I have all three 'Bond' Omega Seamasters - 300M Automatic, Planet Ocean 45.5mm with rubber strap and the Planet Ocean 42mm with bracelet - and love all of them. I came close to buying a Rolex Submariner but depsite handling several they just don't do it for me. While I know the Submariner was the traditional Bond watch in the books and earlier movies up until the Brosna era I think the change to Omega was a good move.
Personal choice at the end of the day but the Omega Seamaster is, I feel, a better watch all-round.
"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."
Panache, Obviously if you take one watch it can skew the debate, I can appreciate that. Omega makes no watch that can match the SD for depth, and Rolex makes no watch 'officially' used in space. However I believe the general argument on 'robustness' stands.
In general it is Rolex who get picked for commercial diving / military applications. As to the specific Bond watches I don't think anyone would argue that the Brosnan Seamaster is anywhere near as robust as the Submariner. The PO I'm still on the fence about as I have never seen on in person. However my fealing is they are trying to 'copy' Rolex due to the strange similarity in looks. Don't get me wrong I also like Omegas very much, I wear my 'Brosnan' often, and if I ever bought another watch it would be a toss up between the Breightling 'Emergency' watch and the Omega 'Space watch'.
I just wish they had been a little bit more orriginal in their design, like the blue Seamaster it is beautiful and classy in its own right a real modern classic and I totally acept it is the one most would recognise today as a 'Bond' watch.
As to the 'Rolex owners are wanna bees' (buz buz)I just don't get it. Yes some of their designs are vulger in the extream. However the Submariner is far simpler in design and less 'showy' than its Omega equivilant, with the exception of the black PO. But then again what do I know ;-)
Sorry, but Rolex is luxury for the masses and I doubt very much if Fleming was writing today it would be the watch of choice. As Vesper said, the Omega Seamaster 300 is "beautiful" and there is no more studly sport watch on the market than the CR Planet Ocean.
you make an interesting point...what would IF perceive as the beluga of watches if he were starting to write about his new creation now?..
Why do i sense this thread might soon morph into panerai et al space?...or even Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin, Girard-Perregaux....
for me, it's always been Rolex or Omega, with what looks like a natural genetic progression...
the "class" of Rolex was for me the original models, in much the same way as Aston Martin...they will never truely best the DB4/5, no matter how they try....yet the later models keep the marque upto date while spiritually echoing the heritage of the DB5...
somewhere, they passed the baton to Omega, who like Bugatti, have always been around, but their days in the limelight were long forgotten until the Veyron came along....they are now back in the supercar/prestiege manufacturer space..
for me, the PO brought Omega back into the true prestiege bracket, where they belong...
if you have to own two watches before you die, I can''t think of two i'd rather own more, than a rolex sub (take your pick) and a PO...
Really agree with your perspective, ke02eww. I look at the Sub and the PO as having what I call the James Bond Feel. What the hell is that, you say? When I look at those watches they both scream James Bond Experience. And let's face it, a watch is all about the user experience. The PO brings me back to Craig's first outing, the man a killing machine owns a watch that is no-nonsense and itself a sturdy, sleek piece of engineering. The sub transports me instantly to a different time when Bond was new, yet smacks of a vintage time. It conjurs up thoghts of Connery, style and again no-nonsense tools of the spy trade.
Really agree with your perspective, ke02eww. I look at the Sub and the PO as having what I call the James Bond Feel. What the hell is that, you say? When I look at those watches they both scream James Bond Experience. And let's face it, a watch is all about the user experience. The PO brings me back to Craig's first outing, the man a killing machine owns a watch that is no-nonsense and itself a sturdy, sleek piece of engineering. The sub transports me instantly to a different time when Bond was new, yet smacks of a vintage time. It conjurs up thoghts of Connery, style and again no-nonsense tools of the spy trade.
you make an interesting point...what would IF perceive as the beluga of watches if he were starting to write about his new creation now?..
I seem to remember reading somewhere (and I have been racking my brain trying to remember where but I can't at the moment) an interview with Lindy Hemming who said that they chose the Omega Seamaster as Bonds watch because it was felt that Rolex was being percieved more as a status symbol nowadays which wasn't in keeping with Bonds attitude. For Bond it was a quality tool that was used to get the job done and it was felt that the Omega Seamaster best reflected that attitude.
I also agree with Commander James Bond about 'Rolex owners are wanna bees,' you cannot tar everyone with the same brush.
(And If I was to buy another watch it would also be a Breitling Emergency (or indeed a vintage Sub)) so we do agree on something!) {[]
The one thing that can be said is that both of these watchmakers have produced watches for Bond that are recognizable classics with a style that will never go out of fashion.
Anyway, isn't it nice to have a civilized descussion about these watches for a change, even if we agree to disagree I respect your opinons.
