Rolex???

[BenL]

Interesting comments. I never really fell in love with the Submariner bracelet clasps either, especially the older ones. If you have a chance, try on the GMTIIc Rolex. I don't think that would disappoint you.

[Nirvana]

The Rolex bracelets are crappy compare to the others in the same price ranges, the only plus are their movements.

[PatrickG]

The Rolex bracelets are crappy compare to the others in the same price ranges, the only plus are their movements.

But isn't that the most important part of the watch? Granted, if I was going to spend 5 large (or more!) on a wristwatch I would expect it to be perfect in every way. Then again, the price doesn't always dictate quality - it's not unusual to hear stories about guys who buy a Gibson Les Paul guitar for $2,500 (or more) only to find some very obvious flaws that should have been flagged by QC before it ever left the shop, so I guess it doesn't surprise me that even on a watch like a Rolex that they don't put the kind of money or effort into the bracelet that goes into the watch itself.

As a side note, did you guys hear that Les Paul passed away today - he was 94 years young and very active up until the last year or so. I hope I'm so lucky.

[DNScompanies]

Not to divert but when I hear "timeless" and "heirloom" I instantly think of Patek Philippe. It's astonishing what goes into the creation of those.

I sold my Rolex because it felt like nothing more than a "status symbol" than a true collectors piece. I felt like I was cheating on my hobby (addiction). I was amazed at the quality and the movement was very accurate.

[Close 2 Cool]

Interesting thread and my definition of a "real watch" ended up being a Breitling. Rolex wasn't even a consideration.

I do own two Tags, just not the ones I would like to own.

[PatrickG]

I was amazed at the quality and the movement was very accurate.

Speaking of the accuracy of a Rolex, I have a confession to make. A long time ago I had heard someone make the statement, "when you pay for a Rolex, you pay for the right to have to reset it once a week." The person who said was playing the card that a Rolex is nothing more than a status symbol and that as a timepiece it was lacking.

My confession is that without really knowing anything about automatic timepieces - Rolex in particular, I parroted that more than once. If I knew then what I know now, I would have kept my yap shut because based on what I have read, Rolex automatics are quite often accurate to within +/- 2-3 seconds per day, which certainly does't necessitate them to need to be reset once a week. That doesn't even necessitate them to need to be reset once a month.

They may lack the "wow" factor of some other Swiss automatics, but to my knowledge, they keep very good time. A good friend of mine owns several of them, and the one he wears the most he says keeps good enough time that he rarely has to sync it up with anything because it's never very far out.

[AbsoluteMustard]

Speaking of the accuracy of a Rolex, I have a confession to make. A long time ago I had heard someone make the statement, "when you pay for a Rolex, you pay for the right to have to reset it once a week." The person who said was playing the card that a Rolex is nothing more than a status symbol and that as a timepiece it was lacking.

My confession is that without really knowing anything about automatic timepieces - Rolex in particular, I parroted that more than once. If I knew then what I know now, I would have kept my yap shut because based on what I have read, Rolex automatics are quite often accurate to within +/- 2-3 seconds per day, which certainly does't necessitate them to need to be reset once a week. That doesn't even necessitate them to need to be reset once a month.

They may lack the "wow" factor of some other Swiss automatics, but to my knowledge, they keep very good time. A good friend of mine owns several of them, and the one he wears the most he says keeps good enough time that he rarely has to sync it up with anything because it's never very far out.

It depends on how anal you are. Me being very anal, I set my Tag every other day...it is only off by 10-15 seconds or so, but thats me. Any automatic will be off after a week, it is just how far off does it get before it bothers you. Im sure some people could care less if it were off by a minute or two.

Anyway this section of the forum should be about Tags, and not about bashing Rolex...Tag owners should sympathize with other people bashing a brand for no good reason.

[wdrazek]

Rolex makes bullet proof and very accurate movements. Their cases are excellent as well. They may not be on the cutting edge of style but that's not their thing.

I respect Rolex and because they are worthy of it. You could argue that they don't move with the times well or that they offer mostly what they had 50 years ago. Perhaps. But their quality is there. No, I don't own one now, but I have owned 2 Tag's including the one on my wrist now. And one day I'll probably have a Rolex, too.

[Kool Cat]

Rolex made some really good watches in the past. I am not sure if they still do for now compared to the old day. Nevertheless, some of their watch design like the Submariner is evergreen and I did own one in the past, but have sold it away.

I too have the Aquagraph and it is certainly a great watch to have. Good design and a rather unique movement inside. I have yet to flip the Aquagraph.

Having sold away my Rolex submariner, I do not really miss it that much. But I think the same cannot be said about my TAG Aquagraph

[enricodepaoli]

I've mentioned this before, on other alike threads... Rolexes look very nice... but there is just somethings about their soul, I don't like. TAGs are priced right. Last forever. And have a perfect balance between soul, personality, prestige, and understatement.

my 0.02