The SIHH 2019 new release(PAM) makes me think Rolex is really underpriced.

[rambo99]

[padi56]

Originally Posted by rambo99

Rolex 126600 Panerai 683
size 43mm 42mm
depth rating 1220m 300m
strap steel bracelet rubber
movement latest inhouse cheap ETA
warranty 5 years 2 years
MSRP(euro) 10,400 9,500


not to mention the SD43 is the 50th anniversary version to commemorate the technical advancement of the sea dweller series. if i were going to choose from these two dive watches, will definitely go for the SD43. dont you agree?

What do you mean by cheap ETA movements.

[Yeldraw]

I like Panerai but the Sea Dweller wins hands down for me

[Brew]

Both pieces are too big for me, but I prefer the Panerai.

[shoppy]

SD43 for me out of those two.

[rambo99]

Originally Posted by padi56

What do you mean by cheap ETA movements.

even the 683's predecessor 682 got the in house P.9010 movement, the 683 has the OP.XXXIV movement which is not executed entirely by panerai(which means ETA) and is being used by lesser brand watch within the richemont group.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by rambo99

even the 683's predecessor 682 got the in house P.9010 movement, the 683 has the OP.XXXIV movement which is not executed entirely by panerai(which means ETA) and is being used by lesser brand watch within the richemont group.

It always makes me smile when some show little understanding and plain ignorance when the name ETA is stated.Today some of the most collectible and expensive Rolex watches do not have a in-house movement but one from ETA Valjoux . Lets all remember before 2000 Rolex had never made a chronograph movement they relied on ETA Valjoux and Zenith.And before Rolex started to make there own escapement parts every Rolex Oyster had a hairspring manufactured by ETA Nivarox, and Rolex as far as I know they still out source the mainspring manufacture.Over the years there have been quite a few mediocre in-house made movements from some major manufactures so being in-house made is not always best.Even excellent movements by ETA are all in-house made,the biggest cost in any movement is the design, and then tooling up to make the movement,but once thats done you can just churn them out in there thousands.And today many manufactures are very highly automated like Rolex,so in theory all the movements parts should be in general all the same and quite easy to pass the tests like COSC test when fully assembled.But to make a movement totally by hand from just bare metal, then assemble its quite a different story to get the tolerances all correct if you want it certified to chronometer standards and very very expensive and time consuming to do.Remember the RWC were not watchmakers in the beginning,the movements were mainly made by Aeglar and still are, which are now part of Rolex SA.So what is in-house made today, even brands like Seiko every part is in-house made.And today some of the most sort after Rolex and Tudor watches don't even have a Rolex made movement inside.To me if any movement has a reliable track record over many years whether its so called in-house or where ever made.IMHO thats most important factor surely in buying any reliable watch no matter what the brand, because today just having the Rolex name we all pay quite a high price for that privileged.And in the ETA range of movements there 5 grades the two top grades are chronometer grade movements.And when proper regulated can match or better many high end brands even Rolex in performance accuracy and reliability.

[dr.fiddy]

Out of those two; clearly the SD43 for me

[rambo99]

Originally Posted by padi56

It always makes me smile when some show little understanding and plain ignorance when the name ETA is stated.Today some of the most collectible and expensive Rolex watches do not have a in-house movement but one from ETA Valjoux . Lets all remember before 2000 Rolex had never made a chronograph movement they relied on ETA Valjoux and Zenith.And before Rolex started to make there own escapement parts every Rolex Oyster had a hairspring manufactured by ETA Nivarox, and Rolex as far as I know they still out source the mainspring manufacture.Over the years there have been quite a few mediocre in-house made movements from some major manufactures so being in-house made is not always best.Even excellent movements by ETA are all in-house made,the biggest cost in any movement is the design, and then tooling up to make the movement,but once thats done you can just churn them out in there thousands.And today many manufactures are very highly automated like Rolex,so in theory all the movements parts should be in general all the same and quite easy to pass the tests like COSC test when fully assembled.But to make a movement totally by hand from just bare metal, then assemble its quite a different story to get the tolerances all correct if you want it certified to chronometer standards and very very expensive and time consuming to do.Remember the RWC were not watchmakers in the beginning,the movements were mainly made by Aeglar and still are, which are now part of Rolex SA.So what is in-house made today, even brands like Seiko every part is in-house made.And today some of the most sort after Rolex and Tudor watches don't even have a Rolex made movement inside.To me if any movement has a reliable track record over many years whether its so called in-house or where ever made.IMHO thats most important factor surely in buying any reliable watch no matter what the brand, because today just having the Rolex name we all pay quite a high price for that privileged.And in the ETA range of movements there 5 grades the two top grades are chronometer grade movements.And when proper regulated can match or better many high end brands even Rolex in performance accuracy and reliability.

but the fact is panerai didnt mention any improvement on the OP.XXXIV over the P.9010 movement. they would have definitely used it as a selling point if there is any improvement over that in the previous 682, right? which make me think actually the 683's movement is the inferior one.

