Of the two, my personal preference is for the Omega Seamaster. I like it all together, including the metal bracelet that came with it. I like the wavy design of the dial and the matte finish. Altogether, a beautiful watch!
Rolex bracelet is lighter, better and makes the watch wesr better. My Omega beacelet is heavy, although my semaster is a 20 year old watch, the bracelet is heavy and the watch looks better without the original bracelet.
When shopping for an Omega, I was torn between the Seamaster Diver and the Aquaterra. I like the dial on the Diver better, but do not care for the helium valve. So I got the Aquaterra. Also I was looking for a 38mm case. I do get compliments on the Aquaterra dial from friends.
Imo, in person the Seamaster looks and feels like a much more expensive object. I'm not sure how but the White coloring on the Omega Seamaster in person is just something else...
One more note, the new Polar Explorer II that came out last year has a 70 hour power reserve, more than the Seamaster 300M 55 hours. As always Harrison, great video!
This is a conflated issue. Put simply no mechanical watch maintains accuracy for the full duration of the power reserve. The true purpose is to have a watch that will maintain accuracy for a period of time. Increaseing power reserve is only one method to achieving this.
I owned a seamaster quartz from the late 1990’s and while the bracelet was very robust, it definitely had a heavy presence on the wrist, i sold it eventually. Bought a brand new Rolex GMT II, coke dial in 2005. I can tell you the Rolex bracelet is truly perfect in every way, solid but not heavy, maybe not a lot of shine but that is ok. I am fan if the GMT on the bracelet. I am a fan of the Omega with a silicone or rubber bracelet but the white face in the omega now, is truly elegant. At the end of the day, the Omega can be had for half of the Rolex, so its all a matter of what you want to spend. My daily beater is the Sinn U1 T-SDR with black pvc bezel and submarine steel case and bracelet. Great review.
So many are acting as sheep. The Omega is clearly a better watch. (And before everyone loses their minds, I own this exact Rolex.) Good watch, but the Omega just rings with class. Even as a tool watch, is just drips with style over the GMT. Sigh.
I have around a 6 1/2 inch wrist. The 300m wore a bit large although it was an amazing looking and functional watch… The explorer wears better and is as functional with an awesome bracelet. You can only wear the 300m with rubber or nato because the factory stainless bracelet is (in my opinion) God awful. BTW, the boxing and presentation for the Omega was luxurious as it gets. Wish it was a 40mm
Interesting point: the stainless steel is different on each. 316L on Omega and 904L on Rolex :) Want to come flying and discuss watches in my light aircraft?
Rolex wins hands down, having owned both of these watches the movement and thickness puts the Rolex Explorer II over. I love the seamaster but the new models are just too thick and heavy on the wrist and my Rolex keeps better time of +1 second a day vs +3 for the Omega. If you want a seamaster then 2351.80 is still the best model they ever made and wish they go back to that. I would still buy it again with an aluminum bezel but with new tech on the bracelet.
A note on the bezel. I’ve got the black explorer ll 2021 edition. I had barely worn it. Couldn’t even remember catching it but had a very subtle mark on the steel bezel. It was a little disappointing. I cannot imagine if I caught it hard on something
my seamaster 300 diver also has scratches on the bracelet even though I took extreme care when I wear that watch so yeah, they scratches easily. Also the steel on rolex is 904L which is more soft than normal 316L steel, rolex had to use it because it gives much more luster and more rust resistant.
Think the key differential is you can get a white dial Seamaster for £3-4k pre-owned. The Explorer II like all Rolexes comfortably goes into the £10k+ plus range.
I do like the Omega as well with it's Cosc & metas certifications, but the two are different in 1 is a diver and the other a gmt. The Rolex has a 70hr power reserve while the Omega has a 55hr. Everything else is personal preference, while a Rolex is Rolex and will always command a higher price over the other even thought technically the Omega beats it in some other areas.
Gotta give it to the Seamaster by a wide margin. If the Explorer had a black bezel however, that would close it up but the Seamaster still would take it.
The Omega, Seamaster, Great White would be a lovely watch if it weren’t for the fact that the hands are minuscule and the black minute/second marks as well as the black surrounding the hour markers is also too thin… Omega comes so close (at times) to producing incredibly visually appealing watches only to trip, stumble and fall over simple aesthetics.
i don't like heft, my daily is a breitling aerospace evo in titanium and it feels borderline weightless. that's luxurious in my book. to each their own.
Omega you get little credibility, it’s embarrassing you’re wearing Omega & in comes a dude with a Rolex. He can hold his own doesn’t matter what anyone else is wearing, but Omega is only cool if others are wearing Seiko or Citizen.
