Tag Heuer watches vs. Rolex etc. - Young buyer

[13m]

foxsasha said:

DJMC said:

Yes, I see £4,750 on Chrono24 gives a mint Sub, from a dealer, with box papers etc.

Knowing these are faked I'd rather he buy from a dealer and by credit card for safety.

What are faked and how do you know?

The Submariner - possibly the most faked watch...in the world.

[foxsasha]

13m said:

foxsasha said:

DJMC said:

Yes, I see £4,750 on Chrono24 gives a mint Sub, from a dealer, with box papers etc.

Knowing these are faked I'd rather he buy from a dealer and by credit card for safety.

What are faked and how do you know?

The Submariner - possibly the most faked watch...in the world.

I misread it as he wouldn't buy from Chrono24 as they're faked. He actually said he'd buy from a dealer on Chrono24.

[anonymous-user]

battered said:

warren182 said:

battered said:

Nope. All the stainless divers Rolex watches share the same in your face design. The only Rolex that dont are the pre oyster manual wind models.

Is it half term already?

Here we go, one person dares to say anything negative about Rolex and in comes the avenging army. Still, if you say it's half term then you boys will have time on your hands, so crack on.

I agree with you entirely.

There's nothing understated about rolex. They are popular because they are instantly recognisable and in your face. That's why most people buy them, they want everyone to see they have a Rolex. Rolex are the default choice for people wanting to wear a luxury good on their wrist,

If they weren't in your face and recognisable people simply wouldn't buy them.

[anonymous-user]

foxsasha said:

I don't think the Perpetual looks too aggressive. It's my favourite of the Rolex range as it doesn't look like it is trying to hard nor a status watch.

That's beautiful and certainly not in your face. (As far as any Rolex can be)

Totally unlike most of the other SS men's sports Rolex which are definately not understated.

[traffman]

El stovey said:

I agree with you entirely.

There's nothing understated about rolex. They are popular because they are instantly recognisable and in your face. That's why most people buy them, they want everyone to see they have a Rolex. Rolex are the default choice for people wanting to wear a luxury good on their wrist,

If they weren't in your face and recognisable people simply wouldn't buy them.

bks , the grime artists and other major hip hop artists allways go for the gold gmt's and sub's , usually with diamonds.
They are the one's that want or need to be noticed. I used to think the same about Rolex , until you start looking at the various models. Look up a nice Rolex 5513 Submariner , one of the most iconic and longest lasting of the Submariner model's. Then come back to me and tell me i'm wrong.

Anything with Gold , Diamonds and shiney is the default choice for the people wanting to be noticed. There's a massive following for the proper Rolex models on many forums , funnily enough Pharrell , Jay Zed and Kanye North are never apparent on those sites.

[anonymous-user]

traffman said:

El stovey said:

I agree with you entirely.

There's nothing understated about rolex. They are popular because they are instantly recognisable and in your face. That's why most people buy them, they want everyone to see they have a Rolex. Rolex are the default choice for people wanting to wear a luxury good on their wrist,

If they weren't in your face and recognisable people simply wouldn't buy them.

bks , the grime artists and other major hip hop artists allways go for the gold gmt's and sub's , usually with diamonds.
They are the one's that want or need to be noticed. I used to think the same about Rolex , until you start looking at the various models. Look up a nice Rolex 5513 Submariner , one of the most iconic and longest lasting of the Submariner model's. Then come back to me and tell me i'm wrong.

Anything with Gold , Diamonds and shiney is the default choice for the people wanting to be noticed. There's a massive following for the proper Rolex models on many forums , funnily enough Pharrell , Jay Zed and Kanye North are never apparent on those sites.

You appear to be comparing a submariner with a gold watch covered in diamonds and using that as evidence that a submariner is understated?

A submariner isn't understated. It's probably the most recognisable watch from a manufacturer that is the most widely recognised luxury brand in the world. How in any way is that subtle?

[warren182]

El stovey said:

You appear to be comparing a submariner with a gold watch covered in diamonds and using that as evidence that a submariner is understated?

A submariner isn't understated. It's probably the most recognisable watch from a manufacturer that is the most widely recognised luxury brand in the world. How in any way is that subtle?

So a watch being recognisable, can't be understated? In a world of 43mm + size sports watches being the norm, a 40mm stainless steel case with a black/white dial, is on the subtle side of the spectrum.

Comparing like for like (ie sports watches), I'm not sure how anyone could argue with a sub not being on the restrained side.

But Rolex has always evoked some odd opinions. Some folks equate popular with being common, and anything common can't be respected by a 'connoisseur'.

[benjeffrey]

22 and bought a Rolex Submariner 16610, I liked the look and feel of it over everything else I tried. Bonus is that it shouldn't lose much money.

The process of this all should be that simple!

[DJMC]

warren182 said:

So a watch being recognisable, can't be understated? In a world of 43mm + size sports watches being the norm, a 40mm stainless steel case with a black/white dial, is on the subtle side of the spectrum.

Comparing like for like (ie sports watches), I'm not sure how anyone could argue with a sub not being on the restrained side.

But Rolex has always evoked some odd opinions. Some folks equate popular with being common, and anything common can't be respected by a 'connoisseur'.

Yes, I agree entirely that the Rolex Submariner "looks" understated. The poster prior to yours is perhaps mistaking what some people think when they know someone is wearing a Rolex compared to what the watch looks like in isolation.

This is what I'd call "bling": http://www.chrono24.co.uk/patekphilippe/57191g-nau...

And perhaps this too?: http://www.chrono24.co.uk/patekphilippe/new-175th-...

[H20DJY]

I bought a Rolex because I always wanted one. I am a big guy, so I bought a big Rolex. I didn't do it for attention, I did it because I wanted it. I have also never had any attention from my big stainless Rolex. Weird, because if you believe what you read on here I should be getting stopped in the streets to discuss my choice in watch.

The swastika tattoo covering my face gets some looks though.

[DJMC]

H20DJY said:

I bought a Rolex because I always wanted one. I am a big guy, so I bought a big Rolex. I didn't do it for attention, I did it because I wanted it. I have also never had any attention from my big stainless Rolex. Weird, because if you believe what you read on here I should be getting stopped in the streets to discuss my choice in watch.

The swastika tattoo covering my face gets some looks though.

Could the swastika be why you're not stopped in the streets?

[InductionRoar]

DJMC said:

warren182 said:

So a watch being recognisable, can't be understated? In a world of 43mm + size sports watches being the norm, a 40mm stainless steel case with a black/white dial, is on the subtle side of the spectrum.

Comparing like for like (ie sports watches), I'm not sure how anyone could argue with a sub not being on the restrained side.

But Rolex has always evoked some odd opinions. Some folks equate popular with being common, and anything common can't be respected by a 'connoisseur'.

Yes, I agree entirely that the Rolex Submariner "looks" understated. The poster prior to yours is perhaps mistaking what some people think when they know someone is wearing a Rolex compared to what the watch looks like in isolation.

This is what I'd call "bling": http://www.chrono24.co.uk/patekphilippe/57191g-nau...

And perhaps this too?: http://www.chrono24.co.uk/patekphilippe/new-175th-...

Interesting discussion and I think the difference in opinion may be down to people's definition of "bling".

Whilst bling is defined as "expensive, ostentatious clothing and jewellery" it is a rather subjective term (as is clearly demonstrated on here) as expense is relative and the definition of ostentatious "characterized by pretentious or showy display; designed to impress" is misleading in this context as it could quite easily be applied to the Sistene Chapel, the pyramids, Marie Antoinette's pocket watch or any old master painting ever commissioned but are they by default "bling"?

Most people will be impressed by a Rolex. Ask 100 people which watch brand is best and I would expect well over half would say Rolex. This isn't because they have a deep seated interest in horology but because Rolex is a well known make to non-watch people and as a result are often the choice of people who don't necessarily want a watch but want a Rolex. Nobody is wrong but a standard stainless Rolex is about as far from bling as possible though I think the word is often used in a derogatory way by snobs who try to look down their noses on the choices of others. Incidentally, rarely in my experience do these people own anything even close to the quality of a Rolex either which is somewhat telling.

To me bling is when something is tastelessly executed with disproportionate substance behind it. When the level of skill behind an item outweighs the value of the raw materials used it stops being merely superficial.

That Nautlilus is undoubtedly bling and I am surprised Patek cater to such a market. The 175th Anniversary model however, does not come under my definition of bling. As flamboyant as the case and face are the real value is in the movement whereas the Nautlius is (I assume?) the same movement you would have in your 'standard' model but adorned with diamonds; which is purely superficial. The anniversary piece however vulgar you may find it is a work of art and will continue to be worth more and more as all masterpieces do whereas such pieces as that Nautilus will continue to take a massive dive in 'value' immediately after purchase.

[H20DJY]

DJMC said:

H20DJY said:

I bought a Rolex because I always wanted one. I am a big guy, so I bought a big Rolex. I didn't do it for attention, I did it because I wanted it. I have also never had any attention from my big stainless Rolex. Weird, because if you believe what you read on here I should be getting stopped in the streets to discuss my choice in watch.

The swastika tattoo covering my face gets some looks though.

Could the swastika be why you're not stopped in the streets?

That actually made me lol, not just type it, but actually do it. Well done sir!

[don logan]

H20DJY said:

DJMC said:

H20DJY said:

I bought a Rolex because I always wanted one. I am a big guy, so I bought a big Rolex. I didn't do it for attention, I did it because I wanted it. I have also never had any attention from my big stainless Rolex. Weird, because if you believe what you read on here I should be getting stopped in the streets to discuss my choice in watch.

The swastika tattoo covering my face gets some looks though.

Could the swastika be why you're not stopped in the streets?

That actually made me lol, not just type it, but actually do it. Well done sir!

You just had to bring the facial swastika up again didn't you! :-)

I reckon there is a Venn diagram somewhere in this!

For what it's worth I'm pretty good at keeping my watches up my cuff / sleeve because they are for MY pleasure!

[anonymous-user]

InductionRoar said:

Incidentally, rarely in my experience do these people own anything even close to the quality of a Rolex either which is somewhat telling.

Everything that is wrong with the Rolex, in one sentence.

[ed335d]

If he like TAG as a brand, save up & wait for the 2017 Autavia.

It's going to be the best looking TAG available.

[InductionRoar]

El stovey said:

InductionRoar said:

Incidentally, rarely in my experience do these people own anything even close to the quality of a Rolex either which is somewhat telling.

Everything that is wrong with the Rolex, in one sentence.

Other people?

[13m]

InductionRoar said:

El stovey said:

InductionRoar said:

Incidentally, rarely in my experience do these people own anything even close to the quality of a Rolex either which is somewhat telling.

Everything that is wrong with the Rolex, in one sentence.

Other people?

Yes, I was struggling with that one as well.

[Lorne]

As a 23 year old there was only one watch I wanted, but it took another 23 years of not finding one before I built it myself.

No idea what the resale values are as I've not heard of anyone selling one, but it is a smidge under £2k new.



And comes with a very nice metal bracelet.

Call me biased though :-)

[13m]

Lorne said:

As a 23 year old there was only one watch I wanted, but it took another 23 years of not finding one before I built it myself.

No idea what the resale values are as I've not heard of anyone selling one, but it is a smidge under £2k new.



And comes with a very nice metal bracelet.

Call me biased though :-)

Get rid of the knurling on the sides of the pushers, it's redundant and I don't like it.