or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...) - Page 3021  

post #45301 of 48312

I had the pleasure of meeting with Mr. Fukushima from Ring Jacket today. Shot a pic of our dual AP's...

 

post #45302 of 48312
EP x Ring!!!!
post #45303 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by rydenfan View Post

EP x Ring!!!!

Game over.
post #45304 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaulet View Post
 

I had the pleasure of meeting with Mr. Fukushima from Ring Jacket today. Shot a pic of our dual AP's...

 

 

#FookingBoom

post #45305 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazelle View Post

The only downside to the old ones is the service costs you twice as much.
Really? And their reason?
post #45306 of 48312
Is there Ring Jacket x Epauler MTO in our future?
post #45307 of 48312
That bracelet/watch look Mr. F is sporting leaves me cold.
post #45308 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tried and True View Post

That bracelet/watch look Mr. F is sporting leaves me cold.

 

Looks like a guarantee that the AP case will be scratched, at the very least! I think that it makes his wrist look a bit crowded, personally.

 

In other news, I decided to idly browse a local watch retailer at lunch-time today and tried on a Tudor Pelagos, a Tudor Black Bay, Rolex Submariner and Rolex Deepsea.

 

I loved the look of the Pelagos the most out of all of them, but even though it was quite light due to the titanium construction, it just seemed too bulky for my wrist. Strangely, the Deepsea looked and felt smaller (albeit heavier) even though its case is slightly larger than that of the Pelagos.

 

The Black Bay felt very nice but, as I suspected, I just couldn't get past the coloured stem next to the crown. Why, oh why did Tudor have to colour that and why couldn't it just have a normal, screw-down crown without the coloured stem?

 

The Submariner and the Deepsea were both very nice and the Deepsea was surprisingly comfortable, despite its bulk. Of course, the Submariner is about twice as much as the Tudor Pelagos and 2.5 times as much as the Black Bay and the Deepsea is about three times as much as the Pelagos (in Australia, at least)!

 

If only the Black Bay didn't have the coloured crown stem... I'll have to think about it - maybe it will grow on me.

post #45309 of 48312
^ Sub all the way! biggrin.gif
post #45310 of 48312

I'm really drawn to the Black Bay.  Funny about the coloured stem - it doesn't jump out at me: I remember trying the Omega Planet Ocean with the blue liquidmetal, and being put off by the same thing on the pushers of the chrono version.  But on the crown alone, it doesn't bug me.

 

The Pelagos is great; I like the size, but I don't like it x% more than the Black Bay, and it feels so much more like a substitute for the Submariner.  I also find that titanium feels so flimsy. Silly, because that's the point, but I do like the heft of a lump of steel on that kind of watch.  I think I'd go for the blue Black Bay on a bracelet just for the value, or the plain Sub if I had the money.  The Deep Sea is kinky specialist interest, and I like it, but it's a lot of dough for the extra numbers: I'm wondering if it felt smaller because of the narrower bracelet?  Its top-heavy nature is well discussed here, but in direct comparison with the larger bracelets on the lighter Black Bays, I guess it really feels different.

post #45311 of 48312

I think it's because old ones do not use standard parts and apparently they have a limited number of employees trained to service the older models - I thing they call it classic or vintage service.

Had my sub done 2yrs ago - had replacement clasp on strap (it's the newer type strap as the old sprung link one died) and service was £980 - so there are some advantages to owning newer versions.

The Sea Dweller was £700+ to service (the strap was OK) Had to specify that they left the old crystal in as replacing it screws with the resale value, so they refuse to certify it as waterproof to specified depths. As I don't do compression diving I figure it's unlikely to either leak or explode on my wrist lol.

However I don't buy into the 'regular service' stuff. Get it serviced if and when it runs dry or goes wrong. They replace any worn parts included in the service price. Seems stupid to get a waterproof/ dust proof watch serviced when that is the case.

In the first James Bond film Dr No, Rolex refused to give them a Rolex to use so the one you see actually belonged to Cubby Broccoli...how times change.

When I first got my Sub it was very rare to see anyone wear one - now from the look of the shops in London it seems everyone must have one, which is why I queried why they would want to change the dial and the case so much.

post #45312 of 48312
FWIW I love the Black Bay (both in Burgundy/Red and Blue) despite the colored stem - in fact I quite like it actually!
post #45313 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazelle View Post
 

I think it's because old ones do not use standard parts and apparently they have a limited number of employees trained to service the older models - I thing they call it classic or vintage service.

Had my sub done 2yrs ago - had replacement clasp on strap (it's the newer type strap as the old sprung link one died) and service was £980 - so there are some advantages to owning newer versions.

The Sea Dweller was £700+ to service (the strap was OK) Had to specify that they left the old crystal in as replacing it screws with the resale value, so they refuse to certify it as waterproof to specified depths. As I don't do compression diving I figure it's unlikely to either leak or explode on my wrist lol.

However I don't buy into the 'regular service' stuff. Get it serviced if and when it runs dry or goes wrong. They replace any worn parts included in the service price. Seems stupid to get a waterproof/ dust proof watch serviced when that is the case.

In the first James Bond film Dr No, Rolex refused to give them a Rolex to use so the one you see actually belonged to Cubby Broccoli...how times change.

When I first got my Sub it was very rare to see anyone wear one - now from the look of the shops in London it seems everyone must have one, which is why I queried why they would want to change the dial and the case so much.

I don't think its so much that they didn't use standard parts, as much as the supply of parts for much older watches is limited (so they can charge more), or if a part is no longer available they may have to seek out older watch service shops to see if anyone has the part and will sell it to them.   

 

As for waiting until the watch stops working and letting them replace worn out parts, that could become more difficult as these watches become older and the supply or replacement parts dry up. About 10 years ago I asked at the New York Rolex service center what the oldest watch was that they had in for service.  The person told me they had a watch come in from the early 60's but she said they had to turn it away as they did not have the parts for it anymore.  Back then no one expected the watches to last that long so they didn't maintain a quantity of spare parts that they do today.   So perhaps, its a better idea to service the watch and keep the parts in good working order with as little wear and tear as possible if its a much older piece.  Rolex promises  to maintain a supply of parts for 20 years after a piece goes out of production, but as of this point in time they don't seem interested in making parts for older watches.   

 

As for why Rolex would change so many aspects of the Sub, its to remain competitive.  Things don't remain at a standstill in any industry.  They wouldn't be able to charge roughly $7,500-8,500 and be competitive in the market place delivering a watch on an old rivet style bracelet, with hollow clam shell endlinks, and a stamped steel clasp. As for the dials I believe the use of tritium on watches was banned by around 1998, hence many companies including Rolex were forced to switch to luminova and other alternatives.  Also, Rolex updated the models to make them look a bit more modern over the years.  Remember vintage watches weren't very popular in the late 70s and 1980's.  So Rolex needed to update models so that they would look current rather than maintaining a look that hadn't changed much since the 1950s.  However, most changes have been evolutionary and one can still see much of the traditional Sub heritage in a modern Sub.  Companies like Omega would completely scrap models in the 1980's such as the Seamaster and come out with a completely different model carrying the same name.   Or Vacheron would make a 222 sports watch, then a 333 that looked nothing like it and then go to a Phidias and then finally an Overseas.  We all have our preferences, but I think Rolex has done a pretty good job of keeping the Subs looking current while maintaining a family resemblance to its ancestors. 

post #45314 of 48312
When it comes to servicing Rolex vintage watches exotic dials and originality can be a massive headache and a potential legal nightmare.
post #45315 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post
 

I don't think its so much that they didn't use standard parts, as much as the supply of parts for much older watches is limited (so they can charge more), or if a part is no longer available they may have to seek out older watch service shops to see if anyone has the part and will sell it to them.   

 

As for waiting until the watch stops working and letting them replace worn out parts, that could become more difficult as these watches become older and the supply or replacement parts dry up. About 10 years ago I asked at the New York Rolex service center what the oldest watch was that they had in for service.  The person told me they had a watch come in from the early 60's but she said they had to turn it away as they did not have the parts for it anymore.  Back then no one expected the watches to last that long so they didn't maintain a quantity of spare parts that they do today.   So perhaps, its a better idea to service the watch and keep the parts in good working order with as little wear and tear as possible if its a much older piece.  Rolex promises  to maintain a supply of parts for 20 years after a piece goes out of production, but as of this point in time they don't seem interested in making parts for older watches.   

 

As for why Rolex would change so many aspects of the Sub, its to remain competitive.  Things don't remain at a standstill in any industry.  They wouldn't be able to charge roughly $7,500-8,500 and be competitive in the market place delivering a watch on an old rivet style bracelet, with hollow clam shell endlinks, and a stamped steel clasp. As for the dials I believe the use of tritium on watches was banned by around 1998, hence many companies including Rolex were forced to switch to luminova and other alternatives.  Also, Rolex updated the models to make them look a bit more modern over the years.  Remember vintage watches weren't very popular in the late 70s and 1980's.  So Rolex needed to update models so that they would look current rather than maintaining a look that hadn't changed much since the 1950s.  However, most changes have been evolutionary and one can still see much of the traditional Sub heritage in a modern Sub.  Companies like Omega would completely scrap models in the 1980's such as the Seamaster and come out with a completely different model carrying the same name.   Or Vacheron would make a 222 sports watch, then a 333 that looked nothing like it and then go to a Phidias and then finally an Overseas.  We all have our preferences, but I think Rolex has done a pretty good job of keeping the Subs looking current while maintaining a family resemblance to its ancestors. 


Some good and valid points. However I think that the sales of certain 'luxury brands' is also attributable to people's relative wealth. Income was relatively very poor for most in the 60's and 70's and I wonder how many people stacking shelves in Sainsburys chose to spend there money on Rolex watches as I did?

 

I think and hope that if you were to offer the Sub in 70's guise rather than the later incarnations, their sales would be equal to today's market and I think most would prefer the 70's styling. Apparently the movements pre fastbeat were better quality too.

 

Perhaps you can liken the whole thing to the vintage Les Paul market. You can buy a good new Les Paul but everyone, with an ounce of common sense, wants a 58, 59 or 60 Standard sunburst.

 

The points you make about servicing are valid. However you can take your watch into most quality jewellers and without opening the back, they can advise you if it is running dry. As far as I am aware in a dustproof watch that will be the main concern. The price to service a vintage Rolex is prohibitive as I am on limited funds.

 

Interesting thought about the spare parts for service. It is very true that as the vintage market becomes more popular the demand for spares will exhaust any stock they keep.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)