Recent Omega Negativity

I reckon this reference has potential to be a true unisex watch, just like the Cartier tank. I don't think Omega needs to undercut Cartier too much though, as they have sufficient brand power. Maybe equip the watch with a modern co-axial movement and price it similar to or slightly more than Cartier.

None of that disagrees with what the previous posters have said. It's true, yes, but it's only true because Rolex allows it to be true. They absolutely have the power to crack down on how ADs behave. They have no desire to do so, which is what the criticism is about.


Rolex is just the biggest and we've got to talk about something. 😜

I sort of agree though. The way Rolex operates put me off buying one, and I won't consider buying one again in the future until they address it. But other than contributing to existing discussions, I won't lose any sleep over it either. They're entitled to run their business how they want, plenty of other customers around who will put up with it.

All true.
Except when only a Rolex will do then little else will suffice for a lot of people.
As they say over on another forum.
Nothing other than a Rolex will scratch the itch.
Also i was under the impression that the wait lists were predominately a thing of the past since expressions of interest were the main method of choice for retailers. And a more nebulous mechanism. This all strikes me as being a bit creepy in a certain kind of way and no wonder people are starting to turn off the brand.

🌧️

How about a wait list that's actually a real wait list, with people waiting in line for the watch of their choice? It could quite easily be done. Let the list be managed by HQ in Geneva. Take the power out of the hands of the ADs. It seems like Rolex is quite happy to be a wholesaler of watches and to let the ADs deal with the retail side of things. I wonder if in the long term this will damage the brand and potential customers will start to turn away. It might already be starting to happen, with Gen Z preferring the understated elegance of Cartier rather than the "corporate uniform" of the chunky sports Rolex with a suit.

I thought about this too. It's a mystery to me why this brand has jumped in popularity so much. I can't get the words "fashion brand" out of my mind when I see one and they all look the "same" to me. I know they've been gaining in sales for years, but I can't help thinking that when the fad is played-out with them, they're going to drop like a stone and it doesn't seem like they have a lot of designs to fall back on.

Hard to believe that they are more popular than Omega. Something seems "off" here.

I have been in two butiques and two AD`s, Two Omega and two Rolex. The first Rolex AD was my former watchmaker and the reseption and service was erratic to say the least. The Butique had no watches for sale, but I strolled alone around in the shop looking at Rolexes (with out a movement?) wile the sales reps stood around talking.

The Omega AD is my new watchmaker, he offers great service over all. In the Omega shop I was greeted as soon as I came in, was offered water and got to try on some watches. The sales rep was genuinly nice. At one place I was wearing work clothes and the other old cargo shorts and short sleeved shirt, not at all looking like I was going to buy up their inventory. I wore the same things at the rolex shops.

As you all know 4 shops dont giv any valid statistics, but I think there is a trend. Rolex dont need to chase customers, the costumers have to chase them. The sales rep`s must be sick and tired of saying no to customers and probaby get a bit more reserved. The Omega sales rep`s have to work more for each sale I guess.

I will say, what I said on the comment in Youtube:

I think Omega’s real problem… is Rolex. Somehow and for reasons that defy normal logic, customers seem to want the Rolex experience - the waiting lists, the artificial scarcity, the privilege of being “allowed” to buy one. Rolex treats buyers like shit but reverse‑psychology seems to work - you get ignored, strung along and told to wait in line… and people love it. Even in the luxury segment, there are plenty of people who will pay extra for the privilege of being mistreated.

Secondly, Rolex engineered a supply shortage and the result is that their watches appreciate the moment you leave the store because there are ten more suckers waiting to pay a premium for the same watch. Omega, by contrast, treats customers well, sells at slightly lower prices and somehow loses market share for being reasonable. So how can you compete in a market where you need to shit on your customers to get the respect you deserve?! And historically, Omega wasn’t even cheaper. In the 1990s Omega was not a budget brand - in many cases it was slightly more expensive than Rolex. The value argument wasn’t “Omega is cheaper", it was “Omega gives you more for the same money” - co‑axial escapement, longer power reserves, more technical innovation, METAS certification later on. Spending $3,000 on an Omega arguably bought you a more advanced watch than spending $3,000 on a Rolex, which at the time was still a simple, rugged sports watch with a desirable brand name.

But then something counterintuitive happened - Rolex kept raising prices and demand increased. The more expensive Rolex became, the more people wanted it. Omega followed Rolex upmarket, assuming that if the “inferior” watch sells for $4,000, Omega can sell for $4,000 too. If Rolex sells for $6,000, Omega can sell for $6,000... and yet Rolex kept selling out while Omega lost ground. Eventually, Rolex genuinely improved their movements and finishing, while Omega drifted into the “value choice” category and nothing is worse in the luxury market than being the “value choice”.

Today Omega sells for $2,000 less, but is also perceived as worth $2,000 less, because the specs no longer clearly beat Rolex. There’s also the issue of each brand’s core product. For Rolex, the Submariner is the anchor - not necessarily the flagship, but the defining watch. For Omega, it’s the Speedmaster... and here lies the structural problem - the Submariner is an outstanding everyday watch. It’s tough, practical and has real water resistance. It’s the one‑watch‑for‑life that you can wear anywhere and pass down to your kids. The Speedmaster, meanwhile, is a precise chronograph that can go to space… but struggles in everyday life. With 50-100m water resistance, you can’t confidently swim in the sea with it. People live on Earth, not in orbit and practicality wins, and the Submariner wins. This means Rolex can keep raising Submariner prices indefinitely because the appeal is broad and demand is bottomless. Omega, however, has a ceiling on the Speedmaster practicality, the Seamaster is not iconic in the same way as Submariner or Speedmaster. The obvious fix would be to give the Speedmaster 200-300m water resistance, but Omega boxed itself in. If Speedmaster becomes a 300m watch, it cannibalises the Seamaster and if Speedmaster becomes the “do‑everything” watch, nobody buys anything else Omega makes.

Omega could have solved this by pushing everything up - Seamaster at 600m, Speedmaster at 300m and the rest of ultra‑deep stuff at 2000m. That would create space for Speedmaster to compete directly with the Submariner on practicality. But Omega tried to diversify instead and in the process weakened their core product. In short - Omega unintentionally castrated the Speedmaster by trying to protect the Seamaster. Rolex doubled down on the Submariner and that’s why Omega is losing - not because they make worse watches, but because Rolex mastered the psychology of scarcity, even if it means treating customers badly. And as it turns out, in the luxury world, that works.

Refocusing on Omega for a moment, I think the reason there is frustration is because despite being an attractive brand, there are not many Omegas that I want.

I already have two Speedmasters (3861 and 321) and a Seamaster Diver (the new ND version) and I can't really think of another one I want that is not repetitive of what I already have. Could I get the new Reverse Panda 3861 or the platinum 321, or a different color combo/case material of the SMP? Probably, but repetition within models is not what excites me about watch collecting.

It is worth noting neither Snoopy or James Bond matter to me. Never have, never will.

Omega's current line of dress watches does have the strong/distinctive design language a Day Date, Datejust or Calatrava does; with few exceptions Omega dress watches look inexpensive but are not (at retail). Lots of room for improvement here.

A pure GMT would be interesting, but for some reason, Omega insists on combining this complication with diving and/or chrono complications. I believe a pure GMT could be an important part of Omega's future offerings.

All this being said a birth year watch (1960) could be my next Omega. The Seamaster 321 chrono is an incredible example of Omega during a period where they where in a much better market position that they are today.

Has anyone else run out of Omega watches they want? What would people like to see that Omega is not doing now?

I think this came up earlier in this (very large) thread, but yes I find in their vast range there isn't a lot I really want to buy. I prefer their older SMP/PO/AT models to the current ones, I do really like the current gen white Speedy so that is on the list, and I agree their dress watch range is lackluster. Hence hoping for a steel version of the upcoming pie pan Constellation refresh. If they do that, there are two Omegas on my list to buy.

As for GMT, I live in a half hour time zone (+9.5) so the vast majority of GMTs are completely useless to me. I'm not a fan of them and I don't care what Omega does with them. 😁

I've had a chance to look at most of the most recent offerings and with the exception of a few, most are kind of getting boring or just more of the same (just mixing up colors and strap types). The reverse panda speedy was nice, but I still find the white speedy more appealing. Didn't care for any of the new POs. The one's that do peak my interest are no where to be seen, though I do have the new Grey Side incoming. I've been trying to get eyes on the Milano Cortina models with no luck so far.

One thing I would like to see Omega do is make their quick strap/bracelet change feature universally available across most of the line.

I guess I would agree with the above. I have a 2-Dial Racing Speedie, a Classic Moonwatch, a Seamaster (because Speedies don't get well with wet stuff), I got my father a 1963 Seamaster (his birth year) as a present and I can't find anything else I would want from Omega. I toyed with the idea of a few Moonswatch'es (I know I am sorry). Perhaps I would swap my 2-dial Racing for Moonphase (not in addition to it).

But I don't think the reason Omega has so many watches is the collectors who buy 100 watches, I doubt Omega really counts on people filling a drawer full of just Omegas. Horology enthusiasts seem to forget how niche the market is for collectors of multi‑£10k watches. People who own even single Omega, Rolex, AP, PP, IWC etc. are already 1% of 1%, the ones that have multiple luxury watches are are 1% of that.

So a broad catalogue is really not so that people can find multiple watches they like, it is that somebody could find that ONE AND ONLY watch, which is likely the only watch they will ever have... and if it happens to be Omega, I think that is what Omega consider a win.

The problem is that Submariner takes the cake every time, as iconic as speedie, has usable water resistance and by now is just as well built... and if somebody already buying one and only luxury watch in their life, they may as well sit on wait list for 2 years and add extra £2k to get something they can use for the rest of their life.

I don't own Rolex and am unlikely ever own one, because I am not the person they can wipe their feet on and disrespect me or offload 3 Datjusts for the privilege to own a tool watch. My attitude - I don't need them, they need me (apparently not), so I am not going to beg when making a discretionary purchase. But... apparently, many people are not like me and I can see why.

If Rolex hadn’t laughed me out of the AD (patronising me for even asking about a Sub), it probably would have been my first choice for an all‑round daily luxury watch.

50ATM on a non‑dive watch is not "50 metres" - I’m sure that’s not news to anyone.

Let’s take a simple hypothetical. It’s a perfect sunny summer afternoon, you are walking along the coastline, wearing your prized Speedy. The sea looks amazing. You weren’t planning to swim, but now you are tempted.

What do you do? Do you take off a £5k–£10k watch and leave it in your shoe on the beach, or do you anxiously bite your tongue and swim with it in a hope the 50-100m rating will be just about enough?! If it doesn’t, you are greeted with a steamed‑up dial and a £900 service bill.

And this isn’t paranoia - anyone who has ever left a watch on the shore knows exactly how uncomfortable that feels. Getting mugged is one thing, voluntarily leaving a luxury watch unattended on a public beach is another. Most people would rather keep it on their wrist if they can.
So what’s the practical solution?

You end up with a two‑watch Omega setup - Speedmaster for the iconic looks + Seamaster for actual everyday usability. That is £11k at the absolute minimum (38mm Speedy + basic Diver 300M).
Realistically, once you are at the Sapphire Sandwich and a nicer Seamaster, you are closer to £14k mark.

...or you buy a £9,800 Submariner and it works for all occasions without thinking about it. Not having to plan your day around your watch is a form of luxury in its own right. For me, I’m allergic to being disrespected, so I went with the two‑watch combo. But I completely understand the people who would rather wait for the one watch they never have to worry about.

This is why "just don't swim with it" isn't good enough for a practical everyday luxury watch, it needs to handle real life, not just washing hands.