# I think B&R may be the new Rolex



## MJM

I got to thinkin' back to when I was a kid. My dad, back in the 1960s and 70s, was hard working Chicago cop who scrimped and saved and bought a Rolex Sub which he wore through hell and back. It was a hardworking watch that people always got wide-eyed over. It had style and was huge compared to some of the thin and flat popular watches of that day.

Now B&R has come along and created a new style. Something modern that fits the time. So many watches are so much alike. I have a Planet Ocean and I had a Breitling. Though they were completely different, they were so much alike I couldn't keep them both. I got rid of the Breitling and got a B&R. I've looked at so many watches in the past few months I've almost made myself nuts.

I guess that's what got me to thinking about all this. There are so many discussions on why Rolex has it's good or bad image, depending on who you are and how you look at things. Though it still bugs me that B&R hasn't taken the time or effort to have COSC ratings, I think they are thinking outside the box and bringing a new future leader to the watch scene. They may or may not reach the stature of some brands, but I think they're headed in the right direction. 

Just the thoughts of a guy who's been at working for 12 hours! What do you all think???


----------



## Aqua Spearo

Could be, they certaintly have a dynamic team that knows how to design very well and market their products. Rolex has gained mass popularity with a certain age group because it was a rebellious choice that traditionalist would have sneared at when the watch was first released. B&R connection with the 20-30 yo group will propel the brand to cult status in the next 20 years...pretty safe investment if you ask me. There are not to many other watches in that price range that will be worth anything as a collectors piece.


----------



## Beau8

They're innovative in the fact that their design appeals to a certain sector of watch enthusiasts and have found a niche in the watch market~Cheers! ;-)


----------



## midshipman01

I wonder if their designs aren't a bit too funky and unique, especially the trademark instrument watch, to really become classic a la Rolex. I don't want to call them a fad, because they're actually just really great looking watches. But, it is a reality that "modern" and avant garde design has a tendency to become obsolete fairly quickly as style changes. B&R will really need to keep pumping out lookers and staying ahead of the trend to keep themselves from being typecast and left behind as fashion moves on.


----------



## heb

*I don't think so*

Hello,

While certainly time-visible, there is nothing "classic" about them. Their size and colorization probably makes them anti-classic. And some of their special issues seem to follow the Corum "Bubble" route.

The ETA 2892 movements in B & R's time only models are probably the best ones this side of Rolex movements in terms of long term accuracy and reliability. But, the same base movement in their chronographs is a lousy choice for the macho ruggedness projected by them.

heb


----------



## Aqua Spearo

originally designed funky watches are the most collectible.. Omega ploprof? ancient massive panerai watches? Heuer Monaco? Even the Submariner was extreme funky before it was mainstream. If the watch doesnt have an original aesthetic design, it will never be worth anything... something also doesnt have to be in style all the time to collect it. I dont think rolex is in style with generation Y right now.. it seems like a cliche yuppy baby boomer status symbol to most that is the exact opposite of cool. BR and Panerai own Cool right now. The other brands are missing out on the big thing in the future which will be the distressed PVD look with nice leather straps. High polished stainless blingy SS watches are not in style. The PVD BR01 will age like fine wine.



midshipman01 said:


> I wonder if their designs aren't a bit too funky and unique, especially the trademark instrument watch, to really become classic a la Rolex. I don't want to call them a fad, because they're actually just really great looking watches. But, it is a reality that "modern" and avant garde design has a tendency to become obsolete fairly quickly as style changes. B&R will really need to keep pumping out lookers and staying ahead of the trend to keep themselves from being typecast and left behind as fashion moves on.


----------



## jd_biohazard

I agree with you guys, the are at the top of the innovation. I think that they are the pioneers of the engeneering in watches!. If you are a Scientific you have to wear a B&R.! b-)


----------



## Aqua Spearo

To their credit, they randomly created the deepest production dive watch in existance by updating the Sinn UX with an internal pressure compensating bladder. I give them 15 years to prove themself with an innovative in house movement. Completely unfair to criticize a small stand alone independent watch company for not just creating watch movement out of thin air when I took Omega a decade to finish theirs.



jd_biohazard said:


> I agree with you guys, the are at the top of the innovation. I think that they are the pioneers of the engeneering in watches!. If you are a Scientific you have to wear a B&R.! b-)


----------



## AnticGod

I don`t agree with you. Even if the design is really innovative rolex is still the best mark in watches. 
I think they will keep their position for long time.


----------



## Aqua Spearo

I thought panerai already stole that crown.. better design & better movements without the mainstream advertising.



AnticGod said:


> I don`t agree with you. Even if the design is really innovative rolex is still the best mark in watches.
> I think they will keep their position for long time.


----------



## wdrazek

*Re: I don't think so*



heb said:


> Hello,
> 
> While certainly time-visible, there is nothing "classic" about them. Their size and colorization probably makes them anti-classic. And some of their special issues seem to follow the Corum "Bubble" route.
> 
> The ETA 2892 movements in B & R's time only models are probably the best ones this side of Rolex movements in terms of long term accuracy and reliability. But, the same base movement in their chronographs is a lousy choice for the macho ruggedness projected by them.
> 
> heb


+1 I think the styling is fashion-forward. You can't fault them for not having an in-house movement but $4k-10k non-COSC automatics using base ETA movements are not for me. Still like the styling, though.


----------



## Ananda

midshipman01 said:


> But, it is a reality that "modern" and avant garde design has a tendency to become obsolete fairly quickly as style changes.


can anyone say 'gerald genta'. his stuff is still selling.

i like b&r's look - they did something different and it looks cool. most companies that do something different don't get it right - i guess because it's hard to do.
the br-02 is uber-cool - what a design!


----------



## Watchbreath

Conduct a poll in the Public Forum, that should be interesting.


----------



## Jingo Lingo

B&R, a relatively small company with little history and a small market presence have no hope of being the "new Rolex". I'm not knocking B&R but it is a silly comparison.


----------



## Aqua Spearo

People are speculating where the brand will be 50 years from now, not in the near future. Also parent company Chanel, founded around the same time as rolex, isnt a new and has deep pockets, connections and big advertising... and they have been actively pursuing world record achievements wearing their watches to build thier own history.



Jingo Lingo said:


> B&R, a relatively small company with little history and a small market presence have no hope of being the "new Rolex". I'm not knocking B&R but it is a silly comparison.


----------



## BR549

MJM said:


> I got to thinkin' back to when I was a kid. My dad, back in the 1960s and 70s, was hard working Chicago cop who scrimped and saved and bought a Rolex Sub which he wore through hell and back. It was a hardworking watch that people always got wide-eyed over. It had style and was huge compared to some of the thin and flat popular watches of that day.
> 
> Now B&R has come along and created a new style. Something modern that fits the time. So many watches are so much alike. I have a Planet Ocean and I had a Breitling. Though they were completely different, they were so much alike I couldn't keep them both. I got rid of the Breitling and got a B&R. I've looked at so many watches in the past few months I've almost made myself nuts.
> 
> I guess that's what got me to thinking about all this. There are so many discussions on why Rolex has it's good or bad image, depending on who you are and how you look at things. Though it still bugs me that B&R hasn't taken the time or effort to have COSC ratings, I think they are thinking outside the box and bringing a new future leader to the watch scene. They may or may not reach the stature of some brands, but I think they're headed in the right direction.
> 
> Just the thoughts of a guy who's been at working for 12 hours! What do you all think???


I'm going to go w/ NO. They are already using the SW200 movement( over having anything in house) and there claim to fame is being.. square. I like the looks of them, but they don't fit right on my wrist. Still I don't see them being any thing that Rolex has been. Might want to read up on all the history of Rolex first.

Just my .02


----------



## peezie

Rolex will always be Rolex, no matter the current trend. One way to gauge long-term popularity and consumer impression is to see which watches ADs usually take in trade. Similarly, look to see which get the fewest discounts.

