Originally Posted by emakris
Could you please explain how the Omega is "better in virtually every way" to the Rolex?
The Datejust I had felt like a piece of junk, the bracelet was almost a joke, I remember my wife asking if the watch was broken because it rattled so much. Sure it was functional but considering at the time the watch cost me 2.5k it was laughable. The finish work on the case/bracelet wasn't great either, the lugs were uneven, the clasp was sharp in numerous places...just wasn't made well.
The Explorer wasn't much better, the nice thing was the solid end link and the flip lock clasp, but that watch had material under the dial, and was butchered by Rolex warranty service in trying to fix it, not to mention the lack of a date with the black dial made the watch seem small for whatever reason, I chalk it up to an optical illusion.
I used to be a big Rolex enthusiast until I owned these two and then later a Sub, all three were relative let downs...they never seemed as nice as they cost.
The Omega on the other hand was a bit of a surprise, I always thought I wouldn't like Omega as I considered myself a Rolex guy, but given my poor experiences with Rolex I figured it was time to try something new...
The Omega is a good size, not too big not too small, also it wears much nicer on the wrist than either the Datejust or the Explorer ever did as they always seemed top/head heavy...I figure it was due to the hollow bracelet/stamped clasp and the thicker case, the Omega has a thinner case and a nice solid bracelet.
Also the fit/finish of the Omega is just in another league, everything is done right, all the lugs are the exact same size, the finish application is even across the piece, and the workmanship just looks much better overall, and this isn't even considering the movment as it appears presentable and decorated, the Rolex movements are not known for their finish so I won't bother drawing any comparisons but it is nice to have a movement that you can look at and enjoy.
The sapphire crystal is much nicer as well. It is domed and flush with the bezel which seems to cut down on glare and make the dial highly legible.
Timekeeping on the Omega is spot on, much better than any of my Rolex pieces I have owned. Some complain about the slower beat movement but personally I prefer it, gives the watch a vintage feel/look to it.
The hands and the hour markers on the Omega are truly wonderful to look at, the finish is amazing and I love the fact that it doesn't look cheap, which is a stark contrast with the hands/markers on the Rolex pieces I had...all which didn't seem that nice, which always threw me given that they are made of white gold.
The only areas that I am not thrilled with are the clasp, nicer than the Datejust, not as secure though as my Sub and former Explorer, but it seems to work, the holes for caseback removal, still think Rolex has one of the best systems out there, and the pins for the links...I used to make a bigger stink about this in the past but now it isn't as much of an issue, plus if I wanted screws that bad I could have spent more money (still less than any Rolex) and gotten the new Aqua Terra which really beats the comparable Rolex models out there IMHO given the new movement and overall build.
So with all of that above I also consider that the Omega cost me new last year about $500 less than I had paid for my new at the time Datejust back in 2001, and the Aqua Terra is a way way better watch.
Hope that helps.