# MKII vs Rolex



## es335 (Oct 10, 2007)

Am considering a MKII LRRP or a new Rolex Explorer II (black).

The Rolex is obviously quite a bit more expensive -- 6 times the price, but the Rolex replacement dial and case parts etc are assured for many years.

How does long term case, dial and hands replacement etc work with MKII watches? Let's say I wear the LRRP for 5 or 6 years and it gets beat up. Getting the ETA movement serviced somewhere is easy as the movement is quite common. But let's say the LRRP bezel and case become quite beat of over a period of years. Does MKII keep extra replacement parts long term for sale like Rolex?


----------



## bbqbrew (Dec 13, 2006)

Hi,
I would just buy 3 LRRPs . You can just throw one away or sell it for several hundred dollars every 6-7 years and then have a new one to start over with twice:-d. And you can save a few thousand to boot:-!.
Chris


----------



## es335 (Oct 10, 2007)

bbqbrew said:


> Hi,
> I would just buy 3 LRRPs . You can just throw one away or sell it for several hundred dollars every 6-7 years and then have a new one to start over with twice:-d. And you can save a few thousand to boot:-!.
> Chris


Ha!! :-!


----------



## Benjamin Chin (May 11, 2008)

Rolex is a luxury, Mk II is a high quality tool watch. They are not absolute substitute for each other.

I would support the idea to buy the Rolex and use it with greater care and in social events where a Rolex makes you look good.

Use the Mk II in other general purposes which would save your Rolex from unnecessary damages.

It is aways very much expensive to repair a Rolex than a Mk II.

We should not mix up a luxury with a high quality tool watch.


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

There is an irony here: the original Rolex Explorer I was quite explicitly designed to be a tool watch and was indeed a very successful one.

Nowadays, I'm really not sure that this could be said of the current Explorer I. It is certainly a fine watch but I'm not certain that it fulfils the role that was originally conceived for it. While the case is still, if not more, robust than the classic 1016 Explorer, questions have been raised about the movement:

http://www.timezone.com/library/horologium/horologium0036

and the dial, while undeniably very nice indeed, has moved a long way from the functional elegance of the '369' dial.

Finally, Rolex do not currently release parts for independent repair. While, again, Rolex do splendid work, they also charge a premium for that work. The fact is that you can buy most MKII products for less than the price of a 'full spa' service on a Rolex. I'm pretty sure that Rolex currently offer full support for a watch for twenty five years.

No one can predict the future. At present MKII look to be growing rather well and, as such, could actually be a better investment in a number of ways. Certainly a MKII watch is not the cheap second hand option that many watches can be. However, Rolex also hold their value very well indeed, not to mention the cachet that is important to some.

If I were looking for a watch to give to my children at some point in the future, I would probably go for a Rolex. However, when you get down to it MKII offer an awfully good watch for a risibly low price.

It is almost impossible to actually analyse out how much better an Explorer I is than a Vantage. Personally I would (and did) look for an older Rolex with either a 3035, 1570 or even 1520 movement for the simple reason that I think they are among the best Rolex have ever made. There are no question marks about these three!

The 2824 is capable of being far better than it should be but it isn't a 1570. The 2892 is far closer to challenging a Rolex movement but it is a moot point as to whether it actually does or not.

Rolex use 904L, a different steel formulation, which offers better corrosion resistance to the 316L steel used in MKII watches - in extreme circumstances. However in everyday use I simply can't tell the difference and I really doubt a call for evidence of superiority would be conclusive.

Certainly there is nothing stopping anyone else using 904L and they haven't bothered which suggests it is more about differntiating a product than any real advantage.

Beyond that once again I really can't see any significant difference in the quality of machining and finishing and both use sapphire.

I have both. My solution would be simple: buy a secondhand Rolex and a new MKII. This will solve both problems. You can then use the Rolex as a beater as there is no spares issue and keep the MKII for best;-)

Alternatively you can solve the problem the way I did and build your own MKII dialed watch based upon a Rolex case and a classic high end movement...


