# Common opinion about Steinhart Ocean One



## MikaeMil (Nov 17, 2020)

What is common opinion about about Steinhart Ocean One?

I know it is homage, but what people think in general about Steinhart and its watches?

How about quality, resell value and so on?


----------



## Zama (Jun 14, 2012)

You couldn't find a more boring way to spend your hard earned money if you tried


----------



## jkpa (Feb 8, 2014)

I’ve handled one briefly and thought it was pretty average in finishing and quality at best. I’ve owned one of their fliegers which I liked a lot better.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

Basically only two camps:

1) "It's great value for money - Swiss made with Swiss movement and great styling costing 1/25th of the original. Punches so far above its weight and Gunther from Steinhart is the greatest person ever (I'm on a first name basis with him because that's how close we are)."

2) "Really? Come on. There's thousands of original watches in this world and you have to go with the Rolex copy. Aren't you even just a little embarrassed to wear that?"


----------



## camb66 (Jan 25, 2010)

Its not for me, I don't want to the the -"I love subs but can't afford one" vibe.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

The quality of the lipstick might be better, but it's still a 'rank knockoff',


----------



## bigclive2011 (Mar 17, 2013)

I’ve owned one and I thought the quality for the price was good.

However it really hasn’t got any style of its own it is just a copy as others have said.

For similiar(ish) money the CW Trident is a much more individual, and better made watch.


----------



## geckobros (Mar 9, 2009)

Solidly built watch for the money. I have owned two but they did not make it through my collection downsize.


----------



## fish70 (Oct 12, 2006)

MikaeMil said:


> What is common opinion about about Steinhart Ocean One?
> 
> I know it is homage, but what people think in general about Steinhart and its watches?
> 
> How about quality, resell value and so on?


Great watch and company.


----------



## papabear244 (Sep 29, 2020)

Earthjade said:


> Basically only two camps:
> 
> 1) "It's great value for money - Swiss made with Swiss movement and great styling costing 1/25th of the original. Punches so far above its weight and Gunther from Steinhart is the greatest person ever (I'm on a first name basis with him because that's how close we are)."
> 
> 2) "Really? Come on. There's thousands of original watches in this world and you have to go with the Rolex copy. Aren't you even just a little embarrassed to wear that?"


Some days I feel I'm with 1) other, I feel more like 2). And both can be true at the same time, its my feelings that are conflicting.


----------



## Cheverian (Sep 27, 2017)

I owned a Steinhart Ocean One Bronze at one point in my early collecting days, and I am not sure what people think it was knocking off. Rolex’s classic Bronzo II?

Yeah, Steinhart does a lot of homage stuff and may deserve a bad rap overall for that, but not every one of its watches is a copy of something else. And we’re taking about watches that retail for less than a lot of entry level Seikos. As people always say here, buy what you want. 

That said, I sold my Steinhart long ago and never suffered even a moment of regret.


----------



## randallb (Aug 25, 2020)

I think they're alright. good value for money, especially if you buy used. Some microbrands charge much more and have asian movements with wide accuracy specs.

I've owned three and ended up selling them but I enjoyed them while I had them. I never had a problem with them and they all ran withing about +5 spd.

They also make more than just sub homage/copies but the haters seem to focus on that aspect only.


----------



## SMPc (Nov 1, 2020)

I have one. It was great value for the money as a student with limited funds. I still use it as part of my beater collection.


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

Rolex going up another 6% across the board in January - no doubt reflected in the Grey market who are the only ones who will have them to buy - that means the stainless steel models even more unobtainable - I think the Steinhart is looking like a great option for a Hulk or Smurf lookalike and if they'd just tidy up the case a bit I'd be all in


----------



## wheelbuilder (Nov 25, 2016)

Seen quite a few of these over the last 15? Years (or more). Bland, boring, copies. Finishing is at a lower level than some of the Chinese Micro Brands. Steinhart has stayed in the game trading off the "Swiss made" thing, but man, do they just look cheap. My opinion of course. I think like 20 years ago they made a dive watch that was semi unique and pretty nice looking. "Trident?". Can't remember.

Sent from my BBB100-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## cghorr01 (Aug 22, 2019)

MikaeMil said:


> What is common opinion about about Steinhart Ocean One?
> 
> I know it is homage, but what people think in general about Steinhart and its watches?
> 
> How about quality, resell value and so on?


Solid, well made product for the money. Don't prescribe to the snobbery seen in here, if you like the looks, buy one, you shouldn't be disappointed.

Sent from my Note 20 Ultra


----------



## StanleyInquisition (Dec 22, 2018)

I'm only really interested in their vintage sub homages and the Batman GMT that has a relatively unique design. I've never really seen the appeal in the modern homages they do of the sub. Cannot speak for hands-on quality, though.


----------



## geckobros (Mar 9, 2009)

wheelbuilder said:


> Seen quite a few of these over the last 15? Years (or more). Bland, boring, copies. Finishing is at a lower level than some of the Chinese Micro Brands. Steinhart has stayed in the game trading off the "Swiss made" thing, but man, do they just look cheap. My opinion of course. I think like 20 years ago they made a dive watch that was semi unique and pretty nice looking. "Trident?". Can't remember.
> 
> Sent from my BBB100-1 using Tapatalk


So have you owned one or ?


----------



## litespud (Nov 15, 2018)

MikaeMil said:


> What is common opinion about about Steinhart Ocean One?
> 
> I know it is homage, but what people think in general about Steinhart and its watches?
> 
> How about quality, resell value and so on?


Lots of people dismiss them out of hand because they're a homage. If that's not a problem for you, you're getting a 300m WR case, sapphire and a decent Swiss movement. The homage space is pretty crowded, so there are plenty to choose from, but Steinharts are good value. I paid $350 for a Vintage Red ~4 years ago, it's my 24/7 daily, and it's holding at ~+1 spd. I have no complaints


----------



## Robotaz (Jan 18, 2012)

Earthjade said:


> Basically only two camps:
> 
> 1) "It's great value for money - Swiss made with Swiss movement and great styling costing 1/25th of the original. Punches so far above its weight and Gunther from Steinhart is the greatest person ever (I'm on a first name basis with him because that's how close we are)."
> 
> 2) "Really? Come on. There's thousands of original watches in this world and you have to go with the Rolex copy. Aren't you even just a little embarrassed to wear that?"


I never bought their Rolex or Nav-B homages. I did have a Triton GMT that I miss, and the aviation chrono with the dial and hands that looked like an airplane gauge. Really unique watches and good values.

Most of the watches are Chinese micro prices. While the fit and finish may leave a bit to be desired, they seem priced accurately to me.


----------



## fish70 (Oct 12, 2006)

cghorr01 said:


> Solid, well made product for the money. Don't prescribe to the snobbery seen in here, if you like the looks, buy one, you shouldn't be disappointed.
> 
> Sent from my Note 20 Ultra


Yep, I think mine looked great for a sub $500 watch. Shipped from Germany to nowhereville, New Mexico in two days. I bought a Speedmaster on Ebay Thursday from Indiana that I paid $50 shipping for (USPS Priority Express) and the seller hasn't even shipped it yet.


----------



## Aidy (Dec 8, 2012)

I’ve owned 2 models and bought them because they were homages of the submariner. I’ve also owned a squale 1545 which I bought because of its submariner looks.
they’re both great watches and feel really well made, to me at least. I’ve seen a blue steinhart which is a homage to the Tudor snowflake and want that next.
I’m sorry but I love the fact they look like Rolex but a lot of microbrands have a subbyesk vibe.


----------



## Crisker (Oct 25, 2018)

I have a Steinhart Plexiplorer 39 and love it, as do many of my friends who have Rolexes, Tudors, Omegas, Tags, etc. but rarely wear them for fear of devaluing them in one way or another. In fact, several of these friends have gotten a Steinhart as their daily wearer or beater.

Although I won't buy another Steinhart, I also won't sell my Steinhart. I think it's an excellent watch for the money.

As for resale, I can't speak to other models but I can sell the Plexiplorer for the same amount, or more, than I paid for it 2 years ago, though I did not purchase new (it was "mint" used). Solid deal.


----------



## G07 (Nov 20, 2008)

Solid watches. Don't listen to the "noise" ... if you like the looks, buy one.


----------



## wheelbuilder (Nov 25, 2016)

geckobros said:


> So have you owned one or ?


Handled more than probably 2 dozen, yes. Have never bought one, nor owned one. Watch hobbiest get togethers were very popular in 2008-2009

Sent from my BBB100-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## teckel12 (Oct 22, 2019)

MikaeMil said:


> What is common opinion about about Steinhart Ocean One?
> 
> I know it is homage, but what people think in general about Steinhart and its watches?
> 
> How about quality, resell value and so on?


I would feel too embarrassed to wear an obvious Rolex clone. Looks like you're trying to be someone you're not (cause if you were, you'd get a Rolex). It's a poser watch.

Oh, and resell value is crap, because it's crappy watch that no one with taste would buy.

Sorry if I didn't sugar-coat it and give a coddling "PC" answer.


----------



## Bizcut1 (Jan 1, 2014)

Owned the Pepsi homage with the faux patina for awhile...sold it. It wore a bit small
is all I can remember.


----------



## Crisker (Oct 25, 2018)

G07 said:


> Solid watches. Don't listen to the "noise" ... if you like the looks, buy one.


Precisely, so don't let the ritual purist or brand obsessed watch snobs deter you.

The usual suspects have appeared in this thread, and my recommendation is to ignore them or put them on ignore.

There are plenty of high quality watch aficionados who think Steinharts are well and good.

For some of us who have graduated into the luxury -- but not snob -- watch market ether, a Steinhart was the gateway drug.


----------



## Crisker (Oct 25, 2018)

teckel12 said:


> I would feel too embarrassed to wear an obvious Rolex clone. Looks like you're trying to be someone you're not (cause if you were, you'd get a Rolex). It's a poser watch.
> 
> Oh, and resell value is crap, because it's crappy watch that no one with taste would buy.
> 
> Sorry if I didn't sugar-coat it and give a coddling "PC" answer.


This stock response is exceptionally tedious.

How do you know what the resale market is, having never purchased, worn, or sold such filth?


----------



## Leonine (Mar 27, 2012)

teckel12 said:


> I would feel too embarrassed to wear an obvious Rolex clone. Looks like you're trying to be someone you're not (cause if you were, you'd get a Rolex). It's a poser watch.
> 
> Oh, and resell value is crap, because it's crappy watch that no one with taste would buy.
> 
> Sorry if I didn't sugar-coat it and give a coddling "PC" answer.


OP, no need to listen to this. There are plenty of people that buy Steinhart with taste. I was one of them. An interesting comment considering the styling is from one of the most famous watches.

In regards to the quality, quite good for the price point.

In regards to resale value. Pretty similar to most watches. Which is not great. I don't buy watches for resale.


----------



## teckel12 (Oct 22, 2019)

Crisker said:


> This stock response is exceptionally tedious.
> 
> How do you know what the resale market is, having never purchased, worn, or sold such filth?


I've seen posers trying to sell them on Reddit with no interest.


----------



## teckel12 (Oct 22, 2019)

Leonine said:


> OP, no need to listen to this. There are plenty of people that buy Steinhart with taste. I was one of them. An interesting comment considering the styling is from one of the most famous watches.
> 
> In regards to the quality, quite good for the price point.
> 
> In regards to resale value. Pretty similar to most watches. Which is not great. I don't buy watches for resale.


I beg to differ. Even the positive posts here are mainly something like "I had a couple, they were okay, but sold them all". Meaning they were not that good.


----------



## geckobros (Mar 9, 2009)

wheelbuilder said:


> Handled more than probably 2 dozen, yes. Have never bought one, nor owned one. Watch hobbiest get togethers were very popular in 2008-2009
> 
> Sent from my BBB100-1 using Tapatalk


Never bought or owned. Got it.


----------



## NMIEE (Jun 21, 2019)

You'll get either people who think its a great value for the money or people who say "What, you could just buy a Rolex sub for 22 times more money!"

I sit firmly in the former. Steinhart is a great watch for the money. But if you want, you can spend 22 times more and get the watch it plays homage too...

If you want my honest opinion. You're getting more for you money with the Steinhart than you are the Rolex. Sure the Rolex may go up in value in the future, and you're paying for the history of the brand. But at 22 times the price, you better be getting all that and more. For $450 you're getting a nice piece. For $10,000, you're getting a watch that it resembles but has some more history and better build quality (22 times better build quality is debatable).


----------



## Leonine (Mar 27, 2012)

Or...my response. I’ve owned one, which sounds like you haven’t and wouldn’t even be bothered to, and believe they are good quality for the money. 

Opinion vs opinion, but I’m guessing mine is more informed.


----------



## Aequoreal (Nov 11, 2020)

I just don't know why you would get an homage (which makes you look tacky) and not just get a microbrand piece that would probably look similar to a submariner, but have unique design elements of it's own. If you're going to get an homage and in your mind pretend it's a Rolex, why not just go the extra mile and get a high quality fake Rolex with a high quality movement. Rolex boutiques can't tell the difference.


----------



## NMIEE (Jun 21, 2019)

teckel12 said:


> I would feel too embarrassed to wear an obvious Rolex clone. Looks like you're trying to be someone you're not (cause if you were, you'd get a Rolex). It's a poser watch.
> 
> Oh, and resell value is crap, because it's crappy watch that no one with taste would buy.
> 
> Sorry if I didn't sugar-coat it and give a coddling "PC" answer.


Steinhart makes many that aren't straight knockoffs of a Rolex. They do make a few models that are knockoffs, but there are many that aren't. As for "Crap resale", I beg to differ. If you pay $450 for it brand new and can still easily get $350 for it at anytime on ebay, is it really "crap resale"? I think most would disagree with only being out $100-$150 on a watch they enjoyed. But hey, if you'd rather pay $10,000-$12,000 for the Rolex at the current bubble prices. MAYBE it will be worth more in the future. Maybe the bubble bursts and now you're net negative by a few grand.

As for being embarrassed? I can assure you 99.9999% of people don't give a fly crap what is on your wrist. And even if they do, you're typically moving around them fast enough they couldn't make out the difference between a Steinhart and a Rolex Sub from 5 feet away in a store. Even fewer will actually ask you about the watch on your wrist. I know Rolex people don't like to hear that most people don't notice or care about their watches though, haha.

Sorry if I didn't sugar coat it and give a PC response.


----------



## H.Mulligan (Jul 15, 2018)

I say get one and let us know what you think 👍🏻


----------



## Crisker (Oct 25, 2018)

Aequoreal said:


> I just don't know why you would get an homage (which makes you look tacky) and not just get a microbrand piece that would probably look similar to a submariner, but have unique design elements of it's own. If you're going to get an homage and in your mind pretend it's a Rolex, why not just go the extra mile and get a high quality fake Rolex with a high quality movement. Rolex boutiques can't tell the difference.


Because most Steinhart "homages" aren't copies (excepting the Sub homage) and most Steinharts have unique design elements. If you don't do Steinhart, you wouldn't know this.

That aside, you would have to be in rare horological company for anyone to think your X, Y, or Z Steinhart is "tacky." If you are running with the Manhattan elite, then perhaps. Or if you are attending a Swiss watch convention in Monte Carlo, may be.

But otherwise, the only people who think it would be "tacky" are the ritual purist, brand driven watch snobs who comically appear in threads like this to police their fantasy, class-driven boundaries.


----------



## NMIEE (Jun 21, 2019)

Crisker said:


> Yes, and the one percenters who sniff at Steinharts like they are dog doo live in a fantasy world where everyone is privileged and wealthy enough to "get the real thing," never mind the fact that every Tom, Dick, and Jane with any money (or good credit and large debt) has a Rolex.
> 
> It's all a bit stuffy and insufferable, just like their exclusive "Clubs."


LOL right? They're pretty popular to be so "exclusive". I like Rolex and I would own one if I wasn't the one paying for it. But I am more impressed when I see someone wearing something different. It means they actually cared a little instead of falling inline with the rest of the populace. Its like that is what you're supposed to do when you get your first 6 figure job. Stop at the store and buy some $250 jeans, a sport coat, a button down, and then a Rolex. That way when you're walking through the airport in "business casual" attire with your sport coat unbutton and your jeans that could have bought a family of four groceries, you can slide that jacket sleeve up and reveal that Rolex that you're making 0% interest payments on! Woot!

The Rolex snobery and the lack of uniqueness is what keeps me from falling in love with them. Walk through Chicago O'Hare or JFK on any given day of the week and every middle level manager will have one on. Soooooo unique and exclusive...


----------



## NMIEE (Jun 21, 2019)

Crisker said:


> Because most Steinhart "homages" aren't copies (excepting the Sub homage) and most Steinharts have unique design elements. If you don't do Steinhart, you wouldn't know this.
> 
> That aside, you would have to be in rare horological company for anyone to think your X, Y, or Z Steinhart is "tacky." If you are running with the Manhattan elite, then perhaps. Or if you are attending a Swiss watch convention in Monte Carlo, may be.
> 
> But otherwise, the only people who think it would be "tacky" are the ritual purist, brand driven watch snobs who comically appear in threads like this to police their fantasy, class-driven boundaries.


If I am ever running with the "Manhattan elite" I'd walk out in front of a taxi. What a miserable group of people that looks at someone and judges them as "tacky" based on what they are wearing on their wrist. I'll stick to my middle of nowhere part of the country where people don't judge others based on something so insignificant and valueless in life as a watch.

I like watches. I mean that's why I am here, right? But some of the snobbery on this forum makes me think about just selling the few swiss pieces I have, grabbing a Timex and just being happy with that.

No wonder these large corporate companies in the world treat their lower level employees like such crap and act like elitists. Look no further than some of the opinions on this forum and you'll understand why. These are the people running these companies...


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

I don't know why this topic was moved from the Public Forum. It wasn't off-topic.
The Public Forum will get you a wider balance of opinions. Here you have to expect the answers will be biased in favor of Steinhart.


----------



## Crisker (Oct 25, 2018)

NMIEE said:


> LOL right? They're pretty popular to be so "exclusive". I like Rolex and I would own one if I wasn't the one paying for it. But I am more impressed when I see someone wearing something different. It means they actually cared a little instead of falling inline with the rest of the populace. Its like that is what you're supposed to do when you get your first 6 figure job. Stop at the store and buy some $250 jeans, a sport coat, a button down, and then a Rolex. That way when you're walking through the airport in "business casual" attire with your sport coat unbutton and your jeans that could have bought a family of four groceries, you can slide that jacket sleeve up and reveal that Rolex that you're making 0% interest payments on! Woot!
> 
> The Rolex snobery and the lack of uniqueness is what keeps me from falling in love with them. Walk through Chicago O'Hare or JFK on any given day of the week and every middle level manager will have one on. Soooooo unique and exclusive...


I'm wondering if it is these same Rolex-wearing middle managers who are haranguing us about Steinharts? Insecurity breeds condescension.

I can't imagine the real elite bothering to lecture the _hoi polloi _about the sins of Steinhart. In fact, I can't imagine the real elite bothering to post on watchuseek.

So if we aren't hearing from the real elite, I'm guessing we are being lectured to by the moralists, otherwise known as Watch Puritans.


----------



## NMIEE (Jun 21, 2019)

Crisker said:


> I'm wondering if it is these same Rolex-wearing middle managers who are haranguing us about Steinharts? Insecurity breeds condescension.
> 
> I can't imagine the real elite bothering to lecture the _hoi polloi _about the sins of Steinhart. In fact, I can't imagine the real elite bothering to post on watchuseek.
> 
> So if we aren't hearing from the real elite, I'm guessing we are being lectured to by the moralists, otherwise known as Watch Puritans.


I have dealt with MANY levels of wealth in my various jobs throughout life. And its ALWAYS the middle manager/low level executive type that acts like that. The ones who have enough money that they gain an elitist complex and judge others based on materialistic ideals. Or the kids who inherited it. The truly wealthy people I have met don't care to pass this judgement, and most I have met are very nice and give back to people less fortunate.

It must be truly miserable to be so self absorbed that you would be _embarrassed _wearing a $500 watch on your wrist. Hell, I have a $500 watch on my wrist usually and I am beginning to become embarrassed, but for the exact opposite they are. Embarrassed because I hope I am never confused as an almighty middle manager snob.


----------



## fish70 (Oct 12, 2006)

teckel12 said:


> I would feel too embarrassed to wear an obvious Rolex clone. Looks like you're trying to be someone you're not (cause if you were, you'd get a Rolex). It's a poser watch.
> 
> Oh, and resell value is crap, because it's crappy watch that no one with taste would buy.
> 
> Sorry if I didn't sugar-coat it and give a coddling "PC" answer.


 LOL I am just a good or better than any guy wearing a Rolex and I don't know anyone in real life who could tell a Rolex from a Timex.


----------



## fish70 (Oct 12, 2006)

Aequoreal said:


> I just don't know why you would get an homage (which makes you look tacky) and not just get a microbrand piece that would probably look similar to a submariner, but have unique design elements of it's own. If you're going to get an homage and in your mind pretend it's a Rolex, why not just go the extra mile and get a high quality fake Rolex with a high quality movement. Rolex boutiques can't tell the difference.


Only a small subset of watch geeks would think a homage is tacky. Chances are you will never meet one in real life.


----------



## fish70 (Oct 12, 2006)

teckel12 said:


> I've seen posers trying to sell them on Reddit with no interest.


The 39 in the image I posted went for more than I paid for it on eBay after I wore it for over a year.


----------



## NMIEE (Jun 21, 2019)

fish70 said:


> LOL I am just a good or better than any guy wearing a Rolex and I don't know anyone in real life who could tell a Rolex from a Timex.


Everyone has to justify their purchase of a Rolex. To him, I guess its convincing himself others care what is on his wrist. And at that point, you better have some serious self reflection if you care so much about what people think of you that you need to spend 10k on a watch so they don't get the wrong idea and assume you're one of those poors or something


----------



## randallb (Aug 25, 2020)

teckel12 said:


> I've seen posers trying to sell them on Reddit with no interest.


Sold all three I had on reddit, no problem.


----------



## teckel12 (Oct 22, 2019)

randallb said:


> Sold all three I had on reddit, no problem.


Exactly, got rid of them one you saw the light. I'm sure you sold them for what you purchased them for as well.


----------



## bjkennyp (Oct 11, 2018)

I've owned 2 GMT over past 30+ years. I loved them, they never let me down and every 3 years I treated the watches with regular service. Even without parts each service was probably 300 in the early years to about 500 in the later years.
Recently when prices sky rocketed I cashed in, nicely, but found I missed the heft of the Rolex and the GMT feature.
Looking around I found the Steinhart had all of the features I wanted in a daily watch without the associated problems of sporting many peoples annual income on your wrist.
As for accuracy I have about 7 other automatics that I switch every week along with has when I feel the need to be punctual.
In summary I find Steinhart is very good watch with features I care about, solid feel, legibility, accuracy and a nice appearance.


----------



## LosAngelesTimer (Aug 24, 2017)

NMIEE said:


> You'll get either people who think its a great value for the money or people who say "What, you could just buy a Rolex sub for 22 times more money!"
> 
> I sit firmly in the former. Steinhart is a great watch for the money. But if you want, you can spend 22 times more and get the watch it plays homage too...
> 
> If you want my honest opinion. You're getting more for you money with the Steinhart than you are the Rolex. Sure the Rolex may go up in value in the future, and you're paying for the history of the brand. But at 22 times the price, you better be getting all that and more. For $450 you're getting a nice piece. For $10,000, you're getting a watch that it resembles but has some more history and better build quality (22 times better build quality is debatable).


