prove and therefor don't participate.


nah. probably rolex fanbase is exhausted. there is nobody to participate.


----------



## JSI (Dec 12, 2012)

Vlance said:


> Of course it's lopsided ... Rolex fans no they've got nothing to prove and therefor don't participate.


Agreed, a lot of the recent post are Omega fan boys still here trying to prove a point.

The Rolex fanboys have moved on.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

Now we all know Omega's bond /olympics/moon association.

When Rolex decided to compete they came up with the Rolex DOMINOS. Now thats real class.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

maxixix said:


> Now we all know Omega's bond /olympics/moon association.
> 
> When Rolex decided to compete they came up with the Rolex DOMINOS. Now thats real class.


I don't think the Rolex higher-ups will ever live this one down. ;-)


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Let's brush those inconvenient facts aside and call it a grand sense of self-assuredness instead. :-d


So a Steinhart fan?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

maxixix said:


> Now we all know Omega's bond /olympics/moon association.
> 
> When Rolex decided to compete they came up with the Rolex DOMINOS. Now thats real class.


Moon landing = Fake

Pizza = Real

Another win for Rolex, methinks.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

maxixix said:


> I would be pissed throwing 10 k away like this.


Back in the 1980s some people refused to believe my Oyster Quartz was real even when I fully explained why it was a real Rolex. I think the psychology of that denial may have been that to admit Rolex made quartz watches would diminish the prestige of owning a "real" Rolex. I wonder if that is also the reason why Rolex discontinued the Oyster Quartz. IIRC Rolex was working on an improved Oyster Quartz before ending production. Of course they still make the Cellini line of quartz watches, but they are so different in appearance from Oysters nobody could mistake them for Oysters.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

vkalia said:


> Moon landing = Fake
> 
> Pizza = Real
> 
> ...


While some people think the moon landings were faked, more people believe Domino's is fake pizza.

Personally I think James Bond 007 is closer to the reality of being an MI6 agent than Domino's dreck is to pizza.

Most people would be more embarrassed to wear a Domino's Rolex than a 007 Omega.

Definitely another win for Omega.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

Vlance said:


> Of course it's lopsided ... Rolex fans know they've got nothing to prove and therefor don't participate.
> 
> Edit:spelling


Really? My experience is that Rolex fans are some of the most defensive fans of any kind on Earth.


----------



## Birky1 (Feb 13, 2015)

Morrisdog said:


> Ok time for me to pitch in. I have both a Rolex and an Omega.. They are both good in their own ways. I like my the 8400 movement in my SM 300 better than my 3132 in my OP. They are both accurate but the omega has a better power reserve and I like how I can advance the hours independently to the minute hand. I won't even get into the anti magnetic properties. My omega is 20 months old and has only lost 15 seconds in the last 8 months . The Rolex is pretty good too but it's too new to report on its accuracy.
> 
> Now I think the casework of the Rolex is a little better . To me there is a definite feel of superior quality with the Rolex case and bracelet. They have a buttery smooth feel to them that my omega lacks. I also like their commitment to make well proportioned watches.
> 
> ...


I too have both but IMO my Rolex feels better

Sent from my Harrier Tab from EE using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Nom de Forum said:


> While some people think the moon landings were faked, more people believe Domino's is fake pizza.
> 
> Personally I think James Bond 007 is closer to the reality of being an MI6 agent than Domino's dreck is to pizza.
> 
> ...


Living in an area with many good Italian Pizza joints, I can agree that Domino's is not pizza. In fact, I think it has gotten worse of late.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Nom de Forum said:


> Really? My experience is that Rolex fans are some of the most defensive fans of any kind on Earth.


Probably because other annoying fan bases are always on their case, while Rolex fans simply enjoy their watches and leave others to enjoy theirs.


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

I think rolex fans would buy dog .... for 10k€ - if it got rolex stamped on it.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

I think the biggest advantage to either brand for the general non watch savant consumer is the dealer network. Since I don't live near one of either brand, that's off the table. For me it may actually be a negative as I plan on divesting myself of any dealer dependant devices asap.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Nom de Forum said:


> Really? My experience is that Rolex fans are some of the most defensive fans of any kind on Earth.


No we're not! And I'll punch your lights out if you say it again!

... (while wearing my Omega... huh? ;-) ;-p )


----------



## UK humbug (Feb 19, 2016)

oak1971 said:


> Living in an area with many good Italian Pizza joints, I can agree that Domino's is not pizza. In fact, I think it has gotten worse of late.


To come to that conclusion I have to assume you still buy & eat Domino's overpriced unauthentic products?


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Vlance said:


> Probably because other annoying fan bases are always on their case, while Rolex fans simply enjoy their watches and leave others to enjoy theirs.


It's more that there's no point responding when the other parties are literally making stuff up.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Vlance said:


> Of course it's lopsided ... Rolex fans know they've got nothing to prove and therefor don't participate.
> 
> Edit:spelling


Oh, that's not how I see it. The RDF is always on high alert. In fact, if we had a Rolex defense force mod, I wouldn't put it past him to rig the poll before it closes so that Rolex wins. That's how fan boy...or that's how passionate your kind seems to an outsider with no dog in this fight like myself.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

maxixix said:


> Now we all know Omega's bond /olympics/moon association.
> 
> When Rolex decided to compete they came up with the Rolex DOMINOS. Now thats real class.


LOL.










Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Damir Galic said:


> I think rolex fans would buy dog .... for 10k€ - if it got rolex stamped on it.


Woa mate, leave the dog out of this. Don't you know it's animal cruelty to put a rolex tag onto a dog? You'll hurt its feeling. It is a *Dog* not a *Sheep*.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

ShanDaMan said:


> Woa mate, leave the dog out of this. Don't you know it's animal cruelty to put a rolex tag onto a dog? You'll hurt its feeling. It is a *Dog* not a *Sheep*.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

AAMC said:


>


That dog looks sad. It thoughts "[email protected] woman, get this thing off of me!","this thing attracts fleas".

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

UK humbug said:


> To come to that conclusion I have to assume you still buy & eat Domino's overpriced unauthentic products?


Occasionally, I will have a piece at some function or another in the last few months. Before that, I had not bought any myself in at least a year during which I was in the hospital and could not have ordered anything.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

I recently found an article by Bernard watch.

Interestingly, he chose seamaster than submariner. https://www.bernardwatch.com/blog/which-watch-is-better-a-submariner-or-a-seamaster/.

Got another review from wrist review. He also chose seamaster. http://wristreview.com/?p=20123&page=2

Aside on resale value, Omega has beaten rolex.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Jefferson Overlin (Mar 4, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> It's more that there's no point responding when the other parties are literally making stuff up.


"This Rolex watch took a year to make by hand"

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

maxixix said:


> Now we all know Omega's bond /olympics/moon association.
> 
> When Rolex decided to compete they came up with the Rolex DOMINOS. Now thats real class.





BarracksSi said:


> I don't think the Rolex higher-ups will ever live this one down. ;-)


Don't laugh. My local Domino's in CA was outstanding! Dunno how they did it but their pies were delicious...

Too bad I haven't found another one like that...


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Nom de Forum said:


> While some people think the moon landings were faked, more people believe Domino's is fake pizza.
> 
> Personally I think James Bond 007 is closer to the reality of being an MI6 agent than Domino's dreck is to pizza.
> 
> ...


Uhhh, no.

Gimme a Domino's Rolex and I will wear it proudly. I will even pay for shipping...


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Damir Galic said:


> I think rolex fans would buy dog .... for 10k€ - if it got rolex stamped on it.


_
"Winning friends and influencing people."_


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Uhhh, no.
> 
> Gimme a Domino's Rolex and I will wear it proudly. I will even pay for shipping...


I am sure you will, of course people wear all kinds of things they are proud of that they do not realize most people think makes them look silly. I suspect if someone gave you a Domino's Rolex you would replace the face.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

BigSeikoFan said:


> _
> "Winning friends and influencing people."_


Ya, but he probably is more right than wrong.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Nom de Forum said:


> Ya, but he probably is more right than wrong.


How about some facts and evidence, instead of idle speculation and innuendo? The reality is that the endless Rolex vs Omega debates are a perfect example of the narcissism of small differences.


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

mleok said:


> The reality is that the endless Rolex vs Omega debates are a perfect example of the narcissism of small differences.


That is deep let me poor myself a glass of delicious vino

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

mleok said:


> How about some facts and evidence, instead of idle speculation and innuendo? The reality is that the endless Rolex vs Omega debates are a perfect example of the narcissism of small differences.


"How about some facts and evidence, instead of idle speculation and innuendo?" LOL! Considering this 208 page thread has hundred of posts from Rolex and Omega fans that are speculation and innuendo, and it took you until post 2072 to whine about it, tells me my comment must have been for you uncomfortably close to the truth. BTW, I like Rolex more than Omega, and that is possible without having drunk the Rolex Kool-Aid.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Nom de Forum said:


> "How about some facts and evidence, instead of idle speculation and innuendo?" LOL! Considering this 208 page thread has hundred of posts from Rolex and Omega fans that are speculation and innuendo, and it took you until post 2072 to whine about it, tells me my comment must have been for you uncomfortably close to the truth. BTW, I like Rolex more than Omega, and that is possible without having drunk the Rolex Kool-Aid.


All it tells you is that I am tied of people who think they can gain some sort of insight into my intellect and character based solely on the watches that I own.


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

oh man look at that 39% discount










must be some hot selling product

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Nom de Forum said:


> Really? My experience is that Rolex fans are some of the most defensive fans of any kind on Earth.


Or maybe some got tired of your misinformed posts on the Blanpain vs Rolex thread where you seemed to insist that the Sub was an homage to the FF even though you were repeatedly corrected by more knowledgeable members. The reaction you seem to be getting has little to do with Rolex...


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

This is a funny thread. I like both brands but resale value is definitely better on a Rolex. Of course once you own both, and I do, you quickly realize they are nothing compared to AP, JLC, VC and PP. They both are more like a steppingstone to bigger and better things. IMHBCO.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Damir Galic said:


> I think rolex fans would buy dog .... for 10k€ - if it got rolex stamped on it.


I think Omega fans would buy a hamster for 5.5k (4K on the grey market) if it had Omega on it and then try to convince themselves and others that it's better than the Rolex dog. Everyone knows dogs are cooler than hamsters.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Damir Galic said:


> I think rolex fans would buy dog .... for 10k€ - if it got rolex stamped on it.


Doesn't Omega have a couple watches that actually have a dog on the dial? A cartoon dog at that!?


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

cedargrove said:


> Doesn't Omega have a couple watches that actually have a dog on the dial? A cartoon dog at that!?


one thing is omega watch with a dog on a dial, another is dog poo with rolex stamp. aparently poo which starts with s was censored in my post.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Damir Galic said:


> one thing is omega watch with a dog on a dial, another is dog poo with rolex stamp. aparently poo which starts with s was censored in my post.


Huh?


----------



## ConfusedOne (Sep 29, 2015)

I don't know how I will feel about myself when this thread gets to 300 pages...


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

mleok said:


> All it tells you is that I am tied of people who think they can gain some sort of insight into my intellect and character based solely on the watches that I own.


^^ This.

I also see a very high degree of correlation between these people and the type that make snap judgements about Rolex wearers and/or post factually inaccurate stuff. (And for once, I am actually being serious).

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Seaswirl said:


> Or maybe some got tired of your misinformed posts on the Blanpain vs Rolex thread where you seemed to insist that the Sub was an homage to the FF even though you were repeatedly corrected by more knowledgeable members. The reaction you seem to be getting has little to do with Rolex...


This is how it works on WUS:

- People make factually incorrect statements about Rolex or absurdly sweeping generalizations about Rolex wearers

- They get corrected.

- They accuse the people doing the correction of being Rolex fanboys and of being defensive.

:facepalm:

I've said this before - I cannot think of a single thread on WUS where PRolex fans started the debate. It's always been some guy who has never owned a Rolex but still feels the need to pontificate on how the brand sucks.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

To Rolex owners: This is the burden you have to bear. The fact, you know about it before you decide to buy the watch and you did it anyway. What a rebellious inner character you got.

What a successful thread! Well troll.


----------



## dr3ws (Jun 9, 2015)

wuyeah said:


> To Rolex owners: This is the burden you have to bear. The fact, you know about it before you decide to buy the watch and you did it anyway. What a rebellious inner character you got.
> 
> What a successful thread! Well troll.


I'm prepared to bear the burden and I can't be bothered what others think anyway. I love my sub


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

mleok said:


> All it tells you is that I am tied of people who think they can gain some sort of insight into my intellect and character based solely on the watches that I own.


That's really a stretch, me thinks you protest too much. (Apologies to The Bard)



Seaswirl said:


> Or maybe some got tired of your misinformed posts on the Blanpain vs Rolex thread where you seemed to insist that the Sub was an homage to the FF even though you were repeatedly corrected by more knowledgeable members. The reaction you seem to be getting has little to do with Rolex...


Seemed to insist? You really seem desperately defensive now since you have exaggerated what my comments were in the B vs R thread. I asked a question, asked for correction, challenged responses, accepted correction, gave thanks and congratulations for being corrected, and then endured personal insult while the Rabid Rolex-boys lined-up to enjoy the opportunity to goad a fight and heap absurd amounts of condemnation upon me for daring to imply Rolex could be influenced by another watchmaker. The Rabid Rolex-boys who participated in that thread gave me remarkable "insight into" their "intellect and character". IIRC, you did not participate in providing information that corrected my error. You were a late comer who behaved much like a benchwarmer who sits out the whole game then claims they helped score the winning goal.



cedargrove said:


> Doesn't Omega have a couple watches that actually have a dog on the dial? A cartoon dog at that!?


Yes it does. Just like Chopard has a mouse on one of theirs. Both the mouse and dog are symbols of wit and happiness beloved by hundreds of millions of people for decades. The Rolex Kool-Aid is rotting your brain if you think Domino's fake pizza in anyway compares to Snoopy and Mickey.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Nom de Forum said:


> That's really a stretch, me thinks you protest too much. (Apologies to The Bard)
> 
> Seemed to insist? You really seem desperately defensive now since you have exaggerated what my comments were in the B vs R thread. I asked a question, asked for correction, challenged responses, accepted correction, gave thanks and congratulations for being corrected, and then endured personal insult while the Rabid Rolex-boys lined-up to enjoy the opportunity to goad a fight and heap absurd amounts of condemnation upon me for daring to imply Rolex could be influenced by another watchmaker. The Rabid Rolex-boys who participated in that thread gave me remarkable "insight into" their "intellect and character". IIRC, you did not participate in providing information that corrected my error. You were a late comer who behaved much like a benchwarmer who sits out the whole game then claims they helped score the winning goal.
> 
> Yes it does. Just like Chopard has a mouse on one of theirs. Both the mouse and dog are symbols of wit and happiness beloved by hundreds of millions of people for decades. The Rolex Kool-Aid is rotting your brain if you think Domino's fake pizza in anyway compares to Snoopy and Mickey.


The insults that have come your way have nothing to do with Rolex fanboy-ism, but from your uncanny ability to combine willful ignorance with belligerence and indignation in a single post. The perfect rented mule. The Rabid Rolex-boys you refer to own watches of many brands, including Omegas and affordables, but why let that get in the way of making sweeping generalizations.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

wuyeah said:


> To Rolex owners: This is the burden you have to bear. The fact, you know about it before you decide to buy the watch and you did it anyway. What a rebellious inner character you got.
> 
> What a successful thread! Well troll.


More proof of Rolex superiority?


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

vkalia said:


> ^^ This.
> 
> I also see a very high degree of correlation between these people and the type that make snap judgements about Rolex wearers and/or post factually inaccurate stuff. (And for once, I am actually being serious).
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


That statement may make you the biggest hypocrite on WUS.



vkalia said:


> This is how it works on WUS:
> 
> - People make factually incorrect statements about Rolex or absurdly sweeping generalizations about Rolex wearers
> 
> ...


Ya right, that is "how it works on WUS" :roll:.

Members of "The True Faith of Rolex" would never start a debate. To do so would be admitting it could be possible to doubt "The True Faith of Rolex". Denial is not a river in Egypt, it is characteristic of Rabid Rolex-boys.

BTW, I have owned 3 Rolexes, 2 Date Justs and 1 OysterQuartz. I must be immune to the effects of the Rolex Kool-Aid.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

What I don't get are all the reasoned intelligent responses to obvious trolls and nincompoops.

Oh yea, back to topic, Rolex Omega something something...


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

EnderW said:


> What I don't get are all the reasoned intelligent responses to obvious trolls and nincompoops.
> 
> Oh yea, back to topic, Rolex Omega something something...


My co-worker told me Invicta is a better brand than both omega and rolex.

I think hes right.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

If it seems like we're being overly defensive over a bit of harmless banter and some provocative statements, it's because this is but one in a long, seemingly endless, stream of posters who feel no compunction against using the mere fact of ownership of a Rolex to make broad, derogatory statements about these owners.

I have absolutely no issue with you bashing the brand, but it crosses the line to tar a broad swath of owners with the same brush. The problem I have with many posts is that they tend to put down others in an attempt to establish their own intellectual superiority.


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

BarracksSi said:


> VHS vs Betamax --
> 
> Betamax lost because Sony didn't want to license the format to pr0n publishers.


That's interesting. I never heard that before. But a quick google of the relevant terms seems to bring up quite a number of sources that say that's a myth. If anything it doesn't seem to be as fully accepted a theory as the fact that Betamax tapes were shorter in memory and their machines were pricier. Those 2 reasons alone would probably sink any product.

As to the original point of this thread. Yes, I whole heartedly support Rolex. Errr... I mean Omega is good too. Yeah but Rolex, uh whatever.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

Badbebe said:


> oh man look at that 39% discount
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh

Ah

You got us there

Not sure what to say

Rolex at 64% discount ppl if anyone is interested (I would not know why would any though).

Oh not to mention Joma 'daily'/'weekly' 28% off across the range. And they say Rolex holds its value.... well maybe if I am naive enough to pay their asking price.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

mleok said:


> If it seems like we're being overly defensive over a bit of harmless banter and some provocative statements, it's because this is but one in a long, seemingly endless, stream of posters who feel no compunction against using the mere fact of ownership of a Rolex to make broad, derogatory statements about these owners.
> 
> I have absolutely no issue with you bashing the brand, but it crosses the line to tar a broad swath of owners with the same brush. The problem I have with many posts is that they have a tend to be an attempt to put down others in an attempt to establish their own intellectual superiority.


If contribution to this thread could be limited to those who meet the criteria of "Let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone" neither you or me or many, many other WUS members would be still posting (casting) comments (stones) in this thread. Of course that is an unrealistic criteria. Also unrealistic is taking too seriously much of what is posted to this thread. Lighten-up Vern, it is just an international watch forum, not the U.N. Security Council debating military intervention or famine relief.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Nom de Forum said:


> If contribution to this thread could be limited to those who meet the criteria of "Let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone" neither you or me or many, many other WUS members would be still posting (casting) comments (stones) in this thread. Of course that is an unrealistic criteria. Also unrealistic is taking too seriously much of what is posted to this thread. Lighten-up Vern, it is just an international watch forum, not the U.N. Security Council debating military intervention or famine relief.


So, what is your actual goal here then? Just to start/stir up debate? Behave like a drama queen and then complain and insist for people to lighten up?

"You've drank the Rolex kook-aid.... You're a sucker for liking/appreciating a brand" - Forum Name

Many of us (the civilized ones) aren't out to put anyone's choices down, or put into question their reasoning for affiliating themselves with any forum brand.

I don't quite see any other clear motives for your instigating, so am I missing something?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

The only price one should pay for a rolex is 15-20% off retail. Hell most ADs will give you 5-10% off on the spot.

Pay 15-20% off (with full AD warranty) and your watch will retain its value


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

ConfusedOne said:


> I don't know how I will feel about myself when this thread gets to 300 pages...


I think you would be an 'EvenMoreConfusedOne'

As I was and am:-s after it got to 30 pages.

Kind regards, 'ohononono-i-donnono' obomomomo.

LLOL :-d


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

I cant believe how simple this is yet many repeat the same notion that Rolex resale value is better. I am going to simplify this once more.

1- Rolex like all luxury items is not a realestate where one should generally expect its OLD STOCK to appreciate.

2- Rolex over the past couple of years nearly DOUBLED their prices without any significant improvements to justify such an exorbitant price hike.

3- The OLD STOCK jumped on the bandwagon creating the ILLUSION of a watch 'holding' its value for specific models.

4- The NEW STOCK at least has improvements the OLD doesnt.

5- The above created opportunities for ppl to profit which is fair game.

6- Its unlikey Rolex will dare to repeat that exorbitant price hike.

7- Its likely that Omega will introduce an exorbitant price hike over the next couple of years as they are generally well priced in terms of market prices and well underpriced in terms of Rolex absurd pricing.

8- Omega is the place to be when the above happens since the other puppy had its run.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Crate410 said:


> My co-worker told me Invicta is a better brand than both omega and rolex.
> 
> I think hes right.


Invicta has better calendar girls than Rolex or Omega. FTMFW.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

Vlance said:


> So, what is your actual goal here then? Just to start/stir up debate? Behave like a drama queen and then complain and insist for people to lighten up?
> 
> "You've drank the Rolex kook-aid.... You're a sucker for liking/appreciating a brand" - Forum Name
> 
> ...


Education and Entertainment. Nope and Nope. Non Sequitur.

Erroneous attribution.

Agreed and Agreed.

Agreed and Yes.

But please, tell me what you really think about Rolex vs Omega build quality, performance, prestige, and what motivates people to claim superiority for both.


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

maxixix said:


> I cant believe how simple this is yet many repeat the same notion that Rolex resale value is better. I am going to simplify this once more.
> 
> 1- Rolex like all luxury items is not a realestate where one should generally expect its OLD STOCK to appreciate.
> 
> ...


Your points are valid and rolex has hiked their prices incrementally so that you are in a situation where your 3 year old watch can be sold for a very small loss or if you bought it at 20% off the same price. Thats not an illusion.

But some models such as the previous model sub is highly desirable and today a new or almost new one sells for higher than a 2015 subc retail.

So agree with you but had to throw that in there.

Also agree that Omega will start to hike up prices. I see a speedmaster 600 in my future though hard to justify with this years purchase list... Next march.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

obomomomo said:


> I think you would be an even more confused one.
> 
> As I was and am after it got to 30 pages.


Just lie back and enjoy the mind altering experience just like that time you dropped acid in '69.:-d


----------



## the.watchdoc (Apr 23, 2015)

For a while, I was getting disappointed. Things seem to have become sort of a joyous, tongue-in-cheek affair, poking fun at each other's fanboyisms in good cheer. It was getting lighthearted, and people actually seemed happy!

Then folk got offended, and for lack of a better term, butthurt again.

Thank you for proving my faith in WUS and WISdom in general is well founded.

200 pages down, 300 here we come! Onwards and upwards!


----------



## BlingB (Dec 1, 2015)

I mentioned this in another post where people continue to compare Rolex to other brands and comment on market share, recognition etc...

Bottom line as others have already say, and I will echo, is that Rolex has done tremendous things with thier marketing strategy, so much so that Rolex is In my opinion the only recognizable brand that ties into prestige and success, as part of thier brilliant strategy, Rolex is viewed as a sign of success, or at least perceived. Based on this, any none watch enthusiast if asked what watch they relate to success, I would bet a bundle thier answer would be Rolex!! 

On the other hand, watch enthusiasts who understand the various other brands available, understand the complexity, variations of the movements, with in house mods etc, will appreciate the time pieces for their innovation and expertise when observed over a number of years. So that said, their are many brands, as good, and some, in fact quite a few that would far exceed the quality and workmanship of a Rolex. In the end, it's all personal preference and what puts a smile on our face)

To that end, I would say yes, Omega is just as good, or better then Rolex IMO!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

BlingB said:


> I mentioned this in another post where people continue to compare Rolex to other brands and comment on market share, recognition etc...
> 
> To that end, I would say yes, *Omega is just as good, or better then Rolex* IMO!!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thank BlingB for the end summary. Now we can close and lock the thread.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Nom de Forum said:


> That statement may make you the biggest hypocrite on WUS.
> 
> Ya right, that is "how it works on WUS" :roll:.
> 
> Members of "The True Faith of Rolex" would never start a debate. To do so would be admitting it could be possible to doubt "The True Faith of Rolex". Denial is not a river in Egypt, it is characteristic of Rabid Rolex-boys.


Says the guy who was making nonsensical statements about Rolex, got called out on it and then claimed it was deliberate and that he was just trying to educate these so-called Rolex fanboys. You just don't know when to stop digging that hole deeper, do you?

Your quixotic attempt at creating imaginary "Rolex fan boys" so that you can argue again them is an indication of your own insecurities and inadequacies. Normal people don't really care one way or the other if someone else is excessively attached to a watch. Even if there are people who are excessively fond of their Rolex, so what? How is it any skin of someone else's nose?

Personally, I'd rather be a fanboy than a bitter guttersnipe who can only talk trash about other people's preferences.



> BTW, I have owned 3 Rolexes, 2 Date Justs and 1 OysterQuartz. I must be immune to the effects of the Rolex Kool-Aid.


Oh yeah. That's the watch equivalent of "I am not racist, I have plenty of minority friends".

Let's see them - ideally, with your forum name and today's date.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Jefferson Overlin (Mar 4, 2013)

I am not gonna lie, this thread really makes me want to pick up a rolex lol... In terms of heritage, Rolex has a great diver history and they definitely guarded that aspect of their history well by not changing the sub and sea dweller lines excessively. Despite being an omega fan, it irks me how omega changes its lineups for seemingly no reason. I've posted quite a bit about how the planet ocean 2500 was omegas last modern classic watch, and I stand by that statement. Unless they change their brand identity back to that time, I doubt they will be a modern brand worn by anyone (non-WIS) over 40 years old.

If I don't go for a vintage Rolex next, think I actually really want a Tudor. If that counts as a Rolex brand, I think Tudor is my favorite thing about Rolex because it's a wing of the brand that can really experiment and follow trends. Since the vintage modern trend has come around, I am really looking hard at picking up a black bay black. I have a larger size 2500 PO and I think it would be nice to have a more subdued watch like that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

vkalia said:


> Personally, I'd rather be a fanboy than a bitter guttersnipe who can only talk trash about other people's preferences.


Hear, hear!


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Rolex might make good watches, but it's not a good brand. When one feels self-conscious about wearing a brand, it is not a good brand: 




Omega is "better" in that it's more under-the-radar.

Owning or not owning a watch makes no difference in terms of psychological perceptions. i.e. In the YouTube video above, that is a Rolex owner, but he still feels self-conscious about the brand or more specifically the model Submariner.


----------



## GregoryD (Jan 31, 2009)

maxixix said:


> 7- Its likely that Omega will introduce an exorbitant price hike over the next couple of years as they are generally well priced in terms of market prices and well underpriced in terms of Rolex absurd pricing.


Omega's prices have _already _increased exorbitantly. There's some reason for this - introduction of new movements and technology, but by and large the market's response has been to dump stock on the grey market where Omega's absurd msrps are slashed to bits.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

rdoder said:


> Rolex might make good watches, but it's not a good brand. When one feels self-conscious about wearing a brand, it is not a good brand.


I don't know if you are serious here or just fooling around. Post seems serious, so I am responding accordingly - apologies if I misunderstand.

If someone feels awkward wearing a particular style, design or brand, that doesn't mean the product or brand isn't good, it merely means that they are not the target segment.

If that brand image starts hurting the brand's sales, THEN it isn't a good brand.

Somehow, I don't think Rolex sales are affected too much by people who feel awkward wearing it. Do you disagree?


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

GregoryD said:


> Omega's prices have _already _increased exorbitantly. There's some reason for this - introduction of new movements and technology, but by and large the market's response has been to dump stock on the grey market where Omega's absurd msrps are slashed to bits.


I think Omega realizes that this is going to happen. Their plan is to slowly work on reducing this gap - by improving their brand's prestige on the 'pull' side and tighter controls on distribution on the 'push' side.

They are definitely trying to take on Rolex - and that is a long-term play. Will take them quite a few years to get there, brand wise (being serious for a second) but they are working on it.


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

A Seamaster 300M and a Submariner, both $6500, which would you buy? 

... oh wait

but the seamaster is a sub $2000 watch on jomashop 

you can argue your personal preferences all day and all night, in the end it's the selling price a watch commands on grey market that objectively determines the better watch as a whole. 


btw James Bond wears Rolex in Ian Flemming's book. Unlike Omega, Rolex didn't have to pay for the product placement. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

rdoder said:


> Rolex might make good watches, but it's not a good brand. When one feels self-conscious about wearing a brand, it is not a good brand:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well that's just one person's opinion and I'm sure others may agree. I'm also sure many others feel differently. I have zero issues wearing my Rolex Sub in any circumstances or occasions. I'm confident and more importantly, I simply don't care what others think. At the end of the day, it's just a watch, and while it may tell a little bit about me and what I like and dislike, the watch is not me. If you write me off as a Rolex-wearing dbag, BMW-driving ahole from one glance, then I probably wouldn't want to know you better anyways.

As a marketing professional, when your brand is synomous with a commonly used product, noun or verb, it's a pretty good brand. Examples - Google/search, Fitbit/fitness trackers, Xerox/copy and yes Rolex/watch. BTW, this is also why Omega will never catch up to Rolex in terms of mass brand recognition.

How certain people may feel self conscious about the brand is a different story but the negative perceptions can be applied to most other luxury watches, cars, items. It's the classic battle between the haves and have nots and some people who have may want to appear to have not for very legitimate reasons. Personally, I think life is too short to worry. As the cliche goes - you only live once.


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

mav said:


> At the end of the day, it's just a watch, and while it may tell a little bit about me and what I like and dislike, the watch is not me. If you write me off as a Rolex-wearing dbag, BMW-driving ahole from one glance, then I probably wouldn't want to know you better anyways.
> 
> this is also why Omega will never catch up to Rolex in terms of mass brand recognition.
> 
> .


Yikes we can hang out then. if you want I will pick you up in my BMW wearing my Rolex hope that is cool w you 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Badbebe said:


> you can argue your personal preferences all day and all night, in the end it's the selling price a watch commands on grey market that objectively determines the better watch as a whole.


As far as I'm concerned, the price is just the price.
More expensive doesn't make one better.
Converse, being cheaper doesn't make one better either.

The only relevance the price has on me is whether I can
- Afford it
- Justify spending the asking price for it

I don't think I've ever bought a watch, or anything else for that matter because I thought it was the bestest thing in the whole wide world. My only real non-financial criteria is that I like the look of the thing and that I find the thing interesting.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

mleok said:


> ...
> I have absolutely no issue with you bashing the brand, but it crosses the line to tar a broad swath of owners with the same brush. The problem I have with many posts is that they tend to put down others in an attempt to establish their own intellectual superiority.


Some people need to bolster their self-esteem _however_ they can.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

maxixix said:


> 2- Rolex over the past couple of years nearly DOUBLED their prices without any significant improvements to justify such an exorbitant price hike.
> 
> 6- Its unlikey Rolex will dare to repeat that exorbitant price hike.


2: They did because they could. No more justification is needed.

6: I'll take the over on that.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Jefferson Overlin said:


> ... Despite being an omega fan, it irks me how omega changes its lineups for seemingly no reason. I've posted quite a bit about how the planet ocean 2500 was omegas last modern classic watch, and I stand by that statement. *Unless they change their brand identity back to that time, I doubt they will be a modern brand worn by anyone (non-WIS) over 40 years old.*


I don't know that "over 40 year olds" are their target demographic. (If you had said 50 years old, I would definitely say it ain't their target.)

I'm sure Omega would be happy to sell watches to anyone who wants them but I think they would prefer a younger demographic since it establishes the potential for a longer-lived relationship with their customers (read: more repeat buyers) over the long term...


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

vkalia said:


> Says the guy who was making nonsensical statements about Rolex, got called out on it and then claimed it was deliberate and that he was just trying to educate these so-called Rolex fanboys. You just don't know when to stop digging that hole deeper, do you?
> 
> Your quixotic attempt at creating imaginary "Rolex fan boys" so that you can argue again them is an indication of your own insecurities and inadequacies. Normal people don't really care one way or the other if someone else is excessively attached to a watch. Even if there are people who are excessively fond of their Rolex, so what? How is it any skin of someone else's nose?
> 
> ...


Another classic example of a fanatically extreme defensive reaction mixing equal parts of hyperbole and falsehood. Just what I expect from you and your buddies.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

mav said:


> How certain people may feel self conscious about the brand is a different story but the negative perceptions can be applied to most other luxury watches, cars, items. It's the classic battle between the haves and have nots and some people who have may want to appear to have not for very legitimate reasons. Personally, I think *life is too short to worry*. As the cliche goes - you only live once.


Exactly right! People would be sooo much happier if they lived by that rule...

You think Larry Ellison gives a flip what you think of his "boat?"


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

Badbebe said:


> A Seamaster 300M and a Submariner, both $6500, which would you buy?
> 
> ... oh wait
> 
> ...


James Bond also carries a .25acp and then is upgraded to a .32acp in Ian Flemming's book. A clear indication that Flemming despite his wartime career was not an expert on what to equip a fictional secret agent. Flemming could have easily picked a Fifty Fathoms and Bond would have been just as well equipped. Perhaps if he had lived longer, Flemming would have realized he needed to upgrade Bond to an Omega.


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

GregoryD said:


> Omega's prices have _already _increased exorbitantly. There's some reason for this - introduction of new movements and technology, but by and large the market's response has been to dump stock on the grey market where Omega's absurd msrps are slashed to bits.


True but Rolexes prices are exorbitant also...you don't see it on the grey market because Rolex buys back unsold inventory.
You get burn if you buy an Omega at retail price and then try to sell it in a short period but you can buy with AD discount or even better at grey market prices on both cases is the supply chain margin that is being cut. Even if bought at grey prices you'll get a hit while trying to sell an Omega to a professional second hand dealer.
With Rolex you don't have all these options...you'll end up buying at or close to retail price but don't be candid to think that you are going to be able to sell a recent model to a second hand dealer at a minor loss. Even if you buy a second hand Rolex and then sell it to the same dealer a month later there will be a big hit.

The funny thing with Rolex in watch forums is that "everyone" appreciate the craftsmanship, the history, the watch itself, prefer under-the-radar Rolex....bhla...bhla...bhla...it's not because of the prestige...has nothing to do with the brand's image, perceived luxury watch...and so on....but then all conversations end up with Rolex being able to maintain it's "expensive watch" perception to the world better than other brands (in some cases in a delusional way). At least face it...the supposed ability that Rolex has in keeping the Expensive Watch image effects the watch buying criteria, I mean you buy an expensive watch without any kind of discount all you want is to show that you...well...bought an expensive watch...nothing wrong with that but please cut the BS


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Nom de Forum said:


> Another classic example of a fanatically extreme defensive reaction mixing equal parts of hyperbole and falsehood. Just what I expect from you and your buddies.


I see "defensive" is another word you don't understand.

I am not defending Rolex. I am saying that your posts are nonsensical. There is a distinction which I am sure will elude you as you come up with yet another post which plumbs the depth of bad logic.

To put an end to this assault on my brain, you can have the last word now.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

finally


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

BigSeikoFan said:


> I don't know that "over 40 year olds" are their target demographic. (If you had said 50 years old, I would definitely say it ain't their target.)
> 
> I'm sure Omega would be happy to sell watches to anyone who wants them but I think they would prefer a younger demographic since it establishes the potential for a longer-lived relationship with their customers (read: more repeat buyers) over the long term...


Could be, but they'd do well to improve their service side if they want to retain clients anywhere near as well as Big Green. Changing the look every season for fashion's sake hardly inspires long-term confidence among buyers, either. There's a reason that many of those who want to have the latest gee-whiz Omega in their impressionable-new-watch-guy phase tend to ditch it in favour of Rolex once they're more experienced with watches.

The best part is that the stronger their anti-Rolex opinion is at the start, the more likely they are to switch as they become more clued in. Such is the dark magic of the crown - beware.


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Exactly right! People would be sooo much happier if they lived by that rule...
> 
> You think Larry Ellison gives a flip what you think of his "boat?"
> 
> View attachment 8960018


The looooove booooaaaaat!!!!!

Soon will be maaaaking another ruuuunnnn!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Token19 (May 20, 2016)

Badbebe said:


> A Seamaster 300M and a Submariner, both $6500, which would you buy?
> 
> ... oh wait
> 
> ...


Not picking a side here but the "people pay more for this so it must be better" argument is an awful argument in the luxury market, where brand name contributes so much to perceived value. Just because a watch costs more, does not mean that it is a "better" watch, especially since better is such a subjective thing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

hydrocarbon said:


> The best part is that the stronger their anti-Rolex opinion is at the start, the more likely they are to switch as they become more clued in. Such is the dark magic of the crown - beware.


Converts are always the most fervent believers.


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Converts are always the most fervent believers.


In all seriousness, spot-on.

The thing about nice wristwatches is that they're emotional purchases. Like all luxury items, you're essentially buying a feeling. It's a fine line between love and hate, and no other watchmaker elicits quite the same level of feeling as Rolex.

Plus they have the substance to back it up.


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

Token19 said:


> Not picking a side here but the "people pay more for this so it must be better" argument is an awful argument in the luxury market, where brand name contributes so much to perceived value. Just because a watch costs more, does not mean that it is a "better" watch, especially since better is such a subjective thing.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well, is brand name not part of the "good" watch equation? I mean, surely that logo on the dials means nothing to everyone and we're all about the look and functionality.

back to the original question,

Will Omega Ever be as good as Rolex???

- to omega fanboys, .... yeh, omega is the best it has coaxial and James Bond agreed to wear it for a fee.
- to rolex fanboys... hmmmmm not convinced by the argument above.
-to everyone else, "$6500 for a seamaster are you kidding, I can get a rolex for that moneay" hence no at least not yet and voted with their wallet.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

Badbebe said:


> -to everyone else, "$6500 for a seamaster are you kidding, I can get a rolex for that moneay" hence no at least not yet and voted with their wallet.


That is the end all of it. Omega is in reality in the eyes of the vast majority of people on earth not worth that money while rolex is.

This exact issue just came up 3 days ago when my brother and I were in an Omega AD.

"8 grand for this? Ill just go buy another rolex"

The guy tried to explain more about the master cothis and that and this was titanium and...

Its lost on deaf ears because no matter what anyone says omega is a corvette and rolex is the z06.

We watch aficionados can argue and debate. We are less than 10% of both brands buyers. It doesnt matter what we think. The world says rolex is better than PP. thats reality. Thats it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

Crate410 said:


> Badbebe said:
> 
> 
> > -to everyone else, "$6500 for a seamaster are you kidding, I can get a rolex for that moneay" hence no at least not yet and voted with their wallet.
> ...


The world? ... PP? LOL

A simple poll on watchuseek cant be won by Rolex let alone bringing PP into the picture.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

maxixix said:


> The world? ... PP? LOL
> 
> A simple poll on watchuseek cant be won by Rolex let alone bringing PP into the picture.


A poll on WUS is hardly representative of the perception of the general public, which I believe was the point he was trying to make.


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

mleok said:


> A poll on WUS is hardly representative of the perception of the general public, which I believe was the point he was trying to make.


Thank you. Exactly.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Token19 (May 20, 2016)

Badbebe said:


> Well, is brand name not part of the "good" watch equation? I mean, surely that logo on the dials means nothing to everyone and we're all about the look and functionality.
> 
> back to the original question,
> 
> ...


Brand perception is a combination of two things:
1. Whether the product is any good
2. Marketing and cultivating a certain perception

You can't just say ok this company has a more famous brand and is pricier therefore is better. Your average person on the street would pay more for a Michael Kors watch than for a seiko watch, does that mean that Michael Kors is better than Seiko?

The thing about Rolex is that they do both; they make good products and they have superb marketing.

However you can't just say oh Rolex costs more to buy so the market has spoken and therefore it's better. Plenty of people elect to buy more expensive designer stuff that isn't actually a great product (Prada shoes vs John lobb shoes, Armani suits vs Canali suits). Some people buy luxury goods without caring about quality products because they want to show off their wealth. Product cost is not a good indicator of product quality.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

Token19 said:


> Brand perception is a combination of two things:
> 1. Whether the product is any good
> 2. Marketing and cultivating a certain perception
> 
> ...


IMO A good watch needs more than good quality, the weight also include the brand's story etc and all marketing behind it. If Steinhart makes a homage seamaster and clones everything including movement, is it just as good as an Omega Seamster? We're comparing luxury watches here, not commodity. Having the same tangible attribute is not enough. The logo on the dial, the goodwill/intangible can't be left out when comparing luxury watches.

When you take account for all aspects of a watch (not just the attributes of one's choice that helps their argument) the price people are willing to pay assigns a $ value to the intangibles, the stuff you can't objectively measure, hence it's a very good indication which product is better.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Badbebe said:


> IMO A good watch needs more than good quality, the weight also include the brand's story etc and all marketing behind it. If Steinhart makes a homage seamaster and clones everything including movement, is it just as good as an Omega Seamster? We're comparing luxury watches here, not commodity. Having the same tangible attribute is not enough. *The logo on the dial, the goodwill/intangible can't be left out when comparing which luxury watch is better.
> *
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Fair enough. But only if you define it as such. I don't so this doesn't matter much to me. Yeah, yeah I know, subjective/personal/etc/etc and so forth. Such is the world of watches and pretty much anything else in it . . .


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

mleok said:


> A poll on WUS is hardly representative of the perception of the general public, which I believe was the point he was trying to make.


Yup. WUS is known for having a high percentage of Omega fans (the Omega sub-forum gets 4x the traffic as the Rolex & Tudor sub-forum). I doubt WUS is even representative of all watch enthusiasts.


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

cedargrove said:


> Yup. WUS is known for having a high percentage of Omega fans (the Omega sub-forum gets 4x the traffic as the Rolex & Tudor sub-forum). I doubt WUS is even representative of all watch enthusiasts.


Again that wasnt the point. Watch enthusiasts are not the target of watch makers. The masses of non watch enthusiasts with deep pockets are.

9 out of ten of the 7 billion ppl on earth will say and believe that Rolex is the greatest watch maker to ever exist.

You all want to over analyze and nitpick and live in the matrix go ahead. Here in reality Rolex is king and oddly enough its logo is... A crown.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Crate410 said:


> Again that wasnt the point. Watch enthusiasts are not the target of watch makers. The masses of non watch enthusiasts with deep pockets are.
> 
> 9 out of ten of the 7 billion ppl on earth will say and believe that Rolex is the greatest watch maker to ever exist.
> 
> You all want to over analyze and nitpick and live in the matrix go ahead. Here in reality Rolex is king and oddly enough its logo is... A crown.


Cedargrove isn't disagreeing with you, but he's making a different point about how representative a poll on WUS about Omega vs. Rolex is with regards to the opinions of watch enthusiasts.


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

cedargrove said:


> Yup. WUS is known for having a high percentage of Omega fans (the Omega sub-forum gets 4x the traffic as the Rolex & Tudor sub-forum). I doubt WUS is even representative of all watch enthusiasts.


Yes, so true....Rolex is that exciting...WUS it's a watch forum not a best graduation, wedding, honeymoon, best to impress girls luxury product forum so the true Rolex watch enthusiasts/knowledge persons are just a handful. Although F23 has been busy lately due to Tudor...but everything it's like yhee Tudor it's not Rolex but in the end it's a Rolex... but it's not...it has it's own identity...but in the end it's a Rolex...but it's not...but then it's better because it's a Rolex without the price...will Tudor appreciate? Will the ETA models prices skyrocket? And the bezel colors? What bezel color will making me win the lottery in 30 years, residuals? Tell me about the residual value? I want to make sure that my luxury watch is seen as a luxury watch....

I'm telling you there's nothing better for work stress than read the f23 Tudor related posts


----------



## VicLeChic (Jul 24, 2013)

I love both brands. My first "serious" watch was a Planet Ocean 2500, it's 11 yrs old now. It's so well made, dependable and accurate. My latest serious watch is a Rolex YM plat., one year old. Exceptionally well made, also dependable and accurate.

If I had to consolidate my 12 watches collection to 2 pieces, these two would be the last ones standing. I'm emotionally more attached to the PO because we've spent more time together. However, wearing the YM makes me feel more special. This feeling might partially due to the price difference so it's probably not a fair comparison. Wearing a Grey Side of the Moon would make me feel more special than an Oyster Perpetual.

Will Omega be as good as Rolex? Yes, I think so, in fact they've already closed the gap in terms of quality and technical know how. Omega has indeed caught up in the last 10 years : in-house movement, more accurate than COSC (METAS), forge their own precious metal, high resistance to magnetism to name a few achievements. I believe they're on the same level in absolute terms. If we bring money into the equation, Omega is less expensive and that makes it a better watch for the money. 

All Omega need to do is make people realise they're as good. They should continue to build their image up to Rolex's level in the eyes of the general public.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

mleok said:


> maxixix said:
> 
> 
> > The world? ... PP? LOL
> ...


Thank you captain obvious.

I believe the point he was making is that Rolex is the best in the world because..... oh yes he likes it.

Now let me get back to the poll where over 130 "watch aficionados" had voted.


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

VicLeChic said:


> All Omega need to do is make people realise they're as good. They should continue to build their image up to Rolex's level in the eyes of the general public.


That is probably the hardest thing to achieve though. As many have said Rolex's aura is nirvana high and will take years if ever to reach. I enjoy both brands and could deal w a blnr in 42mm but then again I am drawn a lot to the ceramic dark side of the moon.
If money was no issue I would buy one of each and call it a day

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

maxixix said:


> Thank you captain obvious.


Was this really necessary? What exactly are you trying to prove?


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Am I am on crack or did somebody actually compare Rolex to Patek? Rolex and Omega in the same sentence yes, but Patek? No way. In fact there are many other brands in between Rolex and Patek. 

Guys Rolex is a great brand but just because rap stars and gangsters think it's fly doesn't make it the greatest watch in the world. Everybody here knows it's not even close to that. Not even remotely close to that. I guess Nike makes the best shoes in the world too. Rolex is the Nike of the watch industry. 

Now in my opinion, with the exception of a few models, Rolex blows Omega away. In fact it's probably not even fair to Omega it to compare it to Rolex. Perhaps we should be comparing it to Tudor instead. That seems more reasonable.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

patton250 said:


> Am I am on crack or did somebody actually compare Rolex to Patek? Rolex and Omega in the same sentence yes, but Patek? No way. In fact there are many other brands in between Rolex and Patek.
> 
> Guys Rolex is a great brand but just because rap stars and gangsters think it's fly doesn't make it the greatest watch in the world. Everybody here knows it's not even close to that. Not even remotely close to that. I guess Nike makes the best shoes in the world too. Rolex is the Nike of the watch industry.
> 
> Now in my opinion, with the exception of a few models, Rolex blows Omega away. In fact it's probably not even fair to Omega it to compare it to Rolex. Perhaps we should be comparing it to Tudor instead. That seems more reasonable.


To me, it's an Omega, Tudor battle as well, but the Rolex vs PP argument was in reference to a global perception. Ie. Most people would assume Rolex made the best watches in the world cause they don't know any better.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Vlance said:


> To me, it's an Omega, Tudor battle as well, but the Rolex vs PP argument was in reference to a global perception. Ie. Most people would assume Rolex made the best watches in the world cause they don't know any better.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


 Oh good. Thanks!!! I thought I might have misunderstood.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

hydrocarbon said:


> > Could be, but they'd do well to improve their service side if they want to retain clients anywhere near as well as Big Green. Changing the look every season for fashion's sake hardly inspires long-term confidence among buyers, either. There's a reason that many of those who want to have the latest gee-whiz Omega in their impressionable-new-watch-guy phase tend to ditch it in favour of Rolex once they're more experienced with watches.
> >
> > The best part is that the stronger their anti-Rolex opinion is at the start, _*the more likely they are to switch as they become more clued in*_. Such is the dark magic of the crown - beware.
> 
> ...


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Nom de Forum said:


> hydrocarbon said:
> 
> 
> > I agree Omega needs to slow down on chasing/creating the newest fashion. Think about this: A watch by its very nature should inspire confidence that it is very stable at presenting the correct time and lack of stability in design probably has a subtle effect in reducing confidence in a watchmaker. How much reduction probably greatly varies.
> ...


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Converts are always the most fervent believers.


They also are often the believers in "The True Faith" who are most willing to resort to the most savage of tactics to destroy those who not only don't believe but those they judge as not believing enough. I like Rolexes styling better than Omega and many other brands, I appreciate the qualities Rolex's have, but I do not deceive myself into believing they are more that what they are.


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

Crate410 said:


> My co-worker told me Invicta is a better brand than both omega and rolex.
> 
> I think hes right.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


he is wrong. Steinhart. We are not willing to go that low. LOL.


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

I know one guy who is into watches and has the money to buy a rolex without much thought. He bought a PO because he had seen one on........James bond. He had actually seen it in the movie and knew what it looked like. So that's what he bought. His next acquisition was an aquaracer because he knew tag heur. So the PO was 8 grand (list) and the Tag was about 6 and half grand (list) most people cannot just drop that sort of money unplanned. He hasn't bought a rolex and he isn't going to. I also have a family member who is in a similar financial position and he bought a seamaster also. We are doing anecdotes right?

You will find that the people who can drop 10k on a watch either have a lot of debt. Or they have an above average income. Or both. This isn't most people. Not even most WUS members. Most people think 10k is a lot of money that can be better spent elsewhere. Whether we are talking about dropping that on an omega or a rolex is irrelevant it's the relative scale we are talking about. This makes these watch brands completely inaccessible to the majority which is what makes them a luxury item. 

Only on a forum like WUS could this type of argument take place. My answer is who cares? If I drop that sort of money on a watch it won't be on either of these brands. I would rather get something german.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

eblackmo said:


> I know one guy who is into watches and has the money to buy a rolex without much thought. He bought a PO because he had seen one on........James bond. He had actually seen it in the movie and knew what it looked like. So that's what he bought. His next acquisition was an aquaracer because he knew tag heur. So the PO was 8 grand (list) and the Tag was about 6 and half grand (list) most people cannot just drop that sort of money unplanned. He hasn't bought a rolex and he isn't going to. I also have a family member who is in a similar financial position and he bought a seamaster also. We are doing anecdotes right?
> 
> You will find that the people who can drop 10k on a watch either have a lot of debt. Or they have an above average income. Or both. This isn't most people. Not even most WUS members. Most people think 10k is a lot of money that can be better spent elsewhere. Whether we are talking about dropping that on an omega or a rolex is irrelevant it's the relative scale we are talking about. This makes these watch brands completely inaccessible to the majority which is what makes them a luxury item.
> 
> Only on a forum like WUS could this type of argument take place. My answer is who cares? If I drop that sort of money on a watch it won't be on either of these brands. I would rather get something german.


So, because you're interested in German watches, the rest of us shouldn't care about debating others? 
Do you also commonly go to bowling alleys and complain they should be playing baseball?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

rdoder said:


> Rolex might make good watches, but it's not a good brand. When one feels self-conscious about wearing a brand, it is not a good brand:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Every single time I try to watch the video, I'm feeling sleepy. Probably because of the brand.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

jmanlay said:


> That is probably the hardest thing to achieve though. As many have said Rolex's aura is nirvana high and will take years if ever to reach. I enjoy both brands and could deal w a blnr in 42mm but then again I am drawn a lot to the ceramic dark side of the moon.
> If money was no issue I would buy one of each and call it a day


I don't know if it will take that many years at the current pace which is, pick your metaphor: a snowball rapidly enlarging into an avalanche as it rolls down the mountain to crush Rolexville or an atomic pile rapidly moving toward critical mass that will vaporize the perception of Rolex superiority.



patton250 said:


> > Am I am on crack or did somebody actually compare Rolex to Patek? Rolex and Omega in the same sentence yes, but Patek? No way. In fact there are many other brands in between Rolex and Patek.
> 
> 
> That was far beyond the ability of any WIS to suspend belief in reality that it was ROTFLMAO funny at first glance but I understand he meant the non-WIS population.
> ...


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

patton250 said:


> *Nike makes the best shoes in the world* too. rolex is the Nike of the watch industry.


*yes it is true*

no it is not true
Nike is more like Omega.
Nike is evolving on how to make shoes. In companies maxim, "we are on the offence, always", Nike make innovation as day-to-day focus. Nike revolutionise cushion with airbag, lightweight upper with no sew then FUSE. Light instep support in term of flywire then magwire. Like Omega, Nike always improve. rolex doesn't. 
George Daniels invent Co-axial on 74 and patented it on 80. Omega bought the right to use on 80 and bought the patent on 93. Omega release first Co-Axial on 99 (caliber 2500 (co-axial on ETA modified watch)). Release in-house movement on 07 (caliber 8500 (co-axial as the base and the movement design around it)). That is an improvement. Compare to the traditional lever escapement. The traditional joker hat fans thought it overhyped. They always have premise that when something is working, don't ever change it.
It's about preference. Do you support traditional watch (rolex) or innovative and out-of-their-comfort zone watch (Omega).

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

Vlance said:


> So, because you're interested in German watches, the rest of us shouldn't care about debating others?
> *Do you also commonly go to bowling alleys and complain they should be playing baseball? *
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Yes. Even though I don't know what baseball is. Cricket on the other hand....... 

It's kind of amusing that most people will never own either of these watch brands. Because the entry point is well beyond their means or they are just trolling. Yet here we are.

Also I would just like to point out that my anecdotes about omega and tag being better than rolex. From some people's point of view are just as valid as anyone else's. At least as far as I am concerned.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

ShanDaMan said:


> *yes it is true*
> 
> no it is not true
> Nike is more like Omega.
> ...


 I'm all about in-house movements. Neither of my Omega's has one. All of my Rolexes do. Even my tutor does.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

Vlance said:


> Nom de Forum said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry to other members for repeatedly posting this, but it's just such a bang on article from what I've witnessed over the years.
> ...


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Nom de Forum said:


> Great analogy. People who know shoes now Nike is mediocre. Look at what is becoming popular with Ultra Marathon runners: Hoka One One.


Ultra marathon is a very niche market. Thus, there are still many long distance runners that choose Nike Pegasus, Nike zoom streak, Nike prototype racing flat, etc.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## billyp7718 (Nov 7, 2011)

VicLeChic said:


> I love both brands. My first "serious" watch was a Planet Ocean 2500, it's 11 yrs old now. It's so well made, dependable and accurate. My latest serious watch is a Rolex YM plat., one year old. Exceptionally well made, also dependable and accurate.
> 
> If I had to consolidate my 12 watches collection to 2 pieces, these two would be the last ones standing. I'm emotionally more attached to the PO because we've spent more time together. However, wearing the YM makes me feel more special. This feeling might partially due to the price difference so it's probably not a fair comparison. Wearing a Grey Side of the Moon would make me feel more special than an Oyster Perpetual.
> 
> ...


Tru. A good car analogy here would be the Nissan GTR (Omega) vs Porsche 911 (Rolex). Nissan made a car that outperforms in almost every way a 911 at a similar cost. In the end, you are justifying to your friends why you didn't buy the Porsche and spent $120k for a Nissan (if that matters to you)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

patton250 said:


> I'm all about in-house movements. Neither of my Omega's has one. All of my Rolexes do. Even my tutor does.


Well, you should buy the 8500. It's a beauty to watch her in action. Listening her vibrating and hearing the "ting" sound instead of "tick". 8500 is fully in house BTW.
The "ting" before the "tick".





Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Nom de Forum said:


> Vlance said:
> 
> 
> > I'll buy a tier 1 or tier 2 watch rather than another tier 3 Rolex.
> ...


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

ShanDaMan said:


> Ultra marathon is a very niche market. Thus, there are still many long distance runners that choose Nike Pegasus, Nike zoom streak, Nike prototype racing flat, etc.


Start wearing Hoka's and you will rapidly realize not only do they do a better job preventing injury, they handle more use and abuse before failing. You don't have to be a Ultra Marathoner to discover this. Most people buying them are not running distances more than 10K, and Half and Full Marathons. They are buying them for performance anyone can benefit from. The most common complaint from people who will not buy them, much like many Rolex buyers, is they don't have the right look or brand recognition.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

mleok said:


> A poll on WUS is hardly representative of the perception of the general public, which I believe was the point he was trying to make.


To be fair, until the government adds Rolex vs Omega on the year end census polls, this poll is the best we got if you don't include sales data.

But if you do include sales data, Citizen and Seiko win. Or the swatch group if you count them as one entity.

So here is something that will rile some people up. Omega wins the watch nerd poll and Seiko, including GS, win the sales data. Rolex wins nothing! Discuss!

That's my contribution to keep this thread going.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

> Vlance said:
> 
> 
> > Nom de Forum said:
> ...


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> To be fair, until the government adds Rolex vs Omega on the year end census polls, this poll is the best we got if you don't include sales data.
> 
> But if you do include sales data, Citizen and Seiko win. Or the swatch group if you count them as one entity.
> 
> ...


Contribution? That's a generous term considering the content of your posts...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Nom de Forum said:


> Start wearing Hoka's and you will rapidly realize not only do they do a better job preventing injury, they handle more use and abuse before failing. You don't have to be a Ultra Marathoner to discover this. Most people buying them are not running distances more than 10K, and Half and Full Marathons. They are buying them for performance anyone can benefit from. The most common complaint from people who will not buy them, much like many Rolex buyers, is they don't have the right look or brand recognition.


Hoka uses maximum cushion especially on the heel support which is soften the heel strike. Different company use different focus. Nike use lightweight materials and firm support. Hoka made the ground feel almost to nothing. I'm not a runner. I play basketball. Running is to keep me shaped.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Correction. This is the true king of sales unfortunately.....

Apple Watch Sales Vs. Rolex: Apple Watch tops all Rolex sales by $1.5B | BGR

Damn you Isheep. Ruining the entire market one "bbbaaa" at a time.

Microsoft had to save them from bankruptcy and created this monster.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Vlance said:


> Contribution? That's a generous term considering the content of your posts...
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


My content is much better than Rolex fan boy content.... Lol


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

ShanDaMan said:


> Hoka uses maximum cushion especially on the heel support which is soften the heel strike. Different company use different focus. Nike use lightweight materials and firm support. Hoka made the ground feel almost to nothing. I'm not a runner. I play basketball. Running is to keep me shaped.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Technically, to run efficiently and pain free, the impact should be geared towards the ball of your foot. Heel impact only creates more stress on the joints.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> My content is much better than Rolex fan boy content.... Lol


You've got your big boy troll pants pulled up nice and high today.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

2178 posts later, the answer is still no


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Vlance said:


> Technically, to run efficiently and pain free, the impact should be geared towards the ball of your foot. Heel impact only creates more stress on the joints.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


True. When the heel contact the ground, weight distributed from tibia and fibula to calcaneous bones and it also absorb by heel muscle an skin. Heel cushion add more material between skin and ground. But heel strike should be very short. Talus bones then slide and distribute the weight to midfoot. Then depending on whether you are pronator or supinator (how you foot roll) to start your next propulsion.
Mostly, in long distance running, movement form has gone.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

ShanDaMan said:


> Hoka uses maximum cushion especially on the heel support which is soften the heel strike. Different company use different focus. Nike use lightweight materials and firm support. Hoka made the ground feel almost to nothing. I'm not a runner. I play basketball. Running is to keep me shaped.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk





Vlance said:


> Technically, to run efficiently and pain free, the impact should be geared towards the ball of your foot. Heel impact only creates more stress on the joints.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk





ShanDaMan said:


> True. When the heel contact the ground, weight distributed from tibia and fibula to calcaneous bones and it also absorb by heel muscle an skin. Heel cushion add more material between skin and ground. But heel strike should be very short. Talus bones then slide and distribute the weight to midfoot. Then depending on whether you are pronator or supinator (how you foot roll) to start your next propulsion.
> Mostly, in long distance running, movement form has gone.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Very good guys. I'm impressed. Hoka makes a variety of configurations and they specifically make shoes for a "natural" running style of ball of the foot/mid-foot first strike. It takes getting used to after a lifetime of running the "unnatural" way but it really changes what is happening to your body in a good way. If you think about why humans have run for most of our species existence, running down game, non-heal strike running makes perfect sense to prevent injury and increase endurance.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

Nom de Forum said:


> ShanDaMan said:
> 
> 
> > Hoka uses maximum cushion especially on the heel support which is soften the heel strike. Different company use different focus. Nike use lightweight materials and firm support. Hoka made the ground feel almost to nothing. I'm not a runner. I play basketball. Running is to keep me shaped.
> ...


I tested my my hoka today and I have to say its very very comfortable.


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Correction. This is the true king of sales unfortunately.....
> 
> Apple Watch Sales Vs. Rolex: Apple Watch tops all Rolex sales by $1.5B | BGR
> 
> ...


 Now, now, we are discussing prestigious watches here that mere plebes can only dream of owning. Is the apple watch actually a watch? Or is it a small computer? This is clearly not as big an issue as the one being discussed in this thread but still. It's a bit of a mystery.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

ShanDaMan said:


> 8500 is fully in house BTW.


8500 is made in an annexe of the ETA building BTW


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

drunken monkey said:


> 8500 is made in an annexe of the ETA building BTW


8500 was designed 100% by Omega, with help and assistant of Comadur, Nivarox, ETA and Frederick Piguet - all within the Swatch Group, which is unique to Omega and will be used exclusively for Omega, is manufactured at ETA but assembled by Omega. That's pretty much "in house" for me. Or to make you happy, "in group" effort

As a holding company, Swatch Group, if they already have an established machinery facility, why in the world they need to invest in new facility? They will open one just to silenced the "non in-house" noisy critics.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

ShanDaMan said:


> 8500 was designed 100% by Omega, with help and assistant of Comadur, Nivarox, ETA and Frederick Piguet - all within the Swatch Group, which is unique to Omega and will be used exclusively for Omega, is manufactured at ETA but assembled by Omega. That's pretty much "in house" for me. Or to make you happy, "in group" effort
> 
> As a holding company, Swatch Group, if they already have an established machinery facility, why in the world they need to invest in new facility? They will open one just to silenced the "non in-house" noisy critics.


No need to get so defensive.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Nom de Forum said:


> Start wearing Hoka's and you will rapidly realize not only do they do a better job preventing injury, they handle more use and abuse before failing. You don't have to be a Ultra Marathoner to discover this. Most people buying them are not running distances more than 10K, and Half and Full Marathons. They are buying them for performance anyone can benefit from. The most common complaint from people who will not buy them, much like many Rolex buyers, is they don't have the right look or brand recognition.


Yeah and lots of people bought those absurd Vibram Five Fingers based on hokey claims that didn't stand up in court. So?

I've actually done consulting work for Nike. Whether or not you like their shoes or think they are overpriced, they actually do massive amounts of R&D re gait analysis, stresses on the runner, etc when making shoes, unlike most of the smaller fad-chasers.

It isn't surprising that they were among the first (and only one of the majors) to release low-drop running shoes once good-form running science started emphasising midfoot striking. And they didn't devolve into the pure faddish BS of Vibram, Vivos and other Tarahumara wannabes - the Free Run series are really good running shoes.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

ShanDaMan said:


> . That's pretty much "in house" for me. Or to make you happy, "in group" effort


 Not to me. Not even close.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

patton250 said:


> Not to me. Not even close.


Already predicted that you and probably the other rolex fans would said that .
Regardless, aside from the general public perception, I still consider my Omegas is the better watch.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Guess it comes down to which brand gives you a better high. Different addicts get high on a different brand/watch/design/story/etc.

Rolex gets you high in so many ways. The watch is beautiful, you get high on spending so much on it (self-indulgence), and some might feel good with the prestige.

Omega, like other "inferior" brands, get you high too, but you need to put a bit of work/imagination/effort into it. The watch is beautiful (though not as universally acclaimed, e.g. there's hockey puck complaint about thickness of certain model), you get high on spending so much on it (self-indulgence), but there's not as much prestige as Rolex. To compensate, one needs to appreciate other aspects.

Rolex comes together as a whole package that gets you high. Omega and other brands get you high too, but instead of paying more in money, you need to pay more in mental effort to get you there.

As an instrument of self transformation, Omega works better, IMO.

If one day Rolex becomes second class to Omega and Omega gets higher recognition/higher MSRP/higher resale/higher prestige, then Rolex would become the better instrument for self transformation (aka 12-step program, addiction recovery).

Or one step beyond that is to forego the high altogether, but that would be inhuman and inhumane.

Rolex is crack? Omega is heroin? Tudor is weed? (I don't know drug rankings.) Other "inferior" brands are gateway drugs. I like to drink everyday everywhere I go, and occasionally smoke a bit of weed at home (metaphorically speaking). Seeing how others get high on crack and heroin, I'm tempted, but I'm not sure if I should.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

ShanDaMan said:


> Regardless, aside from the general public perception, I still consider my Omegas is the better watch.


But, that is to be expected from an Omega fanboy who actually buys a James Bond LE. Let's hear you explain in your own words how the co-axial escapement functions, and some of the other technical features of the Master Co-Axial movement, and how it makes for a better movement.

In all seriousness, the Aqua Terra 8500 is an excellent watch, and it is extremely versatile in their standard white, blue, and grey variants, but the James Bond LE is just a bit too goofy for my taste, but I'm glad you enjoy your watch.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

maxixix said:


> I tested my my hoka today and I have to say its very very comfortable.


OUCH!


----------



## Mirabello1 (Sep 1, 2011)

For the first year or so that Omega had out their completely antimagnetic movement, every time I went into a Rolex Ad they told me only Rolex had the most antimagnetic watches in the world and Omega was basically lying in not so many words.. I laughed at their ignorance every time...

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## milan87 (Jun 22, 2013)

The right answer is, no Omega will never be as popular as Rolex, it is however just as good of a watch if not better IMHO.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

vkalia said:


> Yeah and lots of people bought those absurd Vibram Five Fingers based on hokey claims that didn't stand up in court. So?
> 
> I've actually done consulting work for Nike. Whether or not you like their shoes or think they are overpriced, they actually do massive amounts of R&D re gait analysis, stresses on the runner, etc when making shoes, unlike most of the smaller fad-chasers.
> 
> It isn't surprising that they were among the first (and only one of the majors) to release low-drop running shoes once good-form running science started emphasising midfoot striking. And they didn't devolve into the pure faddish BS of Vibram, Vivos and other Tarahumara wannabes - the Free Run series are really good running shoes.


You obviously do not know what you are talking about in regard to Hoka One One. They are nothing like "those absurd Vibram Five Fingers based on hokey claims that didn't stand up in court". Google is your friend.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

mleok said:


> But, that is to be expected from an Omega fanboy who actually buys a James Bond LE. Let's hear you explain in your own words how the co-axial escapement functions, and some of the other technical features of the Master Co-Axial movement, and how it makes for a better movement.
> 
> In all seriousness, the Aqua Terra 8500 is an excellent watch, and it is extremely versatile in their standard white, blue, and grey variants, but the James Bond LE is just a bit too goofy for my taste, but I'm glad you enjoy your watch.


I gotta agree with you the James Bond LE is goofy.

To be fair, I hope you will admit that there are many devices that you know to be better than others that you could not explain in your own words the technical details. The World is now filled with devices too complex for any one person to have the ability to explain in there own words. However, there are many people who can comprehend what technical experts explain and have a valid opinion of what is a better technology. I can't explain the technical details of the engines that power the F-22 Raptor but that does not invalidate my opinion that they are technologically superior to those that power the F-4 Phantom.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

patton250 said:


> Not to me. Not even close.


What does it matter?
"in-house" is meaningless.


----------



## mav (Jan 25, 2008)

drunken monkey said:


> What does it matter?
> "in-house" is meaningless.


No truer words have ever been written on this forum. |>


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Nom de Forum said:


> I gotta agree with you the James Bond LE is goofy.
> 
> To be fair, I hope you will admit that there are many devices that you know to be better than others that you could not explain in your own words the technical details. The World is now filled with devices too complex for any one person to have the ability to explain in there own words. However, there are many people who can comprehend what technical experts explain and have a valid opinion of what is a better technology. I can't explain the technical details of the engines that power the F-22 Raptor but that does not invalidate my opinion that they are technologically superior to those that power the F-4 Phantom.


We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. I subscribe to the viewpoint espoused by Richard Feynman that you don't really understand something if you can't explain it. Otherwise, I can never be sure that I am convinced by virtue of the facts as opposed to the skill and prejudices of the person making the argument.

I think one can form holistic opinions about two watches after some time with them, but these opinions speak to the specific specimens that you have examined. In order to form an informed opinion about the underlying technology, one really requires much more in depth knowledge. And in order to make a blanket statement about the two models of watches, one should ideally have exposure to multiple specimens of the same model.

For example, I am willing to accept that Omega's current lineup of co-axial escapement based movements are extremely accurate in practice, but I remain unconvinced that this is due to the co-axial escapement as opposed to other features like their dual mainsprings and silicon hairsprings.

Short of comparisons between movements which are identical except for the escapement technology, it is difficult to isolate the specific benefits. Even if it was possible to make these kind of comparisons, fixing the design of the rest of the movement might result in a clear preference between two alternative escapements, but the same conclusion might not hold if one was allowed to modify the rest of the movement as well.

In any case, the watch industry is in a never ending game of leapfrog. Omega introduced the co-axial escapement based movements so as to address their competitive disadvantage at the time, which was in their use of modified generic movements, and Rolex worked on their bracelets and clasps because these were the things which detracted the most from the perceived quality of their watches. Right now, the situation has reverse, and Omega probably has the edge in terms of movements, but Rolex has the edge in terms of cases, bracelets and clasps.

So, now, Rolex is again focusing on their movements, because of the competition from Omega, and the 3255 caliber gives a glimpse of technological innovations that they have up their sleeve. But, since the typical customer (of either Rolex or Omega) doesn't actually understand any of these technical details, they have focused instead on tightening the accuracy standards and increasing the warranty period, in much the same way that Omega simply increased the warranty period of the co-axial based movements.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

mleok said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. I subscribe to the viewpoint of espoused by Richard Feynman that you don't really understand something if you can't explain it. Otherwise, I can never be sure that I am convinced by virtue of the facts as opposed to the skill and prejudices of the person making the argument.
> 
> I think one can form holistic opinions about two watches after some time with them, but these opinions speak to the specific specimens that you have examined. In order to form an informed opinion about the underlying technology, one really requires much more in depth knowledge. And in order to make a blanket statement about the two models of watches, one should ideally have exposure to multiple specimens of the same model.
> 
> ...


I am a big fan of Feynman and really miss his presence in the World. I will not disagree about not really understanding something if you can not explain it. However, I do not think you have to be able to explain in your own words all the technical details of a device to understand why it is superior to another device. If you compare the opinions of many experts you can usually determine what is wheat and what is chaff. No always, but usually. We all depend on this process for making many of the decisions of life.

So what's up with Rolex in improving their accuracy compared to Omega?


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

ShanDaMan said:


> Already predicted that you and probably the other rolex fans would said that .
> Regardless, aside from the general public perception, I still consider my Omegas is the better watch.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Im an AP and JLC fan. Good try though.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

drunken monkey said:


> "in-house" is meaningless.


 Not to me.

Watch what people are cynical about and one can often discover what they lack.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Nom de Forum said:


> I am a big fan of Feynman and really miss his presence in the World. I will not disagree about not really understanding something if you can not explain it. However, I do not think you have to be able to explain in your own words all the technical details of a device to understand why it is superior to another device.


I still think it's a good platonic ideal to strive for. Honestly, I would be happy if the people who parrot the line that the co-axial escapement is superior are able to articulate the idea that geometry of the escapement is designed so that the amount of sliding along the point of metal-to-metal contact is minimized.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Nom de Forum said:


> You obviously do not know what you are talking about in regard to Hoka One One. They are nothing like "those absurd Vibram Five Fingers based on hokey claims that didn't stand up in court". Google is your friend.


No idea about Hoka. Seen enough fads come and go that I couldn't be arsed - my Free 3.0s let me run pain free and simply refuse to wear down. Is good enough for me.

My point is that "they are popular" is no indication of quality.

The thing about Nike - no matter what your religious beliefs regarding running, they make a shoe for you. And it is going to be a pretty damn well-thought-out one.

Not liking their shoes and preferring something else is fine. I run only cos my coach forces me to on recovery days, so I couldn't give a toss about one brand or another. Just pointing out some objective facts.

Now SRAM vs Campagnolo or Zipp vs HED - let's talk.

(SRAM and HED, for the record. Campy is overpriced and Shimano ergonomics don't touch Double Tap).


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

mleok said:


> I still think it's a good platonic ideal to strive for. Honestly, I would be happy if the people who parrot the line that the co-axial escapement is superior are able to articulate the idea that geometry of the escapement is designed so that the amount of sliding along the point of metal-to-metal contact is minimized.


Agreed, that is not so technical that a layman would have difficulty remembering it after reading a explanation from an expert such as yourself. I don't understand all the technical details of my Spring Drive but I can tell you that it takes what you just said about the Co-axial drive to a whole new level of reduction of metal-to metal contact by eliminating a traditional escapement.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

mleok said:


> But, that is to be expected from an Omega fanboy who actually buys a James Bond LE. Let's hear you explain in your own words how the co-axial escapement functions, and some of the other technical features of the Master Co-Axial movement, and how it makes for a better movement.
> 
> In all seriousness, the Aqua Terra 8500 is an excellent watch, and it is extremely versatile in their standard white, blue, and grey variants, but the James Bond LE is just a bit too goofy for my taste, but I'm glad you enjoy your watch.


Truthfully, it doesn't really matter whether it is co-axial or a traditional lever. The engine supposed to make the watch moving. Same like cars, rotary engine or traditional in line V engine.
I went to various AD to weigh my option. I went to check Navitimer, IWC Aquatimer, Hublot Classic Fusion, PAM 112, rolex Submariner, rolex Explorer II black dial and Omega PO. After back and forth weighing my options, I narrow it down to PAM, rolex and Omega. Though emotional battle but finally I chose to kicked PAM (kinda feel the PAM fad is slowly fading) and explorer II (it is 42 mm but somehow it feels like very thin and small) out of the race.
Now it's just Omega vs rolex. Between those two, I'm more familiar with Omega. My dad is an Omega lover. Borrow his watch several times and I too already bought a used Omega. But the killer blow for the sub is she is soooo ordinary and boring. Black and white colour with steel back case. Tho, the AD provide me 8% discount and 24 0% installment. 
Now it's time for me to pay for the PO. This is the one that I wanna choose.







. Looking at her saphire tush, it's gorgeous. Seeing the balance wheel and the spring twerking, she captivate me. Just about to swipe the card, there she is. The only one left in Indonesia out of 30. The simple watch looks with reflective blue dial with a hint of yellow in outer rim number and the second hand. I think she is beautiful. True that the shield looks a tad goofy and a normal circle is enough. But I find it quite acceptable.








Flip her over and looking at her tush. The James Bond bullet rotor I find it cool and unique.







.
Then I put her close to my ears. Co-axial whispers to me very different compare to other watches. The "ting" before the "tick", is hypnotising me.
That is how I fell in love with her.
Her added features, the fully anti magnetic movement, shock resistance and the LE status, makes me drop the PO and took her home instead.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Oh by the way, I am not bashing Omega. I love the brand. I stop by their boutiques amd Im friends with many of the sales people all throughout the state of Florida. I am merely stating my opinion that Rolex will always be a level above Omega. Just like they are a level above many sub brands. Just like Patek, AP, VC and JLC are above Rolex. It's really no big deal and nobody should be offended by it. I'm thinking about buying a Hamilton because they are cool. That brand is below all the others I just mentioned. So what. It's still cool.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

patton250 said:


> Im an AP and JLC fan. Good try though.


Ditto with AP but the RO not the ROO. I'll get her someday. My target in the next 5 years.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

ShanDaMan said:


> Ditto with AP but the RO not the ROO. I'll get her someday. My target in the next 5 years.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


i have and love both. One is dressy and one is casual.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

ShanDaMan said:


> Truthfully, it doesn't really matter whether it is co-axial or a traditional lever. The engine supposed to make the watch moving. Same like cars, rotary engine or traditional in line V engine.
> I went to various AD to weigh my option. I went to check Navitimer, IWC Aquatimer, Hublot Classic Fusion, PAM 112, rolex Submariner, rolex Explorer II black dial and Omega PO. After back and forth weighing my options, I narrow it down to PAM, rolex and Omega. Though emotional battle but finally I chose to kicked PAM (kinda feel the PAM fad is slowly fading) and explorer II (it is 42 mm but somehow it feels like very thin and small) out of the race.
> Now it's just Omega vs rolex. Between those two, I'm more familiar with Omega. My dad is an Omega lover. Borrow his watch several times and I too already bought a used Omega. But the killer blow for the sub is she is soooo ordinary and boring. Black and white colour with steel back case. Tho, the AD provide me 8% discount and 24 0% installment.
> Now it's time for me to pay for the PO. This is the one that I wanna choose.
> ...


Thank you for sharing your decision process. I think that watch buying at its essence is a visceral process, even if we attempt to rationally justify our decisions after the fact.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

vkalia said:


> No idea about Hoka. Seen enough fads come and go that I couldn't be arsed - my Free 3.0s let me run pain free and simply refuse to wear down. Is good enough for me.
> 
> My point is that "they are popular" is no indication of quality.
> 
> ...


Free 3.0 only good for short distance mate. Try Lunarlon or Flyknit racer if you want to increase the distance.
With a true flex, even though it still has a shank support, sometimes it is not adequate.
Different people different pain tolerance tho. Me and most of my mate, get our mid foot muscle fatigue really easily after reaching 8 - 10 kilos.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Jefferson Overlin (Mar 4, 2013)

CAN WE PLEASE GET A STICKY FOR THIS THREAD?

In all seriousness, I find this thread to be really entertaining and a prime example of how certain points are debated on WUS. "In-house," "glorified Swatch," "coaxial," "heritage," "your grandfather's watch," "oversized hockeypuck," "resale value," and many other classic Rolex v. Omega terms have been incorporated. We've also seen/read the shenanigans where Rolex fans say "We don't argue points about Rolex watches because we have nothing to prove," and we've seen the Omega crowd say "Rolex is for snobs." We've discussed the truly ludicrous price drops that Omegas get when they hit the grey market, and we've seen the way pretty average (technically speaking) older Rolex subs are sold at prices almost as high as the most modern SubC with its fancy steel alloy and its parachrom (spelling?) hairspring. We've even gotten so far off topic as to discuss how Nike is either like Omega or Rolex, depending on how you view the brand--pretty interesting parallel in that brand perception part, no? 

All in all, this thread has been a huge success, no matter how victimized by trolling you might feel. We've really picked apart every aspect of Rolex and Omega, both their watches and their brand as a whole.

That being said, it appears Omega is better, as Omega is winning the poll.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

mleok said:


> Thank you for sharing your decision process. *I think that watch buying at its essence is a visceral process*, even if we attempt to rationally justify our decisions after the fact.


Thanks for asking  and I totally agree with you. She should "talk" to you.
For us, watches is a hobby, a mistress on your wrist and time keeper. The last part tho, is something that we don't really consider very much. Otherwise a mere Timex will be enough.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

mleok said:


> ... But, since the typical customer (of either Rolex or Omega) doesn't actually understand any of these technical details, they have focused instead on tightening the accuracy standards and increasing the warranty period, in much the same way that Omega simply increased the warranty period of the co-axial based movements.


I would say the typical customer doesn't _want_ to understand the details and has no interest in learning them.

Technical details are for WIS and even then I'm not so sure...


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

Jefferson Overlin said:


> CAN WE PLEASE GET A STICKY FOR THIS THREAD?
> 
> In all seriousness, I find this thread to be really entertaining and a prime example of how certain points are debated on WUS. "In-house," "glorified Swatch," "coaxial," "heritage," "your grandfather's watch," "oversized hockeypuck," "resale value," and many other classic Rolex v. Omega terms have been incorporated. We've also seen/read the shenanigans where Rolex fans say "We don't argue points about Rolex watches because we have nothing to prove," and we've seen the Omega crowd say "Rolex is for snobs." We've discussed the truly ludicrous price drops that Omegas get when they hit the grey market, and we've seen the way pretty average (technically speaking) older Rolex subs are sold at prices almost as high as the most modern SubC with its fancy steel alloy and its parachrom (spelling?) hairspring. We've even gotten so far off topic as to discuss how Nike is either like Omega or Rolex, depending on how you view the brand--pretty interesting parallel in that brand perception part, no?
> 
> ...


A majority in opinion is never a guarantee of the accuracy of an opinion. Especially in such an unscientific poll. Even the most scientific of polls sometimes are completely wrong.


----------



## UK humbug (Feb 19, 2016)

Nom de Forum said:


> A majority in opinion is never a guarantee of the accuracy of an opinion. Especially in such an unscientific poll. Even the most scientific of polls sometimes are completely wrong.


Brexit, anybody ?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Jefferson Overlin said:


> CAN WE PLEASE GET A STICKY FOR THIS THREAD?
> 
> In all seriousness, I find this thread to be really entertaining and a prime example of how certain points are debated on WUS. "In-house," "glorified Swatch," "coaxial," "heritage," "your grandfather's watch," "oversized hockeypuck," "resale value," and many other classic Rolex v. Omega terms have been incorporated. We've also seen/read the shenanigans where Rolex fans say "We don't argue points about Rolex watches because we have nothing to prove," and we've seen the Omega crowd say "Rolex is for snobs." We've discussed the truly ludicrous price drops that Omegas get when they hit the grey market, and we've seen the way pretty average (technically speaking) older Rolex subs are sold at prices almost as high as the most modern SubC with its fancy steel alloy and its parachrom (spelling?) hairspring. We've even gotten so far off topic as to discuss how Nike is either like Omega or Rolex, depending on how you view the brand--pretty interesting parallel in that brand perception part, no?
> 
> ...


And the vitriol has been sliding down hill, wonder of wonders, maybe everybody's getting tired (or the mods are sending out a ton of pm's) but whatever works . . .


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

drhr said:


> And the vitriol has been sliding down hill, wonder of wonders, maybe everybody's getting tired (or the mods are sending out a ton of pm's) but whatever works . . .


Personally, I suspect the Mods are too busy ROTFLTAO about this thread to be bothered with PMs.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Nom de Forum said:


> A majority in opinion is never a guarantee of the accuracy of an opinion. Especially in such an unscientific poll. Even the most scientific of polls sometimes are completely wrong.


Nom, aren't you vote for Omega?

It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning's winning.
- Dom Toretto -

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

ShanDaMan said:


> Free 3.0 only good for short distance mate. Try Lunarlon or Flyknit racer if you want to increase the distance.


Most of my runs are 5-10k. During base, I will do some 15-20k runs (which bore me to tears, honestly), but that's about it. But the Frees work really well for me - previously, I always used to get knee pain if i ran a lot. Another shoe I like are the Kinvaras, although i find them a little less comfy.

