Rolex "feel"

[D_o_S]

Hi guys,

consider the following 3 images please:

(IMG by Rippin)

(IMG by PeteNYC13)

(IMG by Chogge)

Now, set aside the brand. Which watch looks the most well made, the most exclusive, the most luxurious to you?

I know this is a Rolex forum, but I think some multi-brand owners will (maybe) see what I'm getting at. Doesn't the PO just look the "best" in terms of craftsmanship? If the brand logos were erased, don't you think you'd stop by and ask someone what watch they were wearing in case of the PO, but maybe not so in the case of the other 2 (Rolexes)?

Don't get me wrong, I am a Rolex fan. But somehow, the Sub just gnaws at me for what it is and what it could be. I can appreciate a classic (like a Porsche), but I cannot appreciate an something that looks old for the sake of not improving it in any way.

Let's take the Porsche as an example. The design principals of the 911 have stayed the same ever since, but over the years, modernization has taken place, and you can undeniably tell (i.e. anyone that has a moderate interest in cars) a 993 Porsche from a 997.

With the Sub, to me, it seems like Porsche trying to sell a 993 today, because "it's the eternal classic" and "why fix something that isn't broken". I mean, look at the PO's case, the combination of brushing and polished edges, the index markers, the dial... Then look at the Rolex - doesn't it seem old? Compare the bezels. Take a look at the bands - both are brushed, if that's your poison, but the PO undoubtedly has a better clasp. I doubt it has ever failed on anyone. Yet till now, Rolex has stuck with a piece of bent metal... Look at the glass - the PO has antireflective coating on both sides (I'm guessing), wheras the Rolex has none.

Now look at the GMT II c. This, in my opinion, is a step in the right direction (the case size is acceptable for me at this level). The ceramic bezel adds to the luxury feeling. The PCLs also improve the overall impression. But then there's the maxi everything, which sort of takes away from the appeal...

Does anyone understand? In brief, do you think you're paying for more than the brand with the Rolex? I mean, Rolex has become such a status symbol, yet at times (like now), I feel it has just ridden it's wave of success, and not done much to strengthen its position. Omega, on the other hand, has worked its way up, and I would not hesitate to call it among the most bang for buck watches.

Some may retaliate that's a Rolex is about the movement, not the case. Come on, do you really think Rolex makes the best movements? Look at AP, PP, VC, Breguet, JLC etc... they obviously CAN be bothered to make a nice case for their movement.

In summary, did anyone ever feel like people will buy a Rolex no matter what, even if it was a low quality piece (like chinese quality), but still had the Rolex logo on it, people would still buy it? And it would still be so highly regarded?

Looking forward to your opinions, and please don't think that I'm bashing Rolex, I'm just trying to understand.

(On a side note, I think the DJ models are much more representative looking, or the Explorer I, but that has a DJ-like case, and the story behind it is sort of weird... I think if Rolex could sort of shift their dress/suit-like thinking into their sports range, it would be for the better)

[Fozzy]

The quality of the bottom two shots is just awful. Try staging the shots of the Sub and GMT rather than snapping them with your iphone.

[htc8p]

#3 looks really nice. im covering the brand names!

[Bisquitlips]

Omega has to appear better made due to its inferior quality!

























I own both.

[thesharkfactor]

to answer the Q..

i thnk the sub looks like the best crafted and luxurious, even discreet against the other 2 examples. simplistic and smooth features against the other 2- which are looking to catch attention with bold designs..

if anything- the omega design is a spin off the sub design, to perhaps make it appeal to those who cant yet afford the rolex?

lovely watches all 3, but the submariner has my vote. ultimately, its the one they all try to copy- that's why its stood the test of time- such a popular and classic refined and subtle design, appeals to the masses with great sucess.

[DS_Obsessed]

I think the OP needs to out down the bottle and sober up a little.

[hooliganhooker]

I'll weigh in with measured support for the OP. I own both the PO and a Sea Dweller and do think the PO has certain design features that suit my tastes better.

IMO, even for a larger watch case (I own the 42mm PO), it slides under my shirt cuff better than the SD since its profile is a bit more "domed". The bezel is just a bit too "prominent" on the SD.

I agree that the bracelet is superior. Even the bracelet on my MilGauss (PCL's aside) "feels" more substantial than the SD. Heck, the only difference between the SD's bracelet and my Explorer's bracelet is the dive link. Now I have checked out the new glidelock bracelet and it is a HUGE step in the right direction.

All that said, I will admit that the SD still gets more wrist time than the PO, but I will agree with the OP in the spirit of the observation. I have a Raymond Weil Nabucco GMT which was basically discontinued as soon as it hit the stores. It drives me nuts with some of these other companies that change product offerings every year. For me the SD's draw IS the fact that I can look at the Submariner worn by Connery in Dr. NO and see the watch I am wearing 40 years later.

[landroverking]

The only thing I don't like about the Seamaster is the release crown at 11. This would rule the watch out for me.

[DDG]

I like the lugs on the Omega

[carlhaluss]

The short answer is: Yes, I agree with you. The Omega PO is the best one of the bunch.
Have to admit, I am quite partial to the PO. Actually, the Sub looks a better size to me, but lately I have been into the smaller watches overall. In these photos, the GMT IIc actually looks like a "clunker". Almost like the lugs should taper a bit more, or the lug width should be a bit wider. I think that Rolex makes all their bracelets the same width - 20mm - so I find that on some of the bigger watches, they do look a bit disproportionate, that is on the narrow side.
As far as luxurious feel goes, the GMT IIc was the very first Rolex I ever tried on. I must admit it had that "feel" to it, especially the bracelet felt solid and almost silky as it went on. Much like I would describe the Milgauss as far as feel goes, but I think the Milgauss is a better looking watch.
I have tried on a PO - the 42mm size, I think the 45mm is just too big - and I really liked it. I think with the Limited Edition Liquidmetal version, that Omega is going the right way. I would really like to see one in the flesh, and not just photos. If they made some similar changes to the present PO, like applied numbers and applied Omega logo, I think it would be better as well. That is what they do on the Liquidmetal model.
I actually prefer the way that Omega does the date. The black background and lack of cyclops window gives the dial a much cleaner and proportionate look. I personally would like the date a lot better on both watches, if it was at 6 o'clock instead of 3 o'clock. I like the Oris diver watches for this reason, I think it gives the entire dial a much more symmetrical look.
Having said all this, I would likely still get the Rolex. My favourite being the no-date Sub. My AD still has one - lug holes and all - and I tried it on last week. If I had the funds, that would probably be a watch that I would have bought on the spot.
My Explorer I, however, really is the only watch I need or want at the moment.
Great post!

Cheers,
Carl

[Renoir]

The *picture* of the Omega is the best.

[bluemartinifan]

Welcome to the forum - its great to have different points of view to discuss.
I owned the PO for 6 months - really nice watch - it really is - but I didn't catch myself looking at the PO 50 times a day like I do w/ my Rolex....
I bought and own a 14060 and GMT. People rarely sell Rolex to buy Omega.

Please keep comparrison pictures of the same quality!!!

[mike]

It's an age old arguement that has no real answer (though it sometimes leads to a spirited discussion).

In some sense it's an apples and oranges thing. The Sub is an old design (even by Rolex standards) yet still seems to be watch others are compared to.

Whether this is right or wrong again is a subject for debate. Perhaps a better comparison would be the PO to the new Submarimer on it's way. A bit more of an apples to apples comparison.

Movements are always part of the mix and no I don't think Rolex makes the "best" though to be honest I don't know what that is. I do know Rolex makes one of the most rugged movements on the planet (experience) and in the end that to me is what a sports/professional watch is all about.

For the "best" of the three by far is the GMT. Again that's based on my usage of a watch and not anyone else's. I do think the GMT (and the coming Sub) will set the bar.

I've owned a couple POs and yes I've had the clasp pop open. I've also had the clasp pop on a GMT (admittedly an older one), but it can and will happen to all of them.

In the end each offers a lot, but comparisons are so subjective. Kinda like spending the crazy amounts of money we do on a watch.

[warrior]

Welcome to the forum! I like Rolex alot and have a GMTII and have had Subs and currently own a PO. Seems we have similar perceptions.

A good many ( not all, of course!) here don't own too many other brands. I own a PO and think it's superior to the Sub. The PO picture reflects the quality of the piece IMO. If you're looking at prestige and reputation, the Sub is going to win hands down. And, quite frankly, that's the determining factor for what many prefer.

Me? I love both Omega and Rolex. ( FWIW...even with the updates on the GMTIIC, I prefer the old school GMTII on looks alone)

[springbar]

Originally Posted by landroverking

The only thing I don't like about the Seamaster is the release crown at 11. This would rule the watch out for me.

The numerals on the Omega have always struck me as awkward. They're extra-wide but on a straight baseline, rather than concentric with the dial.

But those are details. Squint your eyes and look only at proportions. The Sub stands out.

[warrior]

Aesthetic beauty is subjective, but the Planet Ocean takes its styling cues from classics Omega seamasters, not Rolex subs.


As for the can't afford comment, that might be true for many non-watch enthusiasts. But, there are plenty of watch enthusiasts out there that can afford both and own the PO and not the Sub. Just take a look outside the Rolex forums.

Originally Posted by thesharkfactor

to answer the Q..

i thnk the sub looks like the best crafted and luxurious, even discreet against the other 2 examples. simplistic and smooth features against the other 2- which are looking to catch attention with bold designs..

if anything- the omega design is a spin off the sub design, to perhaps make it appeal to those who cant yet afford the rolex?

lovely watches all 3, but the submariner has my vote. ultimately, its the one they all try to copy- that's why its stood the test of time- such a popular and classic refined and subtle design, appeals to the masses with great sucess.

[Mamaseta]

Originally Posted by landroverking

The only thing I don't like about the Seamaster is the release crown at 11. This would rule the watch out for me.

Agreed, to my taste, the release crown gives it a bulky look but are both beauties just a matter of preference.

[PeteNYC13]

Originally Posted by Fozzy

The quality of the bottom two shots is just awful. Try staging the shots of the Sub and GMT rather than snapping them with your iphone.

__________________________________________________ _____________

Well, he used one photo without asking...it's not a "fashion" shot, it's a picture of it on my wrist!

-Pete

[PeteNYC13]

Originally Posted by D_o_S

Hi guys,

consider the following 3 images please:

Now, set aside the brand. Which watch looks the most well made, the most exclusive, the most luxurious to you?

I know this is a Rolex forum, but I think some multi-brand owners will (maybe) see what I'm getting at. Doesn't the PO just look the "best" in terms of craftsmanship? If the brand logos were erased, don't you think you'd stop by and ask someone what watch they were wearing in case of the PO, but maybe not so in the case of the other 2 (Rolexes)?

Don't get me wrong, I am a Rolex fan. But somehow, the Sub just gnaws at me for what it is and what it could be. I can appreciate a classic (like a Porsche), but I cannot appreciate an something that looks old for the sake of not improving it in any way.

Let's take the Porsche as an example. The design principals of the 911 have stayed the same ever since, but over the years, modernization has taken place, and you can undeniably tell (i.e. anyone that has a moderate interest in cars) a 993 Porsche from a 997.

With the Sub, to me, it seems like Porsche trying to sell a 993 today, because "it's the eternal classic" and "why fix something that isn't broken". I mean, look at the PO's case, the combination of brushing and polished edges, the index markers, the dial... Then look at the Rolex - doesn't it seem old? Compare the bezels. Take a look at the bands - both are brushed, if that's your poison, but the PO undoubtedly has a better clasp. I doubt it has ever failed on anyone. Yet till now, Rolex has stuck with a piece of bent metal... Look at the glass - the PO has antireflective coating on both sides (I'm guessing), wheras the Rolex has none.

Now look at the GMT II c. This, in my opinion, is a step in the right direction (the case size is acceptable for me at this level). The ceramic bezel adds to the luxury feeling. The PCLs also improve the overall impression. But then there's the maxi everything, which sort of takes away from the appeal...

