Omega Speedmaster or Rolex Daytona.

blufinz52

The Speedy is running a little slow.

blufinz52

The Speedy is running a little slow.

Kmmdad57

So I know this as been done in some way or another more than 1000 times, but I want to look at it on each watches own merit. History and resale value is a large part of why people buy one of these two watches, however I want to get peoples options ( I know this is a bias omega forum) on these two watches based on quality and visual beauty ( I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder). For that reason, I want to use sapphire sandwich version because it uses modern materials that I feel would match better to a Daytona. Nothing wrong with the hesalite, but it is more geared to history, rather than materials for modern watch making. So the question is, does the Speedmaster carry quality, prestige, luxury on par or near on par with the Daytona or are they on two different level?

DdKk

Although often compared, these watches have little in common--visually, functionally, technically, and even in terms of image and appeal. In terms of how they look (and altogether bypassing the beauty question), the contemporary Daytona is far more showy and shiny, the Speedmaster almost geeky in its muted purposefulness. The Daytona is a lot more noticeable as a result, and that's either an advantage or a disadvantage, depends on the wearer's attitude. That no one save the odd watch geek notices my Speedmaster vastly enhances my enjoyment of this watch. The attention that a Daytona gets would be reason enough for me not to want one.

Quality... to negate the 'bias Omega form' allegation, I would say they are on a par. (In truth, of course they're not: take a look at that 3861!)

Prestige, luxury... these concepts are probably as vague and subjective as beauty, and they mean radically different things to different people. Whereas both watches possess these qualities for many, I would suggest that the sense of luxury and prestige exuded by the Omega is probably more universal. There are many who wouldn't be seen dead with a Daytona, inter alia for image reasons; I doubt that many feel this way about the Speedmaster.

To negate the 'bias Omega forum' point even further... The other day I had the opportunity to handle a certain Japanese watch, one with an RRP of about £1000 below my Speedy and many thousands below the Daytona's. Much as I adore my Omegas... quality-wise, the GS was on another level altogether, and in every way--materials, construction, finish, movement... the works. On the wrist, it would attract even less attention than a Speedmaster. For some, this combination would be the ultimate in luxury and prestige...

There is no upshot to all this. My advice would be: put one on your wrist, then the other, and go for the one that makes you smile more. Easy! 😀

Kmmdad57

So you don't think they are on par. I believe the only thing they are not on par with is bezel. One is ceramic and the other is aluminum. However, I believe they did aluminum bezel to mostly keep with heritage. For me, looks wise ...Speedmaster, commanding attention on the wrist... Rolex. movement wise.... equal. You can say one is a manual the other is auto, but again for omega it is about staying true to the heritage, Both have two different appeals. One is about the bling and the other is about recognizable heritage. Speedmaster suits me more because I am no multi millionaire, but what the watch does is reflect more of who I am. If I had Daytona money, I still would not own one. I would most likely buy a 57 and a Fois.

UWG

Loving both and wearing both of them as a daily watch!

DdKk

I agree with you throughout. The reason I don't think they they are completely on a par, quality-wise, is that the 3861 is more special (and all the more so when you can see it). Quality of finish -wise, they probably are on a par. I certainly don't think that a ceramic bezel is 'better' than an aluminum bezel. It is a design choice, and the aluminium bezel suits the Speedmaster far better. (In fact, it suits the Daytona better, too! One reason why the pre-ceramic versions of this (and any other) Rolex look so much better to me...)