Daveyboyz

Thanks all

I suppose I should mention it has full set of box and papers and the dealer I bought it from purchased it from the original buyer.

2003 model explorer 2 (16570, solid endlinks, holes case) I have been wearing this half an hour now and I am already preferring it to the sub, just on account of the solid end links removing the rattle fest. I bought it mainly as I didn't own a GMT function and like the white dial. The bracelet feels right and the watch is unpolished and shows some very light marks so it looks honest and not beaten up. I couldn't secure much discount and I could possibly have sourced one cheaper from elsewhere in Europe but preferred to buy the watch in front of me after trying it on.

!00% right. The watch is an easy seller but even so it goes in the window at £5950 and is then haggled on... maybe it sells for £5500. Then tax needs to come out of the £1300 profit, the staff need paying and the bills (insurance isn't cheap for a jewellers shop) Now how much did he earn for having £4200 tied up for an indefinite time period? Even being a minter and fresh;y serviced, what mark up do you think they are making on a new one? Why should they be making less on a preowned one? Having said that I think I am looking to buy one....

I had a chronomat about 15 years ago, it was a really sweet watch actually, one of a few I missed when I flipped. Well I cant give any particular examples of watches that became hard to obtain after being changed but certainly I can name a few changes that I didn't like. The Cartier Pasha with its big sapphire crown had that sapphire removed in favour of a brushed steel thing... bad move. The AP Royal Oak changed a few things, size, clasp design and removed the screw down crown. The Vacheron Overseas improved their bracelets but on the downside they took away the large central double date wheel in favour of a more standard small date. Rolex is the go to on these things though, they had various short runs with all kinds of small variations that were unpopular at the time which since have become extremely valuable.

I spent ten years in retail jewellers and we stocked Seiko. I used to think they offered great value for money. We used to retail Seiko 5 autos for £37.50, OK maybe not the best quality bracelets in the world but they used to crack on for decades with no intervention. Unless something changed recently I would still not hesitate to recommend them given so much good experience with them over the years.

I am not after fighting with you on this issue but let's get this in context. I have a 1990 Rolex Submariner that has hollow end links and a pressed metal clasp. I would extend the statement upwards of £250 personally. Under £1000 one of the key areas they try to cut cost is the bracelet. For example the use of pins instead of screws. Amongst cheaper watches I tend towards leather... In fact my Seiko has a half decent deployant clasp. One does not expect a Royal Oak quality bracelet on sub four figure watches and one sure as hell doesn't get it. I would be worried in fact where they had saved the money if I was to find a high end bracelet on such watches.

You might be able to find an exception but as a generalisation it isn't far wrong. One of the reasons sub £250 watches are sub £250 is they tend to shortcut quality in the bracelet department. Now pass the popcorn...

I have done so many like this... some on leather stunk so badly I was holding them at arms length. When you undo a spring lug to get a metal bracelet out of the way sometimes the end pieces are full of dead skin too. Oh the joy... lucky there is a good mark up doing batteries.

IF they have insurance.... when I was a one watch guy I didn't bother with insurance. I would hand it in, if nobody claims it then it will come back to you. In that instance you can get Russell Tallerman to refurb it (one of the few I would trust other than AP because these are really hard to refinish) He did mine and it looks perfect. Service and case will cost you much less than from AP.

Just because you have limited understanding don't be calling people idiots, you have just committed a grave case of Dunning-Kruger. Remainers may have been ignorant about history, the nature of the EU, the direction of travel of the EU, the historical importance of national sovereignty within the English psyche and culture. They may have bought into media scare stories or the assertions of self interested parties like politicians looking for huge pensions or bodies that seek to secure their grants however to call all remainers idiots would be extremely arrogant. Not everyone agrees on things, I myself have made posts on this forum that have been robustly critisized but I am happy to fight my corner or concede my position if sufficient argument is brought to bear. This is how we correct our errors but attack the ball and not the player and try and take a more humble attitude. When you call 17.4 million people idiots I think you only place yourself in that catagory.

It is too expensive. A good jewellers should be able to change the battery for less than £10, without gauruntee on waterproof. When changing the battery they will however have some idea if the seals are shot and advise. If it needs a battery and reseal a watch maker will charge £10 and they will likely double up on that charge... So maybe £25. Again without gauruntee on the waterproof but in the knowledge the watch was pressure tested. Its only if you want the watch gaurunteed that you need to pay more money... This £190 actually amounts to £10 battery change and £180 insurance. The model doesnt strike me as the dirt of thing I would be diving, swimming or taking a sauna in. I did however do such things in my pre-bond seamaster after doing battery changes myself for 27 pence or whatever a Renata used to cost. (364? I don't remember) Service comes in well under the cost of the battery from any good independent. Just my opinion.

I too don't have much interest in flipping watches but the experience of selling does lead to a knowledge about the strength of different brands and will drastically change the appraisal of different models. Sanders will actively promote some bad choices (from some points of view) based on his lack of experience in such matters. He looks on the hobby in a refreshingly unique way, which is both his strength and his weakness. He is a researcher by nature and so he does put some interesting content out but in some ways he seems rather naive at the same time. I have argued this point before on this forum, how my experiences in pawnbrokers, and in retail giving people the bad news that their watch has no value has shaped my interpretation of the hobby. I am not the kind that will buy a box of Rolex purely for value retention but neither would I recommend someone purchases a watch where they are likely to get completely wiped out if they ever resell it. Whether it is important to you or not it is another factor to be aware of.

The funny thing is Archie is one of the most clued up amongst all of them. Yes he has degenerated into begging and all that but his early videos showed knowledge and he is an anal retentive when it comes to model numbers. His comments on watch reviews are normally correct too. I like Bill Sanders too but he is just a very enthusiastic amateur so for instance he has no experience of selling watches and this leads to particular outlooks. Paul Thorpe seems clued up. I don't care so much for Rolex but given the majority of people do, who can blame him for making the related content? Watchfinder just produces adverts, but I still like to watch them and they can include some good information.

Personally I won't touch an apple product but I don't see anything wrong with the genre. It forfils a specific need (tracking runs/heartbeat etc) I wouldn't have one on my wrist everymoment of the day but could accept one as a gym watch.