# Seamaster 300 M ceramic vs. Rolex Sub-C



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

So, I've been going through a debate about what watch to buy----similar to what many others here have gone through. I've always admired fine watches but never had the money to buy one. For the past couple years I've been looking at various Omegas. 

How'd I settle on Omega? I came to the opinion that Omega was making watches that compared favorably to Rolex at half the price. I've always been one to seek quality over a name brand. I also looked at Tags, Breitlings, Oris, Fortis, etc., but I decided that Omega was the sweet spot between quality and price.

I would like to buy a watch that I will wear every day and that I will pass on to my son someday (he's still an egg in some unknown woman's body:-d). I want something that will mechanically last a long time. I may only buy one really nice watch.

When the Seamaster 300M ceramic came out, I was instantly drawn to it. I prefer the 300 to the PO 42 black/white, as to me the PO 42 face is more cluttered w/ numbers and bigger markers. Additionally, I'm not a fan of the PO 42 ceramic, as the bezel grey color is ugly to me. I also think the 300 bracelet is more comfortable.

So, I was set on the 300M ceramic--its a $4400 watch for which I could pay that at an AD, or go to a reputable bricks and mortar store in Maryland (I'm in the DC area) who's not an AD and get it for $3300. (From the little I read, these reputable grey market dealers buy their watches from ADs who need to get rid of stock; I'm guessing the AD orders lots of stock to get deals from Omega?). (Additionally, does anyone get significant discounts from ADs? Do AD employees get discounts, I wonder.)

In any case, the 300M ceramic seems like a good watch for the price. Until I read about the new silicon spring in the PO 8500s. Crap. Omega's website says : "While the performance of mechanical watches tends to deviate over time as a result of small everyday shocks, these disturbances have very little effect on silicon balance-springs." 

Reading that made me feel like I was buying an inferior movement with the 300M ceramic 2500---and that if I wanted to wear this watch everyday and present it to my son in 50 years, I should buy a better watch. Thus, I'm interested in opinions on the longevity of the movement, with the knowledge that the co-axial hasn't been around long enough to prove itself. Besides that, Omega doesn't seem to think much of its own non-silicon springs. What am I supposed to think. Opinions?

And that all brings me to my next thought. Crap, maybe I should scrape together more dough and spend $8000 on a Rolex Sub-C. (I wonder if there is any way to get these discounted....I've seen grey market prices for only several hundred bucks off retail.)

The MONEY QUESTION: 
Are the escapement, spring, barrel, wheel, non-movement parts (bezel, bracelet, case), etc. in the Rolex Sub-C going to be more durable than the Omega 300M-C?

I've read tons of brilliant posts here, so I know I won't be lacking for great opinionated responses!

Thanks much---Philip


----------



## Runitout (Aug 19, 2009)

philipcertain100 said:


> Reading that made me feel like I was buying an inferior movement with the 300M ceramic 2500---and that if I wanted to wear this watch everyday and present it to my son in 50 years, I should buy a better watch. Thus, I'm interested in opinions on the longevity of the movement, with the knowledge that the co-axial hasn't been around long enough to prove itself. Besides that, Omega doesn't seem to think much of its own non-silicon springs. What am I supposed to think. Opinions?
> 
> And that all brings me to my next thought. Crap, maybe I should scrape together more dough and spend $8000 on a Rolex Sub-C. (I wonder if there is any way to get these discounted....I've seen grey market prices for only several hundred bucks off retail.)
> 
> ...


Short answer: _No._

Long answer:

1. Long term longevity seems to be your highest concern. I don't see any real difference between the two, from that perspective. You will have replaced the hairspring in either watch by the time you hand it over to your son in 50 years (who may then sell it, or bin it, if you are unlucky) whether it is made of silicon or not. You will need to service either watch periodically, whatever the movement that runs inside. I think the 8500 is a slightly better movement (and it should be, for the price!), but it's a mechanical movement using lubricant that needs care and attention to last, just like the 2500d (and the 3135/3136 etc).

Bear in mind we are talking about two movements that are among the best movements currently available on any watch for any price.

2. I don't know what the relevance of the Rolex is. It has neither the silicon hairspring or the co-axial escapement. The 3135 is a nice movement, though. Longevity? I could get into a long answer about service interval and the winding post,* but in short the Omegas are at least as durable as the Rolex movement. Don't get me wrong, it's a very nice watch, but it's not more durable than the Omega. It's not more _anything _than the Omega, except for expensive.

In your shoes, I would buy whichever one you liked the look of more, found fitted comfortably on your wrist, and seemed to you like being worth the outrageous sum of money that all three choices require you to spend.

*or you could just read this - Rolex Caliber 3135 - Still worthy of the crown after all these years?


----------



## jbgood (Jul 8, 2011)

I agree with the above.. If the most important thing is longevity, then regular servicing intervals are the main objective for you, just like with a car. And I assume , that since there is a big price difference between Rolex and Omega , the pricing of the service might differ as well. Since servicing should be done every 5 yr (according to the websites) you are talking about 10 services before you pass it on to the egg.

With the price difference between the 2 watches you can pay for those 10 services. That being said, and being the owner of a Seamaster 300Mc, I do really like the Rolex, it is an icon.

check these links on servicing suggestions :

OMEGA Watches: Complete maintenance service
Luxury Watches - Swiss Watches | TAG HEUER

Good luck with your choice.. let us know what the choice will be.

ps. Yes, AD's do discount. Send me a PM if you need info


----------



## devilva (Oct 15, 2009)

You should be able to get a SubC for $7K or just over new, secondhand obviously less. Both iconic watches imo, the Seamaster and the Submariner. You cant really go wrong with either, hopefully you like the ceramic models. Me personally im finding vintage a lot more attractive.


----------



## geremy (Apr 11, 2006)

The Sub-c 2500 movement is robust but I wouldn't say compares favorably to the excellent 3135. They both have a free sprung balance at least, but the 3135 has full balance bridge, an anti-magnetic hairspring, a completely silent bidirectional winding system, and a longer power reserve. Notice that Omega recently put all of these items into the 8500.

Do you need those things in your watch? Plenty of watches have lasted far longer than 50 years without them.


----------



## Runitout (Aug 19, 2009)

geremy said:


> The Sub-c 2500 movement is robust but I wouldn't say compares favorably to the excellent 3135. They both have a free sprung balance at least, but the 3135 has full balance bridge, an anti-magnetic hairspring, a completely silent bidirectional winding system, and a longer power reserve. Notice that Omega recently put all of these items into the 8500.
> 
> Do you need those things in your watch? Plenty of watches have lasted far longer than 50 years without them.


On the other hand, the 2500 has the coaxial escapement. Power reserve is irrelevant, because he'll be wearing only one nice watch. The Rolex winding system, while silent, is prone to wear.

I have both the 2403 and 3130 with Parachrom - ie, the ND versions of each movement. I firmly believe that neither is demonstrably better than the other. The 8500 is, in my opinion, as it combines the strengths of each with the weaknesses of neither.


----------



## Zidane (Feb 11, 2006)

You'd be fine with either one - they're both very fine watches. Just get the one that YOU really want. Once you get to this price point and level of quality, the law of diminishing returns rears its ugly head. 

With that being said, if YOU want the Sub...then don't let anything stop you because you'll just keep coming back. No sense in trying to justify the cost or benefits between the two watches. Trust me, I know from experience. ;-)


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

Can you expound on your comment in bold below?



Runitout said:


> On the other hand, the 2500 has the coaxial escapement. Power reserve is irrelevant, because he'll be wearing only one nice watch. *The Rolex winding system, while silent, is prone to wear. *
> 
> I have both the 2403 and 3130 with Parachrom - ie, the ND versions of each movement. I firmly believe that neither is demonstrably better than the other. The 8500 is, in my opinion, as it combines the strengths of each with the weaknesses of neither.


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

Well, if Omega would just put the 8500 in the new 300M ceramic, then my problem would be solved!  Any Omega insiders have info that Omega will do this?



geremy said:


> The Sub-c 2500 movement is robust but I wouldn't say compares favorably to the excellent 3135. They both have a free sprung balance at least, but the 3135 has full balance bridge, an anti-magnetic hairspring, a completely silent bidirectional winding system, and a longer power reserve. *Notice that Omega recently put all of these items into the 8500.*
> 
> Do you need those things in your watch? Plenty of watches have lasted far longer than 50 years without them.


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

Ref comment in red below, I'd love to hear other side of the argument from members--that the 2500D does compare favorably to the 3135. Or additional opinion that the 3135 is superior. Thanks much for all your input.



geremy said:


> The Sub-c *2500 movement is robust but I wouldn't say compares favorably to the excellent 3135*. They both have a free sprung balance at least, but the 3135 has full balance bridge, an anti-magnetic hairspring, a completely silent bidirectional winding system, and a longer power reserve. Notice that Omega recently put all of these items into the 8500.
> 
> Do you need those things in your watch? Plenty of watches have lasted far longer than 50 years without them.


----------



## BHL (Dec 26, 2010)

My understanding is (and please correct me if I'm wrong), ETA 2892-A2 is considered on par with Rolex 3135 movement by many watchmakers. Going back to 2500D (which is modified 2892-A2 movement by Omega), as far as the power reserve is concerned Omega 2500D has 48 hours of reserve whereas Rolex 3135 has about 50 which is comparable. They both have bi-directioinal winding, hence similar level of winding efficiency. 
Omega recommends the service interval of 7-8 years opposed to 4-5 years recommended by Rolex.
Based on these criteria - power reserve, winding efficiency, accuracy, and maintenance interval - I'd say 2500D is quite comparable to 3135.

BTW, 3135 has sleeve bearing for the winding rotor as opposed to ball bearing on 2500D, which makes proper oiling critical to ensure the winding efficiency and minimize the wear.



philipcertain100 said:


> Ref comment in red below, I'd love to hear other side of the argument from members--that the 2500D does compare favorably to the 3135. Or additional opinion that the 2500D is inferior. Anyone?


----------



## Perseus (Mar 25, 2010)

philipcertain100 said:


> Well, if Omega would just put the 8500 in the new 300M ceramic, then my problem would be solved!  Any Omega insiders have info that Omega will do this?


I doubt it. The just redesigned the 300M so the earliest, if ever, it will receive the 8500 would be the next generation. I think they use the appeal of the 8500 to get buyers to a more expensive watch.

Back to your original question, I'm not a watch authority but I don't see either watch being superior to the other. My boss has a 1980-something Rolex sub and I really thought my first gen Planet Ocean was nicer in every way. I think it should be considering the Rolex is 30 years older! All that to say technology is always changing and tolerances are getting tighter and tighter so watches are constantly improving. I think either watch is a great choice and it comes down to what appeals to you and what you're willing to spend.


----------



## Zidane (Feb 11, 2006)

I don't know enough about movements to comment specifically on the merits or demerits of the 3135 or the 2500D movements. If Al @ Archer, silentwatchmaker, or one of our other members (M4tt?) that have more than a casual knowledge of watch movements could elaborate, I'm sure we'd all appreciate it.


----------



## geremy (Apr 11, 2006)

If you're going to be a movement snob, you might as well get the sub-c or the 8500 PO, because I doubt anyone is going to try and say that the 2500 is as good as the 3135, because it isn't. It's a good robust movement that will serve you well for a very long time though.

To address an earlier poster, the 2500 has a 'supposed' 48 hour pr (though mine never went that long) at a slower beat rate than the 50 hour (conservatively rated from what I hear) 3135. Both systems wind bidirectionally, but the Rolex system is silent. It's true that the sleeve bearing requires a bit more frequent maintenance.


----------



## Runitout (Aug 19, 2009)

philipcertain100 said:


> Can you expound on your comment in bold below?


It's all set out in the article I linked to above in the thread.

Bear in mind for the sake of the comparison in that article that the 2500d is a effectively a 2892a2 with free sprung balance, coaxial escapement and some other (minor) improvements.

I own and respect both.


----------



## solesman (Dec 3, 2009)

Wise words spoken there Nick. It has cost me lots of time and money.



Zidane said:


> You'd be fine with either one - they're both very fine watches. Just get the one that YOU really want. Once you get to this price point and level of quality, the law of diminishing returns rears its ugly head.
> 
> With that being said, if YOU want the Sub...then don't let anything stop you because you'll just keep coming back. No sense in trying to justify the cost or benefits between the two watches. Trust me, I know from experience. ;-)


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

Runitout said:


> It's all set out in the article I linked to above in the thread.
> 
> Bear in mind for the sake of the comparison in that article that the 2500d is a effectively a 2892a2 with free sprung balance, coaxial escapement and some other (minor) improvements.
> 
> I own and respect both.


I just read the article. Thanks for that. It was a pretty good rundown of the 3135, and also a good explanation of how it compares to the 2500 (an improved ETA 2892-2A). I feel more comfortable now that if I go with the 2500D, I'm getting a movement that is right up there with the 3135. Thank you.


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

geremy said:


> If you're going to be a movement snob, you might as well get the sub-c or the 8500 PO, because *I doubt anyone is going to try and say that the 2500 is as good as the 3135, because it isn't.* It's a good robust movement that will serve you well for a very long time though.
> 
> To address an earlier poster, the 2500 has a 'supposed' 48 hour pr (though mine never went that long) at a slower beat rate than the 50 hour (conservatively rated from what I hear) 3135. Both systems wind bidirectionally, but the Rolex system is silent. It's true that the sleeve bearing requires a bit more frequent maintenance.


I would have agreed with your comment in red above....until I read this article below. If you can't get through the whole article with pictures, scroll down to the "Winner is" para at bottom: 
Rolex Caliber 3135 - Still worthy of the crown after all these years?


----------



## STILES (Nov 17, 2010)

I think you should go out to your local AD's and try on each watch. They are both well made watches that will last for decades with proper service. 

A few things to consider would be the weight of the watches and the ability to get a nice fit out of the bracelet. My past experience with the SMP bracelets are it will either fit perfect or it won't due to the lack of microadjustments. I've tried both on and the SMP-C is a bit heavier than the SUB-C. I'm not sure what you do for a living but if you sit at a desk all day typing on a computer the weight of the watch might come into play. 

If cost is an issue I would go with the SMP-C hands down, for less than half of the price of the SUB-C you are getting a high quality dive watch at a great price. Also the service costs on the SMP-C are going to be much cheaper over the lifetime of the watch as opposed to the cost of servicing a Rolex. 

You should also ask yourself "will I still enjoy the look of this watch 10 years from now?" Omega will redesign the look of their watches about every decade plus or minus a few years. Rolex tends to stick to one similar design for years and years before they make any major changes. 

In the end you can't go wrong with either watch, just go with your gut feeling.


----------



## geremy (Apr 11, 2006)

philipcertain100 said:


> I would have agreed with your comment in red above....until I read this article below. If you can't get through the whole article with pictures, scroll down to the "Winner is" para at bottom:
> Rolex Caliber 3135 - Still worthy of the crown after all these years?


Yes I have read that article, but I guess we took the conclusion quite differently. Is the 2500 good enough? Yes. Is it better than the 3135? No.


----------



## Muffnbluff (Nov 15, 2011)

The Rolex is like a Porsche 911S, the Omega like a BMW M3. Can't really go wrong with either, if you don't want to spend the extra $$$, it's a no brainer to get the SMP. But if money isn't an issue, it's up to what you like best.

IMO the Omega SMP ceramic is a hell of a deal right now. Since it still has the 2500D movement and can still be bought at dealers for a big discount, it's by far a more for your money than the Sub in my opinion. Should be able to get a new SMP-c for under $3,500.


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

STILES said:


> I think you should go out to your local AD's and try on each watch. They are both well made watches that will last for decades with proper service.
> 
> A few things to consider would be the weight of the watches and the ability to get a nice fit out of the bracelet. My past experience with the SMP bracelets are it will either fit perfect or it won't due to the lack of microadjustments. I've tried both on and the SMP-C is a bit heavier than the SUB-C. I'm not sure what you do for a living but if you sit at a desk all day typing on a computer the weight of the watch might come into play.
> 
> ...


Thanks. I will def hit the dealer and spend some time with the watches on my wrist. You're right about comfort being a major factor.

Will I enjoy the look of the watch ten years from now? That's a great question. The Rolex--def yes. The SMP---I think so. The PO--I don't know.

The SMP is still in the lead in my book. $4400 minus fave discount is pretty good. I like the design and colors.

The new PO 8500 ceramic at $6200 minus fave discount is a good deal. (The old PO 2500 at $4500 minus fave discount is also something to consider.) I don't really like the look of the grey ceramic bezel on new PO. I wonder why Omega didn't make it the same color as the SMP-C. I don't think I like the PO look as much as the SMP.

Then there's the Sub-c at $8000 with almost no discount. I probably like its look the best. Maybe because I've been wearing a Seiko Auto diver that looks very similar. Maybe because the Rolex marketing machine has got into my head. Maybe because its just plain the best looking watch.

I like the look of the SMP and Sub-C best right now. In ten years? I don't know. Both designs are fairly classic. Do I like the Sub more? I have to admit that if price were the same I'd buy the sub. But $8000 is a lot of money for a watch, even if I can afford it.

I'm going to go back to the stores and get the feel and look of each watch a little more. I haven't found a store that has the Sub-C and the SMP so I can see them side by side.

Thanks to all for your great input.


----------



## Adam S (Oct 13, 2011)

Great thread. Was a very good read.


----------



## GaryF (Dec 18, 2009)

philipcertain100 said:


> I don't really like the look of the grey ceramic bezel on new PO. I wonder why Omega didn't make it the same color as the SMP-C.


My guess is that it _is _the same colour but the matte surface texture renders it grey. Glossy surfaces will always look darker because of the way that the throw off light in a more concentrated reflection. A matte surface scatters light from its uneven surface. Find some matte paint and varnish it with a licked finger to see what I mean.
You could compare the dials of the old and new Rolex Explorer to get an idea of the pluses and minuses. The new model has a more matte dial and it avoids the flashes of reflection that you got from the previous model. The downside is the loss of the deep, glossy black colour.

The PO is now being positioned by Omega as the more serious tool watch so legibility is given a boost at the expense of prettiness. Personally, I think they went the right way, though my preference would be for the SMP if I were in the market for any of them at the moment. Forty years ago, Rolex might have gone the same way as the PO with the Sub' but, today, I think its character is closer to that of the SMP, even if its price isn't.


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

Question: So, if I get the new PO 8500, would I be able to change up the grey ceramic bezel with either the new orange bezel or the old black aluminum bezel from the old PO 2500?

And, are there both rubber and leather bracelets that Omega made for the PO?

It seems like a pretty versatile watch if one can make those adjustments. I assume the bezel would have to be done by jeweler who was experienced with Omegas.

GaryF, I'd like to hear why you prefer the SMP-C to the PO-C right now.



GaryF said:


> My guess is that it _is _the same colour but the matte surface texture renders it grey. Glossy surfaces will always look darker because of the way that the throw off light in a more concentrated reflection. A matte surface scatters light from its uneven surface. Find some matte paint and varnish it with a licked finger to see what I mean.
> You could compare the dials of the old and new Rolex Explorer to get an idea of the pluses and minuses. The new model has a more matte dial and it avoids the flashes of reflection that you got from the previous model. The downside is the loss of the deep, glossy black colour.
> 
> The PO is now being positioned by Omega as the more serious tool watch so legibility is given a boost at the expense of prettiness. Personally, I think they went the right way, though my preference would be for the SMP if I were in the market for any of them at the moment. Forty years ago, Rolex might have gone the same way as the PO with the Sub' but, today, I think its character is closer to that of the SMP, even if its price isn't.


----------



## GaryF (Dec 18, 2009)

You can get a tool for removing bezels and, yes, the orange one will be interchangeable but, as far as I know, the old ones won't be.

As for my preference for the SMP, I think both are great watches but I'm not keen on the bulk of the PO. Speaking of the 42mm, I find it a little thick for its width and, while the 45 looks better, it's just too much metal for me. I prefer smaller, flatter more comfortable watches. Having worn the original SMP for about twelve years, I know that it isn't going to get annoying. I have a 2500 PO and even that gets so that I'm glad to take it off sometimes.
I also think that the new SMP is a very versatile piece with a great balance between beauty and brawn. The new PO is a very handsome sports watch but I feel it's just that. It's a sports watch. I know many will argue that you can wear it with everything but the same could be said for flip flops. You can but you probably shouldn't. I'd feel more comfortable, more often in the SMP and, on that day that I actually need more than 300m of water resistance, I'd be happy to take my lumps.



philipcertain100 said:


> Question: So, if I get the new PO 8500, would I be able to change up the grey ceramic bezel with either the new orange bezel or the old black aluminum bezel from the old PO 2500?
> 
> And, are there both rubber and leather bracelets that Omega made for the PO?
> 
> ...


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

The PO would be fine then as I'm at work right now in a suit and flip flops.



