At what point does price become an issue in changing what you want?

[SirLoki]

i say get the one that feels the best on your wrist, as well as the one that brings the biggest smile to your face.

for me, price comes second only to my needs and desires, of course this is after i have already set myself a price point that i am willing to spend. Sometimes you might set yourself up at a higher price point and not only get the piece you want but at a much lower price then the point you set.

my own personal experience: my most recent purchase was a u-boat classico and my intentions were to purchase a railmaster xl or speedmaster Omega. After trying on several pieces, i purchased the u-boat because the overall look and feel for me was above the other pieces, i tried all 3 of them on at the same time and i just had a more pleasent feeling with the u-boat. The kicker was it came in at less than half of the Omega pieces. The omega pieces though were all very nice but when i tried them on in person they just did not give me the feel on my wrist as the u-boat.

simply my point is dont end up picking up a piece that just doesnt feel right, i have known people that have bought pieces after simply seeing them on the internet and 2 weeks later selling them off because they just didnt feel right, for example even if the rolex comes in at a smokin deal, if the Omega makes you more content then go for that, its better to have a piece that makes you content rather then a $6000 mistake.

[larsr]

IMHO, I wouldn't underestimate the re-sale value issue in making your decision.

[rowlex]

I have quite a few Rolex watches but my daily wear for some time now is an Omega Seamaster I like the watch but my main reason is that I find it hard to see my Rolex watches with the exception of my Gmt without reading glasses. At the end of the day value wise the Rolex is a far better move because the Omega although just as good of watch has poor re-sale value in comparison to the more prestigious and coveted Rolex.

[Perdu]

If you really don't care about resale the Omega does have some points. It's a larger diameter than the DJ, but I think it's thinner. The design is quite unique and stylish and you will not see it on everyone's arm. The new ca.8500 movement looks very impressive: the latest thinking in watch movements.

The DJ has the well known and renound cal. 3135 and the design is timeless, although very pedestrian.

You are going to have to try them both on. They will both keep excellent time.

[Strut99GT]

Originally Posted by Perdu

If you really don't care about resale the Omega does have some points. It's a larger diameter than the DJ, but I think it's thinner. The design is quite unique and stylish and you will not see it on everyone's arm. The new ca.8500 movement looks very impressive: the latest thinking in watch movements.

The DJ has the well known and renound cal. 3135 and the design is timeless, although very pedestrian.

You are going to have to try them both on. They will both keep excellent time.

Thing is, I like the white dial, or at least straight black, with the two-tone rose/stainless. The new AT with the 8500 has a grey dial, and that doesn't sit right with the TT look to me. The AT I like has the white dial and the 2500 movement.

I'll say this about the way they feel: The Omega feels like it's the right size, but the bracelet feels "too light," because when tried on simultaneously with the Rolex, the thinner Rolex bracelet is heavier! It's just a broadcast message that the Rolex's gold is solid gold while the Omega has gold capping on the center links.

So it's a tricky thing, that "feeling" we get when we wear watches. I like the feeling of the heavier gold, but I like the Omega's look just as much, if not more.

I have been saving money while trying to figure out what I want, and I can tell you guys what will probably make the difference: I love both watches, so I'll probably end up getting what I perceive to be the better deal at the end of the day. Because I LOVE getting great deals!!! Especially in a situation like this where I love both of them.

Like for example, I was on a site the other day that had a two-tone rose/stainless datejust, but black dial, arabics, smooth bezel, oyster bracelet. i.e. every spec had nothing to do with what I wanted. BUT, it was $4800, I think - a GREAT deal, and a 2007-ish watch. If I were to find my DJ or TOG pre-owned at less than $5K, that would probably catch my attention!

[Strut99GT]

Originally Posted by TempoKing

I think lower than 6850 could be achieved.

Btw, have I mentioned I love this forum? Thank God you guys actually talk about pieces and actual prices here. It's like I'm in reality, as opposed to some other places where all discussion of how much a watch costs seems very hush-hush.

[Porsche]

If you are never going to sell them, then I would also be concerned with longevity, parts availability, servicing etc.

Would be a shame to find that parts are no longer available in 20 or 30 years, or even sooner.

Who has the better reputation for looking after vintage? Omega or Rolex???

Never say Never

[Rawhyde]

Originally Posted by Strut99GT

Such is the quandry of being a watch fanatic. I mean, seriously, if a Patek were the same price as a Rolex who would buy a Rolex instead? :P

I would take the Rolex in a New York minute over the Patek. I appreciate the craftsmanship and fine work in the Patek-Phillipe watches, but when I'm laying down my hard earned cash, I much prefer the robustness and longevity of the Rolex models.

[Strut99GT]

Originally Posted by Porsche

If you are never going to sell them, then I would also be concerned with longevity, parts availability, servicing etc.

Would be a shame to find that parts are no longer available in 20 or 30 years, or even sooner.

Who has the better reputation for looking after vintage? Omega or Rolex???

Never say Never

Right there, you've hit upon something else important to me - I never plan to sell it, so on the same token, I need to make sure that the thing can be serviced and have parts available for it for a long time! And no one is more consistent than Rolex.

[Defiancekofb]

In terms of Pedgree and Prestige, Rolex obviously is the clear winner. What your decision comes down to is price and money. You say that the monetary value has no bearing, but yet you still point to the cost differential within the two timepieces. If you really need the differential funds to do something else with, then purchase the Omega. If not then purchase the Rolex, I had the same conundrum as you did, First I purchased a Breitling, but after couple months of ownership, my brain kept pulling me back to purchasing a Rolex. Eventually it got so bad, I took the plunge. If you don't need the difference in funds for an emergency, then go with the Rolex. Like you said with Rolex and Patek, if people had the funds they would go with Patek. Omega and Rolex, I would go with Rolex.

[Strut99GT]

Originally Posted by Defiancekofb

Like you said with Rolex and Patek, if people had the funds they would go with Patek. Omega and Rolex, I would go with Rolex.

Nah, I said that if the quality and craftsmanship remained the same, yet you just happened to be able to buy the Patek for the same price, you'd choose the Patek. But you might not pay double for the Patek even if you liked it just a little bit better than the Rolex.

[Defiancekofb]

Originally Posted by Strut99GT

Nah, I said that if the quality and craftsmanship remained the same, yet you just happened to be able to buy the Patek for the same price, you'd choose the Patek. But you might not pay double for the Patek even if you liked it just a little bit better than the Rolex.

I agree, their are people that still have alliance to Rolex, regardless of their income bracket. Even if some people could clearly afford a Patek, I doubt they could thrash the Patek like you could a Rolex. Rolex is made to be rugged, sporty, basically indestructible. I bet you get dent in a gold Patek, the repair bill would be half the MSRP of the watch.

[Strut99GT]

Is a DJ as "indestructible" as the sport watches? Isn't it the same movement?

[Singslinger]

Originally Posted by flyback

Me. I completely disagree with the almost-automatic concession that a Pateks (or any other brand) are somehow provably "better." For example, if you really like the Submariner, there is nothing in the Patek lineup that's even comparable. The same is true even of the Datejust. This all boils down to taste.

There was a debate here a few weeks ago where some people were pretending that this or that brand was objectively superior to Rolex. Well, a $250K handmade tourbillon on an alligator-skin band isn't superior at all if what you really like is something more along the lines of an Explorer II.

In this case, we're comparing an Omega Aqua Terra and a Rolex Datejust as if the only difference was the brand name. That's not the case - what about the fact that the two watches actually look different? To the OP: which design do you like more?

Totally agree. Most (maybe all?) Pateks can't take the punishment Rolexes can take for the simple reason that they're not designed to. I wouldn't use a Patek to dive or play soccer, but I would with a sports Rolex. Don't get me wrong, I think Patek make fantastic watches with some wonderful movements but they're not for me.

As for the original question, I'd have to say that I like Omega as much as I like Rolex, though I - like many others - perceive the Rolex name to be slightly superior to Omega and so am willing to pay extra for it.

[Strut99GT]

Originally Posted by Singslinger

As for the original question, I'd have to say that I like Omega as much as I like Rolex, though I - like many others - perceive the Rolex name to be slightly superior to Omega and so am willing to pay extra for it.

Will to pay double for the name, though?

I am indifferent toward the name, but am willing to pay a lot extra for the solid gold in the bracelet. But double - not so sure.

[zak98]

omega does offer a very good value for the amount spent. IMO...