- Posts
- 922
- Likes
- 493
Was Omega as prestigious in the 50' & 60's?
- Posts
- 687
- Likes
- 823
bananapeanut
·I'd argue that the modern Sub doesn't look like an original Sub anymore with its behemoth of a case. The Speedmaster stayed much more true to its origins and I am glad it did.
Rolex Submariner thickness
Sub 5512: 15mm
Sub 5513: 13mm
Sub 14060: 12.3mm
Sub 124060: 12.5mm
And look at that, GMT Master II : 12mm
Good luck getting those numbers with the co-axial escapement... behemoth of a case you said ? But frankly, that's not at all where I was going. Both Rolex and Omega make fabulous watches and you can't go wrong with any of their classic designs.
Edited:
- Posts
- 6,598
- Likes
- 26,722
Scarecrow Boat
·Rolex Submariner thickness
Sub 5512: 15mm
Sub 5513: 13mm
Sub 14060: 12.3mm
Sub 124060: 12.5mm
- Posts
- 16,307
- Likes
- 44,994
JwRosenthal
·Tall domed crystal vs flat... You left out the more obvious and dramatic specs such as case width 😗
- Posts
- 34,259
- Likes
- 38,885
dsio
··Ash @ ΩFA merger is often nothing more than a disguised buyout, but that's good, perhaps they could unmerge now and have Swatch and Omega as two completely separate entities. Well, I guess it wouldn't make sense for the group...
- Posts
- 687
- Likes
- 823
bananapeanut
·Or lug to lug which can be a deal breaker for me.
Lug to Lug
Sub 5513: 47mm
Sub 14060: 47.5 mm
Sub 124060: 47.6 mm
SMP 300: 50mm
Speedmaster Professional: 47.2mm
Ed White: 48mm
Speedmaster 57: 49.6mm
- Posts
- 1,567
- Likes
- 2,676
Caliber561
·Lug to Lug
Sub 5513: 47mm
Sub 14060: 47.5 mm
Sub 124060: 47.6 mm
SMP 300: 50mm
Speedmaster Professional: 47.2mm
Ed White: 48mm
Speedmaster 57: 49.6mm
- Posts
- 29,669
- Likes
- 76,826
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerRolex Submariner thickness
Sub 5512: 15mm
Sub 5513: 13mm
Sub 14060: 12.3mm
Sub 124060: 12.5mm
And look at that, GMT Master II : 12mm
Good luck getting those numbers with the co-axial escapement... behemoth of a case you said ? But frankly, that's not at all where I was going. Both Rolex and Omega make fabulous watches and you can't go wrong with any of their classic designs. I currently rotate between the GMT Master II on Oyster and the SMP 300 on rubber. I love them both immensely.
Well...
Rolex 1575 - 6.3 mm height
Rolex 3035 - 6.35 mm height
Rolex 3135 - 6 mm height
Omega 2500 - 4.1 mm height
Omega 8900 - 5.5 mm height
Omega 8800 - 4.6 mm height
The differences in height are not about the movement, but about the cases, so this argument about co-axial escapements makes zero sense...
- Posts
- 1,337
- Likes
- 706
spacemission
·Omega was top and rolex was for aficionados. Nowadays they say that the daytona is the best chrono of the world. Sadly, there are a lot of aficionados and limited knowledge in Spain.
- Posts
- 369
- Likes
- 2,597
mcemeren
·Whenever I asked my uncle how he was, he used to respond "like an omega watch". This was his perception of perfection.
- Posts
- 16,863
- Likes
- 47,901
STANDY
··schizophrenic pizza orderer and watch collector
- Posts
- 687
- Likes
- 823
bananapeanut
·Well...
Rolex 1575 - 6.3 mm height
Rolex 3035 - 6.35 mm height
Rolex 3135 - 6 mm height
Omega 2500 - 4.1 mm height
Omega 8900 - 5.5 mm height
Omega 8800 - 4.6 mm height
The differences in height are not about the movement, but about the cases, so this argument about co-axial escapements makes zero sense...
I had no idea. I stand corrected. Thanks Archer for setting the record straight. I was told that modern Omegas were thicker than Rolexes due to the co-axial escapement movements. Glad to know they could make the cases thinner if they wanted to.
- Posts
- 29,669
- Likes
- 76,826
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerI had no idea. I stand corrected. Thanks Archer for setting the record straight. I was told that modern Omegas were thicker than Rolexes due to the co-axial escapement movements. Glad to know they could make the cases thinner if they wanted to.
The transparent case backs on the modern watches adds a lot of thickness, and the domed front crystals also add to the height as someone already mentioned. For example the front sapphire crystal on the regular 600m planet ocean, is 3.1 mm thick, and is domed, so the height of the crystal is more like 4.3 mm.
The back sapphire crystal is 3 mm thick, and having that requires that a recess is cut into the case back with a lip to seat the crystal against, and that lip has to be thick enough to withstand the pressures as well - all this adds thickness.
I happened to just finish up servicing a Sinn U1 yesterday, and I wondered about the crystal and case back. I measured the crystal at 3.63 mm thick, and the steel case back was 2.98 mm. This is a watch rated for 1000m, and I've personally tested them to 1250 m, so I know they hold up to that rating. Their case back is very flat (relative to other brands), so the strength isn't accomplished through a domed back like many brands use - this gives you a very good comparison to what steel and sapphire need to be to not fail under those pressures.
- Posts
- 4,593
- Likes
- 10,810
janice&fred
·Omega even recycled the Speedy's twisted lugs to use on the SMP 300.
I've got 50's Omegas with twisted lugs that predate the speedmaster's use of them by a long shot.
- Posts
- 9,909
- Likes
- 20,897
Mspeedster
·Things change.
When I was a kid in the '60s, my dad admired Omega. He also believed that "Made in America" was best and "Made in Japan" was crap. By the time I was an adult in the '90s, Japan was known to have the best quality (made in America - not so much) and my dad admired Rolex more than Omega. But he was a modest man who'd never bought such watches, unfortunately for me.
When I was a kid in the '60s, my dad admired Omega. He also believed that "Made in America" was best and "Made in Japan" was crap. By the time I was an adult in the '90s, Japan was known to have the best quality (made in America - not so much) and my dad admired Rolex more than Omega. But he was a modest man who'd never bought such watches, unfortunately for me.
- Posts
- 6,649
- Likes
- 52,266
noelekal
··Home For Wayward WatchesWhere did Longines fall compared with Omega and Rolex in the watch pecking order " back when?"
They were considered prestiious and they had some winning in-house movements.
Just asking for a friend.
They were considered prestiious and they had some winning in-house movements.
Just asking for a friend.
- Posts
- 4,593
- Likes
- 10,810
janice&fred
·Where did Longines fall compared with Omega and Rolex in the watch pecking order " back when?"
They were considered prestiious and they had some winning in-house movements.
Just asking for a friend.
Very true. When I was a kid, Longines and Omega were the classy Swiss watches. I was well into my 20's before I ever heard of Rolex, which is very hard to believe and I still try to figure that one out to this day. Never heard of them until one day when my dad was making his usual negative comments about our relatives on mom's side "Your uncle looks like an asshole with those gold necklaces and Rolex."
(Uncle Paul still has that day-date).
Edit: I forgot to mention Tissot along with Longines and Omega. I recall seeing (and unfortunately not paying enough attention to) Tissot chronographs on wrists in Connecticut and I always associated them and Longines with motorsports which I avidly watches on ABC's "Wide World of Sports". That was channel 8 for those who didn't grow up in the tri-state area 😁
Edited:
- Posts
- 1,567
- Likes
- 2,676
Caliber561
·On its own Omega would be a shell of its present self, there’s just so much benefit it gains from being part of Swatch Group, from borrowing movements and expertise from Blancpain / F. Piguet to having ETA behind them, to Comadur SA who give them access to the best ceramics and composite materials, every Omega produced these days is influenced at least indirectly by the expertise of many sister companies in the group and they’re far better for it. Doing everything in-house sounds laudable on paper but when you can borrow from the best, whether in parts or expertise you’d be mad not to.
A lot of people laud Rolex, touting it's ultimate acquisition of Gay Freres, Boninchi, and Aegler as a sign of excellence, but I think it's worth asking the following questions:
Would Gay Freres have grown to the point that it had without the massive amount of business provided by Omega(SSIH) and other groups?
Would Singer, Beyeler, Lemrich, and other dial suppliers have grown to the point that they could test dozens of novel designs for Rolex without business from their other sizeable clientele?
Would Aegler, or the rest of swiss watchmaking, for that matter, have standardized their interchangeable parts systems to a scalable production capacity as fast as they did without Omega and SSIH pioneering that infrastructure in Switzerland?
Would the Daytona exist if not for ASUAG, or Zenith? Almost certainly not in the form that we recognize today.
Would all of the aforementioned component suppliers have been able to experiment and develop to the point that they did without the significant business and innovations contributed by these large conglomerates?
There's no way to know for sure, but it would be disingenuous to say that SSIH, ASUAG and other groups' contributions were trivial, with no effect on the flow of history. Rolex gets praise when it brings its component manufacturers in-house by purchasing them: Arguably, these component manufacturers would not exist the way they did when Rolex purchased them if not for the larger groups offering business.
And for the record, SMH (the product of SSIH and ASUAG), was renamed 'The Swatch Group' due to Swatch's success at the time. People try to imply that Omega and other non-Rolex brands were predatorily absorbed by Swatch; this just isn't reflected in the facts.
- Posts
- 16,307
- Likes
- 44,994
JwRosenthal
·^what he said.
- Posts
- 241
- Likes
- 326
Difeer
·This is a wonderful thread. I am learning lots about the historical context of the companies, how they came to be the way they are today.
