Where is Rolex in the pyramid of Swiss watchmakers?

[explorer112]

Originally Posted by Atomant

It doesn't matter to me. IMO Rolex is in a world of it's own 'a league of it's own'. This is also the reason why I don't feel envious of people with PP, AP or any other brand with significantly higher value. I choose Rolex because its a Rolex.

/agree 100% with the above.

Like others have said, the term "best" is highly subjective.

What is the saying? Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder.

[TempoKing]

Originally Posted by bscepter

breguet, patek, vacheron, franck muller, blancpain... i think these are more like small sports car companies, like königsegg or pagani - hand-beaten panels and all that. whereas i'd put rolex up there with BMW and mercedes: dependable luxury based on pure engineering precision that allows (relatively) mass production.

Hummm..I do not like the comparison between Pagani and Patek

Pagani is a small manufacturer but..buys his engines from
Mercedes-Benz M180-V12 and builds his cars from
Carbon Fibre with Aluminum Sub-Frames fairly easy stuff.

Patek on the other hand builds the most complicated movements
on earth and is the UNDISPUTED KING of horology.

Yes Rolex produces more mechanical watches than anyone else
in Switzerland that are indeed ROLogi EXcuisitus ....but is not the best watchmaker out there - by far.

Once a watchmaker told me
Like you want to climb mount Kilimanjaro...wearing Gucci loafers.

[ArcticMoose]

Originally Posted by TempoKing

Like you want to climb mount Kilimanjaro...wearing Gucci loafers.

Heh, best illustrative comparison yet!

It seems either the elusive triangle is a myth, or it is true that the watch connoisseurs out there are honoring their gentleman's agreement forcing us plebs to make uninformed watch purchasing decisions.

[speedo]

to me rolex is simply the best. a good compromise between craftsmanship, durability, beauty and purpose. not cheap, not affordable to everyone, so it holds a bit of exclusivity but not too expensive either so there is a chance that even i will buy one new one day.
i do not really like ap's too sporty models but find pp a bit boring. i reckon that haute horolgerie is an art for art's sake since tourbillons are less purposeful than men's nipples.

and btw, i am a bit surprised to see that many of the people here have rolexes just because they can't afford other more expensive brands. i thought that it was a rolex forum.

[dannyny]

Originally Posted by vancity

These threads really turn into a circle jerk with rolex owners.

I LOVE my 16750 GMT.....but I've always considered rolex to be middle of the pack when it comes to luxury watches. There also seems to be a lot of omega bashing in these here forums....IMO, rolex and omega are pretty much on par these days when it comes to the quality of build.

x2 daytona instead of the 16750 gmt

[JJ Irani]

With Cleopatra!!

[drtooth73]

I think Rolex Seadweller is the best watch!

As far as the pyramid: the top is comprised of the big three:
Patek, Audemars, and Vacheron.
The lower levels are harder to classify.
There are a few watch manufactures that have an entry level price of $50000, like FPJ, with the owner checking every little screw himself.
Rolex by itself is a superb value, plus its great looking watch, and easy to sell if needed.
As far as marketing, Omega beat Rolex to the new huge China market, and established itself as "the luxury watch" there.

[Widows Son]

Interesting topic which always seems to end in a slugfest!!!!! Rolex makes some great tool watches and some nice casual watches. To compare them with a dress watch like PP, VC, JLC, or Lange, doesn't make much sense. Take a 50 year old Rolex to a RSC with a major breakage and they'll laugh you out of the store. Do the same with a PP and they'll make the part. Rolex's are mass produced, sort of like a Cadillac or Lincoln. The movements on a PP are a work of art. Not as rugged as a Rolex, but then again they weren't designed to be used scuba diving or pounding nails. I love my Rolex's, but when I put on a suit or tux, I reach for a vintage Omega, IWC, or Hamilton.

[ArcticMoose]

Originally Posted by Widows Son

Interesting topic which always seems to end in a slugfest!!!!!

That was certainly not my intention, I see now that I should have been much more clear in the first post.

I simply wanted to know if that damn document actually exists. :-)

[Widows Son]

Originally Posted by ArcticMoose

That was certainly not my intention, I see now that I should have been much more clear in the first post.

I simply wanted to know if that damn document actually exists. :-)

I never thought that was your intent After awhile you'll recognize the fire starters, for example........Do men's watches look good on ladies????, can I wear a Sub with a TuX????, is a Rolex better than an Omega????, is a 24 MM DJ a woman's watch????, what constitutes a dress watch????, you get the idea.

[ArcticMoose]

Originally Posted by Widows Son

I never thought that was your intent After awhile you'll recognize the fire starters, for example........Do men's watches look good on ladies????, can I wear a Sub with a TuX????, is a Rolex better than an Omega????, is a 24 MM DJ a woman's watch????, what constitutes a dress watch????, you get the idea.

Not to mention "Is Rolex a tool watch?"

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

With Cleopatra!!

I hereby present the prize for best reply so far.

[CORPORATE]

only in rolex forum...all our rolex watches are no.1

[rolexertion]

Many people will say the usual suspects, Patek, AP, VC, JLC, are at the top, not to speak of the Richard Milles and Greubel Forseys and similarly stratospherically-priced baubles. I disagree. A watch is for telling time. Multiple-axis tourbillons, chimes, equations-of-time and other hoopla are less than useless at improving the telling of time. Polishing the visible facets of the plates, wheels and bridges as though they were the Crown Jewels of England doesn't make a watch a better timekeeper either.

I have yet to find a brand of mechanical watch that keeps time more consistently, more accurately, under more extreme conditions, or for longer without necessary service, than Rolex. To me, that's what places them at the tippy-top of the pyramid. In fact, they might be floating a few feet above it.

[Paracentesis]

Originally Posted by rolexertion

Many people will say the usual suspects, Patek, AP, VC, JLC, are at the top, not to speak of the Richard Milles and Greubel Forseys and similarly stratospherically-priced baubles. I disagree. A watch is for telling time. Multiple-axis tourbillons, chimes, equations-of-time and other hoopla are less than useless at improving the telling of time. Polishing the visible facets of the plates, wheels and bridges as though they were the Crown jewels of England doesn't make a watch a better timekeeper either.

I have yet to find a brand of mechanical watch that keeps time more consistently, more accurately, under more extreme conditions, or for longer without necessary service, than Rolex. To me, that's what places them at the tippy-top of the pyramid. In fact, they might be floating a few feet above it.

For starters, PPs are more accurate than Rolexes. You want "tough"? Try a steel Nautilus. ;-)

[Zed Homme]

Originally Posted by rolexertion

Many people will say the usual suspects, Patek, AP, VC, JLC, are at the top, not to speak of the Richard Milles and Greubel Forseys and similarly stratospherically-priced baubles. I disagree. A watch is for telling time. Multiple-axis tourbillons, chimes, equations-of-time and other hoopla are less than useless at improving the telling of time. Polishing the visible facets of the plates, wheels and bridges as though they were the Crown Jewels of England doesn't make a watch a better timekeeper either.

I have yet to find a brand of mechanical watch that keeps time more consistently, more accurately, under more extreme conditions, or for longer without necessary service, than Rolex. To me, that's what places them at the tippy-top of the pyramid. In fact, they might be floating a few feet above it.

[/QUOTE]

I disagree, if I want to know the time, I'll check my cell phone. With its constant updates, it is more accurate than any watch at any price. I wear watches because they make me smile, is there any other good reason to spend thousands on a Rolex/Omega/PP/RM? Might as well buy a Gshock, which is more accurate and a much better value than any of the watches mentioned here. Having a beautiful movement does increase the fun for me. While Rolex movements are accurate and robust, they are neither pretty nor sophisticated. On that same note, tourbillons do make mechanical watches more accurate. Knowing that a mechanical device can keep track of not just the date, but the month and year and leap years is also an incredible feat. Rolex does come up short in this aspect.

[Zed Homme]

Originally Posted by Paracentesis

For starters, PPs are more accurate than Rolexes. You want "tough"? Try a steel Nautilus. ;-)

Agreed, I think these "Rolex uber alles" posts stem from a lack of experience or exposure to other brands....

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

With Cleopatra!!

Hey JJ, good to hear from you. Hows it going?

[rolexertion]

Originally Posted by Paracentesis

For starters, PPs are more accurate than Rolexes. You want "tough"? Try a steel Nautilus. ;-)

I have not seen documentation that shows PP to be particularly accurate, or that they keep the same timing for long periods of time. They may, but I have not seen it. I know that someone on this forum asked the owners of new Sub-Cs to report their timing accuracy. There was not one who reported a deviation beyond -0, +2 sec/day. That's consistent with my own experience with the Sub-C, mine runs +/-0. It doesn't vary a second in a week. Rolex seems to put more effort and investment into researching accuracy and consistency than anyone else in the industry, with the best results I have seen.

[rolexertion]

[QUOTE=Zed Homme;2311003]

I disagree, if I want to know the time, I'll check my cell phone. With its constant updates, it is more accurate than any watch at any price. I wear watches because they make me smile, is there any other good reason to spend thousands on a Rolex/Omega/PP/RM? Might as well buy a Gshock, which is more accurate and a much better value than any of the watches mentioned here. Having a beautiful movement does increase the fun for me. While Rolex movements are accurate and robust, they are neither pretty nor sophisticated. On that same note, tourbillons do make mechanical watches more accurate. Knowing that a mechanical device can keep track of not just the date, but the month and year and leap years is also an incredible feat. Rolex does come up short in this aspect.

Well, that's what makes horse racing. For me, there's not a factually correct word in your post except that Rolex movements are accurate and robust, nor an opinion I can agree with. I have lots of experience with other brands, believe me. With very rare exception I wouldn't give you tuppence ha'penny for any of them in comparison.

[Zed Homme]

Originally Posted by rolexertion

I have not seen documentation that shows PP to be particularly accurate, or that they keep the same timing for long periods of time. They may, but I have not seen it.

Just because you are unaware of PP's performance, doesnt mean that they do not perform well.

