The "Collection" watch vs. The "Personal" Watch

[RobbieG]

First off, let me say thanks to Lani and Siesta for inspiring this thought as I started to ponder some changes occuring inside me when comtempating what to post in their "What kind of watch are you" and "Which watch started it all" threads they started respectively. Instead of posting in those I thought I would devote a thread to it so I could get some other views on this.

I would have chosen the Rolex Datejust for the watch that started it all for me. As I have said before, I have had one DJ or another and a nice mix of gens and reps for 15 years or so. For me the watch represented a sort of right of passage to manhood. All of the people I looked up to who were older than me either wore Datejusts or Daydates and the Iconic nature of the Rolex brand was always a real draw until I had my first - a gen. I think if we surveyed the membership here we would of course find an overwhelming number who came to watch collecting by way of Rolex.

That said, what happend to me is a common tale. When I got more into collecting I sort of drifted away from Rolex as I started to get snobby I suppose. You know, when you go through that period where you think Rolex is so 1970 and there are so many other "cooler" designs that are cutting edge and Rolex is so "lowest common denominator" and owned primarily by people who know nothing of watches and own it just for status. And during that period I bought and sold a ton of watches - equal numbers of reps and gens - certainly more than 50 pieces all told. And to this day a few key pieces remain which are dear to me and represent a nice cross section of function, materials, and design. I am very proud of and attached to my collection pieces.

But as I get older, a funny thing has happend. I have realized that I very much like and want to embrace the iconic nature of Rolex and in particular the Datejust and Daydate again. I have realized that they are still the watches I see on my peers and clients and business associates and it may sound silly, but when I gaze around a room and see them all and then my own, I feel like I am a part of a club or something. When I'm in a restaurant and glance at wrists, they are still the ones I notice and admire the most. They look great on everyone. Understated yet commanding all at once. These watches are small by todays standards yet they just leap off the wrist and into the room with their subtle combination of polished and brushed surfaces. And Rolex metal - whatever it may be - is always leading the industry in appearance. Nothing shines like Rolex alloys. It is also of note that due to their size they can be blingy but it doesn't look stupid like big shiny watches do. Elegant and distinguished and never loud.

And all those guys I see go in the same AD's as I do and see all the other brands and are way past needing to show anyone they have arrived and yet they still wear these. So I started asking these non-WIS guys about them and they said exactly what I have just said about the iconic nature of the brand and how they aspired to own one when one day they became successful and to that end their watch means something to them. All of them. Very interesting. They don't own them for status in the eyes of others, but in their own eyes - the same as me. So I realized that just because I am a WIS and collector, in the end I'm really no different than they are in terms of identifying the "one" watch out of a crowd of thousands and comtemplating what it means to me...

As a side note they also said that the comfort of these pieces is a big draw and I had to agree. They just disappear into the wrist and it is a pleasure to not even know you have a watch on until you think to look at it. And yet they still look and feel substantial and never feminine or flimsy in any way in SS or gold or platinum. So I have to say that any "one" watch for me could never be too big or bulky almost be definition and could also never be too loud or flashy.

So now you probably think this is a praise of Rolex thread but it really isn't. That is all just the backstory really. I realized that for me, there is a difference between the pleasure I get from my "collection" watches which of course I try to wear in rotation and my current Datejust which has become my "personal, lifetime" watch. The watch that I would own if I didn't have a collection. The watch I could wear every day for the next 50 years and never tire of because it is a part of me. Comfortable and iconic and a symbol of my life history and achievements and failures and memories. I guess I just realized how important it was to me aside from all the collecting stuff to have a "One Watch" like my father and grandfather before me did that has some meaning. And for me it will always be a 36MM Rolex. I have decided to take the plunge and reward myself next year with the highest level of the family and trade up to a platinum President with a glacier roman dial. I always wanted one. It is an extravagant purchase I know but when I think of the amortized cost over the next 20 years even it seems like a song. The point being that cost becomes less of a justification when you are thinking of a watch as an heirloom.

I asked one of my clients who has a DayDate in WG with a rhodium dial and Oyster bracelet why he bought that at 25K instead of a DJ like mine for 5K as it looks the same. He said it felt more comfotable because it was heavier and he thought the gold shined more. And when I said, "yeah, but the cost difference for basically the same thing...", he basically answered that question with what I had said before. That he was going to wear the watch for the next 20 years so what difference does it make. He said he wouldn't buy a silver Dodge instead of a silver Benz just because it was cheaper and the same color if he really liked the Benz better. For me it is important to make this distinction because I would never spend much more than the entry level on a gen "collection" piece. As an example, I have a PO and wouldn't give it up for the world, but the price is right for the level of interest. Even if I had all the money in the world I wouldn't buy an $20K Omega specialty piece that I like a bit - even if I was rich which I'm not by a long shot. I just would think it wasteful if it were just another collection piece that had no real meaning. In fact, I just got rid of all those pieces in my collection that I didn't wear enough to justify the dollar into them just sitting collecting dust, but for the "One" watch I can easily justify the additional expense.

Anyway, I have two questions for you all and the first is could you ever see (or do you now) having one watch that really means something to you in the way I describe? One which you sort of hold seperate from the rest of the collection that come and go - or could you see yourself doing so in the future sometime? If so, what watch is it for you and what is your experience with it so far?

Secondly, do you look at prices in a vacuum regardless of the piece and its status in the collection, or do you feel as I do in that spending much more is justified for what you know is to be "the" personal long term companion watch for you?

I look forward to hearing all of your thoughts about this stuff and I thank you in advance for taking the time to respond with all your differing points of view...

