Discussion
I'd certainly think of someone sitting with one of each of the currently favoured half dozen or so Rolexes rather than, say, 1 x lower end Daniels (or 100 other in the same category) as a clown. Yes.
If not a clown then certainly not a horologist/connoiseur/ watch afficionado.
Wouldn't you?
Isn't the essential difference between the D blue and the vanilla DSSD a couple of dial details?
If not a clown then certainly not a horologist/connoiseur/ watch afficionado.
Wouldn't you?
Isn't the essential difference between the D blue and the vanilla DSSD a couple of dial details?
Edited by drainbrain on Tuesday 20th June 22:45
[quote=drainbrain]I'd certainly think of someone sitting with one of each of the currently favoured half dozen or so Rolexes rather than, say, 1 x lower end Daniels (or 100 other in the same category) as a clown. Yes.
If not a clown then certainly not a horologist/connoiseur/ watch afficionado.
Wouldn't you?
Why is it a clown watch? Do enlightened us ?
If not a clown then certainly not a horologist/connoiseur/ watch afficionado.
Wouldn't you?
Why is it a clown watch? Do enlightened us ?
Not sure who the "us" is ? Do you mean you?
Ok. I'll try.
There are some amazing watches in this world. Some are engineering and design masterpieces (high end Richard Mille ?). Some are masterpieces of horology (PP super-complications/Daniels etc ?). These are not 'cheap' usually starting at 6 figures and more.
Now let's be serious. Rolex are good watches. Even very good watches. And there are certainly some Rolex that are horological masterpieces. But the one's you're quoting are everyday mass production models whose value is inflated not by their quality but by their marketing. Your type of Rolex are mass market. And by restricting production numbers demand exceeds supply therefore price goes up. Their desirability is a feature of their marketing.
Of course there's something to be said for building a collection of various models of early 21st century mass production Rolexes. It could be interesting. But for crying out loud. Don't confuse that with owning a horological masterpiece.
AFAIK the difference between a vanilla DSSD and a D Blue is a couple of dial variations. Of what horological interest is that? Answer = zero. It's for magpies. And let's face it the magpie can't really differentiate between a shiny bit of costume jewellery and a shiny piece of timeless craftsmanship, can it?
So sitting with half a dozen ok really quite good but nothing special Rolexes as opposed to one timeless rare masterpiece isn't everyone's idea of collecting quality horology, is it?
You can have a garage full of the latest VW hot hatches. But no-one with a Zonda's going to swap for them, are they?
Ok. I'll try.
There are some amazing watches in this world. Some are engineering and design masterpieces (high end Richard Mille ?). Some are masterpieces of horology (PP super-complications/Daniels etc ?). These are not 'cheap' usually starting at 6 figures and more.
Now let's be serious. Rolex are good watches. Even very good watches. And there are certainly some Rolex that are horological masterpieces. But the one's you're quoting are everyday mass production models whose value is inflated not by their quality but by their marketing. Your type of Rolex are mass market. And by restricting production numbers demand exceeds supply therefore price goes up. Their desirability is a feature of their marketing.
Of course there's something to be said for building a collection of various models of early 21st century mass production Rolexes. It could be interesting. But for crying out loud. Don't confuse that with owning a horological masterpiece.
AFAIK the difference between a vanilla DSSD and a D Blue is a couple of dial variations. Of what horological interest is that? Answer = zero. It's for magpies. And let's face it the magpie can't really differentiate between a shiny bit of costume jewellery and a shiny piece of timeless craftsmanship, can it?
So sitting with half a dozen ok really quite good but nothing special Rolexes as opposed to one timeless rare masterpiece isn't everyone's idea of collecting quality horology, is it?
You can have a garage full of the latest VW hot hatches. But no-one with a Zonda's going to swap for them, are they?
Edited by drainbrain on Tuesday 20th June 23:14
drainbrain said:
Not sure who the "us" is ? Do you mean you?
Ok. I'll try.
There are some amazing watches in this world. Some are engineering and design masterpieces (high end Richard Mille ?). Some are masterpieces of horology (PP super-complications/Daniels etc ?). These are not 'cheap' usually starting at 6 figures and more.
Now let's be serious. Rolex are good watches. Even very good watches. And there are certainly some Rolex that are horological masterpieces. But the one's you're quoting are everyday mass production models whose value is inflated not by their quality but by their marketing. Your type of Rolex are mass market. And by restricting production numbers demand exceeds supply therefore price goes up. Their desirability is a feature of their marketing.
Of course there's something to be said for building a collection of various models of early 21st century mass production Rolexes. It could be interesting. But for crying out loud. Don't confuse that with owning a horological masterpiece.
AFAIK the difference between a vanilla DSSD and a D Blue is a couple of dial variations. Of what horological interest is that? Answer = zero. It's for magpies. And let's face it the magpie can't really differentiate between a shiny bit of costume jewellery and a shiny piece of timeless craftsmanship, can it?
So sitting with half a dozen ok really quite good but nothing special Rolexes as opposed to one timeless rare masterpiece isn't everyone's idea of collecting quality horology, is it?
You can have a garage full of the latest VW hot hatches. But no-one with a Zonda's going to swap for them, are they?
I'm struggling to disagree, though I think you can have a nice collection of not especialy special watches! Ok. I'll try.
There are some amazing watches in this world. Some are engineering and design masterpieces (high end Richard Mille ?). Some are masterpieces of horology (PP super-complications/Daniels etc ?). These are not 'cheap' usually starting at 6 figures and more.
Now let's be serious. Rolex are good watches. Even very good watches. And there are certainly some Rolex that are horological masterpieces. But the one's you're quoting are everyday mass production models whose value is inflated not by their quality but by their marketing. Your type of Rolex are mass market. And by restricting production numbers demand exceeds supply therefore price goes up. Their desirability is a feature of their marketing.
Of course there's something to be said for building a collection of various models of early 21st century mass production Rolexes. It could be interesting. But for crying out loud. Don't confuse that with owning a horological masterpiece.
AFAIK the difference between a vanilla DSSD and a D Blue is a couple of dial variations. Of what horological interest is that? Answer = zero. It's for magpies. And let's face it the magpie can't really differentiate between a shiny bit of costume jewellery and a shiny piece of timeless craftsmanship, can it?
So sitting with half a dozen ok really quite good but nothing special Rolexes as opposed to one timeless rare masterpiece isn't everyone's idea of collecting quality horology, is it?
You can have a garage full of the latest VW hot hatches. But no-one with a Zonda's going to swap for them, are they?
Edited by drainbrain on Tuesday 20th June 23:14
don logan said:
I'm struggling to disagree, though I think you can have a nice collection of not especialy special watches!
Yeah you can, that's true. But once aware of what you really could have instead you start wondering about how sensible it is to own a collection of mid-range though really pretty good stock as opposed to a couple of 'real' stunners. That's where I got to and thought very hard about swapping the collection for one super watch. Know what? At that point I discovered I'm not really that into horology. And magpieing felt silly (especially the endless cycle of wanting chasing buying then rinse and repeating).
So I ended up keeping the one watch (a Rolex as it happens) that for some reason I ended up wearing above all others. And that's one of the humblest rolexes of all. An ND Sub. Dunno why. It's got a certain 'magic' or perfection about it, though pretty ordinary from a horological perspective. Might - and that's might - buy a 116619, but only as a daily beater and that's if I can get my head round the cyclops and date that I wish it didn't have. Tbh it's just a 'magpie special' but that probably sums up my 25 years of watch collecting.
But owning a collection of good but not anything special watches?? Naaa. Not for me.
f
k me I was only asking if people think the D blues are still making good money! Not if Krusty the clown wears a Rolex. I was thinking of selling my collection of watches to buy one good fantastic piece. I will probably sell 50% in 24hrs though,then buy a 458 get bored with it then get a skoda of the government. You wanna lay of the source mate!
k me I was only asking if people think the D blues are still making good money! Not if Krusty the clown wears a Rolex. I was thinking of selling my collection of watches to buy one good fantastic piece. I will probably sell 50% in 24hrs though,then buy a 458 get bored with it then get a skoda of the government. You wanna lay of the source mate! Edited by hosedoctor on Wednesday 21st June 10:38
drainbrain said:
I'd certainly think of someone sitting with one of each of the currently favoured half dozen or so Rolexes rather than, say, 1 x lower end Daniels (or 100 other in the same category) as a clown. Yes.
If not a clown then certainly not a horologist/connoiseur/ watch afficionado.
It’s idiotic & elitist to start proscribing who can & cannot be a ‘real’ “horologist/connoiseur/ watch aficionado”.If not a clown then certainly not a horologist/connoiseur/ watch afficionado.
I can understand why some might prefer to own one Patek Philippe instead of four Rolexes, but different people collect from different motivations. A Calatrava & a Submariner are both iconic pieces, but which one you prefer simply depends upon your lifestyle & personal preference.
There are many different ways to appreciate horology – the traditional Swiss, so-called ‘big three’ of PP, VC & AP; the individual classicists of Daniels, Smith, Journe, Dufour etc.; the ‘out there’ designs of MB&F or Greubel Forsey; the astonishing technological & decorative work produced by Grand Seiko; the fine Glashutte traditions of Germany; an appreciation of arcane Russian brands; a love of vintage military or dive watches etc. etc. etc.
As for Rolex, they themselves would freely admit they aren’t out to make horological masterpieces, but instead make mass-produced, largely machine-made sports watches in the main, and extremely good ones at that. However, it’s a bit silly to say that owning a Rolex collection and being a “horologist/connoiseur/ watch aficionado” are mutually exclusive – Rolex either invented or perfected many of the features that we take for granted on modern watches, and have a pioneering association with Hilary, Cousteau, Yeager, COMEX, Pan-Am, the RAF/Royal Navy etc. Yes, of course they are masters of branding, and they don’t hand-carve tourbillons from Unicorn horns, but there’s still a hell of a lot of history, innovation & build-quality to appreciate & admire..
drainbrain said:
Now let's be serious. Rolex are good watches. Even very good watches. And there are certainly some Rolex that are horological masterpieces. But the one's you're quoting are everyday mass production models whose value is inflated not by their quality but by their marketing. Your type of Rolex are mass market. And by restricting production numbers demand exceeds supply therefore price goes up. Their desirability is a feature of their marketing.
Of course there's something to be said for building a collection of various models of early 21st century mass production Rolexes. It could be interesting.
(after all, the OPs only demonstrable interest in the watch appears to be in its price rather than its value).
Edited by drainbrain on Wednesday 21st June 14:46
Certainly the green Rolex is stupid. Saw my first one in an AD the other day and thought you'd have to own every other model already to buy this one. Is it some kind of joke, with hidden cameras in dealers to keep those at Rolex amused? Did like the ceramic (black) subs though, after a while thinking they were too big.
drainbrain said:
What I'd like to know is what difference -apart from the dial -there is between the vanilla and the Cameron editions?
And assuming there's none how would Rolex react to a request for a dial upgrade?
You know they won`t play that game!And assuming there's none how would Rolex react to a request for a dial upgrade?
Hello, can I have a blue black bezel for my black ceramic GMT and a blue GMT hand too please?
No, it`s a different model sir!
Yeah, but it`s not really though is it, is there a price for the bezel and the hand?
No sir, it`s different model
Yeah but............... ok, thanks, bye!
Then you've got the answer to your original question!
Here's your next one.
http://www.chrono24.co.uk/rolex/sea-dweller-deepse...
Get your skates on and you could have it back here by tomorrow night! Bargain!!!!!
Here's your next one.
http://www.chrono24.co.uk/rolex/sea-dweller-deepse...
Get your skates on and you could have it back here by tomorrow night! Bargain!!!!!
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff