# Rolex Accuracy And Cost Vs Quality



## Ted (Oct 29, 2009)

Hi.I do not own a Rolex.Why?..well... today I walked up to a gentleman in his mid-30th who was wearing what appeared to be a Rolex because of the classic Rolex dial and the gold and silver band. I asked him if it was a Rolex and he stated it was and it was the real thing. I said to him that they are expensive, aren't they? He replied, well, this one cost me $7500.00 US dollars. There is no way I could ever afford that, personally. So my first question to the Rolex experts is....for both vintage and new Rolex watches...is the quality of the movement and the cost of the casing really worth thousands of dollars, or is it more hype of the Rolex name? Second question..a watchmaker once said to me, "Don't buy a Rolex for it's timekeeping ability, they are generally poor timekeepers."Is this true for current models and for well kept vintage ones? Myth or generally true? Thank you and looking forward to your replies.I have no idea.


----------



## clockworks (Apr 11, 2010)

My Rolex 14060 (non-date Submariner) is the most accurate mechanical watch out of the 100+ that I own. It gains one second a day, an excellent result for a mechanical watch.

Compared to most reasonable quality quartz watches, this is pretty poor - maybe that's what your watchmaker meant.

Any item is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. A Rolex isn't cheap, but it's also far from the most expensive watch brand. It's a tried and tested brand, that holds it's value better than most on the secondhand market. Some models are "worth" more secondhand than they cost new, even allowing for inflation. I paid Â£1400 for mine secondhand 4 years ago. The same watch would cost about Â£2200 today.


----------



## kc104 (May 1, 2009)

It's the name my friend.

You walk down the street with a Patek Phillip, IWC, JLC, zenith on your wrist and most people would have never heard of them. You walk beside someone wearing a rolex, and that guy gets stopped, and complimented by someone, who says, hey, it that a rolex, wow, you must be rich, or what ever. Meanwhile you, who lets say is wearing a zenith 36 High beat, are standing next to this guy (with the rolex) with a watch that has a better movement, but it has not been noticed by this passer by.

Whether you like rolex or not, I don't think any of the watch experts on here would disagree with me when I say, Rolex have done a fantastic job of marketing the brand to the point where when you ask someone what is the best watch, or the best status symbol (in relaiton to a watch) they will always say ROLEX.

And that is why they cost so much. That kind of marketing requires VAST amount of investment from rolex. A submariner that retails at 3750 pounds. What COULD rolex sell that for ? 2000 pounds (which they were at some point). At that price they are still making a large profit, and it would be affordable to many more people, but then Rolex would not want to be in the same price range as say 'Omega'.

I too, long for a rolex, but find it ridiculous, their prices.


----------



## Andy Tims (Apr 13, 2008)

My SD gains about a second a day & the quality is superb.

Didn't pay as much as a new one for it though :smartass:


----------



## Andy the Squirrel (Aug 16, 2009)

I don't own a Rolex but my brand new Longines (based on ETA 2892) gains about a second a day also!

An indepth look at the ETA 2892

Inside the Rolex Caliber 2235


----------



## DMP (Jun 6, 2008)

I've owned 3 Rolex's over the years and currently have a 1982 15000 "Date" (cal. 3035) which keeps time to better than one second per day on the wrist (gains +3 per day in the watch box for some reason). Are Rolex "worth" what you pay for them? Dunno, probably not, but if you want one, you have to pay the market price (as with any other watch brand) and for some reason a Rolex commands a high (some might say irrational) price. You don't have to pay a Rolex price to get the Rolex "look", but if you want the real deal you do. That's just the way it is. Nobody ever said it made sense!


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

There's a lot more to it than just the cost of the metal on your wrist. The idea that they make it for a few hundred quid and sell on for a few thousand is just plain plane daft. You have to take in all their costs which are numerous from staff to machinery and equipment plus every thing in between. That's not to say they don't make a decent profit but I'll bet every thing I've got in my pocket it is nowhere near what the naysayers would have you think.

BTW Rolex's are superb bit's of kit, made to last and if a few seconds here or there bothers you buy a quarts Timex or a fakey look-a-likey.

:lol: :lol:

This is an example of what you pay for, the clasp alone is a superb bit of engineering.


----------



## gallch (Jan 7, 2007)

I have a 1968 vintage Rolex Precision which I bought second-hand; didn't feel I could really justify the cost of anything more expensive.

