Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/01/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]John, Joseph is absolutely right - I would never buy a Rolex or Omega today - they are simply overpriced for what they deliver, mass produced stuff at handmade rates. The popularity is because anyone who comes into money would like to flaunt a Rolex and a Montblanc to show they have 'arrived', but both are actually quite average in quality and workmanship - you can get far superior watches/pens for the money. The only advantage of a Rolex I see is that they hold their value very well, and are the most liquid watch asset you can own. I think this list is fairly heavily populated by IWC owners and users (including me), though I do occasionally use my father's wedding watch, a vintage 1948 Rolex Oyster, or my grandfather's 1956 Patek Calatrava, both sensational looking watches, but a tad delicate for day to day use. Cheers Jayanand On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:41 PM, J. Newell <john.o.newell at comcast.net> wrote: > To borrow a phrase from a younger generation, I *totally* dare you to go > to a gathering of Rolex devotees and make the statement snipped below. If > you do, make sure your life insurance is paid up first. > > This whole thread is somewhat amusing. Nowhere else do people refer to > Rolexes as downmarket beaters. ;-) > > Best, > John > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joseph Yao" <joseph at yao.com> > To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> > Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:58:11 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: Re: [Leica] OT: Black Leica, black Rolex > > In absolute terms among watch connoisseur, Rolex is a low to mid-price > brand, in the same league as Omega, perhaps just a touch above TAG-Heuer. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >