Viral
Distinguished Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 5,303
- Reaction score
- 1,422
Not hard to follow from my side, perhaps you should reread what you inferred.Not sure what is hard to follow here. The Sub is better at different things than something like a gold JLC calendar chronograph, whereas the JLC is inferior in every critical respect compared to similar priced watches from better makers. Its only advantage is the relatively low cost of its complications—which is precisely why pumping up the price to pay for a gold case doesn’t make a lot of sense.
As a sport watch, Rolexes are generally nicer than Omegas. Sturdier build, better QC, better finish, better materials, etc. A Speedmaster is a phenomenal watch and even more phenomenal when considering the relatively low price, but one only need handle it side-by-side with a Submariner to immediately tell that the latter is much more substantial and expensive feeling.
According to you, a JLC reverso in gold is not a value because the price is higher than the quality that goes into it (machine finished, simple movement, etc,).
So, based on that same logic, I’m saying that a Submariner would also prove to not be a value for the price. I assume it’s NOT machine made and has a very complicated movement assembled by hand (Educate me bro)?
The Sub may feel better in hand and have more substance, but it’s hardly a saint if one were to apply your logic which you stated about the Reverso in gold.
The Sub benefits from its iconic design and status and that’s about it. It’s not worth the price for what goes into it. As it’s MSRP creeps higher over the years, it will be come a diminished return even more than perhaps it is now. By show of hands, who wants a steel watch for over 10K with no complications which you cannot even get unless you buy something you don’t want or play the wait-list game???
In general, if this is how you think when you shop then I don’t know what else to say. Do you, boo.
Kapeesh??