zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

my thaughts Posted By: georges zaslavsky Date: 6/7/06 12:20 GMT In Response To: Planet Ocean (William Lauer)

A couple of random thought for y'all...

I am not also mentioning that the Rolex loses very few of its (resale) value.

Is this the (in)famous not mentioning, mentioning strategy, Georges? =) LOL!

The PO has some advantages on the Rolex however with a better clasp and better legibility due to larger hands.

More affordable, choice in sizes, colors (Orange is the easiest color to see under water, etc.).

When it comes to the movement, the Rolex wins hands down, can you compare a movement with 18 years of feedback with something new and with an unexisting feedback? Not me.

The PO has been out for only about a year, granted. We don't have a long period of feedback on them in terms of reliability. But I haven't heard of any problems with PO's yet. By this time (8-10 months in dealers/customers hands) with the c.33xx we had had at least 6-10 reports of problems with the BA some 8-10 months into their sales careers.

The PO is a dress diver

I may not be a diver watch collector, but I don't agree that the PO is a "dress diver" watch.

Why would one say that the PO is a "dress diver"? because it has half the W/R of the Sea-Dweller? Well, the Submariner has half the W/R of the PO? What does that make the Sub? A ,,panty diver,,?

Is it the bezel? If the PO copied the Rolex bezel style folks would be claiming that Omega was looting Rolex styling. Certainly folks considered the original Seamaster 300's (which had a better W/R rating than the Sub's of that era) tool diving watches and the early one's had very similar bezels to the current PO.

but certainly not a professional tool watch

As evidenced by my comments in the above paragraph I don't agree with your assessment, Georges.

You seem to put forth a standard that anything less than the 'Dweller is not a "professional tool watch". So the PO doesn't qualify. I guess then the "Black/Black" Seamaster wouldn't either, nor would the Bond Seamaster, the SeMPC (even though Rolex (or no one else save TAG-Heuer) produce anything that can touch the SeMPC's feature set some 12 years after the SeMPC was introduced), and even the Submariner doesn't make the grade either then?

I would suppose that maybe, maybe the Moonwatch would quality as a "professional tool watch" as it was/is used by NASA from 1962 through current.

unlike the Dweller which was a part of Comex operations from 1971 till 1998.

Why did Comex drop the 'Dweller George? I'm curious as I wasn't aware that Comex had dropped it.

Of course all depends of your budget and what you like. The two best deep sea diving watches Omega ever made were the plo prof and the seamaster 1000.

Eh, I've had a Plo Prof on my wrist. It may have been a good deep diving tool watch, but it was and is a lug to have on your wrist. The only watch I own that comes close to being as impractical as a "dry-land" watch as the Plo Prof is the 120m/440ft Seamaster chronograph. Wearing a Plo Prof on the street is like wearing Nomex, driving gloves and a Bell Helmet to drive to the grocery for a couple of liters of milk. But tool watch, yeah, I can see that.

but does a Posted By: Mathew J Date: 6/8/06 03:26 GMT In Response To: my thaughts (georges zaslavsky)

poorly finished "inhouse movement" really command over double the price...I am all for inhouse if it means getting a better product that the company cares more about, but that obviously isn't the case here...

Sounds like there is a tale there... Don't feel you have to elaborate though.

As far as the helium valve is concerned, I guess if either was actually used as intended then it might possibly matter but the reality is that nowadays no one uses either for their intended purpose...

I wouldn't go so far to say "no one" would use them. Superfluous features and tool watches don't necessarily mix.

who cares if one is manual or automatic if the feature will never, ever be used

It's a personal choice I'd guess. I have exactly one watch that has that feature, a SeMPC. And truth be told, if given the choice between a HEV and using that crown to control something else, like a GMT hand, I'd choose the GMT feature every time.

And as far as the history is concered, while it is nice one really has to factor just how much it means to them...personally I wouldn't sacrifice product quality just because a brand has a nice past...what I get here and now is what is truly important to me.

As long as we don't forget that History also means established track record. In addition to the 1971-1998 Comex History comes a 1971-1998 Comex track record of usage. Admittedly, the 2500's track record is much shorter, about 5-7 years for the movement, about a year in dive watch usage.

