# Comparison Rolex-Steinhart



## Noidea19

Hi guys, yesterday i could compare my Ocean one to a friend of mine's Ceramic Submariner and to a 1997 Sea-dweller from a shop (i don't know if they improved afterwards).

I must say that the new Sub is truly astonishing and it's at least 2-3 times better than the Steinhart (i'm talking about the build quality, not about the movement since i couldn't test it, even tho my ocean one's ETA is working on a COSC regime).
The surprise was the Sea dweller, there's absolutely no challenge with an Ocean one, for a watch with a 4700 euro price tag, it is truly a rip off, felt light and flickering on the wrist, it made a really a bad impression on me.

Anyway i made a proportion :-d  Ocean one:Ceramic Submariner=Sea Dweller:Ocean One

whoever claims differently either doesn't know what he's talking about, either is a fanboy :-d (i love Rolex too but can't stand hypocrisy)

and now some pics :-d


----------



## vokotin

FWIW I have owned an SD16600 years ago....

Wearing proudly an OVM while typing, bracelet and clasp are better made IMO, there's no center link weakness here and feels substancial on the wrist and it does no rattle.
The funny thing is, every time I look at the OVM I see a Steinhart, no a Rolex.


----------



## James_

I'm no Rolex expert or even watch expert but just a wild guess, I think Rolex have improved the Sea Dweller. It's only been nearly 2 decades since the one you handled. I don't know how much the SD was worn, lets just say a lot, but in 17 years check back on your Steinhart bracelet and see if it rattles a bit.

Whowouldathunkit


----------



## micahpop

Noidea19 said:


> The surprise was the Sea dweller, there's absolutely no challenge with an Ocean one, for a watch with a 4700 euro price tag, it is truly a rip off


When you speak in such hyperbole, it makes it harder to take the rest of your argument seriously.

By your logic, a Double Red Sea Dweller would be akin to grand larceny and a 5517? Gasp!


----------



## kelt

When you are the owner of a Rolex, you are the sponsor of many sport events in golfing, sailing, car racing...... and you get to wear the sponsor's tag on your wrist, and get the time of day accurately.

When you are the owner of a Steinhart, you get to wear an efficient, accurate and cost effective watch.


----------



## lorsban

I used to own an Ocean 1. It's nice and cheap but it definitely felt flimsy, had the worst lume of any watch I owned, and I could see tool marks in the bracelet and end links. Not major, but I could see them. And lastly that worthless magnifier.

I also had the chance to own an older submariner, and you just can't compare a $300 homage watch to a $3-4000 one no matter how old.

Main difference is from the movement, which you can't see, but contributes a LOT to the cost.

Next is materials, Rolex uses 904L instead of 316L. Supposedly a less corrosive and higher grade steel.

Third is craftsmanship. True, 90's model Rolexes or earlier will have more scuffs, rattle, poor lume etc but that's expected of a 20 year old watch. Brand new, the fit and finish will be far better. 

Then there's also aftermarket service to which Rolex boasts the best among high end brands in terms of quality, pricing, delivery.

Lastly, there's the intangible prestige factor, which ups the price significantly but also keeps resale close to retail. Few brands or models can be bought today and sold for a profit in a few years.

I will say this about Steinhart tho, their watches are appropriately priced. You get what you pay for. Few brands in ANY range can manage that.


----------



## MrDagon007

I love my 4 Steinharts, they offer excellent value with a price that is not suffering from endless marketing and dedicated boutique cost. This being said, I think that Rolex and for example Omega do offer superior products. Issue is, for me the quality difference would be ok at say 4 times the price of a Steinhart. But 10 to 15 times, no that has no relation quality/price anymore.
From the Rolex group, i like the Tudor Pelagos quite a bit. But while i can afford it, I cannot convince my self that it is worth 6-7 times more than my Steinharts or my Seiko Sumo...


----------



## lorsban

What's funny is, there will likely be those who say "why spend xx on steinhart when you can get a timex/skagen/sea-gull/android?"


----------



## raze

kelt06 said:


> When you are the owner of a Rolex, you are the sponsor of many sport events in golfing, sailing, car racing...... and you get to wear the sponsor's tag on your wrist, and get the time of day accurately.
> 
> When you are the owner of a Steinhart, you get to wear an efficient, accurate and cost effective watch.


I agree with this statement. There is no argument that the cost of advertising and promotion is shouldered by the buyer. There is no arguing though that Rolex and Tudor do offer a superior products to the Steinhart. To what extent is where the debate is. A new BB, Pelagos, or Sub is not beyond my reach but watches 1/10th the cost or even less give me as much pleasure as owning a luxury brand. Thats what makes it so hard for me to justify the cost. Havent owned any of Steinharts homages but currently waiting on an OVM and O1V.


----------



## kelt

raze said:


> I agree with this statement. There is no argument that the cost of advertising and promotion is shouldered by the buyer. There is no arguing though that Rolex and Tudor do offer a superior products to the Steinhart. To what extent is where the debate is. A new BB, Pelagos, or Sub is not beyond my reach but watches 1/10th the cost or even less give me as much pleasure as owning a luxury brand. Thats what makes it so hard for me to justify the cost. Havent owned any of Steinharts homages but currently waiting on an OVM and O1V.


You will not be disappointed by your Steinhart purchases.

I take just as much pleasure wearing a black Steinart OVM as wearing a Rolex Submariner or a Tudor Black Bay, and the OVM accuracy (-4s) is on par with the Rolex and better than the Black Bay which needs to be adjusted as it's oscillating from being too fast to being too slow.


----------



## Noidea19

micahpop said:


> When you speak in such hyperbole, it makes it harder to take the rest of your argument seriously.
> 
> By your logic, a Double Red Sea Dweller would be akin to grand larceny and a 5517? Gasp!


Where is the hyperbole? i'm just saying that compared to what, according to most of people, is the best rolex ever, the steinhart feels way better.


----------



## hidden by leaves

Noidea19 said:


> Where is the hyperbole? i'm just saying that compared to what, according to most of people, is the best rolex ever, the steinhart feels way better.


At the very least you're putting forward very subjective personal opinions in a very provocative manner in this thread.



kelt06 said:


> You will not be disappointed by your Steinhart purchases.
> 
> I take just as much pleasure wearing a black Steinart OVM as wearing a Rolex Submariner or a Tudor Black Bay...


Bottom line of bottom lines. Not sure why some people have to make everything into a competition!


----------



## Noidea19

hidden by leaves said:


> At the very least you're putting forward very subjective personal opinions in a very provocative manner in this thread.
> 
> Bottom line of bottom lines. Not sure why some people have to make everything into a competition!


Well since this is a forum for watch maniacs i think it's nice to share opinions and compare watches  i don't want and never wanted to offend anyone, just gave my 2 cents  
anyway i'm sorry if i did


----------



## dcuthbertson

I have never owned a Rolex, but have owned a Steinhart O1B, and been able to compare it side by side to a friends Rolex Sub.
I have to say that I certainly didnt see £4000 difference in the two watches.
My Steinhart kept fantastic time, was a solid, well built watch, and i have to say, had a better bracelet than the Rolex.
To sum up, I never once regretted buying the Steinhart, never once wished it was a Rolex, and was always more than happy to wear such a fantastic value timepiece.
I am not in a position to afford a Rolex, nor do I see myself in a position for quite a few years, but I cant help but feel that I wouldnt be as comfortable wearing a Rolex simply because of the financial implications of purchase, and fear of damaging such an expensive watch. I would have to think about what I was going to be doing that day before I took it out of the box, whereas I could wear the Steinhart without fear. 
As day to day value goes the Steinhart wins hands down for me.


----------



## Uwe W.

Oh great... another Rolex vs. Steinhart thread. :roll: I fail to see the point in these apples to oranges comparisons; sure they look similar, Steinhart produces nice homages after all, but that's where a rational observer would call it a day.

OP: I suspect that you're getting some flak for your statement because of its purely superficial and subjective content. Claiming a Rolex is "truly a rip off" for no other reason than it "felt light and flickering on the wrist" makes it difficult to take you seriously. If you want to present a credible comparison of two very dissimilar watches you need to discuss hard facts and avoid making such broad sweeping conclusions.


----------



## James_

Now if you want to compare an Apollon to a Rolex the Apollon wins!


----------



## Noidea19

Uwe W. said:


> Oh great... another Rolex vs. Steinhart thread. :roll: I fail to see the point in these apples to oranges comparisons; sure they look similar, Steinhart produces nice homages after all, but that's where a rational observer would call it a day.
> 
> OP: I suspect that you're getting some flak for your statement because of its purely superficial and subjective content. Claiming a Rolex is "truly a rip off" for no other reason than it "felt light and flickering on the wrist" makes it difficult to take you seriously. If you want to present a credible comparison of two very dissimilar watches you need to discuss hard facts and avoid making such broad sweeping conclusions.


I specified that the movement isn't involved in my comparison since i couldn't test it but it as far as i know it should be better on that front

and also a 16600 isn't considered a vintage watch, that's why i'm kinda shocked


----------



## Matches

kelt06 said:


> When you are the owner of a Rolex, you are the sponsor of many sport events in golfing, sailing, car racing...... and you get to wear the sponsor's tag on your wrist, and *get the time of day accurately*.
> 
> When you are the owner of a Steinhart, you get to wear an efficient, accurate and cost effective watch.


Though I agree with you fully, I wouldn't use the bolded as an argument for any auto. None of my autos ever made me shake my head in disbelief at their IN-accuracy. And none of them are anywhere near the price of a Rolex. And if precision accuracy is your thing, get a quartz. I don't mean you personally, I mean in general.


----------



## mithrilG60

lorsban said:


> What's funny is, there will likely be those who say "why spend xx on steinhart when you can get a timex/skagen/sea-gull/android?"


Exactly, no matter the price point there are always those that think another brand priced above or below represents a better value. "Value" is an esoteric classification that is purely subjective based on a lot of factors individual to each person. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Loevhagen

Price ratio Steinhart GMT vs Rolex GMT from Baselworld 2014 = 1:100.


----------



## Uwe W.

Loevhagen said:


> Price ratio Steinhart GMT vs Rolex GMT from Baselworld 2014 = 1:100.


Really? I didn't know that a GMT Master II had a MSRP of 42,000 EUR.


----------



## TimeIzMoney

Uwe W. said:


> Really? I didn't know that a GMT Master II had a MSRP of 42,000 EUR.


That's because it's 18kt solid white gold and it's supposed to be very limited, which that price would be right in line with other solid gold model's and exclusivity


----------



## lorsban

mithrilG60 said:


> Exactly, no matter the price point there are always those that think another brand priced above or below represents a better value. "Value" is an esoteric classification that is purely subjective based on a lot of factors individual to each person. Different strokes for different folks.


Right.

And even if your watch cost just $25, some will say "Why bother spending Anything for a watch when your phone already has a clock built in?" Lol


----------



## Uwe W.

TimeIzMoney said:


> That's because it's 18kt solid white gold and it's supposed to be very limited, which that price would be right in line with other solid gold model's and exclusivity


A solid-gold LE? What then was the point of that particular comparison I wonder?


----------



## lorsban

Uwe W. said:


> A solid-gold LE? What then was the point of that particular comparison I wonder?


To show that a steel watch, with many parts likely sourced from China is much much better than a solid gold fully Swiss made one.


----------



## TimeIzMoney

Uwe W. said:


> A solid-gold LE? What then was the point of that particular comparison I wonder?


Yes sir a solid gold LE model from what I heard

as far as the particular comparison, I am assuming that he didn't know it was a gold LE model, and moreover I think he was just trying to make comparison that is oft made by fans of the Steinhart brand, that the price to value ratio is excellent when compared to some other brands


----------



## TimeIzMoney

lorsban said:


> To show that a steel watch, with many parts likely sourced from China is much much better than a solid gold fully Swiss made one.


not that its better, but even though Steinhart would most likely get knockout in the latter rounds or lose going to the score cards, they can still go toe to toe and hold its weight with the best of them IMO


----------



## lorsban

TimeIzMoney said:


> not that its better, but even though Steinhart would most likely get knockout in the latter rounds or lose going to the score cards, they can still go toe to toe and hold its weight with the best of them IMO


If the watch we're comparing Steinhart to is in the same price range, say 400-600, then I agree, it can stand toe to toe.

But comparing it to something 10x the price? You have to be extremely specific as to what aspects we're talking about here. Because if it's all based on "solid feel" then you should take a look at Android, which sell for $100-200. Half of Steinhart and feel way more sturdy.


----------



## mtbmike

I also fail to see the point of this :-s:-s:-s

I drive a Honda and it's all good. If you prefer Audi, BM'er, Merc or can afford an exotic Rolls/Bentley, Ferrari, Lambo or just a Porsche, good for you too! 

My local AD has Patek's that cost many, many times more than Rolex and people buy them. 

Get what you want and be happy!


----------



## hidden by leaves

TimeIzMoney said:


> not that its better, but even though Steinhart would most likely get knockout in the latter rounds or lose going to the score cards, they can still go toe to toe and hold its weight with the best of them IMO


I honestly have no idea what this even means (in reality).

These threads can be so ridiculous. Steinhart makes good, affordable watches. Why can't owners just be happy with that? (I am).


----------



## Loevhagen

My point is proven by the replies. There is NO point in comparing Steinhart and Rolex. I have inter alia 3 Steinharts and 3 Rolexes. Why should I compare them. The co-exist fine.