Or people who say, "I don't want to spend the money for a Rolex or I can't afford a Rolex but, given that I have a certain level of self respect and I respect the concept of intellectual property, I wouldn't be caught dead wearing a cheap copy." Enough with the binary BS.

"If you want my honest opinion. You're getting more for you money with the Steinhart than you are the Rolex." The lies some of you tell yourselves to justify buying a clone. I think I just injured myself rolling my eyes at this ridiculous claim.


----------



## bjkennyp (Oct 11, 2018)

Sorry, spell checker did me in on my last post "has" should have been "HAQ" when requiring punctuality.


----------



## NMIEE (Jun 21, 2019)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> Or people who say, "I don't want to spend the money for a Rolex or I can't afford a Rolex but, given that I have a certain level of self respect and I respect the concept of intellectual property, I wouldn't be caught dead wearing a cheap copy." Enough with the binary BS.
> 
> "If you want my honest opinion. You're getting more for you money with the Steinhart than you are the Rolex." The lies some of you tell yourselves to justify buying a clone. I think I just injured myself rolling my eyes at this ridiculous claim.


When did I say I bought one? I can simply respect those who choose to. People with snobby outlooks like you are why Rolex wearers catch a bad reputation from anyone other than fellow Rolex wearers or people who lick the shoes of people they perceive have cash. If you're expecting me to awe at your over the fact you spent money on a Rolex, you're dead wrong. In fact, I'd say you made a terrible financial decision. But as long as your buddies think you're cool, then tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself to justify it. Considering you live in LA. I'm sure you have to spend a lot of money to give off the impression you've "made it". Cant have anyone confuse you as a lower income person now!


----------



## LosAngelesTimer (Aug 24, 2017)

NMIEE said:


> When did I say I bought one? I can simply respect those who choose to. People with snobby outlooks like you are why Rolex wearers catch a bad reputation from anyone other than fellow Rolex wearers or people who lick the shoes of people they perceive have cash. If you're expecting me to awe at your over the fact you spent money on a Rolex, you're dead wrong. In fact, I'd say you made a terrible financial decision. But as long as your buddies think you're cool, then tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself to justify it.


Did you read what I wrote? Clearly not or perhaps reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

I don't own a Rolex. I feel subs are riduclously overpriced. There's no way I could justify spending the money for one. Additionally, I think the vibe attached to Rolex ownership is... frankly, quite gross at least in the modern era. That being said, I also find Steinharts to be equally gross, perhaps more so. At least Rolex is true to what it is while Steinhart is 100% artifice.

How about this? If you can't afford a Rolex, support some of the great watch companies out there that offer original designs at a price you _can_ afford.

For whatever reason, there's a level of cognitive dissonance in the watch collecting community that has made wearing a fake okay. I also collect knives and "clones" - which knife collectors define as stolen designs, even if the brand name is different - are almost universally derided, along with those that purchase them.


----------



## NMIEE (Jun 21, 2019)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> Did you read what I wrote? Clearly not or perhaps reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
> 
> I don't own a Rolex. I feel subs are riduclously overpriced. There's no way I could justify spending the money for one. Additionally, I think the vibe attached to Rolex ownership is... frankly, quite gross at least in the modern era. That being said, I also find Steinharts to be equally gross, perhaps more so. At least Rolex is true to what it is while Steinhart is 100% artifice.
> 
> How about this? If you can't afford a Rolex, support some of the great watch companies out there that offer original designs at a price you can afford?


You were right. Reading comprehension isn't my strong suit.


----------



## Crisker (Oct 25, 2018)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> Or people who say, "I don't want to spend the money for a Rolex or I can't afford a Rolex but, given that I have a certain level of self respect and I respect the concept of intellectual property, I wouldn't be caught dead wearing a cheap copy." Enough with the binary BS.
> 
> "If you want my honest opinion. You're getting more for you money with the Steinhart than you are the Rolex." The lies some of you tell yourselves to justify buying a clone. I think I just injured myself rolling my eyes at this ridiculous claim.


I work with intellectual property for a good living, but I don't understand your point. Care to clarify?


LosAngelesTimer said:


> Did you read what I wrote? Clearly not or perhaps reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
> 
> I don't own a Rolex. I feel subs are riduclously overpriced. There's no way I could justify spending the money for one. Additionally, I think the vibe attached to Rolex ownership is... frankly, quite gross at least in the modern era. That being said, I also find Steinharts to be equally gross, perhaps more so. At least Rolex is true to what it is while Steinhart is 100% artifice.
> 
> ...


And for whatever reason, there are people like you who have cognitive dissonance about what Steinhart offers. It's abundantly clear that you have not bothered to examine the lineup. They are not "fakes," period. But if it floats your purist-classist boat to say so, then carry on with your boat shoes.


----------



## NMIEE (Jun 21, 2019)

Crisker said:


> I work with intellectual property for a good living, but I don't understand your point. Care to clarify?
> 
> And for whatever reason, there are people like you who have cognitive dissonance about Steinhart offers. It's abundantly clear that you have not bothered to examine the lineup. They are not "fakes," period. But if it floats your purist-classist boat to say so, then carry on with your boat shoes.





Crisker said:


> I work with intellectual property for a good living, but I don't understand your point. Care to clarify?
> 
> And for whatever reason, there are people like you who have cognitive dissonance about what Steinhart offers. It's abundantly clear that you have not bothered to examine the lineup. They are not "fakes," period. But if it floats your purist-classist boat to say so, then carry on with your boat shoes.


No. I simply think Steinhart has some original designs that are worth the money they sell them for. Just because it has a dive bezel doesn't make it a knockoff Rolex. They have different indices, hand sets, everything.

they do make some models with Mercedes hands that make no attempt to differentiate from a Sub. Those I do not like for the reasons you've already stated


----------



## LosAngelesTimer (Aug 24, 2017)

Crisker said:


> I work with intellectual property for a good living, but I don't understand your point. Care to clarify?
> 
> And for whatever reason, there are people like you who have cognitive dissonance about Steinhart offers. It's abundantly clear that you have not bothered to examine the lineup. They are not "fakes," period. But if it floats your purist-classist boat to say so, then carry on with your boat shoes.


Again, whatever you have to tell yourself to get through the night. We all know Steinhart is an obvious and shameless copy of another watch. You can't possibly be asserting that it's an original design, can you? Then again, I've read all manner of BS here so it wouldn't surprise me.

I can predict you're going to counter with the tired and easily defeated "everything is a copy of something" argument.


----------



## Pongster (Jan 7, 2017)

I own one Steinhart. Got it pre-owned. An aviator i think. Even bought a new OEM strap for it. I think it’s ok. Bulky. But ok.


----------



## Leonine (Mar 27, 2012)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> Again, whatever you have to tell yourself to get through the night. We all know Steinhart is an obvious and shameless copy of another watch. You can't possibly be asserting that it's an original design, can you? Then again, I've read all manner of BS here so it wouldn't surprise me.
> 
> I can predict you're going to counter with the tired and easily defeated "everything is a copy of something" argument.


Are Tudor making fakes?


----------



## LosAngelesTimer (Aug 24, 2017)

Leonine said:


> Are Tudor making fakes?


Ding! Ding! Ding! And there it is. Give that man a (fake) Cuban cigar.

It was only a matter of time before someone trotted out the "everything is a copy of something else" argument. *****, at least try _a little_ harder.


----------



## adk225 (Feb 29, 2020)

I sincerely hope the OP logs back in and read all this spirited discussion. He asked for opinions, and certainly got loads of them.


----------



## NMIEE (Jun 21, 2019)

Leonine said:


> Are Tudor making fakes?


Tudor used to make the "Tudor Sub". That oughta be a poser watch too.


----------



## Leonine (Mar 27, 2012)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> Ding! Ding! Ding! And there it is. It was only a matter of time before someone trotted out the "everything is a copy of something else" argument. *****, at least try _a little_ harder.


That's exactly the point. You didn't answer. Are Tudor making fake watches? Ding Ding Ding

Want to discuss or shove down cheaper brands?


----------



## Pongster (Jan 7, 2017)

My steinhart. Bought it for a specific reason.









didnt think it was a copy of another design. but somebody told me it might be a copy of bell and ross. Doesn't matter to me.


----------



## Pongster (Jan 7, 2017)

NMIEE said:


> Tudor used to make the "Tudor Sub". That oughta be a poser watch too.


but Tudor is owned by Rolex.


----------



## LosAngelesTimer (Aug 24, 2017)

Leonine said:


> That's exactly the point. You didn't answer. Are Tudor making fake watches? Ding Ding Ding
> 
> Want to discuss or shove down cheaper brands?


Some of you need to learn how to read. I am in no way "shoving down" cheaper brands. In fact, I'll quote a prior post, "If you can't afford a Rolex, support some of the great watch companies out there that offer original designs at a price you _can_ afford." If you look at my signature, I don't own a single watch that costs what a Submariner does and don't think I'd ever spend that kind of money on a watch.

What I am "shoving down" - and will continue to shove down - is the intellectual dishonesty and self-delusion we see from people who buy and wear submariner clones while insisting they're not wearing a fake or copy.


----------



## Leonine (Mar 27, 2012)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> Some of you need to learn how to read. I am in no way "shoving down" cheaper brands. In fact, I'll quote a prior post, "If you can't afford a Rolex, support some of the great watch companies out there that offer original designs at a price you _can_ afford." If you look at my signature, I don't own a single watch that costs what a Submariner does and don't think I'd ever spend that kind of money on a watch.
> 
> What I am "shoving down" - and will continue to shove down - is the intellectual dishonesty and self-delusion we see from people who buy and wear submariner clones while insisting they're not wearing a fake or copy.


I believe we have drastically different views of intellectual dishonesty.

Additionally, I would never belittle those who buy watches they love that also look like other watches. Much like most watch companies.


----------



## Crisker (Oct 25, 2018)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> Again, whatever you have to tell yourself to get through the night. We all know Steinhart is an obvious and shameless copy of another watch. You can't possibly be asserting that it's an original design, can you? Then again, I've read all manner of BS here so it wouldn't surprise me.
> 
> I can predict you're going to counter with the tired and easily defeated "everything is a copy of something" argument.


There is no "it" when it comes to Steinhart. We are not talking about one watch, though it appears you are.

My counter is to the tired and easily defeated notion that Steinhart produces one watch.

How many have you seen? One?

Steinhart has a large array of watches, many of which are original (or creative homages in the time honored practice of the industry), and is continuously designing new ones.

You would not know this for a variety of reasons, none of which are flattering.


----------



## Crisker (Oct 25, 2018)

Pongster said:


> My steinhart. Bought it for a specific reason.
> View attachment 15560599
> 
> 
> didnt think it was a copy of another design. but somebody told me it might be a copy of bell and ross. Doesn't matter to me.


Here's my intellectually honest and non-delusional Steinhart. It is not a fake, clone, counterfeit, or "Sub copy," as the boat shoe cognoscenti tell me it is.


----------



## randallb (Aug 25, 2020)

Here's one I had, was pretty cool to own for a while considering I could never own the real thing


----------



## fish70 (Oct 12, 2006)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> Some of you need to learn how to read. I am in no way "shoving down" cheaper brands. In fact, I'll quote a prior post, "If you can't afford a Rolex, support some of the great watch companies out there that offer original designs at a price you _can_ afford." If you look at my signature, I don't own a single watch that costs what a Submariner does and don't think I'd ever spend that kind of money on a watch.
> 
> What I am "shoving down" - and will continue to shove down - is the intellectual dishonesty and self-delusion we see from people who buy and wear submariner clones while insisting they're not wearing a fake or copy.


You are coming from some weird point of view where people who buy and wear Steinharts are trying to fool people. No one but watch nerds notice someone else's wristwatch so that is a flawed opinion. I can afford a Submariner and wouldn't pay what Rolex is asking for any watch. It all comes down to perceived value.


----------



## Aequoreal (Nov 11, 2020)

Crisker said:


> Because most Steinhart "homages" aren't copies (excepting the Sub homage) and most Steinharts have unique design elements. If you don't do Steinhart, you wouldn't know this.
> 
> That aside, you would have to be in rare horological company for anyone to think your X, Y, or Z Steinhart is "tacky." If you are running with the Manhattan elite, then perhaps. Or if you are attending a Swiss watch convention in Monte Carlo, may be.
> 
> But otherwise, the only people who think it would be "tacky" are the ritual purist, brand driven watch snobs who comically appear in threads like this to police their fantasy, class-driven boundaries.


I mean there's a ton of entry level swiss options or small scale production watch companies that are better at that price point. It's just obvious someone wearing a Steinhart watch desperately wanted a Rolex, but couldn't afford one. I stand by my point and say why not just go the whole distance and get a fake. Or if you're comfortable wearing an homage watch then that's cool too... but don't pretend like there's something noble in wearing an homage. Because Steinharts are Rolex homages, whether you care to admit it or not.


----------



## fish70 (Oct 12, 2006)

Aequoreal said:


> I mean there's a ton of entry level swiss options or small scale production watch companies that are better at that price point. It's just obvious someone wearing a Steinhart watch desperately wanted a Rolex, but couldn't afford one. I stand by my point and say why not just go the whole distance and get a fake. Or if you're comfortable wearing an homage watch then that's cool too... but don't pretend like there's something noble in wearing an homage. Because Steinharts are Rolex homages, whether you care to admit it or not.


I haven't seen any better micros that make a nicer sub $500 watch with a ETA 2824 in it.


----------



## Crisker (Oct 25, 2018)

Aequoreal said:


> I mean there's a ton of entry level swiss options or small scale production watch companies that are better at that price point. It's just obvious someone wearing a Steinhart watch desperately wanted a Rolex, but couldn't afford one. I stand by my point and say why not just go the whole distance and get a fake. Or if you're comfortable wearing an homage watch then that's cool too... but don't pretend like there's something noble in wearing an homage. Because Steinharts are Rolex homages, whether you care to admit it or not.


I posted the picture of my Steinhart, so why don't you identify the Rolex for which this an homage?

We'll wait patiently while you search for it.


----------



## Aequoreal (Nov 11, 2020)

fish70 said:


> Only a small subset of watch geeks would think a homage is tacky. Chances are you will never meet one in real life.


I mean it's just reminiscent of something that you could get at the flea market.


----------



## Aequoreal (Nov 11, 2020)

fish70 said:


> I haven't seen any better micros that make a nicer sub $500 watch with a ETA 2824 in it.


I mean it's probably a low grade ETA that's probably more comparable to a Miyota in terms of specs, but hey since it's a "Swiss" movement.


----------



## Aequoreal (Nov 11, 2020)

Crisker said:


> I posted the picture of my Steinhart, so why don't you identify the Rolex for which this an homage?
> 
> We'll wait patiently while you search for it.


Who cares if you have the one Steinhart model that doesn't look like a Rolex? I just googled Steinhart and the entire divers section was just Rolex Submariner homages😂 There's no way you're on here passionately defending Steinhart like this lol.


----------



## Crisker (Oct 25, 2018)

Aequoreal said:


> Who cares if you have the one Steinhart model that doesn't look like a Rolex? I just googled Steinhart and the entire divers section was just Rolex Submariner homages😂 There's no way you're on here passionately defending Steinhart like this lol.


At this early juncture of your journey on watchuseek, you're doing a fine job of demonstrating ignorance. Carry on.


----------



## Reverend123! (Apr 11, 2020)

I currently own two Steinharts and consider them excellent value for the money. Yes most of their watches are homage and if that bothers you I would look elsewhere. The quality is decent for the money.


----------



## Aequoreal (Nov 11, 2020)

Crisker said:


> At this early juncture of your journey on watchuseek, you're doing a fine job of demonstrating ignorance. Carry on.


Are you paid by Steinhart to come on here and promote their watches or something? Can you honestly look at the divers section of Steinhart watches and tell me they're not complete Rolex copies? Like I said don't try and make it seem like you're doing something noble dude.


----------



## Aequoreal (Nov 11, 2020)

Reverend123! said:


> I currently own two Steinharts and consider them excellent value for the money. Yes most of their watches are homage and if that bothers you I would look elsewhere. The quality is decent for the money.


Yes they are probably a good value for the money, because anything in that price range has a quartz movement. Look I'm not bashing anyone for wearing a Steinhart, but let's not pretend like they're not Rolex homages and that you wouldn't choose to wear a Rolex over a Steinhart if price wasn't a factor.


----------



## Mediocre (Oct 27, 2013)

teckel12 said:


> I would feel too embarrassed to wear an obvious Rolex clone. Looks like you're trying to be someone you're not (cause if you were, you'd get a Rolex). It's a poser watch.
> 
> Oh, and resell value is crap, because it's crappy watch that no one with taste would buy.
> 
> Sorry if I didn't sugar-coat it and give a coddling "PC" answer.


I owned one, and I liked it. OVM Vintage I think, great looking watch. Good finish for the price, a nice weight to it, etc....I sold it once I realized how much of an "homage" it was. I had bosses with the Rolex version, and it took a side by side for it to hit me. After that I sold it and chose to stick to something a bit different, personal preference. I don't look down on anyone with one, as I regularly wear similar quality watches regularly.

That being said, I have probably owned 30ish watches in the price range. The Steinhart quality was not shabby at all, and I pretty much broke even on the sale.


----------



## Mediocre (Oct 27, 2013)

Aequoreal said:


> Are you paid by Steinhart to come on here and promote their watches or something? Can you honestly look at the divers section of Steinhart watches and tell me they're not complete Rolex copies? Like I said don't try and make it seem like you're doing something noble dude.


They have made some divers that were not complete Rolex lookalikes, the Titanium 500 I believe they are called. Their best looking diver IMHO


----------



## Aequoreal (Nov 11, 2020)

Mediocre said:


> They have made some divers that were not complete Rolex lookalikes, the Titanium 500 I believe they are called. Their best looking diver IMHO


I understand that, but that doesn't change the fact that when I went on their website and went to the divers section they were basically all Rolex Submariner homages. It's just obvious their target market is someone who wants something that looks like a Rolex for $500.
Tudor used to make the "Tudor Sub". That oughta be a poser watch too.
[/QUOTE]
Tudor is a subsidiary of Rolex, meaning it's technically the same company.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Buy one so you would know.

I've owned a Steinhart O1 some years ago, 100% satisfied with the watch. I wore it for 2 years and sold it for a good price. I'd say that the resale value is excellent.


----------



## Aequoreal (Nov 11, 2020)

lvt said:


> Buy one so you would know.
> 
> I've owned a Steinhart O1 some years ago, 100% satisfied with the watch. I wore it for 2 years and sold it for a good price. I'd say that the resale value is excellent.


I mean I've already stated that there are better micro alternatives, but that's just my opinion. If you like wearing something that is essentially a Rolex replica then that's cool, but personally I would rather spend my money on a unique piece like the ones micros offer. I like what Steinhart offers (if the quality is as quality good as you claim and if the movement isn't a low grade ETA) but it's just that the majority of their watches are Rolex homages.


----------



## RangelRocha (Dec 9, 2013)

The issue that I find with owning most submariner hommages is the following :

If you're a watch guy and you don't like the Sub, you're just sour because you can't afford one. If you like it and you don't own one, people are like: "wtf are you going in life!?"

Look, let's be honest here, Rolex in general and Submariners in particular are only as expensive nowadays as they are because Rolex as a company is a marketing genius. Other brands, such as Omega and Zenith, offer as much or more value for money. The thing with Rolex is, as you "must own a Rolex to be someone", they can charge as much as they do.

Saying that, when a snobby WIS or a normal guy that recognizes a Sub sees you wearing something that looks like a Sub but isn't a Rolex, they might get the perception that you're trying to be something that you're not.

Steinharts are great watches, maybe not the best and/or more affordable Sub hommages but great watches in their own right. I don't own one but I wouldn't take it off the wishlist if I was on the market for a diver.

Long live the Sub, long live Rolex and long live the hommages.


----------



## Bobthekelpy (Dec 20, 2019)

Aequoreal said:


> My problem isn't with the watch itself or that people like it, but it seems the people the wear Steinhart watches don't want to admit that it's a copy of a Rolex. It's like a psychology thing where they're afraid to admit they bought it because it was an affordable version of a Rolex.


Au contraire.

I bought a 39mm version of the OVM39 exactly because it's a nice representation of a 5513 Milsub.

I don't know about you, but I don't have $150,000+ AUD lying around for a real example of one, and if I did, it would not be spent on a watch..

Otherwise, as others have stated, it's quite a nicely put together watch for the price point. Yes, the case could be better finished, but mine runs at -2s per day, so no arguments on accuracy. In fact, it performs better than my real Rolex..


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Aequoreal said:


> I mean I've already stated that there are better micro alternatives, but that's just my opinion. If you like wearing something that is essentially a Rolex replica then that's cool, but personally I would rather spend my money on a unique piece like the ones micros offer. I like what Steinhart offers (if the quality is as quality good as you claim and if the movement isn't a low grade ETA) but it's just that the majority of their watches are Rolex homages.


Well I don't really care about Rolex, at the time of purchase it was the best watch with ETA (Élaboré grade) movement that money can buy.


----------



## CLP (Sep 25, 2015)

What's wrong with the O1 is they took the 2 things wrong with the Submariner that Rolex won't change (Mercedes hand and cyclops) and proceeded to do the same thing.

This is why if you get a Steiny you should get a 500. At least it's more original.

As for their other lines, and in general, the 2 gripes I have noticed is they can be rather large for most, (44-47mm cases for the fliegers and deckwatches) and the lugs are too straight/flat and don't hug the wrist.


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

Aequoreal said:


> Yes they are probably a good value for the money, because anything in that price range has a quartz movement. Look I'm not bashing anyone for wearing a Steinhart, but let's not pretend like they're not Rolex homages and that you wouldn't choose to wear a Rolex over a Steinhart if price wasn't a factor.


No one would deny they are Rolex homages
Given the choice most would own/wear a Rolex over a Steinhart -
but many either can't or wouldn't pay that sort of money for a Rolex sports (assuming they can even buy one at MSRP and not from the scalpers)
I've worn Rolex divers for many years - but would happily buy and wear a Steinhart


----------



## JaviAlonso (Apr 17, 2020)

I’ve owned one, the titanium type A flieger. Was nice, finishing is OK, strap was good. Today if I wanna spend little on a watch I would buy one, I would instead go for a more original brand, like Laco and the like. If I were searching for a dive watch there’s plenty of options in other brands with more pedigree if you like, the submariner homage from Steinhart it’s too of a knock off.


----------



## JaviAlonso (Apr 17, 2020)

Crisker said:


> This stock response is exceptionally tedious.
> 
> How do you know what the resale market is, having never purchased, worn, or sold such filth?


Well, I only had one Steinhart watch. Paid for it 485€ postage included, sold it After using it plenty for 415€. I think it's a pretty good resale IMO


----------



## GrimFandango (May 8, 2018)

I have nothing against hommages or people buying hommages. But I would personally always opt for something that is its own thing rather than something that is an imitation of something else. However decent it may be.


----------



## Kele1976 (Mar 22, 2020)

I've owned two Steinharts; sold the blue dial and kept the black dial. I've currently got it on a black Hirsch performance strap which makes it look a little less "homage".

