Falling out of love with Rolex

[Takonwong]

Originally Posted by 904VT

Falling out of love with Rolex means getting 2 watches instead of 5

Falling out of love with other brands means getting 0

See Rolex already has you hooked lol

True!

[JTL31]

QUOTE=mountainjogger;8271317]Just can't figure out the genre.[/QUOTE]

Country: gal takes off w/your discarded Rolex, dog dies and truck breaks down.

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

I don't mean to split hairs, but six years ago, there was no 40mm PO. In the three-hand, it was midsize at 38, full size at 42, and jumbo at 45.5. The 40mm variant (officially 39.5mm) didn't debut until 2016. That size is now the midsize. Full size is now 43.5mm, and the jumbo remains at 45.5. The 39.5 is also a bit slimmer than the previous 42mm, being that it is now 14mm thickness. The 43.5 and 45.5 are still beasts, with 16mm+ thickness.

I agree that Rolex is showing more refinement with the 32XX, with more power reserve and no apparent increase in thickness. (I can't find thickness measurements on the movement itself, but the models have not increased as a result.)

It was a 42mm but wore the same size as 40mm Sub. I know because I tried on both numerous times.

[boogiebot]

Buy and wear what you like. Life is short enjoy what you like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by No SUBctitute

It was a 42mm but wore the same size as 40mm Sub. I know because I tried on both numerous times.

That is true. I had a first-gen 42mm PO, and it did not wear any larger than a six-digit Sub, with the exception of thickness. I haven't tried on the newer 39.5mm version, but I'm concerned I might find it too small, since the 42mm version (and the Sub) fit me perfectly.

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

That is true. I had a first-gen 42mm PO, and it did not wear any larger than a six-digit Sub, with the exception of thickness. I haven't tried on the newer 39.5mm version, but I'm concerned I might find it too small, since the 42mm version (and the Sub) fit me perfectly.

Ya, the thickness of the 42 PO (thats really 40) really turned me off.

[Ichiran]

I have also lost interest in Rolex. Sold my last Rolex, a BLNR, late last year.

[Enicarman]

Originally Posted by No SUBctitute

IMHO, the Sub modern developments of a more scratch resistant bezel, solid links, large more readable dial, and amazing clasp make the Rolex more functional. It doesn't seem to be a fashion statement to me.

Regarding whether Rolex is getting what you pay for....for Sports watches, Omega, Grand Seiko, and Tudor offer comparable value, with Tudor on the lower end of that spectrum. I'd love to hear others' opinions on what sports watches provide comparable/better value to Rolex.

I have a Christopher Ward Trident 600 GMT with an ETA 2893-2 and it is a solid chunk of engineering. It in some ways matches the Rolex - sapphire crystal, ceramic bezel, 600 meter water resistant and utterly puts to shame my 1959 Rolex GMT 1675 in all ways. You might say that is not a fair comparison, and you would be right. So why is my 1959 worth so much if not for its intrinsic functional value?

Collector value and name prestige are involved here to a degree that dwarfs the "functional" aspects. In a free market that is all fine, but I do question those who think the major value lies in the watch itself.

In the art world several works thought to be Rembrandt were removed from museums when discovered not to have been done by him. Same quality painting, only the name has changed, but the value plummets. The name was everything.

I am at the moment getting my 1979 Datejust serviced for a sum greater than the cost of my Christopher Ward, in fact not far off the price I paid for the the Rolex new in 1984. This may be the last time I do this before making it a show queen. Name alone is not enough for me to justify the premium, although for some it means everything.

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by Enicarman

I have a Christopher Ward Trident 600 GMT with an ETA 2893-2 and it is a solid chunk of engineering. It in some ways matches the Rolex - sapphire crystal, ceramic bezel, 600 meter water resistant and utterly puts to shame my 1959 Rolex GMT 1675 in all ways. You might say that is not a fair comparison, and you would be right. So why is my 1959 worth so much if not for its intrinsic functional value?

