Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Who's got a nice watch? Traditional watches only, no smartwatches please.
- Thread starter JW8725
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
1. It is the "king of watches".
2. They can afford it.
2. They can afford it.
That's understandable. My cousin had one. I never was able to ask him what made him buy the Rolex before he passed away. But he had a 1985 Gold President Day Date with diamond markers.
Last edited:
There's a lot to like about Rolex. Their Oyster case set the standard for waterproofing. At least for a mechanical watch, their movements are universally pretty durable. From a watchmaker's perspective, the movements are well-finished and it's easy to appreciate the fact that pivots "drop" into the jewels and rarely require "fiddling"(American-made Hamiltons are the only others movements I've worked on that will consistently do this).
Watches like the Explorer, Datejust, and Submariner are iconic. For a watch guy, I still smile every day when I put on my Datejust. I don't wear it for attention-in fact if I did I'd be sorely disappointed as no one ever notices it.
Again, from a watchmaker's perspective, I also dislike some of their practices. In the past few years, they've become unbelievably "tight" with supplying parts to independent watchmakers. Unlike many other makers, they don't sell anything to material houses-parts are only available directly from Rolex, and they have very high standards for getting a parts account. Because of this, many watchmakers will use aftermarket parts like crystals or crowns in the course of service, and Rolex has been known to declare an otherwise genuine watch a "fake" and refuse to service it just because of a replacement(aftermarket) crown.
Watches like the Explorer, Datejust, and Submariner are iconic. For a watch guy, I still smile every day when I put on my Datejust. I don't wear it for attention-in fact if I did I'd be sorely disappointed as no one ever notices it.
Again, from a watchmaker's perspective, I also dislike some of their practices. In the past few years, they've become unbelievably "tight" with supplying parts to independent watchmakers. Unlike many other makers, they don't sell anything to material houses-parts are only available directly from Rolex, and they have very high standards for getting a parts account. Because of this, many watchmakers will use aftermarket parts like crystals or crowns in the course of service, and Rolex has been known to declare an otherwise genuine watch a "fake" and refuse to service it just because of a replacement(aftermarket) crown.
I think that Patek, AP, Vacheron, Lange and Breguet owners would disagree with that statement.
Well, in other news, I got a chance to clean the chronograph I pictured in post #3172.
It was a fun experience. I've cleaned a couple of Waltham chronographs, but it's been probably two years since I messed with one. Lugrin's Patent chronograph is actually relatively simple, but there are still a lot of springs and other parts that have to be set up exactly right.
The chronograph mechanism is driven by two large gold wheels with extremely fine teeth. One of these is on the 4th wheel, and turns whenever the watch is running(once per minute). The second is the same diameter but is the chronograph center wheel-the sweep hand is attached directly to it. This wheel also has the the heart cam on it that is responsible for the "flyback" mechanism(resetting the hand to zero). There is an idler between the two wheels-a "fork" is used to raise and lower then center wheel to cause it to engage and disengage from the idler.
I had to take the chrongraph bridge off a dozen times to try different position of the idler, but finally got it right after I found a side view on the internet.
The bad thing about these Waltham chronos is that the same two screws hold both the chronograph bridge and the mainplate in place-this means that you risk disrupting the rest of the train every time you mess with the chronograph. Fortunately, the fit on this watch is excellent and the pivots drop into jewels with little trouble-much as I mentioned above with Rolex.
It's running well and looks great. The only problem is that now I find that the sweep hand is not tight on the pipe. This means that the hand gets "hung" part of the way around the dial(even though the chrono works are still running) and also that when the hand "flies back" it tends to overshoot zero. Sometime this afternoon, I'm going to try staking the hand onto the pipe tighter-I've been thinking since last night about how best to do it. I think it might be time to get out my teeny tiny Star staking set, which I use about once a year but really is a work of art.
It was a fun experience. I've cleaned a couple of Waltham chronographs, but it's been probably two years since I messed with one. Lugrin's Patent chronograph is actually relatively simple, but there are still a lot of springs and other parts that have to be set up exactly right.
