Your initial comment sounded very much like you were advising 25yr service times, but now that the escapement itself will be fine for 25 years whilst everything around it deteriorates?Originally Posted by Steve's Dad
When I used to sell OMEGAs I was told that during R&D/initial roll-out of the co-axial escapement they tried it with minimal/no lubricant but had to reverse that decision as it was not giving optimal performance on mass produced watches made for every day usage, so do with that what you will.
I admire that OMEGA were brave enough to invest a lot of time, effort and resources into a new technology but the cynic in me sees it as a means of creating a USP in a crowded market that may not offer much additional tangible benefit.
Whatever the case, OMEGA and ROLEX now both advise 10 year service intervals.
Interesting to hear from someone who sold Omegas.
Daniels himself said otherwise, I do not have enough knowledge on this subject but perhaps Daniels' hand-made escapements were better than factory produced ones, I don't know (very likely LOL).
Sub in this case , timeless , perfect proportions , has been perfected over the years and a better investment for a future flip
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I'd say both in the mid-range category. If you want to make a step upside go with Blancpain FF.
To the current issue: I personally can't stand Rolex flat reflective crystals, almost opaque in some light conditions.
ROLEX most definitely operate in the 'luxury' category.
Thanks for taking the time with your detailed answer.
The bracelet thing is not really going to be an issue for me, I want the P.O. on the rubber strap and deployment
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dent 99's assessment of the factors of both is pretty much spot on. I have both and the most significant differences are:
PO bezel is not as smooth turning as the 116610
PO Metas certified movement is incredibly accurate, mine has gained 2 seconds in five months, 116610 is +1sec per day
116610 has better residuals but you can buy a PO for well below RRP to mitigate some but obviously not all of the difference.
The sub wears much lower on the wrist but the PO had quite short lugs so can be fitted nice and snug so it doesn't move.
I love Rolex but the current nonsense around begging an AD to get on a list to then wait and possibly be anointed with a new watch sans warranty card etc is not a game I want to play, hence I looked at Omega and have since bought three.
The PO in it's current iteration with ceramic dial, liquidmetal, METAS certification and adjustable and sturdy bracelet is a lot of nice watch for the money. It could happily be my one and only but I'm pleased that it isn't :)
Having just sold my PO to fund the purchase of a 16600 sea dweller, I feel like I am in a reasonable position to add some comments. Although you are looking at a sub, I think many aspects are still relevant.
I had a 45.5mm 8500 PO and really enjoyed wearing the watch. It had substantial wrist presence and was an enjoyable piece. I had however always lusted over a five digit reference dweller. Being a larger man though (6'3" and quite solidly built) I was concerned that the 40mm case size would be dwarfed.
Having had the Rolex on my wrist for the last week, I will say that it was absolutely the right decision to sell the PO. Whilst the omega was a great watch, every subtle detail and nuance of the Rolex feels a league above. The bezel action is smoother, the oyster bracelet is a joy and the overall finish is a step up. Even the second hand had a noticeably smoother sweep.
Of course you should purchase whatever watch floats your individual boat, but to me the omega was something I was proud to own, whereas the Rolex is a watch I love.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
I’ve owned a few Rolex in the past, a Sub, Explorer 2 and a deepsea. So I am familiar with them.
The reason I asked the question was to get opinions of the P.O. and I think I now have what I wanted to know.
I don’t want to go back to Rolex, I can’t justify the price and I don’t like that they are hard to get new and ‘the list’ in some AD’s depends very much on how many watches you have bought from them in the past (I have evidence of this from a colleague at work who gets preferential treatment from a particular AD, whereas I walked in and literally got laughed at).
On the other hand, you walk into any OB and get treated very differently.
Comments on this post regarding the METAS movement gives me a lot of confidence. I know the bracelet has the micro adjust, just like my 300m master co axial, so I know it’s very good. But like I say, I think I will be buying the P.O. on the strap, not the bracelet.
Also, the P.O. has a better depth rating and to me, is much more legible than the sub and has no cyclops, which I really don’t like on the sub. The display case back adds a little extra as well. I haven’t tried the bezel action on the PO, I will when next in the shop. The bezel on the 300M is great, so it will be interesting to compare it to the P.O.
