[Leica] ridiculously enough off topic to ensure everyone reads it, was: R E: [Leica] Rolex/Leica

["Stewart, Alistair" <AStewart@gigaweb.com>]

Jason

Thanks for your timely comments and for passing judgement on my statement. I
would define normal broad operating conditions as what I experience here in
Chicago. Hot summers, cold winters. With a watch on my wrist. What made you
think that the definition would be "in a glass case"? Hardly normal to
operate there for humans or watches, except for the watches on display, and
certainly not for humans. Nor was Fiennes situation normal.


You totally miss the point. Rolex watches are relatively inaccurate
comapered to swatches, and the toll on the planet to extract that iron ore
and convert it into bits of stainless steel (assuming we're not talking
really silly gold) seems to me a little more onerous than getting the
plastic stuff for swatches made from oil. But that is an under-informed
opinion. Planetary toll wasn't the point of the message anyway

Rolex marketing appeals to things other than our needs - a common cause of
many problems in the so-called developed world. My point is if you buy the
status symbol because you dream of being RF or doing stuff like that, fine.
Don't tell me that you need similar performance characteristics in everyday
life "normal broad operating conditions and environment". You don't need it,
even though you may want it. Wouldn't you rather have a watch which told you
when it was the right time instead of knowing it was kind of maybe near a
certain time? 

Sorry to hear that you sweat acid.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jason Hall [mailto:JASON@jbhall.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 5:31 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Leica] Rolex/Leica


"Stewart, Alistair" wrote:

>Swatch (more accurate and reliable than a Rolex -
>under normal broad operating conditions and environment.)

That is a ridiculous statement.

How do you define "normal broad operating conditions and environment"?  In a
glass case perhaps?

I've owned a number of Swatch's, the straps rot on my wrist (perhaps my
sweat is overly acidic?) the battery cap retaining lugs break and the
bezel's crack easily, at which point they cease to be reliable or accurate
at all.  Not forgetting the finite life of the battery's.  For 30 bucks they
are a great DISPOSABLE watch.  Break one buy another.

My Rolex soldiers on, gaining a minute or two per month and I expect it will
outlast me.  It does not require batteries and has never been serviced.  I
am rather heavy on watches but the Rolex resists all my attempts to destroy
it.

To cite an extreme environment:- Rannulph Fiennes the explorer and his
companion relied heavily on their watches during a failed attempt to walk
unaided across the Antarctic, their Sat Nav equipment was unreliable due to
failing batteries in the bitter cold.  Sir Rannulph was wearing a Rolex, his
companion - a battery operated watch.  Needless to say the battery operated
watch gave up the ghost half way thro the journey.  They where left to rely
on the Rolex for their navigation to safety.  Fortunate for them they were
not both wearing Swatch's.

If the technology had been available at the time and my IIIC/F were made
from plastic in 1950 I wonder if it would still be going strong.  If it
relied on batteries would the necessary battery still be available?

Plastics, while not easily biodegradable, do deteriorate; plastics do not
wear well, they wear out; plastics are not easily repaired; plastics remain,
for the most part, a cheap and disposable alternative to metals.  I am
referring here to the types of plastic generally encountered in consumer
products, not rare exotic polymers, harder than titanium, unaffected by
temperature and less reactive than gold, if such exist.

B D Colen wrote:

>I owned a Submariner a number of years ago and finally sold
>it - because on my wrist it simply wouldn't keep as accurate
>time as a quartz Timex....go figure...

If you really need precision to the second you could always buy a quartz
Rolex, but who'd want one?  Rolex mechanical watches retain their resale
value rather well.  I could sell mine now,  bought new ten years ago, for
more than I paid for it, even allowing for inflation.  The exception to this
is the quartz models, nobody wants them!  Go figure........

"Stewart, Alistair" wrote:

>My various quartz-controlled timepieces keep very accurate time, have less
>service outage time (i.e. replacing a battery is quicker than getting my
GMT
>serviced), don't stop when dropped (yes folks, Rolexes do), and are better
>warrantied than brand R.

I can only say you must have been unlucky Alistair.  I have two Oyster
Perpetual Datejusts, the one I'm wearing now has been dropped a number of
times and bears the dents and scars including a number of chips in the
mineral crystal glass, its been bashed on rock faces and it has survived
bike crashes, it has never failed me.  I admit, its never been to the Arctic
tho.

Jason Hall