Rolex is the best watch in the World!

[Chris_in_the_UK]

12 years old, too, that article. Like an I-hate-Rolex thread, will it ever die?

Why should it 'die'?
Because some do not like it?
It is a pretty well argumented and knowledgable opinion. Anybody is obviously welcome to differ in opinion with him.
I cannot. I do not have the knowledge to be able to found an opion. As such my 'opinion' would be rather worthless. I have to take it as an expert opinion just like other expert opinions and very few are so well detailed and argumented.
Most reviews are like most automotive 'tests': rephrasing of the marketing glib and pussyfutting around the glitches. A reader's game 'find the vested interest'.
Articles like those of Odets are of paramount imnportance to add some facets to the lump of info. Without facets even a diamond is just a dull pebble.
There are far too few different facets as it is.

Of course, however if one is to consider opinions expressed then, as occasionally now, that the conclusions of Odet's review were decided before the article was written then this put's the value of it in a different light perhaps.

[ralphy]

But they are the best watches in the world.

R

[andrew]

12 years old, too, that article. Like an I-hate-Rolex thread, will it ever die?

Why should it 'die'?
Because some do not like it?

Rolex has not made that movement for several years; it's not gospel; it's been discussed to death; it was half a generation ago; lots of knowledgeable people have looked inside Rolexes since and pronounced them clean and tidy; Walt Odets left the world of watchmaking shortly after and whether for that reason or others, hasn't since been asked to look inside a newer one.

I wonder; will someone be dragging that article up in 2020/2050/2098 :D

[Huertecilla]

Anyway, let's be positive.
I vote for adding a 'I love Jessica' element :wink:
The conclusive argument must be the hair left by the girl painting the hands. That is as personal a toutch as is comes.
I wonder what Odets would have written if he had known what that watch had actualy cost. You can buy newly made equivalents for 39$ or so todáy :shock:

That is a curious thing btw. The watch world is rather unique in that decades old engines are still hallowed whereas vastly superior engines are about too.

[Chris_in_the_UK]

12 years old, too, that article. Like an I-hate-Rolex thread, will it ever die?

I wonder; will someone be dragging that article up in 2020/2050/2098 :D

On here - without a doubt! - even if it has previously been dragged up the week before sitting a couple of pages back and somebody can't be arsed to do a bit of a search :roll:

[aldfort]

12 years old, too, that article. Like an I-hate-Rolex thread, will it ever die?

Why should it 'die'?
Because some do not like it?

Rolex has not made that movement for several years; it's not gospel; it's been discussed to death; it was half a generation ago; lots of knowledgeable people have looked inside Rolexes since and pronounced them clean and tidy; Walt Odets left the world of watchmaking shortly after and whether for that reason or others, hasn't since been asked to look inside a newer one.

I wonder; will someone be dragging that article up in 2020/2050/2098 :D

Much as I hate to ask the question but why not. It's one guys opinion. He looked inside a lot of watches around that time. He said what he saw (the thought that he somehow hated Rolex and set out to smear them is a little incredulous) that's all.
You might as well say there is no point in reading any history because all that counts is the here and now. Plenty of people collect watches far older than Odets article. But Odets article is one article amoung many written about watches. However if you look at the body of Odets work it does serve to inform a lot better than the works of many other watch experts.

[angeche]

To some extent it´s a bit sad that this thread is turning in just another love/hate Rolex thread. It was not about that. What Jussi was pointing out is that we have a lot of Rolex threads not adding anything interesting: no good picture or vintage ad, no human history behind.

Look in your cupboard, take the camera out and find that rare watch: maybe your first watch, maybe your father´s watch....

But anyway, maybe I am saying silly things.... :albino:

[PekkaM]

Simple solution: A sub forum for all your Rolexes (Rolii? Rolices?).

[RTH]

Would someone point me towards the debunking of Mr. Odets' article?

Thanks.

[bioactif30]

Rolex might me the Rolls Roys of watches but there are plenty of other nice watches such as Breitling and TAGheuer

[watchmad]

DOH! - just wasted 7 irretrievable minutes of my life reading this looking for a point...Thanks 8)

[CamCG]

Hello,

I have a Rolex. Rolex is the best watch in the world. It is an extremely rare and expensive watch. But, I can afford it as I am the best too. My taste is expensive. But, I can afford it as I am really well equipped financially. Now that I mentioned that, I should let it be known that I am really well equipped otherwise too. My hero John Holmes wore a Rolex. So, I do too. I am a Big Man. An important man. Important men are known to wear Rolex. That is why I wear a Rolex - I can afford the best and only use the best, because I am the best. My taste is expensive, but I can afford it. Not everyone can, but I am not just anyone. I am a Big Man. An important man. A man of great stature. Oh, I almost forgot I had a couple questions too:

- How often do I need to replace the battery of my Rolex Sea-Dweller (I chose it because it was more expensive than the Rolex Submariner Date)?
- Is the only difference between my Rolex Submariner date and Rolex Sea-Dweller that the Rolex Sea-Dweller does not have a cyclops?
- Do you think that the lack of the cyclops make the Rolex Sea-Dweller look less expensive than the Rolex Submariner Date even though it was more expensive?
- How much does it cost to buy a Genuine Rolex Submariner Date´s cyclops and have it professionally attached afterwards on a Rolex Sea-Dweller?
- Do you think my bum is big?

Sorry, JCJM, but this post is a clusterf**k of titanic proportions.

If it’s meant to be funny, it’s a retarded attempt.

If it’s meant to be a sly social observation on the reasons behind Rolex ownership, it’s a retarded attempt.

I don’t own a Rolex and don’t care who does or for what reasons. The only way I can see that someone would bother to write this in the first place is that their world is far too centred on watch forums and other peoples’ opinions, that they are fragile of mind and not very well adjusted.

I thought that chartman69 was being a little bit o.t.t. in his assessment of the board of late. Now I’m not so sure, it even seems to come from those “experienced” members who complain in the first place.

Just dull, dull, dull.

(Then again, I might just be a newbie prima donna Rolex owner, insulted that their prize possession, the basis of their very happiness, has been “dissed”… (or not).

[angeche]

@ cmcm3:

If you have found my posting insulting i apologize as that has not been my intention. - As stated before, I have no ill feelings toward neither Rolex watches nor the majority of their owners. I do however abhor the plethora of recent nonsense show & tell postings that for most part seems to revolve around this very brand, and the monetary value they are traded for. I am just tired of this kind of participation becoming the center of this forum that used to shine with good conversation and information.

As I cannot change others I guess I have to change myself.

Adios.

Hello,

I have a Rolex. Rolex is the best watch in the world. It is an extremely rare and expensive watch. But, I can afford it as I am the best too. My taste is expensive. But, I can afford it as I am really well equipped financially. Now that I mentioned that, I should let it be known that I am really well equipped otherwise too. My hero John Holmes wore a Rolex. So, I do too. I am a Big Man. An important man. Important men are known to wear Rolex. That is why I wear a Rolex - I can afford the best and only use the best, because I am the best. My taste is expensive, but I can afford it. Not everyone can, but I am not just anyone. I am a Big Man. An important man. A man of great stature. Oh, I almost forgot I had a couple questions too:

- How often do I need to replace the battery of my Rolex Sea-Dweller (I chose it because it was more expensive than the Rolex Submariner Date)?
- Is the only difference between my Rolex Submariner date and Rolex Sea-Dweller that the Rolex Sea-Dweller does not have a cyclops?
- Do you think that the lack of the cyclops make the Rolex Sea-Dweller look less expensive than the Rolex Submariner Date even though it was more expensive?
- How much does it cost to buy a Genuine Rolex Submariner Date´s cyclops and have it professionally attached afterwards on a Rolex Sea-Dweller?
- Do you think my bum is big?

Sorry, JCJM, but this post is a clusterf**k of titanic proportions.

If it’s meant to be funny, it’s a retarded attempt.

If it’s meant to be a sly social observation on the reasons behind Rolex ownership, it’s a retarded attempt.

I don’t own a Rolex and don’t care who does or for what reasons. The only way I can see that someone would bother to write this in the first place is that their world is far too centred on watch forums and other peoples’ opinions, that they are fragile of mind and not very well adjusted.