Currently, the top would be Rolex, Cartier, and Panerai; trailing we see Breitling, B&R, and IWC.


----------



## HelloNasty1

Next Rolex, not so sure about that one. B&R has carved a nice niche and separated themselves from the "pack" of other brands. Hopefully they can keep the pace, I like what comes out of the B&R camp.


----------



## Simon

I am keen to own a B&R and think they look awesome, but I don't think they will ever replace Rolex. Rolex were innovative, but in terms of function not merely aesthetics which remained pretty conservative. B&R are innovative in terms of aesthetics but not function.

Rolex are generally acknowledged as pioneering the first truly commercial waterproof watch (oyster); dive watch (sub); 24hour watch (GMT) which established their name and position. They also won the accolade for conquering the heights (everest) and the depths (world record for actual depths gone). And the great Rolex marketing machine made much of this. One cannot easily think of what other impressive feats a B&R watch needs to accompany to make such a name for itself.

B&R are innovative in style, although even that reflects old school cockpit dials - they have yet to produce innovation in function, only in design. I think they will increase their market and become increasingly recognized by non WIS, but cant seem them nudging Rolex out of the way.

si


----------



## Watchbreath

The top is Patek Philippe.


peezie said:


> Rolex will always be Rolex, no matter the current trend. One way to gauge long-term popularity and consumer impression is to see which watches ADs usually take in trade. Similarly, look to see which get the fewest discounts.
> 
> Currently, the top would be Rolex, Cartier, and Panerai; trailing we see Breitling, B&R, and IWC.


----------



## WatchFan56

that maybe a bit of a stretch to say the "new Rolex"


----------



## watchhound

MJM said:


> I got to thinkin' back to when I was a kid. My dad, back in the 1960s and 70s, was hard working Chicago cop who scrimped and saved and bought a Rolex Sub which he wore through hell and back. It was a hardworking watch that people always got wide-eyed over. It had style and was huge compared to some of the thin and flat popular watches of that day.
> 
> Now B&R has come along and created a new style. Something modern that fits the time. So many watches are so much alike. I have a Planet Ocean and I had a Breitling. Though they were completely different, they were so much alike I couldn't keep them both. I got rid of the Breitling and got a B&R. I've looked at so many watches in the past few months I've almost made myself nuts.
> 
> I guess that's what got me to thinking about all this. There are so many discussions on why Rolex has it's good or bad image, depending on who you are and how you look at things. Though it still bugs me that B&R hasn't taken the time or effort to have COSC ratings, I think they are thinking outside the box and bringing a new future leader to the watch scene. They may or may not reach the stature of some brands, but I think they're headed in the right direction.
> 
> Just the thoughts of a guy who's been at working for 12 hours! What do you all think???


No offense but I don't see B&R in any way equating to Rolex. That would be like saying that Tag watches are very popular and in the common watch buying world and thus are following in Rolexes footsteps. B&R, IMO, is not particularly a highly respected brand. I for one, no offense to anyone, find the new design of their square cased watches particularly unattractive and very faddish. I doubt you will see them worn or around in another year or two. The resale will also be terrible, I predict.


----------



## Haf

watchhound said:


> No offense but I don't see B&R in any way equating to Rolex. That would be like saying that Tag watches are very popular and in the common watch buying world and thus are following in Rolexes footsteps. B&R, IMO, is not particularly a highly respected brand. I for one, no offense to anyone, find the new design of their square cased watches particularly unattractive and very faddish. I doubt you will see them worn or around in another year or two. The resale will also be terrible, I predict.


I agree, B&R has no history in watchmaking, they entered the industry by marketing Sinn made watches with both Sinn and B&R writings on the dials. The Instrument series is just a 656 with a square face:roll:


----------



## socalbreeze

I dont think anybody will overtake Rolex, not even Panerai, which is the epitomy of "cool" right now and probably commands a better re-sell value than Rolex. As for Patek, Yes its a great watch company but I dont think it can compete with Rolex on popularity and re-sell value. 

I love BR. I think in the near future it will become a powerhouse. Give them a few more years to develop a in-house movement, just keep designing innovative instruments and they'll definitely be a force to be reckon with. Unfortunately right now they do not have a history to back them and is viewed more as a fashion watch by the WIS.


----------



## petergunny

the black PVD BR with orange marker has very good resale value I heard...


----------



## midshipman01

Aqua Spearo said:


> originally designed funky watches are the most collectible.. Omega ploprof? ancient massive panerai watches? Heuer Monaco? Even the Submariner was extreme funky before it was mainstream. If the watch doesnt have an original aesthetic design, it will never be worth anything... something also doesnt have to be in style all the time to collect it. I dont think rolex is in style with generation Y right now.. it seems like a cliche yuppy baby boomer status symbol to most that is the exact opposite of cool. BR and Panerai own Cool right now. The other brands are missing out on the big thing in the future which will be the distressed PVD look with nice leather straps. High polished stainless blingy SS watches are not in style. The PVD BR01 will age like fine wine.


I agree, but what you're overlooking is why those particular watches are popular. The reason is that the brands still have a lot of clout. This makes anything they've done in the past, especially the really unique stuff, worth coveting. The unique watches you didn't mention number in the thousands, but we don't give a rip about them because (for the most part) they, and their brand, became irrelevant long ago. That most of them have styling or technology that is heavily rooted in a particular time period makes them all the more subject to obscurity.

This is why I still believe that 1 or 2 unique designs is not enough to hold our interest over a 50+ year time period. Even Panerai, which we would probably consider cool or important, really teeters on the edge of being a complete unknown for a great deal of the general public...and I would attribute this to the lack of real innovation, and a heavy reliance on on the mystique of a brand that most people are too young to actually remember.

No, to become a Rolex, it takes that same leap that B&R has made over the last 10 years, plus another, and another, and another. If B&R still matters to our kids, and their kids, then the unique designs they're doing today will be relevant and coveted. If not, they'll be relegated to cult status among a tiny percentage who talk watches on the internet.


----------



## Aqua Spearo

.. ok first thing, the 656 was designed by bruno bellamich.. you realize that he came up with the BR01 concept first, and Sinn used his dial for the 656 right?

History is relative..Rolex has no real history compared to patek phillipe. just because something has relatively no history, does not mean that 80 years from now, it will still will not have history. Rolex gained much of its cult status because it was a rebellious choice compared to tradition watches. Rolex history is bought and paid for. B&R has attempted to get in on some of thes historical events of late. Rolex is just to expensive to really be in the grasp of the youth that will really make the brand in the future.



Haf said:


> I agree, B&R has no history in watchmaking, they entered the industry by marketing Sinn made watches with both Sinn and B&R writings on the dials. The Instrument series is just a 656 with a square face:roll:


----------



## Pete J

What ever it is... i think B&R has been "rebellious" with their "instruments" design :-! 

I still loves the look of it after years owning it...


----------



## Jingo Lingo

peezie said:


> Currently, the top would be Rolex, Cartier, and Panerai; trailing we see Breitling, B&R, and IWC.


Top of what? That list is nonsense, IMHO.


----------



## Aqua Spearo

which is why It will continue to be awesome and gain value in the future (aged PVD yumm).. its the most copied new watch design of the last decade... at some point, they need to follow through with the promises and start delivering in house or at leats heavily modified movements. Now that they have their two primary watch designs, they can go about improving them.



Pete J said:


> What ever it is... i think B&R has been "rebellious" with their "instruments" design :-!
> 
> I still loves the look of it after years owning it...


----------



## wdrazek

*C*



Aqua Spearo said:


> which is why It will continue to be awesome and gain value in the future (aged PVD yumm).. its the most copied new watch design of the last decade... at some point, they need to follow through with the promises and start delivering in house or at leats heavily modified movements. Now that they have their two primary watch designs, they can go about improving them.


