# Just What Is There To Like About Rolexes



## seikology (Dec 4, 2006)

i just dont get it. what am i missing. anything?


----------



## break-3 (Oct 2, 2008)

I admit, I've considered buying them on a few occasions and have been underwhelmed, but thankfully we don't all like the same things.


----------



## mjolnir (Jan 3, 2006)

break-3 said:


> thankfully we don't all like the same things.


That's pretty much it isn't it.

I also think "what is there to like about Rolex" is quite a sweeping statement. You can't just lump every watch they make in together. Rolex make a lot of watches. I'd quite like an SD or an Explorer but some of the others just don't appeal to me. The same with Breitling. I'd quite like to try an Aerospace someday but some of the others just aren't my thing.


----------



## Stuart Davies (Jan 13, 2008)

I was of the same opinion before I joined this forum (and have been educated ) and by handling a few in steel has helped we 'warm' to them 

A nice plain non-date / no Cyclopes SD would be quite nice or pepsi-dialed


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2008)

Stuart Davies said:


> I was of the same opinion before I joined this forum (and have been educated ) and by handling a few in steel has helped we 'warm' to them
> 
> A nice plain non-date / no Cyclopes SD would be quite nice or pepsi-dialed


On the ocassional window shop ill look at Brietlings and Longines but are always drawn to the classic Explorer,the finish is quality but thats as far as i go too rich for me ,well at present quick 360 degree spin for 710 spy :secret:


----------



## gallch (Jan 7, 2007)

Have to admit I was quite anti at one time, but began to think it might just be envy of those who can afford...so I got the cheapest rollie I could (1968 Precision). I do like it - it does feel a bit strange that it cost so much for what it is, but the build quality is great - it doesn't feel like a 40 year-old piece of kit. On the other hand, it's not a great time-keeper (which is after all part of the point) and I find the bracelet a bit scratchy, so I will probably move it on at some point.

But it has cured me of being sniffy about Rolex. I do think O & W are a better value proposition though - and rarer !

Chris


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

For me I bought my first Submariner based on the idea that they are bullet proof and surprisingly robust and well made, a mate of mine had had one forever and it never missed a beat. I wear my current Sub LV virtually 24/7, I fix my truck, work mostly on the shop floor in a heavy engineering workshop, been here there and everywhere and it goes without complaint *and* even after all that still looks like a quality bit of kit. Once it is a bit battered I'll send it off for a tidy up and if like my mates it will come back looking like new and last another ten years. It's an iconic design recognised around the world. Style over fashion and they will always look good as many others come and go. Previous to my first Sub I probably had 7 or 8 watches that didn't go the distance and if you added up the cost probably about the same money spent as the Sub. They are probably one of the most imitated and copied watches in the world and I think that says it all 

They may well be a bit overpriced these days but mostly you do get what you pay for.



B.


----------



## magnet (Mar 20, 2008)

I love them.

Bought my GMT IIc and couldn't fault it. Then along came my Sub LV and i can't fault that either.

Tryed on the DSSD the other week and when my local AD gets one i that isn't reserved i'll have that too... it's ace!

I'm a creature of habit. Tryed other watches on, it's just that Rolex seem's to do it for me!


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

And just as an asides if someone tells you, and some will, that you can get 9/10th of the watch for a 1/10th of the price

A - they have never had a Rolex

or

B -they have and they are wind up merchants

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

I have no doubt Rolex are excellent watches & the design is a classic but I`m just not willing to pay the asking price.

Is the Grovana Coral Reef II 9/10ths as good at nearly 1/10th the price?

Probably not.

Would it stand up to the same amount of abuse a Rolex can apparently take? again probably not.

However for normal everyday use with regular servicing would it last 9/10ths as long?

I don`t see why not, I`ve got a number of quite ordinary watches from the 1940s & much earlier which are still going so why shouldn`t the Grovana?

As I`ve said many times if you want a Rolex & are willing to pay the asking price go for it


----------



## JonW (Mar 23, 2005)

It always amuses when people dont 'get' Rolex. Sure they are often seen on the wrists of non WIS like used car dealers and middle managers, who all have them and wonder where the battery goes... but actual real WIS also enjoy them, and agree theyre something special. I wore my GMT2 for a year solid, it went where I went and it never missed a beat. I now have 4 Rolex and whilst Im a vintage Omega guy at heart, I still love Rolex, its a deisgn classic and well built. I will always keep at least one.

IMHO if you dont get Rolex then walk away and come back a bit later. Over time you come to apprecite the brand and the watches. Its not about flash or boasting, its about sold dependable watches and classic design. The price is the price, we all overpay in this game. Does a Tag really cost 1k to make and sell? no... Jewelery is always marked up horrendously, so we live with it, at least with Rolex you get the price you paid back after a few years, your Tags etc will never manage that.

And... as a mate of mine once said, you always have your bail money on your wrist - A Rolex will always get you instant cash in a pawn broker anywhere in the world no matter how backwoods the place is. They dont all take Tag, Omega, B'ling or O&Ws, but they will all give you real money for a Rolex and that can get you out of serious trouble.


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

Well said Jon....

Viva la Rolex......


----------



## Olive Drab (Sep 11, 2005)

I wanted one for years but haven't been able to justify the cost. I will be buying one either before christmas or within the next year when I finish up my training pipeline. I figure, why not? It will last forever with regular maintenance, I dont have a lot of nice things but had a lot of monetary assets so it would be nice to add something to the collection and something to pass on later in life, and lastly after seeing my investments take a bit of a hit, I know the Rolex will never be worth zero where as my stocks might.

The real hard part is deciding to buy new or used? Sub or GMT Master? Two tone GMT? Buy in the US or in another country? Speaking of which, does anyone have an answer to the last question on where to buy to get the most bang for the buck since pricing seems pretty standard across the board here in the states.


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

mach 0.0013137 said:


> I have no doubt Rolex are excellent watches & the design is a classic but I`m just not willing to pay the asking price.
> 
> Is the Grovana Coral Reef II 9/10ths as good at nearly 1/10th the price?
> 
> ...


Your slowing up Mach, it took you an hour to reply :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2008)

BondandBigM said:


> mach 0.0013137 said:
> 
> 
> > I have no doubt Rolex are excellent watches & the design is a classic but I`m just not willing to pay the asking price.
> ...


 :lol:


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

I get them.....I just don't think the dials on most Rolex designs are very clear.....lovely watches and a movement second only to the likes of PP etc......I have three at the moment a vintage (1978) Oysterquartz (to be different), a 1972 Oyster Perp' (because I wanted the classic pre fashion genre TT OP) and a GMT2 which I still have on loan, in fact wore it today....and quite frankly it was a bleedin' pain to tell the time with :lol: (compared to my normal workwear Breitling Aerospace).

But I really would like to find a nice no date Sub with jumbo dial, its about the only Rolex I find "glanceable".......

I think all Rolex are excellent watches with a fantastic pedigree and outstanding movements, I just don't like they way I have to "read" the time when I wear them.

Having said all that....the Explorer white face is pretty easy to read and a bloody nice design too!

Mind you....they are jolly expensive.... :lol:


----------



## tomshep (Oct 2, 2008)

Maybe, at gunpoint, I'd consider an old Oyster but having an elderly Zenith stripped down at the same time, I couldn't see what the fuss is about. It is expensive, probably deservedly so but I couldn't feel comfortable wearing one.


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

Boxbrownie said:


> and a GMT2 which I still have on loan, in fact wore it today....and quite frankly it was a bleedin' pain to tell the time with :lol:


Wear Glasses :lol:

Although to be fair I do prefer the newer GMT C and LV Sub as they have the maxi dials that do make them a bit easier to glance at for the time.

B.


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

BondandBigM said:


> mach 0.0013137 said:
> 
> 
> > I have no doubt Rolex are excellent watches & the design is a classic but I`m just not willing to pay the asking price.
> ...


We had a friend round for her birthday, it wouldn`t have been very diplomatic of me to sit there playing on the computer :lol:


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

BondandBigM said:


> Boxbrownie said:
> 
> 
> > and a GMT2 which I still have on loan, in fact wore it today....and quite frankly it was a bleedin' pain to tell the time with :lol:
> ...


Yes well unfortunately since working digitally on computers for the past 8 years I now do need glasses (nothing to do with age of course)......but I only need them for reading and if I'm out on a job I don't need them, then looking at a watch with a crowded or unclear dial is bloody useless.

Yep...that maxi dial (duh...Jumbo? :blink: :lol: ) is going the right way......as I said, all I need is a ND Sub Maxi dial....or just stick with my Aerospace for work and just wear the "unreadables" formally.....who needs the time at a dinner party? Surely thats not what a decent watch is for there? :lol:


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

mach 0.0013137 said:


> We had a friend round for her birthday, it wouldn`t have been very diplomatic of me to sit there playing on the computer :lol:


 :lol:

Just out of interest, what sort of money would some of your very old watches have cost when new back in the day ??? would they have been in the same league as Rolex/Omegs is today pricewise

B.


----------



## MarkF (Jul 5, 2003)

pengelly said:


> i just dont get it. what am i missing. anything?


Yeah, you are missing loads pal "Why it's ok to hate Rolex" by James M Dowling is essential reading for you. 

I've never owned one, doesn't stop me putting in ridiculous bids on '70's Oysterdates though, I can dream. I like nice things in my life, I am prepared to pay for quality, particularly quality backed up with an illustrious innovative history, that sort of quality makes you feel good and you cannot put a cash value on that. So comparisons with very similar watches that are "perceived" as better "value" never make sense and never will.

I am prepared to believe that a Ford Fiesta is a better car than Carolyn's Alfa Romeo 147 but the Alfa "feels" great, the Fiesta never would.

In fact I am in one of those get rid of everything and buy a Rolex (or similar high end) moods


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

Sorry but v bored of posts like this

i like em. never said in public but had 20 plus.

U had a load of your faves?

Dont see point in posts like this. if i dislike someones watch big style i keep shtum.


----------



## Dr. Nookie (Jul 14, 2007)

pengelly said:


> i just dont get it. what am i missing. anything?


I'd say this is what you're missing.

I could live without the Sub after 10 years, but I can't imagine liking anything more than the Air king. It's just pure class IMO.


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

BondandBigM said:


> mach 0.0013137 said:
> 
> 
> > We had a friend round for her birthday, it wouldn`t have been very diplomatic of me to sit there playing on the computer :lol:
> ...


I seriously doubt it :lol:

As I hope I`ve tried to get across I`m not knocking Rolex it`s just their price that dosen`t suit me, actually earlier this evening I checked & found I was _waaayyy_ underestimating how much they go for new & used :swoon:

Mind you in the past people have commented on how much I`ve spent on cameras (particularly Leica) & HiFi  

Anyway who gives a feck, as long as you guys enjoy them :thumbsup:


----------



## shogan191 (Aug 8, 2008)

I'm relatively new to the watch hobby and while I don't mind the Why Rolex question, I just don't see why people ask it so much. It's a geat watch, well made, plenty of history and it commands the price and holds it's price after the purchase. Why not a Rolex. All the watches out there are trying to get our bucks and Rolex is one of the best at doing that. I'm thinking a better question would be Why not___________? (name your fav.)


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

> Just What Is There To Like About Rolexes


I will agree they are expensive these days, but even that's part off it as not withstanding the current economic climate you will get greater proportion of your money back if you sell than most around this sort of price bracket.

Like Shogan says, what's not to like might have been a better title, the main objection in this thread appears to be that they are difficult to read the time at a glance and not much else


----------



## mrteatime (Oct 25, 2006)

not my bag (man) but im sure that i'll get one at some point  the pics really dont do it justice, and until you handle one you never really get it....well, thats what happened to me


----------



## Hemlock (Aug 20, 2007)

I expect the credit cunch will take its toll on watch prices like everything else. I for one have never seen the value in the rolex authough admired them, with that money would be far more tempted to buy elsewhere, but if given one would certainly be greatfull.

All donations received with thanks.


----------



## PhilM (Nov 5, 2004)

Simple buy one and wear it, if you don't like it you'll be more than okay with getting your money back, as like others have already said Rolex are good for that all over the world so you'll never be without cash when you need it.

Edit: Also never say never, I was once like that and stupidly said I only wanted one watch


----------



## Alexus (Apr 9, 2003)

For me there is only one Rolex and that is the Explorer I.

It is a dream of mine to own such a piece.

As an armchair mountaineer, for me, this Rolex really does commemorate

one of man's greatest achievements.

"In the conception of ordinary watch lovers, Explorer I is specially launched by Rolex just for commemorating Everest expedition. This watch was with British explorer team consisting of Edmund Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing Norgay etc on 29th, May of 1953, achieving a great task of human being climbing. This story is definitely magic and attractive, but it still has a certain distance to the real fact. Firstly, Rolex indeed had supported Himalayan expedition since 1933, and later in Everest expeditions, Rolex had been always the official supporters, so Rolex supported each explorer team with its wristwatch. However, Rolex was not the only supporter, it is said that when Edmund Hillary climbed up on the top of Everest, what he wore is a watch from the British supporter Smith. But what Tenzing Norgay wore is indeed Explorer. On 19th, July of 1988, this watch was auctioned in Sotheby's of London, and presently stored in Rolex Museum in Geneva. As for if Explorer is the first watch worn on the top of Everest, I am afraid that no answer will be found forever, as Hillary and Norgay have always not wanted to speak out who first climbed on the top, and persisted in that it is done by both of them.

Secondly, when observing the Explorer worn by Tenzing Norgay when climbing Everest, it indeed has the typical black dial and 3-6-9 night light markers, although the hands are not Skelette (Mercedes) which we are familiar with but the pure nightlight straight ones, the round nightlight spots on central second hand are al little bigger than today's editions. What needs to concern is the "Precision" mark but not "Explorer" on the dial of this Explorer. In addition, according to the record of Sotheby, the back of this watch is bubble back style. According to these characters, it can deduce that it is Ref.6350. At that time, Rolex used to carve the production date inside the back. The production date for Ref.6350 worn by Tenzing Norgay is IV 53, which means made in April of 1953. So you can see that before Hillary and Norgay climbed on the top of Everest, Rolex did not name Ref.6350 as Explorer. Although Rolex had registered the trade mark of Explorer in Geneva on 26th, Jan of 1953, Explorer gained its name after Hillary and Norgay climbing up Everest, that is, "Explorer" began to be added on Ref.6350 after the success climbing in 1953. as for Explorer I becoming a fix style and classic watch, it was accomplished by Rolex after a certain time of scrabble."


----------



## Alexus (Apr 9, 2003)

Sorry, I neglected to say the quote was from an author by the name of Bill Clinton....I didn't put the link where I found the quote

because it may have been a watch sales site.


----------



## Parabola (Aug 1, 2007)

I get them, but I'd never buy one because I simply don't find any models attractive. Mainly because I'm not a huge fan of divers (unless there really interesting looking like the B&M Capeland S XXL or the Sinn U1000S), the Oysters bore me and I think there are better looking Chronos out there than the Daytona. But thats what's great about this forum, we don't all have the same tastes.


----------



## swiss auto fan (Aug 9, 2008)

Parabola said:


> I get them, but I'd never buy one because I simply don't find any models attractive. Mainly because I'm not a huge fan of divers (unless there really interesting looking like the B&M Capeland S XXL or the Sinn U1000S), the Oysters bore me and I think there are better looking Chronos out there than the Daytona. But thats what's great about this forum, we don't all have the same tastes.


Its just one of those names that shouts, quality, wealth, and gosh !.

Cant wait for the day that I walk in to a shop and buy one.

Some like cars, some like football, some like drugs !. I like me 'kettles.

Be lucky. B)


----------



## mrteatime (Oct 25, 2006)

swiss auto fan said:


> Parabola said:
> 
> 
> > I get them, but I'd never buy one because I simply don't find any models attractive. Mainly because I'm not a huge fan of divers (unless there really interesting looking like the B&M Capeland S XXL or the Sinn U1000S), the Oysters bore me and I think there are better looking Chronos out there than the Daytona. But thats what's great about this forum, we don't all have the same tastes.
> ...


wouldnt buy from a shop....it will be from someone on :rltb:


----------



## adrian (May 23, 2004)

One of the brands I don't "get" is Panerai. A lot of advertisement in the price and poor vfm.


----------



## Dr. Nookie (Jul 14, 2007)

adrian said:


> One of the brands I don't "get" is Panerai. A lot of advertisement in the price and poor vfm.


Absolutely.


----------



## mrteatime (Oct 25, 2006)

this is stunning....the deepsea dweller


----------



## mattbeef (Jul 17, 2008)

After a while i now "get" rollies. Always thought that they were great watches but never got the love and price that people go on about.

My only issue is that i dont have Â£3k for an LV


----------



## mrteatime (Oct 25, 2006)

potz said:


> mrteatime said:
> 
> 
> > this is stunning....the deepsea dweller
> ...


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:










that is as funny as :lol:


----------



## PhilM (Nov 5, 2004)

Well I hope this dosen't finish you off Chris 










Pure class :thumbsup:


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

PhilM said:


> Well I hope this dosen't finish you off Chris
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:rltb:

A 100% improvement on the Sub flip lock clasp

Deep Sea clasp, a work of art ???


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

potz said:


> GROAN!
> 
> he utters as his SD bracelet jingles rhythmically ....


 

:lol: :lol:


----------



## PhilM (Nov 5, 2004)

See you in 5 min Chris


----------



## Stuart Davies (Jan 13, 2008)

mrteatime said:


> this is stunning....the deepsea dweller


Hate to pi$$ on your fantasies here Shawn but under the minute hand is a M**C***S hour hand and we know how much you love 'em!







:lol:


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

potz said:


> Had a quick look at this and things came to an abrupt end ... :lol:


On a more serious note, in the flesh they are not that bad, the lady boys sorry Thai girls love them long time, especially when an expat buys them one :lol: :lol:


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

And before anyone says it, no I haven't been there, done that, got the t-shirt

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

With the watch that is


----------



## frogspawn (Jun 20, 2008)

Stuart Davies said:


> mrteatime said:
> 
> 
> > this is stunning....the deepsea dweller
> ...


Sorry too much scrawling on the face - and I also hate M**c***s hands


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2008)

mrteatime said:


> potz said:
> 
> 
> > mrteatime said:
> ...


 :notworthy:


----------



## DMP (Jun 6, 2008)

PhilM said:


> Well I hope this dosen't finish you off Chris
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't tell me Rolex have finally discovered how to do a decent bracelet? Took them long enough!


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2008)

potz said:


> Had a quick look at this and things came to an abrupt end ... :lol:


 :lol: o fuc


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

potz said:


> BondandBigM said:
> 
> 
> > potz said:
> ...


so long as they it sticks to the bottom half and you stick to the top half you are fine :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

DMP said:


> PhilM said:
> 
> 
> > Well I hope this dosen't finish you off Chris
> ...


When i said they were 100% better it didn't mean the older style was that bad just the new style is better :tongue2:


----------



## Mutley (Apr 17, 2007)

mrteatime said:


> not my bag (man) but im sure that i'll get one at some point


and when you do it'll look like this 










Cheers

Andrew


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

frogspawn said:


> Stuart Davies said:
> 
> 
> > mrteatime said:
> ...


