Sub > PO

[GTS Dean]

Originally Posted by zeroshiki

I tried on the PO, both 42 and 45, they're really nice for sure. But i'm not really convinced with omega's servicing record or facilities, from the website info, its either swatch service center or omega boutique for any kind of services. And from the forums, it doesnt come cheap too.. 900 usd ish afaik.

Until omega can provide solid servicing facilities and records, i am not going to touch those in house cal 8500 watches. Part of watch ownership is a little bit like automibile ownership. One must consider after sales service, resale value, et cetera. Not just the product's looks or quality alone.

My only experience with Omega Service was recent - and with the Seattle center. Top notch.

____________________________
TT OysterQuartz
SS/Black "U" Daytona
TT GMT II-C
DD OysterQuartz
Brietling Aero
Omega Speedmaster Pro

[Speed]

Omega service center in San Francisco charges $20 to put a strap on a Speedmaster :-(

San Francisco RSC has done complex resizing, insert changes, pressure tests for gratis!

[dlhussain]

Originally Posted by sleddog

Perhaps, and your response was only compounding the issue further!!
My response was to you both.

Good thing you edited your post also....

I thought you were the other chap, then I read again and realised you were a different member... So hope I didn't offend you?

[submariner66]

I have been looking at buying a watch for several years now, too many actually, and one thing or the other always put it off. When I was ready to buy in 2007 I was very interested in the Omega watches specifically the 2812.30.37, a Seamaster Aqua Terra Chronograph, very pretty watch. But still that got delayed and I was put off by comments made by the salesman, the price, the value and when I was ready to buy again they had changed up the models and this Seamaster was no longer available. That in and of itself was telling. I did not like any of the current models, in fact they all looked rather flimsy. Another strike! A dealer in New York who sold both had termed the Omega's as "fashion watches". I was starting to see what he meant. When you compare it to a Rolex that holds its value at least, I dropped the idea of investing in a watch like that. So with everything combined, I turned to look at Rolex. So I recently bought the new sub-c nd. I'm very happy with it. I do love and respect the Omega's history/design, they have made some incredible looking watches in the past, and would love to buy an older model, I just would not know what to expect for my money, so I would wait and learn a bit more first, in the meantime I have a great start to a collection. I think thats the real fun of it- collecting what you love and having a little something of each one that you fancy, hopefully, even if it is a small collection.

[How]

I must correct... being the owner of 3 Omegas and 3 Rolexes, I can say that in some respects Omega quality is as good as, and even better than, Rolex.

[submariner66]

Is the Omega a mechanical watch as well? Do you think the movements are comparable in quality, reliability, longevity, craftsmanship, etc.?

[gwalker]

Originally Posted by submariner66

Is the Omega a mechanical watch as well? Do you think the movements are comparable in quality, reliability, longevity, craftsmanship, etc.?

Yes. Omegas top of the line PO has the cal 8500. In many ways it is superior compared to the 3135 Rolex uses. They have a better power reserve, co-axial escapement, almost everyone I've seen keeps almost perfect time. Only time will truly tell how durable it is but IMHO Rolex needs to add something to the dated 3135. If the 8500 proves durable as most think it is it will be considered by almost everyone superior. It an awesome movement but it's dated and the technology is out there to significantly improve parts of it. I'm a huge Rolex fan but I don't think there is a better value than the omegas with the 8500 or 9300 (chronograph)

[Singslinger]

Surely price should be a factor in this discussion?

The older 42mm PO's MRSP is 30% less than the Sub C's, while the new PO with the caliber 8500 movement has a MRSP that's about 20% cheaper than the Rolex.

The 8500 Omega has a depth rating of 2,000 ft versus the Sub's 1,000 ft. It has a greater power reserve of 60 hours versus 45 for the Sub and the warranty period is 4 years versus 2 for Rolex.

Assuming the discounts are the same for both brands (they aren't because Omega is more generous but for argument's sake let's assume they are) then IMHO the Omega 8500 represents better value for money.

Of course, it isn't a Rolex and yes, the Sub's adjustable bracelet is superior...

[poppydog]

I have a Seadweller and a Sub and two POs. I don't consider them to be comparable insomuch as they're different watches and I own them for different reasons. One thing that always confuses me, though, is why people consider the PO to have a "better" bracelet than the SD / Sub (pre glide-clasp). I've always thought this was a misconception based on the weight and solidity of the links of the PO: in my opinion, the SD / Sub bracelet has a more solid construction - it's not the links that make either bracelet strong / durable, it's the pins / screws that hold them together. Also, the deployant construction of the PO is of three seperate pieces of steel that allow more lateral movement (when open) than the Rolex. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Omega - I love my POs, but to me, the Rolex bracelet is a tried and proven design: I've had a friction pin in one PO work itself out, and one clasp broken simply from taking the watch on and off. And, the latter was the middle pin of the clasp mechanism and when I took it in the the AD, it had to go back to Omega for a new clasp!

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by poppydog

I have a Seadweller and a Sub and two POs. I don't consider them to be comparable insomuch as they're different watches and I own them for different reasons. One thing that always confuses me, though, is why people consider the PO to have a "better" bracelet than the SD / Sub (pre glide-clasp). I've always thought this was a misconception based on the weight and solidity of the links of the PO: in my opinion, the SD / Sub bracelet has a more solid construction - it's not the links that make either bracelet strong / durable, it's the pins / screws that hold them together. Also, the deployant construction of the PO is of three seperate pieces of steel that allow more lateral movement (when open) than the Rolex. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Omega - I love my POs, but to me, the Rolex bracelet is a tried and proven design: I've had a friction pin in one PO work itself out, and one clasp broken simply from taking the watch on and off. And, the latter was the middle pin of the clasp mechanism and when I took it in the the AD, it had to go back to Omega for a new clasp!

Hi Steve,

Omega have resolved the issues you mentioned - they have changed the construction of the bracelet to a screw and pin system, and the new clasp is very nicely engineered too. I would recommend checking out the new one at an AD, the improvement is quite noticeable! I have also seen plenty of old-style Rolex clasps wear out and break along the hinge (the weakest point), again, that has been resolved with their new designs

Chris

[00pumpkin]

I had a 42mm PO that I had to let go and Ive missed it ever since. Great watch, kept incredible time, looked fantastic on bracelet or strap!

[poppydog]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

Hi Steve,

Omega have resolved the issues you mentioned - they have changed the construction of the bracelet to a screw and pin system, and the new clasp is very nicely engineered too. I would recommend checking out the new one at an AD, the improvement is quite noticeable! I have also seen plenty of old-style Rolex clasps wear out and break along the hinge (the weakest point), again, that has been resolved with their new designs

Chris

Cheers Chris

Point taken and I was, as you know, referring to the 2500. I did have a quick look at a 8500 but only very briefly since I don't like display backs, and didn't think to look at the clasp construction. I still do think, however, that when people say the PO bracelet is "better", they are probably doing so in the context of aesthetic design and "feel" as opposed to efficacy, but ultimately, discussion is what these forums are for eh?

Cheers bud

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by poppydog

Cheers Chris

Point taken and I was, as you know, referring to the 2500. I did have a quick look at a 8500 but only very briefly since I don't like display backs, and didn't think to look at the clasp construction. I still do think, however, that when people say the PO bracelet is "better", they are probably doing so in the context of aesthetic design and "feel" as opposed to efficacy, but ultimately, discussion is what these forums are for eh?

Cheers bud

Absolutely Steve - debate and discussion is the lifeblood of our hobby! Agreed that is very hard to define what is physically better and what is merely perception - I would say, however, that Rolex hit an absolute home run with Glidelock, I've yet to find another bracelet that can be adjusted so finely and so easily. It's just a shame they didn't put a show-stopping movement in the Sub as well to match the beautiful engineering of the bracelet, clasp and bezel - if they had, I would say that the Submariner was unquestionably the finest diver's watch on the market

Chris

[Submarino]

Love me some PO!!!