Rolex - should I?

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by javadog

A recent version of this would be my suggestion:




JR

i'm wearing one of those as I type. Gift from the ex. I like the black face, and it is a small bezel.

[hytem]

My advice is to buy a used one--at an authorized Rolex dealer. Not on ebay--too many fakes there. A used one is half the price and will last forever as well, with cleaning every five years or so. Get the SS jubilee band.I have had one for twenty years I bought used at an authorized jeweler in NY. It's about 30 years old.

In my experience, no automatic keeps time as well as a quartz battery watch. Including my Rolex. It's a question of status--not performance. A bit different from owning a Porsche.

I keep it in the jewelers box mostly these days. Have a couple of Carrera watches I bought cheap I like to wear.

[Az911]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

$2000 for a used watch? Only if your ego really needs it.

That was a stupid comment. Many people could ask the same of the 911, why spend 15K on a 27yr old impractical car.


Skip the air king it's cheap and anyone into watches knows that.

[Venetian]

I"ve had mine for 25 yrs and wear it daily. Paid $1000. Had it cleaned once for $250. Don"t know what it is worth but I think replacement cost is around $4000. Like a Porsche, I appreciate things that last and are of good quality.

In the same time period a friend has probably bought 10 Seiko type watches.

[RPKESQ]

In the watch world there are several types of consumers. But watch consumers who are interested in true quality horology know that Rolex watches are expensive for the quality and the movement quality is mediocre at best, especially in their less expensive models.

Rolex puts 90% of their production cost into the case and only 10% into the movement. There are much better buys and much better watches for the same or less money. If you have really spent time on Timezone.com you should have read the on-site review of an internal examination of a recent Rolex will underscore my comments. If you haven’t read it yet search it out.

Now, in terms of resale, Rolex is an easy sale due to the fact that they were the first Swiss company to do modern luxury advertising and have built up their brand in the eyes of the uninformed consumer. So a Rolex is fairly easy to sell and often easier to sell for a higher price. So it might be a reasonable decision to purchase a Rolex at a good price if you think you will sell it soon. But never confuse easy salability with quality.

All of this applies to the last 25 years of Rolex production.

[Jeff Alton]

If Rolex actually made a watch that I liked, I would consider it. I tend to like stuff a wee bit more masculine like a TAG or a Brieltling (sp).

I am always looking and I think will drop the coin this spring. I could care less about resale, it is not a car (which I could care less about resale on also). I will keep the watch forever, when I don't want to wear it, it will go in my underware drawer....

Cheers

[alf]

Yes you should get a Rolex, it may be the least expensive watch you will own.

Although you may want to consider a sports model, they tend to hold value better and increase over time. I am wearing a GMT2 I bought used 3 years ago for $2700, I could sell it in 30 minutes for $3000 with a few key strokes.

Quality? I have many other watches with higher quality finishes and attention to detail but if I want something that I could count on to work all the time every time, the GMT2 is it. The Rolex represents the type of quality I want in a tool, not the type of quality you want in a piece of jewlery. What are you after?

This site usually has some very fair deals...http://www.goodwatch.com/wtcrlex.htm

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

If you like it, go for it!!!

What may be boring for one person may be the watch you have dreamed about for years.

Find a good one that you like and latch onto it. Keep it for a long time then hand it down to your son or other guy in the family. Thats what will happen to mine... but until then I am going to enjoy them!

Joe

PS was showing my boss a new steel GMT master I had just gotten several years ago, and his comment was "very nice, you deserve it for all you do." My next quarterly bonus was a gift certificate for $1000 towards another watch. Man kept his people happy and we in turn bent over backwards for him.

[KFC911]

My phone (which I always have with me) has never failed to display the correct time. I'm not into jewelry, and simply can't stand to wear anything on my wrist, fingers, etc. so I just don't get the fascination. I'm here to be enlightened or flamed...lemme have it

[javadog]

Wow. Watch snobs can be worse than Porsche owners. How did this turn into a Rolex-bashing thread?

I can't for the life of me understand why people don't think a Rolex has a high quality movement, or one that can't keep accurate time. Most of the comments in the watch geek world, related to a Rolex movement, complain about the fact that Rolex doesn't decorate their movements. They don't do a lot of the fine detail work that you might see on a Patek Phillipe movement, for example. So what? You'll never look at it anyway and lots of the pretty detailing has no bearing on how it runs. There are things that some "experts" claim are important to the way the movement works but if you read enough of the the test results in the watch magazines over a period of years you'll sooner or later figure out that the highly decorated/finished movements don't work any better on average than a Rolex movement. I own around 30 different watches from a dozen different companies, from the bottom of the food chain all the way to the top. My experience over the last three decades has been that the ones that gave me the best service were those made by Rolex.

There has been a little carping lately about some of the changes Rolex has made in the last 5 years or so to their movements but again, so what? They actually run better in the real world. What do you want? A theoretically superior design or one that works? The last one I bought new was an Explorer 1, just after the most recent change in movements for that model and it's the most accurate Rolex I've ever owned. It keeps time to within a second per WEEK, which is ridiculous for a mechanical watch. Do the math. That's one second in over 600,000. THink that's good enough? Do you really need to be more precise with your time? God help you if you think that's not good enough.

Realize this, you can regulate any mechanical watch. If it runs slow or fast, change it. You can also "adjust" the running rate yourself, in a manner of speaking. A watch will run a different rates depending upon it's position and the influence of gravity. Face down and face up, it will likely run at different rates. On it's side, crown up or crown down, again the running rates will be different. Some will be fast, some will be slow. If you find that it runs fast during the day when you wear it, stick it in a drawer at night in a position where it runs a little slow and Presto!, you can average out the running rate. If you play with it a little, you'd be surprised what you can learn.

