mangeorge has got us all beat on the economic side of the issue.
I’ve got a Cartier, which is pretty much the same thing as a Rolex. It was inherited, and there’s no way I’d ever spend the money required to buy a watch like this (my brother is a jeweler and has told me this model runs ~$3500). But, it’s the only physical object besides a comb that I inherited from my father.
So, I use it. Frankly, it does not keep time as well as the quartz Seiko I had when I got it. And why the heck my father had this watch when he was worth a relative pittance when he died remains a mystery to me.
And I’ve noticed that the few women I’ve met who’ve mentioned that they’ve noticed it are the very sort I care no to cater to.
It looks like mangeorge has the budget battle in hand, and I’m probably at least even with him on accuracy. He’ll probably never get mugged for his timepiece.
Of course there is no reason to own a Rolex. But I’d still like to own one. I can’t justify it, so I wear a $40 Timex. But I can understand the desire, and I can appreciate the watch.
It’s all about the engineering, the precision, the attention to detail. Have a really good look at a Rolex some time. Pay attention to things like the lack of backlash in the winding mechanism, the precision with which the numbers are inscribed in the face, the lack of rough edges on the hands, etc. If it has a rotating bezel, feel the precise metallic ‘snick’ as you turn it through its detents.
I love the feel of fine engineering. We just put a Grohe tap in our new bathroom. It’s worth about $300. I could have bought a cheap Moen from Home Depot for $29, but you can tell the difference. Hell, you can SEE it. Instead of stamped plastic handles, it’s got fine brushed aluminum. When you turn the valves on, there is no backlash. You can adjust temperature precisely. When you pull the lever to close the drain, it closes with a little ‘snick’ sound, and it’s sealed perfectly. Stuff like that makes a difference.
Back to Rolex. Rolexes may not be accurate in the sense that they may lose a minute a week or whatever, but what they are is repeatable. That means if it loses a minute a week, it ALWAYS loses exactly a minute a week. It won’t lose a minute one week and gain a minute the next, or lose two minutes one week and one another. The repeatability makes it useful for precision timekeeping.
Fine watches aren’t just for show. There’s a reason Navy SEALS are given Omega Seamasters, a $2000 watch, and not a $50 Casio. They’re rugged as hell, they don’t have batteries that wear down, and they can be counted on to not have strange failure modes like sticking set buttons or hands that fall off.
Rolexes aren’t my favorite watch, though. I prefer Brietling or Tag Heur. They strike me as the kind of watches engineers would wear, while a Rolex is the kind of watch a salesman would wear.
No, Rolexes are not a “big scam”. They are, however, the absolute, pre-eminent example of a company that is the God-King of marketing their brand, wherein they have convinced a goodly portion of the earths watch consumer population that their brand is worth a 200% to 500% premium over watches with equivalent engineering quality.
As truly fine mechanical watches go, Rolex movements are mass produced, and relatively crude and rough (but reasonably accurate) , but they are put in a quite good quality, nicely finished and polished cases. They “look” good to the unsophisticated watch purchaser. The interesting (and slightly unusual) thing about Rolex is that the quality and engineering of the cases and bands are about two grades above the (relative) quality and engineering of the mechanical movements.
There are watches in the Rolex price classes (and above) that that are leagues beyong Rolex in the quality and finish of their mechanical movements, and are even more precisely finished externally. Relatively few people have ever heard of names like Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, A. Lange & Söhne compared to the numbers of people that think Rolex is the king of watches. The engineering in these watches make Rolex mechanicals look like Happy Meal wind up toys by comparison.
So, no they are not “a scam”. They are grotesquely overpriced relative to their “value” as a piece of fine watch making, but they are not overpriced to the person buying one as a status symbol. In that context they are worth ever penny to the purchser.
Some people get off on spending money. When they finally perfect artificial diamonds at a buck a carat, theres still going to be a market for mined ones. Why is platinum so much more desirable than any other silver metal? People like the feeling of spending money, pure and simple. Often it doesn’t really matter what they are buying.
My brother-in-law and his girlfriend exchanged Rolex watches the very first Christmas they spent together. Both of them were in college and neither of them had jobs. You can imagine how impressed those of us with jobs and sense were with this humble little exchange of gifts on the occasion of the birth of our savior. It was, tragically, a sign of things to come. *
If you’re the type that is impressed with a label because the marketers have made you believe that you will feel (successful, cool, superior) then Rolexes are something to aspire to. If you’re not, then they are just another overpriced watch.
*Fast forward 10 years and they are getting divorced in part because BIL finally acquired some sense and wants to retire someday, while SIL keeps spending money like he’s Donald Trump. Their marriage is broken and their daughter will have to live in two homes now because mom and dad can’t quit arguing, but they have BMWs, enough MAC makeup to satisfy Boy George, and, of course, those two Rolex watches.
Breitling watches look like they’re well enough made, but their slogan–Instruments For Professionals–seems a bit over the top. An instrument for a professional would be something s/he needs in the execution of that profession. A chunky watch with four dials on the face, in nearly every case, is not. But whatever floats your boat: I happen to like a simpler, more classic watchface.
I inherited my Rolex from my grandfather, so it has a tremendous sentimental value to me. It is a very simple model (Oyster Presidential) and is just a good looking watch. It is also consistently 5 minutes fast.
As someone pointed out, it isn’t the movement that makes the watch special, but the case and band. I had my watch cleaned and serviced by a local watch maker and he said that the band was what I had to take special care of - it would be very expensive to replace. That made me think that I should be really careful with the watch itself and only wear it on special occasions. He said, “Hell, no! The cases are practically indestructible and you can wear it all you want. Just take care to clean the band and you’ll be fine.”
Speaking from personal experience, and in spite of the current commercial that claims ‘It’s the watch [that people notice]’, very, very few people have noticed my watches. A [former] co-worker noticed because the sun hit the flat crystal and reflected into her eye. Everyone else who has noticed it and has said anything, was also wearing a Rolex; except for one girl at a gas station, who thought it was pretty but didn’t know what it was.
Your list is incomplete. How about ‘E. Some of the above’ and ‘F. Depends on the person’? As Neurotik said, they’re good watches. There are other reasons to wear them than ostentatiosness or pretention.
Agreed.
Exactly. It’s functional jewelry.
Style is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I don’t like gold Rolexes at all. I can almost like a gold Submariner with a blue face, but it reminds me of old guys with heavy gold chains around their necks. Not my style. I really want to gag when I see the bejeweled ones.
My Subs and GMT II are stainless steel. I couldn’t call them crass. Un-hip, yes; crass, no. They’re big, functional watches that don’t have much int he way of style; but which I like.
You’re a rider, **casdave]. As such, you’ll understand why I’m not fond of Harleys. But some people look at my R-1 and disparage it because it’s Japanese or because it’s covered with plastic. I prefer the function of my bike over the function of any of the cruiser styles that are available. I like to think that most people choose their bikes based on the riding they want to do; but I’m sure many people buy a Harley because it’s a Harley. In spite of those people, there are a lot of riders who choose a Harley because it fits their style of riding. That’s why they make cruisers and sportbikes and dual-sport and standards and tourers and off-road bikes – different strokes (heh ) for different folks.
For me, I like a big, clunky functional watch more than I do a flashy one.
The only justification you need is that you want it.
Not true; at least not in every case. As I’ve said, they’re good watches. Anyone who would be impressed merely by someone wearing a Rolex is probably someone who is not worth knowing.
Have you ever looked at a Submariner? That’s about as simple and classic as you can get. Well, except for an Air King maybe.
In fact, the Submariners are professional watches. I’ve seen a number of them that have ‘been through the wars’ on the wrists of professional divers. The Sea Dweller was designed for deep divers working on oil rigs. Of course nowadays, there is other equipment that is more useful and provides a higher margin of safety than a mere watch. (e.g., would you rather risk your life on a minute hand, or on a dive computer?)
And I think that’s the crux of it. Once upon a time watches were professional pieces of equipment upon which lives depended. The Ad Man or the Shopkeeper did not need an especially robust watch, but the Explorer, Diver or Aviator did. There were watches designed for ‘professionals’ and there were watches designed for going to the theatre. With the advent of quartz oscillators, microships and satellites, ‘professional’ watches are now more a matter of taste than of necessity.
Re: Breitlings and Tags. When I was in my teens, I really wanted a Breitling Chronomat (I think that was the name). When I finally decided I’d look for a fine watch, I thought the Breitling looked a little flashy. The GMT II looked more ‘functional’ to me. No gold accents, no fancy things. I liked some of the Tags I saw, but I just liked the chunky steel Rolex better.
The speed of fine mechanical watches can be adjusted. There’s a knob/lever/sliding thing/ whatever it’s called inside.
Take it to a watchmaker who knows what he’s doing, who has the device for calibrating the time. (I don’t recommend doing it yourself, because the adjuster is located near the one thing that’s delicate.) If you want it adjusted, that is. You know how it keeps time, so there’s no need to.
If it’s really that old, and never been serviced, you could, don’t laugh, change the oil. Or should I say get it cleaned and re-lubricated. For this you definitely need someone who knows what they’re doing. Then again, its value is mainly sentimental.
I’ve had it serviced, cleaned, and oiled by a certified Rolex repairman several times. It stays 5 minutes fast and the repairman even told me, “Well, they don’t keep very accurate time.”
SHHH!!! Damnit, let the plebes be happy with their Rolexes. Don’t tell them that Rolex was the fliver or Volkswagon of mechanical watches. How in the heck are we supposed to keep all the true works of art to ourselves if you go spilling the beans?
Seriously though, Rolex was the watch equivelant of a Mercedes. A good watch made by a good company and which will cost you a pretty penny. It was no Lamborghini, or Ferrari, and it never will be. The Ferrari and Lamborghinis of the watch world are works of art with precision movements made by craftsmen who have made watch movements for generations. A friend of mine in the wholesale jewelry business told me that the sales reps for these watches carry around the watch cases, but not the movements. The watch settings are platinum and set with diamonds and other precious gemstones. Still they are far less valuable than the precision movement which allows a watch to self-wind and maintain accuracy down to the second for years at a time. These movements are literally one of a kind pieces of engineering art. The price tag? A quarter of a million and up.
Oh. Hmm. But it picks up 5 minutes at a consistent rate …
Guess it’s already set at maximum slow (the speed is not infinitely adjustable). Well, you’ll never be late … it’s not a bug, it’s a feature …
Perhaps if the hairspring has undergone some strain-hardening over the years, or was slightly too stiff to begin with, making the oscillation rate a bit high [warning: pure speculation] … perhaps replacing the hairspring … naw, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
The watchmaker I knew said Rolex’s don’t keep any better time than other watches. He liked Citizen watches, if I remember right.
I was referring to the Breitlings when I said they were overdone, at least the ones I see on the billboards. Most Rolexes look pretty good to me, aside from the ones that have diamonds all over the face. I do like a good watch and would consider a Rolex if I’m ever in the market for a fine watch.
Tom Wolff tells of the huge, complicated watches that fighter pilots wear in The Right Stuff. Impressive if you are easily bedazzled by that complexity but useless as hell. Does any pilot make use of all those dials when flying.
A rotating bezel on a dive watch is a different matter. Elapsed minutes at a glance. Even useful when you’re just putting a dime in a parking meter at the bookstore and want to avoid a ticket.
Okay fine watch mavens, what is a good watch for someone more interested in quality than impressing anyone? I want a good solid, waterproof dive type watch with a sapphire crystal and automatic movement. I want something better than a Seiko but probably won’t spend more than a Seamaster costs.
I have a photo of then-Colonel Chuck Yeager that shows him wearing a Rolex Submariner. Hour, minute and second hands, and a rotating bezel. It’s a very simple (yet robust) watch.
My GMT II has a 24-hour bezel and a 24-hour hand, plus the date. Useful feature, since flight plans use GMT.
The watches with all of the dials have a stopwatch feature, which can be useful on instrument approaches. I’ve yet to meet anyone who has used the tachymeter function.
I realize this is pretty obvious, but why can’t you set it 5 minutes slow and it should go to the correct time?
Or is it a beloved imperfection, like a mole on one’s lovers butt?
Gen. Yeager endorses Rolex watches, Fort Knox gun safes, Northrop combat aircraft (at one time) and probably some brand of malt liquor so I take it with a grain of salt. Could he afford one on a captain’s pay back in '47? I actually have a Ft. Knox safe but not because he plugs them. A GMT watch would have been useful while I was in Germany but since I’m not a pilot and most of my travel in the future will be domestsic it is less useful. Hell, this Wenger would be just about perfect if only the crystal didn’t scratch so easily.
By “5 minutes fast”, do you mean it gains 5 minutes per day?
That’s ridiculous that a “certified Rolex repairman” would claim that’s acceptable or even common. Even with an old movement, they should be able to get it to within 10 seconds per day
I’d send it to Rolex for a service but with some warnings.
Depending upon what they do, it can cost a lot.
Like many hundreds of dollars.
If you have any non-standard parts on it (e.g. aftermarket dial or bezel) they won’t work on it until it’s put back into “factory spec”.
If the bracelet is trashed or aftermarket, they more or less force you to buy a new one. If you’re talking about a gold day date with president bracelet, that’s going to cost a hell of a lot. Several thousand for a new president bracelet is my guess. Best to take it off the bracelet and just send the watch head in although I think they may actually rebuild president bracelets.
But after service, the thing should look like new again.
In the USA, I believe the factory service centers are in New York, Dallas, and Beverly Hills.
I’d stay far away from a guy that claimed Rolexes don’t keep very accurate time.
For a mechanical watch, they’re among the best with accuracy.
) for different folks.