Great that they have their designs. Rolex had technical innovations but from B+R the designs are married to stock movements and from what you can see in this forum, spotty QC. Maybe smart designs will include horological prowess in the days to come. I'd like to think the two will go together but IMO the jury hasn't seen evidence of the latter yet.


----------



## Bromo33333

Jingo Lingo said:


> B&R, a relatively small company with little history and a small market presence have no hope of being the "new Rolex". I'm not knocking B&R but it is a silly comparison.


It took Rolex nearly 80 years to establish themselves. B&R could certainly do it, but we'll be dead by the time they do!

The biggest challenge they will face is if the "bigger watch" trend softens or reverses. :-s


----------



## Aqua Spearo

Bromo...people often associated B&R with big watches, but they only have one large watch and its only 46MM and very wearable compared to round watches of the same size, and its even dwarfed by the largest watches by IWC, Panerai, JLC, & Breitling. The BR02 is the same mass as the rolex deepsea, the BR03 is small 43MM, and the BRS is the same size as the heuer monaco at a mere 39MM. They have been consistantly releasing smaller models.



Bromo33333 said:


> It took Rolex nearly 80 years to establish themselves. B&R could certainly do it, but we'll be dead by the time they do!
> 
> The biggest challenge they will face is if the "bigger watch" trend softens or reverses. :-s


----------



## wdrazek

Bromo33333 said:


> It took Rolex nearly 80 years to establish themselves. B&R could certainly do it, but we'll be dead by the time they do!
> 
> The biggest challenge they will face is if the "bigger watch" trend softens or reverses. :-s


You may be correct but I think to get to Rolex status they need to innovate on more than design. Rolex had (arguably) the first waterproof case, the first automatic and the first date changing watch. Every one of their watches are COSC, which none of B&R's are, so far as I know. BTW, all of their calibre's are in-house. I am not rrying to diss B&R and am not a Rolex fanboy. I really like several B&R models but think the comparison does not hold water and that it goes deeper than style.


----------



## Aqua Spearo

It took rolex 30 years to accomplish those feats. The greatest thing about rolex is their invention of viral marketing. :-!



wdrazek said:


> You may be correct but I think to get to Rolex status they need to innovate on more than design. Rolex had (arguably) the first waterproof case, the first automatic and the first date changing watch. Every one of their watches are COSC, which none of B&R's are, so far as I know. BTW, all of their calibre's are in-house. I am not rrying to diss B&R and am not a Rolex fanboy. I really like several B&R models but think the comparison does not hold water and that it goes deeper than style.


----------



## Bromo33333

WatchFan56 said:


> that maybe a bit of a stretch to say the "new Rolex"


Well maybe like the way Rolex was before they became such a powerful brand?

They appealed in the 1960's and 70's to the Boomers who were looking for a sporty, rugged watch, and something NOT like their parents. It didn't become the expensive aspirational watch until quartz came and just about drove everyone out of business, and Rolex retreated upmarket.

The Jury is out on B&R and the younger generation, I think. At $3-5k new, it's hard to tell how well it will be accepted given the economic realities faced by the under 40 crowd, and how popular wristwatches will become to the up and coming generation given how the cellphone has made high quality time telling (atomic accuracy) ubiquitous. I personally think B&R will do well in the not-Rolex-like-mom-and-dad but sporty and rugged and oversized (but so will Sinn, Ball and others, too), and as a fashion accessory. Because that is what most watches have become, essentially.

I am currently in Lust with the B&R ... and hope to purchase one in the next year or so.


----------



## ThirstyMonk

after Patek, right?



AnticGod said:


> I don`t agree with you. Even if the design is really innovative rolex is still the best mark in watches.
> I think they will keep their position for long time.


----------



## Deepsea1

*Re: C*

This is going to sound dumb but I saw Robert Downey Jr. wearing a Bell & Ross in Iron Man and I thought it was a cool looking watch. I could not find any place to try one on and every time I would type into google I would come up with people selling fakes.

The design of the watch is cool looking much different then the Tags I own. I was not sure about the rubber strap though since I wear a lot of dress shirts I thought it would not fit with my work clothes. Also I did not really know anything about the company and I could not find a model with a metal strap. Since I was now looking for a large watch I decided to check out the Rolex site and noticed the Deep Sea Dweller I always thought Rolex was a old mans watch but the DSSD really looked cool to me so I ended up buying that.

What is the attraction to Bell & Ross and what are they known for are they very durable or is it design and whey do they not make a metal band? Thank you for the info as I may be looking for one in the future.


----------



## Wisconsin Proud

Jingo Lingo said:


> B&R, a relatively small company with little history and a small market presence have no hope of being the "new Rolex". I'm not knocking B&R but it is a silly comparison.


I agree. BR is a niche brand at the moment catering to large and different designs.

A brand just doesn't "become" Rolex. Omega is trying but BR would be wise to carve out their own segment and be happy with it.

BR just isn't a brand that the masses will gravitate toward due to design and size. I think they are trying to get more customer base by introducing smaller watches the masses can wear like the Heritage models and introducing the smaller square watches.

I think BR is trying to take the Panerai model route. If it is half as successful, that will be an accomplishment.


----------



## vintage navitimer

Okay, I'll throw my two cents in. It will take 40 or so years to answer this question or back up the title statement with facts. Until you make your own movements, have six, seven, or more models that have stood the test of time, for decades remaining vitually unchanged, and they continue to sell well. Not much to talk about :think:.


----------



## Wisconsin Proud

Aqua Spearo said:


> . They have been consistantly releasing smaller models.


For good reason. Square 46mm watches can only be worn by a small segment of buyers. Once that segment dries up, you have no choice bu to tap into the mainstream.


----------



## HR F1

Wisconsin Proud said:


> For good reason. Square 46mm watches can only be worn by a small segment of buyers. Once that segment dries up, you have no choice bu to tap into the mainstream.


+1 Plus, at least their smaller models and the B&Rs in the traditional case shapes are quite good looking, especially the recent releases.


----------



## mab

*Re: C*



Deepsea1 said:


> What is the attraction to Bell & Ross and what are they known for are they very durable or is it design and whey do they not make a metal band? Thank you for the info as I may be looking for one in the future.


You can get a metal band through the B&R boutique. It's quite expensive from memory (£350+) and it only fits the BR03 range (and is stainless steel as opposed to pvd finish).

For me, the B&R choice was primarily due to design and some of the stories of how particular models came into being, etc. There are cetrain things that do annoy me a little however, e.g. the auto's should be COSC certified, PVD should be DLC, etc. given the price of the watches.


----------



## MasterTimer

*Re: C*

they could of been contenders . loved their watches for a while and invested in 4 different models . Have the space 3 on while writing this 
Had some original pieces and design till they hit a rutt with the BR series . 
Talking about jumping the shark. How many different models are there in this. The problem is they its they are no Panerai or AP


----------



## HelloNasty1

MasterTimer said:


> they could of been contenders . loved their watches for a while and invested in 4 different models . Have the space 3 on while writing this
> Had some original pieces and design till they hit a rutt with the BR series .
> Talking about jumping the shark. How many different models are there in this. The problem is they its they are no Panerai or AP


That is how I feel about the Hublot Big Bang series, not that I can afford one! : ( Everytime (literally) I open a watch magazine there is new LE, it is ridiculous.


----------



## Tempvs Ex Machina

I disagree. A Rolex is a Rolex, and a B&R is a B&R. Further, given the distinctive design of the B&R, esp. with the dial and case, I would say they are headed more towards the iconic direction of a Panerai. Of course, only time will tell how they will fare.


----------



## Watchbreath

"Iconic direction", that must be a new one. To many, they'll always be known as a Sinn spinoff.


TempusExMachina said:


> I disagree. A Rolex is a Rolex, and a B&R is a B&R. Further, given the distinctive design of the B&R, esp. with the dial and case, I would say they are headed more towards the iconic direction of a Panerai. Of course, only time will tell how they will fare.


----------



## flyingpicasso

Funny how this thread keeps dying and getting pulled back from the dead...


----------



## Watchbreath

It's the norm on all forums.


flyingpicasso said:


> Funny how this thread keeps dying and getting pulled back from the dead...


----------



## powerband

flyingpicasso said:


> Funny how this thread keeps dying and getting pulled back from the dead...


I know, huh?


----------



## MW1

Interesting read. I'm a big fan of B&R, but you simply can't compare them to Rolex. Design wise and movement wise they are Worlds apart. Doesn't mean they aren't good because well, they are and IMO a design that will stand up pretty well in the niche market they are in. The vintage 123 and 126 are also well executed and have been tempted by these as well. 

I don't understand the Panerai comparison either. You can't really say that they are trying to chase the Panerai market because their designs are nudda like them, or am I missing something.

I truly believe B&R have a long prosperous future ahead of them, they've come up with a simple but innovative design that has caught the attention of many, this can only be a good thing. 

When Apple came out with the iPod, people loved it for it's simplicity not what was under the hood. They realised they caught onto a good thing by concentrating heavily on design (and stupidly good marketing) and it has paid off massively over the years. Not saying B&R will have this effect but it's nice to see something different.

I have the upmost respect for Rolex, would I buy one though, probably not. I see plenty of them but TBH it's usually some halfwit showing it off because he is hung like a budgies tongue (only joking). But I wouldn't buy one because they don't really do it for me design wise. I'd much prefer an B&R, IWC Pilot or Grand Carrera. 

Each to their own, but this is why forums like this are good because if everyone had the same opinion and liked the same watches it would be one boring place. |>


----------



## mpip2010

ROLEX is the new Rolex.


----------



## MCAT

Rolex has been around for a very long time making all sorts of innovative, industry changing contributions to the world of watches. Design aside the same cannot be said for B&R. Though I do have a soft spot for their trade mark instrument panel watches.


----------



## mpalmer

*Umm...No.*

Let me preface my comments by saying that I like Bell & Ross. They have a unique design that I am attracted to. I am tempted to buy one for next pick up, (however, I am leaning to the Uboat Thousands of Feet because I think it is arguably more watch than a B&R1 for cheaper) but that is neither here nor there and the jury is still out. In any case, I like Bell & Ross offerings.

However, I don't see B&R as at all comparable to Rolex, either back in the day, or today. Rolex was a pioneer in watchmaking on a vast array of fronts. It's many firsts and innovations help lead the industry. It became so successful its name became and still is synonymous with watch excellence. Even my wife, my mother, and my grandmother all know Rolex. None of them would have the first clue what a Bell & Ross was. To the non-WIS it just sounds like a law firm.

Bell & Ross essentially takes standard ETA and drops it in a case for their most popular models, ie 1's and 3's. It is selling a look, not the movement or features of the watch. This in no way compares to what Rolex was doing back in the day, or what it does now. Rolex is a luxury watch, which makes watches that excel in all phases of that watches should. Now whether or not they are overrated for the $ because there are better options out there is another debate. However, to question if they are a great watch is simply foolish. Yes, I realize B&R sells very high end models too, but that is not a big part of their overall emphasis.

If you look at the average Bell & Ross customer you are looking at someone who is very much going for a look, rather than a movement or a set of features. Whatever it is: military, big, square, masculine, aviation, it is a specific look being sought for most B&R buyers - not a tradition, movement, a marketing campaign, or arguably even prestige. In this sense, it is a very different watch than Rolex either back in the day, or today.

I actually think it is much more accurate to compare Bell & Ross to Uboat. Not really in that they both make large watches, and that one Uboat model looks like Bell & Ross, however, this is true. The real similarity lies in that they both are selling a very specific masculine aesthetic to buyers who are interested in this very specific look more than movement specifications, history, prestige, or name recognition. Other details such as movement and specs are far less important to the buyer than the look. The buyer of both realizes that the average Joe will not know the brand. They do know, however, that they will be noticed for buying it because of the appearance. This is very much the opposite for the typical Rolex buyer. I would be so bold to say that Rolex is somewhat conservative and understated in style. The recognition for the wearer comes from the name on the dial which screams prestige to the casual observer.

Additionally, Rolex offers a great deal more variety in its line, where Bell and Ross (at least at this point) is more narrowly focused in its military/aviation niche.

All in all, I see little in common between Rolex and Bell & Ross aside from the fact that they both make well made watches.


----------



## simoncudd

....some interesting points, for and against!
Of course Bell & Ross, aren't the new Rolex! That would be most arrogant to even consider.
B&R are a 'young' brand in the world of watches. However, they have a story and have stuck with it.
Time, of course, will tell, how they as a brand are considered in 20, 30 or 50 years time.

I am a watch fan, all watches, all prices and levels, but for me its buying into something that you love, its a feeling.
For me, its the way they look and that appeal. What is inside the watch, isn't a concern (at this time in my life), its the way it looks.
They aren't mainstream, which is why in 2007, I stopped wearing 'other' brands and bought my first B&R, an 01.

B&R, however this year, have mixed things up, by using new materials, and looking at different movements.
I believe interesting and exciting times ahead for Bell & Ross.

.....so B&R, are B&R, nothing more, nothing less.
You buy a watch according to your taste and budget.
There is no right or wrong watch or brand, its a personal choice.


----------



## 403acmash

Ironically, for all the styling, I've _never _seen a B&R worn on a flight line. Rolex, yes. Breitling and IWC, definitely. B&R..... no... :think:


----------



## nicktheman

bell and ross - like putting a civic engine in to a Ferrari body, worth the price? up to you......


----------



## billyp7718

x 2. The BR01 looks rediculous on my 6.5" wrist. The BR03 is just right.


----------



## billyp7718

nicktheman said:


> bell and ross - like putting a civic engine in to a Ferrari body, worth the price? up to you......


Really?? Breitling, IWC, Cartier, etc... all charge more for the same movement in their pieces. Think about Panarai with a slightly modified 6497 movement in a $6K+ watch? They are still high quality swiss made workhorses. Like most luxury items in general, you pay for build quality, exclusivity, user experience, etc...


----------



## Anxietyprone

I'm not a Rolex fan and believe they are a waaay overpriced luxury watchmaker whose current and resale values are significantly bolstered by the "perception" of its target consumer. I love Bell & Ross watches. As the proud owner of a Type Demineur I never diluted myself into thinking that it somehow equates to a watch from a company whose yearly advertising budget alone is worth more than all assets at B&R. 
Regardless of B&Rs recent history, independence from Sinn, and appealing designs, Rolex makes their own movements and that is the measure of a premier brand. Rolex is in the company of maybe only a dozen other Swiss and two German (and 2 Japanese) watch manufacturers that make (most) everything in-house. 
Rolex can produce as many watches as it desires per year and most important, manufacture as many movements as it wants. 
B&R like the overwhelming majority of other Swiss and German watchmakers are at the mercy of Swatch, Sellita, Soprod, or Technotime to supply their movements. These are the same ETA-based movements found in the majority of other watchmakers with retail price points below $1K. B&R can COSC the movements, scrape pretty designs on the movement, and etch their ampersand on the rotor, but until it starts making movements in house it will never be at the same level as Rolex, Girard Perregaux, Vaucheron Constantin, Patek, Piaget, Glushutte Original, A Lange and Sohne, etc. I missed a few. Is that a bad thing? Not in my world. I purchased my watch because of its looks, quality and feel, and not because it resembles a Rolex. Enjoy your B&R for what it is and what it gives you aesthetically. Not for what it isn't. 
That's my two cents. and I hope I did not offend anyone. 
Cheers.


----------

