Rolex movements vs other brands

[Solar]

Hey all:

There are several reasons why I'm keen on the Rolex brand:

1. Long history (since the 1950's) of durable timepieces;

2. All movements are made in-house;

3. Classic, tastefull designs.

The fact that the Rolex movement is unique to Rolex is a deal maker for me. A number of high-end brands in the same price point often use a re-worked ETA movement that may be found in a more generic brand for thousands less....

I like the fact that my Rolex has a manufacture movement that the mass-produced movements do not reportedly come close to in terms of performance and durability.

I am not criticising other brands; I am just asking forum members here if the fact that your Rolex has an in-house movement is important to you.

And oh yeah, they look great....

[timebroker]

There are a lot of very good generic movements out there, that they are used by other brands is no problem for me whatsoever . Month ago or so I bought a pocket watch with a Lecoultre movement from 1885-1890, still runs great even if it was sitting in a different manufacturers case.

[worktolivelife]

that rolex movements are "now" in house was initially not given a thought, but what on reflection i find interesting is my opinion of other so callled "lesser brands" now which others may sneer at, i have a higher regard for!! ie the tag heuer link 36 which uses the same "EL P" movement of the daytona before it became in house. so which is the most important the brand or the movement, what we are buying into i guess is a personal issue

just my thoughts at this time!

steve

[frostie]

there are many good movements out there but i prefer the rolex movement

[roadcarver]

ETAs are also capable of chronometre certification and accuracy similar to what Rolex produces.

There are the raw ETA movements and there are the highly tuned ETAs - all cover the varying price points.

Omegas for example is part of the Swatch group which owns ETA, in essence have in house movements. Co-axial for example is very accurate.

But I also agree that Rolex time keeping is very accurate.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Rolex movements might not be as beautifully decorated and finished as for example Patek, Lange & Söhne and JlC movements, but the Rolex movements (classic example: Cal. 3135!! ) is one of the STURDIEST, most long-living and easiest serviceable movements of the world.

And properly regulated it is one helluva precise movement!

[frostie]

Bo has a good point about rolex movements. They are one of the most reliable

[Solar]

Let me be quick to reiterate, as I indicated earlier, I'm not looking to insult any other brand of ebauche or movement.

If you look at a number of other brands, they all use ETA base calibers, then distinguish themselves with design differences.

Buying Rolex in part holds an appeal to me because the brand is more than just a different housing for the same movement used by the majority of Swiss watchmakers.

I had seen another post here about why people like Rolex specifically, and I wanted to explore whether or not owners find this to be of consequence.

That's it.

Best,

C

[haakon59]

I am not sure that it's productive to look down one's nose at ETA movements, for example, which are also highly reliable. In fact, they are nearly universally praised by those in the know in the watch world. What is wrong with a modified ETA movement, exactly? You also mention:

" I like the fact that my Rolex has a manufacture movement that the mass-produced movements do not reportedly come close to in terms of performance and durability."

Really? No one else's movements come close? Rolex movements are mass produced. Have you ever heard of Omega, ETA, and Frederik Piguet, Jaeger LeCoultre? Are you actually claiming that none of their movements come close?

The truth is that there are quite a few manufacturers with very fine movements which have stood the test of time. Are Rolex movements good, even excellent? Yes. But they are far from the only ones. I don't think it's necessary to bring others down if you want to hold Rolex up. Making good quality watches with excellent quality movements is not exclusive to Rolex at all.

[Mrdi]

Seems to me the "Holy Grail" Daytona just recently acquired a Rolex movement.
In the past wasn't the Daytona engine Zenith?

There are many cute girls out there, my girl is the best though,
she'd better be, I married her.

[Solar]

Originally Posted by haakon59

I am not sure that it's productive to look down one's nose at ETA movements

Not sure who is looking down their nose........I had hoped I made it clear that that I am not doing so, nor was that my intention. So if that was your observation, I apologise.

I was just wondering if the fact that the Rolex movement is made exclusively in-house is of concern for buyers on that basis. I have read reviews where the reviewer/watchmaker opined that the Rolex movement was a strong consideration in favour of the Rolex vs the other....that's all.

Not looking down my nose. Not being exclusive. Not meaning to give offence.

Jeez.

Chris

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by Mrdi

Seems to me the "Holy Grail" Daytona just recently acquired a Rolex movement.
In the past wasn't the Daytona engine Zenith?

There are many cute girls out there, my girl is the best though,
she'd better be, I married her.

It's not really "recently" anymore. The new in-house Daytona movement (Cal. 4130) was introduced in year 2000.

[Jeelan]

i didnt really care about inhouse movt vs ETA. I always wanted Rolex because to me it represented an almost unbroken line of philosophy and tradition from 50-60yrs ago.

most other companies have gone through a entire cycles of "rebranding" themselves and repositioning themselves whilst Rolex has always remained...well....Rolex.

I've read so many posts where ppl have said that Rolex dont hv a vintage dept for older watches etc, whereas other brands do, but to my way of thinking, what better way of paying homage to a vintage model than leaving virtually your entire product line relatively unchanged for such a long period of time?

Ultimately it's this that has drawn me to the brand.

cheers
Jeelan

[Seamus O'Bond]

Don't forget - Rolex have produced Tudors using modified ETA's since the 1960's. Not sure what they're using now but if ETA was good enough for Rolex...

What I don't like about other companies that use ETA's is the price they charge for their cases and dials. An Omega with a Co-Axial may be worth the price but there is no way a standard Omega with an ETA is worth the price given that an ETA base can be sourced for less than 20 euros.

Just my tu'pence ha'penny

[Alcan]

Originally Posted by Solar

2. All movements are made in-house;

Although that statement is true now, it certainly was not for all models in the past. Here's a little stroll down memory lane re the Daytona. Note the Valjoux and Zenith references:



Rolex was not among the chronograph pioneers, choosing to focus their energies on the Oyster and the Perpetual. However the success of these watches propelled Rolex to be in the position of being the "sportsman's" watch and sportsmen demand a chronograph.

Instead of developing their own movement Rolex chose to use the Valjoux movement. It was available in three sizes and they were all simple one button chronographs. These allowed the user to time one continuous event.

This one button chronograph was popular but the more it was used the more obvious its limitations were. Customers demanded the ability to stop the watch intermittently which was of course impossible without resetting the time. It was not until the late 1930's that anything changed with the arrival of the two button chronograph. This was a major breakthrough and now allowed people to stop the watch to take necessary breaks and than restart it on the same time as when they left off. A football referee could stop the watch each time a ball went out an then get an accurate 45 minutes play.

At the end of the 1930's the "Zerograph" was produced in very limited quantities. The watch model 3462 marked an important turning point for Rolex as it was the first watch to feature the Oyster crown and is now extremely sort after.

The first true Oyster chronograph was the model 4500, which never sold in huge quantities as it was released during World War II. The 6232 and the 3668 models followed but proved just as unpopular. Both new models used the 13" Valjoux movement and had just a thirty minute register. While Rolex in 1942 had introduced an hour recorder it was a snap on back it would be another seven years before the Oyster case and the three button chronograph would be brought together in the form of the 5034. During the next fifteen years the 5034 changed into the 6034, which then became the 6234. This in turn became the 6238 and then finally evolved into the 6239.

These changes although little by little had inspired Rolex to revive the previously shelved name the "Cosmograph". The only difference between the 6239 and the 6238 was that on the 6239 the bezel was engraved with tachymeter graduations rather than having them on the dial.

The last major changes to the manual wind chronograph came in the late 1970's when Rolex introduced the 6263 model. This was the first model to have truly waterproof pushers. The earlier Oyster Chronographs had simple round pushers with internal gaskets as the only sealing mechanism.

The screw down pushers were added to stop people pressing the buttons, whilst submerged in water. The locking function also prevented the chronograph being activated inadvertently. The new 6263 started life as being waterproof to 165 feet, ten years later it was capable of twice that depth (100 meters) The 6263 is unusual in the fact that the quality of the movement depended on which case you had. The steel chronograph movements were not timed to a chronometer standard.

Despite the innovative design it was not until 1986 when the popularity of the Daytona started to increase, reaching its zenith with a particular Daytona model, the "Paul Newman". This model featured square markers on the subsidiary dials, and an outer track the same colour as the subsidiary dials. Although the origins of this nickname for the dial are obscure this is the easiest term to refer to this watch. This unusual dial colourful and deco in appearance was only in production for a short period of time form its introduction in 1970.

Rolex finally released the new version of the Daytona in 1991. They had abandoned the workhorse Valjoux movement in favour of the Zenith movement. The new dials featured large subsidiary dials and had an inner track in a contrasting colour. Dial colours included black, white, champagne and each watch had "Daytona" in red on the dial and they all had screw-down pushers.

The stainless steel Daytona has become one of the most sought after watches of all time. Because there were higher profit margins in the gold and mixed metal watches there was a shortage of the steel one as there just were not enough being produced.

Rolex's latest addition to the Daytona hysteria was launched at the end of 2000. The 116520 which like the rest of Rolex's models has an extra 1 prefix to differentiate it from the others. There have been a few dial refinements but the main difference is the fact that Rolex are now using an in house movement instead of the old Zenith one.

[Destroy]

I like that Rolex doesn't pay "celebrities" to wear, and thus promote, their watches.

[nodnarb757]

I love the fact that Rolex uses in house movements. Seiko does the same, but I would buy another watch without an in house movement as long as I could recognize what kind of movement it was, i.e. ETA.