I must admit the homage issue bothers me and I've communicated this to Gunther. It's a shame because as I often tell people for the quality I think it represents great value. Mine has the ETA 2824-2 movement, sapphire crystal, ceramic bezel and SS bracelet with SCREWED links. Steinhart makes, IMHO, a good enough watch to avoid homages.

I bought mine purely on specs before getting into watches properly. Would I buy another one? Yes but not an homage. They do have more original designs with the same quality.

I doubt people slating it's quality have actually held or owned one. My other watches include 3 Grand Seikos (chosen over Rolex due mostly to finish) so I have a good idea what good quality looks like.


----------



## Kele1976 (Mar 22, 2020)

CLP said:


> What's wrong with the O1 is they took the 2 things wrong with the Submariner that Rolex won't change (Mercedes hand and cyclops) and proceeded to do the same thing.
> 
> This is why if you get a Steiny you should get a 500. At least it's more original.
> 
> As for their other lines, and in general, the 2 gripes I have noticed is they can be rather large for most, (44-47mm cases for the fliegers and deckwatches) and the lugs are too straight/flat and don't hug the wrist.


Agree... I do have an issue with the O1 being an almost exact copy of a (no longer in production) Rolex. The last bit is key because the O1 doesn't ape any Rolex currently in production which is why they are not illegal. It's perfectly legal to produce an exact copy of a watch that is no longer in production as long as you don't copy the brand name (covered by trademark). This is why Long Island watches can legally produce pretty much exact copies of the SKX. Incidentally Seiko and their fans don't seem to be bothered by this at all. Why Rolex homages irk their fans (not the company) so much is difficult to tell...

I'm no longer into dive watches and keep my steinie as a reliable beater and wkend / site watch. If I were to buy a new dive watch however I would definitely consider their Ocean 39 GMT. This is much less of an homage (different lugs, crown guards, hands, date window and bezel text). It's also 39mm which I don't believe Rolex makes divers in. You still get all afore mentioned qualities and a watch that is far better than a similarly priced CW or Yema.

Pics from respective company websites for comparison


----------



## G07 (Nov 20, 2008)

teckel12 said:


> I beg to differ. Even the positive posts here are mainly something like "I had a couple, they were okay, but sold them all". Meaning they were not that good.


I don't think they said they were no good - if I read correctly, they just mention they sold them. Get off your high horse.


----------



## Torre (Jun 3, 2011)

Opinions are like a**holes.
They stink.
Seriously though, I love my Ocean One Vintage Military and I get a lot of compliments when I wear it.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Torre said:


> Opinions are like a**holes.
> They stink.
> Seriously though, I love my Ocean One Vintage Military and I get a lot of compliments when I wear it.
> View attachment 15561163
> View attachment 15561165


You just get one more compliment from me sir


----------



## blackcutlass (Aug 8, 2018)

Simon said:


> No one would deny they are Rolex homages
> Given the choice most would own/wear a Rolex over a Steinhart -
> but many either can't or wouldn't pay that sort of money for a Rolex sports (assuming they can even buy one at MSRP and not from the scalpers)


I think this is the key takeaway here. No one buys a Sub homage trying to convince themselves it's an original design, nor would I imagine the companies selling them would pretend anything similar. People want the watch because it looks like something they _should_ be able to afford but can't. They love the history associated with the design and would even pay a reasonable premium given the fact that the Sub is a better watch--just not the premium Rolex commands. I don't think the finger-pointing should be directed toward the people who make or buy Sub homages, but Rolex themselves. Sub homages wouldn't exist (or at least not to the degree they do today), if you could buy a Rolex, for say, $2000--which as I understand is a more reasonable price (accounting for inflation) we should expect given prices of the Rolex watches of yore. And for all the "poser" comments: people need to remember that a Rolex can be just as much of a poser watch as a Steinhart.


----------



## TaxMan (Nov 3, 2016)

I have to disagree with those who are saying that the disdain for Steinhart, and the Ocean 1 in particular, is from “snobbery” That’s bull. It comes from loathing a practice that involves stealing literally every element from a another company’s product, right down to number of lines of text on the dial, and sell it as their own. That’s theft, plain and simple. And then to hide the support of that theft behind the word “homage” and declare those who don’t support this to be “snobs”? Ridiculous.


----------



## Badbebe (Jul 30, 2011)

Not that I would ever wear a homage, I’ve grown to tolerate it. Comparing to straight up fake **** or smart watch, homage is ok. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Thunder1 (Feb 8, 2008)

Morning, there, folks...can't say that I haven't seen similar threads to this one from time to time(see what I did there?)...yes, many of the more popular Steinys are in fact homages to various Rolex Subs..personally, I own 4 at this point in time(again, see what I did there?)..an OVM39 that I favor for around-the-house tasks, a 39 Plexi Explorer, an Ocean 39 Vintage GMT Hong Kong Edition, and an Ocean 39 Marine Blue Plexi L.E...and I own one Rolex, an older model DateJust in white gold that gets little to no wrist wear..

I also own dozens of other makes, from Orients & Seikos to Hamiltons, Midos & Longines, to Omegas & GOs, etc..I've been collecting for about 12 years now..from this experience, I've learned the following, albeit none of it's an original thought...1)in general, one should purchase what one likes because you're primarily buying a watch to please yourself, and no one else..2)we all have differing budgets, so buy what you can afford and avoid buying watches on credit...3)in general, watches make for poor financial investments, the Rolex experience a current exception to this convention..4)I've frequently found it useful to buy a less expensive watch that is similar both in appearance and function to more expensive watches..it's given me the opportunity to try on a 'look' at a lower price point and decide if I really want to pay more for something similar or not...if not, that is more $ for the next purchase!!.. 5)many, many owners of Rolex Subs, while greatly enjoying their purchase(s), also buy 'lesser' makes in order to both enjoy a different wrist wear experience(s) & to preserve the value of their more valuable Rolex(s)..6)Finally, the Steinys offer very good value for the $ spent..very good construction, materials, & movements..mine keep excellent time and have always provided me w/ enjoyable wrist wear experiences..good luck to everyone's future wrist wear endeavors!!..


----------



## fish70 (Oct 12, 2006)

TaxMan said:


> I have to disagree with those who are saying that the disdain for Steinhart, and the Ocean 1 in particular, is from "snobbery" That's bull. It comes from loathing a practice that involves stealing literally every element from a another company's product, right down to number of lines of text on the dial, and sell it as their own. That's theft, plain and simple. And then to hide the support of that theft behind the word "homage" and declare those who don't support this to be "snobs"? Ridiculous.


Because if someone is going to pay $400 for a wristwatch they should just go ahead and pay $10000 for it. Totally logical LOL.


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

teckel12 said:


> Exactly. Just be honest. I'm broke or can't justify the price of a Rolex, but want people to think I have disposable income of that level.


No, there are other reasons to buy Steinhart

I have several dozen watches including Rolex - but I like the quality/price/product from Steinhart - I refuse to play Rolex's AD games and refuse to pay Grey scalp money - I like the Rolex Pepsi and the Hulk - I think the Steinhart is a good cheap alternative. I love the mil-sub and would never pay 200k for it - I think its absurd and obscene - but a 300quid lookalike - perfect. In 30years collecting I've had maybe 3 people ask about my watches, and only 2 ask if I was wearing a Rolex - on one occasion i was wearing a seiko! As a WIS if I saw someone wearing a Steinhart I would know they were a fellow watch appreciator. If I saw someone wearing a sub (I see loads) I'd wonder if they knew anything about watches or were just following fashion.

Recently someone posted that they were at a party and saw a chap wearing a Sub. They said "nice watch" - the wearer covered it with his hand and said "guess what it is" - the poster said "It's a Sub" and the wearer replied "NO, its a Rolex" - nuff said

Im gonna go look at steinharts now


----------



## Bugster (Jan 3, 2018)

I thought the trolls normally resided 3 doors up?


----------



## cghorr01 (Aug 22, 2019)

NMIEE said:


> You really have quite the vendetta against "posers".
> 
> why not just let people like what they like and realize it has no bearing on your life whatsoever? You have very strong opinions about someone simply because of their watch.
> 
> maybe they aren't trying to "show they have money". Maybe they like the design and that's all the matters. Maybe they like the design and don't want to spend $10,000 on the real thing. But to you anyone who wears something of a similar design is a "poser". With such a judge mental outlook towards others it's hard to see why we have such turmoil in this country....


That last part, isn't that the truth. There's just no room for a difference of opinion anymore, is there? The snobbery on here makes my head hurt.

Sent from my Note 20 Ultra


----------



## G07 (Nov 20, 2008)

teckel12 said:


> If they were good, they'd still own them. High horse or not.


Some WIS just like to flip watches. I've owned a few Steinharts and a few Rolex, including 2 Subs. All flipped. They were all excellent watches - wanted to try more brands as I'm not a multi watch WIS. Guess what stayed in my watch box? Grand Seiko ... I suppose you'll say something stupid and ignorant about GS now


----------



## G07 (Nov 20, 2008)

Aidy said:


> Shusssshhhhh now, your getting tedious. So is your little friend with around 10 posts.
> whaaaaa whaaaaaa whaaaaaaa theyre all fakes.


He sure is a tedious and annoying little _&^%%($**_^$  I bet he lives in his mother's basement and wears a Debaufre!! At least it is not a Steinhart! I'll give him a few minutes to do a Google search and come back and annoy us some more.


----------



## Crisker (Oct 25, 2018)

Aequoreal said:


> That's cool. I just want people to admit they're buying it because they either can't afford or Rolex or justify the cost of purchasing a Rolex. Let's just stop pretending it's something it isn't.


I see you are still on your high-hobby horse. Are you being paid by Rolex?

All that being said, it's been nice knowing you and say hello to a well deserved Ignore, which is quite similar to ignorance. If you can't be bothered doing any research, or making reasonable arguments, then I can't be bothered seeing your words any more.


----------



## Robotaz (Jan 18, 2012)

teckel12 said:


> So to you, if someone owns a Rolex they're an undeserving idiot and if you own a Steinhart your an enlightened genius. RIGHT!
> 
> When I hear this, it means only one thing. Subconsciously making up a false reality out of jealously. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself I guess. It would have thw total opposite effect on me. I would feel like a total poser and wannabe wearing a Rolex replica Steinhart.


A lot of WIS do in fact think Rolex fans are undeserving idiots. I'm not saying fellow WIS here on the forum who own Rolexes are idiots. I'm saying some of us look at a person wearing one and think idiot. When we hear someone having an orgasm talking about Rolex and they don't even own one, yeah complete and total idiot. Sorry.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Robotaz said:


> A lot of WIS do in fact think Rolex fans are undeserving idiots. I'm not saying fellow WIS here on the forum who own Rolexes are idiots. I'm saying some of us look at a person wearing one and think idiot. When we hear someone having an orgasm talking about Rolex and they don't even own one, yeah complete and total idiot. Sorry.


Umm, that makes sense.


----------



## TaxMan (Nov 3, 2016)

fish70 said:


> Because if someone is going to pay $400 for a wristwatch they should just go ahead and pay $10000 for it. Totally logical LOL.


Poser logic


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

Aequoreal said:


> Thanks for admitting Steinhart is a cheap alternative to Rolex. Also, do you think because you're a "watch appreciator" that your opinion carries more weight or something? Why would anyone wearing a Rolex (or any other type of watch for that matter) care whether you wondered if they knew anything about watches?


1. of course its a cheap alternative - everything in the world has cheap alternatives except the cheapest thing which is a cheap alternative

2. Yes, a long term watch appreciator probably appreciates these things more than someone who's been on a forum a week - tell us what watches you have & like, dont come here to diss others - that looks like trolling

3. Because Rolex is a veblen good and thus has market strategy predicated on caring what others think


----------



## simonp67 (Aug 10, 2015)

Lots of anger and frustration over Rolex these days, their pricing, lack of availability & AD games. Personally I’ve always bought mine pre-owned & years back so can’t comment first hand but if the stories about Rolex ADs are true I can understand the feelings. 

Steinhart are knock offs, well made or cheap? No idea as I wouldn’t own one because either way they are knock offs. I’d rather own something else than a knock off of what I can’t have. Just me and my 0.02


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## fracture. (Aug 11, 2018)

I've had the sub copy and still have the gmt pepsi copy. I sold the sub and pepsi is really just waiting for me to write an ad for it. Great watches, superb accuracy, no complaints. I bought them to see if I'd be interested in the "real thing" as a test drive and find the design boring. My wife also told me that the jubilee bracelet looks like it belongs to an old man's wrist and that the loupe looks like something made for old men to read the date without glasses. So yeah, I'm out.

I'd suggest one of Steinhart's original designs though, because the watches are solidly built.


----------



## Russell44 (Mar 6, 2019)

fracture. said:


> I've had the sub copy and still have the gmt pepsi copy. I sold the sub and pepsi is really just waiting for me to write an ad for it. Great watches, superb accuracy, no complaints. I bought them to see if I'd be interested in the "real thing" as a test drive and find the design boring. My wife also told me that the jubilee bracelet looks like it belongs to an old man's wrist and that the loupe looks like something made for old men to read the date without glasses. So yeah, I'm out.


Your wife nailed it, I'm 76 and just love every bit of my Steinhart. 😝


----------



## c3p0 (Aug 9, 2019)

Personally, I only got into watches a little over one year ago. I mean, I have always had a watch, but a year ago I discovered this site and well...

In any case, this site taught me that a dive watch is a pretty neat thing to own. I started to reasearch the watches in my budget. When I found the Ocean One Titanium 500 I fell in love (and I still am). I liked the look of the brushed titanium, the bright lume, the fact that it has 50 ATM WR, the movement, and that beautiful blue iridescent spark that its sapphire chrystal gives at some angles.
















I have no idea if that feature exists in any Rolex watch, but I enjoy it.

As for Rolex, growing up I saw advertisements for them from time to time. I never saw one that made me say "wow, what a nice watch". On the contrary, I always wondered what the fuss was all about. A couple of months ago I still wouldn't have been able to distinguish between an Explorer and a Sub, or a datejust. Rolex was just not on my radar. In fact, I still think those chapagne dial ones (whatever the model is called) is hideous and boring to death. (I guess I feel the same way about some GS, but oh well, I guess my taste hasn't developed into enough sophistication yet.)

The point is, I couldn't care less about Rolex. I wear my Steinhart because I like it. If it offends anyone, that is not my problem. Seriously!


----------



## fracture. (Aug 11, 2018)

Russell44 said:


> Your wife nailed it, I'm 76 and just love every bit of my Steinhart. ?
> 
> View attachment 15563787


That's great! The idea that I'd be bothered by what jewelry other men wear has never even crossed my mind, so as long as you're happy with your watch, that's all that matters.

Some in this thread even called other men names if they don't wear the jewelry they themselves like, which is unfathomable to me.


----------



## JBAV8R (Sep 29, 2019)

Here is a post I put up for someone asking about the comparison of Steinhart vs NTH....

Here is the thing...It is really easy to put Rolex,IWC, Tudor, Omega in your signature and then bash homage or less expensive watches. I love my Steinharts. I know what they are and what they aren’t. Here are some things, I dislike and somethings I really love. Regardless, I don’t go around bashing the big brand forums over poor quality control or the purely stupid waste of money many times ( it could be argued that we are all stupidly wasting money haha). Regardless, enjoy what is on your wrist. If you feel you have to beat up someone else’s piece and happiness ( see what I did there), they you are probably pretty unhappy with your own collection...... I adore my pieces, I get more than enough compliments on them and I enjoy sharing the brand with others.... Be well.

Previousply posted:

here is my view.....I love my Steinharts. I own five. They are awesome and I wear them every day. I love my NTH, I wear it often. I have 23 watches in my collection...I have found when you bring up Steinhart, NTH, some Squale, etc you get many people say oh it is just a knockoff....then you have others say that Steinhart or other homage pieces are more reliable blah blah blah....

I know this for a fact. I am never going to own an original a vintage big Triangle Semaster, BlancPain FF, or a Double Red Seadweller, or a Big Crown No Date Sunmariner, or an original Explorer II, or a GMT Master (Pepsi or Coke)...for two reasons. Firstly they are exorbitantly expensive and I have more important things to do with my money...secondly I would be horrified to wear them for fear I’d break them. 

I also know this for a fact....Rolex, Tudor, nor Omega are all having quality control issues...have you looked at the issues Omega is having with the NTTD Bond watch, or the Tudor Pelagos bezel issues, or the Tudor GMT issues, or Rolex Ceramic alignment issues...now call me crazy I would be mighty ticked to spend stupid money on a piece that isn’t just right. 

There have been alignment issues or other issues with Steinhart and NTH...there will always be issues. But I guarantee you will get waaaaaay better customer service from either of them than a big brand. Literally, people are being told, “Hey we know he watch we sold you is messed up instead of making it right and sending you a fix on the house....send the watch back to us, we will change it ( so it isn’t what you really want) and then we will send it back. And no there is no other choice. See Omega NTTD Bond watch issues....

To answer your question which is best....the one you like. The one you keep going back too and looking at the pics of. The one that makes you smile. The one you will we are the living hell out of and enjoy. The one that when someone says ”Nice Tudor” (OH WAIT THAT NEVER HAPPENS!!! NO ONE CARES OR NOTICES WATCHES EXCEPT US WEIRD FREAKS) you will say happily ....Heck no it isn’t a Tudor....I didn’t spend that kinda dough on this. It is a NTH/Steinhart/ Modded Seiko/Squale. Let me tell you about them...and show someone else that you can get AMAZING high quality pieces for far less that the prices demanded by mass marketing brands.

Personally, I like the Steinhart and would probably do that for me....., but I am not you. Only you will know what makes you happy. 
If what makes you happy is a certain five letters on the dial (Rolex/Tudor) for branding then no Steinhart or NTH will truly fix that....

One last thought, I have always lusted after pieces that are made of unobtanium such as I listed above. Buying a homage of something still in production seems to really rule up the fanboys to no end. Buying a homage of something that gives you the style and history of a piece of the past...not so much.

To that end, buy the watch for you.....if the internet died and you were the last person on earth...which watch would you enjoy staring at alone, forever.....just for your enjoyment.....

Be well....


----------



## c1gardner (Feb 20, 2011)

MikaeMil said:


> What is common opinion about about Steinhart Ocean One?
> 
> I know it is homage, but what people think in general about Steinhart and its watches?
> 
> How about quality, resell value and so on?


----------



## JBAV8R (Sep 29, 2019)

c3p0 said:


> Personally, I only got into watches a little over one year ago. I mean, I have always had a watch, but a year ago I discovered this site and well...
> 
> In any case, this site taught me that a dive watch is a pretty neat thing to own. I started to reasearch the watches in my budget. When I found the Ocean One Titanium 500 I fell in love (and I still am). I liked the look of the brushed titanium, the bright lume, the fact that it has 50 ATM WR, the movement, and that beautiful blue iridescent spark that its sapphire chrystal gives at some angles.
> 
> ...


Gorgeous piece! Well done!


----------



## c1gardner (Feb 20, 2011)

MikaeMil said:


> What is common opinion about about Steinhart Ocean One?
> 
> I know it is homage, but what people think in general about Steinhart and its watches?
> 
> How about quality, resell value and so on?


I own a number is Steinharts and have found them to be of good value for the price. The Ocean One Vintage version with sword hands is my favorite tool watch.


----------



## VaEagle (Nov 29, 2017)

I've had an Ocean One and thought it was a well made watch for the price. Steinhart generally delivers good value for the money. That said, I sold my Ocean One within a couple of months because I did not like the idea of wearing the homage. On the other hand, I'm not so "opposed" to the homage concept that seeing other people wearing them bothers me ... if that makes any sense. 

I am glad to see that Steinhart has designed other watches with their own look/style, and I prefer those.


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

fracture. said:


> I've had the sub copy and still have the gmt pepsi copy. I sold the sub and pepsi is really just waiting for me to write an ad for it. Great watches, superb accuracy, no complaints. I bought them to see if I'd be interested in the "real thing" as a test drive and find the design boring. My wife also told me that the jubilee bracelet looks like it belongs to an old man's wrist and that the loupe looks like something made for old men to read the date without glasses. So yeah, I'm out.
> 
> I'd suggest one of Steinhart's original designs though, because the watches are solidly built.


I'm an old man, sounds perfect, I think Im gonna get one - seriously


----------



## CMSgt Bo (Feb 12, 2006)

teckel12 said:


> ...When I hear this, it means only one thing. Subconsciously making up a false reality out of jealously. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself I guess...


You mean like this:



teckel12 said:


> ...Anyone who supports their business should be ashamed.
> 
> Basically, if you buy a Steinhart, you're helping the terrorists win.


The trolling needs to stop. As a reminder, from our rules:

_2. Members will be kind and courteous, and respectful to other members and the Moderators. No direct or indirect personal attacks or insults of any kind will be allowed. Posts which antagonize, belittle or humiliate other members and/or the Moderators will not be tolerated, nor will racism, sexism, bigotry or foul language.

10 . Don't engage in dialogue with a troll or a spammer. Report them to the Moderators or use the "report post" button located in each post.

Violation of these rules may result in disciplinary measures, which may ultimately include being banned from WatchUSeek._


----------



## DiveTime (Jan 4, 2016)

MikaeMil said:


> What is common opinion about about Steinhart Ocean One?
> 
> I know it is homage, but what people think in general about Steinhart and its watches?
> 
> How about quality, resell value and so on?


You have had many replies. They either like Steinhart, find it so so...... or don't like copies & buy only Rolex.
Hard to add much to that, but I will say I love the Rolex Submariner look and style. However I refuse to pay $10,000 for a watch Rolex made for no more than $500. Just about any stainless steel dive watch costs no more than $200 to produce + packaging &_ marketing costs_ . The copyright for Rolex designs have long since expired and anyone can duplicate their watches ........ just as long as they don't use the name ROLEX on it.
Steinhart watches are quality Rolex homages selling for $400-500. Quality is excellent but not quite as refined as the Rolex. I own 4 Steinhart = 2 Submariner, 1 GMT & 1 Vintage Military. I can't say I wear them much ....as I rarely wear a watch anymore thanks to iPhones. There are a couple companies in China that make Rolex copies that it is extremely hard to tell them apart from original Rolexes unless you open the back and look at the movement. They sell for $500 - 600. When I do wear a watch I like my SEIKO Titanium Shogun Dive watch, it's half the weight of a stainless steel diver and you forget you are even wearing a watch. Costs about $850 - 1,000.


----------



## aaceofspades (Jul 30, 2019)

Many opinions on this subject.. I'll give you mine in a photo of my Ocean One. I don't see too much homage in the handset, crystal, lumed bezel, date at 6 or titanium case. Runs +3/day. It's a quality piece.


----------



## fracture. (Aug 11, 2018)

Simon said:


> I'm an old man, sounds perfect, I think Im gonna get one - seriously


Great, I'm sure you'll love it, they're honestly well built watches. I've used mine in the spa, in the ocean, at the gym, every day under a shower, never had ANY problems and both of mine ran at <2 s/d.

Reading back my posts again, I would just like to make it clear that that is just an opinion of one woman, but one I particularly care about. Also, being old is most certainly not meant to be an insult or anything, just not suitable for me, being in my early 30s.

And I would really like to reiterate, that caring about what jewelry other men wear is absurd and definitely not the wearers problem. As far as quality goes, which is something not absurd in my eyes to discuss about, Steinhart is surely the best bang for buck watch out there.


----------



## watchman600 (Mar 11, 2020)

bigclive2011 said:


> I've owned one and I thought the quality for the price was good.
> 
> However it really hasn't got any style of its own it is just a copy as others have said.
> 
> For similiar(ish) money the CW Trident is a much more individual, and better made watch.


BUT they don't make a GREEN one. I even asked Peter Ellis (one of the co-owners)
to make the c60 in double green like the Oris Aquis green. He said they will discuss it.

Steinhart has a double green ceramic premium, that looks awesome. 
--
Also, so what that it is a copy of a vastly more expensive Rolex?
If someone likes that style but isn't willing or able to pay over 10 thousand dollars,
then why shouldn't he get and enjoy the Steinhart HULK??


----------



## Steeltown (May 23, 2013)

I own an Ocean One Black 42mm and like it. It’s my beater watch. It’s well made and attractive. It has an ETA 2824 movement, sapphire crystal, and it’s offered with a ceramic bezel if you choose that instead of aluminum. The watch only cost me about $400 new. I think it used to resell in the forums in the $300 range, but I don’t know what it goes for now. I don’t feel bad getting desk swirls or strap change marks or putting it in the security tray at the airport. I’m never afraid to put it on no matter what I’m doing, and I forget that it’s on sometimes because I’m comfortable and not worried about it like I often am when wearing my expensive luxury watches. I’m not trying to fool anybody into thinking I have an old Sub. It’s not a con or a fake; it’s an homage. That said, yeah, it’s uninspired and uninspiring. I would rather spend the money on a watch with some original DNA.


----------



## aaceofspades (Jul 30, 2019)

watchman600 said:


> BUT they don't make a GREEN one. I even asked Peter Ellis (one of the co-owners)
> to make the c60 in double green like the Oris Aquis green. He said they will discuss it.
> 
> Steinhart has a double green ceramic premium, that looks awesome.
> ...


A green C60 could be incredible. I never noticed they didn't have one until you pointed it out. I wonder why they haven't produced one yet?


----------



## simonp67 (Aug 10, 2015)

watchman600 said:


> BUT they don't make a GREEN one. I even asked Peter Ellis (one of the co-owners)
> to make the c60 in double green like the Oris Aquis green. He said they will discuss it.
> 
> Steinhart has a double green ceramic premium, that looks awesome.
> ...


Because it's a rip off of Rolex's design.... knock offs are wrong pure & simple

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Robotaz (Jan 18, 2012)

aaceofspades said:


> Many opinions on this subject.. I'll give you mine in a photo of my Ocean One. I don't see too much homage in the handset, crystal, lumed bezel, date at 6 or titanium case. Runs +3/day. It's a quality piece.


It's really just the machining on the edge of the bezel. People look at that and think Rolex, even though there aren't a whole lot of ways people could do it after Rolex started doing it that way. Rolex lucked out with normal progressions in design at just the right time. Now everyone is "copying". It's kinda like saying everyone making airplanes make homages to the Wright brothers' first plane.


----------



## watchman600 (Mar 11, 2020)

@simonp67 Many watch brands make their version of a classic, vastly more expensive watch.
I see nothing wrong with this. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I will probably get the Helson sharkmaster 300 that looks like the Omega.
You must hate Long Island watches that have a whole line of "their version" watches.

The point is to make these really nice styles available to more people...
in a good quality, affordable watch using ceramic bezel inserts, sapphire crystal, etc.

If someone got a knock-off, which was a clone of a Rolex 
(a high level fake of a Rolex)
that was hard to tell which was real and which was fake, 
side by side with a real Rolex,
then I agree with you, that is just wrong pure and simple.
And someone who would buy and wear such a fake Rolex IS indeed a "poser".

I see a real difference between the 2 types of watches. 
And I too am entitled to my opinion.


----------



## Russell44 (Mar 6, 2019)

simonp67 said:


> Because it's a rip off of Rolex's design.... knock offs are wrong pure & simple
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


When the patent has expired it is not a knockoff so long as it's not branded as the original, what gets up my nose is people boasting about their phone.


----------



## RoyalScam (Jan 19, 2020)

DiveTime said:


> ... I love the Rolex Submariner look and style. However I refuse to pay $10,000 for a watch Rolex made for no more than $500. Just about any stainless steel dive watch costs no more than $200 to produce + packaging &_ marketing costs_ .


I'm of the same opinion. Good on ya if you can afford Rolex. I love the look of the Submariners and I could not care less about the brand. And I do not feel the least bit "dirty" wearing my Phoibos 007.

I just cannot see dropping that much coin on a watch. I don't begrudge anyone who does, and you shouldn't begrudge or turn your nose up at me for doing what makes ME happy. And what makes me happy is to have 6 or 7 divers of different colors, all under $500 each.

Lots of solid opinions around here, and lots of single-minded erudites, too.


----------



## whineboy (Aug 12, 2012)

Russell44 said:


> When the patent has expired it is not a knockoff so long as it's not branded as the original, what gets up my nose is people boasting about their phone.


That's oversimplifying too much. The appearance of an object like a watch also can be protected by trade dress, copyright, and/or trademark law. Just because the patent(s) has expired does not give the public the right to copy the appearance - only to use the patented invention. Very few patents cover appearance (they are called design patents and are rare and only last 10 years in the US).
I agree with you that once a patent expires the invention can be used by the public. But that does not entitle the public to copy the appearance of the object.
Rolex continues to have counterfeit watches seized and destroyed and I believe their legal basis for action is a combination of copyright and trade dress laws.

Edit - wanted to say the level of hate here is pretty unbelievable. Sometimes I have to leave WUS and spend time on WatchProSite, where people are a heck of a lot more civil and supportive of each other.


----------



## raistlin65 (Mar 20, 2019)

Robotaz said:


> It's really just the machining on the edge of the bezel. People look at that and think Rolex, even though there aren't a whole lot of ways people could do it after Rolex started doing it that way. Rolex lucked out with normal progressions in design at just the right time. Now everyone is "copying". It's kinda like saying everyone making airplanes make homages to the Wright brothers' first plane.


Or what about art, where a new style then becomes a sub genre that other artists engage in, rather than being described as "copying."

So maybe we should start talking about the submariner watch genre, and accept that a watch must necessarily use some of those characteristics to be in that genre, just like in art.


----------



## c3p0 (Aug 9, 2019)

raistlin65 said:


> So maybe we should start talking about the submariner watch genre, and accept that a watch must necessarily use some of those characteristics to be in that genre, just like in art.


Its called the dive watch genre. After all, the Submariner inherited many of its features too. (Blancpain hint hint. ;-))


----------



## raistlin65 (Mar 20, 2019)

c3p0 said:


> Its called the dive watch genre. After all, the Submariner inherited many of its features too. (Blanpain hint hint. ;-))


It's a sub-genre of the dive watch genre, as there are other styles of dive watches that emerged from the Blanpain influence. In much the same way that detective stories are a sub-genre of mysteries, even though it is common to talk about detective stories as a genre without use of the term "sub."


----------



## KOB. (May 1, 2011)

I like the sub-genre, just as I like mid-size SUVs (Which are also morphing into an automotive one-ness). I also like Steinhart and my next watch will be an Ocean One Black GMT Ceramic. If they had Ceramic in Coke, I'd do that. For the price-point and what you get, IMHO it's hard to beat and their customer service is excellent (I know from experience). And I'm buying it for me and I'll be happy staring at it 24/7 and will be even happier noting what I paid for it. My advice to those that don't like the sub homage look, don't buy them.


----------



## jmnav (May 18, 2019)

teckel12 said:


> I would feel too embarrassed to wear an obvious Rolex clone. Looks like you're trying to be someone you're not (cause if you were, you'd get a Rolex). It's a poser watch.


It's not hard to find people that will tell you he won't let his Submariner anywhere near a hard environment, much less watersports, in case it damages his investment. I guess that means Rolex Submariner is a poser watch too.



teckel12 said:


> Oh, and resell value is crap, because it's crappy watch that no one with taste would buy.


Most possibly Steinharts don't get a twofold appreciation just by getting out of the shop, so I suppose that makes them not the best investment. On the other hand, I'd never say to be "a crap resell value" a watch that I can buy, enjoy for a while and then sell off at a short discount so my ownership came basically for free.



teckel12 said:


> Sorry if I didn't sugar-coat it and give a coddling "PC" answer.


Sorry if I didn't support your obvious "nose up" answer.


----------



## jmnav (May 18, 2019)

teckel12 said:


> The company makes cheap fake knockoffs. Doesn't matter if they also make non-fakes. They're shunned because they make cheap fakes. Anyone who supports their business should be ashamed.
> 
> Basically, if you buy a Steinhart, you're helping the terrorists win.


----------



## Russell44 (Mar 6, 2019)

jmnav said:


>


I agree, we need clowns in the world to give us a laugh and feel sorry for them and their narrow views.


----------



## JC_99 (Dec 31, 2016)

JBAV8R said:


> if the internet died and you were the last person on earth...which watch would you enjoy staring at alone, forever.....just for your enjoyment.....


Sounds like a thread to me.


----------



## Robotaz (Jan 18, 2012)

JC_99 said:


> Sounds like a thread to me.


LOL

"Staring at alone, forever..."

Reminds me of the movie "Her". Equally disturbing, actually.


----------



## TheGanzman (Jan 12, 2010)

I've read every post in this thread, and it would appear that _I_ have had a unique perspective to this; to wit:


I've owned over a dozen Rolex Submariners - all except for one (a 14060) were vintage. I never lost money on even ONE of them; in fact, one of the two 6538 Big Crowns that I owned I bought for $32K and sold about a year later to a dealer for $44K. I was COMPLETELY disappointed with the 14060 - CRAPPY C-1 luminous that lasted a couple hours, dial indices that didn't line up correctly from minute to minute throughout the minute hand's one hour sweep, and finally, a scratch on the bezel insert that cost me $250 for a new bezel insert to replace before selling. Of interest: In the dozen years that I owned, bought, and sold Rolex Submariners I got EXACTLY one SINGLE compliment - "Hey, nice Big Crown Sub!" from an older guy that also had a Big Crown. I can also say that wearing all those high $ Rolex Subs all those years got me laid exactly ZERO times, LOL...
I'm old enough to remember when Rolex Subs sold NEW for ~$200.00. As a diver, I can't remember seeing a SINGLE fellow diver wearing one, except for on one dive trip, when a coupla overweight dive newbies on their first multi-dive, multi-day boat dive trip were sporting their brand new Submariners...
I'm lucky(?) enough to be close friends with an EXTREMELY wealthy (how does $250k per MONTH income sound?!) Rolex collector; as such, I've handled and even borrowed INCREDIBLY rare Rolex Subs, Daytonas, Sea Dwellers, etc. Given this, I was able to judge them fairly "objectively" - as in "I didn't pay ANYTHING for this watch, so let me just wear it for 2 weeks and see how it performs as a WATCH." Spoiler alert: Not a SINGLE one of them elicited a compliment from anyone, nor did I get laid a SINGLE time from wearing one. Their timekeeping wasn't noticeably better either; and of course, the luminous was virtually non-existent...
As a matter of "fact", I AM wealthy enough to own ANY new Rolex - I guess I COULD buy a new Daytona AND a new Submariner without "flinching" TOO badly, LOL. I often "fantasize" about just how MUCH of a "windfall" I would have to realize to actually BUY one or both of the above; in reality, I don't think that even if I hit the Lotto that I would buy either one...

Which leads me to my own history & philosophy about EVERYTHING (except original fine artwork, which my wife and I also own) - "If I can't USE it, then I LOSE it!" There is NO room in my life for any "thing" (or even a WIFE, for that matter) that doesn't do/work as it's SUPPOSED to do/work; to wit: No room for a "dress watch" that I have to coddle, no room for a wife that can't cook and f**k, no room for a vehicle that I can't drive/park like I STOLE, and no room for a dive/tool watch that I can't USE with relative impunity! Having said that, I am VERY careful with EVERYTHING I own - the result of having a Depression-era father who earned a living as a bare knuckle stall fighter during those years - the guy was SO frugal that he would remove the light bulb in our refrigerator, LOL...

Steinhart? You bet! Always wanted a real MilSub, always wanted a No Date Comex; never could justify the price of either one. Now I have TWO Steinhart OVM 1.0's, which are re-lumed with C-3 (Imagine re-luming a vintage Rolex MilSub with C-3 so you could actually USE it? I didn't THINK so!), and a Steinhart "Comex Homage" with original C-3 lume - all are in my regular rotation:
















Do my three Steinhart watches make ME feel like a Wannabe? Sorry, they DON'T; they're DIVE watches that do their jobs exceptionally well - all are regulated to +2-3spd, all have been overhauled for a whopping $150/each, their bezels work perfectly, the lume lasts 8 hours with ease, and MOST importantly, they contribute to MY happiness every single day. I have spare bezel inserts for all three; when I get a scratch on the case I curse myself, then polish/brush said scratch out MYSELF; when they need regulating I remove the caseback and do so MYSELF; and finally, when I find myself in some questionable neighborhood in ANY city/country, I don't worry for my LIFE that I'll be killed trying to resist being robbed of same...
I don't remember the exact day that I shrugged off my shoulders the tremendous "weight" of ATTEMPTING to define my wealth, status, importance, masculinity, Alpha Male Strength, and "Orange County California Outbuying My Neighbors" rabbit hole that I found myself dug into, but I sure am glad I DID! Bring on the (well-built) Homage watches, _I_ say with a gloating smile! And for those of you who are still handcuffed by the above affliction(s), I'm sorry for your having to shoulder that weight - it was too much for ME to carry, so you're welcome to it!


----------



## JBAV8R (Sep 29, 2019)

Couldn't say it better myself.....absolutely spot on perfectly said!


----------



## Broten (Jul 5, 2015)

It's a great $350 watch, except that it's a ripoff copy of a Rolex. If you have no issue with that, it may be a good option for you. The movement is gritty when wound and will never be worth more than you pay for it. Once I realized Steinhart had no shame is just stealing other designs, I left them behind.


----------



## Russell44 (Mar 6, 2019)

Broten said:


> It's a great $350 watch, except that it's a ripoff copy of a Rolex. If you have no issue with that, it may be a good option for you. The movement is gritty when wound and will never be worth more than you pay for it. Once I realized Steinhart had no shame is just stealing other designs, I left them behind.


Tell us your choice of watch and I'll bet we can pick faults with it's heritage too.


----------



## Broten (Jul 5, 2015)

Well, I have a couple G-Shocks, a couple Seiko SKXs, Laco pilot, Stowa Marine, and 2 Tudors. Please pick away.


----------



## Thunder1 (Feb 8, 2008)

Broten said:


> Well, I have a couple G-Shocks, a couple Seiko SKXs, Laco pilot, Stowa Marine, and 2 Tudors. Please pick away.


I'm curious..do you see some(any?) design similarities between Tudors & Rolex?..I_'ve a BB 58 and really like it..._


----------



## watchman600 (Mar 11, 2020)

TheGanzman said:


> no room for a vehicle that I can't drive/park like I STOLE


I don't know what this means, but I liked your post very much.
The Steinhart HULK is awesome; I don't have to buy the Rolex HULK
just because I technically could. That's a waste of a lot of money 
that can be much better spent, or even better, invested.


----------



## Broten (Jul 5, 2015)

Thunder1 said:


> I'm curious..do you see some(any?) design similarities between Tudors & Rolex?..I_'ve a BB 58 and really like it..._


Glad you like your BB58. I do see similarities between Tudor and Rolex. I wonder why that is. Hmmm.


----------



## Thunder1 (Feb 8, 2008)

Broten said:


> Glad you like your BB58. I do see similarities between Tudor and Rolex. I wonder why that is. Hmmm.


I've heard that that is because the founder of Rolex wanted the watch buying public to be have access to 'Rolex-like' watches at lower price points..does that jive w/ what you've heard?..as it is, I'm trying to decide between a Tudor BB blue bezel\black dial & an Omega SeaMaster 300 Co-Ax(both previously loved)...


----------



## Broten (Jul 5, 2015)

Thunder1 said:


> I've heard that that is because the founder of Rolex wanted the watch buying public to be have access to 'Rolex-like' watches at lower price points..does that jive w/ what you've heard?..as it is, I'm trying to decide between a Tudor BB blue bezel\black dial & an Omega SeaMaster 300 Co-Ax(both previously loved)...


Sorry I was being a bit of a smart ass. LOL. Yes, Tudor started by using Rolex cases and over the counter movements. It was founded by Hans Wildorf the founder of Rolex. The Black Bays are amazing watches. I have the Heritage 41 and the GMT. You will be hard pressed to find better watches for the money. Same for Omegas. The Omegas I've owned have been more accurate than any other watches I've had in my collection, including a Submariner.

My issue with Steinhart, Squale, Invicta, etc. is they just carbon copy other peoples designs for most of their products. It bothers me because I used to be in manufacturing and had to fight a few copyright infringement cases. I know the value of R&D and original designs. I also know that Rolex watches are overpriced for what they are. They are amazing watches, but are not worth what people are paying for them on the 2nd hand market. Rolex knows how to Rolex though and they have a great product with amazing marketing and do their best to keep their watches a hot commodity. 
Lots of other options out there without buying a copy of someone else's design.


----------



## michael0703 (Nov 8, 2017)

Ocean One Black 42mm owner here. Daily wear for 5 years. Tough watch. Looks good in my opinion. Feels solid as a tank. Keeps great time. Lots of haters here but its just common snobbery often seen in this community. Buy and wear what you like because they really are quality made watches. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ed.YANG (Jun 8, 2011)

Submarines around the world...








...distinctive differences?
Beside sizes, and lengths and the "PIP" differences,
I can only see that the designs are "pretty standard"​


----------



## Nanook65 (Mar 2, 2017)

I'm glad the mod stepped in, but probably should have done so about 10 pages earlier.

How many posts in this thread would actually be helpful to the op? I just read all 199 posts and there are probably like a dozen or so really helpful posts and a whole bunch of "mine is bigger than yours" posts.

I think a lot of you should really ask yourself BEFORE posting what is the op asking and what is the purpose of my reply. I generally come here because I love watches and I love talking about them with others that share the same passion. If your whole purpose in your post is belittle someone else or someone else's opinion then I believe you should just zip it.

I get it that everyone has an opinion and that is fine. If you don't like homages that is fine too. but why can't we be civil about it? The brand new guy that comes in here and asks about how people feel about Steinharts and then he gets this.... wtf seriously. Not welcoming at all & you all probably turned off a potential watch enthusiast for life. 

Just sayin.....


----------



## JimBianchi (Sep 18, 2019)

If you just want a sub homage get a Tisell Sub. Outstanding and very reasonable prices.

I owned a Steinhart Ocean One and it was "meh". If you like it, buying. I kept mine only 6 months.

Ultimately, I am not big into divers, I only have two in my 13 watch rotation.


----------



## c3p0 (Aug 9, 2019)

I didn't buy my Steinhart because I wanted a homage! I got it because I like it, because it is a tank of a watch that pleases my eye, and because it is a great value for the money.









There are SOME Rolex watches that I like. But, I find them ridiculously overpriced. (I'd be embarrassed to wear them, frankly.) But, hey, have at it.

On the other hand, if what I wanted was a watch that looked like a Rolex, believe me, I know where I could get one. ;-) Not for me though.


----------



## bruck177 (Jan 20, 2020)

Zama said:


> You couldn't find a more boring way to spend your hard earned money if you tried


This is a hilarious response


----------



## bruck177 (Jan 20, 2020)

c3p0 said:


> I didn't buy my Steinhart because I wanted a homage! I got it because I like it, because it is a tank of a watch that pleases my eye, and because it is a great value for the money.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Love that pop of sky blue... might have to consider this one in the future.


----------



## Eugene Hot (Jun 30, 2020)

I can't say that I like this design - it is too boring and mass-worn, so I wear other models. Five pieces of Steinhart's I bought as a gift, three models have been in rotation for many years and I don't want to sell them.. Excellent quality, precision and service. Highly recommended


----------



## Melissakis (Nov 23, 2012)

c3p0 said:


> I didn't buy my Steinhart because I wanted a homage! I got it because I like it, because it is a tank of a watch that pleases my eye, and because it is a great value for the money.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't play fair, TS talked about the Ocean 1, you are showing us here one of Steinhart's best watches! Titanium and many original design elements. My favorite is the GMT version though.
I probably wouldn't buy the Ocean 1. Its quality is great, but its resemblance to the Submariner will surely bother me sometime in the future. If it only had different indexes, that would be enough for me. On the other hand, I enjoy my Ocean Vintage GMT very much. Great quality and a rather "proper" homage, with as many similarities to the original as differences.


----------



## c3p0 (Aug 9, 2019)

Melissakis said:


> You don't play fair, TS talked about the Ocean 1, you are showing us here one of Steinhart's best watches! Titanium and many original design elements. My favorite is the GMT version though.
> I probably wouldn't buy the Ocean 1. Its quality is great, but its resemblance to the Submariner will surely bother me sometime in the future. If it only had different indexes, that would be enough for me. On the other hand, I enjoy my Ocean Vintage GMT very much. Great quality and a rather "proper" homage, with as many similarities to the original as differences.


Well, mine is an Ocean One as well, the Titanium 500 variant.


----------



## bailey24 (Jan 20, 2015)

I recently received my Steinhart Ocean GMT Ocean 1 two weeks ago and am loving it (42mm w/Ceramic Bezel). That being said, this is the fourth watch in my collection and it replaced the function of a tool/diver when I sold my Tudor Pelagos 1-liner a few years ago. In doing my research looking for a replacement, I really did not want to spend more than $1K....and when I saw the Ocean 1 I knew it was the one for me. It was a bit of a gamble having never heard of the brand before (or handled one) but I took the leap and I am very glad I did. I know it's design is meant to look like a Rolex but that is not the reason I purchased it; I just had the look I was going for with a slight pop of colour with the red GMT hand. After a free weeks of wearing it (funny that I haven't put my PAM on since I got this!), the weight feels great on the wrist, the build seems solid and I'm having fun finding different types of straps to put it on. I have a few other pieces that I worked hard for and love wearing, but this purchase to me was great value and fit what I was looking for.


----------



## Thunder1 (Feb 8, 2008)

bailey24 said:


> I recently received my Steinhart Ocean GMT Ocean 1 two weeks ago and am loving it (42mm w/Ceramic Bezel). That being said, this is the fourth watch in my collection and it replaced the function of a tool/diver when I sold my Tudor Pelagos 1-liner a few years ago. In doing my research looking for a replacement, I really did not want to spend more than $1K....and when I saw the Ocean 1 I knew it was the one for me. It was a bit of a gamble having never heard of the brand before (or handled one) but I took the leap and I am very glad I did. I know it's design is meant to look like a Rolex but that is not the reason I purchased it; I just had the look I was going for with a slight pop of colour with the red GMT hand. After a free weeks of wearing it (funny that I haven't put my PAM on since I got this!), the weight feels great on the wrist, the build seems solid and I'm having fun finding different types of straps to put it on. I have a few other pieces that I worked hard for and love wearing, but this purchase to me was great value and fit what I was looking for.
> 
> View attachment 15745981


Many a Watch God raise their ale filled gourds in salute to your fine a** pick up..they give it 2 spears up!!..


----------