The chronograph mechanism is driven by two large gold wheels with extremely fine teeth. One of these is on the 4th wheel, and turns whenever the watch is running(once per minute). The second is the same diameter but is the chronograph center wheel-the sweep hand is attached directly to it. This wheel also has the the heart cam on it that is responsible for the "flyback" mechanism(resetting the hand to zero). There is an idler between the two wheels-a "fork" is used to raise and lower then center wheel to cause it to engage and disengage from the idler.
I had to take the chrongraph bridge off a dozen times to try different position of the idler, but finally got it right after I found a side view on the internet.
The bad thing about these Waltham chronos is that the same two screws hold both the chronograph bridge and the mainplate in place-this means that you risk disrupting the rest of the train every time you mess with the chronograph. Fortunately, the fit on this watch is excellent and the pivots drop into jewels with little trouble-much as I mentioned above with Rolex.
It's running well and looks great. The only problem is that now I find that the sweep hand is not tight on the pipe. This means that the hand gets "hung" part of the way around the dial(even though the chrono works are still running) and also that when the hand "flies back" it tends to overshoot zero. Sometime this afternoon, I'm going to try staking the hand onto the pipe tighter-I've been thinking since last night about how best to do it. I think it might be time to get out my teeny tiny Star staking set, which I use about once a year but really is a work of art.
I agree those brands are much more exclusive but the vast majority of average people have never heard of them. If you ask somebody to name a luxury watch, I bet nine times out of ten they'll say Rolex. Most of those people wouldn't notice a Rolex if it was under their nose however lol. The brand is associated with sports and events but the likes of Patek and AP are only really known by watch enthusiasts and wealthy people who can afford that sort of brand. I suppose Rolex could claim to be the 'king of watches' based on perception and notoriety alone even if there are much better and more expensive options on the luxury market. If that makes sense? lol
It does make sense and I totally agree. Most people will see Rolex as the pinnacle of horology due to the brand image, relatively high value and excellent marketing. I'd personally love to own a Datejust, Explorer and Sub but I'd know that I didn't have the "king of watches" on my wrist. One of these days I'll pull off the perfect heist and own a Nautilus
The vast majority of average people does not pay attention at all to the watch they wear. Rolex is better known as they launched more aggressive ad campaigns.
Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin, Audemar Piguet or IWC Schaffhausen are masterpieces. There is a saying even "it is accurate like a Schaffhausen".
I happened to live near Patek in Geneva for many years. Was invited numerous times to visit the factory. It was amazing.
Around here at least, Rolex has a HUGE presence in equestrian sports-both in racing and in more "traditional" disciplines.
They are the official timekeeper of Keeneland, which is a fairly well known racetrack in Lexington, KY. There's also the Rolex 3-day event at the KY Horsepark, the winner of which is presented with Datejust.
Interestingly enough, Longines sponsors the timekeeping at a lot of other, better known tracks. I always wear a Longines when I go to Churchill Downs for that very reason
Nicely phrased. (And yes, the inverted commas make that quote).
Very interesting post.
Apart from the current mid sized Datejust, - which is an elegant and discreet watch - I actually don't like many of the modern Rolexes (some of which have been posted here). They are too big, too loud, and too 'in-your-face', some of them scream borderline 'bling-bling'. Personally, I prefer the stylish and understated elegance of the old classic watches from the 1950s and 1960s.
This means that my personal preference are those gorgeous Datejust models from the 1950s; if I were ever to buy a Rolex, it is one of those that I would seek out.
Oh, yes, agreed; IWC, too.
Wow. Now, that must have been extremely interesting. I'd certainly happily accept an invitation to visit the Patek Philippe factory - I suspect it was a fascinating experience.
Around here at least, Rolex has a HUGE presence in equestrian sports-both in racing and in more "traditional" disciplines.
They are the official timekeeper of Keeneland, which is a fairly well known racetrack in Lexington, KY. There's also the Rolex 3-day event at the KY Horsepark, the winner of which is presented with Datejust.
Interestingly enough, Longines sponsors the timekeeping at a lot of other, better known tracks. I always wear a Longines when I go to Churchill Downs for that very reason
Nice to see a reference to Longines, a rather underrated and undeservedly unknown brand who have made some lovely (and affordable) classy watches.
Oh don't mind me and my "Rolex GMT Master 2 Batman" here. Points to anyone that spots what's wrong with this
Oh don't mind me and my "Rolex GMT Master 2 Batman" here. Points to anyone that spots what's wrong with this
What's up with all these fake watches in the thread all of a sudden?
Even as a noob to spotting fake Rolex's - I can tell the crown isn't facing "striaght up" like it shouldOh don't mind me and my "Rolex GMT Master 2 Batman" here. Points to anyone that spots what's wrong with this
Well, if it intended as an educational & instructional set of posts, I have absolutely no quarrel with it……...
That isn't really important.
The flaw here is that the gmt hand is under the hour hand, making that watch a faux gmt piece of junk probably from Guangzhou
It's frightening how well copied some of the fakes are. There was a thread on WUS a while back with a German article where a fake Rolex Sub with a ceramic bezel was so good, quite a few members struggled to spot the differences. I really don't get fakes personally and can't see the point in them.
it's really easy to understand considering fine watches are essentially men's jewelry and a statement about style, status and wealth.
you may not like watches for those reasons but most people do buy watches for those reasons.
Since most fakes can't be distinguished apart from real ones at a distance, it makes sense that people buy fakes.
however, truth is that nobody really cares about watches.
even if you have a 500k minute repeater from patek, only a connoisseur will be able to tell how special it is, and as such, it is completely pointless to buy a fake watch that fools 99% of the people, since it's only those 1% who will really recognize it as a nice watch (and probably able to tell that it's a fake).
I suppose if somebody wants to fool others it's a good reason why they'd buy a fake. I just meant I don't understand them from a personal perspective. I love watches and enjoy looking at them on my wrist. If I had a fake Rolex it would be hard to enjoy it because I'd know what it is, if that makes sense?
I encountered a fake Rolex recently. A client came in for a meeting with his shirt sleeves rolled up and he had a ceramic bezel Rolex GMT. Across the table it looked real and I complimented him on it. He handed it to me not admitting what it was and was saying how he'd always wanted a Rolex. I said 'me too, I love my watches'... It was at that point he admitted it was fake. He apparently bought it off a replica/fake site for 300 Euros. The hand stack was in the wrong order and the font was wrong.
I agree with your point about most people not noticing watches generally. I said the exact same thing some posts back.
I think my next watch is going to be the Seiko 'Cocktail Time'. I've fancied it for quite a while.
I think a lot of the higher quality ones are made as counterfeits and not sold as cheap fakes but are passed off on the second hand market as the genuine item. My friend is a jeweller and got stung when he bought a used Submariner last year. From the outside it looked genuine and even came boxed with all the paperwork but his expert repairer suspected the movement was beating at the wrong frequency and it was confirmed as soon as he checked it closer with a loupe and popped off the back. He was lucky because he had bought it from another jeweller and got a refund but you can just imagine how many are duped when buying from eBay or Craigslist.
Which is why if you really value something, - such as a good watch - never buy one from Craigslist or eBay.
There is no higher quality fake, in the sense that they are manufactured any differently.
Almost all fake watches come from China and "higher quality" ones are sold just at a higher price.
It's all counterfeit goods with questionable innards and since the most amazing thing about traditional mechanical watches is the craftmanship and workmanship that go inside (as well as the casing), most of the value is lost in a fake watch, although it is priced to reflect that.
Almost all fake watches come from China and "higher quality" ones are sold just at a higher price.
It's all counterfeit goods with questionable innards and since the most amazing thing about traditional mechanical watches is the craftmanship and workmanship that go inside (as well as the casing), most of the value is lost in a fake watch, although it is priced to reflect that.