WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rolex vs. Omega Quality

215K views 341 replies 108 participants last post by  GaryF 
#1 ·
Here is a question to those that own both. If you had to compare build quality on like models
Omega Seamaster or a PO vs a Rolex Sub or a sea dweller
Omega Speedmaster vs Rolex Daytona

What would you have to say? Better, Worse, the same?
 
#2 ·
I have the Electric Blue, Great White, PO and SD. I can honestly say I can't really tell the difference between the built quality. I haven't had any problem with any of them. I would assume the Rolex would be higher built quality since it costs more than twice as much, but you're talking about between 99% and 100% here. Omega is definitely better bang for the bucks.
 
#4 ·
I have the Electric Blue, Great White, PO and SD. I can honestly say I can't really tell the difference between the built quality. I haven't had any problem with any of them. I would [BOLD]assume[/BOLD] the Rolex would be higher built quality since it costs more than twice as much, but you're talking about between 99% and 100% here. Omega is definitely better bang for the bucks.
ASSUME!!!
 
#7 ·
I always get trolled on questions like these..

I like the omega looks better.
 
#10 ·
I recently ran into this situation when I purchased a Rolex yachtmaster a month or so ago. Now a few months prior, I purchased a seamaster 300 2255.80 which I absolutely love. When I got the Rolex home, I spent hours comparing it to the omega and lo and behold I preferred the quality of the omega, especially the bracelet. Now, I'm not Saying the Rolex was not high quality because it was, but there is also a HUGE price difference and IMO for this particular model I was quite disappointed. Next day I returned the Rolex, the omega remains my daily driver.
 
#11 ·
I don't think quality is the determining factor between Omega and Rolex... they are both very well known, established brands that are known for their fantastic time pieces. I feel this question is not the question to be asked because there is no clear answer.
 
#106 ·
Having owned 3 different Rolexes, and now the proud owner of my first Omega, let me say this: Yes, Rolex are very well made, as are Omega. To me, the price difference reflects not some intangible difference in quality of materials, construction, or workmanship, it reflects Rolex's powerful advertising campaign of the last several decades. I got hooked on Rolex for the same reason as others: some movie or TV star (in my case, Tom Selleck on "Magnum P.I.") was constantly flashing his Rolex, and I wanted that watch.
The general public knows that Rolex is some kind of expensive, high-quality watch that rich people or people of status wear. Drive around the freeways of LA, and you will see gigantic billboards for Rolex. In the months before Christmas, the sports, political, and news magazines will have gigantic, full-page ads for Rolex. Through its advertising efforts, Rolex has become the 800 pound gorilla of wristwatches. It looks like Omega wants to muscle into this territory, and to me the watches, themselves, are every bit as good as Rolexes (Rolexi?). Looking at the 2500D Planet Ocean on my wrist, right now, I cannot tell you why someone should pay thousands more for a Submariner, even if money is no object.
The lady in the office next to me is very nice, I like her, but she is one of those people who wears alternate $5,000 watches on various days of the week, and for her (and her husband, who buys them) these watches are jewelry, not watches. She checks the time on her cell phone, while wearing a Bulgari on Monday, a Cartier on Tuesday, or a Rolex on Wednesday.
One thing I must say is that the lume on this watch (the Planet Ocean) is beyond my wildest expectations.

So the question isn't which watch is better: the question is why are you buying a watch? Is it because you want a well-made Swiss watch, or because you want a status symbol? Where do you fall on a continuum between those 2 ideas? I believe that DOXA owners fall at one end (well-made tool watch), Omega owners to the right of them i.e. in the middle of that continuum, and Rolex owners (those who are not Watchuseek members!) fall far to the right. Bear in mind that DOXA owners buy their watches knowing that the average Rolex owner (along with most people, in general) never heard of DOXA, while most (not all, but most) Rolex owners buy their watch for the brand recognition. I think that we Omega owners fall along a wide spread along the continuum.
 
#21 ·
like I said... we always get trolled on this threads :p

now who is better Justin bieber or lady gaga.... THATS A THREAD..
 
#23 ·
I have owned a Datejust, Explorer 1, and a Submariner...all the older style.

I currently own the Sub still and from Omega owned a Speedy Pro for a few weeks and now an Aqua Terra.

Personally I find that beyond the name brand and the in house movement (for what that is worth) there was very little that the Rolex excelled at...in fact beyond the bracelet and how it attached to the head I would say Omega was on the whole the better watch.

The new Omega pieces look even nicer.
 
#25 ·
What would you have to say? Better, Worse, the same?
The 2500 based Omega watches can't really be compared to current Rolex because they are discontinued, only those with the 8500 could be as they have Si14 balance spring and balance wheel with 4 screws for better regulation (the 2500 only has a pair of screw and no Si14). However the dual-barrel setup with only a couple of hours more than a single-barrel movement doesn't sound like a winner in term of power reserve to me (they are automatic after all).
 
#31 ·
2500 is still a production movement, and regardless of dual barrel the fact is the PR is longer at 60+ hours, LVT it seems there is nothing Omega can do right in your book.

Omega - I have previously owned several Speedies & Seamasters, 2 POs and currently have a 3570.50 Speedy and an X-33

Rolex - I have a 16610 Sub and Tudor Big Block Chrono

Honestly, the crown is the main detail on the Rolex that is substantially better. Buttery smooth to wind and screw down.

Most other details seem fairly equal, really comes down to personal preference. Even between the less expensive Tudor vs. Rolex, both of the watches have the same exact oyster style bracelet, the Tudor in 316 steel and the mythical 904 steel for the Rolex. No discernible difference between either, yet the Rolex Oyster will fetch nearly double on the sales forum.
I remember when in the old style Rolex so many used to think they were all 904, it wasn't until someone did a steel analysis did they show that only the head was 904....while they are all supposedly 904L now I don't put alot into that as really who will ever see the benefit if there is any
 
#26 ·
Omega - I have previously owned several Speedies & Seamasters, 2 POs and currently have a 3570.50 Speedy and an X-33

Rolex - I have a 16610 Sub and Tudor Big Block Chrono

Honestly, the crown is the main detail on the Rolex that is substantially better. Buttery smooth to wind and screw down.

Most other details seem fairly equal, really comes down to personal preference. Even between the less expensive Tudor vs. Rolex, both of the watches have the same exact oyster style bracelet, the Tudor in 316 steel and the mythical 904 steel for the Rolex. No discernible difference between either, yet the Rolex Oyster will fetch nearly double on the sales forum.
 
#29 ·
both should be considered as forever competitors since the 30's and both great watch brands
 
#30 · (Edited)
I don't buy anything unless I think the quality is extremely good. I have owned eight Rolex and three Omega watches. Now I own one Rolex and three Omegas, as well as a few others. I think the they are very comparable in quality, but the current new offerings from Omega appeal more to me than Rolex. Before the 8500/9300 movements and the new maxi-cased Rolex models I preferred Rolex.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top