Reply With QuoteBoth lovely watches but the Sea Dweller gets my vote.
As I actually like them both :)
...but the Omega looks sharp...
Both lovely watches but the Sea Dweller gets my vote.
Seadweller for me. I've owned a seamaster and I will at some point own a seadweller.
Both excellent watches in their own right, it just cheapens them to compare. Most will have a preference that comes down to personal taste or a few micro-differences.
It's superlative, not superior ;-)
Gray
The Seamaster gets my vote. New bracelet with screwed links vs old SD "rattle" bracelet. Ceramic bezel vs aluminium. 41,5 vs 40 mm. Besides that, the SD looks even smaller than the 16610 because of a slightly smaller dial.
Seamaster for me! But if it was the ceramic sub next to the seamaster, it would be a whole other story :D
Nice couple!
Seadweller for business etc. formal stuff and Seamaster for week-ends and short sleeves.
-OD
Ps. Just get rubber strap for Omega and you actually have 3 watches...
But the Rolex looks sharper. It has a stronger, better integrated design. If I was offered a choice of the two I would not think twice.
The SD gets my vote.
A super-duo, looks realy sharp
I have the sd on my wrist
no comparison between the two ;)
Having used both as they were meant, the SD has a better bracelet ( omega broke twice!, bloody pins and collars), the SMP has better lasting lume in a low light environment , the manual HEV is a pain, found the auto HEV much easier.
All IMO of course ;-))
No question, the SD for me.
Quite right! But still interesting to think about the pricing difference.Originally Posted by Caller
The SD has a very special air around it, can't really analyse it better...
Yes, I've thought about a rubber. Could be a nice update...
The Seamaster is a bit more interesting visually as it changes appearance in different lighting. I find it very appealing.
The *only* thing I dislike about the seamaster is the bezel scallops vs the serrations on the SD. In all other aspects I think the Omega is better. Obviously the Rolex costs more and will increase in value more, but I think the Omega has much better detailing.
I'd be happy with either :)
Any idea why they changed the date wheel to black on the SMPc? I prefer an SMP to the SD but that black date wheel doesn't work for me compared to the old white one.
Superior suggests inferior, which isn't the case IMO.
Having said which, my vote goes to the SD.
Never heard of the Rolex's bracelet actually breaking, only rattling and eventually stretching... but the Seamaster now has screwed links so presumably they thought it could stand some reliability improvements. The Omega is more eye-catching and obviously finished, with twisted, part-polished lugs, scalloped bezel, ceramic, busy bracelet and an extra button on the side for detonating stuff.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
90's design against 60's design.......excellent watches both. I was lucky to own several of both models over the years and I will not judge which one is the absolute better.
I would only say that I regret not having kept one of each. The SD and the 2254 (on the original 'Speedy' bracelet) being the one I would chose from either of the two families to keep...
:)
Incidentally I think the only reason they added screwed links to the bracelet on the Seamaster was to justify the price increases as they moved it from being a moderately expensive but good watch to a 'super-premium' lifestyle piece. The bracelet on my 2004 SMP daily wearer (abused) has never had any issues whatsoever with stretch or losing pins.
I agree with much of this. Its not quite comparing like-for-like is it? What with one being the modern version that's had time to evolve and sort some bracelet shortcomings out and the other being a discontinued model that has a much-criticised bracelet.
Down to styling alone Id favour the rolex with its iconic look and no manual HE escape valve, but the new model Omega is perhaps a little better finished - or at least more fancily.
Bring a current rolex diver with ceramic too and the new improved bracelet and clasp and I think the Omega just loses out - though is, by no means blown out of the water (except if one considersWR of course).
Both great watches though but, considering I think that, along with the submariner with no date, the seadweller is the best watch rolex ever made/makes, Im always going to favour the SD.
I can't afford either, so have no dog in this fight.
For me, the Rolex is the better looking watch. A classic design that, while looking old, never seems to age. The Omega is just too fussy a design to my eyes.
When I'm diving I prefer a simple watch that I can read at a glance, so I guess I'd also choose the Rolex for that reason too. BUT, I think I'd feel too self-conscious wearing the Rolex, so if I could only pick from one or the other would probably go for the Omega. I suspect less people would think it's a fake if I was wearing it whereas I'm sure most people know I couldn't afford the Rolex so would just assume it's dodgy.
Some of the design elements of the Seamaster go almost as far back as some of those on the SD.
For me, the SD stands the test of time much better, while the SM looks a bit dated (especially with that bracelet, with its 60s Guy Freyes style links) and the blue dial /bezel do not have universal appeal.
The Seamaster Pro is significantly slimmer, and wears better on a smaller wrist. The Rolex Seadweller/Sub is iconic, no question about that, but the SMP is my choice.
I voted with my feet and sold my 16610 Sub earlier this year. I have a SMP black bond and a bicolour SMP........haven't missed the Rolex at all.
Horses for courses; both have points in their favour. Best value SMP at the moment is the older Bond style prior to the ceramic bezel. The 2254.50 is possibly the nicest but prices are getting heavy and all examples are now several years old. Nothing wrong with that, but it makes buying more of a challenge.
Needless to say, servicing an Omega will always be cheaper than Rolex. Don`t forget that the SMP bezel picks up damage quite easily. The ceramic insert on the latest models won`t mark, but the bezel itself (with all those sharp facetted edges) will.
Paul
Correct, if you're looking to use the watches for what they're designed for (as Mike does).
The pins and collars on the SMP wear out if the watch is given a hard life....which it's (supposedly) designed to withstand. Omega won`t restore a badly worn one, they'll recommend a new replacement at £300+. This is a point to consider if looking at used examples, I`ve seen some pretty bad SMP bracelets.
The Rolex bracelets might seem primitive by comparison but they stand up to wear and tear far better.
Paul
A lot of thoughts here, I like it!
The SD is a 1999 version so it's clearly a much older watch, but I believe it's the one I like the best of the SD's.
Comparing the SMp with the new ceramic SD would have been possible if not my watch mate had sold off his a while ago. It would have been interesting...and worth a full review battle ;) again, then I would have needed the PO 8500 also.
Both are great watches. But when comparing a Seadweller with a Seamaster, the Seadweller get's my vote.
When comparing a Seadweller with a Seamaster PO, the PO gets my vote.
Seadweller all the way!!
I've owned both, but have to agree the SD is the clear winner imo.
Never had the Rolex but that SMP was mine I believe. In the flesh the omega is a real looker, They have upped their game recently I think.
id have the smp
It's your old one :) indeed.
A couple of months ago I had had a similar thought with two relatives of these two...
Very comparable watches in my eyes.
http://thelearnedgentleman.com/the-p...ving-partners/
SD as they stand.
Unfortunately IMO Omega decided to do away with the wave dial and add applied indices so now it just looks like a poor mans Rolex.
They should have kept the wave dial and painted indices as points of differentiation.
Cheers,
Neil.
I agree entirely, the wave dial is a thing of beauty. The SMP lost it's appeal along with the loss of the waves.
Unfortunately IMO Omega decided to do away with the wave dial and add applied indices so now it just looks like a poor mans Rolex.
They should have kept the wave dial and painted indices as points of differentiation.
I must agree, I also miss the waves...
Something completely different though...
SMP = 165 g
SD = 147 g
FYI
I really don't like the new hand set of the omega, but other than that, I'd say its a tie. Glossy dials are awesome.
it says in that article that the omega at 48 hours has a better power reserve than the rolex at 40 hours, it then goes on to use this as a way the cheaper omega is better
the rolex movement has a 48 hour or so reserve doesn't it?
I really like the shade of blue Omega uses. Some of the other blue ceramics I've seen didn't look quite right.
SD - design classic which will never date.
No contest for me really having had both Omegas and Rolex. The Omega grabs attention. The Rolex has class but is so much more conservative and blends in with many other mono coloured dive watches. Having said that I would be happy with either but given a choice I personally would opt for the Omega but then again I don't play safe. I suppose i'm just bored with black faced divers. Good post OP. Kev
As I stated in the first post, I will not judge, and I like both.
The different characteristics in each, that satisfy my tastes are divided between both
SD: brushed bracelet, discretion, history, movement, detail quality.
SMP: AR coating, colour, movement, glossy dial, ceramics, development of well known design, detail quality.
The SD has no really annoying features, well maybe a minute hand that is a tad bit too thin for perfect legibility.
The SMP lacks micro adjustment in the clasp, that's too bad but really no showstopper.
If I'm going for a night out I would opt for the SMP. But the SD would follow me to a client survey meeting. Both will follow me to a dive, but as the SD is older I think the fresh lume of the SMP is a better choice.
As I'm never going to use the He escape valves they are just a nice bonus I guess ;)
I am lucky enough to own both, and couldn't choose one over the other. Both are aesthetic marvels to me, and I possibly wish I had the blue SMP like you for the variety, (that particular shade looks stunning!) Both destined to become classics in my eyes.
Amen to that (and the sub).
The omega looks dated IMO, not sure why but I think it looks very 1990s..
All things are relative......1990s is recent to me. I class 50s watches as old.
Paul
The black date wheel on the SMP is pretty unusual. I haven't decided whether i like it or not.
For me it makes the dial a bit more composed. There are a number of old SMP variants with black date-wheel that I (at least) find very nice.
Dweller all day long for me.
I wear a Bond Omega so I suppose that says it all. The Deep Sea does make me sit up right, but not the SD, it looks great in photographs but not on my wrist.
Posting Permissions
