Datejust 36 SS Smth Bezel or AT 8500

[runner1]

Good evening,

Gents...looking to purchase one of these two mentioned. I would love to hear your thoughts on these pieces and why you would choose one over the other. Thanks

[zeuloa]

Dj

[77T]

DJ with domed bezel is better engineered IMHO than the AT 8500.

But if Omega = Rolex in your mind, it comes down to cyclops vs. no cyclops.

If you want a deeper dive, then an old 2010 review on WUS by 'tfar' had the following observations:

"This is a comparison review between the Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra 8500 Co-Axial and the Datejust/OP series. It is posted here to avoid biases and bickering in the respective brand fora and to give it good exposure for the benefit of those who seek info on the subject.

Why is it important to compare these two watches? Two reasons. First, both watches are meant to be able to serve a man or a woman as a “one-watch” for all their life. They are among the very rare watches that will go from beach to boardroom or even ballroom without a glitch. They both have achieved a near perfect balance of sporty and elegant and they have very similar features and even sizes. Thus they are direct competitors. Second, Rolex has stood without a challenge to the crown for a good 30 years or even more. This particular watch has the stuff it takes to set an end (Omega is the last letter of the Greek alphabet) to the crown’s story.

I have hence structured the comparison in three parts. Things that I find the Omega has to its advantage, things where I find the Rolex wins and issues that can easily swing one way or another. I hope you find my outlook on things fair and equitable. I think it is, as I have nothing to gain from being biased against my own decisions.

Advantage Omega AT 8500

The Omega has the longer power reserve and a two barrel movement. 60 hours (62h have been reported) versus 50h for the Rolex.

Both watches are COSC but Omega is said to now regulate their watches to a 4 second range. I have not heard of an Aqua Terra running worse than +2 per day. But I have heard and owned Rolexes running worse. I do know that Rolexes can also run close to zero but it would seem that Omega is leading by a nose length in the accuracy department.

The independent hour hand is a clear advantage for the traveler. No more stopping the movement to set the time.

The same goes for the really easy and quick date change via the hour hand jump. This feature works better in reality than I thought it would. And the date can be changed forward AND backward.

The Omega does have a 50% higher WR rating at 150m despite it’s crystal back. The back is screw-in by the way.

The Omega also has a 50% longer warranty for three instead of two years. This even applies when bought grey.

It is a “fancy feature” the Rolex lacks. It makes sense because the Rolex 3135 movement is nothing big to look at. The AT 8500 movement clearly has the nicer finish. World’s first rounded Geneva stripes all over the bridges and rotor, blued screws, beautifully colored jewels, quite a few chamfered and polished edges, red inlaid engravings. Really, for an industrially produced movement this is probably as good as it gets.

Even the exterior finish is at least in the same class if not better than Rolex. For example the crown has alternating polished and matte ridges and the Omega symbol sits polished on a matte background. The hands and markers are white gold, too, but on the Omega they also play with the light through polished and brushed surfaces and chamfered edges. Very detailed and intricate. The teck dial, inspired by teak planks on a boat deck, is at least as elaborate as anything that can be found on a Datejust without going nuts with diamonds. The case sides are brushed, which makes wonderful sense. These are the surfaces that are most prone to scratches and on a brushed surface it’s much easier to get them out yourself. Easy everyday maintenance is a clear advantage in my book.

The crown is easier to grasp and turn because it is bigger and offers a better grip.

At the same time it is better protected because it screws down half-way into the case. Integrated crown guards so to say. Cool.

Things look similar for the crystal. It doesn’t protrude as much over the bezel as on the Rolex and has thus less exposure to chipping.
It is also domed and AR coated from both sides, which results in better readability. From certain angles you really think there is no crystal.

The bracelet and it’s nicely integrated double deployant clasp are on one level with the new Jubilee bracelet but more elegant than the Oyster bracelet and clasp and at least as secure but more secure than the Jubilee. Center AND end links are solid. The full bracelet is brushed except the polished sides. That makes it much easier to maintain a finish yourself as opposed to the polished center links in the Rolex models.

