Omega Trilogy Railmaster 1957 vs Rolex Explorer

In the commercial world rivalries are wonderful things.  They drive competition and innovation and often both sides are winners in the long run due to improved products.  Ford versus Chevy, Coke versus Pepsi, and Apple versus, well everybody, are examples of technological juggernauts forever embroiled like two majestic Rams on a hillside coming together time after time in an impossibly laser focused duel to out ‘product’ each other. In the world of wristwatches, I think Rolex and Omega have traded paint on the sales floors with much the same gusto.  But that was just the calm before the proverbial storm. Nowhere did this rivalry mature and come to such a crescendo until it entered the petri dish of Social Media. With its never-ending torrent of experts spouting ambiguous generalities proclaiming one the clear winner, the waters have been permanently muddled by an impossible amount of data and specs.  

I am under no illusions that I can solve that with this singular article. At the end of the day we are discussing opinions cleverly disguised as facts, and only in disseminating the two can we hope to find some insight.  As a self-proclaimed Omega Fan boy I have been regretfully doing my part to stir controversy and throw more murk in the already murky waters.  However, as an exercise in self-reflection, I decided to put an end to that. I took the plunge and purchased the VERY watch I was disparaging as inferior and decided to give the ‘other side’ a chance on my wrist to see which one (if any) could claim a clear victory.   As financially dubious as this is, I think a watch needs to be not only worn, but also owned to get a full appreciation for its strong points and weak points. As only when your own money is on the line are you forced to face whether or not a shortcoming or strength is real or just perceived. 

I have owned the modern interpretation of the Omega Railmaster for over a year and really loved that watch. That was the 40mm version (REF: 220.10.40.20.01.001) with the black dial.  I sold that watch and later picked up the 60^thanniversary Railmaster 1957 Trilogy (REF: 220.10.38.20.01.002) edition which is in 38mm version that I currently own. This is watch that have chosen to put head to head with my latest purchase which is the modern Rolex Explorer (REF: 214270) which for years I have said is an inferior product to either Railmaster.  Having put my money where my mouth is, I now own both at the same time and I thought a real world comparison would be fascinating.  Does the technically advanced movement in the Omega really matter? Does the reduced water resistance in the Trilogy Railmaster have negative effects day to day?  Are these watches so mechanically close in quality and construction in all the areas that actually matter outside of an online forum that it will be a wash and personal preference will dictate the winner?  As much as possible I will try to delve into these separate categories and more while removing all branding and personal style out of the equation. The goal is to reduce this to contrasting facts rather than opinions. At the end of the review, I will put my fingers on the scales so to speak and see how opinion can tip this one way or the other. 

Omega Railmaster 1957 Trilogy Edition

The Omega Railmaster 1957 Trilogy Edition (REF: 220.10.38.20.01.002) is 38mm of technical prowess in a very elegant and graceful package.  The modern day Railmaster (REF: 220.10.40.20.01.001) is an all brushed business only affair with rugged construction and is ready for any adventure imaginable.  Before I could even get to the Explorer, I had to choose which Railmaster would best match up to make it a more even fight.  They are both blessed with the same Omega Caliber 8806, which is a master chronometer METAS certified movement with 55 hour power reserve and 15000 gauss resistance that beats away at 25200 vph.  The difference is really in the casing.  The Trilogy Railmaster is far more dressy and elegant a watch than the modern Railmaster. Its smaller size and its combined brushed and polished surfaces offer more detail to enjoy on a daily basis. The domed Crystal plays with light and adds incredibly attractive reflections on the dial.  While it does give up a lot of water resistance to the modern Railmaster (60m versus 150m), I felt its dressy nature allows it to be a double threat as it can be sporty and dressy much the same way as the Explorer, which is renowned for this attribute.  Also, the Trilogy Railmaster has a beautiful bracelet with a fantastic micro adjust feature in the clasp which allows on the fly adjustments which is superior to the modern Railmasters butterfly clasp with no micro adjustments of any kind. Decision made then. So with the two well-made time only watches selected, let us get to the nitty gritty. Remember just the facts! 

I have owned the Trilogy Railmaster for longer, so let us start there. Size wise they are a good comparison.  I struggle to make any fact based determinations from this as size is a personal choice. So as far as physical shape goes, they are close enough to be the same on paper, with one notable exception.

The Rolex is a thinner watch, which I think everybody can agree, that is an advantage. The majority of the thickness difference in the Omega is in the domed crystal, though, which can be a bonus or negative depending on your viewpoint and personal aesthetic preferences. The Omega case is a wonderful blend of chamfers and downturned lugs that help wrap around the wrist. The character lines are crisp and well defined and flow with the lugs. The brushing that is exclusively on the sides runs horizontally and is done to a very high degree adding visual interest in all lighting conditions. 

The bezel is short and ever so lightly curved to meet up perfectly with the contour of the domed crystal. The two work together beautifully to ensure easy passage by any shirt cuff or suit.  The crystal is sapphire and as I mentioned has a lovely dome to it.  That dome adds a very nostalgic distortion at extreme angles as well as casts some stunning shadows on the matte dial during the day. The overall aesthetic of the case is a fantastic combination of soft curves and hard lines which add distinguished character lines as well as a soft elegance depending on how the light hits it. That complex dichotomy is not present in the Explorers very simplistically curved oyster case which has a slight bulge on the polished sides and is fully brushed on all top surfaces excluding the highly polished flat bezel. 

The Railmaster bracelet integrates into the case very well with no appreciable gap even when held up to the light.  The ends of the lugs are flat in much the same way the speedmaster FOIS lugs terminate. Functionally it is a non-issue, but it should be noted that the Trilogy Railmaster does not have the smooth transition from end of the lugs to the bracelet of the Explorer. If that matters to you, then the modern day Railmaster would be a better choice. 

When comparing any bracelet to that of the bracelet on a modern day Rolex, the tables are usually squarely in favor of the Rolex. It is a time honored fact that Rolex has mastered the three link Oyster and I have no qualms about supporting that.  The Railmaster bracelet is far from bad, though, as the brushed center links and polished outer links contrast beautifully off each other. The spacing between links is incredibly close yet the bracelet moves quite freely on the wrist.  The micro adjust twin push button release clasp is a joy to use and allows effortless fastening and removal as well as on the fly adjustment.  If I could change something on the Railmaster bracelet it would be to make it taper like the Rolex as I do believe it adds to a bit of elegance as well as comfort. Companies like Oris and Monta both offer very thin and fine three link bracelets that taper so Omega, I expect that from you especially on a vintage inspired piece. While a non-tapering bracelet gives a very strong and solid aesthetic impression that I like, I feel the Trilogy would be better served with a tapering bracelet in the long run. 

The case back of the Trilogy Railmaster is a very simple polished and flat cover that is screwed in. It has the Hippocampus cleanly etched in the center with Railmaster and minimal text limited to water resistance and Master coaxial circularly around the engraving.   Overall, it is true to the historical timepiece that inspired it and sits nicely against the wrist. The Rolex Explorer is even devoid of the minimal decorations of the Railmaster and offers nothing but a nice place to engrave something. 

A watches personality is usually centered around the dial. It is easily the most distinguishing feature for most watches and designers put a rather large sum of effort to lock in a unique and easily recognizeable look. The Railmaster Trilogy dial is a matte greyish black affair that comes across as aged without looking old.  The twelve thin triangular indices are countersunk into the surface of the dial and then filled with vintage tinted lume until the surface is flush. The result of this implementation is razor sharp crisp delineations between the lume and the dial with no lume overflow you can get when lume is just painted on with uneven thickness. The minutes are marked with precise white painted lines that match the color of the numerals that are naturally perfectly printed.  The Omega name and Logo grace the 12 o’clock position with a lovely vintage Railmaster script being the only other printed text on the dial at six. This is a lovely bit of restraint as compared to the Rolex table of contents level of printing on the dial of the Explorer.  The whole package works very well to act as a backdrop for the large polished hands that reach perfectly to the extremities of the both the hour and minute markers. Both the large broadhead arrow for the hour hand and the sharp dauphine hand for the minute hand are filled with lume that perfectly matches the indices. The second hand on the Railmaster is highly polished but contains no lume to help it be visible at night. 

Speaking of lume, the green glow of the Railmaster at night is shockingly good.  I always expect patina colored lume to be a bit weak, as I figured it was a tradeoff for the aesthetic the designers at Omega were going for. This is pleasantly not the case. The green glow comes on strong after minimal exposure to sun and lasts a remarkably long time.  I was fully expecting to give the Rolex easy top honors for lume, but in fact it is actually about even. 

Overall I think the Railmaster is an extremely well thought out piece that can and should be cross shopped when somebody is looking for a Rolex Explorer but wants something that is more dressy and elegant.  

Rolex Explorer

The Rolex Explorer is a hard watch to review. It enjoys anointed status on most watch forums and carries with it labels as ‘the perfect one watch collection’, or ‘best do it all tough field watch in the world’. Neither of which is true as a one watch collection would have to be a watch with a date, and a tougher field watch would need more water resistance and less polished surfaces.  Still separating the hype from the watch I found no easy task.  When wearing the Rolex I could not help wonder if I liked the brand on my wrist, or the watch itself. The fact that I even asked that question seems to raise my concerns.  But as the ever stalwart British would say, I need to carry on and get on with it.  As my countrymen would say, pull your boots up and get to work.  

The current Rolex Explorer houses a 3132 movement inside. This is not the more modern 3135 movement in the current Datejust which has a longer power reserve and a date function.  No, this movement has a Parachrom hair spring which helps in resisting brief brushes with magnetic fields, but not quite up to the extent of the Omega’s pure Silicone unit.  The Explorer has a 48 hour power reserve while maintaining a Superlative Chronometer setting which gives an accuracy range of 4 seconds (+2/-2) that matches the Omega in accuracy while not quite achieving as long a run time as the Railmaster.  Both movements are beautifully assembled, but it will be up to internet pictures for you to decide which has the most austere decorations as they are both shielded under a solid case back.  

The case of the Explorer is naturally made of Oystersteel which is Rolex’s blend of 904L stainless.  This is said to offer more corrosion resistance than 316L and more resistance to scratching but I would wager that to the end user the two steels are mechanically the same.  Still it is good to know that there is a tiny subset of ‘encounters’ that may scratch a 316L stainless watch that may not scratch a 904L stainless watch, but I would not rely on it just to be safe. 

The shape of the case is pure Oyster and that has some very good points about it. The early Oyster cases are known for wearing small as they have very short lug to lug distances and combined with the flat case bottoms, they sit well on the wrist and allow the brilliant bracelets to wrap comfortably around the wrist.  I can say the Explorer has not been plagued by the Maxi case yet and is still a very well-proportioned watch.  Its lugs curve elegantly down to give the case a finished appearance.  The sides of the case are not flat but rather bulge out a bit and are also highly polished. Where the sides of the case meet the top fully brushed surfaces, there is no chamfer, or polishing, or any detail at all.  The overall look is extremely simplistic and if it were on another watch with a different brand name, I wager it would be called out as such.  But this is a Rolex, and reviewers say, “the case has subtle hidden design cues that are not apparent upon first glance but will slowly reveal themselves.”  I can tell you beyond a doubt, this a total exaggeration. The Rolex case is a prime example of you see what you get and nothing more.  It is a simple thing done well and that is not faint praise.  However, as a buyer you will need to decide if simple is sufficient.  The Explorer has a screw down crown and the watch is rated at 100m of water resistance. For a daily wear style of watch this is perfectly sufficient and is more than the Trilogy Railmasters 60m (However, for full disclosure the modern day Railmaster is 150m). 

Let us talk about that legendary Rolex bracelet. The tolerance between the links is very good. So good in fact, that at times the links seem to blur the line between three separate pieces or one large one. The uniformity of the brushing is done to that high a degree.  The end links fit nicely into the case and match up well all the way to the bezel.  The brushed top surfaces of the case match nicely to the bracelet and both come together with little fuss. The clasp on the Explorer is called the Oysterlock safety clasp. Taking the watch off is a two pronged affair.  Flip up the crown on the clasp, then use your fingernail to lift the pivoted rocker that is held by a hook on the bracelet.  This configuration is effective but it is not as simple to use nor as adjustable as the Omega Railmaster bracelet (with the micro adjustments) as you can find yourself in between links even with the easy link 5mm extension (I currently have this issue).

The bezel of the Explorer is a flat and highly polished that terminates at the sapphire crystal. The bezel extends the full 39mm diameter of the case. The crystal sits proud of the bezel a bit and is completely flat without a hint of AR coating on the inside or out.  This lack of AR can be touted as a feature, and often is by the very same people who see complex shapes in the case (Hint: there are none).  There is a huge joy to be able to see your dial at any angle and in almost any light. The Rolex is plagued with glare, and complete disclosure, it is annoying. No amount of branding hype will change that. You can make the most legible dial ever conceived, but if you cannot see it well, what is the point?

Since I mentioned the dial, the Explorer is blessed with a very logical and well laid out dial. This has been true for decades and whether you prefer lumed numerals or not, or long handsets or not, the Explorer has always a very easy to read watch (when the glare is not interfering).  The polished indices are applied beautifully with generous amounts of lume inside them. The hour, minute and yes, second hands all have that beautiful blue Lume that both charges quickly and lasts a respectable amount of time.  On this version, the newest Explorer has lumed 3,6, and 9 numerals as well as at the triangle at noon.  The dial itself is a glossy black surface with six lines of white printed text on it.  While that is not too much or too little text, the dial strikes a balance that I think most will find perfectly fine.   It is personal judgement to each user on which side of the fence you fall when it comes to dial text. Other than the white text the hour and minute markers are painted neatly and plainly with just enough length for the minute hand to just barely touch them.  Like other Rolex Sport models the Rolex engravings around the chapter ring are a nice detail that unfortunately usually go unnoticed. I think it is a nice touch that proudly displays the name of the brand without shouting it at you.  I find it to be restrained and elegant. 

The hands are the standard Rolex set with a baton minute hand and a Mercedes hour hand.  Like the Railmaster the hour hand is gracefully curved to add depth and detail to the dial. On both watches, this detail plays with light and increases legibility. On the Rolex, the second hand has a lumed pip so you can see if your watch is running in low light situations. The Railmaster you will just have to have faith or perhaps give the crown a turn or two to make your timekeeping OCD at bay. 

SUMMARY

I find both watches are an answer to a very simple question. What is the time?  In the world of mechanical watches both are completely overkill and both would be shamed by a simple quartz watch.  To that I say we do not buy mechanical watches as practical tools, but rather as pieces of useful jewelry that is more times than not bolstered by a bit of clever story telling or the spinning of an interesting yarn. Both of these beautiful timepieces are more than capable of accomplishing the task and truthfully neither has left the other far behind.  In fact, I believe they are so similar as to be almost redundant to each other.  I feel the Omega has a more modern and advanced movement, but in real world applications is modern a real advantage if the accuracy is same?  Honestly, I doubt it.  Is the Omegas longer power reserve a real advantage if the watches are worn every day?  Not at all.  The antimagnetic properties of the Omega are surely better than the Rolexes but in real world use, is the added benefit of pure silicone that much better than Parachrom? Probably not outside of an MRI technician. 

This reality check goes the other way as well. Is the 904L really that much more durable than 316L? Honestly, probably not.  Is the 3132 movement a proven work horse, while the Omega 8806 too new to be trusted. Nope, not at all as the coaxial escapement is has been in service for 20 years now with equally legendary service.  

The Rolex would seem to have slight legibility advantage due to the applied indices, but they are blurred out because of a frustrating lack of AR half the time.  The Omegas’ patina indices may look amazingly cool and distinct but also may turn people off and could be labeled disingenuous.  Both are perfectly fair criticisms of each watch and the level of each egregious flaw will be up to the whims of the end user in the long run.

I wore each of these watches every single day back to back every day for two weeks and counting.  I came back to this article to make corrections and updates and to make sure I was happy with what was on paper. The Rolex wears very well. It sits on the wrist well and the short lugs and thin case do wonders to make the watch almost vanish. I was in between links on my Explorer so a perfect fit was not found as the watch would want to rotate on me. That is not fault of the watch but rather the lack of a micro adjustment, a technology Rolex does have in its repertoire, but chose to omit it.  For most people I think that this watch would fit.  I may consider taking a link out and opening the easy link to see if I can improve my wearing experience. 

What surprised me the most was that the Omega Railmaster on the wrist is an entirely different wearing experience. This became clearer to me as the days went on.  The Railmaster reverses the finishing design of the Explorer putting all of its polished surfaces on the top of the watch for you to see and enjoy.  It comes off as far more formal and dressy than the predominately brushed Explorer. Due to the micro adjustments (and nearly identical weight 132g Explorer vs 138g Railmaster) the Railmaster stays put on my wrist for all day comfort just as well as the Explorer.  The bracelets dual finished tone of brushed and polished links adds visual interest to the upscale look of the Omega giving it more of that ability to be dressed up than even the Explorer.

These watches are practically identical in price if only MRSP is concerned. 6800 for the Omega and 6550 for the Rolex.  Naturally you may be able to get the Omega Trilogy Railmaster 1957 at a bit off sticker, but not as much as other models in the Omega line up.  I can say without a doubt that the clear winner here is not decided on raw figures or spec sheets, but rather than emotions and personal aesthetics.  As I learned the Omega Railmaster has no clear real world advantages over the Rolex Explorer in much the same way Explorer has no real world measurable features that put it over the Omega.  This has been a huge learning experience for me and I have thoroughly enjoyed it.  

But what exactly did I learn? I learned that we can get bogged down in spec sheets and hype.  I think many Omega fans (me included) get way too overzealous to throw out specs and metrics, while many Rolex fans tout the brand name and iconic status with equal aplomb.  Let me issue a reality check to both parties.  They are both just plain three hand no date watches.  Nothing about either is inherently magical or special except for the emotions and value we as individuals place on them.  I think as human beings we tend to do that with most inanimate objects we care about.  In that sense, neither side can be wrong as emotions and personal beliefs should be heard and respected without any pressure from either side to be forced to concede.  We could argue numbers and specs all day long but at the end of the day we are buying something that is a luxury and a purely emotional object of our desire.  It was said to understand someone else you must walk a mile in their shoes.  Well, in the same manner, wear another watch for a week and you too will see that our personal biases may have kept us from a torrent of fun experiences that we should have been enjoying all along.  I say let us keep watch discussions in the most productive and enjoyment inducing environment we can by appreciating the mechanical attributes, but realizing that at the end of the day emotions and personal connections trump a spec sheet every time. 

The bottom line is that these watches are two sides of the same awesome daily wear coin. The Railmaster is decidedly more dressy and elegant than the Explorer, while the Explorer has a tougher vibe than the Railmaster Trilogy. Both watches are very robust and can take all you can probably throw at them. I will say the Explorer wears bigger on the wrist due to the expansive dial and the upsize from 36 to 39mm. If your emotions pull you to the Omega side of the coin but want the tougher vibes given off by the Explorer, the Modern Railmaster with the vertically brushed dial is your ticket. Pick one of these three and never ever look back.