zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

: Hi John

: How can you say that PO is "rugged"
: when it was never used a real dive watch by
: a professional team or a company and when
: its movement has never been tested over the
: very long run???? The sub and sea dweller
: are rugged sportswatches.The sub was
: launched in 1953 and the sea dweller in 1967
: bothe were part of the comex equipment from
: 1971 till 1998. I don't consider a product
: from hayek's marketing hype as a
: "rugged" sports watch but a dress
: diver with zero concrete feedback regarding
: its ruggedness.

Georges, I have always said that you are a wealth of knowledge when it comes to watch movements and vintage Omegas, and I respect your opinion. We all know that you don't like current Omega movements and that you think Rolex movements and vintage Omega movements are better. You tell us that every chance you get. Even if I agree with some of your opinions, the fact is that your constant ETA-bashing isn't very helpful to someone seeking advice on current Omega models. This poster didn't ask for advice on a Rolex Sub or Sea Dweller, he asked for opinions on two specific current production Omega models, and that's what I based my reply on.

I don't believe I have to wait for the Planet Ocean to be in production as long as the Rolex models to call it a rugged sports watch. The fact is, that's what it was designed to be. It's a diver's watch, which puts it into the sports watch category. It has 600 meters of water resistance, it is a thick, heavy watch with a free-sprung balance, and it was designed to be used for diving. It isn't a watch that was designed to be used for nothing more extreme than walking from the office to the break room. I'm confident that no matter what adjective I had used to describe the Planet Ocean, you would have replied with your usual "it's too new to judge its reliability and it will never be as good as a Rolex" argument.

You, yourself, have never adequately replied to a question posed to you by Chuck on this forum and by me on another forum. You have stated numerous times that the Rolex 4130 Daytona movement is the best chronograph movement on the market. This movement has only been around for about 6 years, which is about as long as Omega has been using the co-axial in mass production. Both of these movements have been in production for approximately the same amount of time and both had teething problems that were quickly addressed and corrected. Neither of these movements have been around for the "15 years" that you insist is necessary before a movement can be judged to be reliable. So, I ask yet again, why is the Rolex 4130 the best chronograph movement on the market while the Omega 2500 co-axial is "too new and unproven"? They've been in production just as long!!! I think that you are giving Rolex the benefit of the doubt, while you are assuming that any ETA-based movement must be inferior simply because it is ETA-based. Either way, neither movement has met your "15 year" criteria, so your opinions don't seem to make sense any way you look at them.