Vintage Omega Seamaster 300 vs Rolex Submariner

[nurktwin]

Ok, the Rolex Submariner is a classic -- perhaps the most legendary sports watch of all time. But the Sub is also an ad nauseam cliche due to it's ubiquity. Everyone has one -- even the posers. What are folks thoughts on a vintage late 1960s Omega Seamaster 300 as an alternative? In house movement and unique styling. A stunning matte dial and no bull sh*t tool watch design which eschews the modern day gloss dials and blingy feminine white gold hour indices which soil modern day dive watches.

 

[Xiaogou]

I am a huge Omega fan but the Sub is awesome too. Can't go wrong with either one.

 

[0b5cur1ty]

Comparing vintage to vintage, I'd take the Seamaster 300 in a heartbeat.

 

[Master Squirrel]

Omega is a very nice watch.

 

[jacnyr]

While the Seamaster is not a perfect watch, the vintage 300 is quite a looker. One would have no problems selling as they are very desirable.

 

[Singular]

I have a 70s 5513 - and have many times thought about getting a Seamaster 300. The thing is...I know, that every time I would pick a nice vintage mil-diver for casual days, a nice suit contrast or a night out...the Submariner would win. Every single time. The watches are more or less interchangeable (mil history, same size, same aesthetics, same "feeling" on the wrist), but for me the worn, patinated 5513 would be my pick every day.

Worth considering is that there is a quite hefty price difference - you pay approx half for the Omega, and it is available as a NOS from WatchCo (a quite cool thing - a brand new "vintage" watch).

/M

 

[taxgenius]

You would probably be able to resell the rolex a lot quicker, but that alone doesn't justify the higher price.

 

[robinsongreen68]

it seems the OP was comparing the sm300 to a modern sub -14060 or whatever the newest iteration is. in which case i would certainly take the omega, the ubiquity of submariners is a turn-off for me too.

if you're talking about a vintage 5513 or 5512, though, it's a different matter. the vintage subs have so much more character than the modern versions.

 

[Singular]

Well - in that case it's pretty easy; if for sports, diving, sailing, rough living take the modern Sub. If you are up to hanging around the office, bars and cafÃ

s take the SM300.

/M

 

[entrero]

Originally Posted by nurktwin

Ok, the Rolex Submariner is a classic -- perhaps the most legendary sports watch of all time. But the Sub is also an ad nauseam cliche due to it's ubiquity. Everyone has one -- even the posers. What are folks thoughts on a vintage late 1960s Omega Seamaster 300 as an alternative? In house movement and unique styling. A stunning matte dial and no bull sh*t tool watch design which eschews the modern day gloss dials and blingy feminine white gold hour indices which soil modern day dive watches.
Sorry to burst your bubble but everyone except watch enthusiasts will say "oh is that a Rolex?" or thieves may take a closer look

 

[Ianiceman]

I like the general line of thinking:

Subs are common as fleas on a dog's arse
Vintage watches can add a nice dimension
Wearing an Omega is no disgrace

However that omega pictured just has too many hash marks between the dial and the bezel ot just looks too busy to me.

Right line of thinking, wrong watch!

 

[dv_indian]

I like the Yacht-Master. It is sporty, distinctive and not ubiquitous like the sub.

 

[LanceW]

I don't know anything about Omega vintage repair but can vouch that the Rolex Service Centers have stopped repairing their older offerings.

 

[nurktwin]

Originally Posted by Singular

I have a 70s 5513 - and have many times thought about getting a Seamaster 300. The thing is...I know, that every time I would pick a nice vintage mil-diver for casual days, a nice suit contrast or a night out...the Submariner would win. Every single time. The watches are more or less interchangeable (mil history, same size, same aesthetics, same "feeling" on the wrist), but for me the worn, patinated 5513 would be my pick every day.

Worth considering is that there is a quite hefty price difference - you pay approx half for the Omega, and it is available as a NOS from WatchCo (a quite cool thing - a brand new "vintage" watch).

/M

That's a beautiful 5513. I think the 5513 looks better than the 5512 as the 5513 doesn't have the chronometer certification verbiage which busies the 5512 dial.

 

[nurktwin]

Originally Posted by robinsongreen68

it seems the OP was comparing the sm300 to a modern sub -14060 or whatever the newest iteration is. in which case i would certainly take the omega, the ubiquity of submariners is a turn-off for me too. if you're talking about a vintage 5513 or 5512, though, it's a different matter. the vintage subs have so much more character than the modern versions.
I like the vintage subs -- the 5512 and 5513 no dates are cool. So is the 1680 date version. The character of the modern day subs was diminished when Rolex added the sapphire crystal and white gold hour markers -- giving the Sub a "colder" more blingy feminine appearance which is not in keeping with the tool watch origins of the timepiece. Of course modern day Omega dive watches are just as blingy as they added gold hour markers too (except for the fantastic, but discontinued 2254.50 which had a stunning matte dial).