What watch do you wear?
- Thread starter Doran
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,883
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
No, the Steinhart is mine, the SMP belongs to the guy sit next to me at work.
Having them both side by side convinced me even more that I don't think I could justify the price tag it commands. Horses for courses though.
Last edited:
The problem I have with the Steinhart Ocean 1 is that it's a Rolex Sub copy.
I ordered it from Swiss Watches Direct for £2,165.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,883
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I don't have that problem 
The way I see it, almost every watch has designs that are similar to one another, especially when they are Divers.
The way I see it, almost every watch has designs that are similar to one another, especially when they are Divers.
Last edited:
Still a good price. Did they include the cert papers? I emailed Omega and they want £100 for the papers (they have to send off for them or something, after you send them the card certs etc.)
I don't have that problem
The way I see it, almost every watch has designs that are similar to one another, especially when they are Divers.
Usually either the Rolex sub or the SMP from what I have seen.
The Rolex Sub (date) in standard black is the only other watch I would get. However it does look a bit more 'chunky' than the SMP, even though the face is only 40mm.
Still, look how nice it is - http://www.rolex.com/watches/submariner/m116610ln-0001.html
I saw one new for £5300, which IMO doesn't command the extra over the SMP. If it was £2300, I would have had some thinking to do
Rolex control prices though their Boutiques, there is no doubt they are massively over priced but then so are Omega's.
At this level the watch parts and labour aren't worth the ££££'s they charge.
If you compare an Omega, Rolex or Breitling side-by-side to a watch costing under £1k there probably isn't much difference. You are paying to own a part of their brand and heritage.
Rolex being one of the top recognised brands in the world means they can price an item double what the other high end watch makers can.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,883
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I actually quite like the strap on the SMP but I think (may be wrong though) that it's only used on the small / medium faced watches and not the 45.5 mm faced versions
I like the subs but at 40mm face they are a tad small for me - I prefer the 43mm DSSD
Both lovely watches though
I like the subs but at 40mm face they are a tad small for me - I prefer the 43mm DSSD
Both lovely watches though
Well for a start, your Invicta isn't made out of platinum.
A Submariner non date retails at £5k and if you took it at face value then obviously the watch is not worth the sum of its parts.
Of the two, the auto is the one I would go for. The chrono is too busy for me. If it had to be a PRS516 chrono then I find the auto version more atttractive with the 6/9/12 subdial layout. It is slightly larger and the price tag is a little more challenging but personally I think it would be worth it.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,371
- Location
- Northumberland
On the most part this is what it boils down to.
Those things exist on many brands, some well known while others go under the radar of all but enthusiast watch fans out there.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,883
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
You can get a Platinum Seiko for about £800, automatic too.
http://www.creationwatches.com/prod...r15-titanium-automatic-sbdc007-200m-1742.html
As I said, the truth is the brand name and heritage play a BIG part. A Rolex at £23,000 isn't 30 times better built than a £700 Seiko (await someone point out it is Hardex Crystal or it goes deeper underwater), it isn't 30 times more accurate. One might argue the Rolex will hold its value or go up (as with any investment, it's a risk), but with the same argument the most you will lose with a Seiko is £700, which is pittance in comparison and who cares if you lose £700 when you have another £22,300 left in the bank for some other proper investment?
I mean if people want to use invesetment as a reason to buy a watch, there are much better things to invest than watches.I am willing to openly admit that if I ever buy a Omega and Rolex, it is because of bragging rights and nothing else. Because any other reason I am lying to myself. Lets face it, if I want accuracy I buy a Quartz. If I want to invest my money, it certainly won't be in watches.
I like to think buying these watches at thounsands is akin to buying designer handbags at £5,000. Do they hold the purse any secure? Did the cow it come from have better DNA? A £5,000 handbag is more expensive because it is made in Italy as opposed to China. It is also because of the logo glued/stitched to the front of it.
It's a fashion accessory.
We can all have the Swiss thanked for this really (SWATCH Group), because before Quartz came along, watches were seen as an object for its function, not as an object for its desirability. Quartz when it first came out was expensive, the first ever Seiko Quartz costs in thousands in today's money, it wasn't until Casio's mass market penatration that drove the price down (as with all electronic, prices will come down). A Quartz is more accurate than your automatic (more accurate is better) and because it was new to the market people wanted it because of the novelty, a new way to tell time, and in the 70's and 80's, digital was cool (even in music, remember that sound?), digital front watches was everywhere, old mechanical watches was dead in the water and the Swiss had to do something to save its industry. So the only way was to market it as a lifestyle object, an object of desire, a move away from an object of function. It can do that because it is mechanical and that is its marketing starting point. So once it moved to that platform, you can basically charge for what you want since people will pay for nicer things, luxury objects. People would pay stupid amount for a antique china bowl because it is old. The only difference is that said bowl would be one of a kind and 2,000 years old but you can't say the same about a £20,000 Rolex, there is many of them around and nothing to stop the company knocking out many more, time after time.
That's how I see the whole watch thing.
Thanks Daniel, didnt realise the Chrono came in an automatic version.
But to behonest if Im going to spend a grand on a watch Id might as well go for an Omega or Tag. Trying to keep it below £300 where poss.
You can get a Platinum Seiko for about £800, automatic too.
http://www.creationwatches.com/prod...r15-titanium-automatic-sbdc007-200m-1742.html
As I said, the truth is the brand name and heritage play a BIG part. A Rolex at £23,000 isn't 30 times better built than a £700 Seiko (await someone point out it is Hardex Crystal or it goes deeper underwater), it isn't 30 times more accurate. One might argue the Rolex will hold its value or go up (as with any investment, it's a risk), but with the same argument the most you will lose with a Seiko is £700, which is pittance in comparison and who cares if you lose £700 when you have another £22,300 left in the bank for some other proper investment?
I am willing to openly admit that if I ever buy a Omega and Rolex, it is because of bragging rights and nothing else. Because any other reason I am lying to myself. Lets face it, if I want accuracy I buy a Quartz. If I want to invest my money, it certainly won't be in watches.
I like to think buying these watches at thounsands is akin to buying designer handbags at £5,000. Do they hold the purse any secure? Did the cow it come from have better DNA? A £5,000 handbag is more expensive because it is made in Italy as opposed to China. It is also because of the logo glued/stitched to the front of it.
It's a fashion accessory.
We can all have the Swiss thanked for this really (SWATCH Group), because before Quartz came along, watches were seen as an object for its function, not as an object for its desirability. Quartz when it first came out was expensive, the first ever Seiko Quartz costs in thousands in today's money, it wasn't until Casio's mass market penatration that drove the price down (as with all electronic, prices will come down). A Quartz is more accurate than your automatic (more accurate is better) and because it was new to the market people wanted it because of the novelty, a new way to tell time, and in the 70's and 80's, digital was cool (even in music, remember that sound?), digital front watches was everywhere, old mechanical watches was dead in the water and the Swiss had to do something to save its industry. So the only way was to market it as a lifestyle object, an object of desire, a move away from an object of function. It can do that because it is mechanical and that is its marketing starting point. So once it moved to that platform, you can basically charge for what you want since people will pay for nicer things, luxury objects. People would pay stupid amount for a antique china bowl because it is old. The only difference is that said bowl would be one of a kind and 2,000 years old but you can't say the same about a £20,000 Rolex, there is many of them around and nothing to stop the company knocking out many more, time after time.
That's how I see the whole watch thing.
The watch you linked to is titanium.
There is no watch in the world made out of platinum (case and bracelet) that you can buy for £800.
EDIT - on a slight tangent, my wife has a lot of handbags, some bought 5-10 years ago, several are now worth double what she paid and if she decided to sell them, they would get snapped up. Certain vintage watches are also an excellent investment if you know what you are doing. There are even dedicated fund managers who will advise you which watches to invest in; however some of these watches are for the serious collector/person with a shedload of cash.
Last edited: