Omega Vs Rolex
J_Burnham
Posts: 40MI6 Agent
May have been discussed already, if so i apologize. But between Omega and Rolex which do you associate Bond with more?
For me it has to be Omega as i first started watching in the Brosnan era...
JB -{
For me it has to be Omega as i first started watching in the Brosnan era...
JB -{
Comments
Stefan
JB -{
Rolex, because it's the far better watch and Rolex did not pay for getting shown in the 007 movies. The Rolexes, which you can see, have all been regularly purchased by EON.
I can't thing of a better proof of quality and accuracy.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I wear the rolex explorerII,so maybe I'm a bit biased.
"It's not difficult to get a double 0 number if your prepared to kill people"
But only because I haven't got one.
I much, much prefer the look of the Omega personally. So that's the one I chose for 'reality'.
I've become a watch freak over the years. I still have my Kodak Uncle Sam watch my father purchased for me in 1972...it still works and a Mickey Mouse watch. My "collection" is rounded out by a Casio Pathfinder and a Luminox 3000.
I have to admit though that when it comes to the Holy Grail of Bond watches it is the Connery Submariner. But my favorite Submariner is the one with the modern case (with crown guards) and no date. The face just looks so perfectly balanced. I believe this type was used first in OHMSS. I'm not sure what watch was featured in DAF but I know a couple of the Moore films featured this model. I recall Roger Moore glancing at the time while waiting outside the Bottoms Up Club in TMWTGG.
Sadly the late 70's are a dark era when it comes to fine time pieces making an appearance in Bond movies.
Dalton used the date window version but I have always thought the Sub looked better without the date window and the cyclops lense.
It's funny because when I got out of college I wanted to get a Submariner at some point. They were only about $2400 back then. They've doubled over the last 20 years. I love Omegas but I have to admit that I went Omega route as I saw them as comparable to Rolex but at approximately half the cost. Over the years I've probably now dumped about $7000 onto my wrist in various time pieces so that $2400 from 1988 doesn't seem like that much.
Perhaps when I turn 50 I will finally treat myself to a Rolex...either the Sub or the Explorer. In the meantime I am quite content with my Omegas...and the Mickey. One thing I don't like about the non date Sub is that Rolex doesn't use the same case as the date version. If you look at the lugs there are holes in the outer area of the non date version while the dated version has no holes.
Fleming's novels were all about introducing the reader to a world of exotic places, foods, drinks and items that the "man in the street" had not experienced. The brands and what they represented were the "fashion icons" of the time.
Even the transition from Bentley to Aston Martin was suggested by a friend more in tune with "the latest must have statement" than Fleming's view of life.
Therefore I believe the wearing of the "James Bond" watch is down to the lifestyle and Bond experience most relevent to the individual.
I bought my Seamaster Professional in Geneve in Nov 1999. It looks as good today as when I first wore it, it brings back the memories of my lifestyle and the Brosnan impact on the franchise. I bought my Planet Ocean in 2007 and was lucky enough to have a rubber strap thrown in with the purchase. I was overjoyed when QOS confirmed the Planet Ocean. So a quick trip to the Jewllers updated the piece into what I wear today.
Both models are recognised and commented upon by people who get the Bond connection.
That gives me a buzz.
Yes, Omega for me.
The James Bond Dossier | SPECTRE | Q-Branch James Bond Podcast
Here's a link to a current non date sub (on ebay) which features the holes I mentioned:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ROLEX-SUBMARINER-MENS-NO-DATE-BLACK-STEEL-UNWORN-2009_W0QQitemZ370147018098QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_Jewelery_Watches_Watches_MensWatches_GL?hash=item370147018098&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1326|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1318|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50
Another thing I don't care for is the excessive Rolex branding on the steel surrounding the face. ROLEX ROLEX ROLEX ROLEX ROLEX...OK...enough already. We know it is a Rolex. Hopefully Rolex will make this a minimalist watch again. The beauty of this watch lies in it's simplicity. It does not need the over the top branding the current model sports...just my opinion.
But I strongly disagree: Rolex is worth every penny and still worth the extra on competing Omegas.
I one day thought, that Omega would be an equivilent choice, how wrong I was....
I have worn 3 different Seamasters and when I look in my watch desk today (not my 007 collection), the Omegas are all gone. But 3 Rolex still present...
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Sure, Rolex seem to be the watch of choice of chavvy soccer players and US rap stars.
But so are Bentleys AND Aston Martins - and no one suggests Bond should give up his Aston.
As far as I'm concerned, whoever else, or whatever other type of people, buy Rolex is irrelevant: it was Fleming's choice for Bond. Omega were EON's MARKETING partner for Bond, quite a difference.
I'm typing this wearing a PO. It is a great watch. My Submariner is at home. And I know which one is more in keeping with Bond.
And I thought they were just timepieces {:)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Omega watches like Seiko and Walther P99's are just subsidized product placement, and to me are about as "James Bond" as Planter's Peanuts!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Rolex is NOT a far better watch, I own both and they are fairly equal in quality. Actually My Omega PO is the most robust watch I have ever owned.
Well just for balance, Rolex IS a far better watch. I also own both and the Rolex is a better time piece hands down. The Qomega is nice but lacks the substance of a Rolex. The Chavs all go for the 'bling' versions. Mine is stainless steel, simple and timeless, you can't get better than that, although you can get more / less expensive. The market also values Rolex as the better watch. Look at second hand value, depreciation on Omega is far worse. My Rolex is actually worth more second hand now then when I got it. Can the same be said of my Omega? Unfortunately not.
Bond = Rolex, Rolex = Bond
I totally disagree with you...Both My Omega Planet Ocean's are far more robust watch than any Rolex I have owned...Which are the Sub SS, Sub 2 tone, GMT Master SS and Daytona SS.
Now the Bond style Omega Seamaster is not as robust and shows the wear.
I have to say you have had some very nice watches. Do you only have the PO's now?
I now only have the Daytona the PO's from the last 2 bond movies...45mm with rubber strap and the 42mm SS and the seamaster blue bond style.
what do you have?
Now I have a Sea Dweller and the Automatic Seamaster.
Nice collection...the PO is close to the SD in being robust, but the Seamaster isn't
From the latter part of this quote, talking about the Sea Dweller, military etc, it sounds as if you are making a sweeping statement that all Rolexes are better or more "robust" and not just the Bond related watches.
I have to disagree on that score. I have two words for you: "Omega Speedmaster." This watch was chosen by NASA and put up against the likes of Rolex in strict testing and was found to be the more "robust." In my experience of reading watch forums this is a fact that regularly gets up the noses of Rolex enthusiasts, who claim it as a PR stunt. But the truth is many NASA astronauts (and I have spoken to many) were wearing the Speedmaster in space before Omega ever found out about it, Walter Schirra and Ed White to name two. Once Omega found out in 1966 they added the word "Professional" to the dial. Of course some astronauts did choose Rolex as their personal watch (Jim Lovell and Jack Swigert were both "Rolex men") but after "Official testing" it was the Speedmaster that came out top.
This is all a little ot (but then the croupier in CR wore a Speedmaster "Legend" 3506.61.00 Shumacher edition and the astronauts in YOLT probably should have had Speedmasters on too).
On a personal note, as I am writing this I am wearing my 1966 Omega Speedmaster ref 145.012 and after 43 years and a lot of miles it still looks and works as good as it did the day it was made, (more than can be said for me). I also own a '66 Omega Constellation of similar "robustness" so for me their quality is beyond question.
After all this, getting back to the original post, I would chose the Omega for a Bond themed party as it would be more current and so more recognizable to non Bond people yet I think that the Rolex itself still has more cache in the public consciousness while Omegas constant Limited Editions cheapen the brand for me. It is this cache that allows Rolexes to hold the values not necessarily quality.
I have nothing at all against Rolex they are a supreme watch brand but as with anything of prestige (Aston Martin, Bentley etc) there is an element of paying for the name as well as the quality and Rolex have masterfully crafted their image over the years.
Omega have not - take away Bond and what is left? Would they have any more prestige than say TAG Heuer with only the usual Hollywood and Sports "Ambassadors" left. Their current pandering to The Bling Generation and the aforementioned Limited Editions has led to lax marketing where the classics (like the Speedmaster) are concerned. I don't know if this can be said of Rolex and the Submariner.
End of sermon - excuse the long post
That's why I decided to put them into the safe box and forget about them despite it can be the "real" bond watch.
I am trying not to be a poser or confused with them.
I think it depends what Rolex! I have a 27 year old Submariner, non-date on a black kevlar deployant strap, looks very understated. Compare that to a 45mm Omega Planet Ocean with orange bezel!! Really love that PO, but I think you have to admit which one is the most ostentatious.