Advertisement
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

SOTC(state of the collection) thread.

18910111214»

Comments



  • Which one would you recommend?Typical omega there’s a load of variations in the dark side of the moon collection.The Apollo 8 grabs me most .I find the standard moonwatch a little uncomfortable at times and the Apollo8 one is larger so not sure how I’d get on with it .





  • The Apollo * is manual wind so its a good bit thinner which I personally like, very nice watch with a very elaborate dial. The OG Darkside is IMHO the best version.






  • Yes OG

    Or the sedna gold if feeling flush, I have the sedna strap on my og and it sets it off well imo.





  • Spent a bit of time looking at the DSOTM watches .I was dismissive of them too quickly , the Apollo 8 is a very interesting watch. The ceramic case , sapphire Crystal , decorated movement and interesting dial make the €8500ish grey market price seem very good value.

    I tried on a 41mm OP over the weekend which I had decided was my next watch and is similar market price .Need to decide which one to go for.The 41mm OP is so much better than the 39mm I had . Fits perfectly, silky smooth and just pure simple class .





  • Fat Fred had reviewed your collection and offer his opinion. From the 6.50 mark.


    you gotta too many Toyota (I used call the sub the bmw 5 series but seems they got downgraded).



  • Advertisement


  • Fed is trying to sell those Piaget and H. Mosers again I see





  • He's pretty much spot on in his critique on the horological front, but the market and buyers very much think otherwise and that's the cold hard reality of it. The market and buyers themselves have changed massively in the last ten years and it and they are quite different and his opinion matters little in that context. Never mind that we're talking about a luxury product here and that itself often if not usually defies logic. Rolex leveraged that brilliantly and pretty much since their foundation they showed they know their market very very well. Where once that was in the "good watch" category in Britain and her commonwealth, they've moved themselves into worldwide "luxury" and have even moved what was their "cheap" brand Tudor that was on nobody's radar into the lower end of the same bracket. Omega, who have innovated more on a lazy Friday afternoon than Rolex have in their entire history have tried and largely failed to do that. Today if you have Tudor/Omega money to spend, Tudor is the better bet for your money. Ten, even five years ago we'd be saying "eh... wut?" to that.

    Few enough were innocent in the past, few enough are innocent in the present, we just don’t know why yet.





  • I get this all the time in comments on my videos. Guy come on and go "nerve of this guy the tudor movement is better than the Daytona" or "Only idots wait on a lists for a Rolex the Omega 9900 is a better movement and watch".....and these are all valid points. But I think it sorts misses the point. People want the Rolex cause it is hard to get, it is desirable. Rolex as a brand is not based on high horology, never was. And to suddeny beat them over the head with the horology hammer is to like giving out that your car cant fly. Never do people call Rolex crap and then say they buy only Patek, or ALS. Always its the cheaper more available option that is superior in their eyes...very convienant.

    Watches are small objects of desire, the function is secondary (cue a WIS who really get their jollies on lever escapements). And if function is primary then there are a good few very inexpensive watches out there that will walk all over your mechanical watch, so best not to open that Pandora's box. Fed there is making his points (all internall valid) that Rolex is not luxury tier in a horological sense, but it is high tier in a Brand sense. Also all Fed alternatives are dress watches, and lets be honest the dress watch market is dead. When it comes to sports modesl its Rolex, a couple of Pateks, One ALS, a few Zeniths, some tudors, Omega.

    This dismissal of anyone who likes Rolex as somehow a lesser collector is a sort of reverse fanoism. The "anything but united" people who are going to be individuals and not follow the herd by buying watches made in vast numbers so long as they dont have a certain branding. There is no brand I watch I dislike all that much...hell some Hublots even appeal to me. I do feel a watch should make you feel good, proud and be worthy of your time. For a lot of people thats Rolex. But an Omega collector is not less enthusiastic.

    Fed is also just grumpy cause the gastric band leaves him hungry.





  • Unless you're rocking a co-ax Omega they're all feckin lever escapements. 😁

    FitzII Fed there is making his points (all internall valid) that Rolex is not luxury tier in a horological sense, but it is high tier in a Brand sense. Also all Fed alternatives are dress watches, and lets be honest the dress watch market is dead.

    +1 to both. I'd go so far as to say brand wise they're currently the highest tier of all. Pretty much every muggle out there knows Rolex, precious few would have heard of Patek or ALS or VC. A lot more would know Omega and among the muggles they hold their own, but among watch nutters they've slipped.

    And yep the dress watch is kaput. Has been for a good while too. The gold or gold plated good watch for men had a good innings from after WW1 to the 1970's and they were still rocking along in the late 90's but were on the slide, when commentators started to cool hunt military and other tool watches the nails in that coffin were hammered shut. Precious metals are on the back foot too. Vintage Pateks in steel go for nutty money today because they were vanishingly rare when new. When the steel luxury watch was pushed in the 70's and contrary to what is often claimed of late it was a very hard sell and many spent years on jeweller shop shelves(The AP Royal Oak's first run of a 1000 pieces took the rest of the decade to sell out). The same models quickly became gold or two tone because that sold. Today that trend is pretty much entirely reversed. Steel tool watches from Rolex, Omega et al sold well alright, but that's because they were a month's wages or less to buy, rather than six months or more, so a very different market indeed. Even so the gold watch was more the standard. You often enough see 60's and 70's steel Rolexes in their original boxes unworn pop up at auctions and the back story is often along the lines of someone buying one, but actually wearing a gold watch for daily driving.

    Few enough were innocent in the past, few enough are innocent in the present, we just don’t know why yet.





  • I still like dress watches. Not gold (plated) ones but I still like the aesthetic in general. 😟



  • Advertisement


  • ALS still rock a fusee on the 30 day power reserve watches, Grand Seiko Springdrive is a Tri-synchro regulator, all coaxials as you say, there are still some pin lever, english lever, verge, detent (Urban Jorgensen use these) and cylinder ones rocking around the place but sure a swiss lever is the most common....Swiss lever is just for sheeple, and rolex filthy casuals. 😀

    Post edited by Fitz II on




  • Another large part of Rolex's appeal which I don't see mentioned above is the quality of their designs. The Sub, Datejust, OP, Daytona are beautiful classic designs and that in itself can play a large part in someone's decision making process.

    Fair play to Rolex for recognising when they have nailed a design, they then stick to it and evolve it instead of constantly reinventing it. Similar continuous design approaches haven't done the Porsche 911, VW Golf and Omega Speedmaster any harm.

    And on the dress watches point, I love the elegance and simplicity of a good dress watch. If I could afford my dream wishlist of watches, I reckon dress would outnumber sports. Now I'm perhaps not being strict on what constitutes a dress watch, for example, for me a Reverso is nowadays a dress watch even though I know its original purpose.





  • FitzII ALS still rock a fusee on the 30 day power reserve watches

    Aye, but a fusee is not an escapement it's on olde stylee way of regulating the power of the mainspring as it unwinds. It's dead cool looking though and though archaic on most watches I can see the actual engineering reason why they'd use one on a 30 day power reserve. 30 days? That's mad Fitz. Impressive. Other than vintage and co axials and a few oddballs like the Girard Perregaux ceramic mad looking escapement thingie I can't think of any other mechanicals that don't have a lever movement and a Swiss one at that(the English one is pretty similar)? Then again though it's not the most precise the Swiss lever is the best compromise of the mechanical escapements. The detant is a beaut but sensitive as feck. The grasshopper is the puppy's privates but no way will that work in anything but a static clock and look at all the issues Omega had with the co-ax.

    Eljono Another large part of Rolex's appeal which I don't see mentioned above is the quality of their designs. The Sub, Datejust, OP, Daytona are beautiful classic designs and that in itself can play a large part in someone's decision making process.

    Fair play to Rolex for recognising when they have nailed a design, they then stick to it and evolve it instead of constantly reinventing it. Similar continuous design approaches haven't done the Porsche 911, VW Golf and Omega Speedmaster any harm.

    I think of them very like Porsche in lots of ways, including in the way you noted E. Though they're more risk averse in design than Porsche and that's saying something. Rolex are extremely staid, pickled even. Longines started raiding their back catalogue as early as the 90's and brought out reissues of vintage models, Rolex effectively never really stopped selling theirs. Though like Porsche when they strayed too far from the 911 look, when Rolex did go a little off piste the stuff didn't sell. They learned that with the Daytona. There's a reason why so few of the 60's and 70's ones are around and so valuable these days, they basically couldn't give them away and were heavily discounted when new. Their Oysterquartz, even though it's one of the most well made and designed Rolex of the last century didn't exactly fly off the shelves, even when quartz was the thing.

    But this tactic has worked extremely well for them. By never going too far off their well beaten very recognisable track Porsche and Rolex are suburban and aspirational and middle aged and class and most of all safe when you go to spend your hard earned(the mega rich rapper flexer thing is recent and they even cater to them with the vajazzled models). And that is important. In car terms parking a Porsche Cayenne in 12 Acacia Avenue is oh yes very nice, lovely people, our sort you know. Parking a Ferrari GTC4Lusso in the same drive and eyebrows may be raised. 😁 Newbies on the block Tesla have copped to this too. Keep the design easy, even bland, though still nice, but not too many loud noises design wise. BMW is kinda like a Seamaster. Wider spread of appeal and pocket. The buy a Porsche and Rolex to show you've arrived has been in play since the 80's too. Even crims and wideboys know this is the track to follow. That they were able to do that with gold and two tone models is impressive enough, but that they were able to do it more latterly with steel models is nothing short of genius. Though I've always considered Rolex and especially their founder Wilsdorf as one of the finest marketing minds in modern history. I mean that in an all encompassing way too. He spotted trends before they were trends and moved towards them before most if not all of his competitors did. Like Apple in many ways, they invented feck all*, but spotted emerging trends and brought them to a wider market and then changed that market. He rarely put a foot wrong either. In the early days of the wristwatch all sorts of whacky designs and tech came out, but Rolex separated the wheat from the chaff.

    In many ways the Reverso was always a "dress watch". Very nice one too. The swivel bit was to protect said dress watch. So you could come in from playing polo or murdering the natives but could still wear the same watch at dinner with the memsaab. When it first came out there were very very few "tool watches" anyway and all would have been in the non fashionable round cases. Patek even licenced the tech to produce a dozen or so of their own Reversos in Gold and other unobtanium.





    *though to be fair to Apple they have a shedload of patents and innovations so it doesn't quite fit.

    Few enough were innocent in the past, few enough are innocent in the present, we just don’t know why yet.





  • Mmm Oysterquartz, I'd like one of those some day, love the integrated bracelet design, quite Royal Oak...

    Absolutely, Wilsdorf was a marketing genius and as you say Wibbs, part of that brilliance was in spotting and even setting trends.

    Thanks for the info on the Patek Reversos, that was news to me. I just googled to see what they're like, and actually prefer the JLC versions. Another example of a design that was absolutely nailed 🙂



Advertisement