Sunday Morning Showdown: Rolex Submariner 16610 Vs. Omega Seamaster 2254.50
Welcome back to our weekly Sunday Morning Showdown! This week, after several battles between modern watches, we are going back in time. Daan and Thomas will pit two neo-vintage divers against each other. Daan will defend the Omega Seamaster 2254.50, while Thomas will champion the Rolex Submariner 16610.
With slender cases, sapphire crystals, aluminum bezel inserts, and under-the-radar styling, these watches share the typical late-20th-century recipe beloved by many. Of course, there is one big difference between the two — price. Back in the late 1990s, the Rolex Submariner cost roughly twice as much as the Omega Seamaster. Now, on the pre-owned market, the difference is even bigger. Today, the Sub costs about three times as much as the 2254. The key question today, then, is whether it is worth it. Let’s dive in!
But first, last week’s Sunday Morning Showdown
Last week, we pitted two racing chronographs against each other. Jorg and Mike took to the ring with the TAG Heuer Monaco Chronograph × Gulf and the Tudor Black Bay Chrono “Carbon 25.” Admittedly, to our surprise, the more expensive and extravagant TAG Heuer won. It didn’t win by a landslide, but it still secured a significant 54% of the votes.
Both watches triggered some strong sentiments in the comments section. Frankly, that was to be expected, considering the strong, attention-grabbing designs. The Tudor got some votes for its more ergonomic shape and size. The Monaco, meanwhile, scored points for its racing pedigree. Now, with that out of the way, we proceed with today’s battle of the neo-vintage divers with date complications.
Thomas: Rolex Submariner 16610
Good morning, Fratelli! I know today’s matchup may feel a bit unfair. After all, my candidate costs three times as much as Daan’s. Still, conceptually, these watches are very similar. The Rolex 16610 and Omega 2254.50 both exude 1990s/2000s vibes. Both follow the beloved recipe of modest proportions, aluminum bezel inserts, and subtle styling. These were arguably the last pre-bling divers from luxury brands. As such, we feel they warrant a face-off on Sunday Morning Showdown.
Admittedly, I get strong ’90s vibes from both watches. That’s not really warranted, though, as the Rolex Submariner 16610 dates back to 1988, while the Seamaster 2254.50 wasn’t introduced until 2000. Technically, then, neither watch is a 1990s release. However, you could argue that the Seamaster follows the template set by the 1995 Seamaster in the film GoldenEye.
Regardless, both watches feel distinctly previous-gen. Their modern counterparts have become bigger and more luxurious. The current shiny ceramic bezel inserts probably typify these changes better than anything else. As a result, these two watches still have a loyal following among enthusiasts who prefer the Spartan look and feel over the more embellished modern versions.
The Rolex Submariner 16610 is simpler and better
The first point I would like to make relates to the design. The Rolex Submariner 16610 may be 12 years older than your 2254, Daan, but it doesn’t look it. It is simpler in every way, which is a compliment. If you put these two side by side, the Rolex looks much more natural. It is more to the point and functionally sensible. The Omega looks overly complicated — contrived, even — by comparison. From the lyre lugs to the scalloped bezel, oversized bezel numerals, and retro handset, it is all a bit much.
The Submariner 16610 aged much better as a result. In fact, I would argue that it doesn’t even look dated at all. Rolex could release it today as a more under-the-radar alternative to the ceramic Sub, and it would thrive. It is completely timeless, to put it bluntly.
The bracelets continue this theme. Bracelets don’t come much simpler than the Rolex Oyster style. The Seamaster’s additional narrow, polished links flanking the center links make it feel fussier and a little dated. Sometimes, simpler really is better.
The Rolex Submariner 16610 versus the Omega Seamaster 2254.50 from a technical perspective
Technically, these two tick many of the same boxes. Both have 300m depth ratings, although the Seamaster also includes (a controversial) helium release valve. Both have screw-down crowns and screw-in steel case backs. The 120-click unidirectional bezels with aluminum inserts also perform similarly, although the Rolex’s bezel is significantly easier to grip.
Movement-wise, you get two of the most reliable automatic, time-and-date calibers ever made. In my book, the Rolex caliber 3135 wins over the Omega caliber 1120, though. Technically, neither is in-house as the Omega’s is an ETA 2892-A2, while Aegler, pre-2004 integration, still produced the Rolex movement. The Rolex 3135, however, features a full balance bridge and a Parachrom hairspring. You get six more hours of power reserve from this larger caliber, too. Admittedly, that is a negligible advantage in real life, but still, we’re splitting hairs here.
More expensive, but safe?
Okay, on to the sensitive subject — money. Yes, Daan, the Seamaster 2254.50 can be found for a third of the price of my Submariner 16610. Is that difference warranted from a technical perspective? Perhaps not. Still, if you can afford the outlay, I would argue it is the way to go.
After all, just look at the fact that the Submariner 16610 was originally about twice as expensive as this Seamaster 2254.50. Today, it is three times more costly. Why? Because it is more desirable and, consequently, represents a safer investment. Now, I cannot predict the future, nor do I intend to suggest a watch is an investment. Still, I would rather be forced to liquidate a Submariner 16610 in a pinch.
Okay, let me end it here. Daan, tell us why all of the above is wrong and why the good Fratelli should vote for the Omega!
Daan: Omega Seamaster 2254.50
Oof, Thomas, that’s a tough one to beat. But I’m going to try anyway, of course. It’s true that, spec-wise, these two watches are very close to each other, so it ultimately comes down to the very subjective feeling you get when you’re wearing them.
The Rolex Submariner, regardless of the reference, is a watch almost everybody recognizes. That quality is something some people look for when they wear it because it also makes them feel recognized. I’d argue that these people aren’t necessarily watch enthusiasts. For them, the Rolex Submariner on their wrists is a symbol of success, status, and accomplishment.
But the Rolex Submariner is also extremely popular among watch enthusiasts. Many consider it the ultimate watch. For them, it’s the most iconic sports watch there is. As Thomas already said, its no-nonsense design is completely timeless.
So, is that what you want when you buy a Rolex Submariner? On average, the reference 16610 now sells for €8,727 on Chrono24. Yes, a Rolex might appreciate a little over time, but do you really want to spend that kind of money on a watch that’s not very original and is worn by every Tom, Dick, Harry, and their moms?
The 2254.50 is the more original choice…
The Omega Seamaster 2254.50, on the other hand, is the more original choice in my eyes. It’s certainly not the most famous SMP out there, as that must be one of the variants worn by Bond, James Bond. However, it is a more classic and toned-down version compared to those. The black and white colorway goes with any attire, and the fine waves on the dial are only visible when you want to see them. All right, Thomas, its bracelet might not be as handsome as the Rolex Oyster, but at least it isn’t as much of a mismatch as almost any Grand Seiko bracelet. Besides, you can always wear the watch on a NATO or rubber strap, like Nacho does nearly 100% of the time he wears his 2254.50.
I also appreciate the quirky design of the Seamaster. It dares to be different with the twisted lugs, wavy bezel, and the characteristic sword hands. The ETA 2892-A2 movement inside also allows this to be one of the thinnest Omega Seamaster divers ever. That’s something I really noticed when I wore RJ’s 2531.80 for a few days in a row. All I want to say is that the 2254.50 seems more like an enthusiast’s favorite, and you can see the love is strong from looking at its increase in value over the years.
…and it might be the more sensible choice as well.
Of course, a Rolex always seems like a solid investment. Even if you’re not thinking of ever selling it, it’s still nice to know that it will probably never stop appreciating. That said, the Omega Seamaster 2254.50 doesn’t seem like such a bad investment either. Its current average price of €3,305 on Chrono24 gets you a solid and good-looking diver. But the most surprising thing is that its price has pretty steadily increased since the site began tracking it in 2009.
There have been some small bumps along the road, but even after the big price increase during the global pandemic, the 2254.50 has managed to maintain its value. That’s not something you can say about the Rolex Submariner 16610.
So, would you rather walk around with a €9,000 watch that so many other people are wearing and might actually be a bit boring, or would you rather go for a watch with a quirkier design that offers a lot more bang for your buck?
Time to cast your vote
There you have it. Thomas and Daan have presented their cases, and now it’s time for you to think about which of these two iconic divers you would get. Cast your vote below, and defend your choice in the comments. Also, make sure to tune in again next week for another installment of Sunday Morning Showdown!
