# ...but I don't want a Rolex....



## taylorgtr (Jun 1, 2013)

There was a comment in the earlier thread about 'better watch brands than Rolex', and subjective as any statement may be, I wanted to throw that out there. 

You can get a watch that will tell the time accurately for $20. For $100, you can get a good looking watch (YMMV). 

For you forum members that are better versed than me in the subject, what do you get when you go up to $500, to $1000 and up from there? Let's skip any precious metals or stones - for two basic types of watches - chronographs (focused on function) and 'dressier' watches, what does more money buy you? Status? Elegance? Craftmanship?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

taylorgtr said:


> what does more money buy you? Status? Elegance? Craftmanship?


Yes...


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

I'm still waiting for a decent discussion of why one would spend as much as a decent car on a wristwatch when a pocket watch has greater style and your cellphone tells better time. Heck, just attach a watch chain to the cell phone and keep it in your vest. High-tech traditionalism at its best!


----------



## tuckspub (Jan 18, 2013)

Why pay over $1000 for a suit of clothes when the Goodwill store is full of perfectly wearable suits for under $50. I guess it all comes down to "whatever floats your boat", "different strokes for different folks". We choose to express ourselves in different manners, they all have an appeal to those who employ them.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Rolex is about the pinache (sic?) of owning/wearing a Rolex. In some circles, they're a rite of passage; in others they're to show you've 'made it'. I enjoy the couple I have (datejust, Milgauss GV, 1976 AirKing), and others that aren't Rolex (or other designer brand for that matter, like Cartier, Breitling, etc.).

I'm of the school that any automatic (self-winding), Swiss movement watch is inherently a good piece of machinery; after that it's about your preferred style and the function of the watch.


----------



## taylorgtr (Jun 1, 2013)

tuckspub said:


> Why pay over $1000 for a suit of clothes when the Goodwill store is full of perfectly wearable suits for under $50. I guess it all comes down to "whatever floats your boat", "different strokes for different folks". We choose to express ourselves in different manners, they all have an appeal to those who employ them.


True....I have more guitars than I need, and I have a piano that cost more than many new cars....When I got the piano, I probably played over 100 different ones, from the well-known US and Japanese brands (Steinway, Yamaha, Kawai), to Korean makes, to European makes (some I'd heard of, and others that I'd never heard of). I played a range of Chinese pianos that went from black lacquered PSO's (Piano-Shaped Objects) to ones that played quite nicely. I ended up getting one from a builder that I'd never heard of before I started the search....and it (to my ears and hands) plays and sounds better than pianos costing twice as much.

RE: The Goodwill comment - They have 8 suits (soon to be 10) that I've recently donated, just because I'm a lot smaller than I used to be. If they sell for $50, they'll be a steal.


----------



## Dnslater (Mar 11, 2013)

tuckspub said:


> Why pay over $1000 for a suit of clothes when the Goodwill store is full of perfectly wearable suits for under $50. I guess it all comes down to "whatever floats your boat", "different strokes for different folks". We choose to express ourselves in different manners, they all have an appeal to those who employ them.


You beat me too it. $50 corrected leather glued shoes work just fine at keeping my feet dry............ Most clothes sold at Walmart work just fine at concealing naked bodies, so why pay more?......... An 86 Honda Civic would get me to work just fine............ Need I go on?




Oldsarge said:


> I'm still waiting for a decent discussion of why one would spend as much as a decent car on a wristwatch when a pocket watch has greater style and your cellphone tells better time. Heck, just attach a watch chain to the cell phone and keep it in your vest. High-tech traditionalism at its best!


Much more obvious when you reach into your pocket to pull out your phone during a boring meeting or church.:biggrin:


----------



## TradThrifter (Oct 22, 2012)

I'm of the camp that would find it quite wasteful to spend more than $200 on a watch; although, I can somewhat understand the allure of higher status time pieces. That is...if you're into that sort of thing. My father, whom I aspire to one day be even half as successful, has worn an $85 Seiko for as long as I can remember. He also primarily wears Johnston and Murphy shoes, (although he does own a pair of AEs) which wouldn't hold a ton of credibility with iGents. I find it somewhat difficult to find use for items more expensive than what he finds acceptable when I'm no where near the position he is in. Who am I trying to fool?


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

taylorgtr said:


> what does more money buy you? Status? Elegance? Craftmanship?





Earl of Ormonde said:


> Yes...


I agree with E of O. The issue is not whether or not you get these things at a higher price point, but whether or not they are worth the price. That is something that each individual has the freedom to decide for themselves. The person that scoffs at someone paying 5k for a watch might not value status, elegance or craftsmanship to that degree in a watch, but they might drive a high-performance vehicle (when a ten-year-old Toyota would do), own restaurant-quality kitchen appliances (when a Hamilton Beach blender from Walmart would do), or have a very meticulous and well-funded financial portfolio (when a checking account and a piggy bank would do).

Dealing with mechanical/automatic watches specifically, there is a point where the playing field levels out with regard to craftsmanship: highly detailed, robust and precise in-house movements. Once you get to that point, it's all a matter of perception. A Grand Seiko can easily rival and even surpass the build quality and price of a Rolex, but very few in the west would consider it more "valuable" than a Rolex.


----------



## taylorgtr (Jun 1, 2013)

hardline_42 said:


> Dealing with mechanical/automatic watches specifically, there is a point where the playing field levels out with regard to craftsmanship: highly detailed, robust and precise in-house movements. Once you get to that point, it's all a matter of perception. A Grand Seiko can easily rival and even surpass the build quality and price of a Rolex, but very few in the west would consider it more "valuable" than a Rolex.


I think you're right on track there - if build quality and good looks (and not looking like a fake or copy of a Rolex), what are the brands that meet that criteria? Where does that playing field begin to level out, and who's playing in that space?


----------



## emb1980 (Dec 28, 2012)

Here are some brands that I feel offer good value at given price points:
<$150 - Seiko offers quality mechanical movements and a variety of designs at an affordable price
<$500 - Tissot/Hamilton are both Swatch brands and offer good build quality and reasonable features on a generic ETA movement platform
<$2000 - Nomos and Stowa stand out among German brands offering in-house movements with quality, classic designs. At this price point we begin to get more "craftsmanship" and less mass-production.
<$6000 - Zenith probably offers the most interesting movements and complications at this price point. These watches boast a complexity and craftsmanship that is truly fascinating and interesting.

I don't own nor am I likely to own anything much above that range.

Personally, I wear an Omega Speedmaster most of the time, as it is both family tradition to wear Omegas and the Speedmaster is a watch with a storied history and classic design.

For me, the question is what you're looking for in a watch. If all you mind is simple accuracy and adequate aesthetics, then there is no need to spend more than about $100.


----------



## Bassist (Jul 3, 2012)

taylorgtr said:


> True....I have more guitars than I need...


You admit this in print, on the internets? :icon_smile_big:

Joe


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

And that is about as succinctly put as I can imagine. Well phrased, emb.


----------



## taylorgtr (Jun 1, 2013)

Bassist said:


> You admit this in print, on the internets? :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Joe


As long as my wife doesn't find out, I'm good.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

emb1980 said:


> Here are some brands that I feel offer good value at given price points:
> <$150 - Seiko offers quality mechanical movements and a variety of designs at an affordable price
> <$500 - Tissot/Hamilton are both Swatch brands and offer good build quality and reasonable features on a generic ETA movement platform
> <$2000 - Nomos and Stowa stand out among German brands offering in-house movements with quality, classic designs. At this price point we begin to get more "craftsmanship" and less mass-production.
> ...


Orient is where Seiko is in your scale, but Seiko offers huge value up to $6000 and above, though there are no bragging rights...

At around $500, there's a deluge of more or less interesting brands, from boutique brand diving watches like Halios:

to flieger style pilot watches (Laco):

I'd stay away from Tissot and Hamilton since they don't offer much bang for bucks but on the other hand they are good quality watches and not everyone likes hanging out at a watch forum and do research.

As for watches to do anything involving sports, nature, field or garden for that matter, the only usable watch is the Casio G-Shock. The Masters of G collection, preferably the Mudman IMO. In black. I think it's 50$. You really can't drop an automatic watch, if its not a 46mm 1000 m wr steel colossus like my Armida A1. I had a friend bump his IWC on the desk, not good...

I think watches below around 300$ usually don't offer much in quality, sure, Seiko 5 are great watches for 100$ but they are just not that much fun. These are 500$ Seiko SARB models:

Much much nicer IMO. Hand winds and hacks.

If you're splashing for a 500$ blazer, 400$ shoes, 100$ shirts, Cuban cigars, good scotch, then you can surely appreciate stacking more work, better design and better materials in a watch? (Not directed towards the quoted poster, more a general thought).


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> Orient is where Seiko is in your scale, but Seiko offers huge value up to $6000 and above, though there are no bragging rights...
> 
> At around $500, there's a deluge of more or less interesting brands, from boutique brand diving watches like Halios:
> 
> ...


No, the blazer, etc. fit better and make you look better. The scotch and cigars have a sensual appeal that rolls off the tongue. A watch just keeps time. Most of the time it's hidden under your French cuffs, anyway, so who really looks at it? I suppose one could claim that there is some joy in winding the blamed thing every evening but not for me. Heck, I only wind my pocket watch and set it just before I wear it. Otherwise, it runs down. So what?

Whatever floats one's boat, of course, but I just can't see all the heavy breathing over a wristwatch.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

While the Rolex may well keep time a little bit better, for the most part they're just upgraded ETA 28,8 movements. They don't normally come with too many complications, and if they do, you can expect to pay a pretty penny for them.

So, knowing that an ETA 28,8 movement will give you 99% of a Rolex, when you cast your eye at comparable Seagull movements and realize you can get one for $250 and have the same sweeping hand and probably close to the same accuracy, it really questions the point of a Rolex other than "It's a Rolex." However, if you open it up, the insides are cleaner. The fascia and other things are of better quality. But come on, we're comparing a $250 watch to a $5k watch and the $250 watch holds up damn well.

Okay, moving away from Rolex....

Brands that offer very interesting movements: Grand Seiko & Zenith El Primero. If you've ever seen these in person, you'll get it.

Brands that offer hand made build quality & interesting complications: Panerai, etc. Honestly can't even remember, I'll never buy one most likely.

Check out watchuseek for more info on watches.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Oldsarge said:


> No, the blazer, etc. fit better and make you look better. The scotch and cigars have a sensual appeal that rolls off the tongue. A watch just keeps time. Most of the time it's hidden under your French cuffs, anyway, so who really looks at it? I suppose one could claim that there is some joy in winding the blamed thing every evening but not for me. Heck, I only wind my pocket watch and set it just before I wear it. Otherwise, it runs down. So what?
> 
> Whatever floats one's boat, of course, but I just can't see all the heavy breathing over a wristwatch.


This is where the argument always falls flat. There are those who neither smoke nor drink that might not "get" your appreciation for whisky and cigars. "It's just old, malt barley water that tastes like a campfire, and burnt rolled up leaves that give you cancer." Or those who don't care to dress better (assuming such a creature even exists). "A blazer is just something to wear over a shirt. It's not even that practical. It's not particularly warm nor waterproof." An affinity for watches that go above and beyond the pragmatic is no different than any other affinity. It doesn't have to make sense.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

The argument regarding why to buy a high end watch when a much less expensive watch serves the same purpose, can really be applied to any product. 

I think the greatest culprit is the art world. What makes one artist's work that is in a small gallery, 1000 times more costly than a lesser know artist's work. Is it the price of the canvas.....no. Is it the price of the paint......no. Is it the cost of the brushes used.........no. 

In the art world it really is subjective and whatever someone is willing to pay. At least with high end watches you are paying for engineering, ingenuity, research and development, craftsmanship, innovation, etc. 

i have a Rolex Submariner and did not purchase it to impress anyone. It's usually under my shirt sleeve or labcoat sleeve for no one to see or impress. People can bash Rolex all they want, but it's a great watch with a strong history and future. There are much higher end watches, but if you do your homework, Rolex consistently does well when tested. 

Are mechanical watches accurate? Well that's a relative term. If all I want is accuracy I will wear my Casio G-shock solar atomic watch which sets itself daily to the exact correct time. 

Ask a musician what makes one violin $10,000 and another $500,000. After all, they both make the "same""sound.....sort of.


----------



## emb1980 (Dec 28, 2012)

I'll add one more thought to the mix:

A watch is a personal item that is worn close to the body every day, but is durable enough to pass on. One day I will likely have a son, and when he reaches a certain age I will tell him: "Son, today you are a man, and this is the timepiece that has travelled around the world with me on many adventures. May it be as faithful a companion to you as it has been to me."

Sure, I could probably do that with a cheap quartz watch, but if I am going to deliberately invest sentiment into an object, isn't it nice for that object to be a little bit special?


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

With everyone having a cell phone/intelligent phone that gives exact time is there any reason at all to even wear a watch? I would say decidedly no. Prior to owning a digital cell phone I wore a nice watch frequently, primarily because I thought they were nice looking pieces of jewelry that happen to tell the time less well than a cheap digital watch but somehow felt better to wear and looked more interesting.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

DocD said:


> Ask a musician what makes one violin $10,000 and another $500,000. After all, they both make the "same""sound.....sort of.


The more expensive violin will have a better sound. The Rolex, however, does not keep better time than most cheaper watches. I'm still a fan.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Matt S said:


> The more expensive violin will have a better sound. The Rolex, however, does not keep better time than most cheaper watches. I'm still a fan.


My comments about the violin were tongue in cheek. That's why I ended the comment with the "sort of".


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

Matt S said:


> The more expensive violin will have a better sound. The Rolex, however, does not keep better time than most cheaper watches. I'm still a fan.


I think that is the disconnect.

First of all, discussions of this sort always degenerate into why would one spend so much more for one item than another when the marginal benefit becomes less and less at the higher end. Whether it is wine (compare two buck chuck to DRC) or cars (a Mustang versus a Bugatti) or whatever usually there is some margin of higher performance and hence value at the higher end. The argument becomes just how much value and if it is "worth" it.

Here it is quite clear that the cheaper item actually works better at the stated purpose than the more expensive Rolex. It really is hard to justify purchasing any mechanical watch based on the merits of keeping time - none of them are "worth" it.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

TradThrifter said:


> I'm of the camp that would find it quite wasteful to spend more than $200 on a watch.....


A lot of people who don't have an appreciation for such things would find it equally wasteful to spend more than $300 on a suit or $75 on a pair of shoes.

By the way, my favourite Seiko retails for about $7500.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

hardline_42 said:


> This is where the argument always falls flat. There are those who neither smoke nor drink that might not "get" your appreciation for whisky and cigars. "It's just old, malt barley water that tastes like a campfire, and burnt rolled up leaves that give you cancer." Or those who don't care to dress better (assuming such a creature even exists). "A blazer is just something to wear over a shirt. It's not even that practical. It's not particularly warm nor waterproof." An affinity for watches that go above and beyond the pragmatic is no different than any other affinity. It doesn't have to make sense.


Well said.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

Look, everybody is free to spend their money as stupidly as they want, and to pick their own idea of what a "stupid" way to spend money is. Live and let buy two-tone Datejusts, I guess. (Though I could, for what a Rolex sells for, outdress p. much everybody).


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

The watch I wear most often and am wearing now is a Stowa Antea KS. It lists for about $600, although I bought it used via the internet. I bought it even though I have a perfectly functional and probably more accurate Tissot quartz. The Tissot keeps time. It's an appliance. The Stowa does, too, but it also is a source of pleasure, because it is, too my eyes, beautiful. It is a machine, but it is also a work of art.

I totally get high-end watches. I'd own a few if I could afford it. Just as I like well-made, beautiful objects of all sorts.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

emb1980 said:


> I'll add one more thought to the mix:
> 
> A watch is a personal item that is worn close to the body every day, but is durable enough to pass on. One day I will likely have a son, and when he reaches a certain age I will tell him: "Son, today you are a man, and this is the timepiece that has travelled around the world with me on many adventures. May it be as faithful a companion to you as it has been to me."
> 
> Sure, I could probably do that with a cheap quartz watch, but if I am going to deliberately invest sentiment into an object, isn't it nice for that object to be a little bit special?


I am reminded of the enduring quality that a fine wristwatch represents every time I strap on a vintage timepiece that is both older than I am and in better shape.

Some people would rather look at a cell phone than look at something like the above. That's fine. Some people would rather drink wine that comes in cardboard carton by the gallon. After all, it gets you just as drunk.


----------



## johnpark11 (Oct 19, 2009)

taylorgtr said:


> There was a comment in the earlier thread about 'better watch brands than Rolex', and subjective as any statement may be, I wanted to throw that out there.
> 
> You can get a watch that will tell the time accurately for $20. For $100, you can get a good looking watch (YMMV).
> 
> For you forum members that are better versed than me in the subject, what do you get when you go up to $500, to $1000 and up from there? Let's skip any precious metals or stones - for two basic types of watches - chronographs (focused on function) and 'dressier' watches, what does more money buy you? Status? Elegance? Craftmanship?


Why buy a Rolex? because you can...


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

RogerP said:


> A lot of people who don't have an appreciation for such things would find it equally wasteful to spend more than $300 on a suit or $75 on a pair of shoes.
> 
> By the way, my favourite Seiko retails for about $7500.


Which Seiko? There are quite a few that have caught my eye...


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

LOL! I'd hate to have anyone on this site find out how much I spend on shotguns . . . :icon_smile_big:


----------



## taylorgtr (Jun 1, 2013)

Matt S said:


> The more expensive violin will have a better sound. The Rolex, however, does not keep better time than most cheaper watches. I'm still a fan.


My Yamaha digital piano plays in tune no matter what, and has hundreds of sounds that it can generate, including more on-board features than whole studios had 20 years ago. It costs less than 1/10th of what my Estonia 190 grand piano cost, which has to be tuned twice a year, and climate controlled by a whole-house humidifier, air conditioning and an on-board humidifier/de-humidifier. It's a pain in the ass to take care of....but it's a beautiful instrument with over 10,000 parts that will outlive me - I guess I get the comparison to fine watches.


----------



## taylorgtr (Jun 1, 2013)

RogerP said:


> I am reminded of the enduring quality that a fine wristwatch represents every time I strap on a vintage timepiece that is both older than I am and in better shape.
> 
> Some people would rather look at a cell phone than look at something like the above. That's fine. Some people would rather drink wine that comes in cardboard carton by the gallon. After all, it gets you just as drunk.


Now, that's a handsome watch.


----------



## mhdena (Jan 4, 2008)

Those of you who find it distasteful to spend more than $200-$300 for a watch consider yourselves fortunate
you have not developed an affinity for them.

There are leather watch bands that cost $200 to $500.

:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

mhdena said:


> Those of you who find it distasteful to spend more than $200-$300 for a watch consider yourselves fortunate
> you have not developed an affinity for them.
> 
> There are leather watch bands that cost $200 to $500.
> ...


I often find myself wishing I never developed an affinity for quality shoes. Once upon a time I only owned a few pairs, all of which I bought at DSW for at most $115 a pair....and now...good grief.


----------



## RM Bantista (May 30, 2009)

TradThrifter said:


> I'm of the camp that would find it quite wasteful to spend more than $200 on a watch; although, I can somewhat understand the allure of higher status time pieces. That is...if you're into that sort of thing. My father, whom I aspire to one day be even half as successful, has worn an $85 Seiko for as long as I can remember. He also primarily wears Johnston and Murphy shoes, (although he does own a pair of AEs) which wouldn't hold a ton of credibility with iGents. I find it somewhat difficult to find use for items more expensive than what he finds acceptable when I'm no where near the position he is in. Who am I trying to fool?


There's nothing wrong with your dad's taste! Seiko is one of the world's great brands and continues to actually innovate, as opposed to just recasing old movements designed by others long ago as some companies do to great advantage--Not that there's anything wrong with that... And the old school J&Ms are still good shoes. Unfortunately, the new ones are not the equal of the old in that instance. That's fine for me, mine are the old ones. Similarly, one has other old items that also are still giving good service after may decades of use. Replacing them is not going to be easy, but it probably won't matter in my lifetime. The usefulness of the items is the reason one acquires them in the first place. Appreciating the qualities that made the items able to be useful for decades is just one of the joys of life. It doesn't matter what they cost or whether or not anyone else 'gets' it. If the use is there to begin with, and the quality is real and inherent to the application, then having the correct tool or consumable is neither foolish nor misguided. Generally, it is better not to spend more than necessary to ensure the purpose is successfully met and not sooner than one may do so without concern that some more pressing matter will not demand the same resources.
Sounds like your dad did more than a few things right.
regards,
rudy


----------



## ilikeyourstyle (Apr 24, 2007)

I could look at pictures of nice watches all day long...and yet I never seem to buy any of them. I realize that I'd probably never wear them because I hate having something chaffing against my wrist all day. But wow, do they ever look good in photos!


----------



## poorboy (Feb 23, 2012)

Luxury watches are pieces of jewelry that just happen to have the added feature of telling time. 

You can buy a cheap piece of jewelry, or an expensive piece. 

I own a Breitling Colt, and an Omega Seamaster. They look and feel great. Both are quartz because they are virtually maintenance free. I had a Tag Heuer 2000 Automatic, and couldn't stand it after a while. If I didn't wear it, it would wind down in less than 40 hours. It was fast by 6 seconds a day, and after 5 years, I had to take it in to be recalibrated, which cost over $150.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

JBierly said:


> With everyone having a cell phone/intelligent phone that gives exact time is there any reason at all to even wear a watch? I would say decidedly no. Prior to owning a digital cell phone I wore a nice watch frequently, primarily because I thought they were nice looking pieces of jewelry that happen to tell the time less well than a cheap digital watch but somehow felt better to wear and looked more interesting.


Because it's man jewelry. A chance to show off some personal style and flaunt some wealth if you're feeling like it. Same reason to wear a suit or nice shoes really.



JBierly said:


> Here it is quite clear that the cheaper item actually works better at the stated purpose than the more expensive Rolex. It really is hard to justify purchasing any mechanical watch based on the merits of keeping time - none of them are "worth" it.


You make the mistake of assuming that the watch's only purpose is to tell time. That is not so. The complications add value to the owner simply because they are so hard to make. The "Rolex" name adds value because it is so cache. Fine watches add value because they evoke style and flaunt wealth.

You are correct in that we have no "need" for a watch, but I definitely don't need $500 dress shoes either and neither do you. Same with suits, shirts, ties, cufflinks, socks, etc. And if you somehow happen to own none of those things, why are you posting on AAAC?

For those who want to know what a complication is:






Now, tell me that a G-Shock can do that.

I admit that the simple date & time Rolex et al is uncomplicated and a huge waste of money though. Omega is a better value if that's not an oxymoron.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

emb1980 said:


> I'll add one more thought to the mix:
> 
> A watch is a personal item that is worn close to the body every day, but is durable enough to pass on. One day I will likely have a son, and when he reaches a certain age I will tell him: "Son, today you are a man, and this is the timepiece that has travelled around the world with me on many adventures. May it be as faithful a companion to you as it has been to me."
> 
> Sure, I could probably do that with a cheap quartz watch, but if I am going to deliberately invest sentiment into an object, isn't it nice for that object to be a little bit special?


"Son, the time has come for me to pass on my vintage time piece. It has served med well, through various conflicts, usually regarding the proper maintenance of the shared border plants in the yard, ending several times in the exchange of water hose fire with our neighbor, Steve (damn that Steve!), and through som local suburban swinger parties, but you don't wanna know about that, and I'm pretty sure your mine anyway, so here it is, my limited edition G-Shock CLOT."


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

RogerP said:


> I am reminded of the enduring quality that a fine wristwatch represents every time I strap on a vintage timepiece that is both older than I am and in better shape.
> 
> Some people would rather look at a cell phone than look at something like the above. That's fine. Some people would rather drink wine that comes in cardboard carton by the gallon. After all, it gets you just as drunk.


Roger - that watch is absolutely beautiful. :biggrin:


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Roger - that watch is absolutely beautiful. :biggrin:


What's depressing is that watches of that caliber cost $5 back in their day. Then quartz was invented and all the watchmakers went out of business.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

Oldsarge said:


> LOL! I'd hate to have anyone on this site find out how much I spend on shotguns . . . :icon_smile_big:


A few of us here may have a pretty good idea. Among handguns, the cost a full custom 1911 can climb past that of a good vintage American double. The (legal) ivory grips on my last indulgence were about the price of a Glock - the G-Shock equivalent. As this is a clothing site, I will claim that in some club environments a beautiful side by side shotgun or a 1911 "barbeque gun" is absolutely a fashion accessory.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

What is a barbeque gun?


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Thank you taylorgtr and Shaver.



tocqueville said:


> Which Seiko? There are quite a few that have caught my eye...


I was thinking of the new Grand Seiko Hi-Beat. My second fave is this GS GMT - fit and finish rival anything from JLC under $10k.


----------



## taylorgtr (Jun 1, 2013)

tocqueville said:


> What is a barbeque gun?


It's a 'fancy' gun - inlaid or pearl grips, meant for show as much as it is for shooting. A 'court' gun is all business.

This is my favorite barbeque gun:


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> What is a barbeque gun?


I think the term originated in Texas, but I have encountered it in Arizona and elsewhere in the West. In a sense, it is making fun of oneself by owning, and in some venues openly carrying, a fancy, high end handgun. Most often, these are model 1911 .45's, made for an individual customer by one of a few specialized gunsmiths. There is a similarity to a bespoke suit. Of course, to meet the requirements of showing off, the internals must be perfect and the pistol must be accurate and reliable. The functional qualities can be found in many models at modest prices, much like the relationship of a G-Shock to a Rolex. Either one understands or he doesn't. Understanding confers no superiority, but neither does failing to understand.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

godan said:


> I think the term originated in Texas, but I have encountered it in Arizona and elsewhere in the West. In a sense, it is making fun of oneself by owning, and in some venues openly carrying, a fancy, high end handgun. Most often, these are model 1911 .45's, made for an individual customer by one of a few specialized gunsmiths. There is a similarity to a bespoke suit. Of course, to meet the requirements of showing off, the internals must be perfect and the pistol must be accurate and reliable. The functional qualities can be found in many models at modest prices, much like the relationship of a G-Shock to a Rolex. * Either one understands or he doesn't. Understanding confers no superiority, but neither does failing to understand*.


Well said. When it comes to guns (where I claim some limited experience but nothing approaching expertise) I am content with functional quality. But I certainly appreciate the fine craftsmanship of a high end shotgun and don't consider it the least bit 'wasteful' for someone who really values such an item to acquire one. Or several.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

Roger: Thanks for your sensible and generous comment. In view of the open-ended expense of high-end firearms (and Rolex watches) you might be wise to cling to whatever innocence you have remaining.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

RogerP said:


> I am reminded of the enduring quality that a fine wristwatch represents every time I strap on a vintage timepiece that is both older than I am and in better shape.
> 
> Some people would rather look at a cell phone than look at something like the above. That's fine. Some people would rather drink wine that comes in cardboard carton by the gallon. After all, it gets you just as drunk.


Just got a nearly identical watch, though a Citizen Eco-Drive. Several compliments already. That elegant simplicity really stands out these days of bulkier chronograph models.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

phyrpowr said:


> Just got a nearly identical watch, though a Citizen Eco-Drive. Several compliments already. That elegant simplicity really stands out these days of bulkier chronograph models.


Pics? I'd be curious to see Citizen's take on this style. Citizen makes some lovely watches.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Once all the essential bills and necessities in life have been paid for, how we spend the dollars that remain really is irrelevant and (I think) appropriately driven by what "winds our individual clocks(pun intended), tightens our screws or simply makes our respective hearts (however small they may be) pitter-patter just a little bit faster! I suspect we are all guilty, to varying degrees of questionable expenditures of our hard earned resources. LOL. In my case, I've spent enough on shoes/boots (many of which have already been given away:crazy, to fund the purchase of at least a couple of Rolex watches, but other than an Air King, I am just not interested! :icon_scratch:


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> Pics? I'd be curious to see Citizen's take on this style. Citizen makes some lovely watches.


I would like to see it, as well. Citizen Eco-Drives seem to be migrating toward more restrained design, which, if true, would be a welcome combination with the successful engineering.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Citizen has a "signature series" that includes a number of dressier eco-drives and automatic, mechanical watches. Citizen, like Seiko, is one of the largest manufacturers of high-quality automatic movements (often under the Miyota brand name). See here, for example: https://www.google.com/search?q=cit...3778,d.aWc&fp=b1bdcf178d4957a&biw=990&bih=546


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Pics? I'd be curious to see Citizen's take on this style. Citizen makes some lovely watches.


Currently still too lazy to learn how to upload pix, but I got mine from www.BlueDial.com, and in their catalog bar, hit Citizen watches, then "Strap Models". I also got a gold (tone) Seiko solar powered, numerals, brown strap and day/date. The Citizen is date-only. Citizen is model SKU BM7 190-05A, Seiko is model SKU SNE056


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

^^^ Dude, that still leaves 126 watches to scroll through - was it this one?

https://www.bluedial.com/bm7190-05a.htm


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

RogerP said:


> ^^^ Dude, that still leaves 126 watches to scroll through - was it this one?
> 
> https://www.bluedial.com/bm7190-05a.htm


exactly


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Hmm, a most elegantly restrained timepiece and both accurate and solar powered to boot. Difficult to beat, IMO.


----------



## TradThrifter (Oct 22, 2012)

I'm highly considering either a Citizen Eco-drive or a Seiko Solar for my next daily driver. They just make too much sense to me.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

TradThrifter said:


> I'm highly considering either a Citizen Eco-drive or a Seiko Solar for my next daily driver. They just make too much sense to me.


The main fault is the lack of sapphire IMO. But in their class they are great.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> The main fault is the lack of sapphire IMO. But in their class they are great.


The Hardlex on my Seiko diver (SKX013) is excellent. I don't see the lack of sapphire as a problem.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

The Hardlex in my Seiko Kinetic (SKA519P1, the most basic model I believe) has certainly stood up very well to lots of punishment over the last two-three years. Sapphire would likely have fared even better, but I'm not about to bring expensive watches along into rough terrain and dirty work. For use in ordinary conditions I can't imagine there's any practical difference.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

If the forum would like to have a quick whip round for my birthday, I wouldn't object to receiving one of these sublime timepieces. :redface:


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

^^^ Oh my.... sublime indeed.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Stunningly beautiful, Shaver!


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

The Simplicity is indeed a lovely timepiece, with a wonderful movement and a favourite of mine too. You might want to look into also and who knows, you may find one or two other worthy candidates for future birthday and Christmas lists.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Long ago, I tax deducted a watch. Late 1970's as I recall. I was in the midst of an IRS audit regarding professional use of a car. I'd been through a couple of IRS audits while I was a resident--over a $600/year exclusion part of my of my $1000 a month's intern salary as a stipend instead of salary--and I had learned how the game was played. "You are claiming a deduction for a watch--that's non-deductible wearing apparel." "I beg to differ. I need a watch to time pulse rates. It's a medical instrument." "But how many hours a day do you wear it--10--12?" "I may take a dozen pulses a day. I rarely look at it when I'm asleep." That was the same return I claimed a $1.98 casualty loss. "You can't have a $1.98 casualty loss." I had a tropical fish tank in my office to entertain the kids. "The goldfish died. Here's the receipt. Isn't that a casualty?" It became "Office décor" and he allowed $45 of the $50 Timex cost and in the process of dealing with a mad man he overlooked several thousands of very questionable deductions for my wife's travel expenses and when I refused to agree to extend the statue of limitations (it was a two year audit) I went to a district conference where the supervisor said it wasn't worth going further and give me about 90% of my car expenses. Had I only invested in a Rolex then.

But thanks to my late father I have several collectable watches. A 1955 Movado bumper automatic in rose gold. An Accutron Astronaut. An Omega. And my own collection which includes a Rolex Replica that still looks real, feels real, runs real and cost less than $100. I have a small, discreet black tie watch in case I forget when it's time to go home. But my usual watches are all solar atomics. A Casio G-shock, a Citizen ecodrive Skyhawk and a slightly too big at 37mm Citizen with an almost plain face. I invested in a case that keeps the automatics wound, but it's hard to remember to put an automatic back at midnight so they run down a lot if I'm wearing them. I feel obligated to have the good ones serviced every year or two since I don't wear them that much. The ecodrive atomics are right to the second and have never asked for a battery. I appreciate the technology in a fine Swiss movement. I am amazed by the technology that has almost no moving parts, sets itself every night and runs off sunlight. Why a Rolex should cost 10-20 times more escapes me.

Would only I had the guts to try to deduct another watch.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Well said, doctor!


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Oldsarge said:


> Hmm, a most elegantly restrained timepiece and both accurate and solar powered to boot. Difficult to beat, IMO.


Also strangely uncommon, Sarge. You'd think there would be more simple inexpensive watches than Breit-mega-lex super astronaut wannabes. Seems like 90% of the watches I see advertised, and 70% worn are the size of birthday cakes.


----------



## g3dahl (Aug 26, 2011)

I'm enjoying this new (to me) vintage Omega, a 1965 Seamaster 600. Best Father's Day gift ever!








[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> The Hardlex on my Seiko diver (SKX013) is excellent. I don't see the lack of sapphire as a problem.


Both my SKX007 and my SKX031 and my Orient have developed scratches on the glass. I've come to prefer sapphire.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

g3dahl said:


> I'm enjoying this new (to me) vintage Omega, a 1965 Seamaster 600. Best Father's Day gift ever!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice!


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

cdavant said:


> I feel obligated to have the good ones serviced every year or two since I don't wear them that much.


Every year or two is really overkill. If the service is a proper one, rather than a "dunk and dry" (meaning the movement is not disassembled, cleaned, oiled and re-assembled as it ought to, but only dunked in a cleaning solution to remove any obvious gunk and then dried off. Sadly this is more common than one would like to think...), and you store your watches properly (in a reasonably dust-proof way) there should be no need to carry out another for around five years

The interval has little to do with your pattern of wear, it is merely the time it takes the synthetic lubricants to degrade or dry out, which will happen roughly at the same pace regardless of whether the watch is in a drawer or on your wrist. Older watch cases are generally less dust-proof than modern ones and ought ordinarily to be serviced more frequently, but since you say you don't wear them much I'm sure every fifth year will do very nicely.


----------



## manapuaman (Jan 28, 2008)

Just like cars, they all take you a to b but I swear the extra I spent on my vw gti has kept my hairline intact! Now if a Rolex could do that, count me in.


----------



## Semper Jeep (Oct 11, 2011)

RogerP said:


> Thank you taylorgtr and Shaver.
> 
> I was thinking of the new Grand Seiko Hi-Beat. My second fave is this GS GMT - fit and finish rival anything from JLC under $10k.


I've been lusting over that GS for a while.

Currently I have a vintage Omega Seamaster Chronostop and a handful of Seikos (007, Orange Monster, solar chronograph, and a SARB Alpinist I just added to my collection), as well as a few quartz Victorinox including one that served me well in every clime and place - from Kosovo to GitMo to Afghanistan....

If I came across a Rolex I really liked, I would buy one. In fact, I almost did so with a 1980s Air King that I found in a shop in Naples, FL earlier this year while visiting the in-laws.

Like others, I look at my watches as an item that brings me pleasure to look at and I enjoy that some of them act as conversation starters, especially the Orange Monster.

In the end, I feel naked without a watch on my wrist so I might as well wear one that I enjoy.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Oldsarge said:


> LOL! I'd hate to have anyone on this site find out how much I spend on shotguns . . . :icon_smile_big:


I was just going to bring this up as I put my new Citori XT Trap (Combo, Golden Clays, Grade VI) on the wall in my bedroom.....My home defense Mossberg serves the same purpose for 2% of the price.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Semper Jeep said:


> If I came across a Rolex I really liked, I would buy one. In fact, I almost did so with a 1980s Air King that I found in a shop in Naples, FL earlier this year while visiting the in-laws.


You'll never regret that purchase, nor will you ever lose on it, assuming you don't pay some ridiculous price. My 70s AK is one of my favorites, and I recently spent over 1/3 of the purchase price to service it, happily.


----------



## Owen Meany (Jul 10, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Yes...


But not much more in the $500 - $1000 range. Most watches in the sub $2000 are essentially the same just in different dressings...I am sure many believe any watch below $6K are the same....If you take the time and do your research, you can find high qualtiy, unique and interesting watches below $1.5K, but they are no Movado, Kennth Cole, etc. I really like Alpina for a lower cost brand, some Oris are ok too...(I have a TT3 and use it a lot on the weekends, etc.)


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> You'll never regret that purchase, nor will you ever lose on it, assuming you don't pay some ridiculous price. My 70s AK is one of my favorites, and I recently spent over 1/3 of the purchase price to service it, happily.


Pics? I'd like to see what a 70s AK looks like.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Owen Meany said:


> Most watches in the sub $2000 are essentially the same just in different dressings...I am sure many believe any watch below $6K are the same.


QFT, as the kids say today. I'd put the figure at $3500, although of course there's no hard or straight line which can be drawn. A thoroughly ordinary, common-as-muck watch can be had for several thousand more as well. What you're paying for is primarily the name, since every part of the watch will be 100% machine-made and only the assembly and final finishing will be carried out by a human being. Rolex is of course the worst in this regard, seeing as they produce well in excess of a million watches every year, or around ten times more than the next largest Swiss manufacturer.

I say this, by the way, as the owner of around a dozen watches which conform exactly to the description above, all of which I have bought new. They all represent truly awful value for money; probably they are among the worst kind of items there are in that regard. However, they all give me a significant amount of pleasure, so to me they're worth it.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> Pics? I'd like to see what a 70s AK looks like.


Here's a '74:










Oh wait, wrong thread.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Lol.

I'd say the watch equivalent to that is a Seiko SKX-007.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> Lol.
> 
> I'd say the watch equivalent to that is a Seiko SKX-007.


Yep. Sturdy but horrible recoil?


----------



## tuckspub (Jan 18, 2013)

I think with all this discussion of Rolex there is one avenue that has not been embarked on, I call it the President effect. Basically it entails wearing almost any Rolex President in yellow gold in public, I assure you that if there is a gold digger within a hundred yards of you somehow you will make contact. Travel with a President on your wrist and its even more obvious, its like a slut magnet, I dare you to sit at a hotel bar with your watch showing and not have a member of the opposite sex sit next to you. Its almost like mobile homes and tornadoes, there is a magnetic attraction that draws the two together.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> Yep. Sturdy but horrible recoil?


Form direct experience of several hundred rounds, I can tell you that the recoil on the AK 74 is mild. Even the much better known, larger caliber, AK 47 recoils softly enough to be managed by tens of thousands teenagers.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

godan said:


> Form direct experience of several hundred rounds, I can tell you that the recoil on the AK 74 is mild. Even the much better known, larger caliber, AK 47 recoils softly enough to be managed by tens of thousands teenagers.


^ This. The AK-74 shoots a 5.45x39 cartridge, not the 7.62 of the '47. Even the AK-101 poodle shooter (Borzoi shooter?) has more recoil.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

godan said:


> Form direct experience of several hundred rounds, I can tell you that the recoil on the AK 74 is mild. Even the much better known, larger caliber, AK 47 recoils softly enough to be managed by tens of thousands teenagers.


Sorry, I misread it as "47". Must be getting dyslectic now in my thirties


----------



## Ed Rooney (Nov 6, 2012)

If you want a free watch, get a stainless steel Rolex sports model. They hold their value better than anything else. My $4000 Rolex Sea-Dweller is worth at least $6000, and it is going up every day. None of my other watches are worth more now than they were new. 

Any time I talk to someone go doesn't "get" spending any money on watches, they usually have an obscene amount tied up in guitars, track cars, cufflinks, home theater equipment or shotguns. 

Also, Rolex watch movements have zero parts in common with any ETA movement.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Ed Rooney said:


> Also, Rolex watch movements have zero parts in common with any ETA movement.


Why would this matter? An ETA 2892.A2 is generally considered both to be about as good a standard mechanical movement as exists today and to be a significantly better quality movement than any in-house Rolex movement. It's not for nothing that it is used as a base for modifications by manufacturers such as Frank Muller, IWC, Girard-Perregaux and more. So from a quality point of view it is not an unequivocal advantage.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Belfaborac said:


> Why would this matter? An ETA 2892.A2 is generally considered both to be about as good a standard mechanical movement as exists today and to be a significantly better quality movement than any in-house Rolex movement. It's not for nothing that it is used as a base for modifications by manufacturers such as Frank Muller, IWC, Girard-Perregaux and more. *So from a quality point of view it is not an unequivocal advantage*.


The free-sprung balance and amagnetic hairsprings of the Rolex movements are just two advantages that come to mind. The 2892-A2 is a good movement - but it hardly sets the high water mark among basic time and date movements today.


----------



## Ed Rooney (Nov 6, 2012)

Belfaborac said:


> Why would this matter? An ETA 2892.A2 is generally considered both to be about as good a standard mechanical movement as exists today and to be a significantly better quality movement than any in-house Rolex movement. It's not for nothing that it is used as a base for modifications by manufacturers such as Frank Muller, IWC, Girard-Perregaux and more. So from a quality point of view it is not an unequivocal advantage.


Someone mentioned Rolex movements as having a great deal of parts in common with an ETA. This couldn't be further from the truth.

It's used as the base ebauche for many brands because of price and availability. the higher grade ETA stuff is good, but they also make a lot of junk with Chinese parts. One can get a nice ETA-based microbrew diver for $1500 or so, but there are Seikos I would buy first.

The simple fact is that none of the big boys, ie, Patek, AP, Lange, use ETA. IWC, Breitling and Omeeeega aren't in that strata, or Rolex's, for that matter.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

When comparing watches with your friends/colleagues who are wearing Omegas, Longines, Tissots, Certinas, Oris etc and saying you wear a Seiko is the same as saying you drive a Lexus after your friends/colleagues have named Aston Martin, Maserati, Jaguar, BMW etc.


----------



## Ed Rooney (Nov 6, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> When comparing watches with your friends/colleagues who are wearing Omegas, Longines, Tissots, Certinas, Oris etc and saying you wear a Seiko is the same as saying you drive a Lexus after your friends/colleagues have named Aston Martin, Maserati, Jaguar, BMW etc.


Seiko makes their movements in-house. Omega, etc, do not. You can buy a Seiko "Flieger

Oris, Certina, etc aren't doing anything of note these days. Omega has some good stuff, albeit with some glitchy reliability (like Jag, Maserati......)


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> When comparing watches with your friends/colleagues who are wearing Omegas, Longines, Tissots, Certinas, Oris etc and saying you wear a Seiko is the same as saying you drive a Lexus after your friends/colleagues have named Aston Martin, Maserati, Jaguar, BMW etc.


Uh..., Lexus costs more than BMW and model for model, IMO, they're more luxurious. The other ones are about right though. Throw in Bentley and Rolls Royce instead of BMW and that'll be a more accurate picture. You can also add in Ferrari & Lamborghini.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Leighton said:


> Uh..., Lexus costs more than BMW and model for model, IMO, they're more luxurious. The other ones are about right though. Throw in Bentley and Rolls Royce instead of BMW and that'll be a more accurate picture. You can also add in Ferrari & Lamborghini.


But when driving a BMW, you're driving a BMW; when you're in a Lexus, you're driving a Toyota.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> Pics? I'd like to see what a 70s AK looks like.


For the life of me, I cannot find the photos. I know I've posted them on here before in either a rolex thread or monthly acquisitions thread. In short, it looks like the photo below, only doesn't say 'precision' or have the vertical and horizontal line across the dial. Otherwise, identical. Green face, luminiscent dots for markers. I've since put a mid-brown croc strap on it. It's been in service for a few months because the crown fell out, but I'll try to remember to get you a fresh photo when I get it back.

EDIT TO ADD: Found it!!! - And I lied; it does say precision.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...-Buy-It-For-Life-thread&p=1256492#post1256492


----------



## Ed Rooney (Nov 6, 2012)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> For the life of me, I cannot find the photos. I know I've posted them on here before in either a rolex thread or monthly acquisitions thread. In short, it looks like the photo below, only doesn't say 'precision' or have the vertical and horizontal line across the dial. Otherwise, identical. Green face, luminiscent dots for markers. I've since put a mid-brown croc strap on it. It's been in service for a few months because the crown fell out, but I'll try to remember to get you a fresh photo when I get it back.
> 
> EDIT TO ADD: Found it!!! - And I lied; it does say precision.
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...-Buy-It-For-Life-thread&p=1256492#post1256492


Precision just means it's not COSC certified, which they mark with Superlative Chronometer Officially Certified.

The AK is a great dress watch, and a rugged as any Rolex. Some don't like the 34mm size, but I think it is perfect with a suit.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Here's a nice recent article about some new Grand Seikos. Yum.

https://www.ablogtowatch.com/hands-on-with-the-grand-seiko-44gs-limited-edition/?utm_source=feedly


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

With the trend towards massive watches these days, the AK stands almost on its own at 34mm. Even the DJ and Explorer have been upsized. I have a passed-on Omega DeVille at about that size and it is surprising how satisfying it is on the wrist. . 

As for Rolex, if I did buy one some day, it would be a Sub. It would also be used from one of the top ranked dealers on TZ or WUS.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Ahh, thanks for the clarification on COSC/Precision. As I mentioned before, the precision AK holds better time than the COSC Datejust. 

I'm not a fan of bit watches either, as I have relatively small wrists, and a submariner is about as large as I can go, and it's not entirely comfortable; I stick with a Milgauss for casual wear.


----------



## taylorgtr (Jun 1, 2013)

phyrpowr said:


> Currently still too lazy to learn how to upload pix, but I got mine from www.BlueDial.com, and in their catalog bar, hit Citizen watches, then "Strap Models". I also got a gold (tone) Seiko solar powered, numerals, brown strap and day/date. The Citizen is date-only. Citizen is model SKU BM7 190-05A, Seiko is model SKU SNE056


I just grabbed the Citizen for $108 and free shipping from Jomashop.com. It's no Rolex, but it's a decent enough Toyota for a daily driver.

https://www.jomashop.com/citizen-watch-bm7190-05a.html


----------



## jebarne (Jul 26, 2012)

taylorgtr said:


> As long as my wife doesn't find out, I'm good.


I've noticed a trend. I was up to about 14 guitars when I bought a watch. I'm up to a dozen watches and buying suits. I'm up to 7 suits.

My wife just wants to know what's next........She's a bit freaked over the autographed DSotM album by pink floyd, and the autographed James Taylor, Joanie Mitchel, Eric Clapton albums, the autographed Johnny Van Zantt strat......

She comes to my office just to see if I've bought something new.....I don't lie, if she spots it I admit it.


----------



## jebarne (Jul 26, 2012)

taylorgtr said:


> I just grabbed the Citizen for $108 and free shipping from Jomashop.com. It's no Rolex, but it's a decent enough Toyota for a daily driver.
> 
> https://www.jomashop.com/citizen-watch-bm7190-05a.html


good tip. thanks. Just ordered one. I want a plain leather band though so I'm on the lookout for a plain band instead of gator.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

taylorgtr said:


> I just grabbed the Citizen for $108 and free shipping from Jomashop.com. It's no Rolex, but it's a decent enough Toyota for a daily driver.
> 
> https://www.jomashop.com/citizen-watch-bm7190-05a.html


Great deals there, wish I'd done a bit more research.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

My point, which seems to have been missed, is this. The NAME is everything. At the end of the day a Lexus is still Japanese, a flash Toyota, and a Seiko is still not a Swiss watch.


----------



## Geezer (Apr 22, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> My point, which seems to have been missed, is this. The NAME is everything. At the end of the day a Lexus is still Japanese, a flash Toyota, and a Seiko is still not a Swiss watch.


Not quite. For Rolex, yes, because it so well known. But would most people rate a Franck Mueller (of which they have never heard) over an Omega (which they have)? Would they know that a vintage Longines is of similar quality to more famous brands? Would they find themselves like me being asked if an ancient quartz Cartier Tank is a Patek? Would most people know what a Patek is?

I agree that the brand motivates most buyers. But not that it is "everything". A Grand Seiko is better than many Swiss. A quartz TAG is a POS,, etc.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> My point, which seems to have been missed, is this. The NAME is everything. At the end of the day a Lexus is still Japanese, a flash Toyota, and *a Seiko is still not a Swiss watch*.


Neither is a Lange.


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

I agree that the brand means almost everything in this arena. But a Grand Seiko will handily beat the vast majority of Swiss watches out there. Including many esteemed brands. On finish. An in-house movement. History. And they are handmade.

Still, the Swiss and their marketing machine have been extremely effective at creating an impression of craftsmanship that trounces the Japanese. And nobody in the industry spends nearly what Rolex does in promotion and marketing, at least in the states.

In reality, most mechanical watch designs and movements are derived from the 18th century. These watches are now predominantly mass-produced, often times in China. On the other hand, Japanese mfrs generally use 20th or 21st century technology in their movements. The higher end Citizen and Seiko models are hand made. And the 'atomic' models are accurate to the second every day. 

Ironic, at least as I see it.


----------



## Dnslater (Mar 11, 2013)

wdrazek said:


> .
> 
> In reality, most mechanical watch designs and movements are derived from the 18th century. These watches are now predominantly mass-produced, often times in China. On the other hand, Japanese mfrs generally use 20th or 21st century technology in their movements. The higher end Citizen and Seiko models are hand made. And the 'atomic' models are accurate to the second every day.
> 
> Ironic, at least as I see it.


in the late 19th century the best watches were made in the U.S.A. Things change.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

tuckspub said:


> I think with all this discussion of Rolex there is one avenue that has not been embarked on, I call it the President effect. Basically it entails wearing almost any Rolex President in yellow gold in public, I assure you that if there is a gold digger within a hundred yards of you somehow you will make contact. Travel with a President on your wrist and its even more obvious, its like a slut magnet, I dare you to sit at a hotel bar with your watch showing and not have a member of the opposite sex sit next to you. Its almost like mobile homes and tornadoes, there is a magnetic attraction that draws the two together.


I really need to try out this social experiment. If only I had the $30k to blow on an experiment.....


----------



## Ed Rooney (Nov 6, 2012)

This one is for shark fishing off Martha's Vineyard.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Leighton said:


> I really need to try out this social experiment. If only I had the $30k to blow on an experiment.....


Well-l-l-l, you can go with the real, honest, genuine $40 Rolex President you bought off the nice man in the alley. She might spit the hook, but you could see how close you got her to the gaff.


----------



## taylorgtr (Jun 1, 2013)

> I've noticed a trend. I was up to about 14 guitars when I bought a watch. I'm up to a dozen watches and buying suits. I'm up to 7 suits.


When I had 10 guitars, I played about 4 of them. With 7....I play about 4 of them. It's just a question of which 4.

I'm up to 6 suits and two sport coats....but that's because I had to buy an entirely new wardrobe after losing 75 lbs. (On another note, I'll be doing a comparison of a Hickey Freeman Lindsey model and a Hardwick Sartorial Separates as soon as the 2nd one comes in.


----------



## taylorgtr (Jun 1, 2013)

Ed Rooney said:


> This one is for shark fishing off Martha's Vineyard.
> 
> View attachment 8112


You're gonna need a bigger watch.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

phyrpowr said:


> Well-l-l-l, you can go with the real, honest, genuine $40 Rolex President you bought off the nice man in the alley. She might spit the hook, but you could see how close you got her to the gaff.


Not sure I want to take them home with me.... that might be better actually. Lol.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Leighton said:


> I really need to try out this social experiment. If only I had the $30k to blow on an experiment.....


You can pick up a (n older) YG Day/Date starting around $7k (FWIW, the watch contains about $3500 in gold on today's market). I considered one briefly, but having friends with them, I can confirm that tuckspub's comment is accurate.



Dnslater said:


> in the late 19th century the best watches were made in the U.S.A. Things change.


There still is, and I've been considering one for a while...

- Specifically the Signature 222 with the navy croc band (Watch Collections -> American Made -> 222)


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Geezer said:


> Not quite.


What do you mean "not quite"? I know what MY point is. Well known names are well known and respected for a reason. And a Swiss watch is always a Swiss watch and a Japanese car is always a Japanese car. NONE of which has anything to do with small superbly handcrafted brands being the best yet almost unheard of watches in the world. QED full circle - The name is everything.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

RogerP said:


> Neither is a Lange.


QED. The NAME is everything. How many people have heard of Lange?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> There still is, and I've been considering one for a while...
> 
> - Specifically the Signature 222 with the navy croc band (Watch Collections -> American Made -> 222)


Ooh, RGM. I want. I love how they incorporate Pennsylvania design elements: the keystone, the "Lancaster, Penna." As a native Pennsylvanian, I dig that. Most of their watches don't quite sing to me however since I'm not into guilloched stuff, but a few do. I like their pilot watches, for example. Well, one day. It's all beyond my means.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> How many people have heard of Lange?


Anyone with an interest in horology one would think. It being one of the three, four, five most prestigious and accomplished manufacturers around today.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> Ooh, RGM. I want. I love how they incorporate Pennsylvania design elements: the keystone, the "Lancaster, Penna." As a native Pennsylvanian, I dig that. Most of their watches don't quite sing to me however since I'm not into guilloched stuff, but a few do. I like their pilot watches, for example. Well, one day. It's all beyond my means.


Where in PA?

I, too, noticed the keystone date window, and how they'll put the city/state on it. I'm split between one of those and a Glasshutte.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Where in PA?
> 
> I, too, noticed the keystone date window, and how they'll put the city/state on it. I'm split between one of those and a Glasshutte.


Me or RGM? I'm from Wayne. RGM's from Mt. Joy, Lanc. County.

Which Glasshütte? Those are gorgeous. When I see someone with an expensive Rolex that I know they only bought because they know the brand name, I'm disappointed because I know that for the same money they could have gotten a GO that, to my eyes, is so much more beautiful and interesting (I'm talking aesthetics...I'm not about to start speculating as to which is a better watch mechanically).


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

There's also , GO's sister company (both owned by Swatch of course) which uses GO-modified ETA movements and "lower-end" GO in-house movements. Styled with more of an eye towards fashion and trends, but great watches nonetheless and much more obtainable than GO itself.

I own a hand-wound Senator Sixties, bought not long after the series was introduced, and it really is a lovely, lovely watch.


----------



## Ed Rooney (Nov 6, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> Me or RGM? I'm from Wayne. RGM's from Mt. Joy, Lanc. County.
> 
> Which Glasshütte? Those are gorgeous. When I see someone with an expensive Rolex that I know they only bought because they know the brand name, I'm disappointed because I know that for the same money they could have gotten a GO that, to my eyes, is so much more beautiful and interesting (I'm talking aesthetics...I'm not about to start speculating as to which is a better watch mechanically).


Sometimes I like to wear my Rolex and strike up a conversation with a guy wearing JLC only to find that he doesn't even know how to pronounce Jaeger LeCoultre, or that he thinks the watch runs on the heat from his skin.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> You can pick up a (n older) YG Day/Date starting around $7k (FWIW, the watch contains about $3500 in gold on today's market). I considered one briefly, but having friends with them, I can confirm that tuckspub's comment is accurate.


I wonder if it's the gold on the watch or the fact that it's a Rolex. That's some pretty well trained eyes that can spot a Rolex from 20-50 ft away.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Belfaborac said:


> I own a hand-wound Senator Sixties, bought not long after the series was introduced, and it really is a lovely, lovely watch.


I thought the Senator Sixties was automatic? Lovely watch indeed.


----------



## Ed Rooney (Nov 6, 2012)

Leighton said:


> I wonder if it's the gold on the watch or the fact that it's a Rolex. That's some pretty well trained eyes that can spot a Rolex from 20-50 ft away.


The magnifying loupe over the date and the crystal rising higher than the bezel is very distinctive. I can usually pick out a Rolex from 20-30 ft, but not for the same reasons;-)


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Ed Rooney said:


> The magnifying loupe over the date and the crystal rising higher than the bezel is very distinctive. I can usually pick out a Rolex from 20-30 ft, but not for the same reasons;-)


Yeah, I realized that after I started looking at Rolexes. Wondered if any other brand did it, I'm assuming not since I've checked out all the high end brands other than Rolex in my fascination with high end watches.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Ed Rooney said:


> The magnifying loupe over the date and the crystal rising higher than the bezel is very distinctive. I can usually pick out a Rolex from 20-30 ft, but not for the same reasons;-)


Would the reason be that they are often to be found on the wrist of 'a certain type' of fellow? :devil:


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

RogerP said:


> I thought the Senator Sixties was automatic? Lovely watch indeed.


They are today. The manual wind (in white gold with blue hands) was made in a limited number and then discontinued.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Would the reason be that they are often to be found on the wrist of 'a certain type' of fellow? :devil:


Though crowd


----------



## jerry_in_motown (Nov 14, 2011)

Shaver said:


> Would the reason be that they are often to be found on the wrist of 'a certain type' of fellow? :devil:


Do you find joy in insulting Rolex owners?


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

jerry_in_motown said:


> Do you find joy in insulting Rolex owners?


I wish I could, but I'd find it more satisfying to do in real life, and unfortunately, I couldn't do that unless I owned a Patek. :icon_viking:


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Belfaborac said:


> They are today. The manual wind (in white gold with blue hands) was made in a limited number and then discontinued.


Thanks - I did not know this.


----------



## tuckspub (Jan 18, 2013)

Hey I have nothing against the guy who wants the attention of a younger "lady" while out of town, its just not my thing and so I would avoid wearing a President like the plague.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

jerry_in_motown said:


> Do you find joy in insulting Rolex owners?


I think he does, but as I can't afford one right now, I can't feel sorry for you 

It's all in good fun...


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Even a submariner is the cost of an engagement ring which comes with that Debiers "2 months salary" slogan. Which is ridiculous either way I cut it. Obviously not engaged.....yet.

I am just repulsed by the cost of used Rolexes. $6,000 for a Yachtmaster, $5k for a Submariner in good condition. $35,000 for the gold versions. I just can't wrap my head around the monthly salary that would make that $35k "affordable"..... That's a great deal more than my monthly income. And I know where I stand in the hierarchy of household income in the US and state.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

jerry_in_motown said:


> Do you find joy in insulting Rolex owners?


Joy? Insulting? Not a bit of it - I'm rather surprised that you are able to percieve my contributions in that fashion. I consider it more an act of generosity to give of my time and assist chaps in making better choices.

I appreciate that after you have spent a considerable sum of money it can come as a bit of a blow to realise that the object of your desire is not quite all it's cracked up to be - but take comfort! for people are always banging on about the high re-sale value of these items so you should be able to off-load it onto someone else quite easily. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Leighton said:


> Even a submariner is the cost of an engagement ring which comes with that Debiers "2 months salary" slogan. Which is ridiculous either way I cut it. Obviously not engaged.....yet.
> 
> I am just repulsed by the cost of used Rolexes. $6,000 for a Yachtmaster, $5k for a Submariner in good condition. $35,000 for the gold versions. I just can't wrap my head around the monthly salary that would make that $35k "affordable"..... That's a great deal more than my monthly income. And I know where I stand in the hierarchy of household income in the US and state.


Diamond engagement rings are the biggest scam ever pulled on the male population. These incredibly overpriced trinkets are neither rare nor indestructible - their value is held at vastly overinflated prices by market monopoly. Cunning advertising campaigns insinuate that this token of betrothal has a heritage of tradition (in fact it is a comparatively recent invention) and generally guilt trip men into coughing up a significant chunk of their income for these rubbishy items which have virtually no intrinsic value. Try selling a diamond ring back to a jewelers and see how much they will give you - _if they will even be prepared buy it at all_. Investment diamonds? If a man will swallow that then he will swallow anything.

.
.
.
.


----------



## hsc89 (Oct 14, 2009)

Just a quick note - there is no such thing as a Rolex "President" and I, for one, always find it quite amusing when anti-Rolex, so-called watch snobs make that mistake. Among the current gent's models, the Day-Date is available with a "President" bracelet, which moniker was adopted after Eisenhower was presented with (and even occasionally wore along with a Vulcain Cricket and a few others) a gold Datejust fitted with the rounded-link alternative to the oyster model.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Ed Rooney said:


> Sometimes I like to wear my Rolex and strike up a conversation with a guy wearing JLC only to find that he doesn't even know *how to pronounce Jaeger LeCoultre*, or that he thinks the watch runs on the heat from his skin.


Now I'm curious. JLC is a Swiss maker and the "Jaeger" in JLC was a French guy, despite his German name so, I'm guessing it's pronounced "Zhay-zhay Luh-Koolt?"


----------



## TradThrifter (Oct 22, 2012)

hardline_42 said:


> Now I'm curious. JLC is a Swiss maker and the "Jaeger" in JLC was a French guy, despite his German name so, I'm guessing it's pronounced "Zhay-zhay Luh-Koolt?"


That is correct; however, in America we still sound out all the letters. "Zhay-ger leh-kul-tre"


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

Or, the new Rolex owner purchased a watch he will keep and enjoy for a lifetime, eventually making the initial price he paid irrelevant.



Shaver said:


> Joy? Insulting? Not a bit of it - I'm rather surprised that you are able to percieve my contributions in that fashion. I consider it more an act of generosity to give of my time and assist chaps in making better choices.
> 
> I appreciate that after you have spent a considerable sum of money it can come as a bit of a blow to realise that the object of your desire is not quite all it's cracked up to be - but take comfort! for people are always banging on about the high re-sale value of these items so you should be able to off-load it onto someone else quite easily. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

Or, the diamond engagement ring is a symbol of the love and commitment a couple has for each other. Eventually, regardless of purchase price, if the marriage is a good one then the ring was an exceptionally good value.



Shaver said:


> Diamond engagement rings are the biggest scam ever pulled on the male population. These incredibly overpriced trinkets are neither rare nor indestructible - their value is held at vastly overinflated prices by market monopoly..
> .
> .
> .


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

For that to be true, the assumption must be made that without the diamond ring the marriage would unquestionably have gone down the drain. That's a rather bleak outlook, isn't it?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Diamond engagement rings are the biggest scam ever pulled on the male population. These incredibly overpriced trinkets are neither rare nor indestructible - their value is held at vastly overinflated prices by market monopoly. Cunning advertising campaigns insinuate that this token of betrothal has a heritage of tradition (in fact it is a comparatively recent invention) and generally guilt trip men into coughing up a significant chunk of their income for these rubbishy items which have virtually no intrinsic value.




Nonsense Shaver, the expensive ring is meant to act as a salutary warning to the man (just in case the penny has not already dropped) that he is about to enter into a commitment involving extreme financial self-sacrifice; the ring is just the beginning.



> Try selling a diamond ring back to a jewelers and see how much they will give you - _if they will even be prepared buy it at all_. Investment diamonds? If a man will swallow that then he will swallow anything.


I know a scallywag person of ill fame who did that very thing - bought his bride a very expensive ring together with a paste copy, then quietly returned the real one a few months later (foolishly thinking he could get away with such a bold and daring scheme).
.
.
.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

DG123 said:


> Or, the new Rolex owner purchased a watch he will keep and enjoy for a lifetime, eventually making the initial price he paid irrelevant.


Except when he's charged for the service


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Langham said:


> Nonsense Shaver, the expensive ring is meant to act as a salutary warning to the man (just in case the penny has not already dropped) that he is about to enter into a commitment involving extreme financial self-sacrifice; the ring is just the beginning.
> 
> I know a scallywag person of ill fame who did that very thing - bought his bride a very expensive ring together with a paste copy, then quietly returned the real one a few months later (foolishly thinking he could get away with such a bold and daring scheme).
> .
> ...


You spectator shoe wearer you...


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

This thread keeps on giving!

Here's one for Shaver.....


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Leighton said:


> I wonder if it's the gold on the watch or the fact that it's a Rolex. That's some pretty well trained eyes that can spot a Rolex from 20-50 ft away.


It's the watch; specifically the DayDate with a President bracelet. I'll wear my Milgauss (retails around 8k), and only watch guys know what it is; the standard 'woman' of the type would respond to a submariner but not that. Same went for my Explorer. 


Leighton said:


> Even a submariner is the cost of an engagement ring which comes with that Debiers "2 months salary" slogan. Which is ridiculous either way I cut it. Obviously not engaged.....yet.
> 
> I am just repulsed by the cost of used Rolexes. $6,000 for a Yachtmaster, $5k for a Submariner in good condition. $35,000 for the gold versions. I just can't wrap my head around the monthly salary that would make that $35k "affordable"..... That's a great deal more than my monthly income. And I know where I stand in the hierarchy of household income in the US and state.


Ehh, those numbers aren't necessarily accurate. You can get an entry-level used rolex for under $2k; nice newer airking for $3-4k; sub for $4500, two-tone sub for $6-8k, gold DayDate for the same. $35k for a gold Submariner is a brand new in the box model.



Shaver said:


> Diamond engagement rings are the biggest scam ever pulled on the male population. These incredibly overpriced trinkets are neither rare nor indestructible - their value is held at vastly overinflated prices by market monopoly. Cunning advertising campaigns insinuate that this token of betrothal has a heritage of tradition (in fact it is a comparatively recent invention) and generally guilt trip men into coughing up a significant chunk of their income for these rubbishy items which have virtually no intrinsic value. Try selling a diamond ring back to a jewelers and see how much they will give you - _if they will even be prepared buy it at all_. Investment diamonds? If a man will swallow that then he will swallow anything.


This, actually, can be beat. I did my research (thoroughly), shopped diligently, bought a quality stone, and at the end of the day when things broke down, I lost 15% selling it. Guys get hosed because they don't know any better. That, and when you're buying at a box store in the 3k-10k range, you're going to get burned.


----------



## Dnslater (Mar 11, 2013)

Belfaborac said:


> For that to be true, the assumption must be made that without the diamond ring the marriage would unquestionably have gone down the drain. That's a rather bleak outlook, isn't it?


Agree with this and Shaver's statement. Have a problem with the diamond industry for several good reasons. I'm married and get the symbolism associated with the purchase, but I have never been that big into proving one's love and commitment through spending.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Diamond engagement rings are the biggest scam ever pulled on the male population. These incredibly overpriced trinkets are neither rare nor indestructible - their value is held at vastly overinflated prices by market monopoly. Cunning advertising campaigns insinuate that this token of betrothal has a heritage of tradition (in fact it is a comparatively recent invention) and generally guilt trip men into coughing up a significant chunk of their income for these rubbishy items which have virtually no intrinsic value. Try selling a diamond ring back to a jewelers and see how much they will give you - _if they will even be prepared buy it at all_. Investment diamonds? If a man will swallow that then he will swallow anything.
> 
> .
> .
> ...


No, you can do diamonds as an investment...provided you can buy at wholesale and sell at retail...good luck on that. At least the ring gives her bragging rights, and shuts her mother up for a while. My vote for biggest scam/male division is the >400HP sedan. Total overkill for commuting and trips to Granny's or vacation(99% of the usage) and guaranteed kill if Mr. LookAtMe decides he can really drive and turns it loose.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

phyrpowr said:


> No, you can do diamonds as an investment...provided you can buy at wholesale and sell at retail...good luck on that. At least the ring gives her bragging rights, and shuts her mother up for a while. My vote for biggest scam/male division is the >400HP sedan. Total overkill for commuting and trips to Granny's or vacation(99% of the usage) and guaranteed kill if Mr. LookAtMe decides he can really drive and turns it loose.


Come drive a Chrysler 300 SRT8. Mr. LookAtMe, regardless of driving ability, is going to have a hard time passing you. Worth every damn penny.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Come drive a Chrysler 300 SRT8. Mr. LookAtMe, regardless of driving ability, is going to have a hard time passing you. Worth every damn penny.


I would not buy one with your money!  Good match for a Rolex though...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

VictorRomeo said:


> I would not buy one with your money!  Good match for a Rolex though...


A heat-seeking missile, scoring a direct hit!


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Come drive a Chrysler 300 SRT8. Mr. LookAtMe, regardless of driving ability, is going to have a hard time passing you. Worth every damn penny.


My "guaranteed kill" phrase may have been misunderstood: I meant a_ctually _kill his own dumb ass, or someone else when he wrecks.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

phyrpowr said:


> No, you can do diamonds as an investment...provided you can buy at wholesale and sell at retail...good luck on that. At least the ring gives her bragging rights, and shuts her mother up for a while. My vote for biggest scam/male division is the >400HP sedan. Total overkill for commuting and trips to Granny's or vacation(99% of the usage) and guaranteed kill if Mr. LookAtMe decides he can really drive and turns it loose.


Not really. I'm into cars too and certain performance sedans outperform a lot of sports coupes. Specifically, BMW's. The Charger is the new performance cop car.

Eff the 300. Might as well buy a Corvette, Charger SRT 8, Camaro SS, 'Stang GT, or even a Cadillac.

Although I suppose I see your argument if you see driving as simply getting from point A to B in as little fanfare or joy as possible. True car enthusiasts actually push their cars to the limit on the track. And if not, at least take turns a lot faster than normal people.

A car is a poor analogy. It actually has a necessary and needed utility which can be made better by spending more money. A mechanical watch used to provide a very necessary function, but has been usurped by quartz, then digital, and finally the cellular phone. But even back then, the more money you spent, all you'd get was more accurate time keeping. A car provides a watch and so much more.

****, a new Day/Date costs as much as a lot of cars....


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Leighton said:


> Not really. I'm into cars too and certain performance sedans outperform a lot of sports coupes. Specifically, BMW's. The Charger is the new performance cop car.
> 
> Eff the 300. Might as well buy a Corvette, Charger SRT 8, Camaro SS, 'Stang GT, or even a Cadillac.
> 
> ...


Once again, I don't think we're comparing apples-to-apples here. I have an Audi A4 convertible (bought five years old, less than $21K and less than 21k miles, showroom condition, had to brag about that, though it was dumb luck) which puts out about 250HP, and handles beautifully. I can go much faster than I'm really capable of driving, and I'm a fairly decent driver who actually did take a performance course decades ago. I like to drive, and have always bought cars that had some extra capability, but 400HP or more is going to do nothing for me, or 99.99% of the driving population: they just can't use it, and have no need for it. And from my experience, the ones who can roll up their sleeves and build it in.

As an aside, I am wearing my Dad's >60 year old "Kent De Luxe Automatic", water resistant Swiss made incabloc. If anyone has any information on these watches ( I think a generic 1940s-50s movement, branded after import) please PM me.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

VictorRomeo said:


> I would not buy one with your money!  Good match for a Rolex though...


Both entirely douchebag statements. Think of NEW, factory original 300s, not those modified ones of hip-hop fame.



Leighton said:


> Not really. I'm into cars too and certain performance sedans outperform a lot of sports coupes. Specifically, BMW's. The Charger is the new performance cop car.
> 
> Eff the 300. Might as well buy a Corvette, Charger SRT 8, Camaro SS, 'Stang GT, or even a Cadillac.


Why 'eff the 300' but the Charger is it? The Charger is only the top 'cop car' based on a multitude of stats. Further, the police package Charger, as ordered by the majority (95%) of departments, is equipped with a 300hp V6.

The 300 and Charger are identical cars; in the SRT variants, you get more luxury in the 300. They are, otherwise, the same machines. It can seat four 6'+ adults comfortably, while clocking serious track times. The Corvette, Mustang, and Camaro, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, are all lesser performers than the 300. Notwithstanding their passenger capacity.



phyrpowr said:


> Once again, I don't think we're comparing apples-to-apples here. I have an Audi A4 convertible (bought five years old, less than $21K and less than 21k miles, showroom condition, had to brag about that, though it was dumb luck) which puts out about 250HP, and handles beautifully. I can go much faster than I'm really capable of driving, and I'm a fairly decent driver who actually did take a performance course decades ago. I like to drive, and have always bought cars that had some extra capability, but 400HP or more is going to do nothing for me, or 99.99% of the driving population: they just can't use it, and have no need for it. And from my experience, the ones who can roll up their sleeves and build it in.
> 
> As an aside, I am wearing my Dad's >60 year old "Kent De Luxe Automatic", water resistant Swiss made incabloc. If anyone has any information on these watches ( I think a generic 1940s-50s movement, branded after import) please PM me.


The .01% is exactly who those cars are built for. As for 'rolling up your sleeves and building it', well, that's certainly rewarding. However, the engineering that comes with modern 'muscle/performance' cars is simply of the level that the home mechanic cannot do.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

DG123 said:


> Or, the new Rolex owner purchased a watch he will keep and enjoy for a lifetime, eventually making the initial price he paid irrelevant.





DG123 said:


> Or, the diamond engagement ring is a symbol of the love and commitment a couple has for each other. Eventually, regardless of purchase price, if the marriage is a good one then the ring was an exceptionally good value.


My dear fellow, I am so very pleased that you have reached out to me whilst you are in this particularly admirable frame of mind. It just so happens, between you me and the gatepost, I have a bundle of old newspapers for sale. £10,000 to you. Eventually the price I am offering this remarkable purchase at will become irrelevant or even especially good value. Please PM me for further details.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

V/R - you de man! 

In his defence I will say this: Iggy Pop has earned the right to do as he God damn well pleases. I even found that dreadful car insurance advert with the little puppet version of Iggy quite funny too.



VictorRomeo said:


> This thread keeps on giving!
> 
> Here's one for Shaver.....


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

phyrpowr said:


> No, you can do diamonds as an investment...provided you can buy at wholesale and sell at retail...good luck on that. At least the ring gives her bragging rights, and shuts her mother up for a while. My vote for biggest scam/male division is the >400HP sedan. Total overkill for commuting and trips to Granny's or vacation(99% of the usage) and guaranteed kill if Mr. LookAtMe decides he can really drive and turns it loose.


Respectfully, it simply is not true. Diamonds have *no* real value - they just dig them out of the ground, you know. John Locke has more to say about the paradoxical nature of this if you are at all interested.

Diamonds were rare once upon a time, and rare items will always command a premium. However since enormous quantities of diamond seams were discovered in the 19th century they are a very common gemstone now - De Beers cartel has total monopoly and price-fixes. There are many other reasons to never buy diamonds (moral and ethical) but the best should be that only a schmuck will pay £20,000 for a glittery bauble that costs the supplier mere pennies.

Further reading can be very easily googled but try these two articles just out of interest.

https://www.vossjewelry.com/natural-diamond-bad-choice

https://edwardjayepstein.com/diamond/prologue.htm


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Respectfully, it simply is not true. Diamonds have *no* real value - they just dig them out of the ground, you know. John Locke has more to say about the paradoxical nature of this if you are at all interested.
> 
> Diamonds were rare once upon a time, and rare items will always command a premium. However since enormous quantities of diamond seams were discovered in the 19th century they are a very common gemstone now - De Beers cartel has total monopoly and price-fixes. There are many other reasons to never buy diamonds (moral and ethical) but the best should be that only a schmuck will pay £20,000 for a glittery bauble that costs the supplier mere pennies.
> 
> ...


Now, don't be condescending, Old Fellow (have read Locke, thank you, and I assume you've acquainted yourself with Cecil Rhodes), and re-read above carefully. Didn't say they had "real" value, just that buying low and selling high is a good investment. Works for gew-gaws and knick-knacks as well.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Why 'eff the 300' but the Charger is it? The Charger is only the top 'cop car' based on a multitude of stats. Further, the police package Charger, as ordered by the majority (95%) of departments, is equipped with a 300hp V6.
> 
> The 300 and Charger are identical cars; in the SRT variants, you get more luxury in the 300. They are, otherwise, the same machines. It can seat four 6'+ adults comfortably, while clocking serious track times. The Corvette, Mustang, and Camaro, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, are all lesser performers than the 300. Notwithstanding their passenger capacity.


You misunderstand. I would never buy a Charger, but if forced to choose, I'd choose Charger over 300 any day. Aesthetic reasons only. I've never sat in a 300 SRT and doubt I will.

Apparently the Genesis Sedan 5.0 meets the 400 hp standard as well.

How the hell are they lesser performers? The 300 SRT8 is $49,000. The 'stang GT is $30,900. The Camaro SS is $32.6k.

The Chrysler goes from 0-60 in 4.3 and 1/4 mile in 12.6
The 'vette does it in 4.0 and 12.4 and costs the same
The 'stang does it in 4.5 & 13
Camaro is 4.7 & 13.1, the 1LE (about $5k more) is 4.2 & 12.5
Boss 'Stang is 4.1 & 12.5
Genesis is 4.7 & 13.1

So, in every case, the car is either significantly cheaper and not that much slower, or same price or cheaper and faster.

The 300 has luxury, I'll give it that, but so does a Genesis Sedan.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Both entirely douchebag statements. Think of NEW, factory original 300s, not those modified ones of hip-hop fame.
> 
> Why 'eff the 300' but the Charger is it? The Charger is only the top 'cop car' based on a multitude of stats. Further, the police package Charger, as ordered by the majority (95%) of departments, is equipped with a 300hp V6.
> 
> ...


Okay, I see now, this mega-HP is apparently being automatically associated with better steering, suspension, balance, etc. I didn't automatically make that association, just talkin' about more horses. Twizz, I have to ask, where do you wind 'em out in the Philadelphia area? Not being snotty, just recall it was awfully urban when I was last through, not much elbow room. Here in Charlotte, we have a track (expensive), but also, within two hours, a good number of mountain roads that can test your ball-joints and bladder at the same time .


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

phyrpowr said:


> Now, don't be condescending, Old Fellow (have read Locke, thank you, and I assume you've acquainted yourself with Cecil Rhodes), and re-read above carefully. Didn't say they had "real" value, just that buying low and selling high is a good investment. Works for gew-gaws and knick-knacks as well.


I have absolutely no idea why you would interpret my well intentioned conversational aside as being condescending - that's rather unfair of you, isn't it?


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

I like the story of a man who bought his new Rolex in 1967 for the then astounding high price of $250, and has worn it everyday since, nearly fifty years now. 
It warms me to hear about the 80 year old man who presented his (future) wife with a diamond engagement ring 60 years ago, which she has proudly worn through the childbearing years, graduations, holiday dinners surrounded by grandchildren etc.... 
Call me sentimental, but some purchases make good sense, regardless of financial price.



Shaver said:


> My dear fellow, I am so very pleased that you have reached out to me whilst you are in this particularly admirable frame of mind. It just so happens, between you me and the gatepost, I have a bundle of old newspapers for sale. £10,000 to you. Eventually the price I am offering this remarkable purchase at will become irrelevant or even especially good value. Please PM me for further details.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> The .01% is exactly who those cars are built for. As for 'rolling up your sleeves and building it', well, that's certainly rewarding. However, the engineering that comes with modern 'muscle/performance' cars is simply of the level that the home mechanic cannot do.


I'm completely confused as to what cars are being discussed here.

In Phyrpower's defense, he's right. Most track enthusiasts modify a platform car. The 1% ers drive around their Ferraris and sometimes their 'vettes.

The most popular platform is without a doubt the Mustang. So easy to add HP and improve the handling and so much aftermarket support. Of course, everyone has one and that's really who the Mustang is built for. Enter the Camaro in the last decade and you've got another car that mods pretty well and looks different.

I'd wager the 370Z is actually driven mostly by younger males. The Corvette is usually an older man. A BMW can be anyone with a lot of money to throw around. The M series are usually men.

The 300 SRT8 is a luxury car, not a sports car. So is a Gen Sedan 5.0L.

In reality, the sub $50k car is theoretically affordable to about 25% of households. If you want to use the 50% income rule, than 10% of households, the Dave Ramsey rule, 5% of households. Or thereabouts, I'm going off the top of my head, haven't double checked those numbers, but you get the point.

The .01% drive $100k+ cars and can afford a Day/date at retail since it's about 2 weeks salary. Those cars are the ones I hardly see driving around Scottsdale which is full of $50k cars. But they're around. Ferraris and a couple of Lambos do get driven around here. I've seen quite a few GTR's as well. There's a Rolls and a few Bentleys driving around town. Jags too, but I don't know much about those. And every once in a while some AMG Mercedes. Oh yeah, there's this one guy with two R8s.

That said, none of those super cars are sedans either.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

DG123 said:


> I like the story of a man who bought his new Rolex in 1967 for the then astounding high price of $250, and has worn it everyday since, nearly fifty years now.
> It warms me to hear about the 80 year old man who presented his (future) wife with a diamond engagement ring 60 years ago, which she has proudly worn through the childbearing years, graduations, holiday dinners surrounded by grandchildren etc....
> Call me sentimental, but some purchases make good sense, regardless of financial price.


I understand and appreciate sentimentality, and approve of your value of heart-warming tales.

However, as one example, the same effect could have been achieved with a sapphire ring which is much more beautiful and much less of a rip-off to the buyer.

BTW I have just noticed that I neglected to add a 'smiley' or 'winky' emoticon to my post which made it perhaps appear more cutting than it was intended to be. Sorry about that.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Perhaps we should allow Mr. Archie Luxury to have the final say upon this matter because he's popular with the ladies (chav and middle class) :


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

DG123 said:


> I like the story of a man who bought his new Rolex in 1967 for the then astounding high price of $250, and has worn it everyday since, nearly fifty years now.
> It warms me to hear about the 80 year old man who presented his (future) wife with a diamond engagement ring 60 years ago, which she has proudly worn through the childbearing years, graduations, holiday dinners surrounded by grandchildren etc....
> Call me sentimental, but some purchases make good sense, regardless of financial price.


I understand your point, but replace Rolex with Timex and diamond with Moissanite and you *should* still get the same sentimental value. But just reading that sentence I just typed, we don't. We've been programmed to associate Rolex and diamonds with "quality" and "value" and "forever".

It's all in our heads.

That said, I'll probably buy a damned Rolex just to fit in and outwardly announce that I've "made it". Just because that's what the societal norm is. I don't like it, but I'll conform. I can't swim against the stream forever.

Making it being a certain level of income commensurate with the price of the watch of course.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Shaver said:


> I have absolutely no idea why you would interpret my well intentioned conversational aside as being condescending - that's rather unfair of you, isn't it?


My perception, or ego, rather than you intention I'm sure. Fully agree about diamonds, which were not much thought of as engagement symbols pre-1900.

I'm outa here, have no intention of offending anyone based on what they bought. If it makes you happy, that's a pretty good investment right there


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

phyrpowr said:


> My perception, or ego, rather than you intention I'm sure. Fully agree about diamonds, which were not much thought of as engagement symbols pre-1900.


Gotta hand it to DeBiers. What a marketing coupe.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Both entirely douchebag statements. Think of NEW, factory original 300s, not those modified ones of hip-hop fame.


Unlike Shaver - the binder and a cod* that he istongue2 - my post did contain the obligatory wink to suggest a little bit of leg pulling, or, as you chaps from across the pond call it; "yanking your chain". No harm, slur nor insult meant.

That said, in an unforgivable piece of brand engineering the 300c is sold in these parts now as the 'new' Lancia Thema. Despicable and shameless.

(*As the wonderful Terry Thomas might pronounce it - makes me laugh!)


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

__
https://soundcloud.com/bellicose%2Fan-absolute-shower









........Jolly Good Show


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Shaver said:


> I understand and appreciate sentimentality, and approve of your value of heart-warming tales.
> 
> However, as one example, the same effect could have been achieved with a sapphire ring which is much more beautiful and much less of a rip-off to the buyer.
> 
> BTW I have just noticed that I neglected to add a 'smiley' or 'winky' emoticon to my post which made it perhaps appear more cutting than it was intended to be. Sorry about that.


I gather that your Mr. de Botton had the colonies primarily in mind while writing his "Status Anxiety" : https://www.alaindebotton.com/status.asp :icon_pale:


----------



## Ed Rooney (Nov 6, 2012)

If my neighbor can spend $200K on a horse for an 11-year old, I can spend 5 or 6K on a watch.


----------



## Ed Rooney (Nov 6, 2012)

Brio1 said:


> Perhaps we should allow Mr. Archie Luxury to have the final say upon this matter because he's popular with the ladies (chav and middle class) :


Nooooooooo!!!!! Not that tosser!!!!!!

On Rolexforums it is a bannable offense to post his videos.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

They were pretty obnoxious. I can't believe you guys made me watch even 1 minute of that crap.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Ed Rooney said:


> If my neighbor can spend $200K on a horse for an 11-year old, I can spend 5 or 6K on a watch.


Absolutely you can. Just try to avoid getting one with a 'rolex' logo on it. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

Leighton said:


> I understand your point, but replace Rolex with Timex and diamond with Moissanite and you *should* still get the same sentimental value. But just reading that sentence I just typed, we don't. We've been programmed to associate Rolex and diamonds with "quality" and "value" and "forever".
> 
> It's all in our heads.
> 
> ...


I doubt a Timex would last 60 years. I don't know what Moisanite is, but I doubt that any cheap ring would last 60 years either. Unless the ring was made of gold, but of course, gold is an expensive precious metal ...


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Absolutely you can. Just try to avoid getting one with a 'rolex' logo on it. :icon_smile_wink:


So Shaver, can you please explain why you dislike Rolexes? I mean, pretent the brand didn't have the widespread recognition and connotations that it does. What is it about the watches themselves that you don't like? I have three of them and find them to be exceptionally well built little machines.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Absolutely you can. Just try to avoid getting one with a 'rolex' logo on it. :icon_smile_wink:


Easy to spot....  So there's no excuse...


----------



## TradThrifter (Oct 22, 2012)

Brio1 said:


> Perhaps we should allow Mr. Archie Luxury to have the final say upon this matter because he's popular with the ladies (chav and middle class) :


What a ridiculous man. Some of his older videos are actually quite informative, but I do hope his rantings about materialism and how much he loves "things" aren't honest. The foul language I could also do without.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

TradThrifter said:


> What a ridiculous man. Some of his older videos are actually quite informative, but I do hope his rantings about materialism and how much he loves "things" aren't honest. The foul language I could also do without.


The point is the ridiculousness of this knucklehead. I apologize for posting a video with obscene language. ( I apparently missed it while searching through his videos.) :redface:

" Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers."

- William Wordsworth


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Can anyone explain the appeal of a Rolex Milgaus to me?


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> Can anyone explain the appeal of a Rolex Milgaus to me?


A simple, versatile 3-hander with no date and a bit of fun with the funky sweep second hand. I'm not a huge fan of contemporary Rolex models but I like that one well enough.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

triklops55 said:


> So Shaver, can you please explain why you dislike Rolexes? I mean, pretent the brand didn't have the widespread recognition and connotations that it does. What is it about the watches themselves that you don't like? I have three of them and find them to be exceptionally well built little machines.


What? _Again!_ Haven't I made myself abundantly (excessively even) clear on this one? :redface:

Anyway, it is *exactly* the widespread recognition and connotations that explain why I dislike them.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Can anyone explain the appeal of a Rolex Milgaus to me?


Because, Rolex.



triklops55 said:


> I doubt a Timex would last 60 years. I don't know what Moisanite is, but I doubt that any cheap ring would last 60 years either. Unless the ring was made of gold, but of course, gold is an expensive precious metal ...


I never doubted the value of gold. It will always hold some value and is valued because it is rare. It's even more valued these days because it's used in a lot of technology.

I only have a problem with diamonds as it stands. Moissanite is a man made copy of a diamond that actually comes real close on the Mohs scale and has better fire & brilliance. It's naturally occurring in meteorite sites, but is extremely rare.

The point was you can substitute cheaper goods for Rolex and diamond ring.


----------



## Ed Rooney (Nov 6, 2012)

Shaver said:


> What? _Again!_ Haven't I made myself abundantly (excessively even) clear on this one? :redface:
> 
> Anyway, it is *exactly* the widespread recognition and connotations that explain why I dislike them.


I don't know, I have a Rolex Sea-Dweller, an Omeeeega Planet Ocean, a vintage dressy Omega De Ville, a handful of Seikos and Casio G-shocks, and I have received more compliments on the Seiko chronograph than I ever received on the Rolex. Like 10 to 1.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

The Rolex debate hasn't changed much over the years. The very reason that many love them and aspire to ownership of them is the very reason others loathe them and wouldn't be caught dead wearing one: they are a highly conspicuous luxury item. Bling can be a positive or a negative depending on one's point of view.

For me, the "baggage" that comes with the watch is a bit much - and while I like a number of their contemporary models well enough, I don't like them nearly well enough to part with the steep brand-based asking price when there are so many quality offerings from baggage-free manufacturers at, above and below the particular Rolex price point.

And their advertising - while indusputably successful - impresses upon me as both obnoxious and laughable. Like their comepletely %$#$% tag line about how it takes an entire year to make one watch. With an annual output of over a million watches? Really??? Puh-leeeeze.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

At this stage I would just like to mention nano-technology and 3D printers. Very soon there will be no such thing as rare items for everything will be able to be duplicated in exact replica right down to the subatomic scale. We'll see how certain overpriced branded items fare in this phase transition manufacturing economy.


----------



## Mongo (May 9, 2008)

triklops55 said:


> I doubt a Timex would last 60 years. I don't know what Moisanite is, but I doubt that any cheap ring would last 60 years either. Unless the ring was made of gold, but of course, gold is an expensive precious metal ...


I guess I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this, so I guess I'll have to finally jump in.

I have and wear a 1974 SS Rolex DateJust - bought it used in 2000 when I became a Principal Engineer for the first time in my life. My thinking was to be done with worrying about watches: I'd have the one watch and never have to buy another. I wasn't then, nor am I now, concerned about the "bling" factor. A SS Rolex on a Mongo sized wrist is just about invisible in terms of attracting attention. And insofar as anyone might ever notice that it is a real Rolex, it's subdued enough that I'm not worried about their perception of it.

What I hadn't counted on was maintenance costs. Every few years, I need to send it in to Rolex for servicing to the tune of a few hundred dollars. Not even counting the original expense, it would probably be cheaper to just buy a decent Seiko every few years instead. Didn't see that one coming, I have to confess.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Ed Rooney said:


> I don't know, I have a Rolex Sea-Dweller, an Omeeeega Planet Ocean, a vintage dressy Omega De Ville, a handful of Seikos and Casio G-shocks, and I have received more compliments on the Seiko chronograph than I ever received on the Rolex. Like 10 to 1.


Probably because the Sea Dweller is one of those Rolex models that fly under the radar because it has no cyclops.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Shaver said:


> At this stage I would just like to mention nano-technology and 3D printers. Very soon there will be no such thing as rare items for everything will be able to be duplicated in exact replica right down to the subatomic scale. We'll see how certain overpriced branded items fare in this phase transition manufacturing economy.


Such a cool concept, but so far away and I'd imagine such a huge power suck. In most cases, I think old fashioned manufacturing would be cheaper than nano-building. At least in our lifetimes. I'm still 29 at this point.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Leighton said:


> Such a cool concept, but so far away and I'd imagine such a huge power suck. In most cases, I think old fashioned manufacturing would be cheaper than nano-building. At least in our lifetimes. I'm still 29 at this point.


Leighton you will be surprised - self-replicating 3D printers which can even improve themselves generation upon generation are just around the corner- google RepRap project for further details.

Vat-grown Nano products and Additive Manufacturing are definitely the ascendant technologies which will dominate in our lifetimes.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

Leighton said:


> Probably because the Sea Dweller is one of those Rolex models that fly under the radar because it has no cyclops.


Just like the original and understated ND Submariner.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

Leighton said:


> Probably because the Sea Dweller is one of those Rolex models that fly under the radar because it has no cyclops.


Well, I dunno, if you've got even a basic ability to spot watches, a Sea Dweller sticks out, since it's _huge_. I guess it's the shape -- it wears larger than a Panerai.

I'm just trying to get over the 300C/Lancia Thema connection, which has blown my mind.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

Leighton said:


> Because, Rolex.
> 
> I never doubted the value of gold. It will always hold some value and is valued because it is rare. It's even more valued these days because it's used in a lot of technology.
> 
> ...


Could be. My point is that cheap good rarely last 50 years. A moissanite ring would probably be gold filled, since people rarely put a cheap stone in an expensive metal, therefore the ring would have tarnished and been discared decades ago. Same with the Timex, since no one sends Timex watches in for costly repairs.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

Shaver said:


> What? _Again!_ Haven't I made myself abundantly (excessively even) clear on this one? :redface:
> 
> Anyway, it is *exactly* the widespread recognition and connotations that explain why I dislike them.


So, really, you have nothing against the item itself, just it's name and recognition. Kind of like when people say they don't like the Beatles when all they've ever heard is "I wanna hold your hand"?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

triklops55 said:


> So, really, you have nothing against the item itself, just it's name and recognition. Kind of like when people say they don't like the Beatles when all they've ever heard is "I wanna hold your hand"?


I think what many are saying - and some are saying it with much humor! - is that while Rolex makes a very good watch, there are other watch brands that:

a) make as good or better a watch, often for less money
b) are superior to Rolex in every respect, and can more rightly lay claim to being "the best" in the world
c) don't carry the stigma that Rolex has - i.e., the golden idol of the knuckle scraping masses

I understand that some Rolex owners are very sensitive to such criticisms; be happy with your watch, and rest in the knowledge that _*you *_will never be one of those knuckle scraping morons!


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Tiger said:


> I think what many are saying - and some are saying it with much humor! - is that while Rolex makes a very good watch, there are other watch brands that:
> 
> a) make as good or better a watch, often for less money
> b) are superior to Rolex in every respect, and can more rightly lay claim to being "the best" in the world
> ...


This is pretty accurate. Lots of people want a Rolex because "Rolex". Other people want them because of the history (sea dweller and ND submariner aficionados). Yet others don't really care if it's a Rolex or not, but like the jewelry aspect of the watch since it's encased in gold, jewels, and other precious metals. Plus it costs $40k.

No one can really say that Rolex doesn't make a truly high quality time piece/jewelry. Then again, neither can anyone lay that criticism against Kiton.

OTOH, horology aficionados will prefer other watches with more interesting complications or movements. Rolex historical pieces notwithstanding.

Cheaper but more interesting time pieces like Grand Seikos and Zenith El Primeros. Complications such as a true Gregorian calender system, tourbillon, minute repeater, etc.

The true luxury watch brands aren't actually Rolex, but include examples such as: A Lange and Sohne, Alain Silberstein, Audemars Piguet, Blancpain, Breguet, Franck Muller, JLC, Parmigiani, Patek Phillipe, Ulysse Nardin, Vacheron Constantin.

Rolex should be grouped with Tag Heuer, Omega, Cartier, & Breitling. Those watches are IMO in about the same quality and range of complications. Main difference being that Rolexes have that cyclops and are usually made with precious metals and jewels whereas those listed brands generally stick with stainless steel.

That said, I suppose the Rolex SS models don't cost all that much more than similar models from Tag & Omega, but $1,000 price difference is a lot. I'm not really sure on the price differences, so don't quote me on that.


----------



## Ed Rooney (Nov 6, 2012)

Leighton said:


> This is pretty accurate. Lots of people want a Rolex because "Rolex". Other people want them because of the history (sea dweller and ND submariner aficionados). Yet others don't really care if it's a Rolex or not, but like the jewelry aspect of the watch since it's encased in gold, jewels, and other precious metals. Plus it costs $40k.
> 
> No one can really say that Rolex doesn't make a truly high quality time piece/jewelry. Then again, neither can anyone lay that criticism against Kiton.
> 
> ...


I'm amused when some watch buffs mention the fact that Rolex does not create watches with complications, and compare them to Patek. But they overlook the fact that most of Patek's sales are simple, uncomplicated, dressy timepieces like the Calatrava. The Chairman of Patek once said, when asking why their timepieces do not hack, "If we wanted them to hack, they would hack". Rolex could say the same thing about complications, the new Sky-Dweller notwithstanding.

You mentioned Franck Muller and Patek Phillipe in the same sentence. Please don't be fooled. Not only are they not in the same league, one just got cut from JV wrestling and the other just won Super Bowl MVP.

Tag, Omega, et al are not in the class with Rolex. Omega was once nearly there, but now they want to be Rolex so bad that they bought Rolex's secret agent. They are left with the Speedmaster Professional as their one iconic timepiece. Heuer and Breitling were once great racing timers (the stopwatch in the intro to the TV show "60 Minutes" is a Heuer), but should never me mentioned in the same breath with Rolex. Again, they both have their single iconic design (the Carrera and the Navitimer, respectively). Rolex makes one chronograph, and it is superior to anything Heuer or Breitling ever bought from Valjoux and re-cased. Cartier is a jewelry brand that makes some watches. They and Ulysse Nardin are not even worth discussing.

I like to judge a watch brand by the value and collectibility of their vintage stuff. For that, Patek and Rolex are unmatched. Even the most skuzzed out 1960's Datejust commands $2000 or better. In 1968 that watch was sold for about the same price as the vintage Omega I wore today, which I purchased 2 years ago for $200, after selling a 10-year old quartz Tag-Heuer diver for.....$200.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Ed Rooney said:


> I'm amused when some watch buffs mention the fact that Rolex does not create watches with complications, and compare them to Patek. But they overlook the fact that most of Patek's sales are simple, uncomplicated, dressy timepieces like the Calatrava. The Chairman of Patek once said, when asking why their timepieces do not hack, "If we wanted them to hack, they would hack". Rolex could say the same thing about complications, the new Sky-Dweller notwithstanding.
> 
> You mentioned Franck Muller and Patek Phillipe in the same sentence. Please don't be fooled. Not only are they not in the same league, one just got cut from JV wrestling and the other just won Super Bowl MVP.
> 
> ...


Rolex will still be Rolex, no matter the resale value...

I'd much rather have a navitimer or a super ocean heritage than a submariner.

The Cartier Tank and the Panthere are nice, classic watches.

I judge a watch brand by design, quality, bang for buck and last but not least, what other people tend to wear that watch. With Rolex, that part is not getting better.

They also seem to be 1000$ products with 5000$ price tags.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Ed Rooney said:


> I'm amused when...


It's nice to be amused.



> Tag, Omega, et al are not in the class with Rolex.


According to whom? And in what way(s) are they inferior? Are they less accurate? Less durable? Something else?

Anyone can claim anything, but some specifics would be nice.



> Omega was once nearly there, but now they want to be Rolex so bad that they bought Rolex's secret agent. They are left with the Speedmaster Professional as their one iconic timepiece. Heuer and Breitling were once great racing timers (the stopwatch in the intro to the TV show "60 Minutes" is a Heuer), but should never me mentioned in the same breath with Rolex.


See above.



> Rolex makes one chronograph, and it is superior to anything Heuer or Breitling ever bought from Valjoux and re-cased.


You do know, I hope, that the Daytona's chronograph movement is an El Primero *bought* from Zenith?



> ....Ulysse Nardin are not even worth discussing.


And that really says it all. To claim that a company which has created such masterpieces as the Astrolabium, Tellurium, Planetarium, Sonata, the Freaks and the GMT+ is not worth discussing is so utterly ludicrous it beggars belief. Only in its wildest, most feverish dreams could a mundane company like Rolex dream of equalling Ulysse Nardin's horological prowess.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tiger said:


> I think what many are saying - and some are saying it with much humor! - is that while Rolex makes a very good watch, there are other watch brands that:
> 
> a) make as good or better a watch, often for less money
> b) are superior to Rolex in every respect, and can more rightly lay claim to being "the best" in the world
> ...


Thank you, Tiger. A very precise summation. :icon_smile:


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

Tiger said:


> I think what many are saying - and some are saying it with much humor! - is that while Rolex makes a very good watch, there are other watch brands that:
> 
> a) make as good or better a watch, often for less money
> b) are superior to Rolex in every respect, and can more rightly lay claim to being "the best" in the world
> ...


I just don't understand the criticism. Sure you could get a cheaper watch, but will it be as durable as a Rolex? Durability, reliability and timelessness is what the Rolex brand sells, that's why Rolex models hardly change in design. You can buy a Rolex, wear it daily for decades even if you're a contruction worker and the watch will always look and function great with minimal service. What other brand can claim that? Rolex isn't the best watch brand, I think Patek can claim that, but are Pateks as durable and maintenance free as Rolexes? Besides, Pateks start at about $30k while Rolexes start at around $5k. Seriously, what other watch can you buy at that price that will be better in all aspects than a Rolex?


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

triklops55 said:


> I just don't understand the criticism. Sure you could get a cheaper watch, but will it be as durable as a Rolex? Durability, reliability and timelessness is what the Rolex brand sells, that's why Rolex models hardly change in design. You can buy a Rolex, wear it daily for decades even if you're a contruction worker and the watch will always look and function great with minimal service. What other brand can claim that? Rolex isn't the best watch brand, I think Patek can claim that, but are Pateks as durable and maintenance free as Rolexes? Besides, Pateks start at about $30k while Rolexes start at around $5k. Seriously, what other watch can you buy at that price that will be better in all aspects than a Rolex?


Well, to be completely snarky and an a-hole, uh....yeah.... A G-Shock will survive anything you throw at a Rolex and more.

Being slightly less snarky, I'd imagine a Victorinox would survive anything thrown at a Rolex. They make mechanicals too.

Okay, and being completely serious, for less than a submariner, the Omega Seamaster is cheaper and equally durable and good. Regardless of whatever Ed Rooney thinks. I don't know what the Omega (et al) equivalent of a DeapSea is, so cannot answer.

Other than their dive watches, I honestly don't know what Rolex watch would actually fall into the category of "super durable."

Zenith and Tag are the same parent company, company, or Tag owns Zenith btw.

For watches that are actually better and cheaper for what is offered I put forward Grand Seiko and Zenith El Primero.

IWC makes some nice watches too. That Portuguese Minute Repeater is ridiculous.

Name me the Rolex model and I'll name you something cheaper and just as good or similar price range and better.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Belfaborac - Rolex hasn't used the Zenith El Primero chronograph movement in the Daytona for over a decade. Their in-house cal. 4130 chronograph movement was introduced in 2000 and has powered the Daytona ever since.

triklopps - the notion that no contemporary watch is as durable as a Rolex is pure fiction. 

Ed Rooney - I'd put any 8500 or 9300-series Omega up against any current Rolex and comfortably assert that the quality is, at the very least, just as good. If you have any specific reasons as to why the Rolex is not only of superior quality, but 'in a different league', I'd be interested to hear them. And yes, I've owned examples of both. And I have spoken at length with a watchmaker who services both.


