Tag Heuer watches vs. Rolex etc. - Young buyer

[counterofbeans]

FredAstaire said:

DJMC said:

Maybe this is something to consider also? What IS "better", for the same money, in a similar style?

i've always thought the bracelet on the link models will date very badly, especially the older rounded ones from a few years ago.

The bracelet on that watch is the least of its problems.

[critical mass]

Shame that Omega has been discarded as an old mans watch as the Speedy Profesional is a great option for the money.

[gregs656]

critical mass said:

Shame that Omega has been discarded as an old mans watch as the Speedy Profesional is a great option for the money.

That was my thought.

However, no point buying an accessory you don't like if you are buying it to wear and enjoy.

[glazbagun]

Only sporty looking Rolexes I can think of are the GMT II (especially with the partblue bezel) and I guess the Daytona. Can't think of getting either without smashing your £3K budget though.

Would a Zenith El-Primero be a possible option? Or maybe a Tag-Heuer with an El Primero in it? The movement alone pretty much guarantees it a resale value

[PJ S]

Zenith EP? With no seconds hacking?
I suspect that’s a definite no-no.

[foxsasha]

Pleased to see its not just me that favours the Milguass out of the Rolex range.

[DJMC]

He's tried on Datejust II (fluted bezel, SS) and SS Submariner today. Liked both.

Submariner seems to start at around £4k with date.

Tritium or Luminova dial, out of interest why go for either over the other?

I quite like this: http://www.sandersonandson.com/52225.shtml
I guess, being "cheap" it's a bottom end Omega?
BUT... neither he nor I would buy one purely because my father has one. Don't ask!

[jonamv8]

I went tag Kirium approx £1650 at 21/22 ish

Loved it

It broke tho in the end!

He got plenty of time for Rolex when he's 30 odd, a nice sub or gmt

[nikaiyo2]

DJMC said:

He's tried on Datejust II (fluted bezel, SS) and SS Submariner today. Liked both.

Submariner seems to start at around £4k with date.

Tritium or Luminova dial, out of interest why go for either over the other?

I quite like this: http://www.sandersonandson.com/52225.shtml
I guess, being "cheap" it's a bottom end Omega?
BUT... neither he nor I would buy one purely because my father has one. Don't ask!

Tritium goes a lovely soft yellow and glows all night (when new) but fades over time. IIRC it has a half life of 25 years, so most are now getting quite dim. I would not pay a premium for a tritium dialed late model sapphire crystal Rolex, if you want trit then you need pre WG edged plots and plastic crystal. iMHO yellow plots clashes with the WG surrounds and looks terrible, I can't see the values of the later ones going the way of the older watches, for this reason. So 5513 Maxi dial, or older, but I would expect to pay £6k minimum for any kind of a decent one.
If it's the 16610 in the shop you linked, one lug looks to have a different chamfer to the others, it might be the photo viewed on my phone, or it might have been badly polished...

Why do you think that Omega is cheap, they are only £2770 brand new from Goldsmiths, the one in your link is 3 years old, and the same price as Watchfinder ish. It's towards the bottom of the Omega range. I would imagine comparing that to a 90s sub will leave you wondering what you are paying more for the Rolex for.

I love my 5513 but compared to my much newer Seamaster the Rolex feels a bit err cheap lol.

[13m]

PJ S said:

Zenith EP? With no seconds hacking?.

Didn't know that. PITA I imagine.

[scherzkeks]

nikaiyo2 said:

I love my 5513 but compared to my much newer Seamaster the Rolex feels a bit err cheap lol.

I would agree. While I like a few Rolex models (Expl. II revision, ceram. Daytona), until very recently they offered nothing over their big-name competitors. Basic, utilitarian movements, average cases for the segment, somewhat filmsy bracelets, and plain dial work.

The ceramics are a step up, but the prices are comical. They are master marketers, however. No denying that.

[13m]

scherzkeks said:

I would agree. While I like a few Rolex models (Expl. II revision, ceram. Daytona), until very recently they offered nothing over their big-name competitors. Basic, utilitarian movements, average cases for the segment, somewhat filmsy bracelets, and plain dial work.

The ceramics are a step up, but the prices are comical. They are master marketers, however. No denying that.

The bracelets weren't flimsy. They were rattly though.

[cbmotorsport]

Bought a Seamaster originally as it felt better built than the Sub at the time (15 years ago) and was a lot less money.

Handled a SubC 3 years ago, and bought one immediately. They really stepped up their game with the Ceramic Sub, particularly the bracelet.

[kmpowell]

13m said:

I'd say the standard Datejust is the iconic watch, the DJ2 just panders to the market for bling.

There's a lot of bks written on Pistonheads, but this has to be up there with some of the best of it!

A 116300 is hardly bling, it is only 41mm and it's timeless. A 116334 could possibly be construed as bling if you don't like the fluted bezel, but that would be a subjective opinion of the bezel because the watch is still only 41mm and retains the classic shape and size.

36mm watches in today's day and age look small on a wrist, anything around 45mm can sometimes look too big. The DJ2 fills the gap perfectly.

In a world of Brietling and Hublot monstrosities that you could eat your dinner from, the DJ2 is as far away from bling as one could get.

[13m]

kmpowell said:

A 116300 is hardly bling, it is only 41mm and it's timeless.

Timeless since 2009 when they were launched you mean? That's a whole 8 years of timeless right there.

kmpowell said:

36mm watches in today's day and age look small on a wrist, anything around 45mm can sometimes look too big. The DJ2 fills the gap perfectly.

It's not the case diameter that matters, it's how it wears. The DJ doesn't look small on an average wrist, though it's better suited to formal wear in my opinion. With jeans and a tee shirt something bigger is probably better.

Can I take it from your hostility that you have a DJ2 then?

[kmpowell]

13m said:

It's not the case diameter that matters, it's how it wears. The DJ doesn't look small on an average wrist, though it's better suited to formal wear in my opinion. With jeans and a tee shirt something bigger is probably better.

Can I take it from your hostility that you have a DJ2 then?

No hostility here, just a bit of despair that you used the word 'bling' for a 41mm and stereotyped 41mm to ostentatious (which is the definition of Bling). I'm simply saying that I cannot see how anybody can stereotype a 41mm watch in 2017 as bling, when compared to most other brands it's actually quite small by some margin. Yes I do own a DJ2, a 116334, but by my own admission (see above) the fluted bezel could be construed as bling, but that is another thing all together, you are talking about the size.

Hand on heart, you think this is bling?!?

[13m]

kmpowell said:

13m said:

It's not the case diameter that matters, it's how it wears. The DJ doesn't look small on an average wrist, though it's better suited to formal wear in my opinion. With jeans and a tee shirt something bigger is probably better.

Can I take it from your hostility that you have a DJ2 then?

No hostility here, just a bit of despair that you used the word 'bling' for a 41mm and stereotyped 41mm to ostentatious (which is the definition of Bling). I'm simply saying that I cannot see how anybody can stereotype a 41mm watch in 2017 as bling, when compared to most other brands it's actually quite small by some margin. Yes I do own a DJ2, a 116334, but by my own admission (see above) the fluted bezel could be construed as bling, but that is another thing all together, you are talking about the size.

Hand on heart, you think this is bling?!?

Not in black and white, no. But all the DJ2s I've seen, with or without flutes, have been a bit too unsubtle.

[kmpowell]

13m said:

Not in black and white, no. But all the DJ2s I've seen, with or without flutes, have been a bit too unsubtle.

It's not black and white. DJ2 dials are Silver, Black, White, Blue, in a mix choice of stick or roman. So no gawdy colours there, the only gawdy can be teh bimetal DJ2.

But even so, remember your original post, you talked about the size being 'bling', not what colour it is...

[SirSquidalot]

Im 23 with a mature head! I found myself in a similar position last year, in the end I purchased a 16600 Rolex SeaDweller as it was my perfect idea of a watch.

May I suggest a few that are on my to buy list:

• Junghans Max Bill Chronoscope
• Sinn 157
• Tudor Blackbay
• Heuer Pasadena

Has he also considered having a look at Christopher Ward or Steinhart?

Yes it isnt the brand of Tag or Rolex but they do make some lovely pieces.

For instance this is a lovely watch: https://www.steinhartwatches.de/en/premium-line/oc...

[13m]

kmpowell said:

13m said:

Not in black and white, no. But all the DJ2s I've seen, with or without flutes, have been a bit too unsubtle.

It's not black and white. DJ2 dials are Silver, Black, White, Blue, in a mix choice of stick or roman. So no gawdy colours there, the only gawdy can be teh bimetal DJ2.

But even so, remember your original post, you talked about the size being 'bling', not what colour it is...

That image is black and white.

It tones down the PCLs and generally reduces the impact as it were.