----------



## Loevhagen

Uwe W. said:


> Really? I didn't know that a GMT Master II had a MSRP of 42,000 EUR.


Really! I reside outside EU so the price is EUR353 and not 420. The new Rolex is approx 100 times that price. Really.


----------



## Uwe W.

Loevhagen said:


> Really! I reside outside EU so the price is EUR353 and not 420. The new Rolex is approx 100 times that price. Really.


Taxes aside, the Rolex is a Limited Edition made from an expensive metal. It's one thing to try and draw a comparison between a regular Rolex GMT Master and its Steinhart homage, and quite another to put two very dissimilar watches side by side and try and make a point about the difference in their prices. I don't follow Rolex pricing, but I'm sure the GMT Master can be had for under $10k, so wouldn't a more realistic price comparison show a ratio of 1:10 instead of 1:100?


----------



## TimeIzMoney

hidden by leaves said:


> I honestly have no idea what this even means (in reality).
> 
> These threads can be so ridiculous. Steinhart makes good, affordable watches. Why can't owners just be happy with that? (I am).


It means exactly what it says, I understand that this a watch forum, so please excuse my boxing reference, but if you want to spend thousands of dollars on something that is mass produced and mad out of the same material as the stuff sitting in the dishwasher, more power to you

I myself refuse, but again as said before IMO, your money your choice


----------



## lorsban

Loevhagen said:


> My point is proven by the replies. There is NO point in comparing Steinhart and Rolex. I have inter alia 3 Steinharts and 3 Rolexes. Why should I compare them. The co-exist fine.


Ain't that the truth

I have Rolexes AND Seiko, Casio, Timex, and Halios. I don't compare them because I think they all have their specific uses regardless of how much they cost.

They all have something to offer, therefore they all have value to me.

One thing tho, I usually stick to original designs. That's why I love Halios and respect Steinhart's Apolon.


----------



## underpar

Folks, it's a little bit of steel, a sapphire crystal and a movement. Regardless of the name on the dial, it costs very little to make. 

Some people want to pay 7k for those parts because they want to wear a Rolex (I used to be one of them) and that's fine. Others don't want to pay for all that marketing and that's ok too.


----------



## Uwe W.

underpar said:


> Folks, it's a little bit of steel, a sapphire crystal and a movement. Regardless of the name on the dial, it costs very little to make. Some people want to pay 7k for those parts because they want to wear a Rolex (I used to be one of them) and that's fine. Others don't want to pay for all that marketing and that's ok too.


And some people choose to believe in gross simplifications that ignore the realities of watch manufacturing - and that's fine too.


----------



## underpar

Uwe W. said:


> And some people choose to believe in gross simplifications that ignore the realities of watch manufacturing - and that's fine too.


It's not a "gross simplification" and I find it odd that a moderator is consistently one the most abrasive and hostile members of a forum.


----------



## Uwe W.

underpar said:


> It's not a "gross simplification" and I find it odd that a moderator is consistently one the most abrasive and hostile members of a forum.


Why, because I disagreed with you? Because I challenged your statement? _Hostile_??? Come on. And I suppose when you insulted the intelligence of WUS members who own more expensive watches by suggesting they were only paying for marketing was just an example of good fun?

In the future, if you have an issue with something I've written, feel free to either report the post or send me a PM with your accusations of unsuitable behaviour.


----------



## underpar

Uwe W. said:


> Why, because I disagreed with you? Because I challenged your statement? _Hostile_??? Come on. And I suppose when you insulted the intelligence of WUS members who own more expensive watches by suggesting they were only paying for marketing was just an example of good fun?
> 
> In the future, if you have an issue with something I've written, feel free to either report the post or send me a PM with your accusations of unsuitable behaviour.


Have you read any of your posts? I don't care if you disagree with me, or anyone else. It's the way you do it. Any post you disagree with is met with, at a bare minimum, unnecessary sarcasm. To each his own so have at it, just letting you know you don't come off well with it.

As far as me insulting anyone with my previous post, well I guess I insulted myself too. I have bought 3 Rolex watches and currently own an Omega and a Breitling. I am fully aware that I paid a lot of money because of their immense marketing and endorsement campaigns. I am also fairly certain that anyone else who owns a mass-produced, mega-marketed watch is aware of the same thing.


----------



## Ed.YANG

Perhaps we can look at this thread from a different perspective... 
Rollie owners felt some heat... otherwise, STEINHART O-O would not be the only contender in such a comparison "contest". 
There are many homage in the market
(talk about expensive one...







Parnis?), 
yet a Steinhart O-O is facing the game with a tag team of 2 Rollies...


----------



## Uwe W.

underpar said:


> just letting you know you don't come off well with it.


Not coming off well is something I understand you're very familiar with. For the _last time_, you can either report posts that you feel break forum rules, or send me a PM if you want to continue with this line of commentary.



underpar said:


> As far as me insulting anyone with my previous post, well I guess I insulted myself too. I have bought 3 Rolex watches and currently own an Omega and a Breitling. I am fully aware that I paid a lot of money because of their immense marketing and endorsement campaigns. I am also fairly certain that *anyone else who owns a mass-produced, mega-marketed watch is aware of the same thing*.


There's one way to find out: why not re-post your observations and conclusions in the Rolex sub-forum? Or any of the other luxury watch forums here? The strange thing is that I've never owned a Rolex and yet it's painfully obvious when you look into the watches and the manufacturer that there's much more behind its higher pricing than marketing costs.


----------



## lorsban

Uwe W. said:


> The strange thing is that I've never owned a Rolex and yet it's painfully obvious when you look into the watches and the manufacturer that there's much more behind its higher pricing than marketing costs.


I agree.

At one point tho I felt exactly the same way. After owning much cheaper brands, you tend to question the value of things.

However, I know now that research costs money and releasing original designs isn't easy, in fact when Rolex released the original sub, it wasn't exactly recieved so well commercially. It took a few decades for the Sub to be recognized and gain popularity. That's a looong time.

Steinhart and other homage makers have it easy. All they did was copy a design when it was already popular and run with it.

Nothing wrong with homages tho. In fact I've owned a couple of them. Besides the Ocean 1, I had an Orient Sub - which is an even cheaper homage at $100. I just never saw them as anywhere near equal to the original. They're copies.


----------



## Riker

I get where you are coming from lorsban but when we discuss Steinhart Ocean 1's, Vintage etc we need to be clear what we are calling a copy & what we are calling a homage. Steinhart O1's pay homage to a well used non patented design style. Agreed, they certainly do leverage off the said original design style with their own interpretations but they certainly do not copy it. The same can be said for any relevant model Tags, Omega's & many other well known brands. From my point of view it may be best we are distinct & follow Steinharts own thinking behind the Ocean 1 & Vintage lines.



lorsban said:


> I agree.
> 
> At one point tho I felt exactly the same way. After owning much cheaper brands, you tend to question the value of things.
> 
> However, I know now that research costs money and releasing original designs isn't easy, in fact when Rolex released the original sub, it wasn't exactly recieved so well commercially. It took a few decades for the Sub to be recognized and gain popularity. That's a looong time.
> 
> *Steinhart and other homage makers have it easy. All they did was copy a design when it was already popular and run with it.
> 
> Nothing wrong with homages tho. In fact I've owned a couple of them. Besides the Ocean 1, I had an Orient Sub - which is an even cheaper homage at $100. I just never saw them as anywhere near equal to the original. They're copies.*


----------



## underpar

Uwe W. said:


> There's one way to find out: why not re-post your observations and conclusions in the Rolex sub-forum? Or any of the other luxury watch forums here.


I have. No rational Rolex owner would disagree that a large part of what they are paying for is the enormous marketing campaign.



Uwe W. said:


> The strange thing is that I've never owned a Rolex and yet it's painfully obvious when you look into the watches and the manufacturer that there's much more behind its higher pricing than marketing costs.


Of course there is, I never claimed that there wasn't. My point is that there is not $7k worth of difference. There is not even $2K worth of difference in quality.


----------



## lorsban

Riker said:


> I get where you are coming from lorsban but when we discuss Steinhart Ocean 1's, Vintage etc we need to be clear what we are calling a copy & what we are calling a homage. Steinhart O1's pay homage to a well used non patented design style. Agreed, they certainly do leverage off the said original design style with their own interpretations but they certainly do not copy it. The same can be said for any relevant model Tags, Omega's & many other well known brands. From my point of view it may be best we are distinct & follow Steinharts own thinking behind the Ocean 1 & Vintage lines.


I guess there's a big grey area as to what we see as copies and what are simply influenced by some designs. Copies for me may either be exact like Fakes or not exact like homages. Either way, it's very clear where the design came from.

For me, the main difference the Ocean 1 has from the original Sub is the size. It's 42mm. The hands, bezel, case shape, markers, date magnifier were taken from the Sub. That puts it closer to what a copy is vs something that was merely influenced like a Seamaster, Glycine Combat Sub, Tudor Pelagos.

Still, having a difference separates it from fakes, or other homages like Alphas, Tudor Sub etc...which were meant to be 1:1 replicas.


----------



## kelt

lorsban said:


> I guess there's a big grey area as to what we see as copies and what are simply influenced by some designs. Copies for me may either be exact like Fakes or not exact like homages. Either way, it's very clear where the design came from.
> 
> For me, the main difference the Ocean 1 has from the original Sub is the size. It's 42mm. The hands, bezel, case shape, markers, date magnifier were taken from the Sub. That puts it closer to what a copy is vs something that was merely influenced like a Seamaster, Glycine Combat Sub, Tudor Pelagos.
> 
> Still, having a difference separates it from fakes, or other homages like Alphas, Tudor Sub etc...which were meant to be 1:1 replicas.


You are wrong on some of these assumptions since Rolex itself copied others design when making up their early Submariners, source of Rolex inspiration is to be found in the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms and Zenith Triton.

The Steinhart ocean One case itself is closer in design to the early Blancpain than Rolex's with its straight lugs and case diameter.

Here is a side shot of an Ocean 1 and a Squale 1525, (picture copied form another thread). No Rolex DNA in the design of the Steinhart Ocean 1 case as opposed to the Squale's.


----------



## heatscore

Thats an age old debate that has come up many times. The Blancpain was developed for the French military in 1953. The Sub was actually designed after the Rolex Turn-O-Graph (which was available in 1953). Although Rolex didn't release the Sub until Basel in 1954 it was in production in 1953, and in development no doubt, even before that.











kelt06 said:


> You are wrong on some of these assumptions since Rolex itself copied others design when making up their early Submariners, source of Rolex inspiration is to be found in the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms and Zenith Triton.
> 
> The Steinhart ocean One case itself is closer in design to the early Blancpain than Rolex's with its straight lugs and case diameter.
> 
> Here is a side shot of an Ocean 1 and a Squale 1525, (picture copied form another thread). No Rolex DNA in the design of the Steinhart Ocean 1 case as opposed to the Squale's.


----------



## lorsban

kelt06 said:


> You are wrong on some of these assumptions since Rolex itself copied others design when making up their early Submariners, source of Rolex inspiration is to be found in the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms and Zenith Triton.


What "assumption" am I wrong with exactly? I never said Rolex didn't copy. I said Steinhart copied Rolex.



> The Steinhart ocean One case itself is closer in design to the early Blancpain than Rolex's with its straight lugs and case diameter.


Yeah in terms of case diameter, the Ocean 1 is similar to the Blancpain.

For everything else tho...


----------



## Uwe W.

Given the time it takes to design and develop a new watch, and the proximity of the release dates for the Blancpain and Rolex, it never seemed plausible to me that one company had copied the other. 

With respect to Steinhart, it looks like this has become a discussion of semantics in which one person's copy is another person's homage. I think we can look to Steinhart itself for the answer to this debate. What was the motivation for the company to produce its Ocean series of watches? Was it really to just produce a high-selling copy of another watch? No, of course not. 

As a bona-fide watch enthusiast Herr Steinhart is no doubt as inspired by classic designs as the rest of us, and when he decided to produce his own collection of dive watches, should it really be a surprise that he would have wanted to pay respect to one of the most iconic designs in dive watches, one so popular that it has long since transcended brand identity to become representative of an entire genre of watches. When it comes to the design process watch manufacturing is full of such cases (no pun intended). Product designs are rarely - if ever - born from a vacuum. Designs are in part inspired by what we have learned and appreciated from the efforts of others. The achievements of mankind have always come from standing on the shoulders of those who preceded us.

The bottom line is that Steinhart produces watches for those who appreciate iconic designs, and who otherwise might never buy a Rolex. If this was all Steinhart did I would understand the company becoming a target of criticism, but Rolex homages - or homages in general - are not the only models being offered by the company. There are several collections that feature unique designs - Steinhart designs - too. Steinhart has a history of giving watch buyers, especially those new to mechanical watches, what they want. It's no surprise then that the Ocean Collection is among its best sellers, and although this may draw the ire of a small number of watch enthusiasts, the vast majority of buyers are very happy to own a Steinhart homage.


----------



## kelt

lorsban said:


> What "assumption" am I wrong with exactly? I never said Rolex didn't copy. I said Steinhart copied Rolex.
> 
> Yeah in terms of case diameter, the Ocean 1 is similar to the Blancpain.
> 
> For everything else tho...


Steinhart's ocean One have flat lugs like the Blancpain while the Rolex have rounded down lugs, it's a major difference in design and look.


----------



## FlyAndFight

Uwe W. said:


> Given the time it takes to design and develop a new watch, and the proximity of the release dates for the Blancpain and Rolex, it never seemed plausible to me that one company had copied the other.
> 
> With respect to Steinhart, it looks like this has become a discussion of semantics in which one person's copy is another person's homage. I think we can look to Steinhart itself for the answer to this debate. What was the motivation for the company to produce its Ocean series of watches? Was it really to just produce a high-selling copy of another watch? No, of course not.
> 
> As a bona-fide watch enthusiast Herr Steinhart is no doubt as inspired by classic designs as the rest of us, and when he decided to produce his own collection of dive watches, should it really be a surprise that he would have wanted to pay respect to one of the most iconic designs in dive watches, one so popular that it has long since transcended brand identity to become representative of an entire genre of watches. When it comes to the design process watch manufacturing is full of such cases (no pun intended). Product designs are rarely - if ever - born from a vacuum. Designs are in part inspired by what we have learned and appreciated from the efforts of others. The achievements of mankind have always come from standing on the shoulders of those who preceded us.
> 
> The bottom line is that Steinhart produces watches for those who appreciate iconic designs, and who otherwise might never buy a Rolex. If this was all Steinhart did I would understand the company becoming a target of criticism, but Rolex homages - or homages in general - are not the only models being offered by the company. There are several collections that feature unique designs - Steinhart designs - too. Steinhart has a history of giving watch buyers, especially those new to mechanical watches, what they want. It's no surprise then that the Ocean Collection is among its best sellers, and although this may draw the ire of a small number of watch enthusiasts, the vast majority of buyers are very happy to own a Steinhart homage.


Brilliantly said.


----------



## lorsban

kelt06 said:


> Steinhart's ocean One have flat lugs like the Blancpain while the Rolex have rounded down lugs, it's a major difference in design and look.












I don't know I'm just not seeing the blancpain resemblance.

But I do see the lug reference. From the side the Ocean 1 has a straighter case.


----------



## Mustard-Cutter

Uwe W. said:


> I think we can look to Steinhart itself for the answer to this debate. What was the motivation for the company to produce its Ocean series of watches? Was it really to just produce a high-selling copy of another watch? No, of course not.


Well you can't say that with any certainty unless you are Mr Steinhart himself or his bank manager / business partner / whoever knows the business model/strategy 
It's not too much of a stretch to think that the motivation to produce a sub homage would be to produce an almost universally appreciated / recognised (read safe) design that should make good sales to keep the company ticking over, rather than a passion for that particular design. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can draw different conclusions from yours if you look at it from a business, rather than watch enthusiast point of view.


----------



## Uwe W.

Mustard-Cutter said:


> Well you can't say that with any certainty unless you are Mr Steinhart himself or his bank manager / business partner / whoever knows the business model/strategy
> It's not too much of a stretch to think that the motivation to produce a sub homage would be to produce an almost universally appreciated / recognised (read safe) design that should make good sales to keep the company ticking over, rather than a passion for that particular design. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can draw different conclusions from yours if you look at it from a business, rather than watch enthusiast point of view.


Valid points, and no doubt there's an element of what you're saying involved in the creation of Steinhart homages, Herr Steinhart is as you say a business man too. However, if you ever talk to the man you quickly realise that he has an honest passion for horology and that this enthusiasm is reflected in his choice to offer homage pieces. Quite a few members here have spoken with him - a few have met him in person - and I believe they would support my observation. Is it a business? Sure, but with this company I think it's much more than that.


----------



## Mustard-Cutter

Uwe W. said:


> However, if you ever talk to the man you quickly realise that he has an honest passion for horology and that this enthusiasm is reflected in his choice to offer homage pieces. Quite a few members here have spoken with him - a few have met him in person - and I believe they would support my observation. Is it a business? Sure, but with this company I think it's much more than that.


Remember that he's effectively talking as a salesman when talking to existing and potential clients, it's in his business' best interests. He would hardly admit to a cynical cash grab homage strategy if it were the case (I'm not saying it is) and would want to spin a more attractive persona to existing/potential clients.

Anyway, I don't really care as I like my particular Steinhart, I just don't like to see potential salesman's guff presented like it is given truth.


----------



## Loevhagen

Two of my watches: Ocean 1 Black (faded bezel insert and removed cyclops) and 14060M (untouched, off course).


----------



## Watchfreek

Not trying to create more arguments but to try put things into perspective. I really fail to see the logic of arguing the value of a watch (predominantly) on appearances. Based on some of the arguments put forward, it would seem that a US$175 Toywatch is much better value than any in the Ocean series:roll::










Just because you do not require (or demand) certain features in a watch doesn't mean that the watch is a rip-off. One must realise that there are things that are priced into a watch that are not apparent (and appreciated/demanded/wanted by others). Sure, there are some elements of advertising and maybe excessive overheads at head-office also built in, but one has to recognise that there are more direct costs that exist. It is one thing to not see (or need) certain features or characteristics in a watch, but another to accuse a brand for being a rip-off because of that. These include:

1. Water "Proofness"

The Deepsea is rated at 3200+ft (and proven to have survived greater depths) - can any Ocean compare? The investment in the R&D of the HEV is one thing that an Ocean clearly does not have.

Admittedly, the Submariner is only rated 1,000ft, compared to the Steinhart Ocean's 990ft, but the Submariner has also, apparently been proven in the field (water) to survive much greater depths. Is anyone willing to try that with their beloved Ocean? Again, I dare say R&D would be more stingent at Rolex.

Some (a lot of) dive watches sold may never see the ocean. Some maybe in it on a daily basis.

2. Accuracy

COSC certification. All Rolexes are certified, Steinharts (except for certain LE) are not. Not only is there a premium attached to this, but also a real cost of certification. To some people an accuracy of <20+/-s/d is good enough. For others >4-s/d and <6s/d is a must.

3. Material Choice

As someone has already mentioned, the cost of better steel contributes to the higher cost in the Rolex. Perhaps to some people stainless steel maybe just stainless steel but to others a stronger one, that is less prone to corrosion means a lot more (e.g. when the watch is constantly exposed to sea water).

4. Branding

Of course, there is a premium for the brand. As wrong as it may be, in return one may receive self-fulfillment, or even recognition etc for that. On a positive note though, branding also usually means the assurance of more superior support, better service and quality. Bargain hunters or budget buyers may not see this as important factors but are priced definitely priced into the branded products for those who care.

Accordingly all of the above, and perhaps more, add up to a higher price. I tend to accept that I get what I pay for. With Steinharts I feel I get a little more, which is one of the attractions of the brand.

I happen to own the Rolexes mentioned, together with the Toywatch mentioned, other higher-end watches, some other affordable watches and of course, a growing collection of Steinharts. I genuinely believe each perform their intended function well and have their own intrinsic value (that is appropriately priced, otherwise I would not have purchased them :-d). I treat them all in exactly the same way, including the said Toywatch - with extreme care.

Collecting watches should not be about showing the world what brands you own or therefore how much money you have to pay for them but rather, appreciating what they can do for you - be it telling the time, match your outfit (and not your ego) etc. etc. So if there is a watch that offers more than what you need and costs a lot more, don't buy it but don't diss it. Peace all!


----------



## Mediocre

I never looked at side-by-side images. I picked up my Ocean 1 Vintage red recently, and I did not realize just how much it looks like the Rolex. I'm not even sure I can comfortably call it an homage. There is nothing unique about the design at all. This has me sad and considering a sale


----------



## Watchfreek

Seriously? But so are a lot of other brands' dive watches. One could almost say it is a generic diver design. However, would it bother you even more if I told you that there was a "red series" Submariner in the 70's that has red text at exactly where yours has red writing? 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mediocre

Watchfreek said:


> Seriously? But so are a lot of other brands' dive watches. One could almost say it is a generic diver design. However, would it bother you even more if I told you that there was a "red series" Submariner in the 70's that has red text at exactly where yours has red writing?
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


No it wouldn't, because I figured it out after reading this thread.....it prompted me to search further.


----------



## Watchfreek

It's all good then 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchfreek

I believe it also says something when there are a few Submariner/Sea-dweller owners also owning Oceans...... 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mediocre

Watchfreek said:


> I believe it also says something when there are a few Submariner/Sea-dweller owners also owning Oceans......
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


It says they wanted something that looked the exact same but they were not worried about damaging.


----------



## mlb212

Mediocre said:


> I never looked at side-by-side images. I picked up my Ocean 1 Vintage red recently, and I did not realize just how much it looks like the Rolex. I'm not even sure I can comfortably call it an homage. There is nothing unique about the design at all. This has me sad and considering a sale


Just as I was thinking I needed a backup O1VR...


----------



## Mediocre

In that case, PM sent....


----------



## kelt

QUOTE=Mediocre;7797736]It says they wanted something that looked the exact same but they were not worried about damaging.[/QUOTE]

I totally disagree with such statment, remeber that you speak only for yourself, You obviously don't know what other people think, here is my take :

I have used a Rolex Submariner 5512 (retired now) as my working watch during my whole career diving for the Offshore Oil industry I didn't care much about newer Rolex models (I sold to a friend a seadweller given to me by Comex after a North sea commun project) or ISO recommendation on bezel, I am just as happy to wear my OVM today as my old Submariner, it gives me the same pleasure while being different in all aspects, but just a safe diving tool as my other present time keepers.







[


----------



## uncleluck

I agree that Steinhart are as good as Rolex, because I own a steinhart.

when I can afford Rolex, I'll defend it to the hilt... Like everyone else does ;-)


----------



## Professor S

How can these two pieces be compared? One's a watch, the other isn't.


----------



## Cujobob

uncleluck said:


> I agree that Steinhart are as good as Rolex, because I own a steinhart.
> 
> when I can afford Rolex, I'll defend it to the hilt... Like everyone else does ;-)


Bingo. The Rolex is overpriced for what it is. Sure, it offers value as a collectible, but not as a watch to a person who doesn't intend on selling it later on. I would love a Rolex, they're terrific, but it would be just like other luxury items I have that are the best of the best...you feel like you can't use the thing how you want to. I collect pocket knives, but generally carry cheaper customs and Spydercos instead of my better ones. I would like a Brad Southard Flipper, but using a $3000 knife to cut things other than envelopes is pretty crazy. What people are doing in the knife industry is creating 'mid techs' which are nearly identical to customs but not as over-done with some details. Watch companies should do the same, but the problem is...they really don't offer anything for the higher priced that's far superior to good $500 watches. A fair price for what a Rolex is, given where it's improvements lay, is probably 2x-3x the price. Steinhart could just as easily improve the lume, spec a better bracelet, use slightly better materials for the case, etc. It would cost a few hundred more per watch, but you'd get a near equivalent piece. A properly regulated ETA movement is not really all that worse off than a Rolex-made movement. In fact, my own Ocean Two has been almost perfect keeping time. I got very lucky in that regard.

People who overpay for luxury items will always tout how much better it is than a standard one, but it's usually out of ignorance or exaggerated. I recently purchased my father a Bernhardt watch and regret not getting him a Steinhart after it's all said and done. It's a fine watch, but it's disappointing next to my Ocean Two. I don't know I'd feel the same comparing an O1 to a Submariner. $200 difference to thousands. There's a point of diminishing returns.


----------



## Henraa

Professor S said:


> How can these two pieces be compared? One's a watch, the other isn't.


They are both nice watches if my understanding is correct, unless I've missed something?


----------



## Loevhagen

What the professor meant was that the Steinhart is a watch and the Rolex so much more; inter alia jewelry. :-d


----------



## Mediocre

kelt06 said:


> I totally disagree with such statment, remeber that you speak only for yourself, You obviously don't know what other people think, here is my take :
> 
> I have used a Rolex Submariner 5512 (retired now) as my working watch during my whole career diving for the Offshore Oil industry I didn't care much about newer Rolex models (I sold to a friend a seadweller given to me by Comex after a North sea commun project) or ISO recommendation on bezel, I am just as happy to wear my OVM today as my old Submariner, it gives me the same pleasure while being different in all aspects, but just a safe diving tool as my other present time keepers.
> 
> View attachment 1489251


Nice collection....those are three distinctively different designs...


----------



## Maxy

Its pretty easy to criticize Rolex without knowing real facts! Rolex didn't start charging $7k for Sub just within a year or two after its launch. To think, Rolex Sub was $355 in 1975. Was it cause of marketing or it need that much money for research and make high quality tool watch? For a watch which was $355 in 1975, you are expecting it to cost twice some homage watch like Steinharts just cause some random people can't seem to find much difference between them? Some are even comparing them weight wise.... please!!!


----------



## lvt

I believe both of them are equally good, only legacy differs.


----------



## Henraa

Maxy said:


> Its pretty easy to criticize Rolex without knowing real facts! Rolex didn't start charging $7k for Sub just within a year or two after its launch. To think, Rolex Sub was $355 in 1975. Was it cause of marketing or it need that much money for research and make high quality tool watch? For a watch which was $355 in 1975, you are expecting it to cost twice some homage watch like Steinharts just cause some random people can't seem to find much difference between them? Some are even comparing them weight wise.... please!!!


