Why is Rolex so much more highly regarded than Omega is?

[mb hawaii]

It all boils down to brilliant marketing. A must for ALL luxury items.

[JBat]

Originally Posted by Strut99GT

Keep in mind, I still aim to buy a Rolex next, but I have to disagree here. My Seamaster and Speedmaster feel *far* more solid than any Rolex I've tried on. The bracelet for the Sub feels like a cheap toy in comparison. Unscrewing and winding the crown feels smooth as silk, and my watch is also dead-accurate. Honestly, I feel like the finish on my SMP is far superior. However, I know that doesn't make the underlying movement better for the long haul, or the service, or the resale, or the brand consistency that will allow the watch to look fresh and new even decades from now.

I know the Sub is a great watch, but let's at least interject some reality in the comparison here!

Ah yes, the bracelet argument again. I have a Sub and an SMP myself, and while there is some truth to the idea that the Omega bracelet is superior (it certainly feels heavier), the Sub bracelet works just fine, and has, as it is now, for decades. It may feel like a toy to you, but it works. Isn't that the bottom line when it comes to a bracelet?

As for the crowns, hands down the Rolex is better. I've yet to find a better crown on a watch than the Triplock. The Omega's is too small by comparison, and just not in the same league.

The finish on your Seamaster is far superior? I'm not seeing that on mine (reference 2055.80.00). It's a fine watch and I love it, but fit and finish, to me, is better on the Sub. The SMP is also running about 15 seconds/day slow after 5 years and in need of service.

Also, the bezel on the SMP is hard to turn when dry, and near impossible when wet. The Sub blows the SMP away in this regard.

So, we're left with the bracelet. The Omega's is probably better, but the Rolex' works. Personally, I buy for the movement and the watch itself, primarily, with the bracelet secondary (though I happen to love the Oyster bracelet, FWIW). The Rolex is better in this regard, too, IMO.

Omega makes fine timepieces, and I will likely acquire more in the future, but they dilute their brand to a certain extent, also in my opinion.

All of the above is my $.02 worth.

[JBat]

Wrist presence = bigger. Not a must for all watch enthusiasts, though I know the trend is bigger is better. The Sub has great "wrist presence," IMO. To each his own.

[JBat]

Originally Posted by improviz

It was "subtle" because they probably wanted the advantages of the association without having to pay for it, so they produced an ad clearly showling a Bond-like theme without explicitly stating it was Bond as this would subject them to copyright infringement. The actor in the ad was dressed as Connery/Bond was in Dr. No, in the famous scene where he consults his roles. The ad refers to a martini, Bond's drink, and so on...clearly they were aping Bond as they saw benefit to doing so.



Well, this rather flippant remark seems to presume that people are buying Seamasters in large numbers because they have "delusional fantasies" of being secret agents, which is laughable at best and insulting at worst, but again it ignores the fact that this would also hold true for Submariners (that is, if it were a valid argument as opposed to a thinly-disguised vacuous ad hominem attack).

It also ignores that the original Seamaster was sold and marketed as a watch where people can actually achieve something, that the Seamster 300 matched the early Sub's depth rating, that present Seamasters are equivalent to the Submariners in terms of depth rating, on and on and on; basically what you've done is either post incorrect claims that I've refuted (Seamaster was a boating watch and not a diving watch until the '70's: false; Omega developing a model lineup specifically for Bond, my 2255.80 is a "Bond watch", etc..) or subjective statements like the association with Bond "cheapens" Omega, despite the fact that Rolex plainly benefited through being associated with Bond, which frankly seemed to help, rather than hurt, their brand image, given that the Submariner was given its iconic status largley through large numbers of Bond fans wishing to indulge their "delusional fantasies".

You didn't answer my question. I'll ask it again: if being associated with Bond "cheapens" the Omega brand, why did it not "cheapen" the Rolex brand?

Because Rolex didn't pay to have their watches placed in the movies?

Seriously, why don't you tell us? You seem to have all the answers regarding this discussion. I'm curious to know.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by JBat

Because Rolex didn't pay to have their watches placed in the movies?

Seriously, why don't you tell us? You seem to have all the answers regarding this discussion. I'm curious to know.

Hmm, I see... so paying for an endorsement cheapens a brand? Tell that to Roger Federer then:
http://www.europastar.com/europastar..._id=1002688922

Tell you? What, my opinion? My opinion is that it cheapens neither brand, that it helps their sales, and that whether or not in this instance the company in question payed for it is irrelavent, as both companies have and continue to pay for celebrity endorsements, and that further, whether they do, or do not, do this has no bearing on either the quality of the watches, nor on the fact that Rolex is so far more highly regarded than Omega. In fact, I think that quite the contrary is true: Rolex's brilliant marketing strategy IS the main reason for their superior brand recognition. This is not to say they don't make brilliant watches; they do. But lots of companies make brilliant watches, and none have the name recognition of Rolex, not even Patek, whom most WIS-types will admit make superior watches to Rolex.

There.

Now then, I'm still trying to understand how, exactly, how whether a celebrity wears a watch in a movie "cheapens" a brand. If we look at the history of Rolex and see how the Submariner became an instant icon after being worn by Connery in Dr. No and multiple other Bond films, or how Panerai became an overnight success after being worn by Schwarzenegger and Stallone, or how the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms took off after being worn by Llloyd Bridges on a magazine cover, how Breitling's sales took off after being endorsed by Travolta, how Tag Heuer has benefited by being seen in the Bourne films, the Kill Bill films, etc., it's pretty hard to make the case that being worn by and/or endorsed by celebrities lowers the standing of a particular brand in the eyes of the public.

BMW certainly didn't seem to suffer having their cars in a few Bond films: in fact sales of the Z3 skyrocketed after it appeared in those films, being driven by that fictional character, just as the Sub did after being worn by him.

In fact, I would argue that this, along with companies' willingness to spend money to *get* these endorsements, bears witness to the fact that, well, it works; otherwise, if there were no evidence to support it, they could spend the money on another corporate jet or tryst. :)

So in the end, one can split hairs and draw the finest of fine distinctions, but sales figures and the companies' actions don't bear this out: if it made a brand's negatives increase more than the positives, they'd never touch this stuff. Fact is, a celebrity wearing a brand and style of watch is a gold mine for that company, which is why they work so hard to get those watches on those wrists.

Not only do they work hard to get them on there, but once they get there, they are not shy about getting the word out. Consider the following page at Rolex, devoted exclusively to listing celebrities who wear Rolex watches:
http://www.rolex.com/en/world-of-rol...nees/index.jsp

If you click on the name of any given celebrity, you'll be taken to a page with a photo of the celebrity (clearly taken for Rolex) with the celeb wearing their Rolex, and a link/blurb which tells you which specific model they wear.

Now, why do they do this? Why does it matter that Yo Yo Ma wears a Datejust?

Because 1) people like to wear the same watch worn by famous people, always have, always will, and 2) it's marketing and helps Rolex to sell their product.

As does the Bond association w/Omega.

Read all about it here:
http://www.chillibreeze.com/articles...ndorsement.asp

Both brands actively seek celebrity endorsements, and if you think Rolex doesn't pay to get some of theirs, well, tell that to Roger Federer.

[Polizeifritz]

Omega makes a lot of dumb moves IMO. The Bond models really cheapen the whole brand. I see nothing wrong with them associating the SMP/PO with James bond from a marketing standpoint or really any other standpoint the problem arises when they decide to plaster "007" on the watches face or "Quantum of Solace". This is beyond tacky. This really applies to all of the special edition Omegas such as the Olympic ones, I mean really?!?, Olympic rings on the second hand? If I want Olympic merchandise I will go to McDonalds.

I personally own 2 Omegas one being the 2254.50 and the other being the 2531.80. I love them both and they are finished as well as any other high end brand I have ever seen/owned. Even though I am an Omega advocate, my next purchase is a Sub 16613 though it is my absolute grail watch, in my eyes there is no more beautiful watch.

[presario]

I try to stay clear of Rolex vs Omega debates, but I thought I should chime in.

ROLEX is, without a doubt, one of the best at branding and marketing. The only other company I can think of that exudes a similar marketing and branding strategy is APPLE. These two companies continue to thrive even though they command a heavy premium over competing brands, not necessarily because of a superior product, but because of the mystique they've managed to create around their company. It's genius and they deserve every penny.

Omega makes great products that compete directly with Rolex. Their build quality, fit and finish are also similar. But Omega doesn't have the brand power that Rolex has and because of that, will be perceived as being "less prestigious" by the masses. Furthermore, in order to maintain this perceived prestige, Rolex has taken charge and really tightened their control over how their products are sold. Omega, on the other hand, doesn't have as tight of a leash on their products, allowing grey market dealers to snatch up overstock and sell them at heavy discounts.

The business practices of both companies are directly related to the publics perception and this all stems from the genius marketing tactics employed by Rolex. Recently, Omega has made great efforts to up its perception in the marketplace by manufacturing in-house movements and creating stunning timepieces with state of the art technology. Althrough Omega keeps raising their MSRP, they will not be able to change their brands perception until they can change the way their products are sold in the marketplace.

Enjoy both brands. Their lineups are so different!

[fquiroga]

why? because is better, there are many brands better than omega, in fact omega sales the 60 per cent of his production in china, and the other in the rest of the world, tageheuer and fortis are much better than omega

[JBat]

Originally Posted by improviz

Hmm, I see... so paying for an endorsement cheapens a brand? Tell that to Roger Federer then:
http://www.europastar.com/europastar..._id=1002688922

Tell you? What, my opinion? My opinion is that it cheapens neither brand, that it helps their sales, and that whether or not in this instance the company in question payed for it is irrelavent, as both companies have and continue to pay for celebrity endorsements, and that further, whether they do, or do not, do this has no bearing on either the quality of the watches, nor on the fact that Rolex is so far more highly regarded than Omega. In fact, I think that quite the contrary is true: Rolex's brilliant marketing strategy IS the main reason for their superior brand recognition. This is not to say they don't make brilliant watches; they do. But lots of companies make brilliant watches, and none have the name recognition of Rolex, not even Patek, whom most WIS-types will admit make superior watches to Rolex.

There.

Now then, I'm still trying to understand how, exactly, how whether a celebrity wears a watch in a movie "cheapens" a brand. If we look at the history of Rolex and see how the Submariner became an instant icon after being worn by Connery in Dr. No and multiple other Bond films, or how Panerai became an overnight success after being worn by Schwarzenegger and Stallone, or how the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms took off after being worn by Llloyd Bridges on a magazine cover, how Breitling's sales took off after being endorsed by Travolta, how Tag Heuer has benefited by being seen in the Bourne films, the Kill Bill films, etc., it's pretty hard to make the case that being worn by and/or endorsed by celebrities lowers the standing of a particular brand in the eyes of the public.

BMW certainly didn't seem to suffer having their cars in a few Bond films: in fact sales of the Z3 skyrocketed after it appeared in those films, being driven by that fictional character, just as the Sub did after being worn by him.

In fact, I would argue that this, along with companies' willingness to spend money to *get* these endorsements, bears witness to the fact that, well, it works; otherwise, if there were no evidence to support it, they could spend the money on another corporate jet or tryst. :)

So in the end, one can split hairs and draw the finest of fine distinctions, but sales figures and the companies' actions don't bear this out: if it made a brand's negatives increase more than the positives, they'd never touch this stuff. Fact is, a celebrity wearing a brand and style of watch is a gold mine for that company, which is why they work so hard to get those watches on those wrists.

Not only do they work hard to get them on there, but once they get there, they are not shy about getting the word out. Consider the following page at Rolex, devoted exclusively to listing celebrities who wear Rolex watches:
http://www.rolex.com/en/world-of-rol...nees/index.jsp

If you click on the name of any given celebrity, you'll be taken to a page with a photo of the celebrity (clearly taken for Rolex) with the celeb wearing their Rolex, and a link/blurb which tells you which specific model they wear.

Now, why do they do this? Why does it matter that Yo Yo Ma wears a Datejust?

Because 1) people like to wear the same watch worn by famous people, always have, always will, and 2) it's marketing and helps Rolex to sell their product.

As does the Bond association w/Omega.

Read all about it here:
http://www.chillibreeze.com/articles...ndorsement.asp

Both brands actively seek celebrity endorsements, and if you think Rolex doesn't pay to get some of theirs, well, tell that to Roger Federer.

Well, there you go. As good an opinion as any. I honestly don't know. Most companies are going to advertise in some way, shape or form, if only because it's good business and it works. And I didn't say Rolex doesn't pay for celebrity endorsements, just that they didn't pay to be in the Bond films.

If the sole reason Rolex is more highly regarded than Omega is their marketing, then more power to them. I think there's more to it than just that, such as in-house movements and manufacture, but if marketing is the primary driver, then maybe Omega should follow suit.

Like I said, I have no inherent bias against Omega; I own one and hope to acquire more. I just like Rolex better.

[JBat]

This is off topic, but Apple does not charge a premium over other brands, at least with regards to their computers. It's been shown time and time again that similarly spec'd PC's and Macs price out almost identically.

Even if they did charge more, I'd gladly pay it to avoid having to deal with Windows.

Andrew, other than that, I agree with your post.

/hijack

[warrior]

nice post. far more informative and objective, in my opinion, than many of the responses in this thread.

Originally Posted by presario

I try to stay clear of Rolex vs Omega debates, but I thought I should chime in.

ROLEX is, without a doubt, one of the best at branding and marketing. The only other company I can think of that exudes a similar marketing and branding strategy is APPLE. These two companies continue to thrive even though they command a heavy premium over competing brands, not necessarily because of a superior product, but because of the mystique they've managed to create around their company. It's genius and they deserve every penny.

Omega makes great products that compete directly with Rolex. Their build quality, fit and finish are also similar. But Omega doesn't have the brand power that Rolex has and because of that, will be perceived as being "less prestigious" by the masses. Furthermore, in order to maintain this perceived prestige, Rolex has taken charge and really tightened their control over how their products are sold. Omega, on the other hand, doesn't have as tight of a leash on their products, allowing grey market dealers to snatch up overstock and sell them at heavy discounts.

The business practices of both companies are directly related to the publics perception and this all stems from the genius marketing tactics employed by Rolex. Recently, Omega has made great efforts to up its perception in the marketplace by manufacturing in-house movements and creating stunning timepieces with state of the art technology. Althrough Omega keeps raising their MSRP, they will not be able to change their brands perception until they can change the way their products are sold in the marketplace.

Enjoy both brands. Their lineups are so different!

[fquiroga]

if you read the unvieleble quantity of threads in watchwseek and time zone with damaged watches by omega, and a very very few problems that rolex gives to the owners, you will understand why rolex is MUCH better than omega

[Bullyterrier]

Originally Posted by Polizeifritz

Omega makes a lot of dumb moves IMO. The Bond models really cheapen the whole brand. I see nothing wrong with them associating the SMP/PO with James bond from a marketing standpoint or really any other standpoint the problem arises when they decide to plaster "007" on the watches face or "Quantum of Solace". This is beyond tacky. This really applies to all of the special edition Omegas such as the Olympic ones, I mean really?!?, Olympic rings on the second hand? If I want Olympic merchandise I will go to McDonalds.

I have to say, a mate has the sea master pro 007 limited edition, and when he first showed it to me, before I had a Rolex, the first thing I thought it was tacky. It was a nice watch it felt well built but god those 007 waves on the dial are the height of tackiness. I later bought the normal seamaster pro which was the same watch that was worn in the Brosnan Bond films. But I was never fully happy with it and shortly after changed it for a Sub. Why would anyone want a high end watch plastered with all that tack?

[warrior]

To be honest, I wasn't only referring to size. I was also referring to the lack of A/R on the crystals. Before I had the A/R coating put on the underside of my crystal on the Sub, the dial was not as clear as my PO. ( It still isn't, though it's much sharper than before) I think even the most ardent Rolex enthusiasts would agree that the lack of A/R makes the dial less optically clear.

It's funny--people always talk about Rolex bracelets. But, for me, the lack of A/R is a bigger issue. A clearer and crisper dial is always better, not worse.

I certainly love my Sub, but I think the PO is a better watch.

Originally Posted by JBat

Wrist presence = bigger. Not a must for all watch enthusiasts, though I know the trend is bigger is better. The Sub has great "wrist presence," IMO. To each his own.

[JBat]

The AR is something I've honestly not thought about with regards to the Sub, except, however, for the cyclops. The GMTIIc date is much easier to read because it has AR. I have no difficulty reading the Sub dial otherwise.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by JBat

Well, there you go. As good an opinion as any. I honestly don't know. Most companies are going to advertise in some way, shape or form, if only because it's good business and it works. And I didn't say Rolex doesn't pay for celebrity endorsements, just that they didn't pay to be in the Bond films.

If the sole reason Rolex is more highly regarded than Omega is their marketing, then more power to them. I think there's more to it than just that, such as in-house movements and manufacture, but if marketing is the primary driver, then maybe Omega should follow suit.

Like I said, I have no inherent bias against Omega; I own one and hope to acquire more. I just like Rolex better.

Well, let me be clear: I am in no way arguing that Omega movements are of the same quality as Rolex movements; I think that Larry convincingly illustrated this earlier in the thread, and the 4130 in my Daytona just rocks, but...

....but what I'm pointing out is that the average Joe knows nothing about this technical stuff, and the question is why is Rolex a more prestigious brand than Omega, which I think boils down mostly though not exclusively to marketing, and particularly celebrity endorsements, rather than the genuine superiority of the movement and customer service; other aspects, such as fit and finish, are a bit more subjective, and there are elements of each that I'd say are better and worse than the other.

I think that both are great, mass-produced brands, with the movements and customer service of Rolex being superior, particularly the latter from what I've heard about some of Omega's service centers...but AJ isn't going to know about that either in all likelihood, so I think that it's mostly marketing, and the price difference probably plays into the perception of superiority as well, and certainly there's an impression of higher quality as well among most.

Is it worth 3-4x the price? Subjective, but the market certainly seems to be bearing it out, and hey: I bought two myself, which I certainly wouldn't have done if I thought they weren't worth it!!

[JBat]

^^I agree. Heck, forget the average Joe, most AD salespeople don't know squat about the watches.

[Deep Sea]

Originally Posted by presario

I try to stay clear of Rolex vs Omega debates, but I thought I should chime in.

ROLEX is, without a doubt, one of the best at branding and marketing. The only other company I can think of that exudes a similar marketing and branding strategy is APPLE. These two companies continue to thrive even though they command a heavy premium over competing brands, not necessarily because of a superior product, but because of the mystique they've managed to create around their company. It's genius and they deserve every penny.

Omega makes great products that compete directly with Rolex. Their build quality, fit and finish are also similar. But Omega doesn't have the brand power that Rolex has and because of that, will be perceived as being "less prestigious" by the masses. Furthermore, in order to maintain this perceived prestige, Rolex has taken charge and really tightened their control over how their products are sold. Omega, on the other hand, doesn't have as tight of a leash on their products, allowing grey market dealers to snatch up overstock and sell them at heavy discounts.

The business practices of both companies are directly related to the publics perception and this all stems from the genius marketing tactics employed by Rolex. Recently, Omega has made great efforts to up its perception in the marketplace by manufacturing in-house movements and creating stunning timepieces with state of the art technology. Althrough Omega keeps raising their MSRP, they will not be able to change their brands perception until they can change the way their products are sold in the marketplace.

Enjoy both brands. Their lineups are so different!

Originally Posted by warrior

nice post. far more informative and objective, in my opinion, than many of the responses in this thread.

Totally agree!

I have been following this one from the beginning, with much interest might I add. I own both, and enjoy both for similar and different reasons (even the 'tacky' little 007 counterweight on my second hand ). Each watch has its strong points and its weak points, all of which are my opinion...and nothing more. It's a free world, so nobody says any of us have to agree on anything.


But, I think we can agree that the marketing department at Rolex is one finely oiled machine! The entire industry can learn something from them if they study Rolex close enough.

Cheers all, from the owner of a nice, tacky Bond SMP, and several Rolex with crappy bracelets!

