The largest independent, non-commercial, consumer-oriented resource on the Internet for owners, collectors and enthusiasts of fine wristwatches. Online since 1998.
Informational Websites ChronoMaddox -- the legacy of Chuck Maddox OnTheDash -- vintage Heuer website Zowie -- Omega information
Discussion Forums ChronoMaddox Forum Heuer Forum Omega Forum
Counterfeit Watchers ChronoTools Forum ChronoTrader Forum

zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

Opened July 1999, zOwie is the Internet's first and longest running discussion forum dedicated to Omega brand watches.

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.

Re: Omega Vs. Rolex
In Response To: Omega Vs. Rolex ()

: The Rolex Submariner is more robust than the
: Omega Seamaster.

Baloney.

: The Rolex is constructed in Switzerland...

So is the OMEGA.

: of high grade industrial grade stainless steel.

So is the OMEGA.

: The bracelet utilizes screws for sturdiness
: and functionality.

A simple design choice -- not proven better. Some OMEGA watches use screws too. Fails to point out that ROLEX bracelets are much flimsier overall than OMEGA bracelets.

: The crystal is high grade synthetic sapphire.

So is the OMEGA.

: The movement is produced
: by Rolex

And the OMEGA movements are produced by a division under the same parent company. So what.

: and is designed for the types of
: scenarios a watch of this purpose could
: encounter.

Huh? Where does this guy make up this stuff.

: The Rolex is designed down to the
: smallest part to be durable,
: dependable,functional and repairable.

So is the OMEGA.

: The sub/dweller is the ultimate hard use watch.

Baloney. The ultimate hard use watch is called the G-Shock from Casio and sells for under $100.
No "ultimate" hard use watch would ever be based on a breakable mechanical movement.

: The Omega Seamaster is a nice watch, but it
: isn't designed to be tough.

Totally unsupported opinion.

: It is a collection of nice "parts" that
: make a nice watch.

Totally meaningless opinion.

: The movement is not "job specific".

Meaning what? A movement's job it to tell the time. Anything 'job specific' is usually features of the CASE -- like water resistance for diving watches...

: It is an ETA movement with modifications to
: "fit" the Omega.

Fit?

: It was not designed for the Seamaster,
: it is used "in" the Seamaster. IMHO, this is
: a huge compromise on the part of Omega.

ROLEX movements aren't either. So this is not a meaningful comment.

: The construction of the Omega is lower grade
: than the Rolex.

Totally unsupported opinion.

: The Omega uses lower grade
: steel that is softer and easier to corrode

I'll remember that next time I drop my watch in a vat of acid. But it would take that to ever see the difference in the two grades of steel.

No need to go on... I think I've shot holes in this guy's argument enough to show he's so biased for his choice of ROLEX that he refuses to believe that a competitor at half the price could be anything but junk.

Current Position
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