Rolex Sub C LV vs Omega 2011 Ti PO

[hunz]

These are priced roughly the same. The Sub C LV maybe a tad more expensive.

• 3135 vs 8500 movements
• Both ceramic bezels. but PO has LiquidMetal numerics
• Green vs Blue
• Gloss/metallic vs Matte dial
• 904L vs Titanium, and consequently Heavier vs Lighter
• 40 vs 60 hour power reserve
• Steel vs Clear case back
• 1 vs 4 year warranty
• Glidelock clasp vs Standard clasp
• 40mm vs 45.5mm
• "Rolex" vs "Omega" design
• "Rolex" vs "Omega" history/brand
• Rolex vs Omega resale value - if it matters to you

(Please correct me if I have any details wrong).

Ok these are most of the differences, which one would you choose and why?

Head vs Heart decision?

[z32turbo]

I choose the Sub C LV based on desire of the heart and value from the head. Hope this helps. LV C Sub seemed to be more rare yet more recognizable than the PO. Just my $.02

[jmsrolls]

I'm not into Ti and the 45mm is too large so I'll keep my current PO LM.

Even with the cal 2500 movement, I prefer what I have to the Sub C LV.

I still maintain that the design of the Rolex ceramic bezel is superior to the Rolex ceramic.

Fr. John†

[barstoolman]

I think the better comparison is the original PO Liquid Metal.........Stainless Steel, 42mm, Liquid Metal Bezel........

[Walton]

Originally Posted by jmsrolls

I'm not into Ti and the 45mm is too large so I'll keep my current PO LM.

Even with the cal 2500 movement, I prefer what I have to the Sub C LV.

I still maintain that the design of the Rolex ceramic bezel is superior to the Rolex ceramic.

Fr. John†

Edit: nevermind, I assume you like the omega more...

[wokafu]

I dont think LV's color is for everyone...me in particular like the Omega better

[jmsrolls]

Oooops . . .

The sentence in my previous post should have read:

"I still maintain that the design of the Omega ceramic bezel is superior to the Rolex ceramic."

Fr. John†

[Mike B]

Personally, if it were me, I'd pick the Sub.

[xjeeunitx]

Originally Posted by Mike B

Personally, if it were me, I'd pick the Sub.

I feel the same way...

It's because of the blue that Omega is using. It's kind of......boring.

[hunz]

Comparison photos..

[exxondus]

SubC LV.

45mm is just too huge for my. Prefer 40-42mm watches.

[Dob]

Originally Posted by hunz

Comparison photos..

Precisely because it is not overpowering like a bright or electric blue would be. I could see wearing it as an everyday watch that would not clash with other colors.

[hunz]

Thanks for all your responses guys. For me a couple of key questions:

1. thickness - the Ti PO is around 16mm? the Sub C is around 12mm? -- so for wearing with dress shirts, cuffs, the Ti PO may well be too thick

2. is the Ti Case and bracelet are SOLID titanium?

[LeOnfromtheblock]

Originally Posted by exxondus

SubC LV.

45mm is just too huge for my. Prefer 40-42mm watches.

Exactly the same way for me. I would seriously consider this watch but the size and to a lesser extent the thickness is just too much. Cant wait till more pics come out of the Ti PO but I heard production is going to be very slow so could be awhiles.

[Loki1979]

Is there any material difference in the movements of these two watches? I know the 8500 Calibre is still fairly new and I worry that it won't stand up over time. I also heard that it has much fewere revolutions per minute which could cause it to lose time faster.

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by Loki1979

Is there any material difference in the movements of these two watches? I know the 8500 Calibre is still fairly new and I worry that it won't stand up over time. I also heard that it has much fewere revolutions per minute which could cause it to lose time faster.

The two movements are quite different in how they operate. The co-axial escapement system has been optimised in the new cal. 8500, and, in the 3 or 4 years it has been around, has already proven itself to be very reliable and accurate. That will only be strengthened with the introduction of silicium hairsprings, making that part of the movement impervious to the effects of magnets. It has a slightly lower beat rate (25.2k bph vs 28.8k bph in the Rolex, or 7 beats per second against 8 in the Rolex) as that is the optimum rate for a co-axial based movement. The beat rate difference would have very little impact on accuracy, a lot more depends on how each individual watch is regulated. There's no way to tell how the movement will last in 20 years' time, but I think the fact that Omega are willing to put a four year manufacturer warranty on the movement is testament to just how confident they are in their product. I think it could well push Rolex into introducing a replacement for the 20 year old cal. 3135, as the cal. 8500 is demonstrating a quantifiable superiority in several areas.