Rolex GMT II or JLC Master Chrono or IWC Da Vinci
Discussion
tertius said:
JLC every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Superb watch from a true manufacture. Also has the additional advantage that their parts bin includes a date wheel in the right colour, and doesn't have that grim cyclops.
The Rolex is also all of those things, with the added benefit that Rolex service is relatively quick now (not very good IMHO, but quick) whereas JLC (Richemont) has a golbal reputation for being crap and glacially slow.13m said:
tertius said:
JLC every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Superb watch from a true manufacture. Also has the additional advantage that their parts bin includes a date wheel in the right colour, and doesn't have that grim cyclops.
The Rolex is also all of those things, with the added benefit that Rolex service is relatively quick now (not very good IMHO, but quick) whereas JLC (Richemont) has a golbal reputation for being crap and glacially slow.tertius said:
13m said:
tertius said:
JLC every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Superb watch from a true manufacture. Also has the additional advantage that their parts bin includes a date wheel in the right colour, and doesn't have that grim cyclops.
The Rolex is also all of those things, with the added benefit that Rolex service is relatively quick now (not very good IMHO, but quick) whereas JLC (Richemont) has a golbal reputation for being crap and glacially slow.There's nothing wrong with a white date wheel on a black dial (except in your mind obv.) and of course if the cyclopse REALLY offends it can be removed.
13m said:
tertius said:
13m said:
tertius said:
JLC every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Superb watch from a true manufacture. Also has the additional advantage that their parts bin includes a date wheel in the right colour, and doesn't have that grim cyclops.
The Rolex is also all of those things, with the added benefit that Rolex service is relatively quick now (not very good IMHO, but quick) whereas JLC (Richemont) has a golbal reputation for being crap and glacially slow.There's nothing wrong with a white date wheel on a black dial (except in your mind obv.) and of course if the cyclopse REALLY offends it can be removed.
Regarding the date wheel, we'll have to agree to differ I suspect, I think they look frightful, and can't see any justification for them, however, I would agree they are rather common so there must be "some" reason for them.
tertius said:
Of course they will but I personally (depending on the watch of course) would place very little value on a manufacturer service over a respected independent. Off the top of my head I've used GO, Sinn and Seiko for manufacturer servicing as well as a range of independents. I've generally been much happier with the speed, cost and communication from the independent. The real issue arises when the manufacturer won't supply independents thus forcing you to use the OEM.
Regarding the date wheel, we'll have to agree to differ I suspect, I think they look frightful, and can't see any justification for them, however, I would agree they are rather common so there must be "some" reason for them.
Visibility. If you've a black dial, black wheel and white digits they'll get lost. I imagine that's it.Regarding the date wheel, we'll have to agree to differ I suspect, I think they look frightful, and can't see any justification for them, however, I would agree they are rather common so there must be "some" reason for them.
tertius said:
13m said:
Visibility. If you've a black dial, black wheel and white digits they'll get lost. I imagine that's it.
"Lost" really? For maybe a tiny tiny tiny fraction of a second, how often do you need the date in an instant? Is it a watch or a calendar?Bear in mind that a watch is used in all sorts of light conditions by people with differing degrees of vision. I have excellent vision and yet in certain lights I need to squint at my Sea Dweller to read the date (that is black on white with no Cyclops).
Take a look at this:
In close up (i.e. in that picture) it looks okay. But with those baton markers and hands that would be a difficult date to read in certain lights. With a white background and black numbers it would be easier.
13m said:
tertius said:
13m said:
Visibility. If you've a black dial, black wheel and white digits they'll get lost. I imagine that's it.
"Lost" really? For maybe a tiny tiny tiny fraction of a second, how often do you need the date in an instant? Is it a watch or a calendar?Bear in mind that a watch is used in all sorts of light conditions by people with differing degrees of vision. I have excellent vision and yet in certain lights I need to squint at my Sea Dweller to read the date (that is black on white with no Cyclops).
Take a look at this:
In close up (i.e. in that picture) it looks okay. But with those baton markers and hands that would be a difficult date to read in certain lights. With a white background and black numbers it would be easier.
