Looking for more on the story of Omega.

[johnireland]

Just read a good Wikipedia overview on the history of Omega...but can anyone recommend any good biographies of the company? In the process I would like to focus as much as possible on the Seamaster and the Constellations of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. From what Wikipedia says, Omega always outsold Rolex until sometime in the 70s when the Japanese quartz movement destroyed a large portion of the Swiss mechanical watch industry.

Were there marketing decisions or manufacturing decisions that hurt Omega during that period? They certainly have regained much of their prestige in the last 15 years.

Anyway I'm interested in learning more about the company history, and opinions on why Rolex seemed to prosper when Omega appears to have been struggling. I've aways considered them equals...each with their own design and engineering focus and philosophies. The Omega movements are far more attractive in my opinion, while the Rolex cases seem more substantive and rugged.

Lastly...my 34mm Constellation is really getting me to appreciate the Omega 34mm cases. Not a mm bigger than it needs to be. It lies flat and close to the wrist...a real pleasure to wear. Looking forward to all and anything you can share.

 

[Foo2rama]

Omega positioned themselves as a watchmaker. Rolex before the quartz crisis positioned themselves as a sturdy precision tool maker. With well made and durable products. Oyster a key part of the mystique implied superior dust and water resistance.

Seamaster and oyster case are basically the same at the end of the day. Which implies a superior feature?


Or TLDR: Rolex had better marketing versus everyone else.

 

[Vitezi]

johnireland

but can anyone recommend any good biographies of the company?

Some ideas in this thread: https://omegaforums.net/threads/omega-book.89796/

 

[blufinz52]

Foo2rama

Rolex had better marketing versus everyone else.

And better watches versus most everyone else.

 

[dsio]

blufinz52

And better watches versus most everyone else.

Better run company in general really during the crisis, if Hayek hadn’t bought out Omega and spent a couple of decades straightening it out and rebuilding it, it may have faded into mediocrity or worse, a high street fashion brand.

It can’t be overstated what a basket case Omega was when Swatch bought it, which makes the fall from its heights in the 60s and recovery in the 2000s all the more impressive.

 

[Foo2rama]

blufinz52

And better watches versus most everyone else.

At the start of the crisis? No, but they stayed the course and didn’t cheapen. In Rolex fashion they didn’t change.

 

[Dan S]

It is interesting to look at the increasingly crappy mechanical watches that many Swiss companies put on the market in response to quartz competition. But as noted above, Rolex held steady.

 

[johnireland]

Thanks for all your answers. I just ordered "Omega Designs"...it seems like a good place for me to start my education since it offers a good overview of the marque from 1848 through 2008. My one thought on what made Rolex eventually prosper in that difficult time beginning in the 70s (compared to Omega and other brands) is that Rolex was and still is owned by a tightly held family trust. It has never become a publicly held company, with all the problems that can entail. The focus of Rolex management has always been on control and protection of the brand.

 

[Helvetia History]

I don't know how much research the author of the Wiki article on Omega did but they have the early history wrong. Omega was never called La Generale. Before they became Omega in 1903 they were called Louis Brandt & Frere and before that Louis Brandt & Fils.

La Generale was a separate company formed by the Brandt brothers in 1895 alongside Louis Brandt & Frere. Omega and La Generale, both owned by the Brandts, existed together until 1911 when they sold their stock in La Generale. It looks as if they more or less did a swap with Ed. Boillat & Cie for their part of La Centrale watch case company (which only made cases for La Generale and Omega). After 1911 Ed. Boillat completely owned La Generale and Omega completely owned La Centrale.

I don't know why this myth about La Generale is so widespread. It's easy to find out the true story, Omega's website for instance.

More about La Generale on my site here for those (few people) interested.

https://www.helvetiahistory.co.uk/history

 

[johnireland]

Helvetia History

I don't know how much research the author of the Wiki article on Omega did but they have the early history wrong. Omega was never called La Generale. Before they became Omega in 1903 they were called Louis Brandt & Frere and before that Louis Brandt & Fils.

La Generale was a separate company formed by the Brandt brothers in 1895 alongside Louis Brandt & Frere. Omega and La Generale, both owned by the Brandts, existed together until 1911 when they sold their stock in La Generale. It looks as if they more or less did a swap with Ed. Boillat & Cie for their part of La Centrale watch case company (which only made cases for La Generale and Omega). After 1911 Ed. Boillat completely owned La Generale and Omega completely owned La Centrale.

I don't know why this myth about La Generale is so widespread. It's easy to find out the true story, Omega's website for instance.

More about La Generale on my site here for those (few people) interested.

https://www.helvetiahistory.co.uk/history

Many thanks.

 

[gbesq]

Omega's mistake during the quartz crisis was to overdiversify its product lines. In short, they tried to cater to all tastes and produced too many watches. In the process, they lost focus and produced some admittedly poor quality watches. Rolex, on the other hand, stayed the course and focused on its core business, a limited stable of watches, and building its brand. I would argue that today Omega is making some of the best watches in the business and continues to innovate whereas Rolex steadily and predictably moves at a glacial pace. That being said, there is no arguing that Rolex has build a brand with nearly 100% recognition worldwide whereas Omega continues to play second fiddle.

 

[Archer]

gbesq

Omega's mistake during the quartz crisis was to overdiversify its product lines. In short, they tried to cater to all tastes and produced too many watches. In the process, they lost focus and produced some admittedly poor quality watches. Rolex, on the other hand, stayed the course and focused on its core business, a limited stable of watches, and building its brand.

Omega made a lot of different watches even before the quartz crisis came along. It's in their DNA to make a lot of different models and styles, so I don't think it was really the result of the quartz crisis. If you even look at the sheer number of movements that Omega made before the quartz crisis, and compare that to Rolex, who had Aegler make them a fairly limited number of movements, it's pretty clear Omega has always made a lot of variations when compared to Rolex. Rolex usually only has a very few movements in production at any given time, and most of those are variations on just one primary movement - from a watchmaking standpoint they are very limited (or efficient depending on your perspective).

Omega had a much better reputation as a watchmaker than Rolex did for a very long time, and the mistake they made was building to a price. When the 55X/56X/75X were replaced with the 1000 and then the 1010/1020 series, that was not great for Omega, even though it was clear why they did what they did at the time. It's easy to judge all these things in hindsight of course, and I service both those movements often and with the upgrades they run fine, but aren't pretty by any means. Then the decline from there using ETA movements - there's nothing wrong with ETA movements, and they are step up from some of Omega's own movements of the time in many ways, but they lack cache, and that's what you needed during the transition from what watches were before quartz, to what they became after quartz.

Before quartz, you had to pay money for accuracy, and watchmaking prowess was very much related to accuracy. Quartz made accuracy cheap, so now a different tactic had to be taken to stay alive. Rolex as always was good at marketing, so they became a luxury watch company (when they were certainly not that previously, at least not in the way people see it now) and convinced the general public that they were "the best" which is very much arguable, but the tactic certainly worked.

Omega tried to cut costs, which ended up costing them. I agree that they have fully rebounded from where they were, and Rolex is again behind, but the perception of the public from the period when Omega was out in the wilderness won't be easily overcome, in particular with the marketing that Rolex continues to do (and the team of unpaid marketers that exist on every platform perpetuating their status)...

 

[johnireland]

gbesq

Omega's mistake during the quartz crisis was to overdiversify its product lines. In short, they tried to cater to all tastes and produced too many watches. In the process, they lost focus and produced some admittedly poor quality watches. Rolex, on the other hand, stayed the course and focused on its core business, a limited stable of watches, and building its brand. I would argue that today Omega is making some of the best watches in the business and continues to innovate whereas Rolex steadily and predictably moves at a glacial pace. That being said, there is no arguing that Rolex has build a brand with nearly 100% recognition worldwide whereas Omega continues to play second fiddle.

I agree with you that Omega lost focus...or focused on the wrong segment of the market back then. Though I'm certainly new to learning about Omega, every time I put on my Constellation I am fascinated with how good a watch it is. The power reserve is better than the Rolexes of that era, and the self winding movement is more efficient. Only complaint is how difficult to wind the crown (on the Constellation only) but I bought a little tool that now makes it very easy...when necessary. The 34mm case is more delicate next to my 36mm Oyster Perpetual, and I go back and forth over which I like better...usually it is whichever one I'm wearing at the moment. I know that many people hate the Rolex cyclops, but I have to say that I find it an outstanding solution to the problem. The "Big Date" popularized by Lange & Sohne never made sense to me. And certainly the different eras that Rolex and Omega were born into shaped the philosophies of the companies regarding their approaches to the wristwatch. I haven't found any modern era watches, made by anyone, that has attracted my interest or my money. Too many wonderful old watches to enjoy.

