The watch DISCUSSION thread

[ronscuba]

One other thought I had was this:

Most people have no idea how big their watch actually looks on their wrist because they only look at it close up when telling the time. Which, I suppose, is important in how it makes you feel. But much like how shoes don't look the same when you look down at them versus how others see them, I'd wager the vast majority of people who think their "small" wrists can't take even a 40-42mm watch because of how giant it looks close up when telling the time would be amazed to see how completely fine it looks seen from a distance—i.e. how other people see it.

We did some family portraits on the beach last year, I wore my 41.5mm Aqua Terra, which before then I occasionally wondered about being too big for my average-sized wrist. But then seeing the photos made me realize the truth—it's fine.

I have a small wrist. I am ok as long as the lugs do not extend past the edge of my wrist. That is 50mm lug to lug for me. My Speedmaster 57 is 41.5, but wears large because the lug to lug is 50mm. I have 42mm watches that are 48mm lug to lug. They definitely look large, but I am ok with it.

 

[usctrojans31]

Re: Rolex distribution.

Of course Rolex is aware of the goings on at ADs and what's selling and over what period. The Rolex wholesale team regularly gets sell in and sell out numbers from their wholesale network. Rolex controls its production to ensure demand > supply, which also fuels demand. Any claims to the contrary is just PR.

 

[yshin10]

My wife got me my Movado for my 25th. Still wear it 100% of the time. And no offense but it tracks time better than any automatic watches. BAM. No need to flex here. Just a genuine appreciation of my watch I wear everyday.

 

[Duke Santos]

Someone on r/watches the other day made a similar post about how a close up wrist shot doesn't always represent how that watch looks on your wrist from a "normal distance". Consider the two photos the user posted:

View attachment 1596851

vs.

View attachment 1596852

Spot on. Phone cameras will absolutely auto-focus in a way that magnifies the face of the watch relative to the background (one's wrist). My Planet Ocean is large but fits fine on my 7 1/4 wrist (which is broad and flat as opposed to tubular--damn, so rarely get to use that word in a sentence!) with nothing close to overhang, yet pics always seem to show it as hanging off the edges of my wrist.

 

[pasadena man]

Don’t know if this has been posted yet. A 2018 study found Rolex to be the most reputable company in the world: https://www.statista.com/statistics/516403/most-reputable-companies/

It surprised me because the brand is:
-high priced
-low penetration
-polarizing
-has a lot of detractors
-is off trend for the current zeitgeist (old technology)
-introduced most of their major models over 60 years ago (the DateJust, Sub, GMT-Master, Explorer, Day-Date, and Migauss were all introduced over about a decade, from 1945-1956).

 

[Crispyj]

Modded SKX007
Mismatch of lume colors (hand and hour markers) annoys me a bit

 

[smittycl]

Modded SKX007
Mismatch of lume colors (hand and hour markers) annoys me a bit
View attachment 1596907

Nah, cool watch. Don't go full OCD on us here... It's a feature. You'll never make in Real Estate at this rate!

 

[Adsky Luck]

Don’t know if this has been posted yet. A 2018 study found Rolex to be the most reputable company in the world: https://www.statista.com/statistics/516403/most-reputable-companies/

It surprised me because the brand is:
-high priced
-low penetration
-polarizing
-has a lot of detractors
-is off trend for the current zeitgeist (old technology)
-introduced most of their major models over 60 years ago (the DateJust, Sub, GMT-Master, Explorer, Day-Date, and Migauss were all introduced over about a decade, from 1945-1956).

Rolex unit cost was once estimated to be around $300-800 per unit. I think it's the right order of magnitude.

And the most Rolex make is on gold and precious metal watches and the least but still about $2000 on a single ss watch.
In other worlds, the value of a rolex watch is largely intangible, i.e. in the mind of its owner and those aspiring to own one, for which they pay/prepared to.

 

[radicaldog]

Rolex unit cost was once estimated to be around $300-800 per unit. I think it's the right order of magnitude.

And the most Rolex make is on gold and precious metal watches and the least but still about $2000 on a single ss watch.
In other worlds, the value of a rolex watch is largely intangible, i.e. in the mind of its owner and those aspiring to own one, for which they pay/prepared to.

Interesting. In a sense, that makes Rolex the ultimate fashion watch. People pay for a Rolex like they pay for a basic Gucci o Vuitton wallet or handbag: mid-quality products that sell at a luxury price because people are mesmerised by the brand name. Not the epitome of taste and discernment, if you ask me. And that's even before we start asking questions about the design coherence of current Rolex offerings (I say this as a big fan of vintage Rolex).

 

[NakedYoga]

Modded SKX007
Mismatch of lume colors (hand and hour markers) annoys me a bit
View attachment 1596907

Interesting. I have a ~15 year old SKX007 that I still wear regularly working in the yard, etc. Never been serviced and loses time at a rapid rate. Should probably give it a little TLC.

 

[Dino944]

Rolex unit cost was once estimated to be around $300-800 per unit. I think it's the right order of magnitude.

And the most Rolex make is on gold and precious metal watches and the least but still about $2000 on a single ss watch.
In other worlds, the value of a rolex watch is largely intangible, i.e. in the mind of its owner and those aspiring to own one, for which they pay/prepared to.

Where is that estimate from? What is your source? Sorry, but sounds completely ridiculous.

As for value...you could say that about any watch. Hell, Pateks, often use old movements so little R&D. They were selling Calatravas in late 90s and early 2000's for about 10K and you could get a 30-35% discount (so 6-7K). Not much has been done to turn them into $25K watches. The big thing that caused a price hike, they realized Franck Muller was selling steel watches for about the price of their gold ones....so what did they do jack up the prices.

 

[UnFacconable]

Interesting. In a sense, that makes Rolex the ultimate fashion watch. People pay for a Rolex like they pay for a basic Gucci o Vuitton wallet or handbag: mid-quality products that sell at a luxury price because people are mesmerised by the brand name. Not the epitome of taste and discernment, if you ask me. And that's even before we start asking questions about the design coherence of current Rolex offerings (I say this as a big fan of vintage Rolex).

Honestly your anti-Rolex stance just comes across as petty and thinly-veiled bias. The fact that you are clinging to the Walt Odets takedown betrays your intentions.

You could make a strong case for Rolex as the best movement maker in the world if you care about durable movements built to function at a high level for a really long time. High end horologists love to noodle on tourbillons, remontoirs, fancy escapements, etc. but do any of them really outperform a simple Rolex time only movement? If they do on day one, do they 5 years later without any services? We've all heard plenty of stories of 20 year old Rolexes still keeping great time. I've made it clear I don't appreciate people converting opinions into facts so I'll be clear and say that I understand why people apply superlatives to Rolex movements. I have a couple of Rolexes that are seldom worn but without fail when I decide to check how they are keeping time - it's always bang on. I can't say the same for my other timepieces.

Sure, quartz movements work better but what does that have to do with what Rolex is making and selling? I accept Rolex at face value - they are largely designing and building heirloom quality tool watches and other simple watches that are meant to function at a high level for a really long time and they are arguably doing it better than anyone else. Some may prefer Patek, but their movements tend to be less robust and have more frequent (and more expensive) servicing requirements. Patek isn't really in the every day heirloom market like Rolex.

Is it true that the people @radicaldog looks down on also like Rolexes? Sure, no one is questioning that. But the fact that it bothers you so much shows that your view is largely about perception and not really about Rolex the watchmaker. There are ****** people buying great products of every kind in every market. I know people who buy Birkins and Rolexes. The fact that ****** people buy nice things for the "wrong" reasons doesn't mean we should ignore the "right" reasons.

Moreover, and most importantly in the SF arena, these transparent attempts to devalue Rolex in this forum are tiresome. You may have such a highly refined sense of design and intellectual purity that you can't live with the Rolex aesthetic and production choices and that's perfectly fine. Don't buy a Rolex because they aren't right for you. But the way you advocate against Rolex and in favor of your idiosyncratic modernity preferences is reminiscent of another strident poster who is obsessed with defining objective superiority and it's no more entertaining.

 

[smittycl]

Honestly your anti-Rolex stance just comes across as petty and thinly-veiled bias. The fact that you are clinging to the Walt Odets takedown betrays your intentions.

You could make a strong case for Rolex as the best movement maker in the world if you care about durable movements built to function at a high level for a really long time. High end horologists love to noodle on tourbillons, remontoirs, fancy escapements, etc. but do any of them really outperform a simple Rolex time only movement? If they do on day one, do they 5 years later without any services? We've all heard plenty of stories of 20 year old Rolexes still keeping great time. I've made it clear I don't appreciate people converting opinions into facts so I'll be clear and say that I understand why people apply superlatives to Rolex movements. I have a couple of Rolexes that are seldom worn but without fail when I decide to check how they are keeping time - it's always bang on. I can't say the same for my other timepieces.

Sure, quartz movements work better but what does that have to do with what Rolex is making and selling? I accept Rolex at face value - they are largely designing and building heirloom quality tool watches and other simple watches that are meant to function at a high level for a really long time and they are arguably doing it better than anyone else. Some may prefer Patek, but their movements tend to be less robust and have more frequent (and more expensive) servicing requirements. Patek isn't really in the every day heirloom market like Rolex.

Is it true that the people @radicaldog looks down on also like Rolexes? Sure, no one is questioning that. But the fact that it bothers you so much shows that your view is largely about perception and not really about Rolex the watchmaker. There are ****** people buying great products of every kind in every market. I know people who buy Birkins and Rolexes. The fact that ****** people buy nice things for the "wrong" reasons doesn't mean we should ignore the "right" reasons.

Moreover, and most importantly in the SF arena, these transparent attempts to devalue Rolex in this forum are tiresome. You may have such a highly refined sense of design and intellectual purity that you can't live with the Rolex aesthetic and production choices and that's perfectly fine. Don't buy a Rolex because they aren't right for you. But the way you advocate against Rolex and in favor of your idiosyncratic modernity preferences is reminiscent of another strident poster who is obsessed with defining objective superiority and it's no more entertaining.

I’ve had my Sub for 21 years and never yet had it serviced. Runs extremely well. Within COSC standards so I’ve never felt the need to get it worked on.

 

[UrbanComposition]

I don't know very much about watches, but my "one watch" collection would be this Rolex Datejust. I inherited it from my father, who bought it in the 1960s shortly after graduating college. My family is from Saigon, and they escaped the Vietnam War, then the killing fields in Cambodia, and then the Iranian Revolution. Each time when fleeing, my dad had this watch with him. One time, my dad got robbed while in the US and someone pointed a shotgun in his face. Right before they approached, however, he had the calmness of mind to slip his watch off his wrist and throw it into the corner (his hands were under a counter and they couldn't see). Some years later, he gave it to me when I turned 30.


View attachment 1595781


I love the watch and it's easily the most important material thing I own. However, I only wear it with suits and sport coats. I find it too dressy for my casualwear, which goes between workwear (e.g. vintage Lee trucker with raw denim jeans and an RRL flannel) and some contemporary stuff (e.g. Margiela five-zip). I even find it too dressy for some CM-adjacent casualwear, like stuff from Kaptain Sunshine. Been thinking about buying a Rolex Submariner for casual outfits (mostly workwear and Kaptain Sunshine type stuff).

I have a friend who's really into clothing and watches, and I admire his taste. Sometimes we meet up for dinner and drinks when he's in San Francisco. When I mentioned to him my plan to buy a Rolex Sub, he said that he thinks I should buy a Rolex Explorer (1016) instead. He thinks it suits my personality better. I've been mulling on it.

Funny, those are the two watches I'm also considering. About 6 months or so ago I was enamored with the idea of an electrician owning a Milgauss but the color/shape/layout doesn't move me at all. The Explorer does, as does the Sub.

 

[Viral]

@Dino944 os that Daytona all-gold? The pics have a yellow hue cast on the watch but I can’t tell if it’s SS or YG.

looking good for a 27 yr old ??