Reply With QuoteHave they reduced the thickness of POs of late?
Found them a little chunky. My AT was crazy thick for what it was, my SPECTRE Seamaster also
I’m looking at buying a PO very soon (probably going to trade my Seamaster 300M Master Co-Axial for one).
When comparing a PO to a Sub, how would you compare them? I’m not asking which you like the best, but more, how do they compare against each other on technical basis?
The PO I’m looking at is the 43.5 with the 8900 Caliber.
Obviously the P.O. has a better depth rating than the sub, but what about the ceramic and liquid metal technology that Omega use compared to Rolex? How do the movements compare against each other etc?
I’m not looking to be swayed one way or the other, I’m simply interested in the comparison on the technical quality. There is a large price difference between the two watches (on the used market), is it mostly down to Rolex unobtainium marketing or is the Sub really a superior watch?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Have they reduced the thickness of POs of late?
Found them a little chunky. My AT was crazy thick for what it was, my SPECTRE Seamaster also
Get the omega ,I’ve had a couple and think there great,one of the things I prefer is the choice as in face and bezel options,if you want a plain black watch go for a sub but I don’t think it’s any better for the money,but obviously it will retain its value better
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It will be a plain black one with the alligator rubber strap.
Like I say, I’m not asking the questions to steer my choice, I’m simply curious as to their differences. I picked the sub to compare against as it is most likely to most obvious choice to compare the P.O. against.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s a bit like comparing a Merc AMG (full fat) to a BMW M car - they both do the smell thing. I’d just pick a) the brand you like best; and or at the same time b) the whichever one you like the look of best.
The Rolex will have better QC, it will use higher quality bits here and there (white gold hands and indices for example, but each one is going to be a great watch. The Sub will hold its value better, and increase faster, if that matters to you.
Id love to add one of the newer 43.5mm PO’s at some stage, but it would never be an only watch, for me, whereas the Sub (or a Seadweller could easily slip into a one watch category for me (if I was sensible) and that’s said owning over 50 watches.
Last edited by Omegamanic; 31st March 2018 at 16:28.
It's just a matter of time...
50 !!!! Lolz.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Had a 42mm PO8500 and still have 116610. Not a lot to chose in terms of time keeping.
I sold the P.O. as it wasn’t getting any wrist time mainly because of the thickness of the watch and the weight. It sits very tall on the wrist.
The Sub in my opinion is much more comfortable. The micro adjustment in the Bracelet is also a really good touch.
Finally, if it’s in the back of your mind, the residual value in the Rolex kills the Omega hands down.
Ignoring residuals, Rolex is more wearable and timeless. The PO will be superseded by an inferior update within a coupe more years - just like the 2500 and 8500 versions before it.
If the resale values were reversed, I’d still pay more for the Sub.
I think they are much of a muchness quality wise but the Rolex will hold its price/appreciate far better than the Omega.
FWIW I’ve not worn my Sub since Xmas but have worn my Omega SMP 300 regularly and,no, the Rolex is a keeper even though seldom worn.
Imo the submariner is superior on every level. It's particularly noticeable with the bracelets.
Just compare one in each hand if you can.
My heart would say the Omega as I much prefer the overall look of the watch. My brain (as small as it is) would say the the Rolex as I've no doubt the quality would be better and residuals much stronger.
Last edited by Rmdf1960; 31st March 2018 at 18:53.
Omega use white gold hour markers and hands as well. At least they do on the AT. I do wonder if there is an assumption that Rolex is better quality but actually it isn’t. Again, I have no issues with omega bracelets. I’d love to see evidence of the lesser quality. Genuinely interested this is not a poke.Originally Posted by Omegamanic
Last edited by Stuno1; 31st March 2018 at 19:37.
I think it is dependant on your wrist size, I find subs just too small, love the look on other people but not for me, my orange PO is not my most expensive in my 10 watch collection but would be one of the favs for 1 watch scenario
70 hr power reserve is pretty awesome as well
8500 era links were made in China. I have no reason to assume that’s not still the case. There is photographic evidence on this forum.
Rolex links are made by Rolex in Switzerland. Rolex movements are designed and made by Rolex as well. ETA is responsible for omega movements - design if not manufactuering (which I doubt omega does).
Omega is more similar to Tudor than Rolex, when it comes to cutting corners.
Agreed.
Omega is more of a budget Rolex substitute than a direct competitor.
Made in China does not always equal shite. My AT is a 8500 caliber watch and I see no issues with it when looking at my mates Rolex explorer 2. Also the 8500 has had nothing but praise so not sure I see the issue here as a weakness? Mine is plus 1.5 seconds a day and has a 50 odd hour power reserve. This is back when Rolex could only manage 48 hours. Also, how are tudor cutting corners? Have you handled their watches? Again, not liking genuinely interested. I am no expert so always happy to be educated.
Well it's about £4500 for a new PO nowadays so not really 'budget'!
Last edited by RS404; 31st March 2018 at 19:56.
To be honest, I've always thought that when you compare a Sub to a Seamaster of the same generation, in broad terms, they are much the same. The technology doesn't justify the price difference, but then only a minority of luxury watch pricing is the engineering. Rolex are worth more as a brand, and the Sub is an icon partly because of design stability. People buy Subs partly because the appeal is an emotional one, and possibly financial reassurance. All Seamasters are fine watches, and Omega are certainly pushing the technical side of it. I was Omega Boutique last year getting my Speedy bracelet resized, and the sales tactic to potential PO buyers was all METAS certification and suggested movement superiority.
At this level of watch, technical advantage is rather subservient to brand and design factors, for me anyway.
Dave
While MIC might not mean junk, it does mean cheaper than Swiss production. It’s a blatant cost cutting effort which is antithetical to “luxury".
Tudor cuts corners by contracting out manufacturing - same as most (not Rolex, ap, patek, and seiko) brands.
I think yes and no. Having a movement with superior power reserve is important to some. Accuracy certainly is but at this level they are all very accurate. Build at this level seems much for much muchness which is why I am keen for people to clarify their comments. I agree Rolex has a strong brand image helping resulidual values. That seems to be the chief thing they have over rivals as opposed to quality being vastly superior.
Also, the difference in Rolex quality is felt in long term durability. They just last better after a number of years.
Agree it’s not great and if the end product is inferior then that’s not right but is it inferior?
Sharing movements (like Tudor and brietling) and modifying them to their standards does not mean an inferior movement though does it.
Ok. Omegas being spec’d up with mic stuff bidded out to the cheapest acceptable supplier is totally fine. Not at all different from Rolex and totally worthy of a similar price.
A used Omega PO is excellent value IMO. But if buying new I would go Sub every time purely for residuals.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
PO is too thick. I'd go with Submariner.
I had both at the same time , the P.O felt very unbalanced & top heavy compared to the ceramic sub . The PO was well built & kept good time , to me it just didn’t wear well .
Yours might be, I don't know. Some are gold and some are rhodium plated.
From my years of buying Omega (and Rolex etc.). I have returned and/or rejected more Omega watches than any other brand.
It's just a matter of time...
There's certainly an element of this. You'll read things like Omega are inferior because movements and aren't in-house, nor are bracelets - and they aren't that great.
But ask the Forum their views on a 90's 14060 Submariner, or a 5513, with movements manufactured by Aegler, bracelets outsourced to Gay Frères, outsourced crystals and dials and it's all good. A cheap feeling Omega bracelet is bad, whereas a cheap Rolex one has vintage charm.
Not being in-house isn't directly why they're inferior, though. And pre-Swatch-Group Omega isn't the same as modern shareholder-pandering-to Omega.
Last edited by Belligero; 31st March 2018 at 23:07.
really? <cough>Rolex ceramic bezels<cough>
PO 8900 is a better watch by any objective parameter except value retention: movement, legibility, lume, even bracelet.
If compared with SD43 it will be a hard choice, but PO is per 2.5 times cheaper.
It would, but a Submariner hasn't got that new 70h movement yet, so Value retention, yes, other points aren't as clear cut.
Lume - https://www.keepthetime.com/videos/l...ega-seamaster/ does a comparison with a Sub vs SM300. The Omega looks brighter to me.
Legibility - A PO is bigger than the Sub, has blue and green lume to distinguish hands, and 3/6/9 numerals on the dial and doesn't have a cylops.
Bracelet - Links are comparable, the Rolex has the better clasp.
So it might be more accurate to say PO 8900 is a better watch by any objective parameter except value retention and clasp. But the PO is a grand cheaper.
Personally I'd choose the Sub because value retention to me is worth it alone, but couldn't honestly say it's any better, just a safer choice.
Personally I'd go for the best 42mm PO with the 2500 movement I could find. Had one of those for years and it's a superb tool watch. It's probably the last watch I'd part with. Even if you buy one and send it to Omega for a service. The size beats the 8500on movement ones imho because they aren't so thick.
Last edited by oldoakknives; 1st April 2018 at 00:31.
I had the master coaxial 8900 po but it couldn’t work on my wrists, hockey puck esq. make sure to try on first would be my advice.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Looks great, these are fairly rare to find now, typically always see the 46mm ones knocking around.Personally I'd go for the best 42mm PO with the 2500 movement I could find. Had one of those for years and it's a superb tool watch. It's probably the last watch I'd part with. Even if you buy one and send it to Omega for a service. The size beats the 8500on movement ones imho because they aren't so thick.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
A well made point. We forget that Rolex as a vertically integrated company is a relatively recent phenomenon. It rather puts the whole “in house” obsession into perspective.
As a follow on from the OP’s question, I think from £2.5K to £8-10K, there just aren’t meaningful differences in quality between watches. Brand, iconic status, supply/demand, value retention, sure, but the quality of a Rolex isn’t transformational compared to the alternatives. Want “better quality” then be prepared to pay for an AP RO/ROO or Patek.
Dave
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It was better than the clasp on previous models, but 8900 has the clasp with micro adjustment too.
The bezel action on the Omega is really awful. Same cheap waffle spring you get on a Steinhart. The sub is the better watch in every aspect except power reserve (which will probably be rectified Basel 2019). Its also more expensive and harder to get so it makes sense.
A BNIB PO at a low price from a grey dealer is not a bad buy, if you plan to keep the watch.
A lot of the ‘Rolex is better’ comments are not being followed up with any fact at all just conjecture and opinion. So far the only thing we all agree on is Rolex has better residuals which is brand related and not necessarily quality related when compared to competitors. Many of us (me included) are genuinely interested to hear facts from anyone who has them.
Really?
The finish on hands, dial indices etc. The number of water failures on their watches. Whose brand has more of these issues?
I currently own more Omega than Rolex watches, which is new for me from this year. I love Omega, but have some way to go.
It's only in recent models that they stopped using rolled gold on the bi-metal whilst charging similar prices to Rolex for them ffs!
It's just a matter of time...
Don’t get him started!!! lol he has more Rolex than an AD and many of the grail ones!
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Again, my AT is white gold and the finish to the naked eye Is no different so do you have tooling information? Are the Rolex elements more complex to manufacture? Are their materials of a higher standard? For the dial elements you mention. This would all be useful information. Just saying they are better doesn’t help.
The bracelet information is useful and agree that is a poor show. If the precious metal used is just a topper for a link the price should reflect that.
Really? My 1964 Constellation is still running well after 50 plus years.
On a technical basis, the Rolex uses a lever escapement the same as all mechanical watches do (except Omega).
The Lever escapement was invented about 250 years ago and it's operation causes friction which requires a lubricant.
The lubricant degrades with time and causes erratic behaviour, not a problem if you get it serviced every few years.
The Omega uses a Co-Axial escapement which is a recent invention. This escapement causes no friction and requires no lubricant and should need no attention for 25 years.
Why does every thread that contains the word "ROLEX" turn into a debate on value retention? The OP didn't even mention that as a criteria. Besides, why bother? We ALL know Rolex will always usually come out in front in that regard.
Trying to take my personal tastes out of the equation....
Bracelets:
Both now have ratcheting extendable clasps for adjustment on the fly. Even Stevens on this one until you consider the added security of the fliplock clasp on the Sub.
Cases:
The Sub wears lower which I prefer, not just visually but ergonomically.
The curvature of the PO case design hides dings better though IMO.
The display back of the PO is (technically) a greater point of fragility/vulnerability than the Oyster back of the Sub.
Crystal:
If the PO is still double AR coated (top and underside) then it has to beat the Sub for visibility, as the latter always has glare due to no AR coating on either side.
Hands:
Aesthetics aside, the larger/thicker PO hands provide greater visibility, further "enhanced" by the use of different colour lume.
The finish/cutting of the hands on ROLEX have always looked finer/smoother to my eye however.
Dials:
I think the variety of shapes used for the Sub's hour markers quickly, and better, denote the orientation of the dial in low light conditions.
But my OMEGAs always glowed brighter (green lume) and for longer than the Sub (blue lume).
*SEIKO beats them both though! ;)
Bezels:
The Submariner has a much smoother action and better grip with the sharper edges.
The raised lume dot on the bezel insert of the Sub is better to locate by touch in low light conditions/if not adequately charged. It's pronounced height does make it more prone to damage but can be replaced separately from the insert itself.
If an bezel insert is damaged, ROLEX can replace just the insert. As I understand it, OMEGA does stipulate on some models at least, a whole bezel assembly is required (not 100% on if this applies to ceramic versions).
ROLEX uses platinum PVD coating on the engraved bezel text vs. OMEGA's LiquidMetal in-filling. I prefer the look of the "cut out" text on the Sub bezel but I have seen slight unevenness of the application of platinum before.
Metal:
If ROLEX's 904L is better than everyone else's 316 steel for corrosion resistance, that is what might just save a case from being scrapped after suffering water ingress. Additionally, it does take a polish better and allows for a fine graining and richer lustre that does make it look different. One for the keener eye...
Movements:
The 8900 in the OMEGA has a 60hr power reserve vs. 48hrs on the ROLEX 3135, although this will jump to 70rs if you wait for the cal. 3235 to go into the Sub.
I would say the decoration of the 8900 is more elaborate than the 3135 but with the 3235 will bring improvements in this area.
For all the technology that can be discussed, it's ultimately all about how they perform: OMEGA now say 0/+5 seconds per day for Master Chronometers and ROLEX say -2/+2 for their Superlative Chronometers. For the sake of 1 second difference in the tolerances they allow, I'd go for what runs better more consistently, irrespective of advertise power reserve figures on full-wind.
Unfortunately due to the idiosyncrasies of the wearer, statements on performance can be very anecdotal and inaccurate. That said, I don't think you'd go far wrong with either tbh.
So, on technical grounds, overall I'd go Submariner. More specifically, the metal finish, bezel action and security of the fliplock are big pulls for me.
Last edited by Dent99; 1st April 2018 at 11:23.
Im not just saying they are better, they are better. Take a loupe and look at the hands. I have rejected a number of Omega watches because the edges of the hands were rough as F...
It's just a matter of time...
There is still friction in a co-axial movement and OMEGA commumicate 10 year (approx.) service times. Don't know where you've got 25 years from...
Dent99 has given a very good answer with some relatively objective comparisons.
Ultimately they are both watches in the luxury category - they both tell the time, have brand value/heritage, are on bracelets and waterproof - the rest comes down to personal choice.
I've owned many of each - Rolex and Omega divers. I am just about to flip my latest PO. Objectively and subjectively the Omega has a great presence, great movement, pops on the wrist etc, plus the wooden box is a great touch and pre-owned they are a bargain compared to a Rolex (ignoring flipping intentions). However, I personally see a lot of the Omega touches as over engineered/over the top plus the I've found all modern Omega divers to be a bit large/heavy and the bracelets feel like you're 'in irons' - Rolex sports on the otherhand (excepting the DSSD) feel just right - just enough features, just enough bling, just enough luxury, just the right size, just the right comfort. Just right....... IMO
They are both a super choice....
Last edited by ASW1; 1st April 2018 at 11:46.
I got it from the inventor himself. George Daniels, it's in his book, All in Good Time: Reflections of a Watchmaker
There may well be friction in the movement (I don't have enough knowledge about that) but there is none in the escapement, hence there is no lubricant in the escapement. Hence the beat rate (although lower than Rolex) never changes (unlike Rolex).
This is the reason Rolex and Patek rejected Daniels' escapement, the technicians could not go for a lower beat rate, even if it never changes.
He said his escapements did not require attention for 25 years, if that.
Of course other parts of the movement may require attention and Omega are wise to want to look at it every 10 years.
I am not bashing Rolex, the Submariner at 40mm sits on my wrist better than the PO.
Have a read of the book, very interesting, a remarkable man.
Posting Permissions
