Omega vs. Rolex

well, let me put that whole dog to rest by saying only that JLC is a mid-tier brand to me. that's how I was introduced to them and that's how I think of them to this day.

I dont think of mid tier as a slight in ANY way. In fact, I would consider them to be the nicest watch many people will ever see in a day to day situation. and they are indeed extremely nice pieces. Artful in fact. I just see them as a bit less polished than the big 3.

It's all just a matter of opinion at this point so if I ruffled any feathers I apologise. That certainly was not my intention. call em like you see em and I'll continue to do the same.

I think JLC's complications are right up there with your big 3 Dave so that may be giving some people pause. I would be quite excited to have a JLC at home.

JLC is the watchmaker's watchmaker. Back in the day, they supplied movements to many companies, including VC. They also developed the big-date complication that Lange uses. That said, JLC is clearly below Lange in the Richemont stable. If mid-range is considered a pejorative, how about "second-tier"? All that means is that you are getting a watch that is 90-95% as good as top-tier for one-quarter to one-half the price.

Originally Posted by Ambulance Chaser

Click to expand...

hat said, JLC is clearly below Lange in the Richemont stable.


Except when they are not, like the grande complications that Jaeger does but Lange does not.

Originally Posted by dave

Click to expand...

well, let me put that whole dog to rest by saying only that JLC is a mid-tier brand to me.
And you would be hard pressed to find any Swiss maker who would be in agreement.

Historically, Jaeger LeCoultre was not at "the top" since those were occupied by the Big Three of Patek, Vacheron and Audemars; then there were some other small quality firms like Niton, Meylan.

Also, the fact that they produced watches with Goldfilled cases might make them seem less prestigious.

Good Rolex:

Originally Posted by Teacher

Click to expand...

Then I'd guess EG Top Drawer is midrange, too.

what about richard mille

You've probably never held a Rolex, hence you don't think its worth the money.

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).

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.

Personnaly i dont like rolex one bit. I just think they are ugly as hell. But overpriced.. no..not by a longshot. At their current prices they are still selling very well so the have a good pricepoint. simple as that. Now if you talk about good watches in the 2-5k range i think that almost everyone here can give you an example. Me.. i realy like Ebel and Omega. I own an omega myself and its great. BUT if i would like a real classic watch..frederic constant is great as well... or sporty and casual, than Technomarine is great.

All comes down to personal taste i'd say.

Just my 0,02

Kevin

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

Click to expand...

I get tired of these brand debates so I will only say I have been very happy with my DateJust Rolex and my friends have been very happy with recent Rolex purchases. The after-market sale experience is very, very good here in Atlanta.

If I were to buy one today I would buy a sports model like a SeaDweller or look at the Omega Coaxial designs. The Omegas don't hold value as well as Rolex but can be had at a discount upfront. Both brands are superb.

I agree! How many times do we have to listen to Rolex bashers? FFS, if you don't like them - fine, don't buy one. I do like them and may I say that my Submariner and my GMT have just as much place on my wrist as my Speedmaster Pro. Jeez!!

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.

In my humble opinion, JLC is not as well known, nor it is as well respected in the U.S. as it is in other parts of the world. The mainstream luxury watch buyer in the U.S. considers Rolex to be the pinnacle. I put JLC in the same category, easily.