The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Brei

[Hayward]



Actually, in the linked post Odets is comparing the Rolex to much cheaper watches.

He mentions Swatch, Patek and IWC in the article, but his expectations of the Explorer are based upon his familiarity with Trinity level pieces.

 

[marvin100]

He writes "I include in [this] observation, a number of movements in extremely inexpensive watches," though, is the thing.

 

[papa kot]

Without knowing the brand (well most of you guys probably know anyways) what do you guys think of this watch?

I just threw up in my mouth. Holy **** this is ugly.

 

[jorijori]

Have a nice weekend guys...

 

[sepp]

Dark and stormy plus cold and snowy.

 

[Tried and True]

Awww, they're cuddling.

 

[mimo]

I am getting the same iffy feeling on that AP as I do with the GO.
I thought they didn't have the Mayu in RG?

Man you're difficult! But yeah, I agree about the date on the first one - a total red line for me on such an expensive dress watch. Actually, any dress watch. Although for the "sporty" RO I think I'd make an exception. It is pimptastic, and such a decent size and thickness that I think it would work just fine. But I don't have the dough and you don't have the love, so let's move on.

My mistake, you're right: they just had the Mayu in palladium with the smokey dial or white gold with the brown dial. I was thinking of the pink gold Monard with the brown dial as one you might like. The red gold Henry with the black dial is probably too chunky for you, maybe the pink gold/blue moonphase too, and that's a lot more pricey. Anyway, if you think the Monard's worth a push, I'll give it a shot for you: list is around the low $20ks, I'm guessing 40% is easily doable, maybe even 45-50. For an in house Geneva-sealed movement, solid gold watch new from the AD, I think that's quite exciting. I'm also thinking that, cf. the IWC conversation above, it's kind of the opposite face of Schaffhausen, in a good way! But it's still real money, so if you just don't drool for it, understood.

It's still the same crappy review that is years old now and been discredited by many for just as long.

It was interesting to me. Of course, it's old, and maybe some processes have improved. But there is also a whiff of reality there: Rolex don't fuss about the beauty of their movements, and keep them hidden. And with a million watches a year (way more than when this was written), I'm sure it's even more true now that they will minimise the number of parts, simplify processes, and maximise commonality of components while keeping each of them as cheap as possible. Such is the business of major industrial production which, there is no doubt, is the business Rolex are in. That doesn't mean they're bad, any more than Sony or Mercedes Benz are bad. But they're not an exclusive, artisanal product either. I think his detailed observations are harsh in isolation, but overall, surely he has a point?

Which is this: just like Omega, or IWC, or even Hublot, Rolex spends massively on marketing. Their pruning of dealerships and increasingly intense protection of their pricing over recent years, has also been part of the same picture: with so much fierce competition, maintaining their position as both huge and exclusive, costs a lot of dough. As the writer said, there is no doubt that the watches work well - perhaps the most important thing in maintaining their respectable and admired status, and a massive achievement considering their production scale. But that doesn't change the fact that their marketing could well be more expensive than making their movements.

Most people on this thread love Rolex. There are several that I'd love to own myself, and at some point I have no doubt that at least one of them will be on my wrist. That doesn't mean it's wrong to say that we're paying for the brand as much as what's in it: the value proposition is very different from, say, Moser above: they will both work, but with one we're paying for beauty and romance, and the other, a rather more obvious form of status. Every time I see Rolex-sponsored golf updates on TV, or tennis tournaments, or clocks all over an airport, that is abundantly clear. It doesn't make it bad. But it's no less a fact that we are paying for the fluff with Rolex, than if it were the fifty-seventh moon watch or a Galapagos-saving special IWC Aquatimer.

Have a nice weekend guys...

You too. Watch looks good. Polo shirts are nicer than short sleeved dress shirts. I hate denim jeans, but I'm unreasonable. And I like these shoes more than the previous ones.

Dark and stormy plus cold and snowy.

@sepp , meet @Hayward . I think you might get along.

 

[HRoi]

RFX is going through the same dance that I've gone through countless times.

1. See the one you want,
2. obsess and research and agonize over a bunch of alternatives
3. Buy the one you originally wanted anyway

 

[tifosi]



RFX is going through the same dance that I've gone through countless times.

1. See the one you want,
2. obsess and research and agonize over a bunch of alternatives
2a. Buy multiple cheaper alternatives to try to satisfy the itch
2b. Sell multiple cheaper alternatives at a loss to fund the one you originally wanted
3. Buy the one you originally wanted anyway

I added a couple of my normal steps to that dance. haha

 

[sepp]

Hayward likes GS as well? Interesting thoughts you put there, mimo and I agreed with the over marketing some brands are doing out there, Rolex included.


I am surprised Moser is mentioned here as well. At the moment, I am leaning towards smaller independent brands though haven't bought any at all.


FP Journe does seemed to be more achievable for me presently.

 

[cchen]

Gents, any thoughts on the Glashutte senator chronometer? Looks like I might be able to get a rose gold version for a good deal....

Or should I save up more for an ALS 1815 up/down?

 

[sepp]



Gents, any thoughts on the Glashutte senator chronometer? Looks like I might be able to get a rose gold version for a good deal....

Or should I save up more for an ALS 1815 up/down?

I would go for the ALS if I were you. Having said that, Glasshutte looks really good as well.

 

[Axelman 17]

Not loving the Glashutte. I think the Senator looks better with a less cluttered dial. ALS up/down is spectacular.

 

[mimo]

Or should I save up more for an ALS 1815 up/down?

Yes.

I'm something of an apologist for GO, but especially as the alternative is Lange, there's no contest here: the Senator Classic and the Senator perpetual are both great IMHO, but the dial layout of this makes me think of Chronoswiss, the 9 o'clock date is an annoyance, and overall the 1815 is just so much more balanced and pleasing. And to be honest, most questions ending "...or the Lange?", only have one good answer. If you've got the bones, go for it, it's wonderful.

 

[rnguy001]

Get the GO its beautiful. But not if it's some quasi temporary hold me over piece until You can get an ALS. You'll regret it in that regard.