I do have (fast) runner friends that do 3:00 marathons and 18' 5ks and they cover a broad range of shoes - Asics, Adidas, Nike, etc.

I buy someone preferring brand X of shoe* over brand Y. I don't buy Brand X is better than Brand Y.

*Replace shoe with watch and that still holds. Your rationale for picking Omega over Rolex? Spot on - best way to pick a watch.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Nom de Forum said:


> Personally, I suspect the Mods are too busy ROTFLTAO about this thread to be bothered with PMs.


i suspect they just delete 'em and to hell with laughing . .


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

patton250 said:


> Oh by the way, I am not bashing Omega. I love the brand. I stop by their boutiques amd Im friends with many of the sales people all throughout the state of Florida. I am merely stating my opinion that Rolex will always be a level above Omega. Just like they are a level above many sub brands. Just like Patek, AP, VC and JLC are above Rolex. It's really no big deal and nobody should be offended by it. I'm thinking about buying a Hamilton because they are cool. That brand is below all the others I just mentioned. So what. It's still cool.


the only thing rolex is above omega is the price. everything else is below.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

vkalia said:


> Most of my runs are 5-10k. During base, I will do some 15-20k runs (which bore me to tears, honestly), but that's about it. But the Frees work really well for me - previously, I always used to get knee pain if i ran a lot. Another shoe I like are the Kinvaras, although i find them a little less comfy.
> 
> I do have (fast) runner friends that do 3:00 marathons and 18' 5ks and they cover a broad range of shoes - Asics, Adidas, Nike, etc.
> 
> ...


LOL.
Not talking about a specific shoe brand. Just giving you an advice on the shoe midsole/outsole. I believe every shoe brand will differentiate their running shoe. I can only advice you on Nike tho. Don't really know and try other brands.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Damir Galic said:


> the only thing rolex is above omega is the price. everything else is below.


And don't forget accuracy, materials, fit & finish, and value retention if that matters.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

ShanDaMan said:


> Nom, aren't you vote for Omega?
> 
> It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning's winning.
> - Dom Toretto -
> ...


I am, but only because of the wording of the poll and the limited options of reply.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

cedargrove said:


> And don't forget accuracy, materials, fit & finish, and value retention if that matters.


There we go. Right back to beginning of the disagreement. Participating in this thread is the nearest thing any WIS will experience rivaling the ordeal of Sisyphus.


----------



## phillycheez (Mar 4, 2011)

This thread proves both brands have annoying ignorant tools as their fan bases. 

I still prefer one brand over the other based on the preferences I have. One is just too big and looks like a hockey puck on my wrist. At first I thought they just didn't have the technology to put out a decent proportion watch but then out comes a 39.5mm.... Waited this entire time? Really? And then advertise it as their ladies watch...

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## gzpermadi (Sep 8, 2015)

cedargrove said:


> So you're talking about Rolex over a decade ago?
> 
> Let's talk about Omega now. My very current Omega PO 8500 has no micro adjustments in the clasp, no quick extension, and no glidelock. If I want any kind of quick adjustment I have to remove/add a link.


By giving example over a decade a go, it shows that Rolex was slow to change and it was clearly shows that Omega diver from 90-00 era was superior to Sub at least bracelet wise. As far as the movement I consider both were par since both rated chronometer, even one of my 1120 calibre still within +4 s/d accuracy without any servicing for 10 years. For the design, it is a bit subjective so depends on each person to vote, but for me flat crystal with no AR is simply looks cheap (and I suspect cheaper to manufacture as well).

As for the modern era 00-now you are correct that the Omega is still lacking in behind bracelet clasp design. PO still doesn't have micro adjustment, although now Seamaster 300MC already has it.
Again, movement wise coaxial also offer same if not better accuracy than Rolex 3130/3135. I am sure there are plenty of good accuracy stories from both sides. Perhaps now we are talking about +0.0005 s/d.
Now we are back to case/ design. Again, Rolex still insist with flat crystal without AR (at least on the inside) so this is a no for me.

So back to final point for me, price. With above points I don't see Rolex is winning. So I refuse to pay 2-3x price of a watch that is clearly in the same level or maybe below.
However other people willing to pay that amount then it's ok, I will not say they are fool, because to each his own.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Nom de Forum said:


> Participating in this thread is the nearest thing any WIS will experience rivaling the ordeal of Sisyphus.


I think you're starting to understand why people can be rather curt when it comes to this topic of discussion. Put another way, this is not the first thread which revisits these issues repeatedly.


----------



## phillycheez (Mar 4, 2011)

If Omega believed their movement is superior and more reliable to Rolex's than they should put their money where there mouth is and match or be longer than Rolex's 5 year warranty on all new Rolex models. 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Can we please get back to talking about cars and beer and running and TV shows and durable household goods and travel and whiskey and Disney World? Please?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

phillycheez said:


> This thread proves both brands have annoying ignorant tools as their fan bases.
> 
> I still prefer one brand over the other based on the preferences I have. One is just too big and looks like a hockey puck on my wrist. At first I thought they just didn't have the technology to put out a decent proportion watch but then out comes a 39.5mm.... Waited this entire time? Really? *And then advertise it as their ladies watch.*..
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


I wouldn't care what gender it is/was intended for, if I like the look and it fits better than alternatives, on it goes . . .


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Damir Galic said:


> the only thing rolex is above omega is the price. everything else is below.


The retail prices for some of Omega's newer PO GMTs and PO chronos, as well as the XSOTMs, are very very comparable to their Rolex counterparts. Street prices, however, are considerably less due to demand, market perception, longevity of design and aesthetics. Rightly or wrongly, Omega has a perception issue for some by creating watches that are unnecessarily thick, constantly changing designs, multiple versions of the same watch and gimmicky LEs like the ghastly Bond AT with fake family crest. For others, the fresher designs and options are a plus. Both are excellent watches, mechanically, but they target different markets it seems.


----------



## phillycheez (Mar 4, 2011)

drhr said:


> I wouldn't care what gender it is/was intended for, if I like the look and it fits better than alternatives, on it goes . . .


I agree with you. Omega disagrees with both of us.

But it makes me wonder about the people who work at Omega. Are the men all giants and the women all have 7 inch wrists.

By the way, them marketing their watch like that just proved to me even more they are not the watch for me. It's clear they believe bigger is better.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

drhr said:


> I wouldn't care what gender it is/was intended for, if I like the look and it fits better than alternatives, on it goes . . .


I thought the same when looking at Breitling's 38mm Transocean recently. My first thought was "oh, a plain bezel Breitling... looks nice". It's marketed at the feminine Transocean, but I still like it.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

dbostedo said:


> Can we please get back to talking about cars and beer and running and TV shows and durable household goods and travel and whiskey and Disney World? Please?


I really liked the quick mention of the F-22 Raptor. I was hoping that would lead to a few learned responses...


----------



## UK humbug (Feb 19, 2016)

BigSeikoFan said:


> I really liked the quick mention of the F-22 Raptor. I was hoping that would lead to a few learned responses...


I could tell you all that I know regarding the F22 Raptor - but then I would have to kill you ......


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Damir Galic said:


> the only thing rolex is above omega is the price. everything else is below.


 It's really only important that you believe that.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

UK humbug said:


> I could tell you all that I know regarding the F22 Raptor - but then I would have to kill you ......


But will you be wearing a Rolex or Omega while exercising your double O designation?


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Damir Galic said:


> the only thing rolex is above omega is the price. everything else is below.





cedargrove said:


> And don't forget accuracy, materials, fit & finish, and value retention if that matters.


 Even Breitling is cooler looking and has better movements then Omega. But that is another thread.


----------



## UK humbug (Feb 19, 2016)

That information can only be disclosed on a "need to know" basis


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

patton250 said:


> Even Breitling is cooler looking and has better movements then Omega. But that is another thread.











Breitling is better?
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Damir Galic said:


> the only thing rolex is above omega is the price. everything else is below.





ShanDaMan said:


> Breitling is better?
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


yes.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

patton250 said:


> yes.


Wokay.... As long as you happy with them. Don't worry I'm not telling anyone....

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

ShanDaMan said:


> Wokay.... As long as you happy with them. Don't worry I'm not telling anyone....
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


I only have 1. A Navitimer blue eyed black 01. It uses an in-house movement in it. Both of my Omegas, a Seamaster and speedmaster don't. Still cool pieces though. Just not the same level of coolness. I prefer a timepiece that is built from top to bottom from the same factory including the movement. I realize there are a bunch of people here that could not care less about that but I do.


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

Vlance said:


> To me, it's an Omega, Tudor battle as well, but the Rolex vs PP argument was in reference to a global perception. Ie. Most people would assume Rolex made the best watches in the world cause they don't know any better.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


In the world of marketing, perception is everything.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

dbostedo said:


> I thought the same when looking at Breitling's 38mm Transocean recently. My first thought was "oh, a plain bezel Breitling... looks nice". It's marketed at the feminine Transocean, but I still like it.
> 
> View attachment 8970177


I was on their site recently , checking out the non-chrono version of that. It is rather nice. Tungsten bezel on it.



ShanDaMan said:


> Wokay.... As long as you happy with them. Don't worry I'm not telling anyone....
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


You may not like their stylings, but they have some impressive things going on right now. See for yourself.

http://www.breitling.com/en/


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

patton250 said:


> yes.


I would be embarrassed to wear breitling watch. it's that ugly and porly designed.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Damir Galic said:


> I would be embarrassed to wear breitling watch. it's that ugly and porly designed.


Cool then don't.


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

UK humbug said:


> I could tell you all that I know regarding the F22 Raptor - but then I would have to kill you ......


I sat in a mock f 35 once. It was very exciting none of the controls worked though. I kept trying to fire the missiles at my boss.


----------



## UK humbug (Feb 19, 2016)

10/10 for effort!


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Damir Galic said:


> I would be embarrassed to wear breitling watch. it's that ugly and porly designed.


And Breitling marketers and representatives everywhere breathe a sigh of relief...


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

eblackmo said:


> I sat in a mock f 35 once. It was very exciting none of the controls worked though. I kept trying to fire the missiles at my boss.


Don't feel slighted. The real F35's controls still don't work very well either.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Ooh! It's going to be a nail biter. 6 more days and only 2 votes separating them now.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Ooh! It's going to be a nail biter. 6 more days and only 2 votes separating them now.


 My guess would be because most Rolex fans are on another forum. If they were all here the vote would not be close.


----------



## dr3ws (Jun 9, 2015)

He who keep bashing Rolex secretly wants a Rolex :think: 
I wonder why....:-s


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

dr3ws said:


> He who keep bashing Rolex secretly wants a Rolex :think:


I think this is the ugliest, stupidest woman ever!


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

dr3ws said:


> He who keep bashing Rolex secretly wants a Rolex :think:
> I wonder why....:-s


 I bet there is a whole bunch of truth to that. The funny part is once they acquire a Rolex they will quickly discover their itch is not scratched and they will still hunt for more cool watches of all different brands. Lol. That's what happened to me.


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

Vlance said:


> I was on their site recently , checking out the non-chrono version of that. It is rather nice. Tungsten bezel on it.
> 
> You may not like their stylings, but they have some impressive things going on right now. See for yourself.
> 
> http://www.breitling.com/en/


Chronoworks limited to 100 sure will cost mucho dineros.
Maybe something for the future but min PR of 100 hours is nice

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## William Ayin (Apr 1, 2015)

does it matter?


----------



## SirHenry (Mar 2, 2012)

This whole discussion is pretty much pointless.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

jmanlay said:


> Chronoworks limited to 100 sure will cost mucho dineros...


Yep... not only a limited edition, but one with a lot of new tech, so a 1-2 punch... The website MSRP is $39,295.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

SirHenry said:


> This whole discussion is pretty much pointless.


 In that case what is the point of discussing anything then?


----------



## Spunwell (Feb 2, 2014)

BigSeikoFan said:


> I think this is the ugliest, stupidest woman ever!
> 
> View attachment 8973201


You sir, are either blind or have no sense of your own manly hood.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Spunwell said:


> You sir, are either blind or have no sense your own manly hood.


Quiet... you're going to ruin his reverse fake-out mojo... (see post 2255)


----------



## Spunwell (Feb 2, 2014)

dbostedo said:


> Quiet... you're going to ruin his reverse fake-out mojo... (see post 2255)


My bad, I'll carry on elsewhere


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

dbostedo said:


> Quiet... you're going to ruin his reverse fake-out mojo... (see post 2255)


Yeah, and I would NEVER date her!


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

Has grand seiko been mentioned yet? If not. Grand seiko.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

eblackmo said:


> Has grand seiko been mentioned yet? If not. Grand seiko.


 It's funny but I tried and tried and tried and tried ten times to like that brand. I went back-and-forth and tried them on no less than 10 times. I just don't get it. Sorry.


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

patton250 said:


> It's funny but I tried and tried and tried and tried ten times to like that brand. I went back-and-forth and tried them on no less than 10 times. I just don't get it. Sorry.


Me neither really. I like some of their spring drive diver models and GMTs but I cannot get passed the power reserve indicator and if I am shelling out rolex/omega money. Which I would have been well.........I think I will stick with sinn for now.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

patton250 said:


> It's funny but I tried and tried and tried and tried ten times to like that brand. I went back-and-forth and tried them on no less than 10 times. I just don't get it. *Sorry.*


Why? Don't try just like or no like, saves a lot of time (no pun) . . .


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

patton250 said:


> It's funny but I tried and tried and tried and tried ten times to like that brand. I went back-and-forth and tried them on no less than 10 times. I just don't get it. Sorry.


I like their watches and have a great deal of respect for what they do, but alas, their styling doesn't really suit me.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

eblackmo said:


> Has grand seiko been mentioned yet? If not. Grand seiko.


I could have bought another Rolex, but went for something less mundane than the billions of stainless steel or gold automatics. Love my Grand Seiko SBGA011 Titanium Spring Drive "Snowflake. That being said, it really is not fair to compare lessor brands like Rolex and Omega to Grand Seikos.;-)


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

drhr said:


> Why? Don't try just like or no like, saves a lot of time (no pun) . . .


Aw, so close to a good Star Wars reference....


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

mleok said:


> But will you be wearing a Rolex or Omega while exercising your double O designation?


Bremont, until it got hauled up for not being really being "Built in England".


----------



## engr.pol (Jul 12, 2014)

If I'm going to get a GS (which I'm almost sure I will) it will be the snowflake..I'm fascinated by the SD technology and it has the no-nonsense conservative look..perfect in an office setting..


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

dbostedo said:


> Aw, so close to a good Star Wars reference....


Still receiving royalties ;-)


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

ShanDaMan said:


> LOL.
> Not talking about a specific shoe brand. Just giving you an advice on the shoe midsole/outsole. I believe every shoe brand will differentiate their running shoe. I can only advice you on Nike tho. Don't really know and try other brands.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Ah ok. Thanks - although I have to admit, I am quite sorted with my shoes now. Running is my cross-training (I am a cyclist) and other than that, I follow The Rules, as laid down by the Keepers of the Cog: one should only run in being chased by a predator. And even then, just fast enough to avoid getting eaten.

(Also - a bike ride should never be preceded by a swim or followed by a run.)


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Nom de Forum said:


> I could have bought another Rolex, but went for something less mundane than the billions of stainless steal automatics. Love my Grand Seiko SBGA011 Titanium Spring Drive "Snowflake. That being said, it really is not fair to compare lessor brands like Rolex and Omega to Grand Seikos.;-)


 Seiko is more comparable to Oris or Hamilton


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

vkalia said:


> Ah ok. Thanks - although I have to admit, I am quite sorted with my shoes now. Running is my cross-training (I am a cyclist) and other than that, I follow The Rules, as laid down by the Keepers of the Cog: one should only run in being chased by a predator. And even then, just fast enough to avoid getting eaten.
> 
> *(Also - a bike ride should never be preceded by a swim or followed by a run.)*


Whaaa . . . uh, no I'm still working on the bike ride part


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Ok, time to put this argument to rest. I have come up with the perfect analogy to settle this argument. 

Ok, almost perfect - it doesn't involve cars 

Rolex is Apple iPhone
Omega is Samsung Galaxy

We can all agree that iPhone is superior, right?

Discussion closed. 

(What's my count, señor dbostedo?)


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

vkalia said:


> Ok, time to put this argument to rest. I have come up with the perfect analogy to settle this argument.
> 
> Ok, almost perfect - it doesn't involve cars
> 
> ...


 I think we are very close. It's more like Omega is the Samsung galaxy 2 and Rolex is the Apple 7. And yes Apple is definitely superior. Lol


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

vkalia said:


> Ok, time to put this argument to rest. I have come up with the perfect analogy to settle this argument.
> 
> Ok, almost perfect - it doesn't involve cars
> 
> ...


Hold on a second... I've got to get my abacus....

*Moves beads*

*Furrows brow*

*Moves more beads*

*Realizes he has no idea how to use an abacus*

Um... let's just say it's a 6-pack.

And a PS - I love my Samsung Galaxy and did not like having my prior Apple device - primarily because I hate iTunes... But now it's hard to think of going back to using an iPhone, as I've gotten used to having more than 1 button, and being able to easily access the file system.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

dbostedo said:


> Um... let's just say it's a 6-pack.


My work here is done. I can go watch Star Trek with a free heart.



> And a PS - I love my Samsung Galaxy and did not like having my prior Apple device - primarily because I hate iTunes... But now it's hard to think of going back to using an iPhone, as I've gotten used to having more than 1 button, and being able to easily access the file system.


I really like OS X and iOS. For me, electronic devices are tools to get stuff done - not gadgets to be coveted. I don't care what RAM or specs my phone has, I don't take anything except snapshots with my camera phone and I have no plans to ever overcock or jailbait my phone. So I like the no-fuss approach of the iPhone.

That being said, I HATE paying that kind of money for a phone (the most I have ever paid before switching to iPhones was $150 for a Blackberry, which I still miss, btw).

And now iTunes is really starting to piss me off - that bloated piece of dog dropping that Apple insists on shoving down my throat. And iOS is getting increasingly buggy too.

Let's see how it goes.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

drhr said:


> Whaaa . . . uh, no I'm still working on the bike ride part


Start here:
http://www.velominati.com/the-rules/comment-page-8/

Ilitig8 has been missing but I am sure there are other Keepers of the Cog here too. They will approve.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

vkalia said:


> Ok, time to put this argument to rest. I have come up with the perfect analogy to settle this argument.
> 
> Ok, almost perfect - it doesn't involve cars
> 
> ...


It actually isn't a bad analogy, Rolex (like Apple) focuses on a premium tightly curated product that just works at a premium price, and Omega (like Samsung) focuses on offering a product marketed on the basis of its technical specifications even if the end user experience is less polished, broad customizability, and at a more competitive price.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

vkalia said:


> Start here:
> http://www.velominati.com/the-rules/comment-page-8/
> 
> Ilitig8 has been missing but I am sure there are other Keepers of the Cog here too. They will approve.


Rule 5!


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

vkalia said:


> Start here:
> Velominati › The Rules
> 
> Ilitig8 has been missing but I am sure there are other Keepers of the Cog here too. They will approve.


Might have to find another form of excercise/fun :think:;-)


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

patton250 said:


> Seiko is more comparable to Oris or Hamilton


Comparable only in that some of the same letters that are used to spell Grand Seiko are also used to spell Oris and Hamilton. Rolexes and Omegas are like Grand Seikos that haven't been fully polished.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

drhr said:


> Might have to find another form of excercise/fun :think:;-)


Exercise - sure. But if you are having fun while on a road bike, you are doing it wrong. It's all about exploring the pain cave and destroying the souls of others.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

mleok said:


> It actually isn't a bad analogy, Rolex (like Apple) focuses on a premium tightly curated product that just works at a premium price, and Omega (like Samsung) focuses on offering a product marketed on the basis of its technical specifications even if the end user experience is less polished, broad customizability, and at a more competitive price.


If Rolexes worked just as poorly as Apple products this thread would be entitled "Will Rolex ever be as good as Steinhart and will Apple ever stop being in love with its own navel?" I have an iPhone that never stops updating to eliminate old problems by replacing them with new problems. I often wish I still had my Razor.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Nom de Forum said:


> If Rolexes worked just as poorly as Apple products this thread would be entitled "Will Rolex ever be as good as Steinhart and will Apple ever stop being in love with its own navel?" I have an iPhone that never stops updating to eliminate old problems by replacing them with new problems. I often wish I still had my Razor.


The Android experience is even worse.


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

Nom de Forum said:


> If Rolexes worked just as poorly as Apple products this thread would be entitled "Will Rolex ever be as good as Steinhart and will Apple ever stop being in love with its own navel?" I have an iPhone that never stops updating to eliminate old problems by replacing them with new problems. I often wish I still had my Razor.


Awarded the prize for the most irrelevant comment on this thread. Analog vs. digital. Pointless.

[ OT- and besides, statistically more Apple products are running the latest updated software than the full-of-security holes Android and Windows products. If one hates the iPhone so much, get something else]


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

Personally I like android. I really like windows it's how I make a living. Everything is full of security holes especially if it is written in C because it will have the security issues inherent in that language. Think the windows, linux and apple OS kernels as well as services. A lot of it comes down to what is the most profitable software to exploit. There are ways you can harden operating systems of course be it windows or otherwise......although antivirus software can be easily circumvented. 

Another good analogy for this thread would be nvidia vs amd with nvidia being rolex.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Android is wwwaaaayyy better, especially now that IOT is starting to take off. My work iPhone 6s seems like a limited hunk of junk next to my Galaxy S6. Jailbreaking my iPhone after every update gets annoying so I just switched to android.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

vkalia said:


> Exercise - sure. But if you are having fun while on a road bike, you are doing it wrong. It's all about exploring the pain cave and destroying the souls of others.


Oh, there's pain all right and it comes from dodging cars on our narrow roads. And I would dearly love to destroy the souls of those drivers who often try to send me to an early grave :think:. BUT . . . it's still fun, something I can do to get my heart pumping and some sun on my body . . .


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Nom de Forum said:


> If Rolexes worked just as poorly as Apple products this thread would be entitled "Will Rolex ever be as good as Steinhart and will Apple ever stop being in love with its own navel?" I have an iPhone that never stops updating to eliminate old problems by replacing them with new problems. I often wish I still had my Razor.


Hence, trade your iPhone 3GS for the latest version. Finance it with rolex. LOL.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

dbostedo said:


> vkalia said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, time to put this argument to rest. I have come up with the perfect analogy to settle this argument.
> ...


Sounds alot like a Rolex buyer decision making process.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

eblackmo said:


> Another good analogy for this thread would be nvidia vs amd with nvidia being rolex.


I got one. In terms of actress on DC movie.

rolex = Margot Kidder (Superman)
Omega = Margot Robbie (Suicide Squad)

LOL

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Nom de Forum said:


> Comparable only in that some of the same letters that are used to spell Grand Seiko are also used to spell Oris and Hamilton. Rolexes and Omegas are like Grand Seikos that haven't been fully polished.





mesaboogie18 said:


> My AT is my "nice" watch so I think the PCL's are just fine. My PO, Speedy, and SMP are my sporty pieces. Oh, my GS makes a nice companion to the AT as well
> View attachment 8965785


Took a mate from the Omega forum (hopefully he can add a vote). He post his GS side-by-side with his AT. Couldn't figure out which one is the homage.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Birky1 (Feb 13, 2015)

ShanDaMan said:


> I got one. In terms of actress on DC movie.
> 
> rolex = Margot Kidder (Superman)
> Omega = Margot Robbie (Suicide Squad)
> ...


Rolex = Lee Merryweather (cat woman)
Omega =Ertha Kitt (cat woman)

Sent from my Harrier Tab from EE using Tapatalk


----------



## jonkentgb (Aug 6, 2016)

Here in the UK, Rolex is the boss. Period.

Federer says so..


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

jonkentgb said:


> Here in the UK, Rolex is the boss. Period.
> 
> Federer says so..


Who is he? Thats our answer.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Yeah, and I would NEVER date her!


The problem with being in a relationship with someone like that is that unless oneself is in the same league and secure, one could not "keep" a woman like that.

I had a relative who experienced this. He was rich, and his wife by all accounts was very beautiful when she was young. He felt insecure, and didn't want her to go out and socialize because he was afraid that other men would try to steal her away. She felt neglected. He abused her. She eventually left him and went with another rich man.

It's probably better to know myself and be with someone in my own league that I'm comfortable with, that doesn't cost a lot money and effort to "land" and "keep".


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

maxixix said:


> Sounds alot like a Rolex buyer decision making process.


You mean "no need to think, o know it's going to be a great decision with very little downside", right?


----------



## engr.pol (Jul 12, 2014)

maxixix said:


> Who is he? Thats our answer.


Jimmy Carr's long lost brother..


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Jeremy Clarkson once commented that before, you couldn't buy a BMW because of all the cocks that had one and that if you did bit a BMW, people would think you're a cock, just like them so the alternative was to buy the slightly different but equally good Audi. However, at the time of the comment, it was no longer safe to buy Audi because all the cocks who bought BMW before, have all now bout Audi.


It appears that now, it's no longer safe to buy Omega.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Jeremy Clarkson also commented, "The only thing worse than a fake Rolex is a real one." 

And this was in a column in which he described how he chose to buy an Omega.

(which turned out to be a Railmaster, revealed after he described Omega as being "the Pillsbury dough of watches"…)


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Birky1 said:


> Rolex = Lee Merryweather (cat woman)
> Omega = Eartha Kitt (cat woman)


Vacheron = Michelle Pfeiffer (Catwoman)


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

BarracksSi said:


> Jeremy Clarkson also commented, "The only thing worse than a fake Rolex is a real one."
> 
> And this was in a column in which he described how he chose to buy an Omega.


That just makes him the first?


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

vkalia said:


> maxixix said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds alot like a Rolex buyer decision making process.
> ...


I would have stopped at "no need to think" lol.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

mleok said:


> The Android experience is even worse.





yankeexpress said:


> Awarded the prize for the most irrelevant comment on this thread. Analog vs. digital. Pointless.
> 
> [ OT- and besides, statistically more Apple products are running the latest updated software than the full-of-security holes Android and Windows products. If one hates the iPhone so much, get something else]





Tomatoes11 said:


> Android is wwwaaaayyy better, especially now that IOT is starting to take off. My work iPhone 6s seems like a limited hunk of junk next to my Galaxy S6. Jailbreaking my iPhone after every update gets annoying so I just switched to android.





ShanDaMan said:


> Hence, trade your iPhone 3GS for the latest version. Finance it with rolex. LOL.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Let me try again. Comparing Rolex to an iPhone is insulting Rolex. Rolex and Apple both are more expensive than they should be and both promise more than they deliver. The difference being that Rolex is far closer to delivering what it promises and far more reliable. My old Razor did not have the capability of my iPhone but it was far better at providing what it promised and was more reliable than my iPhone. I'll stick with my iPhone, but I have heard that in some countries (Japan) the old Razors are preferred by some people who can afford iPhones and Galaxies.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Nom de Forum said:


> Let me try again. Comparing Rolex to an iPhone is insulting Rolex. Rolex and Apple both are more expensive than they should be and both promise more than they deliver. The difference being that Rolex is far closer to delivering what it promises and far more reliable. My old Razor did not have the capability of my iPhone but it was far better at providing what it promised and was more reliable than my iPhone. I'll stick with my iPhone, but I have heard that in some countries (Japan) the old Razors are preferred by some people who can afford iPhones and Galaxies.


I have no issue with the statement that a smartphone is less robust and reliable than a simpler phone like a Razor, but I still think the analogy is appropriate. Within the category of smartphones, the iPhone is generally more reliable than the corresponding Android or Windows based alternative.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

Birky1 said:


> Rolex = Lee Merryweather (cat woman)
> Omega =Ertha Kitt (cat woman)
> 
> Sent from my Harrier Tab from EE using Tapatalk


Ah, no.

Rolex = Lee Merryweather (boring Catwoman) 
Omega = Julie Newmar (sexy Catwoman)
Ulysse Nardin = Ertha Kitt (psycho Catwoman)


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Rolex maintain its price eh?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

mleok said:


> I have no issue with the statement that a smartphone is less robust and reliable than a simpler phone like a Razor, but I still think the analogy is appropriate. Within the category of smartphones, the iPhone is generally more reliable than the corresponding Android or Windows based alternative.


I can't disagree due to no personal experience with the Galaxy. I never had a problem with my Razor.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

drunken monkey said:


> Jeremy Clarkson once commented that before, you couldn't buy a BMW because of all the cocks that had one and that if you did bit a BMW, people would think you're a cock, just like them so the alternative was to buy the slightly different but equally good Audi. However, at the time of the comment, it was no longer safe to buy Audi because all the cocks who bought BMW before, have all now bout Audi.
> 
> It appears that now, it's no longer safe to buy Omega.


That's why you don't buy Rolex or Omega and you do buy Grand Seiko. I just ordered a Certina Precidrive to replace my Breitling Colt SQ. I am tired of the "Is that a Rolex", "Are you a pilot", "Isn't that what John Travolta (Wingnut Wacko) wears" questions. I don't need anyone to recognize a GS or the Certina for me to feel good about wearing one.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

ShanDaMan said:


> Rolex maintain its price eh?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Yes. Two tone models and most non-sport Rolex models can be had for discounts as they are less popular than their steel counterparts. To the contrary, Omegas most popular models in steel like the POs, ATs, Speedmasters and XSOTHMs can be had for well over 30% off. Take a look at any grey market dealer like Joma or Authentic and look at their Omega specials. I doubt you will find such a discount on stainless steel Subs, GMTs or Daytonas as there is simply more demand. Nice try though!


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Nom de Forum said:


> I can't disagree due to no personal experience with the Galaxy. I never had a problem with my Razor.


For better or worse, modern smartphones are essentially computers with cellular capabilities, and regular software updates are better than the alternative of unpatched security exploits.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Nom de Forum said:


> That's why you don't buy Rolex or Omega and you do buy Grand Seiko.


Can't do that either anymore.
Hipsters and millennials buy Grand Seiko watches.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

drunken monkey said:


> Can't do that either anymore.
> Hipsters and millennials buy Grand Seiko watches.


Since I am neither, nor do I associate with either, I'll have to take your word on that? I live in one of the most affluent areas of American and I never see GS even though we have an AD in town.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> That just makes him the first?


Nah, but Jeremy says things in a way that's so convincing, I find myself agreeing with him. Most of the time, anyway.

I still wanna buy a Rolex. ;-p


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

ShanDaMan said:


> Rolex maintain its price eh?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


yes... try harder lol










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

maxixix said:


> I would have stopped at "no need to think" lol.


Or "no need", depending I guess


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Badbebe said:


> yes... try harder lol
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This is interesting. Not only is the Omega more heavily discounted, the retail of the tt Omega is only $400 less than the tt Rolex GMT, despite the Rolex having the added complication of a GMT. It seems in this instance the Omega is the one that is overpriced. It appear that ShanDaMan's post confirms the opposite of his intent.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Nom de Forum said:


> That's why you don't buy Rolex or Omega and you do buy Grand Seiko. I just ordered a Certina Precidrive to replace my Breitling Colt SQ. I am tired of the "Is that a Rolex", "Are you a pilot", "Isn't that what John Travolta (Wingnut Wacko) wears" questions. I don't need anyone to recognize a GS or the Certina for me to feel good about wearing one.


Really? People notice your watch? And not only notice, but comment to the point where you're tired of it? :think:


----------



## Alysandir (Jun 29, 2016)

For the life of me, I can't tell if you all are playfully trolling each other or are legitimately frothing; I certainly hope it's the former. I'm trying to imagine how I would explain to an average person that I'd spent several days of my life arguing the relative merits of multi-thousand dollar watches.

Regards,
Alysandir


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

drunken monkey said:


> Can't do that either anymore.
> Hipsters and millennials buy Grand Seiko watches.





Nom de Forum said:


> Since I am neither, nor do I associate with either, I'll have to take your word on that? I live in one of the most affluent areas of American and I never see GS even though we have an AD in town.


I would move...


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Alysandir said:


> For the life of me, I can't tell if you all are playfully trolling each other or are legitimately frothing; I certainly hope it's the former. I'm trying to imagine how I would explain to an average person that I'd spent several days of my life arguing the relative merits of multi-thousand dollar watches.
> 
> Regards,
> Alysandir


Maybe better/easier than trying to explain said situation re: $10 watches :think: ;-)


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

drunken monkey said:


> Can't do that either anymore.
> Hipsters and millennials buy Grand Seiko watches.


Nothing is safe anymore - except JLC.

So will Rolex and Omega combined ever be worthy of carrying JLC's jockstraps?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Nom de Forum said:


> Ah, no.
> 
> Rolex = Lee Merryweather (boring Catwoman)
> Omega = Julie Newmar (sexy Catwoman)
> Ulysse Nardin = Ertha Kitt (psycho Catwoman)


So what would be Margot Robbie's (Harley Quinn)?


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

oak1971 said:


> So what would be Margot Robbie's (Harley Quinn)?
> 
> View attachment 8979153


Franck Muller?


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

dbostedo said:


> Really? People notice your watch? And not only notice, but comment to the point where you're tired of it? :think:


Since 2008 I have had "Is that a Rolex" happen a couple of times, "Are you a pilot" once, "Isn't that what John Travolta wears" twice. When you live in a city where a Tourneau store, Cartier store, Omega boutique, and a jillion Rolex ADs reside in less than half a square mile you get that kind of comment. The "Is that a Rolex" comment was once a leading question for a put-down, so was the "Are you a pilot". The "Isn't that what John Travolta wears" was after I replied no its Breitling and advertisements featuring Travolta are everywhere.



BigSeikoFan said:


> I would move...


The benefits of living here far out weigh the annoyance of a few snobs and movie fans.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Nom de Forum said:


> Since 2008 I have had "Is that a Rolex" happen a couple of times, "Are you a pilot" once, "Isn't that what John Travolta wears" twice. When you live in a city where a Tourneau store, Cartier store, Omega boutique, and a jillion Rolex ADs reside in less than half a square mile you get that kind of comment. The "Is that a Rolex" comment was once a leading question for a put-down, so was the "Are you a pilot". The "Isn't that what John Travolta wears" was after I replied no its Breitling and advertisements featuring Travolta are everywhere.
> 
> The benefits of living here far out weigh the annoyance of a few snobs and movie fans.


That's odd. Here in NYC no one ever asks or comments on my watches despite the obvious wealth here and the numerous Tourneaus, independent ADs and boutiques. I guess the only way I could see this happening is if I tried to show them off...


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> Franck Muller?
> 
> View attachment 8979585


perfect


----------



## William Ayin (Apr 1, 2015)

drunken monkey said:


> Hipsters and millennials buy Grand Seiko watches.


I Am genuinely curious as to how you came to this conclusion...


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Seaswirl said:


> That's odd. Here in NYC no one ever asks or comments on my watches despite the obvious wealth here and the numerous Tourneaus, independent ADs and boutiques. *I guess the only way I could see this happening is if I tried to show them off...*


I tried, didn't happen here . . . well nobody said anything in fairness, but ends up with the same silent result


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

drhr said:


> I tried, didn't happen here . . . well nobody said anything in fairness, but ends up with the same silent result


The sad truth, or happy depending on how you look at it, is that very few people outside of forums give a rat's a$$ about watches.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

dbostedo said:


> Really? People notice your watch? And not only notice, but comment to the point where you're tired of it? :think:


If it's bothering Nom that much, he always has the option to not flaunt his watches so much. But I'm guessing he secretly likes the attention.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

drhr said:


> I tried, didn't happen here . . . well nobody said anything in fairness, but ends up with the same silent result


Maybe Nom could give you some flaunting tips.


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

Nom de Forum said:


> Since 2008 I have had "Is that a Rolex" happen a couple of times, "Are you a pilot" once, "Isn't that what John Travolta wears" twice. When you live in a city where a Tourneau store, Cartier store, Omega boutique, and a jillion Rolex ADs reside in less than half a square mile you get that kind of comment. The "Is that a Rolex" comment was once a leading question for a put-down, so was the "Are you a pilot". The "Isn't that what John Travolta wears" was after I replied no its Breitling and advertisements featuring Travolta are everywhere.
> 
> The benefits of living here far out weigh the annoyance of a few snobs and movie fans.


I've been asked 5 times: "are you an astronaut?", 3 times: "have you been on the moon?", 10 times: "are you james bond?"

I've then decided to buy omega de-ville. nobody asks me anything now.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Seaswirl said:


> The sad truth, or happy depending on how you look at it, is that very few people outside of forums give a rat's a$$ about watches.


I tried all the watches I own from ALS to Zeitwinkel and nada . . . . then I thought hey, with the attention these get here I'm sure to get a rise outta somebody, big let down out in the wild, sigh ;-) . . .


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

vkalia said:


> Nothing is safe anymore - except JLC.
> 
> So will Rolex and Omega combined ever be worthy of carrying JLC's jockstraps?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


 Absolutely never. No way, no how



Nom de Forum said:


> I live in one of the most affluent areas of American and I never see GS even though we have an AD in town.


 Seems to me lots of intelligent people live where you do.


----------



## Token19 (May 20, 2016)

Seaswirl said:


> This is interesting. Not only is the Omega more heavily discounted, the retail of the tt Omega is only $400 less than the tt Rolex GMT, despite the Rolex having the added complication of a GMT. It seems in this instance the Omega is the one that is overpriced. It appear that ShanDaMan's post confirms the opposite of his intent.


The point that both ShanDaMan and badbebe are missing is that it is meaningless to use the price of a product or its value retention to suggest anything about its inherent quality. Plenty of fashion brands hold their value really well, but are inherently bad quality or bad value (not connecting this with Rolex since they make great watches). On the flip side there are plenty of brands that are not famous or popular at all, but still make great products. If your main argument for why Rolex is superior is that 1) it's more popular to the general public and 2) it holds its value better, then that to me says that you're extremely preoccupied with how others perceive you (especially your wealth). It makes me think of the people who wear Gucci or Salvatore ferragamo belts because they have giant logos for belt buckles, or love Louis Vuitton because their bags have their logo plastered everywhere. So what that's saying to me is that if everything stayed the same product quality wise and you knew that, but suddenly Omega is the more popular brand and it retains its value better, then you would immediately say that Omega is superior to Rolex? Seems really shallow to me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

vkalia said:


> Nothing is safe anymore - except JLC.
> 
> So will Rolex and Omega combined ever be worthy of carrying JLC's jockstraps?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk





Token19 said:


> The point that both ShanDaMan and badbebe are missing is that *it is meaningless to use the price of a product or its value retention to suggest anything about its inherent quality.* Plenty of fashion brands hold their value really well, but are inherently bad quality or bad value (not connecting this with Rolex since they make great watches). On the flip side there are plenty of brands that are not famous or popular at all, but still make great products. If your main argument for why Rolex is superior is that 1) it's more popular to the general public and 2) it holds its value better, then that to me says that you're extremely preoccupied with how others perceive you (especially your wealth). It makes me think of the people who wear Gucci or Salvatore ferragamo belts because they have giant logos for belt buckles, or love Louis Vuitton because their bags have their logo plastered everywhere. So what that's saying to me is that if everything stayed the same product quality wise and you knew that, but suddenly Omega is the more popular brand and it retains its value better, then you would immediately say that Omega is superior to Rolex? Seems really shallow to me.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 I don't even know what to say to the highlighted area so for the sake of friendliness I will do my best to pretend that you never wrote it.

You do have a point about logos however the brands you mentioned all make top-quality stuff especially Ferragamo.

I guess all that really matters to determine what is a superior product is the demand for said product. Rolex is by no means my favorite watch brand but even I know it's movements are superior to Omega. It's resale value is by far superior. I just don't see what the big deal is for everybody to just admit that.

If it makes people who love Omega as their favorite band feel better I will say this. AP makes a superior movement to Rolex. JLC makes a superior movement to Rolex. There. Feel better?


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Token19 said:


> The point that both ShanDaMan and badbebe are missing is that it is meaningless to use the price of a product or its value retention to suggest anything about its inherent quality. Plenty of fashion brands hold their value really well, but are inherently bad quality or bad value (not connecting this with Rolex since they make great watches). On the flip side there are plenty of brands that are not famous or popular at all, but still make great products. If your main argument for why Rolex is superior is that 1) it's more popular to the general public and 2) it holds its value better, then that to me says that you're extremely preoccupied with how others perceive you (especially your wealth). It makes me think of the people who wear Gucci or Salvatore ferragamo belts because they have giant logos for belt buckles, or love Louis Vuitton because their bags have their logo plastered everywhere. So what that's saying to me is that if everything stayed the same product quality wise and you knew that, but suddenly Omega is the more popular brand and it retains its value better, then you would immediately say that Omega is superior to Rolex? Seems really shallow to me.


+1

We could label people as "shallow", but admittedly the high pricing and recognizable prestige trick works so well probably because it's human nature to want prestige.

Who doesn't want to look good, or at least have the feeling of looking good, even if no one else notices?

One funny effect of this desire for prestige is that "cheap" watches are often automatically dismissed as ugly, junk, or unworthy, but I find that some affordable watches look so great for so little if I could see beyond the price and lack of prestige.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

patton250 said:


> I don't even know what to say to the highlighted area so for the sake of friendliness I will do my best to pretend that you never wrote it.
> 
> You do have a point about logos however the brands you mentioned all make top-quality stuff especially Ferragamo.
> 
> ...


agreed, let's compare either/both to JLC and AP and get off this merry go round, at least there might be some new and exciting tidbits . . .


----------



## Token19 (May 20, 2016)

patton250 said:


> I don't even know what to say to the highlighted area so for the sake of friendliness I will do my best to pretend that you never wrote it.
> 
> You do have a point about logos however the brands you mentioned all make top-quality stuff especially Ferragamo.
> 
> ...


