Let's See Your Watches! The Vintage Watch Thread.

[Twitch]

Any survey they did was probably amongst a bunch of under-25 years olds who are constantly diddling their phone/whatever devices. I'd say if one goes into traditional places or the business world they'd see most men and women still count on wrist watches not only as time pieces but as part of their accouterments.

 

[Tomasso]

I'd say if one goes into traditional places or the business world they'd see most men and women still count on wrist watches not only as time pieces but as part of their accouterments.

That's my observation as well.

 

[rygd]

Wristwatches are for girls.

I have tried many times to wear a watch on my wrist throughout my life, and along with being uncomfortable they get in the way and get damaged too easily. I have liked pocketwatches since I was young, so I fall into that camp...but i do a lot of quirky things because I find them fun or safer. A great example is me purchasing this: http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/cellphone/7830/

The problem is trying to find room to carry it around.

 

[1911 Man]

Breitling watches

Who has one, and what is your opinion of them? I have my eyes on a Chrono Superocean, and wanted some input.
Thanks

 

["Doc" Devereux]

I have a B-1 as my everyday watch, and am a big fan of the marque.

 

[eightbore]

[QUOTE="Doc" Devereux]I have a B-1 as my everyday watch, and am a big fan of the marque.[/QUOTE]

I've always been a fan of the Avenger Seawolf. Waterproof to 3000 meters is more than impressive for the $2200 street price. I'd also take a gold navitimer if someone twisted my arm.

 

[Ecuador Jim]

Impressive watches. If your wallet can stand it, go for it!

 

["Doc" Devereux]

One thing you need to be aware of is servicing. A watch of this calibre needs to be maintained and that means sending it back every few years for a thorough going over. Factor a couple of hundred bucks for this every four years or so, since it's worth doing - you'll prolonong the watch's life and make sure it runs aas well as it's supposed to.

I've always been a fan of the Avenger Seawolf. Waterproof to 3000 meters is more than impressive for the $2200 street price.

This is the thing. Breitling make very particular watches for people who are very particular about their watches. The flying models are extremely practical for everything except swimming (they go up, not down!) with easy to read chronographs and the (more useful than you'd first think) slide rule, and the models designed for the water are incredibly practical in their element. They're not cheap, but I think that they're good value for money.

I'd also take a gold navitimer if someone twisted my arm.

Since my dress watch is a Cosmonaute (the Navitimer with 24-hour dial) in stainless steel, I can assure you that after a few seconds in the watch's company very little twisting would be necessary! lol

 

[Martinis at 8]

Who has one, and what is your opinion of them? I have my eyes on a Chrono Superocean, and wanted some input.
Thanks

Don't do it laddie! Get yourself a Rolex.

M8

 

[1911 Man]

I would like a Rolex, but first the Breitling. Then the Rolex Submariner with the blue face and 18k gold / stainless steel bracelet.

 

[Martinis at 8]

I would like a Rolex, but first the Breitling. Then the Rolex Submariner with the blue face and 18k gold / stainless steel bracelet.

Well I am not sure why Rolex made the blue 18k gold Sub. The Sub is a "tool" watch, as well as it's aviation cousin the GMT II, and the Explorer series. I'm not sure why some of these tool watch companies felt the urge to start treating their watches as luxury items.

I have the Sub date in stainless steel and use it for the purpose it was intended. A practical tool that is rugged and can go around the world with me to rugged work environments. I see quite a few of them in my line of work.

M8

 

[eightbore]

martinis,

The answer to your question is to be found in the profit margins. Figure out the value of the actual gold in a submariner and compare it to the price difference between this and a stainless model. Rolex probably makes very little on something like an Air-King or plain Date model but uses them as "loss leader"/"entry level" models on the theory that people will develop a certain brand loyalty and trade up over time. They subsidize these break-even models (and their profit margins in general) with the huge margins on gold and diamond encrusted bits of silliness. I've owned a few Rolex models over the years (all stainless) and I respect their incredible durability...but as I'm sure you (but not everyone out there) realize there certainly exist better "pure" timepieces out there. Still, for a combination of durability and horological excellence, there is probably nothing out there that competes (though I think Omega's Aqua-Terra line comes close for a lot less money). For those of us who would destroy any other watch or who dive, a Rolex makes great sense. Frankly though, when I owned my Sea-Dweller I got dead tired of people asking if my "sub" was a fake. :eusa_doh: I'd just as soon buy premium watch these days that no one recognizes as such which is why I wore an Explorer I with a leather band for a long time. Really like this one lately!

Best,

John

 

[tonyvan]

I used to have a variety of watches, incuding a ss/Gold Breitling Crosswind.
It was undeniably impressive, but was immensely heavy, and actually did cause wrist-strain. I ended up swapping the bracelet for a strap, which helped a little.

I eventually sold it, another Breitling and two Rolexes and now run a SS/GHold Daytona, and that'll do it for me.

One thing to be aware of - any sports watch (and in particular the Breitling) is a relatively harsh piece of metal on your wrist, so watch out for premature cuff-fraying!

