Quote:
Originally Posted by Jostack
I don’t know if there is a way to really qualify some of your metrics. Much of Rolex’ reputation is well earned and deserved. Much of it also comes from possibly the best marketing machine ever. That machine causes the masses to perpetuate their well earned reputation.
GS’s army of fanboys is much much smaller than Rolex. The composition of the army is different as well. GS fans more often are genuine watch fans. Rolex has a vast number of customers who purchase on name only and don’t really care what is inside the watch.
There are no reliability/durability tests that can be used to objectively compare the brands. This leaves it mostly to opinion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
Agree on many of your points. The one thing i would say is this: There are so many stories of Rolexes going through wars, mud, accidents intact. We know some of their movements are military grade. We know the Daytona movement was up against the Moonwatch for the NASA space program. We know they don't survive plane crashes (thanks to 9/11) very well and they don't survives house fires completely intact. Yes, no one has really done controlled tests of one versus the other, but with millions of rolexes out there, I think the data suggests that Rolexes are very durable as opposed to them being more durable than GS. It is hard to prove a negative here since GS is as yet "untested" in world of use cases and public opinion.
Moreso, most GS are not "dive watches" so its hard to imagine how much damage my 211 snowflake will take versus a James Cameron Deepsea. I can tell you that my money is on the deepsea :)
Maybe one day some smart ass would put them on robots and smash them against each other in a battle royale duel to the death.
Opinions based on experience count but to a less extent than a scientific study don't they? Just saying.