I fully agree that resale value of Rolex is superior to Omega. I don't know enough about movements to make any comparison.

As for my points about brands, I'm not saying that the brands I listed make bad stuff (even though there are other products in that price bracket which are clearly superior), I'm saying that fashion brands like that are often representative of someone trying to flaunt their wealth. I know people who love Gucci horsebit loafers but have no idea what the difference between concrete Blake or Goodyear is, when you ask them why they like their shoes, "oh well it's Gucci!" It annoys me when people on watch forums immediately resort to the prices of their watches to try and prove something; the whole point of being on a watch forum is to be able to discuss more than just the price tag, and not relying on money as a crutch to make your points for you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Damir Galic said:


> I've been asked 5 times: "are you an astronaut?", 3 times: "have you been on the moon?", 10 times: "are you james bond?"


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

patton250 said:


> I don't even know what to say to the highlighted area so for the sake of friendliness I will do my best to pretend that you never wrote it.
> 
> You do have a point about logos however the brands you mentioned all make top-quality stuff especially Ferragamo.
> 
> ...


I'll take a stab at it. Quality, as defined by the Quality Handbook I had at work, is meeting or exceeding customer requirements. The goal of any company that wants to make $ is to meet the customer requirement at the lowest production cost. I just want to get that out there, because after 25 years in quality and reliability I see the word being abused.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Token19 said:


> I fully agree that resale value of Rolex is superior to Omega. I don't know enough about movements to make any comparison.
> 
> As for my points about brands, I'm not saying that the brands I listed make bad stuff (even though there are other products in that price bracket which are clearly superior), I'm saying that fashion brands like that are often representative of someone trying to flaunt their wealth. I know people who love Gucci horsebit loafers but have no idea what the difference between concrete Blake or Goodyear is, when you ask them why they like their shoes, "oh well it's Gucci!" It annoys me when people on watch forums immediately resort to the prices of their watches to try and prove something; the whole point of being on a watch forum is to be able to discuss more than just the price tag, and not relying on money as a crutch to make your points for you.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 I hear you. I buy my watch is because I like them. I just bought an Oris for crying out loud. I'll have it Tuesday morning. I think it's cool. It's not AP cool but still it's cool. Lots of times brand names become popular because a lot of people came to think they are cool. I suspect that is the case with Louis Vuitton and Gucci.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

oak1971 said:


> I'll take a stab at it. Quality, as defined by the Quality Handbook I had at work, is meeting or exceeding customer requirements. The goal of any company that wants to make $ is to meet the customer requirement at the lowest production cost. I just want to get that out there, because after 25 years in quality and reliability I see the word being abused.


I don't think that's the case and the watch world though. The customers requirements vary from brand to brand don't they.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

drhr said:


> I tried all the watches I own from ALS to Zeitwinkel and nada . . . . then I thought hey, with the attention these get here I'm sure to get a rise outta somebody, big let down out in the wild, sigh ;-) . . .


I think we've been barking up the wrong tree. The only time I hear people talking or comparing watches is when they're discussing Fitbits. Who knew???


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

patton250 said:


> I don't think that's the case and the watch world though. The customers requirements vary from brand to brand don't they.


They vary everywhere with everything. The company needs to keep in touch with their customers wants and or needs constantly or anticipate them. What Apple used to be best at was creating products people didn't know they needed till they saw them.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

oak1971 said:


> So what would be Margot Robbie's (Harley Quinn)?
> 
> View attachment 8979153


A girl you don't bring home to Mom.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

Seaswirl said:


> That's odd. Here in NYC no one ever asks or comments on my watches despite the obvious wealth here and the numerous Tourneaus, independent ADs and boutiques. I guess the only way I could see this happening is if I tried to show them off...


Not going to swallow that bait. Considering how many Snowbirds and refugees we have here from NYC the odds are good it was one of them that gave me two of the comments since they almost universally treat the natives as though we are yokels, complain about the food, etc. even though the seem to love to come here. Too bad they are not more uniformly like the many Canadian Snowbirds and refugees who are so polite and appreciative. The middle-age guy who asked me if I was a pilot acted as though I should not be wearing a Breitling. I was sitting on a bench at the car wash minding my own business when that happened.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

cedargrove said:


> If it's bothering Nom that much, he always has the option to not flaunt his watches so much. But I'm guessing he secretly likes the attention.


Really? How much bait are you guys going to throw out as chum before you realize that 50% of the time I wear what most people think is "just a Seiko" and I have ordered a replacement for the Breitling that almost nobody but a WIS would know the brand name (Certina)? Seems some of you are desperately craving an easy target to take a shot at. Why don't you try shooting fish in a barrel to alleviate that craving.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

cedargrove said:


> Maybe Nom could give you some flaunting tips.


Yep. Desperate. Tell me something, when you really get desperate for an easy target to abuse do you pull the wings off of flies or did you stop that after you learned to fry caterpillars with magnifying glass?


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

drhr said:


> I tried all the watches I own from ALS to Zeitwinkel and nada . . . . then I thought hey, with the attention these get here I'm sure to get a rise outta somebody, big let down out in the wild, sigh ;-) . . .


You should also be posting those photos to the Do you shave your wrist thread.


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

Token19 said:


> The point that both ShanDaMan and badbebe are missing is that it is meaningless to use the price of a product or its value retention to suggest anything about its inherent quality. Plenty of fashion brands hold their value really well, but are inherently bad quality or bad value (not connecting this with Rolex since they make great watches). On the flip side there are plenty of brands that are not famous or popular at all, but still make great products. If your main argument for why Rolex is superior is that 1) it's more popular to the general public and 2) it holds its value better, then that to me says that you're extremely preoccupied with how others perceive you (especially your wealth). It makes me think of the people who wear Gucci or Salvatore ferragamo belts because they have giant logos for belt buckles, or love Louis Vuitton because their bags have their logo plastered everywhere. So what that's saying to me is that if everything stayed the same product quality wise and you knew that, but suddenly Omega is the more popular brand and it retains its value better, then you would immediately say that Omega is superior to Rolex? Seems really shallow to me.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Are we talking about luxury watches or corns and wheat? Seems really shallow to me when one talks about the "value" of a luxury product and doesn't understand that the majority of your watch's value is in its brand.. . the stuff u can't measure with a ruler, intangibles.

and if one day Omega can command higher selling prices than Rolex (I don't mean list price) then yes it will be a superior product, regardless of any new gimmicks they add to their watch. The tangible aspect of two brand aren't that much different, and right now Rolex is better than Omega in everything else.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

patton250 said:


> Absolutely never. No way, no how
> 
> Seems to me lots of intelligent people live where you do.


We do, but many of them for some reason insist on sheepishly wearing Rolexes and driving BMWs without realizing they are not impressing the people they are so desperately attempting to impress.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Nom de Forum said:


> We do, but many of them for some reason insist on sheepishly wearing Rolexes and driving BMWs without realizing they are not impressing the people they are so desperately attempting to impress.


 Since you obviously are talented at predicting and determining other people's reasons and intentions for particular purchases perhaps you can share your knowledge and insight as to who is going to win the Super Bowl this year. I'm sure we could all benefit greatly and get rich if you would just share your psychic powers with us.:-!


----------



## Token19 (May 20, 2016)

Badbebe said:


> Are we talking about luxury watches or corns and wheat? Seems really shallow to me when one talks about the "value" of a luxury product and doesn't understand that the majority of your watch's value is in its brand.. . the stuff u can't measure with a ruler, intangibles.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Once again you're completely missing the point, we're not discussing whether Rolex or Omega is worth more $ wise as a company. Monetary worth is determined by the market and is an indisputable fact. You think this thread has gone on for hundreds of pages because people can't figure out what the market cap of swatch group is?

We're talking about which brand makes a better product, and this is something that is subjective and actually worth discussing and debating. The fact that you keep on quoting external factors such as price and resale value makes for a really lazy argument because it doesn't say anything about what you (and not the public) care about in the watch / product itself. Everyone knows Rolex is more famous, more expensive, and retains value better than omega. Other people have cited build quality, materials, technology, etc. as reasons for why Rolex is better, and those are legitimate and personal reasons. Repeating the fact that Rolex is worth more as your only point leads me to believe that the ONLY reason you like Rolex is because other people do, in which case yes that actually is a shallow characteristic.

P.S. Since you clearly love tossing around financial terms without a basic understanding of what they mean, the "intangibles" that you're talking about like brand name ARE actually measured with an exact dollar value on the balance sheet of a company under goodwill.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

patton250 said:


> I don't even know what to say to the highlighted area so for the sake of friendliness I will do my best to pretend that you never wrote it.
> 
> You do have a point about logos however the brands you mentioned all make top-quality stuff especially Ferragamo.
> 
> ...


Where do brands like Moritz Grossmann or D.Dornblüth & Sohn fit into this equation?


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

patton250 said:


> Since you obviously are talented at predicting and determining other people's reasons and intentions for particular purchases perhaps you can share your knowledge and insight as to who is going to win the Super Bowl this year. I'm sure we could all benefit greatly and get rich if you would just share your psychic powers with us.:-!


I can tell you who will win the Super Bowl this year. It will be a football team. Now to really amaze you with my psychic powers I can also tell you it will not be a Canadian Football team. I suspect your psychic powers are far greater than mine since with insufficient information to empirically make a determination you used your ESP to determine we have many intelligent people where I live.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Nom de Forum said:


> You should be posting those photos to the Do you shave your wrist thread.


i'm female, why would i want to do that . . . are women's arms/watches not allowed?


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Nom de Forum said:


> I can tell you who will win the Super Bowl this year. It will be a football team. Now to really amaze you with my psychic powers I can also tell you it will not be a Canadian Football team. I suspect your psychic powers are far greater than mine since with insufficient information to empirically make a determination you used your ESP to determine we have many intelligent people where I live.


 Well you seem to claim to know the reasons people by BMWs and Rolex watches. That is a unique talent in itself. I was only hoping you could extend that talent to gambling.


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

Token19 said:


> Once again you're completely missing the point, we're not discussing whether Rolex or Omega is worth more $ wise as a company. Monetary worth is determined by the market and is an indisputable fact. You think this thread has gone on for hundreds of pages because people can't figure out what the market cap of swatch group is?
> 
> We're talking about which brand makes a better product, and this is something that is subjective and actually worth discussing and debating. The fact that you keep on quoting external factors such as price and resale value makes for a really lazy argument because it doesn't say anything about what you (and not the public) care about in the watch / product itself. Everyone knows Rolex is more famous, more expensive, and retains value better than omega. Other people have cited build quality, materials, technology, etc. as reasons for why Rolex is better, and those are legitimate and personal reasons. Repeating the fact that Rolex is worth more as your only point leads me to believe that the ONLY reason you like Rolex is because other people do, in which case yes that actually is a shallow characteristic.
> 
> ...


the last time I looked, I wasn't responding to a thread named "Will omega ever be as good as Rolex - in terms of build quality and material only". I think I've used this analogy before... if your favorite homage watch company made an exact clone seamaster sans the logo, is it just as good as an Omega seamaster? Is an Omega seamaster not better than a sterile seamaster clone? I'm talking about the intangible aspect of a watch, which is a part of what makes a good product.

ps I'm a cpa, don't be so shallow with all the assumptions (you tossed that word first)



Token19 said:


> Seems really shallow to me.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

drhr said:


> i'm female, why would i want to do that . . . are women's arms/watches not allowed?


Never intended to imply allowance or none allowance. See my edit to post 2358.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

eblackmo said:


> Where do brands like Moritz Grossmann or D.Dornblüth & Sohn fit into this equation?


 Both are outstanding horology and superior in every way to Rolex and Omega. IMHO Awesome examples.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Badbebe said:


> the last time I looked, I wasn't responding to a thread named "Will omega ever be as good as Rolex - in terms of build quality and material only". I think I've used this analogy before... if your favorite homage watch company made an exact clone seamaster sans the logo, *is it just as good as an Omega seamaster? Is an Omega seamaster not better than a sterile seamaster clone? *
> 
> ps I'm a cpa, don't be so shallow with all the assumptions
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


not speaking for Token of course, but generally yes to the first and no to the 2nd if you're even allowing for a subjective answer (and i'm being serious with this answer as u may know if my current watch inventory is countable) . . .


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Nom de Forum said:


> Never intended to imply allowance or none allowance. See my edit to post 2358.


then sorry, i'm dense and don't know what u'r referring to, we can both move on . . .


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

patton250 said:


> Well you seem to claim to know the reasons people by BMWs and Rolex watches. That is a unique talent in itself. I was only hoping you could extend that talent to gambling.


I do know some of the many reasons why people buy BMWs and Rolex watches. Its very easy to know when people have told you their reasons. What you are attempting to imply is that I have claimed to know the only reason why people buy BMWs and Rolex watches. I don't think that was a innocent error in logic on your part.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

drhr said:


> then sorry, i'm dense and don't know what u'r referring to, we can both move on . . .


https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/do-you-shave-your-wrist-3461625.html


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Nom de Forum said:


> https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/do-you-shave-your-wrist-3461625.html


yes, saw that a few days ago, thx . . .


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

I'm going to be sad when the poll closes in a week and it's not a perfect tie. I figured that is what the result deserves to be...


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Nom de Forum said:


> I do know some of the many reasons why people buy BMWs and Rolex watches. Its very easy to know when people have told you their reasons. What you are attempting to imply is that I have claimed to know the only reason why people buy BMWs and Rolex watches. I don't think that was a innocent error in logic on your part.


 Nope. Just going by your original statement. No error in logic. I can't imagine any human being being pretentious enough to actually tell another human being they are purchasing a Rolex or BMW so people will think better of them. What a truly shallow individual that would be. I would want to help that person with all of my heart. They have serious inferiority complex issues.

Now if you took offense to it I apologize. You see I have been married 20 years and I could write a very large book on what I still don't know about my wife. As a sales trainer I spend hundreds of hours a year training salespeople to never assume anything about a prospect. If people actually told you pretentiousness was the reason they bought these items I will take your word for it.


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

drhr said:


> not speaking for Token of course, but generally yes to the first and no to the 2nd if you're even allowing for a subjective answer (and i'm being serious with this answer as u may know if my current watch inventory is countable) . . .


subjectively yes sure we all have our personal preferences. I'm just saying u can't neglect the fact that a good luxury product is more than just material and build quality.. and imo you can measure the intangibles by looking at the grey market price, given the material and build quality aren't that much different.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Badbebe said:


> subjectively yes sure we all have our personal preferences. I'm just saying u can't neglect the fact that a good luxury product is more than just material and build quality.. and imo you can measure the intangibles by looking at the grey market price, given the material and build quality aren't that much different.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


fair enough, actually impressed with this answer/response, thx . . .


----------



## Token19 (May 20, 2016)

Badbebe said:


> the last time I looked, I wasn't responding to a thread named "Will omega ever be as good as Rolex - in terms of build quality and material only". I think I've used this analogy before... if your favorite homage watch company made an exact clone seamaster sans the logo, is it just as good as an Omega seamaster? Is an Omega seamaster not better than a sterile seamaster clone? I'm talking about the intangible aspect of a watch, which is a part of what makes a good product.
> 
> ps I'm a cpa, don't be so shallow with all the assumptions (you tossed that word first)
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


And last time I checked, this thread wasn't called "will omega ever be as good as Rolex - in terms of value retention only." See it sounds just as pointless when I say it too.

To answer your question (even though you've ignored all of my points that you don't have a good answer for), if another watch company made the exact same watch as omega or Rolex, even then they would not be the same to me because of the marketing that both omega and Rolex have done. However I've never stated that build quality is the only thing that matters, whereas when you say something like price of Rolex is higher so it's obviously better without further elaboration, you're implying that the watches themselves don't matter at all. If you think Rolex has a better image then explain why you believe it has a better image (and in fact I do think it has a better image), don't be lazy and only use price as your only justification. Brand image is something subjective and is interpreted differently by each person, it requires more elaboration than a simple "price is higher so must be better" (which is what I'm calling a shallow statement). Brand image needs to be evaluated hand in hand with product quality to arrive at a complete conclusion.

P.S. I'm not a cpa but even I know enough to call out your bs like how the intangibles such as brand name can't be measured. It bothers me that you try to use market valuation (price set by grey market) as your justification for which brand is superior, and then you make a statement saying that brand name cannot be measured even though goodwill IS measured on a company's balance sheet and IS a part of market valuation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

patton250 said:


> Nope. Just going by your original statement. No error in logic. I can't imagine any human being being pretentious enough to actually tell another human being they are purchasing a Rolex or BMW so people will think better of them. What a truly shallow individual that would be. I would want to help that person with all of my heart. They have serious inferiority complex issues.
> 
> Now if you took offense to it I apologize. You see I have been married 20 years and I could write a very large book on what I still don't know about my wife. As a sales trainer I spend hundreds of hours a year training salespeople to never assume anything about a prospect. If people actually told you pretentiousness was the reason they bought these items I will take your word for it.


I'll take your word for it that you meant no offense. Please take my word for it I have been exposed to a large number of people afflicted with this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

and these people often boast about how impressive they are because they have some possession and will even admit to calculated attempts to impress people with their possessions. Narcissists have no shame until exposed as fools and then they can feel enough shame to do very destructive things to others.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Nom de Forum said:


> I'll take your word for it that you meant no offense. Please take my word for it I have been exposed to a large number of people afflicted with this
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
> 
> and these people often boast about how impressive they are because they have some possession and will even admit to calculated attempts to impress people with their possessions. Narcissists have no shame until exposed as fools and then they can feel enough shame to do very destructive things to others.


Like run for President?


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

Token19 said:


> And last time I checked, this thread wasn't called "will omega ever be as good as Rolex - in terms of value retention only." See it sounds just as pointless when I say it too.
> 
> To answer your question (even though you've ignored all of my points that you don't have a good answer for), i*f another watch company made the exact same watch as omega or Rolex,* *even then they would not be the same* to me because of the marketing that both omega and Rolex have done. However I've never stated that build quality is the only thing that matters, whereas when you say something like price of Rolex is higher so it's obviously better without further elaboration, you're implying that the watches themselves don't matter at all. If you think Rolex has a better image then explain why you believe it has a better image (and in fact I do think it has a better image), don't be lazy and only use price as your only justification. Brand image is something subjective and is interpreted differently by each person, it requires more elaboration than a simple "price is higher so must be better" (which is what I'm calling a shallow statement). *Brand image needs to be evaluated hand in hand with product quality to arrive at a complete conclusion. *


isn't this what I said? so we can agree then? 


Badbebe said:


> IMO A good watch needs more than good quality, the weight also include the brand's story etc and all marketing behind it. ... ...
> ...
> When you take account for all aspects of a watch (not just the attributes of one's choice that helps their argument) the price people are willing to pay assigns a $ value to the intangibles, the stuff you can't objectively measure, hence it's a very good indication which product is better.





Token19 said:


> P.S. I'm not a cpa but even I know enough to call out *your bs* like how the i*ntangibles such as brand name can't be measured.* It bothers me that you try to use market valuation (price set by grey market) as your justification for which brand is superior, and then you make a statement saying that brand name *cannot* be measured even though goodwill IS measured on a company's balance sheet and IS a part of market valuation.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


what what? don't put Your word in my mouth lol. If you enjoy arguing just for the sake of arguing, at least find someone with an opinion different than your own lmao.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

I've told you once&#8230;


----------



## Token19 (May 20, 2016)

Badbebe said:


> isn't this what I said? so we can agree then?
> 
> what what? don't put Your word in my mouth lol. If you enjoy arguing just for the sake of arguing, at least find someone with an opinion different than your own lmao.


No we're not saying the same thing because you believe that the price is the end all be all indicator of what product is better, whereas I believe that price is related to the brand image which is ONE factor in determining which product is better. I can easily find you an Armani colleziani suit that sells for more than a corneliani suit, that does not mean the Armani suit is better. People pay more for the Armani suit because Armani is good at cultivating its brand image, but an Armani colleziani suit has far inferior constriction and quality compared to a corneliani suit. Once again and for the final time, put some effort in and do more research than just looking price tags, as a watch enthusiast you owe it to yourself to be better informed than just knowing which brand costs more.



Badbebe said:


> Seems really shallow to me when one talks about the "value" of a luxury product and doesn't understand that the majority of your watch's value is in its brand.. . the stuff u can't measure with a ruler, intangibles


"The majority of your watch's value is in its brand, the stuff u can't measure with a ruler, intangibles"

Apologies for putting "my word" in your mouth lmao!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> I've told you once&#8230;


No you haven't!


----------



## Pun (Sep 2, 2015)

dbostedo said:


> Nom de Forum said:
> 
> 
> > That's why you don't buy Rolex or Omega and you do buy Grand Seiko. I just ordered a Certina Precidrive to replace my Breitling Colt SQ. I am tired of the "Is that a Rolex", "Are you a pilot", "Isn't that what John Travolta (Wingnut Wacko) wears" questions. I don't need anyone to recognize a GS or the Certina for me to feel good about wearing one.
> ...


Yes even I'm amazed. He is lucky to have the company of WIS around him... an envious position I'd say.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> No you haven't!


Yes, I have.

(c'mon 300!)


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> I've told you once&#8230;





dbostedo said:


> No you haven't!





BarracksSi said:


> Yes, I have.


When?


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

Bhakt said:


> Yes even I'm amazed. He is lucky to have the company of WIS around him... an envious position I'd say.


Sorry, you have completely misunderstood the situation. I don't have the company of WIS around me. The people who made these comments were clueless about watches. They were ignoramuses. There is no pride to be felt from the envy of ignoramuses.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

It's all rubbish now that you can get an Invictine.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

dbostedo said:


> When?


You guys are starting to sound like Abbott and Costello doing "Who's on first"!:-d


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Nom de Forum said:


> I do know some of the many reasons why people buy BMWs and Rolex watches. Its very easy to know when people have told you their reasons. What you are attempting to imply is that I have claimed to know the only reason why people buy BMWs and Rolex watches.


+1

"People buy luxury goods for a variety of reasons, all of which are related to the strong emotions that we attach to expensive material goods. Whether we are financially comfortable or not, we will often purchase luxury items to show off to or gain acceptance from others and to reward ourselves for an accomplishment."(The Psychology Behind Why People Buy Luxury Goods | Investopedia)

"According to researchers, low self-esteem is a big factor in whether a person will buy luxury goods that he may not be able to afford. For consumers trapped in institutionalized poverty or those living paycheck to paycheck, a luxury good can go a long way in increasing self-esteem or providing a sense of belonging. In China, men use luxury goods to show off their success and flaunt wealth. Chinese women, like American women, tend to purchase luxury goods in order to give in to hedonistic tendencies."(The Psychology Behind Why People Buy Luxury Goods | Investopedia)
(Study: Low Self-Esteem Makes You More Likely to Buy Luxury Goods | TIME.com)

"But whereas ostentatious displays of wealth may be less common at the top end of the market, the new Chinese middle classes still see luxury goods as a way to show they have made it. "Dior" and "Rolex" remain popular search terms on Chinese microblogging sites."(The Economist explains: China's addiction to luxury goods | The Economist)

I can't claim that I know why others buy/own what they buy/own, but I could speak from my own perception. When I see someone with BMW or Rolex, I do assume that person has some sort of wealth. If I assume that person has theory of mind, that person knows that some/most people would have that assumption, even if that person claims that prestige does not matter to him/her. That person at least doesn't mind if others think he/she has some sort of wealth as a result of seeing his/her BMW or Rolex.

"Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states-beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.-to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own."

Counter point: even if others don't notice, oneself feels good about buying/owning some luxury good, and the high price of that good has served its purpose in making oneself feel good (i.e. splurge on or treat myself) without the intention of showing off. e.g. I bought two ~$500 watches for myself. They are luxury watches in the sense that they are not necessities, as I had watches for time telling already. I bought the watches because they look beautiful and they are fun to play with, and had to pay that price to get that quality, but admittedly splurging on myself did/does feel good in a way. I wear them at home mostly so they're not for showing off. If I buy a Rolex or Omega watch, I would mostly wear it at home and not for showing off.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

rdoder said:


> +1
> 
> "People buy luxury goods for a variety of reasons, all of which are related to the strong emotions that we attach to expensive material goods. Whether we are financially comfortable or not, we will often purchase luxury items to show off to or gain acceptance from others and to reward ourselves for an accomplishment."(The Psychology Behind Why People Buy Luxury Goods | Investopedia)
> 
> ...


Of course sometimes a cigar is just a cigar . Great post. Thank you.:-!


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

drhr said:


> agreed, let's compare either/both to JLC and AP and get off this merry go round, at least there might be some new and exciting tidbits . . .


What??? Noooo. That's not why I brought up JLC.

Let's try another way of settling this.

We agreed in that other thread that Blancpain > Rolex if for no other reason than the fact that the worthies in the HE Forum deem it so.

But while the above was arguable to some degree, nobody in their right minds even tries to compare Omega to Blancpain.

Ergo, Rolex > Omega.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

mleok said:


> I have no issue with the statement that a smartphone is less robust and reliable than a simpler phone like a Razor, but I still think the analogy is appropriate. Within the category of smartphones, the iPhone is generally more reliable than the corresponding Android or Windows based alternative.


You haven't tried many phones lately then because my iPhone 6s crashes, browser closes, calls drop, wifi hangs, personal hotspot disconnects, Bluetooth disconnects a lot more than my Samsung. Yes the iPhone usually works fine 90% of the time but my Samsung is bulletproof.

My iPhone is on Telus and my personal android phone is on Rogers but that shouldn't affect the Bluetooth or wifi. My android also much more consistent data speeds although that might be the carrier, although Telus is ranked ahead of Rogers in the latest reception tests, so even then I can't really make an excuse for the iPhone.

Dont get me started on battery life. My Samsung is way better. Lasts a day before I have to charge easily. My iPhone is plugged in my car charger like not even halfway through the day. And I owned plenty of iPhones.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Nom de Forum said:


> "Who's on first"!


Yes.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> When?


Just now.



Nom de Forum said:


> You guys are starting to sound like Abbott and Costello doing "Who's on first"!:-d


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

Token19 said:


> No we're not saying the same thing because you believe that the price is the end all be all indicator of what product is better, whereas I believe that price is related to the brand image which is ONE factor in determining which product is better. I can easily find you an Armani colleziani suit that sells for more than a corneliani suit, that does not mean the Armani suit is better. People pay more for the Armani suit because Armani is good at cultivating its brand image, but an Armani colleziani suit has far inferior constriction and quality compared to a corneliani suit. Once again and for the final time, put some effort in and do more research than just looking price tags, as a watch enthusiast you owe it to yourself to be better informed than just knowing which brand costs more.
> 
> "The majority of your watch's value is in its brand, the stuff u can't measure with a ruler, intangibles"
> 
> ...


please teach me how to calculate goodwill with a Ruler. I think Becker might of missed that your ruler method but luckily I wasn't tested on it. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> Just now.


No you didn't.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> No you didn't.


Yes I did.

(trying to do this from memory)


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> Yes I did.
> 
> (trying to do this from memory)


You didn't.

(I didn't get past the first couple of lines...)


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

^^^. Is this an argument?

(Cue Monty Python in 3, 2,...)

Oh wait. Someone beat me to it.


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

Token19 said:


> No we're not saying the same thing because you believe that the price is the end all be all indicator of what product is better, whereas I believe that price is related to the brand image which is ONE factor in determining which product is better. I can easily find you an Armani colleziani suit that sells for more than a corneliani suit, that does not mean the Armani suit is better. People pay more for the Armani suit because Armani is good at cultivating its brand image, but an Armani colleziani suit has far inferior constriction and quality compared to a corneliani suit. Once again and for the final time, put some effort in and do more research than just looking price tags, as a watch enthusiast you owe it to yourself to be better informed than just knowing which brand costs more.


the price is the end all be all indicator of which product is better, *when all tangible aspects are materially the same. 
*


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

Badbebe said:


> the price is the end all be all indicator of which product is better, *when all tangible aspects are materially the same.
> *


There is not a consensus that "all tangible aspects are materially the same".


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> You didn't.
> 
> (I didn't get past the first couple of lines...)


Look, you came here for an _argument._


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> Look, you came here for an _argument._


What? Oh... yes.... *sits down* ... Just a five minute one then... Now... You most certainly did not.


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

Nom de Forum said:


> Ah, no.
> 
> Rolex = Lee Merryweather (boring Catwoman)
> Omega = Julie Newmar (sexy Catwoman)
> Ulysse Nardin = Ertha Kitt (psycho Catwoman)


You guys are showing your age.

Nomos = Camren Bicondova Catwoman
Heuer = Michelle Pfeifer Catwoman 
Invicta = Halle Berry Catwoman


----------



## Pun (Sep 2, 2015)

BigSeikoFan said:


> Nom de Forum said:
> 
> 
> > I'll take your word for it that you meant no offense. Please take my word for it I have been exposed to a large number of people afflicted with this
> ...


You have just Trumped me!


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

Can we hit 2,500? Dunno. One thing I do know is that an Omega is a watch specificslly made for:

1. The guy who has "almost" made it
2. The guy who is too cheap to buy a real watch
3. A guy who would like to think he has money and pretends to but alas does not

Thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Crate410 said:


> Can we hit 2,500? Dunno. One thing I do know is that an Omega is a watch specificslly made for:
> 
> 1. The guy who has "almost" made it
> 2. The guy who is too cheap to buy a real watch
> ...


Although you gotta give Omega owners props for having the moral fiber to get an Omega instead of a Steinhart.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

chuasam said:


> You guys are showing your age.
> 
> Nomos = Camren Bicondova Catwoman
> Heuer = Michelle Pfeifer Catwoman
> Invicta = Halle Berry Catwoman


Yup.



Bhakt said:


> You have just Trumped me!


We can only hope that we all don't get "Trumped".



> Crate410 said:
> 
> 
> > Can we hit 2,500? Dunno. One thing I do know is that an Omega is a watch specificslly made for:
> ...


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

vkalia said:


> Although you gotta give Omega owners props for having the moral fiber to get an Omega instead of a Steinhart...


Hey, hey, hey.... some of us have Steinhart's that _aren't _knock-offs!


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

Nom de Forum said:


> Yup.
> 
> Hey guys your schtick is getting stale. You guys gotta comeup with some new material or this thread is gonna get shutdown for lack of an audience.


Yeah a SKX781 is hardly fit to lead as a watch. No offence to Seiko.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

chuasam said:


> Nom de Forum said:
> 
> 
> > Yup.
> ...


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

patton250 said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > > Interesting that you are allowed to inject politics into this forum.
> ...


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Nom de Forum said:


> patton250 said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

patton250 said:


> Nom de Forum said:
> 
> 
> > patton250 said:
> ...


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

patton250 said:


> Interesting that you are allowed to inject politics into this forum. I thought it was against the rules. Do it on the other forum and they send you packing before you hit the enter button. Especially if you espouse conservative viewpoints. * It's good to know that it is allowed here* though.


I wouldn't necessarily assume that. I'm not a mod but I think that something light and breezy (i.e., not hard core politics) may get a pass, but anything more, you do so at your own peril...


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> What? Oh... yes.... *sits down* ... Just a five minute one then... Now... You most certainly did not.


Well, I most certainly did.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> Well, I most certainly did.


Look... this isn't an argument!


----------



## UK humbug (Feb 19, 2016)

dbostedo said:


> Look... this isn't an argument!


I await someone posting the entire Monty Python script that this quote came from.....


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

BigSeikoFan said:


> I wouldn't necessarily assume that. I'm not a mod but I think that something light and breezy (i.e., not hard core politics) may get a pass, but anything more, you do so at your own peril...


" light and breezy " is subjective.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

patton250 said:


> " light and breezy " is subjective.


that's why there's mods


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

drhr said:


> that's why there's mods


 Yes so they get to pick and choose what is against the rules and what is not. I watch this very thing happened on the other forum. It's still all subjective. It's best to stay away from it 100% otherwise like I said it's up to the individual moderator. Thanks though.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> Look... this isn't an argument!


Yes it is.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

UK humbug said:


> I await someone posting the entire Monty Python script that this quote came from.....


Working on it; going line-by-line, we can probably knock out another fifty posts.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

patton250 said:


> Yes so they get to pick and choose what is against the rules and what is not. I watch this very thing happened on the other forum. It's still all subjective. It's best to stay away from it 100% otherwise like I said it's up to the individual moderator. Thanks though.


Nah... many things are subjective, and it's easy to have clear enough lines without becoming overly pedantic about it.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> Yes it is.


No it isn't... it's just contradiction!


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

patton250 said:


> Yes so they get to pick and choose what is against the rules and what is not. I watch this very thing happened on the other forum. It's still all subjective. It's best to stay away from it 100% otherwise like I said it's up to the individual moderator. Thanks though.


you're welcome


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

I think having a bit of flexibility and being aware there are grey areas are important traits for moderators to have, even if it introduces a little subjectivity. Otherwise it gets too authoritarian and you're posting on a police state message board. I've been on message boards like that and trust me, the way it works here is much better.


----------



## Bradjhomes (Jun 18, 2011)

patton250 said:


> It's still all subjective. It's best to stay away from it 100%


Agreed.

Let's move on folks.


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

vkalia said:


> Although you gotta give Omega owners props for having the moral fiber to get an Omega instead of a Steinhart.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Yessss!!!! Add to the fire my friend! And you are absolutely right!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

Nom de Forum said:


> Yup.
> 
> We can only hope that we all don't get "Trumped".
> 
> ...


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Crate410 said:


> Yessss!!!! Add to the fire my friend! And you are absolutely right!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


tsssk, just a spark, no real flame


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> No it isn't... it's just contradiction!


Well, arguing means I take up a contrary position.

(I'm struggling here; I used to listen to Monty Python cassettes while delivering pizzas 25 years ago, too)


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

patton250 said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > I like AP and nobody knows what the heck those are except for WIS.
> ...


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

Yes I admit it, I'm fitting the stereotypes in this thread. I own an Omega and a Tag because I can't afford a Rolex. However, to stir up some debate, not all Omega owners fit my profile. Such as member 'AAMC'. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if anyone calls that man 'cheap', I'll cut off his ____. The same goes for DayWatchMan, but for different reasons.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> Well, arguing means I take up a contrary position.
> 
> (I'm struggling here; I used to listen to Monty Python cassettes while delivering pizzas 25 years ago, too)


I think we've gone off script a bit too much.... nicely done though. I haven't seen that skit except a few years ago when I watched a bunch of Monty Python on YouTube...

For anyone interested, here's the script of the part we were doing. The full sketch is worth watching : 






> *(The man goes into room 12A. Another man is sitting behind a desk.)
> *Man: Is this the right room for an argument?
> Other Man:*(John Cleese)* I've told you once.
> Man: No you haven't!
> ...


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> I think we've gone off script a bit too much.... nicely done though. I haven't seen that skit except a few years ago when I watched a bunch of Monty Python on YouTube...
> 
> For anyone interested, here's the script of the part we were doing. The full sketch is worth watching :


It helps to read it with an English accent, too. 

Eric Idle told about bringing his idea for his "Nudge nudge" sketch to a Python meeting and passing it around. The other guys looked it over and wondered what could possibly be so funny, reading it dryly, "'nudge nudge, know what I mean, say no more...' What's this about..." Then Eric read it aloud and they just about fell out of their chairs laughing.








> Man: 'Evening, squire!Squire: *(stiffly)* Good evening.
> Man: Is, uh,...Is your wife a goer, eh? Know whatahmean, know whatahmean, nudge nudge, know whatahmean, say no more?
> Squire: I, uh, I beg your pardon?
> Man: Your, uh, your wife, does she go, eh, does she go, eh?
> ...


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Crate410 said:


> patton250 said:
> 
> 
> > You would be surprised how many non WIS know what an AP is or at least the RO.
> ...


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

patton250 said:


> Crate410 said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody has ever noticed my AP Royal Oak Offshore. Somebody once asked me about it and I told them it was a high-end Casio G-Shock. They believed me and let it go. Lol
> ...


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

patton250 said:


> Crate410 said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody has ever noticed my AP Royal Oak Offshore. Somebody once asked me about it and I told them it was a high-end Casio G-Shock. They believed me and let it go. Lol
> ...


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Crate410 said:


> patton250 said:
> 
> 
> > Very strange. Count yourself lucky then. Could mean that you dont live in a very materialistic place.
> ...


----------



## YunBW (May 29, 2016)

Hi, I'm sure all or most of us have seen this kind of title at least once; I have a few questions about this topic.
Firstly, if we are comparing omega coaxial movement to the Rolex in house movement, is omega a much better movement in technology wise(I won't compare robust, since it's kinda a new movement)? I read few articles saying Rolex haven't change too much for their movement or "too scared" is that true?
Secondly, is omega watch better 'bang per buck' watch? If we talking about watch quality itself. No history, marketing, etc involve.
Thirdly, Is Rolex overpriced? Some articles stated that to produce a Rolex watch cost around $750-1000 and a lot goes to margin like 30-40%, importers, repair, etc. if anyone could provide information on omega it will be wonderful.
To the readers, I'm really not trying to bash Rolex or say omega is better, but I want to do some educational study about luxury brands. I really love the design of Rolex, very Classic. I sometimes feels omega is underrated in some way... Please help me to answer these doubts/questions. Thank you!



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*



YunBW said:


> Hi, I'm sure all or most of us have seen this kind of title at least once; I have a few questions about this topic.
> Firstly, if we are comparing omega coaxial movement to the Rolex in house movement, is omega a much better movement in technology wise(I won't compare robust, since it's kinda a new movement)? I read few articles saying Rolex haven't change too much for their movement or "too scared" is that true?
> Secondly, is omega watch better 'bang per buck' watch? If we talking about watch quality itself. No history, marketing, etc involve.
> Thirdly, Is Rolex overpriced? Some articles stated that to produce a Rolex watch cost around $750-1000 and a lot goes to margin like 30-40%, importers, repair, etc. if anyone could provide information on omega it will be wonderful.
> ...


 You should just buy a Rolex so you can be cool just like me.


----------



## YunBW (May 29, 2016)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*



patton250 said:


> You should just buy a Rolex so you can be cool just like me.


Already starting to save up for it. Dw 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*

yay another rolex vs omega.

ok i'll be on omega's side.

so rolex is better than omega in nothing.


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*

also the value of rolex against omega is 1/2 of omega's price. but ... when you buy rolex you pay 2 times more.


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*

you guys really are running out of material aren't you? rolex vs omega again? and there is also another steinhart homage thread. Really it's getting boring. Back to the drawing board for you.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*



Damir Galic said:


> also the value of rolex against omega is 1/2 of omega's price. but ... when you buy rolex you pay 2 times more.


Please continue enlightening us with your priceless pearls of wisdom. We are not worthy.


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*



YunBW said:


> Hi, *I'm sure all or most of us have seen this kind of title at least once*; I have a few questions about this topic.
> *Firstly, if we are comparing omega coaxial movement to the Rolex in house movement, is omega a much better movement in technology wise(I won't compare robust, since it's kinda a new movement)? I read few articles saying Rolex haven't change too much for their movement or "too scared" is that true?*
> *Secondly, is omega watch better 'bang per buck' watch?* If we talking about watch quality itself.* No history, marketing, etc involve*.
> *Thirdly, Is Rolex overpriced? *Some articles stated *that to produce a Rolex watch cost around $750-1000* and a lot goes to margin like 30-40%, importers, repair, etc. if anyone could provide information on omega it will be wonderful.
> ...


Why don't you just use google? Try thinking for yourself it's very liberating.


----------



## YunBW (May 29, 2016)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*



eblackmo said:


> Why don't you just use google? Try thinking for yourself it's very liberating.


As you might notice, I mentioned about reading articles, but I'm want to double check... Also, most of the time people say rolex is better because of history, value and few comparison on quality. But I want to know quality wise.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*

This again!


----------



## YunBW (May 29, 2016)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*



eblackmo said:


> you guys really are running out of material aren't you? rolex vs omega again? and there is also another steinhart homage thread. Really it's getting boring. Back to the drawing board for you.


Yes I'm very sorry, that I couldn't provide new material for your need.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*



YunBW said:


> *Yes I'm very sorry, that I couldn't provide new material for your specific need.*
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk





YunBW said:


> As you might notice, I mentioned about reading articles, but I'm want to double check... Also, most of the time people say rolex is better because of history, value and few comparison on quality. But I want to know quality wise.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


and yet you are still trying to keep it going. Unoriginal. Come back when you have something better. At least Damir was able to pull something original out of his magic top hat.


----------



## YunBW (May 29, 2016)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*



eblackmo said:


> and yet you are still trying to keep it going. Unoriginal. Come back when you have something better. At least Damir was able to pull something original out of his magic top hat.


Ok, I guess I will just remove this post for the sake of boring topic...

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*



eblackmo said:


> and yet you are still trying to keep it going. Unoriginal. Come back when you have something better. At least Damir was able to pull something original out of his magic top hat.


oh man it fills my heart with joy when i see Damir getting this much love...


----------



## Alysandir (Jun 29, 2016)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*

Did they lock the thread with over 220 pages? Pity. It was so productive in helping us sort - once and for all - which is the better watch brand.

Regards,
Alysandir


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*

Oh Gawd! If I start reading this thread I'll probably go insane and end up giving myself a tonsillectomy with a shotgun.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*



Nom de Forum said:


> Oh Gawd! If I start reading this thread I'll probably go insane and end up giving myself a tonsillectomy with a shotgun.


now now, do calm down dear, here's a cup of tea :TEA


----------



## R_rated (Aug 1, 2016)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*

If Omega was really better there would not be threads like these started out of Rolex envy.


----------



## Horologic (Apr 26, 2012)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*



YunBW said:


> Thirdly, Is Rolex overpriced? Some articles stated that to produce a Rolex watch cost around $750-1000 and a lot goes to margin like 30-40%, importers, repair, etc. if anyone could provide information on omega it will be wonderful.


Actually Rolex dealers have less margin than Omega. And Rolex has better resale value. I honestly think Omega is more overpriced.


----------



## GlennO (Jan 3, 2010)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*

Best to keep the discussion in one place for now. Merged with similar thread on the topic.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*



Horologic said:


> Actually Rolex dealers have less margin than Omega. And Rolex has better resale value. I honestly think Omega is more overpriced.


Just don't be the poor sod who buys a SMP-C at full retail at the Omega boutique.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*



mleok said:


> Just don't be the poor sod who buys a SMP-C at full retail at the Omega boutique.


 Man you are so right. Every time I go into the Omega boutique and talk to the sales guys in there I feel so bad for them. I can't bring myself to tell them I can get the same pieces for 20-40% off in the gray market with a blank warranty card. It's even worse for Breitling boutiques. Try getting a brand-new Rolex watch with a blank warranty card for 30% off in the grey market. It won't happen fellas.


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*



YunBW said:


> Ok, I guess I will just remove this post for the sake of boring topic...
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


Thanks. I really appreciate it.

Actually I have come up with some for you.

"How do you feel about homage brands referring to their rolex clones as a submariner? E.g. the tisell submariner. Is the word submariner regardless of context actually ripping off rolex? Is calling a watch a dive watch actually ripping of rolex? Is there any dive watch that isn't a rolex homage? Why isn't the only dive watch sold a rolex submariner?"

and whatever other stupid crap you can come up with.


----------



## consum3r (Sep 19, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> (trying to do this from memory)


"An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition!"

Sent from my cranium via manual interface with a tactile input device.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

dbostedo said:


> No it isn't... it's just contradiction!


Stop hitting me!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

So we're doing unconnected Monty Python quotes now? Very well...

"Strange women, lying in ponds, distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!"


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

*arm gets cut off*

Tis but a flesh wound!


----------



## Spunwell (Feb 2, 2014)

So what else floats?

"Wood"

"Very small rocks"


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

I've never met a seasoned wis that thought Omega was as good as Rolex


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.


_*NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!!!*_


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Vlance said:


> I've never met a seasoned wis that thought Omega was as good as Rolex
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


 Absolutely me either. In fact something this basic is just generally understood amongst WIS. There's really no need to discuss it. You don't see people arguing about whether AP is better than Rolex right? That's just understood as well. It's still a fun thread though.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Vlance said:


> I've never met a seasoned wis that thought Omega was as good as Rolex


Trying to decide whether Cleese or Chapman would say this line better.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

patton250 said:


> Absolutely me either. In fact something this basic is just generally understood amongst WIS. There's really no need to discuss it. You don't see people arguing about whether AP is better than Rolex right? That's just understood as well. It's still a fun thread though.


Honestly, I know of plenty of wis that love Omega, and I've not seen one step into this thread. They enjoy their watches, and don't feel the need to attack... They just enjoy what they love. I won't go into detail, but it always seems to be a particular, fresh, group that feels a need to justify themselves.

Personally, I think Omega is OK, and I like Rolex, but I know better to argue where each one stands.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Vlance said:


> Honestly, I know of plenty of wis that love Omega, and I've not seen one step into this thread. They enjoy their watches, and don't feel the need to attack... They just enjoy what they love. I won't go into detail, but it always seems to be a particular, fresh, group that feels a need to justify themselves.
> 
> Personally, I think Omega is OK, and I like Rolex, but I know better to argue where each one stands.


I agree because I'm one of them. ;-)


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

I prefer the aesthetics of vintage Omegas over their contemporary lineup.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

mleok said:


> I prefer the aesthetics of vintage Omegas over their contemporary lineup.


I have a hard time with the current line, myself...

Of course, I will never, not have a soft spot for the bond SMP. It was essentially my dream watch growing up. I also quite like the aesthetics of the vintage 300, the no nonsense, early moon watch, and the simplistic pie pan.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

mleok said:


> I prefer the aesthetics of vintage Omegas over their contemporary lineup.


Firmly agree.


----------



## UberDave (Jan 13, 2015)

This thread is straying dangerously far from the Monty Python quotes theme.

_"Bring out your dead!"_ seems apropos...


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

UberDave said:


> This thread is straying dangerously far from the Monty Python quotes theme.
> 
> _"Bring out your dead!"_ seems apropos...


"_ This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be!"_


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

"What if he attacks you with a pointed stick?"

"SHUT UP!!"


----------



## Crate410 (Jun 14, 2011)

patton250 said:


> Crate410 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I'm not really sure what a "materialistic place" would be. I never really considered AP to be "materialistic". I think their company heritage is extremely cool as well as their movements. Also their watches overall are stunning.
> ...


----------



## YunBW (May 29, 2016)

eblackmo said:


> Thanks. I really appreciate it.
> 
> Actually I have come up with some for you.
> 
> ...


If the homage is exactly the same design as the Rolex submariner, I won't give my respect to the brands because they don't want to think about their watch design or not putting effort on to the watch or company. However, I don't mind brands that use sub as their basically idea concept for their watch, since they try to make something that's different than the sub in someways and to please the other budget range customers.

"Is the word submariner regardless of context actually ripping off rolex?" I'm not sure how to answer this, but my first thought is yes.

I won't consider calling a dive watch is a rip off from Rolex because 
Rolex just invented the first dive watch or the "standard of dive watch"doesn't mean they only can use a watch category for themselves. Dive watch means they could use for diving or it is water proof, so any watch that have watch proof can be called as a dive watch.

Imo, there a lot of watches isn't homage of the sub. My meaning of homage is to recreate from the original design and try to improve it or have few unique details that differentiate from the original. For example, I don't find SMP, Skx or any g shock dive watches resemble the sub In any ways.

"Why isn't the only dive watch sold a rolex submariner?" This sentence didn't make sense to me, but I understand it as why isn't Rolex the only brand that allow to sell dive watch. Just because a brand invented something new doesn't mean they are the only brand that's allow to sell watches in that category because not everyone can afford or like the design, so other brands have to make watches that suit other peoples need. Also, I doubt today's divers use their sub to dive, reason being it's an expensive watch and you don't want to lose it in the ocean basically saying bye bye to $7k(retail) and there are digital watches have more advance function for divers . For example, sperry designed/made the boats shoes, but there are a lot of brands having boat shoes that are made better than sperry.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

YunBW said:


> eblackmo said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you just use google? Try thinking for yourself it's very liberating.
> ...


Omega has more history and has been around longer than Rolex. Rolex is a 1900's watch ......ick.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

YunBW said:


> If the homage is exactly the same design as the Rolex submariner, I won't give my respect to the brands because they don't want to think about their watch design or not putting effort on to the watch or company. However, I don't mind brands that use sub as their basically idea concept for their watch, since they try to make something that's different than the sub in someways and to please the other budget range customers.
> 
> "Is the word submariner regardless of context actually ripping off rolex?" I'm not sure how to answer this, but my first thought is yes.
> 
> ...


+1

When people think about which brand is a better brand, we focus on watches as expensive jewelry, and forget about the function. One person's definition of good watch is not the same as another person's definition.

EDIT: pics from Internet:


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

YunBW said:


> If the homage is exactly the same design as the Rolex submariner, I won't give my respect to the brands because they don't want to think about their watch design or not putting effort on to the watch or company. However, I don't mind brands that use sub as their basically idea concept for their watch, since they try to make something that's different than the sub in someways and to please the other budget range customers.
> 
> "Is the word submariner regardless of context actually ripping off rolex?" I'm not sure how to answer this, but my first thought is yes.
> 
> ...


Thanks buddy. Also I thought you were going to delete your post due to it being boring and just plagiarizing other posts.


----------



## YunBW (May 29, 2016)

eblackmo said:


> Thanks buddy. Also I thought you were going to delete your post due to it being boring and just plagiarizing other posts.


Um... Yeah I was trying last night, but I couldn't and Today I found out my thread merged with this bigger thread...


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

YunBW said:


> Um... Yeah I was trying last night, but I couldn't and Today I found out my thread merged with this bigger thread...


OK then. That's your best response so far. Just keep going. It can't get any worse right? Nighty night.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Tried this out today. Quite liked it, except that it is selling for a $1000-1500 premium over a regular Seamaster, and all for a different colored bezel.










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

vkalia said:


> Tried this out today. Quite liked it, except that it is selling for a $1000-1500 premium over a regular Seamaster, and all for a different colored bezel.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I just recently saw that (in a photo ad or something, can't remember) and thought, hmmmm, love those colors on the bezel . . . from past experience, I just might be in trouble again ;-) . . .


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

drhr said:


> I just recently saw that (in a photo ad or something, can't remember) and thought, hmmmm, love those colors on the bezel . . . from past experience, I just might be in trouble again ;-) . . .


I think this is a boutique edition - and they aren't budging about discounts. Even in Hong Kong.

$4600 here - which is only a modest increase over the list of $4xxx on the regular Seamaster, but a HUGE difference in street price.

But on the flip side, that small change in colors really changes the look of the watch. I really dig it. If I could get it at the usual Omega discount, I'd be thinking about it seriously - it'd be nice to add a coax to my stable.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

vkalia said:


> I think this is a boutique edition - and they aren't budging about discounts. Even in Hong Kong.
> 
> $4600 here - which is only a modest increase over the list of $4xxx on the regular Seamaster, but a HUGE difference in street price.
> 
> ...


Without checking, I believe I've seen boutique edition Omegas on a gray site or two, may have to see what pops up, thx!


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*



patton250 said:


> Man you are so right. Every time I go into the Omega boutique and talk to the sales guys in there I feel so bad for them. I can't bring myself to tell them I can get the same pieces for 20-40% off in the gray market with a blank warranty card. It's even worse for Breitling boutiques. Try getting a brand-new Rolex watch with a blank warranty card for 30% off in the grey market. It won't happen fellas.


Costco


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*



chuasam said:


> Costco


good luck driving from Costco to Costco finding the model you want 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*

Uh oh! The closing date on this poll is fast approaching. Where is the Rolex defense force when you need them?


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*



Tomatoes11 said:


> Uh oh! The closing date on this poll is fast approaching. Where is the Rolex defense force when you need them?


they are selling their rolexes after reading this thread.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

I voted for Omega. I relate it to playing basketball with a kid. You pretend to try, but then you let them win.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

The only ones who totally win in an Omega versus Rolex debate are the for-profit companies Omega and Rolex. There's no such thing as bad publicity. As far as I understand, for the most part, most consumers lose money either way. The way to lose no money is to buy neither. ;-)


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

The day in the future that Omega begins using the same level of technology as Rolex is the day they will be as good as Rolex. Its all about the technology. I could create a very detailed analysis of that technology for you dear reader, but it is to you benefit to conduct a self-study of all the comments made by posters to this thread who are obviously Rolex and/or Omega experts. It will also be to your benefit to conduct a search of The Web for articles that have been written by respected horology experts who have precisely identified the pros and cons of using the Co-axial movement of Omega versus the more conventional movement Rolex uses. You will also find articles by those same horology experts about the pros and cons of Rolex's use of 904L stainless steel versus Omega's use of 316L. A search will also provide numerous comments from watch owners about how much better Rolex bracelets are and how much better Omega bracelets are at being comfortable. Domed versus flat crystals and antiglare features will be discussed in much of what you read in the items you have found in your searches. After all this diligent self-study you will discover that on that future day that Omega begins using the same level of technology as Rolex it will mean the Omega will not be as good as the Omega of the previous day. There, that could help get us closer to 300 pages.;-)


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

I would like to buy a Steinhart only thing I dislike about them is they look like Rolex. Wonder if they will keep selling the same exact watch for 50 years too.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

If anyone truly wants to work out what Rolex is worth without the overhype , it is in essence a Tudor which is worth less than an Omega. Same material different clownish logo (logos combined for illustration purposes).


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

Which is of course still much preferable to a tarted-up Swatch, thank you very much. 

Mind you, the original Omega used to make no-excuses watches, and in their pre-bankruptcy-and-bailout days, they were indeed legitimate competitors to Rolex. By historical standards, they certainly deserve better than the warmed-over ETAs and cheap-labour-sourced parts which with they've currently been saddled by their luxury-conglomerate overlords.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

hydrocarbon said:


> Which is of course still much preferable to a tarted-up Swatch, thank you very much.
> 
> Mind you, the original Omega used to make no-excuses watches, and in their pre-bankruptcy-and-bailout days, they were indeed legitimate competitors to Rolex. By historical standards, they certainly deserve better than the warmed-over ETAs and cheap-labour-sourced parts which with they've currently been saddled by their luxury-conglomerate overlords.


But you see Swatch didn't call its company Omega, Rolex did and they almost went bankrupt as well.

Swatch gave its product a complete distinct identity while Rolex pooped Tudor.

The fact is though Tudor is Rolexes lifeline for ppl with some common sense but will never be able to compete with Omega.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

maxixix said:


> But you see Swatch didn't call its company Omega, Rolex did and they almost went bankrupt as well.
> 
> Swatch gave its product a complete distinct identity while Rolex pooped Tudor.
> 
> The fact is though Tudor is Rolexes lifeline for ppl with some common sense *but will never be able to compete with Omega*.


 I am wondering if you actually believe that........ stuff or you are just trolling for a negative response? Lol


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

Nom de Forum said:


> The day in the future that Omega begins using the same level of technology as Rolex is the day they will be as good as Rolex. Its all about the technology. I could create a very detailed analysis of that technology for you dear reader, but it is to you benefit to conduct a self-study of all the comments made by posters to this thread who are obviously Rolex and/or Omega experts. It will also be to your benefit to conduct a search of The Web for articles that have been written by respected horology experts who have precisely identified the pros and cons of using the Co-axial movement of Omega versus the more conventional movement Rolex uses. You will also find articles by those same horology experts about the pros and cons of Rolex's use of 904L stainless steel versus Omega's use of 316L. A search will also provide numerous comments from watch owners about how much better Rolex bracelets are and how much better Omega bracelets are at being comfortable. Domed versus flat crystals and antiglare features will be discussed in much of what you read in the items you have found in your searches. After all this diligent self-study you will discover that on that future day that Omega begins using the same level of technology as Rolex it will mean the Omega will not be as good as the Omega of the previous day. There, that could help get us closer to 300 pages.;-)


once you visit both factories, you'll see that their technology is identical. omega has some more with their laser etching of cheramics. you compare 904 with 316... not even comparable because there are so little differences. why not compare it to omega's titanium? there are no cons in co-axial. You need to be mechanical engineer to see the difference, not some ignorant consumer such as yourself.


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

patton250 said:


> I am wondering if you actually believe that........ stuff or you are just trolling for a negative response? Lol


I can confirm he's not trolling. in fact you are with this trollish response.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Damir Galic said:


> once you visit both factories, you'll see that their technology is identical. omega has some more with their laser etching of cheramics. you compare 904 with 316... not even comparable because there are so little differences. why not compare it to omega's titanium? there are no cons in co-axial. You need to be mechanical engineer to see the difference, not some ignorant consumer such as yourself.


If you actually understood what he wrote, you'll see that he was saying that Omega is already better than Rolex. Have you visited both Rolex and Omega's factories? Why are you such an arrogant .....?


----------



## gward4 (Jul 12, 2014)

For me, the answer to this question doesn't matter because I plan on owning both over time. 

Right now I own Omegas because the prices on the secondary market are far lower. (I bought a lightly used SMPc AND a lightly used PO 8500 42 for less than the price of a Sub). This makes sense for me now because I am placing a lot of value on price and the ability to have some variety in my watch box. 

I want to own a Seadweller and an OP as well, but I'll add those in a couple years.

Maybe I will ultimately decide that I prefer one brand over the other, but I can't know that yet.


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

mleok said:


> If you actually understood what he wrote, you'll see that he was saying that Omega is already better than Rolex. Have you visited both Rolex and Omega's factories? Why are you such an arrogant .....?


it was a response to his first sentence about technology.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Damir Galic said:


> it was a response to his first sentence about technology.


Have you visited both factories?


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Damir Galic said:


> once you visit both factories, you'll see that their technology is identical. omega has some more with their laser etching of cheramics. you compare 904 with 316... not even comparable because there are so little differences. why not compare it to omega's titanium? there are no cons in co-axial. You need to be mechanical engineer to see the difference, not some ignorant consumer such as yourself.





Damir Galic said:


> I can confirm he's not trolling. in fact you are with this trollish response.


You do have a good sense of humor.

So so do you own both a Rolex and Omega? I do. If Omega is so much better then why do they buy movements from big daddy Swatch Group to put in most of their timepieces? Look I'm personally board with Rolex but you trying to say Omega is better is just mind boggling to me. It's just as if you don't even know what or who Rolex is. Even Breitling has a better crono movement then Omega.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

What? 252? What did I missed?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

ShanDaMan said:


> What? 252? What did I missed?


Nothing.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

oak1971 said:


> Spunwell said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think that comment was very tasteful there champ. You might want to re-phrase a bit.
> ...


I saw this with my own eyes passing by the Rolex dealer, they were fighting over who gets the latest daytona.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

patton250 said:


> maxixix said:
> 
> 
> > But you see Swatch didn't call its company Omega, Rolex did and they almost went bankrupt as well.
> ...


Here I am again wasting my precious time to simplify it for the little guys.
Rolex is a subsidiary of Montres Tudor SA. So in essence Tudor owns Rolex's butt and Rolex has to say "pwettttttttyyy pls" for Tudor to approve their expenditure.

So Montres Tudor SA is comparable to big daddy Swatch.

Anyhow since the topic is about Rolex I will try to focus on Rolex corp. business model if there is one. Rolex is a family private trust which does not pay corporate tax (aka Tax Dodgers) compared to Omega which does not use such dirty tactics.

If Rolex is dishonest about paying its fare share of tax that the milk man or kwikimart does I doubt they have any issue selling vintage movement at 100 times what its worth.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

maxixix said:


> Here I am again wasting my precious time to simplify it for the little guys.
> Rolex is a subsidiary of Montres Tudor SA. So in essence Tudor owns Rolex's butt and Rolex has to say "pwettttttttyyy pls" for Tudor to approve their expenditure.
> 
> So Montres Tudor SA is comparable to big daddy Swatch.
> ...


?! Montres Tudor SA is a subsidiary of Rolex SA, not the reverse.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

Nom de Forum said:


> The day in the future that Omega begins using the same level of technology as Rolex is the day they will be as good as Rolex. Its all about the technology. I could create a very detailed analysis of that technology for you dear reader, but it is to you benefit to conduct a self-study of all the comments made by posters to this thread who are obviously Rolex and/or Omega experts. It will also be to your benefit to conduct a search of The Web for articles that have been written by respected horology experts who have precisely identified the pros and cons of using the Co-axial movement of Omega versus the more conventional movement Rolex uses. You will also find articles by those same horology experts about the pros and cons of Rolex's use of 904L stainless steel versus Omega's use of 316L. A search will also provide numerous comments from watch owners about how much better Rolex bracelets are and how much better Omega bracelets are at being comfortable. Domed versus flat crystals and antiglare features will be discussed in much of what you read in the items you have found in your searches. After all this diligent self-study you will discover that on that future day that Omega begins using the same level of technology as Rolex it will mean the Omega will not be as good as the Omega of the previous day. There, that could help get us closer to 300 pages.;-)





Damir Galic said:


> once you visit both factories, you'll see that their technology is identical. omega has some more with their laser etching of cheramics. you compare 904 with 316... not even comparable because there are so little differences. why not compare it to omega's titanium? there are no cons in co-axial. You need to be mechanical engineer to see the difference, not some ignorant consumer such as yourself.


Yup, I'm an ignorant consumer and not a mechanical engineer. I think I'll go have a good cry now.:-d



mleok said:


> If you actually understood what he wrote, you'll see that he was saying that Omega is already better than Rolex. Have you visited both Rolex and Omega's factories? Why are you such an arrogant .....?


No I didn't. No I haven't. I don't know. (He writes feeling very Python)



Damir Galic said:


> it was a response to his first sentence about technology.


Sure it was. :roll:

What I wrote was deliberately ambiguous. For example: I never actually specified one brand's technology as being superior. I wrote my post to give fans of both brands an opportunity to see how their own bias adversely effects their analytic skills and resulted in misinterpreting my comment as supportive of one brand being superior to the other. Fans of both brands should never forget they do have at least some bias influencing their opinion. Just having a little fun at your minor expense to prove a point and ensure this thread never dies.;-)


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

maxixix said:


> I saw this with my own eyes passing by the Rolex dealer, they were fighting over who gets the latest daytona.


Love that kid with the floppy sleeves! So funny!


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*



patton250 said:


> Man you are so right. Every time I go into the Omega boutique and talk to the sales guys in there I feel so bad for them. I can't bring myself to tell them I can get the same pieces for 20-40% off in the gray market with a blank warranty card. It's even worse for Breitling boutiques. Try getting a brand-new Rolex watch with a blank warranty card for 30% off in the grey market. It won't happen fellas.


That's nothing to feel anything about it. All that means is Rolex gets 100% of their ridiculous profits at all times and occasionally Omega only gets 80 to 60% of their somewhat unreasonable profits. Or who knows, maybe Omega still gets 100% and the AD takes the 20-40% by unloading to the grey market.

Either way, it's basically everyone gets ....ed by Rolex. With Omega it's either a sap at the botique gets ....ed or the AD takes the hit. Rolex just ....s everybody. Not exactly something to be proud of.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

maxixix said:


> I saw this with my own eyes passing by the Rolex dealer, they were fighting over who gets the latest daytona.


I was actually hoping to see a real RDF vs RDF fight at an AD. That would have been great!

I have seen some interesting documentaries dealing with nerdy stuff like this. We should all chip in and make an Omega vs Rolex documentary in the style of King of Kongs. We can throw in excerpts of these WIS posts, some articles, and interview people at AD's. It would be great. Haha


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

maxixix said:


> Here I am again wasting my precious time to simplify it for the little guys.
> Rolex is a subsidiary of Montres Tudor SA. So in essence Tudor owns Rolex's butt and Rolex has to say "pwettttttttyyy pls" for Tudor to approve their expenditure.
> 
> So Montres Tudor SA is comparable to big daddy Swatch.
> ...


tudor is subsidary company of rolex. rolex revenue is 4,7 billion, swatch has 8,4 billion $.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

Damir Galic said:


> maxixix said:
> 
> 
> > Here I am again wasting my precious time to simplify it for the little guys.
> ...


I blame wikipedia.


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

watch out, here come the high school kids citing Wikipedia 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

maxixix said:


> I blame wikipedia.


blame yourself becuase on wikipeida it says tudor is subsidary company of rolex.


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

Damir Galic said:


> tudor is subsidary company of rolex. rolex revenue is 4,7 billion, swatch has 8,4 billion $.


And Swatch has a profit of 1.15 billion with ~36K employees. I am guessing around two billion is going to 30K employees(~$60,000 each). I mention 30K because Rolex only has ~3K employees and so, net profit will be much larger. Estimating Rolex's profit at ~2 billion(estimated from Swatch having ~38% in profit if it weren't for the 30K employees).

Swatch needs to downsize. ;-)


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

watchRus said:


> And Swatch has a profit of 1.15 billion with ~36K employees. I am guessing around two billion is going to 30K employees(~$60,000 each). I mention 30K because Rolex only has ~3K employees and so, net profit will be much larger. Estimating Rolex's profit at ~2 billion(estimated from Swatch having ~38% in profit if it weren't for the 30K employees).
> 
> Swatch needs to downsize. ;-)


You factoring in the Chinese made parts when calculating average salary for Swatch? 

Sure, Rolex uses machines but they are Swiss machines, so obviously better.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

Rolex is not a real company its more of a fraternity. When they start being a Real company and start paying tax we can start comparing them to Omega.

I am going to start a petition for the swiss government to impose higher restrictions on tax evasion through family trust funds.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

maxixix said:


> Rolex is not a real company its more of a fraternity. When they start being a Real company and start paying tax we can start comparing them to Omega.


In the unlikely event you are being serious - being owned by a non-profit doesn't exempt Rolex the company from taxes.

If you weren't - nice one.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

vkalia said:


> maxixix said:
> 
> 
> > Rolex is not a real company its more of a fraternity. When they start being a Real company and start paying tax we can start comparing them to Omega.
> ...


Wikipedia says they are a bunch of tax dodgers.


----------



## m00k (Mar 20, 2014)

vkalia said:


> In the unlikely event you are being serious - being owned by a non-profit doesn't exempt Rolex the company from taxes.
> 
> If you weren't - nice one.


Sad but true. Rolex is owned by a family trust and does not pay any sort of corporate tax.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

The Hans Wildorf foundation doesn't pay tax. That's not the same thing as Rolex not paying tax. 

The shareholder(s) and the company are 2 different entities. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

watchRus said:


> And Swatch has a profit of 1.15 billion with ~36K employees. I am guessing around two billion is going to 30K employees(~$60,000 each). I mention 30K because Rolex only has ~3K employees and so, net profit will be much larger. Estimating Rolex's profit at ~2 billion(estimated from Swatch having ~38% in profit if it weren't for the 30K employees).
> 
> Swatch needs to downsize. ;-)


exactly. rolex 4 billion income, 1/2 of it it's profit. now you know how much you overpay for rolexes.


----------



## m00k (Mar 20, 2014)

vkalia said:


> The Hans Wildorf foundation doesn't pay tax. That's not the same thing as Rolex not paying tax.
> 
> The shareholder(s) and the company are 2 different entities.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Rolex does not have shareholders. When Hans Wildorf set up the trust, all shares were given to the private trust directly. The trustees are nothing more than custodians, like the board of a non-profit. They are not shareholders or owners in any way.


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

Damir Galic said:


> exactly. rolex 4 billion income, 1/2 of it it's profit. now you know how much you overpay for rolexes.


Rolex relies on authorized dealers(who takes money off the top from a watch), whereas Swatch relies on boutiques.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Rolex has no pressure from the board or shareholders, that's the main reason they don't have to change. If they did, they would be searching for the next watch equivalent of pokemon go like everybody else. 

To be fair, that's like discovering the next quartz crisis. I don't think the pokemon go equivalent of watches exist unless you count the Apple watch.


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

Damir Galic said:


> exactly. rolex 4 billion income, 1/2 of it it's profit. now you know how much you overpay for rolexes.


fans with intellect of this caliber do wonders to the brand's image


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

maxixix said:


> Here I am again wasting my precious time to simplify it for the little guys.
> Rolex is a subsidiary of Montres Tudor SA. So in essence Tudor owns Rolex's butt and Rolex has to say "pwettttttttyyy pls" for Tudor to approve their expenditure.
> 
> So Montres Tudor SA is comparable to big daddy Swatch.
> ...


 OK anybody that uses this term I can no longer take seriously. I shall ignore any and all future posts from you.


----------



## Jefferson Overlin (Mar 4, 2013)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Rolex has no pressure from the board or shareholders, that's the main reason they don't have to change. If they did, they would be searching for the next watch equivalent of pokemon go like everybody else.
> 
> To be fair, that's like discovering the next quartz crisis. I don't think the pokemon go equivalent of watches exist unless you count the Apple watch.


I think it's called "co-axial"

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Badbebe said:


> fans with intellect of this caliber do wonders to the brand's image


But, he's a mechanical engineer with an Omega Aqua Terra Annual Calendar, which makes him a god amongst men.


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Convenient thread to update the ignore list!


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Seaswirl said:


> Convenient thread to update the ignore list!


You'd be hiding about 90% of the posts


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

Vlance said:


> You'd be hiding about 90% of the posts


Yeah, but it's a prestigious list of troll legends like Lelocle.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

mleok said:


> But, he's a mechanical engineer with an Omega Aqua Terra Annual Calendar, which makes him a god amongst men.


When I went to school, the guys in the Mech Eng Dept were those who couldn't cut in Aerospace, Chemical or Electrical Engineering...


----------



## UberDave (Jan 13, 2015)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Either way, it's basically everyone gets ....ed by Rolex. With Omega it's either a sap at the botique gets ....ed or the AD takes the hit. Rolex just ....s everybody. Not exactly something to be proud of.


Here's how this works: Rolex makes a watch and sets a price for it. Omega makes a watch and sets a price for it. I, the consumer, look at both watches and weigh the merits of each watch versus its price. After I've come to my conclusion I either buy the Rolex, buy the Omega, buy both, or buy neither. There is no possible outcome in which either of the manufacturers has, as you so eloquently put it, "....ed" me. If I decided to buy either or both I have explicitly agreed that the merits of the watch were, at minimum, aligned with the cost. If I don't buy a watch I'm out nothing and remain blissfully un-....ed.

The opinion of someone not party to my transaction is quite irrelevant (and frankly, it seems like a _lot _of people can't quite handle that little fact).


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

BigSeikoFan said:


> When I went to school, the guys in the Mech Eng Dept were those who couldn't cut in Aerospace, Chemical or Electrical Engineering...


But did he mention that he has an *OMEGA* Annual Calendar? And he _really_ understands that the co-axial escapement, and it is his _professional opinion_ that it has no disadvantages.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

mleok said:


> But did he mention that he has an *OMEGA* Annual Calendar? And he _really_ understands that the co-axial escapement, and it is his _professional opinion_ that it has no disadvantages.


In your opinion, what are the performance disadvantages of Omega's co-axial escapement in comparison to Rolex's escapement?


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

m00k said:


> Rolex does not have shareholders. When Hans Wildorf set up the trust, all shares were given to the private trust directly. The trustees are nothing more than custodians, like the board of a non-profit. They are not shareholders or owners in any way.


If it is a company (as opposed to a LLP), it has shareholders.

The shares may not be publicly traded but they exist.

In this case, all the shares (presumably) are owned by the foundation (as opposed to an individual). But they still exist.

From a Rolex point of view - who the owners are doesn't change its tax status.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Nom de Forum said:


> In your opinion, what are the performance disadvantages of Omega's co-axial escapement in comparison to Rolex's escapement?


The main disadvantage is complexity and robustness. In order to achieve essentially no sliding friction, the geometry of the individual components and how they interconnect have to be manufactured to extremely high tolerances.

Even if this is achieved at the onset, extended periods of wear might result in deviations from this idealized geometry, which would then compromise its ability to minimize sliding friction. Again, the sensitivity of the proper functioning of the design to the precise geometry of the components is my main concern here.

Some watchmakers have also pointed out that the four pallet jewels have to be aligned very precisely, and if they were to come out of alignment, it would be difficult to fix this by hand.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

UberDave said:


> Here's how this works: Rolex makes a watch and sets a price for it. Omega makes a watch and sets a price for it. I, the consumer, look at both watches and weigh the merits of each watch versus its price. After I've come to my conclusion I either buy the Rolex, buy the Omega, buy both, or buy neither. There is no possible outcome in which either of the manufacturers has, as you so eloquently put it, "....ed" me. If I decided to buy either or both I have explicitly agreed that the merits of the watch were, at minimum, aligned with the cost. If I don't buy a watch I'm out nothing and remain blissfully un-....ed.
> 
> The opinion of someone not party to my transaction is quite irrelevant (and frankly, it seems like a _lot _of people can't quite handle that little fact).


I think people get screwed in the sense that people get hooked on a watch as a result of buying into whatever reasons that the company use to entice the consumer. I couldn't speak on behalf of everyone, but from my experience, I know there's a desire to buy buy buy, and there's also a rational part of me that knows this is not a sustainable way of spending my money, given my finite bank account. Where I would feel screwed myself is if I succumb to addiction and buy into debt. Of course everyone is different though. What I know is, compared to my alternative self who gives in to temptation, my restrained self is better off financially.

If the same reasoning of "to each their own" is applied globally, then there is no better or worse brand. Each person has a personal definition of which is best/better, and there's no need for others to agree, on either side.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Or put another way, "in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." 

Constructing a design that is robust to production tolerances and the degradation of those tolerances due to extended use and wear is very challenging. I suspect that the teething pains that Omega experienced in commercializing the co-axial escapement and serializing the production was due to the sensitivity the design has to manufacturing tolerances, assembly, and oiling.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Some interesting answers here about the Wilsdorf Foundation: https://www.quora.com/Is-Rolex-a-non-profit-company-And-if-so-why

Don't know how true any of it is, but sounds like no shareholder profits from the Foundation, and the money is used to pay salaries, business expenses, R&D, infrastructure, etc., and some go to charity?

Rolex probably has some very well-paid employees. No one in general public knows how much money is hoarded in the Foundation.


----------



## janiboi (Apr 18, 2014)

mleok said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. I subscribe to the viewpoint espoused by Richard Feynman that you don't really understand something if you can't explain it. Otherwise, I can never be sure that I am convinced by virtue of the facts as opposed to the skill and prejudices of the person making the argument.
> 
> I think one can form holistic opinions about two watches after some time with them, but these opinions speak to the specific specimens that you have examined. In order to form an informed opinion about the underlying technology, one really requires much more in depth knowledge. And in order to make a blanket statement about the two models of watches, one should ideally have exposure to multiple specimens of the same model.
> 
> ...


This guy must be an engineer....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

rdoder said:


> Some interesting answers here about the Wilsdorf Foundation: https://www.quora.com/Is-Rolex-a-non-profit-company-And-if-so-why
> 
> Don't know how true any of it is, but sounds like no shareholder profits from the Foundation, and the money is used to pay salaries, business expenses, etc., and some go to charity?
> 
> Rolex probably have some very well-paid employees.


A couple of points about that article:

1/. The trustees of the Wilsdorf Foundation are not the shareholders. The Wilsdorf Foundation is. There is a distinction and it is quite obvious - yet the way the article was phrased implied Rolex had no shareholders. Inaccurate.

The Wilsdorf Foundation has assets - one of which is the shares of Rolex (there may be other assets too). The trustees manage these assets. They don't own them. That is why the trustees of Wilsdorf foundation aren't the shareholders. That's also why there are no INDIVIDUAL shareholders - but that is not the same as saying there are no shareholders.

2/. The author makes the same mistake as a lot of people - just because Rolex is not under management pressure to turn a profit doesn't mean it is a "non-profit" company.

If it helps, they should consider companies as legal entities, just like people. Rolex the company is owned by the entity Bob. Whether Bob is a human being or a non-profit company* doesn't affect Rolex the company from a tax point of view.

*I am simplifying things.

If Bob was another company, then depending on the relative sizes of the two companies and Swiss GAAP, Rolex's financials would either have to be listed as a single contributory line item, or detailed out and/or consolidated with the rest of the books.

In theory, if Rolex books were consolidated into the Wilsdorf Foundation's books, then they wouldn't pay taxes. But that is very unlikely, especially as the arrangement appears to be one of shareholding, not "wholly owned subsidiary".

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

UberDave said:


> Here's how this works: Rolex makes a watch and sets a price for it. Omega makes a watch and sets a price for it. I, the consumer, look at both watches and weigh the merits of each watch versus its price. After I've come to my conclusion I either buy the Rolex, buy the Omega, buy both, or buy neither. There is no possible outcome in which either of the manufacturers has, as you so eloquently put it, "....ed" me. If I decided to buy either or both I have explicitly agreed that the merits of the watch were, at minimum, aligned with the cost. If I don't buy a watch I'm out nothing and remain blissfully un-....ed.
> 
> The opinion of someone not party to my transaction is quite irrelevant (and frankly, it seems like a _lot _of people can't quite handle that little fact).


Hey, I wasn't the one making fun of the guy who buys an Omega from a boutique vs gray market. The Rolex fan boys can't have it both ways. You can't say that guy is a sap for spending money where he wants or sees fit if you abide to the philosophy of your money, you spend how you want to spend it. It seems like the Rolex fanboys are unaware of this hypocrisy. If it's okay to buy a Rolex at a ridiculous price it's okay to buy an Omega at a botique for the warranty card and red carpet service.

If that was the case, anyone that doesn't buy everything from Amazon or price match everything are saps too.

I am just pointing out that Rolex is greedier, which they are since they do charge more for older designs and movements and their profit margins show this.. I was also pointing out that docking points off Omega for being cheaper on the grey market is quite frankly ridiculous.

I personally do not abide by that philosophy. There are ways that spending money how you like falls in the grey area and can and should be criticized. Like gambling or giving your entire salary to a cult or um church for example. So yes, people get ....ed without knowing it a lot of times.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

In pure engineering terms the Daniels Escapement is superior. In theory. Give Omega 100 odd years to apply that theory as have others to the traditional escapements and the advantage will become clear to all. By that time we may all be extinct. Probably the only living person who really understands the movement is Roger Smith.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

vkalia: thank you for that. I have no business background, so I don't know how it works. Does any publically unknown shareholder(s) profit from the funds in the Foundation, or does the money just sit there, to be used for Rolex business as directed by trustees? Just interested to know how it works, not trying to make any point.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

rdoder said:


> Does any publically unknown shareholder(s) profit from the funds in the Foundation, or does the money just sit there, to be used for Rolex business as directed by trustees?


It depends on how much dividend is declared. Let's say Rolex makes $100MM net profit. This is taxable*. Let's say 30% tax slab, so what is left is $70MM.

This can be either kept in the company (retained earnings) for future use - as Apple does with its enormous cash pile - or paid out as dividends. This decision would be made by the trustees and/or management, depending on how that arrangement is structured.

In normal cases, if you or I were the shareholders, then we would pay taxes on the dividends as they would contribute to our income. However, because Wilsdorf is tax-exempt**, they are not going to be taxed.

In other words - if the company paid out $35 MM in dividends, you or I would have to pay tax on that $35MM as income. But the Wilsdorf Foundation doesn't. However, Rolex will still have paid tax on its income.

That's the distinction and where the confusion arises.

If I had to guess, I would say that Wilsdorf takes enough of a contribution to cover its operations the rest is retained in Rolex. It seems to me that Hans set up the company so that it could carry on his legacy in perpetuity, and to take care of its employees. On a personal note, I think that's quite cool.

Hope that helps.

*In the extremely unlikely case that Swiss GAAP allows dividends to be paid before taxation for some type of companies, then it is possible that the money paid out to the Wilsdorf foundation avoids tax entirely (because of Wilsdorf's tax free nature). In this case, if Rolex earns $100MM, they could pass on the entire $100MM as dividends and so have a net income of zero and not pay any taxes. And then, because the Wilsdorf Foundation is tax-exempt, they wouldn't pay taxes either.

However, this is an extremely unlikely scenario, as it would be a massive tax loophole. I am just putting out there as a possibility under which my argument could be incorrect.

**I am just accepting at face value that Wilsdorf Foundation is tax-exempt. Being a non-profit doesn't always equate to tax-free status.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

Regarding Rolex being a nonprofit... IKEA does something similar.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Hey, I wasn't the one making fun of the guy who buys an Omega from a botique vs gray market. The Rolex fan boys can't have it both ways. You can't say that guy is a sap for spending money where he wants or sees fit if you abide to the philosophy of your money, you spend how you want to spend it. It seems like the Rolex fanboys are unaware of this hypocrisy. If it's okay to buy a Rolex at a ridiculous price it's okay to buy an Omega at a botique for the warranty card and red carpet service.
> 
> If that was the case, anyone that doesn't buy everything from Amazon or price match everything are saps too.
> 
> ...


It's was not enough for you to attack and insult Rolex fans in your post but you had to hit Christians too. Nice.


----------



## jupiter6 (Jan 8, 2015)

Yum. This salami is fantastic!


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

The brochure for the Rolex 3255 calibre discusses their modification of the Swiss lever escapement, which they refer to as the Chronergy escapement.

https://www.rolex.com/content/dam/r...bre-3255/02_Brochure_Calibre_3255_English.pdf

What I found interesting is the discussion of the efficiency of the existing Swiss lever escapement (barely more than 33%), and the claim that the refinement results in a 15% increase in efficiency, which they credit for a 25% increase in the power reserve of the movement. It would be nice if Omega had quantified the improvements introduced by the co-axial escapement in these terms.

To put these into perspective, the Omega 2500D is a modification of the Omega 1120 calibre, and the most significant changes are the free-sprung balance, the tri-level co-axial escapement, and the decrease in beat rate from 28.8kbph to 25.2 kbph. The power reserve of the Omega 1120 is rated at 42-44 hours, and the Omega 2500D is 48 hours.

But, one tends to expect that a lower beat rate will result in a longer power reserve, and if we take the lower end of the power reserve rating of the Omega 1120, which is 42 hours and multiply it by 28.8/25.2, we get 48 hours. So, at least by this crude calculation, it doesn't appear as if the co-axial escapement can be attributed with any increase in power reserve, which is interesting for an escapement which claims to virtually eliminate sliding friction. It would be interesting to see what the rated power reserve for the 2500A/B calibres were, which used a two-level co-axial escapement, but beat at 28.8kbph.

There is a discussion of some of the teething issues with the development of the co-axial escapement and some of the practical challenges of servicing the movement in this old post,

Tick Talk » Omega Co-axial Training

In particular, it speaks to the exacting tolerances necessary, the potential for damage (without any initial apparent change to timekeeping) if improperly oiled, and the difficulty of adjusting the pallet forks.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

Further evidence of unethical business conduct by Rolex ....... GO OMEGA GO.

PETITION BY THE UNITED STATES FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT ROLEX WATCH U.S.A., INC. SHOULD NOT BE FOUND IN CIVIL CONTEMPT

Case(s):
U.S. v. Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.
Date: 
Tuesday, February 28, 2006

BACKGROUND

On October 19, 1954, the United States filed an antitrust complaint in this Court under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, alleging a wide-ranging conspiracy between Swiss and United States watch companies to fix prices, terms, and conditions of the sale of watches and watch parts, restrict the manufacturing of watches and watch parts in the United States, and control the export of watches and watch parts into the United States. The complaint named more than twenty defendants, including Rolex's predecessor . the American Rolex Watch Corporation.

4. On March 9, 1960, the United States and eleven of the defendants named in the complaint (all of whom were United States importers of Swiss watches or watch parts), including the American Rolex Watch Corporation, entered into the Final Judgment. The purpose of the Final Judgment was to prevent the defendant importers from engaging in certain collusive and unilateral conduct that was causing significant competitive harm at the time the Final Judgment was entered.

VII.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order directing Defendant Rolex to appear before this Court at a time and place to be fixed in said Order, to show cause why it should not be adjudged in civil contempt of this Court, and prays for the following relief:

that Defendant Rolex be found in civil contempt for the violations of the Final Judgment described above;
that Defendant Rolex be ordered to pay an amount deemed appropriate by the Court for contempt of this Court's Final Judgment;
that the United States be awarded costs and attorneys fees incurred in investigating Rolex's conduct and filing this Petition to Show Cause; and
that the United States have any and all other relief as the Court may deem justified by Defendant Rolex's actions.

https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-do...ause-why-defendant-rolex-watch-usa-inc-should


----------



## UberDave (Jan 13, 2015)

rdoder said:


> I think people get screwed in the sense that people get hooked on a watch as a result of buying into whatever reasons that the company use to entice the consumer. I couldn't speak on behalf of everyone, but from my experience, I know there's a desire to buy buy buy, and there's also a rational part of me that knows this is not a sustainable way of spending my money, given my finite bank account. Where I would feel screwed myself is if I succumb to addiction and buy into debt. Of course everyone is different though. What I know is, compared to my alternative self who gives in to temptation, my restrained self is better off financially.
> 
> If the same reasoning of "to each their own" is applied globally, then there is no better or worse brand. Each person has a personal definition of which is best/better, and there's no need for others to agree, on either side.


I understand what you're getting at, but placing the responsibility for the stewardship of your finances on a company that sells watches isn't fair to the company or to yourself.



Tomatoes11 said:


> Hey, I wasn't the one making fun of the guy who buys an Omega from a botique vs gray market. The Rolex fan boys can't have it both ways. You can't say that guy is a sap for spending money where he wants or sees fit if you abide to the philosophy of your money, you spend how you want to spend it. It seems like the Rolex fanboys are unaware of this hypocrisy. If it's okay to buy a Rolex at a ridiculous price it's okay to buy an Omega at a botique for the warranty card and red carpet service.
> 
> If that was the case, anyone that doesn't buy everything from Amazon or price match everything are saps too.
> 
> ...


1) I don't care which comment you were responding to as it does not make your response any less nonsensical. 
2) You're missing the plot. By calling Rolex "Greedier" and criticizing others for gambling or donating to charity you're projecting your values system onto the broader world. Get over yourself. 
3) It's "boutique" not "botique"


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

maxixix said:


> Further evidence of unethical business conduct by Rolex ....... GO OMEGA GO.


The case in question has to do with the restrictions Rolex places on how watch components supplied to independent watchmakers can be used, and restricts the resale of these components. The irony is that Omega has done precisely this by cutting off all supplies to independent resellers.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

UberDave said:


> I understand what you're getting at, but placing the responsibility for the stewardship of your finances on a company that sells watches isn't fair to the company or to yourself.


You're right, I should be responsible for managing my own desires, finances, woes, etc. Whichever watch company is for sure not to blame for my own issues.

Wouldn't it be great though if everyone gets handed free (insert watch brand(s)) watches at the watch buffet at a friendly AD near you? Go communism! :-d;-)


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

maxixix said:


> Further evidence of unethical business conduct by Rolex ....... GO OMEGA GO.





mleok said:


> The case in question has to do with the restrictions Rolex places on how watch components supplied to independent watchmakers can be used, and restricts the resale of these components. The irony is that Omega has done precisely this by cutting off all supplies to independent resellers.


Regardless of all the flaming/arguments, speaking for myself only, I'm learning a lot from this thread.

This brings up my original point from sometime ago in the thread: these companies are not our friends. They are in it to make money. We might love the drugs, but drug dealers are in it to make money. I guess some people have great relationships with their drug dealers. To each their own. Speaking for myself only, I see these drug dealers as bad for me. Yes, I shouldn't blame the drug dealers for my addiction. Speaking for myself only, I shouldn't love them either. But if they give away drugs for free, and the drugs would never kill me, then I might see them differently. Those in this world that could afford drugs and do well (Ten Drug Addicts Who Succeeded In Life - TheRichest), good for you! I'm just speaking from my perspective.

In a way, I prefer weed dealers or beer/wine store (metaphorically speaking). They don't make huge profits off of my addiction, and the products are not as addictive, as long as I could control/manage myself. Drink responsibly, moderation and all that. That's more my comfortable zone. To each their own. So neither Omega or Rolex are "good", at least not for everybody.

EDIT: to each their own. I see some watch brands as being more of my friend or a friend of the people (though of course they are still in it for the money, but they're just slightly friendlier or "better" for people in general? But if I say that, then that's generalizing again. Ugh!). They make good watches, at affordable price for most people regardless of income (e.g. as long as you have a job, you could "join that club"), make it easy to service, etc.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

patton250 said:


> It's was not enough for you to attack and insult Rolex fans in your post but you had to hit Christians too. Nice.


He never mentioned Christians. While he may have offended some Christians (not me) with his comment criticizing people who give their entire salary to a church, you have probably offended many more people by implying that any criticism about a church is limited to criticism of Christians. In other words, you just implied that other faiths don't qualify as churches. For a watch forum this site sure is comprehensive in topics since everything including the kitchen sink sooner or later is commented upon.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

rdoder said:


> Regardless of all the flaming/arguments, speaking for myself only, I'm learning a lot from this thread.
> 
> This brings up my original point from sometime ago in the thread: these companies are not our friends. They are in it to make money. We might love the drugs, but drug dealers are in it to make money. I guess some people have great relationships with their drug dealers. To each their own. Speaking for myself only, I see these drug dealers as bad for me. Yes, I shouldn't blame the drug dealers for my addiction. Speaking for myself only, I shouldn't love them either. But if they give away drugs for free, and the drugs would never kill me, then I might see them differently. Those in this world that could afford drugs and do well (Ten Drug Addicts Who Succeeded In Life - TheRichest), good for you! I'm just speaking from my perspective.
> 
> ...


You just need to STOP! You are not succeeding in making a rational argument for your beliefs. The post above is not witty or funny, it is absurd.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

UberDave said:


> I understand what you're getting at, but placing the responsibility for the stewardship of your finances on a company that sells watches isn't fair to the company or to yourself.
> 
> 1) I don't care which comment you were responding to as it does not make your response any less nonsensical.
> 2) You're missing the plot. By calling Rolex "Greedier" and criticizing others for gambling or donating to charity you're projecting your values system onto the broader world. Get over yourself.
> 3) It's "boutique" not "botique"


I am not missing any plot. You are projecting your belief that people should be free to spend money how they see fit.

The Rolex fanboys are projecting their belief that Omega is inferior or can never be as good as Rolex because you can buy an Omega for 20-40% off at a grey dealer for some reason even though Blancpain has worst resale value than Rolex too but they sort of won that Rolex vs Blancpain thread easily. Hypocrisy at its best.

And I am projecting...sorry...expressing my belief that Rolex rips people off more than most Swiss brands and this thread needs to go to 300 pages.

There is nothing to get over. Thanks for the spelling correction though, I fixed it just for you.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

Nom de Forum said:


> You just need to STOP! You are not succeeding in making a rational argument for your beliefs. The post above is not witty or funny, it is absurd.


I'm sorry that was not to your liking. Let's switch gear then.

All this Omega versus Rolex talk got me hungry, and yesterday I went to Royal de Versailles to gawk at watches (as gawking is free). The store was closed by the time I got there (they closed at 5:30pm, guess they want to close before it gets dark outside) and the police guard wouldn't let me in (What? They don't schedule store hours according to my desire? How dare they!). But I had a chance to gawk at the window displays. As much as I don't like (whichever brand, to be impartial), their watches do look good (not saying whether they are better or worse than whichever other brand, to be impartial). There, a more positive post!


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

mleok said:


> Or put another way, "in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."
> 
> Constructing a design that is robust to production tolerances and the degradation of those tolerances due to extended use and wear is very challenging. I suspect that the teething pains that Omega experienced in commercializing the co-axial escapement and serializing the production was due to the sensitivity the design has to manufacturing tolerances, assembly, and oiling.


All very true but do we have a sense yet that Omega has ironed out the kinks, the teething pains are behind us and that the movement is, in fact, now reliable and robust?

Has anyone heard reports of problems with the current production? I haven't but then again, I'm not keeping track...


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

rdoder said:


> In a way, I prefer weed dealers or beer/wine store (metaphorically speaking). They don't make huge profits off of my addiction, and the products are not as addictive, *as long as I could control/manage myself.* Drink responsibly, moderation and all that. That's more my comfortable zone. To each their own. So neither Omega or Rolex are "good", at least not for everybody.


If you're talking about self-control, how are watches different from weed and beer then? Are you complaining about their profit margins?


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

FYI.

The three things normally associated with the Co-Axial are:

Reduces sliding friction and thus reduces wear - it doesn't 
Improves accuracy - it doesn't
It increases service intervals - it doesn't


It's interesting to note that some Omega fans that have owned Omega watches does longer than five minutes actually feel a little let down that they (loyal customers) are sometimes made to feel like beta testers.


----------



## techrtr (Mar 22, 2014)

Isn't that kind of like asking "when will Airbus be as good as Boeing?"


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

BigSeikoFan said:


> All very true but do we have a sense yet that Omega has ironed out the kinks, the teething pains are behind us and that the movement is, in fact, now reliable and robust?
> 
> Has anyone heard reports of problems with the current production? I haven't but then again, I'm not keeping track...


I don't know, but even if it is robust and reliable, shouldn't a decrease in friction result in noticeably better efficiency and longer power reserve if the friction was a significant issue to begin with?


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

Tomatoes11 said:


> I am not missing any plot. You are projecting your belief that people should be free to spend money how they see fit.
> 
> They Rolex fanboys are projecting their belief that Omega is inferior or can never be as good as Rolex because you can buy an Omega for 20-40% off at a grey dealer for some reason even though Blancpain has worst resale value than Rolex too but they sort of won that Rolex vs Blancpain thread easily. Hypocrisy at its best.
> 
> ...


Rolex point a gun in my face forcing me to pony up double the $$$ of an omega equivalent for a watch that they claimed will save me from cancer. The concept of free market doesn't apply to the watch industry.

in all seriousness Blancpain is more expensive than Rolex on the grey market, probably because it is better (not because they won some thread on the Internet lol)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

BigSeikoFan said:


> If you're talking about self-control, how are watches different from weed and beer then? Are you complaining about their profit margins?


I've built up tolerance to some extent with beer and weed. I'm jonesing to go to the next level of harder drugs to achieve the same high. My partner actually encourages me to do it, but I was raised thrifty, so I've stopped myself so far. I don't begrudge luxury watch companies' profit margins, I just don't like the prospect of "An ever increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure" (to quote Veda's Biography section) for myself. To paraphrase it a bit, it's more of ever increasing price paid (if I choose to keep buying and buying) for ever diminishing pleasure, due to tolerance to ever higher "quality". After crack and heroin, what's next? Maybe OxyContin. I'm not ready to hand over my life's savings for OxyContin.

"Tolerance is a person's diminished response to a drug, which occurs when the drug is used repeatedly and the body adapts to the continued presence of the drug."

The other way is to derive pleasure from weed and beer which I have, and just stare longingly at piles of crack and heroin.

EDIT: the problem with drugs/watches is that it's never enough. The craving is never permanently satisfied. I could strive for the higher high, or I could live with moderate high.


----------



## T1meout (Sep 27, 2013)

259 pages....still going strong, everlasting.
O, and the beat goes on........


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

Tomatoes11 said:


> And I am projecting...sorry...expressing my belief that Rolex rips people off more than most Swiss brands and this thread needs to go to 300 pages.


it's only a ripoff on my book when I can find the same watch for less and/or they lied to me about their product.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## UberDave (Jan 13, 2015)

Tomatoes11 said:


> I am not missing any plot. You are projecting your belief that people should be free to spend money how they see fit.
> 
> They Rolex fanboys are projecting their belief that Omega is inferior or can never be as good as Rolex because you can buy an Omega for 20-40% off at a grey dealer for some reason even though Blancpain has worst resale value than Rolex too but they sort of won that Rolex vs Blancpain thread easily. Hypocrisy at its best.
> 
> ...


You think people ought not be able to spend their money how they see fit? Seriously? Perhaps you'd like to be appointed Minister of Watch Values and be tasked with fixing prices for all watch manufacturers?

And again, I don't care about the "Rolex fanboys" you keep mentioning. You made a comment about Rolex "....ing" people and I'm speaking to that comment. Further, I'm speaking to that comment in such a way that removes specific brands from the equation. And sorry, but the fact that you're *still* talking about Rolex ripping people off is evidence that you have missed the plot.


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

what would happen if rolex was sponsor of olympic games? rio de janerio would go bankrupt.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Damir Galic said:


> what would happen if rolex was sponsor of olympic games? rio de janerio would go bankrupt.


How's that any different from the current situation with Omega being an Olympic sponsor?


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

mleok said:


> How's that any different from the current situation with Omega being an Olympic sponsor?


omega is not this big money sucker like rolex.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Damir Galic said:


> omega is not this big money sucker like rolex.


I'm sorry, but you're making absolutely no sense.


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> FYI.
> 
> The three things normally associated with the Co-Axial are:
> 
> ...


Wrong on all three paragraphs. It does. And I write it as a distinguished Omega beta tester.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

I'm not too sure what's going on here...is Damir implying Rolex wouldn't fork out enough sponsorship money for the games? Or is he under the impression Rio has to pay the watch company for the sponsorship and Rolex would charge too much? That works the other way around Damir, Rolex or Omega or whoever else *has to pay* to be associated with the Olympics...


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

mleok said:


> The brochure for the Rolex 3255 calibre discusses their modification of the Swiss lever escapement, which they refer to as the Chronergy escapement.
> 
> https://www.rolex.com/content/dam/r...bre-3255/02_Brochure_Calibre_3255_English.pdf
> 
> ...


I was watching the video for the co-axial escapement (



) to try to figure out where still-existing sliding friction may be. Maybe instead of the sliding friction being between the pallet stones and escape wheel teeth, the sliding friction was transposed to the surfaces between the escape wheel teeth and the teeth of the gear on the right hand side (see touching surfaces pointed at with the red arrow)? There looks to be a lot of surface area touching there that would slide during each move.









Whereas with regular escapement (



), the corresponding surface area between escape wheel and gear on the right looks to be regular gear teeth, maybe with regular gear teeth friction, not as much sliding friction there (see green arrow), and the sliding friction is between pallet stones and escape wheel teeth.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Correct me if i am wrong, but if Omega tried to adapt the co-axial to an existing movement to save cash, which sounds oh so very corporate, it would explain much in the way of issues they have had and why Daniels was so frustrated with them.


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

Damir Galic said:


> what would happen if rolex was sponsor of olympic games? *rio de janerio would go bankrupt*.


I am fairly sure it already has.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Nom de Forum said:


> He never mentioned Christians. While he may have offended some Christians (not me) with his comment criticizing people who give their entire salary to a church, you have probably offended many more people by implying that any criticism about a church is limited to criticism of Christians. In other words, you just implied that other faiths don't qualify as churches. For a watch forum this site sure is comprehensive in topics since everything including the kitchen sink sooner or later is commented upon.


 You're kidding right? Ha ha ha ha funny funny. I always give people the benefit of the doubt therefore I will assume you were only joking. The reason I do because the alternative would most definitely merit a response that would assuredly get me kicked off of this forum. for the next 150 years. So therefore you were just kidding. Now see what a swell guy I am? No need to respond because I will ignore it for our mutual benefit. I will read your other posts though.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

paulopiper said:


> I'm not too sure what's going on here...is Damir implying Rolex wouldn't fork out enough sponsorship money for the games? Or is he under the impression Rio has to pay the watch company for the sponsorship and Rolex would charge too much? That works the other way around Damir, Rolex or Omega or whoever else *has to pay* to be associated with the Olympics...


Omega doesn't just sponsor the olympics; they provide the timing devices for the games. Inbfact, Thai pretty much invented most of them in the first place, much like when Heuer/TagHeuer were providing timing for F1.

In fact, I'm not sure if they pay as per typical modern sponsorship deals given the weight of the role or even if they get paid for the service.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

oak1971 said:


> Correct me if i am wrong, but if Omega tried to adapt the co-axial to an existing movement to save cash, which sounds oh so very corporate, it would explain much in the way of issues they have had and why Daniels was so frustrated with them.


This was precisely what happened. Omega purchased the patent for the co-axial escapement in 1993, and began to modify their 1120 calibre (essentially an ETA 2892-A2) to accommodate the co-axial escapement, and eventually released the 2500A calibre in 1999. It wasn't until 2007 that the 8500 calibre was introduced, which is a movement that was designed from the ground up to contain the co-axial escapement.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

patton250 said:


> You're kidding right? Ha ha ha ha funny funny. I always give people the benefit of the doubt therefore I will assume you were only joking. The reason I do because the alternative would most definitely merit a response that would assuredly get me kicked off of this forum. for the next 150 years. So therefore you were just kidding. Now see what a swell guy I am? No need to respond because I will ignore it for our mutual benefit. I will read your other posts though.


I ABSOLUTELY WAS NOT KIDDING! Nothing funny at all about first him than you injecting religion into the discussion to justify self-righteousness. He played the role of condemning judge and you played the role persecuted victim. You both are being ridiculous making such extremist comments. Both of you should just knock if off.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

This is another more recent interview with a watchmaker about the Omega 1120, 2500, and 8500 calibres,

Watchmaker Compares Omega Seamaster Timepieces With Caliber 1120, 2500, & 8500 Movements | aBlogtoWatch


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

Alex_TA said:


> Wrong on all three paragraphs. It does. And I write it as a distinguished Omega beta tester.


What quantifiable evidence can you present to support your comments about the co-axial movement you have based on your experience "as a distinguished Omega beta tester"?


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

drunken monkey said:


> Omega doesn't just sponsor the olympics; they provide the timing devices for the games. Inbfact, Thai pretty much invented most of them in the first place, much like when Heuer/TagHeuer were providing timing for F1.
> 
> In fact, I'm not sure if they pay as per typical modern sponsorship deals given the weight of the role or even if they get paid for the service.


I've never looked it up but I doubt Omega are being paid for the privilege of timing the games considering any number of companies would surely be capable of doing so?


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

mleok said:


> This is another more recent interview with a watchmaker about the Omega 1120, 2500, and 8500 calibres,
> 
> Watchmaker Compares Omega Seamaster Timepieces With Caliber 1120, 2500, & 8500 Movements | aBlogtoWatch


I have found your recent posts on the technical aspects of Omega's Co-axial movement very interesting and enjoyable. What quantifiable evidence do you have that the Rolex movement is clearly superior to Omega's? I suspect that when the advantages and disadvantages of both are compared it results in neither having a clear advantage.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Nom de Forum said:


> I have found your recent posts on the technical aspects of Omega's Co-axial movement very interesting and enjoyable. What quantifiable evidence do you have that the Rolex movement is clearly superior to Omega's? I suspect that when the advantages and disadvantages of both are compared it results in neither having a clear advantage.


Rolexs prices verify their superior movements.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

I just am having a difficult time understanding why this is so complicated to understand. I love Omega. I think their stuff is great. I own two of their watches. I am quite confident I will buy more in the future. Having said that it has always been obvious to me, even more so after owning both Rolex and Omega, that Rolex makes a superior watch. I don't get butt hurt when I am told AP makes a superior watch to Rolex. They do. So does VC and PP. So what!!!!! I feel like we are arguing that a Toyota Camry is just as good as a Lexus. It's not.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Nom de Forum said:


> I have found your recent posts on the technical aspects of Omega's Co-axial movement very interesting and enjoyable. What quantifiable evidence do you have that the Rolex movement is clearly superior to Omega's? I suspect that when the advantages and disadvantages of both are compared it results in neither having a clear advantage.


I'm not suggesting Rolex's movements are clearly superior from the point of view of performance, although some might point to the new tighter accuracy standard and five year warranty as indicating something positive about their accuracy and robustness. All I'm saying is that there is no clear and unequivocal evidence that the co-axial escapement, as opposed to the silicon hairspring, dual mainsprings, and free-sprung balance is responsible for the accuracy, stability, and power reserve of the 8500 calibre.

My point primarily had to do with the ease of service, most independent watchmakers speak in glowing terms about the ease of servicing a Rolex 3135 calibre, whereas more than a few have commented about the exacting oiling requirements, and other difficulties of servicing a co-axial escapement.

This is a discussion of the 8500 calibre by yet another watchmaker,

Service: Omega Seamaster Professional Planet Ocean 168.1665 / calibre 8500 | Watch Guy


----------



## phillycheez (Mar 4, 2011)

patton250 said:


> I just am having a difficult time understanding why this is so complicated to understand. I love Omega. I think their stuff is great. I own two of their watches. I am quite confident I will buy more in the future. Having said that it has always been obvious to me, even more so after owning both Rolex and Omega, that Rolex makes a superior watch. I don't get butt hurt when I am told AP makes a superior watch to Rolex. They do. So does VC and PP. So what!!!!! I feel like we are arguing that a Toyota Camry is just as good as a Lexus. It's not.


Because of denial and peoples natural tendency to want justify that their choice on a $5k watch is the best and most correct choice so they can sleep at night knowing they spent all that hard earned cash on something so useless. If they continue to preach no matter how ridiculous of claims it is or how illogical it is, they eventually believe it themselves.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

patton250 said:


> Rolexs prices verify their superior movements.


That is complete nonsense. Price is never an absolute guarantee of superior quality. Price is determined by many factors or which the inherent quality of the product is but one. We all know you love and think Rolex the superior product but you damage your credibility when you resort to obvious absurdity to support your opinion.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Nom de Forum said:


> That is complete nonsense. Price is never an absolute guarantee of superior quality. Price is determined by many factors or which the inherent quality of the product is but one. We all know you love and think Rolex the superior product but you damage your credibility when you resort to obvious absurdity to support your opinion.


 I don't love to think anything. Don't assume that. Do you own both brands? If you do post pictures. I don't think, I know Rolex is a superior product. Just like I know that AP is superior over Rolex. But man this is all remarkably simple. I think you should listen to Phillycheez above because he nailed it. I don't know why you continue to hurl insults. This should be a civil discussion.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

paulopiper said:


> I've never looked it up but I doubt Omega are being paid for the privilege of timing the games considering any number of companies would surely be capable of doing so?


That's why i say i am not certain.

Unlike in F1 where it is now all provided by a third party (last I checked it was lg) the Olympics timing is done on Omega timing equipment. I'm not certain just _any_ other watch company (TagHeuer Sports Timing most likely could) can provide the same equipment and possibly not at the same cost.

That's probably how it goes come to think of it.
A fund is allocated to timing duties and Omega takes care of regardless of whether it is at a loss or not.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Nom de Forum said:


> That is complete nonsense. Price is never an absolute guarantee of superior quality. Price is determined by many factors or which the inherent quality of the product is but one. We all know you love and think Rolex the superior product but you damage your credibility when you resort to obvious absurdity to support your opinion.


 Also price really does show value. Case in point look at full-blown retail price in the Omega boutique and the Rolex boutique. Then look at those same models in the gray market. The most you can save on Rolex is 10 to 15% while you can save a whopping 40% on omega. What does that tell you?????


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

mleok said:


> I'm not suggesting Rolex's movements are clearly superior from the point of view of performance, although some might point to the new tighter accuracy standard and five year warranty as indicating something positive about their accuracy and robustness. All I'm saying is that there is no clear and unequivocal evidence that the co-axial escapement, as opposed to the silicon hairspring, dual mainsprings, and free-sprung balance is responsible for the accuracy, stability, and power reserve of the 8500 calibre.
> 
> My point primarily had to do with the ease of service, most independent watchmakers speak in glowing terms about the ease of servicing a Rolex 3135 calibre, whereas more than a few have commented about the exacting oiling requirements, and other difficulties of servicing a co-axial escapement.
> 
> ...


Don't Omega Co-axials in actual use match Rolex's new accuracy standards? A extension of warranty does not necessarily indicate something positive about accuracy and robustness. It could be based solely on Rolex gambling that the few extra sales made due to the warranty extension will far out weigh the costs of the few customers noticing out of specification performance and making warranty claims. It seems that if the Rolex movement has any superiority it is not something the customer will notice because most customers will not have a problem while under warranty and after warranty expiration the difference between the cost of repair for Rolex and Omega would be a factor determining superiority. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it more expensive to have Rolex make a repair than to have Omega make a repair? What is the scheduled service cost difference between the brands.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Rolex now has a -2/+2 spd accuracy standard, and a 5 year warranty, compared to Omega's METAS standard of 0/+5 spd, and a 4 year warranty. At the moment, the quantifiable advantages of the Master co-axial movements is the increased power reserve of 60 hours (vs 50 hours), and the better anti-magnetic resistance. Keep in mind that the Rolex 3135 calibre was introduced in 1988, and Omega Master co-axial movements were introduced in 2014 (the 8500 was introduced in 2007, but probably had comparable anti-magnetic resistance to a Parachrom Bleu equipped Rolex 3135). What this suggests to me is that the practical differences in performance between these two movements is relatively small, and that even radical design changes do not result in dramatic improvements in what is already a very mature technology. Indeed, the improvements made in the Rolex 3255 calibre give it a 70 hour power reserve with a single mainspring.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

patton250 said:


> Also price really does show value. Case in point look at full-blown retail price in the Omega boutique and the Rolex boutique. Then look at those same models in the gray market. The most you can save on Rolex is 10 to 15% while you can save a whopping 40% on omega. What does that tell you?????


There are watches more expensive at full retail than certain Rolexes at full retail, which will be 40% off grey compared to 10-15% for Rolex. I agree with Nom's point that a higher price doesn't guarantee a superior product - to believe it does is an overly simplistic world view.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

paulopiper said:


> There are watches more expensive at full retail than certain Rolexes at full retail, which will be 40% off grey compared to 10-15% for Rolex. I agree with Nom's point that a higher price doesn't guarantee a superior product - to believe it does is an overly simplistic world view.


 You agree with my point and then say it's a simplistic view.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

patton250 said:


> You agree with my point and then say it's a simplistic view.


I'm not following. Are you not saying you believe a more expensive price guarantees a better product?


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

patton250 said:


> Also price really does show value. Case in point look at full-blown retail price in the Omega boutique and the Rolex boutique. Then look at those same models in the gray market. The most you can save on Rolex is 10 to 15% while you can save a whopping 40% on omega. What does that tell you?????


You first asserted superiority due to price and now you are asserting greater value due to price. Superiority and Value are two different concepts. Something can have superior performance in comparison to something that is more valuable. Casio G-Shock has superior time keeping compared to the more valuable Rolex Submariner for example.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Nom de Forum said:


> Don't Omega Co-axials in actual use match Rolex's new accuracy standards? A extension of warranty does not necessarily indicate something positive about accuracy and robustness. It could be based solely on Rolex gambling that the few extra sales made due to the warranty extension will far out weigh the costs of the few customers noticing out of specification performance and making warranty claims. It seems that if the Rolex movement has any superiority it is not something the customer will notice because most customers will not have a problem while under warranty and after warranty expiration the difference between the cost of repair for Rolex and Omega would be a factor determining superiority. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it more expensive to have Rolex make a repair than to have Omega make a repair? What is the scheduled service cost difference between the brands.


One expects that in actual use, the typical specimen will achieve much better accuracy than a stated accuracy standard, so if Rolex has a -2/+2 standard, then most of the watches should perform even better than this. Without doing a great deal of extensive accelerated stress testing over a large number of samples in a controlled, independent setting, it'll be difficult to tell which design is intrinsically more accurate, and is intrinsically more robust. As a practical matter, I think that they are close enough that other considerations matter more. In any case, I do not see clear, unequivocal evidence that the co-axial escapement yields truly groundbreaking improvements in efficiency.

As for the cost of service, Omega charges $525 for a watch with a modern mechanical calibre on a bracelet, and service at a RSC is about $600. But, one can easily find an independent watchmaker with a Rolex parts account who will charge less than a RSC, whereas it is much more of a challenge to find an independent watchmaker who is able and willing to service a co-axial movement and has an Omega parts account (Archer had to buy a microscope in order to oil the co-axial escapement).


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

patton250 said:


> I don't love to think anything. Don't assume that. *Do you own both brands? If you do post pictures.* I don't think, I know Rolex is a superior product. Just like I know that AP is superior over Rolex. But man this is all remarkably simple. I think you should listen to Phillycheez above because he nailed it. I don't know why you continue to hurl insults. This should be a civil discussion.


I'm all for civility, so what's the purpose of calling him out to post pictures? Seems very confrontational and it's not clear why ownership is required for his opinion to be valid.

I own both brands and I believe they're equal. Rolex's "superiority" is far from a given.

Happy to post pics if you want.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

mleok said:


> One expects that in actual use, the typical specimen will achieve much better accuracy than a stated accuracy standard, so if Rolex has a -2/+2 standard, then most of the watches should perform even better than this. Without doing a great deal of extensive accelerated stress testing over a large number of samples in a controlled, independent setting, it'll be difficult to tell which design is intrinsically more accurate, and is intrinsically more robust. As a practical matter, I think that they are close enough that other considerations matter more. In any case, I do not see clear, unequivocal evidence that the co-axial escapement yields truly groundbreaking improvements in efficiency.
> 
> As for the cost of service, Omega charges $525 for a watch with a modern mechanical calibre on a bracelet, and service at a RSC is about $600. But, one can easily find an independent watchmaker with a Rolex parts account who will charge less than a RSC, whereas it is much more of a challenge to find an independent watchmaker who is able and willing to service a co-axial movement and has an Omega parts account (Archer had to buy a microscope in order to oil the co-axial escapement).


mleok, this thread has been going on so long I'm starting to lose track. My impression is you consider Rolex superior to Omega - could you provide a summary of the main reasons why you consider this to be the case? I'm sure a good few of us would be interested to read it, it would get us properly back on track, and it might even be /thread.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

patton250 said:


> Do you own both brands? If you do post pictures. I don't think, I know Rolex is a superior product.


It would be interesting to see a poll involving only people who own watches from both brands (preferably current models from each). I'm willing to bet it would lean heavily in favour of Rolex.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

BigSeikoFan said:


> I'm all for civility, so what's the purpose of calling him out to post pictures? Seems very confrontational and it's not clear why ownership is required for his opinion to be valid.
> 
> I own both brands and I believe they're equal. Rolex's "superiority" is far from a given.
> 
> Happy to post pics if you want.


I've also owned both brands (multiple models of each) and, while admittedly not as deep a horological thinker as some/all, I would be hard pressed to pick one over the other based on tangible/objective factors. Subjectively, I like the aesthetics of the Rolex models I own/have owned better but that's of course an entirely different matter . . .


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

paulopiper said:


> mleok, this thread has been going on so long I'm starting to lose track. My impression is you consider Rolex superior to Omega - could you provide a summary of the main reasons why you consider this to be the case? I'm sure a good few of us would be interested to read it, it would get us properly back on track, and it might even be /thread.


My opinion is that in practical terms, the movements are very closely comparable with regards to accuracy and reliability. Omega's main advantage in this regard is the anti-magnetic resistance and power reserve, and Rolex's main advantage is in a time proven design that is extremely easy to service. In terms of anti-magnetic resistance, there were recent tests to indicate that prolonged exposure to about 4K Gauss did not affect the timekeeping of a Rolex equipped with a Parachrom Bleu hairspring, and while other movement components can still be magnetized, a magnetized hairspring is the thing which most noticeably changes the quality of timekeeping.

Where I tend to favor Rolex is in terms of the fine precision with which their cases and bracelets are made, and I think that their quality of fit is unrivaled in the industry, as evidenced by their exceptional tightness of the endlinks, and lack of lateral play in their bracelets, the precision of the bezel action, and the smoothness of their screw down crowns. More importantly, there seems to be a great deal of consistency in this sense, and I have not found the same level of consistency in Omega's watches. Some have very good endlink fits, but other specimens, even of the same model have much sloppier fits. I was also rather disappointed by a Seamaster 300 Master Co-Axial I saw in Madrid, which had a bracelet link which was very stiff and had to be forced to rotate.

I attribute these differences to the temperature controlled CNC machines that Rolex employs. I know they seem silly, and seem like a bit of overkill to most people, but I do like things which fit together just right. I recall JLC mentioning that they needed CNC machines with significantly tighter tolerances than the industry standard in order to construct their Reverso cases, because they too need to slide smoothly in certain directions, but have minimal play in the complementary directions.

I also find the Rolex Glidelock to be superior to even the current generation Omega ratcheting clasps, because when you extend it, it extends regular links, unlike on the Omega which extends an ugly solid piece that does not coordinate with the rest of the bracelet. Along the line of aesthetics, I much prefer watches that are reasonably thin, and I find the hockey puck aspect ratio of modern Omegas to be rather off-putting.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

patton250 said:


> I don't love to think anything. Don't assume that. Do you own both brands? If you do post pictures. I don't think, I know Rolex is a superior product. Just like I know that AP is superior over Rolex. But man this is all remarkably simple. I think you should listen to Phillycheez above because he nailed it. I don't know why you continue to hurl insults. This should be a civil discussion.


I did not write that you "love to think". I don't believe you do love to think. I believe you love _and _think Rolex the superior product and I believe everyone also believes this about you. I don't currently own both brands. I have owned three Rolexes. I bought my wife an Omega Constellation a few years back see still owns. I have never posted photos to this site and frankly don't know how or really care to know how beyond doing an attachment. Your question about my ownership and request for photos further damages you credibility because it makes you appear desperate because any acknowledgement of ownership or photos would not support the validity of my comments or your comments. I will admit to having given deliberate insult on this forum. That is something you and others have engaged in, so again you damage your credibility by implying I am solely responsible for lapses in civility in this discussion.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Sorry, the article I had in mind was with regards to the Milgauss with its soft iron core, I don't know how a Submariner will perform under such prolonged exposure to a 4K Gauss magnetic field, so that might be an area where Omega really excels. This is of course a relatively recent development for Omega, that was first introduced in 2014, and it is clear that their newly developed METAS certification is intended to leverage that competitive advantage to the hilt. It is worth noting that similar technology can also be found in the Swatch Sistem51 and the Powermatic 80 movements used in Tissots and other Swatch group brands.

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/a...15000-gauss-and-a-4000-gauss-neodymium-magnet


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

BigSeikoFan said:


> I'm all for civility, so what's the purpose of calling him out to post pictures? Seems very confrontational and it's not clear why ownership is required for his opinion to be valid.
> 
> I own both brands and I believe they're equal. Rolex's "superiority" is far from a given.
> 
> Happy to post pics if you want.


 I disagree sir. I believe it's difficult to have an honest objective discussion unless you own or have owned both brands. That's my opinion.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

paulopiper said:


> mleok, this thread has been going on so long I'm starting to lose track. My impression is you consider Rolex superior to Omega - could you provide a summary of the main reasons why you consider this to be the case? I'm sure a good few of us would be interested to read it, it would get us properly back on track, and* it might even be /thread.*


NOOOOOO!!


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

mleok said:


> My opinion is that in practical terms, the movements are very closely comparable with regards to accuracy and reliability. Omega's main advantage in this regard is the anti-magnetic resistance and power reserve, and Rolex's main advantage is in a time proven design that is extremely easy to service. In terms of anti-magnetic resistance, there were recent tests to indicate that prolonged exposure to about 4K Gauss did not affect the timekeeping of a Rolex equipped with a Parachrom Bleu hairspring, and while other movement components can still be magnetized, a magnetized hairspring is the thing which most noticeably changes the quality of timekeeping.
> 
> Where I tend to favor Rolex is in terms of the fine precision with which their cases and bracelets are made, and I think that their quality of fit is unrivaled in the industry, as evidenced by their exceptional tightness of the endlinks, and lack of lateral play in their bracelets, the precision of the bezel action, and the smoothness of their screw down crowns. More importantly, there seems to be a great deal of consistency in this sense, and I have not found the same level of consistency in Omega's watches. Some have very good endlink fits, but other specimens, even of the same model have much sloppier fits. I was also rather disappointed by a Seamaster 300 Master Co-Axial I saw in Madrid, which had a bracelet link which was very stiff and had to be forced to rotate.
> 
> ...


That's all interesting, the only thing is it still seems quite subjective...unless it could be agreed by everyone about the quality of cases and bracelets and fits. Given that drhr seems (hope I'm not putting words in his mouth) to consider them about on par, I wonder now if it isn't possible on any kind of objective basis to put Rolex above Omega.

I definitely agree with you about slimmer cases, but again that's subjective. I guess I would say areas in which I consider Rolex superior are brand recognition and resell value. I actually think it's fair to say both of those points are universal enough to be objective. All other things being equal (which I'm still not quite sure on), are these the 2 areas in which Rolex does prove its superiority?

And yet still, someone with a recent quartz Omega could come in and say it's more accurate than any Rolex Perpetual...


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Nom de Forum said:


> I did not write that you "love to think". I don't believe you do love to think. I believe you love _and _think Rolex the superior product and I believe everyone also believes this about you. I don't currently own both brands. I have owned three Rolexes. I bought my wife an Omega Constellation a few years back see still owns. I have never posted photos to this site and frankly don't know how or really care to know how beyond doing an attachment. Your question about my ownership and request for photos further damages you credibility because it makes you appear desperate because any acknowledgement of ownership or photos would not support the validity of my comments or your comments. I will admit to having given deliberate insult on this forum. That is something you and others have engaged in, so again you damage your credibility by implying I am solely responsible for lapses in civility in this discussion.


 OK man I'm done with you. Take care.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

paulopiper said:


> I'm not following. Are you not saying you believe a more expensive price guarantees a better product?


 Generally yes. It's certainly the opinion of the vast majority of watch buying public with the exception of a handful here. I believe after reading this thread I have been suckered. Lol. Nobody ( that knows anything about horology anyway ) believes that Omega is superior to Rolex they are just trying to get a charge out of people. It worked. I fell for it. Oh well no harm done.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

mleok said:


> My opinion is that in practical terms, the movements are very closely comparable with regards to accuracy and reliability. Omega's main advantage in this regard is the anti-magnetic resistance and power reserve, and Rolex's main advantage is in a time proven design that is extremely easy to service. In terms of anti-magnetic resistance, there were recent tests to indicate that prolonged exposure to about 4K Gauss did not affect the timekeeping of a Rolex equipped with a Parachrom Bleu hairspring, and while other movement components can still be magnetized, a magnetized hairspring is the thing which most noticeably changes the quality of timekeeping.
> 
> Where I tend to favor Rolex is in terms of the fine precision with which their cases and bracelets are made, and I think that their quality of fit is unrivaled in the industry, as evidenced by their exceptional tightness of the endlinks, and lack of lateral play in their bracelets, the precision of the bezel action, and the smoothness of their screw down crowns. More importantly, there seems to be a great deal of consistency in this sense, and I have not found the same level of consistency in Omega's watches. Some have very good endlink fits, but other specimens, even of the same model have much sloppier fits. I was also rather disappointed by a Seamaster 300 Master Co-Axial I saw in Madrid, which had a bracelet link which was very stiff and had to be forced to rotate.
> 
> ...


I notice we have almost identical thoughts on these matters. To add, I find the additional parts and the need for precise oil on the coaxial finicky. I'm someone that appreciates proven reliability, and I KNOW I'm getting that with the 3135 Swiss lever. 
I also understand and appreciate the r & d that went into the parachrom hairspring; to maintain the benefits of the breguet overcoil, all while reducing magnetic influence.

I also favour the idea, that once you have a watch you shouldn't have to worry about it.... Double AR is a negative application for me.

Lastly, I firmly believe that Rolex is dedicated to consistency and precision and it's something you just don't see in the details you get from a swatch owned Omega.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

mleok said:


> ...
> I also find the Rolex Glidelock to be superior to even the current generation Omega ratcheting clasps, because when you extend it, it extends regular links, unlike on *the Omega which extends an ugly solid piece that does not coordinate with the rest of the bracelet. *Along the line of aesthetics, I much prefer watches that are reasonably thin, and I find the hockey puck aspect ratio of modern Omegas to be rather off-putting.


This. That designer should have been slapped upside the head.

And double slaps to the Omega manager who ok'd that design.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

paulopiper said:


> That's all interesting, the only thing is it still seems quite subjective...unless it could be agreed by everyone about the quality of cases and bracelets and fits.


The quality of fit can just as easily be tested with as much objectivity as something like movement accuracy. All it takes is the appropriate equipment and a representative sample.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

patton250 said:


> Generally yes.


Ah ok, 'generally' is very different from universally.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

mleok said:


> The quality of fit can just as easily be tested with as much objectivity as something like movement accuracy. All it takes is the appropriate equipment and a representative sample.


OK cool...I'm just wondering, people's opinions and prejudices aside, to what extent it's possible to objectively say one brand is better than the other. We seem to be back on topic!


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

BigSeikoFan said:


> This. That designer should have been slapped upside the head.
> 
> And double slaps to the Omega manager who ok'd that design.


In case anyone is wondering what we're referring to... notice the longish faux link.


















Compare this to the Rolex Glidelock clasp, where regular links are stored in the clasp until they need to be revealed.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

paulopiper said:


> OK cool...I'm just wondering, people's opinions and prejudices aside, to what extent it's possible to objectively say one brand is better than the other. We seem to be back on topic!


 You are correct. Whom am I to say that Mercedes-Benz and BMW are better then Kia? Also as pointed out earlier, is not a Casio G-Shock superior to any Patek? I mean in a world survival situation what would you rather have a G-Shock a Patek Perpetual calendar?


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

patton250 said:


> You are correct. Whom am I to say that Mercedes-Benz and BMW are better then Kia? Also as pointed out earlier, is not a Casio G-Shock superior to any Patek? I mean in a world survival situation what would you rather have a G-Shock a Patek Perpetual calendar?


Oh sweet ***** now I have to come up with examples of cheaper stuff that's better than more expensive stuff. And you're right, it's not as easy as I would have thought. But off the top of my head: you can get a great bottle of wine in a supermarket in Portugal for €10. Here in Ireland it's difficult finding decent wine for even €20. You may be right it's generally true, it's just as I said, it's not universal. Can't we just agree on that and I'm sorry for the 'simplistic' comment, I made that before you elaborated.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

paulopiper said:


> Oh sweet ***** now I have to come up with examples of cheaper stuff that's better than more expensive stuff. And you're right, it's not as easy as I would have thought. But off the top of my head: you can get a great bottle of wine in a supermarket in Portugal for €10. Here in Ireland it's difficult finding decent wine for even €20. You may be right it's generally true, it's just as I said, it's not universal. Can't we just agree on that and I'm sorry for the 'simplistic' comment, I made that before you elaborated.


 No worries my friend. I thought it was a good analogy. It is rather simplistic. Many people here don't think so though.

PS- I assure you ***** had nothing to do with it.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

paulopiper said:


> Oh sweet ***** now I have to come up with examples of cheaper stuff that's better than more expensive stuff. And you're right, it's not as easy as I would have thought. But off the top of my head: you can get a great bottle of wine in a supermarket in Portugal for €10. Here in Ireland it's difficult finding decent wine for even €20. You may be right it's generally true, it's just as I said, it's not universal. Can't we just agree on that and I'm sorry for the 'simplistic' comment, I made that before you elaborated.


 No worries my friend. I thought it was a good analogy. It is rather simplistic. Many people here don't think so though.

PS- I assure you ***** had nothing to do with it.


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

paulopiper said:


> OK cool...I'm just wondering, people's opinions and prejudices aside, to what extent it's possible to objectively say one brand is better than the other. We seem to be back on topic!


Well, is there one area where one supersedes the other 'universally', area where both are competing at? Yes. Rolex wins the brand recognition aspect. Is that objective enough? ;-)


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

watchRus said:


> Well, is there one area where one supersedes the other 'universally', area where both are competing at? Yes. Rolex wins the brand recognition aspect. Is that objective enough? ;-)


Yes, that is objective enough, and I actually said the exact same thing a few posts back, while also mentioning resale value as an objective plus. I'm just giving Omega fans time to come up with a comeback... ;-)


----------



## phillycheez (Mar 4, 2011)

While I can agree that price isn't the best correlation to quality.. 

Something is said about market value vs retail pricing . 

If anything market value incorporates public scrutiny, perceived value and also compares similar products in that price range and quality. I would even argue the market value IS the most accurate value of a product. 

And considering omega is trying replicate rolex strategy by taking more control of the distribution and selling in boutiques with no discount. In 10 years I think we really will see if omega is equivalent or better to Rolex. 

Currently the public has spoken.... Omega retailing pricing is well beyond the market value of the majority of their watches. 

Rolex retail vs market value is actually only around 20% off? And their used prices are not much lower than that. 

Again... The public is voting with their wallets. 

We will see what happens when the public no longer gets steep omega discounting ... Should be interesting.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

patton250 said:


> Generally yes. It's certainly the opinion of the vast majority of watch buying public with the exception of a handful here. I believe after reading this thread I have been suckered. Lol. Nobody ( that knows anything about horology anyway ) believes that Omega is superior to Rolex they are just trying to get a charge out of people. It worked. I fell for it. Oh well no harm done.


That is a very cynical statement about the motives of the OP and all who have posted to the thread. :think:

"Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack."
- General George S Patton


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

mleok said:


> .......As for the cost of service, Omega charges $525 for a watch with a modern mechanical calibre on a bracelet, and service at a RSC is about $600. But, one can easily find an independent watchmaker with a Rolex parts account who will charge less than a RSC, whereas it is much more of a challenge to find an independent watchmaker who is able and willing to service a co-axial movement and has an Omega parts account (Archer had to buy a microscope in order to oil the co-axial escapement).


Considering the price difference between comparable Rolex and Omega watches, the much lower initial cost of the Omega should still make it less expensive to maintain for at least 20-30 years.


----------



## Nom de Forum (Oct 17, 2012)

patton250 said:


> You are correct. Whom am I to say that Mercedes-Benz and BMW are better then Kia? Also as pointed out earlier, is not a Casio G-Shock superior to any Patek? I mean in a world survival situation what would you rather have a G-Shock a Patek Perpetual calendar?


A G-Shock. I spent years in the Army training to perform in a "world survival situation". I and the vast majority of soldiers preferred G-Shocks or their equivalent. I Patek could have been less expensive than a Casio and it still would not have been preferred. BTW, Consumer Reports magazine finds that Kias compare very favorably and in some cases superiorly in reliability and safety to vehicles from Mercedes-Benz and BMW.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

phillycheez said:


> Currently the public has spoken.... Omega retailing pricing is well beyond the market value of the majority of their watches.


 It most certainly is. That's why when I do decide to buy another Omega I will try them on in the boutique and then quickly look for a brand new one from a grey dealer for 40% less. If I do ever get another Rolex I will more than likely buy it from a boutique because the small savings from a grey dealer does not justify the chance of losing warranty in my opinion.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

With one hour left looks like Omega will pull out a win. I guess I'm stuck with my Speedy Reduced anyway, hope it's cheap to service.


----------



## RyanFromOttawa (Jan 11, 2016)

I've never personally owned a Rolex but I have owned a Speedy Reduced for quite some time and I must say, there's just something about that turns me off compared to the likes or brands like Nomos and Sinn. Haven't quite hit me yet, perhaps it's solely the Reduced.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

I think it's perceived as down market or something. I actually don't know. Mine was for the Japan market, and it's still not cool enough. o|


----------



## imaCoolRobot (Jan 1, 2014)

I wouldn't mind an Omega but I Really want a Rolex. As for Tudor, that's more likely what I'd actually buy.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

I look at Tudor as what Rolex used to be. A watch anybody could save up a bit for and have last forever. I think Rolex is probably out of reach for most now. I wouldn't wear a Rolex every day anyway. I would a Tudor.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

chuasam said:


> I wouldn't mind an Omega but I Really want a Rolex. As for Tudor, that's more likely what I'd actually buy.


:-d I wouldn't mind an Omega but I really want a Tudor. As for Rolex, that's more likely what I'd actually buy . . . (you can switch the O and the R of course for purposes of this thread) ;-) . . .


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

UberDave said:


> You think people ought not be able to spend their money how they see fit? Seriously? Perhaps you'd like to be appointed Minister of Watch Values and be tasked with fixing prices for all watch manufacturers?
> 
> And again, I don't care about the "Rolex fanboys" you keep mentioning. You made a comment about Rolex "....ing" people and I'm speaking to that comment. Further, I'm speaking to that comment in such a way that removes specific brands from the equation. And sorry, but the fact that you're *still* talking about Rolex ripping people off is evidence that you have missed the plot.


Sorry no plot has been missed. I was just pointing out that Rolex fans have no business lecturing Omega fans about value. No more, no less.

I know you have an issue with how I phrased it but I don't really care. That's not missing the plot though.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

patton250 said:


> Also price really does show value. Case in point look at full-blown retail price in the Omega boutique and the Rolex boutique. Then look at those same models in the gray market. The most you can save on Rolex is 10 to 15% while you can save a whopping 40% on omega. What does that tell you?????


It tells you what the market wants and I guess is sort of tied into value. Resale value is quite different from actually value though.

However, I personally think value is more closely tied to bang for your buck or costs for the manufacturer vs profit margin. Which would put Rolex and most Swiss watch companies pretty damn far back on the list. Rolex especially with their really old designs and reusing the same movement at least for two updates.
If you look at Rolex R&D expenses/cost to manufacture vs profits and look at Omegas, I am quite positive Omega wins in actual value considering they actually spend money on newer things like double side AR coating and updated designs every year vs every 5-10 years like Rolex.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Vlance said:


> I notice we have almost identical thoughts on these matters. To add, I find the additional parts and the need for precise oil on the coaxial finicky. I'm someone that appreciates proven reliability, and I KNOW I'm getting that with the 3135 Swiss lever.
> I also understand and appreciate the r & d that went into the parachrom hairspring; to maintain the benefits of the breguet overcoil, all while reducing magnetic influence.
> 
> I also favour the idea, that once you have a watch you shouldn't have to worry about it.... Double AR is a negative application for me.
> ...


I agree, the servicing of a co-axial just sounds very finicky and sensitive. Comments like these from watchmakers make me nervous. All of this seems to indicate that the design is extremely sensitive to the precise shape of the components, and deformation and wear with use is inevitable, which suggests to me that parts replacement will be more common, particularly with deferred maintenance.

Watchmaker Compares Omega Seamaster Timepieces With Caliber 1120, 2500, & 8500 Movements | aBlogtoWatch



> I think the co-axial is a lot more sensitive. Omega use oil on it George Daniels (inventor of the co-axial) didn't. And it's a microscopic amount, I mean you actually have to use a microscope. If it's not correctly oiled, you won't get your four years out of it. The amount of oil we're using is so minute that it makes the application a rather difficult job. If you use too much oil, it's going to stop the watch, or it's going to run off the back of the teeth and stop the watch. If you put too little oil, it is going to result in stoppage as well. It has to be perfect, and it has to be on a certain spot on the teeth too: right in the middle.
> 
> The other thing about co-axial escapements: taking the balance out is a nightmare! You can't just pull it out. If someone doesn't know what they're doing, it's - phew! - you know, it's not like a conventional one, they're never getting it in again. Even if you do everything right, putting it back in is tricky as well: you have to get the impulse pin into the fork and lever, and then you have to twist the movement.
> 
> The first time I did it, it took me about and hour and a half just to put it in. You're trying to get the hairspring and the balance in, you have to twist it around and then get it into the right place. The Swiss lever just slots in.


Tick Talk » Omega Co-axial Training

This blurb suggests that the reason why Daniels did not have to use minute amounts of lubrication in his co-axial escapement is that he used gold for the escapement, instead of the steel that Omega uses.



> First, The "oil-free" coaxial escapement has a little oil on it. Yes, I know, what about what I said above. The impulse jewels are left dry, there is no need for the oil there. The locking jewels have a very, very, very small amount of oil on them to help cushion the locking action. (To gauge the proper quantity of oil, it is applied under 50 power magnification.) This oil acts, not as a lubricant, but as a cushion to absorb part of the shock from the locking action. Leaving this oil off does not affect the timekeeping of the watch, but it will likely result in damage to the upper coaxial wheel teeth over time. . . . But Geo. Daniels didn't put any oil on his movements? The coaxial wheels in his watches are made from a Gold alloy which is softer (and springier?) than the steel used by Omega. This material choice serves to absorb the extra shock without the need of a "hydraulic cushion."





> The tolerances are so tight that rather than adjust stones that don't lock correctly, or which have been knocked loose, you should replace the fork.


There is also a small historical discussion of why the early 2500A calibre movements had stoppage issues.



> Second, didn't Omega have issues with the first coaxial movements? Yes, they did. The 2500A had some critical problems, which have been resolved. The tolerances are so tight on these watches that the slightest shift in the escapement will result in the watch coming to a stop. The 2500A allowed the pallet fork to shift slightly when it received a shock. Because of this many of the 2500A movements were replaced with "B" movements making the "A" series all that more collectible. The "B" movement has a sturdier pallet bridge (among other changes). In their most recent caliber Omega has implemented a new shock system which limits side to side movement of the balance wheel when it receives shocks. Because one of the impulse jewels is on the balance a shift at the wrong moment will allow the coaxial wheel to pass by the impulse jewel without delivering the impulse and causing the watch to stop. My opinion is that Omega has finally figured out how to make reliable coaxial movements, but they will continue to make improvements for many years to come.


https://omegaforums.net/threads/co-axial-v-lever.6478/



> The only benefit that Omega claims is increased service intervals. However, as I have said many times on various forums, the escapement is only one area of the watch that requires servicing.





> Lubrication here is important, and too much or too little can cause problems.





> And finally, here is the wheel under 50X power, showing how I have oiled one of the teeth on the co-axial wheel:
> 
> Hopefully you can see the drop of oil I have placed there. I can assure you it is very small, and this is the oil that helps protect the wheel from impact damage. If the wheel is not properly lubricated, you end up with this sort of damage to the teeth


https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/philo...r-everything-experienced-question-786804.html



> I'm not going to comment on the advantages and disadvantages, but the fact is there is far more lubricating involved in servicing a co-axial escapement than a traditional lever escapement. For a 2 level co-axial version, there are 30 individual oiling points on the escapement alone, and they all have to be done under a microscope. Less oiling for the 3 level design, but they all still need oiling.
> 
> It takes far longer to oil the escapament on a co-axial than on a lever. The oils serve different purposes in each case though.





> For the co-axial, the lubrication on the co-axial wheel in particular, is for cushioning. It's there to soften the impacts as the escapement functions. The teeth on the co-axial wheel are very fine as you can see from the photos I've posted in this thread, and they will wear/distort over time, so this oiling is meant to prolong their life.
> 
> The oil is not needed to run and run well, so unlike a lever that will gain amplitude and run better after the escapement is oiled, you will see no difference in performance before and after oiling the co-axial. This is one reason that oiling this properly is so critical, because it will give you a good result regardless if the job is done properly or not. If the oil is not placed properly, or is put on too heavily and migrates away from where it should be, then the teeth of the co-axial wheel are left unprotected, and they will fail much more quickly.


At the end of the day, I agree with this watchmaker's assessment of why Omega commercialized the co-axial escapement:



> I think Omega just wanted to set themselves apart, so they jumped at the chance of having an advantage. The co-axial took a shedload of work to fit in. Was it worth it? Well, it's excellent, don't get me wrong, and it's different, but whether it's better or not, we'll have to let you decide. I mean, I suppose, what they have done is taken themselves from being a fixed second best to people not knowing what's better. I guess, maybe it was a good call then.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

drhr said:


> :-d I wouldn't mind an Omega but I really want a Tudor. As for Rolex, that's more likely what I'd actually buy . . . (you can switch the O and the R of course for purposes of this thread) ;-) . . .


Yes, for me, the real competition Rolex has is from Tudor. Essentially the same quality of fit, new in-house movements, exceptional value proposition, and compelling designs, it puts both Rolex and Omega to shame.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Has anyone heard of RWS single wheel co-axial? Would it be more suitable for production than the original or just as "finicky"?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

oak1971 said:


> Has anyone heard of RWS single wheel co-axial? Would it be more suitable for production than the original or just as "finicky"?


Looking at this photo, it looks like all it does is to combine the functionality of two wheels which need to be interlocked into each other anyway into a single wheel. I think the issue of having functional surfaces which are designed to interface along single lines of contact just seems problematic in terms of long term reliability.

This is analogous to using the point of a knife to push open a metal door repeatedly, at some point in time, the sharp point will wear down or be bent over.


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

Tomatoes11 said:


> I was just pointing out that Rolex fans have no business lecturing Omega fans about value. No more, no less.


vice versa eh!

No one should have business lecturing other about watch value. No more, no less.

Marketing can't buy reputation. Doesn't matter how much a company spend on marketing, if product or customer service don't live up to it, brand image will collapse or back fire. Consumers are not that easy to be fooled. Especially today. To consumers today, what matter to them is not how brands climb to the top, is what they do to stay on top.

For Rolex, the real success to me is that they hold on the concept "why change it when the product sales?" With their successful designs, they let it run and carefully update minor details to modern consumers. Some, claim that Rolex are "boring" but others may find Rolex product is true to its heritage.

Some brands, not only watch brands, they update model/styles for update sake. The new updated designs are often not as good as the original. That really bother me.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

I guess there is no getting around it, but for the money you spend on a RWS he better throw in a free service or two.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> That's why i say i am not certain.
> 
> Unlike in F1 where it is now all provided by a third party (last I checked it was lg) the Olympics timing is done on Omega timing equipment. I'm not certain just _any_ other watch company (TagHeuer Sports Timing most likely could) can provide the same equipment and possibly not at the same cost.
> 
> ...


Omega and the IOC may not discuss the financial details, but at least Omega talks a bit about the equipment they're using in Rio and their history of timing the Olympics (including first using photocells in London 1948).
OMEGA Watches: Planet OMEGA - Sport - Olympic Games
OMEGA Watches: Planet OMEGA - Sport - Rio 2016 - Timekeeping at Rio 2016

They also talk about making some of the equipment for the Solar Impulse project.
OMEGA Watches: Planet OMEGA - Social - Solar Impulse

_All that being said,_ while I'm impressed by the technical achievements of Omega's watches, the recent discussion about ease of maintenance reminds me of how, when it comes to owning a watch, I can't shake my practical side. I'd take a Rolex over an Omega for my own watch box.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

paulopiper said:


> Oh sweet ***** now I have to come up with examples of cheaper stuff that's better than more expensive stuff. And you're right, it's not as easy as I would have thought.


The truism "price isn't an indicator of quality" is a bit misleading.

For products where quality is objectively quantifiable, it is very rare to find a product which costs more and isn't as good - when this happens, there are usually other compensating factors (brand, country of origin, distribution inefficiencies, multiple areas of evaluation, etc).

With products where the quality is more subjective - or at the very least not as easily quantifiable - then it gets a bit more complicated. That is because you aren't usually evaluating along a single criteria, but multiple - and each of those can have different evaluations and importance.

So with watches, you need to define:
- what are the different factors that are important to you: movement, precision of machining, complexity of dial, reliability, looks, complications, price, brand prestige, history
- how do you evaluate each of those areas

Only then can you have a meaningful argument of what is better.

Trying to reduce multi-criteria evaluation into a single "this is better/you are obviously a deluded fanboy" is so painfully stupid it hurts my head.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

oak1971 said:


> I guess there is no getting around it, but for the money you spend on a RWS he better throw in a free service or two.


You mean like a frequent flight miles kinda deal? I like that concept


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

If Rolex maintenance is so easy and simple compared to Omega why does Rolex charge nearly twice as much as Omega.

Case closed.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

mleok said:


> I agree, the servicing of a co-axial just sounds very finicky and sensitive. <snip>


Great post, very informative. Co-axial escapement was adopted to differentiate Omega, but does not offer real technical advantages as they claim in the commercials.

By the same reasoning, mechanical movements in general are finicky, with oil that age/dry and need cleaning/re-oiling. Luxury brands use the romance/"soul" of mechanical movements as a way to enable high pricing (Hand craftsmanship! Moving parts, neat!) and differentiate themselves from quartz, but does not offer real technical advantages compared with quartz (maybe with the exception of "immortality" via servicing, which is just another selling point that does not work exactly as promised in practice due to watch parts not necessarily being available, descendants might not like/keep the watch, the watch becomes too old-looking to warrant salvaging, watches get damaged beyond repair/get lost/get stolen, etc.).

Both/many brands promise what is not delivered in practice. A "luxury" watch experience is not as luxurious as it seems. E.g. gripes about inaccuracy, increasing inaccuracy as the watch ages, scratches/dust-on-dial/wrong hands put in/problems from servicing, worries about "is this watch fake?", etc. The higher the price paid, the higher the expectations, the more likely one could be disappointed by imperfections.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

TAG Calibre S RULES.


----------



## jupiter6 (Jan 8, 2015)

maxixix said:


> TAG Calibre S RULES.


Really? Are you 14?
That's something I would expect to see written on a schoolboy's pencil case.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

*Re: Omega vs Rolex*



Tomatoes11 said:


> That's nothing to feel anything about it. All that means is Rolex gets 100% of their ridiculous profits at all times and occasionally Omega only gets 80 to 60% of their somewhat unreasonable profits.


Not entirely sure what you're trying to say here.

All ADs pay x% (variable) of mrsp for watches from the manufacturers. No matter what price the AD sells at, the manufacturers already have 100% of their profit. What the AD sells for has no bearing on the manufacturers' profits.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

jupiter6 said:


> maxixix said:
> 
> 
> > TAG Calibre S RULES.
> ...


It sucks to be you then.

A 14 y o cant afford a TAG calibre s.


----------



## Bradjhomes (Jun 18, 2011)

It's getting very difficult to even see any points being made in this thread any more.

Hands up if you're not either
- a) a troll, or
- b) unable to resist responding to a troll



Anyone?


----------



## jupiter6 (Jan 8, 2015)

maxixix said:


> It sucks to be you then.
> 
> A 14 y o cant afford a TAG calibre s.


That makes no sense at all.


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

Bradjhomes said:


> It's getting very difficult to even see any points being made in this thread any more.
> 
> Hands up if you're not either
> - a) a troll, or
> ...


Despite the continual attempts to ruin it by those obviously fishing for reactions, I find that melok, vlance, cedargrove and a few others are engaging in a genuine discussion that's been remarkably civilised and informative under the circumstances.

There's been plenty of worthwhile material here recently; this one from only five hours ago is pretty much the definition of a quality post.


----------



## Bradjhomes (Jun 18, 2011)

hydrocarbon said:


> Despite the multiple attempts to ruin it by those obviously fishing for reactions, I find that melok, vlance, cedargrove and a few others are engaging in a genuine discussion that's remarkably civilised and informative under the circumstances. There's been plenty of quality material here recently; this one from only five hours ago is pretty much the definition of a quality post.


There are certainly quality posts here, and it's great that those kinds of posters have mostly been able to battle through the many posts trying to derail it.

Let's all try to keep the thread focussed and ignore and trollish comments.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

I read this idea somewhere (can't find the source right now) that how something is interpreted depends on bias. If a watch is seen favorably, then when the watch breaks and needs fixing, it's seen as part of just regular course of a fine watch. Whereas if the same watch is not seen favorably to begin with, then when it breaks and needs fixing, it's seen as unworthy junk.

Which brands are better or worse mainly depends on one's initial biases. Most watch buying public buy based on whichever marketing they encountered and like.


----------



## consum3r (Sep 19, 2014)

To anyone who posted in this thread ever (which ironically will include myself):

"I reject your reality and substitute my own."


Sent from my cranium via manual interface with a tactile input device.


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

consum3r said:


> To anyone who posted in this thread ever (which ironically will include myself):
> 
> "I reject your reality and substitute my own."


If reality is not to be rejected, based on more objective/expert measures of co-axial's finicky oiling requirement and no technical advantage as claimed, Rolex's measurable tighter fit, etc., Rolex seems to be "better". As to the future, will Omega ever be as "good" as or have the market share of Rolex, who knows?

But objectivity and "reality" has not stopped people from loving whichever "luxury" watches so far. To be truly objective and live in reality without emotion and bias, most people don't need a watch anymore because they look at their phones so regularly.


----------



## Pun (Sep 2, 2015)

BigSeikoFan said:


> patton250 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't love to think anything. Don't assume that. *Do you own both brands? If you do post pictures.* I don't think, I know Rolex is a superior product. Just like I know that AP is superior over Rolex. But man this is all remarkably simple. I think you should listen to Phillycheez above because he nailed it. I don't know why you continue to hurl insults. This should be a civil discussion.
> ...


Both watches under discussion. Rolex 3132 and Omega 2500.
And I got Omega serviced 6 months ago for $300. Rolex has a better grip due to better bracelet. Both gain around 1 spd and have 40+ hours reserve.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

vkalia said:


> The truism "price isn't an indicator of quality" is a bit misleading.
> 
> For products where quality is objectively quantifiable, it is very rare to find a product which costs more and isn't as good - when this happens, there are usually other compensating factors (brand, country of origin, distribution inefficiencies, multiple areas of evaluation, etc).
> 
> ...


I think watches generally are a particularly tricky one to define what is better, particularly given that a $100 quartz will be more accurate than a several thousand $ mechanical. I agree with 'Trying to reduce multi-criteria evaluation into a single "this is better/you are obviously a deluded fanboy" is so painfully stupid it hurts my head.' - I'm hoping this wasn't a swipe at me as that's exactly what I've been trying to avoid doing in this thread...


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

mleok said:


> This was precisely what happened. Omega purchased the patent for the co-axial escapement in 1993, and began to modify their 1120 calibre (essentially an ETA 2892-A2) to accommodate the co-axial escapement, and eventually released the 2500A calibre in 1999. It wasn't until 2007 that the 8500 calibre was introduced, which is a movement that was designed from the ground up to contain the co-axial escapement.


They purchase the rights to use on 1980. 4 years after Daniels created the co-axial movement. On 1993, after they were sure that the concept is plausible, then they purchase the patent.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

rdoder said:


> If reality is not to be rejected, based on more objective/expert measures of co-axial's finicky oiling requirement and no technical advantage as claimed, Rolex's measurable tighter fit, etc., Rolex seems to be "better". As to the future, will Omega ever be as "good" as or have the market share of Rolex, who knows?
> 
> But objectivity and "reality" has not stopped people from loving whichever "luxury" watches so far. *To be truly objective and live in reality without emotion and bias, most people don't need* a watch anymore because they look at their phones so regularly.


Might be more correct to stop here . . . a true grail if ever there was one


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Bhakt said:


> Both watches under discussion. Rolex 3132 and Omega 2500.
> And I got Omega serviced 6 months ago for $300. Rolex has a better grip due to better bracelet. Both gain around 1 spd and have 40+ hours reserve.


 Both of your pieces look awesome. I like the Omega better.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

vkalia does raise an interesting point about inherent subjectivity of distilling a multi-component quality measure into a single quantity. Let us assume that there are a number of criteria which factor into quality, and that we can definitively say that A is better than B in each of these criteria. Without placing a weight on each of these components and quantifying how much better A is compared to B in each of these criteria, we can only say that A is better than B overall if A is better than B in every one of the criteria. This generally only allows one to partially order the set.

Absent these kind of rare situations when a particular product dominates the competition in every conceivable way, we need to be able to assign a scale for measuring how well a product scores in each criteria, and then assign a weight for each criteria in order to distill these properties into a single number that can be used to measure the relative merits overall. The problem of course is that there is no universally accepted way of assigning a scale for measuring each component, and for determining the relative weights of the components.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

paulopiper said:


> I think watches generally are a particularly tricky one to define what is better, particularly given that a $100 quartz will be more accurate than a several thousand $ mechanical. I agree with 'Trying to reduce multi-criteria evaluation into a single "this is better/you are obviously a deluded fanboy" is so painfully stupid it hurts my head.' - I'm hoping this wasn't a swipe at me as that's exactly what I've been trying to avoid doing in this thread...


Oh no, definitely not you. Sorry if it came across that way.

There are plenty of people who are seriously trying to prove one set of subjective preferences are better than another. Those are the ones I mean.


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

Bradjhomes said:


> It's getting very difficult to even see any points being made in this thread any more.
> 
> Hands up if you're not either
> - a) a troll, or
> ...


The point is, we are trying to push this awful thread over 300pgs.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

wuyeah said:


> vice versa eh!
> 
> No one should have business lecturing other about watch value. No more, no less.
> 
> ...


I am not lecturing people about watch value. I seem to be the only one here that isn't proud enough to admit that Rolex ripped me off on two watches. It's called disposable income and I know full well when I am pissing away money.

I just find it hypocritical that someone that pissed away MORE money on a Rolex is lecturing an Omega fan that pissed away less money.

I am not lecturing people on how they should spend their money, I just brought up my perceptions about value to illustrate that point. Do what you want with your money, I am not trying to control it. I am just offering my opinion on value and why Rolex fans are hypocrites.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Tomatoes11 said:


> I am not lecturing people about watch value. I seem to be the only one here that isn't proud enough to admit that Rolex ripped me off on two watches. It's called disposable income and I know full well when I am pissing away money.
> 
> I just find it hypocritical that someone that pissed away MORE money on a Rolex is lecturing an Omega fan that pissed away less money.
> 
> I am not lecturing people on how they should spend their money, I just brought up my perceptions about value to illustrate that point. Do what you want with your money, I am not trying to control it. I am just offering my opinion on value and why Rolex fans are hypocrites.


 How are you pissing away less money on Omega when it loses *significantly* more value then a Rolex when you walk out of the store with it brand-new?


----------



## janiboi (Apr 18, 2014)

patton250 said:


> I disagree sir. I believe it's difficult to have an honest objective discussion unless you own or have owned both brands. That's my opinion.


How wrong you are, I'm afraid.
For instance, I do not have to own a watch to understand what the quality is like and how it feels in my hands, I just have to walk into a local ad.
You honestly try to tell us, that one has to own things in order to undergo an honest discussion about these? Get real.
I guess when you told us that BMW is better than an Kia, you have owned both of them for a while?


----------



## janiboi (Apr 18, 2014)

patton250 said:


> I don't love to think anything. Don't assume that. Do you own both brands? If you do post pictures. I don't think, I know Rolex is a superior product. Just like I know that AP is superior over Rolex. But man this is all remarkably simple. I think you should listen to Phillycheez above because he nailed it. I don't know why you continue to hurl insults. This should be a civil discussion.


Hopefully This gentleman does not represent rolex-owners in general, or I will never ever get the Milgauss I'm dreaming of...
He's words are utter nonsense, have to own brands in order to know are they good or not?
I guess all reviews (being car, watch, camera, etc.) are rubbish, becaude the testers do not own the merchandise, just (in many cases) handle them for a while?


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

mleok said:


> vkalia does raise an interesting point about inherent subjectivity of distilling a multi-component quality measure into a single quantity. Let us assume that there are a number of criteria which factor into quality, and that we can definitively say that A is better than B in each of these criteria. Without placing a weight on each of these components and quantifying how much better A is compared to B in each of these criteria, we can only say that A is better than B overall if A is better than B in every one of the criteria. This generally only allows one to partially order the set.
> 
> Absent these kind of rare situations when a particular product dominates the competition in every conceivable way, we need to be able to assign a scale for measuring how well a product scores in each criteria, and then assign a weight for each criteria in order to distill these properties into a single number that can be used to measure the relative merits overall. The problem of course is that there is no universally accepted way of assigning a scale for measuring each component, and for determining the relative weights of the components.


Indeed, there certainly is a lot of subjectivity inherent in the discussion.

Some have mentioned that you have to own a watch to have a valid opinion. Experience certainly helps, but ownership isn't always necessary. For example, I give watchmakers' professional opinions much more weight than the limited perspective of owners, particularly those who own only one brand and seem emotional about rationalizing their choice.

Every watchmaker I've met rates Rolex's quality over Omega's, by the way, and I've met more than a few. Fair enough when their pricing is well below Rolex's, but as Omega's MSRPs creep up, it's questionable whether they'll be able to justify them. Swatch Group's slow sales of late would seem to confirm that they're trying to play out of their league.

But for me, the subjective part is dead simple. When I'm wearing an Omega, I sometimes think "hmm, shoulda gone with a Rolex today." But never while wearing a Rolex do I have the urge to swap to an Omega. I suspect that many of the more-aggressive Omega defenders on this thread might have a similar experience if they had both to choose from, as well.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

I think the reason why current ownership of both brands is helpful is that it reduces (but not necessarily eliminates) the likelihood of bias. Prolonged exposure to both watches also allows one to develop a more nuanced and balanced view of the positive and negative aspects of the watch, and allows one to develop a more refined sense of which characteristics of the watch really matter to you in extended wear.

For example, you might find that while at a boutique, you enjoy looking at the movement in the caseback, but find after wearing it in hot, humid conditions that the sapphire crystal on the caseback sticks to your wrist in an uncomfortable fashion. You might find that you love the "no crystal" effect of double AR, but find after prolonged wear that it is a fingerprint magnet, and there are these annoying AR scratches that detract from the enjoyment of your watch. You might also find that in extended wear how often you use the tool-free micro-adjustable clasp to achieve the perfect bracelet fit, and now every other watch feels like it fits poorly in comparison.

Edit: If it wasn't obvious, the second paragraph lists reasons why I prefer Rolex.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

I don't think ownership is required to form an opinion (and, hopefully, I don't come across as being bitter about not having purchased new ones of my own). 

Unless one owns several examples of each, and has dealt with maintenance and repair issues, they're not going to gather a large enough data set to make a clear judgement one way or the other.

That's where other research comes in, and where the experience of professionals matters so much.


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

BarracksSi said:


> I don't think ownership is required to form an opinion (and, hopefully, I don't come across as being bitter about not having purchased new ones of my own).
> 
> Unless one owns several examples of each, and has dealt with maintenance and repair issues, they're not going to gather a large enough data set to make a clear judgement one way or the other.
> 
> That's where other research comes in, and where the experience of professionals matters so much.


The question of whether one brand is better than another, or whether one will ever be as good as other, is one that is to be decided by _future _buyers' wallet and majority of them will not be owners of both brands. Owners have already voted their opinion.


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

Tomatoes11 said:


> I am not lecturing people about watch value. I seem to be the only one here that isn't proud enough to admit that Rolex ripped me off on two watches. It's called disposable income and I know full well when I am pissing away money.
> 
> I just find it hypocritical that someone that pissed away MORE money on a Rolex is lecturing an Omega fan that pissed away less money.
> 
> I am not lecturing people on how they should spend their money, I just brought up my perceptions about value to illustrate that point. Do what you want with your money, I am not trying to control it. I am just offering my opinion on value and why Rolex fans are hypocrites.


You buy a Rolex sub in AD for 7500 while you could have bought the same watch for $6750 on grey market, you pissed away $750. Then you sell it two year later for ~$5500, you pissed away a total of $2000.

You buy an Omega smp at AD for $4400 while you could of bought the same watch for $2700, you pissed away $1700. Then you sell it two year later for ~$2000, you pissed away $2400 in total.

other than laying out more cash upfront for a more desirable watch, sorry I don't see how you are pissed away more money on a Rolex vs Omega unless you can't do simple math.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

janiboi said:


> How wrong you are, I'm afraid.
> For instance, I do not have to own a watch to understand what the quality is like and how it feels in my hands, I just have to walk into a local ad.
> You honestly try to tell us, that one has to own things in order to undergo an honest discussion about these? Get real.
> I guess when you told us that BMW is better than an Kia, you have owned both of them for a while?


 Nice spin there but the analogy is different with the BMW and Kia. I know you know that so I'm not sure why you thought you could sneak that one in. Perhaps we should discuss the difference between owning a mansion in Florida versus owning one in California??? It is completely impossible to have a discussion about something without a common point of reference. Otherwise you're just making stuff up. I am absolutely correct sir. I think it's you that needs to get real. Why in the world would I listen to your opinion on a Rolex or an Omega if you have never owned one? Suppose you could give me your opinion on vacationing in the south of France if you've never been there?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

When the choices aren't quite clear cut, then extended exposure to both in the form of ownership is useful.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

BarracksSi said:


> I don't think ownership is required to form an opinion (and, hopefully, I don't come across as being bitter about not having purchased new ones of my own).
> 
> Unless one owns several examples of each, and has dealt with maintenance and repair issues, they're not going to gather a large enough data set to make a clear judgement one way or the other.
> 
> That's where other research comes in, and where the experience of professionals matters so much.


 Perhaps ownership is not required but I certainly would not take your input very seriously had you not owned it. That goes for anything. Doing research and deciding not to purchase something and then giving us your reasons why is completely different then issuing a review on something and comparing it to something else you've never owned. Also I would be willing to bet that some of the people here critical of Rolex can't afford one.

Would you like me to give you my opinion on how well a Lamborghini drives? I've never driven one. How about my opinion on how well the local food is in Nairobi? I've never been there. How about a review from myself on the customer service of Korean air? I've never flown with them. I'm afraid I can't make it more simple than this.

janiboi " Man Disney World really sucks !!!"

patton250 " wow I'm really sorry. You must of had a terrible experience there. "

janiboi " no man I ain't never been there before. "

Patton250 "oh......... "

Lol


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

I think one could form some opinion about something based on learning from others' experience via reading. e.g. mleok's posts with experience from watchmakers about oil requirement for co-axial escapement or mleok's own experience comparing Omega and Rolex are examples where my own experience is not required. It is for sure not as good as experiencing it for myself, as in that case I could be more sure of the truthfulness of it without relying on for example watchmakers to be not biased, but just learning from others' experience would have to do for some people like me.

Not taking away Rolex owners' experience with Rolex, Rolex watches do sound very nice and I wish I could have one for sure, just want to share my experience without Omega or Rolex: I have some watches that have no display caseback, so it's not too sticky in hot weather. They do not have anti-reflective coating either with no problem with smudges or scratching of AR coating. They don't have tool-free micro-adjustable clasp (dang it!), but if by chance the bracelet was sized big enough, it doesn't feel too tight in the hot weather. It is for sure a pain though when some don't have micro-adjustment holes and I don't even have the extra links, as they were lost through time. Some of the watches have gaps between lug and end link, but I could live with that. Some are quartz but I still love them. Some looked so bad to me before, with misaligned day/date or misalignment between seconds hand and minute markers, cheap-looking folded end links, etc., but I learned to not demand fine fit/finishing/alignment/looks/prestige from my watches, and then they look okay or beautiful to me sometimes. It is the life of a poor watch fan!


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

patton250 said:


> Perhaps ownership is not required but I certainly would not take your input very seriously had you not owned it.


Say I own a Datejust and a new Constellation. The Datejust turns out to be a lemon and the Constellation performs flawlessly. If this were my only sample size and I didn't look for others' experiences, I'd say that Rolex sucks.

I'm trying to see these things as an unbiased third party.


----------



## Mirabello1 (Sep 1, 2011)

Badbebe said:


> You buy a Rolex sub in AD for 7500 while you could have bought the same watch for $6750 on grey market, you pissed away $750. Then you sell it two year later for ~$5500, you pissed away a total of $2000.
> 
> You buy an Omega smp at AD for $4400 while you could of bought the same watch for $2700, you pissed away $1700. Then you sell it two year later for ~$2000, you pissed away $2400 in total.
> 
> ...


Bought my PO2500 at an AD for $3500 us.. Sold it 5 years later for $3000... $500 dollars for 5 years of ownership..

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

BarracksSi said:


> Say I own a Datejust and a new Constellation. The Datejust turns out to be a lemon and the Constellation performs flawlessly. If this were my only sample size and I didn't look for others' experiences, I'd say that Rolex sucks.
> 
> I'm trying to see these things as an unbiased third party.


 Not really. You would say you got a lemon. Still though it might leave a bad taste in your mouth about Rolex.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

Gentlemen I want you to know that Rolex is not even close to my favorite brand. In fact I like my Omega speedmaster better than any of my Rolexes. However the question posed by the OP is will Omega ever be as good as Rolex. I say no. Popular opinion, initial loss when buying brand-new and resale value all agree with my view.


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

mleok said:


> For example, you might find that while at a boutique, you enjoy looking at the movement in the caseback, but find after wearing it in hot, humid conditions that the sapphire crystal on the caseback sticks to your wrist in an uncomfortable fashion. You might find that you love the "no crystal" effect of double AR, but find after prolonged wear that it is a fingerprint magnet, and there are these annoying AR scratches that detract from the enjoyment of your watch. You might also find that in extended wear how often you use the tool-free micro-adjustable clasp to achieve the perfect bracelet fit, and now every other watch feels like it fits poorly in comparison.


All possibly true but two of the attributes you've described would be of no use to me. The backs of my watches stick to my wrist regardless of whether it's crystal or SS and I've never scratched the AR on any of my watches. Maybe I have crappy eyesight and ignorance is bliss, but they look as good as the day I brought them home. I remain a fan of double AR.

As for smudges, I have microfiber cloths nearby. And the bottom of my t-shirt is even closer. :-d

As for the micro-adjustment clasp, you got me there.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

Tomatoes11 said:


> I seem to be the only one here that isn't proud enough to admit that Rolex ripped me off on two watches.
> 
> I just find it hypocritical that someone that pissed away MORE money on a Rolex is lecturing an Omega fan that pissed away less money.


I spent more on my PO Ti than I did on my GMTc despite getting a bigger discount on the Omega (both new from ADs), yet if I sold them now I'd get more for my Rolex.

I don't feel ripped off by either purchase, but somehow you're suggesting I should feel ripped off by the Rolex and not the Omega?


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

patton250 said:


> Would you like me to give you my opinion on how well a Lamborghini drives? I've never driven one. How about my opinion on how well the local food is in Nairobi? I've never been there. How about a review from myself on the customer service of Korean air? I've never flown with them. I'm afraid I can't make it more simple than this.


Opinion of how Lamborghini drives compared to what? Opinion of local food in Nairobi compared to what? Opinion of customer service of Korean Air compared to what? How are we to assume your experience will match ours? And according to you, I suppose one has to own the Lamborghini and all other comparative cars at its price range to make an accurate observation? Or is a simple test drive enough to replicate all necessary conditions/environment/scenarios/obstacles/failures one might face in the entire lifetime of owning the car and form a definite conclusion? Then, how is this any different from trying on watches at an AD? :-s

Aside from Lamborghini(a luxury purchase I would deem), everything else you posted can be experienced and/or observed _repeatedly _by large majority and comparisons can be drawn from relative fields even if one isn't a direct participant. Everyone does it.... you did it *before *you made your Rolex/Omega purchases.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

wuyeah said:


> The point is, we are trying to push this awful thread over 300pgs.


I'm only showing 91 pages. I guess we have a long way to go.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

watchRus said:


> Opinion of how Lamborghini drives compared to what? Opinion of local food in Nairobi compared to what? Opinion of customer service of Korean Air compared to what? How are we to assume your experience will match ours? And according to you, I suppose one has to own the Lamborghini and all other comparative cars at its price range to make an accurate observation? Or is a simple test drive enough to replicate all necessary conditions/environment/scenarios/obstacles/failures one might face in the entire lifetime of owning the car and form a definite conclusion? Then, how is this any different from trying on watches at an AD? :-s
> 
> Aside from Lamborghini(a luxury purchase I would deem), everything else you posted can be experienced and/or observed _repeatedly _by large majority and comparisons can be drawn from relative fields even if one isn't a direct participant. Everyone does it.... you did it *before *you made your Rolex/Omega purchases.


 I'm not sure what you mean. What do you mean compared to what? I was saying that how can I, or anybody for that matter possibly give an opinion on something they have not personally experienced? I would think that my point was pretty straightforward. Also trying on a particular model of a brand and not liking it or liking it should not be your basis for saying said brand is better or worse than another brand. To me that's just ridiculous.


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

it appears we're winning


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

Tomatoes11 said:


> I am not lecturing people about watch value. I seem to be the only one here that isn't proud enough to admit that Rolex ripped me off on two watches. It's called disposable income and I know full well when I am pissing away money.
> 
> I just find it hypocritical that someone that pissed away MORE money on a Rolex is lecturing an Omega fan that pissed away less money.
> 
> I am not lecturing people on how they should spend their money, I just brought up my perceptions about value to illustrate that point. Do what you want with your money, I am not trying to control it. I am just offering my opinion on value and why Rolex fans are hypocrites.


I am not saying you are lecturing. When I wrote my post, I am trying to be neutral for two brands and stick with some fact since I own watch from both brands and still do.

Not very nice you running around calling Rolex fans are hypocrites


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

Grass suppose to be greener on the other side. Not in this case....


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

I dont understand if Rolex is so good and the design is so timeless why Rolex owners are obsesssed with reselling their Rolex.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

maxixix said:


> I dont understand if Rolex is so good and the design is so timeless why Rolex owners are obsesssed with reselling their Rolex.


You seem like a very bitter and angry person. I hope things get better for you.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

maxixix said:


> I dont understand if Rolex is so good and the design is so timeless why Rolex owners are obsesssed with reselling their Rolex.


 I am personally obsessed with being able to get most if not all of my money back on any tangible purchase just in case I need to or want to. All of my Rolexes, so far anyway, have met that threshold. My Omega's have not.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

cedargrove said:


> maxixix said:
> 
> 
> > I dont understand if Rolex is so good and the design is so timeless why Rolex owners are obsesssed with reselling their Rolex.
> ...


Thank you , is your therapist any good ?


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

cedargrove said:


> You seem like a very bitter and angry person. I hope things get better for you.


It doesn't appear that mr max or sir garlic intend to participate as respected members within the community. I wouldn't waste your time.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

patton250 said:


> maxixix said:
> 
> 
> > I dont understand if Rolex is so good and the design is so timeless why Rolex owners are obsesssed with reselling their Rolex.
> ...


Based on my observations the majority of Rolex owners cannot justify paying twice as much for an over priced product unless they rationalise why they are paying so much within their own minds by running the resale argument.

Even the people who try to justify the price increase as a premium for brand recognition are duped. Old and fake rolexs are flooding the market.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

Vlance said:


> cedargrove said:
> 
> 
> > You seem like a very bitter and angry person. I hope things get better for you.
> ...


Oh sorry ist because we have an OPINION that is contradictory to yours. Its a free country you know.

Plus if we can stick to the topic at hand that would be much appreciated. No need for hostility and the ignore button is available for anyone who cant handle the debate. So feel free to ignore me.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

maxixix said:


> Based on my observations the majority of Rolex owners cannot justify paying twice as much for an over priced product unless they rationalise why they are paying so much within their own minds by running the resale argument.
> 
> Even the people who try to justify the price increase as a premium for brand recognition are duped. Old and fake rolexs are flooding the market.


 I was just wondering how a supposedly "over priced" product can sell on the used market for very little below the new market price? I guess it's because of all those millions of duped imbeciles right? Lol

Man you hate you some Rolex bad. I'd hate to see how you feel about AP, Patek or JLC. I bet you're practically suicidal over those guys. Lol


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)




----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

patton250 said:


> maxixix said:
> 
> 
> > Based on my observations the majority of Rolex owners cannot justify paying twice as much for an over priced product unless they rationalise why they are paying so much within their own minds by running the resale argument.
> ...


I have no issues with Patek, JLC or AP as their price increases as far as I am aware was nothing like Rolex.

Everyone would share my criticism if the price of bread, petrol, travel, car, etc doubles up for no tangible reason. So why ist OK all the sudden just because its a Rolex vs Omega thread.

No issues with having a preference for a brand as long as we are 'keeping it real'. Each coin has two sides.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

It's ok because nobody is forcing you to buy the product. Obviously, enough people _are _buying the product that Rolex does not feel compelled to lower prices.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

patton250 said:


> How are you pissing away less money on Omega when it loses *significantly* more value then a Rolex when you walk out of the store with it brand-new?


Well if you never sell it, resale value means a big fat zero.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

oak1971 said:


> It's ok because nobody is forcing you to buy the product. Obviously, enough people _are _buying the product that Rolex does not feel compelled to lower prices.


I am only interested in the debate and poll. 
No watch brand can force anyone to buy anything.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Badbebe said:


> You buy a Rolex sub in AD for 7500 while you could have bought the same watch for $6750 on grey market, you pissed away $750. Then you sell it two year later for ~$5500, you pissed away a total of $2000.
> 
> You buy an Omega smp at AD for $4400 while you could of bought the same watch for $2700, you pissed away $1700. Then you sell it two year later for ~$2000, you pissed away $2400 in total.
> 
> ...


Read my reply to Patton.

Its simple math. You pay more for a Rolex vs other companies and they don't spend anymore on the watch than other companies. Simple.


----------



## phillycheez (Mar 4, 2011)

Ok. Looking at their watches purely based on looks and not pricing. 

My preference goes to Rolex. 

Their style is timeless and classic. You know how I know? Because people keep buying the style even though their product design updates are decades apart. 

Omega? Along with almost every other major brand? They keep dishing out what the latest fad is which ends up looking dated in 3 years. 

If you look at Rolex strategy since they started it's about perfecting their current collection. 

In a world of instant gratification of "what's next" I would say Rolex is the only brand that's kept it real to itself since the beginning. 

There's so much pressure to sell out and cash in on the latest fad and they don't. The updates they make is always to make their current model better than the last. 

Every one else is about "throwbacks" to some vintage that was so cool. And it's great! But guess what? Rolex doesn't have to do throwbacks as the DNA from the previous gen is still there. 





Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

cedargrove said:


> I spent more on my PO Ti than I did on my GMTc despite getting a bigger discount on the Omega (both new from ADs), yet if I sold them now I'd get more for my Rolex.
> 
> I don't feel ripped off by either purchase, but somehow you're suggesting I should feel ripped off by the Rolex and not the Omega?


No, I am saying you shouldn't lecture Omega fans on value when you got ripped off even more on your Rolex.

Not that you specifically lectured an Omega fan yourself. You could have or maybe you didn't, I don't know. But I know plenty of people did. They were talking about how you are a fool to buy an Omega when they themselves spent $7500 on a watch that cost Rolex like $300 to make. You can't call anyone a fool if you overpaid by $7200. It would be like a compulsive gambler lecturing an alcoholic on self control. Which is worst is up to you, but I say Rolex is worst value wise especially after reading mleoks post about the Omega coaxial being a 2014 design and the 3132/3135 being a 1998 design. I mean that's ridiculous they can go that long without consumers forcing them to upgrade with their wallets.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

maxixix said:


> I dont understand if Rolex is so good and the design is so timeless why Rolex owners are obsesssed with reselling their Rolex.


Lol this post is spot on.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

Looks like Omega is going to win this. Good times. Hopefully Grand Seiko wins the other thread too. Lol


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

I don't understand why it would be a problem that a Rolex is more expensive than an Omega, if you can afford it? An Omega is generally more expensive than a Seiko, so should everyone buy a Seiko? Is it that poster is considering Rolex and Omega quality to be equal, and therefore it doesn't make sense to pay higher price?

That literally makes no sense. If you can justify buying an Omega over a Seiko, for whatever objective/subjective reasons that you see it as a better watch, then why are you hating on people who buy Rolex instead of Omega, if they also have objective and/or subjective reasons to see it as a better watch?


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

maxixix said:


> I am only interested in the debate and *Troll*.
> No watch brand can force anyone to buy anything.


FIFY


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

paulopiper said:


> I don't understand why it would be a problem that a Rolex is more expensive than an Omega, if you can afford it? An Omega is generally more expensive than a Seiko, so should everyone buy a Seiko? Is it that poster is considering Rolex and Omega quality to be equal, and therefore it doesn't make sense to pay higher price?
> 
> That literally makes no sense. If you can justify buying an Omega over a Seiko, for whatever objective/subjective reasons that you see it as a better watch, then why are you hating on people who buy Rolex instead of Omega, if they also have objective and/or subjective reasons to see it as a better watch?


I am assuming this is a reply to me? if it is, it's simple. I mentioned this a few times already. It's perfectly fine as long as you don't criticize people that spend less. In the Rolex fan boys case, they are suggesting that a Rolex is a steal at their price and Omega is a rip off. That's just wrong. That's like saying a $10000 flower is worth it but an $8000 plant is not because you can get it for $7000 on the grey market. It's frankly silly imo because watches are all rip offs in general.

It doesn't stop me from buying them so obviously I am not against paying those prices. I just wouldn't criticize someone for buying a Tag or Omega or Seiko or Blancpain just because the resale isn't as good as a Rolex which is definitely overpriced in itself. I know there is no such thing as a steal when it comes to luxury goods so I won't act like a Rolex is a steal by dissing Omega resale even if I don't own one yet and probably never will. It's frankly quite perplexing and I just had to speak up on that front.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Tomatoes11 said:


> I say Rolex is worst value wise especially after reading mleoks post about the Omega coaxial being a 2014 design and the 3132/3135 being a 1998 design. I mean that's ridiculous they can go that long without consumers forcing them to upgrade with their wallets.


Hmm, I guess I have a different take on this. If Omega takes a decade and a half of research and development in order to produce a movement that is essentially comparable to Rolex's design, then I take that to mean that Rolex got it right the first time. Why give a company extra credit because they were inefficient in their upgrade cycle, and kept going down the wrong path?

Change for the sake of change is silly, if it achieves quantifiable improvements, then by all means measure it on the merits, but it is silly to decide how much to spend on an item primarily based on how much it costs the manufacturer to produce it. Rather, you should base your decision on whether you can purchase a comparable or better product at a lower price.

People whinge about Rolex standing still, but if so, why has it taken so long for the rest of the industry to not quite catch up?


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> I am assuming this is a reply to me? if it is, it's simple. I mentioned this a few times already. It's perfectly fine as long as you don't criticize people that spend less. In the Rolex fan boys case, they are suggesting that a Rolex is a steal at their price and Omega is a rip off. That's just wrong. That's like saying a $10000 flower is worth it but an $8000 plant is not because you can get it for $7000 on the grey market. It's frankly silly imo because watches are all rip offs in general.
> 
> It doesn't stop me from buying them so obviously I am not against paying those prices. I just wouldn't criticize someone for buying a Tag or Omega or Seiko or Blancpain just because the resale isn't as good as a Rolex which is definitely overpriced in itself. I know there is no such thing as a steal when it comes to luxury goods so I won't act like a Rolex is a steal by dissing Omega resale even if I don't own one yet and probably never will. It's frankly quite perplexing and I just had to speak up on that front.


If its your intention to continually grace us with your overwhelmingly knowledgable posts, could you please have the courtesy to discontinue the reference of "fanboys" within them? 
Let's at least be respectful, shall we?


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

Tomatoes11 said:


> I am assuming this is a reply to me? if it is, it's simple. I mentioned this a few times already. It's perfectly fine as long as you don't criticize people that spend less. In the Rolex fan boys case, they are suggesting that a Rolex is a steal at their price and Omega is a rip off. That's just wrong. That's like saying a $10000 flower is worth it but an $8000 plant is not because you can get it for $7000 on the grey market. It's frankly silly imo because watches are all rip offs in general.
> 
> It doesn't stop me from buying them so obviously I am not against paying those prices. I just wouldn't criticize someone for buying a Tag or Omega or Seiko or Blancpain just because the resale isn't as good as a Rolex which is definitely overpriced in itself. I know there is no such thing as a steal when it comes to luxury goods so I won't act like a Rolex is a steal by dissing Omega resale even if I don't own one yet and probably never will. It's frankly quite perplexing and I just had to speak up on that front.


It was more of a reply to maxixix, but let's roll with it. I think you're misunderstanding most people's intent a little. I haven't noticed people calling Omega a rip off - the reason people are mentioning resale value is specifically because this is a Rolex v Omega thread. You seem to be oblivious to the context! It's within the context of Omega v Rolex that resale value becomes a factor. Same would be true in say, Rolex v Parmigiani. This thread is just meant to be a fun discussion. Resale value is just a reason to score a point for Rolex.

I dunno, maybe some Rolex fans are taking it too seriously and in that case I see your point. I just wish people could stay calm at the slightest hint that their prized watch may not be superior to someone else's prized watch. People take this crap far too seriously...they should learn from rdoder as a shining example of someone who manages to tell himself 'it's just a watch' while still remaining passionate...


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

maxixix said:


> I dont understand if Rolex is so good and the design is so timeless why Rolex owners are obsesssed with reselling their Rolex.












Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

maxixix said:


> I dont understand if Rolex is so good and the design is so timeless why Rolex owners are obsesssed with reselling their Rolex.


Point taken on this tho. Why there is soooo many secondary rolex instead of Omega.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

It's just watches. Shiny bits of metal wrapped in money.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

mleok said:


> Hmm, I guess I have a different take on this. If Omega takes a decade and a half of research and development in order to produce a movement that is essentially comparable to Rolex's design, then I take that to mean that Rolex got it right the first time. Why give a company extra credit because they were inefficient in their upgrade cycle, and kept going down the wrong path?
> 
> Change for the sake of change is silly, if it achieves quantifiable improvements, then by all means measure it on the merits, but it is silly to decide how much to spend on an item primarily based on how much it costs the manufacturer to produce it. Rather, you should base your decision on whether you can purchase a comparable or better product at a lower price.
> 
> People whinge about Rolex standing still, but if so, why has it taken so long for the rest of the industry to not quite catch up?


The old coaxials were perfectly fine no and chronometers no? So Omega could have standed still and milked it too right? But I respect them for at least trying and putting in the effort to redesign and improve. Similar to how you probably like your hardworking students over your lazy smart ones if they get the same grades.

Its not change for the sake of change. What Rolex is doing is basically milking it. It's simple economics. The longer you re-use a design, the cheaper it is to manufacture and produce yet Rolex raises their prices every year. At one point, some of those savings SHOULD be passed down to the consumer. Rolex just raising prices every year while their watches get cheaper to produce is just wrong to me. Call me an idealist I guess but I don't like it. That is the definition of milking and if it's okay for Rolex to do it, it should be fine for insurance companies and your phone carriers to raise their prices every year right? I mean they got the product right the first time no so just keep jacking up the prices!

I don't see it as being silly at all. I mean no one wants to pay more than they should and that is essentially what you are doing if you go by strictly the product vs costs. You should look at everything, the big picture if you will.


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

paulopiper said:


> It was more of a reply to maxixix, but let's roll with it. I think you're misunderstanding most people's intent a little. I haven't noticed people calling Omega a rip off - the reason people are mentioning resale value is specifically because this is a Rolex v Omega thread. You seem to be oblivious to the context! It's within the context of Omega v Rolex that resale value becomes a factor. Same would be true in say, Rolex v Parmigiani. This thread is just meant to be a fun discussion. Resale value is just a reason to score a point for Rolex.
> 
> I dunno, maybe some Rolex fans are taking it too seriously and in that case I see your point. I just wish people could stay calm at the slightest hint that their prized watch may not be superior to someone else's prized watch. People take this crap far too seriously...they should learn from rdoder as a shining example of someone who manages to tell himself 'it's just a watch' while still remaining passionate...


Fair enough. I guess we are reading the replies differently because I see some stuck up posts from one group that you obviously don't see. Maybe I am being too sensitive, who knows. I don't believe I am though.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Fair enough. I guess we are reading the replies differently because I see some stuck up posts from one group that you obviously don't see. Maybe I am being too sensitive, who knows. I don't believe I am though.


Hmm seems to me there's been some arrogance on both sides...


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Tomatoes11 said:


> The old coaxials were perfectly fine no and chronometers no? So Omega could have standed still and milked it too right? But I respect them for at least trying and putting in the effort to redesign and improve. Similar to how you probably like your hardworking students over your lazy smart ones if they get the same grades.
> 
> Its not change for the sake of change. What Rolex is doing is basically milking it. It's simple economics. The longer you re-use a design, the cheaper it is to manufacture and produce yet Rolex raises their prices every year. At one point, some of those savings SHOULD be passed down to the consumer. Rolex just raising prices every year while their watches get cheaper to produce is just wrong to me. Call me an idealist I guess but I don't like it. That is the definition of milking and if it's okay for Rolex to do it, it should be fine for insurance companies and your phone carriers to raise their prices every year right? I mean they got the product right the first time no so just keep jacking up the prices!
> 
> I don't see it as being silly at all. I mean no one wants to pay more than they should and that is essentially what you are doing if you go by strictly the product vs costs. You should look at everything, the big picture if you will.


But, Rolex isn't actually standing still, they just focus on refining an already excellent product, and they don't bother to update the number on the movement for every single update. They also invest substantially in industry leading automation, so that they can continue to improve on the quality of their offerings while maintaining a 100% Swiss made operation. As for the older co-axials, Omega introduced the 8500 calibre simply because they could refer to it as an in-house movement.

I agree, you should look at the big picture, and I suggest that you heed your own advice.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

mleok said:


> Hmm, I guess I have a different take on this. If Omega takes a decade and a half of research and development in order to produce a movement that is essentially comparable to Rolex's design, then I take that to mean that Rolex got it right the first time. Why give a company extra credit because they were inefficient in their upgrade cycle, and kept going down the wrong path?
> 
> Change for the sake of change is silly, if it achieves quantifiable improvements, then by all means measure it on the merits, but it is silly to decide how much to spend on an item primarily based on how much it costs the manufacturer to produce it. Rather, you should base your decision on whether you can purchase a comparable or better product at a lower price.
> 
> People whinge about Rolex standing still, but if so, why has it taken so long for the rest of the industry to not quite catch up?


IMHO, Omega is trying to distinguish themselves with their signature movement. They gradually improving their co-axial. In time, instead at their ETA compound, they will have their own manufacture and assembly facility. They will "owned" the co-axial movement.
Regarding the current line up, they only have small line up compare to rolex. Seamaster, Speedmaster, Constellation De Ville and specialty line. Most of the shape does not change for decades. Thus, I questioned on why does the rolex fans said rolex has timeless design and Omega hasn't.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Pun (Sep 2, 2015)

Tomatoes11 said:


> cedargrove said:
> 
> 
> > I spent more on my PO Ti than I did on my GMTc despite getting a bigger discount on the Omega (both new from ADs), yet if I sold them now I'd get more for my Rolex.
> ...


With all due respect, I beg to differ, Sir. We all know that nothing significant is achieved in horological workmanship and complications in this century that changed the game. Even for last 50 years NO significant achievement realised compared to the previous centuries. So if Rolex sticks to its tested and nearly perfect movements you can't blame them. On the contrary it might be the best strategy. Patek Philippe comes to my mind that continues with calibre 215 and 324 since a long time now.

A watch must be good looking, well finished, robust, reliable and accutate to be called a great watch. I understand both brands here have those qualities. Perhaps Speedmaster Moonwatch 1861 calibre and most of the Rolex models are excellent example of what I want to say.

My request is to keep discussion within logical grounds and dispassionate parameters, unless someone from respective companies is involved. Let's enjoy reading while enhancing our understanding of watches that we all love.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

ShanDaMan said:


> Seamaster, Speedmaster, Constellation De Ville and specialty line. Most of the shape does not change for decades. Thus, I questioned on why does the rolex fans said rolex has timeless design and Omega hasn't.


Only the Speedmaster Professional is essentially unchanged.

This is a nice thread on the evolution of the Seamaster:

THE OMEGA COLLECTION - SEAMASTERS IN TIME | WATCH TALK WORLD

This is a second generation Omega Seamaster 300 (assembled by Watchco out of Omega service parts)










and this is an Omega ceramic Seamaster Professional 300m.









This is an Omega Pie Pan Constellation










and this is a modern Constellation.










I would argue that Omega does have timeless designs, but with the exception of the Speedmaster Professional, it just doesn't produce them anymore. It is a sad consequence of pandering to fans who demand change for the sake of change.

Even when they try to reissue classics, they still manage to muck it up. With the Omega Seamaster 300 Master Co-Axial, they should have used a matte ceramic bezel and a fully brushed bracelet. Yes, I know the Spectre limited edition comes with a brushed bracelet, but you have to contend with the ridiculously large Omega logo and the lollypop second hand.

Instead of just reissuing the pie pan Constellation, they had to add a silly fluted bezel to it in the form of the Globemaster. If you asked me why they had these two critical missteps, it's because whatever the results of this poll, Omega still thinks of itself as playing catchup to Rolex, and it either consciously or unconsciously introduces new products targeting specific models in Rolex's contemporary lineup. Another example of this was the bumblebee hands on the Aqua Terra 15K Gauss.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

Tomatoes11 said:


> I don't see it as being silly at all. I mean no one wants to pay more than they should and that is essentially what you are doing if you go by strictly the product vs costs. You should look at everything, the big picture if you will.


I personally assume (for normal people who has limited amount of money) the non-WIS buying motivation is different between rolex and Omega potential owner.
The non-WIS purchase rolex because it is widely known and can be flipped easily with little lost on their money. They don't need to think to much to spend for rolex. They purchase the brand. When they become a WIS then they explore the brands.
For Omega, there is no non-WIS buyer. The Omega buyers has to know and love their Omega before they purchase it. They have to accept that it doesn't do good as an "investment". They hsve to find what is good in their Omega. Thus makes the Omega is a keeper watch. They purchase the watch and the brand.
Quality wised, I think they are the same. However, because my magnet always get directed to Omega, I believe they are better than what I think that rolex is a good quality dull watch.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

ShanDaMan said:


> For Omega, there is no non-WIS buyer.


That's just plain wrong, and it's like saying that TAG Heuer has no non-WIS buyers. If indeed that were true, why does Omega spend money on product placements in James Bond movies, and on sponsoring the Olympics?


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

mleok said:


> Only the Speedmaster Professional is essentially unchanged.
> 
> This is a nice thread on the evolution of the Seamaster:
> 
> ...











This is the 87 model of constellation that still being sold on 93 when the first owner bought it. Has been with me (2nd owner) since 2011.
Pie pan change its name to Globemaster. Constellation only has small updates.
Here's the new Seamaster. 








And old Seamaster from 1960.








Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## Pun (Sep 2, 2015)

mleok said:


> ShanDaMan said:
> 
> 
> > For Omega, there is no non-WIS buyer.
> ...


I good and valid point. Taken, dear.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> Looks like Omega is going to win this. Good times. Hopefully Grand Seiko wins the other thread too. Lol


Honest question: why do you care so much, to the point of making up imaginary stats about how much these watches cost and what the margins are?

Do you honestly think that any brand - Omega, Rolex, etc - would charge $5000 for a watch if they could charge $6000 for it?


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

ShanDaMan said:


> Point taken on this tho. Why there is soooo many secondary XX instead of YY.


Are there any stats to support this statement, or are you just conveniently making up facts?


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

mleok said:


> That's just plain wrong, and it's like saying that TAG Heuer has no non-WIS buyers. If indeed that were true, why does Omega spend money on product placements in James Bond movies, and on sponsoring the Olympics?


For commercialisation purposes definitely. But, for non-WIS, for those who does not really considering the whole aspect of the watch, they'll choose rolex over Omega. I admit that rolex gets the upper hand in that. Thus, buying Omega would need someone to do some research for the buying decision. This makes them watch knowledgeable. I consider them as the early stage of WIS. LOL.
Tag is when you wanted to waste your money. That's how I perceived my Tag. The entry level of the entry level luxury watches.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

vkalia said:


> Are there any stats to support this statement, or are you just conveniently making up facts?


Makin up facts from my tapatalk daily updates on the watch sellers thread either dealers and/or private.
To make it a bit statistical, let's do a test at chrono24. Choose the brands and filter the pre-owned.

















Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

ShanDaMan said:


> Thus, buying Omega would need someone to do some research for the buying decision. This makes them watch knowledgeable. I consider them as the early stage of WIS.


That's just self-delusional drivel. Omega had over half a million watches COSC certified in 2011. No watch brand can hope to generate that level of sales by relying primarily on WIS (even including early stage WIS).


----------



## janiboi (Apr 18, 2014)

patton250 said:


> Perhaps ownership is not required but I certainly would not take your input very seriously had you not owned it. That goes for anything. Doing research and deciding not to purchase something and then giving us your reasons why is completely different then issuing a review on something and comparing it to something else you've never owned. Also I would be willing to bet that some of the people here critical of Rolex can't afford one.
> 
> Would you like me to give you my opinion on how well a Lamborghini drives? I've never driven one. How about my opinion on how well the local food is in Nairobi? I've never been there. How about a review from myself on the customer service of Korean air? I've never flown with them.  I'm afraid I can't make it more simple than this.
> 
> ...


Man, you suck at creating logical conversations.
You just proved my MY argument with your previous reply!

You don't have to own a Lamborghini to tell if its a good car, you can test drive it.
I don't have to live in Rio to tell if its a nice city, I can go there and visit the place.
People don't have to own watches in order to say if they are any good, they can go to the local ad to try them out (or try a colleagues, family members, etc. watch out).


----------



## phillycheez (Mar 4, 2011)

ShanDaMan said:


> I personally assume (for normal people who has limited amount of money) the non-WIS buying motivation is different between rolex and Omega potential owner.
> The non-WIS purchase rolex because it is widely known and can be flipped easily with little lost on their money. They don't need to think to much to spend for rolex. They purchase the brand. When they become a WIS then they explore the brands.
> For Omega, there is no non-WIS buyer. The Omega buyers has to know and love their Omega before they purchase it. They have to accept that it doesn't do good as an "investment". They hsve to find what is good in their Omega. Thus makes the Omega is a keeper watch. They purchase the watch and the brand.
> Quality wised, I think they are the same. However, because my magnet always get directed to Omega, I believe they are better than what I think that rolex is a good quality dull watch.
> ...


My love for Rolex actually began with their vintage models.

And if you know anything about how crazy the world of vintage Rolex is and how obsessed you have to be to find the perfect example...

Personally I would go farther and say any modern watch buyer doesn't have anything on any vintage watch enthusiast. All they have to do is walk in an AD and buy a watch.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

mleok said:


> That's just self-delusional drivel. Omega had over half a million watches COSC certified in 2011. No watch brand can hope to generate that level of sales by relying primarily on WIS (even including early stage WIS).


Probably. I just perceiving my whole surrounding in here, Jakarta - Indonesia. Most of the non-WIS will buy rolex and so sudden panerai hype and massive chinese fake and RM because of the general of army incidents. With most of people living with very low income, luxury watch is LUXURY. LOL.
Thus, at the similar price range, they will buy rolex over Omega. Omega hardly sells in here. Their buyers are loyal buyers.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

If Omega's fascination with huge, thick, and heavy watches are any indication, Omega sells a large fraction of their watches to Invicta owners looking for an upgrade. :-d


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

phillycheez said:


> My love for Rolex actually began with their vintage models.
> 
> And if you know anything about how crazy the world of vintage Rolex is and how obsessed you have to be to find the perfect example...
> 
> ...


Agree. Then they will pick rolex over Omega. LOL. (As the rolex fans might say, "this is why rolex is better")

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

ShanDaMan said:


> Thus, at the similar price range, they will buy rolex over Omega. Omega hardly sells in here. Their buyers are loyal buyers.


For most people, the main appeal of an Omega is that they can get a watch that is respectable, roughly comparable in quality, for a much lower price than a Rolex. At a similar price range, most rational people would buy a Rolex over an Omega. I don't see how the fact that most Omega buyers in Indonesia are loyal buyers implies that they are knowledgable.


----------



## phillycheez (Mar 4, 2011)

ShanDaMan said:


> Agree. Then they will pick rolex over Omega. LOL. (As the rolex fans might say, "this is why rolex is better")
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


You sound butt hurt about that.

Actually there's only two modern (since the WG hour markers started) Rolex models I like. The sd4k and and the Daytona C.

As for modern Omega I like the 300 spectre and the speedmaster 57. Too bad when I tried them on they were like hockey pucks.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## dr3ws (Jun 9, 2015)

ShanDaMan said:


> Point taken on this tho. Why there is soooo many secondary rolex instead of Omega.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Because you lose so much when you try to sell it so might as well just keep it


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

mleok said:


> For most people, the main appeal of an Omega is that they can get a watch that is respectable, roughly comparable in quality, for a much lower price than a Rolex. At a similar price range, most rational people would buy a Rolex over an Omega. I don't see how the fact that most Omega buyers in Indonesia are loyal buyers implies that they are knowledgable.


Our last President, most of his and his household family collection is Omega. They do have rolex and other brands. But they are a loyal Omega customer. Our Omega customers basically Singaporean who visits Indonesia only to get the limited edition watches like Snoopy, CK998, Bond Seamaster 300.

At used watch dealers, 90% of thwm only sells rolex, PAM and AP. Probably they sell 1 or 2 boxless Omega in their display. Will they accept Omega? Not a chance.
Thus, in a country where you cannot easily let go of your Omega, buying an Omega is a loyal and knowledgeable passion. Cause it's money goes down the drain. Similar with people buy IWC and other luxury brand.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

ShanDaMan said:


> vkalia said:
> 
> 
> > Are there any stats to support this statement, or are you just conveniently making up facts?
> ...


We really didnt need a poll , this stat tells us everything there is to know.

For every 1 Omega there are 3 - 4 unloved Rolexes out there. If a Rolex owner wants to sell asap I wonder how low is he willing to go to compete with the 26 k + that are standing in line.

Also, since Rolex is a quality piece and the design is 'timeless' the figures suggest that the reason for high turnout is not due to defects but to people being duped price wise into believing the product was fairly priced and can be flipped so easily without loosing money.

The real question I would like to ask the 26k+ ppl was it worth it?

I dont expect the same answer from people who are not selling at the moment cause I do understand they would be concerned about when their time comes up to sell.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

dr3ws said:


> Because you lose so much when you try to sell it so might as well just keep it


Then back to my statement earlier. Why do you wanted to keep luxury watch when you don't love it? When you got bored with your rolex, you can always flipped them.
Anyway how's OZ mate? Really miss going there. I got stuck in this wretched country. Whatever you do, don't come back. LOL.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## dr3ws (Jun 9, 2015)

ShanDaMan said:


> Then back to my statement earlier. Why do you wanted to keep luxury watch when you don't love it? When you got bored with your rolex, you can always flipped them.
> Anyway how's OZ mate? Really miss going there. I got stuck in this wretched country. Whatever you do, don't come back. LOL.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Not coming back, don't worry haha
It's cold here


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

maxixix said:


> We really didnt need a poll , this stat tells us everything there is to know.
> 
> For every 1 Omega there are 3 - 4 unloved Rolexes out there. If a Rolex owner wants to sell asap I wonder how low is he willing to go to compete with the 26 k + that are standing in line.
> 
> ...


In the end, it'll create a bubble mate. And every bubble will popped. Thus, buying a watch as an investment is a risky concept. Get a watch that speaks to you. In my case, Omega speaks to me most.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

ShanDaMan said:


> In my case, Omega speaks to me most.


And that is probably the best (and only) reason to get a luxury watch.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

ShanDaMan said:


> maxixix said:
> 
> 
> > We really didnt need a poll , this stat tells us everything there is to know.
> ...


Couldnt agree with you more . I think


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

ShanDaMan said:


> buying an Omega is a loyal and knowledgeable passion. Cause it's money goes down the drain.


Well done.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

drunken monkey said:


> Well done.


It's in Indonesia mate. Not at the other part of the world. LOL

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

ShanDaMan said:


> Makin up facts from my tapatalk daily updates on the watch sellers thread either dealers and/or private.
> To make it a bit statistical, let's do a test at chrono24. Choose the brands and filter the pre-owned.
> 
> 
> ...


Cool - now factor it by how many watches of each brand are in circulation from the beginning of their existence. Because you need that info in order to figure out resale proclivities.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

ShanDaMan said:


> For Omega, there is no non-WIS buyer. The Omega buyers has to know and love their Omega before they purchase it.


Omega sells 700,000 watches a year. Do you really believe that they are all purchased by WIS?

Go into f20 and you will routinely see new Omega owners who know very little about their watch, or watches in general.


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

cedargrove said:


> Omega sells 700,000 watches a year. Do you really believe that they are all purchased by WIS?
> 
> Go into f20 and you will routinely see new Omega owners who know very little about their watch, or watches in general.


They are knowledgable enough.
Anyway, I'm quite new, what is F20 .

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

vkalia said:


> Cool - now factor it by how many watches of each brand are in circulation from the beginning of their existence. Because you need that info in order to figure out resale proclivities.


Now now, we're talking about Omega and rolex. What about if we narrow it down to 16 years?

















Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

vkalia said:


> Cool - now factor it by how many watches of each brand are in circulation from the beginning of their existence. Because you need that info in order to figure out resale proclivities.


Make it smaller. 3 years.

















Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## ShanDaMan (May 12, 2016)

vkalia said:


> Cool - now factor it by how many watches of each brand are in circulation from the beginning of their existence. Because you need that info in order to figure out resale proclivities.


Makes me wonder. Why more people are reluctant to keep their Joker Hats compare to Omega?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## BigSeikoFan (Feb 15, 2010)

Tomatoes11 said:


> ...
> Its not change for the sake of change. What Rolex is doing is basically milking it. It's simple economics. The longer you re-use a design, the cheaper it is to manufacture and produce yet Rolex raises their prices every year. At one point, some of those savings SHOULD be passed down to the consumer. Rolex just raising prices every year while their watches get cheaper to produce is just wrong to me. Call me an idealist I guess but I don't like it. That is the definition of milking and if it's okay for Rolex to do it, it should be fine for insurance companies and your phone carriers to raise their prices every year right? I mean they got the product right the first time no so just keep jacking up the prices!
> 
> I don't see it as being silly at all. I mean no one wants to pay more than they should and that is essentially what you are doing if you go by strictly the product vs costs. You should look at everything, the big picture if you will.


Ok, since you brought up economics, allow me to introduce two concepts: capitalism and luxury goods.

Show me an economics textbook that says capitalist companies SHOULD return the benefits of manufacturing experience (or any economies of scale) to the consumer.

And I don't think I need to explain why luxury goods (by their very definition) have a pricing structure wholly separate (i.e. _not_ cost-based) from non-luxury goods such as insurance and phone carriers.

In any event, prices are set by whatever the market will bear. (more economics) If you think prices are too high, that's fine; you're just not part of that market, that's all.

Captain Obvious out.


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

vkalia said:


> Cool - now factor it by how many watches of each brand are in circulation from the beginning of their existence. Because you need that info in order to figure out resale proclivities.


And don't forget that the vast majority of chrono24's listings are from dealers, not private sellers. There are many watch dealers who simply don't bother with Omega. On the other hand, Rolex's residuals are so strong that they're a _de facto_ alternate form of currency.

Regardless, one would have to be rather simple to actually believe that the number of used watches available has any correlation to their quality in the first place.


----------



## vkalia (Oct 26, 2014)

ShanDaMan said:


> Make it smaller. 3 years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again - how many Rolex were sold and how many Omegas? Plus, Chrono24 is geared more towards enthusiasts. How do you factor that into account?

Seriously, give it a rest.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

janiboi said:


> Man, you suck at creating logical conversations.
> You just proved my MY argument with your previous reply!
> 
> You don't have to own a Lamborghini to tell if its a good car, you can test drive it.
> ...


 Let's just agree to disagree and in my opinion you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I hope nobody ever takes your advice on anything because they'll never know if you actually have any experience with it. Maybe you could give me your views on how easy or not easy it is to walk on the moon. Lmao

I love it. So you can test drive a Lamborghini and then tell all potential buyers everything they need to know about how good are bad the car is? Well sir you are magic. You must've been one of those kids that went to only one week of algebra and completed the whole course. I have been driving my current car for six months and I'm still discovering things about it I like and dislike. Same thing goes with many of my timepieces. It blows my mind away that you feel you could offer any bit of advice whatsoever on any product or service having either not use that product or service or only been exposed to it briefly. You think too much of yourself. IMHO

Oh and do us all a favor please. Don't get into sales. I prefer the businesses I do business with to have salesman that know what they're talking about through experience.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

mleok said:


> If Omega's fascination with huge, thick, and heavy watches are any indication, Omega sells a large fraction of their watches to Invicta owners looking for an upgrade. :-d


 Yes some of their newer stuff is quite heavy and thick. I have a 6 1/2 inch wrist and they would look stupid on me. It also drives me crazy that some of their mid range models that I could see myself picking up on a whim all still have ETA movements in them. That definitely makes them a no go for me. Too bad.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

LOL damn those stats are shocking nearly 400%. No chance a 'margin of error' would yield such an outcome at various intervals.

The day I see a sign saying "Rolex for food stamps" might not be too far ahead.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

maxixix said:


> We really didnt need a poll , this stat tells us everything there is to know.
> 
> For every 1 Omega there are 3 - 4 unloved Rolexes out there. If a Rolex owner wants to sell asap I wonder how low is he willing to go to compete with the 26 k + that are standing in line.
> 
> ...


 You know this post gave me an idea. Let me call around and talk to some high and watch stores like Tourneau (they sell tons of second and watches) today. I've made friends at quite a few of them. I will ask them what sells more and at the best margins either Rolex or Omega. I'll get back to you guys later today.


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

ShanDaMan said:


> Now now, we're talking about Omega and rolex. What about if we narrow it down to 16 years?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OMG... so many people are trying to get rid of rolex. it's like 10:1 ratio. Clearly after seeing a rolex clown hat or a clown if you combine it with tudor logo, they decide to sell it asap after seeing what a mistake was that purchase. that's really a shame. while omega buyers tend to keep their watches.


----------



## maxixix (Dec 31, 2015)

patton250 said:


> maxixix said:
> 
> 
> > We really didnt need a poll , this stat tells us everything there is to know.
> ...


Thats a great idea.

I carried out a quick check at their online store same stats as well. Amazing!


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

maxixix said:


> Thats a great idea.
> 
> I carried out a quick check at their online store same stats as well. Amazing!


 Well they make twice as many Rolexes a year. Of course you knew that right? You know exactly what they are going to say when I asked them. First they are going to laugh at me that I even asked because it should be obvious and then they of course are going to say Rolex outsells a Omega by 10 to 1. I'll get back to you though with the facts.


----------



## Spunwell (Feb 2, 2014)

.


----------



## jlondono77 (Aug 16, 2011)

Omega wins the poll! So I conclude that Omega and Rolex are comparable brands with Omega being arguably the better brand. I have my own reasons I prefer Omega and I am sure others who prefer Rolex have their reasons (just don't give me the in-house movement and steel used arguments - beyond silly to me). At WUS, Omega is the preferred brand as indicated in the poll and if you look at post numbers from their respective forums. 

This should settle the argument once and for all


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

jlondono77 said:


> Omega wins the poll! So I conclude that Omega and Rolex are comparable brands with Omega being arguably the better brand. I have my own reasons I prefer Omega and I am sure others who prefer Rolex have their reasons (just don't give me the in-house movement and steel used arguments - beyond silly to me). At WUS, Omega is the preferred brand as indicated in the poll and if you look at post numbers from their respective forums.
> 
> This should settle the argument once and for all


 You know in the end it's only really important that you believe all that .........stuff you just wrote.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

patton250 said:


> You know this post gave me an idea. Let me call around and talk to some high and watch stores like Tourneau (they sell tons of second and watches) today. I've made friends at quite a few of them. I will ask them what sells more and at the best margins either Rolex or Omega. I'll get back to you guys later today.


 You don't even want to know what my friend said. It started off with " you're kidding right?". I think he has a lower opinion of me now and my knowledge of watches for even asking. The numbers aren't even close. Rolex blows everybody away. Omega is not even second or third but fourth.


----------



## patton250 (Aug 1, 2015)

I'm done here. Jlondono77 is right. Omega won the poll here on WUS. Of course the vast majority of Rolex fanboys hang out on another forum. So......


----------



## Damir Galic (Jul 30, 2016)

I was perma banned instantly from rolex forum for prefering another watch over rolex )


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Damir Galic said:


> I was perma banned instantly from rolex forum for prefering another watch over rolex )


I'm sure it had absolutely nothing to do with your charming personality...


----------



## Bradjhomes (Jun 18, 2011)

So we're done now?

The poll's over. 

The results are in.

And...that's that.


----------