[Toadtorrent]

Interesting tale. I'm like you...there are fun, chunky watches that fire me up to wear...but the one watch that has a certain warmth and attachment for me is that 36mm DJ. This is the watch I remember on my grandfather who really introduced me to nice watches "up close". It seems so small and understated compared to something that has more presence like the Skyland or the Omega SMP Chrono...but there is a certain warmth and attachment I have to it, because of the memories it stirs. Because of its small footprint and understated design, it really is something I wear for me and not to make any statement to anybody else.

[Justasgood]

Well that is a well thought and written post.

My current situation aside.....I can say that after over 20 years of collecting, I have 2 watches that I would never sell. One is a vintage Longines I purchased with some $$ I got when my Grandmother passed away. It is all original and I spent more on the service from RGM than I spent to buy it.

take it out and wind it from time to time and occaision I wear it......but for some reason, when I saw it, I new it would represent the memories I had of my Maw-Maw.

The other if the 5512 I spent the last year building. (Currently on the sales forum. I need the $$ but I secretly hope to meet my obligations without selling it).

I have owned no less than 4 iterations of this watch, but ths one was put together by me......every part was sourced by me and the assembly was done by me. ( my watchmaker handled the service).

I agree also that the DJ is probably the perfect watch. Range of style, perfect balance and subtle class. My first Rolex was a DJ and to this day, I regret ever selling it. It was TT from 1983 with a subtle blue dial and painted gold Roman #'s.

Perhaps one day I'll hunt another down as it was always my "first".

Great post.....

[SportsterRider]

I have to agree about the DJ. For me, it was also the first Rolex I was introduced to, and to this day it is still the first watch I think of when someone says "Rolex". I also agree that if I could only have one watch, it would likely be the all stainless DJ (over the last year or two, the SS Sub is a close second), with a tapestry dial. As you mentioned, it just feels good on the wrist, and it's the ultimate 'every day' watch. It can be worn with a suite or a pair of jeans and function in both roles better than any other watch.

SR

[RobbieG]

Yeah, and I'm really not resisting but rather embracing the iconic nature of these watches and the brand. Instead of being critical of it, which is the WIS/collector in me, I just woke up and realized that DJ's and DD's are immensely popular for a reason and that the reason isn't that the masses don't know what else to do - which is what I used to think. They have evaluated all all the options and choose them because they are timeless and beautiful and iconic - and because being that they are not all that interesting but rather classically "plain" is kind of the whole point. Less is more as I am seeing in all things lately - not just watches. Maybe it is part of getting older I'm sure. They are unmistakeable yet understated, rich yet basic, gleaming yet subdued all at the same time. A true paradox. And all you have to do is look at the 41MM versions to realize that the whole thing I am talking about doesn't work unless it is a 36MM watch as well. Nothing against big watches and I have my share but they can never accomplish all this IMO. Not that the 41MM DD for example is a bad watch if it is your cup of tea (not mine per se) but it leaves the understated and comfortable parts behind and is rather overtly blingy and chunky and will garner the "Hey look at me and my shiny watch vibe" that all of the men I spoke of in my OP, including myself are trying to avoid. We want it all - but just a little...

[TeeJay]

Question 1:

For me, as I said in your previous thread, it's my 2531.80.

If I had to lose all my watches and never have another, that would be the one I would keep. It has sentimental value due to the funds used to buy it, and while arguably, the 004 my wife bought for my birthday last year also has sentimental value, I can wear the SMP with just about anything, and it will always look good. I can only wear the 004 with a few things, and even then, it is a case of 'personal preference', over it actually looking good. At the moment, I think the only thing keeping it [the SMP] from having non-stop wrist time, is that I have a collection of other watches, so still rotate them depending on my wardrobe. If I got rid of them, I'd be happy wearing it all the time. But. Then I wouldn't have my collection, which I enjoy for other reasons

All the other watches in my collection, barring the 004, the 45mm Planet Ocean (bought with cash from the same source as the 2531.80) and my Submariner (the first expensive watch I bought) the others are all just 'collection watches'. The ones I've listed, are the only ones which hold true sentimental value, but again, the SMP is the only one which I would consider as the 'personal watch', as that is the only one which I would 'be satisfied with', if it was the only one.

[Edit to clarify]

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if the 2531.80 is a rep or gen, due to its sentimental value. I would not have bought a gen 2531.85 with the inheritance money, for the same reason I never bought a gen Submariner when I had the chance: I do not pay artificially inflated pricetags just because something has 'a brand name' on it. If I buy a branded item (which is in itself rare) then it must be because the item is (in my view) truly exceptional and justifying that price tag, and not possible to be substituted with a rep or generic item

Question 2:

This is a tough one... Just because someone is prepared to pay a high price for a watch (or anything else) I don't think that that means that the item is actually worth that much. That's why I buy reps and drink generic cola However, I feel that if something is truly what a person wants, then that justifies them spending that money. To move away from watches slightly, I'll use my engagement and wedding rings as examples.

This is my engagement ring.

It's a sterling silver court ring, and it only cost

[RobbieG]

Yeah TJ I agree with a lot of what you said, although we differ in perceived value considerations a bit. I don't guy gens for their (no doubt unjustified)inflated prices unless I see major differences in the subtle details which I feel are quintessential in all fine things. In my current collection I can't quite get that in any of the pieces I now own. The UN's of course can't be had, Close one on the PO, but the 45.5MM won't work and the rep 42MM isn't where the gen is at, the AT isn't repped in Ti (although a modded steel one like Siesta's would do - I just needed the Ti one to fill that exact hole in the collection, and in the case of the DJ, no rep could ever cut it with that model unless I went franken and so the gen came about there too. But in all cases, I'm never just getting the gens without a lot of thought. Unfortunately something else is happening too and that is my collecting is drawing to a close as I see no need to move beyond the core pieces so I keep moving backward instead of forward and also devoting more time to the "Personal" piece.

