Wrist watches - Guidance needed!

[bsodmike]

I say "even" Rolex, etc, because Rolex watch movements are not the precision, hand-made instruments that some of those top-tier makes are. They're mass-produced, and have to be in the volumes Rolex sell worldwide. Mass-produced to a high standard, for sure, and backed by a world-class marketing operation, which is why a lot of people would say "Rolex" if asked for the best make of watch. That just speaks to the quality of their marketing, though, because in pure watch terms, they sure aren't.

Before I even start to comment on the tropic at hand, I felt that I should address this first. On the whole most of what Saracen has said is what I would agree with and yes Rolex mass produce all the components/cases, but at the end of the day, they are hand assembled and tested.

In comparison to an AP, Patek, Glashutte Originale, even D.Dornblüth (the later two being of German make as are Lange), the Rolex movements are nowhere finished to such an extent. However, Rolex wristwatches have stood the test of time and are extremely accurate and durable, and for the price you are getting an in-house manufacture.

However fantastic Rolexes marketing may be I personally doubt they could be as successful as they are today if their watches never delivered. The movements are minimally finished, but you would be hard pressed to find a 'tougher' mechanical movement - with such a distinguished history to the likes of the common Submariner, GMTII (16710 and older), DateJust, and even the Explorer series.

The Sea-Dweller in particular used to be one of Rolexes most over engineered watches in conjunction, but they have as of last Thursday released the Sea-Dweller Deepsea which is now fully waterresistant to 3900m (in excess of 12,000ft). I just flew into London this morning from Baselworld 2008 and can tell you that the SDDS is a truly 'chunky' watch that looks great in person, but I'm still skeptical as to how comfortable it would be on the wrist. It is simply a 'statement' by Rolex.

Do not be misguided though. Rolex is NOT a top-tier haute horologie manufacturer.

Let me further go on to state that the basic philosophy of a Rolex is as follows:
-completely waterproof oyster casing
-rugged and accurate movement, to less than +1s/day - this is the kind of performance I am getting on both my DJ and GMTIIC.
-timeless/classic looks
-retains its value very very well. It should not be a deal breaker but a definite bonus in owning a Rolex. Other brands simply cannot compete in this area unless we are taking vintage Pateks but that's a whole different discussion.
-Easily sold, if need me. In many parts of the world, some even consider Rolexes to be as good as cash.

Further to this, unlike a lot of the other brands the RSC in UK will finish and service your watch brilliantly. I tend to frequent the London RSC on a regular basis and I can only say great things about the service they deliver.

Now let's look at probably what would be considered the 'corner-stone' of watchmaking, Patek Philippe. When you send your watch in for a service, you can just about expect it back in about a years time.

Also if you want to read about a Patek 'nightmare' story regarding their level of service and how they treat customers who spend anything less than say a Skymoon Tourbion, please go visit TimeZone.com - there are many sad stories there.

However, at the end of the day buying a Patek is not the same as buying a 'reliable' watch. That's completely besides the point. You are purchasing a work of art, and like all hand made pieces problems do tend to occur more frequently, although it is of poor taste to discriminate the level of service to each customer based on the 'price tag' of their investment. For this reason, it's probably safer to own a 'simple' Patek, for the very reason of it being simple (less things to go wrong...)

Which now brings me to answer your question, and rather than dispensing advice on what you should or should not do due to your age etc. I am 25 and do not believe that there is an 'age' limit to enjoying the finer things in life. As long as you're mature and responsible, there shouldn't be a problem. Thankfully though, others have expressed their opinions in this area already.

So my advice, with regards to the question posed, go visit a couple ADs. AD = Authorized Dealers for example Omega, Rolex etc. Fraser Hart in Brent Cross have a wonderful display and extremely helpful staff. You may also try other stores such as Ernst and Jones, Goldsmiths etc.

Try on as many as you like until you find the one that sings to you. Easier said as done though as you have a budget to meet as well, so for your money I would focus on Omega.

A lot of the new models feature their co-axial free sprung movement, and this is even starting to move into the newer Speedmaster line. I personally stayed away from the 33XX movements due to various issues but I believe that these have now been sorted out.

A full service at Rolex costs £255.- and I have spent ~£200 + shipping to send watches to Omega in Biel/Bienne in the past.

You may also want to consider the added cost of insuring your watch and if you do decide to have it added to your parents home cover, made sure that it is added clearly to your policy and that you submit a jewelers valuation, which you can easily request for on purchase.

If you decide to go second hand, be very very weary as China makes more fakes per year than probably all of the Swiss watches to hit the market. Rolex produces approx. 1m watches per year, China makes 5m!

All the best,
Mike

[bsodmike]

Top brands include A Lange and Sohne, Vacheron Constantin, Audemars Piguet, Patek Philippe, Panerai and Breuget.

Tag are, IMHO, third tier, behind Breitling, Rolex, Omega, etc.

Panerai do not belong in the top tier. Most of their entire collection feature re-worked ETA ebauches. That said, it is harder to classify Panerai as they do also have their new in-house movement in their 8day GMTs in Platinum etc.

You (as in the original author of this thread) would do well to purchase a watch that you like rather than chasing behind the 'status' of brands. I'm sure, I can imagine many of you wondering how can a Rolex enthusiast be saying such a thing.

Simple: I enjoy my watches first and foremost as a WIS. Rolex do make some fantastic watches, however, I do not belong with their standard demographic of customers

These are my two: The TT GMTIIC is my 'daily beater', whilst the Rose Gold DJ is my Sunday and outing watch. I'm pretty much covered for all occasions but I'm next looking at a WG Daytona with meteorite dial...ahh bliss!

[Ben_]

May want to look at IWC, I recently bout one and although it will be different to your taste, they do make some great watches.

And I really think the finish is of good qaulity.

[IBM]

I wanna be like Mike

[Saracen]

Before I even start to comment on the tropic at hand, I felt that I should address this first. On the whole most of what Saracen has said is what I would agree with and yes Rolex mass produce all the components/cases, but at the end of the day, they are hand assembled and tested.

In comparison to an AP, Patek, Glashutte Originale, even D.Dornblüth (the later two being of German make as are Lange), the Rolex movements are nowhere finished to such an extent. However, Rolex wristwatches have stood the test of time and are extremely accurate and durable, and for the price you are getting an in-house manufacture.

However fantastic Rolexes marketing may be I personally doubt they could be as successful as they are today if their watches never delivered. The movements are minimally finished, but you would be hard pressed to find a 'tougher' mechanical movement - with such a distinguished history to the likes of the common Submariner, GMTII (16710 and older), DateJust, and even the Explorer series.

<snip>

Oh yes. It was not my intention to imply that Rolex didn't deliver a good quality watch, or that they didn't withstand the test of time - though it rather depends what you mean by that.

The test of time could be two things - either longevity as a watch, or value as a second-hand item. I don't dispute durability. But value as a second-hand item is at least as much dependent on desirability as it is durability, and that is a function of world-class marketing. Rolex are perceived, by many at least, as being the brand to have, and on that basis, it's something that large numbers of people aspire to. As I said before, ask random people wandering down the street for the name of a top watch brand and I'd bet Rolex would be right up there, and very probably, top of the list by some way. Yet most of those people will know little or nothing about what's inside. It's brand recognition, and that's a result of a world-class marketing operation over several decades.

Actually, second-hand value is also a function of supply in relation to demand. Rolex have a well-deserved reputation for aggressive defence against discounting, and for driving up prices consistently, both of which require stable or increasing demand and both of which contribute to maintaining value of second-hand units, which in turn reinforces the marketing drive, because it allows them to refer to second-hand values as an aid to marketing new items.

My point, I guess, is that Rolex, Omega and Breitling all have very competent (though not without occasional issues) watches, but the marketing is what's driven Rolex to the top of the heap.

I wonder what proportion of first-time Rolex buyers buy one because it's a Rolex? I've certainly been stood in shops when someone has come in wanting a Rolex, and it's obvious from the ensuing conversation that they know basicallt naff-all about watches, but they've got the money and just want a Rolex. That's branding for you.


Me, on the other hand? I'm a contrary git. I prefer the Omega Speedmaster mainly because it isn't a Daytona.

.....

You (as in the original author of this thread) would do well to purchase a watch that you like rather than chasing behind the 'status' of brands. ...

Absolutely and utterly agree with that.

[Gr44]

Thanks very much for all the advice on this thread!! More than I thought I would get, thats for sure!

I shall let you all know once I've checked a few out and find some that I like.

bsodmike, thanks for popping back on the boards to offer your wisdom! Those two watches in the picture are very nice indeed!

Thanks again!

Sean

[bsodmike]

Saracen, you are correct with regards to Rolexes 'primary' demographic. Those of us WIS who do 'like' their watches are simply not the people they cater to.

In Geneva a few days ago I got to try on a WG Daytona on strap with the meteorite dial (such a lovely dial!) and the lady at Bucherer pulled out a couple more that made me wince - they were covered in 'ice' to the point where even the Tachymetre bezel was just ice...LOL!

I'm completely head over heels in love with the Patek 5127R, but just yesterday I had the pleasure of handling a D.Dornbl&#252;th 99.0 in SS - the finishing was just stunning, and had mostly everything one would expect of a superbly finished german timepiece.

Since I am partial towards the precious metals, Rolex do tend to mix up their sportier and classier lines well with YG, RG, WG quite nicely. You can find pretty much any model in a combination of purely non-SS.

The Speedy pros are fantastic, I used to have a nice collection, but if you wanted a chronograph with a robust in-house movement the Daytona is actually quite great, especially since it has screw-down pushers.

I think the WG on strap is going to be my next piece, oh boy did it sing me to me with those red hands! The balance was great, comfortable - looks like SS to those would cannot tell the difference, and that dial just hand me thinking of 'supermans fortress of solitude'...

Sean, I've add you to my MSN - if you'd care for a chat just drop me a line

This has been an enjoyable read guys and I'm glad to see that there are SOME people on Hexus, with some taste. The last time I posted about watches, I was just bombarded with silly comments like "what's the point, my timex/ipod/iphone/dog does the same thing".

Horses for courses though ;-)

[Saracen]

.....

This has been an enjoyable read guys and I'm glad to see that there are SOME people on Hexus, with some taste. The last time I posted about watches, I was just bombarded with silly comments like "what's the point, my timex/ipod/iphone/dog does the same thing".

Horses for courses though ;-)

The thing about phone, timex etc is probably true .... if a watch is just about a device for telling the time. But so much human activity is about much more than basic fundamentals.

Why pay for a nice meal in a restaurant when a basic diet of breads, veg's and proteins can provide sustenance?

Why pay for expensive clothes when a bin liner will keep the rain off and a blanket will keep you warm?

Why buy a BMW or Mercedes when just about any modern car will get you from A to B reliably?

Why go to the Seychelles or Fiji when a week or two in Majorca provides sun and sand?

Why ..... oh, I could go on.

And the answer is, of course .... because I wanted to.

In all those categories, there's an element of what interests and appeals to each of us, generally tempered by what we can afford. It's the same with watches, in my opinion. Some people are interested. Some aren't. Some can see the appeal even if they don't share it, and others can't.

And for many of us, it's also about opportunity cost. Most of us these days have a sufficiently good income and standard of living that we aren't subsisting week-to-week, concentrating on having sufficient just to pay bills and put food on the table. Instead we have cars, mobile phones, computers, TV subscriptions and large, HD TVs, and so on.

But most of us are constrained in not being able to indulge in all our consumerist desires, or at least, not all at the same time. So for many people, spending &#163;2000 on a watch makes no sense, because it means they'll have to have a cheaper car or forego that new HDTV. They can do some things, but not everything.

All deciding you want a good watch means is that you'd rather have that than one or more of those other things. For instance, &#163;2000 on a holiday is not exactly hard to achieve, and once it's gone, it's gone .... and memories fade. A watch, on the other hand, will be with you for years.

Some people spend a lot of money on tattoos, and they'll be with them for years, too. Personally, I don't understand the appeal of that, but hey, if that's what rocks their boat ....

A few years ago, I got a digital SLR (plus lens and battery grip) .... before prices came down into the realms of the sensible. Total value, about &#163;3500. Value now? I'd probably have a hard time giving it away.

But do I regret it? No. It was what I wanted, and I got my use out of it. But those same people that can tell the time on their mobile phone would probably say they can take a picture on it, too. And personally, I don't give a hoot for a mobile phone that can take pictures ... or act as SatNav, play MP3s or pretend to be a games console. All I want a mobile phone for is to make and receive phone calls. But a lot of people probably don't understand that, either.

[pauldarkside]

@Saracen: Very true. I spent over &#163;500 on a case and liquid cooler for my rig - I could have got something a whole lot cheaper which would have done the job but it's what I wanted. I don't have to justify my interests or purchases to anyone and if they disagree well that's their prerogative - I'm happy.

I've been watching this thread with great interest. I haven't a clue about this class of timepiece (I'm content with my Storm watch!) but reading what's been posted has certainly been enlightening and it's altered my opinion as to why people would want something like that other than to just be flash.

[bsodmike]

@Saracen: Quite true. For a 25 year old I tend to live a comfortable lifestyle, and yes, I do admit that I probably spend more than a 'normal' 25-year old but ...but you said it best: I do it because I want to and because I can Oh and for the record, it's not my parents money either, which makes it all the more satisfying.

I do not take the fact that I have been blessed light heartedly and quite understand why many would resort to less luxurious means of telling the time, just for starters!

It has become a serious hobby of mine over the past year and a half now and am always learning new aspects of the watch industry and watches as a whole.

Paul: You should start to look at some of the finishing on the movements by Audemars and Patek. Once you get into this hobby though, you will be hard pressed going back to a non-mechanical timepiece!

A few years ago, I got a digital SLR (plus lens and battery grip) .... before prices came down into the realms of the sensible. Total value, about £3500. Value now? I'd probably have a hard time giving it away.

Hah, I was thinking about the exact same thing a couple days ago. I spent a tidy sum on a Canon 20D with full kit and a couple 'L' lenses a couple years ago...and similarly it sounds ridiculous right now considering that you could probably pick up the SAME kit for probably 50% less!

Don't get me started on high-end audio, or collecting fountain pens though. I do have a few 'hobbies' - I guess a plus point of being a bachelor.

Saracen, if you don't mine my asking what timepieces do you enjoy? Also do you by any chance follow or contribute at TimeZone.com?

It would be nice to have you over at the Rolex forum - we are a bit of a riot but we do behave our selves from time to time and best thing about the Rolex community is that we are accepting of all watch brands, which is not always the case of some of the other forums which are highly selective and defensive as times.

All the best,
Mike

[menthel]

Lo Mike! Thanks for coming round and giving some advice on one of your expert subjects, speak to you soon!

[Saracen]

.....

Saracen, if you don't mine my asking what timepieces do you enjoy? Also do you by any chance follow or contribute at TimeZone.com?

It would be nice to have you over at the Rolex forum - we are a bit of a riot but we do behave our selves from time to time and best thing about the Rolex community is that we are accepting of all watch brands, which is not always the case of some of the other forums which are highly selective and defensive as times.

Nothing that would be of any interest, Mike. I did the watch thing a long time ago, and these days, like that mobile phone I mentioned, it's a utilitarian device to me. I use it to tell the time and as long as it does that reliably, and is in a case that's acceptable to me, job done. Most of the time, I don't even wear one, because a lot of the time, I work from home and I don't wear one around the house.

I keep an eye open, I know what I like and don't like and if I ever win the lottery (which would be a surprise as I don't do it ), maybe I'll splash out again. But meantime, there's other things I'd rather spend my money on.

I have a rather cynical view to the pricing of a lot of things. Diamond pricing, for instance, is the result of cynical and self-interested manipulation by a cartel. And, IMHO, far too much of that goes on in the watch world, too - not least by Rolex. So rather than buy a watch that's stands to cost me more in servicing over a few years than I need to spend to buy a decent-looking and reliable device that will tell me the time, I'd rather buy something utilitarian but decent quality, like Seiko or Citizen.

As for what watches I've got, well, something of a drawer full. But nothing terribly exciting. My day-to-day watch is a boring Seiko titanium kinetic. I've got a few others that I wear, occasion-dependent, such as a Rotary dress watch .... and a Roamer. There's a cheap Bravingtons brand jobbie circa 60s or 70's (I don't remember exactly when), I'd guess. Probably cost the equivalent of £10-£20, but it still works perfectly. I've got a couple of other Seikos, ranging from a fairly rare (though I'd guess valueless) commemorative watch to one of the very early LCDs. That may well have a modest value, but it was a present so the value doesn't matter. I've got a silver fob watch that came from my grandfather, via my father, and a few others that I've either accumulated over the years, or inherited.

To be honest, I'm militantly indifferent to what other people think of me. 'Fashion' passes me by completely. I couldn't even tell you what's in or out this year, let alone wear it (except by accident or coincidence) because I don't care, mainly because I don't care what other people think of my style or dress sense. I buy what I like, and what I find comfortable. You're likely to find me wearing a relatively expensive Jermyn Street shirt (because it's really comfortable and because they are made from good quality materials that last for ever) that most people wouldn't recognise as expensive, and a pair of Asda George jeans (that people can easily identify as dirt cheap), also because they're as comfortable as ludicrously over-priced Levis or fashion brands. I'm a walking fashion contradiction. I have the same viewpoint as Lord Bath - I wear what I like and to hell with what others think of it. I do not, however, have the same eccentric fashion tastes as him, though.

So the "fashion", or status symbol aspects, or pose value, or jewellery side of watches passes me by, when I can buy a watch I like the style of for £100 or so. Maybe less. Nonetheless, I can look at the technical side of some of the really pricey watch movements and admire the astonishing engineering skill, without being prepared to pay the opportunity cost of buying one, because it would mean either not buying something else or eating into my rainy-day nest-egg.

I understand why watch people love watches, and I could easily have been one of them. I'm just not, though. It's just not my thing, I'm afraid.

[Saracen]

...

Hah, I was thinking about the exact same thing a couple days ago. I spent a tidy sum on a Canon 20D with full kit and a couple 'L' lenses a couple years ago...and similarly it sounds ridiculous right now considering that you could probably pick up the SAME kit for probably 50% less! ....

Ironically, the bottom will have fallen out of the value of the 20D, though £200-£300 or so would not surprise me, but compared to what they cost at the time ....

The problem there is that DSLRs then, and to a degree it still applies today, are a maturing market. Prices still haven't, IMHO, reached the point of a stable product line. It's getting close, though.

The L lenses, on the other hand, will probably still be worth pretty good money. I know - because there's a couple I've been eyeing up recently .

[reldavidson]

Well patek are the best - the guy on the desk opposite just bought one a month ago for &#163;63k - but thats silly money (though he did get a rather large bonus). I would go get an IWC or Baume et Mercier. DONT get a rolex or cartier - both sh1t and for show-offs playing to the uneducated masses....