To Rolex or not to Rolex

[ilan]

That is the question. I've been looking for a new sports watch which will last me for a long while and have been considering the no date Submariner. I generally like the more discreet older models but I don't quite trust restored watches to be as reliable for constant use and in general, the nicer older models are much more expensive than a brand new one! For comparison, a vintage watch store showed me the Bell & Ross Marine as an example of an all around sports watch.



So I have been using this to compare the utilitarian aspects of the Submariner. I apologize in advance if this, or my ignorance of watchmaking in general, offends anyone on this forum.


To Rolex:
---------

1. Nice looking current Submariner no date.

2. Not too big like many watches these days (I don't like huge watches and have a small wrist).

3. Seems like the only watch I can really be sure will last no matter how much I abuse it (crown is much more substantial than most comparable watches). First time an authorized watch deaker ever guaranteed his product could stand up to anything.

4. Impeccable service from Rolex. Parts available for all time. By comparison, the Bell & Ross forum at their website http://www.bellross.com/ shows that their customer care leaves a lot to be desired.

5. Watch will never go out of style. Compare with the Bell & Ross Hydromax, which appears to be a failure since it is almost impossible to get a battery changed, so just ends up being a "gimmick" watch.

6. Worn with a nylon strap puts it in stealth mode and also makes it more utilitarian.

7. Prefer current flat sapphire crystal to previous domed plexiglass.

8. Expensive. Sometimes you just want something just because you like it, not because of its inherent utility.

9. All other quartz movement sports watches are more or less equivalent to the current $150 Swiss Army watch I currently own, so paying > $1000 for a quartz watch is problematic.

10. I like a no date watch. I find the date function on a watch to be inelegant unless it has at least the 365 day calendar functionality, not to mention the Julian Calendar (leap year every 4 years), etc.

11. I kind of like the "Rolex" symbols around the edge of the dial on the current model no date Submariner since they are discreet (can't be seen in normal conditions) yet classy.

12. New watch style is flashy for those occasions when you might want to show off.



Not to Rolex:
------------

1. Expensive. From what I gather, manufacturing costs would put this watch at least 40% less, e.g., compare with similar Omega models. I don't mind paying more for value, but not just for the name and for demand.

2. The 2 extra lines in the new ND Submariner make for a cluttered dial.

3. Is a little heavy and thick.

4. Watch is flashy and reflects a lot of light which makes it harder to read in bright light. This was extremely clear when making a side by side comparison of a recent (about 2006) ND Submariner with a Bell & Ross Marine. This is not the case with older 5513 Submariners, so there seems to have been a shift in design towards more flashy "jewelery" type Submariners, which seems contrary to their utilitarian nature as a diving/sports watch.

5. I don't like metal bands. Diving extension doesn't work well for me, it's not big enough to fit the watch over my Winter gloves. Rolex watch only comes with a metal band, so am paying a lot (close to $1000) for something I will probably never use.

6. I like having a very accurate watch. I am not a fan of automatic movements for their own sake.

7. "Superlative Chronometer" on the dial just doesn't seem right to me when many much cheaper quartz watches are more accurate (COSC certification for quartz requires something like 10 times more accuracy). In any case, a more discreet notice of certification would have been preferable to my taste, e.g., a simple "COSC certified" and I'm also not such a great fan of the adjective "superlative".

8. I looked at a fully restored 1986 Submariner and was told it was not advisable to use for diving or sports. If a 23 year old fully restored Rolex is not suitable for sports, then can a Rolex truly be considered a long term utility watch? However, I should say that this was contradicted by the Rolex representative, Place Vendome, Paris, who told me that a well maintained Rolex could theoretically be used indefinitely for its intended purpose.

9. I don't like the English/metric conversion on the watch face, if anyone is interested in buying this watch, he or she can look up the equivalent in his or her units or ask the dealer (I believe most other dive watch brands just give a metric rating). Because of this, the 2 new certification lines, and the medium size dial, the current watch face seems cluttered.

10. The quartz Rolex model of 20 years ago was bigger than the automatic model, even though a quartz movement should in principle be smaller (to my knowledge) and other top of the line Swiss companies such as Patek Philippe have been making identical quartz and automatic models for years. To me, this seems like a failure of Rolex R&D.

11. A countdown bezel (numbers increase in the counter-clockwise direction) seems more logical to me for diving, that is, you first decide how much air you have for your dive, set the bezel to that amount, and then dive until the minute hand starts approaching "zero" (the origin mark). In particular, if you are close to out of time and in oxygen starvation, then it would be easier to note how much time you have left with respect to an absolute mark "zero" as opposed to a relative mark such as "30" when you might ask yourself in this confused state: "Did I prepare 30 minutes or 40 minutes of air?". Seems like someone at Rolex should have figured this out in the last 50 or 60 years. Of course this applies to all dive watches and anyway since I don't dive and only use the bezel as a timer, I do prefer the current technology.

-ilan

[mike]

Well, I have no experience with Bell & Ross so I would defer to those that can give us some guidence here. (Though I also have heard the after sales stories).

The Submariner is a classic design. One need only look at examples from 20-30 years ago and see the heritage the reference carries.

Couple of points I would make if you'll allow.

1. I'm a believer in the advice given by the Rolex rep. Properly serviced and maintained there's no reason a vintage piece can't preform as it was originally intended. All my vintage pieces have been correctly serviced and have seen the water--though I admit some less so due to their current value as opposed to any concerns about leakage.

The 5513 is a classic piece fully capable of accuracy on par with any modern version. My 5513 (serviced by RSC Beverly Hills) runs at +1 sec. a day.

However, if 100% functionality is a concern (lume) you would be better served with a modern piece. True you could replace the dial/hands, but the value of the vintage piece certainly takes a hit.

2. The Submariner (proper name--there is no such thing as a "NO-Date" is the only reference left that uses the classic lug hole case. Changing bands/straps is as easy as finding a toothpick and is the only reference to have an historical grounding in the NATO strap--Mile Sub.

3. I understand your feelings regarding the "cluttered dial" and certainly the "clean" dial of the earlier 14060/M can be had, but also consider a possible potential valuation of the current COSC dial.

Not without precedent, the 5512 at least in some variations carried a COSC dial and today is a very sought after reference.

I have NO idea what the future may hold, but should something to the 14060M COSC it stands poised to be one of the shortest run references to be had.

While I'm a believer in buy what sings to you, (and again having no experience with the B&R) I do know that Rolex offerings maintain a lot of their value and sometimes.......

Good luck.

[chenx15]

this has been discussed before. yes there are lots of watches there that can be "better" than rolex for a better price. people will disagree me with this but we buy rolex because of it's name. it is still a sign of affluence

[Omega_Precision]

I would get the Rolex over the B&R or if you want a really good watch and dollar for dollar champion, pound for pound, francs for francs...look at Omega.

[ilan]

Thanks for you advice. I agree with you that the current Submariner will probably be collectible, but I never sell stuff (I usually give it away if need be) so future value is not such a concern for me. I'm still looking, as I said, visiting watch stores in Paris is quite pleasant.

By the way, I actually found a diving watch with countdown bezel:



It's a 1957 style Omega Seamaster 300 (watch is a 1962 model). I guess this concept didn't catch on, as the bezel was discontinued in 1963: http://watchesz.free.fr/montres_de_plongee.htm

-ilan

[Perdu]

Definately check out the Seaqmaster Quartz. the Omega you show is very nice.

[kokovovoru]

I think if practicality and value are your two major concern, then definitely check out the Omega Seamaster, which is a combination of what you are looking for and more.

[ilan]

Originally Posted by kokovovoru

I think if practicality and value are your two major concern, then definitely check out the Omega Seamaster, which is a combination of what you are looking for and more.

Yes, I've been looking at it carefully. I like the new model, except for the skeleton hands. I'm going to the main Omega store in Paris today and will ask them if they can switch the hands, which should lead to an interesting interaction, I'm sure. By the way, unlike Rolex they do not serve refreshments!!

I've done some more research and have to take back what I said about Rolex quartz R&D now that I've found out they designed a thermocompensated movement http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=2087



I also discovered that the Bell & Ross I was looking is based on a model first designed for them by Sinn which explains why it is so different from other B&R models and could also imply that it is a better watch than one might think at first glance.



Speaking of which, Sinn seems to be an even better value than Omega.

-ilan

[kokovovoru]

so many beautiful watches to choose from. I always like that feeling of shopping for a watch or a car.

[bodybump]

I say to ROLEX!!

[Singslinger]

In terms of sheer engineering quality, ruggedness and bang for your buck, it'd be hard to beat Sinn (as you already know) - the U-series watches are made from German submarine steel that is 4 times harder than stainless steel. For the price of a S/S Rolex Submariner, you could easily buy a Sinn U1000 chronograph that goes to a depth of 1000m and is one of the few mechanical chronos whose functions can be activated underwater.

Then again, it wouldn't be a Rolex and there's a lot to be said for the name because not that many people have heard of Sinn...

[i2onnel]

I got my first Rolex today, and my god... I am so amazed, lol.

[SaturnV]

I wud go Rolex, but c'est moi seulement.

Rolex has been at this business so long, they really have it down. I do not own a Bell and Ross so I cannot say good or bad about it. I have Rolex and the fact is that they are very well crafted watches with outstanding, accurate movements made by a company that is not likelty to be going out of business any time soon.

But you have to buy what appeals to you. Best of luck.

S

[ilan]

Originally Posted by SaturnV

I wud go Rolex, but c'est moi seulement.

Rolex has been at this business so long, they really have it down. I do not own a Bell and Ross so I cannot say good or bad about it. I have Rolex and the fact is that they are very well crafted watches with outstanding, accurate movements made by a company that is not likelty to be going out of business any time soon.

But you have to buy what appeals to you. Best of luck.

S

I understand your point. Also, Rolex watches are true originals and a continuing evolving concept. On the other hand, I'm very disappointed with Bell & Ross as these pictures will explain:

Sinn 810




Dugena Nautica, made by Sinn




Bell & Ross hydro 8000m by Sinn





Current Bell & Ross Marine



The current Bell & Ross watch, literature and website makes no reference to Sinn, citing only Bell & Ross R&D.

-ilan

[Gasoil4ever]

They are all Rolex look alike...

Go for the REAL one ;-)

Take care and enjoy

[Psmith]

I like some of the Bell & Ross designs, but I think the Type Marine/Demineur are poor value for quartz - well over AU$2k. The Hydromax version (oil-filled, 1.1 km water resistant) is over AU$4k...

Of course I would say stick with the original, the ND Sub or Sub Date, but if you could also consider Fortis. They produce a range of interesting divers, all will brushed/blasted finishes, matt black or opaline (off white) dials, great lume, etc...

Cheers

[ilan]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I think the Rolex watch is very beautiful and attractive, but there are some details that I just can't get past.

1. Like I said in another post, my mathematical side can't accept the incorrect "=" on the dial, apparently a Rolex exclusive, even though I realize the justification for it.

2. The demise of the non COSC submariner. As you can read on the COSC website http://www.cosc.ch/chronometre.php?lang=en, a chronometer, by definition, is an officially certified time piece, so the words "officially certified" on the Rolex dial are redundant. The COSC website also defines a chronometer to be a time piece which passes an objective testing procedure, nothing more. Therefore, the qualification "superlative chronometer" on the Rolex dial is incorrect, as it is just as good or bad as any other officially certified COSC chronometer, according to the COSC standard.

I find the "=" and "superlative" errors to be inconsistent with the spirit of precision required to make a precision instrument.

Moreover, I've become disappointed with the whole luxury watch market in general. The reason is that I'm used to buying high end road bikes, where I've always chosen every single component (the first one 25 years ago was even custom geometry, even though it was the worst fitting bike I've ever owned :)) and I'm seeing that in watches, you pretty much have to accept what is being sold, and then your customizing options are pretty much choosing your strap. For example, I would have bought a new Rolex sub with no COSC (yes even with the =) as I assume that the no COSC dial exists as a new spare part, or maybe the Omega seamaster 300m with Planet Ocean hands, or the Ti Seamaster in quartz, the list goes on.... I don't see an economic reason why this shouldn't be, I believe that companies like Rolex sells much more units than a bike company like Seven (whose product is of the same order price as a Rolex) which is based on personally evaluating clients and building them custom Titanium frames, not to mention letting them choose every single components (standard on high end bikes). Maybe some watch company will start selling along those lines, unless one already exists, excuse my ignorance of the market.

This made me realize that you have more freedom in antique watches, as you are choosing from a much larger range of models and styles, for example, my favourite watch was a Rolex sub 5513.

Oh well, sorry for the rant.

-ilan

[jdc]

c'est la vie mon ami