TelBoy

Er no, there isn't one.

TelBoy

But it doesn't get you to Tesco in the same way!! It feels different, performs differently, handles differently - the list is endless. The experience of driving it is nothing like that of the Granada. Now if you're going to tell me that you experience something mind-blowingly different from the way an expensive watch ticks each second compared to that of a cheap watch, then all well and good, but let's be honest here - you simply don't!! There are only so many times you can look at a watch movement and say "wasn't the way it ticked that second beautiful?" The only way in which an expensive watch is analogous to an expensive car is in its looks. You would hope (though not everyone would agree) that an expensive watch is aesthetically more pleasing. But you simply cannot start saying that the way it performs its job is more gratifying, or if you are, you're just doing it to justify the expenditure to yourself!

Bubba po

I think he's on about "end result", which is a tautology.

HTH

Scooby Hoo?

iTrader: (3)

That is exactly the same difference between the Casio/Rolex debate.
I bought my 5513 Submariner in 1966 for the princely sum of £90 to use when diving. Due to age I stopped diving a couple of years ago. In that TIME the watch has dived in some of the most wonderful locations in the world. I wouldn't have risked my life on a cheap watch that may have leaked water in and in 1966 Casio weren't heard of.
As for saying that a watch only tells you the time, without pressing a miriad of buttons needing a degree have you forgotten date/ moon-phase/ tides/ calender/ month/ cosmograph/ day/ alarm/ birthdays/ your name and are pretty to look at. I don't know of any low end market quartz watches that don't resemble the Granada.

TelBoy

Aha, thanks, Geoff

TelBoy

See now that's ok Buying a watch because of its ability to do something over and above tell the time makes a lot of sense. I've never used the 300m diving ability of my Sub, and i doubt i ever will! And i'd argue that the vast majority of high end watches aren't bought for their technical abilities at all - that's what i find so confusing, and why i'm always baffled as to how such high prices can be paid for what are basically ornaments. As for moon phases, well.....

Alan C

Would be interesting to see on this 4 Wheel Drive forum how many people use that particular facility for what it was intended to do...

TelBoy

You're labouring the point, Alan. Performance is the primary reason for buying a Scoob for most people, not its 4WD ability. Performance over and above what is necessary to get from one place to another, available in all cheaper cars. Which is NOT the same as getting a higher standard of time from an expensive watch! I'm sure you fully understand the point i'm making really...

Devildog

Tel,

I'm not convinced you do either Cheaper cars can be faster than more expensive cars. As i've said above, cars can be just as emotive a purchase as watches. You are generalising to an unfair degree.

Can you argue against my past example of old 911 versus Clio Sport Renault, or against my example on this thread of A4 vs Mondeo?

In both cases, each car will perform very similarly, yet opinions will be polarised.

My £100 casio has many more features, is more accurate (syncs with the radio signal) and is waterproof enough when compared to, what, the best part of £4k worth of Seadweller (at today's prices). But its just a watch, albeit a very clever one at that. The novelty has worn off.

The appeal of the Seadweller, however, just gets stronger with time. The history, the enginering, the build quality, its tactile quality, the whole ownership experience is head and shoulders above the Casio.

Of course, there will be many who buy them for the name (the YM series alone is evidence of that IMO) but for every **** flashing his Rolex (or other premioum brand for that matter) there will be many genuine owners who really appreciate what they have.

Just as the owner of that old 911 won't care that someone in a £12k Renault "can have him in the twisties"

I have no doubt that you will have made many purchases of a more expensive item, when a cheaper version will be just as servicable, and perform an identical function.

Asthetics, construction, perceived quality, etc, etc, etc, play a part in many purchase decisions, so why not watches?

Alan C

You're right, I am labouring the point, so it's time to agree to disagree and get back on topic...

The topic is:

I'm finding that I'm struggling with the dilemma of either the Sub or GMT. I keep switching between the two. Cyclops or no cyclops... I do prefer the clean aspects of the of the Sub. But the the GMT function will be useful and the GMT bracelet is more solid... which is nice...

I need to get a better handle on the differences (apart from the obvious depth rating which is moot for me)... but the Sub has that more classic image and history...

I love having the problem though as it means I have to read up more...

Devildog

Alan,

Unless you want steel and gold, you are looking at the Ceramic GMT vs the old style Sub - date with cyclops or no date without. If you want a date with no cyclops you are looking at a 16600 Seadweller.

£4,200 for the GMT ceramic or £3,400 to £3,900 for the Subs. LV sub has the maxi dial, which the other subs don't. The non date sub used to have different (read cheaper) end links on the bracelet as well where it connects to the case - not sure if its still does.

Movements are different (obviously) and of course for all steel at the moment the Subs and SD have the smaller cases and the old style bracelet clasp.

If I was you I'd be tempted to stick my name down for the "new" steel Sub and compare that to the GMT ceramic when its out.

That failing, go and try them all on - see what you prefer on your wrist. I nearly bought the Anniversary GMT (ceramic bezel mode, in gold an steel) two years ago. Having had a play with that and the SD, the SD was the clear winner for me.

TelBoy

DD, trust me, i do understand the angle you're putting on it. But what i'm trying (badly, lol) to get across is that you can get a damned good watch for a fraction of the price of a high end "timepiece", which has every bit as much of the qualities you described. But watch collecting is as brand-focused as any hobby i can think of off-hand. It's money for old rope i reckon. Go into the Victorinox shop in London, for example, the Swiss Army brand. They have a good selection of watches, and you're hard pressed to spend over £250. And for that, you get a great watch. But it's got a little white cross on a red background on it, not an IWC, Breitling badge or whatever. And i'm convinced that's what it's all about for lots of people.

To complete my own personal story here, i indulged in a "proper" watch about two years ago, and to be honest i was seduced by the name. Don't get me wrong, it's fantastic engineering and all the other things people have cited about why you'd own a watch like this, but if i'm honest, it's left me cold, because, at the end of the day, it just tells the time. Perhaps i'm just missing what everybody else gets, i don't know.

Scooby Hoo?

iTrader: (3)

Should have as the first issued will be making money in five years.
Mine was the 3rd to go throught Bexley.
Another good buy is the new Prince, but stick with yellow Gold. No body is buying them so again early issues with increase steadily.
Early 5513 Submariners are a good buy, lighter than the new model and are only going up. Look for ones that have the original face/hands with the mellow colouring. The only draw back will be when Rolex are no longer able to service them, but that shouldn't happen for a few years yet.

Alan C

The LV doesn't interest me (except for the maxi dial) and I'd prefer the more solid newer bracelet. Saying that the 16600 SD does look good. I do need to see one though to make the call.

Nat mentioned it earlier, but are there any pics of what the newer Sub will look like? That definitely is of interest and will probably be the one that seriously challenges the GMT for me.

But if it's mid to late 2010 then it'll be too late as I want to make the move sooner rather than later.

Devildog

Rolex website has a two tone Sub in blue, and the white gold version has been posted on here, but again in blue

Alan C

Forgot to add that I want the Black dial...and SS.

The LV ring colour and coloured dial options are not for me.

Devildog

Best you'll get is to imagine the blue white gold in black/black at the moment, unless Nat has a link to something or someone can photoshop it?

Devildog

^^^^desaturation of the colour doesn't give that great a representation though.

Alan C

Thanks Nat. Desaturation or not, I appreciate the effort.

Now I'm home and able to do a little more R&D, the word is that the new Sub will appear at the next Basel show and then some 6 months to the shops. This will make it mid to late 2010 IF they decide on those dates. There's nothing confirmed.

The other thing that I want to consider is the polished centre links on the GMT. I actually prefer the brushed bracelet throughout (less blingy). So that maybe something to ask the AD to alter by getting it brushed (rather than replacing it with hollow links) before getting it.

Devildog

Seconded

Also good for re-finishing brushed bracelets

Apologies Nat, my comment wasn't intended to be criticism, just an observation that the real one will look much better.

Alan,

Have a look for a 16600 - it might just be what you are looking for (bracelet aside)

Nat,

Do you know if the new style bracelet would fit onto an old style SD/Sub? Are the end links the same?

Scooby Hoo?

iTrader: (3)

Nat is spot on and it's sooooooooooo easy to do.
Ask for a price before you have it done.
But remember that if you have it serviced by Rolex at Bexley, it will be returned as it left the factory.
One of the scams is to buy bio metal Daytonas and change then to S/Steel, because of the profit to be made. Thats fine untill the poor owner sends it to Bexley for a service and gets a whopping great big bill because Rolex will not release the watch until it's returned to it's former glory.
If your thinking of buying a second hand Rolex give Bexley a ring first, quote the model and case number and they will tell you if it's stolen or worse still and replica. I have seen replicas that have been so good that you needed to start taking the movement apart.
Better still drop the watch into Bexley and let Graham or Cormac check it out for you.
No Troubles for new as long as the dealer is Rolex approved.
Happy hunting.

Alan C

Thanks guys.. spot on advice.

DD - The 16600 is very nice as the bezel markings and face make it uncluttered.
But I'm edging towards the maxi dial of the GMT.

Found a pic of the SS Sub. It's shopped (very well), but there's discussion around it having the Red lettering as it'll need something to make it stand out from the GMT as it will practically look like one.

Alan C

Is the 7835 for the 16520?

If they were to produce that, as it stands, I'd take it over the GMT.
But if not, then I see the simpler Sub being overshadowed by the better specced GMT

yoza

Allan whatever you buy, and however much research you carry out, I guarantee you will make another watch purchase within 12 months, thats how it is.

Out of all the many people who have PMed me RE watch purchases 90% of them buy again within 12 months....not necessarily the same brand, but another watch purchase all the same.

If you buy a GMT MasterII as I suggested on page 1, you will then want a busier watch maybe a chronograph.......

If you were to start with a SUB you would then move to a GMTII for the upgrade of the 24 hour pointer, and then on again.

This is the complications mountain you will begin to climb......

Enjoy.

Yoza

G00ner

I'm finding myself strongly drawn to this -

Girard-Perregaux Sea Hawk Pro 1000M 49950-19-632-FK6A Watch at Jura Watches £6,600.00

I know nothing about good watches, I wear a Tag because I like the style, but this Girard apeals to me.

What's the consensus?