The largest independent, non-commercial, consumer-oriented resource on the Internet for owners, collectors and enthusiasts of fine wristwatches. Online since 1998. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Feel free to discuss pricing and specific dealers. But 'for sale' postings, commercial solicitation and ads are not allowed. Full archive of all messages is accessible through options in the Search and Preferences features. Privacy, policies and administrivia are covered in the Terms of Use.
For the answer to the NUMBER #1 most frequently asked question here--for details or value of a specific older Omega watch you have--go to: Tell Me About My Omega. | Learn more about How To Include Photos and HTML In Your Postings. | To contact someone with a question not relevant to other readers of the forum, please click on their email address and contact them privately. |
Rolex are nice watches, I own one too.
But Omega is comparable or exceeds Rolex on all meaningful measures of quality and performance. I consider them equally good watches.
Some people argue that certain aspects about Rolex movements are somewhat more refined. But these are at such a technical and imperceptible level that they are completely meaningless to any owner.
Some people psyche themselves out thinking that these extremely trivial and imperceptible differences are important and will end up paying an additional $1000-2000 on the cost of the watch.
That is sad because the movement on a typical Omega or Rolex costs UNDER $100 to make. Hardly any justification for paying thousands of dollars more for a watch over imperceptible differences in an under $100 part.
Chronocentric and zOwie site design and contents (c) Copyright 1998-2005, Derek Ziglar; Copyright 2005-2008, Jeffrey M. Stein. All rights reserved. Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the terms of use. | CONTACT | TERMS OF USE | TRANSLATE |