I would hardly call the modern iteration of the Seadweller any more or less of a tool than the Planet Ocean,

Well, the 'Dweller has the better W/R, it does have the automatic HEV. I think that it would be better to depend upon Rolex's tried and proven Automatic HEV valve than my memory of when I should and shouldn't open the HEV on an Omega on my own. Do either make the 'Dweller more of a tool? I think the W/R does, but at a price. As for Omega's HEV... One can have their own opinions about why Omega implemented the HEV in the manner they did? For Styling? As a visable sales feature? Because it was cheaper than designing an automatic valve that didn't copy/impose on Rolex's? To discourage fakes? But that'd just be speculation.

if anything due to price alone people would be more likely to actually use the planet ocean than a SeaDweller...

It depends on the individuals and the usage... It depends on if people are either a) going to dive to 600m and/or beyond, b) if they like/prefer to buy more W/R as a safety factor, c) their perceptions as to which watch is most appropriate to their needs.

just because Comex had chosen the Dweller in the past and stuck with it

At least until 8 years ago according to Georges.

doesn't mean that other pieces could have fit the bill,

No, and the same thing could be said about the Moonwatch when it comes down to brass tacks. Other watches could have served the Astronauts similarly to the Moonwatch.

they approached Rolex when Rolex used to actually focus on watchmaking and were loyal customers

I could comment and elaborate on Omega's attitude towards their customers, but I doubt any new ground would be tread.

well let me reply you *LINK* Posted By: georges zaslavsky Date: 6/8/06 10:11 GMT In Response To: but does a (Mathew J)

That you are one of the few complaining about the rolex finish.

Matthew isn't the only one, nor is he only one of a few. Rolex's finish has long had a reputation of being adequate but utilitarian for the most part. Solid and good enough.

The rolex finish has an alu bouchonné finish and geneva waves too I will post you a link because you are wrong.

I'll grant you that the base plate has nicely executed geneva waves, however the rotor, which is what catches many people's eyes, looks no better finished (and may not be as nicely finished) as a base ETA movement rotor, George.

There are the Red coated gear(s) and other pedestrian finished parts, but look at the rotor on the example you posted, and you'll understand why there are people who are not impressed by the finish Rolex typically executes.

Divers despite they have a diving computer still use a dive watch so you are wrong here again.

Um, Georges, Matthew never said that people didn't still use Dive watches for diving, just that few need much less use the HEV's.

The automatic escape helium valve is an advantage for the professional divers and it has been proven since 1971 with the sea dweller.

I don't think that this is necessarily in dispute. However that a manual HEV couldn't serve the same purpose hasn't been argued. Although I don't think anyone would dispute that an automatic valve would generally be the preferred method.

You talk about product quality when the 2500 isn't even manufactured by Omega themselves but by a subcontractor for Omega (in this case Eta), sorry but I can't compare an entirely inhouse made movement with a movement that is subcontracted.

I'll point out that the same thing can be said about the Moonwatch (which are subcontracted by Lemania first and now "Montres Bruguet") and the c.33xx based F. Piguet's.

Additionally, I'd point out that in-house simply means the same company owns/makes/produces the movement as the rest of the watch. It doesn't mean anything more or have a greater quality just because it's in-house.

A Ford Mustang GT with an "in-house" motor isn't necessarily a better car than a Jack Rouch or Carroll Shelby prepared Mustang with a "Common Ford built" base powerplant that's been modified. To use a car analogy.

We all know you loathe ETA's, and you have your reasons. That's fine, to each their own. But "in-house" in and of itsself isn't some mystical mark of achievement. It just isn't.

The thing would be diffrent if Omega modified the eta 2892-a2 itself but it is not the case.The 3135 has a serious feedback that is not the case of the 2500.

The 2500 has serious feedback, just not as lengthy or as under as stressful conditions (thus far) as the 3135.

The 33xx was said to be reliable but it only had failures.

I'd argue the c.33xx isn't the best movement to compare to the 2500. Since you're comparing chronograph movements to the 2500, let's compare the 2500 to a Rolex movement that came out about the same time and had early teething pains like the 2500... Namely the new "Daytona" Rolex movement (4130 I believe)...

Both had problems shortly after introduction, that required manufacture remediation, and after those initial teething problems have moved beyond them to be proven performers in their short existance.

The c.33xx by comparision, was an attempt (botched it would seem) by Omega, to engineer and design out the known delicacy of the FP 1185 movement so they could use it in sports chronographs. We're still seeing new problem reports with the c.33xx nearly 5 years after they started appearing on dealers shelves.

You are one of the few who lost value while resaling a Rolex,I have seen some pre 1997 dweller and even 2002 dwellers maintaining their value very well.

I believe Matthew's argument is that while Rolex's hold their value better than Omega, they still can and do lose value at times.

The sea dweller has been used by the comex from 1971 till 1998, it is a professional tool

Agreed.

the PO was a result from the marketing strategy of Hayek to attack the Sea Dweller/Super Ocean/Aquatimer market.

Personally, I suspect that Omega very decidedly placed the PO precisely in-between the Sub and 'Dweller in an effort to gain potential customers from those who'd traditionally look at those two Rolex's.

So?

If they product is competitive with those two watches in terms of function, value, etc. that it's a marketing sucess doesn't preclude it from being a tool watch. At least this is my argument. Let's face it, the chances of Matthew, yourself or myself ever needing 600m W/R and or a HEV is probably very small. And if we ever do get to 600m below the surface of the ocean, an HEV is probably the least of our concerns!

A reference is always favored with a serious feedback is always favored over a pure product of marketing with a non existing feedback.

With you and perhaps others, I'm sure. And I wouldn't say the c.2500 doesn't have any existing feedback, only that it's feedback is much shorter in length than the 3135.

I suspect, Georges, that you'd be happy (or at least happier) with the PO if it had a 56x series Omega movement powering it. Or even better yet, an Omega 500 series movement retrofit with an Omega made, manufactured and produced Co-Axial escapement.

But sadly, I have to tell you Georges the chances of Omega firing up production on those eld movements isn't very likely. About as likely as Omega moving the moonwatch back to c.321 base movement. Or me intentionally putting Premium fuel into a rental car.

Nor is there much chance of Hyaek permitting Omega to design their own in-house movement.

Observation, this is getting long, so I'm going to be doing more excerpting from here on out...

in response... Posted By: Mathew J Date: 6/8/06 12:55 GMT In Response To: well let me reply you *LINK* (georges zaslavsky)

I never said that divers don't use an analog watch along with their dive computers but rather that the number of divers which use an expensive swiss luxury watch, be it Omega or Rolex are very very slim...

Um, Matthew, I may have misunderstood you too when I opined above:

"Um, Georges, Matthew never said that people didn't still use Dive watches for diving, just that few need much less use the HEV's."

But I think you can understand why I thought that.

Again the HE valve only matters for "saturation" divers, something which I was under the impression that in the future sat divers might be replaced by ROV's which would make the helium valive technology completely useless...

What is the percentage of "Saturation" divers over more common snorkel, SCUBA, wet and dry suit divers? My point is that an HEV is not needed by the vast majority of divers, unless they wish to "over feature/over capacity" purchase their watch, which can be considered valid thinking... It's always better to have more capacity than you need, rather than less capacity than you need.

funny as I would hardly say I am "one of the few", check out any sales board, or auction site and on any given day you will see others losing hundreds or thousands in selling Rolex...in fact I just spoke with a person who sold their F SeaDweller purchased last year for $4,700 for a measley $3,300....that is over a $1,400 loss for a little over a years worth of ownership,

$3300 is 70.21276595744681% of the original $4,700 cost.

had this person bought a Planet Ocean they would have paid $2,400 and sold for at least $1,800 which is only a $600 loss....

$1,800 is exactly 75% of the original $2,400 cost, by Matthew's example.

So, using Matthew's example, the difference between the F-'Dweller and a PO over the same period is about 5% in favor of the Omega (which is a bit of a surprise).

I don't follow the prices of watches I'm not in the market for generally. So I can't comment on my chances of getting either a PO for $1,800 or a 'Dweller for $3,300.

---

I don't often participate in Dive watch discussions. I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to contribute much often times, and frankly it's not my primary interest.

But I thought I would point out some random observations in this instance.

-- Chuck