A hypothetical question (well maybe not as I'm thinking about this). If you had £3500 to spend on a watch would you spend it on (1) a 1960s Pre-Moon Speedie and a 1960s Omega Seamaster 300) or (2) a 10 year old Rolex GMT Master 16710?
It entirely depends on what you want. As me on different days and I would give a different answer. You could go with the Omega's and have two watches with their own character and wear them on different occassions,etc. OR you could go with the Rolex and have that money tied up in one watch but enjoy it for what it is.
Either way its a good dilemma to be in and both brands will provide satisfaction to the owner, or maybe not :twisted:
Go for the GMT, you may only get one watch, but you'll wear it more than the two Omegas. It's a classic, iconic watch.
Neither
RIAC
Depends - the vintage omegas are very nice, but you need a watch you can wear on holiday, washing the car, etc, etc.
If you have that watch, the omegas would make a fine pair, however if not then the Rolex every day of the week.
Andy
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
It depends on lots of factors including what you want to wear it (them) for and what else you have or are thinking of for the future.
Assuming I had nothing else I would go for the Speedie and Seamaster combo. I have to have a Speedie in my life and it's nice to have a choice. I've had a couple 16710s and can live without them.
There, a hypothetical answer to a hypotheitcal question :)
given the options, I'd go with the GMT... Even though I like the Omega too
So what would be your suggestion(s)?Originally Posted by 100thmonkey
What suits one man may not suit another!given the options, I'd go with the GMT... Even though I like the Omega too
So what would be your suggestion(s)?
For £3500 there are alot of watches I would buy but that doesnt mean they are any good or you will like them
RIAC
Very true and agree with your explanation.What suits one man may not suit another!given the options, I'd go with the GMT... Even though I like the Omega too
So what would be your suggestion(s)?
For £3500 there are alot of watches I would buy but that doesnt mean they are any good or you will like them
But since you took the time to make a reply, you might as well throw in some ideas/suggestions of yours.
Omega every time. Can't stand Rolex and don't like/need GMT function
Daytona or Miura
it's a tricky one eh?
Rolex in a heartbeat. Vintage Omegas are nice but I can't stand the modern interpretation of the brand, and too much of that rubs off. Though I'd also look out for an old Submariner, if only for the WR.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
I would buy a GMTIIC, a Sub, a Panerai 243, but to name a fewVery true and agree with your explanation.What suits one man may not suit another!given the options, I'd go with the GMT... Even though I like the Omega too
So what would be your suggestion(s)?
For £3500 there are alot of watches I would buy but that doesnt mean they are any good or you will like them
But since you took the time to make a reply, you might as well throw in some ideas/suggestions of yours.
RIAC
Id get a GMT master every day of the week.... much superior movement, water resistance, functionality etc... Plus it just looks better. Add all 3 bezels and 2 bracelet types... and you have 6 superb watches in one.
Cant go wrong.
Given the choices offered - (1)
“ Ford... you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.” HHGTTG
Vintage Omegas are nicer than recent Rolex GMTs IMO so the choice is easy. Can't go wrong with either option though.
LOL :lol:
Agreed :wink:
rolex for me i,m a rolex man :wink:
Personally, I'd have the Rolex - but it would have to be the 16750 or the 116710 GMTIIc - the 16710 does nothing for me.
I'd have the sub over any of the options though and possibly a nice 14060
It's just a matter of time...
Go Vintage Omegas now and save for a vintage Rolex later.
“Don’t look back, you’re not heading that way.”
I would say the answer to this question depends on if the wearer is a first time watch buyer or a bit of a veteran. If this is to be your first, I would suggest you go for the 2 Omegas. This will give you 2 variations of watches, and show you what the difference is when you do eventually go for the Rolex.
IMO This way you will appreciate all of the watches more.
^^^
Very good advice :)
At that price I'd try for the classic combo: the Speedmaster and a Sub. With a bit of care you could get both. The SM300 is a splendid watch, but a very similar design ethos to the Speedy. The Speedy and Sub give you more variety.
Miura - that Daytona is urrrrglee!
Daytona or Miura
it's a tricky one eh?
Given the choices, i'd go with the omega's, as i don't think the older GMT's are worth 3.5k.
If you said a GMT Ceramic, then i'd say go for that, but this constant price rise in GMTs, Submariners, etc is getting a bit silly now, god knows who is pushing up the prices, but 3.5k for an old GMT is just daft, and i say old because the GMT II is not vintage, it's not rare, it's just an older model, to think i sold one of these back in 2006 or early 2007 for £1650 :lol:
Totally agree but it has to be a S/V!!!Miura - that Daytona is urrrrglee!
Daytona or Miura
it's a tricky one eh?
Back on-topic. Both are nice watches but just go for the one you like best. Also I can't see a lot of similarities..... except the fact they are both ticking, etc.
See, of those two, I could never choose the one that has eyelashes. There's nowt as weird as folk ;).Miura - that Daytona is urrrrglee!
Daytona or Miura
it's a tricky one eh?
(I'd say "queer" as in the original expression, but that would be insulting to gay people)
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Tough question OP.
Would be a nice decision to have to make and I think I'd probably give a different answer from week to week. I feel my collection should always have a 1960's speedy in it because they are so very, very cool, so I'm leaning towards that.
But I do like Rolex GMTs too. And don't like seamasters any more.
All things considered I think I'd spend that cash on a nice 60's 5513 :blackeye:
Ditto, but there are sooo many options at £3,500 - Siffert Autavia & GO Sport Evo just to name 2 off the top of my head.Given the choices offered - (1)
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
See, of those two, I could never choose the one that has eyelashes. There's nowt as weird as folk ;).Miura - that Daytona is urrrrglee!
Daytona or Miura
it's a tricky one eh?
(I'd say "queer" as in the original expression, but that would be insulting to gay people)
Without wishing to get anal about Italian thoroughbred sports cars on a watch forum, I seem to recall that if you went for the SV, as opposed to the original incarnation or the 'S', then you didn't get eyelashes anyway. You also got wider rear wheels, different rear suspension, and.... sorry, I'll get my coat shall I...???
I would go for the GMT, but I'm not a great vintage watches fan. I like them, I would love to have vintage watches, but I wouldn't wear them on a regular basis.
The Omega's every day of the week in this choice. As has been said, and nice though Rolex are, they are poor VFM. Every time I think I should buy one I wear my Seamaster GMT to the AD, try the Rolex on and struggle to see where all the extra quality is. (Just my opinion before I get flamed by the Rolex fans.)
I'd go for the Rolex because (a) I've already got one on my wish list; (b) I want a travel GMT watch; (c) I already have a (Fortis Lemania 5100 centre sweep) Chrono and, (d) Those were the choices you offered.
If I didn't have the chrono already, I'd think about an Omega Solar Impulse Speedy, combining the benefits of a GMT watch and a Speedy chrono in the one watch. I'm also thinking about an Omega SMP GMT, which would leave me enough to buy a Rolex Sub.
Whilst I appreciate you were referring to buying new, I do think you've got to be careful when discussing VFM, particularly with Rolex, since most models, particularly sports models, hold their value extremely well over a longer period. You've only got to look at the example of a previous poster here - somebody bought that 16710 from him four years ago and paid £1650... that's pretty good VFM.
Not sure you could have done that with many, or any, Omegas at the same time.
And before I get fanned by the Omega brigade, I'm very proud to own four of them including a beautiful 2006 Speedy Pro... as well as a 5513 Sub. I love them both, and my three other Omega's.
Oh, and buy the model, not the brand!
Rolex or Omega? Rolex every time, not even close.
Omega for me, I just like the look of them. However if Rolex made a 42mm dial sub I would want it, but not for 4K :?
When ever I'm in a jewellers I always end up gawping at Omega's as I do when pictures are posted on here. Its a bit like the choice between a Norton Commando & a Triumph Bonneville you have to have owned both, by the way the Norton wins everytime......doesn't it :wink:
omega 300 is a great watch 8)
Surely for £3.5k, with a little patience a decent used 16710 and a 1980s Speedmaster should be just about doable - say £2500 for the former and £1000 for the latter?
GMT
Actually there are 3 different questions here to be answered:
Chrono or non-chrono
vintage or modern
Omega or Rolex
Personally, I would go for Rolex, non-chrono, modern. If I wanted a chrono, I would go for Omega instead of Rolex overall. Vintage watches, IMHO are not in most cases for everyday use and in modern watches I prefer Rolex from Omega, because of the reliability issues of the early co-axial movements, while the 8500 has not yet proved its value. Both brands are very overpriced IMHO, but I would probably more willing to pay for a Rolex than for an Omega these days.
No they are poor VFM second hand unless you are a flipper. There is a strong market in 2nd hand Rolex and 2nd hand Panerai. It's great if you want an investment piece (until the bottom falls out of the market :wink: ) You can buy better (as in more interesting, more unusual and rare) watches for the same money.
However I fully agree buy the model not the brand. Not nice wandering around with a watch on that you don't actually like. There are very few watches in each manufacturer line up that I like the look of.
Both are nice options, but buy what you want and you won't go wrong :)
No they are poor VFM second hand unless you are a flipper. There is a strong market in 2nd hand Rolex and 2nd hand Panerai. It's great if you want an investment piece (until the bottom falls out of the market :wink: ) You can buy better (as in more interesting, more unusual and rare) watches for the same money.
However I fully agree buy the model not the brand. Not nice wandering around with a watch on that you don't actually like. There are very few watches in each manufacturer line up that I like the look of.
OK, so how often do real watch enthusiasts on here or indeed anywhere else, buy a watch and keep it until they curl their toes up? Yes, you may get the odd one, but I think you'll find the majority of 'keepers' are usually pieces that have some sentimental value, passed down by parent/grandparent or given as a 21st etc. Either way, you wouldn't have spent your own hard earned on it.
Most other pieces bought by enthusiasts will be sold / traded at some point in the future, whether thats one month, one year, 10 years.
VFM is only really poor if a) you buy a brand new Rolex and flip it within the first few years of its life, or b) the watch is never sold (either by you or whoever you pass it down to) AND both you and subsequent owners do not feel it's worth its current market value...
VFM is also very subjective. Your assertion that "you can buy better (as in more interesting, more unusual and rare) watches for the same money" is simply your personal opinion, which is great and makes for a far more interesting market place. But, a great many people think quite the opposite, hence the popularity of Rolex, particularly Sports models, over the last couple of decades.
And whatever the opinion, you can't argue with the stats, go back on any auction website such as Bonhams, and look at the hammer prices for Subs, SD's, GMT's etc over the last decade. £1400 for a 16610 back in 2004? Or how about £1650 for that GMT 11 back in 2006/07? Poor VFM to those who bought them and kept them until today?
Bottom line is, if you buy right, i.e. don't buy new (unless you know you're keeping it for a long time), buy a classic 'in demand' model pre-owned (almost any S/S sports), look after it well, then you'd be hard pushed to get better value in a watch. It will hardly ever be a good investment, but if that's your sole criteria, then perhaps equities, PM's or forex would be a better bet.
Personally, with the possible demise of the 14060, there isn't one current Rolex that I like enough to own, even at pre-owned prices, and the 3570.50 is the only current Omega that I really like. Which means I'll only ever be looking at pre-owned for future purchases... which is just fine with me, and no doubt for the OP too.
Personal preference would be the vintage Omegas. Love them! For me the Rolex image has been ever so slightly tainted by the counterfeit market. I hate the thought that people might be questioning the authenticity of a watch i had spent alot of money on.
Roles every time for me.
As has been said, it comes down to vintage versus old. Not a choice between the Daytona or Miura, but between a Daytona and Miura v a 10 year old 535i, (if the BMW cost much more).
You can still buy Speedies, but the pre-moon Speedies will always be special, and the SM300 is so beautiful that we're making replicas. They are both iconic.
I don't think the GMT is - its just a potentially good deal for a long-term reliable motor.
But I'm a little vintage biased.
Ah you have me on the first point. I don't flip watches. I don't even trade in old ones when I buy new ones. So I'm odd - I always new it!!! :D
Yes you are right VFM is subjective. I think I'm just reacting to the number of posts I see which are all along the lines of "Which Rolex should I buy that will appreciate in value or hold it's value best" It's a question asked by investors not enthusiasts IMHO.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
