If you are going into an extremely demanding circumstances and need a watch that is not only accurate but dependable you are better off with a Casio G-Shock Waveceptor. (and it won’t leave a mark on you wrist). There are antecdotal stories that bear this out.
Your Rolex page sang the watch’s praises. The anamolies it pointed out, as it explained, have no effect on the timepiece’s accuracy. The watch reviewed was a mechanical watch — the lowest tier. And as the reviewer said, it is not typical of Rolex historically.
I’m not following your meaning. Most Rolex watches are mechanical. They are certified to be accurate within 3 second per day. Quartz watches are generally accurate to less than a second per day. Rolex watches, in general, are less accurate than quartz watches.
Rolex doesn’t make many quartz watches in its Oyster line, but its Cellini line is all quartz. Rolex, in fact, was an original developer of quartz movements. For Wikipedia fans:
Another little known fact is that Rolex participated in the development of the original quartz watch movements. Although Rolex has made very few quartz models for its Oyster line, the company’s engineers were instrumental in design and implementation of the technology during the late 1960s and early 1970s. In 1968, Rolex collaborated with a consortium of 16 swiss watch manufacturers to develop the Beta 21 quartz movement used in their Rolex Quartz Date 5100. Consequently, after five years of research, design, and development, Rolex engineering efforts finally culminated in the “clean-slate” 5035/5055 movement that would eventually power the Rolex Oysterquartz - arguably the finest quartz movement that has ever been made.Rolex - Wikipedia
That second part is the sort of subjective evaluation that doesn’t belong here, isn’t it? A man will pay for what he values. Often, he values art and innovation.
And their quartz watch sucks. It is a dog. It doesn’t sell well in their line.
I was merely pointing out that you didn’t understand previous posts about Rolex watches. You said
If I understand you correctly, you’re dissing mechanical watches, calling them the “lowest tier.” 95% of all Rolex watches are “mechanical.” Or am I missing something?
I agree. My Rolex looks ok, but I don’t wear it because it’s not accurate. My Oris is literally ten times as accurate (I can lose five minutes a month on my Rolex) at a fraction of the price. I need to get the Rolex serviced, and it will probably cost me $200-300 to do so (quarter of the price of the Oris).
I know the older Bentleys must have had a hell of a good clutch in them. One of the service writers at the dealership I worked at said one of their customers was an old lady that had an older model Bentley. I don’t know what model or how old, but it had a clutch and a manual transmission.
Anyway, the lady didn’t ever learn how to shift gears in the car on the fly, so she left the gearshift in 3rd gear and drove it all over town that way, slipping the clutch heavily to get the car going from a dead stop. I don’t know if she ever used reverse, and I don’t know how many miles she put on the car, but the service writer said she had driven the car for years that way before finally needing a clutch replacement.
As previously cited, Rolex has never produced a watch it has not sold.
Quartz movement is a tier above mechanical movement. I’m not dissing mechanical watches. I’m not dissing anything. Lotta dissing going on in here, but none of it from me. Contrary opinions to those presented here are easily found by Googling. But objectively, as previously cited, Rolex watches are COSC certified. Wearers may not understand how the self-winding mechanisms work, or how to store their watches unworn, but as previously stated, high-end items typically require more maintenance than riff-raff items. Someone even complained that a high-end car, designed for racing, needs frequent tune-ups. I mean, c’mon.
I would add also, and to reiterate, that all this discussion over how much these items are worth is just speculation and has no basis in objective fact. Near perfect diamonds, leather ensembles from the same hide, symmetrical wood grains, designs by artists — all these things cost money, and there are people who value them enough to pay the prices. Worth is subjective.
It is also worth noting that the quartz movement used by ROLEX is IDETICAL to the quartz movement used in TIMEX analog watches. It is just like discovering that a Rolls Royce uses an airconditioning system used in a GM car. Luxury goods are often of the same design as cheaper goods-they just are flashier and advertised more.
I know a Rolls owner who also has 2 Bentleys.He is more satisfied with the Rolls, but he also payed 150,000 Euros more for it, so maybe he wants to be more satisfied .
The roads are very bad here, and no problem with the Rolls.Until now at least.
The only thing is that when he ordered it, they forgot to put a special cup/glass holder in the back doors.But a team of engineers will come to his house and fix the problem.It feels nice, because they will travel 3000 kms from England to Romania to fix this.
It is the same for the Maybach cars.A team of engineers come to anywhere you live and check things out.
One thing I don’t believe has been expressed here is that it really isn’t THAT expensive to buy a used Rolls. My FIL (the bastard) has 2, both of which he picked up when he “got a deal” on them. Tho we don’t speak with him anymore, I don’t recall him saying anything bad about the Rollses, other than one incident back in the 70s when someone backed into him and it cost him something like $4K to get the grill[e] replaced.
Here in Europe, they still have a very expensive re-sale value, like a 7 year RR Silver Seraph cost like a brand new Mercedes S klasse, around 80,000 Euros ~ 105,000 USD.
That is about 1/4 of the original price.
Sounds like the Krug Baumen I bought from a man in a motorway service area a dozen years ago. The quality wasn’t all it was cracked up to be, I mean, the gold peeled off the back within a few weeks. :dubious: