Why do YOU prefer a PO over a Rolex Submariner? - Page 5
Like Tree320Likes

Thread: Why do YOU prefer a PO over a Rolex Submariner?

Page 5 of 28 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 275
  1. #41
    Member iTreelex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    1,096

    Re: Why do YOU prefer a PO over a Rolex Submariner?

    Honestly I think both the modern SubC and the PO have lost their ruggedness in terms of look. I mean, just look how flashy and blingy they've both become: wider/ thicker cases, gloss everything, polished everything, price tag included. In terms of reliability I think both have a force to be reckoned with. OP poses the problem of magnetism, Rolex has parachrom bleu, Omega has Si14 and other anti-ferrous what have you parts. Both movements are workhorses although I'm going to give it to Rolex for being humble and not flashing around their movement like a woman in a short pencil skirt ;)

    Having both the PO 8500 and SubC I prefer the Sub mainly due to its thickness and its more "balanced" look with the no date option. The PO is way too thick and top heavy for me personally. If Omega reduced its thickness via the caseback then it would be a winner. Also, Imagine a PO with no date!!! Rejoice all you pompous purists, myself included lol.

    Although I prefer the arrow hands over the mercedes, Rolex also has a long-standing pedigree regarding its submariner line. It's quite amazing how conservative they are in the design, slowly perfecting or should I say refining it throughout the years just like the good old Speedy. I know the recent maxi case has caused quite the controversy but the redesign is still rooted in the original work. The PO on the other hand seems fickle and more flamboyant regarding its various colors, forms, and sizes. It's also a modern design that launched in 2005 I believe. All of these are subjective. The Sub some may find boring or some may find it humble. The PO some may find indecisive or some may find it eclectic. It's not a person, it's a watch lol.

    Anyway, that kids, is how I met your mother. Jk, that's why I prefer the Sub.
    MJK737, Betterthere and Morrisdog like this.
    |Ω

  2. #42
    Member Michael Day's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,060

    Re: Why do YOU prefer a PO over a Rolex Submariner?

    I don't.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    Betterthere likes this.
    Mavan Enthusiast
    ~~~~~~~~~~~
    Seiko SKX007
    Tag Aquaracer Ceramic 500 WAK2110
    Seiko Sports 5 Explorer SRP523
    Speedmaster 3570.50.00
    Rolex Explorer 214270
    Oris Divers Sixty-Five Blue 42
    Casio DW5600HR-1
    Dan Henry 1970 Diver 40mm

    Other nondescript pieces


  3. #43
    Member 6R15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    GMT -6
    Posts
    3,892

    Re: Why do YOU prefer a PO over a Rolex Submariner?

    Am I the only one who thinks the PO vs Submariner is silly and an incorrect comparison? Should be more like PO vs Sea-Dweller or Seamaster 300 MC vs Submariner ND or SMP vs Submariner Date.
    OMEGA Speedmaster Professional 3570.50
    OMEGA Speedmaster '57 60th (2017) - On Order
    ROLEX DaytonaC White 116500LN - Waitlisted
    ROLEX Sea-Dweller 116600

    ORIS Sixty-Five 40mm Deauville

  4. #44
    Member DocJekl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Rocky Mountains USA
    Posts
    5,122

    Re: Why do YOU prefer a PO over a Rolex Submariner?

    Quote Originally Posted by raja_3012 View Post
    Tricky question and I have a feeling that this thread may quickly turn into a comparison thread.

    Let me explain why the question is tricky from my perspective... for most people a submariner means either a 14060 or 114060 or 16610 or 116610 and PO means the steel PO with calibers 2500, 8500, 8900 etc. If these are being pitted against each other, then I would prefer the Sub mostly because of value proposition, aesthetics, height and weight.

    For me I have the Hulk (116610LV) and the 42mm Ti PO with 8500 movement on the OEM blue rubber strap. Between these two, the PO looks to be more sporty and it is my go to watch for weekend fun related activities. Also the PO is by far more accurate than both of my modern Rolexes.
    I was in a similar boat - I have the Ti Planet Ocean 8500 too and love it, plus I've owned the Hulk but sold it due to the fat lugs looking a little off to me (while the fat lugs with the polished center links on my BLNR are less bloated looking). Instead I picked up a 11613 TT blue Sub with sunburst dial, which has a better proportioned case than the newer ceramic models (including Hulk).

