# Top Ten Watch Brands



## shirtguy (Oct 12, 2006)

what would be on your list as the top ten watch brands?

patek 
rolex 
jeager
iwc
pigaet 
audemars piguet
vacheron constantin
omega
ulysee nardin
panerai


----------



## sam (Sep 5, 2004)

I would include Glashutte and A. Lange & Sohne to that list. Personally, I would not include Panerai, Omega or Ulysee Nardin.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

(In no order)

Rolex
Patek
Longines
Omega
Zenith
IWC
Jaeger
Timex
Seiko
Lange


Yes, Timex & Seiko - they make very durable, accurate, and nice looking watches for very cheap, and there's something to be said for that.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

This could be a fun thread and will result in many different lists because of how individual forumers understand "best" or deserving of being on the list. What are the characteristics of a good, or "best" watch? Appearance, reliability, cachet, accuracy, .... To my mind the list would have to include two Japanese brands: Seiko and Citizen.

Seiko is known primarily for quartz watches (being the first company to introduce one commercially in 1969), but they have, for more than 125 years, made extremely fine mechanical watches too. It would be very hard to argue that their high-end watches, like the Grand Seikos--both quartz and mechanical--and those with their new spring-drive movements, don't belong on any list of great watches. And Citizen, which has been making watches for nearly a century. Apart from being the largest watch seller on the planet (not a qualification for the "best" list), Citizen also makes some of the finest quartz watches in existence, including the iconic _The Citizen_, now renamed _Chronomaster_, which is (outside of radio-controlled watches) _the most accurate watch in the world_, being held to a specification of +/- 5 seconds per *year*.

Even the best Grand Seiko quartz watches don't match this, instead being held to a sloppy +/- 10 seconds per year! And the very best Swiss thermocompensated ETA quartz movements can't touch the Citizen accuracy either. A number of higher-end thermocompensated Citizen watches are held to +/- 10 seconds per year, and lots of both Citizen and Seikos are held to +/- 20 seconds per year. (The usual standard for quartz-watch accuracy, incidentally, is +/- 15 seconds per _month_, a standard that most decent quartz watches beat by a wide margin.) Of course, neither the Seiko nor Citizen top-end watches are cheap, with grand Seikos running up into the $7K-$10K range. Chronomasters now range from about $2K-$5K. None of these top-end Seikos and Citizens, incidentally, are sold in the US, rather only in Japan.

So, I'd definitely put these two companies on that list, along with the usual suspects like Patek, IWC, Rolex, Omega, et al. :icon_smile:


----------



## ilikeyourstyle (Apr 24, 2007)

I like a lot of the various styles of all of the following, but I find Seiko to deliver the best in value.

Seiko
Stowa
Poljot
Archimede
Junkers
Ollech & Wajs
Aristo


----------



## DuMont (May 25, 2008)

I would add Blancpain, Zenith, Chopard and Glycine....in order of quality.


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

Hello,
My favourites would include:

Zenith
Girard Perregaux
JLC
Rolex/Tudor
Universal Geneve 
Patek
IWC
Vacheron
Omega (co-axial only)
Junghans (great value for money)

George Daniels also deserves a mention but as he is a single maker rather than a "brand" I've left him off of my list. I have had the pleasure of seeing one of his watches at close quarters and it is incredible.

Chris.


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

Roger said:


> This could be a fun thread and will result in many different lists because of how individual forumers understand "best" or deserving of being on the list. What are the characteristics of a good, or "best" watch? Appearance, reliability, cachet, accuracy, .... To my mind the list would have to include two Japanese brands: Seiko and Citizen.
> 
> Seiko is known primarily for quartz watches (being the first company to introduce one commercially in 1969), but they have, for more than 125 years, made extremely fine mechanical watches too. It would be very hard to argue that their high-end watches, like the Grand Seikos--both quartz and mechanical--and those with their new spring-drive movements, don't belong on any list of great watches. And Citizen, which has been making watches for nearly a century. Apart from being the largest watch seller on the planet (not a qualification for the "best" list), Citizen also makes some of the finest quartz watches in existence, including the iconic _The Citizen_, now renamed _Chronomaster_, which is (outside of radio-controlled watches) _the most accurate watch in the world_, being held to a specification of +/- 5 seconds per *year*.
> 
> Even the best Grand Seiko quartz watches don't match this, instead being held to a sloppy +/- 10 seconds per year! And the very best Swiss thermocompensated ETA quartz movements can't touch the Citizen accuracy either. A number of higher-end thermocompensated Citizen watches are held to +/- 10 seconds per year, and lots of both Citizen and Seikos are held to +/- 20 seconds per year. (The usual standard for quartz-watch accuracy, incidentally, is +/- 15 seconds per _month_, a standard that most decent quartz watches beat by a wide margin.) Of course, neither the Seiko nor Citizen top-end watches are cheap, with grand Seikos running up into the $7K-$10K range. Chronomasters now range from about $2K-$5K. None of these top-end Seikos and Citizens, incidentally, are sold in the US, rather only in Japan.


I'm a little relieved to hear somebody mention Citizen, as I've always felt woefully inadequate in the watch category when compared to the other members of this forum. I'm just a modest Army officer and my wife won't let me spend thousands of dollars on a proper watch, so I have to settle for my Citizen Promaster. I actually think it's a pretty sharp all-around watch and it's very functional, given that it has an alarm, lap-timer, etc. The little digital windows on the analog face are small enough so that you can only see them from up close. As for accuracy, it's only lost 5 seconds in the last 6 months.


----------



## Adagio (Aug 2, 2007)

Again in no particular order:

Lange
H. Moser
Rolex
Glashutte Original
IWC
Breguet 
JLC
Patek
Blancpain
F.P. Journe

Adagio


----------



## MoosicPa (Jan 30, 2008)

My top 10 list would be:
1. Vacheron Constantin
2. Patek Phillipe
3. JLC
4. Rolex
5. Breguet
6. Audemars Pigeut
7. IWC
8. Zenith
9. Dubey & Schaldebrand (personal choice)
10. Roger DuBuis


----------



## manuduenas (Sep 16, 2007)

By order:

1. Patek Philippe 
2. Lange & Söhne
3. Breguet
4. IWC
5. Jaeger LeCoultre
6. Chronoswiss
7. Glashütte Original
8. Nomos Glashütte
9. D. Dörnblüth & Sohn
10. Stowa 

manuduenas


----------



## Tonyp (May 8, 2007)

Obviously this is personal preference but objectively I think the best made high end watches in no particular order:

A. Lange & Sohn
Patek 
IWC
Vacheron Constantine
Gerard Perragaux
Richard Mille
Roger Dubuis
F.P.Journe
Audemars Piguet
Glasshutte
Blanc Pain
Jaeger le Coltre
Breguet

I would never put Rolex in any of these lists. If you ask the most popular or most recognizeable watch then yes. but a rolex keeps the worst time of any expensive watch I know.


----------



## deanayer (Mar 30, 2008)

Tonyp said:


> Obviously this is personal preference but objectively I think the best made high end watches in no particular order:
> 
> A. Lange & Sohn
> Patek
> ...


I really like this list, I would make my own but to do it justice I would need to rut around in a host of publications and then winnow the list. I do want to add a +1 for the exclusion of Rolex watches, not just for their mechanical shortcomings but (and not to be snobbish) they tend to show up on the wrong wrists such as those owned by cigarette boat drivers with guts and gold chains stalking the docks at Claudio's in Greenport Long Island for example. The boat is normally named "Excavator" or some such. I also wouldn't include Omega although they truly make a great sports watch in stainless and I think they get the job done without the garishness of a Rolex. Someone also tossed Ulysse Nardin from their list and I would add them together with Corum on the cuttting room floor and I say that even as I plan to buy either an Admirals Cup or a Nardin Marine Annual Chronograph, both great looking watches just not "Top ten on earth" - that and I dont have the 25,000$+ to get a really sweet world-beater watch. I have to draw the line somewhere.

...on a final note I was on the Cape last weekend and some friends had their teenage text-message-aholic kids with them and none of them either own a watch or know a friend who does so get your dream watch now before the watch goes the way of the piano and the grandfather clock and the detachable collar shirt.


----------



## 82-Greg (Apr 13, 2008)

Gentlemen;

Thank you!

I happen to be starting my research to buy a new watch sometime towards the spring--although timing will largely be dictated by trying to catch a deal with a sale.

Question though: Which of these fine brands would represent the best long-term value? (I define value as functionality, durability, accuracy, and style that endures over time measured in years, perhaps decades.)


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

I don't understand why Rolex gets bashed simply because of it's popularity or because some perceive some of the people wearing a Rolex to be sleaze bags.

Just because some guy wearing a pinky ring and a polyester suit decides to purchase a Rolex, doesn't mean a Rolex isn't a quality watch. Unfortunately, Rolex has been tagged as some sort of "status" symbol in some circles, but that doesn't make it any less of a quality watch.

I do agree that there are much higher quality watches out there, including PP, VC, etc., but a Rolex is a very robust watch that uses an in house movement that takes a beating.

I've owned many watches, and I believe that the idea that Rolex keeps lousy time is an urban legend. Of all my "high end" watches, my Rolex Submariner keeps the best time. Read the reviews and stats in Watch Time for the FACTS regarding the watches you've mentioned, and you'll see that Rolex performs on par if not better.

If you are going to include IWC, I firmly believe Rolex must be included, considering their movements are all in-house movements and the same can not be said of IWC. You can not compare a company that is simply modifying an ETA movement. Sorry.


----------



## Tonyp (May 8, 2007)

Based on your definition, I would say A Lange & Sohn or Patek would be the ideal watch. buy one now and watch ( no pun intended) it go up in value faster than any other investment. These watches keep increaseing in value. Save for it now. Buy a used one if you can find one you like.


----------



## deanayer (Mar 30, 2008)

82-Greg said:


> Gentlemen;
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> ...


long term value? I vote Patek Phillipe calatrava in the $20k range if you want long term value expressed as retained resale value but thats at the high end. Your definition is tricky I could just as easily add the Omega seamaster because its durable, functional, acurate and timeless whereas a Patek shouldn't be worn 24/7 simply because its too fine and isnt enhanced by a "weathered appearance" like a stainless steel watch. 
I would refine your definition a bit because your going to have trade-offs between things like durability and accuracy.

If you could specify dress watch or all-around watch, gold or stainless or other, formal, casual, price range that would help because there is no bulls-eye to be had.


----------



## LD111134 (Dec 21, 2007)

JAGMAJ said:


> I'm just a modest Army officer and my wife won't let me spend thousands of dollars on a proper watch, so I have to settle for my Citizen Promaster.


I'm sure that I'm speaking for the other members of the forum when I commend and acknowledge your service, and as a fellow attorney (I surmise that from your moniker) I appreciate your commitment to military justice. I'm certain that you'll get the watch you truly want in good time. :icon_smile:


----------



## 82-Greg (Apr 13, 2008)

deanayer said:


> long term value? I vote Patek Phillipe calatrava in the $20k range if you want long term value expressed as retained resale value but thats at the high end. Your definition is tricky I could just as easily add the Omega seamaster because its durable, functional, acurate and timeless whereas a Patek shouldn't be worn 24/7 simply because its too fine and isnt enhanced by a "weathered appearance" like a stainless steel watch.
> I would refine your definition a bit because your going to have trade-offs between things like durability and accuracy.
> 
> If you could specify dress watch or all-around watch, gold or stainless or other, formal, casual, price range that would help because there is no bulls-eye to be had.


I don't want to skew the replies too much by specifying a price range because that is fairly negotiable (not Patek Phillipe negotiable, though I wish it were), but certainly less than $3K (USD). It would be an every day dress watch. Gold wouldn't be objectionable per se, but I think that might end up pushing the price beyond the attainable.


----------



## TALC (Jan 10, 2008)

The correct list:

1) Vacheron
2) Patek
3) CHronoswiss
4) IWC
5) Omega
6) Bucheron
7) Zenith
8) Le Colture
9) Rolex
10) Doxa (vintage)


----------



## drrac2 (Mar 25, 2006)

*No particular order*

Patek
Vacheron
Franck Muller
Audemars
A. Lange
IWC
Parmigiani
Breguet
Girard P.
Hublot


----------



## MoosicPa (Jan 30, 2008)

So far Patek and IWC are tied for first place with 9 votes each, JLC third with 8 votes, and Rolex, Lange and Zenith tied for fourth with 6 votes each.....


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

DocD said:


> I don't understand why Rolex gets bashed simply because of it's popularity or because some perceive some of the people wearing a Rolex to be sleaze bags.


+1 - Some modern Rolexes are getting a bit gaudy, but they still make classic looking sports watches, and some very nice dress watches as well. I don't wear clothes because they are popular, and I don't stay away from clothes because unpopular people wear them. Same with watches.



> I've owned many watches, and I believe that the idea that Rolex keeps lousy time is an urban legend.


Seconded - my 50's vintage bombe keeps every bit as good time as my friend's Patek.


----------



## fpatton (Apr 28, 2008)

In my experience, amongst watch aficionados, Patek is generally acknowledged to the best. Everything else falls at some level below them. Interestingly, Audemars Piguet is also usually listed near the top, but I have never liked the look. The aesthetics of their most famous current line, the Royal Oak, always escape me. 

My personal favorite (and given the cost, I can't see that I will ever own one), is Breguet. Their 5140 with the enamel dial is absolutely a classic, and I love the Reveil du Tsar.

There are also numerous independent houses (e.g., f.p. journe, De Bethune), who produce beautiful and interesting work, often one-offs or very low volume. Roger W. Smith, for example, was a student of the legendary George Daniels (inventor of the coaxial escapement that Omega licenses from him), and makes some really remarkable pieces. At a more reasonable price point, check out the work of Peter Speake-Marin of England. His watches have a very interesting and unique look to them.

In the US, RGM (which has been mentioned before in this forum) are very interesting.

Personally, I like them simple and elegant. Oversize dive watches are impressive, but not something I'd like to wear every day. And anything other than Patek, I wouldn't count on going up in value. My advice is to forget about the watch as an investment (even if it is a good one). Only buy it because you love it!

Fred


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

1. Armitron

2. Swatch

3. Fossil

4 Timex

5. Casio

6. Bill Blass

7. Kenneth Cole

8. Guess

9. DKNY

10. Lorus

11. Croton

12. Caravelle


----------



## khetchup (Jun 30, 2008)

cartier gets no love, eh?

on a side note...

i tried on a IWC mark XVI and a rolex submariner recently, and although i like the look of the mark XVI more, i couldn't help but notice the second hand vibrates back and forth as it sweeps. the submariner's second hand sweeps pretty smoothly. that's the only thing that bothers me about the mark XVI.


----------



## encyclopedia (Jan 3, 2008)

Roger said:


> This could be a fun thread and will result in many different lists because of how individual forumers understand "best" or deserving of being on the list. What are the characteristics of a good, or "best" watch? Appearance, reliability, cachet, accuracy, .... To my mind the list would have to include two Japanese brands: Seiko and Citizen.
> 
> Seiko is known primarily for quartz watches (being the first company to introduce one commercially in 1969), but they have, for more than 125 years, made extremely fine mechanical watches too. It would be very hard to argue that their high-end watches, like the Grand Seikos--both quartz and mechanical--and those with their new spring-drive movements, don't belong on any list of great watches. And Citizen, which has been making watches for nearly a century. Apart from being the largest watch seller on the planet (not a qualification for the "best" list), Citizen also makes some of the finest quartz watches in existence, including the iconic _The Citizen_, now renamed _Chronomaster_, which is (outside of radio-controlled watches) _the most accurate watch in the world_, being held to a specification of +/- 5 seconds per *year*.
> 
> ...


In my view among major watch brands only casio, seiko and citizen are doing interesting things lately. Most of the real innovation on the western side is at the v v v high end with needlessly complicated mechanical movements. I'm all for building a three axis tourbillon to show iit can be done and selling a few for usd 4mio, but that doesn't make a brand.

The japanese, mostly with models you cannot buy outside japan, are building things like radio controlled, multi-time zone, solar powered quartz chronographs that look just like mechanical watches (except some are thinner than mech!) and keep, assuming u r in 1 of the few dozen countries with radio coverage, perfect time. for well less than usd 1000.


----------



## jholbrook (Jul 12, 2007)

DocD said:


> I don't understand why Rolex gets bashed simply because of it's popularity or because some perceive some of the people wearing a Rolex to be sleaze bags.
> 
> Just because some guy wearing a pinky ring and a polyester suit decides to purchase a Rolex, doesn't mean a Rolex isn't a quality watch. Unfortunately, Rolex has been tagged as some sort of "status" symbol in some circles, but that doesn't make it any less of a quality watch.
> 
> ...


Rolex is simply a victim of their own success. Which makes them an easy target for criticism.

I also don't buy the notion that a watch movement from, say, Lange or Patek is necessarily of higher quality than one from Rolex. Are they more decorated and better finished? Yes. Does that in my mind make them of higher "quality"? Not by my definition of quality.

I think the modern day Rolex Daytona is an extremely high quality watch, which compares favorably with any mechanical sport chronograph:










The caliber 4130 in the Daytona is a very sophisticated mechanical chronograph, and thanks to the addition of the parachrom bleu hairspring, has the potential to be far more accurate than other timepieces in adverse (shock, magnatism, temperature extremes) conditions.


----------



## jholbrook (Jul 12, 2007)

jbmcb said:


> +1 - Some modern Rolexes are getting a bit gaudy, but they still make classic looking sports watches, and some very nice dress watches as well. I don't wear clothes because they are popular, and I don't stay away from clothes because unpopular people wear them. Same with watches.
> 
> Seconded - my 50's vintage bombe keeps every bit as good time as my friend's Patek.


+1 for vintage Rolex. They're recent auction results are begining to challenge Patek's long held #1 spot for resale value. I'm a big fan of the rare "red" Submariner:


----------



## mchern02 (Oct 24, 2005)

I would argue that IWC's 5000 calibre with 7 day power reserve (All in-house) is better than Rolex's in house on any day.



DocD said:


> I don't understand why Rolex gets bashed simply because of it's popularity or because some perceive some of the people wearing a Rolex to be sleaze bags.
> 
> Just because some guy wearing a pinky ring and a polyester suit decides to purchase a Rolex, doesn't mean a Rolex isn't a quality watch. Unfortunately, Rolex has been tagged as some sort of "status" symbol in some circles, but that doesn't make it any less of a quality watch.
> 
> ...


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

I speak here on behalf of my grandfather, deceased 10 years ago aged 101, who was a working jeweller throughout his life, and the first person to bring Omega to Britain - largely because he met the relevant people when they were working together during the Treaty of Versailles (where my Grandfather, as a Yiddish speaker was assigned to drive German Officers and report on their conversations - sneaky huh?).

Anyway he always put the list in this way:

First Division


Vacheron & Constantin
Breguet
Audemars Piguet
Patek Phillipe
Jaeger Le Coultre
Girrard Peregaux
Second Division


IWC
Glasshutte
Lange
Zenith
Omega
Blancpain
Some of the newer brands are (obviously) not here and I agree that the Seiko spring mechanism is significant. But no list is definitive - save mine obviously 

As for Rolex, 'They're for people who don't mind spending money on the name. The value of the watch is about 1/3 of its price to the jeweller'. Please bear in mind that the normal jeweller's markup is 100%...


----------



## mchern02 (Oct 24, 2005)

TALC said:


> The correct list:
> 
> 1) Vacheron
> 2) Patek
> ...


...Audemar Piguet? A Lange? Bregeut?


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

LD111134 said:


> I'm sure that I'm speaking for the other members of the forum when I commend and acknowledge your service, and as a fellow attorney (I surmise that from your moniker) I appreciate your commitment to military justice. I'm certain that you'll get the watch you truly want in good time. :icon_smile:


By the way, thank you for the comments. I just now noticed them. And yes, you have interpreted my moniker correctly. One day, I hope to get out and make enough money to buy nice watches and Alexander Kabbaz's custom shirts.


----------



## jholbrook (Jul 12, 2007)

mchern02 said:


> I would argue that IWC's 5000 calibre with 7 day power reserve (All in-house) is better than Rolex's in house on any day.


OK....why?


----------



## jholbrook (Jul 12, 2007)

My personal Top Watch Brands, in no particular order:

Patek
Lang
G.O.
JLC
IWC
Rolex 
Vacheron

Note: I realize I didn't list ten. It was on purpose.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*JAGMA/Citizen*

Gentlemen,

JAGMJ, my first macho Army watch was the original chronosport, from Citizen. I wore this before Stallone destroyed the look!
And continued along that path including the Luminox. Which was a gift then. And the reason for the gift was because I could not see during night ops at all.This was a favorite of mine until I got out. Then, as your lawyer friend said . Treat yourself.
To a fine German watch. Glashutte Original!

Nice day my friend

I love the selections from Beresford!


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> JAGMJ, my first macho Army watch was the original chronosport, from Citizen. I wore this before Stallone destroyed the look!
> And continued along that path including the Luminox. Which was a gift then. And the reason for the gift was because I could not see during night ops at all.This was a favorite of mine until I got out. Then, as your lawyer friend said . Treat yourself.
> ...


I also have a Luminox, which I wore in Afghanistan due to the fact that you can always tell the time at a glance in literally any light condition. I wasn't happy with the stainless steel band, however, which required the use of thinner pins which easily bent under impact. You would think that they would have designed a watch made for special operations guys a little better than that. Using the rubber dive band, which allowed for thicker pins, was preferable from a functional standpoint, but made it less attractive for daily wear. All-in-all, it's not very fancy, but at least I have one Swiss watch.


----------



## Mithras (Apr 21, 2006)

Simon Myerson said:


> First Division
> 
> 
> Vacheron & Constantin
> ...


+1
I would maybe add the new Chopard in house movements as well as the exceptional movements done by U. Nardin (though often crass watches) as well as many other boutique makers. But for the large major players, this is the list.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*JAGMAJ*

My friend

You are right. Have had problems with the pins on 2-3 occasions under hard work etc.
There is a nice spec. ops. type of watch out there made by MTM. Getting high review from the Marine Corps types and Army types over there now.
Too much watch for me now!
Maybe 15 years ago or more.
Im in retirement kind of. You still have a love for it. You will see.

Nice day my friend


----------



## ItalianGent (May 2, 2008)

..And here I am with a Tissot on my wrist!:icon_headagainstwal


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

ItalianGent said:


> ..And here I am with a Tissot on my wrist!:icon_headagainstwal


Absolutely no shame in that whatsoever. They represent terrific value for money in my opinion.

Chris.


----------



## Fuzzypuppy (Mar 30, 2008)

My list:

1. Patek
2. Lange
3. Rolex
4. Vacheron
5. Breguet
6. Glashutte
7. Zenith

Despite the fact that I own several of them, I don't consider Omega and Breitling to be particularly "important" brands, to use the (more than a little bit pretentious) term that Antiquorum likes to throw around. While Omega has done a little to compensate with the co-axial, they're both primarily ETA refinishers. I like them from an aesthetic point of view, which is why I own them. Panerai likewise.

I think Rolex is the most underrated of the brands, simply because many people write them off as pure yuppie branding. Doing so completely disregards the innovations they make that become the de facto standard for the rest of the world. It's not as finished and meticulous a product as the Lange or the Patek, but it is not meant to be. The hallmark of the brand is reliability and robustness, not something the Patek or Lange is designed for.

I can speak to that quality first hand, as my GMT II has been on the receiving end of the HE treatment from unfriendly foreigners. My pateks, while immaculately beautiful, would not have shrugged off the effects of that so well.

I don't own a VC, Breguet or Glashutte, but in my mind they belong on almost any list that has Lange and Patek on it.


----------



## shirtguy (Oct 12, 2006)

Whats with cartier it hasnt been mentioned at all?


----------



## sid1971 (May 12, 2009)

Here's my choice..

1. Patek Philippe
2. A.Lange and Sohne
3. Jaeger Le Coultre
4. Zenith
5. Bregeut
6. Hublot
7. IWC
8. Franck Muller
9. Rolex
10.Blancpain


----------



## Mithras (Apr 21, 2006)

shirtguy said:


> Whats with cartier it hasnt been mentioned at all?


My mother has a Cartier. The last two times they CHANGED the movement under warrantee they actually had a car come pick it up and drop it off at her house. (It was a quartz Bagnoire). They eventually gave up and sourced a NOS mechanical Bagnoire and gifted it to her. Cartier makes very nice jewelry and their watches, while nice to look at, are nothing special.


----------



## LanceW (Jun 2, 2009)

IMO, the problem Cartier faces in this thread is they are more of a jeweler and less of a watchmaker.


----------



## shirtguy (Oct 12, 2006)

so your paying for the name over the quality of making a watch as in a rolex?


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

Hello,

Cartier has always done a huge amount of outsourcing, both for its watches and its jewellery. Even during the "glory years" of the firm when it was still independent much of the work supposedly done in the "Cartier workshops" was done by independent Hatton Garden jewellers such as Cropp and Farr and their French equivalents. Whereas jewellery buyers seem prepared to accept this, watch buyers are more and more interested in watches that are made entirely by the manufacturer. Cartier doesn't even has its own factory as far as I'm aware and it certainly doesn't make its own movements. They also make far more quartz watches than most of the true watchmaking greats.

Having said all that, the resale prices still seem to be very good so obviously Joe Public appreciates the brand even if most of those who consider themselves to be watch afficianados don't feel they are worth the prices charged.

Chris.


----------



## Nerev (Apr 25, 2009)

While I am not too sure about their accuracy, I like the look of Movado watches. Very minimalistic, sleek, and simple. I am not a fan of non-round, big, gawdy, or watches with excessive additions to them, just not my style.


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

chrstc said:


> Hello,
> 
> Cartier has always done a huge amount of outsourcing, both for its watches and its jewellery. Even during the "glory years" of the firm when it was still independent much of the work supposedly done in the "Cartier workshops" was done by independent Hatton Garden jewellers such as Cropp and Farr and their French equivalents. Whereas jewellery buyers seem prepared to accept this, watch buyers are more and more interested in watches that are made entirely by the manufacturer. Cartier doesn't even has its own factory as far as I'm aware and it certainly doesn't make its own movements. They also make far more quartz watches than most of the true watchmaking greats.
> 
> ...


It is true that Cartier have had and continue to have a portion of their jewellery manufactured by third party suppliers. (When Paris, London and NY were independently managed, their manufacturing and sourcing protocols were very inconsistent -- this is now ancient history.) Part of the rationale is pure economics, but sometimes it is about a specific expertise that is rare to find and impractical to bring in-house for a variety of reasons, one of which being that the best artisan in the field is simply unwilling to give up his independence. If the best in the field works out of his garden shed in southwest France, for example, and has no interest in losing his independence, then so be it as long as Cartier have access to the required expertise as a third party.

Whilst C incorporated a "watch subsidiary" called the European Watch Co. in Geneva many moons ago, it was simply a post office box. Throughout the years, the most that they have done is assembly, and to be fair, I do not believe that they really ever pretended to be a _manufacture_ despite the PO box company. Like Rolex, they were not a _manufacture_ but introduced many iconic watches. Regardless, whether one considers C to be a jewellery brand or a watch brand is subject to (occasionally heated) debate, as approximately 60% of their sales are in timepieces.

Also, if one's interests extend to slightly older watches, it may be worth noting that there are a few models from the likes of Cartier and Tiffany in the first half of the last century that are rebadged Pateks. These pieces, often complications, tend to command robust prices on the market.

It is fairly common for a discussion about watch brands becoming a bit muddled because some place importance on a brand also being a _manufacture_ and others simply do not think it is all that important. Some people's benchmarks are habitual overachievers like Patek and George Daniels; others think of the Tank, Santos, Bubbleback, Daytona et al.

As for me, I go by looks. I think a Daniels watch, with its Breguet inspired looks, will do rather nicely.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## constantmystery (Apr 18, 2006)

Someone once said that $250 buys you all you need in a mechanical watch to ensure a reasonable level of accuracy and spending any more than that was buying "jewelry". I guess that is how Cartier fits into the picture. And i write that as an owner of a beautiful 18k "Tank Louis" that I wear as a dress watch. I also own a vintage Gruen Curvex, Vulcain alarm watch, and Jaegar Wrist Alarm.

But what do I wear most days? (a beater) My Citizen Eco Drive tank watch...about $100.00. Very accurate, solar powered, and very thin!


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

constantmystery said:


> Someone once said that $250 buys you all you need in a mechanical watch to ensure a reasonable level of accuracy and spending any more than that was buying "jewelry". I guess that is how Cartier fits into the picture. And i write that as an owner of a beautiful 18k "Tank Louis" that I wear as a dress watch. I also own a vintage Gruen Curvex, Vulcain alarm watch, and Jaegar Wrist Alarm.
> 
> But what do I wear most days? (a beater) My Citizen Eco Drive tank watch...about $100.00. Very accurate, solar powered, and very thin!


In the same way that a "sports watch" made of precious metal is a contradictory concept...

I think that to characterise anything selling for more than $250 as being jewellery is oversimplifying as it seems to disregard the fact that some of these complications are profound achievements in mechanical engineering and manufacturing (albeit admittedly entirely unnecessary like, ahem, a piece of jewellery:icon_smile_big.

I agree that if one's over-riding priority is accuracy, I think the Japanese brands ought to win every time.


----------



## shirtguy (Oct 12, 2006)

I would say a quartz would do just fine for accuracy


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

misterdonuts said:


> In the same way that a "sports watch" made of precious metal is a contradictory concept...


Hi md,

Yes, that's my number one most hated sort of watch on the market. A solid gold submariner with a diamond bezel or a Breitling Navitimer with diamonds on it etc etc. A watch that manages to lose sight of both its form and its function and is suitable only for posers.

Chris.


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

chrstc said:


> Hi md,
> 
> Yes, that's my number one most hated sort of watch on the market. A solid gold submariner with a diamond bezel or a Breitling Navitimer with diamonds on it etc etc. A watch that manages to lose sight of both its form and its function and is suitable only for posers.
> 
> Chris.


:icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big:


----------



## glowell222 (Apr 20, 2009)

sid1971 said:


> Here's my choice..
> 
> 1. Patek Philippe
> 2. A.Lange and Sohne
> ...


I agree with this, but I would strike Rolex and Muller and add Hamilton and Ball. Nothing wrong with Rolex and Muller, just a personal preference.


----------



## manmaru (May 5, 2009)

*Patek and Lange*

Any true watch enthusiast know that Patek and A. Lange are two undisputed champions in the watch world. No other brands come close. Patek's initial success had a lot to do with A. Lange's technology during WWii and it has scumulated tremendous amount of wealth during the last 70 years. Patek is dominant. If you are looking for value beyond Patek, go for a grand complication Lange. Their production is really limited and the quality and taste is even one notch above Patek. Put all expert advices aside, put two watches next to each other, you will know what I am talking about. Trust your own judgement.

Having said that, I am glad that one of my Calatrava that I paid $8K for almost 10 years ago is selling for $20K in the store. Rolex is a good watch if you want a mechenical Seiko.



deanayer said:


> I really like this list, I would make my own but to do it justice I would need to rut around in a host of publications and then winnow the list. I do want to add a +1 for the exclusion of Rolex watches, not just for their mechanical shortcomings but (and not to be snobbish) they tend to show up on the wrong wrists such as those owned by cigarette boat drivers with guts and gold chains stalking the docks at Claudio's in Greenport Long Island for example. The boat is normally named "Excavator" or some such. I also wouldn't include Omega although they truly make a great sports watch in stainless and I think they get the job done without the garishness of a Rolex. Someone also tossed Ulysse Nardin from their list and I would add them together with Corum on the cuttting room floor and I say that even as I plan to buy either an Admirals Cup or a Nardin Marine Annual Chronograph, both great looking watches just not "Top ten on earth" - that and I dont have the 25,000$+ to get a really sweet world-beater watch. I have to draw the line somewhere.
> 
> ...on a final note I was on the Cape last weekend and some friends had their teenage text-message-aholic kids with them and none of them either own a watch or know a friend who does so get your dream watch now before the watch goes the way of the piano and the grandfather clock and the detachable collar shirt.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Nerev said:


> While I am not too sure about their accuracy, I like the look of Movado watches. Very minimalistic, sleek, and simple. I am not a fan of non-round, big, gawdy, or watches with excessive additions to them, just not my style.


With the advent of the quartz movement, accuracy has ceased to be a real issue. A cheap digital quartz is likely to be as accurate as the most expensive analog. The Movado was my first "good" watch. I spent a year clipping out ads and comparing reviews before reaching the conclusion that if it was good enough for MOMA, It was good enough for me.
BTW, they have just come out with a sub, based on the original design. If I didn't have an Omega, I'd be seriously tempted.


----------



## Nick V (May 8, 2007)

While on vacation 10 years ago I bought my wife (at the time) a Rolex. I was going to purchase a matching one for myself. When I tried it on I couldn't stand it. So, I opted for a Raymond Weil. I loved it and at 1/3 the price I thought it was a bargain. Well, it was. I put a battery in it every 18 months or so and it always keeps perfect time. My Ex's was constantly going into the shop (Rolex in Manhattan) for repairs and scratches. You name it, it went. My Weil has never been in the shop other than a new battery. I work on heavy machinery, bang it against all kinds of hard surfaces, I fell on it playing roller hockey, I even wear it scuba diving (only shallow dives) anything beyond 30 feet I'll take it off. It never even fogged. Till this day except for a small scratch on the bracelet it looks brand new. When I have it cleaned, it looks like it came out of the showcase. That's what I call value!


----------



## tsaltzma (Jun 3, 2009)

*My 10*

I can't afford any high end watches so my list is for sub $500 makers. Some of these are real bargains under $100.

1. Citizen Eco Drive
2. Nixon - cool looking watches, and virtually indestructable
3. Guess - cheap, stylish, relatively durable
4. Wenger/Swiss Army
5. Kenneth Cole - nothing special, but simple, elegant, inexpensive
6. Fossil
7. Tissot
8. Invicta
9. Skagen
10. Seiko


----------



## pichao (Apr 13, 2008)

*German independent watchmaking*

Dont forget the German independent watchmakers, like Jörg Schauer and Dirk Dornblueth.

They will give you a lot of quality for comparatively little money.


----------



## LanceW (Jun 2, 2009)

Whilst I tried to resist, as a watch idiot savant, I suppose it would only be proper for me to provide input as well. My list, alphabetically:

A. Lange & Söhne
Audemars Piguet
Breguet
IWC
Jaeger-LeCoultre
Officine Panerai
Patek Philippe
Rolex
Ulysse Nardin
Vacheron Constantin


----------



## LanceW (Jun 2, 2009)

This is precisely why I tried to avoid this thread in the first place. After further consideration, Panerai, despite their recent advances as a manufacturer as well as my own personal preferences, should not supersede the renown chronographs of Zenith.

I humbly request my previous recommendation of Panerai be replaced with Zenith.

A. Lange & Söhne
Audemars Piguet
Breguet
IWC
Jaeger-LeCoultre
Patek Philippe
Rolex
Ulysse Nardin
Vacheron Constantin
Zenith


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

Hello,

As a totally unbiased (!) Zenith owner, I'm glad you've decided to make the switch!

Chris.


----------



## ImageIsCofidence (May 20, 2008)

What about 'knock-off's'? I bought 3 Rolex knocks offs. One is still 2 are still running after more than 11 years. One...I still can't tell its a replica. Even a jeweler thought it was real and the diamonds are real. And it screams, "I'm worth thousands".

However, I did pick up a Kenneth Cole KC6044 for $30. Unfortunately, after I typed in the model number online, its comes up as a womans' watch. (I thought the 2 other bands had a strange color for men)

Anyone have recommendations for a similar watch in a similar price?


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

ImageIsCofidence said:


> What about 'knock-off's'? I bought 3 Rolex knocks offs. One is still 2 are still running after more than 11 years. One...I still can't tell its a replica. Even a jeweler thought it was real and the diamonds are real. And it screams, "I'm worth thousands".
> 
> However, I did pick up a Kenneth Cole KC6044 for $30. Unfortunately, after I typed in the model number online, its comes up as a womans' watch. (I thought the 2 other bands had a strange color for men)
> 
> Anyone have recommendations for a similar watch in a similar price?


I think most people on this forum (myself included) frown on counterfeit watches. Part of owning a nice watch is the satisfaction in knowing that it is, in fact, a nice watch. If you just want to impress people, however, I suppose you get your money's worth with a good counterfeit.


----------



## mysharona (Nov 4, 2008)

Beresford said:


> 1. Armitron
> 
> 2. Swatch
> 
> ...


Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(This is a joke right?)


----------



## archduke (Nov 21, 2003)

how on earth anyone can say that a Patek is better than a Breguet, or that a AP is better than JLC beats me. It cannot be a matter of accuracy or else a cheap qurtz watch would be in front, so what is it?
I know that I can judge one shirt against another because they are inherently uncomplicated compared to engineered devices. 

How do you know the materials that go into every watch?. Do you know the tolerence of each component in each watch? Or do you go by beauty? or style? So what if a movement is in house? what does that actually prove?
As for the old Rolex question- it suffers from its own success. What is the use of a watch worth £10000 if cannot resist a dip in water or a knock on the side? The whole point of a wrist watch is that is a practical mobile time piece; otherwise wear a pocket watch.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

IMO there are six components to watch ownership:

1. time keeping
2. jewellery
3. engineering
4. appearance (some overlap with jewellery)
5. investment value
6. image

There is no objective way to weight these components, and some of the components are more subjective than others. I think it's perfectly reasonable to want an expensive mechanical watch because of the engineering, just as someone might want to own a Curta calculator even though an HP19B II (not the HP19B, which lacks RPN...) is far better for most purposes. 

I'm not into personal jewellery, but that's my own choice. I think that time keeping is the most important, and I do appreciate engineering - but engineering itself is subjective. From a technological standpoint, by far the most impressive - indisputably far more than any mechanical watch in history - is the modern atomic clock, and hence I find that in principle those watches which get their time from the clock in Boulder represent the highest point that timekeeping has yet achieved. Yet many of the same people who will praise the engineering of a high priced mechanical will dismiss such watches...

FWIW I suspect that far more people will buy a watch for the jewellery and image components than are prepared to admit as much.


----------



## Bartolo (Mar 2, 2009)

chrstc said:


> Hello,
> 
> As a totally unbiased (!) Zenith owner, I'm glad you've decided to make the switch!
> 
> Chris.


While Zenith's movements have been legendary, the direction that their designs have been going in leave me TOTALLY flat. Taste certainly is personal, but much of their recent designs are totally ugly to me.


----------



## Bartolo (Mar 2, 2009)

StephenRG said:


> IMO there are six components to watch ownership:
> 
> 1. time keeping
> 2. jewellery
> ...


I own quite a few very nice mechanical watches (Rolex, Panerai, Ulysse Nardin, Omega, IWC) and I agree with you. There is much nonsense and self-justification among those who spend these amounts of money for what I agree is jewelry.

There is no one criterion for what makes any brand "tops."


----------



## JayGatsby (Mar 30, 2009)

The only criteria for a "top" watch brand is one YOU enjoy wearing.


----------



## Prisoner of Zendaline (Dec 8, 2008)

*Back when I wore watches, I wanted*

Bueche Girod
Vacheron Constantin
Patek Philippe

Is Rolex really something that people of quality actually wear? Isn't that the equivalent of driving a sports car? Something for affluent slobs to use for picking up skanks?

Anyway, now that I can afford one of the above, I'm sticking with the humble Skagen that saw me through decades of penury. Watches complicate my shirt cuffs situation, and the cell phone tells time perfectly, anyway. So the Brushed stainless Skagen to dress up my arm at the gym (where Cell phones are prohibited...plus, it's sweat-proof), and my old Wittenaeur (Cordovan band, of course) for funerals (where cell phones are even more Verboten). Honestly, it's been months since any of the watches have seen the light of day.


----------



## JayGatsby (Mar 30, 2009)

Prisoner of Zendaline said:


> Bueche Girod
> Vacheron Constantin
> Patek Philippe
> 
> ...


That seems to be the case today, unfortunately. We have clocks on the wall, clocks in our cars, clocks on our cell phones, etc... It is very difficult NOT to know what time it is without having to wear a watch.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

IWC makes the classiest looking watch for me...

having said that, Oris is about the best for value, although it will never make the list

I own 5 watches, 2 in inherited and while they are jewelry they are ok timepieces, beautiful watches.

I own an Omega Seamaster 120 (so the small one, not the diving one). I also own two Oris watches, one is the frank sinatra with the metal band, a really nice watch, silver with black face adn the Classic which I fould after it had been discontinued and practically stole. I am very happy with these three watches although if I was to buy one more it would be a little sleeker than any of these, or I could just break down and wear my Universal Geneuve (sp) in white gold.


----------



## Luis-F-S (Apr 6, 2009)

"Is Rolex really something that people of quality actually wear? Isn't that the equivalent of driving a sports car? Something for affluent slobs to use for picking up skanks?"

Interesting comment; although I've owned a Rolex since I was 28; and still have my father's bubbleback; I also own several Pateks, and Vacheron; have been to Geneva twice and to the different manufacturer's in the Valle and Plan-Les-Ouates. The Rolex while certainly a much less refined watch the others is still the most indestructible of the lot. In my opinion, the trilogy of fine Swiss watchmaking is still: Patek, Vacheron and Audemars.


----------



## Prisoner of Zendaline (Dec 8, 2008)

Luis-F-S said:


> "Is Rolex really something that people of quality actually wear? Isn't that the equivalent of driving a sports car? Something for affluent slobs to use for picking up skanks?"
> 
> Interesting comment; although I've owned a Rolex since I was 28; and still have my father's bubbleback; I also own several Pateks, and Vacheron; have been to Geneva twice and to the different manufacturer's in the Valle and Plan-Les-Ouates. The Rolex while certainly a much less refined watch the others is still the most indestructible of the lot. In my opinion, the trilogy of fine Swiss watchmaking is still: Patek, Vacheron and Audemars.


Well, it definitely sounds like you're a person of quality. So a Rolex is OK, if worn for appropriately sport/casual occasions? That's good to know. I worried that Rolex was in the 'untouchables' category with Louis Vuitton.


----------



## FlashForFreedom (May 16, 2009)

My ten...

Glashuette Original
Rolex
Patek Philippe
A. Lange & Soehne
Blancpain
Audemars Piguet
Officine Panerai
IWC
Zenith
Sinn (a personal favorite)

These are not the 10 highest quality brands, but I tried to think about what the companies offered, and what 10 watches I'd want in different price ranges. Certainly JLC and VC are better than Sinn, but for what they offer, I'd rather have a GO or AP. IWC gets the nod for the breadth of styles they offer. Zenith for the El Primero chronos... Rolex is a great watch, especially some of their sport watches. It is hard to argue the tradliness of the GMT Master (especially with a Pepsi bezel) or a Submariner. Also, Rolex held strong with automatic movements during the "quartz revolution" of the 70s and 80s, while other more mainstream watch companies cut a lot of their classic lines for quartz. Now that mechanical watches are back en vogue, I am grateful that Rolex held out (I know they made an oysterquartz, but it wasn't very popular).

Sinn is not as expensive as the rest of these, but I think they are such an innovative company - one of my favorite watchmakers.

I think the watch company that has gone from Trad and iconic to garish so quickly (and tragically) is Tag Heuer. Classic Heuers are some of the most fashionable and iconic watches out there (original Carerras, Monaco, Autiva, etc.) - basically the pre-TAG line of watches. There was a glimmer of hope 
when they had a line of classic reissues, but then the deviated. The Grand Carerra offers some hope.

Bottom line, if someone who knows nothing of style, quality, and craftsmanship wants a "status" watch, he is going to spend $1000 on a quartz TAG Heuer, not a Rolex. At least Rolex guy is buying an automatic watch. I laugh every time I see someone trendily dressed with a brand new TAG quartz watch, and I laugh even more when others who know nothing of watches compliment the guy with the quartz TAG (sorry, the WIS in me just can't recognize quartz watches).


----------



## LanceW (Jun 2, 2009)

I am a fan of Sinn as well.


----------



## beams37 (Jul 14, 2009)

Many have left off 

Tag Hauer !!

It's a personal favorite of mine.


----------



## Mithras (Apr 21, 2006)

beams37 said:


> Many have left off
> 
> Tag Hauer !!
> 
> It's a personal favorite of mine.


Is that the Chinese knock-off?

I don't think TAG Heuer is anything special, though I am a fan (and proud owner) of pre-TAG "Heuers".

The racetrack series (Monaco, Sebring, Silverstone, Daytona etc.) are iconic watces with great movements.


----------



## Salieri (Jun 18, 2009)

Since this is a style forum and not a mechanical engineering forum I feel no guilt or sheepishness in expressing the fact that I like *Cartier*. I wear a two-tone Cartier santos on an almost daily basis and what's more it's quartz. Mechanical movements, and in particular automatic movements, don't come close to the reliability or accuracy of a quartz movement so for an actual timekeeping device I feel quartz is really the only sensible option. That said I'm actually a massive fan of mechanical watches and have a 1923 *Illinois *crown-wind wristwatch and a 1955 automatic *Bulova *that I wear on special occasions, as well as a small collection of half a dozen or so pocket watches of the late C19th early C20th. As a result, other favourite brands include *Waltham, Hamilton, Elgin, Longines, Cortebert, Omega* etc.

I can't see the big attraction of Rolex either. They just appear to be an attractive name.


----------



## archduke (Nov 21, 2003)

Prisoner of Zendaline said:


> Bueche Girod
> Vacheron Constantin
> Patek Philippe
> 
> ...


This is the kind of stuff I mean. This makes me want to go out and buy the rolex milgauss I recently saw but someone beat me to it. So long as there are posts like that I know there must something RIGHT about a Rolex.

I suppose characters on here can tell the excellence of an F14 tomcat versus MIG 27.


----------



## weckl (Jun 28, 2003)

pichao said:


> Dont forget the German independent watchmakers, like Jörg Schauer and Dirk Dornblueth.
> 
> They will give you a lot of quality for comparatively little money.


YES. Schauer watches are numbered and he signs a document of authenticity with each one. He and a few employees make every watch by hand. They use ETA movements, but so does IWC, Omega, etc. Best bang for your buck in the watch world.


----------



## weckl (Jun 28, 2003)

Prisoner of Zendaline said:


> I worried that Rolex was in the 'untouchables' category with Louis Vuitton.


I think Rolex has become a comically overpriced "luxury brand," and thus difficult to take seriously, in the same way LV is difficult to take seriously, regardless of how well-made their purses and luggage might be. Who on earth could spend $3500 on a crappy little Rolex Air King and be able to convince himself that he's not just paying for the name?


----------



## Mithras (Apr 21, 2006)

weckl said:


> I think Rolex has become a comically overpriced "luxury brand," and thus difficult to take seriously, in the same way LV is difficult to take seriously, regardless of how well-made their purses and luggage might be. Who on earth could spend $3500 on a crappy little Rolex Air King and be able to convince himself that he's not just paying for the name?


The Rolex Air King is actually one of the few Rolex's I would ever entertain the thoughts of buying! A SS Air King with a Salmon face to be precise. In today's day and age it's actually a fairly understated watch. Not too big, not flashy and reminds me of the 50's/60's.

What I don't understand is the solid gold President etc&#8230; Is it a sports watch? NO, but it looks like one yet is fairly unsuitable to be used as one. It's a big clunky DRESS watch when a dress watch should be understated and elegant. Squarely falls into the neither fish nor fowl catagory&#8230; many Breitlings and yes even some Pateks and GP's fall into this trap (the gold and/or overly complicated Nautilus's and Royal Oaks come to mind).

Those are the watches I don't understand and shake my head a little when I see someone flaunting one. The little Air King on the other hand was made for a time when Rolex was just another well built Swiss watch, before the 80's when all yuppie-hood broke loose and people started to roll up the sleeves of their sports jackets&#8230;


----------



## FlashForFreedom (May 16, 2009)

Mithras said:


> Is that the Chinese knock-off?
> 
> I don't think TAG Heuer is anything special, though I am a fan (and proud owner) of pre-TAG "Heuers".
> 
> The racetrack series (Monaco, Sebring, Silverstone, Daytona etc.) are iconic watces with great movements.


pre-TAG "Heuers" are stunning combinations of mechanics and fashion... I wish they would go back to their classic line instead of producing more oversized watches.


----------



## weckl (Jun 28, 2003)

Mithras said:


> The little Air King on the other hand was made for a time when Rolex was just another well built Swiss watch, before the 80's when all yuppie-hood broke loose and people started to roll up the sleeves of their sports jackets&#8230;


I agree with you about the garish "sports watches" out there that are diamond-encrusted and made from platinum, gold, etc. But the Air King has absolutely no features, and if you're looking for an understated dress watch, you certainly don't have to pay over $3000 (and that's for their most basic stainless model).

With Rolex, you're paying for the name and advertising budget more than for the product, much like LV (is a canvas Keepall that probably cost $40 to make really worth $2500?). Are Rolexes nice watches? Of course, but not worth the money at this point. I envy the guys who bought Submariners in the 1980s for $800.


----------



## inq89 (Dec 3, 2008)

I'm sure many of you guys know this, but I'd go to sales corners in www.timezone.com if you're looking for a watch. Buy from one of the respected posters. They have some great deals for used watches. I don't think I could every buy a brand new watch after discovering that forum.


----------



## LanceW (Jun 2, 2009)

I can second the recommendation for Timezone


----------



## archduke (Nov 21, 2003)

Rolexes are overvalued now because of the strength of the Swiss franc. Also the vintage market is quite high priced.
The AP royal oak has an absolutely classic design, EXCEPT in many of its present ridiculous guises where the size is huge and the actual telling of thetime is completely lost. In my mind they are as bad as any diamond encrusted rolex but that does not make the AP company somehow bad. They are just being stupid for time being. Recall that AP pays huge amounts for people to endorse its products, but it still the case that the watches are well respected.

I am under the impression that the submariner is a classic design. It has to be since it is copied so often. So is the explorer. I could and would go for one of those in a jiffy. But the price is just too high and they are not worth that price.

As for airking, I bet it does not have o be swaddled and mollicoddled like a Patek calatrava. And Patek simply cannot design a decent sports watch.

Only if you can afford to write off a huge amount of money can you buy a Patek or VC or Lange


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

I had a Rolex Datejust, two tone, with the Jubilee bracelet. I found a newer model of the Datejust, all stainless with the new bracelet and got one at a great price with the black sunburst dial. Also got a JLC Master Control and saved $2000 from what a good Dr. paid for it 6 months earlier from an AD.

You are right, I do not have to mollycoddle my Rolex. It has a horological pedigree, but it is a different sort of watch than a Calatrava (which if I ever can get, I would love). Rolex may have great marketing, but in the end, to sell as many watches as they do, you have to deliver the goods, pure and simple. Too many returns, and dealers would not carry it. A helluva sturdy watch and since it sells, why mess with success? Omega makes a great watch too, but if it had been the first James Bond watch and taken off, they might have been what Rolex is now.


----------



## archduke (Nov 21, 2003)

All watch companies rely on superb advertising.

Note the Omega ad of the speedmaster. The moon is mentioned but the backdrop is a huge picture of JFK. He may or may not have worn an Omega but they have captured something powerful and ephemeral there. It made me want to go out and find out how much the omega cost etc.

Memphislawyer is right; if Bond had worn Omega then Rolex would have had a very difficult job of marketing thereon.

Does anyone actually believe the campaign that PP run? But it is powerful. Even Breguet run plenty of ads.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

archduke said:


> All watch companies rely on superb advertising.
> 
> Note the Omega ad of the speedmaster. The moon is mentioned but the backdrop is a huge picture of JFK. He may or may not have worn an Omega but they have captured something powerful and ephemeral there. It made me want to go out and find out how much the omega cost etc.
> 
> ...


When you, the consumer, buy a heavily-advertised brand, a significant part of the price you pay is the cost of the advertising - so, to put not too fine a point on it, you're paying for the privilege of being suckered.

Choosing to pay a lot of money for a high-quality mechanical watch is fair enough - not my choice, but no mind. I appreciate the cost of labour, materials, etc.

But where is the value in paying significantly for the advertising?


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

Stephen, sure, there is advertising, same as with Ford, Mercedes, BMW, Hyundai. Is a Mercedes proportionally better than a Hyundai, safer, or whatever metric you use, relative to the cost of each? Probably not. Sure, part of the purchase of a Rolex is saying you can afford it, or you have arrived, or is conspicuous consumption. But it is one rugged watch. I have liked Omega and still want a nice vintage one. But Omega advertises too. I may have paid a premium for my Rolex, but hey, won't be the first time I have bought something that is overpriced. I did trade a Datejust in to get my wife a Rolex and got 60% of what I paid ($2900 out of like $4700) and had it 10 years.


----------



## LD111134 (Dec 21, 2007)

+1, Memphis lawyer (from a former Memphian).


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

memphislawyer said:


> Stephen, sure, there is advertising, same as with Ford, Mercedes, BMW, Hyundai. Is a Mercedes proportionally better than a Hyundai, safer, or whatever metric you use, relative to the cost of each? Probably not.


There are two different things - one is the general question of quality versus production cost, where it's generally accepted that there are diminishing returns in many products. The other is the extent to which the cost of branding - the marketing, promotion, advertising, etc - affects the overall cost of the item.

For example, if company X makes shoes for $100 (labour, raw materials, apportioned factory cost, etc.) which it sells for $250, and company Y makes shoes for $200 (likewise) which it sells for $500, the doubled cost may not translate as doubled quality, but there may be a sufficient increase that some people would be content to pay the extra,

However, if company Z also makes shoes for $200 - let's say, by the same factory and to the same standards as company Y, and then spends an average of $300 per pair persuading people that they're a must-have item for $1000, you're dealing with the same sales ratio, but the advertising cost adds nothing to the value of the shoes, and anyone who buys those shoes is paying a $500 premium to be suckered.

Of course, having been persuaded to part with an extra $500, the buyers may also be persuaded by the same advertising that they've done the right thing, and there is a counter-argument that the psychological benefit/reward for wearing the $1,000 shoes makes them worth the $1,000.

But as the old con artists used to say, the best con is when the sucker doesn't realise he's been conned even after the con.

And it's an old observation of mine that it's often enough cheaper even in the long-term to advertise telling people how good you are rather than being that good (see any Dell commercial).

Many years ago there was a commercial for a UK insurance company which showed the money managers in a spanking new dealing room, high-tech equipment everywhere , highly impressive, etc. - and to my certain and personal knowledge their actual dealing room was like an old British Rail waiting room, with two desks shoved together and almost everything was done on paper, hanging files everywhere. That, too, was branding.


----------



## archduke (Nov 21, 2003)

After extensive googling etc...:

Rolex- Their past watches it seems have been sober and offer a no nonsense watch. They have not really altered much especially the submariner, which would seem to be a practical watch that later became fashionable. Presumably there is something in the design. (Recall that the English hunting clothes became fashionable to be worn in town, and hence the evolution into the suits that we love here so much.) Diamond encrusted watches are for chavs and porn stars. And what the hell is the Cellini for?

JLC- Absolutely beautiful master series. Clumsy looking compressors which despite huge crowns manage water resistance of 100m. They just cannot design a sports watch to rival rolex.
Oh, and what the hell is the use of a reserve de mache?

AP- the perfect design of the royal oak. It's stunning. Then completely ruined in its garish versions which are every bit as bad as a solid gold rolex. these deserve to be worn by the cast of The Fast and Furious (great film though). Then they get Montoya to wear it and the guy disappears from F1 never to be seen again.

VC - Read somewhere that these need servicing only every 5-6 years because of the quality of construction. And they are beautiful. So why don't the second hand prices rival PP? Herd instinct?

IWC - Lovely Portugese. But otherwise a watch for those who are snobbish about rolex, viz, ' .....I just can't stand rolex. This is a watch that very few ordinary people know about. Prince Charles wears one actually...' etc.
The reason for existence of the pilot watches died with Antoine de Saint Exupery.

PP - Beautiful watches no doubt. Their sports watchs have the 1970's look and should have remained there- perfect in an episode of The Persuaders with Roger Moore.
The non sport watches cannot be worn whilst doing anything more strenuous than having a haircut. Nor can you sneeze on one because they are not water resistant enough.
But it is possible to exchange a complication for an entire half of Albania.


----------



## archduke (Nov 21, 2003)

After extensive googling etc...:

Rolex- Their past watches it seems have been sober and offer a no nonsense watch. They have not really altered much especially the submariner, which would seem to be a practical watch that later became fashionable. Presumably there is something in the design. (Recall that the English hunting clothes became fashionable to be worn in town, and hence the evolution into the suits that we love here so much.) Diamond encrusted watches are for chavs and porn stars. And what the hell is the Cellini for?

JLC- Absolutely beautiful master series. Clumsy looking compressors which despite huge crowns manage water resistance of 100m. They just cannot design a sports watch to rival rolex.
Oh, and what the hell is the use of a reserve de mache?

AP- the perfect design of the royal oak. It's stunning. Then completely ruined in its garish versions which are every bit as bad as a solid gold rolex. these deserve to be worn by the cast of The Fast and Furious (great film though). Then they get Montoya to wear it and the guy disappears from F1 never to be seen again.

VC - Read somewhere that these need servicing only every 5-6 years because of the quality of construction. And they are beautiful. So why don't the second hand prices rival PP? Herd instinct?

IWC - Lovely Portugese. But otherwise a watch for those who are snobbish about rolex, viz, ' .....I just can't stand rolex. This is a watch that few ordinary people know about. Prince Charles wears one actually...' etc.
The reason for existence of the pilot watches died with Antoine de Saint Exupery.

PP - Beautiful watches no doubt. Their sports watchs have the 1970's look and should have remained there- perfect in an episode of The Persuaders with Roger Moore.
The non sport watches cannot be worn whilst doing anything more strenuous than having a haircut. Nor can you sneeze on one because they are not water resistant enough.
But it is possible to exchange a complication for an entire half of Albania.

All this means that I want to own a vintage rolex or any submariner and then buy a PP or VC, preferably used. 
Now then, whre to buy those?
Anyone who feels not yet insulted please help!


----------



## Luis-F-S (Apr 6, 2009)

archduke said:


> After extensive googling etc...:
> 
> Rolex- Their past watches it seems have been sober and offer a no nonsense watch. T And what the hell is the Cellini for?


Ex porn stars-The only reason to wear a President is to prove to your friends that you can wear a sizeable chunk of disposable income around your wrist. For about the same price (or perhaps a bit more nowadays) you can get a Patek Annual Calendar, which is truly a great watch.



archduke said:


> After extensive googling etc...:
> JLC- Absolutely beautiful master series. Clumsy looking compressors which despite huge crowns manage water resistance of 100m. They just cannot design a sports watch to rival rolex.
> Oh, and what the hell is the use of a reserve de mache?


JLC is probably the most undervalued of the great swiss manufacturers-make all their own movements truly great watches. The power reserve tells you how much "winding" you have left in case you really needed to know.



archduke said:


> After extensive googling etc...:
> AP- the perfect design of the royal oak. It's stunning. Then completely ruined in its garish versions which are every bit as bad as a solid gold rolex. these deserve to be worn by the cast of The Fast and Furious (great film though). Then they get Montoya to wear it and the guy disappears from F1 never to be seen again.


I HATE Gerald Genta designs (Royal Oak, Nautilus, etc)-the truly vintage Audemars are wonderful.



archduke said:


> After extensive googling etc...:
> VC - Read somewhere that these need servicing only every 5-6 years because of the quality of construction. And they are beautiful. So why don't the second hand prices rival PP? Herd instinct?


Still should be serviced more often-quality of construction is similar to Audemars and Patek. Again, great watches esp in the vintage category. Very hard to move in the current market.



archduke said:


> After extensive googling etc...:
> PP - Beautiful watches no doubt. Their sports watchs have the 1970's look and should have remained there- perfect in an episode of The Persuaders with Roger Moore.
> The non sport watches cannot be worn whilst doing anything more strenuous than having a haircut. Nor can you sneeze on one because they are not water resistant enough.
> 
> ...


I actually do own a vintage bubbleback; unfortunately you can't really wear it because replacement parts are just not available. Also own several new and vintage PP's, most vintage servicing has to be done in Geneva-usually runs over $2K and 4-6 months for a "simple" automatic. Non-vintage Vacherons can be serviced in their new facility in Texas, which did a quite reasonable and speedy repair for me recently. For vintage-it's back to Geneva. But at least both will service old watches which is more than can be said for Rolex!

Unfortunately, for me most of the watches I love were made between the 1940-1970's and are now all considered "Vintage"-over 20 years old.

I did wear a stainless Patek as my daily watch for over 10 years including through many haircuts. They're more than water resistant for daily wear, no I wouldn't go swiming with it; but I wouldn't swim with any quality watch. For beach wear, get one of the plastic quartz thingies.

Still, my daily beater is a stainless Datejust with the Oyster bracelet. Not a sportswatch-I don't play sports, but a very decent rugged watch which keeps very good time. Can be worn equally well with a suit or a sports shirt!


----------



## archduke (Nov 21, 2003)

Luis,
You bothered to reply to my verbose post and that makes you a gentleman if not a sportsman.

I am stunned by the cost of PP servicing. Obviously my googling was not extensive enough. It is said that the old PP's and Vc's were exquisitely made. 

I am in London and one of the stores here selling vintage PP's has a PP trained technician. Is that of any use?

I have noticed vintage VC's going for $3000-$4000. In fact on a respected site called European watch company. This really surprised me because even 40 year old PP's were about $9000.

Could you recommend a vintage watch seller who operates over the internet or is that not advisable?


----------



## LanceW (Jun 2, 2009)

Much of the vintage market is handled over the Internet. IMO, the pride of Patek is that they will always fix your watch, even if it is 150 years old and missing several pieces. They are more than willing to fabricate new parts, however, those parts come at a very fine price


----------



## Luis-F-S (Apr 6, 2009)

archduke said:


> Luis,
> Could you recommend a vintage watch seller who operates over the internet or is that not advisable?


Unfortunately, I don't know of any. Most of the better vintage pieces are sold through auction houses, either Antiquorum, Christies, or the like. Other than purchasing through a respected auction house, I would be very weary of purchasing unseen through the internet or Ebay. There are horrors of marriages of watch cases and movements that never left the factory together. I've always found the best way is to work with an estate jeweler who either specializes in vintage watches or has access to them.

Vacherons are wonderful watches-as are Pateks-and although both houses will generally repair any watch they've made, the cost may well be prohibitive. They will also make parts to effect the repairs, but again at what cost? I believe Patek is probably better in this department; they have an excellent stock of old parts. The last time I was at Vacheron (4 years ago) in conversation with one of their head watchmakers he related that there were a lot of pieces they would no longer service. Remember that Vacheron outsourced many more movements than did Patek over the years. Patek's service department is probably second to none in the luxury watch industry.


----------



## Timeless Fashion (Apr 12, 2009)

archduke said:


> All watch companies rely on superb advertising.
> 
> Note the Omega ad of the speedmaster. The moon is mentioned but the backdrop is a huge picture of JFK. He may or may not have worn an Omega but they have captured something powerful and ephemeral there. It made me want to go out and find out how much the omega cost etc.
> 
> ...


I agree that selling high end watches is about selective marketing. PP does not use celebrity endorsements like Rolex, Tag and others do. Their ads are really targeted at a select audience as the average Joe will have never heard of them.

I do think PP's slogan really appeals to their target audience. The concept of passing on a Patek watch to the next generation is a bold statement about their quality. In order to do this, they really have to stand behind their products no matter how old they are. Their archives listing all the watches they have ever produced is simply remarkable.


----------



## archduke (Nov 21, 2003)

I have the feeling that no one really knows the true quality of PP watches because you would have to know too many immeasurable variables.

Take a car; you can measure the top speed, acceleration, torque and all sorts of parameters scientifically. With the mechanical watch the seemingly most important parameter, the accuracy of timekeeping turns out to be not that desirable or important at all! 

Again with a car you can get some idea of reliability from the JD Power surveys; or of safety from the crash tests carried out by various organisation. 
The design of a car really does affect these various measurements. 

None of these exists for a watch- and don't talk to me about the Geneva Seal since that presupposes geography.
And this despite the fact that a car is FAR more complex than any mechanical watch.

All that happens is that people parrot what they hear on fora such as this and word of mouth carries the day. It is recognised as 'cool' to agree that PP is a great watch and also 'ccol' to denegrate Rolex.

It seems to me from reading around that it takes more courage to wear a Rolex than a PP but far less money. It would be interesting to compare the impact of the patents of the various firms and their importance to watchmaking. I suspect that AP and VC would have few, I think Breguet has important ones.


----------



## Luis-F-S (Apr 6, 2009)

archduke said:


> It would be interesting to compare the impact of the patents of the various firms and their importance to watchmaking. I suspect that AP and VC would have few, I think Breguet has important ones.


Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantine and Audemars Pique have been in continuous operation since their inception. Over 150 years for PP, over 250 for VC and over 100 for Audemars. Brequet, Blancpain, Lange and many others are largely names that were re-incarnated in the 1980's or so regardless of what they may claim.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Luis-F-S said:


> Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantine and Audemars Pique have been in continuous operation since their inception. Over 150 years for PP, over 250 for VC and over 100 for Audemars.


And GM have been around for over 100 years. I guess their products must be very good quality.


----------



## Luis-F-S (Apr 6, 2009)

StephenRG said:


> And GM have been around for over 100 years. I guess their products must be very good quality.


No, but the top three in the Swiss watchmaking trilogy do and have made wonderful pieces. What do you recommend?


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Luis-F-S said:


> No, but the top three in the Swiss watchmaking trilogy do and have made wonderful pieces. What do you recommend?


I don't know. But I do know that longevity does not equate to quality, nor does recency (?) necessarily imply lack thereof.


----------



## Luis-F-S (Apr 6, 2009)

StephenRG said:


> I don't know. But I do know that longevity does not equate to quality, nor does recency (?) necessarily imply lack thereof.


No but in Swiss watch making tradition still counts! Maybe if you took the time to visit the top 10 Swiss houses-as I've done several times-you'd feel differently.


----------



## Timeless Fashion (Apr 12, 2009)

Luis-F-S said:


> No but in Swiss watch making tradition still counts! Maybe if you took the time to visit the top 10 Swiss houses-as I've done several times-you'd feel differently.


I know PP has their own "salons" in a few cities cities including Geneva. Do the other major Swiss watch manufacturers have their own boutique shops in Geneva that one can visit?


----------



## Luis-F-S (Apr 6, 2009)

Most (many of the major ones do-certainly Patek and Vacheron), but to really find out about swiss watchmaking, you have to go to the factories. The Patek museum in Geneva is excellent; been there 3 times-can't wait to go back.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Luis-F-S said:


> No but in Swiss watch making tradition still counts! Maybe if you took the time to visit the top 10 Swiss houses-as I've done several times-you'd feel differently.


But that tells you something concrete NOW. If you visited a watch company which had been set up last year and where to your expert eye they were at least as professional and competent as any of the names you mentioned, would you dismiss their products on the grounds that they lacked tradition, that they hadn't been around long enough?

By analogy, should I prefer Florsheim over G&G because Florsheim have been around for a long time while the _company_ G&G are just "johnny-come-latelys" in the shoe biz?


----------



## Timeless Fashion (Apr 12, 2009)

I believe in Swiss watchmaking, tradition is important. However there are several new companies that have been founded by those who previously worked at the traditional watch companies.


----------



## Luis-F-S (Apr 6, 2009)

I have visited the following manufacturer's in the past few years: Patek Philippe (several times), Vacheron Constantin (several times), Audemars Piquet, Philippe Dufour, Jaeger LeCoultre, Blancpan, Parmigiani and others.

https://www.timezone.com/library/extras/200511224126

IMHO other than for Philippe Dufour who could be argued is probably one of the finest living watchmakers; it's very difficult for most of the "new" names to compete in terms of quality of manufacture and execution of products with the likes Patek, Vacheron, and Audemars. This doesn't mean that other manufacturers don't make fine watches; they do, they're just not in the same league. Just my opinion for what it's worth.

A number of the current Swiss and German watch companies were defunct in the 70-80 being casualties of the Quartz revolution and were "resurrected" when mechanical watches became big bu$ine$$. If I'm going to drop the price of a nice car on a watch; you can be certain that more than likely it's going to be a vintage Patek, Vacheron, or Audemars.


----------



## JDMills (May 19, 2009)

Well I'm wearing my grandfathers gold Longine but I would kill for a Patek or a Jaeger, my dream watches :icon_smile_big: Not a big fan of Rolex


----------



## archduke (Nov 21, 2003)

I read the words quality a lot but I do not know how it is measured except by a visual impression. But we all know that presuppositions and prejudices will always influence that. Now Louis FS has visited several houses of watchmaking but how do we know there is not already an inherent bias? For instance he does not say he visits Rolex; why not? 

A manufacturer that made the first automatic wristwatch and whose sports watches are copied more than anyone else's, and which have hardly changed in design in the last 50 years must have something going for them. People denigrate Rolex for its 'popularity'. This can be a dirty word. My impression is that Omega make great watches, on what grounds I cannot say for sure.

But suppose that I say I love JLC, which by the way I do BUT I will have to admit that I do not know anything about watches beyond the very basics. The reason I love them is because I have read about them from various sources; then seen them and liked some of the designs. No one I know wears one. If I were to acquire one and spout the usual stuff then those who trust me for other reasons will trust me on my taste for watches and the circle will continue. Chinese whispers and all that. 

I am sure that in my mind I will be very happy with JLC. In fact a gold one is mentioned in Len Deighton's book Funeral In Berlin- and Deighton has good taste from what I can gather. ( There I go again relying on someone else's impression.)

This is not at all fanciful. I really do want to own a JLC, and a Rolex. But not VC. Don't ask me why -just ephemeeral things. 
In the words of The Who, '..can't explain..'


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

I probably have the least sexy of watches, a Rolex Datejust. Yet I am an unashamed fan of this brand. The dealers are superb, the quality is terrific (+1 on the Witschi), and the abuse I give it still is not enough to cause harm.

Yes, I would love to have a PP. But I am quite happy with my Rolex.


----------



## Luis-F-S (Apr 6, 2009)

Artisan Fan said:


> I probably have the least sexy of watches, a Rolex Datejust.


I've got one too; my daily beater! Love it.


----------



## archduke (Nov 21, 2003)

From what I can gather VC had been in the doldrums for a long while. It has changed hands several times so is not the watch of yore. In which case why should one rely on their 'history and tradition'.

Take the car manufacturer Aston Martin; surely just a a Ford in Emperor's clothing. All that history of Le Mans etc pertains to a different car.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

Luis-F-S said:


> I've got one too; my daily beater! Love it.


:aportnoy:


----------



## Luis-F-S (Apr 6, 2009)

archduke said:


> Take the car manufacturer Aston Martin; surely just a a Ford in Emperor's clothing.


I'll swap your Aston for a Ford any day.


----------



## Luis-F-S (Apr 6, 2009)

archduke said:


> From what I can gather VC had been in the doldrums for a long while. It has changed hands several times so is not the watch of yore. In which case why should one rely on their 'history and tradition'.


Vacheron still has watchmakers in their 60's who've been with the company since they started their careers. Interestingly enough, very few watchmakers in their 50's due to the Quartz revolution!


----------



## archduke (Nov 21, 2003)

Luis-F-S said:


> I'll swap your Aston for a Ford any day.


Ah.. If only.


----------



## Shriver (Apr 23, 2005)

What do you fine watch cognoscenti think about Baume et Mercier watches, if you don't mind my asking.


----------



## Prisoner of Zendaline (Dec 8, 2008)

weckl said:


> I think Rolex has become a comically overpriced "luxury brand," and thus difficult to take seriously, in the same way LV is difficult to take seriously, regardless of how well-made their purses and luggage might be. Who on earth could spend $3500 on a crappy little Rolex Air King and be able to convince himself that he's not just paying for the name?


Thank you, weckl; you summed it up far better than I did.


----------



## Prisoner of Zendaline (Dec 8, 2008)

LanceW said:


> Much of the vintage market is handled over the Internet. IMO, the pride of Patek is that they will always fix your watch, even if it is 150 years old and missing several pieces. They are more than willing to fabricate new parts, however, those parts come at a very fine price


When you say "...at a very fine price.", do you mean hundreds, or thousands?


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

I have several Rolex watches:
gold/stainless submariner w/ blue face
gold/stainless Datejust w/ Jubilee band (old, early 70's, non quickset)
stainless datejust late model (mid 90's)
All keep chronometer tolerance times. I rotate wearing them. They are strongly made and hold a wind. I think what Rolex charges to clean/repair is exorbitant. However, you must be careful when sending them elsewhere for repair, since Rolex no longer - for some time - sells parts outside their sphere of repair people. Even older "certified" repair folks can't get them, so you need to know who to send them to for repairs and service. Also beware of who you buy them from. There's a lot of fakery going on out there and Rolex won't repair fakes or even Rolex assembled from genuine parts where case, movement, etc. don't match.

I have a couple of Omega Seamaster Professionals w/ automatic movements. Again, chronometer accurate, strong movements and will take a beating. Also expensive to repair the one time one needed it, but not so picky as Rolex.

For beauty and elegence, it's hard to bet a PP Calatrava (Model 5119). Beautifully simple and an eye catching dress watch w/ black or white tie.

There is an outstanding jeweller locally who can do stunning work.

I also have a Mark Cross quartz complication in 18K incl band I won, along w/ an 18K Dunhill Rollagas, in a poker game a LONG time ago. I love it and wear it on dress up occasions, too.

However, when the chips are down, I have a Luminox titanium "Navy Seal" beater that's indestructable and keeps nearly perfect time (about 1 sec lost/mo.)


----------



## Timeless Fashion (Apr 12, 2009)

tda003 said:


> I have several Rolex watches:
> gold/stainless submariner w/ blue face
> gold/stainless Datejust w/ Jubilee band (old, early 70's, non quickset)
> stainless datejust late model (mid 90's)
> ...


The PP 5119 is a nice elegant dress watch. The only thing is you have to manually wind the watch every couple of days. The 5120 is self-winding, albeit at a few thousand dollars more.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

tda003 said:


> I have several Rolex watches:
> gold/stainless submariner w/ blue face
> gold/stainless Datejust w/ Jubilee band (old, early 70's, non quickset)
> stainless datejust late model (mid 90's)
> ...


Who is this? I live in Georgia as well.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Funny not a single mention of Breitling. It seems to be a favorite here in Switzerland which must say something. Granted they're not really in a price range that fits everyones budget (including mine).


----------



## Bartolo (Mar 2, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Funny not a single mention of Breitling. It seems to be a favorite here in Switzerland which must say something. Granted they're not really in a price range that fits everyones budget (including mine).


The dials on Breitlings are much too busy for me. I have a basic rule -- If I can't tell the time, I don't buy the watch.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

Dear Artisan Fan,

It's a long drive from Atlanta to St. Simons Island, but the jeweller is Ned Cash of Brunswick (across the causeway from here. He's also a certified Rolex person.


----------



## Jimmy2Dimes (Aug 29, 2009)

I have the Louis Vuitton Tambour with a silver band that I switched out because I didn't want the black rubber strap. I use this more for events than daily use.

I also have a David Yurman Belmont with the checkerboard face that I wear for work.

Then I have a nice Victorinox watch with a brown stitched band and about a half dozen Nixon watches for casual use.

I like watches. Used to have a Rolex Sea Dweller.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

tda003 said:


> Dear Artisan Fan,
> 
> It's a long drive from Atlanta to St. Simons Island, but the jeweller is Ned Cash of Brunswick (across the causeway from here. He's also a certified Rolex person.


Thank you. I get to Brunswick every once and a while.


----------



## archduke (Nov 21, 2003)

Jimmy2Dimes said:


> I have the Louis Vuitton Tambour with a silver band that I switched out because I didn't want the black rubber strap. I use this more for events than daily use.
> 
> I also have a David Yurman Belmont with the checkerboard face that I wear for work.
> 
> ...


What! you got rid of your sea dweller?

As for being overpriced, how would anyone know the intrinsic value of a watch? Patek is surely overpriced and I say that because no one can prove the contrary
An air king may or may not be overpriced.

No one has answered my question as to how anyone actually knows what the quality of a watch is. As far as I can see there are plenty of 'sophisticates' who merely trumpet what they have previously heard from other sophisticates- the Flussers of the watch world perhaps.


----------



## Jimmy2Dimes (Aug 29, 2009)

archduke said:


> What! you got rid of your sea dweller?


It's a nice watch but it seemed like a lot of people had one. I had it for 5 years and sold it on Ebay for a couple hundred dollars less than what I bought it for. Rolexes do hold their value well. :icon_smile:


----------



## verse214 (Aug 31, 2009)

Tonyp said:


> Obviously this is personal preference but objectively I think the best made high end watches in no particular order:
> 
> A. Lange & Sohn
> Patek
> ...


+1,000,000 on the Rolex comment. Rolex is by no means top 10 - maybe 10-15 but not top ten


----------



## Luis-F-S (Apr 6, 2009)

tda003 said:


> I think what Rolex charges to clean/repair is exorbitant.
> 
> For beauty and elegence, it's hard to bet a PP Calatrava (Model 5119). Beautifully simple and an eye catching dress watch w/ black or white tie.


You should see what Patek charges for a service. Makes Rolex seem quite reasonable. For black tie I would opt for a platinum tank on a strap or perhaps a discrete Vacheron square or carre.


----------



## Luis-F-S (Apr 6, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Funny not a single mention of Breitling. It seems to be a favorite here in Switzerland which must say something. Granted they're not really in a price range that fits everyones budget (including mine).


I have a 1993/94 Chronomat which was given to me. The dial is quite busy and is a standard V7750 ebauche. I would never buy one but I do enjoy wearing it.


----------



## Luis-F-S (Apr 6, 2009)

Well, if you want to know my top choices in the top ten list:

Philippe Dufour
Patek Philippe
Vacheron Constantin
Audemars Piquet
A Lange & Sohn
Jaeger LeCoultre
Blancpain
IWC
Glashutte Original
Rolex


----------



## archduke (Nov 21, 2003)

Bartolo said:


> The dials on Breitlings are much too busy for me. I have a basic rule -- If I can't tell the time, I don't buy the watch.


Vintage Breitlings that I have seen have been beautiful. far more so than the modern versions.


----------



## archduke (Nov 21, 2003)

Luis-F-S said:


> Well, if you want to know my top choices in the top ten list:
> 
> Philippe Dufour
> Patek Philippe
> ...


Just for interest sir but why is IWC in your list? I tried on an aquatimer once and it refused to make me want one. The design is completely forgetable. The watch was titanium but did not speak of quality to my eye. Of course that is an amateurish eye!


----------



## Luis-F-S (Apr 6, 2009)

Because after the first 6 or 7, the order of the rest doesn't really matter much.

L


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

Hello,

I continue to find it odd that people rate those companies who buy in movements and "beautify" them above those who manufacture all of their own movements and use them exclusively.

Zenith still hold records for the most accurate pocket watch movements ever produced and have made movements for virtually every other quality watch brand at one time or another. Many of these movements have set benchmarks that have yet to be beaten (the elite and el Primero movements could both be considered in this way). JLC fall into this same category. Surely this should count for far more than a higher degree of cosmetic finishing on the back of some cogs or that ultimate con trick the Geneva Seal. the way a movement runs should be much more important than the way it looks unless you simply see your watch as a piece of jewellery. 

I am not denying that patek and Vacheron etc make beautiful watches but the fact that they charge so much more than those who do make their own movements is bordering on outrageous.

Chris.


----------



## Prisoner of Zendaline (Dec 8, 2008)

archduke said:


> This is the kind of stuff I mean. This makes me want to go out and buy the rolex milgauss I recently saw but someone beat me to it. So long as there are posts like that I know there must something RIGHT about a Rolex.
> 
> I suppose characters on here can tell the excellence of an F14 tomcat versus MIG 27.


Honestly, I'm puzzled about what I said to cause such distress.

I've only known two people who owned/wanted a Rolex. One was a nightclub owner I was around at the gym. Dixie Mafia _(not Russian, not Sicilian...just slimy white trash)_. The guy was at least a hundred pounds overweight...lobster red from alcoholism and sunburn. Chewed gum with his mouth open. Greazed-back hair. Utterly subhuman. Big Rolex. When he'd get back from trips to an especially sleazy Florida beach, he'd brag about all the chicks he'd picked up with his Rolex. According to him, that's all it took. That's definitely all Mr. Micro had to offer, for sure. He drove a Camaro. Later, he drove a Ferrari or somesuch sleazemobile.

The other, a Rolex owner _wannabe_, was an inlaw from a very, very, foreign country. On the list of things he was supposed to want was a Rolex. Luckily, his programmed 'dream car' was an S-class sedan. His wife told him navy was the color preferred by diplomats _(he's in finance)_...so she was able to avoid black. And I knew enough to steer him toward Oxxford, and away from BB. It's as if we were packaging an extraterrestrial, instead of a former Communist. But the big fight came over the Rolex. Being exceptionally domineering, we eventually prevailed. He got a wafer-thin, quite discreet little number, with Roman Numerals, and a Cordovan band (Swiss, with a Frenchy name).

But as to which fighter plane is superior? Considering that Western governments are for sale to the highest bidders _(and considering the laughably low numbers needed to buy top government officials)_, the superiority of one's fighter planes is quite irrelevant. Our governments are giving away our countries, at the instructions of the Oligarchy.


----------



## Luis-F-S (Apr 6, 2009)

Prisoner of Zendaline said:


> When you say "...at a very fine price.", do you mean hundreds, or thousands?


The last service I had on a vintage (1968) PP 27-460M Calibre (4 years ago) which is a simple automatic with date cost $2,100. I doubt it's gotten cheaper since then.


----------



## Prisoner of Zendaline (Dec 8, 2008)

Luis-F-S said:


> The last service I had on a vintage (1968) PP 27-460M Calibre (4 years ago) which is a simple automatic with date cost $2,100. I doubt it's gotten cheaper since then.


Thank you. That's exactly what I wanted to know. So I assume that owning such a timepiece is like owning an older Rolls Royce: one can easily spend more than the purchase price to get it into working order. That's not to say that either item is a bad investment. One has to weigh anticipated benefits against opportunity cost. But thank you. You've given me the information I need.