Residuals are not an issue for me, I’ll be buying used and will not be looking to flip, more to pass on to my Son (who does actually dive in the water, unlike myself who only dives my desk)
Why an I buying it? It’s because I’m not really getting on with the 300M Master co axial, I don’t like the vintage lume, the brown colour is just not working for me and the watch not having a date is also something I can’t get used to. The P.O. has really caught my eye.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There’s a chap on here who has mentioned on a few occasions that he constantly returns Omegas for QC reasons ( why buy them if this is the case ?)
Just as unscientific was a discussion I had at work where a guy walked onto a conversation we were having about Rolex. His words were “ Bloody Rolex, Bloody Mont Blanc pens , I had constant complaints they made our lives a misery!” It turned out he had worked for Customer services at Selfridges . So perhaps QC is not always as great as we’d imagine.
Anyway imho the Sub is lost a bit on my wrists and the most modern iteration has lost its charm with the fattened lugs . A bit of a Porsche Cayenne .
Why have white gold indices ? What possible use on a dive watch apart from justifying the luxury pricing ?
The superlative Steel they go on about is I understand £50 more per ton so that probably works out about a £1 a watch. Obviously every other watch that doesn’t use 904 is as soft as butter?
Both watches ignoring what I said above will be extremely reliable solid pieces of kit. I personally prefer the SM300 look vintage to Submariner Vintage so I like the look of a PO.
The Sub will hold better value but more recent Subs don’t fall into the vintage appeal market , nor does the PO so I wonder if modern Sub will be a huge climber .
Get the watch you like , I’d have a PO over a Chunky Breitling for instance . I’d probably get a PO2500 and keep bags of cash over for a 2nd watch as well.
Btw I’d buy a Rolex GMT tomorrow if I had the cash so I’m not a Rolex basher.
Last edited by Mark lowman; 1st April 2018 at 22:20.
Hope you enjoy your new watch and post some pics. 👍I’ve owned a few Rolex in the past, a Sub, Explorer 2 and a deepsea. So I am familiar with them.
The reason I asked the question was to get opinions of the P.O. and I think I now have what I wanted to know.
I don’t want to go back to Rolex, I can’t justify the price and I don’t like that they are hard to get new and ‘the list’ in some AD’s depends very much on how many watches you have bought from them in the past (I have evidence of this from a colleague at work who gets preferential treatment from a particular AD, whereas I walked in and literally got laughed at).
On the other hand, you walk into any OB and get treated very differently.
Comments on this post regarding the METAS movement gives me a lot of confidence. I know the bracelet has the micro adjust, just like my 300m master co axial, so I know it’s very good. But like I say, I think I will be buying the P.O. on the strap, not the bracelet.
Also, the P.O. has a better depth rating and to me, is much more legible than the sub and has no cyclops, which I really don’t like on the sub. The display case back adds a little extra as well. I haven’t tried the bezel action on the PO, I will when next in the shop. The bezel on the 300M is great, so it will be interesting to compare it to the P.O.
Residuals are not an issue for me, I’ll be buying used and will not be looking to flip, more to pass on to my Son (who does actually dive in the water, unlike myself who only dives my desk
Why an I buying it? It’s because I’m not really getting on with the 300M Master co axial, I don’t like the vintage lume, the brown colour is just not working for me and the watch not having a date is also something I can’t get used to. The P.O. has really caught my eye.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I personally prefer the Sub, simply due to the fact I find the PO far too thick on my wrists.
It’s different for each person though
Don’t believe everything you read! I assume you’ve read this.....or dreamt it!
The co-axial escapement, as used by Omega, does require lubrication and doesn’t tolerate wear very well. I know which I would prefer in a watch.
25 years without attention?...........dream on. The co- axial escapement is a good reason not to buy a moden Omega in my opinion.
The PO is way too thick, unless you have a big wrist it’ll look like a hockey puck. Original 42mm cal 2500 was OK, current one definitely isn’t.
If the OP’s considering a Sub that’s what he should buy. The only reason to buy a PO is if you prefer it to the Sub.....and if that was the case you probably wouldn't need to ask the question.
Paul
IME the PO is pretty crap as a tool watch, would be the sub all the way for me.
Especially if the intent is for it to be passed along to a son someday; Rolex's design and quality advantages make them a better long-term bet than modern Omegæ, not mention that their looks tend to age far more gracefully.
Are you going to use a Sub or a PO as a tool
Watch? Surely that’s been Seiko , Citizen , G Shock , Luminox , Hager , Marathon.
If you were going to spend massive cash to actually dive with (call me crazy!!) why is a PO with twice the WR and really good lume rubbish?
Any watch, unless worn as jewellery, is a tool to tell the time.
Sub for me.
Because they have a goofy external helium knob to knock and snag on things, and they leak often enough that the offshore divers around here don't trust them.
Many of them do wear Rolex, however; just because a tool's expensive doesn't mean it isn't good. And looking at current saturation diving day rates, it should be obvious that "expensive" is a relative concept.
IME the PO doesn't stand up to my work environment, I have seen three let water in and due to the moisture some indices fall off (after its return from service) and the orange Ali bezel insert fade to grey within 6 months in water work.
I buy them because I like them. But, they go wrong or have defects (Christ look at Seiko!). White gold is used because it doesn’t react or corrode, like some other materials - again look at the Seiko GS that was on here!
The expensive steel looks nice, and the price isnt the main issue it’s more difficult to machine.
I like both brands, obviously. I’ll continue to buy them, but I’ll reject any that aren’t right t the naked eye in the AD, and I’ll return any that go wrong under warranty - that’s just common sense.
It's just a matter of time...
Seadog you obviously actually dive for a living I’ll happily accept that point .
If an individual gets no further than the seafront and hangs around with guys who wears Subs . Then decides on the basis of that , most divers wear submariners I’m less convinced .
It would actually be interesting to have one or two divers and ex divers discuss what they would use. I know a chap recently said he’d go with a CWC Quartz as he thought it was robust enough but whether that was for actual
Saturation diving im not sure.
Mark, there are many different watches used in saturation, on another thread I mention my mate using a 12.00 quid Casio which coped well, I myself used a SMP for years, it never leaked although the bezel faded to grey, it's just I have seen the PO's under perform quite a few times, hence mentioning it.
mike
At a tangent, seadog, other than Rolex, what other brands/models have impressed you in terms of real world durability and reliability as a diver?
Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
G shock.
Lol. I was going to guess that.
Any other pricey brands let you down?
Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
Not true. Omega quote a service interval of 4-5 years, regardless of escapement. Omega's interpretation of the Co-axial escapement does require lubricant. Even if it were true, which it isn't, the rest of the movement would need servicing at the normal interval in any case.
no, just the PO's.
Well I guess I’m never going to saturation dive but I will remember to use an SMP over a PO when next taking a seaswim or snorkelling
I did hear a tale that the Comex branded Subs were terrible and that divers at the time much preferred the standard Sub or used other brands . Whether that’s true who knows.
Friend of mine goes diving regularly he wears some sort of Citizen quartz watch as do most of the other divers.
Saturation diving, not a clue...
Aquatimer 3536, job done.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
I don’t think that’s true - but a lot believed their Comex watches were worth less the retail watches - as did some people buying them from divers.
It's just a matter of time...
No microadjust on the clasp. Job half done.
I liked my 3536 a lot. The dial and handset were much higher quality than my PO.
They have a rubber strap to cater for that though. Many regard the bracelet as the best in the business.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Rolex fans like to quote things like this a lot. I've not seen any evidence that 904 is harder to machine, in fact https://www.azom.com/ states that 316 is slightly higher on the hardness scale. However both materials are very similar it'll make no real difference.
They also like to state that 904 polishes better and is brighter, yet nobody can visually tell an early 80's 316 oyster bracelet, to a late 80's oyster bracelet in 904 without checking codes.
What's agreed is 904 is more corrosion resistant to acids, which could be useful if dive in the stuff.
Last edited by chrisparker; 2nd April 2018 at 19:27.