----------



## Ed Rooney (Nov 6, 2012)

Roger, thank you for saving me the time on the El Primero Daytona.

I see you are going with the old "my watchmaker says...." argument. Well, my watchmaker says "spend a little extra and get a Rolex over an 8500-based Omega. You'll be happier in the long run". So those two guys cancel each other out. Both the 2500 and the 8500's had some teething problems. The 8500 and 9300 are so new that you just cannot compare reliability to a 3135 or 4130. Maybe when the 8500 has 20-30 years of reliable service I will go there. It's certainly a pretty movement, if you are the type to wear a display caseback on a diver. I've seen too many 40 year old Rolex watches that never had a service still keeping time admirably on the original owner's wrist. I own a 2500D Planet Ocean, and it is a terrific $3000 watch, but I wish I had bought a Speedy. Make no mistake, the 8500 is only "in-house" courtesy of the guys in M&A, not R&D. Had Swatch not acquired both Omega and ETA, we might be having a different conversation. Both Breitling and Tag have to deal with the decision by Swatch to no longer sell ebauches to competitors, so they have made inroads with their manufacture' movements and retro designs. I wish some of those designers would go work for Rolex, and have the guys who stuck the incredible 9100 in an old man, Day-Date style case fired.

It's interesting when Rolex detractors point to Omega as evidence for any sort of argument. These days, Omega is only slightly cheaper than Rolex, has only slightly less brand recognition among the masses, despite the fact that they bought James Bond's wrist, and has a similar attitude toward complications. The criticize Rolex for making a million watches per year, but then don't count the total production of Swatch Group. Then they go with Patek, but most Pateks are uncomplicated Calatravas. There's a huge double standard applied to Rolex because of their success. Rolex gets flak for being the go-to watch for stockbrokers with a fresh bonus, but Breitling gets a pass for their blinged-out rapper watches?

As long as we are comparing other Swiss brands to Rolex, let's look at Tudor. Is Tudor the equal of Rolex? Of Omega? Of Tag? They use the same ETA movements and outsourced cases. What if I buy a 2824, a case, dial and hands from Otto Frei and make my own watch? That's pretty much how all of the $2000 micro-brew diver manufacturers do it, and there is no end to guys on WUS claiming their micro-brew watches are the equal of a Rolex Sub. I consider these "commodity watches". They are pretty much Swiss, with some sort of ETA movement, maybe a Swiss case, sapphire crystal, waterproof to some unreasonable depth, and big enough to see from space. Does that make them better than Rolex?

The Grand Seiko argument is interesting, until you understand that Grand Seiko is not a brand or a manufacturer. Seiko is the brand. The same Seiko that makes the quartz datejust lookalikes at JC Penneys. They make the Grand Seiko, and they make the Seiko 5. Both are completely in-house, but the 5 can be had for $75. I have many Seiko watches, including the legendary 7a28 quartz chronograph that shames anything Tag or Breitling assembled.

And finally, we can talk about the hot new mobile phone company, Ulysse Nardin. Like IWC and Franck Muller, unless you are a Russian oligarch, you are going to get their garbage low-end.

Please, someone bring up Hublot. I dare you. ;-)


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Can we best this monstrosity?


----------



## Ed Rooney (Nov 6, 2012)

So, what is the difference between a guy buying a Rolex because, to him, it is a recognizable sign of (moderate) wealth and a statement that he has "made it", and the guy who eschews Rolex for those same reasons? Both are looking to make an impression and both care too much about what others think of their watch, and by extension, themselves.

I'm a watch guy, I've written for Watchtime magazine, I'm probably a bit of a Rolex apologist, but I still cringe when I walk around downtown Annapolis because everyone seems to have a Rolex. I've learned not to engage anyone on the street in a conversation about watches because I will just be disappointed. The same applies to other brands. I have met CEO's who don't know a lick about their Patek. They bought it because they did 2.5 minutes more research than the guy with a gold Day-Date. I know a guy with a nice AP ROO. he also happens to have a blinged out Escalade and couldn't name 3 other watch brands. That makes them smarter, more stylish, or more discriminating than the Rolex guy, or me, for that matter?


----------



## Ed Rooney (Nov 6, 2012)

Done.



VictorRomeo said:


> Can we best this monstrosity?


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Ed Rooney said:


> I see you are going with the old "my watchmaker says...." argument.


Not just that - I'm going from personal ownership experience as well. I take it you have not owned an 8500 or 9300 - based Omega?

Omega is not a 'slightly' cheaper than Rolex - at least, I wouldn't use that term to describe a couple grand. Just think of all the shoes I could buy! A Daytona costs what these days? In my opinion, they are of equivalent quality, but the Rolex costs a good deal more. You can argue that Rolex holds it's value better, but surely that is offset by the significantly greater cash outlay at point of sale. It likely nets out as a push. I see no rational basis for declaring Rolex to be qualitatively superior.

Length of service - well the same comments could have been made about the Rolex 4130 when it was introduced. The El Primero had been in service for over 3 decades at that point, yet I feel sure you weren't dismissing the new movement because it had yet to prove itself over time. Amiright?

Oh - and I didn't compare TAG or ETA-based Omegas to Rolex.

As for the in-house argument - brother, please - Rolex has been purchasing various suppliers for years just so they can claim that they do everything "in house". Just like it takes them a year to make each watch.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

VictorRomeo said:


> Can we best this monstrosity?


Woof. There goes my lunch.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

I have a Rolex Sea Dweller. To my taste, it is the nicest diving watch. I wear it casually and I am very pleased with it. Occasionally it gets compliments, although usually from other men - perhaps because of the brand. I am well aware that I could have saved thousands of pounds by buying a digital diving watch or other sportswatch. I could have saved even more by not bothering with a watch and just using the clock on my phone. 

I am aware that many do not like Rolexes, some because of reverse brand snobbery, some because they dont like bracelet watches, some because they are watch enthusiasts and think they can buy better, and some because they dont like the style. Respectable views and I wish them well in their quest. It doesn't detract from my pleasure in my watch one iota. Vive la difference :biggrin:


----------



## Ed Rooney (Nov 6, 2012)

RogerP said:


> Not just that - I'm going from personal ownership experience as well. I take it you have not owned an 8500 or 9300 - based Omega?
> 
> Omega is not a 'slightly' cheaper than Rolex - at least, I wouldn't use that term to describe a couple grand. Just think of all the shoes I could buy! A Daytona costs what these days? In my opinion, they are of equivalent quality, but the Rolex costs a good deal more. You can argue that Rolex holds it's value better, but surely that is offset by the significantly greater cash outlay at point of sale. It likely nets out as a push. I see no rational basis for declaring Rolex to be qualitatively superior.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I was responding to all posts in general after addressing you. Someone else had compared Tag and Omega directly to Rolex. I wouldn't even compare Tag TO Omega.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Haffman said:


> I have a Rolex Sea Dweller. To my taste, it is the nicest diving watch. I wear it casually and I am very pleased with it. Occasionally it gets compliments, although usually from other men - perhaps because of the brand. I am well aware that I could have saved thousands of pounds by buying a digital diving watch or other sportswatch. I could have saved even more by not bothering with a watch and just using the clock on my phone.
> 
> I am aware that many do not like Rolexes, some because of reverse brand snobbery, some because they dont like bracelet watches, some because they are watch enthusiasts and think they can buy better, and some because they dont like the style. Respectable views and I wish them well in their quest. It doesn't detract from my pleasure in my watch one iota. Vive la difference :biggrin:


An entirely sensible post in every respect.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

Leighton said:


> Well, to be completely snarky and an a-hole, uh....yeah.... A G-Shock will survive anything you throw at a Rolex and more.
> 
> Being slightly less snarky, I'd imagine a Victorinox would survive anything thrown at a Rolex. They make mechanicals too.
> 
> ...


I became a fan of Rolex when I met a man in 1997 who was wearing a Datejust. He said he had it since 1967 and the watch looked great and he said it always ran like, well, clockwork. He said you could throw a Rolex across a room and the watch would be unscathed. How many of these brands can you say that about?

I'm not talking about just a Sub but also about the Air King, Datejust and the Explorer. Those all come in the Oyster case, so they are all waterproof. The Sub is for deep sea diving, something most us will probaby never do.

A G-Shock really? You're saying a plastic and rubber quartz watch can withstand more than a solid stainless steel one that's waterproof and dustproof? Rubber straps tend to break after only a few years of use. How good do you think a G Shock will look in 20 years? Can you send one in for service and get it back looking brand new?

Zeniths and IWCs are great watches but are much more expensive than Rolexes from what I know. I don't know if I'd want to use an IWC daily if I was a blue collar worker. The cheapest IWC I've ever seen was $5k and looked and felt super delicate. Beautiful watches. I'd love to have an IWC, but they are pricey and I don't think they match up in terms of durability.

Tags are generally pretty ugly and feel cheaply made. Tag models also look outdate after a few years. Some of their designs actually look like copies of Rolex Submariner.

Omegas are pretty good. Still kind gawdy compared to Rolexes. But, yes, Omega is a pretty good, affordable brand, except their watches tend to be more on the sporty side. The Aqua Terra is similiar to the Explorer, but the Explorer definitely has a heftier, more solid feel. And I'm not a fan of the sapphire back on the Aqua Terra.

Any other ideas of watches that combine durability, reliability and timelessness at a fairly decent price?


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

Haffman said:


> I have a Rolex Sea Dweller. To my taste, it is the nicest diving watch. I wear it casually and I am very pleased with it. Occasionally it gets compliments, although usually from other men - perhaps because of the brand. I am well aware that I could have saved thousands of pounds by buying a digital diving watch or other sportswatch. I could have saved even more by not bothering with a watch and just using the clock on my phone.
> 
> I am aware that many do not like Rolexes, some because of reverse brand snobbery, some because they dont like bracelet watches, some because they are watch enthusiasts and think they can buy better, and some because they dont like the style. Respectable views and I wish them well in their quest. It doesn't detract from my pleasure in my watch one iota. Vive la difference :biggrin:


I agree entirely with Roger's comment about this post. The views are sensible, the expression is mature and the feeling is of one gentleman communicating to other gentlemen. Style does, indeed, matter.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

godan said:


> I agree entirely with Roger's comment about this post. The views are sensible, the expression is mature and the feeling is of one gentleman communicating to other gentlemen. Style does, indeed, matter.


Thank you both for your very kind words. I hope I have done my fellow Rolex wearers justice ! :redface:


----------



## emb1980 (Dec 28, 2012)

triklops55 said:


> Any other ideas of watches that combine durability, reliability and timelessness at a fairly decent price?


You didn't mention the Omega that combines all of those qualities the best in their lineup, along with a storied history: The Speedmaster.

Many Zeniths are available in a comparable or lesser price range than a Datejust. Zenith Captains are available in a variety of price points depending on complications, including one of the best-priced annual calendars available. Personally, I'd love a Pilot Big Date Special, which is also in the general price ballpark of a Datejust.

My next serious watch will probably be a JLC Reverso, which is also available in a similar price ballpart to the Datejust. Designed for polo players with a reversible face (durable), and stylistically relevant since 1931.

Nothing wrong with Rolexes IMO, and I'd love an original MilSub one day when I win the lottery... twice... but there are certainly other options out there that combine the qualities you mention, in some cases offering more for less $. The bottom line is that none of these watches are purely practical anyway, so its really a matter of which watch speaks to you for whatever reason.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Man, I'm hoping I'll never ever come back to this thread.....



Leighton said:


> You misunderstand. I would never buy a Charger, but if forced to choose, I'd choose Charger over 300 any day. Aesthetic reasons only. I've never sat in a 300 SRT and doubt I will.
> 
> Apparently the Genesis Sedan 5.0 meets the 400 hp standard as well.
> 
> ...


With respect Leighton, you're speaking very out of turn and being the typical 'arm-chair' racer, and basing stats on what is published, and not necessarily 'real world'. I'm speaking with 15 years experience in the industry (and admittedly drinking Chrysler's kool-aid for the past 2+ years since the new '11 models came out; I grew up bleeding Chevy orange). Half a second in a quarter mile times is a LIFETIME, and guys spend 5 figures to obtain that kind of gain. My facts stand, the Mustang and Camaro are, flatly, lesser performers than the Chrysler. That's without expanding up the 'FULL SIZE SEDAN' versus '2+2 coupe' configuration. Nor does it take into account handling, drivability, and a number of other factors. You're also basing pricing on published MSRP, not attainable numbers. The person buying a Camaro SS or Mustang GT for 'performance' is buying a car for shits and giggles, and not truly buying a performance car. You're comparing apples to watermelons at this point.

Putting the Genesis in the same ballpark is nearly a worse offense. They have body roll that would shame a Bayliner, and are not 'performance' cars. The 300-SRT was built as a BMW M or Mercedes AMG killer at half the price, and it does a damn fine job. I stand by my statement: For a full size, daily driven 'performance vehicle', there is no better value than a Chrysler 300 SRT. You prefer a Charger for aesthetics, and that's understandable. I, personally, prefer the 'class' of a 300. Further, in SRT variants, the 300 is much more drivable (slightly softer suspension/transmission tuning) than the Charger. Plus, it draws less attention of five-oh.



Leighton said:


> I'm completely confused as to what cars are being discussed here.
> In Phyrpower's defense, he's right. Most track enthusiasts modify a platform car. The 1% ers drive around their Ferraris and sometimes their 'vettes.
> The most popular platform is without a doubt the Mustang. So easy to add HP and improve the handling and so much aftermarket support. Of course, everyone has one and that's really who the Mustang is built for. Enter the Camaro in the last decade and you've got another car that mods pretty well and looks different.
> I'd wager the 370Z is actually driven mostly by younger males. The Corvette is usually an older man. A BMW can be anyone with a lot of money to throw around. The M series are usually men.
> ...


Again, the 300 SRT is not a luxury car in the vein that a Genesis is. Period. Go drive the two of them and tell you they're even remotely comparable. They're not, and that is an industry fact, not a personal opinion. Your assumptions of the drivers of such vehicles is 'standard' for the populous, but not what happens in reality.

For clarification, the .01% can buy a DayDate at retail on a couple hour's earnings. I'm not referring to the .01% of people CAPABLE (financially) of buying such a car; I'm talking about the .01% that are the market for such a car. I'm not stating that people paying 50k for a car will automatically buy a 300 SRT because it's the best value; I'm stating that the ENTHUSIAST who wants a performance vehicle with all the other hallmarks of a full size luxury sedan will not find a better value.

My apologies for not being clear on my intent, and if I come across as strong in trying to explain. If we could spend a day together and I had a handful of cars lined up, you'd quickly be able to recognize my viewpoint, even if it isn't aligned with what opinions formed. I've had the good fortune of being able to drive virtually anything I want, and have driven nearly every vehicle produced in the past 20 years.

For what it's worth, while my daily driver is either a Charger or 300 (I've had bad luck with crashing Chargers lately; the 300 just oozes technology and luxury), I did just buy a 'classic' 500SL Mercedes for my personal use.



phyrpowr said:


> Okay, I see now, this mega-HP is apparently being automatically associated with better steering, suspension, balance, etc. I didn't automatically make that association, just talkin' about more horses. Twizz, I have to ask, where do you wind 'em out in the Philadelphia area? Not being snotty, just recall it was awfully urban when I was last through, not much elbow room. Here in Charlotte, we have a track (expensive), but also, within two hours, a good number of mountain roads that can test your ball-joints and bladder at the same time .


Plenty of places Phyrpowr. Without getting into details, I have a number of spots that I can (and have) exercised cars at 150mph+. I'm also familiar with a number of backroads that I can drive aggressively through some twisties, and can be in the mountains in an hour from the center of Philly. Legal? Most definitely not. However, there is still very much an underground street racing culture (that has existed for decades), and they regularly get together for 1/8-1/4 mile runs locally.



tocqueville said:


> Can anyone explain the appeal of a Rolex Milgaus to me?





RogerP said:


> A simple, versatile 3-hander with no date and a bit of fun with the funky sweep second hand. I'm not a huge fan of contemporary Rolex models but I like that one well enough.


What Roger said. The Milgauss is simply unique. Not many guys wear one, and only a few more know what they are. It was made for engineers who work in magnetic environments, as the movement is encased in a Faraday cage that can withstand 1000 gauss of magnetism (hence, Milgauss). Aside from that, the GV model has a green tinted crystal and orange markers at 3, 6, 9. It's basically a prettier (to me) Airking/Explorer I with the bonus of the Faraday cage (not that anyone uses it).


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

emb1980 said:


> You didn't mention the Omega that combines all of those qualities the best in their lineup, along with a storied history: The Speedmaster.
> 
> Many Zeniths are available in a comparable or lesser price range than a Datejust. Zenith Captains are available in a variety of price points depending on complications, including one of the best-priced annual calendars available. Personally, I'd love a Pilot Big Date Special, which is also in the general price ballpark of a Datejust.
> 
> ...


The Omega Speedmaster is a good watch. Falls under the "sporty" category though and isn't very versatile because of it's size and sporty nature. Still, I would like my next watch to be Speedmater Professional, a.k.a. the Moon Watch.

How much is the JLC Reverso? The SS Datejust is around $7k as far as I know. I didn't know you could get any JLC for that little. Besides, from what I saw by doing a quick Google search, it's much flashier than a SS/18k Datejust or Sub.

Zenith Captains are pretty cool too. But would you wear it on a daily basis? While working on your car? While working in the garden? While going camping?

My point is despite being priced in the thousands, Rolex offers pretty much the best bang for the buck. That's one reason why they're popular and have been popular for 50 years. They are affordable pieces of luxury. Not saying that there aren't better watchers out there. of course there are. But there are many good and valid reasons to buy a Rolex. Personally, I think that the design of the Oyster case is amazing.

I want to debunk the myth that the only reason to buy a Rolex is to advertise you've "made it." When I can drop $30k on a Patek with no worry is when I'll be advertising that I've "made it."


----------



## emb1980 (Dec 28, 2012)

triklops55 said:


> The Omega Speedmaster is a good watch. Falls under the "sporty" category though and isn't very versatile because of it's size and sporty nature. Still, I would like my next watch to be Speedmater Professional, a.k.a. the Moon Watch.


Wearing one right now. I'd disagree on the versatility. Its not a dress watch, but neither is a Submariner (and a Datejust is borderline, and certainly not a dress watch with a bracelet). I think Speedy handles everything from casual up to a sport-coat level of formality with aplomb, especially if one considers a nice black alligator strap for fancier occasions.



triklops55 said:


> How much is the JLC Reverso? The SS Datejust is around $7k as far as I know. I didn't know you could get any JLC for that little. Besides, from what I saw by doing a quick Google search, it's much flashier than a SS/18k Datejust or Sub.


Reversos run around $8k. They are a true dress watch by almost any standard, although they originated as a sport watch. I suppose it depends on your definition of flashy. The bottom line is that a Sub isn't a dress watch and is therefore no more appropriate (albeit less conspicuous) to wear with a suit than a pair of Topsiders, although many people happily ignore these conventions. A Datejust is somewhat more refined, and therefore more versatile at the higher end of formality (at the expense of the lower, perhaps), but honestly the design just doesn't do much for me. It also wouldn't cover the high end of formality as well as a Reverso IMO. To a certain extent, versatility is a function of what else you have, and what you typically do and/or wear. I plan on getting a Reverso to compliment my Speedmaster in covering the higher end of the formality spectrum, and so it would be a far more versatile watch for ME given that I have a lower formality range well covered.



triklops55 said:


> Zenith Captains are pretty cool too. But would you wear it on a daily basis? While working on your car? While working in the garden? While going camping?


Yes, except for the car part. I generally take any watch off if I'm going to be banging around with my hands in things. I'd certainly wear it anywhere I would wear a Rolex.



triklops55 said:


> My point is despite being priced in the thousands, Rolex offers pretty much the best bang for the buck. That's one reason why they're popular and have been popular for 50 years. They are affordable pieces of luxury. Not saying that there aren't better watchers out there. of course there are. But there are many good and valid reasons to buy a Rolex. Personally, I think that the design of the Oyster case is amazing.
> 
> I want to debunk the myth that the only reason to buy a Rolex is to advertise you've "made it." When I can drop $30k on a Patek with no worry is when I'll be advertising that I've "made it."


I think Rolexes are great. I've nothing against them. I do think there is a premium on the name, and there are options at the price point that I find more interesting and aesthetically pleasing to my eye. However, its perfectly fine that you consider Rolexes great value for the money. Enjoy them!


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

emb1980 said:


> Wearing one right now. I'd disagree on the versatility. Its not a dress watch, but neither is a Submariner (and a Datejust is borderline, and certainly not a dress watch with a bracelet). I think Speedy handles everything from casual up to a sport-coat level of formality with aplomb, especially if one considers a nice black alligator strap for fancier occasions.
> 
> Reversos run around $8k. They are a true dress watch by almost any standard, although they originated as a sport watch. I suppose it depends on your definition of flashy. The bottom line is that a Sub isn't a dress watch and is therefore no more appropriate (albeit less conspicuous) to wear with a suit than a pair of Topsiders, although many people happily ignore these conventions. A Datejust is somewhat more refined, and therefore more versatile at the higher end of formality (at the expense of the lower, perhaps), but honestly the design just doesn't do much for me. It also wouldn't cover the high end of formality as well as a Reverso IMO. To a certain extent, versatility is a function of what else you have, and what you typically do and/or wear. I plan on getting a Reverso to compliment my Speedmaster in covering the higher end of the formality spectrum, and so it would be a far more versatile watch for ME given that I have a lower formality range well covered.
> 
> ...


Yup. Especially since I've only bought one of three brand new at retail, and that's only because the Explorer I costs the pretty much the same whether you buy it new or used. Rolexes are indeed a good value, and even a better value if you buy one second hand at a fraction of the absurd retail cost! That's another nice thing about Rolexes, you can always find good, used ones. That's hard to say for other brands. Although there are plenty of Speedmaster Professionals on eBay at good prices. If I was to buy a watch at full retail costing over $5k, it would be an IWC. If I had the cash, I'd go for the Patek in a heartbeat.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

triklops55 said:


> Yup. Especially since I've only bought one of three brand new at retail, and that's only because the Explorer I costs the pretty much the same whether you buy it new or used. Rolexes are indeed a good value, and even a better value if you buy one second hand at a fraction of the absurd retail cost! *That's another nice thing about Rolexes, you can always find good, used ones. That's hard to say for other brands*. Although there are plenty of Speedmaster Professionals on eBay at good prices. If I was to buy a watch at full retail costing over $5k, it would be an IWC. If I had the cash, I'd go for the Patek in a heartbeat.


Say what now? Log onto www.watchrecon.com and tell me again how it's hard to find good used watches in brands other than Rolex. Methinks you are wearing a very large pair of Rolex horseblinders.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Perhaps this is slightly off-topic, but as there is no dedicated watch thread here, allow me to post a recent purchase. Or more accurately, a re-purchase.

I bought the watch below - a Universal Geneve Compax Chronograph - about 14 years ago. It was purchased new and worn for 4 years before I sold it to a friend and fellow watch nut on condition that he grant me first refusal should he decide to re-sell it. Here is a pic of the watch when new:



My friend - primarily a vintage Rolex collector - kept it and wore it in rotation for the next 10 years. He e-mailed me last week with the first refusal opportunity, which I happily seized. Here is a pic of the watch today:



As you can see, the watch is in as-new conditon 14 years later. This despite having no water resistance capabilities to speak of; not being able to withstand magnetic fields that would rip your fillings from your teeth; not using titanium / ceramic or silicon anywhere, and sporting a plastic crystal of all things. For me, this puts into perspective all of the chest-thumping hoopla about the durability of watches in general and certain brands in particular. Bottom line - with reasonable care, a quality mechanical watch will last you a lifetime.

Now, this watch was not used for deep sea exploration, construction or covert incursion behind enemy lines. But it has been regularly worn in the way that many owners of watches lauded for their durability are: strapped on for a day at the office. It was serviced twice in its 14 years - on the latter occasion my friend had a larger crown installed for functional and aesthetic preference, not because the original crown / winding stem had failed in any way. Whether the credit goes to the new crown or the expert servicing, it currently winds like a silky dream. And keeps time in the range of +4 sec. per day.

Not too shabby. If only I had aged as well.


----------



## devaughnb (Jun 24, 2008)

I love watches. It is beyond me how any astute buyers of fine menswear would overlook owning a fine watch. Similarly to menswear, quality, heritage, and design all play a factor. 

Rolex is a nice watch, which oddly enough is both overly praised and overly hated at the same time. No they do not hold a candle to JLC, IWC, Blancpain, Patek and the like. But they are great daily wear watches. They along with Cartier and Patek retain their values better than any other watch with the exception of those with rare complications. 

I spent almost a year shopping for watches and these were the brands i thought of as the best in their price category. 

Below $2k - Longines
$5k - $10K - JLC, Glashutte Original, Zenith
Over $10k - Patek, A Lange & Sohn, Audemars 

I ended up with a Glashutte Original, which is a German made watch. I bought the chrono, and intend to buy the Senator Sixties some time soon.

If you are a good shopper look for used watches. You can easily find models at 50% of retail. Just be careful that they won't need servicing right away. Servicing for the upper level brands can range from 500 - 1000$. 

D


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

Thanks for letting me know about that site. I didn't say that it was impossible to find other brands. I said that it's much easier to find good, used Rolexes than other brands. You don't really have to dig around too much to find them. Y'all are saying that Rolexes are extremely popular, so they are not rare, and therefore very easy to find in the second-hand market. For example, I recently bought a great datejust from 1992 at a flea market for $1,400.
I've seen many Rolexes at flea markets, pawn shops and even Kay jewelers sells second-hand Rolexes. They're very easy to find, and you can alwasy find them. Get it?


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

RogerP said:


> Say what now? Log onto www.watchrecon.com and tell me again how it's hard to find good used watches in brands other than Rolex. Methinks you are wearing a very large pair of Rolex horseblinders.


Thanks for letting me know about that site. I didn't say that it was impossible to find other brands. I said that it's much easier to find good, used Rolexes than other brands. You don't really have to dig around too much to find them. Y'all are saying that Rolexes are extremely popular, so they are not rare, and therefore very easy to find in the second-hand market. For example, I recently bought a great datejust from 1992 at a flea market for $1,400.
I've seen many Rolexes at flea markets, pawn shops and even Kay jewelers sells second-hand Rolexes. They're very easy to find, and you can alwasy find them. Get it?


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

triklops55 said:


> Thanks for letting me know about that site. I didn't say that it was impossible to find other brands. I said that it's much easier to find good, used Rolexes than other brands. You don't really have to dig around too much to find them. Y'all are saying that Rolexes are extremely popular, so they are not rare, and therefore very easy to find in the second-hand market. For example, I recently bought a great datejust from 1992 at a flea market for $1,400.
> I've seen many Rolexes at flea markets, pawn shops and even Kay jewelers sells second-hand Rolexes. They're very easy to find, and you can alwasy find them. Get it?


Well, no, you said that good used Rolex watches can always be found, but such is "hard to say for other brands". It isn't. Good used IWCs can always be found. And JLCs. And Omegas. And a great many other brands as reflected on that one site alone. You don't have to go digging. A couple clicks will get you many examples on numerous sales boards. Rolex and Omega will be in more plentiful supply than the others for the reason you mention: they sell more in the primary market, therefore more examples are available in the secondary market. But it's not "hard", by any stretched meaning of that term, to find good used watches by countless other Swiss and German brands.

Now, if you are restricting your search to flea markets and pawn shops exclusively, then yes. But why would you. There's this thing called the internet and you're already here.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

RogerP said:


> Well, no, you said that good used Rolex watches can always be found, but such is "hard to say for other brands". It isn't. Good used IWCs can always be found. And JLCs. And Omegas. And a great many other brands as reflected on that one site alone. You don't have to go digging. A couple clicks will get you many examples on numerous sales boards. Rolex and Omega will be in more plentiful supply than the others for the reason you mention: they sell more in the primary market, therefore more examples are available in the secondary market. But it's not "hard", by any stretched meaning of that term, to find good used watches by countless other Swiss and German brands.
> 
> Now, if you are restricting your search to flea markets and pawn shops exclusively, then yes. But why would you. There's this thing called the internet and you're already here.


Well, there are many advantages to buying in person to over the internet. And I wouldn't buy something that costs several thousand bucks just anywhere on the internet or from just anyone. So still, you do have to "dig" more to find top notch used watches at good prices. Sure, you can probably find lots of places online where you can buy them. I'm just not sure if that's the best thing to do. And even if you buy them second hand, are you really getting a good price?


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

RogerP said:


> Well, no, you said that good used Rolex watches can always be found, but such is "hard to say for other brands". It isn't. Good used IWCs can always be found. And JLCs. And Omegas. And a great many other brands as reflected on that one site alone. You don't have to go digging. A couple clicks will get you many examples on numerous sales boards. Rolex and Omega will be in more plentiful supply than the others for the reason you mention: they sell more in the primary market, therefore more examples are available in the secondary market. But it's not "hard", by any stretched meaning of that term, to find good used watches by countless other Swiss and German brands.
> 
> Now, if you are restricting your search to flea markets and pawn shops exclusively, then yes. But why would you. There's this thing called the internet and you're already here.


Also, there's the question of models. You can find IWCs, Omegas, etc. But are they the model you want, or are they dated versions? Rolex only has a few classic models and their design didn't change much for 50 years, so you can always find a Datejust or a Sub that still looks contemporary.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

triklops55 said:


> Also, there's the question of models. You can find IWCs, Omegas, etc. But are they the model you want, or are they dated versions?


I'm not sure what 'dated versions' are, precisely, but that's besides the point. Whether you are looking for a newer or older model, examples are there for the taking. Your question seems to presume that 'dated versions' and 'models you want' are mutually exclusive categories. They may be so for you, but not for all.



triklops55 said:


> Rolex only has a few classic models and their design didn't change much for 50 years, so you can always find a Datejust or a Sub that still looks contemporary.


Cup half full: Rolex rarely changes their designs, therefore all their designs look contemporary.

Cup half empty: Rolex rarely changes their designs, so all their designs look old fashioned.

Take your pick.

Look, I know you feel that Rolex is just the most bestest at everything, and you are both entitled and welcome to you view. But it is not one that is universally held.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

RogerP said:


> I'm not sure what 'dated versions' are, precisely, but that's besides the point. Whether you are looking for a newer or older model, examples are there for the taking. Your question seems to presume that 'dated versions' and 'models you want' are mutually exclusive categories. They may be so for you, but not for all.
> 
> Cup half full: Rolex rarely changes their designs, therefore all their designs look contemporary.
> 
> ...


I never said Rolex was the best. I said that there are a lot of good reasons why it's a good brand, among those being that it's very accessible at a good price second hand. You can find a used one at a good price without even trying. Why is that hard to understand?

And my initial point is that the criticism the brand receives here isn't really warranted. It's the best known watch brand in the world, so people will take pot shots at it just because it is.

The popularity or the unwarranted criticism doesn't detract from the quality or durability of the watch. Those who want one, should get one because they'll enjoy years of reliable service from a well-designed machine even when they wear it on the daily. How much of a "watch guy" can someone be if they can't even appreciate those simple qualities?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Fixed: ;-)



RogerP said:


> Cup half empty: Rolex rarely changes their designs, therefore all their designs look contemporary.
> 
> Cup half full: Rolex rarely changes their designs, so all their designs look old fashioned.


There will always be men with inferiority complexes who buy Rolexes just because of the brand's perceived cache, just as there will always be men with superiority complexes who despise Rolexes just because they enjoy thinking they are superior to the men who buy them.
And so it goes .....


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

triklops55 said:


> I never said Rolex was the best. I said that there are a lot of good reasons why it's a good brand, among those being that it's very accessible at a good price second hand. You can find a used one at a good price without even trying. Why is that hard to understand?


That's not hard to understand. But it's not what you said. You claimed that for other brands, good used examples could not be readily found. That claim was false. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Just like claiming that Rolex makes durable watches is not particularly controversial, but claiming that no other brand makes watches as durable is controversial (and again, false).



triklops55 said:


> The popularity or the unwarranted criticism doesn't detract from the quality or durability of the watch.


I'm struggling to recall who suggested that criticism of the brand - warranted or otherwise - detracted from the quality or durability of the watches themselves. Oh, now I remember. Nobody suggested that.

Question for you - is ANY criticism of Rolex "warranted" in your view, and if so could you please identify it for us?

Time for another pic: my kinda Rolex (and until recently, it was my Rolex) white gold day date from 1964. Not purchased at a flea market:


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Ed Rooney said:


> The Grand Seiko argument is interesting, until you understand that Grand Seiko is not a brand or a manufacturer. Seiko is the brand. The same Seiko that makes the quartz datejust lookalikes at JC Penneys. They make the Grand Seiko, and they make the Seiko 5. Both are completely in-house, but the 5 can be had for $75. I have many Seiko watches, including the legendary 7a28 quartz chronograph that shames anything Tag or Breitling assembled.
> 
> And finally, we can talk about the hot new mobile phone company, Ulysse Nardin. Like IWC and Franck Muller, unless you are a Russian oligarch, you are going to get their garbage low-end.
> 
> Please, someone bring up Hublot. I dare you. ;-)


But that's my point. 90% of the cost difference of a Rolex v. watch of equal movement & caliber is the brand. And that price difference is normally exponentially large.

I'll give you Seiko not having a cache brand name; but what about Zenith? You can't knock them for their movements or history.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Putting the Genesis in the same ballpark is nearly a worse offense. They have body roll that would shame a Bayliner, and are not 'performance' cars. The 300-SRT was built as a BMW M or Mercedes AMG killer at half the price, and it does a damn fine job. I stand by my statement: For a full size, daily driven 'performance vehicle', there is no better value than a Chrysler 300 SRT. You prefer a Charger for aesthetics, and that's understandable. I, personally, prefer the 'class' of a 300. Further, in SRT variants, the 300 is much more drivable (slightly softer suspension/transmission tuning) than the Charger. Plus, it draws less attention of five-oh.


Probably why I'll never understand why people buy such cars. I'll let it go as I seriously have absolutely no interest in "sedan performance cars." I don't see the point and I'm starting to agree with the previous comment about 400hp sedans. It's just an oxymoron to me outside of autocross (which I don't follow too much either).


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

triklops55 said:


> I became a fan of Rolex when I met a man in 1997 who was wearing a Datejust. He said he had it since 1967 and the watch looked great and he said it always ran like, well, clockwork. He said you could throw a Rolex across a room and the watch would be unscathed. How many of these brands can you say that about?
> 
> I'm not talking about just a Sub but also about the Air King, Datejust and the Explorer. Those all come in the Oyster case, so they are all waterproof. The Sub is for deep sea diving, something most us will probaby never do.
> 
> ...


Seriously? You think a Rolex is so bullet proof that it will be absolutely fine if you throw it across the room? If you truly believe it, go ahead and report back. Bet you won't. And until you actually drop test 100 Rolexes compared with brand X, you'll never get an answer. Since no one is ever going to do it, it's all just hearsay.

However, yes, you can drop that G-shock and it'll still work. But like I said, that's a snarky answer. But since you responded with the stupid rubber comment, since the Rolex requires maintenance too, why can't we add in the band replacement to our theoretical watch comparison? Seems only fair. Also, the lighter weight of the plastic watch combined with the shock resistant rubber and general bulletproofness of a digital movement will withstand much more abuse than the stainless watch. Don't believe me, I'll supply the funds for the G-Shock, you put up your Rolex.

Rolex starts at $7500 for a stainless sub last I checked.

You're just going off of feel. Any of these luxury watches will break if you drop it from high enough. They aren't made to withstand impact and any claims to the contrary are just bullshit. I'll believe it if Rolex actually advertised a watch that can be dropped from X feet and will be perfectly fine. In which case, I'll promptly buy one and if I ever drop it, I'll be going after Rolex if it stops working from dropping it.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

Mike Petrik said:


> Fixed: ;-)
> 
> There will always be men with inferiority complexes who buy Rolexes just because of the brand's perceived cache, just as there will always be men with superiority complexes who despise Rolexes just because they enjoy thinking they are superior to the men who buy them.
> And so it goes .....


Yes, this states the infinite loop of truth but denies the fun of watching it.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

Leighton said:


> Seriously? You think a Rolex is so bullet proof that it will be absolutely fine if you throw it across the room? If you truly believe it, go ahead and report back. Bet you won't. And until you actually drop test 100 Rolexes compared with brand X, you'll never get an answer. Since no one is ever going to do it, it's all just hearsay.
> 
> However, yes, you can drop that G-shock and it'll still work. But like I said, that's a snarky answer. But since you responded with the stupid rubber comment, since the Rolex requires maintenance too, why can't we add in the band replacement to our theoretical watch comparison? Seems only fair. Also, the lighter weight of the plastic watch combined with the shock resistant rubber and general bulletproofness of a digital movement will withstand much more abuse than the stainless watch. Don't believe me, I'll supply the funds for the G-Shock, you put up your Rolex.
> 
> ...


Someone's getting a bit angry. Tell you what. Go ahead and enjoy your G-Shock. I actually have one to that I wear the few times I exercise and they are pretty good, except I haven't been able to wear it since the band broke. I'll wear my Rolexes and enjoy them. End of story. Deal?


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

RogerP said:


> That's not hard to understand. But it's not what you said. You claimed that for other brands, good used examples could not be readily found. That claim was false. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Just like claiming that Rolex makes durable watches is not particularly controversial, but claiming that no other brand makes watches as durable is controversial (and again, false).
> 
> I'm struggling to recall who suggested that criticism of the brand - warranted or otherwise - detracted from the quality or durability of the watches themselves. Oh, now I remember. Nobody suggested that.
> 
> ...


I would answer, but see its Friday, and I have better things to do now than kill time at my desk. So you have, or had a Rolex? So you don't think they're so bad then? Well, that's the point I've been trying to make all along. Seems we agree. Rolexes are pretty good after all. End of discussion. Now get outside and enjoy the weather for goodness sake!


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

RogerP said:


> That's not hard to understand. But it's not what you said. You claimed that for other brands, good used examples could not be readily found. That claim was false. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Just like claiming that Rolex makes durable watches is not particularly controversial, but claiming that no other brand makes watches as durable is controversial (and again, false).
> 
> I'm struggling to recall who suggested that criticism of the brand - warranted or otherwise - detracted from the quality or durability of the watches themselves. Oh, now I remember. Nobody suggested that.
> 
> ...


Sorry, one more thing: That's a nice watch, BTW. I'd love to have something like it, except with the original band.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

triklops55 said:


> I would answer, but see its Friday, and I have better things to do now than kill time at my desk. So you have, or had a Rolex? *So you don't think they're so bad then*? Well, that's the point I've been trying to make all along. Seems we agree. Rolexes are pretty good after all. End of discussion. Now get outside and enjoy the weather for goodness sake!


Where did I say Rolexes were bad? I've owned three. None were bad.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

triklops55 said:


> Someone's getting a bit angry. Tell you what. Go ahead and enjoy your G-Shock. I actually have one to that I wear the few times I exercise and they are pretty good, except I haven't been able to wear it since the band broke. I'll wear my Rolexes and enjoy them. End of story. Deal?


As long as you quit making outrageous claims about Rolex shock-resistance, yes. No mechanical watch is built to withstand shock. Too many tiny moving parts.

Withstand pressure and altitude and temperature, yes. But that's not what you said.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^+1.
Not a Rolex, but a Tag Link Series Chronometer, all stainless steel construction, looked as if it could be run over by a tank and still keep on keeping accurate time, purchase price $1400 (give or take?). I wore the watch extended cardio exercise sessions (read as, six to ten mile road runs) for perhaps a year, when I noticed a sloppy level of looseness developing in the watch band and that a screw had apparently worked it's way out and become lost. I took the watch into the Jeweler from whom it was purchased (who also happens to be an authorized Rolex vendor). I was told that it appeared that the jarring experienced during those extended cardio sessions had literally shaken the watch band apart, thus essentially destroying it. It cost me $350 to replace the bracelet, at which point I reserved the TAG for less vigorous wear and returned to using an old G-Shock that I'd used to time my road runs for perhaps 10 years or more, with only the need to replace a $5 battery every couple of years! Now let's talk about durability and comparative values of the two watches!


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^+1.
> Not a Rolex, but a Tag Link Series Chronometer, all stainless steel construction, looked as if it could be run over by a tank and still keep on keeping accurate time, purchase price $1400 (give or take?). I wore the watch extended cardio exercise sessions (read as, six to ten mile road runs) for perhaps a year, when I noticed a sloppy level of looseness developing in the watch band and that a screw had apparently worked it's way out and become lost. I took the watch into the Jeweler from whom it was purchased (who also happens to be an authorized Rolex vendor). I was told that it appeared that the jarring experienced during those extended cardio sessions had literally shaken the watch band apart, thus essentially destroying it. It cost me $350 to replace the bracelet, at which point I reserved the TAG for less vigorous wear and returned to using an old G-Shock that I'd used to time my road runs for perhaps 10 years or more, with only the need to replace a $5 battery every couple of years! Now let's talk about durability and comparative values of the two watches!


