Omega Aqua Terra or Rolex Datejust???
Xes
I will be buying my first automatic watch soon. I've done quite a bit
of research and have narrowed it down to these two: The Rolex
Datejust and the Omega Aqua Terra mid-size.
I've searched for posts comparing these two watches but have found
none. I find this odd as these two watches are so similar. The
mid-size Omega Aqua Terra is almost exactly like the Rolex Datejust.
I would appreciate any input or recommendations that anyone may have
as to which may be a better choice. I'm am not extremely
knowledgeable when it comes to automatic watches, so I'm hoping I can
get some good advice from people who know more about the subject than
me.
I guess my main question is - Is the Omega Co-Axial Escapement
movement superior to the Rolex movement in the Datejust? Other than
this I guess it just comes down to aesthetics.
My thoughts on the Rolex:
I like the case and the band of the Rolex quite a bit more. I'm not
too crazy about the Rolex clasp; it has a cheap look and feel to me.
I'm not too crazy about the magnifying bubble over the date on the
Rolex. I like the Rolex name and the fact that they are so well known
for making great watches.
My thoughts on the Omega:
I like the clasp of the Omega way more. I like its display back;
though I guess this is more of a novelty, and having just a solid
steel case would probably more durable. I don't think either would
break on me though. I am slightly concerned that the display back may
compromise the waterproof ability of the watch over time. I'm not too
crazy about the minute hand on the Omega. I think the arrow on the
end looks kind of silly.
On a side note, I'd like the seconds hand to sweep fluidly. I noticed
on both the Rolex and the Omega it actually ticks at like a rate of 8
ticks per second or something. Why don't they just make them sweep
with a fluid, non-ticking motion? I wouldn't think it would be hard
to do and it would be way more graceful IMO. Are there any watches
that are made like this?
Thanks!!!
Jack Denver
"Xes" <xes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:982da212.04092...@posting.google.com...
> Hello,
>
> I will be buying my first automatic watch soon. I've done quite a bit
> of research and have narrowed it down to these two: The Rolex
> Datejust and the Omega Aqua Terra mid-size.
>
> I've searched for posts comparing these two watches but have found
> none. I find this odd as these two watches are so similar. The
> mid-size Omega Aqua Terra is almost exactly like the Rolex Datejust.
>
> I would appreciate any input or recommendations that anyone may have
> as to which may be a better choice. I'm am not extremely
> knowledgeable when it comes to automatic watches, so I'm hoping I can
> get some good advice from people who know more about the subject than
> me.
>
> I guess my main question is - Is the Omega Co-Axial Escapement
> movement superior to the Rolex movement in the Datejust?
Arguably yes. As a practical matter, not noticeably.
Other than
> this I guess it just comes down to aesthetics.
>
>
> My thoughts on the Rolex:
> I like the case and the band of the Rolex quite a bit more. I'm not
> too crazy about the Rolex clasp; it has a cheap look and feel to me.
You're not the first to notice this.
> I'm not too crazy about the magnifying bubble over the date on the
> Rolex. I like the Rolex name and the fact that they are so well known
> for making great watches.
Their reputation in the watchmaking world is not as great as it is in their
ads. Not that it's bad, just that their watches are not as great as they
claim to be. For some reason, the name has an outsized "mystique" with the
public that is not 100% deserved.
>
> My thoughts on the Omega:
> I like the clasp of the Omega way more. I like its display back;
> though I guess this is more of a novelty, and having just a solid
> steel case would probably more durable.
Doubtful - the back of the watch is protected by your wrist and does not get
a lot of abuse. Display backs are currently very fashionable in mechanical
watches.
I don't think either would
> break on me though. I am slightly concerned that the display back may
> compromise the waterproof ability of the watch over time.
very doubtful - Ive never heard of this happening.
I'm not too
> crazy about the minute hand on the Omega. I think the arrow on the
> end looks kind of silly.
Matter of taste.
>
>
> On a side note, I'd like the seconds hand to sweep fluidly. I noticed
> on both the Rolex and the Omega it actually ticks at like a rate of 8
> ticks per second or something.
Yes, this is the frequency at which the balance wheel swings. (8 1/2 swings,
4 Hz). Every swing advances the escapement one tooth.
Why don't they just make them sweep
> with a fluid, non-ticking motion? I wouldn't think it would be hard
> to do and it would be way more graceful IMO.
If it's so easy, go ahead and build one that way - I dare ya!
Are there any watches
> that are made like this?
No. Certainly not any mechanical watch. However, synchronous electric clocks
(the kind that plug-in to the wall ) have nice smooth second hands. Your
mobility would be limited by the length of the extension cord, however.
>
> Thanks!!!
Revision
>
> I will be buying my first automatic watch soon. I've done quite a bit
> of research and have narrowed it down to these two: The Rolex
> Datejust and the Omega Aqua Terra mid-size.
Have you looked at the entire Rolex line? The only reason I ask is that
the Explorer and Explorer II, as well as the Submariner, all have more
style than the Datejust. If you have looked and rejected them that is
your preference but they deserve a look at least.
> I am slightly concerned that the display back may
> compromise the waterproof ability of the watch over time.
Not a problem. If it were me I think I would opt for a metal back as it
is less of a gimmick and it is probably a fraction of a mm thinner, but
not a deal beaker either way. Omega also has a wide product line and
make a co-axial Deville with dauphine hands that are more attractive than
the arrow pointer.
My choice would be the original Explorer with black dial followed by the
Omega Seamaster or DeVille.
Sandoz makes a watch similar to the Explorer with an ETA 2824 movement.
dAz
> On a side note, I'd like the seconds hand to sweep fluidly. I noticed
> on both the Rolex and the Omega it actually ticks at like a rate of 8
> ticks per second or something. Why don't they just make them sweep
> with a fluid, non-ticking motion? I wouldn't think it would be hard
> to do and it would be way more graceful IMO. Are there any watches
> that are made like this?
well a 28,800 beats per hour train stops and starts 8 times a second,
and as you noticed the long sweep seconds shows this, a watch with a
36,000bph is a bit smoother at 10beats per second, but the only problem
is watch trains above 28,800bph have problems in keeping the lubricant
on the escapement.
anyway in answer to your question, as far as mechanical watches go, no
you won't get one that has a smooth motion.
the only watches that fit that requirement is the old Accutron tuning
fork watch or the Seiko spring drive quartz/mechanical hybrid.
Revision
get used to wearing an automatic watch, to scratch up, fiddle around with
the winder, and so on, and to get a feel for wearing one.
If this is your first auto purchase, as you say, the I always compare
your selections to trying to make an intelligent choice between a
Ferrari or a Lamborghini before you have a driving permit.
Watch aficionados also consider how their purchase will look with other
bands....leather, lizard, ostrich, canvas or rubber. Makes a big
difference in how the watch looks and is like having two watches for the
price of one...not bad.
$300-400 range, sapphire glass, Swiss ETA 2824 quality movement.
http://www.pmwf.com/Watches/WATCHSALES02/TITONIPilotAirmasterSep03/PilotAirmaster.htm
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I25916469
John S.
features (such as the hand) from an earlier model it is far more
interesting to look at than the Rolex. The only feature I don't like
about the Omega is the display back. It is only visible with the
watch off your wrist, which for me is late at night.
Expect that both watches will be similarly accurate. My understanding
is that the coaxial movement can go much longer between services, if
that is of a concern.
xes...@hotmail.com (Xes) wrote in message news:<982da212.04092...@posting.google.com>...
Camfam
difference between the watches for me is that with the Rolex Datejust
everyone who sees it on your wrist will instantly recognize it as a Rolex.
This means EVERYONE everywhere in the world, from Denver to Khartoum. It is
the most recognizable watch in the world, much more so than even the Rolex
sports models. This can be fun, flattering, annoying, amusing, and even
frightening in a dark alley late at night. I have owned a Datejust for 25
years. I love it.
In recent years, I have become a watch enthusiast, and have come to deeply
appreciate all things Omega. They have a fantastic history and the current
Co-Axial Escapement is simply amazing from a technological point of view. I
also have come to love the Omega styling. The arrow minute hand is a design
cue from the Railmaster, a classic Omega toolwatch from the 1950's that I
happen to love. Unlike with the Datejust, when wearing the Omega NO ONE
will recognize the brand or model of the watch. Persons with taste will
recognize it as a very nice watch, but won't say "aha, a Rolex". They may
ask you with curious admiration what kind of a watch it is. This is not
necessarily better or worse than the experience of wearing the Rolex, just
different, and frequently quite nice. I want an Aqua Terra.
Some may dispute this, but a wristwatch is essentially jewelry. It does all
boil down to personal preference and for me at least, design is the most
important factor.
Please let us know what your choice is!
"Xes" <xes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:982da212.04092...@posting.google.com...
Xes
their parts. Omega's site says that their watches have a
Rhodium-plated finish. Are there any significant advantages or
drawbacks to either finish?
Frank Adam
Different things.
Rhodium is a white plating used to prevent oxidisation. Omega used to
gold plate their movements, i'm not sure if i can recall a white
plated Omega...hmmm. Longines on the other hand were Rhodium plated
and since the two are under the same Swatch hat, anything is possible.
Teflon coating is for an entirely different purpose. It simply
provides a very slippery surface and optionally does protect from
corrosion, but that is a very secondary quality.
The Rolex parts that i have noticed as having been Teflon plated is
definitely the barrel and maybe the two auto reversing wheels. The
rest of their watch will be rhodium or gold plated.
--
Regards, Frank
Jack Denver
reversing wheels, which help to change the back and forth motion of the
rotor to the unidirectional motion needed to wind the mainspring) are coated
with telfon (the red wheels in this picture):
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/sq/RolexMovement_nice.jpg
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/sq/teflonRolexGears.jpg
(same movement with rotor removed)
Whatever minor advantage in wear that is gained by this is undone by the
fact that the Rolex rotor is mounted on a jeweled bearing instead of the
much more rugged ball bearings used by ETA.
In this series of pictures, you can see that the equivalent wheels on an ETA
(as found in Omega) are not coated, but you can also see the ball bearings
with the five balls in the race at the center:
http://www.chronometrie.com/eta2824/eta2824.html
I'd rate this as a "minor technical tweak", not "major technological
breakthru".
In general, though the coaxial escapement is a genuine innovation, the rest
of the movements are as similar as say a modern GM engine vs. a Ford
engine - the operating principle is clearly the same and they have copied
many of each others innovations so that while the partisans of each brand
can site some minor technical attribute that one has and the other doesn't
(e.g. Rolex has "freesprung balance" without a regulator) there is very
little "daylight" between them in terms of actual performance.
"Xes" <xes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:982da212.04092...@posting.google.com...
Richard
>Rhodium is a white plating used to prevent oxidisation. Omega used to
>gold plate their movements, i'm not sure if i can recall a white
>plated Omega...hmmm. Longines on the other hand were Rhodium plated
>and since the two are under the same Swatch hat, anything is possible.
Omega used to copper plate their movements, not gold. Rhodium
is a very very silvery finish, not white (I know what you meant
but others might not). Older Omegas were silver; don't know if
they were rhodium or not.
.
>Teflon coating is for an entirely different purpose. It simply
>provides a very slippery surface and optionally does protect from
>corrosion, but that is a very secondary quality.
>The Rolex parts that i have noticed as having been Teflon plated is
>definitely the barrel and maybe the two auto reversing wheels. The
>rest of their watch will be rhodium or gold plated.
The wheels are Teflon coated in hopes they'd last
longer. They don't, and get chewed up anyway; that's
becase the torque is so high on those gears from
using the wrong gearing (think pedaling a bike
uphil in high gear); ETA got this part right and the
Omega doesn't suffer this.
--
Mercedes parts - http://parts.mbz.org
http://www.mbz.org | Mercedes Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Orkut:RS79 Classifieds: http://ads.mbz.org
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Watches list: http://watches.list.mbz.org
Revision
> Omega used to copper plate their movements, not gold.
The plating on Omega movements is commonly referred to as gold plating on
the web sites of numerous vintage watch dealers, eBay sellers, and so on
and is as you say copper plating.
Jack Denver
compared to gold or rhodium (though generally no problem in the sealed
environment of a watch). I think it was basically marketing driven - the
distinctive copper color was a "trademark" that made their movements
instantly recognizable.
ETA does offer a gold plating option on its movements. I think this adds
something like $1 to the cost. Since plating is microscopically thin, it
does not consume a significant amount of precious metal.
"Revision" <kentnobettsspam@techispdotcom> wrote in message
news:10lqv3a...@corp.supernews.com...
dAz
it is actually copper?, or is it rose gold plating, even on the earliest
Omega calibers that used that plating, it aways seems to remain bright.
Frank Adam
>>Different things.
>>Rhodium is a white plating used to prevent oxidisation. Omega used to
>>gold plate their movements, i'm not sure if i can recall a white
>>plated Omega...hmmm. Longines on the other hand were Rhodium plated
>>and since the two are under the same Swatch hat, anything is possible.
>
>Omega used to copper plate their movements, not gold. Rhodium
>is a very very silvery finish, not white (I know what you meant
>but others might not). Older Omegas were silver; don't know if
>they were rhodium or not.
>.
Copper, was it ? I always thought it was gold, but there you go.
