Why Rolex?

[Uncle-AJ]

Originally Posted by MathewJ

As a newcommer to this site (but not to watch sites in general), and having skimmed the first few pages of this thread I must say that I do agree with alot of what the ebay poster has been saying given my personal experience etc.

Welcome Mathew, so what do you think?

[dman]

Matthew, welcome to TRF.

I think that you may or not be happy with what you find when you go beyond Rolex. I know everyone has a different expierence. For me it was a good one. I still have a Rolex in my collection, YM, but I give equal or more love to the Panerai and IWC.

Rolex is not the be all end all of watches, but they are great looking, dependable and tough as nails. Now given the QC recently of Rolex (and all watch brands) there are exceptions, I know this, but for the most part the are really solid.

[MathewJ]

Thanks AJ, JJ and Mr. K for the welcome...a few names here that I haven't seen in a while...

For Baptistman, I am not trying to say that liking Rolex is wrong, or this isn't a contest for anyone's opinion...Mr. K simply asked "why Rolex" to which I gave my reasons and my thoughts on others...

Again I see the Rolex image/status, history, and value retention because of such playing a large role in their popularity and an even bigger role in the question that Mr. K asks..why Rolex especially when compared to others that are arguably just as good, if not better in many regards for much less money...

Even I who has had two negative experineces with their product, and one which I felt just wasn't worth the money due to the build (Datejust, loved the watch but just couldn't get over the price for a non SEL bracelet and that non locking clasp) cannot seem to, or rather has a hard time getting past looking at Rolex...every logical aspect of my brain says I am crazy for still liking their products but from a purely emotional standpoint I cannot help but continue to think about a Daytona.

My one pet peeve though short of Rolex USA's lack of customer service, and my personal experiences and witnessed of their quality control, is that with the attitude of many owners/enthsiasts who take comments/criticisms of a brand or a product (in this case Rolex) almost personally...something that I really cannot limit to Rolex as it applies to enthusiasts of all market leaders...

If you present a problem be it with service or the product itself, or a question in design or pricing to any other group "generally" contributors are accepting and often times in agreement...many people on the Omega forum were open to the fact that their US service was horrible, or that the prices of certain models weren't in line with others that offered as much or more...however with Rolex owners they are quick to jump on whomever brings what they percieve as negative criticism and label that person a troll or unrealistic or try whatever is at their disposale to debunk their arguments and keep their image of as Rolex pristine as possible...unfortunate as with that attitude what motivation would Rolex ever have to improve upon anything...though I guess in these people's eyes they are perfect as they are.

[MathewJ]

Originally Posted by dman

Matthew, welcome to TRF.

I think that you may or not be happy with what you find when you go beyond Rolex. I know everyone has a different expierence. For me it was a good one. I still have a Rolex in my collection, YM, but I give equal or more love to the Panerai and IWC.

Rolex is not the be all end all of watches, but they are great looking, dependable and tough as nails. Now given the QC recently of Rolex (and all watch brands) there are exceptions, I know this, but for the most part the are really solid.

Hello Dman,

Honestly I think you might be correct, there is always the possibility that should I decide to go with something else I might be just as if not more so displeased with what I get...which is one reason why I am debating whether or not I should dump the Sub and move on or just tough it out, wait for a first service and see if they right some of what I percieve as their wrongs or if I get enough wear on the piece I might just stop caring...as I said to someone else whenever I resolve to sell a watch I generally stop wearing it and that has yet to happen with my Sub, then again I stand to lose the most on this piece so that might be a factor as well.

I will say it is good to get someone in the Rolex crowd that openly admits everything might not be peaches and sunshine all of the time...

I have resolved that either way I will be buying a JLC Master Grande Taille or Ultra thin as my next watch...if I am satisfied with the build and finish of whichever I choose I might consider selling the Sub and picking up something along the lines of a Planet Ocean for daily wear, either that or just keep the Sub along with the JLC and see how things work out. I wonder if I will be as critical of other brands as I am Rolex...in my case their marketing machine may have worked against them as because of quality claims I hold them to strict scrutiny, something I might or might not do with others...then again I am certain price and lack of discount plays a part in that as well as if I could have scored upwards of 20% off I am certain I would be a little more forgiving in terms of fit and finish.

It is unfortunate that I don't find many appealing options in the sport watch segment as I do with Rolex, however I am perfectly comfortable admitting that marketing has a large effect on me in this regard and thus I view Rolex as being one of the only choices in terms of appearance and function.

[dman]

I love that JLC model.

It is a great marketing company, Rolex, for sure. They are the best at it, IMHO. So the allure is strong, I agree with you 100%.

It was almost a leap of faith for me to get into another brand. One thing that I noticed right away, is alot of the "anal" stuff went away. I know that the movemnet in my Pnaerai 88 or IWC AT chrono aren't "made" in house, although they are almost totally reworked. When I stopped wearing only Rolex, I stopped expecting my watches to be perfect and just keep time, pretty close instead of dead on.

I am a fan of Rolex, but certainly not a fanatic (anymore, at least). I just think that they market so well, we expect the watch to live up to the hype, and it doesn't noramlly do that. None of my watches do that, but they all aren't marketed as well as Rolex.

[BruceS]

I would say that I'm a big Rolex fan, but having owned a bunch of them, and also Omega, Panerai, IWC, Breitling, Sinn, and Breguet, I could find something wrong with everyone of them if I tried. I think too many people buy a "high end" watch expecting perfection. I just don't think that exists. I've even heard of defective Pateks. Mechanical things break and no company's QC is perfect. So, I've come to expect imperfections and accept them.

Luckily, I've never experienced a problem with a Rolex, but I imagine if I bought enough of them I would (I think I've owned 9 of them now). What I haven't experienced yet, is Rolex service. I hear good and bad, but it's the same with all brands.

Rolex just seems to suit me best. I like a lot of other brands and styles, but I can't afford to have them all, so for now, I'm sticking with Rolex. One shouldn't get too emotional about all this. They're just watches, hell jewelry, afterall

What makes me laugh is anyone who buys a mechanical watch and expects perfection. I mean, the things are designed with the knowledge that they cannot run perfectly in-synch with the atomic clock. They all gain and or lose time, and yet people get their knickers in a knot when they are +3 or even +7 a day.

The principle of a mechanical watch is designed imperfection.

I mean if you are that anal about accuracy, buy a quartz. However, I would be pretty pissed if I bought a luxury watch and found the QC lacking. Thankfully Rolex Canada has an excellent reputation for servicing clients (must be cuz its owned by the mothership, unlike Rolex USA, where they treat their clients like the watches are on loan to customers).

[dman]

I agree guys, accuracy is all relative and close to me is good enough. As far as QC, Bruce I just read that Jason (hwilsdworf) on TZ had his 3 month old crown stick to the point of having to send it in for service to Panerai on his 112.

Your point is great, it is just jewelry, expensive jewelry that I hope tells decent time.

[BruceS]

Originally Posted by Atomic

What makes me laugh is anyone who buys a mechanical watch and expects perfection. I mean, the things are designed with the knowledge that they cannot run perfectly in-synch with the atomic clock. They all gain and or lose time, and yet people get their knickers in a knot when they are +3 or even +7 a day.

The principle of a mechanical watch is designed imperfection.

I mean if you are that anal about accuracy, buy a quartz. However, I would be pretty pissed if I bought a luxury watch and found the QC lacking. Thankfully Rolex Canada has an excellent reputation for servicing clients (must be cuz its owned by the mothership, unlike Rolex USA, where they treat their clients like the watches are on loan to customers).

I have a Sinn 142 that's just totally f'd up. It has an inner rotating bezel that NEVER worked from the git go, but I figured I'd get it fixed before the warranty ran out. Then the damn chrono crapped out and won't reset! How's that for a mechanical problem in a watch that's a year old? Luckily it has a 2 year warranty.

I still think Sinn makes good watches, but I'm sure not happy about it. My Omega GMT just stopped running after about a month. I didn't feel like dealing with crappy Omega service in the US and certainly didn't feel like sending it to Bienne, so I had my watchmaker look at it. He couldn't find anything wrong, so he took it apart and cleaned it piece by piece, put it back together and it worked fine. I haven't bought a new Omega since, though, and I still hesitate to even though there are some I like.

Well, my ExpII has been running perfectly since I bought it. In fact, it has just become more accurate as time wears on. Bruce, sounds like you have had some lemons, but then I guess if you buy as many watches as you do, you are bound to increase your chances at getting a bad one.

I have only met one person who had a QC issue with their new Rolex. He was a Toronto guy I met from the other place (had dinner with him and two others from there once) and he bought his 16610 in Hong Kong, but noticed a small (and i mean small) nick in the cyclops. Rolex Canada swapped out the crystal and had it back to him within days, no charge.

Rolex makes a robust watch that is tougher than most and more accurate than most. It isnt perfect, but for what it is, it is pretty damned good.

[BruceS]

Originally Posted by dman

I agree guys, accuracy is all relative and close to me is good enough. As far as QC, Bruce I just read that Jason (hwilsdworf) on TZ had his 3 month old crown stick to the point of having to send it in for service to Panerai on his 112.

Your point is great, it is just jewelry, expensive jewelry that I hope tells decent time.

Jason told me about that problem. He said it's kept him from buying his 4th Panny too. Remember Yogi's problem with the winding? I actually heard ALOT about Panerai problems well before I got into them. The bezels used to fall off the Submersibles, lol I still think the bezels feel flimsey as hell. That's what kept me from buying one.

Anyway, my Rolexes have been very accurate, but so have other watches. The Omega GMT that got repaired ran spot on after that. I thought the IWC 3706 I had was damn accurate as was the Breguet. You can make any good watch accurate with a regulation. Something that seperates them, though is how long they stay accurate and whether they still will be after getting banged up. Rolex seems to handle that well, and from what I've heard, a lot of the finely finished high end watches won't. It's kinda like the finely tuned Ferarri vs the Range Rover.

I just really believe that Rolex watches are somewhat tougher than most. My opinion on that comes from a lot of anecdotal stories plus my overall feeling about the ones I've owned.

This whole notion of "the best" is really dumb. What the hell does "the best" mean? I think it means something entirely different to different people. Some people are into highly decorated movements and finely finished cases and bracelets. They won't like Rolex. I really don't care about that stuff. I like tough watches that still look good after years of use. I respect Patek, but I don't want one.

[dman]

You and I are in the same boat Bruce. Not from a watch collection, but from the point of view that people should wear what smiles at them, and not what others think. I may very likely buy another Rolex in the future, I may not though. It is not due to disdain for the brand, but diversity with other brands.

One thing is for sure, I like watches that can take a bump, I am one of the worlds clummsiest people.

[Goodwatch]

Originally Posted by Atomic

What makes me laugh is anyone who buys a mechanical watch and expects perfection. I mean, the things are designed with the knowledge that they cannot run perfectly in-synch with the atomic clock. They all gain and or lose time, and yet people get their knickers in a knot when they are +3 or even +7 a day.

The principle of a mechanical watch is designed imperfection.

I mean if you are that anal about accuracy, buy a quartz. However, I would be pretty pissed if I bought a luxury watch and found the QC lacking. Thankfully Rolex Canada has an excellent reputation for servicing clients (must be cuz its owned by the mothership, unlike Rolex USA, where they treat their clients like the watches are on loan to customers).

Run of the mill quartz watches aren't that accurate either. But there were (or are?) a few Japanese manufacturers (and I think Omega) who made +/- <1 second a month movements (Mega Quartz?).