I understand there is quite a significant quality difference between the two pieces and Rolex has a history that has evolved into a luxury brand. They also make extremely handsome watches that Steinhart emulate and pay homage to in a very flattering sense. I think there is room for both in the market because they offer a product at very different ends of the price scale. I would love a Rolex Submariner, but would I pay 5 grand for one? Absolutely not as for me its unjustifiable having a young family with bills to pay. I have bought a Steinhart though because I enjoy the aesthetics of the watch and I will likely get a lot of enjoyment from it also knowing it is a fraction of the price of the Rolex it pays homage to. Lets face it too, most people couldn't tell the difference between them if they know nothing about watches and watch enthusiasts are slim on the ground in my world. Its nice to get complimented on a watch if it looks nice, but most people who pay these sort of compliments don't really care what brand is on it and are often pleasantly surprised if what they think is an expensive watch, turns out to be a cheaper brand. If I had the cash I would get a Rolex without question, however it would be for my own enjoyment rather than a status thing because times have changed. You can get enjoyment from both these pieces discussed in this thread for different reasons and at the end of the day its up to the individual how this enjoyment is achieved. I'm always impressed in equal measure to see both brands on peoples wrists as I feel they have good taste!


----------



## Falcon15e

hidden by leaves said:


> I honestly have no idea what this even means (in reality).
> 
> These threads can be so ridiculous. Steinhart makes good, affordable watches. Why can't owners just be happy with that? (I am).


Some of us enjoy the simple things in life. After leaving the arena, luckily with our lives, something as wonderful and silly as watch collecting (even Steinharts) is a fantastic luxury. I'm happy with mine too.

Sent from my HTC One mini using Tapatalk


----------



## Cujobob

Maxy said:


> Its pretty easy to criticize Rolex without knowing real facts! Rolex didn't start charging $7k for Sub just within a year or two after its launch. To think, Rolex Sub was $355 in 1975. Was it cause of marketing or it need that much money for research and make high quality tool watch? For a watch which was $355 in 1975, you are expecting it to cost twice some homage watch like Steinharts just cause some random people can't seem to find much difference between them? Some are even comparing them weight wise.... please!!!


You believe on faith that they invest their money properly into R&D and not into making excess profit. A company's goal is to make profit, but those who don't offer good value are generally not thought of as highly. While there is value in having what's popular/resale/etc, as a timepiece itself, it offers poor value by comparison with Steinhart. Believing on faith that a company does what is right is rather foolish, no offense.

I remember a time when people generally believed RCA and SONY had the best consumer electronics products around.

High end watches are a niche market and there's not always a direct replacement for one product. Many hobbies suffer from the same problem.


----------



## lorsban

Cujobob said:


> You believe on faith that they invest their money properly into R&D and not into making excess profit. A company's goal is to make profit, but those who don't offer good value are generally not thought of as highly. While there is value in having what's popular/resale/etc, as a timepiece itself, it offers poor value by comparison with Steinhart. Believing on faith that a company does what is right is rather foolish, no offense.
> 
> I remember a time when people generally believed RCA and SONY had the best consumer electronics products around.
> 
> High end watches are a niche market and there's not always a direct replacement for one product. Many hobbies suffer from the same problem.


"Value" is subjective. For many people, Steinhart represents "poor value" in comparison with Timex, Swatch, Seiko, Casio, Android etc etc...

And there are also those who think Timex/Swatch/Seiko etc...are also a huge waste of money since phones already have clocks.


----------



## Henraa

lorsban said:


> "Value" is subjective. For many people, Steinhart represents "poor value" in comparison with Timex, Swatch, Seiko, Casio, Android etc etc...
> 
> And there are also those who think Timex/Swatch/Seiko etc...are also a huge waste of money since phones already have clocks.


You are very right it is subjective and a millionaire for example will think a 5 grand watch will offer great value for money and possibly wouldn't look at a Steinhart. For me though the average Joe off the street with a modest income, a Steinhart is value for money and is closer in cost to a Casio, Seiko, Timex than say a Steinhart is to a Rolex. It's difficult to relate when comparing something 12 times the price to something that is double or triple. I think Steinhart pieces are priced at a point that make them affordable to most, whereas a Rolex is a big decision for most. My iPhone has a clock on it too and I have to say I still look at my wrist for the time before taking my phone out of my pocket to press the button on top. It's useful when being used though.


----------



## lorsban

Henraa said:


> You are very right it is subjective and a millionaire for example will think a 5 grand watch will offer great value for money and possibly wouldn't look at a Steinhart.


Right. And vice versa, those who don't have that much cash won't bother looking at Rolex.



> For me though the average Joe off the street with a modest income, a Steinhart is value for money and is closer in cost to a Casio, Seiko, Timex than say a Steinhart is to a Rolex. It's difficult to relate when comparing something 12 times the price to something that is double or triple.


You can get a Casio for $12. That's over 40x less than a Steinhart. And an Invicta for $54, 10x less than a Steinhart. That's in Amazon where you can also find $4-5 watches.

Likewise, there are likely those that think a $7000 Rolex presents a better value than a $150,000 Richard Mille.

Point is, no matter how you look at it, it's plain ridiculous to compare watches so far from each other's price brackets. They're meant for different markets and those markets have far different considerations of value.

Still, I understand the sentiment. I've had my fair share of homages, Ocean 1, Orient Sub, Seiko etc...but not once did I feel they were anywhere near Rolex in quality. And why should they? They cost 10-20× less.


----------



## Henraa

lorsban said:


> Right. And vice versa, those who don't have that much cash won't bother looking at Rolex.
> 
> You can get a Casio for $12. That's over 40x less than a Steinhart. And an Invicta for $54, 10x less than a Steinhart. That's in Amazon where you can also find $4-5 watches.
> 
> Likewise, there are likely those that think a $7000 Rolex presents a better value than a $150,000 Richard Mille.
> 
> Point is, no matter how you look at it, it's plain ridiculous to compare watches so far from each other's price brackets. They're meant for different markets and those markets have far different considerations of value.


I think we are making similar points in terms of it being a ridiculous comparison, but you missed my point with the second paragraph. My comparison with a Casio and a Steinhart is the fact they are at the lower end of the spectrum in terms of pricing so they are more realistic to people like me. They may be 10 or 12 times cheaper or more expensive than each other but when they are under say £500, they are affordable to many so the cost isn't so much of an issue. I wear a £10 Casio to work each day as my job as a design engineer/machinist means my watch gets a battering. It obviously does the same job as a Steinhart and I could make the price gap even bigger and buy a £1 Chinese watch off eBay if I wanted lol.

You are right a Rolex and a Steinhart are aimed at different markets and we buy and enjoy what we can afford. I have to be honest I am more impressed when I see a Steinhart or a Seiko on someone's wrist than say an Omega or a Rolex because I suppose I can relate to it better. Horse for courses though and the watch world is big and carries many different tastes. I think we largely agree here.


