zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

Are Rolex Movements really superior to Omega?

This is taken from Walt Odets review of Rolex Explorer:
http://www.timezone.com/library/horologium/horologium631675591245315012

SOME PERSONAL CONCLUSIONS

The anomalies of the Rolex Explorer make it difficult to neatly summarize a personal opinion. For me, the only intriguing aspect of this watch is that a movement so lacking in basic workmanship is capable of being so accurately timed. This is, no doubt, a product of the thickness (and thus permissible loose tolerances) of the movement, and the use of computer-timed balance/spring assemblies. For the person for whom accuracy of rate in a mechanical watch is the only criterion in buying a watch, and for whom value-for-the-dollar is of little concern, the Explorer might be a choice. In the current watch market, the poor quality of the movement--and relatively good quality of the case and dial--suggests that this watch should retail in the $600 to $800 range. To my tastes, a quartz-controlled watch would provide the functionality of this watch, do it even better, do it with better reliability, do it at an appropriate purchase price, do it at much lower routine maintenance costs, and, in most cases, provide a better piece of craftsmanship in the bargain. Obviously, for the person who wants "a Rolex" for reasons unrelated to the watch itself, this watch might be a choice.

For those who would insist on a mechanical watch, there are innumerable other choices in the price range of the Explorer, almost any of which would provide a movement of much better quality. There are also many watches at a quarter or less of the price of the Rolex that exhibit comparable or better workmanship and quality. In fact, I think it would be difficult to find another current production watch, at any price over a few hundred dollars, as deficient in basic workmanship of the mechanicals as the Explorer.

I doubt that this watch is representative of Rolex's historical production. Fifteen or 20 years ago, I believe the Rolex was what I expected this watch to be: a sturdy, minimally finished but workmanlike, reliable, work-horse. In thinking about how representative of current production this one sample might be, one must consider how a company produces 700,000 or 800,000 watches in a year. They are produced on assembly lines. Each part installed in the watch is selected randomly from a bin of hundreds or thousands of like parts. Likewise, each operation performed--or omitted--occurs randomly from among thousands of like operations. Thus, to believe that this watch does not represent the current approach to watch making at Rolex, we must believe that this single watch is the unique recipient of a dozen or more randomly-selected defective parts and randomly performed deficient or omitted manufacturing procedures. There are too many defects in this watch to support such an explanation. A mass-produced product with multiple defects represents, in itself, a form of statistical sampling of the total pool of parts and manufacturing operations and procedures.

Clearly, the Oyster Perpetual Explorer is not a watch that I could recommend. The cost-efficient engineering of the movement is not remotely reflected in its price; and the extreme ease of service is not reflected in routine service costs provided by the manufacturer. The watch represents an extremely poor value if purchased solely to provide accurate and reliable timekeeping. And it is of no horological interest whatsoever. The contrast between the relatively good external appearance of the watch and the internal appearance is absolutely unparalled in my experience. I cannot think of another consumer product in which the gulf between the publicly perceived quality and the reality I saw is as broad as with the Explorer.