PO or Sub?

[salty_snack]

Originally Posted by SUPERDOC

The Dummy emoticon is a bit much I would say...

I will concede that the 'lack of technology' statement was hyperbole..but I stand by my statement that Rolex's rise during the Quartz crisis Was NOT an intentional strategic move.

Fact is, the Beta 21 which was THE movement for Swiss Quartz, and to which Omega contributed, and likely on which Omega spent a fortune, along with many other swiss houses that perished.

Rolex was initially involved, but couldn't easily put the Beta 21 into the Rolex Oyster case ...(you can find some Rare Rolex Betas in at auction) , so Rolex started focussing on their own 'in-house Quartz' but that one was fairly late to the Party - (1977) and was an Expensive endeavor for Rolex, and if you look at the numbers of production - very limited...

Just imagine if the Beta 21 would have fit into an Oyster case...
They may have gone down the same road as so many others...

The fact that it took Rolex an added 5 yrs of research and Development to release the OysterQuartz suggests that they did not have at their disposal the same technologies as the Swiss watch 'Cartel' that funded the Beta 21 which was out in 1970...

I'm sure that there are inaccuracies in the above statements - and feel free to analyze with the scrutiny of a prosecuting attorney...

Just, if you please, try not to call me a dummy. I think that kind of thing betrays the civility of this forum.. We're all here because we have something in common...Lively debates such as Rolex vs Omega shouldn't turn ugly..

This is wealthy individuals debating over luxury goods that are all ridiculously overpriced....like someone said..the Casio beats all on every merit..

This whole hobby is laughable, so please try to be in on the joke..

How in the hell did this thread about the sub vs PO become a debate whether rolex was on the frontier of the quartz crisis???? Who cares, quartz sucks, and we all know most people who sing the praises of the PO, or any middle of the road luxury watch really, and trash another competitor for no good reason at all are just insecure children.

And let's just be honest. Rolex and omega don't make these watches for divers anymore. Which is why it's dumb that the PO is so overbuilt to have a 600 m rating simply so that some fool will think he's really special because his dive watch can go down 600 m and will never go more than to the bottom of a swimming pool once... if that.

[salty_snack]

Unless you want to trash hublot... They have it coming.

[NoVaSubowner]

PO or Sub???

Yes....

[improviz]

@superdoc, my point was and is that your original statement, which was this:

Originally Posted by superdoc

...Rolex did not rise to its place during the and after the 'Quartz crisis' because of a conscious decision to stay automatic...they 'Pulled a Homer' - they simply lacked the technology and capacity to go quartz...

That was and remains my point of contention: they not only had the technology and capacity, they produced a movement. "Lacked the technology" is the key point, not any of the stuff you raised afterwards: if they lacked the technology, well, they couldn't have produced and released watches with in-house movements using that technology for roughly 25 years, now could they?

In fact, when they pulled it they had already developed a replacement w/perpetual calendar, but seem to have decided to shelve quartz production, probably for the same reason any other company ceases production of a model lineup: they weren't selling well.

Originally Posted by SUPERDOC

I will concede that the 'lack of technology' statement was hyperbole..but I stand by my statement that Rolex's rise during the Quartz crisis Was NOT an intentional strategic move.

And I would simply reply that the five years spent on R&D for development and release and production for 25 years of a Quartz product line was, prima facie, an intentional strategic move.

Originally Posted by SUPERDOC

Fact is, the Beta 21 which was THE movement for Swiss Quartz, and to which Omega contributed, and likely on which Omega spent a fortune, along with many other swiss houses that perished.

Rolex was initially involved, but couldn't easily put the Beta 21 into the Rolex Oyster case ...

Rolex was also a contributor to CEH, and produced 1,000 watches containing the Beta 21 movement per the Oysterquartz.net page I referenced previously. They were obviously not happy with its inability to fit into an oyster case, doubtlessly one reason they abandoned it and developed their own.

Originally Posted by SUPERDOC

The fact that it took Rolex an added 5 yrs of research and Development to release the OysterQuartz suggests that they did not have at their disposal the same technologies as the Swiss watch 'Cartel' that funded the Beta 21 which was out in 1970...

They did have them at their disposal, but were obviously not happy with the Beta 21, which led them to pull out of the consortium and design their own quartz movements, the 5035/5055, which they produced for 25 years.

Apologies for the dummy. Also, apologies to others for off-topic stuff, this will be my final post related to well-documented facts that anyone interested can easily look up at oysterquartz.net and elsewhere.

[donq]

Seems odd that they would develop an entirely new movement in order to fit in to an existing oyster case, and then make an entirely new case for it...

[SUPERDOC]

Improviz - No hard feelings at all.

I appreciate the education, went back and read the info, and definitely can concede to the points you made, and am willing to admit where I'm in error.

I also agree with 'Salty Snack' - in that i have no idea how this thread took such a hard left turn.

I think it just echoes how much emotion these timepieces can elicit...this is why we think nothing of paying what we do...as a piece of metal that tells time, they aren't worth the price, but as sentiment, they become priceless...

Anyway as for PO vs Sub - I still say its not about the specific timepiece, its more about the statement you hope to make..

[improviz]

Superdoc, likewise, no hard feelings! Agree with you: the passion these little hunks of metal elicit is irrational, logical, and quite frankly, kinda nuts when you stop and think about it!!

Which brings us full circle back to the topic at hand: people can certainly make subjective areuments as to why one is (in their opinion) "better" and the other one isn't, but rationally speaking, there is no definitive way to establish one subjective opinion as the clear winner over another, so here we are caught in another infinite opinion loop!

[mikkibarry]

Originally Posted by Dream99

I'm afraid that when women wear a watch its reduces its street cred as a mans watch. How many women wear the 45.5 mm PO. Case dismissed, PO all the way
And as for the movement comparison... Rolex need to up their game very soon I think. Just my 2 cents worth.

Uh.....really? A woman's use of an object decreases its "manlyness?" I don't know whether to feel insulted or just laugh...

[subtona]

Its very shiny

[mikkibarry]

Originally Posted by salty_snack

And let's just be honest. Rolex and omega don't make these watches for divers anymore. Which is why it's dumb that the PO is so overbuilt to have a 600 m rating simply so that some fool will think he's really special because his dive watch can go down 600 m and will never go more than to the bottom of a swimming pool once... if that.

I have to have a little chuckle inside at the whole "how low can it go" deal. Personally, I've seen just as many really cool creatures and beautiful coral formations at 40 feet than I have at 150. And unless you're a tech diver, you likely shouldn't go beyond 120 anyway. My GMT pressure tests fine to 200 feet, and I'm plenty happy with that idea :-)

[dbelle7]

Originally Posted by Dream99

I'm afraid that when women wear a watch its reduces its street cred as a mans watch. How many women wear the 45.5 mm PO. Case dismissed, PO all the way
And as for the movement comparison... Rolex need to up their game very soon I think. Just my 2 cents worth.

So are you saying women don't dive or don't need watches or that women in general just aren't that credible?

[Lisa]

Originally Posted by Dream99

I'm afraid that when women wear a watch its reduces its street cred as a mans watch. How many women wear the 45.5 mm PO. Case dismissed, PO all the way
And as for the movement comparison... Rolex need to up their game very soon I think. Just my 2 cents worth.

WTF? I don't use those letters often but what you've just stated is a huge affront to women. Where do you get off saying such a thing? There are several women on this forum and many of us enjoy wearing large sized watches. I'd advise you to reel in the attitude.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by Lisa

WTF? I don't use those letters often but what you've just stated is a huge affront to women. Where do you get off saying such a thing? There are several women on this forum and many of us enjoy wearing large sized watches. I'd advise you to reel in the attitude.

x1000!

[pdoukas]

My wife wears my 1675 on an oyster from time to time and I gotta say, she looks friggin tuff wearin it. I sure Lisa, Mikki, Doc Linda and a few others would agree, they don't wear them to emasculate the brand but are quite aware of how reputable and reliable the brand is. Nothing wrong with a woman wearing a mans watch......I kinda think its sexy!

[Art 1]

Originally Posted by Dream99

I'm afraid that when women wear a watch its reduces its street cred as a mans watch. How many women wear the 45.5 mm PO. Case dismissed, PO all the way
And as for the movement comparison... Rolex need to up their game very soon I think. Just my 2 cents worth.

[finaloption]

Sub, but can't go wrong with either

[FeelingTheBlues]

Originally Posted by wantonebad

The answer to the "PO or Sub" question is clear, the answer is YES!

Unique watches with great manufacturers and pedigrees, they aren't the same watch so it's totally acceptable to own both, as many here do...

I think you really nailed it Marc, both are great looking watches and I for one admire both brands for the high quality products they can offer. The only thing I have against the PO is its size, 42mm and 45.5mm are too big for my tastes so I would probably go with a Submariner (at least as a "first") but I did own a SMP a few years ago and enjoyed it a lot (though I don't think I could wear one again given my new interest for smaller watches).

Originally Posted by Dream99

I'm afraid that when women wear a watch its reduces its street cred as a mans watch. How many women wear the 45.5 mm PO.

That's a pretty out of line comment Alan, not only does it not prove anything but it's also sexist and inappropriate.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by Dream99

I'm afraid that when women wear a watch its reduces its street cred as a mans watch. How many women wear the 45.5 mm PO. Case dismissed, PO all the way
And as for the movement comparison... Rolex need to up their game very soon I think. Just my 2 cents worth.

Another smart woman chiming in here....my first thought is that you must be single. Second thought? You will probably stay single as long as you exhibit that kind of sexist attitude...

[Art 1]

Originally Posted by kcmo

Another smart woman chiming in here....my first thought is that you must be single. Second thought? You will probably stay single as long as you exhibit that kind of sexist attitude...

[seporith]

[Quote]:
Originally Posted by Dream99
I'm afraid that when women wear a watch its reduces its street cred as a mans watch. How many women wear the 45.5 mm PO. Case dismissed,. Just my 2 cents worth. [Quote]
Respectfully; Observing a lady that has an appreciation for "Quality" in her watches and not just wearing it for jewelry is a major attraction to some of us & I would much rather see a Lady that takes care of herself wearing & sharing the interest of it than any other man with it. Anthony

[cedargrove]

Originally Posted by Dream99

I'm afraid that when women wear a watch its reduces its street cred as a mans watch. How many women wear the 45.5 mm PO. Case dismissed, PO all the way
And as for the movement comparison... Rolex need to up their game very soon I think. Just my 2 cents worth.

Actually this was one of my reservations when buying the 45.5mm PO - the bravado from some who say you have to wear a large watch to be a man.

I didn't want to be perceived as that d-bag sporting a big watch, but fortunately I am secure enough that I buy what I like.

I am also secure enough to encourage my wife to wear my watches without worrying about 'street cred'.

[Rockrolex]

Originally Posted by Dream99

I'm afraid that when women wear a watch its reduces its street cred as a mans watch. How many women wear the 45.5 mm PO. Case dismissed, PO all the way
And as for the movement comparison... Rolex need to up their game very soon I think. Just my 2 cents worth.

What kind of cretinous idiot are you anyway? And don't mess with me. I've got the power and you don't.

[hpowders]

My wife prefers the "old school" smaller watches. I got her a diamond faced Lady Datejust. I believe it's only 26mm, but that's what she wanted. I can barely read the dial, but she's happy.

Wear what you want. Who cares?

[Planet E.]

Originally Posted by AK797

Old sub and ceramic PO were comparable but the fit, finish and build quality of the new subc is a big step up. Just a turn of that ceramic bezel and a switch of your glidelock reminds you of this every time.

very true.

The PO looks awesome, but built quality and thoughtfulness has to go to Sub.

[MP5]

Any reason you acted they way you did? You seem very reasonable in your follow up post but the absolute rejection of fact and reality for an emotional defense is bizarre. My usual excuse is Scotch

Originally Posted by SUPERDOC

Improviz - No hard feelings at all.

I appreciate the education, went back and read the info, and definitely can concede to the points you made, and am willing to admit where I'm in error.

I also agree with 'Salty Snack' - in that i have no idea how this thread took such a hard left turn.

I think it just echoes how much emotion these timepieces can elicit...this is why we think nothing of paying what we do...as a piece of metal that tells time, they aren't worth the price, but as sentiment, they become priceless...

Anyway as for PO vs Sub - I still say its not about the specific timepiece, its more about the statement you hope to make..

[SUPERDOC]

Originally Posted by MP5

Any reason you acted they way you did? You seem very reasonable in your follow up post but the absolute rejection of fact and reality for an emotional defense is bizarre. My usual excuse is Scotch

lets not make it seem like I was killing baby seals here...

The Rolex and the Quartz crisis is actually a big soft spot for Omega -

The Comments and arguments I made were actually ones made by Mr Urquhart himself at dinner last month...only difference was that he was preaching to a choir, therefore no one was there to challenge him with references to the Oysterquartz..

Would have been interesting to see how he would have responded...

So I stand by emotion vs fact, and probably some Omega Brainwashing (but I am a willing volunteer for that)...


oh... and Vodka

[steveclocks]

Originally Posted by improviz

Superdoc, likewise, no hard feelings! Agree with you: the passion these little hunks of metal elicit is irrational, logical, and quite frankly, kinda nuts when you stop and think about it!!

Which brings us full circle back to the topic at hand: people can certainly make subjective areuments as to why one is (in their opinion) "better" and the other one isn't, but rationally speaking, there is no definitive way to establish one subjective opinion as the clear winner over another, so here we are caught in another infinite opinion loop!

I agree 100%
Everything is a question of certain tastes too

[steveclocks]

by the way guys, I liked every single bit of the discussion on this thread.
Different opinions and tastes that's what makes it so interesting here.
You Always learn something new too (at least I still do!)

[Dream99]

Originally Posted by Lisa

WTF? I don't use those letters often but what you've just stated is a huge affront to women. Where do you get off saying such a thing? There are several women on this forum and many of us enjoy wearing large sized watches. I'd advise you to reel in the attitude.

You are missing my point because like all women you have to prove something where as men do not.
The sub has turned into a unisex watch where as the Omega PO has not because Omega make a smaller size for the smaller wrist of the female of the species
so thats my point ok

[Dream99]

Originally Posted by Rockrolex

What kind of cretinous idiot are you anyway? And don't mess with me. I've got the power and you don't.

Who are you calling names that's a sign you have no class and why you probably wear Rolex.