Recently sold my SMPc to fund the LHD.
Since i figure im probably not the only person to have one and want the other, or be in between the 2 considering they're similar in appearance (superficially anyway) and price point (within several hundred dollars), i thought id add some resource reading. So lets start;
The omega comes in a great walnut (i think) presentation box with the omega globe as a push button to open it. The tudor comes in a decent but not at all comparable heavy cardboard box. Big deal.
they're similar, but in different ways. The omega feels fancier. Its svelter, well finished in a precious way, alternating polished and brushed surfaces etc. It feels like it can pull double duty between a beach day shorts and tshirt diver and a dressier sport watch with a suit. This is more or less what it was designed for. The tudor feels more, and i hate the word 'tool' when referring to a watch, but its really apt when describing this model. Purpose built is a good descriptor. All brushed, still works with a button up but maybe not great with a suit, and the finishing is almost surgical, sterile, yet rugged. As light as it is due to the titanium, it still feels expensive.
The tudor wins buy a mile d/t the non skeleton hands (which i love on the omega! But you have to squint in the dark even with the very good lume). Im not a huge fan of the lumed bezel on the LHD but the pip on the omega bezel is practically useless in low light, and functionally useless after 10 minutes when the lume diminishes just a bit.
As much as everyone whines and crys about omega's link/half-link system on their older bracelets, i love it. 2 seamasters and and 2 aqua terras and i always got a perfect fit with a half-link. When i was selling it, i got so many people asking about micro-adjustments that just didnt dm me back when i told them it had none. It was infuriating because now that i have the LHD with just full links and a (overall very good) on-the-go micro adjustable clasp, i cant get it perfect. Set on the tightest, i sized it and its a little too loose. Took a link out and set the clasp to the loosest (the point where its on the springs) its a little too tight. Opening my palm actuates the springs, and if it was my daily wearing only watch, id be concerned about wearing out the springs. Since i dont wear it to work and switch it out with other watches on my days off, it should be fine until its due for its first service in 10 years or so. The rubber strap it comes with is great, but you're not getting the bracelet off without springbar pliers, so if you buy one thinking you'll switch out the bracelet for strap and vice versa frequently, buy the pliers before you even try. Wish it had drilled lugs.
Movement and accuracy-
They're both expensive swiss watches, they're both very accurate. The power reserve on the pelagos is awesome at over the advertised 70 hours, so thats a big win over the 212 omega. The MT-whatever is new and unproven, but with Rolex as more or less the parent company, id imagine they'd believe the quality of the tudor could be an indirect reflection on their own quality (it wouldn't be, but hopefully they dont know this), so im sure its made with reliability and longevity in mind, with Rolex's movement R&D somewhat behind it (i hope). I mean, Wilsdorf holdings or whatever wouldn't be like "sure, crap out some junk real quick just to say its in-house, we dont care", would they? The omega is eta based with the coax. Everyone ive known with a 8500 has had to send it in for service in 7 years like clockwork (no pun intended i swear). I haven't known anyone else with the 2500 though so who knows. When the coax came out, omega was like "It'll never need service!! We're invincible!!!!". Yeah not so much. The escapment is just one part of a near microscopic rube goldberg machine, and not the only part of a movement thats subject to wear and age. It might go for longer between services than the 8500 though, given the 2892s reputation. Ask someone else, I've never owned one long enough to need to send it in.
Overall i bounced the omega for a few reasons; the bezel was all but useless because it was such a PITA to turn, it felt a little too fancy for jeans and a t shirt, and mostly, ive seen them old and beat up from regular wear; they're not pretty. The bond bracelet with it's many alternating surfaces doesn't look great in any condition other than pristine, and they cost a small fortune to refinsh properly. The Tudor looks great with some wear on it, i like the understated lack of polish and matte ceramic bezel, and its chunky proportions are more suited to the dive watch style. Its thick, but not planet ocean thick. It really does look like a more understated sea-dweller, with the size and red text. I love the crown on the left side. I wear it on my left wrist and love that the crown doesn't dig into the back of my hand like many watches this size.
I think history will judge this seamaster as a transitional reference; glossy dial and ceramic bezel keeping it from having the vintage look the previous references gain after years of wear, but not as solid feeling or distinctive looking as the brand new one, hybrid coax movement thats not as easily serviced as the 1120 while still lacking the prestige of being fully in house like the newest reference. I think the future seamster buyer will either want to go full vintage look of the 22xx references or the brash zircon wave dial beefy proportions of the submariner slaying 210. The market is already showing this, as even the bond bracelet wave dial seamasters of the 90s are appreciating rapidly, and i had to sell my 212 for a few hundred less than i bought it for just last year. I dont think the 212s are going to depreciate any more, but i dont see them appreciating either. Its still a sharp, versatile watch, with its glossy dial and red accents, but when i buy another SMP, it'll probably be the 2231 (2254 but titanium) with its all metal bezel. Its like a cooler, less precious yachtmaster. Now if you want to compare the newest SMPc with the Pelagos, its a coin flip as movement spec, proportion, and build quality wise they're very similar. That would come down to flashy vs understated and not much else. Overall i couldn't be happier with my choice, but i wouldn't discourage anyone from seeking out a 212 SMPc. The only other diver i considered over the LHD was the Planet ocean 39mm. Slimmer than the 42mm version but still substantial, it looks like a more unique submariner alternative and quality wise just as good. However i couldn't find one for less than a grand more than the Tudor (that said im pretty amazed the 212 and pelagos share the same brand new MSRP) The market made the choice for me. A black bay was never even a consideration as i want a date (i know im a philistine) and the only one that had it, the BB Steel, felt terrible on the wrist, bulky, heavy, sharp edges, and awkward.
So there's my long winded comparison. Hope someone finds it useful!