I've been meaning to call for more info, but I know they had to replace the crystal, maybe the dial (the broken glass damaged it), and even through I pulled the crown out, I believe some of the internal stuff may have been damaged - the second hand got caught on the broken glass before I pulled the crown. It's undergone a "complete overhaul" based on the card they sent back with the watch. It had to be sent to Rolex to be repaired.

I inherited this watch. It's unlikely I would have chosen to pay for this watch myself (my husband might have bought it for me), and I don't know that I would have spent what the repairs amounted to on a watch. I used to wear a Seiko that looked practically the same (and kept better time because it didn't wind down if I didn't wear it for three days). But ROLEX.

That said, I like the watch a lot and when I wear it I am reminded of the person I inherited it from.

schmendeler said:

---

Rolex is in no way Maybach

---

I agree. Just an exaggeration.

schmendeler said:

---

Rolex is in no way Maybach

---

I would say Rolex is BMW 7 series

Stringer, what aftermarket (which I assume it is) is that jubilee bracelet from?

Sea Speed said:

---

That last part is all that matters.

---

I agree… and that's why I had to fix it.

AgLA06 said:

---

Seems Omega is concerned about the value of their products.

---

I saw my Omega AD today. From what I gather, Omega is more concerned with AD's price discounting and how that affects their watches' value or perceived value. They are really putting a squeeze on the AD's. I'm sure when they can't squeeze any more out of the AD's they will squeeze the consumers.

schmendeler said:

---

BoDog said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

BoDog said:

---

It is a matter of perspective. No offense to any Omega owner, but have you ever heard someone say "one day when I can buy an Omega...." or "I am saving for an Omega"?

After years of hard work, savings, and personal sacrifice it just isnt exactly a watch brand that most dream of owning. Just my two cents.

---

That's because of marketing.

---

No it goes way beyond marketing...

---

Rolex is in no way bad. But the image of them being superior to Omega in anything substantive is 100% a result of marketing.

---

Design matters too.

I think Omega makes a better watch for less money than Rolex does. Rolex doesn't really have to care, they'll everything they make either way.

Omega has done great things with O-mega steel, their bracelet extension, their metas certification, but they're still far distant to rolex in the prestige department

TarponChaser said:

---

I'm probably biased as an Omega guy but I could have gone Rolex and chose Omega. Rolex feels kinda prissy to me.

---

When I bought my Milgauss it was between that and the Moonwatch. It was a very hard decision for me, but I ultimately chose the Milgauss just because it felt more me at the time.

I have zero against Omega though. I have a few on my wish list.

I was very close to buying a speedy but knew I would never be happy until I got my gmt. If I never bought another watch I would be ok with that. I'm pretty sure I will buy more, but if life gets in the way I'll be ok with that.

schmendeler said:

---

I think the only way to resolve this argument is for FTAC2011 to send me one from each maker so i can check them out.

---

Can do, full payment due day of delivery.

Hmm I need to think on that

It's funny, I guess everyone has there thing. I want a speedy more than a rolex. Maaaaybe I want a birth year day date, but still I want the speedy more. What I really want, I doubt anybody can source, Longines pulsometer asthmometer

SPF250 said:

---

You may not be aware that Rolex used to buy movements from Omega.

---

You may not be aware that Omega is part of Swatch group and uses ETA based movements.... To say they make a better watch than Rolex is laughable.

SPF250 said:

---

You may not be aware that Rolex used to buy movements from Omega.

---

And now Tudor is making watches equal to Omega's main selling point (METAS certification) using in house movements. Any argument that starts with "used to" is a bad one.

schmendeler said:

---

BoDog said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

BoDog said:

---

It is a matter of perspective. No offense to any Omega owner, but have you ever heard someone say "one day when I can buy an Omega...." or "I am saving for an Omega"?

After years of hard work, savings, and personal sacrifice it just isnt exactly a watch brand that most dream of owning. Just my two cents.

---

That's because of marketing.

---

No it goes way beyond marketing...

---

Rolex is in no way bad. But the image of them being superior to Omega in anything substantive is 100% a result of marketing.

---

That's rich coming from the 007 fan boys. Not even James Bomd could get out from under the crown he serves.

BoDog said:

---

SPF250 said:

---

You may not be aware that Rolex used to buy movements from Omega.

---

You may not be aware that Omega is part of Swatch group and uses ETA based movements.... To say they make a better watch than Rolex is laughable.

---

Im fully aware that Omega is part of Swatch and I did not say they make a better watch than Rolex. My comment only addressed the quality that you apparently feel is lacking.

Can you post a pic of a similar watch? When I googled that year seamaster, I saw a few different variants. I guess my curious mind just needs to know!

TarponChaser said:

---

I'm probably biased as an Omega guy but I could have gone Rolex and chose Omega. Rolex feels kinda prissy to me.

---

Same here. My former CEO let me choose almost any Watch I wanted and I chose Omega over Rolex.

Pretty watch.

What savvy and pervasive advertising are we speaking of? Seriously asking. Omega (like Brietling) employs half of Hollywood to pimp their watches. Not to mention the whole first on the moon thing-which I agree is really cool.