Collector value and name prestige are involved here to a degree that dwarfs the "functional" aspects. In a free market that is all fine, but I do question those who think the major value lies in the watch itself.

In the art world several works thought to be Rembrandt were removed from museums when discovered not to have been done by him. Same quality painting, only the name has changed, but the value plummets. The name was everything.

I am at the moment getting my 1979 Datejust serviced for a sum greater than the cost of my Christopher Ward, in fact not far off the price I paid for the the Rolex new in 1984. This may be the last time I do this before making it a show queen. Name alone is not enough for me to justify the premium, although for some it means everything.

I have never tried on a Chr Ward, though I have thought about picking one up for fun. Thanks for your input.

What kind of time is your CW GMT keeping?

[masterdinh]

I always want to buy another Panerai but it’s so hard for me to get away from Rolex when it comes down to it.

Big difference in wearing a Rolex and wearing a Tudor. So yes, worth the money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Enicarman]

Originally Posted by No SUBctitute

I have never tried on a Chr Ward, though I have thought about picking one up for fun. Thanks for your input.

What kind of time is your CW GMT keeping?

My CW has the ETA 2893-2 movement which has a beautiful feel through the crown. Over the first two weeks it was loosing .7 sec/day consistently on the wrist.

I decided to time it again from a full manual wind, and this time it held spot on for three days and then slowly started loosing time as it wound down due to insufficient wrist activity, as much as 2 seconds / day. However when I was active, it would hold time without loss.
Neither of my Rolexes has matched this, so there is no issue when it comes to accuracy with the Trident GMT It is beautifully made.

[Enicarman]

Originally Posted by masterdinh

I always want to buy another Panerai but it’s so hard for me to get away from Rolex when it comes down to it.

Big difference in wearing a Rolex and wearing a Tudor. So yes, worth the money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe the psychology in giving up the more prestigious name makes the difference, not any big difference in fit and finish.

[masterdinh]

Rolex is branded after many many years as the top luxury watch. To watch enthusiasts that point can be argued. To the average person Rolex is synonymous with luxury. The name brand means everything. You will never see a Tudor resell like a Rolex. There is a big difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MCO1]

The AP and VC could play into this a bit. Even with those at least one Rolex in the stable as a beater is necessary.:)

[AK797]

Originally Posted by 904VT

Falling out of love with Rolex means getting 2 watches instead of 5

Falling out of love with other brands means getting 0

See Rolex already has you hooked lol

Nailed it.

[Enicarman]

Originally Posted by masterdinh

To the average person Rolex is synonymous with luxury. The name brand means everything. You will never see a Tudor resell like a Rolex. There is a big difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I prefer stocks as an investment.
Not everyone wants the attention a luxury brand name brings. I would be happy to pay less for the watch and let them remove the name. It is the watch I want, as I like the product.

[gregmoeck]

Omega aqua terra and nice seiko’s

[masterdinh]

Originally Posted by Enicarman

I prefer stocks as an investment.

Not everyone wants the attention a luxury brand name brings. I would be happy to pay less for the watch and let them remove the name. It is the watch I want, as I like the product.

Everyone prefers stock as an investment. However Rolex can easily be an investment, not many brands hold that value.

Don’t kid yourself, the name means everything. Exact same watch without the Rolex brand is worth nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Enicarman]

Originally Posted by masterdinh

Don’t kid yourself, the name means everything. Exact same watch without the Rolex brand is worth nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, that has been my point all along, although I still think it is a good watch, to me, worth about 20% of the current price.

[AK797]

Forget the watches or the investment, Rolex is the best for gossip and intrigue on the net bar none... I hear the Daily Mail is now devoting a whole section to them and an AD's Sidebar of Shame.

[SteelSubmarinerGuy]

Originally Posted by AK797

Forget the watches or the investment, Rolex is the best for gossip and intrigue on the net bar none... I hear the Daily Mail is now devoting a whole section to them and an AD's Sidebar of Shame.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nav01L]

Totally understand the OP's feeling. I like my Rolexes, won't exchange them for anything else and would probably be after them if I didn't have them, but I hardly ever wear them. They arme great watches, but they just don't transport as much emotion for me personally as other watches. Consequently, no Rolexes on my purchasing list other than perhaps the white Daytona C and even that I'm in no hurry for...

[Takonwong]

As some members here stated, they buy the watch because it is a Rolex, not just because it's a good watch. And if it wasn't branded Rolex they wouldn't give it a second look?? Wow.
Sort of puts me off Rolex even more, not that watch, the brand.

[Takonwong]

Originally Posted by AK797

Forget the watches or the investment, Rolex is the best for gossip and intrigue on the net bar none... I hear the Daily Mail is now devoting a whole section to them and an AD's Sidebar of Shame.

[Takonwong]

The Skydweller is off my list btw, it's too thick after trying out the bi metal one instore. There's still one with my name on when it comes in, I'll give a heads up when it does in case anyone wants it.

[yessir69]

I'm out of the Rolex business for now. And I've never been happier. But I still love the board.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

[Enicarman]

Originally Posted by Takonwong

As some members here stated, they buy the watch because it is a Rolex, not just because it's a good watch. And if it wasn't branded Rolex they wouldn't give it a second look?? Wow.
Sort of puts me off Rolex even more, not that watch, the brand.

Just to set the context, I own two Rolexes. My 1959 1675 GMT is worth more than a new one. Honestly, the name is starting to have the reverse effect on me now - embarrassment.
Once it indicated you had picked a good watch, but now, (my subjective generalizations here, nothing personal directed at others) it means I have drunk the cool-aid and joined the name dropping exhibitionist crowd while being financially punished for the privilege.

[abozz]

Originally Posted by Enicarman

I have a Christopher Ward Trident 600 GMT with an ETA 2893-2 and it is a solid chunk of engineering. It in some ways matches the Rolex - sapphire crystal, ceramic bezel, 600 meter water resistant and utterly puts to shame my 1959 Rolex GMT 1675 in all ways. You might say that is not a fair comparison, and you would be right. So why is my 1959 worth so much if not for its intrinsic functional value?

Collector value and name prestige are involved here to a degree that dwarfs the "functional" aspects. In a free market that is all fine, but I do question those who think the major value lies in the watch itself.

In the art world several works thought to be Rembrandt were removed from museums when discovered not to have been done by him. Same quality painting, only the name has changed, but the value plummets. The name was everything.




I am at the moment getting my 1979 Datejust serviced for a sum greater than the cost of my Christopher Ward, in fact not far off the price I paid for the the Rolex new in 1984. This may be the last time I do this before making it a show queen. Name alone is not enough for me to justify the premium, although for some it means everything.

The perfection is in the small details, which make a product to remain reliable over the years, just as there is Rolex like yours from the 60s that are still beautiful and work (50 years later), that CW will have to be seen in 50 years, and to know if a $ 600 watch is as good as a $ 9,000 watch. Even in the quality of a rubber there can be a difference when running the years.

On the other hand my 116610 cost me 7000 dollars and I am offered up to 7,500 for it, so until now it has cost me zero dollars and as a gift I could buy a CW. I have always said that the cheapest watch is the Rolex, sometimes it even comes free to use it for a few years.

I am in LOVE of Rolex

[Dan stillwood]

Change is the only constant thing in life.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Enicarman

Just to set the context, I own two Rolexes. My 1959 1675 GMT is worth more than a new one. Honestly, the name is starting to have the reverse effect on me now - embarrassment.
Once it indicated you had picked a good watch, but now, (my subjective generalizations here, nothing personal directed at others) it means I have drunk the cool-aid and joined the name dropping exhibitionist crowd while being financially punished for the privilege.

Try not to get sucked into what others think or what it all means, you bought the watch for you, right?