# Rolex? Anyone Own a Rolex? Rolex Owners Post Your Thoughts About GRAND SEIKO Here!



## sportura

As a Rolex owner and Seiko aficionado who doesn't own a Grand Seiko I would love to hear your thoughts and impressions of your Grand Seiko's. Post up pics maybe every day, post up your reviews and stories, tell us about the GMT's, the Tiffany Snowflake, etc. 

Should Rolex owners buy one? Why?


----------



## Nokie

They are both the same great quality, totally different as well. I have had both and they are fun to wear for almost anything.

Currently I have two Rolex, and one Spring Drive. All are great and not going any place soon. 

The fit and finish on a GS is a bit sharper, IMHO, but the Rolex's brushed stuff is awesome as well.

If you are considering a GS look at the Spring Drives. 

They are works of art and the seconds hand sweep is mesmerizing.


----------



## HiggsBoson

Rolex v Grand Seiko, this won't end well. In before the lock.
I own both.


----------



## sportura

Nokie said:


> They are both the same great quality, totally different as well. I have had both and they are fun to wear for almost anything.
> 
> Currently I have two Rolex, and one Spring Drive. All are great and not going any place soon.


What 2 Rolexes do you own? What is a Spring Drive? Can you post some photos?


----------



## pkincy

Got back interested in watches after wearing none for a while recently. First thought, buy a Rolex. I got the Explorer, 214270. Great watch, I loved it. Then replaced an older inherited DJ36 with a new 116234 DJ36 w Jubilee and WG fluted bezel. Loved it. Then I bought my first GS. Then a second. Then a third. Now neither Rolex does much but stay on a programmed winder. I do wear them occasionally, but I now am in love with the GSs. To help, I am not a Sub, SD, GMTMaster, etc. huge SS tool watch fan, so not drawn to them. And for beauty, elegance and style nobody is anywhere near the GS dials, cases and hands. They sparkle constantly. The dials are intricate and beautiful. The hands are works of art. Sorry to me, there is no comparison.

Also, get on a Rolex forum today and all you hear is complaints about prices, and inability to source stock. Or the occasional, "Incoming" post where somebody is stoked that they actually were able to buy one of their desired watches. Rolex mass produces over 800,000 watches a year and nobody can get one. GS hand makes 45,000 watches a year and most other than Limited Editions can be had for a slight discount. 

To me there is absolute truth to the statement, "You buy a rolex to impress others, or you buy Grand Seiko to impress yourself."


----------



## JayR278

A spring drive is a special movement designed by seiko, basically it is a mechanical watch regulated by a quartz crystal. The mechanical part of the watch powers a special “glide wheel” that works with the quartz regulator. The befits of the spring drive are 1 that the watch only has +/- 1 second per day, and 2 it gives the seconds hand a special glide motion that is only found on spring drive watches. Because of the regulator the seconds hand glides instead of stuttering like a normal mechanical seconds hand. To be clear the spring drive doesnt require a battery. Ps I might not be 100% accurate about how the glide wheel works but I’m confidant about the rest.


----------



## nb617

Grand Seiko sets you apart, only real enthusiasts know

It's like buying a vintage car or vintage watch...you bought it because it's something special

I've made the decision because 90% of 'nice' watches I see are all the same...Rolex president, datejust, submariner



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## dmb359

I've thought of purchasing a Snowflake on multiple occasions. 

I'm typically not a dress watch fan, and don't own any GS right now, but do own some Rolex watches. I much prefer my Rolex watches to any GS that I've tried on (which has been a lot), but there are still a couple GS that I'd love to purchase at some point, primarily the newer Sbga211.


----------



## BigSeikoFan

I own both brands and while Rolexes are great for what they are, they both take a back seat to my limited edition GS SBGA387. Love the dial and the smooth sweep of the SD movement is to die for!









That said, I do like the Exp and Exp II more than my SBGA105.









Btw, if you're in the market for a blue dial GMT...


----------



## sportura

JayR278 said:


> A spring drive is a special movement designed by seiko, basically it is a mechanical watch regulated by a quartz crystal. The mechanical part of the watch powers a special "glide wheel" that works with the quartz regulator. The befits of the spring drive are 1 that the watch only has +/- 1 second per day, and 2 it gives the seconds hand a special glide motion that is only found on spring drive watches. Because of the regulator the seconds hand glides instead of stuttering like a normal mechanical seconds hand. To be clear the spring drive doesnt require a battery. Ps I might not be 100% accurate about how the glide wheel works but I'm confidant about the rest.


Thank you for that explanation. Why don't other high-end watch manufacturers use this process?


----------



## sportura

pkincy said:


> To me there is absolute truth to the statement, "You buy a rolex to impress others, or you buy Grand Seiko to impress yourself."


I am not ashamed to admit I am one of those Rolex owners that doesn't mind the attention of others and I think it's something I'd miss if I bought another brand, no matter how high the quality.

Something that has always appealed to me is the great sense of style that core Seiko watches offer- I own 6 of them presently, from the SKX's to a Spork- but when I see Grand Seiko's they always look like Dress watches to me and not Sport watches, I think that's another struggle.

So for a Rolex owner that likes a little attention _and _wants something that looks dominant and sporty, what's the "signature" Grand Seiko to own? If you could pick only one that fits that criteria, which one is it?


----------



## Msiekierski

Sporty, did someone hack your account or are you genuinely interested???😝


----------



## sportura

Msiekierski said:


> Sporty, did someone hack your account or are you genuinely interested???��






























Genuinely interested. No malice intended. I come in peace. Those are some of my Seiko's up there. I'm a fan.

About a dozen of my WUS friends swear by Grand Seiko and I am trying to get a broader view of GS owners perspectives and which one model in the line might suit my collection.


----------



## kepa

Msiekierski said:


> Sporty, did someone hack your account or are you genuinely interested????


Yeah. I'm confused. Aren't you always slagging off GS or dismissing them? Maybe I'm getting you mixed up with someone else.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kepa

Just saw your latest post. I’m a Rolex and GS fan. Quick summary is that Rolex make awesome, timeless but very safe watches that all look similar and mass produced. GS is more about artistry. I feel the Japanese have a more art-based culture than the Swiss or Germans and take pride in artisanal products like watches, pens, papar, etc. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Msiekierski

In case you are genuinely interested, I’d say one thing that they all share is a level of finishing not seen on many pieces that cost multiples of whichever model you pick. And the dial options are amazing. I know you don’t like dress watches, so I’d look at GS diver watches (frankly not my personal favorite, as they can be quite chunky).
I went with an easy grab and go 9F quartz that blurrs the sporty and dressy line...dressy enough but still 100m water resistant. The dial is what does it... goes from dark, almost black indoors to brilliant blue in full sun. All I can say is just go try few on with an open mind. One thing you will not get is the brand recognition that you love, but you got your Pepsi for that 👍


----------



## Msiekierski

Too bad I don’t have time or energy to keep up with OOO, I’m sure that thread is boiling over right now...LOL. I tried to catch up but after few days I’m over 100 pages behind. You guys are out of control with that one.
If you go look at GS, bring a loupe to look at all the dial details... it’s a treat.


----------



## Tonhao

Rolex is a better tool watch and wears more comfortably, but I won’t be sitting down with one with a 10X loupe. GS has better finish and “sparkle” under close examination, but the bright zaratsu polishing scratches easily and the wear stands out more. 

Each fit a slightly different lifestyle and purpose, I don’t see it as “one or the other”

If you don’t fancy the dress oriented designs perhaps a Spring Drive diver is right for you? They have one in titanium as well.


----------



## HiggsBoson

kepa said:


> *Yeah. I'm confused. Aren't you always slagging off GS or dismissing them?* Maybe I'm getting you mixed up with someone else.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes he is, *big time*. Don't believe me, go and have a look over on the Rolex forum. 
Most of them have been locked now though.


----------



## Gunnar_917

I think a great place for Rolex aficionados to start off in Grand Seiko’s is the SBGN003; if you look closely, the design is very similar to something Rolex has in its stable


----------



## Snaggletooth

Gunnar_917 said:


> I think a great place for Rolex aficionados to start off in Grand Seiko's is the SBGN003; if you look closely, the design is very similar to something Rolex has in its stable


The bezel font looks identical to that used on the Exp II n'est ce que pas?


----------



## mui.richard

kepa said:


> ...Rolex make awesome, timeless but very safe watches that all look similar and mass produced. GS is more about artistry.


For this I offer "exhibit A" 










Now seriously, I'm all for Grand Seiko; superb finishing and workmanship, perfect Zaratsu polishing... we've heard it all. Personally I'm a proud owner of an SBGR051 and I've had it for a bit over 3 years. Accuracy is good, nice power reserve...but there's something always lacking, the design never took root and when I have it on my wrist the first that comes to mind is always "perfect execution", but not "perfect watch". Something that often comes to mind when I put on my Rolex pieces or other pieces.

This is not a comparison, and it shouldn't be viewed as such. Beauty is never objective but level of finishing is. So while I admire the level of workmanship that goes into a Grand Seiko, l have never been able to truly "love" it. They bring VERY DIFFERENT ATTRIBUTES to the table.


----------



## BarracksSi

sportura said:


> So for a Rolex owner that likes a little attention _and _wants something that looks dominant and sporty, what's the "signature" Grand Seiko to own? If you could pick only one that fits that criteria, which one is it?


I think either the Spring Drive GMT with the rotating sapphire bezel (SBGE201, is it?) or one of the divers. Score the limited edition with the red-tinged dial.

Or embrace the dressy-ness and get either the "Tiffany Snowflake" or the entry-level Spring Drive three-hander with the champagne dial. The former is pretty spectacular and is as close as you'll get to a Unicorn in GS-Land these days, and the latter is simply juicy.

Oh, and why don't other manufacturers use Spring Drive (save for a limited and exorbitantly priced Piaget)? Two reasons, I think:
- The watchbuying general public get all glassy-eyed when you try to explain it to them, and a recognizably luxury experience shouldn't need any explanation;
- Seiko has always experimented with movement types and tried different ideas with varying success rates (Kinetic = fail, IMO, and SD = win).


----------



## mui.richard

Msiekierski said:


> Too bad I don't have time or energy to keep up with OOO, I'm sure that thread is boiling over right now...LOL. I tried to catch up but after few days I'm over 100 pages behind. You guys are out of control with that one.
> If you go look at GS, bring a loupe to look at all the dial details... it's a treat.


There's no need for a loupe at all, it's obvious









brother of OoO


----------



## mui.richard

sportura said:


> Genuinely interested. No malice intended. I come in peace. Those are some of my Seiko's up there. I'm a fan.
> 
> About a dozen of my WUS friends swear by Grand Seiko and I am trying to get a broader view of GS owners perspectives and which one model in the line might suit my collection.


Ok Sporty, when was the last time you took your medicine?

Jokes aside, have you visited the Grand Seiko boutique and have a look? There's one at 510 Madison Ave.

brother of OoO


----------



## mui.richard

Gunnar_917 said:


> I think a great place for Rolex aficionados to start off in Grand Seiko's is the SBGN003; if you look closely, the design is very similar to something Rolex has in its stable


And he hasn't got an Explorer II so that just might work. 

brother of OoO


----------



## AngelDeVille

This thread is particularly interesting to me.

I really intend to only have one “high dollar” watch, and then wear it almost every day.

I was only considering Rolex, and to a much lesser extent Omega.

I am going to expand my search to Grand Seiko.


----------



## Panerol Forte

sportura said:


> What is a Spring Drive?


It's a quartz watch with the energy stored in the main spring by mean of rotor or hand winding, hence the designation "spring drive".

Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## sportura

Gunnar_917 said:


> I think a great place for Rolex aficionados to start off in Grand Seiko's is the SBGN003; if you look closely, the design is very similar to something Rolex has in its stable





Snaggletooth said:


> The bezel font looks identical to that used on the Exp II n'est ce que pas?
> 
> View attachment 14258101


Yes, that is a nice looking GS, but truth be told I would just buy the Rolex rather than one that resembles it that closely. I'd be looking for something more unique that didn't have so many Explorer II cues.

It does hit high marks for "doesn't look like a dress watch, looks very sporty, looks very dominant" though. Is there something else along those lines?


----------



## 5959HH

Msiekierski said:


> Too bad I don't have time or energy to keep up with OOO, I'm sure that thread is boiling over right now...LOL. I tried to catch up but after few days I'm over 100 pages behind. You guys are out of control with that one.
> If you go look at GS, bring a loupe to look at all the dial details... it's a treat.


You're right about keeping up with OoO; it's a major chore to keep up. Actually several OoO "regulars" have GS's in their collections and are not given a hard time about it. I've never made a secret that my primary focus is Rolex that are rugged, reliable, and hold value better than most other brands. Since I live in close proximity to Dallas RSC, Rolex service has never been a problem for me during the 35+ years I have owned Rolexes.

The only time I have laid eyes on GS's is the time I cruised through Timeless in Plano TX. The finish of the GS's I saw was impressive. The closest thing that I own to GS is my MM300 SLA021 that has a 8L35 movement that I read somewhere is similar to a specific GS movement (I don't recall the number), the MM300 movement being undecorated and unregulated. I will say my MM300 runs a rather constant +4 seconds per day regardless of position, not bad for an unregulated movement!

I would say perhaps someday I might acquire a GS but think at my age I need to downsize what I have rather than add to it.


----------



## sportura

Msiekierski said:


> In case you are genuinely interested, I'd say one thing that they all share is a level of finishing not seen on many pieces that cost multiples of whichever model you pick. And the dial options are amazing. I know you don't like dress watches, so I'd look at GS diver watches (frankly not my personal favorite, as they can be quite chunky).
> I went with an easy grab and go 9F quartz that blurrs the sporty and dressy line...dressy enough but still 100m water resistant. The dial is what does it... goes from dark, almost black indoors to brilliant blue in full sun. All I can say is just go try few on with an open mind. One thing you will not get is the brand recognition that you love, but you got your Pepsi for that &#55357;&#56397;


While I respect finishing and craftsmanship, truth be told my eyesight isn't that sharp and what matters more aren't individual elements that can be seen from 2 inches away but rather what the watch looks like as-a-whole from 2 feet away.

Can you post a photo of the GS you're referring to?


----------



## City74

Don’t fall into the trap. The OP is a Rolex fanboy who just tries to cause drama. Check the Rolex forum and you will see. Do yourself a favor and don’t feed the troll


----------



## sportura

mui.richard said:


> For this I offer "exhibit A"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now seriously, I'm all for Grand Seiko; superb finishing and workmanship, perfect Zaratsu polishing... we've heard it all. Personally I'm a proud owner of an SBGR051 and I've had it for a bit over 3 years. Accuracy is good, nice power reserve...but there's something always lacking, the design never took root and when I have it on my wrist the first that comes to mind is always "perfect execution", but not "perfect watch". Something that often comes to mind when I put on my Rolex pieces or other pieces.
> 
> This is not a comparison, and it shouldn't be viewed as such. Beauty is never objective but level of finishing is. So while I admire the level of workmanship that goes into a Grand Seiko, l have never been able to truly "love" it. They bring VERY DIFFERENT ATTRIBUTES to the table.


Thank you MR, but the GS's you are illustrating look too much like the Explorer II and Datejust to work in my collection. Is there a "signature" Grand Seiko that is Submariner-like or Explorer-like that doesn't actually look very much like the Submariner or Explorer I already own?


----------



## limnoman

mui.richard said:


> And he hasn't got an Explorer II so that just might work.
> 
> brother of OoO


I agree, it would probably complement his Rolex collection. But I don't see it happening. Going from the smooth movement of a manual to the jerky movement of a quartz might be difficult.

LOoOser in the brotherhood


----------



## sportura

BarracksSi said:


> I think either the Spring Drive GMT with the rotating sapphire bezel (SBGE201, is it?) or one of the divers. Score the limited edition with the red-tinged dial.
> 
> Or embrace the dressy-ness and get either the "Tiffany Snowflake" or the entry-level Spring Drive three-hander with the champagne dial. The former is pretty spectacular and is as close as you'll get to a Unicorn in GS-Land these days, and the latter is simply juicy.


I can't embrace the "dressy" GS (or any dress watch for that matter) as I'm just not in need of that genre. I've tried them, they've gotten cold quickly, and I looked for reasons _not _to wear them. No knock on anyone else. Just not my cup of tea.

The Grand Seiko GMT you refer to....can you post a pic? I've seen many variants and I'm not sure which one you're specifically referencing.


----------



## sportura

mui.richard said:


> Ok Sporty, when was the last time you took your medicine?
> 
> Jokes aside, have you visited the Grand Seiko boutique and have a look? There's one at 510 Madison Ave.
> 
> brother of OoO


That's good advice, but I'm also thinking that something made 5 to 10 years ago may be a better choice for me. Can you recall anything in the GS archives that might make sense for a first-time Grand Seiko buyer?


----------



## matthew P

I love my explorer..... the low profile, small size and awesome bracelet and brushed finishing makes for a fantastic daily wearer. The accuracy guarantee and reliability as well as the dealer and service accessibility are bench marks all manufacturers should aspire to. The value retention is also hard to argue against although the current frenzy / Inaccessibility leaves a bad taste in my mouth. 









I also love my GS spring drive diver. 
The spring drive sweep is mesmerizing, the position independent / 2 second per week accuracy and 72 hour power reserve makes for an incredible daily wearer. 
The dial execution/ hand and indice finishing and subtle sparkle on wrist is consistently engaging even after three years. It's a watch that never fails to impress me on wrist when I wear it. 









GS finishing of the case and watch head is more impressive that Rolex but only if you are impressed by the multi faceted precision and wrist sparkle...... Rolex excells at easy wearing brushed finishes IMO..... the polished center links and fluted bezels bring too much bling for my taste. 
Rolex excells with their bracelets and clasps, GS still lags behind in that department.
Rolex marketing and service network is also far superior.

Rolex represent better value at retail pricing.
GS delivers tremendous value in the used or discount market.

If you are looking for a Rolex best keep yourself in the Rolex family, nothing else is close in the mid range luxury sport watch market.

If you want something different with a distinctively Japanese styling and aesthetic then visiting a GS boutique in person to see how the watches look and feel on wrist is the only way to truly understand the strengths and weaknesses of the watches.

I'm sure it won't take long for this thread to devolve into the usual forum mess but I wanted to go on record as saying both watches are well worth a look.

•• sent by two turn tables and a microphone ••


----------



## sportura

Panerol Forte said:


> It's a quartz watch with the energy stored in the main spring by mean of rotor or hand winding, hence the designation "spring drive".
> 
> Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk


So GS is a quartz watch? Isn't that a negative connotation? How is GS perceived by those in the Patek and AP camp?


----------



## sportura

DP


----------



## sportura

matthew P said:


> If you are looking for a Rolex best keep yourself in the Rolex family, nothing else is close in the mid range luxury sport watch market.
> 
> If you want something different with a distinctively Japanese styling and aesthetic then visiting a GS boutique in person to see how the watches look and feel on wrist is the only way to truly understand the strengths and weaknesses of the watches.


Thanks Matt.

So my collection is entirely Rolex (6 references, $10K to $25K) and Seiko (6 references, $150 to $900) and if I'm going to add a watch like a Grand Seiko it would logically seem to sit in between the two groups. But I don't want it to resemble my SKX (the 200m diver you posted, for example) or a Rolex (the GMT with the steel bezel that others posted, for example). I want something unique, not a dress watch, and is the "signature" Grand Seiko, the one model that is unmistakably a GS and only a GS.

Patek has the Aquanaut. AP has the Royal Oak. Rolex has the Submariner. Omega has its Speedmaster. Icons for each brand. Is there a similar Grand Seiko icon sitting at around a $5K price?


----------



## Panerol Forte

sportura said:


> So GS is a quartz watch?


Not all GS are quartz, only Spring Drive models. They also have mechanical watches for purists.

Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## Msiekierski

Sporty, GS has all, manual, automatic, quartz and spring drive (quartz regulated but wound like auto). I don’t think either of those technologies is frowned upon. Remember, Patek and AP also made quartz watches...


----------



## BarracksSi

mui.richard said:


> Now seriously, I'm all for Grand Seiko; superb finishing and workmanship, perfect Zaratsu polishing... we've heard it all. Personally I'm a proud owner of an SBGR051 and I've had it for a bit over 3 years. Accuracy is good, nice power reserve...but there's something always lacking, the design never took root and when I have it on my wrist the first that comes to mind is always "perfect execution", but not "perfect watch". Something that often comes to mind when I put on my Rolex pieces or other pieces.
> 
> This is not a comparison, and it shouldn't be viewed as such. Beauty is never objective but level of finishing is. So while I admire the level of workmanship that goes into a Grand Seiko, l have never been able to truly "love" it. They bring VERY DIFFERENT ATTRIBUTES to the table.


Do you think that maybe the difference is the total package -- case shape, caseback-to-lugs, width-to-thickness proportions, bracelet feel, things like that?

The finishing on GS is tremendous, but once special ingredient is the mirror polished rehaut -- whereas Rolex has taken to etching "ROLEX-ROLEX" on it, therefore relinquishing that chance for extra sparkle.


----------



## Alysandir

sportura said:


> As a Rolex owner and Seiko aficionado who doesn't own a Grand Seiko I would love to hear your thoughts and impressions of your Grand Seiko's. Post up pics maybe every day, post up your reviews and stories, tell us about the GMT's, the Tiffany Snowflake, etc.
> 
> Should Rolex owners buy one? Why?


I have an 011 Snowflake. The two main reasons I own one are:

1. The perfectly smooth sweeping seconds hand of the Spring Drive movement. I find this to be mesmerizing. YMMV.
2. The way they were able to put a polish on titanium (and even the satin portions, are less dull than I've come to expect from other Ti watches).

But it's difficult for me to make a one for one comparison to say, a Datejust, and declare one or the other as superlative. I think of the Snowflake as an office watch, a dressy watch on bracelet, rather than a dressy *sports* watch. Even though it has plenty of WR, I would not make a Snowflake my GADA watch. But speaking as a guy who generally detests straps, I do use this as a "dressing-up" watch.

The finishing on the Snowflake is very good, although the movement - despite being in an exhibition case - is really nothing to look at. It makes me wonder if the case might have been a little thinner had they eschewed the exhibition back, as it's a bit on the thick side for a three-hand + date.

Hand-winding the Snowflake is a tactile pleasure. The only watch whose winding is similar - in my limited experience - is Rolex. But I'd give the nod to the Snowflake for both the tactile feel and the efficiency of the automatic "Magic Lever" winding mechanism.

No lume on the Snowflake; for me that's mandatory for a GADA, but as we've already established, I'd never use this as a GADA, even were it lumed.

The power reserve is an eyesore. It's well-executed and attractive, but placed in a mindbogglingly unpleasing spot; given that this is an automatic with efficient rotor winding, it's a bit of a mystery why it's there at all. I know I'm not alone is thinking I'd be happier had they just done away with it altogether and knocked an additional $500 off the MSRP. But I also consider the cyclops on most Rolex with date complications to be an eyesore, so it evens out.

The bracelet is interesting. Not remotely as robust as Rolex, but then, this is both far thinner than a Rolex bracelet, and in titanium. No micro-adjust, and the pins & sleeves used due to the titanium are a right pain-in-the-ass to deal with. This is the only watch I own where I let the dealer resize for me.

Accuracy, the GS wins, but to be fair, there's a quartz regulator in there. Having said that, my Sub goes toe-to-toe with it and keeps up with it surprisingly well.

In short, I don't think it's better or worse than a Rolex; it's just different. It's a different feeling, different aesthetic.

Should Rolex owners buy one? Only if you want something different. I wouldn't buy a GMT or chrono from them, because they are extremely thick and the dial becomes a higgeldy-piggledy mess for the chronos with oversized pushers. But the Snowflake, yeah, that one is just the right combination of design elements that it stands a real chance at becoming an icon, so it's worth at least trying on.

Regards,
Alysandir


----------



## BarracksSi

sportura said:


> Patek has the Aquanaut. AP has the Royal Oak. Rolex has the Submariner. Omega has its Speedmaster. Icons for each brand. Is there a similar Grand Seiko icon sitting at around a $5K price?


I think the Snowflake is it. Represents all the features that GS is known for -- micro finishing, advanced movement, harder-than-steel titanium alloy, and its unique dial treatment. Looks like just a nice watch from a few feet away, but becomes more interesting as you get closer. May not impress the French Fry Guy (or Girl) and might not get your car rental upgraded to a luxury sedan, though. But if someone stares at it on the subway, they might just be a WIS.

Second pic is the entry-priced champagne-dial model that -- despite what I just said -- I kinda like better than the Snowflake.


----------



## Alysandir

sportura said:


> Is there a similar Grand Seiko icon sitting at around a $5K price?


The Snowflake is $5500 MSRP and is arguably the closest thing GS has to an icon.









Regards,
Alysandir


----------



## Jale

sportura said:


> Thanks Matt.
> 
> So my collection is entirely Rolex (6 references, $10K to $25K) and Seiko (6 references, $150 to $900) and if I'm going to add a watch like a Grand Seiko it would logically seem to sit in between the two groups. But I don't want it to resemble my SKX (the 200m diver you posted, for example) or a Rolex (the GMT with the steel bezel that others posted, for example). I want something unique, not a dress watch, and is the "signature" Grand Seiko, the one model that is unmistakably a GS and only a GS.
> 
> Patek has the Aquanaut. AP has the Royal Oak. Rolex has the Submariner. Omega has its Speedmaster. Icons for each brand. Is there a similar Grand Seiko icon sitting at around a $5K price?


Snowflake.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BigSeikoFan

sportura said:


> About a dozen of my WUS friends swear by Grand Seiko and I am trying to get a broader view of GS owners perspectives and which one model in the line might suit my collection.


So long as you're comfortable with getting in touch with your feminine side, you need look no further than the SBGA387 Tiffany Snowflake with the baby blue dial.


----------



## pkincy

sportura said:


> I can't embrace the "dressy" GS (or any dress watch for that matter) as I'm just not in need of that genre. I've tried them, they've gotten cold quickly, and I looked for reasons _not _to wear them..


A place that Rolex does excel and GS does not really try to compete is in the Tool Watch business. They do make a diver or two but it is not something they are serious about nor is it something that the things they do best (dial, hands and caaes) would lend itself to.

If you are a real Tool watch aficionado, then Rolex is clearly fbetter or you.


----------



## pkincy

So far we have pretty clearly determined those that wear their preferred watches for show and those that prefer the large SS Tool watch segment will not likely be fans of GS in general. And I see no reason to try and convince them. In fact given their stated preferences my recommendation would be add another Rolex SS Tool Watch. In that segment nobody is better than Rolex or even close.

In my case I don't really like the Rolex Professional series. Not that they aren't great watches but just that they are not what I want in a watch. I only have one of the Prof Series, the 214270 Explorer. Nice watch for sure, but not something I admire as much as my GSs.


----------



## limnoman

pkincy said:


> So far we have pretty clearly determined those that wear their preferred watches for show and those that prefer the large SS Tool watch segment will not likely be fans of GS in general. And I see no reason to try and convince them. In fact given their stated preferences my recommendation would be add another Rolex SS Tool Watch. Heaven knows there are collectors with 10 or 20 watches that look just about alike other than bezel material and color.


Fortunately, there is a diversity of watches at and above Rolex quality.

LOoOser in the brotherhood


----------



## Snaggletooth

Alysandir said:


> The power reserve is an eyesore... But I also consider the cyclops on most Rolex with date complications to be an eyesore, so it evens out.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## John Price

Sporty, taking you on faith here that you're genuinely interested and not simply trolling (doesn't look like you are trolling but many of us have seen a variety of your threads on the Rolex forum that get -shall we say - contentious). Try checking out GS chronographs. You'll see watches that are most certainly not like Rolex in their appearance and you'll get that distinctive look you may be after. Some even have some very "out there" styling on the cases with overlays of ceramic... 

As for Spring Drive - there's more to it than simply stating it's a "quartz watch with a main spring" as has been stated. There are some really good videos on youtube that explain it. Realize too that something like 90% of the components are the same as those in an automatic watch and you'll get a better appreciation for it too. And GS isn't the only one to do a Spring Drive type movement. I think it was Piaget (members correct my fading memory) that came out with a super limited model with a spring drive like movement. 

And as others have pointed out, go to a dealer and look at them in person. I think you'll be impressed.


----------



## limnoman

Snaggletooth said:


> I couldn't agree more.


Maybe Seiko has taken a few pages from the Swiss playbook and decided to run with a watershed characteristic or brand recognition: Rolex cyclops, Omega HeV, Panerai crown guard and Seiko PR.


----------



## BigSeikoFan

sportura said:


> So GS is a quartz watch? Isn't that a negative connotation? How is GS perceived by those in the Patek and AP camp?


I'm in the AP camp and I like GS just fine.


----------



## Spencer70

Comparison between the only Rolex and GS that I own. I have to owned numerous Rolexes - Day dates, non-date (pre ceramic) sub, date-justs. Just got my first GS today. The quality is very close.


----------



## Snaggletooth

rjohnson56 said:


> Maybe Seiko has taken a few pages from the Swiss playbook and decided to run with a watershed characteristic or brand recognition: Rolex cyclops, Omega HeV, Panerai crown guard and Seiko PR.


Fortunately neither my Rolex nor any of my Seikos suffer from these carbuncles. Happy days.


----------



## BigSeikoFan

sportura said:


> Patek has the Aquanaut. AP has the Royal Oak. Rolex has the Submariner. Omega has its Speedmaster. Icons for each brand. Is there a similar Grand Seiko icon sitting at around a $5K price?


Titanium Snowflake is right there.

Not quite as nice as the Tiffany Snowflake, but what is??


----------



## limnoman

Snaggletooth said:


> Fortunately neither my Rolex nor any of my Seikos suffer from these carbuncles. Happy days.


Sounds like you might need to modernize your collection. Are you still wearing bell bottom jeans


----------



## BigSeikoFan

BarracksSi said:


> I think the Snowflake is it. Represents all the features that GS is known for -- micro finishing, advanced movement, harder-than-steel titanium alloy, and its unique dial treatment. Looks like just a nice watch from a few feet away, but becomes more interesting as you get closer.


One thing about the Snowflake: Since it's a Ti case and bracelet, its lightness might be unwelcome and/or disconcerting. It was a deal-breaker for me.


----------



## Snaggletooth

rjohnson56 said:


> Sounds like you might need to modernize your collection. Are you still wearing bell bottom jeans


Moleskin jeans old chap, sans bell bottoms.


----------



## blowlamp

A recently acquired SBGV245 - poor photo's of a superb watch.


----------



## Independent George

BigSeikoFan said:


> One thing about the Snowflake: Since it's a Ti case and bracelet, its lightness might be unwelcome and/or disconcerting. It was a deal-breaker for me.


When you are coming from SS watches, yes, Ti watches seem light and unsubstantial, but wear one long enough, and you'll think that SS watches on bracelets feel like wearing bricks.


----------



## BarracksSi

BigSeikoFan said:


> One thing about the Snowflake: Since it's a Ti case and bracelet, its lightness might be unwelcome and/or disconcerting. It was a deal-breaker for me.


I remember thinking about that, and the Snowflake (like Hamilton's titanium Khaki) is still heavier than my steel 43mm Citizen. For me, it's not a disconcertingly light watch. (and especially not when compared to my aluminum AW... yeah, that's still my daily!)


----------



## Gunnar_917

BigSeikoFan said:


> One thing about the Snowflake: Since it's a Ti case and bracelet, its lightness might be unwelcome and/or disconcerting. It was a deal-breaker for me.


^^ This; I tried one on and it was a deal breaker for me too. Depends on what you like but watches that are overly light aren't really my thing


----------



## BrianBinFL

JayR278 said:


> A spring drive is a special movement designed by seiko, basically it is a mechanical watch regulated by a quartz crystal. The mechanical part of the watch powers a special "glide wheel" that works with the quartz regulator. The befits of the spring drive are 1 that the *watch only has +/- 1 second per day*, and 2 it gives the seconds hand a special glide motion that is only found on spring drive watches. Because of the regulator the seconds hand glides instead of stuttering like a normal mechanical seconds hand. To be clear the spring drive doesnt require a battery. Ps I might not be 100% accurate about how the glide wheel works but I'm confidant about the rest.


Correction to your accuracy statement - the stated accuracy of the Spring Drive movement is +/- 1 second every other day (every 2 days). Or, said another way, +/- 0.5 seconds per day, +/- 15 seconds per month.



sportura said:


> So GS is a quartz watch? Isn't that a negative connotation? How is GS perceived by those in the Patek and AP camp?


Well, it is a watch that utilizes a quartz oscillator, but it is not a quartz watch in the usual sense. Quartz watches either use a quartz oscillator with a frequency divider cooperating to urge a solenoid to advance the movement (standard quartz) or use a quartz oscillator to allow a computer to keep the time and then the computer uses motors to position the hands (smart quartz). Both of those require a battery or a capacitor to run the electronics. The Spring Drive has no battery or capacitor - it makes its own electricity.

Spring Drive is neither of those things. In Spring Drive the escapement (balance wheel, hairspring, escape wheel, and pallet fork) have been replaced with the Glide Wheel and the TSR. When you wind the mainspring of the Spring Drive for the first time the Glide Wheel freewheels and the seconds hand advances rapidly as the movement spins up. The spinning Glide Wheel induces electrical current in a coil to power the oscillator and the comparator. The comparator compares the frequency of the current generated by the Glide Wheel and coils to the frequency of the oscillator. If the frequency of the Glide-Wheel-generated current is greater than the frequency from the comparator the comparator switches a resistive load into the output current from generator coil. This electrical load creates a braking effect on the Glide Wheel (the same as happens to the stator of any generator when an electrical load is applied). The comparator keeps the resistive load in place until the frequency from the Glide Wheel generator equals the frequency of the oscillator and then the load is removed. This process is repeated constantly, keeping the Glide Wheel rotating at just the right speed. It never stops. It never changes direction. Unlike any other production movement on the planet.

The result is something semi-magical to those who appreciate it. Firstly you have a watch that displays time with a seconds hand with _infinite_ resolution. Just about every other watch on the planet has a time display resolution that is gross and crude by comparison. Even a High Beat 36000 has a resolution of 1/10th of a second. Damn good among mechanical watches, crude compared to the infinite smoothness of the Spring Drive. No "beats", no steps.

Also, like "fully mechanical" watches, no battery or capacitor to change every so many years - no "consumable" components at all. The watch makes all the electricity it needs from the mechanical power of the mainspring.

There is currently no other production watch using the technology of the Spring Drive. If you can find one of the 118 Piaget Emperador Coussin XL 700P's that were produced (at a price of over $70,000 each) that would be the only other way you can get Spring Drive technology. Oddly I don't think that watch has a seconds hand though, so you won't get to admire the silky smooth flow of time that you get with a GS SD.

This is already way into TL/DR territory so I'll stop now. I could talk about it forever.


----------



## chillwill120

Panerol Forte said:


> Not all GS are quartz, only Spring Drive models. They also have mechanical watches for purists.
> 
> Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk


The spring drive does use a quartz crystal, but I'm not so sure it's accurate to call it a quartz movement. Spring drive has more in common with a mechanical movement than a quartz movement imo. It's basically a mechanical watch with a quartz crystal used to regulate the unwinding of the main spring instead of an escapement. I suppose it depends on how you define "quartz watch".


----------



## BarracksSi

chillwill120 said:


> The spring drive does use a quartz crystal, but I'm not so sure it's accurate to call it a quartz movement. Spring drive has more in common with a mechanical movement than a quartz movement imo. It's basically a mechanical watch with a quartz crystal used to regulate the unwinding of the main spring instead of an escapement. I suppose it depends on how you define "quartz watch".


It's totally a quartz-_regulated_ movement. It's just not a _battery-powered_ movement.

We need to realize that the power source does not determine the regulation mechanism.


----------



## matthew P

thanks for the correct descriptions of spring drive - its a long way from a quartz watch when it comes to sweep / second hand movement.

as everyone has stated the Snowflake is most likely the "definitive " GS offering although its not a watch that I aspire to own.
The Ti case and larger dial and contemporary case shape were a miss for me.

I prefer the Highbeat for a daily office type watch although its not really a watch that I have a need for.

My prerefnce is for the angular GS case shapes in SS.

As far as recommending a watch you need for your collection, I honestly can't see any watch in the GS portfolio that you need.
your current collection fills every slot.

My advice is still to visit a boutique with an open mind and see if there is a watch that speaks to you.
sure, start with the snow flake but give the divers, chronographs and GMT's a look as well. they are very different trio, the Rolex offerings and you may find one that compliments your current collection by bringing something different to the table.


----------



## Panerol Forte

chillwill120 said:


> The spring drive does use a quartz crystal, but I'm not so sure it's accurate to call it a quartz movement. Spring drive has more in common with a mechanical movement than a quartz movement imo. It's basically a mechanical watch with a quartz crystal used to regulate the unwinding of the main spring instead of an escapement. I suppose it depends on how you define "quartz watch".


Not exactly... in a mechanical watch, the escapement regulates the unwinding of the main spring that turns the gears that are attached to the hands.

Any analog quartz watch is by definition a mechanical watch as you have to mechanically move the hands. A low end quartz watch has a very basic mechanism, and a high end quartz watch like an AP quartz would have a more sophisticated quartz movement.

In the case of GS, the only role of the main spring is to store energy; think of it as the battery. Now, when unwinding, the main spring generates current through a micro generator; the current is then fed to a kind of sophisticated step motor after passing through an integrated circuit containing a quartz chrystal that has the role to regulate the step motor. The step motor in turn turns the gears that are attached to the hands.

In other words, it is a quartz watch, but you can consider it as the highest level of perfection that can be reached in a quartz watch, not only by it's construction, but also due to the fact that there are no parts like batteries or capacitors like in kinetic or solar that need to be changed after a certain amount of time.

Hope it helped.

Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## Panerol Forte

BrianBinFL said:


> Correction to your accuracy statement - the stated accuracy of the Spring Drive movement is +/- 1 second every other day (every 2 days). Or, said another way, +/- 0.5 seconds per day, +/- 15 seconds per month.
> 
> Well, it is a watch that utilizes a quartz oscillator, but it is not a quartz watch in the usual sense. Quartz watches either use a quartz oscillator with a frequency divider cooperating to urge a solenoid to advance the movement (standard quartz) or use a quartz oscillator to allow a computer to keep the time and then the computer uses motors to position the hands (smart quartz). Both of those require a battery or a capacitor to run the electronics. The Spring Drive has no battery or capacitor - it makes its own electricity.
> 
> Spring Drive is neither of those things. In Spring Drive the escapement (balance wheel, hairspring, escape wheel, and pallet fork) have been replaced with the Glide Wheel and the TSR. When you wind the mainspring of the Spring Drive for the first time the Glide Wheel freewheels and the seconds hand advances rapidly as the movement spins up. The spinning Glide Wheel induces electrical current in a coil to power the oscillator and the comparator. The comparator compares the frequency of the current generated by the Glide Wheel and coils to the frequency of the oscillator. If the frequency of the Glide-Wheel-generated current is greater than the frequency from the comparator the comparator switches a resistive load into the output current from generator coil. This electrical load creates a braking effect on the Glide Wheel (the same as happens to the stator of any generator when an electrical load is applied). The comparator keeps the resistive load in place until the frequency from the Glide Wheel generator equals the frequency of the oscillator and then the load is removed. This process is repeated constantly, keeping the Glide Wheel rotating at just the right speed. It never stops. It never changes direction. Unlike any other production movement on the planet.
> 
> The result is something semi-magical to those who appreciate it. Firstly you have a watch that displays time with a seconds hand with _infinite_ resolution. Just about every other watch on the planet has a time display resolution that is gross and crude by comparison. Even a High Beat 36000 has a resolution of 1/10th of a second. Damn good among mechanical watches, crude compared to the infinite smoothness of the Spring Drive. No "beats", no steps.
> 
> Also, like "fully mechanical" watches, no battery or capacitor to change every so many years - no "consumable" components at all. The watch makes all the electricity it needs from the mechanical power of the mainspring.
> 
> There is currently no other production watch using the technology of the Spring Drive. If you can find one of the 118 Piaget Emperador Coussin XL 700P's that were produced (at a price of over $70,000 each) that would be the only other way you can get Spring Drive technology. Oddly I don't think that watch has a seconds hand though, so you won't get to admire the silky smooth flow of time that you get with a GS SD.
> 
> This is already way into TL/DR territory so I'll stop now. I could talk about it forever.


Or this if you want a very complicated explanation 

Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## whineboy

Panerol Forte said:


> In the case of GS, the only role of the main spring is to store energy; think of it as the battery. Now, when unwinding, the main spring generates current through a micro generator; the current is then fed to a kind of sophisticated step motor after passing through an integrated circuit containing a quartz chrystal that has the role to regulate the step motor. The step motor in turn turns the gears that are attached to the hands.


I do not think this is correct, in Spring Drive the tri-synchro regulator brakes the unwinding of the mainspring (with the hands attached via the train of wheels). The TSR generates the electricity that (1) runs the IC circuit and (2) magnetically brakes the unwinding mainspring as required by the IC. As others have pointed out (Marc on Long Island Watch), it's like driving your car with the gas depressed and you periodically apply the brake to slow and maintain constant speed. There is no step motor in Spring Drive that I know of.


----------



## G07

Someone with nearly 9000 posts and joined in 2006, is starting a post and is coming off as a "GS virgin" .... what is spring drive etc.? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ....


----------



## Galaga

Attention @sportura

He is a dribbler but anyway.


----------



## Galaga

Actually forget him. Our mate here, down under does a spectacular job. Has that splash of orange that you like too.


----------



## pkincy

Likely the OP was just trying to stir things up. Nice nobody bit. However his statement, "I am not ashamed to admit I am one of those Rolex owners that doesn't mind the attention of others and I think it's something I'd miss if I bought another brand, no matter how high the quality," gives a strong hint about what some Rolex owners value and the reason not to love GS. I tend to buy things to impress myself not others. And although my Rolexes are impressive to me, they are just not as impressive as my Grand Seiko's. But again I admit I am not a SS Tool watch lover, which is one place Rolex does excel.


----------



## Panerol Forte

whineboy said:


> I do not think this is correct, in Spring Drive the tri-synchro regulator brakes the unwinding of the mainspring (with the hands attached via the train of wheels). The TSR generates the electricity that (1) runs the IC circuit and (2) magnetically brakes the unwinding mainspring as required by the IC. As others have pointed out (Marc on Long Island Watch), it's like driving your car with the gas depressed and you periodically apply the brake to slow and maintain constant speed. There is no step motor in Spring Drive that I know of.


I didn't study the system in details, but in essence, however you put it or try to explain it, it can't work without a quartz, so, it is a quartz watch.

Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## kamonjj

Sport - you need this ....










It would fit in between your Seiko and Rolex collection. Unique, only GS.

Borrowed pic.


----------



## Panerol Forte

Panerol Forte said:


> DP
> 
> Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk


Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

Panerol Forte said:


> In the case of GS, the only role of the main spring is to store energy; think of it as the battery. Now, when unwinding, the main spring generates current through a micro generator; the current is then fed to a kind of sophisticated step motor after passing through an integrated circuit containing a quartz chrystal that has the role to regulate the step motor. The step motor in turn turns the gears that are attached to the hands.


Noooooooo.....

Like whineboy said, the magic juice in a Spring Drive is the Tri-Synchro Regulator. It's a wheel that carries permanent magnets. The "Tri" part of its name comes from its three functions:
- Generate electricity as the magnets pass by a coil of wire, which then powers the timekeeping circuit;
- Create pulses of current that are read by the timekeeping circuit to see how fast the TSR is spinning;
- Act as a brake wheel when electricity is sent to the other coil of wire to create an electromagnetic braking force.

This is different from Seiko Kinetic, which uses an oscillating weight to drive a generator and feed electricity to a rechargeable battery -- which then powers an otherwise conventional quartz-regulated stepper motor movement.

The smooth, friction- and step-free electromagnetic braking is why the Spring Drive's seconds hand glides more smoothly than anything outside of a motor-driven electric clock (one of which we actually own; bought it at Wal-Mart, I think).


----------



## whineboy

Panerol Forte said:


> I didn't study the system in details, but in essence, whatever you put it or try to explain it, it can't work without a quartz, so, it is a quartz watch.
> 
> Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk


Well, if you want to speak authoritatively, you should study the technology in detail and not just bloviate from ignorance.

I used to think Spring Drive's a mere quartz watch. Then I learned a lot here on WUS and finally bought one. It's sui generis. Not mechanical, not quartz. In a quartz watch, the crystal vibrations are counted and drive the stepper motor, moving the hands. That doesn't happen in Spring Drive.

Anyway, why not open your mind and have a look at one (your post sounds dismissive of the technology)? You might be impressed.


----------



## BarracksSi

Panerol Forte said:


> I didn't study the system in details, but in essence, whatever you put it or try to explain it, *it can't work without a quartz, so, it is a quartz watch.*
> 
> Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk


That much is true. I only wish it had a thermocompensated circuit like the 9F does, but I wonder if there are space limitations. The mechanical side of the 9R takes up a lot of room.


----------



## Panerol Forte

BarracksSi said:


> Noooooooo.....
> 
> Like whineboy said, the magic juice in a Spring Drive is the Tri-Synchro Regulator. It's a wheel that carries permanent magnets. The "Tri" part of its name comes from its three functions:
> - Generate electricity as the magnets pass by a coil of wire, which then powers the timekeeping circuit;
> - Create pulses of current that are read by the timekeeping circuit to see how fast the TSR is spinning;
> - Act as a brake wheel when electricity is sent to the other coil of wire to create an electromagnetic braking force.
> 
> This is different from Seiko Kinetic, which uses an oscillating weight to drive a generator and feed electricity to a rechargeable battery -- which then powers an otherwise conventional quartz-regulated stepper motor movement.
> 
> The smooth, friction- and step-free electromagnetic braking is why the Spring Drive's seconds hand glides more smoothly than anything outside of a motor-driven electric clock (one of which we actually own; bought it at Wal-Mart, I think).


In other words, a quartz watch...

Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## Panerol Forte

BarracksSi said:


> That much is true. I only wish it had a thermocompensated circuit like the 9F does, but I wonder if there are space limitations. The mechanical side of the 9R takes up a lot of room.


Ideally, if we could jam some cesium in it, it would kick Rolex *ss...

Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

Panerol Forte said:


> In other words, a quartz watch...
> 
> Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk


Not that there's anything wrong with that!....

(insert Seinfeld gif here)


----------



## BarracksSi

Panerol Forte said:


> Ideally, if we could jam some cesium in it, it would kick Rolex *ss...
> 
> Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk


Cesium? Meh. How _pedestrian._ Strontium is where the shizzle is fo rizzle.
https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/cesium-clocks-try-strontium-except-its-too-accurate-1189418.html


----------



## Panerol Forte

whineboy said:


> Well, if you want to speak authoritatively, you should study the technology in detail and not just bloviate from ignorance.
> 
> I used to think Spring Drive's a mere quartz watch. Then I learned a lot here on WUS and finally bought one. It's sui generis. Not mechanical, not quartz. In a quartz watch, the crystal vibrations are counted and drive the stepper motor, moving the hands. That doesn't happen in Spring Drive.
> 
> Anyway, why not open your mind and have a look at one (your post sounds dismissive of the technology)? You might be impressed.


The thing is that I have absolutely no interest in quartz watch to justify more than skimming the surface of the explanation given on GS website.

Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## Mr.Jones82

Anyone telling you to get a diver or a chrono, I'd say no to. If you only own Rolex, then you will be used to nice proportions and nothing even close to as big and thick as these beasts. Don't bother (altough I personally don't mind the divers).
I think it might be hard to find a GS that will suit your tastes. If you like sporty watches that can look just as natural on a beach as in a boardroom, I'm not sure there is one. The problem is you're looking for everything you love about Rolex (minus the prestige) in a GS, but I agree with your sentiments about dress watches. I would really like to see them expand their lineup to include some sportier pieces.

Now, in my opinion, the sportiest pieces they have that serve as great GADA pieces are some of their 9f models, but they're certainly not icons (only the Snowflake fulfills that role), and well, I don't know how you feel about quartz. Personally, I have been moving into the HAQ direction, but sadly I have found only GS 9f's can do it for me. They have the backlash tech that mitigates the wobble in the secondhand and this will sound odd, but actually makes it look graceful. The 9f pictured above by another poster has a beautifully brushed case and can juggle straps with the best of them. 
The models below have brushed bracelets (less worry), a highly polished bezel, and the cases are brushed and polished. I consider them GS's Datejust of sorts. Also, they are about 39mm and thin, which seems to be a sweet spot for many.


----------



## Panerol Forte

BarracksSi said:


> Not that there's anything wrong with that!....
> 
> (insert Seinfeld gif here)


Have you even considered the disappointment of FFG if he sees that watch on S; do you want to shatter his dreams?

Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## BrianBinFL

I tried to contain myself. But I escaped. I don't mean to nit pick, but I can't help it.



Panerol Forte said:


> Not exactly... in a mechanical watch, the escapement regulates the unwinding of the main spring that turns the gears that are attached to the hands.


So far so good.



Panerol Forte said:


> Any analog quartz watch is by definition a mechanical watch as you have to mechanically move the hands. A low end quartz watch has a very basic mechanism, and a high end quartz watch like an AP quartz would have a more sophisticated quartz movement.


No argument with that.



Panerol Forte said:


> In the case of GS, the only role of the main spring is to store energy; think of it as the battery. Now, when unwinding, the main spring generates current through a micro generator; the current is then fed to a kind of sophisticated step motor after passing through an integrated circuit containing a quartz chrystal that has the role to regulate the step motor. The step motor in turn turns the gears that are attached to the hands.


Assuming that when you say "in the case of GS" you mean "Grand Seiko Spring Drive" then no, that's not correct. There is no stepper motor in a Spring Drive. The mainspring drives a constantly spinning Glide Wheel that is directly coupled to the gear train connected to the hands. That same Glide Wheel, paired with wound coils, acts as a generator to provide electricity for the comparator IC, and also provides the means to experience a braking effect when its current output is connected to a deliberately introduced resistive load. The comparator keeps the Glide Wheel spinning at exactly the right speed (and therefore keeps the hands moving forward at exactly the right rate).

Traditional quartz watches have stepper motors that are typically triggered once per second after a quartz crystal that operates at 32,768 Hz is processed through 15 frequency dividers that reduce 32,768 Hz to 1 Hz - 1 beat per second.


----------



## Panerol Forte

BrianBinFL said:


> I tried to contain myself. But I escaped. I don't mean to nit pick, but I can't help it.
> 
> So far so good.
> 
> No argument with that.
> 
> Assuming that when you say "in the case of GS" you mean "Grand Seiko Spring Drive" then no, that's not correct. There is no stepper motor in a Spring Drive. The mainspring drives a constantly spinning Glide Wheel that is directly coupled to the gear train connected to the hands. That same Glide Wheel, paired with wound coils, acts as a generator to provide electricity for the comparator IC, and also provides the means to experience a braking effect when its current output is connected to a deliberately introduced resistive load. The comparator keeps the Glide Wheel spinning at exactly the right speed (and therefore keeps the hands moving forward at exactly the right rate).
> 
> Traditional quartz watches have stepper motors that are typically triggered once per second after a quartz crystal that operates at 32,768 Hz is processed through 15 frequency dividers that reduce 32,768 Hz to 1 Hz - 1 beat per second.


After being corrected many times, I looked again at the schematics, and it is exactly the way you describe it. But, regardless of the way it works, it can't work without a quartz, so it is a quartz watch.

Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## BrianBinFL

BarracksSi said:


> That much is true. I only wish it had a thermocompensated circuit like the 9F does, but I wonder if there are space limitations. The mechanical side of the 9R takes up a lot of room.


I've been doing A LOT of patent and technical reading on the topic of Spring Drive lately. The best reason I have read for why there is no thermo-compensated Spring Drive, and may never be, is that perhaps the electronics necessary to effectuate thermo-compensation require too much power. Remember that the Spring Drive movement operates on minuscule amounts of current - 25 nano-watts is an oft-cited figure. You can't do a hell of a lot with 25 nano-watts of electricity.


----------



## BrianBinFL

Panerol Forte said:


> After being corrected many times, I looked again at the schematics, and it is exactly the way you describe it. But, regardless of the way it works, it can't work without a quartz, so it is a quartz watch.


I'm not correcting you for calling it a quartz watch, I'm correcting your incorrect description of how it works. You can certainly call a Spring Drive a "quartz watch" but, unless you elaborate, in doing so you are signaling to a well-informed listener that you don't know much about the technology.


----------



## AngelDeVille

SBGM221

I think I'm in love...


----------



## Watch19

Not Grand, just a Seiko with your name on it.








Sorry, couldn't resist. . .


----------



## BrianBinFL

Panerol Forte said:


> The thing is that I have absolutely no interest in quartz watch to justify more than skimming the surface of the explanation given on GS website.


On that topic, what is it about quartz that you so disdain? My big problem with traditional quartz movements is the whole "1 beat per second" thing. I can't stand what I call the thunk-thunk-thunk of the seconds hand. If all quartz movements moved like the Precisionist I think I'd be less averse to them.

On a more philosophical note I like mechanical watches because they do things the hard way for the sake of the craftsmanship and skill required. As a whisky/whiskey aficionado I appreciate the value of this. You could turn a drab whisky amazing if you added a few drops of vanilla and a little sugar. But there's no art or skill required to do that. What's amazing about a fine whiskey is that it took the perfect combination of the talents of the master distiller, and a bunch of other people, to take that terrible "white dog" that came off the still and turn it into a fine, complex spirit, without adding anything other than water. Same thing as mechanical watchmaking - doing it the hard way for the sake of the art.

So for me, Spring Drive is another thing altogether. Like Whineboy I'm mostly an "all mechanical, all the time" sort of guy. But I love the Spring Drive for what they achieved, not how they got there, in fact maybe _despite_ how they got there. Ignoring the Piaget 700P it is the only truly analog watch there is, and ironically it took a little electronics to achieve a truly analog watch. All of the rest of the watches out there are just counters. I count 32,768 pulses, divide by two 15 times, and advance one second (traditional quartz). I count 32,768 pulses, divide by two 15 times, and increment a seconds register in memory that keeps epoch time that a computer then computes into local time using well established formulas, and then use motors to position the hands (smart quartz). Each tick or tock of a hairsprung balance wheel advances the seconds hand 1/6, 1/8, or 1/10th of a second (mechanical). Counting, counting, counting. Even assuming a perfect time sync the seconds hand is wrong nearly all the time because it is frequently at rest.

The Spring Drive is NEVER at rest. It is constantly and steadily moving forward at a uniform pace, with no stops and starts, and no beats - just like actual time does.

To me it is a luxurious and grand experience. One that cannot be had in _any_ other commercially available wristwatch. So though I'm an "all mechanical, all the time" sort of guy, the Spring Drive is still a very special, technical marvel to me.

But just because all of that is special to me doesn't mean it will be special to you, or to the next guy. And if you don't find anything special in it then that's cool - as they say "you do you". But to look down your nose and pretend that Spring Drive is the same as what most people would think of when one says "quartz watch" just makes you look horologically sheltered.


----------



## BarracksSi

Panerol Forte said:


> The thing is that I have absolutely no interest in quartz watch to justify more than skimming the surface of the explanation given on GS website.
> 
> Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk


Why not?


----------



## sportura

Mr.Jones82 said:


> Anyone telling you to get a diver or a chrono, I'd say no to. If you only own Rolex, then you will be used to nice proportions and nothing even close to as big and thick as these beasts. Don't bother (altough I personally don't mind the divers). I think it might be hard to find a GS that will suit your tastes. If you like sporty watches that can look just as natural on a beach as in a boardroom, I'm not sure there is one. The problem is you're looking for everything you love about Rolex (minus the prestige) in a GS, but I agree with your sentiments about dress watches. I would really like to see them expand their lineup to include some sportier pieces.





pkincy said:


> A place that Rolex does excel and GS does not really try to compete is in the Tool Watch business. They do make a diver or two but it is not something they are serious about nor is it something that the things they do best (dial, hands and caaes) would lend itself to.
> 
> If you are a real Tool watch aficionado, then Rolex is clearly a better fit for you.


First off I would like to thank you all for your considerate responses. I have read each and every one of them and the posts (above) are what I've come to conclude as the best advice for me right now. The Snowflake seems to be the consensus iconic/signature recommendation and unfortunately it's more of a dress watch and one that is reminiscent of my Datejust 41 which satisfies that niche in my collection.

With that, I bid you adieu but ask that if a Grand Seiko gets released at some point in the future that you believe may suit my needs please let me know.

Best,

-S


----------



## mui.richard

BarracksSi said:


> Do you think that maybe the difference is the total package -- case shape, caseback-to-lugs, width-to-thickness proportions, bracelet feel, things like that?
> 
> The finishing on GS is tremendous, but once special ingredient is the mirror polished rehaut -- whereas Rolex has taken to etching "ROLEX-ROLEX" on it, therefore relinquishing that chance for extra sparkle.


It's hard to put a finger on really. But if I have to I'd probably "blame" the shininess...it makes the whole watch "non-sporty", if there's such a thing. 
Case in point, the SBGR051 is everything a "sport watch" should be. But the whole package is just more "dress" than "sport" with all the light-catching beveling going on. 
While the polishing on the Explorer says "quality", the polishing on my GS says "dress".

And that's exactly why the GS quartz GMT SBGN003 speaks to me I guess. The brushed bezel helps to present it as more a sports watch than it's other GS siblings. If there resale value of GS isn't as terrible as it is I probably would have flipped the SBGR051 for the quartz GMT.









brother of OoO


----------



## kepa

mui.richard said:


> For this I offer "exhibit A"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now seriously, I'm all for Grand Seiko; superb finishing and workmanship, perfect Zaratsu polishing... we've heard it all. Personally I'm a proud owner of an SBGR051 and I've had it for a bit over 3 years. Accuracy is good, nice power reserve...but there's something always lacking, the design never took root and when I have it on my wrist the first that comes to mind is always "perfect execution", but not "perfect watch". Something that often comes to mind when I put on my Rolex pieces or other pieces.
> 
> This is not a comparison, and it shouldn't be viewed as such. Beauty is never objective but level of finishing is. So while I admire the level of workmanship that goes into a Grand Seiko, l have never been able to truly "love" it. They bring VERY DIFFERENT ATTRIBUTES to the table.


Obviously not all their models have a more artisanal look, but when you compare their many other models, such as the Snowflake, what Rolex model gives you a "artistic" or more craftsmanship feel? Again, love Rolex and I would also go for one for a more rugged, very functional watch, but GS is definitely more about appealing to the emotional side.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Toothbras

kepa said:


> GS is definitely more about appealing to the emotional side.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


To me, it seems like GS appeals to the logical side, not emotional. That's where rolex takes the cake. Everyone talks about how well GS are finished or the fancy polishing or whatever but 99% of the designs are put-you-to-sleep boring. Rolex is all about emotional appeal: you are an adventurer, a diver, climbing Mt Everest, a world leader, a successful athlete, etc.... all GS says is you are a nerdy actuary who wants to impress dorks who like watches


----------



## Jale

Toothbras said:


> To me, it seems like GS appeals to the logical side, not emotional. That's where rolex takes the cake. Everyone talks about how well GS are finished or the fancy polishing or whatever but 99% of the designs are put-you-to-sleep boring. Rolex is all about emotional appeal: you are an adventurer, a diver, climbing Mt Everest, a world leader, a successful athlete, etc.... all GS says is you are a nerdy actuary who wants to impress dorks who like watches


Market consumer vs watch snob. In the end, buy what you like. OP chose datejust, the end.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Toothbras

Jale said:


> Market consumer vs watch snob. In the end, buy what you like. OP chose datejust, the end.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not snobbish at all, just the way each brand has chosen to portray and market itself. They made a conscious decision to go this route. The OP owns multiple rolex models, not just a DJ. He is a captain of industry and the rolex is perfectly fitting for himself and the rest of us who are on top of the world. I made almost $34k last year, and choose to also wear Rolex. The internet tells me that puts me in the top 10% of worldwide income levels, so as a big shot rolex was my only choice and I wear it proudly


----------



## pkincy

Here is a YouTubers thoughts on this subject:





His thoughts not mine. I have the 214270 Explorer.


----------



## Brey17

This whole forum is getting weirder and weirder. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drhr

Brey17 said:


> This whole forum is getting weirder and weirder.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Agreed. Now there's clones ;-) . . .


----------



## mui.richard

Toothbras said:


> To me, it seems like GS appeals to the logical side, not emotional. That's where rolex takes the cake. Everyone talks about how well GS are finished or the fancy polishing or whatever but 99% of the designs are put-you-to-sleep boring. Rolex is all about emotional appeal: you are an adventurer, a diver, climbing Mt Everest, a world leader, a successful athlete, etc.... all GS says is you are a nerdy actuary who wants to impress dorks who like watches


Couldn't have said it any better. 

brother of OoO


----------



## Mr.Jones82

Toothbras said:


> Not snobbish at all, just the way each brand has chosen to portray and market itself. They made a conscious decision to go this route. The OP owns multiple rolex models, not just a DJ. He is a captain of industry and the rolex is perfectly fitting for himself and the rest of us who are on top of the world. I made almost $34k last year, and choose to also wear Rolex. The internet tells me that puts me in the top 10% of worldwide income levels, so as a big shot Rolex was my only choice and I wear it proudly


Yes and no. Rolex is clearly in control of its image and has done a superb job of sending a clear message to its consumer about what each model stands for. The Explorer, Submariner, and the Datejust all conjure very clear images and possess their own unique narratives, not just due to marketing, but also their own legitimate and distinct history.
GS on the other hand hasn't clearly communicated a message for consumers or figured out how to wrap up their history in a narrative that is appealing and digestible to consumers (or maybe they don't feel it is important). Sure, the SD is fantastic and a true innovation of sorts, but if you are not a WIS, that will be met with a shrug of the shoulders. My point is, I don't think GS made a conscious decision to become a WIS mascot, it just sort of happened because they didn't own their narrative to begin with (at least in the international market), allowing others to create one. 
Edit: Then again, by focusing on movements and allowing them to be the points of distinction, it can be argued they did in fact choose to be a WIS mascot...sort of. If you go to their website though you will notice they have started to classify their watches into 3 different categories: Elegance, Heritage, and Sport. This might suggest they are trying to get away from classifying their watches by movements and move more into branding (I have always felt they should use names as opposed to reference numbers to help non-WIS distinguish between models and create a clearer image) and narrative.


----------



## illumidata

Toothbras said:


> To me, it seems like GS appeals to the logical side, not emotional. That's where rolex takes the cake. Everyone talks about how well GS are finished or the fancy polishing or whatever but 99% of the designs are put-you-to-sleep boring. Rolex is all about emotional appeal: you are an adventurer, a diver, climbing Mt Everest, a world leader, a successful athlete, etc.... all GS says is you are a nerdy actuary who wants to impress dorks who like watches





Toothbras said:


> Not snobbish at all, just the way each brand has chosen to portray and market itself. They made a conscious decision to go this route. The OP owns multiple rolex models, not just a DJ. He is a captain of industry and the rolex is perfectly fitting for himself and the rest of us who are on top of the world. I made almost $34k last year, and choose to also wear Rolex. The internet tells me that puts me in the top 10% of worldwide income levels, so as a big shot rolex was my only choice and I wear it proudly


As an encore please could we have your thoughts on Hublot.

watch addict in recovery


----------



## kepa

Toothbras said:


> To me, it seems like GS appeals to the logical side, not emotional. That's where rolex takes the cake. Everyone talks about how well GS are finished or the fancy polishing or whatever but 99% of the designs are put-you-to-sleep boring. Rolex is all about emotional appeal: you are an adventurer, a diver, climbing Mt Everest, a world leader, a successful athlete, etc.... all GS says is you are a nerdy actuary who wants to impress dorks who like watches


Got to say, I am the complete opposite, with the exception of the Explorer, which obviously has its roots associated with the OP prototypes used for Mt. Everest expeditions. None of the other models have that romantic side, unlike Omega's Speedmaster (which is why I own a vintage pre-moon model). Also maybe because I am exposed a lot to and really like Japanese culture, I can see the craftsmanship in GS. I look at a Rolex and think, wow, what incredibly well built and awesome tool/sports watches, which is why I absolutely love my Explorer. I've used it hiking, snorkelling, on safari, etc. But when I want to put on a watch that I can appreciate for how it was built and designed, it is a GS (well, the ones I own).

Back to the OP's request. I would add a GS for the flair, the artistry of their dials and cases, something that is complimentary to Rolex's sports models.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## limnoman

Galaga said:


> Actually forget him. Our mate here, down under does a spectacular job. Has that splash of orange that you like too.


G, thanks for posting the links; both videos were interesting.


----------



## BigSeikoFan

Panerol Forte said:


> The thing is that I have absolutely no interest in quartz watch to justify more than skimming the surface of the explanation given on GS website.
> 
> Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk


_"None are so blind as those that are unwilling to see."_


----------



## BarracksSi

Mr.Jones82 said:


> Yes and no. *Rolex is clearly in control of its image and has done a superb job of sending a clear message to its consumer about what each model stands for.* The Explorer, Submariner, and the Datejust all conjure very clear images and possess their own unique narratives, not just due to marketing, but also their own legitimate and distinct history.
> GS on the other hand hasn't clearly communicated a message for consumers or figured out how to wrap up their history in a narrative that is appealing and digestible to consumers (or maybe they don't feel it is important). Sure, the SD is fantastic and a true innovation of sorts, but if you are not a WIS, that will be met with a shrug of the shoulders. My point is, I don't think GS made a conscious decision to become a WIS mascot, it just sort of happened because they didn't own their narrative to begin with (at least in the international market), allowing others to create one.
> Edit: Then again, by focusing on movements and allowing them to be the points of distinction, it can be argued they did in fact choose to be a WIS mascot...sort of. If you go to their website though you will notice they have started to classify their watches into 3 different categories: Elegance, Heritage, and Sport. This might suggest they are trying to get away from classifying their watches by movements and move more into branding (I have always felt they should use names as opposed to reference numbers to help non-WIS distinguish between models and create a clearer image) and narrative.


I think you've got it. Rolex's most feature-differentiated watches are all in their Professional range, and they really don't step on each other's toes very much. Unlike, say, TAG or Omega, Rolex has just one chronograph, one traveler GMT, one diver (well, in a couple different strengths), and one field watch. All very clear in their roles, like you say. And, for the most part, they have documented histories to back them up.

GS does GS but without categories devoted to functions. No roles for the watches to play, no clear choices for certain scenarios. I guess this leaves most of them open to being all-rounders, but in a collection, how many shades of all-round watches do you need?


----------



## BrianBinFL

Toothbras said:


> The OP owns multiple rolex models, not just a DJ. He is a captain of industry and the rolex is perfectly fitting for himself and *the rest of us who are on top of the world*. *I made almost $34k last year*, and choose to also wear Rolex. The internet tells me that puts me in the top 10% of worldwide income levels, *so as a big shot rolex was my only choice and I wear it proudly*


Surely this is facetious.


----------



## whineboy

BrianBinFL said:


> Surely this is facetious.


Depends on his savings. He could still be a multi-millionaire. To me, it's a better measure of financial state that income.

whineboy

All mechanical, all the time


----------



## 5959HH

Toothbras said:


> To me, it seems like GS appeals to the logical side, not emotional. That's where rolex takes the cake. Everyone talks about how well GS are finished or the fancy polishing or whatever but 99% of the designs are put-you-to-sleep boring. Rolex is all about emotional appeal: you are an adventurer, a diver, climbing Mt Everest, a world leader, a successful athlete, etc.... all GS says is you are a nerdy actuary who wants to impress dorks who like watches


Not the most erudite post on this thread but probably the funniest


----------



## Toothbras

illumidata said:


> As an encore please could we have your thoughts on Hublot.
> 
> watch addict in recovery


bless you


----------



## Toothbras

BrianBinFL said:


> Surely this is facetious.


It's true. And don't call me Shirley


----------



## Toothbras

whineboy said:


> Depends on his savings. He could still be a multi-millionaire. To me, it's a better measure of financial state that income.
> 
> whineboy
> 
> All mechanical, all the time


I'm not a multi-millionaire unless I convert all my savings to pesos


----------



## BrianBinFL

whineboy said:


> BrianBinFL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toothbras said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a captain of industry and the rolex is perfectly fitting for himself and *the rest of us who are on top of the world. I made almost $34k last year*, and choose to also wear Rolex. The internet tells me that puts me in the top 10% of worldwide income levels, *so as a big shot rolex was my only choice and I wear it proudly*
> 
> 
> 
> Surely this is facetious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends on his savings. He could still be a multi-millionaire. To me, it's a better measure of financial state that income.
Click to expand...

I know a few multi-millionaires. None of them would brag about making $34K a year. They _might_ brag about having an official token salary of $1 a year.

While $34K a year is actually in the top 1% of worldwide income levels (the cutoff being $32,400) being in the top 1% of worldwide income hardly qualifies as "a big shot" if you live in a developed country (or even in Minneapolis).

I suspect Toothbras either left out a zero or was poking fun at Rollie owners who think they are all that and a bag of chips because they own a mass produced watch.


----------



## whineboy

BrianBinFL said:


> I know a few multi-millionaires. None of them would brag about making $34K a year. They _might_ brag about having an official token salary of $1 a year.
> 
> While $34K a year is actually in the top 1% of worldwide income levels (the cutoff being $32,400) being in the top 1% of worldwide income hardly qualifies as "a big shot" if you live in a developed country (or even in Minneapolis).
> 
> I suspect Toothbras either left out a zero or was poking fun at Rollie owners who think they are all that and a bag of chips because they own a mass produced watch.


You are probably right, my sarcasm detector really isn't working well.

I'm going to try to get back to talking about watches, more interesting than this soft stuff.


----------



## BarracksSi

BrianBinFL said:


> I suspect Toothbras either left out a zero or was poking fun at *Rollie owners who think they are all that and a bag of chips because they own a mass produced watch.*


That clause is backwards. It's the general public who thinks that Rollie owners are all that and a bag of chips.

Even if such an owner is dressed down and unkempt, the impression is that either they've cashed in and can now relax, or maybe they're far enough up the ladder that they don't have to dress to impress anyone anymore. See a well-worn GMT or Sub on a wrist and you wonder how many times it's been around the world; see a Datejust (or, even better, a Day-Date) and you know they've already passed a personal milestone.

Whether that's actually _true_ or not, you won't know unless you have a heck of a conversation with the owner. But that's the image; that's the accumulation of Rolex's brand identity. Jack Nicklaus, ya know, didn't get his one-and-only Rolex -- the only watch he's owned, he says -- until he was well-established as one of the top golfers in the world.


----------



## BrianBinFL

whineboy said:


> You are probably right, my sarcasm detector really isn't working well.
> 
> I'm going to try to get back to talking about watches, more interesting than this soft stuff.


Agreed. I shouldn't have taken the bait and contributed to the side-show.


----------



## BrianBinFL

BarracksSi said:


> That clause is backwards. It's the general public who thinks that Rollie owners are all that and a bag of chips.
> 
> Even if such an owner is dressed down and unkempt, the impression is that either they've cashed in and can now relax, or maybe they're far enough up the ladder that they don't have to dress to impress anyone anymore. See a well-worn GMT or Sub on a wrist and you wonder how many times it's been around the world; see a Datejust (or, even better, a Day-Date) and you know they've already passed a personal milestone.
> 
> Whether that's actually _true_ or not, you won't know unless you have a heck of a conversation with the owner. But that's the image; that's the accumulation of Rolex's brand identity. Jack Nicklaus, ya know, didn't get his one-and-only Rolex -- the only watch he's owned, he says -- until he was well-established as one of the top golfers in the world.


