This thread is about the appreciation of horology, as well as the micro-engineering and materials engineering that are required to make a fine watch, clock, or other timepiece.
Ok, thought it was a steal of a deal. Will think about it. Maybe some other anons can give me their opinion. Always wanted a turning fork watch but I’m not sure what’s the price I could expect nowadays to pay for one in decent condition.
Very nice, user. Don't answer if you don't want but is your one salary enough to buy that?
Jaxson Myers
> $25,000
Jack Gomez
Thanks, i only have one salary if that's your question. When i get a bonus, and all of my other commitments are taken care of i can treat myself.
Kayden Morris
I was thinking more like if your normal salary could cover that watch. I'm just genuinely interested.
Juan Morgan
Different user, but salary per what? Salaries are typically measured per year, and almost all yearly salaries would cover that watch.
David Ramirez
Do you mean monthly salary? After my living expenses, bills, savings etc then no i couldn't buy a Rolex every month. Bonuses sometimes leave me with enough to get myself something nice.
Not him but I think it’s obvious he is asking if that user’s monthly wage can cover the price of that watch. It’s indeed an interesting question since it’s a good measurement to know when a watch is too expensive for a person.
Elijah Edwards
That's exactly what I was curious about, the monthly salary to watch price ratio. I don't know why you Americans always think about yearly salary instead of monthly wage.
Colton White
I guess. I for example get paid twice a month so it's not necessarily clear. I think also as mentioned, huge difference between monthly pretax wage, monthly after tax wage, monthly after tax and after fixed expenses, and monthly after tax, fixed expenses, and saving targets. And of course bonus - in my industry for example I get paid roughly half my earnings in one lump at year-end.
Jason Allen
Are we talking post expense or pre expenses? Before or after tax?
Also most people can afford something like this. Some people spend thousands on smoking, drinking, hobbies etc.. When you count those costs over a year for example, most people could afford a Rolex, or any similarly priced watch if they wish.
Jace Young
Anything pre-tax or pre living costs doesn't count, i have commitments which i take care of before i would consider spending money on a watch.
I get paid monthly + bonus which varies, so depending on the bonus i can or can't spend money on luxuries, if the bonus plus what i have left after commitments is enough, then i can afford it.
I realize that. I'm just wondering at what point it's reasonable to get an expensive watch. What should the ratio of your monthly salary to watch price be, for it to be a reasonable purchase?
Josiah Morris
I think the better question here is what's people's salaries? And do you live alone or have a family? I make 80k a year but I have a wife, kid and house so I can't spend money on super expensive watches without feeling very guilty
Henry Murphy
Own. Yeah the fluting is amazing, not sure how long those soft WG sharp edges will last, i would prefer if it was all steel for durability as bezels tend to get some knocks. My clasp is already scratched, Rolex steel seems to scratch really easily.
IMO there is no problem buying what you want as long as your living costs, family and savings are taken care of, it's your money. Some very wealthy people would never dream of spending as much on a watch, even though they could, some others save up for a year to get something they really want. As long as it doesn't get you into debt it's fine.
That's reasonable, yes. I'm just curious as to what other anons thoughts were.
Nicholas Howard
I'm about to buy an expensive watch, and I like the Tudor Pelagos. But then I'm wondering if I shouldn't go balls to the wall instead of buying what is in many ways a "cheaper Rolex alternative".
My most expensive watch is about 1% of last year's full year salary plus bonus pre-tax, and my full collection is about 4-5%.
Mason Butler
The Tudor is a good watch, but it does have that stigma attached to it. If you can afford it get the Rolex. I made that choice when buying my first nice watch, and there was a more expensive model i also wanted. I ended up regretting not spending the extra money on what i really wanted. Never buy something inferior to satisfy the desire of something more expensive, it won't work.
Anthony Hernandez
Well except for the size I like the design of the Pelagos better than a Rolex Sub/GMT/explorer; but I just don't know if I can get over the whole "cheaper Rolex alternative" thing.
You could say Tudors are their own thing now, but then they always kind of were. Though the in-house movement does help.
I hear this about rolex steel. I work in an office and already scratched the shit out of my orient clasp, would hate to think what I'd do to this baby if I ever pull the triggee
Get the Pelagos. It's a better watch than the Sub.
Grayson Hughes
rude
Jordan Perry
It's a decent watch for the price. Miles better than any Daniel Wellington or MVMT. I'm not a fan of the design of the Fairfield in particular, but all those cheap Timex watches are pretty good.
Eli Thompson
yeah I got it for quite cheap and its pretty decent as a casual watch
and it also got me some compliments from girls and that usually does not happen with some of my more expensive pieces
its a fun cheap fashion watch
David Campbell
How loud is the tick?
Jaxson Carter
its quite loud but I don't really hear it inside my watch box (and it sits right next to my bed)
Wyatt Young
I'm thinking about getting a rep of a Rolex Explorer and if I really really love it I'll get a genuine. I feel that it's worth the £200 for the rep to make sure I can get on with it. The rep will be 1:1 and high quality.
Aaron Ortiz
That’s illegal
Jaxon Wright
Look at the finishing of those hands.. The tasteful off white dial..
I will never fail to be amazed by that image, it looks like a CG render.
Noah Miller
When it comes to horological pedigree (in-house vertical integration), there are only three watch brands worth a damn in the sub-10k range: (not counting Homos for obvious reasons)
>Rolexes - have the snob stigma + but the most iconic designs
>Tudor - have the slab sides and "poor man's Rolex" stigma + but they have in-house movement now
>Seiko - has the mall watch stigma + but the new GS branding greatly remedies this
What say you, /wt/?
Brody Reyes
That fluting is probably the only area where Rolex matches GS in terms of finishing.
I have one of those. The chrono feature is actually really good for quartz, it snaps back instantly, rather than slowly resetting like most quartz chronos. I really wish it didn't have the red chrono hand and chapter ring details, though, so it could just be a cheapo quartz Speedy lookalike.
Jaxon Cox
What about Damasko, JLC's production models and Zenith, since you already set Nomos aside?
Lucas Bell
Whats the name of the type on left watch
Thomas Martinez
We've been over this. Cut out tudor though since it's basically a subsidiary.
It's Rolex, and Seiko. And that's it. Seiko I think has the slight edge as I seem to recall talk of people trying to track down their screw and oil suppliers etc., only to discover that, through that convoluted and tangled skein that is the japanese zaibatsu, seiko owns the company that owns the company that owns the company that makes all the other little shit you take for granted, or something like that.
Then again, Rolex only does timepieces, and is technically a charity for ancient, mountaindew tax dodge loophole reasons lost in the mists of time.
Seiko's multiple companies, all controlled by the same cabal that meet in secret once every full moon to perform strange, shinto blood-rites over the grave of old Hattori himself.
Austin Wood
I don't think that's entire fair to Rolex. GS volumes are small enough to allow them to do a lot more hand finishing work that encourages more intricate designs with alternating finishes. At Rolex volumes I don't think it would be practical to have finishing that requires so much hand work. Rolex does very good quality finishing in general, and certainly the best by miles and miles at their sort of production volumes.
Ian Peterson
>It's Rolex, and Seiko. And that's it And before some user gets sidetracked and butthurt for no reason, I'm just answering this >When it comes to horological pedigree (in-house vertical integration)
Those brands rely heavily on the usual chain of production to get their stuff made (not that there's anything wrong with that). Seiko could get everything made "under one roof", as it were with rolex close behind (they're getting closer all the time; and they've been trying to buy that one recalcitrant family owned dial-maker for the past 50 years).
Seems like cutting gold to such perfect lines is asking for wear trouble
Juan Russell
It's an anime special edition of the W-9052-1V
Nicholas Gonzalez
Damasko, sure. I might even start liking their designs if they develop the DC 80 aesthetic further. JLC and Zenith are part of large conglomerates.
I see your point about Tudor, though they do have a direction of their own that is pretty good in its own right. But yes, it's a subsidiary and therefore it's actually Rolex.
I know you weren't knocking Seiko with the "owning the company that owns the company" part; but I'd like to add that Rolex is that way too. They only outright acquired their main movement supplier as recently as 2003 or something like that.
John Ross
The thing is rolexes are roughly the same price. Shouldn't larger production volume & less hand work mean they should be cheaper?
Asher Brooks
>Those brands rely heavily on the usual chain of production to get their stuff made Damasko makes the overwhelming majority of their own components for their in-house models, as far as I know. Zenith makes pretty close to everything themselves, and I thought JLC did as well, if anything they are more likely to supply other parts of the conglomerates than receive anything from them.
Joshua Turner
Rolex does put out monstrous numbers of watches, many people don't realize this.
But honestly, for that price they should have a bit nicer (hand) finishing. But then I guess people are willing to pay, so yeah.
Ethan King
Well, Rolex has much higher R&D costs due to having to research and develop most or all of their capital equipment because no one else even attempts to produce the volumes they do at the quality standard they do. They also spend a lot more on advertising.
Justin Robinson
Does anybody in /wt/ actually own a Rolex?
Nicholas Williams
Yes, a few posters do.
Jeremiah Mitchell
From left to right, up-down no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,
Better luck next time mate.
Joshua Watson
Remember that The design is just different. It's not just because of volume either. The design has always been different and has simply not changed that much in terms of dial and hands. The actual case finishing is easily on par and the bracelet finishing and fitment is visually superior for Rolex watches; apparent even at a distance.
Blake Hill
>owning a Rolex
Aiden Barnes
I'm sure you've all read at some point or other the amateur analysis that GS sell for far lower than they "should" and that seiko kinda works at a loss on them. I don't know how much that's true, but if this relatively recent global expansion is the "introductory period" with a suitable "introductory price" then their stuff's obviously bound to get more pricey (if they can actually break it on the world scene).
Brayden Lee
You could buy patek tier watches for less than 10k for example a H. Moser
Easton Robinson
Well for that price they could finish the edges of the hands and indices a little nicer. And align their bezels a little more consistently. But yes, they were definite tool watches before quartz.
David Richardson
I don't know if damasko makes their own mainsprings (yeah, that fancy one) or if they outsource to a specialised firm for that. Surely JLC, Zenith and those other swiss buy their mainspring from Nivarox? (aka swatch). I know rolex got out of that grip and started producing their own, but I'm unsure as to the status of the other, non-swatch swiss groups.
Movement and case wise (not sure about springs) Damasko make. Dunno about screws. Dials, hands (+lume) and the crystals they wouldn't make themselves. Virtually none of the swiss makers produce their own dials (+lume), hands and sapphire crystals. It doesn't make sense for them attempt to do so. I believe that AP (now) make the grid RO dial themselves, but I believe they also used to outsource.
I don't know about the anti-shock systems all these companies use. Used to be that they all bought it from that one firm (now swatch owned, just like the mainspring maker).
The independents again are another story.
Joshua Jenkins
But is vertical integration better? Is the end product better for it?
David Edwards
I feel like Rolex design is purposeful, barring their stupid solid gold sports models. They make good use of materials and techniques like the platinum deposition they use to fill the bezel grooves. Other than that GS i think has better micro detailing on their hands/indices but Rolex has a better durability factor IMO.
>The actual case finishing is easily on par and the bracelet finishing and fitment is visually superior for Rolex watches; apparent even at a distance. The case finishing on Rolex models is less intricate, but of excellent quality.
Rolex dials and hands aren't as nicely finished as GS, even accounting for the simpler designs.
Rolex has the best bracelet end link fitment in the entire industry, but I don't think I'd agree that the surface finishing on Rolex bracelets is markedly better than GS.
You have to keep in mind that Seiko is still ultimately a privately held entity and that absolutely maximizing short term margins is not the sole motivation for everything they do. GS operates at an obviously lower margin than many other high-end production watchmakers do, but also keep in mind Seiko doesn't spend nearly as much on marketing for GS as some of those other brands do.
That’s the movement they use nowadays to make handcuffs from?
Jack Nelson
Better than ROLEX ROLEX ROLEX ROLEX ROLEX ROLEX ROLEX ROLEX
Carson Reed
Not necessarily; but the reason you buy mechanical watches isn't to have the best possible end product.
You buy for more subjective reasons; craftsmanship, heritage, prestige, ... All of these things are enhanced the more a watch company is vertically integrated and the less a watch company was taken over / acquired / integrated during its history.
Zachary Parker
>and that absolutely maximizing short term margins is not the sole motivation for everything they do. The answer may be obvious, but since I only have my own anecdotal evidence (and gut feeling) and no actual in-depth business analysis, but surely the big western groups like LVMH etc., do have this as their sole motivation?
Can anyone think of a recent motion that one of the big groups has done that surprised you? In that I mean you were puzzled because the action by the aforementioned seemed to clash with the idea that they have only their own commitments to private equity in mind, company history, heritage and future well being be damned for some short term profit?
Mainly looking at LVMH, Richemont and Swatch here.