Recent Omega Negativity

Duckie · Mar 19, 2026

Archer
Can I ask what leads you to believe this?

Whilst it's fairly apparent that within the watchsphere there is a certain awareness around issues. It gets mentioned here on this forum and elsewhere on occassion.
Not to mention the super thread over on another more focused forum.
There is some evidence in recent times that any issues with that series movement are finally being worked through to the satisfaction of Rolex. Where they finally land is yet to be determined.
Most importantly, the buying public are generally in a state of blissful ignorance.
If the heart wants a Rolex then that is all that will scratch that itch which is something that is very prevalent and the marketing department at Rolex have done a wonderful job of planting and nurturing that seed as you have pointed out.
To that, the issues with the movement are not openly spoken about in video watch reviews by the usual suspects and others on the periphery. They need to keep that compartmentalised and stuffed down deep in the box of talking points.
As some say regularly, Rolex sells every watch they make.
Then i suppose so does Casio.
Not that i put Casio in the same category as Rolex. I have a Casio in my collection that i like just as much as anything else i have in my little toy box.

Archer · Mar 19, 2026

D Duckie
There is some evidence in recent times that any issues with that series movement are finally being worked through to the satisfaction of Rolex.

Really? What direct evidence is there of that?

D Duckie
Where they finally land is yet to be determined.

This would seem to be somewhat contradictory to the assertion that the issues are dealt with.

D Duckie
To that, the issues with the movement are not openly spoken about in video watch reviews by the usual suspects and others on the periphery. They need to keep that compartmentalised and stuffed down deep in the box of talking points.

Generally speaking, the "watch media" are beholden to the watch industry, which does not foster a truly open ability to talk about such things.

D Duckie
In terms of sales and the broader perception of the buying public, who also see a Rolex watch as an investment.

This is irrelevant to the actual status of the problem. As you correctly pointed out, most people are clueless about the issue.

mydeafcat · Mar 19, 2026

D Duckie
There is some evidence in recent times that any issues with that series movement are finally being worked through to the satisfaction of Rolex.

Then f#ck Rolex. There I said it.

"...worked through to the satisfaction of Rolex"? How about to the satisfaction of countless Rolex owners, and their poor butt-hurt acolytes who think the Crown is immune to scrutiny and imperfection? Yes, yes: Rolls Royce's don't break down - they 'fail to proceed'.

People pay good money for their Rolex's and deserve a repected brand to immediately stand behind the product. Of course, any mechanical object can misfire, yet Rolex's stodgy arrogance in adressing known issues is simply unforgivable. It also flies in the face of good, consistent branding. It is not aligned to the myth. And they could clearly give a rat's ass. (And yes, I know they aren't the only brand to ignore known issues.)

Before the long knives come out, I am not crapping on their many lovely and standard-setting timepieces, yet it is a pity the modern versions of these classics have become common as carrots and about as exciting aesthetically. I have long been an admirer of Rolex since my older brother bought a new 1665 in the late 1970's. I loved it. It was the pinnacle of tool watches to me, and the brand was well into building the mountaintop of luxury perception so many are smitten by to this day. But once I started really getting into this hobby we love, the Crown started losing lustre - for me, for me - with their scarcity horseshit and sales tactics. I'm willing to bet that their prissy behaviour notwithstanding, staff working at Rolex ADs and boutiques really do need air freshener after a dump.

Yes, if a Rolex is what one wants then that's the only thing that will do. Wear it in good health - but because it is a well made watch, not only because it's a goddam Rolex. In 2008, a few years before I really got into watches, I desired a dive watch. I wanted a Sub or SD, actually. Why? Because they were great dive watches and the brand was, 30 years after my brother bought his SD, still reliable and respected to my mind. Because branding. My budget wasn't there, admittedly. But when I spied the Omega 2254.50, I couldn't sleep. Of course! Omega. Likewise Swiss. Likewise historical. Likewise repected. And even better, Omega was more my style watch-wise: under the radar, less conspicuous, and those killer sword hands. I went 2254.50. Best decision I have ever made for a watch and I have never regretted it.

