I for one would be interested in knowing how the experts rate various movements in terms of accuracy, resilience, and longevity. Some of the more touted movements out there, chronographs, GMTs, uncomplicated ones like the 3185, etc.

I'm sure with all the expertise on this forum, such discussions have already been had?

Thanks for the link

:rofl::rofl: Good one !! :rofl::rofl:

Rolex movements are reliable and robust, certainly. Are they technically advanced? Well, this is a 200 some year old technology. Sure, there have been some advancements in mechanical movements, say, when they developed the automatic movement, I think in the 1930's (I can't remember the date right now). Today, Omega is using a new technical advance, the co-axial escapement, invented by George Daniels. Rolex movements work well and are tested and functional and the company has "tuned" their watches to work quite well in real life. Some luxury watch companies spend time decorating their movements to make them more artistic and finished, but Rolex does not do this. They make a different kind of watch--it's a production choice. Rolex has determined who their market is and what they want and they are a highly focused company. How many Rolex owners have even opened the back of their watch to see the movement? My guess is not many. Rolex instead puts their energy into making their watches reliable and into doing a good job with service. They succeed.

COSC standards are voluntary and most manufacturers don't want to pay for the testing, so they have limited use outside of being a marketing label. COSC tests the movement, by the way, NOT the watch--there is a big difference. Rolex dominates COSC because they have determined that for marketing reasons, it is a benefit to them. The people who buy their watches value this designation, so they pay to have the tests run. Most manufacturers don't bother though. Did you ever see Patek Philippe touting their "Chronometer" rating on their dials? VC? AP? GP? The fact that these manufacturers don't test their watch with COSC is not an indication that their movements are any less reliable, robust, or are inaccurate.

If you want to collect technically advanced watches, I would suggest Casio and Citizen, they make advanced technology watches. Mechanical watches are an old technology, yet still fascinating and collectible because they were at one time mechanical wonders--200 years ago. I personally buy mechanical watches because they seem more human to me, but not because they are technically advanced. But that is just me.

what about the new Yachtmaster II? It's the FIRST watch with a mechanical memory... you don't call that advanced technology??

Some of us would prefer to call it Advanced Tomfoolery!! :rofl::rofl::rofl::justkiddi:bartmoon:

Sheesh, JJ!

Only Nick WACKO would call it something like that! :dummy: :bartmoon:

:chuckle:

Well, no need for name calling. Though Nick sometimes comes off on the wrong foot and needs to be more respectful of other forum members at times, he does have a lot of watch knowledge on repairing and fixing watches and the inner workings of them, more than just about anyone else on this forum. (not taking one side or the other). Lets remember there have been several forum members in the past who could not get Rolex to fix their older Subs, and Nick repaired and regulated their subs.

BS, would agree, even though I do not care much for the looks of the YM II, it is indeed some advanced mechanical technology, especially as Rolex is involved.

Now if you want to check out really advanced mechanical watch technology, check out JLC's new compressor that is made completely with frictionless parts and requires no oiling/lubrication at all!!!!

Or Tag Huers new mechanical movement, using Belts instead of gears!!!!!!

These are the new future I believe. JLC already in some of their older and current models have been using ceramic ball bearings in their movements that are frictionless as well and require no lubrication.

eta's are better then rolex from my research

Yet Rolex use ETA in their Tudor "bargain" line range of watches and Rolex movements in their premium brand.

I wouldn't go that far, Daun.....but, in all fairness to some ETA movements, they are damn good and very, very accurate and dependable.

In fact, many high-end manufacturers use ETA movements, highly modified, for their own brands. Example: Ulysse Nardin, Omega, IWC and a few others.

JJ

Sinn, UTS, Fortis too...

i dont know, you are probably right. I do not want to argue with the supreme king tosser.

Hey did you get the sheep sheared today like you said you were going to

Besides Nick calling some people's baby ugly, this is a hell of a thread and very educational :cheers:

PAtrick

TagHeuer, Baume&Mercier, Breitling, Cartier, Movado, Tissot, Raymond Weil, Breguet, Blancpain, Jaques Droz, Glashutte-Original, Leon Hatot, Rado, Longines, Union, Calvin Klein, Gucci, Certina, Mido, Hamilton, Pierre Balmain, and pretty much everything else that says "Swiss made"...

It almost seems like there are just a few "watch" makers and a boat load of "case and bracelet" makers....
So Rolex is "competing" for respect with a group that makes "how many times more per year" movements with all the accompanying research, market feed back, on-the-wrist road testing and so on....
Isn't this a little bit like General Motors vs Porsche to compare ETA to Rolex?

I simply can't get as excited about a watch built by a company ordering its "motor" from someone else. That's one of the reasons Rolex means what it means to me.

I would say, with Rolex producing close to 1,000,000 watches per year, ETA vs Rolex is like comparing Ford to GM. But, ETA also has different levels of movements. Just like GM makes lower end cars and upper end cars.

Now if you really want the Porches of watches, or small company hand built watches with in house movements, you need to look at Glashutte, Vacheron, Patek, IWC (some of their models), JLC, and GP.

I can get pretty excited about a Porche Cayanne, even though much of it's technology comes from VW. Or Lexus, comes from Toyota.

I posted the following artical about COSC earlier in this thread, but thought I would again.

COSC has three testing facilities. The overall failure rate between all three and all watch movements is 4.5%. However, the Geneva laboratory tests almost exclusively Rolex movements and has only a 2.2% failure rate. In Le Locle where almost no Rolex movements are tested has a failure rate of 5.7%.

Your figure out which watch movement is the most accurate relative to COSC facts.

Also, the chief of COSC made the comment (while drinking wine with the author) that the Rolex 2235 movement is by far the most consistently accurate movement ever tested.

http://www.timezone.com/library/wbor...33384647656250


Check it out.

:cheers:

Rolex vs. others
 

The only problem with this statement is that when I get a Rolex serviced it is done quickly and comes back looking and working perfectly. I have never had a Rolex fail to operate even after eight years of very hard use including commercial diving.

I had a Glashutte Original and it had a warranty issue; this was a nightmare. it sat at Swatch NY for two months until I complained to my dealer enough. Then they decided that it needed to go to the factory where it sat for another month. When I finally received it I found that the watch case back had been put on with the gasket / o-ring crimped and hanging out at one place. Good thing I did not dive it.

That repair only took another month; after which I sold it. Yeah, that is quality and reliability.

I also had a Girard Perregaux Seahawk II Pro, but was afraid to think of what it might cost to service. And if you want to talk about overpriced; the bracelet for it retailed for something like $5,000, and IMO was worth about $500.

I like and own ETA equipped watches from Omega, Baume & Mercier and I own a high end Seiko, and I think all of them are worth it as well as the 3 Rolex watches I have.

I won't buy any of the Haught Horology brands again they are the ones that are not worth it.

Fair go Vince - this WAS dead.:chuckle: