Quartz or automatic?

dr.fuzzenstein

Well, OP, when you say quartz or automatic, I say why not both:



But I also have a serious softspot for Longines, be classy and get yourself one of those:



Or, why not something that can go to the friggin' moon:



There are many brands that are very widespread because people have only heard those three names and simply don't know any better, with these you can stand above the rest. Granted the Omega and Longines won't be exactly bargain basement, but sooooo nice! If I had the money...

Wibbs

StealthRolex wrote: »

I get the impression you are not a Rolex "fan - boy" and that is your prerogative.

Actually you couldn't be more wrong SR. I have a huge amount of time for Rolex. They have a fantastic record for innovation in the early days of the wristwatch, I consider that Hans Wilsdorf was a genius in marketing and spotting and driving innovations, the Steve Jobs of his day and they make extremely well put together watches.

If a non watch bloke asks me what one off lifetime watch should they buy I'd say a Rolex Datejust/Submariner, or an Omega Speedmaster(most definitely second hand in the case of the latter). And on the quartz/auto front if a non watch woman(or their partner) asks my advice for a ladies watch I'd push the quartz option as the women's market is not nearly as into having a tamagotchi on the wrist that needs daily attention as the men's market is.

My wider feelings on Rolex the brand perception are along the lines of Gandhi's take on Christians, I like Christ, I'm not so sure about Christians. They can be like Apple fans in their fervour*. They almost write Rolex's press releases for them. Can feel a bit cultish or something. Even here I admire Rolex themselves for engendering such a feeling in the world. Never mind that they're the "Hoover" of luxury watches, a shorthand for a certain success vibe, or dodgy car salesmen. The fact that they're one of the most faked brands in history also reflects their success and place in the public consciousness. They're kinda like Porsche, not a lot of fiddling with the formula and incremental changes only watch fans would appreciate. Well it works so… Though a very different approach to the Rolex of yesteryear who were constantly pushing innovation. These days the innovations are along the lines of we changed a gear, used a different type of steel and changed a bezel colour. Slightly.

They like Patek also navigated the quartz threat very well and unlike most of the other Swiss names, didn't really try to compete in that market(though did produce a fantastic quartz movement). They didn't have to "reimagine" themselves either. Unlike say Omega who in their official website's history only have one solitary quartz in the timeline and don't even mention the dreaded Q word and they were giants of the early quartz days. I'd rate them way above Patek on this score. Patek were always a niche market and a tiny one at that(my dad had one and nobody had a clue what it was), AP another, whereas Rolex were as mainstream as you could get and still survived and thrived in the middle of the LCD watch is king period.

Personally though I can appreciate them and certainly see why others do, they kinda leave me cold. I do like some of their vintage 50's models and I went through a period of having a few 30's bubble backs(when they could be had for buttons). I like the Sub, but only from afar as they don't sit well on my wrist. I'm too scrawny and the first thing I'd do if I did get one is swap out the handset for the MilSub(Omega 300) hands. Can't abide Mercedes hands no matter what the brand.

As for the price hikes across the whole Swiss industry since the renaissance of the mechanical watch, you pays your money you takes your choice, though the notion that buying a Rolex is like giving to a charity is more than a bit of a stretch.

TL;DR? Rolex are true giants of the watch universe, you won't go wrong if you get one, but the Gospel according to Wilsdorf stuff can get a bit cloying.





*I'm writing this on a MacBook Pro and have used Apple stuff almost exclusively since the 80's, as for most of that time and for me, they were simply better and easier to use, needed less "feeding", less nerdiness to actually do the job at hand.

StealthRolex

Thanks for the clarification Wibbs. I had taken up your comment that Rolex are "just like the rest" the wrong way and went defensive. Sorry about that.

Yes it does appear that now their changes are relatively minor but to me that is a function of how good their movements and cases now are. Once you reach a certain point trying to find improvements becomes very difficult.
They could take a big risk on something if they wanted to and still survive a disastrous decision but I think they are more considered than that.

It might be a stretch to consider that your money is going to charity but that depends on what your concept of charity is. Fact is they are a registered charity so your money is going to a charity. That money may wind up being spent on sick horses rather than sick children, or it may go on sick Swiss children - or fund something you don't agree with politically or morally - who knows. There are plenty of dodgy charities out there that give your money to organisations you would rather not have your money but once you give it to them it is out of your hands. At least with a Rolex if you don't like it or decide you don't like the company you can get most if not all of your money back and in some cases make a profit for yourself.

Rolex have done something very few others have managed to do. Developed something nobody really needs and charging as much as they can get away with while making the charge that you are only paying for the name dismissable. In a world of fiat watches Rolex are probably the gold standard.

Ironically a gold Rolex is probably the only Rolex you are likely to loose money on


p.s. in an effort to stay on point - if your want a 2K watch you can still get a pre-owned Rolex for that, if you know where to look

Wibbs

StealthRolex wrote: »

Rolex have done something very few others have managed to do. Developed something nobody really needs and charging as much as they can get away with while making the charge that you are only paying for the name dismissable. In a world of fiat watches Rolex are probably the gold standard.

You are most certainly paying for the name. Now there are clearly differences in quality between a Steinhart "Sub" and a Rolex Submariner, but it would be a hard slog of an argument to show that those differences amount to many thousands of euro of a price disparity.

Rolex's name is everything. It's the name that inspires confidence, it's the name that has allowed them to at least double their prices for what were once mid tier tool watches(in the same sphere as Omega, Longines etc) and the name(and worldwide pricing policies) inspires them keeping and even gaining value over time. Their name is so much a part of them to the degree where even a passing remark by the Italian prime minister had them recently and hamfistedly crying foul. If they'd said nothing… Their name is the most faked in the watch world by a goodly margin, because the name sells.

Let's face it pretty much every wristwatch above a ten quid Casio is something nobody really needs and when we get above the two grand mark(or less) it's nearly always about charging what "they" think they can get away with and what customers are willing to cough up and clearly they do survive for long. Hell one year Zenith upped their prices across their current lines by something in the order of 20% and still kept on selling. Since the mid 90's pretty much all Swiss manufacturers have been adding to their prices year on year(while producing ever more watches). Hublot are probably the name extracting the urine the most.

And fair play to them. On top of one of the greatest turnarounds and marketing campaigns in business history where they brought the mechanical watch back into fashion, they continue to keep selling ever more of them and yet at the same time keep the feeling of exclusivity(even Patek produce 50,000 odd watches per year these days). That's hard to pull off.

Of the single "in house" non conglomerate Swiss brands Rolex are the king of keeping on top and it's damned impressive and as I said, if Mr Joseph Soap asked me what lifetime luxury watch to get I'd be pointing them at the crown logo. If you could snag one for two grand and the style appealed I'd say go for it.

StealthRolex

In fairness it's likely to be a vintage Air-King, Precision or Royal, but it can be done. Just stay away from Italy. It's the only place in the world where you can buy a genuine Rolex that is also a genuine fake. There's a huge market industry there for taking a genuine Sub and turning it into a more valuable Red or a Comex.

I think you are missing my point. Yes the Rolex name is everything and because of that you can dismiss the claim and you are paying for the name. What you are actually doing is buying into the name.

For some it can be difficult to justify the cost difference between one companies sub and a Rolex sub but that cost difference doesn't matter if your investment is protected by the company who made it. A Steinhart won't hold it's value any better than an Omega or a Seiko.

Other arguments regarding markup because of the name don't hold much water either. If you can find an authorised agent willing to discount it hardly ever amounts to more than 10% where as allowed discounts on Omegas, Breitlings and Zeniths for EOLs and NOS as examples can be up to 60%.
Because Rolex is a private company the comparison is in the apples and oranges domain.

If anyone decides not to buy a Rolex for 10k because they think it only cost 1K to make and the AD has to take 4K for his operating costs leaving 5K "pure profit" for Rolex who are they hurting?

Some may not like the "charity" argument but Rolex is the only one who can make that claim and regardless of what anyone thinks of it, it does mean that the money you spend on a Rolex gets fed back into their watch and charity business.
Technically Rolex is a sweat shop - average salary is only around 50k and I have no clue as to what Dufour takes home but there is a certain comfort in knowing that your money is not going to a bunch of nameless shareholders or potentially a family of spoiled brats.

I also understand that after one year staff are entitled to purchase one model at an off cost discount, as long as it is not a Daytona or Sub. If I was working there I'd go for a platinum or white gold Day-Date.

art

StealthRolex wrote: »

I think you are missing my point. Yes the Rolex name is everything and because of that you can dismiss the claim and you are paying for the name. What you are actually doing is buying into the name.
.

Think that is exactly why people who like watches can have a tendency to dislike Rolex, particularly, as both you and Wibbs state it, the modern Rolex, where the investment aspect has become paramount: basically it can seem more like a piece of currency, more like a Krugerrand, than a paragon of engineering etc

dr.fuzzenstein

art wrote: »

Think that is exactly why people who like watches can have a tendency to dislike Rolex, particularly, as both you and Wibbs state it, the modern Rolex, where the investment aspect has become paramount: basically it can seem more like a piece of currency, more like a Krugerrand, than a paragon of engineering etc

It's that way with everything, be it watches, cars, music, electronics, in fact any kind of consumer good you care to mention.
Where they once started out based on passion, love of the thing, the desire to be the best, unique, to make a name for yourself, to show off and the brand was based on maybe a single personality (for cars, think Enzo Ferrari), nowadays you get the feeling that any successful company is nothing but a cashcow for the shareholders and investors (who don't care one iota beyond the return), where design by committee rules, where the beancounters and the legal eagles make decisions and the faceless people in charge don't care if they're producing watches, cars, televisions, computers or baked fcuking beans, in the end it's just a paycheck, the company and the product are almost irrelevant because all they look at is the bottom line. No one can dispute that as soon as a company, that has been built up with love and passion by it's founder, goes public and gets handed over to the boardroom, becomes nothing more than a money making vehicle. The founder may retain a symbolic seat at the table, but really the board most of the time wishes he would just go away on an extended holiday and let them get on with the business of making money.
Very few companies manage to retain the passion and vision and I am willing to bet most of those are still in the hands of the family. As soon as the grey goons move in, it's over.
Not Rolex in particular, this is a general thing.

StealthRolex

art wrote: »

Think that is exactly why people who like watches can have a tendency to dislike Rolex, particularly, as both you and Wibbs state it, the modern Rolex, where the investment aspect has become paramount: basically it can seem more like a piece of currency, more like a Krugerrand, than a paragon of engineering etc

Maybe but the problems with the paragons of engineering is that they come at astronomical prices.

I'd love a Ressence but it's twice the price of a Rolex. Perriard? Justified by its engineering but I'd sooner spend the money on a Bentley.
Can we justify the hundreds of thousands to millions a Mille costs?

The investment aspect is not paramount but given its currency value if you do get into trouble it is handy to know that you can convert a Rolex and loose less money than trying to convert a Mille.

All the investment aspect of a Rolex means is you can only loose money on a Rolex if you try really really hard. Inside the case and even the case itself is still world class engineering.

art

It's just that concept, "will I lose money on this watch", has never entered my head when I looked at something I liked or valued in itself. It's a different mind set.

dr.fuzzenstein

art wrote: »

Think that is exactly why people who like watches can have a tendency to dislike Rolex, particularly, as both you and Wibbs state it, the modern Rolex, where the investment aspect has become paramount: basically it can seem more like a piece of currency, more like a Krugerrand, than a paragon of engineering etc

They are the Man U of watches. Watches for people who don't know anything about watches. Not their fault(well, to a degree), but a victim of their own success. Just like any brand that becomes mega, inevitably the chavs move in and ruin the image. A bit sad for a fine manufacturer. Of course the accountants and marketing people only think one thing: Full steam ahead! So Rolex, like the Rolling Stones will eventually turn into their own tribute band and just carry on their own shtick for more millions. Sadly this happens to every business that reaches critical mass. Once you're that big, you can't go dicking around with innovation anc taking risks, it upsets the shareholders. And that is now the single biggest concern. Sadly not about watches anymore.

RecordStraight

StealthRolex wrote: »

All the investment aspect of a Rolex means is you can only loose money on a Rolex if you try really really hard. Inside the case and even the case itself is still world class engineering.

Is the engineering inside the case really any better than a watch with an ETA 2892 that costs a tenth as much?

OldRio

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

They are the Man U of watches. Watches for people who don't know anything about watches. Not their fault(well, to a degree), but a victim of their own success. Just like any brand that becomes mega, inevitably the chavs move in and ruin the image. A bit sad for a fine manufacturer. Of course the accountants and marketing people only think one thing: Full steam ahead! So Rolex, like the Rolling Stones will eventually turn into their own tribute band and just carry on their own shtick for more millions. Sadly this happens to every business that reaches critical mass. Once you're that big, you can't go dicking around with innovation anc taking risks, it upsets the shareholders. And that is now the single biggest concern. Sadly not about watches anymore.

and if Heineken did sweeping statements ?

dr.fuzzenstein

OldRio wrote: »

and if Heineken did sweeping statements ?

Carlsberg
Yes, I realise, but I do think at some point of critical mass anything becomes a victim of it's own success. I go with the Top Gear rule. As soon as premiership footballers are buying it, it's time to switch brands.
Man U and Rolex have dedicated followers who know what they're talking about, but because of their size and success they then attract the people who see them as fashion statements and status symbols and who are just along for the ride. Better to be scene rather than herd.
(all statements to be taken with pinch of NaCl)

Eoin

bmtannam wrote: »

Would you advise me regardind the buying of a 2, 000 euro Tag Heuer or Breitling that has a quartz movement?.

So, OP - hoping all this Rolex talk is helping...

OldRio

Well as you can tell i don't drink fizzy water/lager or watch much TV.

The days when i start to agree with anything Clarkson says will be a sad sad day. As for worrying about what over paid soccer players wear and drive. What? Some could take that as pretentious snobbery.

I do agree that a watch, like anything can become a victim of its own success. What was once a style icon can become 'so yesterday darling'
Some of us see past that and enjoy it for what it is. Engineering and elegance Or in my case a lovely present from my wonderful wife on my 50th birthday.

60th coming up in a couple of years. I wait with building anticipation. (Must check what Soccer players are wearing)

StealthRolex

RecordStraight wrote: »

Is the engineering inside the case really any better than a watch with an ETA 2892 that costs a tenth as much?

In a word, yes. Rolex use ETA in the Tudor range - not stock, they do modify them extensively, and they do an adequate job. You can get COSC rated ETA movements if you pay the premium.
Having owned both class of watch I can say there is a difference even without opening the case to take a look.
A Rolex will sing to you. ETA's just tick.

StealthRolex

art wrote: »

It's just that concept, "will I lose money on this watch", has never entered my head when I looked at something I liked or valued in itself. It's a different mind set.

Having the kind of money that would enable such a mindset would be nice

RecordStraight

StealthRolex wrote: »

In a word, yes. Rolex use ETA in the Tudor range - not stock, they do modify them extensively, and they do an adequate job. You can get COSC rated ETA movements if you pay the premium.
Having owned both class of watch I can say there is a difference even without opening the case to take a look.

I'm sorry, but that's all just marketing nonsense. I don't even know where to begin. Rolex machines churn out a million or so of those movements every year, there's nothing magical about them at all. If you want a 'special' movement, you'll want to move up from mid-tier producers like Rolex and Omega.

StealthRolex

RecordStraight wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that's all just marketing nonsense. I don't even know where to begin. Rolex machines churn out a million or so of those movements every year, there's nothing magical about them at all. If you want a 'special' movement, you'll want to move up from mid-tier producers like Rolex and Omega.

I didn't say there was anything magical about them. Their ability to produce a note is engineering, nothing more. The fact that Rolex can produce them in quantity says nothing about their quality when compared to ETA or any other bulk manufacturer be they Swiss, Japanese or Chinese.

Have you ever listened to a Rolex movement in the dead of night?

RecordStraight

StealthRolex wrote: »

Have you ever listened to a Rolex movement in the dead of night?

Have you ever listened to an IWC in the dead of night? Or a JLC? Or a Patek? A Grand Seiko?

I'm sorry, you are in the realms of romantic nonsense here. If you want to read an informed view of the quality of engineering of the Rolex 3135 compared to the ETA 2892, you can start here. If you want to talk about watch movements that whisper and sing to you...I don't know...maybe the supernatural forum?

Wibbs

There was that infamous(if you're a watch nerd ) Timezone article concerning the stripdown of a Rolex caliber 3000 back in the late 90's. I remember the controversy it caused at the time, with much tooing and froing, even thinly veiled insults against the author(who gave up blogging soon after IIRC). Prod the Church Of Rolex at your peril...

In short his take was it was a robust movement and very accurate with it, which really surprised him given how many examples of sloppy workmanship he found in the manufacturing process(doesn't surprise me TBH as Seiko mid range movements are hardly Pateks, but are far more reliable and can be made very accurate). I have no doubt that they've become much better in finishing and QC since then and many's the watchmaker these days will praise Rolex for the simplicity(a good thing) and robustness of their current movements. Many is also the story of 40 year old Rolexes that have never seen a watchmaker and are still running very well. Again lots of similarities with Seiko on this front.

As for Rolexes "singing" that's entirely subjective a view and IMH mostly imaginary. Plus the sound of a watch ticking is dependent on many things, case design and case material for a start. The same movement from anyone will sound different in a steel case compared to a gold case, or a ceramic case or plastic and so on. You can even get that with quartz movements. I have two watches both with the exact same Seiko quartz engine and in one the tick is easily heard, whereas you're straining to hear it in the second(and I've good hearing).

StealthRolex

RecordStraight wrote: »

Have you ever listened to an IWC in the dead of night? Or a JLC? Or a Patek? A Grand Seiko?

I'm sorry, you are in the realms of romantic nonsense here. If you want to read an informed view of the quality of engineering of the Rolex 3135 compared to the ETA 2892, you can start here. If you want to talk about watch movements that whisper and sing to you...I don't know...maybe the supernatural forum?

That is a very well written article that says nothing to support what you are suggesting here.

Romantic nonsense or not there is a sound a Rolex movement makes that an ETA does not. They both make a noise only one sounds musical and I'm putting that down to the only thing that can account for it - engineering. Your comparison is a bit lake saying a Ford V6 is the same as a Ferrari V10.
It might be romantic nonsense to you but I know which one sounds better. It's also a touch more expensive too. However unlike Rolex movements Ferrari engines are ultimately crap with no reliability so I'd probably go for the Ford and spend the savings on nice watches.

I really don't understand why a particular expression of my experience with Rolex movements should attract such disparaging responses. That's diversity I guess - some peope just cannot see poetry or romance in engineering. Shame that.

I regret I have not yet heard the movements of IWC, JLC or Patek as they are out of my price range for the moment. When funds allow I will listen to them to see how they compare. Which if these has ETA movements inside them?

RecordStraight

StealthRolex wrote: »

Romantic nonsense or not there is a sound a Rolex movement makes that an ETA does not. They both make a noise only one sounds musical and I'm putting that down to the only thing that can account for it - engineering.

Unfortunately for the sake of your argument, the type of case makes a big difference in sound (as Wibbs has said) and the engineering of the ETA 2892 is objectively on a par with the machine-produced 3135 as the article shows.

I do have the privilege of owning an IWC and one or two other high-end watches and I can assure you that it sounds much the same as any other mechanical watch - including Rolex.

StealthRolex

Wibbs wrote: »

As for Rolexes "singing" that's entirely subjective a view and IMH mostly imaginary. Plus the sound of a watch ticking is dependent on many things, case design and case material for a start. The same movement from anyone will sound different in a steel case compared to a gold case, or a ceramic case or plastic and so on. You can even get that with quartz movements. I have two watches both with the exact same Seiko quartz engine and in one the tick is easily heard, whereas you're straining to hear it in the second(and I've good hearing).

It is not subjective.

all it is is a slight ringing of a particular frequency, probably from a spring, that I cannot hear on other watches because their tick is too loud. I'm sure it's not peculiar to Rolex and would expect it on some high end watches but I have never heard it on an ETA or similar. All I can hear is the tick

RecordStraight

StealthRolex wrote: »

It is not subjective.

all it is is a slight ringing of a particular frequency, probably from a spring, that I cannot hear on other watches because their tick is too loud. I'm sure it's not peculiar to Rolex and would expect it on some high end watches but I have never heard it on an ETA or similar. All I can hear is the tick

This may be a manufacturing flaw in your watch that could be remedied with a service.

StealthRolex

RecordStraight wrote: »

This may be a manufacturing flaw in your watch that could be remedied with a service.

If you don't want me contributing here all you have to do is say so.

Bye.

OldRio

RecordStraight wrote: »

This may be a manufacturing flaw in your watch that could be remedied with a service.

Oh dear. Uncalled for in my humble.

RecordStraight

OldRio wrote: »

Oh dear. Uncalled for in my humble.

Suggesting that a strange noise may indicate a problem with the watch?

OldRio

RecordStraight wrote: »

Suggesting that a strange noise may indicate a problem with the watch?

The poster as well as yourself knew exactly what you were up to.

RecordStraight

OldRio wrote: »

The poster as well as yourself knew exactly what you were up to.

Your ascribing motives to other posters is also rather sad. I'll stop at this point so the thread might get back on topic.