Omega is clearly trying to move upmarket and compete more directly with Rolex. The move to Co-Axial movements was probably part of that strategy, and the steady price increases are another. If you average Omega’s price increases over several decades, they work out to roughly five percent per year. There was a noticeable bump when the Co-Axial movement first appeared, but prices were largely flat the following year and then resumed the usual gradual climb.
Technically speaking, Omega is perfectly capable of making watches every bit as good as Rolex. The idea that Rolex is inherently “better” is mostly perception, and that perception is what drives speculation and inflated secondary market prices. In many ways Omega seems to be chasing a specter that exists largely in collectors’ minds - something that could just as easily shift if tastes change.
A lot of the current criticism seems to revolve around Omega having a “bloated” catalog. I’m not convinced that’s actually a real problem. From a manufacturing standpoint most of these models share the same movements, cases, and bracelets. What looks like a huge catalog is often just different dial colors, materials, or small variations built on the same platforms. In many industries a broader set of SKUs is actually a strength because it lets you cover more of the market. Rolex has chosen the opposite approach: a very tight catalog, slow evolution, and constrained supply. That strategy creates scarcity and drives the secondary market, but it’s not inherently better - just different.
Personally I’m not sure that Rolex’s business model is even something worth emulating. You end up with a relatively monochrome catalog and a handful of unusual or precious metal pieces that cost multiples of the standard models. It works incredibly well for Rolex, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only viable way to sell watches.
Stepping back even further, mechanical watches themselves are unnecessary and anachronistic technology. Luxury mechanical watches in particular are wildly overpriced across the board. Inflation alone doesn’t explain the price levels we see today, not even close. Even if you factor in heritage, brand mythology, and the emotional value collectors attach to these brands, you could probably justify something closer to half of current MSRP for most of them. Rolex might still command a premium because of the brand dynamics around it, but the gap between Rolex cost and Rolex price would still be extremely large.
That’s part of why microbrands-and even some of the more grounded mainstream brands can offer real value today. They’re producing solid watches without leaning quite as heavily on the mythology and marketing that drive luxury pricing.
So I’m not convinced Omega’s issue, if there is one, has anything to do with catalog size. It may simply be that some buyers are becoming less willing to play along with the traditional watch industry narratives. If perception can elevate a brand, it can also shift the other way.
Nothing particularly new here.
