Discussion
EwingJR said:
michael gould said:
I remember my Dad being proud of his Rover !
Oi! My 800 Vitesse coupe was the first decent car I ever bought!I was very proud of it
michael gould said:
EwingJR said:
michael gould said:
I remember my Dad being proud of his Rover !
Oi! My 800 Vitesse coupe was the first decent car I ever bought!I was very proud of it
OQ owners still have a fully functional piece of machinery, most Rovers are long dead by now.
The OQ is growing in popularity as it is one of the rarer Rolex models, and desirable amongst collectors, still fetching around £3,000 - £3,500 depending on condition / completeness
Also the movement is far more than £30,
bobbybee said:
michael gould said:
EwingJR said:
michael gould said:
I remember my Dad being proud of his Rover !
Oi! My 800 Vitesse coupe was the first decent car I ever bought!I was very proud of it
OQ owners still have a fully functional piece of machinery, most Rovers are long dead by now.
The OQ is growing in popularity as it is one of the rarer Rolex models, and desirable amongst collectors, still fetching around £3,000 - £3,500 depending on condition / completeness
Also the movement is far more than £30,
I have always regarded Rolex as being the Porsche 911 of watches. They are fabulous things, well engineered, great at what they do, lovely to look at (and unchanging in style), good residuals. Enthusiasts rightly like them.
However, they also happen to be the default choice for know-nothing cocks trying to impress and demonstrate that they are "considerably richer than yowww".
However, they also happen to be the default choice for know-nothing cocks trying to impress and demonstrate that they are "considerably richer than yowww".
AstonZagato said:
I have always regarded Rolex as being the Porsche 911 of watches. They are fabulous things, well engineered, great at what they do, lovely to look at (and unchanging in style), good residuals. Enthusiasts rightly like them.
However, they also happen to be the default choice for know-nothing cocks trying to impress and demonstrate that they are "considerably richer than yowww".
Yes, that about sums them up.However, they also happen to be the default choice for know-nothing cocks trying to impress and demonstrate that they are "considerably richer than yowww".
Perec said:
Mermaid said:
Have Rolex prices outstripped house prices?
No, I have just checked on Rightmove and generally houses are still more expensive than Rolexes.House index was 231 in 1970, it is 8623 now, 37 times more
Anyone know how much a Rolex submariner cost in 1970? It is £5700 now. If it was £154 then it has kept pace with house prices.
Just found this from that vintage::
Edited by Mermaid on Wednesday 12th June 15:44
Mermaid said:
Perec said:
Mermaid said:
Have Rolex prices outstripped house prices?
No, I have just checked on Rightmove and generally houses are still more expensive than Rolexes.House index was 231 in 1970, it is 8623 now, 37 times more
Anyone know how much a Rolex submariner cost in 1970? It is £5700 now. If it was £154 then it has kept pace with house prices.
Just found this from that vintage::
Edited by Mermaid on Wednesday 12th June 15:44
AstonZagato said:
I have always regarded Rolex as being the Porsche 911 of watches. They are fabulous things, well engineered, great at what they do, lovely to look at (and unchanging in style), good residuals. Enthusiasts rightly like them.
However, they also happen to be the default choice for know-nothing cocks trying to impress and demonstrate that they are "considerably richer than yowww".
+1; dead onHowever, they also happen to be the default choice for know-nothing cocks trying to impress and demonstrate that they are "considerably richer than yowww".
yeti said:
AstonZagato said:
I have always regarded Rolex as being the Porsche 911 of watches. They are fabulous things, well engineered, great at what they do, lovely to look at (and unchanging in style), good residuals. Enthusiasts rightly like them.
However, they also happen to be the default choice for know-nothing cocks trying to impress and demonstrate that they are "considerably richer than yowww".
+1; dead onHowever, they also happen to be the default choice for know-nothing cocks trying to impress and demonstrate that they are "considerably richer than yowww".
Is it a co-incidence that we are also all Aston owners I wonder
AstonZagato said:
I have always regarded Rolex as being the Porsche 911 of watches. They are fabulous things, well engineered, great at what they do, lovely to look at (and unchanging in style), good residuals. Enthusiasts rightly like them.
Stylish products, good marketing - marginally better engineered, not better at telling time than competition, look nice and decent residuals. AND expensive to maintain and you have to cope with snooty dealers.jonby said:
yeti said:
AstonZagato said:
I have always regarded Rolex as being the Porsche 911 of watches. They are fabulous things, well engineered, great at what they do, lovely to look at (and unchanging in style), good residuals. Enthusiasts rightly like them.
However, they also happen to be the default choice for know-nothing cocks trying to impress and demonstrate that they are "considerably richer than yowww".
+1; dead onHowever, they also happen to be the default choice for know-nothing cocks trying to impress and demonstrate that they are "considerably richer than yowww".
Is it a co-incidence that we are also all Aston owners I wonder
Mermaid said:
AstonZagato said:
I have always regarded Rolex as being the Porsche 911 of watches. They are fabulous things, well engineered, great at what they do, lovely to look at (and unchanging in style), good residuals. Enthusiasts rightly like them.
Stylish products, good marketing - marginally better engineered, not better at telling time than competition, look nice and decent residuals. AND expensive to maintain and you have to cope with snooty dealers.All things considered, Rolex aren't too bad pricewise, in my direct experience. And my local AD is a delight to deal with, no snootiness at all.
Riff Raff said:
Mermaid said:
AstonZagato said:
I have always regarded Rolex as being the Porsche 911 of watches. They are fabulous things, well engineered, great at what they do, lovely to look at (and unchanging in style), good residuals. Enthusiasts rightly like them.
Stylish products, good marketing - marginally better engineered, not better at telling time than competition, look nice and decent residuals. AND expensive to maintain and you have to cope with snooty dealers.All things considered, Rolex aren't too bad pricewise, in my direct experience. And my local AD is a delight to deal with, no snootiness at all.
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff