The new Rolex, no thank you

I think you definitely pay a premium for the Rolex name but I would have a hard time saying any of Rolex's direct competition is actually better quality. I have had a Rolex Sub for about 18 years now that I bought new. I have not had to service the watch once and I wore it daily for about ten years. I have not been as lucky with some of my other Rolexs but I think that is pretty darn good.

 

I have 4 Rolex (SS Daytona, GMT II, Datejust and an Explorer II).

You simply cannot beat the quality. I wear my GMT everyday, and have never had a problem with it.

 

+1 I've been daily wearing my GMT II for over 5 years and never had a problem either. Keeps great time and goes with any outfit or occasion.

 

You're either misinformed, or know very little about the mechanics of a watch, sorry.

 

I will give Rolex credit for making great strides in recent years, particularly on their bracelets. This is a classic article though that shows many of their shortcomings:

http://www.timezone.com/library/horologium/horologium0036

 

So mechanically they are supposed to be far more advanced than others in the price range? This may be true as well. I just can't buy one because of the initial exterior quality of the watch when you first see it/wear it. The bracelet feels cheap and light. The clasp is very loose, and the casing seems dated. That's just my opinion. If I get excited about a new luxury car that is supposed to be the most advanced/best made, and when I get there to see it, the doors are rattly and light when I close them, the leather feels cheap etc. then I don't want to buy the car.

 

Obviously you have never owned one.

 

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.

I am a watch enthusiast and have a sizeable watch collection including many modern and vintage Rolex watches.

While Rolex is not my favorite brand, their quality, especially compared to their price, is excellent.

You keep making up that people are saying that Rolex is supposed to be "far more advanced than other watches in their price range." No one said that but you.

- Rolex's bread and butter models are their stainless steel sport models. They are, retail, about $5k to $7k. That's peanuts in the world of high end watches.

- With normal cleaning and service any Rolex made in the last 40 years will run pretty much indefinitely. How much better should they be?

- You're complaining about the clasp being "loose." What? The Glidelock clasp is, bar none, the best there is. Micro adjustable by the owner, without tools, for 20mm in 2mm increments. The bracelet feels "cheap and light." As compared to what, specifically?

- All of their bread and butter models are like money in the bank as far as value goes. They will nearly always be worth at least what you paid for them. What other personal possession that you use daily holds value that way.

A Blancpain Fifty Fathoms (a watch prized by collectors) is $14k retail and if you decide to move on from it you'll be fortunate to sell it for $10k and it will generally take weeks (if not months) to find a buyer. A Rolex DeepSea that sold for $7500 retail 2 years ago will sell in 24 hours for $8500 today. And thats assuming normal wear and tear.

I could go on for an hour off the top of my head. And Rolex isn't my favorite brand. But saying they are not good quality, or poor value, or whatever is misguided. It's like saying Ferrari's are slow and ugly because you're a Lambo guy.

 

It's just my opinion fellas, relax. When I handle/wear my Cartier Roadster XL or my Bvlgari Diagono Chrono, they feel solid, and the bracelets feel to be of much better quality than Rolex. I obviously have not ever owned a Rolex. I haven't owned one because like I stated before, I can't get past the exterior issues. I'm not saying that one watch is better than the other or that my watches are better than yours. I came to the conclusion of the mechanical side of the watch because of what LightGuy said, which was rolex is the best value without backing it up with any facts. I assumed mechanical superiority because in my opinion the exterior is sub-par. It's just my opinion!

Lightguy said

In luxury watchs nothing beats a used Rolex for value.
You can buy a used one, wear it for years, polish it up, and get most or all of your money back.
New ones hold value as well and the new crush by Rolex will only reinforce that.

I'm looking at older Sea-Dwellers or a used Blancpain 50 Fathoms.
I think the Rolex wins money-wise.

When you say the bracelet clasp is advanced, how so? Just because it is microadjustable? When you say that Rolex has the best value? Other than resale value, I heard no evidence. People buy things for different reasons. I'm not chastising anyone for owning rolexes, they're just not for me!

 

"Feel" is a poor judge of "quality."

Pics?

 

I really like the Rolex Oysterlock bracelets. Looking at the clasp design it doesn't look that brilliant but they seem to stay tight forever and they do not come undone easily. Also if you have ever seen one Patek Phillipe's gorgeous solid gold bracelets they have a very similar clasp.

 

For a long time Rolex used hollow links and stamped clasps, this has changed in recent years.

Rolex bracelets have vastly improved in recent years and can be argued to be the very best in the world.

This link mentions the new process Rolex use to create superb bracelets. If you haven't tried a new Rolex like the Milgauss or ceramic bezelled Submariner I urge you to have a look at one, you may be pleasantly surprised!

http://www.timezone.com/extras/200808025382

 

I am most definitely not a big Rolex fan personally, but it's silly to say they are not a quality watch. My only hangup with them is the folks who think they are the best watches made - it reminds me of the guy who buys a Cadillac and thinks it's the best car in the world, and has never heard of a Rolls Royce

Funny that the guy mentions the bracelet and clasp, because I actually think they are areas where Rolex shows they are well made. Then again, my Rolex's are late model and I know they went to solid links at some point, which may make a difference.

I do metal machining as part of my job and you can look at a Rolex under a magnifying glass and see that they most definitely put a lot of attention to detail in their watches. The style may not be for everyone, but it's certainly not a junk or low quality watch.

Maybe the earlier poster came across a fake?

 

The watches tried were definitely real. A submariner 2005ish, Presidential late 90s, and a GMT from around 2000-2001ish I believe. What materials and why are the bracelets better than other watches? I'm just trying to understand. The bracelets on the watches I observed were light and hollow like you stated before, which is why they seem cheap and brittle in my opinion. I know that the watch has to have some quality components in it somewhere, which justifies the high prices and resale. Nobody seems to be able to express why, just stating that I'm "misinformed and the way something feels and looks is not indicative of the quality." All I keep hearing is that the bracelet clasp is advanced, and the bracelets are the best, which is the one part that I refuse to agree with. How on earth can you say a hollow bracelet is the best? Are you kidding me?

 

A Rolex is a hard wearing watch and none of mine feel brittle. If they don't feel nice to you don't buy them. I do not know what you want us to prove. These watches last forever. I have my great grandfathers Rolex from the 50s and it still worked fine before I had it fully restored. Rolex doesn't become a powerful luxury brand by making s**t products. People would call them out on it and the value of the brand would be severely tarnished.

I think it speaks a volumes that a luxury item like a Rolex doesn't depreciate but appreciates especially when they make 200k watches a year. I have 9 of them and I could sell them all right now for more than I paid for them.

What makes your Diagono superior to a Rolex Daytona?

 

hey Brad, it's well worth looking at the link in my post above, it will answer your questions regarding the bracelet and quality. I really do urge you to view a watch like the milgauss or deep sea dweller at a dealer - quality has jumped forward a lot in the last few years.


Some extracts from the link are below; to let you know the article is written by one of the worlds most eminent and knowledgable watch specialists:


The simple facts are that Rolex is the only company in Switzerland who make all of their own precious metal case alloys. Everyone else buys finished materials, either already made into cases or ready to be made into cases. Rolex take in shipments of pure gold, copper, platinum and silver; smelt them in their own furnaces to their own formulae and then make the cases from scratch.

This allows Rolex to have alloys of gold quite different to everyone else’s with quite specific properties; for example the white gold used in Rolex watches is not rhodium plated, it retains its colour without this additional treatment, this is due to the fact that Rolex add a high proportion of palladium to their alloy. Most other companies would not go to this expense, but Rolex justify it as it allows cases to be refinished at their service centres on the same machinery as the other watches without having to be sent off for replating after the polishing is complete. Similarly, the story of their red gold ‘Everose’ is now well known; the copper in ordinary red gold will leach out with prolonged exposure to chlorine, through the process of electrolysis. *This turns the red gold to yellow gold over time, although it would take a considerable amount of immersion in a swimming pool before the effects would be visible. But this was not good enough for Rolex, if people are paying a premium for red gold, then they should be able to expect it to remain red in all circumstances, including a daily swim. So, a new formula was developed where the copper content is ‘fixed’ in the alloy by the addition of 2% platinum.

You may not like the look of the Yachmaster II, but you cannot criticise the technology involved in that movement. Whilst others may decry the lack of ‘finishing’ on their movements, but they were the first company ever to standardise the balance bridge on all their movements, replacing the centuries old balance cock and thereby almost completely eliminating the problems of endshake whilst massively increasing the resistance of the watch to shocks. The truth is that Rolex is a very innovative company; it is just that its innovations are mostly invisible and designed to improve the product gradually.

 

Brad, I don't own a Rolex or any other multi-thousand dollar watch, but I must point out that you are being deliberately obtuse and obstinate. You claim above "nobody seems to be able to express why", yet in the two or three posts immediately above yours people did explain exactly why - Rolex apparently has made big improvements in the design and quality of their bracelets in the past decade, including solid links etc. Yet you insist that hollow links are the Rolex standard, you looked at 10 year old Rolex bracelets and weren't impressed, etc.

Since people have taken the time to express to you exactly why CURRENT Rolexes are better quality than older ones and do match other top quality watches, maybe you should actually have a look at a Rolex that's less than 10 years old before insisting that your decade-old impressions are still valid, or insisting that Rolex quality is the same sub-standard that you found a decade ago.

Or, if you have an axe to grind and aren't interested in pulling your head out of the sand, you can just carry on!

 

It's actually about 600-800k/year from what I have read.

 

Yep, closer to 1 million at their peak a few years back.

Patek alone make 40,000 watches a year.

 

FYI, I came across this review, which talks about how Rolex has addressed in newer models some of the criticisms of old. http://luxurytyme.com/en/rolex-reviews/review-the-rolex-gmt-master-ii-116713-ln-116710-ln/

I still think the GMT Master II is very cool and well-suited for someone who travels a lot.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I'd never wanted a Rolex until a friend recently bought a new Sea Dweller. It made me drool, and I want one.

When I bought my wifes gold Yachtmaster, I bought from an A/D and got something like 30% off of retail. I wonder if that dealer got his license pulled?

 

You should be able to get discounts like that on most non-stainless steel Rolexs.