I also want to note that I'm most definitely NOT someone who feels WG and PT look like SS so there is no need to consider them. The finish and look of them is very much something I notice. And to that end I actaully usually don't like the patina of platinum on all pieces but only certain ones. Also Rolex white gold is the only I know of that is alloyed with platinum removing the need to be tied to constant rhodium dipping to keep the watch looking fresh over the years. That said, in most cases if there were that alternative I would prefer SS for any larger sporty watch as the weight of precious metals there becomes kind of silly IMO. So it will only be in strapped or otherwise smaller braceleted watches where I would consider it. In the case of a GO Pano watch I had it just felt cheap to the touch and to wear in steel being so light and that was a leading reason why I bailed on it. In the case of the DD's, I think that the WG add a richness of patina that is slightly better than the DJ counterparts and the platinum is off the charts. The subtleness of the greyed brushed PT patina contrasting with the polished PT makes that particular version just sail with a capital S. And the glacier dial to me is just perfect, but I would also to consider other dials as well and wouldn't only get the PT because that dial can't be had in WG. Rolex platinum os WAY overpriced IMO but its look is dynamite. However, if not for the contrasting polished surfaces I would pass on another dress watch as I tend to like WG better if the watch case is basically all polished as you see on a typical strapped watch from say Lange or VC or someone.

Anyway, I also wanted to make the distinction that for me, it is always a feel thing and I never have really allowed any consideration of "worth" into an analysis of price. If it moves me the only decisions affecting whether to buy it for me are going to be do I have the cash right now and since I'm spending this money will I wear it alot and cherish it so as not to be wasteful. And that is why I sold a whole bunch of my collection. It was too wasteful to have that kind of money into something when it got no use. But the money didn't drive the decision. If I loved them all truly I would have kept every one of them no matter how overpriced or not they were if that makes sense. So to that end TJ and I agree that if you love it spend the dough. You only live once right?

BTW TJ, that Stargate style theme is cool. That is something I am going to need to consider soon myself. Ah, marriage the final frontier...

But in the end, I think the personal nature of the watch opens up a lot of leeway in all these decisions for most. It is awefull tough to lay out a bunch of cash for something that just looks cool and you "wouldn't mind" having in your collection...

[guinea]

The watch that I aspire to own is a Patek Phillipe.

My partner and I love watches and we have a number of them. I usually get a new genuine watch in the sales after Xmas. I've done very well with large discounts on brands like Breitling and Maurice Lacroix in the past. I wanted either a Panerai, a Patek or an IWC this year. I knew they would not be discounted after Xmas, so we went looking in the big watch shops on Bond St.

The other half told me that I would not be allowed a Patek. Apparently they had some adverts saying something along the lines of "you don't own a PP, you hold onto it for your kids". She has bought into that mesasge and has told me that "under no circumstances" will I be getting one until we have children.

So while I'm kept awake all night, at least I'll have a nice watch to let me know what time it is...

[TeeJay]

To take your points slightly out of sequence for a second,

I also want to note that I'm most definitely NOT someone who feels WG and PT look like SS so there is no need to consider them. The finish and look of them is very much something I notice. And to that end I actaully usually don't like the patina of platinum on all pieces but only certain ones. Also Rolex white gold is the only I know of that is alloyed with platinum removing the need to be tied to constant rhodium dipping to keep the watch looking fresh over the years. That said, in most cases if there were that alternative I would prefer SS for any larger sporty watch as the weight of precious metals there becomes kind of silly IMO. So it will only be in strapped or otherwise smaller braceleted watches where I would consider it. In the case of a GO Pano watch I had it just felt cheap to the touch and to wear in steel being so light and that was a leading reason why I bailed on it. In the case of the DD's, I think that the WG add a richness of patina that is slightly better than the DJ counterparts and the platinum is off the charts. The subtleness of the greyed brushed PT patina contrasting with the polished PT makes that particular version just sail with a capital S. And the glacier dial to me is just perfect, but I would also to consider other dials as well and wouldn't only get the PT because that dial can't be had in WG. Rolex platinum os WAY overpriced IMO but its look is dynamite. However, if not for the contrasting polished surfaces I would pass on another dress watch as I tend to like WG better if the watch case is basically all polished as you see on a typical strapped watch from say Lange or VC or someone.

I totally understand what you're meaning there, after all, the metals do have very different appearances and tactile qualities, which, although something someone uninitiated might not notice, something that once aware of, you'll never be unable to notice. A while back, I was considering having a signet ring commissioned, which would have featured a stainless steel insert in a sterling silver setting. Not much difference in color, someone might think, after all, both metals are 'white', but, when SS is put next to silver, it's very obvious that the SS has more of a greyish-blue hue to it. Same deal with Platinum, or Titanium, as I was mentioning with the wedding ring plan. Off the top of one's head, someone might think that Platinum is just a 'white metal', but, it's quite a bit darker than silver, with a much deeper luster. As before, I was looking for the appearance of engraved Naquadah, which is much darker than Platinum, and closer to Titanium (or possibly Tungsten) So from that point of view, and bearing in mind that you're not talking about the precious metals for their 'bling potential', but an aesthetic appreciation of them (better not flash the watch at that cop ) then I'd agree, a rep would not satisfy your requirements, because you are looking for a requirement in the aesthetics of the watch which is intrinsic to that specific metal being used, rather than one that just 'looks similar'. Of course, by choice, an engraved Naquadah wedding ring would be awesome, and that would be exactly what I want, but sadly, as the element doesn't exist, I'm having to settle for the closest existing equivalent

Yeah TJ I agree with a lot of what you said, although we differ in perceived value considerations a bit. I don't guy gens for their (no doubt unjustified)inflated prices unless I see major differences in the subtle details which I feel are quintessential in all fine things. In my current collection I can't quite get that in any of the pieces I now own. The UN's of course can't be had, Close one on the PO, but the 45.5MM won't work and the rep 42MM isn't where the gen is at, the AT isn't repped in Ti (although a modded steel one like Siesta's would do - I just needed the Ti one to fill that exact hole in the collection, and in the case of the DJ, no rep could ever cut it with that model unless I went franken and so the gen came about there too. But in all cases, I'm never just getting the gens without a lot of thought. Unfortunately something else is happening too and that is my collecting is drawing to a close as I see no need to move beyond the core pieces so I keep moving backward instead of forward and also devoting more time to the "Personal" piece.

I know what you mean there, and I completely accept that you're not buying the watches for the prestige of the price tag, but the aesthetics of the metals used in the watch itself. With regards the Planet Ocean, I'd have to make a compromise on the point that, no, the reps are not identical to the gens, but, I do think that they are very close, so an acceptable budget alternative for someone who likes the aesthetics of the watch design, but isn't so concerned about the metals involved. As I've mentioned before, my favorite aspect of the Planet Ocean design, is the integrated crown guards. A perfect blend of form and function, and, something which the rep duplicates just as well as the gen For me, as much as I can appreciate the metallurgical differences between watches (and other items of jewelery) it's not something I personally consider important enough for me to make the jump from a rep to a gen. Say for example, I was to go out tomorrow, walk into the AD and buy a brand new 2531.80. Yes, it would be a gen, but, it would only be 'a watch I bought'. There would be no sentimental value attached to it. My 2531.80, on the other hand, might not be gen, might not be a perfect rep, but, it's still the watch I bought with my Gran's inheritance money. It will always have that sentimental value, so from my point of view, that would always make it more valuable than the genuine item.

I think personal tolerance is key to collecting. What one person tolerates, another might not, or, what one person considers important, another might not even consider as a consideration... It's all the different points of view which make this such an interesting community

Anyway, I also wanted to make the distinction that for me, it is always a feel thing and I never have really allowed any consideration of "worth" into an analysis of price. If it moves me the only decisions affecting whether to buy it for me are going to be do I have the cash right now and since I'm spending this money will I wear it alot and cherish it so as not to be wasteful. And that is why I sold a whole bunch of my collection. It was too wasteful to have that kind of money into something when it got no use. But the money didn't drive the decision. If I loved them all truly I would have kept every one of them no matter how overpriced or not they were if that makes sense. So to that end TJ and I agree that if you love it spend the dough. You only live once right?

On that point, I agree 100% There's never any need to waste money, and, if someone considers something important enough for them to spend that extra cash on something, then that's good enough reason for them to spend the money

But in the end, I think the personal nature of the watch opens up a lot of leeway in all these decisions for most. It is awefull tough to lay out a bunch of cash for something that just looks cool and you "wouldn't mind" having in your collection...

You're not wrong there, brother

BTW TJ, that Stargate style theme is cool. That is something I am going to need to consider soon myself. Ah, marriage the final frontier...

So many interesting wedding rings out there... Something which I think you might appreciate on an aesthetic level, is a Zirconia ring. My wife and I looked at a pair, (as when she saw them, she had to have one, regardless of the previous plans for the rings ) but, when she tried it on, I can't begin to describe just how foul, this utterly gorgeous ring looked on her

As mentioned, mine was

[TeeJay]

The watch that I aspire to own is a Patek Phillipe.

My partner and I love watches and we have a number of them. I usually get a new genuine watch in the sales after Xmas. I've done very well with large discounts on brands like Breitling and Maurice Lacroix in the past. I wanted either a Panerai, a Patek or an IWC this year. I knew they would not be discounted after Xmas, so we went looking in the big watch shops on Bond St.

The other half told me that I would not be allowed a Patek. Apparently they had some adverts saying something along the lines of "you don't own a PP, you hold onto it for your kids". She has bought into that mesasge and has told me that "under no circumstances" will I be getting one until we have children.

So while I'm kept awake all night, at least I'll have a nice watch to let me know what time it is...

It might still be worth looking, as I've heard that folks have seen PAMs, not only at reduced prices, but actually being offered the 'store watch' for sale, rather than being told they could look at it, and have their name added to a waiting list

If you wanted to wind your partner up, you could treat yourself to a Patek rep, and then just wear it without saying anything, and see how long it is before she twigs that it's a new watch, and what it is Of course, you'll then have the justification that as it's a rep, it's not a huge expense

[RobbieG]

Always a pleasure to hear your views TJ. You obviously are like me in that you enjoy giving lots of thought to the most minute of lifes decisions and details. My little nephew asked me recently what I wanted to be when I grew up. When I finished laughing at how cute that was I told him I wanted to be a professional ponderer. Giving more thought to things and as such trying to better undertstand what really inspires me is something I enjoy doing more and more as I get older. As a result, I have so much less waste and baggage both tangible and intangible in my life now than I did even a year ago.

I'll know I have achieved nirvana when I just have one watch, one suit, 3 pairs or jeans, one pair of shorts, a bathing suit, three T-shirts, 3 button downs, a pair of sneakers, a pair of flip flops, a pair of dress shoes, room service and send out laundry - and you guessed it, I'm living in a hotel. It won't be long now. When I can "move" for a season to Newport or Tuscany or Napa with a days notice and a carry on, I'll have as much stuff as I want to own. And when I feel like a new shirt it will be just like the watch thoughts. I'll go buy one, but not until I stop at the Goodwill box on the way to the store and give away one of the others. Accumulation is just pointless IMO...

[RobbieG]

Hey TJ, is this your watch? I couldn't seem to find the model number of your watch and was wondering if it just had an updated number or something now...

http://www.prestigetime.com/item/Omega/Sea...0m/2220.80.html

[TeeJay]

Always a pleasure to hear your views TJ. You obviously are like me in that you enjoy giving lots of thought to the most minute of lifes decisions and details. My little nephew asked me recently what I wanted to be when I grew up. When I finished laughing at how cute that was I told him I wanted to be a professional ponderer. Giving more thought to things and as such trying to better undertstand what really inspires me is something I enjoy doing more and more as I get older. As a result, I have so much less waste and baggage both tangible and intangible in my life now than I did even a year ago.

I'll know I have achieved nirvana when I just have one watch, one suit, 3 pairs or jeans, one pair of shorts, a bathing suit, three T-shirts, 3 button downs, a pair of sneakers, a pair of flip flops, a pair of dress shoes, room service and send out laundry - and you guessed it, I'm living in a hotel. It won't be long now. When I can "move" for a season to Newport or Tuscany or Napa with a days notice and a carry on, I'll have as much stuff as I want to own. And when I feel like a new shirt it will be just like the watch thoughts. I'll go buy one, but not until I stop at the Goodwill box on the way to the store and give away one of the others. Accumulation is just pointless IMO...

Likewise, bro We have the same birthday, is it any surprise that we both ponder such minutia? Some things in life, I'm not fussed by, and 'good enough' will often suffice, but others, it's a case of specifics being specific to what I want, or not at all. It's like my example of the wedding ring. What I want, is an engraved Naquadah ring. That's not a possibility, so I'm going for the closest visual equivalent, so Titanium is the metal of choice. However, with regards things like the Pepsi v Coke debate, yes, I can tell the difference between the two in a blind taste test, but, at the end of the day, I'm happy to drink the generic stuff which tastes just as good, in its own unique way

I have to admit, that would certainly be an awesome wardrobe, and certainly along the lines of my own stylings, in that I would be quite happy to wear the same clothes day in and day out (well, assuming they wouldn't get dirty of course ) just so I'd always be wearing what I really liked. That said, I think there's something to be said for variety, and having one thing better suited to a particular situation than another, but, then again, how efficient to just have the one thing, and know that it would be suitable for all occasions

PS: What do you think of the Zirconia rings?

[TeeJay]

Hey TJ, is this your watch? I couldn't seem to find the model number of your watch and was wondering if it just had an updated number or something now...

http://www.prestigetime.com/item/Omega/Sea...0m/2220.80.html

Yes and no. I have a (not particularly accurate ) rep of that Seamaster, but it's not the precise one I was refering to That's the Co-Axial SMP which Daniel Craig wore in Casino Royale, from the beginning of the journey to Montenegro for the rest of the movie. The SMP I'm meaning, is the 2531.80, which Pierce Brosnan wore from Tomorrow Never Dies, onwards. The main visual differences, are that in the new 2220.80, the lume is surrounded by metal, as with the markers on modern Submariners, and the word 'Seamaster' is in red above the hands, where the 2531.80, it is in white, and below the hands. The other difference, is that on the 2531.80, the Omega branding is printed on the dial, but on the 2220.80, the Omega branding is in the form of metal attachments.

Comparing the two together, while it is a pretty smart watch anyway, I think the 2220.80 is smarter, as in 'more formal' than the 2531.80, but, that's just my own thoughts on the two watches, and something I factored into my choice when it came to my 'only one watch' decision, as, while the 2531.80 can 'dress up' easily, the 2220.80 is not as easy to consider as 'casual'.

[Edit to add]

Here's a side-by-side comparison of the two I have (the watches are next to each other, the line is the overlap of paper, not a photo-merge, also, my 2220.80 is inaccurate as it does not have a '3' marker, and the dial brandings are printed on, rather than the correct attachments, but, there is a v2 rep available which corrects those flaws. Either way, I still think mine is a nice watch in its own right, I just feel that the 2531.80 is the more versatile of the two )

[RobbieG]

My fiance and I have bought A LOT of jewelry for her and set it with high quality CZ's. If you know where to find the good stuff they are equal to diamonds in every way. If there is one fault it is that they are too perfect actually. We both love that they are totally colorless. IMO, all diamonds, even included ones are the same as long as you get D or better color and a great cut. I think it is silly to pay through the nose for a flawless diamond. An S or an I which is cut perfectly and a D color is preferable to a VSS G with just an ok cut. The cut is where the sparkle comes from not how flawless it is. Inclusions can't be seen to the naked eye anyway so I have no idea why people pay through the nose not to have them. And the lack of color is the depth and what draws you in. The icing on the cake. Because of all this well cut and colored CZ's are amazing. We actually enjoy telling people some of her stuff is CZ which we have to do because we would never get called out in a million years. Even a jeweler would need a loupe and a test kit for the ones we are getting. People will tell you that all CZ's are the same as it is a perfect chemical formula but it is just not true. The quality of the raw material does matter as does how the finished product is cut, just like a diamond.

Here are three pictures. We bought two of the same settings of her engagement ring. Some or one is a VSS/D real stone and some or one is a CZ which she wears when we travel. One cost a sh*tload of money and one didn't. LOL. Can you tell the difference. I honestly can't in person without a loupe...

PS: What do you think of the Zirconia rings?

[TeeJay]

My fiance and I have bought A LOT of jewelry for her and set it with high quality CZ's. If you know where to find the good stuff they are equal to diamonds in every way. If there is one fault it is that they are too perfect actually. We both love that they are totally colorless. IMO, all diamonds, even included ones are the same as long as you get D or better color and a great cut. I think it is silly to pay through the nose for a flawless diamond. An S or an I which is cut perfectly and a D color is preferable to a VSS G with just an ok cut. The cut is where the sparkle comes from not how flawless it is. Inclusions can't be seen to the naked eye anyway so I have no idea why people pay through the nose not to have them. And the lack of color is the depth and what draws you in. The icing on the cake. Because of all this well cut and colored CZ's are amazing. We actually enjoy telling people some of her stuff is CZ which we have to do because we would never get called out in a million years. Even a jeweler would need a loupe and a test kit for the ones we are getting. People will tell you that all CZ's are the same as it is a perfect chemical formula but it is just not true. The quality of the raw material does matter as does how the finished product is cut, just like a diamond.

Here are three pictures. We bought two of the same settings of her engagement ring. Some or one is a VSS/D real stone and some or one is a CZ which she wears when we travel. One cost a sh*tload of money and one didn't. LOL. Can you tell the difference. I honestly can't in person without a loupe...

I have to admit, I can't tell the difference between them, but, if I had to guess, it would be that the top and bottom were the Zirconia.

You have to check out the ring in the link, as the rings themselves are actually made from Zirconia ceramic, not just a ring set with a Zirconia

[RobbieG]

Nope. you had it reversed. The CZ is in the center, the other two are of the diamond. The CZ was made to the exact same size as the original stone (just under 2ct) and is on the exact same setting which is a special vintage scroll design made by Scott Kay. The settings each have around 3/4 of a carat of small VS / G stones including one on the side. These pictures are crap of course. In person both are stunning and impossible to tell apart save for a little nick in one of the settings I can find. Otherwise even I need a loop to find it...

[Noel Fleischer]

well spoken robbie. i wasn't into watches at all until my late 30's. in fact, even though

i'm a professional, i wore Casio, Seiko, etc.my first half decent watch was a Tag. looking back- almost all were

stylistcally rolex knock- offs.

when i turned 40 i bought myself a plain white/oyster DJ. that was the start of the collecting. i 've always had at least 1 gen DJ since then.

now that i'm into reps - i have concentrated still on the rollies. i have 3 gens and like 20 reps, almost 1 of every model and many

subs, DD's & DJ's. i have since spread out abit to bigger models like the PAMs, HB BB etc.

there is still something special to me about the rolex. i've never seen one that i thought looked bad (except maybe the YM2).

some of the geeks put down the rollies cos they're 'too small'. also they mistakenly say that the bracelets are 'flimsy'.

i challenge anyone to handle the gen and not think that they are the most comfortable and silky feeling watch/bracelet combo.

i even disagree with By-Tor when he says that the best reps are close to the quality and feel of the gen. they never come close to the FEEL.

[siesta181]

Well growing up, i was not exposed to watches. My family was pragmatic, not one to splurge on luxuries when there are other things to worry about. I guess that's common when you grow up in an emerging economy. So no rolexes, omegas or what not. The simple yet practical Casio and Seikos were the order of the day.

Add to the fact that I have only been in this hobby for about 5 years now, I basically start from ground zero. There's no watch influence on me at all. My opinions of brands and preferances for brands are based on my research and discussions with my contemporaries. That explains the Monster (a very recent watch) being the watch that started it all.

If there's any influence at all, it would have been my interest in flying as a career. In fact that's all that I wanted to do after uni (college to you yanks). I didn't consider anything else. Surprisingly, Brietling's didnt quite cut it for me and I was drawn more to IWC and their history. Flying didn't quite pan out by the way, cleared all the interviews and aptitute tests for flying college but failed the medical. Sigh.... you can imagine the disappointment when I was denied the career of my choice esp when that's all that I wanted to do since young. Best laid plans.... lowest point of my life.

So what's my personal watch..... The Doppel to remind me of what I could have been and life's curve balls. It was the watch that I would have bought as a pilot. It also serves to remind me that setbacks in life can be overcome. Aesthetically, at 42mm, it's not out of place in todays big watches craze and yet subtle and classic enough not to shout "Come look at me". Kickass tritium dial at that.

So while I might collect Panerais, Breitlings, Omegas, Tags, Rollies and APs. The Doppel will probably be the one for me.

Answer to your 2nd question, I always thought that price should not be a factor for comparison for something that you really like, even if it might not be the flagship model. It might not make sense to others but the heart wants what the heart wants.

Cheers

Siesta181

[TeeJay]

some of the geeks put down the rollies cos they're 'too small'. also they mistakenly say that the bracelets are 'flimsy'.

i challenge anyone to handle the gen and not think that they are the most comfortable and silky feeling watch/bracelet combo.

i even disagree with By-Tor when he says that the best reps are close to the quality and feel of the gen. they never come close to the FEEL.

I wouldn't put Rollies down for their size, but they are too small for my personal requirements... No, the bracelets aren't flimsy, the individual links are well crafted, and yes, the bracelets are very comfortable to wear. However. The clasps of the bracelets are extremely flimsy. The comment has been made by many reviewers, and it's one that I agree with. Compare the internals of the clasp of a Sub, with the internals of the clasp of an SMP. It is obvious just from a visual inspection that the Omega clasps are sturdier than the Rolex clasps. That is not confined to the gen watches, but reps as well. Yes, Rolex clasps are functional, but, they could be better engineered, such as Omega clasps are.

I would not disagree that Rolexes are comfortable watches, but, I feel the SMP is an equally comfortable watch.

However, I would point out, that when I first tried on a Submariner, I was not impressed with it. It did not actually feel like a prestigious watch. It did not feel like it was worth the pricetag, and that was why I bought the rep instead. However, when I wore the rep, that actually felt like value for money. Incredibly comfortable watch, and one which I feel meets the feel of the gen I tried on, but, I would still say that the SMP feels as comfortable, and would definitely say that the Omega clasp is more sturdily constructed than the Rolex clasp

[TeeJay]

Nope. you had it reversed. The CZ is in the center, the other two are of the diamond. The CZ was made to the exact same size as the original stone (just under 2ct) and is on the exact same setting which is a special vintage scroll design made by Scott Kay. The settings each have around 3/4 of a carat of small VS / G stones including one on the side. These pictures are crap of course. In person both are stunning and impossible to tell apart save for a little nick in one of the settings I can find. Otherwise even I need a loop to find it...

Ahh, I have to admit, I thought the center one looked like the better stone, so I figured that would be the diamond I guess it just goes to show that substitutes can look every bit as good as the original And with that in mind, I'm off to the jewellers to finalize the details of a faux-Naquadah ring

[guinea]

It might still be worth looking, as I've heard that folks have seen PAMs, not only at reduced prices, but actually being offered the 'store watch' for sale, rather than being told they could look at it, and have their name added to a waiting list

If you wanted to wind your partner up, you could treat yourself to a Patek rep, and then just wear it without saying anything, and see how long it is before she twigs that it's a new watch, and what it is Of course, you'll then have the justification that as it's a rep, it's not a huge expense

As it happens, I walked out of the store with a PAM 111, which has been on my list for a while. They would not discount it a penny. Maybe Panerai won't let them? However, I got a very healthy discount on an Omega Deville for my girlfriend which made up for it. A slightly odd way to do things, but when I am spending that kind of money I don't care how they cut it.

I will not get a Patek rep. Any other one is fine, but I'll keep that special.

[RobbieG]

Yeah, you are both right IMO. Noel is right when he says the DJ and DD reps don't feel like the gens so much. Night and day really. And when Bytor said about reps feeling the same he was I think only talking about the flimsy Sub/GMT/EXP style bracelets that are brushed and have hollow cenetr links. The rep ones don't usually match up out of the box but with a bit of "working" and oiling you can get them close - although to someone picky it still may not be quite right.

Oh, and I would for sure agree with TJ that of all the Rollies, the Sub really has the worst feel. It never felt like an expensive watch to me. Cheap and rattling and flimsy for sure. I always loved them though - just for different reasons. Meanwhile, the new GMTIIc whith its poished center links, new case, and improved bracelet and clasp feels like a million bucks...

And while the clasps on the Subs, etc. are cheap and flimsy and always have been the new rolesor clasp used on the Oysters for DJ's is anything but. On of the nicest, sturdiest and most comfortable clasps in my box. For what it is worth, the hidden snapping clasp on the President bracelets are the nuts too. That bracelet is wonderful. The weight of the precious metals and the smaller symetrical links just melts it into the wearers wrist and the clasp is both snug and esy to use. That can be an issue on the reps because the President design is meant to be heavier to feel right with the smaller links. In SS on the reps it just feels cheap and rattles to much. Which is why it is better to get a DJ rep instead with a Oyster/Rolesor clasp instead. Or a Jubilee bracelet DJ rep. The rep Jubilee is quite nice. My dad has a rep Jubi bracelet on his gen DJ and he loves it.

Of course, for sturdy clasps, I prefer the locking button release type, like on the Omega PO that TJ mentions. My UN MMD has that style too and for sheer strenghth you can't beat that design...

I wouldn't put Rollies down for their size, but they are too small for my personal requirements... No, the bracelets aren't flimsy, the individual links are well crafted, and yes, the bracelets are very comfortable to wear. However. The clasps of the bracelets are extremely flimsy. The comment has been made by many reviewers, and it's one that I agree with. Compare the internals of the clasp of a Sub, with the internals of the clasp of an SMP. It is obvious just from a visual inspection that the Omega clasps are sturdier than the Rolex clasps. That is not confined to the gen watches, but reps as well. Yes, Rolex clasps are functional, but, they could be better engineered, such as Omega clasps are.

I would not disagree that Rolexes are comfortable watches, but, I feel the SMP is an equally comfortable watch.

However, I would point out, that when I first tried on a Submariner, I was not impressed with it. It did not actually feel like a prestigious watch. It did not feel like it was worth the pricetag, and that was why I bought the rep instead. However, when I wore the rep, that actually felt like value for money. Incredibly comfortable watch, and one which I feel meets the feel of the gen I tried on, but, I would still say that the SMP feels as comfortable, and would definitely say that the Omega clasp is more sturdily constructed than the Rolex clasp

[RobbieG]

I should also add the if we had it to do again - and we do kind of because there is always more jewelry for the girls, we will never buy real stones again. The only exception is if I was really loaded and could buy her like a neckless with those raw diamonds from DeBeers or something. That place is the nuts. In which case it is just as much about the setting design as it is the stone - but in any event they have great stuff. Problem is everything in there is over a hundred grand that you would want so you have to be well heeled and prove it or they won't let you keep coming in there. I think we have worn out our welcome at the Rodeo store. The last time we stopped in there the manager all but told me that when I come back I'm going to need a black Amex and I'll have to slide it under the door so he can do a pre-auth before buzzing us in. I figure hell might freeze over before that happens so I suppose DeBeers is off the list unless I hit the lottery...

Ahh, I have to admit, I thought the center one looked like the better stone, so I figured that would be the diamond I guess it just goes to show that substitutes can look every bit as good as the original And with that in mind, I'm off to the jewellers to finalize the details of a faux-Naquadah ring

[TeeJay]

Yeah, you are both right IMO. Noel is right when he says the DJ and DD reps don't feel like the gens so much. Night and day really. And when Bytor said about reps feeling the same he was I think only talking about the flimsy Sub/GMT/EXP style bracelets that are brushed and have hollow cenetr links. The rep ones don't usually match up out of the box but with a bit of "working" and oiling you can get them close - although to someone picky it still may not be quite right.

This is likely down to the differences in the weights and tactile qualities of the metals being used, ie Platinum rather than SS, I would think

Oh, and I would for sure agree with TJ that of all the Rollies, the Sub really has the worst feel. It never felt like an expensive watch to me. Cheap and rattling and flimsy for sure.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that

I always loved them though - just for different reasons.

Indeed, I've always like how Subs look, I just wasn't impressed by how it felt... At least, not how it felt at gen price... Reduced price, then sure, that's not so bad

Meanwhile, the new GMTIIc whith its poished center links, new case, and improved bracelet and clasp feels like a million bucks...

And while the clasps on the Subs, etc. are cheap and flimsy and always have been the new rolesor clasp used on the Oysters for DJ's is anything but. On of the nicest, sturdiest and most comfortable clasps in my box. For what it is worth, the hidden snapping clasp on the President bracelets are the nuts too. That bracelet is wonderful. The weight of the precious metals and the smaller symetrical links just melts it into the wearers wrist and the clasp is both snug and esy to use. That can be an issue on the reps because the President design is meant to be heavier to feel right with the smaller links. In SS on the reps it just feels cheap and rattles to much. Which is why it is better to get a DJ rep instead with a Oyster/Rolesor clasp instead. Or a Jubilee bracelet DJ rep. The rep Jubilee is quite nice. My dad has a rep Jubi bracelet on his gen DJ and he loves it.

I know what you're refering to there, afterall, small links allow for greater conformity to the wearer's wrist Although it's not quite the same principle, I find that the Planet Ocean bracelet is very comfortable, as the curves of the links, mean that it is only making contact with the wrist in at certain points, rather than total contact, like with a Sub, or even SMP bracelet... I'd be interested for your feelings on that one

Of course, for sturdy clasps, I prefer the locking button release type, like on the Omega PO that TJ mentions. My UN MMD has that style too and for sheer strenghth you can't beat that design...

Likewise. Not just the method of closure and opening, but the actual structure of the sections themselves, having more material in the sections, yet the actual height of the clasp when closed, is no greater than the height of a Sub clasp when closed... In essence, cramming more engineering and strength, into the same sized package That's a big from me

I should also add the if we had it to do again - and we do kind of because there is always more jewelry for the girls, we will never buy real stones again. The only exception is if I was really loaded and could buy her like a neckless with those raw diamonds from DeBeers or something. That place is the nuts. In which case it is just as much about the setting design as it is the stone - but in any event they have great stuff. Problem is everything in there is over a hundred grand that you would want so you have to be well heeled and prove it or they won't let you keep coming in there. I think we have worn out our welcome at the Rodeo store. The last time we stopped in there the manager all but told me that when I come back I'm going to need a black Amex and I'll have to slide it under the door so he can do a pre-auth before buzzing us in. I figure hell might freeze over before that happens so I suppose DeBeers is off the list unless I hit the lottery...

That's top notch customer service there, bro I know what you mean about not wanting to buy real stones. A while back, the diamond popped out of my wife's engagement ring while she was working, and was lost to infinity. (hopefully, a cleaner found the stone and pawned it) When I first bought our engagement rings, hers was a silver ring with a 'pink stone' of somekind (probably just colored glass) but when it was cloned into Platinum, the jeweler insisted on putting a diamond in instead of a colored stone (which would've looked awesome with the grey-hue of Platinum) When the diamond was lost, we considered replacing it with a pink tourmaline, which would have cost pence, but, the jeweler (a different one that made the ring) had to obviously charge a labor cost, and, as we decided to claim on the insurance, they were only prepared to pay the full bill, if it was a like for like stone, so she wound up getting another diamond Had it been a case of just paying it ourselves (but after all, that's what insurances are paid for ) we would've just bought the cheaper stone and gone with that

I went into the jewelers and confirmed the details of my wedding ring The company he's sourced the work to, can't put the engravings on curved Titanium, so we're compromising with a half-court ring instead. Curved on the inside, and with the same thickness at the sides, but with a flat outer surface, which will be able to take the engravings properly. I also took in some photographic reference, and he agreed that media-blasted Titanium should provide a near identical match to the engraved Naquadah of the Stargate, where Platinum wouldn't be dark enough, Stainless Steel would be the wrong color, and Tungsten would be too dark, so Titanium was the way to go He also agreed, that this ring should look the nuts when it's done, I think he's as keen to see it as I am