# Rolex - love it or hate it



## InPa

I continue to have mixed personal feelings about this brand but finally relented a purchased one - got the GMT with the red/blue bezel for some casual wear (not in formal/suit settings).

What are the general thoughts of those on this site - I know there are better "quality" watches available at similar prices (IWC and Zenith as examples in my mind) but this watch seems to hold such an iconic, rather traditional stature. Does this watch make too "bold" a statement or is it appropriately casual in a traditional sense?

Thanks for your thoughts.


----------



## The Gabba Goul

I think that the Rolex watch is like the Armani suit...it's OK for what it is, but, those not in the know seem to elevate it to heights that it doesnt really deserve to be elevated to because of it's association with "wealth"...that being said, I personally like Rolex...I've oft considered buying a cellini (sp?), but I really like the president, although, if I did have a spare $25K lying around to purchase a watch with, it (more than likely) wouldnt be a Rolex...but I aggree it isnt so much the quality or anything like that, it's more the iconic status of the Rolex that gives it the mythical reputation that it has come to enjoy...

...as far as what settings it's appropriate in...I really have no idea what the "rules" are when it comes to watches, but I'd say, that if you like the way it looks with whatever outfit...and you're comfortable wearing it...then it's appropriate...

*****
"When you wear lapels like the swellest of swells, you can pass any mirror and...
*smile*
...You've either got or you haven't got style!!!"​


----------



## Vecsus

I've seen very few Rolex in person. The people I have seen wearing them (real ones anyway) have always been smug and arrogant. One guy I knew had a lot of disposable income (from an insurance settlement) and wanted everyone to know it. He made it a point to drop brand names and prices about many of the things he owned, to include his watch. 
I've always felt Rolex to be a bit cliche when it comes to higher-end watches. Of course I am also disinclined to like a watch that is intentionally gaudy. Yes, I know that Rolex makes some plain, basic pieces but they are known for their flash. In my opinion, the quality of an item should speak for itself and not rely on shiny features and gems.

Personally, I wear a Tag Heuer that I like more than 95% of the Rolex I've seen. I may still be on the bottom-end of nice watches but I refuse to wear something on my wrist that costs as much as my car. Although even if I made 7-figures, I would still not buy a Rolex.


----------



## guitone

Rolex watches are very nice...i choose to not wear them only because of two reasons..they are generally big in the style I like and everyone and their brothers knows what a rolex is. I tend to favor Omega and now the less expensvie Oris..I like a watch to be understated. I think the one you have is one of my personal favirites, a very nice rolex and I hope you have much joy from it.

guit


----------



## n/a

I used to have mixed feelings about them, always allowing a bit of grace because they were, once upon a time, something of a classic--at least the plain, simple oyster perpetuals like the Air King and the Datejust. Nowadays, I no longer have mixed feelings. I've been convinced by my observations of recently encountered wearers that the watch brand is sought after and purchased almost only by show-offs who don't know very much about the product but who wish to noticed for having lots of $. It 's becoming painfully obvious that the guy who covets a Rolex is the same guy who covets a new Porsche or a new Armani suit only because of the attached (social) cache. So, nowadays I just plain don't like Rolexes and even find them kinda-sorta objectionable. I don't even like the old ones on a grosgrain band (anymore), which suggests a true change of heart. The big, gaudy flashy ones remain especially laughable.

-Harris


----------



## Don Goldstein

I basically agree with what the The Gabba Goul wrote.

I used to not be too much of a fan of Rolex. But, I give them credit for a couple of things: They have succeeded in tightly controlling the distribution of their watches, it is very difficult to find them at non-authorized dealers, you can't get them for much of a discount and, very importantly, they retain their value. You can't say all of that about too many other brands.

I live in Los Angeles. There are a lot of wealthy and showy people here. So, a basic Rolex isn't that bold. I would say that a solid gold Rolex with a solid gold bank or one with a diamond bezel is showy.


----------



## pendennis

I've compared the Rolex to others - Breitling, Omega, Oris, Zenith, etc. I ended up purchasing a Breitling Chronomat about five years ago, because it was a better watch for less money. I agree with some of the comments about some Rolex owners making a statement on their wrist.

My Breitling is accurate, and doesn't stand out in the crowd. I'm pleased with my watch, and I would purchase the Breitling again, if faced with the same choice.

For accuracy, Breitling and Zenith are better buys.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.


----------



## Holdfast

Rolex is fine, but most of them are too flashy for me - and I'm happy to wear "sports" watches like my Omega Seamaster with business suits!


----------



## AzChilicat

I agree with most of what is posted above. Rolex has an iconic stature, especially amongst the blue collar and nouveau riche however is certainly not in the top tier of watch making houses. I own two vintage Rolex is perfect condition, a Zephyr and a nice stainless steel date-just I usually wear. If I were very wealthy, I would own a few IWCs and Patek-Phillipes. I'm not so I settle for the two Rolex and a few other well chosen watches such as my Omega. I do not like "bling" and that seems to be what most current models of Rolex are about.


----------



## The Gabba Goul

I must also add that (and this is just my opinion), if I had large amounts of expendable cash, and I felt the need to let the world know it through my choice of wristwatch...I would go with somehting alot flashier than a Rolex...perhaps a Jacob & Co...but that's not really the look I'm going for...but anyway...the point I'm trying to make is that the Rolex has a very special niche...because a real watch fan will pass it up because it is too flashy or whatever...but then somebody looking to put their wealth on display (new money; atholetes and rappers come to mind immediately) may also pass on it for the exact opposite reason, it isnt flashy enough...so it seems to me, that alot of Rolex wearers (not all, I know there are plenty of decent fellas who wear Rolex watches [my best friend wears a rolex]) are only impressing themselves by the fact that they wear such a watch...

*****
"When you wear lapels like the swellest of swells, you can pass any mirror and...
*smile*
...You've either got or you haven't got style!!!"​


----------



## LDK

Being a traditionalist, I own several different styles of 14 kt. yellow gold Hamilton tank watches from the 1940s and the 1950s. I love the old winders, the genuine mineral crystals, the great classic style, the solid gold cases, the elegantly tooled mechanisms, plus they make wonderful conversation pieces over a good martini. Good deals can be found on eBay and there are still watchmakers who service them.


----------



## amemovox

The subject of Rolex has garnered more flame wars on the watch forums on the net than any other subject. Aside from that, the Rolex GMT in steel, as you own, in my view, is not a flashy watch. Its a classic tool watch with a tremendous pedigree.

When you get into high end watches, its more than just "telling time." Its like the folks that will only own John Lobb or EG. There are a lot cheaper alternatives to covering your foot, but few as nice. Same thing with a Rolex. 

Its funny the way you said "you relented" and bought a Rolex. I trust you will feel the excitement of owning and appreciating such a well made product.

Merry Christmas to all!


----------



## qwerty

> quote:_Originally posted by amemovox_
> 
> When you get into high end watches, its more than just "telling time." Its like the folks that will only own John Lobb or EG. There are a lot cheaper alternatives to covering your foot, but few as nice. Same thing with a Rolex.


I wouldn't call Rolex the EG of watches. Rolex is the Ferragamo, the Armani, the Gucci. The EG/Lobb/Oxxford of watches is Patek (and also Vacheron). Rolex is a nice watch, but I would never wear one.

(I am now running for cover from the barrage of e-attacks I will now receive on this thread...)


----------



## medwards

I neither love it nor hate it; I simply wear it. I've been wearing the same Rolex Datejust for over thirty years and it seems to work just fine. I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about.


----------



## jmorgan32

i agree med. i dress pretty much trad, own an old gruen (circa 1950) which i wear with a grosgrain band. however, i also have a rolex datejust which i also enjoy very much. it is the 2 tone 18K and stainless with the old "classic" silver face with slash/stick markers. very 1960ish. jubilee band. i worked hard and many years ago "rewarded" myself with the watch. many people "treat themselves" in life to things that may not totally justify the exact $ spent vs. lifetime value etc. to me, it is about enjoying life. eg i cant justify spending 500 on a tweed sport coat, but i do wear and enjoy 500 dollar shell cordo shoes. we all have our own little special "wants."
i have always enjoyed finely made swiss timepieces and wanted a rolex for years. well, one day i said damnit, i am getting one! 
to each his own. i wear mine proudly and other times i wear my gruen with a ribbon band. depends on my mood and attire.

to be sure, since i am single, i admit if i am "bar trolling", i do tend to wear the rolex more frequently on those evenings. see, you attract just the types of women you *dont* want to spend serious time with! ie i dont want to spend time with any woman seriously! (just a night or two at most) use a little "magnet" meet your needs,,,,,,let em on down......
misogamist??????? yep. again, to each his own. enjoy..........


----------



## spockstudio

From a watchmaker standpoint, most of the new Rolex are among the best they have produced. I can understand comments by folks who dont like them (or dont own them), but if you open up the back of the case, its mechanical music. My hunch is if more people could afford to shell out 20K for a watch, more people would. Much like a vintage auto, they also tend to hold their value pretty well and have excellent R.O.I.


----------



## Starbux

Re the fuss, I'm not sure what it all about either. I've owned a simple Air King since 1990 and it's been a loyal, dependable friend and servant that just works. Rolex is one of the few watch makers that makes their own movements (quite a few buy theirs). While I understand the tempation for noveau riche to splurge on an item like a Rolex, you could really argue that splurging can just about apply to anything. If you want a great watch and can't pull the trigger on a Rolex, try a Bedat No. 8 in stainless. Great look, it's Swiss, and it isn't a Rolex. 

Star


----------



## InPa

Thank you all for the very balanced feedback. Much appreciated.


----------



## jmorgan32

> quote:_Originally posted by Starbux_
> 
> Re the fuss, I'm not sure what it all about either. I've owned a simple Air King since 1990 and it's been a loyal, dependable friend and servant that just works. Rolex is one of the few watch makers that makes their own movements (quite a few buy theirs). While I understand the tempation for noveau riche to splurge on an item like a Rolex, you could really argue that splurging can just about apply to anything. If you want a great watch and can't pull the trigger on a Rolex, try a Bedat No. 8 in stainless. Great look, it's Swiss, and it isn't a Rolex.
> 
> Star


It is a lot of "fuss." You are spot on. I had a few brews and egg nog kicking in when I responded about my Rolex. However, you are right, and I say it may be very trite but true in that "you can't take it with you." I am frugal and when I was married I didn't even consider a Rolex. I wore an inexpensive Bulova and some older Hamilton. (gave them to my brother) I say, hey, if you want to buy a Porche, do it! Life is short. I wanted a Rolex and I do enjoy it. Would I do it again? Probably not. (have had it for around 10 years.) We all go through phases in life.
Take care.


----------



## crazyquik

> quote:_Originally posted by amemovox_
> 
> When you get into high end watches, its more than just "telling time."


You're spot on. A Rolex is acceptable male jewelry, rather than just a watch.

I'm indifferent to them, and don't plan to buy one anytime soon.


----------



## Pickwick

In my view, a Rolex watch is one of the finest made watches in the world.

Sure, it's expensive. Sure, it borders on the edge of being ostentatious. What finely made watch doesn't?

If you enjoy the watch, wear it in good health. I fail to understand why when a certain product attains a certain popularity or status symbol, there are those who reject the product for that reason alone.

A Rolex isn't any more overpriced than say a Patek Phillipe, Lange & Sohne, or Constantine Vacheron etc....

Enjoy your new watch!


----------



## Boris

I own 2 Rolex watches, a 25 year old stainless and gold Datejust and a newer President with a Mother of Pearl dial (w/ roman numerals). I have never had a days worth of trouble from either. I also own a Vacheron Constantin Retrograde. I had to have the watch replaced about six months after I bought it. That cured me from buying the Patek Calatrava that I was considering. This is my take on the Audemars / Vacheron / Patek vs Rolex debate nonsense. The two watches, Rolex and Vacheron, are made for entirely different wearing purposes. Rolex is extremely durable and versatile and can be worn anywhere, in the ocean, skiing or to dinner at a "better" restaurant. Vacheron is nice to look at and can be worn anywhere where you're not planning on any significant physical activity (dinner would be o.k.). And for all of you watch aficionados out there that will start that "you just don't appreciate the human workmanship and talent that goes into them " crap, a watch is as good as the time it keeps without having to worry that if you bump your wrist it might turn into a $500.00 repair bill. Rolex gets my vote.


----------



## StevenRocks

Rolex is a decent watch. I don't own one, but I can't afford one either.

"Never underestimate the depth of a curious mind"
Steve aka StevenRocks


----------



## shuman

> quote:_Originally posted by Harris_
> 
> I used to have mixed feelings about them, always allowing a bit of grace because they were, once upon a time, something of a classic--at least the plain, simple oyster perpetuals like the Air King and the Datejust. Nowadays, I no longer have mixed feelings. I've been convinced by my observations of recently encountered wearers that the watch brand is sought after and purchased almost only by show-offs who don't know very much about the product but who wish to noticed for having lots of $. It 's becoming painfully obvious that the guy who covets a Rolex is the same guy who covets a new Porsche or a new Armani suit only because of the attached (social) cache. So, nowadays I just plain don't like Rolexes and even find them kinda-sorta objectionable. I don't even like the old ones on a grosgrain band (anymore), which suggests a true change of heart. The big, gaudy flashy ones remain especially laughable.
> 
> -Harris


Then what? Timex?


----------



## Horace

> quote:_Originally posted by shuman_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Harris_
> 
> I used to have mixed feelings about them, always allowing a bit of grace because they were, once upon a time, something of a classic--at least the plain, simple oyster perpetuals like the Air King and the Datejust. Nowadays, I no longer have mixed feelings. I've been convinced by my observations of recently encountered wearers that the watch brand is sought after and purchased almost only by show-offs who don't know very much about the product but who wish to noticed for having lots of $. It 's becoming painfully obvious that the guy who covets a Rolex is the same guy who covets a new Porsche or a new Armani suit only because of the attached (social) cache. So, nowadays I just plain don't like Rolexes and even find them kinda-sorta objectionable. I don't even like the old ones on a grosgrain band (anymore), which suggests a true change of heart. The big, gaudy flashy ones remain especially laughable.
> 
> -Harris
> 
> 
> 
> Then what? Timex?
Click to expand...

I sort of agree with the sentiment of Harris's post. But sorta not. The Tudor of old ain't bad. (Less coin and you do get the Rolex casing). I do like the design -- I think it's classic looking.


----------



## The Gabba Goul

> quote:_Originally posted by Pickwick_
> 
> Sure, it's expensive. Sure, it borders on the edge of being ostentatious. What finely made watch doesn't?


ummm...Zenith, Breitling, Patek...want me to continue??? There are plenty of ultra premium watches which arent gauche...but there is nothing wrong with an ostentatious watch in and of it's self...if you want to run around wearing a solid platinum watch with the face so jam packed with jewels that the hands cant even move past them, then have at...

but in all honestly...who cares...my personal philosophy on style is...if you like it...wear it...heck...some guys might be able to wear one black shoe and one brown shoe and think he's the most stylish mutha on God's green earth...some guys might enjoy walking round with $100 bills pinned to their shirts...whatever does it for you...I'm sure that there alot of things that I do that I think look good, or smart, or cool, or whatever, that other guys would find objectionable...I like Rolex watches, like I said, if I had the money, it probably wouldnt be my first choice, but does the fact that somebody has different taste in watches make him less sophisticated than me? no...I dont really understand the almost Pavlovian rage that the mere mention of Rolex brings about to some people...I mean, variety is, after all, the spice of life...no?

Style is so subjective it isnt even funny...and it isnt the style that's objectionable...there's nothing inherently wrong with wearing a Rolex or an Armani suit...or driving a Corvette (sorry...I like Porsches alot, and if I had the money I certainly would drive one, so I cant say anything about them)...the problem, as I see it...is with a percentage of people who are drawn to such things because they think that for some reason these items will validate them as better human beings, they feel it will give them stature when in reality, most people could care less, or in fact think poorly of their bragging...if you remember my observation I wrote on the "typical Armani guy" a few months back, you'll know what I mean (and dont try to misunderstand what I'm saying because you all know somebody like that)...

...But back to the original post...if you like your Rolex because you genuinely like it, not because you feel it is some kind of symbol of success or something...then by all means enjoy it, its your style man...go with it, and dont worry too much about what others think...as long as you're happy with it...

*****
"When you wear lapels like the swellest of swells, you can pass any mirror and...
*smile*
...You've either got or you haven't got style!!!"​


----------



## FlatSix

I have a Breitling Bentley model... it's enormous! I hardly wear it because it feels like dragging a dinner plate around 

----------------------


"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## jimo

personally, i like rolex datejust. if u dont wanna spend 10K+ on a great watch, datejust is the choice. it is not really flashly, but very durable. however, i dont see a point spending more than 10K on a rolex.


----------



## In Mufti

There really isn't any reason to spend more than about $9.00 on a watch if you just want to know what time it is.

That being said, I bought a stainless Rolex GMT II sixteen years ago because I wanted a very durable watch that would last me the rest of my life. It has lasted through the most brutal environments on the planet--good times and bad. In short, it is my old reliable friend now.

I don't know what people think of my watch when they see it--I don't care. I hate to break this to a lot of you, but a whole of people in this world have no idea what a Rolex looks like and therefore are never going to be impressed by whatever you might be wearing on your wrist. They don't give a rip about watches one way or the other.

One of my young officers asked me if I thought he should buy a Rolex. We had finished a deployment and he had some money and wanted to treat himself. My response was, "Hey, if it is what you want and you can afford it, buy it...you only live once and you've earned the right to spend your money on whatever you like." He bought it and has been very happy with his decision.

An ugly watch is an ugly watch regardless of how much it cost--some people do horrible things to Rolex's basic lines and designs. But these are the same people who put pimp wheels on a Rolls Royce. 

There is no accounting for taste.


----------



## Tomasso

The fact that Rolex sells approximately one million watches a year attests to the popularity of the brand. While I sincerely appreciate the history and quality of Rolex, I'm not one to traffic in such ubiquitous offerings.


----------



## kenz

> quote:_Originally posted by In Mufti_
> 
> ...I hate to break this to a lot of you, but a whole of people in this world have no idea what a Rolex looks like and therefore are never going to be impressed by whatever you might be wearing on your wrist....


Exactly. I had a Rolex Explorer 15 years ago which I had bought as a reward for myself, and while the novelty never wore off unfortunately as a time keeper it ran very poorly... sometimes losing over a minute a day. Despite several attempts by the agents, it never came right. As my prime intention was to have a watch with some accuracy, I sold it.

Now I have a stainless Omega Constellation which runs to within a couple of seconds a month, and I'm delighted by it. Since I don't have to impress anyone now, it doesn't stand out except to people in the know.

And that's the secret... you buy your watch for yourself first, and then, if necessary, for your peers.


----------



## Cantabrigian

I don't own one - have considered getting a Sea Dweller (like the Che Guevarra Submariner but with a date window) but am not sure that it's worth 4,000 when there are so many nice-looking watches with decenmt movements in and around that range. 

I personally don't like the look of the Oysters but I think that the days of their being some status symbol are largely over. In that area, I would consider them as being like Hermes ties -- very much a status symbol in the 80's (from what I hear) and still recognized as expensive and good quality but without the same overtones as before - or at least not to the same extent. 

On Wall Street, however, you will still see a lot of Submariners and quite a few Oysters. But I have also found people to be getting interested in IWC's, Panerai's, Breitlings (to some extent), etc. 

InPa, are you planning on getting one after all of this?


----------



## n/a

InPa, we've likely confused the issue beyond repair. Or maybe not. 

I like plain, classic, well-made stuff that's also very old. That combination is a winner, especially when it's built to last. Hence my ongoing appreciation of shell cordovan shoes and W123 Mercedes diesels.

My Rolex-wearing friends have owned (and worn) them for a long, long time, which attests to their reliability/durability. It's probably true that there are better engineered "automatic" watches out there, but, for the $, the Rolex Oysters seem to be a worthwhile investment--one that, with ongoing maintenance, can be passed along to future generations.

One interesting facet of my college campus' culture: at some point during one's senior year, before job interviews began, one bought (or, more accurately, allowed your parents to buy you) a Rolex. No one would have known (or cared) enough about quality watches to consider a Patek or anything else. The GMT and Submariner were favorite choices, as were the stainless steel Air Kings and Datejusts. This was a campus where a lot of the students wore Barbour, Alden shoes, and Bills Khakis and drove nice (if hand-me-down) cars; so, a Rolex sort of "fit in" to the culture. If clothes are sacramental in character (and they are), then an old, tasteful, conservative Rolex is yet another sign/symbol of taste and status.

All of this goes to answering your question: these guys would not have bought or worn anything "tacky" or "gaudy," and the favored Rolexes were, comparatively, both tasteful and subtle. Your choice is a good and even traditional one. "Expensive" does not always equal "tacky" (indeed, there are much cheaper watches that are far tackier). 

Wear and enjoy.

Cheers,
Harris


----------



## n/a

P.S.: it appears that, for the past few years, Brooks Brothers catalog models have been sporting a variety of Rolexes, including the GMT and the stainless steel Oyster. Whatever Brooks' other faults, they remain relatively traditional. That Brooks recognizes Rolex as a watch that fits in with their traditional style should alleviate some concern about Rolex as a "traditional" choice. -Harris


----------



## xcubbies

Would most of you agree that a Rolex, along with other higher priced watches starting above $200, are more jewellery than a timpiece? 

Justifying it on the basis of efficiency is disingenuous. My watch is the only non-clothes thing that I wear everyday (not counting tatoos, piercings and totems). It's a basic Hamiton automatic, which keeps good time, cost about $180, and goes with everything I wear. I wear a steel bracelet Seiko ($120) when I travel in Africa and Asia because it is more comfortable, doesn't chaffe.

Rolex give the impression of solid reliability, and I almost bought one 2-3 years ago. On the other hand, they represent a liability where I tend to go, and project an image that, in the end, I decided, was not me.


----------



## the diplomat

I think it's very ignorant to pigenhole all Rolex-owners...
sure there are many money-showing Rolex-owners, but there are also quite a few who simply like Rolex or a certein Rolex modell...
I own a Submariner Date, in my eyes the nicest sporty-casusal watch avalable...others prefer Tag Heuer or Breitling, me and many others prefer the GMT, Yachtmaster or Submariner, because they are simply some of the best and most durable watches around and they are classics...
I wouldn't compare Rolex to Patek, Zenith, IWC, Lange or Vacheron...
I got a Zenith as a hand-me-down, which I really love, but it's just not an everyday watch...it's a different class.


----------



## jrleague

I have worn my Rolex stainless steel Datejust ever since my parents bought it for me upon college graduation. I love the watch and could care less what social perceptions are related to it. My Rolex is anything but a piece of jewelry being as it looks like just another run-of-the-mill watch until you get close enough to read the face. It keeps good time. No one notices it unless it is by complete and utter accident, and the only people who make an issue of it being a Rolex tend to be other owners who (unfortunately) fit the typology of the descriptions in this thread.


----------



## xcubbies

*P.S.: it appears that, for the past few years, Brooks Brothers catalog models have been sporting a variety of Rolexes, including the GMT and the stainless steel Oyster. Whatever Brooks' other faults, they remain relatively traditional. That Brooks recognizes Rolex as a watch that fits in with their traditional style should alleviate some concern about Rolex as a "traditional" choice. -Harris*

Can I postulate that the Rolexes in the catalogues represent an image of exclusivity which is just the image that Brooks Brothers wants potential clients to associate with? It's an image thing, not necessarily quality.


----------



## guitone

I am not sure I agree that a fine watch is a piece of jewelery in the typical sense, but yes, it can certainly be seen as one. I am on the hunt right for either an Oris XXL or their Frank Sinatra date because they are somewhat understated for what they are. I have have my Omega for 4 years, no trouble, it looks great, it does not turn eyebrows but I do get compliments on it from time to time from other Omega wearers. It is an understated watch that tells time consistently, as a Rolex will. I considered Rolex before buying that but as I mentioned before, the ones I like were huge. I like rolex but I am not into the status thing. It is not the buyer than maybe into this but the lurker who will be and I am not comfortable with attention from others on my watch or other items I have on me. I like the submariner a lot, t is a nice watch, the black face is great..the GMT is very nice as well. My next watch will be a bit bigger than m 36mm Omega, it will have a black face, sivler band..not gold, understated. I buy a watch that will tell time and feel good on my wrist and look good to me. That should be the criteria as to why people buy watches. Let's face it, if it is a statement about wealth it will be a very expensive bling watch, not the one we are talking about here. Those that wear these, well if they are comfortable that is great, but is is usually about other things.

guit


----------



## Malty

I don't wear a Rolex. Instead, I have an IWC that I purchased a couple of years ago to mark the birth of my son. I think you get a lot more watch for your money with the IWC. Also, I don't want clients looking at my wrist and questioning how high my rates are. A Rolex is an invitation to such questions while the IWC rarely raises such doubts, unless the client is particularly knowledgable, in which case I'm in trouble!


----------



## spockstudio

It really bears repeating that the Rolex watch is an extremely durable and reliable watch. If you remove whatever social distinctions you may wish to attach to it, it is the only one mentioned in these threads that you could actually throw off the roof of your house and feel confident that it will still be running when you climb down. Because it will.
Steve


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working

If one begrudges the Rolex for some wearer's behavior, then the same must be said for almost any recognizable luxury brand. Certainly one must never buy Ralph Lauren if that were really a factor.

Unlike Armani, a Rolex is not a label without quality. The comparison really doesn't hold.

Also, I have a difficult time understanding how one can acknowledge such disdain for a Rolex, then go and buy a cheaper brand featuring blantantly copied Rolex styling. Omega, Breitling, Tag, etc. pay the rent with their Submariner knockoffs.


----------



## jml90

> quote:_Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working_
> 
> Unlike Armani, a Rolex is not a label without quality. The comparison really doesn't hold.
> 
> Also, I have a difficult time understanding how one can acknowledge such disdain for a Rolex, then go and buy a cheaper brand featuring blantantly copied Rolex styling. Omega, Breitling, Tag, etc. pay the rent with their Submariner knockoffs.


They did not steal Rolex's style I think most of the others have more class and that Rolex is just a "enlargment" and I believe better watches are out there.


----------



## jmorgan32

why all the controversy about a wristwatch brand? let it go. to each his own. some appreciate fine swiss time pieces, other enjoy fine german cars, others 1000.00 cashmere coats,. etc. let it go. if you like wearing a timex, do it. i wear a rolex, a gruen and others.. can we wear what we want? i surely hope so.

some will pay 80 for a tie cause it is 1/2" more narrow that another available rep tie.......great for them. the little extra material on a tie doesnt bother me. i love my rollie. wear it proudly. volvo now, maybe a mercedes 450 next......oh s**t.....will that cause problems here??! dear god.


----------



## xcubbies

Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working

*Unlike Armani, a Rolex is not a label without quality*.

How do you define quality in a watch? I would place a lot of weight on accuracy. You can find greater accuracy in a quartz Seiko than in a Rolex.


----------



## Tomasso

> quote:_Originally posted by jmorgan32_
> 
> why all the controversy about a wristwatch brand? let it go.


I'm a WIS and I've been watching the Rolex backlash for years. Rolex is a brand that illicites a level of loathing that is unique in the watch world and certainly undeserving on an horological basis. Rolex suffers the fate of Microsoft and Walmart, among others, that of the big dog. People will hate them because of their size and influence, but at the end of the day they offer value. Is Rolex overpriced? Yes. Is Rolex worth the price? Yes. I know that sounds a bit incongruous but if you look at the Rolex resale value, you will concur. While I do own a few Rolex(Submariner, Daytona and Day Date), I rarely wear them because of their popularity. When I wear a Blancpain, a Breguet or a Jaeger Lecoultre there is rarely a mention but ROLEX and people notice.


----------



## JAB

While it is true that an inexpensive quartz watch will usually be more accurate than a mechanical model will they just don't have the same "soul". All mechanical watches are miniature machines with numerous small parts working in perfect (sometimes not so perfect...) harmony. Some are mere tools, others true works of art, but all possess a certain je ne sais quoi that few, if any, quartz watches can match. If taken care of most mechanicals will last for generations while most quartzes will end up in a landfill just after the battery dies. Take a look at some of the wonderful pocket watches from the turn of the century which are performing just as well today as when they were new. Wearing a fine timepiece is no different than wearing a perfectly tailored suit or an exquisite pair of shoes. Besides, time is just too precious to measure with a cheap watch. 

Regards, Jason


----------



## JAB

While it is true that an inexpensive quartz watch will usually be more accurate than a mechanical model they just don't have the same "soul". All mechanical watches are miniature machines with numerous small parts working in perfect (sometimes not so perfect...) harmony. Some are mere tools, others true works of art, but all possess a certain je ne sais quoi that few, if any, quartz watches can match. If taken care of most mechanicals will last for generations while most quartzes will end up in a landfill just after the battery dies. Take a look at some of the wonderful pocket watches from the turn of the century which are performing just as well today as when they were new. Wearing a fine timepiece is no different than wearing a perfectly tailored suit or an exquisite pair of shoes. Besides, time is just too precious to measure with a cheap watch. 

Regards, Jason


----------



## Vettriano Man

I need to be tactful how I word this, as I note that _all_ the members who say they wear Rolex watches are _gentlemen,_ but in my view it is not a dignified choice of watch for _gentlemen,_ since it usually appears to be worn by those with new money who wish to make a statement.


----------



## Tom Buchanan

I think that most people on this board do not know the distinguished history of Rolex. Rolex was originally a British company, that moved to Switzerland when the watch industry centered there. Rolex "invented" the first waterproof commercial watch -- the oyster. Its founder, Hans Wilsdorf, was a steadfast supporter of Allied troops throughout both world wars, sending free replacement watches to Allied POWs who had their watches confiscated. The Rolex Explorer was worn on the first summit of Everest. Rolex submariners were issued to British Navy units. Rolex was always known as a rugged, dependable watch. Rolex were bought by many U.S. military up through the 1980s when they were sold in PX's.

That being said, Rolex used to be a high priced, not status priced. Now, they have been marketed like other "status" brands. Why? Because they can get the money for them. 

I look at Rolex watches like Daimler/Mercedes automobiles. Are there better cars? Absolutely. But if you want a car with history, which is incredibly reliable (I know Mercedes has had trouble with reliability recently), which holds its value, and has some status, then Mercedes is a great car. And like a Mercedes, you pay a bit more for this.


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working

> quote:_Originally posted by xcubbies_
> 
> Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working
> 
> *Unlike Armani, a Rolex is not a label without quality*.
> 
> How do you define quality in a watch? I would place a lot of weight on accuracy. You can find greater accuracy in a quartz Seiko than in a Rolex.


That certainly is a fair criticism of many Rolex models. However, Seiko has never cultivated a following of owners, a vintage market, and a reputation for longevity as has Rolex. Without quality, these elements would not form.


----------



## xcubbies

I guess the bottom line is if you really want to buy a Rolex you can find a reason to justify it. Me, I'd love to have one of the original Explorers, very simple, understated. But somehow I cannot justify it to myself when I need to put money away for my daughter's education, house.


----------



## canoone

Rolex is a nice watch, but certainly carries a large whiff of hype. To me, it too often is the "wrist trophy" of the guy who just got his first real bonus or the gift from the clueless wife to pair with hubby's pleated Dockers on the golf course. Most who wear them (that I've encountered) love to show them off, despite not having a clue about them other than:

1. They are a Rolex and therefore several thousand dollars
2. They have a floating second hand (like all mechanical watches): "Ain't that cool!!"

Personally, I prefer a Patek Phillipe for dress and Tag Heuer for sport.

Also, the enormity of a Rolex overpowers those who don't have naturally thick wrists.


----------



## norcaltransplant

One more opinion...
In the past two years, I was bitten with the watch bug. I spent around eight months before I decided on my first purchase, an entry level S/S IWC Portofino. I have the luxury of living in the NYC area and the ability to browse to my heart's content.

Fast forward to the week before Christmas 2005. I had some free time, so I perused a few of the local jewelers in my hometown of Fresno, CA. Every top jeweler in my hometown carried Rolex, Omega, and/or TAG. Not surprisingly, these three brands have solidified their status as "nice" watches with Rolex being the "best" for the aspiring professional. I find this reputation problematic for two reasons.

1) Rolex has created its reputation through sheer marketing force rather than innovation. Although Rolex makes a decent product that retains its value, the _general_ perception that Rolex is the top dog in the luxury watch market is more than a little insulting to the artisans and engineers who spend years trying to tweek a three thousand year old art.

2) There are few alternatives to buying TAG, Omega, and Rolex. My hometown has a population between 600-700,000. Though the economy isn't the greatest, I'm sure there is a sufficiently large market to support a little variety--especially entry level Swiss companies that provide more "bang for the buck." Oris and Maurice Lacroix are easy picks. Eberhard and Nomos as less likely candidates. In the higher range, Patek is probably prohibitively expensive, but I would could imagine an upper range Richemont company doing quite well--like JLC, Blancpain, or IWC.

Yet another starving grad student... wearing English shoes.


----------



## Don Goldstein

I'd like to add something to what I wrote earlier.

When people ask me about buying a nice watch, I always recommend buying a vintage gold watch. You get a great deal and a nice, classy watch. Ebay is a good place to buy vintage watches if you buy the watch from a seller who has excellent feedback. Yes, a vintage watch won't keep really, really accurate time (buy a $40 digital Timex if you want that) and it will require maintenance but you will have a beautiful watch with great resale value.

Here is the problem as I see it with most watches made nowadays that cost in the range of $500 - $2000: Basically, you are buying a watch that is just designed by the company whose name is on it. They get the case from one place, the dial from another, the movement from another, etc.


----------



## alaric

Medwards said:


> quote:I neither love it nor hate it; I simply wear it. I've been wearing the same Rolex Datejust for over thirty years and it seems to work just fine. I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about.