About the only thing I like about that particular model *is* the Mercedes hands


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2008)

mach 0.0013137 said:


> frogspawn said:
> 
> 
> > Stuart Davies said:
> ...


 :lol:


----------



## Parabola (Aug 1, 2007)

Just thought of a Rolex that I do like and its a modded one, the Bamford & Sons PVD Modded Sub Mariner, although I think its a little on the pricy side of things...


----------



## foztex (Nov 6, 2005)

Bit late in on this, but a few thoughts.

I too never got the Rolex thing but to a degree I do now. The interesting thing though is that I definitely went through quite specific stages between hate and appreciation.

Initially (pre-WISdom) it was a pure "******** wear Rolexes" attitude. Born of ignorance of the history and workmanship and the fact that whenever I saw one it was worn by someone I considered a *****.

Once I entered the WIS world, on entry to this forum, I learned the background to Rolexes and certainly came to appreciate them for that and their quality but still had no desire to want one. I now appreciated the watch but was still not keen on the looks, primarily the hour hands.

In my quest for locally made watches I am a fan of the Beuchat brand, especially the 80's/90's ones and one day came across and bought this.



















now it's not a Rolex but its the same shape size and looks as one, is Swiss/French made and dates from the early 90's.

The Beuchat sub is what finally tipped me over the edge of actually considering buying a Rolex one day, for two reasons.

1. the merc hand doesn't bother me anymore, I prefer other hand shapes but having worn this watch at least 2 days a week since I bought it nearly 2 years ago, i dont really notice it and in fact have 3 other watches with mercs now.

2. leading on from the how often it is worn statistic in point 1. The case shape is supremely comfortable (although it is on an Omega mesh and they do make a huge difference to most watches). Until my Polluce came along the sub was far and away my most comfy watch.

So to conclude, I would now consider buying a Rolex although I still find the prices rather rich. I do have 3 watches that are worth the same if not more that the average Rolex, but they are mint super rare vintage Omegas. Maybe this is my final hurdle, getting over the fact that I consider the average Rolex a "mass produced, highstreet brand" which they are not but it's difficult not to think it as they are bloody everywhere.

I've tried a few now and they are as comfy as my Beuchat, I now like the looks and if they are as bulletproof as their rep suggests then i will one day get one. Of course my Beu-subs gotta wear out first and I cant see that happening anytime soon.

Andy


----------



## Roger (May 17, 2003)

They are pleasure to own and wear.

I am really fond of my Ceramic


----------



## mart broad (May 24, 2005)

Never understood theese threads for me a watch,car,woman (or man) does it for YOU and whilst the opinions of others is relevent if they do not get it then what the hell.

Now for my 2c i also for many years never understood the Rolex "thing"and came up with the same opinions to flash,to common,car salesman,estate agent etc etc then i tried a pre owned SeaDweller and all the pieces just fell into place the watch just worked.You really need to wear the watch.

I have a SD and a GMT II and they are superb watches the SD being the one watch i would choose above all others as it for me covers all the bases.

Martin

Now the next question re Panerai,well my thoughts are


----------



## Running_man (Dec 2, 2005)

I've always 'got' them and furthermore, one of my grail watches is a non dated Sub. I've handled one and the quality is amazing. I like their heritage, design and as shallow as it may make me sound, their prestige.

If I got one tomorrow, I'd probably sell off my other watches and stick with the Rolex.

I don't think it's a pointless question as such but the obvious answer is each to their own. I don't see how grown men can salivate over cars. To me they're an expensive, stinking, stress causing thorn in my side but hey, we're all different.


----------



## blackandgolduk (Apr 25, 2005)

Never used to 'get' them but rated them and understood their appeal. I've learned more about them on here over the past couple of years and they've grown on me - especially as you know there are guys on here who'll wear them with t shirt and shorts rather than just with a suit and shiny shoes (not that there's anything wrong with that). Outside of WISdom you could argue that there's a perceived 'type' of person that owns a Rolex which doesn't always help the image, but the moment I _really_ got the Rolex thing was when I noticed one on the wrist of a consultant that the 710 used to work with - a black Sub that looked as though it had been, literally, through a war. He'd been climbing, diving, rallying with this thing - you name it, it had taken everything in ti's stride.

It was scratched and battered beyond belief, but it looked, well, great. At that point I knew that I'd at some point own a really, really well worn Rolex and that it would probably never let me down.


----------



## CIGAR RED (Oct 24, 2004)

To quote a young Swiss man I meet while shopping one day. "No one would dare bring a Rolex to a Swiss watch fair, as they are considered in Switzerland to be in the third tier of watch brands". I never forgot his remark because I agree, you can get so much more bang for your bucks with other watch brands that are in the first tier.


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

CIGAR RED said:


> To quote a young Swiss man I meet while shopping one day. "No one would dare bring a Rolex to a Swiss watch fair, as they are considered in Switzerland to be in the third tier of watch brands". I never forgot his remark because I agree, *you can get so much more bang for your bucks with other watch brands that are in the first tier.*


In what way?

Build quality? Doubtful..

Looks and design? Subjective

When you say first tier, do you mean Pateks etc? Have you seen a basic PP? I wouldnt give you a tenner for it, Im sure its well made etc but it looks horible, you see its subjective....










If customers buy them because they cost 15k and take a year to make bla bla bla than theya re as bad as everyone else who buys into a brand, Rolex included just on a different scale.....

Ive said it before and no doubt I will say it again a 100 times, the price of a watch has nothing to do with the cost of its componant parts, its a brand, a lifestyle..Its just a watch, same as the Â£20 Seiko in Argos....

That Swiss man you met has just spread the marketing word to keep Swiss watches in their historical place at the top of the horological tree, he would turn his nose up at Japanese watches ....


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

I honestly dont know why Rolex gets singled out , there are loads of manufacturers at the same price point, how are these any better value?

Is Rolex just a historical easy target?

It is easily the worlds best known watch brand, the same as Rolls Royce as a car manufacturer...

Maybe thats why.....

If its just down to value in monetary terms then every watch over Â£20 is poor value ...Because they all do the same job.... Anything more makes them jewelery.....


----------



## MarkF (Jul 5, 2003)

CIGAR RED said:


> To quote a young Swiss man I meet while shopping one day.


As you do, happens to me a lot that


----------



## squareleg (Mar 6, 2008)

As most of you know, I love this forum - but really know very little about watches... I collected fountain pens for many years and have heard the same discussion, countless times, about Montblancs. The argument I proposed before, the last time this thread came around, is this: Montblanc pens are not the best pens in the world. They are very good pens, however, made to reasonably high standards and from good quality materials. Plus, MB has a long history of pen-making - they were a quality product before WWII (comparatively, better quality than now). Their nibs aren't the best, the barrels are quite fragile and the gold plating is only microns thick... But they are the only pens in the world with 'Montblanc' written on them. They look wonderful and using them is a joy - and I think that's the point. MB, Rolex, whatever, _make you feel good_ about their products. _This_ is what you pay for. The 'build quality' thing is a relative side issue... sure, there are pens around for fractions of the price that are every bit as good... but there's only one pen with _Montblanc_ written on it. :tongue2:


----------



## Stinch (Jul 9, 2008)

In the past I've owned an Explorer, a Datajust & then a Daytona (manual wind), part exchanging for the next as I went along. I then went off Rolex altogether & ended up with Breitling & Omega. Recently though I came to my senses & was lucky enough to be able to add one of the last 16710 GMT11s to my small collection. I'm so glad I did & can't imagine why I went off Rolex in the first place, THEY JUST FEEL RIGHT!!


----------



## mrteatime (Oct 25, 2006)

mutley said:


> mrteatime said:
> 
> 
> > not my bag (man) but im sure that i'll get one at some point
> ...


----------

