This one's never been asked before, so really look forward to reading the responses. :thumbup:Originally Posted by Dion
I have a problem.
Since the dawn of time, man has been obsessed with defining and beating time. It has done more to our existence than any other man made concept. It has defined the seasons, so that we can grow the crops prolonging our survival. It has opened up our understanding of age and death. It has encapsulated our imaginations with history and futures yet to live. It has made heroes out of ordinary people and villains out of the extraordinary, Yet, one thing eludes me in this quest to understand and define this unique concept.....
Is a £1,500 Seiko better than a £7,000 Rolex?
Answers on the back of a postcard please.
This one's never been asked before, so really look forward to reading the responses. :thumbup:Originally Posted by Dion
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Love it...unfortunately I don't feel in a position to comment, knowing little about high-end Seiko's or indeed Rolex. The only comparison I can draw is that they both make their own movements inhouse at different price points, and Rolex spends a lot more on advertising, for which they have to cover their costs with slightly higher prices :)
unless one is made of gold v SS then not much difference if you ask me,the extra goes to the AD and marketing etc,going just on volume Rolex you would think should be cheaper to produce than most,the 40% the AD takes of the top on a Rolex does not make it better, than a watch where the dealer takes only 20%.
I seriously doubt dealers only make 20% on a non-Rolex considering I've personally attained 25% off a brand new tag Heuer in the past. I've also heard of omega buyers managing to take up to 30% off the price before they started changing their prices and started opening boutiques etc.Originally Posted by jegger
To me, Rolex always seems to be the fall-guy that everything gets compared to. People then start having to justify the price of a Rolex and it all boils down to the Rolex is mostly the same as whichever watch it's being compared to at the time.
However, although I've heard great things about these expensive Seikos, I don't think it could compare to say the latest submariner etc. It just oozes quality if you ask me and will also hold it's value much better than a Seiko I'd assume.
a seiko marine master could very well be on par with a rolex sub, technically spoken...???
a 25 pound casio will keep better time than a 5000 pound rolex....(or any watch whatsoever).
BUT, the legendary status of the sub is something that can't be bought and can't be redone, the sub has it's unique place history, that is the magic that only a few watches have and that is probably what so many people pay for...
Depends on what you buy Rolex say so much more then the timeOriginally Posted by Dion
the Seiko really just say the time 8)
So they are both the best it just come down to what you what your watch to do 8)
Hmmm.Originally Posted by Chaim
a modern casio keeps time measured in milliseconds, at least that's the idea with the ones that calibrate themselves through a radio signal.... :?Originally Posted by W44NNE
Ah you're talking about the r/c versions... Didn't realise they were available for that sort of money. I agree they're obviously very accurate... I even set my Rolex against one.Originally Posted by Chaim
However, take away the radio signal and they most definitely are the most accurate watches :-D
the radio controlled ones cost about 100 pounds i believe, the normal digital ones a few tenners.
Personally i don't really care, i would choose a rolex that looses 30 seconds a day over a dead on accurate casio every day, any day.... :lol: :wink:
I know what you mean but I see these comparison threads all the time and never quite understand it. I mean when it comes to mechanics and proper watchmaking, how can a Rolex and Casio be mentioned in the same sentence.
Don't get me wrong but I have always and will always love Casio watches. I also love the 3 Rolex watches I've owned but comparing a Rolex to a g shock is like comparing a Toyota Hilux to a Ferrari. The g shock is great for when I work but the Rolex makes me smile at weekends.
There's just no comparison.
The eternal questions always falls into the same trap of trying to provide a rational answer to an irrational question.
No
Gray
The Rolex is better. End of.
As the past two posts state -
It's just a matter of time...
Originally Posted by W44NNE
the point I was badly making was an AD does not make the same % on all brands,so just because one watch is more expensive than another does not mean it is of better quality.
:roll: :roll: :roll:Originally Posted by Dion
You'd never guess he was a newbie would you? :lol:
Cheers,
Neil.
Hope it gets solved. :lol:Originally Posted by Dion
Try to look at it this way; watches are not here to tell time any more. Problem solved?
Originally Posted by Dion
As your question is about the quality of time keeping than the answer is very simple:
Primairy the highest accurary and secondary with the lowest maintenance are the highest quality.
Neither Seiko nor Rolex scores highest.
The Citizen Mega was the most accurate.
Ex aequo et bono on the highest escalon is the regulated version of the Seiko 9F which offers almost the same accuracy but with 50 years service interval.
When you would want to expand the queston about quality, be specific as there are many ways to go. Please choose a definituon that can be quaitfied, such as deviation from the mean of % of fall out of the level of the specs to name but three. The SLoP is a neat one too.
The Persig version is useless dribble for comparative purposes.
Is a postcard better than email?Originally Posted by Dion
That is the óther side of it.Originally Posted by Dibetu
That is the indeed very important personal jewelry thing.
It is like the sword. The most appreciated gold and garnet (ruby) ones had NOTHING to do with functional quality as man incapacitating cutlery.
When looking at thát side of horology the personal appreciation is the ONLY critrium since that also puts the personal relative value on peer appreciation/ awe.
You pay for branding !
Rolex is king and despite some Seiko being more technologically advanced, if you buy an expensive Seiko joe public wll say "you paid HOW much for a Seiko" :D
Originally Posted by Dion
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
Hoorah, another Rolex v Seiko debate, I can't wait................ Over to you Zilla :D
Originally Posted by stix
:D
Like I wrote, the only criterium the OT mentions is time keeping which make Citizen holding the torch as they are leaders performance wise.
The 4 Maga Crystron is the overall champ:
The Chronomaster is the contemparary regulars leader;
Betamax or VHS
Vic 20 or ZX81
Amiga or Atari ST
Sega Mastersystem or Nintendo NES
Sega Megadive or SNES
3DO or CDI
Canon or Nikon
PC or MAC
Xbox or Playsyatation
Xbox 360 or PS3
HD or BluRay
Intel or AMD
Nvidea or ATI
Oakley or Maui Jim
Any product at all. or A.N Other product that does a very similar job
I don't think there is an answer to any of these questions and like Rolex or Seiko, it's all down to opinion. Even the Betamax or VHS or BluRay and HD, even though one format "won", many would argue the losing format was actually a better product but failed due to cost / compnay and consumer backing / etc.
If it helps answer the question at all, if i were to HAVE to give up either my Grand Seiko GMT Spring Drive or my Rolext GMT-IIC it would be the Rolex that went!
Classic and on cue and on a serious note, have you seen these, right up your street:Originally Posted by Huertecilla
Citizen Eco-Drive High Accuracy
I quite like it.
Never knowing the answer ensures we can continue to enjoy a wide variety of watches and keeps this forum alive!
“Don’t look back, you’re not heading that way.”
Originally Posted by Huertecilla
The Citizen Crystron 4 Mega claimed 3 seconds per year; and the current Chronomaster 5 seconds per year. But only when these watches are worn at least 12 hours a day. And in my experience with the A660 movement (I have had 6) its very much luck to get that accuracy, some were better and some were worse.
I would rate the Seiko and ETA HEQ products as more advanced and practical as they can both be calibrated by any competent person to less than half a second per month. The Chronomaster needs to be sent in to the factory as it can not be calibrated, they exchange parts.
The most accurate wristwatch in the world, still today, is the Omega Megaquartz 2400 Marine Chronometer. Indisputably, in 63 days of testing it was less than 2 thousands of a second off. Still today it is the technologically most advanced wristwatch in the world. Many tests have proven that they were within a second per year.
Sorry to get off that wonderful Seiko Rolex topic there.
Not including radio controlled in this argument then?
Atomic clock 1 second in 1,000,000 years or near enough
Just a bit too big for my wrist though :wink:Originally Posted by bobbymonks
That is settled then.Originally Posted by Dibetu
The Omega first.
Citizen second.
Seiko a close third if not ex aequo second.
I did not read it as such. I read a question about the best time keeper. You have answered that with factual info.Sorry to get off that wonderful Seiko Rolex topic there.
A great pity that Omega stepped away from their best time keeprs. They have no contemparay successors in that sector of quality accurate time keepers.
Even the ThermoLine has been axed.