Best all round watches

[willy]

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.

Of course i have read the NASA history when i was just out of my nappys <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> I know the Speedy is a classic and a damm good watch , i have owned 3 of them . But there is know way that watch is as robust as a Rolex with the Oyster case . No Chronograph is as strong as a simple time date watch .

I have maybe been the hardest critic of Rolex watches on this site . But only when they are compaired to segments of high end watchmaking . People tend to get blinded by their love for certain brands , and defend them no matter what logic tells them .

One thing no one can deny is that Rolex is the most famous watch brand on earth today. And anyone who reads their watch history knows they did not make their reputation in the marketing department . They made it with fantastic work disciplin , and quality controll . And they never cut corners . And it is a fact that this is what built their reputation . I love IWC - Lang-JLC etc etc , and i have owned them all along with many other brands . But for me Rolex is the strongest mechanical watch i know . But ok that is just my opinion along with a few million others <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> Willy

[willy]

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

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

[Stenstrup]

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

Efter 37 års interesse for ure og ejerskab af 4 highendmærker og 2 - 3 modeller inden for hver mærke, samt forhandling af nogle af mærkerne og forhandling af reservedele via et par gode Rolexforhandlere til et par rige kinisere og flere velhavende Amerikanere, synes jeg nok at jeg er opjektiv. Derfor giver jeg dig ret i at et super ETAbasseret urværk med co-axl er lige så godt som et Rolexværk. Rolex fik endda George Daniels til at lave et datejust til dem med co-axl escapent. Det blev iøvrigt solgt for ca 80.000 - 100.000 kr. på en auktion for 1 måned siden. Uret var fra 1999 mener jeg. Anyway. Forskellen i dag på Omega og Rolex mht. kvalitet ligger meget i at først og fremmes har Rolex et aftersales serviceniveau, som er meget højt. Garenti for reservedels på udgående modeller er mindst 30 år. På Omega ca 15 - 20 år. Noget andet er at Rolex bruger 904 L stål, som er mere modstandsygtig over for korrektion end 316 L stål som alle andre bruger. 904 L stållet for uret til at ligne ny selv efter 40 år. Bare lige en slibning/polering, så er den hjemme. Desværre koster den slags stål 3 gange så meget så det er også en fakta hvorfor Rolex er så dyrt. Desuden giver Rolex 10 % af deres omsætning til velgørende formål.
Men i dag er der mindre forskel på kvaliteten mellem Rolex og Omega end for 30 år siden. Omega laver nu supersolide urkasser og de mindre solide kan sammenlignes med Rolex Cellinekollektionen. Den store forskel er i aftersales hvor Rolex bruger mange penge på at sikre sig at deres urmagere er på 1X14 til 2X14 dages kursus hvert år hos dem, og hvert 2. år skal alle Rolexforhandlere godkendes til forsat at må sælge Rolex. En af kriterierne er at servicen på urerne skal være næsten som på fabrikken selv. (bortset fra at have alle reservedele lige ved hånden).
TRYGHED. Det er det det handler om når man køber et Rolexur. For os urkendere ved vi at det er overdrevent tryghed, men for mange mennesker betyder det alt.
VH
Nicholas

[willy]

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]

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

[khbk]

"Best all round watches"?
What about the square ones?

[baun]

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

<!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: -->



VH Baun

[TioMalo]

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.

Nøøh, det var dengang. I dag er der ikke mere krav for hesalit eller pleksi - eksempel er f.eks. Fortis (med safirglas) som russerne brugte i rummet eller Speedy X-33 (teoretisk set) for marsmissionerne.
Det andet er at dengang vidste man ikke, hvorvidt et automatværk kunne trække uret op pga. mangel af tyngdekraft...
(Måske havde NASA videnskabsfolk pjækket fra fysikforelæsninger på uni <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> ??).
I dag ved man at automatværk fungerer fint også uden tyngdekraft.
Men, hvad ved bønderne om kartoffelsalat eller, hvad ved jeg om chronoer... <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: -->

John

[Stenstrup]

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

Hi Willy
Only 2 brands comes to mind of better long time service than Rolex comes to mind with me, and that is some of IWC´s model. The highend and complicationwathes have a sparepartpolici og minimum 70 years after model has been disconected, and then Patek Phillipe, that gives you a spereparts guarenty unlimmited. They simply just build a new commonent/part for you whenever needed. Some of there 90 - 120 years watches runs today with new parts in them and can run anouther 90 years if the company excist at that time.
Regards
Nicholas

[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

Thanks John i was having trouble sleeping <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> Willy