Wrist Check 2017

[paulguitar]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

Unless you have contacts from which to move it quickly that doesn't sort be like a good idea then.

However, fortune favours the brave so take an unsecured loan at 3% (with no early repayment penalties), live off that and buy the watch-if it takes a month or so to shift it it'll easily cover the interest and make you profit.

Your appetite for risk versus reward is your own

Well, it is a tempting plan.

[spareparts]

Debated between this and an SD43, but the DBlue won and picked this up the other day from the AD. Absolutely love it.

[LaurasOtherHalf]

spareparts said:

Debated between this and an SD43, but the DBlue won and picked this up the other day from the AD. Absolutely love it.

I did say fortune favours the brave, and that is certainly a brave choice! There's so much to like about them but as a whole it doesn't add up to me (and my skinny wrists!).

Enjoy, I don't think we'll see another Rolex like it for a very long time and it's got to be one of the most controversial pieces they've done for years which can only be a good thing

[Doofus]

I don't want to derail this thread, or start a huge fight, but what is it that I'm missing about Rolex? The (very) few I've handled have been lightweight and flimsy-feeling with cheap looking bracelets. I recently had a Sub in my hand that was selling for 6k, and I really thought it was closer to £100 worth.

I understand watches, and I do tend to favour a heavier one, but do all Rolexes feel so insubstantial?

No fights wanted.

[GG89]

Doofus said:

I don't want to derail this thread, or start a huge fight, but what is it that I'm missing about Rolex? The (very) few I've handled have been lightweight and flimsy-feeling with cheap looking bracelets. I recently had a Sub in my hand that was selling for 6k, and I really thought it was closer to £100 worth.

I understand watches, and I do tend to favour a heavier one, but do all Rolexes feel so insubstantial?

No fights wanted.

Well it's subjective.

I think they're beautifully weighted and love the bracelets.

HTH.

[Doofus]

GG89 said:

Well it's subjective.

I think they're beautifully weighted and love the bracelets.

HTH.

It is subjective, which is why I'm not after an argument. Are they all light in weight?

[LC23]

Doofus said:

It is subjective, which is why I'm not after an argument. Are they all light in weight?

Was it an older model you had a look at? On the bracelet, the current range with the new bracelet and clasp are much better in terms of quality and feel than the older models.

[spareparts]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

spareparts said:

Debated between this and an SD43, but the DBlue won and picked this up the other day from the AD. Absolutely love it.

I did say fortune favours the brave, and that is certainly a brave choice! There's so much to like about them but as a whole it doesn't add up to me (and my skinny wrists!).

Enjoy, I don't think we'll see another Rolex like it for a very long time and it's got to be one of the most controversial pieces they've done for years which can only be a good thing

Also love the SD43 - probably the best one watch solution for leisure and under a shirt cuff. I already have the older 16600 SD, so like the added colour and punch of the DBlue as an SD43 for me would fight for wrist time with the 16600. But absolutely no regrets on the DBlue - the domed crystal is mesmerising!

[PJ S]

Doofus said:

I don't want to derail this thread, or start a huge fight, but what is it that I'm missing about Rolex?

Absolutely nothing whatsoever. It is perfectly fine to not ‘get’ them, especially when you know that they knock out at least 800K each year, inc the Celini range.
Omega isn’t far behind at 700K, followed by Breitling and then TAG Heuer.
Quite why anyone is impressed with mass produced luxury is beyond me, but to each their own.

[spareparts]

PJ S said:

Doofus said:

I don't want to derail this thread, or start a huge fight, but what is it that I'm missing about Rolex?

Absolutely nothing whatsoever. It is perfectly fine to not ‘get’ them, especially when you know that they knock out at least 800K each year, inc the Celini range.
Omega isn’t far behind at 700K, followed by Breitling and then TAG Heuer.
Quite why anyone is impressed with mass produced luxury is beyond me, but to each their own.

It is not about 'mass production'. Looks are one thing - and in this regard the Rolex Subs and Omega Speedy Pros are equally iconic. Preference for looks are down to personal preference.

Choosing a watch is no different to choosing a car. Looks, depreciation, performance, reliability, etc. Why are Porsches so popular? Why not an AMG?

[Wills2]

paulguitar said:

Interesting thoughts, thank you. My situation though is I would be looking to sell it on eBay without even wearing it, but my concern is that if it doesn't sell right away, I am in a spot of bother, because it will be all of the money I have earned on my current ship contract, which I sort of need to live on......

So, I am undecided, but they seem to be up on eBay from anywhere around £10-12.5k. I can get one for a lot less than that.

ETA I should add, once again, due to past unintentional brush with the mods on this subject, if I buy this watch I have no intention of trying to sell it through here.

If you can buy a SD43 new and unworn from AD at list then you'll be able to flip it in a week and get a quick 1-1.5k profit from most well known resellers like watchfinder as an example.

[Teebs]

spareparts said:

It is not about 'mass production'. Looks are one thing - and in this regard the Rolex Subs and Omega Speedy Pros are equally iconic. Preference for looks are down to personal preference.

Choosing a watch is no different to choosing a car. Looks, depreciation, performance, reliability, etc. Why are Porsches so popular? Why not an AMG?

I agree to some respects. Had the intention to purchase a Submariner this week, tried it on, didn't do anything for me.

[PJ S]

spareparts said:

It is not about 'mass production'. Looks are one thing - and in this regard the Rolex Subs and Omega Speedy Pros are equally iconic. Preference for looks are down to personal preference.

Choosing a watch is no different to choosing a car. Looks, depreciation, performance, reliability, etc. Why are Porsches so popular? Why not an AMG?

Let’s leave cars out of watch discussions – the two are not inextricably linked.
Mass produced luxury (very different from huge volume low cost that Seiko and Citizen do), does come into it for some people, since there’s no exclusivity bar the price point, which isn’t a valid argument in itself within the context of the sheer volume manufactured.
There are many aspects which come into play, and I’d guess iconic status is well down the list, unless you meant that they were simply more likely to be recognised.
But as this is Wrist Check, I’ll not venture further down a potential rabbit hole discussing why people buy Rolex/Omega/etc.

[ZesPak]

I don't mind Rolex per say. But the Sub... a number of people I know have one. This thread alone illustrates just how ubiquitous they are.
Now I can get it's a good watch, I also like the look and it's no doubt iconic... but if I'd fork out more than 5K for a watch, the last thing I'd want is to think "oh he also has a sub" every day.

[So]

PJ S said:

Absolutely nothing whatsoever. It is perfectly fine to not ‘get’ them, especially when you know that they knock out at least 800K each year, inc the Celini range.
Omega isn’t far behind at 700K, followed by Breitling and then TAG Heuer.
Quite why anyone is impressed with mass produced luxury is beyond me, but to each their own.

They're a very good mass produced watch and no high end manufacturer offers a viable alternative. So they are considered the best by many people and sell accordingly in a world of relative affluence and cheap credit.

If Patek et al retailed a sports watch that wasn't a st 70s Gerald Genta design things might be different. But they don't and it isn't, so Rolex will continue to sell their mass produced wares at higher and higher prices.

[paulguitar]

Wills2 said:

paulguitar said:

Interesting thoughts, thank you. My situation though is I would be looking to sell it on eBay without even wearing it, but my concern is that if it doesn't sell right away, I am in a spot of bother, because it will be all of the money I have earned on my current ship contract, which I sort of need to live on......

So, I am undecided, but they seem to be up on eBay from anywhere around £10-12.5k. I can get one for a lot less than that.

ETA I should add, once again, due to past unintentional brush with the mods on this subject, if I buy this watch I have no intention of trying to sell it through here.

If you can buy a SD43 new and unworn from AD at list then you'll be able to flip it in a week and get a quick 1-1.5k profit from most well known resellers like watchfinder as an example.

Thank you. I think I will do it, it is going to be a tense couple of weeks, but seems worth the risk!

[paulguitar]

Doofus said:

I don't want to derail this thread, or start a huge fight, but what is it that I'm missing about Rolex? The (very) few I've handled have been lightweight and flimsy-feeling with cheap looking bracelets. I recently had a Sub in my hand that was selling for 6k, and I really thought it was closer to £100 worth.

I understand watches, and I do tend to favour a heavier one, but do all Rolexes feel so insubstantial?

No fights wanted.

I have always found the Rolex quality situation interesting. I have had a lot of them over the years, probably 12-15, nearly all Submariners, with a Datejust and an Air-King thrown in as well. I must say they never struck me as exceptional in terms of quality. I found it distressingly and expensively easy to chip the crystals and bezel inserts, for example, and these were expensive things to have replaced. The Ward Trident 600 I currently wear genuinely feels better made than the Rolex models I used to own.


The appeal for me was that I thought the designs were iconic, and somehow wearing a Rolex just ‘felt good’. The other thing, and this is an important bonus, is that some models hold their value and actually appreciate over time. To my mind, the cost of them now has got totally out of proportion, but back in 2003 when I was buying used 16610 models for around $2500, it seemed sensible enough. I wish I had held on to a few long-term, I would be quids in now!

[Gunk]

I've never heard the argument that a Rolex is "insubstantial" my own experience is that I bought my stainless 16700 GMT new in 1996 and it's probably trebled in value, I've worn it almost daily and it's comfortable, easy to wear and an iconic design.

I thinned my collection down a few years but the GMT I kept, glad I did, it's something I'll pass on to my son.

Edited by Gunk on Saturday 16th September 18:10

[WelshChris]

perfect watch - I have an identical model which I don't plan to get rid of. Daytona went - didn't have the same appeal.

Gunk said:

I've never heard the argument that a Rolex is "insubstantial" my own experience is that I bought my stainless 16700 GMT new in 1996 and it's probably trebled in value, I've worn it almost daily and it's comfortable, easy to wear and an iconic design.

I thinned my collection down a few years but the GMT I kept, glad I did, it's something I'll pass on to my son.

Edited by Gunk on Saturday 16th September 18:10

[drainbrain]

Come on! What's not to like???