Reply With QuoteThe lady doth protest too much methinks.
This has been discussed here and elsewhere since about 1996.
Enjoy your watches, they're both excellent.
I know this is going to ruffle a few feathers, it is just my take on things.
The Omega Seamaster (2254 model with solid sword hands, not the newer one with see through hands, which I think is aweful!) is a better watch than the Rolex Submariner, no date.
Now, to quanitfy this statement, I have both and have done a side-by-side comparison. I will try and do some pictures later, to illustrate what I mean.
The Omega is a bigger watch, despite them both being 40mm - how they get measured I don't know, I am just going by the 'specs'. Put them side by side and the difference is 'size' is very noticeable. As far as I am concerned the Omega is a 'no date' too, because the date is so tiny I can't even read it with my glasses on!
The Omega has a much clearer, more easily read, face and the hands are unmissable. The Rolex has a titchy, barely readable face and the hands are much slimmer and more difficult to see.
When it comes to the lume side o fthings, the Omega wins hands down. The Rolex is rubbish, my Longines Hydroconquest work watch is miles better, but it is much bigger too, so not a fair contest.
The bracelet on the Omega is much stronger build. The Rolex bracelet is thin and tinny.
Rotaty outer roundy thing: the Rolex turns much more easily, the Omega is awkward, to say the least. Subjective view, I prefer the smoothed out 50p piece style to the cut slots.
Performance = same same.
Price? The Rolex might be perceived as the 'better' watch, but over 3x the price better? Not on your nelly. To be honest, I am disappointed by the Rolex, it is a 'grail' watch but I can't see why now. Don't get me wrong, I won't be selling it, but the Omega is one of those that seems to have slipped under the radar because it doesn't get surrounded by undeserved hype.
I have a photography job away but will try and do some side by sides later today or tomorrow, to show what I mean.
Ruffled feather types, have your say!
The lady doth protest too much methinks.
This has been discussed here and elsewhere since about 1996.
Enjoy your watches, they're both excellent.
David
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations
Rolex dive watches have become the Norm for sports watch styling.
Apart from that and the Name value (and over recent years the investment value) I don't think there is anyone who would argue that they are actually a "better" watch than many other makes that cost considerably less.
Apologies. I am new around here and not privvy to the ancient scriptures. Once I gain my full membership status, maybe I can go and read some of those previous topics. Would you be able to provide a link to one or two please?Originally Posted by dkpw
You expressed an opinion about a pair of watches on a watch forum. You like one more than the other. Hardly controversial or likely to ruffle feathers.
No need for full membership as the threads will be in WatchTalk. The search function is your friend, or Google if you specify the forum in your query.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I don’t see the controversy. Kairos is correct. Easy.
Morning Rajen😇
For what it's worth I far prefer the 2254 over the Sub, if they were both the same price and reselling value didn't come into it, I'd take the Omega without a second thought.
If they were the same price (say a price of 10 years ago) then I'd take a 14060M 2 liner over the 2254, cleaner dial and I could never get away with the bezel operation on the Seamaster, always felt easier to use the bezel on the Submariner tbh...
Yes it’s a conversation that has been done before, but a relevant one still. Everyone will have an opinion and it’s good to understand others view (I agree with the OP, there is a reason why Rolex took a leaf out of Omegas book for the 5517 and the 7016 introduced a new dial and hands).
The 2254 is an early homage to the original SM300 (ok not the first SM) from before the homage thing was a thing.
I much prefer the dial and hand set on the Omega and to me they seem much more logical for use as a dive watch. The bezel is where the SM fails in my opinion, it’s quite difficult to turn, would be even worse when wet and this seems a bit of a failing. Also the bracelet (the fussy multi link one) is just dated. It looked naff back then and looks worse now. Put it on a NATO or rubber and it’s a winner though
Last edited by Sinnlover; 19th August 2022 at 12:17.
As an owner of both brands you mention i understand where you are coming from.
As recently as 2019 i said i prefered the new Omega Seamaster 42mm to the Rolex SD43 for numerous reasons and only last month i again tried both on in Whittles Preston and still came to the same conclusion(other opinions are welcome)
My link from 2019 although some photo's have since been removed.
https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...216+seadweller
Rotaty outer roundy thing:
It's called a Bezel.
Regards
Andy
Neither have much appeal to me, FWLIW, there are watches out there which are technically better and/or better value than both.
Both brands trade WAY too much on their name, but most-especially Rolex, who are the very definition of marketplace complacency.
If you can hardly read the time, certainly not in the dark, and find the bracelet thin and tinny, why would you not sell? I wouldn't keep a watch I didn't like.
This comparison is not a controversial it’s rather old discussion as mentioned.
I like the latest SMP yes the ones with the skeleton hands. So much so I own the NTTD version in Ti and it IS a No Date version
Like the Submariner as well, dare I say a bit boring (run for the hills!!). Bullet proof
Not an “either or” more like “and”. Welcome to the forum whoever you are. But given the choice between a 5513 and a 2254 I know which I would choose (neither).
Last edited by MartynJC (UK); 19th August 2022 at 11:47.
“ Ford... you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.” HHGTTG
Opinions aren't really controversial, unless those finding offence haven't been outside and touched grass in the past few days.
IMO, the Rolex wins over the Omega.
No lyre lugs
grippable bezel
lighter and more comfortable bracelet
no polished "accents" on the bracelet
No wart
not really a fan of the single sweeping curve of the crown guards on the omega.
Ive never had a SMP. Its something I keep thinking I should try, and will at some point, but its just not something id spend highly on, largely because every time ive tried on one, the fussy bracelet and beefy clasp has instantly got on my nerves, although I admit this is the 5 link one rather than the 3 link speedy style one.
The Seamaster could be an incredible watch.
- Bring back the sword hands
- Less fussy bracelet similar to the Sinn H Link or just a thinner Planet Ocean or older Speedy bracelet without the polished bits.
- Give it a bezel you can actually grip
- Remove the external AR which is always scratched in photos
- Upgrade the HEV to automatic or just ditch it entirely. Either way get rid of it.
- Give a no date option which isn't in ceramic.
I love the bigger ceramic no date version but wouldn't have it in ceramic.
Most of this lot are more-accustomed to touching-cloth...
This is no way controversial. I am a self confessed Rolex fanboy but if someone else thinks another make is better, then fair enough.
No one will mind and no feathers have will been ruffled.
However if the OP wants to kick up a stink all he has to do is make an innocuous political quip in the BP and he will cause a row that will ruffle feathers for months on end.
I don't disagree with the OP.
IMO the 2254 is a modern classic.
Cheers,
Neil.
Now if you said the Moonswatch was better than a Submariner...
Personally...
...I think this is better than both =)
Wish I'd never sold mine.
IMHO the 2254 isn't better than the 40mm ceramic Sub. Feature wise the latest Seamaster is on par with the 41mm Sub although I think the proportions of the 41mm ND Sub are nigh on perfect and I prefer the bezel action. I feel the dial finishing is superior on the latest Omega though. Regardless there for sure isn't a justification for the huge price differential although luxury watches have for a long time not been about value for money!
Now the Seamaster Heritage model is fantastic and IMHO a better watch than the Sub. It is priced at a much more similar price point for the SS version though
I'm still waiting for someone to have enough faith in their Sub to do this:
or this
To it. Any takers?
Enoch has a 45mm on SC which looks really good.
Should have had sword hands imo.
Would agree. Never been a fan of arrow tipped hands. I have owned several SM300, both fully original and the Watchco type rebuilds and they are superb watches and have history as being the forerunner of the Milsub.
They should do a reissue of it.
That just smacks of internet w*nkery for big brave boi adulation for me, so no, wouldn't do it to any watch and it has nothing to do with "faith".I'm still waiting for someone to have enough faith in their Sub to do this:
or this
To it. Any takers?
It was quite a while ago, so I don't quite remember the precise context, but I think you may well be broadly correct: I was responding to the claim that there are things you can do with a Sub that you wouldn't dare do to a 'lesser' watch - and I responded in my usual subtle manner, so yes, internet onanism seems about right. However in my case, the charge of pedantry is more convincing. However, I also think I ended up with a couple of cool photos you will not find anywhere else.
However, I don't see the brave bit. In both cases, it was simply a calculated risk, based upon an awareness of the tolerances of the watch that I'd had for years and am still quite fond of. However, it does take a bit of faith to do something quite so daft. As you wouldn't try it, you will not have experienced that bit. I know you have a few desk diving man toys with capacities you'll never need. after asking yourself a few equally pointed questions about where the moral high ground is here having bought into that myth, just think about how risking breaking one by testing that capacity might feel.
I wouldn't do it to most watches, but to the original Bond watch with all the macho implications, when in the middle of a silly internet row about precisely that sort of thing, why not? Anyone buying any watch with a 300M depth rating is not buying technical capacity (when more people have been to the moon than SCUBA dived below 300M) they are buying imaginary capability and into precisely the sort of daftness you are complaining about.
So yes, it was a stupid thing to do, but it was only exploiting capacities that it is a stupid thing to buy, because you will never ever need them.
Last edited by M4tt; 19th August 2022 at 15:22.
Agree with much of the OP's claim but disagree regarding bracelets. Don't be fooled by the 'tinny' nature of the Rolex, in my experience they last far better than the Omegas which are prone to wearing the pins and becoming very stretched. Removable pins have been known to fall out when worn.
I`ve owned both and I found the Omega to be the nicer watch, fitted better on my smallish wrists too. The Omega's relatively easy to work on too, far more chance of finding someone to service it other than accredited repairers or service centre.
I do wish they would drop the carbuncle of a HEV on their mainstream divers
Dave
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
True, the buckle is lovely, but just under thirty years of infrequent but enthusiastic use has required a new clasp and the bracelet itself is fairly foxed. The bezel is basically impossible to turn once wet. For dive planning, this could be seen as a safety feature, but...
There’s also the issue of bezel insert damage; replace a Rolex bezel insert and it’ll cost you under £50, do the same with the 2254 and it’s £1500 plus because the insert isn’t available separately.
Personally, I’m generally wearing a Seiko these days; the timekeeping isn’t quite but it was about 10% of the RRP of a submariner.
I'm pretty sure that any oil which had previously clung to the gears - would redistribute.....................I'm still waiting for someone to have enough faith in their Sub to do this:
To it. Any takers?
Also - the internal pressure would raise considerably and blow the seals.
I think you would have to Sous Vide it at 54c for 4hrs.....................
Sorry M4tt, I thought they were internet folklore pics, not something you'd personally done.
I bought my nephew a Seamaster Auto for his 21st back in '81 - It still looks like new, and I guess is a 'lifetime watch' for him.
A classic design and I would have to say - not far short of a Submariner in quality and longevity.
Probably a lot cheaper to service, too.
Omega DO make fantastic watches!
No problem, your critique is still perfectly valid.
I'm sure you are right. And yet:I'm pretty sure that any oil which had previously clung to the gears - would redistribute.....................
Also - the internal pressure would raise considerably and blow the seals.
I think you would have to Sous Vide it at 54c for 4hrs.....................
Pretty sure that one experiment result - doesn’t create a rule…………
I had a 2254 for a few years, at the same time I also had a PO and a 10460m. I've still got the Sub but sold the other two although I do regret selling the PO.
All three are nice watches.
James.
By my calc. internal pressure would only be ~+25%, differential similar to taking to 2,000m.I'm pretty sure that any oil which had previously clung to the gears - would redistribute.....................
Also - the internal pressure would raise considerably and blow the seals.
I think you would have to Sous Vide it at 54c for 4hrs.....................
I did a video boiling a Steinhart a few years ago to dispel the myth that wearing a watch in the shower would damage it. Strangely enough, it didn’t explode or blow the seals out!I'm still waiting for someone to have enough faith in their Sub to do this:
or this
To it. Any takers?
I didn’t use my Rolex though!
Absolutely. But the helium relief valve does offer an explanation.
As much as I am a sucker for Rolex and Omega; plus a Tudor as of today, I also love Seiko’s and this one is no exception and on grounds of this thread trumps the whole debate. I can see one of these on my wrist soon.There’s also the issue of bezel insert damage; replace a Rolex bezel insert and it’ll cost you under £50, do the same with the 2254 and it’s £1500 plus because the insert isn’t available separately.
Personally, I’m generally wearing a Seiko these days; the timekeeping isn’t quite but it was about 10% of the RRP of a submariner.
Going back to the Rolex/Omega debate. I have sold my two previous Omega’s, sold and regretted selling my Rolex 214270 but kept my 116660. If monetary value comes in to it. Buy a Seiko/Citizen, otherwise I will stick with Rolex watches. But it’s all personal preference and the world would be a dull place if we all liked and had the same perception of the same thing. I like that we all have different views, it’s healthy and to be respected.
Submariners don’t have a relief valve………………..
(and I can’t tell if your ‘boil in the bag’ watch has or not)
It’s a pity that the EU have cut the science grants………..
Early Milsubs did
Ha! I don’t have time for trolls.
It certainly has. It's my long suffering Omega SMP 2541.80 - that was the point. It's sat on some pasta - I was happy with boiling water, but metal to metal heat transfer would have been too much - I wasn't doing science - I was doing engineering within assumed tolerance. Apparently you can shower with it on!Submariners don’t have a relief valve………………..
(and I can’t tell if your ‘boil in the bag’ watch has or not)
It’s a pity that the EU have cut the science grants………..
I'm not really a sub kind of guy.
Last edited by M4tt; 20th August 2022 at 00:20.
I hoped that if there was one person I could convince to boil their Sub it would be you.
Perhaps I could interest you in a gold rehaut shield instead?
Lusted after a 165.024 SM300 for a long time as the archetypal Divers Watch. I guess the 2254 is as good as a modernish version can get - trying to ignore the ugly wart.
Loved the big triangle and sword hands. Not a fan of the crown guards tbh.
Then there’s the Sub: 4,5 or 6 digit references. Proud owner of a 16610. Love it. Perfect watch, perfect fit and perfect weight.
I had a PO 42mm with the 8500 movement. Great watch; super accurate, looked great….but….jeeez! Wasn’t it bulky and heavy.
So I’d say I’m in the Rolex camp based on the aesthetics of the watches.
Finally, to be completely crass about it, the clincher is the residual value of the Rolex knocks the Omega out of the park
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nice pic:-)I hoped that if there was one person I could convince to boil their Sub it would be you.
Perhaps I could interest you in a gold rehaut shield instead?
On the topic, I think they are both excellent watches and it is a matter of preference. I like all full size Seamasters. I also don’t mind the He valve.
BTW, 2254 is 41 mm and not 40 as OP claims.
Posting Permissions
