I just had a chat about Rolex, their innovations, the credit they deserve, etc..
And had quite different opinions during the discussion.
For the most knowledgeable of you, is Rolex actually that great and it's a fact, or are they just very desired?
I just had a chat about Rolex, their innovations, the credit they deserve, etc..
And had quite different opinions during the discussion.
For the most knowledgeable of you, is Rolex actually that great and it's a fact, or are they just very desired?
While I haven't owned every brand, I can say that most Rolex watches I have had just kept keeping good time for years with no issue. unlike Omega, Seiko and a few others, I've never had one just stop, yet!
I did have a Submariner that had not been serviced in over 21 years, and that was still keeping time to 1 second a day, with great amplitude!
There are lots of comparisons of movement strip downs, and most (with the exception of a couple of movements, or parts within them) say that the Rolex movements aren't the prettiest finished, but are generally very robust.
It's just a matter of time...
Mass produced professional tool watches. They are desired because you can't buy them (human nature to want what we can't have) and they do have incredible residuals, in some cases double or more what you paid.
Think of this, if you could walk into any AD and buy any Rolex at list price there and then and the minute you left the store the Watch lost 25% of its value - would people still be as keen to own one.
Don't get me wrong, they are great watches, but there is better out there and most of the Rolex hype probably has little to do with the actual watches themselves.
True - but that was exactly the situation not that many years ago for anything but a Daytona or new release. At same time other brands were still 40%-50% loss of value as a used watch, and Rolex were still the best selling luxury watch maker then.Originally Posted by Wallasey Runner
It's just a matter of time...
Our watchmaker at work describes them as tractors. Rudimentary time proven movements which just run and run and run.
We dont see many in for repair because something has gone wrong, mainly for maintenance services or a polish. I cannot say the same for other brands.
Personally, I think theyre great and would 100% suggest one as an only watch.
https://www.timezone.com/2002/09/16/...-14270-part-1/
https://www.timezone.com/2002/09/16/...-14270-part-2/
By the way Rolex are so anal that im sure i read they planned to sue this reviewer a new orifice for having the gall to give his honest opinion.
Yikes! That was absolutely brutal, but also very interesting.
Interesting read, on the flipside, it does proove that decoration doesnt make a robust movement, and it really is a case of dimishing returns paying for extreme level of hand finishing that only loupe carrying nerds may have a passing interest in (and even then, probably can’t tell the difference between hand and machine anglage”)
God only knows how much Rolex would charge if they decided to jump on the the display back highly decorated movement route.
They can't have had much luck with their case - the article's 19 years old! Hopefully they're a good deal better made nowadays...
Agreed. Although some modern Rolex I have with the 3235 movement - two had to be tweaked at RSC to get them to run within the quoted +-2sec/day. In the scheme of things - they are well proven robust movements, some of my watches are rather 'thoroughbred' - better some would say - so I treat with more care. The Rolex - industrial by comparison.
I’ve not had any issues with Rolexes so far, touch wood. I’ve had a few issues with other brands/movements.
Definitely echo the workhorse sentimentality, but with iconic design and very good finishing. The marketing largely follows the substance for me.
Last edited by Berty234; 23rd February 2021 at 19:51.
I’d agree. All my references have been bulletproof but for a 2017 3235 which had to get tweaked by RSC
Which are generally the worst out of interest?
I cant say that they are the worst, but there are a lot of troublesome AP ROO's.
This. If I only kept one watch it would be a Rolex.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
That only really accounts for the 'Professional' range though. My wife wants a Rolex, there's a nice selection of ones she likes in our local AD window and she wouldn't know what a Tool Watch was if it hit her on the head. Most people don't know about the supply issues, desirability of certain models or resale values. They just know Rolex is a luxury brand, and they cost a lot.
As for the original question, yes they make some of the most reliable watches on the market, and no it's not just marketing, they rarely mention reliability in their marketing - they're lifestyle focussed brand, aligned to human achievement.
Numerous friends or colleagues who are first time buyers of expensive watches, ask for opinion of brands and nearly most of them come up with priories like these 1. Keep value, 2. might even appreciate in value over period of time, 3. that they can feel proud of wearing, i.e. easily recognizable........good looking............functional........keep time.....so what can you suggest..
While people always says we don't need a piece of watch to tell time nowadays, then reliability in terms of accuracy and durability should not be used to value, judge Rolex or any other luxury brands.
A piece of seemingly technically superior tourbillion made by Seagull could, however, never complete with a Datejust in term of pricing, market recognition...
BTW, own few older Rolex models and generally keeping time is not an issue. For Seiko that even costs over 1,000GBP, accuracy is not my concern except those with the Spring Drive movement. If someone says his/her 7s/4s/6s/8s movements are up to chronometer performance, I could say you're very lucky and luck is all you have for that particular piece.
Last edited by seikomatic; 25th February 2021 at 02:49.
I will just pick a few words out of there that they can feel proud of wearing, i.e.easily recognizable. I on the whole agree with the rest of the sentence.
Rolex has sold an image for those that need to project the image that Rolex has invented around its product, in the same way that Mont Blanc, another common High Street brand has turned a plastic pen into a precious resin pen, and somehow made it a must have thing. I suggested in another thread that if you want to write with a Mont Blanc, the cheapest way of doing it is to buy a refill, chop a few millimetres off the back end, then put that refill in a cheap Pilot G2. No-one seemed interested in that idea. I can only imagine that the Pilot G2 doesn't project the image that they want. If you want to know the value of Mont Blancs precious resin, melt it down and then try to sell the result. It will be worthless. The image will have disappeared in a cloud of smoke.
Getting back to watches, Rolex could be the most accurate, longest lasting watches in the world , and I still wouldn't buy one. It's the image that turns me off. I would feel like I had been bent over by the marketing department. Then again my last car was a Citroen C3, so I obviously have nothing to prove. I saved like mad for a BP FF, because I wanted to have something that wasn't recognizable. In the end I just realised how ludicrous it was to spend that much on a watch.
I wouldn't want any Rolex owner to be offended by my opinions, as I am sure that none of you were sucked in by the marketing hype, and that you all bought Rolex purely out of you interest in horological history, their competence as a manufacturer, and the huge range of diverse designs.
There is no brand that doesn't present or market an image. Not one.
Why the F people revert to stuff like "projecting an image" when it comes to Rolex alone baffles me.
Okay Omega wearers who want to be Buzz Aldrin Ed White or Piers Brosnan slash Daniel Craig.
Okay BPFF wearers who think theyre Jacques Cousteau and wouldnt be seen dead wearing the dive watch that everybody else wears because theyre different and float under the radar like a French marine combat swimmer.
Okay Rolex wearers who fancy themselves as Sean Connery and like to lisp at the ladies. I touch my shelf.
Fair do's Smiths wearers who will tell you daily that they were up the peak first while channeling Hillary or Norgay and making you aware that Rolex is a lying abominable snowman.
No trouble Heuer wearers who would set fire to the later Tag part because they want the McQueen Monaco vibe without being sullied by Leonardo Di Caprio.
Up to you IWC wearers who want to hark back to the Luftwaffe while reading the little prince and enjoy the kind of power reserve that means you can leave it as a bedside clock for a week after making a wayne-kerr sign at an Audi for five seconds.
No drama Panerai and the sea pig Italian navy Sylvester Stallone's libido luminor.
Do your thing Dirk Pitt Doxa wearers who like the laid back Matt Mcconaughey vibe and the idea of pulling Salma Hayek.
If you want to sign with a Mont Blanc then do so but just know that afficionados prefer Pelikan and those who know, know.
Those who know better than the Pelikan users sign their names with a Namiki while wearing the Nudies that havent been washed in a year because RAW, MAN! and turn up the cuffs over the Trickers while carrying the Belstaffs and wearing the Barbours with the Ray-Bans and driving the Porsches with the BMW's for touring and the Triumphs for playtime while paying for it all out of the Goyard rather than the LV because everyone knows Goyard is under the radar higher quality and LV has been overrun by tourists...
...or let all the folks know know that you've transcended brand fashion by wearing something knocked up by Matalan with shoes from the Catalan and walk to the beat of your own unpredictable and unswayed by marketing veblen branding and contemporary fashion drum.
Everything anyone does whether its buy into brands or buy into eschewing brands is a projection of an image, the image depends entirely on the individual but every action is designed for a reaction whether its conscious or not.
(NB, this was not an aggressive rant, I just enjoyed writing it to illustrate the point!)
Slash wears a Hublot and sometimes a Kermit.
Last edited by SimonK; 25th February 2021 at 15:37.
Well said C.
Plenty of people like to think they are above marketing and enjoying their virtue signalling but at the end of the day, as you say, every brand presents an image of some sort.
Cheers,
Neil.
Nice summary.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Ha. Very good!
Damn that was good!
Bold text = guilty as charged, to quote David Brent
They make good watches, but they're overhyped.
They're not the top of the horological tree and there are direct competitors who are cheaper and more freely available.
They've just managed to get an image of ultra desirability (effective marketing, you could argue) and that has driven demand that outstrips supply (for whatever reason) for some models, which has just increased the hype even further.
Good watches at RRP, but good luck finding one of the sought after models at that price.
If you just want a rock solid reliable watch, buy a G-Shock (not that I ever would)
M
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
The most successful watch company in the world, and it can’t be due to marketing....because if so, rivals would just have to increase marketing budgets. Simple. It’s a formidable company in a whole bunch of ways....manufacture, sales, support, image, durability and so on.
And it’s that complete package, spread over many decades, that has made them unrivalled. That may change in time, but not yet.
Oddly enough, the sheer brand power of Rolex probably helps rivals by propping up the image of the Swiss watch industry. Rolex helps them all.
Omega is not less reliable.
Lol, these threads are laugh a minute. Some people parroting the same drivel day in and out.
And thanks OP for a very ‘original’ question. We had never thought of this before you joined:-)
- - - Updated - - -
Lol, these threads are laugh a minute. Some people parroting the same drivel day in and out.
And thanks OP for a very ‘original’ question. We had never thought of this before you joined:-)
Written without a hint of irony I presume?
Yes, zero irony:-)Written without a hint of irony I presume?
Maybe it's time to call it a day then as nearly every Rolex comment seems to annoy you and repeatedly moaning about these comments is extremely boring.
You moaning about people moaning is as predictable as Mick Ps advice on not selling.
Wait a minute... are you moaning about him moaning about other people moaning?
Hold on.... am I moaning about you moaning about him moaning about other people moaning?!
I’d you came to a watch forum for original questions, you’re begging on both knees to be disappointed!
Fixed for accuracy.
Bought my first one (and the only one I will still have when I go into a care home) back in 1981 - for the design and engineering in that GMT-Master. Yes, I was swayed by the advertising campaigns in National Geographic and the endorsements by famous people - but as I said to colleagues who couldn’t believe that expenditure at the time - “No - this is a classic timepiece, the design, the engineering...............”
In the intervening decades, it has cost very little in servicing, albeit a lot of that was done when Rolex et all - provided support for a token sum, rather than their more mercenary attitude nowadays.
It’s now a 40yr-old watch, and gives me the same satisfaction today, as it did when I bought it.
(Might have to pass it on to my nephew when I go into a care home - in case they nick it when I am doo-lally).
But are they as good as a Grand Seiko?
Come on, don’t waste a perfectly good idea for another Rolex thread by combining it with this one:-)
Though I suspect we will find out when someone sells their 2021 GS for a loss after about 3/4 days (average duration of ownership):-)
Last edited by RAJEN; 23rd February 2021 at 21:03.
Who knows, only owned one GS that had a bright red dial and a monster on the case back, so a bit like comparing apples with house bricks. It was a stunning watch and worn on all 5 of the days that owned it.
I doubt you can build a world-class brand in any field without high levels of performance and reliability. Thats what buyers tend to want. And Rolex does perform. It’s the brand I would always recommend.
It's quite likely you could say the same of omega or another big swiss brand, if they're still here after more than a century, they must be doing something well indeed.
And yet rolex seems to be the one mentioned as the absolute best. I'm aware of this statement, but I want to know facts about it, so it's more than just a battle of opinions
I would say there are a few reasons for this, firstly Rolex have used the perception of a “luxury watch” for years it’s not something new. Omega have suffered from bringing out some utter eyesores over the years and no clear direction of what they are. Everyone knows what a datejust or sub or oyster perpetual will look like but other than the speedmaster most other Omega watches could be pretty much anything. I sometimes find myself giving up on trying to purchase an Omega watch having been lost in the mass of various confusing designs and over inflated prices.
I don’t think it’s so much the absolute best it’s about someone buying exactly what it says on the tin. A good well made reliable watch with a timeless design.
There are plenty of other brands that have at least one of the above but are always let down by lacking in another. Take JLC with the reverso, having read all the horror stories about servicing the watch and comments the quality is not what it was why would I waste 4 or 5K on one of them? As for Grand Seiko having seen the horrible base metal used on the batons on one of their watches (posted here) why would I waste several grand on one when Rolex use better materials?
It’s not about Rolex it’s about if any other brand could match them in what they do then I would be interested.
It's true omega lacks a bit of consistency regarding their designs, apart from the classic speedmaster.
Although they're starting to build something on the smp300, but it seems anything design wise created in the 1990's is not meant to be timeless
But if you put the design on the side, could you argue a coaxial 2500 for example is not as well conceived as a rolex movement on the reliablility/durability aspect?
I'm not sure Rolex are that great in this respect either. You've got the classic Sub (and it's various offshoots) and the Datejust, but then you've got things like the Yachtmaster (and II), the Celinis and the Daytona which all (to a degree, at least) got their own way. Not to mention their quartz models which had a design of their own, largely ignored in the rest of the range (actually one of my favourites!).
Personally, I think Omega has been far more imaginative and exciting as a brand - Yes, they've had some howlers, but also some stunning watches along the years, now mostly forgotten.
Everyone thinks 911 when they think Porsche, but they also made the 914, the 924/944/968 and 928. The Rolex/Porsche analogy is done to death, but in this respect I think it's valid.
I do like a watch that stays true to its heritage (eg the Submariner, the Navitimer or the Speedmaster), but doing something different in the brand isn't a negative in my view.
I find Rolex, on the whole, either a bit too ubiquitous to engender any interest ('familiarity breeds contempt') or plain unattractive (to me, beauty is, of course, in the eye...)
M
Last edited by snowman; 3rd March 2021 at 16:51.
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
Now, if Mick Never-sell-a-Rolex P. can have a final word on the subject, we cal lay this thread to rest.
A friend of mine services watches for a living and cannot speak too highly of the modern Rolex movements, which have apparently been designed with long-term reliability in mind and to make servicing quicker and easier. Makes a lot of sense.
Just a shame about almost every other aspect, really...
You're funneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee............................ .......
I haven’t noticed any posts from Mick fir a while, I hope he’s ok.
Roger W Smith wears one, what’s good for him ...
Rolex’s are solid and reliable. Even when very old.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So are 60s Omegas, Seikos, and stuff you’ve never heard of with AS movements.......when you work on watches it provides a totally different perspective.
Generally, any half- decent watch will continue to perform well if it’s maintained, lubrication is the key. Trust me, I don’t make this up.
I have two Seiko 5’s that are from the 80’s. They’ve been abused badly. Still work never serviced and still tell the time. I never measure in seconds just minutes. They’re fine. My Milgauss needs a service.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