GaryF said:


> You can get a tool for removing bezels and, yes, the orange one will be interchangeable but, as far as I know, the old ones won't be.
> 
> As for my preference for the SMP, I think both are great watches but I'm not keen on the bulk of the PO. Speaking of the 42mm, I find it a little thick for its width and, while the 45 looks better, it's just too much metal for me. I prefer smaller, flatter more comfortable watches. Having worn the original SMP for about twelve years, I know that it isn't going to get annoying. I have a 2500 PO and even that gets so that I'm glad to take it off sometimes.
> I also think that the new SMP is a very versatile piece with a great balance between beauty and brawn. The new PO is a very handsome sports watch but I feel it's just that. It's a sports watch. I know many will argue that you can wear it with everything but the same could be said for flip flops. You can but you probably shouldn't. I'd feel more comfortable, more often in the SMP and, on that day that I actually need more than 300m of water resistance, I'd be happy to take my lumps.


----------



## GaryF (Dec 18, 2009)

philipcertain100 said:


> The PO would be fine then as I'm at work right now in a suit and flip flops.


I think you need a Ploprof.


----------



## geremy (Apr 11, 2006)

I agree that the new 8500 PO is too thick for me, even the 42mm version. I did own a 2500 45.5 PO, and always thought it was a tad to thick as well. The 42mm 2500 is about the right size. The new SMP seems like an upgrade to the 2500 PO though, with the ceramic bezel and bgw9 lume.


----------



## hidden by leaves (Mar 6, 2010)

philipcertain100 said:


> The PO would be fine then as I'm at work right now in a suit and flip flops.


Have to wonder if you or this thread are for real with some of the comments...


----------



## Strut99GT (Jan 28, 2008)

The thing I never understand about these threads is the watches are clearly extremely close in form and function. But one costs twice the other. So if you really want the sub you need up pony up the money and enjoy it. Otherwise the omega is clearly the choice by a long shot. 

By the way this is coming from someone who owns both.


----------



## Cabaiguan (Nov 19, 2008)

I really don't think you can go wrong with either. It comes down to aesthetics and what appeals to you most. As long as you take care of them, these are two pieces that will outlast you.

That being said, I prefer the SubC. I may be biased because I've owned one, but I truly feel that it is the MOST comfortable watch that I've ever owned and I just don't see how it can get much better for me. The clasp is also a work of art. Try them both on and see what calls you out.


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

hidden by leaves said:


> Have to wonder if you or this thread are for real with some of the comments...


I am actually a 15-yr-old Nigerian Prince, recently orphaned, who needs you to wire $10,000 to me in Nigeria so I can access my family's US$20 million savings in Swiss banks. I will gladly send you 5% of my family's US$20 million for helping me in this way.


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

Strut99GT said:


> The thing I never understand about these threads is the watches are clearly extremely close in form and function. But one costs twice the other. So if you really want the sub you need up pony up the money and enjoy it. Otherwise the omega is clearly the choice by a long shot.
> 
> By the way this is coming from someone who owns both.


What's to understand? I have money to buy either watch. However I don't know if I want to spend eight grand on the sub when I can get a pretty great watch for half that.

Hence, I'm seeking the opinions and differing viewpoints of experienced watch owners to integrate into my own metrics about which watch to buy. I'm smart enough to know that I haven't thought of everything when considering this purchase. I enjoy hearing the experiences and opinions of others to enrich the tapestry of my own views.

BTW, in what differing circumstances do you choose to wear each watch?


----------



## ctujack (Mar 9, 2009)

SMP-C is a good choice and you can always blow the rest of the money on beer and hookers.:-d


----------



## andy-g (Feb 17, 2010)

Go 2500 PO ;-)

The dial certainly isnt cluttered and it's by far better looking than a Rolex , SMP or 8500 PO IMHO


----------



## GaryF (Dec 18, 2009)

Beautiful watch. Gets better the more I see it.


ctujack said:


> SMP-C is a good choice and you can always blow the rest of the money on beer and hookers.:-d


----------



## GaryF (Dec 18, 2009)

philipcertain100 said:


> What's to understand? I have money to buy either watch. However I don't know if I want to spend eight grand on the sub when I can get a pretty great watch for half that.
> 
> Hence, I'm seeking the opinions and differing viewpoints of experienced watch owners to integrate into my own metrics about which watch to buy. I'm smart enough to know that I haven't thought of everything when considering this purchase. I enjoy hearing the experiences and opinions of others to enrich the tapestry of my own views.
> 
> BTW, in what differing circumstances do you choose to wear each watch?


It would obviously be silly to say that the Sub is inherently worth the premium based on material, function etc. But, really, none of these watches are inherently worth the money we spend on them which is why we have such a hard time explaining our purchases to those family and friends who gasp "You paid what..!??!".
Deciding if one watch is worth X dollars more than another is a personal thing. If you decide to pay the extra, you are taking out insurance against the regret of being cheap but it's equally possible that you go the extra buck and feel slightly skinned. We all strike a balance between what we want and what we are happy to pay. For some, the brand is part of the equation. For others, it's a trick escapement or the fact that it is worn by a favourite sportsman. It's all valid. Some want a watch that costs less while, for others, the high price is part of the attraction but inherent value is, if we're reasonably knowledgeable _and _honest with ourselves, not really what it's all about. It's missing the point. It is, however, a fun part of the hair-splitting process when deciding between ludicrously expensive ways to avoid wearing a $40 dollar Casio.


----------



## jeelan (Jan 30, 2008)

I'm going through a similar debate as you, however its with regards to the new SMP-C vs the older models Rolex 16610's.

I currently own both versions of the recently discontinued blue and Black SMP (with the wavy dials and applied markers) and a 16600 model Rolex SD.

The thing thats starting to bug me lately is the weight of all these watches.

I owned the 2500 PO's in 42mm and sold them because they felt like small bricks on my arm and i'm starting to get the same feeling with both the SMP's and the SD.
Now I'm a fairly stocky built 6'1 35yr old and my wrists are 7.5", HOWEVER, I just want a tough, dive style watch that I can wear on my wrist and forget that its there.

I took a digital scale to my SMPs recently and sized to my wrist, both measured 153g (with 1g of each other anyway). The SD weighed in at 147g. 

I also recently bought and tried a now discontinued 16610 LV Sub and couldnt believe the difference. Ignoring the brand, I felt that this was a watch I could wear for the next 50yrs and forget that its ever on wrist.... And it weighs in at a breezy 136g and to boot, its a compact 40mm which I feel is perfect for my wrist..

So yes, while I've always been an Omega fan and always will be, I just cant stand all these companies (inc Omega) who keep making HEAVIER and HEAVIER watches. The new SMP-C with its wide band will certainly be heavier than my old SMP's (i wear both SMP's on the speedy style oyster bracelet, NOT the "bond" bracelet which I personally dislike anyway)....

So unfortunately I'm not seriously considering moving ALL my watches on to get a couple of Rolex LV's (one to retain with the green bezel and one to wear with black bezel insert)....

Just my 2c worth

cheers

Jeelan


----------



## GaryF (Dec 18, 2009)

I'm wearing an Explorer at the moment with the same hollow centre-links as all of the previous generation of Rolexes. If you can get past the cheap-sounding rattle, it is an extremely comfortable bracelet. 
Have you considered any of the new titanium models?



jeelan said:


> I'm going through a similar debate as you, however its with regards to the new SMP-C vs the older models Rolex 16610's.
> 
> I currently own both versions of the recently discontinued blue and Black SMP (with the wavy dials and applied markers) and a 16600 model Rolex SD.
> 
> ...


----------



## tonyteetime (Dec 12, 2011)

Zidane said:


> With that being said, if YOU want the Sub...then don't let anything stop you because you'll just keep coming back. No sense in trying to justify the cost or benefits between the two watches. Trust me, I know from experience. ;-)


I agree with Nick. I had similar experience few months back. I originally wanted a sub , but couldn't justify the price even though I could afford it. I settled for new PO in February which I thought would make me forget about the sub, however within a month later I bought a preloved sub that was recently serviced and I'm still in honeymoon with it.

If you want the sub, then get that one or else you will keep coming back.


----------



## scamp007 (Sep 10, 2006)

jeelan said:


> I'm going through a similar debate as you, however its with regards to the new SMP-C vs the older models Rolex 16610's.
> 
> I currently own both versions of the recently discontinued blue and Black SMP (with the wavy dials and applied markers) and a 16600 model Rolex SD.
> 
> ...


I've recently shipped out my 2500 PO and re-bought the 16610 that I sold a couple of years ago, stupid decision at the time, but you live and learn, as Gary says, the older bracelets do rattle and can seem a little tinny, but there's a reason you almost always see photos of subs on their original bracelets rather than straps, because they're really comfortable, but you'll know that if you've a got 16600.

The 16610 I think will go on to be the classic Sub, prices will only go one way, and an LV with an optional black bezel would be a great choice.

Sean










Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner


----------



## acdelco (Jan 15, 2008)

For these two watches, I think "comfort" as a significant factor is a red herring. I think both the Sub and SMP-C are very comfortable watches. ( The PO, on the other hand, is considerably thicker and heavier than both and comfort may be of concern to some)

I do think that the majority of people ( even those on WUS Omega) would eventually opt for the Sub if they could afford it. The Rolex name/prestige has a *tremendous* amount of pull. Even though many ( certainly not all, of course) aren't willing to admit it, the prestige does have an influence over their choice of watch. The Sub is a good quality watch and what most folks will eventually want. It is an icon and has the most prestige. If the Sub is what you really want, I'd save up for it.

To me, at this level of very comparable quality, looks (i.e. design) and originality are the highest priority. These two "factors" speak to me much more than anything else when it comes to Rolex/Omega comparisons. ( This is coming from someone who has owned Subs, DJs, GMTs, EXPs, Dwellers and now only own the EXP 39MM which I love) And, as with most Rolex/Omega comparisons, I like the looks/style of the Bond SMP-C more than the corresponding Sub-C. Just a tad more flair and uniqueness without sacrificing timelessness. As such, I'd take the SMP-C. I also prefer the Bond Blue because it's set apart from all the other black divers.


----------



## es335 (Oct 10, 2007)

philipcertain100 said:


> So, I've been going through a debate about what watch to buy----similar to what many others here have gone through. I've always admired fine watches but never had the money to buy one. For the past couple years I've been looking at various Omegas.
> 
> How'd I settle on Omega? I came to the opinion that Omega was making watches that compared favorably to Rolex at half the price. I've always been one to seek quality over a name brand. I also looked at Tags, Breitlings, Oris, Fortis, etc., but I decided that Omega was the sweet spot between quality and price.
> 
> ...


If you want something that will last a long time, buy a cheap quartz watch 

As to your question of Sub-C vs Omega-C -- I would suggest the aesthetics of the new Sub were destroyed with the "maxi-case." The lugs look disproportionate to the bracelet and bezel. It's like Rolex took a tire pump and inflated the lugs to keep up with larger watch trends. The new Rolex case just looks clown-like and off balance. Go for the Omega. If you want a Sub, get a vintage one with the old style lugs. Below is a picture of the new "maxi-case" which is almost comical with it's cartoon-like lug sizing.


----------



## exxondus (Sep 10, 2007)

I dont thik the 2500 is very much inferior to the 8500. What u are reading is prob just marketing so that omega can justify the huge difference in prices. 

Having said that, go for the newer 2500 movements. The initial ones i think with A at the back or something are v error prone.


----------



## ctujack (Mar 9, 2009)

es335 said:


> If you want something that will last a long time, buy a cheap quartz watch
> 
> As to your question of Sub-C vs Omega-C -- I would suggest the aesthetics of the new Sub were destroyed with the "maxi-case." The lugs look disproportionate to the bracelet and bezel. It's like Rolex took a tire pump and inflated the lugs to keep up with larger watch trends. The new Rolex case just looks clown-like and off balance. Go for the Omega. If you want a Sub, get a vintage one with the old style lugs. Below is a picture of the new "maxi-case" which is almost comical with it's cartoon-like lug sizing.
> 
> View attachment 674299


I largely agree with you, but if I were to buy another Rolex, I'd be looking to find another SD as I do miss it sometimes.


----------



## GaryF (Dec 18, 2009)

I have respect for the Sub without actually wanting to wear one. That Sea-Dweller, on the other hand, is just gorgeous. Love it. The best individual watch of the best generation of Rolexes, imo.



ctujack said:


> I largely agree with you, but if I were to buy another Rolex, I'd be looking to find another SD as I do miss it sometimes.


----------



## jeelan (Jan 30, 2008)

hi Gary

Which titanium watches are you referring to? 

As far as i'm aware, Omega's only Titanium offering in a dive watch is now the 45mm PO and 40-41mm is my limit for watch size....

Having said that, I WAS tempted by the Explorer 2 series (recently discontinued) but I'm an active diver and the twinlock crown and 100m rating has me concerned.

As for "modern" rolexes ie the ceramic models - as an earlier poster said, the aesthetics on them have gone to sh*ts and I wouldnt touch one with a barge pole.

My watch maker made an interesting observation a few weeks ago when I went to see him in Perth. He had recently come back from becoming certified to service the 8500 movements and we got talking and he said Omega's lead designer for the movement is ex-Rolex. Hence the similarities in the balance bridges etc. HOw much is true, I dont know - there's only so many ways a balance bridge can be made, but he said the similarities didnt just end there...

Take it with a pinch of salt, but interesting nonetheless.

cheers
Jeelan


----------



## GaryF (Dec 18, 2009)

jeelan said:


> hi Gary
> 
> Which titanium watches are you referring to?
> 
> As far as i'm aware, Omega's only Titanium offering in a dive watch is now the 45mm PO and 40-41mm is my limit for watch size....


That was the one I was referring to. I agree that 45mm is a little big but , on rubber, it must be a pretty light-weight package.

There is also the 2231.50 if you can track down a nice example. One of my favourites.


----------



## iinsic (Feb 18, 2010)

GaryF said:


> My guess is that it _is _the same colour but the matte surface texture renders it grey. Glossy surfaces will always look darker because of the way that the throw off light in a more concentrated reflection. A matte surface scatters light from its uneven surface. Find some matte paint and varnish it with a licked finger to see what I mean.
> You could compare the dials of the old and new Rolex Explorer to get an idea of the pluses and minuses. The new model has a more matte dial and it avoids the flashes of reflection that you got from the previous model. The downside is the loss of the deep, glossy black colour.
> 
> The PO is now being positioned by Omega as the more serious tool watch so legibility is given a boost at the expense of prettiness. Personally, I think they went the right way, though my preference would be for the SMP if I were in the market for any of them at the moment. Forty years ago, Rolex might have gone the same way as the PO with the Sub' but, today, I think its character is closer to that of the SMP, even if its price isn't.


I keep hearing this assertion that the PO 8500 is more "toolish" than its predecessor. If I was holding a watch in each hand, both divers with 600m WR rating and ET bezels, and the one in my left hand had a heavy, deeply-etched steel caseback and the one in my right had a glass back revealing a beautifully decorated movement, I would assume the watch in my _left_ hand was intended to be more "toolish."

As for the OP's query, I own both the Sub-C and the new SMPc. I have owned several earlier models of both and consider these current iterations to be the best ever. The SMPc, my misgivings about finishing aside, is the nicest SMP I've ever worn - well designed, excellent legibility, comfortable wearing and gorgeous aesthetics. The Sub-C, on the other hand, is simply the nicest dive watch I have possessed in 45 years of diving, and I've owned dozens. Heck, it's one of the nicest watches I've owned, period.

Nick already has rendered the most sage advice in this thread: Which watch do you really want? Because if it's the Sub-C and you're hesitating on the price difference, forget it. Sooner or later you'll have that Sub, but at far greater expense. However, if there is no irresistible attraction to the Sub-C and you just like the SMP, you couldn't ask for a nicer watch for the money.

Rob


----------



## Nishant (Apr 7, 2011)

+1 .. Great piece of advice, as always.



iinsic said:


> I keep hearing this assertion that the PO 8500 is more "toolish" than its predecessor. If I was holding a watch in each hand, both divers with 600m WR rating and ET bezels, and the one in my left hand had a heavy, deeply-etched steel caseback and the one in my right had a glass back revealing a beautifully decorated movement, I would assume the watch in my _left_ hand was intended to be more "toolish."
> 
> As for the OP's query, I own both the Sub-C and the new SMPc. I have owned several earlier models of both and consider these current iterations to be the best ever. The SMPc, my misgivings about finishing aside, is the nicest SMP I've ever worn - well designed, excellent legibility, comfortable wearing and gorgeous aesthetics. The Sub-C, on the other hand, is simply the nicest dive watch I have possessed in 45 years of diving, and I've owned dozens. Heck, it's one of the nicest watches I've owned, period.
> 
> ...


----------



## GaryF (Dec 18, 2009)

I wasn't talking about the PO 8500 being positioned as more of a tool watch relative to its predecessor. I was talking about where it is positioned relative to the SMP.

These are my thoughts from another thread on the two Planet Oceans:


> They are both, without doubt, sports watches. For me, the matte bezel looks more toolish but, in the main, it's in the proportions. The 2500 might just about slip under a shirt cuff. The 8500? The 45mm is a big, chunky lump of metal and the relative thickness of the 42 make it a little ungainly for any claim to even a modicum of elegance.
> To be clear, neither is a dress watch (not even the SMP can claim that) but, to me, the 2500 is just sleek enough to be paired up with a shirt and jacket. The 8500, though, feels like something that would work better with polo and T-shirts.
> I think the markers are too small to make any difference. No one is going to need to adjust their _ensemble_ to factor in the presence or absence of applied markers.


I'd certainly agree that a transparent back would seem like a less tool-like feature but, for me, the way the watch wears would be the more important factor.



iinsic said:


> I keep hearing this assertion that the PO 8500 is more "toolish" than its predecessor. If I was holding a watch in each hand, both divers with 600m WR rating and ET bezels, and the one in my left hand had a heavy, deeply-etched steel caseback and the one in my right had a glass back revealing a beautifully decorated movement, I would assume the watch in my _left_ hand was intended to be more "toolish."
> 
> As for the OP's query, I own both the Sub-C and the new SMPc. I have owned several earlier models of both and consider these current iterations to be the best ever. The SMPc, my misgivings about finishing aside, is the nicest SMP I've ever worn - well designed, excellent legibility, comfortable wearing and gorgeous aesthetics. The Sub-C, on the other hand, is simply the nicest dive watch I have possessed in 45 years of diving, and I've owned dozens. Heck, it's one of the nicest watches I've owned, period.
> 
> ...


----------



## solesman (Dec 3, 2009)

The old sea dweller is also my favourite Rolex and would be the one I would get were i wanting to buy a Rolex.



GaryF said:


> I have respect for the Sub without actually wanting to wear one. That Sea-Dweller, on the other hand, is just gorgeous. Love it. The best individual watch of the best generation of Rolexes, imo.


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

Thanks for your input. Ya, I'm not sure if I like the new case or not. Is there any difference in appearance between the old Sea Dweller and 16610? BTW, I think the bezel on the new Sea Dweller 116660 is ugly.



es335 said:


> If you want something that will last a long time, buy a cheap quartz watch
> 
> As to your question of Sub-C vs Omega-C -- I would suggest the aesthetics of the new Sub were destroyed with the "maxi-case." The lugs look disproportionate to the bracelet and bezel. It's like Rolex took a tire pump and inflated the lugs to keep up with larger watch trends. The new Rolex case just looks clown-like and off balance. Go for the Omega. If you want a Sub, get a vintage one with the old style lugs. Below is a picture of the new "maxi-case" which is almost comical with it's cartoon-like lug sizing.
> 
> View attachment 674299


----------



## acdelco (Jan 15, 2008)

The SD does not have the cyclops and the 16610 does. IMO, the SD is the nicest looking Rolex diver. It's a bit thicker than the 16610 and has a slightly smaller dial which gives a slightly tighter more focused appearance on the face. The biggest advantage regarding the SD that almost never gets mentioned on forums is that it suffers LEAST from "Rolex diver disease". What is that? Rolexes do not have A/R coating on the underside of the crystal. At certain angles, there is so much glare/shine that the watch appears faceless. The old SD has the least glare out of all of them. I think it has something to do with the smaller dial that cuts out the glare and perhaps the slightly thicker crystal.



philipcertain100 said:


> Thanks for your input. Ya, I'm not sure if I like the new case or not. Is there any difference in appearance between the old Sea Dweller and 16610? BTW, I think the bezel on the new Sea Dweller 116660 is ugly.


