Untill now i was mainly interested in Breitling and Omega, but now I am more and more fascinated by the Rolex Oysterquartz.
But I don't know if it is a good idea.
My watchmaker once told me that it wasn't "wise" to collect for example tuning fork or vintage LED watches because they are quite difficult to sercive. ( the parts become rare to find )
Is this also the case with OQ ?
And how is an OQ in general running ? What can I expect .
And what are the most common problems with OQ ?
And does anyone know how a TT OQ bracelet is made: is it goldplated, or is it "rolled gold" ( which Breitling uses.. )
Many questions, but I am a complete newbee in the Rollies world. :drunken: :wink:
Your watchie might have a point and so that's why it would be wise to get a Grand Seiko quartz instead :) :Originally Posted by Marc
Talking of quartz, here is an excellent article on the very subject and worth a read:
• http://www.timezone.com/library/cjrml/cjrml0001
Enjoy!
Have to say i absolutely adore my 17000 and i'd like to say i wouldn't part with it. The case design just mesmerises me and the tick is something to behold. Maybe not for the purists but i just love it.
THX for the link STIX !
The desingn of the OQ attracts me much more than the Seiko....
Nice watch ! ! !Have to say i absolutely adore my 17000 and i'd like to say i wouldn't part with it. The case design just mesmerises me and the tick is something to behold. Maybe not for the purists but i just love it.
I can completely understand your feeling ! :wink:
I'm a big fan in principle, but I had a bad experience with a Tudor Prince quartz recently - fitted with a now obsolete ETA movement for which parts aren't available new - rather than Rolex's in-house movement. I was a bit shocked to discover that Rolex doesn't seem bothered about owners of older quartz Tudors at least - so I quickly switched attention to a 2824 powered Prince instead.
No doubt Rolex will treat OQ owners better, but I saw a post on here recently quoting quite high service costs and saying that there's only one OQ technician left at Bexley, leading to quite long service/repair times.
The experts will know more, but I must admit I have been put off OQ as a result.
I had a couple of Oysterquartz's and they are beautiful watches but every time they stop working you are on tenterhooks in case the battery is fine and the movement is unfit for service.
I believe they are very complicated to fix and also very expensive, around £800.00 appears to be the going rate.
The same applies to the Omega f300 which is also difficult to find spares for.
I think a recently serviced OQ would be a great purchase. I'm a massive fan of the steel only.
Had two of them (ref. 17013) and found them reliable and fun to wear. Feels different to any other Rolex I've owned, but still pure Rolex. Almost had a barfight on my hand a few years ago when a big bloke asked me if my Rolex was real. I said "yes". He looked more closer and noticed the quartz-movement of the seconds-hand, so he said "Are you kidding me? This is a quartz watch and Rolex makes no quartz!" Could not convince him of the opposite, alcohol played to big a role here. It almost got out of hand but I managed to slip away quickly...
The 17013 bracelet is SS and 18ct gold and 18ct bezel. It's a nice watch and feels very solid; surprisingly so in fact.
You could always buy mine ;-)
Ross
They are not complicated to fix.
The problem is two-fold.
1. It has a mechanical construction that will wear when not serviced and Rolex does not supply spares so you are on that hook.
2. Rolex service will not repair anything in the electronics and replace the unit. Although it ís repairable, you cannot get spares so you are on that hook.
The GS 9F quartz is a fár better choice. Those are maintenance free for at léast 50 years.
To put it simply the foremost British expert (if not world) in Rolex, James Dowling has 3 OysterQuartz, one of which is his daily beater.
Want more testimony - some of the most senior Rolex technicians were regular wearers of OysterQuartz.
If you know nothing about Rolex then get a Sub and leave the OysterQuartz for the fans.
Also, in response to your questions:
1) An OQ is very accurate, you can expect it to be as accurate as any other quartz and better than an auto - plus it wont need winding or setting when you put it on.
2) The most common problems?? It's not a car! Buy one, wear it, put a new battery in every 2 or 3 years. End of.
3) The TT (17013) OQ uses hollow links, made solely of 18k gold, no plating or rolling. It is very thick metal, much more so than Breitling uses, and the end links are solid 18k gold. If you buy a DayDate model then the outer links and case will be solid 18k gold.
Really????????????
http://s32.photobucket.com/albums/d33/d ... 88revA.jpg
(£214.99 including VAT in 2007)
SWMBO’s was £264 inc VAT earlier this year.Really????????????
http://s32.photobucket.com/albums/d33/d ... 88revA.jpg
(£214.99 including VAT in 2007)
To the OP: if a vintage quartz is your grail then go for it, nothing else comes close.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
There was a nice OQ on SC about a week ago
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=221667&hilit=rolex
I was very tempted :)
ad.1. The OQ is not up to par with other tc quartzes. The Rolex specs are 60 secs./year.
ad 2. You are forgetting that this the one quartz which NEEDS MAINTENANCE like a mechanical. The stepper motor is an at the time of release antiquated reciprocal design. The change to a rotational movement is over a pallet fork and - wheel. Unlike other contemporary and modern deigns, this construction is load bearing and needs maintenance.
The most common problem is that the thing has seen no maintenance and that this mechanism needs replacement. The snag being that Rolex service dept. is the only way to get it sorted.
For those who want to get a bit more savant about this; Please read the thread I started on the Oysterquartz construction here.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=220995&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a& hilit=oysterquartz
For collectors it is no issue.
For wearing; unless one is smitten with the design and/or nééds a Rolex.... get a Grand Seiko quartz. Those are réaly accurate and reliable.
To be honest it sounds like you have a major hang up with the Rolex OQ no matter what. 60 secs per year is more than adequate, my life doesn't require a 5 second per month accuracy.ad.1. The OQ is not up to par with other tc quartzes. The Rolex specs are 60 secs./year.
ad 2. You are forgetting that this the one quartz which NEEDS MAINTENANCE like a mechanical. The stepper motor is an at the time of release antiquated reciprocal design. The change to a rotational movement is over a pallet fork and - wheel. Unlike other contemporary and modern deigns, this construction is load bearing and needs maintenance.
The most common problem is that the thing has seen no maintenance and that this mechanism needs replacement. The snag being that Rolex service dept. is the only way to get it sorted.
For those who want to get a bit more savant about this; Please read the thread I started on the Oysterquartz construction here.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=220995&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a& hilit=oysterquartz
For collectors it is no issue.
For wearing; unless one is smitten with the design and/or nééds a Rolex.... get a Grand Seiko quartz. Those are réaly accurate and reliable.
You are mixing things up.
Yes, 60 secs. year is accurate enough for just about anybody,
but is and was not up to par for tc quartz,
not even on par with nón tc high accuracy quartz,
and maintenance requirements are a low point among high end quartz.
Now if you want to revere Rolex then by all means do so but do not mix up facts with adoration as my eighties Poljot quartzes are both more accurate and bétter.
The only problem I've had with my Oyster Quartz is the self-destructing box covering
The medallion fell off as the photos were being taken
The box was in a poor state when the watch was purchased so it stays in its outer carton and is not used for storage.
dunk
"Well they would say that ... wouldn't they!"
Very nice watch, I like it very much 8)Have to say i absolutely adore my 17000 and i'd like to say i wouldn't part with it. The case design just mesmerises me and the tick is something to behold. Maybe not for the purists but i just love it.
I think the design are unik
Just to recap on the 'difficult to fix', I am not a watchmaker but I have been informed by two very well respected watchmakers that only Rolex were really capable of doing repairs to Oysterquartz watches and neither fancied touching them.
I passed on this information in good faith and should have expected the sarcasm before posting.
I expected no more really.
Most watchmakers will classify ány quartz as ´difficult to fix´ and refer to solid state digitals as ´impossible to repair´.
No critisism to you at all from mý part.
The situation is as it is. As analogue quartz engines come, the OQ was designed to be fixable.
It shares the gear box with the mechanical line and the electronics is pretty standard early seventies.
The only unfixables are the ic and the bonded wiring.
The réal problem is that;
a. most watchmakers do not have the knowledge/expertise to tackle a quartz beyond the gears and that
b. in the case of the Rolex there is the added complication of the spares monopoly meaning that even an expert in the electronic bit will not want to touch the thing unless the owner is aware that the risc is a replacement electronic module ánd likely an extra charge by Rolex.
The OQ is a well made quartz designed to be serviceable.
The snag is that it nééds a lot of service for a quartz, which it usually has not received and that Rolex has a spares monopoly and expensive ´repair´ policy.
I'm really pleased I bought a 17000 from SC last year - I've left my other watches in a box, and only ever wear this. It's maintained my interest in wearing a watch, long after I got bored with the others (Milgauss GV, unusual 70s Seamaster, SB3 GMT).
I like it's relative obscureness (I've never seen another being worn in 'real life'), the aesthetics of the design are spot on, the case and bracelet quality are fantastic.
Aside from looks, which frankly are the most important aspect for me, it has interesting engineering (and therefore a 'watch nerd' backstory), an element of controversy (quartz!), and was the most expensive stainless steel Rolex in its day, I think. And there were only ~1000 a year made?
And, no matter how many 'refreshes' to 40mm+ proportions Rolex make to their lines, I think it's pretty safe to say we'll never see a 42mm super sized Oysterquartz 'reissue'. I find that comforting, somehow.
It's not subtle (it has a fantastic 'presence'), but isn't flashy. It's a Rolex, but ticks. It was the most expensive at the time, but is now one of the cheapest 'collectible' Rolexes.
In short, it's a watch full of contradictions.
I love it.
25000 in all were made. The engines probably right at the start.
I wholeheartedly agree, it's a great watch and far, far rarer than the usual fare by Rolex.
The only potential downside is servicing and parts availability, only Rolex HQ can service these watches to the best of my knowledge and Rolex obviously have a complete monopoly over parts. I've seen several prices being bandied around for servicing costs but I believe it to be in the region of £600 - £800 depending on what parts needs replacing and the condition of the watch.
Although that's obviously a lot of money bear in mind that a service on a vintage sports Rolex is now £680 and this is a fee that any mechanical Rolex owner is going to have to stump up for every 5 years! Whilst I don't know what the official service intervals are for the Oysterquartz I'd hazard a guess that most are serviced only when they stop or at least stop being accurate. So even if they're serviced every 10 years they'll cost the owner half of what a far more common Rolex will. Still not cheap by any stretch of the imagination but a lot more palatable.
I recently intended to have a massive watch cull from around 34+ watches to 4 (well that was the plan but I still ended up with 10
A quick wrist pic of mine
And a link to a overview/history I did about the Oysterquartz a while back.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=168181&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=oy sterquartz
Cheers,
Gary
The OQ is has a qc oscilator as the controlling governor.
The stepper motor is signalled to step or not.
The movement transition may be inelegant and needing maintenance, it will work and there is no inaccuracy.
When it stops, the problem can be various things. If it would happen to be the X-tal then..., see below.
When out of specs. inaccurate the frequency of the qc is out of spec. This is can come with aging of the cristal. This frequency can be regulated by adjusting the variable resistor in the QC oscilator circuit.
It is not uncommon that the contact area just aside of the position set for many years has oxidised. Adjusting the variable resistor then renders the qc ´faulty´.
This resistor cán be replaced but Rolex will replace the whole electronics module.
The best thing is to have an independant lubricate the mechanism and gearbox evry 5 years, but to leave the rest alone even when out of spec inaccurate.
Íf the electronics would give up the gost it most definitely worthwhile to go out of your way to try find a quartz watch wizzard to do his damnest. A replacement resistor should not be a problem as those things all are pretty standard as the qc oscilator circuits are and the OQ uses the industry standard 32.769 Hrz. frequency.
The X-tal itself costs about 1 Euro from Conrad.
When the OQ crown is pulled out does this stop the motor as well as stopping the hands? Is it good or not so good practice to pull the crown out to allegedly conserve battery life when the watch is not in use?
dunk
"Well they would say that ... wouldn't they!"
The one I have was serviced a few years ago and ( pre service prise rise) and that ost £ 650 to do!
So £800 now would seem about right. Glad I didn't buy an unserviced one :lol:
It stops the motor too and will extend battery life but leaving one in for storage is only to be contemplated when it is full or nearly full.
Thank you.It stops the motor too and will extend battery life but leaving one in for storage is only to be contemplated when it is full or nearly full.
dunk
"Well they would say that ... wouldn't they!"
Sorry but no no no and yay no again. Yes a quartz might be super accurate but there is no soul in the watch. A quartz movement is peanuts in cost terms compared to the automatic movements. Please please please dont do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's good to have an opinion but I have to disagree. I'm no expert but I'm sure the price of movements bare no relevance in this argument - there are automatics which cost nickle and dimes to produce and there are quartz' which have cost a pretty penny to develop as I believe was the case with the Oysterquartz. I have seen photo's of the heart of the Oysterquartz and I think it's a thing of beauty. If there is such a thing as a soul in a watch - and I'm not sure a machine should have one, then the case, dial, bracelet and hands etc must also be considered. I think the Oysterquartz has earned its place in history and I like them a lot.
Not this drivel again :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
Probably the best looking Rolex in my opinion. If you're interested in Quartz accuracy/rarity /beauty - the Omega Stardust is the daddy though :wink: all IMHO of course!
With the OQ - can you independently set the hour had for time zone/ clock changes? A really useful feature - as it preserves the timekeeping accuracy of your watch. Is there the ability to advance 1 second?
Pretty much everything written here is complete horsesh*t. HTH.
Hi All,
forget the Seiko hands down with a stainless steel Rolex.
What a bracelet!
M
There is no soul in a watch, period.
Boy are you a wIs.A quartz movement is peanuts in cost terms compared to the automatic movements.
You're right, quartz doesn't have "soul", whatever that means in a mass produced device. Instead quartz has something much, much more fundamental, as Steve (Searat) states in an earlier thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=220109&start=15#p2270102
How can that be unimpressive to anyone with a soul? :wink:
:roll:
Not necessarily. Some pretty darn cheap and shi**y auto movements out there.
:idea:Not necessarily. Some pretty darn cheap and shi**y auto movements out there.
and most watchmakers are not expert enough to repair a designed to be serviced quartz so they pump out the nonsense about ... :mrgreen:
An analogue quartz is basically the same as a mechanical. The power reserve in the spring has been replaced by a battery and the wiggly spring by a wiggly quartz cristal. They even come with autowinding rotor bit.
The quartz technology is more high tech, is more accurate and has less load on the gear train.
The rest is simply how durable/serviceable it was designed to be.
Nothing wrong with quartz in my book.
Prefer a mechanical but for accuracy and convenience you can't beat quartz. That's why I have one for my holidays/hobbies watch.
The OT question about the specífic quartz as Rolex made it is a bit more tricky but is has now been answered.
It is understandable why Rolex made the choices they made at the time and it is arguably the best movement Rolex has made.
Time simply changed the parameters about maintenance for quartz oscilator controlled movements and hung the OQ out to dry.
If anyone is going to buy an Oysterquartz for high accuracy alone then it is going to disappoint.
OTOH, if they are going to buy one for it’s appearance, build quality, history, prestige or exclusivity then go right ahead.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Just to seek clarification: therefore, is it recommended only to store with the crown pulled out - hands stopped?Thank you.It stops the motor too and will extend battery life but leaving one in for storage is only to be contemplated when it is full or nearly full.
dunk
I have heard that if a quartz is left in that state this may lead to the oils 'sticking' since the hands are not moving, or is that "an old wifes tail / folk-lore". I must admit I have left my breitling B-1 in the service 'BAT' state where the hands are stopped for months on end, with no I'll effect.
“ Ford... you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.” HHGTTG
Pull out for store only with full/nearly full battery, otherwise not; take the battery out or replace when flat.
Just think about it; oil drying would have far, fár less effect on an analogue quartz than on a mechanical and for thát read up watchwinders :mrgreen:
Your watches are amazing! love the pictures.
To put it simply the foremost British expert (if not world) in Rolex, James Dowling has 3 OysterQuartz, one of which is his daily beater.
Want more testimony - some of the most senior Rolex technicians were regular wearers of OysterQuartz.
If you know nothing about Rolex then get a Sub and leave the OysterQuartz for the fans.
Ive got a lovely 1977 (Birth year) very early 55mil OQ which is completely original! I was lucky enough to get it in to Rolex for service before their crazy price hike so serviced and warrantied for two years for £280! I have to be honest I am vintage Omega through and through but the Rolex is my daily wearer, it comes swimming, get bashed and beaten and has withstood everything including a fairly heavy duty bike accident without skipping a beat, accuracy is around 3SPM which is pretty impressive for a 32Khz quartz (thanks to Rolex's thermo compensation). The case is also extremely resiliant as is the BCT, after a year of heavy use I am only just now at the point of considering a case and BCT refinish
IMHO (and this is from a man with an addiction for early HEQ and Omega Marine Chronometers) the OQ is one of the best watches out there and certainly the best Rolex.
Plus if you are like me you will enjoy all the smug Sub wearers asking you if it is fake because it ticks and then imparting the pub talk Rolex knowledge on you whilst you sit smugly nodding remembering that there are less OQ's in the world than Subs made in a year (probably a damn site less).
There also seems to be lots of quartz critics chipping in to this tread, I don't really know what to say but for me it is all about vintage and rarity! I live in the heart of Essex where every Tom, Dick and Harry (and yes I am the only forum member who can say this legitimately) owns a sub or an SM300 Bond, I prefer my watches (irrelevant of value) to be a little rarer! OQ's like many HEQ have just as much desirability for me as an automatic (and yes I own Rolex, Omega and numerous other brands in quartz and auto and even those cursed antiques that you have to wind yourself)
These are not to be mistaken for cheap quartz watches, they aren't, I challenge any forum member to criticise this gem of a movement for both technical advancement and simple quality of production and finish
The dial has since been changes (during service) for an original example without the superlative chronometer script as correct for the model and year but here is my daily wearer in all her beauty
SWMBO’s was £264 inc VAT earlier this year.
That's very reassuring to hear as I too had heard tales of expensive Rolex servicing on the Oysterquartz and would probably use a good independent when mine's due to go in.
Recently had these two but my dad took a shine to the black dial so it now resides on his wrist. :)
This is by far my most accurate quartz too currently running +1 sec per month. 8)
So, why are the prices for Oysterquartzs (relatively) cheap compared to, say, a fairly common Submariner from the same time period?
Consider mine - a 'non-COSC dial' model from the first year of production - rarer than most other all-steel Rolexes, yet by far the cheapest...
I've got a few theories :-)
1. There's a massive WIS premium for 'tool' watches.
Oysterquartz's went up a mountain, but the styling is in no way 'toolish' - no locking bracelet, no bezel to fiddle with. Although Rolex's period adverts and sponsorship were for Mountaineers, they're not styled as such.
Ironically, Oysterquartz's seem to be tough as nails, as meaty as a Sub, and have as much wrist 'presence' as the sports models.
2. Size anxiety
It's 36mm. Without seeing one in the steel, it might appear that it's small. It's actually perfect, because of the bracelet. And of course, wrists haven't suddenly expanded in the last 30 years, but tastes have.
3. Quartz bias
More than enough has been said about this.
4. There's not enough of them to generate an inflating market
I think this is the most important factor by far - there are simply not enough on the s/h market to allow 'movement' and therefore price inflation.
I've never seen one in Burlington Arcade, for example...
Another side-effect of this is, if people can't see them, they're less likely to develop an interest in buying one - I bought mine without ever seeing one in the flesh ...that's quite a leap of faith.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