Some 316 and 904’s are harder than others.
http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o...sc00812ded.jpg
Mechanical Properties of Type 316L
Description Type 316 Proof Stress 0.2% (MPa) 170 Tensile strength (MPa) 485 Elongation A5 (%) 40 Hardness HB: 217
HRB: 95
Last edited by Omegamanic; 2nd April 2018 at 19:47.
It's just a matter of time...
It probably was circa 2000. The bracelet on the new pilots watches is much better. Same easy to size functionality but with glidelock like adjustment in a much nicer and smaller clasp. IWC does a lot right. They also do a lot wrong. I wish they could get back to the 3536, 3706, 3227 days. They got complacent (thanks to Kern) and the other brands zoomed past them.
That's fair enough. Very few IWCs these days I would consider to be a good buy, however the 3536-01 is certainly one of them.
When I sold my PO I was in two minds whether i wanted the GST 2000 or the Sea Dweller.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Last edited by Spesh; 2nd April 2018 at 19:59.
I actually own (rather owned) all three of those. My 3536 was remarkably high quality. The finishing was much better than my po2500 or 16600 SD. The crown was pretty crappy (known fish crown problem) and the integrated bracelet didn’t adjust properly for my small wrist. I eventually sold it, but still liked it very much.
The po2500 and SD remain.
I think that comparing the finishing between the 3536 and 16600 is not necessarily comparing like for like. The IWC makes no apologies for being a single purpose tool watch, whereas the 16600 makes an effort to bridge the gap.
Both outstanding pieces nonetheless.
The 3536 is better finished, at least in SS form. Much better.
I was quoting the man who invented the Co-Axial escapement, George Daniels.
I don't have the time to scroll through the whole book on my Kindle for quotes.
Why not have a read of it yourself? It's a good read, covers all his early life, his watchmaking and his vintage car rebuilds/racing etc.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/All-Good-Ti...george+daniels
Specifically looking at the PO via the Sub I’d go Sub as the P.O. has the poorly designed helium valve at 10 that is a water ingress magnet (has happened twice to me).
Re Omega vs Rolex overall (and this has been done to death) I’m not a watchmaker but I find the Omegas ever so slightly better finished externally once you spend more than £4K RRP (so no point buying a standard Seamaster and comparing to a Deepsea. On some comparable models the Omega advantage is stark (Aqua Terra vs Milgauss for example). I did used to think the Aqua Terra smashed the Datejust as well but the DJ41 is a significant upgrade and whilst I can’t get make a comparison with the new Aqua Terra as I haven’t owned one the DJ41 is going to be hard to beat.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Would you make the same criticism of the standard Seamaster's HV or is this a problem specific to the PO?
Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
As I understand it, the helium escape valve is only designed to be used following saturation diving in order to alleviate excess pressure that has built up in the case during the dive. Having looked at the scematic diagrams of the valve assembly I find it hard to see how water can penetrate the case during normal use. Even if the outer seal fails the valve shouldn't allow water into the case. I do wonder how much practical benefit the valve actually has and if it's more of a fashionable design feature. I may well be wrong but, I can't think of another watch with this feature.
Does anyone understand why the PO reputedly is prone to He valve leakage whereas the SMP isn`t?
I'm assuming the design's the same, I`ve had several SMP He valves apart to replace seals but I`ve never worked on a PO, can`t see a problem with the design.
On reflection I think there are only 3 reasons for choosing a PO over a Sub; you prefer the watch, it's cheaper, or the fact that it's readily available! It's for the Op to consider those factors, nothing anyone posts on here should influence the decision and that's why these threads are a bit pointless. They stimulate debate but that's about all.
Paul
Considering that this particular thread includes information based on the professional experience of not only a saturation diver, but also a full-time WOSTEP-certified watchmaker who routinely services both Rolex and Omega, I don't find the thread entirely pointless. In fact, I'd find it quite useful to have their informed opinions to influence my decision. ;)
Not if they fail to confirm your prior
I concur with all your points.
I had exactly the same problem with my PO.
And I think too that my Aqua Terra smashes any comparably priced Rolex.
^^^ too bad they saved 3 cents and went with a black date disk over something that matches.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
