Hi there!

I am looking at either the Rolex GMT II BLNR or the Omega GlobeMaster two-tone blue

Objective: business watch - nice but not too flashy.

Context / current collection:
I already have a Polar Explorer II 216570 for basic GMT function and a JLC Reverso Ultra thin DuoFace for a more dressier watch. As part of my purchase I would probably sell my current DeVille Hour Vision Orbis as it will become pretty much redundant with either the BLNR or the Globemaster.

From my perspective I think the Globemaster is more classical-modern and although I don´t usually like two tone watches, I think in this case the splash of gold works really well with the deep blue, and another positive is the brand new Metas certification and exhibition case back.

The Rolex BLNR is more sporty and would also work with jeans etc, but I already have the Explorer II, Seamaster 300 M Co-Axial and Speedy Apollo 11 45th to fill in for more casual wear.

Resale value is not a key factor for me. Pricing is about the same, around US$9K.

Which would you choose?

Cheers!

 

Those are two wildly different watches, so it's hard to advise. What I will say is the Globemaster is definitely more of a businesslike watch, whereas the GMT is more casual with a lot more flash. Sounds like you already have many watches along the lines of the GMT, especially with an Explorer. But then, it seems as though those are the kinds of watches that appeal to you, so you might want to spend lots of time with the Globemaster to see if it really speaks to you before buying. Of course, if resale value doesn't matter, you could just go ahead then sell it if it doesn't work out.
Either way, be sure to post photos once you make a decision!

 

Thanks abrod520, good points. I agree they seem wildly different, but within the context of wearing a suit, I think the BLNR becomes less sporty under the cuff.

Initially I did not warm too much to the Globemaster from the first round of Omega Basel 2015 photos (this also happened with the launch of the Seamaster 300 M Co-axial), but I think the two-tone blue GlobeMaster above hits the right balance between classical and modern.

Hopefully should be arriving at my local OB in the coming weeks, and I certainly agree that I need to try it hands-on before making any final decision.

PS. When I mentioned that resale doesn´t matter it is because I intend the "chosen one" to be a keeper

 

The globe master is sublime and understated, the rolex a bit in your face but maybe more versitlie. A tough choice because they are so different. I suppose you will only know when you try them on. But if you have several watches similar to the rolex then maybe go for the globe master.

 

I'm not a great Rolex fan, but I would chose it as I like co-axial movements even less. I also think you would get a better return on your money down the line.

 

Thanks Lillatrol. I did try on the BLNR 12 months back. I loved the blue and black bezel, but the "ugly cyclops" was more in evidence than on the Polar Explorer II (I think the white background balances out the cyclops better), put me a bit off.

Geo, thanks for the input. Personally I have not had issues with Co-axials so far on my Deville Hour Vision Orbis, AT 15000 Gauss or Seamaster 300 M-Coaxial. They are precise and very quick to wind up compared to the Explorer II, for example. Of course, one of the negatives of the Co-Axials is the movement thickness, so I am indeed curious to see how the GlobeMaster feels on the wrist. From a spec. perspective I think both the Globemaster and BLNR are aprox. 12mm thick. I certainly agree that from the investment return, the BLNR is the better option.

 

The Globemaster is quite a subtle watch, so definitely fits the 'not flashy' requirement and is a more direct replacement for your DeVille. But I would ask yourself why it is you are looking to get rid of the DeVille - are you not going to have the same issues with the very similar styling of the Globemaster? My experience in a business context has been that most people wear rubbish watches to work and those that do wear niceish watches tend to wear sports watches, rather than dress watches, so I don't think that should be much of a deciding factor as either can work with a suit. Personally, I would go for the GMT.

 

Playtech1, good points again. I do feel that the Globemaster two-tone has a more upmarket feel than my Deville, and I find the pan dial and fluted bezel interesting design points on the Globemaster. I agree that during my "test-drive" I will be taking along de DeVille for a side-by-side comparison to see if the flip/swap is justified

 

Such a hard choice because truly they are completely different watches. I would say, to me, the globemaster is a more classic, understated watch. The GMT on ceramic is a great watch but there's nothing understated about it. It's a statement.

