When Wearing A Rolex Feels Like You're Wearing a Timex

[BristolCavendish]

Just returned from a dinner engagement in Ross. A former academic mentor of Mrs. BC's who is now a retired professor invited us over along with two other couples. As it turned out, the retired professor and one of the other male guests happened to be 5th degree/black-belt WIS (in other words, I was way out of their league in terms of watches and knowledge of complex movements). One guy was wearing an older Breguet and the retired professor had on a Girard Perregaux. Both were tourbillons and when they started talking about gravitational shifts, floating escapements and whatnot, I became somewhat lost and relegated myself to simply listening and nodding from time to time.

When one of them asked me what kind of watch I wear for everyday use, I just shrugged and showed them my 16610 on a blue-gray NATO watchstrap. While I wouldn't go so far as to call them watch snobs, it was somewhat obvious that they weren't overly impressed with a Rolex movement.

Which raises a question for the horologically inclined. Are complex tourbillon movements an antiquated watch design and essentially overpriced? There was also mention of a recent offering from Seiko along these lines. Now I had always thought that Grand Seiko represented the top of the Seiko lineup but apparently they have a line called Credor which is their in-house tourbillon. Their masterpiece is something called a Fugaku which apparently retails for around $450K. To date there are only eight in existence and I thought to myself, who buys this kind of watch?

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/th...ion-tourbillon

On the other extreme, manufacturers in China are now cranking out tourbillons for $1500. While their movements are kind of ugly IMO, from a tourbillon standpoint they may be close enough for jazz.

http://www.perpetual-watch.com/tourbillon.html

It appears that Rolex never had much interest in this kind of movement. In terms of overall accuracy/design, a tourbillon movement seems like old technology or just a rich man's toy.

Curious. Are tourbillons impractical for 'sport watch' usage/application as well? The Swiss-made tourbillons look pretty delicate. On the other hand, the Chinese ones look one step above a Seiko 5.

[SearChart]

They are fragile and in reality never run as good as they should. You can say about Rolex whatever you want but the movements keep on ticking and pretty damn accurately.

[kunlun]

Rolex is not a high-end watch and does not impress watch snobs for good reason.

You were not wearing a watch in their league and you don't know very much about horology.

Calling a tourbillon a "rich man's toy" while wearing a Rolex is ironic, since they actually knew about watches and you don't.

You are like a stereotype of ignorant rolex owners. Wanting people to support you in your ignorance seems a little gross.

The sad part is that if you actually had an interest in watches, it wouldn't have mattered what you were wearing, you could have shared in their passion, rather than being threatened by it.

[Jeffwb65]

Originally Posted by kunlun

Rolex is not a high-end watch and does not impress watch snobs for good reason.

You were not wearing a watch in their league and you don't know very much about horology.

Calling a tourbillon a "rich man's toy" while wearing a Rolex is ironic, since they actually knew about watches and you don't.

You are like a stereotype of ignorant rolex owners. Wanting people to support you in your ignorance seems a little gross.

The sad part is that if you actually had an interest in watches, it wouldn't have mattered what you were wearing, you could have shared in their passion, rather than being threatened by it.

Wow. Look, another watch snob. People wear what they like and wear what works for them and their income level. No need to be rude. This says more about you than the person you're insulting. You don't get to generalize and assume anything about someone you don't know based on a valid question. Snobbery is close minded thinking at its worst.

[kunlun]

Originally Posted by Jeffwb65

Wow. Look, another watch snob. People wear what they like and wear what works for them and their income level. No need to be rude. This says more about you than the person you're insulting. You don't get to generalize and assume anything about someone you don't know based on a valid question. Snobbery is close minded thinking at its worst.

Wrong. it says that I'm interested in watches and I value knowledge over ignorance. You haven't read either OP's post or mine. Try again.

If you read my post I said that it wouldn't matter what OP was wearing if he had the open mind, knowledge, and passion to share in their passion rather than being threatened. He came here to look for validation that knowledge of watches and having watches better than a Rolex was some sort of bad thing. It's a huge case of sour grapes.

A Seiko 5 worn by a knowledgeable person carries a lot more cred than a Rolex worn by someone like OP who was threatened by people who have nice watches and the knowledge to appreciate them.

A person with self-confidence is not threatened by others, but shares happily with them. No sour grapes.

I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying, so let me say a third time: The OP knows nothing about watches and is trying to impress others. He ran into people with better watches and knowledge and felt threatened. He came here looking for validation. You are wrong to give him that and pretending that this is a conversation about what one can afford is disingenuous. It's about knowledge and wearing something for oneself, not to impress others.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by kunlun

Rolex is not a high-end watch and does not impress watch snobs for good reason.

You were not wearing a watch in their league and you don't know very much about horology.

Calling a tourbillon a "rich man's toy" while wearing a Rolex is ironic, since they actually knew about watches and you don't.

You are like a stereotype of ignorant rolex owners. Wanting people to support you in your ignorance seems a little gross.

The sad part is that if you actually had an interest in watches, it wouldn't have mattered what you were wearing, you could have shared in their passion, rather than being threatened by it.

Do you want to talk about it?

[kunlun]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Do you want to talk about it?

Ha ha, okay. The dude who wears a Rolex to impress and knows nothing coming here to look for people to tell him how bad high-end watches are so he can feel better about his toy does push my buttons.

I'll step out, but keep in mind, the guys who have nice watches and know about them are just sharing their passion. You can be a part of that just by asking questions and appreciating their knowledge. It only makes small-hearted people feel bad that others have nice things.

[explodingtaco]

Geeze Kunlun, lay off.

BC's post seems well meaning enough to me. He is asking questions, not telling us anything. All of us were new to something sometime and intimidated by people who know a lot more than us. All of us even thought we knew a lot about something until we met a real expert.



So many watch snobs will not acknowledge but true none the less:

"High-horology" or not, a Rolex almost always run longer, more accurate, with less service than just about all "higher end" watches. Add to that the Chinese have proven that a tourbillon is not hard to make with modern manufacturing techniques. Sure in their day they were awesome and on ships in the 18th century even necessary, but today my Rolex is WAY more accurate in just about any measure than the "compensated" high horology.

[Arguably] the highest of modern watch making would be Roger W Smith and he wears an Explorer I as he cannot afford his own watches.

Add to that a Rolex is only a little better than a $400 Victorinox which is only slightly better than a Seiko 5 and all three are probably more reliable than a $300k tourbillon.

But Rolex does not make a minute repeater or tourbillon so I guess all of their horological achievements are mute. We should all pack up our bags and close the forum.

[Wesley Crusher]

Originally Posted by kunlun

Rolex is not a high-end watch and does not impress watch snobs for good reason.

You were not wearing a watch in their league and you don't know very much about horology.

Calling a tourbillon a "rich man's toy" while wearing a Rolex is ironic, since they actually knew about watches and you don't.

You are like a stereotype of ignorant rolex owners. Wanting people to support you in your ignorance seems a little gross.

The sad part is that if you actually had an interest in watches, it wouldn't have mattered what you were wearing, you could have shared in their passion, rather than being threatened by it.

Why don’t you tell us how you really feel.

[Star Ferry]

Kunlun you are out of bounds. There are plenty of serious watch enthusiasts who aren't interested in haute horlogerie, including several TRF moderators

[Watch Admirer]

Originally Posted by kunlun

Ha ha, okay. The dude who wears a Rolex to impress and knows nothing coming here to look for people to tell him how bad high-end watches are so he can feel better about his toy does push my buttons.



I'll step out, but keep in mind, the guys who have nice watches and know about them are just sharing their passion. You can be a part of that just by asking questions and appreciating their knowledge. It only makes small-hearted people feel bad that others have nice things.

Hehe funny man this Kunlun. One wears what he likes and can within his means. Rolex is widely known for a good reason. Marketing yes, but they are damn fine watches too. It is not about being in the same league as Breguet or not, different watches which pass different messages.
Now chill, have a pill, and enjoy your tourbillons if you have any. If not i sincerely hope you will be able to purchase one one day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[erhein]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

Curious. Are tourbillons impractical for 'sport watch' usage/application as well? The Swiss-made tourbillons look pretty delicate. On the other hand, the Chinese ones look one step above a Seiko 5.

Perfectly valid question, appropriately prefaced and politely asked.

[BristolCavendish]

Originally Posted by kunlun

Rolex is not a high-end watch and does not impress watch snobs for good reason.

You were not wearing a watch in their league and you don't know very much about horology.

Calling a tourbillon a "rich man's toy" while wearing a Rolex is ironic, since they actually knew about watches and you don't.

You are like a stereotype of ignorant rolex owners. Wanting people to support you in your ignorance seems a little gross.

The sad part is that if you actually had an interest in watches, it wouldn't have mattered what you were wearing, you could have shared in their passion, rather than being threatened by it.

Wow. You missed the entire point of the OP/thread and your open hostility and condescension certainly didn't add any constructive insights to the topic of tourbillon movements.

BTW (and based on the highlights of your quote), you somehow managed to contradict yourself.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by Watch Admirer

Hehe funny man this Kunlun. One wears what he likes and can within his means. Rolex is widely known for a good reason. Marketing yes, but they are damn fine watches too. It is not about being in the same league as Breguet or not, different watches which pass different messages.
Now chill, have a pill, and enjoy your tourbillons if you have any. If not i sincerely hope you will be able to purchase one one day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[morimotom]

They may know more than you, but that doesn’t make them better than you.

I always find it interesting how some folks on this forum have a tendency to be so pretentious about their opinions, rather than embracing the fact that we all have the same interests, albeit to varying degrees.

There’s a thread where people got criticized for posting pictures of their luxury cars. As if a photo of a $20k Watch is perfectly normal, but a photo of a BMW is suddenly out of line.

I guess my point is this...don’t let other people influence your enjoyment of what you like. They could have easily found common ground to have a nice discussion instead of treating you as if you’re somehow beneath them for not knowing the details of a rather obscure complication.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

When Wearing A Rolex Feels Like You're Wearing a Timex

I'd just like to point out that I love Timex and have owned quite a few through the years and still do as a matter of fact.

[BristolCavendish]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

I'd just like to point out that I love Timex and have owned quite a few through the years and still do as a matter of fact.

Me too. In retrospect, I probably should have worn my old Expedition to this dinner gathering.

The last time I checked, a tourbillon didn't offer an Indiglo feature.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

The last time I checked, a tourbillon didn't offer an Indiglo feature.

[kunlun]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

Wow. You missed the entire point of the OP/thread and your open hostility and condescension certainly didn't add any constructive insights to the topic of tourbillon movements.

BTW (and based on the highlights of your quote), you somehow managed to contradict yourself.

If you read carefully, you'd see there was no contradiction.
Rolex isn't haute horology, but if a person lets go of insecurities, then they can wear a Timex and they, personally, can enjoy a conversation about high-end watches and learn something. That person can then enjoy their Rolex or Timex as much as any other.

I hope I did miss the point, because it seemed like a bad one for this forum.

[SROB]

I think "perception" is important... Rolex is different things to different people, and at different times. That can probably be transferred to many, if not, all pieces - one may find a piece worth $XXXX, another may be unwilling to pay $5 for it.

I think this is all very subjective.

I do greatly, agree with a lot of the above - you don't need to own a certain price point piece in order to appreciate or have knowledge about various aspects of many different brands/pieces.

Enjoy, it's supposed to be fun.

[brandrea]

I'm with you BC, and now this thread is way over my head

[locutus49]

BC, another provocative thread and most welcome it is. I too would like to know if a tourbillon has any use at all or is just a watchmaker's apex, to show the height of his abilities.

I always thought it compensated for gravity, but gravitic forces are so minuscule, I wonder if they really affect the watch in a meaningful way. They are pretty., but I would prefer a minute repeater.

[FeelingTheBlues]

I take it Kunlun has not read a BC thread before...

Originally Posted by SearChart

They are fragile and in reality never run as good as they should. You can say about Rolex whatever you want but the movements keep on ticking and pretty damn accurately.

A friend of mine, with whom I studied watchmaking, cannot stand the Rolex style, it just isn't a brand for him. However, after working on a few he has told me that it was certainly a brand with some of the best movements for what they do, very accurate, reliable and easy to work on.

BC, Bas explained it nicely when it comes to the reality of the tourbillon. All in all, you take energy that could go directly in adding power to the oscillation of the balance wheel for a feature that does not help as much as it did anymore. In fact, the tourbillon was more of an advantage in the days when watches were not nearly as accurate as today and where gravity would impact their performance much more because they would remain in one's pocket in the same vertical (this word is important, gravity does not affect a balance wheel in a horizontal position) position, with wristwatches almost constantly moving nowadays the tourbillon is now considered somewhat useless and becomes merely the proof that a watchmaker has mastered his craft by assembling such an intricate cage and mechanism for its regulating organ to the eyes of many enthusiats.

Would I get a grandes complications with a tourbillon? If budget allowed it, probably, I love the look of it but I know it would not add to the accuracy of the watch. In fact, I wouldn't be half surprised if some owners would still forget to wind their watches because they thought that giving it a shake would suffice.

By the way, if you ask me, I prefer a minute repeater or a sonnerie when it comes to more or less useful complications that cost an arm and a leg.

[benlee]

Rolex reputation is in making highly reliable mechanical timepiece fit for everyday wearing. I don't think they ever stake their claim in high end horology like the Trinity Trio, Lange and the likes.

The actual benefit of tourbillon is for the visual effect to the owner. As to whether how much it enhance accuracy is very debatable.

That said, I don't think I will get any Chinese made tourbillons any time soon no matter how cheap. Those that I have seen are just ghastly.

[MoeAha]

Breguet is far superior, Rolex is a very decent watch and for most people(not watch geeks) it's the brand most associated with luxury, also it's the most recognisable watch.
But In my opinion, a 5k Breguet is far more superior than 15k Daytona.
Or 15k A Lange is 10 times superior than 30k Rolex Moonphase

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

Curious. Are tourbillons impractical for 'sport watch' usage/application as well? The Swiss-made tourbillons look pretty delicate. On the other hand, the Chinese ones look one step above a Seiko 5.

The tourbillon (French for "whirlwind") was designed to keep pocket watches running accurately in any position. Today they're obsolete but beautiful. A luxury complication for luxury watches. This new video clip explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=halpdw6ujPo

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

I'd just like to point out that I love Timex and have owned quite a few through the years and still do as a matter of fact.

Call me a watch snob, but I'm more a Caravelle man myself

(Seriously, I own four, all from the 1970s.)

[T4ME]

I would not consider my collection complete without a Timex. Rolex may not be high horology but its the highest I aspire to right now.. if I can get higher than ROLEX it would be a Patek 5961r-001

[august1410]

I have two Seikos, A 1977 Gruen, a TAG Heuer S/EL and a Bulova from the 1950s. I also have a Rolex.

I like what I like. That said, I appreciate the finest of timepieces and I appreciate a good old watch. Timex/Rolex, it doesn't matter to me.

I partake in outdoor pursuits that are not for this forum. In that area, there are also "snobs" and such and I pay them no mind there, either.

[T4ME]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Call me a watch snob, but I'm more a Caravelle man myself

(Seriously, I own four, all from the 1970s.)

I have a 20 year old BULOVA Caravelle that I got as a five year anniversary gift from a company I used to work for. One of my favorite watches... still running perfect to this day ..... new band new battery.... new watch