automatico Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 Interesting article and I have no argument with it. AA may have a good point when he states that rlx props up much of today's lux watch market when he says many wannabee lux watch kings are still in business because rlx helps sustain the overall lux watch market. My story... I always liked rlx watches from the 1950s/1960s/1970s but not the later models. Their current campaign to cut off parts to all USA independent repair shops was the final nail in the coffin so I am slowly selling off what is left while hoping the prices continue rising. I am also removing rlx movements from F-steins to put in genuine cases. I tried to wear mechanical watches every now and then for many years but always ended up wearing a 214 or 218 Accutron until quartz watches came out, then it was usually a Bulova, Citizen, or Seiko. Never liked the jumping second hands though. I guess I have worn rlx Frankensteins with 15xx movements more than all other mechanical watches combined, and that's not a whole lot...a few days at a time is about as long as I can stand one. I do not carry a cell phone, mainly because I spent a large chunk of my life on call 24/7 and detest telephones in any form. I have a cell phone at home and check messages about once a week but hardly ever answer it thanks to caller ID. If I need to know what time it is when out and about, I wear an Accutron II of some sort. https://www.ablogtowatch.com/todays-traditional-watch-industry-cant-exist-without-what-rolex-is-selling/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimcon11 Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 Yeah, I agree Rolex is maintaining the niche for mechanical watches as luxury status symbols, which had arisen naturally when they were integral for daily life-- at one point the better timepiece corresponded to being able to better tell time. What I don't agree with is the supposed importance of judging people based on what's on their wrist. This writer sees the world through the shallow eyes of consumerism, shown by the mere fact he would write such an article. There are other reasons to wear a watch; chiefly for me it is the nod to history, technical achievement, artful design, and personal style. Status and wealth never factor in to it for many of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
automatico Posted June 10, 2019 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 "What I don't agree with is the supposed importance of judging people based on what's on their wrist. This writer sees the world through the shallow eyes of consumerism, shown by the mere fact he would write such an article." Good point. The guy does come across as sorta snobby sometimes. One thing about rolex watches is they have not changed much in the past 30 or 40 years and they are very easy to spot. Besides that, just about everyone knows they are overly expensive and supposed to be 'The Best'. Imho this may have a lot to do with why they are so popular and have become the premier Cuff Shooter. Otoh a pretty good replica or a big hairy wart on the wrist will get the same attention. "There are other reasons to wear a watch; chiefly for me it is the nod to history, technical achievement, artful design, and personal style." I have a few vintage dive/dive style watches and would rather wear one of them than a rolex of any type. One of my favorites is a 1960s/1970s Wittnauer manual wind dive style watch because it is thin and has 'retro style'. Matter of fact I have two of them just alike except one is quick set. I paid $25 for the slow set and $30 for the quick set in 1990. Here is what they look like... https://wannabuyawatch.com/?s=wittnauer&post_type=product Top row right and second row left. "Status and wealth never factor in to it for many of us." True. My only status symbol is an eXmark lawn mower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimcon11 Posted June 11, 2019 Report Share Posted June 11, 2019 22 hours ago, automatico said: I have a few vintage dive/dive style watches and would rather wear one of them than a rolex of any type. One of my favorites is a 1960s/1970s Wittnauer manual wind dive style watch because it is thin and has 'retro style'. Matter of fact I have two of them just alike except one is quick set. I paid $25 for the slow set and $30 for the quick set in 1990. Here is what they look like... https://wannabuyawatch.com/?s=wittnauer&post_type=product Top row right and second row left. Those Wittnauer divers are great. I've recently become interested in what are generally called "skin divers" in web listings, the smaller, Submariner inspired, squared off cases produced in the 60s by a ton of different manufacturers. The problem is you can't get them for $25 anymore! The vast majority of vintage divers have not aged well. They're beat to hell with missing or moldy looking lume all over the dial, and look as though even some slight humidity would flood them. And a lot of the designs just aren't very attractive. Most of the 3-6-9 dials out there do not do it for me. I hate the 70s baton hand look. The attractive designs in good condition definitely command a premium, $800-2000 it seems. Here's one I've really had my eye on, an early Benrus. I'd love to start a collection of off brand divers, I just get the feeling that they aren't worth what they're being offered for these days. Then you have some niche classic divers , that, while not Rolex, are going to cost you nearly as much . The ones from Gruen, Blancpain, LeCoultre, Breitling, Zenith, and of course the Seamasters. I do think the Submariner is one of the best looking divers, especially pre crown guard, but there are definitely some rivals out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now