The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Not really a comparison thread.

Doesn't it seem silly how some Rolex and Omega owners act like Breitling is nowhere close to Rolex and Omega

AFAIK, they all started in 1884, they all make quality watches, made solid, and with very good movements

The differences is Omega decided to move upstream by making new models have nicely decorated, in house movements with display casebacks, also i find Omega designs to be more "understated"/reserved

I know Rolex is known for making every part of the watch in house, but i know it wasn't always so, and a clear reason for Omega deciding to do the same

I think the differences aren't quite as great as those people say, i mean is it really worth possibly paying 2-3x as much?

Yes it's cool to have a beautiful, in house movement on display (though unless the watch is off your wrist nobody would see it), yes its nice to have a watch made completely from start to finish by the company whose name is on the dial

But ultimately, what you get is only a fraction of what you spend

I think models should be made both ways, the "cheaper" way like Breitling, where the movement is not made in house, but modified to COSC standard

And the 100% in house way, like Omega and Rolex now do

That way people can pay the extra money if they want the pedigree of an in house movement.

I don't place high priority on everything being done in-house as i think its just a Bragging point, but i know its not the same for everyone

I think it should be looked at in perspective to price, if the Avenger II Series were to cost at least 1.5x+ what they do, then they should be made 100% in house, but they don't, so no point in these "my $5000+ watch is better than your $3000 watch" comparison

I think Omega and Breitling offer ETA-modified and in-house movements: I only have the former as I hate glass backs, as most Omegas seem to be, and I can't afford the B's with in house movements. Like it or not, Rolex seems to hold an elevated position in the market; my SD and Sub, both under 10yrs old are selling used quite a bit more than I paid for them.

_________________
Regards

Steve

I think the question goes back to the reason of why you would want to spend thousands on a mechanical watch when you can easily get a reliable and more accurate Quartz for less than a hundred bucks. History, achievement, detailing, exclusiveness, material, aesthetics, prestige, timelessness, craftsmanship, etc... are all the reasons and different people place more emphasis on certain aspects.

IMHO getting a modified movement piece is as good as getting a cheaper Ferrari that is using a modified Toyota engine. It's still a Ferrari on the outside and the engine performance is as good as a Ferrari engine. Will you buy it? Some will but maybe many car maniacs won't.

I only go for in-house pieces because I expect more than just reliability and performance. The exclusive features and patent are what I appreciate. An almost as accurate as Quartz mechanical movement is so hard to design and manufacture, especially when they are easily affected by surrounding factors(temperature, gravity/traction, pressure, etc). To design a brand new movement and patent new features into it, while having to overcome the obstacles that would affect the performance is extreme challenge and deserves recognition and respect. And it's the only brand who possesses that particular patent/feature, or at least she is the first one who has that. It signifies a major achievement of the brand and forms part of her history book. "History" is one of my criteria in choosing a watch and I am definitely willing to pay more for that, provided if all other aspects have met my criteria.

Omega Vs Rolex Vs Breitling has been a common topic and I guess die hard fans of every brand will always try means and ways to prove that their favorite brand is the best. A little off your original intention of the topic anyway, I don't see much differences in terms of reliability and performance generally between a Rolex, Breitling, or Omega. Therefore, I don't see why one should cost much more than the other(comparing all-house pieces with similar features). In fact, I find Breitling has more value for money. I would commonly find more meticulous detailings on Breitlings given the fact that their intention is really to produce their pieces for professionals. IMO Rolexes and Omegas are more towards the direction of classic and timelessness to show that their pieces never "change", so a little more on the marketing aspect. If you compare a Chronomat 01 to a Daytona, both have similar power reserves. Chronomat has an additional date complication and time elapse counter(on the bezel) but costs a few grands lesser than Daytona. For Daytona, you spend a few grands more for that "insurance" that you can sell it one day close to the price you have gotten. If you get a 2nd hand piece for both, the price difference is even greater.

