Hi guys, it's almost a year since I bought my Seamaster 45mm with the orange bezel on the metal bracelet. I love it but have found myself visiting jewellers more and more recently, looking at the wide variety of alternatives out there.
I've lusted after a Ploprof but if I wasn't to go for another Omega, what would be considered as trading up from the Omega? I wouldn't want to really go over £5k but I do want to buy new. Is Panerai a logical step? I know it will come to down to the style of watch I like but not being as clued up as most people on here, I would hate to replace my PO with a watch which is considered as inferior to my Omega. My only other criteria is that it would have to quite a wide watch, which is why I'm not keen on many of the Rolexes within my budget.
Thanks in advance,
Martin
Either don't do it, or by a used Rolex would be my sensible advice.
Other than the above, buy something you really like the look of and the brand. Personally, I'll never buy a Pammy. & I'd never see it as a step up in anything other than its collector market for certain models.
It's just a matter of time...
Sounds from your post like you're wanting to own a watch from a brand which is perceived to be superior to Omega, which might lead you towards buying something for the sake of it, and you may regret selling your current watch to make way for it somewhere down the line.
Been there.The step up for me was Rolex.Then I missed not having an Omega so had to have both.
You have just entered a slippery slope.Enjoy !
It's a pivotal moment in any watch collector's life, and I sympathise. I started out with a Seamaster and then went Tag Monaco, Oris Big Crown, Tudor, birth year Rolex GMT, Glaschutte Original, Sinn 103... 42 watches later and I'm not sure it's getting any easier...
SGR
I think a classic Speedmaster would be my choice if remaining within Omega. If Rolex, I think the 39mm Explorer or Air King.
I do like the Oyster Perpetuals but they seem to lack identity without a model name in my opinion.
Edit: just read requirement re size. Ignore advice.
Last edited by prexelor; 14th January 2017 at 22:34.
I wouldn't go for a ploprof. Been there done that and it is a heavy old chunk of steel (I assume steel is what you are referring to).
I was was a big omega fan. I went to Rolex next, DSSD for a big watch like you are after. However, I don't even find that comfortable either. I have a 47mm Pam and it looks great, but again I really don't think these large watches are comfortable. My favourite, favourite and most comfortable is a GMTc.
ThisOriginally Posted by Omegamanic
PS If you sell a watch you love, it'll haunt you later.
Last edited by Scrubnut; 14th January 2017 at 23:17.
I'd suggest a Grand Seiko Diver - SBGA029. You don't want to be buying new unless you can get a pretty big discount though.
In fact you could keep you Orange PO and grab a used GS for around your budget!
I would keep the PO and get a Speedy Pro too. This is exactly what I'm planning to do. The Speedy is also generally considered as an essential in a collection.
I really wanted to get a Rolex Sea Dweller/DSSD, but whenever I put them on my wrist I just always end up preferring the Omega Divers.
I would however at some point like to pick up a dressy IWC.
Last edited by Spesh; 14th January 2017 at 23:19.
Question is what is a step up as a Diver from a PO? as at this price point they are all extremely well made hunks of steel and probably superior to their original working tool cousins of yesteryear. I have tried on an IWC Aquatimer and decided it was nuclear bomb proof and even tougher than a PO but frankly I much preferred a PO in looks (just my opinion)
I wonder if you might have fun doing the exact opposite to what you are trying to do, keep the PO and have fun picking up divers from less expensive brands who can still turn out an interesting offering. Helson, Squale, Certina DS , please get a PRS-3 , Seiko, Glycine . You can also get the odd vintage piece as well.
Bad boy! If you must, you can call it a Panny but NEVER a Pammy! It is certainly your loss. Knowing your collection, it would fit in nicely. And, most of them do meet your minimum requirements:-)
OP, Omegas are great watches and rather than worrying about a step up,down or sideways, go with a watch that you like.
No one is keeping scores.Buy and wear what you like.
Since you like the PO why not keep this and go for something completely different for a bit of variety ? I have a few dive watches and am now looking at vintage and dress watches to cover different eventualities. Only you know what you really want but I would have thought that if you wanted to stick with dive that Rolex or IWC would be your main options. That stated, I really like the look of the Cartier dive that is illustrated in a recent thread her on TZ.
