The bb58's cost-saving measure of the open caseback in lieu of precious metal is hilarious, like they really thought we'd be awed at seeing that movement.
It's not like Omega did not try some cringe-worthy gold-saving decisions, like sapphire glass inserts at the SIDE of the gold casing, on top of the see-through back for some of their gold dress watches. And the Omega in this video is not quite something to be proud of - 9k gold case, 37.5% gold content only. 9k is the legal limit for something to be labelled 'gold'. 0.1% lower and the object has to be labelled base gold.
I love both of these watches, but in the end, the Omega was the one I took home. The metal color and dial/bezel of the Omega look much more elegant in natural light than the Tudor. The green and tarnished looking gold of the Tudor were too harsh for me. The one wish I have is for the Omega to be sized more like the Tudor, but that was the only place I felt it came up short in comparison. Thanks for your take on these two watches, Tim.
As an extremely happy owner of the 58 OG I find it completely insane to pay $16,000 for a precious metal version (and on a strap and with a displayed agricultural looking movement) of a $3500 watch.
Agreed and there's not even a lot of gold or much different for the price even if it has an entire gold bracelet $16,000 is not Worth it $8,000 - $10,000 would be better 😎👍
I’d go for the Omega after trying them back to back..though I wasn’t particularly impressed with the Omega either, you are paying a lot of money for very little precious metal, it doesn’t seem to weigh any more than the steel version, and the sandwich dial looks like it’s been randomly snipped with scissors. If you must have precious metal you can buy a very substantial piece and higher horology pre owned rose gold Breguet type 21 for the same money or a nice Reverso 976
I'm wearing a Black Bay but even still I'd pick the Omega. Better looking movement, love the bronze gold (as long as it doesn't patina, if it does then I pick Tudor) and its WAYYYY cheaper. I've tried on the Omega and it wears like a dream, love that watch. The Tudor is sweet too but I can't stand to look at that tractor motor in the back, its an ugly movement and they probably saved a whopping whole $100 with that stupid crystal.
I’d buy that Tudor in a heartbeat if it was 10k. I’ve got the .925 and would love to add the gold brother to the watch box. The Omega I think is too vintage for my taste - I do like the “gold” color… but I find the watch boring to look at.
Thank you for recognizing the ladies. I like the Tudor better not just by the size but by the modern olive green and gold colors. I'm not impressed by the fake "old" that Omega is doing with the yellowed, faded indices, boring black dial, and ugly strap
I owned the Omega, SS with bracelet version. Very high quality watch, but the case was too large and thick for my wrist--mostly too thick, always catching my shirt sleeve. Have a BB 58 on the way and hoping it will be a nice fit for me. Wish is came with a bracelet though, but then it would cost a fortune I guess.
So the time Rolex decides to do a display case-back, the reaction is "I'd rather not see the movement, please just give me the solid gold caseback." Mark Twain said it best: “It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”
I bought the black dial 300 in steel…I don’t think I would spend this much on a diver with leather. Divers shouldn’t have leather straps anyway. If I was going to splurge on precious metal diver it would have to be white gold sub. That being said I love my 300 along with my pelagos fxd… both great brands with great accuracy and reliability
Calf skin isn't lesser quality, it's less expensive but that's because of rarity, I really like wearing calf skin it's very soft, I find gator sometimes looks like plastic, it's a different aesthetic, and they're going for a vintage feel so I think it's appropriate.
Beautiful! Both need either bracelets or water resistant straps (after all, they’re both divers). But both are awesome. Tudor needs more precious metal variants. And Omega needs to expand their bronze gold to other models.
If it fits your wrist and your wallet, I’d pick Omega. Better movement, better metal, and better depth thanks to the sandwich dial. Loom? Seriously? it’s a party trick. OTOH, the Omega strap is crap - needs high quality sailcloth or rubber for a diver. But that’s an easy fix.
Isn't the Omega really just bronze? It looks beautiful now, but will it look crappy after a few years like all the used bronze Tudors I see for sale? Or maybe they use a much better alloy than Tudor.
A couple of things might of lifted the Tudor here to match its gold construction (apart from covering up that Seiko’esque looking movement!) polished case chamfers and gilt hands/indices. Anyway, out of the two, I prefer the Omega, and by quite a large margin too (despite usually leaning towards smaller watches) Still love the original Steel and black gilt dial BB58 though, I’d have that over this gold version any day of the week, even if I could afford the latter.
Love the Gold Black Bay 58. Definitely more rare. I’ve never seen one in the wild and doubt I ever will. Meanwhile, I see gold Rolex’s and Omega’s fairly often.
the Omega is a much better watch in my view. the tudor at 16k is way too expensive. there not too much gold there, srsly dont get how someone would get it. by the way, i would also not get the omega. dont like either of the two watches too much, but i definitely dislike the tudor, esp. at this price point.
That 9 karat gold feels “phony baloney” but they sure know to demand a grown up price for it! I’d personally prefer to see a mix of the two: 18 karat gold Omega level movement finish Tudor case dimensions (or smaller) Ceramic bezel And a deployant buckle
The bb58's cost-saving measure of the open caseback in lieu of precious metal is hilarious, like they really thought we'd be awed at seeing that movement.
It's not like Omega did not try some cringe-worthy gold-saving decisions, like sapphire glass inserts at the SIDE of the gold casing, on top of the see-through back for some of their gold dress watches. And the Omega in this video is not quite something to be proud of - 9k gold case, 37.5% gold content only. 9k is the legal limit for something to be labelled 'gold'. 0.1% lower and the object has to be labelled base gold.
@@scorpio19771111 I’m ok with that. The metal is harder. 9k is standard in uk 🇬🇧 and I’m used to it so no big deal for me
@@Thenameonthegraveisarchstanton9k is the Chav standard in the UK
I love both of these watches, but in the end, the Omega was the one I took home. The metal color and dial/bezel of the Omega look much more elegant in natural light than the Tudor. The green and tarnished looking gold of the Tudor were too harsh for me. The one wish I have is for the Omega to be sized more like the Tudor, but that was the only place I felt it came up short in comparison. Thanks for your take on these two watches, Tim.
Would LOVE to see some photos of it if you still have it.
The 925 and gold 58 should have matching precious metal rotors
15:08 "The Tudor movement is finished like something you would expect from Miyota or an entry level Seiko. It's just not attractive."
It would be Omega all the way for me and not just because I find a precious metal version of an entry level dive watch slightly strange
@@arthurscargill8010 "Entry level dive watch" LMAO
As an extremely happy owner of the 58 OG I find it completely insane to pay $16,000 for a precious metal version (and on a strap and with a displayed agricultural looking movement) of a $3500 watch.
Agreed and there's not even a lot of gold or much different for the price even if it has an entire gold bracelet $16,000 is not Worth it $8,000 - $10,000 would be better 😎👍
150% agreed. Would understand 7k with no visible movement, or a bit more if they took the time to hand finish it a bit
BB58 is my pick in particular that popping green is supremely nice looking!
I think that I'd go with the Omega.
I’d go for the Omega after trying them back to back..though I wasn’t particularly impressed with the Omega either, you are paying a lot of money for very little precious metal, it doesn’t seem to weigh any more than the steel version, and the sandwich dial looks like it’s been randomly snipped with scissors. If you must have precious metal you can buy a very substantial piece and higher horology pre owned rose gold Breguet type 21 for the same money or a nice Reverso 976
For me, it has to be the Omega. The shade of gold is much more pleasant however size might be an issue for smaller wrists
Idk man - but Tudor could've at least added some perlage and a yellow gold rotor to that movement, if they decide to go with a display caseback.
I'm wearing a Black Bay but even still I'd pick the Omega. Better looking movement, love the bronze gold (as long as it doesn't patina, if it does then I pick Tudor) and its WAYYYY cheaper. I've tried on the Omega and it wears like a dream, love that watch. The Tudor is sweet too but I can't stand to look at that tractor motor in the back, its an ugly movement and they probably saved a whopping whole $100 with that stupid crystal.
I’d buy that Tudor in a heartbeat if it was 10k. I’ve got the .925 and would love to add the gold brother to the watch box. The Omega I think is too vintage for my taste - I do like the “gold” color… but I find the watch boring to look at.
Great comparison review!! One thing i might add is that bb 18k comes with additional nato strap with matching hardwares in gold as well!
Omega all day, twice on Sundays. Not even close.
I’d go for the omega!
Very nice comparison!
Nice video…Love this Tudor but I prefer with solid case back and not with sapphire glass
Thank you for recognizing the ladies. I like the Tudor better not just by the size but by the modern olive green and gold colors. I'm not impressed by the fake "old" that Omega is doing with the yellowed, faded indices, boring black dial, and ugly strap
I owned the Omega, SS with bracelet version. Very high quality watch, but the case was too large and thick for my wrist--mostly too thick, always catching my shirt sleeve. Have a BB 58 on the way and hoping it will be a nice fit for me. Wish is came with a bracelet though, but then it would cost a fortune I guess.
I love Tudor, but the choice of using an open caseback and with a non-gold rotor looks like they put the wrong movement in the watch... very strange!
I would get the omega if it were in 39 or 38mm. Have the bb 58 925 and the size is perfect!
So the time Rolex decides to do a display case-back, the reaction is "I'd rather not see the movement, please just give me the solid gold caseback."
Mark Twain said it best:
“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”
Great comparison..for me the Omega hands down. Ridiculous price for the Tudor for what looks like bronze..
Tudor, easier read, and simply more handsomely designed.
The Seamaster 300 is different league.
To be somewhat vullgar, what is the weight of each case?
I bought the black dial 300 in steel…I don’t think I would spend this much on a diver with leather. Divers shouldn’t have leather straps anyway. If I was going to splurge on precious metal diver it would have to be white gold sub. That being said I love my 300 along with my pelagos fxd… both great brands with great accuracy and reliability
Calf skin isn't lesser quality, it's less expensive but that's because of rarity, I really like wearing calf skin it's very soft, I find gator sometimes looks like plastic, it's a different aesthetic, and they're going for a vintage feel so I think it's appropriate.
If you want the original diver - the best since ever, than you go for the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms … period !!!
The Omega is a smoking hot watch.
Love your vs video. This is a tough choice.... Omega I feel is for me.
Thank Tim
Beautiful! Both need either bracelets or water resistant straps (after all, they’re both divers). But both are awesome. Tudor needs more precious metal variants. And Omega needs to expand their bronze gold to other models.
Exactly. A rubber bracelet would have been so much nicer.
Tudor has nato for just this
The latest Tim'ism - snick snick snick, snook snook snook 🙂
On the Vs's...
The Tudor - LOVE it
The Omega - the winner - SO beautiful!
ist's not "snik, snik, snik". It's "snuk, snuk, snuk" 😂👍
I'd go with the Omega SM300, hands down.
If it fits your wrist and your wallet, I’d pick Omega. Better movement, better metal, and better depth thanks to the sandwich dial. Loom? Seriously? it’s a party trick. OTOH, the Omega strap is crap - needs high quality sailcloth or rubber for a diver. But that’s an easy fix.
Isn't the Omega really just bronze? It looks beautiful now, but will it look crappy after a few years like all the used bronze Tudors I see for sale? Or maybe they use a much better alloy than Tudor.
The tudor's slimmer case and gator strap wins 🏆
I think the Omega is the better watch, but would pick the Tudor between these two
Movement - Omega. Style - Tudor.
6:31
It is not 14.8 mm thick. The rare Mosso Mistake.
:)
Price not an issue: Omega. It suit my style more.
I like the Tudor better, except not a fan of the olive green
I get the distinct impression Tim doesn't much like either, but he'd preference the Tudor immensely if not for the ugly case-back.
A couple of things might of lifted the Tudor here to match its gold construction (apart from covering up that Seiko’esque looking movement!) polished case chamfers and gilt hands/indices. Anyway, out of the two, I prefer the Omega, and by quite a large margin too (despite usually leaning towards smaller watches) Still love the original Steel and black gilt dial BB58 though, I’d have that over this gold version any day of the week, even if I could afford the latter.
Omega all the way for me, but there again, I am an Omega fan. I like the Tudor, but I like the Omega better, and it is cheaper.
I'm lucky enough to own the Tudor 18k and I wouldn't swap it for the world.
Omega everytime.
Omega
Id go with omega. Tudor its too Rolex.
I agree with you.
Omega wins in terms of performance and mechanical design.
For design and allergy protection, the 18K gold Tudor wins.
keyboard enthusiasts would describe the bezel click sound on the Tudor as "thocky"
The omega wins in every way other than size. They’re quite thick
Omega by a mile, cannot take tudor seriously, tudor is on the same level as longines and oris
A Black Bay 58 in 18K gold is like putting lipstick on a pig. Just compare the movements. Omega, beautiful; Tudor, cheap. The Omega, hands down.
.375 is an almost gold watch
Tudor Black Bay team
Love the Gold Black Bay 58. Definitely more rare. I’ve never seen one in the wild and doubt I ever will. Meanwhile, I see gold Rolex’s and Omega’s fairly often.
the Omega is a much better watch in my view. the tudor at 16k is way too expensive. there not too much gold there, srsly dont get how someone would get it.
by the way, i would also not get the omega. dont like either of the two watches too much, but i definitely dislike the tudor, esp. at this price point.
Tudor all day
Tudor, I'm thinking about selling one of my sub no date and getting this watch
I like the classic look and the quality movement in the Omega in this comparison
0mega no question
That 9 karat gold feels “phony baloney” but they sure know to demand a grown up price for it!
I’d personally prefer to see a mix of the two:
18 karat gold
Omega level movement finish
Tudor case dimensions (or smaller)
Ceramic bezel
And a deployant buckle
9k used to be fairly popular in vintage dress pieces. And for a sports watch, I feel it's a great choice, being more physically robust.
Between these 2, Tudor for me.
That Tudor is hideously ugly back and front and mechanically it is a very poor second to the Omega. Surprised by Tim's choice.
you must be drinking lol
Lol... how much money did tudor pay you? Omega is a clearly winner
That Tudor looks too bronze and the case back looks like that of a $200 watch.
Tudor
❣️❣️❣️
Neither.
I love Omega but between these two I’d take the Tudor.
Tudor won that shit