# What Is It That We Don't Like About....



## DavidH (Feb 24, 2003)

......Rolex.

In the pic library there are only four featured. Maybe there are a few more that are being kept quiet for fear of victimisation, abusive e-mails and ostracising









Or is it that they are just too expensive?


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

DavidH said:


> ......Rolex.
> 
> In the pic library there are only four featured. Maybe there are a few more that are being kept quiet for fear of victimisation, abusive e-mails and ostracising
> 
> ...


 I dont think expense is an issue. I have an Audemars and nobody has cut me out.


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

I don't have a Rolex because I can't afford one, it's that simple.









I've seen some I like, others I don't. Just like any brand.









I just like watches, I don't hate any brand and choose a watch on its appeal to me in my price range, like most of us do.

There are a couple of watches from Gruen and Illinois that I would probably go for over any other at the moment but that's what watch collecting's all about, desire.









If some nice person wants to send me a Rolex, I won't complain.























If someone gets pleasure from owning a fine watch (or not so fine) then that's a very good thing in my opinion.


----------



## Roger (May 17, 2003)

I had one for a while. It was disappointing The timekeeping was poor from the start,only just meeting the COSC standard. I have had several Seiko mechanicals that had it beat on timekeeping.

After owning it for 18 months, I came to the conclusion that it was over hyped and overpriced.

A second division item.

Roger


----------



## raketakat (Sep 24, 2003)

Mrcrowley said:


> DavidH said:
> 
> 
> > ......Rolex.
> ...


 Paul

When are you going to relax and stop feeling self conscious about owning that great pair of watches














.

Only a nutcase would think any differently about you.

I know there are a few in watchworld but bugger them







.

I don't think thats what David is on about anyway. It's all the images and thoughts that come straight into your head on hearing or reading Rolex.

I don't know enough about Rolex to have an informed opinion so







.

I do enjoy reading about other peoples' experiences though







.


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

> just like watches, I don't hate any brand and choose a watch on its appeal to me in my price range, like most of us do


Well said Stan







My thoughts too









I have owned a few Rolex,mainly Subs and GMT Masters,and one Datejust.With me I do get rid of them quickly so that does not give an indication of quality.I like the brand,and they have a very cool history,IMO.

I buy what I like,stuff others opinions of my watches,if they like them good,but I never saw the point in slagging off other watches,especially on forums,it only leads to conflict.We all like different things


----------



## Silver Hawk (Dec 2, 2003)

I'm not sure why I don't like them....but I don't.









I've rather have an Accutron or Seiko on my wrist.









Paul


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2004)

AlexR said:


> > just like watches, I don't hate any brand and choose a watch on its appeal to me in my price range, like most of us do
> 
> 
> Well said Stan
> ...


Well said Alex and Stan.









Two very wise posts from our moderaters.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

I like the - Seadweller and GMT ... just cant afford one at present


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

I think for me the problem is one of faking. Every time I see one being worn (the last I saw was a sub worn by a builder) the first thing that I ask myself is "I wonder if it's a real one?"

And if I had one I know that anyone who knew anything about watches would be thinking the same. Just puts me off really, plus the fact of the inherent dangers of buying second hand that you may unwitingly end up with a fake or a stolen item.

I wouldn't dis anyone who has one though, it's all about personal choice.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2004)

pg tips said:


> I think for me the problem is one of faking. Every time I see one being worn (the last I saw was a sub worn by a builder) the first thing that I ask myself is "I wonder if it's a real one?"
> 
> And if I had one I know that anyone who knew anything about watches would be thinking the same. Just puts me off really, plus the fact of the inherent dangers of buying second hand that you may unwitingly end up with a fake or a stolen item.
> 
> I wouldn't dis anyone who has one though, it's all about personal choice.


Every high end watch is faked and a lot of cheaper models.

Remember the forum member last week who bought a fake Seamaster 300?

They even fake Seiko 5's

If you are buying second hand you'd better know what you are doing.


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

Agree Neil but Rolex is by far the most faked. I'd not be to happy if I bought a vostok for Â£20 to find it was a fake but a rolex at considerably more would be a different matter. I wouldn't say no to a good genuine one though. Always liked the daytona's myself.


----------



## Ron Jr (Sep 10, 2003)

I have a white dialed EXP II that I never wear. Everytime I do someone asks the stupid question..."Is that a real Rolex or a fake?". I never get this question with my Omegas or other watches. BTW can't get rid of it was a gift from the 710.


