Rolex rage

[JREwing]

Perec said:

How old are you? Ten years ago I would not have bought a Rolex under any circumstances, but now I have.

Put it this way - I am casually maturing into Rolex age . I had my Daytona about 5 years ago.

[Perec]

JREwing said:

Perec said:

How old are you? Ten years ago I would not have bought a Rolex under any circumstances, but now I have.

Put it this way - I am casually maturing into Rolex age . I had my Daytona about 5 years ago.

When I was 25 I used to sneer at fat old bds in 911s with their nasty Rolexes. Now I'm 20 years older I view things differently.

[JREwing]

Perec said:

When I was 25 I used to sneer at fat old bds in 911s with their nasty Rolexes. Now I'm 20 years older I view things differently.

I think that's exactly the change that happeened to me. I think I just saw them as a watch for fat old bds (as you put it) and yuppies.

Now I appreciate them as something other than a status symbol.

[Athlon]

I like Rolex, especially the old Sea Dweller but recently I had a chance to have both my Speedmaster and a Sub side by side to compare and both the Rolex owner and I felt the Omega was way ahead in tactile quality and that feeling of solidness, the bracelets are a case in point, the Rolex feels flimsy comapred to the Speedy.

Now with the Co-Axial movement and the fact that new movements are made in house by Omega has steered me away from Rolex, returns meen little to me because I buy what I like and keep them!

[Vladimir]

JREwing said:

I think that's exactly the change that happeened to me. I think I just saw them as a watch for fat old bds (as you put it) and yuppies.

Now I appreciate them as something other than a status symbol.

In a rather more modest way, I felt similar about BMWs - dreadful image, driven by to55ers (hmm - most still are). Then we got one and it's been superb. And I have a feeling we'll be buying them for some time.

[Perec]

Athlon said:

I like Rolex, especially the old Sea Dweller but recently I had a chance to have both my Speedmaster and a Sub side by side to compare and both the Rolex owner and I felt the Omega was way ahead in tactile quality and that feeling of solidness, the bracelets are a case in point, the Rolex feels flimsy comapred to the Speedy.

Now with the Co-Axial movement and the fact that new movements are made in house by Omega has steered me away from Rolex, returns meen little to me because I buy what I like and keep them!

I have to agree with you regarding the feel of the bracelets on the pre-ceramic steel sports Rolexes. They don't feel smooth, as you'd expect them to on an expensive watch. However, we are talking about a tool watch and I think the pre-ceramic watches were essentially that. I think the ceramic ones have strayed too far into the jewellery market personally, hence why I bought the old model.

I had a good fondle of a ceramic GMT the other day and although the bracelet is better than on the pre-ceramic watches I concur that there are other watches that feel a lot more pleasing, including some much cheaper offerings.

I have to be honest though, I have never been an Omega fan. The designs, to my eye, are slightly prissy and the people I know with them always seem keen to point out that they didn't buy them because they couldn't afford a Rolex.

[Vladimir]

Perec said:

I have to agree with you regarding the feel of the bracelets on the pre-ceramic steel sports Rolexes. They don't feel smooth, as you'd expect them to on an expensive watch. However, we are talking about a tool watch and I think the pre-ceramic watches were essentially that. I think the ceramic ones have strayed too far into the jewellery market personally, hence why I bought the old model.

I had a good fondle of a ceramic GMT the other day and although the bracelet is better than on the pre-ceramic watches I concur that there are other watches that feel a lot more pleasing, including some much cheaper offerings.

I have to be honest though, I have never been an Omega fan. The designs, to my eye, are slightly prissy and the people I know with them always seem keen to point out that they didn't buy them because they couldn't afford a Rolex.

See you made the classic mistake and mentioned the "afford" thing. This is a big part of why Rolexes are so distasteful.

There are far more expensive brands yet owners keep far quieter about the cost of the thing.

It completely ruins the image - although my main reason for not liking them is because I actually...don't like them.

Edited by Vladimir on Saturday 1st June 20:30

[BJG1]

JREwing said:

I think that's exactly the change that happeened to me. I think I just saw them as a watch for fat old bds (as you put it) and yuppies.

Now I appreciate them as something other than a status symbol.

You mean you're a fat old bd now, don't you?

[Perec]

Vladimir said:

Perec said:

I have to agree with you regarding the feel of the bracelets on the pre-ceramic steel sports Rolexes. They don't feel smooth, as you'd expect them to on an expensive watch. However, we are talking about a tool watch and I think the pre-ceramic watches were essentially that. I think the ceramic ones have strayed too far into the jewellery market personally, hence why I bought the old model.

I had a good fondle of a ceramic GMT the other day and although the bracelet is better than on the pre-ceramic watches I concur that there are other watches that feel a lot more pleasing, including some much cheaper offerings.

I have to be honest though, I have never been an Omega fan. The designs, to my eye, are slightly prissy and the people I know with them always seem keen to point out that they didn't buy them because they couldn't afford a Rolex.

