Reply With QuotePretty much spot on. I have the non date, but same principles apply
I know that some people don't care much for Rolex as a brand, but when I look at the current SubC in either date or non date versions, I can't think of any other dive watch that is able to tick so many boxes, if you don't agree please give me your examples.
The Brand, rightly or wrongly the benchmark that the others are chasing.
The Case, the 40mm case is nigh on perfect.
In-house movement, a robust, tried and tested movement.
Quality & build, the fit and finish is excellent, the watch is put together using quality parts with no corners cut.
The dial, the classic design that many have copied, but has rarely been equaled.
Blue Lume, Perhaps not the very brightest, but blue lume looks great.
Ceramic bezel, form and function here, in a scratch resistant package.
Bracelet, a big improvement over the previous version, the tapered design adds to the comfort.
Clasp, a great piece of engineering which allows for easy adjustment when needed.
Sapphire crystal, another non scratch item which helps keep the watch looking good.
Overall comfort, the 40mm size is a perfect balance of size and weight that makes the sub very comfortable to wear.
Local Service, what other in-house movement can be serviced in many cities across the UK via independents.
all this with the added bonus of the best residuals around, makes the new Sub-c hard to argue against, imo at least.
Pretty much spot on. I have the non date, but same principles apply
No argument from me: whilst any Rolex Sub derivative would do the job of a good dive-watch, the ceramic does tick all the mentioned boxes.
If I could only ever dive with just one watch it’d be a Rolex Sub.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Just started to hunt for one but need to sell the 16800 or 1675...
As an all round dive/luxury/feelgood watch i must admit i am more tepted by the day.I have a Deepsea and whilst i love it and love wearing it i have had more enjoyment out of watches costing a sixth as much.Maybe its the larger case as my 42mm exp2 feels loads more comfy.Hate to admit it to myself but 40mm may be the way to go for me personally.
Regards,Craig
You have tried enough watches to come to that conclusion Paul.
I sold my SubC.
.... However, if I was coming into watches afresh, I'd have an SMP, a SubC and a 42mm ExpII (and of course a G-Shock, possibly vying for a place amongst my Speedbird GMT) - the only thing I'd be looking for then is a dress watch. If I spent 5 years or so putting that lot together, I think I'd be one happy owner, and there is a lot of argument to say that that little lot is too much and the SubC (or an SMP, or EXPII alone) along with a G-Shock, or similar play watch is more than enough.
It's just a matter of time...
A tough thread to argue with...
The only thing where it can be caught is price... there are some brands which are such great value for money
/sat here with a DSSD and with a SD in the back room
The quintessential dive watch regardless of the haters. I don't have one personally, but I'd like to think one day maybe I will...
I've been using that image as my desktop wallpaper. It's missing the f in ft
As for the watch... I'd resisted as in all the wrist shots it looked too big and I'd not even tried it on. Bought one on a whim at a great price, stuck it on my wrist and it's stayed there for around two weeks.
I'm not wound in, or up, with all the hype, but price aside, it's one hell of an all rounder and something I enjoy and foresee myself retaining.
Paul's post is spot on for me too.
I've had my 'NDc' just under a year and it's seldom off my wrist
I realise the fat lugs aren't to everyone's taste, but the watch as an overall package for me borders on perfection
Sure the big R can be fairly criticised for many things, but imo the end product is not one of them
Tried one on in the week and the larger case looks to big for the dial imo.
Just looks wrong now.
When I tried on the new SMP ceramic the watch looks amazing, the face is so black, the build is way up on older SM and they were quicker than Rolex with the ceramic bezel. (I think)
The co-axel seems awesome and service is many many years apart, is it 8 now ?
Then 3 years warranty.
So what's better on a sub ?
Not the strap
Not the service interval
Not the warranty
Not the price
Not the service cost.
Not the new case design.
Not the ugly date window.
What's all the fuss about ? Even James Bond switched brands lol.
And to add to that the bullet back on the 50year bond SMP is awesome.
Even the sales guy in the shop said rolex is the best.
Being a noob what am I missing ?
I don't mind being told what's better but to a noob outsider I am a bit lost ESP when it's £3k more.
Does that mean people are buying into a name ?
excellent glidelock Vs sweet FA of micro adjustment (even the mrs £25 sekonda has micro adjust holes in the clasp)Originally Posted by Mrdemon
(imo of course)
PM Cilla.
He's raised some fair points, but the SMP bracelet is not on par due to it's clasp, no fine adjustment is something that Omega need to address the next time round.
So the Rolex is a better watch than an SMPc because it has a micro adjust bracelet? And that justifies the £3000 price difference? Come on guys, you're having a laugh aren't you? For less money than a Sub-C you can have what I have, which is the diver that I think ticks all the boxes:
* greater water resistance
* brand new, freshly designed Co-Ax movement
* display back to see the movement in all its glory
* free chronograph feature(!)
* proper bracelet or rubber strap options
* colour choice
Yes it's thicker and wider, but to me the design is more coherent and the case tapers into the bracelet/strap beautifully. Service costs are a little more for the POC, but it needs servicing less often so call it evens. Build quality is even, so that's a draw too.
So overall, Omega wins
It's just a matter of time...
But the OP is 'which watch ticks all the boxes' not which watch is best vfm or justifies its cost or whatever
Quite understandably its been suggested that Omega make some great watches for less coin, but imo not having any sort of micro adjust system is a pretty major non ticked tick box
obviously ymmv - especially if you get a great all year fit from the omega non adjustable bracelet, or maybe you carry a spare 1/2 link and a small screwdriver around with you ;)
Meh. The Sub-C is what Omega divers want to be when they grow up.
Regards,
Adam
Is TZ-UK turing into WUS now? A thread devolving into Omega vs Rolex, mine is bigger than yours, my dad can beat up your dad?!? Really?
So the Rolex is a better watch than an SMPc because it has a micro adjust bracelet? And that justifies the £3000 price difference? Come on guys, you're having a laugh aren't you? For less money than a Sub-C you can have what I have, which is the diver that I think ticks all the boxes:
* greater water resistance
* brand new, freshly designed Co-Ax movement
* display back to see the movement in all its glory
* free chronograph feature(!)
* proper bracelet or rubber strap options
* colour choice
Yes it's thicker and wider, but to me the design is more coherent and the case tapers into the bracelet/strap beautifully. Service costs are a little more for the POC, but it needs servicing less often so call it evens. Build quality is even, so that's a draw too.
So overall, Omega wins
Prefer the older case (small wrists) and don't like tapered bracelets. Very nice otherwise and will take a look at them.
There will always be a Rolex Vs ????? Thread on a regular basis. That is life on watch fora. The great thing is, most of us appreciate both watches being compared but have a preference for one over the other.
It's just a matter of time...
You mean Rolex is best! Its easier to out grow Omega.(Personally ive more problems with Omegas than with any other brand put together)
Couldn't agree more. Well written.
Honestly, I think you make fair points. Many of those who come to admire dive watches could probably save themselves a lot of time, money and effort and plump straight away for the submariner. But, I've enjoyed my journey to date.
Speaking personally, as someone in their 20s and living and working in London (and heavily influenced by the online watch community) I have settled on the Black Bay. It has the Rolex build quality and all your other factors, but not the in house movement. In return, it avoids some of the attention that a Rolex could draw to a younger person and adds a slightly edgier design and some vintage, WIS tudor cool (without the potential, real vintage hassle). Will I buy a Submariner eventually? Most likely yes, but it will probably be vintage and when I feel I can pull it off.
Edit: Needless to say it is nearly 1/4 of the price!
Last edited by hydroidsouvlaki; 5th December 2013 at 02:54.
That does sound like a Apple or a 911 owners answer. :-p
Shows you how wrong you can be on both counts.:) PC and 911 wannabee, actually!
Hmm. I used to love Rolex sports watches but the more recent 'improved' versions leave me completely cold - just don't like the proportions and they don't look quite 'right' to me whereas the previous models just bit the nail on the head. I have large wrists so it's not size related. A bit like Jaguar, look at an E type and one of the new ones like a tarted up Mondeo and tell me which you prefer!
No doubt glide lock clasp is a good idea, not a great fan of the bulky case with no chamfers and being a Rolex sub means that many will have. Ceramic bezel looks good but expensive to replace unlike older versions and lots of extra weight which people often equate to quality, same with bracelets. Sapphire dial is not as warm as a plexi and shows finger marks very easily.
For all the reasons above I would prefer mine but that's just me being a dinosaur I can see that the new one is very well engineered and a modern take on the older versions with a maxi dial.
Lovely watch though.
Last edited by Martin123; 5th December 2013 at 09:39.
Assuming you are not a troll, despite rather looking like one:
if you prefer the Omega then buy it. Its a good watch.
but if you are applying strict value for money criteria than you might want to question Omegas massive price rises over the last few years simply to position itself in the market. You are certainly buying into a name!
additionally, on vfm, can get a watch that does pretty much everything the Omega does for significantly less and as little as about a tenth of the cost.
Ticking boxes for me includes justifying cost and being value for money etc, hence my choice
Oh, and I get great fit all year round with the POC bracelet/rubber - no need for screwdriversI could never get my SMP bracelet right though...
As a dive watch? The SubC has a couple of obvious issues. The bezel isn't fully indexed and it doesn't come with a dive strap. Significant fails for me as a regular diver. I'd take the SBGA029 over the Sub as a complete dive watch.
It sure does.
That's a really fair answer to make with valid points, however, I think the daily wearing of the GS wouldn't be as easy long term, just because of its weight and based on the OP's bullet points, many still worry over the servicing.
You cant argue with that.It sure does.
A perfect illustration of what real value for money looks like!It sure does.
I can fully understand the arguments on both sides, and the reasoning makes for an interesting forum - if we all thought the same then the Friday thread would just be a load of pictures of the same watch...
Personally, I own a PO 2500, have done since 2007, and have never considered selling it. It keeps time perfectly, usually +2/3 over a week, has lots of strap and bracelet options, and most importantly, fits me on the bracelet well without any micro-adjustment required! Now I think you could describe me as an Omega fan boy, so I looked at the PO 8500 when it appeared. I found it slightly too tall for it's design, and found there were a couple of small details that I didn't like as much. On the other hand. I know people who would look at my PO and turn it away for an 8500 - that's life I guess! When I looked at my last purchase, I had decided I wanted either a GMT2C, Explorer II or possibly a SubC. After spending quite a bit of time trying all on, I realised that the SubC just didn't do it for me. Like others, I found the lugs too thick, and overall I just didn't see it as my taste of watch. On the other hand I tried on (and bought) a polar Explorer II, and I love it now. It has easily become my most worn watch out of 8, and along with the PO, would be the 2 that would stay in my possession for as long as I could keep them, if things ever came to that. I've read comments on here, and other fora, that the Explorer II is Rolexes least desirable watch, that white is not a great look, that it's a model that that never sells well etc etc. My point is, that we like what we like. Is there a 'perfect watch'? No. Is there a perfect woman / job / car? No. It's always fun to see the Rolex vs Omega threads going on, until they get messy of course, and it continues to amaze me how people get so engrossed in fighting the corner of their preferred brand.
Ash
I do agree Submariner is a lovely watch and ticks many boxes...the one it doesn't tick is the price. No, I don't feel comfortable wearing 5K watch and inevitably scratching it while putting my scuba gear on. You either scrape it on the tank, or bang it on something getting out of the water...the bezel is not the best in class to grab either.
I would still rate Doxa SUB to be the best real world dive watch (I know their name is somehow tarnished, but they are just great tools.) The raised bezel, orange dial, big minute hand...and for under 2K...
It's a watch I really admire, but is sadly out of my league. I do have a ploprof which is a great looking watch. Would I dive in it? I even take it off to do the washing up lol! I did break the clasp whilst falling over outside some slippery steps at M&S - guess a G-shock would have been better lol!
One day I would love a SubC
I briefly owned a Sub-C for 5 months and then flipped it.
I agree with the OPs points however, it is THE ultimate 1 watch, watch. It ticks all the boxes and does everything you need in style and robustness combined with the Rolex solid movement and brand.
however it is because of these reasons that i flipped it. As a watch guy, its just too boring. I work in the city, and Ive seen at least 4 other people wearing this watch and its just too mcuh the "safe" choice.
I dont mean the vintage however, those are a different story, but the Sub-C, a fantastic watch, but not for me.
I love my Rolex SubC ND and am in agreement with the OP's points as far as my own personal needs are concerned.
However I do think that Value for Money is an important factor when buying a watch which has to be taken into consideration. On this point I think the Sub falls down - buy hey I love mine as I said.
I think the VFM argument against the Sub-C is because it's barely changed since you could buy a £3k sub. The nearly double price doesn't fit right with me for just a slightly bigger case, a different bracelet and a ceramic bezel. It's still got the same movement with some minor internal changes too.
The same argument also goes for the Omega Moonwatch too, but at least that's under £3k and not £5.5k.
The 8500/9300 series Omegas can boast a ground-up newly designed movement around the Co-Ax escapement. Like it or not, it's different and innovative and must have been expensive to develop. The 3135 in a Sub has more than recouped its development costs years ago.
You can't argue with Rolex's brand image, but I do wonder if that bubble will burst at some point if they don't innovate with their models in some way (the DSSD excepted).
With its lockable bezel, the Ploprof has an important additional box ticked.
Please. Other than a few watch geeks nobody cares whether the movement is made out of ex soviet factory pig iron or unicorn hair. (and some watch geeks have issues with the co-ax movement as it happens.)
If you are seriously trying to run the argument that Omega PO or SMP are VFM but a Sub C is not you are delusional. The reality is that neither are particularly good VFM in the sense that you can get a watch that does the same for a fraction of the cost. Conversely both are good VFM in the sense that the long term ownership cost is likely to be minimal and they are well made luxury items with a significant feel good factor.
How about dispensing with the snide remarks, and just accept some others (new members and newbies to the watch world in general) are not all doe-eyed when it comes to the "charms" of Rolex or other much vaunted brands.
It's quite alright to have a different view point, irrespective of how it's reasoned.
Sorry Newbie, but the positions of Forum Policeman and General Thunderkhunt are both currently filled.
I wish you luck with your application next year.
I think Guitarfan makes a good point actually - and whilst I agree you average watch buyer doesn't care about the technical aspects of the movement, at least you are getting something with improved service intervals and a different movement entirely, where the new Submariner really is double the money for 90% the same watch they've been making for years. I'm not a Rolex/Omega fan or hater - I've owned a few of both brands and people always made a fuss over a Rolex (as in 'wow is that a Rolex' which was actually annoying and made me feel a bit of a flash git!) where the equivalent Omega was available in every jewellers in every town and as a result the resale and 'wow effect' just never existed in the same way it did for Rolex. That's nothing to do with how good the product is, it's just perception but it does seem to count when or if you decide to sell.
Personally I think the amount asked for a steel divers watch in 2013 is insane - it all 'jumped the shark' for me when I bought my current LV for £3010 brand new in late 2007. It's a nice watch but I know I'd get over £4k I I wanted to sell it. Wouldn't be the same story if I'd bought a PO (the version which was being sold at the same time was £1800 on bracelet). But next to a £100 Seiko Monster the 'value' of the extra £5900 you'd need to spend to buy a premium diver in 2013 starts to look a bit mental!
I agree, but at least Omega can argue some decent substance behind their current pricing compared to the 2500 POs.
Rolex can't for Sub vs Sub-C.
Did you just mention dive watch and date in one sentence? ;-)
Fully agree that the design is great, a true classic but for me not as an ultimate dive watch, more as a dressdiver. Date would not be required, better lume would be nice and I'd opt for something cheaper. While I have several watches that classify as dive watches they are all dress divers. My Seiko 007 would be a cheap alternative on easy rubber but also has a date which is useless for diving. My Pelagos has better lume and a bracelet made for diving. Movement is not in-house but proven reliability so don't see a handicap there. Curious for any better alternatives without date, can't seem to come up with one myself now.
I see what you're saying but I would suggest that most of Omega's spend is on marketing and that their pricing reflects market positioning more than anything else (as doe that of Rolex and indeed all other luxury goods. Sure there are higher raw material and manufacturing costs but not by the margins involved.)
Mpst purchasers are buying for a variety of reasons. The technical advances are probably of minor interest to many purchasers (which is fine - there's no obligation to be a tech geek to enjoy the nice things in life. You can enjot Kopi Luwak without focusing too closely on where it comes from!)
Agreed on the luxury goods made well, but don't agree on your synopsis that Omega are not deemed VFM compared to Rolex.
It is quite possible to look at a PO/SMP and the price it can be acquired for (new) and compare that to what a SubC will require to gain admission.
It could be argued the SubC is better due to residual value a number of years down the line, but if selling on isn't a likelihood, then the initial outlay favours Omega, since both are of equal levels of fit and finish.
Can you get cheaper watches, just as well made, with excellent movements (in-house or not)? Of course, but that's shifting the point being debated elsewhere.
Posting Permissions
