# Rolex Submariner



## BamaCPA (Jan 19, 2008)

Gentlemen,

Can I have your opinion(s) on this piece?

I am thinking very hard about making this my first Rolex purchase. Something about the Blue is really sharp to me.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

All I'm going to say is, just be careful where you buy it. That is from a reputable authorised dealer, and not Ebay or whatever. 

Regards from the land of the Rolex replica....Folks real Rolexs come from Switzerland and not Shanghai.


----------



## joshmitra (Jun 6, 2009)

Excellent watch. The two-tone gold/steel is especially beautiful. The submariner is also probably the most versatile piece in their collection. You can wear it in both casual and formal settings. Rolex watches in general hold their value very well, just make sure you buy it from an authorized retailer.


----------



## gman-17 (Jan 29, 2009)

I have had two. Neither of them kept great time but the do look very nice. To me they are jewerly and nothing more.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

MikeDT said:


> All I'm going to say is, just be careful where you buy it. That is from a reputable authorised dealer, and not Ebay or whatever.
> 
> Regards from the land of the Rolex replica....Folks real Rolexs come from Switzerland and not Shanghai.


I'll second that. Trust me I've seen $1500 Rolex replicas. Only buy from the stockists listed on the Rolex official site.


----------



## jc1305us (Jan 13, 2009)

My friends at Timezone.com can help you find a legit Rolex (They helped me when I was looking) I'm a stainless steel guy myself, but the Sub is a classic.


----------



## Wisco (Dec 3, 2009)

I prefer and own the black dial no date version of the Sub. I never cared for the "cyclops" over the date window. Your gold and stainless with blue dial is also a classic, but with a slightly dressier look. Rolex watches are as mass marketed as Timex, but they hold their high prices in the used market. Consider it a "flat investment"... not much upside but not likely to crater in value should you decide to sell.

Enjoy,

Wisco


----------



## 12345Michael54321 (Mar 6, 2008)

gman-17 said:


> Neither of them kept great time but the do look very nice. To me they are jewerly and nothing more.


Well, sure, any multi-thousand dollar wristwatch is more about being a piece of jewelry, than it is about being a timekeeping device. I mean, if all you want is precision timekeeping, a $20 quartz watch will likely prove more accurate than 99.9% of automatics and handwounds. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a piece of jewelry; just be honest enough with yourself to admit it. A wristwatch is one of the few pieces of jewelry many men feel comfortable wearing, after all.

And as I've pointed out in the past, who really cares whether a mechanical watch is less accurate than a quartz watch? I mean, I can't ever recall having to offer apologies for showing up 7 seconds late to lunch or 3 seconds early to a client meeting, and thinking "If only I'd worn my Casio quartz watch, which synchronizes itself to signals from an atomic clock every night, instead of this piece of junk Omega Constellation that's lost nearly 14 seconds since I set it yesterday morning, I'd have been spared this humiliation." I mean, in the real world, blessed few of us need that sort of to-the-second precision in conducting our lives.

As a practical matter, I typically only wear one of my watches for a day, or perhaps a weekend, then switch to another watch. And I don't believe I've ever owned one that couldn't stay within a minute of the correct time over the course of a weekend.

(Oh, and yeah - make sure you buy the Rolex from a reputable seller. Me, I prefer Omega Seamasters to Rolex Submariners, but to each his own, right? Fact is, they're both iconic diver's watches. Nothing wrong with you liking it in blue, either.) (At the moment, I'm wearing an old Bulova Accutron.)
-- 
Michael


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

joshmitra said:


> Excellent watch. The two-tone gold/steel is especially beautiful. The submariner is also probably the most versatile piece in their collection. You can wear it in both casual and formal settings. Rolex watches in general hold their value very well, just make sure you buy it from an authorized retailer.


I've said before, and now again, a submariner in a formal setting is as appropriate as combat boots.


----------



## alphadelta (Oct 2, 2007)

Nice watch. As others posted, I too prefer the no-date sub or seadweller. For about 1/3 the money, you could get an Omega SMP or Railmaster which would be my choice.

Twotone


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

gman-17 said:


> I have had two. Neither of them kept great time but the do look very nice. To me they are jewerly and nothing more.


I own a stainless steel submariner, and personally prefer this model to the two tone blue or black, but that's why they make chocolate and vanilla. However, in my personal opinion, the statements about Rolex not keeping good time are an urban legend. Granted, no automatic watch will be as accurate as a quartz, but I've had my sub for about 5 years and have never had accuracy issues with the watch. If someone does have a problem, a quality watchmaker, or Rolex can simply adjust the movement and accuracy should not be an issue.

I consider my sub a lot more than a "piece of jewelery".


----------



## joshmitra (Jun 6, 2009)

rip said:


> I've said before, and now again, a submariner in a formal setting is as appropriate as combat boots.


I disagree. Your analogy is completely off kilter as well. I know men who have purchased the submariner strictly _because _it is so versatile. Here's mine that I picked up a little over two years ago:


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

rip said:


> I've said before, and now again, a submariner in a formal setting is as appropriate as combat boots.


Really? James Bond 007 always looked great with a Submariner and dinner jacket.


----------



## Timeless Fashion (Apr 12, 2009)

The Rolex Sub is a great watch. It is still classified as a sports watch. I think it is because it is so durable and can take a beating, which adds to its versatility. You can wear it with a suit or with casual wear. I probably would wear a watch that is thinner and sleeker with leather bands for formal wear (e.g. Patek Calatrava), but that is my just own opinion.


----------



## Thurnau (Apr 14, 2010)

To be swiss certified the watch has to be within spec on -4 to +6 seconds per day. By the end of a month or two your watch may run 5 minutes to fast! If that doesn't bother you a Rolex is a nice timepiece. The Rolex sub is known as a sports watch that can easily dress up or down. If you want something more formal in the rolex line there is the Datejust, Day date, and celiini. I think this forum has some great advice, but often gets mixed in with a lot of shouting conservative views . Rolex=combat boots, Salvatore Ferragamo=pimp shoes. 

I hardly think a rolex sub is as bad as wearing a pair of combat boots to work, in a suit, or in a tux, or at nice dinner with your wife. RIP's comment was probably mostly sarcasm.


----------



## 12345Michael54321 (Mar 6, 2008)

Thurnau said:


> To be swiss certified the watch has to be within spec on -4 to +6 seconds per day. By the end of a month or two your watch may run 5 minutes to fast!


Yes, if you wore your watch every day, for a couple of months, without ever re-setting it, it could be off by 5 minutes.

Me, I don't wear the same watch every day, for months on end. I wear a watch for a day or two or three, then put it away for a while, while I wear something else. And since I don't keep all my automatics on winders, when next I wear it I wind it and set it to the correct time.

But I agree - if one is going to wear the same watch every day for months at a time, without re-setting it, quartz is likely the way to go. Heck, buy one of those watches that syncs with a radio signal from an atomic clock every night, and you could presumably go years without having to re-set the time on your watch. (Assuming you don't travel across time zones to any great degree.)

Of course, even if you do wear the same [non-quartz] watch every day, setting it to the correct time once a week takes perhaps all of 10 seconds. I've never really found it to be so onerous a chore.
-- 
Michael


----------



## Thurnau (Apr 14, 2010)

One is easy to keep up with.
I have 3 automatic watches, and my wife has two.


----------



## Pirendeus (Jul 17, 2009)

MikeDT said:


> Really? James Bond 007 always looked great with a Submariner and dinner jacket.


You could have simply said, "James Bond 007 always looked great. Period." ;P
But the movies don't typically focus on closeups of his watch. I think in a more relaxed, formal setting, people around you have more time to appreciate your jewelry. I won't explicitly say that a submariner is totally informal to me, but a simpler watch without unnecessary functions is cleaner, and therefore more elegant in my opinion.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

How many of you Rolex owners have actually participated in extreme sports or other physically aggressive activities, while wearing those pricey time keeping ornaments. As one who has lost much less expensive time keeping instruments during over/on/in the water pursuits and who has literally shaken the metal band on a Tag Heuer, Link Series, Chronometer to the point of failure during daily distance runs over the course of a bit more than a year, I've found it wise to return to my less expensive time keeping options, while participating in such activities. I'm in agreement with gman17, Rolex's are more (or at least as much) jewelry as they are time keeping instruments and, I would add, whose purchase is more ego driven than motivated by any practical need! Just thinking? :icon_scratch:


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

In actuality, I've worn my Submariner for a lot of impromptu strenuous activities with no ill effects on the watch or any of the watch components. However, if I was planning on a long run, I would simply choose my Timex Ironman, since it has the chronograph function I would want to utilize, and the watch is significantly lighter in weight.

I would consider my sub pretty robust and would have no fear wearing the watch for any activity.

I would once again defend the fact that I don't consider the Rolex Sub a simple piece of jewelery. And contrary to most comments, Rolex is actually a relatively inexpensive watch when compared with most higher end/quality automatic watches. Compare it price wise with a Hublot, Patek Philipe, Audemars Piquet, Brequet, A. Lange, Blancpain, etc., etc. And many of those timepieces are certainly a little more "delicate" than a Rolex Sub.

I resent the constant comment about my Rolex Sub and the purchase being "ego driven". Other than the warmer months when I'm in casual wear and a short sleeve shirt, my watch is not even in view since it's under the sleeve of my shirt and not flashing around. And the stainless sub is certainly not a "blingy" watch.

I also find it amusing that the same people who can't understand why anyone would spend the money on a Rolex Sub (which keeps "worse time than a simple quartz watch") are the same people who wear a several thousand dollar suit. After all, doesn't a less expensive suit actually serve the same purpose but actually wear/last longer since finer wools tend to not last as long???

The logic and rationale always seems convenient when criticizing others, but look in the mirror and justify spending several thousand dollars on your suit, $200 on your tie, and $1000 on your shoes (will they REALLY last longer than a pair of AE's or Aldens?). Or are YOU simply feeding your ego? My watch is tucked under my shirt where it's not even seen, whereas your high spending is being "announced" to everyone. So who's really stroking his ego??

Additionally, a fine timepiece of any brand can be passed down a generation, given as a gift as a collection is upgraded, etc., when's the last time you did that with a suit or pair of shoes!


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

I suppose that the Rolex/ego thing comes from the fact that it is the most recognizable luxury watch brand (maybe the most recognizable luxury brand period). People might thus assume that one buys a Rolex because one wants to announce that he is wearing a $10K watch. As a watch collector, I can assure you that there are many ways spend $10K+ on a watch and have no one ever notice! (except your spouse when she sees the account $10K lighter!)

I think this generalization about ego is what drives the replica market and has so successfully diluted the Rolex name. Frankly, whenever I see a Rolex I assume it's fake. Same with Louis Vuitton bags in brown canvas. And for those people who have fakes, what other people think counts.



DocD said:


> I would once again defend the fact that I don't consider the Rolex Sub a simple piece of jewelery. And contrary to most comments, Rolex is actually a relatively inexpensive watch when compared with most higher end/quality automatic watches. Compare it price wise with a Hublot, Patek Philipe, Audemars Piquet, Brequet, A. Lange, Blancpain, etc., etc. And many of those timepieces are certainly a little more "delicate" than a Rolex Sub.
> 
> I resent the constant comment about my Rolex Sub and the purchase being "ego driven". Other than the warmer months when I'm in casual wear and a short sleeve shirt, my watch is not even in view since it's under the sleeve of my shirt and not flashing around. And the stainless sub is certainly not a "blingy" watch.
> 
> ...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL. DocD, I'm not saying that people shouldn't buy their Rolex's but, rather that whether we choose to admit it or not, we are not buying such items for their proclaimed functionality and/or the manufacturer's claims of qualitative practicality. While reading comments in your post amount your Timex Iron man, I had to smile...after spending over $350 to replace the band on my Tag Heuer, I too resumed using a Timex Iron man for my extended cardio sessions. So, if we can buy more accurate timepieces and more durable time pieces for so much less, why do we still go out and buy Rolex's, John Lobb's, etc? My guess is, it's for the art of the piece...and there is really nothing wrong with art appreciation (and BTW, there is a body of thought that art collecting, by it's very nature, is ego driven!).


----------



## sowilson (Jul 27, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> How many of you Rolex owners have actually participated in extreme sports or other physically aggressive activities, while wearing those pricey time keeping ornaments.


Well, I don't participate in any extreme sports but my Rolex GMT Master 2 was my daily wear when I lived in Saudi. Let's see, it traveled with me when;

I would fly on helicopter to offshore platforms.
travel on crew boats and then swing from a basket when being hoisted up to the platform off a boat.
travel in the Rub' al Khali in support of Exploration projects.
travel to various spots in the Desert to play tunes (and cook brisquet) for our troops during Desert Storm.
Travel to Thailand and go on motorcycle tours of north and northeast Thailand.
Motorcycle tours of Europe.
Motorcycle tours of New Zeland.
Bounding around Laos to visit relatives.
Safari in Africa.
Motorcycle touring of the US.
Horseback riding in the Grand Tetons.
Fly fishing.

It never let me down, kept decent time, got a bit scratched up, but polished out nicely when serviced. I still wear it a lot.


----------



## MoosicPa (Jan 30, 2008)

The Rolex Submariner is a very reliable and dependable watch. I bought my first in 1999, a SS Submariner, and it is as accurate today as it was when first purchased. I purchased my TT Blue faced sub in 2001, and I will tell you it is the watch that gets most noticed. I've received more compliments on that watch than on any other I've owned, and not because it is a Rolex. Most of the time people notice the deep blue color of the watch and will comment on that. I think it is an excellent choice! Best of luck.


----------



## Pirendeus (Jul 17, 2009)

MoosicPa said:


> The Rolex Submariner is a very reliable and dependable watch. I bought my first in 1999, a SS Submariner, and it is as accurate today as it was when first purchased. I purchased my TT Blue faced sub in 2001, and I will tell you it is the watch that gets most noticed. I've received more compliments on that watch than on any other I've owned, and not because it is a Rolex. Most of the time people notice the deep blue color of the watch and will comment on that. I think it is an excellent choice! Best of luck.


Although, as I mentioned above), I'm not a fan of the submariner, I had similar experiences with a blue-faced fossil watch when I was younger. The blue really seems to pull people's eyes to it.


----------



## juffman (May 19, 2010)

I'm not a fan of gold... much more partial to silver. The submariner is a good watch though, overpriced (you pay more for the name than other watches), but a good watch. If I was going to buy a rolex, it would be a submariner. I own a Breitling superocean chronograph (chronometer) with a much more complicated movement, larger case, more durable, and it cost $1500 less than the submariner. I wear it everyday and it still looks new. It has a blue face and a silver band. 

I want a rolex, but I just can't see paying that much for one.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

A Rolex submariner or other expensive sports watches are considered appropriate for "dress" wear only because they're expensive. If someone posted pics of some $50 quartz watch that looked identical except on very close inspection, everyone here would agree it would be inappropriate including those who would wear the submariner, or an equally sporty Breitling, Omega, etc.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Even the knock-offs are getting pricey. https://exactwatches.com/product.php?Brand=37&Model=3&Product=1

I would bet there are a dozen replicas sold for every real Rolex. This is one place you must buy from an authorized dealer. I know one guy who picked up a steal at an estate sale--watch had been in the family over 20 years. When he took it to be cleaned and serviced he had a 20 year old fake.

At retail, it costs more than it's worth. At wholesale it still costs too much. When I see a man wearing a Rolex, my first thought is it's fake.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

cdavant said:


> Even the knock-offs are getting pricey. https://exactwatches.com/product.php?Brand=37&Model=3&Product=1


Is this site operating in the USA? Appears to have a USA phone number. Wonder how they're getting away with it?

EDIT:-
https://whois.domaintools.com/exactwatches.com

"c/o exactwatches.com
N4892 Nassau
Bahamas
Tel: +852.81720004"

Note: Hong Kong phone number.



cdavant said:


> When I see a man wearing a Rolex, my first thought is it's fake.


That's very much a forgone conclusion here. Thinking of my boss with his gold Oyster Datejust and Gucci laptop bag.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Rolex watches are ugly, garish and vulgar. 

Spend your money on an Omega, Oris, IWC or other attractive quality watch instead.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

12345Michael54321 said:


> As a practical matter, I typically only wear one of my watches for a day, or perhaps a weekend, then switch to another watch. And I don't believe I've ever owned one that couldn't stay within a minute of the correct time over the course of a weekend.


I do that as well, as a watch collector of many years I have quite a few now so I like to rotate them.

Agree on the accuracy point as well. So what if any of my manual 1930s watches are half a minute slow or fast! I wear a watch to tell me the time and hour/minute are sufficient. I don't wear a watch to show that I'm rich or as a piece of jewellery or to keep me accurate to the second.

I've always been baffled by the weight of importance watchmakers place on the accuracy of their timepieces, you know the kind of thing, "this watch will only lose 0.003 of a second in 20 years" WHO CARES?


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Rolex watches are ugly, garish and vulgar.


Yeh, that's my exact thoughts when I see my boss's *fake* timepiece.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> Spend your money on an Omega, Oris, IWC or other attractive quality watch instead.


I wear a Rado myself, a *genuine* Rado Ceramica multifunction. :icon_smile:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

MikeDT said:


> I wear a Rado myself, a *genuine* Rado Ceramica multifunction. :icon_smile:


Love Rado watches. Always liked their design, very stylish. Especially like some of the older very angular ones.

My current rotation is between the one I have on today - a Swiss Wendia 1930s manual officer's watch (brown leather), a Swiss Revue-Sport 1950s manual officer's watch (black leather), a Russian 1970s manual Paratrooper's watch (black leather) a Swiss Tell 1960s manual and a Swiss Certina Argonaut 1960s manual (the last 2 on flexi metal bracelets. I don't like the metal bracelets that you have to open and close)


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

If you're looking for a blue dial consider the Oyster. If you wear a Rolex make sure it matches your lifestyle. (If you sport a Rolex with jeans and a hoodie while driving a Honda, people will and should assume it's a fake). Sorry for the blurry picture, there's something about the dial I couldn't catch with the camera. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Rolex watches are ugly, garish and vulgar.
> 
> Spend your money on an Omega, Oris, IWC or other attractive quality watch instead.


Statements such as "Rolex watches are ugly, garish and VULGAR" are not just ignorant, they're offensive. That statement simply reflects an attitude that I can't comprehend. How anyone can refer to the entire Rolex watch line as "vulgar" is beyond my comprehension. Although I'm a strong fan of Omega watches, hold a Speedmaster or Seamaster in your hand and a Sub or Daytona in your other hand and please tell me what makes the Rolex "VULGAR" when comparing the two??

I also find it ironic and almost comical that you are proud of your Rado watches. Because if I was personally offered a Rado or a Casio or Timex Ironman, I would choose the Casio or Ironman every time. Among all the serious watch collectors that I know (yes, even those who do not own Rolex), Rado are the laughing stock of the watch world. About the only claim to fame is their unique use of materials such as ceramic.

So when it comes to "good taste" and watches, when you make any comments I will certainly consider the source.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

My Rolex Explorer I is certainly not "garish" for everyday wear. The DateJust is more easily seen because of its size and the bubble. A vintage IWC flieger with a leather band is innocuous. A newly-purchased 40mm Citizen EcoDrive chronograph has more dials, buttons, etc., to attract the eye. I can safely say that with perhaps one or two exceptions, nobody has ever commented on any of them .


----------



## gman-17 (Jan 29, 2009)

DocD said:


> I own a stainless steel submariner, and personally prefer this model to the two tone blue or black, but that's why they make chocolate and vanilla. However, in my personal opinion, the statements about Rolex not keeping good time are an urban legend. Granted, no automatic watch will be as accurate as a quartz, but I've had my sub for about 5 years and have never had accuracy issues with the watch. If someone does have a problem, a quality watchmaker, or Rolex can simply adjust the movement and accuracy should not be an issue.
> 
> I consider my sub a lot more than a "piece of jewelery".


I had two basic stainless models--one was continuously fast the other continuously slow. They added time or lost time each week. The first I just kept for a while and then sold --given to me by a girl and was getting married so you can figure that one out. My wife purchased the second for me as a 10 year wedding anniversary gift. I worked very hard with the jeweler (who was sure Rolex could get the timing right) but to no avail. I have known others who have Rolex watches wtihout any issues but for me, it is not an urban legend. I love the look of the Sub but it doesn't keep good time for me.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

DocD said:


> Statements such as "Rolex watches are ugly, garish and VULGAR" are not just ignorant, they're offensive. That statement simply reflects an attitude that I can't comprehend. How anyone can refer to the entire Rolex watch line as "vulgar" is beyond my comprehension. Although I'm a strong fan of Omega watches, hold a Speedmaster or Seamaster in your hand and a Sub or Daytona in your other hand and please tell me what makes the Rolex "VULGAR" when comparing the two??
> 
> I also find it ironic and almost comical that you are proud of your Rado watches. Because if I was personally offered a Rado or a Casio or Timex Ironman, I would choose the Casio or Ironman every time. Among all the serious watch collectors that I know (yes, even those who do not own Rolex), Rado are the laughing stock of the watch world. About the only claim to fame is their unique use of materials such as ceramic.
> 
> So when it comes to "good taste" and watches, when you make any comments I will certainly consider the source.


+1 :aportnoy: my high school math teacher had a Rado, he was the laughing stock of the class not the world :icon_jokercolor:, and for those who are skeptical about Rolex' accuracy I say this: my father had owned Rolex's for his entire life, and never had a complain. His only complain was when will those watches break or malfunction so I can get a new one! (they never did)


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

DocD said:


> I also find it ironic and almost comical that you are proud of your Rado watches. Because if I was personally offered a Rado or a Casio or Timex Ironman, I would choose the Casio or Ironman every time. Among all the serious watch collectors that I know (yes, even those who do not own Rolex), Rado are the laughing stock of the watch world. About the only claim to fame is their unique use of materials such as ceramic.


I like to consider myself a bit of watch collector--no perpetual calendars or tourbillons in the collection, so maybe I'm flattering myself--but I don't think your observation concerning Rado is universal. When it comes to Rado, Movado, Esq, Fossil etc., they are not laughed at but simply not on the collectors' radar. Sort of like how a car enthusiast feels about Toyota Camrys. They are products not aimed at enthusiasts.


----------



## At Law (Apr 15, 2008)

cdavant said:


> When I see a man wearing a Rolex, my first thought is it's fake.


As a Stainless Steel Rolex Submariner Date owner myself, I can tell
a "fake" Rolex a mile away.

The "fakes" are of inferior quality (the band, dial, case, etc.) and this is quite obvious to anyone who owns a Rolex or is generally a watch connoisseur.

Owning a replica watch, or replica anything, and attempting to pass it off
as authentic truly reflects on the poor character of the wearer.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

As far as I can tell, every watch brand has its garish offerings and its more subdued ones. Rolex certainly makes some atrocious "look at me, I have money" watches. But so, too, does just about everyone else. Rolex also makes some rather understated watches. I don't particularly like two-toned watches, but the fact that the one in question isn't a Rolex isn't the problem.

I frankly can't believe that anyone can tell a fake from a mile away. Perhaps some fakes, but from what I've read on watch forums, often only an expert can tell when he/she closely examines it and opens it up.


----------



## budrichard (Apr 3, 2008)

1979, one Rolex Submariner/Date, $845. Have purchased a total of 5 other Rolex's, two for my wife who now wears ladies all white gold with MOP/Diamond dial, one for daughter and a SS Daytona for me, just because.
1979 Sub on my wrist every day since. Sub was chosen for entry into radiation environments, so it could be easily decontaminated if needed and because of the Trtium dial, so I could tell the elapsed time in the dark if needed. I fly fish, hunt, both whitewater and flatwater canoe and kayak as well as XC ski. Rolex fliplock bracelet work over any type of sports gear such as a dry suit or other. Rolex has never been serviced as still is running very well and maintains water resistance. The need for service every few years has been hashed out in WatchTime magazine and you really only service when they cease to function.
Accuracy is on a par with any other mechanical watch and as correctly posted its a couple of seconds/day which can lead to minutes per month but so what. There isn't single electronic watch that can survive what a Sub can survive.
Cyclop lens is very useful as you get older. When I purchased my Daytona, I kept looking at my wrist for the date, Daytona back to safe and Sub back to wrist every since. BTW, the pushers on the Daytona need to be screwed down to maintain water resistance, nice watch but not use to me in my activities.
Lots of Rolex bashers but not the individuals that actually own them.
Sub goes to Lyric Opera, CSO and other functions with no problems. BTW the Sub pattern is so common now among knockoffs, that one really doesn't have to worry about losing your wrist anymore if you purchase SS or white gold. I lobbied Rolex for white gold in the Sub for many years and now they have come through but I don't know if i will now purchase one?
As Posted only purchase from an Authorized Rolex Dealer and don't let any Forum type 'help' with purchase. My dealer near Chicago will discount but you must pay in person, so loook for a dealer that will discount, they do exist but i suspect only those that do a lot of business.
Have fun and enjoy for Submariner, its a great watch for now and for the ages.-Dick


----------



## BamaCPA (Jan 19, 2008)

camorristi said:


> If you're looking for a blue dial consider the Oyster. If you wear a Rolex make sure it matches your lifestyle. (If you sport a Rolex with jeans and a hoodie while driving a Honda, people will and should assume it's a fake). Sorry for the blurry picture, there's something about the dial I couldn't catch with the camera. :icon_smile_big:


Very good point. I wear a suit to work almost every day and I drive a Mercedes C-300. I'm not really sure what a "hoodie" is . Most assuredly I've never owned a Honda.


----------



## Tomasso (Aug 17, 2005)

The two tone Sub with the blue face is one of the few two tones that I like, though I wouldn't wear it with a suit.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

DocD said:


> Statements such as "Rolex watches are ugly, garish and VULGAR" are not just ignorant, they're offensive.


That's my opinion. I didn't ask you to like it. And I really don't care if you do or not. And how an opinion about a wristwatch can be offensive I don't know. We're talking about watches here, not religious relics.



DocD said:


> I also find it ironic and almost comical that you are proud of your Rado watches. Because if I was personally offered a Rado or a Casio or Timex Ironman, I would choose the Casio or Ironman every time. Among all the serious watch collectors that I know (yes, even those who do not own Rolex), Rado are the laughing stock of the watch world. About the only claim to fame is their unique use of materials such as ceramic.


By the way I don't own any Rados. I said I love Rado watches, that is not the same as saying I own Rado watches. Also, you clearly know very little about what watch collecting and what watch collectors like and have obviously never consulted any books on the subjcet, becasue Rado watches are very prized by collectors, and are mentioned in all the books I have on the subject.

Rolex = brash, vulgar, ugly. Rado = classy, stylish, original.
If you have a problem with people expressing personal opinions like that, and tastes about such items then you're really not suited to this kind of forum. Because this forum is built on members' expressions of taste, style and opinion.


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

Hello,

Obviously making character judgements based on someone's watch is a dangerous game to play, but I think in my experience at least there is a certain amount of accuracy to it. Two people I very much admire wear Rolexes and my own first "good" watch was a Tudor that I am still proud to own. Having said that there is no doubt that Rolex does court vulgarity these days. The new dial designs with the word "Rolex" pave'd across them and gold "sports" watches (a complete anacronysm if ever there was one) being good examples. Having said that, they're also the victims of their own success aren't they. Ubiquity breeds contempt I suppose and there is no doubt that, mechanically-speaking, you can get better finished and more interesting movements in other watches for less money-yet with a much worse resale value.
Horses for courses I suppose but I think the days of a Rolex somehow being seen as implying good taste have long gone and I personally would certainly not buy one now.

Just my opinion of course,

Chris.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> That's my opinion. I didn't ask you to like it. And I really don't care if you do or not. And how an opinion about a wristwatch can be offensive I don't know. We're talking about watches here, not religious relics.
> 
> By the way I don't own any Rados. I said I love Rado watches, that is not the same as saying I own Rado watches. Also, you clearly know very little about what watch collecting and what watch collectors like and have obviously never consulted any books on the subjcet, becasue Rado watches are very prized by collectors, and are mentioned in all the books I have on the subject.
> 
> ...


First of all, I don't need you to tell me what type of forum I should visit, nor do I need you to tell me about watch collecting and what I know and don't know. I happen to collect watches, and would safely state that I've forgotten more about watches than you've ever known.

I attempted to be diplomatic, but because you sit anonymously behind a computer, you can act pompous and use terms that simply make you look and sound as "stuffy" as you probably are in person.

So, the only thing I really find "brash, vulgar and ugly" is your attitude.

I guess I'll await one of your witty replies. Remember to look through your thesasuarus before replying. But that's after you summon your butler Jeeves.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

So anyway..... It seems a few folks have indicated that they are watch collectors. What are some interesting pieces in your collection?


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Well now, I was tempted to jump into this thread earlier but decided against as I know I'll only offend.... I do collect though, so now I will.

This is the most recent addition to my collection and I believe it to be a very interesting piece. It's my new everyday watch and oddly for me, I managed to take some pics of it a while back.....

It's the Corum Romulus Chronograph...


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

^^^ Lovely. 

Today I have on a circa 1960 Girard-Perregaux alarm (twin crowns). One my favs. 50 years old but still a charmer.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

My favourite watch the one I inherited from my Father - a Patek 1598 purchased in 1951. Rose gold and ivory dial with black strap - not the original as it's been through a few down the years. I had a genuine Patek fitted 5 years ago - special order and had the used the orginal gold buckle used. Like yours, it runs perfectly but I only wear for the most special of occasions.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

That sounds lovely. May your grandson enjoy it!


----------



## KennethB (Jul 29, 2009)

I'm no watch collector (I don't really like the idea of collecting anything.) I wear a 29 dollar Timex most days. In fact, when the last one quit working, I bought 2 so that I'd have a backup. I gave my backup to one of my kids about a month ago.

In 1986, I was given an engraved Rolex Submariner (black face - bubble over the date) for winning a sailboat race. I never wore the thing for sailing - you need a digital watch for timing the start sequence, etc. Most guys would keep it with their dry shoes and put them on at the club after racing. This struck me as silly.

The watch is large, and I find the band uncomfortable. The tritium accents on the face quit glowing, and it stopped winding itself a couple of years ago. I sent it to Rolex for servicing, and for a ridiculous amount of money, it was made like new. I keep it for sentimental reasons, but only wear it once/month or so. I've considered trying a stripped NATO band, for comfort, but that might give off it's own weird vibe.

If I had a choice, I'd probably choose one of the more understated Rolex watches - not the dive ready Submariner (unless you are a dive captain or some such).


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

When this first post of this thread was posted I thought it was troll bait. But I guess I'll jump in anyway.

I'm a long time but infrequent diver but I wear dive watches because they seem like the only kind of watch I can't break. I also swim every day and don't want to leave an expensive watch in a locker so I want something waterproof. I wear my rolex for just about any activity, except maybe rock climbing. If I'm doing something like backpacking I'll put it (or a seiko dive watch) on a velcro strap because it's more comfortable and can be adjusted as my arm swells during the day. I like the classic looks of the sub, except for that bubble. I wore an original GMT master for about ten or twelve years but it could never be regulated properly, always running slow, the plastic crystal would get all scratched up and need to be replaced every five years or so, and I kept knocking the bezel off. I wore an omega sea master for a while, but eventually wanted to go back to a rolex. I decided to get a sub, but like I said I don't like the bubble and the non date isn't a chronometer. At the time the sea dweller also had a nicer band, so I got a sea dweller.

I've been very happy with the sea dweller. It keeps great time, I adjust it by a minute or two every couple months. Its nearly indestructible. The only draw back is that its a bit thick, but I can live with that.

I also have, and like, a black omega sea master. Its a very nice watch but it isn't as comfortable, and to my eyes not as nice looking as the Sea Dweller. For the last ten years the Sea Dweller gets worn probably 80% of the time, but if I was going to buy my first nice watch now I would definitely start with an omega, though maybe not a sea master. They are as good quality and a much better value.

My advice would be to not buy the blue faced sub. I thought the blue looked sharp at one time and wore a blue faced watch in my twenties, but I got tired of it. I think its a look that is more trendy than classic and will not wear well with time.

A omega seamaster from the fifties or sixties would be a really nice watch.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

I've been eye-balling the Submariner for about a year. Good enough for Bond. Good enough for me. It's got nice clean lines, a solid weight, and will look good in a tux or in sports attire.


----------



## jacnyr (Apr 29, 2010)

The Submariner is a great looking watch but; I'd get the black one versus the blue. I longed for a Omega Seamaster for sometime with the blue dial. I actually walked by the black dial one many times before, one day it really sang to me. IMO the black dial is more versatile.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

DocD said:


> First of all, I don't need you to tell me what type of forum I should visit, nor do I need you to tell me about watch collecting and what I know and don't know. I happen to collect watches, and would safely state that I've forgotten more about watches than you've ever known.
> 
> I attempted to be diplomatic, but because you sit anonymously behind a computer, you can act pompous and use terms that simply make you look and sound as "stuffy" as you probably are in person.
> 
> ...


Oh my dear boy, do calm down, you are just as anonymous to me as I am to you. And on the subject of a thesaurus may I suggest that such a book is beyond your current ability until you learn how to spell it. A dictionary will help you with that of course.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

VictorRomeo said:


> My favourite watch the one I inherited from my Father - a Patek 1598 purchased in 1951. Rose gold and ivory dial with black strap - not the original as it's been through a few down the years. I had a genuine Patek fitted 5 years ago - special order and had the used the orginal gold buckle used. Like yours, it runs perfectly but I only wear for the most special of occasions.


A real beauty indeed.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Oh my dear boy, do calm down, you are just as anonymous to me as I am to you. And on the subject of a thesaurus may I suggest that such a book is beyond your current ability until you learn how to spell it. A dictionary will help you with that of course.


Ah yes, you must be in your glory since you caught an obvious simple "typo". Believe me, I know how to spell.

By the way, when you were younger, did you ever get stuffed into a locker in high school for actually referring to someone as "my dear BOY"???? You simply confirmed my prior comments regarding your obvious "stuffy", aka pompous attitude.

My dear BOY? Please...


----------



## gloden (Jan 5, 2010)

Since GOLDEN EYE James Bond has been wearing the Omega Seamaster and Planet Ocean.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

DocD said:


> Ah yes, you must be in your glory since you caught an obvious simple "typo". Believe me, I know how to spell.
> 
> By the way, when you were younger, did you ever get stuffed into a locker in high school for actually referring to someone as "my dear BOY"???? You simply confirmed my prior comments regarding your obvious "stuffy", aka pompous attitude.
> 
> My dear BOY? Please...


Oh dear, you certainly were at the end of the queue when humour was being handed out weren't you dear boy?...as well as lacking the capacity to recognise when someone is pulling your leg. 
Terribly awkward having to spell things out for people all the time. Of course you wouldn't know, not being able to spell.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Oh dear, you certainly were at the end of the queue when humour was being handed out weren't you dear boy?...as well as lacking the capacity to recognise when someone is pulling your leg.
> Terribly awkward having to spell things out for people all the time. Of course you wouldn't know, not being able to spell.


You're so predictable, it's almost boring. But please remember to mention my simple "typo" (vs. inability to spell) in each one of your subsequent posts.

But I am amused by your constant pompous use of terms such as "Oh dear" and "dear boy". I guess those terms help you stay in touch with your feminine side.

By the way, you don't happen to be a member of a motorcylce gang such as the Hell's Angels or the Pagans, do you???


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Oh yes, I thought so. I thought you might be one of those.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Oh yes, I thought so. I thought you might be one of those.





DocD said:


> You're so predictable, it's almost boring. But please remember to mention my simple "typo" (vs. inability to spell) in each one of your subsequent posts.
> 
> But I am amused by your constant pompous use of terms such as "Oh dear" and "dear boy". I guess those terms help you stay in touch with your feminine side.
> 
> By the way, you don't happen to be a member of a motorcylce gang such as the Hell's Angels or the Pagans, do you???


Gentlemen: It's well beyond time to end this exchange. You are both starting to come off as a bit silly, at this point! Perhaps we could just agree to disagree? Thanks for your cooperation.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

And I was just beginning to have fun Oh well, all good things must come to an end I suppose.


----------



## chamjoe (Oct 26, 2009)

I too have been toying with getting almost that exact one minus the gold. The only reason I haven't is because of all of the replicas out there (am am more of an outside the mainstream) and the "type" of people that I always seem to see wearing them. People seem to get them not because of how they look but how recognizable they are to others and perceives wealth. Kind of like the brown LV purses women wear I always assume they are fake and they are trying too hard. I'll stick to my vintage Omega for now.


----------



## Duffle (Aug 1, 2004)

If you're after that kind of watch forget the Submariner and get a Sew Dweller - its a Submariner on steroids...


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Duffle said:


> If you're after that kind of watch forget the Submariner and get a Sew Dweller - its a Submariner on steroids...


The Sea Dweller or the "newer version", the Deep Sea are great watches, though they have almost comical depth ratings. I'm sure that few people who purchase the Submariner actually use the watch for it's intended purpose, and the depth ratings of the Sea Dweller and Deep Sea are simply for the record books.

That being stated, the major problem with those two models is the difficulty fitting the watches under a shirt sleeve due to the thickness of the watch, particularly the new Deep Sea version.

Although many seem to be concerned that owning or wearing a Submariner (mine is stainless, not two tone), is to show the watch off, or scares some because it is an often copied watch is really not a concern of mine. Other than times when I'm in a casual short sleeve shirt, my watch is "hidden" under my shirt sleeve 95% of the time. When I exercise, I either don't wear a watch or wear a simple Timex Ironman to time myself with the stopwatch function. And I'm certainly not concerned about "fakes". If other people think I'm wearing a fake, that's not my concern. Additionally, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Many Rolex owners say they can "spot a fake a mile away." Apart from the way the older fakes second hand moved, what would distinguish a $150 knock-off from a $1500 replica from a real Rolex? Is it like pornography--you know it when you see it? With so many variations of the real thing available how would you know a Deep Sea was counterfit had you never seen one up close?


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

cdavant said:


> Many Rolex owners say they can "spot a fake a mile away." Apart from the way the older fakes second hand moved, what would distinguish a $150 knock-off from a $1500 replica from a real Rolex? Is it like pornography--you know it when you see it? With so many variations of the real thing available how would you know a Deep Sea was counterfit had you never seen one up close?


It is more accurate to say that the fakes that can be spotted, they can spot a mile away. The claim is obviously fallacious.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

I have had some "fakes" in my hand, and some are very easy to identify via poor materials, poor execution, etc., and other replicas are extremely difficult to identify, even upon close inspection. I know some relatively knowledgeable watch enthusiasts who were fooled or almost fooled, until the case back was opened and the actual mechanism was inspected.

Some aren't so easy to spot "a mile away".


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
...and the absolute best way to avoid buying a fake is to purchase only from an authorized dealer!


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

The way to differenciate a real from a fake is really simple and can be 'spotted a mile away' (figurativly of course, as a magnifying glass is needed to really see this in detail). There are number of ways to spot the fake and it of course depends on the fake - some being better than others. For example, Rolex never made a skeleton case back.... A number of 'better' fakes do to show off an impressive looking automatic movement. The date bubble is another way - ususally not the right level of magnification and off centre. However the best way to spot a fake is the fact that all new Rolexes have the Rolex crown micro-etched into the crystal with the etchings spaced differently. No fake has this - even the very best. This was introduced in the early noughties. So be careful when buying vintage.

And yeah, buy from an authorised or at the very least very reputable dealer. Caveat emptor.

Finally, like anything in life - if it's too good to be true, it usually is.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Actually, some of the replicas do have a crown micro-etched in the crystal, similar to an authentic Rolex, though as you stated, the spacing is often a little awkward or the crown has a slightly different shape/characteristic than the real deal.

Interestingly, it's a long story, but shortly after purchasing my sub, I had to have the crystal replaced. I purchased my sub at an authorized dealer, and had the dealer (my patient) send it to the Rolex Service Center in NYC. After I received it back, I looked for the "crown" etched in the new crystal to see if it looked like the crown in my "old" crystal. The "new" crystal had the crown, but inside the crown, there was a very small sideways "s". 

Apparently, when Rolex replaces a crystal, they use this small sideways "s" etched within the small crown to denote that it's a replaced crystal and not an original, though it is still authentic. This may have some significance in the future for those who want to purchase a watch with all "original" components.

The etched crown can be easily visualized with some minor magnification, good light and the perfect angle.


----------



## vatoemperor (Jun 15, 2008)

Thurnau said:


> To be swiss certified the watch has to be within spec on -4 to +6 seconds per day.


That is for COSC certification, not "Swiss". It is an independent agency, though Rolex is a majority of their rated movements. Many manufacturers enforce their own standards, which are often higher.

The bar for "Swiss Made" turns out to be fairly low, you can assemble a Chinese movement into a Chinese case in Switzerland and call it "Swiss" if a certain percentage of cost comes from that assembly.

I think most the Rolex lines, aside from Celini and a few Oysters, are like sport utility watches. They are too large to be properly worn with dress clothing, very much at home at the golf course. Some can get away with business casual. Wear it while "dressed" as you would mall shoes - most people won't know the difference and will be impressed at the price.

I would suggest looking at preowned dress watches from more boutique brands. Many of these are handmade (as opposed to mass produced) and the small market for them eviscerates the resale value after initial purchase. You could easily find a competitively priced Jaeger-LeCoultre, IWC or even Vacheron Constantin that will be more dress appropriate and perhaps more horologically venerable.


----------



## Enron (Feb 16, 2010)

jacnyr said:


> The Submariner is a great looking watch but; I'd get the black one versus the blue. I longed for a Omega Seamaster for sometime with the blue dial. I actually walked by the black dial one many times before, one day it really sang to me. IMO the black dial is more versatile.
> https://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt286/modyblu/P1010081.jpg


Nice! ATL-area Seamaster represent~


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

> Among all the serious watch collectors that I know (yes, even those who do not own Rolex), Rado are the laughing stock of the watch world.


Funny...take out your parenthetical statement, then chance the word "Rado" to "Rolex", and I'd say I've heard exactly the same thing. I've further heard that many serious horologists consider Rolex to be the white trash of the watch world, the kind of thing that lottery winners buy to show off their new money, because they don't know any better. (Please note that I am relaying something I've heard, and that I am _not_ stating my own opinion on the matter. Regarding my own opinion, I will only go so far as to say that over the ~$1,000 price point, my attention is focused squarely on Breitling.)


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

JJR512 said:


> Funny...take out your parenthetical statement, then chance the word "Rado" to "Rolex", and I'd say I've heard exactly the same thing. I've further heard that many serious horologists consider Rolex to be the white trash of the watch world, the kind of thing that lottery winners buy to show off their new money, because they don't know any better. (Please note that I am relaying something I've heard, and that I am _not_ stating my own opinion on the matter. Regarding my own opinion, I will only go so far as to say that over the ~$1,000 price point, my attention is focused squarely on Breitling.)


I find your post amusing. I really believe it once again perpetuates an urban legend. I know a lot of serious watch collectors, and have been at many watch "events", and have never once heard any Rolex bashing, other than statements regarding Rolex being resistant to change.

I believe one of the reasons "lottery" winners are associated with purchasing Rolex (if that's in fact true), has simply been because if you do any research, Rolex has tremendous brand name recognition. But once again, I would hardly call Rolex a "white trash" timepiece.

I have never stated that Rolex is the premier watch brand. In my opinion, it's an excellent work-horse of a watch. It's tremendously over-priced, as all watches are in my opinion. However, I'm confident that if you interviewed most knowledgeable and experienced watchmakers, the majority would tell you that the movement and quality of Rolex is superior to Breitling, who up until recently did not even make an in-house movement.

Breitling makes an excellent watch, though it's a little "blingy" for my taste, but once again I don't believe that at the present time there is a quality comparison. Breitling just recently started making their own in-house movement.


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

DocD said:


> However, I'm confident that if you interviewed most knowledgeable and experienced watchmakers, the majority would tell you that the movement and quality of Rolex is superior to Breitling, who up until recently did not even make an in-house movement.


Hello,

Much of what you say in your previous post is simply personal opinion of course so it would be churlish to remark upon it. However I find this portion of your post rather amusing given that Rolex themselves have only very recently started manufacturing their own movements and that, allegedly, this was mainly due to the far more prestigious manufactures who used to supply many of their showpiece movements deciding to keep them for themselves rather than share them with Rolex. The most obvious example of this is, of course, the new Daytona being nowhere near as desirable as those with the Zenith El Primero movement.
Rolex, like Cartier, Breitling, Omega and so many of the other well-known super-brands were very late to the party as far as being true manufactures was concerned.

Chris.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

DocD said:


> I believe one of the reasons "lottery" winners are associated with purchasing Rolex (if that's in fact true), has simply been because if you do any research, Rolex has tremendous brand name recognition.


I believe it's actually because if you do _no_ research, Rolex has tremendous brand name recognition. Everybody knows the name, everybody knows they're the brand that gets ripped off and faked with cheap copies, and everybody knows they're being faked because they're too expensive for ordinary folks to afford. At least, that's the perception down in the lower income brackets, which is why when those guys win the lottery, they're so eager to buy a real one.



> Breitling makes an excellent watch, though it's a little "blingy" for my taste, but once again I don't believe that at the present time there is a quality comparison. Breitling just recently started making their own in-house movement.


You made that last point twice, it must be really important to you for some reason. Now, as for blingyness (it's really upsetting my spellchecker to write that), I bet you'd find Rolex in more rap videos than Breitling, and that's all the gauge I need to tell me which one has more bling.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

chrstc said:


> Hello,
> 
> Much of what you say in your previous post is simply personal opinion of course so it would be churlish to remark upon it. However I find this portion of your post rather amusing given that Rolex themselves have only very recently started manufacturing their own movements and that, allegedly, this was mainly due to the far more prestigious manufactures who used to supply many of their showpiece movements deciding to keep them for themselves rather than share them with Rolex. The most obvious example of this is, of course, the new Daytona being nowhere near as desirable as those with the Zenith El Primero movement.
> Rolex, like Cartier, Breitling, Omega and so many of the other well-known super-brands were very late to the party as far as being true manufactures was concerned.
> ...


Yes. I find little of _horological_ interest in Rolex timepieces. Indeed, I suspect the focus of the Rolex timepiece buyer is the outside of the watch, not the inside. My own perspective puts greater weight on the movement. Hence my lust for, e.g., Lange.... And now that Panerai has some interesting in-house movements, they've really caught of my attention. Shame I bought mine before the current era.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Rolex has name brand recognition, because they want name brand recognition. They pay a premium for it via their marketing dollar, and have for the greater part of a century. That said they do make a damn fine watch. Do they make the _*best*_ watch? No. But you also don't pay anywhere near the same price as the best watch. For a mass produced watch of the quality Rolexes are, you get good watches.

No, they aren't of the same horological interest as some of the other big names. But they really aren't trying to be. Rolex makes _*tool*_ watches. It's the best term I can use to describe them. Just because the majority of people don't use them for their intended function doesn't make them any less tools. The Submariner/Deepsea/Seadweller are all dive watches of the Sport variety. They have a specific function. So does the Daytona and the Yatchmaster.

I've personally been wanting a Submariner for awhile now. I kill battery operated watches. Something about my personal magnetic field just drains them dry in about 3-6 months. I've worn solar powered watches instead which helps, since I can usually get a few years out of them before they are just destroyed (casing, face, & bands). The Sub however "calls" to me, and I know that there's very little in this world that I can do to actually hurt it. It's rugged, near scratchproof, automatic, and designed to last decades. And Rolex has the track record, on that model to prove it.

Would I love a Paneri? Sure. Would I wear it every day? No. Would I wear a Rolex sub every day? You bet your ascot I would. Even at the $6000 price tag (which is more than a couple mortgage payments), I doubt it would become a case queen.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

JJR512 said:


> I believe it's actually because if you do _no_ research, Rolex has tremendous brand name recognition. Everybody knows the name, everybody knows they're the brand that gets ripped off and faked with cheap copies, and everybody knows they're being faked because they're too expensive for ordinary folks to afford. At least, that's the perception down in the lower income brackets, which is why when those guys win the lottery, they're so eager to buy a real one.
> 
> You made that last point twice, it must be really important to you for some reason. Now, as for blingyness (it's really upsetting my spellchecker to write that), I bet you'd find Rolex in more rap videos than Breitling, and that's all the gauge I need to tell me which one has more bling.


I would probably respond, if your post made any sense, so I'll simply refrain.


----------



## Enron (Feb 16, 2010)

The pissing match in this thread is really ridiculous.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Enron said:


> The pissing match in this thread is really ridiculous.


Aren't all pissing matches? But has this one gone Plaid yet?


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Enron said:


> The pissing match in this thread is really ridiculous.


Yes, I know, isn't it? All I'm saying is something I've heard from other sources, which I made clear was the case, just to get whined at and some BS about not making any sense. Some people are just so _negative_. Sometimes I think the purpose of a discussion forum is lost on some people. Sometimes I think some people think that online discussion forums (not AAAC specifically, but in general) are really just "worship my viewpoint and subscribe to my newsletter or STFU" forums.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Exactly, I've asked that everyone respond to my newsletter???? Another senseless response. At least you're consistent.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> Would I love a Paneri? Sure. Would I wear it every day? No. Would I wear a Rolex sub every day? You bet your ascot I would. Even at the $6000 price tag (which is more than a couple mortgage payments), I doubt it would become a case queen.


Is that because you think the Panerai couldn't stand up to everyday use, or because you just couldn't bear to see blemish come its way?

Unfortunate story in this regard--and a lesson to watchmakers: My Panerai in the "1950" model or "fiddy" as it is sometimes called. It is oversized and has a bubble crystal that projects about 1/4" from the case. On this model at least, Panerai has an anti-reflective coating on both the outside and inside of the crystal. A run in with an over-aggressive elevator door put a small blemish on the AR coating. Why they would put a scratch-able coating on a virtually un-scratchable substrate still boggles me.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I'm curious about the notion of "horological" interest. What makes a watch "horologically" interesting?

An old girlfriend who was both an engineer and a B-school PhD student once gave me a half-hour lecture about Swatch watches. According to her, they're a marvel of engineering and industrial design because of a variety of factors that only someone like her would recognize as important, ranging from the watch's durability to the ramifications of its design for mass production. To her, few watches are as horologically interesting.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

tocqueville said:


> I'm curious about the notion of "horological" interest. What makes a watch "horologically" interesting?
> 
> An old girlfriend who was both an engineer and a B-school PhD student once gave me a half-hour lecture about Swatch watches. According to her, they're a marvel of engineering and industrial design because of a variety of factors that only someone like her would recognize as important, ranging from the watch's durability to the ramifications of its design for mass production. To her, few watches are as horologically interesting.


Well, let me say that _to me_, I have yet to see a Swatch that is horologically interesting. Of course that is because "horologically interesting" is entirely subjective.

