Rolex GMT Master II or Omega Planet Ocean GMT or ???
Discussion
Tend to agree re the dated comment with the omega. I have a planet ocean and also am debating chopping it in for the blue black gmt Rolex. However, tigerkois photo does make the watch you mention look a whole lot better than in your first picture!
Regarding residual value, in years to come what do you think the Rolex will do vs the omega? I bought my PO 6 years ago and it now retails at nearly double what I paid back then from Dom H. Are watches just going to keep going up? Or did I get a bit lucky?
Regarding residual value, in years to come what do you think the Rolex will do vs the omega? I bought my PO 6 years ago and it now retails at nearly double what I paid back then from Dom H. Are watches just going to keep going up? Or did I get a bit lucky?
Been off PH for a few days. Thanks all for your suggestions.
A quick count has the Rolex in front 14 to 3.
tigerkoi's photos do well to show how nice the Omega is.
That Mühle-Glashütte is nice although it doesn't seem to come on a bracelet which is a requirement for me. Does seem to be available at a good price.
I think my decision has become harder, not easier!
I've not quite got the money for the Rolex so I either buy the Omega now or wait until I have enough for the Rolex. I suppose this gives me a few more months to procrastinate! 
A quick count has the Rolex in front 14 to 3.
tigerkoi's photos do well to show how nice the Omega is.
That Mühle-Glashütte is nice although it doesn't seem to come on a bracelet which is a requirement for me. Does seem to be available at a good price.
I think my decision has become harder, not easier!
I've not quite got the money for the Rolex so I either buy the Omega now or wait until I have enough for the Rolex. I suppose this gives me a few more months to procrastinate! 
_rubinho_, forgive me asking (if asked previously)...but have you tried them both on, yet, and preferably in the same boutique side by side?
A lot of watches struggle to look their best when assessed through Google images, and in person it's all the little styling conceits (deceits?), angle of the chamfer, the colouring interplay...that when turned over in the palm of your hand, glistening under that 725 lumen per square metre...start to make sense.
A lot of watches get traded over the old Arpanet, but for me there is a gentle magic of the moment when you mull over the acquisition in the ante-room of that sparsely populated West End jeweller. Sure the full wattage of the salesman's preening grin, the light tinkle of the bubbling champagne that's been offered up to break you down, and the irregular angles that you coax your arm through to assess true suitability...all seem to staunch the passage of time as you "ummm" and "ahhh". But accumulating some luxury, for me, is best done in that state of plush suspension, as opposed to that clown who's revved fast and furiously up to your drive in his UPS van and rushed the plastic wrapped box into your hands and asks you to '...sign for it mate, taaaa'.
Probably more than most of the brands there is more articled rivalry between Omega and Rolex, and specifically the various Seamasters and Submariners over time, than any other.
Off the top of my head Breitling has pushed the Superocean line since 1957. That is some run. However the styling themes haven't stayed true. I see nothing in comparison between my 42mm Steelfish of 2005 (A17360 - which I truly adore), and the current 2010 Superocean II (A17364) model: the latter to me looks like a toy watch with it's appalling italicised fonts. And over time what you see is that individual models may have seen great success or not, but lack of styling consistency naturally impacts the 'Superocean brand equity' from generation to generation. Instead of someone saying 'one day I want a Superocean...', they might rather find themselves in a shop saying, 'hmmm, I like that watch there, that Brietling'. Or not.
Of course Rolex, generations ago, lucked in on an engineering and styling alchemy that whilst it led to one styling icon (the sports oyster) in turn has made them a fairly staid and non-progressive (visually) organisation. Their entire output is like some giant recursive effect; having ROLEXROLEXROLEX around the rehaut is a touch Droste. But like Coke, McDonalds, Apple and Nike, they sell.
I won't get into the whole general "groupthink" that pervades watchmaking (watchloving?) in general, and Rolex more than most, as that just draws out the worst on internet forums, but it's endlessly fascinating how it constantly raises it ugly head when people look at model comparisons. It is worth mentioning - and I'm happy to be corrected - that Rolex didn't always have the entry to mid-luxe category hegemony. For many years Omega was the daddy. But like many they lost their way through the Quartz Crisis and through the '80s.
'Vintage' Rolex is a genuine phenomenon for sure, but there is nothing to state empirically that in 15 years, a 114060 is a guaranteed 'money-in-the-banker'. History, like Jim Collins says, shows that even the mighty can fall: the Chou Dynasty, Compaq, RJR Nabisco, even the British Empire. Some even say that Pax Americana is in its death throes! It's all about the five stages of decline, and I don't see anything beyond the Decalogue, an eleventh tablet, that says that Rolex will be this all-conquering, the only answer, the one, forever.
And as for resale, well, if I have to sell a watch off my wrist to stump up for the kid's summer term at boarding school, then I've probably got other bigger problems, right?
Omega since 'Goldeneye' have certainly clawed back an enormous amount of lost ground. The move to further in-house the co-axial statement, the ceramic push (the entire DSOTM, for instance), even their maintenance of a tourbillon at the top of model stack, has all led to the distinct - and positive - blurring of lines between price and value. People will say a Rolex is worth x. But that may (I don't profess any expert knowledge on this point, so forgive me) be more down to the fact that an AD has no power to negotiate that figure down. And they aren't alone. And everyone has to do it for fear of being cut off, then that artificially is responsible for the keeping of the pricing high water mark. You can get 17/18% off most Omega (and others) in most shops. That's not hard. So, at that juncture you're really working hard to accurately assess price and value.
Anyway, this watch hobby of ours is an interesting, passionate one. But when it comes to what you should have on your wrist, nothing can beat caressing both choices in your hand: as the high levels of lumen beat down on you from the ceiling, the champagne bubbles tinkle against the glass, and the salesman's shiny Colgate grin all serve to compress time and space, all you'll hear is '...decisions...decisions...' going round and round your head.
Enjoy.
(Pictures aren't mine, but gratuitously appended as I too hate having to do loads of reading without piccies)
I had a 45mm planet ocean for two years and just sold it and bought a submariner as my brother bought one and it just looked so much better on his wrist, I have no regrets and love it, my brother jokingly used to say to me when he saw some one wearing an omega "they could not quite stretch to a Rolex.
Had a few planet oceans and seamasters over the years, and always ended up selling them....... The He valve is something I now realise, I just don't like..... Also the lack of fine adjustment on the bracelet on a watch of this price, is pretty unforgivable in this day and age...
For me it would have to be the Rolex....
For me it would have to be the Rolex....
boy said:Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff