# Rolex Sub V Doxa Sub



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

Ive just recently bought both a ROLEX SUBMARINER 16610 and a DOXA T-GRAPH SUB 600 and thought id share my views and critisism's of both models.










If its based on first impressions then both makes dont over impress in the box and packaging dept,the doxa box is legendary as they put it but in actual fact its just a piece of aluminium tube with a bung either end.The rolex box isnt much better its just a small square box with a cushion in the middle just like a hamilton or tissot so for Â£3800 youd probably expect more.

Once out of the box,and too those that have never had a rolex "well" its a bit of an anti-climax, yes its pretty but in todays world of big watches it seems so small not to mention it weighs nothing either!.I know weight isnt everything but the bracelet feels so tinny, it certainly dont feel Â£3800

the doxa does fare up a lot better in this department, once out of the box its a dead weight, granted its quite a bit bigger and its a chrono, but a lot of the weight is in the bracelet and IMO is every bit as good as the rolex.



















The bezels on both models are completely different, the rolex has a really nice click to it but it has to be said its quite rough on the scallops

The doxa bezel stands up a lot further and is a lot smoother and again IMO better finished off, from a divers point of view its probably easier to turn with gloves on aswell.

Both have saphire crystal the rolex is rated to 300m and the doxa 600m, the triplock crown on the rolex is tried and tested and is excellent, the doxa being a chrono has three screwedbuttons developed by jenny carribean and suprisingly are operable under water to 100m



















The case back on the rolex is plain and on a watch of this value id like to see a bit more, personally i think the back of a watch is very important and i like to see manufacturers making an effort.

The doxa is a bit more interesting with the doxa fish emblem with the watch credentials written round the edge.

Legibility is good on both models, luminova is better on the Doxa, its just about green so theres probably more stuff in the compound, the rolex just wouldnt look as nice if it was that green so the asthetics have taken first place over function.

The hands are great on both models, the rolex hands are beautiful, the doxa has the dwarf hour hand but there not as fancy as the rolex.

Overall bearing in mind the doxa cost me Â£1500 and the rolex Â£3800 its a no brainer!

completely IMO you are paying for the name with a rolex, it obscenly expensive bearing in mind theve made it for years so there cant be much reserch going into it nowadays, its small and dare i say " it feels like a fake" if youve never had one before youll wonder what all the fuss is about.

The doxa is a value for money watch, it looks and feels the part it does the job beautifully and its Â£2200 cheaper than the rolex!

Sorry if this comparison looks biased but "hey" rolex bring it on themselves, its a great watch for Â£2k its a mighty expensive one for Â£3800


----------



## glug (Mar 20, 2010)

Quote;

"its small and dare i say " it feels lkie a fake" if youve never had one before youll wonder what all the fuss is about."

That's one of the reasons I went for the Deep Sea. A proper chunk of watch.

Like the orange dial on the Doxa.


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

Given some of you comments in various threads why did you buy the ROLEX ?????

I'm a bit confused by that one :lol: :lol:


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

BondandBigM said:


> Given some of you comments in various threads why did you buy the ROLEX ?????
> 
> I'm a bit confused by that one :lol: :lol:


i ve had a few over the years and not having a sub for about 10 years i thought id give it another go, more money than sense i think!


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

ollyhock said:


> BondandBigM said:
> 
> 
> > Given some of you comments in various threads why did you buy the ROLEX ?????
> ...


Although expensive today probably, relative to time, no more than previously. As in say a Cortina was a couple of grand back whenever and today you'll get no change out of Â£15k+ for a reasonably specced Mondeo.

And although the Rolex still looks more or less the same the method and accuracy of manufacture has increased ten fold so you are getting a better product.


----------



## Haggis (Apr 20, 2009)

I bought a Submariner for not a lot of money, just like this one while on holiday in Corfu last year, it was a real holiday


----------



## glug (Mar 20, 2010)

Haggis said:


> I bought a Submariner for not a lot of money, just like this one while on holiday in Corfu last year, it was a real holiday


I bought a Datejust in similar circumstances. The gold has worn through though to the steel now.


----------



## Haggis (Apr 20, 2009)

glug said:


> Haggis said:
> 
> 
> > I bought a Submariner for not a lot of money, just like this one while on holiday in Corfu last year, it was a real holiday
> ...


Ah but what a holiday,  :cheers:


----------



## gregory (Feb 13, 2009)

You've shown the back of the Rolex but the fact of the matter is... it doesn't actually come off!!!!!

Maybe that's why it's so simple.. engraving or writing may affect it's strength!!

A Rolex will go a long way down before creaking.. due to it not having a back. They say the metal will bend and hit the movement before anything else goes.

If anything needs to be done on a Rolex, servicing etc., the point of entry is the face of it. Not the back.

Don't forget, the Rolex design etc. is pretty much unchanged. It's, within reason, 'as it was' many years ago.

Many watches change.. follow fashions etc.. and follow markets. The Submariner is a continuation of the original.

Many watches out there are built on size. Size isn't everything.

As for depreciation value... the previous owner of mine, a lovely gentleman on here, bought his for just short of 2k in 2004. He sold me it for Â£2400 in 2009 (new price Â£3400).

That's good going for a pre-worn watch.


----------



## Haggis (Apr 20, 2009)

gregory said:


> You've shown the back of the Rolex but the fact of the matter is... it doesn't actually come off!!!!!
> 
> Maybe that's why it's so simple.. engraving or writing may affect it's strength!!
> 
> ...


The back does not come off some fakes, as for the point of entry, not wishing to be crude but it is the back. Hence a special tool is required.


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

Haggis said:


> gregory said:
> 
> 
> > You've shown the back of the Rolex but the fact of the matter is... it doesn't actually come off!!!!!
> ...


i agree what a load of balls that whole paragraph is!


----------



## gregory (Feb 13, 2009)

Okay.

My apologies if I am indeed wrong.

I have been misinformed. Thank you for your 'balls' comment fellow forum member.

Not the kind of statement I expect to see on here, people make mistakes and are usually corrected with manners and eloquence.

Or perhaps not...

Greg.


----------



## seadog1408 (Feb 12, 2007)

good post if the whole reason was to compare pieces of jewellery you wear, if however you want to do a comparison on tool dive watches, you fell very short of the mark.

just my 2p of course

cheers

mike


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

I have to agree with Mike, if you judge your watches value by their weight,( ever handled a IWC Ti 3536? ) what box they come in and the caseback engraving then Im sure we can find some stuff that makes the Doxa look expensive :thumbsup:


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

Thinking about it, a Seiko 'Monster' would tick most of your boxes for Â£100  Very heavy, super smooth bracelet, nice caseback engraving.... I dont know how the packaging is though.....


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

jasonm said:


> Thinking about it, a Seiko 'Monster' would tick most of your boxes for Â£100  Very heavy, super smooth bracelet, nice caseback engraving.... I dont know how the packaging is though.....


Ha Ha sorry to diss your beloved rolexes's, that company needs people like you to keep the myth going, im just saying that ive had

IWC JLC AP TAG ARNOLD&SON GRAHAM WYLER OMEGA DOXA and more within the last year and the rolex has been the most disappointing completely IMO.im allowed to say it i paid the money i evaluated the goods and it didnt do it for me. im not against rolex i just thought it was too expensive.

the thing with rolex nuts is they always have a n excuse, "the bracelet is functional " no its poo. "you dont wear the box" no you dont but for near 4k you want spoiling every body else does at that price.

set the rolex with atomic clock also set my 024 panerai and arnold&son longitude ll guesss which one is already out?

4 month old sub any one Â£2850 as new


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

gregory said:


> Okay.
> 
> My apologies if I am indeed wrong.
> 
> ...


sorry about that but it was all untrue, and you said it with such conviction and lots of exclamation marks, i just couldnt resist

sorry if i offended you it wasnt my intention, my sincere appologies


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

> i evaluated the goods


That wasnt a evaluation, it was a comparison 

You want spoiling for 4k? Dont buy a watch 

But your right, the Doxa has a heavier bracelet, box etc. I would still have the Rolex please, why? I value the brand, at at any price point above probably 500 quid you are buying the brand not the watch .. Taking your criteria, you are also paying too much purely for the Doxa name, the Seiko I mentioned does exactly what the Doxa does (you can even have it in orange :wink2: ) for considerably less


----------



## seadog1408 (Feb 12, 2007)

^^^^^

basically my point as well jason, it wasn't an evaluation, it was looking at the visual differences, and accessories, nothing more, if you want to see why the rolex is more expensive wear it subsea for a few years whilst jack hammering, welding/burning, concreting and installing pipelines then see which one you would want as a WORK watch :thumbup:

thats why after trying a lot of different watches i wear a SD to work

cheers

mike


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

seadog1408 said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> basically my point as well jason, it wasn't an evaluation, it was looking at the visual differences, and accessories, nothing more, if you want to see why the rolex is more expensive wear it subsea for a few years whilst jack hammering, welding/burning, concreting and installing pipelines then see which one you would want as a WORK watch :thumbup:
> 
> ...


take note of jason m above he just said you can do all that with a seiko and i beleive him,


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

I didnt say that at all, I was making a cosmetic comparison like you did....


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

The brand 'value' I mentioned is exactly what Mike says, its the knowledge that the Rolex will deliver what it promise.


----------



## gregory (Feb 13, 2009)

I am still fascinated by the fact that you've owned several Rolex's, find them absolutely overrated and poor value... yet have bought another for the sole purpose of slating it.

Long live watch forums. :notworthy:


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

jasonm said:


> The brand 'value' I mentioned is exactly what Mike says, its the knowledge that the Rolex will deliver what it promise.


despite what you say im not convinced and im allowed to have my opinion ,as i said in the thread IMO, i paid for the watch im allowed to determine whether i got value for money or not

i dont think i did, thats my opinion, if your pro rolex great im glad its doing it for you.


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

gregory said:


> I am still fascinated by the fact that you've owned several Rolex's, find them absolutely overrated and poor value... yet have bought another for the sole purpose of slating it.
> 
> Long live watch forums. :notworthy:


dont get me wrong its a nice looking watch i merely stated that i dont think it was worth the moey and its certainly not as well made as the likes of this





































yes before you say it its eta and its a chronometer , and its knocking spots of the rolex for time keeping


----------



## gregory (Feb 13, 2009)

Well... that's another can of worms.

Watchmakers putting in ETA movements v Watchmakers using their own movements?

Gonna tread carefully here as I got slated for a statement earlier, but Rolex are still using their own in-house movements are they?

Whereas building a watch case, and shoving in another persons movement (ETA) surely means that that particular brand aren't even a watchmaker any more??

So who provides the best deal there then??

Greg.


----------



## Farky (Mar 15, 2010)

I think you pay for quality craftsmanship that lasts the test of time in a Rolex, I dont know about the others.....

Just my 2p


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

ollyhock said:


> dont get me wrong its a nice looking watch i merely stated that i dont think it was worth the moey and its certainly not as well made as the likes of this


That good they went bust ?????



> now Villemont Geneve filed for bankruptcy after the boutique brand declared it was insolvent. After closing its doors, the brand made no mention of being purchased or saved


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

BondandBigM said:


> ollyhock said:
> 
> 
> > dont get me wrong its a nice looking watch i merely stated that i dont think it was worth the moey and its certainly not as well made as the likes of this
> ...


many great watch brands went under during the quartz crisis, it didnt make them bad watches, villemont only made 311 watches a year and each one was exceptoinally made. rolex make 750,000 watches a year so sont feel special there just mass produced like any body else,or maybe not , panerai only make 40,000.rolex site makes me laugh it can(can which obviously means it doesnt) take upto a year to make a rolex come to life, so how do they get 750,000 watches out of the door each year. theyd love you to beleive some old watchmaker is painstakingly working hours on your watch with loving care, but in actual fact its just as mass produced as ETA.People slag a watch brand off for fitting ETA but its a great product , if you think your rolex movement is special take out the ballance wheel and look at the underside, it looks like its been finished off with grandads rusty old file, its disgusting but then you dont see it do you.check out the shiny z clasp on the bracelet its held together with a friction fit pin that after a few years starts sliding out.sorry you can defend them all you like there not in the same field as the likes of JLC.

all this about it does it for years and its a tool watch, so what ive got seikos from the sixties and all dials that have aged better than rolex, and as for resale value well there also worth more than the original purchase price.

like i said its a nice watch for 2k its not worth 3.5k

i just fail to see were its better than a planet ocean which is 2k


----------



## gregory (Feb 13, 2009)

ollyhock said:


> BondandBigM said:
> 
> 
> > ollyhock said:
> ...


I wasn't slagging ETA movements off.

I was just saying that, with Rolex, however mass produced, however rough the finish is, however conveyor belted the process is, no matter what you think about the movement.... it's still their own movement right??

You're conveniently skirting around the point. Nobody here even said that Rolex like to create the myth that some old watchmaker is there painstakingly doing the business. They're a corporate company. To say that people are under that illusion is an insult.

But however cr*p you think that their movement is... it's still theirs right???

As for ETA... agreed... they make great movements. As do all the other 'non in-house' movement manufacturers.

But... just for the record... hypothetically... I could design a case, make it look nice, and put in another movement!?

Would this make me a great watchmaker???? Erm... I don't think so!!!!

Like or hate Rolex, they've been making their own watches for a long time. Perhaps people have an affinity with them as they're part of watchmaking history.

And you seem to have an 'instant knowledge' of people round here, commenting as though they are big (and only) Rolex lovers.

I love many watch products.

Seiko, Omega, Sinn, Tag, and even Doxa. Aside from Doxa, I have owned watches by all of these watchmakers. I long for a Sharkhunter even now, I just don't have a spare Â£900 kicking around for a nice pre-worn.

It doesn't bother me. Plus, many of the brands above also make disgustingly fugly watches too!! A watch should be taken on it's own merit, not just by who makes it.

ETA, Myoto, Valjoux, ISA, ... erm... Rolex, it don't bother me who's made the innards. I'd just not get too excited about somebody designing a case and shoving the workings in which they didn't even make. You can even take the argument down to the classic Speedmaster Professional. Nice Lemania 1861 in mine, and the watch is sold as it always was. Zero the chronograph on it, it flies back up rigid, as they always have. No glide or geometric flowing 'zeroing' there. But I wouldn't have it any other way. But I am under no illusion that it's not their own. However great the movement in it is. However... it's also about the design isn't it?  The Speedmaster is a classic for me. However, I wouldn't put it up against a Rolex for the simple fact that Rolex built the lot. Even if it gains or loses more time.

So... for me... it's just nice when the watch is made by the same company. Rusty old file finish that is is.


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

gregory said:


> ollyhock said:
> 
> 
> > BondandBigM said:
> ...


rolex used to put other movements in theit watches just the same, el primero for one.

honestly this has blown out of proportion, i just said and maintain that IMO its an overrated expensive watch purely IMO

rolex lovers get so irrate and on their soap box


----------



## gregory (Feb 13, 2009)

ollyhock said:


> gregory said:
> 
> 
> > ollyhock said:
> ...


Nobody getting irate here olly, I had it down as sensible debate which is now also taking in the comparison between in house and sourced movements?

What I see is people not 100% agreeing with you, but with attempts to validate their opinion with the reasons why they like their brand... in the same way you validate the reasons why you don't like the brand mate.

And again, I am not a Rolex lover per se, I just happen to own one. As well as other brands of watch. I was simply defending the reasons, in the same way as you put forward your reasons not to. Which are well thought out, depending on your pro or anti stance.

No soap box here, my last posting wasn't irate, it would have been littered with capital letters if it was.

It was just calm, mature, sensible debate.

Which surely is the beauty of this forum, yes? :thumbsup:


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

gregory said:


> ollyhock said:
> 
> 
> > gregory said:
> ...


i wasnt refering to you my friend, it was a few earlier, ive liked your take and value your comments.

take care


----------



## thinus (Mar 20, 2010)

I would buy a omegs it is not to expencive or cheap


----------



## Guest (Apr 10, 2010)

I am a newbie on the forum and don't want to offend.

I used to be in the watch trade with 8yrs service. Sold many fine watches pound for Â£ I have never had to send a Rolex back under waranty. Thats not to say things dont go wrong with them just not in my experiance.

But I got myself a chronometer Omega seamaster once. It broke down on me 3 times over 3yrs and the service was rubbish. I found the engraved back on the Omega was irritable to wear in the summer when your wrist is a bit moist the back of the watch caused skin iritation and I was forever needing to clean it due to the pattern on the surface.

Any way sorry if I an going on but its Rolex for me all the way.


----------



## glug (Mar 20, 2010)

As you can see I'm a newbie on here.

I am enjoying your thought provoking arguments over 'in house' and other movements.

This article, perhaps offers little to you seasoned experts but for anyone of my limited knowledge gave an insight into the background of the industry.

I hope it is of use to others;

http://www.timezone.com/library/cjrml/cjrml0030


----------