 

[gbesq]

Archer

Omega made a lot of different watches even before the quartz crisis came along. It's in their DNA to make a lot of different models and styles, so I don't think it was really the result of the quartz crisis. If you even look at the sheer number of movements that Omega made before the quartz crisis, and compare that to Rolex, who had Aegler make them a fairly limited number of movements, it's pretty clear Omega has always made a lot of variations when compared to Rolex. Rolex usually only has a very few movements in production at any given time, and most of those are variations on just one primary movement - from a watchmaking standpoint they are very limited (or efficient depending on your perspective).

Omega had a much better reputation as a watchmaker than Rolex did for a very long time, and the mistake they made was building to a price. When the 55X/56X/75X were replaced with the 1000 and then the 1010/1020 series, that was not great for Omega, even though it was clear why they did what they did at the time. It's easy to judge all these things in hindsight of course, and I service both those movements often and with the upgrades they run fine, but aren't pretty by any means. Then the decline from there using ETA movements - there's nothing wrong with ETA movements, and they are step up from some of Omega's own movements of the time in many ways, but they lack cache, and that's what you needed during the transition from what watches were before quartz, to what they became after quartz.

Before quartz, you had to pay money for accuracy, and watchmaking prowess was very much related to accuracy. Quartz made accuracy cheap, so now a different tactic had to be taken to stay alive. Rolex as always was good at marketing, so they became a luxury watch company (when they were certainly not that previously, at least not in the way people see it now) and convinced the general public that they were "the best" which is very much arguable, but the tactic certainly worked.

Omega tried to cut costs, which ended up costing them. I agree that they have fully rebounded from where they were, and Rolex is again behind, but the perception of the public from the period when Omega was out in the wilderness won't be easily overcome, in particular with the marketing that Rolex continues to do (and the team of unpaid marketers that exist on every platform perpetuating their status)...

Great and informative post, as always. Thanks.

 

[gbesq]

johnireland

I agree with you that Omega lost focus...or focused on the wrong segment of the market back then. Though I'm certainly new to learning about Omega, every time I put on my Constellation I am fascinated with how good a watch it is. The power reserve is better than the Rolexes of that era, and the self winding movement is more efficient. Only complaint is how difficult to wind the crown (on the Constellation only) but I bought a little tool that now makes it very easy...when necessary. The 34mm case is more delicate next to my 36mm Oyster Perpetual, and I go back and forth over which I like better...usually it is whichever one I'm wearing at the moment. I know that many people hate the Rolex cyclops, but I have to say that I find it an outstanding solution to the problem. The "Big Date" popularized by Lange & Sohne never made sense to me. And certainly the different eras that Rolex and Omega were born into shaped the philosophies of the companies regarding their approaches to the wristwatch. I haven't found any modern era watches, made by anyone, that has attracted my interest or my money. Too many wonderful old watches to enjoy.

Certainly agree. Most of my collection, with a few more modern exceptions, is comprised of 1950’s and 1960’s Omegas and I’m often amazed at just how well made and accurate they are - not to mention beautiful - for watches that are 60 to 70 years old.

 

[OMTOM]

There are various sources. For an overview of the complete Omega story, it has to be AJTT (as described above) – but nowadays not cheap if you don’t have a copy. You ask for a biography of the company – it’s here!

Also not cheap and hard to get hold of, but the coverage in Kathleen Pritchard’s book is very interesting (almost 30 pages of historical extracts of the whole Omega story). I mention it only for completeness.

The Wikipedia account is interesting – but as noted by @Helvetia History (above), the references to La Générale are completely wrong.

You wish to “focus as much as possible on the Seamaster and the Constellations of the 50s, 60s, and 70s.” Looking at your lovely Constellation, that is easy to understand. For coverage of the Constellation, Desmond’s website will tell you a lot. He describes it as “A celebration of Omega’s famous marques of the nineteen-fifties and sixties” – it is mostly Constellation (in depth!) but also includes Seamaster. He also writes that “This blog is offered as an educational resource” it certainly is:

http://omega-constellation-collectors.blogspot.com/

I know nothing about other marques (some of which are of course very special) and I cannot compare the technical or marketing aspects of Omega v Rolex (mentioned above) – but I don’t think you’ll find another company which has such an extensive history (going back to the 1880s/1890s) of production of beautiful watches (and clocks) and also records it in a way that we can access it.