Further, if Rolex is really concerned about making the date easily legible why have they not invested in developing a big date complication?
My vision is far from perfect and I have no issue at all with the date on my Zenith El Primero, which even I would admit (even though it is probably my favourite watch) has a rather busy dial:
I have one of the GMT master IIs in question,
I would have to say that when the hour, minute and GMT hand are anywhere the 3 o'clock position its quite hard to read the time. Legibility is not good in that area.
Also it really does seem to pick up fine scratches and sworls easily, especially on the PCLs.
My omega seamaster 50th anniversary GMT (now 14 years old I think) is a much better watch overall.
I would have to say that when the hour, minute and GMT hand are anywhere the 3 o'clock position its quite hard to read the time. Legibility is not good in that area.
Also it really does seem to pick up fine scratches and sworls easily, especially on the PCLs.
My omega seamaster 50th anniversary GMT (now 14 years old I think) is a much better watch overall.
tertius said:
13m said:
tertius said:
13m said:
Visibility. If you've a black dial, black wheel and white digits they'll get lost. I imagine that's it.
"Lost" really? For maybe a tiny tiny tiny fraction of a second, how often do you need the date in an instant? Is it a watch or a calendar?Bear in mind that a watch is used in all sorts of light conditions by people with differing degrees of vision. I have excellent vision and yet in certain lights I need to squint at my Sea Dweller to read the date (that is black on white with no Cyclops).
Take a look at this:
In close up (i.e. in that picture) it looks okay. But with those baton markers and hands that would be a difficult date to read in certain lights. With a white background and black numbers it would be easier.
Further, if Rolex is really concerned about making the date easily legible why have they not invested in developing a big date complication?
My vision is far from perfect and I have no issue at all with the date on my Zenith El Primero, which even I would admit (even though it is probably my favourite watch) has a rather busy dial:
13m said:
Whether you buy it or not that's why it is done I reckon. Rolex doesn't need to develop a big date window because, where they see the need for a big date, they use the cyclops.
Well it may be their justification but as I have tried to argue it doesn't seem to stand up to much scrutiny. As for the cyclops being a substitute for a big date - it's a pretty poor solution compared to a big date complication and why would you accept second best if your requirement is legibility?
tertius said:
13m said:
Whether you buy it or not that's why it is done I reckon. Rolex doesn't need to develop a big date window because, where they see the need for a big date, they use the cyclops.
Well it may be their justification but as I have tried to argue it doesn't seem to stand up to much scrutiny. As for the cyclops being a substitute for a big date - it's a pretty poor solution compared to a big date complication and why would you accept second best if your requirement is legibility?
13m said:
I would not presume to guess why Rolex prefers to do it with a Cyclops. However I do have watches with and without date, with and without Cyclops. The Cyclops ones are extremely legible at a glance. The Datejust is particularly good.
Cost and complexity I am sure. I read a while ago that the big date is a surprisingly difficult complication to get right.tertius said:
13m said:
I would not presume to guess why Rolex prefers to do it with a Cyclops. However I do have watches with and without date, with and without Cyclops. The Cyclops ones are extremely legible at a glance. The Datejust is particularly good.
Cost and complexity I am sure. I read a while ago that the big date is a surprisingly difficult complication to get right.No, the reason they use a Cyclops is, I think, because it works and fits in with their basic, functional designs. Furthermore, the Cyclops is a Rolex design cue, in much the same way as the Oyster bracelet is.
13m said:
I really don't think cost and complexity are the reasons why Rolex uses a Cyclops. The cost of developing and producing a big date would be small beer for them.
No, the reason they use a Cyclops is, I think, because it works and fits in with their basic, functional designs. Furthermore, the Cyclops is a Rolex design cue, in much the same way as the Oyster bracelet is.
Your last point I definitely agree with, the cyclops is certainly a signature element for Rex and I doubt they would move away from it for that reason alone.No, the reason they use a Cyclops is, I think, because it works and fits in with their basic, functional designs. Furthermore, the Cyclops is a Rolex design cue, in much the same way as the Oyster bracelet is.
However, cost I do think is an issue not because they couldn't afford it, they clearly could
But because using it to replace the cyclops would significantly change the cost profile of th models affected. I also suspect the complexity would put them off as they aren't really big on difficult complications, certainly not if you compare to say JLC or GO who really go to town on them.
^
You're forgetting the YM II with its Regatta countdown timer, and the Sky Dweller with its Annual Calendar adjusted with the bezel.
I'm no fan of Rolex, but I admire how they've thought outside the box and engineered the S D.
They could easily do a big date, if they wanted, but it'd have to be like GO's, which is patented, rather than the JLC type which AL&S and others use.
As much as the cyclops is a recognised design element for Rolex, they'd drop it tomorrow if sales stalled because consumers were sick of it and wanted a big date instead.
You're forgetting the YM II with its Regatta countdown timer, and the Sky Dweller with its Annual Calendar adjusted with the bezel.
I'm no fan of Rolex, but I admire how they've thought outside the box and engineered the S D.
They could easily do a big date, if they wanted, but it'd have to be like GO's, which is patented, rather than the JLC type which AL&S and others use.
As much as the cyclops is a recognised design element for Rolex, they'd drop it tomorrow if sales stalled because consumers were sick of it and wanted a big date instead.
I am a bit of an IWC fan and have a Da Vinci, collectors forum limited edition 1/100. Love it, wife also has a mid size Da Vinci as her daily beater. Only issue we have had in 5 years with either watch is that she changed the date when the hands were at 12 o'clock so it required a service and replacement cog of some sort.
PJ S said:
^
You're forgetting the YM II with its Regatta countdown timer, and the Sky Dweller with its Annual Calendar adjusted with the bezel.
I'm no fan of Rolex, but I admire how they've thought outside the box and engineered the S D.
They could easily do a big date, if they wanted, but it'd have to be like GO's, which is patented, rather than the JLC type which AL&S and others use.
As much as the cyclops is a recognised design element for Rolex, they'd drop it tomorrow if sales stalled because consumers were sick of it and wanted a big date instead.
I haven't forgotten them, I just don't think, in terms of complications, they compare with watches like: GO Panograph, Tourbillon, and my personal favourite Panomatic Counter XL to pick just three from GO's current range.You're forgetting the YM II with its Regatta countdown timer, and the Sky Dweller with its Annual Calendar adjusted with the bezel.
I'm no fan of Rolex, but I admire how they've thought outside the box and engineered the S D.
They could easily do a big date, if they wanted, but it'd have to be like GO's, which is patented, rather than the JLC type which AL&S and others use.
As much as the cyclops is a recognised design element for Rolex, they'd drop it tomorrow if sales stalled because consumers were sick of it and wanted a big date instead.
tertius said:
PJ S said:
^
You're forgetting the YM II with its Regatta countdown timer, and the Sky Dweller with its Annual Calendar adjusted with the bezel.
I'm no fan of Rolex, but I admire how they've thought outside the box and engineered the S D.
They could easily do a big date, if they wanted, but it'd have to be like GO's, which is patented, rather than the JLC type which AL&S and others use.
As much as the cyclops is a recognised design element for Rolex, they'd drop it tomorrow if sales stalled because consumers were sick of it and wanted a big date instead.
I haven't forgotten them, I just don't think, in terms of complications, they compare with watches like: GO Panograph, Tourbillon, and my personal favourite Panomatic Counter XL to pick just three from GO's current range.You're forgetting the YM II with its Regatta countdown timer, and the Sky Dweller with its Annual Calendar adjusted with the bezel.
I'm no fan of Rolex, but I admire how they've thought outside the box and engineered the S D.
They could easily do a big date, if they wanted, but it'd have to be like GO's, which is patented, rather than the JLC type which AL&S and others use.
As much as the cyclops is a recognised design element for Rolex, they'd drop it tomorrow if sales stalled because consumers were sick of it and wanted a big date instead.
13m said:
I don't think they are TRYING to compare with them. There doesn't seem to be much overlap in the market for the two marques.
Well quite, that is rather my point. I was responding to the previous post and giving some examples that demonstrate why I don't consider Rolexes complications in the same class as GO's.They are quite different makers, not better, not worse just different.
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff