Not looking to start an Omega vs. Rolex flame war. That's been done numerous times on this and many other watch forums. We all know that at one time before the quartz crisis, Omega enjoyed a reputation as the undisputed leader of mass produced high end Swiss watches and that Rolex played second fiddle. You'll note that I intentionally use the term "mass produced" and do not use the term "luxury watch" as I believe that Omega and Rolex are the former and not the latter, then or now. We also know that the modern day Rolex marketing machine -- artificial scarcity and all -- is second to none. The question is this: given Omega's resurgence, innovation and the quality of the product that they're delivering these days, is it possible that Omega will overtake Rolex in terms of its reputation among the general consumer? I would argue that among "watch nerds" and horologists that Omega is already there and continues to innovate at a clip that exceeds Rolex's play it safe glacial pace. That being said, is technical prowess, attractive styling and superior value enough for Omega to recapture the hearts and minds of the general watch buying public or is Rolex always going to be the watch to buy for those with money, most of whom don't know much about watches?

 

Two things: (1) "Artificial scarcity" doesn't make sense. Watches are scarce or they are not. Rolex has been making 800,000--1,000,000 watches a year for at least the last 50 years. The apparent scarcity comes from gray dealers buying them up from (sometimes unscrupulous) ADs and reselling at absurd prices on the web. (2) Rolex is a magic brand name, and always will be. There's nothing Pepsi could do (for example) that would allow it to topple Coke as the number one soft drink brand in people's minds.

 

The luxury market largely runs on perception, and Rolex wins that hands down. I don't see that ever changing. Omega may be out front of Rolex on some of the technology issues but the person who a Rolex appeals to doesn't care about that. A Rolex is an aspirational brand, known throughout the world as a mark of good taste and success, Omega just doesn't play in that arena and that isn't going to change. This subject has been beaten around for years.....they both make very good watches but their markets aren't the same for much of their product line. Omega left things drift for years and lost focus due to market conditions, company ownership and management, Rolex never lost track of who they were and what they were doing.

 

I would put money on Rolex remaining in its current position or even expanding the gap, there is nothing Omega is doing that will even make a dent. Rolex is an aspirational brand. And to be honest, I don't see much in Omega's modern offering that convinces me that they are making a substantial resurgence in quality or innovation ... I think that's mainly marketing hype, "we're the company for real watch aficionados who value quality". There are hints in the OP's post that he is buying into this marketing, i.e. "Rolex watches are for rich people who don't know much about watches". Even while saying he doesn't want to start a flame war, he lobs in a few incendiaries. I think that a brand like Panerai has a better chance of competing with Rolex as an aspirational brand than Omega does.

 

I wonder if in 20-30 years, Omega would be able to further improve their brand and get a similar prestige status than Rolex in the general public mind. One thing that does not help Omega in my opinion is that their catalog is a bit less clear than Rolex, with more models and variations.

 

I wouldn’t say that I’m buying into Omega’s marketing, Dan. I’ve owned Omega watches since 1976. I’m also not knocking the quality of Rolex watches. They make a fine product and I’ve said so in many of my posts. I think that I’ve also acknowledged in this post, and others, that Rolex marketing is second to none. I absolutely agree with you that Rolex IS an aspirational brand, but I stand by my opinion that many people buy a Rolex because they think that they’ve reached a point in their lives where they should have one - and not because they are intrigued by or knowledgeable about mechanical watches. So I’m not sure exactly which incendiaries you believe that I’m lobbing into the thread. I inquired about the two brands’ reputations among consumers and whether that might change. Make of it what you will.

 

Yes, that is exactly my point. You've subliminally incorporated the Omega message to the extent that you don't even see that certain comments are provocative. (Or else you actually are trying to offend people who like Rolex watches.) Like the idea that Omega has a higher reputation amongst horologists or that Omega watches are technically superior, or that Omega is innovating rapidly, and that Rolex is stagnant. Or that Rolex owners know nothing about watches.

 

I respectfully think that you’re reading more into my post than is actually there, but you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. As for having consumers buy into marketing, I trust that you would not disagree that no watch manufacturer has done that better than Rolex.

 

A lot of people buy Rolex just because it's a Rolex. All those crazy rich asians in china don't care about what's inside the watch. Rolex has already established the icon status. Omega tries too hard sometimes in my opinion. They keep coming up with new watches or limited editions that have nobody cares about. They do a good job capitalizing the moon watch story though. Mostly unchanged classic design plus a rich history.

 

Agreed. Rolex marketing has been masterful. I also agree with you that both brands are mass produced.

 

Many crazy rich, non-Asians don’t care what’s on the inside either.

 

I ain’t crazy or rich, I know I don’t care what is inside. I am just amazed how all those tiny wheels, sprockets, and widgets go together and make this damn watch work. I am really amazed at anyone that can take all these minuscule parts and get them back together. I almost always end of with an extra part just changing a tire.

 

I like the idea that a watch manufacturer that produces a significant number of its models in gold or platinum, and often encrusted with diamonds, is not a luxury manufacturer.

 

Your first words are

And yet you finish with

I'm curious how that's not purposely provocative which you said was not your intention. Hey, it's all good but those two statements seem to be contradictory.

 

Many of those gold, platinum and diamond encrusted models are, at heart, still top quality tool watches. Nothing wrong with that. It’s how Rolex built its reputation. Omega too with many models. But neither company has ever been in the same league as Patek, AP or VC. In my mind, those are luxury watch producers.

 

I can see your point with regard to the latter part of my sentence where I specifically mention why I think many folks aspire to purchase a Rolex, but I think that there is more than a little truth there. As for the beginning of my sentence that references Omega, there was no comparison to or intentional swipe at Rolex’s product. But let me be clear. Rolex makes an excellent product and nobody does a better job at marketing.

 

Certainly more luxurious, I agree.

 

Both brands are high end tool watches and both have their advantages and disadvantages. I prefer Omega for certain things and Rolex for other certain things.

Unfortunately, Omega will not get to the ‘aspirational desire’ that Rolex has, purely because an Omega is readily available for anyone to go and buy, usually with 0% offerings. If you want a Rolex, you can’t just go buy one, it’s a challenge in itself and if you do get one from an AD, that’s satisfying in itself. Plus you also 9/10 need to pay for the watch in full - no finance available, usually.

I like Omegas strategy really, even if it is a minefield of limited editions - you can pretty much feel like you’ve bought a custom watch. A custom watch (dial colour/materials/NATO/rubber or stainless strap) that you can take away the day you go in. With the watch losing value as soon as you walk out of the shop, it allows you to enjoy the watch you’ve bought - it’s losing money anyway, so enjoy it and don’t worry about the scratches. The watch gets used as intended.

I genuinely think on average, Omegas get enjoyed on the wrist more than Rolex.. as the whole value retention and grey market is a really limited thing around Omega.

 

Back to the topic before the hostility and insecurity gets out of hand,

Question: "given Omega's resurgence, innovation and the quality of the product that they're delivering these days, is it possible that Omega will overtake Rolex in terms of its reputation among the general consumer? "

To me not any time soon, Rolex has built for itself a brand that is untouchable paired with lack of availability of product for general consumers, this has only driven alot of people to desire and value the Rolex watches even more as we can see with their inflated prices.

In my neck of the woods Rolex has a cult like mentality, where wait lists for submariners and GMTS go into years! the only things available to buy from AD's are Air Kings or Milgausses. People witness the watches they are waiting for flood the second hand markets in brand new condition with heavy premiums to pay over rolex's already inflated price and they are sold in minutes.

Rolex is more associated with aspiration , Omega more inspirational but inspiration is not a guaranteed seller.

 

^Pretty much spot on and I’m inclined to agree. Thanks for answering the question!