At the end of the day, the crucial criteria is putting the watches on yr wrist and see what works better for you.

_________________
Breitling Chronomat 01 Limited Edition
Breitling Navitimer 01 46mm

Well said. I fully agree.


[WATCH]️

Rolex and Omega are both turn of the 20th century brands. Rolex was started in London, England in 1905 and Omega in 1903 in Switzerland.

Seiko was started in Tokyo in 1880, making them 4 years older than Breitling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's be a little careful with the whole Breitling started in 1884 thing. The company that began in 1884 produced their last watch in 1978, all the current company did was buy the rights to use the name.

That is absolutely correct Roffensian. For example, Seiko has been under the same family ownership since 1880 and there have been no ownership gaps or take overs in its history.

Regardless of who actually owns the company, all that matters is the quality of the product (carrying on in the spirit of the company that started in 1884, with quality, mechanical automatic movement driven watches) and that you like the design

And Breitling hits what i like right on the head; a bold, beautiful, unique design, in a size that i can actually wear, at a great price too

To me Rolex charges way too much for their only model that is the size i like (the DSSD), the rest of their range is way too small: i think their size definitions are a couple decades outdated.

Omega i like from a design and size perspective, but i find Breitling more interesting and a better value; for me to start buying Omega, i would have to own a few more Breitlings first.

For me the secret is in the Design. As an example I love sports Cars but just can't fall in love with Porsche. I'm sure their engines are very good and get very good performance but I just don't like the design. I love Breitling and not the other two. Just nothing I can do about that.


[WATCH]️

I find the three brands interesting in their own way.

I own two Breitling's, one Omega and one Rolex. I’m very happy with all of them. I find Breitling a better value proposition in the sports watches segment, tons of bang for buck. However, Rolex and Omega offer perhaps more choice and variety in terms of classic designs IMHO, or at least more classic looking novelties? As already mentioned by some folks here, it’s a matter of taste.

If I was to get a new watch, it’d probably be either an Omega Speedy (the 9300 or the new one announced at Basel 2016 with moonphase), a Globemaster or a Deville. With regards to Rolex, I’d get either a 114060 (Sub no date) or a 116610LV (Hulk). I can’t think of any new or old Breitling catching my eyes lately, but everything is subject to change.

_________________
life's too short and you only live once

Well as far as sporty watches go, i find Breitling has a bunch of good models in the SuperOcean and Avenger II range (43mm case size GMT and Chronograph, 45.5mm Avenger II Seawolf and 48mm Super Avenger II), plus the SuperOcean SteelFish, which im sure is discontinued, but then you have to like/tolerate the rider tabs and aluminum bezel (except for on the SuperOcean range)

So in 1978 it wasn't simply change of ownership of Breitling?

_________________
Regards

Steve

Depends on your definition.

There was a six year period when there were (virtually) no watches being made by Breitling and then the Schneider owned firm developed their own models that were completely different to the previous ones - the Chronomat was first and looked nothing like any previous Chronomat. Was that just a change in ownership, I suppose, but it's not like a situation with (say) Jaguar, Rolls Royce, etc.

To me it was a change of ownership of the brand.
We may have a comment or two about some of the recent models and design elements, Schneider family have definitely maintained the Breitling heritage.
It is true that when the Chronomat re-appeared in 1984 it looked very different to the original Chronomat which also has been produced in many different forms in the 60's and 70's.
The Breitling strong association with aviation was firmly reassured and continues to this day
The Breitling Chronograph specialty continues.
The Navitimer continues to be one of the flagship models in the lineup.
Last but not least, quite a few current models pay tribute to some of Breitling vintage models such as the Transocean or the Superocean.
So to me it is Breitling, owned by a different family.

_________________
"It is just a matter of time!"

Thanks, didn't know that, but like you say, it's about interpretation and sounds as though the brand would've gone belly up had it not been for Schneider. I think it's reasonable to see it as a continuation of the brand; few things remain unchanged.

_________________
Regards

Steve