umngmc Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 When i first started becoming interested in watches, i didn't care for Rolex at all. I thought they were overpriced and just a marketing machine. However, as I started learning more about watches, I began to appreciate Rolex for what they are. They have timeless designs with reliable in-house movements. As a lover of all watches, it's hard to ignore Rolex. I now have a gen vintage DJ and reps of vintage Daytona and BK GMT. On order for BK's SubLV and SD. I probably won't ever buy a modern Rolex, except for maybe the Sub LV, but I am a lover of all of the vintage Rolexes and in negotiation with a fellow for his 1680 Red Sub. So never say never, your taste in watches will change with time and Rolex will still be around Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 You don't have to like them, but for an average person (who's not into watches) Rolex is the watch that carries the biggest prestige and brand recognition. Everyone knows the name. Most average people have never heard of really expensive and prestigious watches like Patek, Breguet, JLC, etc. Yeah, most of that comes from clever marketing... but Rolex watches actually ARE very good quality. If Breguet and Patek are Lamborghini and Aston Martin, Rolex is to watches what Mercedes is to cars. And it's the same old blues... many Mazda and Toyota owners will always tell how much Mercs suck. Not all of them would like to own one, but many secretly do. Rolex probably isn't my favorite brand, but I love the classic sports line. On the other hand I hate their tasteless bling collection with passion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I'm usually able to find something positive in just about anything in life- Doesn't really matter what it is, but there's always something to be appreciated if one were to look hard enough. I find it interesting that so many people have a strong hatred for certain things; most times I suspect it's because they don't fully understand the item or subject of their disdain. There's something to be said for having an open mind. While certain things may not be to everyone's taste, I think everyone would benefit from at least trying something before completely dismissing it. That applies to more than just watches in my mind... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I'm usually able to find something positive in just about anything in life- Doesn't really matter what it is, but there's always something to be appreciated if one were to look hard enough. I find it interesting that so many people have a strong hatred for certain things; most times I suspect it's because they don't fully understand the item or subject of their disdain. There's something to be said for having an open mind. While certain things may not be to everyone's taste, I think everyone would benefit from at least trying something before completely dismissing it. That applies to more than just watches in my mind... I think you're quite right there, and it was certainly my own ignorance of the ethos behind the first Submariners which lead to me being dismissive of them as watches, and Rolex for being 'cheap' as manufacturers (ie not being prepared to innovate in their designs, as Omega have over the years) but, once that ethos was explained to me -Practical, lightweight, reliable tool watches, not luxury items- I began to see the brand in a different light, and with a different appreciation for them. Oh I still think Rolex are behind the game in terms of innovation, and their latest releases at Basel were insults to both the eye and the wallet, but there is a simplicity about the earlier watches which is incredibly elegant, and that can only be appreciated, rather than dismissed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted May 29, 2009 Report Share Posted May 29, 2009 Rolex is to watches what Mercedes is to cars. Never have truer words been spoken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted May 29, 2009 Report Share Posted May 29, 2009 Never have truer words been spoken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LapTime Posted May 29, 2009 Report Share Posted May 29, 2009 Most of the responses here echo my sentiments. Unlike most of us, I came to reps looking for a TAG Heuer, not a Rolex. Rolexes were far from my mind, actually. I figured their price, it might look a little out of place on the wrist of a young 20-something. I guess i never really got the whole Rolex facination. And I really wanted a Daytona (still do) thanks to the 24 Hours of Daytona. Fast forward a couple months, and I buy a n00bmariner - for $108, i figured why the hell not? Once I got it, i realized just why everyone loves these things. What a great watch. Not only is the Submariner an effing legend (probably the genesis of most modern sports watches), but its real beauty is in its versalitility. The sub works in almost any situation. T shirt, shorts, and sandals...formal dress...mountain climbing...you name it. Nice looker too, very subtle and understated (for some reason I expected a rolex to be very flashy). I still like my TAGs and Omegas better, but Rolex is growing on me. Before RWG I had only really known about the Daytona and Sub, but now my eyes have been opened to other great models like the Milgauss and Explorer. Plus you can't deny the prestige behind Rolex, they simply make some of the best watches on the planet from their durability to status, reliability, mystique, etc.... I'm sure i'll be adding another to my collection sometime soon. That said, I still think too many people have them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
If you see Kay Posted May 29, 2009 Report Share Posted May 29, 2009 (edited) I too am in the same predicament as some posters. My first rep was the Sub and I don't feel any bit reserved in wearing it. I have since purchased a glacier blue Swiss ETA DD and I feel a bit embarrassed at wearing it. I mean, come on, it's a $40,000 watch in it's gen incarnation. I don't think anyone in my office can afford that, yet here I am, sporting it on my wrist, and I'm not even at the top of the totem pole. I sometimes hide it under my sleeve when it pops out in meetings. This was my "had to have" rep, and when i got it, it just didn't seem right. I can wear my Sub and let it all hang out for all its glory on my wrist for all I care. But the glacier blue DD?????? I think it is a bit much for me. I don't feel any bit embarrassed or reserved wearing my other reps, including my Omegas, Cartiers..... The only other Rollie I'd get would be an AirKing. I might end up selling the DD. It's just too much watch for me. And yes, I do have a Mercedes (and a Lexus), so that analogy flies out the window. Edited May 29, 2009 by If you see Kay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_brian_ Posted May 29, 2009 Report Share Posted May 29, 2009 If Breguet and Patek are Lamborghini and Aston Martin, Rolex is to watches what Mercedes is to cars. There was an other comparison on a german watch forum and IMHO this sentence describes Rolex in a more appropriate way: "Rolex is to watches, what Volkswagen to cars - but for the price of a Bentley" (which belongs to VW BTW). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umngmc Posted May 29, 2009 Report Share Posted May 29, 2009 "Rolex is to watches, what Volkswagen to cars - but for the price of a Bentley" (which belongs to VW BTW). I don't know if I would call it a Volkswagen..... They are very well made watches, higher grade steel, in house movements, and almost all COSC certified. They are a step above the ETA-based movements of Omega and Breitling. Personally, for the price of most Rolex models, I like IWC or Blancpain. But there's a place for Rolex in my collection. Yes, Rolex is overpriced. But you're paying for the name recognition and "prestige". It's the same reason why people pay more for LV, Gucci, Prada, etc etc I think calling a Rolex a Mercedes is fairly accurate. Some of the Mercedes share the same platform as Chrysler's, so they may not be as "upscale" as they seem and you're paying for the name; much like Rolex. Bentley's are among the upper echelon of cars. Only the Rolex precious metal watches launch them into tens of thousands. All the SS models are less than $10K, just the vintage SS models get a little pricey due to consumer demand. They're not at the level of Patek Philipe, A Lange & Sohne, Breguet, Audemars Piguet, etc etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unkindone Posted May 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 29, 2009 Rolex is to watches what Mercedes is to cars. so they are overpriced and not to reliable? I kid, I kid!! on the market for a sl-500 myself actually! ^_^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jibuti Posted May 29, 2009 Report Share Posted May 29, 2009 Me. I can wear some vintage PAM with Rolex brevet crown. . . .And that's it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieselpower Posted May 29, 2009 Report Share Posted May 29, 2009 A good friend of mine is a 'dyed in the wool' Omega fan. He has a small but decent collection, started off by the gold seamaster his father left him in his will. I helped him a little along the way in his purchases (mostly from the bay) with what snippets of advice I could. I told him about my personal favourite day to day watch (1665 SD). He scoffed. I had my MBW DRSD 1665 modded to the point I was quite happy with it (it is still my daily beater) he saw it after the work had been done and - begrudgingly - admitted it was a nice piece. I told him I could get him a MBW Great White 1665 if he wanted to try one (he didn't like the red letters on mine) and he agreed. The watch duly arrived and it went on his skeptical wrist. He has not worn another watch since. That was over a year ago. I rest my case. Classic Rolex? Unbeatable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ash77 Posted May 29, 2009 Report Share Posted May 29, 2009 I have a ssd and thats it, bought as my first rep and have never used it after my second,third,fourth...etc. purchase of watches with different brands. It got more attention though (the rolex effect) but somehow it looked strange on the wrist. Dont like Rolex that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fakemaster Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Looking like you CAN wear the watch is important. But if you aren't confident in the watch you're wearing it shows. Nice pic Freddy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POTR Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (ie not being prepared to innovate in their designs, as Omega have over the years) If you are talking external design... Rolex didn't have anyone worthwhile to copy, as Omega did, by innovative lifting of practically everything Rolex, then basing their bigger crapper watches on their earlier crappy Rolex 'homage' watches If you are talking internal design... Rolex has a habit of improving their movements (and the ebauche they buy for their Tudor line) rather than using crappier and crappier movements with minor (or in the singular case of the co-axial, major, and sometimes barely functional) 'improvements' in their ever expanding line of 'follow the idiot market' watches.. Bond Sub - classic, no you can't have a free one to promote the brand... Bond Seamaster? OMG!!@#!@! Look how much money we can make with branding $50 [censored] quartz and $200 shittier co-axial movement flash bang watches with 007 logos! Omega 'Innovation' has been running down hill toward fashion-watchdom since they took their first baby-steps down the slide with the change from the 321 to the 861 in their chronos... * Innovation Note: Rolex did share Lemania movements with Omega (and most other high quality chronos of the 50's-60's, but you will notice Rolex switched to the much better Zenith ebauche when available, on their way to the development of their own complete, superior, movement. Omega has proven themselves marginally capable of re-producing Dr. Daniel's original radial friction co-axial escapement improvement to their line. Now... don't even get me started on Heuer (ne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 If you are talking external design... Rolex didn't have anyone worthwhile to copy, as Omega did, by innovative lifting of practically everything Rolex, then basing their bigger crapper watches on their earlier crappy Rolex 'homage' watches If you are talking internal design... Rolex has a habit of improving their movements (and the ebauche they buy for their Tudor line) rather than using crappier and crappier movements with minor (or in the singular case of the co-axial, major, and sometimes barely functional) 'improvements' in their ever expanding line of 'follow the idiot market' watches.. Bond Sub - classic, no you can't have a free one to promote the brand... Bond Seamaster? OMG!!@#!@! Look how much money we can make with branding $50 shit quartz and $200 shittier co-axial movement flash bang watches with 007 logos! Omega 'Innovation' has been running down hill toward fashion-watchdom since they took their first baby-steps down the slide with the change from the 321 to the 861 in their chronos... * Innovation Note: Rolex did share Lemania movements with Omega (and most other high quality chronos of the 50's-60's, but you will notice Rolex switched to the much better Zenith ebauche when available, on their way to the development of their own complete, superior, movement. Omega has proven themselves marginally capable of re-producing Dr. Daniel's original radial friction co-axial escapement improvement to their line. Now... don't even get me started on Heuer (ne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Bond Sub - classic, no you can't have a free one to promote the brand... Bond Seamaster? OMG!!@#!@! Look how much money we can make with branding $50 shit quartz and $200 shittier co-axial movement flash bang watches with 007 logos! I forgot to touch on this point earlier, my apologies... When Doctor No was made, the producers did not want to use a Rolex simply as a lucrative advertising option, but because that was (at the time) the only canon watch which Bond wore. The decision to go over to Omega, I believe was purely marketing lead, and I don't think that is necessarily a good thing. Yes, product placement helps pay for a movie, but it should only be done in keeping with the original concepts. Personally, I'm not a big fan of any of the commemorative Bond watches, and I would never buy one, simply because they are pure marketing. The SMPs and Planet Ocean, at least featured on screen, so are prop replicas, rather than just marketing devices... The strangest thing while in Japan, was seeing frequent Rolex adverts on the TV. Awesome to see, but at the same time, quite strange, as there's never any such advertising here in the UK Good to see you posting again, I hope life's been treating you well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POTR Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Thanks TeeJay, Of course I didn't get into other concepts, such as outright appropriation of concepts which developed organically from Rolex prestige... ie: Newman Daytona - natural classic... Schumacher "The 'Theft of a' Legend" Speedy, um... yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POTR Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Thanks TeeJay, Of course I didn't get into other concepts, such as outright appropriation of concepts which developed organically from Rolex prestige... ie: Newman Daytona - natural classic... Schumacher "The 'Theft of a' Legend" Speedy, um... yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Thanks TeeJay, Of course I didn't get into other concepts, such as outright appropriation of concepts which developed organically from Rolex prestige... ie: Newman Daytona - natural classic... Schumacher "The 'Theft of a' Legend" Speedy, um... yeah. Any time I quite agree with you, Omega are more than a little guilty of basing their designs off of Rolex designs, but in their defense, I would point out that they have improved on the designs, rather than just outright copying them, and Ulysse Nardin, for example, definitely based the MMD off of the Rolex Yacht-Master (a top watch, if I do say so myself), but again, tweaked the design a bit, added detail here and there, and use different cases for the different watches, whereas Rolex (as a corporate entity, not the watches, which I do like) just keep on with the same oyster case over a variety of lines, such as the Submariners, Sea-Dwellers and GMT Master IIs, simply changing things out like bezel inserts and bracelet combinations. I think the thing which saddens me, is that Rolex seem more keen to go after the fashion buyers (such as the blinged out versions) rather than being true to their roots of practical tool watches for professionals. I mean, look at the Submariner, for example. All that's changed over the years is slight differences in shape of the case (getting more and more 'blocky') lug holes no longer being drilled all the way through, a different bracelet configuration, and now, the ROLEXROLEXROLEX graving around the rehaut. In a way, yes, when you have a good design, why change it? and that's a perfectly valid philosophy, but, I think there can always be some room for improvement (ie AR coating, blue superluminova indices and hands as standard on a Submariner) simple things, but things which would actually be a practical improvement, not just pure aesthetics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4GTR Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Now... don't even get me started on Heuer (ne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheswick Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 When I came here I researched practically every brand aside from Rolex. I had no interest in them whatsoever. Partly because of my age (28), partly because of the brands popularity, but mainly the styling did not do it for me. I looked and read for hours at all kinds of watches... So what am I wearing after all this? WHY??? Well, the look of this watch really grabbed me. Large, blue lume, the hands... Then the details of it, like the ROLEXROLEXROLEX rehaut (I think that's what's it's called), the little crown serif, and actually the crown itself, all over the watch. So here I am. Will I but another Rolex? Maybe, I like the (vintage) Daytona's and definetly dig the Tudor`s... That being said I have several others in mind before I go back to the brand. Moral of the story? Don't write off a brand, ANY brand, because they may just surprise you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 When I came here I researched practically every brand aside from Rolex. I had no interest in them whatsoever. Partly because of my age (28), partly because of the brands popularity, but mainly the styling did not do it for me. I looked and read for hours at all kinds of watches... So what am I wearing after all this? WHY??? Well, the look of this watch really grabbed me. Large, blue lume, the hands... Then the details of it, like the ROLEXROLEXROLEX rehaut (I think that's what's it's called), the little crown serif, and actually the crown itself, all over the watch. So here I am. Will I but another Rolex? Maybe, I like the (vintage) Daytona's and definetly dig the Tudor`s... That being said I have several others in mind before I go back to the brand. Moral of the story? Don't write off a brand, ANY brand, because they may just surprise you... Truer words were never spoken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BROM Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Me personally do like them a lot, I think they are fine time pieces. In my little time here I have had two of them Subs both and for some reason I ended selling them and going back to Omega and Breitling for one reason the way they look, to me the Omegas and Breitlings just seem better looking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.