The movement is groundbreaking for Omega and for watch making. It is the first really new and innovative “workhorse” movement from anyone in years. It is conceived in-house with the help of watch making legend George Daniels and production is supposed to be transferred to Omega from ETA soon. This will make it a complete in-house movement. The machinery and standards of production up to 1/1000 of a millimeter set a new level for industrial production. The co-axial escapement is supposed to prolong the service interval. If this turns out to be true it will be a clear advantage. Other horological details are at the same level as the 3135 and even the new updated version of it, once the Silicon hairpspring is used. You can already get that in the ladies’ model and the Aqua Terra Annual calendar. While the movement has more power reserve and more torque it is also flatter by a little bit which is quite an achievement. This flatness doesn’t however translate to a thinner watch. I presume that’s because of the sculpted dial and indices and the display back. Still the proportions are spot on.

There is more lume on average than on the Datejust series. This makes for better readability at night. But the hour hand is only lumed at the tip which needs some getting used to.

Not everybody has one (yet). Personally, I find this a great advantage. While the Datejust is an icon and has deserved its crown, it has also become really common. Given that Omegas production numbers are lower, I suppose the AT will never be as common as the DJ.

The Omega, finally, is undeniably the less expensive watch - a clear advantage for me, especially in light of its accomplishments and how it compares to the Rolex DJ. It is at least as good or better but costs between 15 and 50 per cent less than the Rolex, depending on discounts and models.


Now let’s see how the old Rolex stacks up against the young kid on the block (Omega is the older brand, btw).

Advantage Rolex Datejust

First and foremost, the brand’s prestige and recognition is not easily topped and clearly stands above Omega. No flames please!

The Rolex movement has proven reliability and accuracy records and is a very fine, rather high-end movement, that is industrially produced in-house. The new Omega Cal. 8500 has the potential to unseat the 3135 but it will have to prove its meddle first. I’m not so sure for example how the tiny tolerance co-axial escapement will respond to shocks. I haven’t heard anyone reporting of failures yet but we’ll have to see. I give the 3135 the benefit of doubt.

The DJ is an iconic design, there is no way around it. It also has one more size variation to choose from and sheer countless bezel, dial and bracelet combos available. OTOH, this also makes it easy for the specialists to pick combos that really look bad.

It will be much easier to find a good choice of 20mm lug size leather straps for the Rolex than 19mm straps for the Omega.

Not all versions have great lume on the DJ. But if it has lume, it has lume also along the hour hand. I think I prefer that to only the lumed tip on the AT.

The DJ has a quick-set date. Yes, it is quicker than the AT method but not by much and it only moves in one direction.

The jump date on the Rolex is more instantaneous. It really snaps. On the AT it seems it first moves a little bit and then it snaps.

The 36mm version is flatter than the 38.5mm version on the AT. Personally, I like that.

Due to the slightly slower beat rate, the second sweep is not quite as smooth on the Omega.

The new Rolex clasp style, while bigger than the AT clasp, has more micro-adjustments and the Easy Link system. So you have to choose between elegant on the AT and practical on the DJ for the Oyster. If you choose the new Jubilee, the Jubilee will be even more elegant but the Omega more secure.

The shine and bling of a fresh Rolex is amazing and it clearly stands out against the Omega on this point which is much more subdued. I guess that’s not a clear advantage for the Rolex but for some people it might be. I like both, so I gave them both a “+” on that issue. This is mostly due to the 904L steel which achieves a higher polish and is 3x more expensive. BTW, that translates to about $4 more of material cost, if that.

The Rolex will probably have the higher resale value but it also has a much higher entry price. If we look at resale value as percentage of purchase price the two might not be too far apart. But probably Rolex gets the point here.


We see that most Rolex advantages aren’t as clear-cut as the Omega advantages already. Let’s get to the issues that can really swing both ways or are matters of taste.

Undecided

The display back on the Omega is more susceptible to breakage than the Rolex steel back but it is less susceptible to scratches that occur far more often and easily than breakage. I think it’s also esthetically superior and it still provides superior WR rating.

Loupe or no loupe? That is the question.

DJ 36mm version a bit small for many today but Datejust 2 just looks terribly proportioned, whereas both AT versions look well balanced and it just depends on your wrist size and preference which one you choose.

Design that everyone will recognize on the Rolex. Some think that’s good, others would like something more discreet. The branding is particularly discreet on the silver/white model where the applied logo and the printed very small writing really blend with the dial. Can’t say that for the Rolex crown.

The Omega design with the teck dial and lyre lugs is a bit retro. I think that’s good, as in the last 20 years there was not a single model that really sang to me, whereas the classics from the 50s and 60s were always singing to me. But it might be not forward enough for some. Not that the DJ design is forward. ;)

The second/minute track around the dial of the Omega is not exactly wonderful (if remotely useful) but the Rolex Rehaut is seen by many as terrible (and really has no use).

The Omega has lume also on the second hand. Some will like that others not.

The Omega in 38.5mm weighs 150g with all links. The DJ in 36mm with all links of the Oyster bracelet weighs around 110g. So the Omega will feel like the more substantial watch. However, when you have them on the arm, you will forget they are there for both of them.

The ticking of the Omega is marginally louder than that of the Sea Dweller which is most likely due to case construction. But it also has a little ring to it, like a bell. I find that quite pretty but it could be interpreted as sounding cheap."

[Boothroyd]

Appreciate that post ^^^^^^^^^^^^ above.

[psv]

Dj

[Smaug]

This is not really complete, without photos, is it? Yet, I'm too lazy to go and find them for you, hehehe.

I think this comes down mostly to case design. Do you like the Rolex better or the Omega? If you like the Rolex's better, then it doesn't really matter what is inside.

However, the movement in the Omega is loads better than that of the Rolex. The Rolex 3135 is 24 years old now, and STILL doesn't have a ball bearing winding rotor.

Omega is regulating to +/-4 and more commonly getting to +/-2... that is fantastic. My brand new Explorer last year was running about +11 out of the box. FAIL Rolex, fail.

Power reserve... once one hits a solid two days, it doesn't really matter any more to me. That means I could pick up this watch and wear it only every third day and still be OK. Or every other day, and it would still be in the prime spot of it's mainspring torque.

Rolex may still have the better recognition and resale value, but it is changing. Omega has about doubled their prices in the last 10 years.

The smart thing to do, IMO, would be to buy one of each, clean USED, for the price of a new Rolex.

[warrior]

For me, Aqua Terra by far. More advanced movement, more interesting dial.

[Wristmaster]

Imho, the answer is always rolex, unless if compared with omega speedy even daytonas will put up a good fight.

[Zilla99]

DJ. I love mine. Here is a shot of the one I just picked up with silver stick and wonderful lumes. Sleek and iconic indeed, but at the end of the day it is your own personal preference and what grabs you. 77T did a perfect job breaking down all angles for both watches. For me, I have a rather smaller wrist so the 36mm is perfect as well.

[acce1999]

Originally Posted by runner1

Good evening,

Gents...looking to purchase one of these two mentioned. I would love to hear your thoughts on these pieces and why you would choose one over the other. Thanks

Very interesting quote posted by 77T!

My personal preference is (so far) Rolex, due to several reasons:

Proven movement, style (unchanged for so long time) - I absolutely love the look of the Oyster case and bracelet, experience - Rolexes have served me well for many, many years.

But, I have Omega on my "track record", and am following the experiences noted on forums on the new Omega inhouse caliber. I would be surprised if I did not add an Omega to my collection.

Since my preference, when it comes to Rolex, is the older style I would seriously look at the Omega AT if comparing to a brand new DJ.

Best,

A

[acce1999]

Originally Posted by Zilla99

DJ. I love mine. Here is a shot of the one I just picked up with silver stick and wonderful lumes. Sleek and iconic indeed, but at the end of the day it is your own personal preference and what grabs you. 77T did a perfect job breaking down all angles for both watches. For me, I have a rather smaller wrist so the 36mm is perfect as well.

What a beautiful picture!

Although I just wrote that I prefer the older style ... your's is such a fresh modern version of my 20 year old version:



Edit: And comparing the 16200 with the 116200 (and also with the older 16000 and 1600) it is quite obvious how careful Rolex have been to evolve the style and still keep the iconic design elements. Comparing the 16200 and the 116200 it is also obvious how big the difference of the bracelets are. Well worth considering!

Best,

A

[The GMT Master]

Had this Aqua Terra been out when I got my Datejust, I wouldn't be a Rolex owner right now

[Gerardus]

DJ no doubt!

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by Smaug

Omega is regulating to +/-4 and more commonly getting to +/-2... that is fantastic. My brand new Explorer last year was running about +11 out of the box. FAIL Rolex, fail.

How is that a fail?

That's not typical and the watch could have been regulated under warranty.

The problem with this statement and the tfar review is that they are completely subjective and don't consider the full capability of the watches.

Tfar depends on hearsay and your example includes the performance of one watch in the matter of movement performance.

My new Sub according to the watchmakers timer was running +12 when he tested it at my request when I picked it up at the AD.

I decided to wear the watch for a week or so to see how it went and it has run about +2 sec./day since.

At any rate, how a watch performs out of the box, says nothing about how it will run after it is regulated.

There are always subjective components to any evaluation of almost anything, but there are also variables that are purely objective and need to be presented objectively to be valid.

Which watch is the favorite of any individual is a matter of individual taste, but your statement and tfar's "review" are too subjective to be taken seriously.

[azguy]

sometimes I wish everyone's stock answer here wasn't Rolex......

[smartson]

Price differences aside, both AT and DJ are comparable in quality and style. AT is 41mm and slightly more edgy while DJ a little more elegant. Try them both and decide for yourself.

In the end, DJ got my vote. But I won't hesitate to put on a AT either.

[Rags]

I'd go for the DJ w/oyster bracelet

[capote]

Originally Posted by acce1999

I really like this one
As far as Rolex vs. Omega goes buy whatever makes you happy. The both make great watches.


I think the numerals makes this a bit too sporty.

The older version was dressier IMO. Pics off the internet.

[bigwatchman]

Easy... AT.

[77T]

Originally Posted by Smaug

This is not really complete, without photos, is it? Yet, I'm too lazy to go and find them for you, hehehe.

I think this comes down mostly to case design. Do you like the Rolex better or the Omega? If you like the Rolex's better, then it doesn't really matter what is inside.

However, the movement in the Omega is loads better than that of the Rolex. The Rolex 3135 is 24 years old now, and STILL doesn't have a ball bearing winding rotor.

Omega is regulating to +/-4 and more commonly getting to +/-2... that is fantastic. My brand new Explorer last year was running about +11 out of the box. FAIL Rolex, fail.

Power reserve... once one hits a solid two days, it doesn't really matter any more to me. That means I could pick up this watch and wear it only every third day and still be OK. Or every other day, and it would still be in the prime spot of it's mainspring torque.

Rolex may still have the better recognition and resale value, but it is changing. Omega has about doubled their prices in the last 10 years.

The smart thing to do, IMO, would be to buy one of each, clean USED, for the price of a new Rolex.

Without commenting on the other parts - I definitely like the last idea of this post. You get two, and can decide which to keep if one disappoints.

[warrior]

Great pic of the teak dial and brushed/polished hour markers and hands on the AT

Originally Posted by capote

I really like this one
As far as Rolex vs. Omega goes buy whatever makes you happy. The both make great watches.


I think the numerals makes this a bit too sporty.

The older version was dressier IMO. Pics off the internet.

[zeuloa]

Originally Posted by acce1999

What a beautiful picture!

Although I just wrote that I prefer the older style ... your's is such a fresh modern version of my 20 year old version:



Edit: And comparing the 16200 with the 116200 (and also with the older 16000 and 1600) it is quite obvious how careful Rolex have been to evolve the style and still keep the iconic design elements. Comparing the 16200 and the 116200 it is also obvious how big the difference of the bracelets are. Well worth considering!

Best,

A

You've hit the nail on the head. Rolex slowly evolves, while Omega has become to jumpy I think. They change styles, movements, have tons of special editions, and it all seems to happen too quickly.

For me, I like looking at a 60 year old Datejust and know my 116200 has direct DNA from that model.

[Dedot]

Have been meaning to attach the photos. AT 38.5mm vs DJ36mm.
The AT wears bigger than DJ and sits higher too. I love both of them though..
Good luck and cant go wrong with either of those.

[runner1]

Awesome photo's!! Thanks

[KtownGreg]

While I appreciate the classic nature of the DJ, I believe the AT provides a unique alternative. Quite versatile.

[Tan]

DJ for sure.

[runner1]

Thank Fellas for all your suggestions/advice. After trying both AT and DJ this weekend I have decided to go with the DJ just felt better on the wrist however, I really wanted the AT to be the one! OK....now which dial White, Blue,or Black?

[capote]

Originally Posted by runner1

Thank Fellas for all your suggestions/advice. After trying both AT and DJ this weekend I have decided to go with the DJ just felt better on the wrist however, I really wanted the AT to be the one! OK....now which dial White, Blue,or Black?

Rhodium stick dial