Recent Omega Negativity

I mentioned earlier in this thread my growing negatively towards the watch business, particularly new watches.

With Omega, my negativity stems from the rising prices, too large a catalogue, tired/dated bracelets, and design language shortcomings (need smaller/slimmer cases). All of these negativity-inspiring issues are easily fixable (if Omega listened to their customers).

As Omega and Rolex are inextricably linked, it is worth noting my negativity towards Rolex comes from a different place stemming from general unavailability, the often distasteful AD experience, and the message wearing a Rolex has become (compared to what it used to be). While I believe most of these issues are fixable, the messaging issue is one that I am most concerned with.

To me, Rolex used to be an aspirational brand. While expensive, important/accomplished people wore them, they had timeless/distinctive design language and were recognizable from all angles (iconic bracelets). Rolexes became the language used to commemorate major accomplishments, life milestones and generational transfers.

Times have changed.

As we all know over the last five years, it has become very hard to buy Rolexes at their own authorized dealers, yet if you really want one, most if not all models were available on the grey market (at varying premiums to MSRP). While I understand the laws of supply and demand, no one benefits more than Rolex for their scarcity at AD, but even more so when grey dealers have watches to offer at a premium. The greys seem to have more watches for sale than the ADs.

The scarcity since 2020 has become so bad that some models, like the SS Daytona Panda and GMT Pepsi trade as high as 2x to 3x MSRP. The most recent SS Daytona (126500) was introduced in April 2023 at the height of the steel sport Rolex hysteria.

When I see someone wearing a 126500, I no longer see a commemorated accomplishment, life milestone achieved or a generational statement, all I see is someone who likely spent 3x MSRP or has ridiculous jewelry spend to gain access to this watch. Where I used to see depth, I now see shallowness.

For me personally, this is not a message I want a watch I am wearing to send. This gets worse with social media and I am afraid this messaging is starting to extend across the Rolex brand. Additionally, I feel the next/new generation of buyers may not enjoy nor embrace this message.

Anyone else feel this way?

Obviously, if I posted this on the TRF website, my thoughts would be met with:
“Rolex sells everything they make”
“Rolex doesn’t care”
“Rolex has watches to sell, just not to you”
“Rolex will sell the watch to someone else”
…and other fanboy type comments.

The reason I bring this up here on OF (whose members I consider more polite/sophisticated), is that Omega has a real opportunity to benefit from Rolex’s behavior. This sort of arrogance can only exist if there is no alternative, and Omega, with all its faults, can become a better alternative than they have been.

Honestly, with all the negativity expressed on this thread towards Omega, all we are asking from them is to be/do better. On the plus side, we need more of new models like the Reverse Panda Speedmaster and No Date Seamaster Diver classics which are the foundation of Omega’s design language. The low-lying fruit on the negative side has been well documented on this thread, however I do think making better bracelets could mute some of the pricing complaints.

So people don’t misunderstand, I really do enjoy some Rolex watches and am lucky to own four (all purchased grey). Ultimately, they will all go to my children (sons in their late 20s) who have been watching my collection grow and have witnessed (with disgust) the Rolex AD experience from the sidelines. While they someday may not want or be able to access a Rolex at MSRP, being able to say their Rolex was one their dad wore may ultimately be more special and sends a warmer message. That being said, I think there will be more of a fight for my Omega watches…Boys will be boys.

I'm also a sucker for anything with a "racing dial" while in real life I drive mostly trucks and don't have a personal need for speed. But the colors......

These comments resonate with me the most. As you say, Omega are a credible alternative to Rolex but they need to do better if they want to compete in the same market space as Rolex. Their watches would have to be perceived as pretty much flawless in design and execution or have significantly better specs for the kind of money they're now asking. Listening to what the market wants will help them for sure. Thinner watches and better bracelets would be a good start. Slightly smaller (38-39mm) dive watches for those with smaller wrists would be awesome. Maybe bring in Spirate technology with 0 to +2 seconds a day accuracy for all model lines? This would go a long way towards justifying the recent price increases.

The only thing I really fault Omega for is trying to “compete” with Rolex by raising prices. Rolex went down that road first and is arguably doing it best, but that doesn’t make their watches inherently better. It mostly reflects how they position and sell them.

Omega’s watches are excellent. Their catalog is extensive, and pieces like the Moonwatch remain an extraordinary callback to the heady late ’60s. Even some of the newer variations—like the green Seamaster—turned out to be great additions. It’s a fantastic color and looks even better in person.

Rolex, meanwhile, seems comfortable leaning further into the luxury space: more jewelry-like pieces, higher prices, and the gradual loss of some of the features that once made their watches such great real-world tools. I understand that we don’t really need these watches to function as tools anymore, but it does illustrate how the industry has shifted.

To be clear, Rolex watches are extremely well built—no argument there. I just think they’ve become a good example of the broader direction the industry is heading. Personally, I think there’s still room for another approach where brands can make excellent watches, sell plenty of them, and still run successful businesses without relying quite so heavily on luxury positioning.

Interestingly, I visited two local stores today that together had about a hundred Rolex watches—new and used—and none of them really spoke to me. On the other hand, I knew immediately when I saw the green Seamaster, and later the Moonwatch with the lovely step dial and DON bezel, that I wanted them.

I actually ended up buying a 42 mm Hamilton Khaki Auto instead. 25% off.

That said, I’d still like to pick up a Milgauss and an early-2000s Submariner at some point

A quote from user Aquagraph over on the sister site Tag Heuer Forums about their leadership/brand direction woes.
"It worries me that they want to 'reposition themselves', because it's only going to mean 'upwards' isn't it. But then everyone else wants to reposition themselves upwards too, so in the end everyone stays exactly where they were except the watches are 30% more expensive..."

The full quote does continue:
"... and Rolex continues to crush everyone by being better and better value."

I tend to agree, but what's value? The larger question for me is what eventually causes the next shift in the watch industry. Historically those reshuffles tend to happen when technology, economics, and culture all change at the same time, the quartz crisis being the obvious example.

Mechanical watches today exist almost entirely as luxury goods rather than necessary tools. That means the market runs largely on perception, brand mythology, and positioning. Those forces can be surprisingly durable, but they aren’t permanent. Perception can change.

Part of what makes me cautious about relying on that perception is looking at who seems to be driving a lot of the demand today. A fair amount of the attention around brands like Rolex appears to come from influencers and social media personalities. For many of them the watch isn’t really about the history, engineering, or horology; it’s a symbol that plays well on camera and generates engagement. That kind of attention can amplify demand very quickly, but it also highlights the fickleness I mentioned earlier. Social media trends move fast, and what is considered aspirational today can shift tomorrow.

At the same time, younger generations have largely grown up without any practical need for mechanical watches at all, and they're the ones driving much of Rolex's expansion and continued penetration. Timekeeping is handled by phones and smart devices, so mechanical watches exist purely as objects of interest or luxury. That doesn’t mean the industry disappears, but it does mean the long-term foundation of demand may look different than it did in the past.

That’s also why I’m not convinced Omega should be trying to chase Rolex in terms of pricing or positioning. Rolex operates in a very specific space that they’ve spent decades carefully building and controlling. Trying to compete directly with that model risks missing what actually makes Omega compelling in the first place.

Omega’s strengths have always been a combination of engineering, history, and a broad catalog of genuinely interesting watches, from the Speedmaster to the Seamaster lines. The Moonwatch, for example, remains an extraordinary callback to the late 1960s, and even newer variations like the green Seamaster have turned out to be excellent additions. That identity doesn’t really require mirroring Rolex’s strategy.

If every brand tries to reposition itself upward at the same time, the result may simply be more expensive watches without much real change in the hierarchy. In that sense the industry probably wouldn’t collapse so much as rebalance itself, the way it has several times before, where speculation fades, prices stabilize, and the brands with genuine substance via engineering, history, or real tool-watch credibility, end up in a stronger position.

Just my thoughts, and I have a few. Look, I like Omega a lot. I don't want them to follow Rolex down when they eventially fall.

Seriously?!
That's a testament to how effective Rolex marketing is. They make you jump through hoops and screw you over, and yet people still come back for more. How is it better value when the watches stay the same but the prices keep going up? Even the secondary market value of these watches has plateaued.

If omega rises prices without improving its watches, it's terrible. However if rolex does the same, nobody says anything. It's funny to see how masks come off.

As for the youtuber, I don't think it makes sense to compare omega's brochure to a fast food menu.

Both can be true at the same time.

Rolex has established their bracelets as iconic and well-known as their watch models. Who doesn't recognize the Oyster, Jubilee, or President from across the room?

Omega bracelets are not in the same league. Not a criticism, just an observation.

Lots of room for improvement.

The first "watch influencer" I came across on YouTube was Archie Luxury. He made me aware of the Speedmaster almost 15 years ago. I have no idea if he is still around. It was kinda of tough to listen to him after about 5 minutes.

Omega pricing is out of control, but it has been for close to 8 years, in my opinion.

On a positive note, when I bought the yellow gold bracelet for me skeleton speedy last year, the OB included a service for my CK2998, and when you factor that in, as well as gold spot price I came out ahead.

I am sorry to read this as I am usually in agreement with you.

Perhaps my perspective is due my interest in watches is renewed, and perhaps more modern/recent.

As I have said earlier in this thread, I have always felt Rolex is aspirational. Part of this is because their watches have a timeless way about them. Style if you will, where a Sub looks like a Sub, a DayDate looks like a DayDate so on, and always will. The same is true for their bracelets.

I admit the quality of the Rolex bracelets have probably improved immensely over the years, but my experience has only been with the modern models and they have all been great. The point here is the Rolex bracelets have not changed in appearance much over the years and their recognizability has made them iconic.

Omega, IN MY OPINION, does not have bracelets that are attractive, so TO ME, the fact they haven't changed much isn't a positive. They are certainly not timeless, and perhaps this is partially why most Omega watch models are considered "strap monsters" (nobody likes the bracelets they come with).

In my case, my motivation for buying the most recent no date Seamaster diver was motivated by the fact that it did not come with the very tired-looking "tank track" bracelet (too busy, very 90s). Because I never felt their bracelets were part of an overall "Omega" look, I always thought they could be better, at least from an aesthetic perspective.

On the Speedmaster Pro, the bracelet has had so many little changes over the years, it is impossible to feel the design is one for the ages. The current Speedy bracelet, while comfortable looks like it was designed by ChatGPT. Personally, I like the flat-link style that came on my 321.

I guess at the end of the day, I think one company makes nice looking bracelets and the other does not. I am hoping the one that does not recognizes the low-lying fruit in designing nicer looking bracelets. For me, this would increase the number of Omegas in my watchbox.

YMMV