Rolex is one of the few companies that now makes virtually everything that goes into their watches. They even make their own steel and gold alloys. You can't say that about any other watch company in the world.

The bottom line I think is this. There are people that like these watches and those that don't. If you like one, buy it. If you don't, buy something else, or go whine on one of the political threads.

Cheers,
JR

[stuartj]

Wayne, its not about telling time. Offical Swiss COSC standard for a mpvement to be classifed as a "chronometer" is somthing like -4/+2 secs per day. A Casio GShock will be accurate to that each year, and Im sure you have a very accurate clock on your phone too.

Most of the good manfutures exceed this standard (which is largely about marketing) and a watch can be considered accurate if its error its consistent, ie 2 secs every day, not -2 one day, +3 the next.

Its about building little machines powered by springs, gears, escapements that can measure time. Before the quartz movement circa 1970, which nearly destroyed the Swiss industry, these were all we had. It goes back to John Harrison in the 1700s and the requirement to solve the riddle of longitude, whcih required accurate time keeping. In the day, this was a "man on the moon" proposition.

To build a little time machine that can mechaically measure time, days, months leap years- as some highly evolved very expensive mechanical movements can, is the expression of the art.

A Nissan GTR will beat the pants of your 959- but what do you take pleasure from?

Cheers Stuart

[KFC911]

Please don't banish me to the political threads...I'm trying to "get it"

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by javadog

Wow. Watch snobs can be worse than Porsche owners. How did this turn into a Rolex-bashing thread?

Cheers,
JR

just let me say- i like rolex.

Its easy to bash Rolex, and the comapny has brought it on itself. Howver, it remains one of the biggest brands in the world.

Problem, what is essenatilly a workman like tool watch has been marketed into a status symbol. When i see one, these days, I assume its a fake until I judge otherwise.

Its a big brand, and attracts the same metaility that lusts after all big brands. Which is a shame in so many ways, but especailly as we owe Rolex for almost single handedly saving the mechical watch from the dustbin of history.

[Sunroof]

I never understood the Rolex thing over the years as a timepeace. A friend bought a Rolex Submariner several years ago and claims it does not keep accurate time, will cost a bunch of $$$$ for servicing, BUT has held if not appreciated in value. So, its not a great timepiece as far as the mechanism compaired to Tag Heuer or even Omega; however, it does make you wonder why the Rolex continues to hold its value and even appreciate.

Five-grand for a new base Submariner model these days, but back in 1988 when I was looking at them they were $882.00. Today that 1988 watch would yield over a grand if not two. If you have the descretionary income then it may a wise move and you even get to wear it and enjoy it.

I wear a Tag Heuer Aquaracer, but I am a "closet" Submariner lover myself. Its just tough to justify that kind of money these days on a timepiece. If your going to consider an investiment, look at Piaget.

Bob

[stuartj]

TAG Heuer are an even worse case of marketing over substance. TAG Heuer has no factory. It does not make watches. (It is also very coy about where its sources compenents) It just markets watches. It is a brand, nothing more.

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by javadog

Rolex is one of the few companies that now makes virtually everything that goes into their watches. They even make their own steel and gold alloys. You can't say that about any other watch company in the world.
Cheers,
JR

Seiko

[SLO-BOB]

I didn't "get it" for a long time. I have friends that have Rolex watches, but I never wanted one. After reading threads here - not Timezone at all - I've begun to see why like minded individuals buy a Rolex. I'm not going to try and convince anyone that it makes anymore sense than putting a motor behind the rear axle. At some point in time, it just became appealing to me for every reason but ego support. In fact, if and when I do get one, most people I know will ride me down for having a Rolex.

PS - anyone else get annoyed with watch websites? I just want them to open and allow navigation - not the slo-mo commercial beforehand.

[javadog]

Originally Posted by stuartj

Seiko

Close, but no cigar. They aren't as vertically integrated as Rolex.

I will hand it to them in the sense that they have made a signifiacant contribution to the watch world, although some of their efforts nearly killed the part of the watch industry that I love. Given their recent innovations, at least they are looking to the future, instead of hyping the past.

JR

[jhynesrockmtn]

I've had this Submariner for 7 years, present from my ex. I love the feel of Rolex, the weight and balance are perfect. It's been flawless. I tend not to wear it as my job has changed and I'll eventually sell it.

I bought a GMT from this site a few years ago and sold it for the same or more later on TZ. Wish I'd kept it. These guys are the tops in the used watch dealer market for newer stuff.

Bought this Omega a while back and I like it but it doesn't have same feel, much lighter and not as stout. It is 40 years old though and I love wearing something with some history to it that's been cared for and still works great.

www.watchseller.com

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by javadog

Close, but no cigar. They aren't as vertically integrated as Rolex.

I will hand it to them in the sense that they have made a signifiacant contribution to the watch world, although some of their efforts nearly killed the part of the watch industry that I love. Given their recent innovations, at least they are looking to the future, instead of hyping the past.

JR

Seiko, as far as I know, manufacture everything that goes into its watches, right down to the Luminova. Which is amazing when you consider the range and type of calibers and watches it produces. Thye are I beleive, far and away, the biggest manufacturer in the world.

They also offer, in JPN only, the Grand Seiko, which is equal to anything from Switzerland (at the price point).

Yes, the Japanese nearly killed the Swiss industry in the early 70s. Many of the great Swiss houses went to the wall (many have since been revived too, as marketing fronts....) But that was after the mass production of the quartz movement made watches cheap. The quartz movement ws invented by two Swiss wathcakers. the Swiss industry laughed them out of the Val de Jour. So they took it to Japan. The Japanese had learnt well from Dr Deming.....Rolex reinvented itself and pretty much, some say, staved off the onslaught of cheap quatz watches.