Jump to content
  • Sign Up to reply and join the friendliest Watch Forum on the web. Stick around, get to 50 posts and gain access to your full profile and additional features such as a personal messaging system, chat room and the sales forum PLUS the chance to enter our regular giveaways.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I soooooo want to flaunt today so I am going to wear a Rolex, I want to make a statement even though I clearly don't know what I like. Let's see, how about a 1960 Rolex Oyster Perpetual Date? Tha

Why would I want to impress anyone?

I had one of these Ingenieurs, a very fine watch which had evolved from the classic Gerald Genta designed Ingenieur of the 1970's, it also had an in-house movement. IWC abandoned this concept and roll

1 hour ago, rolexgirl said:

I soooooo want to flaunt today so I am going to wear a Rolex, I want to make a statement even though I clearly don't know what I like.

Let's see, how about a 1960 Rolex Oyster Perpetual Date? That's really flaunty don't you think @MrBrown ?

Sadly for your theory men tend to look at my 34C cups not my watch

p.s. I also own Seiko, Poljot, Casio, Omega, Hamilton, Tressa, West End Watch Co, Tudor and CWC but obviously I only wear these when I don't want to flaunt 

large.IMAG1814.jpg.4fd08ad25ea46a1d3e8bd623eae9d16a.jpg

 

Well this one is not a flaunt item and I was adressing the men, of course when you are a woman with asset alot of men would rather look at that, but not all men, I would look at your wrist first and maybe then your assets! 

45 minutes ago, Karrusel said:

 

Pahh!

This a a real women...

cHhXeKp.jpg

:tongue:

Hahahah thats epic

Link to post
Share on other sites

The evolution of IWC Aquatimer - an example of today's IWC design problem - I was told they were configuring their designs to appeal to the far east market, perhaps?

The original Aquatimer from 1967 a design classic

IWC_Aquatimer_Ref_812AD_1967_560.jpg

 

Aquatimer 2000 a stunning watch with great innovations but calling it an Aquatimer was a mistake

 

IWC_Aquatimer-GST-Automatic-2000_Ref_353

 

Aquatimer IW354805 - from the early 2000's great design and a nod to the original model

 

406402491490_1_640.jpg

 

Then the wheels start to come off in the late 2000's with the IW354805

 

1292712_iwc-aquatimer-automatic-stainles

 

And today's offering £5k for an ETA movement

 

1648871.jpeg.transform.buying-options_wa

 

Part of IWC's problem is the constant flip-flopping with the designs, some only have a run of a few years

 

 

The Pilot watch is another good example of misplaced design, they have gone from the design classic Mk X1

 

IWC-Mark-XI.jpg

 

 

and change the hands, font and minute chapter ring :mad0218: ruins the whole look

 

1529540.png.transform.global_image_png_3

 

Perhaps it is the influence of Richemont who purchased 100% if IWC in the year 2000  - they are now just one brand who have to meet their parent company's sales targets amongst A. Lange & Söhne, Azzedine Alaïa, Baume & Mercier, Buccellati, Cartier, Chloé, Dunhill, Giampiero Bodino, Jaeger-LeCoultre, Lancel, Montblanc, Officine Panerai, Piaget, Peter Millar, Purdey, Roger Dubuis, Vacheron Constantin, and Van Cleef & Arpels

Meanwhile Rolex are just, well ..... Rolex .... they don't flip flop around with designs, their watches evolve, the engineering evolves, a modern Submariner for example is has a recognisable heritage which goes back to  the first Submariner 6204 from 1953

Rolex-Submariner-6204-very-first-Submari 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For me buying a Rolex is a financial decision over an horological decision, yes there is history, and horology with Rolex, but for me they have always been a marketing company that just happens to sell watches.

Do I own a Rolex?...YES, did I buy it for horological reasons?...NO, did I buy it as a status symbol?...absolutely not (nobody has ever even known I am wearing one).

I have never really looked too closely at what IWC have to offer, there has not been a watch of theirs that has given me the 'fizz'

Thankfully we all buy what we like or feel safe buying.

For me JLC is a straight down the line horological watch purchase, it will lose money as soon as you pay for it, but for the same reason IWC may be your JLC, a watch bought for the love of the watch over the love of wearing something that holds it's value.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tick-tock-tittle-tattle said:

For me buying a Rolex is a financial decision over an horological decision, yes there is history, and horology with Rolex, but for me they have always been a marketing company that just happens to sell watches.

:laugh:

Sorry but that's is a ridiculous thing to say, overlooking the contradiction in your post, it ignores their 112 year heritage, their innovations, the longevity of their designs, the quality of their products, yes they market well but they are not going to sell if the watches are badly made or not aesthetically pleasing

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MrBrown said:

Well this one is not a flaunt item and I was adressing the men, of course when you are a woman with asset alot of men would rather look at that, but not all men, I would look at your wrist first and maybe then your assets!

@MrBrown so when are you going to show us your IWC and Rolex watches?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MrBrown said:

So for me Iwc has been a true love story from the day I really started to be fascinated buy mechanic luxury watches! It is something special about IWC..... Rolex is something for it self, but for me IWC is ranked higher. I feel IWC is for us that are very particular off whats on your wrist, and Rolex is more of an status symbol!

What do people in general think?

It sounds as if you have spent Rolex money and now feel the need to justify why you didn't buy the Rolex by claiming to really appreciate watches for their quality rather than the brand name.

If Rolex is just a status symbol then why is it always the one that gets compared to `the superior brand on my wrist'?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

People, people people it’s becoming hard to read, please remember if it’s safe to work from home then work from home, or go to work if it’s safe to do so...

I feel Rolex is not present to represent itself in this court, we must respect the views of others and ensure that what people say is only an opinion they have. 
 

I add that not being a current watch non watch owner my views are irrelevant....

I now take myself back to new watch listings on the bay, then to Chrono 24, then googling preowned watches, then back to the bay to start the process again ARrrGgggHhhhhhhh:baby:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoT said:

:laugh:

Sorry but that's is a ridiculous thing to say, overlooking the contradiction in your post, it ignores their 112 year heritage, their innovations, the longevity of their designs, the quality of their products, yes they market well but they are not going to sell if the watches are badly made or not aesthetically pleasing

 

Hans Wilsdorf was not a watchmaker, he bought from various movement makers, and case manufacturers to produce a product to market. He was a marketing man not unlike Steve Jobs, another man who didn't make or design anything, but he knew how to make people want what he had to sell.

Rolex bought movements from Aegler, Zenith for almost all of their history, so any innovation was very much initiated by other companies which Rolex were happy to take the credit for.

They didn't buy Aegler until 2004, so for over 100 years any movement innovations were down to Aegler et al. The Daytona used the Zenith El Primero movement until 2000, and the iconic Submariner design DNA can be seen in earlier watches made by other companies.

You cannot deny that Hans Wilsdorf was anything other than a marketeer, and a very good one at that, and it would be obsequious to also deny that many of the the design innovations which Rolex take credit for are down to the effort of other companies.

I am sure that if Hans Wilsdorf had seen a market for an automatic hat saluting device he would slapped a Rolex logo on it.

saluting_hat_850.jpg

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just occurred to me that around 15 years ago I was directly comparing the IWC Mark XII and Rolex GMT Master II 16710 with a view to buying one of them.  Both watches have a colourful history and, at the time, they cost about the same, pre-owned. I chose the Rolex because it seemed to me to be the far better watch; a purely horological decision.  Mind you, if I'd had my financial crystal ball with me at the time and could have seen what would happen with the prices I'd still have bought the Rolex... probably a couple of dozen of them :laugh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, tick-tock-tittle-tattle said:

Rolex bought movements from Aegler, Zenith for almost all of their history, so any innovation was very much initiated by other companies which Rolex were happy to take the credit for.

 


The list is endless...good post!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread, and one that is occasionally repeated.  I've had several IWC, starting with the  vintage 'Pellaton' movements and progressing to the 3717 Fliegeruhr with a 'modified' 7750 movement.  I've also had several Rolex, starting with a manual wind Precision, then a Date just, a Submariner, A Sea Dweller and finally a Daytona.  Quality wise Rolex always seemed to have that je ne sais quoi whereas IWC always seemed a bit clumsy, even if we'll put together. 

Recently I wanted a new and rather expensive Gibson guitar so sold one of my watches to pay for it.  I still have my Daytona. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tick-tock-tittle-tattle said:

Hans Wilsdorf was not a watchmaker, he bought from various movement makers, and case manufacturers to produce a product to market. He was a marketing man not unlike Steve Jobs, another man who didn't make or design anything, but he knew how to make people want what he had to sell.

Rolex bought movements from Aegler, Zenith for almost all of their history, so any innovation was very much initiated by other companies which Rolex were happy to take the credit for.

They didn't buy Aegler until 2004, so for over 100 years any movement innovations were down to Aegler et al. The Daytona used the Zenith El Primero movement until 2000, and the iconic Submariner design DNA can be seen in earlier watches made by other companies.

You cannot deny that Hans Wilsdorf was anything other than a marketeer, and a very good one at that, and it would be obsequious to also deny that many of the the design innovations which Rolex take credit for are down to the effort of other companies.

I am sure that if Hans Wilsdorf had seen a market for an automatic hat saluting device he would slapped a Rolex logo on it.

saluting_hat_850.jpg

 

All relevant and noteworthy, but I do think the endless "comparisons" are like a grown ups equivalent of comparing Action Man to G.I. Joe. :tongue:

 

5c6745a7938c841f5532a53b

gijoe---1986---thrasher-p-image-409227-g

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tick-tock-tittle-tattle said:

Hans Wilsdorf was not a watchmaker, he bought from various movement makers, and case manufacturers to produce a product to market. He was a marketing man not unlike Steve Jobs, another man who didn't make or design anything, but he knew how to make people want what he had to sell.

Rolex bought movements from Aegler, Zenith for almost all of their history, so any innovation was very much initiated by other companies which Rolex were happy to take the credit for.

They didn't buy Aegler until 2004, so for over 100 years any movement innovations were down to Aegler et al. The Daytona used the Zenith El Primero movement until 2000, and the iconic Submariner design DNA can be seen in earlier watches made by other companies.

You cannot deny that Hans Wilsdorf was anything other than a marketeer, and a very good one at that, and it would be obsequious to also deny that many of the the design innovations which Rolex take credit for are down to the effort of other companies.

I am sure that if Hans Wilsdorf had seen a market for an automatic hat saluting device he would slapped a Rolex logo on it.

 

 

A VERY selective critique which ignores so many things, Wilsdorf may not have been a watchmaker but he was much more than a marketing man, he was a businessman who understood the watch industry and built up the most successful (by a considerable margin) watch company on the planet. It is also "obsequious" to suggest that this was mainly down to marketing, if Rolex offering weren't aesthetically pleasing, reliable and innovative then marketing alone would not have achieved what they have achieved, after all if you put lipstick on a pig it is still a pig!

Yes Wilsdorf did turn to Hans Aegler for small movements to use in wristwatches (Wilsdorf was a firm believer in wristwatches), Hans Aegler was a board member of Rolex and even owned a large stock position in Rolex for a while. The Aegler company was renamed Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA in the 1930's (or Rolex Bienne as it became known) although ownership remained with the Aegler / Borer family, the renamed company also signed a deal with Rolex to become Rolex's exclusive movement manufacturer, so while not owned by Wilsdorf they were in effect a de facto in-house movement manufacturer as their output was exclusively for Rolex. Yes Rolex used Zenith and Valjoux movements in their chronographs. The early Cosmographs used a Valjoux and were made in small numbers up until 1988 heavily impacted by the quartz crisis as most watch companies were. The Zenith chronograph movement (originally made by Martell before Zenith bought them) used from 1988 was resurrected by an engineer who had saved the machine tools and plans after Zenith's new owners gave up making mechanical movements in 1975 and ordered the machine tools scrapped.

It was Rolex who effectively gave the Zenith a lifeline, although they went back into Swiss ownership in 1978 they had little presence and largely relied on old stocks of movement parts. In 1982 Rolex started to look for a movement for the Daytona and gave Zenith a 10 year contract to make the chronograph movement after Zenith had convinced Rolex they had the machine tools and knowledge to restart production of the chronograph movement. The movement was highly modified at Rolex's insistence, some accounts say around 50% of the parts, the beat was also reduced to 28,800. The first of the new Zenith movements was delivered to Rolex in 1986, so ironically it was Rolex who saved the movement and as you know the popularity of the movement increased rapidly in subsequent years.

So the whole movement story isn't quite how Rolex knockers like to paint it and as we know in 2004 Rolex acquired Rolex Bienne and took it into Wilsdorf foundation ownership.

One other thing to consider is how Rolex navigated its way through the quartz crisis (while many went bust) and came out of the other side to build up what we see today, but that's another story.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JoT said:

A VERY selective critique which ignores so many things, Wilsdorf may not have been a watchmaker but he was much more than a marketing man, he was a businessman who understood the watch industry and built up the most successful (by a considerable margin) watch company on the planet. It is also "obsequious" to suggest that this was mainly down to marketing, if Rolex offering weren't aesthetically pleasing, reliable and innovative then marketing alone would not have achieved what they have achieved, after all if you put lipstick on a pig it is still a pig!

Yes Wilsdorf did turn to Hans Aegler for small movements to use in wristwatches (Wilsdorf was a firm believer in wristwatches), Hans Aegler was a board member of Rolex and even owned a large stock position in Rolex for a while. The Aegler company was renamed Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA in the 1930's (or Rolex Bienne as it became known) although ownership remained with the Aegler / Borer family, the renamed company also signed a deal with Rolex to become Rolex's exclusive movement manufacturer, so while not owned by Wilsdorf they were in effect a de facto in-house movement manufacturer as their output was exclusively for Rolex. Yes Rolex used Zenith and Valjoux movements in their chronographs. The early Cosmographs used a Valjoux and were made in small numbers up until 1988 heavily impacted by the quartz crisis as most watch companies were. The Zenith chronograph movement (originally made by Martell before Zenith bought them) used from 1988 was resurrected by an engineer who had saved the machine tools and plans after Zenith's new owners gave up making mechanical movements in 1975 and ordered the machine tools scrapped.

It was Rolex who effectively gave the Zenith a lifeline, although they went back into Swiss ownership in 1978 they had little presence and largely relied on old stocks of movement parts. In 1982 Rolex started to look for a movement for the Daytona and gave Zenith a 10 year contract to make the chronograph movement after Zenith had convinced Rolex they had the machine tools and knowledge to restart production of the chronograph movement. The movement was highly modified at Rolex's insistence, some accounts say around 50% of the parts, the beat was also reduced to 28,800. The first of the new Zenith movements was delivered to Rolex in 1986, so ironically it was Rolex who saved the movement and as you know the popularity of the movement increased rapidly in subsequent years.

So the whole movement story isn't quite how Rolex knockers like to paint it and as we know in 2004 Rolex acquired Rolex Bienne and took it into Wilsdorf foundation ownership.

One other thing to consider is how Rolex navigated its way through the quartz crisis (while many went bust) and came out of the other side to build up what we see today, but that's another story.   

I am not a Rolex 'knocker' I own, and have owned plenty of Rolex watches, vintage, and modern. I just see the (marketing) engine that powers the machine.

Businessman / marketing man was exactly what Hans Wilsdorf was, and most of what you stated in your reply only backs up my 'VERY selective critique' in that Rolex have relied upon the design innovations of other companies. Wilsdorf did not 'save / give a lifeline' to these companies out of the goodness of his heart, he did it to make money.

What better way to ensure the longevity of a company than to create a demand for a product/brand by good marketing, and produce the product in small enough numbers so that people are prepared to go on a waiting list for years to own one. Can't fault them!

Now that's good marketing, and that's a good business model, and as such I can't fault Rolex or Wilsdorf for developing a company which makes so much money.

We are clearly not going to see eye to eye on this one, but as a moderator I would hope that you would be moderate and understand that I have an opinion. This opinion is one that is not shared by you, but others probably will agree with me so it was not such a 'ridiculous thing to say' 

Did I mention that a don't like IWC, their watches are awful in my opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

While I am on a roll :laugh:

The quartz crisis - how did brands fare?

  • Société Suisse pour l'Industrie Horlogère (Omega and Tissot) insolvent in 1981
  • Allgemeine Gesellschaft der Schweizerischen Uhrenindustrie (Certina, Edox, Hamilton, Longines etec etc plus movements manufacture) insolvent in 1982, note there are many Swiss brands in this company which was founded in the 1930's with the help of the Swiss government in the 1930's.
  • Breitling SA - saved from bankruptcy by Ernest Schneider in 1979 who bought it from the family - he was a businessman not a watchmaker
  • IWC scraped through by building high end pocket watches, watch cases and collaborations with Porsche 
  • JLC - embraced quartz movements and were very innovative and were in a good position at the end of the 80's to rebuild their mechanical business
  • Rolex developed quartz calibres and produced Oysterquartz watches which sold very well, Wilsdorf however believed that mechanical watches would recover, he was proved right and the company was well positioned to rebuild.  
Link to post
Share on other sites

Estimated sales revenues in 2019

  • Rolex - CHF 5.5 billion
  • Omega/Longines/Tissot - CHF 5.0 billion
  • Cartier CHF - 1.7 billion
  • Patek CHF - 1.5 billion
  • Audemars P - CHF 1.2 billion
  • Tag/Hublot - CHF 1.32 billion
  • IWC - CHF 0.83 billion 

The Swatch Group are likely to be bigger than Rolex as only three of their brands were in the figures I saw, Rolex also doesn't include Tudor which was estimated at around CHF 280 million. I was surprised Cartier watches were so high in sales and that Tag Heuer / Hublot were so low.

5 hours ago, JoT said:

@MrBrown so when are you going to show us your IWC and Rolex watches?

@MrBrown

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tick-tock-tittle-tattle said:

For me buying a Rolex is a financial decision over an horological decision, yes there is history, and horology with Rolex, but for me they have always been a marketing company that just happens to sell watches.

Do I own a Rolex?...YES, did I buy it for horological reasons?...NO, did I buy it as a status symbol?...absolutely not (nobody has ever even known I am wearing one).

I have never really looked too closely at what IWC have to offer, there has not been a watch of theirs that has given me the 'fizz'

Thankfully we all buy what we like or feel safe buying.

For me JLC is a straight down the line horological watch purchase, it will lose money as soon as you pay for it, but for the same reason IWC may be your JLC, a watch bought for the love of the watch over the love of wearing something that holds it's value.

Well said, i completly agree with you, and thats the reason why I bougth mine IWC, beacuse i like it and will enjoy it, do I own rolex? Yes i do to, but for me its a more of a tool watc tbh, for everyday use(gmt and sub)

2 minutes ago, JoT said:

Estimated sales revenues in 2019

  • Rolex - CHF 5.5 billion
  • Omega/Longines/Tissot - CHF 5.0 billion
  • Cartier CHF - 1.7 billion
  • Patek CHF - 1.5 billion
  • Audemars P - CHF 1.2 billion
  • Tag/Hublot - CHF 1.32 billion
  • IWC - CHF 0.83 billion 

The Swatch Group are likely to be bigger than Rolex as only three of their brands were in the figures I saw, Rolex also doesn't include Tudor which was estimated at around CHF 280 million. I was surprised Cartier watches were so high in sales and that Tag Heuer / Hublot were so low.

@MrBrown

As soon as im able to do so, cant upload photo from my phone, or can I do that? In thats case i could show you what kind of IWC im wearing today

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JoT said:

I was surprised Cartier watches were so high in sales and that Tag Heuer / Hublot were so low.

@JoT  just goes to show that there are more people with exquisite taste in the world than you ever thought possible. :biggrin:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...