The Watch Appreciation Thread - Part two (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, Jaeger LeCoultre,

[DLJr]

Although for me, the most memorable quote came after a few beers with a different watchmaker:

"You'd have to have a mental defect to not see how much better a Rolex movement is than ETA once you've actually worked on them."

But why? Is it part reduction? Is it ease of service? Is it size vs robustness of movements?

As a newb, I'd like more information. Unfortunately for me, I rarely find an opportunity to speak with a watchmaker (I think it's happened once at a Nomos event), so I'm genuinely curious. A quote from a conversation you had doesn't really satiate my curiosity. FWIW I've mostly operated with the bias that the quote is true, but outside of reading up on the 4130, I'm not sure I've provided myself with any tangible evidence; just anecdotes from posters on forums. I'd like to learn more.

 

[Belligero]

For now, I'll have to just quote a WOSTEP-trained friend who works full-time as a watchmaker in Stockholm at a shop that officially services Rolex, Patek Philippe and Chopard, among others. Please forgive the writing imperfections; his English is still far better than my Swedish:

Here are a few reasons why the 3135 is superior to the 2892:

- Superior winding efficiency. People with a sedentary lifestyle often struggle with the fact that their 2892 (i.e omega seamaster) tends to stop or lose time.
- Breguet curve for superior isochronism.
- Parachrom hairspring in newest versions, better hairspring alloy. Google to find out why.
- Free-sprung balancewheel. Better isochronism.
- Escapewheel with endstones. Yet again better isochronism.
- Hardened steel pivots, dont know of any other makers who bother with this. For better longevity.
- Balance bridge for better shock resistance, plus the balance end-shake is adjustable through a set of nuts.
- Superior manufacturing tolerance. You have to be a watchmaker to realise just easy it is to work on a Rolex movement. Stuff just falls into place.
- Better finish all around. Nothing spectacular, just better than ETA.
- Rolex supply two different mainsprings, strong and regular. Often the amplitude will be TOO HIGH when the movement is serviced, this is because too much power reaches the balance thanks to their excellent power transmission. Then you may have to go for a "normal" hairspring to get amplitude down to the level recommended by Rolex. Dont know any other maker that has this "problem".
- Tons of other little things I can't be arsed to type out at the moment. Just trust me when I say that the 3135 kicks the 2892 to the curb every day of the week."
​

I may be able to dig up a few more quotes later, but for me, "stuff just falls into place" line encapsulates the manufacturing precision of a Rolex movement. Their bespoke temperature-controlled CNC pods produced by a subsidiary of theirs no doubt play a part in this; they're the only company that makes the equipment that makes the watches:

And it's not like the 2892 is by any means a deficient movement, as he'll readily acknowledge. It's just that it's not at the same level as what Rolex can produce, which stands to reason given their budget and resources.

 

[tim_horton]

I love Rolex. There's a reason why just about every dive watch today borrows elements of the Submariner, and why their designs are considered classics. If people don't like their aesthetics, that's fine. But if people don't like them because they're not a Patek, they're missing the point. Rolex doesn't try to be anything but Rolex, and stays (mostly) true to what they are, which is a hell of a lot more than you can say about most watch brands - or brands in general. Rolex doesn't chase trends, it sets them. And their reliability seems to be among the best in the business. I know, I know, if you want REAL reliability you'd get a Casio G-Shock, but still.

That being said, I don't own a Rolex. I'd really like a Submariner one day. It would violate my self-imposed limit on three watches, though... And there are so many variations of the Sub, that unless you're just buying a new one, there's a lot to learn about them. So until then, I'll stick with my G-Shock when I go swimming at the beach.

 

[Belligero]

^
Quality post.

 

[DLJr]

That post is why I say I put most of my value towards a Rolex based on history and aesthetics. If you look at my list of 3 watches I'd buy with $100K, you'll find a Rolex. However, I want that watch for its history and aesthetic, the movement doesn't even enter in to it. It's why I got so stuck on the comment from Mr. T about ETA vs Rolex movements (for me it has nothing to do with finishing and more about technical design). I just started questioning how much I understood about the differences. Rather than get upset someone doesn't like a watch I like, I just spiraled in to wanting to learn if my bias had any supporting evidence. Maybe everyone here was already a ETA and Rolex movement expert, but I'm certainly not.

Thanks for taking the time Tim and Belli.

The tolerances are what resonated with me as someone who works closely with manufacturing.

 

[XKxRome0ox]

Daytona C on the road

 

[Bleedblue]

Felt like with all the kerfuffle the BLNR didn't get what it deserved... again today at the beach.

 

[OscarO]

Blancpain x Kieselstein Cord today, HAGWE!

 

[Belligero]

That post is why I say I put most of my value towards a Rolex based on history and aesthetics. If you look at my list of 3 watches I'd buy with $100K, you'll find a Rolex. However, I want that watch for its history and aesthetic, the movement doesn't even enter in to it. It's why I got so stuck on the comment from Mr. T about ETA vs Rolex movements (for me it has nothing to do with finishing and more about technical design). I just started questioning how much I understood about the differences. Rather than get upset someone doesn't like a watch I like, I just spiraled in to wanting to learn if my bias had any supporting evidence. Maybe everyone here was already a ETA and Rolex movement expert, but I'm certainly not.

Thanks for taking the time Tim and Belli.

The tolerances are what resonated with me as someone who works closely with manufacturing.

Thanks, D!

Yes, not everyone has the interest in the finer technical details of watchmaking, but I personally find them fascinating. Some people get hung up on decoration — which is distinct from finishing, by the way — which is fine, but it doesn't tell you much about how a movement actually works.

I'll keep it relatively brief for now given how many points upon which I could elaborate, but it's worth noting that another reason that Rolex commands such respect from watchmakers is for their ability to make one elegantly-designed component do the job of two, three or more, which is a very under-appreciated aspect of true movement refinement. (Especially when you get some manufacturers boasting of high parts counts as if that's a good thing.)

Then there's the big, high-power balance wheels that set the industry benchmark for accuracy and stability. How many detractors actually know that the mainspring from a 3135 stores more energy than that a JLC 8-day movement, due to the JLC's wimpy 3.8 mg·cm2 moment of inertia vs. the 3135's massive 15 mg·cm2. Consider as well the industry-leading 4-micron tolerances on the baseplate, courtesy of those custom-made pods that circulate temperature-controlled oil baths during the machining. And don't even get me started about their Parachrom hairspring production, which is like nothing else in the business.

All this probably sounds somewhat dry and impersonal, but what most impressed Henrik — a close friend who's a highly-trained watchmaker — during his visits to Rolex was the sheer number of people involved at every step of production for quality control and much of the finesse-dependent skilled work that really puts the manu into manufacturing.

Beyond the movement stuff, even simple-seeming but critical components such as their special crystal gasket are superior by design.

Artisanal they certainly ain't, but nobody is more hardcore when it comes to serious technical watchmaking than Rolex. Cripes, their head of R&D has a doctorate in the little-known field of tribology, which surprisingly isn't about the study of groups of ravers, but that of mechanical friction and lubricity. In my opinion, and in that of many experienced watchmakers, they produce the best-designed movements in the industry when it comes what matters for the actual wearing.

And as I've probably mentioned at some point, I really didn't think much of Rolex until I met a watchmaker at a party who'd recently quit Patek's vintage restoration department for a better-paying oilfield-robotics job, and we got to talking. He was wearing a 4130-movement Daytona with a black dial.

 

[no frills]

^
Thanks; I would have replied sooner, but real life got in the way. Selling the house while being a new dad tends to put this watch BS into perspective.

It also makes me thankful that I'm not still responsible for the care and feeding of those horlogerie watches that I never got much use out of in the first place. Nice though they were, I truly don't regret selling them.

But more importantly - life as a Dad and home seller / owner has its own challenges and benefits 'no? Congrats on "adulting"!!!

 

[Belligero]

Indeed it does, V. But I'm enjoying all of them so far; it's by far the most motivating and rewarding job I've ever had.

Sincere thanks for the kind words. I still feel that I'm essentially a big kid — though one with more responsibilities than before, especially with #2 due at the end of January — which makes it very easy to relate with an eleven-month-old who I love dearly.

So now it's on to a new city and a new career in the midst of house-hunting. Exciting times ahead for sure.

And to keep it watch-related, here's a recent one of some stuff I had laying around the other day:

Hope all's well with you and yours! It's always a pleasure to hear from you.

 

[mimo]

That bezel on the Sub is very cool. Is it just faded to that interesting shade, or a custom insert? I wouldn't have thought to tinker with something so iconic and perfect. But it works.

 

[DLJr]

Thanks, D!

Yes, not everyone has the interest in the finer technical details of watchmaking, but I personally find them fascinating. Some people get hung up on decoration — which is distinct from finishing, by the way — which is fine, but it doesn't tell you much about how a movement actually works.

I'll keep it relatively brief for now given how many points upon which I could elaborate, but it's worth noting that another reason that Rolex commands such respect from watchmakers is for their ability to make one elegantly-designed component do the job of two, three or more, which is a very under-appreciated aspect of true movement refinement. (Especially when you get some manufacturers boasting of high parts counts as if that's a good thing.)

Then there's the big, high-power balance wheels that set the industry benchmark for accuracy and stability. How many detractors actually know that the mainspring from a 3135 stores more energy than that a JLC 8-day movement, due to the JLC's wimpy 3.8 mg·cm2 moment of inertia vs. the 3135's massive 15 mg·cm2. Consider as well the industry-leading 4-micron tolerances on the baseplate, courtesy of those custom-made pods that circulate temperature-controlled oil baths during the machining. And don't even get me started about their Parachrom hairspring production, which is like nothing else in the business.

All this probably sounds somewhat dry and impersonal, but what most impressed Henrik — a close friend who's a highly-trained watchmaker — during his visits to Rolex was the sheer number of people involved at every step of production for quality control and much of the finesse-dependent skilled work that really puts the manu into manufacturing.

Beyond the movement stuff, even simple-seeming but critical components such as their special crystal gasket are superior by design.

Artisanal they certainly ain't, but nobody is more hardcore when it comes to serious technical watchmaking than Rolex. Cripes, their head of R&D has a doctorate in the little-known field of tribology, which surprisingly isn't about the study of groups of ravers, but that of mechanical friction and lubricity. In my opinion, and in that of many experienced watchmakers, they produce the best-designed movements in the industry when it comes what matters for the actual wearing.

And as I've probably mentioned at some point, I really didn't think much of Rolex until I met a watchmaker at a party who'd recently quit Patek's vintage restoration department for a better-paying oilfield-robotics job, and we got to talking. He was wearing a 4130-movement Daytona with a black dial.

This is fantastic information. I think for an everyday watch, robustness should be the key criteria in the movement. To me a key would be reducing parts, I mean that's just common sense. All this information has been super helpful, even if it's still just a bunch of data points swirling through my head. At some point the goal is to definitely start with a baseline as a comparison point and go from there (and I know the one is a direct comparison to the ETA 2892, but I just need to understand that better to appreciate the comparison). Now if I want something pretty to look at, I'm okay with a high part count; plus the assumption there is that watch is putting up with significantly less wear and tear than a daily wearer. But again, thanks for all the info.

 

[DLJr]

And to keep it watch-related, here's a recent one of some stuff I had laying around the other day:

Hope all's well with you and yours! It's always a pleasure to hear from you.

I need to pick up a 16710 Pepsi, but life keeps getting in the way. Flight, whether in or out of atmosphere has been a big part of my adult life, so I need to keep the aviation theme going. And now I am far more educated on the movement inside of it as well.

 

[no frills]

Indeed it does, V. But I'm enjoying all of them so far; it's by far the most motivating and rewarding job I've ever had.

Sincere thanks for the kind words. I still feel that I'm essentially a big kid — though one with more responsibilities than before, especially with #2 due at the end of January — which makes it very easy to relate with an eleven-month-old who I love dearly.

So now it's on to a new city and a new career in the midst of house-hunting. Exciting times ahead for sure.

Hope all's well with you and yours! It's always a pleasure to hear from you.

Wow, congrats in advance for the upcoming addition to the family! You are going to grow the household by 33% (by count, not bodyweight).

Will take the convo elsewhere, but hey hey - I'll always be grateful to SF and TWAT for friends I've interacted with IRL (whoa how cool am I with these Millennial acronyms?), chatting about not just watches but far more important things.

Best wishes, R - I mean Belli.