[WJGESQ]

Seems like those who own both, seem to give the nod to Omega.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by WJGESQ

Seems like those who own both, seem to give the nod to Omega.

Not me! I think they're both great watches, with strengths and weaknesses in different areas. When it comes to the central function of a watch, i.e. telling time, it's a tie pretty much, although the SM is too new to time comparatively to the Sub; it was very accurate at first (a second or so a day), now it's sped up a tiny bit to about 1.5, which would put the Sub ahead in the accuracy dept. at 1.0 per day on average.

I love all of my watches, but if for no other reason than the great marketing and name recognition, they'll get the nod, even if it's a tie in the time-telling department; they get more r-e-s-p-e-c-t than the Omegas. Omega is working on building up the brand and I've gotten numerous comments about mine, so we'll see how they do in the long run in this department; competition is always a good thing imo.

But they're all gorgeous, I don't find myself looking to buy anymore, pretty happy with the current crew.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by improviz

Hmm, I see... so paying for an endorsement cheapens a brand? Tell that to Roger Federer then:
http://www.europastar.com/europastar..._id=1002688922

Two key differences:

1. Roger Federer is a real athlete, with a real skill, admired by real people for his actual achievements.

2. There is no "Federer-logo" Rolex watch, he's seen in stock watches, and endorses the brand as a whole.

FWIW, to compare apples to apples, I think the actual Tiger Woods Tag Heuer is much tackier than Federer being associated with Rolex as a brand. If Tiger just endorsed Tag and, say, wore a stock Link quartz for competition play, much different IMO.

[Boopie]

My response more pertains to the ladies' models. To me, Rolex watches look far nicer and more interesting than the ladies' Omegas (sorry, Cindy).

Omega's ladies' watches are nice, but they are not distinctive looking, IMO. I think for example, Chanel, Cartier, and even Movado's Esq., and Tiffany's in-house brand, produce more attractive looking ladies' watches than Omega's ladies' offerings. Most of the Omega ladies' models are quartz watches...nothing wrong with that, but to me a quartz watch suggests that the models are more "fashion" watches than what Rolex puts out. To me, spending a lot of money on a quartz watch (e.g. in Rolex price territory) is justified only if there is a really awesome design with a lot of precious metals and/or jewels on the watch.

Even the Omega women's automatic movement models don't suggest that they are as rugged as a Rolex, e.g. no crown guards, rotatable bezel (such as on the Yachtmaster). Heck, even Ulysse Nardin's ladies' pink and diamond Dual Time watch has an automatic movement, with crown guards (although I seriously doubt that watch is as sturdy as a DJ).

Plus, heck, there is nothing wrong with the fact that a Rolex is instantly recognizable, unlike many of the Omega offerings (particularly in the women's line).

When I see someone wearing a Rolex, I don't think, "Oh, there's someone who can't afford a Patek." While a Patek is probably a "better" watch than a Rolex, I know that in most instances a Patek is not as durable as a Rolex (particularly a Submariner). The watches suit two completely different purposes, and two different markets. But, in many instances (obviously, not all), someone who wears a sports watch such as a Tag or Omega would love to wear a Rolex instead, but just can't afford one. That being said, I believe most people would agree that Omega, like a Breitling or a Tag (or even something much less expensive, such as a Hamilton or Seiko), makes a good watch, and the wearer isn't totally throwing away their money (as on a fashion watch).

[rolex sweep]

Basicly i think its just because Rolex has so much more history of watch making. I am not sure of the correct date Omega stepped into the watch making, but i am sure Rolex started around 1904-1905 time period.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Two key differences:

1. Roger Federer is a real athlete, with a real skill, admired by real people for his actual achievements.

Your skill for hair-splitting is admirable, perhaps you should become a barber. This is not a cartoon, it is a film, with real actors playing real parts wearing real watches, real clothes, driving real cars....you act as though somehow because the character happens to be fictional, it somehow nullifies the fact that people often look at the clothes, accessories, cars, etc. worn/driven by actors/actresses in the roles they play.

But this is ridiculous, and as I've already pointed out and you keep managing to avoid addressing: by this reckoning, the Submariner shouldn't have gotten popular either, as it owes its popularity to Sean Connery playing FICTIONAL character James Bond.

And yet it did, as documented by Rolex afficianados both here and all over the world.

Please explain.

You keep ducking this, because the facts are incontrovertible: the success of the Bond movies led directly to the smash success of the Submariner, and that was far from the only instance of this ever happening:
http://www.finchsquarterly.com/fqr-s...d-ambassadors/

Tell me: did Sean Connery ever endorse Rolex or their products?

Originally Posted by dannyp

2. There is no "Federer-logo" Rolex watch, he's seen in stock watches, and endorses the brand as a whole.

This is an aside and a diversion, and has nothing to do with how the success of the Submariner is tied to the success of Bond, a FICTIONAL character. Nor does it change the fact that Bond is played by a real person, not a cartoon, and that marketing of this type is every bit as legitimate as employing an athlete, musician, painter, whatever: wearing a Datejust isn't going to turn me into Yo Yo Ma any more than wearing a Tag is going to make someone play golf like Tiger Woods, any more than PO is going to change you into James Bond.

So to sit there and say that somehow, it's more "legitimate" to have some sports figure whose achievments are just as unattainable to mere mortals as those of a movie character is to make a pretty incongruous argument.

The fact is that the Submariner was made famous by FICTIONAL character James Bond, and that didn't seem to "cheapen" the brand of Rolex one bit; in fact it is in no small measure responsible for the success of its sports line, just as is the association of another notable player of FICTIONAL characters, Paul Newman and the Daytona, just as is the Tag Heuer Monaco with Steve McQueen's wearing of it in "Le Mans".

The facts show that, your protestations aside, these associations are overwhelmingly positive for a brand, and "cheapen" it not one iota.

End of discussion.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by improviz

But this is ridiculous, and as I've already pointed out and you keep managing to avoid addressing: by this reckoning, the Submariner shouldn't have gotten popular either, as it owes its popularity to Sean Connery playing FICTIONAL character James Bond.

And yet it did, as documented by Rolex afficianados both here and all over the world.



The facts show that, your protestations aside, these associations are overwhelmingly positive for a brand, and "cheapen" it not one iota.

End of discussion.

As to your first point, I agree entirely. Rolex, however, managed to achieve this desired effect without paying for it and through subtle adverts, not the overt plastering of logos all over the place.

Just an association with a film project doesn't cheapen the brand. Having what are essentially film logos plastered all over a fine timepiece does.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by dannyp

As to your first point, I agree entirely. Rolex, however, managed to achieve this desired effect without paying for it and through subtle adverts, not the overt plastering of logos all over the place.

Just an association with a film project doesn't cheapen the brand. Having what are essentially film logos plastered all over a fine timepiece does.

In your opinion. But you know what they say about those....

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by improviz

In your opinion.

Something to which we are all entitled.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Something to which we are all entitled.

The problem is you keep confusing it with a fact.

[rcher]

POODLE FIGHT!!! POODLE FIGHT!!!

[Deyn Man]

Originally Posted by Strut99GT

Keep in mind, I still aim to buy a Rolex next, but I have to disagree here. My Seamaster and Speedmaster feel *far* more solid than any Rolex I've tried on. The bracelet for the Sub feels like a cheap toy in comparison. Unscrewing and winding the crown feels smooth as silk, and my watch is also dead-accurate. Honestly, I feel like the finish on my SMP is far superior. However, I know that doesn't make the underlying movement better for the long haul, or the service, or the resale, or the brand consistency that will allow the watch to look fresh and new even decades from now.

I know the Sub is a great watch, but let's at least interject some reality in the comparison here!

maybe i'm just biassed hehehehe!
my sincere apologies for the seemingly sweeping statement...

i was reffering to the following watches:
2 speedy watches - speedy date and the broad arrow (versus daytonas).. and a GMT Seamaster versus a sub (or an exp II perhaps?)...

i was dead set on getting the omegas but when i went to the local AD and checked them out, i decided to save up for a rolex. maybe i was more disappointed that the pictures looked way better than the real thing... which led me to nit pick -- on the sharp edges, ultimately assumming that their build quality was inferior to the rolexes that were there as well.

again, apologies for the sweeping statement...