moving from an explorer 2 to a seamaster gmt...

[taxico]

preface: i like rolex watches. i own a few of them. i like them all.

i gifted a white exp2 (superluminova SEL 3186) to my dad and he likes it.

my wife bought a black exp2 (superluminova also) and wears it on a strap as her wrists are too small - she likes it too.

until recently, my beater has been a white exp2 (dead tritium non-SEL oysterlock) worn to hell and back.

there's a myriad of reasons why i kept my exp2 in the cupboard and got the black seamaster gmt, the details of which i will explain... maybe at a later time, but it has something to do with RSC giving me a lot of grief.

anyhow, i note that the seamaster gmt (SM GMT) is usually compared with the rolex gmt master 2. i thought i'd add my own impression of how it compares with an explorer 2 instead.

any comments i did not make i probably don't care about (eg, the wavy black omega dial vs a glossy white rolex dial & slightly domed omega sapphire crystal vs flat rolex sapphire crystal - no difference to me as they are both legible to me) or because i feel there is no real difference.

all opinions expressed are my own... and i hope i'm entitled to them:

i like that the SM's case is only slightly thicker than the exp2 yet it's WR to 300m. although i have worn my exp2 while scuba diving, doing so with the SM makes me feel better.

compared to the white dial exp2 (trit or SL), the SM's superluminova dial is wonderful at night, and the fat sword hands are easy to read when i've just woken up (the black exp2 is only marginally easier to read when i first awake).

on the SM the black background of the date wheel, black dial and window frame makes the date window appear bigger bigger although it probably is not (but the dates are printed bigger). my exp2 is without cyclops and the date window looks kinda awful.

although on a glossy dial this is difficult to notice, i wish rolex had kept the nice edges on the date window like on the old plastic sub date.

i like the fact that the serial is located on the lug of the SM instead of hidden between lugs.

i like the SM's rotatable bezel, but don't like the fact that it's difficult to grip. even though it has no minute marker, it can be (to some extent) used as a improvised timing bezel by using the triangular marker.

the case back is interesting to look at... and i like it because it raises the watch higher than my exp2 does, just like the rolex sub i used to own, to a comfortable height.

i don't like the SM crown guards because they look ugly (IMO) and they hide too much of the skinny crown (again, IMO) but the crown is easy to use and is the smoothest ETA i've ever wound - on par or perhaps even better than my rolex watches (!).

i don't like the sound of a moving ETA rotor - i'm too used to the silent rolex axle. i also prefer the fact that a free sprung rolex movement with microstella screws are better on paper and is more stable in real life.

what i'm amazed at is the fact that the modified ETA movement is so accurate - i've always read of omega 1120/1128 calibres being accurate but this is my first experience with an omega modified ETA and i'm quite blown away by it. it is as stable as a tudor modified 2824 (later tudors have a triovis fine regulator but omega retains the semi-fine etachron'esque regulating screw).

function-wise, the movements in both watches do the same thing EXCEPT the 3185/6 snaps the date over but the 1128 takes about 1.5 hours to roll the date over. i very much prefer the rolex over the omega in this aspect. compared to a 3185, the omega wobbles less when adjusting the hour hand. this was corrected in the 3186.

this SM GMT is a shiny watch. it's not OTT or breitling-like but shinier than my exp2 because of the partially polished lugs and bezel. the white version of the SM GMT is all matte so that option is available for people who dislike polished watches...

although only a few millimeters wider in diameter, the SM wears bigger. it is also slightly more comfortable to wear than the exp2 because it sits higher. it also looks more contemporary than the exp2... which uses a very traditional (dare i say "aged"...?) oyster case.

the SM's watch case doesn't look as good when paired with an after-market strap (IMO, except for the isofrane). the sport oyster case always looks good on any strap.

i prefer the oyster bracelet as it has micro-adjustment holes, but i think the speedmaster-style bracelet is equally comfortable although it can only be adjusted via full or half links. the longer buckle on the SM is as scratch prone as a shorter oysterlock buckle.

i bought my first exp2 when the white versions were sold for a premium over the black... it was retailed at a very reasonable price compared to what they now go for. the SM GMT was not available at that time so i don't know what would be the price difference.

today, a pre-owned exp2 can buy 2 pre-owned SM GMTs. so my question was: at half the price, is the SM GMT half the watch when compared to the rolex explorer 2?