So it would depend on your personality really. Both watches are great. Will you feel self conscious with the GMT? Will you feel boring with the railmaster? Do you want a watch to dress or do you want a workhorse to wear under any condition.

I normally don't mind PCL but I think in this case I would get those polished.

 

Nobel Prize thanks for the input.

No I would not feel self-conscious with the GMT and I agree that it is more of a "statement", but I have a more UK background a more "understated" approach to things, so this would be a point in favour for the GlobeMaster. For a more "classical" dress type watch I would use my Reverso.

I agree the PCLs make the BLNR a bit "blingy", but I think that actually helps it make a bit less sporty and a bit more "business".

 

These things are so personal really.i have a 1675 and a 16710 and neither looks too sporty on the boardroom to my taste. There's something inherently elegant about the GMT line. Particularly on the thinner cased versions. I personally think it's a pitty they bulked up the case. I get it for the sea dweller and the sub but the GMT was designed to be worn with suits....pilot uniforms

 

Exactly why I'd rather a 1675 than a new GMT II, even if they released a steel version with Pepsi bezel. Well, that and a really nice 1675 costs about the same....

 

the only thing is that the 1675 are a little delicate at this point. they're all over 40 years old and because of not having quick set or quick date functions unless you wear them daily they are a little pain to set on rotation. But the main reason I got the 16710 was precisely because I love the watch so much that I wanted a version I could feel confident swimming, hicking, exercising etc. I actually was wearing the 1675 in the Gym and it got damaged just by inertia. Not a big deal and a god service took care of whatever went loose. Either way, one has to respect the age limitations of the 1675's

 

@playtech1 one other more practical factor I forgot to mention in "upgrading" my DeVille to the GlobeMaster would the lume.

The DeVille Hour Vision Orbis has no lume at all, which for me is a bit of a downside for a business travel watch.

Of course on the lume factor the BLNR would win easily, but I all require is sufficient lume (similar to my AT 15000 Gauss, for example) to see the time in the early hours in a hotel room, when you think you might have missed your flight or an important early morning meeting

 

If I am partaking in any kind of physical activity, there will be no vintage watch on my wrist - usually not even a newer one, either!

 

Both are great watches. I absolutely love the look of the new Globemaster though. (I haven't seen one in person yet). Try them both on, and see what one you like the best.

 

well, yeah, sure. But the point is that it is still a delicate watch. Even if you are not quite as aggressive as I may be there are still plenty of daily shock to the average watch if you are moderately active. I like to wear my watches and nothing about them too much. But it was a bummer to see the poor 1675 suffer for sure. But it was really because I go to the caribbean a lot and would not like to be around too much sand with a plexi glass and also would rather know I don't have to worry about the water proofing. So I got a modern (ish) gmt and a modern (ish) sub to go with my vintage.

 

True, I'd probably go with something like a Tudor Black Bay blue for a beater though - it's distinct enough from a vintage GMT or Sub that it's its own watch. I'd rather the unique experience of wearing that, than a facsimile of a vintage watch I'd rather be wearing ... but then, that's just my excuse for buying one

 

good point and great watch. If they only issued the LE piece they made tot he pubic! I actually am considering a Tudor North Flag as well. But it was more than getting a clone. I liked the idea of an early and modern version of those watches (pre ceramic) so a 1675 paired with a 16710 and a 5512 paired with a 14060m (Both 4 line) seemed like a good combo.

Either way, the OP won't have these issues with either of his choices.

 

The Only Watch was super great, I agree! I'd settle for the blue bezel with the OW's dial text though. As I've said before elsewhere, if they could fit the North Flag's in-house movement into a Black Bay and lost the power reserve indicator, they'd have a sale on their hands! As is, I'm sitting on the BB until they depreciate further, then buying used - I've been burned buying new watches with off-the-shelf ETA movements before