Rolex

But still remains a far better movement than the really cheap one in a day date. It shoud be sufficient compare the thickness of the two, but i guess you are not too much interested in these details.

The rollie is a cheap and rough workhorse perfect for cheap professional watches as the rollies have ever been for decades until someone started dreaming they are "high end" watches paying huge money for that

You'll be aware this is an horology forum, but you have a very personal idea of horology if you consider that Rollie an "high end" watch

There is just one "high" thing in that watch, the insane price for some ectogram of platinum. Nothing else.

Glad you like it, you did the right choice if you like it, it's your money.

But if you judge the quality of a movement by the hack seconds, or the value for money from the material of case or bracelet, or the exclusivity by the insanity of the price you have to pay to get it, simply we talk two different languages.

I repeat, with the insane price of that platinum bracelet i buy a 15202 and a 5712 (just to stay inside the perimeter you defined, otherwise the possible better choices from any objective point of view were virtually infinite) which are two "high end" (really) watches with values not comparable from any point of view with an ordinary watch like whatever day date (or Rolex in general, even if in platinum or cryptonite...).

Put some gold into an FCA and still remains an FCA, not a Ferrari neither a Lamborghini

You, merely, like a platinum FCA and you did well buying it, nothing else. No exclusivity (unless you consider the exclusivity of insanity), no elegance (the DD has never been intended as an "elegant" watch) no high end (one of the most ordinary and rough movements ever made with a loupe glued on the sapphire glass cannot be defined "high end"), no others fancy fantasies, just your taste.

All this has nothing to do with "brands" but with how the watches are made and what is inside it, you talked about brands, luxury, exclusivity, statement, recognisable, and all the stuff not related in any way to horology, not me

"I see your point but c'mon you can't be buying the idea that the 5711 or 15202 are horological marvels. They certainly have a better finish but they didn't bring anything new to the world of horology.  The 240 in the 5711 has a widely known date misalignment problem, it doesn't hack and is not a chronometer."

240 and 2121 are two of the thinnest automatic movements ever made, you should know doing an ultra thin movement is still one of the more difficult things in horology (so told me someone called Giulio Papi sometimes ago), even more if automatic winding. They are marvels, if you are able to recognise marvels, because of how they are made and because they made possible the birth of an entire new segment of watch, like is the Royal Oak and Nautilus one, still well sold after 40 years. Technical and commercial marvels

There is no 240 in a 5711 which is not a marvel, but a 324 which still remains a ferrari if compared to any rolex movement 

Regards

  login to reply