Omega...why so expensive? (Question)

[acdelco]

So, what is your definition of "not significantly improving their products"? What would you have them do? The implication of your post is that the improvements are not significant. I'd disagree. I'd say that , overall, the 8500/9300 movements with pretty significant technology, dial details, and bracelets are improvements.

Something is only worth what people are willing to pay. They are expensive because people perceive value in what they are offering at that price point.

Omega makes a great watch, they have done several things in the past few years to try to move up market and demand higher prices. They are not significantly improving their products but asking more for them. Seems to be working, more power to them. To me, they are not worth what they are currently selling for so I spend my money elsewhere.

[rennaps]

Most "luxury" items aren't worth their asking price. I like to wear levis jeans, they're seventy quid a pair, i know i can buy perfectly good jeans for a tenner, but silly as it seems i don't feel as "good" in them as i do levis. To sort of justify the price i think about how many times i wear them, say 3 times a week over maybe three years, thats about 16p per wear. Bargain! lol!

[Nebuchadnezzar]

So, what is your definition of "not significantly improving their products"? What would you have them do? The implication of your post is that the improvements are not significant. I'd disagree. I'd say that , overall, the 8500/9300 movements with pretty significant technology, dial details, and bracelets are improvements.

I think you are asking what I would consider a significant improvement. You could write a sizeable book trying to answer that. They neither improved the reliability, accuracy, or affordability of their line is the short answer.

Jacking up the price on the same ol' tried and true designs to pay for their expensive marketing push, is not significantly improving anything other than their image. Image is one of the last things I concern myself with when judging a purchase.

[ithehappy]

I'll pay for a brand any day knowing that it didn't become a 'brand' over a short time or effort. I respect to pay for Omega, or any other good brand for that matter.
I am not a rich kid.

[georges zaslavsky]

Omega was and is one of the biggest names in the high end swiss watchmaking.Its older movements are known for their legendary accuracy and reliability. The fact that Omega has won several awards in several chronometrical competitions is a testimony to the accuracy of their watches.Modern Omegas are different from the vintage ones but they offer more than enough for the money

[KUNISMAN]

My opinion...
Just to prove to anyone that life isn´t fair.



Want one badly, still saving...

[GaryF]

They neither improved the reliability, accuracy, or affordability of their line is the short answer.

Jacking up the price on the same ol' tried and true designs to pay for their expensive marketing push, is not significantly improving anything other than their image.

Sorry but this is just not true. Affordability? Certainly not. They are, unfortunately, not getting any cheaper. Reliability? Well the 8500 so far have a very good reputation for reliability but we are very early in its development life so maybe that can only be answered in the future.
Accuracy? Well, that's the thing, isn't it? They have significantly improved stability which, as I'm sure you know, is the key to reliability. It's anecdotal, of course, but consensus here among people who actually own one or more modern co-axial Omega is that the accuracy is generally much higher than would be expected from a lever escapement of anything like the same price.

To say that they are "Jacking up the price on the same ol' tried and true designs " is just plain wrong. There is no other way to put it. In terms of revolutionary movements in production wristwatches, only the quartz and the Spring Drive probably beat out the co-axial unless you want to get into complications and exotica. With the exception of the Speedmaster Professional, Omega's current range is chalk and cheese when compared to its product of a decade ago.
If by "design" you just mean that they are visually similar, then you might have something but, that being the case, are you saying that a rise in prices can only be justified by a new look, not technical progress?

The money that Swatch has invested in creating the new family of movements is just huge (I seem to remember reading over $100 million on the 9300 alone). No one is paying just for the material weighing their wrist down. The marketing is in there, sure, but so is the research and development.

[acdelco]

Wait a second...YOU brought up the improvement issue within the topic of why Omega is so expensive, right? The movement is the heart of the watch, right? Well...the 8500 movement is probably the most advanced time only mass produced Swiss movement in watchmaking today. In house coaxial, SI hairspring, bi directional jumping hour hand,60 hour power reserve. Have you seen the finishing on the 8500? I haven't seen a mass produced movement that looks better...and it's certainly more finely finished than the old 2500. As mentioned, they've also improved the dials ( have you seen the dial and hour indices on an AT 8500?) and bracelets.

Bringing up the "reliability, accuracy..." is a total red herring. Pateks, Rolex, A Lange and Sohnes ( far more expensive than Omega) don't have more accurate and reliable movements, do they? And, in fact, the 8500 movements are tuned to a higher standard than the COSC -4/ +6...so they are more accurate. The Si hairspring eliminates magnetism. But, really that's beside the point.

You're too caught up with image, marketing, being more expensive, and the like to make a determination on improvements IMO. Remember you brought up "improvements"...I did not. They may be more expensive but they've made improvements.

If you think Omegas are too expensive and are too heavily marketed...fine. But, I think your clouding the issue with that line of thinking....and simply just ignoring the improvements.

I think you are asking what I would consider a significant improvement. You could write a sizeable book trying to answer that. They neither improved the reliability, accuracy, or affordability of their line is the short answer.

Jacking up the price on the same ol' tried and true designs to pay for their expensive marketing push, is not significantly improving anything other than their image. Image is one of the last things I concern myself with when judging a purchase.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Wait a second...YOU brought up the improvement issue within the topic of why Omega is so expensive, right? The movement is the heart of the watch, right? Well...the 8500 movement is probably the most advanced time only mass produced Swiss movement in watchmaking today. In house coaxial, SI hairspring, bi directional jumping hour hand,60 hour power reserve. Have you seen the finishing on the 8500? I haven't seen a mass produced movement that looks better...and it's certainly more finely finished than the old 2500. As mentioned, they've also improved the dials ( have you seen the dial and hour indices on an AT 8500?) and bracelets.

Bringing up the "reliability, accuracy..." is a total red herring. Pateks, Rolex, A Lange and Sohnes ( far more expensive than Omega) don't have more accurate and reliable movements, do they? And, in fact, the 8500 movements are tuned to a higher standard than the COSC -4/ +6...so they are more accurate. The Si hairspring eliminates magnetism. But, really that's beside the point.

You're too caught up with image, marketing, being more expensive, and the like to make a determination on improvements IMO. Remember you brought up "improvements"...I did not. They may be more expensive but they've made improvements.

If you think Omegas are too expensive and are too heavily marketed...fine. But, I think your clouding the issue with that line of thinking....and simply just ignoring the improvements.

Put the Kool aid down and lighten up.

We disagree leave it at that.

[Raoul Duke]

as much as i love Omega (and i'd sell a kidney for the Ploprof on mesh i tried on a couple mos. back), *IMO* one is buying into a "lifestyle" as much as simply buying a beautiful timepiece. same can be said of Rolex and a number of other Swiss watches with $100 million marketing budgets.

based on my meager income, if i'm dropping $5000+ on a watch, i'm not buying a mass produced Omega or Rolex that makes me a target (real/perceived, for good or evil). i'm going to purchase a truly handmade, low production Grand Seiko (with a truly groundbreaking mov't) that the plumber i call in for an estimate thinks- "it's just a Seiko"

go ahead. let me have it. i'm ready