zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

I owned a Rolex long before I ever bought my first Omega. Rolex are good watches. The Sub is a watch I have always wanted.

Back in the early 1980's when I bought my first (and only) Rolex, a steel DateJust was about a $1000 watch. 20 years later, the comparable model DateJust (with only trivial improvements) costs over $3200 new. Using the consumer price index, $1000 in 1980 equals about $1900 today based on just the rate of inflation. So obviously, the price of Rolex is going up noticably higher than just the rate of inflation!

That's why when I later wanted to buy another luxury watch, I chose an Omega instead. Omega is today more like what Rolex was 20+ years ago... a superb product at a respectable, but not overinflated price.

So if you have the money to buy a Rolex, go ahead. They are great. Though as you mention their bracelets and clasps are somewhat underwhelming for the price of the watch. But compared to your Omegas, I believe you won't find the Rolex Sub to be noticably any better--just different. All the differences that people try to claim of Rolex are miniscule technical details far beyond the understanding or notice of mortal man.

But some people, once they hear there is a 'difference' between two items find themselves mentally unable to accept one of the choices--no matter how inconsequential or meaningless the difference is. The fear that they might chose something inferior can outweigh all other factors, even to the extremes of much higher costs or giving up other attributes that they liked.

This is where I have a problem buying a new Rolex anymore. If I cannot see any appreciable difference, and have to take someone's word that at some imperceptible level the watch is 'better,' then why would I want to pay twice as much?

I still want a Submariner. Likely I will buy a used/vintage one someday. But I doubt I would ever buy a new Rolex again, given that there are options I perceive as equally good for half the price.