This touches on my own experience. Last fall, I decided to quit risking external abrasion to a treasured Rolex Explorer I in the mountains. Solar powered watches attracted me because a battery once died in a quartz Seiko during an extended trek in Australia. I bought a Citizen Eco-Drive Nighthawk and a G-Shock model that was about the same price in order to compare watches of equal value. For winter mountaineering, neither had controls that were ideal with heavy mittens, but both could be managed. Otherwise, both handled the cold, high altitude and general bashing around equally well. However, the digital G-Shock was much easier to see and to set in bad light and heavy snowstorms. Also, its greater number of more sophisticated displays was practically useful in, for instance, timing legs of backcountry ski trips. The tiny subdials of the Citizen were often nearly invisible, and the one-hour elapsed time limit of the display was a serious limitation. Other models of either brand may have different qualities, but the G-Shock is now my choice for outdoor activities. The band did not crack in the cold and it has not melted in the 90+ F summer temperatures.


----------



## Ed Rooney (Nov 6, 2012)

Triklops55, I can see that you have good intentions joining me as a Rolex apologist on this thread, but you do should head over to Rolexforums or Timezone and read up a bit. 

Rolex and Omega are now using ceramic bezels on their sport watches, so expect a $1000 repair bill if you drop it from too high. The old aluminum bezels were about $50 and didn't break. 

I have a number of Casio G-shocks and I am quite fond of them. They are nearly indestructible, but any resin band will eventually become brittle and break. The replacements are quite inexpensive. 

True, I have done things with a Rolex that would require a $1500 service with a Patek, but I should have been wearing a G or a Seiko. There was a period of time before quartz when Rolex or Tudor was the choice for any sort of adventurous activities, due the their rugged, waterproof cases and shock resistance, but that sort of ended when GIs in Vietnam discovered cheap, durable and reliable Seiko dive watches. 

I gear my collection to having the right watch for the right purpose. I don't wear my Rolex to church. I prefer my 34mm vintage Omega. The Rolex fits in better some places, the G or a Seiko, others. 

I think that Day-Date look fantastic on a strap. It dresses it up a little more and makes it less recognizable to the gold diggers in the cocktail lounge at the Mandarin.


----------



## hcivic91 (Aug 29, 2006)

My mother bought me a Rolex Submariner when I finished grad school and what she gave me is an everyday partner. I've used it to time parking meters, my length of my wife's contractions and to ensure I got to my first real job on-time. Sure a more inexpensive watch could and would do the same but with Rolex my everyday partner is also a lifelong partner. I wear it to the beach, with chinos and black-tie. I can't say that about any other object I own. Some see it as conspicuous consumption, perhaps it is. It helps me enjoy the passage of time and reminds me of those I love along the way. In these ways, my Rolex is invaluable.

Cheaper watches, cellphones etc. all have their place but I challenge you to name an object, wedding rings not included, that means so much to you. I know I can't.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ I can imagine that as the audio component for the latest Rolex TV advertisement. A voice over in deep rich measured tones accompanied by slo-mo and soft focus footage - images of a dark haired lantern-jawed hero (the same guy they use in Gillette ads maybe) cradling a baby tenderly over his glistening hairless chest and washboard abs, handsomely yet ever-so slightly dishevelled arriving for his first presentation in the boardroom, in twilight lit by flickering flames cracking open a frothy beer bottle surrounded by admiring friends and relatives framed by wispy smoke of an open fire beach barbecue, a tender embrace with a twenty something hardbody waves dramatically, suggestively, crashing behind them in telephoto flattened effect........ it's a wrap. :icon_smile:

.
.
.
.
..
.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> ^ I can imagine that as the audio component for the latest Rolex TV advertisement. A voice over in deep rich measured tones accompanied by slo-mo and soft focus footage - images of a dark haired lantern-jawed hero (the same guy they use in Gillette ads maybe) cradling a baby tenderly over his glistening hairless chest and washboard abs, handsomely yet ever-so slightly dishevelled arriving for his first presentation in the boardroom, cracking open a frothy beer bottle surrounded by admiring friends and relatives framed by wispy smoke of an open fire beach barbecue, a tender embrace with a twenty something hardbody waves dramatically, suggestively, crashing behind them in telephoto flattened effect........ it's a wrap. :icon_smile:
> 
> .
> .
> ...


A tad mean to the Rolex's advertisement staff who just posted, but o so true 

I could learn to love a submariner. I just wouldn't buy one given any options.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> ^ I can imagine that as the audio component for the latest Rolex TV advertisement. A voice over in deep rich measured tones accompanied by slo-mo and soft focus footage - images of a dark haired lantern-jawed hero (the same guy they use in Gillette ads maybe) cradling a baby tenderly over his glistening hairless chest and washboard abs, handsomely yet ever-so slightly dishevelled arriving for his first presentation in the boardroom, in twilight lit by flickering flames cracking open a frothy beer bottle surrounded by admiring friends and relatives framed by wispy smoke of an open fire beach barbecue, a tender embrace with a twenty something hardbody waves dramatically, suggestively, crashing behind them in telephoto flattened effect........ it's a wrap. :icon_smile:
> .


I'm glad you don't work for Rolex Shaver...else I'd own TWO Rolexes and Lord knows how many razors...


----------



## mrfixit (Dec 30, 2012)

Leighton said:


> I'll probably buy a damned Rolex just to fit in and outwardly announce that I've "made it". Just because that's what the societal norm is. I don't like it, but I'll conform. I can't swim against the stream forever.
> 
> Making it being a certain level of income commensurate with the price of the watch of course.


everything you said after this is irrelevant. this totally embodies the reason anyone in this thread takes issue with rolex [owners]. you're hating, yet you aspire to buy a rolex just to advertise your financial status. if this is the main reason you see to buy a particular watch, i can see why you have trouble seeing value in the expense.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Shaver said:


> ^ I can imagine that as the audio component for the latest Rolex TV advertisement. A voice over in deep rich measured tones accompanied by slo-mo and soft focus footage - images of a dark haired lantern-jawed hero (the same guy they use in Gillette ads maybe) cradling a baby tenderly over his glistening hairless chest and washboard abs, handsomely yet ever-so slightly dishevelled arriving for his first presentation in the boardroom, in twilight lit by flickering flames cracking open a frothy beer bottle surrounded by admiring friends and relatives framed by wispy smoke of an open fire beach barbecue, a tender embrace with a twenty something hardbody waves dramatically, suggestively, crashing behind them in telephoto flattened effect........ it's a wrap. :icon_smile:


You left out the being gifted part.

If it was gifted to me, I'd definitely have the same feelings towards that particular watch. However, I'd feel the same way if it was a SeaGull or Seiko. Depending on how I feel about the gifter, I may or may not bother servicing it though.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

mrfixit said:


> everything you said after this is irrelevant. this totally embodies the reason anyone in this thread takes issue with rolex [owners]. you're hating, yet you aspire to buy a rolex just to advertise your financial status. if this is the main reason you see to buy a particular watch, i can see why you have trouble seeing value in the expense.


I have plenty of problems with societal expectations. Sartorial ones I gripe about on the forums. I'm not stupid or anti-society, so I conform to fit in just like everyone else. I just hate doing it. Doesn't mean it isn't any less wrong. I'll thumb my nose at society in some other fashion.

But more importantly, I'm a single male and unlike some others on this forum, really don't have a problem with gold diggers. I'm smart enough not to marry one without a prenup. Changed that to without a prenup because the moment I say I'm smart enough not to marry one.....


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Leighton said:


> I have plenty of problems with societal expectations. Sartorial ones I gripe about on the forums. I'm not stupid or anti-society, so I conform to fit in just like everyone else. I just hate doing it. Doesn't mean it isn't any less wrong. I'll thumb my nose at society in some other fashion.
> 
> But more importantly, I'm a single male and unlike some others on this forum, really don't have a problem with gold diggers. I'm smart enough not to marry one without a prenup. Changed that to without a prenup because the moment I say I'm smart enough not to marry one.....


Good thinking. You almost jinxed yourself into Hollywood Housewives right there...


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Ed Rooney said:


> I think that Day-Date look fantastic on a strap. It dresses it up a little more and makes it less recognizable to the gold diggers in the cocktail lounge at the Mandarin.


Now that gave me a chuckle. :biggrin:


----------



## lct01 (May 13, 2007)

I have a 1999 Rolex Air-King that can hardly be described as bold. It's one of the most understated watches among my colleagues and friends and the vast majority of people around me have no idea that it is a Rolex I have worn it for 13 years and have no complains. I expect to hand it down to my currently 3.5 years old daughter in 15-20 years. I do not consider myself "accomplished" either proffessionally or financially, therefore I have never seen the watch as a symbol of success. I'm a regular man who values quality. A watch that can withstand 30-40 years of daily wear is, for me, a symbol of quality. I own a Rolex because at a certain point in my life I could afford it and I liked it. Besides that, the watch somehow fits my sober / traditional tastes. 
Rolex is a great brand. It is now and it was 80 years ago. There may better watches but it has its place among the greatest. A close friend describes it as the Mercedes Benz of the watch world. You could, of course, drive a Ferrari or a Toyota, both are symbols of excellece within their segments, despite of the price difference.
Personal preferences should not be confused with facts and it sounds slightly pretentious to suggest that we have a more exquisite taste because our preferences lean towards less common brands or that we are specially wise because we buy less expensive watches that may, or may not, be superior (which is indeed very relative). There is some risk of overestimation, in my humble opinion.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

But then, we do judge people by their cars, also...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> But then, we do judge people by their cars, also...


We do!? I really must pay more attention to this type of stuff......


----------



## lct01 (May 13, 2007)

Bjorn said:


> But then, we do judge people by their cars, also...


Yes, sadly.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

lct01 said:


> Yes, sadly.


True story.

It is human nature to figure out where in the pecking order one is relative to everyone else. Cars, watches, clothes, jewelry, and houses are all outward signals of social standing.

Sure, one can blend in or fake it, but they're only indicators of wealth.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

True Dat, but the only real class acts are the ones who don't have to "fake it to make it!"


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> True Dat, but the only real class acts are the ones who don't have to "fake it to make it!"


Of course, but they're married.


----------



## Barcelona (Aug 13, 2009)

Shaver said:


> If the forum would like to have a quick whip round for my birthday, I wouldn't object to receiving one of these sublime timepieces. :redface:


A fine looking watch, Shaver. It reminds me of the Glashutte Original Senator Chronometer, a piece that I have always admired.


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

Ed Rooney said:


> Sometimes I like to wear my Rolex and strike up a conversation with a guy wearing JLC only to find that he doesn't even know how to pronounce Jaeger LeCoultre, or that he thinks the watch runs on the heat from his skin.


true on this. I have a Datejust with Roman sundial in black and I find that the Rolex is one sturdy watch. I dont have to baby it and if i leave it on when we go to the beach or cut the yard, Im not worried. Not that I try to do that, but sometimes, Ill tweak something in the garage when I get home and dont rush to take the watch off.

On the other hand, I have a JLC Master Control because I like its simple lines for a suit, and most people have no idea of the horological pedigree of JLC. I like it because they were one of the first, if not the first, to have all of the movements, cases, etc. all in house and even for a time supplied movements for Patek. Id love a Reverso also. But that watch, the Master Control, I have to baby a bit. I take it off if I wash my face, but not the Rolex.

I bought the Rolex, sure, Ill admit it, as a sign of something, maybe that I had gotten to a status in life, or maybe that I can show that I got to the rung on the ladder. One of the more 'affordable' acquisitions that show status, maybe like a BMW. Anyway, I have it and love it and wear it proudly, but now, if I get another watch or two, Id go into the vintage Omegas, or maybe the Glashutte Original or even RGM. Oh, and Blancpain, they have some lovely dials with guilloche. Oh, I have to stop dreaming now and get back to reality.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

memphislawyer said:


> I bought the Rolex, sure, Ill admit it, as a sign of something, maybe that I had gotten to a status in life, or maybe that I can show that I got to the rung on the ladder. One of the more 'affordable' acquisitions that show status, maybe like a BMW.


A very succinct summation of precisely why many individuals who can comfortably afford to purchase a Rolex, choose anything but a Rolex.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

https://www.traxnyc.com/-Rolex-GMT-...em33413.html?gclid=CJndm62wkbgCFZSe4Aodx2UA3w


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Barcelona said:


> A fine looking watch, Shaver. It reminds me of the Glashutte Original Senator Chronometer, a piece that I have always admired.


I recently examined a Glashhutte timepiece. The case was a bit too thick for my taste, but I like the Roman numerals. (This from a man that has worn a Panerai!  ) I would choose an A. Lange & Sohne from the German watchmakers:


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

RogerP said:


> A very succinct summation of precisely why many individuals who can comfortably afford to purchase a Rolex, choose anything but a Rolex.


A Rolex isn't that rare either. 1/10 people can afford one. A lot of people make poor financial decisions and buy one when they can't comfortably afford it. Same with BMW's I suppose.

I wonder just how much of the pie is serviced by Rolex as opposed to other brands in the same price range such as IWC, Omega, Breitling, Zenith, etc.


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

Leighton said:


> I wonder just how much of the pie is serviced by Rolex as opposed to other brands in the same price range such as IWC, Omega, Breitling, Zenith, etc.


Rolex is by far the #1 luxury watch seller worldwide. I don't have the numbers but it can be googled. As I recall, Brittling and Omega are next but between them don't match Rolex. IWC, JLC and the German brands are comparatively a drop in the bucket.

The Rolex marketing budget also dwarfs the others....


----------



## Ed Rooney (Nov 6, 2012)

To take this thread off in a tangent, I am always perplexed by the concept of luxury. I own a number of watches that have been described almost universally as luxury watches, yet they don't feel any more "luxurious" than my Seikos. I own a BMW 5-series, but I struggle to understand what makes it a luxury car. It has no more features than a Hyundai. I remember when electric windows, AC and FM were luxury features. Why is an Escalade a luxury SUV and a Chevy Tahoe with all the same features is not?

What is luxury? Can a razor, or a pen be luxury? Is it purple velvet? Remember those Vertu mobile phones? Is that where luxury goes stupid? Is a knock-off Louis Vuitton bag just as luxurious as the real thing because it holds your wife's lipstick and wallet equally well?

I am stumped. I am wearing my Seiko on one wrist and my Rolex on the other, trying to sense the luxury.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

^

Well said, Mr. Rooney. The adjectives "luxury" and "gourmet" are entirely overused, but they appeal to vanity and thus serve marketeers well. Isn't every apartment building advertised now as "luxury" ? Or consider the Buddhist and Greek philosopher Epicurus perspectives on luxury as a life lived without troubles and worry - brought on by an obsession with acquiring and maintaining symbols of wealth.


----------



## Dnslater (Mar 11, 2013)

Ed Rooney said:


> To take this thread off in a tangent, I am always perplexed by the concept of luxury.


....it is in the details, not the label........ My definition anyway.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Ed Rooney said:


> To take this thread off in a tangent, I am always perplexed by the concept of luxury. I own a number of watches that have been described almost universally as luxury watches, yet they don't feel any more "luxurious" than my Seikos. I own a BMW 5-series, but I struggle to understand what makes it a luxury car. It has no more features than a Hyundai. I remember when electric windows, AC and FM were luxury features. Why is an Escalade a luxury SUV and a Chevy Tahoe with all the same features is not?
> 
> What is luxury? Can a razor, or a pen be luxury? Is it purple velvet? Remember those Vertu mobile phones? Is that where luxury goes stupid? Is a knock-off Louis Vuitton bag just as luxurious as the real thing because it holds your wife's lipstick and wallet equally well?
> 
> I am stumped. I am wearing my Seiko on one wrist and my Rolex on the other, trying to sense the luxury.


A good tangent since I think the Rolex question has been beaten to death and then beaten some more.

Luxury means more expensive and better finished. That's really it IMO & IME.

In terms of watches, the watch I'm wearing right now has all the same features found on a Submariner, yet I only paid $250 or so. However, the Submariner has a dial made of better materials, the bezel aligns better with the numbers, and the bracelet's end links are solid. Subtle details, but they go into the price.

The Hyundai doesn't have as much leather, but has virtually all the same features. In this case, it's simply a matter of "it's a Hyundai". I know because I get it all the bleeping time. Doesn't matter how good the car is or how much luxury features are in it for the bargain price they're asking for. That said, the Hyundai does have driving input issues that the BMW gets right. Things such as: steering feel, manual transmission could feel crisper and less clunky, launch could be better. I'm sure there are other small details that the BMW has. Mostly in the driving experience and not so much in the technology and creature comforts. I think the leather is better in your 5 than in the genesis. The Eqquus is pretty darned luxurious, but it comes with a luxury price tag, so not a good comparison.

Actually a razor can definitely be a luxury razor. Compare a Gold Dollar straight razor with a Thiers Issard ivory razor. The difference is clear. Functionally different? Not really, but if you scrutinize it hard enough, yes. Compare a Stainless steel double edge razor with a $5 Chinese one. Functionally and aesthetically better. Going to cartridges, it's just the handle. It looks prettier. That is all.

Same with all luxury items. There may or may not be a functional improvement (and if there is, it is minimal versus the middle class option), but there is a clear improvement in term of looks, design, fit & finish, and materials used.


----------



## Ed Rooney (Nov 6, 2012)

Back on topic, and a bit of watch pr0n.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Leighton said:


> Actually a razor can definitely be a luxury razor. Compare a Gold Dollar straight razor with a Thiers Issard ivory razor. The difference is clear. Functionally different? Not really, but if you scrutinize it hard enough, yes. Compare a Stainless steel double edge razor with a $5 Chinese one. Functionally and aesthetically better. Going to cartridges, it's just the handle. It looks prettier. That is all.


Yes, functionally different. The Gold Dollar straight razor cannot hold the edge that the Thiers Issard will. We're not talking about a Bic and Mont Blanc writing the same letters, we're talking about the ability to effectively shave; the gold dollar cannot, effectively, provide the same shave that the Theirs Issard can.

I have a GD-type razor that was modified and honed by one of the best guys that does such work. It is not even remotely comparable to my well-worn due-for-a-honing Dovo, to say nothing of the comparison to the 1940s NOS Theirs I favor.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Yes, functionally different. The Gold Dollar straight razor cannot hold the edge that the Thiers Issard will. We're not talking about a Bic and Mont Blanc writing the same letters, we're talking about the ability to effectively shave; the gold dollar cannot, effectively, provide the same shave that the Theirs Issard can.
> 
> I have a GD-type razor that was modified and honed by one of the best guys that does such work. It is not even remotely comparable to my well-worn due-for-a-honing Dovo, to say nothing of the comparison to the 1940s NOS Theirs I favor.


Just can't beat the value and quality of vintage razors. To get the same quality, you need to spend $200+ these days. Dovo's "best" razors are far from excellence. Their "premium" ones, OTOH... awesome. However, they still don't equal their 1940's models. IME anyway.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Leighton said:


> Just can't beat the value and quality of vintage razors. To get the same quality, you need to spend $200+ these days. Dovo's "best" razors are far from excellence. Their "premium" ones, OTOH... awesome. However, they still don't equal their 1940's models. IME anyway.


Agreed, but the $100 dovos are the best entry level options. I have some vintage razors that work well, including a blue steel stainless model (ivory scales in surprisingly great condition), but that NOS Theirs is the epitome of a velvet squeegee; well worth the indulgence.


----------



## indisputable (Aug 16, 2008)

RogerP said:


> I am reminded of the enduring quality that a fine wristwatch represents every time I strap on a vintage timepiece that is both older than I am and in better shape.
> 
> Some people would rather look at a cell phone than look at something like the above. That's fine. Some people would rather drink wine that comes in cardboard carton by the gallon. After all, it gets you just as drunk.


Beautiful watch. I have a 1967 Omega that looks new that I wear with black shoes...

And an 80's vintage Tag Heuer I bought new for all other occasions.


----------



## Ed Rooney (Nov 6, 2012)

indisputable said:


> Beautiful watch. I have a 1967 Omega that looks new that I wear with black shoes...
> 
> And an 80's vintage Tag Heuer I bought new for all other occasions.


Here's my 1968.


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

Vladdy does it right.








VictorRomeo said:


> Can we best this monstrosity?


----------

