Rolex Explorer II or Omega Seamaster?

[LesserBlackDog]

I wonder how long the faux-vintage trend will last, but I respect that Omega didn't oversize these. Quite unlike Rolex with its new red text (yaaass), 43mm (nooooooo), cyclops-ed (noooooo) SeaDweller.

My main quibble with the '57 Trilogy (as I guess they're being called) is the faux patina lume. I'd prefer crisp white lume. But I suppose you can't have everything in life.

Really like the new Speedmaster Racing Master Chronometers as well, but at 44mm they are not in my purchasing future.

I'm pretty underwhelmed with Rolex and Tudor's Baselworld offerings. No big deal for me on the Rolex end since Rolex is pretty well known for the glacial pace of its design updates and new releases (and after all the new Rollies I've bought recently I would probably be more than a bit upset with myself if they had released a new must-have). But I am a little disappointed to see Tudor just throwing out a bunch of (not particularly interesting) Black Bay variations.

The SeaDweller has never been on my lust list so I don't have strong feelings about the new model, but I was surprised to see that they bumped up the size and added the cyclops. Seems like Rolex has done a reasonably good job resisting the oversized watch trend and is arguably ahead of the curve now that the oversized trend is fading and smaller watches are coming back into style. So the upsize feels like a step backward IMO. The cyclops is just a baffling design choice, since it seems to me that most people who pick the SD over the Sub do so because they want a date but no cyclops.

[hornsup84]

I'm not a fan of most of Omega's current lineup but those '57 LEs from Baselworld

All 38-39mm....

I wonder how long the faux-vintage trend will last, but I respect that Omega didn't oversize these. Quite unlike Rolex with its new red text (yaaass), 43mm (nooooooo), cyclops-ed (noooooo) SeaDweller.

[LesserBlackDog]

I'm not a fan of most of Omega's current lineup but those '57 LEs from Baselworld



All 38-39mm....

[drocpsu]

[MENTION=15577]Rawfull[/MENTION] Well I guess I'm sort of stuck in the middle. I have the winder and use it 95% of the time. But I find resetting the watch to be a hassle the other 5%. But that still isn't enough for me to use the winder 100% of the time. If I were more disciplined (or if my house has less floors), it wouldn't be an issue. As I noted above, I like the watch a lot though.

I know this feeling well. I don't own any automatic watches for this reason. I have a Seiko kinetic that keeps its battery charged the same way,and I wear it much less since getting new watches that I prefer. However, having to set it every time I put it on my wrist now drives me to wear it even less, (like, almost never). And it has a day-date complication, which makes it even more annoying. I do sort of have the itch for an automatic or mechanical watch, but if I do get one, I'll probably go with a reasonably priced one, in case I find that I am ultimately still not a fan.

[DocDave]

[MENTION=15161]SvB_Esq[/MENTION] thanks for the explanation. Much appreciated.

[SvB_Esq]

[MENTION=15577]Rawfull[/MENTION] Well I guess I'm sort of stuck in the middle. I have the winder and use it 95% of the time. But I find resetting the watch to be a hassle the other 5%. But that still isn't enough for me to use the winder 100% of the time. If I were more disciplined (or if my house has less floors), it wouldn't be an issue. As I noted above, I like the watch a lot though.

[Rawfull]

[MENTION=15161]SvB_Esq[/MENTION] So I guess you're not a huge fan of automatic watches then? I have a handful of them and don't try to keep them all wound and ready to go at any given moment. In my experience watch winders aren't worth it but to each his own I guess.

[SvB_Esq]

[MENTION=15161]SvB_Esq[/MENTION] can you elaborate a bit? The winder on which watch? And how is it a pain?

The Rolex Explorer II has a self-winding mechanical movement, which means that, while you can wind it manually, it also "winds" itself through the movement of your wrist. As long as the watch is worn regularly, it will maintain power without requiring manual winding. However, if you don't wear it every day or every few days at least, it will stop. I don't wear mine every single day, so to keep the watch from dying, I generally keep it on a watch winder, which just spins it around slowly. This means that I have to put it on the winder pretty much all the time when I'm not wearing it, which is more hassle than say, just laying it on my nightstand. If I do just leave it on my nightstand, or if I take it off in the kitchen or wherever, it will eventually stop and need to be reset and manually wound.

I can't find a picture of the exact winder I have, but this is pretty close:

[drocpsu]

The reason Rolex's recent "Celebrating Cinema" ad for the Oscars was so effective is because it demonstrated just how iconic and ubiquitous Rolex watches are, without them even trying to put them on film.

I did think that was a great ad. Bravo Rolex.

I still can't afford one though. hahah

[LesserBlackDog]

Rolex has brand ambassadors. I think the possible difference between Rolex and some other brands is that the vast majority of Rolex's ambassadors tend to be elite athletes in what I would characterize as "snob" sports (golf, tennis, skiing). Roger Federer is the main one who comes to mind. With the exception of James Cameron, who is best-known for being director of Titanic and Avatar but has mostly collaborated with Rolex in his deep-sea diving pursuits, Rolex doesn't seem to use actors or other Hollywood personalities as spokespeople. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is up for debate... I would sooner take watch styling cues from the "mere actor" George Clooney than "elite athlete" Tiger Woods, but it is what it is.

Importantly, and to me a major distinction between Rolex and Omega's approaches to marketing, is that as far as I know, Rolex does not pay for product placements in films. When you see a Rolex watch in a movie or hear it referenced, it's not there because Rolex gave the watch to the production crew or paid the movie to mention it. Whereas with Omega, the reason James Bond wears a new Omega watch or three in every film, and you got lots of gratuitous close-ups of them, and they even play plot roles sometimes, and Vesper Lynd compares them favorably to Rolex, is because Omega forked a fat wad of cash over to the films' producers, and for no other reason.

The reason Rolex's recent "Celebrating Cinema" ad for the Oscars was so effective is because it demonstrated just how iconic and ubiquitous Rolex watches are, without them even trying to put them on film.

[DocDave]

I had no idea. Thanks.

[ajs116]

Rolex also has brand ambassadors, as does pretty much every other brand ...

Yep - Rickie Fowler is the first that comes to mind for me.

[Rocco]

Vicious49 sums it up pretty well I think. I like the look of many Omega watches, but there is the allure of the Rolex. As he says, Rolex's are timeless. Definitely an heirloom piece that can be handed down for generations. I do get burned/bummed a bit about having to shell out extra cake to pay for the Rolex premium, but I guess there is not much you can do about that. One thing I have noticed of late is that Omega is using more and more celebrities for endorsements. For a long while it seemed to only be Tag Heuer that had celebs shilling for their watches. Now it seems to have spread to other brands too.

Rolex also has brand ambassadors, as does pretty much every other brand (even the relatively non-premium Seiko). As for the Rolex price premium, my (limited) impression is that you make up for that in resale value. It's not like buying a 7 series.

[DocDave]

[MENTION=3421]Vicious49[/MENTION] sums it up pretty well I think. I like the look of many Omega watches, but there is the allure of the Rolex. As he says, Rolex's are timeless. Definitely an heirloom piece that can be handed down for generations. I do get burned/bummed a bit about having to shell out extra cake to pay for the Rolex premium, but I guess there is not much you can do about that. One thing I have noticed of late is that Omega is using more and more celebrities for endorsements. For a long while it seemed to only be Tag Heuer that had celebs shilling for their watches. Now it seems to have spread to other brands too.

[Vicious49]

This is a tough one for me. In this case I'd take the Omega SMP in a heart beat as the Explorer doesn't really 'speak' to me. But the Omega or Rolex decision in general is not an easy one. I like the looks of most Omegas (PO2500, Speedy, SMP300) over most Rolex. I own or have owned all of those watches and loved all of them. Yet there is still something about Rolex . . . that is timeless. The main issue with Rolex as someone has already mentioned is you will pay about double for it over it's Omega counterpart. Is the watch twice as nice? No. But in most cases, the Rolex is a little better proportioned whereas I think Omegas lean a bit bigger in case size (not just diameter, but thickness as well) which is more of a modern trend. No matter how much Omega pays Bond to wear their watches to try and hype them up, they still don't have the mystique a Rolex carries. This is very tough for an Omega owner like myself to say but . . . . If price is not a factor, I would say go for a Rolex.

I generally lean towards divers so if I were to go Rolex it would be a diver. Unfortunately my first Omega which also happens to be my wedding present from my wife was an Omega PO2500. It would be redundant to also get a Rolex Submariner. The one that keeps calling to me is the Rolex GMT Batman. Maybe someday.