Rolex

We were sitting around over coffee discussing watches and Rolex in particular. For the pair of us Rolex was our independent, accidental entry into things horological.

For me the occasion came after a significant business venture. I’d had many years of not wearing a watch (we were terribly dot com - I used to cycle or skateboard to the office).

I took the plunge and bought a Rolex Seadweller. I distinctly remember feeling terribly worried as it felt like a huge ostentatious lump of jewelry on my wrist. Birkenstocks to bling in one go!

It stayed on my wrist for four or five years before someone, who shall remain nameless, introduced me to another watch, I then started to do the research…. and then it all went pear shaped.

I dug out my old Rolex and de blinged it with a nice croc strap. I wear it now, occasionally, and it’s like an old friend.

I was wondering how many others have taken a similar route into horology?

My first signifcant watch was a Tag Heuer 2000 quartz watch, and I bought it with my 1st pay check.  After I saved up some more, I bought a 18k white gold Rolex Daytona while on vacation and then it all went downhill after that.

Damn you Rolex.  Look at what you got me into! :P

Cheers,
Anthony

my first was a pre-moon speedmaster. but then a seadweller soon followed. i then followed onto Lange , but i wear the seadweller a lot and i also later got a vintage datejust that i wear frequently.they are definitely most peoples intro into fine time pieces though. i think rolex gets un-necessarily bad mouthed sometimes. they make a wonderfully dependable watch and their history is undeniable . love the way that seadweller looks on the strap. i think i might take a field trip this weekend and pay a little "homage" to your style.

cheers, kevin

. . . fifteen years it was my only watch.  I let go of it when I acquired my first G O, and I rather doubt that I'll ever get another, although I have to admit the new Milgauss is my cup of tea . . . cordially, Art

I got a Submariner in 1989 after finsihing high school from my dad. Then I got a TT Datejust in Hong Kong with my own money. About U$3800...my most expensive purchase. Now all hell's break loose with AP, VC, etc. OMG!

Yeah baby.  Late 70's to early 80's  kept it on until the early 90's.

This was on 24/7 without regard for anything.

I must abscond to make merry in honor of the time.

No message body

No message body

My first "major" acquisition was a Cartier.  Later, I acquired a Rolex 18k/SS Oyster Perpetual Datejust.  Even after I ceased wearing it, that Rolex remained a fixture in my colection for sentimental reasons.  I sold it about a year ago, and that will likely be my first and last Rolex.

Craig

through my childhood, like I also vowed never to buy a Mercedes Benz.....

Their 'image' was of "Look at me - just made me a load of money - got me a Rolex and Lord won't you get me a M-e-r-c-e-d-e-s Benz!"

I held out for a long time. My 1st mechanical watch ordered was an Omega DeVille Co-axial WG Ltd Edn but as it was not expected for 6 months, I got a steel Maurice Lacroix to tide me over.

My 1st Rolex was a 31 year-old Ref 5517 (Royal Navy Special Boat Services) military-issue. I wore it twice but never got to like it and got rid of it, mainly because it did not have the original sword hands. On the winder, it gave results of +1 sec/month (Yes  -  read that again!) timed against the BBC time signal.

Regards,

MTF

PS. I'm on my 3rd Mercedes Benz.........    Must be getting older and boring in my attitude

While growing up, I remember owning lots of different watches. Not at the same time and nothing special (mostly simple Swatches..), but it just seemed I got "bored" with one and then saved up some money for another one.

When I was 23 or so I bought this one:

assuming this was it; I now had "my nice watch" and would never have to buy another one. No more cheap Swatches - nooo - a really nice Camel Trophy.

Around the age of 27, I bought what I consider myself to be my first 'serious' watch. A quartz nonetheless: a TAG-Heuer Kirium. I just fell in love with the design and - truth be told - I STILL love the design. In fact I'm wearing it today.

I was assuming this was it; I now had "my nice watch" and would never have to buy another one. No more cheap Camel trophy's - nooo - a really nice TAG-Heuer.

Wore that TAG for 5 years on a daily basis, then on a special occasion (birth of my son) bought this one - after researching watches on this forum (thanks a lot, guys...):

I was assuming this was it; I now had "my nice watch" and would never have to buy another one. No more cheap TAG-Heuer's - nooo - a really nice Jaeger leCoultre.

 

Well, you get the point..

 

Regards

Mark

first goes to a Tag Heuer 4000 series mechanical which i bought with my first pay check....I had always had an interest in watches but couldn't afford a 'real' one.  Then I got a Rolex datejust and then it got........well you get the story..!!!  But the Rolex is still the only make any friends have heard of and i love Rolex....you can't knock a company which is still privately owned and produces models which are very sought after even though none are LE.

 

Andy.

the movements come from ETA although they are breathed on by Rolex to make them COSC certified. you might as well buy an Omega and save the rest of the money Rolex charge after years of clever marketing. i've just sold a collection of over 225 watches and have kept some top line pieces but have NEVER owned a Rolex. i've owned a 1974 Tudor submariner snowflake blue dial with date, original box and papers which i eventually sold for more than many rolexes sell for. a rolex sub and Omega seamaster are essentially the same watch but people are more likely to call you a brash ***** if you have a Rolex on your wrist.

this is not the right attitude as people have a basic right to own whatever they can legally afford to buy so if you want a Rolex, buy one. however, look at the auctions of all the horrible platinum diamond studded and bezelled pieces you see that only belong on the wrist of a pimp or drug dealer( or perhaps a premier league footballer). for the same money i bought a Ulysse Nardin Freak which is a technological marvel with true horological significance.

i hope no one takes offence by the above remarks as it is just my personal opinion which is what the forums are about.

i just implore people to think very hard before spending all the money a reolex costs and compare it with many of the other superb watches out there. a name is not everything.

Graham

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

. . . it mirrors my experience.   I routinely ask both executives and watchmakers which manufacturer they respect the most, and the answer is always Rolex.  Cordially, Art  

or brand positioning?

thnks,

Carl

Hi, Carl,

I've also spoken to more than a few brand execs and master watchmakers on this point; Rolex is the consistently most respected

 

1. brand

2. watch

3. watch manufactory/production

Cheers,

 

TM

Your point makes for interesting reading.

It almost seems like there is a little reverse snobbery where Rolex is concerned.

We were joking in the office about having people "confess" to owning/having owned one.

Regards - tongue firmly in cheek,

Carl.

. . . in the case of industry executives, I suspect they can only wish to match Rolex's marketing success, and in the case of the watchmakers, technical merit.  The two watchmakers I know personally both own Rolexes . . . cordially, Art

PS - I think ei8htohms owns a Rolex, so that makes three . . .
This message has been edited by Dr No on 2007-11-03 08:37:01

i have been a watch collector for more years than i care to remember, but have never been that technically clever about movements etc. i started collecting Omegas as i liked them and then Military pieces for their historic interest. this moved to Accutrons for some reason i now forget possibly to do with their technology and accuracy.

i had been told a few years ago that Rolex sourced their base calibres from ETA (as many many watch makers do) and then changed the bits needed to get them to their undeniably high standard of accuracy. if this was misinformation i am man enough to stand corrected. i'm sure however that they are not in house movements from the ground up as that would be extremely rare for any manufacturer. i have also come across many collectors, dealers and even repairers who think rolexes are very overrated, but that is just their opinion which i have obviously been swayed by.

i've now sold the majority of pieces (in process of going under hammer at large london auction house) to concentrate on collecting what i consider to be high end unique timepieces. perhaps i should take a  closer look at rolex, but most of them are watches that you can wear everyday and i already have enough daily wearers, Omega railmaster, Breitling avenger seawolf, cartier santos 100 (present, not my choice) all very strong bullet proof cased and reliably accurate so dont want to buy another watch like it. i also like large watches and most oysters seem to be on the small size at 34-36mm.

i still stand by my statement about the Uberbling diamond encrusted pieces which i think do the brand no favours at all and the fact that the difference in price between a sub and a seamaster make no sense. both divers watches, both COSC, both from highly respected brands, but sub is nearly double the price. if anyone can justify it i'd be pleased to hear it.

i like unusual looking watches and am now looking at buying a Martin Braun EOS which although ETA based has a very unique function which interests me. its also very fairly priced. the only 2 other brands that have this function are ferrari priced.

i meant no offence to any Rolex owners , they are just not my thing as i really dont think i'd wear it whatever the model as i have a watch or 2 for every occasion and watches need to be worn not left in the box.

maybe my opinion will be changed by friendly discussion

Graham

 

 

Hi, Graham,

One of the reasons I never even considered a Rolex forum on ThePuristS (I'm the founder of the site, but due to family medical issues and other reasons, my participation on the various boards has been severely curtailed of late) is that most people who seem to jump into any thread on the subject of Rolex are so balkanized in their "opinions" and "what they know" that there is no room left for meaningful discussion - Rolex is either held to be the be all and end all of all watches, or the exact opposite.

As with most such things, it is not so simple, but since most parties to such discussions were more interested in repeating the religious (or anti-) dogma, there didn't seem to be any point to have a Rolex forum here, which is dedicated to a PASSIONATE (yet dis-passionate) exchange of INFORMATION, as well as, of course, the sharing of opinion, recognized as such.

If more people were willing to remain open minded as you have been, as shown by your follow up, we might actually consider a Rolex forum...

Regarding Rolex movements being completely "in house" - I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet that Rolex movements, as much as any in the world, from whatever country (including Germany) are "in house."

Cheers,

TM

No message body

I was about 28. My cousin had just came back from Switzerland with a Tag on his wrist. I wanted one too. Got married at 29 and my wife said a Rolex would be nicer. "A Rolex?". We looked for used ones but we thought it was too expensive. At age 32 came my first Tag Heuer Serie 4000 quartz, purchased in Aruba, while appreciating our windsurfing escapade. On departure day, just before the plane leaves, I rushed to the airport's "La Swiss" and bought my wife the same watch. My passion for horology started to invade me: I had to have an automatic, certified chronometer watch. I bought a Tag Heuer 6000. But all that time, I kept remembering my wife's word: "Rolex would be nicer". Therefore Rolex became my ultimate goal! Eventually, at the new milleneum, at age 40, my dream would come true: I bought my Explorer II. I carefully selected this model because I found it to be the most "low profile" Rolex you can get.  I promised my wife "that was it. No need to worry about watches anymore". I later got my wife a Tudor Hydronaut, at least she would be part of the family. But...I had flashes of this company representing my passion for sailing/windsurfing: Ulysse Nardin. "The anchor" and the nice blue tone were my inspiration yet at the time they had not produced a diver's version full SS. Two years ago, I came across this Maxi Marine Diver. That was it, love at first sight!! My wife gave me the blessing, if this is what I really wanted. But what about Rolex's reputation, reliability and my ultimate watch? My feelings won. I still, to this day, "almost" miss my Explorer. In early 2007 someone gave me a very nice book on IWC. I always had a sweetspot for this brand, mainly the Ingenieur and their superb SS wristband concept. Here's that bug again...my feelings went for a GST Rattrapante since I never had a chronograph.

In the past, before buying a new timepiece, I would sell my current watch to one of my friends. I would get to see around all my previous watches and not feel regretful. This time, something unusual happened: I kept my UN and got the IWC anyway. I am stepping into the DANGER zone...and looking at Rolex again.

Yves

 

I wanted a robust, acurate clockwork watch that I could dive with and had good luminosity (preserving the night vision). It failed me on the last point. Mind you it could be down to my advancing age as well:

It was my first really expensive mechanical watch, but not too long after I bought it I realized my mistake.  I eventually traded it for a Blancpain.  Not much chance I will ever get another Rolex.

Cheers, Al

My first mechanical watch was a Omega Speedmaster Cal 1863, after wearing a Victorinox quartz for 5 years.  This was followed by a 5513 submariner 6 months later.  A couple of Air Kings followed later.  One was given to my granddad on his 80th birthday.

To digress, however hard I tried, I can't bring myself to put money down for a brand new Rolex off the shelf.  I guess it has something to do with a near purchase years ago. I think it was back in 1998, I had the opportunity to purchase a white face GMT II for a 'reasonable' MRSP and an attractive discount.  I passed on that opportunity as back then, wearing a 'couple' thousand bucks worth of a watch was unthinkable.  Seeing how much the price for Rolexe's, especially the sports model, has inflated today, totally barings me back to earth everytime I get the itch to pull the trigger on that nice spanking Rolex Explorer in the display case.

...

Hi, Carl,

My first watch was a pin lever chronograph that stopped when one stopped the chronograph, ticked so loud you probably wouldn't be able to get through airport security today, had a Lamborghini Miura engraved on the case back, and was sold in the back of comic books as a Porsche chronograph.

My first "significant" watch by common definition was a VC, followed by an AP; I've been collecting AP ever since.

I've never been attracted to Rolex (for various reasons, some "Purist" and most not) but I respect them for what they do, and find it sad that so many people love them or hate them for all the wrong reasons. (I don't just mean "wrong" as in that they disagree with me, but wrong as in based upon wrong facts and assumptions.)

See Suitbert's comments above (and the post he was responding to) for an example; I started ThePuristS to address exactly this sort of scenario, and to give people like Suitbert a forum and soapbox from which to correct misinformation.

 

Cheers,

 

TM

when i was 21 i picked up a used Submariner, not vintage, but recent.  i met my future wife soon after that and on a trip to Europe she bought me a Patek for my birthday.  it's been a love affair ever since; PP's and her, but not in that order.

cheers,

elliot

It was the very first watch I dreamt of!
Since I saw "Thomas Magnum'"s father giving it to him, I dreamt of! LOLOL
I promised to myself that one day, I'll get one.
It was my 1st decent and superb watch, and see now how I'm done!
ROFL



Ooooops, she made some babies! LOL