Vintage Omega Seamaster 300 vs Rolex Submariner

[nurktwin]

Originally Posted by dv_indian

Yup - that's the one I meant. Love that granite dial.
The polished center links are a little over the top. I guess they could be brushed if one wanted.

 

[Bandit44]

Apples and oranges. I generally prefer modern watches over vintage because of readily available parts. However, Omega is much better about respecting/preserving the vintage qualities of the watches they repair vs Rolex.

Rolex or Omega is one of the most often debated subjects on watch forums. Both are great brands and you can't go wrong with either. I'm an Omega fan, but I'd choose a modern Sub over a vintage Seamaster anytime. That's me though.

 

[Mr.K]

If comparing vintage to vintage I would go for the Rolex. It is a beautiful watch. If you want a more modern then go for the newer Seamaster. It is a great looking watch.

 

[robinsongreen68]

so: buy a 5513 if your budget will stretch. if not, get the sm300 for daily wear, and a seiko skx007 for swimming and sports. easy

 

[zippyh]

Originally Posted by Singular

To be honest, I have never seen the SS dial - are you sure?

/M

Correct. The SS/plat Yachtmaster has always had the plat dial.

 

[Kaplan]

I would get a no-date sub. 5512 or 13 if you can find a good one or a 14060 before they muck it up any further with their new clumsy case.

While I really like the 5513 for many of the same reasons that you name, I ended up with a 14060 as I wanted to buy new. In the nearly 20 years I've had it, it's taken quite a beating (I even cracked the crystal once, but that was my own damn fault). It's currently at the spa, for what I believe is only the second time in all those years.

 

[kolecho]

5513.

 

[westinghouse]

What moron would pay thousands for a stainless steel watch when you can have a solid 18k gold watch for tens of thousands?

I've only seen three of these in my life and one is on my wrist right now

So much for all that dime a dozen nonsense...

 

[nurktwin]

Originally Posted by westinghouse

What moron would pay thousands for a stainless steel watch when you can have a solid 18k gold watch for tens of thousands?

I've only seen three of these in my life and one is on my wrist right now

So much for all that dime a dozen nonsense...

A lot of folks think gold sports watches are pretentious and masturbatory.

 

[MalfordOfLondon]

Originally Posted by nurktwin

A lot of folks think gold sports watches are pretentious and masturbatory.

Add me to that list.

 

[Singular]

Bah, I love it - I'd not hesitate on a blue gold Sub for going to the beach, a brown gold GMT for fall tweeds and a gold Daytona with the white dial...

/M

 

[MalfordOfLondon]

Originally Posted by Singular

Bah, I love it - I'd not hesitate on a blue gold Sub for going to the beach, a brown gold GMT for fall tweeds and a gold Daytona with the white dial...

/M

I don't mind Gold dress watches but I just can't bring myself to like Gold on anything more casual. Maybe my taste will change with time....

 

[robinsongreen68]

yes. i would like this 1000x more if it was a 5513/ steel daytona/ sm300 (or 60s speedmaster like singular's, for that matter) http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com/...-florence.html

 

[aravenel]

Originally Posted by nurktwin

A lot of folks think gold sports watches are pretentious and masturbatory.

+1

 

[base615]

Not sure if anyone's mentioned it yet but you could always look out for a Watchco SM300 instead of vintage. Essentially a vintage movement inside a new (not NOS but genuine Omega) case / dial. Fully recognised by Omega for servicing etc and you essentially get the same look as the vintage SM300 but in a brand new watch. I have 10 vintage Omegas including the classics (Pie Pan Connie, Speedie, early bumper etc) but my SM300 is by far my favourite, just such a classic watch. Don't get me wrong, I'd love a no date sub too but I'd never flick the SM300 to get one. At the end of the day it's which one you prefer as they're both great watches. Here's mine: