People don't know nothing about Rolex...

[wappinghigh]

The recent Horology House fiasco just brings to light this insane insatiable price squeeze for Rolex just because "it's a Rolex..."

Talk about get sucked into the marketing!

And getting caught out on one of the most expensive Rolex - the Daytona...well what do people really know about Rolex and their chronograph movement?

One could argue my Venus 175 based Seagull I purchased brand new for $150 bucks has just as much heritage as a 30K Daytona..

And I can see the movement work! (It has a sapphire case back).

Yeh I know there will be Daytona smugs that will laugh at my Seagull...thinking the Chinese "stole" the movement, but do they know that V actually sold them the movement (they couldn't make a buck out of it during the Quartz crisis)..so Val went on to build and spruik the cheaper and lesser quality Val 7735 ...based on the Venus 188 (which was a lesser quality chono than the 175)...which then became ETA and on it goes..

So feeling cool about your Rolex chronographs?...

You did know it was Rolex who initially got their chrono movements from other manufacturers to begin with as well right?... the Gallet based Venus 140's etc way back in the late 20's..then there was the Zenith based movements etc etc...

So just how "original" is the Daytona?..and what makes you all think it's any better or got any more horological significance than my $150 buck Seagull?!

Comments welcome!

W

[WatchLurv]

You sound a little bit frustrated?

[2th_doc]

Smh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wappinghigh]

Originally Posted by WatchLurv

You sound a little bit frustrated?

Nah.. couldn't feel better!

Love my Seagull !

And my Explorer?..well the 3000 in that, was the first (and basis) of the greatest movement Rolex actually "inhouse" made..!

So I'm sweet Dude...

Don't worry about me! :)

W

[beshannon]

[wappinghigh]

Originally Posted by beshannon

So "what" begins?

[brandrea]

Well for starters it’s a Rolex (kinda)

[BroncoOne]

So, don't buy a Rolex.Its not for you.

BTW- nearly nothing about owning a mechanical watch makes logical sense and hasn't since mobile telephones and other personal electronics became ubiquitous (leaving the underwater and extreme environment conditions aside).
It's about things that aren't logical. It's about emotional appreciation of such mechanical devices and what they mean to you, particularly if they are gifts, rewards or were owned by one of your parents, granparents etc.

[Joe_Row]

Is this a satirical post?

[jbreeden]

If people don't know nothing, does that mean they do know something?

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by jbreeden

If people don't know nothing, does that mean they do know something?

Yep, double negatives work that way

[glamorama]

Feel better after that I hope

[RolyMoly]

Originally Posted by jbreeden

If people don't know nothing, does that mean they do know something?

I had the same question. To “don’t know nothing” would mean they know things.

[wappinghigh]

Originally Posted by BroncoOne

So, don't buy a Rolex.Its not for you.

BTW- nearly nothing about owning a mechanical watch makes logical sense and hasn't since mobile telephones and other personal electronics became ubiquitous (leaving the underwater and extreme environment conditions aside).
It's about things that aren't logical. It's about emotional appreciation of such mechanical devices and what they mean to you, particularly if they are gifts, rewards or were owned by one of your parents, granparents etc.

Who said Rolex isn't for me!!!.. I already said I own and love my explorer...and am after a Date Just and GMTII 16710..

I respect those models..

I'm just arguing the Daytona is way over rated.. (and I have stated my reasons)..

I believe they are perfectly logical..

Cheers!

[beshannon]

Originally Posted by wappinghigh

So "what" begins?

[wolffram]

Originally Posted by jbreeden

If people don't know nothing, does that mean they do know something?

Lol, you sound like me...I’m forever telling my kids that you can’t use a double negative!

[Watch This]

Happy New Year!

[wappinghigh]

Originally Posted by Joe_Row

Is this a satirical post?

No I am deadly serious...

(Rolex chronographs never began "inhouse...")

So horologically they are nothing more than my Seagull...

Prove me wrong...

[jbreeden]

Originally Posted by wolffram

Lol, you sound like me...I’m forever telling my kids that you can’t use a double negative!

well i am still trying to figure out if people could or couldn't care less.

[F17RUK]

[wappinghigh]

...Yep here come all the smarty pants..

So rather than just trying to be clever..

Care to prove by reasoned argument that I'm factually incorrect?

[Watch This]

Originally Posted by wappinghigh

...Yep here come all the smarty pants..

So rather than just trying to be clever..

Care to prove by reasoned argument that I'm factually incorrect?

I prefer to let you do it yourself.

[wappinghigh]

Originally Posted by Watch This

I prefer to let you do it yourself.

Ok... what do you know about the Rolex 2737 Chrono for example?...you know.. the one that arguably is the father of all Rolex Chrono's...

[Tavli3]

You may be factually correct about the technicalities of the movements, but you have an odd way of presenting your argument on a Rolex Forum!
I have no idea what a Seagull watch or it's movement is and no desire to find out, not to say I'm knocking it. You'll find little support here when basically saying your 150.00 watch is the best thing since time was invented and our Rolex's are copyrighted crap. Maybe try some less sharp elbows next time.

20,30,40 and even 50 years from now I'll put my Rolex up against any 150.00 watch you can name and bet it works better and still has exponentially way more value. Not to mention style and class.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by wappinghigh

The recent Horology House fiasco just brings to light this insane insatiable price squeeze for Rolex just because "it's a Rolex..."

Talk about get sucked into the marketing!

And getting caught out on one of the most expensive Rolex - the Daytona...well what do people really know about Rolex and their chronograph movement?

One could argue my Venus 175 based Seagull I purchased brand new for $150 bucks has just as much heritage as a 30K Daytona..

And I can see the movement work! (It has a sapphire case back).

Yeh I know there will be Daytona smugs that will laugh at my Seagull...thinking the Chinese "stole" the movement, but do they know that V actually sold them the movement (they couldn't make a buck out of it during the Quartz crisis)..so Val went on to build and spruik the cheaper and lesser quality Val 7735 ...based on the Venus 188 (which was a lesser quality chono than the 175)...which then became ETA and on it goes..

So feeling cool about your Rolex chronographs?...

You did know it was Rolex who initially got their chrono movements from other manufacturers to begin with as well right?... the Gallet based Venus 140's etc way back in the late 20's..then there was the Zenith based movements etc etc...

So just how "original" is the Daytona?..and what makes you all think it's any better or got any more horological significance than my $150 buck Seagull?!

Comments welcome!

W

First the Chinese did not steal the Venus 175 they bought out the tooling rights way back in the early 1970s, when many of the Swiss movement manufactures went bust.They modded the Venus 175 into the Seagull ST19 and with careful regulation will run too, or inside the COSC spec, its quite a good movement considering the price.Today the Chinese Seagull group is the biggest manufacture of mechanical movements today in the world.But it most certainly cannot match the Rolex movement in overall build quality, or long term accuracy.But the Seagull ST19 is a fine movement but will need more regulating and more service attention than the Rolex.But like most things today we all pay a very high price for the name Rolex on the dial, and yes today many do wear the name and not the watch.And lets not forget Rolex did not manufacture there own chronograph movement till the cal 4130 in 2000,as before they used ones from ETA Valjoux and Zenith.

[wappinghigh]

Originally Posted by Tavli3

You may be factually correct about the technicalities of the movements, but you have an odd way of presenting your argument on a Rolex Forum!
I have no idea what a Seagull watch or it's movement is and no desire to find out, not to say I'm knocking it. You'll find little support here when basically saying your 150.00 watch is the best thing since time was invented and our Rolex's are copyrighted crap. Maybe try some less sharp elbows next time.

20,30,40 and even 50 years from now I'll put my Rolex up against any 150.00 watch you can name and bet it works better and still has exponentially way more value. Not to mention style and class.

No I'm just saying the Daytona isn't respected by me nearly as much as other Rolex watches (from a horological point of view) that's all. - so I would prefer to own a non Rolex chronograph (and save my money for a different Rolex model)... because there are some very cheap alternative chronos out there which have just as much movement prestige as the Daytona. (And this is also why I struggle with the aftermarket prices of Daytonas vs other Rolex models..) Cheers!

[Jeronimo]

Dear OP,

Well...

I have to say that I still feel very cool about my Daytona.

It has a movement that is pretty good and very adequate to the functions it performs, has a great 70 hour power reserve and it’s been working flawlessly for the past 7 years.

Furthermore it’s a beautiful watch and it makes me feel happy whenever I look at it.

I believe you are entitled to feel as happy with your watch as I am with mine and far from me to argue about the heritage of the Seagull movement, but...

With this said please don’t try to make me or other Daytona owners feel bad about our watches or the movements therein, it is inelegant and totally unnecessary.

I also own an Explorer and a GMT and a Sub and a DJ and a few others, all have their own special charm and none would be capable of substituting the place that the Daytona has in my collection and in my heart.

I do hope that you started this thread just for the fun of it and that you are not taking yourself that seriously.

End of my rant.

All the best and keep on enjoying all your watches, that is the way to go.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[wappinghigh]

Originally Posted by padi56

First the Chinese did not steal the Venus 175 they bought out the tooling rights way back in the early 1970s, when many of the Swiss movement manufactures went bust.They modded the Venus 175 into the Seagull ST19 and with careful regulation will run too, or inside the COSC spec, its quite a good movement considering the price.Today the Chinese Seagull group is the biggest manufacture of mechanical movements today in the world.But it most certainly cannot match the Rolex movement in overall build quality, or long term accuracy.But the Seagull ST19 is a fine movement but will need more regulating and more service attention than the Rolex.But like most things today we all pay a very high price for the name Rolex on the dial, and yes today many do wear the name and not the watch.And lets not forget Rolex did not manufacture there own chronograph movement till the cal 4130 in 2000,as before they used ones from ETA Valjoux and Zenith.

Yes. Thanks for that!!!!

Exactly!!!

[Harry-57]

Originally Posted by wappinghigh

what do people really know about Rolex and their chronograph movement?

It's easy enough to look up. Watchfinder have an interesting and informative video on how the Daytona came about, what was happening in general in horology at the time, who was involved and how the model has been developed since.

The Daytona is one of the Rolex models I am least interested in as a potential owner. But I'm well read up on it. As I am on the History of Rolex. It's easy to get this stuff from credible sources and practically all of it is in the public domain.

[sgwatchguy]

Originally Posted by jbreeden

well i am still trying to figure out if people could or couldn't care less.

I’ve tried to figure that one out on some occasions - but then I realized, I couldn’t care less. 😂

adjective INFORMAL • BRITISH
adjective: couldn't-care-less
characterized by complete indifference. Like in some reactions to this thread? 🤔