CommanderBond.net

Rolex.

This is not a consideration about the quality of watches, but IMO Rolex is too well known as a status symbol. Everybody knows the Rolex brand, even people who know absolutely nothing about watches, and I've often heard it being mocked as a watch for show offs.
That's the reason why I'd go for an Omega: quality product as well, but not so much as a status symbol for the general public.

Omega (but in fact Seiko more realistic for a field op)

Rolex, Submariner Date in stainless, or GMT II, or Explorer II.

MTBF (Mean Time between Failure) on Rolex trumps all other mechanical watches.

Own a number of each, so I won't say how I voted!

Meantime, here's an interesting and thorough comparison of what was at the time the two most recent James Bond models of each. "Not the same old discussion."

Link

Rolex.

Omega for a lot of the same reasons MkB mentions. The hard part for me about buying a Rolex is just the statement that watch makes. I like the subtlety of Omega. The average person (at least in the U.S.) doesn't know much about the brand but, when you meet someone who does, it's always a fun conversation.

That's like asking PPK or P99. Come on.

Rolex

I prefer my trusty 'Timberland'. It tells me the time and that's all I care about. If I need to know the time in say Honolulu, I'd go there and reset my watch to local time.

No point in paying the equivalent of having 'Big Ben' strapped to you wrist.

BTW. I voted 'Rolex'.

Pretty much what I was going to write. I associate Rolex with pure bling - even though I'm aware that not all Rolexes have gold trimmings. It's a show off piece.

I still picked Rolex in the poll though, for the sake of the early Bonds. Sue me for inconsistency.

There in NOTHING remotely "bling" about a stainless steel Rolex Submariner.

Absolutely. But the name Rolex is, to me, and dare I say many others, associated with showing off. That doesn't make it a bad watch (clearly it's quite the contrary), and I am aware that the Submariner is not at all a blingy watch.

If I had a decent budget to purchase a watch I would very likely steer clear of Rolexes purely because of the image that I have of Rolex="big fat gold watch".

It may not be rational, but I don't think I'm alone in this view.

Fair comments.

But I look at it this way. Rolex do indeed make some flash, vulgar watches. They are the anethema to what Fleming intended. However, these watches are invariably bought by a particular type of person. And in that, it tends to suggest to me that the person is a dick, wearing a dick's watch. The two go hand in hand, and therefore, are seperable. Consequently, it does not cloud my image of Rolex as watchmakers.

Similarly, Aston Martin's are snapped up by footballers as soon as they are released. It would be easy to see this kind of buyer as altering one's view of the marque Aston Martin. But it does not. Aston Martin is still viable for James Bond.