Reply With Quotehey?Originally Posted by Daddelvirks
what other themes do you want? something less vintage? :lol: :lol:
But no, again we are disappointed with some boring variations on the same theme :cry: .
No shortage of possibility threads though :)
Daddel.
Got a new watch, divers watch it is, had to drown the bastard to get it!
hey?
what other themes do you want? something less vintage? :lol: :lol:
No shortage of threads discussing threads about those kind of threads............. :brilsmurf:
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Very good :)
If you loathe a brand with a passion, and there are lots of threads about that brand, then why not start a thread about how you hate threads about a brand you hate? Or "branduhate", if you will :lol:
C'mon. I mean, I dislike Omega for many reasons, but I don't feel the need to curl one out over a bunch of threads from happy owners of a Speedy Pro.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
:lol:
When did they last come up with something original, rather than variants on themes?
Quite recently, with the YM II movement. It's not a watch I like, but you did ask.
I don't like them as I find them all a little boring/conservative but they have a massive fan base on TZ and taste is a very personal thing... so I say, live and let live...
I like Rolex but sometimes it is a bit tiring to read all those threads....
I hate them with a passion.:-)
I'm quite happy to contribute to threads about other brand, but they have to be interesting or funny, or quite simply someone had to start them!
It's just a matter of time...
It's a reflection of Rolex being the aspirational brand of choice in (reasonably) affordable luxury watches for the middle class demographic... I think that's why it dominates watch fora discussions... With probably Omega in second place. My perception is also that dive/sports watches also seem to predominate over dress watches in WIS discussions.
Rolex is not a watch. It has become a language for many.
It's not me getting into murky waters or wanting to divide people... It's Rolex. It's an aspect of their marketing pitch. There's a reason why Rolex sponsors golf and tennis, not football, or have classical musicians as brand ambassadors, not pop stars.
If I wanted to read threads on Rolexes I'd go on a watch forum.
"A man of little significance"
Arh, here we go again... :roll:
Was there ever another brand, in any market, that aroused so much hatred, disdain, jealousy, love, aspiration etc etc (delete as approriate)???
But ultimately it's healthy that we all like different products, otherwise the world of the WIS would be a considerably duller place to be.
It does feel like the Rolex forum on here sometimes :shock:
You dont have to read the threads i gues...
Bremont!
"A man of little significance"
I certainly am not moaning, simply contributing an opinion re the thread topic. Perhaps you mean the OP? in which case you should avoid 'moaning' threads that you don't like.No, Rolex may do all the marketing they want but most of us here are surely intelligent enough to draw our own conclusions and make our own decisions regardless of the advertising. I'm not particularly affected by the marketing since I don't watch or play either tennis or golf. I simply buy what I like because I can. A good friend of mine who is worth millions of old money..and wears a Timex...does that make him working class? I think maybe we'd do better in this country if we stopped worrying about class and started worrying about people.It's not me getting into murky waters or wanting to divide people... It's Rolex. It's an aspect of their marketing pitch. There's a reason why Rolex sponsors golf and tennis, not football, or have classical musicians as brand ambassadors, not pop stars.
Oh, and quit moaning about irrelevant crap and started moaning about that which actually has some importance.
That's interesting in that arguably Bremont has a number of similarities to the path taken by Rolex in how they have successfully created a new luxury watch brand from scratch and are taking it forward.Bremont!
thanks for clarifying :)
I don't see it as a moaning thread, although it might be construed as one. I think it's interesting that Rolex does form a large (largest?) percentage of watch fora discussions out of all brands. I was merely trying to contribute a reason why that might be.
here in germany they say,please forgive my ignorance if there´s a better known translation in the UK & USA!
"Live without Rolex is possible but it doesn´t make sense"
& true it is imo! :P
p.s.:i am working on my first LEX! :wink:
Isn't it 'Alan Partridge speak' for an expensive Toyota? :lol:
Lex = Rolex!
Oh no, it isn't. :roll:
Lex.
Rolex.
Rollie.
Generic.
Boring.
Vulgar.
Iconic.
Quality.
Classic.
They're whatever people want to call them.. Cultural differences aside.
Well, at some level, doesn't that apply to every brand (luxury or not)? Among watch brands, though, Rolex can probably lay claim to as long a maturation period as any.That's interesting in that arguably Bremont has a number of similarities to the path taken by Rolex in how they have successfully created a new luxury watch brand from scratch and are taking it forward.Bremont!
Bremont have done an incredible job and the quality is least on a par with Rolex IMO but, being a British brand and this being a (primarily) British forum, they've met with disappointingly predictable snobbery.
I may be a Rolex fan and owner - but I'm not blind and have tried many different brands - but with the above - you are kidding, right?
It's just a matter of time...
Not at all. I'm a current Rolex owner too (and don't own a Bremont) but, to take the SM vs the Sub, Bremont gives you better:I may be a Rolex fan and owner - but I'm not blind and have tried many different brands - but with the above - you are kidding, right?
- steel hardening
- shock resistance
- anti-magnetic
and a dial that is just as detailed / well-worked as the Sub (and an extra complication if that's important to you). Both movements are COSC certified so where might Rolex outscore? I would say you're left with two areas, both of which are pretty nebulous:
- in-house movement (not that it can be shown to correspond to better performance) and
- brand name
the latter of which, IMO, is the sole explanation of the pricing diff.
But it can, its a superior movement to the ETAs in bremonts in many ways. Not that the ETA is bad... its just more basic.
If its worth it? Up to each and his own... Many people certainly seem to think so.
From a double bremont owner here and potential Rolex owner I personally can't see any difference in quality between either, may go as far as saying bremont put more effort in to finer details but Rolex are a proven quality brand.Not at all. I'm a current Rolex owner too (and don't own a Bremont) but, to take the SM vs the Sub, Bremont gives you better:I may be a Rolex fan and owner - but I'm not blind and have tried many different brands - but with the above - you are kidding, right?
- steel hardening
- shock resistance
- anti-magnetic
and a dial that is just as detailed / well-worked as the Sub (and an extra complication if that's important to you). Both movements are COSC certified so where might Rolex outscore? I would say you're left with two areas, both of which are pretty nebulous:
- in-house movement (not that it can be shown to correspond to better performance) and
- brand name
the latter of which, IMO, is the sole explanation of the pricing diff.
Er, yeah. ETA movement, non-ETA pricing = rip-off.
Except, of course, Rolex is also a British company. The fact they've been assembled & HQ'd in Switzerland for the last 90 odd years doesn't make them any less so.
Rolex was born, nurtured & developed in London. They made the bloody things here for 11 years, and if it hadn't been for the prevailing political & economic climate following the end of WW1, they probably wouldn't have looked to re-locate at all, at least not for a good while.
OK, I'm sure the 'swiss' factor helped more than hindered over the years, but 'Bristish made' is not to be sniffed at either 8)
Modified ETA :roll:Er, yeah. ETA movement, non-ETA pricing = rip-off.
Fair enough - down to personal choice I guess. I have tried a few Bremonts out in store - I wouldn't say they came up to Omega standards for quality control and finish. I would be surprised if they did - one is massive and has the capacity to make fantastic watches with great economies of scale and the other doesn't.From a double bremont owner here and potential Rolex owner I personally can't see any difference in quality between either, may go as far as saying bremont put more effort in to finer details but Rolex are a proven quality brand.Not at all. I'm a current Rolex owner too (and don't own a Bremont) but, to take the SM vs the Sub, Bremont gives you better:I may be a Rolex fan and owner - but I'm not blind and have tried many different brands - but with the above - you are kidding, right?
- steel hardening
- shock resistance
- anti-magnetic
and a dial that is just as detailed / well-worked as the Sub (and an extra complication if that's important to you). Both movements are COSC certified so where might Rolex outscore? I would say you're left with two areas, both of which are pretty nebulous:
- in-house movement (not that it can be shown to correspond to better performance) and
- brand name
the latter of which, IMO, is the sole explanation of the pricing diff.
Obviously Bremont are not as conservatively designed - but that does not make the detailing "finer" the finish on the SM dial/hands/crown was not better, or close, the bezel action felt cheap. Just my personal views as I went into the shop to buy the SM!
It's just a matter of time...
This all comes down to the in-house vs off the shelf vs off the shelf but modified debate. Most of the big brands (PP, AP, IWC, Rolex etc. etc.) have bought in movements over the years yet no-one questioned paying their elevated prices. A COSC certified ETA with appropriate QA will deliver as much as in-house in terms of quantifiable measures i.e. accuracy, reliability and durability.Er, yeah. ETA movement, non-ETA pricing = rip-off.
There's also an assumption here that watch price is primarily determined by the movement but I'm not sure that's true. The 3135, for example, might be a tried and trusted workhorse but what makes it better than the best of the ETAs or Valjoux?
But does that "superiority" translate to quantifiable differences in performance? I'm open to proof but I've never seen any figures to back it up.But it can, its a superior movement to the ETAs in bremonts in many ways. Not that the ETA is bad... its just more basic.
If its worth it? Up to each and his own... Many people certainly seem to think so.
As for the price diff, I agree, the brand's value is no more and no less than people are prepared to pay for it. I did! But I do realise I'm primarily paying for a multi-million pound advertising budget that is then spent to increase the prices further :)
I'm not so sure it has to be quantifiable, or even tangible. There is just something rather special about a watch company that makes it's own 'engines', in much the same way that Ferrari is held in such high regard by so many people *. That's not to say their products are any better than their main rivals, often they were worse in a purely dynamic sense. But the single minded, all under one roof approach certainly helped the growth of the Ferrari brand worldwide more then it hindered it. I don't think Rolex is any different.This all comes down to the in-house vs off the shelf vs off the shelf but modified debate. Most of the big brands (PP, AP, IWC, Rolex etc. etc.) have bought in movements over the years yet no-one questioned paying their elevated prices. A COSC certified ETA with appropriate QA will deliver as much as in-house in terms of quantifiable measures i.e. accuracy, reliability and durability.Er, yeah. ETA movement, non-ETA pricing = rip-off.
There's also an assumption here that watch price is primarily determined by the movement but I'm not sure that's true. The 3135, for example, might be a tried and trusted workhorse but what makes it better than the best of the ETAs or Valjoux?
And until about five years ago, I really don't think their prices were that 'elevated'.
* Excluding the odd import - Zenith, Fiat etc etc :lol:
Apologies - I forgot the bezel and I agree with you - the Rolex wins comfortably on that front. In fact I raised that specific point to one of the Bremont owners (Giles) a few weeks' back. He effectively agreed and said that the bezel was an extremely complicated and difficult part to get just right but that Rolex had the budget to do so (having innovated so little elsewhere in recent years :))Fair enough - down to personal choice I guess. I have tried a few Bremonts out in store - I wouldn't say they came up to Omega standards for quality control and finish. I would be surprised if they did - one is massive and has the capacity to make fantastic watches with great economies of scale and the other doesn't.From a double bremont owner here and potential Rolex owner I personally can't see any difference in quality between either, may go as far as saying bremont put more effort in to finer details but Rolex are a proven quality brand.Not at all. I'm a current Rolex owner too (and don't own a Bremont) but, to take the SM vs the Sub, Bremont gives you better:I may be a Rolex fan and owner - but I'm not blind and have tried many different brands - but with the above - you are kidding, right?
- steel hardening
- shock resistance
- anti-magnetic
and a dial that is just as detailed / well-worked as the Sub (and an extra complication if that's important to you). Both movements are COSC certified so where might Rolex outscore? I would say you're left with two areas, both of which are pretty nebulous:
- in-house movement (not that it can be shown to correspond to better performance) and
- brand name
the latter of which, IMO, is the sole explanation of the pricing diff.
Obviously Bremont are not as conservatively designed - but that does not make the detailing "finer" the finish on the SM dial/hands/crown was not better, or close, the bezel action felt cheap. Just my personal views as I went into the shop to buy the SM!
What is steel hardening? :lol:
Will that make it a better product than a 904L graded metal?
Are you joking?
Well they were busy working on a new bracelet clasp for over 40 years ;)
It's just a matter of time...
There is only One way to find out, Innit?!?Are you joking?
I think an ETA-equipped watch for, say £800, is fair enough. More than that is a rip-off. Bremont prices are firmly in fantasy-land.
My point is principally the same, that the price diff is primarily explained by non-quantifiables and intangibles. For WIS's, among whose number I would not count myself, I can imagine the "something rather special" argument having much weight (although it leaves me fairly cold).I'm not so sure it has to be quantifiable, or even tangible. There is just something rather special about a watch company that makes it's own 'engines', in much the same way that Ferrari is held in such high regard by so many people *. That's not to say their products are any better than their main rivals, often they were worse in a purely dynamic sense. But the single minded, all under one roof approach certainly helped the growth of the Ferrari brand worldwide more then it hindered it. I don't think Rolex is any different.This all comes down to the in-house vs off the shelf vs off the shelf but modified debate. Most of the big brands (PP, AP, IWC, Rolex etc. etc.) have bought in movements over the years yet no-one questioned paying their elevated prices. A COSC certified ETA with appropriate QA will deliver as much as in-house in terms of quantifiable measures i.e. accuracy, reliability and durability.Er, yeah. ETA movement, non-ETA pricing = rip-off.
There's also an assumption here that watch price is primarily determined by the movement but I'm not sure that's true. The 3135, for example, might be a tried and trusted workhorse but what makes it better than the best of the ETAs or Valjoux?
And until about five years ago, I really don't think their prices were that 'elevated'.
* Excluding the odd import - Zenith, Fiat etc etc :lol:
This all begs the very interesting question though, of what drives prices on the demand side. The percentage of the, for example's sake, Rolex buying public who are WIS's will be negligible so their predilection for in-house would have little direct impact I'd have thought. Perhaps approval of the WIS community and connoisseurs manages to filter through to brand value over time, though?
Not if you find dings, dents, scratches and scuffs enhancing :wink:
So you'd pay the additional £6-7,000 just for the pleasure of an in-house such as the 3135? Good on you, but that's a big call.I think an ETA-equipped watch for, say £800, is fair enough. More than that is a rip-off. Bremont prices are firmly in fantasy-land.
OK, but you'll get your money back when/if you resell. What are Bremont residuals like?
More importantly, I don't like Bremont watches, so "I'm out".
I stroked my Rolex earlier. In fact, think I'll stroke it again before sleepy time. Maybe twice!
Ep120 is going for £4k more than it cost new currently, let's see what the p51 does next.
srsly?
OK enjoy.
I'd still rather wear Rolex.
That really isn't comparing like with like - bit like saying a Milsub costs more than the equivalent Rolex Submariner - or a 1950's Milgauss has gone up from RRP.Ep120 is going for £4k more than it cost new currently, let's see what the p51 does next.
I would suggest most Rolex models go up in value over the longer term - I like all watches not just one brand - but one is a particular favourite.
Why would you have to pay £6k more? How much was a SuperMarine on a bracelet -compared to the old submariner or Sea-Dweller?So you'd pay the additional £6-7,000 just for the pleasure of an in-house such as the 3135? Good on you, but that's a big call.I think an ETA-equipped watch for, say £800, is fair enough. More than that is a rip-off. Bremont prices are firmly in fantasy-land.
It's just a matter of time...
Posting Permissions