[TJMike]

Originally Posted by padi56

It always makes me smile when some show little understanding and plain ignorance when the name ETA is stated.Today some of the most collectible and expensive Rolex watches do not have a in-house movement but one from ETA Valjoux . Lets all remember before 2000 Rolex had never made a chronograph movement they relied on ETA Valjoux and Zenith.And before Rolex started to make there own escapement parts every Rolex Oyster had a hairspring manufactured by ETA Nivarox, and Rolex as far as I know they still out source the mainspring manufacture.Over the years there have been quite a few mediocre in-house made movements from some major manufactures so being in-house made is not always best.Even excellent movements by ETA are all in-house made,the biggest cost in any movement is the design, and then tooling up to make the movement,but once thats done you can just churn them out in there thousands.And today many manufactures are very highly automated like Rolex,so in theory all the movements parts should be in general all the same and quite easy to pass the tests like COSC test when fully assembled.But to make a movement totally by hand from just bare metal, then assemble its quite a different story to get the tolerances all correct if you want it certified to chronometer standards and very very expensive and time consuming to do.Remember the RWC were not watchmakers in the beginning,the movements were mainly made by Aeglar and still are, which are now part of Rolex SA.So what is in-house made today, even brands like Seiko every part is in-house made.And today some of the most sort after Rolex and Tudor watches don't even have a Rolex made movement inside.To me if any movement has a reliable track record over many years whether its so called in-house or where ever made.IMHO thats most important factor surely in buying any reliable watch no matter what the brand, because today just having the Rolex name we all pay quite a high price for that privileged.And in the ETA range of movements there 5 grades the two top grades are chronometer grade movements.And when proper regulated can match or better many high end brands even Rolex in performance accuracy and reliability.

Well said. Not to mention are we now labeling every non in-house movement ETA?!

[Scanspeakman]

SD43 for sure, but to call it underpriced? Although I love my GMT master II and wear it daily, I would never call it underpriced or good value for money. More the other way around; the PAM is ridiculously overpriced.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by rambo99

even the 683's predecessor 682 got the in house P.9010 movement, the 683 has the OP.XXXIV movement which is not executed entirely by panerai(which means ETA) and is being used by lesser brand watch within the richemont group.

According to Paneraisource.com, the base for the XXXIV is exclusive to Richemont. ETA is owned by Swatch. Are you sure Richemont is sourcing the ebauches from ETA? Regardless, I do think it's odd Panerai isn't using its own manufacture movements on all their watches by now.

Edit: Actually, ETA won't supply ebauches to non-Swatch companies anymore, only whole movements. Paneraisource says the XXXIV base is modified by Panerai, which would seem to preclude ETA as the manufacturer.

[Onikage]

Or the Panerai is really overpriced? I never caught the Panerai bug so that's how I'm bound to see it.

[peterpl]

Rolex is not under priced. Its just the Panerai is overpriced. Thats all.

[beshannon]

Rolex is definitely under priced.

As for those two watches I would rather have a Submariner.

[brandrea]

Both great watches that have lots of appeal to me

[AK797]

Rolex have been reluctant to raise prices in the last few years while others like Omega have raised theirs more, albeit with movement improvements, so comparatively they seem underpriced, esp factoring in the new waves of demand.

[Watcheroo]

Originally Posted by rambo99

The Panerai doesn’t have an ETA movement. The movement in that watch is based on a ValFleurier ebauche - a Richemont Group owned manufacture. In addition to Panerai, this ebauche is used by other Richemont brands like IWC and Cartier

[padi56]

Originally Posted by rambo99

but the fact is panerai didnt mention any improvement on the OP.XXXIV over the P.9010 movement. they would have definitely used it as a selling point if there is any improvement over that in the previous 682, right? which make me think actually the 683's movement is the inferior one.

What makes you think that the 683 is inferia is just because of the word ETA just like the word Seiko many automatically think of cheap which is not always the case.Today many are stereotyped to a name, but ETA do make some movements that are in so called low brand price range watches just like Seiko.But the top grade movements from ETA that brands like Panerai used are chronometer grade movements, made from the same materials that Rolex use and if COSC certified use exactly the same COSC testing standard.And movements like the Seiko Grand and Credo are tested to a higher spec than the Swiss COSC but were little known outside Japan and IMHO movements are to a higher standard of finish than Rolex, with a more hands on made, than highly Robotised like most of the major volume made Swiss brands.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by peterpl

Rolex is not under priced. Its just the Panerai is overpriced. Thats all.

If there’s enough demand for the 683 which there will be, it’s not overpriced.

[ashokleyland]

Describing ETA as cheap is an understatement , Without ETA’s movements, the watch industry would not be where it is today.

Before the advent of in-house movement, It is the dominant force within the watch industry.

[Ljung]

*delete*

Already mentioned

[nick c]

Both are a bargain. Compare to RM LOL

[Rashid.bk]

Rolex isn't underpriced and in that comparison the problem is the Pam is overpriced.
I think the whole premise is skewed when you say things like cheap ETA. Then you don't even explain why you consider it underpriced other than some subjective stats. Thus far your argument is actually stating why you believe the Pam is overpriced...which to me, it is.
What is wrong with being a buyer, you simply put these two up against each and decide which you like for your reasons.
Of those two I'd chose the SD43 all seven days of the week.

[TurboTim14]

I'd take the SD43 no comparison. Panerai has never done anything for me, don't see the appeal.

[RTG]

No offense to Panerai fans but the brand has never impressed me in person. I don't see the attraction. Rolex is a much better brand and value IMO.

[codecow]

The new PAMs look like cheap plastic trash. I own a plexi 372.

[Chadridv]

Did you underline 43mm and 42mm cause that extra mm adds value? Haha?

[Juantxo]

Originally Posted by peterpl

Rolex is not under priced. Its just the Panerai is overpriced. Thats all.

Agree 100%.

[Brazicano]

One would probably be better off with a “cheap” eta movement than any in house panerai movement. Just sayin