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

Rob, you are spot on re what Nick said. I am definitely taking my time making this decision because I want to be sure that I don't start jones-ing for what I didn't buy within a couple months. I think my lust for the Sub-C may be over, but I'm still weighing pros and cons of appearance/cost/movement before pulling the trigger. I wish you could rent used watches! I would love to spend a week with each before buying. You can rent expensive handbags, why not watches?!  It wouldn't be super practical because then the business renting them would have to distinguish between normal wear and tear, and excessive damage. Is Bobs watches best place to buy used Rolexes?



iinsic said:


> Nick already has rendered the most sage advice in this thread: Which watch do you really want? Because if it's the Sub-C and you're hesitating on the price difference, forget it. Sooner or later you'll have that Sub, but at far greater expense. However, if there is no irresistible attraction to the Sub-C and you just like the SMP, you couldn't ask for a nicer watch for the money.
> 
> Rob


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

Interesting notes on the glare. Ah, ya, no cyclops on the SD. Hour markers on SD are slightly bigger, too?



acdelco said:


> The SD does not have the cyclops and the 16610 does. IMO, the SD is the nicest looking Rolex diver. It's a bit thicker than the 16610 and has a slightly smaller dial which gives a slightly tighter more focused appearance on the face. The biggest advantage regarding the SD that almost never gets mentioned on forums is that it suffers LEAST from "Rolex diver disease". What is that? Rolexes do not have A/R coating on the underside of the crystal. At certain angles, there is so much glare/shine that the watch appears faceless. The old SD has the least glare out of all of them. I think it has something to do with the smaller dial that cuts out the glare and perhaps the slightly thicker crystal.


----------



## acdelco (Jan 15, 2008)

I had both awhile ago. I _believe _that you are correct but am not totally positive.

Actually, I have had the old SD, old Sub No date, and the 16610. ( Crazy, I know...but I've decided I like Omega divers better. ) I remember comparing the ND Sub markers to the SD markers. The surface area on the SD markers looked slightly larger and the metal surrounds on the markers looked ever so slightly bigger. I was surprised and it was a nice touch.



philipcertain100 said:


> Interesting notes on the glare. Ah, ya, no cyclops on the SD. Hour markers on SD are slightly bigger, too?


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

WELL, THAT WAS A BIG MISTAKE........

.........sooooooo, I just went to the mall at lunch in order to try on the 42 PO, 42 PO ceramic, and the SMP-C.

SMP-C: beautiful dial. Great bezel color. GREAT weight and fit. Band very comfortable, but I might not like the band's appearance as much as PO band. I don't like the minute dots on the bezel, but that's getting picky (although, for $4-8000 I should be picky). I prefer black. Though I haven't seen blue in person---the black date on blue dial is lame.

42 PO 8500: I like the PO ceramic bezel more than I thought I did. In some of the pictures it looks really light---its not that light. If you don't like how it looks in pics, def take a look in person. I didn't dislike the PO face like I did last week--I've gotten used to it and like it fine. PO is thick and heavy compared to the SMP. It sits high on the wrist--I wish it was thinner and lighter (wish I could wear it for a week to try it). The open caseback is pretty cool.

42 PO 2500: a LITTLE lighter but not enough to matter in my book. basically same watch appearance-wise as PO 8500. The extra cost of 8500 is worth it to me. So, this one's out.

Then I MISTAKENLY walked past Rolex AD and walked in. I really wasn't meaning to try on the Sub-C today........

Sub-C: More comfortable than PO--thinner and lighter. Classic look. I'm one of those people who likes the new Sub better than old Sub. I think the old Subs are a titch small. New size and weight is perfect. I was prepared to take this out of the running.....until I tried it on back-to-back with the PO and SMP. This is a nice watch. 3135 movement is of similar quality to 8500. SMP's 2500 just a notch below. But all are very, very good. Additionally, this probably shouldn't bother me, but I don't like the fact that there are all these fake Rolexes out there. Again, I shouldn't care, and it wouldn't stop me from purchasing--but I think its annoying.


I like the appearance of all 3.

I like the size/price of the SMP-C. 

I like the price/movement of 42 PO 8500. I should find something at Macys that is exactly same size and rent it for a week to see if it bothers me.

I like the movement/size of the Sub-C. More expensive to buy, service, and insure.

I'm not sure if I'm making any headway on coming to a decision. :think:


----------



## iinsic (Feb 18, 2010)

GaryF said:


> I wasn't talking about the PO 8500 being positioned as more of a tool watch relative to its predecessor. I was talking about where it is positioned relative to the SMP.


Gary, I did not realize that your comparison was between the PO 8500 and the SMP. In that case, I agree with you completely.

It has always interested me that almost everyone - admirers as well as critics - observe the, for lack of a better word, "chunky" nature of the PO 8500. Over on the DWF, "chunky" frequently serves as a synonym for "toolish." However, to me, _chunky_ equals _ungainly_. And _ungainly_ is not something I associate with being _toolish_, since the functionality of tools imparts a certain grace. As some others have observed already, both models of the PO have characteristics that make them eminently functional and aesthetically graceful (to the point of being more than a casual-attire accessory).


----------



## iinsic (Feb 18, 2010)

philipcertain100 said:


> I'm not sure if I'm making any headway on coming to a decision. :think:


Yes you are. You've already decided that you _must_ have the Sub-C. ;-)

Mine voices its siren song....


----------



## Chibatastic (Mar 29, 2010)

philipcertain100 said:


> WELL, THAT WAS A BIG MISTAKE........
> 
> .........sooooooo, I just went to the mall at lunch in order to try on the 42 PO, 42 PO ceramic, and the SMP-C.
> 
> ...


I'm reading in-between the lines and here's my interpretation.
You waaaaaaaaant it. You neeeeeeeeeeeds it (precious). Dooooooooooooo it!

Don't rationalize. You'll end up paying more in the end because the SubC is inevitable.

















I disliked the sub and Rolex in general but then it happened. I tried one on, shrugged my shoulders and surrendered.

Search your feelings. Join us etc 









Chibatastic


----------



## tonyteetime (Dec 12, 2011)

Come to the dark side. Get the subc now. You can get the smpc later if got spare cash . 
I have a sub already , but that smpc is calling out to me . I need to stop coming to WUS, it's costing me money $$$o|


----------



## GaryF (Dec 18, 2009)

No worries. I was developing the point about why Omega have put the "grey" matte bezel on instead of the "black" glossy dial they used on the SMP. Legibility over beauty.

I agree that, ideally, a tool watch should not be needlessly thick. However, as our friend M4tt often points out, all watches are a compromise and, while slipping discreetly under a cuff would be a useful thing for a dive-watch to do, it's not really the kind of thing it's built for. Also, and this is not a view I share at all, we regularly see opinions to the effect that weight, thickness etc are preferred since they give an impression of solidity and quality. I'd have thought that we should be more impressed buy a high WR in in a svelte case but I realise that this isn't a particularly fashionable way to look at it.



iinsic said:


> Gary, I did not realize that your comparison was between the PO 8500 and the SMP. In that case, I agree with you completely.
> 
> It has always interested me that almost everyone - admirers as well as critics - observe the, for lack of a better word, "chunky" nature of the PO 8500. Over on the DWF, "chunky" frequently serves as a synonym for "toolish." However, to me, _chunky_ equals _ungainly_. And _ungainly_ is not something I associate with being _toolish_, since the functionality of tools imparts a certain grace. As some others have observed already, both models of the PO have characteristics that make them eminently functional and aesthetically graceful (to the point of being more than a casual-attire accessory).


----------



## Hansch99 (Oct 3, 2008)

I'd be between the SMPc and Subc if it were me buying. The thickness of the 8500 PO is simply a deal killer for me. In general, I agree with those who think that the 8500 movement makes each watch that houses it unnecessarily thick. 

Rolex does a good job of packing as much innovation into the smallest space possible (for example, the Sea Dweller has twice the water resistance of the 8500 PO with a much slimmer profile). In contrast, Omega seems to think thickness is desirable (see 8500 PO, PloProf mesh clasp, Spacemaster, etc.)


----------



## jmsrolls (Feb 10, 2006)

The Rolex ceramic bezel is poorly designed and a deal killer for me. If you want a classic Rolex diver, find a nice pre-owned Sea-Dweller.

Omega benefited from decades of ceramic development with the Rado line and got the bezels right across the board. They will definitely stand the test of time. The new SMP-Cs are beautiful, especially the black.

Fr. John†


----------



## Beater (Feb 3, 2012)

Hansch99 said:


> I'd be between the SMPc and Subc if it were me buying. The thickness of the 8500 PO is simply a deal killer for me. In general, I agree with those who think that the 8500 movement makes each watch that houses it unnecessarily thick.
> 
> Rolex does a good job of packing as much innovation into the smallest space possible (for example, the Sea Dweller has twice the water resistance of the 8500 PO with a much slimmer profile). In contrast, Omega seems to think thickness is desirable (see 8500 PO, PloProf mesh clasp, Spacemaster, etc.)


As a Ploprof and Seadweller owner I have to agree with this. Furthermore, the slimline superceded sea dweller officially out punches the potato sized Omega flagship Ploprof.

Having said that, the seamaster is probably my fav new Omega regardless of cost.


----------



## perdu (Sep 3, 2007)

Don't compromise. If you have niggling doubts about a watch, don't buy it.


----------



## es335 (Oct 10, 2007)

Chibatastic said:


> *Search your feelings. Join us etc *
> 
> View attachment 675773


*Luke, I am your father. Search your overpriced, bourgeois white-gold encrusted dial indices, flabby maxi case lugs, ceramic rotating diver's bezel and screw down crown. You know it to be true. ==>>*


----------



## devilva (Oct 15, 2009)

Wow... beautiful!


----------



## Chibatastic (Mar 29, 2010)

devilva said:


> View attachment 676225
> 
> 
> Wow... beautiful!


Thanks, upgraded camera equipment this year. No more "incomings" for a while ;-)

Chiba


----------



## jeelan (Jan 30, 2008)

solesman said:


> The old sea dweller is also my favourite Rolex and would be the one I would get were i wanting to buy a Rolex.


Now you guys are making me rethink as to whether I should sell my SD to get another LV.....argghhh...

jeelan


----------



## jeelan (Jan 30, 2008)

philipcertain100 said:


> Interesting notes on the glare. Ah, ya, no cyclops on the SD. Hour markers on SD are slightly bigger, too?


I'm pretty sure the SD hour markers are the same size as the Sub ones (makes sense from a production perspective to keep these things uniform), however the interesting thing about the dial is that both the sub and SD dial are actually the same size if you look at them as dials only...

The difference is that the SD chapter ring is slightly thicker and the minute markers around the dial are set just slightly inside the edge of the dial. On the Sub however the minute markers are set to finish at the edge of the dial and the Sub has a thinner Chapter ring.

These pics are borrowed - cant remember from where though.



















cheers
Jeelan


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

Oh, great, now I have Anakin and the Emperor getting inside my head.......not good.



es335 said:


> *Luke, I am your father. Search your overpriced, bourgeois white-gold encrusted dial indices, flabby maxi case lugs, ceramic rotating diver's bezel and screw down crown. You know it to be true. ==>>*


----------



## iinsic (Feb 18, 2010)

philipcertain100 said:


> Oh, great, now I have Anakin and the Emperor getting inside my head.......not good.


But the metaphor makes you Luke Skywalker! So give in to the temptation. Join with the Sub-C and together you will rule the galaxy. :-d


----------



## ReXTless (Mar 18, 2010)

I think the Sub is the best choice for long-term ownership, mainly for two reasons.

1. The clasp is adjustable. This is a feature I love and use every day. 
2. I think the Sub style has been firmly established as a classic. The SMPc and PO design will show their age down the road.


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

Dumb question: how is the Sub-c clasp adjustable? Do you adjust it because your wrists get bigger or smaller depending on temperature?

Does anyone else adjust their watch every day? It never crossed my mind.

Do you wear your PO 2500 or SMP-C more? Is the Sub-C your daily wearer?



ReXTless said:


> I think the Sub is the best choice for long-term ownership, mainly for two reasons.
> 
> 1. The clasp is adjustable. This is a feature I love and use every day.
> 2. I think the Sub style has been firmly established as a classic. The SMPc and PO design will show their age down the road.


----------



## GaryF (Dec 18, 2009)

I think I agree with this. The 8500 worked well in the Hour Vision because it was A) very beautiful and B) thick enough to provide something to look at from the sides. Also, WR wasn't an issue so the case could be thin. The AT also works well because the 150m watch has enough chunkiness to feel robust without being too porky. 
I don't think we can blame the slightly steroidal appearance of the PO entirely on the movement/WR, though. Rolex can certainly make a thinner watch with a better WR and an only slightly smaller movement. I'd be very disappointed if Omega simply couldn't do better than this so I'm wondering if there was a decision made somewhere which had something to do with fashion.



Hansch99 said:


> I'd be between the SMPc and Subc if it were me buying. The thickness of the 8500 PO is simply a deal killer for me. In general, I agree with those who think that the 8500 movement makes each watch that houses it unnecessarily thick.
> 
> Rolex does a good job of packing as much innovation into the smallest space possible (for example, the Sea Dweller has twice the water resistance of the 8500 PO with a much slimmer profile). In contrast, Omega seems to think thickness is desirable (see 8500 PO, PloProf mesh clasp, Spacemaster, etc.)


----------



## iinsic (Feb 18, 2010)

philipcertain100 said:


> Dumb question: how is the Sub-c clasp adjustable? Do you adjust it because are wrists get bigger or smaller depending on temperature?
> 
> Does anyone else adjust their watch every day? It never crossed my mind.
> 
> Do you wear your PO 2500 or SMP-C more? Is the Sub-C your daily wearer?


That's really one of the great advantages of the Glidelock clasp - being able to adjust the bracelet slightly as your wrist expands or contracts throughout the day. The clasp is designed to increase or decrease in 5mm increments, and can expand enough to accommodate a 3mm wetsuit. It's quick and simple to loosen the bracelet one notch (5mm) to give your wrist a bit more "breathing room" (and it works very similarly to the Easylink adjustment on the other new Rolex clasps).









As for wear, I almost never wear the PO (and it will be sold soon as a result). I love the new SMPc and enjoy wearing it, but the Sub-C still gets probably three wearing days to one for the SMPc. It is as close to a non-stop daily wearer as I've had in a good many years.

Rob


----------



## geremy (Apr 11, 2006)

The clasp is also useful if you sleep with a watch as I have found my wrists expand quite a bit at night while sleeping. I know most don't sleep with their watch, but I am having to do so more and more these days...


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

Wow, that clasp sounds almost worth the price of admission!

The only big neg I've heard on the Sub-C is that the ceramic bezel is a terrible design. What makes it so bad in some eyes?



geremy said:


> The clasp is also useful if you sleep with a watch as I have found my wrists expand quite a bit at night while sleeping. I know most don't sleep with their watch, but I am having to do so more and more these days...


----------



## Chibatastic (Mar 29, 2010)

philipcertain100 said:


> Wow, that clasp sounds almost worth the price of admission!
> 
> The only big neg I've heard on the Sub-C is that the ceramic bezel is a terrible design. What makes it so bad in some eyes?


The only time I hear anything bad about the subC / GMT2c bezel on WUS it's from one member that doesn't trust the engraved ceramic. If you bang any bit of ceramic hard enough it will shatter. If the bezel shatters then it's exponentially more expensive than aluminum to replace.

Chibatastic


----------



## Shane (Qld) (Feb 26, 2012)

Would the ceramic bezel on the PO 8500 & SM 2500 be in the same boat, or is it a tougher design ?


----------



## FOOGauzie (Apr 22, 2010)

Chibatastic said:


> The only time I hear anything bad about the subC / GMT2c bezel on WUS it's from one member that doesn't trust the engraved ceramic. If you bang any bit of ceramic hard enough it will shatter. If the bezel shatters then it's exponentially more expensive than aluminum to replace.
> 
> Chibatastic


I'm not a fan of ceramic bezel inserts. I just don't see the benefit (except to the companies selling watches for an extra few thousand bucks based on a bezel insert and a hairspring.) I don't think they necessarily even _look_ better, and like you say, they can shatter in a situation where aluminum would just dent, and then I know which I'd prefer to have to pay to replace.


----------



## Chibatastic (Mar 29, 2010)

Shane (Qld) said:


> Would the ceramic bezel on the PO 8500 & SM 2500 be in the same boat, or is it a tougher design ?


My guess is the same boat but I wouldn't want to find out myself.. Maybe a good idea for a Myth Busters episode.
To put this into perspective, I have only read about one ceramic bezel breaking on the net (not on WUS) With all the ceramic being sold now that's pretty amazing.. An upside to ceramic is it won't fade or scratch like aluminum. I have scratched the bezel on my first gen PO.. The Sub C bezel is about as dark black as you get wit a beautiful shine to it.


----------



## Runitout (Aug 19, 2009)

If you are prepared to stump up for the Sub, consider the Glashuette Sport Evolution - the clasp is even better. (Actually, just about everything is arguably better).


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

I looked at the Glash but didn't care for its style. I guess Rolex and Omega marketing have been successful at penetrating my brain with the notion that I only want their watches. :roll:

My schedule this past week has kept me from any further serious watch consideration. Although, I've looked around and asked on the Rolex Forum, and have found no good leads for getting any decent discount on the SS Sub-C. $8000 is steep. In the meantime, our sponsoring dealer price for the SMP-C is way less than half that (I would see if the FAD here in DC is inclined to get close to the ACE price).

I'm getting closer to pulling the trigger on the SMP-C....when I have time. I'm sure some of you wonder what all the gnashing of teeth is about; but, I'm someone who's most expensive watch is a Seiko Auto dive watch (I paid like $150 or less). So stepping up to spend 20X as much takes time. I don't have the type of cash where I can pull the trigger on a three grand purchase without thinking about it. I'm planning to buy one nice watch as my everyday wearer....and that's it. How many of you are sighing at this point and thinking, "Ya, those were my thoughts seven watches ago." :think:

I really wanted to like the 42 PO-C....but I think its just too bulky for my tastes. I will try it on again next to the SMP-C and the Sub-C when I go to the mall.

One other possibility of I've been toying with is picking up a used Rolex. Like, say, a 1990s GMT for under 4K. Or an early 2000s Sub for in the 4K range. (Maybe that sounds like a good second watch purchase.)

Oh, brother, middle class problems........ :-d



Runitout said:


> If you are prepared to stump up for the Sub, consider the Glashuette Sport Evolution - the clasp is even better. (Actually, just about everything is arguably better).


----------



## stickheywood (Apr 10, 2012)

philipcertain100 said:


> I looked at the Glash but didn't care for its style. I guess Rolex and Omega marketing have been successful at penetrating my brain with the notion that I only want their watches. :roll:
> 
> My schedule this past week has kept me from any further serious watch consideration. Although, I've looked around and asked on the Rolex Forum, and have found no good leads for getting any decent discount on the SS Sub-C. $8000 is steep. In the meantime, our sponsoring dealer price for the SMP-C is way less than half that (I would see if the FAD here in DC is inclined to get close to the ACE price).
> 
> ...


I like to think of myself as an individual but damned if you didn't just describe my process, and my state of affairs right down to the seiko automatic. One step further with the "middle class problems" that I described as "first world problems".

I bought the SMP-C and I'm working through mild-anxiety over spending so much. Day by day with the watch I'm loving it more and more. Currently I'm on "is the smp-c too flashy" 'cause it is shiny. But I bought it because it was so deep black and shiny. So yeah, I get where you are coming from.


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

HUGE LOL! That's fantastic! *laughing* I guess people aren't that different after all. Too funny that we went through same angst moving from a Seiko Auto to a luxury watch. I guess the Seiko Auto is a price point where us common folk can get interested in mechanical watches.

I feel pretty comfortable spending about $3K for a SMP-C. When I tried on the $8K Sub-C, and thought about buying that, spending $3K on the SMP-C didn't seem so bad. :think: I'm still trying to determine whether I want to buy the PO 8500 or the Sub-C. If I could get a 25% discount on the Sub-C (like you can on some other makes), I'd buy it today.



stickheywood said:


> I like to think of myself as an individual but damned if you didn't just describe my process, and my state of affairs right down to the seiko automatic. One step further with the "middle class problems" that I described as "first world problems".
> 
> I bought the SMP-C and I'm working through mild-anxiety over spending so much. Day by day with the watch I'm loving it more and more. Currently I'm on "is the smp-c too flashy" 'cause it is shiny. But I bought it because it was so deep black and shiny. So yeah, I get where you are coming from.


----------



## stickheywood (Apr 10, 2012)

Getting over my anxiety. It really is a beautiful thing and it feels so good on my wrist. It's got a nice centered heft to it. It feels significant but not too heavy.


----------



## Mathew J (Oct 18, 2006)

Chibatastic said:


> My guess is the same boat but I wouldn't want to find out myself.. Maybe a good idea for a Myth Busters episode.
> To put this into perspective, I have only read about one ceramic bezel breaking on the net (not on WUS) With all the ceramic being sold now that's pretty amazing.. An upside to ceramic is it won't fade or scratch like aluminum. I have scratched the bezel on my first gen PO.. The Sub C bezel is about as dark black as you get wit a beautiful shine to it.


I have seen a few images of smashed/cracked Rolex ceramic bezels, heck there are a whole bunch of issues reported here Minus4Plus6.com - Ouch! Tough & Broken Rolex

The good with Omega is the bezel is completely smooth, unlike the Rolex which has the numbers carved into it...

As for the two, I think the new Sub is nice but for 8K a little bit high, at least the comparable Omegas are a little more reasonable.


----------



## Chibatastic (Mar 29, 2010)

Thanks for posting this Matthew. Wow, quite a handful of WIS tears and broken dreams! TBH it was difficult to look at.. IMO smacking a completely smooth ceramic bezel into a brick wall or door frame will no doubt result in those same crocodile tears.. That type of shock needed to cause such damage would probably mess up the watches movement. What I would be interested in knowing is the amount it would cost to replace the Ceramic Po bezel. When I chipped my Gen 1 PO it was surprisingly expensive to replace.

In this price range "Reasonable" should be ignored for the one you know you want. It's much more expensive to start at reasonable and work your way to the inevitable.
While considering the sub, I looked at more expensive, cheaper, in various brands. None were the sub..



Mathew J said:


> I have seen a few images of smashed/cracked Rolex ceramic bezels, heck there are a whole bunch of issues reported here Minus4Plus6.com - Ouch! Tough & Broken Rolex
> 
> The good with Omega is the bezel is completely smooth, unlike the Rolex which has the numbers carved into it...
> 
> As for the two, I think the new Sub is nice but for 8K a little bit high, at least the comparable Omegas are a little more reasonable.


----------



## Mathew J (Oct 18, 2006)

This is the problem with attempting to assert logic into an area fueled by emotion.

My mention of reasonable is when one only considers the tangible good and not the emotion attached to it.

I came into this community (watch collecting not watchuseek) as a huge Rolex fanboy and only with experience did I broaden my horizons, now I feel they are good but no better than much of their competion, especially when compared to Omega but again that is just my take, others opinions will obviously vary *as witnessed by the various blogs and websites dedicated to the superiority of other brands to anything else in this universe 



Chibatastic said:


> Thanks for posting this Matthew. Wow, quite a handful of WIS tears and broken dreams! TBH it was difficult to look at.. IMO smacking a completely smooth ceramic bezel into a brick wall or door frame will no doubt result in those same crocodile tears.. That type of shock needed to cause such damage would probably mess up the watches movement. What I would be interested in knowing is the amount it would cost to replace the Ceramic Po bezel. When I chipped my Gen 1 PO it was surprisingly expensive to replace.
> 
> In this price range "Reasonable" should be ignored for the one you know you want. It's much more expensive to start at reasonable and work your way to the inevitable.
> While considering the sub, I looked at more expensive, cheaper, in various brands. None were the sub..


----------



## Chibatastic (Mar 29, 2010)

I see your point but what can I say, I'm an emotional guy  
Spending hard earned $$ on a watch is going to be a decision based largely on the way it makes you feel
And...








I feel good!

Chibatastic



Mathew J said:


> This is the problem with attempting to assert logic into an area fueled by emotion.
> 
> My mention of reasonable is when one only considers the tangible good and not the emotion attached to it.
> 
> I came into this community (watch collecting not watchuseek) as a huge Rolex fanboy and only with experience did I broaden my horizons, now I feel they are good but no better than much of their competion, especially when compared to Omega but again that is just my take, others opinions will obviously vary *as witnessed by the various blogs and websites dedicated to the superiority of other brands to anything else in this universe


----------



## ReXTless (Mar 18, 2010)

Mathew J said:


> I have seen a few images of smashed/cracked Rolex ceramic bezels, heck there are a whole bunch of issues reported here Minus4Plus6.com - Ouch! Tough & Broken Rolex
> 
> The good with Omega is the bezel is completely smooth, unlike the Rolex which has the numbers carved into it...


I only see a few cracked bezels here. None have damage that looks like it's attributable to engraved numbers. I don't think anyone would suggest that ceramic bezel inserts are indestructible. However, I think that the chance of breaking one is very, very small. There are thousands and thousands of these bezels out in the world. The minus4plus6 guy (or gal) scoured the internet for stories of damaged/destroyed watches. Almost all of those anecdotes show abuse or horrible accidents. I actually have more confidence in the durability of the ceramic inserts, if that was the "worst of the worst" on the internet.

The other thing to consider is insurance. My watches are covered, regardless of the bezel insert material. In the event of a freak occurrence, it will be handled by my insurance company. So, the price of the insert doesn't matter much to me.


----------



## Mathew J (Oct 18, 2006)

ReXTless said:


> I only see a few cracked bezels here. None have damage that looks like it's attributable to engraved numbers. I don't think anyone would suggest that ceramic bezel inserts are indestructible. However, I think that the chance of breaking one is very, very small. There are thousands and thousands of these bezels out in the world. The minus4plus6 guy (or gal) scoured the internet for stories of damaged/destroyed watches. Almost all of those anecdotes show abuse or horrible accidents. I actually have more confidence in the durability of the ceramic inserts, if that was the "worst of the worst" on the internet.
> 
> The other thing to consider is insurance. My watches are covered, regardless of the bezel insert material. In the event of a freak occurrence, it will be handled by my insurance company. So, the price of the insert doesn't matter much to me.


So I merely shared the link to highlight that these things were in fact breaking, I have no idea with what frequency or what the conditions were that caused them to break.

The things which were far more shocking to me were the bezels that simply fell out and or the clasps which came unwelded at the seams, really all things that point to shoddy quality control and truly something I personally wouldn't expect of any high end brand.

With that said I think it is all relative, for those of us who were fine with the aluminium inserts then they could question why move to ceramic which can shatter/crack when the worst is scratches and dents

regardless of what we think the watch companies have made up their mind.

And not sure about your insurance policy but even though I have my watches covered I have a deductable so personally if I break my own watch I am not going to claim it against my policy, rather just pay to play.


----------



## swisswatchconnection (Apr 7, 2012)

Nothing holds its value like a Submariner, (with the exception of maybe a stainless Daytona). Go with the sub.


----------



## ReXTless (Mar 18, 2010)

I agree. The stuff you mention shouldn't happen on any watch priced at $100+. Quality control issues aren't exclusive to Rolex though. It's pretty easy to find issues with Omega, IWC, JLC, etc., if you have a look. None are acceptable to me. However, it appears to come with the territory. 

As for the bezels, ceramic also has the benefit of being relatively scratch-proof. Plus, they shift in color from very deep black, to almost gray, depending on lighting conditions. I think it's a cool effect. 

My insurance policy doesn't have a deductible. Of course, I'd have to look at the specific circumstances to decide whether or not to file a claim, regardless of deductible. 

- Mark


----------



## Chibatastic (Mar 29, 2010)

Every company wrestles with QC.
Before shelling out the $$, the first Sub C I inspected had a slightly misaligned bezel. I pointed it out to the clerk and was given an other one that was perfect. As it turns out the one I ended up with is the most accurate of all my automatics and most of my quartz watches. Went home happy and remain happy to this day!

Chibatastic



ReXTless said:


> I agree. The stuff you mention shouldn't happen on any watch priced at $100+. Quality control issues aren't exclusive to Rolex though. It's pretty easy to find issues with Omega, IWC, JLC, etc., if you have a look. None are acceptable to me. However, it appears to come with the territory.
> 
> As for the bezels, ceramic also has the benefit of being relatively scratch-proof. Plus, they shift in color from very deep black, to almost gray, depending on lighting conditions. I think it's a cool effect.
> 
> ...


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

So, apparently, I'm paralyzed with indecision. My thoughts recently have drifted away from the Sub-C and to either the PO42 8500 or the SMP-C. I was feeling good about going Omega.

I went to the store to visit both watches tonight. Before I walked into the store I thought the PO was too thick and heavy, and that the SMP-C was the right amount of dress and sportiness. I was tot leaning towards the SMP-C.

I tried on the PO42 and SMP-C.

The PO wasn't as heavy as I remembered, and didn't sit as high on the wrist as I remembered. Additionally, I liked the casual appearance, matte bezel, toolish look of the PO42 with my shorts and t-shirt. (Watch was great size, but dial looked slightly smallish compared to the SMP.) Nice looking watch, though--I liked it slightly more than the last time I saw it.

The SMP-C fit great--the low profile and bracelet made this thing pretty freaking comfortable. But, the watch looked more dressy than I remember due to its thin case and shiny black bezel. Does this watch go just as well with a tie as it does with jeans? Do I want this as my everyday watch? I liked it slightly less than last time I saw it.

Paralyzed with indecision. Middle class problems.........


----------



## Mathew J (Oct 18, 2006)

So a couple of things here....



swisswatchconnection said:


> Nothing holds its value like a Submariner, (with the exception of maybe a stainless Daytona). Go with the sub.


While true I always assert that any watch bought "right" can have better short term value retention than any Rolex, I bought a Sub and only now, years later can I get back what I put into that watch, whereas with others I got a good deal on I was able to sell them at little to no loss months later.



ReXTless said:


> I agree. The stuff you mention shouldn't happen on any watch priced at $100+. Quality control issues aren't exclusive to Rolex though. It's pretty easy to find issues with Omega, IWC, JLC, etc., if you have a look. None are acceptable to me. However, it appears to come with the territory.
> 
> As for the bezels, ceramic also has the benefit of being relatively scratch-proof. Plus, they shift in color from very deep black, to almost gray, depending on lighting conditions. I think it's a cool effect.
> 
> ...


So while I agree that quality control issues aren't unique to any one brand, I have yet to see other brand owners mention (or in this case illustrate with pictures) their watches literlally breaking apart in their hands. I have to presume that these instances were very few and far between, but for a company like Rolex to let stuff like this through IMHO is unacceptable and inexcusable.

As for ceramic, see my post above, tomato...tomato....some may like the visual effects and the scratch resistance whereas others like myself just won't care, the reality is all of our opinoions don't matter as the industry has made their decision and ceramic it is.

And lastly I am impressed with the policy, though I would wonder if filing claims jacks your rate.....ultimately I always feel that the ins companies make it not worth it to file a claim when something was my fault.



Chibatastic said:


> Every company wrestles with QC.
> Before shelling out the $$, the first Sub C I inspected had a slightly misaligned bezel. I pointed it out to the clerk and was given an other one that was perfect. As it turns out the one I ended up with is the most accurate of all my automatics and most of my quartz watches. Went home happy and remain happy to this day!
> 
> Chibatastic


Misaligned bezels and stopping watches are two things, pieces that fall apart IMHO is a bit more extreme...but I am betting Rolex sorted all of those issues out under warranty and since we don't hear about it now I am guessing they fixed the glitch (used stronger glue or something)



philipcertain100 said:


> So, apparently, I'm paralyzed with indecision. My thoughts recently have drifted away from the Sub-C and to either the PO42 8500 or the SMP-C. I was feeling good about going Omega.
> 
> I went to the store to visit both watches tonight. Before I walked into the store I thought the PO was too thick and heavy, and that the SMP-C was the right amount of dress and sportiness. I was tot leaning towards the SMP-C.
> 
> ...