Although I’m a bit of a time freak (I have a professional DCF receiver with display), I’ve never had an appointment or meeting or whatever, where 10 seconds more or less was important. And as long as I don’t have to navigate a ship over the seven seas by hand (nor any other method I hasten to add), this deviation is fine by me.

But the concept of having a small movement on your wrist that is capable of chronometer performance remains quite an achievement. I realize that is was only the movement that was certified, with the date gear not attached, and not the complete watch. But still, in this digital age, it’s a small marvel.

Will mechanical watches remain? Will they still exist in 50 years? Only time will tell.

[BruceS]

But the concept of having a small movement on your wrist that is capable of chronometer performance remains quite an achievement. I realize that is was only the movement that was certified, with the date gear not attached, and not the complete watch. But still, in this digital age, it’s a small marvel.

I marvel at mechanical movements too. Just the fact that all those tiny parts fit together so perfectly and achieve the error rate they do is amazing to me.

As far as certification, I really like the way IWC and JLC go about testing their watches. They aren't COSC certified, but I think they are better than that because they test the movement inside the watch and subject it to even tougher standards. I really like IWC's philosophy that a watch should NEVER be slow! The one brand that could sway me from Rolex right now is IWC. I totally love the Portuguese watches (although they are too dressy for me now). The Mark XV is still one of my all time favs, and I totally dig the old version of the Aquatimer. That baby rocks!!

[dman]

Originally Posted by BruceS

I marvel at mechanical movements too. Just the fact that all those tiny parts fit together so perfectly and achieve the error rate they do is amazing to me.

As far as certification, I really like the way IWC and JLC go about testing their watches. They aren't COSC certified, but I think they are better than that because they test the movement inside the watch and subject it to even tougher standards. I really like IWC's philosophy that a watch should NEVER be slow! The one brand that could sway me from Rolex right now is IWC. I totally love the Portuguese watches (although they are too dressy for me now). The Mark XV is still one of my all time favs, and I totally dig the old version of the Aquatimer. That baby rocks!!

Mark XV white dial on the TZ sales corner as I type.

[BruceS]

Originally Posted by dman

Mark XV white dial on the TZ sales corner as I type.

No shite? BRB

[BruceS]

Nah. Doesn't sound very good, plus no pics and the guy only has 4 posts. Buy the seller!!

[dman]

Originally Posted by BruceS

Nah. Doesn't sound very good, plus no pics and the guy only has 4 posts. Buy the seller!!

I know, it did not sound good at all, but I am keeping any eye out for ya mate.

[BruceS]

Originally Posted by dman

I know, it did not sound good at all, but I am keeping any eye out for ya mate.

Thanks dude. I appreciate it Hey, do you realize how long we've gone on having a serious watch discussion? I guess it is possible

[dman]

Originally Posted by BruceS

Thanks dude. I appreciate it Hey, do you realize how long we've gone on having a serious watch discussion? I guess it is possible

Serious? Where? Here? Point them out and I will make sure they get their asses banned.

[BruceS]

Originally Posted by dman

Serious? Where? Here? Point them out and I will make sure they get their asses banned.

LOL, I guess you n me n John are gonners then OK dudes and dudette (that was for Dina). I'm outta here soon, so see ya later

[dman]

Originally Posted by BruceS

LOL, I guess you n me n John are gonners then OK dudes and dudette (that was for Dina). I'm outta here soon, so see ya later

Have a safe commute from hell, I am gonna put up christmas lights and pick up Dylan from school.

[baseballduck]

Man, it's been like a few hours since I've been on here. *gasp* Anyway, welcome Mathew. I personally like Rolex not for the prestige or anything, but how they will take anything you throw at them and still keep running strong.

Tyler

[MathewJ]

Well there are a couple of new comments here that I noticed which I feel compelled to follow up on...

I just wanted to clarify that of the three Rolex watches I have owned none of them have had any problem with timekeeping or accuracy, so far as I can tell they have all been spot on and highly reliable in that regard, however as I have said in the past the last thing on my mind when spending four thousand on a steel watch is timekeeping as if that was my main concern I would just use my blackberry..ironic as the one thing that I care the least about is that which is never a problem...

My issues are with their finish work and their after sales service. I generally view quality or luxury items not by how "perfect" they are as I fully realize that nothing is ever perfect, but rather how consistant they are in their workmanship and the service they provide for their product. I feel that every watch they sell should be no different from one another in terms of fit and finish. Every watch they sell should be good enough to be featured in one of their advertisements, or at least that is what I gather in reading their quality guarantee.

Also I realize that what might be a problem or issue to me might be a total non issue with others...whenever I point out that which I notice or I find on a watch many are amazed that someone would even bother to look and openly admit that they would never notice.

However with that said...

A few recent examples I have seen of poor quality control that again I have never seen mentioned of any other brands are:

1. GMT Master which had one line of the "M" in Master that drooped further down than the rest of the text

2. Turn o Graph which was missing the text "Turn o Graph" from the dial

3. New Explorer with multiple markers which had sloppy luminova application

4. Anniversary Sub with one lug that was roughly finished on the end

5. Anniversary Sub with smaller minute hand instead of Maxi

I have pictures to verify of all of these with the exception of the Turn o Graphand the last Anniversary sub...and this is just the short list....I don't count the various posts which tell of material under the crystal, splotchy dial work and other oddities...I have even seen a Daytona with a poor dial, one would think that they would at least pay attention to the quality on a model that is as difficult to get as that?

As far as my own pieces have been concerned my Explorer was new never displayed and upon close inspection with the naked eye I noticed a faulty marker (12) and a piece of material stuck between the crystal and the case on the inside, I took it to my local jeweler who verified the problem and sent it to Rolex. One would think that a simple dial swap for a new dial and removal of a piece of material would be rather simple however Rolex NY managed to scratch, marr and ding virtually every piece on a near flawless watch which was less than three months old...even the hands and every screw head on the bracelet was damaged. What really was telling to me though was with the piece of material, instead of removing the bezel and the crystal and properly removing the material it appeared as if someone just used a pair of tweezers to pull the material out and ripped it in half leaving a jagged edge stuck under the crystal...now I know that whomever did that knew they were doing a half fast job and knew that the material was still stuck there.

Wrote Rolex Geneve outlining my frustration at which point they agreed to refinish the watch and replace the hands...even after all of that they managed to polish one lug down more than the other three and still left a piece of material under the dial...out of frustration I sold it at a loss figuring it was a fluke and hoped an upgrade to one of their most popular models would fix that so I purchased a Submariner.

And just like murphy's law the Sub (also a new never worn special order piece with all protective material in tact) isn't much better overall than the Explorer was, while there is nothing under the dial this time the casework is less than stellar with one lug having a larger brushed top than the other three, the fliplock clasp appears to have been installed ever so crooked when compared to other images on the net, one top bracelet link sticks a little more than on the other side, and the small link which connects to the divers extension appears that someone went a little bit over with the buffer.

Wrote again to Rolex to voice my dissatisfaction when Gregory Kraff, manager of customer service replied with:

Dear Mathew J,

We acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated July 31st, 2005 regarding the quality and finishing on your Submariner Date watch bearing the serial number F849... It is unfortunate that you did not inspect the timepiece in question more closely to make sure that it would meet your particular standards upon purchase. The hand finishing process that all Rolex watches go through may result in minor variances and small optical differences. However each watch is inspected and only those that are within the tolderances set by the factory are deemed acceptable for sale. Since the period to address the situation with the Jeweler has expired, we are unable to offer any exchanges or replacement.

Now granted I didn't leave them much room to wiggle as I specifically said I wasn't going to stand for a polish job based on my past negative experience and I most certainly didn't want a recase as that will greatly devalue the piece I am still surprised in both their response considering their site claims that such variances should never happen, and also that they were willing to let a dissatisfied customer such as myself stew....I have worked with many other luxury companies and none will ever let a customer feel dissatisfied even if they are in the wrong...they will do whatever it takes to make the customer happy.

plus for them to suggest that someone shops around for the perfect piece knowing full well they limit supply, and to put the onus of inspection on the customer seems a little ridiculous to me...but that is just my take. I called many shops to find the Sub and felt lucky when I had found this one, someone special ordered it and opted to buy a cartier instead for her husband thus the piece was never displayed...none were available in the three surrounding states with the exception of one pretentious dealer which I did not like...yet according to Rolex I must shop around...

Maybe if I lived in another country which I didn't have to deal with Rolex US...or maybe the fates are against me with Rolex as retribution for my blind support of the brand in the past...either way seems like things just don't work out for me with them that well.

[dman]

I will never disagree about Rolex USA.

I remember that TOG that was missing the print, what a clusterf*** that was!! It might have been a collectors item, but that is a different story.

It is frusterating with all these brands that the initial QC and after sales service is not better. I have read of three guys I know in the last two days leaving certain brands because of botched service jobs or poor out of the factory watches.

For the money we pay, it is a shame.

[baseballduck]

I personally think that Rolex should do like NACCO. I know that none of you probably know what that is so I'll tell you. It stands for North American Coal Company. They also own Hamilton Beach, Yale(forklifts), and other companies. My dad is a supervisor here at the Hyster and Yale factory. Some of their clients for forklifts are places like Lowe's, Wal-Mart, and Chrysler just to name a few. Now back to what happens. If they screw something up or the buyer doesn't like what they get they send them back to the factory, make NACCO eat the cost for everything and either have to fix them or just build them new ones. Only if Rolex would do that for customer service.

Tyler

[dman]

Originally Posted by baseballduck

I personally think that Rolex should do like NACCO. I know that none of you probably know what that is so I'll tell you. It stands for North American Coal Company. They also own Hamilton Beach, Yale(forklifts), and other companies. My dad is a supervisor here at the Hyster and Yale factory. Some of their clients for forklifts are places like Lowe's, Wal-Mart, and Chrysler just to name a few. Now back to what happens. If they screw something up or the buyer doesn't like what they get they send them back to the factory, make NACCO eat the cost for everything and either have to fix them or just build them new ones. Only if Rolex would do that for customer service.

Tyler

In theory that is great Tyler, but in real life Rolex knows they don't have to satisfy all their customers to keep selling watches. They don't have fear of losing accounts and customers. I am sure they feel that if they could survive the quartz craze, they can survive and do whatever the heck they want.

[baseballduck]

Originally Posted by dman

In theory that is great Tyler, but in real life Rolex knows they don't have to satisfy all their customers to keep selling watches. They don't have fear of losing accounts and customers. I am sure they feel that if they could survive the quartz craze, they can survive and do whatever the heck they want.

That's the bad part. I still think that knowing how much people are shucking out for these things, which is way too much to begin with. Not saying that are bad watches, just saying on what it probably costs them to make one. If they put themselves in the consumers shoes they would want to be treated like royalty for service. But hey, Rolex is Rolex. What more do I need to say?

Tyler

[BruceS]

Originally Posted by dman

I will never disagree about Rolex USA.

I remember that TOG that was missing the print, what a clusterf*** that was!! It might have been a collectors item, but that is a different story.

It is frusterating with all these brands that the initial QC and after sales service is not better. I have read of three guys I know in the last two days leaving certain brands because of botched service jobs or poor out of the factory watches.

For the money we pay, it is a shame.

Micah has his share of problems with RSC SF. I know he was pretty fed up at one time. Didn't make him leave Rolex though.

[dman]

Originally Posted by BruceS

Micah has his share of problems with RSC SF. I know he was pretty fed up at one time. Didn't make him leave Rolex though.

I am of the mind that my watchmaker can fix any issue with any of the watches I have. I trust him and he cares if he gets repeat business so it is a win win situation.