OMEGA Superior to Rolex!!

Perhaps. Not sure. Thing is, amongst enthusiasts Rolex marketing and resulting brand equity might had ended up playing against them, but we cant forget the quality of their core offering. Yes the 42mm Speedmaster is half the price of a Daytona. But a 40mm, 12mm thick automatic, chronometer chronograph is pretty hard to come by at this price point. And while one can disagree with where the Submariner has gone in recent years (size increase, maxi case, etc), it's had an influence and mark on history that a Seamaster can only try but catch up to, no matter how many James Bond movies get released.

But hey, what do I know. I'm a Grand Seiko guy.

As a kid growing up in the lower middle class in the 70's & 80's, I did not have the same interest in watches that I do now, the internet wasn't a thing, an encyclopedia was not going to discuss the ins & outs of the watch world. Therefore, well into my adulthood is when I first knew there was a thing called an automatic watch. This was the late 90's before I had any idea there were different watches than battery analog, battery digital and hand wind (yes, I had no idea about quartz)! Add in EcoDrive (for the longest time, I thought EcoDrive was just Citizen's name for an automatic) and I knew barely nothing about watches.

But the one thing I KNEW was that Rolex was THE watch to show that you had made it in the world of business. Countless TV shows & movies said it was so. At one time I aspired to own a Rolex. Why? simply because it was the IT watch. If it was the IT watch, it must be the best right? Wrong. As has been discussed, they are good watches; but you can get better watches for less from Omega, Christopher Ward and other brands.

Rolex's marketing has been in hyper drive for decades and until someone can break through the wall of messaging & out-market Rolex, millions more kids will still be as naïve as I was about Rolex; even with the advantage of the internet.

Yeah, that’s why I wanted everyone to know I’m not knocking Rolex as their a staple in this industry as much as Rolex and they know how to market. And Rolex was the first to waterresist but Omega was the first to commercially be able to put them out and I feel like both are heavy hitters in water resistance. I don’t feel like Rolex has anything over them per-say.

When the Quartz crisis hit Rolex pivoted to the AP route and went up market, they went from tool watches with a few random gold ones to marketing as the watch of leaders of industry and countries wear. They barely looked at quartz and kept the focus on mechanical but now higher end, and as reliable as possible.

Everyone else with very few exceptions went to quartz and tried to justify why you should pay so much more for the same movement that was in a $10watch. The result was cost cutting and some regrettable designs. It took a long time for companies to recover, I would take a Rolex from the 70s-2010s over Omega, but anything after the 8800 movement family came out and I will take Omega over Rolex, but that is less than a decade old, if they keep it up Omega will be in a good position to remind Rolex about the sword of Damocles.

Omega has some really amazing watches behind them. But unfortunately that is the thing. Behind them.

I have owned and own some Omega’s and Rolex’s. But with current prices and comfort Rolex is the better bang for the buck.

Why Omega cannot get a proper bracelet solution is beyond me.

And now when there are even waiting lists for Omegas as well….. not sure what to say(?).

Technically they are really good but so is Rolex. And with s lot of the research that Rolex put into not only the actual watch but the equipment and the material sourcing. I find it to be the better brand. Sorry Omega but until 2015 you were really great. Massive low point has to be the colour AT’s

This sounds inspired by TGVs latest video where he hit many of the same notes.

I have 4 Omega watches, no Rolex. When I started seriously collecting, and went to check out Rolex at ADs, I found empty cases and snooty salesmen. As I looked at Omega, by contrast, I was treated like I was valued at my AD. As I compared the watches directly, by the specs because Rolex is unavailable by their choice, Omega won again and again. I will FOREVER have Omega in my collection, while I refuse to chase Rolex. I am extremely satisfied, and saved many thousands of dollars all at once. I want watches and not marketing hype.

I don’t think anybody mentioned this and I just want to make this statement for the record that Omega is not responsible for the development of the Co-Axial escapement rather, that was Dr. George Daniels, who then sold his invention to Omega for use in their series production movements. Oh, there’s also another revolutionary escapement that was made by Grand Seiko called the Dual Impulse Escapement, and that is definitely a candidate for true innovation in watchmaking. You also missed stated COSC standards. Rolex holds themselves to a tighter standard that they refer to as a “Superlative Chronometer” which is the -2 to +2 seconds a day vs. regular COSC accuracy standard of -4 to +6 seconds a day. If you wanna look at it mathematically, Rolex still has the tighter standard of only four seconds a day versus a five second daily deviation standard with METAS. In my experience- my Rolex “Superlative Chronometers” are actually better at keeping accurate “atomic” time as they’re able to lose the second or two gained during a day of wearing the watch by placing it crown up by my bedside. While the watch sits there overnight, it loses the extra time it gained during the day making it super accurate over the course of a 24 hour period. A METAS certified watch will never lose time gained. Now, it’s definitely easier to adjust the time on a METAS watch as all you need to do is pull out the crown to hack the seconds and wait a couple seconds for reference time to catch up. I’m not saying that Omega doesn’t offer phenomenal technological value for money in their price segment. Because they do. I love Omega. I’m currently waiting on a 321 Ed White. I adore Omega. Just wanted to set the record straight on this post. The Co-Axial escapement is also helpful when it comes to servicing times as Omega has been able to lengthen the service intervals and keep maintenance costs down.

I honestly think Tudor is positioning themselves to compete head on with Omega. Their implementation of METAS into the Black Bay line is only going to continue to evolve and grow Tudor into a full fledged competitor to Omega.

Omega has some catching up to do on its bracelets. I’m dying to get a Globemaster, but I can’t justify spending that much for a watch on a bracelet with no micro-adjustment whatsoever.

I have both.

The Rolex watches I have are ones that Omega don't really have a true alternative. The Omega I have does have a Rolex alternative and beats it quite handily IMO.

I like both brands, but Omega is my favorite watch brand overall.

Again, there are some things that Rolex has done the Omega hasn’t and Omega has done things Rolex hasn’t. The argument comes down to the accuracy which Omega pulls out on front. The main point of a watch is knowing the time as accurate as possible. Omega does that better than Rolex. I’ll give you the bracelet though. Omega has a few nice bracelets (New Speedy, titanium seam master NTTD) but my favorite bracelet is a rolex bracelet.

I used to say that since Rolex was hard to get. But when I finally got one I did appreciate it a great deal and would get a couple more when the time is right. It does suck that they are hard to get, but you are right, Omegas time piece is SO accurate! I’ve gone days with my speedy and was spot on time. No deviation at all. My NTTD Seamaster was a couple seconds ahead after a few days.

I do find one are that I’m not as pleased with in regards to OMEGA and that is their bracelets as @Deskdiversthlm mentioned. I will NOT get a Seamaster with that traditional SM bracelet. Looks cheesy and cheap.

I did mention COSC but also listed as -2/+2 but even then, Omegas testing and certification is a stricter one.

Also got the Tudor BBPro recently. Beautiful GMT.

Thanks for sharing more info!!

I have two omegas and both have BEAUTIFUL bracelets but there are a lot of pieces I’d love to get but hesitant because of the cheap and cheesy looking bracelets.

Which pieces of each do you have? Which two do you have that you find as alternatives where omega beats it out?

I agree. Whoever is interested in this convo has invested interest and won’t change their mind more than likely.

It why? Just saying that doesn’t prove your argument. Haha. Curious to hear your thoughts.

This has been my argument. They’ve created a name and although the watches look amazing and even run great the OMEGA runs better which is the MAIN point of a watch.

Agree that the bracelets need work. I haven’t had an issue with wearability on either. That being said the Sky Dweller was on my list and was about to pull the trigger but it was WAY TOO big!

Omega didn’t create the coaxial escapement, George Daniels did.

I love and have owned several of both brands and never understood the need for some Omega owners to validate their purchases against Rolex. Not any other brand, just Rolex. Here’s how I see things: good marketing alone isn’t enough to sustain market dominance, not for this long; there has to be substance behind it. Rolex isn’t alone in their marketing prowess — some would argue that Omega has beaten the moon landing lore to death, not to mention their paid product placement (Bond?) and many celebrity brand ambassadors. And then there’s the MoonSwatch, probably the biggest (and successful) marketing exercise in watches in a long time. Every good business invests in marketing, but without a quality product to back up the marketing, it’s pointless. Regarding the watches themselves: I find that across the board Rolex offers slightly tighter tolerances with their builds, more so with their bracelets, which are objectively better than Omegas. I also like that they use precious metals on even their base models compared to Omega (ceramic + platinum inlays and rhodium plated white gold markers on the dial are standard, vs Omega’s ceramic + enamel inlays and rhodium plated brass markers). Regarding the movement accuracy, it’s a wash: they’re both highly accurate — though in actual fact Rolex is more accurate with a tighter deviation than Omega’s 0/+6. Regarding durability, Rolex is proven, sometimes going decades without service and running just fine. They’re both also highly antimagnetic (Rolex says amagnetic). The rest is purely subjective.

For me, over time I’ve gradually settled on Rolex as a favorite brand, and even though the Planet Ocean 39.5 is one of my favorite do-it-all watches, preferred over the Sub, there’s little else in the Omega catalog that I’d pick over the Rolex equivalent. And this isn’t marketing, this is having owned several from both for a long time. Some subjective reasons I love Rolex: longer service intervals, double in some cases (10 years vs Omega’s 5). I do prefer the higher (smoother) beat rate of Rolexes, versus the visibly jerky jump of the coaxial seconds hand. I also like that Rolex is still independent and in control of their destiny (MoonSwatch!).

Is Omega a better value prop? Could be. Is better value being able to get a fine watch for slightly less at RRP, even though the value tanks when it’s time to move on? Or is better value picking up a fine watch for the same or slightly more at RRP, knowing it’ll at least hold its value when it’s time to move on? (Yes, it’s not easy getting a Rolex at retail). I’m in the latter camp, preferring to spend a few hundred more to retain thousands, than to spend a few hundred less to lose thousands. It’s all relative — at the end of the day what’s important is the joy you get wearing your watch, no matter the brand — you can only get so far applying logic to an illogical hobby. 🍻

I love your arguments and can agree with most. This wasn’t to say Rolex was a bad watch at all. They’re great which is why AFTER marketing they can retain.

I do not agree with your last statement though. Not that it’s wrong in anyway! But I don’t buy pieces for the investment and that’s what that last statement seems to make in your argument although it may not be. Bought the Titanium NTTD SM and immediately lost value but didn’t care and still don’t. Love everything about that watch.

Great comment though and enjoyed the read!

In a Market in which People are willing to spend multiple grands on a piece of engineering that‘s completely overhauled by today‘s digital standards, it‘s hard to argue if one mechanical watch brand is objectively better than the other. To be fair in their purpose of „telling the time“ they get beaten easily by any cheap Quartz watch. In my opinion it all comes down to personal taste as the function of the mechanical watch has become less important than the design and image to most people (including me).

It‘s like discussing the performance of vintage Sports Cars, it mattered back when they were new, nowadays a 930 gets outrun by a Golf GTI or even by one of those ghastly electric T-Cars 😂

I don’t buy watches purely for investment either — that wasn’t the point my man. What I am arguing is that the term ‘value’ is relative: you can either look at value as spending the same, or a few hundred more for an equivalent model and getting all of your money back when it’s time to resell, or spending the same or a little less and losing up to 50% (sometimes more) when it’s time to resell. People don’t resell just because they made an ‘investment’, people may get tired of a watch, want to sell a watch to fund another purchase, or in my case, simply realize that you own too many watches and want to consolidate. And anyone who chooses to resell their watch for any of those non-investment reasons will obviously want to get back as much money as they can of their initial purchase — and that means selling at the prevailing market rate, even after you’ve owned and enjoyed the watches for years. Although it shouldn’t be the only reason you make a purchase, value-retention is a valid and important one unless you’re so significantly financially well-off that it doesn’t matter to you. That’s the point I was trying to make: it’s relative, and that there’s a difference between buying as an investment (purchasing only because you’re speculating on a future increase in value with the sole aim of making a profit) and appreciating value-retention of a watch you actually love; and if you are adding up pros and cons, VR is a definite and considerable ‘pro’. 🍻

Omega pushes Rolex to the top spot, time and again.

Clarify…

That last statement! Too true!!!

Yep, Omega ....one for the purists 😂

Love those those!

Omega for me for all the reasons you gave. Another one for me is the history of Omega and the seemingly solid and uncorrupted, (despite being now owned by a parent corp, the death knell of any good US business lol).

Rolex is fine and dandy, but their business practices make my skin crawl. but maybe b/c i can't spend 50k on watches i don't want to 'build a relationship w/ an AD' to the the 20k watch i actually want. friggin unreal to me that that actually is a thing. becoming wealthy must just rot your brain or something idk. One thing on my bucket list is to visit an Omega store, try on some dream models I might be able to get one day. And i bet the Rolex store probably wont even let me in....and that's fine b/c Rolexs' 'image'/'rob me' signals wearing one puts out is like the nail on the coffin for me on that brand.

Rolex have such a head start I think it's wise for other brands to not even try to match Rolex in marketing....which is probably hundreds of millions a year or something insane like that. I think Rolexs price bubble could burst but i'm not sure what it would take really. surely they cannot just keep increasing the price forever right.....right?