Hello Everyone,
I'm new to this forum and would like some advice.
I have an Omega Seamaster 300 Co-axial with ceramic bezel, not the newest model but the ink blue dial with no waves. Overall I love the watch and think it looks great on, when the colour changes in different lights it looks fantastic. The only thing I'd say against the watch is the incredibly poor lume, whilst the hour markers are legible the actual hands are all but invisible in low light/darkness. I bought the watch from Goldsmiths, it's the third high end watch I've purchased from them and they haven't answered my email or returned my phone call, so I won't be buying anymore!
My dilemma is this. I know most people tend to feel Omega is a lesser manufacturer than Rolex, whilst being a quality watch most reviews end up preferring the Rolex after an 'in depth' comparison . I have a birthday coming up and am considering buying the Submariner date (although in the UK there is a waiting list) and am wondering if I'd be getting a better watch in the end, or a least £4K better watch than I already own? I know Rolex hold their price and even appreciate in value, have a better movement and the lume is also supposed to be far better. The other twist is that I've never actually worn a Submariner so would be buying it blind so as to speak. The GMT 2 Batman also looks very nice except for the polished centre links!
Any advice?
Hard to offer advice other than Sub is classic in range and I love mine. Bracket very comfortable due to adjustable clasp, and nice lum. Go on line and look at some video reviews, only real way is to try one on. Sure if you ring around in dealers you will find one to try.
Good luck, great watches, but then so are Omega, although not a fan of your particular model to be candid
I dont think the watch will feel '£4k' better than the Omega.
But it will hold decent residual value if that helps your decision any ?
I am puzzled by your comments about the seamaster. My experience is they have exemplary lume, better than Rolex? Can you give the exact model number of yours? You mention ceramic bezel, blue but no wavy lines so that sounds a quite recent model. I had the seamaster 'bond' and that glowed all night long.
Martyn
I think you need to go and try on the sub and then make your own mind up. They're both great watches and everyone will have their own preference, including you!
I made that same move myself - sold my blue ceramic 300m to buy a ceramic Submariner date. I've never regretted it or looked back. The price difference was painful but there was no point keeping the Seamaster when I knew deep down that I'd prefer the Sub.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was in your shoes as well, although compared the Sub with different Omega. On December I went to a jewelry store where they had the Sub-C and the Omega SM300 MC. Having inspected both of them, aside from the steel and brand recognition, I was not convinced with Sub's superiority. I even found the clasp of SM300 to be better. However, time will tell if the movement will be better in the long term.
Submariners are truly icons and would like to have one in my collection. What I like about them is their overall quality and heritage (looks, of course). What I dislike is that they are becoming more of a status symbol "loved by everyone" not as much because of their horological qualities as for what they nowadays represent. These owners I met are amongst the biggest douchebags I have ever met and cast a negative image on the others (as many honorable members of this this forum are).
I went with Omega instead :-) I am more than happy with it and do not regret the decision. If I at one point did, always can swap, just as you can :-)
Last edited by Jancik; 20th January 2017 at 20:32.
Blimey, glad I sold my Sub. My objection was the thick lugs of the ceramic version.....the'SD 4000 is a nicer watch in my view.Originally Posted by Jancik
You're right with the lugs, not very proportional sadly. But if you take the pre ceramic version - hard to beat :-) Enjoy the SD :-)
Hi Martyn,
Model Number is 212.30.41.20.03.001 and the lume is dreadful
If you want a Sub go get one but I do also raise a query in that Seamasters are well known for having good lume. They usually get higher marks for this in comparison tests. The older sword hand models are considered better lume simply because of the hand size. I would think however that a Seamaster Skeleton hand should glow like my Seiko BFK and that is very reasonable. Have you considered going to a big WOS with a watch technician on site or an Omega boutique and get them to look at it. Somehow you may have had a duff set of lumed hands on your watch . If something's up it should then be replaced.
Subs are over egged! Try one on and you'll not buy into the hype. Plenty of more versatile and usable watches in the Rolex, Omega and other leading brands ranges at the same price point. Don't follow the herd!!
Enjoy the search as it's more satisfying than owning.
No contest.
I'm sorry to hear of your woes. Despite the views sometimes expressed, a Rolex is a very special piece. I have been lucky to have worn one pretty much daily for the past 36 years, have looked at it every day that it has been on my wrist and felt privileged. Mine has been 'away' being fettled for the last 3 months. I miss it dreadfully.....
Hopefully, you can feel that bond with whatever you purchase.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think myself to be a douchebag.....just blessed with a great and historical piece of watchmaking art. The beauty of Rolex Subs is that only those who understand recognise one. There are plenty of lookalikes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Another vote for strong lume on the Seamaster. Mine is a 2531.80.00 and is 10 years old, and the Lume is fantastic. Yes the skeleton hands don't illuminate like the sword hands on a 2254.50.00. But even though they are thin, the are very bright.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I mean, yeah there are plenty of homages to the sub, but I wouldn't attribute the beauty of them to being recognisable by people in the know, like some sort of insider club - they're not as few and far between as they used to be, even if Rolex would like you to think they're 'exclusive'.
OP - honestly, unless it's going to be your be all and end all watch, I'd rather divest that money into a selection of other watches. That said, you won't lose a lot of money on a Rolex if you decide it's not for you, but I'd really suggest trying one on before committing to one. Personally, I found them to wear too small for my liking compared to a Seamaster, even though there's not much in it.
Perception is everything......
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
most strange. I had the earlier 'bond ' version with wavy dial and found it one of the brightest lume ever. Something like this
pic from the web::
Sorry for knicking the pic off the www
Do perhaps have a look at the Omega Planet Ocean range for even better lume than the Seamaster.
Last edited by MartynJC (UK); 21st January 2017 at 00:34.
Can't disagree with Henk, an alternative and probably a very good investment is the 2254.50 Seamaster
I'm going to try and stay away from what the OP should or shouldn't buy - I've never actually owned a sub (plenty of GMTs and a sea dweller though).
IMO the ceramic Seamaster is a superb watch. The build and finish are fantastic, the bracelet is a work of art and the blue dial is a joy to look at.
Bucking the trend though I'm going to agree that the lume annoyed me. It's not that the lume isn't bright enough, but having poor eyesight as I do, I have to say that at night I found the hour markers indistinguishable from the little lume dot at the end of the minute hand and after a while it really got to me, so much so that it had to go - I ended up with a ceramic GMT as a daily wearer instead.
Now, a micro adjust clasp, and fully lume filled sword hands would pretty much make it perfect, but alas it doesn't have them.
(I agree about the monster though, if it's lume you want look no further, the only problem with that is, it's just too bulky and uncomfortable to wear in bed)!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Both great watches, but I'd go for the Sub.
The new bracelet with the adjustable clasp is brilliant!
Sub without question. Design classic, less brand positioning. Rarer.
I would certainly pick a Rolex over omega. I do feel that omega struggle to retain its valuation. Yet some of their models are beautiful.
But certainly get a rolex, head to anywhere that has a submariner and try one on.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Difficult one to call in regard to retention. It may appear obvious that Rolex hold value better . However a search of Chrono 24 shows the cheapest aluminium blue bezel auto at £1400. I'd guess that it was probably around £1800 at time of purchase so not huge depreciation. A Great White or a 2254.50 may have actually appreciated. Buying a ceramic bezel Seamaster grey dealer would probably safe guard a fair % of depreciation and in physical real cash terms 10% depreciation of a new Sub may be similar to 20% of a Seamaster. So prettty square id call it.
That might be so, but can dodge it by buying with a nice discount, or secondhand in good condition.
Also in case you are looking for a keeper, residual value is kind of irrelevant. Sure, it gets a you bit of a piece of mind, but you won't go bad with an Omega (after mentioned steps) either.
At the end of the day, go with whichever you like more, just make sure to inspect the Sub beforehand. Excellent watch, but you might not find it that much better than your current one.
I've got both the Submariner and SMP 300, quartz, and if push came to shove would be hard pressed to choose one over the other.
That said, my Submariner is the older 14060M, I much prefer this version over the current supercase version of the Rolex.
Owned both and the new ceramic sub is way better than the omega 300 . The omega is a great piece but the sub is a considerable step up .
The Sub is better, but not over £3k better, which is the RRP difference.
I have both and really like both. I think either work as an only watch.
I don't understand what you want grin the lume- surely it's good enough to tell the tell?
There is no bad choice, but the Rolex could be the better buy- unless the next SMP300m is £5k and the current model prices go through the roof ;)
It's just a matter of time...
Been here, you will end up still wanting to try a sub regardless
Me personally not a fan of the subs, go for a explorer 2
That's one hell of a bleedin' long model number if ever !!
Got to try both on. Only sensible plan.
Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
Hi,
Exact serial number is 212.30.41.20.03.001 (from Omega site). The lume is good after being held under a powerful torch for a few minutes but then fades very quickly, whilst the hour markers are still legible the actual skeleton fingers fade very quickly closely followed by their tips.
Long it may be but it's from Omega's own site. Look it up!
Yes, I agree, and both in their way offer good value, the Sub for high and easy resale, and the Omega for competitive retail price. At these luxury levels you always have to pay quite large premiums for small increases in quality, the differences become crazily pronounced on APs and PPs, so in context I think the Sub is worth its price and well worth paying the extra on.
Trying to quantify the differences is pointless, just try both on and decide which you like better and how much you're prepared to spend. There's a huge difference in price but there's very little difference in quality.. .....in the sense that most people will be able to appreciate. You'd have to strip both down to start seeing significant differences.
For me, the SMP is the nicer watch, I think Rolex ruined the Sub with the bloated case design. The SMP is a tad thicker than it's predecesor, which detracts a little, but it's still a nicely balanced watch that'll suit most wrists and fit under a shirt cuff.
Think about it; you could buy a SMP and a nice secondhand Datejust with the difference in price vs the Sub......now that sounds very sensible to me!
SMP's the only Omega worth considering IMO, The price is still within the realms of sanity.
Paul
Last edited by walkerwek1958; 24th January 2017 at 01:18.
Both are great watches, I find the Omega to be the most comfortable of the 2. Having said that, if I had to choose to have only 1 I'd pick the sub every time...
I'd have to go with the Rolex, it just has that little more presence
Agree with Paul here, I'd not have a ceramic sub purely down to the case design.
If you have the funds for a Sub then I'd be considering also the SMP300 Master Co-Axial
https://www.omegawatches.com/watches...r-300/product/
The Sub is the better watch, but it isn't THAT much better for the money. TBH I have never liked the SMP HEV. The Sub may have many great qualities, but lume isn't one of them (pre-ceramic 16610)
Dave
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It depends. What is the goal of buying the watch?
Is it in addition to other watches? Is it an only watch?
I am only returning to this, as I am wearing my SMPc today, and it is all the watch you could ever need, so I'd say it is a used bargain as far as luxury sports watches go. For the £1500-£2000 category there isn't much with the same brand history and quality of the SMP range. Is a Submariner worth £3000 more than the SMP? I really don't think it is - have I paid over thousands more for a Submariner over my SMP's, unfortunately yes - and too many times!
If it was an only watch, then I would buy a Submariner (or Sea-Dweller) and be done with it - but that just me, as I prefer Rolex to Omega, slightly. If it was an additional purchase, then the SMP wins every time as one of the best value propositions. The SMP is a sports watch, with enough nice elements to it that imho it can be worn with anything - I am sure others might disagree though.
I have found myself wearing the SMP more than I wear any of my Subs or Sea-Dwellers over the last 12 months, and I was looking for one with a little more wear to use as a complete beater - I like the idea of a reasonably priced watch that I can wear doing anything, just like I used to wear my Explorer II 20 years ago!
Paul's observation of a nice Datejust and a SMP, is probably a very good point. Again as additional purchases I think that would be a better move - but again, as a one watch, the Subs are very hard to beat.
It's just a matter of time...
Hi,
I've done the all the on line 'trawling' and am still undecided. I am now also considering the Yachtmaster (not YM2) with the blue or possible even the Platinum face, just not overly crazy about the adjustment holes in the bracelet. Can anyone offer an opinion on what they'd opt for GMT, Sub C or YM?????
The SMP is a nice watch, but the Sub is in another league. It is fine to have both ib a collection, but otherwise the Sub is a clear winner.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk
that so clearly shows the IMHO ugly shoulders the modern Sub has. How about a reversal in case design Rolex? Too much to ask I guess.Both are great watches, I find the Omega to be the most comfortable of the 2. Having said that, if I had to choose to have only 1 I'd pick the sub every time...
Saying that - once it's on the wrist it becomes less of an issue.
Martyn.
I agree with Alex,Both are great watches, I find the Omega to be the most comfortable of the 2. Having said that, if I had to choose to have only 1 I'd pick the sub every time...
I have had both and retain the ceramic sub. Worn daily for over a year from new and I love it. Regards. Kev
Although I like the look of subs I've never really wanted to own one. But since joining this forum I'm becoming more and more interested just because of the passion the Sub inspires!
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I've just flipped my seamaster ceramic. Since I purchased a subLVc it failed to get any wrist time
Last edited by forest172; 25th January 2017 at 20:59.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
