Fit and finish/Quality

[droptopman]

Agree with many other posts. Finishing on some brands is at another level. First time I held a PP I was amazed at the finish work, same with ALS. AP is in that category as well. In a general sense you are paying more for that level of detail and finish. I have no personal experience with other high end brands and I have never held a GS.

The thing I love about Rolex is they are built like tanks. I never worry about wearing a Rolex. I can put one on and know it would be highly unlikely that I will encounter anything this day that would require me to remove my watch. Do not think you can say that about some of the other brands.

[farscott]

I think quality is different than fit and finish. I will stipulate that PP spends more time and effort on finish, but I see much more variance in individual PP 5711 models than I do with Day-Date models -- or Oyster Perpetuals. The difference is really telling under magnification. Rolex dials and hands are much more uniform whereas the PP dials and hands are inconsistent from watch to watch and within a watch. This is really noticeable to me on the minute marker locations and sizes of the 5711 samples I have seen.

Rolex does not do decorative movement finishing work, except for the out-of-production Cellini Prince models, whereas PP does a lot of finishing work on the movement components. The Cellini Prince models exhibit a level of finish work that is much better than the Oyster Perpetuals. It is not at the level of PP, but it is a lot closer than many might believe.

I believe Rolex quality, where quality is defined as "the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind", is second to none. The sheer number of watches they make combined with how uniform each watch is compared to any other sample of that model is just impressive.

[Juantxo]

Originally Posted by rossi46

Rolex is absolutely a grade lower than AP. All you have to do is hold a Royal Oak (15400 or 15202) in one hand and any Rolex in the other hand. As far as I can tell, all Rolex watches receive the same external finishing, whether a 31mm OP or a DD40 in platinum, so the model doesn't much matter.

Now, when it comes to build quality, Rolex watches are amazing. But the finishing on a Royal Oak is second to none and easy to see with the naked eye.

I respectfully disagree wholeheartedly. I own a number of Rolex as well as AP watches, and many others including Patek Philippe. To keep things simple, my steel Royal Oak feels plain flimsy next to a steel Datejust. Moreover, the movement on the Rolex is much more accurate and dependable.

Brands such as Patek Philippe, AP, etc. are considered at a higher level than Rolex because of their complication watches, marketing, low production numbers (almost a million Rolex vs sixty thousand Patek Philippe) and because Rolex build their movements to be robust, with an “industrial” look which is different than other brands’ movements.

That said, in terms of function, engineering and precision parts, Rolex beats the pants off the more expensive brands. And any Swiss person in the industry will tell you the same.

[77T]

On the GS vs. Rolex GMT segue - I don’t see a fit and finish issue so much as a conflicted brand issue.

Seiko is to VW as Rolex is to Mercedes Benz.

When they give a Grand Seiko to the 24 hours of Le Mans winner, then I will see the issue differently. Rolex fits the bill just fine for me. But I do not aspire to PP, AP or others in their orbit.


Sent from my iPhoneX using Tapatalk

[oldman2005]

Originally Posted by deej

Here's an interesting video of fit and finish... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rwA_gAHcmLs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seiko makes really nice watches, I like my Seiko Turtle PADI so much that I bought another brandnew for spare but they did not do a good job cultivating and maintaining their name as luxury symbol like Rolex so that's why they're where they are now.

[pickettt]

I often find "luxury" and "quality" to be north and south.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by pickettt

I often find "luxury" and "quality" to be north and south.

Very true.
It also depends upon ones definitions.

Luxury is often associated with a degree of exclusivity due to lower volume.
And quality is not always a product of lower volume but it can be due to very well sorted out production processes with a commitment to quality.
Sheer economies of scale can afford a manufacturer the "luxury" of being able to reject a quantity of units produced to maintain a more uniform quantity at a higher standard. Should they choose.

[DKRanger22]

Fit, finish... Blah blah. Show me how those AP's / PP's stack up to Rolex from a resale perspective. All great watches, no doubt, but I'd have a hard time eating that depreciation for something so unnoticeable when on the wrist.

[Dirt]

Agreed

The best value will always be the Rolex.
Especially in SS.

[DKRanger22]

Originally Posted by deej

Here's an interesting video of fit and finish... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rwA_gAHcmLs

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great video, thank you for sharing.

[the_natural]

Originally Posted by deej

Here's an interesting video of fit and finish... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rwA_gAHcmLs

Great vid.

[CrazyMD]

Originally Posted by DKRanger22

Fit, finish... Blah blah. Show me how those AP's / PP's stack up to Rolex from a resale perspective. All great watches, no doubt, but I'd have a hard time eating that depreciation for something so unnoticeable when on the wrist.

When you buy a $30k steel watch you don’t really care about depreciation much like when you buy a $300k Bentley suv. If the depreciation affects you... you probably shouldn’t be buying that luxury item. That’s my opinion. Btw, depreciation is so variable. I bought a white gold Pepsi from an AD for $38k (I wanted it right there and then and didn’t want to wait for a trusted seller). Today that watch is probably worth $22k at most. The next month I bought a rose gold AP ROO with rubber strap from the AD for $40k and right now it’s worth about $32k. So in that aspect I lost a lot more on the Rolex. Generally speaking, Rolex holds its value much better especially in the stainless category. But again when spending upwards of $30k on a luxury mechanical watch depreciation shouldn’t really be a significant factor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wach16]

Originally Posted by Juantxo

I respectfully disagree wholeheartedly. I own a number of Rolex as well as AP watches, and many others including Patek Philippe. To keep things simple, my steel Royal Oak feels plain flimsy next to a steel Datejust. Moreover, the movement on the Rolex is much more accurate and dependable.

Brands such as Patek Philippe, AP, etc. are considered at a higher level than Rolex because of their complication watches, marketing, low production numbers (almost a million Rolex vs sixty thousand Patek Philippe) and because Rolex build their movements to be robust, with an “industrial” look which is different than other brands’ movements.

That said, in terms of function, engineering and precision parts, Rolex beats the pants off the more expensive brands. And any Swiss person in the industry will tell you the same.

I disagree. My ROC feels just as sturdy if not sturdier than my Milgauss Z-Blue and certainly sturdier than my old Datejusts with stamped clasps and old style bracelets.

As many other have stated, hand finishing is a large part of what set these watches apart from a cost perspective to Rolex. You are paying for things like hand polishing of movement screws, mirrored anglage/geneva striping on the bridges, etc. These are things that don't necessarily improve timekeeping or durability but reflect a tradition of old style watchmaking that collectors are willing to pay for and have a real "human" cost to the end result.

Don't get me wrong, I love Rolex and it is certainly a very durable watch, but the question posed in this thread was around fit, finish and overall quality. I find it very hard to believe that anyone holding an AP Royal Oak on a bracelet next to a Rolex of any model would walk away with the impression that the Rolex was better finished.

[singe89]

Originally Posted by DKRanger22

Fit, finish... Blah blah. Show me how those AP's / PP's stack up to Rolex from a resale perspective. All great watches, no doubt, but I'd have a hard time eating that depreciation for something so unnoticeable when on the wrist.

If I sold my APs now I would make more $ than the dozen Rolexes I’ve owned. SS Rolexes hold value but PM are a whole different story. I got my 15400 for $10k 5 years ago and they are going for $16k now. Skelton RO is up $10k, ceramic is up $4k and the list goes on. I could sell every AP right now for more than I paid.

When it comes to durability my AP diver has held up better than my DSSD after 5 years of daily wear on each.

[phillycheez]

Even IWC has better finishing than Rolex.

Rolex is mass producer, they don't have time for complex finishing.

Just look at the ceramic watches compared to post ceramic. They stopped with the chamfers and the diagonal brushing on the lugs. They probably shaved off thousands of man hours a year in manufacturing and servicing just by getting rid of those characteristics.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[The Libertine]

Rolex is good enough for me.

[ejvette]

Originally Posted by AK797

The feel and fit is a little bit more elegant and finessed, both front and back. Here are a few pics to illustrate. Ofc Rolexes are fine watches too and have beautiful sunburst dials, but it's a simpler watch with less layers and depths of finish and polish.

Great shots Neil

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by wach16

I disagree. My ROC feels just as sturdy if not sturdier than my Milgauss Z-Blue and certainly sturdier than my old Datejusts with stamped clasps and old style bracelets.

As many other have stated, hand finishing is a large part of what set these watches apart from a cost perspective to Rolex. You are paying for things like hand polishing of movement screws, mirrored anglage/geneva striping on the bridges, etc. These are things that don't necessarily improve timekeeping or durability but reflect a tradition of old style watchmaking that collectors are willing to pay for and have a real "human" cost to the end result.

Don't get me wrong, I love Rolex and it is certainly a very durable watch, but the question posed in this thread was around fit, finish and overall quality. I find it very hard to believe that anyone holding an AP Royal Oak on a bracelet next to a Rolex of any model would walk away with the impression that the Rolex was better finished.

Your logic is somewhat flawed.

Please tell us how often in one's lifetime would it be possible to actually compare them side by side?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by phillycheez

Even IWC has better finishing than Rolex.

Rolex is mass producer, they don't have time for complex finishing.

Just look at the ceramic watches compared to post ceramic. They stopped with the chamfers and the diagonal brushing on the lugs. They probably shaved off thousands of man hours a year in manufacturing and servicing just by getting rid of those characteristics.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Quite right

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by The Libertine

Rolex is good enough for me.

Agreed.
The beauty of a Rolex watch is more of a practical nature than superficial.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by deej

Here's an interesting video of fit and finish... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rwA_gAHcmLs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for posting this

Seiko certainly doesn’t always get the respect they deserve

[RHIII]

This is probably one of the most subjective topics that could be discussed. I have my position, which I would submit is quite similar to many here; however I really never compare any of my watches to one another in that regard, as they all serve their own individual purposes. Whether it's Rolex, AP, or Patek or Timex.

There's A LOT of tradespace between luxury, quality, utility and perspective.

Just my .02

[AK797]

Originally Posted by jrs146

Beautiful pics!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by ejvette

Great shots Neil

Many thanks, gents.

Originally Posted by DKRanger22

Fit, finish... Blah blah. Show me how those AP's / PP's stack up to Rolex from a resale perspective. All great watches, no doubt, but I'd have a hard time eating that depreciation for something so unnoticeable when on the wrist.

Not really fair to compare a SS Rolex with PP and AP as the different price points will mean there are far smaller markets for the Haute pieces so comparing with Rolex PM is more accurate. And there they are similar, however PP and AP have far more models at these prices that retain and even rise in value, which is quite remarkable, esp PP which has this on over a dozen models over £14K/$20K now.

Like for like, the £9K Daytona 116500 sells for £15K, the £19K PP 5711 sells for £34K.

[wach16]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Your logic is somewhat flawed.

Please tell us how often in one's lifetime would it be possible to actually compare them side by side?

Not sure if my logic is flawed based on comparing them side by side but if that is the case, there are many dealers that carry both from a new and/or pre-owned standpoint so that would be the easiest route. I am fortunate enough to own both so my opinion stated above was based on my own experience.

[Tangier11]

Originally Posted by pickettt

I often find "luxury" and "quality" to be north and south.

This is a good point. I had a friend that ran a Mercedes, BMW, Rolls Royce dealership in Florida. He said the Mercedes quality was far superior to the RR

[Tangier11]

A little clarification I didnt want this thread to be a which one is better, resale or whatever. I just was curious about fit and finish, because I am so impressed with Rolex and dont own any other premium brands.
The which one is better argument is silly. Example.,,Which one is better a Chevy Tahoe 4x4 or a Porsche 911? Well are you in a muddy field or a race track.

[AK797]

Here's a terrific vid just posted on the AP forum showing some of the intricacy and skill involved in haute watchmaking. Also check out the Lange Datograph's movement which is as beautiful as they come.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNsqlUN5NqU

[RolexPete]

Originally Posted by Krash

I look at it this way.

Patek Phillipe, Audemars Piguet, and Vecheron Constatin are in the Bentley, Bugatti, Rolls Royce, Ferrari category.

Rolex is in the Mercedes, Porsche, BMW category. Nothing wrong with that.

Brands like Omega, Breitling, JLC, IWC are in the Lexus, Infiniti category. Nothing wrong with that either.

Tag Heuer is Acura.

Seiko is Toyota.

Disagree. Lexus should be up there with Mercedes, Porsche and BMW, and Toyota should be with Acura.

The Seiko is a Chevy of some sort....or maybe a Jeep Wrangler..

[handsfull]

Alot of ignorant comments here about Seiko. Grand Seiko is easily on par with higher end watches like AP, Patek, etc in terms of finishing. Easily.

Grand Seiko and Rolex are not on the same level whatsoever, GS has Rolex beat in every aspect (except marketing).

[Tangier11]

Originally Posted by handsfull

Alot of ignorant comments here about Seiko. Grand Seiko is easily on par with higher end watches like AP, Patek, etc in terms of finishing. Easily.

Grand Seiko and Rolex are not on the same level whatsoever, GS has Rolex beat in every aspect (except marketing).

After watching the video posted about the GS I have to admit it is pretty impressive, however Ill compare it to the Hyundai.

Here is why, I am 45 years old and I think about a $100.00 department store Seiko when I hear the name.

Just like Hyundai, folks of my generation normally associate the Hyundai name with the $5500 disposable Hyundai cars of 20-25 years ago. Now Hyundai has a $65000 car that competes in the S Class 7-Series segment.

When Seiko came out with the GS and entered that market, they would have been better off calling it something else. You are right its all about marketing. When I hear Seiko a think of a hundred dollar watch so what is a GRAND Seiko an $800.00 watch?? Not good marketing for sure.