Is Rolex more durable than other watch brands?

[uansari1]

Originally Posted by FTX I

I'd say Omega & Rolex are equally durable.

Definitely been my experience. My Seamasters are just as robust as my Rolex pieces.

[V10K]

Originally Posted by AK797

By your definition a Rolex is very durable. The fact that they look great and can feel very luxurious, esp the PM models, is a great bonus.

What is PM?

[Psmith]

Originally Posted by V10K

What is PM?

PM = precious metal

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by V10K

What is PM?

post mortem or precious metal

[Sublovin]

I don't know if the biggest appeal of the Rolex is extreme durability, but it certainly is one aspect. Look at all the vintage that people still wear on a daily basis, I think it speaks to the fact that they are meant to be worn

[V10K]

My favorite watch is my 1981 Rolex OysterQuartz 17014. It was buffed and looks as good as new.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by faz

Sure.

Since I don't have the time and energy to frequent other watch forums, I ask: do people on other luxury watch forums consider that brand to be the most durable??? Or do they consider it to be better in other aspects and not necessarily reliability??




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, people on other watch forums don't waste their time on comparing their favourite brand with others.

It does seem to be a common trait among members of one particular watch forum(which shall remain nameless).
I think it's a cultural issue for a number of reasons

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Sublovin

I don't know if the biggest appeal of the Rolex is extreme durability, but it certainly is one aspect. Look at all the vintage that people still wear on a daily basis, I think it speaks to the fact that they are meant to be worn

Yes, one does tend to see quite a lot of vintage Rolex watches around out there in the wild.
Not so much of other brands.
I also think some watches just end up in the bottom of a drawer somewhere along with a number of others and forgotten about.
Not so much with Rolex.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by uansari1

Definitely been my experience. My Seamasters are just as robust as my Rolex pieces.

Agreed.
Of course that's when the watches are worn with a degree of respect and consideration, as all mechanical watches should be.
There should be not much difference between them in theory.

It's when accidents happen that the durability of a watch comes into question and those events are too infrequent and random with no two being the same to be able to draw comparisons.

I will always go with a well established reputation.
Rolex movements have a reputation for being robust(tanks) among the people who service and repair them professionally year in year out and for very good reasons.
Lets not forget that at one stage in history, Omega was widely regarded as having the superior watches and movements compared to Rolex for equally good reasons.

Over time, Rolex was successful in redefining and shifting the parameters surrounding the definition of reliability to become the industry standard.
This situation has been in place for many decades now with careful redesign and application of sound re-engineering principals to their movements building on inherent strengths and the shift to newer and better design.
Hence the new movements emerging from Rolex which should keep them at or near the top of the game.

It remains to be seen whether the Daniels escapement as presented by Omega proves to be as good as hoped.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by V10K

I am not familiar with RM, but their designs seem to be more contemporary avant garde. It's not something I am that into. I like neo traditional with a classic elegant flavor.

The original question was asked because I am having a hard time finding watches that I can be into. Most are fashion pieces as opposed to watch for daily wear (I think you guys refer to it as tool watches, which sounds like Home Improvement to me). I don't know why but Omega watches have never really appealed to me.

Watch design and styling is an intensely personal thing.

Rolex doesn't change much in that regard but they improve and evolve over time which is what you find appealing.

Other major manufacturers change quite regularly in comparison trying to redefine or refresh their designs. This ultimately dilutes their brand and identity somewhat.
Perhaps this is the issue that appeals to you the least.

I have said it before and I'll say it again.
Besides their timeless design, the biggest strength with Rolex is the capacity of their world wide service network to perform work to a consistently high standard which is comparatively accessible.
From experience other brands can't compare in this regard.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by breitlings

you can knock them out of regulation, any lever adjusted movement for that matter. I have several times on an old chronomat.

Also movements designed with a Balance Cock as opposed to a Balance Bridge.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Psmith

PM = precious metal

Originally Posted by brandrea

post mortem or precious metal

I had Pri Madonna but whatever.

[Dirt]

I was also thinking Past Midday.

Or Pre-M*******al

[faz]

Originally Posted by meganfox17

On the Omega forum,it's more brand focus, discussing about the History ,the present and future directions and how the darling of the Swatch group can further improve in the marketing and technical aspects.The OF boasts two distinguished gentlemen just to name a few : Mr Robert Jan-Broer of Fratellowatches with Speedy Tuesday and the brilliant watchmaker and watch repairman, Mr Al Jensky of Archer Watches
Nope. Never the case on the Omega forum

Thank you for your feedback. Also did a quick google on the names you provided, will have to look at them sometime in future.

Originally Posted by Dirt

No, people on other watch forums don't waste their time on comparing their favourite brand with others.

It does seem to be a common trait among members of one particular watch forum(which shall remain nameless).
I think it's a cultural issue for a number of reasons

Thanks. Well, these discussions are informative for those of us who are new to this WIS thing, so I at least appreciate them.

[MK25toLife]

My two cents, I recently sold a Patek 5164A Aquanaut Time Travel because it felt so delicate. This wasn't some grand complication or anything either! There was ni comparison compared to the ceramic Daytona and GMT I have. I can wear those without worrying about anything, even a gold one.

[hugs]

I believe as an ultimate daily beater you can't been some of the innovations from Richard Mille. The tourbillon that can withstand huge shocks etc..

I think these are the most sport watches out there..

[V10K]

Originally Posted by hugs

I believe as an ultimate daily beater you can't been some of the innovations from Richard Mille. The tourbillon that can withstand huge shocks etc..

I think these are the most sport watches out there..

I haven't come across any of their watches under $40,000. Is it common to spend that level of cash for a daily beater?

