ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
3 July 2015, 06:54 AM | #31 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,185
|
In 1983, I purchased my first high end watch:
I asked the sales person at the time if it would keep good time. His answer was "If you want accuracy, buy a Casio." I thought he was kidding but my President could never be regulated to better than a minute/day. In 2003, I finally let the President go and have owned a hundred or so different watches since then. Yes, I was a flipper. I've owned a 16570 EXPII, a GMT Master, a TT GMT Master II, a Sea Dweller, and a vintage 6050 but never a Sub. I currently have a polar 216570 EXPII which will soon be leaving my collection. Why is the 42 EXPII leaving? It's leaving because of the arrival in March of my Seamaster 300 Master Co-Axial to go with my First Omega in Space: Since joining my collection, the 300 MC has gained .25 sec/day. That's not quartz timing but close. It dresses up or down nicely for the pool or the boardroom. The clasp is easily adjustable allowing on the fly sizing like glidelock. The 60 hour power reserve means I do not have to put it on the winder every night. The added ability to step the hour hand for time zone changes without stopping the movement is a great feature as well. The 15K gauss rating pretty much eliminates any risk of magnetization. No, it doesn't have a date feature but the date only changes once every twenty-four hours and my memory is still sharp enough so that I only have to check the date once a day. And a final plus: when I set the hands to the markers and push in the crown, the hands do not move. They stay right where I put them. I never could do that with a Rolex. As for "Master Co-Axial" on the dial, it makes more sense than "Superlative Chronometer." It means that Omega has taken the co-axial movement to the next level horologically. What makes a Rolex chronometer superlative to any other chronometer? Don't get me wrong, Rolex makes fine watches but there is nothing in the Rolex line that trips my trigger anymore. At my age (71), I've bought my last car with its last set of tires. I'm enjoying my sunset years with my last wife and my last two watches. |
3 July 2015, 07:00 AM | #32 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2014
Real Name: John
Location: La Jolla, CA
Watch: Platona
Posts: 12,194
|
Omega has made a career out of chasing Rolex (see 007). And they don't need to; they have fantastic watches on their own.
|
3 July 2015, 07:10 AM | #33 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: San Francisco
Watch: BLRO
Posts: 502
|
|
3 July 2015, 09:59 AM | #34 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 360
|
I love the speedy pro, but the rest of the lineup is chopped and changed so much that there is no sense of history. The new seamaster 300 would be cool if it more or less had the same look and feel as all the seamasters for the last 50 years. But in a year or two Omega will be bored of the design and try something completely different.
|
3 July 2015, 10:19 AM | #35 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Real Name: Jon
Location: USA
Watch: DJ - Need Sub Bad
Posts: 1,889
|
|
3 July 2015, 10:22 AM | #36 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Real Name: Jon
Location: USA
Watch: DJ - Need Sub Bad
Posts: 1,889
|
Purpose of thread is to point out a new Marketing-driven "Standard" that maybe at least a few Rolex owners will appreciate knowing about and keeping abreast of the latest buzz in our luxury watch market space.
|
3 July 2015, 11:51 AM | #37 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tejas
Watch: your step
Posts: 2,806
|
Yes. Like the use of ceramics, for example, which Rolex started using in 2005, and Omega, um, err, well, did in the 1980's:
http://sweepinghand.co.uk/very-rare-...amic-for-sale/
__________________
116520 white; 16613 black; 116710; 16570 polar; 16600. AP 15400; 15703. Blancpain Fifty Fathoms. Glashutte Sport Evo GMT. Omega Planet Ocean 2907.50.91; Planet Ocean Liquidmetal LE 222.30.42.20.01.001; Seamaster 2255.80.00. Breitling Crosswind, white. Panerai PAM 005. VC Overseas Chrono, black. |
7 August 2015, 03:06 AM | #38 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Bernardsville, NJ
Posts: 14
|
Quote:
|
|
24 October 2015, 12:38 PM | #39 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 342
|
|
24 October 2015, 05:41 PM | #40 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,081
|
Quote:
|
|
24 October 2015, 11:32 PM | #41 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Real Name: Frank
Location: Michigan
Watch: Sub 116610LN
Posts: 419
|
I think that in a lot of ways it comes down to the fact that these are two companies with similar missions and completely different approaches. Rolex has established its reputation firmly on the idea of the timeless, classic, tried-and-true provision of watches that change only incrementally; a new Datejust or a Sub looks instantly like one that was made forty years ago or more. The movements and materials improve (glacially perhaps) over time, but the look is the statement of quality.
Omega, on the other hand, has a long tradition of more bold innovation and bigger creative departures (which makes it all the more ironic that its single best known timepiece is a watch that has remained unchanged for nearly half a century, the Speedy Moonwatch). So there are many more modern looks and varieties both inside and outside the watch case with Omega - you can get some of their models in several sizes (true for Rolex in certain cases as well), or in automatic or quartz (not true of Rolex anymore, obviously). But even with that, some Omega models now have a longevity that isn't that far off of what we expect from Rolex - just consider the Seamaster Professional Diver model (yes, the Pierce Brosnan Bond watch), that has been incrementally improved since it first appeared in 1993. Even the current iteration (2012) is immediately recognizable for what it is, after 22 years. Somehow I don't think Omega will change the look of that watch much in the years to come. Just my two cents ... |
25 October 2015, 09:25 PM | #42 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Real Name: R.J.
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,546
|
I think that no matter how much you down play the METAS certification, it is something that many other watch companies took seriously. Do you think Rolex did not feel any pressure? They must be aware of their eroding market share..
Now Rolex offers extended warranties and a new movement and now a NEW METHODOLOGY TO TEST THAT MOVEMENT (when will the celebratory parade be held?) ... What an amazing coincidence... Of course, no one with a belly full of Kool aid would recognize that... its just "The Rolex way"... What is also amazing to me is that in a hobby that involves some watch houses over 200 yrs old that many here seem to be making judgements on the kind of impact this certification will have tomorrow... it could take decades to see the full impact of this change. Trust me, Omega does not want to chase Rolex. If anything, there is a growing negative connotation that goes along with Rolex, and many 'Watch snobs' will look at the Rolex as a pure status symbol... something that Omega does not want to become. This is why they have invested more in the product than the marketing. It will never cease to amaze me how any Rolex fanboy can take issue with any other company's marketing expenditures.
__________________
@RJKAMA on Instagram |
25 October 2015, 09:50 PM | #43 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Real Name: gus
Location: East Coast
Watch: APK & sometimes Y
Posts: 26,179
|
I would be more impressed if omega could make more of their watches in slimmer cases.
__________________
|
26 October 2015, 02:26 AM | #44 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Real Name: Syed
Location: The Ether
Posts: 3,388
|
Quote:
Screw in crowns as a standard would also be nice. Even though I know the water resistance depends on the seals inside, it just makes it feel more secure.
__________________
Rolex Datejust 41 126334 | Omega Speedmaster Professional Hesalite | Cartier Santos Large | Tudor Black Bay 58 |
|
1 November 2015, 01:23 PM | #45 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Real Name: MDangerSteel
Location: Canada
Watch: Vintage Rolex
Posts: 2,301
|
That Globemaster is one ugly muthaf$&kah
Not sure if Omega is getting on this Vintage band wagon, like others, but it just looks bad and misproportioned.As far as accuracy goes, that is yet to be determined in real world results.No mechanical movement will run spot on with out constant adjustment. There's only one Omega I'd ever own, and that's the Speedmaster Professional.....gotta give Omega props for realizing it's a classic and keeping it relatively unchanged.However, they came up with some retarded models of the Speedy, limited editions, reduced sizes, strange looking dials, etc. It seems, the company has no confidence in their offerings, since they change their line up every year How many seamaster models have they introduced over the years? Yet, they all look absolutely different.Maybe it's their way of doing things, but it seems they're constantly chasing their own tail to outdo Rolex.Good luck Omeeegah
__________________
Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons Probability of survival is inversely proportional to the angle of arrival---Capt. Rage Don't believe anything in aviation, 'till V1---Mitch Danger Steel |
1 November 2015, 10:25 PM | #46 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas
Watch: 12800ft = 3900m
Posts: 11,172
|
what a great post, it puts things in perspective. I wish you many great healthy years.
|
4 November 2015, 01:15 AM | #47 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 102
|
Control-1000 hrs/testing
|
5 November 2015, 12:51 PM | #48 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Real Name: Jon
Location: USA
Watch: DJ - Need Sub Bad
Posts: 1,889
|
|
7 November 2015, 05:54 PM | #49 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: USA
Watch: GMTII
Posts: 1,180
|
Quote:
Ironically in trying to outdo Rolex, they only created a series of, for the most part, forgettable models while Rolex on the other hand has built a collection of classics. Imagine how iconic the seamaster would've been if they kept it generally unchanged like how Rolex did with the Submariner. Even the different variations of datejusts all have the same style, they don't have datejust chronographs, datejust GMTs. Rolex gets it right, if you want a completely different watch, create a completely different watch, rather than integrating it in your existing products. Blancpain made the same mistake with the fifty fathoms, even though it's came out before the Sub, it's not the quintessential classic diver because there have been so many changes over he years. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.