Good luck with your selection !
You will always have a love of a PO if you keep or move on. I sold mine many years ago for my second Rolex and do indeed miss it lots. I really would love another and would by another black and white 45.5mm tomorrow and will when one at the right price comes along.
My advise.....if you fancy something different buy a lose ND sub if funds allow.
Pitch
Rolex would be the obvious choice I think.
A speedy will give you balance to your collection
Avery smart and usable watch
I'm after one myself
I've had rolex, but have a look at Breitlings
I love them and they are good value used and a proper bit of metal too
I'm not sure that you'll get something new for 5k,there's some new panerai out at around 4K but there entry level and I don't think there a step up on the omega,to be honest I don't think there's much about that's any better than the omega at this price,I had an orange bezel PO ,and I'd have one back no problem
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Iwc377710 pilots chronograph, a super watch IMO
Great heritage and fits all your criteria
Or any pretty much any used Rolex Sports watch
Last edited by J3w3ll3r; 15th January 2017 at 11:11.
Thanks for all your feedback guys. I bought a new Tudor BB before they were widely on sale in the UK and from there went to the PO. I've owned a Tag before that and of all of them, the PO feels the most special to me. I'm not one for wanting a collection as such and would rather have just one really nice watch. I'll look into your suggestions. Thanks again.
The PAM312 & GMT Master II are great watches that can be found under £5k though from experience not necessarily a step up from Omega in terms of quality........had problems with the GMT .....clasp, time keeping and a below par power reserve.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
You'll soon get used to the "smaller" size of a Rolex
Rolex Explorer II 216570 would seem to fit the bill. Perhaps not as chunky as the PO but worth a look.
I'm not sure on how you would rank the brand but if you want something of a larger size in that budget range there are a lot of Breitling options.
I have a Superocean Heritage 46 , it would look very different from your Omega especially on the mesh bracelet but wears well on leather and rubber too.
Suggest you think again about the 'trading up' aspect, watches aren`t like cars!
If you like the Omega, the ideal thing to do is keep it and save up for another watch you like.....it's called building a collection. After several years you end up with a few watches that you really like. Putting a watch away for a couple of months and not wearing it is ideal, when you get it out again it's surprising how enjoyable it is.
Buying second-hand makes it financially less painful to do this.
If you buy a Rolex you're not getting a better watch, you're getting a different watch that's perceived to be better by some. The ideal scenario is to own a few, then you become less hung up on what's better and what isn`t, you just accept they're different.
I also think it's a mistake to get locked into one type of watch; people end up buying several divers and at a glance they all look the same!
Paul
Food for thought guys. Cheers!
42MM Explorer II or a 114060 Sub
Nice example should easily be in your price range
if you get bored you can easily revert back to Omega
Although for the most part it does. Some brand new Omega might be better than some 10 year old Rolex models, but imho they have never had the same QC levels of Rolex, and I absolutely love All my Omega watches.
Id have a Sub, or 42mm Explorer II any day over a PO 8500. They are a superior watch, and the movement, despite what a few people think, is superior in the Rolex too.
&
It would be very difficult for anyone to argue that Rolex was not the more prestige brand of the two.
Last edited by Omegamanic; 15th January 2017 at 23:54.
It's just a matter of time...
This is very subjective you can review comparions of the standard Seamaster of the time against the Sub of the time and usually it's a hairs breath of difference with the rrp being virtually double.
Prestige is made up with a fair dose of marketing, you are probably right about Rolex at the moment though much more in the 80's and probably wrong in the 60's. What I'm getting at here is Omega have made great strides forward to recover their original supremacy and the 8500 is an interesting move forward. In some markets you could argue they are now neck and neck and I believe produced more volume than Rolex for the first time in years.
I've had absolutely no QC issues with my Omega pieces. What type of things do you mean?
The Explorer 2 better than a PO? Really?