[i didn't want to compare bracelets as the exp2 does not have a diving bracelet... and my own exp2 does not have a SEL bracelet... BUT...

i don't like the fact that although the SM has SEL, it still causes wear/indentation marks on the rear of the lugs. the way rolex did their SEL is much better as the wear takes place in out-of-sight areas.]

the execution of the ETA movement is unique, and i think not available to any other brand. ditto for the 3185/6.

the crown and tube of the 300m WR SM are also replaceable, making it rather comparable to the ones found on the oyster case when it comes to WR, longevity and serviceability.

it would also help if i were to use the SM's rotatable bezel to "counter" its deficiencies listed above and to bolster it.

with the 3 points in mind, 3x the WR, and similar performance + functionality, i think this watch is in no way half the watch when compared to the exp2 but is good value for money at 50% the price of an exp2.

if you're unsure about the exp2 (the price can only go north over time) or want a dive watch with true gmt function, the discontinued SM GMT is safe and sensible choice.

(i cannot say the same about the co-axial seamaster gmt as i am not a co-ax/daniel's convert - i don't think i will be until more watchmakers examine a 15 year old 28.8bph co-ax movement [930x?] and they all give it a thumbs up)

p/s: sorry, no pics at the moment. i'll post them when i get some taken.

[Perdu]

We will look back nostalgically to the days Omegas were great value for money.

[bayerische]

Yes, some omegas are pretty cheap compared to Rolex... Then again, hard to say who is over inflated...

[Mitchbo]

I have a white faced SM GMT and agree with many of your opinions. I have been eyeballing Exp II's lately. I have laid the the EXP and SM GMT side by side and found that the SM had much more wrist presence. I concluded that: one, I had made the best choice for me by going with the SM GMT and two, If I do decide to get another Rolex it will probably be a Coke or Pepsi GMT II. (Although the price difference between the GMT II and the Exp II on the secondary markets do cause one think twice.)

[dddrees]

Good comparision, thanks for sharing.

[jmsrolls]

I love the "Great White", the white dialed SMP GMT. So much so that I have owned four over the years. My only problem was that they do not wear comfortably on my round wrist.

After selling the last one I owned, I bought an EXPII but missed the convenience of the rotating bezel. I flipped it for a TT GMTIIc but did not care for the ceramic bezel, PCLs, and almost invisible fourth hand. Earlier this year I acquired an M/3186 GMTII Coke, a classic.

But I still miss the "Great White."

Fr. John†

[WJGESQ]

The Omega certainly looks and feels better. Most of the Seamasters seem well weighted and solid whereas the Explorer felt a bit dainty to me.

[robertneville]

Originally Posted by WJGESQ

The Omega certainly looks and feels better. Most of the Seamasters seem well weighted and solid whereas the Explorer felt a bit dainty to me.

different grades of ss. i have always liked the weight of my omegas...

[WJGESQ]

Originally Posted by robertneville

different grades of ss. i have always liked the weight of my omegas...

Seriously? I did not know that. I just know that most of the Rolexes I handled, did not feeel like an expensive watch at all to me. My Speedmaster date, Chronodiver 300 and Jumbo Planet Ocean felt like money. I thought I had to have a Rolex--until I handled one--pure Omega from that point.

[taxico]

what's a thread without (blackberry) pictures...



head olone, the omega definitely feels heavier than the rolex.

when mounted on a rubber strap, the omega flops around more.

seeing some pictures online reveal that there's an anti-mag cover within.

the omega is also slightly thicker and bigger in size. so, definitely heavier.

the omega's bracelet is also heavier and more solid in feel, when compared to the rolex.

i attribute this to the solid center link and larger/thicker clasp. i would prefer it to have a foldover (a la fliplock) clasp and have micro-adjustable holes.

the 93150 clasp is nice, but only if the rivets were user-friendly screws/pin and collar systems (like in this seamaster) so they were easier to replace when worn out...

ah, i nit pick too much.