Reply With QuoteOmega is low to mid range but Rolex,how dare you! They are definitely better than Omega.Plus Omegas look s*** on a Nato.
I often read threads about build quality of watches, but how do you define build quality?
Is there a definite list of attributes of a watch that can define good build quality for a watch and what would these be?
There are lots of posts eulogising about Patek build quality but can these be precisely defined or is it just an overall impression?
What makes Patek (for instance) build quality superior to the mid-range brands such as Omega or Rolex?
Omega is low to mid range but Rolex,how dare you! They are definitely better than Omega.Plus Omegas look s*** on a Nato.
To me a well made watch, a watch with good build quality, is a watch that works reliably for a long time without frequent servicing. Long time = significantly more than 10 years.
I think build quality has to be distinguished from the finishing of a watch although there could be some overlap. Build quality to me means a watch that is fit for use and adequate. Factors that affect it may include whether it is assembled well, anything feeling flimsy (crown, clasp, etc), whether the lume is applied well, and whether there are any rough edges or scratches anywhere. In other words, it affects the actual usage and function of the watch.
The finishing, however, may be the details and steps taken beyond simply assembling a watch and doesn't affect the usage. This can be decorations of the movement, dial, and hands, hand-finishing, adding details to the case or bracelet, etc.
You're missing a smilie on that post, I think!Originally Posted by waiteu2
If I'm thinking about build quality, I want firm, positive action on the parts of the watch that I interact with (crown, pushers, bezel.) I also want minimal flex in the bracelet. I'd like it resistant to marks from wear and tear, and I think I'd like a proven record of reliability/servicability.
I'd also like these characteristics to be common and uniform across watches of the same model - no varience.
A late model SeaDweller, for example. The bezel action on the-the Damasko DC66. Things like that?
In my mind good build quality means that the watch feels solid, nothing rattles when you shake it,not the bracelet or anything in the case. It has a certain weight, visible components line up and are consistent on the watch.
This ^^
I think the OP is failing to distinguish between the two of them.
After you pass Rolex, build quality is not really improved. It then comes down the level of finishing and polishing, jewelling and decoration, testing and regulating and functionality and innovation of the complications.
That's what separates the haute brands. Well, that, and perception.
- - - Updated - - -
In your mind, a Steinhart is equal to a Patek then?
But at least in the terms he defined...it is isn't it?
It might even be a little like mass market cars vs hand built ones.
A Ford will always be more reliable (and hence in some senses "better") in general than a Morgan for example.
I can certainly see why it's nice to have both though and I very much get the charm of the Morgan (or indeed an Aston...).
I am quite sure that someone will pop up to say their Ford went wrong blah blah but I think the point holds true.
The Geneva seal ought to be a rough guideline
I think build quality sometimes get defined as 'sturdiness'. In that sense, then yes a Steinhart, G-Shock, Casio or Seiko might be superior to Patek in that regard. Of course this is only one merely aspect of a watch.
Last edited by Knisse; 13th December 2015 at 13:39.
The build quality of anything is merely an opinion based upon experience. I have never owned a Rolex but have had several Tags and and Oris. Imo the build quality of my Oris surpasses the build quality of Tag however the assumption would be from the outside very different.
I deal with expensive Land Rovers day in day out, my own car is a £35k Kia Sorento, IMO the Kia's build quality is equal if not better in some aspects than a Range Rover priced almost 4 times as much. Some reading this would probably disagree and argue that could never happen, fine that's your opinion but for me who owns one and works on the other that's my opinion.
I've never handled a Steinhart or a Patek and I am sure there will be a noticeable difference on many levels. But build quality is not in my opinion a matter of component parts and their values as much as how well they are assembled. You can take value entirely out of the equation I think. The selection of watches you have used to highlight the point just demonstrates how build quality can be perceived in different ways by different people.
Machine manufacturing these days can get pretty close to the finest hand assembly, and as watches are so simple, it's quite easy for a Steinhart to be put together (i.e. built) about as well as a Patek, at least as far as handling it in person is concerned (and not under a microscope). Counting the movement as a single item, how many components are there to a time-only watch on a strap? A dozen, perhaps, and if they're assembled with tight tolerances so they don't move or rattle or become loose, you'll have to look at other factors to see where the value is.
If you counted the contours and machining of the case as "build" rather than "finish" or "component" quality then under a loupe, the Patek would be finer than the Steinhart. Also, watches with bracelets are easier to discern in terms of build, as the bracelet gives away a lot, including how well the endlink matches the case. This is one area where some brands excel and others disappoint, no matter the price tag.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Finish, build, or quality control / tolerance levels ..
Rolex quality is higher than Omega, from a simple look with a loupe at comparable new models, the hands, dial markers etc appear better much better - rough edges on some Omega watches I've had - from the naked eye, there probably isn't much in it. But surely we equate a certain level,or finish with build quality - if edges were left rough and unfinished, I'd suggest the build quality was worse.
The car industry changed when everyone had access to the same machinery - Rolex makes a lot of its own machinery. I guess you need to know what robots, computers and other equipment is being used and what tolerances were being built in, to decide if you were getting a comparable product.
It's just a matter of time...
There are measurable criteria.
The specs themselves.
The conformity to specs.
The spread of the deviation.
The number/% out of spec.
The number/% of field fails.
I agree.I deal with expensive Land Rovers day in day out, my own car is a £35k Kia Sorento, IMO the Kia's build quality is equal if not better in some aspects than a Range Rover priced almost 4 times as much.
Compare an F91W with a Cosmograph and it is more stark still.
Finish too can be sort of quantified by the level of perfection as defined by the magnification at which the human eye sees imperfections in manufacture/finish.
There is very much more hard quantifiable in product quality than higher end product buyers want to admit. The appreciaon o these product has very little to do with the tangible; it enters the irrational, delusionary even.
A good example is the Rolex time jump when pushing back in the crown. That is simply unthinkable on a 200$ Orient! More pointedly, it would not be accepted by customers yet for a Rolex it is called a feature adding character.
The handmade thing is another nice one. Just about all handmade products have a spare parts problem in that they do not fit off the shelf.
The spread in torelances also brings a spread in reliability.
Neither is a good thing.
It is the subjective which adds value.
The handmade thing is akin the oscilating spring versus the oscilating quartz cristal as the oscilator giving the instrument accuracy. The ´mechanical´ is sold as a GOOD thing which ofcourse is a delusion. Te perceived added value is subjective only. For a time keeping instrument it is simply obsolete tech.
All is all the ´quality´ argument is totally off the rails in WISdom. It is very rarely about quantifiable properties, almost exclsuively about perceptions.
Get yourself a WR50 version of the F91-W and you will have the best scorer in most aspects of measurable quality, after sales included!!
I still paid over 50 times more for a Seiko SDGA because I wánted to, líke it, I am however not going to delude myself by pretending is it anywhere near that much better than an F91-W.
Last edited by Huertecilla; 13th December 2015 at 14:48.
I have handled a couple of watches on my journey and I can say, when you unscrew, turn and screw down a Rolex crown, you realise what quality is. No other crown action feels so secure.
There may or may not be objective criteria.
IMO, it is something you feel when you wear and handle a watch.
As someone once said, I can't define porn but I know it when I See it.
Same way, I can't define good build quality but I know it when I feel it.
On a related note, all these examples of comparing cheaper options to the more expensive counterparts may be true on initial inspection but the difference becomes apparent over time. Money doesn't always equal quality nor does reputation but overtime it becomes apparent why some are more well regarded than others.
I do agree that Japanese or some other Asian manufacturers ARE capable of delivering good quality at lower price points.
Great example because that is 100% subjective per individual/ social group even within sub cultures of a society. Ánd you need to add time/period to that.
Ergo; you only thínk you know for yourself only.
For porn not an issue because there is no such thing as a Veblen porn market, but on watch fora the thing goes from peer fluffing to aspirational ´reality´ deluding a social group.
Well, the fanbois have to justify, one way or another, the exorbitant cost of their jewelry.
Build quality is very tangible and observable.
It is in the sharpness of corners and chamfers on the case, and the crispness of lines where finishes change, from say, polished to brushed.
It is in the smooth polished side edge of hands, not a rough cut edge. Even folding of those hands, rather than simple flat ones.
It is in proper relief illustration or figuring on the caseback, not acid etching or laser engraving.
It is in bracelet tautness.
It is in the quality of printing and indices on the dial. You can see quality in the thickness of such printing, because it has been re-printed over 20 times to achieve that, rather than just once or twice.
It is all over the place if you take the time to look properly with a loupe.
And I haven't even started on the movement.
There is no way you can say that it is a subjective quality. It is clear to see.
Dave
Since watch manufacture is just another high tech engineering process I would doubt there is much difference in build quality from any of the well known manufactures. Any difference will be in the design, research and materials. The mark up must be substantial on top end watches and they are priced at what they think the punters will spend. In marketing "perception is reality"
Great thread, some of the points written here can also be referred to a g shock for example and as much as I live mine I wouldn't under any circumstances comper it's built quality to any of the brands in this thread. So my conclusion is that built quality is mostly something you feel
It's clear to see if A: You can see it and B:You have something to compare it with.
