What is the difference in quality between a Rolex and a Seiko automatic watch?

[RolexRog]

What is the difference in quality between a Rolex automatic, like an Air King and a Seiko Sportsmatic?

Thank you for your kind consideration.

[the dark knight]

Can't compare a Rolex with a Seiko, as literally everything that makes a watch a watch will be superior with a Rolex.

The apt comparison is probably Grand Seiko's mechanical watches. Rolex movements are finished better, generally thinner, and much better timekeeping. The only exception are the newer HB movements, which are finished better and look nicer than Rolex movements but still generally don't match the accuracy of +-2s/d.

Rolex's bracelets are also superior, again, literally everything that makes a bracelet a bracelet, Rolex has the advantage.

Grand Seiko does a better job with cases. Better brushing and esp polishing (Zaratsu), although I personally think the latter is a tad overrated. The polishing work is better than anything in its price range, yes. But people like to say it has the fit/finish of a Patek or similar, which is ridiculous. GS polishes to a spit shine for the sake of polishing. The higher end watches polish/brush to a standard not to show off but rather to fit the overall flow of the watch design.

GS's finishing on its hands are superior to Rolex, and the dials are much more intricate/unique.

[amphr1]

Like comparing a Toyota Camry to a Porsch 911, a hot dog to prime ribs, a flip phone to an iphone.

Sent from my SM-S918U1 using Tapatalk

[Old Expat Beast]

The older Sportsmatic watches like the Seiko 5 series that started in the early 1960s can't compare to modern Rolex, but all the ones I have owned from that era were still running great, so the quality is there, if not the decoration.

Grand Seiko and King Seiko movements in the 1960s were arguably on par or better than Rolex up to 1975. Seiko came out with a double quickset day/date movement for mid-range watches and King/Grand Seiko in the late 1960s, some 20 years before Rolex.

[Old Expat Beast]

Check this out if you want to know more about Seiko dominance over the Swiss watch industry in the late 1960s. It's quite interesting

Seiko at Astronomical Observatory Chronometer competitions - or - How the Swiss lost their honor

https://youtu.be/ayUT5WfkHrA?si=8tyt3j7NYRIIR7nD

[Cambo]

Kind of an unfair comparison. I absolutely love my Rolexes for their style, elegance and quality, but I have a 1994 Seiko Kinetic that I have put through the most amazing crap and it still keeps great time and has a power reserve of over 10 days! Simply an amazing watch that I wear when I don’t want to “hurt” my Rolex babies.
So context is important.

[luk4s83]

I'm not sure if that's even a serious question. Seiko is Toyota of watches - they are both outdated, primitive, overpriced and overhyped. Back in the day Seiko at least used to be affordable, but in the past five years they completely lost their minds. You can spend $3k on a brand new Seiko and get like +-30spd stated accuracy with no certification, no magnetic resistance and with 1 year of laughable warranty. Kinda like you can drop $50k on a 2023 Tacoma and get drum brakes, 5spd transmission, underpowered and outdated engine with laughable performance. I have a lot of Seiko watches in my collection and I like them, but let's be honest, there is no comparison between them with Rolex, Tudor, Omega or any other respectable Swiss brand. Just compare a modern Seiko movement with its predecessor from the 70's. Lets say 6309 and 6R35. You will see very minor differences or improvements, if any. Actually often times 50 year old 6309 outperforms brand new 6R35 in accuracy lol. You will notice a lot of cost reduction though. Again, compare 6309 Turtle bezel action and engineering (spring loaded ball) with any modern Seiko diver bezel action and engineering. They didn't make any progress at all, and all they do now is resurrecting and milking old models / designs. And again, they used to offer good looking and affordable watches, but that came to an end a few years ago. I still like my old Seiko models, but there's no way I'll buy a brand new Seiko ever again. It sucks but it is what it is.

[Rollieo]

I don’t appreciate fine wine. I think you need to spend the time to really learn the differences.

The same goes for watches. It’s very nuanced, and little things make a big difference. If you don’t see these things, then just buy Seiko.

[luk4s83]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Check this out if you want to know more about Seiko dominance over the Swiss watch industry in the late 1960s. It's quite interesting

Seiko at Astronomical Observatory Chronometer competitions - or - How the Swiss lost their honor

https://youtu.be/ayUT5WfkHrA?si=8tyt3j7NYRIIR7nD

Very cool, but that was 60 years ago. How about now? What progress did they make? Can I see the example of mechanical Seiko offered at $4k price point that competes with $4k Tudor or Omega? Can I see the example of $10k Seiko that competes with $10k Rolex in performance? Mechanical, not quartz (Spring Drive). I'll make it easy, I just made 5 minute research. For $4600 I'm getting Tudor BB 58 GMT with Metas certification, 65h power reserve, excellent magnetic resistance, 5 year warranty, t-fit clasp etc. For almost twice as much - $7200 I'm getting SBGJ267 Grand joke from Seiko. It's not even funny. Again, outdated, primitive, overpriced and overhyped. The dial is good looking, but that's it. Well, maybe, but Omega offers better executed dials for $7k and they made better bracelets 20 years ago lol.
https://www.grand-seiko.com/us-en/collections/sbgj267g
https://www.tudorwatch.com/en/watche...39g1a0nru-0001

[Imran]

Seiko automatic watches, especially dive models and similar, offer the most value in the $800 to $2000 range. Above that price point, not so much anymore in my opinion. The monoblock marine master 300 however, is an exception, an incredible dive watch even at around $3500.

[KatGirl]

Apples and oranges. Rolex is better in most every category, but Seiko does make some killer dials. Seiko does make fine affordable watches for the general public. I’m a fan of their moderately priced watches. There is a lot of bang for your buck, but they are not in the same league as Rolex.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[luk4s83]

Originally Posted by Imran

The monoblock marine master 300 however, is an exception, an incredible dive watch even at around $3500.

There you go, that's a good example. The original, modern Marinemaster 300m SBDX001 was first released in 2000. It was a great watch for the time. SBDX001 MSRP was 250000 yen. That was 24 years ago. They are still milking pretty much the same watch today. 24 years after and still has exacly the same movement and bracelet. They did nothing to make it better. The only upgrade is DiaShield coating. That's ridiculous. The only major difference is the price. SLA021 is priced at $3100 USD today, that's 500000 yen.

[joli160]

Originally Posted by luk4s83

Very cool, but that was 60 years ago. How about now? What progress did they make? Can I see the example of mechanical Seiko offered at $4k price point that competes with $4k Tudor or Omega? Can I see the example of $10k Seiko that competes with $10k Rolex in performance? Mechanical, not quartz (Spring Drive). I'll make it easy, I just made 5 minute research. For $4600 I'm getting Tudor BB 58 GMT with Metas certification, 65h power reserve, excellent magnetic resistance, 5 year warranty, t-fit clasp etc. For almost twice as much - $7200 I'm getting SBGJ267 Grand joke from Seiko. It's not even funny. Again, outdated, primitive, overpriced and overhyped. The dial is good looking, but that's it. Well, maybe, but Omega offers better executed dials for $7k and they made better bracelets 20 years ago lol.
https://www.grand-seiko.com/us-en/collections/sbgj267g
https://www.tudorwatch.com/en/watche...39g1a0nru-0001

I’d pick the SBGJ267 over the opponents you mentioned. It’s all subjective.
Calling a GS with a HB 36000 movement a joke is perhaps slightly exaggerated.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

The older Sportsmatic watches like the Seiko 5 series that started in the early 1960s can't compare to modern Rolex, but all the ones I have owned from that era were still running great, so the quality is there, if not the decoration.

Grand Seiko and King Seiko movements in the 1960s were arguably on par or better than Rolex up to 1975. Seiko came out with a double quickset day/date movement for mid-range watches and King/Grand Seiko in the late 1960s, some 20 years before Rolex.

Have to agree and in many ways the Seiko Grand range was superior to any of the Rolex range.Thats why todays Swiss COSC was founded because the Grand Seiko watches were winning all the competitions. But it's almost impossible to find any detail about the last few years of the Observatory Chronometer competition held in Neuchatel from 1967 on, probably because Seiko destroyed the Swiss, and the competition was never held again. Girard-Perregaux won the competition with a specially constructed one off movement, and Seiko came second with a standard straight of production Grand Seiko and following years came first.

In 1971 observatory competitions in Neuchâtel were suspended indefinitely after a petition and then the threat of boycott by several prestigious Swiss wristwatch manufacturers, because Seiko had begun to dominate the results, winning two years in succession. It wasn't the arrival of quartz which brought mechanical accuracy competitions in Switzerland to an end, but IMHO losing a fair fight to Japan Seiko in 1972 the Swiss COSC was founded for testing Swiss made watches only.

[JonnyOld Boy]

Grand Seiko and Rolex are about on par. Pros and cons with both. I would argue neither is better value. If you are picky, own a Loupe and go looking then Grand Seiko wins usually for dials and case etc etc , but as mentioned the bracelets on Rolex are now about the best you can get and most movements are the mutts nuts. I am a 5-6 watch owner so don't classify myself as a "collector" , but if I was I would certainly have a Grand Seiko in my collection along side Roleys, Brightbling and OHMega ....

[East of Eden]

Originally Posted by JonnyOld Boy

Grand Seiko and Rolex are about on par. Pros and cons with both. I would argue neither is better value. If you are picky, own a Loupe and go looking then Grand Seiko wins usually for dials and case etc etc , but as mentioned the bracelets on Rolex are now about the best you can get and most movements are the mutts nuts. I am a 5-6 watch owner so don't classify myself as a "collector" , but if I was I would certainly have a Grand Seiko in my collection along side Roleys, Brightbling and OHMega ....

Agreed, the finish on a Grand Seiko is superior to Rolex, and nobody is going to beat the accuracy of a Seiko Spring Drive, and the smooth movement of the second hand is cool. They can be had for about $3,500 shipped from Japan. Grand Seiko is stealth wealth.

I wouldn’t call the dodgy Rolex 32xx movement the mutts nuts.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by amphr1

Like comparing a Toyota Camry to a Porsch 911, a hot dog to prime ribs, a flip phone to an iphone.

Sent from my SM-S918U1 using Tapatalk

Good analogy

I’m a Camry guy, and sometimes I prefer a good ole hotdog to a prime rib

[JonnyOld Boy]

Originally Posted by East of Eden

Agreed, the finish on a Grand Seiko is superior to Rolex, and nobody is going to beat the accuracy of a Seiko Spring Drive, and the smooth movement of the second hand is cool. They can be had for about $3,500 shipped from Japan. Grand Seiko is stealth wealth.

I wouldn’t call the dodgy Rolex 32xx movement the mutts nuts.

Agree , but most movements are pretty mutsy-nutsy. Rolex isn't perfect, far from it and I love your phrase "stealth wealth".
[[ Most manufacturers have their QC issues , the OPs with scratched hands and dust on the dial was one thing for a £5k watch , but a guy I used to know bought a New Blancpain for £12k and it went straight back the next day as the dial had more dust on it than a nun's bikini. He bought another a few weeks later and all was well until it started loosing time after 3 months so it went off under warranty and came back running to time , but guess what found it's way under the crystal ... yep ... ]]

[Neil McCauley]

Originally Posted by RolexRog

What is the difference in quality between a Rolex automatic, like an Air King and a Seiko Sportsmatic?

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Just to be clear - are you referring to a Seiko Sportsmatic vs Air King from the 1960s?

If so, I think this changes the topic slightly, most of these responses will be from the perspective of looking at modern pieces, but I think if we wind the clock back a little and compare the two watches from the 1960s, we might be in different territory here and it becomes a more difficult question to answer

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Check this out if you want to know more about Seiko dominance over the Swiss watch industry in the late 1960s. It's quite interesting

Seiko at Astronomical Observatory Chronometer competitions - or - How the Swiss lost their honor

https://youtu.be/ayUT5WfkHrA?si=8tyt3j7NYRIIR7nD

Thank you Adam.

[Cru Jones]

Today, Rolex are objectively better watches, yes, but they are also multiple times more expensive. Up to you whether it's "worth" it.

[4 Aussies]

My goal has always been to own a Seiko, still saving up, but should be able to pull the trigger once my finances are in order.

[East of Eden]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

Today, Rolex are objectively better watches, yes, but they are also multiple times more expensive. Up to you whether it's "worth" it.

And they only cost about $1k to manufacture, at least in SS, crazy.

Rolex bracelets are better but they are scratch magnets, GS’s are mainly brushed with polished accents. The clasp and case edge which get the most abuse are brushed with Seiko.

[Neil McCauley]

Originally Posted by East of Eden

And they only cost about $1k to manufacture, at least in SS, crazy.

Source?

[Justinmg]

Originally Posted by padi56

Have to agree and in many ways the Seiko Grand range was superior to any of the Rolex range.Thats why todays Swiss COSC was founded because the Grand Seiko watches were winning all the competitions. But it's almost impossible to find any detail about the last few years of the Observatory Chronometer competition held in Neuchatel from 1967 on, probably because Seiko destroyed the Swiss, and the competition was never held again. Girard-Perregaux won the competition with a specially constructed one off movement, and Seiko came second with a standard straight of production Grand Seiko and following years came first.

In 1971 observatory competitions in Neuchâtel were suspended indefinitely after a petition and then the threat of boycott by several prestigious Swiss wristwatch manufacturers, because Seiko had begun to dominate the results, winning two years in succession. It wasn't the arrival of quartz which brought mechanical accuracy competitions in Switzerland to an end, but IMHO losing a fair fight to Japan Seiko in 1972 the Swiss COSC was founded for testing Swiss made watches only.

Very interesting

[Calatrava r]

The biggest difference is the names on the dials. The basic structure and integrity of modern watch movements does not vary that much.

[East of Eden]

Originally Posted by Neil McCauley

Source?

I’ve seen that figure discussed on TRF, nobody knows for sure. Their marketing has many convinced that because they sell for 3X more than Brand X, they are 3X better.

Their huge markup helps pay for celebrity endorsements, sporting event sponsorships, advertising, and high end store locations.

[Harry-57]

Seiko make watches that are good value for money. I like things that are good at what they do and offer good value for money which is why I own some Seiko watches. They can make more expensive brands seem overpriced. I also like nice things which have a depth of quality and finish, which is why I have a few Rolex watches, among other more expensive brands. I would probably be unable to resist the pull of one of the Grand Seikos I like if only they would stop drilling the lugs right through. It's not neo vintage, it's just naff.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Harry-57

Seiko make watches that are good value for money. I like things that are good at what they do and offer good value for money which is why I own some Seiko watches. They can make more expensive brands seem overpriced. I also like nice things which have a depth of quality and finish, which is why I have a few Rolex watches, among other more expensive brands. I would probably be unable to resist the pull of one of the Grand Seikos I like if only they would stop drilling the lugs right through. It's not neo vintage, it's just naff.

Funnily enough, Grand Seiko lugs were almost never drilled in the 1960s and 1970s, when Rolex always were. Now it's the other way around.

[Easy E]

I had a Grand Seiko that ran better than most of the 32s I have owned....Just sayin'