Is Rolex THAT much better than Omega?

[Lesnerelli23]

I’m just curious what people here think, design language aside. And I know this gets discussed in other threads but I wanted to start one concise thread about it.

I feel like, usually, resale value dictates how a product is perceived in quality. Most “men’s” Rolex can fetch 100% MSRP or better in used condition. Some may fall to like 80% but even that is WAY better than any other product I can think of.

Omega on the other hand drops around 50% or more. And, one can even find discount on brand new pieces.

The Bond seamasters are just as recognizable to collectors as Rolex models. The Speedmaster has a very high regard. And there are many more Omega pieces with history and prevalence in the community.

So my overall question is, what’s up with that? Isn’t the quality comparable? ETC…

I have a 40mm Speedy Racing and I had a Planet Ocean. Both extremely accurate and had, maybe, better finishing than the Rolexes I have. Very impressive.

What do you all think? Is it just a marketing thing? Is Rolex better for quality and longevity?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TikTok]

Originally Posted by Lesnerelli23

Is it just a marketing thing?

A hole in one.

[John Doyle]

Yes Rolex is much better in my views as they nailed the thinness of a mass produced watch and managed to stick to classic design languages as opposed to Omega who have a zillion iterations of their watches.

[OG1982]

Omega make great watches and arguably better movements than Rolex. Despite having this opinion, I still prefer Rolex and always will.

There is something special about a Rolex that Omega just doesn't have.

[KY..]

Both Omega and AP branding are based on tons of iterations of the same watches.
How many speedmasters and royal oaks does one need?
At least Rolex has many iconic models to select from.

[IS2000]

Rolexes are appealing to broad range of consumers in many parts of the world. Even non-watch people love Rolexes (and recently Cartiers as well). Omegas on the other hands are more of an enthusiasts’ brand but still got mass appeal, especially after the Moonswatch collabs. Where I live, people buying Speedmasters generally know more about their watches than Daytonas buyers.
In terms of perceptible quality, I would put them about equal with a slight nod to the Rolexes.
For resale, Rolexes just don’t only hold their values better, but also much easier to sell.

[Roddypeepa]

Omega make some great watches. Where they have always let themselves down in my opinion is too much choice. Loads of colours, seemingly limitless special editions and the like and somehow this constantly evolving design language weakens the product.

Take the Seamaster diver - loads of combos, ceramic, aluminium, metal bezels etc. in my opinion if the watch was kept to three or four options that would be plenty.

The other area they suffer is thickness. Seamaster diver thicker than a sub. Planet ocean is chunky. Look at the thickness of a speedmaster racing vs Daytona. There’s no comparison.

So yes they make some great pieces but the step up to Rolex is there in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CKLinLA]

Leaving asides design factors, I view Omegas movements to be generally better.

My sense is that my Omegas are more accurate time keeping wise than my Rolex,

[exp90]

Omega SMP300s for example are exceptionally well made. How much better/worse than say a Submariner or DateJust (representative high volume items), not sure, but you're certainly not buying an inferior product. The interest in it, therefore the value held and ease of selling, is weaker however and that is always down to brand management.

[wm82]

Rolex quality is much higher. Case construction and fit and finish is streets ahead.
The only thing keeping water out from an Omega is Loctite glue.

[77T]

Originally Posted by Lesnerelli23

I feel like, usually, resale value dictates how a product is perceived in quality. Most “men’s” Rolex can fetch 100% MSRP or better in used condition. Some may fall to like 80% but even that is WAY better than any other product I can think of.

Omega on the other hand drops around 50% or more.

Resale price and quality aren't directly linked.
Price and supply/demand are.

Quality is one aspect of demand. But product appeal and features play significant roles, too.

Billions are spent in Advertising and brand management globally by all product producers. That is the differentiator in most demand models. In luxury goods the initial price does play a role - the higher haute horology brands especially benefit from the aura of exclusivity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Alex_TA]

What a fresh topic!

[sinkholeninja]

Brand power + perceived scarcity + social hype goes a long way…Other than that I think that Omega is spinning up too many LEs, and iteration upon iteration on their models. Rolex has a more streamlined offering, which is a good thing, at least imo.

[DoricSpiker]

Rolex very big in certain continents where it is seen as the only luxury watch to have.
Omega has better movements and therefore better accuracy. Rolex has better bracelets and better designs on some models. The speedmaster moonwatch however is the best mass produced Chronograph ever made.

Demand and quality don’t always go together. Look at Blancpain. Leagues above Rolex and Omega in terms of quality but difficult to shift on the secondary market.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HogwldFLTR]

I recently purchased a Speedmaster Racing and was amazed by its accuracy. I've only owned one Rolex which was as good. In general, though I really like the rolex bracelets better. Design wise I like Rolex better as well. I've owned a number of Omegas in the past and this is the only one I want. Not all Rolex are my cup of tea, either. I’d add that things like the engraved rehaut, LEC, and easy bracelet adjustability seal the deal for Rolex!

[HMHM]

If you take the value and "prestige" aspects off the table, both brands are probably quite similar to one another. I do think that overall Rolex is slightly better, because it is marginally better in small details like bracelet, material and all round design cohesion.
Unfortunately, when you add value and "prestige" of getting a supposedly exclusive watch to the conversation, even people who are not in favour of the Daytona on first impression will sing a different tune when they get "the call" for one, which is a shame because it shows how easily people are swayed by "exclusivity", rather than evaluating the product for what it really is....

[Harry-57]

Omega make some really nice watches with really good movements. Where Rolex beat Omega hands down for me is wearing comfort.

[bp1000]

Aesthetically, Rolex win.
Mechanically, Omega win.

Most people are driven by aesthetics, couple this with very clever marketing, Rolex always do well.

I'm a very big fan of omega chronographs and vintage dress watches but what Rolex created since 1950 is a timeless design and a very harmonious product. The added bonus is since 2008 they have made some quite robust leaps forward in movement technology too.

Theres a reason why virtually every one of their "professional" pieces is perhaps the best sports watch available. But don't be fooled by the omega SKU argument. The amount of variations Rolex adds to their catalogue is also clever trickery. Its done by many "luxury" brands trying to maintain perceived rarity. Customisation, using different dials, materials, metals, gems. Rolex have many SKU's too.

[travisb]

Omega makes great watches and great movements.
Overall, I prefer Rolex primarily on design, aesthetics and wearing comfort.
That said, I think both fit quite nicely together in a collection.

[brandrea]

Rolex is a much better marketing machine, and perceived to be the higher quality brand.

Although I don’t disagree with some of the brand dilution comments, Omega make some pretty high horology pieces that Rolex can only dream of

https://www.omegawatches.com/watch-o...52250455203001

https://www.omegawatches.com/watch-o...52953432201001

[Mrngrz46]

Overall ? Yes

[omar-rye]

History: Tie
Quality: Tie
Timekeeping: Tie
Servicing & Customer Service: Omega by a mile
Design: Subjective
Innovation: Omega by a landslide

Things that matter less:
Brand Prestige: Rolex
Value Retention: Rolex, but only recently

[Mystro]

Both these brands are evenly matched so it’s all about what unique set of ideas do you want. There is no “better” as it is a sliding scale on what your priorities are. You would be wise to own many brands such as these in your collection. If cost is your main concern you certainly get more waych for your money with Omega.

Both of these brands you could buy only one watch and it could easily be your one and only and last a lifetime.

[dandy]

Owning both brands (all types of the subs of the past 10 years) and SMP300, this is my experience:
Price: Omega better priced and can be bought with a discount
movement: tie
bracelet: Rolex more comfy and simple, modern SMP are beefy
design: Rolex more subtle, Omega more alive so it's a personal preferences
resell value: of course Rolex
quality control: of course Rolex, saw several SMP300 marks issues (not alligned)

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Both these brands are evenly matched so it’s all about what unique set of ideas do you want. There is no “better” as it is a sliding scale on what your priorities are. You would be wise to own many brands such as these in your collection. If cost is your main concern you certainly get more waych for your money with Omega.

Both of these brands you could buy only one watch and it could easily be your one and only and last a lifetime.

Well said

[East of Eden]

Originally Posted by 77T

Resale price and quality aren't directly linked.
Price and supply/demand are.

Quality is one aspect of demand. But product appeal and features play significant roles, too.

Billions are spent in Advertising and brand management globally by all product producers. That is the differentiator in most demand models. In luxury goods the initial price does play a role - the higher haute horology brands especially benefit from the aura of exclusivity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

And Rolex consumers pay for all that. Rolex is certainly better at marketing

My impression is that 60+ years ago Omega was seen as the better brand

[Wingman244]

I just flipped my Daytona for a Omega Speedmaster Racing. What I like about the Omega better.
Packaging, presentation box all better with Omega v. Rolex.
Better accuracy. My gosh the Omega 9900 coaxial is just dead on.
Design language such that your can actually read your watch with just a glance.
I want a date! And Omega gives me the choice to buy a chronograph with or without a date.
I see no difference in case finishing - Omega finishes their cases between the lugs so you can actually wear a straight ended strap like the one in the picture.
Omega will sell you a bracelet, a strap or a NATO for your watch - what a concept. They will actually sell you a bracelet from another model if it will fit.
Omega wears much better at 44.25mm case on my 7.5" wrist. No comparison with the Daytona which just flopped from side to side.
Exhibition case back - come on Rolex. It's a mechanical watch - I want to see the movement.
Choice - Omega offers me a lot of choice.
Value - My Speedmaster was 1/5th the grey market price of my Daytona. I'm financially blessed enough to buy a grey market Daytona, but the current market price is hyped way out of reality.
My Daytona was my 3rd Rolex and probably my last, I keep flipping them and getting an Omega.
2 lines of text above and below. 1 line below would have been better. Daytona, my gosh.

[ferengi]

I recently bought a Explorer II, some 20 years old, the inner caseback has pitting on multiple spots. I owned and own a lot of Omegas (mainly vintage) and never witnessed such a thing on them. 10 years ago I’ve bought my first vintage Rolex, a 1016 explorer , unfortunately it fell from around 50cm to the floor, wasn’t working anymore and had to be complexly serviced. Years later, my little son managed to get my Omega Seamaster chronograph into his hands and dropped it from the first floor of our house to the ground floor , where it landed on a hard surface (marble floor). it kept running like nothing happened, although the crystal had a tiny crack afterwards.
Especially the Omega vintage pieces are much nicer in my personal opinion, but I have to admit the old Rolex sport model are looking much fancier.

[1William]

Better is a subjective term but here we go. I prefer Rolex for design language and wear. I prefer Omega for accessible price points and history for some models. I could go with my Submariner ND 124060 and my Omega Sapphire Speedmaster 3861 and make it.

[Tylerlsu2008]

I don't think Rolex is better at all honestly. FWIW, I have multiple from both brands -- I wear the Rolexes more, but that could be due to recency bias in purchases.

My SMP300 feels absolutely bullet proof. I have seen problems with Rolexes a lot more -- a coworkers DJ both ran 2 minutes slow a day and the bracelet broke...he also confirmed the movement issue was not isolated as he spoke to others with the same problem.

Only things I say Rolex does better is slightly tighter accuracy tolerance around zero (though i'd rather +3 seconds fast on an Omega than a -1 second Rolex) and the date wheel turns over instantaneously. Sub bezel action is a bit better as well.

Omega doesn't have a good equivalent to GMT or Exp 2 so +1 Rolex

Seamaster vs Sub is personal preference

There are solid arguments for Speedmaster > Daytona