I should have said:

I suspect Toothbras either left out a zero or was poking fun at *those* Rollie owners who think they are all that and a bag of chips because they own a mass produced watch.​
Not all Rollie owners fall into that category - in fact I believe the vast majority do not.


----------



## HiggsBoson

Toothbras said:


> Not snobbish at all, just the way each brand has chosen to portray and market itself. They made a conscious decision to go this route. The OP owns multiple rolex models, not just a DJ. He is a captain of industry and the rolex is perfectly fitting for himself and the rest of us who are on top of the world. *I made almost $34k last year, and choose to also wear Rolex*. The internet tells me that puts me in the top 10% of worldwide income levels, so as a big shot rolex was my only choice and I wear it proudly


I find your honesty refreshing. I was under the impression that most people who 'hang out' on the Rolex forum were earning $200k+ a year!
I know some apparently earn 'mega bucks'. I think the sum of $1,000,000 was mentioned by someone. :think:
Of course, you never know how much of this big money talk is 'hot air' & bluster! 
Toothbras, I admire candor. :-!


----------



## Alysandir

Toothbras said:


> ...all GS says is you are a nerdy actuary who wants to impress dorks who like watches


Not incorrect, but I would interpret it more as GS is a reflection of the country and culture that created it. The Japanese have many qualities about them that are points of distinction, but the two I think that apply most to Grand Seiko are:

- The pursuit of perfection
- Saving face

Mastery of one's craft is a big point of honor in Japanese culture; there is no such thing as "good enough," only "trying to be better." So for all those who say that you really have to get on top of a GS with a loupe, this is where the care and attention to detail really shine. Of course, the obvious question - at least to Westerners - is, "what good does that do me if you have to break out a magnifying glass to see it?" And that's where the other part, saving face, comes in.

Now, speaking as a non-Japanese who's had more than a passing interest with their culture, I'm probably going to butcher this explanation, but in Japan, there is a cultural concept of "face;" that is, striving for perfection (there's that theme again) in the abeyance of expected cultural and situational norms. And one of the major norms of Japanese society is harmony and homogeneity: don't draw attention to yourself; do not brag; do not show up your peers or (heavens forbid) your superiors. So what you have here are design principles that strive for perfection, but because GS is aimed at the average Japanese salaryman, it needs to be sedate and harmonious, not drawing attention to itself, not obviously being nicer than what your boss might be wearing. It only shows its quality when you get personal with it, which is the other side of "face:" the face you show the world and the face you reserve for your dear friends and loved ones. GS has the same quality: from 2 meters away, it doesn't look like anything special; but get close to it, and the quality becomes obvious.

Which, I suppose, is just a romantic way of saying, "GS *intentionally* designed a watch that looks boring to everyone except those who know what it is."

Regards,
Alysandir


----------



## T1meout

sportura said:


> I want something unique, not a dress watch, and is the "signature" Grand Seiko, the one model that is unmistakably a GS and only a GS.
> 
> Patek has the Aquanaut. AP has the Royal Oak. Rolex has the Submariner. Omega has its Speedmaster. Icons for each brand. Is there a similar Grand Seiko icon sitting at around a $5K price?


No there isn't. I suggest you stick with Rolex.


----------



## BradPittFUAngie

Fascinating thread I will say. 13 pages of help and banter for a well known member who if you spend even 5 minutes in the Rolex and Tudor subform you'll know has trashed Seiko and Grand Seiko over and over again. Posts memes of a sinking ship with Seiko on the side and Grand Seiko lounge written on the back cabin. Brags of crushing onlookers and people working behind fast food counters at the sight of his Rolex watches. 

And now here he is starting a thread seeking out a Grand Seiko? Go fly a kite.


----------



## Toothbras

BrianBinFL said:


> I know a few multi-millionaires. None of them would brag about making $34K a year. They _might_ brag about having an official token salary of $1 a year.
> 
> While $34K a year is actually in the top 1% of worldwide income levels (the cutoff being $32,400) being in the top 1% of worldwide income hardly qualifies as "a big shot" if you live in a developed country (or even in Minneapolis).
> 
> I suspect Toothbras either left out a zero or was poking fun at Rollie owners who think they are all that and a bag of chips because they own a mass produced watch.


Nope, didn't forget a zero. You can own a Rolex on $32k if you budget well. For example, instead of spending all my money on watches up front I finance them at a reasonable 16% APR, makes it easier to afford them. And instead of driving an expensive car I ride a bicycle everywhere, works great except when commuting on the highway, some drivers are real jerks when you're peddling your butt off but only going 20 mph. When they honk I simply flash my Rolex and can instantly see the jealousy in their eyes!


----------



## blowlamp

Toothbras said:


> Nope, didn't forget a zero. You can own a Rolex on $32k if you budget well. For example, instead of spending all my money on watches up front I finance them at a reasonable 16% APR, makes it easier to afford them. And instead of driving an expensive car I ride a bicycle everywhere, works great except when commuting on the highway, some drivers are real jerks when you're peddling your butt off but only going 20 mph. *When they honk I simply flash my Rolex and can instantly see the jealousy in their eyes!*


A sportura mini-me! :-d


----------



## Alysandir

BradPittFUAngie said:


> Fascinating thread I will say. 13 pages of help and banter for a well known member who if you spend even 5 minutes in the Rolex and Tudor subform you'll know has trashed Seiko and Grand Seiko over and over again. Posts memes of a sinking ship with Seiko on the side and Grand Seiko lounge written on the back cabin. Brags of crushing onlookers and people working behind fast food counters at the sight of his Rolex watches.
> 
> And now here he is starting a thread seeking out a Grand Seiko? Go fly a kite.


Just my $0.03 (adjusted for inflation):

Not that Sporty needs little ole' me coming to his defense, but I would say that in my observations of how he rolls, it's with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

A lot of people cant stand Paul Pluta/Archie Luxury and have given him an incredible amount of negative feedback, to the point where he actually had to start opening his videos with, "this is Paul Pluta, the method actor who plays Archie Luxury," because people honestly thought he was being serious, when in reality he was playing the part of the quintessential "Rolex blowhard" as a form of satire. To some degree, I think this is what Sporty does as well. I wouldn't say he's 100% satire, but he's giving his audience what they want.

YMMV.

Regards,
Alysandir


----------



## blowlamp

Alysandir said:


> Just my $0.03 (adjusted for inflation):
> 
> *Not that Sporty needs little ole' me coming to his defense, but I would say that in my observations of how he rolls, it's with tongue planted firmly in cheek.
> *
> A lot of people cant stand Paul Pluta/Archie Luxury and have given him an incredible amount of negative feedback, to the point where he actually had to start opening his videos with, "this is Paul Pluta, the method actor who plays Archie Luxury," because people honestly thought he was being serious, when in reality he was playing the part of the quintessential "Rolex blowhard" as a form of satire. To some degree, I think this is what Sporty does as well. I wouldn't say he's 100% satire, but he's giving his audience what they want.
> 
> YMMV.
> 
> Regards,
> Alysandir


He hasn't got time to play around like that! He's a captain of industry you know.


----------



## chillwill120

BarracksSi said:


> It's totally a quartz-_regulated_ movement. It's just not a _battery-powered_ movement.
> 
> We need to realize that the power source does not determine the regulation mechanism.


Well I never suggested that the power source determines the regulation mechanism.


----------



## pkincy

BradPittFUAngie said:


> Fascinating thread I will say. 13 pages of help and banter for a well known member who if you spend even 5 minutes in the Rolex and Tudor subform you'll know has trashed Seiko and Grand Seiko over and over again. Posts memes of a sinking ship with Seiko on the side and Grand Seiko lounge written on the back cabin. Brags of crushing onlookers and people working behind fast food counters at the sight of his Rolex watches.
> 
> And now here he is starting a thread seeking out a Grand Seiko? Go fly a kite.


Even as a Rolex owner and sometimes admirer I now stay off of Rolex Fora. Most of the Threads are "What is my new watch worth?", "what will it be worth in 5 years?", "incoming, I actually just was able to buy a watch!", "Should I add a 12th SS Tool Watch to my collection?", "What is Rolex thinking/doing?". So there is little to no reason to go there as there is very little actual discussion about watches. Spending time on a Rolex Forum is a great way to get completely turned off by the brand.


----------



## BrianBinFL

Toothbras said:


> Nope, didn't forget a zero. You can own a Rolex on $32k if you budget well. For example, instead of spending all my money on watches up front I finance them at a reasonable 16% APR, makes it easier to afford them. And instead of driving an expensive car I ride a bicycle everywhere, works great except when commuting on the highway, some drivers are real jerks when you're peddling your butt off but only going 20 mph. When they honk I simply flash my Rolex and can instantly see the jealousy in their eyes!


I have no doubt that someone who manages their money wisely can buy a Rolex at that income level. My curiosity was not directed at "Rolex when making $34K a year" my curiosity was directed at what leads you to describe yourself as "a big shot". I'm not saying you are or aren't, I don't know you, but I found the collection of information presented in your post to be confusing.


----------



## Jale

Lol.. OP wins for making this thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Independent George

BrianBinFL said:


> I have no doubt that someone who manages their money wisely can buy a Rolex at that income level. My curiosity was not directed at "Rolex when making $34K a year" my curiosity was directed at what leads you to describe yourself as "a big shot". I'm not saying you are or aren't, I don't know you, but I found the collection of information presented in your post to be confusing.


Dude, he's trolling you.

Sporty, Toothie, Mui, Panerai are regulars of the OoO thread on the Rolex subforum. My guess is they got bored with all the speed posting as of late on the OoO thread, and decide to stir things up. Just about everything they have posted on this thread is a troll of some sort. A "gentle" troll so the thread doesn't get locked down before it has a chance to take off, but a troll to be sure.


----------



## JayR278

It was specially developed by seiko for seiko. I think the entire project took about 10 years to design and develop, and I’m sure seiko has many patents on it. Also I don’t think the Swiss would be caught dead copying a Japanese movement, the rivalry between them is something fierce


----------



## drhr

Alysandir said:


> Just my $0.03 (adjusted for inflation):
> 
> Not that Sporty needs little ole' me coming to his defense, but I would say that in my observations of how he rolls, it's with tongue planted firmly in cheek.
> 
> A lot of people cant stand Paul Pluta/Archie Luxury and have given him an incredible amount of negative feedback, to the point where he actually had to start opening his videos with, "this is Paul Pluta, the method actor who plays Archie Luxury," because people honestly thought he was being serious, when in reality he was playing the part of the quintessential "Rolex blowhard" as a form of satire. To some degree, I think this is what Sporty does as well. *I wouldn't say he's 100% satire,* but he's giving his audience what they want.
> 
> YMMV.
> 
> Regards,
> Alysandir


indeed, i think more like 10% to be charitable . . .


----------



## BarracksSi

JayR278 said:


> It was specially developed by seiko for seiko. I think the entire project took about 10 years to design and develop, and I'm sure seiko has many patents on it. Also I don't think the Swiss would be caught dead copying a Japanese movement, the rivalry between them is something fierce


Spring Drive? Even longer - somewhere over twenty years. Seiko says that the engineer who created it started in 1977.
https://www.grand-seiko.com/us-en/about/movement/springdrive


----------



## BrianBinFL

Independent George said:


> Dude, he's trolling you.
> 
> Sporty, Toothie, Mui, Panerai are regulars of the OoO thread on the Rolex subforum. My guess is they got bored with all the speed posting as of late on the OoO thread, and decide to stir things up. Just about everything they have posted on this thread is a troll of some sort. A "gentle" troll so the thread doesn't get locked down before it has a chance to take off, but a troll to be sure.


Thanks IG. I started with the assumption that his post was facetious, but then I thought, well, there's bound to be one person on the planet that thinks this way. Lol.


----------



## Toothbras

BrianBinFL said:


> I have no doubt that someone who manages their money wisely can buy a Rolex at that income level. My curiosity was not directed at "Rolex when making $34K a year" my curiosity was directed at what leads you to describe yourself as "a big shot". I'm not saying you are or aren't, I don't know you, but I found the collection of information presented in your post to be confusing.


What's confusing you about it? I assure you I'm a big shot, I manage a dozen employees, or as we like to call them in the business "newspaper delivery personnel"


----------



## lastshotkid

Own some Rolex's and Grand Seiko's. Love them both.

My Submariner, Explorer's I and II as well as BLNR are amazing time keepers. Love the ruggedness and good looks. My Sub's been around for almost 30 years and with a couple of services in, runs great at +1 to -2 seconds per day. So that shows durability. It also looks cool to boot!

My SBGH005 and SBGW031 are eye candies, imho. I very much appreciate how much work they put into every detail of the watch.

All of them are keepers where one couldn't go wrong having in their collection.


----------



## Jale

lastshotkid said:


> Own some Rolex's and Grand Seiko's. Love them both.
> 
> My Submariner, Explorer's I and II as well as BLNR are amazing time keepers. Love the ruggedness and good looks. My Sub's been around for almost 30 years and with a couple of services in, runs great at +1 to -2 seconds per day. So that shows durability. It also looks cool to boot!
> 
> My SBGH005 and SBGW031 are eye candies, imho. I very much appreciate how much work they put into every detail of the watch.
> 
> All of them are keepers where one couldn't go wrong having in their collection.


Which do you wear most?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## whineboy

JayR278 said:


> It was specially developed by seiko for seiko. I think the entire project took about 10 years to design and develop, and I'm sure seiko has many patents on it. Also I don't think the Swiss would be caught dead copying a Japanese movement, the rivalry between them is something fierce





BarracksSi said:


> Spring Drive? Even longer - somewhere over twenty years. Seiko says that the engineer who created it started in 1977.
> https://www.grand-seiko.com/us-en/about/movement/springdrive


Agree with both of you, Spring Drive's age means any fundamental patents would have expired (patents expire 20 years after filing in almost all countries). Anyone who wants to copy it can. Now, that's not to say Seiko doesn't have improvement patents on refinements to the tech that might make it work even better.


----------



## lastshotkid

Jale said:


> Which do you wear most?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Weekdays when I work and dress business casual I rotate the SBGW031, Explorer I, HiBeat and an engagement watch Speedmaster.

Once I get home, I wear the Submariner or Explorer II and are weekend mainstays.

When I go on vacations, I wear the GMT.

So, the Grand Seiko's, Explorer I and Speedmaster gets the most wrist time at the moment.

Cheers!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harry_flashman

Sporty, the Snowflake seems to be the icon, though you have often made known your dislike of white dialed Rolex watches. This one, just reviewed on Hodinkee looks pretty nice:

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/grand-seiko-sbgk005-review


----------



## manofrolex

sportura said:


> Yes, that is a nice looking GS, but truth be told I would just buy the Rolex rather than one that resembles it that closely. I'd be looking for something more unique that didn't have so many Explorer II cues.
> 
> It does hit high marks for "doesn't look like a dress watch, looks very sporty, looks very dominant" though. Is there something else along those lines?


I am back baby


----------



## whineboy

Panerol Forte said:


> After being corrected many times, I looked again at the schematics, and it is exactly the way you describe it. But, regardless of the way it works, it can't work without a quartz, so it is a quartz watch.
> 
> Envoyé de mon SM-G950F en utilisant Tapatalk





Panerol Forte said:


> Nerds with bad temper... they were all over me to prove me wrong about the quartz; I have even been called an ignorant :-d


From the Rolex/Tudor // Opinions on Omega subforum.

Nice.


----------



## Mr.Jones82

Panerol Forte said:


> Nerds with bad temper... they were all over me to prove me wrong about the quartz; I have even been called an ignorant


Bam, this dude got [email protected]+#% slapped by a pocket protector! Poor little guy.


----------



## sportura

BrianBinFL said:


> I should have said:
> 
> I suspect Toothbras either left out a zero or was poking fun at *those* Rollie owners who think they are all that and a bag of chips because they own a mass produced watch.
> 
> Not all Rollie owners fall into that category - in fact I believe the vast majority do not.





















Rolex are not "mass produced watches".

Rolex may ship 1M units a year, but they sell a dozen lines represented by hundreds of individual references. By most calculations, Rolex only produces 4,500 BLRO's and 2,500 500C's per year. Grand Seiko produces 35,000 watches per year.


----------



## BrianBinFL

sportura said:


> Rolex are not "mass produced watches".


Like so many things I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

*verb (used with object), mass-pro·duced, mass-pro·duc·ing.*
to produce or manufacture (goods) in large quantities, especially by machinery.​


sportura said:


> Rolex may ship 1M units a year[...]





sportura said:


> Grand Seiko produces 35,000 watches per year.


But in fairness you also said:



sportura said:


> *ut they sell a dozen lines represented by hundreds of individual references. By most calculations, Rolex only produces 4,500 BLRO's and 2,500 500C's per year*


*

I would very readily admit that Rolex makes certain models that are finely hand-finished. Those models would certainly not fall into the "mass produced" bucket. By your own numbers, and by necessity, those models are the minority of their production. This leaves the more "economical", and less finely finished models (such as the SS SubC) which certainly comprise the bulk of their production.

After subtracting the relatively small number of hand-finished models we have a staggering number of units whose production we must account for. Like Seiko, Rolex is one of the few watch manufacturers that is fully integrated and makes all of their own components in house. This means a Rolex employee (or a machine under the control of a Rolex employee) makes every part of the watch, finishes it, puts it together, etc.

There simply aren't enough Rolex employees to make nearly a million watches a year, when you make every single component in house, without the vast majority of the work being done by machines.

What is amazing, and what they should be (and I believe are) proud of, is that they can turn out such fine timepieces with so much automation.

Now of course Grand Seiko also uses automation. The cases are cut by CNC, the hands are punched out of sheets, etc. But their low volume permits a very high level of hand finishing to be done. When the result is compared to the bulk of Rolex's production the result is, well, incomparable.

But "mass produced" is just a term, and a relative and ambiguous one at best. To A. Lange & Sohne Grand Seiko is "mass produced". Compared to Roger W. Smith nearly all brands are mass produced.

Conversely, to Rolex Seiko core is mass produced. To Seiko core Apple watches are mass produced.

Mass produced or not no other brand has the cachet of Rolex. I suspect that will not change in my lifetime. If the worst thing that can be said of Rolex is that they are masters of mass producing fine timepieces I personally wouldn't get my tie wrinkled over it.*


----------



## Panerol Forte

whineboy said:


> From the Rolex/Tudor // Opinions on Omega subforum.
> 
> Nice.


Darn! I've been caught; mea culpa!... but blame it on the fact that I am an ignorant person, as portrayed by you, if I am not mistaking (or someone else, but it's not important).


----------



## BarracksSi

Panerol Forte said:


> Darn! I've been caught; mea culpa!... but blame it on the fact that I am an ignorant person, as portrayed by you, if I am not mistaking (or someone else, but it's not important).


Well, you are (or were), and said so yourself - you couldn't be bothered to learn some facts. You _ignored_ them. Hence, "ignorant" is an accurate assessment.


----------



## Mr.Jones82

Panerol Forte said:


> whineboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the Rolex/Tudor // Opinions on Omega subforum.
> 
> Nice.
> 
> 
> 
> Darn! I've been caught; mea culpa!... but blame it on the fact that I am an ignorant person, as portrayed by you, if I am not mistaking (or someone else, but it's not important).
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think anyone actually called you ignorant (I could've missed it), you just got slapped around with some facts (...by some "nerds"). 
To be fair to you though, I'll go start a thread in the Rolex forum about shortages and the AD on the grassy knoll, so you can have a go at spoon feeding me the gospel (I'm a bit of a masochist, so maybe I'll start another one at the same time lauding The Tudor Style as superior in every way to the Datejust).


----------



## Dudeman1973

They sell a million watches but are not mass produced? Really? GS produces 35000.

I get it. I thought my Explorer was the pinnacle of my collection. That is until i visited a GS boutique and compared it under a loupe to a GS. The whole Rolex distortion field of unending brand symbolism that i had was instantly chattered.

I was where you are. Tried to justify the difference in quality by any means necessary. Did that for months. Tried to find out about GS that would shatter what i just witnessed. Instead my brand symbolism of Rolex was damaged further in the process. Stop it, just stop. You are doing yourself no favors.

You seem to know very little about GS. You don't even know what you have on your wrist. Long post, but it will educate you.

I have a Explorer 214270 and a GS SBGR 309. My GS quality is superior to my Explorer, and by a wide margin. Try looking through a loupe at each watch, i did mine, and the results are almost embarrassing for the Rolex. I am quite sure you will be suprised. If you think Rolex quality is anywhere near GS you are just lying to yourself. Plain and simple.

You are entilted to your opinion, but i think there is more than a little bias here. Just about every horology channel disagrees with you.






Yes, those GMT hands are from a Rolex.


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Watches/comments/9a1ct2

Embarrassing. For Omega and Rolex.

Vs Rolex.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/horaha...al-watchmaking-surpassing-even-the-swiss/amp/

Compares very well indeed to pieces well above Rolex.


__
http://instagr.am/p/Bm-18e9Bl0_/

Rolex cannot produce pieces of this quality.

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/seiko-credor-eichi-2-in-depth

Yes, Seiko made that watch. It was produced at the same studio that they GS uses. Let that sink in for a min.

Maybe do a little research first before making your post. You might appreciate GS a little more. It does little for your credability not to.


----------



## Panerol Forte

Mr.Jones82 said:


> Well, I don't think anyone actually called you ignorant (I could've missed it), you just got slapped around with some facts (...by some "nerds").
> To be fair to you though, I'll go start a thread in the Rolex forum about shortages and the AD on the grassy knoll, so you can have a go at spoon feeding me the gospel (I'm a bit of a masochist, so maybe I'll start another one at the same time lauding The Tudor Style as superior in every way to the Datejust).


Shortage? What shortage?











sportura said:


>


----------



## Panerol Forte

BarracksSi said:


> Well, you are (or were), and said so yourself - you couldn't be bothered to learn some facts. You _ignored_ them. Hence, "ignorant" is an accurate assessment.


Put that way, you Sir can call me "ignorant".


----------



## Sabeking

sportura said:


> Rolex are not "mass produced watches".


Sure they are... that's ok. Rolex does an excellent job at it. I own Rolex and not GS; however, I want a GS as much as any other person in this thread. My point is, don't run from the reality of what Rolex is. It's only negative to say mass produced if you are only trying to protect your investment. Obviously, with Rolex right now, no need to worry. I love Rolex and I've been to the GS boutique in NY. I didn't buy (wife was with me) but, I could have walked out with suitcase full. For me GS is a fascinating brand!


----------



## Panerol Forte

Dudeman1973 said:


> They sell a million watches but are not mass produced? Really? GS produces 35000.
> 
> I get it. I thought my Explorer was the pinnacle of my collection. That is until i visited a GS boutique and compared it under a loupe to a GS. The whole Rolex distortion field of unending brand symbolism that i had was instantly chattered.
> 
> I was where you are. Tried to justify the difference in quality by any means necessary. Did that for months. Tried to find out about GS that would shatter what i just witnessed. Instead my brand symbolism of Rolex was damaged further in the process. Stop it, just stop. You are doing yourself no favors.
> 
> You seem to know very little about GS. You don't even know what you have on your wrist. Long post, but it will educate you.
> 
> I have a Explorer 214270 and a GS SBGR 309. My GS quality is superior to my Explorer, and by a wide margin. Try looking through a loupe at each watch, i did mine, and the results are almost embarrassing for the Rolex. I am quite sure you will be suprised. If you think Rolex quality is anywhere near GS you are just lying to yourself. Plain and simple.
> 
> You are entilted to your opinion, but i think there is more than a little bias here. Just about every horology channel disagrees with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, those GMT hands are from a Rolex.
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Watches/comments/9a1ct2
> 
> Embarrassing. For Omega and Rolex.
> 
> Vs Rolex.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/horaha...al-watchmaking-surpassing-even-the-swiss/amp/
> 
> Compares very well indeed to pieces well above Rolex.
> 
> 
> __
> http://instagr.am/p/Bm-18e9Bl0_/
> 
> Rolex cannot produce pieces of this quality.
> 
> https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/seiko-credor-eichi-2-in-depth
> 
> Yes, Seiko made that watch. It was produced at the same studio that they GS uses. Let that sink in for a min.
> 
> Maybe do a little research first before making your post. You might appreciate GS a little more. It does little for your credability not to.


I read thoroughly your long post, and I believe you; but the thing is that, at the age of 56, my eyesight isn't that great anymore, and walking around with a loupe could be a little embarrassing; I think I'll stick to Rolex...


----------



## Mr.Jones82

Panerol Forte said:


> Mr.Jones82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't think anyone actually called you ignorant (I could've missed it), you just got slapped around with some facts (...by some "nerds").
> To be fair to you though, I'll go start a thread in the Rolex forum about shortages and the AD on the grassy knoll, so you can have a go at spoon feeding me the gospel (I'm a bit of a masochist, so maybe I'll start another one at the same time lauding The Tudor Style as superior in every way to the Datejust).
> 
> 
> 
> Shortage? What shortage?
> 
> View attachment 14262559
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sportura said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Damn it, I'm forgetting my lines again. I think this is where I'm supposed to say Rolex should strangle the gray market with its God-like tentacles...or no, no, something about how Rolex has no clue what it is doing, but I certainly know how to steer a ship and if they'd just...*sigh* 
Tudor lines are easier. 
"I've had this (choose your own Tudor) on my wrist for several months now and it isn't coming off any time soon. Wow, I've tried on (any Rolex will do) and even owned a (again any Rolex will do) and this (Tudor of choice) is just as good, if not better in every way..."

(By the way, nice collection. Wow.)


----------



## bigclive2011

Hi Sporty

Yes own both, and am a fan of both, Rolex long term (30years+) Grand Seiko from afar until a few months ago when I bought a snowflake to see what all the fuss was about, oh and I loved the textured dial, unique IMO, and very beautiful.

Once on the wrist, Apart from the initial surprise at the lightness (Titanium) I was blown away by the quality of the finishing and case polishing. And the spring drive accuracy!! Wow, one second deviation since I've had it.

It has now replaced my Reverso and OP 39mil as my occasional dress watch.

So in answer to your question, yes Rolex owners should buy one.

Now the pics.


----------



## BarracksSi

Panerol Forte said:


> Put that way, you Sir can call me "ignorant".


Blissfully so?


----------



## BarracksSi

The feeling that I can’t shake is how GS becomes less appealing for after-sale support. I’m gauging this almost entirely on forum anecdotes* — but even locally, servicing can be done easily on a Rolex, whereas although the nearest GS AD is just down the road, they’d still need to send it away.

When it comes to the finished watch, GS is special. Only the risk of divorce kept me from plunking down my card for one. But the farther I look into long-term ownership, the more hesitant I become.

* The misaligned bezel on the SBGE201 GMT and hit-or-miss responses from GS is the freshest example.


----------



## Tonhao

Alysandir said:


> Which, I suppose, is just a romantic way of saying, "GS *intentionally* designed a watch that looks boring to everyone except those who know what it is."


Grand Seiko is inevitably a product of Japanese culture, and you're right in saying that Japanese prefer understatement - especially for politicians, public officials, etc. I would even go further and say that Morioka, where the Grand Seiko studio is located, is known as a "traditional" province associated with Bushido and contemplation. (They fought for the old shogunate during Japan's civil war, a la Last Samurai) So if you're not about that kind of lifestyle than the craftsmanship will fly right past your eyes.


----------



## lastshotkid

Panerol Forte said:


> Shortage? What shortage?
> 
> View attachment 14262559


Love the color variety of those pieces! Great choices

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sportura

Sabeking said:


> Sure they are... that's ok. Rolex does an excellent job at it. I own Rolex and not GS; however, I want a GS as much as any other person in this thread. My point is, don't run from the reality of what Rolex is. It's only negative to say mass produced if you are only trying to protect your investment. Obviously, with Rolex right now, no need to worry. I love Rolex and I've been to the GS boutique in NY. I didn't buy (wife was with me) but, I could have walked out with suitcase full. For me GS is a fascinating brand!


Apple ships 210M iPhone's a year.

Rolex ships 1M watches a year.

By any measure, that's not "mass produced".

If that doesn't please you, break it down, pull out the inexpensive references like Oyster Perpetuals and Lady Rolex and boil it down to the watches we are actually comparing, and Rolex ships some paltry numbers, probably in the neighborhood of 2,500 Daytona Ceramic's.

Apple makes 2,500 iPhone's per minute.


----------



## sportura

Dudeman1973 said:


> They sell a million watches but are not mass produced? Really? GS produces 35000.
> 
> I get it. I thought my Explorer was the pinnacle of my collection. That is until i visited a GS boutique and compared it under a loupe to a GS. The whole Rolex distortion field of unending brand symbolism that i had was instantly chattered.
> 
> I was where you are. Tried to justify the difference in quality by any means necessary. Did that for months. Tried to find out about GS that would shatter what i just witnessed. Instead my brand symbolism of Rolex was damaged further in the process. Stop it, just stop. You are doing yourself no favors.
> 
> You seem to know very little about GS. You don't even know what you have on your wrist. Long post, but it will educate you.
> 
> Try looking through a loupe at each watch, i did mine, and the results are almost embarrassing for the Rolex. I am quite sure you will be suprised. If you think Rolex quality is anywhere near GS you are just lying to yourself. Plain and simple.
> 
> You are entilted to your opinion, but i think there is more than a little bias here. Just about every horology channel disagrees with you.
> 
> Yes, Seiko made that watch. It was produced at the same studio that they GS uses. Let that sink in for a min.
> 
> Maybe do a little research first before making your post. You might appreciate GS a little more. It does little for your credability not to.












1. I get it now; it's not that Rolex is mass produced, it's that Grand Seiko_ isn't produced_.

2. It's really funny that you are focused on credibility and can't spell credibility.

3. As far as credibility, please look at the photograph and explain. It's my biggest struggle as a Seiko fan who logically should gravitate to its upmarket label.


----------



## matthew P

Rolex makes some fine watches..... GS makes some fine watches.

Why does it always feel like these posts are a thread looking for an argument. 
I really don't understand the motivation to piss in someone else's cereal bowl.

•• sent by two turn tables and a microphone ••


----------



## BarracksSi

sportura said:


> 3. As far as credibility, please look at the photograph and explain. It's my biggest struggle as a Seiko fan who logically should gravitate to its upmarket label.


I actually respect Seiko for using a similar design language across all its price brackets. The extra cost goes into the labor-intensive details, of course. But if this were another brand (not Rolex, but it rhymes with "blowmega"), the one on the left would have printed indices (like "blowmega"'s quartz "shmaqua pterra") just to appear spitefully cheaper.


----------



## Lucien369

sportura said:


> Rolex ships 1M watches a year.
> 
> By any measure, that's not "mass produced".


Not your best post.


----------



## pkincy

The motivation? I do think there is a segment of the Rolex population that do buy their watches to impress others and if anyone should show admiration for another brand it is like they are being personally attacked. After all they can't impress others unless everybody thinks Rolex is the only thing to own. I do think Rolex flat owns the SS and PM Tool watch segment. They make a large number of different models and they are all really outstanding if you are looking for that type of watch. On dress watches, the DD is likely a pinnacle watch but for the rest of their Classic line I thing a number of watchmakers compete quite well. Actually most Rolex owners do give credit for folks that like GS, but don't ever let them start tallking about Omega v Rolex. That is where you will see some hate displayed. Which I don't understand. I am not a Chronometer guy but I think the Omega is clearly better (not prettier), but a better Chronometer than the Daytona but I wouldn't have either. However I definitely could see adding a 38.5 mm Aqua Terra at some time in the future. An outstanding watch.


----------



## Lucien369

In my opinion the two best Grand Seiko are the Seiko SLA017 and SLA025 (Grand Seiko in disguise). 

Much nicer and more exclusive than the current Submariner btw.


----------



## jorgenl

feck it, I'm getting a SBGA211.....


----------



## lastshotkid

matthew P said:


> Rolex makes some fine watches..... GS makes some fine watches.
> 
> Why does it always feel like posts are a thread looking for an argument.
> I really don't understand the motivation to piss in someone else's cereal bowl.
> 
> •• sent by two turn tables and a microphone ••


Thank you 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BrianBinFL

sportura said:


> Apple ships 210M iPhone's a year.
> 
> Rolex ships 1M watches a year.
> 
> By any measure, that's not "mass produced".


Mass produced is not simply a number. If Rolex had 19,000 watchmakers on staff, and spent 40 hours making each watch, then you could make 1,000,000 watches and say "these are hand made/finished/whatever". But those aren't the numbers.



sportura said:


> If that doesn't please you, break it down, pull out the inexpensive references like Oyster Perpetuals and Lady Rolex and boil it down to the watches we are actually comparing, and Rolex ships some paltry numbers, probably in the neighborhood of 2,500 Daytona Ceramic's.


Who says we're just talking about Daytona Ceramics and the like? I'm mostly talking about SS SubC's when I say "Rolex is mass produced". Certainly you don't intend to argue that the quantity-manufactured of SS SubC's is only in the 5 figures.

I don't think anybody is saying that there aren't _any_ finely finished Rolex watches, just that the majority aren't finely finished watches.



sportura said:


> Apple makes 2,500 iPhone's per minute.


You're just reiterating my prior point that everything is relative when it comes to what is and isn't "mass produced". When you make a million of something in a year, with an employee base in the 4-figures, and most of the work is done by machine, it's mass produced. Sure, you can argue that some other brand or product is even _more_ mass produced, but that doesn't really change anything.

Would it make you feel better if instead we said "while a small fraction of Rolex watches are finely finished, Rolex is the most mass-produced of the luxury brands"?


----------



## Tonhao

pkincy said:


> I do think Rolex flat owns the SS and PM Tool watch segment. They make a large number of different models and they are all really outstanding if you are looking for that type of watch. On dress watches, the DD is likely a pinnacle watch but for the rest of their Classic line I think a number of watchmakers compete quite well.


I think the debate occurs because GS has been veering closer to Rolex's territory more and more - moving away from dress watches and into Datejust/sports category.

When the first Grand Seiko came out in 1960 it is clear they had Swiss on their minds, but Rolex was not their target. GS was a dress watch first and foremost. 









I definitely think they were going for the calatrava look, back when gold still reigned over steel and manual watches were widespread.









Two years later when Mr. Taro Tanaka joined as designer, he specifically recalled that the watch store in Ginza had better-looking Swiss watches and he wanted to surpass their brilliance. He came up with the now-famous 44GS case:









And I think something like this would have caught Mr. Tanaka's eye in 1962:









But fast forward to present day, most of GS' offerings have a bracelet and their original idea - a thin dress watch - is only a faint memory. Lume, crown guards, and screw down crowns start to appear across the catalog. The comparison to Rolex is inevitable. I feel that GS now overlaps with Oyster Perpetual and Datejust, and has managed to secure a following for those who want versatility but not a tool watch. We can only wait and see if that overlap is getting bigger...


----------



## blowlamp

GS moved into Rolex territory some time ago. While they were at it, they showed they could do anything Rolex could do, & could do it better, for less money.

Can we imagine how fabulous a Submariner or an Explorer would look if Rolex handed over production to GS?


----------



## Dudeman1973

Even the movement has hand finishing. Quality matters. Don't get me wrong Rolex has its place, they make fine watches. But the prices they are asking are not equal to the actual product. Hold a GS in one hand and a Rolex in another. The quality difference is apparent without a loupe.

www.grand-seiko.com/us-en/about/movement/mechanical


----------



## Dudeman1973

sportura said:


> 1. I get it now; it's not that Rolex is mass produced, it's that Grand Seiko_ isn't produced_.
> 
> 2. It's really funny that you are focused on credibility and can't spell credibility.
> 
> 3. As far as credibility, please look at the photograph and explain. It's my biggest struggle as a Seiko fan who logically should gravitate to its upmarket label.


Really, pointing out a spelling mistake is the best you can do. Personal insults. I typed it on my iphone while at disney world waiting in line at starbucks. Give me a break.

Grand Seiko isn't produced? How so? Because it has Seiko on the dial? So what. Those pictures are old. It only says Grand Seiko on the dial. Not Seiko. Big Difference.It seems you are more concerned what others think about you than the quality of the watch on your wrist judging by your comment and your instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/manofrolex/

Judging by the following below, i see what is important to you, i can see why GS just wouldn't do it for you. To each their own no problem with that.

The MOR Lifestyle™ | Success | Privilege | Wealth | Power | Style | Captains Of Industry | Trophy Wife

It appears the quality of GS isn't a issue here. It is how the watch is perceived by the people around you.

The GS name is well respected in the watch community. Your concern is mainly what others think about you other than the watch community. Your trophy wife will not care what you have on your wrist. Remember you wear the watch, the watch doesn't wear you. Personally i am confident enough to wear what i want and don't care what others think. Quality matters to me more. It appears others not.


----------



## HiggsBoson

matthew P said:


> Rolex makes some fine watches..... GS makes some fine watches.
> 
> Why does it always feel like these posts are a thread looking for an argument.
> I really don't understand the motivation to piss in someone else's cereal bowl.
> 
> •• sent by two turn tables and a microphone ••


It's pretty simple really. 'some' people just can't get it into their heads that some people actually like/buy/prefer other brands, other than Rolex.
Some individual think that Rolex is the only worthy 'luxury' watch brand. If others choose x or y brand, it's because they are actually poor and can't afford a Rolex. :roll:
These individuals take any criticism of Rolex, as an personal insult. They are the personification of the 'fanboy'. 
If someone dares to favourably compare x or y brand with Rolex, the toys are quickly throw from the pram!


----------



## limnoman

jorgenl said:


> feck it, I'm getting a SBGA211.....


Go for it

LOoOser in the brotherhood


----------



## Mr.Jones82

Dudeman1973 said:


> Your trophy wife will not care what you have on your wrist.


Hmmmm, not sure about that. They don't call it an ExplorHer for nothing.


----------



## Josh R.

And the thread has derailed . . .


----------



## Iportteu

Josh R. said:


> And the thread has derailed . . .


It was bound to happen.


----------



## Triton9

JayR278 said:


> A spring drive is a special movement designed by seiko, basically it is a mechanical watch regulated by a quartz crystal. The mechanical part of the watch powers a special "glide wheel" that works with the quartz regulator. The befits of the spring drive are 1 that the watch only has +/- 1 second per day, and 2 it gives the seconds hand a special glide motion that is only found on spring drive watches. Because of the regulator the seconds hand glides instead of stuttering like a normal mechanical seconds hand. To be clear the spring drive doesnt require a battery. Ps I might not be 100% accurate about how the glide wheel works but I'm confidant about the rest.


For a pure mechanical guy perspective, Spring drive dont qualify as mechanical. Adding the quartz into a mechanical to do what mechanical cant do it. Its like adding a cheat/short cut to reach your point. I am not anti-quartz but i dont see the point of these hybrid movement.

It just like auto quartz which try mimic auto mech watch which gives nothing... In the end, autoquartz like kinetic phase out and replace by solar power quartz. If I want smooth gliding hand and great accuracy while without extensive service, why not just go for a pure quartz which is highly affordable like the bulova 262hz movement? If you are talking about admiring the pure magic of mechanical, I dont see how spring drive fulfils that criteria with a quartz part that do what mechanical impossible to accomplish. That is what I called a cheat!


----------



## Mr.Jones82

Triton9 said:


> Its like adding a cheat/short cut to reach your point.


I certainly wouldn't call it a shortcut considering the amount of parts it is composed of...


----------



## Triton9

Mr.Jones82 said:


> I certainly wouldn't call it a shortcut considering the amount of parts it is composed of...


Many claim spring drive smooth gliding hand is a selling point but at price of $5000? I go for bulova 262hz.






It may not be real gliding but at 16beats per second. Even after some close up, its impossible to spot the tick and its cost $100.

If you are talking about your admiration of mechanical engineering feat. I will go for Zenith Defy Lab






No quartz parts, all mechanical and 108,000vph. Super smooth gliding hands, super accuracy for a pure mechanical automatic watch and a indeed mechanical engineering marvel. Absolutely worth every penny.

Spring drive? I bet more than half spring drive owner dont even know there is a quartz part inside that movement. it just like Kinetic which will be replaced by solar powered movement, a utter failure concept.


----------



## manofrolex

Mr.Jones82 said:


> I certainly wouldn't call it a shortcut considering the amount of parts it is composed of...


Nah ....simple


----------



## manofrolex

Triton9 said:


> Spring drive? I bet more than half spring drive owner dont even know there is a quartz part inside that movement. it just like Kinetic which will be replaced by solar powered movement, a utter failure concept.


Tell us how you really feel


----------



## Toothbras

blowlamp said:


> GS moved into Rolex territory some time ago. While they were at it, they showed they could do anything Rolex could do, & could do it better, for less money.
> 
> Can we imagine how fabulous a Submariner or an Explorer would look if Rolex handed over production to GS?


This makes no sense. What exactly is wrong with a submariner? What would seiko do to make it better?

Obviously you know something the rest of the population does not, since in our free market economy a Sub has been deemed by the people to be worth considerable more than your average (or even grand) seiko

I like seiko as much as the next guy but be real.


----------



## Triton9

jmanlay said:


> Nah ....simple


LOL.. Its still with a quartz part inside. Tell me, will the spring drive works without the quartz part?


----------



## Mr.Jones82

Triton9 said:


> Spring drive? I bet more than half spring drive owner dont even know there is a quartz part inside that movement. it just like Kinetic which will be replaced by solar powered movement, a utter failure concept.


I agree about the Zenith. No argument here.

...but come on, there is no comparison between a kinetic and a SD. Kinetics were doomed from the get go with the bum capacitors, not to mention it is a movement that essentially sandwiches the percieved weaknesses of quartz and automatics into a mess without any clear benefits. Kinetics were offered as a practical solution to batteries and a bridge between movements, which they obviously were not. That isn't the focus of SD. What they offer is a luxury good, not a practical solution to anything and this luxury good is sold as an interesting complex movement (or some might say uselessly complex, "Rube Goldberg device) with a beautiful sweep. They are not competing with solar and other practical, affordable tool technology, whereas kinetic was, hence its vulnerability.

The SD is successful, it is something people enjoy, it does actually offer something interesting and beautiful, and GS has invested a ton of money into it and obviously considers it their flagship movement, so to suggest it will go by the wayside like kinetics (which are still around) or be superceded by something else in the near future I think is a bit absurd. 
Now whether it is something you want to spend your money on, that is a different story.


----------



## Triton9

jmanlay said:


> Tell us how you really feel


The Japanese designer/engineer for spring drive crack his head and still cant think of a solution to implement a mechanical solution to result the gliding smooth operating shove. So he decided to come up with a cheap solution, install a quartz part that makes the mechanical impossible during that time.

While the innovative swiss designer decide to have a radicial approach to mechanical automatic design by integrating balance spring,escapement into a single piece for the revolution zenith defy lab.' Beating at impressive 36 beats per second while still retain 60hrs power reserve with accuracy +/- a second a week.

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/zenith-defy-lab-oscillator-introducing


----------



## Triton9

Mr.Jones82 said:


> I agree about the Zenith. No argument here.
> 
> ...but come on, there is no comparison between a kinetic and a SD. Kinetics were doomed from the get go with the bum capacitors, not to mention it is a movement that essentially sandwiches the percieved weaknesses of quartz and automatics into a mess without any clear benefits. Kinetics were offered as a practical solution to batteries and a bridge between movements, which they obviously were not. That isn't the focus of SD. What they offer is a luxury good, not a practical solution to anything, and this luxury good is sold as an interesting complex movement (or some might say uselessly complex, "Rube Goldberg device) with a beautiful sweep.
> 
> The SD is successful, it is something people enjoy, it does actually offer something interesting and beautiful, and GS has invested a ton of money into it and obviously considers it their flagship movement, so to suggest it will go by the wayside like kinetics (which are still around) or be superceded by something else in the near future I think is a bit absurd.
> Now whether it is something you want to spend your money on, that is a different story.


Sooner more advance watch collector know the cheat inside spring drive. They will abandon this movement. To a pure watch mechanist, this is not acceptable. 
Kinetic is also popular when initial launched but even Seiko decide to abandon kinetic and go for Citizen proven solar which is easier , reliable and cheap to produce. The reason for kinetic failure is not capacitor problem but it in the land of no where. It can't mimic a real auto mechanical when still essentially a quartz. People dont buy the ideal. If I want a reliable beater and long lasting quartz. Solar being cheap and accurate is the way to go.

Same as mechanical watch. If you ask a hardcore mechanical watch purist who swear never to touch a quartz. They will spit at spring drive and curse it. While fully admire Zenith Defy Lab engineering feat.


----------



## Brey17

Triton9 said:


> Sooner more advance watch collector know the cheat inside spring drive. They will abandon this movement. To a pure watch mechanist, this is not acceptable.
> Kinetic is also popular when initial launched but even Seiko decide to abandon kinetic and go for Citizen proven solar which is easier , reliable and cheap to produce. The reason for kinetic failure is not capacitor problem but it in the land of no where. It can't mimic a real auto mechanical when still essentially a quartz. People dont buy the ideal. If I want a reliable beater and long lasting quartz. Solar being cheap and accurate is the way to go.
> 
> Same as mechanical watch. If you ask a hardcore mechanical watch purist who swear never to touch a quartz. They will spit at spring drive and curse it. While fully admire Zenith Defy Lab engineering feat.


What happened here? This a pissing match thread started by a known Rolex troll with GS in mind this time. I am a 'Rolex vs the world' thread purist. Please don't turn this thread into something else. Zenith has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Triton9

Brey17 said:


> What happened here? This a pissing match thread started by a known Rolex troll with GS in mind this time. I am a 'Rolex vs the world' thread purist. Please don't turn this thread into something else. Zenith has nothing to do with it.


Zenith is the real deal, spring drive, sorry. You are not. I told my friend his spring drive got a circuit board inside. He do not believe me initially until he google himself. Shortly he sold off his spring drive. He is a mechanical watch purist.


----------



## Mr.Jones82

Triton9 said:


> Mr.Jones82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree about the Zenith. No argument here.
> 
> ...but come on, there is no comparison between a kinetic and a SD. Kinetics were doomed from the get go with the bum capacitors, not to mention it is a movement that essentially sandwiches the percieved weaknesses of quartz and automatics into a mess without any clear benefits. Kinetics were offered as a practical solution to batteries and a bridge between movements, which they obviously were not. That isn't the focus of SD. What they offer is a luxury good, not a practical solution to anything, and this luxury good is sold as an interesting complex movement (or some might say uselessly complex, "Rube Goldberg device) with a beautiful sweep.
> 
> The SD is successful, it is something people enjoy, it does actually offer something interesting and beautiful, and GS has invested a ton of money into it and obviously considers it their flagship movement, so to suggest it will go by the wayside like kinetics (which are still around) or be superceded by something else in the near future I think is a bit absurd.
> Now whether it is something you want to spend your money on, that is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooner more advance watch collector know the cheat inside spring drive. They will abandon this movement. To a pure watch mechanist, this is not acceptable.
> Kinetic is also popular when initial launched but even Seiko decide to abandon kinetic and go for Citizen proven solar which is easier , reliable and cheap to produce. The reason for kinetic failure is not capacitor problem but it in the land of no where. It can't mimic a real auto mechanical when still essentially a quartz. People dont buy the ideal. If I want a reliable beater and long lasting quartz. Solar being cheap and accurate is the way to go.
> 
> Same as mechanical watch. If you ask a hardcore mechanical watch purist who swear never to touch a quartz. They will spit at spring drive and curse it. While fully admire Zenith Defy Lab engineering feat.
Click to expand...

Sure, ok. Not arguing about the Zenith Defy Lab. It is incredible for sure, and the SD doesn't really hold a candle to it. It is ugly as all hell though. I'd never purchase one. Also, no one is buying SD solely for the movement itself, but for the overall package, specifically fit and finish. I think that is the part you seem to be continually missing. That Zenith cannot compete with GS in terms of looks and design in my opinion.

Anyway, I'm just saying the SD isn't a POS quartz and people obviously don't spit at it. GS has actually quite successfully moved up into the luxury market, breaking into the top 10 in luxury sales at one point last year. Also, not sure why you're bringing up beaters. 
Anyway, let's just agree to disagree. Take care.


----------



## Triton9

Mr.Jones82 said:


> Sure, ok. Not arguing about the Zenith Defy Lab. It is incredible for sure, and the SD doesn't really hold a candle to it.
> I'm just saying the SD isn't a POS quartz and people obviously don't spit at it. GS has actually quite successfully moved up into the luxury market, breaking into the top 10 in luxury sales at one point last year. Also, not sure why you're bringing up beaters.
> Anyway, let's just agree to disagree. Take care.


Thats dishonest. The fact, they are not very open about this circuit board thing inside spring drive. Its like Bremont and Tag heuer scam.


----------



## Brey17

Triton9 said:


> Zenith is the real deal, spring drive, sorry. You are not. I told my friend his spring drive got a circuit board inside. He do not believe me initially until he google himself. Shortly he sold off his spring drive. He is a mechanical watch purist.


(facepalms)


----------



## Toothbras

Brey17 said:


> (facepalms)


Hey brey, is your house finished? Haven't seen updated pics in awhile, hope it's come along and you are loving it


----------



## Mr.Jones82

Triton9 said:


> Mr.Jones82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, ok. Not arguing about the Zenith Defy Lab. It is incredible for sure, and the SD doesn't really hold a candle to it.
> I'm just saying the SD isn't a POS quartz and people obviously don't spit at it. GS has actually quite successfully moved up into the luxury market, breaking into the top 10 in luxury sales at one point last year. Also, not sure why you're bringing up beaters.
> Anyway, let's just agree to disagree. Take care.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats dishonest. The fact, they are not very open about this circuit board thing inside spring drive. Its like Bremont and Tag heuer scam.
Click to expand...

Huh?
From the GS page:

"Spring Drive is a unique movement that combines the high torque of a mechanical watch with the high precision integrated circuit (IC) control system of an electronic watch."

But yeah, I guess it is GS's fault that your friend is too ignorant to do the 5 seconds of research it would've taken him to do to figure this out for himself.

Here, go ahead and take a look at their lies and deception here. *sigh*

https://www.grand-seiko.com/global-en/about/movement/springdrive


----------



## BrianBinFL

Triton9 said:


> For a pure mechanical guy perspective, Spring drive dont qualify as mechanical.


You're right about that - a Spring Drive is not purely mechanical, but JayR278 wasn't saying that it is. Sometimes English is awkward and can be interpreted too many ways leading to confusion. What JayR278 was saying was that Spring Drive is the result of taking a mechanical watch and replacing just the escapement with an electronic contraption that does a much better job than the mechanical escapement.

Just like a 9F traditional quartz movement is the result of taking a mechanical watch and replacing the barrel, mainspring, winding mechanism, and escapement and replacing all that with a battery, an oscillator, a frequency divider, and a solenoid.



Triton9 said:


> Adding the quartz into a mechanical to do what mechanical cant do it. Its like adding a cheat/short cut to reach your point.


It's only a cheat if there is a more elaborate, non-electronic way to do it. As you point out elsewhere, the Zenith Defy Lab features a purely mechanical way of doing something similar to a Spring Drive, but still not as pure as the Spring Drive even though it is all mechanical. Though it may be high frequency and very accurate, the Zenith Defy Lab is still a "oscillator/stepper". Though it beats very quickly it still "beats". Spring Drives don't beat. String drives don't have a bph. Spring drives don't stop, start, stop again, change direction, etc. Spring Drives just go. Forward. Continuously. Like time.

And of course you can't buy a Zenith Defy Lab either.



Triton9 said:


> I am not anti-quartz but i dont see the point of these hybrid movement.


That's only because you don't value what Spring Drive has accomplished. There is no other wristwatch movement in the world that accomplishes what Spring Drive does unless it works the same way as Spring Drive (Piaget Emperador Coussin XL 700P).



Triton9 said:


> If I want smooth gliding hand and great accuracy while without extensive service, why not just go for a pure quartz which is highly affordable like the bulova 262hz movement? If you are talking about admiring the pure magic of mechanical, I dont see how spring drive fulfils that criteria with a quartz part that do what mechanical impossible to accomplish. That is what I called a cheat!


The Bulova Precisionist 262 Khz movement is a crude impostor compared to Spring Drive. I own one and like it for what it is, but to compare it to Spring Drive is truly laughable.



Triton9 said:


> Many claim spring drive smooth gliding hand is a selling point but at price of $5000? I go for bulova 262hz.
> 
> It may not be real gliding but at 16beats per second. Even after some close up, its impossible to spot the tick and its cost $100.


The fact that you can't see the tick doesn't negate the fact that it's ticking. If you buy your wife an engagement ring that is gold plated and features a cubic zirconia stone, it may look just like a solid gold engagement ring with a nice diamond, but it's still garbage.

For me Spring Drive isn't just about appearances. It's a concept. A philosophy of sorts. Time flows. Time is continuous. Time isn't divided into discrete pieces. The Precisionist may look smooth but it's still dividing a second into 16 pieces. Spring Drive doesn't do that.

Precisionist - count the 16 steps per second:





Spring Drive - count the - nothing. There is nothing to count:







Triton9 said:


> If you are talking about your admiration of mechanical engineering feat. I will go for Zenith Defy Lab


I love the Defy Lab. A totally new take on traditional mechanical watches. Insanely accurate, 100% mechanical, and keeps all of the original concepts of a mechanical movement. If they ever start putting this movement into regular production watches I would expect and hope it would sell like hot cakes. I'd like to have one.

But it's no Spring Drive. It's still an oscillator/stepper. It may look smooth but it is still stepping.


----------



## manofrolex

Triton9 said:


> Zenith is the real deal, spring drive, sorry. You are not. I told my friend his spring drive got a circuit board inside. He do not believe me initially until he google himself. Shortly he sold off his spring drive. He is a mechanical watch purist.


There enjoy my POS spring drive. Horrible watch man with that nasty quartz in it . Just a horrendous movement . I really wish I could drive over it and replace it with the superb Zenith that sounds like a cricket .. yeah sign me up


----------



## BrianBinFL

Triton9 said:


> Zenith is the real deal, spring drive, sorry. You are not. I told my friend his spring drive got a circuit board inside. He do not believe me initially until he google himself. Shortly he sold off his spring drive. He is a mechanical watch purist.


No offense to your friend but he's not a very well informed consumer nor very watch savvy is he?


----------



## Triton9

BrianBinFL said:


> You're right about that - a Spring Drive is not purely mechanical, but JayR278 wasn't saying that it is. Sometimes English is awkward and can be interpreted too many ways leading to confusion. What JayR278 was saying was that Spring Drive is the result of taking a mechanical watch and replacing just the escapement with an electronic contraption that does a much better job than the mechanical escapement.
> 
> Just like a 9F traditional quartz movement is the result of taking a mechanical watch and replacing the barrel, mainspring, winding mechanism, and escapement and replacing all that with a battery, an oscillator, a frequency divider, and a solenoid.
> 
> It's only a cheat if there is a more elaborate, non-electronic way to do it. As you point out elsewhere, the Zenith Defy Lab features a purely mechanical way of doing something similar to a Spring Drive, but still not as pure as the Spring Drive even though it is all mechanical. Though it may be high frequency and very accurate, the Zenith Defy Lab is still a "oscillator/stepper". Though it beats very quickly it still "beats". Spring Drives don't beat. String drives don't have a bph. Spring drives don't stop, start, stop again, change direction, etc. Spring Drives just go. Forward. Continuously. Like time.
> 
> And of course you can't buy a Zenith Defy Lab either.
> 
> That's only because you don't value what Spring Drive has accomplished. There is no other wristwatch movement in the world that accomplishes what Spring Drive does unless it works the same way as Spring Drive (Piaget Emperador Coussin XL 700P).
> 
> The Bulova Precisionist 262 Khz movement is a crude impostor compared to Spring Drive. I own one and like it for what it is, but to compare it to Spring Drive is truly laughable.
> 
> The fact that you can't see the tick doesn't negate the fact that it's ticking. If you buy your wife an engagement ring that is gold plated and features a cubic zirconia stone, it may look just like a solid gold engagement ring with a nice diamond, but it's still garbage.
> 
> For me Spring Drive isn't just about appearances. It's a concept. A philosophy of sorts. Time flows. Time is continuous. Time isn't divided into discrete pieces. The Precisionist may look smooth but it's still dividing a second into 16 pieces. Spring Drive doesn't do that.
> 
> Precisionist - count the 16 steps per second:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spring Drive - count the - nothing. There is nothing to count:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love the Defy Lab. A totally new take on traditional mechanical watches. Insanely accurate, 100% mechanical, and keeps all of the original concepts of a mechanical movement. If they ever start putting this movement into regular production watches I would expect and hope it would sell like hot cakes. I'd like to have one.
> 
> But it's no Spring Drive. It's still an oscillator/stepper. It may look smooth but it is still stepping.


LOL.. Bulova 262 khz cost less thaan $100 while a spring drive watch cost few K. So is spring drive few thousand times better than bulova 262hz in accuracy? If you are willing to pay $1000 for a bulova 262 hz movement. I am sure, they can match your finish and expectation with better design. I owned a bulova 262hz and the second hands tick is impossible to notice by naked eyes, even with some degree of close up and its less than $100. Plus the accuracy is extraordinary compare to normal quartz. So I think its a very good deal.

If you ask me to pay few K, of cos my expectation will increase few fold, right? SD achieved the gliding by using circuit board. If you ask any watch making companies, they sure can come up with gliding smooth hand wrist watch. It just a matter of profitability or market demand for them. If there are wall clock with steering second hand and non tick, the concept is there but whether there is a market for them to convert to wrist watch is another matter.

But can pure mechanical achieved that non tick steering second hands? No.. There is no point using quart technology to try mimic a mechanical and then increase the price to few K. There is no horology marvel inside a spring drive from a mechanical point of view. Then where do spring drive stands? If I paid so much for a watch. I want a real technically horology marvel. I am paying for real watch making. Not a hybrid.

A true watch making and technical marvel watch that commands high price tag is not just by adding the amount of precious metal or super great finish. It needs to be unique and represent the highest level of watch making. Why people paid so much for a mechanical when quartz accuracy beats mechanical in accuracy, ease of maintenance and price?

You are paying a master piece with engineering feat. Using pure mechanical way to achieve the highest level of watch making by making it extremely accurate, robust while not oversize movement. That is what differential between a entry watch vs high end watch without considering precious metal.

Why paid few K for a watch that tells accurate time vs quartz of $50 that can probably do the same?

Seiko SD cannot achieved the smooth steering hand using mechnanical way and they decided to add a circuit board. Tell me is that a engineering marvel for mechanical watch?


----------



## BrianBinFL

Triton9 said:


> LOL.. Bulova 262 khz cost less thaan $100 while a spring drive watch cost few K. So is spring drive few thousand times better than bulova 262hz in accuracy?


Actually the Spring Drive and the Precisionist are about equally accurate. And I never mentioned accuracy with regard to either of them. While I would not want the Spring Drive if the accuracy were worse than a mechanical watch my passion for SD is not the accuracy it's the concept. A concept that you either do not "get" or do not value. And not everyone will value it. And that's fine.



Triton9 said:


> If you are willing to pay $1000 for a bulova 262 hz movement. I am sure, they can match your finish and expectation with better design.


I didn't mention finish either did I? Your penchant for straw man arguments is strong.



Triton9 said:


> I owned a bulova 262hz and the second hands tick is impossible to notice by naked eyes, even with some degree of close up and its less than $100. So I think its a very good deal.


I agree with you. It is a very good deal. I like the Precisionist movement and I own a 98B156. If you're going to own a non-HAQ quartz watch the Precisionist is a great choice because it doesn't have the 1 bps issue that drives me crazy.

But it's not in any way comparable to a Spring Drive other than superficially.



Triton9 said:


> If you ask me to pay few K, of cos my expectation will increase few fold, right? SD achieved the gliding by using circuit board. If you ask any watch making companies, they sure can come up with gliding smooth hand wrist watch. It just a matter of profitability or market demand for them. If there are wall clock with steering second hand and non tick, the concept is there but whether there is a market for them to convert to wrist watch is another matter.


If someone else comes up with a wrist watch with a truly smooth (zero steps) seconds hand I will be interested in it. But at the moment all of the available choices are only simulations.


----------



## Triton9

BrianBinFL said:


> No offense to your friend but he's not a very well informed consumer nor very watch savvy is he?


How many Seiko SD owner know are well informed when Seiko try promote it as mechanical watch with hair spring, , mainspring?


----------



## BarracksSi

Who tf is this guy?


----------



## BarracksSi

Triton9 said:


> How many Seiko SD owner know are well informed when Seiko try promote it as mechanical watch with hair spring, , mainspring?


If there's one thing that pisses me off, it's when people willfully ignore reality. No, Seiko does not pretend that SD is a "mechanical watch with hair spring, , mainspring".

And:


----------



## BrianBinFL

BarracksSi said:


> Who tf is this guy?


I want to just write him off as a troll, especially since this entire topic was really little more than a grandiose troll in the first place, but I'm just too willing to believe that there are really are people like him in the world.


----------



## BarracksSi

BrianBinFL said:


> I want to just write him off as a troll, especially since this entire topic was really little more than a grandiose troll in the first place, but I'm just too willing to believe that there are really are people like him in the world.


Wait till he finds out what my daily driver is...


----------



## CaptainCustard

sportura said:


> As a Rolex owner and Seiko aficionado who doesn't own a Grand Seiko I would love to hear your thoughts and impressions of your Grand Seiko's. Post up pics maybe every day, post up your reviews and stories, tell us about the GMT's, the Tiffany Snowflake, etc.
> 
> Should Rolex owners buy one? Why?


Awwwwwwwwwww Sporty, you HAD to post this?

I am a lifetime Rolex man. Very little else has been on my arm for decades. But these days I find myself looking in the Sydney Seiko boutique....

My wife is japanese. Twenty years ago all of her friends husbands wore Rolex. These days most wear GS. That says a lot. If I purchased ANY other brand of watch other than Rolex she would be furious - unless the other brand was a GS.

A lot of Japanese Salarymen bought GS back in the day. Now with Wabi, "declutter living" and retirement, a lot of those old GS are appearing in dealers and on ebay, and the prices are not bad for the quality...

The other selling point - the anti Rolex hoards (mainly dissatisfied Omega owners) cant whine about GS.

Its like Omega calling themselves Grand Swatch.


----------



## matthew P

Awful lot of yelling at windmills today. 


•• sent by two turn tables and a microphone ••


----------



## Snaggletooth

Triton9 said:


> If you ask a hardcore mechanical watch purist who swear never to touch a quartz. They will spit at spring drive and curse it.


You Sir are hilarious*, even if, as I suspect, you don't realise it; thank you for livening up a quiet Saturday morning at work.

Here's a picture of one of my favourite watches - you're welcome.







*A.k.a. a complete bell-end


----------



## limnoman

Snaggletooth said:


> You Sir are hilarious*, even if, as I suspect, you don't realise it; thank you for livening up a quiet Saturday morning at work.
> 
> Here's a picture of one of my favourite watches - you're welcome.
> View attachment 14270261
> 
> *A.k.a. a complete bell-end


So that's a Kinetic. Were you aware of it being a bastard and on the demise (reading above) when you purchased it, or is it just in case you end up stranded on another island in the near future?


----------



## blowlamp

Toothbras said:


> This makes no sense. What exactly is wrong with a submariner? *What would seiko do to make it better?*
> 
> Obviously you know something the rest of the population does not,* since in our free market economy* a Sub has been deemed by the people to be worth considerable more than your average (or even grand) seiko
> 
> I like seiko as much as the next guy but be real.


They would apply their higher standards of engineering & finishing to case, dial and hands etc. They'd probably anti-glare coat the inside of the sapphire crystal to reduce that annoying haze. The agricultural finish on the underside of the Rolex clasp mechanism needs redoing as well. Just to note, I bought a new Explorer back in 2017 and it's this I'm comparing my GS's against.

Rolex make a few variations of movements roughly similar to GS's basic automatic - they have no Hi-Beat, no Quartz and no Spring Drive. 
Rolex has a couple of simple case shapes with a few variations, like the slab-sided GMT, Submariner & Sea Dweller as one group and curvy-sided Oyster, Explorer etc as another, whilst GS has too many (complex) case shapes to list here. This is why I say Seiko can do anything Rolex can do, only better.

The free market economy also means Seiko outsells Rolex, by the million, at a price suitable for almost everyone.


----------



## Lucien369

If it was not for the power reserve indicator on the dial, I would have bought a Spring Drive (Snowflake probably) long time ago. 

Imo it kills the look. 

To put so much effort in the beautiful finish of these dials and kill them with that unbalanced slice of pie is beyond my comprehension. 

It is supposed to be harmonious and there is that strong false note.


----------



## Snaggletooth

rjohnson56 said:


> So that's a Kinetic. Were you aware of it being a bastard and on the demise (reading above) when you purchased it, or is it just in case you end up stranded on another island in the near future?


The report of my death has been greatly exaggerated.


----------



## Simon

Rolex mass produce watches (900,000 a year is a lot) but the SS Sports are pretty limited editions - only 3-5000 a year


----------



## Simon

love a pair of moleskins - had a pillar-box red pair but the wife forbade me to wear them with her


----------



## Simon

One tangential issue - on the second hand market, Rolex SS sports go up in value, GS go down.
You can rarely find several Rolex models, and pay over MRP, whilst most GS are available and with modest discount from ADs
I think to buy a GS you either gotta really love it and want to hold on to it, or like it and get a great price.

Speaking personally as a Seiko fanboy who collects Seiko Sports watches, JDM's - I would prefer to put my money into a Pepsi or SeaDweller or GMT than a GS sports model. I love the GS Snowflake but think the power level indicator interferes with aesthetics. I find the GS often just too shiny. The wonderful hi-beat 600m GS Diver is just tooo expensive!

The Spring Drive 600m GMT is somewhere between GS sports & higher end Prospex line. 
Sporty, take another look at this watch - it is unique and a great price and Seiko at its innovative, sporty, best


----------



## BradPittFUAngie

Thinking about buying a Rolex Pepsi. I think I'll buy it from a well know grey dealer for almost 9K USD over MSRP and crush everyone in my wake. Who has time to deal with a bad breath female sales associate at an AD when I can just pay double and have it overnight. Thank GOD for the grey market. What a gift to mankind.


----------



## Snaggletooth

BradPittFUAngie said:


> Thinking about buying a Rolex Pepsi. I think I'll buy it from a well know grey dealer for almost 9K USD over MSRP and crush everyone in my wake. Who has time to deal with a bad breath female sales associate at an AD when I can just pay double and have it overnight. Thank GOD for the grey market. What a gift to mankind.


You remind me of someone, can't quite place them... No. Gone.


----------



## blowlamp

Snaggletooth said:


> You remind me of someone, can't quite place them... No. Gone.


Didn't he come up with some kind of slogan?
Something like:

*M*an
*O*f
*R*olex
*O*r
*N*othing


----------



## Brey17

Toothbras said:


> Hey brey, is your house finished? Haven't seen updated pics in awhile, hope it's come along and you are loving it


We did and we do! We opted out of the feature spread as it was far too invasive for our comfort.

I will update that thread with a few exterior and interior shots in several weeks.


----------



## NicoD

Simon said:


> Rolex mass produce watches (900,000 a year is a lot) but the SS Sports are pretty limited editions - only 3-5000 a year


Really? Does that mean that Rolex produces less than 10,000 SS Sports / Daytonas watches per year, and 890,000 (or 990,000, depending on the figures) OP, DJ and Cellini?

Given how everyone agrees on the fact that these models do not sell as well as the "grails", how would you explain the huge stock of less-desirable Rolex models that should be everywhere?

On a more serious note, I would be interested to know how to came to this figure.


----------



## GMT-man

BradPittFUAngie said:


> Thinking about buying a Rolex Pepsi. I think I'll buy it from a well know grey dealer for almost 9K USD over MSRP and crush everyone in my wake. Who has time to deal with a bad breath female sales associate at an AD when I can just pay double and have it overnight. Thank GOD for the grey market. What a gift to mankind.


Or one can walk into a GS shop and buy a better watch at one third, one fourth of the price of that gray Rolex. There are lemmings and there are watch enthusiasts


----------



## Independent George

I still can't believe that people are still reading through this thread and taking the comments seriously. If y'all can't see all these tongues placed firmly in cheeks, well, I don't know what to say, except maybe take a break from the Internet.


----------



## manofrolex

Independent George said:


> I still can't believe that people are still reading through this thread and taking the comments seriously. If y'all can't see all these tongues placed firmly in cheeks, well, I don't know what to say, except maybe take a break from the Internet.


----------



## Toothbras

Brey17 said:


> We did and we do! We opted out of the feature spread as it was far too invasive for our comfort.
> 
> I will update that thread with a few exterior and interior shots in several weeks.


Awesome!


----------



## mui.richard

blowlamp said:


> Rolex make a few variations of movements roughly similar to GS's basic automatic - they have no Hi-Beat, no Quartz and no Spring Drive.


And yet, Rolex guarantees daily accuracy of +/-2 spd, while all GS mechanicals list less accurate specs.

What's the point of a high beat movement if you can't even make them more accurate on the wrist?

I love my SBGR051; It's quality in finishing at their price point is almost impossible to match. But the fact that it's even less accurate than my 2824-2 based Tudor Ranger is not something I'm happy about at all.

Having innovation is good. But if all that innovation doesn't translate into real world performance then the point is moot.

brother of OoO


----------



## mui.richard

Independent George said:


> I still can't believe that people are still reading through this thread and taking the comments seriously. If y'all can't see all these tongues placed firmly in cheeks, well, I don't know what to say, except maybe take a break from the Internet.


Oh no we are always dead serious when it comes to watches or any type of wrist trinket...

brother of OoO


----------



## blowlamp

mui.richard said:


> And yet, Rolex guarantees daily accuracy of +/-2 spd, while all GS mechanicals list less accurate specs.
> 
> What's the point of a high beat movement if you can't even make them more accurate on the wrist?
> 
> I love my SBGR051; It's quality in finishing at their price point is almost impossible to match. *But the fact that it's even less accurate than my 2824-2 based Tudor Ranger is not something I'm happy about at all.
> 
> Having innovation is good. But if all that innovation doesn't translate into real world performance then the point is moot*.
> 
> brother of OoO


I'm not very happy that my Explorer is only guaranteed to +/- 2 sec per day, when my less than half the price GS quartz is guaranteed to +/- 10 per *year* - and is better made to boot.

If your mechanical GS is consistant in its deviation then regulation might be needed. If the watch gains & loses time wildly, then it seems a service would be in order.

Plenty of Rolex watches (and other more expensive brands) fall outside of that +/- 2 sec specification


----------



## mui.richard

blowlamp said:


> I'm not very happy that my Explorer is only guaranteed to +/- 2 sec per day, when my less than half the price GS quartz is guaranteed to +/- 10 per *year* - and is better made to boot.


So now we're comparing quartz with mechanical? What's the point?
And if I compare my automatic GS with your quartz, which is more money btw, does it mean there's something wrong with GS pricing strategy?
Apple to apple is the ONLY way to make a sensible conversation/discussion.



blowlamp said:


> Plenty of Rolex watches (and other more expensive brands) fall outside of that +/- 2 sec specification


Really? Do you have the stats to back this up?

brother of OoO


----------



## Panerol Forte

So, at the end of the day, which one is better, Rolex or Grand Seiko?


----------



## Snaggletooth

The answer, as usual, is both!


Panerol Forte said:


> So, at the end of the day, which one is better, Rolex or Grand Seiko?


----------



## blowlamp

mui.richard said:


> So now we're comparing quartz with mechanical? What's the point?
> And if I compare my automatic GS with your quartz, which is more money btw, does it mean there's something wrong with GS pricing strategy?
> Apple to apple is the ONLY way to make a sensible conversation/discussion.
> 
> Really? Do you have the stats to back this up?
> 
> brother of OoO


Well what was your point? Everyone here knows that even a cheap quartz can outshine the most expensive mechanical watch and most people accept that mechanical watches can vary substantially in their timekeeping abilities. You seem to want your GS to be cheaper, better made and more accurate than a Rolex. Put simply, if a mechanical watch is keeping time to its specified limits, then that is all that can be expected of it - lamenting that it's not keeping time as accurately as another watch you own is pointless.

I don't have any stats - where would I get them?


----------



## mui.richard

blowlamp said:


> Well what was your point? Everyone here knows that even a cheap quartz can outshine the most expensive mechanical watch and most people accept that mechanical watches can vary substantially in their timekeeping abilities. You seem to want your GS to be cheaper, better made and more accurate than a Rolex. Put simply, if a mechanical watch is keeping time to its specified limits, then that is all that can be expected of it - lamenting that it's not keeping time as accurately as another watch you own is pointless.
> 
> I don't have any stats - where would I get them?


You got that right, this *IS* pointless.

brother of OoO


----------



## BrianBinFL

Panerol Forte said:


> So, at the end of the day, which one is better, Rolex or Grand Seiko?


I would say that with regard to the movement, in a 100% mechanical movement the Rolex is going to be tough to beat in terms of accuracy. In terms of finishing most Rolexes are vastly inferior to Grand Seiko. In terms of cachet I don't think any brand beats Rolex.

Of course there is no answer to "which one is better" because it depends on why you're buying the watch, what you value in a watch, who you're wearing the watch for, etc.

Honestly I think everyone should own at least one Rolex for those business occasions where it might be important to impress someone that doesn't really know anything about watches. To avoid misinterpretation that is not to say that everyone who finds value in Rolex is ignorant. I mean to say that most people who are watch-ignorant only know Rolex and probably wouldn't see value in anything else. And kudos to Rolex for that marketing achievement. Anyway, with that box checked the rest of your stable should consist of whatever makes you happy.

With regard to wristwatches at the moment nothing pleases me more than wearing a Spring Drive cased in a beautifully executed 44GS case, dial, hands, etc. Grand Seiko's "grammar of design" just seems to work for me.

That said, I can see a Rolex Sky Dweller sometime in my future as well.

I don't think any of the luxury-tier watches are garbage - each will have their strengths and weaknesses. If it speaks to you and you can afford it then you should buy it, wear it, and enjoy it.


----------



## BrianBinFL

blowlamp said:


> I'm not very happy that my Explorer is only guaranteed to +/- 2 sec per day, when my less than half the price GS quartz is guaranteed to +/- 10 per *year* - and is better made to boot.
> 
> If your mechanical GS is consistant in its deviation then regulation might be needed. If the watch gains & loses time wildly, then it seems a service would be in order.
> 
> Plenty of Rolex watches (and other more expensive brands) fall outside of that +/- 2 sec specification


No offense, but there truly is no point in comparing any quartz movement to any mechanical movement unless you are calling out something ultra-remarkable like the Zenith Defy Lab which is 100% mechanical but can hold its own against all-comers.

Certainly there is a quest for accuracy in mechanical movements but even the best of the best mechanical movements (which is probably Rolex) will be vastly inferior in terms of accuracy to a $10 quartz. Mechanical movements are made for the value of doing things the hard way for the sake of the art, with accuracy as a secondary concern.

Not everybody values the minor miracle these little machines represent and for those a quartz watch makes a ton of sense. Neither is right or wrong.

If I had to choose between a +/- 5 seconds per *year* HAQ and a +/- 5 seconds per *day* mechanical I'll take the mechanical every time.

This isn't to say I have no quartz in my box. I do. But I sort of begrudge them a little, and I only have a few of them, and each is an exemplar of a particular type for a particular reason.

Spring Drive gets a pass because it's so damn special, but that's a whole different topic.


----------



## Galaga

CaptainCustard said:


> Awwwwwwwwwww Sporty, you HAD to post this?
> 
> I am a lifetime Rolex man. Very little else has been on my arm for decades. But these days I find myself looking in the Sydney Seiko boutique....
> 
> My wife is japanese. Twenty years ago all of her friends husbands wore Rolex. These days most wear GS. That says a lot. If I purchased ANY other brand of watch other than Rolex she would be furious - unless the other brand was a GS.
> 
> A lot of Japanese Salarymen bought GS back in the day. Now with Wabi, "declutter living" and retirement, a lot of those old GS are appearing in dealers and on ebay, and the prices are not bad for the quality...
> 
> The other selling point - the anti Rolex hoards (mainly dissatisfied Omega owners) cant whine about GS.
> 
> Its like Omega calling themselves Grand Swatch.


Hey Roscoe, why the name change?


----------



## Jaguarshark

Whats a grand seiko? Is that a larger seiko?


----------



## WatchBri

All the amazing macro shots of GS dials on the forum made me take the ride to the local AD to buy one. After trying on 6 or 7 with the offer of 25% off msrp, those amazing photos just didn’t translate into the same feeling for me in person. They seemed like very nice quality. The light weight of the titanium models I tried did give a false sense of lesser quality just because I am used to the heft of stainless steel.


----------



## manofrolex

Jaguarshark said:


> Whats a grand seiko? Is that a larger seiko?


Kind of like Maybach for Mercedes you get a larger back seat


----------



## Sabeking

I like both brands a lot. I own Rolex and not GS. That being said... I absolutely love most GS watches.


----------



## manofrolex

Sabeking said:


> I like both brands a lot. I own Rolex and not GS. That being said... I absolutely love most GS watches.


What you waiting for then


----------



## CaptainCustard

Galaga said:


> Hey Roscoe, why the name change?


No idea who you are referring to.... 

For some reason I couldnt log in on my old ID, easier to create a new one.


----------



## Sappie66

CaptainCustard said:


> No idea who you are referring to....
> 
> For some reason I couldnt log in on my old ID, easier to create a new one.


Hi Ross! You coming back to OoO?


----------



## Galaga

CaptainCustard said:


> No idea who you are referring to....
> 
> For some reason I couldnt log in on my old ID, easier to create a new one.


Mate, I miss your wisdom. Please return to your home.


----------



## manofrolex

Galaga said:


> Mate, I miss your wisdom. Please return to your home.


OoO is full of WISdom


----------



## BarracksSi

jmanlay said:


> OoO is full of WISdom


Or "whizzzzzzzzzz" "dumb"


----------



## manofrolex

BarracksSi said:


> Or "whizzzzzzzzzz" "dumb"


Plenty of that too


----------



## CaptainCustard

Sappie66 said:


> Hi Ross! You coming back to OoO?


I am happy splashing around in the shallow end of the humanity pool. 😁


----------



## Mark355

Josh R. said:


> And the thread has derailed . . .


Seeing who the OP is, who's surprised?

Rolex isn't mass produced, guys! I like looking at people looking at my Rowlecks. Spring drive is quartz lol.


----------



## NyCSnEaK

I own 5 Rolex pieces and owned 10 total. My GS has much better finishing in regards to case, hands, and dial, without a doubt. Just look thru a loupe, if your 20/20 deceives you. 

Bracelets of my modern Rolex’s are of better quality, especially the clasp. The case size and thickness in most models are in the crowns favor. 

Only two of my Rolex watches won’t be sold ever atm. The Pepsi and Hulk. Gonna add a DD soon in white gold that will complete my collection. Out of all my current watches my Blancpain, is best overall. Everything is top notch.


----------



## Cobia

CaptainCustard said:


> No idea who you are referring to....
> 
> For some reason I couldnt log in on my old ID, easier to create a new one.


Welcome back bro, sent you a message under your old account seeing if you were ok, pop in and say gday to the old timers.


----------



## Sabeking

jmanlay said:


> What you waiting for then


My wife has other plans for the money. Yes, I said it... my wife has a say with our financials..


----------



## BarracksSi

Sabeking said:


> My wife has other plans for the money. Yes, I said it... my wife has a say with our financials..


I feel ya, bro.

(the good thing is, she's smarter with money than I am)


----------



## manofrolex

Sabeking said:


> My wife has other plans for the money. Yes, I said it... my wife has a say with our financials..


Sounds painful


----------



## Josh R.

I really liked the picture of the pig in the car with that whirly-gig thing on page 23. Since page 16, that's been the best part of this thread.

And I bet that the pig is wearing a Swatch Pigasso on his left wrist. It's a limited edition everyone!

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/swatch-pigcasso-limited-edition-introducing


----------



## HiggsBoson

Jaguarshark said:


> Whats a grand seiko? Is that a larger seiko?


No. It refers to the Seiko watch models that cost $1000.


----------



## NicoD

HiggsBoson said:


> No. It refers to the Seiko watch models that cost $1000.


:-s


----------



## HiggsBoson

NicoD said:


> :-s


A thousand is also known as a 'grand'. Well, certainly here in the UK, anyway.


----------



## Watch19

Intentionally or not, it seems Sporty has gifted the GS forum with it's own OoO thread and he long ago said goodbye here.
Like the "Vanishing Middle Class" thread, hope this one dies a natural death soon. 
Since this thread is long past subjects related to Rolex ownership, what we need here is a "General Musings" thread. I'll start one.
This is my second and last post on this one.
Adios.


----------



## BarracksSi

HiggsBoson said:


> No. It refers to the Seiko watch models that cost $1000.


Yup. The large Seikos are called Seiko Grande.


----------



## BrianBinFL

BarracksSi said:


> Yup. The large Seikos are called Seiko Grande.


And the really big ones are "Venti Seiko" and sold only at Starbucks.


----------



## Marendra

HiggsBoson said:


> A thousand is also known as a 'grand'. Well, certainly here in the UK, anyway.


Lol, from memory, this is the second one of these you've earned.


----------



## Gunnar_917

Watch19 said:


> Intentionally or not, it seems Sporty has gifted the GS forum with it's own OoO thread and he long ago said goodbye here.
> Like the "Vanishing Middle Class" thread, hope this one dies a natural death soon.
> Since this thread is long past subjects related to Rolex ownership, what we need here is a "General Musings" thread. I'll start one.
> This is my second and last post on this one.
> Adios.


Okay so who's going to change their signature to Brother of RAOaRROPYT???

Bro of OoO


----------



## Mr.Jones82

Watch19 said:


> Intentionally or not, it seems Sporty has gifted the GS forum with it's own OoO thread and he long ago said goodbye here.
> Like the "Vanishing Middle Class" thread, hope this one dies a natural death soon.
> Since this thread is long past subjects related to Rolex ownership, what we need here is a "General Musings" thread. I'll start one.
> This is my second and last post on this one.
> Adios.


----------



## pkincy

I think the real answer is "Love the One You're With!" Been wearing GSs for the past week and yesterday put on my 214270 Explorer Mk 2. What a great watch and a fair bit thinner than most GSs. So if you are smart you will love all of them but most importantly the one that is on your wrist that day.


----------



## Watchtung

I own a Rolex GMT Master 16750 and a Grand Seiko SBGA387.

I had my GMT first and I still love the versatility of the GMT.

For the Grand Seiko the finish is just insane. You can see the quality just is on another level. However I will say because it's so highly highly polished it kind of makes me want to wear it less because I kind of baby it. I typically just wear it as a dress watch or special occasions.

The coolest was bringing my GS to the GS boutique in Tokyo on Ginza and them freaking out cause they hadn't seen this one before since it's US market only.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gunnar_917

Watchtung said:


> I own a Rolex GMT Master 16750 and a Grand Seiko SBGA387.
> 
> I had my GMT first and I still love the versatility of the GMT.
> 
> For the Grand Seiko the finish is just insane. You can see the quality just is on another level. However I will say because it's so highly highly polished it kind of makes me want to wear it less because I kind of baby it. I typically just wear it as a dress watch or special occasions.
> 
> The coolest was bringing my GS to the GS boutique in Tokyo on Ginza and them freaking out cause they hadn't seen this one before since it's US market only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


OoO I've never seen one of those GS' before


----------



## Mondo Shizmo

Love my 214270, it's timeless, looks good with anything and you know just tells time... I work a desk job where I am not allowed to have my phone but am highly considering buying a GS GMT (SBGN) in the quartz, those look so good and am going to sell my 214270 to pocket some cash and use the GS as my new daily wearer.


----------



## Watchtung

Gunnar_917 said:


> OoO I've never seen one of those GS' before


Yeah I love it. Its such a stunner and it is never seen in the wild. The dial is superb.


----------



## Marendra

Gunnar_917 said:


> OoO I've never seen one of those GS' before


My friend Tiffany has one.


----------



## Marendra

Gunnar_917 said:


> OoO I've never seen one of those GS' before


My friend Tiffany has one.


----------



## kamonjj

Marendra said:


> My friend Tiffany has one.


Hawt


----------



## koolpep

Hey everybody,

I own a Rolex, three Tudors and Omega...and a Seiko Premier from a long time ago.

Monday I shall be the owner of a new Grand Seiko Spring Drive if all goes well. Crossing fingers.

Cheers!


----------



## kamonjj

koolpep said:


> Hey everybody,
> 
> I own a Rolex, three Tudors and Omega...and a Seiko Premier from a long time ago.
> 
> Monday I shall be the owner of a new Grand Seiko Spring Drive if all goes well. Crossing fingers.
> 
> Cheers!


Good luck on your mission!


----------



## infinitejester

I've owned multiple Rolex and am the proud owner of an SBGJ203. Both brands make great watches!


----------



## BrianBinFL

koolpep said:


> Hey everybody,
> 
> I own a Rolex, three Tudors and Omega...and a Seiko Premier from a long time ago.
> 
> Monday I shall be the owner of a new Grand Seiko Spring Drive if all goes well. Crossing fingers.
> 
> Cheers!


Congratulations on your impending admission to the fraternity of the perfectly continuous smooth seconds sweep. In my opinion it is an incomparable horological experience.


----------



## Mr.Jones82

Since I was bemoaning the lack of sports watches in the GS lineup before, I thought I'd share this.
I actually really like some of the sbgr's as a sports watch. I remember seeing a sbgr307 for sale on the forum with a strap and bracelet for a ridiculously low price 4 or 5 months ago. I really regret not picking it up. I would consider it a sport model reference along the lines of a Datejust in my opinion.


----------



## koolpep

New GS in the house!!!


----------



## berni29

Hi

That looks very nice indeed. Could be brother and sister! 

Enjoy!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BrianBinFL

BrianBinFL said:


> JayR278 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A spring drive is a special movement designed by seiko, basically it is a mechanical watch regulated by a quartz crystal. The mechanical part of the watch powers a special "glide wheel" that works with the quartz regulator. *The befits of the spring drive are 1 that the watch only has +/- 1 second per day*, and 2 it gives the seconds hand a special glide motion that is only found on spring drive watches. Because of the regulator the seconds hand glides instead of stuttering like a normal mechanical seconds hand. To be clear the spring drive doesnt require a battery. Ps I might not be 100% accurate about how the glide wheel works but I'm confidant about the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> Correction to your accuracy statement - the stated accuracy of the Spring Drive movement is +/- 1 second every other day (every 2 days). Or, said another way, +/- 0.5 seconds per day, +/- 15 seconds per month.
Click to expand...

I would like to correct my incorrect correction.  While I am certain that I had read somewhere a stated accuracy of "±1 second *every 2 days*, or ±15 seconds per month", I cannot find any official materials that say "±1 second every 2 days". Curiously they all say "monthly rate of ±15 seconds (daily rate of ±1 second)". There _are_ some higher accuracy 9R movements that say "monthly rate of ±10 seconds (equivalent to daily rate of ±0.5 second)", but that's not what we were discussing.

At first blush this seems contrary to basic math (since 15 seconds a month divided by 30 days = 0.5 seconds per day) but I think it really boils down to setting consumer expectations (and for warranty purposes). In any 24 hour period the watch may vary ±1 second, but some variations will cancel each other out and when observed over a month the accuracy should not deviate by more than ±15 seconds. With the higher-accuracy 9R96, 9R16, and 9R15 movements (rated at ±10 seconds per month) they are apparently confident in stating that in any 24 hour period the deviation will not exceed ±0.5 seconds.

So my apologies to JayR278 for my incorrect correction of his statement. I should have instead said something like "while the stated accuracy is ±1 second per day, it is ±15 seconds per month, and in practice it is usually better than either of those figures".


----------



## MID

In truth, I think in some significant ways Rolex and GS watches are quite similar. Both are high quality watches that are products of fully integrated companies. Both are, broadly, watches that span the sport-casual-dress spectrum that can worn almost anywhere in any situation, with any kind of dress.

Now, to your question, should a Rolex owner buy a GS? YES DAMMIT YES. JUST GET ONE. THEY'RE BLOODY AWESOME. YOU WON'T REGRET IT!!!!


----------



## eugene89us

koolpep said:


> New GS in the house!!!


Congratulations! Both are beautiful watches!

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk


----------



## thetony007

pkincy said:


> Got back interested in watches after wearing none for a while recently. First thought, buy a Rolex. I got the Explorer, 214270. Great watch, I loved it. Then replaced an older inherited DJ36 with a new 116234 DJ36 w Jubilee and WG fluted bezel. Loved it. Then I bought my first GS. Then a second. Then a third. Now neither Rolex does much but stay on a programmed winder. I do wear them occasionally, but I now am in love with the GSs.  To help, I am not a Sub, SD, GMTMaster, etc. huge SS tool watch fan, so not drawn to them. And for beauty, elegance and style nobody is anywhere near the GS dials, cases and hands. They sparkle constantly. The dials are intricate and beautiful. The hands are works of art. Sorry to me, there is no comparison.
> 
> Also, get on a Rolex forum today and all you hear is complaints about prices, and inability to source stock. Or the occasional, "Incoming" post where somebody is stoked that they actually were able to buy one of their desired watches. Rolex mass produces over 800,000 watches a year and nobody can get one. GS hand makes 45,000 watches a year and most other than Limited Editions can be had for a slight discount.
> 
> To me there is absolute truth to the statement, "You buy a rolex to impress others, or you buy Grand Seiko to impress yourself."


someone get my ....... man a beer right now


----------



## rdoder

In my experience, 116300 doesn't get dinged as easily as SBGR307?

The rounder side of case of 116300 or its comparatively "tucked in" edge of the bezel seems less prone to picking up dings. I've hit DJII on something before, looked, and saw no ding. Maybe tougher steel, or I baby it more?

SBGR307's sharp edge on the side of the case got one ding, and today got a ding on the sharp edge of the bezel. The sharp edges are kind of asking to be dented. D'oh!


----------



## horrij1

I have two Rolex watches, as Submariner from the 1980’s (16800 transition model) and a datejust from the mid-2000’s. In my opinion there are pretty big differences between the older and more modern Rolex “tool watches”. Modern Rolex “tool” watches are more “flashy”. The sub super-cases, ceramic bezels, and overall larger cases (Explorer II) are all design elements that enable making the watch more noticeable. I don’t blame them, if you are going to pay $10K for a Submariner that is reality isn’t much different than the one I bought 35 years ago for $1200, you have better added a bunch of bells and whistles. 

Grand Seiko employs technology that is equal to or better than Rolex. Their quality and precision is on par with Rolex, but from a design standpoint they do it in a package that is elegant and understated. If you put one under a microscope you will see just how well made they are, but at arms length don’t get any attention.

A Grand Seiko is a watch for someone who wants an excellent watch, a Rolex is for someone who wants everyone else to know they have an excellent watch.


----------



## DCWatchCollector

I've got a couple Rolex but no Grand Seiko yet. I'd love to get into the brand.


----------



## wooly88

I've got a Sub from the early '90's and a Snowflake I purchased last year. Both awesome watches and I go through phases as to which I enjoy and wear more. Right now it's my Snowflake. I never found the weight to be an issue. The light weight is actually really nice and as everyone has stated the quality is amazing. Here it is today.


----------



## Josh R.

That Snowflake looks great on a blue strap. Quite a natural pairing.


----------



## ljb187

horrij1 said:


> A Grand Seiko is a watch for someone who wants an excellent watch, a Rolex is for someone who wants everyone else to know they have an excellent watch.


I question if someone who thinks like this can truly (in an objective sense) enjoy any watch.


----------



## Gerry.GEG

I own two Rolex, a older Sub and a GV Milgauss. Both very nice watches. I've also owned two GS'. Loved them and equal quality to Rolex IMO. I will be seeking another GS in the near future as I feel the 9F is a very special movement and they FINALLY put Grand Seiko on the dial PROMINENTLY! I love the way the GS' look and just like Acura to Honda, Lexus to Toyota, and Infinity to Nissan this should've happened long ago. They are very different than a nice Seiko and they should've recognized this the way the aforementioned car companies did.


----------



## DustinS

Gerry.GEG said:


> I own two Rolex, a older Sub and a GV Milgauss. Both very nice watches. I've also owned two GS'. Loved them and equal quality to Rolex IMO. I will be seeking another GS in the near future as I feel the 9F is a very special movement and they FINALLY put Grand Seiko on the dial PROMINENTLY! I love the way the GS' look and just like Acura to Honda, Lexus to Toyota, and Infinity to Nissan this should've happened long ago. They are very different than a nice Seiko and they should've recognized this the way the aforementioned car companies did.


I'll never get why anyone would want a Lexus or Acura or infinity over the actual mother ship, more respected, better known, and simply more time tested brand. Some with grand seiko. THANKFULLY, it still says Seiko (now if they could take all text off the dail...that's be better !) But say seiko everywhere, the grand can be done with a very nice GS somewhere on the bracelet or back case.


----------



## jets

As a person who has loved Rolex watches for a long time I can say that the best thing about wearing a GS is that people won't ask you if it is fake. Most of the time you'll just get comments about a nice watch you have on and a question about what it is. Fact is simply this; Rolex has a deep public perception of being of top quality, luxurious, durable and accurate. GS has little of that perception from the general public even though the watches are superior and hand finished in smaller numbers. Take a look at the photos I took with the SBGA231 Diver, SBGC231 Chrono GMT both in Titanium and the 126600 Seadweller. When I took the photos here I owned the 126600 and it's now gone. I own the Chrono GMT now. In person the Rolex is nice and solid looking but with zero depth. The depth and layering of the GS dial, indies and bezel can't be captured in photos easily and it really needs to been seen. The hour and minute hands seem to just float there. I couldn't believe the diver was Titanium until I picked it up and put it on. Crazy finishing that looks really sharp. I have owned several SS Rolex - they're beautiful. However, once I started to ignore the noise of marketing and wanting people to notice my wrist I realized that Rolex is just a nice watch. That said the Rolex here has a great understated sort of look in comparison while the others tend to sparkle and catch light more as they're polished flawlessly. Why would anyone want that? I bet in years to come people will start to wake up and see a great thing in GS. I'll always own a Rolex but I think I'll own more GS from now on.


----------



## whineboy

ljb187 said:


> I question if someone who thinks like this can truly (in an objective sense) enjoy any watch.


It's worked for me. Very happy with my two old-brand GSs. I am an old fart and respect the idea of stealth wealth.

whineboy

All mechanical, all the time


----------



## mui.richard

horrij1 said:


> A Grand Seiko is a watch for someone who wants an excellent watch, a Rolex is for someone who wants everyone else to know they have an excellent watch.


A Grand Seiko is a watch for someone who likes to explain to others why it is an excellent watch. Whereas a Rolex is for someone who finally got sick and tired explaining to others that it's an excellent watch.

There, fixed it for you.

brother of OoO


----------



## blowlamp

mui.richard said:


> A Grand Seiko is a watch for someone who likes to explain to others why it is an excellent watch. Whereas a Rolex is for someone who finally got sick and tired explaining to others that it's an excellent watch.
> 
> There, fixed it for you.
> 
> brother of OoO


Or you could say a GS is an exceptional watch that speaks for itself and a Rolex is an excellent watch that's marketed by its advertisers.


----------



## berni29

Hi

Personally I prefer GS, I think generally speaking they are just nicer and better designed. But I do like the latest Rolex Explorer for sure. 

Hopefully have scratched that itch by ordering the Borealis Adraga lol.

Berni




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mui.richard

blowlamp said:


> Or you could say a GS is an exceptional watch that speaks for itself and a Rolex is an excellent watch that's marketed by its advertisers.


Is this based on your own experience? Or...

Personally, I own a GS and several Rolex pieces. While the finishing on the GS is definitely better, the lack of any adjustment on the GS bracelet is a con in terms of wearing comfort...and more often than not I pick up one of the Rolex in the morning simply due to this shortcoming.

brother of OoO


----------



## av8ffej

mui.richard said:


> A Grand Seiko is a watch for someone who likes to explain to others why it is an excellent watch. Whereas a Rolex is for someone who finally got sick and tired explaining to others that it's an excellent watch.
> 
> There, fixed it for you.
> 
> brother of OoO


HA! This #nailed it!!! Well played. I have to admit though, I'm still in the brand Kool Aid of "I'll tell everyone and anyone who will stand still" about GS quality.


----------



## BrianBinFL

mui.richard said:


> Personally, I own a GS and several Rolex pieces. While the finishing on the GS is definitely better, the lack of any adjustment on the GS bracelet is a con in terms of wearing comfort...and more often than not I pick up one of the Rolex in the morning simply due to this shortcoming.


I have a SubC and have two comments in regard to the above.

First, I absolutely love the glidelock clasp. I admit I almost never fool with it now that it's set where I want it, but if you do need a little more or less slack in the bracelet it's super easy to do. I think all dive watches should have such a clasp. The only thing that could make it better would be if you could adjust it without taking the watch off (like the Astron 5X appears to allow), but that is really picking at trivialities.

My second observation is that I would be pissed if I woke up one day and the clasp on my GS SBGA375 had been replaced with the clasp that is on my SubC. The glidelock clasp is great ON A DIVER. But the thing is friggin' huge. It covers more than half the bottom of your wrist. To me that's fine on a diver but not on a refined watch like a non-diver Grand Seiko.

I may be in the minority but I think that for non-diver Grand Seikos the clasp they have is perfect. It's just the right size. It's unobtrusive, it's secure, and it looks great. With my GS I can adjust the length of the bracelet in tenths of an inch by varying the combinations of full and partial links. I don't need to be able to adjust it any finer than that.

Just thought I'd offer my two cents as someone who LOVES the glidelock but would disdain it on a refined watch like a non-diver GS.


----------



## wow445

Was trying to get a Rolex OP but then once I saw the Hi-Beat GMT from GS, decided to get that as my white dial watch. Priced very similar too. The GS is definitely a taller watch so sometimes it looks too "sporty" but I switched it to a leather strap recently, and it's been great in formal occasions. Added GMT function is a nice little plus!


----------



## mui.richard

BrianBinFL said:


> I may be in the minority but I think that for non-diver Grand Seikos the clasp they have is perfect. It's just the right size. It's unobtrusive, it's secure, and it looks great. With my GS I can adjust the length of the bracelet in tenths of an inch by varying the combinations of full and partial links. I don't need to be able to adjust it any finer than that.


Can't agree personally I'm afraid. While the GS bracelet is easily more comfortable when adjusted correctly, the lack of fine adjustment in the clasp means it's often just right in the morning and too tight in the afternoon in the hot summer here in Hong Kong.

Perhaps I'm spoiled by the Easylink.

brother of OoO


----------



## wooly88

BrianBinFL said:


> I have a SubC and have two comments in regard to the above.
> 
> First, I absolutely love the glidelock clasp. I admit I almost never fool with it now that it's set where I want it, but if you do need a little more or less slack in the bracelet it's super easy to do. I think all dive watches should have such a clasp. The only thing that could make it better would be if you could adjust it without taking the watch off (like the Astron 5X appears to allow), but that is really picking at trivialities.
> 
> My second observation is that I would be pissed if I woke up one day and the clasp on my GS SBGA375 had been replaced with the clasp that is on my SubC. The glidelock clasp is great ON A DIVER. But the thing is friggin' huge. It covers more than half the bottom of your wrist. To me that's fine on a diver but not on a refined watch like a non-diver Grand Seiko.
> 
> I may be in the minority but I think that for non-diver Grand Seikos the clasp they have is perfect. It's just the right size. It's unobtrusive, it's secure, and it looks great. With my GS I can adjust the length of the bracelet in tenths of an inch by varying the combinations of full and partial links. I don't need to be able to adjust it any finer than that.
> 
> Just thought I'd offer my two cents as someone who LOVES the glidelock but would disdain it on a refined watch like a non-diver GS.


I think this is a great observation. I've got a Rolex Sub without the easy link but have tried many that do have it. I've got two GS's with the small bracelet clasp and agree 100%. They are better (non diver) than my JLC deployant, omega etc. But I do think it's location and personal preference related. I live in Southern California along the coast. It's not hot and muggy here so my wrists don't fluctuate that much.


----------



## ctgmi

wow445 said:


> Was trying to get a Rolex OP but then once I saw the Hi-Beat GMT from GS, decided to get that as my white dial watch. Priced very similar too. The GS is definitely a taller watch so sometimes it looks too "sporty" but I switched it to a leather strap recently, and it's been great in formal occasions. Added GMT function is a nice little plus!


Ha! Just the opposite occurred here, both the SBGH201 and OP39 white were on my radar. When If finally had a chance to see the SBGH201 in person it left me cold, and found the OP a more complete package.


----------



## ctgmi

Double post ....


----------



## BarracksSi

mui.richard said:


> Can't agree personally I'm afraid. While the GS bracelet is easily more comfortable when adjusted correctly, the lack of fine adjustment in the clasp means it's often just right in the morning and too tight in the afternoon in the hot summer here in Hong Kong.
> 
> *Perhaps I'm spoiled by the Easylink.*
> 
> brother of OoO


I've only handled an Easylink in the store, and I already think it's a great enough idea that Rolexes equipped with it are at the top of my list. Even if I use it for just a seasonal adjustment, it can't be more convenient.


----------



## jets

mui.richard said:


> A Grand Seiko is a watch for someone who likes to explain to others why it is an excellent watch. Whereas a Rolex is for someone who finally got sick and tired explaining to others that it's an excellent watch.
> 
> There, fixed it for you.
> 
> brother of OoO


Wrong.


----------



## DanielSzeto

For all these years as a Rolex owner, I really want to get a Grand Seiko GMT as my next purchase. Which one should I buy? I kind of like the SBGM001 or similar. Please advise.


----------



## Jostack

DanielSzeto said:


> For all these years as a Rolex owner, I really want to get a Grand Seiko GMT as my next purchase. Which one should I buy? I kind of like the SBGM001 or similar. Please advise.











Sbgn001

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## yngrshr

BarracksSi said:


> I've only handled an Easylink in the store, and I already think it's a great enough idea that Rolexes equipped with it are at the top of my list. Even if I use it for just a seasonal adjustment, it can't be more convenient.


I used to think it was smoke and mirrors. Until I got it. And now I love it. I use it every day, practically.


----------



## wooly88

DanielSzeto said:


> For all these years as a Rolex owner, I really want to get a Grand Seiko GMT as my next purchase. Which one should I buy? I kind of like the SBGM001 or similar. Please advise.












I'm got a number of automatic watches but this GS quartz sbgn007 limited edition is getting a lot of wrist time. Hard to see in this lighting but the British Racing green is really cool.


----------



## Jale

Have you guys tried the IWC ingenuier clasp? If all GSs had that clasp... it would be close to perfection 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jostack

Jale said:


> Have you guys tried the IWC ingenuier clasp? If all GSs had that clasp... it would be close to perfection
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Are you saying the IWC clasp will fit the GS bracelets?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jale

Jostack said:


> Are you saying the IWC clasp will fit the GS bracelets?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No, but that would be delightful

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr.Jones82

BrianBinFL said:


> mui.richard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I own a GS and several Rolex pieces. While the finishing on the GS is definitely better, the lack of any adjustment on the GS bracelet is a con in terms of wearing comfort...and more often than not I pick up one of the Rolex in the morning simply due to this shortcoming.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a SubC and have two comments in regard to the above.
> 
> First, I absolutely love the glidelock clasp. I admit I almost never fool with it now that it's set where I want it, but if you do need a little more or less slack in the bracelet it's super easy to do. I think all dive watches should have such a clasp. The only thing that could make it better would be if you could adjust it without taking the watch off (like the Astron 5X appears to allow), but that is really picking at trivialities.
> 
> My second observation is that I would be pissed if I woke up one day and the clasp on my GS SBGA375 had been replaced with the clasp that is on my SubC. The glidelock clasp is great ON A DIVER. But the thing is friggin' huge. It covers more than half the bottom of your wrist. To me that's fine on a diver but not on a refined watch like a non-diver Grand Seiko.
> 
> I may be in the minority but I think that for non-diver Grand Seikos the clasp they have is perfect. It's just the right size. It's unobtrusive, it's secure, and it looks great. With my GS I can adjust the length of the bracelet in tenths of an inch by varying the combinations of full and partial links. I don't need to be able to adjust it any finer than that.
> 
> Just thought I'd offer my two cents as someone who LOVES the glidelock but would disdain it on a refined watch like a non-diver GS.
Click to expand...

^^^THIS

Although I would definitely prefer some micro adjustment options, I don't understand why anyone would want a giant, bulky glide lock on something as refined as a GS. Glidelock is great and I don't doubt that it is everything people say and then some, but that clasp is HUGE. It just wouldn't work on the majority of GS models.
Overall, I think GS bracelets are fantastic and far better than anything else I have tried on at similar prices. They are silky smooth, articulate beautifully, very comfortable, and have great fit and finish. My only complaint would be the 5 link. It feels dated to me and I'd like them to update it.


----------



## Toothbras

Mr.Jones82 said:


> ^^^THIS
> 
> Although I would definitely prefer some micro adjustment options, I don't understand why anyone would want a giant, bulky glide lock on something as refined as a GS. Glidelock is great and I don't doubt that it is everything people say and then some, but that clasp is HUGE. It just wouldn't work on the majority of GS models.
> Overall, I think GS bracelets are fantastic and far better than anything else I have tried on at similar prices. They are silky smooth, articulate beautifully, very comfortable, and have great fit and finish. My only complaint would be the 5 link. It feels dated to me and I'd like them to update it.


I have a sub with glidelock and it works fantastic, only problem is there are like 70 slots and it's 3 feet long. The same concept with less micro adjustments would be way better


----------



## manofrolex

Toothbras said:


> I have a sub with glidelock and it works fantastic, only problem is there are like 70 slots and it's 3 feet long. The same concept with less micro adjustments would be way better


It sure is the length of the golden gate


----------



## BarracksSi

Toothbras said:


> I have a sub with glidelock and it works fantastic, only problem is there are like 70 slots and it's 3 feet long. The same concept with less micro adjustments would be way better


It's intended for fitting over a neoprene dive suit.


----------



## BrianBinFL

BarracksSi said:


> It's intended for fitting over a neoprene dive suit.


Which is why it makes no sense whatsoever to put such a monstrosity on a non-diver GS.


----------



## mui.richard

I was strictly referring to the Easylink that's fitted to the Rolex sports models, which is not too be confused with the Glidelock clasp of the Sub. The Glidelock clasp is huge and not practical at all for anyone not wearing a wet suit.

Again, as much as I like the GS's workmanship and level of finishing, the lack of any fine/easy adjustment at the clasp is a huge drawback.

I actually find the 5-link bracelet a welcome change aesthetically from the run of the mill 3-link (aka Oyster) bracelets.

brother of OoO


----------



## Artking3

DanielSzeto said:


> For all these years as a Rolex owner, I really want to get a Grand Seiko GMT as my next purchase. Which one should I buy? I kind of like the SBGM001 or similar. Please advise.


I like the Hi-beat GMT series myself. If you can get the Japan boutique only model SBGJ235, that would be fantastic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

mui.richard said:


> I was strictly referring to the Easylink that's fitted to the Rolex sports models, which is not too be confused with the Glidelock clasp of the Sub. The Glidelock clasp is huge and not practical at all for anyone not wearing a wet suit.
> 
> Again, as much as I like the GS's workmanship and level of finishing, the lack of any fine/easy adjustment at the clasp is a huge drawback.
> 
> I actually find the 5-link bracelet a welcome change aesthetically from the run of the mill 3-link (aka Oyster) bracelets.
> 
> brother of OoO


The most widely-sold Easylink these days is on the Datejust 41, new DJ 36, and (in fewer numbers) the Explorer.


----------



## HiggsBoson

Jostack said:


> Sbgn001
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yup, me too! :-!


----------



## Toothbras

BarracksSi said:


> It's intended for fitting over a neoprene dive suit.


No, it's intended for fitting over my 6.7" wrist


----------



## manofrolex

Glidlock top 
Easy link bottom

GS w a IWC style clasp would be essentially perfect


----------



## stxmahn

Just bought a GS to join my Explorer - my thoughts on GS, not trying to start a flame war:

Springdrive and Quartz are great technology, really want to own one of each.

Rolex beats GS mechanical movements, my Rolex over two years varies, but typically is within a second / day either way. Some months it's .5 sec /day off. GS needs to up its mechanical precision to be best in that market. I don't own one to say, but GS doesn't seem to reach for +-2 sec a day accuracy.

The bracelets really need something like Easylink, it's a great feature. Curiously, it looks like Seiko is this with a 5mm easy adjustment. This missing feature is a GS shortcoming that needs to be improved.

GS / Seiko marketing is a mess - why is Seiko releasing $5k usd springdrive, zaratsu polish, Arita porcelain? They need to get Seiko to the Tudor or less market, save some features for the GS line, and put the very exclusive in Credor. The Seiko 2019 online catalog is interesting.

Marketing by model numbers is a mess - figure out some lines like Snowflake and vary within them. It's very hard to get images of what they offer. 

That said, GS is great, I really like the Japanese ethos it embellishes. I think Japan's cultural history can be a real selling point - precision, polish, workmanship.... no need to go at the Swiss, GS can set it's own pinnacle. I'm tired of Rolex lookalikes, there's room for new.

I appreciate their traditions of design, but times change. It would be nice to give the designers some room to see what today's artists can imagine.

Now's a great time for GS to grow, Rolex buyers are leaving the stores empty handed as Rolex either can't or doesn't want to change to today's desire for casual / steel watches. Stores are full of diamond studded gold watches that few want. 

Regards, glad I joined the GS club.


----------



## BrianBinFL

stxmahn said:


> Rolex beats GS mechanical movements, my Rolex over two years varies, but typically is within a second / day either way. Some months it's .5 sec /day off. GS needs to up its mechanical precision to be best in that market. I don't own one to say, but GS doesn't seem to reach for +-2 sec a day accuracy.


I think one area where most would have to admit that Rolex excels is in the accuracy of their movements. As I understand it they are guaranteeing +/- 2 spd for all of their movements now. Grand Seiko cannot yet do that. After the Swiss patent on silicon hairsprings expires in 2021 I wonder if that will change?



stxmahn said:


> The bracelets really need something like Easylink, it's a great feature. [...] This missing feature is a GS shortcoming that needs to be improved.


I see a lot of people complain about this, but I suspect that the majority are fine with the current state of affairs as I am. I would abhor a large EasyLink clasp on my GS. Perhaps it should be an option. They certainly could make an EasyLink type clasp that could be installed in place of the original at an additional cost. The GS AD's would probably love to be able to offer that as a service.



stxmahn said:


> That said, GS is great, I really like the Japanese ethos it embellishes. I think Japan's cultural history can be a real selling point - precision, polish, workmanship.... no need to go at the Swiss, GS can set it's own pinnacle. I'm tired of Rolex lookalikes, there's room for new.
> 
> I appreciate their traditions of design, but times change. It would be nice to give the designers some room to see what today's artists can imagine.
> 
> Now's a great time for GS to grow, Rolex buyers are leaving the stores empty handed as Rolex either can't or doesn't want to change to today's desire for casual / steel watches. Stores are full of diamond studded gold watches that few want.
> 
> Regards, glad I joined the GS club.


Welcome aboard!


----------



## expLr-2

My next watch would be IWC but after that GS with crown guard and power reserve gauge would be next (if Seiko makes such a watch.)


----------



## Mr.Jones82

BrianBinFL said:


> I see a lot of people complain about this, but I suspect that the majority are fine with the current state of affairs as I am. I would abhor a large EasyLink clasp on my GS. Perhaps it should be an option. They certainly could make an EasyLink type clasp that could be installed in place of the original at an additional cost. The GS AD's would probably love to be able to offer that as a service.


I remember talking about this earlier in the thread. Of course GL is out of the question, but EL is also too big and bulky for something as refined and sleek as a GS. I have no issues with the current clasp and appreciate how small and unobtrusive it is, but who wouldn't want something like EL if they could design it in a manner congruent with GS styling and not huge and bulky? An earlier poster mentioned something along the lines of an IWC clasp which I couldn't agree with more.


----------



## ahonobaka

I'm of the opinion that all watches should have some sort of adjustable extension and was dreading the bracelet on my 9F GMT, being used to many divers with such systems. That said, I've had zero issues with swelling or sizing despite the lack of on the go adjustment, and may count myself among the lucky for finding that right fit. The half links certainly help


----------



## Straight Banana

sportura said:


> What 2 Rolexes do you own? What is a Spring Drive? Can you post some photos?


Hehehe, lazy question is lazy. Totally not made in bad faith.


----------



## manofrolex

For show and tell


----------



## argv

GS bracelet is always an embarrassment, doesn't even come anywhere close to Tudor.


----------



## Mr.Jones82

BOR begs to differ


----------



## BrianBinFL

argv said:


> GS bracelet is always an embarrassment, doesn't even come anywhere close to Tudor.


I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you're talking about the clasp below the GS clasp is 1000 times more attractive on a fine watch. The Tudor clasp would be fine on a GS diver, or on a tool watch, but in my opinion would be obscene on a finely finished, elegant timepiece.


----------



## manofrolex

argv said:


> GS bracelet is always an embarrassment, doesn't even come anywhere close to Tudor.


How ?


----------



## manofrolex

Back to the bracelet bashing....never gets old ....
Now to say that GS bracelet can be viewed as dated from a design perspective is a valid argument since 5 links isn't a particularly modern style but they do have a place depending on the watch . On some of the more sporty models I wish the bracelet was not 5 link. 
Having said that when I hear the regular stampede and herd mentality that GS bracelets are an outrage , an embarrassment a disgrace I say show me ?
Because unless you say why it isn't worth a damn ...

So show me where you see crap because I am really curious to know ..asking for a friend 


















One more thing please describe why this is considered better than above ?










The finish nope that isn't it
The size of the clasp nope that isn't it
The name on the clasp ? Maybe a little 
The adjustment on the fly aka the nirvana of bracelets? I suppose it has to be that which makes it exponentially better 
The comfort ? Nope can't be that 
The various brushes polished ...no not that either
Must be the play between links right ? Nah not that 
I know I know the fit of the end links and the infamous massive GS gap? No not that either

So what is it ?


----------



## BrianBinFL

jmanlay said:


> Back to the bracelet bashing....never gets old ....
> Now to say that GS bracelet can be viewed as dated from a design perspective is a valid argument since 5 links isn't a particularly modern style but they do have a place depending on the watch . On some of the more sporty models I wish the bracelet was not 5 link.
> Having said that when I hear the regular stampede and herd mentality that GS bracelets are an outrage , an embarrassment a disgrace I say show me ?
> Because unless you say why it isn't worth a damn ...
> 
> So show me where you see crap because I am really curious to know ..asking for a friend


Personally I prefer the GS 5-link over the 3-link. I like a little polish in the bracelet but not too much or it gets shabby looking after it has some "experience" on it.

And I think the GS clasp is great. I think the tool-watch lovers forget that not every watch is a tool watch and big clunky clasps and clasps with holes in the side for micro-adjust are out of place on a fine watch.


----------



## manofrolex

BrianBinFL said:


> Personally I prefer the GS 5-link over the 3-link. I like a little polish in the bracelet but not too much or it gets shabby looking after it has some "experience" on it.
> 
> And I think the GS clasp is great. I think the tool-watch lovers forget that not every watch is a tool watch and big clunky clasps and clasps with holes in the side for micro-adjust are out of place on a fine watch.


Don't understand why anyone would want the golden gate under their wrist at all times


----------



## BrianBinFL

jmanlay said:


> Don't understand why anyone would want the golden gate under their wrist at all times


Agreed. And I have a SubC and have admitted I love the glidelock clasp, on something like a SubC. But the Sub isn't in the same league with my GS SBGA375 in terms of finish and beauty, and its clasp doesn't belong on a GS any more than its crummy hands do.


----------



## Mr.Jones82

Yeah, "discussion" about the bracelets tends to lean towards the hyperbolic. An embarrassment? Come on, I would have to wonder if that individual has even worn a GS.
I actual prefer their 3 link bracelet over the 5 for several reasons, but my reasons have to do with aesthetics and personal preferences, not quality.

I don't like overly polished bracelets in general because of scratches, and the 5 link I own is paired with a 44gs case making it excessively blingy, too. 
Also, I find with the 5 link there are just more available crevices/shiny surfaces making it hard to clean, a magnet for wrist cheese, and a good place for hard to clean grime to sneak into.


----------



## mattmartin

I wore a 16600, that I bought brand new in 2009, for 5 years straight. Although it had the older clasp and hollow center links, I think that was the most comfortable bracelet I ever wore, until I tried a GS divers bracelet. Rolex certainly knows how to make a good wearable watch. They understand balance, geometry of a good fitting bracelet; i.e., whether the length and location of pivot and first link relative to the watch case/lugs should be tucked down low on the wrist or extending out of flush with caseback. Rolex also has a good grasp of bracelet taper and how that impacts comfort. These were style details that I felt like some brands ignored or didnt consider. I think GS has been considering the same elements for a long time, also. This makes for a fair comparison between seiko and rolex. 

However, I think the finishing on GS bracelets is slightly better and you see it in the hand finishing between the links on the rounded sides. You also feel it in the way the links pivot in a more satin feeling way. I also think that the GS links with pins look a little better. I know that everybody loves the screws on Rolex but they sort of add an unneeded industrial look, but I dont think they add much in terms of durability. After years of daily wear, my 16600 showed that the screws had noticeable grooves worn in the the screw body lengthwise. Just google search it and you’ll see that Rolexes screws will slowly become worn down by the swiveling motion of the links and this leads to stretch. Im fact these screws are frequently replaced during bracelet servicing and after a while Rolex has to separate the solid links and install new pins (the side of the link that is solid actually uses a friction pin that is pressed in. And, the end links are attached to the first bracelet link with a tiny concealed springbar...which I always felt like it was be the weakest link). I dont quite know why but Seiko pins dont see to have this issue. And the tiny orifice for the pin looks a little better to me. 

I dont like the newer rolex clasps because they feel heavier but less sturdy to me. They look like they are cast or injection molded before being polished and finished and this didnt appeal to me. They also have some joints that appear soldered or laser welded (google search it) which dont appeal to me, so i actually prefer GS one button or the divers clasp.


----------



## zetaplus93

jmanlay said:


> Don't understand why anyone would want the golden gate under their wrist at all times


While Glidelock is too long (wish they'd make shorter versions of it), it's tremendously useful in warmer climates. I regularly change between 2-3 holes going from A/C to hot & humid outdoors in the summers. The EasyLink extension also works well.

Back when I owned a SBGR053, that was the biggest gripe I had-not having micro-adjustments of some sort to deal with the change in temperatures. The solution I found was to switched to leather straps in the summers. I'm surprised it's not higher in GS's priorities given how hot and humid Japanese summers are.

The gap between the end links and 1st link was a bit annoying but not a showstopper. Really, it's just the lack of micro-adjustments that should be addressed.


----------



## stxmahn

The large Rolex clasp keeps my watch from rotating around my wrist - my wrist swells on hot days so the bracelet is often loose. The 5mm adjustment helps but it's not something I often change back and forth during the day. I like the stability the clasp provides to centering the watch.


----------



## BrianBinFL

stxmahn said:


> The large Rolex clasp keeps my watch from rotating around my wrist - my wrist swells on hot days so the bracelet is often loose. The 5mm adjustment helps but it's not something I often change back and forth during the day. I like the stability the clasp provides to centering the watch.


I don't think there is any argument that the glidelock clasp is very _functional_. The convenient length adjustment is great. The fact that it is roughly 3 feet wide and takes up the entire bottom of your wrist has advantages such as the indexing function you mentioned. All perfect for a _tool watch_. But not necessarily what I want on an actual _luxury_ finished timepiece.

To get an idea of what GS should be aiming for I think we should look at other _actual_ luxury watches. The Holy Trinity seems like as good a reference as any: Audemars Piguet, Patek Philippe, and Vacheron Constantin. Granted, most of their watches are on straps, not bracelets, but they do make bracelets. And do you know what their bracelets don't have? Big hideous clasps the width of your wrist.























In my opinion these are the watches that Grand Seiko should be emulating, not dive watches. I think the GS clasp is very elegant and of the correct style for the type of watch it is.


----------



## mui.richard

BrianBinFL said:


> In my opinion these are the watches that Grand Seiko should be emulating, not dive watches. I think the GS clasp is very elegant and of the correct style for the type of watch it is.


I do agree. That said, if there were any way GS could design a clasp that's esthetically pleasing and allow some slight adjustment without resorting to adding/removing links that'd be perfect.

Sadly that's not the case and my SBGR051 often slide around my waist whenever I'm in A/C.

brother of OoO


----------



## blowlamp

mui.richard said:


> I do agree. That said, if there were any way GS could design a clasp that's esthetically pleasing and allow some slight adjustment without resorting to adding/removing links that'd be perfect.
> 
> Sadly that's not the case and my SBGR051 often slide around my *waist *whenever I'm in A/C.
> 
> brother of OoO


You wearing that watch on a cummerbund?


----------



## mui.richard

blowlamp said:


> You wearing that watch on a cummerbund?


Oops sorry about the typo, but you know I meant wrist.

brother of OoO


----------



## zetaplus93

It’s funny how GS and Rolex are similar in this regard, being slow at addressing the bracelet/clasp.

For the longest time, people complained about 5-digit Rolex bracelets and clasps that didn’t compare with those from other brands at the time. It wasn’t until the current generation that the bracelets and clasps were updated to modern standards. 

I do hope GS will address the issue, providing an elegant bracelet/clasp with length adjustability, in the near future.


----------



## DeCrow

sportura said:


> I am not ashamed to admit I am one of those Rolex owners that doesn't mind the attention of others and I think it's something I'd miss if I bought another brand, no matter how high the quality.
> 
> [\QUOTE]
> 
> Funny how people can be different
> I genuinely dislike getting attention because of a watch. I had an OP once, and I sold it shortly after my daughter noticed it and said 'oooooooooh wooooooooow a ROLEX !!!!'
> I prefer more discrete luxury
> Like Grand Seiko's
> 
> Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk


----------



## Mark355

jmanlay said:


> Don't understand why anyone would want the golden gate under their wrist at all times


Lol, never heard the glidelock referred to like that. I agree Rolex clasps can be unwieldy. I swapped the tuna can diving clasp on my 14060M with the more svelte 78790 clasp from the GMT and E2. Still has plenty of micro-adjustment and I don't need the diving extension. Never going back.


----------



## cowboy

Had a beautiful two tone submariner.

Sold it.

Clashed with my Honda.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## evvignes

Similar in size, color, bracelet and dare I say finishing. 
I love both and will probably keep both, but if I had to choose, it would be the Rolex.


----------



## evvignes

Yet another double post. 
It’s getting old.


----------



## phsiao08

In my mind, Rolex has a pretty solid lineup that is met by many Grand Seiiko "Equivalents": 

Datejust 36mm vs the SBGR253 or SBGW253
Datejust 41mm / OP39mm vs SBGA211 "Snowflake" SBGR307 vs SBGR261 

Submariner vs SBGA231 
SeaDweller vs SBGH255 

GMT Master II series vs Peakcock SBGJ277 vs SBGM235 

Cellini vs SBGY003 

In general, I think Rolex does its sport watches really well especially when it comes to wearability and case design versus grand seiko. Take the GMT master series for example. It definitely not subtle on teh wrist but it feels much easier to wear thanks to its case thickness and design compared to something like the Peacock in my opinion though the Peacock definitely has a more stunning dial and is batting above its weight class in my opinion. 

I think Grand Seiko has is getting it right with its dressier options like the Elegance new elegance line - iconoic movements in a sleeker package. I also think that vintage grand seikos are have so much more value compared to vintage Rolexes. 

I do wish that Grand Seiko added on some complications like a "moonphase", take down its average case sizes once again so that the 36-38mm range is standard for the dressier options and streamlined some of their products.


----------



## phsiao08

In my mind, Rolex has a pretty solid lineup that is met by many Grand Seiiko "Equivalents": 

Datejust 36mm vs the SBGR253 or SBGW253
Datejust 41mm / OP39mm vs SBGA211 "Snowflake" SBGR307 vs SBGR261 

Submariner vs SBGA231 
SeaDweller vs SBGH255 

GMT Master II series vs Peakcock SBGJ277 vs SBGM235 

Cellini vs SBGY003 

In general, I think Rolex does its sport watches really well especially when it comes to wearability and case design versus grand seiko. Take the GMT master series for example. It definitely not subtle on teh wrist but it feels much easier to wear thanks to its case thickness and design compared to something like the Peacock in my opinion though the Peacock definitely has a more stunning dial and is batting above its weight class in my opinion. 

I think Grand Seiko has is getting it right with its dressier options like the Elegance new elegance line - iconoic movements in a sleeker package. I also think that vintage grand seikos are have so much more value compared to vintage Rolexes. 

I do wish that Grand Seiko added on some complications like a "moonphase", take down its average case sizes once again so that the 36-38mm range is standard for the dressier options and streamlined some of their products.


----------



## Mr.Jones82

phsiao08 said:


> In my mind, Rolex has a pretty solid lineup that is met by many Grand Seiiko "Equivalents":
> 
> Datejust 36mm vs the SBGR253 or SBGW253
> Datejust 41mm / OP39mm vs SBGA211 "Snowflake" SBGR307 vs SBGR261
> 
> Submariner vs SBGA231
> SeaDweller vs SBGH255
> 
> GMT Master II series vs Peakcock SBGJ277 vs SBGM235
> 
> Cellini vs SBGY003
> 
> In general, I think Rolex does its sport watches really well especially when it comes to wearability and case design versus grand seiko. Take the GMT master series for example. It definitely not subtle on teh wrist but it feels much easier to wear thanks to its case thickness and design compared to something like the Peacock in my opinion though the Peacock definitely has a more stunning dial and is batting above its weight class in my opinion.
> 
> I think Grand Seiko has is getting it right with its dressier options like the Elegance new elegance line - iconoic movements in a sleeker package. I also think that vintage grand seikos are have so much more value compared to vintage Rolexes.
> 
> I do wish that Grand Seiko added on some complications like a "moonphase", take down its average case sizes once again so that the 36-38mm range is standard for the dressier options and streamlined some of their products.


I feel like you are using "equivalent" rather loosely. To be more specific, GS does not have an equivalent or answer to the sub, a weakness that desperately needs addressed in my opinion.


----------



## mleok

Mr.Jones82 said:


> I feel like you are using "equivalent" rather loosely. To be more specific, GS does not have an equivalent or answer to the sub, a weakness that desperately needs addressed in my opinion.


I honestly wonder what Grand Seiko is thinking with their ridiculously oversized sports watches, are they intended for the Japanese market, or are they designed based on what they think will appeal to the Western market?


----------



## phsiao08

Yup, you're right this is an entirely subjective point of view from a fan of both brands. I think Grand Seiko is trying to answer the sub with things like the SBGM and SBGJ series mixing but it's far too dressy IMO.


----------



## mleok

phsiao08 said:


> Yup, you're right this is an entirely subjective point of view from a fan of both brands. I think Grand Seiko is trying to answer the sub with things like the SBGM and SBGJ series mixing but it's far too dressy IMO.


Umm... neither the SBGMs nor SBGJs are dive watches, dressy or otherwise.


----------



## Mr.Jones82

mleok said:


> Mr.Jones82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like you are using "equivalent" rather loosely. To be more specific, GS does not have an equivalent or answer to the sub, a weakness that desperately needs addressed in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly wonder what Grand Seiko is thinking with their ridiculously oversized sports watches, are they intended for the Japanese market, or are they designed based on what they think will appeal to the Western market?
Click to expand...

I've always wondered the same thing.

The closest they have come to making a diver that is reasonably proportioned is with their HAQ 9f models. 
The sbgx115/117 were nicely proportioned in my opinion, but then they used a funky font on the bezel that didn't appeal to many people (I personally love the sbgx115 and regret not getting one).
Then with the next 9f models they remedied the font...but then made it slightly bigger and gave it a bunch of weird color accents that would look more appropriate on a Seiko affordable diver, while also adding some clutter with Arabic numerals above the indices.

It would be a huge leap forward if they could add a reasonably sized diver to their lineup.


----------



## phsiao08

seconded.


----------



## ahonobaka

Yes I think we're all waiting for that smaller GS diver. Been a couple years now since they last said one was in the works so in my mind if we don't have one next year, I'm giving up all hope lol


----------



## ImprezaMan

After wearing my SBGR053 for 2 days... I would say it is very comparable to my Omega Speedy pro on the bracelet. The Clasp I would say they look different. As with quality I don't see they should be compared as GS and Rolex are using different design... Yes most GS looks very similar to Day Just or Explorer 1.. But that's end there........

And if you know the reason behind how Japanese likes the High end goods at a very conservative design... Take a look at their High end Toyota President (automobile) and how they dress when they goes to formal meetings and weddings....... you will understand they tends to dress very conservative for most of the serious occasions. Which I guess why Grand Seiko design their watch that way.

Rolex on the other hand is a iconic Swiss Tool watch... they used to be functional + match up with the elements with that field. GMT master with 2 tone bezel, sub with big indices, Chrono with daytonas and so on.....(like swiss knife)... They only comes to be Dress/Sport/luxury wear at the last 15-20 yrs....

I love both and I am glad I have a piece of each.......


----------



## phsiao08

it feels as big as a omega speedy?


----------



## kepa

mleok said:


> I honestly wonder what Grand Seiko is thinking with their ridiculously oversized sports watches, are they intended for the Japanese market, or are they designed based on what they think will appeal to the Western market?


I believe they've said as much in interviews that their main focus is on the US market, and big watches are still a thing for the general population. The US market makes sense as there is room for them to grow as opposed to China or Europe as a whole.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mzeidman

I'm surprised they are still taking the oversized approach. I thought we were trending back to normal human sizes...


----------



## limnoman

Whenever I visit the US I see many supersized people. Maybe this is what they also see in their demographics. Just conjecture.


----------



## lynntonyd

I love the look, feel and quality of the GS offerings. I somehow don't love the case or bracelet design. I'm more a fan of the beautiful dials and technologically advanced movements.

Its a bummer that the word Seiko is so often dragging down these discussions. I had no idea what they were until I saw them and got some education.

IMO they made a mistake by not creating a new brand. Toyota did it best by spinning off Lexus and making their own luxury brand but known for Toyota quality.


----------



## mattmartin

Mr.Jones82 said:


> I feel like you are using "equivalent" rather loosely. To be more specific, GS does not have an equivalent or answer to the sub, a weakness that desperately needs addressed in my opinion.


I think my sbgx335 is a pretty good equivalent to me 16600. Not quite the same WR rating, but quite comparable in size and dial size. The quality is comparable but GS has Rolex beat on the dial. I kept the 16600 for many years; Ive had the sbgx335 for a few months and hopefully i'll keep for years.


----------



## HiggsBoson

rjohnson56 said:


> Whenever I visit the US I see many supersized people. Maybe this is what they also see in their demographics. Just conjecture.


LMAO! :-d


----------



## phsiao08

I do like their alligator straps. Some of the best in the business IMO.


----------



## sticky

At the risk of getting chased out of town by a mob wielding blazing torches and pitchforks I’d say that the Rolex is a little bit (only a little bit mind) more comfortable in the bracelet area than the GS.


----------



## omeglycine

rjohnson56 said:


> Whenever I visit the US I see many supersized people. Maybe this is what they also see in their demographics. Just conjecture.


I think there was a South Park episode along those lines


----------



## mleok

kepa said:


> I believe they've said as much in interviews that their main focus is on the US market, and big watches are still a thing for the general population. The US market makes sense as there is room for them to grow as opposed to China or Europe as a whole.


I guess that explains the Invicta school of design approach...


----------



## mleok

sticky said:


> At the risk of getting chased out of town by a mob wielding blazing torches and pitchforks I'd say that the Rolex is a little bit (only a little bit mind) more comfortable in the bracelet area than the GS.


There's nothing Grand about Grand Seiko bracelets, except in a Supersize Me sense.


----------



## manofrolex

BrianBinFL said:


> I don't think there is any argument that the glidelock clasp is very _functional_. The convenient length adjustment is great. The fact that it is roughly 3 feet wide and takes up the entire bottom of your wrist has advantages such as the indexing function you mentioned. All perfect for a _tool watch_. But not necessarily what I want on an actual _luxury_ finished timepiece.
> 
> To get an idea of what GS should be aiming for I think we should look at other _actual_ luxury watches. The Holy Trinity seems like as good a reference as any: Audemars Piguet, Patek Philippe, and Vacheron Constantin. Granted, most of their watches are on straps, not bracelets, but they do make bracelets. And do you know what their bracelets don't have? Big hideous clasps the width of your wrist.
> 
> View attachment 14434387
> 
> View attachment 14434385
> 
> View attachment 14434383
> 
> 
> In my opinion these are the watches that Grand Seiko should be emulating, not dive watches. I think the GS clasp is very elegant and of the correct style for the type of watch it is.


You forgot to add none of them (unless I am mistaken ) have the on the fly adjustment GS gets so criticized for lacking but somehow the Swiss get a pass...


----------



## BrianBinFL

jmanlay said:


> You forgot to add none of them (unless I am mistaken ) have the on the fly adjustment GS gets so criticized for lacking but somehow the Swiss get a pass...


That too.


----------



## phsiao08

hahaha


----------



## Magic-Matt

I've owned several of both, while GS is up there in terms of build quality and finish, their feel factor is somehow quite different. I could only really say one or the other based on a specific model comparison.


----------



## mleok

jmanlay said:


> You forgot to add none of them (unless I am mistaken ) have the on the fly adjustment GS gets so criticized for lacking but somehow the Swiss get a pass...


Yes, you are mistaken. The third generation Vacheron Constantin Overseas has both a quick release bracelet that allows you to quickly replace it with a strap without tools, as well as a clasp that can give a few mm of extra slack, again without any tools. But you would never know that just from looking at it on the wrist, as it is so well integrated into the design of the bracelet and clasp.


----------



## Mr.Jones82

mleok said:


> sticky said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the risk of getting chased out of town by a mob wielding blazing torches and pitchforks I'd say that the Rolex is a little bit (only a little bit mind) more comfortable in the bracelet area than the GS.
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing Grand about Grand Seiko bracelets, except in a Supersize Me sense.
Click to expand...

Have you tried the BOR bracelet? If so, what didn't you like about it?


----------



## mleok

Mr.Jones82 said:


> Have you tried the BOR bracelet? If so, what didn't you like about it?


I don't like the aesthetics of BOR bracelets in general. I've tried the ones on JLC Reversos, but not on a GS.


----------



## manofrolex

mleok said:


> Yes, you are mistaken. The third generation Vacheron Constantin Overseas has both a quick release bracelet that allows you to quickly replace it with a strap without tools, as well as a clasp that can give a few mm of extra slack, again without any tools. But you would never know that just from looking at it on the wrist, as it is so well integrated into the design of the bracelet and clasp.


So the lowest of the three brands (aura wise ) has a quick extension thing and it was recently introduced so yeah 2/3 still don't have it . I still don't get your beef w Gs bracelets ....but whatever


----------



## mleok

jmanlay said:


> So the lowest of the three brands (aura wise ) has a quick extension thing and it was recently introduced so yeah 2/3 still don't have it . I still don't get your beef w Gs bracelets ....but whatever


Even the second generation VC Overseas has a precision of fit in their bracelet links that is truly mind blowing, no lateral play, but perfectly smooth articulation. Maybe just have the maturity to admit that you were mistaken, instead of continuing to make excuses for GS? Anyone with any objectivity will admit that the GS bracelets and thick cases are the most disappointing aspects of their otherwise excellent products.

Also, I find it a bit hypocritical for a GS fan to disparage a brand because of a perceived lack of prestige, even when the watch itself has objective merits.


----------



## manofrolex

mleok said:


> Even the second generation VC Overseas has a precision of fit in their bracelet links that is truly mind blowing, no lateral play, but perfectly smooth articulation. Maybe just have the maturity to admit that you were mistaken, instead of continuing to make excuses for GS? Anyone with any objectivity will admit that the GS bracelets and thick cases are the most disappointing aspects of their otherwise excellent products.
> 
> Also, I find it a bit hypocritical for a GS fan to disparage a brand because of a perceived lack of prestige, even when the watch itself has objective merits.


 Edit no idea why I even bother with you so forget it


----------



## DustinS

mleok said:


> There's nothing Grand about Grand Seiko bracelets, except in a Supersize Me sense.


The brushed finish and polish are pretty exceptional imo. There's plenty to dislike...but in terms of finish they're pretty darn grand.


----------



## blowlamp

Don't some Rolex and Patek have plasticky-rubber straps that have to be cut to size and don't adjust on-the-fly?
The Swiss watch apologists need to justify why they hold the least expensive brand (GS), to a higher standard than the rest.


----------



## Mr.Jones82

mleok said:


> Mr.Jones82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you tried the BOR bracelet? If so, what didn't you like about it?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like the aesthetics of BOR bracelets in general. I've tried the ones on JLC Reversos, but not on a GS.
Click to expand...

Personally, of all the GS bracelets, I think the BOR is superb and stands up to any competition within the $2,000-$4,000 range. 
I actually like reading your posts generally and I am not going to pretend I have tried on as many bracelets as you have or owned anything close to what you own, but I cannot help but think you are being a bit harsh. GS's core line up is in the $5,000 and below range and for that kind of money I guess I would ask who do you think is offering better bracelets and why? And when I say better, you seem to be suggesting substantially better, so I guess I am more curious about that part. Again, not arguing, just curious on your take and some specifics.


----------



## Cru Jones

All this talk about the bracelet and clasp.... I’ve owned my new GS for a couple of weeks and have found that I LOVE the simple, thin and elegant clasp, and I appreciate the intricate polishing of the bracelet. I think both really suit the SBGE249 perfectly, and I don’t think a Glidelock is necessary or desirable. I guess I’m lucky it fits me really well. That being said, the Glidelock is really great for my 116610LV - the technical capability is well-suited for a 300m diver.


----------



## sticky

Mr.Jones82 said:


> Have you tried the BOR bracelet? If so, what didn't you like about it?


Perhaps I was a little hasty in judging the GS bracelet so harshly. I've worn it a lot recently (honeymoon period and all that) and it's proved th be very comfortable. Happen I was unfairly expecting instant comfort.


----------



## Mr.Jones82

sticky said:


> Perhaps I was a little hasty in judging the GS bracelet so harshly. I've worn it a lot recently (honeymoon period and all that) and it's proved th be very comfortable. Happen I was unfairly expecting instant comfort.


I didn't know you had a GS Sticky. Have you always had one? If not, congrats!!!!


----------



## manofrolex

Mr.Jones82 said:


> Personally, of all the GS bracelets, I think the BOR is superb and stands up to any competition within the $2,000-$4,000 range.
> I actually like reading your posts generally and I am not going to pretend I have tried on as many bracelets as you have or owned anything close to what you own, but I cannot help but think you are being a bit harsh. GS's core line up is in the $5,000 and below range and for that kind of money I guess I would ask who do you think is offering better bracelets and why? And when I say better, you seem to be suggesting substantially better, so I guess I am more curious about that part. Again, not arguing, just curious on your take and some specifics.


^this 
Objectively, someone please show me how are GS bracelets worse at the price point or even at higher price points than their Swiss counterparts.....
I posted some pics up on this thread and no one came back w actual facts just sheep GS = bad behavior .....


----------



## Tonhao

I would say GS bracelets only feel “okay” compared to the mindblowing dial, hands, and indices of the watch head. They’re not bad at all. You have to consider that Rolex has been perfecting their bracelet for generations whereas GS was primarily a dress watch on straps. 

Personally I still think that GS most excels in the dress/business watch format, but nearly everybody jumped ship to the sports watch category years ago, so now they have to stick with what sells.


----------



## baraj1466

That Grand Seiko is an amazing looking watch. Similar bezel to Daytona. Should compare it to the Daytona over the Submariner. Submariner is classic though.


----------



## blowlamp

Tonhao said:


> I would say GS bracelets only feel "okay" compared to the mindblowing dial, hands, and indices of the watch head. They're not bad at all. *You have to consider that Rolex has been perfecting their bracelet for generations* whereas GS was primarily a dress watch on straps.
> 
> Personally I still think that GS most excels in the dress/business watch format, but nearly everybody jumped ship to the sports watch category years ago, so now they have to stick with what sells.


Rolex oyster bracelet links are very simply designed compared to the Grand Seiko equivalent - I don't see what all the fuss is about them, _or _why they're seen as the ultimate reference.


----------



## BrianBinFL

blowlamp said:


> Rolex oyster bracelet links are very simply designed compared to the Grand Seiko equivalent - I don't see what all the fuss is about them, _or _why they're seen as the ultimate reference.


I have one, and it's comfy, but it's just a plain ass brushed 3-link. Nothing special to look at.


----------



## blowlamp

BrianBinFL said:


> I have one, and it's comfy, but it's just a plain ass brushed 3-link. Nothing special to look at.


Yep, I have one as well, on the latest Explorer. It's nice and well made, but to my eyes, it just doesn't stand out as superior to the GS offering.
Possibly the Easy Link feature is useful for some people, although I have never had occasion to use it - I'll accept that as a plus point. However, the bulk of the Rolex clasp is a feature I'm not keen on.


----------



## mleok

Tonhao said:


> I would say GS bracelets only feel "okay" compared to the mindblowing dial, hands, and indices of the watch head. They're not bad at all. You have to consider that Rolex has been perfecting their bracelet for generations whereas GS was primarily a dress watch on straps.
> 
> Personally I still think that GS most excels in the dress/business watch format, but nearly everybody jumped ship to the sports watch category years ago, so now they have to stick with what sells.


Actually, I would be happy if GS designed proper dress watches suitable for wear on a leather strap, but their watches tend to be too thick for that purpose and their lugs seem designed for wear on a bracelet and only on a strap as an afterthought. I tried the SBGW231 a few months back, and the case proportions are totally off, and it is surprisingly thick for being a manual wind watch without date.

Simply put, their dressier watches need to be thinner, and their sportier watches need to have better bracelets.


----------



## mleok

Mr.Jones82 said:


> Personally, of all the GS bracelets, I think the BOR is superb and stands up to any competition within the $2,000-$4,000 range.
> I actually like reading your posts generally and I am not going to pretend I have tried on as many bracelets as you have or owned anything close to what you own, but I cannot help but think you are being a bit harsh. GS's core line up is in the $5,000 and below range and for that kind of money I guess I would ask who do you think is offering better bracelets and why? And when I say better, you seem to be suggesting substantially better, so I guess I am more curious about that part. Again, not arguing, just curious on your take and some specifics.


I think you make a fair point, the bracelets aren't bad, but they are simply average at the price point you mention in terms of the tightness of their tolerances. While BOR bracelets are very flexible, I have not seen any such bracelet that only exhibits minimal lateral play.

If it is not clear, when I use the term fit, I am referring to how precisely manufactured the articulating components are, which results in links that rotate smoothly about the primary rotation axis and very little in any other axis. It is about not how comfortable it is on the wrist, or how well finished it is.

My criticism is primarily about the tightness of the manufacturing tolerances, and Rolex, Tudor, and IWC bracelets seem to be the best examples of this without approaching Trinity level watches. Again, it's not that GS bracelets are bad for the price, it's just that they aren't great.


----------



## mleok

DustinS said:


> The brushed finish and polish are pretty exceptional imo. There's plenty to dislike...but in terms of finish they're pretty darn grand.


Fair enough, their finish is excellent and probably leads the pack at their entry level price.


----------



## mleok

Cru Jones said:


> All this talk about the bracelet and clasp.... I've owned my new GS for a couple of weeks and have found that I LOVE the simple, thin and elegant clasp, and I appreciate the intricate polishing of the bracelet. I think both really suit the SBGE249 perfectly, and I don't think a Glidelock is necessary or desirable. I guess I'm lucky it fits me really well. That being said, the Glidelock is really great for my 116610LV - the technical capability is well-suited for a 300m diver.


In fairness, I don't think a Glidelock like clasp is appropriate for anything but a dive watch, but something which gives slight microadjustability, like an Easylink, can be introduced without making a clasp unworldly.


----------



## manofrolex

mleok said:


> .»
> 
> If it is not clear, when I use the term fit, I am referring to how precisely manufactured the articulating components are, which results in links that rotate smoothly about the primary rotation axis and very little in any other axis. It is about not how comfortable it is on the wrist, or how well finished it is.
> 
> My criticism is primarily about the tightness of the manufacturing tolerances, and Rolex, Tudor, and IWC bracelets seem to be the best examples of this ......


You got facts about this or just pulling it out of a hat ?
Tolerances .....got some numbers to back this up?

Ok so one is a 5 link bracelet meaning will have more play than a 3 link but I don't have another 5 link to picture










Vs Rolex three link










Vs Omega 3 link










I am not seeing the overwhelming obliteration of GS but that's just me


----------



## mleok

jmanlay said:


> You got facts about this or just pulling it out of a hat ?
> Tolerances .....got some numbers to back this up?
> 
> Ok so one is a 5 link bracelet meaning will have more play than a 3 link but I don't have another 5 link to picture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vs Rolex three link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vs Omega 3 link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not seeing the overwhelming obliteration of GS but that's just me


Sigh... your photos do demonstrate there is more curvature to the centerline on your GS, but as you say, it is a 5 link bracelet. So perhaps do the same comparison using a 3 link GS bracelet instead, making sure to correct for the length of each bracelet link.

For what it's worth, I did not present Omega as being above average in terms of their precision of fit, indeed I often make the same point about the sloppiness of their bracelets compared to Rolex, so I'm not cutting the Swiss any slack here either.

Let me add one thing, it's not clear to me why you think that having 5 links necessarily makes a bracelet more sloppy, the challenge is making the links come together as closely as possible while still allowing them to smoothly rotate about each other. Unless I am mistaken, it looks like the three links in the middle of your GS bracelet do not have to move relative to each other.


----------



## manofrolex

mleok said:


> Sigh... your photos do demonstrate there is more curvature to the centerline on your GS, but as you say, it is a 5 link bracelet. So perhaps do the same comparison using a 3 link GS bracelet instead, making sure to correct for the length of each bracelet link.
> 
> For what it's worth, I did not present Omega as being above average in terms of their precision of fit, indeed I often make the same point about the sloppiness of their bracelets compared to Rolex, so I'm not cutting the Swiss any slack here either.
> 
> Let me add one thing, it's not clear to me why you think that having 5 links necessarily makes a bracelet more sloppy, the challenge is making the links come together as closely as possible while still allowing them to smoothly rotate about each other. Unless I am mistaken, it looks like the three links in the middle of your GS bracelet do not have to move relative to each other.


Don't have a GS three link bracelet ...but regarding the 5 links I assure you they are as close as possible allowing them to rotate smoothly. 5 link are more likely to be looser due to more parts .....simple as that . Jubilee will have more wiggle as an example


----------



## Northernhorology

Hi, I own a few watches. Rolex and Grand Seiko are amongst them. Comparing Rolex to GS I think GS are better, Rolex can't compete with GS in the polishing department. For the movements both are accurate and reliable, but GS lets you see it (open case back), so they're nicer in that regard. Rolex's has better bracelets IMO (Presidential Bracelet), but GS has more case designs and looks way better on a strap. They both have their good and bad. Overall I think GS are better for a day to day wear. 

I love both brands. But I lost interest in Rolex after the Sky-Dweller, I feel they have nothing really new to offer. GS in the other hand always has different things especially with their dials. I like how they keep it interesting and unique with their limited editions, you feel nice knowing there are only so many of the same watch out there.

Grand Seiko's are very well made time pieces, they can go toe to toe with the best of them in the same price points. They just lack prestige. Get a Rolex or a GS they both won't disappoint, it simply comes down to what tickles your fancy.


----------



## blowlamp

The notion that GS just can't make a bracelet link to the same working clearance as Rolex is nieve.
GS builds a small amount of play into the bracelet by design and not by mistake.

More to the point, Rolex need to prove they can make intricate & more interesting case shapes instead of the 'entry level' designs they have at the moment - they should learn from GS.


----------



## Mr.Jones82

blowlamp said:


> The notion that GS just can't make a bracelet link to the same working clearance as Rolex is nieve.
> GS builds a small amount of play into the bracelet by design and not by mistake.
> 
> More to the point, Rolex need to prove they can make intricate & more interesting case shapes instead of the 'entry level' designs they have at the moment - they should learn from GS.


Source? I have heard that before and I'm just not sure I buy that. Is this just theory and something recycled across forums, or has someone within GS actually said this?


----------



## blowlamp

Mr.Jones82 said:


> Source? I have heard that before and I'm just not sure I buy that. Is this just theory and something recycled across forums, or has someone within GS actually said this?


Of course it's by design - you surely don't believe that GS couldn't make a simple hinge with minimal play?

I can make an oyster link in my own workshop at home to Rolex level of finish and fit, so I'm sure Seiko can too. It's basic engineering.

Japanese Engineering Video.


----------



## BarracksSi

blowlamp said:


> Of course it's by design - you surely don't believe that GS couldn't make a simple hinge with minimal play?
> 
> I can make an oyster link in my own workshop at home to Rolex level of finish and fit, so I'm sure Seiko can too. It's basic engineering.
> 
> Japanese Engineering Video.


^^^^* Right -

What the confusion is about is the difference between manufacturing tolerances and closely-fitting pieces.

Of course you can't make a bracelet with zero side-to-side play like Rolex does without having tight - or, more properly, _consistent_ - manufacturing tolerances. But you also can't make a bracelet with an evenly-draping curve without consistent tolerances, either.

"Tolerances" here means "how identically can each piece be made". If GS chooses to make each bracelet link in a way that gives, say, 1 degree of lateral play by making each end 0.01 mm narrower than the next link's, then the consistency of that 0.01 mm is where that narrow machining tolerance has a positive effect.

As far as comfort goes... well, that has nothing to do with tolerances at all. My most comfortable bracelet so far is the floppy, half-hollow jubilee that came on my SKX009.

















And if we're truly honest about all this, you don't have to spend more than a grand for a bracelet with little lateral play. Here's my sub-$500 Citizen:


----------



## heineken4u

GS bracelets look cheap and feel cheap, to me. 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## manofrolex

heineken4u said:


> GS bracelets look cheap and feel cheap, to me.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


Awesome thanks


----------



## heineken4u

jmanlay said:


> Awesome thanks


That being said, the 3 link bracelet (found on the sbgn001 series, the 9Fs) I do like. Why does GS insist on using the 5 link mainly?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr.Jones82

jmanlay said:


> heineken4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> GS bracelets look cheap and feel cheap, to me.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome thanks
Click to expand...

Hahaha that gave me a pretty good laugh.


----------



## mleok

jmanlay said:


> Don't have a GS three link bracelet ...but regarding the 5 links I assure you they are as close as possible allowing them to rotate smoothly. 5 link are more likely to be looser due to more parts .....simple as that . Jubilee will have more wiggle as an example


A Jubilee bracelet is different though, each link can rotate with respect to the adjacent link, this is not true for the three central links in the five link GS bracelet you showed, which move like a single link.


----------



## mleok

blowlamp said:


> Of course it's by design - you surely don't believe that GS couldn't make a simple hinge with minimal play?
> 
> I can make an oyster link in my own workshop at home to Rolex level of finish and fit, so I'm sure Seiko can too. It's basic engineering.
> 
> Japanese Engineering Video.


Rolex needed to custom design temperature controlled CNC machines, and JLC required specially ordered CNC machines for their pivoting JLC Reverso cases, so it's something they have to go out of the way to achieve. In particular, Omega, does not achieve this level of precision in their bracelets. Maybe it's by design, but the bottom line is that the sloppy bracelet is more forgiving to lapses in tight manufacturing tolerances.


----------



## mleok

BarracksSi said:


> ^^^^* Right -
> 
> What the confusion is about is the difference between manufacturing tolerances and closely-fitting pieces.
> 
> Of course you can't make a bracelet with zero side-to-side play like Rolex does without having tight - or, more properly, _consistent_ - manufacturing tolerances. But you also can't make a bracelet with an evenly-draping curve without consistent tolerances, either.
> 
> "Tolerances" here means "how identically can each piece be made". If GS chooses to make each bracelet link in a way that gives, say, 1 degree of lateral play by making each end 0.01 mm narrower than the next link's, then the consistency of that 0.01 mm is where that narrow machining tolerance has a positive effect.
> 
> As far as comfort goes... well, that has nothing to do with tolerances at all. My most comfortable bracelet so far is the floppy, half-hollow jubilee that came on my SKX009.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if we're truly honest about all this, you don't have to spend more than a grand for a bracelet with little lateral play. Here's my sub-$500 Citizen:


While it is true that making a bracelet with precisely the same draping curve each time requires extremely high precision as well, the fact is that it is much less noticeable if those tolerances are not achieved. A bracelet design with very little lateral play, but which articulates smoothly each time, is very sensitive to such lapses in tolerances.


----------



## blowlamp

mleok said:


> A Jubilee bracelet is different though, each link can rotate with respect to the adjacent link, *this is not true for the three central links in the five link GS bracelet you showed, which move like a single link.*


The Grand Seiko 3-link and 5-link bracelets articulate differently to a Rolex Oyster bracelet though.
Please see my short videos below.

GS 3-link bracelet.











GS 5-link bracelet.











I think these videos show that the GS offering is more sophisticated than that of Rolex.


----------



## manofrolex

blowlamp said:


> The Grand Seiko 3-link and 5-link bracelets articulate differently to a Rolex Oyster bracelet though.
> Please see my short videos below.
> 
> GS 3-link bracelet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GS 5-link bracelet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think these videos show that the GS offering is more sophisticated than that of Rolex.


Don't t bother because someone will come back to say Rolex has CNC machined developed for them in the vacuum of space but the bottom line is no one knows the machining process of GS ...
With all do respect to Rolex all one has to do is not look very far to find oyster style bracelets that are essentially identical to the oem ones and perform the same (i have handled some and the quality was mind bending except maybe on some clasp component) so this idea that only Swiss magicians can do low tolerance work is just obtuse.

There is zero lateral pay in my 5 link Gs bracelet and as you call out and rightly so the Gs 5 link is a lot more advanced in build construction than the plain Jane oyster which isn't particularly well finished nor amazingly comfortable (especially not w the giant clasp). I own one GS now and had another one in the past and not once did I think it was anything lower quality wise than a Rolex offering (quite the opposite actually). I still have a full box of Rolex so clearly not a GS fanatic but one has to be a tad more objective ....

If someone thinks for one second the Japanese the Chinese the French etc....cannot produce very tight tolerance products and superb precision then I can't help you...read up open source info on tech and you will get a small clue as there is a lot more happening out there ..

Let's not fool ourselves here, a watch bracelet isn't rocket science nor advanced engineering . Many have complained of the allegedly very stiff AP metal bracelet so while beautifully finished the reviews aren't spectacular but who cares the tolerances are tight so it must be good and comfortable right and well it is Swiss so it must be phenomenal and superior ....


----------



## jets

pkincy said:


> Likely the OP was just trying to stir things up. Nice nobody bit. However his statement, "I am not ashamed to admit I am one of those Rolex owners that doesn't mind the attention of others and I think it's something I'd miss if I bought another brand, no matter how high the quality," gives a strong hint about what some Rolex owners value and the reason not to love GS. I tend to buy things to impress myself not others. And although my Rolexes are impressive to me, they are just not as impressive as my Grand Seiko's. But again I admit I am not a SS Tool watch lover, which is one place Rolex does excel.


I agree with your sentiment here. I'll also expand on the comment about 'missing the attention of others' regarding the Rolex. When I wear my GS I like the fact no one is asking themselves if my Rolex is authentic


----------



## Mr.Jones82

BarracksSi said:


> blowlamp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's by design - you surely don't believe that GS couldn't make a simple hinge with minimal play?
> 
> I can make an oyster link in my own workshop at home to Rolex level of finish and fit, so I'm sure Seiko can too. It's basic engineering.
> 
> Japanese Engineering Video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^* Right -
> 
> What the confusion is about is the difference between manufacturing tolerances and closely-fitting pieces.
> 
> Of course you can't make a bracelet with zero side-to-side play like Rolex does without having tight - or, more properly, _consistent_ - manufacturing tolerances. But you also can't make a bracelet with an evenly-draping curve without consistent tolerances, either.
> 
> "Tolerances" here means "how identically can each piece be made". If GS chooses to make each bracelet link in a way that gives, say, 1 degree of lateral play by making each end 0.01 mm narrower than the next link's, then the consistency of that 0.01 mm is where that narrow machining tolerance has a positive effect.
> 
> As far as comfort goes... well, that has nothing to do with tolerances at all. My most comfortable bracelet so far is the floppy, half-hollow jubilee that came on my SKX009.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if we're truly honest about all this, you don't have to spend more than a grand for a bracelet with little lateral play. Here's my sub-$500 Citizen:
Click to expand...

Okay, good points. 
Also, since no one produced any 3 links for comparisons, here are my 2 examples. Anyway, you would be hard pressed to find better for 2k and under.


----------



## mleok

Mr.Jones82 said:


> Okay, good points.
> Also, since no one produced any 3 links for comparisons, here are my 2 examples. Anyway, you would be hard pressed to find better for 2k and under.
> 
> View attachment 14468437
> 
> 
> View attachment 14468441


I'm increasingly thinking that if I get a GS, it'll be one of their quartz models. Same level of finishing, thinner, cheaper, and worry free. The only contender are the Citizen Chronomasters, particularly the ones with the Washi dial.


----------



## Mr.Jones82

mleok said:


> Mr.Jones82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, good points.
> Also, since no one produced any 3 links for comparisons, here are my 2 examples. Anyway, you would be hard pressed to find better for 2k and under.
> 
> View attachment 14468437
> 
> 
> View attachment 14468441
> 
> 
> 
> I'm increasingly thinking that if I get a GS, it'll be one of their quartz models. Same level of finishing, thinner, cheaper, and worry free. The only contender are the Citizen Chronomasters, particularly the ones with the Washi dial.
Click to expand...

I went the 9f route for all the reasons you listed. I don't have any plans of ever getting a SD or hi-beat, but I have thought about purchasing one of their sbgr or sbgw models.
I have thought about the Chronomaster and still might, but I have a few concerns, but those paper dials are beautiful in design and concept.


----------



## janiboi

Mr.Jones82 said:


> Hahaha that gave me a pretty good laugh.


A great thinker Heineken is!


----------



## manofrolex

janiboi said:


> A great thinker Heineken is!


----------



## mattmartin

Perhaps it is worth noting that all multi axis cnc machines take into account temperature. Machinists have been factoring in work piece temp since the 1950s and its always been a key variable in cnc work. Rolex neither needed to make new cnc machines for this nor were they the first.

As for the reverso case, it isnt that complex; the case appears to be a three-piece frame with the rotating inner case having a simple clamshell design.

[/QUOTE]

Rolex needed to custom design temperature controlled CNC machines, and JLC required specially ordered CNC machines for their pivoting JLC Reverso cases, so it's something they have to go out of the way to achieve. In particular, Omega, does not achieve this level of precision in their bracelets. Maybe it's by design, but the bottom line is that the sloppy bracelet is more forgiving to lapses in tight manufacturing tolerances.[/QUOTE]


----------



## BrianBinFL

mattmartin said:


> mleok said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rolex needed to custom design temperature controlled CNC machines, and JLC required specially ordered CNC machines for their pivoting JLC Reverso cases, so it's something they have to go out of the way to achieve. In particular, Omega, does not achieve this level of precision in their bracelets. Maybe it's by design, but the bottom line is that the sloppy bracelet is more forgiving to lapses in tight manufacturing tolerances.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps it is worth noting that all multi axis cnc machines take into account temperature. Machinists have been factoring in work piece temp since the 1950s and its always been a key variable in cnc work. Rolex neither needed to make new cnc machines for this nor were they the first.
Click to expand...

While I have no doubt that Rolex has some very impressive and innovative automation that allows them to mass produce their product with minimal human intervention, the assertion that they needed to custom design temperature controlled CNC machines _to hold tolerances_ strikes me as nonsense. In addition to what mattmartin offered, nearly all CNC machining is done with a coolant flood system to keep both the part and the tool cool even at high speeds (in addition to acting to clear chips, lubricate the tool, etc.).


----------



## ljb187

jmanlay said:


> You got facts about this or just pulling it out of a hat ?
> Tolerances .....got some numbers to back this up?
> 
> Ok so one is a 5 link bracelet meaning will have more play than a 3 link but I don't have another 5 link to picture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vs Rolex three link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vs Omega 3 link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not seeing the overwhelming obliteration of GS but that's just me


The GS bracelet's clasp is closed while the clasps on the other two are open. Wouldn't that help the GS bracelet structurally? My opinions about these brands is fairly set so if you choose to respond there's need to take more photos, just wondering if there's a reason for the different setup between the watches.


----------



## blowlamp

ljb187 said:


> The GS bracelet's clasp is closed while the clasps on the other two are open. Wouldn't that help the GS bracelet structurally? My opinions about these brands is fairly set so if you choose to respond there's need to take more photos, just wondering if there's a reason for the different setup between the watches.


If you watched my videos further up, you can see that the GS 3 & 5 link bracelets have twice as many pivot points than a Rolex Oyster and highlights just how much better GS bracelets are.


----------



## ljb187

blowlamp said:


> If you watched my videos further up, you can see that the GS 3 & 5 link bracelets have twice as many pivot points than a Rolex Oyster and highlights just how much better GS bracelets are.


The smiley face is much appreciated...With a measure of relief I can say I'm no longer very concerned about "better" at this point, but I am still somewhat interested in how points are made and conclusions are reached (hence my earlier query). I shall watch your videos and report back if I have anything semi-worthwhile to say. Thanks for the reply!


----------



## manofrolex

ljb187 said:


> The GS bracelet's clasp is closed while the clasps on the other two are open. Wouldn't that help the GS bracelet structurally? My opinions about these brands is fairly set so if you choose to respond there's need to take more photos, just wondering if there's a reason for the different setup between the watches.


Nope just didn't think about it I can snap another one open if it helps


----------



## DustinS

jmanlay said:


> Nope just didn't think about it I can snap another one open if it helps


It makes a difference. That said the GS 5 link bracelet's fit is fine. Over time and wear it does give more and I'm not sure the current rolex wears as much in the same time. There's nothing at all wrong with the GS bracelet itself. The clasp however suck and I've had to replace a clasp on one from 2015 so not even that old. It's a bad design.


----------



## mleok

DustinS said:


> It makes a difference. That said the GS 5 link bracelet's fit is fine. Over time and wear it does give more and I'm not sure the current rolex wears as much in the same time. There's nothing at all wrong with the GS bracelet itself. The clasp however suck and I've had to replace a clasp on one from 2015 so not even that old. It's a bad design.


I would be interested to see how much a current generation Rolex jubilee bracelet sags, I haven't been able to find a photo of this. One needs to correct for the very short links, but it might make for an interesting comparison.


----------



## mleok

jmanlay said:


> Don't t bother because someone will come back to say Rolex has CNC machined developed for them in the vacuum of space but the bottom line is no one knows the machining process of GS ...
> With all do respect to Rolex all one has to do is not look very far to find oyster style bracelets that are essentially identical to the oem ones and perform the same (i have handled some and the quality was mind bending except maybe on some clasp component) so this idea that only Swiss magicians can do low tolerance work is just obtuse.
> 
> There is zero lateral pay in my 5 link Gs bracelet and as you call out and rightly so the Gs 5 link is a lot more advanced in build construction than the plain Jane oyster which isn't particularly well finished nor amazingly comfortable (especially not w the giant clasp). I own one GS now and had another one in the past and not once did I think it was anything lower quality wise than a Rolex offering (quite the opposite actually). I still have a full box of Rolex so clearly not a GS fanatic but one has to be a tad more objective ....
> 
> If someone thinks for one second the Japanese the Chinese the French etc....cannot produce very tight tolerance products and superb precision then I can't help you...read up open source info on tech and you will get a small clue as there is a lot more happening out there ..
> 
> Let's not fool ourselves here, a watch bracelet isn't rocket science nor advanced engineering . Many have complained of the allegedly very stiff AP metal bracelet so while beautifully finished the reviews aren't spectacular but who cares the tolerances are tight so it must be good and comfortable right and well it is Swiss so it must be phenomenal and superior ....


This is the article from Watchtime which discusses Rolex's use of temperature-controlled CNC machines with 2 micron tolerances, that are made exclusively for Rolex by a Rolex-owned company. The machines are shown on page 9, and the discussion is on page 10.

https://www.watchtime.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/WT_TP_Rolex_complete.pdf

Although, in fairness, these appear to be used for the movement plates and bridges, as opposed to case or bracelet components. CNC machines are available with different levels of precision. For example, in the promotional material for the Ming 17.06, they discuss with pride their 10 micron machining tolerances for their cases.


----------



## mattmartin

Thanks for the link. Upon further review, these machining centers called "pods" appear more like assembly robots rather than CNC machines. Think of it like this. A large metal forming machine stamps case blanks and movement mainplate blanks. Additional forges or hot/cold presses further shape the case; probably no need for movement baseplate blanks. The case blanks and baseplate blanks then enter these pods. Inside the pod is probably one multi axis cnc machining to perform the cutting operations (google Mazak, Kern, Haas, etc). A cnc machine really just cuts (drills, taps/threads, reliefs, chamfering, fileting) and shapes the parts. After cutting and shaping, the other "robots" in the pod install pins, install jewels, likely assemble some components of the movement like the lower escapement/pallet, date assembly, etc. so, likely, the reason has these machines specially made is because they are assembly line robots. In general, all assembly line robots are custom built or custom modified to suit the manufacturing processes of the company.



mleok said:


> This is the article from Watchtime which discusses Rolex's use of temperature-controlled CNC machines with 2 micron tolerances, that are made exclusively for Rolex by a Rolex-owned company. The machines are shown on page 9, and the discussion is on page 10.
> 
> https://www.watchtime.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/WT_TP_Rolex_complete.pdf
> 
> Although, in fairness, these appear to be used for the movement plates and bridges, as opposed to case or bracelet components. CNC machines are available with different levels of precision. For example, in the promotional material for the Ming 17.06, they discuss with pride their 10 micron machining tolerances for their cases.
> 
> View attachment 14487715


----------



## BarracksSi

DustinS said:


> There's nothing at all wrong with the GS bracelet itself. The clasp however suck and I've had to replace a clasp on one from 2015 so not even that old. It's a bad design.


This needs to be restated and clarified as why the GS clasp isn't as good. It's not just whether it matches features (it doesn't, since it lacks any equivalent to EasyLink) or is comfortable (almost entirely wrist-dependent), it's about longevity.


----------



## Mr.Jones82

BarracksSi said:


> DustinS said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing at all wrong with the GS bracelet itself. The clasp however suck and I've had to replace a clasp on one from 2015 so not even that old. It's a bad design.
> 
> 
> 
> This needs to be restated and clarified as why the GS clasp isn't as good. It's not just whether it matches features (it doesn't, since it lacks any equivalent to EasyLink) or is comfortable (almost entirely wrist-dependent), it's about longevity.
Click to expand...

Good point. I have always understood the titanium versions like the Snowflake are more susceptible. Sure softer metal, but come on absurd at that price. Knowing this, I always just hold the release when I press the bracelet down to avoid any undue wear.


----------



## manofrolex

mleok said:


> This is the article from Watchtime which discusses Rolex's use of temperature-controlled CNC machines with 2 micron tolerances, that are made exclusively for Rolex by a Rolex-owned company. The machines are shown on page 9, and the discussion is on page 10.
> 
> https://www.watchtime.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/WT_TP_Rolex_complete.pdf
> 
> Although, in fairness, these appear to be used for the movement plates and bridges, as opposed to case or bracelet components. CNC machines are available with different levels of precision. For example, in the promotional material for the Ming 17.06, they discuss with pride their 10 micron machining tolerances for their cases.
> 
> View attachment 14487715


From GS

"The task of assembling Grand Seiko is borne by craftsmen and women who have honed their craft to such an extent that they can adjust parts by hand to tolerances of one hundredth of a millimeter. This extremely detailed craftsmanship is what has made possible the very precise timekeeping delivered by the 9S mechanical movement"

That's by hand so pretty sure they can do 1/1000 by machine ....

But there it is

"The level of precision involved in this component manufacturing is breathtaking. In the 10-beat Caliber 9S85, the pallet fork and the balance wheel, two parts that are critical to the movement's accuracy, are made from an in-house, state-of-the-art technology called MEMS which was developed as part of the company's semiconductor manufacturing. MEMS allows the creation of complex shapes that cannot be achieved by conventional technology. Furthermore, these MEMS parts are made with tolerances of one thousandth of a millimeter."


----------



## manofrolex

BarracksSi said:


> This needs to be restated and clarified as why the GS clasp isn't as good. It's not just whether it matches features (it doesn't, since it lacks any equivalent to EasyLink) or is comfortable (almost entirely wrist-dependent), it's about longevity.


On an n of 1?


----------



## BarracksSi

jmanlay said:


> On an n of 1?


Hey, we only know what we see on the forums.


----------



## Mr.Jones82

BarracksSi said:


> Hey, we only know what we see on the forums.


Yup. https://www.watchuseek.com/f642/grand-seiko-bracelet-clasp-snowflake-potential-damage-4930909-2.html. I guess always make sure to depress your clasp before closing.


----------



## manofrolex

Mr.Jones82 said:


> Yup. https://www.watchuseek.com/f642/grand-seiko-bracelet-clasp-snowflake-potential-damage-4930909-2.html. I guess always make sure to depress your clasp before closing.


There is a joke in there somewhere


----------



## ryanb741

Guys. I own several Rolexes (Root Beer, DJ41, Sub Ceramic, Milgauss). Also a Patek Calatrava 5196G which is worth throwing in the comparison mix and you'll find out why in a moment.

SBGK005 inbound yesterday. Perhaps most appropriate to compare it with the DJ41 and Calatrava. First things first from a fit and finish perspective this GS is miles ahead of ANY of my Rolexes. Not even close. Sure, Rolex isn't about artisanal craftsmanship and more about robust reliability so it doesn't mean everything about the GS is better but if we look at the casework, the dial and particularly the hands then the GS is on another level to Rolex.

So let's bring in the Calatrava. The Patek is very traditional, very nicely proportioned simple elegance. The GS is an extraordinarily complex dial, a pretty busy one at that and the watch is far more modern in design. But from a fit and finish perspective I would say the GS dial is superior to the Patek. In fact the hands on the GS are the best I've ever seen on a watch. The GS case is beautifully finished, the Patek is superbly well balanced so that's a tie. The GS manual wind movement is decent enough but not as refined and well finished as the Patek and the Patek had a thinner profile. Obviously the Patek is WG and not SS.

So overall summing up the GS blows any of the Rolexes away from a fit and finish perspective. Not even on the same planet. Vs the Patek i would say the GS dial shows superb craftsmanship vs the underrated simplicity of the Patek. The dial furniture (hands, indices) on the GS is materially superior to that of the Patek. Casework is on par. Patek has a superior movement and has a thinner profile and just exudes a more refined air (but it should do at 3x the price).

Quick pic









Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## manofrolex

ryanb741 said:


> Guys. I own several Rolexes (Root Beer, DJ41, Sub Ceramic, Milgauss). Also a Patek Calatrava 5196G which is worth throwing in the comparison mix and you'll find out why in a moment.
> 
> SBGK005 inbound yesterday. Perhaps most appropriate to compare it with the DJ41 and Calatrava. First things first from a fit and finish perspective this GS is miles ahead of ANY of my Rolexes. Not even close. Sure, Rolex isn't about artisanal craftsmanship and more about robust reliability so it doesn't mean everything about the GS is better but if we look at the casework, the dial and particularly the hands then the GS is on another level to Rolex.
> 
> So let's bring in the Calatrava. The Patek is very traditional, very nicely proportioned simple elegance. The GS is an extraordinarily complex dial, a pretty busy one at that and the watch is far more modern in design. But from a fit and finish perspective I would say the GS dial is superior to the Patek. In fact the hands on the GS are the best I've ever seen on a watch. The GS case is beautifully finished, the Patek is superbly well balanced so that's a tie. The GS manual wind movement is decent enough but not as refined and well finished as the Patek and the Patek had a thinner profile. Obviously the Patek is WG and not SS.
> 
> So overall summing up the GS blows any of the Rolexes away from a fit and finish perspective. Not even on the same planet. Vs the Patek i would say the GS dial shows superb craftsmanship vs the underrated simplicity of the Patek. The dial furniture (hands, indices) on the GS is materially superior to that of the Patek. Casework is on par. Patek has a superior movement and has a thinner profile and just exudes a more refined air (but it should do at 3x the price).
> 
> Quick pic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Love that "fur" dial on the GS. Very cool


----------



## Sparrowhawk

Thanks for your thoughts.

It is interesting to read the comparison with the Calatrava, with all of the hype surrounding them.


----------



## BrianBinFL

Sparrowhawk said:


> Thanks for your thoughts.
> 
> It is interesting to read the comparison with the Calatrava, with all of the hype surrounding them.


I have a friend with a white gold Calatrava 5296G and honestly, other than the fact that it's a Calatrava that costs a ton of money, just viewing it "on the wrist" nothing really jumps out at you. Granted, the movement is simply gorgeous, but of course you don't see that on the wrist. While it is a well finished and attractive watch, nobody will ever pay it a second glance if they don't know what it is.


----------



## mleok

jmanlay said:


> From GS
> 
> "The task of assembling Grand Seiko is borne by craftsmen and women who have honed their craft to such an extent that they can adjust parts by hand to tolerances of one hundredth of a millimeter. This extremely detailed craftsmanship is what has made possible the very precise timekeeping delivered by the 9S mechanical movement"
> 
> That's by hand so pretty sure they can do 1/1000 by machine ....
> 
> But there it is
> 
> "The level of precision involved in this component manufacturing is breathtaking. In the 10-beat Caliber 9S85, the pallet fork and the balance wheel, two parts that are critical to the movement's accuracy, are made from an in-house, state-of-the-art technology called MEMS which was developed as part of the company's semiconductor manufacturing. MEMS allows the creation of complex shapes that cannot be achieved by conventional technology. Furthermore, these MEMS parts are made with tolerances of one thousandth of a millimeter."


Grand Seiko uses MEMS to achieve skeletonization of their pallet fork and escapement.









Rolex appears to have a similar skeletonization of their new Chronenergy escapement.









In any case, despite all the precision in the manufacture of the Grand Seiko mechanical movements, their on the wrist specifications are disappointing. While the 9S65 has a stated static accuracy of +5/-3 spd (8 spd spread), they state a normal usage accuracy of +10/-1 spd (11 spd spread). In contrast, the current Rolex standard is +2/-2 spd (4 spd spread), and there is no attempt at equivocation by distinguishing between static and normal usage accuracy.


----------



## mleok

ryanb741 said:


> Guys. I own several Rolexes (Root Beer, DJ41, Sub Ceramic, Milgauss). Also a Patek Calatrava 5196G which is worth throwing in the comparison mix and you'll find out why in a moment.
> 
> SBGK005 inbound yesterday. Perhaps most appropriate to compare it with the DJ41 and Calatrava. First things first from a fit and finish perspective this GS is miles ahead of ANY of my Rolexes. Not even close. Sure, Rolex isn't about artisanal craftsmanship and more about robust reliability so it doesn't mean everything about the GS is better but if we look at the casework, the dial and particularly the hands then the GS is on another level to Rolex.
> 
> So let's bring in the Calatrava. The Patek is very traditional, very nicely proportioned simple elegance. The GS is an extraordinarily complex dial, a pretty busy one at that and the watch is far more modern in design. But from a fit and finish perspective I would say the GS dial is superior to the Patek. In fact the hands on the GS are the best I've ever seen on a watch. The GS case is beautifully finished, the Patek is superbly well balanced so that's a tie. The GS manual wind movement is decent enough but not as refined and well finished as the Patek and the Patek had a thinner profile. Obviously the Patek is WG and not SS.
> 
> So overall summing up the GS blows any of the Rolexes away from a fit and finish perspective. Not even on the same planet. Vs the Patek i would say the GS dial shows superb craftsmanship vs the underrated simplicity of the Patek. The dial furniture (hands, indices) on the GS is materially superior to that of the Patek. Casework is on par. Patek has a superior movement and has a thinner profile and just exudes a more refined air (but it should do at 3x the price).


While the Patek 5196 and 5296 are the models that are most evocative of the original Ref. 96 Calatrava, I have always considered the hobnail bezeled Calatravas to be the quintessential dress watch. That's why I chose the 5119J, as the hobnail bezel adds a bit of visual interest that contrasts nicely with the plain lacquered dial.


----------



## ljb187

mleok said:


> Grand Seiko uses MEMS to achieve skeletonization of their pallet fork and escapement.
> 
> View attachment 14489835
> 
> 
> Rolex appears to have a similar skeletonization of their new Chronenergy escapement.
> 
> View attachment 14489859
> 
> 
> In any case, despite all the precision in the manufacture of the Grand Seiko mechanical movements, their on the wrist specifications are disappointing. While the 9S65 has a stated static accuracy of +5/-3 spd (8 spd spread), they state a normal usage accuracy of +10/-1 spd (11 spd spread). In contrast, the current Rolex standard is +2/-2 spd (4 spd spread), and there is no attempt at equivocation by distinguishing between static and normal usage accuracy.


Grand Seiko's 11 SPD spread blows away Rolex's 4 SPD...

...In much the same way the frequency of GS service intervals blow away Rolex's 10 year standard...

...In much the same way the thrill of dealing with Grand Seiko customer service blows away the tedious consistency of Rolex's more established networks...

...In much the same way GS depreciation blows away Rolex's depreciation & appreciation...

...In much the same way GS's weirdly thick movements and top-heavy cases blow away many of Rolex's more modest and comfortable designs. You'd almost have to own a DSSD in order not to be blown away by the awkwardness of a typical GS mechanical on a strap...bonus points for Hi-Beat or GMT...

...In much the same way GS' loser tolerances - and they are just that - blow away Rolex's fit in terms of air flow (there was a better pun to be had here, but I didn't feel like working to find it)...

...In much the same way fragile GS clasps require a level of finesse which blows away the the process your average banker uses to thoughtlessly open/close (and adjust!) his EasyLink...

...But not, somehow, in the same way GS' super-twinkly, diamonds-from-a-distance aesthetic isn't seen as being more of a "look at me!" statement than wearing iconic designs (mercilessly aped by Grand Seiko's parent) on the odd PCL bracelet and/or fluted bezel...

