zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

Daniel,
you should have learned form the thread that it's no use to argue with Mathew. Most of his arguments are so personal and have been proven in the thread to be easily put visa versa on the Rolex. As you see I'm answering you as I have decided to leave the man with his own opinions, because that's all what they are.

To summ it up
==============
"1. Non Boardered Hour Indicies."

-agreed

"2. Dipped Second hand instead of Painted."

-It doesn't matter if painted or dipped, but it could be sharper manufactured to the "circle with superluminova". Sometimes the red coat is a little too short and looks odd. Personally I don't even "see" this as a point.

"3. Crown Mechanism Not as "Robust" As the"

-That's absolutely not true. My two Seamasters alone proof excellent quality. I only had a GMT2 lately in my hands...but I don't want to continue this debate. BTW: also the SM Chronograph's Crown is bigger than the regular SM. The crown of the SM chrono is the best I have seen for the money asked, beats any Rolex I had in my hands. But I admit it's subjective, as I have stronger and larger hands that prefer bigger and more solid crowns.

"4. Clasp only has Full and Half link adjustments"

-Yeah, but what a cheap and flimsy feel and look on the Rolex. The Seamaster clasp is solid in appearance with not a single flimsy part on it. Even the diver extension fits perfectly. I leave it to anybody to decide for a flimsy adjustable design (like in Rolex or Breitling) or a once adjustable fully solid design.

"5. Helium valve is Awkward being Manually"

-I love it, especially as it is rose-gold on mine ;-). It's really just style.

"activated, especially when there is another
watch (SOP) which has an auto valve for the
same MSRP as the SMP, why use older tech when
newer is avail at a comparable price."

-As many persons see it this is/can also be a design/style issue, but Mathew stated his opinion already above. I think it's design and it's for sure something different (I like).

"6. Un-necessary holes in the uppermost links of
the bracelet. Why are they there?"

-Well, presumingly because of the "different styled links" on the front close to the case, so they can be exchanged if needed (demaged by "door frames" <- my favorite watch killer). One (Omega) doesn't need to replace the complete braclet.

-But here comes again the "stones in the glass-house" issue. The Rolex has the holes in the case, which are holes in about the same location on a watch. That's why this point is not only so rediculous, but it really makes me LOL about Mathew. This should get it's own URL "hey, Omega got holes I can see on the top in the braclet, I hate it, but my Rolex has only holes in the Case..hohoho". Hope I'm not the only one who finds this still too funny.

-But one more word for some friction pin haters. "The strap issue". Anybody ever thought about having a SMP with a strap ? No holes then at all !!!, but on the Rolex you always have them in the case...ups, did I find another "con" in the Rolex case/braclet design.....no I didn't, because it's there because as Mathew put "it is functional" ;-)), how could I forget about that one....

-But as we talk about the braclet. Did anybody notice that the front links towards the case are not really well designed on the Rolex. They are too short ! If you look from above down onto the SM you notice how nicely the Seamaster case lugs are ending with the first "case-links". Truly beautiful. The Rolex "case-links" are too short and even throw more light on the raw cut (and sharped edged) Rolex case design. But I stop here, otherwise I sound like a friction-pin-hater ;-).

"6. And lastly my Favorite, Friction Pins to secure "
As this is the least often talked about topic in the complete Omega world and on TZ, except for the "first sizing" which we covered above, I think we leave this as a private hate matter to Mathew.

Regards,
Andreas