I believe that Omega and Rolex have been keen competitors for a very long time.
I made the statement you are refering to based on how Omega responded through their offerings during the Quartz crisis and for a long time afterward.
Rolex basically stuck with what they were already doing throughout and since. They stayed true to the core with one exception.
Omega had nice honest movements which may or may not have been better than Rolex prior to the Quartz crisis.
Understandably Omega went with what looked like the future tech that had become dominant. Enter their Quartz movements with continued usage to this day.
Naturally Seiko were forging ahead with Quartz tech as was just about everybody else and their dog.
Omega still had mechanical movements but they moved away from "in house" and went with a variation of ETA movements. Not that there was anything wrong with that. But i do see it as a logical response to market pressures brought on by the Quartz crisis in order to maintain profitability.
The ETA movement variations continued through to the introduction of their own "in house" Co-axials.
As mentioned above. Rolex continued doing their Rolex thing and eventually dropped any further involvement with their Quartz experimentation.
Now we have Rolex going from strength to strength for all the reasons we can rationalise, including but not exclusive to marketing.
All the while increasing prices at any turn.
Others are increasing prices as well including our Omega but Omega are easily singled out for not being this, or not being that, or not enough of this, or not enough of that. Let alone too much of some other this or that.
Their line up is scattered and has been scattered for decades.
What with Chronographs of some variation in one line and or another.
Mixes of technologies not necessarily of their own origin.
Case styles of varying kinds which outwardly dilute brand identity and potential icon status with the only exception being the humble but mighty Speedy Pro. The one watch line that has barely changed appreciably until a couple of years ago except for a Saphire crystal option of one kind or another. And don't get me started on the milky ring thing. But hey, i am most satisfied with my 1861 Hesalite.
And the MoonSwatch thing that was a sugar hit for the market, but another dilution for the Omega brand as far as i can see.
There's so much to unpack in my mind around poor Omega.
I can barely remember the days when a watchmaker would happily say they think an Omega was a better watch than a Rolex.
Then that changed at some point.
All those old guys are long gone.
Oh to continue with my download of the quartz crisis. One could find a good watchmaker nearly anywhere once. Then during the 80's they stopped being a common trade because it was easier to teach people how to swap batteries, a couple of seals and give the watch a rudimentary pressure test and away you go.
The decline in the trade has continued and now it has become more centralised under the manufacturers roof.
No, i think it has been a very long down hill slide for Omega which started a number of decades ago and for one reason or another like the global economy it has accelerated. IMO.
I'm still going to pick up that White dialed Speedy Pro one day despite the random tinking as well as one of these new styled POs despite the axial movement in the bezel which i have assessed to be a feature of the model which doesn't impact the watch's function.
But like many others i will most likely seek out a good used watch. Which by extension, impacts sales of new units.
