OMEGA GLOBEMASTER VS. ROLEX OYSTER PERPETUAL 116000

Before Orion and back when watches was just a hobby for me, I enjoyed a small personal collection combined with discovering new watches or maybe trading and flipping to see what may live permanently in my collection, you know, normal watch enthusiast stuff. Something changed once Orion was created, I felt huge guilt wearing any watch that wasn’t my own, this guilt was further expanded when I was setting up my own shop - money for things like vacations and personal pleasures, like my own watch collecting, seemed unimportant when juxtaposed with acquisition of tools and expansion of shop capabilities.

There is a necessity in having an operational shop, especially when it’s directly linked to your income, but on the psychology side of things, that narrative, “all money should go towards the shop/brand!” can quickly shift the healthy balance of work/leisure to nothing but work - especially if watches are both of those things. So, in an attempt to resolve some guilt that may be preventing me from enjoying a large component of what watches & horology has to offer, I’ll be writing this review comparing a new-to-me Omega Globemaster with my Rolex Oyster Perpetual 116000.

The first watch I got and the watch that sent me on this path of horological madness was my great grandfather’s 1955 Omega Constellation. A family heirloom that made its way to me, through good fortune as the other Omegas my great grandfather brought back from Germany over half a century ago were lost in a house fire. I was charged with the Constellation’s care and repair as it needed some love by the time I got it.

Watches are an excellent vessel to store memories and sentiment, the family Constellation is full of that - given its history I have some trepidation in regards to wearing it frequently, its legacy began long before I was alive and although I am continuing the legacy of that watch it doesn’t seem appropriate as a watch to wear frequently. When the Globemaster was announced a few years back I fell in love. With the pie pan dial, star applique, and constellation caseback, it was a clear successor to the Constellation I had inherited. But financially it wasn’t an option for me, I watched the second hand market for years and as my own career stabilized a used one was eventually in the picture. An excellent deal on the two tone Sedna gold model appeared, I had to take it. A continuation of the Constellation from my family but with a history that would be unique to me - so I could wear it without fear of risking family heritage.

At any rate, on to the review. As a watchmaker I view watches as a few discrete components. There are:

Case components, these would be the case, bracelet & crystal.
Dial & hands
Movement

A cohesive watch is mindful of how these are unique and individually designed components but also considers how they come together. You can sometimes see how certain designs favor a watch in a 2D way, which would be thinking of the design as if you were looking down directly at the dial. 2D designed watches generally prioritize the hands & dial while neglecting the case. The original Tudor Black Bay strikes me as one such watch - absolutely gorgeous from the top down, but the case is a slab sided monster and ends up being unbalanced (you see case proportions corrected in the BB58 line). So for this review, I’ll be breaking these two watches into those 3 components and doing a bit of a comparison. As a watchmaker, I suspect some of the criteria that are important to me may be a little different than the average non-watchmaker reviewer. I hope I can offer some insights that allow you to consider and appreciate watches in a different light.

MOVEMENT

At the heart of each watch is its movement, every movement has pros and cons as well as different criteria we can consider. Some of those things are: level of finishing, serviceability, isochronism. Finishing is generally done by machine until you get to independent watchmaking where finishing and certain cuts may be done by hand. Serviceability is important because like all machines, watches need regular maintenance; large brands seek to redirect all servicing back to them so we see more proprietary parts/designs, parts and tool access may be restricted or limited - these things all factor into how much a watch will cost to service and how many people have the proper tools and training to do it. Isochronism is the ability for a movement to keep time and how impervious it is to external forces that would affect timekeeping.

