The Watch Thread - Part 16

[hwaa]

is it the King Samurai or???

spb239j1 / cheaper variant of 62mas re-issue.

 

[cyrenic]

 

[Decorum]

I love your monologues.

But anyways, I have the Pelagos and Submariner, I don't think they should be compared. They are both dive watches, but the purpose and design are so different.

Is it your ex-wife leave you cos you wear Lange when she prefer you to wear Rolex?

Both pelagos and submariner is good

but pelagos is a better watch for the dough

The submariner is often worn as jewelry or kept as investment…how can it be watch appreciation?

if patek or AP we can still argue otherwise even though both watches are investment grade, but for the fact that both patek and AP are top fine handmade watchmaking names with plenty of fine watchmaking accomplishments with their reputation, can we still say both patek and AP arent watch appreciation?

for what rolex has rightfully achieved

1. First watch to be issued chronometer cert

2. first watch to have both day and date function


It deserves its rightful place not far from omega but not crazy prices

• In 1910, the first watchmaker to earn chronometer certification for a wristwatch.[11]
• In 1926, produced a waterproof wristwatch, Rolex Oyster.[41] But it was far from the first company to do (see, for example, the "Submarine Watch" from the First World War, which was made by Tavannes and retailed by Brook & Son in Edinburgh). Wilsdorf even had a specially made Rolex watch (the watch was called the "DeepSea") attached to the side of Trieste, which went to the bottom of the Mariana Trench. The watch survived and tested as having kept perfect time during its descent and ascent. This was confirmed by a telegram sent to Rolex the following day saying "Am happy to confirm that even at 11,000 metres your watch is as precise as on the surface. Best regards, Jacques Piccard".[11]
• In 1931, a self-winding Rolex wristwatch was offered to the public (the so-called the "bubbleback" due to the large caseback). However, as with so many alleged Rolex "firsts" it was, in fact, not the first and was preceded to the market by Harwood which patented the design in 1923 and produced the first self-winding watch in 1928. This was powered by an internal mechanism that used the movement of the wearer's arm. As well as making watch winding unnecessary, it also kept the power from the mainspring more consistent, resulting in more reliable timekeeping.
• In 1945, introduced a wristwatch with an automatically changing date on the dial (Rolex Datejust Ref. 4467).[18] Again, it was not the first company to do so: Mimo made them in the 1930s—some twenty years earlier.
• In 1953, released a case waterproof to 100 m (330 ft) (Rolex Oyster Perpetual SubmarinerRef.6204, 1953). although this has been commonly publicized as the first diving watch, Omega made 21 years earlier, in 1932, the Marine, which could stand 135mts, 35mts more than the 1953 Rolex Submariner, and also Blancpain produced before Rolex their Fifthy Fathoms in 1953, few months before Rolex.[42]
• In 1954, produced a wristwatch which showed two time zones at once (Rolex GMT Master ref.6542, 1954)[43] Yet again, it was not the first company to do so, as the Longines DualTime preceded the GMT by a full quarter of a century.
• In 1956, made a wristwatch with an automatically changing day and date on the dial (Rolex Day-Date, 1956)[44]

 

[cyrenic]

Oh, I don't disagree with you that Rolex is overpriced these days, but that's really a bit different from saying that Rolex is bad, or linked to criminal activity, or worth spending 90% of your time in HWZ trying to shove your opinion down another person's throat...

I bought my Rolex before the latest craziness.. Still crazy, but nothing out of this world.

To be honest, if you start thinking about it, what's so great about AP and Patek? A non watch lover is going to look at you and say, siao, my Daniel Wellington is more accurate. Or why have a watch? Get an Apple watch, or a phone.

Like I said much earlier, if you don't like it then don't buy or look lor. Just like the whole Ming watch fiasco, the moment they jacked up their prices, I lost all interest. Nice design, but $4000 for design, an ebauche movement with some tickling done by a watchmaker... Not my cup of tea.

 

[Kyo_kusanagi86]

Daydate Saturday

Read HWZ Forum Rules!

 

[cyrenic]

 

[shinoku2]

New strap

 

[Decorum]

Oh, I don't disagree with you that Rolex is overpriced these days, but that's really a bit different from saying that Rolex is bad, or linked to criminal activity, or worth spending 90% of your time in HWZ trying to shove your opinion down another person's throat...

I bought my Rolex before the latest craziness.. Still crazy, but nothing out of this world.

To be honest, if you start thinking about it, what's so great about AP and Patek? A non watch lover is going to look at you and say, siao, my Daniel Wellington is more accurate. Or why have a watch? Get an Apple watch, or a phone.

Like I said much earlier, if you don't like it then don't buy or look lor. Just like the whole Ming watch fiasco, the moment they jacked up their prices, I lost all interest. Nice design, but $4000 for design, an ebauche movement with some tickling done by a watchmaker... Not my cup of tea.

i am fine with the fact that rolex is an investment jewelry
but its not watchmaking and horology appreciation

rolex makes quality watches, it is not that “bad” like fashion watch brand

however, is there any difference in tudor and rolex that justifies a 5 times increase in price?

watch appreciation shouldnt be brand appreciation

tudor is enough proof for what rolex is, overpriced.
the variance between a rolex and a tudor is only the quality of in house movement and/or lack of ceramic bezel, of which line seem to be blurring

for AP and PP, they have done much to be considered to be at the top of watchmaking

anyway, rolex got famous due to its involvement with a crime where the perpetrator was caught after investigators checked the dead man’s rolex

 

[Decorum]

if we compare seiko vs grand seiko vs credor and tudor vs rolex

you get horological value in every step of the way when we look at seiko vs grand seiko vs credir

there is noticeable improvements as you move up the seiko group’s offerings

however it is not a “jewelry nor investment grade”
people buy it for horological value

for rolex you just paying for the brand and image

its an investment but definitely not a watch, definitely not someone who appreciates horology

for tudor which is more value pack, it means rolex can deliver price for value but obviously chooses not to do
so

therefore, if horological appreciation is art appreciation
rolex is not horological appreciation.

 

[atypicalsingaporean]

i am fine with the fact that rolex is an investment jewelry
but its not watchmaking and horology appreciation

rolex makes quality watches, it is not that “bad” like fashion watch brand

however, is there any difference in tudor and rolex that justifies a 5 times increase in price?

watch appreciation shouldnt be brand appreciation

tudor is enough proof for what rolex is, overpriced.
the variance between a rolex and a tudor is only the quality of in house movement and/or lack of ceramic bezel, of which line seem to be blurring

for AP and PP, they have done much to be considered to be at the top of watchmaking

anyway, rolex got famous due to its involvement with a crime where the perpetrator was caught after investigators checked the dead man’s rolex

Price aside, is Rolex worth collecting for all their "firsts" in watchmaking? yes

There is a slight Rolex premium at RRP (over Omega, Panerai, etc), but if you cannot afford that premium, then don't collect Rolex and miss out on a non-trivial part of watchmaking history. Don't need to make all these laughable statements.

 

[atypicalsingaporean]

if we compare seiko vs grand seiko vs credor and tudor vs rolex

you get horological value in every step of the way when we look at seiko vs grand seiko vs credir

there is noticeable improvements as you move up the seiko group’s offerings

however it is not a “jewelry nor investment grade”
people buy it for horological value

for rolex you just paying for the brand and image

its an investment but definitely not a watch, definitely not someone who appreciates horology

for tudor which is more value pack, it means rolex can deliver price for value but obviously chooses not to do
so

therefore, if horological appreciation is art appreciation
rolex is not horological appreciation.

watches is part engineering, part art. take out the engineering, your "watch" won't even run.

 

[hwaa]

end of the day the guy who spends the money buying the watches he likes or he wants, is spending is own money.

 

[Decorum]

Price aside, is Rolex worth collecting for all their "firsts" in watchmaking? yes

There is a slight Rolex premium at RRP (over Omega, Panerai, etc), but if you cannot afford that premium, then don't collect Rolex and miss out on a non-trivial part of watchmaking history. Don't need to make all these laughable statements.

rolex is a watch for flippers or resellers

horology wise so much better stuff out there

there is no “art or horological appreciation” with rolex

all the starbucks, hulk, BLRO are overpriced.

the rolex brand has been hijacked by non watch lovers

 

[atypicalsingaporean]

rolex is a watch for flippers or resellers

horology wise so much better stuff out there

there is no “art or horological appreciation” with rolex

all the starbucks, hulk, BLRO are overpriced.

the rolex brand has been hijacked by non watch lovers

laugh die me

 

[Decorum]

as opposed to other watch brands

u just looking at a stack of cash as with a rolex (nothing wrong but rolex is plain to put; a shallow appreciation of horology unfortunately)

nowadays your appreciation of watch making seems to be in relation to how much dough you can drop for a rolex or how flashy the watch is

 

[atypicalsingaporean]

as opposed to other watch brands

u just looking at a stack of cash as with a rolex (nothing wrong but rolex is plain to put; a shallow appreciation of horology unfortunately)

unfortunately, your "comments" show non-appreciation of horology.

I look at my Rolex, I get reminded of the history that goes along with it. You look at other people's Rolex and see a stack of cash, who's the shallow one?

 

[noobiee]

ooo here we go again

popcorn is here

 

[Decorum]

unfortunately, your "comments" show non-appreciation of horology.

I look at my Rolex, I get reminded of the history that goes along with it. You look at other people's Rolex and see a stack of cash, who's the shallow one?

Note that im not against rolex

its just that rolex is not horology and the value is not horologically driven

i think tudor, which is part of rolex group is what rolex actually is and delivering value over price point

there is nothing wrong with admiring stack of cash by the way

you pay 40k market value for a lange, you get a handmade watch

you pay 40k market value for a mass production rolex thats because the market commands it

you dont get 40k of watchmaking value for any price you pay for, when it comes to a rolex

 

[atypicalsingaporean]

Note that im not against rolex

its just that rolex is not horology and the value is not horologically driven

i think tudor, which is part of rolex group is what rolex actually is and delivering value over price point

there is nothing wrong with admiring stack of cash by the way

you pay 40k market value for a lange, you get a handmade watch

you pay 40k market value for a mass production rolex thats because the market commands it

you dont get 40k of watchmaking value for any price you pay for, when it comes to a rolex

end of the day the guy who spends the money buying the watches he likes or he wants, is spending is own money.

^ refer to above. people want to spend $40k on a Rolex, you huan lo?

 

[kingcarlos]

just went sincere to ask about availability of black bay 58, say about 1 year at the moment =( any bros here know where I can get the watch without going to grey?