Worth, as the economists will tell us, is a function of demand - people who think Rolexes are worth the price will pay it. As kc says above, Rolex have done a darn good job over many years of building a mass-market luxury brand. I've mentioned before, BMW have the same niche going in the UK especially, Mercedes-Benz in other countries. Most manufacturers do some things exceptionally well, other things less well, watches are the same, but a chunk of what you are paying for, especially with a purchase like a watch, which is wholly discretionary, is the brand.

Rolex have done a world-class job of building their brand and persuading people a Rolex is desirable.

This question often gets mixed up with how much profit Rolex makes, in other words when people are trying to decide whether a Rolex watch is "worth it" they try to work out how much money Rolex, or the AD, makes on each sale. Rolex keep this info very close, which tends to make people think their profit margin is huge. I don't know, but from the little I do know of the luxury goods market I would suspect it is a bit slimmer than people imagine a) because the goods are quite slow-moving, and B) because of their ginormous marketing costs - imagine what Wimbledon this year must have cost them. They'll need to shift an awful lot of Subs to make up the cost of all those full-page colour ads in the national press etc etc.


----------



## Openended (Nov 4, 2009)

Judging from their marketing expenditure, they are making A LOT of profit! No company is going to spend all (or most of) their budget on marketing and as a result have a very slim profit margin. It makes no business sense at all. In fact the companies who have the highest marketing expenditures usually have the highest turnovers as well (in my experience anyway). The fact that Rolex have been able to keep their records secret is testament to their success.

They have to be making over 2 grand on each Submariner. I can't believe it costs more than 700 quid to make one watch when you compare similar quality watches from smaller companies for 10%, 20%, 30% of the cost of a Submariner (retail price, *not *manufacturing cost). The prices are just too high.

I do like Rolexes and if I had the excess money (like many rich people in the world) I'd probably buy one, why not if I have loads of cash spare? Hell I'd buy one for my son, daughter, brother, mum, dad (etc...). Dispite the financial crisis there are still a tonne of gulible rich people around.


----------



## clockworks (Apr 11, 2010)

Any discussion about Rolex seems to end up like this.

Fact is, there's a huge margin for the retailer on luxury goods - 40-60% of the retail price. It's the retailer that makes the biggest "profit".

There are two companies that have kept the Swiss watch industry alive - Rolex, who kept going despite the quartz invasion, and Swatch, who bought up loads of failing companies and turned them around. What these two companies have done over the last couple of decades has allowed all the other Swiss manufacturers to flourish. It's possible that, without Rolex as a successful company, Swatch would never have come into existence. The entire Swiss industry would've died.


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

I bought this for Â£1500 and it gains 0.5 s per day.

I got if from Lepps in Bury Lancs with warranty and all boxes and papers.

The quality is a 10 and I prefer it to the subs, but there again I have several divers and wanted more of a dress watch.

This one is a 2007 model


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

Griff said:


>


Class Act B)

If I ever end up going down to one watch an Air King would do nicely


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

> They have to be making over 2 grand on each Submariner. I can't believe it costs more than 700 quid to make one watch


Sorry but you are living in a dream world if you think the cost to them for a Sub is seven hundred quid












> there are still a tonne of gulible rich people around.


I'm neither rich nor gulible but I know a quality item when I see one

:lol: :lol:


----------



## langtoftlad (Mar 31, 2007)

I'd quite like to own a Rolex - just so I can tick that box.

But in actual fact, I know that they are on the small side for my personal taste, my wrist size & current 'fashion'.

I also realise that I could probably buy one (even new if it was my heart's desire), I don't see myself spending that sort of money on a single watch.

Are Rolex worth the money? Depends.

As another watch - no.

As an aspirational item, if you buy into the brand - yes.


----------



## mel (Dec 6, 2006)

As everyone is saying, the *perceived value* is probably higher than the *actual* value. Marketing accounts for some of that, but Commmander Bond brings up a *very* fair point about the general engineering involved. :yes:

The "kudos" of owning a "Swiss" watch goes back a good few years, and Rolex is most likely the iconic Swiss name, known generally and perceived by the general public to be probably the best watch in the world. Yet there are other watches equally as good and well made that are relatively unknown outside of watch forums like this one! 

You pays your money - takes your choice :to_become_senile:

When Commander Bond goes to the great MI6 building in the sky, I hope he's gonna' leave instructions with Big M to send his LV to me - it'll be the only way I'll ever own one :rofl2:


----------



## langtoftlad (Mar 31, 2007)

BondandBigM said:


> Sorry but you are living in a dream world if you think the cost to them for a Sub is seven hundred quid


Depends on what you add into that "cost"

Just the raw materials, components & assembly -

or

also the R&D, the humongous advertising & promotional budget and the dealer network?

There is no denying that "branding" adds huge value to many peoples eyes.

There is no denying that Rolex make a quality watch, and is an iconic item.

There is no denying that other brands produce watches of equal quality for far less.


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

mel said:


> As everyone is saying, the *perceived value* is probably higher than the *actual* value. Marketing accounts for some of that, but Commmander Bond brings up a *very* fair point about the general engineering involved. :yes:
> 
> The "kudos" of owning a "Swiss" watch goes back a good few years, and Rolex is most likely the iconic Swiss name, known generally and perceived by the general public to be probably the best watch in the world. Yet there are other watches equally as good and well made that are relatively unknown outside of watch forums like this one!
> 
> ...


You've more chance knitting fog :goof:


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

mel said:


> When Commander Bond goes to the great MI6 building in the sky, I hope he's gonna' leave instructions with Big M to send his LV to me - it'll be the only way I'll ever own one :rofl2:


:lol: :lol:


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

langtoftlad said:


> BondandBigM said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry but you are living in a dream world if you think the cost to them for a Sub is seven hundred quid
> ...


As I said, there are also manufacturing cost as well, as an example do you know how much one of those robots costs that polishes the cases ??? I bought a 6 axis one a few years ago, nearly Â£200K plus the cost of the men to work it over a year plus the guys that write the program plus the training costs and so on and so on and also the Rolex factory is on a prime piece of Swiss realestate. I purchased for years in an engineering manufacturing environment and you would be surprised once you factor in *all* the costs how expensive it can be.

If Rolex are making Subs for Â£700 I'll make a bid to buy the factory


----------



## gallch (Jan 7, 2007)

clockworks said:


> Any discussion about Rolex seems to end up like this.
> 
> *Fact is, there's a huge margin for the retailer on luxury goods - 40-60% of the retail price. It's the retailer that makes the biggest "profit".*
> 
> There are two companies that have kept the Swiss watch industry alive - Rolex, who kept going despite the quartz invasion, and Swatch, who bought up loads of failing companies and turned them around. What these two companies have done over the last couple of decades has allowed all the other Swiss manufacturers to flourish. It's possible that, without Rolex as a successful company, Swatch would never have come into existence. The entire Swiss industry would've died.


I don't disagree with what you said about the Swiss watch industry, but the bit about retail margins on luxury goods isn't right.

I think you are confusing the delta between the retail ticket price and the price the retailer pays to the manufacturer with the retailer's overall profit. The retailer has a whole bunch of overheads ticking along as fixed cost all the time whether or not they shift any product. Several luxury retailers have gone bust so far during the recession. Theo Fennell (who are both a retailer and a manufacturer) are still going but they have made a trading loss for three years now, so their total net "mark-up" is negative ! Incidentally, TF used to run the watch counters at Harrods, where you would think the profit margin would be maxed out, and they pulled out last year because they couldn't agree a contract which worked for both them and Harrods.

I'm not saying we should all feel sorry for the poor old luxury goods retailer but I do think we ought to nail this idea that its somehow a route to easy money !


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

Ok what you need it a real world test 

I have worn my LV pretty much 24/7 since i bought it three years ago including work. I recently took a job a few months ago making and measuring widgets, on the extra shifts when I make them it's a tough environment, opening ovens every five minutes that are at 290*C and knocking them out off the oven plates with a hammer.

Rolex - ticking like the day that it was bought from the day I started










But Big M to her credit said why would you ruin a good watch and she bought me what on the face of things was a very nice "homage" it lasted less than a fortnight, that's the difference


----------



## clockworks (Apr 11, 2010)

gallch said:


> clockworks said:
> 
> 
> > Any discussion about Rolex seems to end up like this.
> ...


I realise that dealers don't pocket all the margin - that's why I said "40-60% margin", rather than 40-60% of the retail price is profit. At the end of the statement, I put the word "profit" in quotes. Sure, dealers have high overheads, same as any other retailer. The fact is, though, that around half the retail price on a luxury watch is never seen by the manufacturer.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

Ted said:


> Hi.I do not own a Rolex.Why?..well... today I walked up to a gentleman in his mid-30th who was wearing what appeared to be a Rolex because of the classic Rolex dial and the gold and silver band. I asked him if it was a Rolex and he stated it was and it was the real thing. I said to him that they are expensive, aren't they? He replied, well, this one cost me $7500.00 US dollars. There is no way I could ever afford that, personally. So my first question to the Rolex experts is....for both vintage and new Rolex watches...is the quality of the movement and the cost of the casing really worth thousands of dollars, or is it more hype of the Rolex name? Second question..a watchmaker once said to me, "Don't buy a Rolex for it's timekeeping ability, they are generally poor timekeepers."Is this true for current models and for well kept vintage ones? Myth or generally true? Thank you and looking forward to your replies.I have no idea.


Rolex are accurate (mine are all within two or three seconds a day)

Yes they are worth it.

No its not hype.

Buy one you wont regret it.


----------



## gallch (Jan 7, 2007)

clockworks said:


> gallch said:
> 
> 
> > clockworks said:
> ...


I get it. I wasn't suggesting that everyone beat up on Rolex either. It makes me smile that people think companies like Rolex are somehow the evil empire. Nobody is forced to buy a Rollie...


----------



## Openended (Nov 4, 2009)

Ok, think about it another way - how much are spare parts? Incredibly expensive. How much do you think it costs to make a bezel insert, and how much do they charge? Or a crystal, a clasp, a spare link? A crown alone would bankrupt some people!

This should put things into perspective. It's all over-priced. I'm not saying they aren't well made, but they are overpriced because of the marketing and the image they have to upkeep.

R&D, what r&d? Rolexes still use automatic movements which have stayed the same for what, 80 years??? Compare that to real inovators who create new, more accurate, reliable and exciting technologies.


----------



## dapper (Jun 18, 2004)

It's all myth & hype and, if you spend a lot of time on watch forums, WIS peer pressure from Rolex owners too 

There's an old chestnut that says something is 'worth what someone is prepared to pay'. This , of course, is no help to anyone as it means that everything anyone buys is worth what was paid. The reality is that you can get the same quality & timekeeping as Rolex for far less money - you're simply paying for the brand name and the privilege of paying a fortune for servicing & repairs.

You won't get a Rolex owner to agree - someone who's just forked out Â£5k isn't going to admit that they could have got the same quality for a fraction of the price :wink2:

Nice watches though


----------



## kc104 (May 1, 2009)

If you get one, you'll have to deal with everyone's first question - 'Is it real or fake'.

Last year, (I heard) Rolex increased their prices by 12%, and this is where the problem lies. These are massive increases. A 5000 pound watch now costs 5500 pounds. That kind of increase should be 3 - 5 years, not 1. If they continue that way, a 16000 sub ss is going to cost 5000 pounds. It's just not worth that kind of money.


----------



## gregory (Feb 13, 2009)

Well... my Sub is pretty much a tool watch.. and is sturdy and all!

If it's not on my wrist for a few days, you can actually FEEEEL the tightness (water wise) as you screw the crown back in.

I shoved mine on last night after wearing my Seiko UFO for a few days.

Wound her up using the crown, set it to the second, and went on my way.

It's now about 5 seconds gained. Over one day.

It's a 2004 No Date 14060M, unserviced as yet. To be one second every 5 hours out.. not bad really.

That'll do for me.


----------



## DMP (Jun 6, 2008)

kc104 said:


> If you get one, you'll have to deal with everyone's first question - 'Is it real or fake'.


I've owned Rolex, on & off, for 20 years. No-one has ever asked if the watches were real or not, if fact I don't recall anyone ever noticing it/them! I don't go out of my way to put my watch under peoples noses, but I don't hide them either.


----------



## gregory (Feb 13, 2009)

DMP said:


> kc104 said:
> 
> 
> > If you get one, you'll have to deal with everyone's first question - 'Is it real or fake'.
> ...


I always get asked. I can only assume people want it to be, for whatever reason.