[peterskinner]

Originally Posted by HorologyK

My Patek 5167 stopped working for no reason after 18 months. Enough said.

And you think Rolex watches can't break down when nearly new? Just reading this forum will tell you that's not so.
As for the Aquanaut 'feeling delicate' .......really? It's how they perform that counts.

[mahefa]

Rolex has good reputation as being reliable and robust. And by good i mean Toyota Land Cruiser level good.

Patek Philippe manuals are hilarious to read. There are many times mentioned how careful you have to be with the watch so it would not go broken. To me it means low-level engineering, bad quality and lousy job making watches.

Like said, many people do not prioritize robustness of the watch like fe. i do. Many like Patek because they like how precise it is made. I understand that as well. I just do not like anything that is said to be quality but it is not durable and reliable. I like Porsche 911, Toyota Land Cruiser, Mercedes E-Class etc. They are Rolexes of the car world to me.

I think watches cannot be put in line only based on robustness. People like different things in watches.

[mahefa]

Originally Posted by MK25toLife

My two cents, I recently sold a Patek 5164A Aquanaut Time Travel because it felt so delicate. This wasn't some grand complication or anything either! There was ni comparison compared to the ceramic Daytona and GMT I have. I can wear those without worrying about anything, even a gold one.

I understand totally. Many of my friends live "watch first" because they have Patek or similar. They more like safely transport their watches on their wrists. I do not understand that at all.

I considered Patek instead of Day-Date and made kind of a "long research" as it is easy here in Switzerland - just chatted with 20-30 people with experience of Patek. The result was that Patek can't be prioritized with durability in any case, period. There are a lot of other aspects with Patek of course, i personally just don't like none of them anymore.

[hugs]

Originally Posted by V10K

I haven't come across any of their watches under $40,000. Is it common to spend that level of cash for a daily beater?

Well was going to comment that Nadal does for a start

But then I don't think he spent a single cent on his Richard Mille collection

[V10K]

Originally Posted by mahefa

Rolex has good reputation as being reliable and robust. And by good i mean Toyota Land Cruiser level good.

Funny you mention the car analogy, I have 2 Land Cruisers and 2 Rolex DateJust OysterQuartz. I believe the OQ to be the most robust, reliable, and accurate watch ever made by Rolex. Even though I love them, I'm on the lookout for any other watches that incite my passions.

I bought this watch last week but not sure how I feel about it, JLC Squadra Reverso Quartz:


I had a JLC Squadra Hometime which I hardly wore because it was black and I wear light colored attire. Personally, I do love the shape, I want to love the brand but I'm suffering from Rolexitis.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by FTX I

I'd say Omega & Rolex are equally durable.

I'd definitely add Breitling to the list of durable watches!!!! My SuperOcean Steelfish X-Plus seems pretty damned tough. It's one of the reasons I like it. Obviously the entire brand isn't made to be this rugged but this one nails it imho. FWIW, not all Omegas are created equal either. Some of the early Co-axials are known to self destruct. It took four iterations and recalls for Omega to get it right. I'm waiting for the shoe to drop on my Planet Ocean.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

I'd definitely add Breitling to the list of durable watches!!!!

Never had one but I agree with you, Lee.

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

I'd definitely add Breitling to the list of durable watches!!!!

^^^ Agree. Breitling builds a solid and durable watch. They do the golf club test on their watches. Omega movements are spotty in the durable dept. The Coaxial is sensitive on the correct oiling.

[kd_submariner]

Great thread-- I've seen a lot of replies elaborating on Pateks or JLCs in relation to Rolex, what about AP ROOs? How do those compare to something like a Sub in terms of where-it-through-mostly-anything durability

[waterman1]

Originally Posted by DougC

Rolex sub and especially the deep sea are the most durable watches made, I have destroyed several diving watches when I was a Navy Deep Sea Diver until purchasing a sub date that I wore every day for more than 30 years, one that didn't withstand the abuse of my occupation was a Seiko diving watch that fell apart in less than 6 months, I actually wore my watches while working at depth conducting demanding tasks.

Enough said....

[Verdi]

Rolex built the Brand values on these grounds.
60-70 yrs ago, watches would not be waterproof and would be sensitive to weather change/humidity levels and shocks. Accuracy was a give or take matter.

Rolex comes out with the oyster, automatic watch.......that was also cosc. It was all that one could desired in those times. Is it more durable than others!? You bet it is.
Those workhorse movements and oyster cases are the perfect recipe for a durable watch.

Rolex is now a luxury item but the durable pedigree watch is still there. More durable and solid than most of the other players. Rolex has specifically focused on this. Hence no tourbilions, minute repeaters or other compications as such.
The brand policy was always to perfect what they have and make durable, solid timepieces. In the old times watches would not last a lifetime, unless you really took care of it and made sure it is not exposed to elements. Rolex came up with a product that it wasn't a problem if you were caught by a torrential rain or spent 2 hours in the sea playing with the children.

PS: I am a fan of vintage Omega. It was a time when Omega was on the par with Rolex but the big difference was always made by the oyster cases in terms of durability. Rolex made this a standard that no other brand offered/offers.

[Arclight]

Originally Posted by hugs

I believe as an ultimate daily beater you can't been some of the innovations from Richard Mille.

Its amazing what they can do with plastic these days!

[broken_link]

Originally Posted by Quailhunter

I am a retired engineer/manager. My theory is that the more complex a mechanism is, the less reliable it will be. I tend to avoid watches with a lot of complications.

Especially so if the complications are "recent" design and small batch as is usually the case. Rolex certainly will have an advantage of learning from all the years they run the same basic design in large numbers and just doing gradual adjustments.