# Going Off Rolex.... Again!



## Parabola (Aug 1, 2007)

When I first got into watches I always had a perculiar sense of superiority that 'I knew I could get a chronometer spec automatic swiss watch for a lot less than a Rolex'. I also thought a Rolex was a cliche - ask a child to name an expensive watch and they'll say Rolex everytime - a kind of 'excuse me sport I can't help noticing that I am considerably richer than YOW!!! witness the Rolex on my wrist!!!'.

But all that changed after seeing PhilM's Seadweller which prompted me to read up about them and about how along with Comex they helped develop the helium escapement valve and how 40 years ago if you were a diver and you wanted a reliable tough and subtly attractive watch, you bought a submariner or a seadweller. (FYI DoubleRed.com is a good resource sight for this). But I just got back from an investor relations meeting with about 15 other people and 5 had exactly the same black bezelled Rolex Submariner on and every single one was a ******. So as much as I love them I couldn't possibly buy one because I don't want people to think I'm one of them, worse imagine if one of these anuses decided to engage me in conversation!!!!

Basically there are two types of people who buy Rolexes in my experience WIS's and people who want you to know they're higher rate tax payers. Although it marks me out as a geek (or barbed wire bob as my 710 calls me) I'm more than happy for people to know I'm the former, but most people would assume I'm the latter. As I said I love them, but unless I'm at a WIS meet I'd be embarassed to wear it.

Oh well I'll have to contend myself with everyother watch on the planet!!! :lol:


----------



## mjolnir (Jan 3, 2006)

Watches are watches and people are people.

Try not to let your perception of one ruin the image of the other.

Not all wear Rolex and not all Rolex wearers are 

If you bought one then you could represent the other side of the coin and change peoples perceptions for the better.


----------



## ussher (Sep 20, 2007)

Stick it on a Nato. Problem solved...


----------



## Joppers (Dec 29, 2008)

It's a shame that the Submariner has become the defacto status symbol for high earning men, but I would still love to have one any day of the week.

As ussher says, put it on a nato, bond syle for me!


----------



## powelly (Jan 6, 2009)

People will always make assumptions, don't let it bother you. The same argument can be said for cars, I drive a BMW becuase I like it, if people think i'm a ****** then that's their look out, the fact that it's a 20 year old BMW doesn't come in to it, they just see an expensive badge and that's how they form their opinion, short sighted and ignorant.

I guess it all comes down to how bothered you are about how you are perceived.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

I just don't get this at all ... I deal with a lot of high earners and don't see that many Rolexes strapped to their wrists, in fact in the last year or so I have seen three out of the couple of hundred or so people I have dealt with, and one of them was a battered 30 year old stainless steel Sub. There will always be non-WISes who buy Rolex just as there will always be non-WISes who buy Omega, Breitling and other premium brands but I don't see the same opprobrium heaped on them.

The more I see this argument, and I have seen it many times in my 6 years on watch forums, the more I am convinced that it is nothing more than a form of inverted snobbery, and to think you can somehow distance yourself from nonWISes by sticking on a NATO really just sums up the fatuous nature of the argument.


----------



## Parabola (Aug 1, 2007)

ussher said:


> Stick it on a Nato. Problem solved...


Now there's a good idea a Seadweller on a grey nato :clap:


----------



## Stinch (Jul 9, 2008)

Not all wear Rolex and not all Rolex wearers are 

Absolutely!!


----------



## Barryboy (Mar 21, 2006)

I think you have a point about Rolex subs and seadwellers. They really have become the 'status symbol' watch and that's why they are the most faked watch out there.

Have you considered a Milgauss? I particularly like the vintage model, although I would be happy with the latest model if I ever got into that kind of income bracket!

Rob


----------



## inskip75 (Jan 10, 2009)

Before I started reading this Forum and then joined, I must admit I had Parabolas opinion but reading what people on here say and what they wear has changed my opinion and

although it isn't next watch for me to buy, a submariner or similar Rolex has appeared on the wanted list. :yes:


----------



## PhilM (Nov 5, 2004)

Interesting thread as I also work in the corporate world and out of all the years I've been into watches I've only come across one Rolex which was a Sub Date. Now with my job this also brings me into contact with a lot of senior people within the major Pharmaceutical industry, and again out of the last 10 years of meeting these people I've never seen any of these people wearing a Rolex.


----------



## Parabola (Aug 1, 2007)

Must just me my industry, too many nouveau riche stockbrokers :lol:

I know what I'll do, make a bit of cash, have a career change and then I can get the Seadweller I've been lusting about without the fear that some Tim nice but dim will look at my wrist and say 'snap we have the same watch chortle chortle chortle'


----------



## Robert (Jul 26, 2006)

PhilM said:


> Interesting thread as I also work in the corporate world and out of all the years I've been into watches I've only come across one Rolex which was a Sub Date. Now with my job this also brings me into contact with a lot of senior people within the major Pharmaceutical industry, and again out of the last 10 years of meeting these people I've never seen any of these people wearing a Rolex.


Similar here. The last quarterly meeting we had there was a JLC 8 day reverso, IWC Port, Tag Carrera, Tag 69, RLT15, Oris Flightimer. Although non-wis, they all have several watches but there is only one rolex. (the JLC wearer has a sub and a panerai, amongst others)

I will have a sub non-date hopefully in the not too distant future and I don't care what anyone else thinks about it - I just want one!


----------



## Toshi (Aug 31, 2007)

JoT said:


> The more I see this argument, and I have seen it many times in my 6 years on watch forums, the more I am convinced that it is nothing more than a form of inverted snobbery, and to think you can somehow distance yourself from nonWISes by sticking on a NATO really just sums up the fatuous nature of the argument.


I agree. I've never understood this reluctance some WIS have to wear a Rolex simply because it's a Rolex. But you have to admit a Sea Dweller does look best on a Nato :tongue2:


----------



## PhilM (Nov 5, 2004)

Toshi said:


> But you have to admit a Sea Dweller does look best on a Nato :tongue2:


Sorry I don't agree :tongue2: :tongue2:










BTW If it was a Sub then maybe


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

I have never seen five Subs in a shop window at one time let alone in a meeting, you could however stand out from the crowd with an LV. I've seen them in shops but I can honestly say I have never met or saw another person with one on in the two years I've had mine


----------



## Parabola (Aug 1, 2007)

BondandBigM said:


> I have never seen five Subs in a shop window at one time let alone in a meeting, you could however stand out from the crowd with an LV. I've seen them in shops but I can honestly say I have never met or saw another person with one on in the two years I've had mine


Yeah I'd have an LV... I hope your all aware I change my mind more than a woman


----------



## langtoftlad (Mar 31, 2007)

Snobbery, inverted snobbery :huh:

It just goes to show that all those zillions of dollars, euro & pounds spent on marketing has an effect.


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

Look at them from a slightly different angle. I use to work in the oil and gas industry and to be fair you would see a lot of guys on sites wearing Sub's in particular. Now I think that is more to do with the fact that they are tough as old boots and we worked in an enviroment where a Timex wouldn't last five minutes and anything "flash" would just get laughed at. It's what sold me my first one, my mate had an early eighties non date sub that he bought new was his only watch and been everywhere, only been back to Rolex once. Even the all gold ones can take a beating allbeit they can end up looking a bit scruffy.

To get it perspective most steel Rolex's are about the same money as a well used Ford Focus and not withstanding the real high end diamond jobs even the gold day dates cost about the same as a year old Mondeo so the power of marketing has work well for them. I'll bet there are a few companies out there wish their marketing strategy was as good as Rolex.

Whilst I'm sure a lot of people do just buy the name there are plenty including myself who buy them for what they are and don't care what people think.

B.


----------



## mrteatime (Oct 25, 2006)

it wasn't until i tried a few on the other week did i think "as it happens........" think i would go for the green LV too....looks cool, or the one with the 24hr bezel (hey you can tell i know what im talking about :lol: )


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

the bracelets on rolex are crap,disgustingly poorly made for a watch of that price, ive found that all my rollies dont keep very good time and the older models show clear ageing on the dial. take most 60's and 70's seiko's and there just as good stainless steel in just as good cases , the dials are usually mint and they keep good time. the movements are robust and there cheap to fix and dont have to go back to rolex, were they take your pants down with the bill.


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

mrteatime said:


> think i would go for the green LV too....looks cool, or *the one with the 24hr bezel* (hey you can tell i know what im talking about :lol: )


GMT or an Explorer


----------



## mrteatime (Oct 25, 2006)

the gmt....that has got to be the prettiest bezel design ever.....although i would have it in SS not gangstergold


----------



## gallch (Jan 7, 2007)

powelly said:


> People will always make assumptions, don't let it bother you. The same argument can be said for cars, I drive a BMW becuase I like it, if people think i'm a ****** then that's their look out, the fact that it's a 20 year old BMW doesn't come in to it, they just see an expensive badge and that's how they form their opinion, short sighted and ignorant.
> 
> I guess it all comes down to how bothered you are about how you are perceived.


Totally agree - I've more than once made the comparison between Rolex and BMW. I drive an 11 year old 5 series which is not perfect by any means but is a car I enjoy having very much. I don't care what it makes people think of me, it's what it makes ME think that matters to me. BTW - it's probably worth about the same as a sub !

And another thing - I come into contact with a fair number of high earners through work and some of them wear Rolexes and some of them don't. I'm not sure there is any correlation between the ****** factor and choice of watch to be honest. One gentleman I see quite often who is VERY senior normally wears an old Datejust, but the last time I saw him he had on a Swatch with a bright orange plastic strap. What does that prove - I dunno.


----------



## James (Jul 17, 2006)

I don't believe its fully true the initial statement in the thread. I know ppl who have many Rolex that are normal people, eat and drink, breath air like I do, walk like I do, look like I do, do like I do too. There are ways to deal with people like this, yep, enjoy talking watches, sit and have some beers at our watch collectors bar meets because they are my buddies.

On the other hand I know more who bought it only so they can brag. They know nothing about watches and have never heard about anything other than Tag, Rolex, Longines, Omega and maybe a couple others. A recent story comes to mind. A friend, a real estate agent always has to live the high life. Parents bought him a BMW convertable, he did not like it had to have a 5 series. Saw him the other day. Was bragging about his new 5 series, all dressed out in a fancy suit. Was bragging he was going to get himself a Rolex! Wow. Ah yes, there are ways to deal with people like this, yep, avoid them because they irritate me and most likely everyone else

Listen it takes all kinds to make this ol world go round. Just because a Rolex is on the wrist try not to judge

.........


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

ussher said:


> Stick it on a Nato. Problem solved...


Great advice......and dare I say the reason I put my OP on a croc as soon as I got it......and the fact I think it looks a lot better that way! :lol:


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

James said:


> Listen it takes all kinds to make this ol world go round. Just because a Rolex is on the wrist try not to judge


Well said James!


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

PhilM said:


> Interesting thread as I also work in the corporate world and out of all the years I've been into watches I've only come across one Rolex which was a Sub Date. Now with my job this also brings me into contact with a lot of senior people within the major Pharmaceutical industry, and again out of the last 10 years of meeting these people I've never seen any of these people wearing a Rolex.


Try going to any script review, shot scouting, sound rece meeting in the TV/Film media industry.......you'll see so many subs it'll make your head spin :blink:

No, most are definately not but do I want that uniform.....nahhhh :lol:


----------



## Regal325 (Aug 5, 2005)

Some of the biggest critics have never been owners....its mostly jealousy


----------



## young_bairn (Dec 14, 2008)

Most people can't go out and buy a Rolex on a whim. I imagine for most people, like myself, would have to do a bit of thinking and a lot of saving to before purchasing a Rolex

Whatever watch I have on my wrist I don't care what other people think, I wear it because I like it. Infact Id be surprised if any of my mates would even take the slightest bit of notice if I was wearing a Rolex Daytona for example.

Most people who buy expensive watches do so because they admire the craftsmanship and accuracy involved, well I certainly do and if I seen someone wearing one Id think the same.


----------



## langtoftlad (Mar 31, 2007)

young_bairn said:


> Most people can't go out and buy a Rolex on a whim. I imagine for most people, like myself, would have to do a bit of thinking and a lot of saving to before purchasing a Rolex
> 
> Whatever watch I have on my wrist I don't care what other people think, I wear it because I like it. Infact Id be surprised if any of my mates would even take the slightest bit of notice if I was wearing a Rolex Daytona for example.
> 
> *Most people who buy expensive watches do so because they admire the craftsmanship and accuracy involved,* well I certainly do and if I seen someone wearing one Id think the same.


I totally disagree with the last sentiment;

I think most people who buy 'expensive' watches do so precisely because they're 'expensive'

Those who admire craftsmanship etc wouldn't consider their purchase to be 'expensive', more like value for money.

Manufacturer's marketing relies on the fact that a large proportion of purchasers are swayed by the brand image & price bracket. I think to a lot of people going and buying a Rollie is a personal affirmation that they have somehow 'made' it and are successful.


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

JoT said:


> I just don't get this at all ... I deal with a lot of high earners and don't see that many Rolexes strapped to their wrists, in fact in the last year or so I have seen three out of the couple of hundred or so people I have dealt with, and one of them was a battered 30 year old stainless steel Sub. There will always be non-WISes who buy Rolex just as there will always be non-WISes who buy Omega, Breitling and other premium brands but I don't see the same opprobrium heaped on them.
> 
> The more I see this argument, and I have seen it many times in my 6 years on watch forums, the more I am convinced that it is nothing more than a form of inverted snobbery, and to think you can somehow distance yourself from nonWISes by sticking on a NATO really just sums up the fatuous nature of the argument.


This nato idea is deplorable.

If I had one it would be on a velcro wrap around


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

You do have one though dont you Griff?

Get yer velcro out !


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

langtoftlad said:


> young_bairn said:
> 
> 
> > Most people can't go out and buy a Rolex on a whim. I imagine for most people, like myself, would have to do a bit of thinking and a lot of saving to before purchasing a Rolex
> ...


Well I disagree with you, this old value for money argument is another one that comes up time after time, the craftmaship on a Rolex is superb and in my opinion value for money :lol: Most people aren't stupid, if they can afford an expensive watch they know they are buying quality when they buy a Rolex, and incidentally there is not much difference in price these days between a Sub and most Omegas and Breitlings but are the owners of these subject to the sort of posts in this thread? No they are not.

It comes down to the view amongst some people, many of whom have never owned a Rolex, that if you are a Rolex wearer you are stupid/aresehole/ostentatious etc etc. this has little foundation and says more about the people who hold these views than people who buy a Rolex for whatever reason.


----------



## young_bairn (Dec 14, 2008)

langtoftlad said:


> young_bairn said:
> 
> 
> > Most people can't go out and buy a Rolex on a whim. I imagine for most people, like myself, would have to do a bit of thinking and a lot of saving to before purchasing a Rolex
> ...


I suppose the people who can just go out and buy things irrelevent of the cost may well think like this. My point was your average Joe Blogg, who would have to save hard for something like a Rolex, will appreciate it for what it is rather than the name stamped on it.

For me, personnal affirmation will be when Im jumping on my private jet to the monaco grand prix with the playboy manssion girls for entertainment :tongue2:


----------



## oubaas56 (Nov 23, 2008)

As a sometime Rolex owner ( 2 subs, 1 GMT ) all bought used, I have always considered these as tool watches. Rugged and dependable.

Yes they are expensive to service but if you consider they practically rebuild your watch for you it's not so bad. The more expensive i.e. bling

models ( gold, diamonds, etc. ) are not my cup of tea and if I was given one I would flog it in a heartbeat.

My 710 owns a 1917 model and she loves it. It's not flash, red gold with brown lizard strap, but it has class and although it's 92 years old still keeps time to

within 1 minute per day. Difficult to tell exactly, it doesn't have a second hand. That's the appeal of the watch though, it's quality, reliability, history, etc.

Incidentally mine were all aquired at different times and sold when finances were tight and I never got less than I had paid for them.

I am currently negotiating a fourth ( sea dweller ) and this one will be a keeper.

Status symbol? Maybe, but I won't let that spoil my enjoyment of a truly iconic timepiece.


----------



## Joppers (Dec 29, 2008)

JoT said:


> It comes down to the view amongst some people, many of whom have never owned a Rolex, that if you are a Rolex wearer you are stupid/aresehole/ostentatious etc etc. this has little foundation and says more about the people who hold these views than people who buy a Rolex for whatever reason.


I've met stupid/********/ostentatious people who wear all sorts of watches to be honest JoT! I don't think it's specific to Rolex wearers 

I would love to own a Rolex Sub one day, it is just an awesome, timeless watch .... I'll stick with my Seamaster for now!


----------



## Chukas (Aug 7, 2008)

I think the reason rolex's are so expensive is because of the craftsmanship,there never seems to be a great deal of discount due to the profit margin not been that high.....I could be wrong 

If people look at someone wearing a rolex and think there an a**ehole without knowing the person what does that say about the person thinking that?

I hope to own a rolex myself one day,preferabally an LV like bonds :wub: :wub:

Cheers Brian.


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

I like vintage Rolex e.g. Air Kings, Oysterdates, and Explorers etc.

Somehow though the Subs do absolutely nothing for me. Too many watches that are divers just look too much the same.

i genuinely prefer the SMP to the latter type

I must say I have found the hardness of the st steel on my Oysterdate to be quite astonishing


----------



## Parabola (Aug 1, 2007)

Regal325 said:


> its mostly jealousy


Yep thats me too :lol:


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

Joppers said:


> JoT said:
> 
> 
> > It comes down to the view amongst some people, many of whom have never owned a Rolex, that if you are a Rolex wearer you are stupid/aresehole/ostentatious etc etc. this has little foundation and says more about the people who hold these views than people who buy a Rolex for whatever reason.
> ...


At the risk of being judgemental the most stupid people of all don't wear watches


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

One of our Technical Services Directors, now retired, wore an Argos Constant quartz that cost Â£3.99


----------



## Parabola (Aug 1, 2007)

JoT said:


> At the risk of being judgemental the most stupid people of all don't wear watches


 :lol:


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Boxbrownie said:


> ussher said:
> 
> 
> > Stick it on a Nato. Problem solved...
> ...


That's lovely.


----------



## VinceR (Oct 21, 2005)

I'm always amazed at the amount of hatred given out to Rolex owners/wearers .. I've owned several & still own one (a ND Sub), to me the watch is well made, tough & looks good with jeans/shorts (and I guess a suit, although I've never owned or worn one). Breitlings get 'bashed' because they are deemed blingy (but all manufacturers make shiny watches), Omega get bashed for trying to market themselves like Rolex, Rolex get bashed just for being Rolex. I'm sure all Rolex bashers would not turn down one if one was offered. A watch should be judged on it's merits & not on it's perceived status ..


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

oubaas56 said:


> As a sometime Rolex owner ( 2 subs, 1 GMT ) all bought used, I have always considered these as tool watches. Rugged and dependable.
> 
> Yes they are expensive to service but if you consider they practically rebuild your watch for you it's not so bad. The more expensive i.e. bling
> 
> ...


if the watch was any good it wouldnt need rebuilding, the price is disgusting and so is the quality for the money, look at the balance wheel its all nicely polished on top but look at the under side its as rough as a cheap watch, the bracelets are lousy as well, totally hyped up and not very good time keepers, im over them, all they do is look good , buy a seiko and save a fortune.



















look at this seiko from 1971 its mint and keeps great time, the dial is also mint as is the case, it has inner turning bezel and push crown rapid fire day/date and is 44mm dia.an amazing watch even today

honestly what advantage does a rolex have over a seiko, price ratio the seiko's have gained just as much value and cost nothing to fix, actually very few i buy need any work they just keep on going


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

Griff said:


> I like vintage Rolex e.g. Air Kings, Oysterdates, and Explorers etc.
> 
> Somehow though the Subs do absolutely nothing for me. Too many watches that are divers just look too much the same.
> 
> i genuinely prefer the SMP to the latter type


Totally agree Griff...........

As for only wearing Rolex....I don't think so....its just that so many people who "think" they have made it or just want to "make" a statement buy them.....thats what erks me with them.....if I wear a Rolex and somebody thinks I'm a ******....then they are probably correct! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Seriously for me the Rolex lure is the timeless classic design, thats why I cannot get into the newer OPs with thier odd dials and the tank like build of the latest Sub series.


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

VinceR said:


> I'm always amazed at the amount of hatred given out to Rolex owners/wearers .


Oh no....not hatred surely.....

more like vitrioloc loathing :lol:


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

ollyhock said:


> oubaas56 said:
> 
> 
> > As a sometime Rolex owner ( 2 subs, 1 GMT ) all bought used, I have always considered these as tool watches. Rugged and dependable.
> ...


Seiko? Nah....only wear them, trying to make a statement about Rolex

Joking, joking honestely....... :lol:

This thread could go on for a few years yet.......but gets my post count up :tongue2: :lol:


----------



## thorpey69 (Feb 8, 2006)

Im not rich,i dont want a status symbol,i dont need to prove im better than anyone else,i love Seikos with a passion.But i am a ****** :yes: :flex:


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

thorpey69 said:


> Im not rich,i dont want a status symbol,i dont need to prove im better than anyone else,i love Seikos with a passion.But i am a ****** :yes: :flex:


Well bleedin' toss it my way please? :lol:


----------



## mrteatime (Oct 25, 2006)

ollyhock said:


> oubaas56 said:
> 
> 
> > As a sometime Rolex owner ( 2 subs, 1 GMT ) all bought used, I have always considered these as tool watches. Rugged and dependable.
> ...


which all would have been replaced at some point, the case has been re-brushed, and the movt will have been serviced/replaced too

rolex are worth what they are worth.....yes you pay for the brand, but there are uber realiable, so if people choose rolex over a seiko then so what?

did you have a bad experience with a rolex? then why the vitorol about them?


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

mrteatime said:


> ollyhock said:
> 
> 
> > oubaas56 said:
> ...


yeah ive never been impressed, my wifes broke last year(fair enough) so it went back to rolex. when it came back it worked for a day, so back to rolex.4 weeks later it came back and the guy at goldsmiths regulated the time and it just wouldnt work attall, back to rolex. 4 weeks later it came back and its been ok since but at Â£315 and away 3 months.

my rolex has been back twice as its a poo time keeper, and ive bought about 8 vintage models (1920's to 1980's and theve all just been ok , certainly nothing to write home about. my mate sold a bi-metalsub last yaer that he bought from new and although he regrets parting with it he is the first to admit it was a poor time keeper.

so my point is there nothing special , there like snap-on theve created a mass hype and live off it, as the average leyman thinks there the best watch money can buy WRONG

in my oppinion

pp, v c, i w c ,jlc , ap, zenith, GP , ulysse nardin , hubelot, mont blanc, choppard, blancpain , and many more are so much better, just look at anyone of these watch manufactures bracelets and compare to a rolex.

i think rolex are ok thats all


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

I had a shit Seiko once.....

I still love Seikos.....

My Subs bracelet keeps the watch on my wrist just fine, what else is it supposed to do? :huh:


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

jasonm said:


> I had a **** Seiko once.....
> 
> I still love Seikos.....
> 
> My Subs bracelet keeps the watch on my wrist just fine, what else is it supposed to do? :huh:


thats a poor statement , thats a wifes statement ,if your going down that line then whats anywatch meant to do?

why buy a rolex or a vacheron when you can buy a casio.

my point was the bracelet is not in the same league as the other high end watches


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

jasonm said:


> I had a shit Seiko once.....
> 
> I still love Seikos.....
> 
> My Subs bracelet keeps the watch on my wrist just fine, what else is it supposed to do? :huh:


I agree Jason, more than adequate ... your arm will still get ripped out of its socket before the bracelet breaks :lol:


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

ollyhock said:


> jasonm said:
> 
> 
> > I had a shit Seiko once.....
> ...


Most other high end watches have bracelets which are over engineered, to judge a watch by its bracelet is something a woman would do


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

JoT said:


> ollyhock said:
> 
> 
> > jasonm said:
> ...


ha ha, ok the rest of the watch is just ok as well. when youve ownedall the rest like i have you understand that rolex are way down the pecking order in every aspect. its not a slur its the truth.

i like rolex they look good ,but there not worth the money


----------



## mjolnir (Jan 3, 2006)

This is getting pointless.

You can't judge a person by the watch they wear and you can't judge an entire brand by a bad experience with one individual item.

It's petty to even try.


----------



## thorpey69 (Feb 8, 2006)

i like rolex they look good ,but there not worth the money


----------



## Stanford (Feb 10, 2007)

Toshi said:


> JoT said:
> 
> 
> > The more I see this argument, and I have seen it many times in my 6 years on watch forums, the more I am convinced that it is nothing more than a form of inverted snobbery, and to think you can somehow distance yourself from nonWISes by sticking on a NATO really just sums up the fatuous nature of the argument.
> ...


The sub date also looks quite good on a NATO:


----------



## PhilM (Nov 5, 2004)

Right today I've been visiting some cash rich customers which are all paying TAX at the higher rate for sure, some of them probably paying the top rate too ... so I'd thought I would take a note of what they were wearing so I could provide you all with an update 

5 meetings, watches as followed:

Breitling Avenger Chrono

Pulsar Hart rate monitor

Timex of some sorts :huh:

Nothing

I'm pretty sure the last guy was wearing something cheap and nasty, it was quartz and gold plated :lol:

So 5 highly payed t*****s with not a single Rolex in sight


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

Talking of the bracelet, it may not feel as heavy as say a SMPs one, but the engineering is superb, fitting the end pieces into the lugs is just so effortless.....


----------



## PhilM (Nov 5, 2004)

potz said:


> PhilM said:
> 
> 
> > Right today I've been visiting some cash rich customers which are all paying TAX at the higher rate for sure, some of them probably paying the top rate too ... so I'd thought I would take a note of what they were wearing so I could provide you all with an update
> ...


I know, only thing I could think off was either he's a runner or as he's got a pretty stressfull job, he wanted to see it coming :doctor:


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

mjolnir said:


> This is getting pointless.
> 
> You can't judge a person by the watch they wear and you can't judge an entire brand by a bad experience with one individual item.
> 
> It's petty to even try.


Sounds right to me.


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

> This is getting pointless.


Come off it Rob, its been ages since we rehashed this old chestnut after the last 25 times we did it...

I guesstimate another 4 pages at least....


----------



## mjolnir (Jan 3, 2006)

jasonm said:


> I guesstimate another 4 pages at least....


You're right. There's way more mileage in this thread yet


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

I'm off to start another Alpha thread. h34r:


----------



## mrteatime (Oct 25, 2006)

jasonm said:


> *I guesstimate another 4 pages at least....*


4 more pages?


----------



## mjolnir (Jan 3, 2006)

Stan said:


> I'm off to start another Alpha thread. h34r:


----------



## James (Jul 17, 2006)

Stan said:


> I'm off to start another Alpha thread. h34r:


I know a guy who owns one at our watch collectors get togethers, much less common than said Rolex


----------



## JonW (Mar 23, 2005)

LOL we do like a good Rolex bash it seems. LOL

The SMP bracelet.... people really like those 90s throwbacks? wow. I wear my SMP on rubber as the watch is tool like but the bracelet is too 'bling' and imho dates the watch, if theyd fitted a simpler Oyster style it would be more tool and hence more classic... hmmm...

I always love the bash that Rolex is poor value for money and badly made. Ive had a number now (Airking and Precision from 60s, SD from 70s and modern GMT2, SD and Sub) and all kept good time and were well made. Sorry people didnt have that experience, but all the ones Ive had have been great watches. But there are other brands you can buy that are much the same but middle management dont know about them as they dont advertise as much in GQ or CAR magazine. Rolex are slow to innovate and rarely follow trends hence why the bracelet took a while to be re designed and why even the SDDS took so long to arrive with more bling and bigger size. But the old watches are not bad. The older Rolex bracelet is fine and when new feels firm and solid, just like the Omega. The 40mm size is actually perfect for most people when at work or play and in Rolex's biggest market (Asia) is really quite a large size.

Ive owned a few of the higher end brands and what would I buy instead of Rolex Sub If I was a middle manager whod seen past the ads? Glashutte Original Sport Evo perhaps, or a Vacheron Constantin Overseas or maybe with slightly less imagination (as there are more ads lol) an IWC Aquatimer.

Rolex's new Sub and SDDS models are actually much like the GO and the Vacheron, with less 'tool' approach and more solidity (weight) with larger cases and better bracelets. The IWC is interesting, it leapt ahead of the SD with the 3536 in the 90s but since then has gone a little backwards and the new models out later this year seem so buck that trend a bit, but IWC does seem to be aiming to undercut the Rolex models perhaps... very interesting...

Would I buy another Rolex? Yep.... Am I a ******? Whatever.... :lol:


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

thorpey69 said:


> > i like rolex they look good ,but there not worth the money
> 
> 
> In your opinion,you forgot that bit





jasonm said:


> > This is getting pointless.
> 
> 
> Come off it Rob, its been ages since we rehashed this old chestnut after the last 25 times we did it...
> ...


Oh well in that case I`ll re state that although like them (well some of them at least) I wouldn`t pay the price of a new one or more then Â£1000 for a used


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

potz said:


>


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

The Rolex bracelet thing is a bit of an urban myth, I've never had a problem with any I have had or really read much about them being a problem, given that they have a couple of different ones, oyster, jubilee and president I think if they did have a problem it would be all over the internet. The latest oyster bracelets with the new clasp are superbly engineered but that's not to say the old style was bad, they made them for 40 odd years.

B.


----------



## JonW (Mar 23, 2005)

I agree the new ones are brilliant, but then so are the new Omegas, Vacherons, GOs, IWCs etc. The old ones were fine tho and did the job, after it these watches were all about 'doing the job' when they were first designed.


----------



## Parabola (Aug 1, 2007)

To be fair I remember meeting an absolute legend wearing a Seadweller once (not you Phil but you are legend :lol: ). He was a farmer in the middle of Angelsey miles from anywhere and it looked about 30 years old and was completely battered.

I also remember bein on the tube once and seeing a guy with a sub on a nato strap, but this wasn't an ordinary sub because it had a pronounced domed crystal which I suppose makes it very old


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

BondandBigM said:


> potz said:
> 
> 
> >


I suspect you must have been on the blue label Smirnoff when you bought that replica h34r:


----------



## JonW (Mar 23, 2005)

Parabola said:


> I also remember bein on the tube once and seeing a guy with a sub on a nato strap, but this wasn't an ordinary sub because it had a pronounced domed crystal which I suppose makes it very old


The whole Rolex sports model lineup, had domed acrylics up until the 80s when they gradually moved be be sapphire. Jase's Sub is one of the last before the change, his is a 1987 5513, ie non date sub.


----------



## thunderbolt (May 19, 2007)

Stan said:


> I'm off to start another Alpha thread. h34r:


 :lol: :lol:


----------



## JonW (Mar 23, 2005)

potz said:


> Mine, pictured above with the real McCoy 007 drink, is from 1989 but sadly I have no side-on shot to show off the domed crystal.


Chris I forgot you have one, sorry mate. I had the changeover pegged as 88, yours must have sold after the new ones came in. very cool.


----------



## frogspawn (Jun 20, 2008)

Never been a fan of Rolex, its not all the people that wear them ( although someone here at work thinks they are the best thing since powdered milk 'cos they are expensive, he also buys them to move on at a profit), its the style and the scrawling on the face. Had a choice this year - Solid gold Universal, Rolex or a Panerai,all about the same price, ended up with the Panerai.....seen other threads knocking Panerai ( I though a long time about getting one 'cos Beckham had one).

In the end its up to individual taste not 'cos what you wear makes you a ******.

Got a Tudor Oyster Prince because I like it not because it says Rolex on the back of the case, my 710 wears a 1920s silver antique watch that has a Rolex movement and we didn't know that until it went in for a service......


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

frogspawn said:


> .....seen other threads knocking Panerai ( I though a long time about getting one 'cos Beckham had one)


Ooo Ooo....time to knock Panny now? Do we need a new thread or just carry on in here? :lol:


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

Got to be a new thread or my 4 page prediction will go drastically wrong.....


----------



## frogspawn (Jun 20, 2008)

Boxbrownie said:


> frogspawn said:
> 
> 
> > .....seen other threads knocking Panerai ( I though a long time about getting one 'cos Beckham had one)
> ...


No need for a new thread lets just go for it - now let me think - what don't I like.....porkers, orange dials..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

frogspawn said:


> Boxbrownie said:
> 
> 
> > frogspawn said:
> ...


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

Griff said:


> frogspawn said:
> 
> 
> > Boxbrownie said:
> ...


Aww Griff, why no smile? :lol:


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

Run out of *oink*ment


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

I'm liking this new LE Pani, 60mm and on a strap so no bracelet problems


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

BondandBigM said:


> I'm liking this new LE Pani, 60mm and on a strap so no bracelet problems


Well I can send some of my old belts to Tosh.....they should only need a few more holes in them! :lol:


----------



## SharkBike (Apr 15, 2005)

JonW said:


> The IWC is interesting, it leapt ahead of the SD with the 3536 in the 90s but since then has gone a little backwards and the new models out later this year seem so buck that trend a bit, but IWC does seem to be aiming to undercut the Rolex models perhaps... very interesting...


Yes, very interesting. I am at this very moment trying to decide if I want a 14060 Sub or a 3548 Aquatimer....still on the fence, but leaning toward the IWC.

Uh oh...here comes the Aquatimer bashing.


----------



## gallch (Jan 7, 2007)

Is it just Rolex that attracts the "Wearer = ******" stereotype, or are there other (wrong) stereotypes associated with other brands ?

*sigh - if I get a single serious answer to that from you lot I'll count myself lucky....


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

gallch said:


> if I get a single serious answer to that from you lot I'll count myself lucky....


 :lol: :lol:


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

SharkBike said:


> JonW said:
> 
> 
> > The IWC is interesting, it leapt ahead of the SD with the 3536 in the 90s but since then has gone a little backwards and the new models out later this year seem so buck that trend a bit, but IWC does seem to be aiming to undercut the Rolex models perhaps... very interesting...
> ...


The aquatimer is a good watch but watch out for the earlier ones, the inner bezel was faulty and many had to go back to iwc . One the whole though there a nice watch but get the dial with the yellow bits it's more desirable, I bought on last year used for Â£800 which I thought was a good price.


----------



## James (Jul 17, 2006)

BondandBigM said:


> The Rolex bracelet thing is a bit of an urban myth, I've never had a problem with any I have had or really read much about them being a problem, given that they have a couple of different ones, oyster, jubilee and president I think if they did have a problem it would be all over the internet. The latest oyster bracelets with the new clasp are superbly engineered but that's not to say the old style was bad, they made them for 40 odd years.
> 
> B.


I am sure I read somewhere they got better, Alpha does their bracelets now. It may not be not true


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

James said:


> BondandBigM said:
> 
> 
> > The Rolex bracelet thing is a bit of an urban myth, I've never had a problem with any I have had or really read much about them being a problem, given that they have a couple of different ones, oyster, jubilee and president I think if they did have a problem it would be all over the internet. The latest oyster bracelets with the new clasp are superbly engineered but that's not to say the old style was bad, they made them for 40 odd years.
> ...


I think elizabeth duke are the main suppliers


----------



## JonW (Mar 23, 2005)

ollyhock said:


> SharkBike said:
> 
> 
> > JonW said:
> ...


Well Â£800 is a killer deal, Id have had one at that. 

Rich, The more modern AT is slowly heading up in value now its about to be cut from the fold, but it never had the cachet of the 3536 as the movt is more 'standard' than that model. The new one has an in house movt AFAIK so it will cost more, that will bring used prices up. Buy now is the best plan I guess. To be honest If I had to choose between the same priced modern AT and the non date sub, it would be the Rolex every time.... and get the IWC later... you wont have scratched the Rolex itch if you dont  If it was the 3536 AT you were looking at it would be different...


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

ollyhock said:


> James said:
> 
> 
> > BondandBigM said:
> ...


Perhaps their bracelets wear a bit less thin than this thread has, hopefully not in such a short time span. 

Bugger me lads, get a life or something that approximates one.

Wear what you want, if to impress some person or group of individuals, so be it. That's your failing, most of the population have other things on their minds. That includes most of your "superiors". :lol:

Argue all you will, but a watch will never be a substitute for a hot meal when you're hungry (in some situations it might, but don't get your hopes up). Most of the time some bigger thug than you will nick it off you wrist and leave you very broken.

Wearing an Alpha may see you in the same situation, but at least the cost of it didn't break the bank in the first place. 

http://www.jakethackray.com/content/view/110/26/


----------



## SharkBike (Apr 15, 2005)

JonW said:


> ollyhock said:
> 
> 
> > SharkBike said:
> ...


Â£800 is a killer deal, but not as killer as the one I let get away last week. :cry2: :cry2: :cry2:

Yeah, the 3536 is the one of my dreams...the 3548-07 (black/white steel) version is my second choice. But, you're right about that damn itch...and it hasn't gone away yet.


----------



## JonW (Mar 23, 2005)

No ointment will sait it Rich... theres a coronet in your future for sure.


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

The calypso / coustau version of the aquatimer is beautiful and I like the fact that aquatimers are still water resistant with the crown unscrewed


----------



## SharkBike (Apr 15, 2005)

Hell, who needs an Aquatimer...when you have a Snorkel?










It's even better....has an in-house movement...and it hums. :yes:


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

SharkBike said:


> Hell, who needs an Aquatimer...when you have a Snorkel?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


& I doubt you`ll come across many of the afore mentioned `tossers` wearing one :lol:


----------



## gallch (Jan 7, 2007)

BondandBigM said:


> gallch said:
> 
> 
> > if I get a single serious answer to that from you lot I'll count myself lucky....
> ...


I'll take that as "no" then....


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

gallch said:


> BondandBigM said:
> 
> 
> > gallch said:
> ...


 :huh:

So your not impressed then

:lol: :lol:

Actually if you can find someone with a real one they are superbly made watches but unfortunately suffer a bit like Rolex, branded as a chav/ bling watch.


----------



## gallch (Jan 7, 2007)

potz said:


> BondandBigM said:
> 
> 
> > gallch said:
> ...


Not a clue - can't see anything now over the glare from the watches...


----------



## redsquid2 (Feb 13, 2009)

I'm one of those inverted snobs. I wouldn't wear one if my favorite auntie gave it to me for Christmas. I'd turn my nose up and say, "Could you please take this back and get me a nice Blancpain. These Rolexes are so ugly!" And I would take her right over to the computer and look up a picture like the one below, to show her what i want:










OK, so I'm exaggerating. A wee bit.


----------



## bobbymonks (Jan 13, 2009)

Maybe I've missed the point, but I really don't know why this thread hasn't been bumped.

Whatever brand, model, or cost, you buy a watch because you want it and you can afford it, and don't let what other people think get in the way.

If your sole reason for not buying a particular brand is the fear of what people think of you, well the problem lies with you.

Don't slag off the brand, it's not the brand's fault that you are so shallow, insecure & need the constant approval of your peers, go and seek out a good shrink and get your head sorted out, you mental midget.

Love a M5 BMW driving, Rolex wearing successful self-made ****** (jealous much?)


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

Added this today in Friday watch thread

http://www.thewatchforum.co.uk/index.php?s...st&p=416169

Maybe this is why? :lol:


----------



## bobbymonks (Jan 13, 2009)

Boxbrownie said:


> Added this today in Friday watch thread
> 
> http://www.thewatchforum.co.uk/index.php?s...st&p=416169
> 
> Maybe this is why? :lol:


 :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## bobbymonks (Jan 13, 2009)

potz said:


> Boxbrownie said:
> 
> 
> > Added this today in Friday watch thread
> ...


Yep, I get the 'is it real' when wearing either my Sub-date, Oyster presidential or Monaco. The Sub / monaco are real and the Pres isn't, so I always say the opposite. Make me laugh, but then I'm easily amused.

Funny though, no one questions any of my others like the Speedie or Bvlgari. And when I wear my VC, no one knows what it is anyway, and I like ti that way, I wear it because I want to, and not to show it off fishing for compliments.

Anyway where I live they'd shoot you for it!


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

Nah...doesn't really put me off....I hardly ever wear my OP to work.....and the GMT2 is on loan again :lol: , third time and I still cannot decide :blink: , I still really would like a ND sub with maxi dial, but don't think they ever made one of those, will have to buy a fake! :lol:

My regular wearers at work are the Aerospace/X33 at about 90/10 ratio.....that Aerospace is just so easy to live with!

But on a daring day I'll get the OQ out for a spin :lol:

Bugger this I can't sleep tonight....off to watch Family Guy I reckon.....and a few more totties....night all


----------



## oubaas56 (Nov 23, 2008)

Cheers to all those who have kept the faith.

To the knockers:

Maybe you want to go and tell this guy he has **** taste in watches.

http://diving-watch.net/


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

oubaas56 said:


> Cheers to all those who have kept the faith.
> 
> To the knockers:
> 
> ...


yes there all nice submariners, just because some of them have comex on them ,dont make them tell the time any better just more of the rolex hype.

i really like the submariner andi see it for what it is, its a great second hand watch, its an expensive new watch


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

Fascinating site, well worth a look. Someone who has used his watches for work.

This comment from him sums it up perfectly how durable these watches are and why you see a lot of guys in the offshore business wearing them.



> My Comex issue 1665 Sea dweller has spent the thick end of 30 years in the offshore divng industry, and still playing its part today.


----------



## oubaas56 (Nov 23, 2008)

Question for Potz et al.

A double red Rolex dial recently sold on ebay for Â£6200. In his sales pitch the seller said that it would have originated from 1974/75 but could be fitted to any ( submariner?) model from 1969 to 1978 ( if I remember correctly ) and would add Â£10 000 to the value of the watch. In your view, If you refitted that dial to a watch from that time period, would it constitute a fake? I mean if it were possible that the dial could have could have been replaced as part of a service, and all you're doing is replacing the original, it's OK.? On the other hand, if you fit the dial on a model year on which it never belonged, i.e. the serial no's don't tally, then what? It's a fake, right?

Tell you what Potz, they've got it wrong. It's not hype, it's mystique.


----------



## oubaas56 (Nov 23, 2008)

potz said:


> Double Red dials only came on the early Sea-Dwellers. So putting it into a dated Sub, provided the dial feet fit and discounting the possibility of removing the feet and using tape, will work but the case back will give the game away. Additionally there is the issue of the OGEV.
> 
> Regular production of the 1665 Sea-Dweller was from about 1971 to 1977 although the original Comex ones had the model number 5514 since they were basically 5513 model Subs (ie. undated) fitted with the OGEV. Serial numbers of the original DRSDs were between approx. 1.7 mil and 2.2 mil., the latest ones known to have been produced were around 1977/78 with 5.1 - 5.2 mil. serial #s. These are known as transitional DRSDs. For more detailed information check out doublereseadweller.com - that guy has done a lot of research.
> 
> ...


Cheers for that. My sentiments exactly. I would be very interested to know where that dial went & what it will be used for.

Talking of prices, there was one on ebay with a buy it now price of Â£14 500 which didn't sell ( not even an offer I don,t think )

& there's one from the USA currently on offer for US$180 000. Bit OTT the latter I think. I,m currently negotiating for a late 80's

model off a mate and it looks like I am going to get it for fitting his new kitchen and a couple of hundred quid. The money side of it

is the sticking point at the moment.


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

Hey ho Potz.....I hope a quick question to the Rolex miester, were there any Maxi Dial ND subs? Because thats what I would really like and if found would become a sure fire keeper. But I have a sneaking feeling that Rolex would not have given the ND a maxi dial probably because of its (relatively speaking) low end appeal.

Am I correct or just talking tosh....no not the straps! :lol:


----------



## PhilM (Nov 5, 2004)

Well I hope you've got deep pockets, Matt dialed 5513 go for silly money these days, I've been looking for one myself but feel that I've missed that one for good :huh:


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

potz said:


> Boxbrownie said:
> 
> 
> > Hey ho Potz.....I hope a quick question to the Rolex miester, were there any Maxi Dial ND subs? Because thats what I would really like and if found would become a sure fire keeper. But I have a sneaking feeling that Rolex would not have given the ND a maxi dial probably because of its (relatively speaking) low end appeal.
> ...


Aha..thats interesting....no SL on those then....oh poo! Why cannot Rolex make exactly what I want? :lol:

Its actually the wider hands I really like with the maxi dial, makes the watch far easier to "glance read" like my SMPs.... h34r:

So it looks like the only choice is no choice, just the LV then? Could always get the :bad: bezel changed to a black one I guess.

Better start saving up....watch sale anyone? :lol:


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

Boxbrownie said:


> potz said:
> 
> 
> > Boxbrownie said:
> ...


You could always buy a new GMT C if you want the maxi dial and hands and don't like the LV


----------



## mrteatime (Oct 25, 2006)

the last two posts are prob the only rolex to have apart from a sub....a deepsea? yes please....frogmariner? oh yes....a gmt? oh yeah baby


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

mrteatime said:


> the last two posts are prob the only rolex to have apart from a sub....a deepsea? yes please....frogmariner? oh yes....a gmt? oh yeah baby


Are you sure, I'm kind of liking this maxi dial GMT


----------



## mrteatime (Oct 25, 2006)

BondandBigM said:


> mrteatime said:
> 
> 
> > the last two posts are prob the only rolex to have apart from a sub....a deepsea? yes please....frogmariner? oh yes....a gmt? oh yeah baby
> ...


i bet that will go nice with your argos bling you wear on your other wrist bond h34r:


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

mrteatime said:


> BondandBigM said:
> 
> 
> > mrteatime said:
> ...


 :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

To be fair I wouldn't wear the bling thing I'd rather have one of these please


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

Form an orderly queue Item 300296683252 :swoon:









I will admit it`s nice though B)


----------



## frogspawn (Jun 20, 2008)

mach 0.0013137 said:


> Form an orderly queue Item 300296683252 :swoon:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No don't like the hands :lol:


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

mach 0.0013137 said:


> Form an orderly queue Item 300296683252 :swoon:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Blimey  I agree it is nice but a couple of thousand over my limit!!


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

potz said:


> Boxbrownie said:
> 
> 
> > potz said:
> ...


Oh dear no Chris......my mate showed me a deepsea and a new GMT, I tried them both on but I really have a big niggle with both the new models.....basically its the huge lug shoulders compared to the relatively elegent previous models, the new lugs look like they are completely out of proportion to the bracelet.

Going to have to be a previous model sub if anything and definately a big hand/maxi dial.

Now the ard part....no, no not the money, the making my mind up! :lol:


----------



## gregory (Feb 13, 2009)

Interesting argument this.

I would love to own a Rolex sub, in complete stainless steel and totally diamand and gold free!!

I ain't even bothered about the fish-eye date glass... just a standard one will do me... if there's such a thing as a standard Rolex.

They are great watches.

As for saving up... I would be unable to do it. Something would come along and take my savings away. I just purchased a Speedmaster 50th Anniversary Seahorse Patch Moonwatch (I was looking at Rolex's but had to have this watch), and I took it on three years Interest Free Credit, with just 20% down. This way, I know I have the watch... it's on my wrist, I class my Direct Debit's as my savings plan!! The watch will continue to be loved after I finish paying, there's no moral dilemma about me squandering my savings for my watch, I don't have any... as it's on my wrist already!!

I want a Rolex Standard Sub (Â£3100 ish as new... is this a King's ransom... no!) in time. Because I love the watch. Is it expensive??? It depends on your outlook. If you bought a watch for Â£200, it would be worth bugger all in a year. If you spend Â£3100 on a Rolex, due to the fact that each branch will only probably have ONE in stock... and have to re-order another... it will still be worth Â£3100... further down the line. I am not saying watches are investments, but you get my drift, you know that you are not wearing a depreciating watch on your wrist.

People thought I was insane buying my Omega at Â£2245. They smoke.. I don't!! I am not setting it on fire!

I have not adjusted it for a fortnight now. I just wind it every day. When I checked it's accuracy on the net, it's five seconds gained in 14 days. It's matching my Tag Quartz for accuracy. So was it expensive or a bargain?? A bargain if you ask me!!

About the money... yes... it's Â£3k+ for my next watch.

If I bought a brand new car though on the same day, and drove it off the forecourt, it would lose Â£2 in about 15 seconds. Now that's crap value!!

It shouldn't be about snobbery. It should be about everyone's individual tastes, and how you feel about that lovely thing that you put on your wrist.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

gregory said:


> Interesting argument this.
> 
> I would love to own a Rolex sub, in complete stainless steel and totally diamand and gold free!!
> 
> ...


The best post in this thread IMO :yes: good on you gregory and well said


----------



## thorpey69 (Feb 8, 2006)

The thing that has annoyed me the most about this thread is the fact i left it sizzling nicely a few days ago,with lots of uneducated and daft ideas as to why Rolex are the spawn of satan,and all those who wear them are of dubious character,i return a few days later to a barely lukewarm and half way down the page virtually defunct thread which disappointingly has failed to reach 15 pages.Cmon guys,surely we can do better than this,i mean for christs sake no one has evenbe banned yet :tongue2:


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2009)

at least some of you lot could afford a rolex, the closest ill get to owning one in the foreseeable future is looking at piccies of them!


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

thorpey69 said:


> The thing that has annoyed me the most about this thread is the fact i left it sizzling nicely a few days ago,with lots of uneducated and daft ideas as to why Rolex are the spawn of satan,and all those who wear them are of dubious character,i return a few days later to a barely lukewarm and half way down the page virtually defunct thread which disappointingly has failed to reach 15 pages.Cmon guys,surely we can do better than this,i mean for christs sake no one has evenbe banned yet :tongue2:


OK.....well looks like I'll have to settle for a nice vintage ND sub and put up with the small hands and dial, I am sure that will lift me out of the "***** wear group" that all the new designs are worn by......just showy tw&ts who cannot afford PPs.....

Hows that Thorpey....warmed it up enough now? :lol:


----------



## frogspawn (Jun 20, 2008)

Worst thing is everybody now seems to have come out of the closet and owned up to secretly wanting one :lol:

Except the usual suspects of course.


----------



## redsquid2 (Feb 13, 2009)

thorpey69 said:


> The thing that has annoyed me the most about this thread is the fact i left it sizzling nicely a few days ago,with lots of uneducated and daft ideas as to why Rolex are the spawn of satan,and all those who wear them are of dubious character,i return a few days later to a barely lukewarm and half way down the page virtually defunct thread which disappointingly has failed to reach 15 pages.Cmon guys,surely we can do better than this,i mean for christs sake no one has evenbe banned yet :tongue2:


I'm_too_sexy for your Rolex

too sexy for your Rolex

too sexy for your Rolex

:lol:


----------