My perception that my Oris has a better build quality than my Tag is based around my personal experience and bias, the quality of something I perceive might be very different to your perception of quality.
Well, the fanbois have to justify, one way or another, the exorbitant cost of their jewelry.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Chaps
I know this is poor form, and I imagine some of the earlier posts were made in jest, and I also know that this has been done to death. But I'm just concerned that a newbie may look at this thread and get the wrong idea. So just for old times sakes, those who think Rolex watches are a better quality than modern Omegas are completely delusional.
Back on topic, I think build quality means different things in different types of watches. Be that finishing, robustness etc etc
We all have our opinions.
Some, and only some Omega watches are very well built - there are not many built as well as a comparable Rolex - I'm not talking about comparing a 16610 Sub with a more modern 8500 Omega - but...
Take a loupe to the lume of both brands - take a loupe to the hour hands - etc. I've rejected a lot more brand new Omega watches than Rolex.
It's just a matter of time...
This crap of the time delay on a Rolex... It's in there (possibly not by design) as the slack is not taken up afterwards like it is on some other movements - if you set the thing correctly it will be absolutely fine and as accurate as you'd expect by its specs, in some other movements you'll notice a delay
It's just a matter of time...
I have never examined any of my watches with a loupe but to the naked eye,Omegas look as well made and finished as Rolexes.
Rolex crown action is another matter. IMO, few can match it.
Ok so for the avoidance of doubt I would make the following comparisons between comparable models;
Aqua Terra v Datejust - IMHO Aqua Terra is a better made and finished watch with a superior movement. This applies for the models with the 8501 movements vs the Datejust II, it's annoying when someone references their 10 year old 1st generation Aqua Terra with a 2,500 movement against the latest Rolex competitor
Planet Ocean vs Submariner - to be honest the case depth kills this for a lot of people - I do think the Sub has a better clasp, the Omega has IMHO a better movement (again 8500 movement gents, not interested in hearing about your 2500 movements vs the Sub). The helium escape valve that can be released by hand on the PO is a idiotic piece of unnecessary water ingress risk and I have had issues with every PO I have had which is a shame as otherwise the watch is superb. Assuming my PO issues are just bad luck I would still go with the Sub by a whisker
9300 Chrono Omegas vs Daytona - The Dark Side/Grey Side etc absolutely wallop the Daytona round the park like a Conor McGregor sparring partner, there is no comparison IMHO the Omega is about 3 levels up. The finishing on the ceramic case is simply amazing. Of course some people don't like ceramic. The difference in build quality between the comparable models is at its most easy to gauge between these models, Rolex don't have anything as well made as these watches IMHO from a technological achievement perspective. I know one's a chrono and one's a 3 hander but they both have a similar 'look' and the Rolex platinum dial Yachtmaster comes off very poorly against the Grey Side of the Moon. Obviously again, if ceramic's not your thing then so be it, pass the brandy.
Tresor v Cellini - again IMHO the Tresor is nicer as the Cellini has much deeper case, but there isn't a huge difference from a quality perspective.
Deepsea - IMHO this model stands out on its own, Omega doesn't have anything comparable as the Planet Ocean isn't on the same level and competes against the Sub instead. IMHO the Deepsea is the 'best' quality Rolex out there from an engineering perspective - nay it's arguably the best Diver's watch you can buy in terms of being a pure, reliable and superbly engineered tool watch.
I think the issue is where people are buying a simple Seamaster at £2.5k and comparing it against a £5k Sub. So I felt it would be useful to make a like for like comparison
Obviously don't buy a new Omega unless you get 20% off as a minimum as Rolex holds value much better, but then 20% off is easily doable unless it's a real rarity that you are purchasing.
Last edited by ryanb741; 14th December 2015 at 00:56.
My three modern 'quality' watches (IWC, Tudor and JLC) are all exquisitely engineered with no slack or rattles, but the JLC is astonishing in it's perfection under a loupe. That is what we pay for.
Yep JLC make some superb watches. I do think you get 90% of the quality of the Holy Trinity for around 50% of the cost.
Modern Tudors are superb too, I think they provide amazing value for money and I reckon prices are heading north as they establish themselves as 'not Rolex'.
