Cartier VS Rolex

[rpryan55]

*Sigh* Louis Cartier is the inventor of the man's wristwatch, having designed one for the Brazilian aviator Alberto Santos-Dumont That design, called "the Santos" is still available from the House of Cartier. The innovations of Louis Cartier continued to set the trends in watchmaking until Louis' death in 1942. Lately they have decided to return to the vision of their founding family, and their current line includes movements that cause a horologist to gasp in admiration. As nice a company as Rolex is, this is not the case with any of the Rolex movements (the Caliber 4130 notwithstanding).

I love Rolex. But of late it is true that if you want a watch, buy a Rolex. If you want exquisite art, buy a Cartier.

[R.G]

Originally Posted by rpryan55

I love Rolex. But of late it is true that if you want a watch, buy a Rolex. If you want exquisite art, buy a Cartier.

I totally agree.

[psv]

There is no right or wrong here, it all depends on your position and point of view. I, for instance, think of Rolex watches because of their sport/pro instrument line, and in that aspect I don't feel Cartier is comparable, but perhaps I used a language without nuance and overstated my case a bit too strongly.

Sure, the Tank design has been around for a long time and it + some other Cartier designs deserve their place in horological history, but at the same time it is hard to discard the fact that Cartier is as much about jewelry and fashion (scarfs, perfumes etc). The executives at Richemont are experts at taking advantage of a watch history and turning them into coveted pieces, I'm sure they'll succeed with Cartier as well, but I doubt I'll ever buy one. (then again, who knows...)

Enjoy!

[R.G]

Originally Posted by psv

There is no right or wrong here, it all depends on your position and point of view. I, for instance, think of Rolex watches because of their sport/pro instrument line, and in that aspect I don't feel Cartier is comparable, but perhaps I used a language without nuance and overstated my case a bit too strongly.

Sure, the Tank design has been around for a long time and it + some other Cartier designs deserve their place in horological history, but at the same time it is hard to discard the fact that Cartier is as much about jewelry and fashion (scarfs, perfumes etc). The executives at Richemont are experts at taking advantage of a watch history and turning them into coveted pieces, I'm sure they'll succeed with Cartier as well, but I doubt I'll ever buy one. (then again, who knows...)

Enjoy!

In my personal opinion I think that threads comparing the two brands is pointless. For you, individually, it's because you feel that Cartier concentrate on fashion too, and I don't feel strongly/disagree enough to try to change your opinion.

I do however think that Cartier are currently making major moves on the timepiece front.

[psv]

Yeah, I so wish I hadn't bothered to answer this thread! :-)

Cheers!

[rpryan55]

Originally Posted by psv

Yeah, I so wish I hadn't bothered to answer this thread! :-)

Cheers!

I for one am glad you answered - I am always happy to see an enthusiast expound on the subject he loves. No one voice is right here totally - we all had our points to make, and did so without a lot of rancor.

That said, walk into a Cartier store (not a store that sells Cartier) someday soon. You may like what you see. And even some of their jewelry is entertaining to look at, if only for the guffaws you'll make when they tell you their price.

[psv]

As I said, my wife has a Cartier watch (although she prefers to wear a Sub 16610...) + jewelry, and I've been to the back room in Cartier New York (non the 1st one, but the 2nd...). They provide first class service and experience, I have no qualms about that. And the movements on the new pieces seem to be very innovative and promising.

Having said that, I'm more of a Sub/Sea-dweller kind of guy, just as I could buy a fancier car with better pedigree, faster, cooler etc, etc, but I prefer towing my family around in my '06 Land Cruiser.

[rpryan55]

Originally Posted by psv

As I said, my wife has a Cartier watch (although she prefers to wear a Sub 16610...) + jewelry, and I've been to the back room in Cartier New York (on the 1st one, but the 2nd...). They provide first class service and experience, I have no qualms about that. And the movements on the new pieces seem to be very innovative and promising.

Having said that, I'm more of a Sub/Sea-dweller kind of guy, just as I could buy a fancier car with better pedigree, faster, cooler etc, etc, but I prefer towing my family around in my '06 Land Cruiser.

I get it.

[R.G]

Originally Posted by psv

As I said, my wife has a Cartier watch (although she prefers to wear a Sub 16610...) + jewelry, and I've been to the back room in Cartier New York (on the 1st one, but the 2nd...). They provide first class service and experience, I have no qualms about that. And the movements on the new pieces seem to be very innovative and promising.

Having said that, I'm more of a Sub/Sea-dweller kind of guy, just as I could buy a fancier car with better pedigree, faster, cooler etc, etc, but I prefer towing my family around in my '06 Land Cruiser.

Originally Posted by rpryan55

I get it.

[Art 1]

Originally Posted by travisb

I think more jewelry, not watches.
With Rolex It's all about the watch.
Cartier does make some nice watches but IMO they are not "on par" with Rolex when it comes to watchmaking, craftsmanship, quality and service.

Cartier is know to have the best service of all watch companies.

[Aivas47a]

It's certainly true that a WIS would generally not be interested in jeweler or fashion brands - - Tiffany, Hermes - - that just slap their names on someone else's watch. But IMO Cartier has full horological credibility. (The Tank is one of the all-time iconic watches, up there with the Sub and the Calatrava.) For a dress watch, Cartier would be a clearly superior choice vs. a Cellini.

[Mockingbird]

Originally Posted by cisco1

Trolling is allowed I see.
Considering Cartier as not a real watch company...never seen something that stupid Cartier is one of the most historical and important wriswatch company.

Well the first which did actually a wristwatch, even if there are pocket watches adapted before , the first real wriswatch is the Santos, thought and engineered for a pilot.

Designs of the 20s, Tortue, Tank are amazing and never out of fashion, thourgh a genius design.
Huge sales now, but in the 20s they were not for everyone. Cartier was the brand of kings at that time.
Cartier is a big collector's brand, with Patek and Rolex, if you follow auctions, it is easy to see.

The "in-house" stuff is a recent fashion completely ignoring the horology history with all the suppliers. Jaeger did a lot for every luxury grand, Piguet too and for chronograph some specialist like Valjoux, and we can talk about modules.

You seem to put Rolex on top because of this "in-house" argument ,
What's in a Midas? a Piguet
I am pretty sure there is also a Cellini equipped with a Piguet in the actual offer, but I can't remember which.
What's in all chronographs till the Daytona "Zénith", a Valjoux
What's in a Daytona Zénith: a modified Zénith
What's in the last chronograph... finally an in-house chronograph... but if you think they have done it all alone without other supplier experience, they are not that stupid. Ask Dubois Depraz ...

To finish about movement:
Rolex developped automatic robust and simple movement, and they did well, from reliability, and servicing point of view, certainly the best.
But compared to what Omega and Jaeger did as watch movement in their history, this is just not the same level, and I do love Rolex and have no Omega or Jaeger.

A nearly 2000 messages which writes that, wow, I think I have seen enough.

Have fun guys.

I'm a little bit confused who this is directed at. You bring up some good points though. You really shouldn't expect this forum to be open-minded, I gave up on that long ago.

[marcinthemiddle]

Originally Posted by Mockingbird

I'm a little bit confused who this is directed at. You bring up some good points though. You really shouldn't expect this forum to be open-minded, I gave up on that long ago.

Me too. As Toph said: too many people with blinders on...

[blackmsport]

Originally Posted by R.G

No offence, but whats your point??

Lamborghini started off making tractors. Does this mean you would associate a Diablo with agriculture? No, don't think so.

Oh, and Rolex produce cufflinks and ties by the way...

My first job after Uni was a Market Analyst for Rothmans Cigarette who owned cartier Brand.... Nasty and evil cigarette company.... after two years I moved to Financial Services

So I still have bad memories aboiut the brand

[slcbbrown]

Originally Posted by psv

Sorry, but Cartier has never been a watch company per se, they are a jewelry company so in the eyes of watch collectors, they are a no go, unless you like the designs.

Comparing a Cartier to a Rolex is pretty much like swearing in church.

This is exactly what I think, too. I'd like to add that Rolex has a 50+ year history of its watches being used as sport or sport/dress watches. Cartier mainly has a history of dress watches (used as dress watches) and has come much more lately to sportier models. Cartier is also, largely, an ETA movement brand.

[Ricco]

Originally Posted by cisco1

Trolling is allowed I see.
Considering Cartier as not a real watch company...never seen something that stupid Cartier is one of the most historical and important wriswatch company.

Well the first which did actually a wristwatch, even if there are pocket watches adapted before , the first real wriswatch is the Santos, thought and engineered for a pilot.

Designs of the 20s, Tortue, Tank are amazing and never out of fashion, thourgh a genius design.
Huge sales now, but in the 20s they were not for everyone. Cartier was the brand of kings at that time.
Cartier is a big collector's brand, with Patek and Rolex, if you follow auctions, it is easy to see.

The "in-house" stuff is a recent fashion completely ignoring the horology history with all the suppliers. Jaeger did a lot for every luxury grand, Piguet too and for chronograph some specialist like Valjoux, and we can talk about modules.

You seem to put Rolex on top because of this "in-house" argument ,
What's in a Midas? a Piguet
I am pretty sure there is also a Cellini equipped with a Piguet in the actual offer, but I can't remember which.
What's in all chronographs till the Daytona "Zénith", a Valjoux
What's in a Daytona Zénith: a modified Zénith
What's in the last chronograph... finally an in-house chronograph... but if you think they have done it all alone without other supplier experience, they are not that stupid. Ask Dubois Depraz ...

To finish about movement:
Rolex developped automatic robust and simple movement, and they did well, from reliability, and servicing point of view, certainly the best.
But compared to what Omega and Jaeger did as watch movement in their history, this is just not the same level, and I do love Rolex and have no Omega or Jaeger.

A nearly 2000 messages which writes that, wow, I think I have seen enough.

Have fun guys.

Great insight on the movement...

[Ricco]

Why does it matter who made the movement? In house not in house....? Is it that important?

[Rolex Junky]

IMHO Cartier besides being jewelers have as much horological history if not more than Rolex. Rolex seems to stand still of late; while Cartier are very much innovating when it comes to highend complications. The only downside to purchasing a "regular" Cartier is the resale value. Rolex beats them hands down in this department but that is more due to brand popularity; perception and heavy marketing; than due to the fact that Rolex make "better" watches.


And lets be honest about it. To a certain degree the people on the guitar forum that rediculed and bashed us are right. Spending +10k on a watch has more to do with jewelry than with time keeping. I'm not refering to highend complications; watch purchases as investments or cellectors; but the avarage Joe who buys a Sub or any other model is just buying expensive mens jewelry no matter what arguments he comes up with to justify otherwise. Me included.

[R.G]

Originally Posted by Rolex Junky

but the avarage Joe who buys a Sub is just buying expensive man jewlery no matter what arguments he comes up with to justify otherwise.

Ha ha ha I DARE you to re-post this on the main forum so I can sit back and laugh, a lot.

[Rolex Junky]

It is not my intention to start a flame war; but am I right or am I right?

[Demosthene]

Originally Posted by Rolex Junky

It is not my intention to start a flame war; but am I right or am I right?

Your right.
If all we wanted was an accurate time telling device, then we’d all be wearing quartz.

[vukotab]

From my personal experience, there`s nothing but utter respect for Cartier as watchmaker. Their designs are timeless, and new Calibre de Cartier is made to last for lifetime.
Now, compared to Rolex...well, they`re completely different types of watches, Rolex prefers that "tool watch" looks, more rugged and robust.
But in terms of quality, they`re absolutely on the same level.

[chicfarmer1]

Originally Posted by Rolex Junky

And lets be honest about it. To a certain degree the people on the guitar forum that rediculed and bashed us are right. Spending +10k on a watch has more to do with jewelry than with time keeping. I'm not refering to highend complications; watch purchases as investments or cellectors; but the avarage Joe who buys a Sub or any other model is just buying expensive mens jewelry no matter what arguments he comes up with to justify otherwise. Me included.

And you think this differs from guitar collectors' logic? A great guitar can cost $2600 or $26k...why buy one versus the other? And so on.

[Rolex Junky]

Originally Posted by chicfarmer1

And you think this differs from guitar collectors' logic? A great guitar can cost $2600 or $26k...why buy one versus the other? And so on.

Yes; because some highend guitars perform acoustically better and have better "playabillity"; the later at least from a subjective point of view. That can not be said about the highend watch. Quartz movements keeps better time than any highend mechanical watch. No doubt about it. Besides; note in my post I excluded collectors; they collect items out of interest and passion. More love and sentiment than common sense involved; unless investing.

[chicfarmer1]

Originally Posted by Rolex Junky

Yes; because some highend guitars perform acoustically better and have better "playabillity"; the later at least from a subjective point of view. .

Sorry, but there are high-end guitars, like other high-end merch, whose features do not improve sound but "merely" add value by things like label, lower production numbers, ornament, and materials used. Just as for watches. To say that one group of hobbyists has a less skewed perception, you'd need to turn up people buying for far more neutral market reasons than you will find among instrument people. I've been in that field for decades as musician and owner, and it's simply distortion to think they take an upper hand in this debate.

[www777]

I agree. I view them as a jewelry company vs rolex is a high end watch co.

[Ricco]

I would say that i dont own arolex for time keeping, a quartz would perfrom just as well. I do think watch as a replacement for male jewelery. But i highly appreciate high quality products.

[Ricco]

Theres just something about that european french design thats really tempting...as much as i'm attracted to a breguet..

[Rolex Junky]

Originally Posted by chicfarmer1

Sorry, but there are high-end guitars, like other high-end merch, whose features do not improve sound but "merely" add value by things like label, lower production numbers, ornament, and materials used. Just as for watches. To say that one group of hobbyists has a less skewed perception, you'd need to turn up people buying for far more neutral market reasons than you will find among instrument people. I've been in that field for decades as musician and owner, and it's simply distortion to think they take an upper hand in this debate.

My post did say "some" highend guitars and not all of them. Argumentatively though they do regardless of the reasons musicians choose to buy them.

[425ranger]

I like Rolex's and I like Cartier watches too.

/there I said it.