# Why do YOU prefer a PO over a Rolex Submariner?



## Rolemega

Everyone's got their opinion and I'm just curious about yours.


----------



## ac921ol

What's yours? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rolemega

I'm leaning towards a PO for its master co-axial movement and 15,000 gauss protection. My Seamaster diver 300 ceramic has been magnetized 3 times in one year. It'll either gain or lose a minute a day until I go to a shop to have it demagnetized. After that, it goes back to COSC standards. I think because of all of the badge readers and metal detectors in all of the buildings in D.C..


----------



## Betterthere

I preferred a PO til I sold mine and got a SubC.


----------



## om3ga_fan

Nothing but respect for the iconic Submariner, but I prefer the PO. 


Sent from iPhone 7


----------



## ac921ol

My friend has a subc I am a fan, but omega has me cause of sentimental reasons. 

Dad owned one
Wife gave me one for our wedding


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## munichblue

Anymore questions?


----------



## MFB71

Had both. The Subc is a fantastic watch and better finished than the 2500 PO. However, I love my PO and it brings a much bigger smile to my face. 

Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk


----------



## agentmulder

I prefer the PO.......however, I do want the Batman and Kermit.


----------



## Vlciudoli

I have a Sub date, 16610, which I never plan to sell. I've had three POs, sold one and still have two, but they are not a patch on the Sub for wearability, versatility or, in honesty, desirability. 

POs are great, but its no contest.


----------



## Toothbras

Older PO is a great watch, the newer ones are too gigantically thick to be considered for everyday wear by us tiny wristers


----------



## Atleo

Planet ocean progress peaked with the 8500 to me. The new ones look a little avante garde for my tastes. 

I owned a PO 42mm 8500 and it's a great watch. A little beefier than a sub and certainly more visually modern. The display back is cool. 

Full disclosure: I've since sold it and wear a sea dweller every day. Different watch entirely but I like the more subdued nature of it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## varvn

New ones with 8800 movements are really attractive. I have the SubC but that PO sure made me look a few times.


----------



## Rolemega

Toothbras said:


> Older PO is a great watch, the newer ones are too gigantically thick to be considered for everyday wear by us tiny wristers


I get ya. It might be too beefy for me, but I love the anti-magnetic master chronometer though.

Submariner seems to be more desirable in general from the people I've spoken to.


----------



## H-perry

I also have own both. I would go for the Rolex : more reliable and better feeling on the wrist (my opinion)...


----------



## JustinCG

I've owned a subc and don't like the case. I love Rolex but I feel the new subs are bloated and the cases are very plane. I much prefer the 5 digit reference. Also I feel the sub draws to much attention, I love that my PO flys under the radar. Plus I think the attention to detail that omega has put into the case, bezel and dial on the PO smokes the subc. I have the new 39.5 PO and I don't see any advantage over a sub other then maybe the clasp. But other then that in my opinion the PO does everything else better.


----------



## Kiwimac99

I'm not sure I do. However, if I did it would be because of the Daniels co-ax.

I've never owned either, although I have had a Sea Dweller (pre-ceramic bezel) and I do regret selling that a great deal. Rolex used to be attainably expensive and my last one (a GMT II) bought new in the UK in 2003 cost me less than GBP2500 BNIB. Nowadays the prices are silly - here in NZ I would be asked the equivalent of about GBP6000 for the modern version. The black version of the PO is NZ$16,000 - around GBP8,000 equivalent.


----------



## AFG08

I owned a PO, sold it, bought the SubC. The sub was a great watch, I enjoyed it but just a bit too much bling for me. I sold the Rolex about a year ago, just went back to the PO when I found a minty 2500 D. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## raja_3012

Tricky question and I have a feeling that this thread may quickly turn into a comparison thread. 

Let me explain why the question is tricky from my perspective... for most people a submariner means either a 14060 or 114060 or 16610 or 116610 and PO means the steel PO with calibers 2500, 8500, 8900 etc. If these are being pitted against each other, then I would prefer the Sub mostly because of value proposition, aesthetics, height and weight. 

For me I have the Hulk (116610LV) and the 42mm Ti PO with 8500 movement on the OEM blue rubber strap. Between these two, the PO looks to be more sporty and it is my go to watch for weekend fun related activities. Also the PO is by far more accurate than both of my modern Rolexes.


----------



## Super Fuzz

I have always lusted after a Submariner, stemming from my first viewing of Dr No and From Russia with Love as an adult. However, I see the price as overblown. Moreover, the case is nowhere near as aesthetically pleasing as the intentional and subtle contours of the newer POs (I have an 8500 42mm). They are just perfect designs. The new versions are great too - especially the 39mm. I wish they had kept the matte finish on the ceramic though. That gloss is a bit much, though not a deal breaker for me. 

My PO gains .5 seconds per day, and it gets banged around plenty since I currently spend most of my days with my 2.5 yr old. I think the movement is impressive, robust, and durable. I'd love a Sub, but it would have to be vintage now to please me aesthetically. As others have said, the inflated lugs and silly case design (especially around the crown) have really turned it into a clown watch for me. For those who hate on the PO due to its thickness, have a side by side look with the 114060 and try and tell me the Rolex is really the better design.


----------



## Betterthere

Super Fuzz said:


> I have always lusted after a Submariner, stemming from my first viewing of Dr No and From Russia with Love as an adult. However, I see the price as overblown. Moreover, the case is nowhere near as aesthetically pleasing as the intentional and subtle contours of the newer POs (I have an 8500 42mm). They are just perfect designs. The new versions are great too - especially the 39mm. I wish they had kept the matte finish on the ceramic though. That gloss is a bit much, though not a deal breaker for me.
> 
> My PO gains .5 seconds per day, and it gets banged around plenty since I currently spend most of my days with my 2.5 yr old. I think the movement is impressive, robust, and durable. I'd love a Sub, but it would have to be vintage now to please me aesthetically. As others have said, the inflated lugs and silly case design (especially around the crown) have really turned it into a clown watch for me. For those who hate on the PO due to its thickness, have a side by side look with the 114060 and try and tell me the Rolex is really the better design.


It is a better design.


----------



## agentmulder

Betterthere said:


> It is a better design.


Why?

Not trying to troll, I really don't know much about Rolex design or movements.


----------



## Betterthere

agentmulder said:


> Why?
> 
> Not trying to troll, I really don't know much about Rolex design or movements.


Super Fuzz said compare them side by side and tell him it's a better design. I have compared, owned both and in regards to hate due to thickness, the SubC is a better design. Height of the case and way it sits on your wrist makes it much more wearable. I said nothing about movements or other aspects. Technically, I should not post in this thread because it is for those who prefer POs over Subs.


----------



## cdw63

I have the black PO 2500 D movement, I like the larger bezel on the omega. I never really cross shopped the submariner at the time of my PO purchase. With that said I have entertained selling my PO GMT in hopes of finding a mint Pepsi GMT.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## DrDavid90

I've always enjoyed the more sophisticated appeal of the Planet Ocean, in comparison with the more simplistic design of the Submariner.. 

However, having seen Omega's newest reiteration of the Planet Oceans (8900) I must say that the design has "evolved" from being sophisticated to just being flashy.

Creating the need to balance between looks (8500) and movement innovations (8900).

But that's just my opinion 

David


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Super Fuzz

Betterthere said:


> Super Fuzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have always lusted after a Submariner, stemming from my first viewing of Dr No and From Russia with Love as an adult. However, I see the price as overblown. Moreover, the case is nowhere near as aesthetically pleasing as the intentional and subtle contours of the newer POs (I have an 8500 42mm). They are just perfect designs. The new versions are great too - especially the 39mm. I wish they had kept the matte finish on the ceramic though. That gloss is a bit much, though not a deal breaker for me.
> 
> My PO gains .5 seconds per day, and it gets banged around plenty since I currently spend most of my days with my 2.5 yr old. I think the movement is impressive, robust, and durable. I'd love a Sub, but it would have to be vintage now to please me aesthetically. As others have said, the inflated lugs and silly case design (especially around the crown) have really turned it into a clown watch for me. For those who hate on the PO due to its thickness, have a side by side look with the 114060 and try and tell me the Rolex is really the better design.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a better design.
Click to expand...

I don't agree about the newer ones. They've slowly lost what's special about the original look. Height isn't a deal breaker for me personally- I'm also 6"2 and while fairly lean, I'm no small guy. The PO 42mm is a sweet spot for me. The XL versions are gross IMO. But so is the case and lug design of the newer Subs.


----------



## Betterthere

Super Fuzz said:


> I don't agree about the newer ones. They've slowly lost what's special about the original look. Height isn't a deal breaker for me personally- I'm also 6"2 and while fairly lean, I'm no small guy. The PO 42mm is a sweet spot for me. The XL versions are gross IMO. But so is the case and lug design of the newer Subs.


Opinions: agree to disagree. My PO was an 8500, sub is 114060. I'm 6 ft 193 lb so that was not the issue. Carry on.


----------



## cedargrove

I'm not sure I do.

I like the variety my PO Ti offers (both design and movement) but I already had a couple of Rolexes when I bought it (including a GMT which looks similar to the Sub). 

If I were buying just one watch, I'd get the Rolex.


----------



## Morrisdog

Simple answer to this.. the PO just look better and more interesting than the sub. Modern ones are a tad too thick but still look great. Wearability is a problem due to its size so that's why I went for a Seamaster 300 but I still like the look of the PO. Just wish they make it 1-2mm thinner. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Super Fuzz

I'm wondering if all this talk about the PO being too tall is in regards to the larger sizes? 

Regarding modern Subs: let me be more specific. They are squared off ugly shapes. They lost that beautiful balance they once had. For me, the PO has all of this- especially in the case and lug design of the smaller 39-42mm sizes. I agree the bigger ones are too big all around- but I wouldn't want a watch bigger than 42 no matter what. 

I'm a sucker for the classic Rolex hour hand and dot markers of the Sub, but the whole design needs to work in total. That's where it fails nowadays. Omega has done some great things in this respect.


----------



## mazman01

DrDavid90 said:


> I've always enjoyed the more sophisticated appeal of the Planet Ocean, in comparison with the more simplistic design of the Submariner..
> 
> *However, having seen Omega's newest reiteration of the Planet Oceans (8900) I must say that the design has "evolved" from being sophisticated to just being flashy.*
> 
> Creating the need to balance between looks (8500) and movement innovations (8900).
> 
> But that's just my opinion
> 
> David
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I agree with this statement. They look nice but not over the PO8500 for me.

As for preferring PO over the Sub. It's just looks really. I don't like the look of the Sub as much. The Sub is Rolex's best looking watch imo and it has a great finish and it's comfortable to wear. I just don't like it enough... too many negatives for me as well - cyclops, mercedes hands, flat crystal, too shiny... no, PO for me.


----------



## WatchMeSpend

I consider, but would not avoid a watch because of lesser pedigree (moon, diving, racing, movies, Napoleon). I really don't like the case shape of the Rolex. Don't like what I get for my money with Rolex either. Hated the PO when it came out. Turned out it was the orange numerals and bezel. Bought the 2500 because I tried it on when my friend was shopping. It got fatter over the years and lost it's elegance with increased aggressive angles. It also got more expensive. Coincidentally, I also became less interested.

When it comes to movements and everybody worrying about them, I have Seiko 5s that are very accurate, so you can imagine that I am OK with a 2824/2892/1120/2500. An 8500 would look great from the bottom of the watch, but I'm not willing to buy a watch just because it has an 8500 in it. 

I'd buy a 3303 powered watch with no concern.


----------



## agentmulder

Betterthere said:


> Super Fuzz said compare them side by side and tell him it's a better design. I have compared, owned both and in regards to hate due to thickness, the SubC is a better design. Height of the case and way it sits on your wrist makes it much more wearable. I said nothing about movements or other aspects. Technically, I should not post in this thread because it is for those who prefer POs over Subs.


Understood.

When people talk about the design I assume they actually mean the "design" as in everything that went into the design of the watch .....such as the movement, case, bezel, dial and bracelet. In which case, my knowledge of Rolex watches is very limited.


----------



## JustinCG

I don't like that Rolex got rid of the chanfers. I think they put zero effort in the case and then just inflated them. The 5 digit models were beautiful. The PO is polished beautifully, even the way the crown is polished is really nice, you can see the effort they put in to their cases.


----------



## GoBuffs11

Arrow hands>Mercedes hands


----------



## manofrolex

Atleo said:


> Planet ocean progress peaked with the 8500 to me. The new ones look a little avante garde for my tastes.
> 
> I owned a PO 42mm 8500 and it's a great watch. A little beefier than a sub and certainly more visually modern. The display back is cool.
> 
> Full disclosure: I've since sold it and wear a sea dweller every day. Different watch entirely but I like the more subdued nature of it.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Let me help reintroduce it










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## manofrolex

And the front










BUT I do like the sub well I like the master GMT II better than the sub

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MJK737

I prefer the 2500D over a 114060, but the 14060M is king of the divers in my world. Perhaps I have an old soul for a Gen Xer but I don't care for the new iterations of PO's and Subs. My top three would be:

14060M
2254.50 (I know it's not a PO but you get the point)
2500D


----------



## MikeCfromLI

Same reason I don't want a bmw I don't want ....... dbagness to wash over me by association. Rolex is a fine watch but many who buy them don't know that only that their supposed to... to show off










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Vindic8

My last watch purchase was deciding between an 8900 PO and a 116610LN. I went with the PO. I picked it up 2nd hand so it already took the hit from AD pricing. I feel I got a very good deal.

I had the cash to buy the PO outright but I would have had to flip a beloved watch to make up the difference for the Sub. I decided to get the PO and see if it didn't check all the boxes for me before I go fo the Sub.

I have been very happy with the PO for the short time that I have had it. I have large wrists so the size issue some have is not a concern for me. I really like the dial. It has a richness and a diversity that I enjoy looking upon.

I truly feel that I have made the right choice. I can say that for now the burning desire to get a Sub has been quenched. I will not say that it will be indefinitely, I just am glad I didn't sell my 2nd watch as I am very satisfied with my PO for the time being.

I also enjoy taking pictures of my watch with my phone in differing environments and the PO has been a fun and photogenic subject of those little sessions.


----------



## iTreelex

Honestly I think both the modern SubC and the PO have lost their ruggedness in terms of look. I mean, just look how flashy and blingy they've both become: wider/ thicker cases, gloss everything, polished everything, price tag included. In terms of reliability I think both have a force to be reckoned with. OP poses the problem of magnetism, Rolex has parachrom bleu, Omega has Si14 and other anti-ferrous what have you parts. Both movements are workhorses although I'm going to give it to Rolex for being humble and not flashing around their movement like a woman in a short pencil skirt  

Having both the PO 8500 and SubC I prefer the Sub mainly due to its thickness and its more "balanced" look with the no date option. The PO is way too thick and top heavy for me personally. If Omega reduced its thickness via the caseback then it would be a winner. Also, Imagine a PO with no date!!! Rejoice all you pompous purists, myself included lol. 

Although I prefer the arrow hands over the mercedes, Rolex also has a long-standing pedigree regarding its submariner line. It's quite amazing how conservative they are in the design, slowly perfecting or should I say refining it throughout the years just like the good old Speedy. I know the recent maxi case has caused quite the controversy but the redesign is still rooted in the original work. The PO on the other hand seems fickle and more flamboyant regarding its various colors, forms, and sizes. It's also a modern design that launched in 2005 I believe. All of these are subjective. The Sub some may find boring or some may find it humble. The PO some may find indecisive or some may find it eclectic. It's not a person, it's a watch lol.

Anyway, that kids, is how I met your mother. Jk, that's why I prefer the Sub.


----------



## Michael Day

I don't. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 6R15

Am I the only one who thinks the *PO *vs* Submariner* is silly and an incorrect comparison? Should be more like *PO *vs* Sea-Dweller* or *Seamaster 300 MC *vs* Submariner ND* or *SMP *vs* Submariner Date*.


----------



## DocJekl

raja_3012 said:


> Tricky question and I have a feeling that this thread may quickly turn into a comparison thread.
> 
> Let me explain why the question is tricky from my perspective... for most people a submariner means either a 14060 or 114060 or 16610 or 116610 and PO means the steel PO with calibers 2500, 8500, 8900 etc. If these are being pitted against each other, then I would prefer the Sub mostly because of value proposition, aesthetics, height and weight.
> 
> For me I have the Hulk (116610LV) and the 42mm Ti PO with 8500 movement on the OEM blue rubber strap. Between these two, the PO looks to be more sporty and it is my go to watch for weekend fun related activities. Also the PO is by far more accurate than both of my modern Rolexes.


I was in a similar boat - I have the Ti Planet Ocean 8500 too and love it, plus I've owned the Hulk but sold it due to the fat lugs looking a little off to me (while the fat lugs with the polished center links on my BLNR are less bloated looking). Instead I picked up a 11613 TT blue Sub with sunburst dial, which has a better proportioned case than the newer ceramic models (including Hulk).

I've avoided the heavy and thick steel Planet Ocean 8500 and 8900, since my lighter Ti Planet Ocean 8500 feels better on the wrist. My Planet Ocean 2201.51 with orange bezel mod gets worn the most of the three generations, since I don't worry as much about beating it up. It's also consistently running close to +1 sec/day after it's last service in 2014. But the size, shape, thickness and feel of wearing the Planet Ocean 2500 and TT Sub are about the same.

However, the Sub is a classic dating back decades and I've owned 3 and sold off 2 - my 16800 (too bland) and my Hulk (fat lugs). But the blue TT Sub has been on my wish list for years. The older Sub's have a classic shape, a reliable movement, and garner recognition everywhere. The only modern SubC that I currently want is the No Date, which is more balanced and subtle looking.

Nevertheless, if I had to choose and needed to sell one watch for money, I think that I'd have to part with the TT blue Sub first, mostly because it has the best resale value and would net me the most cash/watch (of those that I could stand to part with). I'm having that dilemma right now because I could use the cash for college tuition this fall, and selling my TT Sub would net me $1-2K more than selling both my SMPc and Tudor BBR (with extra bracelets and extra straps included). TBH, I'd miss the SMPc less than my BBR or TT Sub, but resale value is in the toilet even in mint condition with remaining warranty till April 2018.



iTreelex said:


> Honestly *I think both the modern SubC and the PO have lost their ruggedness in terms of look*. I mean, just look how flashy and blingy they've both become: wider/ thicker cases, gloss everything, polished everything, price tag included. In terms of reliability I think both have a force to be reckoned with. OP poses the problem of magnetism, Rolex has parachrom bleu, Omega has Si14 and other anti-ferrous what have you parts. Both movements are workhorses although I'm going to give it to Rolex for being humble and not flashing around their movement like a woman in a short pencil skirt
> 
> *Having both the PO 8500 and SubC I prefer the Sub mainly due to its thickness and its more "balanced" look with the no date option. The PO is way too thick and top heavy for me personally. If Omega reduced its thickness via the caseback then it would be a winner.* Also, Imagine a PO with no date!!! Rejoice all you pompous purists, myself included lol.
> 
> Although I prefer the arrow hands over the mercedes, Rolex also has a long-standing pedigree regarding its submariner line. It's quite amazing how conservative they are in the design, slowly perfecting or should I say refining it throughout the years just like the good old Speedy. I know the recent maxi case has caused quite the controversy but *the redesign is still rooted in the original work*. The PO on the other hand seems fickle and more flamboyant regarding its various colors, forms, and sizes. It's also a modern design that launched in 2005 I believe. All of these are subjective. The Sub some may find boring or some may find it humble. The PO some may find indecisive or some may find it eclectic. It's not a person, it's a watch lol.
> 
> Anyway, that kids, is how I met your mother. Jk, that's why I prefer the Sub.


Good points throughout. Although I don't agree with the loss of ruggedness, I agree they're both now more flashy and blingy with wider and/or thicker cases. Also, Planet Ocean must have date, otherwise just get a 300MC.


----------



## Camera Bill

I own the PO 2201.50 w/ 2500D, after that the case design just got too big. Although the 39.5mm 215.30.40.20.01.001 looks interesting, it's just slightly too blingy.

I feel the same way about Rolex, not a fan of the new case design, love the older models, but I'd still pick the PO due to the co-axial movement and design aesthetics.

To me a better comparison would be SeaMaster 2254.50 VS older Rolex Sub. Now there's a showdown.


----------



## munichblue

Majority of the comments for each watch in this thread is based on aesthetics and appearance. Therefore I would suggest to compare the six digit Sub with the new 39.5 PO. Similar dimensions and quality of movements. 

There's a clear winner anyway...;-)


----------



## TSC

Percentage wise, on wrists that don't look odd with the massive lugs of the Sub ND and D, and just have a square block on their wrists... low. Beauty of the PO, higher. It's an argument that will run and run, but nobody can persuade me those lugs look good, and yet people want to talk about the proportions of the PO thickness? Each to their own.... but my 2500 and 8500 will testify to the argument. I really wanted to like that Sub, and tried on a couple of times, but, nah. And yes, my argument is purely aesthetics.

Now if you want to discuss the 14060 and 5513, then my argument may be not so strong. 
But we're talking modern Rolex bling yeh?

*NOT MY PICS,* obviously, but that's not something I'd leave the house wearing if it looked like that.


----------



## munichblue

This is exactly why I dislike the six digit references. The introduction of the big oyster case with these fat lugs and the under proportional bracelet is a disgrace for Rolex. Watchface itself is brilliant but these cases are ... ugly ... but to each his own. 

Therefore the 39.5 PO is by far more balanced and designed beautifully compared to the new Sub.


----------



## JustinCG

Agree


----------



## Rolemega

Betterthere said:


> Super Fuzz said compare them side by side and tell him it's a better design. I have compared, owned both and in regards to hate due to thickness, the SubC is a better design. Height of the case and way it sits on your wrist makes it much more wearable. I said nothing about movements or other aspects. Technically, I should not post in this thread because it is for those who prefer POs over Subs.


That's what I thought too, but it looks like more people prefer the Submariner even in the Omega forums, which says a lot.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

Give me a 1680, 16610 or 16800 over a PO for the collectibility value but if it is against a modern sub, I will take the PO


----------



## refugio

I was conflicted - now I'm good with a 2500 PO.

But along the way I had a 16610 - sold it when I could no longer abide the cyclops. And a 14060m - sold it when I couldn't adjust to no date. 

And then there was the "social" aspect. There is literally no situation in my life where having someone notice I had a Rolex was a positive thing. Actually, there is one - my wife loves hers and would be happy if I wore one. But peers, contractors, suppliers, friends, family (other than spouse!) - I'm sorry, but I cannot see any situation where having a Rolex would convey a positive outcome to me. Quite the opposite.


----------



## Kells

I have desired a SubC, I entertain thoughts of flipping my entire collection and purchasing a SubC, but every time I physically look at one, I don't get the longing that I feel when I see it on watchrecon or magazine photos...weird! Consequently, every time I gaze at my PO, I fall in love with it all over again....but I still desire a SubC and still entertain thoughts of getting one...weird!


----------



## Betterthere

Kells said:


> I have desired a SubC, I entertain thoughts of flipping my entire collection and purchasing a SubC, but every time I physically look at one, I don't get the longing that I feel when I see it on watchrecon or magazine photos...weird! Consequently, every time I gaze at my PO, I fall in love with it all over again....but I still desire a SubC and still entertain thoughts of getting one...weird!


similar for me until a year ago I decided to try one out. Only dive watch I wear now.


----------



## ccm123

I prefer the Sub Date or Hulk over the PO.


----------



## cdw63

Until this thread I never realized how out of proportion the sub bracelet is to the case.... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## TSC

cdw63 said:


> Until this thread I never realized how out of proportion the sub bracelet is to the case....
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


That was my point with those pics, but we only hear about the thickness of the PO on here, there's good and bad in both, It's more out of proportion to me than the so called thickness of the PO. I don't have a problem with Subs, pre Sub C,


----------



## munichblue

Don't get me wrong, five digit and especially four digit Sub references are gorgeous and iconic watches. But the new refs have to be considered as a failure.


----------



## JustinCG

refugio said:


> I was conflicted - now I'm good with a 2500 PO.
> 
> But along the way I had a 16610 - sold it when I could no longer abide the cyclops. And a 14060m - sold it when I couldn't adjust to no date.
> 
> And then there was the "social" aspect. There is literally no situation in my life where having someone notice I had a Rolex was a positive thing. Actually, there is one - my wife loves hers and would be happy if I wore one. But peers, contractors, suppliers, friends, family (other than spouse!) - I'm sorry, but I cannot see any situation where having a Rolex would convey a positive outcome to me. Quite the opposite.


Could not have said it any better, I feel the same way. iv had a few rolexs but always found myself feeling uncomfortable. My PO I can wear in any situation and it's amazing watch. I do love the vintage rolexs but feel they are so over priced, it's crazy! Big bubble!


----------



## raze

I prefer the PO (2500, 8500) over the Subc but i prefer the pre ceramic 16610 Sub over the PO (2500, 8500). Id take any sub over the current PO's though. They are just too blingy for me with the glass finish looking dial and bezel.


----------



## Vindic8

I've thought about this post for a few days since I first came across it and I realize I've been thinking about it wrong. The question suggests comparing the two in a vacuum. Life isn't in a vacuum. The reality is that the value proposion is such that for equivalent dollars I can have a PO AND a Black bay. Or a PO AND a Pelagos. Or an Aqua Terra. Or an Oris. Or an SMPc. This realization changes the entire value conversation for me. 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## HiggsBoson

Now that's a toughie. :think:


----------



## sgk

Don't like either of the modern subs or POs. That's why I have a 16610 (with lug holes - very important) and a PO 2500


----------



## Rolemega

Vindic8 said:


> I've thought about this post for a few days since I first came across it and I realize I've been thinking about it wrong. The question suggests comparing the two in a vacuum. Life isn't in a vacuum. The reality is that the value proposion is such that for equivalent dollars I can have a PO AND a Black bay. Or a PO AND a Pelagos. Or an Aqua Terra. Or an Oris. Or an SMPc. This realization changes the entire value conversation for me.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


Not sure if I understand your point, sorry. You can compare an infinite number of things then. This topic is a very straightforward one.

I think think what I've learned from everyone is that the Submariner has more desirability and resell value. Some find it and more comfortable because it's less bulky than the PO. I agree with these points. BUT THAT AWESOME ANTI-GAUSS THOUGH!! I hope they come out with that feature on their smaller models like the SMPc.


----------



## huntflyer

I like the PO. Especially the PO GMT. To me, its a more distinctive watch than a Sub. No arguing the Sub is iconic, but it's like a entry level luxury car that everyone has.