To me, a watch's inner workings make it HI. So while a basic off the shelf ETA automatic movement is truly a marvel of modern manufacture, it doesn't raise my blood pressure. At the other end of the spectrum, there are in-house movements made from scratch that have complications whose execution boggles the mind (tourbillions, perpetual calendars, minute repeaters, etc.). That these things can be accomplished just through mechanical means fascinates me. One of the coolest things I've seen was a complication by FP Journe called "deadbeat seconds." It took an automatic movement that should have a sweeping seconds hand and made it "tick" like a quartz watch. Curious purpose, but hellishly difficult to execute.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

DocD said:


> Exactly, I've asked that everyone respond to my newsletter???? Another senseless response.


First of all, it was "subscribe" not "respond". Secondly, that's called an "expression" and is not meant to be taken literally any more than the rest of that sentence was (although you didn't seem to have any problem with the other parts, oddly). Finally, I'm not sure what you meant by...


> At least your consistent.


At least my consistent _what_?

Maybe it would have just been better if you had actually taken your own advice and refrained from replying, especially if it's just to say that you couldn't comprehend a reply that was simple enough for anyone with half a brain. Unless you just like entertaining everyone with ridiculous pissing matches, I'm all for that.


----------



## hsc89 (Oct 14, 2009)

chrstc said:


> Hello,
> 
> Much of what you say in your previous post is simply personal opinion of course so it would be churlish to remark upon it. However I find this portion of your post rather amusing given that Rolex themselves have only very recently started manufacturing their own movements and that, allegedly, this was mainly due to the far more prestigious manufactures who used to supply many of their showpiece movements deciding to keep them for themselves rather than share them with Rolex. The most obvious example of this is, of course, the new Daytona being nowhere near as desirable as those with the Zenith El Primero movement.
> Rolex, like Cartier, Breitling, Omega and so many of the other well-known super-brands were very late to the party as far as being true manufactures was concerned.
> ...


Actually, you're wrong. Rolex has been manufacturing its own movements (and the majority of their case parts) for decades. While it is true that the newest version of the Daytona now uses an in-house movement (the 4130, I believe) in place of the venerable El Primero from Zenith, it is the only model for which Rolex turned to an outside supplier since, I believe, its infancy in the early part of the 20th century. Additionally, the current "love fest" among collectors over the Zenith Daytona is not due to the superiority of the movement either. In fact, the 4130 is far more technically advanced and carefully executed. It is, for the most part, simply a matter of collectors wanting to get their hands on out-of-production models as the supply dries up, hoping that they might fetch a few more dollars down the road (although there are a few who want to hold onto the older version because they like the dial layout a bit more than what is offered in the current model). In fact, I recently traded my new version of the Daytona for a NIB black dial pre-ceramic bezel version of the two-tone sub the OP was looking at acquiring. The Daytona is a current production model and can be easily replaced. That version of the sub, however, is no longer being made and will become harder to acquire in mint condition.

To the OP - the blue dial version is a fantastic watch you can wear with just about everything but the most formal of suits (where I agree with many of the earlier posts about discrete, simple watches on leather straps being the best match with more elegant clothing - and leave the tux/sub combo to Mr. Bond ). If you do go that route, enjoy wearing it with whatever you like and don't worry about what other people might think!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

JJR512 said:


> Funny...take out your parenthetical statement, then chance the word "Rado" to "Rolex", and I'd say I've heard exactly the same thing. I've further heard that many serious horologists consider Rolex to be the white trash of the watch world, the kind of thing that lottery winners buy to show off their new money, because they don't know any better. (Please note that I am relaying something I've heard, and that I am _not_ stating my own opinion on the matter. Regarding my own opinion, I will only go so far as to say that over the ~$1,000 price point, my attention is focused squarely on Breitling.)


Well said.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

DocD said:


> I know a lot of serious watch collectors,


Really? And none of them collect Rado? I find that hard to believe if they are serious collectors.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> Yes. I find little of _horological_ interest in Rolex timepieces.


Ditto. My interest in Swiss watches lies in some of the rarer and more exclusive makes, which look far more stylish and exude class, unlike IMO Rolex, which only exudes "nouveau riche" signals. Innovation, design, and complex movmeents are far more interesting in watches than a huge price tag for rappers to pay when buying their Rolexes.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> Well, let me say that _to me_, I have yet to see a Swatch that is horologically interesting. Of course that is because "horologically interesting" is entirely subjective.


Then you need to see my Russian Treasures Chronograph Swatch - Icons, Faberge, Romanovs, Saints etc.


----------



## hsc89 (Oct 14, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Ditto. My interest in Swiss watches lies in some of the rarer and more exclusive makes, which look far more stylish and exude class, unlike IMO Rolex, which only exudes "nouveau riche" signals. Innovation, design, and complex movmeents are far more interesting in watches than a huge price tag for rappers to pay when buying their Rolexes.


Wow. Its obvious you have never bothered to actually look into the history of the brand and the myriad of "firsts" in the watch-world that Rolex is responsible for accomplishing. But once a Rolex basher, always a Rolex basher. I would also guess that you haven't seen many recent music videos or interviews/specials on the various versions of MTV and noticed that many of the "rappers" out there are well beyond the pedestrian Rolex and are more likely to be seen sporting much more flashy and exclusive AP, Jacob & Co., and the like pieces when rolling down the boulevards in their Bentleys. I, for one, have always thought it cool that Eric Clapton is a big Rolex fan and is often photographed wearing a Day-Date that he has owned for years. No, Rolex is not an FP Journe, Patek, or even something like a more modest JLC, but for almost a century it has continually manufactured a high quality, robust wristwatch, that even the most snobbish watch collector has to acknowledge the brand as having a significant impact on horological history and its role as an important player in the sustained growth of the industry.

Oh, and by the way, while I agree that Rolex's pricing has gotten a little steep in recent years, they still sell them everyday at full retail to both the big winners at the track/casino/lottery who might see them as status symbol as well as to the more common Rolex buyers - corporate executives/doctors/lawyers - who can probably afford to purchase watches that are more "horologically (sp?) significant" but choose Rolex because they offer a sturdy, everyday wear watch that looks good and can go from the board meeting or courtroom to cutting the grass at the house without worry.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

JJR512,

I believe that a portion of your "sign" off statement at the end of all your posts states:

"I hope you have found this post to be amusing, insightful, witty, moronic, a waste of time, further proof of my stupidity, or the best thing you've ever read."

So I will agree with you 100% on this issue. I personally find many of your comments moronic, a waste of time and proof of your stupidity. Hey, those are YOUR words, not mine.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> Is that because you think the Panerai couldn't stand up to everyday use, or because you just couldn't bear to see blemish come its way?
> 
> Unfortunate story in this regard--and a lesson to watchmakers: My Panerai in the "1950" model or "fiddy" as it is sometimes called. It is oversized and has a bubble crystal that projects about 1/4" from the case. On this model at least, Panerai has an anti-reflective coating on both the outside and inside of the crystal. A run in with an over-aggressive elevator door put a small blemish on the AR coating. Why they would put a scratch-able coating on a virtually un-scratchable substrate still boggles me.


Perception is reality unfortunately. Oranges vs Oranges, I'm sure a comparable Panerai vs Rolex would stand up equally well, but I also view Rolexes (especially the S/S models) as Tool watches, whereas I view the Panerais as a step above.


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

hsc89 said:


> Actually, you're wrong. Rolex has been manufacturing its own movements (and the majority of their case parts) for decades. While it is true that the newest version of the Daytona now uses an in-house movement (the 4130, I believe) in place of the venerable El Primero from Zenith, it is the only model for which Rolex turned to an outside supplier since, I believe, its infancy in the early part of the 20th century. Additionally, the current "love fest" among collectors over the Zenith Daytona is not due to the superiority of the movement either. In fact, the 4130 is far more technically advanced and carefully executed. It is, for the most part, simply a matter of collectors wanting to get their hands on out-of-production models as the supply dries up, hoping that they might fetch a few more dollars down the road (although there are a few who want to hold onto the older version because they like the dial layout a bit more than what is offered in the current model). In fact, I recently traded my new version of the Daytona for a NIB black dial pre-ceramic bezel version of the two-tone sub the OP was looking at acquiring. The Daytona is a current production model and can be easily replaced. That version of the sub, however, is no longer being made and will become harder to acquire in mint condition.
> 
> To the OP - the blue dial version is a fantastic watch you can wear with just about everything but the most formal of suits (where I agree with many of the earlier posts about discrete, simple watches on leather straps being the best match with more elegant clothing - and leave the tux/sub combo to Mr. Bond ). If you do go that route, enjoy wearing it with whatever you like and don't worry about what other people might think!


Hello,

Actually much of what you say here is actually wrong but, in the spirit of the rest of this thread, at least since DocD started throwing his toys out of the pram, I shall decline to comment in depth. Simply Google the history of Rolex as an in-house movement manufacturer to find many articles on their use of pre-manufactured ebauches, cases by Dennison etc etc. AS for the current Daytone movemne t being betetr than the El Primero-that's very much a matter of opinion. Many, many people would argue that the El Primero is a simply untouchable chronograph that hasn't yet come close to being equalled yet alone surpassed.

Regardless you are welcome to your opinion and I am welcome to mine. Forum democracy.

Chris.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Chris,
If you read my posts carefully, I never stated Rolex was the premiere watch, and actually stated quite the contrary. Additionally, the only really "negative" comments I made about any watches were my comments regarding Rado watches and the comments about my opinon about Breitling having a little more "bling" than Rolex, and that Breitling only recently introduced an in-house movement.

Although I am guilty of getting involved with mud-slinging, once again if you're going to point fingers, I believe you have to be a little objective and implicate all guilty parties. I do believe if you read all the posts you will certainly confirm that fact.

The bottom line is that there is a group of people who perceive those who own Rolex as people who purchase the watch to try to impress others and have no idea of why the watch was purchased, and/or consider Rolex a "vulgar", overpriced watch.

I have several high end watches, and 95% of the time I'm the only one that knows the watch is on my wrist. I didn't purchase the watch to impress anyone. In my opinion, there isn't a timepiece on the market (other than Timex and Casio) that isn't grossly overpriced. You can argue all day which brand has the best movement, which brand is the most reliable, which brand has the best resale value, which brand invented which complication, which brand has "class" and which brand is "vulgar", etc., etc. In reality, it will be as constructive as discussing which flavor is better, chocolate or vanilla, which shoe do you prefer, Alden or AE, and the list goes on and on and on..........


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

DocD,

I am in agreement with much of what you've said here and certainly agree that there has been mud-slinging on all sides. However the reason I singled you out was simply for the way you have insulted other posters-something that no-one else has resorted to in quite the same fashion.

Chris.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Then you need to see my Russian Treasures Chronograph Swatch - Icons, Faberge, Romanovs, Saints etc.


I'd love to!


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

chrstc said:


> DocD,
> 
> I am in agreement with much of what you've said here and certainly agree that there has been mud-slinging on all sides. However the reason I singled you out was simply for the way you have insulted other posters-something that no-one else has resorted to in quite the same fashion.
> 
> Chris.


Chris,

Once again, please read over some of the posts I responded to, and please tell me that there weren't some heavy duty insults directed at ME. Sorry, this wasn't a one sided duel of words.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

hsc89 said:


> But once a Rolex basher, always a Rolex basher.


And proud of it! Like I said earlier, I think they're ugly, vulgar and brash...and thus a waste of money.


----------



## Alligator (Sep 17, 2009)

I just purchased my first nice watch, a Rolex Submariner. I picked the watch because _*nothing*_ even came close to the look, style, and feel that I wanted. I am very impressed, and if it costs this much to get the watch I wanted, then so be it.

If others think it is ugly, vulgar, and brash, then I suggest we defenestrate them. Problem solved.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

Alligator said:


> ...then I suggest we defenestrate them. Problem solved.


I need to work that word into my daily vocabulary.  I've had some watches I wanted to defenestrate.

Andy B.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Alligator said:


> If others think it is ugly, vulgar, and brash, then I suggest we defenestrate them. Problem solved.


 Oh lovely, I like a good defenestration. And being Roman Catholic of course will give it added spice if some good ol' boy WASPS from down south do it to me


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Alligator said:


> and if it costs this much to get the watch I wanted, then so be it.


On a serious note:I'm glad to hear that, because it dismisses the theory (that some put forward) that people buy Rolexes only because they are expensive and a mark of wealth.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Alligator said:


> I just purchased my first nice watch, a Rolex Submariner. I picked the watch because _*nothing*_ even came close to the look, style, and feel that I wanted. I am very impressed, and if it costs this much to get the watch I wanted, then so be it.
> 
> If others think it is ugly, vulgar, and brash...


The above describes my perception of a transaction that represents money well spent and a good value to boot. If our purchases are driven by the right motivations and we fully enjoy the after-purchase experience/use of the item (what ever it may be!), then they are all good! Wish we could all manage to understand that and not presume to judge others by their transactions! Now, let the mass defenestrations begin! 

Alligator, I hope you enjoy that watch for many years to come...you deserve it!


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> The above describes my perception of a transaction that represents money well spent and a good value to boot. If our purchases are driven by the right motivations and we fully enjoy the after-purchase experience/use of the item (what ever it may be!), then they are all good! Wish we could all manage to understand that and not presume to judge others by their transactions! Now, let the mass defenestrations begin!
> 
> Alligator, I hope you enjoy that watch for many years to come...you deserve it!


+1. Enjoy the Rolex in good health. Eagle's comments are correct and timely.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Now, let the mass defenestrations begin!




Ali, enjoy your watch.


----------



## ryanscottmc (Oct 19, 2010)

Classic watch. Always appropriate.


----------



## shandy (Jul 4, 2010)

After wanting one for over Thirty years this past April I was able to at last become a Rolex owner.. And I have to say I no longer wear any of my other watches!

I have the Milgauss Black dial (Non green crystal!) I have owned Breitlings in the past (terrible accuracy and if you ever think of selling one beware as they seem to lose around 60% once worn, well, in my experience of the brand that is!) Omega and a few higher end Seiko's.

My Rolex is the most accurate mechanical watch I have ever owned! If I do not self regulate it (by placing it when not worn so as to speed up or slow down) then it gains 4 seconds a week. Observing placement every night when I take it off it keeps spot on time!

For every one person who likes Rolex there are ten who hate it (and most of those ten have never picked one up let alone owned one!) I love it. Simple, elegant, beautifully put together, it feels like it will outlive me(at my age more likely than not!) 

Once every five years invest around $500 on a service and the watch not only comes back working like new but looking like new!

I do not wear my watch to impress people, I want to wear something that feels like it has integrity and for me Rolex covers all bases on that front, engineering quality, esthetics and company ethos (did you know Rolex's profits end up going to charitable affairs!).

The Blue Sub is an all time classic, one of the best two tone watches out there!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
...and a hearty well done on your purchase, Shandy. May you wear your new Rolex for the next 30 years, in good health! :thumbs-up:


----------



## shandy (Jul 4, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> ...and a hearty well done on your purchase, Shandy. May you wear your new Rolex for the next 30 years, in good health! :thumbs-up:


Thank you for your kind thoughts Eagle. It feels good not only to have this excellent watch on my wrist but also to have at last ended my long quest for the perfect (for me!) watch.. It has been a year of things like that for me this year. Got my Leica at last as well!


----------



## turban1 (May 29, 2008)

*how about something different?*

For less than a Sub google Jorg Schauer, for around the same price google Dornbluth (or Dornblueth). Both are German watchmakers who make (or heavily re-engineer) about 75% of the watch. Stunning designs, breath-taking quality and not every taxi-driver wears one or a clone of same.


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

KennethB said:


> If I had a choice, I'd probably choose one of the more understated Rolex watches - not the dive ready Submariner (unless you are a dive captain or some such).


I was looking at a submariner. While it is my opinion that the Rolex is not thought of as a traditional dress watch, I know people say Bond wore one with a tux. I see more men wearing Submariners than what I have, a newer SS Datejust with black sunburst face. I think the Datejust works better for me and I can't say it is dressier without the outer rotating bezel, but to me it does. Still, when I want to be understated, I have a JLC MasterControl that to all looks like any watch they would pick up at a Macys with a leather band. The leather band nowadays is the standout, not the metal bracelet


----------



## hsc89 (Oct 14, 2009)

memphislawyer said:


> I was looking at a submariner. While it is my opinion that the Rolex is not thought of as a traditional dress watch, I know people say Bond wore one with a tux. I see more men wearing Submariners than what I have, a newer SS Datejust with black sunburst face. I think the Datejust works better for me and I can't say it is dressier without the outer rotating bezel, but to me it does. Still, when I want to be understated, I have a JLC MasterControl that to all looks like any watch they would pick up at a Macys with a leather band. The leather band nowadays is the standout, not the metal bracelet


I agree with you about the Datejust being a bit dressier than the Sub - even though I do consider it a "sport" watch as well - and it has everything to do with its smaller case diameter and lack of a wide, rotating bezel (I say wide to distinguish the Sub from the T-bird, which is also kind of dressy). In fact, the classic stainless/gold Datejust on jubilee almost appears to be the defacto "dress" watch among the majority of professionals down here. To heck with the Pateks, Langes, and JLCs! Must be a deep-south thing - but I can assure you that there are still a few people around who will know you didn't just pick up that Master Control (a Grande Taille perhaps?) at Macy's !


----------



## but_ch (May 4, 2010)

I love the Sub. I've always wanted to buy one. What has stopped me is- EVERYBODY has one! Especially the two-tone, blue or black face. Which is fine, but I don't want the same thing as everyone else. With the flush of great watches in the market today, I'd try to find something else. After all, isn't half the reason to wear a nice watch (or any jewelry) to make people notice? 

FWIW the Seikos I wear to work every day are worn because they can really take a beating. I don't think I could wear a Rolex for anything but dress. I wouldn't be happy with myself if I destroyed (scratched, nicked, etc.) an expensive watch in everyday wear. I understand that is the intended purpose, but no.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

shandy said:


> Once every five years invest around $500 on a service and the watch not only comes back working like new but looking like new!


If one presented a watch thus: "it costs $5,000, and you have to spend $100 a year to maintain it" I'm not sure many people would term that $100 "an investment"...


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

jc1305us said:


> My friends at Timezone.com can help you find a legit Rolex (They helped me when I was looking) I'm a stainless steel guy myself, but the Sub is a classic.


I bought and sold watches there. Legit people with great prices. Not as cheap as Ebay sometimes, but far fewer risks. Got my Master Control there as well


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

hsc89 said:


> In fact, the classic stainless/gold Datejust on jubilee almost appears to be the defacto "dress" watch among the majority of professionals down here. To heck with the Pateks, Langes, and JLCs! Must be a deep-south thing - but I can assure you that there are still a few people around who will know you didn't just pick up that Master Control (a Grande Taille perhaps?) at Macy's !


Had a two tone Jubliee bracelet once. When the new style stainless bracelets came out, I had to have one and was tiring of the two tone (and the fakes). I like the updated look and with the Roman numeral and sunburst dial, I don't see many of them. The new style clasp is more substantial, but I never had a problem with the clasp on the Jubilee bracelet. Never could afford a Presidential Day Date. As far as the Master Control, the Grand Tailles were hard to come by and over at Time Zone, I got a virtually new 40mm Master Control from a doc in Vancouver for less than half price and that included the JLC Deployant (single) and a Bruguet crocodile strap. I have thought Id prefer the Grand Taille size but they dont come up. May get a Reverso in time, who knows. I would maybe think of getting a double deployant JLC but really, Id just be spending money. Id want a brown strap on my Reverso to wear on weekends and casual clothes

Now, I read the first of this thread over. If someone got an Audemars Piguet or even a Blancpain or Glasshute Original, they are going to be as much for their tool watches as a Rolex and the bracelet may not be as hearty. It seems like everyone has one, but they dont. I see a lot, sure, but I see a lot of BMW's. But when I sit at a light and count how many 3 series there are at the light, I see many more Hondas and Toyotas. Sure' Id like an Aston Martin, but cant afford it.

Yeah, my Rolex screams that I spent a lot on a watch. My BMW hardtop convertible does too, and if you saw some of my shirts, you would know by the texture they are not Nautica but something upscale. Same with my pen, and some might see that Park Avenues are a step above a Johnston Murphy or Rockport. At the end of the day, Rolex delivers. I cut the yard in mine, go swimming, have played golf, and I did not worry. Now, my JLC is not even a weekend watch, just business wear, church, social setting. The Rolex was the 1st thing I bought to let me know I had arrived, whatever that means, and whatever income level it was. I was 30 or so. My wife got one for her 50th birthday and just because I thought a midsize Oyster Perpetual Datejust with silver dial and the newer stainless bracelet would look more chic and current that her two tone, diamond bezel, mother of pearl Cindy Crawford Omega Constellation. It is sporty and dressy both, and yes, I used to think otherwise.

I think that for the money, you get a lot for Rolex. Sure, they could be cheaper, but there arent many watches you can buy, use for 10 years, and feel good that you will get half your money back. I know they recommend service every 5 years, but y ou can easily go 7 and up to 10, and many guys at timezone say dont do it until it slows down considerably.


----------



## Dressed for business (Mar 11, 2010)

Stunning watch. It is not appropriate for normal business attire, but will be outstanding for sports and weekend activities.


----------



## dwintersgill (May 14, 2006)

CLASSIC WRISTWATCH. HAVE HAD TWO IN MY LIFETIME - STILL HAVE ONE (A NO-DATE). A NUMBER I WATCH IN ANY COLLECTION AND EXCELLENT PLACE TO START A COLLECTION FROM.


----------



## LoneWolf (Apr 20, 2006)

I'd like to jump into this thread as I've seen several buzzwords that resonate.

My first Rolex was a Sea Dweller, which is essentially a heavier-duty Sub. It appealed to me because I dive recreationally and it remains the favorite Rolex in my collection (and with 3 other Rolexes, I drank long and deep from that particular Kool-aid). 

From Rolex I moved on to Panerai, picking up two pieces. Some in the watch community would call that brand a step down from Rolex or at best a lateral move. I call it enhancing my collection - one Pam has an alarm and a multiple time zone function - first alarm watch I've ever had. Similarly, each of the Rolexes has a unique complication or look. Most recently I bought a JLC Reverso Grand Date.

One of my Pams is on a brown leather strap - my first non-metal bracelet piece. I had the Reverso changed out to a black alligator deployant clasp - my first white face, first deployant, first retangular case, first exotic skin strap, first power reserve. By far the dressiest of the bunch and a really nice rounding out of my collection. 

Since I bought it, I've had no qualms about wearing the SD with a suit, and in the early days, even with a tuxedo. As my tastes and watch knowledge have evolved I've come to recognize it as the ultimate tool watch, but I still have it my rotation to wear to the office, along with all the others.

The Sub is a dive watch but it's dressy enough (especially in two tone/blue face) IMHO to be worn with a suit.

As for me, I'm not sure whether I'll be purchasing any other watches. I like IWC's Big Pilot very much, but the opportunities to wear it would be limited (most of the time I'm in a suit and IMHO the BP is too much for a suit). I also like the newest iteration of the SD, the Deep Sea, but it would have the same wrist time constraints as the BP. However, either would be a nice addition to the collection.

My passion has made me wordy. Thanks for reading.


----------



## LoneWolf (Apr 20, 2006)

I'd like to jump into this thread as I've seen several buzzwords that resonate.

My first Rolex was a Sea Dweller, which is essentially a heavier-duty Sub. It appealed to me because I dive recreationally and it remains the favorite Rolex in my collection (and with 3 other Rolexes, I drank long and deep from that particular Kool-aid). 

From Rolex I moved on to Panerai, picking up two pieces. Some in the watch community would call that brand a step down from Rolex or at best a lateral move. I call it enhancing my collection - one Pam has an alarm and a multiple time zone function - first alarm watch I've ever had. Similarly, each of the Rolexes has a unique complication or look. Most recently I bought a JLC Reverso Grand Date.

One of my Pams is on a brown leather strap - my first non-metal bracelet piece. I had the Reverso changed out to a black alligator deployant clasp - my first white face, first deployant, first retangular case, first skin strap, first power reserve. By far the dressiest of the bunch and a really nice rounding out of my collection. 

Since I bought it, I've had no qualms about wearing the SD with a suit, and in the early days, even with a tuxedo. As my tastes and watch knowledge have evolved I've come to recognize it as the ultimate tool watch, but I still have it my rotation to wear to the office, along with all the others.

The Sub is a dive watch but it's dressy enough (especially in two tone/blue face) IMHO to be worn with a suit.

As for me, I'm not sure whether I'll be purchasing any other watches. I like IWC's Big Pilot very much, but the opportunities to wear it would be limited (most of the time I'm in a suit and IMHO the BP is too much for a suit). I also like the newest iteration of the SD, the Deep Sea, but it would have the same wrist time constraints as the BP. However, either would be a nice addition to the collection.

My passion has made me wordy. Thanks for reading.


----------



## hsc89 (Oct 14, 2009)

It's funny how things work out. Once I discovered AAAC, I began spending less and less time on TimeZone, Watchnet, Rolexforums, etc. during the day. Reading this thread, however, its like I never left .

Memphis, its good to see someone else understands that a Rolex - pretty much regardless of the model - can actually be _worn_ by its owner. Over the years I have owned various Datejusts, Subs, Explorers, etc. that I "abused" the heck out of by wearing it while cutting grass, moving furniture, hanging sheetrock . . . About the only one I did not do that with was the SS Daytona I had for a brief time, but only because I knew I probably would not keep it long. By the way, my JLC comment was prompted primarily because I actually have a MGT (TZ speak) and had a RGT (Reverso Grande Taille - traded a while back) and can appreciate the subtle beauty - and bang-for-your-buck - that you get with JLC. Definitely not as a robust as a Rolex generally, however, and with the exception of just a couple of Jaeger's actual "sport" models, would never recommend wearing one in any environment other than the office. One errant bang into a door frame and its off to the factory for a few months.

P.S. Just a suggestion - you might want to first check out that double deployant before buying to make sure it works with the curve of your wrist as its a tricky fit.


----------



## Bandit44 (Oct 1, 2010)

Rolex makes a great watch; I'm particularly smitten with the new Sub with the green dial & bezel.


----------



## ryanscottmc (Oct 19, 2010)

The 50th anniversery edition? It is unique, but I am partial to the classic coloring.


----------



## Bandit44 (Oct 1, 2010)

ryanscottmc said:


> The 50th anniversery edition? It is unique, but I am partial to the classic coloring.


I'm referring to the updated Sub with the ceramic bezel. Green dial and bezel.


----------



## Timeless Fashion (Apr 12, 2009)

The ceramic bezel looks nice, like the one on the GMT II.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

I've owned several Rolex Subs. While they don't keep time as well as my quartz Luminox, they are certified chronometers ans keep excellent time if maintained. I give mne about thirty or so stem winds each morning and reset it to "atomic" time about once a week. It loses about a minute. I have the two tone w/ blue and love it. I wear it with suits without worry. I have a Patek I wear with formal wear as I don't feel the Rolex is formal enough. Get the Sub, you'll like it. This si a good time as the market is slow. Buy from a reputable dealer, however. If you ever send the watch to Rolex, they not only charge a lot, but they will remove and replace every part in the watch which is not genuine Rolex and that can get quite expensive. For the same reason, be careful who services your Rolex, since Rolex doesn't sell their parts to repair shops outside the fold and you could end up with after market parts in your watch - or what purists refer to as a "frankenwatch".


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Vulgar.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

tda003 said:


> I give mne about thirty or so stem winds each morning and reset it to "atomic" time about once a week.


ergo is a bad or at least inadequate, piece of engineering, just as if I praised a modern car by saying all it requires is the timing adjusted once a week and the brake fluid topped up once a month....aside from a regular service.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

StephenRG said:


> ergo is a bad or at least inadequate, piece of engineering, just as if I praised a modern car by saying all it requires is the timing adjusted once a week and the brake fluid topped up once a month....aside from a regular service.


The debate between the "quartz is the only pragmatic choice" group and the "quartz is a soulless choice" group will never end. Pick a side, but know you will probably never manage to change anyone else's mind.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

"ergo is a bad or at least inadequate, piece of engineering, just as if I praised a modern car by saying all it requires is the timing adjusted once a week and the brake fluid topped up once a month....aside from a regular service."

The terms automatic or self-winding don't imply the watch has some psychic/physical ability to know when to and then wind itself. The batteries in your watch don't change themselves, either, as I'm sure you overlooked in thinking this through.

Most people with watches having automatics are simply too sedentary to keep automatics sufficiently wound to keep them running for much longer then 24 hours and some not even that. The stem winds simply compensate for that. Of course nothing can compensate for the pure joy of going to Radio Shack for a quick battery change.


----------



## jhcam8 (Aug 26, 2008)

I've had Subs, GMT Masters, and several vintage models for years and, like Lonewolf, recently added a PAM GMT. There's alot of snobish hate for Rolexes on many of the fora - good to see some positive comments here.


----------



## jhcam8 (Aug 26, 2008)

Bog said:


> Vulgar.


Say, Bog - what's vulgar?


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

tda003 said:


> "ergo is a bad or at least inadequate, piece of engineering, just as if I praised a modern car by saying all it requires is the timing adjusted once a week and the brake fluid topped up once a month....aside from a regular service."
> 
> The terms automatic or self-winding don't imply the watch has some psychic/physical ability to know when to and then wind itself. The batteries in your watch don't change themselves, either, as I'm sure you overlooked in thinking this through.
> 
> Most people with watches having automatics are simply too sedentary to keep automatics sufficiently wound to keep them running for much longer then 24 hours and some not even that. The stem winds simply compensate for that. Of course nothing can compensate for the pure joy of going to Radio Shack for a quick battery change.


An automatic watch that's not too old should be able to start immediately when shaken after it has run down, and if it is not run down shouldn't need to be reset once a week - at least, not if it's expensive.

This isn't about quartz v. mechanical, impressive though the engineering of the former is, but about a choice within mechanicals.


----------



## jhcam8 (Aug 26, 2008)

tda003 said:


> Most people with watches having automatics are simply too sedentary to keep automatics sufficiently wound to keep them running for much longer then 24 hours and some not even that.


TDA - with respect, that's a silly statement and not in the least empirical.


----------



## dionattilio (Feb 24, 2009)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> The debate between the "quartz is the only pragmatic choice" group and the "quartz is a soulless choice" group will never end. Pick a side, but know you will probably never manage to change anyone else's mind.


Or get a spring drive and upset both sides.


----------

