Exactly...that's why I'm selling my NSX. Ford just turned 100, so I'm only buying their products from now on. I'll safely be able to own/drive Hondas again in 2048.
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Attention Watch Experts....
- Thread starter synth19
- Start date
Exactly...that's why I'm selling my NSX. Ford just turned 100, so I'm only buying their products from now on. I'll safely be able to own/drive Hondas again in 2048.
wow, this thread blew up since I last checked it!
Nice list! My daily wear at work is my Rolex Datejust because it's very conservative and slim. My daily wear for most days i'm in jeans is my Submariner. Admittedly, I also have the steel with black face and black bezel which i've seen become much more popular in the past 5-7yrs. I use to see the Gold and Steel with Blue face and Blue bezel in the 90s much more. I use to have this one but sold it for this steel/black in 2001. The beauty about your bread and butter watch brands is that resale is almost purely determined by condition based on my relatively newbie experience so far. If you keep it well maintained you will at least get your money back.. sometimes more.
Vega$ & 996 - I've heard of pros/cons for keeping them wound vs. not. To me, I personally feel that having to pull out the crown to wind everytime (sometimes quickly if you DON'T have a datejust type of watch) creates far more wear and tear. I've already broken the crown mechanism (stem & tube) on a watch and it was not cheap to fix! I guess if you only wear a particular watch once a month then it's probably not necessary to keep them wounded? I also try to keep all my watches in sync with a quarts. Over time it's easy to notice if automatic watches are running slow/fast because over say... a few months or so any given automatic can be 5 mins slow and in need of maintenance.
I completely agree with you! Also, to the folks that think people that buy a $5k watch is "trying to show off their wealth", I don't think is true for real watch aficionados. To me personally, I just have a fascination and appreciation for such small, precise machinery... especially the hand made pieces. I've seen some very gaudy watches that are $100k+ that are studded "ice" - to me... now that's trying to show off your wealth.
Just when I thought I made a decision, I'm going back to looking at Rolex. The liquid metal version of the Omega PO put things in perspective. Did I really want to pay 5k-ish for an Omega, when I could pay the same and get an arguably better built Rolex? I'm kinda looking at the Explorer I vs. the Submariner ND (for some reason, it looks cleaner without the date to me). I don't really need the rotating bezel, hence the reason I'm looking at the explorer. Although most Rolex owners will tell you that Rolex's look good with anything, I need something versatile- watch I can wear with a suit, sweater, or jeans...
IMO, the rotating bezel gives the sub a more "sporty" look.
Submariner ND:
Explorer I: (new 39mm version)
IMO, the rotating bezel gives the sub a more "sporty" look.
Submariner ND:
Explorer I: (new 39mm version)
How big is your wrist? Rolex decided to stay small as they felt that big watches(44 mm+) are just a fad. I think they are regretting their decision today.
Personally - Rolex is a watch my Dad or grandpa would wear. That's just my opinion but one shared by many men who are younger than 40. Their build quality though is outstanding and the steel they use can take a beating!
My daily: Tag carrera.
Sporty: Panerai 176 with a rubber band.
Lux: IWC Big Pilot with black leather strap. It has a 7 day power reserve. It is truely a work of mechanical art.
Personally - Rolex is a watch my Dad or grandpa would wear. That's just my opinion but one shared by many men who are younger than 40. Their build quality though is outstanding and the steel they use can take a beating!
My daily: Tag carrera.
Sporty: Panerai 176 with a rubber band.
Lux: IWC Big Pilot with black leather strap. It has a 7 day power reserve. It is truely a work of mechanical art.
^ I have a small wrist. 44mm and larger looks pretty silly on my wrist.
Huh? That's exactly why people (including myself) bought the Rolex. They have stayed true to their heritage and tradition which is why the value of their watches remain relatively good. I don't think they are regretting it at all.FWIW, I too have a small wrist the Submariner is the absolute perfect size for it. My Brietling B01 is a 43.5 mm and as big as I can possibly go and even looks a bit too big.
It's a great watch, but looks a bit too sporty. I'm leaning more towards the new explorer I (39mm) or Submariner (No Date). Submariner will most likely be my first choice. I just need to test fit both before I make my final decision. I've been all over the place in this thread.
regretting? maybe... but maybe not
One of the reasons big watches are fads is because they are not functionally sensible. Anything but a true chronograph has no real functional need to be big or oversized. The visually impaired does have a functional need for a bigger dial but luckily most of us just need a watch that's big enough to be read and just big enough to be tolerable on the wrist. Then again... women have been wearing 6" heels in the name of fashion for decades now so what do I know...
Rolex wouldn't be Rolex if they followed the fads. Hence, get a Nixon if you want to be fashionable by today's standards. I was hoping Santa would have given me one for x'mas! haha
Synth - might you reconsider the date option on your Submariner? I think it's worth it economically if you consider to resell later but more importantly the "date bubble" makes it distinctly Rolex too.
my daily since july of '95 is a gmt II (i had to look @ it to determine what model it is)... not a single scratch anywhere on the watch, period. i've had it serviced once in the time i've owned it.
good watch so far.
It's one of their signature aspects. Also a good way to spot a fake. A true Rolex will have 2.5x magnification on the date "bubble" while most fakes will have around 1.5x.
Interesting considering the original sub did not have the date. How about the explorer? I believe the explorer I never had the date?
There seems to be a lot of watch experts here
could you please give a comment on where Rado stands among the luxury watches?
I've always loved the Rado ceramica both for its looks and for its scratch resistance.
I desperately hate seeing scratches on my watch and I always end up taking it off in a lot of situations just to avoid hard dings. I would love to have a watch I can wear as a beater and still have it shine like new and when it is new its amazing to behold add to that.
But coming back to the question, where does Rado stand among high end brands?
could you please give a comment on where Rado stands among the luxury watches?
I've always loved the Rado ceramica both for its looks and for its scratch resistance.
I desperately hate seeing scratches on my watch and I always end up taking it off in a lot of situations just to avoid hard dings. I would love to have a watch I can wear as a beater and still have it shine like new and when it is new its amazing to behold add to that.
But coming back to the question, where does Rado stand among high end brands?
So many people think that because they're expensive and 'jewelry' they must be delicate. My cousin has worn his GMT II through half a dozen tours in Afghanistan without an scratch. Sapphire is tough and Rolex uses the highest quality in metals.
I almost added a Datejust to my nightstand yesterday. The auctioneer acknowledged my bid and every one, including the auction staff, thought I had the winning bid, but he insisted that someone else did. I'm more than a little pissed. The bid was only at $1050 and I was more than willing to go higher had I known that he thought someone else was the winning bid
I don't know off the top of my head, but I think like the Submariner, it comes in both options. Basically, from what I was told the magnification bubble affects the waterproof depth (uneven pressure on the glass). So watches made for deeper depths, like the Sea Dweller which is nearly identical to the Submariner, don't have the date bubble (in addition to other features). So whereas the Submariner is good for something like 1,000' the Sea Dweller is good for something like 2,000' to 4,000' depending on the year.
While I'm absolutely no expert and this is just my opinion only (which is pretty worthless actually), but based on my analysis of Rado I would put them at a somewhere between a basic and pseudo luxury watch:
http://chronocentric.com/watches/brands.shtml
This would be comparable to a Tag Heuer, Movado, Oris etc.
The factors I used to base this on:
1) Price range: Rado watches appear to have prices between $600 - $2,500 which puts it in the lower end of the luxury watch spectrum.
2) Availability: It appears Rado is also available at high end department stores (Macy'), as opposed to exclusively Authorized Dealers (AD), as such they are subject to discounts and limits their resale value and exclusivity. It also appears you can buy them online. Great for volume, not so good for exclusivity and pedigree.
3) Heritage: They've only been around since 1957, which makes them a very young watch company relatively speaking. While this isn't singularly the most important factor (Hublot being a perfect example of that), it doesn't help.
4) Movement: From what I could tell, they do not have their own in house movement and that really limits the value of the watch. So what you de facto pay for is a common movement mass produced by a movement manufacturer around a shell. It is that shell that is what you are paying for in the quality and exclusivity of the materials and build. It appears that Rado uses very high quality materials (high grade SS, Sapphire crystal, etc) and probably a good build with tight tolerances. You can almost price out the value of a watch that does not have in house movement on the materials used on the shell and what the value of that is worth (like jewelry). For example all watches using the same mass produced movement will be about the same value, and then once you start upgrading shell to gold or put diamonds on the bezel, you can directly add that to the value of the watch.
5) Demand and resale value: They appear to be fairly mass produced and so as such the resale value and demand appears to be fairly low. In a very quick eBay search, it appears that Rado watches have a very poor resale value and almost no collectability/vintage.
I know next to nothing about this company but based on what I was able to research here is what I was able to come up with. Again, I'm not watch expert and this is my opinon only (which again is pretty worthless).
Certina appears to be a very low basic luxury watch (bottom tier).
http://chronocentric.com/watches/brands.shtml
The factors I used to base this on:
1) Price range: Appear to have prices between $300- $1,500 which puts it in the lowest end of the luxury watch spectrum.
2) Availability: Hard to say as it appears their main market is in Europe, but as far as I can tell it seems readily available both online and in general department stores. Seems subject to heavy discounting and mass availability.
3) Heritage: They have been around for a while, which is a good thing, except only as a low end luxury watch maker. They haven't appeared to make a significant attempt to increase pedigree, instead being content with being a mass sales and marketing.
4) Movement: No in house movement and what's hurting them is that they appear to have an extensive Quartz movement product line up. That means that they are more akin to a Seiko or Citizen than a Omega or Breitling. Again another sign of being content being a mass producer of watches.
5) Demand and resale value: A quick eBay seach revealed limited resale value and vintage. Example: A perfectly working vintage 1950's Certina watch is going for about $50. Nice that it's even selling (as lesser watches would have broken or be disposed of) but not much of a resale value or demand.
What? I was at the gym doing some incline bench presses while I wrote that. I'm pretty good at typing with my toes while tossing some iron up. :biggrin::tongue:
I personally can't stand the date bubble but then again it is quite obvious I am not a fan of Rolex.
Regarding the mm size arguement. Rolex used to make 36 mm men's watches. If you notice their standard size is 39/40 mm now and they have Subs that are 42 mm so I would say are starting to follow the "fad"!:wink:
Regarding the mm size arguement. Rolex used to make 36 mm men's watches. If you notice their standard size is 39/40 mm now and they have Subs that are 42 mm so I would say are starting to follow the "fad"!:wink:
Thanks for the feedback VegasNSX and your opinion is worth taking.
I do love watches and I loved them since I was a kid. When I was growing up, one of my close relatives had a watch shop and he had a lot of Rolex, Omega, and Rado everywhere. They were second hand and their prices didn't drop at all. I'm not sure about the Rado, but the Rolex and Omega just kept their prices.
on another note, I'm still baffled by some of the comments I read here on how some owners of Rolex can use it on a daily bases and still keep it from scratches and dents.
The outer surface is made of metal isn't it? would that survive say an impact against the corner of a table without getting a scratch? (this is how I get most of my scratches on my watch)
I do love watches and I loved them since I was a kid. When I was growing up, one of my close relatives had a watch shop and he had a lot of Rolex, Omega, and Rado everywhere. They were second hand and their prices didn't drop at all. I'm not sure about the Rado, but the Rolex and Omega just kept their prices.
on another note, I'm still baffled by some of the comments I read here on how some owners of Rolex can use it on a daily bases and still keep it from scratches and dents.
The outer surface is made of metal isn't it? would that survive say an impact against the corner of a table without getting a scratch? (this is how I get most of my scratches on my watch)
I can only comment on my Rolex's (<---btw.. I felt like a douche typing that!)
I don't seem to have a problem keeping the face, bezel, crown, and most of the top surfaces scratch free. The problem I have is the bottom latch is pretty much just the opposite. You will also notice on older watches the links will have a bit more play between them. They aren't as "tight" as new. I find it comfortable.. like an old pair of jeans but it is a way to tell of wear and tear. I've noticed this less prominent on the Jubilee bands which I'm not a fan of personally but it is very comfortable. I haven't heard of the saphire scratching on a Rolex but i've had "saphire" glass scratch on other watches so i'm going to guess it's possible on any watch.
I do hope some of the other prime folks weigh in too. The watch industry has much more depth, from a collectors perspective, than cars. I'm a total newbie but i'm having fun learning.
Also, as far as a 50mm or bigger watch. I would get something like this Omega from the 1930s. It's stylish and can easily pass as "trendy" in today's standards I feel. Cheap too.
http://forums.watchuseek.com/f30/50mm-omega-211838.html
I have about as much style sense as a pair of flip flops so I wouldn't be surprised if 50mm becomes the norm soon enough.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
