Reply With QuoteI must admit, I thought it was the bracelet that really upped the cost rather than the head.
http://www.gnomonwatches.com/20-atmo...ow-gold-1545yg
Just goes to show the true vale of gold in a watch.
I must admit, I thought it was the bracelet that really upped the cost rather than the head.
It’s still pretty decent value, as these things go. Not that precious metals and ‘value’ often occur in the same sentence.
Hmm black dial, blue bezel insert, gold bezel - strange decision imo.
It's just a matter of time...
I agree. The dial is apparently a NOS dial (I'm assuming starting as a blank) which maybe the reason.Originally Posted by Omegamanic
Incidentally, the watch weighs 72g - how much does a gold sub (watch head) weigh in comparison. That may explain how much gold is used.
Sorry, I don’t have an 18k Sub, but you’d need to dismantle to get only the 18k gold weight. An old DD (1803 model) is roughly:
Mid Case 18.5g
Case back 7.25g
Bezel 5.25g
Bracelet 68g
The modern/current versions are going to be considerably heavier - especially the withdrawn DDII etc. Stated as (rounded for my ease and reference) follows for the 18238 for example:
Mid case 23g
Case back 11g
Bezel 5.25g
Bracelet 73g
I think the Platinum Omega SM300 was a bloody heavy best!
Last edited by Omegamanic; 5th January 2019 at 17:49.
It's just a matter of time...
The most valuable component of a watch is the brand name on the dial.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
£3000 forked-out, and what an embarrassing watch to wear! Seriously, someone would have to pay me to wear a £3k homage/replica.
Fair enough; but name an 18k gold watch you can buy for less.
I have next to no interest in gold watches. I daresay a head-only gold sub might be had for about double? That would at least retain some value if you let it go (and is a far better watch).
This Squale is the absolute pits. Every time you look at it, you get depressing reminder that you really wanted a gold Rolex sub, but settled for this instead. Oh, and you are £3000 lighter, too.
Longines, and I’m sure there are currently 18k Omegas in the sale for not too much more.
It's just a matter of time...
Blatant copy , not sure how they get away with it .
I got the e-mail from Gnomon on this, lovely looking watch, 'made from a solid block of 18ct gold'.
Not cheap though...
Not everyone has a spare £26,350 to buy the Rolex new.
The Rolex PM watches are best bought preloved at a 50% discount, and no-one in their right mind pays the MSRP new, either.
I'd really rather wear nothing than that Squale. [Apologies if you are a proud owner.]
I agree, second hand is the way to go.
No I am not a proud owner.
A reoccurring theme comes up time after time with Rolex owners being sniffy about anything that they regard as homage. I wear Steinhart, which you probably hate, but my GMT is 42mm and doesn't have a cyclops, so the Rolex GMT is of no interest to me. It is not always about being Rolex wannabes, I have owned at least a dozen, sometimes it's just about owning a watch that fits in with our individual requirements.
Be a boring old world if everyone wore a Submariner and there was no other choices.
If people want to buy that Squale, I'm cool with that
No I am not a homage fan. If they are £300, well maybe. £3000 is ludicrous for a homage, though. You can get a genuine Rolex Oyster Perp 39 for a tad over £4.3k, and small discounts are do-able.
Im sure for not too much more you could get an old good Day Date on leather.
I'm just not much of a fan of certain homages - especially the Rolex esq ones - some do work, others are just ripping the look and are little more than copies or fakes without the original brand.
It's just a matter of time...
Rolex Sub, Tudor Black Bay, Squale all homage to Blancpain Fifty Fathorms... are they not ??
Exactly. Also, go into any large watch shop and the bulk of the divers will have taken their inspiration from something else.
I think some of the homage bashers joined the wrong forum, they would be much happier over on the Rolex forum
I just wonder how you’d view the Toyota MR2 derived Ferrari look a likes ? Same colour shape and design and some go to lengths of buying original lights , steering wheels and engine bay covers and other fittings . But never a Ferrari and a homage ?...I agree, second hand is the way to go.
No I am not a proud owner.
A reoccurring theme comes up time after time with Rolex owners being sniffy about anything that they regard as homage. I wear Steinhart, which you probably hate, but my GMT is 42mm and doesn't have a cyclops, so the Rolex GMT is of no interest to me. It is not always about being Rolex wannabes, I have owned at least a dozen, sometimes it's just about owning a watch that fits in with our individual requirements.
Be a boring old world if everyone wore a Submariner and there was no other choices.
If people want to buy that Squale, I'm cool with that
And it’s not Just Rolex , Panerai , Omega , Cartier ? All have copies with unbranded or unknown brand names stamped on them but all made to take advantage of the success of a brand leaders market advantage and get a free ride on their exhaustive marketing campaigns going back decades to create an in demand product .I agree, second hand is the way to go.
No I am not a proud owner.
A reoccurring theme comes up time after time with Rolex owners being sniffy about anything that they regard as homage. I wear Steinhart, which you probably hate, but my GMT is 42mm and doesn't have a cyclops, so the Rolex GMT is of no interest to me. It is not always about being Rolex wannabes, I have owned at least a dozen, sometimes it's just about owning a watch that fits in with our individual requirements.
Be a boring old world if everyone wore a Submariner and there was no other choices.
If people want to buy that Squale, I'm cool with that
No difference to a looky looky watch bought from the chaps on Marbella beach .
Oh. Is there a rule about not liking homages/rip-offs here?
How you choose to spend your money is up to you. £300 on a Steinhart is all very well. Not something I would do, but not a disaster either.
£3000 is a definite chunk of money. Spending that much and ending up with this awful Rolex Sub copy is just a horrible situation, IMO. Loads of really proper watches at that level.
Of course, Rolex, when they were young, ripped off Borgel and Dennison, Panerai is just a scaled up Rolex Oyster (although in both cases the companies started off licensing the products they subsequently nicked. The fact is that the Swiss have always been a thoroughly incestuous lot and have little to complain about when they are served in the same way.
As Eddie has demonstrated, there is a right way to do this - compete on quality, subtly improve, don't try to be mistaken for something and, most importantly of all, price the watch competitively. I've used a PRS14 to time a dive at forty odd metres and I'm damned sure I know what would happen to a 'Looky Looky watch' at that depth.
Er, no not really.
The 50 Fathoms and Submariner were both debuted at Basel 1953 - the FF may have hit production first, but both FF and Sub would have been in design stage prior to that, so the Sub is no homage to the FF (they don't look a like, or anywhere near as much a like as say some Steinharts and the equivalent Sub models). The Tudor Sub debuted at Basel 1954; and used Rolex case etc, but a bought in movement, so again not a homage to anything just part of Rolex/Tudor's sales and marketing approach.
But seriously, do you think the Squale looks like a homage to the FF, or rather a Submariner?
It's just a matter of time...
I have owned, and still do own, a number of Eddie's watches - like you day there is a right way, and the fact they do not look likely to be mistaken for something they are not is the main reason I have bought a number of them.
My mine gripe with some of the "copy" brands was that they made their name making a rip off of the current models of the brand they looked like. It's something else entirely making a true homage to a 50 odd year old watch and improving on its original specs.
It's just a matter of time...
I don’t see comparing a looky watch to a tool watch bears any comparison .
If you’d expect a looky watch to possibly remain intact at 40m and keep you alive then you’d be a fool but a good experiment nonetheless.
Last edited by Tomaitch; 6th January 2019 at 20:51.
It will be easy to double check, but I'm pretty sure that the Rolex debuted at Basel in '54. '53 was the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms and the Zodiac Seawolf. Mind you Rolex were swift to get a copy in even if it wasn't good enough to pass the US Navy tests.
The PRS-14 is a homage to the Omega SM300. There are also 'Looky' homages, by Alpha for example, to similar watches. My point was that there is a good way and a bad way. The good way also makes a fine tool watch even if it rarely dives further than the third draw down.
Last edited by M4tt; 6th January 2019 at 21:09.
I was pretty sure they were both 1953, and 2003 was the year the 50th Anniversary Y Serial version of the 16610LV green Sub was launched. But... it seems that it was too late for the the Basel showcase in 1953, and took part the following year:
“The Rolex Submariner’s First Deep-Sea Dive
What would ultimately be known as the Rolex Submariner went into production in 1953. In September of 1953, Rolex announced their foray into diving watches with great fanfare. Rolex attached their new Rolex Submariner to the outside of Swiss inventor August Piccard’s bathyscaphe, a bubble-shaped deep-sea submersible. The bathyscaphe and the affixed Rolex were lowered into Tyrrhenian Sea, off the coast of Italy, and descended a world record-breaking 3,131.8 meters (more than 10,000 feet) towards the ocean floor. When the bathyscaphe surfaced, the Rolex Submariner was in perfect working condition.
Basel Fair 1954 and Initial Reception
Following this successful and historic dive, the Rolex Submariner made its official public debut at the 1954 Basel Fair. Fair-goers were delighted with the sporty-yet-elegant design and sturdiness of the hardware was the perfect combination for the professional and casual sportsman. The Rolex also featured a new rotating bezel that allowed divers to easily monitor their remaining oxygen and time spent underwater, a feature suggested by the Submariner’s greatest champion René-Paul Jeanneret. The Rolex Submariner also featured a “triplock” clasp that Rolex is now known for and that helped divers easily remove the watch even while wearing a wet suit and clumsy gloves.
Rolex claimed their new water-resistant Submariner could withstand depths of 200 meters (660 feet) which ranked the Rolex Submariner as the best water-resistant watch of its time. To back up their claims, Rolex referred to the Institute for Deep Sea Research in Cannes, France that tested the Rolex Submariner in a series of 132 dives at various depths, up to 60 meters.”
[I’m fairly sure the first models were noted as 100m rather than the 200m noted above]
“The watch, so named for the “Fifty Fathoms” (300 feet, or 91.4 meters) that it could reach underwater, was originally designed in 1952 as part of a joint project between Blancpain and a French Navy division, the “Nageurs de Combat” or combat swimmers, to address the needs of intense underwater timekeeping. The Frenchmen leading the unit at the time, Captain Bob Maloubier and Lieutenant Claude Riffaud, specified to the brand the need for legibility, underwater luminescence, and a way to measure oxygen consumption. By 1953, Blancpain had fulfilled the request.”
However, I would maintain that saying the Rolex Submariner is a homage to the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms, is to me, a bit like saying that the first Lamborghini was a homage to the Ferrari.
Last edited by Omegamanic; 7th January 2019 at 00:25.
It's just a matter of time...
for years...this is exactly what the little whisper over my shoulder is torturing me.
I hate both of you!
Possibly not helpful, but the first Lamborghini was designed by two engineers who had previously worked at Ferrari :).
Made me chuckle but that is so true.
Of course, the companies spend a lot of resources finishing their watches (SS Royal Oak for example) but it is the brand value that forms the biggest chunk of the price.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think Squale could have reduced the text in their advert considerably, if instead of describing the shape and features of the case and bezel etc - they just said “modelled on the Rolex Submariner”.....
One man’s homage is another’s ........ copy.
This. I bought a Steinhart Ocean 1 in Titanium and it's a great knock-about watch for holidays/the beach. I also bought a Squale 20 ATMOS Maxi watch that unmistakably resembles a late 70's Rolex 5513 'maxi' dial because a) I like the aesthetic and b) I didn't want to shell out >10k for the original Rolex. Do I kick myself every time I look at it because it doesn't have the 'right' brand on the dial? Not in the slightest. It's a well-executed and respectful homage that wears its heart on its sleeve and is far more credible (IMO) than a $750 Chinese knock-off.
SGR
But if you like the Squale why would you buy an Oyster Perp, it's a completely different watch? Seems like you assume whoever buys this just wants to own a Rolex which speaks volumes.
It only seems to be some Rolex owners who have a problem with Hommages. I own vintage Heuer Autavias but have no issue with the many micro brand homages that have appeared over the past few years, in fact I brought one!
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Does not seem too bad a price for an 18k diving watch. Squale have been at it since 1948 and i do not recall any threads about their unsuitability for diving.
I never really worry if a watch is a homage to another. If i like it and it suits my purpose then job done. I understand people that want other brands, they can buy those brands. Some though are not name led and i can see this selling.
Its funny , for example , folk say they dont want to own a Rolex but are happy to own a `homage ` which looks just like a Rolex because they like the style and whatever else they like about the design . So in effect they like Rolex . or are they saying they dont aspire to the brand name but are happy to wear a watch that looks just like the brand name they say they do not aspire to .
food for thought .
That would be me!
I like the Rolex designs, i also like Stienhart designs. I do not care whose name is in the dial so would always choose Steinhart.
Their watches are perfectly good and do not cost silly money. I would never look at my watch and say to my self that i was wanting a Rolex.
If Rolex were the same price then i would choose them, they are a better watch but not enough to pay their price or for me to care enough to want one instead as they are as i say, to me, silly money.
I speak purely for owning one as a timepiece. Should people be buying them as they believe they are an investment then that is a whole other topic.
Can I just pick you up on this snippet:
I just want to quite sure about this. Is the person you are quoting really claiming that a standard 1953 Submariner with a hesalite crystal dived to over 3,000 meters in 1953? More importantly, do you, for a moment think that this is a remotely credible claim?In September of 1953, Rolex announced their foray into diving watches with great fanfare. Rolex attached their new Rolex Submariner to the outside of Swiss inventor August Piccard’s bathyscaphe, a bubble-shaped deep-sea submersible. The bathyscaphe and the affixed Rolex were lowered into Tyrrhenian Sea, off the coast of Italy, and descended a world record-breaking 3,131.8 meters (more than 10,000 feet) towards the ocean floor. When the bathyscaphe surfaced, the Rolex Submariner was in perfect working condition.
Just off the top of my head, that's 300 atmospheres and just under 14.7 psi per atmosphere. So the claim here is that a standard 1953 Sub with a hesalite crystal withstood over 4400 psi? To put this in context, putting all of a persons weight through a stilleto heel would be around a tenth of that pressure.
Meanwhile, here's what the US Navy really thought of the Sub:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/777760.pdf
I'm pretty sure that you can really like the shape of the Oyster case, even like the movements and individual Rolex models without liking a brand whose advertising department whose record for dodgy BS is second to none. One reason I'm so sure is that is precisely how I feel. Actually, my position is even more complex as I even have a lot of time for what Rolex does with the money it gets and think Hans Wilsdorf was a fine man. However, the brand, the advertising and sales departments are horrid.
Your account appears to have been hacked by a young child, and the provided link does not work.
http://www.rolexmagazine.com/2017/04...ubmariner.html
They like Rolex but they don't like Rolex. Fake watches go with fake people.
The link works fine.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
It certainly wasn't a 'standard' Submariner. ;-)
http://rolexpassionreport.com/5950/t...r-dss-display/
R
Last edited by ralphy; 7th January 2019 at 18:00. Reason: linky
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
I’m not certain which to be more amused by, the cliched attempt at an insult in lieu of an argument or the deployment of a link to Jake’s Coolaid Supplies as evidence of anything other than self deception.
The link works well enough and links to US Navy trials of three watches, The Sub, the Enicar Seapearl 600 and the BP FF. The sub did not come out of it well. Who’d have thought it, Enicar didn’t just get a watch to the top of Everest first, they also made a better dive watch in the late fifties.
And I note that, following Ralphy’s post, I was right. If you’d just thought about simple physics rather than how special your watch must be...
Last edited by M4tt; 7th January 2019 at 18:51.
Except no one is talking about fakes, merely homages. The difference is that one is designed to deceive and the other is not.
Jake's Rolex World is misinformed about the US Navy Seals? What about the Milsubs on this side of the Atlantic?
Your link still doesn't work.
Come off it. It's a high-end fake/replica, if such a thing can be envisaged. The minor differences are only apparent on close inspection.
Whoever buys these things must like the Rolex design - you'd hardly buy a replica of a watch you didn't like, would you? So why get the replica and not the real deal?
Nothing to do with me, chum.
My Rolexes are toward the lower end of my collection. Good mid-tier watches, workmanlike, reliable and hold their value. What's not to like?
Posting Permissions
