Quartz or automatic?

bmtannam · 29-04-2015 5:40pm #1

Would you advise me regardind the buying of a 2, 000 euro Tag Heuer or Breitling that has a quartz movement?
Would you shell out that kind of money for a non automatic watch?
Advice and personal preferences welcome.

893bet · 29-04-2015 5:56pm

Brand new tag, No. The depreciation would be too much, slightly less on a breitling I would say.

I prefer automatics personally though miss having a nice Quartz.

Eoin · 29-04-2015 5:57pm

Would you shell out that kind of money for a non automatic watch?

Entirely depends on the model. I'd get a second hand Breitling B-1 for example. If it was between a new quartz or 2nd hand automatic version of the same model, I wouldn't.

art · 30-04-2015 9:53pm

Well I would cause I have ...!

There's an overhead to a quartz in that you have to replace its battery, costing likely about 20 to 30 euros, every five years.

There's an overhead to automatics in that you have to service them every five years (roughly), costing 120 to 240 euros (dearest if a chrono, for example). Plus you can't pick them up after five days and read the time (if they're not on a watch winder, that's plugged in, using electricity).

There's cleverness to both designs in their own way, arguably more so for a quartz, but a longer heritage to automatics which can appeal to a sense of history and timelessness...

What, generally, appeals to you?

Wibbs · 30-04-2015 10:19pm

Art nails it TBH.

893bet · 01-05-2015 3:49pm

art wrote: »

There's an overhead to automatics in that you have to service them every five years (roughly), costing 120 to 240 euros

Just got a quote on my PO from omega...........495 euro for full service.....

fmul9798 · 01-05-2015 5:22pm

893bet wrote: »

Just got a quote on my PO from omega...........495 euro for full service.....

Is that the current price for a cal 2500? Do they include refinishing of the case and bracelet in that?

Deep Thought · 01-05-2015 6:00pm

893bet wrote: »

Just got a quote on my PO from omega...........495 euro for full service.....

Thats was quick...thought it would take donkeys..

893bet · 01-05-2015 6:22pm

Deep Thought wrote: »

Thats was quick...thought it would take donkeys..

Quote was fast! However.....: Up to 8 weeks to get watch back after service!

893bet · 01-05-2015 6:26pm

fmul9798 wrote: »

Is that the current price for a cal 2500? Do they include refinishing of the case and bracelet in that?

I am unsure. There are rrps for service but they give individual quotes. I suspect the 495 is the rrp and it only goes up if further work is needed!

Polish etc included but I think I am going to opt out of any polishing to the head as it is 98% as it is.

StealthRolex · 14-05-2015 2:45pm

If you are getting quartz get something that runs a ten year battery. Having to change the battery every 2 or 3 years necessitates have the case fully sealed and tested for water resistance as well. On this class of watch this adds to the expense. Also it is guaranteed downtime.

While mechanicals \ automatics should be serviced every five years or so that assumes constant wear. With well made automatics you can stretch this to 10 years or more or wait for the watch to display significant timing changes before sending it in for a service. For the likes of TAG or Breitling, because they use ETA movements, any qualified professional horologist can do the internal overhauls and case seals and at current prices most will do it for significantly less than €200.

Case refurbs are a different matter. Rolex I know do them as part of their standard overhaul but I cannot comment on anyone else. The last time I had an Omega they weren't doing case refurbs. If the cost is around €500 I would expect it to include a full case refurb so worth checking this out.

dr.fuzzenstein · 14-05-2015 2:52pm

It depends what kind of works you prefer inside your watch:

Quartz

Auto

Quartz movements to me belong in €2 watches from chewing gum vending machines.
Would you buy a grandfather clock that's been converted to quartz?
I think some things should not have to be the newest and shiniest. If you do want quartz, I think no one does it better than Casio.

StealthRolex · 14-05-2015 2:56pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Quartz movements to me belong in €2 watches from chewing gum vending machines.
Would you buy a grandfather clock that's been converted to quartz?
I think some things should not have to be the newest and shiniest. If you do want quartz, I think no one does it better than Casio.

I used to think that too but Seiko changed my mind somewhat. Take a look at their 8f56 based models.

Full Rolex GMT functionality at a fraction of the cost.

dr.fuzzenstein · 14-05-2015 3:01pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

I used to think that too but Seiko changed my mind somewhat. Take a look at their 8f56 based models.

Full Rolex GMT functionality at a fraction of the cost.

Personally I make one exception to the quartz thing, I have a Seiko Kinetic, I just love the idea behind them.
No servicing with those? Not quite, the capacitors are going, so it will need an overhaul at some stage... But it held together for quite a few years now.

Wibbs · 14-05-2015 3:02pm

Do not make me come over there…

That's a quartz.

So's this.

and this…

Each one of them has more finishing and quality than the vast majority of production line ETA movements in the vast majority of mid tier watches today. You have a pic of an AP mechanical movement. Real top of the line in house stuff with a price to match. The vast majority of mechanicals today don't come close to an AP in fit, finish and handcraft.

art · 14-05-2015 7:54pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Quartz movements to me belong in €2 watches from chewing gum vending machines.
Would you buy a grandfather clock that's been converted to quartz?
I think some things should not have to be the newest and shiniest. If you do want quartz, I think no one does it better than Casio.

That's quite a limited view really: for a start, cheap auto movements will look as cheap as cheap quartz movements, you're proving nothing with those pics earlier. And secondly, it bypasses the fascinating heritage of quartz development entirely, nevermind some of the excellence of design; for example, the only watch I've ever owned that caused a watchmaker to leave his back room, with a joyous look on his face, to come show me the watch workings was a quartz.

There is lots of fascinating background to the development and types of quartz watches available right here on the forum, Wibbs himself being a fine source; you can check through these posts to perhaps get a better appreciation of the subject.

gerfmurphy · 14-05-2015 9:42pm

I would personally feel that a mechanical Movement is better value for money If you have 2k to spend.
I have owned alot Quartz watches (b1 was the most overrated).
my pathfinder is incredibly accurate and costs less than what I paid to have a link fixed on the seiko I had
and what I want in a Quartz is accuracy and function and with the pathfinder loads of gadgets in an indestructible case.
I have found a weird connection with a hand wound watch I have.
lovely to look at and requires me to stay alive. I have to give it a bit of time every now and then.
Just my 2cent but handwound is my personal favourite.
Something else to consider is the style of watch your keen on. Trad style watches usually are mechanical sporty type /more practical Quartz is more common

Royale with Cheese · 14-05-2015 9:47pm

I own two automatics, a Seiko 5 and a longines. Only thing that bothers me about them is not being able to switch between the two without having to reset the time on the one that hasn't been worn for a while.

Wibbs · 14-05-2015 10:33pm

gerfmurphy wrote: »

Just my 2cent but handwound is my personal favourite.

Separated at birth GM. I love hand crankers and I love leccy/quartz too, but autos leave me cold for some reason. I've had a few in my time, but flipped them very quickly after I got them. Plus I can feel the rotor flapping about which vexes me. I'm odd in fairness.

Mredsnapper · 15-05-2015 12:27pm

I think auto movements make sense for dive watches where you don't want to be fiddling with the crown too much but hand winders can be thinner and lighter, the movement is not hidden behind a rotor and the act of winding can be made into a nice exercise in mindfulness. It's a pity but 'Automatic movement' seems to have become a sort of tickbox requirement along with 'Saphire crystal' to help market watches as high end when compared to their hand wind/plexi cousins.

You'd never guess that my daily is a Speedy Pro

dr.fuzzenstein · 15-05-2015 3:03pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Separated at birth GM. I love hand crankers and I love leccy/quartz too, but autos leave me cold for some reason. I've had a few in my time, but flipped them very quickly after I got them. Plus I can feel the rotor flapping about which vexes me. I'm odd in fairness.

Exactly the other way round with me!