I was certified in scuba at 11 (1969), for which miraculous feat my mom got me a Rolex Submariner, no date, stainless steel, black face and bezel. I have worn it pretty much daily since then. It keeps good time, it has held up despite, being run over by a jeep (dirt road, thank goodness), lost in 100' of water of San Pedro Island (Guaymas, Mexico), whacked against rocks while climbing, and all the other tribulations to which a fairly active life would subject it.

I do not understand the "cachÃ©" aspect. I know several very tasteless and vulgar people who own them and several who don't. But I also know several vulgar and tasteless men who wear Oxxford suits. Paris Hilton (someone certainly in the running for "Most Conspicuously Vulgar and Tastelessâ€ kudos) drives a Bentley Continental GT, this does not make it a bad car. I see no justification in applying the faults (or virtues) of the wearers of any item to the item itself.

alaric

"Bunter, I shall have to look like a newspaperman." 
"Then, my lord, I would suggest the suit we don't like and the regrettable tie." 
"Perfect!"


----------



## Boris

> quote:_Originally posted by canoone_
> [Personally, I prefer a Patek Phillipe for dress


Just don't bump your wrist when you're wearing that watch.


----------



## Boris

> quote:_Originally posted by Vettriano man_
> 
> I need to be tactful how I word this, as I note that _all_ the members who say they wear Rolex watches are _gentlemen,_ but in my view it is not a dignified choice of watch for _gentlemen,_ since it usually appears to be worn by those with new money who wish to make a statement.


And how did you seem to arrive at this conclusion?


----------



## bigCat

I don't own a Rolex, because of the image it implies (nowadays). I still think that it is a quality watch, I just prefer other brands, mentioned on this thread.

One thing that impresses me with Rolex is that they did not lower quality, when they became a "percieved status item". 
Most luxury brands in that position increase volume, increase price and cut corners to reduce costs - Rolex did just the first two. They still make the same quality watch they have made in the past. Their new customers will still have a high quality watch - although that is not their primary reason for a purchase.


----------



## mendozar

I'm not a fan of Rolex simply due to the fact that everyone else wants/has one. Its widespread use has diluted, in my opinion, its symbol as a status watch. If I were to get a status watch, I would prefer the Patek Calatrava as my conservative watch and the Vacheron Patrimony tribute to great explorers as my avant-garde watch.

Cheers,

Rufino


----------



## lichMD

> quote: I think that most people on this board do not know the distinguished history of Rolex.


I agree with Tom on this point. Rolex has reached the same iconic status that Armani or Gucci or Mercedes Benz has, where it becomes co-opted by conspicuous consumers that want to have project a certain "air".
I have been a huge fan of Rolex since childhood having been exposed to the brand on my instructors wrists as I learned to first snorkle and then scuba dive.
When I completed my residency training I received a vintage black on black GMT which was "made" in the year of my birth. This watch was my daily wear for years and kept excellent time (w/i 5 seconds) while surviving multiple bumps, bruises and an accidental submersion in salt water with the crown open while snorkling off the Keys.
I have placed my GMT into the safe awaiting the 18th birthday of my firstborn as I received a Daytona this year as an engagement present. It is now my daily wear for everything except black tie when I go watchless. I may break down one day and buy a vintage Portugese or JLC Reverso or Patek for more formal ocassions but truly enjoy both my Rolexes.


----------



## Soph

Rolex Sub is a classic. I own one. The rest is your demeanor. If you're friendly and a nice person it speaks volumes versus some preconceived rolex wearing classification.

*** Elegance - a refined quality of gracefulness and good taste *** To achieve a dashing with panache persona


----------



## burnedandfrozen

I purchased my two tone Datejust in my early 20's. Yes, it was because I had gotten my first real job and was living with a relative and I wanted the image of a go-getter. It recently up and died on me after about 13 years. I've outgrown it and now I want something a little less flashy. So I pulled out my old Omega Seamaster made in the late '60's or early '70's. I paid to have it overhauled and purchased two leather bands one black and one brown. In the past couple monthes I've gotten more compliments on this watch then I can ever remember getting while wearing the Rolex every day for 13 years. Go figure. I purchased my Sea Master at a swapmeet for less then $200 since I knew of Omegas quality. It ran fine for a while then it died and I went and got the Rolex. Trouble now is I've had to bring the Omega back several times as it cannot keep good time. I'm tired of bringing it back. I'm told it shouldn't be too hard to set the works correctly so I don't know why this local mom and pop place can't get it right. The watchmaker there even told me he used to work for Omega. Another brand I like is Ebel. Some very nice watches. I saw one in a pawnshop the other day. Beautiful sport wave model but it hand little diamonds for markers on the dial. Too much "bling" for my taste.
Cheers,
Mark


----------



## coatandthai

> quote:_Originally posted by norcaltransplant_
> 
> 1) Rolex has created its reputation through sheer marketing force rather than innovation. Although Rolex makes a decent product that retains its value, the _general_ perception that Rolex is the top dog in the luxury watch market is more than a little insulting to the artisans and engineers who spend years trying to tweek a three thousand year old art.


This is incorrect information. If you review the watch patents issued annually, Rolex is the clear leader in utility patents. They are constantly innovating in ways that matter to their customers--accuracy and reliability. For example, new metal alloys for the balance spring, and novel lubricant-free automatic winding mechanisms. Watch cognoscenti object to the fact that Rolex does not use fine hand-finishing on its movements, its movements are rather thick and the case designs rarely change. But Rolex is a very reliable and accurate watch that holds its value and is iconic. Personally, I prefer to wear lesser known brands, but I give Rolex its due as a fantastic innovative company. If you judge a brand by whether it does what it is supposed to do very well, the Rolex is a top brand. It makes no prestense of being a hand-made watch, just a reliable robust timekeeper.


----------



## norcaltransplant

> quote:It makes no prestense of being a hand-made watch, just a reliable robust timekeeper.


Again, my experiences are quite different. The radio advertisments in my hometown repeatedly stress how each Rolex "takes a year to build," implying significant hand-made workmanship. I don't dispute the fact that Rolex produces a robust sport watch--I just detest the behemoth of a marketing campaign that sells the brand as the finest horology money can buy.

In simple terms.

Dopplechronograph, minute repeater, tourbillon, and perp calender = fine watchmaking.

Durability and reliability from a manufacturer movement = Rolex and Seiko. If you include the Spring Drives, Credor, and Grand lines, Seiko is arguably the most complete watch manufacturer in the world.


----------



## Vettriano Man

> quote:_Originally posted by Boris_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Vettriano man_
> 
> I need to be tactful how I word this, as I note that _all_ the members who say they wear Rolex watches are _gentlemen,_ but in my view it is not a dignified choice of watch for _gentlemen,_ since it usually appears to be worn by those with new money who wish to make a statement.
> 
> 
> 
> And how did you seem to arrive at this conclusion?
Click to expand...

...because, of course, this club is clearly only patronised by gentlemen _(although there might be one or two exceptions)_


----------



## tweedchap

I didn't know that Rolex was originally British, Tom. I'd like to learn more. Do you have any good sources for the company's history?


----------



## medwards

There have some very good books (_The Best of Time: Rolex Wristwatches: An Unauthorized History_ by James M. Dowling, Jeffrey P. Hess is a pretty comprehensive place to start), but here are some quick on-line links that should give you a very broad overview:

https://www.brittonswatches.com/watches_rolex_history.htm


----------



## Tom Buchanan

Thanks for the assist Medwards. For anyone interested in Rolex's heritage, I would suggest looking at James Dowling's website linked below. Unfortunately, I cannot link to exact pages in his site, but if you click on "Notes", then "Miscellaneous Ramblings", he has numerous articles on Rolex's support of POWs, its many innovations and patents throughout the years, and even a "Why its ok to hate Rolex" article.

I have no affiliation with Mr. Dowling. And just fyi, I own a Tudor (which is made by Rolex) Submariner, but no Rolex watches.


----------



## RJman

Rolex, Rolex, love it or loathe it you can never leave it or lose it...

-- l'homme-RJ


----------



## xcubbies

*Rolex, Rolex, love it or loathe it you can never leave it or lose it...

-- l'homme-RJ*

Is this suppose to be a poem, or a profession of love or advice?


----------



## Syringemouth

I have been avoiding this topic for some time now but I think it is finally time to speak. I don't think that if someone owns a Rolex it makes them an instant a**hole. There are many of those people who don't have a Rolex anyhow. If someone owns a Rolex does it make them better than someone who doesn't? No. I do think it is totally obnoxious when someone has to keep the shirt sleeve rolled up and move his arm as to draw attention to his wrist with the attitude of "look what I have". A true gentleman would *NEVER* do something like this. If you have one and you like it great - just don't act like a fool and think you are better than someone who doesn't. If you don't have one who cares? - you can still have something that tells time. What is more important - having material items or having happy and healthy relationships and being a good person? [^]


----------



## Tomasso

> quote:_Originally posted by Syringemouth_
> What is more important - having material items or having happy and healthy relationships and being a good person?


Does it have to be either-or, can't I have it all?


----------



## indylion

> quote:_Originally posted by medwards_
> 
> I neither love it nor hate it; I simply wear it. I've been wearing the same Rolex Datejust for over thirty years and it seems to work just fine. I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about.


There are some guys that think clothes make the man. They are afraid of be defined by the wrong brand/label or look. Other guys think the man makes the clothes. Medwards, I think you are one of the latter. You will wear what you want to wear (rolex, timex,etc. ), because it's your style and you are happy with yourself.


----------



## indylion

> quote:_Originally posted by Vettriano man_
> 
> I need to be tactful how I word this, as I note that _all_ the members who say they wear Rolex watches are _gentlemen,_ but in my view it is not a dignified choice of watch for _gentlemen,_ since it usually appears to be worn by those with new money who wish to make a statement.


So this means not to drive a lexus, jag, benz, volvo,etc.? New money will try to buy anything old money has. Because new money wants to appear as old money.


----------



## Vettriano Man

> quote:_Originally posted by indylion_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Vettriano man_
> 
> I need to be tactful how I word this, as I note that _all_ the members who say they wear Rolex watches are _gentlemen,_ but in my view it is not a dignified choice of watch for _gentlemen,_ since it usually appears to be worn by those with new money who wish to make a statement.
> 
> 
> 
> So this means not to drive a lexus, jag, benz, volvo,etc.? New money will try to buy anything old money has. Because new money wants to appear as old money.
Click to expand...

No, but I disagree slightly here. New money may try to buy, but it takes years and years to develop a taste for the aesthetics linked to old money - it just cannot be bought at the snap of a finger because so many things need to coordinate and balance with each other. However, clever marketing always sells instantly identifiable glamour to new money without fail, such as the archetypal Roller - why does it always seem to be a Roller as opposed to a Bentley? - or similarly with Porshe? - because these are prestige brands that throughout history have always tripped off the tongue.


----------



## Joe Frances

I don't personally care for Rolex, but the GMT is about the best of that breed, and I do like that model.

Once you got the feeling that Rolex wearers were sort of showing off, wanted people to notice they have a Rolex; and there was a "wow" factor. That was quite a long time ago, now. Today, if I see a Rolex it's a "so what"; but if I spot an IWC or Vacheron-Constantine watch or even an Oris with an interesting complication, I would take significant notice, and ask the owner about his watch. 

Joe


----------



## spockstudio

Its worth noting that Hamilton has produced some of the finest movements ever made, rivaling and even outperforming PP, V and C, and the slew of ETA movements currently available.


----------



## Boris

> quote:_Originally posted by spockstudio_
> 
> Its worth noting that Hamilton has produced some of the finest movements ever made, rivaling and even outperforming PP, V and C, and the slew of ETA movements currently available.


Hamilton Ventura. First "electric" watch. Circa 1955. Very much sought after by those who know.


----------



## stylestudent

I've worn a plain steel Rolex Air-King, no date, for 25 years. It was a law school graduation gift from my parents. It's low-key, can't be damaged, and keeps perfect time. Was it part of a status symbol grouping of the '80s (like Hermes ties or Mercedes) and has that system been inflated and overmarketed to the annoyance of many members. Most assuredly. But at the very least it's not an imitation and refers only to itself.

Steven


----------



## spockstudio

> quote:_Originally posted by Boris_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by spockstudio_
> 
> Its worth noting that Hamilton has produced some of the finest movements ever made, rivaling and even outperforming PP, V and C, and the slew of ETA movements currently available.
> 
> 
> 
> Hamilton Ventura. First "electric" watch. Circa 1955. Very much sought after by those who know.
Click to expand...

 Hamilton was the first company to bring a watch with a battery to market in Jan. '57. Although the initial designs were somewhat flawed (it was an electro-mechanical movement comprised of balance wheel and battery), it set the groundwork for the technology that is responsible for the quartz watch. The Ventura might be one of the most beautiful watches ever made.


----------



## Boris

> quote:_Originally posted by spockstudio_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Boris_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by spockstudio_
> 
> Its worth noting that Hamilton has produced some of the finest movements ever made, rivaling and even outperforming PP, V and C, and the slew of ETA movements currently available.
> 
> 
> 
> Hamilton Ventura. First "electric" watch. Circa 1955. Very much sought after by those who know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hamilton was the first company to bring a watch with a battery to market in Jan. '57. Although the initial designs were somewhat flawed (it was an electro-mechanical movement comprised of balance wheel and battery), it set the groundwork for the technology that is responsible for the quartz watch. The Ventura might be one of the most beautiful watches ever made.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The outward aesthetics of the watch, particularly at that time, were far beyond anything else. Very distinctive.


----------



## LDK

I agree, Hamilton made some beautiful watches, especially the Ventura. But don't limit yourself to just the Ventura, try some of the many different tank watches produced by Hamilton. I would prefer to own four or five solid gold Hamilton tanks, which I actually own seven, and wear them for varying social functions. I have some with plain brown leather bands, some with plain or stitched black leather bands, some with lizard bands, which means I can wear a watch to match the color of shoes and belt I am wearing. A person can go for formal or for casual quite easily and quickly if they own several Hamilton watches with different types of leather bands, and several Hamiltons can be purchased for the price of a single Rolex. Gold is gold and class is class!


----------



## Tom Buchanan

> quote:_Originally posted by spockstudio_
> 
> Its worth noting that Hamilton has produced some of the finest movements ever made, rivaling and even outperforming PP, V and C, and the slew of ETA movements currently available.


It is also, _unfortunately_, worth noting that Hamilton has not been made in PA for many years and now uses mostly ETA movements. I have read reports that some of the cases are made in India, but I do not know this for sure. It would be ashame if that were true. To me, Hamilton is one of those many companies (e.g., Abercrombie) that is no longer what it was. For the money, some of the cheaper models are good beaters, as long as you know what you are buying.


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working

> quote:_Originally posted by stylestudent_
> 
> I've worn a plain steel Rolex Air-King, no date, for 25 years. It was a law school graduation gift from my parents. It's low-key, can't be damaged, and keeps perfect time. Was it part of a status symbol grouping of the '80s (like Hermes ties or Mercedes) and has that system been inflated and overmarketed to the annoyance of many members. Most assuredly. But at the very least it's not an imitation and refers only to itself.
> 
> Steven


This reflects my main contention with so many of the Rolex bashers: the watches they so frequently espouse are Rolex knock-offs.

I, too, find most solid gold watches with diamonds and what have you garish. And, yes, buying a Rolex was often a quick reflex to a large cash infusion. But, please, if cost were not a factor, who would really select a Tag or Omega imitator over a stainless Rolex Submariner.


----------



## LDK

I cannot speak to the new Hamilton watches, nor would I ever consider purchasing one. 

My posts refer solely to those Hamiltons produced prior to 1950. Those Hamiltons were produced in the USA. 

I STRONGLY recommend purchasing a Hamilton that is 14 kt. solid gold. I would not purchase any that are gold-filled (GF) or rolled gold-filled (RGF).


----------



## Tomasso

> quote:_Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working_
> But, please, if cost were not a factor, who would really select a Tag or Omega imitator over a stainless Rolex Submariner.


I think that the quality of Omega and Rolex is comparable, but that Rolex has a much higher price point and better resale value. Also, to label Omega a Rolex imitator is unfair and inaccurate. They are both excellent companies with storied histories who have made tremendous horological contributions.

But, if cost was not a factor in choosing a "Submariner" type watch I would choose a Blancpain Fifty Fathoms.


----------



## belray

I have been reading the thread about Rolex watches with some interest. I have a passion for watches. I haven't owned a Rolex and currently wear an Omega Speedmaster Professional (if it's OK for astronaughts, it's OK for me!!!). The reason I bought the Speedie over the Submariner was entirely based on price. I couldn't justify spending $6000.00 on a watch at that time. 

Having said that, I don't expect to be "noticed" because I wear an Omega. The average person in the street wouldn't know the difference between an Omega or a Timex. Occasionally I might get a "Hey, nice watch. Where did you get it?" Never do I get a "Wow, an Omega. You must be successful!!". Most of my firends would say "What's a Rolex?", or "You can buy an Omega for about $500.00 can't you?". This doesn't show lack of breeding or style, all it says is that they don't share the same passion for watches as I.

At the end of the day, if you like Rolexes and can afford them, go for it. If you want to impress someone, buy a Porsche. Cheers....


----------



## mannaman

I like Rolex very much. Like everywhere in life, it depends on the occasion and on your general appearance. I own a Submariner and it totally fits my wirst. If you are 5"5 with 120lbs, your watch drags your arm down and it does not look cool. The Submariner is a more than 50yr old design and it's totally a classic. 

The quality is supereb, you cannot compare it with Patek or other fine Swiss watches, because the SM is an everyday-watch. A Patek is usually something you do not want to bang against your desk. 

I also own an IWC Mark XII, which I got for my Abitur (some kind of high school diploma) and I really honor this one. It is more vulnerable than a Rolex, but also a nice watch.

These two are of course the lower price segment of what both companies offer. But I am glad to own them and wear them with pride. The one thing that bothers me a bit is the fact that too many fakes are out there. But since I do not wear the watch in a show-off manner, I do not care that much anymore.


----------



## Ofishbein

I purchased a Rolex two-tone datejust in the mid-eighties and it is a robust watch which keeps time well. Having said that, I haven't worn it in over ten years. As my tastes refined, I realized that I preferred thinner watches that didn't scream "status seeker!" One of these days I'll dig it out and put it on ebay.

Now I alternate between vintage Audemars Piguet, Jaeger LeCoultre, and even early Hamiltons, Omegas or Longines. My only stipulations are that they be thin and mechanical. Most people I run into probably mistake them for Timexes or Seikos - and I'm OK with that.


----------



## Panzeraxe

I personally don't like them as they're meant more for the type of people who think that Armani makes the best suits, Ferragamo the best shoes and Hermes the best ties - i.e. rich/wannabe-rich people who have no clue on how to dress well.

I like Jaegers and Blancpains, and intend on buying the Blancpain Villeret Moonphase this summer,

Panzer


----------



## cognos

I think the A. Lange & Sohne "Lange I" is the most elegant quality timepiece. I can't believe that someone would buy a platinum Rolex instead of the Lange. Same price, but the Lange is elegant and understanted, an almost sublime design.

Pricey, though. For now, I'll stick with my Rado diastar. The ceramic wristband is very distinctive, and I quite like it. It's not quite as indestructable as a Rolex, but the Rado is very durable.


----------



## ChubbyTiger

I'm not sure that I understand the antipathy towards Rolex. No, they're not the most elegant watches, nor the highest quality, nor the ones with the most complications, but they are very durable watches with very good movements that hold their value like no other. I don't personally like the style all that much, but lots of people do. 

My reasonable favorite of the moment is Zenith. Beautiful. Also, Hamliton movements are purchased from Switzerland (ETA), but they are otherwise built in the US.

CT


----------



## Cliff

I swore I'd never do it but I just ordered a two-tone Rolex Turn-O-Graph. My wife had been after me to get a less expensive watch for years. She was concerned that I wear my good watch constantly and there are times when I should be more protective. My idea was that a watch should be worn and that I didn't want any watch that I had to give special care to.

That said, I was at a Jewlery store and saw a Rolex that I really liked the look of (for the first time ever). I decided that I could live with this two-watch idea and took down the numbers, did some searching and finally (with a good price) placed an order.


----------



## Tomasso

Here's a good deal on a Rolex from a reputable seller.


----------



## guitone

I was at my local jewelery shop yesterday getting the band on my new Oris lengthened...I did a lot of resarch before buying this watch both for the reputation of the company and the model itsel. It is an unusual shape that it is not round but someone, but not totally rectangular, more squarish. So anyway, the shopkeep goes on and on (he likes to sell used rolexes) about if you buy a rolex (and I am sure he is meaning used) tomorrow the watch will be worth more than what you paid today. I am sure that is correct, and the only Rolex I would wear would be a silver Airking with or without a date. I think this is a fine looking watch and I am sure, as a matter of fact I know it is a very good watch, but so is my new oris, so is my Omega Seamaster that I have had nothing but good luck with, it is a great looking and running watch, a small seamaster which I liked about it. He went on to say that Rolex is worm by more people than any other watch and if you go on a plane wull see Rolex after Rolex, to which I commented, "they get them in NYC for $150". Now I was not trying to be rude and he did not take it that way, but for me I am not interested in wearing what everyone else wears. I may buy a Rolex SS Airking one day, if I did it would probably be used, but I think it good form to compliment someone on a new item them have instead of trying to convince them that they made a mistake..just my take on an event of the day.

guit


----------



## em36

Have my late father's gold Oyster Perpetual Day-Date, replete with the President bracelet, that I wear everyday. The watch is thirty-four years old, two older than me. I wear it everyday, and it keeps perfect time. I would recommend getting one serviced every few years. The servicing is not cheap, but the watch looks brand new.

Would have never purchased it for myself, however there is something timeless about it. And I notice there is a certain type of character [and age; perhaps its generational]: ambitous, confident and successful, that Rolex is quite appropriate for. The day and date are handy, sort of a seventies version of a blackberry. Never understood why Rolex gained the whole "bling" reputation. I always thought the styling fairly spartan. Very dependable timepiece.


----------



## tintin

GMT is a great looking Rolex. 

Here's the deal. I bought my Submariner in 1977 at Ft. Bragg, NC. The receipt shows my address then as Company A, USAIMA. If you don't know don't ask but it was the enlisted version of JFKCMA. Rolex was the watch you bought. A sub, Explorer or GMT. No gold. No diamonds. When you see a guy with a high and tight haircut and a rolex wearing civies...five'll get you ten he is in or was in the Army and chances are he calls home Bragg or Fayettville or if he's lucky (and some are) Southern Pines. I'm proud of mine and never took it off. Even for sex.


----------



## Keith Adams

De Oppresseo Liber

TinTin - Thank you for your service.

I have a 50th Anniversary Submariner. Its the one with the Bronze Green bezel, black face and slightly larger pastilles.

I love it and I ONLY take it off for sex.

K.A. Adams


----------



## Literide

Vintage Hamiltons, they can be gold filled, are an elegant solution for a guy starting out. They can be picked up at flea markets for a hunj or 2 or less, and a croc strap can be had for 80 bucks at Grand Central. Or just wear with a striped grograin strap in summer, from same.

I also like my Rolex's vintage, preferably with straps as opposed to bracelets. One of these days I want a rose gold one. And maybe an old stainless steel tudor to wear with a striped grograin.


----------



## tintin

Keith- That sounds like a lovely sub. Had no idea they did a 5oth but I really don't keep up with Rolex. I have mine overhauled every 3-4 years and usually catch up on what's going on with the brand at that time.

I will add something about why so many elite units in the military pick Rolex. I was told that when you're in the middle of nowhere, you have zero local currency and you need to get outta Dodge fast. Or pick up "Supplies" fast. Whatever. The Rolex was gonna bail you out. It's what my father told me. It's what a couple SGMs told me. Who knows how true it is. I never had to give up my watch to get outta Camp McCall. Having said that, it sure sounds good.


----------



## rip

> quote:_Originally posted by Pickwick_
> 
> Sure, it's expensive. Sure, it borders on the edge of being ostentatious. What finely made watch doesn't?


For openers, Patek doesn't, which is why most vulgarists stay away from them. They just don't shout across the room in the way a Rolex does.

Esse Quam Videre


----------



## smlaz

Such a hot topic! I've been a WIS since I was 8 years old and wanted a GI Joe wristwatch with all my heart. I bought an Omega Speedmaster Pro for $300 as a freshman in high school, totally fascinated by the moon watch. I've only worn mechanical timepieces (with the exception of an early LCD that my Father got me for a birthday) and have worn Seikos, Hamiltons, Girard Perregaux, PP, and a host of others. Soemthing about a mechanical watch; they've got a heartbeat. I've always pined for a Rolex Explorer circa 1979 (the old look) but could never afford one and when they changed the face my interest faded. Rolexes are durable as they get, reasonably reliable, and reasonably well made. Their storied history (swim across the English Channel, Everest, James Bond etc.) and their superb marketing and distribution have made them a "brand" as well as a good watch. No, they are not hand-made, and no, they are not for everyone, but if you want to wear it for what it is go ahead IMHO. Or wear it to impress the ladies. Or wear it to impress your colleagues. The "brand" of Rolex was made to impress. You can't go wrong with the watch. As for Hamilton, Tissot, Omega, Blancpain, Breguet, Rado, Longines, and a handfull of other watch brands, they are all owned by the Swatch Group, and, but for Blancpain, Breguet, and some Omega lines, use ETA movements (the 2892-A2 and 2824-2 are the industry standards for workhorse automatics) which are also owned by the Swatch Group. So, to me, buying a Blancpain or Breguet is like buying a high-end Swatch! That's not to say they're not well made, just Swatchlike. Wear your Rolex in good health.
Cheers,
Steve

Niceness is an overrated quality. Being nice is how a man pays his way into the party if he hasn't the guts to be tough or the class to be brilliant. - James Abbott McNeil Whistler


----------



## Pickwick

> quote:_Originally posted by rip_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Pickwick_
> 
> Sure, it's expensive. Sure, it borders on the edge of being ostentatious. What finely made watch doesn't?
> 
> 
> 
> For openers, Patek doesn't, which is why most vulgarists stay away from them. They just don't shout across the room in the way a Rolex does.
> 
> Esse Quam Videre
Click to expand...

Hi there,

In my view, Patek certainly has made more than their share of less than subtle watches. For instance, don't you find their pocket watches with date, moon phase, and repeater going for 500k pretty over the top? Or, even their grand and complication watches just a tad on the "showy" side?

However, I do agree they have their share (more so than Rolex, Omega, Breitling et...) very subtle and elegant watches. In that regard, a regular looking Patek with a leather watch band costs about 12-15k. In my view, I think a Patek is arguably more overpriced than a Rolex (unless you place an importance on a watch firm making it's own movement fully in-house, which to my knowledge, only Patek and Lange & Sohne qualify).

To me, a watch boasting of a 43 jeweled movement selling for 25k is very ostentatious.

Quality wise, Rolex makes more of their own movement than any other watch company, save the Pateks, Langes, and maybe Breguets.


----------



## Tomasso

> quote:_Originally posted by Pickwick_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by rip_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Pickwick_
> 
> Sure, it's expensive. Sure, it borders on the edge of being ostentatious. What finely made watch doesn't?
> 
> 
> 
> For openers, Patek doesn't, which is why most vulgarists stay away from them. They just don't shout across the room in the way a Rolex does.
> 
> Esse Quam Videre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> In my view, Patek certainly has made more than their share of less than subtle watches. For instance, don't you find their pocket watches with date, moon phase, and repeater going for 500k pretty over the top? Or, even their grand and complication watches just a tad on the "showy" side?
> 
> However, I do agree they have their share (more so than Rolex, Omega, Breitling et...) very subtle and elegant watches. In that regard, a regular looking Patek with a leather watch band costs about 12-15k. In my view, I think a Patek is arguably more overpriced than a Rolex (unless you place an importance on a watch firm making it's own movement fully in-house, which to my knowledge, only Patek and Lange & Sohne qualify).
> 
> To me, a watch boasting of a 43 jeweled movement selling for 25k is very ostentatious.
> 
> Quality wise, Rolex makes more of their own movement than any other watch company, save the Pateks, Langes, and maybe Breguets.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget JLC. It's time to study, Grasshopper.

https://www.timezone.com/


----------



## LabelKing

The complicated pocket watches are over the top in the sense that they are to satisfy personal passions, rather than to show off to the world how wealthy you have become, i.e. certain gem studded Rolexes.

Piaget are actually a true _manufacture_ contrary to many who believe they are a jewelry company.

*"In truth, I am not altogether wrong to consider dandyism a form of religion."

Charles Baudelaire*


----------



## Keith Adams

Tintin - 

Was going to post a picture for you but I'm on a Mac and it seems that ImageShack doesn't like me today.

Real or imagined, Rolex has value but I'm hoping to never have to trade mine for my life or more ammo.



K.A. Adams


----------



## Old Brompton

Seems to me a lot of chaps here are earnestly justifying why they *don't* own Rolexes. Interesting.

If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation. - Xenophon


----------



## norcaltransplant

> quote:Quality wise, Rolex makes more of their own movement than any other watch company, save the Pateks, Langes, and maybe Breguets.


Actually, I believe Seiko is equally vertically oriented as Patek and Lange, and, given their price point(s), this is an even more impressive feat.

Yet another starving grad student... wearing English shoes.


----------



## Tomasso

> quote:_Originally posted by Old Brompton_
> 
> Seems to me a lot of chaps here are earnestly justifying why they *don't* own Rolexes. Interesting.


Well, the thread title is,"Rolex-love it or hate it".


----------



## avalon05

I've noticed that Smiths watches are fetching high prices on eBAY these days.
The Astral and Everest models are the best designs in my opinion. (They stopped making them in 1970)


----------



## DuncanM64

This topic is always funny to me. I'm sure it would go the same way on a NASCAR board saying "Jeff Gordon - love him or hate him".

Me, I am pro-Rolex. I think it is funny how many people point to some guy with his shirt unbuttoned to expose his big gold necklace and his sleeves rolled up to expose his gold/diamond Rolex and say he is the typical Rolex owner. I would venture to say 80% of the Rolexes out there go unseen. I see very few of them even though they sell 800k+/yr watches.

I think the Submariner Date, Sea-Dweller, Explorer II and Plat/SS Yachtmaster are timeless classics.


----------



## JBZ

Count me in the pro-Rolex category. I've had my Oyster Perpetual Datejust for about 7 years now. It has a simple stainless steel case and band, white face, and roman numerals. I think it looks great without being at all "showy" or ostentatious. It also keeps very good time (I probably have to adjust it once every 2 or 3 weeks).


----------



## Keith Adams

JBZ -

Your watch is in desperate need of service as you shouldn't have to adjust your time but once or twice a year at the most.

K.A. Adams


----------



## Tomasso

> quote:_Originally posted by Keith Adams_
> 
> JBZ -
> 
> Your watch is in desperate need of service as you shouldn't have to adjust your time but once or twice a year at the most.
> 
> K.A. Adams


A certified chronometer(C.O.S.C) rating allows for between -4 and +6 seconds per day variance. That's 24-36 minutes per year, lost or gained, while still maintaining a chronometer rating.


----------



## Keith Adams

Thanks for the info but every 2 - 3 weeks still sounds like alot to me.

In the last six months my watch has lost a total of three minutes. 

I find that amount to be about the average deviation but my watch is only about three years old.

K.A. Adams


----------



## Tomasso

> quote:_Originally posted by Keith Adams_
> 
> In the last six months my watch has lost a total of three minutes.
> 
> I find that amount to be about the average deviation but my watch is only about three years old.
> 
> K.A. Adams


Does your watch have a quartz movement?


----------



## Keith Adams

No - It's a Rolex 50th anniversary Sub

K.A. Adams


----------



## Boris

By the way, in the thread "Royal Outerwear in Action" it appears Prince Andrew is wearing a Rolex President. It's in the photo that pictures him signing something.


----------



## JBZ

> quote:_Originally posted by Keith Adams_
> 
> JBZ -
> 
> Your watch is in desperate need of service as you shouldn't have to adjust your time but once or twice a year at the most.
> 
> K.A. Adams


I appreciate the concern and I am planning to take it in for service one of these days. However, I'm not overly concerned about having to adjust the time at this frequency and it otherwise runs just fine.


----------



## BPH

I have had a steel Rolex for the past 25 years and have never considered them ostentatious at all. Is a steel Rolex Sub "bling" when compared to an IWC Da Vinci for instance? 

I would never wear a watch with a gold case (and jewels are for inside not out). I think of my watch as an instrument rather than a piece of jewellery (I strongly dislike jewellery on men). Indeed I feel that gold is an inferior material for a watch in terms of practicality and durability. 

I wear my Rolex virtually all day and every day and it gives me no trouble. I adjust the time when I adjust the calendar due to variations in months and that is sufficient, accuracy is within a couple of minutes per month. It gives me pleasure to own and wear an efficient mechanical watch that I do not have to think about whatever I am doing.

I can fully appreciate the view that a Timex/Seiko/Casio tells the time effectively and is all that is necessary and fully understand why someone would go this route. To suggest that a watch by Breitling/IWC/JLC or some ludicrously priced offerings by others could serve me better than my Rolex just does not hold water.

As for Rolex being overpriced the cost per wear of a steel Rolex is pennies and as has been mentioned before you can get your money back if and when you decide you no longer want it!

I would never suggest that a Rolex is for everyone but there is no doubt that it is a fine watch and I shall not be looking to replace it in the foreseeable future.


----------



## theoldguard

I have worn a Submariner almost every day for 18 years, and this has been 18 years of occasionally rugged service for the watch: I am active-duty Army. As far as rugged, the Submariner has kept its promise. It has not kept accurate time, but that was never a promise that came with the watch--the salesmen plainly warned me it would not be as accurate as a quartz. 
People do sometimes tease me about the watch. That has been the only negative. That and the price escalation. They are now selling for twice as much as they were in 1989. 
If I had it to do over again, I would get an IWC Mark XV (I believe it is XVI now). I really like those. They are classic, and speak a bit more shyly than the Rolex.

v/r
David Acuff


----------



## Nantucket Red

Rolex: Hate it. Couldn't be paid to wear one.


----------



## Good Old Sledge

My Rolex is a gold-filled oyster (no date) with a leather band and was built in 1969. I have worn it bailing hay, breaking horses and to any number of more "dress up occassions" in the 20 some years I've had it. It is my everyday watch, and while I appreciate its pedigree, I have long since stopped thinking of its novely/rarity/status - and, I believe, those around me don't notice either.
It's how it's worn, isn't it? If I'm overly impressed by it and wave it under other people's noses, then it comes off as a foolish display unbecoming of a gentleman. If, however, I wear it disreetly and treat it as I would any other article of clothing I might be wearing, then who's to notice? It pleases me, it does its job and I would have no qualms recommending one to a friend.


----------



## wvuguy

medwards said:


> I neither love it nor hate it; I simply wear it. I've been wearing the same Rolex Datejust for over thirty years and it seems to work just fine. I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about.


I think that's perspective is just a little *too* level-headed to be of much use on an Internet Message Board. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## wvuguy

medwards said:


> I neither love it nor hate it; I simply wear it. I've been wearing the same Rolex Datejust for over thirty years and it seems to work just fine. I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about.


IMHO, that perspective is just a little *too* measured/level-headed to be of much use to *anyone *on an Internet Message Board. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Artisan Fan

> As for Rolex being overpriced the cost per wear of a steel Rolex is pennies and as has been mentioned before you can get your money back if and when you decide you no longer want it!


This is a really excellent point. I've been wearing my dad's Datejust off and on since about 1994. It's now 21 years old is only +1 seconds a day off perfect time despite infrequent servicing. After getting it polished up recently it looks terrific as well. They really are well made and durable for daily use.


----------



## Faulkner

JBZ said:


> Count me in the pro-Rolex category. I've had my Oyster Perpetual Datejust for about 7 years now. It has a simple stainless steel case and band, white face, and roman numerals. I think it looks great without being at all "showy" or ostentatious. It also keeps very good time (I probably have to adjust it once every 2 or 3 weeks).


I've had an Air King for a number of years (very simple stainless steel watch). I love it. It's not ostentatious at all, in my view. It is one of the best purchases I ever made.

I had a similar problem -- needing to adjust it every 2-3 weeks --something's wrong with your watch. Take it in. Mine keeps PERFECT time. (I thought it was just quirky and needed to be adjusted every couple of weeks. Then, I dropped it onto a cement floor from chest level, and it went "dead." It was repaired, and has not given a lick of trouble since.) Except for the free fall onto the concrete floor -- face first -- it has been very durable. I mow the lawn with it, etc.

When you have a watch that goes everywhere you go, for years, it develops tremendous sentimental value. I can't explain it. Wear your Rolex in good health. Life is short. You won't regret owning a Rolex. But, you might regret not owning one.


----------



## bfad51

Rolex gold presidents have passed the test of time!!. nothing finer.
I got my first Gold President when I was 27 years old (yes it was brand new in the box and only cost 3300, but wife worked in a jewelry store and
got it for me at cost less 20%. Today Rolex will only let you have it for cost if you have worked in a store some length of time. (they engrave the name on the back also) 
My gold Prez has been professional refurbished and looks just like it did the day I bought it. All links that need to be repinned where done also, I now wear my late fathers that we bought him when the three sons all graduated from college in 1973. Its the original with the bubble crystal, It now has t a croc band with a gold deployment buckel on it and ianyone who sees it
gah gahs over it, (it has a black dial to it) Gold Rolex Presidents are still the most popular watch a young executive wants to day. Or at least once they get that big bonus..


----------



## tbabes

My wife gave me an Air-King upon reaching 1 year of being free from tobacco, and I simply adore it. Beautiful, sturdy, elegant, and understated. A real man's watch, in that it goes equally well with a tuxedo or battlle dress uniform.


----------



## Artisan Fan

That's really nice that your wife gave you an Air King. What a great reward for kicking tobacco.


----------



## acidicboy

Maybe my wife will do the same when I reach the 12th month of being nicotine free, too!


----------



## arturostevens

I have 2 Rolexes and have purchased 3. I recently sold a ladies Platinum YM which is such an elegant ladies watch. I currently wear regularly the 50th Anniversary Sub (Z series) with the green bezel. Love it. And I have an SS GMT Master ll (F series) for travel with black bezel...the "Black Beauty." I love my Rollers. They are strong, masculine watches. And for the delicate of heart who think that a SUB is not for a tux, I dispute that. 
It looks good anywhere, suits, jeans. Hey, it is a Rolex and needs no justification.


----------



## bigCat

arturostevens said:


> I have 2 Rolexes and have purchased 3. I recently sold a ladies Platinum YM which is such an elegant ladies watch. I currently wear regularly the 50th Anniversary Sub (Z series) with the green bezel. Love it. And I have an SS GMT Master ll (F series) for travel with black bezel...the "Black Beauty." I love my Rollers. They are strong, masculine watches. And for the delicate of heart who think that a SUB is not for a tux, I dispute that.
> It looks good anywhere, suits, jeans. Hey, it is a Rolex and needs no justification.


The issue with watches and formal wear applies to all watches, regardless of the brand. If you are going to wear a watch with DJ, it may as well be a Rolex.


----------



## Zubberah

Nantucket Red said:


> Rolex: Hate it. Couldn't be paid to wear one.


+ 1 (ugliest watches in world)

I also abhor Patek Philippe too - I find them too ugly with weird shapes.

But I do LOVE Vacheron-Constantin, IWC Portuguese, Breguet, A. Lange & Soehne, JLC, Blancpain, and new Longines Masters Collection.


----------



## arturostevens

BTW, I like my Omega SMP as well. A great watch for the money. I like automatic watches and prefer not to wear quartz. It is kind of like the guy who likes fly fishing over bait fishing or bow hunting over rifle hunting. These watches have beautiful movements and great histories. 

Rolex is certainly not the most expensive watch, but is the most recognized in the world, and feels the most solid and impermeable to me. As a kid I was fascinated with the Cyclops glass over the date on my dad's Rollie, and the way that the Jubilee bracelet draped on his wrist when he drove. I prefer oyster bracelet myself as it is so rugged and strong.

If you want to read a great story of success and business prowess and an attitude that accepted no less than perfection, with that mission continuing today, read about Hans Wilsdorf and the history of Rolex, its place in the military history of the world, its place in American industry, its place with international adverturers and explorers, and the roles of tool watches by people who expect no less than excellence in performance. It has always been associated with excellence, and the company is extremely selective as to who can be its advertising symbols. Federer, Yo Yo Ma and Eric Clapton come to mind. 


I would not get a Cellini. I like the sports Rollies and the Date Justs. Google up the new Turn-O Graph if you want to see a beautful, masculine watch. Go SS if you don't want too much bling. The GMT ll purchased by the starter of this thread is the progeny of the watch that was made for the Pan Am pilots in the 60s' with the white face. Those are worth a small fortune now if you happen to see on in you attic somewhere.


----------



## msphotog

I would agree with most here that a Presidential is probably over the top, but I got an Oyster Perpetual Datejust for Christmas in 1975, and, except for a few days in for cleaning, I've worn it every day since. My father paid $275. for it($375 retail, $100. off), and it's my most valued posession. I've said many times that a thief would have to cut my hand off to steal my watch. I'm actually on my 3rd band, having worn out the original out completely. In fact I just bought a new band in St. Thomas and paid $525. more than the watch cost new!
I have worn the watch doing everything from installing vinyl tops on new cars, to restoring a car of my own, to the dirtiest of yard work, and it just works!

Mark S.


----------



## arturostevens

And a good investment too. If you had to you could fetch 10 to 20 times what your dad paid for the watch. I assume the bracelet was a jubilee? Or was it the oyster bracelet. Stainless Steel bracelets for them cost retail at $800, so you got a good deal. Is yor a Stainless Steel model(SS) or two toned (TT)?


----------



## memphislawyer

I have a Datejust with the gold and silver Jubilee bracelet and the offwhite/silver dial that has the gold sticks. I find it can go casual or with a suit. Mine loses about 6 seconds a day and probably needs to go in for refurbishment, but hey, Im not all that anal and dont mind resetting it. SInce I have a Tag with a black croc band that alternates, I have to reset it anyway.

Rolex is what it is: a status symbol, recognition that you have gotten to a point financially you can have one, easily recognizable, but behind all that, it is a great watch. Very, very durable, and a lot of great accomplisments in watchmaking and time keeping history.

That said, I do love the JLC and VC and PP watches. Id say one could not go wrong with some sort of Rolex as the first 'premium-priced' watch, and then branch out. Yet, going for the watches that few know of, the JLC or AP, is a way to go as well. I like the fact I can ski in my Rolex, go to the beach and then change to the formal suit.

Im not drawn to the Daytona or the Submariner but that is just my own preferences, but yet, the Stainless Submariner with Black dial, looks good.

My peeve is that the "glow in the dark" material of the sticks and dials does not work anymore. My Tag, I can go into a movie and those just light up.

Sam


----------



## arturostevens

You can deal with the out of time isue very easily without the full reservicing. Just go to your AD (authorized dealer) and get it calibrated. My not cost you a thing. YOu should send in your Rollie for servicing once every 7 years or so. It will cost about $300 to $400 but will come back like new in appearance and in function. They literally take them completely apart, inspect every part and wash or replace parts, tighten up the bracelet. Important to run that bracelet under luke warm water and brush the watch lightly with a soft toothbrush from time to time, and that bracelet will last a lot longer as the grit will not get into the links and wear the metal away. You do that and your grandson will be giving that watch to his boy.


----------



## memphislawyer

mendozar said:


> I'm not a fan of Rolex simply due to the fact that everyone else wants/has one. Its widespread use has diluted, in my opinion, its symbol as a status watch. If I were to get a status watch, I would prefer the Patek Calatrava as my conservative watch and the Vacheron Patrimony tribute to great explorers as my avant-garde watch.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Rufino


I so much want to find a good deal on a Calatrava. I have a Rolex and it has been banged, inadvertantly, against filing cabinents and what have you. Yet I find the Calatrava to be so understated and only someone who knows the history of a Patek would appreciate it - otherwise, it is as ubiquitous as a Timex. I love the Calatrava with the hobnail design. Some now have the inserted second hand.


----------



## memphislawyer

Thanks Arturo. Yes, I take it into the shower and use some soap on the toothbrush and just scrub the whole watch. The watch was bought in 1998, so it is about time for the servicing. I know some guys say only Rolex should do it, and others say that as long as they have Rolex parts, give it to a Rolex trained guy that is now out on his own.

I keep wanting to get either a PP Calatrava or a Jaeger LeCoultre.

Sam


----------



## TommyX4437

Calatravas are nice, not too busy, and very classy. However, I would much rather get the grand complications from PP.
PP 5140 :drool:


----------



## tasteful one

*A Rolex is a watch...*

..that's it. The emotional response some seem to have towards it belies the simple reality that it's about as accurate as a $10 Timex. That's because more than any other watch brand, Rolex 's successis the result of absolutley brilliant marketing: Take something that every man has (the watch) and market it in such a way as to make it more appealing pychologically than the competition: Give it those qualities that men respond best to: Masculine names like "Submariner", lots of gizmos , sub dials, buttons. Flashy chrome..including the bracelet. Face it, that's what Rolex markets and that's what it's fans respond to...it's certainly not the accuracy (see the Timex reference above!), it's certainly not the price. It's the image. And either you like that image or you don't. I personally think they make about as much sense stylistically as an SUV.


----------



## stylestudent

tbabes said:


> My wife gave me an Air-King upon reaching 1 year of being free from tobacco, and I simply adore it. Beautiful, sturdy, elegant, and understated. A real man's watch, in that it goes equally well with a tuxedo or battlle dress uniform.


I've had a stainless steel Air King since the '70s. It was a law school graduation gift from my parents. Still keeps perfect time and have had no problems at all. Now, as to the tobacco...

Regards,

Steven


----------



## Artisan Fan

> The emotional response some seem to have towards it belies the simple reality that it's about as accurate as a $10 Timex. That's because more than any other watch brand, Rolex 's successis the result of absolutley brilliant marketing


No, you just don't get the intrinsic value of owning an automatic. It's about fine craftsmanship. I suppose some own a Rollie for bling factor but many of us here simply appreciate a well made watch. If you read the posts here a good number of us have hand me downs from our dads. The stories are what make the watch even more personal. I'm pretty much immune from mainstream marketing these days anyway and I suspect many on this forum are also.


----------



## memphislawyer

I was googling Pateks Calatrava and came across a website selling fakes for $200 or so of a lot of top-drawer watches, like Pam, PP, IWC, JLC. If they had a Reverso for that $209, even in the quartz, Id have bit. Same with a hobnail Calatrava.

I gotta stop reading about watches. I was this close to thinking of selling the Rollie to get a Calatrava, and also selling my Tag to get a JLC. 

Sam


----------



## Rock Chalk

I am a big fan of the Air King, because it is the only Rolex that isn't obviously a Rolex. That being said, I have an Omega Seamaster 120 that is of the same type as an Air King.

It is interesting, I also own a Panerai, and they are a "mini-Rolex" according to horologists. I freely admit that Panerai is probably a marketing gimmick, but they are stunning in their simplicity and size.


----------



## arturostevens

Any of the expensive automatics will not take perfect time whether that be a Roller or Patek.....you don't buy a hand made swiss masterpiece to take exact time. If you want to do that get a Casio. Most Rolex owners do not need to be exactly on time to the second for their lives. I make an adjustment to the Atomic clock once a month with my Rollers, and they are about a minute or so off give or take. I can live with that.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Most Rolex owners do not need to be exactly on time to the second for their lives. I make an adjustment to the Atomic clock once a month with my Rollers, and they are about a minute or so off give or take. I can live with that.


Well said Arturo. My DJ is +1 second a day. That's good enough for me.


----------



## Martinis at 8

Hey guys. I've been here in West Africa the last couple of months and finally found some bandwith to post.

I purchased a new Rolex Submariner (w/date) in stainless steel just before departing the US. With sales tax the watch was just under $6k. A Rolex has its design origin in being a "tool" watch, which is exactly what this watch is. It is not a dress watch. It is a watch simply designed to be reliable in a rugged environment and to be perpetual in that it does not need to be wound or have a battery replaced. I am pleased with the purchase.

I am sitting here at the PC in a remote work camp wearing my Rockport thick-soled work shoes, khaki pants, a tropical work shirt, and wearing a Rolex. I am not the only engineer here equipped in this manner. I wear a canvass fedora-type hat when I am outside in the strong Sun - with a neck drape.

Back in the US I drive a '91 Honda Civic. My Rolex is worth more than my car. I was thinking about buying a Porsche, but like I don't really need a car that much these days. Not all Rolex owners are as pretentious as this thread makes us out to be. But I do enjoy wearing nice suits when I am back home. With my suits I wear a very thin $127 Seiko which hides easily under my French cuffs.

I'll be back in Texas this weekend. Can't wait. I really need a haircut, and also need to get laid. I should be ordering a new Mabro MTM, or maybe two, when I get back.

Toodles,

M8


----------



## msphotog

Arturo-Mine is SS w/Jubilee band, and I was quoted by one jeweler(a Rolex dealer) $1200. for a new one. Also, after this many years mine doesn't keep perfect time like it used to, but I'm not concerned. I'm not on time myself after all these years!
Interestingly though, when I was a kid working at the vinyl top shop, car salesman would regularly ask if I wanted to sell it, usually for a "C" note. I guess that dressed in worn out levi's and a holey t-shirt I looked like I didn't know what I had. I always had to decline their offer and explain that I was well aware of what I was wearing, and I would sooner lose my arm:icon_smile_big: than sell my Rolex!!!

Mark S.


----------



## memphislawyer

M8: It ought to be really interesting if your barber is a lady, lol

Sam


----------



## dag2000

There are several problems with Rolex among watch snobs (and I do not use the term pejoratively; I am an unabashed watch snob):

1. It is a status symbol among the hoi polloi while brands such as Jaeger LeCoultre, Girard Perregaux, IWC, etc. only appeal to the cognoscenti. No one notices my beautiful JCL Master Grande Taille on bracelet, but they damn well notice a colleague's Rolex.

2. It is a good, but not great watch that most people think is great. This is slightly different than problem one. In problem one the emotion is envy, in problem two the mechanism is disgust.

3. Finally, what really rubs salt in the wounds problems 1 and 2 open, Rolex charges a premium for its product, a premium that is unrelated to performance. Enthusiasts of any sort are performance and quality nuts. If I said I like Hugo Boss suits more than Oxxford (I don't because I'm a performance and quality nut), there are some people who would go absolutely bullsh*t. It just galls us when Rolex sells 10 times the volume than IWC or JLC and sells clearly inferior (though still high quality) watches than Girard Perregaux or Zenith for the same price.


----------



## arturostevens

MSPHOTOG, that is a very nice watch. I wear mine everywhere...usually the GMT, but the SUB is very nice as well. It has a lot of steel in it, so if anyone tries to beat me up, one back swing with a Roller SUB to the temple, and my victim will be most likely unconscious, and my SUB doing just fine. James Bond has enjoyed 2 watches during his tenure...the Rolex SUB no date, and the Omega SMP pro, and both are wonderful tool watches. Both go down 300 meters. 

Rolex has an in house and superior movement in my view, and carries more prestige and, if you are short on cash, you can always get the bulk of your money back....more in many cases such as the SS Daytona that sells MSRP at close to 7K but is fetching 15k in the grey market. Guys like Steve McQueen and James Bond....heck, why not have fun if you can. And that little DJ of yours....a beauty and will go forever. Remember Hoffman in Marathon Man...his brother in the film got him his Rollie...I think it was a SUB...and he needed it to save his life.....

Yes it is great marketing to have established, according to many intellectual property and trademark lawyers, the most powerful tradename in the world.... perhaps in terms of a word reflecting absolute quality, prestige, and impeccable workmanship. Unlike shoe companies, Rolex will NEVER EVER leave Switzerland. Its world wide RSC service centers will continue to function. The prices will go up. They will NEVER go on sale. Only authorized dealers will sell them, and their sales will continue to climb. All profits go to making the watches better. Anything else goes to non profit charitable ends. Of course, the advertising cannot be cheap when they have to pay the likes of Federer and Yo Yo Ma and Clapton and all the other accomplished people in music, sports and the arts who wear Rolex. Hans Wilsdorf created a company that is effectively peerless.

And some of us who drive Hondas and have seen them on our ancestors wrists for 3 generations feel this way. I realize that some posters feel that Roller owners are all Porsche driving braggards. I dont' have to brag. I know what is under my sleeve whether anyone sees it or not. It is just a watch at the end of the day....just a very nice watch and nothing more. Doesn't tell any better time that a $10 timex. Sure are fun to wear though.


----------



## jdldore

I purchased a Rolex Oyster Submariner in 1996 in the Caymans (and -- shocker! -- declared to Customs, too) and have worn it three to four days a week since. I had to send it back to get fixed about six months after I bought it, but have never had an issue with it otherwise. I like the way the watch looks and like that I never again have to think about buying a dress watch. 

It would, of course, be disingenuous of me to pretend that I never think about the message my Rolex sends to people, just as it would be disingenuous for me to write that I shine my shoes every weekend, spend fifteen minutes every evening putting out the next day's clothes, or run 30 miles a week for the simple pleasure of doing those things. (I particularly hate running.) 

All of these acts are based on no small amount of awareness that people form initial impressions based on appearance...to which I respond, "better to be at the front of the pack than eating some other a-hole's dust...."


----------



## Artisan Fan

> 2. It is a good, but not great watch that most people think is great.


This is not correct. In many ways Rolex is a great watch and many watch experts agree.



> Finally, what really rubs salt in the wounds problems 1 and 2 open, Rolex charges a premium for its product, a premium that is unrelated to performance. Enthusiasts of any sort are performance and quality nuts.


Puleez, every Swiss watchmaker charges a premium on its product. What really upsets people is that Rolex can dictate no discounts and many other brands cannot. JLC and Omega watches in Atlanta are routinely discounted from 25%-35% or more.


----------



## tasteful one

*Intrinsic value?*



Artisan Fan said:


> No, you just don't get the intrinsic value of owning an automatic. It's about fine craftsmanship. I suppose some own a Rollie for bling factor but many of us here simply appreciate a well made watch. If you read the posts here a good number of us have hand me downs from our dads. The stories are what make the watch even more personal. I'm pretty much immune from mainstream marketing these days anyway and I suspect many on this forum are also.


You might like to believe you're immune to mainstream marketing, but what your response says is that you've been taken in by it...probably in that subliminal way, without being aware of it.

'Fine craftsmanship' applies to all high end pieces..and frankly to that $10 Timex, too, although not to the same degree. Chances are, you're a Rolex fan because it appeals to that part of you that's been identified by Rolex marketing and advertised so relentlessly by them. After years of hearing and reading all the ads about Rolex and how 'masculine' , 'sporty', etc. they are, they become synonymous with those qualities, and therefore desirable. Do you really believe your Rolex is nicer than a JLC? The Rolex is about bling, it's the quintessential show off watch bought primarily for that purpose. JLC, Blancpain (not their 'Sport' models), Breguet have illustrious histories (better, even than Rolex), beautiful craftsmanship, top drawer engineering..and they look like the fine jewelry thay are. They appeal to a different guy, maybe one who can appreciate beauty without being told what beauty should be. the Rolex is appealing because you've been conditioned to think they are.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Do you really believe your Rolex is nicer than a JLC?


I'm not sure I ever said that, but I do believe the quality of manufacture is as high in many areas. Take the case for instance, Rolex uses a higher quality 904L steel. In terms of movements, JLC has better finishing but not better accuracy or durability over the long term.



> They appeal to a different guy, maybe one who can appreciate beauty without being told what beauty should be. the Rolex is appealing because you've been conditioned to think they are.


Why do you assume that Rolex marketing is different than the prestige marketing of Patek or JLC or Breguet over time. It's all marketing on some level. Many of these boutique brands were dead and got resurrected by private equity firms with sometimes none of the original family or principals.

You just don't care for Rolex so you rationalize by making it all about marketing budgets. Still, Rolex continue to hold there value because there is substance in the manufacture and service of their timepieces.


----------



## tbabes

tasteful one said:


> The Rolex is about bling, it's the quintessential show off watch bought primarily for that purpose. the Rolex is appealing because you've been conditioned to think they are.


Granted, some Rolex models are about bling, but are you really suggesting that the Air-King or Explorer falls into this category? I don't think anyone would recognize my Air-King as a Rolex unless I took it off my wrist and handed it to them. I love it because it is sturdy, understated, elegant, and beautiful, but mostly because my wife gave it to me.


----------



## norcaltransplant

Artisan Fan said:


> I'm not sure I ever said that, but I do believe the quality of manufacture is as high in many areas. Take the case for instance, Rolex uses a higher quality 904L steel. In terms of movements, JLC has better finishing but not better accuracy or durability over the long term.
> 
> Why do you assume that Rolex marketing is different than the prestige marketing of Patek or JLC or Breguet over time. It's all marketing on some level. Many of these boutique brands were dead and got resurrected by private equity firms with sometimes none of the original family or principals.


JLC and Patek havent been owned and operated in their present incarnations at least as long as Rolex. JLC has also made a number of high quality ebauches, even for the likes of Patek and a current model of Panerai, which earns them extra kudos. Some of those complicated JLC movements for Patek are still in circulation today.

JLC and Rolex have very different design philosophies. I cannot fathom Rolex attempting an ultra thin movement or attempting to build an "affordable" tourbillon (under 40k retail for a Swiss manufacturer tourbillon is simply amazing).

EDIT: By the way, I'm convinced that maintaining value on the secondary market has very little to do with the quality of product, aftermarket servicing and support, or even superior design. Girard Perregaux has a wonderful pedigree, an attractive lineup of timepieces aside from a few of their sport pieces, and depreciate like hell. A similar scenario exists for Vacheron, even though its "oldest" of the Big Three. Simply put, the value of Rolex is perpetuated by its market position as the most well known luxury watch. Just survey the number of posts in this thread, how many mentions are made of Rolex alone as compared with "loving their Rolex" alongside a JLC, IWC, Vacheron, Ulysse Nardin, Breguet, Blancpain, Heuer (not TAG-Heuer), Minerva, etc?


----------



## Artisan Fan

> JLC and Patek havent been owned and operated in their present incarnations at least as long as Rolex.


Yes, but has Breguet? A Lange? Glashutte? My point is that every watch brand does luxury marketing. Rolex is a bigger company with a larger budget but all these brands offer up a mystique.



> JLC and Rolex have very different design philosophies.


True, Rolex has been built around tool watches and durability and innovations in waterproof cases.


----------



## norcaltransplant

Artisan Fan said:


> Yes, but has Breguet? A Lange? Glashutte? My point is that every watch brand does luxury marketing. Rolex is a bigger company with a larger budget but all these brands offer up a mystique.


Breguet has been around since the 80s under its current incarnation. Lange und Sohne, who I personally believe to be the forerunner of watch technology along with Seiko (sorry Patek), and Glashutte have been around since shortly after the fall of the wall...

Glashutte Originale offers up very little mystique and has very limited marketing in the US as far as I can tell. Paradoxically, a brand who's resale value has been _hurt_ by their jewelry status, is Chopard. They earned a Geneva Seal, which doesn't mean much to the average Joe or potential buyer, though Patek is one of the few peers to merit such a title. The LUC 1.96 is a thing of beauty.

Once you start shopping the boutique brands, you really need a love for watches--it's a bit like bespoke. The names become more obscure, the movements and complications more personalized, and the sticker prices get to be more obscene to the common man. There are a few exceptions like Dornblueth and Benzinger who utilize ETA ebauches, but they are a more niche company.

Going back to Rolex,
I began my watch bug with IWC, and never really developed a taste for Rolex. And I doubt I'll ever own one now that I want another JLC, Patek, or a few choice GPs.


----------



## arturostevens

I was no more conditioned to like Rolexes than most of us on this list were conditioned by parents to like Brooks Brothers or J. Press or Alden shoes. the fact is I had some great accomplished male models in my life in both law and medicine, the fields in which I live my professional life, and they quietly had beautiful Rollies. I probably did make the assumption that accomplished people would aspire to that kind of thing. But form and content do merge here. There is no sane person to say that the Rolex movements are not superlative or don't have a history that is shared by a very few peerless watch companies. 

I like a substantial watch. Sure you can pay 25K for a thin Prince, by Rolex Cellini or by Patek. I don't care for that. I wear a Sub to court with suits and do just fine. 

Unlike Omega or JWC, you will not get a discount on Rollie. Kind of like the Rolex of men's shoes...shell cordovans. Unless Alden lets them do it, no discount. Same with Rollers and other great houses.


----------



## Teacher

It would seem that most on this thread truly have no idea whether Rolex is high quality or not; they simply choose to love or hate it. I'm not really sure which the answer is, but I'm also clear-headed enough to say so.


----------



## dag2000

Artisan Fan said:


> This is not correct. In many ways Rolex is a great watch and many watch experts agree.


I didn't say Rolex was an average watch or mediocre watch. I said it was a good watch, perhaps "very good." But, in my opinion, it lies somewhere in between the Omega-Tissot-Baume & Mercier level and the IWC-JLC-GP level. Maybe I'd feel differently if I owned one.



> Puleez, every Swiss watchmaker charges a premium on its product. What really upsets people is that Rolex can dictate no discounts and many other brands cannot. JLC and Omega watches in Atlanta are routinely discounted from 25%-35% or more.


Now you're projecting. Maybe the fact that Rolex doesn't sell at a discount is a source of pleasure or enjoyment or otherwise somehow enhances the ownership experience for Rolex owners, but it doesn't affect me at all. I wouldn't buy a $5,000 watch from an authorized dealer, I'd buy it from a grey market dealer and you can get Rolex watches on the grey market at a discount.

No, what galls me is that when I try on my buddy's GMT II, I am astonished at the crappy bracelet that comes with it. The watch on my Sinn 356 Flieger, which costs about 1/5 what the GMT II does, puts the Rolex bracelet to shame.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Breguet has been around since the 80s under its current incarnation. Lange und Sohne, who I personally believe to be the forerunner of watch technology along with Seiko (sorry Patek), and Glashutte have been around since shortly after the fall of the wall...


All great brands but it's difficult to suggest Rolex has less pedigree than a 80s restart given their history and large marketing budget. Really just wanted to say that marketing is endemic to the business. Rolex success has enabled them to become a very vertically integrated company of considerable size. It's just smart business that they market well.



> Once you start shopping the boutique brands, you really need a love for watches--it's a bit like bespoke. The names become more obscure, the movements and complications more personalized, and the sticker prices get to be more obscene to the common man. There are a few exceptions like Dornblueth and Benzinger who utilize ETA ebauches, but they are a more niche company.


Very well stated Norcal and I agree. Rolex also makes 100% of their movements in house now so they deserve chops for that as it is rare. 

Let me be very clear:

1. I'm not saying is better than any of these brands (although a case can be made versus the IWC in terms of tool watches) but I am saying that Rolex measures up surprisingly well in many ways versus what some WIS will have you believe.

2. The problem is that Rolex area of excellence is really tool watches and not complications. Some of these complications are truly works of art in terms of craftsmanship. In my mind it's like comparing a Porsche (Rolex) to a Bentley (Patek, Lange, JLC).



> But, in my opinion, it lies somewhere in between the Omega-Tissot-Baume & Mercier level and the IWC-JLC-GP level. Maybe I'd feel differently if I owned one.


Perhaps in terms of some finishing and complications, then yeah sure. As far as reliable movements, possibly Rolex wins but on a case by case basis.



> Maybe the fact that Rolex doesn't sell at a discount is a source of pleasure or enjoyment or otherwise somehow enhances the ownership experience for Rolex owners, but it doesn't affect me at all.


It enhances the resale value of the watch which does create real cash value for Rolex owners and allows more options for trading up.


----------



## tasteful one

*Rolex IS marketed differently...*



Artisan Fan said:


> I'm not sure I ever said that, but I do believe the quality of manufacture is as high in many areas. Take the case for instance, Rolex uses a higher quality 904L steel. In terms of movements, JLC has better finishing but not better accuracy or durability over the long term.
> 
> Why do you assume that Rolex marketing is different than the prestige marketing of Patek or JLC or Breguet over time. It's all marketing on some level. Many of these boutique brands were dead and got resurrected by private equity firms with sometimes none of the original family or principals.
> 
> You just don't care for Rolex so you rationalize by making it all about marketing budgets. Still, Rolex continue to hold there value because there is substance in the manufacture and service of their timepieces.


Patek, Breguet, et. al market their products based on something factual and tangible..their history, their heritage, their history of engineering firsts. Rolex has created the image out of marketing: That 'masculine' image, like the SUV (another marketing miracle). The sale (and resale) price is largely supported by those who continue to buy into the clever marketing.


----------



## arturostevens

There may be about 10 texts on the illustrious "factual" and "engineering" landmarks to which Rolex was pioneer. In my view, the marketing is simply derivative of the great iconically engineered product that is Rolex. To be essentially a nonprofit company, devoted exclusively to the essense of the product, is quite rare. So the whole world of Rolex wearers is faked out by marketing? Rolex pretty much sells itself.


----------



## gregp

Malty said:


> I don't wear a Rolex. Instead, I have an IWC that I purchased a couple of years ago to mark the birth of my son. I think you get a lot more watch for your money with the IWC. Also, I don't want clients looking at my wrist and questioning how high my rates are. A Rolex is an invitation to such questions while the IWC rarely raises such doubts, unless the client is particularly knowledgable, in which case I'm in trouble!


While this has to be one of the most ridiculous threads I've seen in some time, I did hesitate when I read this. I made exactly that mental note about a financial advisor who was trying to court me. I wondered how much money he must be raking in on management fees based on his prominently displayed submariner. On the other hand, had it been an IWC, say, a Portuguese, my reaction would have been stronger.


----------



## dag2000

gregp said:


> While this has to be one of the most ridiculous threads I've seen in some time, I did hesitate when I read this. I made exactly that mental note about a financial advisor who was trying to court me. I wondered how much money he must be raking in on management fees based on his prominently displayed submariner. On the other hand, had it been an IWC, say, a Portuguese, my reaction would have been stronger.


I guess it depends on your view of the market. If you think it's an efficient market, you'd see that IWC as evidence of high fees which in turn was evidence of expertise and talent that combine for greater returns for clients.


----------



## tasteful one

*You're right that Rolex pretty much sells itself....*



arturostevens said:


> There may be about 10 texts on the illustrious "factual" and "engineering" landmarks to which Rolex was pioneer. In my view, the marketing is simply derivative of the great iconically engineered product that is Rolex. To be essentially a nonprofit company, devoted exclusively to the essense of the product, is quite rare. So the whole world of Rolex wearers is faked out by marketing? Rolex pretty much sells itself.


The question is why. To dismiss the effect of marketing only serves to reinforce the (mis) belief that Rolex owners are attracted to those 'engineering feats'. Attraction to anything is a complex phenomenon, it's difficult to say exactly what makes something desirable, but if you take a group of people who know absolutely nothing about a particular product (wrist watches), then the manufacturer has a blank slate to work with...to form the impression they want of their product. In Rolexes case, they very carefully (and consistently) associated their product with 'known' masculine variables that men are attracted to: strength, virility, competitiveness, etc. The result is an almost unconscious desire in some to want one becaue they so strongly identify with the message. Maybe that's the reason, that as a group, Rolex owners tend to be so defensive about their purchase...what they're responding to is the perceived attack on themselves...their masculinity....You just don't read about owners of other brands responding to criticism quite the same way as 'Rollie' owners (they also don't need to 'personalize' the name of their watch, either...).

I'm not doubting the quality of Rolex watches, nor am I assailing those who appreciate them. However, the idea that guys who buy them are doing so because they understand or appreciate the deeper engineering qualities is something I find hard to accept...they desire them because of what they believe they represent, the way they make them feel. And that's the result of a very carefully crafted message delivered consistently over time. How else could you explain the simple fact that we, a group of guys who appreciate the difference between Stride Right and AE still find something made out of stainless steel and rubber attractive?


----------



## arturostevens

You may be right about the nature of the marketing. But it is not form over substance. The substance gave life to the form. The substance derives from intrinsically great engineering, and an uncomparable history in the watch world. Yes there are many histories, Omega to mention. But the linear history and time line of the Rolex company can fill a book. So the marketing, as I said, is derivative of a great substance. 

So you have a great product that is greatly marketed. Why not? It is not as if people are faked out to get something that is not great. Many people are attracted to the form. I am one who actually grew up understanding the substance of these watches. And so I get a tad bit irritated when this fabulous non profit company unlike any other in the world, with perhaps the most powerful trade name in terms of "first in mind" in the world (well deserved as the world's great watches), is relegated to fluff. It is like the beautiful stunning woman or massively handsome man who are brilliant physicists who are initially perceived as bimbos.....they have the substance and the form.

Brooks Brothers, BMW, Nikon, Mercedes, Four Seasons, Lexus....all have the substance as well as the form. Great marketing. So what if shallow people buy Benzes and BMW's? A lot of substantial people do as well. 

I do get your point though, and understand the reality that many people will buy a Rolex because Eric Clapton or Paul McCartney or Roger Federer or Yo Yo Ma have endorsed them, and because of the masculine marketing. But that marketing is based on an accurate histury of great adventure. We all have a little James Bond in us.


----------



## dag2000

tasteful one said:


> Maybe that's the reason, that as a group, Rolex owners tend to be so defensive about their purchase...what they're responding to is the perceived attack on themselves...their masculinity....You just don't read about owners of other brands responding to criticism quite the same way as 'Rollie' owners (they also don't need to 'personalize' the name of their watch, either...).


To be fair, probably no other group of watch owner finds itself under attack as often as Rolex owners.

I like Rolex watches. I just think they're overpriced for the quality and that their bracelets are a disgrace. At $2,500 with a nicer bracelet, I'd love a nice Sub with a black bezel. But, let's say you could get a new Sub for $4,000 at a grey market dealer. As much as I'd enjoy that watch and happily wear it, that would only happen if it was given to me as a present. If I had to spend my own money, I'd rather have an IWC Pilot Chronograph or this Girard-Perregaux at around the same price:

For what it's worth, if I got a Sub or a GMT II, it would knock the Sinn 356 Flieger off my wrist and become my primary casual watch. But it wouldn't displace my JLC Master Grande Taille (mostly because the JLC is a dressy watch that I wear with a suit). Of course, the Sinn is a $1,000 watch.


----------



## iammatt

arturostevens said:


> You may be right about the nature of the marketing. But it is not form over substance. The substance gave life to the form. The substance derives from intrinsically great engineering, and an uncomparable history in the watch world. Yes there are many histories, Omega to mention. But the linear history and time line of the Rolex company can fill a book. So the marketing, as I said, is derivative of a great substance.
> 
> So you have a great product that is greatly marketed. Why not? It is not as if people are faked out to get something that is not great. Many people are attracted to the form. I am one who actually grew up understanding the substance of these watches. And so I get a tad bit irritated when this fabulous non profit company unlike any other in the world, with perhaps the most powerful trade name in terms of "first in mind" in the world (well deserved as the world's great watches), is relegated to fluff. It is like the beautiful stunning woman or massively handsome man who are brilliant physicists who are initially perceived as bimbos.....they have the substance and the form.
> 
> Brooks Brothers, BMW, Nikon, Mercedes, Four Seasons, Lexus....all have the substance as well as the form. Great marketing. So what if shallow people buy Benzes and BMW's? A lot of substantial people do as well.
> 
> I do get your point though, and understand the reality that many people will buy a Rolex because Eric Clapton or Paul McCartney or Roger Federer or Yo Yo Ma have endorsed them, and because of the masculine marketing. But that marketing is based on an accurate histury of great adventure. We all have a little James Bond in us.


I don't understand how you can compare Rolex with BMW or Mercedes etc. These companies make things of very different styles and functions just as JLC, IWC and AP do. Rolex is more like Hummer who makes one thing in a couple of variations.


----------



## arturostevens

Obviously I am not comparing products of different natures. I am obviously discussing the power of marketing and responding to the point that form and substance can comport with one another, as in art, and that just because the form is well marketed, the substance is still of import. I am not trying to compare watches to cars.


----------



## arturostevens

I think the new Rolex Bracelets with the solid SEL links stand up to anything. I used to think my Omega SMP bracelet was more substantial until the clasp let loose in the ocean. That never has happened with my SUBS. For all the criticism of the bracelets, they are the last to come unclasped in action. I don't think comments on the quality of the magnificent movements of these watches would stand up to any studied analysis in the watch world. Every 7 years you send you Rollie back to the RSC, and for several hundred dollars they basically send you back a new watch. These are items that last generations.


----------



## norcaltransplant

arturostevens said:


> I think the new Rolex Bracelets with the solid SEL links stand up to anything. I used to think my Omega SMP bracelet was more substantial until the clasp let loose in the ocean. That never has happened with my SUBS. For all the criticism of the bracelets, they are the last to come unclasped in action. I don't think comments on the quality of the magnificent movements of these watches would stand up to any studied analysis in the watch world. Every 7 years you send you Rollie back to the RSC, and for several hundred dollars they basically send you back a new watch. These are items that last generations.


AS-
Just out of curiosity, have you tried any other brands aside from Rolex and Omega? Im sorry to hear about the clasp on the Omega, but I've personally never had a problem with a dual push-button deployment. As fas as divers go, the UN Marine Diver, BP Fifty Fathoms, and IWC Ti Aquatimer would all provide interesting comparisons.

With regards to bracelets, though Rolex has introduced better pieces with SEL, I still find the rice bracelets on the IWC Pilot & Portofino series, Blancpain X-71 bracelet, and Ulysse Nardin Marine and Maxi Marine diver more comfortable.


----------



## dag2000

iammatt said:


> Rolex is more like Hummer who makes one thing in a couple of variations.


Ouch. That's cold.



arturostevens said:


> I think the new Rolex Bracelets with the solid SEL links stand up to anything. I used to think my Omega SMP bracelet was more substantial until the clasp let loose in the ocean. That never has happened with my SUBS. For all the criticism of the bracelets, they are the last to come unclasped in action. I don't think comments on the quality of the magnificent movements of these watches would stand up to any studied analysis in the watch world. Every 7 years you send you Rollie back to the RSC, and for several hundred dollars they basically send you back a new watch. These are items that last generations.


I'm glad to hear that about the new bracelets. It means that they're listening to the market, because that has been a loud and reasonable criticism. I'm only speaking from a recent (3 years ago) experience.

That's a pretty good deal if it's $500 or less. I know that JLC does the same thing, but for around $1,000 the last time I checked.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Patek, Breguet, et. al market their products based on something factual and tangible..their history, their heritage, their history of engineering firsts. Rolex has created the image out of marketing: That 'masculine' image, like the SUV (another marketing miracle). The sale (and resale) price is largely supported by those who continue to buy into the clever marketing.


This is why some posters have no credibility with me. Clearly you have no basic knowledge of the pioneering work that Rolex has done in wristwatches nor are you aware of many engineering feats. You have made up your mind and don't wish to have a serious discussion on the merits. It makes discussing the issue with you incredibly invaluable.



> Rolex is more like Hummer who makes one thing in a couple of variations.


Bad analogy. Hummers have terrible reliability, offer no innovations and do not really evolve over time. I see Rolex as more like a Lexus in a continual improvement process but somewhat new compared to Vacherons and Patek. But they also offer a sporty practicality with performance like a Porsche. Very accurate performance over the long haul.

Just because you own a Vacheron Matt, it is not inherently any less showy a timepiece than a Rolex. Both are luxury items and Vacheron is often much more expensive. I don't understand why you feel the need to dump on Rolex all the time. Not all Vacherons are tasteful and not all Rolexes are blingy status symbols.


----------



## iammatt

Artisan Fan said:


> Bad analogy. Hummers have terrible reliability, offer no innovations and do not really evolve over time. I see Rolex as more like a Lexus in a continual improvement process but somewhat new compared to Vacherons and Patek. But they also offer a sporty practicality with performance like a Porsche. Very accurate performance over the long haul.
> 
> Just because you own a Vacheron Matt, it is not inherently any less showy a timepiece than a Rolex. Both are luxury items and Vacheron is often much more expensive. I don't understand why you feel the need to dump on Rolex all the time. Not all Vacherons are tasteful and not all Rolexes are blingy status symbols.


Whoa. I wasn't dumping on Rolex. Porsche is a fine analogy as well since they only make one kind of car (ok two, but Rolex makes a Cellini). BMW and Mercedes are extremely diversified lines. I just threw Hummer out there because it was tough, rugged and reliable while remaining a bit of an icon. I didn't know they sucked.

Vacherons can be very bling. I like mine, and in the long run that is all that matters.

Peace man, you read my post th wrong way.


----------



## Artisan Fan

Apologies if I misread the post...I agree that Rolex specializes in sports watches and then improves them by slow evolution (many experts think this is the main reason for high resale value by the way, not marketing).

With all the reading I do on TimeZone and Purists, it is clear that there is some very real elitism for smaller brands like Lange and Patek and IWC and JLC and against Rolex. Yet when you look closely at the movements, you see that there is in fact lots of substance and quality manufacture with Rolex. Look at WatchTime's review of the IWC Aquatimer versus the Submariner. The IWC watch has an outsourced ETA 2892 movement! The Rolex is made completely in house. The Submariner won on both total score and movement. The casing and bracelet on the Aquatimer sucks compared to the Rolex as well using a much lower quality steel and construction. Yet a WIS on Purists will only give respect to IWC.

It's all just elitism and watch snobbery. Rolex can't win until it produces complications but that is not it's business. Yet who does Patek and Breguet turn to for a major new breakthrough with its silicon balance spring? Rolex.

Look, all brands market heavily. The more successful they are, the momre they have to spend. They create aspirational ads like Patek with its "look after it until the next generation" ads to Rolex' celebrity and business leader endorsements.

I would say lots of marketing is a good sign of a successful company. Lexus, Four Seasons, Audio Research, Rolex, Patek, Tiffany, Porsche...like my friend Serge says "it's all good."


----------



## Andre Yew

Artisan Fan said:


> Look at WatchTime's review of the IWC Aquatimer versus the Submariner. The IWC watch has an outsourced ETA 2892 movement! The Rolex is made completely in house. The Submariner won on both total score and movement. The casing and bracelet on the Aquatimer sucks compared to the Rolex as well using a much lower quality steel and construction. Yet a WIS on Purists will only give respect to IWC.


Do you mean this one:

Seems like they both are equal but different in the review. And their conclusions would seem to contradict what you say about the casing and bracelet.

--Andre


----------



## Artisan Fan

Have you compared the IWC bracelet lately to the current Submariner?


----------



## Mathew J

*Funny, looking for something else and stumbled into this....*

As for me personally, I would say that after owning three in the past seven years that they aren't worth what they charge, but then again everyone's definition of "worth" varies....

I should preface this with the fact that both my mother and father were Rolex owners, neither weren't successful by any means but always bought status items such as cars, jewelery, and watches to put off the image. It was through this that my mother for years and years would speak of how wonderful Rolex were and how that when it came time to get a nice watch I should consider no other, Rolex was the watch to own that shows you arrived (the irony is that they never did). Thus I was indoctrinated into the "cult" of Rolex from early on.

Fast forward to now, because of their influence and other societal pressures as well as a strong desire to fit in and show off I came to own three of them concurrently, each sold as an "upgrade" to the next model. Sequentally I owned a Datejust, an Explorer, and finally a Submariner, and I haven't been satisfied or pleased with any of them. 

Typically I am a pretty logical buyer, a trait I consider to be the opposite of my parents, however these were my first and arguably only illogical purchases (then again I have owned a few Montblanc pens, IMHO about equal in standing and quality to that of Rolex, and about as disappointing), they were something I thought I deserved because family, friends or whomever owned them and then there is always the "you only live once" argument...I did do a good deal of research however, and while many said that Rolex was overpriced, there is a very strong contingent of the "faithful" who go out of their way to preach the virtues of Rolex and they can do a very good job of convincing someone who wants to get some status appeal that Rolex is a good buy....in retrospect I should have listened to my head over my heart as it would have saved me thousands.

As mentioned above I equate them to the likes of Montblanc as well as Mercedes, Monster Cable products, Cutco, Bose, Armani, Ferragamo, and Tiffany sterling, brands which are aspired to by joe sixpack, charge a hefty premium over their direct competition, or a combination of the two because of history, aggressive and massive marketing efforts, both which lead to brand awareness. These brands never offer much in the way of discounts due to restriction/controls placed on the distribution by the manufacturer. And unsurprisingly all of these brands are those which Rolex owners and Rolex enthusiasts love to buy and brag about. I have yet to have one of these brands, and or the service provided by their respective companies live up to the hype which surrounds them, it is always a case of more sizzle than steak and I have always felt a great deal of buyers remorse as for me the quality isn't reflected in the price.

Over the years I have seen many argue (even here I see) that they command a good resale, I always find this to be a factor of "brand demand" much more than the quality or any other factors. A great example of this in my mind are are Bose loudspeakers (or any Bose product for that matter), which are often criticized as being horrible in construction and acoustics yet sell fantastically on ebay because those ignorant of other options aspire to own the brand because they believe them to be the best and that they should own the best.

As for my Rolex pieces, on my first I was totally dissatisfied with the construction of the clasp and bracelet for the price, it was a disgrace, my second had a defective dial and material floating around under the crystal, I took advantage of their supposed awesome service for warranty and sent in a near perfect three month old watch which came back a complete and utter mess. I sent it in again after sending them a pretty nasty mail while it was better they still managed to ruin the aestheitcs permanently, to add insult to injury they never refunded my shipping expenses as promised. And for last piece, again there were slight quality issues, things that I have never seen on seen other watches that cost considerably less and are clearly the result of poor quality control, when I contacted Rolex they told me too bad, it was my responsibility as the customer to make sure the piece lived up to my standards (what about their claims to perfection on their website?) and that these inconsistencies, while not present in other makes are normal for their production due to hand finish (always wonder how they hand finish a million plus watches a year).

As a comparison I have bought plenty of high end products in the past that had minor quality issues, but never was I treated like this, almost as if they were doing me a favor instead of me being the paying repeat customer.

As for the other arguments, I have read them all in my years of being involved with other enthusiasts and the general concensus is they are marketing fluff or bunk, it doesn't take the company a year to make their watches, the steel they use isn't any "better" than that which other high end makes use in any practical way, the amount which they torque on the case back is silly to mention and just another example of their taking their target customer for a ride.

I would say the one thing they had going for them was their movement design, specifically their use of a free sprung micro regulated balance. For a long time they were the only game in town with this feature and it really adds to the long term performance of a watch movement...however now Omega has stepped up to the plate and offers similar technology in watches made just as well if not better and on average cost half that of their Rolex counterparts. If you are an in house movement snob then this won't do it for you as it still isn't of their own design, but I care more about the function, the finish, the quality, and the price as well as long term parts availability should I pass the watch on, if a movement is manufacture made it does little for me in terms of timekeeping or my wallet but I do know a few who put this as a critical concern.

They appear to finally be curbing to pressures within the industry and have finally started updating their overall look along with the bracelets and clasps, but typically a massive increase in price as come along with that, and at the new price points there are arguably many other options from Blancpain, GO, IWC and others that are made far better. Also they are resorting to somewhat gauche tactics of putting "rolex rolex rolex" all around the circumference of the dial, which reminds me of coach and or LV, rather tacky IMHO.

Possibly if I bought into the brand back when they weren't the jewelery/status brand they are now and I had a piece which appreciated in value my thoughts would be different...but unfortunately that wasn't the case. I disagree with the notion that Rolex makes and sells tool watches, in fact they stopped doing that in the late 70s, they make tool style luxury watches (least that is how they are marketed and priced) and that is what I expect them to live up to...if I wanted a true tool watch I would shop for a G shock or a Seiko, rather something I would use as a tool and I certainly wouldn't spend thousands of dollars on it.

So it is my belief that if you want a watch that gets noticed first and foremost, and money or high level quality is of little concern then Rolex is a great choice, but personally I prefer brands like Omega, IWC, JLC, and Breitling...makes which offer comparable and better quality for the same or a considerable discount. What is interesting to note is that only their Oyster line is popular/successful. Their Cellini watches are for the most part regarded as very poor in quality, and their Tudors while Okay aren't anything that enthusiasts get excited over (modern variants, vintage is another story)

I should also add that each of my watches was highly reliable and accurate in the time I owned them, my conclusions and opinions are more on the fit and finish of the watches than their functionality. But to me, when buying essentially jewelery I expect a higher level of workmanship.

If I can manage a good rate of return my last Rolex will be sold and instead of trying to impress others I will spend and save money and get something that finally impresses myself.


----------



## Mathew J

Artisan Fan said:


> Have you compared the IWC bracelet lately to the current Submariner?


As a Submariner owner, and someone who knows the design has only changed slightly over the past 30 or so years, and someone who has extensively compared and examined both models I would say yes, and the Submariner's bracelet while functional is a bit of a joke...something comparable to the likes of cheap $100 watches (actually had some for less with nicer bracelets)...

Remember, when paying thousands upon thousands for watches most, including myself expect a bit more than simply "functional" which is quite possibly the reason why Rolex is finally updating their design but even that update isn't as good as others which are in the same price range.

And using your analogies, with lexus they offer unbeatable reliability, resale, their service is top notch, and on average their offerings are less than their competition with Mercedes and BMW....

Audio Research isn't a well known name, least not as well as Bose, and Porsche still offers high quality lower end offerings that are price competitive.

Tiffany I won't argue, I think much of their business is done on namesake and their actual merchandise isn't anything to get excited about, luckily my wife agrees.



arturostevens said:


> There may be about 10 texts on the illustrious "factual" and "engineering" landmarks to which Rolex was pioneer. In my view, the marketing is simply derivative of the great iconically engineered product that is Rolex. To be essentially a nonprofit company, devoted exclusively to the essense of the product, is quite rare. So the whole world of Rolex wearers is faked out by marketing? Rolex pretty much sells itself.


This is often a common misconception, the company is not non profit, it is just a privately held trust...while they do donate alot to charity and sponsor much the fact is many of these companies do much the same, and with Rolex, specifically their watchmaking schools it is a bit of in their own best interest as they know that the number of watchmakers is on the decline and thus they won't have much of a workforce to deal with service demands.

Rolex is anything but a non profit, they make a very healthy profit...


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Audio Research isn't a well known name, least not as well as Bose, and Porsche still offers high quality lower end offerings that are price competitive.


My point is that these companies spend a lot compared to others in their industry. I did not even think of Bose since as an audiophile I know their speakers suck.



> This is often a common misconception, the company is not non profit, it is just a privately held trust...


They make a profit but all profits go to two foundations set up by Wilsdorf that do mostly or all charitable work.



> the Submariner's bracelet while functional is a bit of a joke


My brother has one and it's anything but a joke. They have beefed them up substantially over the years.



> Remember, when paying thousands upon thousands for watches most, including myself expect a bit more than simply "functional" which is quite possibly the reason why Rolex is finally updating their design but even that update isn't as good as others which are in the same price range.


I'm curious as to what you think is better in the price range, especially in the tool watches. Their sports watches get incrementally improved every year and for many of us that is a real quest for perfection that often lets them be best of class. I see no competition for the Submariner or SeaDweller or GMT or Daytona in terms of balance and excellence in the areas of functionality and durability and quality of manufacture.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> As for my Rolex pieces, on my first I was totally dissatisfied with the construction of the clasp and bracelet for the price, it was a disgrace, my second had a defective dial and material floating around under the crystal, I took advantage of their supposed awesome service for warranty and sent in a near perfect three month old watch which came back a complete and utter mess. I sent it in again after sending them a pretty nasty mail while it was better they still managed to ruin the aestheitcs permanently, to add insult to injury they never refunded my shipping expenses as promised. And for last piece, again there were slight quality issues, things that I have never seen on seen other watches that cost considerably less and are clearly the result of poor quality control, when I contacted Rolex they told me too bad, it was my responsibility as the customer to make sure the piece lived up to my standards (what about their claims to perfection on their website?) and that these inconsistencies, while not present in other makes are normal for their production due to hand finish (always wonder how they hand finish a million plus watches a year).


Well you definitely had a bad experience with your watch but this is very rare and highly unusual. Your AD should have taken better care of your situation. I can only say that I have dealt with dealers in NYC, Florida and Georgia and have only gotten superb service. I hear a lot more negative things about other watch brands from the local watch experts I know.


----------



## Mathew J

Artisan Fan said:


> They make a profit but all profits go to two foundations set up by Wilsdorf that do mostly or all charitable work.


Considering no one has seen their financials and how secretive the company is I would be curious as to how you came into this information....like I said, they do some charitable work but they are anything but "non profit"...even the Rolex guys on other fora will agree to that unless they have an iv of Kool aid being pumped into them 



> My brother has one and it's anything but a joke. They have beefed them up substantially over the years.


Substantially? really...last update was in mid to late 2000 when they addeed solid end links and made a minor change to the divers extension, SELs are something that has been on some of their higher end watches since the 80s...it should be noted that the truly nice Rolex pieces do feature substantial bracelets, the shame is that the movement is idential in finish and design to that in their lowest budget date watch...wonder how many buyers of pearlmasters would love to see or know that :0



> I'm curious as to what you think is better in the price range, especially in the tool watches. Their sports watches get incrementally improved every year and for many of us that is a real quest for perfection that often lets them be best of class. I see no competition for the Submariner or SeaDweller or GMT or Daytona in terms of balance and excellence in the areas of functionality and durability and quality of manufacture.


Like I said I don't regard Rolex as a "tool watch" as virtually every professional I know who relies on some type of a timepiece wouldn't even consider wearing something like a Rolex on a dive or whatever...with that said I easily think the new Co Axial based ETA in the Omega Planet Ocean is as good if not better than my Submariner, just as I feel the IWC Aquatimer is an all around nicer watch than the SeaDweller. The Daytona is a different story, I think it is ok but not nearly worth what the real price they get...the demand is artifical and too high...and the lack of a date on the watch for me is a turnoff, personally if I were spending the money on a Daytona I would easily consider a Blancpain Flyback or any other readily available nicer watch and would probabily save money on it in the process....

All I can say is I have been there and done that with Rolex, and while I still respect a little of what they have done, unless things change majorly there is a good chance I will never consider them, nor recommend them again...my next watch will be a planet ocean in 42mm followed by a Deville Co Axial, two watches that will have cost less than my Sub alone and are both arguably much better made and a more rounded pair as one is casual and one is dress.


----------



## norcaltransplant

Artisan Fan said:


> I'm curious as to what you think is better in the price range, especially in the tool watches. Their sports watches get incrementally improved every year and for many of us that is a real quest for perfection that often lets them be best of class. I see no competition for the Submariner or SeaDweller or GMT or Daytona in terms of balance and excellence in the areas of functionality and durability and quality of manufacture.


Tool watches:
- *Ball Hydrocarbon* - Awful stock pictures. Extremely smooth ETA 2824 movement, tritium tubes for easy visibility, very nice bracelet. About half the cost of any Rolex, and cheaper than Tudor.
- *Sinn*: See above, with more attractive designs. 1/2-2/3 price of Rolex. Better legibility. More comfortable bracelets.
- *Ulysse Nardin* Marine Series: Titanium backs are better for people with sensitivities to stainless steel - the back of my Marine Diver is the most comfortable for prolonged wear. Still incorporates an ETA movement with significant modification and a RDM feature. One of the best bracelets in the industry. Extremely legible.
- *Blacnpain* Fifty Fathoms and Aqua Lung: F.Piguet movement. Arguably less durable than Rolex, but much thinner than Rolex. X-71 bracelet is generally regarded as one of the best in the business.
- *Glashutte Originale* Diver: I haven't handled the new model so no comment. Very legible dial. Manufacturer movement.


----------



## Mathew J

Artisan Fan said:


> Well you definitely had a bad experience with your watch but this is very rare and highly unusual. Your AD should have taken better care of your situation. I can only say that I have dealt with dealers in NYC, Florida and Georgia and have only gotten superb service. I hear a lot more negative things about other watch brands from the local watch experts I know.


Not one, not two, but three seperate pieces Artisan...and what is the AD to do? none of these were a problem that were a result of the AD, they followed standard proceedure...Rolex messed up for me twice and on the third time they told me to take a hike...as I said, not something I ever expected from the company.

With that said I know a wonderful Omega dealer that is by far better than any Rolex dealer I have ever worked with, typically because the Rolex dealers are situated in malls, employ cheap labor, and have high turnover and don't care about their customer.


----------



## Mathew J

norcaltransplant said:


> Tool watches:
> - *Ball Hydrocarbon* - Awful stock pictures. Extremely smooth ETA 2824 movement, tritium tubes for easy visibility, very nice bracelet. About half the cost of any Rolex, and cheaper than Tudor.
> - *Sinn*: See above, with more attractive designs. 1/2-2/3 price of Rolex. Better legibility. More comfortable bracelets.
> - *Ulysse Nardin* Marine Series: Titanium backs are better for people with sensitivities to stainless steel - the back of my Marine Diver is the most comfortable for prolonged wear. Still incorporates an ETA movement with significant modification and a RDM feature. One of the best bracelets in the industry. Extremely legible.
> - *Blacnpain* Fifty Fathoms and Aqua Lung: F.Piguet movement. Arguably less durable than Rolex, but much thinner than Rolex. X-71 bracelet is generally regarded as one of the best in the business.
> - *Glashutte Originale* Diver: I haven't handled the new model so no comment. Very legible dial. Manufacturer movement.


These are all wonderful choices, and in the case of Sinn and Ball I would put their workmanship about on Par if not nicer than Rolex....

With UN, Blancpain and GO there is no comparison, the attention to detail on these makes Rolex seem like a toy, yet street prices put them nearly equal to their Rolex counterparts after the latest price increases which is truly funny and sad IMHO

And don't forget the Chopard Pro One with the Luc movement...wonderful piece.


----------



## norcaltransplant

Artisan Fan said:


> I see no competition for the Submariner or SeaDweller or GMT or Daytona in terms of balance and excellence in the areas of functionality and durability and quality of manufacture.


With regards to GMT watches, I like the IWC Universal Time Controller, Blacnpain Leman GMT, and Ulysse Nardin Big Date GMT. The UN is by far the best of the bunch with regards to legibility and practical design. Aesthetics is a different matter, since the IWC would be considered closer to a tool watch, while the Blancpain is more a dress piece.

At the 10-12k mark, the chronograph selection is near endless. Pieces I would consider, at street price, include:
1) Breguet XXI
2) Girard Perregaux Retour En Voul (older model, pocket the 7k difference)
3) IWC Dopplechronograph (discontinued)
4) Glashutte Originale Senator Navigator
5) Blancpain Flyback


----------



## Teacher

Artisan Fan said:


> The IWC watch has an outsourced ETA 2892 movement! The Rolex is made completely in house.


Sorry to derail this, but I just have to ask: why is it that so many make a big deal out of sourced movements? I can understand it for the sake of _collectibility_: I collect only American-made wristwatches at the moment, so any watch with a movement sourced from Switzerland or elsewhere is not in contention for me (well, for now). It has to do with being proud of a long-gone and underappreciated industry; however, it has _nothing whatsoever_ to do with quality, as American watch companies also put out some wonderful watches with Swiss- and German-made movements as well (a Gruen Curvex with a Swiss movement just sold on eBay for damn near US$10,000, which I still find hard to believe). So I cannot understand why a person automatically proclaims a watch's inferiority based solely on the fact that it has a sourced movement. If it's good, it's good; if it isn't, then so be it. It's like the Bentleys Arnage of several years ago, which came with the purchaser's choice of the BMW-engineered engine or the old 6.75-Liter V-8 (Green Label vs. Red Label). By the accounts I read long ago, the BMW was (not surprisingly) the superior engine in many ways, but traditionalists scoffed at the idea. Well, that's fine if one chooses the Red Label out of tradition, but that doesn't mean the BMW engine wasn't a worthy addition to Bently.


----------



## norcaltransplant

Teacher said:


> Sorry to derail this, but I just have to ask: why is it that so many make a big deal out of sourced movements? I can understand it for the sake of _collectibility_: I collect only American-made wristwatches at the moment, so any watch with a movement sourced from Switzerland or elsewhere is not in contention for me (well, for now). It has to do with being proud of a long-gone and underappreciated industry; however, it has _nothing whatsoever_ to do with quality, as American watch companies also put out some wonderful watches with Swiss- and German-made movements as well (a Gruen Curvex with a Swiss movement just sold on eBay for damn near US$10,000, which I still find hard to believe). So I cannot understand why a person automatically proclaims a watch's inferiority based solely on the fact that it has a sourced movement. If it's good, it's good; if it isn't, then so be it. It's like the Bentleys Arnage of several years ago, which came with the purchaser's choice of the BMW-engineered engine or the old 6.75-Liter V-8 (Green Label vs. Red Label). By the accounts I read long ago, the BMW was (not surprisingly) the superior engine in many ways, but traditionalists scoffed at the idea. Well, that's fine if one chooses the Red Label out of tradition, but that doesn't mean the BMW engine wasn't a worthy addition to Bently.


Artificial bias, especially given the reliability, and near infinite potential for variations on the high-efficiency ETA 2824 and 2892. The latter has been adapted for such duties as GMT modules, chronographs, power reserve, and even perpetual calenders. In the past, IWC has adapted a 100K+ retail model that originally began its life as a 2892.

Sticking with IWC, the company's iconic Pilot Watches has had multiple incarnations, most notably the Mark XII, which included a Jaeger Le Coultre 889. The Mark XV and current model Mark XVI feature a modified ETA 2892--both are considered a serious "step-down in prestige." Why was this change made? Was IWC just trying to cut cost by switching movements from its sister company to a Swatch subsidiary? The answer, quite simply, was that a in-house modified ETA was more reliable and a little more robust than the sometimes quirky JLC ebauche. As a tool watch, although the 2892-A2 is thin as compared to other automatics, it has performed remarkably well in almost all its incarnations since its inception.

Basically, the watch enthusiasts distaste for ETA movements rests in their popularity and near ubiquitous status. Although there are wide differences in design and finishing, the market still demonstrates a preference for manufacturer movements (except if you are Japanese, and named Seiko).


----------



## arturostevens

We have no "malls" in my region that sell Rolex. My AD is an old family affair that has had the Rolex line for a long time. Working for them is an official RSC technician retired from Dallas who lives in Oregon, and who has all the equipment to do the whole thing. In fact, I was there once when a man from Rolex Switzerland had come over to audit the equipment he had to make sure he was on par with an RSC. My AD would have taken care of those problems I hear of. Impeccable care and attention. If a clasp was inferior, I would be given a new bracelet. If something was floating under my crystal, it would have been taken care of immediately. 

My AD will call me first thing if there is, for example, an SS Daytona, and NEVER charge more than MRSP. I have declined such offers to date, although I do have the SUB LV. 

My father was a watch hog liking Blancpain and IWC and Omega and Gruen. But Rolex hit him the hardest as it did my Grandfather and they basically got rid of all non Rolex inventory other than one Blancpain and one Gruen. I just like Rolexes because they are rugged. I am hard on stuff...clothes and all. I just threw away a nice BB shirt tonight because I got it stained with ink. I am tough on stuff, and my Rollies are studs. They can get banged around and take it and still run fine and be shining icons. 

I did not even know that Rolex was a prestigious thing until I was 14, and so I don't see them in that light now. They are well made work horses. Rugged, and hardy and are the most immitated watch in the world. That alone says something about their standing in the world. Immitation is the greatest form of flattery, and you won't see many immitators trying to sell a fake IWC. You will never see a Rolex, unlike with Breitling or Omega (both watches I do like) at a Costco. You will never see a Rolex on sale. And still the sales grow every year. 

And the profits do go to charity. The AD's can give you that information if you ask.


----------



## mannaman

Nice discussion.

I own a Sub and I was never happier with a watch. It is durable, the design is unique and really a classic piece of fine watchmaking. Actually, the Sub is on the market for more than 50yrs, with no major changes.

Compared to JLC, which has a nice history of complications, they stick to the design, the movement works reliable and the costs of maintenance seem reasonable.

If you take a closer look to the newer Compressor watches made by JLC, you will realize that these watches look nice first, but imagine you give that thing to your son in 22yrs as a graduation gift. You simply see it's contemporary, it is far away from being a classic watch. A 40yrs old Sub is still (in my eyes) adorable.

Patek is clearly not in the same ballpark. The less expensive models cost probably twice as much as the "competition".

I have no idea if adding lots of different functions (world time, moon phase, ...) adds really value to a watch, I think in a price range between $2k and $10k, the quality of the basic function should be out of the question

Look at this. Do you want to look down on a watch like this in 20yrs?

Try this one here, over 50yrs old:


----------



## tasteful one

*Thanks for the confirmation....*



Artisan Fan said:


> This is why some posters have no credibility with me. Clearly you have no basic knowledge of the pioneering work that Rolex has done in wristwatches nor are you aware of many engineering feats. You have made up your mind and don't wish to have a serious discussion on the merits. It makes discussing the issue with you incredibly invaluable.
> 
> Bad analogy. Hummers have terrible reliability, offer no innovations and do not really evolve over time. I see Rolex as more like a Lexus in a continual improvement process but somewhat new compared to Vacherons and Patek. But they also offer a sporty practicality with performance like a Porsche. Very accurate performance over the long haul.
> 
> Just because you own a Vacheron Matt, it is not inherently any less showy a timepiece than a Rolex. Both are luxury items and Vacheron is often much more expensive. I don't understand why you feel the need to dump on Rolex all the time. Not all Vacherons are tasteful and not all Rolexes are blingy status symbols.


It's unfortunate you were unable to do understand my POV, perhaps if you reread my posts without the defensiveness you'd hear me say that I don't doubt the engineering of the Rolex, but rather the Company's regrettable decision to not market it to those strengths. That reveals a rather unflattering opinion they have of both their customers..and potential customers.


----------



## Mathew J

norcaltransplant said:


> Artificial bias, especially given the reliability, and near infinite potential for variations on the high-efficiency ETA 2824 and 2892. The latter has been adapted for such duties as GMT modules, chronographs, power reserve, and even perpetual calenders. In the past, IWC has adapted a 100K+ retail model that originally began its life as a 2892.
> 
> Sticking with IWC, the company's iconic Pilot Watches has had multiple incarnations, most notably the Mark XII, which included a Jaeger Le Coultre 889. The Mark XV and current model Mark XVI feature a modified ETA 2892--both are considered a serious "step-down in prestige." Why was this change made? Was IWC just trying to cut cost by switching movements from its sister company to a Swatch subsidiary? The answer, quite simply, was that a in-house modified ETA was more reliable and a little more robust than the sometimes quirky JLC ebauche. As a tool watch, although the 2892-A2 is thin as compared to other automatics, it has performed remarkably well in almost all its incarnations since its inception.
> 
> Basically, the watch enthusiasts distaste for ETA movements rests in their popularity and near ubiquitous status. Although there are wide differences in design and finishing, the market still demonstrates a preference for manufacturer movements (except if you are Japanese, and named Seiko).


This is a simply wonderful post by Norcal and IMHO spot on, enthusiasts don't detest sourced movements for their performance, as that is rarely if ever questioned, rather it is their widespread application in pieces that range from hundreds of dollars to thousands upon thousands....they aren't viewed as "exclusive" and thus they are "bad" or rather not as desireable as "in house"....I used to think this phenomenon was unique to watches however now even with pens I see some enthusiasts talking about "in house" nibs and talking down those who use the likes of boch, wheras before it was about the performance of the nib.

I used to care and would try to limit myself to manufacture movements however the longer I remained interested in watches the less this seemed to matter, especially when one considers service costs and options and costs, and with a company like Rolex that has a history of not supplying parts to their vintage owners, well it isn't a gamble I would be willing to take.

Also as Norcal states this benefits everyone except Seiko, and again it is about perception...enthusiasts view Seiko as "cheap", even though they make some serious pieces with the Grand Seiko line and the Springdrive that put their swiss competition to shame in terms of workmanship.

I also think it is interesting that many note Rolex's conservative approach to design and style, personally I think this is a factor of their popularity....they were only able to keep their designs as they were because they maintained the "top of the heap" for the past 30 years, and now due to mounting competition from other brands they are somewhat forced to upgrade and to me at least the styling changes are pretty drastic (and for the worse).


----------



## dag2000

mannaman said:


> Try this one here, over 50yrs old:


Those new JLCs are hideous. Here's a 54 year old JLC.

Holds up as well or better than the Rolex in my opinion.

But I agree with most of the rest of your post. I too am tough on everything I own/wear.


----------



## Don Goldstein

Is Rolex on trial here?


----------



## arturostevens

Rolex focuses its marketing on the aesthetic beauty of the product, but there is always mention of the charitable institute, and other aspects of the company. I am a bit disappointed with the current website, but you can Google the Rolex Institute and see the humanitarian awards and the laureates receiving awards. 

Rolex uses a very basic marketing model that is akin to testimonial marketing. They associate tremendously accomplished people, cultural events, historical events, and accomplishments with the watches. Look at who they awarded laureates to when you google the institute. Their marketing is very mulitlayer, and is not simply shallow stuff that aims at the "masculine" audience. But true, it aims at people who value accomplishment in the bigger world of life. The marketing does not discuss the movements of which there are many, but does show the watch being made at the company itself. The sophistocated consumer can go from the website and do other searches for other aspects of the company. 

I like a company that supports the arts and humanitarian endeavors. I don't mind paying top drawer after (hopefully) negotiating a small discount from a dealer who has sold me a bunch of watches. So I find nothing more shallow about Rolex marketing than any other knowing that you have to do a lot in just a few seconds. 

Bottom line is just go try a few on. You'll get the bug. If not, that's cool. I'll wear the one you don't buy.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Considering no one has seen their financials and how secretive the company is I would be curious as to how you came into this information


Rolex has released public information on the two charities and they registered. This is widely known among Rolex fans. ???


----------



## Artisan Fan

> *Ball Hydrocarbon* - Awful stock pictures. Extremely smooth ETA 2824 movement, tritium tubes for easy visibility, very nice bracelet. About half the cost of any Rolex, and cheaper than Tudor.


I saw one up close at the Tampa GTG for TimeZone. It is simply not in the same league as Rolex...lighter and simply not as well made in terms of movement or dial or casing. It's a nice watch for the money but not in the same league. The lumination is cool.

I have to run, will share more thoughts later.


----------



## Mathew J

Don Goldstein said:


> Is Rolex on trial here?


Any time someone poses a question of this nature the logical outcome is to become trail like...you have those on the prosecution and the defense...typically though there is no outcome, just a collection of thoughts and observations on either side of the "argument"

As for Artisan's remarks on Ball, I just don't know how much "worse" one can get in movement finish than Rolex 

And while they have released info on their charities they have yet to release their yearly earnings, thus no one will ever know just how "profitable" they are....not saying they don't do alot of donation, just that the often misused phrase "they are a charitable organization" or "non profit" is something I find rather laughable...many of these Swiss companies do alot in terms of patronizing the arts and other good causes, and most of the time it is with some marketing angle in mind, Rolex is no different.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> As for Artisan's remarks on Ball, I just don't know how much "worse" one can get in movement finish than Rolex


I guess you have not seen the 3135 or 4130. They are well finished and beautiful from the blue springs to the polished balance bridges. The Ball is a good watch for the money and the reps I met from Ball in Tampa were very nice. You can tell however that the case is not cut from solid steel like the Rolex tool watches by both weight and how the joints are finished off.



> And while they have released info on their charities they have yet to release their yearly earnings, thus no one will ever know just how "profitable" they are....not saying they don't do alot of donation, just that the often misused phrase "they are a charitable organization" or "non profit" is something I find rather laughable...many of these Swiss companies do alot in terms of patronizing the arts and other good causes, and most of the time it is with some marketing angle in mind, Rolex is no different.


Rolex has stated that 100% of the profits the company produces go to these two foundations. I think watch buyers have to decide for themselves if the price of any watch is justified but personally I would like to have a watch owned by a company that makes a healthy profit. They are far more likely to stay around for a while and offer better service.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Sorry to derail this, but I just have to ask: why is it that so many make a big deal out of sourced movements?


Great question. Here are some benefits from inhouse movements:

1. Original engineering done inhouse that demonstrates the talent of the watchmakers at the company. This can lead to more precision as machine tooling and assembly get better from new technology. Examples include the silicon balance spring and Microstella screws.

2. Better quality control. You control things like steel quality (yes, it applies to cases as well as movements), dial quality (Rolex owns both case and dial manufacturer, again a rarity), movement parts quality, movement assemblage, etc.

3. Ownership of the supply chain, important for a company like Rolex that has volume to maintain. Less susceptible to supply chain glitches like supply and parts.

4. Ease of evolution. Rolex is always incrementally improving their movements like Patek.

So you see over time *size* is a double edge sword for firms like Patek and Rolex. Size enables more capital investment, vertical integration (owning supply chain), more marketing dollars, more R&D, more in-house capability.

But it also pisses off the WIS crowd as you see more of the brand on wrists around town. I've never quite understood this. If you own a great product, why should you be upset if someone else has the income or style to own the same product? It's really elitism I think at the end of the day. I heard a neighbor complain about all the Porsches in Alpharetta. I said "so what, you still own a Porsche isn't that enough fun by itself?".

A good example of size leading to consumer benefit is Rolex inhouse rose gold production. They are actually of scale to do their own metallurgy now at their own high standards. They have recently perfected a rose gold alloy that lasts for many, many years which has been a problem with even quality rose golds that tend to fade over time.

So I guess I would suggest that size is good and profit is good. If you prefer to be noticeably different then you are free to buy a Lange or other quality small batch watch.


----------



## dag2000

Mathew J said:


> And while they have released info on their charities they have yet to release their yearly earnings, thus no one will ever know just how "profitable" they are....not saying they don't do alot of donation, just that the often misused phrase "they are a charitable organization" or "non profit" is something I find rather laughable...many of these Swiss companies do alot in terms of patronizing the arts and other good causes, and most of the time it is with some marketing angle in mind, Rolex is no different.


It is my understanding that Rolex is owned by two separate family trusts that have legal charity status. This does make them different from for-profit companies that engage in philanthropic giving.

Do you have information to the contrary?


----------



## Artisan Fan

Mathew, read this:

https://www.timezone.com/library/archives/archives0099


----------



## Artisan Fan

Explanation on trusts...key point is that they own all the shares. 



> Rolex is now the most self-sufficient watch company in Europe; they make all their own movements (apart from chronograph movements), all their cases, all their bracelets and all their crystals. They own most of their distributors and have no shareholders (as all the shares are held by 2 family trusts which have charitable status) because of this they can pursue long term goals without fear.


----------



## arturostevens

I think Mr. Dowling said it best. I would like to know more about qualifications for the Rolex endowments, and suppose that such is available online. 

Also, Artisan Fan makes a great point about the uninterrupted chain of material custody given metallurgic ownership of Rolex, and the fact that his has its own foundries and is beholden to nobody other than the steel companies as I understand it. Maybe I am wrong about the steel.


----------



## Teacher

arturostevens said:


> Also, Artisan Fan makes a great point about the uninterrupted chain of material custody given metallurgic ownership of Rolex, and the fact that his has its own foundries and is beholden to nobody other than the steel companies as I understand it. Maybe I am wrong about the steel.


I understand the _theory_, but it's different to rush to judgment based solely upon this. Practical, observed performance is far more valuable to me than theory.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Practical, observed performance is far more valuable to me than theory.


Agreed and there are many examples where the integration has led to better watches...the beauty of the rose gold watches for one. The ability to use 904L steel which is so difficult to stamp that special machines are used. The integration is paying dividends.

There are better watches out there, some of which are real works of art but for $5K and up there is a surprising amount of engineering and technology in a Rolex. To say its all marketing is unfair and actually revisionist history.


----------



## Mathew J

Artisan Fan said:


> I guess you have not seen the 3135 or 4130. They are well finished and beautiful from the blue springs to the polished balance bridges. The Ball is a good watch for the money and the reps I met from Ball in Tampa were very nice. You can tell however that the case is not cut from solid steel like the Rolex tool watches by both weight and how the joints are finished off.


Artisan, I would wonder if you have seen any 3135's and or the 4130 given your description and then compared them to the likes of JLC, GO, or even a "lowly" in your eyes Omega modified 2500C (2892-A2)....the Rolex movements have a utilitarian finish, some would say it barely qualifies as being worthy of a high end timepiece and or their pricing.

Photos for comparison...keeping in mind the Omega costs half as much and through the escapement is a technically superior movement.

Rolex 3135...










With Rotor Removed...










Geartrain










Omega 2500/2892




























I won't even bother with the likes if IWC, UN, JLC or others as they just put the Rolex to shame.



> Rolex has stated that 100% of the profits the company produces go to these two foundations. I think watch buyers have to decide for themselves if the price of any watch is justified but personally I would like to have a watch owned by a company that makes a healthy profit. They are far more likely to stay around for a while and offer better service.


However just because all of their earnings go into two "foundations" which they set up still does not mean they don't turn a healthy profit....as you said, it is up to the buyer to decide and if it makes it easier for you to justify the cost of Rolex and then their yearly 10-15% price increases with little to no discount for a watch that really isn't made all that great by believing they are truly a company that is a charitable organization and turns little profit then more power to you.

As for the foundries, last I checked Rolex only smelted their own precious metals, their steel they sourced from outside through a contract.

And as for the Dowling article artisan, well I have read it more than a few times, I have upwards of 4000 posts on timezone...personally I don't agree with it but again everyone has their own opinion.


----------



## Mathew J

dag2000 said:


> It is my understanding that Rolex is owned by two separate family trusts that have legal charity status. This does make them different from for-profit companies that engage in philanthropic giving.
> 
> Do you have information to the contrary?


No this is correct however the primary difference is that they don't have any shareholders and thus they can run their business a bit differently, I also think their tax requirements might be a bit different but not sure...regardless just because they are owned/controlled by two trusts does not mean the company is solely a charity, as I said above they do turn a profit and a healthy one at that however in reading some posts you would think that their sole mission is for the greater good...if that is what it takes to justify costs in ones mind then fine, but it is mis information none the less.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Artisan, I would wonder if you have seen any 3135's and or the 4130 given your description and then compared them to the likes of JLC, GO, or even a "lowly" in your eyes Omega modified 2500C (2892-A2)....the Rolex movements have a utilitarian finish, some would say it barely qualifies as being worthy of a high end timepiece and or their pricing.


A few thoughts:
1. We clearly have an honest disagreement on the quality of watches.
2. The pics of the 3135 are fuzzy are not of a new Rolex-you can tell by the wear on the perimeter.
3. Nevertheless the movement is still well finished in that photograph. The balance bridge is polished, there are premium parts.
4. The Omega movement is a good one, I'm not sure I said anything negative about the 2500. My issue with Omega is the casing and bracelet are not as well made as the Rolex on average. I do like their coaxial movements which are a nice innovation and they are COSC certified which means something to me.
5. Here is a link to a better photo of the 3135: 
6. You can't do a fair comparison to exhibition back watches since there movement is exposed like the Lange, JLC and others. They do do more finishing since they will be examined as a key feature of the watch. Rolex has no exhibition backs except for the Prince and the finishing quality there is very high. I'll search for a pic.



> However just because all of their earnings go into two "foundations" which they set up still does not mean they don't turn a healthy profit


I'm not sure why you don't give Rolex credit for being a charity Mathew. You seem to think Rolex is evil for making a profit. I believe most of the boutiques would be evil in that definition. Shouldn't earnings being funneled into a charity be a good thing. Rolex issues much money in the form of humanitarian awards.

Also, Rolex does have shareholders but they are privately held by the charity trusts so longer-term decisions can be made with less pressure than public companies having to meet quarterly earnings expectations.


----------



## ykurtz

*Profits are good*



Artisan Fan said:


> I'm not sure why you don't give Rolex credit for being a charity Mathew. You seem to think Rolex is evil for making a profit. I believe most of the boutiques would be evil in that definition. Shouldn't earnings being funneled into a charity be a good thing. Rolex issues much money in the form of humanitarian awards.


I don't think a successful, profitable company needs to be defended as 'good' BECAUSE they donate some/most/all of their profits to charity. There is nothing intrinsically 'good' about charity. Companies exist to make a profit, which they obtain by offering a product/service for money in a voluntary exchange in a (relatively) free marketplace. People spend money on a Rolex voluntarily. They vote for Rolex with their own dollars. Given the current profitability of Rolex, I'd say they are succeeding in the marketplace.

A company's success doesn't reflect on another company's success or lack thereof. The other high quality watches mentioned in this thread stack up with or are superior to Rolexes across identifiable dimensions. That is the value of the discussion as I see it. I have learned more about what makes a high quality watch truly 'high quality.'

Not all purchasing decisions are made by 100% rational buyers. In fact, most purchases made by mostly rational buyers don't even approach 100% rationality. First of all, most buying decisions aren't made with 100% knowledge. First time watch buyers in their 30s typically don't have the breath and depth of knowledge to compare and contrast between twelve different kinds of high quality watches. Secondly, ultimately, it is up to the person with the money to make his or her own decision about how he or she spends it. Part of the joy of spending money is in getting what one believes one wants. Mistakes are made on occasion, but that doesn't change the dynamic.

I think people should allow for that and not cast aspersions on people who purchase any given product. Share with us the reasons why YOU wouldn't have made the purchase. The rest of us will benefit from those reasons, and perhaps the original purchaser will learn a few things as well. But to intimate that a person made a 'bad' decision, especially in regard to buying a Rolex, is unfounded. I think this is akin to flagellating someone who buys Oxxford OTR when he 'should' have bought Savile Row bespoke.

There are good reasons to buy Oxxford OTR, given the context of a buyers needs, wants, perceptions and circumstances. Rolex buyers are no different.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> The other high quality watches mentioned in this thread stack up with or are superior to Rolexes across identifiable dimensions. That is the value of the discussion as I see it. I have learned more about what makes a high quality watch truly 'high quality.'


Agree with the last part (I don't think Ball or Omega are not as well made) but to be clear, we are not saying that Rolex makes the best watches, simply that they make very, very good watches. Mathew is implying that Rolex is purely a marketing phenomena and many here believe that shortchanges the history and innovation and quality manufacture of Rolex.

I agree the value of the discussion is learning more. I'm certainly no expert on watches, but I think there is much to be learned by studying Rolex and all manufacturers to learn about movements which ultimately lead to a better understanding of what makes an automatic reliable.

Alas, watches are like audio in that strong myths and perceptions and opinions persist-some informed, some less so. The value of AAAC in my mind is the ability to slaughter some of the sacred cows out there that are misinforming people. The WIS crowd attitude toward Rolex and the sacred cow that "the Rolex movement is low quality" are two very prime targets I like to aim my gun at.


----------



## arturostevens

Showing pictures of pretty movements is not a way to make an argument on the merits of such movements. Rolex is a tool watch company. I think some cars with beautuful looking engines are dogs. I like my Omegas. Very nice watches. My father liked his Pateks and Gruens. 

But at the end of the day, the Rolex watches in my experience have been extremely beautiful, enjoyable, hardy, accurate and well serviced. We are not talking about 25K watches here for the most part. We are talking about 5K watches for the bulk of Rolex owners, and that is a pretty good deal in my book for what I have gotten. 

Maybe it is good marketing to remind people of charitable qualities, in house control of product, and a peerless history that none of the other houses can touch when it comes to wristwatches. Again, Dowling said it all very well. He is an historian. We are all "letters to the editor". History is not a hard science, but it is the next best thing.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> We are not talking about 25K watches here for the most part. We are talking about 5K watches for the bulk of Rolex owners, and that is a pretty good deal in my book for what I have gotten.


That's a good point. Exhibition backs and complications cost considerably more than the average Rolex.


----------



## Andre Yew

Artisan Fan said:


> That's a good point. Exhibition backs and complications cost considerably more than the average Rolex.


My JLC Master Hometime costs, out the door, about the same as a Rolex Sub.

--Andre


----------



## Artisan Fan

https://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=tree&goto=2655793&rid=0

Look at the last pic. This is the newer style bracelet that Rolex is using now on the DateJust. They are slowly rolling out this more substantial bracelet to most models.



> My JLC Master Hometime costs, out the door, about the same as a Rolex Sub.


Probably a good value.


----------



## Artisan Fan

The Hometime movement:

https://www.jaeger-lecoultre.com/viewModel.do?modelId=27

Not sure there is much more finishing on that over the Rolex movements.


----------



## memphislawyer

I do like the discussions and the way this is pretty well-mannered. I have the Rolex datejust and I will say I do like it as a tool watch. That is, it is not the best looking watch out there, but it holds up extremely well. I have banged it against walls and filing drawers and I wonder if some other watches I would like to have (Patek, JLC) would have been damaged.

Years ago, Rolex if I understand it started the widespread practice of waterproofing watches. By that, I do not mean to say they were the actual first, but as I understand it, they were the one watch that went down in a bathysphere and it withheld pressure and leaking and then they went down with a scuba diver to a certain depth and it worked. 

I dont compare a Rolex to a Patek with complications, and for me, it seems that the watches are meant for different purposes. The Rolex I would compare to the BMW/Mercedes car. Sure, each line has some impressive high dollar cars, as does Rolex. But there is not going to be the level of hand-detailing in a Mercedes as say a Rolls, and then that would be a Patek, or Audemars or even some JLC/Zenith and others.


----------



## ykurtz

Artisan Fan said:


> Alas, watches are like audio in that strong myths and perceptions and opinions persist-some informed, some less so. The value of AAAC in my mind is the ability to slaughter some of the sacred cows out there that are misinforming people. The WIS crowd attitude toward Rolex and the sacred cow that "the Rolex movement is low quality" are two very prime targets I like to aim my gun at.


Agreed. There appears to be a lot of one-upmanship, which could have been couched more amicably. But a lot of the argument reminds me of Miller Lite commercials: Less Filling, Tastes Great! Both are true (arguably), but one factor may be more meaningful to one drinker than another. I think this holds true for any high-priced luxury item, where differentiation is a lot about 'reputation'/'prestige' and where markups exist for business reasons.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Years ago, Rolex if I understand it started the widespread practice of waterproofing watches. By that, I do not mean to say they were the actual first, but as I understand it, they were the one watch that went down in a bathysphere and it withheld pressure and leaking and then they went down with a scuba diver to a certain depth and it worked.


Lots of history there, especially the Comex Submariners and the entire SeaDweller history has been initially geared around professional diving requirements. The SeaDweller is tested and certified to an astonishing 4,000 feet.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> But a lot of the argument reminds me of Miller Lite commercials: Less Filling, Tastes Great! Both are true (arguably), but one factor may be more meaningful to one drinker than another. I think this holds true for any high-priced luxury item, where differentiation is a lot about 'reputation'/'prestige' and where markups exist for business reasons.


I would agree with that. I value accuracy, reliability and resale value where some others might value complications, guilloche finishing, and others more.

I think Patek is very much a Rolls Royce product whereas Rolex is a Porsche. Two very different animals which are both luxuries and appeal to different segments of the marketplace.


----------



## norcaltransplant

Artisan Fan said:


> Agreed and there are many examples where the integration has led to better watches...the beauty of the rose gold watches for one. The ability to use 904L steel which is so difficult to stamp that special machines are used. The integration is paying dividends.


904L steel is not much different than 316L steel which is an industry standard. It's simply a matter of adding or subtracting nickel or magnesium rather than gradations of purity or quality. 904L has the reputation of being "harder", but again the distinction is more marketing tool rather than objective improvement. If Rolex truly wanted to produce a "hard" case they could offer a submariner in a ceramic versions a la IWC or Rado, who pioneered "super-hard" technology.


----------



## arturostevens

Artisan Fan, there is a history line somewhere involving Rolex that is quite interesting. Where have I seen that? Do you know? Can it be posted?


----------



## Don Goldstein

So how is Rolex doing - are they winning or losing the trial?


----------



## norcaltransplant

FWIW, the belief that Zenith provides good bang for the buck was true about four or five years ago. Since its acquisition by LVMH, prices have at least doubled with some models skyrocketing close to 250% in the same time period. There have been some improvements to case work, and an arguable decrease in design quality. Personally, I would think twice about buying a new Zenith or try searching the secondary market for a deal.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> 904L steel is not much different than 316L steel which is an industry standard.


This is incorrect. It is much more corrosion resistant but it also much more difficult to stamp. The extra costs of raw material and stamping discourage some from using it. 904L is much better than 316.



> Artisan Fan, there is a history line somewhere involving Rolex that is quite interesting. Where have I seen that? Do you know? Can it be posted?


I have not seen it outside some of my books. I will see if I can find it.


----------



## Artisan Fan

This site explains some differences in the steel:

https://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1022


----------



## Artisan Fan

Also, I just spoke to a watchmaker, apparently 904L is more scratch resistant as well.


----------



## dag2000

Artisan Fan said:


> https://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=tree&goto=2655793&rid=0
> 
> Look at the last pic. This is the newer style bracelet that Rolex is using now on the DateJust. They are slowly rolling out this more substantial bracelet to most models.


Looks like a nice bracelet, but I like the old Datejust look much more. Of course, the new DJ is nowhere near as ugly as the hideous Compressor series JLCs.


----------



## arturostevens

I actually like the new DJ TOG SS with white gold bezel with white or blue face. Nice sized DJ, dresses up or down, has the new bracelet and clasp, and is a stunner. This replaced the old Thunderbird TOG of several years back that also had a white gold bezel, but the detail on the bezel was quite small and seemed to be a scratch haven. So they improved on this watch and have really created a combo sports/dress watch that is very nice.


----------



## Artisan Fan

I might add that the new GMT II bracelet is really superb.

Arturo, like you I am fond of the white gold DJ. Very sharp in a jubilee bracelet which is another area they beefed up by moving to solid center links.


----------



## smlaz

*904L*

Is 904L really necessary in a $5000 wristwatch? Perhaps in a Sub or SeaDweller, but that's a stretch:
Applications
Typical applications include:
· Processing plant for sulphuric, phosphoric and acetic acids
· Pulp and paper processing
· Components in gas scrubbing plants
· Seawater cooling equipment
· Oil refinery components
· Wires in electrostatic precipitators

Can't think of too many guys who'd wear their Rolexes while working in a sulphuric acid processing plant or an oil refinery...


----------



## Artisan Fan

Here's a really cool movie of the 3135 which shows some of the finishing:


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Is 904L really necessary in a $5000 wristwatch?


Absolutely. It resists salt water corrosion and it is scratch resistant. A true innovation.


----------



## Andre Yew

Artisan Fan said:


> Here's a really cool movie of the 3135 which shows some of the finishing:


Let me get this straight. Earlier on you rejected some "fuzzy" pictures of a Rolex movement as evidence of their inferior finish, and now you want to use an even fuzzier movie with 2 seconds of footage of the movement as proof that they have nice finishing? The earlier pictures are far more informative and higher resolution than the movie, which is designed to show the movement in the best possible light.

--Andre


----------



## norcaltransplant

Artisan Fan said:


> Absolutely. It resists salt water corrosion and it is scratch resistant. A true innovation.


904L steel is really not a proprietary technology developed by Rolex, nor is it a substantial improvement on 316L steel. Rolex opted to change their cases for the purported improved corrosion protection from sweat, not salt water, that occurred between the contact of the bracelet to case to skin. Again, their decision to buck the industry and employ a different type of steel is more marketing than actual improvement. It's a quirk, similar to their use of sleeve bearings and signature-red teflon coated winding wheels.


----------



## Artisan Fan

Andre, why are you so grumpy? What's better than seeing a movement actually moving? The movie looks pretty good on my Dell laptop, even better on my iMac.

The pics posted by Mathew were not clear in any event. I've seen the 3135 in person and it is beautiful. The 4130 is even nicer.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> 904L steel is really not a proprietary technology developed by Rolex, nor is it a substantial improvement on 316L steel.


Norcal, you just don't seem to know much about watch manufacture. Even the Patek experts say the 904L steel is much better performing steel. The links I posted prove this in terms of measurable corrosion resistance and strength. It is also far more scratch resistant.

Rolex innovation in this area is in developing machines that can stamp this very hard steel into shape and polish it. The metallurgy is done by others although Rolex has been known to reject entire shipments for the slightest contamination.

It truly is an innovation and your unwillingness to concede this fact shows how desperate you are for anything to detract from Rolex quality. I guess this hurts your favorite watches in particular since they use 316L.


----------



## dag2000

smlaz said:


> Is 904L really necessary in a $5000 wristwatch? Perhaps in a Sub or SeaDweller, but that's a stretch:
> Applications
> Typical applications include:
> · Processing plant for sulphuric, phosphoric and acetic acids
> · Pulp and paper processing
> · Components in gas scrubbing plants
> · Seawater cooling equipment
> · Oil refinery components
> · Wires in electrostatic precipitators
> 
> Can't think of too many guys who'd wear their Rolexes while working in a sulphuric acid processing plant or an oil refinery...


I can't think of too many people who need to unbutton the buttons on their Oxxfords suits. Despite being on the anti-Rolex side, I give Rolex their due on this one. I like the unnecessarily overbuilt.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Despite being on the anti-Rolex side, I give Rolex their due on this one. I like the unnecessarily overbuilt.


If it helps reject salt spray and resist scratches, a compelling can be made that it is not overbuilt but simply built to a higher standard.


----------



## dag2000

Artisan Fan said:


> If it helps reject salt spray and resist scratches, a compelling can be made that it is not overbuilt but simply built to a higher standard.


Either way, I like it.


----------



## Artisan Fan

I might add that the Rolex website film on 904L also suggests that Rolex likes the fact it is highly polishable for a brilliant finish.


----------



## norcaltransplant

Artisan Fan said:


> Norcal, you just don't seem to know much about watch manufacture. Even the Patek experts say the 904L steel is much better performing steel.


Where did Patek make this statement? Like I said, the actual steel adds nominal value with regards to performance to the case durability and longevity. Secondly, I would venture that more companies do not use 904L steel, not because of cost-cutting or limited technology, but because the added corrosion resistance that's conferred by the mixture of nickel and copper, makes the casebacks more allergenic.

EDIT: FWIW, you can even buy fakes for 1/4 of Rolex's retail WITH 904L steel and Swiss movements.
See: https://www.swissreplica.co.za/faq.htm I despise fake watches, but it proves the point that 904L cases can be made at a reasonable cost.


----------



## Artisan Fan

I have several watch friends that collect Patek watches. They do believe this use of 904L steel is clearly better for casework. But it is expensive. At the Tampa GTG some members had been to Rolex and saw the stamping machine which they said "shook the building". Anything that difficult to work with is going to add costs. I can't speak to where the cost savings come from on cheap knock-offs.

Where is your evidence that 904L casebacks are more allergenic? If 904L steel can be more finely polished, might that make it less allergenic? I think we have very well established that 904L steel is better in the above discussion.

It's pointless to argue with you Norcal as you don't want to be confused with any facts as you have made up your mind about Rolex. No amount of evidence will convince you regardless of how many experts on TimeZone or Purists agree with that evidence.


----------



## arturostevens

Just go put one of those new DJ TOG's on with the solid links. They are really stunning...really nice. I have the new LV SUB....my AD called me and basically gave me a great deal on it as I have done a lot of biz there....but I am slowly growing to a DJ guy I think...the TOG to be specific. I came to this forum already firmly a Rolex guy, added a shell cordovan habit to my other already Trad eccentricities, and now I am like a California Improved OKIE (a term for Oregonians of which I am one). And my wrists sweat profusely in the defense of the Rollie, and so I am glad for the newly improved steel that puts the others to shame.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Just go put one of those new DJ TOG's on with the solid links.


The TOGs are nice but I'm hoping Basel might bring a less expensive GMT II in a non-gold color. I really like the ceramic bezel.


----------



## norcaltransplant

Artisan Fan said:


> I have several watch friends that collect Patek watches. They do believe this use of 904L steel is clearly better for casework. But it is expensive. At the Tampa GTG some members had been to Rolex and saw the stamping machine which they said "shook the building". Anything that difficult to work with is going to add costs. I can't speak to where the cost savings come from on cheap knock-offs.


Patek did NOT make this statement, a few of their fans did. 904L steel is approximately x3 more expensive than 316L steel. Raw materials, however, contribute very little to the cost of watches or jewelry (most of the manufacturing cost is tied to specialized labor). E.g. Rose gold models approximately x3 steel models. Even if gold was $800/ounce, 18k gold watch cases would still have a substantial margin. Rolex might justify the increased cost on their S/S watches to the investment in technology required to stamp cases--I believe this to be partially true, as Rolex is the number #1 large volume producer of Swiss watches, but stating that other companies haven't "upgraded" to 904L casebacks is a matter of choice rather than capability.



> Where is your evidence that 904L casebacks are more allergenic? If 904L steel can be more finely polished, might that make it less allergenic? I think we have very well established that 904L steel is better in the above discussion.


Again, you missed my point. I stated that the added nickel and copper, particularly nickel, makes 904L steel more prone to allergic reactions. Harder - yes. More corrosion resistant - yes. Practical difference in horological applications - probably, but excluding potential customers for a marginal performance increase hasn't appealed to ANY competitors.



> It's pointless to argue with you Norcal as you don't want to be confused with any facts as you have made up your mind about Rolex. No amount of evidence will convince you regardless of how many experts on TimeZone or Purists agree with that evidence.


Rolex polarizes people. Timezone makes particular note of this phenomenon. The Purists devotes less discussion to Rolex due to their general interest in promoting the art of horology rather than durability/sport angle promoted by Rolex. As far as my opinions on Rolex are concerned, I never criticized the company or the strength of their watches--reliability, simple design, high resale value; instead, my criticism of this thread is directed at the marketing and belief systems promoted by the Rolex company.

Rolex undoubtedly makes a great product, but not a product that averages a 10% price hike every year. Their recent innovations, as the largest luxury watch company in the world, are average at best. Improvements that should merit pride, like the incorporation of silicon hairsprings and the Breguet overcoil, are often less publicized as compared to their use of proprietary "super-hard" 904L steel.

EDIT: Secondly, my other issue with discussing Rolex is that their fans usually have very limited first-hand experience with other brands--both less and more expensive. The discussions center on Rolex movements, cases, etc. rather than a honest comparison with similarly priced peers. With a 5-7k budget, watch companies have developed MANY different strategies for designing interesting and marketable products. For example, at 8mm, as much as you love the 3135, is comparable to the Valjoux 7750, a chronograph movement, with regards to size. Fully cased, a JLC Master Ultra Thin is <5mm. Completely different design philosophies, but to argue that the Rolex is as elegant as the JLC is simply ridiculous.

Point II: My criticism isn't simply limited to Rolex for their successful marketing--Panerai is actually on the top of Dislike List for their stamped ebauches in 4k watches.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Patek did NOT make this statement, a few of their fans did.


I said Patek experts, not Patek the company. Does that make it incorrect? Do you think Patek would disagree? They partner with Rolex.



> 904L steel is approximately x3 more expensive than 316L steel. Raw materials, however, contribute very little to the cost of watches or jewelry (most of the manufacturing cost is tied to specialized labor


So now you are agreeing with me that this steel is more expensive? And as I have said working with this steel is more complex, what about the extra costs of that?



> but stating that other companies haven't "upgraded" to 904L casebacks is a matter of choice rather than capability


It may be a choice but it is one for lower quality. You have to give Rolex credit where credit is due.



> I stated that the added nickel and copper, particularly nickel, makes 904L steel more prone to allergic reactions.


I have never heard of this before and you have presented no evidence of this.



> Rolex undoubtedly makes a great product, but not a product that averages a 10% price hike every year.


These price hikes do not occur every year and they sell every watch they make so the business model seems to work well.



> Improvements that should merit pride, like the incorporation of silicon hairsprings and the Breguet overcoil, are often less publicized as compared to their use of proprietary "super-hard" 904L steel.


I discuss these a lot on the boards, but perhaps Rolex believes other innovations might be easier to explain to a consumer. I certainly would like to see the hairspring and overcoil talked about more on their website.

The past few pages here have been about Mathew's comments that Rolex is 100% marketing phenomena; that is simply not true.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> my criticism of this thread is directed at the marketing and belief systems promoted by the Rolex company


I'm curious what "belief systems"? To earn a profit? To then give it away to charitable trusts?


----------



## norcaltransplant

Jewelry with nickel may cause allergic dermatitis.



I'm sleepy, if I have time tommorow, I can discuss the relative cost of raw materials as it relates to the final product, and the Rolex sales scheme. For example, Rolex sell ALL of their watches because they push pieces onto their authorized dealers.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Jewelry with nickel may cause allergic dermatitis.


It's quite a leap to jump from here to saying a specific watch case will cause problems. Do you think Rolex would risk its reputation with allergic consumers?



> For example, Rolex sell ALL of their watches because they push pieces onto their authorized dealers.


Would dealers be fighting to become ADs if it were not profitable to be one?


----------



## ykurtz

*Kill Rolex, Die, Die, Die, Die*



norcaltransplant said:


> Jewelry with nickel may cause allergic dermatitis.
> 
> I'm sleepy, if I have time tommorow, I can discuss the relative cost of raw materials as it relates to the final product, and the Rolex sales scheme. For example, Rolex sell ALL of their watches because they push pieces onto their authorized dealers.


Wow, you're really on a mission to dissuade all Rolex purchases from now onwards. It's rare to see such passion. I'm curious to understand your reasons, but I do not want to see them piecemeal on this thread. Could you just send me your polemic via PM. I would very much like to read it. I've been wrong about things in the past but I have never been as wrong as you would like me to believe. However, I would like to give your argument a fair shake. I don't work for Rolex and have no vested interest in the company.


----------



## Mathew J

Artisan Fan said:


> I might add that the Rolex website film on 904L also suggests that Rolex likes the fact it is highly polishable for a brilliant finish.


LOL, referring back to the manufacturer drivel to prove a point, priceless.

First thing first, to address arturo, there pretty pictures were just a vehicle to show finish, which was what the discussion of the moment revolved around, not about functionality and or durability, Also if you had read my back posts you would see that there is no doubt in my mind about the merits of Rolex and their movements from a functional standpoint (though their use of that rotor bushing which when wears will cause damage to the movement is a bit suspect IMHO), however when spending this kind of cash on a watch (lowest priced model is what now upwards of $4K?) I would expect something that is more than just utilitarian in finish and workmanship, but then again that is me.

As for Artisan, it is interesting how you are quick to label norcal or anyone who disagrees with your Rolex fanboyism as ignorant of watches...as someone who is a self proclaimed member of timezone and the purists I must conclude you are either new to those fora, or just close your eyes and ignore that discussion which revolves around these topics when you don't want to read it...

The fact is that for every practical purpose 904 steel is no better than 316 grade steel, as norcal said the main benefit would be to reduce the corrosion caused by perspiration between the caseback and the case, however I have even seen 904 grade Rolex watches which suffer from this type of damage...go figure.

And to believe anything that the Rolex marketing machine says IMHO is a bit funny as again they for years said it took a year to make one of their watches...just a laugh IMHO.

I also still don't know were you are comming from with regards to cases of Rolex being "better" last I checked most major swiss houses that produce tool pieces were stamping their cases out of a soild block and using similar systems for caseback application and or crown systems and all were waterproof to about the same degree?


----------



## Mathew J

ykurtz said:


> Wow, you're really on a mission to dissuade all Rolex purchases from now onwards. It's rare to see such passion. I'm curious to understand your reasons, but I do not want to see them piecemeal on this thread. Could you just send me your polemic via PM. I would very much like to read it. I've been wrong about things in the past but I have never been as wrong as you would like me to believe. However, I would like to give your argument a fair shake. I don't work for Rolex and have no vested interest in the company.


Ykurtz,

if you post on enthusiast boards you will bump into someone like Artisan and it can be very frustrating, I used to be somewhat like this when I was in my pro Rolex stage and only through owning a few of them did I learn how wrong I was.

Norcal seems to know a good deal more about the industry than Artisan in my opinion, but trying to have a logical discussion with someone using company marketing speak and just insists on spreading mis information is difficult.

As for his comment on nicke reactions, they are true, very few have reported them but they do happen.


----------



## Mathew J

Artisan Fan said:


> These price hikes do not occur every year and they sell every watch they make so the business model seems to work well.


Not true, if so why do so many end up on the secondary market "new" just like other brands.



> The past few pages here have been about Mathew's comments that Rolex is 100% marketing phenomena; that is simply not true.


I never said that, I said alot of what makes up Rolex is due to aggressive marketing, however some of it was luck and smart business, and then again some is a decent product.



Artisan Fan said:


> I would agree with that. I value accuracy, reliability and resale value where some others might value complications, guilloche finishing, and others more.


and if this is the case then I would say for you if bought right Rolex is the perfect choice, then again I hardly consider someone with only those criteria in mind as somone truly interested in watches or rather horology.

As for the mention of the trust thing again, Artisan my problem isn't with the way it is structured but rather with the postings of enthusiasts such as yourself, who spread mis information again and again on this subject, leading the reader to believe that Rolex is in some way a benevolent corporation simply because their financials aren't disclosed and are split up between two trusts given charitable status...


----------



## dag2000

You cannot "prove" Rolex an inferior product. Personal preferences aren't rational, nor are values. One may find the Rolex marketing message offputting; that doesn't make it objectively offensive or otherwise in any way objectively problematic. One could argue that the marketing of any luxury product is an appeal to status, the only difference is whether this is done implicitly (Patek) or explicitly (Rolex). I find both offputting.

I like the Rolex Sub. In the past, the bracelets were atrocious at that price point. But at that price point even with a good bracelet, I'd rather have other watches. It's that simple.


----------



## Mathew J

dag2000 said:


> You cannot "prove" Rolex an inferior product. Personal preferences aren't rational, nor are values. One may find the Rolex marketing message offputting; that doesn't make it objectively offensive or otherwise in any way objectively problematic. One could argue that the marketing of any luxury product is an appeal to status, the only difference is whether this is done implicitly (Patek) or explicitly (Rolex). I find both offputting.


To some extent I agree with this, which is why in my initial response I said that taste and preference was subjective...however with regards to the marketing angle there is either marketing which is "on the level" in my book, or that which treads the line between bs and reality...their "it takes a year" campaign, "steel quality", and now from what I have heard one dealing with how tight they screw on their caseback IMHO is a bunch of bs designed to make customers like Artisan truly believe their watches are better due to these trivialities that amount to nothing. A company with a solid product and price structure shouldn't have to resort to such trickery IMHO.



> I like the Rolex Sub. In the past, the bracelets were atrocious at that price point. But at that price point even with a good bracelet, I'd rather have other watches. It's that simple.


I have a Sub, and honestly it is only OK, paid upwards of 4.5K for it two years ago thinking it would be my end all be all watch...never happens with Rolex, I always find some detail or flaw which I find annoying with their watches, always it is a quality control problem, and every time I feel like I paid far too much for too little in return.

IMHO Rolex makes an ok watch, but nowhere near worth what they charge for them and there are plenty of other watchmakers out there who do as well or better for a fraction of the cost, if you have to have a Rolex then more power to you but as someone who has bought and been disappointed with three I am sure in the fact now that Rolex is not the watch for me...just wish some of the mythcial resale would kick in as I have already lost over eleven hundred dollars in just selling Rolex, my sub stands to net me over a twelve hundred loss alone...for that kind of money in losses I could have bought one heck of a nice speedmaster pro, a watch with arguably much better history and pedigree than any Rolex....

On a side note, here are some Rolex movement reviews....

https://www.timezone.com/library/horologium/horologium0036

https://people.timezone.com/mdisher/andrewb/3135/3135_1.htm


----------



## norcaltransplant

Artisan Fan said:


> It's quite a leap to jump from here to saying a specific watch case will cause problems. Do you think Rolex would risk its reputation with allergic consumers?


Marginal increases in nickel content should not cause largescale problems with consumers, it does, however, increase the likelihood of allergic reactions for those individuals with steel sensitivities. FWIW, men are less likely to undergo sensitization to steel vis a vis fewer body piercings than women. Anyways, Rolex's decision to alter the steel in their casebacks for a marginal improvement in performance strikes me as a matter of being different rather than innovative.



> Would dealers be fighting to become ADs if it were not profitable to be one?


The jewelry business is a profitable industry. Dealers, especially in mid-sized markets, are obligated to carry Rolex to stay afloat. The parent company is keen to recognize this dependance and places stringent demands on their sales outlets--e.g. no more than 10% discounts, all pieces must be purchased from Rolex to maintain AD status, etc. From the perspective of a potential buyer, the capital that is tied up in some languishing MOP dial, two-tone Datejust with diamond markers, would be better distributed through a secondary line--like an Oris, Longines, Baume & Mercier, heck, even Tudor. How often do buyers choose Rolex because they have no comparable priced options? My own family would be prime example of this phenomenon.

Prices are routinely scaled upward to maintain the secondary market. All in all, its a wonderful business strategy, but again, Rolex does a better job of maintaining its financials than reinvesting or upgrading their product.


----------



## dag2000

Mathew J said:


> their "it takes a year" campaign, "steel quality", and now from what I have heard one dealing with how tight they screw on their caseback IMHO is a bunch of bs designed to make customers like Artisan truly believe their watches are better due to these trivialities that amount to nothing.


I think it is important to keep our discussion focused on the products, companies, ad campaigns, and so forth and away from the personal as the latter threatens the comity of the board in general and this thread in particular.


----------



## norcaltransplant

> It truly is an innovation and your unwillingness to concede this fact shows how desperate you are for anything to detract from Rolex quality. I guess this hurts your favorite watches in particular since they use 316L.


I'd be happy to trade you a superior Rolex Submariner in 904L for a Patek Aquanaut in humble ole' 316.



Artisan Fan said:


> It's pointless to argue with you Norcal as you don't want to be confused with any facts as you have made up your mind about Rolex. No amount of evidence will convince you regardless of how many experts on TimeZone or Purists agree with that evidence.


Ok, no more arguing. We approach watches from two completely different perspectives.


----------



## Artisan Fan

Mathew,

It seems you really had a bad experience with Rolex and that is amazing to me as I have worked with ADs in Boston, NYC, and Atlanta and always received great service. I have also never heard of flaws in the final product among any of my local watch friends who own maybe collectively three dozen various Rolex models. I can only say that this appears to be a rare event, in fact all my friends with the watch have received great treatment from the Rolex Service Centers every time. That is one of the strengths of a large company. I have a friend who works for a Glashutte dealer and he tells me horror stories about their customer service.

Unfortunately this does impact your view of the world. Take this statement you mentioned earlier where you claim Rolex does not make a tool watch. That would be news to anyone on TZ or Purists:



> I disagree with the notion that Rolex makes and sells tool watches, in fact they stopped doing that in the late 70s, they make tool style luxury watches (least that is how they are marketed and priced) and that is what I expect them to live up to...if I wanted a true tool watch I would shop for a G shock or a Seiko, rather something I would use as a tool and I certainly wouldn't spend thousands of dollars on it.


Fact is Rolex watches are meant to be durable for people from scuba instructors to military where the abuse is high from the normal daily job. I think this is one reason of many why Arturo and I like the brand, our routines are simply hard on a watch.

The second evidence would be you and Norcal's failure to acknowledge the benefit of 904L steel. Everyone I talk to in the watch business feels this is a real benefit and innovation. The independent web site I linked to earlier clearly shows metrics where the 904L is both tougher and more corrosion resistant. That is why it is used for heavy applications like the chemical industry.

Third, you continue to claim that Rolex is not a non-profit. By anyone's definition in finance (which is where I work, I consult for big banks), any organization that has 100% of its shares in charitable trusts is a non-profit. Is there a profit margin, yes. Does it go anywhere but to charity? No, except for a small dividend to the Wilsdorf heirs. So you have watches that sell for arguably high prices, produces profits, but generate a lot of good. Sounds like capitalism at its best to me.

Fourth, you have not shown any proof that the finishing on the movement is sub-standard. You said:



> As for Artisan's remarks on Ball, I just don't know how much "worse" one can get in movement finish than Rolex


Pictures of the 3135 and 4130 (Daytona) have many well finished parts from polished balance bridges to quality gear trains. The inside look of even fuzzy photos shows no difference in quality of manufacture than the Omega pictures and those of other watches except those costing much more. The inclusion of the overcoil hairspring, Kif shock absorption, Microstella balance screws, and many other parts are similar to what you would find on other watches in this and much higher price categories. In fact Gene Stone, in his book The Watch, said the 3135 was the most reliable automatic movement made in large volume that had such features. He named the 3135 to his list of most important movements.

Fifth, you don't give any credit to Rolex for resale value. This has been clearly established over time. Patek and Rolex are perennial leaders in this area. My humble Datejust was purchased in 1986 for $2K and is now worth $4K-I just turned down an offer to buy which was tempting but the watch was my dad's so there is too much sentimental value to part.

So it seems no matter who compelling the argument is, you are still not going to agree that Rolex makes a great watch.

That's your personal opinion but it does take away from the fact that Rolex makes a great watch.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Rolex does a better job of maintaining its financials than reinvesting or upgrading their product.


I'm not sure about that. In a large company, there is the freedom to invest more dollars. Rolex made substantial investments in the 3135 and 4130 movements, the creation of the Patek-Bregeut-Rolex silicon balance spring, the introduction of the Cellini line Prince watch including a completely new movement for same, and the further integration of its supply chain. They now own and control the dial manufacture firm, the case manufacture firm, and the company that makes the crystals for their watches. That's billions of dollars of invested capital over time.

As for the Authorized Dealers, my understanding is this is something that is fought for. Many ADs have remained with Rolex for a long time, so I can only assume the marketing and profit benefits outweigh the costs of carrying some inventory.

Rolex makes watches that it does incrementally evolve over time. It is a continual perfecting process. This may not lead to a slew of new models with any frequency but it does reinforce the quality and utility of its existing line and there is a big benefit...it creates classic watches like the Submariner and Daytona that really hold their value. Not the only way to do model releases and improvement but one that seems to work.


----------



## Mathew J

I would have to follow suit with norcal and admit that it is pretty obvious we have two very different outlooks and or priorities when looking at "haute horology"...though I would add that at one time I was much like you Artisan, a strong defender of all that is Rolex, and thankfully because of honest expereince with the company I have since broadened my horizons and no longer view the company with the rose colored glasses as I once did.

I also would clarify that I have never had a bad experience with a dealer, rather my negative experiences were always with their New York Service center, speficially a manager who will go unnamed on these forums. I also have seen countless examples of finished product reaching the customer with notable quality "flaws"...a few to mention were an anniversary green submariner with the wrong minute hand installed, a Turn o Graph Datejust that was missing the text "Turn o Graph" from the dial, a Daytona with one of its arabics on the dial printed upside down, a GMT master with the text mis applied on the dial so the M looked crooked, and countless examples of sloppy luminova application, so many that I lost count ages ago.

As far as my tool watch statement, I think that at one time they made a tool watch, and because of their situation they were able to keep this design up to the present day, however I also feel the days of tool mechanical watches are long long gone, much like using a fountain pen for pure utility when clearly the ballpoint is a far more practical choice (my other vice is high end pens, please don't tell me you enjoy Montblanc)...someone high up at Rolex once even said that they don't so much sell watches any longer as they do image and status. The fact is that these things aren't used for their utility, they are purchased by the well to do and they are essentially jewelery, and they have been so for a good long time now.

And the 904 Steel comment is something I don't see worth commenting on, for me and for many others in the various watch communities it is a non issue, the fact is that no one will ever see any practical benefit from the use of that grade of steel As norcal points out that even Patek in their Aquanaut only use lowly 316....as do Vacheron, JLC, IWC, Omega, Panerai, and countless other manufacturers of watches...are you suggesting that these brands and or products are "inferior" to Rolex simply because of their steel grade? you should also note that most vintage watches didn't even use 316 grade, if fact many used 304 and I believe lower...so even 316 is an upgrade over that which was the previous standard.

As for the "not for profit", I guess I am not as optimistic as you are, personally I have a hard time believing the company is simply a "beneficial" organization, especially with their pricing structure...I think their trust situation was something designed more for tax purposes as well as other perks that the company could afford to do given their financial situation than much else. But if you want to believe that they are a "charity" and make nothing yet give it all away to the needy then by all means go for it, just realize that you will be in the minority with that thought.

For the movement comments, I said at their price point the finishing is utilitarian at best where someone would expect more, the fact is that Rolex does little to nothing in the way of finish work on many of their watches yet they charge a pretty high premium for them, often lesser priced companies/products have better finish work...and there is a bit of a difference between "reliable" and finished well, a Seiko is highly reliable yet I wouldn't say that most of their generic automatics were finished to a high degree...just as I would say that the 313X series Rolex is highly reliable (with proper maintenance as if not that rotor bearing causes damage) but I wouldn't say they went out of their way to do any real finish work.

And finally as for resale value, well like I said, I have lost more selling my Rolex watches than I ever would have if I bought other brands at normal discounts....that is a fact.

You don't have to buy a Rolex to get accuracy, reliability, and resale value, you can get that with many other brands if you buy from a dealer that is willing to work with you...

I would say good luck getting someone to give you four thousand for your datejust, just because MSRP is that high doesn't mean your real world price will be even close to that, at best you might break even with what you initially paid for that piece but you also have to consider what you have paid for service over the years and factor that into the final number, datejusts aren't very popular though on the secondary market.

If you want to hold onto something for decade upon decade then sure Rolex does well for resale, but in the short term the losses are just as great if not larger than others bought at 30% off list (which is typically the normal discount)


Artisan, I am only saying that Rolex is ok, but in my opinion from having owned three, and contributed on various watch boards for upwards of the past seven plus years, along with owning a few other brands and examining thousands of other peices, they aren't that special nor are they worth even remotely what the company is asking to me...if you think they are worth it and you enjoy them then more power to you as everyone has to decide what they want and enjoy.


----------



## Mathew J

Artisan Fan said:


> I'm not sure about that. In a large company, there is the freedom to invest more dollars. Rolex made substantial investments in the 3135 and 4130 movements, the creation of the Patek-Bregeut-Rolex silicon balance spring, the introduction of the Cellini line Prince watch including a completely new movement for same, and the further integration of its supply chain. They now own and control the dial manufacture firm, the case manufacture firm, and the company that makes the crystals for their watches. That's billions of dollars of invested capital over time.


The 4130 yes but only because they had to as they saw their days of using the Zenith caliber were numbered when Tag started making motions to acquire the company. The 31XX on the other hand is a bit of an antiquated design, something that hasn't been updated in a while and could stand for it, at least in the area of their rotor mount which is a common area of criticism/concern.

The new Cellini line from everything I have read and seen is a joke, of everyone I know that could easily afford one and enjoys Rolex, everyone says they seem cheap (especially the straps) and they look horrible.

Won't comment so much on the rest as it is seemingly irrelevant, they just bought up their suppliers which is no different than Swatch group.



> As for the Authorized Dealers, my understanding is this is something that is fought for. Many ADs have remained with Rolex for a long time, so I can only assume the marketing and profit benefits outweigh the costs of carrying some inventory.


Not really, in the late 80s, early 90s Rolex cleaned house of many dealers, specifically those who were too generous in discounting to the customer...they kept the larger, higher profile dealers who had a history of sticking to the MSRP...because of this alot of good Rolex dealers lost their status, also during this period they cut back on parts accounts to various shops, the motivation was to "standardize" service and eventually mandate that everyone use a factory center...however they quickly realized that their three factory centers couldn't handle all of the work and they loosened up this practice a bit. But norcal is right, in order for a dealer to get the good pieces which sell they have to buy a certain percentage of models which are slow sellers (gold or whatever)...the bigger dealers (all that is left for the most part) typically don't have a problem with this as the foot traffic Rolex brings in is seen as worth it.



> Rolex makes watches that it does incrementally evolve over time. It is a continual perfecting process. This may not lead to a slew of new models with any frequency but it does reinforce the quality and utility of its existing line and there is a big benefit...it creates classic watches like the Submariner and Daytona that really hold their value. Not the only way to do model releases and improvement but one that seems to work.


As I said before the only reason why they could take this approach is because they were the only game in town for upwards of 20 years due to a really smart and lucky move in the late 70s, instead of trying to compete with the japanese in the quartz revolution they decided they would sell luxury accessories and price their products as such, something similar happened with Montblanc...luckily for them it worked and while everyone else was licking their wounds from trying to actually compete on a technical level Rolex was basking in their laurel resting glory as they realized they didn't have to do anything  their competiton was wiped out for the time being. Only now with more people getting aware of other brands and the demand for high end watches that aren't Rolex on the rise do we see the company making moves to upgrade their watches on a substantial level.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> I would have to follow suit with norcal and admit that it is pretty obvious we have two very different outlooks and or priorities when looking at "haute horology"


We may actually have similar views in that I also value the JLC and Pateks of the world with respect to their craftmanship of complicated watches. I just feel that lack of an orientation to such pieces does not keep Rolex from producing a fine watch in its own way with more focus on reliability and other areas of manufacture.



> I also would clarify that I have never had a bad experience with a dealer, rather my negative experiences were always with their New York Service center, speficially a manager who will go unnamed on these forums.


Maybe he should be named by way of a public service to this community?

Again, I'm sorry you have had such difficulty. I think Rolex would view that as unacceptable. I've seen many good and a few bad reports of the NYC RSC on the TimeZone Rolex forum.



> my other vice is high end pens, please don't tell me you enjoy Montblanc


No actually I hate my Montblanc pen. Does not write well at all. See we can agree on some things. 



> And again for the "not for profit", like I said, if it takes that to make you be content in your Rolex purchase


I would not be content if I did not like the product performance but I do consider it a neat aspect of the company. I inherited my watch so I really can't complain.



> are you suggesting that these brands and or products are "inferior" to Rolex simply because of their steel grade?


I honestly believe 904L is an advantage in this area. I spoke to a dealer today and he believes part of the reason Rolex went to this was due to some minor "pitting" they see on vintage cases at the RSCs. 904L he told me does not "pit" and can be polished up a bit better so he feels Rolex sees some value and cost savings in the long run.



> For the movement comments, I said at their price point the finishing is utilitarian at best where someone would expect more


Honest disagreement here. I've seen a few movements at this price point and Rolex is on par with offerings from the boutiques in terms of parts quality, construction and finishing, with some exception for nicely polished exhibition backs at a slightly higher price point $6-7K.



> And finally as for resale value, well like I said, I have lost more selling my Rolex watches than I ever would have if I bought other brands at normal discounts....that is a fact.


Fair enough, but that is probably dependent on the fact that you have not held the watches for a long period of time.



> I would say good luck getting someone to give you four thousand for your datejust, just because MSRP is that high doesn't mean your real world price


I've had three offers from collectors; I'm not going from current MSRP at all. I'm not selling anyway, too much memory of my dad in this one. 



> they aren't that special nor are they worth even remotely what the company is asking to me...if you think they are worth it and you enjoy them then more power to you as everyone has to decide what they want and enjoy.


When I got into watches, I wanted to just learn what was good manufacturing as I thought I could only get that from Patek Philippe and the like which was beyond my current budget. As I bought books on watches, attended watch shows, and met experts and collectors of Patek, Panerai, Rolex, and Lange I slowly began to realize the bias in the WIS community against Rolex is unfair as they do in fact create a nice movement of quality. I hope I have added value on this forum by sharing some of what I have learned along the way. I think AAAC is about sharing knowledge in a constructive way so that we can learn from more experienced members and help those who have not had a journey make better choices in their purchases.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Not really, in the late 80s, early 90s Rolex cleaned house of many dealers, specifically those who were too generous in discounting to the customer...they kept the larger, higher profile dealers who had a history of sticking to the MSRP...


As an owner, I would view this as a good thing as 1. they are keeping the better dealers and perhaps upgrading, and 2. they are managing prices which help me have more choices in upgrading and selling down the road.



> Only now with more people getting aware of other brands and the demand for high end watches that aren't Rolex on the rise do we see the company making moves to upgrade their watches on a substantial level.


Not exactly fair as Rolex upgraded their watches from the 70s to the 80s very consistently even when they dominated the market.


----------



## tbabes

MatthewJ -- I have come to the conclusion that you are no longer a big fan of Rolex, so on to other important matters -- who is your favorite shoemaker?


----------



## Artisan Fan

> I have come to the conclusion that you are no longer a big fan of Rolex, so on to other important matters -- who is your favorite shoemaker?


:thumbs-up:


----------



## Mathew J

tbabes said:


> MatthewJ -- I have come to the conclusion that you are no longer a big fan of Rolex, so on to other important matters -- who is your favorite shoemaker?


That is a toughie, and actually one of the reasons I went looking for this board...

I am currently in the market for a nicer pair of shoes as my field does not dictate that I dress in a suit, however I have found that in certain situations looking a bit nicer would have been beneficial...

Some people I know suggested I look at Allen Edmonds and I was seriously considering them?

Are they any good or are there other brands I should consider? I had a few pairs of Johnston and Murphey's but found them to be pretty horrible quality and have since stopped buying.

Thanks


----------



## arturostevens

Mathew, I have never ever had a bad experience with Rolex service. They have bent over backwards for virtually everyone I know. And it sounds like those sloppy watches you mentioned could be fakes. If not, Rolex is great about getting that kind of thing fixed up. I have had virtually flawless watches from Rolex. I cannot imagine an AD keeping a watch like that under its counter, and how on earth would a discerning consumer buy one??? A wrong hand? Missing letters? And they bought it? Sounds like the typical fakes to me. It also sounds too wierd and not terribly credible to me.

Also, I don't think it is a market thing. If you can spend over 5K for a watch, you can hop on a jet and go to a big city and look at the other selections. I have done that. I just prefer the Rolex for all the historical and factual bases set out in Dowling's very accurate article. Again, all of this is editorial stuff. History and validating experience speaks more to me. 

Which series Sub did you have and what series other watches did you have that made you so unhappy with such a great product? I am not bowled over naively by marketing. I can buy whatever watch I want, and to me, what you get for 5k from Rolex is a pretty good deal overall.


----------



## Mathew J

Artisan Fan said:


> Maybe he should be named by way of a public service to this community?


Don't know if this is kosher but the guy's name was Gregory Kraff, he was the service manager for Rolex NY, I have dealt with him on two occasions, the first was with my Explorer, he oversaw the whole restoration after they screwed up and even with him watching the project they still left material under the crystal again and they never sent me a refund for my out of pocket shipping expenses (wrote that off as a loss), the second time he sent me a letter telling me tough noogie...that I as the buyer should have been doing their job of quality control for them...I chuckled at that one and really wasn't surprised.



> No actually I hate my Montblanc pen. Does not write well at all. See we can agree on some things.


Woah, see we do have something in common...I have owned upwards of twenty montblanc pens, all of them were "ok" but nothing spectacular, and my fountains were poor writers. I have two left as they were gifts from my wife, the rest are sold.



> I honestly believe 904L is an advantage in this area. I spoke to a dealer today and he believes part of the reason Rolex went to this was due to some minor "pitting" they see on vintage cases at the RSCs. 904L he told me does not "pit" and can be polished up a bit better so he feels Rolex sees some value and cost savings in the long run.


This is good but like I said I have seen examples of 904 based Rolex watches which show signs of pitting damage, so to say it "doesn't pit" seems a bit short sighted, remember they only switched to 904 in 89, and Rolex watches really haven't been used in the same capacity as they were in the 60s and 70s...also vintage Rolex were 304 steel, not 316, it is my understanding that 304 is far less corrosion resistant than 316.



> Fair enough, but that is probably dependent on the fact that you have not held the watches for a long period of time.


True, longest I have kept one is only two years, I will admit that if you keep it decades or what not then Rolex should do pretty well, but if you are like me and flip in the short term then you lose either way...stinks for me 



> I slowly began to realize the bias in the WIS community against Rolex is unfair as they do in fact create a nice movement of quality.


It has changed alot since I started, when I first was posting in 2000 it was impossible to like Rolex and not get reamed, ironically that was when I loved everything Rolex...fast forward to now with popularity on the boards growing and there is alot more acceptance and or appreciation for Rolex, I find those who don't like the brand are often chastized for not being open minded...I guess I just always like going against the grain 

Personally I think Rolex makes an Ok watch, just not one that is "worth" what they charge, if they offered discounts or if they had a competitior to keep their prices in check I might not be so opinionated, but as it currently stands I find much better values in brands like IWC and Omega, then again like I said it is all about what you as an individual enjoy.

Always love a good discussion, thanks


----------



## Mathew J

arturostevens said:


> Mathew, I have never ever had a bad experience with Rolex service. They have bent over backwards for virtually everyone I know. And it sounds like those sloppy watches you mentioned could be fakes. If not, Rolex is great about getting that kind of thing fixed up. I have had virtually flawless watches from Rolex. I cannot imagine an AD keeping a watch like that under its counter, and how on earth would a discerning consumer buy one??? A wrong hand? Missing letters? And they bought it? Sounds like the typical fakes to me. It also sounds too wierd and not terribly credible to me.


None of them were fakes, I even knew two of the buyers, the others were being sold by very highly reputable sellers...the guy with the minute hand issue was a regular poster on Timezone and a few other Rolex forums, he bought it from an Authorised dealer in Massachusetts, Springfield area to be exact. The other with the Turn O graph missing text was another forum regular who bought from a highly regarded dealer in Washington DC (the only one I believe in the city)...Alot of the enthusiasts have the watches shipped to them so they can save on sales tax, or something small like a minute hand might get missed in the excitement of the moment. I have an image collage of all the problems I have seen that pop up in forums but I don't bother posting it any more as it gets the Rolex guys all upset.



> Also, I don't think it is a market thing. If you can spend over 5K for a watch, you can hop on a jet and go to a big city and look at the other selections. I have done that. I just prefer the Rolex for all the historical and factual bases set out in Dowling's very accurate article. Again, all of this is editorial stuff. History and validating experience speaks more to me.


I guess, while I respect what Dowling did he is still just another Rolex enthusiast, he moderates the Rolex forums at Timezone, so like everyone else he has his own biases and they are decidedly in favor of Rolex. The fact is alot of these companies have wonderful histories...Omega with its Nasa and Olmypic associations, Breitling with its ties to aviation, Tag Heuer with its motorsport ties and also to that of the space agencies...there are others, but Rolex history is a profitable one to write about as there is a greater chance for your book to sell given the number of buyers.



> Which series Sub did you have and what series other watches did you have that made you so unhappy with such a great product? I am not bowled over naively by marketing. I can buy whatever watch I want, and to me, what you get for 5k from Rolex is a pretty good deal overall.


I had a A series Datejust, model 16200 that I hated, the construction was poor especially in the clasp and bracelet, really made me question why they were regarded as so good.

My second was a K series Explorer 114270, this one had a locking clasp which was a bit nicer but had quality control issues and was an overall boring watch, too small and no date...there was alot of hype surrounding this one when I bought it and I got caught up...needless to say it was a disappointment.

And my third was an F series Submariner, bought it in early 2005, at first was somewhat happy with it but rather quickly I was let down...the finish work wasn't nearly as nice as I would have hoped for, overall I felt ripped off again for what I paid....now it is up for sale on timezone so that I can buy something else (An Omega Planet Ocean, 42mm with black bezel)...seems like I will have to lose upwards of a thousand on it though which makes selling it seem not worth it.

Like I said, it depends on what you look for to determine "great"...if your primary critera are overall look, accuracy and reliability then sure Rolex will be "great", but I am very attentive to detail and it was always with the small details that Rolex let me down...and then the service after the fact was less than exemplary in my opinion, and as I said I have dealt with more than a few high end companies and never had been turned off by service as I was with them. Perosnally I feel why continue to spend thousands upon thousands for Rolex when I can get better quality in something that costs on average half as much?


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Some people I know suggested I look at Allen Edmonds and I was seriously considering them?


Also, look at Santoni at Nordstrom and Ferragamo (ideally Tramezza line if budget permits). I also like Crockett and Jones. A bit more is Edward Green but they are amazing.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> I guess, while I respect what Dowling did he is still just another Rolex enthusiast, he moderates the Rolex forums at Timezone, so like everyone else he has his own biases and they are decidedly in favor of Rolex.


To be fair to Mr. Dowling who has helped me on several occasions, I do know that he is a very well respected watch expert on several brands and a bit of a world expert on Rolex. He literally wrote the book on Rolex. Now that might make him biased possibly but he also knows as much about the brand as anyone.


----------



## Mathew J

Artisan Fan said:


> To be fair to Mr. Dowling who has helped me on several occasions, I do know that he is a very well respected watch expert on several brands and a bit of a world expert on Rolex. He literally wrote the book on Rolex. Now that might make him biased possibly but he also knows as much about the brand as anyone.


Hey Artisan, as I said I respect the guy for what he did and what he continues to do for Timezone, but to the best of my knowledge he is more of a historian than a watchmaker...nothing wrong with that, but again he is just a regular guy who has his own opinions just like everyone else.


----------



## Mathew J

Artisan Fan said:


> Also, look at Santoni at Nordstrom and Ferragamo (ideally Tramezza line if budget permits). I also like Crockett and Jones. A bit more is Edward Green but they are amazing.


Thanks Artisan, I will look at Santoni and C and J, but Ferragamo is out...not a fan of their stuff.

Thanks


----------



## Artisan Fan

Well his watchmaking knowledge is such that he seems to know everything related to watchmaking. He restores historic Rolexes and acts as a very high end dealer. The guy is sharp.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Thanks Artisan, I will look at Santoni and C and J, but Ferragamo is out...not a fan of their stuff.


I also like Geox for driving loafers and Tod's as well but only on sale at Neimans.


----------



## Keith Adams

I love my 50th Anniversary Submariner with the Green bezel and black dial.

Artisan Fan -

If we are going to deal with analogies.....Who would you say is the Edward Green of watchmaking?


----------



## arturostevens

According to a good friend, Dowling is considered an international expert on Rolex and other high end watches and movements and watch history as I understand it. I understand that his collection is nothing short of remarkable. 

As to shoes, I think the Rolex of shoes is Alden Shell Cordovans. Never go on sale, never will be found at Costco, get better the older they get, are distinctive in that the designs change VERY little like Rolex and changes are VERY incremental, are prestigious, are both dressy and casual (shell cord pennies....great with sport coat, great with no socks), are relatively expensive for shoes ($400 to $600 a pair), are passed to sons and grandsons if properly "serviced" at Alden, when serviced for $200 or so the shoes come back like new for another decade of elegance, stable company for over a century and is never to move like Rolex Switzerland, uses only one company for his cordovan horsehide (Horween), uses tried and true lasts in limited amounts so as not to change too fast, are rugged shoes as well as beautiful, are recognized immediately as Aldens by anyone who knows shoes, are prestigoius and traditional, have an immense history....there is probably more to compare, but there are a few thoughts.


----------



## Teacher

Can't we all just get along??


----------



## Artisan Fan

Teacher said:


> Can't we all just get along??


I don't get it. Who is this guy?


----------



## Teacher

That's Reginald Denny, a truck driver who's famous for getting his face caved in on television during the LA riots of the early '90's. The riots were sparked by the fact that the Rodney King jury was hung. Later, Denny went on TV alongside King and said "Can't we all just get along?" It was replayed and lampooned on TV for years.


----------



## Artisan Fan

Oh I get it now. Thanks Teacher.


----------



## norcaltransplant

As a sidenote to this discussion, if you ever decide to attend a Timezone event, I was struck by the fact that smart dressing and an appreciation for fine watches do NOT exist in parallel. Though most of the men are middle to upper-class in earnings, wearing pieces that retail for between 1k-40k, their attire is usually not much more advanced than a pair of Docker's and a polo shirt. This is especially true for the engineer types, no offense to engineers.


----------



## Mathew J

norcaltransplant said:


> As a sidenote to this discussion, if you ever decide to attend a Timezone event, I was struck by the fact that smart dressing and an appreciation for fine watches do NOT exist in parallel. Though most of the men are middle to upper-class in earnings, wearing pieces that retail for between 1k-40k, their attire is usually not much more advanced than a pair of Docker's and a polo shirt. This is especially true for the engineer types, no offense to engineers.


LOL, I have considered it in the past, however I often see the images of the get togethers after the fact and think I would feel out of place...I am considerably younger than the guys who seem to get together, and while I like looking at and discussing watches on the internet, I wonder just how exciting it would (or most likely wouldn't be) in person.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> I was struck by the fact that smart dressing and an appreciation for fine watches do NOT exist in parallel.


Very true, although the Tampa GTG had the usual regrettable Hawaiian shirts in force. Milos (watchfan1) has some style as does his wife.

I was struck by the $200K+ Patek dual dial watch someone had. It was gorgeous but I can't imagine wearing that out with any frequency.


----------



## norcaltransplant

Mathew J said:


> LOL, I have considered it in the past, however I often see the images of the get togethers after the fact and think I would feel out of place...I am considerably younger than the guys who seem to get together, and while I like looking at and discussing watches on the internet, I wonder just how exciting it would (or most likely wouldn't be) in person.


The demographics of the participants involved vary by the event and personalities involved in hosting. I'm in my late twenties and was the youngest TZ member at a small dinner organized by Mike Disher, the IWC moderator (IIRC). Age wasn't as much as a factor as personalities, the poster Jay BA could have been my dad, but he's a real gentleman.

I also signed up for a Chronoswiss dinner which had a completely different feel. Most of the members were older, were established in their respective fields or retired, and were less likely to voice strong opinions. The Chronoswiss host was gracious and affable, and, for better or worse, not as colorful as Gerd R Lang (the owner).


----------



## tbabes

Mathew J said:


> That is a toughie, and actually one of the reasons I went looking for this board...
> 
> I am currently in the market for a nicer pair of shoes as my field does not dictate that I dress in a suit, however I have found that in certain situations looking a bit nicer would have been beneficial...
> 
> Some people I know suggested I look at Allen Edmonds and I was seriously considering them?
> 
> Are they any good or are there other brands I should consider? I had a few pairs of Johnston and Murphey's but found them to be pretty horrible quality and have since stopped buying.
> 
> Thanks


I think a lot of current shoe enthusiasts got their "start" with Allen Edmonds, myself included. Great shoe for the money, particularly if purchased at discount, which is fairly easy to do. You can get ~ 20% discounts at Shoebuy.com without even trying. Would suggest that you try them on at a store (e.g. Nordstroms) first before purchasing online. Anyway, very good construction, if a bit conservative in style. Same with Alden in my opinion, and these two brands make up the overwhelming majority of my "wear to work" rotation -- we're business casual. I wouldn't dream of wearing Edward Green or Lobb to the office!


----------



## arturostevens

By the way, have any of you seen the new 50th Anniversary TT GMT ll Master that came out recently? I have not seen one, but am curious to see the new bezel. From the pictures it has a green second hand. I have the 50th Anniversary LV Sub, and do like it immensely as I like the Maxi Dial, but am intrigued to see the GMT. I understand that it has the larger crown now with the triplex seal, but is not meant to dive as deep as a Sub. Artisan Fan, have you seen one live?


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Artisan Fan, have you seen one live?


Saw one last week. The ceramic bezel is spectacular. Very precise cutting and very durable. The best thing is how the gold lettering offsets the black bezel.

Rolex seems to be hinting more is coming with the website ad for Baselworld. I'm hoping it gets to the SS GMT but that will make the decision for that versus a SeaDweller that much more difficult.


----------



## dopey

Is there a Rolex model that is just a simple oyster case - i.e., no date window (or at least no cyclops magnifier) and a plain bezel?


----------



## Mathew J

dopey said:


> Is there a Rolex model that is just a simple oyster case - i.e., no date window (or at least no cyclops magnifier) and a plain bezel?


There was with the Airking for men, though it was rather small at 34mm, word has it that the model was discontinued however this year...you can also consider the Explorer, though it is a bit sportier...I had one and found it amazingly boring, at with a pricetag of upwards of four thousand dollars there are many, many other choices from other manufacturers that are immesurably better for much less money. You can get an Omega Aqua Terra for less than a third of the cost new in a similar size and get a better made and in my opinion better looking watch.

Good luck



arturostevens said:


> I understand that it has the larger crown now with the triplex seal, but is not meant to dive as deep as a Sub. Artisan Fan, have you seen one live?


More of their marketing machine, theoretically all the triplock watches (Yachtmaster, new GMT, etc) should be able to go to the same depth rating, but Rolex holds certain models back as they aren't marketed as dive watches...I have even heard that twinlock models can go as deep as 300m (or at least Rolex tests them to that depth) but only rates then at 100m...


----------



## Mathew J

tbabes said:


> I think a lot of current shoe enthusiasts got their "start" with Allen Edmonds, myself included. Great shoe for the money, particularly if purchased at discount, which is fairly easy to do. You can get ~ 20% discounts at Shoebuy.com without even trying. Would suggest that you try them on at a store (e.g. Nordstroms) first before purchasing online. Anyway, very good construction, if a bit conservative in style. Same with Alden in my opinion, and these two brands make up the overwhelming majority of my "wear to work" rotation -- we're business casual. I wouldn't dream of wearing Edward Green or Lobb to the office!


Thanks, this is what I have heard of AE, alot of "bang for the buck" so to speak when compared to other higher end shoe brands. Luckily for me we are getting three Nordstroms in my area so I guess I will be able to check out a few locally. I tend to like conservative so that is even more of a plus.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> More of their marketing machine, theoretically all the triplock watches (Yachtmaster, new GMT, etc) should be able to go to the same depth rating


With the exception perhaps of the SeaDweller that needs the helium escape valve and a bit better case construction for its 4,000 feet.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> You can get an Omega Aqua Terra for less than a third of the cost new in a similar size and get a better made and in my opinion better looking watch.


Just be prepared to get crushed on resale. A friend of mine bought a slightly used one for $500 recently.


----------



## Mathew J

Artisan Fan said:


> Just be prepared to get crushed on resale. A friend of mine bought a slightly used one for $500 recently.


Though one should also note it isn't like the resale on a comparable Rolex is any better, if one were to buy a new Airking model they would be guaranteed to lose at least 50% of what they paid unless they got a killer discount, which when bought new is unlikely..

Many with just a little work can easily get 30% off a new Omega, which would put a 36mm Aqua Terra at about $1,800 new...I have seen the typical resale price used at about $1,100-$1,200 or so, this is for the Chronometer with the 2500 Co Axial in it, not the quartz.

A new Airking is $3,625 MSRP and you might get 5-10% off that simply because it isn't popular, so about $3263 or so, resale on those is generally around $2,000 or less.

I don't mind taking a bigger hit on resale if my out of pocket expense is considerably less, as in this case or that of most Omega pieces when compared to Rolex...as I said before I find myself constantly losing more money in trying to resell Rolex watches I don't like than if I had bought any other number of brands at a normal and easily attainable discount price. My Sub is a great example, paid $4,500 for it new and that was with a discount of 5% (typically unheard of for sports models), now two years later and after a major price increase the best I have been able to do on resale is $3,400...and even that is a rare offer...compare that to an Omega Planet Ocean, arguably a better watch all around which typically sells for less than half that of the SS Sub at $2,400 new and easily resells for $1,800-$1,900.

The good thing with Rolex is that dealers will actually entertain a trade, so those who don't want to risk private party sales have an option however with that you typically get horrible returns as they offer less than what their wholesale cost is...so IMHO not even worth it.

With that said Artisan have you purchased another Rolex yet or do you still just have the one? you know the longer you wait the higher prices will get?


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Though one should also note it isn't like the resale on a comparable Rolex is any better


On average Rolex loses much less value than Omega. That's been very well established on TimeZone and other forums.



> With that said Artisan have you purchased another Rolex yet or do you still just have the one?


I have not decided and am waiting to see what happens at BaselWorld. I also have some inquiries out to some Rolex experts on a few models. I am looking closely at the SD and GMT II.


----------



## Mathew J

Artisan Fan said:


> On average Rolex loses much less value than Omega. That's been very well established on TimeZone and other forums.


I really wouldn't say this has been "established" on any forum, like I said I have been posting there and elsewhere and while the concensus is that yes, Rolex can have good resale (wonderful if bought used), the reality is that many other brands can also have good resale if they are purchased right when new, an option that really isn't available to Rolex buyers as the company uses strongarm tactics to disallow dealer discounts.

As for Omega, their more popular and or classicly styled pieces seem to do very well from a resale standpoint, wheras their less popular models don't fare as well...just like Rolex whose sports pieces sell well, but everything else isn't in that high of demand.



> I have not decided and am waiting to see what happens at BaselWorld. I also have some inquiries out to some Rolex experts on a few models. I am looking closely at the SD and GMT II.


Good luck, personally I would hold for Basel also, however it looks like they will be introducing another gold or two tone model, I wouldn't be surprised for yet another year of disappointment for stainless fans.


----------



## arturostevens

I was in an Omega and not a Rolex move today after watching our new OO7 agent in Casino Rolale last night. So I wore my Omega SMP pro....again, there's some marketing for you. But what the hell, that is fun. I do like my SMP Pro very much. Mine is not the Bond blue model, but is an automatic and very nice. It has a helium valve, and is good to 1000 feet. I think the heluim valve is a theoretical fun gadget on this watch as it will never be used. 

BTW, the young Bond is cool, ruthless and very much the distant person as represented by Fleming. Get your Omegas on boys. James Bond pronounced it Omeega in the movie.


----------



## Artisan Fan

> It has a helium valve, and is good to 1000 feet.


Meh, a kid's watch. A real watch like a Sea Dweller goes to 4,000 feet.


----------



## arturostevens

I agree, the SD is the king of diving watches. GO to Watchtalk forums and see the comparative review of the SD and the Omega Ocean.


----------



## Mathew J

Artisan Fan said:


> Meh, a kid's watch. A real watch like a Sea Dweller goes to 4,000 feet.


Artisan I hope Rolex is floating you some money on the side for all this propoganda and promotion you give them on this site 

And as far as that Watchtalk forum review is concerned, it was done by Holbrook..again not the most "objective" source, but then again at least he admits it in his reviews...unfortunately too many like to take them on face value given the pretty pictures (and I also feel that those who take them at face want the outcome to go in that direction anyway)...whatever Holbrook owns is what wins the comparison...first it was Invicta beating out a Rolex, then an Omega, and now that he finally ponied up and bought a few Rolex watches, well even sliced bread cannot compete...IMHO the Ocean was meant to compete with the Sub as Omega knows that not many buy the Sea Dweller and that no one cares about that much of a depth rating, and to be fair Holbrook should have compared against a 42mm model, not the 45...but the pessimist in me thinks he wanted to stack the deck as much as possible.


----------



## arturostevens

Maybe what you say has some merit about Holbrook, but he has learned a lot. But you cannot make the same comments about Dowling. He is certainly an expert's expert.

Artisan Fan, what was the ceramic bezel like if it can be described. I understand the fabrication is baking process onto gold with the gold being revealed through gradual effacement of the ceramic over such. Am I correct?


----------



## Artisan Fan

> Artisan I hope Rolex is floating you some money on the side for all this propoganda and promotion you give them on this site


I'm just messin' with ya.



> what was the ceramic bezel like if it can be described


Very smooth, very readable, very tough to wearing I presume, well made. They sort of drill the numbers in.


----------



## Mathew J

arturostevens said:


> Maybe what you say has some merit about Holbrook, but he has learned a lot. But you cannot make the same comments about Dowling. He is certainly an expert's expert.


Like I said, I respect Dowling for what he has done, however everything in context, to me he is more of a historian, he has openly admitted on other fora that he has a soft spot for companies who are the "biggest" in their respective field and can do whatever they wish for the most part, he and Mr. Hess put alot into their book and has dedicated alot of his time to horology for sure, however I don't consider him to be of the same expertise as say a "watchmaker" or more specifically someone like Walt Odets, who gets down and dirty with the technical nuances and actually tears down watches to inspect them piece by piece.

It all depends on what you value, if you like histories and or brands or companies then works like "The Art of Time" are appealing as this is what they focus on, however I prefer technical analysis and how things work or why some technologies or designs are better and I love reading about others opinions or reviews of said technology, it is unforutante that this doesn't seem to be that prevalent on watch fora as it once was, instead the boards have become more commercialized and now focus on "what watch should I buy, or what looks the prettiest".

As for Holbrook, I believe his writing style has improved and he has a format for reviews, personally I don't like his grading criteria and or his conclusion format but then again plenty of others do like it...I don't know if he has "learned alot" per say, but rather it seems he has finally come to terms with his own desires...everyone saw pretty early on that he was jonsing for a Rolex, it was obvious in his early works that he was trying too hard to justify not getting one, now it seems his works justify his owning them over brands which he once enjoyed. I do like his reviews for the pictures though.


----------



## Artisan Fan

Breaking Basel news update from TimeZone. This is really funny.

https://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=tree&goto=2668477&rid=0


----------



## ykurtz

*OMG!*

When I saw this sentence in the linked story, I nearly felt the tea spurt out my nose:

"In response to the literally 10's of people clamoring for more complicated watches from Rolex, they will be releasing an as-yet unnamed tourbillon rementoire reserve de marche petite et grande sonnerie flyback one button chronograph."

:icon_smile_big:

Thanks, it was very entertaining.


----------



## BPH

Artisan Fan said:


> Meh, a kid's watch. A real watch like a Sea Dweller goes to 4,000 feet.


Though a qualified commercial diver I have yet to find a need for a watch with greater than 1000ft rating, maybe I'm just not pushing myself enough :icon_smile: . My Sub and Seamaster do me just fine.

I did have a watch with a 1000m test on it some years back - it filled up with water and died.


----------



## BPH

smlaz said:


> Can't think of too many guys who'd wear their Rolexes while working in a sulphuric acid processing plant or an oil refinery...


 I wore mine diving in a nuclear power plant - does that count?


----------



## Martinis at 8

BPH said:


> I wore mine diving in a nuclear power plant - does that count?


Yes, of course that counts. As you know, the Rolex origin is that of a *tool* watch. I'm in the oil business and wear it everywhere, from high rise office buildings in Houston with coat & tie, to remote jungle work camps in Africa with khakis and work boots.

M8


----------



## N05J3W3

Association with types of owners aside, Rolex make interesting watches of good quality, with iconic design, and often with real utility. They have a fascinating pedigree, and the company itself does significant philanthropic work. 

They're not alone in all of that, of course, as others have noted.

The real thing that sets them apart of is the widespread recognition of resale value. This often makes Rolex a solid choice for someone beginning to collect watches. It offers an entry into the hobby without a lot of risk. There's something to be said for that.


----------



## Brio1

Unfortunately, Rolex now has connotations of a bourgeois bauble. Rolex: the anti-status, status symbol. The movement is somewhat reliable, yet overpriced due to demand. I once overheard a lady describe a certain model as "schmucky".


----------



## Oldsarge

I've long felt that wearing such an obviously expensive watch out in public is a good way to get mugged. Yes, they tell time wonderfully and are rugged and reliable. But given that, you can for under a hundred dollars, pick up a radio controlled watch that connects to the Naval Labs and is thus accurate to within a second every multiple of million years. And when it stops working you can get another, and another and so on to the rest of your life while still spending less than the price of a new Rolex. I admit to being a cheapskate, okay?


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

Oldsarge said:


> I've long felt that wearing such an obviously expensive watch out in public is a good way to get mugged. Yes, they tell time wonderfully and are rugged and reliable. But given that, you can for under a hundred dollars, pick up a radio controlled watch that connects to the Naval Labs and is thus accurate to within a second every multiple of million years. And when it stops working you can get another, and another and so on to the rest of your life while still spending less than the price of a new Rolex. I admit to being a cheapskate, okay?


Cue Jovan's bellyaching about the resurrection of an old thread.... 

I don't think that one buys a Rolex for its functionality (save for the truly 'functional' watches like the sea dweller, deep sea dweller, milgauss, and, to a limited extent, GMTs). This is bought as one would buy a piece of jewelry. Some are easy to tell time on, others aren't. Milgauss/Submariner, readable. Datejust with stick dial, not so readable.


----------



## M Go Crimson

Oldsarge said:


> I've long felt that wearing such an obviously expensive watch out in public is a good way to get mugged.


You mean like this?

As for Rolex is truly the BMW of watches. They're extremely commonplace and are bought and resold constantly, and is often the first "luxury" watch yuppies such as myself shoot for.

That being said, I'm lucky enough to have a Submariner 5513(thank goodness because I CANNOT stand the date window) that's been passed down to me and while I adore this watch for mostly sentimental reasons, it rarely makes it into my rotation. When I do wear it, it often gets mistaken for an Invicta (facepalm). I would say that the Sub garners no more or less attention than my Glashutte Original PanoMatic Lunar and significantly less attention than my Speedmaster Pro, but I suppose I can chalk that one up to being around hundreds of NASA employees.

Now, if you're trotting around with an all gold Presidential and your name isn't Warren Buffett, that imo is just obnoxious.

Ranking Rolex amongst the more well known..

Top Tier:
Patek Philippe
A.Lange & Sohne
Audemars Piguet
Breguet
Vacheron Constantine
Ulysse Nardin
Jaeger LeCoultre
Glashutte Original
Blancpain

Mid Tier:
Breitling
Cartier
IWC
Rolex
Omega
Longines

Low Tier:
Grand Seikos
Tag Heur
Jacob & Company


----------



## eagle2250

^^
ROFALOL...Ya just gotta love the Warren Buffett comparison. Thank gawd my Tag Heuer at least made it on to the list in the "Low Tier" category! It suprises me that more posters have not commented on the costs of ownership of these watches. While I cannot claim direct experience with a Rolex and will not comment on same, the purchase price seems to me to be just the beginning. In the 11+ years I have owned my TAG and worn it regularly for all manner of activities, I have had to replace the bracelet twice, at a cost of $350 and $375 respectively and had it cleaned once at a cost of $195. Ignoring the purchase price and just considering the total costs of maintenance over the past decade, one could have bought a lot of Timexes for that price!


----------



## cmacey

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> ROFALOL...Ya just gotta love the Warren Buffett comparison. Thank gawd my Tag Heuer at least made it on to the list in the "Low Tier" category! It suprises me that more posters have not commented on the costs of ownership of these watches. While I cannot claim direct experience with a Rolex and will not comment on same, the purchase price seems to me to be just the beginning. In the 11+ years I have owned my TAG and worn it regularly for all manner of activities, I have had to replace the bracelet twice, at a cost of $350 and $375 respectively and had it cleaned once at a cost of $195. Ignoring the purchase price and just considering the total costs of maintenance over the past decade, one could have bought a lot of Timexes for that price!


Just like with a car, it's not a question of can you afford to buy it; it's a question of can you afford the cost of ownership...as I have never liked the look of Rolex, I went for an Omega.


----------



## shore living

Jovan made my point. I have accurate clock on my phone. It is a piece of jewlery to me. Women have pearls, a diamond ring perhaps a mink ect. I enjoy watches,though certainly not a horoligist. Men have a watch,and autos. I bought my Submariner 16613 because I've always wanted it. All my watches tell stories. And most have a fashion use. Dress watches, casual, sport. I consider them part of my wardrobe, and wear them appropriately. I wouldnt wear a black strap watch with brown shoes and belt. I buy pre-owned, and tell my self I could always sell them as they have some value. Truth be said, even if I don't wear them often, well it tells a story.


----------



## Belfaborac

Of course expensive watches equate most closely to jewellery. This is shown very clearly by the attempt at a ranking above. A Patek is no better at indicating the correct time than a Grand Seiko and compared to a non mechanical Seiko, a Casio or any $50 digital watch it is positively inept. Nor will a mechanical watch ever come close to housing as many functions and complications as the latter. In other words, accurate timekeeping is hardly the prime concern for anyone wearing an expensive watch, just as keeping warm is likely not the prime concern of any woman found shopping in a Balenciaga or Christian Louboutin store.

In terms of timekeeping alone, there is no difference worth mentioning between any two mechanical watches, unless one has "invested" in a $20 "Rolex" on a street corner or from a Bangkok market stall. Today even Chinese copies of the classic ETA movements such as the 2824-2, 2836 and 7750 are perfectly capable of meeting and exceeding COSC standards, so if one's aim is limited to keeping time, $100 will do just as nicely as $100.000.-


----------



## Oldsarge

Well put. I couldn't have said it better. And if we're going to make our timekeeping jewelry, give me a good pocket watch every time. I await my great grandfather's railroad watch's return from servicing with 'bated breath!

And for those who lack ancestors in the railroads, may I suggest a Jean Marcel Skeleton Cover in Sterling?


----------



## wj_johnson

I wear a Rolex. Even with a diamond bezel it is more conservative in look, style, and size compared to most watches today. Wear it and enjoy it.


----------



## MikeDT

I wouldn't wear a Rolex myself. Simply because I think the things are ugly and gaudy, also there are just too many counterfeits around, every man and his dog appears to be wearing them.


----------



## godan

I am down to two Rolexes now, a DateJust and an Explorer I, having sold off a few vintage timepieces. I also have an IWC, an Omega (or two) and some restored mid-century watches, including a Hamilton and a Benrus wrist alarm. I own them all because I enjoy them, just like Montblanc pens, custom 1911's and cars that are often criticized by those who do not have one. However, when traveling abroad, I leave some of my toys home and carry a Bic and wear a Citizen.


----------



## Belfaborac

Responding to the topic, rather than addressing watches in general, I guess I fall into the "hate" category. A Rolex is just as good as any other mechanical watch, but personally I find them almost universally boring, frequently ugly and sometimes just plain monstrous. Their golden and diamond-encrusted pieces in particular rank amongst my very least favourite timepieces.

That said the Submariner is a very nice watch and the silvery Yatchmaster isn't half bad - and in any case it's just my personal, 100% subjective opinion.

However, the real problem with Rolex as far as I'm concerned, is that they pump out watches at a phenomenal rate compared to every other "high-end" brand and yet command premium prices. In any other line of business high volume equals low(er) prices, but somehow Rolex has managed to retain its premium aura despite shifting well in excess of a million watches per annum. Breitling, the second largest brand in terms of sales, shifted, I think, around 135.000 watches in 2009, while Rolex sold 1.035.000. To me that kind of number doesn't whisper: "these are exclusive timepieces, made with great care by highly skilled craftsmen". Rather, it says loudly and brashly that: "these watches come from the assembly line in a fairly large factory".

Which, to me, is not something to pay thousands of dollars/pounds/whatever for.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

wj_johnson said:


> I wear a Rolex. Even with a diamond bezel it is more conservative in look, style, and size compared to most watches today. Wear it and enjoy it.


Funny you mention it, as I just picked up a datejust with a diamond bezel (blue stick dial, jubilee bracelet), and find it to be a conservative, yet classic piece. I've worn all sorts, and took off my anniversary Milgauss (of 19 months daily wear) to wear it. While I find the diamonds a bit 'pretentious', it fits in with the crowd I seem to end up with (all wearing two tone, oyster bracelet, champagne dial datejusts)



godan said:


> I am down to two Rolexes now, a DateJust and an Explorer I, having sold off a few vintage timepieces. I also have an IWC, an Omega (or two) and some restored mid-century watches, including a Hamilton and a Benrus wrist alarm. I own them all because I enjoy them, just like Montblanc pens, custom 1911's and cars that are often criticized by those who do not have one. However, when traveling abroad, I leave some of my toys home and carry a Bic and wear a Citizen.


Whenever you care to part with that explorer, please give me a call ;D


----------



## LoneWolf

When I first became interested in watches, I drank long and deep from the Rolex Koolaid. I still have and enjoy wearing my original purchases (Sea Dweller, GMT II, Day-Date, Yachtmaster). But, like a lot of enthusiasts, the more I learned about timepieces the more my tastes changed, and along the way I picked up a couple of Panerai and a Jaeger LeCoultre (Reverso Grande Date). Now, I have a JLC Master Calendar on order and, other than possibly an IWC Big Pilot, I think that will be my last watch purchase. 

During the meantime, I've got a nice, diverse collection and have earmarked my favorites in my will. Hopefully they'll mean as much to the next generation as my grandfather's Bulova means to me.


----------



## Brio1

LoneWolf said:


> When I first became interested in watches, I drank long and deep from the Rolex Koolaid. I still have and enjoy wearing my original purchases (Sea Dweller, GMT II, Day-Date, Yachtmaster). But, like a lot of enthusiasts, the more I learned about timepieces the more my tastes changed, and along the way I picked up a couple of Panerai and a Jaeger LeCoultre (Reverso Grande Date). Now, I have a JLC Master Calendar on order and, other than possibly an IWC Big Pilot, I think that will be my last watch purchase.
> 
> During the meantime, I've got a nice, diverse collection and have earmarked my favorites in my will. Hopefully they'll mean as much to the next generation as my grandfather's Bulova means to me.


The Reverend Jim Jones wore a Rolex--or did not? :devil:


----------



## Brio1

Belfaborac said:


> Responding to the topic, rather than addressing watches in general, I guess I fall into the "hate" category. A Rolex is just as good as any other mechanical watch, but personally I find them almost universally boring, frequently ugly and sometimes just plain monstrous. Their golden and diamond-encrusted pieces in particular rank amongst my very least favourite timepieces.
> 
> That said the Submariner is a very nice watch and the silvery Yatchmaster isn't half bad - and in any case it's just my personal, 100% subjective opinion.
> 
> However, the real problem with Rolex as far as I'm concerned, is that they pump out watches at a phenomenal rate compared to every other "high-end" brand and yet command premium prices. In any other line of business high volume equals low(er) prices, but somehow Rolex has managed to retain its premium aura despite shifting well in excess of a million watches per annum. Breitling, the second largest brand in terms of sales, shifted, I think, around 135.000 watches in 2009, while Rolex sold 1.035.000. To me that kind of number doesn't whisper: "these are exclusive timepieces, made with great care by highly skilled craftsmen". Rather, it says loudly and brashly that: "these watches come from the assembly line in a fairly large factory".
> 
> Which, to me, is not something to pay thousands of dollars/pounds/whatever for.


It's "Prolex".


----------



## Rolex Collector

*I got to wear the Rolex while the Rolex made me money!*

Hi Everyone,
This is my first post in this forum. 
I have been reading the post in Rolex - love it or hate it. I have to say there are many views on this subject. I have had an experience with several Rolex watches and this is what I have found. 
In 2002, I bought my first Rolex Submariner, No-Date from a company called Sant Blanc. I paid $2500 in 2002. This same watch today, Sant Blanc will buy back from me for $4000. I wore the watch and enjoyed it AND made money. The 2nd Rolex I bought was from Watch Chest in Branson, Missouri. It was a Rolex Datejust 16220. In 2002, I paid $2000 for it. Last week, 9 years later, I called Watch Chest and they gave me a buy-back price of $3600. I can go on and on with others, but these were my first two Rolex watches. I spent a total of $4500.00 and now have $7600.00 cash in the bank. No investment I have made did this well without any work at all. So my vote is *Rolex -LOVE IT!*

*I got to wear the Rolex while the Rolex made me money!:icon_smile_big:

Thank you Andy!!!
Thank you readers!

The Rolex Collector*


----------



## //Michael

medwards said:


> I neither love it nor hate it; I simply wear it. I've been wearing the same Rolex Datejust for over thirty years and it seems to work just fine. I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about.


As do I. Well stated.


----------



## //Michael

xcubbies said:


> Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working
> 
> *Unlike Armani, a Rolex is not a label without quality*.
> 
> How do you define quality in a watch? I would place a lot of weight on accuracy. You can find greater accuracy in a quartz Seiko than in a Rolex.


You either "Get It" or not... I got it and will never go back. :wink2:


----------



## joenobody0

I love the older ones and "hate" the newer ones. It seems like every redesign they make the watches bigger and more gaudy. The newer ones do have much nicer bracelets and clasps though.

After picking up my first IWC I can't see myself purchasing another Rolex. The IWC is so much more understated and the bracelet of my 15 year old Mark is nicer than anything rolex currently produces. Unfortunately IWC seems to be suffering from the bigger/uglier trend as well so I'll probably just stick to the older models.


----------



## tocqueville

My biggest problem with rolex is the price: I can't afford one!

My other problem is simply that, for the money, there are plenty of prettier or more interesting watches available. When I see one on a wrist (Esp. a newer one), I think, "you had all that money and that's what you picked? How boring."


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

tocqueville said:


> My biggest problem with rolex is the price: I can't afford one!
> 
> My other problem is simply that, for the money, there are plenty of prettier or more interesting watches available. When I see one on a wrist (Esp. a newer one), I think, "you had all that money and that's what you picked? How boring."


FWIW, you can find a good condition pre-owned Rolex starting under $2k.


----------



## triklops55

There's really no reason to hate Rolex watches. Are they gaudy? Only the more expensive ones with the gold and diamonds.
Most are actually are not that flashy. Is a two-tone Datejust flashy? How about an Explorer? How about a stainless Submariner or an Air King?

There are many reasons to admire the Rolex brand and to wear one for the heritage of the brand. Rolex is a pioneer of wristwatches in many aspects. First waterproof case. First watch with a date display. First chronometer certification on a wristwatch. First self-winding wrist watch, etc.

Sure a Jager, Vacheron or Patek may cost much more and might posess more prestige, but I don't know if I'd recommend a $50,000 Patek for everyday wear since they are pretty delicate.

A rolex is tough and rugged. Wear it wherever you want. Sure it will scuff up a bit, but you'd probably have to take a hammer to it to do any real damage.

Given all of those qualities, what is there not to admire?


----------



## PTB in San Diego

tocqueville said:


> When I see one on a wrist (Esp. a newer one), I think, "you had all that money and that's what you picked? How boring."


My 60's Air-King, stainless with a gold bezel, cost me $800. I wear it with a dark brown aftermarket croc band. It looks subtle, and pleasing, and quiet with a tiny bit of flash. I enjoy it, I get compliments on it, and it gets glances.

It does look a tad small after I've had my RGM (38.5mm) on for a week. Still, I wouldn't mind having a plain stainless Air-King with a black band.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

PTB in San Diego said:


> My 60's Air-King, stainless with a gold bezel, cost me $800. I wear it with a dark brown aftermarket croc band. It looks subtle, and pleasing, and quiet with a tiny bit of flash. I enjoy it, I get compliments on it, and it gets glances.
> 
> It does look a tad small after I've had my RGM (38.5mm) on for a week. Still, I wouldn't mind having a plain stainless Air-King with a black band.


That's a deal!!! You do know the bezel can be pretty easily replaced, yes?

I agree with you on the older (34mm variants) being a bit small; thus was my dilemma when looking, as I really wanted an acrylic crystal, but didn't want a 34mm watch. I ended up with a friend's 36mm DJ.


----------



## tocqueville

TheGreatTwizz said:


> FWIW, you can find a good condition pre-owned Rolex starting under $2k.


No thanks. I'm saving for an Omega speedmaster professionnel, which should cost about $2k for a good used one.


----------



## tocqueville

PTB in San Diego said:


> My 60's Air-King, stainless with a gold bezel, cost me $800. I wear it with a dark brown aftermarket croc band. It looks subtle, and pleasing, and quiet with a tiny bit of flash. I enjoy it, I get compliments on it, and it gets glances.
> 
> It does look a tad small after I've had my RGM (38.5mm) on for a week. Still, I wouldn't mind having a plain stainless Air-King with a black band.


Which RGM? That's the kind of brand people should pay more attention to before they drop a few $k on a rolex. If I hadn't been lusting after a speedmaster my whole life, I'd set my sights on a RGM. Beautiful watches, made in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. They even have two in-house movements.

On another note, in light of the thread about what kind of cars a "gentleman" would drive, I would propose as the ultimate "gentleman's " watch brand, besides any nice inherited watch, Grand Seiko. It's sort of the anti-rolex: exquisite craftsmanship, always understated, and a brand that impresses only serious watch aficionados, who alone can guess at the price tag and appreciate the reasons for it.


----------



## PTB in San Diego

TheGreatTwizz said:


> You do know the bezel can be pretty easily replaced, yes?


Thanks for that reminder. I guess I had known that, and had forgotten.



tocqueville said:


> No thanks. I'm saving for an Omega speedmaster professionnel, which should cost about $2k for a good used one.


Hmmmn, haven't followed those for a little while, but I think that price is a tad light for a true speedy pro. Maybe not. One of these day's I'll treat myself to a speedy auto -- the 39mm auto homage version. The pro is a big watch. Still -- I can respect that lust.



tocqueville said:


> Which RGM? That's the kind of brand people should pay more attention to before they drop a few $k on a rolex. If I hadn't been lusting after a speedmaster my whole life, I'd set my sights on a RGM. Beautiful watches, made in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. They even have two in-house movements.


Simple, unassuming 151P, ostrich band, plain bezel, date. I missed an RGM chrono that went a few days back for under a grand. I thought I was going to be able to steal it for under $900. Didn't happen. Yes, I really enjoy having a watch from an American watchmaker.

One of the pleasures of an RGM is that most folks have no idea that it's a pretty nice watch (at least in my non-Patek world it's a pretty nice watch), but watch guys notice it. Hey! Maybe it's a candidate for "gentleman's watch". It just needs to find a gentleman.


----------



## Brio1

triklops55 said:


> There's really no reason to hate Rolex watches. Are they gaudy? Only the more expensive ones with the gold and diamonds.
> Most are actually are not that flashy. Is a two-tone Datejust flashy? How about an Explorer? How about a stainless Submariner or an Air King?
> 
> There are many reasons to admire the Rolex brand and to wear one for the heritage of the brand. Rolex is a pioneer of wristwatches in many aspects. First waterproof case. First watch with a date display. First chronometer certification on a wristwatch. First self-winding wrist watch, etc.
> 
> Sure a Jager, Vacheron or Patek may cost much more and might posess more prestige, but I don't know if I'd recommend a $50,000 Patek for everyday wear since they are pretty delicate.
> 
> A rolex is tough and rugged. Wear it wherever you want. Sure it will scuff up a bit, but you'd probably have to take a hammer to it to do any real damage.
> 
> Given all of those qualities, what is there not to admire?


The presence of one on the wrist of every Tom, Dick and hairy schmuck, sir.


----------



## tocqueville

PTB in San Diego said:


> Thanks for that reminder. I guess I had known that, and had forgotten.
> 
> Hmmmn, haven't followed those for a little while, but I think that price is a tad light for a true speedy pro. Maybe not. One of these day's I'll treat myself to a speedy auto -- the 39mm auto homage version. The pro is a big watch. Still -- I can respect that lust.
> 
> Simple, unassuming 151P, ostrich band, plain bezel, date. I missed an RGM chrono that went a few days back for under a grand. I thought I was going to be able to steal it for under $900. Didn't happen. Yes, I really enjoy having a watch from an American watchmaker.
> 
> One of the pleasures of an RGM is that most folks have no idea that it's a pretty nice watch (at least in my non-Patek world it's a pretty nice watch), but watch guys notice it.


I love that it says "Lancaster, penna." it's the true heir to Hamilton. I love their guilloche dials. And wow, that tourbillion! There should be a law that every governor and senator from Pennsylvania must wear one. And heck, every president.


----------



## tocqueville

Acceptable Speedy pros get down to $1.6k, with luck. $2k should do it, and I'd ideally want to have more to spend. Of course, it's all fantasy. Speaking of fantasy, here's that RGM tourbillon (now if only I had $75k to blow on a watch!):


----------



## triklops55

Brio1 said:


> The presence of one on the wrist of every Tom, Dick and hairy schmuck, sir.


Sounds like sour grapes. BTW, most of those are probably fakes.


----------



## Brio1

triklops55 said:


> Sounds like sour grapes. BTW, most of those are probably fakes.


My sentiments were somewhat over-the-top, but I've (and my lady friend) had some awful encounters here in the Northern Virginia area with the Mercedes/Montblanc/Rolex status seeker types.

BTW, my grandfather was in the "fine jewelry" business towards the end of his life. And yes I've owned a Rolex.


----------



## Apatheticviews

I personally like the Rolex. Specifically the Submariner model. Simple, to the point, and only as many frills as you want to put into it.


----------



## JWM1960

Love it...22 carat yellow gold day date with roman numerals, no other extras, has rarely left my wrist since my wife gave it to me for our 20th anniversary 10 years ago. Looks good day or night, in the ocean, pool or conference room.


----------



## tocqueville

JWM1960 said:


> Love it...22 carat yellow gold day date with roman numerals, no other extras, has rarely left my wrist since my wife gave it to me for our 20th anniversary 10 years ago. Looks good day or night, in the ocean, pool or conference room.


One thing Rolex definitely has going for it is that so many of its watches are appropriate for so many settings. They're the perfect, "if you could own just one watch" choice.

Here's one of those Grand Seiko's that I argued above could be described as the anti-Rolex in terms of the contrast between its high quality and complete lack of prestige:

https://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1013671


----------



## hsc89

I, too, am a big fan of RGM. Beautiful finishing on dials. Just wish he would put something together closer to 35 to 36 mm - I'd gladly swap out my JLC MGT for one.

As a long-time Rolex owner (I currently rotate four - Explorer, Seadweller, TT Sub, and vintage gold-shell Date and have owned many other models) as well as several other brands, I still do not understand why the majority of those who don't care for Rolex are so vocal about their dislike for the brand and disdain for those who wear them. I do agree that there are a number of manufacturers that make a "better" watch, horologically speaking, but few that produce timepieces that are as durable AND versatile. If you don't like their watches, don't buy them. I personally think that their loudest critics are the ones who most want to own one but, for whatever reason, can't.


----------



## StephenRG

I think Rolex are to be complimented on their workmanship, their continuing to make movements in-house, the longevity of their product.

The issue I have - and it is not to do with the actual watches themselves, but may be because of how Rolex have marketed their product - is that for all too many people, wrt Rolex, style has become a function of brand. A gold-and-steel bracelet is acceptable with a tux because the watch is a Rolex. A watch that were it labelled "Invicta" or "Jacques Lemans" would be excoriated as too gaudy is OK'd because it's a Rolex, etc.


----------



## hsc89

StephenRG said:


> The issue I have - and it is not to do with the actual watches themselves, but may be because of how Rolex have marketed their product - is that for all too many people, wrt Rolex, style has become a function of brand. A gold-and-steel bracelet is acceptable with a tux because the watch is a Rolex. A watch that were it labelled "Invicta" or "Jacques Lemans" would be excoriated as too gaudy is OK'd because it's a Rolex, etc.


I would imagine that the majority of the time one spots a TT (gold and steel) Datejust/Sub/etc. or any Rolex for that matter, coupled with a tux, it is being worn by a "one-watch" guy. Sure, there are going to be a few who do so because of the marketing - or the Bond connection - but there are a great deal more who only own one nicer (not cheap rubber) timepiece and wear it 24/7, without regard to the particular setting and whether or not it is "appropriate." I have to admit that while I don't have to pull out the tux that often, I still wear a watch when I occasionally do (an old black dial, gold Cartier tank) even though I am well aware that it is considered by many as improper. I simply feel naked without one on.


----------



## ThreeLegDog

Love or hate? It's more of a "meh" with me.

For me, large conspicuous consumption purchases have had to pass a personal equation of scrutiny: quality, functionality, exclusivity, complementing my personal style, etc. My personal research into the item/company/history should leave me with a pleasant desire to own the item.

Quality: Back when I was into expensive watches, I read a lot of watch boards and blogs. Many watches were judged, taken apart and inspected. I remember one blog dude that dissected a then-state of the art Rolex and showed the tooling marks present inside. I'm not sure what the inside of a Rolex looks like today, but that sealed the deal for me.

Exclusivity/Uniqueness: I have worked in an industry that rewarded employees with generous stock options. When my co-workers were buying 911's and BWMs, I bought a Silverstone XKR (only 250 made). When friends were buying Glock, I was buying HK. When they were buying Rolex, I was kopping unique Breitlings off eBay.

Style: I'm just not a Rolex kind of guy. No hate - just not me.

Now I'm not perfect. (Kenneth Cole and Mark Nason shoes, anyone? <eek>) But I am always learning and researching. Which is why I'm here. :biggrin:


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

tocqueville said:


> I love that it says "Lancaster, penna." it's the true heir to Hamilton. I love their guilloche dials. And wow, that tourbillion! There should be a law that every governor and senator from Pennsylvania must wear one. And heck, every president.


I never knew of these guys...I'll have to take a ride out to their shop; that'd be awesome to have that on the dial!!! Heh, not sure if we're going to have another PA born president for 35-40 years (at least until I run), but it is certainly a beautiful piece.



JWM1960 said:


> Love it...22 carat yellow gold day date with roman numerals, no other extras, has rarely left my wrist since my wife gave it to me for our 20th anniversary 10 years ago. Looks good day or night, in the ocean, pool or conference room.


22k presidential?


----------



## JWM1960

22k presidential?[/QUOTE]

I am glad you asked because I went back and looked and it is indeed 18k yellow gold (not sure why I "misremembered" this.) It has a presidential band/bracelet with champagne dial with yellow gold roman numerals. LIke this but with roman numerals.


----------



## MojoLightFoot

Two months ago I bought a pre-owned Explorer 2. I love it. 

I don't think it screams ROLEX. As far as I'm concerned this watch has 0 bling, nothing flashy about it.

I wear it daily and have gotten quite a few "nice watch" comments. I don't think most people know it's a Rolex, which is fine with me. 

If I were to ever buy another high end watch it would be the Omega Speedmaster Pro. That's a very nice watch.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## joenobody0

MojoLightFoot said:


> Two months ago I bought a pre-owned Explorer 2. I love it.
> 
> I don't think it screams ROLEX. As far as I'm concerned this watch has 0 bling, nothing flashy about it.
> 
> I wear it daily and have gotten quite a few "nice watch" comments. I don't think most people know it's a Rolex, which is fine with me.
> 
> If I were to ever buy another high end watch it would be the Omega Speedmaster Pro. That's a very nice watch.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.


The Explorer 1 and 2 are some of the most understated Rolexs you can buy. Good choice.

My last purchase came down to an Exp 1 or an IWC Mark XV. I went with the IWC and I love it. The bracelet needs to be worn to appreciate the comfort. I've probably worn my Rolex 3 times since I got the IWC.


----------



## Legal_Eagle

FWIW, I am 32 years old, and since I was 26, I have had only one quality watch. It is an IWC 3706 Flieger Chronograph, Auto. I looked at Rolex, Omega, etc. In my opinion all overrated and/or old man watches for those looking for status symbols. I tend to favor items that are more under the radar and best appreciated by those in the know. As another example, I drive a 2011 Subaru WRX instead of a BMW 335 which everyone seems to drive. To each his own.


----------



## Matt S

Some say IWC makes a superior watch. As far as looks go, IWC doesn't do as much for me. But that's solely my preference, and I don't think they're unattractive. I personally prefer a Rolex, Omega or Breitling (I have an Omega Speedmaster). At that price now I might go for a Jaeger LeCoultre instead.


----------



## PTB in San Diego

Legal_Eagle said:


> FWIW, I am 32 years old, and since I was 26, I have had only one quality watch. It is an IWC 3706 Flieger Chronograph, Auto. I looked at Rolex, Omega, etc. In my opinion all overrated and/or old man watches for those looking for status symbols. I tend to favor items that are more under the radar and best appreciated by those in the know. As another example, I drive a 2011 Subaru WRX instead of a BMW 335 which everyone seems to drive. To each his own.


Sounds like you have established a protocol which supports you in feeling superior to others. That's important to some people.


----------



## Legal_Eagle

PTB in San Diego said:


> Sounds like you have established a protocol which supports you in feeling superior to others. That's important to some people.


I wouldn't say that. My father has always worn Rolexes. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why a watch of that price has a worse bracelet than a $300 Swiss Army Watch. I do applaud them [Rolex] for staying with in-house movements, and I do realize that the 3706 I wear is only a modified ETA, which isn't as prestigious as the more exclusive in-house movements of the Da Vinci and other IWC watches.

Yet for me, the versatility of the IWC Pilot on a gator strap or on the bracelet, with a suit or with blue jeans, it's reliability, and the fact that for every 50 Rolexes I see, I might see one IWC, is a winning combination. I always tend to go with the underdog or less popular in anything. I have only ever had one person actually notice that my watch was an IWC, and frankly, I like it that way.


----------



## joenobody0

Legal_Eagle said:


> I wouldn't say that. My father has always worn Rolexes. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why a watch of that price has a worse bracelet than a $300 Swiss Army Watch. I do applaud them [Rolex] for staying with in-house movements, and I do realize that the 3706 I wear is only a modified ETA, which isn't as prestigious as the more exclusive in-house movements of the Da Vinci and other IWC watches.
> 
> Yet for me, the versatility of the IWC Pilot on a gator strap or on the bracelet, with a suit or with blue jeans, it's reliability, and the fact that for every 50 Rolexes I see, I might see one IWC, is a winning combination. I always tend to go with the underdog or less popular in anything. I have only ever had one person actually notice that my watch was an IWC, and frankly, I like it that way.


The newer Rolex watches have much improved bracelets, though they're still not as comfortable and adjustable as the bracelet on my Mark 15. It's a toss up between the in house movement of the Rolex and the much better bracelet of the IWC. I went for the movement a few times and ended up with watches that weren't that comfortable on my wrist. This time I went for the more comfortable IWC and it was the right choice for me.

I think I'm going to be purchasing IWC watches produces in the time frame of 1990-2005 or so. That's the sweet spot for me.

As far as reliability and timing consistency, my IWC matches the Rolexes and both are better than anything else I've experienced.


----------



## Tiger

Whether one is a devotee of Rolex or not, it's stunning to hear that Rolex bracelets can be uncomfortable and inferior to other watches at that price/quality level, i.e., Omega.

I've become enamored of the IWC Portuguese Chronograph and the Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Control. Still very expensive, but much more approachable than Vacheron, Audemars, Patek, Breguet, Lange, etc.


----------



## blue suede shoes

Rolex Collector said:


> Hi Everyone,
> This is my first post in this forum.
> I have been reading the post in Rolex - love it or hate it. I have to say there are many views on this subject. I have had an experience with several Rolex watches and this is what I have found.
> In 2002, I bought my first Rolex Submariner, No-Date from a company called Sant Blanc. I paid $2500 in 2002. This same watch today, Sant Blanc will buy back from me for $4000. I wore the watch and enjoyed it AND made money. The 2nd Rolex I bought was from Watch Chest in Branson, Missouri. It was a Rolex Datejust 16220. In 2002, I paid $2000 for it. Last week, 9 years later, I called Watch Chest and they gave me a buy-back price of $3600. I can go on and on with others, but these were my first two Rolex watches. I spent a total of $4500.00 and now have $7600.00 cash in the bank. No investment I have made did this well without any work at all. So my vote is *Rolex -LOVE IT!*
> 
> *I got to wear the Rolex while the Rolex made me money!:icon_smile_big:
> 
> Thank you Andy!!!
> Thank you readers!
> 
> The Rolex Collector*


That's a pretty good return. Did you buy the watches new or used?

I notice you are located in Branson, as are the dealers. Do you happen to have any connection with either of these dealers?


----------



## Brio1

Tiger said:


> Whether one is a devotee of Rolex or not, it's stunning to hear that Rolex bracelets can be uncomfortable and inferior to other watches at that price/quality level, i.e., Omega.
> 
> I've become enamored of the IWC Portuguese Chronograph and the Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Control. Still very expensive, but much more approachable than Vacheron, Audemars, Patek, Breguet, Lange, etc.


Yes, I find the bracelet on my Seamaster more comfortable than the older Submariner bracelet. However, I'm not sure about the newer Rolex Submariner bracelet.


----------



## MikeDT

triklops55 said:


> Sounds like sour grapes. BTW, most of those are probably fakes.


No sour grapes in Xilinhot. The rich wear the real ones, the not so rich wear the replicas, and we're all happy brand whores(most of the time). I think Submariners and gold Datejusts are the most popular, because they're the ones which shout 'Hey, I'm a Rolex!'.


----------



## joenobody0

Brio1 said:


> Yes, I find the bracelet on my Seamaster more comfortable than the older Submariner bracelet. However, I'm not sure about the newer Rolex Submariner bracelet.


The newer bracelets are much nicer but they still fall far short of the best available examples: IWC, and the Blancpain X71


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

blue suede shoes said:


> I notice you are located in Branson, as are the dealers. Do you happen to have any connection with either of these dealers?


Well, you broached the topic, so I'll weigh in.....yes, there must be a connection, and here's why:

Even in '02, the Rolex market was 'slightly' depressed and you could get some pretty good deals. However, assuming these watches to be in, at least, #7 or #8 condition, they were both spectacular deals when purchased.

The deal on the sub is plausable, as in '02, nobody wanted a no-date sub, whereas now they're a bit more popular since they aren't made new anymore. That said, you could buy a no-date sub brand new in plastics for low $4ks as of three years ago.

The Datejust, on the other hand, sounds quite fishy. Yes, you can buy them regularly for ~$2k, but to get $3600 on buyback?? Not a chance. For it to be worth that on buyback, it has to be factory diamond bezel and rare dial, and it would have never been $2k 9 years ago.

All this, after 9 years, and neither of these watches has been serviced? That's nearly $1k right there. Many brokers will offer an 'up to' price to get you on the hook, and then back WAYYY down. Just went through it with a 2 week old watch in plastics with warranty papers. In short, they want to pay about 60-65% of retail. This guy wouldn't LOSE selling the watches, but I sincerely doubt he would make any money either.

All that said, both places (esp Sant Blanc) seem to have pretty good prices on watches. Since we're shilling here, Swiss-Wrist and Capetown are also two large, reputable volume retailers that can be pretty aggressive on pricing.


----------



## dba

hsc89 said:


> I still do not understand why the majority of those who don't care for Rolex are so vocal about their dislike for the brand and disdain for those who wear them. I do agree that there are a number of manufacturers that make a "better" watch, horologically speaking, but few that produce timepieces that are as durable AND versatile. If you don't like their watches, don't buy them. I personally think that their loudest critics are the ones who most want to own one but, for whatever reason, can't.


 True that! ^

I've been wearing a Rolex since 1984. I bought it for my 29th birthday since one always gives themselves the best presents! I didn't know that much about them except that I loved the classic lines of all of them; Oyster Bracelets, TT Datejusts with Jubilee Bracelets and of course the gold or platinum DayDate with the President Bracelet.

To this day, I haven't given [email protected]#t one about what anyone else thought of what was on my wrist. I know why I wear a Rolex. If I cared any less about what someone else thinks of my watch of choice, I wouldn't care at all.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC

Legal_Eagle said:


> I tend to favor items that are more under the radar and best appreciated by those in the know. As another example, I drive a 2011 Subaru WRX instead of a BMW 335 which everyone seems to drive. To each his own.


The only car from my past that I really miss is my silver 2001 WRX. What a car. Is the '11 as good as it looks?


----------



## Legal_Eagle

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> The only car from my past that I really miss is my silver 2001 WRX. What a car. Is the '11 as good as it looks?


I've enjoyed it so far. I bought it for the performance and practicality -- a jack of all trades vehicle, if you will. While the interior amenities on the Limited Sedan, which is what I have, are not up to BMW nor Infiniti levels, they are good enough. The acceleration is excellent, and the handling is right up there but will be even better once I add some beefier sway bars. I looked at the 335xi, C350 Sport, and Infiniti G37X, which are all much more common around here. The C350 interior was pretty spars for a Mercedes and I wasn't at all impressed with the acceleration -- very doggy. The 335xi has great acceleration, but maintenance issues down the road and the fact that all of my colleagues drive one led me away from it. Honestly, if I was going more the luxury sport sedan the G37X-S with the 7-speed manual would have been the way to go. In the end, I just couldn't pass up the value, good looks (IMO), reliability, and practicality of the WRX. Plus it is unstoppable in the winter snow with the winter tire set up I have.


----------



## Mathew J

Brio1 said:


> My sentiments were somewhat over-the-top, but I've (and my lady friend) had some awful encounters here in the Northern Virginia area with the Mercedes/Montblanc/Rolex status seeker types.
> 
> BTW, my grandfather was in the "fine jewelry" business towards the end of his life. And yes I've owned a Rolex.


I agree, certain bands tend to "fit" and those would be the three I pair well if that is a good thing I don't know....

I also don't buy that whole "most are fakes" argument, having been interested in watches for a while now I feel comfortable telling what is real and what is not, the reality is Rolex are expensive as is Louis Vuitton, not so expensive that people can't overextend themselves to own one to appear well to do.

Worst thing for Rolex with me is the attention it attracts, can't count the number of awkward conversations any of mine have started, they are usually with obnoxious people, revolve around how amazing Rolex are (when the others know virtually nothing of watches) and how expensive they are...

worst conversations are either with money enamoured ladies I have met and or sales people who also wear/own Rolex...brutal


----------



## Tiger

These are some of the reasons many watch buyers shy away from Rolex...


----------



## PTB in San Diego

Tiger said:


> These are some of the reasons many watch buyers shy away from Rolex...


Yawn...


----------



## Tiger

PTB in San Diego said:


> Yawn...


Sorry I couldn't sufficiently entertain you, PTB.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC

Mathew J said:


> I also don't buy that whole "most are fakes" argument, having been interested in watches for a while now I feel comfortable telling what is real and what is not, the reality is Rolex are expensive as is Louis Vuitton, not so expensive that people can't overextend themselves to own one to appear well to do.


While I am loath to elicit additional yawns, I earnestly presume that every Rolex and Louis Vuitton item I see is faux.


----------



## PTB in San Diego

One can find Rollies that are gaudy look-at-me watches, and one can find Rollies that are tasteful. I recently spent a morning out on an ex-Dennis Connor America's Cup 12-metre. The skipper was un-selfconsciously wearing a stainless GMT, and he was carrying it off just fine. The context was appropriate and the execution was appropriate. 

The guy I work for wears a steel and gold GMT, and I have suggested to him that he leave it at home when we call on clients. Given our market niche, my instincts were good.

Here's an Air King which is currently on the Bay, which I find very tasteful. A tad small in diameter, once one is used to the current large watches, but still a pretty and classy and understated watch, and which would compliment any well-dressed man:


----------



## Tiger

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> While I am loath to elicit additional yawns, I earnestly presume that every Rolex and Louis Vuitton item I see is faux.


Not to worry, PatentLawyerNYC, most forum members aren't so rude as to capriciously label another person's opinion as worthy of a "yawn"...


----------



## eagle2250

PTB in San Diego said:


> One can find Rollies that are gaudy look-at-me watches, and one can find Rollies that are tasteful. I recently spent a morning out on an ex-Dennis Connor America's Cup 12-metre. The skipper was un-selfconsciously wearing a stainless GMT, and he was carrying it off just fine. The context was appropriate and the execution was appropriate.
> 
> The guy I work for wears a steel and gold GMT, and I have suggested to him that he leave it at home when we call on clients. Given our market niche, my instincts were good.
> 
> Here's an Air King which is currently on the Bay, which I find very tasteful. A tad small in diameter, once one is used to the current large watches, but still a pretty and classy and understated watch, and which would compliment any well-dressed man:


Frankly PTB, That is the best and classiest looking Rolex that I can recall ever having seen. That is one I would wear in a heartbeat! Do you have the ebay listing citation available?


----------



## PTB in San Diego

Eagle, PM sent.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

Publicly, I'd like to thank PTB for this find, and the words we exchanged via PM.

I called this seller, made a very reasonable offer, and the decided to stick by their retail asking price, which it seems like they received as it is no longer listed (but not sold).

By chance, just yesterday immediately after they called me back, I stopped at my jeweler to drop off my Milgauss for routine service and adjustment (running quite fast). I showed him a picture of the one above, discussed the price, and he said 'hey, it's worth that, maybe even a few bucks more, but you weren't off base for your offer'. Then proceeds to say 'if you're looking for a vintage Rolex, I just picked this up this morning from a long time client. I can promise you've never seen one like it.........

As soon as he unwraps the tissue, I say 'I'll take it'. It was serviced in the last 3 years, was sporting the original steel band, and overall I'd call it an original 8-8.5 in condition, whereas the one listed above is probably a 9-9.5, but in REFURBISHED condition, not original (I verified this with the seller). I asked what he had available in straps for it, and he proceeds to pull out every 19mm strap in the joint, including a large variety of factory Rolex straps in exotics like lizard, ostrich, and croc, as well as aftermarkets. I went with an aftermarket in genuine croc as it was the color and pattern that best went with what I was looking for, and, for the very first time in public, a very trad Rolex.......


----------



## PTB in San Diego

Nice. Traditional and unusual at the same time. Definitely dated, in a very good way. Well done.

Do you know what year? How big is it? Looks larger than the typical 60's-ish AK's.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

PTB in San Diego said:


> Nice. Traditional and unusual at the same time. Definitely dated, in a very good way. Well done.
> 
> Do you know what year? How big is it? Looks larger than the typical 60's-ish AK's.


Thanks PTB. My jeweler said it is a 73 1/2-74 (I didn't run the serial to find out). He also said that the dial is VERY rare, as they were only made for a short time, and has the dot markers, not sticks. The luminescence on the dots and hands is tremendous and quite indicative of the quality of the dial. A second of LED light from my cell phone camera flash gave me MINUTES of glow. (of note, my jeweler isn't the 'hype' kind of guy, he'll tell you how it is, and has talked me out of some pretty big purchases that weren't good deals, or when better ones could be had; plus, his daughter works for me).

I have pretty small wrists (3-4 links out of an oyster band is what I usually need), so it makes this look bigger than it really is; it is a standard 34mm.


----------



## Ryan Brooks

I love my Omega Seamaster Professional. There are many finer watches than Rolex, A. Lange and Sohne is my favorite, classicaly beautiful watches!


----------



## Captain Peacock

I have the following watches: 

Omega: Speedmaster Professional, Seamaster Professional
Breitling: Navitimer
Panerai: 183 "Black Seal"
Longines: ww2 vintage
Universal Geneva: 1950s rose gold dress watch
Rolex: GMT Master II, Datejust two tone
Tudor: Ranger, Submariner. 

As you can tell I am a watch collector and I like all kinds of watches from vintage or modern. I would say one thing about Rolex watches, that over time they are the most accurate and trouble free watches among my collection. Therefore, they are certainly well made.


----------



## joenobody0

Captain Peacock said:


> I have the following watches:
> 
> Omega: Speedmaster Professional, Seamaster Professional
> Breitling: Navitimer
> Panerai: 183 "Black Seal"
> Longines: ww2 vintage
> Universal Geneva: 1950s rose gold dress watch
> Rolex: GMT Master II, Datejust two tone
> Tudor: Ranger, Submariner.
> 
> As you can tell I am a watch collector and I like all kinds of watches from vintage or modern. I would say one thing about Rolex watches, that over time they are the most accurate and trouble free watches among my collection. Therefore, they are certainly well made.


My GMT2 is ultra accurate. That thing is probably about +1 minute a year on the winder. My IWC Mark 15 is nearly that accurate provided it gets a reasonable amount of wrist time.


----------



## ASH

Agree....an understated Rolex is very elegant such as the Rolex Explorer. I have it and very few will even know its unless they take a closer look.

This is also the same model that Edmond Hillary wore when he climbed Everest!!!


----------



## Captain Peacock

Sir Edmond Hillary was given a Rolex bubble-back watch by the Rolex company when he attempted to climb Everest but he worn a English made Smiths watch. His Sherpa guide Tenzing worn a Rolex. It was therefore uncertain as to which watch reached the mountain first, the Smiths or Tenzing's Rolex. After the event Rolex created the "Explorer" to celebrate Sir Hillary's triumph.


----------



## dziner88

*watches are just fun to own...*

It's great to see a thread that has been active for almost 8 years, and I am just throwing in my two cents.

I like watches and don't agree with anyone who claims they are unnecessary due to mobile phones (as a person can just look at the time on it). I still use both my 3-year old Blackberry and iPhone 3G (not S) and couldn't care any less about having the latest-and-greatest device...in my opinion, they tend to be disposable purchases anyway. A watch is for a lifetime...!

I like my (2nd) Rolex Submariner (SS & 18KYG with black face) a lot....never had a problem with it. To me, it is understated and casual...can wear it with a tee, shorts and baseball cap. Have a few other watches too, a SS Tank Francaise chrono and SS Roadster chrono (which admittedly is a little large, but a stunning watch) and a Tag Heuer (that I have had since I was a teenager - and have actually worn it diving). Next on the list sometime in 2012, the Omega Orbis "Vision Blue" special edition (), the new Zenith El Primero Pilot (Steel case with Silver Sunray dial and 3 colors counters) OR the Zenith Captain Winsor (with black & blue Guilloché dial) ....all beautifully simple aesthetic Have always liked the IWC Portuguese and the new Glashutte Seventies Panorama Date is a cool, retro piece. Really into the croc strap with blue dials...look great with a solid coloured grey or black suit. Sharp. If interested, check out the Zenith Charles Vermot series with blue face details.

BTW - I am an architect/designer and am fascinated by the detail inherent in timepieces (....even gave my sister a SS Rolex Datejust for Xmas a few years ago). Do I care what others think about what I wear on my wrist? Not in the slightest. Most people would be unaware of any brands other than Rolex anyway. The joy is all mine...


----------



## PTB in San Diego

Ryan Brooks said:


> I love my Omega Seamaster Professional. There are many finer watches than Rolex, A. Lange and Sohne is my favorite, classicaly beautiful watches!


You certainly know how to separate the men from the boys, Ryan. Which model of the Lange & Söhne do you own? You should share some photos.


----------



## PTB in San Diego

dziner88 said:


> (A bunch of unpretentious common sense.)


dziner, the lack of ego, pompousness, and defensive posture displayed as you describe the pleasure you take in your watches, makes me a bit concerned. You might want to get with the program.


----------



## godan

ASH said:


> Agree....an understated Rolex is very elegant such as the Rolex Explorer. I have it and very few will even know its unless they take a closer look.
> 
> This is also the same model that Edmond Hillary wore when he climbed Everest!!!


Very true that the Explorer I is understated. Mine is my daily wear watch. While (a very few) people have noticed my DateJust, a vintage Hamilton and an IWC, I cannot remember anyone mentioning the Explorer I.


----------



## Busterdog

Bugger! I own a Rolex (generally hidden by my cuff), drive my BMW 335i convertible in the summer (with a huge smile on my old face), and write with Mont Blanc pens, I do so because I like them and consider them good products.
Mind you I ride a big FO Harley too, bucket around with my dogs in an old Nissan Titan and negotiate New England's winter roads with aplomb in a Honda Crosstour.
Course I could REALLY conform to stereotype, run the risk of subjecting myself to more supercilious derisive snorts, and trade the Honda in for a Range Rover - but THEY'RE (unlike the BMW, Rolex and Mont Blancs, etc), totally overpriced and unreliable.
Sigh.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Busterdog said:


> Bugger! I own a Rolex (generally hidden by my cuff), drive my BMW 335i convertible in the summer...


The fulfillment of every 80's trad/prep dream!!

I own a Citizen and drive a VW.

What happened??


----------



## Busterdog

WouldaShoulda said:


> The fulfillment of every 80's trad/prep dream!!
> 
> I own a Citizen and drive a VW.
> 
> What happened??


Don't worry.....Be happy!


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

PTB in San Diego said:


> dziner, the lack of ego, pompousness, and defensive posture displayed as you describe the pleasure you take in your watches, makes me a bit concerned. You might want to get with the program.


HA! Well said PTB



Busterdog said:


> Bugger! I own a Rolex (generally hidden by my cuff), drive my BMW 335i convertible in the summer (with a huge smile on my old face), and write with Mont Blanc pens, I do so because I like them and consider them good products.
> Mind you I ride a big FO Harley too, bucket around with my dogs in an old Nissan Titan and negotiate New England's winter roads with aplomb in a Honda Crosstour.
> Course I could REALLY conform to stereotype, run the risk of subjecting myself to more supercilious derisive snorts, and trade the Honda in for a Range Rover - but THEY'RE (unlike the BMW, Rolex and Mont Blancs, etc), totally overpriced and unreliable.
> Sigh.


I've gotta second Bugger here (As I ride a Road King). I'll put on jeans, sneakers, get on my harley and ride it like I stole it with the best of them, including guys who couldn't dig two bucks in change out of their pocket for a beer. Having the means to appreciate finer things doesn't (necessarily) make one a pompous, egotistical jackass.

Of note, an attorney I recently retained for a traffic matter (I was going a BIT too fast and thus needed representation) made sure to comment on my Milgauss while we were discussing the case outside of the courtroom. He was in a MTM DB pinstripe, contrast collar lavender pinstripe shirt with a unique french cuff, ungodly ugly black shoes (Ferragamo if I had to guess...), wore a submariner and wrote with a Mont Blanc. Well dressed, yes. I mentioned Glashutte to him, and he had no clue. Moral: Rolex will always be 'the' brand. Those with a finer appreciation, while still Rolex owners/wearers, know, love, and wear more than just the crown.


----------



## joycefandrell

I like the ROlex GMT II because of the second time zone function and even though it looks like a casual watch, it is the kind of watch that a business man traveling very much would wear as to follow two different time zones. It surely is a statement watch. It states that you have money and that you are not afraid to spend it.


----------

