ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
12 January 2010, 02:33 PM | #121 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Real Name: Myron
Location: New York
Watch: GMT IIC; Sub Date
Posts: 3,166
|
While the Rolex is certainly expensive, other quality watches have gone up in price. Even Tag has watches in the 5-6,000 range. The key factor is Rolex quality- there really is a difference. I find accuracy, legibility, comfort, balance, and style superior to any other watch I own. I was just looking at a 5,000 IWC and was not impressed with the weight and feel. Plus, there was no micro-adjustment available on the bracelet.
|
12 January 2010, 02:53 PM | #122 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: USA
Watch: TT Sub Serti Dial
Posts: 55
|
Quote:
|
|
12 January 2010, 02:58 PM | #123 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Real Name: Joey
Location: Dallas, TX
Watch: SS Sub 16610 M
Posts: 3,824
|
I tried the whole quantity over quality thing and it DOES NOT work for me.
As long as it's not too out of reach, they are worth it to me.
__________________
Current Rotation: Rolex Submariner Date (M) - 1/08, Rolex Milgauss GV (V) - 2/10, Rolex SS Black Daytona (V) - 6/10, Rolex GMTIIC (G) - 5/11, TAG Heuer Silverstone (286/1860) - 1/2015 Former-watches: Omega PO/2535.80/2254, TAG Carrera/F1x2/Monaco, Panerai 312K/292L Wish List: Panerai 270/505, Rolex SMURF, Rolex RG Daytona, Rolex DSSD |
12 January 2010, 03:14 PM | #124 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Real Name: Dennis
Location: Bay Area - 925
Posts: 40,018
|
If your mind is set on a Rolex, nothing else will do and it's worth it.
__________________
TRF Member #6699 (since September 2007) |
12 January 2010, 03:15 PM | #125 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 19,695
|
|
12 January 2010, 03:38 PM | #126 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Real Name: Carl
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Watch: Rolex Explorer 1
Posts: 1,780
|
All depends on your priorities. For me, it is the biggest luxury I have. I rent modest accommodation, I don't have - nor want - a vehicle, don't make a lot of money, and some of the money for my watches comes out of my pension fund. Some say that I should keep the whole fund till I retire, but I like my work, so that may never happen.
I don't know what put me off getting a Rolex for so long. Until a few months ago, I knew very little about them. When the Milgauss came out in 2007, that did intrigue me, though. Now I own one. I have had numerous Breitlings, and have four Omegas. I still crave the Rolex when I am wearing the others. There is just something about the feel, the texture, the build quality, and the total luxurious feeling that you have to try for yourself to see. Not to mention the mechanical innovations in the watch. The price of many of the models is about the same - and sometimes less - than other brands like Breitling and Omega charge for their new inhouse movements. Remember, all of Rolex movements are inhouse. Value for a classic and quality watch that refuses to be trendy. Cheers, Carl
__________________
Those who possess a sense of entitlement are seldom satisfied. |
12 January 2010, 04:32 PM | #127 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Real Name: Bob
Location: U.S.A.
Watch: 1655
Posts: 61,292
|
Yes, si, oui, ja......& as the Beatles sang....yeah, yeah, yeah.
|
12 January 2010, 10:21 PM | #128 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Real Name: Peter
Location: Massachusetts
Watch: 214270 Mk2
Posts: 1,937
|
About 5 years ago I too debated the value of the Rolex, and sold a 16610 Sub to fund the purchase of a few Omega watches. Well, I ended up selling all the Omegas and getting back the 16610. Now I have three Rollies in the stable. I have never purchased a Rolex new, and have always done very well on purchase price and resale. IMO buying new doesn't make sense unless money is falling out of your pockets.
I guess for me the pre-owned Rolex is where the value is. I paid $3500 for a LNIB Sub Date back in 2005 and could probably sell it for $3500 today. If I had bought new, well we all know how that story goes.
__________________
2016 Explorer 214270 Mk2 - 1996 Submariner 14060* - 1972 Datejust 1601 1972 Oyster Perpetual 1002 - 1978 Oysterquartz 17000 Omega Seamaster 2265.80 - Omega Seamaster 300 166.0324 *RIP PAL 1942-2015 |
13 January 2010, 12:01 AM | #129 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Real Name: Mac
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,368
|
If you want and can, then do.
If you want and can't, then don't. If you don't want and can, you won't. If you don't want and can't, it will never cross your mind!
__________________
I do not offer or provide any Rolex investment advice or opinion regarding the nature, potential, value, suitability or profitability of any particular watch, collections of watches, transaction or investment watch collecting strategy, and you shall be fully responsible for any watch decisions you make, and such decisions will be based solely on your evaluation of your financial circumstances, watch objectives, risk tolerance, and what looks good in yoru opinion on your wrist. |
13 January 2010, 12:03 AM | #130 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Real Name: TSW
Location: Le Brassus
Watch: Rolex & AP's
Posts: 27,449
|
They are worth every penny!!
__________________
AP Owners Club IG @swiss.watch.connection |
13 January 2010, 12:14 AM | #131 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 954
|
Quote:
I would rather have one or two Rolex watches than 30 or 100 lesser quality watches. I apply this to all I do in life. I would rather pay more up front for a better item, be it a television, or a firearm and have the best there is and enjoy it. I have never regretted buying the very best of anything that I could afford in my life. |
|
13 January 2010, 04:46 AM | #132 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Real Name: Peter
Location: Massachusetts
Watch: 214270 Mk2
Posts: 1,937
|
Quote:
__________________
2016 Explorer 214270 Mk2 - 1996 Submariner 14060* - 1972 Datejust 1601 1972 Oyster Perpetual 1002 - 1978 Oysterquartz 17000 Omega Seamaster 2265.80 - Omega Seamaster 300 166.0324 *RIP PAL 1942-2015 |
|
13 January 2010, 06:04 AM | #133 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Dan
Location: Essex, UK
Watch: West Ham! COYI!!
Posts: 7,941
|
Quote:
__________________
Onwards & Upwards Rodders...... Onwards & Upwards. Life is not about how fast you can run or how high you can climb........... It's about how well you can bounce!! TRF HALL OF FAME JANUARY 2010 |
|
13 January 2010, 06:11 AM | #134 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Real Name: John
Location: Washington
Watch: 16710, 16610, DJ
Posts: 7,329
|
Quote:
|
|
13 January 2010, 06:29 AM | #135 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Real Name: Monty
Location: Georgia
Watch: Sub LV
Posts: 787
|
|
13 January 2010, 03:53 PM | #136 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Real Name: Chris
Location: San antonio, TX
Watch: 116610LV
Posts: 2,138
|
After reading this thread I am quite amused.
Of course it is all what is worth to YOU. However, I keep seeing people saying "quality over quantity" in regards to why Rolex is superior, to aformentioned brands such as Omega and Breitling. Have these members actually read the quality specifications for the original Omega Speedmaster? Here is some of NASA's criteria to refresh some of the forum members' memories to eliminate some of the ignorance in this thread. 1. Vacuum testing The chronograph shall be subjected to a vacuum of 1x10^-6 Torr or better for a total of 72 hours. During the first 10 hours of testing the temperature of the items shall be increased to 160 (+/-10) degrees F. The temperature shall then be returned to 78 (+/-10) degrees F for the remainder of the test. 2. Oxygen Atmosphere/Temperature Test The test items shall be placed in atmosphere of 95 +/-5 percent oxygen at a pressure of 5+/-0.1 psia and a temperature of 155 +/-5 degrees F for 72 hours. Gas samples extracted from the chamber area shall be analyzed for organic and CO content per test number 6 of D-NA-0002. 3. Low Temperature The test items shall be lowered to 0 +/- 5 degrees F. This temperature shall be maintained for 10 +/-0.5 hours. The test items shall be allowed to return to ambient before functional testing. 4. Acceleration The test items shall be subjected to 20's +/- 2 g's in each direction of the three (3) perpendicular axes. 5. Random Vibration The test items shall be installed in a fixture and submitted to 7.8 g's RMS for 5 +/-0.1 minutes, as defined in figure 2 in each of 3 axes. The test fixture with the test items shall then be submitted to 3.2 g's for 12 +/-0.1 minutes as defined in figure 1, in each of the 3 axes [Eds. Note: Figures not provided]. 6. EMI Test The test items shall be subjected to all applicable requirements of Mil-STD-461A, if an electromechanical movement is employed. 7. Humidity Testing The test items shall be submitted to a humidity test per MIL-STD-810B, Method 507, Procedure I, except minimum temperature shall be 68 deg F and maximum temperature shall be 120 deg F. Rolex's submission to NASA failed btw. And if quality and desiring "the best" was TRULEY their motive, not the brand name and marketing, than these members would be saving for a Jaeger. |
13 January 2010, 04:10 PM | #137 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 16
|
Although I wouldn't dispute that Rolex is worth every penny, I agree with the last poster where you shouldn't consider Breitling and Omega less quality brands. Not to mention others like IWC, Patek, AP, Hublot, etc
|
13 January 2010, 04:20 PM | #138 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: singapore
Posts: 6,424
|
I have a friend who for the past 25 years repairs watches and clocks, and is employed by the Rolex AD in the city he lives in. He has told me that in his view, Rolex is definitely worth the price if you look purely at the intellectual capital that has been invested in the quality of the case and robustness of the movement.
|
13 January 2010, 04:22 PM | #139 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: texas
Watch: GMT Master IIc
Posts: 545
|
When you buy a Rolex you pay for prestige, it is a status symbol. They are well made watches but you are not buying a watch you are buying a Rolex, well worth it to me.
|
14 January 2010, 07:41 AM | #140 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Real Name: Edgars
Location: Southeastern PA
Watch: Wimbledon DJ
Posts: 201
|
I guess it's "worth it" if the individual owner thinks it is. I think my 16610 that I purchased new in 1997 is worth the money I spent on it (it will go to my son very soon). I also think the Speedmaster Pro I just purchased 2 weeks ago is worth the money I spent on it. Having said that, I do think I got more for my money with the Speedmaster.
|
14 January 2010, 08:57 AM | #141 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,753
|
Your spot on. 7k is far too much for these stainless steel.
|
14 January 2010, 11:00 AM | #142 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: united states
Watch: submariner,daytona
Posts: 707
|
Quote:
|
|
14 January 2010, 02:17 PM | #143 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Aaron
Location: MA
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 501
|
Like others, I started with Omega's, Tags, Seiko's, etc, but was never satisfied until I started buying Rolex. I now wish I never wasted my money on anything but. However, I also think having other luxury watches prior to owning a Rolex, helps somoene appreciate them even more.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.