I've also handled a Modern Rolex Datejust and failed to determine what the quality difference was? I'd rather have an Aqua Terra (again subjective)
QC issues on omega. Uneven lume, rough finish on edges of hands have been my main reasons for rejecting watches. 2 ploprofs returned for date change issues.
Yes the 42mm Explorer II is ahead of any 8500 Planet Ocean I've owned.
The 8500 derived movements can have great time keeping. Most of the ones I've had did. But look at the strip down of the movements - the 8500 looks great at all the bits you can see through a sapphire case back, the newer Rolex movements look great, full stop.
Aqua Terra have quite cheap bracelets imho, on the 8500 models, the clasps are just awful.
You have to compare like with like. There is no point comparing say one of the latest Speedmasters to a pre ceramic Daytona case, as that case Daytona is well over 20 year old design now.
There was never a hair between the Omega SMP and the Rolex Sub. The Rolex was always the winner, but given a much harder time over its bracelet. & it still had an overall win. Closer inspection shows which design was best. A thin metal wire on the SMP clasp, that you could open by flexing your wrist, or the Rolex fold over clasp? I had and still have both.
I buy Omega watches - lots of them. I've owned well over a hundred of them and must have at least 12 at present. So I like them, a lot. They are my second favorite watch brand, after Rolex.
Last edited by Omegamanic; 16th January 2017 at 13:28.
Can't speak for the 42mm Exp-II but I do have the immediately preceding model the 16570 in black and also a 42mm PO with the 2500 movement, both from circa 2008-2009. In a subjective assessment of build quality, the Omega wins hands down point. The lume on the Rolex is poor, the crystal is very reflective, the bracelet feels cheaper than the Omega and the shiny dial of the EXP-II looks nasty vs the matt PO. I would say that the 3186 movement vs the 2500 may be a tie as both are pretty effective and both are based on ancient tech with a bit of modern fairy dust sprinkled on. Now both watches have changed since mine were minted but I see nothing vastly superior in a steel Sports Rolex over the Omega equivalent, that said at least Rolex aren't noticeably gaining thickness unlike Omegas due to the fat in house movements.
OMG - how old is the 16570 model? When was the PO launched? Completely underlines my point! This is essentially the same watch as the 16550, with an updated movement, so maybe 20 year old design before the PO was launched.
The point being there is nothing vastly superior, but it is that little bit better in a number of areas, and QC has always been there. The little things that Omega have only now started doing, gold hands and hour markers for example that Rolex have used for decades. Omega now use sold gold centre links unlike the capped versions they used for years. Omega make some very well finished watches, the Ploprof remake was incredibly, but came with a huge increase in price.
The thing most people miss is that Omega are built to price (as are all watches, but Rolex only have Rolex
, and their sister Co Tudor) Swatch have higher tier watches to compete at or above Rolex, and I'm sure they would love Omega to get there too, and it might, but it isn't there yet.
I love both brands - I'll keep buying them, as they both make great watches.
Last edited by Omegamanic; 16th January 2017 at 14:34.
It's just a matter of time...
Also...The PO of that era is of noticeably of lower quality finish, get a loupe on the dial and hands. But they were considerably cheaper than the equivalent Rolex. Personally, I'd say the SMP 300's are better built than the early Planet Oceans.
I have one of the last 2500D PO's, the dial is miles ahead of the first Planet Ocean I had. I'd still give the nod to my 2005 Submariner though in all areas (bracelet is a contention, as I maintain the Rolex links are better and in finish, and the PO uses a thin metal wire to hold the clasp shut.
Last edited by Omegamanic; 16th January 2017 at 14:35.
It's just a matter of time...
My PO is a 2009-10 so not all that early, its a 2500C 2201.50 and I have 6 SMPs and the the only one which comes close is the AC with gold bezel and applied markers but the PO is way nicer still. You say the 'PO of that era is of noticeably lower quality than later ones' and yet I find it clearly superior to a 2008 Exp-II for the reasons I outlined above. Re the bracelet, the earlier clasp design Rolex used until very recently is just nasty, bent stamped metal. Just offering an opinion, as are you.
I would say it undermines you point, which is that Rolex is clearly better. In my experience of the direct comparison of the example given, it isn't. Assuming that the lume now works on the 42mm Exp-II, they fit a decent bracelet clasp, a nicer dial and some form of anti-glare I may offer a different opinion if I was comparing a 8500 PO vs the current Exp-II, particularly as I hate the fat cases the in-house Omegas are forced to use but there you are.
Last edited by Padders; 16th January 2017 at 15:15.
I like Omega... I like Rolex... I have had 3 x 2500 PO's (Black 45.5, Black 42 & Orange 42) but I don't have any now. I have had one 42mm EXP II and I still have it. Liked them all but I guess I must like the Rolex the most!
I was blown away by the SBGA029 GS Diver but if it came down to keeping one watch then the new EXP II would be it as it's just so right, for me anyway (7.25" wrists). Smart enough to wear with a suit, fits under a cuff but perfect with jeans and a T. If you're looking for just one watch give one a try> They're not so shiny as the ceramic models, but I like that and the extra 2mm but relatively slender case with good looking lugs all helps.
I doubt it's of any use whatsoever but I simply can't relate to the OP's approach to buying watches, particularly the 'trading up' aspect. If you love the watch you have but decide that you want, for example, something dressy and see something you like and it happens to be 5k then try it on and then buy it or keep looking... I can understand that. I don't understand the vagueness of your desire to buy another watch for up to 5k but having no idea what you want.
Last edited by Rob; 16th January 2017 at 19:15.
You are choosing things you like about the Omega, like lume and bracelet feel/look. And comparing an old design. It's a bit like saying why isn't my new old stock M3 BMW better than the brand new Ford Focus RS.
I appreciate that the models were on sale at the same time, but that's not the point. On newer models Rolex had moved on. All you are demonstrating is that a new Omega could compete with what was 20 year old watch (albeit with a new parachrome main spring at the end of its life). If lume was a defining feature in quality then a £100 Seiko might just be the best quality watch in the world, it isn't.
Personally, I prefer the case, case back, dial, hands, and bracelet of the EXPII (old version) to the PO. The clasp on the PO's can be opened by flexing your wrist. The Rolex may be stamped metal, but it absolutely works. I don't feel that this is 'nasty' as I still prefer it to this day, functional is the word I would use. The PO clasp looks prettier granted.
I think we can agree that both brands make nice watches. I believe 100% that Rolex make a better watch, you obviously feel differently, and I have no desire to convince you otherwise.
I do not prefer anything on my PO to my SMP's, and I'd say the SMPc is most definitely better finished - they both have the same movement, but then it has a shiny dial that you don't like and the PO is Matt ;)
The real test would be if the PO was selling at the same price as a current equivalent Submariner. It's getting close, or even more expensive in some case materials, so we will see.
Id agree that the new PO cases are just too thick, and I honestly believe that has cost Omega in sales. I'd like to see how they compete against other brands in 10 years, as they need to be offering comparative products not big, thick dive cases. Maybe a new SMP 300m replacement will fill the current gap.
It's just a matter of time...
I can't really understand the idea of 'trading up' unless you're a huge fan of horology.
Sure, going from a simple watch to a tourbillon or even a multi-barrel will appeal to some.
Some will like going from steel to gold to platinum too.
BUT, if you're just moving brands, from Omega to XXX, what's the point unless what you're moving to is something you like better than the Omega you have?
I suppose if you buy into the Omega < Rolex < Patek branding then it makes sense to you, but they're just names to me and I wouldn't buy one over the other if I didn't prefer the individual watch (and I'm enough of a philistine not to care whether one has a supposedly better movement and don't like Gold and wouldn't pay Platinum prices for something that looks very like Steel, no matter how heavy it is).
Changing watches and styles is understandable to me, but unless you put some innate value in wearing a Rolex over an Omega (or a Breitling over a TAG) then the watches need to fit your needs and wants, not the name on the dial...
M
What he said ^
But if you only really have the one watch, and however good it may be, I'm sure there are going to be times when you get just a little bored with it and want a change not because you don't like it or it's no good but simply want to try something else.
So in this case I can fully understand where the OP is coming from. The choice is then add another watch or 'trade up' as such by putting more money into what you have.
...Of course once you try something else you may well decide what you started with was best but until you try you will never know!
Fair enough, but then it's the idea of a change not JUST 'trading up' for the sake of it.
Lots of people see watch collecting as a staircase to a 'grail brand', but that just seems pointless to me, unless you're really lucky and/or shrewd on what you buy so that the grail is paid for by profits on early sales (and I doubt many achieve that, no matter what they think going in!)
M.
I've never thought of collecting as a stairway to a better brand, but it certainly can be. Is Seiko a gateway drug for the average WIS ;)
I can say that until recently I would have rather had three Rolex watches than one Patek. For the most part this might still be true. For me and my uses Rolex are the best blend of everyday wear and useability. A bit like I'd drive a 911 every day (if I had one), but Indont I'd use a Ferrari as an only car or everyday car.
There is a definite stage of not feeling comfortable spending more than £xxxx on a watch. Only the actual cash amount differs. I'd never have believed I'd spend the amount required for a steel Patek, but there are many that are more than happy to spend the amount required for a precious metal complicated watch.
Most of us are influenced by branding, but brands have influence because of the qualities people associate with them. If Seiko, Rolex or Omega made crap watches then people wouldn't rate them so highly, and it would affect the brand value.
I still think we buy what we like, and looks and design have a lot to do with it as much as brand history.
It's just a matter of time...
One of the fairest comments I have ever seen here.
Interesting reading and thanks all for your input. It's harder to explain on here as opposed to face to face but essentially, my reference to 'trading up' is grounded in the fact that I'm not too knowledgeable about those brands considered to be 'better' or at least comparable to the likes of Omega. On that basis, I could potentially make the schoolboy error of selling my watch for something that is more expensive but in reality, poorer quality. Granted I might like it more in terms of looks but I'd be gutted if someone in the know advised that it is by all accounts an inferior watch. To my mind, if I replace my PO, I want to be confident that I have opted for something considered 'better' although I know that this can be subjective, as well as something I prefer the look of. Hope this makes some sort of sense.
Ulysse Nardin MMD or for a bit more a used Blancpain FF.
This sets out Swatch group brands, most in the luxury range are considered above Omega. In fact I'm sure Omega wasn't in the highest category a few years back:
http://www.swatchgroup.com/en/brands...d_luxury_range
It really depends what you are looking for. If it's brand recognition, then Rolex is number one, and Omega probably number 2, with Seiko in there somewhere, but not considered by the masses as a luxury watch brand.
There are many watch brands that I would say were a step up from Omega, but most would be a lot more than £5k, Rolex is the only close competitor that I feel does the job better and provides a step up in quality when comparing like with like. For example I'd say my Ploprof is better finished than 90% of all the watches I've ever owned, but I've sent two back with issues. Reports suggest the DSOTM Speedmaster is very well finished, I just thought it had a nice ceramic case, and a nice looking dial.
The other side of buying a new (er) watch is that a Rolex will most likely hold its value better and probably increase in value faster than an equivalent Omega, as its perceived value by the general public is higher than almost any other watch brand.
If if you buy at the right price you won't lose much, if any, and can always go back to your previous position.
If I was new to luxury watches, I think I'd buy a ceramic Submariner or more likely the ceramic Sea-Dweller and that would do me - for life :)
It's just a matter of time...
I would also consider some of the diver models
Within the brietling brand . Perhaps an avenger
chrono or the superocean 44 collection , solid 44mm divers
Breitling are nice watches, but would you consider it a step up from the OP's Omega PO?
It's just a matter of time...
SubC? ;)
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
OP. As your criteria include a 'wide watch' presumably you mean large across the dial like the PO, then as others have said in my experience Breitling is a comparable brand, rather than a step up. They make quite a few dive watches similar size or larger than the Omega PO. Try the avenger range. Best to go to an AD and try on a few. Panarie is an alternate too but I have less personal experience.
I would say Omega and Breitling are comparable easpecially if you get one with in house developed movement - the B01 /B17 movements are superb, however technically nothing wrong within the earlier ETA based movements that Breitling still uses.
Hope that helps
Martyn
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