One last thing in this meandering tale. My Tudor Black Bay GMT and BB Heritage 41's were bought precisely because of what they ARE and meant to me not what I hoped other people would think of them. There's the rub, eh?

ErichKeane · Mar 19, 2026

mydeafcat
Then f#ck Rolex. There I said it.

"...worked through to the satisfaction of Rolex"? How about to the satisfaction of countless Rolex owners, and their poor butt-hurt acolytes who think the Crown is immune to scrutiny and imperfection? Yes, yes: Rolls Royce's don't break down - they 'fail to proceed'.

People pay good money for their Rolex's and deserve a repected brand to immediately stand behind the product. Of course, any mechanical object can misfire, yet Rolex's stodgy arrogance in adressing known issues is simply unforgivable. It also flies in the face of good, consistent branding. It is not aligned to the myth. And they could clearly give a rat's ass. (And yes, I know they aren't the only brand to ignore known issues.)

Before the long knives come out, I am not crapping on their many lovely and standard-setting timepieces, yet it is a pity the modern versions of these classics have become common as carrots and about as exciting aesthetically. I have long been an admirer of Rolex since my older brother bought a new 1665 in the late 1970's. I loved it. It was the pinnacle of tool watches to me, and the brand was well into building the mountaintop of luxury perception so many are smitten by to this day. But once I started really getting into this hobby we love, the Crown started losing lustre - for me, for me - with their scarcity horseshit and sales tactics. I'm willing to bet that their prissy behaviour notwithstanding, staff working at Rolex ADs and boutiques really do need air freshener after a dump.

Yes, if a Rolex is what one wants then that's the only thing that will do. Wear it in good health - but because it is a well made watch, not only because it's a goddam Rolex. In 2008, a few years before I really got into watches, I desired a dive watch. I wanted a Sub or SD, actually. Why? Because they were great dive watches and the brand was, 30 years after my brother bought his SD, still reliable and respected to my mind. Because branding. My budget wasn't there, admittedly. But when I spied the Omega 2254.50, I couldn't sleep. Of course! Omega. Likewise Swiss. Likewise historical. Likewise repected. And even better, Omega was more my style watch-wise: under the radar, less conspicuous, and those killer sword hands. I went 2254.50. Best decision I have ever made for a watch and I have never regretted it.

One last thing in this meandering tale. My Tudor Black Bay GMT and BB Heritage 41's were bought precisely because of what they ARE and meant to me not what I hoped other people would think of them. There's the rub, eh?

The part about my 32xx GMT master that REALLY ground my gears:

Watch goes from dead-on for years. I go on a business trip, and realize it loses 15s, then 30s, then a minute and a half, 3 consecutive days. After that it stabilizes at about 1-2 mins/day of loss. I wear it another few weeks on/off and keep experiencing the same.

Fortunately, I have a few months of warranty work. I send it in with about a month left on my warranty. 4 months later I get a message: "Your watch is out of warranty a service is going to be expensive, are you sure you want that?". I responded with: "Um, you got it under warranty, so you'd better be fixing it under warranty". Next response: "The watch seems to be in-spec". Me: "Timegrapher says otherwise, as does a series of photographs of it on a counter after a full-wind showing that it is losing time".

They go silent for another 6 months, and finally come back with, "well, we'll do a service as a one time cOuRtEsY". A few months later, the watch returns and is running fine.

FIRST: This is clearly the 32xx problem. SECOND: they tried to tell me the watch was out of warranty (because they held it for 4 months), THEN tried to tell me that losing that much was 'normal'. THEN they refused to admit they were wrong other than "well, to shut you up we'll do it<but you're still wrong>".

OMEGA service is the absolute opposite I've found, which is why I own only 2 Rolex, and god-knows-how-many Omegas now.

spacemission · Mar 19, 2026

The worrying thing is that for every hundred people who buy an omega seamaster aqua terra or a rolex datejust, one person or none buys a citizen chronomaster.

ErichPryde · Mar 19, 2026

Archer
most people are clueless about the issue.

And those who aren't are dismissive of the issue- because it is acceptable for an item that has an inherent perceived value.

People who consider a home purchase may overlook a slew of issues and needed renovations if a home is in an amazing location and expected to appreciate. Meanwhile, a home in a less desirable neighborhood without expectation of good appreciation may be considered a lot less desirable, even if it is priced fairly and has no issues.

To many people Omega is like the less desirable house- for many buyers, it has to be perfect to live up to the expectation we have of (what we perceive as) the more valuable house. And in most people's minds, it can't.

The analogy isn't perfect, but it's fairly well studied that humans do not rate things comparably when perception of value is involved.

ErichPryde · Mar 19, 2026

spacemission
The worrying thing is that for every hundred people who buy an omega seamaster aqua terra or a rolex datejust, one person or none buys a citizen chronomaster.

Hmm.

I'm pretty sure more people own citizens than those others

spacemission · Mar 19, 2026

ErichPryde
Hmm.

I'm pretty sure more people own citizens than those others

In this case, you shouldn't compare brands but rather models.

pdxleaf · Mar 19, 2026

D Duckie
To that, the issues with the movement are not openly spoken about in video watch reviews by the usual suspects and others on the periphery. They need to keep that compartmentalised and stuffed down deep in the box of talking points.

That was my point in previously mentioning the 32xx issues. The point was that the reviewers are bemoaning the downfall of Omega for reasons such as (what they perceive to be) sharp cases and offering too many varieties, while going silent on serious unresolved issues with the leading brand's entire line of new movements. It's not to compare Omega to Rolex, or even to denigrate Rolex. It tells me more about the reviewers and buying public than it does about Omega's decline.

Davidt · Mar 19, 2026

This threads meant to be about whether recent criticism of Omega is justified and it’s descended into a thread largely about Rolex and how their watches may face similar criticism which somehow has a bearing on Omega watches?

It’s ironic how many of us slate non WIS for putting modern Rolex on a pedestal as the pinnacle of watchmaking, then frequently compare Omega to Rolex as if it’s somekind of benchmark or datum to be measured against.

josiahg52 · Mar 19, 2026

Davidt
This threads meant to be about whether recent criticism of Omega is justified and it’s descended into a thread largely about Rolex and how their watches may face similar criticism which somehow has a bearing on Omega watches?

It’s ironic how many of us slate non WIS for putting modern Rolex on a pedestal as the pinnacle of watchmaking, then frequently compare Omega to Rolex as if it’s somekind of benchmark or datum to be measured against.

I think it's more bemoaning Omega becoming more like Rolex, which is, I suppose, comparing or measuring them in some fashion. Criticizing Rolex, their issues and the mishandling of them, the prices, the "sales experience" are all a way to express how much we don't want Omega to "compete" with or become more like Rolex. So, some criticism of Omega is justified because they see being more like Rolex as an advantage, and in some ways, it even is.

ErichPryde · Mar 19, 2026

Davidt
This threads meant to be about whether recent criticism of Omega is justified and it’s descended into a thread largely about Rolex and how their watches may face similar criticism which somehow has a bearing on Omega watches?

How can we make an assessment of whether or not a luxury good--- Omega--- has become "too expensive" without some sort of comparison to other luxury goods? I'm asking this as a rhetorical question almost; if the primary criticism is that Omega is too expensive, it is inherently comparitive. It is de facto impossible to call something "too expensive" unless we have a reference for what it should cost.

ErichKeane · Mar 19, 2026

Davidt
This threads meant to be about whether recent criticism of Omega is justified and it’s descended into a thread largely about Rolex and how their watches may face similar criticism which somehow has a bearing on Omega watches?

It’s ironic how many of us slate non WIS for putting modern Rolex on a pedestal as the pinnacle of watchmaking, then frequently compare Omega to Rolex as if it’s somekind of benchmark or datum to be measured against.

Its a bit more nuanced than that. The accusation of "its X issues that are causing Omega's problems" ring a little hollow when we can show that Rolex has the same issues, but not the same problems. Comparing a company to a different one that is being successful despite the same challenges seems completely within scope (plus, a bit of complaining about our experiences with Rolex, but thats normal digressions!).

ErichPryde · Mar 19, 2026

ErichKeane
Its a bit more nuanced than that. The accusation of "its X issues that are causing Omega's problems" ring a little hollow when we can show that Rolex has the same issues, but not the same problems. Comparing a company to a different one that is being successful despite the same challenges seems completely within scope (plus, a bit of complaining about our experiences with Rolex, but thats normal digressions!).

Well, now that I'm thinking about it, if Rolex didn't exist at all AND the gray market prices on Omegas came up to close to what retail is, I'd be content paying ~7k for a new Seamaster. I think the current 42mm ceramic version is worth that honestly- complaints about size and everything else aside, mine has been slowly and quietly growing into my most-worn, and perhaps favorite, watch.

I wouldn't pay 9-10k for a new Speedmaster though- because I just don't like it enough.

It's actually interesting to picture what the watch industry would look like if Rolex didn't exist. I suspect that Omega and perhaps Cartier would be tied up in the same struggle that Rolex and Omega are currently in, and I have a feeling that Omega would benefit from some of the same insulation that currently benefits Rolex.

Danno Five - 0 · Mar 19, 2026

Reading through these informative and engaging posts makes me glad that I acquired my half dozen "modern" Omega's when I did - +/- twenty years ago.

That was back in the day (pre-boutique and pre-crazy prices) when 20% discounts offered by the then plethora of AD's was the norm.

The only Rolex I ever really fancied was the Sea Dweller, but I never pulled the trigger.

Regarding bracelets, I've always been impressed with the quality and styling of Omega, and felt that Rolex bracelets seemed like an afterthought considering their price point. Maybe that's changed for the better in recent years?

Duckie · Mar 20, 2026

mydeafcat
Then f#ck Rolex. There I said it.

"...worked through to the satisfaction of Rolex"? How about to the satisfaction of countless Rolex owners, and their poor butt-hurt acolytes who think the Crown is immune to scrutiny and imperfection? Yes, yes: Rolls Royce's don't break down - they 'fail to proceed'.

People pay good money for their Rolex's and deserve a repected brand to immediately stand behind the product. Of course, any mechanical object can misfire, yet Rolex's stodgy arrogance in adressing known issues is simply unforgivable. It also flies in the face of good, consistent branding. It is not aligned to the myth. And they could clearly give a rat's ass. (And yes, I know they aren't the only brand to ignore known issues.)

Before the long knives come out, I am not crapping on their many lovely and standard-setting timepieces, yet it is a pity the modern versions of these classics have become common as carrots and about as exciting aesthetically. I have long been an admirer of Rolex since my older brother bought a new 1665 in the late 1970's. I loved it. It was the pinnacle of tool watches to me, and the brand was well into building the mountaintop of luxury perception so many are smitten by to this day. But once I started really getting into this hobby we love, the Crown started losing lustre - for me, for me - with their scarcity horseshit and sales tactics. I'm willing to bet that their prissy behaviour notwithstanding, staff working at Rolex ADs and boutiques really do need air freshener after a dump.

Yes, if a Rolex is what one wants then that's the only thing that will do. Wear it in good health - but because it is a well made watch, not only because it's a goddam Rolex. In 2008, a few years before I really got into watches, I desired a dive watch. I wanted a Sub or SD, actually. Why? Because they were great dive watches and the brand was, 30 years after my brother bought his SD, still reliable and respected to my mind. Because branding. My budget wasn't there, admittedly. But when I spied the Omega 2254.50, I couldn't sleep. Of course! Omega. Likewise Swiss. Likewise historical. Likewise repected. And even better, Omega was more my style watch-wise: under the radar, less conspicuous, and those killer sword hands. I went 2254.50. Best decision I have ever made for a watch and I have never regretted it.

One last thing in this meandering tale. My Tudor Black Bay GMT and BB Heritage 41's were bought precisely because of what they ARE and meant to me not what I hoped other people would think of them. There's the rub, eh?

I'm on board with all this.

Jakeys · Mar 20, 2026

D Danno Five - 0
Regarding bracelets, I've always been impressed with the quality and styling of Omega, and felt that Rolex bracelets seemed like an afterthought considering their price point. Maybe that's changed for the better in recent years?

I don't think this has been true since Omega embarrassed Rolex with the far superior quality original SMP bracelet. Rolex took that beating and lifted their game, no more clinky hollow bracelets for some time now.

If you want an afterthought, look at Omega's micro adjust solution compared to Rolex's, it's pretty sad. Some of Omega's clasps in recent years have been very unwieldly as well. Rolex's modern bracelets are pretty much all regarded as excellent I think?

Duckie · Mar 20, 2026

D Danno Five - 0
Reading through these informative and engaging posts makes me glad that I acquired my half dozen "modern" Omega's when I did - +/- twenty years ago.

That was back in the day (pre-boutique and pre-crazy prices) when 20% discounts offered by the then plethora of AD's was the norm.

The only Rolex I ever really fancied was the Sea Dweller, but I never pulled the trigger.

Regarding bracelets, I've always been impressed with the quality and styling of Omega, and felt that Rolex bracelets seemed like an afterthought considering their price point. Maybe that's changed for the better in recent years?

In ways the bracelets have improved dramatically.
I remember the times when tbe Omega fanboys would slag off about the Rolex bracelets and declare that the Omega offerings were better or superior. Whatever.
Opinions will vary, but personally i've never really liked Omega bracelets and i didn't really like the Rolex offerings though they were sufficiently adequate enough for me to go with what Rolex were doing as a best of the two. IMO.
But i started out on my Rolex journey with a 5513 back in the day and i paid most handsomly for the experience.

Walrus · Mar 20, 2026

I don’t get the “influencers” stuff but obviously they have a lot of sway these days as I’m always hearing about them. I will let a few people I respect help me with certain decision but I did notice some negativity on Reddit seemed more about the price than anything else. Oh thickness to but I tend to like chunky watches.

What doesn’t have detractors. Anything you want to look up for reviews has turned into a cottage industry of influencers but you can dig through that BS and still get honest reviews. It seems most of the people just putting up honest reviews are still mostly positive for omega, I just hate sifting through the cottage industry of influencers as I really could not care less about their ads dressed as reviews.

Duckie · Mar 20, 2026

Archer
Really? What direct evidence is there of that?

This would seem to be somewhat contradictory to the assertion that the issues are dealt with.

Generally speaking, the "watch media" are beholden to the watch industry, which does not foster a truly open ability to talk about such things.

This is irrelevant to the actual status of the problem. As you correctly pointed out, most people are clueless about the issue.

To be clear.
There have been no assertions on my part as to any resolution around the 32xx issues. My apologies for causing any confusion as it was not my intent.
I would say that in very recent times there has been a contribution by a respected Rolex trained tech that has outlined some potential changes by Rolex which are probably contributing to greatly reduced returns of 32xx movement watches to RSCs.
So i think it's reasonable to surmise that some significant changes have been quietly unfolding?

Recent Omega Negativity

Duckie

Archer

mydeafcat

ErichKeane

spacemission

ErichPryde

ErichPryde

spacemission

pdxleaf

Davidt

josiahg52

ErichPryde

ErichKeane

ErichPryde

Danno Five - 0

Duckie

Jakeys

Duckie

Walrus

Duckie

Similar threads

1861 inconsistent after recent service

New Member and Recent Omega Owner

Omega Speedmaster “Modsukoshi” 3572.50 (1999 fullset; recent service)

Omega Seamaster (ref. 2531.80), full set + extras, recent factor service

Nuggets for Noobs II: Recent Inheritance

Expected Precision of Omega Caliber 420 (1950s) After Recent Service