Reply With QuoteGreat start :wink:
20th June 2010 :wink:
Well the Breitling Colt GMT (not the new GMT+....that's hideous :lol: ) arrived last week, cheers Gee.... so I've been wearing it constantly for the past 5 or so days. So how does it stack up against the benchmark Rolex GMT2 ceramic.... a watch that costs twice as much. Is the Colt half the watch ???
Image.
With the Rolex GMT2c, you can trace its origins back to the 50's, and the size and style has remained pretty much unchanged over the years, with very slight "improvements" in every generation. The style although not to every die hard Rolex fan (with the introduction of polished centre links) shines through. It oooooozes class and quality.
The Breitling Colt, is an entry level watch, as that was Breitlings original intention many years ago. The original Colt (quartz) was first used by the military who wanted an accurate timekeeper, and a watch that could stand high impact levels. The colt has grown in size to 40-41mm over the years.This newer GMT model, stays true to the Colt's go anywhere do anything type of watch.
Movement.
Rolex uses its own developed 3186 movement
Breitling uses an ETA 2893-2 movement
Both run smooth as silk. The Rolex with its rotating bezel obviously is able to register one more timezone, compared to the Breitling.
That said, the original fixed hand rotating bezel GMT master only ever had use of dual timezones right up into the late 90's with the 16700.
But TBH I couldn't give two hoots about the movements, if they are both reliable and pretty accurate, thats fine with me.
Feel.
Both of pretty much similar in size at around 40mm. Both feel very well finished, with the attention to detail around the Rolex clasp and "easylink/clasp" edging it. The Pro 2 bracelet on the Colt is very comfortable, but with the high mirror polish.. it's prone to swirlies even more so than the PCLs on the Rolex.
The Glass as with all modern Breitlings is dual AR coated which makes it nigh on invisible at times, a very clean looker. The Rolex glass still has the cyclops which is pretty much a Rolex trademark, although I'd have liked them to have reversed the bubble a'la Panerai automatics.... so that the bubble would be on the inside. Never been a fan of the cyclops myself.
Depth rating on the Rolex is 100m and the Breitling 500m. Both watches aren't really "divers" though...neither bracelet has a wetsuit extension link. I can't imagine either of these machines are the things you'd buy for that pursuit anyway.
Both have a nice heft for a relatively normal size watch. The lume isn't brilliant on either, but is okay for the job.
Packaging.
I'm not a fan of the new Rolex packaging, as I loved all the bumf you used to get throughout the 80's and 90's with the sports watches. The current pale green outer and Green lether inner feel cheaply made in comparrison to the older stuff, and the leather sleeve has been lifted from the old range, but someone has attacked it with a stanley knife to show the new style creditcard warranty card :wink: it all stacks up fine, just not great.
Breitling on the other hand is now producing cracking packaging. Outer black and yellow hard box, with a black Bakelite inner and even a smaller leather carry pouch too. Compartment underneath for the instruction manual, C.O.S.C and warranty papers. Gone are the old nightmare faulty hinged boxes of the late 90's early 2000's.
You don't wear a box, so its a bit useless really, but nice to keep for that "complete package".
Residuals.
People BANG ON about residuals, this should only worry you if you are going to buy new, from the AD without discount.
Well atm the GMT2c retails around the 4.5k mark and the Colt GMT around 2.2k
If you purchase either watch new you are going to take a hit come resale unless you're gonna keep it for 10 or so years ;-)
A 2 year old Rolex GMT2c currently goes for around the 3.2 to 3.4k mark, where a similar aged Colt GMT would fetch around 1.2k
So percentage wise the Rolex is the better bet.
If you are buying on the second hand market this earlier percentage drop is meaningless as both hold their second hand value pretty well and yes will rise very slowly as the Brands whack on their price increases every year.
So it just comes down to whether you want to outlay 3.4k or 1.2k
Overall as an everyday watch.
I like both watches, but I'd lean (atm anyway) towards the Colt GMT to wear every day, and the Rolex for going out. The Colt is good looking, reliable, and feels like it would take a bit of punishment if needs be.
The Rolex is the classier watch, period. I just think for me personally I'd be more carefree with the Breitling than the Rolex.... which in this world of anal "condition is everything"....for me is a gooooooood thing. Maybe its the skinflint in me, who knows :lol:
I like the fact the tab riders on the bezel would protect the glass if for any reason the watch fell flat on its face, or was rubbed against a concreate wall whilst on the wrist. The glass on the Rolex is ever so slightly raised and would be easier to catch. Yes you can say the glass is cheaper than the bezel (in the case of the Rolex), but if a splinter of glass gets in that movement....it ain't cheap :wink:
Sooooooooo......
I like them both, and if buying new without discount..the Rolex was closer to the price of the Breitling, it would be the Rolex all day long. Buuuuuuut it isn't.... its twice the price....and NOT twice the watch.
In the new or second hand market you could get a great Colt GMT and an awesome 2 week holiday to test it ! :wink: :wink:
Great start :wink:
"I looked with pity not untinged with scorn upon these trivial-minded passers-by"
Cheers.... :wink:Originally Posted by boddah
Good one muRph :) .
My favorite bit of the Breitling packaging is the Bakelite box, feels and looks great.
(There is a Bakelite museum about 6 miles from where I live, I might haveto go and have a look)
By the way, when your not wearing the Breitling leave it with the crown facing down, when I had it and tested it in different positions to see where it ran closest to the real time, the crown down was the best with a gain of 7-8 seconds in 24hrs.
I had one of these once. Never saw another in the wild. At one point I tried seeing whether it gained or lost at different rates depending on how you put it down, but variance between positions was negligible - always 2-3 sec/day. Same when worn. Only got rid because things changed and I needed the money. :(
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Very nice review.
Its gained around 3 to 4 seconds a day on my wrist, so that's where its stayin for now.
Honestly, I tested it for a few days, but anywhere in a few minutes a month I'm fine with.
If anyones life needs to be more precise than that, get another life !
Then again, I've just had 7 bottles of Magners, what the $hite do I know ;-)
May the force be with you !
Great bed time read, thanks
"...Both run smooth as silk, and the GMT adjustment is pretty similar. The Rolex with its rotating bezel obviously is able to register one more timezone, compared to the Breitling.
That said, the original fixed hand rotating bezel GMT master only ever had use of dual timezones right up into the late 90's with the 16700. (The Exp 2 ploughed the road, for the introduction of the 16710 impo)..."
Not entirely true - the Rolex GMT was made alongside the Rolex GMT2 for a couple of decades, whilst the original Exp2 had a fixed hour hand and 24 hour hand relationship combined with a fixed bezel, making it completely useless as a dual time watch until it got the got the GMT2 movement in 1985 - two years after the GMT2 came out.
The Rolex movement works very differently from the Breitling. The first notch on the crown allows the hour hand to be jumped one hour at a time backwards and forwards (including the midnight date change) without stopping the seconds hand or affecting the 24 hour hand and minutes hand. This means that the 24 hour hand can be left on GMT/UTC or home time and the normal hands set to local time which is very convenient for airline crews and travellers. The Breitling has the more commonly seen independently adjustable 24 hour hand which is not particularly helpful to pilots or travellers but very handy for those who stay at home but want to keep track of time in another country (such as telephone calls when business or family are abroad). Additionally, the Rolex GMT2 bezel can be used for quick reference of additional time zones and is particularly easy and human error free when used in conjunction with a 24 hour hand set to GMT/UTC as timezones are usually referred to as UTC +1 or UTC -6 etc.
Incidentally, Omega GMT's use ETA movements that work the same way as the Rolex ones but this movement variation is not made available to Breitling as they are not part of Swatch Group. Breitling would almost certainly prefer to use the unavailable movement as they actively market themselves as aviation watches.
There are some countries using non-standard, 30 mins, time zones (eg. Venezuela, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Burma, Iran, Afghanistan and also Newfoundland in Canada and the timezone in Central Southern Australia). None of the current mechanical GMT watches can do 30 min time zones so the user must remember to add or subtract the 30 mins from the stated time in theses cases.
Also, you've not mentioned heritage - the Rolex GMT being probably the most iconic pilot's watch ever made in spite of Breitling's huge marketing efforts since the 1980's.
Yes...and I never understood why ????
..... I thought the 16550 EXP2 come out before the 16710 ? obviously not. I will edit.
1983 ehhh ! ....seems daft they were still producing the 16750 along side it for some years with a plexi. I have a 1986 one of those.
16700's yes the last of them were being made right through to around 2001/02. I had one of the last.
Never loved the 16710 in any case. The Pepsi... will always remain THE Rolex GMT. Yes before you say it the 16710's were offered with that insert and a black one. But when the 16710's came out ...they were initially BLK/RED.
+ I think the most iconic Pilots watch would either be a Navitimer or an IWC MKX, XI etc......
The Navitimer has been around nearly as long as the GMT. 806 Navi's were around from the early 60's
Just to add to the confusion...
The first Rolex GMT2 was the transitional 16760 from 1983 until 1988 with sapphire crystal.
Also the very first Rolex GMTs did in fact have red/black bezel inserts rather than the slightly later red/blue (possibly changed to be patriotic in the USA or to match Pan Am livery?). So you could argue that the black/red is the most original.
The Breitling Navitimers are now probably the most recognised (and therefore iconic or possibly cliché) pilot's watches - so yes you are probably right. To the layman, the Rolex GMT looks rather too similar to a diver's watch and the Navitimer's are very distinct looking so more recognisable and have been very successfully marketed.
However, the Rolex GMTs were the far more popular watches for professional aviation use right up until the 1980's so they have a better pedigree (the formative years of mechanical aviation watches - before quartz and GPS). Also, from a practical perspective, the Navitimers (made in conjunction with AOPA - which is a light aircraft pilot's association) were okay for private pilots but chronographs and watch based slide rules (but no GMT reference) have no real use on any aircraft since WW2 that's been larger and more sophisticated than a light, twin engined, piston aircraft. Dead reckoning (flying a planned heading for a set time) was no longer being used by commercial aircraft by this time and there was no reason why on a larger aircraft a pilot would not carry a full size (and therefore more accurate and easier to read) sliderule. Likewise for the odd procedures that did require timing (holds and procedure turns or non-precision approaches) there were on board timers that could be read at a glance without removing hands from controls and peering minutely.
You could therefore say the Navitimer is the classic light aircraft pilots watch whilst the Rolex GMT was the classic airline (and military) crews watch. Of course dual time watches are common place now - so the classic modern aviators watch is a casio.
The IWCs you refer to were made for and issued to Navigators (the accuracy was required for astronavigation on longer range aircarft) so are not technically pilot watches - it's an enduring myth that all aircrew watches must have been issued to the pilots! Also to the average layman they just look like any other military style watch.
Good review!!
Fueling my thoughts on buying the Rolex
Cracking review mate.
Good review.
I have had both. I would add that I found the action of pulling the crown out to its various positions more precise on the B'ling and I was always a little unhappy about the lateral bezel play on several GMTIIC's I have handled, including the £18k..ish gold model I tried on in Wempe in Cologne. Rolex claim that's its because of the new bezel design, fewer clicks in one rotation and that's its not a dive watch. However, I would have another because it looks great. :)
Nice thread and review!!
I have a GMT2 (coke) a 1992 tritium 16710 (my every day wearer at the moment) and i've had 3 Colt GMt's at the moment i have a Black Dial with a fighter and leather strap.
I prefer the Rolex. Mine is also a better time keeper, and its 18 years old to the breitys 15months.
Did Murph mention that you cant use the GMT2C bezel for timing as it only has a 24click ratchet? Made it completely useless for me.
I like the breity though and IMO they both blow away the Omega GMT's.
Good review , love the Rolex GMT
Lots of interesting facts for a noob on this thread, thanks. Bought a GMT2C recently and your price is obviously about right given what I paid.
Great unbiased review
hard to call, probably prefer the Breitling just...
What a great review, pleasure to read. Got me thinking
Very interesting review thanks
loving the reviews on the forum! glad i can now look at them :wink:
Good review, thanks
Breitling rulezzz!
20th June 2010 :wink:
Well the Breitling Colt GMT (not the new GMT+....that's hideous :lol: ) arrived last week, cheers Gee.... so I've been wearing it constantly for the past 5 or so days. So how does it stack up against the benchmark Rolex GMT2 ceramic.... a watch that costs twice as much. Is the Colt half the watch ???
Image.
With the Rolex GMT2c, you can trace its origins back to the 50's, and the size and style has remained pretty much unchanged over the years, with very slight "improvements" in every generation. The style although not to every die hard Rolex fan (with the introduction of polished centre links) shines through. It oooooozes class and quality.
The Breitling Colt, is an entry level watch, as that was Breitlings original intention many years ago. The original Colt (quartz) was first used by the military who wanted an accurate timekeeper, and a watch that could stand high impact levels. The colt has grown in size to 40-41mm over the years.This newer GMT model, stays true to the Colt's go anywhere do anything type of watch.
Movement.
Rolex uses its own developed 3186 movement
Breitling uses an ETA 2893-2 movement
Both run smooth as silk. The Rolex with its rotating bezel obviously is able to register one more timezone, compared to the Breitling.
That said, the original fixed hand rotating bezel GMT master only ever had use of dual timezones right up into the late 90's with the 16700.
But TBH I couldn't give two hoots about the movements, if they are both reliable and pretty accurate, thats fine with me.
Feel.
Both of pretty much similar in size at around 40mm. Both feel very well finished, with the attention to detail around the Rolex clasp and "easylink/clasp" edging it. The Pro 2 bracelet on the Colt is very comfortable, but with the high mirror polish.. it's prone to swirlies even more so than the PCLs on the Rolex.
The Glass as with all modern Breitlings is dual AR coated which makes it nigh on invisible at times, a very clean looker. The Rolex glass still has the cyclops which is pretty much a Rolex trademark, although I'd have liked them to have reversed the bubble a'la Panerai automatics.... so that the bubble would be on the inside. Never been a fan of the cyclops myself.
Depth rating on the Rolex is 100m and the Breitling 500m. Both watches aren't really "divers" though...neither bracelet has a wetsuit extension link. I can't imagine either of these machines are the things you'd buy for that pursuit anyway.
Both have a nice heft for a relatively normal size watch. The lume isn't brilliant on either, but is okay for the job.
Packaging.
I'm not a fan of the new Rolex packaging, as I loved all the bumf you used to get throughout the 80's and 90's with the sports watches. The current pale green outer and Green lether inner feel cheaply made in comparrison to the older stuff, and the leather sleeve has been lifted from the old range, but someone has attacked it with a stanley knife to show the new style creditcard warranty card :wink: it all stacks up fine, just not great.
Breitling on the other hand is now producing cracking packaging. Outer black and yellow hard box, with a black wood inner and even a smaller leather carry pouch too. Compartment underneath for the instruction manual, C.O.S.C and warranty papers. Gone are the old nightmare faulty hinged boxes of the late 90's early 2000's.
You don't wear a box, so its a bit useless really, but nice to keep for that "complete package".
Residuals.
People BANG ON about residuals, this should only worry you if you are going to buy new, from the AD without discount.
Well atm the GMT2c retails around the 4.5k mark and the Colt GMT around 2.2k
If you purchase either watch new you are going to take a hit come resale unless you're gonna keep it for 10 or so years ;-)
A 2 year old Rolex GMT2c currently goes for around the 3.2 to 3.4k mark, where a similar aged Colt GMT would fetch around 1.2k
So percentage wise the Rolex is the better bet.
If you are buying on the second hand market this earlier percentage drop is meaningless as both hold their second hand value pretty well and yes will rise very slowly as the Brands whack on their price increases every year.
So it just comes down to whether you want to outlay 3.4k or 1.2k
Overall as an everyday watch.
I like both watches, but I'd lean (atm anyway) towards the Colt GMT to wear every day, and the Rolex for going out. The Colt is good looking, reliable, and feels like it would take a bit of punishment if needs be.
The Rolex is the classier watch, period. I just think for me personally I'd be more carefree with the Breitling than the Rolex.... which in this world of anal "condition is everything"....for me is a gooooooood thing. Maybe its the skinflint in me, who knows :lol:
I like the fact the tab riders on the bezel would protect the glass if for any reason the watch fell flat on its face, or was rubbed against a concreate wall whilst on the wrist. The glass on the Rolex is ever so slightly raised and would be easier to catch. Yes you can say the glass is cheaper than the bezel (in the case of the Rolex), but if a splinter of glass gets in that movement....it ain't cheap :wink:
Sooooooooo......
I like them both, and if buying new without discount..the Rolex was closer to the price of the Breitling, it would be the Rolex all day long. Buuuuuuut it isn't.... its twice the price....and NOT twice the watch.
In the new or second hand market you could get a great Colt GMT and an awesome 2 week holiday to test it ! :wink: :wink:
And I'm picking your old 2009 one up off my mate who had it off you last year.....in about 16 hours ;-)
So I'll have another !
Awesome.
I'm in the market again if it's going I be for sale!
The black dial one?
Yep ;-)
Why did Breitling ever change the bezel!? :?
The GMT 2c just feels a little less cluttered. On looks it wins but value - harder to say.
Rolex wins hands down on the less is more philosophy. The Colt has far too much going on in terms of textures on the bezel and face. The additional white numbers on the face don't do it any favours either. That said, I wouldn't throw it out of bed...
I have to say that I liked the objective review. Well done Sir.
Agreed, Rolex everyday for me too....
Had a Breitling once and wouldn't buy one ever again - Just my 2p's worth.
The Rolex for me. The new Gmt is one of their best looking watches. Breitlings look a little cheap to me due to the clutter on the dials.
Thanks for great in-depth review. really enjoyed it.
Just got the Breitling love it, this review helped me to decide.
Thanks Murph!
Thanks also to JRPIPPEN!
A good review. Both watches are great, although in this case I am more attracted to Breitling, just looks better to me.
Agree above. Good thread and like the look of the breitling
That's the fundamental reason why I wouldn't buy the Breitling.
The point about the 30 mins offset is well made - the best/only answer to that digital or anadigital (the South Australian offset is one reason why I have a Casio).
Posting Permissions