----------



## archduke (Nov 21, 2003)

P fo Z

No offence meant sir! I think evryone's experiences are unique and therefore my generalisation is not really valid but I tried to get across that the watch itself is tarnished by those who desire it more than the intrinsic value of the watch. And that the latter is impossible to define.


----------



## archduke (Nov 21, 2003)

The very recently lamented Keith Floyd- chef, bon viveur, all round great character had great taste in food, wine, women and bowties. And he wore a Rolex, if I recall correctly, with his blazers or linen suits whilst doing the cooking in all sorts of places.

Not a bad example to follow( if you exclude drinking too much).


----------



## Prisoner of Zendaline (Dec 8, 2008)

archduke said:


> P fo Z
> 
> ...the watch itself is tarnished by those who desire it more than the intrinsic value of the watch. And that the latter is impossible to define.


Very eloquently stated, Sir. And no offense taken.


----------



## croadan (Nov 24, 2003)

*???*

I am amazed that nobody has mentioned Tudor or Ball, and that Tag Hauer has gotten the boot. They aren't great watches? hrmmm.


----------



## VincentC (May 23, 2008)

IM no way an expert. But heres my begginers guide.

1) Rolex (Because associated with James Bond)

2) Omega (as above)

3) Timex (Because it is an old company and part of my childhood memory of watches, and other than Casio i didnt know any other watch brands)

4)Longines (seems quite classy and i hear it is associated with famous movie stars of the golden hollywood era)

5) Patek Phillippe i hear are good as well.


----------



## monkeypie (Nov 24, 2009)

Luis-F-S said:


> Well, if you want to know my top choices in the top ten list:
> 
> Philippe Dufour
> Patek Philippe
> ...


This is the correct answer.

1. Philippe Dufour:- Very few know about this brand, but this link says it all. 2-3 year waiting list for a 600,000.00 dollar watch. 
2. Patek Philippe:- No explanation really needed, at the top of the 'top 3'.
3. F.P. Journe:- young company, but great craftsmanship and innovative designs. My current grail.
4. Vacheron Constantin:- the old king of the top 3. Really lacks a model that defines VC though, as they tend to be all over the place. 
5. Audemars Piguet:- Although the ROO's are somewhat too big and gaudy, the design is still leaps above. The rambunctious young prince of the 'top 3.' The ROO really makes this brand. Aesthetically beautiful, but painful to wear and too obvious.
6. A Lange & Sohne:- Incredible engineering and designs. 
7. Jaeger LeCoultre:- Patek quality for 1/3 of the price.
8. Blancpain:- Wide variety in styles, but consistent in its high quality. 
9. IWC:- As with Blancpain, it can go from the simple Spitfire MK XVI to the insane complications. A bit too heavily advertised now and days though.
10. Rolex:- Gonna get lots of flak for this one, but do consider that Rolex is pretty much synonymous with "luxury watch". Classic designs that go well for almost all occasions. Pedestrian as it may be, it remains one of the top brands.


----------



## Luis-F-S (Apr 6, 2009)

monkeypie said:


> This is the correct answer.
> 
> 1. Philippe Dufour:- Very few know about this brand, but this link says it all. 2-3 year waiting list for a 600,000.00 dollar watch.
> 2. Patek Philippe:- No explanation really needed, at the top of the 'top 3'.
> ...


No issues with your order. As someone who's been to Dufour's atelier and held both his simplicity, his repeaters as well as seen the watches he's made for Audemars ( in the AP museum), he's definitely at the top of the list.


----------



## vatoemperor (Jun 15, 2008)

monkeypie said:


> This is the correct answer.
> 
> 1. Philippe Dufour:- Very few know about this brand, but this link says it all. 2-3 year waiting list for a 600,000.00 dollar watch.
> 2. Patek Philippe:- No explanation really needed, at the top of the 'top 3'.
> ...


Excellent order - Not many people remember Journe or Dufour. Although I would place Glashütte Original in place of IWC, or perhaps a Breguet in somewhere up the line with Vacheron or Piguet.


----------



## monkeypie (Nov 24, 2009)

vatoemperor said:


> Excellent order - Not many people remember Journe or Dufour. Although I would place Glashütte Original in place of IWC, or perhaps a Breguet in somewhere up the line with Vacheron or Piguet.


I can't believe I forgot Breguet! I'd slip that in No.6 and take out IWC.


----------



## archduke (Nov 21, 2003)

how come no one has mentioned richard mille? Very few have heard of that- so it must be really good.

(have I got the name right?)


----------



## 46L (Jan 8, 2009)

monkeypie said:


> This is the correct answer.
> 
> 1. Philippe Dufour:- Very few know about this brand, but this link says it all. 2-3 year waiting list for a 600,000.00 dollar watch.
> 2. Patek Philippe:- No explanation really needed, at the top of the 'top 3'.
> ...


My personal touches (reassembling the bottom of the list):

6. Breguet
7. A Lange & Sohne
8. Zenith
9. Jaeger LeCoultre
10. IWC

Also receiving votes: Blancpain and Rolex


----------



## 46L (Jan 8, 2009)

archduke said:


> how come no one has mentioned richard mille? Very few have heard of that- so it must be really good.
> 
> (have I got the name right?)


Mille is incredibly expensive and apparently extremely limited, but I also find them to be hideous looking. Just personal taste.


----------



## zoorado (Nov 27, 2009)

monkeypie said:


> This is the correct answer.
> 
> 1. Philippe Dufour:- Very few know about this brand, but this link says it all. 2-3 year waiting list for a 600,000.00 dollar watch.
> 2. Patek Philippe:- No explanation really needed, at the top of the 'top 3'.
> ...


Erm.

I'm not sure if Phillippe Dufour can be considered as a 'brand' considering he currently takes orders for only 1 watch model (the Simplicity).

Of course, if I were to include independent watchmakers a la Dufour to the list, my top ten would be (in no order):

Phillippe Dufour
Kari Voutilainen
Vianney Halter
Lang & Heyne
Greubel & Forsey
Beat Haldimann
Peter Speake-Marin
Christian Klings
Aaron Becsei
Volker Vyskocil

Notable mentions:

Seiko - the best Seiko watches (the credor grande & petite sonnerie + the credor spring drive w/ porcelain dial) are as good as the best watches from independent makers. It takes a dedicated team (< 10 people) of the best watchmakers in Seiko to handcraft these 2 models at a production rate of 5 a year. And they are priced at near Patek's prices. Really great value for money.

A Lange & Sohne - the best corporate-sized European watchmaker. I would rate it above Patek Phillippe. The technological advances it's made in the past decade far outweighs PP's contribution to said field of innovation.

H. Moser & Cie - Recent resurrected marque. Used to be one of the greatest names in Saxon watchmaking. Production is limited as the company is small. But the few models they are churning out are extremely fine. Worthy of it's name.


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

Hello,

If you're all now including independent watchmakers then I find it utterly amazing that no-one has mentioned George Daniels or Roger Smith!

Chris.


----------



## zoorado (Nov 27, 2009)

chrstc said:


> Hello,
> 
> If you're all now including independent watchmakers then I find it utterly amazing that no-one has mentioned George Daniels or Roger Smith!
> 
> Chris.


Oh I can't believe I missed out on the British makers. Alas, Mr Daniels has stopped producing pieces under his own name. But those by his protege under R W Smith are very alluring indeed.

Another notable pair from the UK is the McGonigle brothers.


----------



## drrac2 (Mar 25, 2006)

*Vacheron*

I have removed Vacheron from my list, and I will never purchase another watch from them again. I purchased a new watch in 2006 from an authorized dealer, and since then the watch has been returned to Switzerland TWICE for repairs on the movement. The watch is currently being serviced overseas, and their customer service is deplorable. I purchased a Franck Muller around the same time, and this watch has performed flawlessly. Both watches see regular use, and are cared for meticulously. If I had to do it over again, I would skip the Vacheron and go with Patek.


----------



## Luis-F-S (Apr 6, 2009)

zoorado said:


> Erm.
> I'm not sure if Phillippe Dufour can be considered as a 'brand' considering he currently takes orders for only 1 watch model (the Simplicity).


I bet you if you throw enough money at him, he'd make you another repeater with porcelain dial either as a pocket or wrist version!


----------



## LanceW (Jun 2, 2009)

Dufour's Simplicity has more options than my car :icon_smile_big:


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

drrac2 said:


> I have removed Vacheron from my list, and I will never purchase another watch from them again. I purchased a new watch in 2006 from an authorized dealer, and since then the watch has been returned to Switzerland TWICE for repairs on the movement. The watch is currently being serviced overseas, and their customer service is deplorable. I purchased a Franck Muller around the same time, and this watch has performed flawlessly. Both watches see regular use, and are cared for meticulously. If I had to do it over again, I would skip the Vacheron and go with Patek.


Interesting, your VC ordeal. I assume that you do not do things like trying to set the time on an automatic movement by going counterclockwise.

As for your FM piece, I would be interested to know who made the movement. People in the Swiss watch trade know that they do not make their own ebauches, and they can't seem to figure out who supplies them to FM even though everyone knows everyone else in the tiny trade in that tiny country. It's all a bit of a mystery, along with how the Armenian chap is managing to keep the company alive. Any insights?


----------



## My Pet. A Pantsuit (Dec 25, 2008)

Personally, I really like Orient for solid chronographs and watches for daily consumption. They mostly make mechanical watches that wind as you wear them - forgive me, but I've forgotten the terminology for this. The movements are Swiss, and the cases are Japanese. 

Breitling is also a great make, very classic, and with a variety of compelling styles.

Lastly, Timex. Very basic, and sometimes that's all that you need.


----------



## dr.karara (Dec 18, 2009)

I think that not because many people wear rolex we should look down onto it, it's a valuable watch with good resale value.
My list would be (in order):
1-Patek Phillipe
2-Audemars (but bad looking)
3-Vacheron
4-A.lange
5-IWC
6-Breguet
7-Girard
8-Zenith
9-Parmigiani
10-Rolex


----------



## Wisco (Dec 3, 2009)

To me, Omega is the perfect watch supplier. They have 3 key elements:

History - Originally founded in 1848, Olympic association etc.
Breadth - Sport, dress, dive, quartz and mechanical, ETA-derived or in-house movements (new cal.8500)
Iconic models - Speedmaster, Seamaster and Constellation

But unlike the many excellent choices listed, they are both broadly available and within reach of many more people than Rolex, IWC or others that start @$5K and go north into the silly-sphere. 

YMMV,

Wisco


----------



## tasteful one (Oct 6, 2006)

*It's always funny to me...*

...these lists of "Bests". What makes a watch "Best"? Inquiring minds want to know what exactly makes one high end watch better than the next? Is there really that much difference between one and the other, other than the esoterics of "in house" movement V. ETA? Other than the intangibles, like image, or self gratification, isn't it about esthetics?


----------



## zoorado (Nov 27, 2009)

tasteful one said:


> ...these lists of "Bests". What makes a watch "Best"? Inquiring minds want to know what exactly makes one high end watch better than the next? Is there really that much difference between one and the other, other than the esoterics of "in house" movement V. ETA? Other than the intangibles, like image, or self gratification, isn't it about esthetics?


It's the same criteria used when comparing clothes and shoes. Aesthetic appeal, and construction quality. Original movements is a plus, along with technical innovations, if not at the expense of functionality or aesthetics. But why would a simple 3-complication watch (hours, minutes, seconds) be heralded so much over others? Still boils down to elegance in looks, and the quality of construction / finishing. A Dufour or Voutilainen watch is almost completely handmade, analogous to a completely handsewn jacket. But unlike clothes, handwork (hand-finishing) is far superior to that done by machine. There's no debate on that, not especially when those who do so by hand would take months to produce a single piece, compared to assembly-line composition and manufacture process a la Rolex, which can produce up to a million watches in the same amount of time.


----------