Does anyone understand? In brief, do you think you're paying for more than the brand with the Rolex? I mean, Rolex has become such a status symbol, yet at times (like now), I feel it has just ridden it's wave of success, and not done much to strengthen its position. Omega, on the other hand, has worked its way up, and I would not hesitate to call it among the most bang for buck watches.

Some may retaliate that's a Rolex is about the movement, not the case. Come on, do you really think Rolex makes the best movements? Look at AP, PP, VC, Breguet, JLC etc... they obviously CAN be bothered to make a nice case for their movement.

In summary, did anyone ever feel like people will buy a Rolex no matter what, even if it was a low quality piece (like chinese quality), but still had the Rolex logo on it, people would still buy it? And it would still be so highly regarded?

Looking forward to your opinions, and please don't think that I'm bashing Rolex, I'm just trying to understand.

(On a side note, I think the DJ models are much more representative looking, or the Explorer I, but that has a DJ-like case, and the story behind it is sort of weird... I think if Rolex could sort of shift their dress/suit-like thinking into their sports range, it would be for the better)

__________________________________________________ ______________

First of all, I am not happy that my photo was used without asking for the purpose of your little test! I am not sure of the rules regarding using other members photos but I would request that you ask a Member before using their photo to prove how "old and poor" the watch is!


"Then look at the Rolex - doesn't it seem old? "

How old are the other two watches? Did you ask me about my watch, do you care?! That watch has been worn 99% of the days since October 2001 in almost every condition - I actually think it looks pretty F'in good for a 9 year old watch!

This is my first personal attack against anyone on TRF - you earned it (in my opinion). If you don't like the quality of Rolex, good for you...just leave my picture out of it. The Sub is one of the best selling watches of all time, surely you can find another picture.

Not sure if a MOD can take my picture off of his post?!

Also, here is a "staged" shot of the Sub - you tell me if it still looks old and poor for a 9 year old watch - ****! - self edited to keep me out of trouble!

-Pete

[hooliganhooker]

Pete,

The OP was (IMHO) starting a discussion on the differences between the two watches: good, bad, whatever. I don't believe he used your photo as an attack on you or your watch, but it has now turned into that.

Thanks.

[PeteNYC13]

Originally Posted by hooliganhooker

Pete,

The OP was (IMHO) starting a discussion on the differences between the two watches: good, bad, whatever. I don't believe he used your photo as an attack on you or your watch, but it has now turned into that.

Thanks.

__________________________________________________ __________

I agree that it wasn't intentional but if you take a photo and use it, then "mock" the watch and the photo, you should think of the consequences.

There are millions of Sub photos, I don't post mine to be used as an example compared to a staged photo of a newer watch - my watch or not, it's not a fair comparison as others have pointed out.

Either way, as one poster said, there aren't a lot of Rolex for Omega trades but I bet there are a ton of Omega (and cash) for Rolex trades.

I think some battles are worth fighting and in this case, the OP wasn't thinking about other people when he "made his point".



-Pete

[D_o_S]

Sorry Pete for using your picture without your permission, however, rest assured that my thoughts and ideas were in no way directed towards your watch, but towards the Submariner in general (as with the other watches).

Since it appears I cannot edit my post, I would like to ask a MOD to replace Pete's picture with this:

(IMG from Overkill, Watchuseek)

Pete, thank you for the staged pic as well, but I was looking for wrist shots more... should you have any you think would be suitable in comparison to the PO/GMT2c, please post them.

Again, I was just comparing model to model, not anyone's specific watch.

Thank you to everyone for the discussion. To those who mentioned the new sub - do you not feel thought that it has lost it's classic proportions? I have also looked at pictures of the YM - this looks like it is "better made", but then, it doesn't have the history behind it...

[Mystro]

I love my Sub and will never sell it but I do believe the word "classic" is used too much to describe the Sub especially now that it is considered a mid size watch. I have had my Serti Sub now for over 12 years and Rolex has yet to come up with something new I want to buy.

Kinda similar pics:



I must admit, I do like my watches to "pop".

[CDNWatchNut]

I've had my PO for just over 3 years now, and it's not going anywhere
However, I still find myself "needing" a ND sub.

I have to agree that the pictures in the original post did not present all of the watches fairly in the same light. The last picture you posted DOS did better justice to the sub, and is a more fair comparison.

I don't think that the PO and sub can really be compared fairly by the same criteria, as aside from both being dive watches, they were designed (IMO) with significantly different intentions. The PO is certainly more eye catching, and "fashion-like" (no flames please, I'm actually a big fan of Omega, and I'm fully aware of the connection to design cues of the early seamasters, so I say this with absolutely no malice), wheras the sub is essentially, pure business. Both watches are very well executed for what I think, was the original intent of their designs. Which is "better" really comes down to what you're looking for in a watch...for me...I'll take both please

Just my 2c.

[DS_Obsessed]

Yuck. Personally, when I was young, I never once was like "when I make it I'm going to buy an omega PO.". I was always a rolex.

If I was to deviate from Rolex it would be with an IWC, AP, VC, pan, hubolt, or PP. The PO is a cool watch, but really not on my radar.

[warrior]

I think the spirit of the original post was a comparison of quality...not price or demand. The Sub is a classic and certainly a very fine watch. I've owned the Sub Date and NoDate and still have the PO.

The debate as to which is better between the PO and Sub will never end. But, this much is clear to me....the quality is alot closer than many Rolex enthusiasts will admit to... or know. You can simply get a feel for that from some of those that own/ have owned both and are posting in this thread. If you're solely looking for quality, the Rolex name only goes so far...especially amongst watch enthusiasts. The PO has a pretty rabid following in watch circles.

EDIT: the above poster DSObsessed is a case in point to what I just said.

Originally Posted by PeteNYC13

__________________________________________________ __________

I agree that it wasn't intentional but if you take a photo and use it, then "mock" the watch and the photo, you should think of the consequences.

There are millions of Sub photos, I don't post mine to be used as an example compared to a staged photo of a newer watch - my watch or not, it's not a fair comparison as others have pointed out.

Either way, as one poster said, there aren't a lot of Rolex for Omega trades but I bet there are a ton of Omega (and cash) for Rolex trades.

I think some battles are worth fighting and in this case, the OP wasn't thinking about other people when he "made his point".



-Pete

[Nicko]

Doesn't the PO just look the "best" in terms of craftsmanship?

One word answer....


Wait for it.....






























NO!

[ersnyder]

Originally Posted by bluemartinifan

Welcome to the forum - its great to have different points of view to discuss.
I owned the PO for 6 months - really nice watch - it really is - but I didn't catch myself looking at the PO 50 times a day like I do w/ my Rolex....
I bought and own a 14060 and GMT. People rarely sell Rolex to buy Omega.

Please keep comparrison pictures of the same quality!!!

Had THIS shot of a GMT been used in the original 3 choices, it would have won hands down! Great shot!

[Speed]

Originally Posted by PeteNYC13

__________________________________________________ ______________



Also, here is a "staged" shot of the Sub - you tell me if it still looks old and poor for a 9 year old watch - ****! - self edited to keep me out of trouble!

-Pete

GREAT SHOT PETE!


Re: the OP comments. This is a no-win /endless "religious" debate ala the ones we used to have (not so much any more) between Mac Vs. PC. Fun stuff...can get heated, but diff'rent stroke for diff'rent folks is what it boils down to.

[PeteNYC13]

Originally Posted by Speed

GREAT SHOT PETE!


Re: the OP comments. This is a no-win /endless "religious" debate ala the ones we used to have (not so much any more) between Mac Vs. PC. Fun stuff...can get heated, but diff'rent stroke for diff'rent folks is what it boils down to.

__________________________________________________ ___

Thanks, not that my ego needed it, but I couldn't get the SUB to come out of the watch drawer this morning, he was so embarrassed

Again, I wasn't so upset that he chose one of my poor pictures, just that it wasn't a fair "fight" between all of the watches based on the chosen photo. It's fun to watch the Sub owners rally! lol

-Pete