 

[Martinis at 8]

martinis,

The answer to your question is to be found in the profit margins. Figure out the value of the actual gold in a submariner and compare it to the price difference between this and a stainless model. Rolex probably makes very little on something like an Air-King or plain Date model but uses them as "loss leader"/"entry level" models on the theory that people will develop a certain brand loyalty and trade up over time. They subsidize these break-even models (and their profit margins in general) with the huge margins on gold and diamond encrusted bits of silliness. I've owned a few Rolex models over the years (all stainless) and I respect their incredible durability...but as I'm sure you (but not everyone out there) realize there certainly exist better "pure" timepieces out there. Still, for a combination of durability and horological excellence, there is probably nothing out there that competes (though I think Omega's Aqua-Terra line comes close for a lot less money). For those of us who would destroy any other watch or who dive, a Rolex makes great sense. Frankly though, when I owned my Sea-Dweller I got dead tired of people asking if my "sub" was a fake. :eusa_doh: I'd just as soon buy premium watch these days that no one recognizes as such which is why I wore an Explorer I with a leather band for a long time. Really like this one lately!

Best,

John

Nice looking Omega Seamaster. The elegance of simplicity, eh? This is what true signature style is all about.

Yes, I've considered the profit side of things as you mentioned, but I guess in all fairness to Rolex and the others, they really had no choice since the mechanical watch market almost died on them when the battery powered ones came out. A lot of the guys who need tool watches simply went digital, and most divers are using dive computers now anyways. Digital won't cut it for me, as I can't go get a battery replacement when I am in the middle of Africa somewhere, or offshore on some ship (oil & gas industry). So for me, the reliable tool aspect of a stainless steel Rolex Sub Date is just right for me. I would hope however, that a watch that comes in just a tad under US $6k with tax would still give Rolex a healthy profit margin. I guess I just don't like seeing a working man's tool watch turned into a gaudy bauble for effeminate men.

Speaking of tool watches, Rolex is resurrecting their anti-magnetic Milgauss watch. I'm glad to see this, but I have the feeling that the majority of the buyers will not be those who work in magnetic environments. I remember when I was a kid that anti-magnetic watches were popular with machinists (lathe chucks are magnetized). I guess MRI-type doctors will buy them for fun.

I've never been asked if my Sub Date is a fake, probably because it's just stainless/black and I'm usually in field/work clothes when I wear it, though sometimes I'll wear it with a suit or dinner jacket. I take it nobody even notices it.

Cheers,

M8

 

[eightbore]

I would hope however, that a watch that comes in just a tad under US $6k with tax would still give Rolex a healthy profit margin.

Is that what a sub goes for these days. That's gotta be full retail, no? I've never met even reputable dealers who wouldn't knock 20% off without batting an eye (some even more). That means he's probably making 20% or more on the item after the discount which means rolex sold it to the authorized dealer at around $4000. Given that I've seen grey market subs selling for this, real dealer prices are probably quite a bit less. Add in their global marketing costs and manufacturing and raw materials and even the sub is probably not a huge moneymaker in terms of margin. VOLUME is where it's at and rolex has it going on there!

I think I got the "is that a fake" line so regularly because I was relatively young to be wearing such a tool....and you are right, subs and sea-dwellers and GMTs are great tools.

 

[Martinis at 8]

Is that what a sub goes for these days. That's gotta be full retail, no? I've never met even reputable dealers who wouldn't knock 20% off without batting an eye (some even more)...

You need to research that a little better, try http://www.timezone.com/ Rolex absolutely does not discount. An AD (Authorized Dealer) takes a substantial risk of having his AD yanked if caught doing so. I know of none that take such risks. Other watches yes, Rolex no.

....and you are right, subs and sea-dwellers and GMTs are great tools.

This is the original intent of the watch, and fortunately it has remained a tool despite the luxury upgrades available on the base models. I still have yet to see a gold Rolex out in the oil fields of the world, but I do see plenty of stainless steel ones.

Cheers,

M8

 

["Doc" Devereux]

This is the original intent of the watch, and fortunately it has remained a tool despite the luxury upgrades available on the base models. I still have yet to see a gold Rolex out in the oil fields of the world, but I do see plenty of stainless steel ones.

Oddly enough, one can say the same thing about Breitlings and airfields.

I've never been asked if my watches are fake. Maybe if I wore a Navitimer things might be different, but despite its size the B-1 is pretty innocuous. I think it's also a question of environment: if you're in a place where the watch is a common thing (such as M8 in the oilfields, where a fake would die in thirty seconds flat) no-one's going to think you dumb enough to buy a fake when a G-Shock or similar can be picked up for the same price. If you're diving, flying or in any other environment where time matters, you know better than to trust a knock-off, and the people around you have to trust that you do.

Out in the real world, of course, there's the pose factor. But if you come across as the sort of person who uses a watch like that, no-one with any sense is going to question it.

 

[Martinis at 8]

Doc,

That's pretty much the way I see it too. Good post.

M8

 

["Doc" Devereux]

I am suddenly reminded of something a good friend once said:

"Pilots and divers are easy to spot: they'll spend ten quid on their wardrobe and ten grand on their watch."

 

[Spitfire]

lol lol lol With my amount of watches vs my wardrobe, I must be a diving pilot.