----------



## DavidH (Feb 24, 2003)

Could one of you moderaters please delete Rogers answer, it is ruining my hopes and aspirations.

Was it a Submariner you had?

I have a notion for the non date Submariner and my friendly dealer, they seem a very friendly breed, is getting one in in September so I have until then to go off it or save up.

I have got the 'stupid question' question sorted

"I'll know it is real"


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

raketakat said:


> Mrcrowley said:
> 
> 
> > DavidH said:
> ...


 OK, i will try to refrain from the guilt sounding quotes now


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

Roger said:


> A second division item.


 That would be a coca-cola championship item in today's speak then.

What are the FA bloody doing letting them F up the league like this?


----------



## richp (Mar 31, 2004)

I'd lurv an Explorer I - I think they're just faaaabulous!


----------



## raketakat (Sep 24, 2003)

Mrcrowley said:


> OK, i will try to refrain from the guilt sounding quotes now


And I'll try and not feel guilty about telling you off about it Paul














.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2004)

DavidH said:


> Could one of you moderaters please delete Rogers answer, it is ruining my hopes and aspirations.
> 
> Was it a Submariner you had?
> 
> ...


David

Don't worry about it, Roger also had a "rubbish" Speedmaster as well.


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

I don't like many of the cases, and the non standard backs so they are difficult to open; some of the non standard screws, and the fact that they are awkward supplying spares. I think they are heavily hyped, to a point where the name implies they are better than they actually are.

I just think Omega are every bit as good in terms of quality and everything else, and far more realistically priced. The co-axial movement is to all intents and purposes in house, so the in house boast on the Rolex side cuts less of an argument when comparing with Omega.


----------



## Foggy (Feb 25, 2003)

> and the fact that they are awkward supplying spares


Rumour has it that Omega, and other members of the group, are going exactly the same way with regard spares











> and the non standard backs so they are difficult to open


Not such a bad thing - stops amateur watchmakers tampering











> The co-axial movement is to all intents and purposes in house, so the in house boast on the Rolex side cuts less of an argument when comparing with Omega


That's only ONE movement out of the entire range. Rolex are ALL in-house.



> the name implies they are better than they actually are


Yes, because they have built a solid reputation on the name........

Having said that, IMHO, all new watches are overpriced and trading on reputations. This is why we see quality watches from lesser known brands at more favourable prices - they don't yet have the reputations to justify the high prices. Simple economics. It's plain and simply about some having stronger reputations than others....

Foggy


----------



## Foggy (Feb 25, 2003)

Whenever, THE Rolex questions comes up (as it does from time to time), I always quote the following by James Dowling. Interesting reading.

WHY IT'S OKAY TO HATE ROLEX



> It's a free world, you can love or hate any one or any thing that you choose. However the point that I would like to make is that a little research might convince even the most ardent critic of Rolex (or of the folks who wear them) that in this case a little tolerance might be no bad thing. Let us first look at the facts and then turn our view upon the perception.
> 
> To all intents and purposes, Rolex invented the wristwatch, as we know it. Sure there were companies making and marketing the things before Rolex burst upon the scene in 1905. But none of them put the effort that Rolex did into this new market. The reason for this is that the older companies could see no reason to change; they had major investments in plant and machinery designed specifically to make pocket watches. So why should they change. Rolex had nothing, no history, no factory and most importantly no tradition. So the only option open to them was that of being an innovator; and the innovation they chose was the wristwatch
> 
> ...


Foggy


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

Very interestering artical Foggy....I lernt a few things.

Jason


----------



## DavidH (Feb 24, 2003)

> I just think Omega are every bit as good in terms of quality and everything else, and far more realistically priced. The co-axial movement is to all intents and purposes in house, so the in house boast on the Rolex side cuts less of an argument when comparing with Omega


Yes Griff, but they are so shiny









I may not be able to help myself!


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)




----------



## ESL (Jan 27, 2004)

I am minded of a Walt Odet's article on the Rolex Explorer, on Timezone.com. He summarises thus:

"_The cost-efficient engineering of the movement is not remotely reflected in its price; and the extreme ease of service is not reflected in routine service costs provided by the manufacturer. The watch represents an extremely poor value if purchased solely to provide accurate and reliable timekeeping. And it is of no horological interest whatsoever. The contrast between the relatively good external appearance of the watch and the internal appearance is absolutely unparalled in my experience. I cannot think of another consumer product in which the gulf between the publicly perceived quality and the reality I saw is as broad as with the Explorer_

Now I have always had a hankering for an Explorer - but reading this put me off.









I accept that this may have been an aberration or one-off - but is it? As the vast majority of Rolex owners will never remove the back (or be able to) will we ever know what the ACTUAL workmanship is like inside?









Find and read the article - it's an eye opener.


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

I have much respect for Mr Odets articles,but it would not stop me buying a particular watch.

If you want a watch with a perfectly finished movement,buy a Lange or a Patek.That is not what Rolex are about.

IMO,they are good rugged Swiss watches.The movements are workhorses.Forget the hype,if you want a dependable Swiss watch Rolex will do the job.

All IMHO


----------



## ESL (Jan 27, 2004)

Hi Alex,

Nor would any single article prevent me from owning a watch I particularly wanted: watch buying is way too emotional for that.









But we will have to differ in opinion on quality and finishing. Surely that's EXACTLY what Rolex are about. Surely that's exactly how Rolex themselves try to justify their position?

From their website:

_Only after systematic examination of its functions and aesthetics may a watch receive Rolex quality certification and be ready to grace its owner's wrist. Rolex experts analyse every internal and external feature of the timepiece - no imperfection is tolerated._

and

_These strict internal tests continue even after the watches emerge from the production process. In the tradition of absolute rigour, audits are regularly carried out on finished timepieces to ensure that each model continues to uphold the high standards of quality that set Rolex apart as a premium watchmaker._

OK, so its watch manufacturers fluff - they all do it - but people will tend to want to believe it, coming from Rolex.









If we accept that Rolex is merely a dependable Swiss watch, I might just as well by a Zeno Explorer with a Swiss ETA movement, and spend the other one and a half grand on something else!










I still want one Alex, and in time, I'll probably get one, and between now and that time, I might even get a Zeno and see if I like the style







.

All I'm saying is: if you have to stop believing the hype and just regard it as 'another watch', then price becomes a very real issue.


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

*Agree*


----------



## Foggy (Feb 25, 2003)

Agree too......................but if all we want is a well built, tough, accurate timepiece, then we'd all be wearing Â£40 G-Shocks, and high-end watches wouldn't exist.

Foggy


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2004)

AlexR said:


> I have much respect for Mr Odets articles,but it would not stop me buying a particular watch.
> 
> If you want a watch with a perfectly finished movement,buy a Lange or a Patek.That is not what Rolex are about.
> 
> ...


Well said Alex.

People always bring up the Walt Odets article and ignore everything else.

IMO you either dig what Rolex do or you don't.

In the end Its all down to personal taste and possibly a feel for horological history.

Rolex are still the same company they were from the start, while many other companies have been bought out like Breitling or swallowed up in large conglomerates like the Swatch group(Omega, Longines) or worse still have had the name purchased by far eastern companies and used on modern inferior watches like Universal Geneve, Roamer etc.

You can't convert people who are not into them even after reading James Dowlings monologue.

People often rant on about the cost but no-one makes you buy them and people who want them don't care. People who think they are too expensive will never buy one, so whats the problem?

As far as cost goes Rolex are probably the cheapest Swiss manufacture. Many people go on about IWC and I agree they make fine watches but most are tarted up ETA movements and they are the same price if not dearer than Rolex but nobody bangs on about it.

As JD says they are probably the only watch you can buy second hand wear for three years and sell for what you paid for it. I certainly find this trait appealing.









You are probably a bit fed up of the Sea Dweller pics so here's a pic of My Datejust.


----------



## Foggy (Feb 25, 2003)

Spot on Neil. It always amuses me how Rolex seems to be the only brand that manages to stir emotions of those that hate them so much, as well as those that love them







The vocal anti-Rolex crowd, IMHO, do no harm to the brand - in fact, perversely, it just raises their profile. Can you think of another brand that can raise the sort of passions (positive & neagtive) that Rolex does ? Taking that further, when was the last time we ever read threads about how much people dislike, for example Tissot watches (and I'm sure there are people who dislike them) ? It just hardly happens, simply because they don't have the profile of Rolex.

Rolex will always have their knockers, but this innovator of 20th century horology will continue to exist long after they've gone









BTW, in case anyone thinks I'm only Pro-Rolex & anti Tissot etc., it's simply not true. My collection includes Rolex, Omega, Longines, Tissot, Seiko, Timex, Casio and on and on and on..









Cheers

Foggy


----------



## ESL (Jan 27, 2004)

Hi Neil,

Just a couple of comments on a well put reply:

_People always bring up the Walt Odets article and ignore everything else._

Good point, but I don't see anyone writing about how good Explorers actually are, and that the sample that Mr Odets had was part of a bad batch, so that then we will all know the reality.

I suggest, that the real point of the article is that perhaps Walt - when he opened the watch up for a detailed review - was just as disappointed as anyone else would be, having purchased a Rolex and finding out to his disappointment that the inside did not deliver the promise of the outside, or of the brand.

_"IMO you either dig what Rolex do or you don't."_

I think for my part, I dig what Rolex DID - big style- but not what they seem to do now, which is make the same promises that they used to, but not necessarily deliver on them.

_People often rant on about the cost but no-one makes you buy them and people who want them don't care._

I suspect that those that would buy one, would want the promise that the brand offers fulfilled. If the actual workmanship in the case is below par, then Rolex have not kept their promise. It does not matter if the owner never gets to see it, or does not give a chuff even if he does, the promise was still not fulfilled.

_As JD says they are probably the only watch you can buy second hand wear for three years and sell for what you paid for it. I certainly find this trait appealing._

I can't disagree there at all







, I know it's the only way I will ever justify the cost of owning one.

I don't know what it is with Rolex, despite all that has been said, by any other poster's on this thread, by Walt Odets or even by myself, I still would like an Explorer, have nothing at all against Submariners and Daytonas.

Now - sod's law says, that: *1.* tomorrow I'll win the lottery. *2.* I won't be able to help myself. And *3.* I'll be back on here at some point showing off pics of my new Daytona, then you lot can give me a good slagging. That's assuming I can be arsed to wait for god knows how long for a new Daytona!!! BUGGER, forgot about that.









That's an arse and a BUGGER in the same post







does that count for anything


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

> IMO you either dig what Rolex do or you don't.


*Agree*



> You can't convert people who are not into them even after reading James Dowlings monologue.


Very true!!



> People always bring up the Walt Odets article and ignore everything else.


Sadly true Neil!


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

I agree with Neil 100%.

Irrespective of price, a watches value is that percieved of by the buyer.

The best watch for any individual is that which the person chooses for all the emotive reasons that drive all of us.

The only bad watch is one that doesn't do its job. IMHO.


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

At the family wedding we went to last w/end one of the 710's cousins was there with a sub on his wrist. He's not short of a bob or two, very nice chap, works on the huge fishing trawlers as an engineer spends 6 months at sea and 6 months home.

I asked him why he chose a sub. His reply *because it's a Rolex*! He doesn't know much about what watches there are on the market and doesn't really care he just wanted a Rolly. He's not flash, doesn't go showing it off, in fact I didn't spot it til the Saturday evening but he'd been wearing it since we met up at Friday lunch (he never wears a short sleeved shirt for reasons I'm not to sure of)!

Just goes to prove Rolex have been very clever at marketing and everyone knows what they are. Just some of us know there are alternatives as well


----------



## Garry (Feb 25, 2003)

I used to think they were overhyped and overpriced. Indeed, in the early forum days, Neil and I had some heated discussions on the subject.

However, after owning a couple, they indeed seem to be very well made and substantial. I remain convinced that they are very overpriced, but as mentioned they can be purchased, worn for 3/4 years and sold for the same price you paid. This perhaps justifies to a degree why many people will buy them.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2004)

Garry said:


> I used to think they were overhyped and overpriced. Indeed, in the early forum days, Neil and I had some heated discussions on the subject.


Ah, the old happy days Garry.









When nary a week would pass without some hideous confrontation between members









I kind of miss the excitement sometimes


----------



## Garry (Feb 25, 2003)

........It was a good laugh sometimes......


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Better now though.


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Foggy quoted James Dowling:



> many people think of diamond encrusted Day-Dates when they hear the name Rolex.


Only just got around to reading all of this thread! The above quote exactly describes the problem I had with Rolex (note that I'm implying it was _my_ problem







). I certainly had a healthy dislike for them in the 80's. But having seen several of the Rolxes shown here on the forum and in the photo gallery (especially the Sea Dweller







) and having done a little research, I've completely changed my view. I'd love to own a Rolex now although the price is still a bit of a stumbling block. Ah well, one day!


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

Day Dates are not bad watches, but are synonimous with Rolex. Mugger magnets for sure. Maybe why you can pick a second hand one up for 3-4k.


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2004)

rhaythorne said:


> Foggy quoted James Dowling:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Top man Rich.

If you want one you'll get one.









Sea Dweller says hello.


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

> Sea Dweller says hello.


You tease neil!
















Been toying with the idea this weekend of trading a car for one







But I think I'll probably just save up instead! Could be a Christmas present to myself or next birthday perhaps. We'll see


----------



## Sargon (Feb 24, 2003)

I'll be the minority here and come down on the other side of the argument. I don't have an emotional response or investment I simply don't care for them. They make close to a million watches a year, far more than most comparable brands. They are one of the few brands that are nearly pure status symbol. I'm not saying they are bad watches, because they aren't. I simply don't care for them. They are most often compaired with Omega, only for the most part they cost double what an Omega does. Are they twice as good? I don't buy it. Yes they have a rich history, and yes they are still independent. They are probably the most conservitave brand out there though. Some could fault other brands for being too faddish, but a new model every now and then isn't so bad. Most of the Oyster models have been in production for nearly 50 years. The small changes that they have made over the years I don't really care for. White gold surrounds on Sub markers are for the birds. For a brand with that kind of clout I'd like to see a little more innovation.


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Sargon said:



> They are probably the most conservitave brand out there... Most of the Oyster models have been in production for nearly 50 years. For a brand with that kind of clout I'd like to see a little more innovation.


Funnily enough that's one of the reasons why I recently decided that they weren't so bad after all







Isn't it weird how people can adopt completely different views based on exactly the same reasoning


----------



## Nalu (Nov 28, 2003)

Great comments, everyone, much appreciated. I'll have a SD someday, when I can find the cash to add a watershed diver to my collection.

Let's not ignore the key part of David's initial post: where are all the Rolex photos? C'mon you Rolly owners, let's see 'em!


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2004)

I posted my Datejust earlier in the thread and My Sea Dweller is in the RLT photo library.

Foggy owns the 6536 and Simon the 5512, both very tasty BTW.

What I want to know is who owns the smart Air King in the photo library????????


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

neil said:


> I posted my Datejust earlier in the thread and My Sea Dweller is in the RLT photo library.
> 
> Foggy owns the 6536 and Simon the 5512, both very tasty BTW.
> 
> What I want to know is who owns the smart Air King in the photo library????????


 Very nice Air King indeed. One Rolex I do wish I still had.


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

IMO the simple Rolex have the most appeal.The Air King,Explorer are the nicest


----------



## 036 (Feb 27, 2003)

Swapped that 5512 for one of these, much better job:










Seriously though, my idea of a nice Rolex is this:










Just a quick example from the web, an older one would be nicer but you get the idea.

Some Air Kings are gorgeous watches, good value for money secondhand at times.

Simon

Simon


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

A nice looking Air King. Oh why









Sorry - one I had similar was an AK - still nice though.


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Si said:



> Seriously though, my idea of a nice Rolex is this:


That's the other Rolex I'm considering. Although I love the Sea Dweller, I've never been diving; I can't even remember the last time I went swimming; in fact I hate the water







so personally I'd feel a bit of a fraud sporting a Sea Dweller. A shame as it's such a terrific watch









I am a man for the mountains though so an Explorer would be quite appropriate









Decisions, decisions


----------



## DavidH (Feb 24, 2003)

Maybe we could rename this thread as it seems there is quite a Rolex fan club.

WE LOVE ROLEX









Do we need a Rolex Forum?


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

the trouble is there are ones like these


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

That's a blouse Rolex, not a proper one. They have to make blouse watches for rich blouses that don't know any better.
















Rolex can take money off rich blouses as long as they make real watches too. IMNO.


----------



## ESL (Jan 27, 2004)

Please please please please please...

Tell me that is a horrible nasty cheap (not even a copy of anything that actually exists) clone !!!!!


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

Yes George it is a fake a like, someone obviously thought more bling would make it more Rolexy. That's the problem ASAI'm concerned, every faker, copier and cloner have a go so eventually the rubbish and the real merge into a conglomerate of everyone's idea of a Rolex. Give me a plain old daytona anyday thankyou.

Here's the listing if you really want it!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...4918280915&rd=1

seen this on ebay which I like a lot


----------



## ESL (Jan 27, 2004)

rhaythorne said:


> Si said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...












I'm with Si on this one (and for the same reason).


----------



## normdiaz (May 5, 2004)

Can't complain. Purchased a simple OP new in 1969 from AD in Venezuela for Bolivares 700 (then about USD150); sold it in 1982 to US used watch buyer for what I paid for it. It kept time well enough for my purposes, but I was unimpressed with the level of US AD service.


----------