    I've avoided the heavy and thick steel Planet Ocean 8500 and 8900, since my lighter Ti Planet Ocean 8500 feels better on the wrist. My Planet Ocean 2201.51 with orange bezel mod gets worn the most of the three generations, since I don't worry as much about beating it up. It's also consistently running close to +1 sec/day after it's last service in 2014. But the size, shape, thickness and feel of wearing the Planet Ocean 2500 and TT Sub are about the same.

    However, the Sub is a classic dating back decades and I've owned 3 and sold off 2 - my 16800 (too bland) and my Hulk (fat lugs). But the blue TT Sub has been on my wish list for years. The older Sub's have a classic shape, a reliable movement, and garner recognition everywhere. The only modern SubC that I currently want is the No Date, which is more balanced and subtle looking.

    Nevertheless, if I had to choose and needed to sell one watch for money, I think that I'd have to part with the TT blue Sub first, mostly because it has the best resale value and would net me the most cash/watch (of those that I could stand to part with). I'm having that dilemma right now because I could use the cash for college tuition this fall, and selling my TT Sub would net me $1-2K more than selling both my SMPc and Tudor BBR (with extra bracelets and extra straps included). TBH, I'd miss the SMPc less than my BBR or TT Sub, but resale value is in the toilet even in mint condition with remaining warranty till April 2018.

    Quote Originally Posted by iTreelex View Post
    Honestly I think both the modern SubC and the PO have lost their ruggedness in terms of look. I mean, just look how flashy and blingy they've both become: wider/ thicker cases, gloss everything, polished everything, price tag included. In terms of reliability I think both have a force to be reckoned with. OP poses the problem of magnetism, Rolex has parachrom bleu, Omega has Si14 and other anti-ferrous what have you parts. Both movements are workhorses although I'm going to give it to Rolex for being humble and not flashing around their movement like a woman in a short pencil skirt ;)

    Having both the PO 8500 and SubC I prefer the Sub mainly due to its thickness and its more "balanced" look with the no date option. The PO is way too thick and top heavy for me personally. If Omega reduced its thickness via the caseback then it would be a winner. Also, Imagine a PO with no date!!! Rejoice all you pompous purists, myself included lol.

    Although I prefer the arrow hands over the mercedes, Rolex also has a long-standing pedigree regarding its submariner line. It's quite amazing how conservative they are in the design, slowly perfecting or should I say refining it throughout the years just like the good old Speedy. I know the recent maxi case has caused quite the controversy but the redesign is still rooted in the original work. The PO on the other hand seems fickle and more flamboyant regarding its various colors, forms, and sizes. It's also a modern design that launched in 2005 I believe. All of these are subjective. The Sub some may find boring or some may find it humble. The PO some may find indecisive or some may find it eclectic. It's not a person, it's a watch lol.

    Anyway, that kids, is how I met your mother. Jk, that's why I prefer the Sub.
    Good points throughout. Although I don't agree with the loss of ruggedness, I agree they're both now more flashy and blingy with wider and/or thicker cases. Also, Planet Ocean must have date, otherwise just get a 300MC.
    raja_3012 and iTreelex like this.
    OMEGA * Grey Side of the Moon * Silver Snoopy Award * Ti Planet Ocean 8500 & 9300 * PO LM LE x2 * X-33 Solar Impulse LE * Seamaster Pro Ceramic +/- Chrono * Planet Ocean 2500 * 76 Speedmaster Pro * Ti SMP Chrono 2298.80 * SMP 2541.80 * WatchCo SM300 * '62 Seamaster DeVille * '62 SS Seamaster
    ROLEX * GMT Master II BLNR & Coke * Polar Explorer II 216570 * Black Exp II 16570 * Tudor Black Bay Red
    OTHER * Grand Seiko SBGX115 * Hamilton Harrison Ford Chrono * Bulova Moon x2 * Victorinox Dive Master 500 x4 * Luminox Atacama 1842 & 1923 + Colormark 3157 * TAG Classic 2000 & Red Bull Formula 1 * Seiko Astron GPS Solar * Seiko Prospex LE/PADI/SKX007/009/173 * Citizen Ti Perpetual Calendar + 300M Diver x3 * DLC Apple Watch * Egard Passages * Casio ProTrek Solar * Commander 300 * NTH Sub x2
    SOLD
    * Omega AT Quartz, Skyfall, MC, 2503.33 * Omega Great White GMT * Omega SMP Mid * Speedmaster 3513.30 * Rolex Sub Hulk & 16800 & TT Sub * Nomos Midnight Orion stolen * Rolex Polar Exp II * Omega CK-2998LE

  5. #45
    Member Camera Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    204

    Re: Why do YOU prefer a PO over a Rolex Submariner?

    I own the PO 2201.50 w/ 2500D, after that the case design just got too big. Although the 39.5mm 215.30.40.20.01.001 looks interesting, it's just slightly too blingy.

    I feel the same way about Rolex, not a fan of the new case design, love the older models, but I'd still pick the PO due to the co-axial movement and design aesthetics.

    To me a better comparison would be SeaMaster 2254.50 VS older Rolex Sub. Now there's a showdown.
    Last edited by Camera Bill; May 25th, 2017 at 10:27.
    Damasko DA46 Black
    Seiko 5 vintage (1969)

    Tag Heuer 2000 Classic (1990)
    Omega Seamaster vintage (mid 60's)
    Omega Seamaster 300 2254.50
    Omega Seamaster Planet Ocean 2201.50

  6. #46
    Member munichblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Munich - Germany
    Posts
    252

    Re: Why do YOU prefer a PO over a Rolex Submariner?

    Majority of the comments for each watch in this thread is based on aesthetics and appearance. Therefore I would suggest to compare the six digit Sub with the new 39.5 PO. Similar dimensions and quality of movements.

    There's a clear winner anyway...
    cheers - mike

  7. #47
    TSC
    TSC is online now
    Member TSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    2,155

    Re: Why do YOU prefer a PO over a Rolex Submariner?



    Percentage wise, on wrists that don't look odd with the massive lugs of the Sub ND and D, and just have a square block on their wrists... low. Beauty of the PO, higher. It's an argument that will run and run, but nobody can persuade me those lugs look good, and yet people want to talk about the proportions of the PO thickness? Each to their own.... but my 2500 and 8500 will testify to the argument. I really wanted to like that Sub, and tried on a couple of times, but, nah. And yes, my argument is purely aesthetics.

    Now if you want to discuss the 14060 and 5513, then my argument may be not so strong.
    But we're talking modern Rolex bling yeh?

    NOT MY PICS, obviously, but that's not something I'd leave the house wearing if it looked like that.





    JustinCG and Rolemega like this.

  8. #48
    Member munichblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Munich - Germany
    Posts
    252

    Re: Why do YOU prefer a PO over a Rolex Submariner?

    This is exactly why I dislike the six digit references. The introduction of the big oyster case with these fat lugs and the under proportional bracelet is a disgrace for Rolex. Watchface itself is brilliant but these cases are ... ugly ... but to each his own.

    Therefore the 39.5 PO is by far more balanced and designed beautifully compared to the new Sub.
    TSC and JustinCG like this.
    cheers - mike

  9. #49
    Member JustinCG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    18

    Re: Why do YOU prefer a PO over a Rolex Submariner?

    Agree
    Attached Images Attached Images


  10. #50
    Member Rolemega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    68

    Re: Why do YOU prefer a PO over a Rolex Submariner?

    Quote Originally Posted by Betterthere View Post
    Super Fuzz said compare them side by side and tell him it's a better design. I have compared, owned both and in regards to hate due to thickness, the SubC is a better design. Height of the case and way it sits on your wrist makes it much more wearable. I said nothing about movements or other aspects. Technically, I should not post in this thread because it is for those who prefer POs over Subs.

    That's what I thought too, but it looks like more people prefer the Submariner even in the Omega forums, which says a lot.

Page 5 of 28 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

    Similar Threads

    1. Replies: 314
      Last Post: August 2nd, 2017, 03:00
    2. Do any of you prefer Tudor to Rolex
      By mdaclarke in forum Rolex & Tudor
      Replies: 202
      Last Post: June 16th, 2017, 14:13
    3. Would you prefer a Submariner...
      By Don Nghia in forum Rolex & Tudor
      Replies: 53
      Last Post: March 14th, 2017, 00:26
    4. Sandoz submariner (prefer vintage model but nevertheless)
      By hamberg in forum WTB - Wanted to Buy
      Replies: 0
      Last Post: September 27th, 2012, 04:07
    5. RolexFest: Rolex Submariner 50th Aniversary 16610 LV, Green Bezel & Rolex Submariner 18 Kt
      By Alex Collector in forum Watches - Private sellers and Sponsors
      Replies: 0
      Last Post: May 9th, 2008, 04:52

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •