Current state of Omega

Lol, I almost sprayed my morning coffee on my computer screen.

Neither Omega or Rolex are in the top tier (solid mid-range watches on both counts), so asking if either is #1 or #2 is a bit off in my own personal view. If you are talking strictly of marketing, then yes maybe you have a point, but not for the watches themselves.

For modern watches, neither excite me much at all, but overall I would give Omega the edge in terms of styling and certainly technology. They both have dogs in their line up, and for me Rolex has more dogs than Omega does.

For vintage it's closer. I tend to like vintage Subs more than vintage Seamasters, but it depends a lot on condition - there seem to be more good condition Rolex divers than Omega divers, maybe because Omega's were actually used more...not sure.

For chronographs, for me the Daytona is a watch that I have a hard time understanding what people see it in (other than the name and rarity). It doesn't appeal to me at all (that goes for modern or vintage). Speedmaster is the winner there for me.

Cheers, Al

I have no ideas if they are actually rare, but that is what the market seems to think. I would certainly be interested in one if I found it in my thrift store bought chesterfield (couch/sofa to the rest of the world):

https://robbreport.com/style/watch-collector/rare-paul-newman-rolex-daytona-2870019/

As noted in the article:

"Rolex produced the manually wound Daytona ref. 6241 from 1966 to 1969, roughly. During this short three-year period, fewer than 3,000 pieces of the 6241 were made and just a small percentage of those were fitted with the “exotic dial” (that would later be nicknamed the Paul Newman dial)."

What is a "small percentage" is something I can't say...

BTW interesting plans for use of the funds. Won't be much of a house...

Cheers, Al

And Apple sells more than all three combined.

Your point?
gatorcpa

Many of us agree that Rolex is number 1 in brand awareness among manufacturers of luxury Swiss watches. That does not necessarily equate to number 1 in overall quality or technological innovation. As Archer correctly noted, both Rolex and Omega are mid-tier luxury brands. There are better brands than both. IMHO, Rolex has better resale value and does a better job of marketing than Omega, but Omega gets the nod for aesthetics and cutting edge technology. It all comes down to what you enjoy wearing on your wrist. For me, that’s Omega.

Operative words in the OP's post are 'to me'. Marketing is about building or creating perceptions and meeting customers' expectations; hopefully, this means respectfully and with a fulfillment of the brand promise. Rolex are masters, absolutely. Their adverts often feature the sporting elite and the sports of (today's) kings - like yachting, say. They also create scarcity, as has been discussed on OF many times. Planned or otherwise, scarcity is a great marketing technique. Omega have likewise done an excellent job of creating brand awareness; James Bond alone has increased brand equity exponentially, as has Olympic timing and other speedy sports (see what I did there?). Even so, ask 'most' folks who makes the #1 watch and I bet they say Rolex. (In walks a certain Mr. A. Lange and his sons, and quietly says, "Halte mein Bier".)

'Number 1' almost always needs to be accompanied by an asterisk. (pro cycling, anyone?). Look at the Big Mac. Number 1? In numbers, absolutely. In quality? Feh. Meaningless. No, I'm not comparing Omega and Rolex to McDonalds. That's for the more cynical observer. It's simply a wariness of all things 'we are number one!'

This reminds me of a very recent situation. At a family dinner 2 weeks ago, I was wearing my Speedmaster and sat next to my cousin, a finance guy with over 35 years of international banking experience. He was wearing his IWC Portuguese - his only watch. My wife casually mentioned something about Omega, and my cousin sniffed arrogantly about Omega being simply a middling market brand. This may be true, but his comment wasn't an educated call on market presence or quality. It was his brand perception. He bought an IWC (a damn fine watch, imo) because of what it represented to him. Omega (and that "showy Rolex stuff") didn't speak to him and were beneath him, apparently. When I asked for clarification, he actually asked me what I was wearing. I thought WTF? That question alone precluded his position completely to me as it would to most watch guys and gals, but it is catnip to marketers. In his eyes, IWC is number 1.

The question, ultimately is what does the brand mean to you? What made you choose this over that? Serious collectors, I suspect, have different objectives than the everyday watch fanciers like myself, so I cannot speak to their choice reasoning, needs or aspirations. Still: Rolex or Omega? How about BMW or Audi? Gibson or Fender? By and large, these are all pointless comparisons. Each have their qualities and applications - and attendant brand perceptions. In terms of watch functionality determining who makes a better movement, I leave that to the Archers and JiminOz'of the world (hell, my local watchmaker prefers the Omega 286 over 90% of movements he sees).

There was a time when Omega was considered to be the better watchmaker. But the Rolex marketing machine played a large part in putting them out front.

For those who wish Omega to be #1, be careful what you ask for. Resale value is very far down the list of things that are important to me when buying a watch, and honestly being able to get a used model or grey market watch for a good discount is nothing but a positive in my view. I've never paid MSRP for a watch, let alone above MRSP...and if Omega were to go the way of Rolex, even if they had a modern watch I liked, I likely wouldn't be buying it.