ROLEX 3130

The 116000 is driven by the Rolex 3130, which is the time only version of the 3135. The main changes being the obvious lack of a date complication and a single jump in the set lever jumper for winding and time setting. Rolex is often scrutinized for its sluggish evolution of its watch designs (wow, they put a jubilee bracelet on a GMT) and while it’s true that they aren’t particularly adventurous when it comes to deviating from their staples, what they have done is developed and designed their movements with the watchmaker in mind. This is a brilliant move by Rolex as it allows them to streamline their service centers and repairs become efficient and quick. Rolex does also unfortunately restrict parts and tool access, though with access to tools, parts and Rolex training these movements become very straightforward to service. A watchmaker joke is that, “In order to assemble a Rolex you just have to put the parts in a bag and shake.” Now, without access to any of the things I mentioned before, it’s likely an independent watchmaker could service it, but there is a good chance some corners would be cut or something could be done improperly. Servicing a Rolex isn’t as ubiquitous as something as a 2824, they aren’t that much more challenging, the things that drive up the cost of a Rolex service are in fact, an individuals access to those things I mentioned earlier - and of course, a more expensive movement is going to be more expensive to service. There are lots of people who can service Rolex, their network of ADs and shops with parts accounts (ORJs and NRJs) are plentiful, there are many independents more than capable as well. This is a watch that, as a watchmaker, I could service completely on my own, though for the average person, it’s important that whoever services your Rolex is familiar and competent with them. Serviceability is good, although restricted, the movement was designed with serviceability in mind. Rolex service starts at $750 with a refinishing and some movement components included - though at the end of the day you’d be lucky getting out for under $1,000. Another tidbit is the screws on Rolex are terrible, chemically hardened and prone to breakage during service. The hardness of chemically hardened screws is not consistent throughout, the outer ‘shell’ is hard and if that becomes compromised the screw will snap. I’m guessing someone did a cost benefit analysis and decided cheaper screws that they could replace with reckless abandon were a better choice than higher quality/more durable ones. Feels weird though when an ETA movement has tougher screws than a Rolex.

The level of finishing on Rolex is good, but not exceptional. The perlage is mediocre with individual pearls(?) being variable in depth and quality but the sunburst grain is crisp and flat - though not a particularly flashy finishing technique. In fact, with the advent of the 3200 series movements, they’ve done away entirely with the perlage, favoring different graining techniques. The 3235 is certainly less flashy, the brushing techniques allow crisp bridges and components - though removal of perlage seems indication enough that perhaps Rolex felt it also wasn’t entirely convincing. There are also a few polished components; the bevels on the bridges, screw heads, and the big rotor axle. The finishing still necessitates some careful handling during a service - and that’s often a barometer of a watchmaker’s skill, if the finishing is marked or marred after a service. Though without a display caseback you don’t really have much of an option when it comes to appreciating the finishing - I believe, however, once price starts getting high enough you should expect higher levels of finishing regardless of if you can see the component or not.

In regards to isochronism the 3130 is pretty good. Rolex generally has shorter pivots on their watches, this mean tighter tolerances and endshakes (endshake is the amount of ‘play’ in the pivots between jewels), a freesprung hairspring (this means timekeeping is more consistent regardless of amplitude), and a laser poised balance with timing screws (timing screws, although more time consuming to adjust, allow for fine regulation). It’s COSC certified, so it has been verified in multiple positions (when people talk about positions, horizontal is flat and the pivots rest on their tips/pinion faces which evenly distributes forces - vertical positions means the pivots are on their sides and weight is distributed unevenly. For these reasons, timekeeping is generally better in horizontal positions) and at different temperatures. Since Rolex has short pivots, the variation between horizontal and vertical positions is low which increases timekeeping stability. The combination of a freesprung hairspring and short pivots gives this watch the ability to be an incredibly accurate and more importantly stable timekeeper. The Parachrom hairspring offers good properties and is an improvement over Elinvar hairsprings, it touts paramagnetic properties - though I’m not sure if it’s completely impervious to magnetic fields. It’s not as good as silicon and regardless of if the hairspring is extremely resistant to magnetism, other components like steel pinions, the escape wheel, and pallet fork are all susceptible to magnetism and often overlooked when talking on the subject - I have another blog post on magnetism if you’re curious. Overall, the 3130 is a stable and accurate timekeeper with great resistance to isochronism - even in the absence of silicon. I’m not an accuracy for my personal watches, but if you’re after something capable of keeping under 5s/d with excellent positional stability the new Rolex movements are very capable.

In summary, the 3130 is an accurate and stable timekeeper with good serviceability (with some limitation). The finishing is adequate though nothing exceptional - perhaps average or below average when compared to other movements around this price point.

OMEGA 8900

This movement is a beast. For better and worse, the Omega 8900 Coaxial represents an achievement in watchmaking technology. While the unveiling of coaxial movements was a little rocky, at the point of the 8900 the issues are worked out. The result is a dual barreled monster with exceptional finishing, a silicon escapement (the balance and hairspring are silicon, while the roller table, coaxial wheel, and escape wheel are a gold flashed, amagnetic high nickel content allow) and super stable timekeeping. The somewhat unique framework of the movement and the new escapement design means service for a coaxial is going to be more restricted than that of the 3130 - your best bet in this case is probably going back to Omega as independent watchmakers familiar with coaxial will also be fewer in number than those familiar with the 3130. Personally, I probably wouldn’t service this one myself, at least not without some specific guidance from one of my buddies from Omega - even then, probably not. According to their website service starts at $550 or $650 if your watch has a precious metal case/crown (the crown gets replaced). Which, considering the higher grade of finishing, novelty and additional parts is a bit more reasonable than the starting price of a Rolex service - even a master at the 8900 would still take longer to service than a master at the 3130. Part of this is the streamlined design of Rolex movements for service, but the other component is that the 8900 is more complicated and has a higher level of finishing - both factors which necessitate more time for a proper service - more time = more cost. Omega also offers replacement of certain components and refinishing in their price, while the movement may be more exclusive than the Rolex and harder to find and independent you like who could do it, they don’t totally clobber you on the service cost, while the Omega price differences reflect what I’m assuming a mandatory crown swap - Rolex doesn’t have the crown price included and they swap those if the threads/gaskets are worn.

In regards to isochronism the Omega 8900 touts the METAS chronometer certification which is additional testing on their movements after they pass COSC certification. Now, I have a bit of an issue with in-house certifications as the entire point of COSC is to be an unbiased third party. Having an in-house certification disregards a large chunk of unbiased scientific rigor, and regardless of if they’re honest or not about it, you should acknowledge that rolling your eyes at an in-house certification is an entirely appropriate reaction. Kind of like Patek bragging about giving their watches the Patek Philippe Seal, “We’ve declared this watch is exceptional so it has achieved the Patek Philippe Quality Seal! Just like all of our watches!”. In the case of Patek it sounds more like a way to talk about their watches passing their own QC, the Genève Seal and COSC cert would be the independent certifications here - but Patek says their own seal is in excess to both of those. And it very may well be, but you’re leaving an entirely biased entity to pat themselves on their back - METAS is kinda like that except they let you look at the results of your watch specifically, which is a cool offering. The magnetic resistance of these new Omega movements is seriously impressive and as far as technical improvements go, magnetic resistance in this day and age is probably the application of material science to mechanical watches. The Omega wins hands down in regards to magnetic resistance. The hairspring is also freesprung on the Omega, though not an overcoil - but in this case, since it’s silicon, none of that matters. The balance wheel also has timing screws - at the end of the day these watches will time out very closely and have very similar variation between position. These movements are both great timekeepers which are close to the limits of what may be achievable for mechanical watches. Considering the finishing, power reserve, magnetic resistance and overall quality of the movements - the Omega 8900 is technically superior

The finishing of the 8900 is wonderful, crisp sunburst aligned Genève stripes contrasted with black PVD coated screws, barrels, & balance wheel. Red inked text tells you the serial, caliber, BARRELS 1 & 2 WOW, while providing some more contrast - then the large barrel rubies set it off, like two wonderful cherries on top of an ice cream sundae. It’s a nice presentation, though the PVD coated components are definitely a kind of stylistic choice that if I were designing this, I may forego for something else a little more traditionally beautiful. It’s not only technically superior to the finishing of the 3130, it’s also a more cohesive and appealing look - there was a lot of intent that went into making this look nice while the Rolex appears more of an acceptable sequel to previous iterations of movements. A response to seeing them would be “Oh that’s nice.” for the 3130 and “That’s nice!” for the 8900. Considering the display caseback, I’m glad Omega took the time to complete the whole picture.

Movement Grading:

SERVICEABILITY - Rolex: B Omega: C

FINISHING - Rolex: C+ Omega: A

ISOCHRONISM - Rolex: A- Omega: A

Overall: If I gave each of these a numerical equivalent then averaged, the 3130 would have an 85 (B) and the Omega would have an 89 (B+). Both exceptional timekeepers, the 8900 has superior finishing, materials and in general, superior running specs - the downside is that servicing will be more challenging if you don’t want to go to Omega.

DIAL & HANDS

The hands and dial, where the information of the watch is conveyed. Both of these watches have gold hands and indices as well as sunburst blue dials - they are both quite different - lets jump in.

GLOBEMASTER

The Globemaster’s jewel feature may be its dial; a wonderful pie pan with Sedna gold applied indices, logo & name, and finally that awesome little star. Its minute track is uncluttered with single minute indications which close in on a tastefully stepped date aperture. Sedna gold (or Everrose if you want the Rolex flavor) is a take on your more commonly known rose gold but engineered (generally with more copper) to be less susceptible to color change from oxidation. The chief complaint with rose gold is that as it ages, the oxidation turns it yellow making it look more like yellow gold. Some folks like to roll their eyes at brand specific gold blends, but it actually has an engineered purpose - to keep your rose gold looking rose. The yellow gold Globemaster is probably the least appealing to me, the yellow harsh and starkly contrasting, sticking out more than blending in. I was originally set on a steel Globey (a fluted bezel made out of tungsten? How cool! Can smash windows with that!) but since I found this Sedna gold two tone model for less than most steel ones go, I was more than happy to indulge myself. The rose er I mean Sedna gold is luscious and rich, the reddish depth of it providing a gentle but generous contrast to the brushed steel and blue dial. The diamond cut indices accentuate the angles and depth of the pie pan dial while letting the printed components settle to the background. The hands are mountain cut (faceted) and unobtrusive, the contrast between the dial allowing them to float visibly. While the hands have the crispness of diamond cut hands, they’re also a little soft on the edges, the seconds hand hub also continues the faceted cut into the ‘boss’ (which is the post that gets mounted to the movement). The result is the center of the seconds hand looks like a little umbrella. The soft edges of the hour and minute belie the crispness of the dial and seconds hand kind of cheapens the look - these are still nice hands and I’m not making criticisms for the sake of a review, but these are things that I notice just as a watch nerd. In comparison, the Oyster Perpetual has, again, simple hands that are made of white gold (Rolex uses white gold for their white colored hands/indices for that sexy luster) but are crisp and sharp. The seconds hand on the Rolex has a tasteful flat and beveled hub with the tail and length of the hand appearing as a rod (pictured above). This looks really nice and is a more refined look than a faceted, diamond cut arrow (Omega). The Globemaster uses blue (presumably BGW9) lume, which is adequately strong given the small area it covers.

I wonder if the star mold used on the Globemaster is the same one Zenith uses……

It’s a very neat and tidy dial & hand combo with enough exciting features to present itself uniquely and with lots of detail but not in a way that’s overbearing or busy. People often use words like ‘clean’ or ‘simple’ which, in my mind, are vague explanations to convey a feeling of minimalism or lack of business. It is indeed a ‘clean’ dial, in the sense that it isn’t busy - but if we take time to consider each design choice we can see how all the dial space is mindfully allocated. Incorporating many different designs and features in a presentation that appears to be ‘clean’ or ‘simple’ is, in my opinion, a hallmark of good design. Given the pie-pan shape, dial printing & text, star, applied logo & name, there are a plethora of designs here that are drawn together in a way that isn’t overbearing or too ostentatious. The hands and dial are lovely to gaze at and as an evolution of the older Constellations, it’s honest and reminiscent.

OYSTER PERPETUAL

The 116000 is sometimes referred to as the ‘Blue Explorer’ as it dons the signature 369 dial (albeit with the coronet at 12 as opposed to the triangle on the Explorer) and stick hands vs. the Benz hands. And for these reasons I actually like it a lot more. Now I know I’ll go against the grain when I say the Explorer isn’t my favorite, but I think the Benz hands look awkward plus the triangle at 12 just pulls too much from the Submariner aesthetic; the result is just some kind of mod look where someone was like, “yeah lets put the Sub hands and dial in a Datejust case!”

There’s no disputing the iconic status of the Explorer nor it’s wonderful legibility and wearability, but at the end of the day it just looks a little off to me. The 116000 on the other hand, resolves the things that I don’t like about the Explorer - and those things are solely in the dial and hands. The stick hands segue perfectly into the non-cardinal rectangle indices. Absolving the dial print of the Rolex coronet and turning it into an applique provides a nice bit of panache and relieves the unbalanced tension of the stack of text on the Explorer (so does removing the EXPLORER text). The result are hands that engage more harmoniously with the dial and easing of lopsided dial printing. The legibility remains, it looks less like a Sub and more like its own thing (well I suppose you could come at it from the other angle and say it looks more like a DJ or OP with the more traditional dial), but in the end, it’s a tasteful infusion of classic Rolex design without the contrived attention (and markup) of the Explorer. In my opinion, the design choices of this particular OP really hit the ball out of the park and have marked improvements on the Explorer (except the lume, which we’ll get to), the only thing is the Explorer is the Explorer and declarations of great Rolex models are largely immovable. All this means is a gem of a watch will hide in the shadow of the Explorer instead of taking the spotlight.

With all that said, lets get into some hand and dial details. As I mentioned earlier, Rolex uses white gold for the indices and hands. Different metals have different types of luster, which is, most basically, how the metal reflects light. Gold is also easy to work with and polish - given these properties and its easily attainable brilliance, many brands use this material for indices/hands. The hour and minute hand are crisp faceted sticks with the mindfully designed seconds hand (as mentioned earlier) sitting atop them. They aren’t going to win any awards for creativity with these hands but they are executed well and look nice with the dial. The weight of the sun burst brushing is about the same on the Rolex as it is the Omega, perhaps slightly heavier (thicker lines). The blue coloring, however, is slightly darker which means in certain lights you go from a vibrant blue down to black. The Omega, slightly lighter blue, will show similar rich blue hues but doesn’t quite turn black in dim lighting, instead preferring shades of gray. The dial printing is uncluttered with a single minute gradation for the minute track, the lack of the other text that I mentioned earlier as well as resolving the crown as one of the indices. Now, for some of the things that bother me a little (or a lot). The hands and 369 indices are very sharply cut with crisp hard angles (I love it) but all the other rectangular indices have soft rounded edges; I know Rolex can make razor sharp rectangular indices because they do it on other dials so here it’s a conscious design choice. Sharp indices would allow the continuation of that sharp 369 aesthetic and match excellently with the hands. Below you can see the 116000 next to a champagne dial Oyster Perpetual (photo courtesy of Ty Alexander Photography.) It contrasts the round edge slugs of the 116000 with sharply beveled rectangular indices of another OP - nicely beveled indices that the 116000 could have. The smaller version of the 116000 with the non lumed numerals received the crisp indices - but the numerals are rounded. A little flim flam but still makes me wonder why there cant be an all sharp indices and numeral version.

Next up is the lume. Now, this is something so shocking to me that it gets its own paragraph. If I didn’t know anything Rolex or watches and had to somehow judge the legitimacy of this watch by its lume I’d probably think it was fake. The lume is that bad. The lume on a $300 Seiko is 100X better. If a manufacturer put lume this weak on one of my dials I’d tell them to stop being cheap with the lume. It’s that bad. It’s green, but it’s weaker than C1 superluminova - significantly. The lume plot sizes on the Globemaster are about the same, so it’s not like I’m asking for a lot, but it leaves so much to be desired - especially after you see other Rolex or even Tudor watches with BIG STRONG LUME THAT GETS YOU EXCITED. For Rolex, the brand that has the reputation that it does for generally being high quality, this lume is totally pathetic.

Or even Datejust lume instead of Sub lume. Or literally any lume on a decent watch.

With that said, just try not to look at the lume and it wont irrationally infuriate you, it’s not like you can see it at night anyway. If it’s any consolation I guess it looks okay for a moment after you come inside from being in the sun. It is a technically nice and finely finished dial, but with some CRISP rectangular indices and maybe some of that sweet SKX007 lume, it would be an incredible dial.

In summary, I want to present a quotation by Antoine de Saint-Exupery, “A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”

The Omega’s dial is succinct and complete; there is nothing that I would seriously change that wouldn’t alter it for the worse. The Rolex dial, while a great dial, I believe could be further refined (generally with the indices) to enhance the aesthetic and statement it makes. The rounded indices and essentially non-existent lume take the teeth out of what could be a legendary dial.

Dial & Hands Grading:

Design - Omega: A+ Rolex: A-
Lume - Omega: A Rolex: F+

CASE & BRACELET

I love a good case and bracelet. In fact, I believe that case and bracelet design are hugely overlooked by brands; case design being simplified into a 2D top down drawing. The end result being cases that look good directly top down, but have been neglected from all other perspectives. There’s so much real estate in a case to impart good design - it is, after all, the part of the watch that directly interfaces with the person. A successful case doesn’t just have a few nice visual aspects, it also takes into consideration things like durability, comfort, and how straps/bracelets interact with it.

OYSTER DERPETUAL

Here’s Rolex with their 36mm Oyster case. It doesn’t need much introduction as it’s about as classic Rolex as it gets. Though, this version of it, while featuring the classic billowy mid case with downturned lugs has a couple changes from older Oyster cases. The smooth bezel isn’t angled like older models, but has a nice curved radius. In my opinion, this is a subtle but really nice improvement as it creates a lot more visual appeal and dimensionality where the angled ones look nice but kind of fall, ahem, flat. The round bezel sets of the polishing better as it catches more light, it also distinctly centers your gaze upon the dial and center of the watch. It’s shape erupts out of the straight grained mid case (previous iterations featured that classic angled grain finish on the lugs) providing a nice strong contrast between bezel and case/bracelet, lending itself to be another point of interest. The grain, that I was just talking about, is no longer angled and is straight, this is another Rolex improvement (in my opinion) as it matches the bracelet finishing and frees the grain directionality to flow from case to bracelet - as opposed to a little bit of a jarring break in that flow with the angled grain. The angled grain did look better in a few scenarios, like on straps or certain bracelet combos. It was also cut with a heavier grain, the new Rolex straight grain is very fine and sends the message of not wanting to draw attention to it but to redirect your attention to the polished parts. The angled grain definitely was more of it’s own feature and a hallmark in its own right; being used to determine if a watch had been refinished or not, perhaps how heavily it has been worn - the straight grain wont lend itself to that and can be refinished more easily and with less technical skill (perhaps a design choice and a maintenance decision).

The finishing on the OP is rather Spartan, all brushed with polished surfaces being reserved for the bezel, ring of the caseback, midcase flanks, and the edges of the bracelet (and technically the blades of the clasp but that’s not really exposed when wearing). I wear mine on its bracelet, which provides a big blanket of brushed steel. The bracelet integrates exceptionally with the case, the endlinks having nearly no play in them, in display of perhaps one of Rolex’s greatest manufacturing feats - their bracelets. Rolex has had many other accomplishments, their movements, for example, are designed to be very streamlined and easy to service (granted you have their proprietary tools & knowledge), but the bracelets I’d argue are some of, if not, the best in the industry. The tolerances of each part allow for an incredibly precise fit: endlinks seeming as if they were a part of the case, links articulating effortless and draping comfortably over your wrist, and clasps that are smooth and satisfying to operate (this one has a little clacky play if you tap it, but lets be real). The pinning points of the bracelet, the tolerances, and the good engineering & design of the bracelet make this (and many other) Rolex watches very comfortable to wear. A side note - if you like to wear your Rolex (or any bracelet watch for that matter) loose so it flops around, you should know this accelerates the wear of the bracelet. It will fail sooner than if you wear it with a more appropriate amount of slack (generally enough to stick your index finger between your wrist and clasp).

Some of the downsides: big polished flanks of the midcase will attract scratches, the case and bracelet pinning point are optimized for the bracelet which means many straps will rub or not have enough clearance to fit well (you’ll need thinner straps, which is kind of annoying because this one could be a total strap monster), the caseback raises in a dome like fashion to a flat - this is a clever way to mask thickness and house the oscillating weight of the movement - the reason this is also a con is because the flat section is vulnerable to denting, especially if you’re the kind of person that puts your Rolex down either dial up or down.

Perhaps one of the more impressive aspects of the case components is how it all comes together. I already mentioned the bracelet fitting precisely, though the way each other component sits and interacts with each other makes it all appear as a cohesive single unit as opposed to a watch made from different components. The bracelet to case, the midcase to bezel, the dial to rehaut - all sit seamlessly and without gaps. The transition between each piece flows with intent and consideration for design with no angles that are jarring or hard on the eyes. The Omega doesn’t do as well in this regard. Overall, the Rolex has an exceptional case and bracelet with a cohesive fit and finish. The trade offs of having fewer strap options and even the caseback’s susceptibility dents and dings from the bracelet (which can be pretty bad in the scenario of even a moderate drop) all make it easily worth it.

Omeeguh

The Globemaster’s case and bracelet are striking. Just sitting in the watch box, it stands out as something special - at least aesthetically. The case features a fluted bezel, with thin flutes reminiscent of the fluted bezels from the mid 20th century, which, I believe Omega beat Rolex to that line (before people say it’s a knock from Rolex). Additionally, Rolex uses thick cut fluted bezels and Omega has really only ever done thin cuts. So I don’t believe it to be any form of disingenuous mimicry but in fact, a truthful homage to their own earlier pieces. The midcase is relatively flat, with a mild downturn of the lugs (the geometry is reminiscent of some Zenith watches and the finishing is analogous, do they come from the same factory?). It is entirely brushed with succinct and sharp polished bevels which frame the angular case well. The brushing is superior to Rolex, with the hallmarks of being lapped or at least better case prep. The grain lines are impeccably straight and proffer an iridescent sheen, which is an indication of fine machining and flat surfaces. The tops of the lugs have a circular brush pattern, which is common in watches but I would prefer to have seen the same straight grain of the case flanks as the circular grain kind of crashes into the grain of the bracelet. Though, Rolex has trained the watch world to accept an angled lug top grain transition into a straight grain bracelet so it may not be bothersome to many people. I do like that you can see the depth of the gold bezel beneath the crystal, it’s not just a fluted bezel attachment, but actually the top section of the case that the crystal is seated in, which may seem logical but there are many brands who will be as stingy as possible when it comes to gold; so this seems less stingy? If that makes sense. Although, the interface between the case and dial appears a little more segmented or to have more of a gap than the Rolex which I mentioned as appearing seamless. Rolex wins in the seamless interface between case components and dial.

Onto the bracelet. The bracelet is like a deconstructed H-link or re-proportioned oyster bracelet, though it is very much its own design. The tops of the links are a little billowy and curved, with the entirety being brushed with the exception of the small bevel on the top outer edge to continue the polished lines of the case. The brushing isn’t quite as good as the case’s brushing, a little more slack in the straightness of the gain. There is a small amount of play in the endlink/case interface, I could caliper it but I don’t feel like it - I’d estimate maybe .3 to .4mm of slack. Which may not sound like much but it’s enough to wiggle the link around. The Rolex has virtually no play with the endlinks which contributes to the seamless integration of all its components. With the Rolex you can say the bracelet is part of the watch, with the Omega, the break between bracelet and case is more noticeable. When the bracelet drops at the first link, there’s also a larger gap than compared to the rest of the links, which is another visual break. Less obvious are the gaps when the links wrap around the butterfly clasp (also not a huge fan of butterfly clasps). All in all, some of these things, like tolerances, could be improved while other things like how the bracelet articulates are a trade off of the link design. I’d like to see tolerances improved (especially at the price point, we should see Rolex level end links on watches that are $5000+ MSRP), while I can live with design trade offs, the tolerances are somewhat of a letdown. My bracelet on the Omega also had a slightly bent link with the mark where the permanent link was installed still visible. Not a huge deal since I have enough spare links to use a perfectly good one, but it is what it is. The clasp is butterfly style (ugh) which isn’t terrible for me since I have tiny wrists but I still view a traditional style clasp with microadjusts superior in regards to comfort and convenience. The clasp is top quality with nice polishing and action, it also has ceramic click bearings which are nice and becoming more common with modern bracelets. Almost forgot! The Globemaster came on a blue croc leather strap made by Camille Fournet mounted on a tuck style deployant clasp. Now, I don’t hold my breath from straps but this strap is easily the nicest strap I’ve ever worn. It’s supple and flexible but also durable - having all these qualities in a strap is uncommon. The deployant is well finished but for some reason incredibly addicting to operate. The strap and deployant combo were an unsuspected (but welcome) surprise. Do I recommend Camille’s straps? If you’re after the best. I love being surprised by something exceptional, the strap and deployant combo are a home run.

The caseback is fastened by 4 screws (ohh risky) and has a sapphire crystal display back which is punctuated by a polished and updated version of the observatory which debuted on the early Constellations. I love the observatory, it’s well executed and another faithful homage and tribute to their early watches. The display back lets you look at the 8900 that Omega is proud of and is nicely finished. The case and caseback, which are relatively flat are pretty comfortable, though, without much lug downturn and its abject flatness, some wrist profiles may find this uncomfortable. For me it’s pretty comfortable, which is fortunate because I have tiny wrists. It does have short lugs and a large dial diameter, which is a boon for comfort, something like the Aqua Terra is very very flat and the bracelet juts out and creates a more unpleasant wearing experience. I’d say the Rolex is a little more comfortable, which is a factor of its bracelet and being a smaller diameter. Though, the Calamity is more comfortable than both of them. The 4 fastening screws, I’d be remiss to not mention, is a design that has no redundancy built in (like a 6 or 8 screw caseback). If one of these screws becomes loose or is not tightened in proper sequence, there’s a much larger risk that the seal will be compromised. Whereas on a 6 or 8 screw caseback there’s a little more safety built in, but hey, I guess Omega has the situation under control.

Case & Bracelet Summary

Here it is. The Rolex presents itself with tangibly better tolerances resulting in a literally better fit while the Omega has a few more gaps and wiggles. The higher precision of the Rolex bracelet and its integration with the case confers a more ‘solid’ feeling and the interface between dial and case is more seamless; though, the Rolex isn’t going win any design awards. The Omega, while having tolerances less than Rolex and some gaps as a result of trade offs of more creative design choices; I’m happy to overlook some spaces as a result of the cool bracelet design but I can’t help but find myself annoyed with the small amount of slack in the endlinks while the Rolex’s precision fit is satisfyingly snug. The case finishing on the Rolex matches perfectly with the bracelet while the Omega, having better case finishing, isn’t perfectly matched with the bracelet (the brushing) - and this is something I don’t think the average person would really notice but just something my watchmaker’s eye picks up on. The design of the case and bracelet really goes to Omega here, especially at a distance. The Globemaster stands out, it draws you in, piques your curiosity and beckons to be worn. The Rolex, while employing the renowned Oyster case, is good in its own right but doesn’t particularly stand out - especially thrown alongside other watches. It is a very photogenic watch and perhaps its innocuous look is partly due to the decades of exposure the Oyster case has had. These are both exceptional watches with strengths and weaknesses of their own, both are well made

Case & Bracelet Grading:

Tolerances - Omega: A- Rolex: A+

Finishing - Omega: A Rolex: A

Aesthetic Design - Omega: A+ Rolex: B+

Functional Design - Omega B+ Rolex: A

Summary

These are both exceptional watches, lets be honest. They each have their abject strengths and their weaknesses are minutiae - the improvements that could be offered (in my opinion) would not result in big changes, which in terms of critique, is a good thing. The Rolex 116000 is a solid offering that is beautiful and sporty. It could factor into a collection as a good everyday wearer or be a more covert and exciting alternative to the Explorer. It’s not an ostentatious watch and wont gather undue attention, but it wont disappoint you when looking down at it. The Globemaster, on the other hand, is a bit more dressy but with some sporty elements and with its gold fluted bezel will certainly draw some attention. Compared to the Rolex, or compared to quite a few things, the two tone Globemaster could be described as ostentatious - I tried to pull away from that by pairing it with the all steel bracelet as opposed to the two tone bracelet. It’s certainly not a ‘GADA’ watch, especially with a gold fluted bezel, gold being rather soft and susceptible to damage, though I would concede that the all steel model with the TUNGSTEN CARBIDE fluted bezel would satisfy that niche of a sports watch bordering on dress watch that you want to everyday wear. With all that said, the Omega calls to me and I find myself choosing it more frequently than the Rolex (maybe it’s just the honeymoon phase). If you want a sporty, more colorful (and affordable) version of the Explorer, the blue 116000 fits the bill while slipping under the radar. The Globemaster seems to just not have caught on, which is too bad because in my opinion it’s one of the better and most cohesively designed modern Omegas (compared to a blinged out Seamaster or maybe an exceptionally tacky denim dial Railmaster). Perhaps it’s the retail price, but the good news is that they can be found with great used prices - which in that light they are absolutely a great watch with a lot of tangible value in the package.

Omega Globemaster VS. Rolex OP36 116000