:007)
Really agree with your perspective, ke02eww. I look at the Sub and the PO as having what I call the James Bond Feel. What the hell is that, you say? When I look at those watches they both scream James Bond Experience. And let's face it, a watch is all about the user experience. The PO brings me back to Craig's first outing, the man a killing machine owns a watch that is no-nonsense and itself a sturdy, sleek piece of engineering. The sub transports me instantly to a different time when Bond was new, yet smacks of a vintage time. It conjurs up thoghts of Connery, style and again no-nonsense tools of the spy trade.
Regardless, both invoke an emotion...a spark.
great post, exactly how i feel,when i wear the rubber strap PO i feel like Craig chasing the bomb maker around a construction site, its a rougher,tougher watch i use when im doing most outdoors stuff (im wearing it in my avatar pic as well), then the blue seamaster makes me think of Brosnan obviously and his style and sauve-ness and however odd it may sound but whenever im listening to my ipod and listening to any of david arnolds Bond scores i sometimes take a quick glance down at my watch whenever the bond theme plays and for a quick second or two im Bond and its a great feeling,i wear them given the occasion but both make me feel a little more like James Bond.
Really agree with your perspective, ke02eww. I look at the Sub and the PO as having what I call the James Bond Feel. What the hell is that, you say? When I look at those watches they both scream James Bond Experience. And let's face it, a watch is all about the user experience. The PO brings me back to Craig's first outing, the man a killing machine owns a watch that is no-nonsense and itself a sturdy, sleek piece of engineering. The sub transports me instantly to a different time when Bond was new, yet smacks of a vintage time. It conjurs up thoghts of Connery, style and again no-nonsense tools of the spy trade.
Regardless, both invoke an emotion...a spark.
great post, exactly how i feel,when i wear the rubber strap PO i feel like Craig chasing the bomb maker around a construction site, its a rougher,tougher watch i use when im doing most outdoors stuff (im wearing it in my avatar pic as well), then the blue seamaster makes me think of Brosnan obviously and his style and sauve-ness and however odd it may sound but whenever im listening to my ipod and listening to any of david arnolds Bond scores i sometimes take a quick glance down at my watch whenever the bond theme plays and for a quick second or two im Bond and its a great feeling,i wear them given the occasion but both make me feel a little more like James Bond and both are superb watches.
Not at all I got used to it immediately even though it is a bit heavier than the Pro.
Regarding the Rolex vs. Omega, like I said before I have both but I definitely find the PO much more exclusive. So far I did not see anybody wearing it. I know two persons having the Pro and that is it.
For those that own the PO, did it take some time to get used to the "height" of the watch...ie the thickness?
My Omega PO 42mm is absolutely fine when wearing a shirt and suit. However my Omega PO 45mm with rubber strap is better worn casual as its extra thickness doesn't lend itself to wearing with a formal shirt and cufflinks.
NMS
A sense of humour is no laughing matter!
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
Bondtoys, I know you are a Rolex devotee and of course they are excellent watches. If I had the money to have a collection of Rolex watches, believe me I would.
Someone else in the thread recently mentioned the "exclusivity" of Omega. I am not quite sure that was the most appropriate term as Rolex is more exclusive without a doubt. But I would agree with that poster that you do see fewer Omegas than Rolexes. I have read that up to 90% of the Rolexes you see on the street are fake. I know fake Omegas exist but I don't see too many people wearing Omega or a knock off of some kind.
The Rolex Submariner has been the watch I drooled over for many years but I am quite content with my Omega collection which includes an old Seamaster Deville (my grandfather's from 1974), the Brosnan Seamaster Pro, Apollo 11 30th anniversary Speedmaster, and the PO 45.5.
I might add that in addition to my preference of the 45.5's bezel I liked the fact that it was a different size. My Speedmaster is essentially in the same case as the 42mm PO. So going with the 45.5 made more sense to me as far as putting a little variety into the collection.
I know that this is an optical illusion but the 42mm PO actually seems to have a higher profile than the 45.5.
I was conscious of the 45.5 high profile but you do get used to it quickly. However I have relegated it to use on casual Fridays and weekends. Definitely not a watch for suits. But my Speedy and SMP are just fine for that. Plus they are on bracelets...not rubber.
OK so I stole this joke from the Chuck Norris joke people but...
James Bond's watch always says "Time to kick some ass."
So take your pick...Rolex, Seiko, Casio, Omega, et al...Bond's watch always says it's time to kick some ass. I think that is one thing we can ALL agree on.
This is fast becoming one of my favorite threads because it really gets to the heart of people's passions and thoughts.
I have to say I recently had a change of heart of owning a Planet Ocean 45.5 versus a Rolex Submariner and wound up going with the Rolex. It had nothing to do with exclusivity but it had a LOT to do with feel, fit and overall the emotion it invokes when I put it on the first time. The PO had too high of a commitment on the height from my wrist etc...plus the new subs retained enough of the look and flavor of the vintage ones to seal the deal for me.
When you made the switch from PO to Submariner did you go for the date or non-date? Both are beautiful watches but my personal preference between the two is the non-date version. I feel the face is balanced better and I think it evokes more of an early Bond as it was used by Connery, Moore and Lazenby. I think Dalton was the only one to use the date version with cyclops lense. Just curious as to your preference.
Also...this must have been a resent change as I believe you are sporting the PO in your Maddy shirt photos. I thought it looked good. Did you trade in the PO or did you retain it for your collection and only wear the Rolex now?
I came to understand that Fleming gave James Bond a Rolex because he appreciated what Rolex did during World War Two. Apparently if a member of the Allied Forces was captured and sent to a prison camp, Rolex would send tham a watch free of charge.
Not sure if that is true, but I'm sure there are people here that can confirm or deny that.
I came to understand that Fleming gave James Bond a Rolex because he appreciated what Rolex did during World War Two. Apparently if a member of the Allied Forces was captured and sent to a prison camp, Rolex would send tham a watch free of charge.
Not sure if that is true, but I'm sure there are people here that can confirm or deny that.
Not quite true.
If a POW wanted a Rolex they could order one with the understanding that they would pay whenever they wanted to, basically after the war - full details.
To be fair Omega supplied many military watches during the Second World War. I also collect certain military items and have come across quite a few Omega watches with the British War Department arrow stamped on the reverse.
I wouldn't knock Rolex's pedigree but at the same time I would argue Omega has more of a history - they have been around a lot longer than Rolex too.
BUT at the end of the day it is all down to personal preference. Either way, if you opt for a Rolex or an Omega you are getting a quality product.
Comments
Personal choice at the end of the day but the Omega Seamaster is, I feel, a better watch all-round.
NMS
Panache, Obviously if you take one watch it can skew the debate, I can appreciate that. Omega makes no watch that can match the SD for depth, and Rolex makes no watch 'officially' used in space. However I believe the general argument on 'robustness' stands.
In general it is Rolex who get picked for commercial diving / military applications. As to the specific Bond watches I don't think anyone would argue that the Brosnan Seamaster is anywhere near as robust as the Submariner. The PO I'm still on the fence about as I have never seen on in person. However my fealing is they are trying to 'copy' Rolex due to the strange similarity in looks. Don't get me wrong I also like Omegas very much, I wear my 'Brosnan' often, and if I ever bought another watch it would be a toss up between the Breightling 'Emergency' watch and the Omega 'Space watch'.
I just wish they had been a little bit more orriginal in their design, like the blue Seamaster it is beautiful and classy in its own right a real modern classic and I totally acept it is the one most would recognise today as a 'Bond' watch.
As to the 'Rolex owners are wanna bees' (buz buz)I just don't get it. Yes some of their designs are vulger in the extream. However the Submariner is far simpler in design and less 'showy' than its Omega equivilant, with the exception of the black PO. But then again what do I know ;-)
"Your contact?" "Not well."
you make an interesting point...what would IF perceive as the beluga of watches if he were starting to write about his new creation now?..
Why do i sense this thread might soon morph into panerai et al space?...or even Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin, Girard-Perregaux....
for me, it's always been Rolex or Omega, with what looks like a natural genetic progression...
the "class" of Rolex was for me the original models, in much the same way as Aston Martin...they will never truely best the DB4/5, no matter how they try....yet the later models keep the marque upto date while spiritually echoing the heritage of the DB5...
somewhere, they passed the baton to Omega, who like Bugatti, have always been around, but their days in the limelight were long forgotten until the Veyron came along....they are now back in the supercar/prestiege manufacturer space..
for me, the PO brought Omega back into the true prestiege bracket, where they belong...
if you have to own two watches before you die, I can''t think of two i'd rather own more, than a rolex sub (take your pick) and a PO...
but "contented" is a personal adjective..
Regardless, both invoke an emotion...a spark.
spot on bro....
no messin'...
Excellent
I seem to remember reading somewhere (and I have been racking my brain trying to remember where but I can't at the moment) an interview with Lindy Hemming who said that they chose the Omega Seamaster as Bonds watch because it was felt that Rolex was being percieved more as a status symbol nowadays which wasn't in keeping with Bonds attitude. For Bond it was a quality tool that was used to get the job done and it was felt that the Omega Seamaster best reflected that attitude.
I also agree with Commander James Bond about 'Rolex owners are wanna bees,' you cannot tar everyone with the same brush.
(And If I was to buy another watch it would also be a Breitling Emergency (or indeed a vintage Sub)) so we do agree on something!) {[]
The one thing that can be said is that both of these watchmakers have produced watches for Bond that are recognizable classics with a style that will never go out of fashion.
Anyway, isn't it nice to have a civilized descussion about these watches for a change, even if we agree to disagree I respect your opinons.
:007)
great post, exactly how i feel,when i wear the rubber strap PO i feel like Craig chasing the bomb maker around a construction site, its a rougher,tougher watch i use when im doing most outdoors stuff (im wearing it in my avatar pic as well), then the blue seamaster makes me think of Brosnan obviously and his style and sauve-ness and however odd it may sound but whenever im listening to my ipod and listening to any of david arnolds Bond scores i sometimes take a quick glance down at my watch whenever the bond theme plays and for a quick second or two im Bond and its a great feeling,i wear them given the occasion but both make me feel a little more like James Bond.
Regarding the Rolex vs. Omega, like I said before I have both but I definitely find the PO much more exclusive. So far I did not see anybody wearing it. I know two persons having the Pro and that is it.
This guy could obviously get ANY Omega watch for free, so do we need more infos in the Rolex/Omega question :v
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
My Omega PO 42mm is absolutely fine when wearing a shirt and suit. However my Omega PO 45mm with rubber strap is better worn casual as its extra thickness doesn't lend itself to wearing with a formal shirt and cufflinks.
NMS
He also has a vintage 'Paul Newman' Daytona, a white dial Daytona and a Sub Date.
And don't forget he threw an Omega away on Jonathan Ross' programme :v
Sign Me,
Rolex Owner
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Please forgive my ignorance, but what happened there?
edit: found it here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riwOniNTvPs
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Someone else in the thread recently mentioned the "exclusivity" of Omega. I am not quite sure that was the most appropriate term as Rolex is more exclusive without a doubt. But I would agree with that poster that you do see fewer Omegas than Rolexes. I have read that up to 90% of the Rolexes you see on the street are fake. I know fake Omegas exist but I don't see too many people wearing Omega or a knock off of some kind.
The Rolex Submariner has been the watch I drooled over for many years but I am quite content with my Omega collection which includes an old Seamaster Deville (my grandfather's from 1974), the Brosnan Seamaster Pro, Apollo 11 30th anniversary Speedmaster, and the PO 45.5.
I might add that in addition to my preference of the 45.5's bezel I liked the fact that it was a different size. My Speedmaster is essentially in the same case as the 42mm PO. So going with the 45.5 made more sense to me as far as putting a little variety into the collection.
I know that this is an optical illusion but the 42mm PO actually seems to have a higher profile than the 45.5.
I was conscious of the 45.5 high profile but you do get used to it quickly. However I have relegated it to use on casual Fridays and weekends. Definitely not a watch for suits. But my Speedy and SMP are just fine for that. Plus they are on bracelets...not rubber.
OK so I stole this joke from the Chuck Norris joke people but...
James Bond's watch always says "Time to kick some ass."
So take your pick...Rolex, Seiko, Casio, Omega, et al...Bond's watch always says it's time to kick some ass. I think that is one thing we can ALL agree on.
{[]
I have to say I recently had a change of heart of owning a Planet Ocean 45.5 versus a Rolex Submariner and wound up going with the Rolex. It had nothing to do with exclusivity but it had a LOT to do with feel, fit and overall the emotion it invokes when I put it on the first time. The PO had too high of a commitment on the height from my wrist etc...plus the new subs retained enough of the look and flavor of the vintage ones to seal the deal for me.
When you made the switch from PO to Submariner did you go for the date or non-date? Both are beautiful watches but my personal preference between the two is the non-date version. I feel the face is balanced better and I think it evokes more of an early Bond as it was used by Connery, Moore and Lazenby. I think Dalton was the only one to use the date version with cyclops lense. Just curious as to your preference.
Also...this must have been a resent change as I believe you are sporting the PO in your Maddy shirt photos. I thought it looked good. Did you trade in the PO or did you retain it for your collection and only wear the Rolex now?
Best Bond watch = Rolex!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
As the Easter Bunny would say, "An egg-cellent choice!"
{[]
Not sure if that is true, but I'm sure there are people here that can confirm or deny that.
"Fleming said Rollie, Cubby said Rollie, huge quantity of money said Omega."
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
If a POW wanted a Rolex they could order one with the understanding that they would pay whenever they wanted to, basically after the war - full details.
The James Bond Dossier | SPECTRE | Q-Branch James Bond Podcast
But I do believe that was the reason for Fleming to go with Rolex.:007)
I wouldn't knock Rolex's pedigree but at the same time I would argue Omega has more of a history - they have been around a lot longer than Rolex too.
BUT at the end of the day it is all down to personal preference. Either way, if you opt for a Rolex or an Omega you are getting a quality product.
Just my humble opinion...
NMS