SuitbertW
2411
Now I feel offended ..... :-)
Hi, Graham,
I'm not sure your post was more "tongue in cheek" - I could hardly imagine you were serious.
Most likely you're simply confusing Tudor with Rolex - yes, I know about the relation between those two, but
they're two different animals .
To keep it simple, You'll not find an ETA movement in any (original) Rolex .
I don't like this sort of comparisons, but as you started it 
- if you speek about horology, and if I'm not mistaken we're speaking about the mechanical fraction if this wide field, in my book there's a lot more of horological value in most of curent Rolex movements than in UN's freak. That's not meant offensive - I can well understand the attraction of the Freak as a "mechanical, kinetic sculpture", for example. I can also understand the attraction of the several escapements which debuted in this Model. But, horologically speaking, I don't see the merits so clearly.
The basic escapement, the dual direct of Freak 1, for example (which largely sources from Breguet's "echappement naturel") is a fascinating concept. As I pointed out, not new, but very appealing nonetheless - but at the end UN's version didn't seem to work reliably . The dual indirect escapement (now called dual Ulysse, if I'm not mistaken) is one more step away from Breguets very appealing invention (due to its indirect impulses) but seems to be the better compromise.
Now, the question is - how would you estimate the incredible work Rolex does on almost all technical fields concerning mechanical watchmaking. Is all this work less valuable when actually used to improve a product which is by all means a mass product? In my book no.
It's also interesting to note, that almost all watchmakers I had the opportunity to speak to, regardeless of working for a brand or independant AHC master watchmakers - you'll barely find one who doesn't acknowledge this position of Rolex. I suggest a search of current patents, or even better of the last years or so - that might change your view a bit.
Hope you don't feel offended and sorry for the longish rant.
Best regards
Suitbert
Was Rolex your first significant watch?
Not my 1st significant watch but my 1st mechanical watch. Does that count?
I had this one for over 15 years - Rolex Datejust Jubilee
Not first but second....
what you all forget is that Rolex are still mass produced watches.
Now I feel offended ..... :-)
The funny thing about your last paragraph, Suitbert, is that . . .
Both (and more)
i stand corrected and had no wish to offend..
