markkeenan
400
Which Rolex do you think is acceptable in a serious collection?
Over the years I have noticed that most serious collectors do not really give Rolex watches the time of time, and vie versa with Rolex collectors. However if one is looking for a rugged in-house dual time watch it is very hard to overlook Rolex, and likewise a good robust diving watch.
Between the Submariner, Green Submariner, Sea Dweller, GMT II, Daytona and the Explorer II - which would you say has a place in any collection based on technical merit?
Personally I feel ther is no substiute for the Explorer II for an in-house dual time watch (apart from JLC - which are quite delicate oustside the compressor range). I also feel that the Steel Daytona seems to get into most collections just because it is so hard to get.
Bit of a stupid question I know - but thought i would ask it anyway.
Mark
Which Rolex do you think is acceptable in a serious collection?
Over the years I have noticed that most serious collectors do not really give Rolex watches the time of time, and vie versa with Rolex collectors. However if one is looking for a rugged in-house dual time watch it is very hard to overlook Rolex, and likew...
Any that has a free-sprung balance and a Breguet overcoil -- that is, any Rolex.
Whatever your opinion of the finishing of a Rolex, there is no getting around the fact that every Rolex (made within the last couple or three decades) has a free-sprung balance and Breguet overcoil. They're not just there for decoration, either; Rolexes k...
What about Tudor?
"I also have great respect for the fact that Rolex does not have a lower tier of watches with poorer movements. If you judge watches as a "purist," that is, by comparing the worst products of each company rather than cherry-picking the best, Rolex come ou...
Tudor was and is acknowledged as a separate brand.
When you get a Tudor, you can't be surprised that it doesn't contain a Rolex movement. There are many other companies that market themselves based on fine watchmaking, but if you look inside their lower-end offerings expecting a movement that reflects the...
But in the past the cases were identical
For example the Tudor and Rolex Submariners used identical cases, case backs and bezels. I believe both even used the same Triplock crown. In the case of a watch like the Sub, I personally think the case and crown are far more important than the movement....
AFAIK,....
...and have seen - cases are similar, but not identical. There are a lot of more or less subtle differences. They're signed "Rolex Oyster case" though - which refers to the type of case. Crowns often were identical. Best regards Suitbert
That's interesting...
Hi Suitbert, I was led to belive that the cases (for the Tudor and Rolex Submariner in the 1970s till the 1980s or maybe early 1990s) were identical, although not polished/finished in the same way. And then Rolex switched to a higher grade of steel (316L?...
Perhaps I was knit picking :-)
Hi SJX, I was more talking about the vintage pieces, let's say 60ties ... I believe identical would mean exactly the same, basically that one could swap movements and dial and any detail is identical - which I don't believe ist correct. I'm pretty sure th...
Definitely some of the vintage pieces...
Like the flared Prince or triple-date with the star markers (the ref. eludes me). Or these... For modern Rolex watches I'd pick either the Sea-Dweller or the steel Daytona, those are important timepieces. - SJX This message has been edited by SJX on 2007-...
My opinion
IMO, Rolex is reliable but boring. Brand awareness outside the watch collectors world is no.1, there is no single doubt about it. I do not think is a 'must have' for collectors, especially if u come across innovative and interesting brands like JLC, GO, A...
Boring?
In terms of complications, yes. But that misses the point. Rolex is one of the most important, if not the most important, single brands because of the impact it has had on watch design, style, size. From a historical standpoint, Rolex is hardly, hardly bo...
still boring.
Well I do have a rolex, I still find it bland from dial design, complication to innovation. It doesn't excite me as much as other brands do. Sorry I won't change my opinion, whether you like it or not. Until they come out with something refreshing and inn...
I Still Disagree
I just wonder...have any of the people posting in this string ever seen a watch made, or looked into a Rolex assembly in comparirson to, say, a Jaquet Droz or one of Thomas Prescher's new models? The real question is: Does Rolex have good quality control?...
Well, if your quibble is with. . .
. . . the original assertion that "every serious collection should have a Rolex" obviously that's just a bit of rhetoric designed to point out that Rolex makes much more horologically serious watches than is generally realized. I wouldn't waste too much e...
yeah, what he said!
Thanks, Jack, nice to see you "in the neighborhood!" Hope all's well, TM