I just say 'it's whatever you want it to be.'

I've been called a mug for spending on all my watches. Some people think Â£100 is excessive for a watch. The same people who question watch buying will buy a Â£14k car and lose 4k driving it off the forecourt in a second. Cars are of no interest to me, but watches are.

It's all horses for courses.


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

I donâ€™t have a stance on the Rolex â€œissueâ€ other than the fact that I donâ€™t like any of the current models.

Iâ€™d rather have an Oyster from the early 1960â€™s rather than anything on offer today, and Iâ€™d stump up the money for a good one in a heartbeat!

I like the Tudors a lot more, but in my opinion, Omega has the nicest designs at the moment. Even though there is a hint of â€œparts binâ€ engineering with them, just as with the Rolex range.

Iâ€™m wearing a Citizen â€œ7â€ at the moment, black dial with gold dial furniture. You know the one. 

Itâ€™s a shame Citizen doesnâ€™t make the Seven line any more.


----------



## PhilM (Nov 5, 2004)

Buy one, wear it for a month and post your findings, if you don't like it then just sell it for the same price as I doubt you'll loose money on it


----------



## scottswatches (Sep 22, 2009)

While there are many occasions that I would rather wear a Timex over a Rolex, I still pine for the one I owned and had to sell.


----------



## BlueKnight (Oct 29, 2009)

SIGH... How many more *Rolex vs The World* bashings are we going to suffer again this year...? One a week? Two a month? Is there a set quota?


----------



## sam. (Mar 24, 2010)

BlueKnight said:


> SIGH... How many more *Rolex vs The World* bashings are we going to suffer again this year...? One a week? Two a month? Is there a set quota?


 :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think its every time Neptune is further away than Pluto from the Sun,but i'm not sure? :huh:


----------



## Citiz (Nov 18, 2009)

PhilM said:


> Buy one, wear it for a month and post your findings, if you don't like it then just sell it for the same price as I doubt you'll loose money on it


I wish I could just go out and buy a Rolex. I think thats the only way that you could make your mind up if its worth the price or not.

If I had the money I would get a Sub, I know I will get one some day.

It is going to take alot of saving, would like a new one but would settle for 2nd hand :thumbsup:


----------



## PhilM (Nov 5, 2004)

The Sub is a great watch, I've had 3 of them in as many years :yes:


----------



## Citiz (Nov 18, 2009)

PhilM said:


> The Sub is a great watch, I've had 3 of them in as many years :yes:


I will get one Phil, I have two grail watches, the Omega Seamaster Pro and Rolex Sub.

I now have my Seamaster, so I now have to save alot more for my Sub :thumbsup:


----------



## scott laurie (Jul 27, 2009)

I have two Rolex - GMT Pepsi and GMT Ceramic plus Omega Speedy and 45mm Planet Ocean,

The rolex hold their Value simply due to desirability ! Which they wouldnt do without high quality ! time keeping on all 4 is the same - i.e dont notice any going out of time enough to notice.

Most of the Rolex Bashers are from people who dont have one because they cant afford one or justify the spend.

Are they worth the money ! probably not ! you are paying for the brand name !

just my thoughts

Scott..


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

This was my rolex sub, i actually didnt like it the bracelet was awful and the clasp was like something straight from a digital watch from the seventies, also the bezel edge was rough in between the scallops.

i found that it seemed mighty expensive for what i got, no AR coating ,no embossed case back like omega and after wearing large watches like the PO and luminor submersible it just seemed too small at 40mm

i did get noticed with it but when i took it off to show them they said " so thats it thats a rolex" the illusion was over for them ,it weighed nothing and felt fairly cheap and it looked small.

i personall wasnt overly impressed, it was a good watch for 2k but a very expensive one for Â£3500

this was a far better watch IMO for Â£2200










and this one










totally IMHO


----------



## ollyhock (Feb 9, 2009)

this is the size difference im talking about










the rolex is 40mm the doxa is 44mm


----------



## Chromejob (Jul 28, 2006)

BlueKnight said:


> SIGH... How many more *Rolex vs The World* bashings are we going to suffer again this year...? One a week? Two a month? Is there a set quota?


It's been 7 days since your post, so I'm sure we're due for another. How about a *Rolex vs. Bremont *smackdown?



scott laurie said:


> ... Most of the Rolex Bashers are from people who dont have one because they cant afford one or justify the spend....


If "truthy" is a word, then so is "trolly." Not necessarily your intent, but seems it only takes a page or two in these "Which is better, Rolex or BMW" threads before someone takes this swipe at the "have-nots." Why can't you all be good-natured about it like BondandBigM?



ollyhock said:


> ... and after wearing large watches like the PO and luminor submersible it just seemed too small at 40mm
> 
> i did get noticed with it but when i took it off to show them they said " so thats it thats a rolex" the illusion was over for them ,it weighed nothing and felt fairly cheap and it looked small.


Size doesn't matter.  Actually, I don't like super-ginormous watches, they are an egress hazard, chip the Italian marble WC floor when I drop them, and stretch my Armani shirt cuffs. Besides, I doubt a Rollie's value stems from how many grams it weighs or its water displacement in the jacuzzi.

I test drove an Acura RSX (US up-class Civic coupe) a few years back, and went to adjust the seat ... couldn't, my Seiko diver wouldn't clear the seat-door space. So ... slimmer watches do have their place. (I didn't buy the RSX, for that and other reasons.)


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

David Spalding said:


> stretch my Armani shirt cuffs


Buy short sleeved ones for your bigger watches :lol: :lol:










Although I tend to be scruffy and not fasten the buttons on my cuffs anyway so not such a problem for me


----------



## Chromejob (Jul 28, 2006)

LOL Thanks mate, I needed that.


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

I think the phrase `a watch is worth whatever the buyer is willing to pay` applies here 

I`ve owned three older Rolex watches two of which I still have, they weren`t cheap & I certainly wouldn`t pay the asking price for a new one (not that I like the modern ones anyway) but I`m happy with them 

Mind you has to be said that I own other somewhat less expensive watches which I feel are at least of similar quality :wink2:


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

David Spalding said:


> LOL Thanks mate, I needed that.


I bought a matching pair to go with the Rolex's 

:lol: :lol:


----------



## groach1234 (May 30, 2010)

Just thought that I would add my sub gains about 2 seconds a day on the wrist but can have it down to sub one a day playing around with crown up/down and so on. Pretty accurate if you ask me and as for quality i feel it is second to non.










George


----------



## Ted (Oct 29, 2009)

BondandBigM said:


> David Spalding said:
> 
> 
> > LOL Thanks mate, I needed that.
> ...


----------



## Ted (Oct 29, 2009)

Apparently you are right in style wearing a watch on each wrist! Actually my wife showed me a two pictures from her fashion magazines...apparently wearing two or more(this one person had six on one arm)is the fashion rage right now along with very plain dialed ,white dial watches with classic alligator type leather straps in brown and black or all different size and shaped designer watches, chronos, etc. piled on one arm...and ALL the same large size of a classic man's watch...but for the ladies.


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

Ted said:


> Apparently you are right in style wearing a watch on each wrist! Actually my wife showed me a two pictures from her fashion magazines...apparently wearing two or more(this one person had six on one arm)is the fashion rage right now


OH SH*T!!, if it`s become fashionable to wear more then one watch at a time I may have to stop going double wristed 

Hang on, I`ve never given a fetted dingos kidneys about fashion so why should I bother now about what this week`s `thing` is  :lol:


----------



## Chromejob (Jul 28, 2006)

groach1234 said:


> Just thought that I would add my sub gains about 2 seconds a day on the wrist but can have it down to sub one a day playing around with crown up/down and so on.


Holy tarballs, that's remarkable. I haven't seen any difference in "overnight positioning" with my ETA-based watches. But 2 seconds a day ... it would take a month to gain a whole minute. I'd be happy with that.



Ted said:


> Apparently you are right in style wearing a watch on each wrist! Actually my wife showed me a two pictures from her fashion magazines...apparently wearing two or more(this one person had six on one arm)is the fashion rage right now along with very plain dialed ,white dial watches with classic alligator type leather straps in brown and black or all different size and shaped designer watches, chronos, etc. piled on one arm...and ALL the same large size of a classic man's watch...but for the ladies.


Among the Ali G crowd, or....?

I think I'd have to do the Foreign Correspondent or Diplomatic Courier thing of two watches on the same wrist, but only until some dingus says, "Why don't you just get a GMT watch, or a dual time zone watch, or...?" Each of which I have.....


----------



## Marine Bill (Jan 10, 2008)

mach 0.0013137 said:


> Ted said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently you are right in style wearing a watch on each wrist! Actually my wife showed me a two pictures from her fashion magazines...apparently wearing two or more(this one person had six on one arm)is the fashion rage right now
> ...


 Maradona exhibited this behaviour during the world cup - not sure which watches though - looked quite large, then he is quite small lol


----------



## watchguru (Aug 8, 2010)

Hi, like has already been said if you want a watch that will be accurate to less than a second a day an inexpensive quartz will do the trick, however a rolex is a finely crafted piece of kit that is a pleasure to own (and show off) and if bought second hand and kept for a few years there is every chance of selling it and recouping your costs (including inflation) which is more than can be said for a lot of other high end watches.


----------



## bobbymonks (Jan 13, 2009)

langtoftlad said:


> BondandBigM said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry but you are living in a dream world if you think the cost to them for a Sub is seven hundred quid
> ...


BLAH BLAH BLAH

Well the SS would cost around Â£500, as a bar of steel,

then you have to 'carve' out the watch, the bracelet, make all the internal parts from precision parts & rubies.

Then the ceramic insert for the bezel, the white gold for the hands, hour markers

Then assemble all the above parts by hand.

submit it to COSC for chronometre rating.

That's after any R&D costs,

before any POS costs (inc marketing, distribution etc)

Before anyone received a salary for any of the above work involved.

I think they cost a little more than Â£700 to make.

Don't have a go at Rolex, if you don't like them, or their prices don't buy one.

As mentioned the largest profit in the whole chain is the retailer. Not sure of the figures but 40% to 60% has been banded about.

Could even be far higher as with actual jewelry.

Which on average is 400% to 600% mark up on true value (as exposed by Gerald Ratner and managed to bankrupt himself by admitting it too)


----------



## mb london (May 5, 2010)

I have had my date just for 6 years now and I still have the same smile on my face every morning as I did when I first bought it. That's worth every penny in my book.

I am due to pick up a new breitling superocean in couple if days, I'm hoping that will give me the same pleasure as my rolex


----------



## clockworks (Apr 11, 2010)

I've had my 14060 Sub for a few years, and recently got a SuperOcean2. I think you'll like the SO2 - it has more of a quality feel than the older Rolexes, IMHO.

I had to decide between the SO2 and a Sub LV. Went for the SO2 and a couple of home-brewed "LV" homages (Seiko and sterile), plus I kept well over a grand in the bank. 2 grand if I'd bought a new LV.


----------



## mb london (May 5, 2010)

clockworks said:


> I've had my 14060 Sub for a few years, and recently got a SuperOcean2. I think you'll like the SO2 - it has more of a quality feel than the older Rolexes, IMHO.
> 
> I had to decide between the SO2 and a Sub LV. Went for the SO2 and a couple of home-brewed "LV" homages (Seiko and sterile), plus I kept well over a grand in the bank. 2 grand if I'd bought a new LV.


What did you pay for the SO2, if you dont mund me asking


----------



## clockworks (Apr 11, 2010)

I did a trade on another forum. Effectively paid Â£1725 for a 3 week old SO2 on steel bracelet. Not a huge saving on the best on-line price, but a fair chunk off RRP, and it came from a very good seller I'd dealt with before.


----------



## mb london (May 5, 2010)

Have you heard of swiss watches direct they are knocking them out for Â£1810 on the ocean racer strap. Very tempted


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

mb london said:


> Have you heard of *******
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A little reminder :wink2:



> General Forum Guidelines:
> 
> *Links to or URLs for commercial sites selling watches or watch related items will be deleted*.


----------



## mb london (May 5, 2010)

Sorry Moderators, wont happen again


----------



## bobbymonks (Jan 13, 2009)

mach 0.0013137 said:


> mb london said:
> 
> 
> > Have you heard of *******
> ...


GOOD POLICY, want to advertise then use eBay.

Ahh, but there lies the loophole. mb london didn't actually insert a link or post up a URL. Just mentioned the company's name


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

bobbymonks said:


> mach 0.0013137 said:
> 
> 
> > mb london said:
> ...


The original post did include a link which was later removed by a moderator (jasonm) & replaced with the company`s name :wink2:


----------