I love the feeling of the weight whizzing round, it is the number one reason I love my Kinetic. So I love a combination of quartz and automatic. Plus it's a hefty chunk of metal, you definitely know you're wearing it.
Used to have a handwound Bifora 1950's little watch, but gave it away because I never wore it and have regretted it ever since, but still wouldn't have worn it. But still miss it. How messed up is that?
Still have a LIDL automatic watch in a drawer somewhere, wasn't actually bad, but see no reason to wear it as a daily since the Seiko.
My personal favourite is a 1912 Longines gold pocket watch that's been in my family for over 100 years by now, it just sits in a drawer in a box and every now and then I take it out and wind it just to hear it tick. I would never dare wear that anywhere, unless there was a ball that required black tux, so I could wear a vest with the watch and chain. These balls happen exactly never in Ireland, or at least they wouldn't invite riff-raff like me round to them!

blue5000 · 15-05-2015 3:07pm

bmtannam wrote: »

Would you advise me regardind the buying of a 2, 000 euro Tag Heuer or Breitling that has a quartz movement?
Would you shell out that kind of money for a non automatic watch?
Advice and personal preferences welcome.

I'd never fork out 2000 euro for a watch, I'd be looking at 200 euro max for a watch. As other people have said there are pros and cons to all the different movements, it's your choice, your money, buy what you prefer. But remember at those prices 90% of what you are buying is just the name.

gerfmurphy · 15-05-2015 4:42pm

blue5000 wrote: »

I'd never fork out 2000 euro for a watch, I'd be looking at 200 euro max for a watch. As other people have said there are pros and cons to all the different movements, it's your choice, your money, buy what you prefer. But remember at those prices 90% of what you are buying is just the name.

Im guessing your joking, 90% is a name? Max 200 is a personal choice but everything is subjective. There is a lot of watch choice the other side of 200 euro. Even some great value

blue5000 · 16-05-2015 10:30am

gerfmurphy wrote: »

Im guessing your joking, 90% is a name? Max 200 is a personal choice but everything is subjective. There is a lot of watch choice the other side of 200 euro. Even some great value

Yes, sort of joking, but what percentage of a 2k watch does it cost the manufacturer to produce? I'm a recent convert to wearing a watch, I've bought 3 in the last couple of months, all used and none over €200.

amacca · 16-05-2015 11:23am

blue5000 wrote: »

Yes, sort of joking, but what percentage of a 2k watch does it cost the manufacturer to produce? I'm a recent convert to wearing a watch, I've bought 3 in the last couple of months, all used and none over €200.

Thats how its starts, at least thats how it started for me. Maybe you have willpower but I just find my self lusting after more and more with ever increasing price tags.

That one has a helium escape valve you say! (but I will in all likelihood never have the need or desire to go saturation diving - pfffft secondary consideration)

This one has a tegimented submarine steel case (mmmmmmmmmmust have)

Ah yeah but that one only has a thin layer of hardened steel at the surface this one is ice hardened throughout and its the hardest wearing dark coating you can get.

Sylvester stallone has developed a full on fetish for these ones!

These ones appear to use tiny little electromagnets which cause really high frequency oscillations to drive the movement resulting in a very smooth seconds hand.

That one says Top Gun on it........I love top gun!

These ones were worn in space.......SPACE!...and the MOON!......the MOOOON!

These ones were also worn in space but by Russians.......RUSSIANS!

I have contracted an illness, I hope you don't too.

OP: Its been mainly automatics for me so far but I have a hankering for a nice hand winder now after this thread (its like I've contracted a secondary infection).....my only non mechanical is a Suunto (Its also great imo)

Wibbs · 16-05-2015 11:27am

Oh certainly. There are large margins on watches, particularly mechanical as they can charge more. They cost more than quartz watches to make, but outside your mad money Pateks and the like, they don't cost that much more. You can see this with the smaller brands like Stowa and the like, who can sell quality mechanicals at much cheaper prices than the big boys and they're not charities. However B, the cost of production is only a part of the overall cost. When you read that Rolex spent sixty million quid in one year on their US advertising budget alone, that gets passed onto the customers. IIRC Omega in the same period and market spent just under twenty million. God alone knows what Rolex's world-wide marketing budget is. Likely breaks well into the hundred million per year. The collective Swatch group budget is likely similar.

That's why a Sub and Speedmaster is at least double the real price it was in the 80's. These companies have very healthy profits, more than they had in the past, but IMH that's as much down to the fact that they sell more watches than they did, rather than the extra profits per watch. When I say they sell more, I mean that while fewer folks wear watches these days, those who do are more likely to have more than one and are more likely to buy a new one every few years. In the past most men(and women), if they had a watch, they had one watch for life.

On top of that it's a far easier sell in the market to price a mechanical at 2K than a quartz at the same price. Quartz is seen as cheap and lacking in "soul". For the most part they are cheap. With notable exceptions like the Seiko 9f, the vast majority of quartz movements are low or no jewel plastic pieces. That's the men's market anyway. The women's market have no issue buying 20,000 Pateks with quartz movements. Indeed as a general rule they prefer the convenience. They see it as another jewellery item. Maybe that's another psychological thing with men? A watch is a male jewellery item these days, but the mechanical movement makes it feel more engineered, more something extra beyond the jewellery aspect? A quartz movement doesn't have that element.

893bet · 16-05-2015 11:33am

blue5000 wrote: »

Yes, sort of joking, but what percentage of a 2k watch does it cost the manufacturer to produce? I'm a recent convert to wearing a watch, I've bought 3 in the last couple of months, all used and none over €200.

You can apply that to everything.

The 200 euro watch probably only cost 20 euros to manufacture or less.

By that logic why spend 200 and not wear a 20 euro watch etc.

StealthRolex · 16-05-2015 10:31pm

893bet wrote: »

You can apply that to everything.

The 200 euro watch probably only cost 20 euros to manufacture or less.

By that logic why spend 200 and not wear a 20 euro watch etc.

Some people buy a watch not for what it does but also for what it represents - in some cases the name means something, in other cases it doesn't.

If you want you can spend 200 or 500 or 1000 or more on a watch that has no name and no branding, or a name no one knows. But that watch has a particular look and providence, and people are prepared to pay for that.

Bill Yao makes watches that look like other watches and can charge a small fortune. His name doesn't appear on the watch. Are the watches worth what he is charging? Likewise Eddie Platts, only significantly less expensive?

The logic behind your point is that a watch tells the time so why spend more than you have to for something that is just a tool.
That argument comes up time and time again and there is a word for it which I will not use here.

People like nice things and because of that other people provide nice things and either charge what it costs plus an acceptable margin or charge what they think they can get away with. The latter don't survive very long.

Either way everyone, or almost everyone, is happy. There is work for watch makers and there are watches for collectors and aficionados.

At 200 or 2000 or 20,000 there is something to be appreciated, or there should be. At 20 there isn't

StealthRolex · 16-05-2015 10:45pm

@Wibbs - your point on Rolex advertising budget one year.

Can we say for arguments sake the year was 2012?

If we can then that $60 million was 0.08% of their revenues.

or 6000 watches - out of 1,200,000 sold.

As Rolex is a private company with no shareholders to appease I think suggesting that they are looking to get back such a small drop in their ocean from the customer stretching it a bit.
You may be right of course, but I find it had to believe a company that has revenues of serveral billions a year is going to worry about how much of the cost of a watch has to go towards their advertising budget.

It might be different for the likes of Omega and TAG who give watches away to journalists or all people

Wibbs · 16-05-2015 11:13pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

@Wibbs - your point on Rolex advertising budget one year.

Can we say for arguments sake the year was 2012?

If we can then that $60 million was 0.08% of their revenues.

or 6000 watches - out of 1,200,000 sold.

As Rolex is a private company with no shareholders to appease I think suggesting that they are looking to get back such a small drop in their ocean from the customer stretching it a bit.
You may be right of course, but I find it had to believe a company that has revenues of serveral billions a year is going to worry about how much of the cost of a watch has to go towards their advertising budget.

It might be different for the likes of Omega and TAG who give watches away to journalists or all people

In which case you're saying Rolex are just upping the margins as much as the market will take for their watches and that their "luxury" tag is far more about marketing than reality? It's certainly nothing to do with "exclusivity" if they're pumping out well over a million watches per year.

No wonder the Rolex fanboys get the hard on for vintage examples produced in their thousands. In any event your Rolex Sub and similar is a far more expensive watch to buy today than it was say before the mid 90's. Yet they're making more of them compared to then and making them more cheaply what with the across the board improvements in production.

Oh and Rolex give away watches and more, they give company access to their major online and offline won't say a bad word agin the company fanboys. They're the same as the rest, only less obvious about it.

StealthRolex · 16-05-2015 11:34pm

Wibbs wrote: »

In which case you're saying Rolex are just upping the margins as much as the market will take for their watches and that their "luxury" tag is far more about marketing than reality? It's certainly nothing to do with "exclusivity" if they're pumping out well over a million watches per year.

No wonder the Rolex fanboys get the hard on for vintage examples produced in their thousands. In any event your Rolex Sub and similar is a far more expensive watch to buy today than it was say before the mid 90's. Yet they're making more of them compared to then and making them more cheaply what with the across the board improvements in production.

Oh and Rolex give away watches and more, they give company access to their major online and offline won't say a bad word agin the company fanboys. They're the same as the rest, only less obvious about it.

Not exactly. Rolex are also a registered charity so pay no corporation tax. Feel free to make whatever derogatory use of that you see fit. As a charity they must give money to charitable causes although they are secretive about who gets the money as reputable charities should be. We do know that some of that money goes on the Rolex Awards. They also sponsor upcoming horological talent.

I tried to find out what their R&D costs were but to no avail but looking at their latest models it would appear to be money well spent.

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

However suggesting that they are making more watches more cheaply due to production improvements they have developed shows their commitment to their business and not an effort on their part to shaft their fan-boys or customers. Any company that does not make improvements to their production methods is a poor one regardless of the effect it has on profits.

Like them or not Rolex are a massive success and despite the prejudice of some they and their fan-boys are not going away anytime soon.

Yes, it is a pain that they increase their prices your on year at rates that make 90's prices seem ridiculous compared to today but anyone who spends whatever it costs on a steel Rolex on either the new or pre-owned market knows that whether the money is well spent or not they will get their money back if they need it. There are not many other watches that perform similarly.

The Rolexes I bought ten years ago for 2K I can move today for 4k to 5k or more. That's a return of better than 10% APR and no bank has been offering that for the last decade.

If Rolex really is the same as the rest can you provide details on other companies that operate in the same way and can continue to function and produce watches at the same rate with no watch sales for a significant number of years without making any staffer redundant?

Regardless of how you feel about Rolex if you are spending seriously large sums of money on a luxury item would you rather the money go to a charity and get used for the better or get split up between a few shareholders who probably don't give a toss about customers or anyone else as long as it is profit for them?

dr.fuzzenstein · 17-05-2015 12:25am

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 · 17-05-2015 9:32am

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 · 17-05-2015 1:07pm

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 · 17-05-2015 2:37pm

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 · 17-05-2015 3:50pm

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 · 17-05-2015 5:41pm

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 · 17-05-2015 6:13pm

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 · 17-05-2015 7:08pm

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 · 19-05-2015 7:08pm

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 · 19-05-2015 10:49pm

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 · 19-05-2015 10:53pm

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 · 20-05-2015 6:54am

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 · 20-05-2015 7:33am

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 · 20-05-2015 9:12am

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 · 20-05-2015 9:13am

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 · 20-05-2015 10:52am

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 · 20-05-2015 11:02am

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 · 20-05-2015 11:05am

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 · 20-05-2015 11:32am

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 · 20-05-2015 11:37am

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?

Quartz or automatic?

Comments