...Honest to God...I bought a Spring Drive in 2010 and for the longest time thought the SBGA127 would be my next big purchase. That hasn't happened so far because the creepy baggage of this brand is exceeded in my eyes only by DOXA and Kobold. From the lowly SKX to anything short of Credor everything the company offers seems to inspire a shrill insecurity that defies logic. I may yet get that SBGA127, but my fear is instead of marveling at the best dial/hands/indexes/date window I've seen on a watch that I could ever hope to own, I'll see this image instead:


----------



## blowlamp

ljb187 said:


> Grand Seiko's 11 SPD spread blows away Rolex's 4 SPD...
> 
> ...In much the same way the frequency of GS service intervals blow away Rolex's 10 year standard...
> 
> ...In much the same way the thrill of dealing with Grand Seiko customer service blows away the tedious consistency of Rolex's more established networks...
> 
> ...In much the same way GS depreciation blows away Rolex's depreciation & appreciation...
> 
> ...In much the same way GS's weirdly thick movements and top-heavy cases blow away many of Rolex's more modest and comfortable designs. You'd almost have to own a DSSD in order not to be blown away by the awkwardness of a typical GS mechanical on a strap...bonus points for Hi-Beat or GMT...
> 
> ...In much the same way GS' loser tolerances - and they are just that - blow away Rolex's fit in terms of air flow (there was a better pun to be had here, but I didn't feel like working to find it)...
> 
> ...In much the same way fragile GS clasps require a level of finesse which blows away the the process your average banker uses to thoughtlessly open/close (and adjust!) his EasyLink...
> 
> ...But not, somehow, in the same way GS' super-twinkly, diamonds-from-a-distance aesthetic isn't seen as being more of a "look at me!" statement than wearing iconic designs (mercilessly aped by Grand Seiko's parent) on the odd PCL bracelet and/or fluted bezel...
> 
> ...Honest to God...I bought a Spring Drive in 2010 and for the longest time thought the SBGA127 would be my next big purchase. That hasn't happened so far because the creepy baggage of this brand is exceeded in my eyes only by DOXA and Kobold. From the lowly SKX to anything short of Credor everything the company offers seems to inspire a shrill insecurity that defies logic. I may yet get that SBGA127, but my fear is instead of marveling at the best dial/hands/indexes/date window I've seen on a watch that I could ever hope to own, I'll see this image instead:


All of that only makes sense if you talk about Seiko's VFM, which is unique amongst the big watch brands.


----------



## BrianBinFL

mleok said:


> In any case, despite all the precision in the manufacture of the Grand Seiko mechanical movements, their on the wrist specifications are disappointing. While the 9S65 has a stated static accuracy of +5/-3 spd (8 spd spread), they state a normal usage accuracy of +10/-1 spd (11 spd spread). In contrast, the current Rolex standard is +2/-2 spd (4 spd spread), and there is no attempt at equivocation by distinguishing between static and normal usage accuracy.


This is where Rolex is a clear leader. The accuracy of their movements is superb. The only movement GS has that is in Rolex's territory is the Spring Drive and of course that's cheating a bit.

Personally I hope that GS will offer new movements 1-2 years from now that will compete with Rolex in terms of accuracy once the Swiss patent on silicon hairsprings expires.


----------



## BrianBinFL

mleok said:


> While the Patek 5196 and 5296 are the models that are most evocative of the original Ref. 96 Calatrava, I have always considered the hobnail bezeled Calatravas to be the quintessential dress watch. That's why I chose the 5119J, as the hobnail bezel adds a bit of visual interest that contrasts nicely with the plain lacquered dial.


That is a beautiful Calatrava. I agree that it is much more visually appealing than some of the other Calatrava references.


----------



## blowlamp

How much more accuarate are the 'Holy Trinity' and Lange & Sohne etc than Rolex, given their even higher prices?
As is often stated here, a cheap no-name quartz can be more accurate than the most expensive mechanical watch, so what point are the GS bashers trying to make?


----------



## BrianBinFL

blowlamp said:


> How much more accuarate are the 'Holy Trinity' and Lange & Sohne etc than Rolex, given their even higher prices?
> As is often stated here, a cheap no-name quartz can be more accurate than the most expensive mechanical watch, so what point are the GS bashers trying to make?


Rolex is guaranteeing +/- 2 spd which means you should expect something even better than that. If you have a Grand Seiko Spring Drive you should expect to beat the accuracy of the Rolex, but the Rolex is 100% mechanical and the Spring Drive has a little extra technology helping it out.

Seiko (Grand or otherwise) does not make a 100% mechanical movement that can compete against Rolex at this time. I hope Seiko is quietly getting up to speed manufacturing silicon hairsprings while they wait for the Swiss patent to expire. I think that will level the playing field quite a bit. If I remember right the patent expires sometime in 2021.

For me any Grand Seiko watches I buy will be Spring Drive for now. If GS starts doing silicon hairsprings in the future and gets in the +/- 2 spd range like Roles, I'd entertain a GS High Beat 36000.


----------



## mleok

BrianBinFL said:


> This is where Rolex is a clear leader. The accuracy of their movements is superb. The only movement GS has that is in Rolex's territory is the Spring Drive and of course that's cheating a bit.
> 
> Personally I hope that GS will offer new movements 1-2 years from now that will compete with Rolex in terms of accuracy once the Swiss patent on silicon hairsprings expires.


I actually wish that Grand Seiko focuses more on their mechanical movements, either by making them thinner, or improving their accuracy specifications. It just feels like they are neglecting this, focusing instead on Spring Drive. The Rolex +2/-2 spd accuracy standard applies even to their Parachrom Bleu hairspring equipped movements, so silicon hairsprings aren't essential to achieve this level of accuracy.


----------



## mleok

blowlamp said:


> How much more accuarate are the 'Holy Trinity' and Lange & Sohne etc than Rolex, given their even higher prices?
> As is often stated here, a cheap no-name quartz can be more accurate than the most expensive mechanical watch, so what point are the GS bashers trying to make?


The Patek standard is -3/+2 spd (note the bias to run slower) on calibres that are at least 20mm in diameter. This is slightly below Rolex's +2/-2 spd standard, but the Patek 215 calibre is 2.55mm thick, compared to the Rolex 3135 calibre's 6mm thickness, so it isn't that far off, particularly given the thinness of the movement.

As for a quartz movement being more accurate than a mechanical movement, the point is that accuracy in a purely mechanical movement is difficult to consistently achieve without exacting precision and tight tolerances in manufacturing (the Rolex approach), or through careful hand tuning (the Trinity approach). In practice, one needs at least a bit of both approaches in order to achieve the kind of accuracy that Rolex and Patek guarantees. In contrast, even very crude Spring Drive movements, like the 5R65 movement, have the same accuracy as their top of the line 9R02 movement, but of course Spring Drive derives its accuracy from a quartz oscillator.

Given that Grand Seiko mechanical movements are produced using MEMs technology, one can't help but wonder if the lax on wrist accuracy standards are because they have skimped on the manual adjustment necessary to consistently deliver tighter accuracy.


----------



## mleok

blowlamp said:


> All of that only makes sense if you talk about Seiko's VFM, which is unique amongst the big watch brands.


Fair enough, but Grand Seiko seems intent on eroding their value proposition advantage with their ever increasing prices. I remember hesitating about the $5700 price of the SBGW253 many years ago and ultimately passing on it, but it now looks like an absolute bargain compared to prices on the current lineup.


----------



## BrianBinFL

mleok said:


> I actually wish that Grand Seiko focuses more on their mechanical movements, either by making them thinner, or improving their accuracy specifications. It just feels like they are neglecting this, focusing instead on Spring Drive. The Rolex +2/-2 spd accuracy standard applies even to their Parachrom Bleu hairspring equipped movements, so silicon hairsprings aren't essential to achieve this level of accuracy.


I have to believe that whatever the secret sauce is that Rolex is using to hold such a low spd must be known to Seiko by now. Buy one, study the hell out of it, duplicate. The Japanese are good at that.

Even the Parachrom hairspring was patented but I don't know if its patent has expired or not. Even if the patent is expired it's possible Seiko hasn't been able to figure out the metallurgy to make it.

Given the above I would think one of the following is the case:


It simply would be more expensive to duplicate than they could recoup in terms of a higher price for the watch
It cannot be duplicated without violating a patent
They know where the benefit comes from but can't work out the physics/chemistry to make it
As you said, they just don't care because they are banking on Spring Drive


At some point someone else is going to figure out how to do Spring Drive well and Seiko won't be the only kids on the block with the most alluring movement on the planet (my opinion). They should not put all their eggs in the Spring Drive basket. As soon as metallurgy or patent-expirations allow they should jump on shoring up their mechanical watch accuracy. They have been able to get away with "better than COSC static measurements" so far, but now that Rolex is doing +/- 2 spd on everything they need to step it up.


----------



## mleok

BrianBinFL said:


> I have to believe that whatever the secret sauce is that Rolex is using to hold such a low spd must be known to Seiko by now. Buy one, study the hell out of it, duplicate. The Japanese are good at that.
> 
> Even the Parachrom hairspring was patented but I don't know if its patent has expired or not. Even if the patent is expired it's possible Seiko hasn't been able to figure out the metallurgy to make it.
> 
> Given the above I would think one of the following is the case:
> 
> 
> It simply would be more expensive to duplicate than they could recoup in terms of a higher price for the watch
> It cannot be duplicated without violating a patent
> They know where the benefit comes from but can't work out the physics/chemistry to make it
> As you said, they just don't care because they are banking on Spring Drive
> 
> At some point someone else is going to figure out how to do Spring Drive well and Seiko won't be the only kids on the block with the most alluring movement on the planet (my opinion). They should not put all their eggs in the Spring Drive basket. As soon as metallurgy or patent-expirations allow they should jump on shoring up their mechanical watch accuracy. They have been able to get away with "better than COSC static measurements" so far, but now that Rolex is doing +/- 2 spd on everything they need to step it up.


As someone said upthread, this isn't rocket science, one can achieve tighter tolerances in movement, case, and bracelet manufacturing by either investing in better manufacturing technology or by spending more time manually adjusting and finishing the components. The question is whether one has the resources to achieve this, and whether one can recoup the associated costs.

This is where Grand Seiko's low production numbers relative to Rolex hurts it, since it lacks the economies of scale to make the first approach cost effective, and it lacks the brand cachet to make the second approach fiscally sound. I suspect that this in part is why they have chosen to focus their efforts on Spring Drive.


----------



## BrianBinFL

mleok said:


> As someone said upthread, this isn't rocket science, one can achieve tighter tolerances in movement, case, and bracelet manufacturing by either investing in better manufacturing technology or by spending more time manually adjusting and finishing the components. The question is whether one has the resources to achieve this, and whether one can recoup the associated costs.
> 
> This is where Grand Seiko's low production numbers relative to Rolex hurts it, since it lacks the economies of scale to make the first approach cost effective, and it lacks the brand cachet to make the second approach fiscally sound. I suspect that this in part is why they have chosen to focus their efforts on Spring Drive.


Since GS already does so much by hand on each watch, I would think that if this was a simple matter of manual adjustment they would do it - or a competent watchmaker could do it after the fact and turn the -1/+10 into a +/- 2. I suspect it's not that simple.

I suspect the answer is in the hairspring. Be it the Parachrom hairspring or the silicon variant, I suspect they are simply more impervious to temperature and position than GS's various SPRON alloys and permit more easily attaining superior consistency.

That of course is simply speculation on my part, and I'm sure GS isn't going to say one way or the other.

I don't think I would believe that they wouldn't want to be able to tout an accuracy specification equal to or better than that of Rolex. I would think if it were a simple matter of hand adjustment then they would offer a +/- 2 spd in their "*" rated models, which they don't. Therefore I suspect that at the present time they simply cannot match it without a technology change, and most of the accuracy of the watch lies in the hairspring since GS apparently is capable of 1 micron level machining on the various other parts of the escapement.


----------



## manofrolex

Yes my brand new from June 2019 Milgauss is running at +4s/d so much for Rolex advertised and guaranteed +2/-2 so you can write it all day long on your website but the rubber has to eventually meet the road and in my case in never has and I am not the only one out there ......


----------



## mleok

BrianBinFL said:


> Since GS already does so much by hand on each watch, I would think that if this was a simple matter of manual adjustment they would do it - or a competent watchmaker could do it after the fact and turn the -1/+10 into a +/- 2. I suspect it's not that simple.
> 
> I suspect the answer is in the hairspring. Be it the Parachrom hairspring or the silicon variant, I suspect they are simply more impervious to temperature and position than GS's various SPRON alloys and permit more easily attaining superior consistency.
> 
> That of course is simply speculation on my part, and I'm sure GS isn't going to say one way or the other.
> 
> I don't think I would believe that they wouldn't want to be able to tout an accuracy specification equal to or better than that of Rolex. I would think if it were a simple matter of hand adjustment then they would offer a +/- 2 spd in their "*" rated models, which they don't. Therefore I suspect that at the present time they simply cannot match it without a technology change, and most of the accuracy of the watch lies in the hairspring since GS apparently is capable of 1 micron level machining on the various other parts of the escapement.


I don't actually think Grand Seiko lavishes anywhere close to the level of manual adjustment of the movement by a watchmaker that a Trinity brand does, their current price point simply can't sustain that, when they already devote so much care to finishing their cases, dials, markers, and hands. I have always maintained that silicon hairsprings were introduced because they did not require a highly skilled watchmaker to form, shape, and adjust the hairspring, so that might be the best way forward for them.


----------



## mleok

jmanlay said:


> Yes my brand new from June 2019 Milgauss is running at +4s/d so much for Rolex advertised and guaranteed +2/-2 so you can write it all day long on your website but the rubber has to eventually meet the road and in my case in never has and I am not the only one out there ......


Have you asked Rolex to address this?


----------



## manofrolex

mleok said:


> Have you asked Rolex to address this?


Not yet but I will . Just haven't had the opportunity yet


----------



## mleok

jmanlay said:


> Not yet but I will . Just haven't had the opportunity yet


Would be interested to hear your experience with this. How do your mechanical Grand Seikos perform?


----------



## manofrolex

mleok said:


> Would be interested to hear your experience with this. How do your mechanical Grand Seikos perform?


The one I had the sbgm027 was +3 but it is an n of 1 so hard to say if it was a fluke or good fine tuning on GS' part. My spring drive isn't comparable so I don't use it as a bench mark for anything purely mechanical .
To be honest I just made myself a pilot w French case genuine eta 6498 élaboré w swan neck steel flames blue hands and I adjusted it to 0s/d in three positions so it can be done....just took me a while


----------



## mleok

jmanlay said:


> The one I had the sbgm027 was +3 but it is an n of 1 so hard to say if it was a fluke or good fine tuning on GS' part. My spring drive isn't comparable so I don't use it as a bench mark for anything purely mechanical .
> To be honest I just made myself a pilot w French case genuine eta 6498 élaboré w swan neck steel flames blue hands and I adjusted it to 0s/d in three positions so it can be done....just took me a while


Cool, did you do the Timezone watchmaking class?


----------



## manofrolex

mleok said:


> Cool, did you do the Timezone watchmaking class?


Nope the school of self taught  learned to disassemble clean oil....

Started w this Hamilton 917 (I would NOT recommend starting there)



















Then the Hami 921










Then this










Next project using this


----------



## mleok

jmanlay said:


> Nope the school of self taught  learned to disassemble clean oil....
> 
> Started w this Hamilton 917 (I would NOT recommend starting there)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the Hami 921
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next project using this


Nice, the old Hamilton Size 10 917/921/923 pocket watch movements are really pretty, and I've contemplated using them as the movement for a project watch, since Tourby sells cases, dials, and hands for them on eBay.


----------



## Jostack

jmanlay said:


> Yes my brand new from June 2019 Milgauss is running at +4s/d so much for Rolex advertised and guaranteed +2/-2 so you can write it all day long on your website but the rubber has to eventually meet the road and in my case in never has and I am not the only one out there ......


If you spend any time in the accuracy threads on TRF, you'll find out pretty quickly that most there think the Rolex +/-2 is simply a marketing angle. Over and over people are chastised for questioning if their Rolex is ok when it is a few spd off. Regularly told how many seconds in a day there are to justify not operating within Rolex spec. I personally don't get that mindset. My DJ41 was slow, so I had the AD regulate it. Then it was fast, out of spec. Sent it off to RSC and they finally got it in spec, but just barely, and only if I made the effort to rest it overnight in the slowest position. The slowest position still gained time. I regulated it myself, and it now never exceeds 1 second offset. If I lose .6 during the day, I can gain that back overnight.

I just picked up a GS high beat, and am curious to see how it stacks up. I'm pretty confident it will be better than my Rolex started.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## manofrolex

Jostack said:


> If you spend any time in the accuracy threads on TRF, you'll find out pretty quickly that most there think the Rolex +/-2 is simply a marketing angle. Over and over people are chastised for questioning if their Rolex is ok when it is a few spd off. Regularly told how many seconds in a day there are to justify not operating within Rolex spec. I personally don't get that mindset. My DJ41 was slow, so I had the AD regulate it. Then it was fast, out of spec. Sent it off to RSC and they finally got it in spec, but just barely, and only if I made the effort to rest it overnight in the slowest position. The slowest position still gained time. I regulated it myself, and it now never exceeds 1 second offset. If I lose .6 during the day, I can gain that back overnight.
> 
> I just picked up a GS high beat, and am curious to see how it stacks up. I'm pretty confident it will be better than my Rolex started.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Let us know how the high beat stacks up ...would be good to compare 
To be perfectly honest I don't wear any of my watches long enough to care how they run ....as long as they are running well and within a reasonable non noticeable +- x s/d
Almost about bragging rights after a point and as long as a watch is consistent (not +5 one day and -10 the next ..) over time then I am good


----------



## heineken4u

Jostack said:


> If you spend any time in the accuracy threads on TRF, you'll find out pretty quickly that most there think the Rolex +/-2 is simply a marketing angle. Over and over people are chastised for questioning if their Rolex is ok when it is a few spd off. Regularly told how many seconds in a day there are to justify not operating within Rolex spec. I personally don't get that mindset. My DJ41 was slow, so I had the AD regulate it. Then it was fast, out of spec. Sent it off to RSC and they finally got it in spec, but just barely, and only if I made the effort to rest it overnight in the slowest position. The slowest position still gained time. I regulated it myself, and it now never exceeds 1 second offset. If I lose .6 during the day, I can gain that back overnight.
> 
> I just picked up a GS high beat, and am curious to see how it stacks up. I'm pretty confident it will be better than my Rolex started.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't think most people from the Rolex forum think their +-2 seconds per day is a marketing angle. It's a fact.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## Jostack

It is a fact that the current Rolex spec is +/-2.
It is a fact that Rolex uses that spec in their marketing.
It is also a fact that there are plenty of Rolex watches that don’t meet that spec. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok

Jostack said:


> If you spend any time in the accuracy threads on TRF, you'll find out pretty quickly that most there think the Rolex +/-2 is simply a marketing angle. Over and over people are chastised for questioning if their Rolex is ok when it is a few spd off. Regularly told how many seconds in a day there are to justify not operating within Rolex spec. I personally don't get that mindset. My DJ41 was slow, so I had the AD regulate it. Then it was fast, out of spec. Sent it off to RSC and they finally got it in spec, but just barely, and only if I made the effort to rest it overnight in the slowest position. The slowest position still gained time. I regulated it myself, and it now never exceeds 1 second offset. If I lose .6 during the day, I can gain that back overnight.
> 
> I just picked up a GS high beat, and am curious to see how it stacks up. I'm pretty confident it will be better than my Rolex started.


Rolex movements do not have a regulator, they have a variable inertia balance wheel. Do you have your own microstella tool?

https://www.watchprosite.com/horolo...he-rolex-microstella-tool/17.1179526.9410911/


----------



## Jostack

mleok said:


> Rolex movements do not have a regulator, they have a variable inertia balance wheel. Do you have your own microstella tool?
> 
> https://www.watchprosite.com/horolo...he-rolex-microstella-tool/17.1179526.9410911/


Yes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## manofrolex

mleok said:


> Rolex movements do not have a regulator, they have a variable inertia balance wheel. Do you have your own microstella tool?
> 
> https://www.watchprosite.com/horolo...he-rolex-microstella-tool/17.1179526.9410911/


Talk about a pain in the [email protected]@ to regulate


----------



## mleok

Jostack said:


> Yes.


And a Rolex caseback tool? Going from 2 spd to 1 spd must have been really important to you.


----------



## Jostack

jmanlay said:


> Talk about a pain in the [email protected]@ to regulate


It is actually easier than a traditional lever/spring adjustment.

As long as you have decent eyes and magnification, and lay off the coffee, it is much easier to make a precise adjustment.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jostack

mleok said:


> And a Rolex caseback tool? Going from 2 spd to 1 spd must have been really important to you.


Why the third degree?

It is my watch, and if I want it to be as accurate as possible, why should anyone else care?

It is not magic. Anyone with good mechanical skills and an understanding of how the free sprung balance adjustment works, can accomplish regulating.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok

Jostack said:


> Why the third degree?
> 
> It is my watch, and if I want it to be as accurate as possible, why should anyone else care?
> 
> It is not magic. Anyone with good mechanical skills and an understanding of how the free sprung balance adjustment works, can accomplish regulating.


Fair enough, but would doing that invalidate your warranty? Wouldn't give up a five year warranty for that personally, but as you say, it's your watch.


----------



## Jostack

mleok said:


> Fair enough, but would doing that invalidate your warranty? Wouldn't give up a five year warranty for that personally, but as you say, it's your watch.


Of course, but it's a Rolex, odds of needing to use the warranty are very low. RSC serviced it when it went back, so if there were any lube issues known to plague some early 3235's, that should be resolved. If it happens to need regulation in the future, I have the tools, and it will take minutes vs weeks at RSC or an AD.

Yes there is a chance I could make a slip and screw something up. For that, I will pay the 'stupid' tax, and send it in.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limnoman

mleok said:


> Rolex movements do not have a regulator, they have a variable inertia balance wheel. Do you have your own microstella tool?
> 
> https://www.watchprosite.com/horolo...he-rolex-microstella-tool/17.1179526.9410911/


Thanks for posting, as I wasn't aware of this tool. Interesting read.


----------



## whineboy

BrianBinFL said:


> This is where Rolex is a clear leader. The accuracy of their movements is superb. The only movement GS has that is in Rolex's territory is the Spring Drive and of course that's cheating a bit.
> 
> Personally I hope that GS will offer new movements 1-2 years from now that will compete with Rolex in terms of accuracy once the Swiss patent on silicon hairsprings expires.


If you have the patent number, I'd love to know it (patent lawyer here).

BTW, my Damasko has a silicon hairspring. Made in-house by them.

Edit: I saw above you referred to a Swiss patent. That only has legal effect in CH. If there are counterparts in other countries, that's another story. And of course the wording of the patent claims will determine whether it covers the broad concept of a silicon hairspring or something much narrower.

Edit 2: this describe it? https://www.patentlitigation.ch/silicon-hairspring-technology-being-litigated/ . If so, the claim is narrow and requires a very specific material be used. Rolex, Swatch and Patek are said to be licensed.










I see there are foreign counterparts:









whineboy

All mechanical, all the time


----------



## Maverixk

I've owned many Rolex's before, but recently I became quite infatuated with Grand seiko. 
The dials were always very attractive to me. 
I picked this one up recently. 
It is the SBGJ021 - Sunrise over mt iwate dial. 
I love the coloured rotor behind as well. 

Grand seikos wear surprisingly similar to a rolex submariner, with the exception that the Rolex submariner tends to be `sharper` on the wrist.


----------



## DeCrow

Maverixk said:


> I've owned many Rolex's before, but recently I became quite infatuated with Grand seiko.
> The dials were always very attractive to me.
> I picked this one up recently.
> It is the SBGJ021 - Sunrise over mt iwate dial.
> I love the coloured rotor behind as well.
> 
> Grand seikos wear surprisingly similar to a rolex submariner, with the exception that the Rolex submariner tends to be `sharper` on the wrist.


I would say that a sub wears larger due to the straight lugs (in latest incarnation).

Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk


----------



## BrianBinFL

whineboy said:


> If you have the patent number, I'd love to know it (patent lawyer here).
> 
> BTW, my Damasko has a silicon hairspring. Made in-house by them.
> 
> Edit: I saw above you referred to a Swiss patent. That only has legal effect in CH. If there are counterparts in other countries, that's another story. And of course the wording of the patent claims will determine whether it covers the broad concept of a silicon hairspring or something much narrower.
> 
> Edit 2: this describe it? https://www.patentlitigation.ch/silicon-hairspring-technology-being-litigated/ . If so, the claim is narrow and requires a very specific material be used. Rolex, Swatch and Patek are said to be licensed.


I'm not a patent lawyer but I do hold one U.S. patent and study law as a hobby. I have lost countless hours (days?) of my life looking for all of the patents for Spring Drive type technologies (Seiko's and others'). I get frustrated at how difficult it can be to find patents on some of these things that are simply referred to in the trade press as "patented" with no indication of whether the patent is in force or expired, etc.

I have not searched for nor stumbled upon any of the patents for the silicon hairsprings but I know that their claims must be rather narrow because I have read of others filing for patents on the same thing that don't intrude on their claims. On the flip side I've seen some articles regarding lawsuits for those who allegedly violated their claims (one of which is the one you linked to).

If the patents are about to expire (in 2021 from one article) then the most cost effective plan for Seiko and others might be to just use that time perfecting their manufacturing processes to make silicon hairsprings and wait until the patents expire to start selling a product that uses them (rather than trying to come up with clever ways to avoid CSEM's claims).


----------



## Mr.Jones82

Taking a step back into the lengthy bracelet conversation from earlier...so I bought an Aqua Terra this week. I passed on getting a couple sbgr models because I felt that the AT is more of a sports watch and I prefer its style to GS in that department, but I have to say the GS bracelets I have owned are on another level compared to this. Don’t get me wrong, the AT bracelet is beautiful and I actually prefer it aesthetically to the GS 5 link, but those silky smooth GS bracelets are miles ahead in wearability. Still the most comfortable bracelets I have owned. Comparing the AT bracelet (which isn’t a slouch by any means, I really like it except for the awful butterfly clasp) and the GS bracelet served to remind me how much you really get for your money when it comes to GS.


----------



## blowlamp

What we need here are a few 'in-use' examples of deviations from zero, on a day by day basis, from owners of both GS & Rolex.
Don't also forget that GS has two movement ranges, besides mechanical, that most definitely are more accurate, certainly as well made and are better value for money than what Rolex - or any other prestige maker offers. I don't accept these movements can be ignored to support an argument that tries to rubbish GS and also downplays cost comparisons between brands.


----------



## Mr.Jones82

blowlamp said:


> What we need here are a few 'in-use' examples of deviations from zero, on a day by day basis, from owners of both GS & Rolex.
> Don't also forget that GS has two movement ranges, besides mechanical, that most definitely are more accurate, certainly as well made and are better value for money than what Rolex - or any other prestige maker offers. I don't accept these movements can be ignored to support an argument that tries to rubbish GS and also downplays cost comparisons between brands.


That sounds very interesting. I am pretty sure there are enough owners in this thread to get a pretty good sample. I am intrigued.


----------



## Jostack

My DJ41 after regulation gains .3 to .6 on wrist through the day, and resting crown down overnight gains a good chunk of that back, and sometimes more, depending on how long it rests, and the natural variation from day to day. 

My SBGH213 is still too new to tell where it will land, but currently appears to be similar, but resting dial down. Only one day in with it, so take that with a grain of salt. I’ll check it on the timing machine later, to get a better feel for the positional variation. 

I have no issue with Rolex watches at all. I love mine now that the timekeeping is where I’m happy. It is the vocal few that think they have to bash another brand (GS) to prop up their love of Rolex. And their state of denial about regulation issues. There seems to be an irrational fear of opening the case to have regulation done. I’m not referring to a private individual personally regulating a watch. They are afraid of RSC opening their watch under warranty. If they don’t care about timekeeping, that is fine, but they tend to belittle those who do. I find that silly, and mostly refrain from their engagement in accuracy threads. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pkincy

I have spent an inordinate amount of time wearing my new Daytona and Submariner that I added to the DJ 36 a couple of months ago. But to be fair to my 3 GSs I put one on for this weekend and I think I better understand their similarities as well as their differences. The DJ and the GSs really do occupy a somewhat similar space. Dressy, elegant and a bit formal. Once you move to the Rolex Tool watches you lose elegance but definitely are making a larger louder statement with the watches. 

Going back to my GS SBGT241 today I realized that the elegance of the dial and the +/- 5 sec/year timekeeping are to be valued but that don't shout that out nearly as much as the Rolex Tool watches nor even the DJ 36 on Jubilee with fluted bezel. You have to look closer to see the patterned dial, the sharp edges of the hands, the micro polishing, but if you do slow yourself down to look at those things they definitely equal if not surpass the Rolex, even the Rolex Tool watches. In some ways the GSs present elegance in an elegant way. The Rolex tends to shout look at me, I am beautiful. Note the lack of AR coatings so they flash at you more. They are bigger. The bezels are heavier. They definitely make a "louder" prescence.

I don't have a GS dive watch so I am more comparing my GS 40 mm dress watches on bracelet to the DJ36, the Submariner and the Daytona.

Neither is "better," they are just different and need to be appreciated in a different way. The GS are far more subtle but when you slow down to notice that are clearly more beautiful. The Rolex makes a louder in your face prescence and there is certainly time for that and I can see people preferring that. Likely a more forward brash type of person would gravitate to the Rolex over the GS. There is clearly room for both in a collection, but you need to appreciate each for what it is, not what it isn't. On the GS it is the details that present its beauty. On the Rolex it is the heft and the bling that do the same.

Enjoy both.


----------



## whineboy

BrianBinFL said:


> I get frustrated at how difficult it can be to find patents on some of these things that are simply referred to in the trade press as "patented" with no indication of whether the patent is in force or expired, etc.
> 
> I have not searched for nor stumbled upon any of the patents for the silicon hairsprings but I know that their claims must be rather narrow because I have read of others filing for patents on the same thing that don't intrude on their claims....
> 
> If the patents are about to expire (in 2021 from one article) then the most cost effective plan for Seiko and others might be to just use that time perfecting their manufacturing processes to make silicon hairsprings and wait until the patents expire to start selling a product that uses them (rather than trying to come up with clever ways to avoid CSEM's claims).


Sorry to the OP that I'm going to go off-topic but I wanted to respond to you. Then again, there has been a bit of meandering by others on this thread.

Agreed that many publications take at face value watch companies assertions that something is patented. For years I've read about ETA/Swatch's alleged patents on the 2824 and 2892 movements, but no-one every identifies actual patents. I've commented on that in other threads.

I don't understand your second point - if you haven't found the alleged original Si hairspring patent, how can you evaluate the any relevance of the later patents' claims? Remember, during the patent application process you typically want to start with broader claims than you are expecting and you work with the Examiner to narrow them down. A mistake I find made by many people who file their own patent applications is to present claims that are too detailed (they want the claims to include all the details of the preferred embodiment, which is bad practice because you obtain less coverage than you could have). So the cases you found might still be evolving.

To your last point - Seiko could also be using the time to develop a non-infringing alternative, as Damasko apparently did. The Swiss / EPO claim I found speaks of a coated hairspring with particular crystal structure. If you don't have the coating, or a different structure, you wouldn't infringe.

I'm not sure how you conduct searches, but patent searching on Google or the USPTO or Espacenet websites using word strings is imprecise. Patent attorneys and professional searchers use the official USPTO or International Patent Classification codes to find a focused group of patents for study.


----------



## whineboy

blowlamp said:


> What we need here are a few 'in-use' examples of deviations from zero, on a day by day basis, from owners of both GS & Rolex.
> Don't also forget that GS has two movement ranges, besides mechanical, that most definitely are more accurate, certainly as well made and are better value for money than what Rolex - or any other prestige maker offers. I don't accept these movements can be ignored to support an argument that tries to rubbish GS and also downplays cost comparisons between brands.


Good idea. I'll step up to the plate with my SBGJ001, which typically runs within +2 seconds a day. Here's a recent 10 day run, it's on my wrist for about 12-14 hours a day, dial up in the watch box at night. The falloff during the last two days happened because I wasn't wearing it.


----------



## Jostack

My DJ41 after 15 days as of yesterday. 

























I'll post data/graphs on the SBGH213/9s85 when I get more time on it. First full day on wrist [email protected] Timegrapher shows minimal positional variation.

Dial up +3
Dial down 0
Crown down +2
Crown up +1
Crown right 0
Crown left +4

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BrianBinFL

whineboy said:


> I don't understand your second point - if you haven't found the alleged original Si hairspring patent, how can you evaluate the any relevance of the later patents' claims?


Some of the comments in various articles made it sound as though the claims in the Swiss patent were VERY specific as to the structure of the entity and it sounded like it would be very easy to avoid infringing the claim. Of course there is always the "obvious to one skilled in the art", etc. to keep some of those avoidances from succeeding.



whineboy said:


> Remember, during the patent application process you typically want to start with broader claims than you are expecting and you work with the Examiner to narrow them down.


Sure. You want the broadest most general claims possible. So you play the game of a super broad claim #1, and then you get more and more specific in the following claims - "the invention described in claim #1 adding blah blah blah", "the invention described in claim #2 adding blah blah blah" and you add and add and add so that you cover everything from the most general to the more specific embodiment (depending upon the nature of the prior art and what claims that might foreclose).
We prosecuted my patent for 5 years. It was maddening. I know the examiner is just doing his job but the back and forth between him and my patent attorney (who candidly was I think a little green) drove me insane. We started with something like 20 claims and in the end the patent issued with only a single surviving claim. Thankfully it was Claim #1 and was the broadest so it didn't really hurt my feelings. I am very proud of my patent certificate attesting to me coming up with something useful that nobody ever thought of before. 

Sadly the federal government didn't like my invention and they made it illegal. How's that for amusing? No I don't want to talk about it. It's still a sore spot. Lol.


----------



## pedrogilsenarego

I think it is prprietary to seiko the spring drive


----------



## whineboy

BrianBinFL said:


> Some of the comments in various articles made it sound as though the claims in the Swiss patent were VERY specific as to the structure of the entity and it sounded like it would be very easy to avoid infringing the claim. Of course there is always the "obvious to one skilled in the art", etc. to keep some of those avoidances from succeeding.


I'd be shocked if journalists ever read the claims, in my experience laymen only focus on the abstract (often the same as the unamended first claims). Countless engineers I've worked with do that even when I tell them over and over to review all the claims. So, I'm skeptical we have solid info there.



BrianBinFL said:


> Sure. You want the broadest most general claims possible. So you play the game of a super broad claim #1, and then you get more and more specific in the following claims - "the invention described in claim #1 adding blah blah blah", "the invention described in claim #2 adding blah blah blah" and you add and add and add so that you cover everything from the most general to the more specific embodiment (depending upon the nature of the prior art and what claims that might foreclose).
> We prosecuted my patent for 5 years. It was maddening. I know the examiner is just doing his job but the back and forth between him and my patent attorney (who candidly was I think a little green) drove me insane. We started with something like 20 claims and in the end the patent issued with only a single surviving claim. Thankfully it was Claim #1 and was the broadest so it didn't really hurt my feelings. I am very proud of my patent certificate attesting to me coming up with something useful that nobody ever thought of before.


Most cases start with 20 claims because that is covered by the base filing fee (more specifically, 3 independent, 20 total).

If all your dependent claims were dropped it sounds like at least some might have been moved into the independent claim. Sorry to hear you weren't happy with your patent attorney.

You should be proud of your patent, but remember, whenever anyone waves a patent around like a US government seal of approval, that's not accurate. Patent law does not require the invention be better than the prior art - just useful, novel and non-obvious.

Edit: having hijacked this thread a few times, I suggest we conduct any future correspondence by PM, don't want to enrage our fellow WISs with the dry subject of patent law.


----------



## BrianBinFL

whineboy said:


> Edit: having hijacked this thread a few times, I suggest we conduct any future correspondence by PM, don't want to enrage our fellow WISs with the dry subject of patent law.


I concur. I didn't feel _too_ bad about it since the consensus was that the entire thread was started as a troll/ruse in the first place. That said, the thread has turned out to be a good one, so my apologies to any WISs annoyed by the detour.


----------



## YMII

Ever since I discovered Grand Seiko over two years ago, the Rolex are unworn in the bank locker ....


----------



## Josh R.

I have to agree with YM. I just received my first GS today (SBGBV225). It has a very Datejusty feel, but with great dial, jewel-like indices and hands, and a better finish. If you can handle the tick-tick of the 9F quartz movement, it's really worth a look.


----------