----------



## TheDude (Jan 27, 2009)

Get both... or look at a GMT-II. I have one of these, and my LRRP will be its "brother from a different mother". A surrogate Swiss mother...


----------



## scudracer (Apr 4, 2009)

M4tt please tell us more about your Rolex case/high-end movement watch. I'm very curious!


----------



## rolexio (Aug 9, 2008)

Comparing a Rolex to an MKII is like comparing a real diamond to an artificially made one imho


----------



## TheDude (Jan 27, 2009)

The EXP II recently got a movement upgrade - the 3186. That is what's in my GMT-II. It's a fantastic movement - very high tech. The Rolex movements have had the jump-hour feature for years, but the newer movement has the parachrom blu hairspring - a real Rolex advance.

http://www.timezone.com/library/extras/200708222443

They're still -very- -very- tough watches. The cases are 904L steel:

http://www.rolex.com/en/#/en/collec...el/M16570-0006/brochure/materials/904l-steel/

Like I said before... get both. :-!


----------



## Narruc (Oct 23, 2007)

rolexio said:


> Comparing a Rolex to an MKII is like comparing a real diamond to an artificially made one imho


What do you mean? The artificial diamond is flawless -- better in many attributes than the "real thing." So you mean to say that the MKII is a better watch than the Rolex at a better price? ;-)
I'd agree.


----------



## Quartersawn (Nov 20, 2008)

You should consider size - the LRRP is considerably larger. Too large for me, in fact. I don't like anything over 40mm. I have a couple of 41mm SMPs and consider them too large for my wrist (7.35 inches).

On the other hand (wrist?) some folks prefer larger watches so the LRRP may be perfect for you.


----------



## Cowbiker (Jun 27, 2007)

Size...I'm in the 7.25-7.5" wrist diameter range and wear considerably bigger, as well as having a custom LRRP in the que.

47mm Dievas 2533








Zinex Trimix (46mmx52mm)


----------



## TheDude (Jan 27, 2009)

This baby is 48mm excluding crown and my wrists are kinda small...


----------



## Dennis Smith (Feb 15, 2006)

I don't have any concerns about servicing over the years. Afraid I don't know the specific answers to your questions, though. 
I have owned many Rolex sports watches and MKII watches. I currently own a GMT Master and a LRRP. Of the two, I'd sell the Rolex (which I may do soon). 
Rolex simply doesn't make what I want...big hour markers without white gold surrounds, matt black dials, domed AR coated sapphire crystals, big crown.
The only thing close to this stylwise is an old acrylic Rolex like my GMT, but it's hard to ensure the water rating unless it was just serviced. Besides, the LRRP has triple the rating at 300 meters.
As an aside, I prefer the GMT function of the ETA 2893 to the modern Rolex, since I refer to other timezones without actually traveling through them myself (low, slow helo driver).
For a modern tool watch made to my custom specs with COSC accuracy, great price, and great looks, it just doesn't get better than MKII (specifically the LRRP...I was waiting for years for Bill to make a GMT, jumped on it, and love it).


----------



## es335 (Oct 10, 2007)

Dennis Smith said:


> I don't have any concerns about servicing over the years. Afraid I don't know the specific answers to your questions, though.
> I have owned many Rolex sports watches and MKII watches. I currently own a GMT Master and a LRRP. Of the two, I'd sell the Rolex (which I may do soon).
> Rolex simply doesn't make what I want...big hour markers without white gold surrounds, matt black dials, domed AR coated sapphire crystals, big crown.
> The only thing close to this stylwise is an old acrylic Rolex like my GMT, but it's hard to ensure the water rating unless it was just serviced. Besides, the LRRP has triple the rating at 300 meters.
> ...


Agreed. Rolex lost it's way. MKII pays homage to what Rolex once was.

What I can't understand is why Rolex soils their modern day tool watches with needless dial blinging. Rolex has enough dress watches in their line up for consumers who want bling. Why not leave the integrity of their professional tool watches undiluted?


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

just search for 'omlex' on the Omega forum.


----------



## Topher1556 (Aug 22, 2007)

es335 said:


> Agreed. Rolex lost it's way. MKII pays homage to what Rolex once was.
> 
> What I can't understand is why Rolex soils their modern day tool watches with needless dial blinging. Rolex has enough dress watches in their line up for consumers who want bling. Why not leave the integrity of their professional tool watches undiluted?


I agree...MKII pays homage to what Rolex once was.

Rolex keeps making them because they keep selling. If sales were to drop drastically, _maybe_ they would go back to a previous design, but as it is, they simply have no incentive to do so.


----------



## TheDude (Jan 27, 2009)

es335 said:


> Agreed. Rolex lost it's way. MKII pays homage to what Rolex once was.
> 
> What I can't understand is why Rolex soils their modern day tool watches with needless dial blinging. Rolex has enough dress watches in their line up for consumers who want bling. Why not leave the integrity of their professional tool watches undiluted?


Honestly, I think the reason they don't go back to the old dials is to preserve the value of the vintage marketplace. Rolex understands that its actions have an effect on the brand and the marketplace. It's the same reason that Panerai isn't flooding the market with new PVD models.

People -really- want some of the vintage stuff, and if you made these same traits "standard" again, it would -gut- the value of countless watches that some very loyal customers paid lots of money for.

As a point of interest, Rolex is currently quietly going to its ADs and is buying up inventory. It is doing this to preserve the value of the brand and the watches in circulation already. They hope to prevent deep discounting during the recession.


----------



## Topher1556 (Aug 22, 2007)

TheDude said:


> ...As a point of interest, Rolex is currently quietly going to its ADs and is buying up inventory. It is doing this to preserve the value of the brand and the watches in circulation already. They hope to prevent deep discounting during the recession.


That's something most companies can't afford to do...and does show their commitment to the brand and image. Should make it nice for someone looking to find that unique model, since going back to the motherland means it's restocked for searches and available.


----------



## scudracer (Apr 4, 2009)

I just got back from a Rolex centre. Checked out the Rolex Submariner, SS no date. Some traits I don't like.

- Stamped parts of bracelet do NOT look good. Has a cheap feel to it. Why can't they do something like the bracelet of the Omega Speedmaster?
- Around dial is a shiny part, and ROLEX-ROLEX-ROLEX is etched on it almost all the way round with some other info also etched on. A bit too 'bling-bling' for me.
- Luminous markers have blingy shiny metal around it.


----------



## k7lro (Feb 12, 2006)

scudracer said:


> I just got back from a Rolex centre. Checked out the Rolex Submariner, SS no date. Some traits I don't like.
> 
> - Stamped parts of bracelet do NOT look good. Has a cheap feel to it. Why can't they do something like the bracelet of the Omega Speedmaster?
> - Around dial is a shiny part, and ROLEX-ROLEX-ROLEX is etched on it almost all the way round with some other info also etched on. A bit too 'bling-bling' for me.
> - Luminous markers have blingy shiny metal around it.


Pretty much the same issues I've seen - too much bling/bling and note enough 'tool' - and I'm generally pretty easy to please.


----------



## TheDude (Jan 27, 2009)

scudracer said:


> I just got back from a Rolex centre. Checked out the Rolex Submariner, SS no date. Some traits I don't like.
> 
> - Stamped parts of bracelet do NOT look good. Has a cheap feel to it. Why can't they do something like the bracelet of the Omega Speedmaster?
> - Around dial is a shiny part, and ROLEX-ROLEX-ROLEX is etched on it almost all the way round with some other info also etched on. A bit too 'bling-bling' for me.
> - Luminous markers have blingy shiny metal around it.


The newer bracelets are much different, but I agree - the old ones are pretty flimsy by comparison. There's a new Sub now (only solid gold and two-tone) that uses the new bracelet. New SS subs come out next year.

The RolexRolexRolex inscription on the chapter ring is an anti-counterfeit measure. Some like it, others don't. The other info is the serial number. You used to have to remove the bracelet to get the serial off of a Rolex, but now it's right there on the chapter ring.

That "blingy shiny metal" is white gold... :-!


----------



## scudracer (Apr 4, 2009)

There's new SS submariners (no date) out in 2010? Any idea what they'll look like? The one I saw last night, I'm sort of OK with the watch (could use less bling but it's not THAT bad). The bracelet was a huge disappointment. If they could put the current Speedmaster bracelet on the Submariner it would be great!


----------



## TheDude (Jan 27, 2009)

scudracer said:


> There's new SS submariners (no date) out in 2010? Any idea what they'll look like? The one I saw last night, I'm sort of OK with the watch (could use less bling but it's not THAT bad). The bracelet was a huge disappointment. If they could put the current Speedmaster bracelet on the Submariner it would be great!


Sorry, didn't mean to imply a new no-date. That's currently a hotly debated guessing-game over on the Rolex forum. No one knows what will happen to that model.

The new Sub was released last year (2008) in white gold and yellow gold. This year (2009) it is in two tone, with both blue and black face/bezel, and next year they'll release the new SS model.

The bracelet on the two-tone models always have polished center links. I think most people expect the SS to have a completely brushed bracelet like the new Deepsea, so don't be put off by the blingy bracelet.

There are some great pictures here of the new bracelet and clasp. Rolex pulled out all the stops... it's a great mechanism.

http://www.rolexreferencepage.com/116619/116619review.html


----------



## es335 (Oct 10, 2007)

TheDude said:


> Sorry, didn't mean to imply a new no-date. That's currently a hotly debated guessing-game over on the Rolex forum. No one knows what will happen to that model.
> 
> The new Sub was released last year (2008) in white gold and yellow gold. This year (2009) it is in two tone, with both blue and black face/bezel, and next year they'll release the new SS model.
> 
> ...


Any truth to the rumors that the ceramic bezels will shatter if dropped?

Interesting that Rolex "fattened" the lugs. I guess they are trying to "bulk up" up the size and heft of the watch for cosmetic and commercial reasons.

I still have trouble warming up to modern day Rolex with the cheesy bling factor being applied to their legendary tool watches.


----------



## TheDude (Jan 27, 2009)

es335 said:


> Any truth to the rumors that the ceramic bezels will shatter if dropped?
> 
> Interesting that Rolex "fattened" the lugs. I guess they are trying to "bulk up" up the size and heft of the watch for cosmetic and commercial reasons.
> 
> I still have trouble warming up to modern day Rolex with the cheesy bling factor being applied to their legendary tool watches.


If a sufficiently bad impact is sustained, it is possible for the insert to shatter or crack -in theory-. However, when these stories are challenged, no one seems to be able to produce any photographic evidence...

Replacement ceramic bezel inserts are very expensive though...

This short film is interesting. On the stainless watches, the "dust" material for the PVD-applied markers is platinum instead of gold.

http://www.rolex.com/media/video/collection/brochure/materials/ceramic-bezel.wmv

The "maxi-case" on the new Sub is identical to the one on the new GMT-IIc. It has proven to be one of Rolex's most popular models - so people haven't had much of an issue warming to the new design. It's still just 40mm.


----------



## es335 (Oct 10, 2007)

TheDude said:


> The "maxi-case" on the new Sub is identical to the one on the new GMT-IIc. It has proven to be one of Rolex's most popular models - so people haven't had much of an issue warming to the new design. It's still just 40mm.


Well, there are a lot of folks who find the polished center links on the GMTIIc an abomination.


----------



## TheDude (Jan 27, 2009)

es335 said:


> Well, there are a lot of folks who find the polished center links on the GMTIIc an abomination.


Heh - I get it man... you've made your position clear.

So far based on your posts (#15, 25, and 27), Rolex has:

diluted the integrity of its products
soiled its products
needlessly blinged its products
lost its way
made its products cheesy
produced abominations
adopted materials that may impact robustness

Care to add anything else, or does this capture the gist of what you'd like to convey about Rolex?

I'd like to think there's room under the sun (and in any WIS's watch collection) for some diversity.


----------

