Fake Rolex, Justified ?

[andy_s]

Dynamic over- pressure is slight when moving arms about - literally a few metres worth, but no idea as to holiday frolics on a bouncy ring. As it were.

[sneijder]

If Sinn are reading, I have found your new factory tester :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17FgJxDO9js

[mel]

sneijder said:

The Rolex approach is rather brute force, and I would guess the technology wasn't around then to oil fill cases with no bubbles.

So what technology would be needed and why is it so difficult? In my simply basic engineers mind I just think that the final assembly would need to be done with the watch submerged in the oil? or is that too straight forward?

[CommanderJameson]

mel said:

sneijder said:

The Rolex approach is rather brute force, and I would guess the technology wasn't around then to oil fill cases with no bubbles.

So what technology would be needed and why is it so difficult? In my simply basic engineers mind I just think that the final assembly would need to be done with the watch submerged in the oil? or is that too straight forward?

I thought that one of the problems being solved by the Rolex approach is to allow a regular automatic movement to be used. As I understand it, the Sinn watches that are oil-filled have to have quartz movements because the oil means that a balance wheel (and other bits) won't move freely enough. I think that this is because the amount of torque delivered by the size of spring you can fit into a watch-sized watch is insufficient to drive the balance wheel in something as viscous as oil.

[ShadownINja]

cyberface said:

a human swimming at 10,000m (i.e. bottom of the Mariana Trench) would be destroyed as every air-filled cavity in the body would collapse.

But where you'll find a watch with a depth rating of 10,000m useful is down your friendly local where you can say, "Check out my new watch, lads. It's rated for 10,000m."

[sneijder]

mel said:

sneijder said:

The Rolex approach is rather brute force, and I would guess the technology wasn't around then to oil fill cases with no bubbles.

So what technology would be needed and why is it so difficult? In my simply basic engineers mind I just think that the final assembly would need to be done with the watch submerged in the oil? or is that too straight forward?

I guessed they were beginning this just after the war, and would have to use a fully synthetic oil that might not have been available then. Looking at it the military on both sides started using fully synthetic during the end of the war so they might have been able to.

[Vipers]

cyberface said:

a human swimming at 10,000m (i.e. bottom of the Mariana Trench) would be destroyed as every air-filled cavity in the body would collapse.

IF a diver was able to survive at that depth, which he cannot, but for argument sake we will say he could, then he would be breathinng a gas mixture at the same at the sourounding pressure, same as a diver does now, and therefore the cavity's in the body will be in equiliblum with the sourounding water.

But not to get too technical here. Just pointing that out.

[Dominic H]

sneijder said:

I was recently reading about the Rolex 'Deep Sea Special', the article had no illustration so I scuttled off to find one.







Cripes, and there's one coming up for sale soon :

http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.asp...

And it sold, very well. IIRC the last 'Deep Sea Special' sold about 4-5 years ago in London at c£80k. The above listed item sold in Hong Kong today at $438,207!

http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.asp...

[LukeBird]

[sneijder]

Amazing ! Dominic, is there a more important model of Rolex out there we should know about (diamond encrusted Stringfellow specials aside).

[mel]

If that's HK$ then it's "only" about £34k

Ok maybe I should of read the link first it does say HK$ 3,380,000 which is about £260K so yes they have gone up in value a fair chunk.

Edited by mel on Thursday 3rd December 07:42

[Vipers]

fergus said:

(Most) Rolex movements are nothing special. Indeed having been shown inside my Explorer II during a service, I was stunned to see how poor it was - after being shown an omega by way of comparison (I wasn't comparing mine with a JLC or other higher end piece).

Interesting comment, when you say poor, maybe compared to others I dont know, never seen inside my one, but does it matter? Mine has been telling time for over 30 years now, and is less than 5 seconds out a week.

Just a comment, nothing else, but thought your post was interesting.

[andy_s]

I prefer 'robust' to 'poor' !

[Vipers]

andy_s said:

I prefer 'robust' to 'poor' !

Ah! thats better Andy, well done.

[dr_gn]

Vipers said:

fergus said:

(Most) Rolex movements are nothing special. Indeed having been shown inside my Explorer II during a service, I was stunned to see how poor it was - after being shown an omega by way of comparison (I wasn't comparing mine with a JLC or other higher end piece).

Interesting comment, when you say poor, maybe compared to others I dont know, never seen inside my one, but does it matter? Mine has been telling time for over 30 years now, and is less than 5 seconds out a week.

Just a comment, nothing else, but thought your post was interesting.

I read a review of my Explorer I, and the guy was amazed at the poor quality (or at least poor finish) of the components in th mechanism. I was strangely disappointed at this, even though I'll never see the inside of my watch (hopefully).

By all accounts on various forums, the reviewer wasn't a fan of Rolex, which may have influenced him, but he did comment that he was amazed at how accurate it was - as good as any mechanical watch he'd tested IIRC.

[Dominic H]

sneijder said:

Amazing ! Dominic, is there a more important model of Rolex out there we should know about (diamond encrusted Stringfellow specials aside).

Good question, here's a good answer. David Goldberger published a book '100 Superlative Rolex Watches',featuring some of the rarest and finest examples.
Here's a summary...

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=76238

Rarity is everything, coupled with extraordinary engineering and historical importance the Deep Sea Special is a clear winner....

[sneijder]

Dominic H said:

sneijder said:

Amazing ! Dominic, is there a more important model of Rolex out there we should know about (diamond encrusted Stringfellow specials aside).

Good question, here's a good answer. David Goldberger published a book '100 Superlative Rolex Watches',featuring some of the rarest and finest examples.
Here's a summary...

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=76238

Rarity is everything, coupled with extraordinary engineering and historical importance the Deep Sea Special is a clear winner....

Great link !

I didn't know the Rolex / Panerai connection. The Omani SAS watch is something else.

[koolchris99]

sneijder said:

Dominic H said:

sneijder said:

Amazing ! Dominic, is there a more important model of Rolex out there we should know about (diamond encrusted Stringfellow specials aside).

Good question, here's a good answer. David Goldberger published a book '100 Superlative Rolex Watches',featuring some of the rarest and finest examples.
Here's a summary...

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=76238

Rarity is everything, coupled with extraordinary engineering and historical importance the Deep Sea Special is a clear winner....

Great link !

I didn't know the Rolex / Panerai connection. The Omani SAS watch is something else.

i know there whereabouts of a number of the omani rolex specials.
subs, the SAS ones. a solid 24K gold presidential.. all have the crest on the front and some on the back.