Reply With Quote... and on top of all that - it feels pretty good that you have done something charitable :lol:
(i think it is... imo :mrgreen: )
is Rolex the daddy.....the one that people recognize most, has the best resale, is the most desirable, has the most heritage, has the most $ engineering etc etc etc.....the one most likely to have your arm sliced off in a south American nation for instant cash???
let me know if there is another?????
... and on top of all that - it feels pretty good that you have done something charitable :lol:
(i think it is... imo :mrgreen: )
Well, it's one of the strongest brand in the world, so yes on many of the questions above....but "Daddy"? Not in my book, more like a Seiko de Luxe...and that's ment to be a compliment. :D
All the best,
Erik
Yes, definitely old fashioned yesteryear.Originally Posted by Harrison
If ss sports model, yesthe one that people recognize most, has the best resale,
subjective, so nois the most desirable,
only most marketing heritage, so nohas the most heritage,
nohas the most $ engineering
most added value, certainly in the price, for the brandingetc etc etc.....
most instant image on the wrist; problems with both the whát image and fakes though
only when there is reason to assume it´s not fake and in réally marginal environments any decent looking watch will land you in trouble.the one most likely to have your arm sliced off in a south American nation for instant cash???
what about in terms of 'arm-sliceage' risk????? what is the rank?????
Relative to how poor your environment is. I travel all over the world and in some of the poorer countries I visit, the value of life means very little regardless of what you wear on your wrist. So if you are unfortunate enough be be in that situation, you can console yourself in the fact that it wasn't necessarily the Rolex that got you in trouble, as it could easily have been the cheap Seiko you decided to wear that day instead!
“Don’t look back, you’re not heading that way.”
Well, depends on the setting and the the rest of your appearance.
You wear a real one with not obviously expensive but very casual attire going out in Málaga centre and all will asume it is a fake = 0% problem.
You step in Ralph Lauren out of your BMW roadster in Mil Viviendas in Sevilla and the Rolex will get you mugged for sure = 100% problem. But. like I wrote, ány decent looking watch on anybody but a hoodlum looking chap, will get you in trouble there. Just like Chinnock confirms.
Apart from the latter, the sheer mass of fakes being worn makes it rather safe to wear a Rolex imo.
Like wearing gold where everybody wears gold coloured.
Bottom line is that the watch itself is only párt of the risc contributers and a Rolex is probably on par with any watch unless you yourself position yourself as a wearer of a real Rolex.
its a good thing i don't mind getting into a tangle :D
Get real.
In ´those´ neighbourhoods even the police does not enter without backup. Heck, rescue personal and ambulances need police protection!
In ´normal´ muggings the thing is not worth risking your life either. It´s only money and a bit of a hassle.
I agree on the brand part, but not the rest
Well no collection is complete without a Rolex of some sort imo.
And many who tend to knock it, haven't tried it.
Many who say that have not tried a lót outside of the mainstream wis-box :wink:
I would prefer a GP gyromatic above many a sports Rolex. Have you tried one? Ditto Grand Seikos, vintage or modern. Have yoú tried those?
Any tc heq? Or a high end electronic digital?
Rolex is a well made product. Period.
It is solid engineering of 50 year old technology upgraded for hypermodern manufacturing.
It has top notch marketing and ditto brand image.
The isuuse is greatly confused by the vested interst of owners who gave their right arm to pay for one.
Subjectiveness rules in wisdom.
Nóbody uses the wonderfully objective SLoP rating. Rolex would score only average but that wopuld not change the fact it is what ist is. Very well engineered steam age technology adapted for high tech manufacturing. It´s a véry reliable mechanical watch. Period.
Nothing less but neither anything more apart from briljantly marketed image that indeed hold real value for those who value thát image.
yes, Rolex & Patek.. all the others are nice for a while but....
;)
All my point was is that Rolex seems to have as many haters as lovers. It is a polarising brand.
More than any other brand (probably because of it being generally the best known brand among WIS and non-WIS), it has an awful lot of detractors- detractors that haven't owned one.
Many detractors who end up owning one actually realise what all the fuss is about.
And before you tell me about other brands, you're preaching to the converted - I'm not just a Rolex fan. But seeing as this thread was about Rolex, that's what I'm talking about.
what sphincter are you blabbering out of???? how do you know what i carry LOLOL????Get real.
In ´those´ neighbourhoods even the police does not enter without backup. Heck, rescue personal and ambulances need police protection!
In ´normal´ muggings the thing is not worth risking your life either. It´s only money and a bit of a hassle.
ofcourse there are lot of other nice watches around. Most of them represent better value than a Rolex, especially when venturing into the wonderful world of vintage. But somehow Rolex and Patek are the only two brands that consistently fetch high prices at auction.. and this has been the case for decades.Many who say that have not tried a lót outside of the mainstream wis-box :wink:
I would prefer a GP gyromatic above many a sports Rolex. Have you tried one? Ditto Grand Seikos, vintage or modern. Have yoú tried those?
Any tc heq? Or a high end electronic digital?
.
There's no tangle to get into.
If they want your watch they're going to get it. I lost mine in Buenos Aires to a guy half my size.
A guy bumped me from behind and whipped the watch off as I was falling, when I picked myself up he was gone on a motorbike driven by a mate.
Any posturing about what you'd do if it happened to you is meaningless. You simply don't get the chance to fight back.
Given the crowd you are addressing this question to, I would expect a 'no' as an answer. For some, but clearly not ''the one that people here recognize most, desire the most, has the most heritage, has the most $ engineering etc etc etc''.
Possibly spot on about best resale value though and outside WIS circles Rolex seems to have the best and longest watch brand identity. Just my £.02.
So that is why ´yes´ on resale and (daddy) image :idea:
Those are factual, real.
It does not matter that there is no tangible foundation for it.
Where it stops, should stop, is at urban myth filling in ´arguments´ for the intangible bit.
Like why is the Omega Co-axial only COSC standard? Because it is a waste of money markting it as better (see GrandSeiko) and COSC standard is not going to go anywhere forward as for all practical purposes and understanding COSC ís Rolex.
Rolex is not superlative COSC; it is holding back COSC to a 1973 measure of performance.
Remember the first hot hatch Volkswagen GTi? That was 1976 and a current td-diesel version blows it away in any aspect.
That is internal combustion engine technology. Nothing revolutionary space age technology.
The same development applies to mechanical watches yet those are stuck at early seventies performance level.
Superlatively frozen by Rolex :idea:
For me Rolex is the sweetspot between quality engineering, looks that I like, prices I can afford (although they're pushing it a bit now) and depreciation/residuals that don't make me cry. So for me, yep, Rolex is the daddy.
There's as much inverse snobbishness around Rolex as there is regular snobbishness. You can bang on about not wanting to be "mainstream" as much as you like, in the end you're just another Emo/Goth/Rolex-hater/potential mass murderer sitting around, reading Guns and Ammo, masturbating in your own faeces, desperately wishing you were somebody. :wink:
Co-Axial is supposed to lengthen the invervals in between services, but most Rolex keep ticking for 10-20 years without service and have been doing so for decades.So that is why ´yes´ on resale and (daddy) image :idea:
Those are factual, real.
It does not matter that there is no tangible foundation for it.
Where it stops, should stop, is at urban myth filling in ´arguments´ for the intangible bit.
Like why is the Omega Co-axial only COSC standard? Because it is a waste of money markting it as better (see GrandSeiko) and COSC standard is not going to go anywhere forward as for all practical purposes and understanding COSC ís Rolex.
Rolex is not superlative COSC; it is holding back COSC to a 1973 measure of performance.
Remember the first hot hatch Volkswagen GTi? That was 1976 and a current td-diesel version blows it away in any aspect.
That is internal combustion engine technology. Nothing revolutionary space age technology.
The same development applies to mechanical watches yet those are stuck at early seventies performance level.
Superlatively frozen by Rolex :idea:
I believe the 'Superlative' indicates 'especially good results' have been achieved in COSC but true, this has been the case since the second half of the sixties.
Try a google patent search on Rolex.. they are innovating but not so much on fancy complications, bevels or other 'additional' stuff.. mostly it's the longivity & accuracy of the movements, bezels, bracelets etc. Take for example the Pepsi-bezel in ceramic.. I'm sure Rolex can make a few, but they'll have to make hundreds of thousands at consistent quality without failure - they'll hold out until that's the case.
Rolex did market a watch that's more accurate - the OysterQuartz. In fact quite a spectaculair movement, especially considering it's quartz. However the market demanded otherwise and supply/demand is all that matters in the end.
Just make sure you've got very good insurance.There's no tangle to get into.
If they want your watch they're going to get it. I lost mine in Buenos Aires to a guy half my size.
A guy bumped me from behind and whipped the watch off as I was falling, when I picked myself up he was gone on a motorbike driven by a mate.
Any posturing about what you'd do if it happened to you is meaningless. You simply don't get the chance to fight back.
First thing I did when I got mine was to make sure it was covered on my household policy for lost, stolen etc. at home and abroad.
If I'm in a strange city (or even a familiar one) and a dodgy guiser asks me for my Rolex and I feel threatened, thn I'm going to calmy take it off and hand it over, then proceed slowly but surely to a police station to collect a police report for my insurance company. No point being a hero.
I'll have a new one on my wrist in a couple of weeks.
Surely you'd be on the phone to our friend Harrison? :roll:
First name: Arnie.
Age: 12
:lol:Surely you'd be on the phone to our friend Harrison? :roll:
First name: Arnie.
Age: 12
TBH, if the watch makes you smile then great. It is the brand everyone knows, along with Seiko, and the perception that people I know have of it is that you're either rich or it's a fake. Do it really matter? A watch that brings you enjoyment is far better than the watch that presents an image to others (IMVHO of course!)
No.
You know, I was thinking exactly along the same lines. Was going to ask the kid his age! :lol:Surely you'd be on the phone to our friend Harrison? :roll:
First name: Arnie.
Age: 12
Seems to me a really shallow thread title, almost certainly designed to provoke a debate that leads somewhere bad, or worse - nowhere! As childish a question as "are staffys the hardest dog? Please argue for my entertainment".
How come ´considering its quartz´ :? :?:
´Quartz´ only means that the oscilator is based on a qc and not on the steam age balance wheel/escapment :idea:
ALL ACCURATE CLOCKS =
A power source driving a representation of time under control of an oscilator.
In quartz the oscilator is a quartz cristal excited by electronics.
Wether the rest is spring drive, analogue by gears or solid state electronics, is a measure of ruggedness and not óne jota indicative for quality.
The Oysterquartz is not even COSC for quartz actually. They got away with then COSC on the dial because all movements were produced before the standard was set up ánd because they defacto rule COSC.
Yes, the oysterquartz is a very well made quartz sharing the same gearbox with the mechanical brethren but it has pretty crappy performance by tc standards.
At the time when the Oysterquartz was launched, Citizen launced the 3 secs/year mega.
and Seiko had the twin quartz that was about 5 secs/year.
At present the Seiko 9Fxx is 10 to 5 secs accurate and has a 50 year service interval.
The Citizen A660 familiy is 5 secs accurate comes with 10 year warranty.
Look even a bit further behind the blinkers of wis-dom and see the 0634.
In 1973 Seiko lauched the 0634 wich was a tc quartz chronometer in very well made hardware. Most of these still function without ever having seen anything more than battery replaments.
By all means like the Oysterquartz all you want as it ís a wonderfull piece of engineering, but do not rationalise its superlativenes as that is plain ludicrous.
As a timing instrument the oysterquartz is not nearly a match for this éarlier contemporary Seiko :idea:
The market ´demanded´ what Swiss marketing made them want in the luxury watch sector.
The market chose and choses massively for quartz but the briljant Hayek changed the the tide in the high end sector by making the misconception about craftsmanship desireable at a premium.
Misconception because it is all CAD/CAM designed highly automated mass production.
In short, there's only one daddy, and that's Daddy Daddel 8)
Cheers,
Daddel.
Got a new watch, divers watch it is, had to drown the bastard to get it!
Easy Zilla, don't have a haemorrhage now. At our age, we ought to be careful :D
It's just another Rolex thread :P
Is Rolex the "Daddy"?
Well, I don't know the answer to that. I do know however that everyone I have ever met has heard or knows of Rolex. Just like someone would know who President Obama is, you could speak to most people in the world and they would have heard of the brand.
I've shown my parents my Breitlings etc in the past and they'd never heard of it so they nearly dropped at the price tag. However, when I've shown them my Rolex, they expect a high price because they know the brand is synonomous with high quality and therefore price.
The quality of the current Rolex range is second to none. I think the previous models are known to be lighter and perhaps not feel like they cost so much money whereas picking up the new Submariner always feels special when I go to wear it.
There are a lot of more expensive brands out there but a Rolex will always be a Rolex at the end of the day.
Does weight equate to cost? A light watch cannot possibly cost as much as a heavy watch?
"I forget who it was that recommended men for their soul's good to do each day two things they disliked ... it is a precept that I have followed scrupulously; for every day I have got up and I have gone to bed."
Rolex does not really rock my boat, so not up to date with recent R engineering, but from what I know, the movements & development has been .....staid...for decades, so I am with Petrus on this one.
They are grand but a bit boring. Most people I know think anyone wearing one is a knob. Of course that is the Irish way in other countries it's probably different?
As Umbongo said, it's a trolly thread, but I'll bite ever so gently on the bait...
Most people on here know what Rolex are and what you get for your money. I admire them for the build quality, looks, history and the brand recognition. My Sub's mechanical, based on a 60 year old case design containing a 25 year old calibre. When I want to employ more modern horological aspects, I'll put something else on.
You pays your money, you takes your choice.
David
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations
It's the true daddy of the midrange, and Patek is in the high-end.
Everyone knows it, and the market constantly proves it :) Much to the dismay of the sadsacks forever waiting in vain for Seiko to become something more exciting than a gray rainy monday morning...
A look at the number of employees and the patents filed shows that Rolex have never rested on their laurels either :)
Trufax!
there is a whiff of non-trollishness to this thread of mine.
I own two Rolex's and they receive by far the least attention of my watches in these parts. i guess people think they are dull clone looking watches. NEVER a comment ever, not once :)....unlike the ploprof or IWC BP etc...
for the few of those members incapable of understanding tongue in cheek humour...thats what the title and thread was about while trying to gather some useful data at the same time. A fiendishly tricky concept :mrgreen:
its good to see the watchdogs out and about.
A nice plain Sub, or an explorer I are about as good as it gets, the rest are mostly rubbish. However I do like the Milgauss. The DSSD is vomit inducing.
As for the brand, Rolex are a great example of what happens when marketing is rammed so far down the general public's throat over decades....the fanboys have the brand spiel constantly spouting out their ass. Nothing special about Rolex, I don't like bose speakers either.....another throwback brand from relentless eighties marketing that do nothing special. They managed to catch quite a few in their nets too! :D
Big difference is, BOSE-speakers are useless crap... :wink:
Thats what he said.
No, that isn't the Irish way. You're thinking of the prejudiced way.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
There is, but it winds up the hateboiz and that can only be a good thing.
Rolex generates twice as much content as deadly rival and diametric opposite brand Omega - whose marketing is frankly far more vomitous and artificial (How many schlebs do they have to pay to wear their watches, exactly?) and whose fanboiz get an order of magnitude more vocal. And their watches are either worthy yet antediluvian (Speedipro) or bought-in (co-ax), and all of them wantonly overpriced given the content. See how easy it is to slam brands you don't much like? ;).