If you're only getting one of them and can swing the cost/size then go with the PO, it is a nice watch and the in house movement trumps that of many comparable brands. Good luck.


----------



## iinsic (Feb 18, 2010)

philipcertain100 said:


> Paralyzed with indecision.


You need to change your user name to "philipuncertain99ormaybe100". :-d


----------



## acdelco (Jan 15, 2008)

Well, for a few reasons, I think you've narrowed it down to the right choices...assuming that you don't change your mind  At this level of quality, I'd go with the one that LOOKS better to you and makes your heart sing, so to speak.

I might try on the Blue bond if you want a slightly more casual and sporty look...as opposed to the Black. I know many here prefer the Black but I've always preferred the color blue on the Bond b/c it's the original color on the Bond. And a bit more unique.



philipcertain100 said:


> So, apparently, I'm paralyzed with indecision. My thoughts recently have drifted away from the Sub-C and to either the PO42 8500 or the SMP-C. I was feeling good about going Omega.
> 
> I went to the store to visit both watches tonight. Before I walked into the store I thought the PO was too thick and heavy, and that the SMP-C was the right amount of dress and sportiness. I was tot leaning towards the SMP-C.
> 
> ...


----------



## Len S (Jun 14, 2006)

iinsic said:


> You need to change your user name to "philipuncertain99ormaybe100". :-d


This one gave me a good chuckle. Nicely done. :-!


----------



## cestommek (Aug 19, 2007)

ctujack said:


> SMP-C is a good choice and you can always blow the rest of the money on beer and hookers.:-d


Yes hahaha i think the same;-)


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

iinsic said:


> You need to change your user name to "philipuncertain99ormaybe100". :-d


Amen to that. Nice one! :-!


----------



## jmsrolls (Feb 10, 2006)

Mathew J said:


> I have seen a few images of smashed/cracked Rolex ceramic bezels, heck there are a whole bunch of issues reported here Minus4Plus6.com - Ouch! Tough & Broken Rolex
> 
> The good with Omega is the bezel is completely smooth, unlike the Rolex which has the numbers carved into it...


Any ceramic bezel will shatter but the Rolex bezel is compromised by the fact that the markers/numbers are engraved into the ceramic thereby weakening its structure. The markers/numbers of the Omega bezel are cut through the ceramic but then filled with Liquidmetal or chromium nitride which bonds to the ceramic making it even stronger.

In addition, the markers/numbers of the Rolex bezel are applied using a PVD-like process. In some reported instances, the material (gold or platinum) has been unevenly applied and in all instances, the applied material is susceptible to scratches.

Furthermore, the markers/numbers of the Omega bezels are flush with the ceramic leaving no edges to chip as with the recessed markers/numbers of the Rolex bezels.

Admittedly there are significantly fewer Omega ceramic bezels "in the wild" but I have yet to hear of any being damaged. There is one report of a ceramic insert popping out but it was not damaged.

So for me, I prefer the Liquidmetal bezel of my PO LE and the stainless steel bezel of my Rolex Explorer II.

Fr. John†


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

acdelco said:


> Well, for a few reasons, I think you've narrowed it down to the right choices...assuming that you don't change your mind  At this level of quality, I'd go with the one that LOOKS better to you and makes your heart sing, so to speak.
> 
> I might try on the Blue bond if you want a slightly more casual and sporty look...as opposed to the Black. I know many here prefer the Black but I've always preferred the color blue on the Bond b/c it's the original color on the Bond. And a bit more unique.


Thanks for the input, all! This forum is so supportive. I do appreciate it. |>

I agree. They are both great choices--SMP-C and PO. I went to the store today. The more time I've spent with the SMP-C, the more I question it. I love the fit---bracelet comfortable and it sits nice on the wrist. But the more I look at it and see it on.....it doesn't look like an all-occasion watch. The shiny black face/bezel and polished metal accents on bracelet and case make it look fairly dressy.

I started envisioning myself less wearing the SMP-C everyday to work, church, mall, dates, etc. I really wanted to like it for a great daily wearer. The PO-C 42 (no orange) seems more well suited for all occasions. And it has a superior movement. I'm surprised that I now am moving away from the SMP-C as a daily watch. It seems less right for that than it did at first. I'm glad I didn't buy at first impulse.

PO-C is nice. BUT, its not as comfortable as the SMP-C. And it sits higher on my wrist. And the actual face of the watch looks a little small when side by side with the PO42 (you have to see them in person side by side to know what I'm saying, maybe). I need to wear the PO42 a bit more....wish I could rent it for a week.

On a whim, I tried on the Speedmaster (auto). That was a comfortable watch. Face was a little bigger than PO. Weight wasn't too much. Profile was not too high. Hmmm......


----------



## iinsic (Feb 18, 2010)

philipcertain100 said:


> Thanks for the input, all! This forum is so supportive. I do appreciate it. |> ...
> 
> PO-C is nice. ...
> 
> On a whim, I tried on the Speedmaster ... Hmmm......


Soooo ... We're back where you needed to be at the beginning: the Sub-C ;-)


----------



## Muffnbluff (Nov 15, 2011)

iinsic said:


> Soooo ... We're back where you needed to be at the beginning: the Sub-C ;-)


Nah, I say for the price of the Sub-C he get a SMP-C and then a tasty sapphire sandwich for dessert.


----------



## mrbill2mrbill2 (Feb 26, 2011)

Get a pre-loved Rolex 16610 and you will always be smiling!


----------



## mrbill2mrbill2 (Feb 26, 2011)

Get a pre-loved Rolex 16610 and will always be smiling!


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

mrbill2mrbill2 said:


> Get a pre-loved Rolex 16610 and will always be smiling!


Haha.....okay, someone wants the Sub-C to be in contention. 

16610 interesting choice.

Is the Saph Sammy a Moonwatch? Didnt see it on ACE site. The Moonwatch co-axial is what I tried on.....nice. Is the movement as good as the 2500D?


----------



## Mathew J (Oct 18, 2006)

philipcertain100 said:


> Haha.....okay, someone wants the Sub-C to be in contention.
> 
> 16610 interesting choice.
> 
> Is the Saph Sammy a Moonwatch? Didnt see it on ACE site. The Moonwatch co-axial is what I tried on.....nice. Is the movement as good as the 2500D?


I would agree with the above, as an older style sub owner in retrospect I would have been happier with a Speedy and some other Omega, preferably a Sapphire Speedy and either an Aqua Terra or a SMP

The Sub is ok but really better suited to those who just have to have a Sub or a Rolex whereas the Omega's are just plain awesome watches for still better prices.

Good luck


----------



## Muffnbluff (Nov 15, 2011)

philipcertain100 said:


> Haha.....okay, someone wants the Sub-C to be in contention.
> 
> 16610 interesting choice.
> 
> Is the Saph Sammy a Moonwatch? Didnt see it on ACE site. The Moonwatch co-axial is what I tried on.....nice. Is the movement as good as the 2500D?


Yeah, the sapphire sandwich is basically the 3570 moonwatch with a sapphire crystal instead of hesalite as well as a sapphire crystal display back.


----------



## Muddy250 (Jul 20, 2011)

You have come down to the exact problem I had trying to decide between the SMP C and the apparently small face of the 42mm PO. For me the aspect ratio of that watch is just wrong. It's too thick for the case diameter and when comparing directly with an SMP you pick up on the fact that the bezel is 1mm smaller on the PO which is off putting.

There is a solution tho. 45.5mm PO.... 



philipcertain100 said:


> Thanks for the input, all! This forum is so supportive. I do appreciate it. |>
> 
> I agree. They are both great choices--SMP-C and PO. I went to the store today. The more time I've spent with the SMP-C, the more I question it. I love the fit---bracelet comfortable and it sits nice on the wrist. But the more I look at it and see it on.....it doesn't look like an all-occasion watch. The shiny black face/bezel and polished metal accents on bracelet and case make it look fairly dressy.
> 
> ...


----------



## acdelco (Jan 15, 2008)

Pics don't do the Blue Ceramic justice...as noted in another thread, the Omega Blue is really chameleon like. Sometimes almost black/grey, sometimes bright blue, sometimes subdued blue. Overall, a richer blue than the previous Bond and IMO more interesting, complex, and unique than the ho-hum "flat" glossy black of the Submariner or Black SMP-C. Red text is a bonus.



ctujack said:


> SMP-C is a good choice and you can always blow the rest of the money on beer and hookers.:-d


----------



## philipcertain100 (Feb 12, 2012)

Muddy250 said:


> You have come down to the exact problem I had trying to decide between the SMP C and the apparently small face of the 42mm PO. For me the aspect ratio of that watch is just wrong. It's too thick for the case diameter and when comparing directly with an SMP you pick up on the fact that the bezel is 1mm smaller on the PO which is off putting.
> 
> There is a solution tho. 45.5mm PO....


You're right. The face diameter seems small for the size/thickness of the watch! And the bezel does look smaller.

I dont know. The 45 felt too big to me. The auto Moonwatch chrono felt pretty good. Is the Moonwatch movement as good as the 2500D, I wonder.


----------



## Muddy250 (Jul 20, 2011)

The bezel looks smaller because it is. SMP 40.8, PO 39.8. I think if I'd tried the 42 in isolation I may have lived with its over square type dimensions but I firmly believe the design was conceived at the larger size when you look at the proportions and shrunk to make the 42 which is why it looks wrong. Like looking down a little chimney stack at the dial. 
I've had the 45 for 2 months and my SMP has barely been on my wrist. It feels like part of my arm now and I don't register the weight. In fact it's a 43mm watch in an assymetric 45.5mm case which is why it wears about the same as an SMP. I went to try an AT last week. Felt like a plastic toy watch. The 45 has ruined me, I can't wear anything else! Happily, its not an issue. 



philipcertain100 said:


> You're right. The face diameter seems small for the size/thickness of the watch! And the bezel does look smaller.
> 
> I dont know. The 45 felt too big to me. The auto Moonwatch chrono felt pretty good. Is the Moonwatch movement as good as the 2500D, I wonder.


----------



## geremy (Apr 11, 2006)

For me what really bothers about the 42mm PO is that the hour markers are the same sized as the hour markers on the 45.5 PO. They use the same markers, and this makes the 42mm dial looked kind of squashed and busy.


----------

