I posted this over at Watchuseek a little while ago, and thought it might be of interest here too. Nothing too serious, just a light-hearted comparison of two iconic pieces. Enjoy:

Thought it might be fun to compare two of my watches which at first glance are very different, but in some ways are very similar. Say hello to the Rolex Submariner 14060M and the Omega Speedmaster Professional 3570.50.00. Yeah, I know, they're nothing like each other are they? An automatic diver and a manual wind chronograph. But, there are also some big similarities. Both are stainless steel luxury sports watches, both are on a bracelet, neither has a date, both have clear and easy to read faces, both are very balanced in appearance and both can be traced back to original models from the fifties. More importantly, in real and honest modern day usage, these are just nice, sporty everyday watches with a degree of versatility to them. So, perhaps not that different after all?





Quality and Finish
These are both very well finished watches, with a mixture of polished and brushed services. There some key differences here. The Rolex has a highly scratch resistant sapphire crystal, and the Omega uses hesalite. We don't want those astronauts breathing in broken glass, do we? The Submariner has white gold hands and applied markers, the Speedmaster makes do without such luxuries.

The Omega has a better bracelet and clasp. Especially the clasp. There's nothing wrong with the Rolex's, and the design has been shown to be reliable, but the Omega's just feels more substantial. The whole watch also feels a little heavier.





I prefer the feel of the Omega's mechanism when winding the watches, and the hands have less bounce in them when adjusting the time.

Looks and Style

I like pretty plain, clear and well balanced faces on my watches, and both of these oblige. They both look classy and classic. Neither watch is remotely dressy, but both are versatile. The Speedmaster is probably a little more casual, but there is really very little in it. It also has a nicely finished case back.



Functionality and Performance

Plus points for both watches here.

Submariner: Waterproof to 300 meters, unidirectional rotating bezel, automatic movement, hacking seconds hands, screw down crown and COSC certification.

Speedmaster: Chronograph, tachymeter and a 52 hour power reserve (Omega quotes 40).

OK, so a few more points to the Rolex!

Costs

There is a big price difference between these two. The 14060M is now discontinued, but retailed at £4100 in its last days. The Speedmaster is now £2880. However, in my experience, larger discounts are available on the Omega (approaching 20%, against 5% on the Rolex - both based on what I paid) which increases the price difference.

The Omega is cheaper to service too.

Conclusion

A tough, tough call. I really like both watches (no surprises there, as I went out and bought them). Both have prestigious names, impeccable pedigrees, fascinating histories (especially the Speedmaster) and classic good looks. They are well built, reliable timepieces. I am a sucker for the Rolex brand, but the Omega is better value in my opinion. But when has this ever been about value?

The Rolex probably just edges it for me because of the automatic movement, better water resistance and (in the case of my two examples) better accuracy. Neither are far out though, and I am sure they could be adjusted to be more accurate. The Submariner averages + 2 or 3 seconds per day, the Speedmaster runs at about + 6. Generally the Rolex is my regular watch on Monday to Friday, then on Saturday morning I pop on the slightly more relaxed Speedmaster for the weekend. Obviously my watch choice varies as specific events dictate, but that's my standard approach and it means I get to enjoy them both regularly.

As I often do, I asked my six year old daughter which she preferred. As kids often do, she cut through all the BS and answered very confidently that the Rolex is better. Why? "Because not that many people go to the moon these days, but lots of people dive!" Genius!

Thanks for reading. Hopefully it was interesting.

 

No worries, although I believe the in the real world they actually often perform the same job; that of a good quality sports watch. I doubt many examples are used for their intended purpose, and they could easily compete for wrist or watch box space. I know mine do.

Not intended to be too serious though. Thanks or reading anyway.

 

Hi, yes, I read that after I stuck my post up. They can definitely fill the same space, can't they?

 

You need a third watch to add to your classic black theme

Tag Heuer Monaco

WW2110.FC6177

 

I have to agree with Steve - the similarities of the Sub and Speedy are cosmetic only (ie: black dial, stainless case, etc). The Sub would be better compared to a dive watch like the Planet Ocean or 2254, and the Speedy is more like the Daytona.

While your two watches may compete for wrist time because of the 'accesory factor', you can't make the leap that they were designed for the same purpose.

 

I was looking at this from another perspective. They weren't designed for the same purpose, but in the modern world they often serve the same purpose. I think that their original purpose has all but gone, and they are just nice day-to-day watches. That was the basis of this thread. Just an easy going, non-technical review.

When I purchased the Speedy it was competing with the Explorer, the Grande Seiko GMT, the Reverso and the Milgauss. Certainly not another chronograph, and definitely not the Daytona. Different makes, designs and price points. But all nice versatile pieces. And I think plenty of people buy that way, not by diver, chrono, GMT etc. Not all obviously, but plenty.

I think I pitched it wrong for this forum, which seems a little more "serious" than the watch forums I usually use (WUS and TRF). No worries, lesson learned. I just don't take my watches that seriously I guess.

Hope it's an enjoyable read for some people anyway.

Cheers.

 

Only about watches......we are totally lack of our seriousness on anything else...

 

No worries. You did, after all, include the most important part: PICTURES!

 

They do help, don't they? Nothing like a bit of eye candy!

 

Ha! A little "square" for my tastes!

 

You would be better comparing a 321 speedmaster against a 861 speedmaster

As above all have said they are both great watches just not really that comparable.

( I just don't take my watches that seriously I guess.) You are if you spent the time to create this post

 

Good reading indeed, I enjoyed both the pics and your words. I also appreciated the funny and wise reply of your little daughter.

 

Thanks Varasc.

 

I liked the review, in the sixties they both would have been sought after and difficult to choose

 

Thanks for the great read and of course pictures. From my perspective, being VERY new to serious watches, this would have been great information months ago when standing at the boutiques flipping a coin. Now that I am dangerous, I have two speedys, so it's pretty apparent where my heart lies. And someday soon I will be able to make a 'vintage incoming' post and the journey to the dark side will be complete.

 

Thanks both...