Which Rolex?

[DGP]

Originally Posted by fantastic.poison

...much food for thought, thank you all. I'll be re-examining the vintage Explorer & also agree with many of you that I prefer the smooth bezel available on some older Oyster (perpetual, DJ, etc) models. As for midsize vs. fullsize, I plan to try on several more before I make my final decision, but for regular wear my smaller wrist is more comfortable with a smaller watch- and I think that unless you happen to be shaking left hands with a fellow Rolex wearer for some reason, nobody will ever give it thought (unless they're a fellow collector, in which case there's no value judgment). Between DJ models, for example, it's a difference of 3mm.

I'll be picking up a Seiko as my 'rugged' watch- either the Prospex Alpinist, or (if I can find a good deal) the Titanium Atlas. I don't dive, but I do hike a great deal, and the goofy little orienteering ring helps justify what functionally I'd want out of a watch like that- something well crafted, visually appealing, and relatively bombproof; taking dive inspiration but *without* looking like a Submariner wannabe.

I wrote some other stuff here about "Rolex vs..." but deleted it. Ultimately it's a matter of preference.


IMO, even on a small wrist, the full-size still looks pretty good. It's long, but not wide, so unless the lugs protrude over the edges of your wrist, I think in the longrun, you'll be happier with it. I've seen men in midsized watches, and they look like girl watches. If you like things a little smaller (and don't have to have a date), consider the Air King. A little smaller than a DJ, but not tiny like the medium size, also a little less expensive.

 

[norcaltransplant]

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

I think Rolex really tries to focus on sports watch qualities like durability, accuracy, and ease of service. Nevertheless the 3135 movement is spectacular in finish and quality imho... It has terrific design and has been regarded by folks like Gene Stone author of The Watch as a classic automatic movement.

The easiest retort to this statement: Seiko strives for many of the same goals, and comes close to acheiving all of the above, at 1/10th-1/20th the price point. The 3135 is NOT a spectacularly finished movement. It's marvelous testament to simple design and top-notch machining, but aesthetically crafted, it is not. Regarding clothing, the closest analogy would be Zegna vs. St. Andrews. The Zegna is probably the best mass produced, machine made garment on the market, the St. Andrews, though infinitely less recognized, is well constructed, and features extensive hand-finishing. Although pick stiching on your lapels doesn't add much to the functionality of the suit, it sure looks nice.

 

[Daniel_NY]

Originally Posted by UMass

I have the all steel Daydate with oyster bracelet. I like the simplicity of the design. I do not dive, so the Sea Deweller/Sub Mariner was not an option for me but I do have a Seiko Titanium Kinetic Diver as a alternative watch.
Also, consider the Explorer model it is a very popular model for people in their 20-30 age group. The Explorer is not as "flashy" as other Rolex models and can be worn as dress or casual watch.

There is no all steel Daydate. It only comes in yellow gold, white gold (never w/ even ring), or platinum (only with even ring).

If you like the design of a Submariner, rather consider the Sea Dweller. Submariner is too standard and the Sea Dweller the better diver's watch.

Otherwise, a large-sized all steel Datejust with a silver face or an Explorer I are great watches. Don't go with a mid-size Datejust. It's definitely a women's watch. If you like it a little smaller than the large Datejust size, there is still the "Date" or an "Air King". Those are 2mm smaller in diameter and can just still be pulled off by men. Actually, I think the Air King is really stylish since no watch better reflects the idea of "reducing to the max". "The cheapest Rolex" is a very exciting oxymoron. BTW, GQ Magazine brings this up every 5 years. That's not reason enough though. You have to feel it in order to pull it off.

My five cents...

 

[Daniel_NY]

A Rolex is always a good investment since it keeps its value as compared to e.g. Breitlings. When it comes to Rolex and the matter of what others might think about your wearing one, I believe that it very much depends on how it ties into your overall style and certainly which model you're wearing. A vintage Rolex tends to rather earn bonus points. A Rolex is not a show-off watch per se. It can be though.

Glamour can be bought, style must be...taught?

 

[drizzt3117]

Originally Posted by Daniel_NY

A Rolex is always a good investment since it keeps its value as compared to e.g. Breitlings. When it comes to Rolex and the matter of what others might think about your wearing one, I believe that it very much depends on how it ties into your overall style and certainly which model you're wearing. A vintage Rolex tends to rather earn bonus points. A Rolex is not a show-off watch per se. It can be though.

Glamour can be bought, style must be...taught?

That's not a particularly good analogy because Breitling watches are substantially less expensive than their Rolex equivalents AND can be purchased at a discount while Rolexes cannot. If the Daytona's analog is the Crosswind or Chronomat, they're 1/3 the price of the SS Daytona. Sure it might depreciate somewhat, but who cares? You're paying $2900 as opposed to $10+k.

 

[Artisan Fan]

The 3135 is NOT a spectacularly finished movement.

It's quite good nevertheless based on my learning about movements over the past 4 months. It's actually quite pretty to look at and the parts quality is very high. My .mac account is down otherwise I could post a close-up picture for you. Again, Rolex does not have an exhibition back watch in the sports line (the Prince has one) so finishing to a jewelled appearance has not been a priority. I don't think the Zegna analogy holds since the parts quality is so high and a lot of hand assembly goes into it.

I've been hanging out with TimeZone members and most of them think the 3135 movement is as good as anything in it's $5-8K price category from a parts standpoint. The boutiques have better movements such as Lange, Patek, etc. but some of the boutiques actually don't make their own movements like Rolex does.

 

[brescd01]

As many of you know, I spent a lot of money to build a wardrobe at the start of my career, 2 years ago when I discovered the fora and realized I was almost naked. One of the purchases I made was a Rolex GMT-Master II. I am self-critical about most things and I have had regrets at one moment or another about most of my purchases. Not the Rolex. Absolutely, not relatively (I have never owned any other fine watch so I cannot compare to Patek, etc), a wonderful watch that keeps excellent time and looks great. Oddly enough, and this says something about me, the only thing I do NOT like about it is that it grabs people's attention, though not from the kind of people I care about, usually "the underclass." I bought it from an authorized dealer, perhaps I should have made the half-hour trip to Delaware to save the tax (I was scared that if something went wrong I would have problems going back and forth). The other question was whether I should have bought one of the sport models, on which authorized dealers are not allowed to offer discounts, or the other models, on which they have some flexibility. I opted for a sport model, to get the sheltered crown, again because I was scared of something's happening to this most vulnerable part. But I do not know if this was necessary. Here is a very informative link for information about Rolex watches:

http://forums.timezone.com/index.php...oto=2277&rid=0

One last thing, ignore ANYONE who uses the word "investment" in their writing or speech. A fine watch is a lousy "investment" by any conceivable standard. It is a luxury purchase, that is it. Call a spade a spade.

 

[DGP]

Originally Posted by Daniel_NY

There is no all steel Daydate. It only comes in yellow gold, white gold (never w/ even ring), or platinum (only with even ring).


While you are right about a stainless DD, a simple look at the Rolex website will debunk the rest of your statement. The white gold model is available with both fluted and smooth bezel (that's the technical term for it, not 'ring').

 

[Artisan Fan]

A fine watch is a lousy "investment" by any conceivable standard. It is a luxury purchase, that is it. Call a spade a spade.

Most of the time yes, however there are exceptions. My father paid $2K for my current DateJust in 1986. It was recently appraised by two collectors at close to $4K. Not bad for 20 year old watch.

There are even more appreciation stories among Rolex classic Submariners and Comex SeaDwellers and Patek dress watches.

 

[DGP]

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

Most of the time yes, however there are exceptions. My father paid $2K for my current DateJust in 1986. It was recently appraised by two collectors at close to $4K. Not bad for 20 year old watch.

There are even more appreciation stories among Rolex classic Submariners and Comex SeaDwellers and Patek dress watches.


Just search "Pan Am GMT"

.

 

[streetfighter]

I'm not a big fan of the Black on black sub. I would go for either the 50th Anniversery LV sub or a 2 tone DJ. My next watch purchase however, is the GMT Master II with the Pepsi Bezel.

 

[drizzt3117]

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

Most of the time yes, however there are exceptions. My father paid $2K for my current DateJust in 1986. It was recently appraised by two collectors at close to $4K. Not bad for 20 year old watch.

That's still a lousy "investment" I agree with the previous comment. How much would that $2k be worth if it were placed in IBM or Intel shares or even T-bills?

The point is that he has a watch that is still in use. I don't consider that investment, but rather consumption

 

[Artisan Fan]

That's still a lousy "investment" I agree with the previous comment. How much would that $2k be worth if it were placed in IBM or Intel shares or even T-bills?

Well I was thinking a luxury product that appreciates is a very good and rare event.

 

[mikeber]

Breitling watches are not at the standard of Rolex. These two companies should not be compared.
Rolex makes high standard watches, constantly refining their products. What they lack is - technological innovation.
50-60 years ago, they had been great innovators, (like Leitz in cameras). As time passed, they stopped innovating, recycling their old time glory.
But take a look at Grand Seiko. They make excellent watches, improving and innovating all the time. Experts (true experts) will urge you to compare these with Rolex and see that they are better at a lower cost point. True, they do not carry Rolex heritage, but if you are interested in watches, not marketing, check them.
As for accuracy, GS claim the most accurate mechanical movement ever.

 

[Artisan Fan]

What they lack is - technological innovation.

This is a common refrain we Rolex fans hear. Fortunately it is not true. Recent example is the silicon hairspring which has been called revolutionary and was created by a partnership between Rolex, Patek, and Breguet.