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Agreed, but these are watches we are talking about; they don't need to update. Cars do, because of emissions, massive overcapacity in the supply chain, they're socially necessary but must meet socially acceptable norms (such as resale or recyclability), etc.
BTW a TDi Golf blows a Mk 1 away in a straight line, economy and reliability, even if its engine sounds like it's being sick at each gear-change (euuUURGH-euURGH-euRGH). And frankly it has all the mid-corner adjustability of an InterCity 125. There's no doubt it's crushingly competent, but let's not pretend it's either fun or markedly superior to any of the competition - which the original was, in unmeasurably large spades.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
I actually kind of agree with you. I would normally have a preference for Omega or IWC, simply because the would've been priced a little more competitively for a product which I find fairly equal to Rolex in quality. Also I find that Omega and IWc seem to have put more effort in over the past decade to broaden and evolve the range without getting bogged down in marketing glib while throwing us the same bone... ala Rolex. This has changed slightly though. Omega seem to be going down that same route now...add a bit of bling...charge us twice the price with Clooney Tax included on top.There is, but it winds up the hateboiz and that can only be a good thing.
Rolex generates twice as much content as deadly rival and diametric opposite brand Omega - whose marketing is frankly far more vomitous and artificial (How many schlebs do they have to pay to wear their watches, exactly?) and whose fanboiz get an order of magnitude more vocal. And their watches are either worthy yet antediluvian (Speedipro) or bought-in (co-ax), and all of them wantonly overpriced given the content. See how easy it is to slam brands you don't much like? ;).
That's not what I want to buy into. In future I think I'll be sticking with stuff a little under the radar.
Agree! Can't update the classics! As I said the Rolex sub and Explorer I are timeless gems, they could not possibly be bettered! However it would be nice to see more development into something new that would be a classic for the future...just like the above two! That doesn't seem to be happening as far as I can see.
If Omega can create the PO, which like it or hate it, is doing the right job in terms of being a future classic (although the jury is still out on that one :))...then why can't rolex do it?
No where near the daddy in my eyes. I wouldnt put them in a top 10 list compared to other brands............. but thats just me. They are very popular tho I always see loads of people wearing them in the city.
Well it certainly is a big and diverse family, lots of poseurs and show offs mixed in with acceptable ones but sadly most of them are now vintage although coping well with age. More solid than most families and better than having noisy neighbours like Daddy Cilla living down the road :D
Well, when this happened in London I think I must have broke the guys nose - these days if presented by a gun or a knife they can have the watch! :cry:Surely you'd be on the phone to our friend Harrison? :roll:
First name: Arnie.
Age: 12
It's just a matter of time...
To be fair, most other brands follow in the shadow of rolex in terms of wanton overpricing - "given the content". Your counter-arguement is understood, and rolex do some stuff very very well but dont rise to the sad blind brand loyalty that the original post seems to be stirring up. Generation of content, as you put it, is not an indication of success or quality by any stretch, just as "bought in" concepts are by no means a bad thing, especially when your "bought in" concept comes from the likes of George Daniels! In much the same way as "in-house" makes me - coming from a production engineering background - wince every time I hear it.There is, but it winds up the hateboiz and that can only be a good thing.
Rolex generates twice as much content as deadly rival and diametric opposite brand Omega - whose marketing is frankly far more vomitous and artificial (How many schlebs do they have to pay to wear their watches, exactly?) and whose fanboiz get an order of magnitude more vocal. And their watches are either worthy yet antediluvian (Speedipro) or bought-in (co-ax), and all of them wantonly overpriced given the content. See how easy it is to slam brands you don't much like? ;).
A couple of similar experiences too. But, I agree, bad idea to risk it nowadays.Well, when this happened in London I think I must have broke the guys nose - these days if presented by a gun or a knife they can have the watch! :cry:Surely you'd be on the phone to our friend Harrison? :roll:
First name: Arnie.
Age: 12
Patek Philippe.
But you have to spend an hour explaining why the Rolex is a second choice!!!.
Pedro.
Posting Permissions
