I recently sold my two-tone GMT-Master II with the idea of going back to an all steel version. While shopping around I stumbled upon the new Seamaster Planet Ocean GMT Good Planet Foundation version. I like the Planet Ocean range as a whole, and this new watch intrigues me. Specifications-wise, it beats the older Rolex 16710 hands-down, and it compares very well to the 116710 Ceramic. The blue dial on the Omega is a plus in my book too. My only gripe with the Seamasters going back to the Bond watches has been with the Helium Escape Valve; I've always felt it was too 'obvious'. I am currently wearing the 50th Anniversary Omega GMT, and I like it very much. I just wonder if it'd be worthwhile to peddle the Omega GMT, take that money, add it to the proceeds from the Rolex and buy the new Good Planet GMT. If anyone has any hands-on experience with the new model I'd sure be interested in in their impressions . . .
I think it is a matter of taste foremost. However, the movement of the OMEGA wins hands down from the Rolex movement as I've been told by an independent watchmaker during the Baselworld exhibition. Whether it will hold value like a Rolex does, I don't know. If you are able to source one of these GoodPlanet watches for decent money (I already noticed they are being offered for less than 5K Euro - while the list price is 6K Euro on C24). In any case, I would pick the GoodPlanet over a GMT-Master II. RJ
I actually quite like the cyclops on my Submariner, but then I also like the HEV. Its an Omega quirk that's become a signature feature of the Seamaster Pro line over the years.
I don't find the loupe 'cyclops' on the Rolex as intrusive as the HEV on the Seamasters, and I wonder why Rolex can make the HEV flush to the case while Omega has a goiter on the case at 10 o'clock . . .
My opinionated views: They're both warts. The He Valve is of no use to probably >99% of owners, but at least it's practical, without impacting any other functionality. The Rolex cyclops actually decreases readability and serves no justifiable purpose. It's a poor gimmick, and a very old one at that. I can think of reasons they've kept it around, and it's not for making the date easier to read. Jocke's guide to cyclops removal on TRF is a classic for anyone who hasn't seen it: http://www.rolexforums.com/showpost.php?p=570753&postcount=13 (Weird, just noticed all forums there are set to private... again. Brilliant.) I'd stil happily live with either of these personality quirks. My old Datejust had the offending appendage
You're missing the point. The cyclops is a special Rolex exclusivity feature, designed to make the date readable only to the wearer of the watch. Though this feature entails some wrist-twisting for the wearer trying to get a read on the date, it keeps that information secure from snoopers trying to steal a peek from even a very small angle. Observe this feature at work: "What's the date?" It's June the time to get yourself your own damned Rolex.
If I wanted to know the time and date I'd get a cell phone. I wear a watch because it confounds those around me as to its purpose . . .
Or hire an extremely attractive assistant for things like that. Judging by the size of the things I see many people wearing nowadays, I'd say they bought them as weapons. Imagine getting beaned in the head with some of those hubcaps!
What?! This is, historically and internationally, the fundamental relationship of the white-collar workplace. Old dude, extremely attractive assistant, frequently of the opposite gender. Creepy? Maybe, especially if you are several times older than said assistant... but it's tradition, man!
Tell that to James Woods. Did you see his new 20 year old girlfriend? Those that can, do. I keep trying to "hire" a couple girls from Wing House to be my..... uh, our..... "domestic help". Windy especially would love to be freed from the burden of housework. For some reason she keeps nixing the idea.
If you would like a flush HEV, the omega ploprof has it, but, at one ounce over one half pound it is a heavy watch.
OP, get the new blue-black ceramic GMT. Much nicer than the Omega, and this from a guy who owns two Omegas and only one Rolex Jed
4 years ago I would have said that's because 1 Rolex costs as much as 2 Omegas, but that gap is closing rapidly!
Yea I'd have a pretty hard time going a Rolex GMT over the PO, and I am a Submariner and Daytona owner, its just that the Calibre 3135 base in the GMT is so old and basic compared to the Calibre 8500 based PO. If it were a pepsi bezel I'd be more interested too, black/blue is just peculiar to me.
I think the soon-to-be-released black / blue 116710 Rolex is a killer, but at $9K, it's absurd for me. It will probably take a year or so from now for them to start appearing on the second-hand market. The current all back ceramic Rolexes are selling for about $6K pre-owned, but I don't like them nearly as much, mostly because I don't care for the green GMT hand. My Omega AD quoted me $7300 on the new Planet Ocean GMT, and that can probably be whittled down a bit with some sharp shopping, or I could wait that same year and find the Planet Ocean pre-owned as well. It's a very tough call for me, but I don't like having too many of my watch dollars in one watch. Maybe if I sold 5 or 10 of my 'keepers' . . .