or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Omega vs. Rolex
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Omega vs. Rolex - Page 5

post #61 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post
Omega v. Rolex is one of my favorite subjects. I am so glad it has been revived.

I have worn a Rolex for a few days a few times. On the other hand, I own two Cal. 321 Speedmasters and a Cal. 1041 Speedmaster (the 125 edition) as well as my grandfather's gold Omega tank, which he gave me.

On the other hand, if I ever buy another watch, the first one is most likely to be a Rolex (the second one is likely a VC).

Just how many hands do you dwarves have?
post #62 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post
Is it true that the Rolex datejust can only count to 31 days and has no idea what month it is so you have to set the date every other month?
I recall reading that somewhere and was amazed. I would never get a Rolex with a date because I hate the cyclops bubble, but if this were true I might have to avoid the brand altogether.

As far as I know, none of the Rolex movements have a full calendar, but here are not many mechanical movements that do have a full calendar. The most common is the Valjoux 7751, which is a version of the 7750, which is found in many top end chronographs. The 7750 is reliable, but, IMO, not at the same level as the Rolex movements or the ETA 2892.A2 (the Omega's Seamaster line of watches currently use a version of the ETA 2892.A2, and the Omega movements with the proprietary Co-axial escapement (known as the Omega 2500 series) is also derived from the ETA 2892). The base ETA 2892.A2 also does not have a full calendar.

If you go to a watch forum, you can probably find someone who can tell you more about some of the other mechanical movements with a full calendar.

If you really want a full calendar, though, I would just go with a high-end quartz watch, something like a Casio Oceanus, and forget about owning a mechanical watch.
post #63 of 151
I could live with alternating between 30 and 31 days, which requires adjustment only for February. But to have 31 only strikes me as offensively lazy on Rolex's part.
post #64 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post
I could live with alternating between 30 and 31 days, which requires adjustment only for February. But to have 31 only strikes me as offensively lazy on Rolex's part.

It's actually very difficult to build this feature into a mechanical watch. You have to remember that, in a mechanical watch, everything in the train is being driven by a single hairspring. Contrast that with the Casio Oceanus quartz watch, which has five motors, one of which just moves the date. Because in a mechanical watch a single hairspring and gear moves everything, it adds a lot of layers of complexity to have the date alternate between 30 and 31 days depending on the month--just think of how complex that is from an engineering perspective, especially when you have to pack all those extra gears and cams into something 8mm wide. The train moving more parts and that added complexity means less accuracy and less reliability.

Again, if this feature is impartant to you, I would just go quartz. Also keep in mind with any mechnical watch you are going to gain or lose a few seconds every day, which means you'll need to adjust your watch from time to time anyway.
post #65 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by East Oakland View Post
It's actually very difficult to build this feature into a mechanical watch. You have to remember that, in a mechanical watch, everything in the train is being driven by a single hairspring. Contrast that with the Casio Oceanus quartz watch, which has five motors, one of which just moves the date. Because in a mechanical watch a single hairspring and gear moves everything, it adds a lot of layers of complexity to have the date alternate between 30 and 31 days depending on the month--just think of how complex that is from an engineering perspective, especially when you have to pack all those extra gears and cams into something 8mm wide. The train moving more parts and that added complexity means less accuracy and less reliability.

Again, if this feature is impartant to you, I would just go quartz. Also keep in mind with any mechnical watch you are going to gain or lose a few seconds every day, which means you'll need to adjust your watch from time to time anyway.

The only automatic watch I wear with any regularity, a Thommen Airspeed, has this feature. I have date features on at least two chronographs but I don't wear them consistently to even bother setting the date.

Interesting to know that the alternating date isn't as common as I thought.
post #66 of 151
I like Omega > Rolex for one reason: no biographical baggage. It isn't easily identified by most people; generically attractive. Something that influences a lot of what I buy. "That's a nice watch" vs "That's a nice Rolex."
post #67 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post
The only automatic watch I wear with any regularity, a Thommen Airspeed, has this feature.

There are a few different iterations of the Thommen Airspeed, but if it's the one that has a hand that spins around the perimeter to show the date (instead of a date window), it likely uses the Valjoux 7751 movement I mentioned above (which is now produced by ETA).
post #68 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by East Oakland View Post
There are a few different iterations of the Thommen Airspeed, but if it’s the one that has a hand that spins around the perimeter to show the date (instead of a date window), it likely uses the Valjoux 7751 movement I mentioned above (which is now produced by ETA).
That is the one. You know your watches.
post #69 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post
The only automatic watch I wear with any regularity, a Thommen Airspeed, has this feature. I have date features on at least two chronographs but I don't wear them consistently to even bother setting the date.

Interesting to know that the alternating date isn't as common as I thought.

Are you sure it has that feature?
Honestly I've never even heard of an alternating 30/31 date feature and I've been collecting watches for quite a while.

The VJ7751 is a version of the 7750 chronograph movement with a moonphase and I think a full calendar date. Although Panerai uses a modified 7750 as a non-chrono movement, I don't think anyone else does and you probably wouldn't be seeing one with center seconds and date.

If you don't want to be correcting the date every 60 days, you should look for a perpetual or an annual calendar watch. Of course you'll be correcting the time sooner than every 60 days anyways so I don't see what the big deal is with having to advance the date during the short months. Anyway, Rolex is like just about every other movement with a date.
post #70 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by East Oakland View Post
It's actually very difficult to build this feature into a mechanical watch. You have to remember that, in a mechanical watch, everything in the train is being driven by a single hairspring. Contrast that with the Casio Oceanus quartz watch, which has five motors, one of which just moves the date. Because in a mechanical watch a single hairspring and gear moves everything, it adds a lot of layers of complexity to have the date alternate between 30 and 31 days depending on the month--just think of how complex that is from an engineering perspective, especially when you have to pack all those extra gears and cams into something 8mm wide. The train moving more parts and that added complexity means less accuracy and less reliability.

Again, if this feature is impartant to you, I would just go quartz. Also keep in mind with any mechnical watch you are going to gain or lose a few seconds every day, which means you'll need to adjust your watch from time to time anyway.

I believe the hair spring is the spring that the balance wheel oscillates on, what you're referring to is the mainspring, that provides the motive power.

That said, you're right that adding complications to a sports rolex makes no sense. More complications means more gears and pinions, more friction and a stronger mainspring to drive it all which means more wear. If what you want is a rugged, reliable and accurate watch the last thing you want to do is add more complications. This is true for both omega and rolex. I really admire the co-axial escapement, but I'm not sure I would want it in a sports watch, at least not unless I need accuracy beyond chronometer grade watches. But time will tell how rugged the co-axial watches are.

I would like a nice omega co-axial, but then I'd like an explorer I too.
post #71 of 151
I have a Rolex Submariner and an Omega Seamaster (the quartz one worn by Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye). I like both, but prefer the Omega as it feels nicer on my wrist and looks nicer to me. Both are great watches, though.
post #72 of 151
OP,

PP is a great choice!

Omegas are a decent brand, but they're not at the same level of Rolex. I would pick a Rolex over an Omega everytime simply because they look better. Other things to consider are Rolexs' reliability, ruggedness, inhouse movement and customer service.

Omegas, IMHO, are sterile and are just a step above Tag.
post #73 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by East Oakland View Post
Omega, as part of the Swatch group (which makes all of the ETA movements) and Rolex, as the world's best known watch maker, both produce an extremely large volume of highly-accurate automatice watch movements. With the new co-axial movement, Omega may be very slightly ahead of the curve, but the reality is that a top of the line ETA/Omega movement and a Rolex movement are comparable in almost every way, and are both relatively ubiquitous. Debating the difference between the two is like debating the relative merits of a Honda six-cylinder engine and a Toyota six-cylinder engine. This is a very mature technology, and both movements are well refined and will run worry free for many years.

All that is left, then, is the case and the crystal. Both are made from relatively similar stainless steel and Sapphire crystal, respectively, so it really just comes down to what design you like the best. The same could be said for all of the other major brands that run on ETA movements (IWC, Breitling, etc.). There is also the price factor, I guess, with the Rolex band commanding a higher price becuase its name is better know to the general public.

Nothing really changes until you get up to the smaller volume manufacturers that make their own movements (Patek, etc.), but because these manufactures make less movements, their movements tend to be less refined and less reliable then the Omegas and the Rolexes--like a Ferrari engine vs a Honda.

I own a Rolex and an Omega, but when they finally crap out I doubt I'll repace them--I'll go back to quartz and spend my money on better suits.

+1

Couldn't have said it better myself. Except for going back to quartz...
post #74 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleeboy View Post
OP,

PP is a great choice!

Omegas are a decent brand, but they're not at the same level of Rolex. I would pick a Rolex over an Omega everytime simply because they look better. Other things to consider are Rolexs' reliability, ruggedness, inhouse movement and customer service.

Omegas, IMHO, are sterile and are just a step above Tag.

Comes down to personal opinion in the end. Both Rolex and Omega are equally good. It comes down to personal preference and aesthetics.
post #75 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWraith View Post
Comes down to personal opinion in the end. Both Rolex and Omega are equally good. It comes down to personal preference and aesthetics.

Don't know the actual debate but a year or so the watch experts - and I mean those people that are really in the know about movements - said Omega is now far behind Rolex. Don't like the Rolex design though.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Omega vs. Rolex