Re IWC, sadly if there is a marque I have had many issues with it's IWC. I have had a heap of quality control issues (basically I won't touch an IWC Chrono any more unless it's an ETA based one) and I found under a loupe the IWCs to be very poorly finished.
For me, build quality is separate from finishing, although the two will obviously overlap in some areas.
Build quality is referring to structural and engineering elements in the construction of the watch. How well put together is the bracelet, how positive/smooth is the action of the bezel, the crown. Ruggedness of components is a factor where it applies too: a thick crystal for instance.
Finishing is about fine work and attention to detail in the polishing, brushing, machining of components, or the application of indices, or lume to a dial, those kinds of things.
Quality control is in my view a separate factor which applies to both.
I think it is probably harder than it used to be to drive a wedge between most brands once you get above a certain price point, when it comes to the factors I'm thinking of when we're referring to build quality. Gone are the days of hollow end links, cases with hollow lugs, thin pressed metal clasps, or thin snap-on case backs on luxury watches. This is not so true when it comes to the finer details I would assign to the heading of finishing, where your extra spending power is more apparent.
Finally I don't necessarily agree that build quality is entirely subjective. But I think it's certainly true that when a lot of people refer to it, they have no idea what they are actually talking about. They have no clear definition in their own mind of what factors they should consider before declaring a watch has excellent build quality, so it's about as useful a way of describing a watch as saying "nice".
Whilst not doubting there are likely many quantitative criterai to judge quality, I go far more for the qualitative and how it feels. Having owned a lot of watches in my time from many brands I'd agree that Rolex is hard to beat amongst the mid range brands with Omega coming in second.
I've only owned an AP from the higher echelons but the increase in quality, particularly of the finish, was easy to see.
In my opinion of course.......
Last edited by GIB984; 14th December 2015 at 01:05.
I think Dave has hit the nail on the head. It seems that build quality means different things to different folks. I don't own an omega or a rolex, but I do own a damasko and they got build quality good enough for my tastes anyway. I think it's a combination of reliability, design, selection of materials etc.
Talk about overdoing it, insecure much?
The Omega uses c-clips to hold the pushers, makes you wonder what other corners they cut... The movement seems nice but is too bulky and hasnt even been around 10 years yet, so remains to be seen. It's still an ETA movement made for Omega, let's not forget.
The whole watch is too bulky and is best compared to a Breitling B01 imho. Both valuedroppers, and made in too many strange iterations and "limited" editions, it's like they don't really believe in their own products.
The movement isn't too bulky, it's the watches they're put into that are. The display back on a 600m diver adds considerable height. The 44.5mm case is a fashion thing, nothing to do with the movement.
Comparing the 8500/9300 movement with any old ETA is really missing the point. Swatch own ETA and used them, along with other contributors, to design and produce the best ground-up new movement they could. I believe the 8500/9300s have their own production facilities. In looks and performance they're up there with the best from Rolex and cannot be realistically compared with a 2892.
No I'm commenting as the owner of both a Daytona and a dark side. Honestly buddy, it's not even a close contest.
Maybe...but it would be fascinating if the watches could be anonymised somehow - then we'd really see if anyone could tell the difference!! I realise that this is impossible.....
Ah, he build quality of my AGAT Vodolaz is as well made, good, sturdy and all as it comes. There is however no way it can be anonymised even though it comes off factory with a sterile dial and nothing much on the back either.
There again, I've seen several reports on this forum, and some videos, where some Fake Rolexs are effectively impossible to distinguish from the real thing - from the outside, anyway - even by experts. Obviously, there are fake Rolexs that wouldn't fool a blind person as well, but there are accurate ones. I seem to remember someone posted a link to a video where someone examined a Rolex Sub, showing all the tiny details that fakers sometimes get wrong in comparison to his Rolex - and at the end, said, but this one's a fake as well! (With Rubbish Chinese movement).
Does this mean that the apparent build quality of some fake Rolexes is as good as the real thing, if you can't tell the difference visually??
Sure they can. They're not that ground-up; the ETA roots show rather clearly: http://watchguy.co.uk/service-omega-...-calibre-8500/
"The construction is very ETA, and ETA will of course have played a huge part in developing this movement, as it’s a long time since Omega had an in-house movement."
The issue of cutting corners has always bothered me. Perfection is unlikely to be possible, but is there a watch where one could draw the line and say "this is the limit of this watch, everything is the best and refined so that it cannot be improved upon".
Very interesting insight into the 8500, and it's not as daunting to work on as I thought it might be.
I find the height adjustment for the balance end shake to be a strange feature; surely it should be done Rolex-style to keep the balance cock parallel? Very rare for balance end-shake to be a problem if the watch was right from new.
Despite the Omega 'in house' claim this movement is clearly using ETA-style parts. Indeed, the design is very much ETA to my eyes. That's no bad thing, I`m a big fan of the ETA 2892 and the parentage is obvious if you know what to look for.
Omega claim it as 'in house' so the folks that think it matters are perfectly entitled to their much-coveted warm feeling.
As for the black bits under the mainspring barrel, that's not good on a watch that's less than 2 yrs old.
Going back to the issue of build quality, the only way to assess this is to strip a watch down. People form a perception of build quality from the tactile nature of the watch and the aspects they can feel/relate to.......not quite the same thing.
Paul
Paul
Guess you have to be a huge fan of ceramics and sapphire, then.
The review posted shows the movement cant hold a candle to Rolex, at least.
When the 4230 becomes real the gap will widen even further.
It says nothing of the sort. The writer prefers a couple of things on similar Rolex movements, and he admits in the comments it was probably a fluke that he got a movement that young that would benefit from a service.
You can keep saying it over and over again but it still doesn't make it true
I can keep working on watch movements over and over and revel in the truth as I have stated it :) Glad you enjoy your watches though, it's what they're for.
- - - Updated - - -
Wasnt going by his writing tbh, the pictures tell all. But you need to have seen a few Rolex movements to spot it I guess.
I started this thread and it was a genuine request for me to get a better understanding of what 'build quality' is. It appears build quality is many things to different people.
There is the external build of a watch defined by Sweets (which covers most of the bases)
"It is in the sharpness of corners and chamfers on the case, and the crispness of lines where finishes change, from say, polished to brushed.
It is in the smooth polished side edge of hands, not a rough cut edge. Even folding of those hands, rather than simple flat ones.
It is in proper relief illustration or figuring on the caseback, not acid etching or laser engraving.
It is in bracelet tautness.
It is in the quality of printing and indices on the dial. You can see quality in the thickness of such printing, because it has been re-printed over 20 times to achieve that, rather than just once or twice.
It is all over the place if you take the time to look properly with a loupe."
Then you could consider the movement build and how well that is engineered, which if you never look inside your watch you may not be able to appreciate.
Then there is finishing which I did not separate out as a separate function of build quality but to some this is the 'Extra Mile' that differentiates the 'haute horology' from the others.
An finally there is the emotional aspect that a watch 'feels right' and is well put together which will probably incorporate some/all of the above.
I hoped there would be a definitive answer but I think it will always mean something different to different people.
I can see that in comparison, in some aspects the Dark Side would look better than the Daytona - but the current Daytona design is at least 16 years old, and not too much of a fair fit imho - I'd still take the Daytona movement over the Omega Chronos. I love the 8500 movement for superficial looks and accuracy - they look great on a glass caseback - but once stripped down, and once you are passed rotor and plate finishing, as you can see in one of the links above, it doesn't look quite as well put together as the Daytona movement, and I'd suggest most 8500/9300 movements are similar. Nothing wrong with them at all and very accurate in my experience.
I'd agree that the Deep Sea is an exceptional piece of engineering - the Omega 1200m Ploprof is too, and one of the best built watches I've ever owned, and possibly Omegas best semi-sensibly priced watch for the finish/build.
We all appreciate different things and aspects of the things we like, and for me I'd still buy something because of the look - but then from a young age I've like a certain look of Rolex sports watches, so they appeal. I also like the Omega SMP 300m range , so they appeal and are the bargain buy of the range - 50% of the cost of a Rolex Sub - but then a used SMP is how much compared to a used Sub? New £2770 vs £5700 - Used £1700 vs £4200, which just about makes the Omega a better buy financially in the short term , and can be bought as a discount - how much more do you love the Sub - all I know is I wear a SMP more of often than my Ceramic Sub.
It's just a matter of time...
Started a thread here (http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...-VERY-happy)); went to buy a 3k ish Speedmaster, came home with a Tudor Grantour and over 1k in my pocket, because IMHO in my hands the Tudor is a better built watch. And, also, from handling the Speedy ceramics are no better than the Tuodor Ducati blackshield cases. Of course, Tudor movements are not as good which probably disqualifies me from commenting ;). Still I don't really see the extra cost justified for some Omega's (especially the moon watch now).
Still, to each is own, and some of the Omega's are of course excellent, but I don't think they are night and day differences. As someone said above, most of the post 2.5k lot are similar until you get much higher...
Posting Permissions