Originally Posted by rolexertion

I know that someone on this forum asked the owners of new Sub-Cs to report their timing accuracy. There was not one who reported a deviation beyond -0, +2 sec/day. That's consistent with my own experience with the Sub-C, mine runs +/-0. It doesn't vary a second in a week.

I wouldnt rely on posts found online to rate the performance of a subc. I have nine Rolexes and the most accurate one is my old 14060.

Originally Posted by rolexertion

Rolex seems to put more effort and investment into researching accuracy and consistency than anyone else in the industry, with the best results I have seen.

Really? Tell me what Rolex has done in the past 20 years to improve their accuracy? You do realize that the only reason they developed the blue spring is because ETA stopped supplying the old one right?

Originally Posted by rolexertion

Well, that's what makes horse racing. For me, there's not a factually correct word in your post except that Rolex movements are accurate and robust, nor an opinion I can agree with.

Study a little horology first my friend....

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm singling you out, but you represent the epitome of a stubborn Rolex owner...

[Widows Son]

Originally Posted by Widows Son

I never thought that was your intent After awhile you'll recognize the fire starters, for example........Do men's watches look good on ladies????, can I wear a Sub with a TuX????, is a Rolex better than an Omega????, is a 24 MM DJ a woman's watch????, what constitutes a dress watch????, you get the idea.

Sorry, I meant 34 MM. Too old to edit!!!

[aleiberman]

I'm more curious about which brand holds it value best the day after a retail purchase?

How does Rolex compare in this area to the other top brands...Patek, Vacheron, Blancpain, Breguet, A. Lange & Sohne, GO, and etc.?

[Paracentesis]

Originally Posted by rolexertion

I have not seen documentation that shows PP to be particularly accurate, or that they keep the same timing for long periods of time. They may, but I have not seen it.

"In the course of various levels of completion, the rate accuracy of Patek Philippe watches is tested in both raw and fully cased movements. The final check of rate accuracy is performed with kinetic simulators and the results must be in line with the following Patek Philippe precision benchmarks:

- For calibers with diameters of 20 mm or more, the rate accuracy must lie within the range of -3 and +2 seconds per 24 hours.
- For calibers with diameters of less than 20 mm, the rate accuracy must lie within the range of -5 and +4 seconds per 24 hours."

The above is taken from the PP website. Their parameters are tighter than COSC. This means that, in general, PPs are more accurate than Rolexes, and this is borne out in my own limited experience: my 5146 is more accurate than my 16610. It's also driving five complications rather than one.

[Zed Homme]

Originally Posted by aleiberman

I'm more curious about which brand holds it value best the day after a retail purchase?

How does Rolex compare in this area to the other top brands...Patek, Vacheron, Blancpain, Breguet, A. Lange & Sohne, GO, and etc.?

I'm not sure but would assume that rolex does quite well in this regard. However, limited production amongst the pinnacle of watchmakers actually sees their resale go up much like the daytonas a few years ago...

[dannyp]

It's the Cadillac: iconic, luxurious, (relatively) common, middle-of-the-road (in terms of "numeric average" when compared to the top and bottom of watches).

[Le Chef]

This thread is a lot of post rationalized chest beating and public shlong measurement. If you want to put Rolex at the top of your pyramid then do so. Everybody's pyramid is different based on multiple criteria, what your budget is, and what you think is worth paying for. If Rolex is at the top of your pyramid you should be happy and not need to defend your point of view.

[dannyny]

rolex is at par... plenty of brands that are "better"

[Dan2010]

Originally Posted by Le Chef

This thread is a lot of post rationalized chest beating and public shlong measurement. If you want to put Rolex at the top of your pyramid then do so. Everybody's pyramid is different based on multiple criteria, what your budget is, and what you think is worth paying for. If Rolex is at the top of your pyramid you should be happy and not need to defend your point of view.

He said shlong

Sorry, trying to take some of the seriousness outta this thread. Besides, EVERYONE knows Rolex is at the top of the pyramid!!

Got ya again!

[speedo]

Originally Posted by rolexertion

Many people will say the usual suspects, Patek, AP, VC, JLC, are at the top, not to speak of the Richard Milles and Greubel Forseys and similarly stratospherically-priced baubles. I disagree. A watch is for telling time. Multiple-axis tourbillons, chimes, equations-of-time and other hoopla are less than useless at improving the telling of time. Polishing the visible facets of the plates, wheels and bridges as though they were the Crown Jewels of England doesn't make a watch a better timekeeper either.

I have yet to find a brand of mechanical watch that keeps time more consistently, more accurately, under more extreme conditions, or for longer without necessary service, than Rolex. To me, that's what places them at the tippy-top of the pyramid. In fact, they might be floating a few feet above it.

i absolutely agree. well said!

[htc8p]

i dont see the need to push and shove.

if rolex suits me fine, i dont need to compare it to the other brands. i like rolex because it has a good service network, resale value, good quality, cant go wrong etc etc. = im satisfied

it doesnt matter what other people wear. or if everybody wears a rolex.