Those Langes are like $30k - $50k?

wil has discussed it from the point of someone who doesnt know watches, a rolex will have brand recognition for them while the other brands wont.

People who know their watches buy rolex for the quality of the movement and finishing at the price point. I really like IWC's myself but you have to questions paying the huge retail for an ETA movement watch, it's very hard to justify.

I'm guessing you are fairly newly into watches yourself and at the rolex hate stage? Everyone gets like that until they own one and then they start appreciating them more.

Or maybe you'll just never like the diver watch style which is fair enough, such a big part of the rolex range is based on the 'oyster' style that if you hate it you will generally hate rolex.

I'm fairly new to watches and think rolexes just look ugly. I do like the way the 2nd hand moves but I think their clock hands are obnoxiously ugly, like a cadillac

People go through Rolex hate stages?

how is ETA movement inferior? is it just a matter of losing a few more seconds a year, or do they tend to crap out a lot faster too? i would've thought that a 5k watch from a reputable company would have some kind of a long lasting warranty in place anyways....

* cool story
* don't buy em
* this might be news to you but people have different stylistic preferences, I'm not sure why you want people to justify this to you
* wat

you're comparing one sport watch with a fleet of dress watches. so yes, apples and oranges

my first hand experience is that nobody has EVER noticed my patek. only the rolexes really gets noticed and it's quite rare.. my panerai does as well but what do you expect, it's a tuna can..

i mean this as no disrespect but someone new to watches who suddenly hates rolex and has a huge hard on for iwc (and omega) is super standard..

someone quote the rolex chart

and ya, what pvn said..

this thread kinda needs a faq.. kinda like the r/watches one except that doesn't suck

That's why I was asking for an explanation, not a justification, jesus what's up your ass

imo - it's a waste to buy a watch for brand recognition rather than love of aesthetic design.

who's going to throw a hissyfit about that statement now?

ETAs don't even lose out in timing contests so its not even a matter of a few more seconds.

Its just people don't want their exotic sports car to have the same engine as a hyundai.

So Syous, just as how you see that IWC Portofino as a great deal at 4K



I see that Portofino as overpriced because it uses the same movement as the Tissot Visodate



which costs $550.

That $7k Portuguese that everyone loves when they first get in to watches (I'll admit it, the aesthetics are perfect) has the same movement as this sub $1000 Hamilton



On the other hand, no other brand will have a Rolex movement.

very basic Langes start out at around $15k and move well in to the 6 figures.

Rolexes are like Porsches.

They tend to always look the same. They both have their own type of quirkyness. Neither are beautiful in the classic sense.

can you explain this? do Rolex second hands move differently?

Well for one thing, only one of the comparison watches you posted has a function similar to GMT.

The aesthetic of the submariner/GMT is about legibility. I've looked at lots of other watches with GMT functions, and few come close to the GMT-II imo.

[img]http://s24.************/clw9jgyw5/rolex.png[/img]

[/thread]

Thanks Amoeba

to everyone else flaming away:
It would be a lot more productive if you guys would explain the value of Rolex and why people love them so much.

I'm new to watches and would like to learn more about them. Flaming away because you're butthurt that I said Rolexes are ugly imo doesn't help anyone.

So far I'm loving IWC, JLC, and A. Lange & Sohne for their design. It'd be nice if someone would educate me more about watches so that I can learn to value/appreciate them like Amoeba seems to be able to do.

I don't have strong feelings either way on Rolex (like some, don't like some, appreciate the influence/history) but the one thing I don't understand about them at all is how anyone can think that magnifying glass over the date is a good look. No date subs ftw!

Yes, in your opinion. And a lot of other people's too. But other people have other opinions. Have you never run into this in other areas before?

I'm ok with the cyclops on the datejust or the day-date but hate it on any of the sports models.

hate it on the Sub for example. Its like "with this watch you'll be diving to 300 meters like a total badass, like James Bond, well, if James Bond had astigmatism".

and I would hope the ppl who post here regularly have a well-informed opinion, as opposed to mine which is uninformed.

but you sir have a giant stick up your ass.

If you don't think it's sexy, or funny, there's no way I can change your mind.

--Gene Siskel

dude, seriously, sometimes it's just as simple as "I like that" or "I don't like that". Isn't that enough? Why are you insistent on there being something more to it?

its just this debate has been rehashed a thousand times. You are evaluating the worth of a watch subjectively based on your own aesthetic, and saying rolexes are 'ugly' whereas a bunch of dress watches are not so rolex is a ripoff. you then assume that, since rolexes are ugly, the only reason people buy them is for status. watch people (for lack of a better term) are buying watches for a bunch of reasons other than aesthetics in which rolex dominates pretty much everything in its price range, and disagree with your aesthetic assessment. and on the status thing, the most expensive rolexes are vintage pieces that you would NEVER know cost tens of thousands, so if real rolex enthusiasts are buying for status, it is only status within an incredibly small world of people that the person who buys a cartier or iwc or whatever wouldnt give 2 ****s about.

dude you have a huge stick up your ass obv

Great explanation.