See you made the classic mistake and mentioned the "afford" thing. This is a big part of why Rolexes are so distasteful.

There are far more expensive brands yet owners keep far quieter about the cost of the thing.

It completely ruins the image - although my main reason for not liking them is because I actually...don't like them.

Edited by Vladimir on Saturday 1st June 20:30

Ah, but I didn't. I said that friends with Omegas have mentioned the affordability issue. Those friends with Rolexes have seldom mentioned their watches, much less the cost.

[JREwing]

BJG1 said:

You mean you're a fat old bd now, don't you?

That's the change

[aeropilot]

I'm old so I'm a big Rolex fan.....however, that's the Rolex of old that I remember when growing up.....early 007 film use, RN issue mil Subs....

worn by the King of Cool.....



remember ads in magezines such as this...




which is sadly all a world away from the tainted 'bling' image of Rolex today, and I can't say I like any watch they currently make at all.

[JREwing]

I suppose that the difference for me is that my first impression of Rolex are J.R. Ewing (yes, yes I know ), Gordon Gekko and general yuppies.

[The GMan]

Vladimir said:

Perec said:

I have to agree with you regarding the feel of the bracelets on the pre-ceramic steel sports Rolexes. They don't feel smooth, as you'd expect them to on an expensive watch. However, we are talking about a tool watch and I think the pre-ceramic watches were essentially that. I think the ceramic ones have strayed too far into the jewellery market personally, hence why I bought the old model.

I had a good fondle of a ceramic GMT the other day and although the bracelet is better than on the pre-ceramic watches I concur that there are other watches that feel a lot more pleasing, including some much cheaper offerings.

I have to be honest though, I have never been an Omega fan. The designs, to my eye, are slightly prissy and the people I know with them always seem keen to point out that they didn't buy them because they couldn't afford a Rolex.

See you made the classic mistake and mentioned the "afford" thing. This is a big part of why Rolexes are so distasteful.

There are far more expensive brands yet owners keep far quieter about the cost of the thing.

It completely ruins the image - although my main reason for not liking them is because I actually...don't like them.

Edited by Vladimir on Saturday 1st June 20:30

To be honest I'm going to have to disagree with a lot of this bks.

I've got a Submariner and my wife has a Date Just. A few of my colleagues have various Rolexes and other brands of quality watches and none of us go on about the affordability of the watch or the fact they hold money.

Getting bored with these sweeping statements. You said earlier it was not reverse snobbery.....it comes across like that when you make generalisations and assumptions about Rolex owners and their apparent attitudes.

Edited by The GMan on Saturday 1st June 22:00

[philmots]

My father has a couple, an Explorer and I don't know what the other is. My mother has one too again I've no idea what it is. One of my best mates has a Sub but even with a reasonable amount of exposure to them I don't really like the brand at all.

I think it's because people see them as an obvious choice. Like someone buying a Ferrari if they won the lottery (when they have no clue about cars).. But I wear Omega, even more common!

[GC8]

Not too long ago, few people were aware of Omega.

[The GMan]

philmots said:

My father has a couple, an Explorer and I don't know what the other is. My mother has one too again I've no idea what it is. One of my best mates has a Sub but even with a reasonable amount of exposure to them I don't really like the brand at all.

I think it's because people see them as an obvious choice. Like someone buying a Ferrari if they won the lottery (when they have no clue about cars).. But I wear Omega, even more common!

I've got a PO too. Hasn't held it's value as well as my Rolex though.......

[Vvroom]

I find it so odd that Rolex divides opinion as it does and causes threads like this to pop us so frequently

IWC, B&R, and the multitude other other ETA modifiers and case makers, who charge 4 figures or more for a collection of parts bought off the shelf and assembled in conditions just sufficient to satisfy the "Swiss made" conditions, are barely ever criticised in the same way. Why not? Why is there no outrage at the fact that an IWC pilot chrono is so much more expensive than the Sinn equivalent, for example?

Is there a serious watch enthusiast out there who hasn't owned a Rolex at some point? I doubt it. The best watches? Not by a long way. Over priced: yes. Iconic? Certainly. They are widely available and of course bought by enthusiasts and arses alike.


(NB I own watches from all manufacturers above and know, of course, that IWC make some of their own movements. I have no beef with ETA- not the point I'm making)

[Vvroom]

JREwing said:

I suppose that the difference for me is that my first impression of Rolex are J.R. Ewing (yes, yes I know ), Gordon Gekko and general yuppies.

GG wore a gold Cartier.

[JREwing]

Vvroom said:

GG wore a gold Cartier.

It's a long time since I saw that film! I did think that he wore a Day-Date.
My mistake. However the point still stands - it was about the type of person more than anything else. I probably just had a chip on my shoulder. I don't know now

[Vvroom]

JREwing said:

Vvroom said:

GG wore a gold Cartier.

It's a long time since I saw that film! I did think that he wore a Day-Date.
My mistake. However the point still stands - it was about the type of person more than anything else. I probably just had a chip on my shoulder. I don't know now

GG was far too pretentious for a Rolex