I do wonder though, the older Omegas, such as the knockers, 340s, 430s
were a pinky color, so copper would certainly fit, however, the more
modern Omegas, like 1020s, 620s etc.. were more a yellow color.
As for white Omegas.. you've got me, i can't think of one offhand,
apart from a pocket watch, but i'll take your word for it.
>The wheels are Teflon coated in hopes they'd last
>longer. They don't, and get chewed up anyway; that's
>becase the torque is so high on those gears from
>using the wrong gearing (think pedaling a bike
>uphil in high gear); ETA got this part right and the
>Omega doesn't suffer this.
>
"Wrong gearing" ? They were designed to produce more wind per rotation
than the ETAs, so yes, obviously the wheels do struggle a bit more.
However, the setup produces a system that requires far less wearing
from the user to build up the same power reserve that an ETA would.
As Micro$oft would say, you'll find this is by design.
Btw, ETA didn't get that part right either. While the teeth themselves
do not wear, because of the lighter gearing, the clicks within the
reversers do and they do so badly. I've replaced many more ETA
reversers against maybe one or two Rolex one that i remember.
Admittedly, there are a hell of a lot more ETAs floating about, but
their reversers have always been a weak point from day one.
Frankly (no pun), as soon as reversing wheels are used, you have
introduced quite a potential fault into the watch. Kudos for Seiko for
coming up with the most effective and bullet proof auto wind system.
--
Regards, Frank
Xes
> Please let us know what your choice is!
>
I'm leaning toward the Aqua Terra. I can't decide between the regular
size and the mid-size though. I'm about 6'3" and of medium build.
I'm thinking I'll get the mid-size because it is the same size as the
Rolex Datejust (36mm), and I feel this is a pretty good choice.
When I first started looking at the Rolex watches I was surprised.
They were smaller than I expected! But after looking at them for a
bit I got used to their size, and now I think I prefer it.
I haven't been able to find any mid-size automatic Aqua Terra's
though. In fact most of the Omega dealers I've been to have a rather
poor selection.
PhilipS
> size and the mid-size though. I'm about 6'3" and of medium build.
> I'm thinking I'll get the mid-size because it is the same size as the
> Rolex Datejust (36mm), and I feel this is a pretty good choice.
I too had the mid vs full size dilema! I am a similar height and
build. Sometime when i tried them on the full size looked too big,
other times the mid size too small. I went for the mid-size in the
end, for a couple of reasons, primarily though because it is far more
of a classic size (as evidenced by the rolex sizing), rather than a
fashion size, and therefore, in my opinion, less likely to date. Also
with the increased diameter, the length is significantly greater and
the lugs were getting uncomfortably close to the width of my wrist.
When I now walk past a jewellers, the 38mm's look huge, and the mids
look just right. However, I occasionaly glance at my wrist and wonder
about the larger one, although I don't regret my choice! Anyone i've
asked about the size says that the mid looks plenty big enough on, and
anything larger would be too much. I suppose it is also a personality
thing, I think I would have felt less comfortable with a watch which I
occassionally felt was too big, than visa versa.
Ultimately its what you get used to, but I sympathise with your
dilema!
Aside from that its a fantastic watch, its time keeping is uncanny and
*much better* than the quoted ranges. I find it reset it monthly
(often longer) and it never been more than 20 secs out.
(INterestingly, it does sometime appear to speed up and slow down over
the weeks in between resets, though i assume this relates to usage
patterns).
good luck with your choice
Philip
Revision
Article by John B. Holbrook, II
http://www.rolexreferencepage.com/seamaster/omegaservice.html
Xes
>
> Ultimately its what you get used to, but I sympathise with your
> dilema!
>
> Aside from that its a fantastic watch, its time keeping is uncanny and
> *much better* than the quoted ranges. I find it reset it monthly
> (often longer) and it never been more than 20 secs out.
> (INterestingly, it does sometime appear to speed up and slow down over
> the weeks in between resets, though i assume this relates to usage
> patterns).
>
> good luck with your choice
> Philip
Thanks! :)
I've got a mid-size Aqua Terra on order! It's gonna be a few weeks
before it's in though :(
I feel I got a fair deal (probably not the best). They gave me 25%
off.
I've noticed that Omega's website says that their Mid-Size Aqua Terra
Chronometer is 36.2mm, and all the Jewelry stores have books that say
it's 35mm. I don't understand why this is. Does anyone know? They
should be more consistent with their measurements.
Xes
> Omega receives warranty service.
>
> Article by John B. Holbrook, II
>
> http://www.rolexreferencepage.com/seamaster/omegaservice.html
That's some good customer service!