@@clambake3771 strongly disagree. Being as my Omega as a watch is genuinely going to be better than Rolex. Only people who don't seem to understand watches think that about Rolex at this point. People know they aren't actually worth the money (from a watch perspective not investment). And the fact you said it's embarrassing to be wearing an Omega in the presence of a Rolex is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard and shows you really don't know shit, or appreciate these items.
So I have the blue Seamaster 300M, and I was seriously thinking of adding the white one...until I got the call for a Polar Explorer II. Both fantastic watches and my Seamaster and Explorer II are my favorite watches in my collection, but the Polar takes the top spot. Just to note two things. First, my calipers say my 300M sits at 13.7 thick, which is what it's advertised at. Second, while the Seamaster looks better on the rubber, the Polar Explorer II looks better on bracelet and has a better bracelet.
I'm literally thinking about trading in my 2 tone black and yellow gold omega seamaster on a rubber strap for a explorer 2 black dial. A 2015 explorer 2. I've been wanting to get into a Rolex for a while now and I think that the explorer 2 is a good way to do that, especially compared to other Rolex models
I got the black exp 2 after getting seamaster. I love them both but the seamaster looks better in the sun. I’m torn between getting a polar or White Sea master
@ChisholmHunterOfficial is it too much to own both do you think (I know it’s a personal thing)? I have the OSM300 white dial on black Artem strap and love it. I’m planning to get an Explorer II but torn on the dials. I have a Tudor BB GMT S&G with black on the brown leather and have a goal for a Rolex GMT Master II Batgirl (which would be black). Thinking (overthinking) that Explorer II with white on bracelet may be fine in that mix. I’m sure I will change my mind 15 more times and then be happy with whatever I get.
Comparing the functionality of the bezels doesn’t make much sense here as they have completely different purposes. The Rolex Explorer II is not a diver, it’s a GMT bezel. Not being a diver also is why a rubber strap doesn’t make sense on it either.
It wasn't really an ideal comparison to compare a GMT with a diver's watch. I might have compared the OMEGA Seamaster 300M with the Rolex Yachtmaster or the Submariner. But of course, it's a bit boring now. Nevertheless, I don't think such comparisons are wrong at all. Maybe compare the Omega Speedy '57 with an IWC or Tag Heuer Carrera or Breitling Premier. It's a pity you don't have Mühle Glashütte. I would be interested to know what you think of the Rescue Timer.
I know Iwant a polar dial now too. have black exp 2 42 mm but really want the white now. I will say I chose black bc it does have better contrast but a white one would be a nice addition. Just cant make up my mind between omega and exp 2
That’s why I’m watching all these again. Must have white dial. Wish I would have got one of these instead of yacht master or at least got the blue face. Have the white walker model with rhodium dial and just doesn’t pop like the blue
The Explorer II is not an overly attractive watch. I've always thought it would look much better with a red second hand instead of orange. Explorer I is a better looking watch. So Omega for this comparison by far.
Get the 16570. That one's got a red GMT hand. (The orange hand is not a second hand. The second hand is the minute hand, the third hand is the second hand.)
This not the current Explorer II. The current model has AR coating under the glass and a 70 hour power reserve which slightly exceeds that of the Omega. For many, the useless helium release valve on the Omega spoils an otherwise handsome design.
Nice video Crisholm! I recently tried a friend‘s Explorer II (same model as in video) and compared it to the Omega Seamaster 300M. Although the Omega has a thicker case, the Explorer II felt like a larger watch, which came down to two aspects for me: 1. The Explorer II has slightly longer lugs which made it look larger than the Omega, maybe even a little too large for my 6,5 inch wrist. 2. Furthermore, I found the dial size of the Explorer II to look bigger than the one of the Seamaster. This might be related to the Explorer‘s thinner bezel. I haven‘t been able to measure the watches unfortunately, but this might still be a useful addition to your comparison. Keep that great content up! 🙌🏽
Dont get it. ho w can you compare a fix 24h gmt bezel with a divers 60 minite bezel? Thre function are complete different. And what do you mean with the functionality of the omega bezel is better compared to the explorer, while diving?
You’d think the Ex2 could at least have 200m water resistance. Even a standard G-Shock has that! Rolex wins all day on resale. The potential for scratches on the anti reflective face is disturbing. However, if it got terribly unappealing it could be replaced and still come out less than a new Rolex! 😅
This is such a weird comparison. You're picking two watches with a white dial, and then compare a dive watch to an explorer watch. If you want to compare diver functions, pick two diving watches. If you want to compare two white dial watches, don't take the totally unrelated functionality differences of the two watches into account.
The Omega wins for availability, the Rolex waiting list is an outdated marketing gimmick, surely they could adopt a pre-order model of sales like Christopher Ward as an example ❤
These are two completely different watches created with different functions in mind. Both are respectively well made with great specks Anyhow give me the explorer all day.
Nah ceramic is more durable due its scratch resistance. Also easy to replace so it will effectively look brand new forever. And therein is my personal issue with ceramic bezels. I prefer bezels that "age" with me, show scratches, and patina. Therefore, I much prefer steel and aluminum bezels. All personal preference at the end of the day.
I own the Seamaster NTTD and the Polar Explorer 2 226570. I adore my Seamaster for its titanium construction, absence of a date function, and its distinctiveness compared to other Seamasters. However, after owning and objectively comparing them, it would be unfair to deem the Explorer 2 as less appealing than a regular Seamaster. The difference in bracelet quality is striking. There's a reason why this youtuber switched to nato straps. Omega's steel bracelets are incredibly uncomfortable. I personally own the Moonwatch and Aquaterra 42mm as well, both of which were originally purchased with bracelets, but neither of them currently have steel bracelets on them anymore😂. In my view, the Explorer 2 Polar is the finest white dial sports watch I've ever witnessed in person. If you have the budget and can avoid purchasing from resellers, always opt for the Explorer 2. Never settle for something you know isn't the best.
Omega Seamaster every time for me. The Explorer looks bloated - proportions are out and the hands look like they have been inflated. The older explorers were much nicer IMO. And of course you can actually buy the Omega without spending precious time going through the Rolex dance.
Not a particular fan of either, the Omegas hands are plain ugly the Rolex Cyclops is minging, they’re likely both waiting for a White Black Bay Pro to blow them both away
Lol I was just wondering yesterday when the white BB Pro will be out. I like the explorer but hate the cyclops, don't think it looks as bad on the explorer as others though
Ceramic will shatter if you knock it… so I don’t think it’s correct to say Ceramic is more durable… Ceramic is only more scratch resistant ..hardly important in a tool watch… 🤷🏻♂️ I use. My watches.. I don’t baby them…
I owned both. When someone offered me twice what I paid for my Explorer, I sold it in a heartbeat. I sometimes miss the Rolex but not very often. Over the past thirty years, I have had ten Rolex watches. For some reason, none of them have ever stirred my soul. Obviously, this is just me….
Just my opinion but I find that particular Omega bracelet to be quite ugly. 8:00 I’d agree, the Explorer’s crown is too petite. A helium escape valve… I wonder how many Omega Seamaster owners actually wear their Seamasters in a helium rich, hyperbaric environment at 19+ ATM? If helium atoms are capable of getting into the case at these depths, aren’t they able to safely evacuate the same case during a week long decompression regiment? Are we to believe that helium atoms can sneak in but the cases are so gas tight that they cannot evacuate sans popping the crystal? Again, decompression from these extreme depths takes place over 7~8 days. Are helium escape valves a necessity or a marketing/sales gimmick? 15:44 Water resistance to 300 Meters… How many technical divers and or saturation divers are using this watch as their back up watch under their equipment? 0 as wearing it under your diving kit is useless not to mention that a mechanical watch, like this one, don’t offer the diver any information required when diving. I spent two decades as a technical-saturation diver and never a use for a Seamaster or Seadweller when diving at extreme depths. May be wonderful in the habitat (barometric chamber), but useless in the desolate, near freezing deep.
Why compare a dive watch with a gmt exploration watch. Backwards. I own both of these watches for that reason. They are different. You might aswell compare a white face daytona with a white faced yacht master. Same difference.
How can a watch that only tells you the time have better functionality than a watch that has gmt function... the rolex is exp2 also has great anti megnetic ratings, its realistically water proof, and its technically better at keeping time... their is a 5 second potential gain in time on a "master chronometer" compared to the +2-2 which alis a 4 second deviation on the "superlative chronometer"... omega dial wins, but thickness is a huge let down, when you consider it only has a date funtion... if your going to do a fair versus, you should be comparing a sub to the seamaster, because the exp2 kills the seamaster... its basically a sub and a milgaus and gmt master in one watch...
Good VS video ... But I have to disagree gotta choose the Explorer 2 for the all round functionality can still dive with it deep enough no one gonna dive 300m let alone 100m. The GMT function is super useful when traveling to different countries plus its the only true tool watch from Rolex compare to their other models without being mugged.
Omega is definitely sexier with Nato and rubber straps than Rolex which looks wimpy. In short, the Omega is just a more "Manly" watch and worth the weight.
I found the Rolex is a little bland compared to the Omega, I have the Omega Planet Ocean, Aqua Terra and 300 and must say the Seamaster 300 is my first choice. Great review on these two excellent watches. 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
