kristofferJ Skrev:

willy Skrev:... A Speedy would last 5 minutes against any Rolex in an endurance test...

Willy, du skal vist have læst op på din NASA historie. De testede følgende mærker:Elgin, Benrus, Hamilton, Mido, Piccard, Omega, Bulova, Rolex, Longine and Gruen.

Da testen var slut var resultatet:

Rolex Daytona : stopped running on two occasions during the relative humidity test and during the high pressure test when the sweep second hand wraped and press against the other hands

Omega Speedmaster : gained 21 minutes during decompression test and lost 15 minutes during the acceleration test , the luminescence of the dial was lost during the test

Final conclusion : the Omega chronograph performmed satisfactorily


Det er bare EN test, så man skal nok ikke lægge alt for meget i den, men den måde nogle sætter Rolex på en piedestal køber jeg ganske enkelt ikke.

hannover_dk Skrev:

KlausM Skrev:

hannover_dk Skrev:Rolex optrådte hos Nasa med en ElPrimero baseret sag

Valjoux var det nu ElPrimero kom først i 1988.
Mvh
Klaus

ja vist var det da det - Zenith maskinen kom jo i alle fald fald først 1969 og jo ikke til rolex på den tid, så den kunne det aldrig være hos Daytona - valjoux 72 it was (en moderne daytona ville sikkert kunne bestå bortset fra safirglasset hvis det stadigt er no-go)
vh

hannover_dk Skrev:

kristofferJ Skrev:

willy Skrev:... A Speedy would last 5 minutes against any Rolex in an endurance test...

Willy, du skal vist have læst op på din NASA historie. De testede følgende mærker:Elgin, Benrus, Hamilton, Mido, Piccard, Omega, Bulova, Rolex, Longine and Gruen.

Da testen var slut var resultatet:

Rolex Daytona : stopped running on two occasions during the relative humidity test and during the high pressure test when the sweep second hand wraped and press against the other hands

Omega Speedmaster : gained 21 minutes during decompression test and lost 15 minutes during the acceleration test , the luminescence of the dial was lost during the test

Final conclusion : the Omega chronograph performmed satisfactorily


Det er bare EN test, så man skal nok ikke lægge alt for meget i den, men den måde nogle sætter Rolex på en piedestal køber jeg ganske enkelt ikke.

Helt korrekt Kristoffer - Men igen det her er jo vindmøllers kamp om noget der er så inderligt ligegyldigt
Rolex optrådte hos Nasa med en ElPrimero baseret sag - og det kan ikke sammenlignes med en Sub i oystercase - Nasa ville jo ha en kronograf - hvilket viste sig morderligt klogt - men en kronograf - det kan man ikke beskylde en sub for at være.

Jeg hører til dem der ikke køber, at en rolex sub rent maskinelt holder så hules meget bedre end en forarbejdet eta 2824 i et godt hus . Marginalt måske, men forskellen i rolex ligger først og fremmest tidligt i oystercase og idag i brandvalue. Det er et superholdbart ur, men det er der mange der er.
Den der med hvor mange gange man kan kaste ting til jorden og alt det andet - er kærlighed til ens barn der gør blind, og lysten til at gøre alt til en ren sammenligning - blandet med frygtet for, at det man altid har bekendt sig til, måske ikke helt holder.
I øvrigt er spørgsmålet om et ur kan tåle at blive kylet på jorden 15 gange, ikke et vigtigt kriterie - for mig.

vh

willy Skrev:Hi John i remember reading somewhere that Rolex were very pressed for time in trying to develop a NAS watch . And if my memory is not failing , they were not given enough time or warning compaired to Omega . Not that it matters much because in my book any Chronograph is a weaker watch than your basic time and date . And therefore cannot qualify as best all round watch . Willy

khbk Skrev:"Best all round watches"?
What about the square ones?

Citat:I am 100% sure, Rolex to day, given the chance - could deliver a hersalit version of daytona and get it certified, but when the chance was there, only Speedmaster passed.

willy Skrev:Men i dag er der mindre forskel på kvaliteten mellem Rolex og Omega end for 30 år siden.

Very true indeed . It was 30-40 years ago Rolex built their reputation . I think it was the Oyster case more than any other factor that made Rolex what they are today . Omega have always considered Rolex to be their competitor and benchmark . But Rolex have a unique position in the Swiss watch industry , and it is very difficult for other brands to compete with them on equal footing .

Rolex are dependent on no one , they are a fund . They have almost unlimited funds , and a world wide service system that is unique . I cannot see any brand in this segment who have even a ghost of a chance to challange the position of Rolex .

All this talk about one caliber being as good as another etc etc . It can be a endless discussion especially today where we have thousands of different calibers . But 30-40 years ago there were not so many . Rolex have had a policy that is so different to say brands like Omega .

Omega put glass backs on their watches today , and use more resources on finishing calibers . Rolex use their resources to make very service friendly and strong calibers , and do not waste money by the extreme polishing of a caliber in a tool watch .

Omega are trying to appeal to a different kind of public today , than they did 40 years ago .And good luck to them .

Rolex and Omega have been compaired with one another for about 60 years at least. by watch people . Any discussion on any blogg involving these two brands always gets feelings running high . It is a never ending story and lots of fun .

I really like both brands and i can see good and bad things with them both . One thing is for sure they can all learn from one another , competition is very healthy. I have read nothing yet that can change my opinion on the all round ability of Rolex watches . But as usual i have learnt something from this debate . But Rolex still make the best all round watch in my humble opinion Willy

hannover_dk Skrev:

willy Skrev:Hi John i remember reading somewhere that Rolex were very pressed for time in trying to develop a NAS watch . And if my memory is not failing , they were not given enough time or warning compaired to Omega . Not that it matters much because in my book any Chronograph is a weaker watch than your basic time and date . And therefore cannot qualify as best all round watch . Willy

Not correct memory None of the factories as such were given any specific time - and all factories were tested with standard watches available from the AD shops. Nothing was changed in the tested Omega at that time
Of course a chronograph is weaker than a basic watch - much weaker - but all tested watches were chronos.Omega changed nothing to the speedmaster, to live up to Nasa requirements.

I am 100% sure, Rolex to day, given the chance - could deliver a hersalit version of daytona and get it certified, but when the chance was there, only Speedmaster passed.
It was a strike of luck, combined with a good watch, and Omega has benifitted from it - which is fair enough - but of course not making them the only good chronograph producer

If it helps you to sleep <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> , I am have no doubt that a new Rolex oystercased Sub is MUCH much stronger than any speedmaster ever build
I would however not swap my 105.003 or 145.012 for a Rolex - anyway not for any other reason than a 5513 or whatever, being higher priced
br