I thought that chartman69 was being a little bit o.t.t. in his assessment of the board of late. Now I’m not so sure, it even seems to come from those “experienced” members who complain in the first place.

Just dull, dull, dull.

(Then again, I might just be a newbie prima donna Rolex owner, insulted that their prize possession, the basis of their very happiness, has been “dissed”… (or not).

I think that you need to read the whole thread before jumping inn. Well, just my opinion, buut as I have just said above

To some extent it´s a bit sad that this thread is turning in just another love/hate Rolex thread. It was not about that. What Jussi was pointing out is that we have a lot of Rolex threads not adding anything interesting: no good picture or vintage ad, no human history behind.

Look in your cupboard, take the camera out and find that rare watch: maybe your first watch, maybe your father´s watch....

But anyway, maybe I am saying silly things.... :albino:

[NJH]

I thought that chartman69 was being a little bit o.t.t. in his assessment of the board of late. Now I’m not so sure, it even seems to come from those “experienced” members who complain in the first place.

Just dull, dull, dull.

(Then again, I might just be a newbie prima donna Rolex owner, insulted that their prize possession, the basis of their very happiness, has been “dissed”… (or not).

I agree, its no coincidence IMHO that much of the moaning of late has come from some of the most prolific posters. I know that for myself I reached a point a couple of months back when I got pretty fed up. What did I do, I reduced the number of watches I own and resolved to get on with other things in my life, simply spend less time on the internet looking at watches and do something else. Then when you come back you realise this is still the best watch forum out there.

Oh yes and Ralphy is right :D

[CamCG]

I think that you need to read the whole thread before jumping inn. Well, just my opinion, buut as I have just said above

I did read the entire thread (I wouldn’t post a comment like that lightly and without having bothered to read the entire thread), including this…

@ cmcm3:

If you have found my posting insulting i apologize as that has not been my intention. - As stated before, I have no ill feelings toward neither Rolex watches nor the majority of their owners. I do however abhor the plethora of recent nonsense show & tell postings that for most part seems to revolve around this very brand, and the monetary value they are traded for. I am just tired of this kind of participation becoming the center of this forum that used to shine with good conversation and information.

As I cannot change others I guess I have to change myself.

Adios.

However, it seems pretty absurd for JCJM to claim that he has no ill feelings to Rolex owners etc., given the apparent vitriol in his language.

There is nothing wrong with highlighting the overabundance of Rolex threads which don’t add anything to the forum – I think that he is probably right. If he was going to do that, though, he should have given a bit more thought to how he could make his point in an interesting and/or funny way. I just thought that the post was, well, as pointless and dumb (plus unpleasant and un-funny) as most of the threads he is supposedly critiquing (if not more so).

That said, I’m now only helping to perpetuate this thread of swill, so I’ll leave off saying anymore about it.

[RTH]

Hello,

I have a Rolex. Rolex is the best watch in the world. It is an extremely rare and expensive watch. But, I can afford it as I am the best too. My taste is expensive. But, I can afford it as I am really well equipped financially. Now that I mentioned that, I should let it be known that I am really well equipped otherwise too. My hero John Holmes wore a Rolex. So, I do too. I am a Big Man. An important man. Important men are known to wear Rolex. That is why I wear a Rolex - I can afford the best and only use the best, because I am the best. My taste is expensive, but I can afford it. Not everyone can, but I am not just anyone. I am a Big Man. An important man. A man of great stature. Oh, I almost forgot I had a couple questions too:

- How often do I need to replace the battery of my Rolex Sea-Dweller (I chose it because it was more expensive than the Rolex Submariner Date)?
- Is the only difference between my Rolex Submariner date and Rolex Sea-Dweller that the Rolex Sea-Dweller does not have a cyclops?
- Do you think that the lack of the cyclops make the Rolex Sea-Dweller look less expensive than the Rolex Submariner Date even though it was more expensive?
- How much does it cost to buy a Genuine Rolex Submariner Date´s cyclops and have it professionally attached afterwards on a Rolex Sea-Dweller?
- Do you think my bum is big?

Sorry, JCJM, but this post is a clusterf**k of titanic proportions.

If it’s meant to be funny, it’s a retarded attempt.

If it’s meant to be a sly social observation on the reasons behind Rolex ownership, it’s a retarded attempt.

I don’t own a Rolex and don’t care who does or for what reasons. The only way I can see that someone would bother to write this in the first place is that their world is far too centred on watch forums and other peoples’ opinions, that they are fragile of mind and not very well adjusted.

I thought that chartman69 was being a little bit o.t.t. in his assessment of the board of late. Now I’m not so sure, it even seems to come from those “experienced” members who complain in the first place.

Just dull, dull, dull.

(Then again, I might just be a newbie prima donna Rolex owner, insulted that their prize possession, the basis of their very happiness, has been “dissed”… (or not).

I disagree. It's pretty damn funny, IMHO. As a sop to offended sensibilities, I'm sure that the OP wasn't talking about anyone here... nevertheless, I am confident that it accurately represents the thought processes of some Rolex owners.

[andrew]

I disagree. It's pretty damn funny, IMHO.

Sure - but you have 128 posts (and don't own a Rolex). For anyone with 129 posts or more, it was pretty tedious. So perhaps we can have a area of the forum to put stuff that's either interesting, entertaining or eye-opening for newcomers (along the lines of the TZ-UK glossary?) such as trash-talking, brand-bashing threads, and keep the main forum clutter-free.

[angeche]

I disagree. It's pretty damn funny, IMHO.

Sure - but you have 128 posts (and don't own a Rolex). For anyone with 129 posts or more, it was pretty tedious. So perhaps we can have a area of the forum to put stuff that's either interesting, entertaining or eye-opening for newcomers (along the lines of the TZ-UK glossary?) such as trash-talking, brand-bashing threads, and keep the main forum clutter-free.

Let´s move on, guys. I am a Rolex owner myself (Sea dweller, Explorer, Oysterquartz, Airking and Precision), I do think Rolex are very good (best..together with IWC, Spring drives, etc.), and I was not offended by this thread...Jussi had a point but this has gone the wrong way....

[RTH]

I disagree. It's pretty damn funny, IMHO.

Sure - but you have 128 posts (and don't own a Rolex). For anyone with 129 posts or more, it was pretty tedious. So perhaps we can have a area of the forum to put stuff that's either interesting, entertaining or eye-opening for newcomers (along the lines of the TZ-UK glossary?) such as trash-talking, brand-bashing threads, and keep the main forum clutter-free.

I don't think enjoyment of such material is inversely proportional to post count, or exposure to said material. I found it funny, because although it repeated many oft-said points, I appreciated the stylised approach taken. Furthermore, having posted this, I have 129 posts - and your second sentence does not stand as truth.

You are, however, correct that I do not posess a Rolex. This does not exclude me from holding an opinion, or make any opinions held regarding said brand inherently worthless. Indeed, I have positive opinions regarding some high end brands, most notably IWC and Grand Seiko - needless to say, I own examples of neither.

Your condescension does you no favours.

[WatchScout]

DOH! - just wasted 7 irretrievable minutes of my life reading this looking for a point...Thanks 8)

DOH yes, you could have spent the time better answering the post directed at you here
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=111001&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=75
:hello2: :hello1: :headbang: :angel8: :evil4: :laughing3: :laughing7:

[sevvy]

I can't stop thinking how ironic this rant is especially after waxing so lyrical about an Explorer homage!

I consider myself limited in knowledge but I can see where Jussi is coming from. A good forum should inform and educate. But lets be honest, people are on here because they love watches and when they get a new watch they want to show it off..... whats wrong with that!

There are some people who are as interested in the history behind a watch purchase as the watch itself. There are some people who like to know what goes into a watch and how it works etc. And then there are some people who just like watches because they look great and don't give a fig about what's inside. But that doesn't mean that they don't want to learn about other brands.

Everyone to their own. If someone wants to post some great pics up with little text then thats great. If someone wants to share their two year search for a watch and the story behind it, then thats also great as well!

[WatchScout]

To some extent it´s a bit sad that this thread is turning in just another love/hate Rolex thread. It was not about that. What Jussi was pointing out is that we have a lot of Rolex threads not adding anything interesting: no good picture or vintage ad, no human history behind.

Look in your cupboard, take the camera out and find that rare watch: maybe your first watch, maybe your father´s watch....

But anyway, maybe I am saying silly things.... :albino:

I think that was a valid point, Jose.

It is important to look beyond the knee-jerk defensive reaction and look at the message.

I have nothing against Rolex. I even have had/have a few. It is just the endless post of generic Rolex watches that does not bring much new to the forum....to say the least. Surely, you can not all be moved by the deluge of generic SUB and Seadwellers passing through the pages of TZ-UK, can you?


I would prefer a parade of other watches too. Innovative and cutting edge and watches from "narrow" brands. Alongside the Rolex watches and other generic watches. I do understand that Rolex makes app a million watches a year and that they ofcourse will be out in numbers ....literally. Maybe a Rolex subforum will make for a nice change?

[mickymellon]

have we founds out which bettery to use yet :D

[ASW1]

have we found out which battery to use yet :D

How about this one http://hilaroad.com/camp/projects/lemon ... ttery.html :lol:

[Kiki Picasso]

have we founds out which bettery to use yet :D

This is my Pet hate, people who can't even make the effort to check what they write before they click submit,

And care even less about what they have written, that they dont even bother to read and correct it later. :twisted:

[seikomatic]

Hello,

I have a Rolex. Rolex is the best watch in the world. It is an extremely rare and expensive watch. But, I can afford it as I am the best too. My taste is expensive. But, I can afford it as I am really well equipped financially. Now that I mentioned that, I should let it be known that I am really well equipped otherwise too. My hero John Holmes wore a Rolex. So, I do too. I am a Big Man. An important man. Important men are known to wear Rolex. That is why I wear a Rolex - I can afford the best and only use the best, because I am the best. My taste is expensive, but I can afford it. Not everyone can, but I am not just anyone. I am a Big Man. An important man. A man of great stature. Oh, I almost forgot I had a couple questions too:

- How often do I need to replace the battery of my Rolex Sea-Dweller (I chose it because it was more expensive than the Rolex Submariner Date)?
- Is the only difference between my Rolex Submariner date and Rolex Sea-Dweller that the Rolex Sea-Dweller does not have a cyclops?
- Do you think that the lack of the cyclops make the Rolex Sea-Dweller look less expensive than the Rolex Submariner Date even though it was more expensive?
- How much does it cost to buy a Genuine Rolex Submariner Date´s cyclops and have it professionally attached afterwards on a Rolex Sea-Dweller?
- Do you think my bum is big?

yes rolex is the best ...too bad there are better than the best..bestest

[seadog1408]

what a shame :cry:

total waste of bandwidth :cry:

useless thread. :cry:

[Chris_in_the_UK]

what a shame :cry:

total waste of bandwidth :cry:

useless thread. :cry:

Does seen to b a more regular occurrence at the moment?

[Huertecilla]

It is just the endless post of generic Rolex watches that does not bring much new to the forum....to say the least. Surely, you can not all be moved by the deluge of generic SUB and Seadwellers passing through the pages of TZ-UK, can you?

1. Take the topic with the critisim on the development of the forum.
2. Have a look at the % of Rolex and Panerai topics in the say last 5 pages.

Coïncidance or correlation?

This forum contains a wealth of info on watches beyond their marketing glib. The 'generic deluge' Mike refers to does not.
This topic sure has gone off track and I appologize for any contribution I have made to that. The initial sarcasm however was putting the finger on the sore spot. IMHO.
Let' us learn:
- a bit more beyond a dust free crystal
- a bit less brand monopoly

Now. please do not mistunderstand this. I am NOT suggestiong censoring RoPan contributions. I ám suggesting that we should all try and contribute someting positive.

In other words; there is a lot of superficial RoPan so write some more about something else. Take the 'high end quartz' -topic per example :bounce:

Who can add someting about AGS or Kinetic watches/technology/movements or modern high beat engines? spring drive or something innovatively cutting edge nów?
If the whole of WIS would move on to 21st century technology, who knows Swiss watches might too :albino:

[WatchScout]

Interesting new concept you have introduced:"RoPan." :P

[TKH]

@ cmcm3:

If you have found my posting insulting i apologize as that has not been my intention. - As stated before, I have no ill feelings toward neither Rolex watches nor the majority of their owners. I do however abhor the plethora of recent nonsense show & tell postings that for most part seems to revolve around this very brand, and the monetary value they are traded for. I am just tired of this kind of participation becoming the center of this forum that used to shine with good conversation and information.

As I cannot change others I guess I have to change myself.

Adios.

I was going to steer well clear of this as I think it a waste of Eddies server and bandwith given it appears to demonise one particular brand and those who wear them which is highly judgemental it is wrong to form generalisations and opinions of people based on what they wear or for that matter drive 'Pistonheads' has some lively debate and is fairly staurated by Porsche threads from time to time it has nothing to do with the individuals but more to do with the outright popularity of the product hence lots have them and share their experiences its a percentage ownership thing.

I recently posted about my 'Incoming' as I sold two beautifull Omegas (yes I like other brands) 8) to two very nice TZ'ers and I was asked what you getting next ? so I showed it had nothing to do with 'nonesense show and tell' and it didnt have Rolex in the title nor was price mentioned I was just sharing my passion and appreciation of the watch its condition for 32 years old and the seller.

TBH I buy older Vintage models for the love of the history and stories they have to tell like vintage Speedmasters and its nice to know you aint going to blow your brains out which is possibly part of the Rolex allure

If you wish to moderate owners of this brand then I think it would be a shame in future shall we only post threads refering to other makes if that brings harmony ?

Chartman sadly 'you were right mate' I have started to dread making posts / or coment for fear of the ensuing battering :cry:

[Huertecilla]

Interesting new concept you have introduced:"RoPan." :P

Let me add the Fa(ke)Bu(yer)s.

Imho WIS-guys are themselves causing the FaBus and the bulk of RoPans, who have just as much right on their opinion and taste as anybody else, to contribute/react.
Let's do something positive or at léast not add to the negativism.

This sarcastic thread is pretty much selfreflective too :lol:
'

[Karl]

:lol: amusing thread op's having a bit of fun and taking the piss, caused a bit of intrest and debate and a few tears and tantrums from the over sensitive, Folk are happy to post 10 pages of nonsense such as 'thanks crusader' and other harmless claptrap so why not? I get bored of the same old same posts Jussi but sort of just skip to something imo more interesting.

[Martin123]

Fascinating insight into the OP and unfortunately many others here who feel the need to make snide comments about Rolex. Why people cannot appreciate each others passion for watches and leave it be is beyond me. Its insulting and shows disrespect, I have not seen anyone showing off or being in your face about any brand of watch they own on this forum so am not sure why the OP feels the need to react in this way.

[rincewind]

Nice one Jussi, made me laugh on a Monday morning :D

[BRGS]

I have Rolex and a large penis and i still found it a funny thread.

[hharry]

I have Rolex and a large penis and i still found it a funny thread.

I have neither :shock: but am gifted with a sense of humour. Now, who wants to take on Seiko or Omega??

[andrew]

I have neither :shock: but am gifted with a sense of humour. Now, who wants to take on Seiko or Omega??

I wouldn't do that if I were you. Don't make them angry. You wouldn't like them when they're angry.

[Huertecilla]

I have neither :shock: but am gifted with a sense of humour. Now, who wants to take on Seiko or Omega??

I wouldn't do that if I were you. Don't make them angry. You wouldn't like them when they're angry.

Btw., did Michael Jackson wear an Omega? :albino:

[Neil.C]

Who can add someting about AGS or Kinetic watches

Oooh I know this one.

They are pointless? :lol: :wink:

[Huertecilla]

Who can add someting about AGS or Kinetic watches

Oooh I know this one.

They are pointless? :lol: :wink:

Why?

You think the same about solar powered or springdrive (yes, I know it is an innovative hybrid thírd track)?

Is anything other than a tic-tac controlled spring driving cogs pointless?
Personally I think the begin and end all of time pieces is the earth rotation itself and Stonehenge the definitive answer :mrgreen:

http://www.stonehengewatch.com/

[Neil.C]

Who can add someting about AGS or Kinetic watches

Oooh I know this one.

They are pointless? :lol: :wink:

Why?

Because to have a rotor turning to charge a capacitor that needs replacing every few years anyway is pointless IMO when you can get quartz watches with a 10 year battery life

You think the same about solar powered or springdrive (yes, I know it is an innovative hybrid thírd track)?

Solar power is a good idea in principle and the accumulators or whatever seem to last longer than Kinetics. Probably the idea behind these self charging watches is to be green but you won't get a more green watch than a mechanical.

I have never been a fan of spring drive personally.

You have a quartz crystal and electronic IC working from a part mechanical watch that costs a lot of money so you can have a smooth second hand like you could with accutrons back in the 1960's. :wink:

All this hybrid stuff seems pointless to me when you can achieve the same with a normal quartz watch.

I can appreciate mechanical in its many forms or quartz but have never been a fan of hybrid stuff.

[shalako]

Sad but true in some cases. I remember meeting someone who wanted to buy a Daytona from me a few years back. He offered me well over the list that I had paid and when I met him in the car park (naturally he drove a Porsche) he was aghast to see it didn't have a date function, so I asked him how much he actually knew about the Daytona? "Nothing but I know it's the watch I to have" came the reply......... To him it could well have been quartz for all he knew. :roll: He paid me a large sum of money and went off happy.

[Huertecilla]

You have a quartz crystal and electronic IC working from a part mechanical watch that costs a lot of money so you can have a smooth second hand like you could with accutrons back in the 1960's. :wink:

Túning fork, not crystal. Indeed like the accutrons.
It is a neat way to base timing on a very high frequency.

Bottom line it is all relative. Relative time detached from réal time :wink:

In about three weeks we will all retime an hour away from real time.
It will mean that where I live we will be twó hours removed from real, solar, time :shock:

Who cares about a few seconds per day, wether controlled by a balance spring, crystal of tuning fork at whatever frequence, under whatever brand :wink:

Like I commented; Stonehenge. Real time and longivity without competition. How about thát for quality :bounce:

[Neil.C]

Indeed. :)

[flugzeit]

Sad but true in some cases. I remember meeting someone who wanted to buy a Daytona from me a few years back. He offered me well over the list that I had paid and when I met him in the car park (naturally he drove a Porsche) he was aghast to see it didn't have a date function, so I asked him how much he actually knew about the Daytona? "Nothing but I know it's the watch I to have" came the reply......... To him it could well have been quartz for all he knew. :roll: He paid me a large sum of money and went off happy.

Love it! Great story... :lol: :lol:
-flugzeit

[hharry]

I have neither :shock: but am gifted with a sense of humour. Now, who wants to take on Seiko or Omega??

I wouldn't do that if I were you. Don't make them angry. You wouldn't like them when they're angry.

That's a Hulk quote! Seiko Smash!!

[flugzeit]

Sorry... should have posted this earlier. :lol:

[WatchScout]

Because to have a rotor turning to charge a capacitor that needs replacing every few years anyway is pointless IMO when you can get quartz watches with a 10 year battery life

You think the same about solar powered or springdrive (yes, I know it is an innovative hybrid thírd track)?

Solar power is a good idea in principle and the accumulators or whatever seem to last longer than Kinetics. Probably the idea behind these self charging watches is to be green but you won't get a more green watch than a mechanical.

I have never been a fan of spring drive personally.

You have a quartz crystal and electronic IC working from a part mechanical watch that costs a lot of money so you can have a smooth second hand like you could with accutrons back in the 1960's. :wink:

All this hybrid stuff seems pointless to me when you can achieve the same with a normal quartz watch.

I can appreciate mechanical in its many forms or quartz but have never been a fan of hybrid stuff.

I must admit, that I am with Neil on the above points.

At the danger of incurring the full wrath of John, IMO Spring Drive is the answer to a question nobody asked.

[maseman]

Jussi , thank god it's nearly spring and the days are lengthening.
I think those dark Finnish winters have caused your lume to go
out. !!!!!! LOL
maseman