----------



## Rolemega

huntflyer said:


> I like the PO. Especially the PO GMT. To me, its a more distinctive watch than a Sub. No arguing the Sub is iconic, but it's like a entry level luxury car that everyone has.


What kind of car would the PO be then? A hummer?


----------



## TwentiethCenturyFox

Well I kept the sub and seadweller and sold the 42mm p.o. so. . .


----------



## Vlciudoli

huntflyer said:


> I like the PO. Especially the PO GMT. To me, its a more distinctive watch than a Sub. No arguing the Sub is iconic, but it's like a entry level luxury car that everyone has.


Nope. That a Tag Heuer.

The Omega PO is a BMW 6 cylinder coupe....... Sub is more 911

AP and PP are the Ferraris and Lambos......


----------



## Nid

Me? PO. Simply because even with 39.5 is almost toooooo big for my tiny 6" wrist.


----------



## Theognosis

The Sub has a fantastic bracelet which is useless to me anyway. I prefer wearing my sports watches on leather or rubber and this is why I chose the PO. I haven't seen a maxicase Rolex that looks good on rubber or even leather. Those ugly lugs are designed to look good on the OEM bracelet and not much else. It's a one-trick pony. The modern Sub is not iconic in my eyes. It's a big mistake.


----------



## Ragna

Avoid dilemmas. Have both !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ohmzx

Agree with Ragna. I have both of them. I "feel" like Omega movement is better due to the 15000 gauss protection and all that. But Sub will really get people looking at your wrist. If you a guy who likes attention. Sub would be best for you. If you are a guy who likes a low key and more stylish type of guy go with PO. 

Both are great watches. Buy them both.


----------



## cory79




----------



## cory79

I like the asthetics of the PO just purchased a 8500.


----------



## Rolemega

Ohmzx said:


> Agree with Ragna. I have both of them. I "feel" like Omega movement is better due to the 15000 gauss protection and all that. But Sub will really get people looking at your wrist. If you a guy who likes attention. Sub would be best for you. If you are a guy who likes a low key and more stylish type of guy go with PO.
> 
> Both are great watches. Buy them both.


Yes! The 15,000 gauss protection is HUGE. Omega said years ago that they'll be implementing that technology on all of their models. I couldn't wait and bought the Seamaster Pro 300 diver ceramic.


----------



## Tjdt92

I think everyone has a Rolex submariner however he PO is more unique and has that helium escape valve which is top notch. Having Owened both It's hard to chooosw but either way you're getting a fantastic piece!!


----------



## cedargrove

Tjdt92 said:


> I think everyone has a Rolex submariner however he PO is more unique and has that helium escape valve which is top notch. Having Owened both It's hard to chooosw but either way you're getting a fantastic piece!!


I own a PO and agree it's great, but not because of the HEV, especially considering Rolex invented it and the version on their SeaDweller is, in my opinion, a superior solution to Omega's.


----------



## mesaboogie18

I prefer the movement, finishing, and design of the PO. Even the box is nicer.


----------



## VicLeChic

Because I find the PO a lot prettier and interesting even if the six digits Sub is not a bad looking watch if it wasn't for its fat lugs that make it look too square IMHO. Now the new SD43 is a different story, that is a beautiful piece , extremelly well proportioned.


----------



## sager

Ragna said:


> Avoid dilemmas. Have both !
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WiZARD7

Also don't forget the domed sapphire with AR on the PO, versus the flat without AR on the Sub...
Different league.


----------



## douglasf13

I don't own a PO, but I actually prefer the Explorer II to the Submariner that I sold...and I prefer my AT 2500 over both.


----------



## Knives and Lint

For me it went like this...Last year I was all set to by myself a Sub for my 40th Birthday. I had the money set aside, and about a month before my birthday I went watch shopping to try some things on. So i go into the Rolex boutique, try on the Sub and.....

To my utter disbelief, the sky did not open up, choirs of angels did not sing, and Steve McQueen's ghost did not come down to pat me on the back and whisper "you've made it son" as I had been expecting. Honestly, my overall impression was sort of, well, unimpressed. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the Sub for what it is, and I understand that it is a great iconic watch, but I just felt like for that kind of money I should be buying something that blows me away rather than questioning my purchase.

The same day I went to the Omega boutique and the PO, on the other hand, made an instant and lasting impression. Nevertheless, I was still holding on to the idea that I needed a Rolex Diver, and I thought that maybe it was the size of the Sub that was putting me off, so I planned to put some extra cash aside and I decided to try for the DSSD. However I had a similar experience on the trip to try that one on. The bracelet seemed too narrow for the watch, and when I tried it on it just didn't do it for me. It just didn't feel like the right watch for me. I left the store, but instead of being discouraged I actually had a sense of relief. On the ride home it became clear what I wanted to do.

I went home, and with the money I had saved I bought a Speedmaster 57' and a Planet Ocean. And I couldn't be happier with my decision.

When I put on my Planet Ocean it just feels right. It feels like my watch, like the watch that fits who I am, and like the watch that could easily be my "one watch" to accompany me through a lifetime. It is just a truly amazing, high quality, solid watch. And I am ever so grateful that the watch I chose to mark this milestone in my life was not "just another Sub".


----------



## Ragna

Not a PO but hey.. take it easy on me..

PO 39.5 on the way !!


----------



## Tdizle

Rolex are my Dads watch....
i feel too young for one, the PO checked all the right boxes for me.


----------



## matthew1938

The PO is a better diver for a start, not that any of us will go to the depth but the fact it can do it leave you completely assured of its capability. 
Also the bracelet and clasp just feel more solid to me, you know and feel that you have a luxury watch, it might be taboo to say but although the oyster bracelets feel fantastic I was personally underwhelmed when I tried one on. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## benvh

I recently lost some weight and also bought a SD 16600. Since then the 2201.50 feels and looks huge to me and I haven't worn it since.

Ben


----------



## cedargrove

matthew1938 said:


> Also the bracelet and clasp just feel more solid to me, you know and feel that you have a luxury watch, it might be taboo to say but although the oyster bracelets feel fantastic I was personally underwhelmed when I tried one on.


I have to assume you've only tried on the older (5-digit model #) Rolexes, because their current bracelets (especially the Sub's) is second to none in this price range.

However the bracelet and clasp on my PO is the only disappointing part of an otherwise awesome watch.


----------



## watchsickness101

Simply because of size. 45mm , I have large wrists so the 45mm is perfect for me. the 2500 is my pic because its slimmer so can been worn in any situation including cuffs etc. Love the vintage look and feel.


----------



## matthew1938

cedargrove said:


> I have to assume you've only tried on the older (5-digit model #) Rolexes, because their current bracelets (especially the Sub's) is second to none in this price range.
> 
> However the bracelet and clasp on my PO is the only disappointing part of an otherwise awesome watch.


Brand new......personal preference I suppose

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## manofrolex

Or just get his instead and call it a day and save yourself some coin.










Seriously love my PO but the clasp sucks.
Never been able to size the darn thing properly so I have a adjustable clasp on order.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## matthew1938

Nid said:


> Me? PO. Simply because even with 39.5 is almost toooooo big for my tiny 6" wrist.


That blue ceramic 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## matthew1938

Theognosis said:


> The Sub has a fantastic bracelet which is useless to me anyway. I prefer wearing my sports watches on leather or rubber and this is why I chose the PO. I haven't seen a maxicase Rolex that looks good on rubber or even leather. Those ugly lugs are designed to look good on the OEM bracelet and not much else. It's a one-trick pony. The modern Sub is not iconic in my eyes. It's a big mistake.


Good point that buddy, my mate put it on a NATO and it lasted a week before back on the oyster

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Omega4Ever

For me,,,,i see the look and how it sits on the wrist for the PO is best !


----------



## Theognosis

matthew1938 said:


> Good point that buddy, my mate put it on a NATO and it lasted a week before back on the oyster


While my PO has stayed on the rubber for 2 years (and counting). Those Omega lugs are designed for anything.


----------



## Omega4Ever

Theognosis said:


> While my PO has stayed on the rubber for 2 years (and counting). Those Omega lugs are designed for anything.


Exactly!..oh man! just love mine


----------



## RDK

benvh said:


> I recently lost some weight and also bought a SD 16600. Since then the 2201.50 feels and looks huge to me and I haven't worn it since.
> 
> Ben


Sell your 2201.50.
To me.
😁


----------



## Savvy

I am a salesman --selling construction projects and having 5 appointments every day talking with customers face to face. For me PO is the right watch. Definitely less recognizable than Rolex. I do not want that every customer stares at my wrist with Rolex. I can afford Rolex but it is not for me. i do not need a statement watch like Rolex. 
PO is the best.


----------



## dj00tiek

I prefer the PO because (had the 8500 PO 42mm and the Submariner and the Seadweller 4000):

+ Omega:
- I don't like reflection of the Sub, and I love the anti reflective coating of the PO
- Don't like the cyclops of the Sub, to much of a distraction and nothing added because I can read dates fine without a cyclops
- I Like the back of the PO better and the finish of the movement
- Don't like the 'screamyness' of the brand Rolex, because it's known all over the world and also strange people who don't give a fudge about watches still want to buy a Rolex just because of the name. If someone goes for an Omega it's more likely that person knows more about watches and likes watches overal better (and movements). Not that Rolex itself is any part of this, they can't help it, I Know.
- I love the fact that Omega cares about the planet and puts resources into this (for example this Omega sponsored docu about the ocean), so you as a buyer of an Omega are actually also helping the world, even if it's a tiny bit.
- I love the hands on the PO, and I really don't like the mercedes hands on Rolex.

+ Rolex:
- I like the microadjust on a Sub/Dweller better.
- Better wearable if you like lightweight watches (and under a suit)
- Better investment for sure compared to Omega

So yeah.. overall I like the PO I guess better. But I am also not so much a suit guy. So for me I could wear a PO everyday.

This doesn't mean I would say to everyone they need to buy a PO instead of a Sub. It depends on the person who is gonna wear it.


----------



## Knisse

I *highly* prefer the brand Omega to the brand Rolex - Rolex is a Rolex which does not conjour positive image in my head. Still i would buy the submariner any day over the PO because i think Omega lacks the technical capabilities to make normal size watches. I still wear a 2500 Aqua Terra because that is the last time Omega managed to make a reasonably wearable diver watch. The previous was the wave dial bond.

Simply - despite being a huuuugh corporation they have not managed in almost 10 years to make a decent sized watch, i am starting to think that they are too incompetent to make around 9-10mm watches with the 8500 movement, in the either diver/sport/dress combined category.

And yes, i am angry about it because Omega is my brand, and i want one that fit me properly


----------



## douglasf13

Knisse said:


> I *highly* prefer the brand Omega to the brand Rolex - Rolex is a Rolex which does not conjour positive image in my head. Still i would buy the submariner any day over the PO because i think Omega lacks the technical capabilities to make normal size watches. I still wear a 2500 Aqua Terra because that is the last time Omega managed to make a reasonably wearable diver watch. The previous was the wave dial bond.
> 
> Simply - despite being a huuuugh corporation they have not managed in almost 10 years to make a decent sized watch, i am starting to think that they are too incompetent to make around 9-10mm watches with the 8500 movement, in the either diver/sport/dress combined category.
> 
> And yes, i am angry about it because Omega is my brand, and i want one that fit me properly


I'm a fellow AT2500 lover, too, although I don't really like the newer Maxi case Rolex watches, either, so really it's the decision between the PO 2500 and 16610.

What's bonkers is that the current Sub's movement is a half millimeter _thinner_ than the Omega 8500, so I don't understand why Omega doesn't get the thickness down. I think it's because they want sapphire case backs and "wrist presence."


----------



## solesman

I own both. I prefer the PO due to it being less common, especially the version I have and nobody notices it on my wrist which I like a lot.


----------



## Knisse

douglasf13 said:


> I'm a fellow AT2500 lover, too, although I don't really like the newer Maxi case Rolex watches, either, so really it's the decision between the PO 2500 and 16610.
> 
> What's bonkers is that the current Sub's movement is a half millimeter _thinner_ than the Omega 8500, so I don't understand why Omega doesn't get the thickness down. *I think it's because they want sapphire case backs and "wrist presence*."


You are probably right about that - but it has got to absurd length - if i wanted a brick on my arm i would look into Breitling or Panerai.


----------



## douglasf13

Knisse said:


> You are probably right about that - but it has got to absurd length - if i wanted a brick on my arm i would look into Breitling or Panerai.


Oh, I agree. That's why I haven't been interested in many new Omegas in a long time.


----------



## matthew1938

Savvy said:


> I am a salesman --selling construction projects and having 5 appointments every day talking with customers face to face. For me PO is the right watch. Definitely less recognizable than Rolex. I do not want that every customer stares at my wrist with Rolex. I can afford Rolex but it is not for me. i do not need a statement watch like Rolex.
> PO is the best.


True story lol

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Anderson101

Rollies for me!:-!


----------



## bckuang

Although the Submariner is an iconic watch, there's alot of people who own the Submariner. People at this point are more interested in a Submariner because it's a Rolex and that Rolex is the luxury watch to own. IMO the PO is more unique and less like the others.


----------



## DocJekl

I just sold my blue TT Submariner today, so that's three Subs I've bought and sold (Sub 16800, Sub Hulk, Sub 16613 TT)

But I still have all of my Planet Ocean's (two Planet Ocean Liquid Metal Limited Edition, one Planet Ocean 2500 with orange bezel mod, one Ti Planet Ocean 8500, and one Ti Planet Ocean 9300).


----------



## IronballsMcGinty

Spectacular Watch!!


----------



## Vindic8

*I have tried to make a list of the features that I really like about my Planet Ocean. I have owned three of them now and I grow in appreciation about what they bring to the wearer.*

*The Movement*

At work I come in contact with equipment and devices that can create serious magnetic fields. I appreciate the advanced anti-magnetic protection in this movement.

I really like the 60 hour power reserve. I can take the watch off on Friday night after work and wear other watches over the weekend. It is still on time and ready Monday morning with no need to set it.

The quickset hour hand is a great tool for traveling. I am a stickler for my watches being set to the atomic clock. Hacking the watch to set the hour when I land typically puts watches behind slightly. The quickset hour feature saves this hassle.

The other thing I like to do is take pictures of the watch I'm wearing. To take advantage of a particular background setting or lighting condition the quickset hour hand lets me quickly adjust it to balance out the hand position so the hands aren't stacked up. I can then easily set it back without hosebagging the time.

*The Bezel*

I often use it to time things such as my BBQ or smoking meats. The PO has a very easy turning bezel that allows me to grip and turn it precisely, even with gloves on. Most of my watches I cannot set the bezel time easily with gloves.

*The Crystal*

The slightly domed crystal prevents that flat glare that happens on many watches. The fact that it is also a double domed crystal provides a clear view with no distortion. I also really appreciate the double anti-reflective coating. The result is an invisible crystal from nearly every viewing angle.

*The Dial*

In the case of my PO I have chosen the blue variant. The range of blue colors that the dial and bezel present are amazing. It looks different all day in varied lighting conditions. Most of the watches I own are black dialed. Switching to them from the blue PO has made many of them feel boring to look at.

The ceramic dial provides a deep, exquisite experience. It reminds me of a pool of liquid ink.

I applaud the choice of a dark color wheel with a lighter date font. I find it more legible and a more integrated design. For me this eliminates the need for a cyclops interrupting the balance.

I also prefer the visual dial diversity that comes with the combination of applied indices and numerals.

*The Hands*

The minute and seconds hand have good, visible contrast all the way out to the edge of the dial. As I get older clean and legible become more important. There is never any question what time it is when I glance quickly at the watch.

I have never been that excited by Mercedes hands. This is my personal opinion but I feel they lack masculinity. They are also used on over 60% of the dive watches on the market from a plethora of manufacturers. I much prefer the bold arrows and the spear-like seconds hand. I guess I'm a barbarian in my tastes.

*The Lume*

The lume on the PO is a combination of blue and green. Predominantly blue with the bezel pip and the minute hand in green. The contrast makes it very easy to see the pip/minute-hand relationship but also just brings a rich experience to the dial. The lume brightness, intensity and longevity are excellent.

*The Band*

For me the double push button release is more convenient than digging my fingernail into a fliplock and popping it open. It just feels more refined.

*The Case*

It has clean, demonstrative lines using a combination of brushed and polished elements. It has a bold and masculine look.

I like a display back. My interest in automatic watches started because of the fascination with the human ingenuity behind gears and springs arranged to keep time. I still like to look upon and marvel at the brilliance. Occasionally I get the opportunity to talk to a non-WIS about what an automatic watch is. It is nice to be able to show them the beating heart of a balance wheel and watch the amazement spread across their face.


----------



## Hardaway

douglasf13 said:


> Oh, I agree. That's why I haven't been interested in many new Omegas in a long time.


+1


----------



## sblantipodi

I prefer the PO because is 600meters while Rolex is only 300 meters. I need the PO when I go deep desk diving.


----------



## Makhdoom

On the PO the little triangle does not quiet align at 12 O'clock while the 30 at the 6 O'clock is perfectly aligned. The hands jump a bit and are mis-aligned when crown is pushed back in (jumping hour hand to adjust date is to blame here). Master Coaxial not METAS certified.

Rolex > Omega

Rolex has better finish, and is better made with everything as portrayed.


----------



## chillwill120

I have a 2500. I love the arabics on the dial and the arrow hands. I love the strong lume. I like that the PO is cheaper to buy, cheaper to service, and not ubiquitous like the sub. I like that Omega does not have the stigma that Rolex has. All of that being said, I do think the submariner is the more beautiful watch, in fact I think the sub is the most beautiful dive watch ever.


----------



## Vindic8

Makhdoom said:


> On the PO the little triangle does not quiet align at 12 O'clock while the 30 at the 6 O'clock is perfectly aligned. The hands jump a bit and are mis-aligned when crown is pushed back in (jumping hour hand to adjust date is to blame here). Master Coaxial not METAS certified.
> 
> Rolex > Omega
> 
> Rolex has better finish, and is better made with everything as portrayed.


My PO lines up perfectly. I just searched TRF and the Rolex subforum of WUS. There are plenty of posters complaining about their Rolex's bezel alignment. One should be cautious making blanket statements. Based on some very quick research both companies have misaligned bezels ship to customers.

If your next statement is that one company has more than the other you better come with some stats that don't involve your gut.


----------



## Case61

I have several Omegas all of whom I love (CK2998 LE, vintage Speedy, 1968 Connie, several other vintage 50's and 60's dress watches, one pocket watch), but when it comes to divers, there's just something about the Sub.


----------



## Makhdoom

You should not have mentioned my gut. I am very touchy about my gut and the feelings it gets.

But gut feelings aside, when 3 O' clock aligns with 15 on bezel, 6 O' clock aligns with 30 on bezel and 9 O' clock aligns with 45 on bezel then 12 O' clock should align with the triangle on the bezel but it does not. The Rolex misalignment is an assembly issue, the Omega Planet Ocean misalignment is a design issue. And what about the hands misaligning when you push the crown back in. The hands should not jerk when the crown is pushed back in. Moving the hands while the crown is pushed in is one thing but that little jerk on the Cal. 8500 thats all on the movement. My PO does that, my Aqua Terra does the same, others have complained about the very same problems right here on this forum.

My father wore an Omega Seamaster and that is why I have liked Omegas. Even though I had read about the issues mentioned above I still bought the PO and AT, because I saw watches through Omega goggles. But recently I purchased a Rolex and that watch put all the Omegas to shame. Before that I felt they were evenly matched, but not any more. The Rolex is better finished and it shines much brighter because of the 904L steel.

You however should feel free to place Omega above and beyond Rolex. After all when you go to buy an Omega watch the sales person will sing songs of a-magnetic glory and METAS certification. Yet when you try to find the "Master Chronometer" certificate for your "master coaxial" watch, lo and behold its not there. When you make inquiries, you find out that your watch is not METAS certified and that is why it did not come with a certificate.

Turns out that "master chronometers" are certified by METAS while "master coaxial" is just COSC certified. Then why not just include a COSC certificate, why is Omega trying to deliberately confuse its customers like that.

And while I am at it let me say that Cal. 8500 is 25,200 bpm so Omega can easily warranty it at 5 yrs, but never get it to be as accurate as the older Cal. 1120 found in the most awesome 2254.50, on which the bezel aligns up perfectly by the way.


----------



## Super Fuzz

Makhdoom said:


> You should not have mentioned my gut. I am very touchy about my gut and the feelings it gets.
> 
> But gut feelings aside, when 3 O' clock aligns with 15 on bezel, 6 O' clock aligns with 30 on bezel and 9 O' clock aligns with 45 on bezel then 12 O' clock should align with the triangle on the bezel but it does not. The Rolex misalignment is an assembly issue, the Omega Planet Ocean misalignment is a design issue. And what about the hands misaligning when you push the crown back in. The hands should not jerk when the crown is pushed back in. Moving the hands while the crown is pushed in is one thing but that little jerk on the Cal. 8500 thats all on the movement. My PO does that, my Aqua Terra does the same, others have complained about the very same problems right here on this forum.
> 
> My father wore an Omega Seamaster and that is why I have liked Omegas. Even though I had read about the issues mentioned above I still bought the PO and AT, because I saw watches through Omega goggles. But recently I purchased a Rolex and that watch put all the Omegas to shame. Before that I felt they were evenly matched, but not any more. The Rolex is better finished and it shines much brighter because of the 904L steel.
> 
> You however should feel free to place Omega above and beyond Rolex. After all when you go to buy an Omega watch the sales person will sing songs of a-magnetic glory and METAS certification. Yet when you try to find the "Master Chronometer" certificate for your "master coaxial" watch, lo and behold its not there. When you make inquiries, you find out that your watch is not METAS certified and that is why it did not come with a certificate.
> 
> Turns out that "master chronometers" are certified by METAS while "master coaxial" is just COSC certified. Then why not just include a COSC certificate, why is Omega trying to deliberately confuse its customers like that.
> 
> And while I am at it let me say that Cal. 8500 is 25,200 bpm so Omega can easily warranty it at 5 yrs, but never get it to be as accurate as the older Cal. 1120 found in the most awesome 2254.50, on which the bezel aligns up perfectly by the way.


They came out with the master co-axial first, no? The master refers to the anti magnetic. The METAS watches are the newest generation and are certified as such. For any buyer who cares, I'm pretty sure they can figure it out, especially if they're fussing over which model to get.

8500 not as accurate? :rolls eyes emoticon here plz: My Seamaster 300 MC with the 8400 is +1.5 a day, and my 8500 PO before that was slightly better. Plenty of examples all over this forum and others about the accuracy of Omega's new movements. Sounds to me like you're just convincing yourself Omega is inferior now that you own the 10 times better Rollie :rolls eyes again plz.:

The new Omega movements are very accurate and durable. Easily on par with a Rolex, and it doesn't matter if you buy into the co axial thing or not.

I hope your Rolex is accurate just like the all important certificate you're so concerned with says! Honestly though, does it really matter if there's a certificate? Chronometer written on the dial already tells us all we need to know.


----------



## manofrolex

Thread needs pics (no sub for me just a exp II ) but today is PO day










Did I say I got the new clasp?










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vindic8

Makhdoom said:


> when 3 O' clock aligns with 15 on bezel, 6 O' clock aligns with 30 on bezel and 9 O' clock aligns with 45 on bezel then 12 O' clock should align with the triangle on the bezel but it does not.


Just went outside and took this picture. What am I missing about the "design flaw" in the alignment?










Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## Vindic8

jmanlay said:


> Thread needs pics


You are absolutly right! I couldn't agree more.










Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## Makhdoom

Super Fuzz said:


> They came out with the master co-axial first, no? The master refers to the anti magnetic. The METAS watches are the newest generation and are certified as such. For any buyer who cares, I'm pretty sure they can figure it out, especially if they're fussing over which model to get.
> 
> 8500 not as accurate? :rolls eyes emoticon here plz: My Seamaster 300 MC with the 8400 is +1.5 a day, and my 8500 PO before that was slightly better. Plenty of examples all over this forum and others about the accuracy of Omega's new movements. Sounds to me like you're just convincing yourself Omega is inferior now that you own the 10 times better Rollie :rolls eyes again plz.:
> 
> The new Omega movements are very accurate and durable. Easily on par with a Rolex, and it doesn't matter if you buy into the co axial thing or not.
> 
> I hope your Rolex is accurate just like the all important certificate you're so concerned with says! Honestly though, does it really matter if there's a certificate? Chronometer written on the dial already tells us all we need to know.


Please roll your eyes a bit more you did not do it enough times. And yes it is (+1 after four days). And thankyou for agreeing that Rolex is ten times better.

You did not touch on the jeking motion of the hands when the crown is pushed in, please share your thoughts or I will roll my eyes.


----------



## Makhdoom

Vindic8 said:


> Just went outside and took this picture. What am I missing about the "design flaw" in the alignment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


The design is perfect, you are perfect, your Omega is the best Omega.


----------



## Super Fuzz

Makhdoom said:


> Please roll your eyes a bit more you did not do it enough times. And yes it is (+1 after four days). And thankyou for agreeing that Rolex is ten times better.
> 
> You did not touch on the jeking motion of the hands when the crown is pushed in, please share your thoughts or I will roll my eyes.


Ok, fanboy. No jerking on my watch. Not invalidating your experience. Perhaps it is on the date movement. I don't know. Didn't happen on my 8500. And by the way, TRF is filled with anecdotes of minute problems with modern Rolex movements. I'm still waiting for your main "point" here.

Omega makes watches as accurate and nicely finished as Rolex. Preferring one over another is exactly that: personal preference. There are plenty of beaten-dead horse threads here to show that.

The tone of your posts suggests you need to denigrate Omega to justify your Rolex purchase. "Look how superior my Rollie is, totes worth it over those ****e Omega's and their clumsy movements and jerky hands." Whatever makes you sleep at night, man. You, nor anyone else in these comparison threads, has yet to explain why, beyond marketing and brand recognition, Rolex should be considered superior. There are countless Omega owners all over the place with nothing but solid success stories and praise of mind boggling accuracy. What's so much better about Rolex again?

I owned a Sub for 2 weeks. It was accurate as can be. I sold it to buy two Omega's because I think they look better. What else is there to say?


----------



## SeanoftheDead516

Vindic8 said:


> Just went outside and took this picture. What am I missing about the "design flaw" in the alignment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


And mic drop. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Makhdoom

Super Fuzz said:


> Ok, fanboy. No jerking on my watch. Not invalidating your experience. Perhaps it is on the date movement. I don't know. Didn't happen on my 8500. And by the way, TRF is filled with anecdotes of minute problems with modern Rolex movements. I'm still waiting for your main "point" here.
> 
> Omega makes watches as accurate and nicely finished as Rolex. Preferring one over another is exactly that: personal preference. There are plenty of beaten-dead horse threads here to show that.
> 
> The tone of your posts suggests you need to denigrate Omega to justify your Rolex purchase. "Look how superior my Rollie is, totes worth it over those ****e Omega's and their clumsy movements and jerky hands." Whatever makes you sleep at night, man. You, nor anyone else in these comparison threads, has yet to explain why, beyond marketing and brand recognition, Rolex should be considered superior. There are countless Omega owners all over the place with nothing but solid success stories and praise of mind boggling accuracy. What's so much better about Rolex again?
> 
> I owned a Sub for 2 weeks. It was accurate as can be. I sold it to buy two Omega's because I think they look better. What else is there to say?


"Fanboy" :rolls eyes: said the kettle to the pot.

I am not putting down precious Omega to glorify my "Rollie". How did you get that from the posts. What I am saying is that the new Omegas that I spent money on were disappointments compared to the Rolex. The older Omegas were very honest watches the new ones are more marketing and less substance. But I guess Omega fanboys will like Omega.

Oh and did I mention my Grand Seiko is better finished than the AT, even though it uses the same 316L. Also try the new Rolex movement and see for yourself if its accurate as can be or better.


----------



## Makhdoom

SeanoftheDead516 said:


> And mic drop.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I can post pictures too. See that triangle thats just a wee bit off, while the rest is aligned.



And look at this triangle perfectly aligned. That my friend is called camera angle positioning.


----------



## holja

Makhdoom said:


> SeanoftheDead516 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And mic drop.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> I can post pictures too. See that triangle thats just a wee bit off, while the rest is aligned.
Click to expand...

The whole bezel looks to be a quarter click off to be honest, not just the pip. I don't think the camera lens was fully perpendicular to the bezel. 
But if the lens was perpendicular you definitely have an issue there. I wonder if Omega would fix it under warranty.


----------



## Makhdoom

holja said:


> The whole bezel looks to be a quarter click off to be honest, not just the pip. I don't think the camera lens was fully perpendicular to the bezel.
> But if the lens was perpendicular you definitely have an issue there. I wonder if Omega would fix it under warranty.


Thankyou just trying to prove camera lenses can be positioned to make anything look different.


----------



## Galaga

Some great comments here. No wonder I have been reading these forums as far back as 2009 but only recently have become a member. In 2009 I purchased my first Swiss watch after receiving a final bonus from work and I wanted a nice watch as a late 40th birthday gift for myself. During that time I was torn between the Submariner and the PO. I just couldn't justify the Sub's price (even back then) which is why I purchased the Omega. I've got a 42mm 250D. The watch has been ultra reliable and only last month did I have my service which I negotiated free with the Swatch Group after my first PO stopped. (t was replaced by a brand new one after about a month and that is the one that I have now. I think the watch is timeless. Love the thinner black bezel insert. I'm not a fan of the new ceramic bezels and I think the cyclops ruins the aesthetics of any watch despite me now struggling to see the date without my reading glasses. 

Do I think the sub is a better watch? Probably. However, I just couldn't sell my first proper Swiss watch and my PO will be part of my small collection until the end of my days.

I'd still love to own a Rolex one day and would probably choose either a Pepsi GMT, Daytona (I wish) or Milgauss. I, however, have a rule. The watch must be at least 41mm which probably discounts the Milgauss. 

All the best Gentlemen!!


----------



## Makhdoom

Dream Killer said:


> Some great comments here. No wonder I have been reading these forums as far back as 2009 but only recently have become a member. In 2009 I purchased my first Swiss watch after receiving a final bonus from work and I wanted a nice watch as a late 40th birthday gift for myself. During that time I was torn between the Submariner and the PO. I just couldn't justify the Sub's price (even back then) which is why I purchased the Omega. I've got a 42mm 250D. The watch has been ultra reliable and only last month did I have my service which I negotiated free with the Swatch Group after my first PO stopped. (t was replaced by a brand new one after about a month and that is the one that I have now. I think the watch is timeless. Love the thinner black bezel insert. I'm not a fan of the new ceramic bezels and I think the cyclops ruins the aesthetics of any watch despite me now struggling to see the date without my reading glasses.
> 
> Do I think the sub is a better watch? Probably. However, I just couldn't sell my first proper Swiss watch and my PO will be part of my small collection until the end of my days.
> 
> I'd still love to own a Rolex one day and would probably choose either a Pepsi GMT, Daytona (I wish) or Milgauss. I, however, have a rule. The watch must be at least 41mm which probably discounts the Milgauss.
> 
> All the best Gentlemen!!


There is a new Datejust in 41mm now available in steel and gold or just steel. Awesome new movement, slimer more elegant case and available in oyester and jubilee braceket.


----------



## Omegamma

I had a 42mm 2500 black. I loved it but some things annoyed me always. The dial was never really black and the indexes were never really white. The 8500 models have solved these issues but they are crazy thick and way too blingy for my taste. I went for a 5 digit no date sub and forgot the PO for my whole life. The sub is a PERFECT WATCH for me.


----------



## blx

I love the look of the Rolex Sub but feel like it draws too much attention. I personally have the PO and am very happy but won't rule out getting the Sub later


----------



## Vindic8

I find it interesting/noteworthy that in a post where the OP asks the question *"Why do YOU prefer a PO over a Rolex Submariner?"* directed at PO owners who prefer their PO to a Sub, that you have people who are not the intended audience posting defensive or disparaging opinion. If you prefer the Sub to the PO than you are not the intended audience. If you just have a Sub and have never had a PO, you are not the intended audience.

If you have a Sub and prefer it to a PO, great, post in an appropriate thread. There are about 1000 "Sub vs Planet Ocean" threads out there. But please take the two seconds to read the post title and act accordingly.

If you do in fact have a PO and prefer it to the Sub, or prefer aspects to the Sub, those are the people being asked to for their insight and opinion. Otherwise it really just comes off as arrogant and rude.


----------



## Makhdoom

My gut feeling confirmed by Roger Smith and Laurent Ferrier.

http://www.revolution.watch//budget-recommendations-from-watchmaking-grandmasters/#!prettyPhoto/0/

Two out of four recommend Rolex as best under $10,000 watch. What good statistics.


----------



## GrouchoM

Good luck to Mr. Ferrier in buying a ceramic bezeled Daytona for under $10k.


----------



## Super Fuzz

Makhdoom said:


> My gut feeling confirmed by Roger Smith and Laurent Ferrier.
> 
> http://www.revolution.watch//budget-recommendations-from-watchmaking-grandmasters/#!prettyPhoto/0/
> 
> Two out of four recommend Rolex as best under $10,000 watch. What good statistics.


Except that Ferrier is talking about finding a vintage piece at an auction. And the Daytona is not under 10K, is it?


----------



## Betterthere

Vindic8 said:


> I find it interesting/noteworthy that in a post where the OP asks the question *"Why do YOU prefer a PO over a Rolex Submariner?"* directed at PO owners who prefer their PO to a Sub, that you have people who are not the intended audience posting defensive or disparaging opinion. If you prefer the Sub to the PO than you are not the intended audience. If you just have a Sub and have never had a PO, you are not the intended audience.
> 
> If you have a Sub and prefer it to a PO, great, post in an appropriate thread. There are about 1000 "Sub vs Planet Ocean" threads out there. But please take the two seconds to read the post title and act accordingly.
> 
> If you do in fact have a PO and prefer it to the Sub, or prefer aspects to the Sub, those are the people being asked to for their insight and opinion. Otherwise it really just comes off as arrogant and rude.


Go back and read his 2nd post in thread (3rd overall). He said he was leaning towards a PO thus he was asking for reasons why one might prefer a PO rather than a sub. By posting that, he opened the door for advice. In my case I have owned both, thus I said I preferred the SubC.


----------



## Makhdoom

Super Fuzz said:


> Except that Ferrier is talking about finding a vintage piece at an auction. And the Daytona is not under 10K, is it?


Since he is not talking about new Rolexes it can be safely assumed that Omega is better than a Rolex, wrong, his reason for picking vintage Daytonas is that some can be had for less than $10,000. Check Chrono24 for validation.

So to reiterate, two watchmakers picked Rolex and none of them picked Omega.

My gut still wins, Rolex is king, thats why it has a crown on the dial.


----------



## Vindic8

Betterthere said:


> Go back and read his 2nd post in thread (3rd overall). He said he was leaning towards a PO thus he was asking for reasons why one might prefer a PO rather than a sub. By posting that, he opened the door for advice. In my case I have owned both, thus I said I preferred the SubC.


Yes please do read that. He states that he is leaning towards the PO and he then calls out a specific, objective aspect of the PO where it outperforms the Sub. It is appatant that he is looking for more traits the PO shines. I see nowhere where he asks for more information about the Sub. I also do not see where he deviates from his original question in any way. If you found the language "leaning toword" an open door to change the direction of the post I would says it's a stretch.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## SeanoftheDead516

The Sub is a great choice too. I prefer my PO. To each his own. OP try out both and see which one you end up with. I prefer my PO because I prefer it aesthetically and the Rolex name brand brings lots of attention regardless of where you are and in some cases unwanted attention. I don't like that for me. I prefer to be low key while still having those few on occasion recognize the PO and make a comment from time to time. I also don't like the cyclops. If I were to get a Rolex down the road it'd probably be a Deepsea.


----------



## ItnStln

Vindic8 said:


> You are absolutly right! I couldn't agree more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


Nice! Just out of curiosity is that stainless steel or titanium?


----------



## Super Fuzz

Makhdoom said:


> Since he is not talking about new Rolexes it can be safely assumed that Omega is better than a Rolex, wrong, his reason for picking vintage Daytonas is that some can be had for less than $10,000. Check Chrono24 for validation.
> 
> So to reiterate, two watchmakers picked Rolex and none of them picked Omega.
> 
> My gut still wins, Rolex is king, thats why it has a crown on the dial.


Ha. Whatever you say. If anyone's a fanboy here it's you: the guy who resurrected an old thread to refute his own comment. I should probably roll my eyes again, right? Crossing over from Rolex to Omega where to start - Page 6

I love Rolex. I just love Omega more AND I think Rolex prices are a joke. Omega's are too, but slightly used or grey and things start to make sense. It's the fanboys who insist on either or. As many astute and reasonable watch lovers here point out: both have much to be loved. Again, boils down to preference, not some objective superiority.


----------



## Vindic8

ItnStln said:


> Nice! Just out of curiosity is that stainless steel or titanium?


This is a stainless steel version.


----------



## asr53

You get more for your money with omega, for me Rolex are to small, if I'm paying over £5000 for a watch, i want it to have presence, Rolex are just to common and there are plenty of good homage subs like steinhart with ceramic bezels so no as much as Rolex are a good watch just for me overpriced.


----------



## ItnStln

Vindic8 said:


> This is a stainless steel version.


Thanks!


----------



## TSC

You just can't argue with pics, I wouldn't swap out either of these POs I own for a Sub.


----------



## Baz44

On pure looks alone the PO to me just seems sleeker than a Rolex Sub. I liked them so much I ended up with four!!

Cheers 










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Makhdoom

Super Fuzz said:


> Ha. Whatever you say. If anyone's a fanboy here it's you: the guy who resurrected an old thread to refute his own comment. I should probably roll my eyes again, right? Crossing over from Rolex to Omega where to start - Page 6
> 
> I love Rolex. I just love Omega more AND I think Rolex prices are a joke. Omega's are too, but slightly used or grey and things start to make sense. It's the fanboys who insist on either or. As many astute and reasonable watch lovers here point out: both have much to be loved. Again, boils down to preference, not some objective superiority.


When I gave my preference and the reasons for my preference I was told not to say things with my gut feeling and provide stats, so I mentioned the 904L steel, Rokex's metal foundry, etc. At that someone rolled their eyes and called it fanboy fantasies, so I mentioned an article where respectable watchmakers picked Rolex. Then the watchmakers were faulted for picking Daytona because its not for $10,000. When that was clarified ...... well here we are come back a complete circle.

It is very cool for Omega fanboys to give their preference and reasons for their preference, but god forbid if someone gives an opposing opinion, then they have to provide stats or eyes are rolled numerous times, watchmakers are faulted for picking Daytonas, damn the plain english the article was written in.

Did I say I dislike my Grand Seiko, IWC, Corum, Jaques Droz and older Omegas, no I did not. Infact I think Grand Seiko is much like Rolex. But the new ones like the planet ocean and aqua terra that I have spent money on are all marketing success and zero substance. Omega and Rolex were equal watch makers some decades ago. New Omegas are less than Rolexes wether old or new.

Insert rolling eyes here.


----------



## Super Fuzz

Makhdoom said:


> When I gave my preference and the reasons for my preference I was told not to say things with my gut feeling and provide stats, so I mentioned the 904L steel, Rokex's metal foundry, etc. At that someone rolled their eyes and called it fanboy fantasies, so I mentioned an article where respectable watchmakers picked Rolex. Then the watchmakers were faulted for picking Daytona because its not for $10,000. When that was clarified ...... well here we are come back a complete circle.
> 
> It is very cool for Omega fanboys to give their preference and reasons for their preference, but god forbid if someone gives an opposing opinion, then they have to provide stats or eyes are rolled numerous times, watchmakers are faulted for picking Daytonas, damn the plain english the article was written in.
> 
> Did I say I dislike my Grand Seiko, IWC, Corum, Jaques Droz and older Omegas, no I did not. Infact I think Grand Seiko is much like Rolex. But the new ones like the planet ocean and aqua terra that I have spent money on are all marketing success and zero substance. Omega and Rolex were equal watch makers some decades ago. New Omegas are less than Rolexes wether old or new.
> 
> Insert rolling eyes here.


Rolex's steel and the preference of two celebrity watch makers aren't "stats." Rolex's steel may be nicer, but it's hardly a major factor. It's not like Omega's cases are poorly made. Who cares if those guys mentioned Rolex? Do you really think that is a definitive point?

Again, i love Rolex! I'd buy more if I thought they were worth the money. You seem determined to "prove" Omega is decidedly inferior in quality. That is just not true, in my opinion.


----------



## Makhdoom

Super Fuzz said:


> Rolex's steel and the preference of two celebrity watch makers aren't "stats." Rolex's steel may be nicer, but it's hardly a major factor. It's not like Omega's cases are poorly made. Who cares if those guys mentioned Rolex? Do you really think that is a definitive point?
> 
> Again, i love Rolex! I'd buy more if I thought they were worth the money. You seem determined to "prove" Omega is decidedly inferior in quality. That is just not true, in my opinion.


Celebrity watchmakers are in a better pisition to have an opinion on watches than forum members. And the only reason they were brought into the conversation was because my opinion was useless and based on my gut feelings while everyone else's opinion was very valid because they observed how awesome their Omegas were, but my observations on Omega watches having misaligned bezels and jerky movements warranted stats and eye rolling.

Congrats on your choice of Omega watches hope you never switch to Rolex or call Rolex better than Omega.


----------



## munichblue

By the way, Rolex 904L steel has no significant advantage - other than marketing chatter - but has more nickel which is very bad for allergy sufferers.


----------



## VicLeChic

I find my PO2500 much more stylish overall than the six digits Sub: hands, case, lugs, almost everything looks nicer on the PO, except the HE valve.. A fresher and more modern take on what a diver should look like. Rolex have caught up with the latest Sea Dweller 50 Anniversary IMHO. I much prefer it to the 8900 PO. Let's see what the next Sub will be like, possibly at BW2018.


----------



## Seaswirl

I love them both. Haven't taken off the PO all week. It's not as comfortable as the SubC, but it's fun to wear and a bit more showy (which isn't a bad thing). The PO dial is very nice, and I have to admit that the AR is a nice change of pace from the Sub (until I manage to get a smudge). Feels like I can poke the dial with my finger. At half the price of a SubC Date, the PO 8500 seems like a pretty good buy.


----------



## bassplayrr

Frankly, I do not. Both are equally great and unique. There's no reason to pit them against each other. I enjoy them both and would have a hard time flipping either.


----------



## Betterthere

Vindic8 said:


> Yes please do read that. He states that he is leaning towards the PO and he then calls out a specific, objective aspect of the PO where it outperforms the Sub. It is appatant that he is looking for more traits the PO shines. I see nowhere where he asks for more information about the Sub. I also do not see where he deviates from his original question in any way. If you found the language "leaning toword" an open door to change the direction of the post I would says it's a stretch.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


yeah and he bought a SMPc 300 so go figure.


----------



## DrDavid90

Baz44 said:


> On pure looks alone the PO to me just seems sleeker than a Rolex Sub. I liked them so much I ended up with four!!
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Wow..
I recognize the two on the left.. but the two on the right seem identical besides the color of the second needle tip and "Seamaster" wording? 2500s too?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The watch enthusiast who secretly hopes the GMT Master will come in a 44mm diameter someday.


----------



## Southtown57

DrDavid90 said:


> Wow..
> I recognize the two on the left.. but the two on the right seem identical besides the color of the second needle tip and "Seamaster" wording? 2500s too?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> The watch enthusiast who secretly hopes the GMT Master will come in a 44mm diameter someday.


The top right seems to be an 8500 while the bottom right seems to be the new 8900.


----------



## RTK27

Southtown57 said:


> The top right seems to be an 8500 while the bottom right seems to be the new 8900.


Bottom right is the PO 2500 Liquid Metal LE only 1948 pieces made


----------



## Funtree

I don't!


----------



## Southtown57

RTK27 said:


> Bottom right is the PO 2500 Liquid Metal LE *only 1948 pieces* made


Must be why I didn't recognize it.


----------



## Leandrobgoulart

Amazing pics, thanks for sharing



Vindic8 said:


> You are absolutly right! I couldn't agree more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## WIS_Chronomaster

Thats a very nice watch!


----------



## Makhdoom

Super Fuzz said:


> Rolex's steel and the preference of two celebrity watch makers aren't "stats." Rolex's steel may be nicer, but it's hardly a major factor. It's not like Omega's cases are poorly made. Who cares if those guys mentioned Rolex? Do you really think that is a definitive point?
> 
> Again, i love Rolex! I'd buy more if I thought they were worth the money. You seem determined to "prove" Omega is decidedly inferior in quality. That is just not true, in my opinion.


I was not trying to prove anything but then Nomega boys went and called out my guts and lack of supporting arguments. And that is why I supported my arguments with "celebrity watchmakers," but to no avail, the celebrity watchmakers (who are actually independent watchmakers) were attacked because forum members have a more intricate knowledge of watch making and watchmakers do not.

So to recap, new Omega Planet Ocean, the ones that came after the 2500 movement, suck. They also weigh a lot, if I wanted to wear a truck I would wear a truck on my wrist and have mechanics fix all the jerky alignment issues. Why because mechanics know more about trucks than forum members.


----------



## Makhdoom

bassplayrr said:


> Frankly, I do not. Both are equally great and unique. There's no reason to pit them against each other. I enjoy them both and would have a hard time flipping either.


Your Omega is great and so is your Rolex that is why you are not flipping them. Now if you had the new PO with jerky movements and misaligned bezels . . .


----------



## Valle de Joux

I have owned numerous Omega dive watches and numerous Rolex Submariners. The Subs, after a year out of the box still kept great time while my 'new' Omegas always were out of COSC specs.... Just my personal experience...


----------



## blundell

i love and miss my Seamaster bracelet closure. i think its a tad better than the Sub.


----------



## VicLeChic

My posh Sub (Yacht-Master 116622) is incredibly accurate (0.5 s/d on average) after 2 1/2 years. My 2005 Omega PO 2500C started to lose 3 s/d after 11 yrs without servicing. Now the PO is better than it was in its glorious days, now losing 2 s in 11 days, or - 0.1 s/d... Both movements are just amazing.


----------



## LACPA

I've never owned either, but just on looks I'd have to say it's really really hard to beat a Sub just due to the classic nature of the design.


----------



## Suijin

I think the wrong question was initially asked. It's not _why_ you prefer the PO over the Sub, it's _when_. I have the 2900.50 (42mm 2500 on rubber), the lightest and most compact of the PO's (until they released the 39mm, which I bet is still thicker) and it's still a beast compared to the Sub. The Sub is just a much more wearable watch...more comfortable, more subtle...more flexible and adaptable. It's a total classic, with the design dating back more than half a century, basically unchanged. The PO is more aggressive, more modern, more sporty. While it pull elements from the Seamaster line going back just as far, it's an evolution of the line, not the definition of it.

Don't get me wrong, I love my PO and won't ever part with it, but it's just a very different watch than the Sub, despite them both being divers.


----------



## Betterthere

Reminder : OP bought a smpc 300


----------



## Suijin

Betterthere said:


> Reminder : OP bought a smpc 300


How is that relevant such that we need to be reminded of it?


----------



## VicLeChic

Here's why:


----------



## Vlciudoli

No Sub ever wanted to grow up to be a PO.....


----------



## Betterthere

Suijin said:


> How is that relevant such that we need to be reminded of it?


Well then I assume you must know. It's revelant in that the original question posted by the OP is no longer revelant to assisting him.

Continue to fight the fight but for late comers to the thread the question has been resolved and it's neither.


----------



## spartan6

They are both unique and Great watches in there own categories.

I own and wear the PO 2500 on a OEM NATO as a daily wear sport watch. It also has its own unique lineage.

i have a sub and GMT II that I wear as more of a dress type watch. I do use the GMT when traveling to track time zones. Imagine that using as designed!

here is the rub, lately I have been wearing a Tudor black bay black bezel red triangle that seems to fit all occasions.


----------



## Suijin

Betterthere said:


> Well then I assume you must know. It's revelant in that the original question posted by the OP is no longer revelant to assisting him.
> 
> Continue to fight the fight but for late comers to the thread the question has been resolved and it's neither.


** Looks at the original post and scratches his head **

He asked simply whether why anyone preferred a Planet Ocean over a Submariner, which is an interesting question in it's own right. What he ultimately purchased is sort of beside the point, as 17 pages of responses to the original question show.


----------



## mangjoe

Betterthere said:


> Reminder : OP bought a smpc 300


OP, care to elaborate why you chose the SMPC over the PO and Sub?


----------



## 007_Omega

I wonder how many people would still have gone with the PO, if the Sub was priced the same as the PO? 

I'm a big fan of the 2500 and the Sub (No-Date). I'd take the Sub over the PO but obviously there is a huge price gap. The big issue with the Sub is the attention it attracts. Some people buy it just for that reason but myself and others see that as a negative factor. 

The 8500/8900 are products of its times and I seriously doubt they will be classics or timeless. They are just too polarizing because of the size. I've tried those watches on and can't imagine how anyone with a small wrist (I'm 6.5) could ever think it looks good but I've seen the watch on someone with huge wrists/hands and it felt right at home. The 2500, while still bigger than the Sub and lacking the in-house movement of the new models, could end up a classic. It's a watch I was seriously considering and one I still may pick up in the future. 

I think a good argument would be for the SMP Master Co-Axial. I know a lot of people who love that watch, even Rolex fans. Obviously, even that watch will have its critics because some people can't stand the "fake vintage" look.


----------



## TSC

007_Omega said:


> I wonder how many people would still have gone with the PO, if the Sub was priced the same as the PO?


The correct line here would have been _I wonder how many people would still have gone with the PO, if James Bond has still worn the Sub?
_To underestimate the pull of that watch because of the Bond connection would be foolish. I think that's more to do with it than the price. Omega owe Bond a hell of a lot. But on a side note, my PO is far more accurate than 3 of my friend's Rolex. Not wildly, but enough for me to think that the Omega movements may edge it on some of the models.


----------



## ItnStln

TSC said:


> The correct line here would have been _I wonder how many people would still have gone with the PO, if James Bond has still worn the Sub?
> _To underestimate the pull of that watch because of the Bond connection would be foolish. I think that's more to do with it than the price. Omega owe Bond a hell of a lot. But on a side note, my PO is far more accurate than 3 of my friend's Rolex. Not wildly, but enough for me to think that the Omega movements may edge it on some of the models.


I'm not going to lie, seeing the Omega Seamaster that Pierce Brosnan wore in GoldenEye is what got me interested in Omega. When I got my Seamaster 2220.80, it wasn't because it was a Bond watch, it was because I liked the watch.


----------



## 007_Omega

TSC said:


> The correct line here would have been _I wonder how many people would still have gone with the PO, if James Bond has still worn the Sub?
> _To underestimate the pull of that watch because of the Bond connection would be foolish. I think that's more to do with it than the price. Omega owe Bond a hell of a lot. But on a side note, my PO is far more accurate than 3 of my friend's Rolex. Not wildly, but enough for me to think that the Omega movements may edge it on some of the models.


Well, Bond never wore the 8900 but I see your point. Hell, Bond drew me to Omega from a young age as the modern Bonds have all worn it (well, my parents/grandparents both wore/wear Omegas as well).

This may be controversial but would a 2017 James Bond wear a Sub? The Sub of the 60s and the image it brought with it is not the same one it carries today. Back then, it was considered a big watch and it was breaking the mold of the traditional dress watch. It was a classy diver and a maverick. It's something I'd imagine James Bond of the 60s wearing and obviously he wore. Who knows?


----------



## TSC

Fair points gents, but many would not have been made aware of the PO had it not been for Bond, that's more what I meant. Probably didn't word it as well as I could have... but I'm not saying people buy it JUST because Bond wore it, Of course, you have to like it too. That's a given.


----------



## Suijin

007_Omega said:


> The 8500/8900 are products of its times and I seriously doubt they will be classics or timeless. They are just too polarizing because of the size. I've tried those watches on and can't imagine how anyone with a small wrist (I'm 6.5) could ever think it looks good but I've seen the watch on someone with huge wrists/hands and it felt right at home. The 2500, while still bigger than the Sub and lacking the in-house movement of the new models, could end up a classic. It's a watch I was seriously considering and one I still may pick up in the future.
> 
> I think a good argument would be for the SMP Master Co-Axial. I know a lot of people who love that watch, even Rolex fans. Obviously, even that watch will have its critics because some people can't stand the "fake vintage" look.


The watches in a line that become classics are usually the ones that represent the essence of the watch, and I believe in the case of the PO that will always be the 42mm 2500. Omega has in subsequent models "blinged" out the watch to a startling extent; applied 12/6/9, glossy dial, colored text, and that's not to mention all the variations which generally even blingier. Will the original PO become a classic? It's already a modern classic by reputation, and the 2201.50/2900.50 are already starting to climb back up in price.

That's what happened with the SMP300...the Peter Blake, which is probably the "purest" of the line, has become a classic. I'm betting some of the more distilled Bond variants will as well over time.

I personally don't think the SMP300M will ever reach that threshold, but who knows. It's a gorgeous watch, but it's a dress watch, not a tool watch. It's also essentially an homage watch, not an evolution of a lineage or a new form. But who knows, it might end up being the classic to end all classics...


----------



## Zavato

I owned a PO, now have a Sub C. I find the Sub C more comfortable to wear. The PO felt top heavy. My Sub C runs +2 sec/day. The PO was not better. Both are great and it's a matter of preference.


----------



## Super Fuzz

Suijin said:


> The watches in a line that become classics are usually the ones that represent the essence of the watch, and I believe in the case of the PO that will always be the 42mm 2500. Omega has in subsequent models "blinged" out the watch to a startling extent; applied 12/6/9, glossy dial, colored text, and that's not to mention all the variations which generally even blingier. Will the original PO become a classic? It's already a modern classic by reputation, and the 2201.50/2900.50 are already starting to climb back up in price.
> 
> That's what happened with the SMP300...the Peter Blake, which is probably the "purest" of the line, has become a classic. I'm betting some of the more distilled Bond variants will as well over time.
> 
> I personally don't think the SMP300M will ever reach that threshold, but who knows. It's a gorgeous watch, but it's a dress watch, not a tool watch. It's also essentially an homage watch, not an evolution of a lineage or a new form. But who knows, it might end up being the classic to end all classics...


Nonsense. The 300 Master Co ax is hardly a dress watch. Compared to a super modern look such as the newer POs sure, it's more refined, but it's no dress watch. Just like the Sub that Connery wore wasn't a dress watch. Let's keep things in perspective here.

The new 300 MC is already a classic given its heritage. Arguments about lume notwithstanding, it's a classic looking, 50/early 60s looking watch, even if it sits a bit tall (ok by me given the accuracy and anti-mag properties). Had Omega made that watch continuously like Rolex made the Sub for more than half a century they'd be right up there with Rolex, in my mind. They've finally got some sense in what they're doing.


----------



## Vindic8

007_Omega said:


> Well, Bond never wore the 8900 but I see your point. Hell, Bond drew me to Omega from a young age as the modern Bonds have all worn it (well, my parents/grandparents both wore/wear Omegas as well).
> 
> This may be controversial but would a 2017 James Bond wear a Sub? The Sub of the 60s and the image it brought with it is not the same one it carries today. Back then, it was considered a big watch and it was breaking the mold of the traditional dress watch. It was a classy diver and a maverick. It's something I'd imagine James Bond of the 60s wearing and obviously he wore. Who knows?


If Ian Fleming was writing his books today he would more likely wear a Pelagos ........ or a GShock.


----------



## ItnStln

Vindic8 said:


> If Ian Fleming was writing his books today he would more likely wear a Pelagos ........ or a GShock.


Has anyone here read the post-Fleming Bond books to see what watch Bond wore?


----------



## Theognosis

007_Omega said:


> The 8500/8900 are products of its times and I seriously doubt they will be classics or timeless. They are just too polarizing because of the size.


The maxicase is a product of its time as well. I predict that those large and ugly lugs will be regarded as abominations in the evolution of the Submariner, GMT and DateJust models in 30 years.


----------



## Galaga

Suijin said:


> The watches in a line that become classics are usually the ones that represent the essence of the watch, and I believe in the case of the PO that will always be the 42mm 2500. Omega has in subsequent models "blinged" out the watch to a startling extent; applied 12/6/9, glossy dial, colored text, and that's not to mention all the variations which generally even blingier. Will the original PO become a classic? It's already a modern classic by reputation, and the 2201.50/2900.50 are already starting to climb back up in price.
> 
> That's what happened with the SMP300...the Peter Blake, which is probably the "purest" of the line, has become a classic. I'm betting some of the more distilled Bond variants will as well over time.
> 
> I personally don't think the SMP300M will ever reach that threshold, but who knows. It's a gorgeous watch, but it's a dress watch, not a tool watch. It's also essentially an homage watch, not an evolution of a lineage or a new form. But who knows, it might end up being the classic to end all classics...


Nice summary.


----------



## topher

It's surprising to see the SubC being favored by many in an Omega forum. I've never owned either but models that are similar enough (Seamaster and GMT), and I have to give the nod to Rolex. I prefer the ceramic Seamaster to the PO but that's just me.


----------



## asr53

Rolex are good watches, but a lot of folk i guess buy for the snob factor, like look at my lovely Rolex i have on my wrist ect. The Omegas are better in terms for size and and now with the METAS Certification is one up on Rolex. I actually much prefer a Grand seiko spring drive diver with its 72HR power reserve and +1 sec a day accuracy, but thats me I'm not a watch snob, i would have no problems shelling out over £5000 for a Grand seiko rather than a Rolex any day.


----------



## imranbecks

The Submariner ceramic or not is just so iconic. The PO especially the current one is just too thick. If I want to compare or choose one over another, it would've to be the SMPc vs the SubC. Both are pretty much equivalent and just as iconic.

Photo from fellow member darby11


----------



## Bender.Folder

I flipped alot, had among the most popular divers in the watch community (shogun MM300, Tudor BB, Pelagos, SMP, SMP Peter blake, PO2500 and 8500) and still I feel like needing a PO in my box. I often hate its weight and thickness so strap something else for months but always come back with joy to my PO....

Except the titan model, the 8900 series dont get much love from me; I liked the matte ceramic more and expected an orange ceramic bezel.

Rolex sub is a top notch watch but I'm much more fond of z blue milgauss or blue datejusts from this brand than the sub'.
I


----------



## munichblue

imranbecks said:


> The Submariner ceramic or not is just so iconic. The PO especially the current one is just too thick. If I want to compare or choose one over another, it would've to be the SMPc vs the SubC. Both are pretty much equivalent and just as iconic.
> 
> Photo from fellow member darby11


Thanks for posting this comparison. The new 6-digits Rolex' with their disproportionate small bracelets are like the torso of a bodybuilder put on the legs of a fashion model.

It's obviously bad English, but you know what I mean. ;-)


----------



## Suijin

Super Fuzz said:


> Nonsense. The 300 Master Co ax is hardly a dress watch. Compared to a super modern look such as the newer POs sure, it's more refined, but it's no dress watch. Just like the Sub that Connery wore wasn't a dress watch. Let's keep things in perspective here.
> 
> The new 300 MC is already a classic given its heritage. Arguments about lume notwithstanding, it's a classic looking, 50/early 60s looking watch, even if it sits a bit tall (ok by me given the accuracy and anti-mag properties). Had Omega made that watch continuously like Rolex made the Sub for more than half a century they'd be right up there with Rolex, in my mind. They've finally got some sense in what they're doing.


I don't think you can fairly call my opinion "nonsense" when it widely held opinion by quite a lot of people, with virtually every review of the watch also mentioning that it teeters on the edge of being a dress watch. That does not mean it's not technically capable; it's clearly got those chops.

And to say it's already a classic..well, that _is_ nonsense. It's only been out for a few years and it's not exactly a wildly popular watch (yet). Does it have a _classic look_? Of course. It's gorgeous, like I said before. It's one of the most beautiful watches in Omega's lineup and it integrates and extends themes from the line in a wonderfully realized way. But It has quite a long way to go before you can call it _A_ classic.

I do think it's "homaginess" may get in the way of developing into a classic. The vintage lume is going to haunt it in that respect. I would not be surprised if Omega evolves it away from that, modernizing just enough of the elements to make it...well...fully modern.


----------



## gatorguy959

I prefer smaller sized, so Rolex. I like the look of the new PO better though, more modern.


----------



## speedmaster.

Apart from aesthetics reasons (which may be deniable), there are facts:
PO is more 'Unique' and more 'technically advanced' than SUB.


----------



## Galaga

speedmaster. said:


> Apart from aesthetics reasons (which may be deniable), there are facts:
> PO is more 'Unique' and more 'technically advanced' than SUB.


Absolutely. Take the Rolex name away and think objectively, there is no way it looks better than this:










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## speedmaster.

Yes, I couldn't agree more!!!



Galaga said:


> Absolutely. Take the Rolex name away and think objectively, there is no way it looks better than this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Deep Black

Agree with these last couple of posts and they are the reasons I chose my PO Deep Black over a Sub. Aesthetics, cutting edge tech, power reserve, shock resistance, anti-magnetism were all factors in me choosing an Omega diver over Rolex. As a separate point, I actually use mine diving and would never dive with a metallic watch - too shiny = barracudas.


Here is my Deep Black -












No, it might not have the pedigree and classic looks of the Sub, but I don't care. It's a modern beauty.

Mike


----------



## douglasf13

Suijin said:


> I don't think you can fairly call my opinion "nonsense" when it widely held opinion by quite a lot of people, with virtually every review of the watch also mentioning that it teeters on the edge of being a dress watch. That does not mean it's not technically capable; it's clearly got those chops.
> 
> And to say it's already a classic..well, that _is_ nonsense. It's only been out for a few years and it's not exactly a wildly popular watch (yet). Does it have a _classic look_? Of course. It's gorgeous, like I said before. It's one of the most beautiful watches in Omega's lineup and it integrates and extends themes from the line in a wonderfully realized way. But It has quite a long way to go before you can call it _A_ classic.
> 
> I do think it's "homaginess" may get in the way of developing into a classic. The vintage lume is going to haunt it in that respect. I would not be surprised if Omega evolves it away from that, modernizing just enough of the elements to make it...well...fully modern.


I'm sorry, but, while I agreed with nearly everything you said in your prior post, I would also say it's nonsense to call the Seamaster 300M a dress watch. It isn't even close. I agree about the vintage lume.

To be honest, I'm not sure I'd call any diver in the Omega catalogue a "classic," but they're very capable and well made. I think the PO 2500 is the best looking Omega diver from the last few decades.


----------



## speedmaster.

On thing mate: this simply is best PO collection I have ever seen in my entire life.



Baz44 said:


> On pure looks alone the PO to me just seems sleeker than a Rolex Sub. I liked them so much I ended up with four!!
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## drunken monkey

Galaga said:


> think objectively, there is no way it looks better than this


Think objectively about a subjective issue?


----------



## speedmaster.

now you just have to add the orange bezel PO!!



speedmaster. said:


> On thing mate: this simply is best PO collection I have ever seen in my entire life.


----------



## ItnStln

speedmaster. said:


> Apart from aesthetics reasons (which may be deniable), there are facts:
> PO is more 'Unique' and more 'technically advanced' than SUB.





Galaga said:


> Absolutely. Take the Rolex name away and think objectively, there is no way it looks better than this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Agreed!


----------



## DocJekl

speedmaster. said:


> On thing mate: this simply is best PO collection I have ever seen in my entire life.


How about my Planet Ocean Collection (among others)? I added another POLMLE to this after the photo was taken last year...


----------



## speedmaster.

You are one of the best watch collector in the world.

It is a honour having meet you



DocJekl said:


> How about my Planet Ocean Collection (among others)? I added another POLMLE to this after the photo was taken last year...
> 
> View attachment 12492265
> 
> 
> View attachment 12492267


----------



## speedmaster.

I really think this can be the best omega collection on WuS 
It would be awesome seeing a picture grouping only the omegas on the 'multi-Omega owners' thread! https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/how-many-multi-omega-owners-do-we-have-2253209.html



DocJekl said:


> How about my Planet Ocean Collection (among others)? I added another POLMLE to this after the photo was taken last year...
> 
> View attachment 12492265
> 
> 
> View attachment 12492267


----------



## speedmaster.

Couldn't agree more!!!



dj00tiek said:


> I prefer the PO because (had the 8500 PO 42mm and the Submariner and the Seadweller 4000):
> 
> + Omega:
> - I don't like reflection of the Sub, and I love the anti reflective coating of the PO
> - Don't like the cyclops of the Sub, to much of a distraction and nothing added because I can read dates fine without a cyclops
> - I Like the back of the PO better and the finish of the movement
> - Don't like the 'screamyness' of the brand Rolex, because it's known all over the world and also strange people who don't give a fudge about watches still want to buy a Rolex just because of the name. If someone goes for an Omega it's more likely that person knows more about watches and likes watches overal better (and movements). Not that Rolex itself is any part of this, they can't help it, I Know.
> - I love the fact that Omega cares about the planet and puts resources into this (for example this Omega sponsored docu about the ocean), so you as a buyer of an Omega are actually also helping the world, even if it's a tiny bit.
> - I love the hands on the PO, and I really don't like the mercedes hands on Rolex.
> 
> + Rolex:
> - I like the microadjust on a Sub/Dweller better.
> - Better wearable if you like lightweight watches (and under a suit)
> - Better investment for sure compared to Omega
> 
> So yeah.. overall I like the PO I guess better. But I am also not so much a suit guy. So for me I could wear a PO everyday.
> 
> This doesn't mean I would say to everyone they need to buy a PO instead of a Sub. It depends on the person who is gonna wear it.


----------



## Galaga

The PO is a modern day masterpiece. Especially my 2500. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WIS_Chronomaster

Just to add a little extra , i prefer Omega, but Rolex is very close (for this comparison)


----------



## Baz44

When I bought my first PO I tried the Rolex Sub. For some reason the Sub looked much more boxier vs the PO. The PO seems to have sleeker lines to me and that's what I prefer. Now owning 4 a combo of 2500's and 8500's so I guess I am hooked in one camp.

Cheers 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## WIS_Chronomaster

Very fine watches,



Baz44 said:


> When I bought my first PO I tried the Rolex Sub. For some reason the Sub looked much more boxier vs the PO. The PO seems to have sleeker lines to me and that's what I prefer. Now owning 4 a combo of 2500's and 8500's so I guess I am hooked in one camp.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Baz44

Well how could you not love this?

Cheers 










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Zanotti

munichblue said:


> Thanks for posting this comparison. The new 6-digits Rolex' with their disproportionate small bracelets are like the torso of a bodybuilder put on the legs of a fashion model.
> 
> It's obviously bad English, but you know what I mean. ;-)


I totally agree with this. I thought I was the only one to notice.


----------



## douglasf13

Zanotti said:


> I totally agree with this. I thought I was the only one to notice.


Oh, you're not the only one. This is a very common theme on the Rolex forums.


----------



## Hands90

I feel they are too different.


----------



## armybuck041

After going back and forth, I've settled on both (technically not a Sub):



















They both have their pluses and minuses.


----------



## douglasf13

armybuck041 said:


> After going back and forth, I've settled on both (technically not a Sub):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They both have their pluses and minuses.


Nice. The proportions of the new Sea Dweller are a big step in the right direction, after the other recent Rolex diver designs. Rolex should simply shrink it down to 40mm for the next Submariner iteration.


----------



## Galaga

Baz44 said:


> Well how could you not love this?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The above looks better than any Rolex diver. It's a work of art and yes I own one too.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## speedmaster.

Omega looks nicer



douglasf13 said:


> Nice. The proportions of the new Sea Dweller are a big step in the right direction, after the other recent Rolex diver designs. Rolex should simply shrink it down to 40mm for the next Submariner iteration.


----------



## speedmaster.

The Omega looks nicer!!



armybuck041 said:


> After going back and forth, I've settled on both (technically not a Sub):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They both have their pluses and minuses.


----------



## armybuck041

speedmaster. said:


> The Omega looks nicer!!


I agree that the Omega definitely looks nicer, but as soon as you grab and turn the bezels on both, the Rolex suddenly makes up for its conservative looks.

Add to it that I had to hunt around and then pay a few hundred more to get the same adjustable functionality from the Omega bracelet clasp, and the Rolex starts make a lot of sense.

Certainly lots of love for the PO, but it definitely isn't a slam dunk.


----------



## Spoon1

I don't 😎...cannot choose.









Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G920F met Tapatalk


----------



## speedmaster.

yes, a work of art!



Galaga said:


> The above looks better than any Rolex diver. It's a work of art and yes I own one too.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TudorKnight

They are both beautiful watches. I think they are a little different too. Hard to pick just one.


----------



## DocJekl

armybuck041 said:


> After going back and forth, I've settled on both (technically not a Sub):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They both have their pluses and minuses.


With a Ti Planet Ocean 8500 the SD seems a little redundant to me, especially after I added an adjustable clasp to mine. I sold off all my Submariners, and put my Rolex money on a few of their different GMT models (GMT Coke, BLNR, Polar Exp II). And in the chronograph arena, I don't even think I'd wear a Daytona more than my Omega Grey Side of the Moon, so I haven't made the leap.


----------



## cwehr1

I agree with everyone on they are both amazing watches. I personally would go with the PO because I like a how the PO is 42 or 45.5 mm.


----------



## liewb

Spoon1 said:


> I don't ...cannot choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G920F met Tapatalk


Great combo with the LV!! Perfect balance between an all business (PO) and a splash of color


----------



## 007_Omega

I have the 2500 PO and I vote for the Sub. They are two very different watches and I can easily see someone owning both without getting any sort of feeling of repetition. I'm saving up for the No-Date Ceramic Sub which is my ultimate grail. 

The Sub is the quintessential divers watch and any sort of boringness about it is the fact that it has been copied endlessly by others. As someone else pointed out, the Seamaster Professional vs. The Sub is a better comparison. Those two watches are clearly in the same category and the Sub wins without a doubt. 

That being said, I'd rather have my PO for casual wear and the Sub for more formal occasions. The PO definitely gives off more of a tool watch vibe.


----------



## TSC

007_Omega said:


> I have the 2500 PO and I vote for the Sub. They are two very different watches and I can easily see someone owning both without getting any sort of feeling of repetition. I'm saving up for the No-Date Ceramic Sub which is my ultimate grail.
> 
> The Sub is the quintessential divers watch and any sort of boringness about it is the fact that it has been copied endlessly by others. As someone else pointed out, the Seamaster Professional vs. The Sub is a better comparison. Those two watches are clearly in the same category and the Sub wins without a doubt.
> 
> That being said, I'd rather have my PO for casual wear and the Sub for more formal occasions. The PO definitely gives off more of a tool watch vibe.


Have you received your PO 2500 now, I know a week ago you said you were waiting on one?


----------



## Galaga

007_Omega said:


> That being said, I'd rather have my PO for casual wear and the Sub for more formal occasions. The PO definitely gives off more of a tool watch vibe.


I actually think the complete opposite. The Sub looks more like a tool watch. The PO is aesthetically more beautiful and less tooly.


----------



## speedmaster.

couldn't agree more!!



cwehr1 said:


> I agree with everyone on they are both amazing watches. I personally would go with the PO because I like a how the PO is 42 or 45.5 mm.


----------



## Pharm_D

I've owned and currently own a few rolexes. In the past I've owned the 2531 and the 2254 sea masters. I thought they were really really beautiful watches. I wish omega never did away with the wave dial. 

After reading through this thread and seeing some pictures I really need to get my hands on a titanium PO. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mt_hangglider

I have both the ceramic sub date and 8800 (39.5mm) PO. Just got the PO not too long ago after not having owned one since the days of the first gen 2500 cal. PO. Both great watches and have their own unique merits. Not sure I prefer the PO over the Sub per se. I can definitely tell you the comfort of the Sub on bracelet vs. the PO on bracelet is absolutely no contest. The Sub's bracelet wins every day of the week and twice on Sunday by a large margin... and Omega takes the cake all day long for innovation and technology. I'm not sure if I'd really say one is better or preferred over the other as they're definitely both great watches and both bring me a lot of joy to wear. If I had to choose one, I'd almost have to go with the sub but not by much. Gratuitous photos...


----------



## mharris660

I've owned 3 Rolex and all kept pretty lousy time. I still have one but my dive watch is now a Planet Ocean


----------



## NYCJW

I started purchasing based on impulse. The planet ocean piqued my interest and the Rolex did nothing for me. Also a lot of co workers and some of my bosses have Rolex's and for them it is sort of a status symbol which makes me lean towards the PO more.


----------



## Galaga

mharris660 said:


> I've owned 3 Rolex and all kept pretty lousy time. I still have one but my dive watch is now a Planet Ocean
> 
> View attachment 12503857


What accuracy did you get from them?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mharris660

I don't really check it often but when I wear it I never have to reset it. I've had it on my timegrapher once and If I remember correctly it was maybe 3 to 6 seconds a day.


----------



## cwehr1

I also enjoy the hands more on my 8500 PO.


----------



## speedmaster.

The 8500 PO's hands are the best ones I have ever seen on a diver!



cwehr1 said:


> I also enjoy the hands more on my 8500 PO.


----------



## Colin G

imranbecks said:


> The Submariner ceramic or not is just so iconic. The PO especially the current one is just too thick. If I want to compare or choose one over another, it would've to be the SMPc vs the SubC. Both are pretty much equivalent and just as iconic.
> 
> Photo from fellow member darby11


Nice pair. Is the Seamaster a 41mm and the Rolex a 40mm?

The Rolex Submariner looks smaller to me.


----------



## Poydras12

I have and wear a Submariner and a Planet Ocean. Lately I have been wearing the Planet Ocean a lot more than the submariner, because the Planet Ocean is new, (new toy syndrome). I like them both though. I do think the Planet Ocean is more unique. Several of my friends/colleagues wear a submariner or similar Rolex, so wearing the Planet Ocean feels a little unique, at least to me. (I do not think many people actually notice, but I like that the Planet Ocean has a distinctive look).


----------



## Baz44

Like I say how can you not love this?

Cheers 










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## speedmaster.

couldn't agree more!



Poydras12 said:


> I have and wear a Submariner and a Planet Ocean. Lately I have been wearing the Planet Ocean a lot more than the submariner, because the Planet Ocean is new, (new toy syndrome). I like them both though. I do think the Planet Ocean is more unique. Several of my friends/colleagues wear a submariner or similar Rolex, so wearing the Planet Ocean feels a little unique, at least to me. (I do not think many people actually notice, but I like that the Planet Ocean has a distinctive look).


----------



## Colin G

I was ready to get a Submariner 116610 next year but now, after reading though this thread I am considering another Seamaster.

I am now lusting after one of the 41mm retro styled 233.30.41.21.01.001 or a 39mm Planet Ocean 600 215.30.40.20.01.001 but I am not into the small amount of orange script but it is still nice.

I already have 2 Omega Seamasters which is why I wanted a Submariner but the more I look a the 2 Seamasters I am considering, the more I want one of them. Only thing I dislike about the vintage style is the polished centre bands on the bracelet so just one negative for me on each watch.


----------



## sager

Love them both. There should also be one of each in every collection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## speedmaster.

why do you not consider an Aqua Terra?



Colin G said:


> I was ready to get a Submariner 116610 next year but now, after reading though this thread I am considering another Seamaster.
> 
> I am now lusting after one of the 41mm retro styled 233.30.41.21.01.001 or a 39mm Planet Ocean 600 215.30.40.20.01.001 but I am not into the small amount of orange script but it is still nice.
> 
> I already have 2 Omega Seamasters which is why I wanted a Submariner but the more I look a the 2 Seamasters I am considering, the more I want one of them. Only thing I dislike about the vintage style is the polished centre bands on the bracelet so just one negative for me on each watch.


----------



## Deep Black

Nid said:


> Me? PO. Simply because even with 39.5 is almost toooooo big for my tiny 6" wrist.


THIS is a gorgeous watch!


----------



## 5959HH

The screw-in helium escape crown on the PO IMO ruins what would otherwise be a clean look, and that alone is a deal breaker for me. To me the nicest Submariner is the SubC without date that has an exceptionally clean look and is an iconic watch. That said, I sold my SubC in favor of keeping my 116600 SD4K.


----------



## speedmaster.

Disagree 
Helium-escape crown is an inconic distinguishing feature of the PO!!



jrfancher said:


> The screw-in helium escape crown on the PO IMO ruins what would otherwise be a clean look, and that alone is a deal breaker for me. To me the nicest Submariner is the SubC without date that has an exceptionally clean look and is an iconic watch. That said, I sold my SubC in favor of keeping my 116600 SD4K.


----------



## willydribble

love my p.o great watch to me it walks all over the submariner compare it to the new sea dweller and it gets a bit tougher!


----------



## speedmaster.

wow



willydribble said:


> View attachment 12513329
> love my p.o great watch to me it walks all over the submariner compare it to the new sea dweller and it gets a bit tougher!


----------



## Colin G

speedmaster. said:


> why do you not consider an Aqua Terra?


I have an 39mm 8500 Aqua Terra already.


----------



## Deep Black

willydribble said:


> View attachment 12513329
> love my p.o great watch to me it walks all over the submariner compare it to the new sea dweller and it gets a bit tougher!


Absolutely stunning watch!!!


----------



## speedmaster.

awesome 



Colin G said:


> I have an 39mm 8500 Aqua Terra already.


----------



## soaking.fused

I don't. Never have.

But I love them both and have owned multiple versions of each.

FWIW, my favorite PO is still my favorite all these years later. 2201.50. Owned it three times already (twice new, all models 2500D) and could see a fourth in the watch box in the future, too.


----------



## IamKen

willydribble said:


> View attachment 12513329
> love my p.o great watch to me it walks all over the submariner compare it to the new sea dweller and it gets a bit tougher!


Wow, this is an awesome shot


----------



## Unce_Turbo_997

Agree. I don't prefer the PO either. I liked the 2201.50 a lot and there's a strong likelihood I would still own it had I never tried on my SubC no date, but the Rolex wins for me.



soaking.fused said:


> I don't. Never have.
> 
> But I love them both and have owned multiple versions of each.
> 
> FWIW, my favorite PO is still my favorite all these years later. 2201.50. Owned it three times already (twice new, all models 2500D) and could see a fourth in the watch box in the future, too.


----------



## speedmaster.

wow, what a picture!!



Deep Black said:


> Absolutely stunning watch!!!


----------



## wilfreb

While I do not prefer a PO over a Submariner, the things I like more about the PO are the transparent case back, the Lume and the AR coating 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## hidden by leaves

speedmaster. said:


> Disagree
> Helium-escape crown is an inconic distinguishing feature of the PO!!


That does not make it aesthetically attractive. Because it just isn't. I'd love to be able to get rid of mine (past and present).

As for being "iconic" - one thing I've learned in obswerving the absurd pace at which Omega changes the Seamaster models' designs is that _nothing_ is sacred. Not sure why this "wart" warrants keeping.


----------



## speedmaster.

couldn't agree more!!



wilfreb said:


> While I do not prefer a PO over a Submariner, the things I like more about the PO are the transparent case back, the Lume and the AR coating
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## raze

wilfreb said:


> While I do not prefer a PO over a Submariner, the things I like more about the PO are the transparent case back, the Lume and the AR coating
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


Funny, those are the things I don't like about the PO. I would have rather had a solid case back that might have given the PO a slimmer profile. I wish the lume would have been 1 color and I have heard but not seen that the AR coating is prone to chipping.


----------



## wilfreb

raze said:


> Funny, those are the things I don't like about the PO. I would have rather had a solid case back that might have given the PO a slimmer profile. I wish the lume would have been 1 color and I have heard but not seen that the AR coating is prone to chipping.


I've had my SMP for a couple of months and the double AR coating is holding up nicely, for now. I really would like y Rolex uses inner AR coating, I don't like how reflecting my GMT is compared to my Seamaster

Taking pictures of my Seamaster is so much easier, and it's because it doesn't reflect as much as the GMT









Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Galaga

raze said:


> Funny, those are the things I don't like about the PO. I would have rather had a solid case back that might have given the PO a slimmer profile. I wish the lume would have been 1 color and I have heard but not seen that the AR coating is prone to chipping.


All of these conditions are met with the 2500 series which is why it's the greatest PO of them all.


----------



## raze

Galaga said:


> All of these conditions are met with the 2500 series which is why it's the greatest PO of them all.


maybe.


----------



## raze

wilfreb said:


> I've had my SMP for a couple of months and the double AR coating is holding up nicely, for now. I really would like y Rolex uses inner AR coating, I don't like how reflecting my GMT is compared to my Seamaster
> 
> Taking pictures of my Seamaster is so much easier, and it's because it doesn't reflect as much as the GMT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


I like the reflection. It adds more drama and the SMP looks to sterile with the ultra clear crystal in my opinion.


----------



## speedmaster.

Disagree.
These pictures show how, with respect to SMPc, GMT looks out of both date and fashion.



raze said:


> I like the reflection. It adds more drama and the SMP looks to sterile with the ultra clear crystal in my opinion.


----------



## TSC

This argument still going on? It will definitely run for ever! I love the look of the Rolex Sub, but it attracts unwanted attention. It's a sad fact of life but that's the dodgy world in which we live in these days. A 75 year old guy got acid chucked in his face in North London last night, just for his watch by some charmers on mopeds.

I know this shouldn't stop you from having what you want in life, but you guys need to make sure the sleeves are over your timepieces. Rolex/Omega, whatever, Just be aware there are some real scumbags out there.

Stanmore robbery: Man sprayed with corrosive liquid - BBC News


----------



## TSC

mt_hangglider said:


> I have both the ceramic sub date and 8800 (39.5mm) PO. Just got the PO not too long ago after not having owned one since the days of the first gen 2500 cal. PO. Both great watches and have their own unique merits. Not sure I prefer the PO over the Sub per se. I can definitely tell you the comfort of the Sub on bracelet vs. the PO on bracelet is absolutely no contest. The Sub's bracelet wins every day of the week and twice on Sunday by a large margin... and Omega takes the cake all day long for innovation and technology. I'm not sure if I'd really say one is better or preferred over the other as they're definitely both great watches and both bring me a lot of joy to wear. If I had to choose one, I'd almost have to go with the sub but not by much. Gratuitous photos...


I still wonder if there will come a time when they will reduce the Sub's lugs, so it will suit more people's wrists, or if they just don't care? 
I can't get over that hurdle


----------



## wilfreb

i will like to know how that happened, since i own a SMPc and will hate if it gets magnetized.


----------



## cedargrove

TSC said:


> I still wonder if there will come a time when they will reduce the Sub's lugs, so it will suit more people's wrists, or if they just don't care?
> I can't get over that hurdle


Many people feel the same way about the thickness of the PO.


----------



## 379CID

I really like both watches. I had a PO 8500 and a SubC ND, but let them go. The PO LM LE and Sea Dweller 116600 are two modern dive watches on my wishlist.


----------



## speedmaster.

Have anyone some beautiful picture of the PO side to side with the SeaDweller?


----------



## Will3020

Love both indeed but slightly prefer the Sub no Date option.


----------



## Poydras12

mt_hangglider said:


> I have both the ceramic sub date and 8800 (39.5mm) PO. Just got the PO not too long ago after not having owned one since the days of the first gen 2500 cal. PO. Both great watches and have their own unique merits. Not sure I prefer the PO over the Sub per se. I can definitely tell you the comfort of the Sub on bracelet vs. the PO on bracelet is absolutely no contest. The Sub's bracelet wins every day of the week and twice on Sunday by a large margin... and Omega takes the cake all day long for innovation and technology. I'm not sure if I'd really say one is better or preferred over the other as they're definitely both great watches and both bring me a lot of joy to wear. If I had to choose one, I'd almost have to go with the sub but not by much. Gratuitous photos...


I have these exact same watches and share mt_hangglider's opinion, with the one exception of for me it is a dead tie between the 2. My PO is more accurate (+1 second a day) my Sub is +2-3 seconds a day, but that may be due to my wearing habits I don't know. I am less aware of the Sub on my wrist than I am the PO, I suppose that may be because of the bracelet, again I don't know and never thought about it until writing this. Neither my Sub nor my PO is ever noticed by anyone else that I am aware of, so if impressing others is remotely a consideration in purchasing either, my advice is don't bother, (buy a Casio take the money you would have spent on a PO or a Sub, go to your nearest bar/pub at happy hour and buy the lot a round- that will get you noticed, at least until their glasses are empty).

I do admit to appreciating the cyclops on the Sub when I need to read the date. I actually almost bought a SeaDweller over the Sub, and I still want a SeaDweller, though I need another watch like I need a letter from the IRS. I love watches, I am also a bit of a petrol head and amateur firearms collector. Though as 40 approaches my dream car(s) is rapidly becoming the one someone else is driving and having enough firearms to start a coup in a small central American country seems a little pointless. I own 2 POs (a 2500 and an 8900). I own 3 Rolexes ( the Sub and a Datejust that was my grandfathers and a Daytona that was my fathers - I would gladly give them back to each of them to have them in my life again). I have 2 sons, that I am saving the Datejust and the Daytona for, so I do not wear them at all. I plan to give them to my sons when they reach 21 years old.

I know I have shared way more than the topic at hand called for, so I will end by saying that to me both the PO and the Sub are great watches and in large part the people that wear them are proud owners and good people and I appreciate and respect places/websites such as the WATCHUSEEK forums to discuss what is in the grand scheme a very niche interest, though one I share. I don't read or subscribe to any firearm forum, because the individuals on them are a little intense to say the least. The point is, the PO and the Sub are each incredible watches, no one Needs either one, so if purchasing both is viable do so, if not don't and enjoy whichever you choose.

P.S. As I have emphatically stated previously, mt_hangglider's pics are FAR superior to mine and as we have these exact 2 watches in common, I have decided to simply plagiarize his photos heretofore.


----------



## Alex_TA

I prefer PO and Omega in general because of its legibility from any angle. 
Look ar almost any SUB photo except professional pics with artificial lighting, and you'll see wild reflections that make it opaque looking from the side. No AR coating, even on the inner side of a crystal.
Although I have a problem with majority of Rolex owners. They feel themselves masters of the world. 
Additionally I suppose that modern Omega movements are better than 3135. 

What I hate in PO is its poor value retention and idiotic gas valve.


----------



## speedmaster.

did you mean "iconic" gas valve?



Alex_TA said:


> I prefer PO and Omega in general because of its legibility from any angle.
> Look ar almost any SUB photo except professional pics with artificial lighting, and you'll see wild reflections that make it opaque looking from the side. No AR coating, even on inner side of a crystal.
> Although I have a problem with majority of Rolex owners. They feel themselves masters of the world.
> Additionally I suppose that modern Omega movements are better than 3135.
> 
> What I hate in PO is its poor value retention and idiotic gas valve.


----------



## Alex_TA

speedmaster. said:


> did you mean "iconic" gas valve?


Yes, sorry. I should write 'silly iconic valve'


----------



## speedmaster.

To me, it is a distinctive mark of Omega divers... otherwise we would come to a point where all luxury divers (Omega, Rolex, Tudor, IWC, TAG...) look identical one to the other.



Alex_TA said:


> Yes, sorry. I should write 'silly iconic valve'


----------



## Alex_TA

speedmaster. said:


> To me, it is a distinctive mark of Omega divers... otherwise we would come to a point where all luxury divers (Omega, Rolex, Tudor, IWC, TAG...) look identical one to the other.


You can like it or not from aesthetic point of view.

The problem though is that this is an additional hole in the case and additional crown. I.e. there is potential point of failure, a way to flood the watch which has no functional sense whatsoever.


----------



## cedargrove

Alex_TA said:


> You can like it or not from aesthetic point of view.
> 
> The problem though is that this is an additional hole in the case and additional crown. I.e. there is potential point of failure, a way to flood the watch which has *no* *functional* *sense* *whatsoever*.


Although I don't mind it aesthetically, I'd agree that virtually no one uses the HEV, but that doesn't mean it has no functional sense "whatsoever".


----------



## speedmaster.

Is it a potential pint of failure? It is the opposite!
It is made in order to prevent He damages on the watch



Alex_TA said:


> You can like it or not from aesthetic point of view.
> 
> The problem though is that this is an additional hole in the case and additional crown. I.e. there is potential point of failure, a way to flood the watch which has no functional sense whatsoever.


----------



## Fourier

The magic that happens in the dial. However, I still don't own one. Forever put-off by its thickness. Maybe I should just buy one to try owning one, maybe it'll change my mind.


----------



## raze

Fourier said:


> The magic that happens in the dial. However, I still don't own one. Forever put-off by its thickness. Maybe I should just buy one to try owning one, maybe it'll change my mind.


I've owned one for 6 months and the thickness is not something I have gotten used to.


----------



## Galaga

Can someone please explain the increase in thickness from the 2500?


----------



## Cobia

Galaga said:


> Can someone please explain the increase in thickness from the 2500?


I think it was for a new in house movement which was thicker.


----------



## DocJekl

Cobia said:


> I think it was for a new in house movement which was thicker.


The new 8500 movement was only marginally thicker, the case grew by a disproportionate thickness.

And I think the 8800 movement in the 39.5mm Planet Ocean is only about 1/2mm thicker than the 2500.


----------



## raze

The thickness might have been the result of putting the display case back. Anyone know the thickness of the sapphire used for that? I could have done without the display back especially if it would have lowered the profile of the watch.


----------



## djrocco2625

I say sub in a no contest TKO scored in the third round. There's just too much going for that Sub against that PO. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## speedmaster.

totally disagree!
PO wins as it has the higher score at the end of the last round!



djrocco2625 said:


> I say sub in a no contest TKO scored in the third round. There's just too much going for that Sub against that PO.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TSC

Does heavily depend on what model we're talking about. Against a 2500 no. The PO every time. 

There are genuine arguments for the later models regarding thickness. It doesn't bother me, but if it's original, I'd struggle to find a negative. PO more versatile on straps also. I like the visuals on the Sub, but rarely see it on a wrist where the lugs look passable.


----------



## speedmaster.

"PO more versatile on straps" I think this really is incontrovertible



TSC said:


> Does heavily depend on what model we're talking about. Against a 2500 no. The PO every time.
> 
> There are genuine arguments for the later models regarding thickness. It doesn't bother me, but if it's original, I'd struggle to find a negative. PO more versatile on straps also. I like the visuals on the Sub, but rarely see it on a wrist where the lugs look passable.


----------



## k.lange

I like the PO much more than the Sub. Most Rolexes are just too small for me. With 7 1/2 in wrists a 40mm watch is just too small. I am very happy with my PO 8500 XL. It is the perfect size for me. If I had to choose a Rolex it would either be the Sea-Dweller or the Deepsea D-blue (in person the color of the dial is just gorgeous)!

I also really like the broad arrow hands over the Mercedes hands of the Sub.


----------



## OmegaSea21

Just a general liking for the vibe it gives off rather than a “look at me”


----------



## speedmaster.

absolutely agreed!!



OmegaSea21 said:


> Just a general liking for the vibe it gives off rather than a "look at me"


----------



## speedmaster.

absolutely agreed!!



OmegaSea21 said:


> Just a general liking for the vibe it gives off rather than a "look at me"


----------



## Poydras12

I own 2 Planet Oceans, a 45.5mm 2500 and an 43.5mm 8900, and I own a SubC with date. I wear all three, but by far I wear the 8900 Planet Ocean the most. The SubC is slimmer and I admit that since my eyes have "matured" somewhat, I like the cyclops bc I use my watch for the date often at work. However, I like the uniqueness and overall look of the Planet Ocean much more. I have never had anyone notice either the SubC or the Planet Ocean, so if that is your purpose for buying/wearing either, my advice based on experience is don't bother. I have the blue dial 8900 Planet Ocean and I just prefer the way it looks more than the SubC or the 2500 Planet Ocean.


----------



## Colin G

Most are not even answering the question in the title of this thread. It is why do you prefer a Planet Ocean over a Submariner? Not give your opinion on why you prefer the Rolex.


----------



## vmgotit

I have the 2500 XL. It will be a classic someday soon, the one to buy! I like it better than the new PO. For everything Rolex is, my PO is, only better! When you buy a Rolex, it is a "see me" watch. When you buy a PO. It is a "quality" watch!


----------



## 6R15

vmgotit said:


> I have the 2500 XL. It will be a classic someday soon, the one to buy! I like it better than the new PO. For everything Rolex is, my PO is, only better! When you buy a Rolex, it is a "see me" watch. When you buy a PO. It is a "quality" watch!


Whatever strokes your ego.


----------



## bmdaia

I don’t. Not even close. And what’s with that gargantuan (He escape) knob sticking into my wrist at 10???


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## speedmaster.

perfectly right! 


vmgotit said:


> I have the 2500 XL. It will be a classic someday soon, the one to buy! I like it better than the new PO. For everything Rolex is, my PO is, only better! When you buy a Rolex, it is a "see me" watch. When you buy a PO. It is a "quality" watch!


----------



## MJM

Rolex are overpriced, use an outdated movement, require regular expensive servicing, break more often, have no new technology, don't always keep good time, and many similar factors. 

Omega keeps advancing in technology, time keeping is amazing, service intervals are far less and cost less, more options in terms of style, PO owners are generally less snobbish .... As the GM of my local AD says, most of his Omega customers were Rolex customers who found the light.

Omega are for folks that want an amazing time piece but don't need to brag. Rolexes are for folks that just need attention and have really small peckers. 

And anyone who says a watch is too heavy needs to either turn in their man card or hit the gym.


----------



## VicLeChic

More stylish case and lugs, bigger size, nicer looking arrow hands, stronger and long lasting green lume, technically more advanced (600m WR, HEV), less expensive!


----------



## speedmaster.

absolutely agree!!!!



MJM said:


> Rolex are overpriced, use an outdated movement, require regular expensive servicing, break more often, have no new technology, don't always keep good time, and many similar factors.
> 
> Omega keeps advancing in technology, time keeping is amazing, service intervals are far less and cost less, more options in terms of style, PO owners are generally less snobbish .... As the GM of my local AD says, most of his Omega customers were Rolex customers who found the light.
> 
> Omega are for folks that want an amazing time piece but don't need to brag. Rolexes are for folks that just need attention and have really small peckers.
> 
> And anyone who says a watch is too heavy needs to either turn in their man card or hit the gym.


----------



## Theognosis

The only thing the Sub has over the new PO right now is its bracelet. The PO's cutting-edge amagnetic movement and display caseback are on a different level. Rolex needs to update the movement, caseback and shrink those fat lugs that look horrible on a strap in the next version of the Sub if they wish to get my attention.


----------



## MJM

Nuff said.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RDK

MJM said:


> Nuff said.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Diving with a hunting knife, or hunting with a dive watch..?


----------



## RDK

MJM said:


> Rolex are overpriced, use an outdated movement, require regular expensive servicing, break more often, have no new technology, don't always keep good time, and many similar factors.
> 
> Omega keeps advancing in technology, time keeping is amazing, service intervals are far less and cost less, more options in terms of style, PO owners are generally less snobbish .... As the GM of my local AD says, most of his Omega customers were Rolex customers who found the light.
> 
> Omega are for folks that want an amazing time piece but don't need to brag. Rolexes are for folks that just need attention and have really small peckers.
> 
> And anyone who says a watch is too heavy needs to either turn in their man card or hit the gym.


What if you own both Rolex and Omega watches?


----------



## RNHC

VicLeChic said:


> More stylish case and lugs, bigger size, nicer looking arrow hands, stronger and long lasting green lume, technically more advanced (600m WR, HEV), less expensive!


And available in titanium.


----------



## RNHC

MJM said:


> Rolex are overpriced, use an outdated movement, require regular expensive servicing, break more often, have no new technology, don't always keep good time, and many similar factors.
> 
> Omega keeps advancing in technology, time keeping is amazing, service intervals are far less and cost less, more options in terms of style, PO owners are generally less snobbish .... As the GM of my local AD says, most of his Omega customers were Rolex customers who found the light.
> 
> Omega are for folks that want an amazing time piece but don't need to brag. Rolexes are for folks that just need attention and have really small peckers.
> 
> And anyone who says a watch is too heavy needs to either turn in their man card or hit the gym.


Funny how Rolex people generally don't denigrate Omega people. Why do you have to draw the line between Omega and Rolex people anyway? Can't one like both?


----------



## liewb

I think there are technical points that make it better but anything on top of that is purely preference and although fun to discuss, should not sway anyone's decision


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MswmSwmsW

MJM said:


> Nuff said.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


i love Chris reeve knives. i have several sebenzas, including one spirograph Damascus with Mammoth Ivory bark scales.

Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk


----------



## liewb

MswmSwmsW said:


> i love Chris reeve knives. i have several sebenzas, including one spirograph Damascus with Mammoth Ivory bark scales.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk


Very sweet clip as well, matches the PO's bezel extremely nicely....

The Sub would never have that kind of color! (Once again purely preference...)


----------



## Pharm_D

MJM said:


> Rolex are overpriced, use an outdated movement, require regular expensive servicing, break more often, have no new technology, don't always keep good time, and many similar factors.
> 
> Omega keeps advancing in technology, time keeping is amazing, service intervals are far less and cost less, more options in terms of style, PO owners are generally less snobbish .... As the GM of my local AD says, most of his Omega customers were Rolex customers who found the light.
> 
> Omega are for folks that want an amazing time piece but don't need to brag. Rolexes are for folks that just need attention and have really small peckers.
> 
> And anyone who says a watch is too heavy needs to either turn in their man card or hit the gym.


Hahaha are you speaking from personal experiences and have seen a lot of Rolex owners' peckers or you just shooting from the hip and using standard defense mechanisms to deflect your own insecurities?

I own both Rolex and Omega and appreciate them both for what they bring to our hobby.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VicLeChic

RNHC said:


> And available in titanium.


And with a large variety of official Omega straps.(leather, croc, rubber, NATO) and bracelets (with or without micro-adjustment, mesh), against one single bracelet option for the Rolex Sub. For someone who's into straps like myself, I find it frustrating.

Aftermarket straps don't look perfect on the Sub because the springbars sit too close to the case causing rubbing against the strap and premature wear, unless the strap is super flat.. Also, the case itself is not finished between the lugs, not even brushed (or polished), which makes it look sloppy. If you put aftermarket end links in the Sub to solve this problem, it just looks weird. I wish Rolex would make their divers more "strap friendly" or sell official straps that look good on their watches and fit them perfectly (curved ends for example, like the PO official rubber strap).


----------



## cedargrove

VicLeChic said:


> And with a large variety of official Omega straps.(leather, croc, rubber, NATO) and bracelets (with or without micro-adjustment, mesh), against one single bracelet option for the Rolex Sub. For someone who's into straps like myself, I find it frustrating.
> 
> Aftermarket straps don't look perfect on the Sub because the springbars sit too close to the case causing rubbing against the strap and premature wear, unless the strap is super flat.. Also, the case itself is not finished between the lugs, not even brushed (or polished), which makes it look sloppy. If you put aftermarket end links in the Sub to solve this problem, it just looks weird. I wish Rolex would make their divers more "strap friendly" or sell official straps that look good on their watches and fit them perfectly (curved ends for example, like the PO official rubber strap).


Omega doesn't finish between the lugs on all their watches either. Here is my PO Ti.


----------



## Colin G

Coke vs Pepsi.

White bread vs whole wheat

Smooth peanut butter vs chunky.

Is there a right answer as to which is better than the other? I own both Omega and Rolex. I like the watches I own and both brands keep time and look great. The end.

That is I all I need. I don't need to hook watches up to a computer to check timing and I don't need to compare movements and tout one over the other because it is 2 seconds per day more accurate than the other. I am not storming the beaches of Normandy.

These watches are just little trinkets in the grand scheme of things and not really worthy of all the effort to argue which brand is better. 

Buy one or the other. Who cares what other people think?


----------



## WeWannaLing

I don’t. I don’t like the helium escape valve crown on the Omegas. Sub is more classic.


----------



## wis_dad

They're both good watches and both deserve merit. On that note there are Rolexes I prefer over Omega and vice versa, for example I prefer the Speedy over a Daytona but prefer the Sub over the PO. To me the PO looks like it's trying to be too modern and already looks outdated (just my opinion) but given time I'm sure it will start to become more appealing again.


----------



## liewb

I think Omega is closer to selling at their actual price back when SMPs were around 2K. Secondhand market represents a pretty fair price to utility for a PO in my opinion but the same market for Rolexes make the brand value a little too out there










My preference

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Theognosis

cedargrove said:


> Omega doesn't finish between the lugs on all their watches either.


All? Not true. My Moonwatch and Skyfall AT have polished surfaces.










Of particilar interest here is the glorious "STAINLESS STEEL" engraving on the unfinished metal of the Rolex Daytona. It's perfect on a strap. Pure class!!! Rolex is the best watchmaker in history and nothing compares to their meticulous finishing.


----------



## MikeCfromLI




----------



## cedargrove

Theognosis said:


> All? Not true. My Moonwatch and Skyfall AT have polished surfaces.


You misunderstood my comment, maybe it was my ambiguous phrasing.

I realize Omega finishes between the lugs on 'some' of their watches, but doesn't on 'all' of their watches, as evidenced by my PO.


----------



## Fourier

PO over Sub:
The dial, hands, markers are very superior to what Rolex does. On the new 2017 series PO's, the bezel action is awesome, smooth yet tight - better than on the subs I believe. 

Sub over PO:
Overall dimensions, balance, case, bracelet are superior.

Disclaimer: I currently own the BLNR and a new 8900 43.5 Planet Ocean


----------



## TSC

MikeCfromLI said:


>


This is genius. I love the fact there's all this sniping and *****ing going through this thread about the merits of the PO/Sub etc., and Mike just posts a picture of the PO, no words needed. Argument over. Class!!


----------



## HonzaH

Colin G said:


> Coke vs Pepsi.
> 
> White bread vs whole wheat
> 
> Smooth peanut butter vs chunky.
> 
> Is there a right answer as to which is better than the other? I own both Omega and Rolex. I like the watches I own and both brands keep time and look great. The end.
> 
> That is I all I need. I don't need to hook watches up to a computer to check timing and I don't need to compare movements and tout one over the other because it is 2 seconds per day more accurate than the other. I am not storming the beaches of Normandy.
> 
> These watches are just little trinkets in the grand scheme of things and not really worthy of all the effort to argue which brand is better.
> 
> Buy one or the other. Who cares what other people think?


You are 100% correct. Each and everyone of us has own likes and dislikes. The main think is that if you choose one over the other that you are happy.

Personally I have owned PO and I loved it. I know I would like to get Submariner some day as well to see how it feels to own one.


----------



## wolfie1

I like them both but the cyclops always gets in my way. I know some say its one of the iconic parts of the Sub but every time I switch back to the PO I realize how I prefer the uncluttered look of the no cyclops. I have the original 2500D series BTW


----------



## Galaga

That’s why if I was buying a Sub it would be the no date.


----------



## wolfie1

but what if you need to know the date at depth? ;-) hahahah


----------



## camb66

I would honestly have a PO, but an old one, a 2500. Cannot believe how omega have progressively ruined a classic design.


----------



## MJM

jmanlay said:


> Or just get his instead and call it a day and save yourself some coin.
> 
> Seriously love my PO but the clasp sucks.
> Never been able to size the darn thing properly so I have a adjustable clasp on order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The new 8900 has an awesome clasp with microadjust capability. Love it!


----------



## kalburnfall

MswmSwmsW said:


> i love Chris reeve knives. i have several sebenzas, including one spirograph Damascus with Mammoth Ivory bark scales.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk


I have a large sebenza 21. Great edc. Also try rockstead. Performance wise nothing comes close.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MJM

camb66 said:


> I would honestly have a PO, but an old one, a 2500. Cannot believe how omega have progressively ruined a classic design.


Again, pure opinion. I've owned most of the POs since the release of the 2500 and I'd say the current 8900 are the best of the best. Between looks, feel, and technology they are really hard to beat.


----------



## gorkem

new 39.5 planet ocaean and older 42mm 2500 co axial planet ocean both these two watches are better than a submariner in every way. The other variants of planet oceans are either too thick, too small or too big.


----------



## Galaga

gorkem said:


> new 39.5 planet ocaean and older 42mm 2500 co axial planet ocean both these two watches are better than a submariner in every way. The other variants of planet oceans are either too thick, too small or too big.











A picture is worth a thousand words.


----------



## limnoman

Galaga said:


> View attachment 14084939
> 
> 
> A picture is worth a thousand words.


Agreed.










Had to flash this one as well before a Mod closes this reinstated thread.


----------



## MissileExpert

My reasons (as a PO owner):

A. Price. Compared to a Rolex Submariner, I've saved a few thousand bucks.
B. Hate the cyclops. Need a date.
C. My father wore a Seamaster for 50+ years.


----------



## chum_2000_uk

Price mainly! And the fact I'd prefer a GMT-II over a sub as they are boring. Seeing as I cant afford a GMT-II, especially since the prices have now gone (even more) ridiculous, a PO 8900 was all my peasant salary could afford :-(


----------



## TSC

... because if you saw the sort of people who wear Rolex Submariners around here that I have to be around, you'd know. Nothing would make me swap the 2500 for a Sub. In all seriousness, there is not much wrong with the previous version Subs, and I always told myself I'd pick an old one up eventually. There is nothing that would make me buy one now though. Read too many stories about the snobbery and hoops you have to jump through to get a dealer to part with one of their sports models. No company will get a penny from me who behaves like that, not that they give a crap. And the PO is worn by people who appreciate fine watches, not just someone trying to keep up with the Joneses, which sadly applies to many Rolex owners, not all, but a fair few that I know.


----------



## Ellery

Strictly for personal aesthetic reasons...but only the 2201.50. I would prefer a sub to any other PO models.


----------



## Galaga

Ellery said:


> Strictly for personal aesthetic reasons...but only the 2201.50. I would prefer a sub to any other PO models.
> View attachment 14089561


Well said, I'm the same however I have seen some recent PO's that are still aesthetically pleasing. The problem with the Submariner is the maxicase. The pre ceramic iterations particularly the no date are masterpieces and have been copied by almost everyone for a reason.


----------



## Ellery

Galaga said:


> Well said, I'm the same however I have seen some recent PO's that are still aesthetically pleasing. The problem with the Submariner is the maxicase. The pre ceramic iterations particularly the no date are masterpieces and have been copied by almost everyone for a reason.


I think it's the matte dial and slightly more vintage/classic vibe that draws me to the 2500. The perfect PO for me (if it had existed) would have been all the aesthetics of the 2500 dial/bezel etc. pared down to the 39mm Aqua Terra 2500 size and thickness (I'd gladly sacrifice the 600m WR) without the helium valve.

Agree with you 100% on the Submariner.


----------



## ryanjl

Ellery said:


> I think it's the matte dial and slightly more vintage/classic vibe that draws me to the 2500.


Yes. My 2501.50 gets close to hitting the same nerves in me that the classic Seamaster 300 does. Here's a pic I took just a few weeks ago:


----------



## Technarchy

The problem with the Submariner is it's the Basic ..... of luxury watches.

You will be hard pressed to find a more insipid, platitudinous and banal watch at this point. It's even worse if you pair a Submariner with a BMW.

And yes, "You just can't afford one," is a basic ..... retort.

The Planet Ocean is the vastly more interesting watch, especially the ceramic 8800's.


----------



## Galaga

These are my 3 core divers. Also have a couple of turtles and an SKX. I was going to add the Submariner but unless it was a no date pre ceramic I can't see the point really. I'd literally have to sell the top 3 and add money to buy a new Submariner if I was that way inclined.

No chance I could do that. A pre ceramic Rolex Submariner no date would however create a magnificent 7. Food for thought.


----------



## jfwund

Two reasons for me. First, I really dig my Rolex Explorer I, and if I were to get a Sub, I feel like there would be too much overlap with the Explorer, at least for how I wear my watches. I like to keep my collection small so every piece gets regular use. A Sub would straddle the dressy/sporty line in much the same way and in the same colors as the Explorer, and I feel like I would have to think more about my watch choice in the morning than I currently do. The PO (mine is blue) is an unapologetically sporty watch that is clearly distinct from the Explorer, with little overlap between them.

Second, my PO fills the sporty, "wears especially well with short sleeves" role in my watch rotation. While the Sub is a great watch that I would be happy to own, it's not necessarily the watch I would go to as a dressed-down watch, and its immediate recognizability is - for me - something of a liability. I don't particularly want to be advertising that I'm wearing a Rolex in many of the professional interactions I engage in. If I had both a Sub and an Explorer in my collection, they would take time away from each other, and I'd still want something that's not a Rolex to wear with a polo shirt or T-shirt in the warmer months.

Ultimately, while I would surely appreciate a Sub, the PO was the better choice for me.

Gratuitous collection pic:


----------



## Galaga

jfwund said:


> Two reasons for me. First, I really dig my Rolex Explorer I, and if I were to get a Sub, I feel like there would be too much overlap with the Explorer, at least for how I wear my watches. I like to keep my collection small so every piece gets regular use. A Sub would straddle the dressy/sporty line in much the same way and in the same colors as the Explorer, and I feel like I would have to think more about my watch choice in the morning than I currently do. The PO (mine is blue) is an unapologetically sporty watch that is clearly distinct from the Explorer, with little overlap between them.
> 
> Second, my PO fills the sporty, "wears especially well with short sleeves" role in my watch rotation. While the Sub is a great watch that I would be happy to own, it's not necessarily the watch I would go to as a dressed-down watch, and its immediate recognizability is - for me - something of a liability. I don't particularly want to be advertising that I'm wearing a Rolex in many of the professional interactions I engage in. If I had both a Sub and an Explorer in my collection, they would take time away from each other, and I'd still want something that's not a Rolex to wear with a polo shirt or T-shirt in the warmer months.
> 
> Ultimately, while I would surely appreciate a Sub, the PO was the better choice for me.
> 
> Gratuitous collection pic:


Great post mate. For similar reasons I'm leaning towards an Explorer rather than buying a 7th diver.


----------



## jfwund

Galaga said:


> Great post mate. For similar reasons I'm leaning towards an Explorer rather than buying a 7th diver.


Thanks!

If you can swing it financially, etc., I'd say do it! The Explorer is a fantastic watch, and for me the 39mm is a Goldilocks size - you've got some killer divers in your collection as is, and the Explorer is a nice complement to a dive watch when you want to be a little dressier but not too flashy...


----------



## Zaskar20

After owning various POs over the years, I finally decided to take the plunge and purchase my grail - a Sub 114060 no date (I’m not a lover of the cyclops)
When it was on the wrist, and with my glasses off, I couldn’t read the time! The short hour hand with the Mercedes somehow got lost against the background of the dial.
Yes, I could read it perfectly with my glasses on, but more often than not they are off my head and with a quick turn of the wrist and glance I just couldn’t see the time.
This just does not happen with the PO - easy to read at all times.
Regardless to say, it’s no longer my grail.
New PO coming soon.


----------



## ndrs63

Rolemega said:


> I'm leaning towards a PO for its master co-axial movement and 15,000 gauss protection. My Seamaster diver 300 ceramic has been magnetized 3 times in one year. It'll either gain or lose a minute a day until I go to a shop to have it demagnetized. After that, it goes back to COSC standards. I think because of all of the badge readers and metal detectors in all of the buildings in D.C..


Why not pick up a Millgauss then?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DocJekl

Last year I rekindled some of my love for the Submariner, after having sold off my first Hulk, my Sub 16800, and my blue TT submariner.

I went from 3 Planet Ocean 2500 (2x POLMLE + 1 Planet Ocean 2201.51) to just one POLMLE, and kept my Titanium Planet Ocean 8500 and Ti 9300, but added a 2018 Sub Ceramic No Date and a 2018 Submariner Hulk.

The SubC No Date is nice to have as a classic watch and for the symmetry of the dial, and it doesn't have that faux patina on the lume like an SM300 that I dislike vs the Planet Ocean. It has that nice glossy ceramic bezel like my liquid metal bezels on my 3 Planet Ocean as well, without the added thickness of the Planet Ocean 8500/9300, nor the "I don't wanna scratch up my LE watch" stigma of the POLMLE.

The Hulk is just pretty and eye catching, like my glossy blue Planet Oceans, but with a pop of more vivid color, and that F'off watch charisma of a hard-to-find watch.


----------



## solesman

Great to see you back on here Larry. Hope you're well.



DocJekl said:


> Last year I rekindled some of my love for the Submariner, after having sold off my first Hulk, my Sub 16800, and my blue TT submariner.
> 
> I went from 3 Planet Ocean 2500 (2x POLMLE + 1 Planet Ocean 2201.51) to just one POLMLE, and kept my Titanium Planet Ocean 8500 and Ti 9300, but added a 2018 Sub Ceramic No Date and a 2018 Submariner Hulk.
> 
> The SubC No Date is nice to have as a classic watch and for the symmetry of the dial, and it doesn't have that faux patina on the lume like an SM300 that I dislike vs the Planet Ocean. It has that nice glossy ceramic bezel like my liquid metal bezels on my 3 Planet Ocean as well, without the added thickness of the Planet Ocean 8500/9300, nor the "I don't wanna scratch up my LE watch" stigma of the POLMLE.
> 
> The Hulk is just pretty and eye catching, like my glossy blue Planet Oceans, but with a pop of more vivid color, and that F'off watch charisma of a hard-to-find watch.
> 
> View attachment 14098339
> View attachment 14098325
> View attachment 14098333
> View attachment 14098329
> View attachment 14098331


----------



## Zaskar20

Zaskar20 said:


> After owning various POs over the years, I finally decided to take the plunge and purchase my grail - a Sub 114060 no date (I'm not a lover of the cyclops)
> When it was on the wrist, and with my glasses off, I couldn't read the time! The short hour hand with the Mercedes somehow got lost against the background of the dial.
> Yes, I could read it perfectly with my glasses on, but more often than not they are off my head and with a quick turn of the wrist and glance I just couldn't see the time.
> This just does not happen with the PO - easy to read at all times.
> Regardless to say, it's no longer my grail.
> New PO coming soon.


Very soon! Lol


----------



## Galaga

Zaskar20 said:


> After owning various POs over the years, I finally decided to take the plunge and purchase my grail - a Sub 114060 no date (I'm not a lover of the cyclops)
> When it was on the wrist, and with my glasses off, I couldn't read the time! The short hour hand with the Mercedes somehow got lost against the background of the dial.
> Yes, I could read it perfectly with my glasses on, but more often than not they are off my head and with a quick turn of the wrist and glance I just couldn't see the time.
> This just does not happen with the PO - easy to read at all times.
> Regardless to say, it's no longer my grail.
> New PO coming soon.


Lack of AR coating combined with a reflective glossy dial?


----------



## Zaskar20

Galaga said:


> Zaskar20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> After owning various POs over the years, I finally decided to take the plunge and purchase my grail - a Sub 114060 no date (I'm not a lover of the cyclops)
> When it was on the wrist, and with my glasses off, I couldn't read the time! The short hour hand with the Mercedes somehow got lost against the background of the dial.
> Yes, I could read it perfectly with my glasses on, but more often than not they are off my head and with a quick turn of the wrist and glance I just couldn't see the time.
> This just does not happen with the PO - easy to read at all times.
> Regardless to say, it's no longer my grail.
> New PO coming soon.
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of AR coating combined with a reflective glossy dial?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it was for these reasons.
The lack of the AR coating on one side didn't seem to bother me at all. 
I'm used to glossy dials with a previous Seamaster and PO, in fact I prefer them. I'm sure this wasn't a factor either. 
I'm pretty sure it was the 40mm size and the shortness of the hour hand.


----------



## solesman

Congrats on your new PO!



Zaskar20 said:


> Very soon! Lol


----------



## Zaskar20

solesman said:


> Congrats on your new PO!
> 
> 
> 
> Zaskar20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very soon! Lol
Click to expand...

Thanks, it was a very close decision. Own the POLMLE again for a second time. (I always regretted selling it)
Or purchase the improved 8900 version with the same looks.
I opted for the latter. 
Really happy on day one 😊


----------



## sanchjer

I don't own a Subby but my boss does. However, I have worn his subby and don't get me wrong, it is VERY nice but I have always loved the way the PO looks. I know you either love or hate the He valve but I like the way it makes the case look. Not to mention, you don't see many PO's being worn. In my line of business, I see a lot of Rolex's being worn but have yet to see an Omega PO.


----------



## kevinkar

Better look. Same or better quality. Lower price. Rolex is highly overrated and I have several Seiko watches that are absolutely excellent performers at way less cost but I kept looking at other makes for something else and nothing Rolex offers looks good to me. Tag-Heuer style is off the charts fugly these days. But I wanted something a little extra and Omega seems to have fit the bill. So my 2011 Seamaster PO Chronograph is what I got. Looks way better than anything Rolex offers.


----------



## CFR

Another thread from the dead! It's interesting to see if sentiments change over time.

I fell in love with the original PO when it first came out -- 2500 in 42mm, all black (no orange!), on a bracelet, and with its solid caseback. I really dislike the versions since then because they're too thick for my tastes and a display back looks weird to me on a dive watch. I also think the more recent subs got too big and thick; I prefer the pre-ceramic versions for their proportions. So these are the two that I like, and I'd have a tough time saying which one I like over the other.


----------



## Galaga

^^^^
Seeing photo 1 and 3 reinforces to me at least which watch is aesthetically superior.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Itgb

> Why do YOU prefer a PO over a Rolex Submariner?



Prefer the bezel and dial fonts on the PO which look fresher than the more old school font on the Submariner
No cyclops gives a cleaner dial layout
More interesting movement with the co-axial escapement
Prefer the PO's hands over the Submariner's mercedes hands


----------



## twr7cx

I don’t.
My daily is a Rolex 16570 Explorer II black - for a multiple reasons but I’m not ignorant enough to deny that the brand is one of them. But I do prefer the 2254 Seamaster Professional over any PO. From a value perspective it’s a smarter choice than the Submariner too.
If the PO wasn’t so thick I would definitely be more interested in it. I think the 2254’s with the PlanPro modification set are a great combination of the two.


----------



## VicLeChic

I prefer the larger size of the PO (in my 2500 45.5), the case design especially lugs and beveled edges (as opposed to off-putting slab supercase with fat lugs), the dial to bezel proportion (no tiny 28mm dial surrounded by a overwhelming thick bezel), the arrow hands, the textured matte dial, the lume, the straps, no cyclops, the availability, the price.


----------



## trustmeiamanengineer

4 Reasons to get a PO.
1. Many people actually have given me compliments on the PO than on a sub. Not only just #'s of compliments, but actually got interest in people who knew nothing about watches, even having them asking me questions and drew sincere interest, rather than just saying it is a nice Rolex.
2. Sub, 116610 and 16610, wore slightly small on my 7.5 inch wrist (not as bad as I seem to say though), compared to the 8900 43.5mm PO.
3. Cost (especially if bought on discount, on grey market, or used). I want my daily to be reasonably good looking and reasonably guilt-free to beat the crap out of. Rolex's do the same thing, but the price of a submariner would personally rule out for guilt-free part for a poor soul like me =P.
4. That sexy caseback in a PO.

However, for the sake of fairness, here are 4 reasons to pick a Sub over a PO.
1. Case and lug size, especially for smaller wrist-ed souls. PO's feel bulkier and more top heavy for sure, and feel like putting a chevy suburban on top of the wrist, especially when worn with a nato. 20mm vs 21mm lug width also makes strap finding on a PO relatively tougher.
2. Resale price of Rolex and brand equity. PO's are great watches, but if you are about these traits, well, here you go. 
3. Service/Reliability. Both are reliable watches, but I think Omega is more like a Honda, while Rolex is more like a Toyota, when it comes to reliability and serviceability goes, i think. Yes, I would normally consider Rolex to be more service-hassle free, more than Omega, albeit Omega's quality def. surpasses other manufacturers not mentioned. Not sure about serviceability of co-axial escapement to a non-omega specialist either, while 3135 parts and experts are relatively everywhere.
4. I can live with this, but I can see many not liking the He escape valve on the PO

Again, my opinion may be different than others, which I can respect.


----------



## solesman

Nuff said! 










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Seaswirl

Seaswirl said:


> I love them both. Haven't taken off the PO all week. It's not as comfortable as the SubC, but it's fun to wear and a bit more showy (which isn't a bad thing). The PO dial is very nice, and I have to admit that the AR is a nice change of pace from the Sub (until I manage to get a smudge). Feels like I can poke the dial with my finger. At half the price of a SubC Date, the PO 8500 seems like a pretty good buy.


Since last posting in this thread, my PO has come and gone. I found the bracelet and bezel to be a bit crude, but it was the thickness that did it in. Fun watch though and no regrets owning it. My SubC remains in my line up.


----------



## BufordTJustice

I preferred an SMPmc over a no date Sub (I'm allergic to the Cyclops ). I remain happy with my choice.



















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Zaskar20

solesman said:


> Nuff said!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yep


----------



## DocJekl

solesman said:


> Nuff said!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





Zaskar20 said:


> Yep


While they're both beautiful with the Liquid Metal bezel and the Ceramic dial, some will prefer the 1st one (Planet Ocean 2500 LM LE) for being thinner and thus wearing better than the thicker Planet Ocean 8900 which offers superior magnetic resistance.

If the Planet Ocean 8900 were offered in Titanium in all colors (not just grey dial), then I might have added one to my collection in addition to my POLMLE, and maybe it would have replaced my Ti Planet Ocean 8500. But I will never sell my POLMLE as I already regret selling my spare POLMLE - yes, I had two for a couple of years, one to wear and one still in the stickers NIB (sold).


----------



## speedmaster.

DocJekl said:


> While they're both beautiful with the Liquid Metal bezel and the Ceramic dial, some will prefer the 1st one (Planet Ocean 2500 LM LE) for being thinner and thus wearing better than the thicker Planet Ocean 8900 which offers superior magnetic resistance.
> 
> If the Planet Ocean 8900 were offered in Titanium in all colors (not just grey dial), then I might have added one to my collection in addition to my POLMLE, and maybe it would have replaced my Ti Planet Ocean 8500. But I will never sell my POLMLE as I already regret selling my spare POLMLE - yes, I had two for a couple of years, one to wear and one still in the stickers NIB (sold).


Two POLMLE owned at the same time is by far the best goal that any watch collector can achieve


----------



## tomatoes

I have complete and utter respect for the way Rolex manufactures its watches.
But in my mind when i see a PO in the wild i just feel the wearer made an informed decision to purchase it, as opposed to blowing 7-8 grand on another watch he could have well-afforded. Who knows, he could have owned both the PO and the sub?

Wearing a sub doesnt make anyone a noob by default but where i'm from there's an extremely good chance that a guy wearing a sub is one.

And one won't spot a PO on a wrist for months on end.


----------



## Tesla1211

Id prefer the PO because every non watch enthusiast with a little bit of money has a Sub. Its kind of a me-too watch. Not saying its not good, but I always root for the underdog


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jalquiza

Subs have nice proportions, but their 'prestige' alone with the lack of tech doesn't justify the price. There's also so damn many.


----------



## horrij1

I still have an old sub (16800), and a bond Seamaster. I did own a PO for a couple of years but found it a little big, and the bracelet a bit bulky, especially when compared to the older sub bracelet. If the PO had a tapered bracelet 20mm - 16mm I think I could be persuaded away from the sub.


----------



## VicLeChic

I prefer everything in the PO compared to the Sub 116610, everything.


----------



## ProjectQuattro

A number of reasons. In no specific order:

- arrowhead hands look great, are legible, and are eye-catching, Mercedes hands are odd. I first noticed the PO (on Jeremy Clarkson's wrist on Top Gear) because the hands were stunning
- larger face relative to case size is more legible
- AR on the crystal is absurd, someone asked me once if my watch didn't have a crystal because it disappears so well
- more unique, every rich guy buys a Rolex by default but I've never seen an Omega on the wrist of someone who doesn't care about watches
- better value. I look at Rolex and Mercedes similarly, sure they're great but the price premium over competition (Omega/ Breitling or Audi/BMW, respectively) isn't justified. You're just paying for the brand
- it's nice to have a date window, especially a subtle one in black, without a cyclops
- just generally a well-designed watch (2201.50 specifically), it's incredibly simple and utilitarian and all the proportions are great
- they look amazing on a rubber strap which is casual and comfortable for every day use

That's all I can think of right now but I'm sure I'm forgetting some. Thank you for coming to my ted talk.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Galaga

VicLeChic said:


> I prefer everything in the PO compared to the Sub 116610, everything.


Yes X 100.


----------



## hmalik

My reason for owning a PO vs. Sub is simple : I cannot wear any item with gold content (religious reasons). As far as I know all Rolexes have white gold hands ... . Many PO however have no gold content at all...


----------



## raohamid

hmalik said:


> My reason for owning a PO vs. Sub is simple : I cannot wear any item with gold content (religious reasons). As far as I know all Rolexes have white gold hands ... . Many PO however have no gold content at all...


Now you have me perplexed. I got the 8900 PO and I believe it has white gold hands and indices. Not the reason I didn't get a Sub, just liked the PO better 

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## limnoman

raohamid said:


> Now you have me perplexed. I got the 8900 PO and I believe it has white gold hands and indices. Not the reason I didn't get a Sub, just liked the PO better
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


The 8900 PO has WG hands and markers. I would think that even the 8500 and probably the 2500 have WG.

LOoOser in the brotherhood


----------



## limnoman

The 8900 PO has WG hands and markers. I would think that even the 8500 and probably the 2500 have WG.


LOoOser in the brotherhood


----------



## Galaga

rjohnson56 said:


> The 8900 PO has WG hands and markers. I would think that even the 8500 and probably the 2500 have WG.
> 
> LOoOser in the brotherhood


There is no WG on a
2500.


----------



## limnoman

Galaga said:


> There is no WG on a
> 2500.


That's interesting because the hands just pop on the 2500. Omega hit the nail on the head with that iteration.


----------



## DiegoCastellanos

rjohnson56 said:


> raohamid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you have me perplexed. I got the 8900 PO and I believe it has white gold hands and indices. Not the reason I didn't get a Sub, just liked the PO better ?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 8900 PO has WG hands and markers. I would think that even the 8500 and probably the 2500 have WG.
> 
> LOoOser in the brotherhood
Click to expand...

I'm pretty positive the 8900 has rhodium hands and indeces, not white gold. The 8500 was for sure rhodium plating.


----------



## limnoman

DiegoCastellanos said:


> I'm pretty positive the 8900 has rhodium hands and indeces, not white gold. The 8500 was for sure rhodium plating.


I've heard or read somewhere that the hands and indices were WG on the 8900. Checked the Omega forum and there was a good deal of discussion about WG or rhodium-plated brass. The discussion died out when someone posted the product description for the Seamaster Aqua Terra GMT. The description clearly states rhodium-plated rotor and bridges, while hands and applied markers are listed as 18 Ct white gold. Not info about the PO but close.


----------



## BadSport340

I prefer the curves of the Omega case. PO’s just look epic. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hmalik

Hmmmm. Very perplexing to me also to get such conflicting reports !! I bought the 8900 PO from Omega Boutique Starhill in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia as soon as they came out (August 2016). I asked my contact at the Boutique before I bought them to confirm gold content. He informed me no gold content before I pulled the trigger. .. 
on a different model the old DIVER 300M chrono , Rob at Topper Jewelers confirmed for me that it definitely has NO GOLD CONTENT. I bought that also in 2015 ( sold it a while back) and now and getting ready to pull the trigger on its new master chrono version in August. 
If you notice , on models that have white gold hands Omega seems to make a point of mentioning that in the description. Like some of the ceramic Speedy and also the new racing speedy with master chrono ..
I really had my heart set on the Rolex sea dweller black dial a while back but white gold hands and indices for sure  ...


----------



## Galaga

What religion states that you can’t wear gold??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pardayan

I prefer an Omega Diver 300M over a Submariner because it is a submariner killer to me with half of the price.


----------



## hmalik

Islam. Muslim men are not allowed to wear gold and silk. Women can wear any amount of gold or silk. Restriction is for men only ..


----------



## hmalik

Galaga said:


> What religion states that you can't wear gold??
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Islam. Muslim men are not allowed to wear gold and silk. Women can wear any amount of gold or silk. Restriction is for men only


----------



## Galaga

hmalik said:


> Islam. Muslim men are not allowed to wear gold and silk. Women can wear any amount of gold or silk. Restriction is for men only


I didn't know that. Interesting. Learn something everyday.


----------



## hmalik

Galaga said:


> I didn't know that. Interesting. Learn something everyday.


Here's another thread where this discussion went on for a while ... 

https://www.watchuseek.com/f23/any-rolex-models-zero-gold-content-831564.html


----------



## raohamid

Imma gonna plea convenience on this, if it doesn't look like gold, I'm good with wearing it  
What I'm really worried about is rose gold, definitely want to own a rose gold watch one day, then my worlds are going to collide.


----------



## limnoman

hmalik said:


> Hmmmm. Very perplexing to me also to get such conflicting reports !! I bought the 8900 PO from Omega Boutique Starhill in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia as soon as they came out (August 2016). I asked my contact at the Boutique before I bought them to confirm gold content. He informed me no gold content before I pulled the trigger. ..
> on a different model the old DIVER 300M chrono , Rob at Topper Jewelers confirmed for me that it definitely has NO GOLD CONTENT. I bought that also in 2015 ( sold it a while back) and now and getting ready to pull the trigger on its new master chrono version in August.
> If you notice , on models that have white gold hands Omega seems to make a point of mentioning that in the description. Like some of the ceramic Speedy and also the new racing speedy with master chrono ..
> I really had my heart set on the Rolex sea dweller black dial a while back but white gold hands and indices for sure  ...


Often gold (even WG) is rhodium plated to give the metal extra shine. IMO the two most likely scenarios are that Omega is using rhodium plated brass or rhodium plated gold. This is based on the hands being very shiny.


----------



## limnoman

hmalik said:


> Here's another thread where this discussion went on for a while ...
> 
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f23/any-rolex-models-zero-gold-content-831564.html


Thanks for posting


----------



## limnoman

Unfortunately, the source (Omega) is not that good at providing info on their website. The easiest would be to contact them directly. WUS is filled with a lot of very useful information, but a large proportion is also recycled speculation.


----------



## MichaelB25

I have nothing against Rolex, as I own a 6-digit Pepsi. I also own a 2500 XL PO, which I find fulfills my "big watch" itch (most of my other watches are 40-42mm, despite 7 3/8" wrists), while retaining classical design aesthetics and manageable thickness/weight (especially on the rubber, which is my preferred strap). I could also one day see myself getting a no date sub. More and more my watch pursuits fit roles and desires rather than logic, and certainly more than being steered by public perception. Are there ...... Rolex owners? Sure. But that's not going to stop me from wearing watches that I enjoy.


----------



## TellingTime

rjohnson56 said:


> Often gold (even WG) is rhodium plated to give the metal extra shine. IMO the two most likely scenarios are that Omega is using rhodium plated brass or rhodium plated gold. This is based on the hands being very shiny.


My understanding is it is always plated. If not, you see the other alloys. It is very brittle and doesn't do well with high-impact areas either. You'll need to re-plate from time to time if you want it to look its best. Else go with platinum.


----------



## Alex_TA

hmalik said:


> Islam. Muslim men are not allowed to wear gold and silk. Women can wear any amount of gold or silk. Restriction is for men only


But Muslim men can decorate their weapons with gold. With the size and the weight of PO it can be considered as a weapon


----------



## Patryk_K

Man if only the PO was a little bit thinner it would be a keeper. Unfortunately after owning my 8500 42mm for 6 months I have decided to sell it. too bulky for me. 

Looking in to BB 58 and aqua terra 38.5 now


----------



## MikeCfromLI

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Galaga

Patryk_K said:


> Man if only the PO was a little bit thinner it would be a keeper. Unfortunately after owning my 8500 42mm for 6 months I have decided to sell it. too bulky for me.
> 
> Looking in to BB 58 and aqua terra 38.5 now


Get the 2500.


----------



## hmalik

rjohnson56 said:


> Thanks for posting


Most welcome ..


----------



## ProjectQuattro

Patryk_K said:


> Man if only the PO was a little bit thinner it would be a keeper. Unfortunately after owning my 8500 42mm for 6 months I have decided to sell it. too bulky for me.
> 
> Looking in to BB 58 and aqua terra 38.5 now


I tried an 8900 at the AD and felt similarly; it was way too thick and (in my opinion, no offense to anyone) a bit overstyled and flashy compared to the 2500 models that made me fall for the PO line.

Get a 42mm 2500, you'll love it. More classic styling, not super thick, and easily wearable every day. If you don't love it you can sell it for at least what you paid as they seem to be appreciating now that people recognize how great they are.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MichaelMaggi

PO & the latest SMP 300M Diver are as good if not better watches in every way. Quality through and through. Dial, bezel, bracelet, movement.... Not even close in my book anyway.


----------



## Galaga

This is why


----------



## HiggsBoson

I really can't make my mind up.
One day it's my Sub, the next it's my PO. They both have positives & negatives. If I had to choose, it would be.....


----------



## Galaga

HiggsBoson said:


> I really can't make my mind up.
> One day it's my Sub, the next it's my PO. They both have positives & negatives. If I had to choose, it would be.....


That's a great two watch collection my friend.


----------



## limnoman

HiggsBoson said:


> I really can't make my mind up.
> One day it's my Sub, the next it's my PO. They both have positives & negatives. If I had to choose, it would be.....


Not easy but you made the "right" choice


----------



## HiggsBoson

Galaga said:


> That's a great two watch collection my friend.


Cheers mate. :-! Unfortunately, I was bitten by the watch buying bug, so it's no longer a two watch collection! I got a lot of grief from the wife, but it somehow seems worth it!! :-d


----------



## HiggsBoson

rjohnson56 said:


> Not easy but you made the "right" choice


The wife doesn't understand why I 'need' more than one watch?! I dunno, women, eh! :roll: :-d


----------



## limnoman

HiggsBoson said:


> The wife doesn't understand why I 'need' more than one watch?! I dunno, women, eh! :roll: :-d


Wait. Is your wife a short, blonde with a Swedish accent!

My wife loves visiting London. Hmm


----------



## HiggsBoson

rjohnson56 said:


> Wait. Is your wife a short, blonde with a Swedish accent!
> 
> My wife loves visiting London. Hmm


No. But your sounds perfect!! :-!


----------



## limnoman

HiggsBoson said:


> No. But your sounds perfect!! :-!


Darn, I was thinking of asking her to free you of one or two of your/her burdens


----------



## HiggsBoson

rjohnson56 said:


> Darn, I was thinking of asking her to free you of one or two of your/her burdens


My only burden *is* the wife! :-d


----------



## Jagamov

I think for me it's 2 different feelings.

On one hand, as a James Bond fan, I'd always wanted a Submariner since I was a kid.

Same with the PO. As soon as I saw it, I wanted one. It took me much longer to acquire one, and when I saw the model that I eventually bought, I had to have it.

I love them both for different reasons. The PO is a nicer watch by far, but the Sub will always be special. But I'll buy another Omega, before another Rolex.


----------



## Galaga

Jagamov said:


> I think for me it's 2 different feelings.
> 
> On one hand, as a James Bond fan, I'd always wanted a Submariner since I was a kid.
> 
> Same with the PO. As soon as I saw it, I wanted one. It took me much longer to acquire one, and when I saw the model that I eventually bought, I had to have it.
> 
> I love them both for different reasons. The PO is a nicer watch by far, but the Sub will always be special. But I'll buy another Omega, before another Rolex.
> 
> View attachment 14350919


Did Bond ever wear that PO iteration?

Serious question. I can't keep up.


----------



## Jagamov

Galaga said:


> Did Bond ever wear that PO iteration?
> 
> Serious question. I can't keep up.


Yes he does, but not one with any orange on it.

But I wanted an PO w/orange long before Bond starting wearing Omega's.


----------



## limnoman

Jagamov said:


> I think for me it's 2 different feelings.
> 
> On one hand, as a James Bond fan, I'd always wanted a Submariner since I was a kid.
> 
> Same with the PO. As soon as I saw it, I wanted one. It took me much longer to acquire one, and when I saw the model that I eventually bought, I had to have it.
> 
> I love them both for different reasons. The PO is a nicer watch by far, but the Sub will always be special. But I'll buy another Omega, before another Rolex.
> 
> View attachment 14350919


The Sub looks small next to your PO. One of my concerns in getting a 40mm GMT (hoping my ship will come in and my AD will call about a BLNR) is the size. My PO (8900) is comfy on my 19cm flat wrist.

Thanks for posting the pic.


----------



## limnoman

Galaga said:


> Did Bond ever wear that PO iteration?
> 
> Serious question. I can't keep up.


Has there been a Bond movie since 2016 when the 3rd generations hit the market. Not into Bond movies so I really have no idea.


----------



## Jagamov

rjohnson56 said:


> The Sub looks small next to your PO. One of my concerns in getting a 40mm GMT (hoping my ship will come in and my AD will call about a BLNR) is the size. My PO (8900) is comfy on my 19cm flat wrist.
> 
> Thanks for posting the pic.


It _might_ be a bit of an optical illusion, but for sure the PO is bigger. I always thought the Sub was a perfect size, but as watches get bigger and bigger, it makes 40mm sometimes seem small. But once I'm wearing it, I don't notice that it's small. It looks just right.


----------



## TSC

rjohnson56 said:


> Has there been a Bond movie since 2016 when the 3rd generations hit the market. Not into Bond movies so I really have no idea.


No, he never wore the 3rd gen PO. Only the 2500/8500. 
Imagine hiding in a dark corner, and that shiny blingy 8900 gives you away. He's a goner


----------



## azfishman

The Planet Ocean is most definitely a bigger watch. I tried one on yesterday after really wanting one, and the thickness was too much for me. They even had 25% off retail, which brought it down around 5k, and I still couldn't pull the trigger.


----------



## HiggsBoson

azfishman said:


> The Planet Ocean is most definitely a bigger watch. I tried one on yesterday after really wanting one, and the thickness was too much for me. They even had 25% off retail, which brought it down around 5k, and I still couldn't pull the trigger.


I find it very wearable, the 'thickness' is absolutely not a problem for me.


----------



## bbckfh

Honestly, I have a SMP and not a PO, but my SMP doesn't pull my wrist-hair like every Sub I've tried on, and wears well on my wrist (not too tall or wide).


----------



## limnoman

TSC said:


> No, he never wore the 3rd gen PO. Only the 2500/8500.
> Imagine hiding in a dark corner, and that shiny blingy 8900 gives you away. He's a goner


My guess is that Bond would use the blingy reflection to distract the villain while he slipped away with his blonde Bond beauty.

LOoOser in the brotherhood


----------



## indy78

The Rolex Submariner is too common and overpriced.


----------



## Galaga

indy78 said:


> The Rolex Submariner is too common and overpriced.


Exactly


----------



## Zaskar20

Jagamov said:


> I think for me it's 2 different feelings.
> 
> On one hand, as a James Bond fan, I'd always wanted a Submariner since I was a kid.
> 
> Same with the PO. As soon as I saw it, I wanted one. It took me much longer to acquire one, and when I saw the model that I eventually bought, I had to have it.
> 
> I love them both for different reasons. The PO is a nicer watch by far, but the Sub will always be special. But I'll buy another Omega, before another Rolex.
> 
> View attachment 14350919


I have to say that the lack of outer AR coating on the crystal of the sub makes it look cheap.
Don't like that glare.
Just my opinion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jagamov

Zaskar20 said:


> I have to say that the lack of outer AR coating on the crystal of the sub makes it look cheap.
> Don't like that glare.
> Just my opinion.


Well now you've done it. I'll have to go home and look more closely at that.

Honestly, I've never noticed it before.

Did Rolex not use to do an AR coating? Do they do it now?


----------



## solesman

Nope. No AR coating.



Jagamov said:


> Well now you've done it. I'll have to go home and look more closely at that.
> 
> Honestly, I've never noticed it before.
> 
> Did Rolex not use to do an AR coating? Do they do it now?


----------



## smurfdon

I prefer the Rolex submariner.


----------



## limnoman

smurfdon said:


> I prefer the Rolex submariner.


If you owned both, please elaborate.


----------



## Galaga

solesman said:


> Nope. No AR coating.


They only apply it on the cyclops window. Tudor don't use it either.


----------



## Marendra

I know a ton of folks like the Sub, so tons of respect for the crown, but.... my opinion...Let's see.... prefer the appearance of a slimmer bezel, really like the arrow hands, dislike Mercedes hands, not crazy about pip markers, really like the PO wedge markers, don't like the maxi-case (but do like the 5 digit cases), don't like the cyclops. Don't usually like Arabics, but the "open" 6, 9, 12 just seems to work.

If the 2500PO42 was a bit thinner and didn't have the HEV, then it would be perfect.


----------



## Galaga

Marendra said:


> I know a ton of folks like the Sub, so tons of respect for the crown, but.... my opinion...Let's see.... prefer the appearance of a slimmer bezel, really like the arrow hands, dislike Mercedes hands, not crazy about pip markers, really like the PO wedge markers, don't like the maxi-case (but do like the 5 digit cases), don't like the cyclops. Don't usually like Arabics, but the "open" 6, 9, 12 just seems to work.
> 
> If the 2500PO42 was a bit thinner and didn't have the HEV, then it would be perfect.
> 
> View attachment 14362241


She is only 14.2mm thick. I agree with the He crown though.


----------



## limnoman

Marendra said:


> I know a ton of folks like the Sub, so tons of respect for the crown, but.... my opinion...Let's see.... prefer the appearance of a slimmer bezel, really like the arrow hands, dislike Mercedes hands, not crazy about pip markers, really like the PO wedge markers, don't like the maxi-case (but do like the 5 digit cases), don't like the cyclops. Don't usually like Arabics, but the "open" 6, 9, 12 just seems to work.
> 
> If the 2500PO42 was a bit thinner and didn't have the HEV, then it would be perfect.
> 
> View attachment 14362241


^ 2x 
Except, I don't mind the HeV and actually like the size of the 43 mm on my 19cm wrist. For my wrist, I think a normal 40mm wears too small.


----------



## Galaga

It's a magnificent piece.


----------



## illumidata

It's a tough one. Technically it's the PO all the way, but the lack of a no-date option bugs me. I would love to see some symmetrical options.









Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ProjectQuattro

azfishman said:


> The Planet Ocean is most definitely a bigger watch. I tried one on yesterday after really wanting one, and the thickness was too much for me. They even had 25% off retail, which brought it down around 5k, and I still couldn't pull the trigger.


Give the 2500 a shot. It's something like 1.5mm thinner which makes a huge difference.



rjohnson56 said:


> Has there been a Bond movie since 2016 when the 3rd generations hit the market. Not into Bond movies so I really have no idea.


Nope, newest was the 8500 as mentioned above. In recent Bond movies the POs have been:

Casino Royale: 2900.50.51 (plus a 300M)

Quantum of Solace: 2201.50

Skyfall: 232.30.42.21.01.001 (plus an Aqua Terra)

Spectre: No PO, but a 300M and Aqua Terra

I didn't realize until after I'd bought my 2201.50 that it was the sole watch in Quantum of Solace. Even though that's hands down the worst Daniel Craig Bond movie it was still cool to see it get all that screentime.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Marendra

Galaga said:


> She is only 14.2mm thick. I agree with the He crown though.


"I don't know, but I've been told, that big legged women ain't got no soul." 
- Black Dog, LED Zeppelin, 1971


----------



## ProjectQuattro

I had an interesting thought relating to my personal Planet Ocean purchase today, which may partially explain why I bought it over a Sub.

Jeremy Clarkson wears a PO2500 a ton on (old) Top Gear and The Grand Tour. I didn't buy the watch just because he owned it, even though I'm a huge fan. I DID start looking into it because I saw him wearing it on TG years ago, though. I fell in love with the hands, which were super visible because of Omega's insane AR coating.










Today while watching (new) Top Gear I noticed that Flintoff's Rolex can look (at best) uninspiring and (at worst) downright ugly when the light hits the crystal wrong. So, aesthetics obviously play into it but the effectively invisible crystal was definitely a factor for me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MichaelB25

Jagamov said:


> Yes he does, but not one with any orange on it.
> 
> But I wanted an PO w/orange long before Bond starting wearing Omega's.


Um, Bond started wearing Omega's before the Planet Ocean line existed.


----------



## Tim Houser

I have both, and I'm still trying to decide which I like better.:-d

















First off, I do not care for either the PO's or the Sub's in their current configurations, and if those were the options I would be looking hard at the Omega Seamaster 300 (not the SeMP 300 Bond which I've owned in the past as well) or the Trilogy version of the same; or maybe a Tudor Black Bay or Black Bay 58 Although I appreciate the more modern innovations with both brands including but not limited to their movements, bracelets and even ceramics; I dislike both almost equally for their cases. The Planet Oceans I dislike because of the height and the display back, and really don' understand the use of rubber in some bezels. The Submariners I dislike because of the modem maxi case with ugly square lugs, both deal breakers for me. And both are heavy for guys like me who really prefer steel watches vs. the lighter titanium options form Omega.

With regard to the older models which I own, the Planet Ocean has superior water resistance and much better lume, and although I am not the world's biggest fan of the arrowhead hands the dial and hands have probably the best alignment of any watch I have worn. The bracelet is solid, but I dislike the diver's extension, push pin links, lack of micro adjustment, the weight, and the over all appearance (which is why I wear mine mostly on an OEM rubber strap). Oh, and let's not forget the ugly wart HE valve Omega still insists upon adding to the offside of the case for no practical reason.

The Submariner is more comfortable on my wrist with the smaller in diameter and height case, lighter weight, white color indices which suit dressier days a bit better, and I could sell it today after over 10 years for almost double what I paid new. The bracelet on mine is SEL with solid links, but admittedly the old clasp is cheap in appearance. What I dislike most is the Rolex "stigma" and while I have generally liked a date complication I have always disliked the Rolex cyclops lens. The flat crystal with no AR is also not a plus for the Sub in my book, but the fragile AR on the outside of the PO crystal is much more susceptible to damage.

Having owned both since purchased new for over 10 years, I guess I like them both. They are rugged and excellent timekeepers. Both have been immersed into pools, rivers, lakes and oceans many times along with numerous other outdoor activities and neither ever failed me. If I had to get rid of one of them, I'd probably hold onto the PO more due to used values and sentimental reasons than any other preferences.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, other than current availability, price, resale value and aesthetics, I would rate the modern versions of both brands about equal in terms of technology, execution and function.

*Kind regards,

Tim*


----------



## j1n

I don't own either but it seems Rolex subs fly under the radar nowadays. I have friends who haven't even got a single comment about their subs yet. Maybe it's because they're the most faked watch on the market. Maybe the fact that the design is copied so much made them less visible. 

I see that being a way smaller issue with the PO. Also love the design elements of the PO. I love the watch but my wrists are too small.


----------



## chum_2000_uk

Easy... Cost. I love subs, and have tried a couple on but never been able to justify how much more expensive they are than a PO or SMP.

To own one now, I'd have to sell every watch I own just to cover the cost of a sub. No chance I'd do that.


----------



## HiggsBoson

j1n said:


> I don't own either but it seems *Rolex subs fly under the radar nowadays.* I have friends who haven't even got a single comment about their subs yet. Maybe it's because they're the most faked watch on the market. Maybe the fact that the design is copied so much made them less visible.
> 
> I see that being a way smaller issue with the PO. Also love the design elements of the PO. I love the watch but my wrists are too small.


I suppose it must depend on where you live? Apparently, according to a certain member over on the Rolex forum, wearing a Rolex get's you un-requested promotions, un-requested wage rises, beautiful women fall at your feet, you get the best seats in restaurants, people stare in awe.
I hasten to add, non of the above has ever happened to me! :-d


----------



## Tom vanDal

I know its not a PO - they are about the same price range though.
I would choose this SMP any day over the sub.


----------



## HiggsBoson

Tom vanDal said:


> I know its not a PO - they are about the same price range though.
> I would choose this SMP any day over the sub.


Great picture. :-!


----------



## ProjectQuattro

HiggsBoson said:


> I suppose it must depend on where you live? Apparently, according to a certain member over on the Rolex forum, wearing a Rolex get's you un-requested promotions, un-requested wage rises, beautiful women fall at your feet, you get the best seats in restaurants, people stare in awe.
> I hasten to add, non of the above has ever happened to me! :-d


Wow that sounds incredible, and would definitely be worth the price  /s

Whoever wrote the post that caused your hyperbole must must be an absurd Rolex apologist and must not live in a major urban area. In any around NYC every sales guy and everyone who ever got a big bonus buys a Sub or Datejust. I routinely compliment people on interesting watches (Omega, Breitling, Tudor, AP, PP, etc.) but I never talk to Rolex owners since none of them (except one friend of mine, who admittedly is both in sales and management) have anything interesting to say about them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limnoman

Darn. I was thinking of divorcing my wife of 40+ years and buying a Sub as a 60+ year crisis. 

Best
Deflated


----------



## TSC

HiggsBoson said:


> I suppose it must depend on where you live? Apparently, according to a certain member over on the Rolex forum, wearing a Rolex get's you un-requested promotions, un-requested wage rises, beautiful women fall at your feet, you get the best seats in restaurants, people stare in awe.
> I hasten to add, non of the above has ever happened to me! :-d


If you're talking about who I think you're talking about, who has also dipped his trolling in this forum on occasion, and have had some very interesting converse with him myself, he is a big part of why I'd never buy/wear/own a Rolex. He can't take all the credit of course. As I've already said a while back, probably on this thread, the behaviour of the ADs vetting people and making them grovel for the privilege, making them produce receipts to prove they're a customer of old, before fetching their hidden gems from the safe was vomit inducing. Nothing would make me switch on my Omega solids for any Rolex. On top of taking your life in your hands in certain parts of London where wearing a Rolex is just stupid. Who wants a watch you have to grovel to buy, and then not be able to wear it in most of the city.


----------



## HiggsBoson

rjohnson56 said:


> Darn. I was thinking of divorcing my wife of 40+ years and buying a Sub as a 60+ year crisis.
> 
> Best
> Deflated


You're funny, man! :-d :-d


----------



## MichaelB25

TSC said:


> If you're talking about who I think you're talking about, who has also dipped his trolling in this forum on occasion, and have had some very interesting converse with him myself, he is a big part of why I'd never buy/wear/own a Rolex. He can't take all the credit of course. As I've already said a while back, probably on this thread, the behaviour of the ADs vetting people and making them grovel for the privilege, making them produce receipts to prove they're a customer of old, before fetching their hidden gems from the safe was vomit inducing. Nothing would make me switch on my Omega solids for any Rolex. On top of taking your life in your hands in certain parts of London where wearing a Rolex is just stupid. Who wants a watch you have to grovel to buy, and then not be able to wear it in most of the city.


I was always under the impression that sporty's whole Rolex thing was mostly an act, although I don't pay attention enough to really know for sure.


----------



## HiggsBoson

MichaelB25 said:


> *I was always under the impression that sporty's whole Rolex thing was mostly an act*, although I don't pay attention enough to really know for sure.


Who knows? His 'fans' insist it's just all an act, an online persona. Sporty himself, has never indicated it's just an act, for a laugh.


----------



## thisisnotaboutagirl

1. No Rolex baggage
2. I'm personally not a fan of the Rolex Mercedes Hands
3. PO has a date with colour matched date wheel and no cyclops
4. I personally prefer the hour markers, arrow hands, bracelet design, bezel numerals, and case shape


----------



## limnoman

thisisnotaboutagirl said:


> 1. No Rolex baggage
> 2. I'm personally not a fan of the Rolex Mercedes Hands
> 3. PO has a date with colour matched date wheel and no cyclops
> 4. I personally prefer the hour markers, arrow hands, bracelet design, bezel numerals, and case shape


^ 2x


----------



## MichaelB25

HiggsBoson said:


> Who knows? His 'fans' insist it's just all an act, an online persona. Sporty himself, has never indicated it's just an act, for a laugh.


¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I assumed it was an act mostly because I couldn't imagine somebody actually thinking that way. Who knows.


----------



## limnoman

thisisnotaboutagirl said:


> 1. No Rolex baggage
> 2. I'm personally not a fan of the Rolex Mercedes Hands
> 3. PO has a date with colour matched date wheel and no cyclops
> 4. I personally prefer the hour markers, arrow hands, bracelet design, bezel numerals, and case shape


And let's never t forget the Omega clasp that is adjustable without removing the bracelet from your wrist!


----------



## TSC

MichaelB25 said:


> I was always under the impression that sporty's whole Rolex thing was mostly an act, although I don't pay attention enough to really know for sure.


Sadly I don't think it was. I also thought that 'at first', but then his rant on this forum took on an uncomical twist in the end. Some of it you'd think is tongue in cheek, but mostly not. I've only witnessed it in this forum. Not read his mantra in the Rolex pages, but imagine it's consistent with the number of posts he's written in here. In his defence some of it was quite entertaining.


----------



## crock921

I think it is more fair to compare the PO to the Sea Dweller, right?

Either way, I agree about not having the Rolex baggage and absurd amount of fakes clogging that market. Not many people outside of the watch world know what a PO is (ime) and I like it that way. It's a special watch without the bandwagon that follows Rolex.


----------



## Galaga




----------



## Moss28

I don't think it's an act either. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## watcheyfella

This is my every Watch .
Don't do the whole Rolex thing too common.
Now sadly discontinued.









Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk


----------



## ChronoOCD

chum_2000_uk said:


> Easy... Cost. I love subs, and have tried a couple on but never been able to justify how much more expensive they are than a PO or SMP.
> 
> To own one now, I'd have to sell every watch I own just to cover the cost of a sub. No chance I'd do that.


Well it's actually cheaper to own a Sub if you consider the resale value. Of course you don't buy watches to sell but it's nice knowing it's value has appreciated, and sometimes you might need the money. 15-20 years ago you could buy a Sub for around 3000 and now they are worth double.


----------



## yuk0nxl1

I have owned a 42mm PO2500 for about 5 years and a Sub 114060 for about a year. Probably I am still in the honeymoon phase of the Sub but I do prefer wearing it over the PO... At the moment. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## k.lange

I believe the PO is better than the Sub in looks, size, bracelet build quality, price, supply vs demand, and perception. 

Looks
First off the PO is GORGEOUS! I’ve worn my 45.5mm 8500 practically every day since I bought it 2 1/2 years ago and I still find myself staring at it and just marveling at its beauty! 

The Sub has a classic and iconic look, but the market is saturated with “homages” that basically copy it or those that are heavily inspired by it. 

Size
The 40mm Sub is just too small for me, but my 45.5mm PO is perfect! I don’t want my watch to “disappear” because I don’t realize I’m wearing it. I have nice watches to enjoy every moment I’m wearing them! With my 7.5” wrists I even felt my 42mm Speedy was a tad too small. So with the Sub at 40mm in diameter and a diver’s bezel it wears even smaller! I’ve worn some Nomos’ under 40mm, but their very thin bezels make the watch feel a lot larger. As for the other Rolex dive watches the cyclops ruins the 43mm Sea-Dweller. That just leaves the 44mm Deapsea. I somewhat like the Deepsea, but when you add the gorgeous D-Blue dial you have an amazing watch! Definitely my second favorite diver. 


Bracelet Quality 
When I owned my Speedy 3570.50, which was my first Swiss watch, I was stunned when I tried on my friend’s Sub and found that a number of the bracelet’s links were hollow!! It made the bracelet feel cheap and sound very “tinny”. Additionally, the presence of hollow links will result in the bracelet stretching out over time. I love the Speedy’s completely solid bracelet as well as the PO’s solid bracelet. Both are very comfortable and of extremely high quality. 

Supply vs Demand
As I have been thinking about whether I want to spring for the Deepsea D-Blue I was shocked to find out that Rolex behaves the same way with their watches as De Beers does with diamonds: they limit the supply creating inflated prices of their watches! For years Rolex has produced such a small number of their supposedly affordable steel sport watches thereby creating a completely ridiculous market where both new and pre-owned watches sell for more than MSRP. A new Sub will Cost you a few thousand more than MSRP and new Daytona will cost double ($12,400 vs $25,000)! The only way to get a watch at MSRP is to wait a couple years or have a close relationship with an AD. 

Price
I simply think the Sub and many Rolexes are over priced both new and pre-owned. As I’ve already mentioned supply I’m now focusing on demand. I feel that in general people have an inordinate need for Rolexes including Subs. Yes, I understand pricing for luxury items aren’t very rational, but I feel (just my opinion) that the demand and subsequent pricing for Rolexes is much more irrational than other high quality watch brands. 

I know that Rolex fans will go on about the quality of the watches and yes there is good watch making. It’s just that the “story” of Rolex’s prowess exceeds reality. Rolex touts the amazing waterproof feature of the first Sub in 1953 being the first dive watch as it was rated to a depth of 100 meters. What is interesting about that claim is that it ignores Omega’s Marine dive watch which was introduced in 1932 (21 years before the Sub!) that was used in a 73 meter dive and later rated to 135 meters. 

Then comes the testing for space. I recently watched a video posted on YouTube which was the first in a five part series called The Speedmaster Chronicles by Monochrome Watches and Omega. In the first video James H. Ragan is interviewed. Mr. Ragan was the NASA engineer who put out the official request for watches to be submitted for testing to be the official watch to go to space and participate in Extravehicular Activities. Rolex was one of the four companies to submit a watch, the Daytona. What was fascinating to learn from Mr. Ragen is that not only did the Speedmaster pass all 10 tests, but all of the three other competing watches failed the very first test! They didn’t just fail, but completely stopped working! I think that is an incredible testimony to the ruggedness and durability of the Speedmaster and Omega watches in general. Both the Omega watch and the Rolex watch were not designed specifically to survive the rigors of space, but only the Omega passed all 10 tests!

Perception 
Lastly I’m not a fan of the perception that Rolex has in the minds of the general public. Most people think of Rolexes as a super fancy, expensive, and extravagant accessory. I don’t think I have ever heard people discuss Rolex in a positive light. It’s lumped in with loud brash people who want to loudly declare their wealth. I appreciate my Speedy and PO as they fly the under the radar and don’t attract a lot of attention. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PeteJ

I don’t. Having owned a few POs and the correct model Rolex Submariner, my view is that the Submariner is the superior product. As to why? Simply, experience and personal preference. I’ve had a Planet Ocean fail on me and seen water in the case. I wasn’t impressed with the early 2500 movements and found them, in my own experience to be less than reliable (three from a sample of three failed). The later models are infinitely better built and better finished that the original launch model, however those initial failures and though Omega made good on everything, it was a hassle to get help at the time. 

On the other hand, I have owned one Rolex Submariner and it has never let me down. It is over engineered and the built quality and finishing appear, to my eye, to have a slight edge versus current model Planet Oceans. It is close, however. 

That said, they are not really comparable watches for their function. Yes, they’re diver watches, but very different kinds. The Submariner is not a saturation diver, it is for rebreather or cylinder diving. The Planet Ocean can be used for serious professional diving and is built and rated accordingly (though in truth I know nobody who dives professionally on a PO and many, many who do on a Rolex - I’ve no idea why that is). It’s apples to oranges really. 

Given the choice, I’d have a Submariner over a PO if I had it to choose again.


----------



## Mystro

This is a more of a philosophy question. 
I own both. 30 years of Rolex ownership. Back in the PO 2500 days it was you owned both Sub and PO but my how times have changed. 
I own or have owned all the latest hot Rolex models. I find Omega’s direction more interesting and impressive. Omega is really on fire with their direction of making a better complete watch.
Rolex has more prestige but Omega makes a much more advanced watch and their movement standards are just better. They just are with the METAS level of Master Chronometer. If you are into advanced automatic movements then Omega blows Rolex away as Rolex really doesn’t advance their movements out side their very conservative comfort zone. Omega is constantly working to improve every aspect of their watches pushing the technology where Rolex coast on their image and is extremely conservative with any changes. The latest GMT movement cal.3285 is really just keeping up with today’s standard of rotor bearings and a 72hr power reserve. The Sub is using a very outdated movement and so is the Daytona. The Skydweller is their most advanced movement and it’s not that advanced. Many give Rolex a pass for their dated movements because they have no choice. If you want a Rolex that’s whats under the hood. 

Rolex doesn’t need or care if you buy their watches where Omega has to work constantly to earn your business. I love Rolex but they are conservative to a fault that they become boring after years of ownership. Rolex is also entirely too controlling and they ruined their service network of repair centers. This means that they could easily swap out your movement for a refurb one and there is nothing you could do about it. (not saying anything other than inside Rolex authorized watchmaker gossip isn’t that impressed with the current Rolex service direction.) Rolex openly states they are not committed to keep outdated parts in stock. This wasn’t a issue when there were hundreds of watchmakers keeping these older Rolex watches running with parts but now you as the owner have no choice but to use the Rolex factory service centers for service. The future is very uncertain.

Rolex has the image and to some that is the most important reason to own one. We are in a uncharted world with what Rolex value might be as never in their history has their watches been so over inflated in the market due to choking off the supply. They are a factory made watch and not AP or PP so their actual msrp value will come back down as no reasonably knowledgeable enthusiast is paying AP money for a factory made SS Rolex. As for the watches themself I know the new Omega’s look like a more premium watch now than Rolex. That’s saying a lot as I have dogs on both sides of the fight. My money won’t be going to Rolex in this market and is being spent on other more exciting and prestigious watch brands.
Everyone has an opinion and this is mine and the direction I am taking


----------



## k.lange

Mystro said:


> This is a more of a philosophy question.
> I own both. 30 years of Rolex ownership. Back in the PO 2500 days it was you owned both Sub and PO but my how times have changed.
> I own or have owned all the latest hot Rolex models. I find Omega's direction more interesting and impressive. Omega is really on fire with their direction of making a better complete watch.
> Rolex has more prestige but Omega makes a much more advanced watch and their movement standards are just better. They just are with the METAS level of Master Chronometer. If you are into advanced automatic movements then Omega blows Rolex away as Rolex really doesn't advance their movements out side their very conservative comfort zone. Omega is constantly working to improve every aspect of their watches pushing the technology where Rolex coast on their image and is extremely conservative with any changes. The latest GMT movement cal.3285 is really just keeping up with today's standard of rotor bearings and a 72hr power reserve. The Sub is using a very outdated movement and so is the Daytona. The Skydweller is their most advanced movement and it's not that advanced. Many give Rolex a pass for their dated movements because they have no choice. If you want a Rolex that's whats under the hood.
> 
> Rolex doesn't need or care if you buy their watches where Omega has to work constantly to earn your business. I love Rolex but they are conservative to a fault that they become boring after years of ownership. Rolex is also entirely too controlling and they ruined their service network of repair centers. This means that they could easily swap out your movement for a refurb one and there is nothing you could do about it. (not saying anything other than inside Rolex authorized watchmaker gossip isn't that impressed with the current Rolex service direction.) Rolex openly states they are not committed to keep outdated parts in stock. This wasn't a issue when there were hundreds of watchmakers keeping these older Rolex watches running with parts but now you as the owner have no choice but to use the Rolex factory service centers for service. The future is very uncertain.
> 
> Rolex has the image and to some that is the most important reason to own one. We are in a uncharted world with what Rolex value might be as never in their history has their watches been so over inflated in the market due to choking off the supply. They are a factory made watch and not AP or PP so their actual msrp value will come back down as no reasonably knowledgeable enthusiast is paying AP money for a factory made SS Rolex. As for the watches themself I know the new Omega's look like a more premium watch now than Rolex. That's saying a lot as I have dogs on both sides of the fight. My money won't be going to Rolex in this market and is being spent on other more exciting and prestigious watch brands.
> Everyone has an opinion and this is mine and the direction I am taking


Thanks for sharing your insight as an owner of both and especially about the movements. Very interesting!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mystro

k.lange said:


> Thanks for sharing your insight as an owner of both and especially about the movements. Very interesting!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks. I believe ownership is always recommended as a honest evaluation. Unfortunately the market for SS Professional Rolex models is so unrealistically high that it isn't recommended at this point n time. Years ago when the price point was so close between watches, it made sense to just buy both.


----------



## GTTIME

I have two Rolex watches the DSSD JC and the SD43. Still think nothing beats the PO. Especially the Ti PO in early evening. The PO is so legible, clean dial, simple bezel, rectangle markers and awesome arrow hands.

Out for a walk with the dog.


----------



## limnoman

Mystro said:


> Thanks. I believe ownership is always recommended as a honest evaluation. Unfortunately the market for SS Professional Rolex models is so unrealistically high that it isn't recommended at this point n time. Years ago when the price point was so close between watches, it made sense to just buy both.


I also appreciated reading your post. More often than not members comment on why they like one watch over another but have not owned both watches.


----------



## FarmKid

Two Words... Twisted Lugs! I don't think I have ever seen a watch with twisted lugs that I didn't love!


----------



## ChronoOCD

k.lange said:


> I believe the PO is better than the Sub in looks, size, bracelet build quality, price, supply vs demand, and perception.
> 
> Looks
> First off the PO is GORGEOUS! I've worn my 45.5mm 8500 practically every day since I bought it 2 1/2 years ago and I still find myself staring at it and just marveling at its beauty!
> 
> The Sub has a classic and iconic look, but the market is saturated with "homages" that basically copy it or those that are heavily inspired by it.
> 
> Size
> The 40mm Sub is just too small for me, but my 45.5mm PO is perfect! I don't want my watch to "disappear" because I don't realize I'm wearing it. I have nice watches to enjoy every moment I'm wearing them! With my 7.5" wrists I even felt my 42mm Speedy was a tad too small. So with the Sub at 40mm in diameter and a diver's bezel it wears even smaller! I've worn some Nomos' under 40mm, but their very thin bezels make the watch feel a lot larger. As for the other Rolex dive watches the cyclops ruins the 43mm Sea-Dweller. That just leaves the 44mm Deapsea. I somewhat like the Deepsea, but when you add the gorgeous D-Blue dial you have an amazing watch! Definitely my second favorite diver.
> 
> Bracelet Quality
> When I owned my Speedy 3570.50, which was my first Swiss watch, I was stunned when I tried on my friend's Sub and found that a number of the bracelet's links were hollow!! It made the bracelet feel cheap and sound very "tinny". Additionally, the presence of hollow links will result in the bracelet stretching out over time. I love the Speedy's completely solid bracelet as well as the PO's solid bracelet. Both are very comfortable and of extremely high quality.
> 
> Supply vs Demand
> As I have been thinking about whether I want to spring for the Deepsea D-Blue I was shocked to find out that Rolex behaves the same way with their watches as De Beers does with diamonds: they limit the supply creating inflated prices of their watches! For years Rolex has produced such a small number of their supposedly affordable steel sport watches thereby creating a completely ridiculous market where both new and pre-owned watches sell for more than MSRP. A new Sub will Cost you a few thousand more than MSRP and new Daytona will cost double ($12,400 vs $25,000)! The only way to get a watch at MSRP is to wait a couple years or have a close relationship with an AD.
> 
> Price
> I simply think the Sub and many Rolexes are over priced both new and pre-owned. As I've already mentioned supply I'm now focusing on demand. I feel that in general people have an inordinate need for Rolexes including Subs. Yes, I understand pricing for luxury items aren't very rational, but I feel (just my opinion) that the demand and subsequent pricing for Rolexes is much more irrational than other high quality watch brands.
> 
> I know that Rolex fans will go on about the quality of the watches and yes there is good watch making. It's just that the "story" of Rolex's prowess exceeds reality. Rolex touts the amazing waterproof feature of the first Sub in 1953 being the first dive watch as it was rated to a depth of 100 meters. What is interesting about that claim is that it ignores Omega's Marine dive watch which was introduced in 1932 (21 years before the Sub!) that was used in a 73 meter dive and later rated to 135 meters.
> 
> Then comes the testing for space. I recently watched a video posted on YouTube which was the first in a five part series called The Speedmaster Chronicles by Monochrome Watches and Omega. In the first video James H. Ragan is interviewed. Mr. Ragan was the NASA engineer who put out the official request for watches to be submitted for testing to be the official watch to go to space and participate in Extravehicular Activities. Rolex was one of the four companies to submit a watch, the Daytona. What was fascinating to learn from Mr. Ragen is that not only did the Speedmaster pass all 10 tests, but all of the three other competing watches failed the very first test! They didn't just fail, but completely stopped working! I think that is an incredible testimony to the ruggedness and durability of the Speedmaster and Omega watches in general. Both the Omega watch and the Rolex watch were not designed specifically to survive the rigors of space, but only the Omega passed all 10 tests!
> 
> Perception
> Lastly I'm not a fan of the perception that Rolex has in the minds of the general public. Most people think of Rolexes as a super fancy, expensive, and extravagant accessory. I don't think I have ever heard people discuss Rolex in a positive light. It's lumped in with loud brash people who want to loudly declare their wealth. I appreciate my Speedy and PO as they fly the under the radar and don't attract a lot of attention.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It must've been a pre ceramic Sub you tried on. The newer bracelet is made of solid 904L steel, and it's arguably the most comfortable steel bracelet on the market. Also the clasp with glidelock micro adjustments is superior quality. 
The only thing I didn't like about 40mm Sub is the maxi-case but SD43 has better proportions. While I prefer a more symmetrical look without a cyclop, I don't think it ruins the watch. The date is very easy to read especially if your vision is not 20/20. Also SD43 is more wearable than 44mm Deep Sea.


----------



## MichaelB25

I'm going to admit it -- part of why I like having my PO 2500 (XL) in my rotation is that it's not a Rolex.

I don't say that as a Rolex hater -- I have a 6-digit Pepsi in my regular rotation. It's one of my 2 or 3 most frequently worn pieces. But there are times where I just want to wear a nice watch that I enjoy without drawing attention to myself. Throw the PO on a canvas or rubber strap, where it spends the majority if the time, and it flies pretty well under the radar. It's become my go-to casual watch. 

Also, I think the 2500 PO might be one of my favorite bezel inserts out there. The contrast between the knurling, black ring, aluminum ring, then black face just works perfectly to me, and makes it a bit of an underrated strap monster. I don't particularly know how to describe it, but it just works. 

That's not to say it's perfect, and I've at times debated going after a no-date, lug-holed 14060. I like the way that the knurling on Sub bezels play with the light. I'm not a huge fan of matte dials, and the hour sticks on the 2500 aren't up to par with later Omegas, or 5 or 6 digit Rolexes. There are times when the light hits the dial the right way and it might be my favorite design, but then there are other times when the light hits the dial the wrong way and the dial falls flat. While I love the design of the PO's dial, the execution of it falls a bit short of perfection for me. But no watch is without things I would change, and I've never been able to actually bring myself to moving on from my 2500 PO.


----------



## Mystro

MichaelB25 said:


> I'm going to admit it -- part of why I like having my PO 2500 (XL) in my rotation is that it's not a Rolex.
> 
> I don't say that as a Rolex hater -- I have a 6-digit Pepsi in my regular rotation. It's one of my 2 or 3 most frequently worn pieces. But there are times where I just want to wear a nice watch that I enjoy without drawing attention to myself. Throw the PO on a canvas or rubber strap, where it spends the majority if the time, and it flies pretty well under the radar. It's become my go-to casual watch.
> 
> Also, I think the 2500 PO might be one of my favorite bezel inserts out there. The contrast between the knurling, black ring, aluminum ring, then black face just works perfectly to me, and makes it a bit of an underrated strap monster. I don't particularly know how to describe it, but it just works.
> 
> That's not to say it's perfect, and I've at times debated going after a no-date, lug-holed 14060. I like the way that the knurling on Sub bezels play with the light. I'm not a huge fan of matte dials, and the hour sticks on the 2500 aren't up to par with later Omegas, or 5 or 6 digit Rolexes. There are times when the light hits the dial the right way and it might be my favorite design, but then there are other times when the light hits the dial the wrong way and the dial falls flat. While I love the design of the PO's dial, the execution of it falls a bit short of perfection for me. But no watch is without things I would change, and I've never been able to actually bring myself to moving on from my 2500 PO.


The 2500 PO is a good design and somewhere between a classic and modern Sub. I found it wore very well and made my classic Subs feel kind flimsy when I owned both together. The PO also looks as good on the oem rubber strap as it does on a bracelet. For me, the PO 2500 was the first diver that really went after the Rolex Sub.


----------



## GTTIME

Mystro said:


> The 2500 PO is a good design and somewhere between a classic and modern Sub. I found it wore very well and made my classic Subs feel kind flimsy when I owned both together. The PO also looks as good on the oem rubber strap as it does on a bracelet.


Interesting. I saw a few of your posts extolling the virtues of your Rolexes.

What do you still have in your collection?


----------



## Mountaineer

Mystro said:


> The 2500 PO is a good design and somewhere between a classic and modern Sub. I found it wore very well and made my classic Subs feel kind flimsy when I owned both together. The PO also looks as good on the oem rubber strap as it does on a bracelet. For me, the PO 2500 was the first diver that really went after the Rolex Sub.


That's an interesting statement. Usually you see people using the "flimsy" terms describing Omega vs. Rolex. Not the other way, as you did. I actually like to hear it.


----------



## Mystro

GTTIME said:


> Interesting. I saw a few of your posts extolling the virtues of your Rolexes.
> 
> What do you still have in your collection?


CHNR but its in low rotation. The current brand "Rolex" is not matching my personality. The brand and its buying demographic has radically changed in the last two years. Its has become a more pretentious image from my perspective. The new Rolex owners raise their noses at other significant horological brands they know nothing about all the while chanting the resale mantra as if it makes it a "better" performing watch. Reminds me of needy kids wasting their night standing outside a club hoping to get in only to pay $20 for a domestic beer.

I am wearing Omega and Panerai almost exclusively these days. I have fallen back into synch with the current Omega as I did way back with the initial release of the 2500 PO. There is a "X factor" with these watches and the direction of Omega as a company that speaks to me. Panerai has also impressed me with their new in-house P.9010 movement and high tech watch materials like Carbotech. These are exciting to a watch enthusiast.


----------



## Mystro

Mountaineer said:


> That's an interesting statement. Usually you see people using the "flimsy" terms describing Omega vs. Rolex. Not the other way, as you did. I actually like to hear it.


There was no contest and when we were paying $3k for the PO that made a 5 digit Sub's bracelet and clasp feel literally like a tuna can we knew the PO was destined for greatness. The 2500 Coaxial was doing 0 seconds in 30 days with better lume, etc... yea you didn't need to be a watch enthusiast to see Rolex needed to step up their game. And now we are in uncharted territory with this Rolex shortage as it would appear Rolex is pushing their image as the driving force to buy the watch rather than advancing their actual watch. This is why you are getting these all new "image conscious" buyers rather than enthusiast.


----------



## Acey

Aesthetically speaking, the PO ticks all the boxes for me. It's truly a modern diver and although the Sub's design is arguably a timeless classic, the style hasnt changed much since its inception, which makes it look a bit dated in its styling. Also, the fact that anyone can recognize a sub from a mile away seems to garner unwanted attention, for me atleast.


----------



## Galaga




----------



## anonymousmoose

I like Rolex Pepsi dialed watches, but now prefer this


----------



## PeteJ

anonymousmoose said:


> I like Rolex Pepsi dialed watches, but now prefer this


Does this mean you bought it?


----------



## PeteJ

Mystro said:


> There was no contest and when we were paying $3k for the PO that made a 5 digit Sub's bracelet and clasp feel literally like a tuna can we knew the PO was destined for greatness. The 2500 Coaxial was doing 0 seconds in 30 days with better lume, etc... yea you didn't need to be a watch enthusiast to see Rolex needed to step up their game. And now we are in uncharted territory with this Rolex shortage as it would appear Rolex is pushing their image as the driving force to buy the watch rather than advancing their actual watch. This is why you are getting these all new "image conscious" buyers rather than enthusiast.


I agree with you, and I don't.

The five digit reference Submariner, for me, was not a winner. That clasp was terrible for the price to a buyer like me. So in that respect, the PO was a better proposition, losing only on using pins and not screws in the bracelet. The movement of that 2500 PO, to many, turned out to be a dog and that didn't help. However, I wouldn't concede that that Rolex strategy was to restrict supply and wage an image and/or exclusivity battle.

The six digit Submariner, should you be able to get hold of one, is a formidable thing. I don't disagree that Rolex's recent strategy is a train wreck, but the watches are still great kit. I would contend the Submariner competes for quality and wins in some places, not in others. The challenge is that the Submariner, by any objective measure, is too expensive. The market bears it, the exclusivity hold it up there and all that drivel owners like me tell ourselves to justify paying that much for a three handed diver, the fact is, I could afford it, I wanted it, I paid it without too much concern. Was it worth it? Sure. Was it good value? Not really, but I don't care. The fact the price is too high and the brand has this arrogant strategy makes and apples to apples comparison difficult, cause one must clear the white noise of these factors before thinking logically about one versus the other.


----------



## anonymousmoose

Mystro said:


> There was no contest and when we were paying $3k for the PO that made a 5 digit Sub's bracelet and clasp feel literally like a tuna can we knew the PO was destined for greatness. The 2500 Coaxial was doing 0 seconds in 30 days with better lume, etc... yea you didn't need to be a watch enthusiast to see Rolex needed to step up their game. And now we are in uncharted territory with this Rolex shortage as it would appear Rolex is pushing their image as the driving force to buy the watch rather than advancing their actual watch. This is why you are getting these all new "image conscious" buyers rather than enthusiast.


I agree. I toyed with buying a Rolex two weeks ago when I came out from under my rock back into the watch world. The 'shortage' soon dash my idea of buying a $10,000 Rolex. I like them but not enough to pay a premium for used or grey one.

I remembered the PO 2500 was the watch that gave me the most joy (when it was working) so it was not long (after trying an IWC aquatimer and Omega Speedy) to make the decision to go back to the PO (now the movement issues seem sorted and the 5 year warranty).

Sure the PO has gone up in price since I remembered which makes them less attractive. But the Submariner is in a crazy class of its own now which makes the buying process too tedious or expensive, it's not worth that. However if someone has contracts to still get them retail without too much effort, they make a good buy.

The Submariner is a great watch for what it was, an entry level easy to get Rolex.

My regret was choosing a PO over the Submariner years go... when the used market was flooded with 'em. Only reason I regret it was because my PO kept breaking on me. I did have a second chance at a Sub but chose my grail IWC (no regrets)

...
I wonder what that funny watch snob blog character has to say... is he still around?


----------



## anonymousmoose

Mystro said:


> The 2500 PO is a good design and somewhere between a classic and modern Sub. I found it wore very well and made my classic Subs feel kind flimsy when I owned both together. The PO also looks as good on the oem rubber strap as it does on a bracelet. For me, the PO 2500 was the first diver that really went after the Rolex Sub.


The PO still does seem to be chasing the sub. Back in the days you were referring to the designs were black or orange (or a mixture). Rolex has had two tone and various coloured Subs for as long as I remember and now the PO seems to have followed suite.

The PO may be less appealing to some because certain colour combos can be off putting to the eyes of the beholder. I see it as more choices, which is a good thing, as long as they keep the traditional black in there somewhere.

PO is trying to take the spot of a Sub and the Sub is trying to do who knows what.


----------



## Micmicmotorbike

The sub is just too perfect. Proportions and all. But for the price and value = PO takes it.


----------



## cadomniel

Well, I have owned the PO 2500 and a 14060M Sub . Enjoyed both but the No Date Sub I didn't like the bracelet and clasp , never got it to fit right on my small wrist, and the PO 2500 was slightly to big and top heavy on the bracelet.
I love the 114060 but for the same amount of money I would rather buy a Planet Ocean 39.5mm and an Aqua Terra


----------



## Galaga

PeteJ said:


> I agree with you, and I don't.
> 
> The five digit reference Submariner, for me, was not a winner. That clasp was terrible for the price to a buyer like me. So in that respect, the PO was a better proposition, losing only on using pins and not screws in the bracelet. The movement of that 2500 PO, to many, turned out to be a dog and that didn't help. However, I wouldn't concede that that Rolex strategy was to restrict supply and wage an image and/or exclusivity battle.
> 
> The six digit Submariner, should you be able to get hold of one, is a formidable thing. I don't disagree that Rolex's recent strategy is a train wreck, but the watches are still great kit. I would contend the Submariner competes for quality and wins in some places, not in others. The challenge is that the Submariner, by any objective measure, is too expensive. The market bears it, the exclusivity hold it up there and all that drivel owners like me tell ourselves to justify paying that much for a three handed diver, the fact is, I could afford it, I wanted it, I paid it without too much concern. Was it worth it? Sure. Was it good value? Not really, but I don't care. The fact the price is too high and the brand has this arrogant strategy makes and apples to apples comparison difficult, cause one must clear the white noise of these factors before thinking logically about one versus the other.


Great post. After reading this I truly think buying one overpriced Rolex is enough. And I mean that sincerely.


----------



## anonymousmoose

Micmicmotorbike said:


> The sub is just too perfect. Proportions and all. But for the price and value = PO takes it.


I do like the proportions of the submariners as they easily fit under a business shirts cuffs and look great casual, PO not so much.

Proportion wise the PO is more like a Sea-Dweller. The Seamaster Pros more like the Submariner.

I probably wouldn't buy a PO as my only watch, at least not a 43.5mm or larger. But to add to a collection I think it holds its own against a submariner.


----------



## Galaga

anonymousmoose said:


> I do like the proportions of the submariners as they easily fit under a business shirts cuffs and look great casual, PO not so much.
> 
> Proportion wise the PO is more like a Sea-Dweller. The Seamaster Pros more like the Submariner.
> 
> I probably wouldn't buy a PO as my only watch, at least not a 43.5mm or larger. But to add to a collection I think it holds its own against a submariner.


The 2500 is the only PO that I know of that can fit comfortably under a cuff.


----------



## anonymousmoose

Galaga said:


> The 2500 is the only PO that I know of that can fit comfortably under a cuff.


It did, still a bit more chunky than a Pro or Sub


----------



## limnoman

Galaga said:


> Great post. After reading this I truly think buying one overpriced Rolex is enough. And I mean that sincerely.


Time will tell - you're a whale now


----------



## Galaga

rjohnson56 said:


> Time will tell - you're a whale now


No I'm not. You realise that if I get that Pepsi GMT at retail I can flip it and basically pay for a nice overseas holiday with my family from the money I make.


----------



## IH Biker

To me, I think it is personal taste. I like the in house movement in Omega’s, my PO GMT is tracking +0.3s daily. The 60-hours power reserve, the movement view back, the reasonable price, and etc. 

Stopped at an Omega Boutique last weekend and had a good conversation with the Sales personal. He agreed the resell value on the Rolex is amazing, but for a collector who does not trade often is good to wait till the price decreases. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limnoman

Galaga said:


> No I'm not. You realise that if I get that Pepsi GMT at retail I can flip it and basically pay for a nice overseas holiday with my family from the money I make.


or flip the Black, Black, Black, keep the Pepsi and take an even longer vacation


----------



## limnoman

IH Biker said:


> To me, I think it is personal taste. I like the in house movement in Omega's, my PO GMT is tracking +0.3s daily. The 60-hours power reserve, the movement view back, the reasonable price, and etc.
> 
> Stopped at an Omega Boutique last weekend and had a good conversation with the Sales personal. He agreed the resell value on the Rolex is amazing, but for a collector who does not trade often is* good to wait till the price decreases*.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


AND Rolex decides to update the movement. If you like changing watches during the weekend, a longer PR is good to have.


----------



## Galaga

rjohnson56 said:


> or flip the Black, Black, Black, keep the Pepsi and take an even longer vacation


Or sell everything keep the PO, LN and BLRO and have an awesome trio.


----------



## IH Biker

rjohnson56 said:


> AND Rolex decides to update the movement. If you like changing watches during the weekend, a longer PR is good to have.


I j on now they have recent changes their movement. I have the Tudor with the in house 72-hour PR. But it does not have the jump hour hand which is a valuable feature for me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limnoman

IH Biker said:


> I j on now they have recent changes their movement. I have the Tudor with the in house 72-hour PR. But it does not have the jump hour hand which is a valuable feature for me.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The independent hour hand on the 89xx movements come in handy when travelling or changing the date at the end of the month.


----------