----------



## lorsban

Henraa said:


> I think we are making similar points in terms of it being a ridiculous comparison, but you missed my point with the second paragraph. My comparison with a Casio and a Steinhart is the fact they are at the lower end of the spectrum in terms of pricing so they are more realistic to people like me. They may be 10 or 12 times cheaper or more expensive than each other but when they are under say £500, they are affordable to many so the cost isn't so much of an issue. I wear a £10 Casio to work each day as my job as a design engineer/machinist means my watch gets a battering. It obviously does the same job as a Steinhart and I could make the price gap even bigger and buy a £1 Chinese watch off eBay if I wanted lol.
> 
> You are right a Rolex and a Steinhart are aimed at different markets and we buy and enjoy what we can afford. I have to be honest I am more impressed when I see a Steinhart or a Seiko on someone's wrist than say an Omega or a Rolex because I suppose I can relate to it better. Horse for courses though and the watch world is big and carries many different tastes. I think we largely agree here.


Yeah I get what you're saying.

I just got a used Seiko Shogun that cost me about $750. I love it to bits and can't take it off. It looks different from a Submariner but I know it's derived from Rolex design.

The Seiko has a lot of improvements that I regard it more as a "super-sub" much like a Tudor Pelagos. With their improvements tho, I don't think they're necessarily better. Just different.

And like you said, it is indeed a big world out there. These differences are what makes collecting fun.


----------



## Farmfield

Loevhagen said:


> Price ratio Steinhart GMT vs Rolex GMT from Baselworld 2014 = 1:100.
> 
> View attachment 1433870


I have problems with both.

I love the Steinhart homage models, I got an OVM myself, but the GMT one, that's just a replica. Imo.

About the Rolex, I could never wear a watch of such value in public, I'd be ashamed of the excess. And I do love the extremism in terms of the machine that it is and I seriously try not to judge people who do wear them, but there is - imo - something seriously creepy with wearing a watch worth more than most people on earth will earn in a lifetime. It's just too f#¤%& weird.


----------



## Watchfreek

"Earn in a lifetime"? For a GMT Master II? Seriously?.......

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


----------



## usc1

Not this nonsense again! 

I thought this topic was already discussed ad nauseam?


----------



## MarkingTime

Some people never know when enough is enough.


----------



## mlb212

Watchfreek said:


> "Earn in a lifetime"? For a GMT Master II? Seriously?.......
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


The work of Branko Milanovic, a World Bank economist, sets the average yearly income at $1225, putting a lifetime earnings at $36,750 (assuming a 30 year earning span at the average earnings). About the cost of a nice yachtmaster?


----------



## Watchfreek

So "most" average member here, owning sa 2-3 Steintharts, are spending an entire years' earnings on something that their phones can do.... Oh, and how much does a year's data plan and smartphone, used to post here cost? Just sayin'.... 

Just making sure, so a GMT Master II, stainless steel case, costs over USD36k??!!!

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


----------



## Uwe W.

usc1 said:


> Not this nonsense again!
> 
> I thought this topic was already discussed ad nauseam?


Yeah, it has been, over and over again. However, since this sub-forum has a high turnover rate it will probably be a subject that will continue to pop up; many haven't been here long enough to realise that everything being written here is a repeat of the comments that were made only a few months ago.


----------



## lorsban

mlb212 said:


> The work of Branko Milanovic, a World Bank economist, sets the average yearly income at $1225, putting a lifetime earnings at $36,750 (assuming a 30 year earning span at the average earnings). About the cost of a nice yachtmaster?


Most of the people who earn $1225/year most likely wouldn't give a damn what was on your wrist.

Those who do care are other people who are likely in the same income bracket.


----------



## Rmalone

When exactly did it become shameful to be successful? I can't afford a Rolex, but that doesn't mean someone who can should feel ashamed to wear one. Very few people care that your wearing a watch let alone what kind of watch.


----------



## Farmfield

Wow, you people need to learn how to read. I'm stating my own feelings in regard to what I have on my own wrist and I clarified that. I (generally-) don't judge what other people wear but I would personally find it creepy to have something like that on my own wrist. Am I not allowed to have that feeling in regard to my own person and what I wear?

_*Edit:*

I read what I wrote again, perhaps it's not as clear as I thought. But I was referring to my own feeling about what I wear, nothing else. I also didn't know this subject was something often discussed here, I'm new to the forum and had not ran into such discussion. I had no intention to start one either but just expressed my feelings on what *I* wear on *my *person. I did not mean to offend anyone._


----------



## Watchfreek

I believe everyone are reading just fine and you are missing the point, which is the very reason you have such thoughts. Sure everyone are entitled to their own feelings and choices, within their own means and should not be flamed for that. But when an argument, or "reason" in your case, put forward is seen as flawed, unfounded or grossly exaggerated through misinformation, misconception or pure ignorance, and may be considered misleading, then people will seek to clarify and correct it. If the thought of wearing a mere Rolex creeps you out, what would wearing an AP do to you - it's rather hypothetical anyway, if you need to save till the end of your lifetime to be in that position, no?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


----------



## Farmfield

Watchfreek said:


> I believe everyone are reading just fine and you are missing the point, which is the very reason you have such thoughts. Sure everyone are entitled to their own feelings and choices, within their own means and should not be flamed for that. But when an argument, or "reason" in your case, put forward is seen as flawed, unfounded or grossly exaggerated through misinformation, misconception or pure ignorance, and may be considered misleading, then people will seek to clarify and correct it.
> 
> *If the thought of wearing a mere Rolex creeps you out, what would wearing an AP do to you?*


So Now I stated like 4 times that it would creep me out to have one on *MY *arm. Am I not allowed to have that feeling?

And as I got a masters in engineering, have been running my own businesses since the 1980's and spent a lot of my life travelling the world, living years abroad, I think my base of reasoning is pretty firm.


----------



## Watchfreek

Yes and I have said YOU are entitled to YOUR feelings. And I asked how an AP on YOUR arm would feel. Is that more difficult to comprehend than a Masters of Engineering course? With the sort of qualification and being as worldly as you claim, then it is even more mind baffling that your justifications, for your feelings as you say, are so absurd and grossly exaggerated and it should be expected that it may be challenged in an open forum that this is. That's all. Anyway, say what you will. Just be happy with what you have and try not to creep yourself out with your own perception of the world. 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


----------



## skimming

the minimum qualification is a automatic diver watch with a warranty, right?
seems like Casio is just a red herring, no?

Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk


----------



## skimming

Watchfreek said:


> Yes and I have said YOU are entitled to YOUR feelings. And I asked how an AP on YOUR arm would feel. Is that more difficult to comprehend than a Masters of Engineering course? With the sort of qualification and being as worldly as you claim, then it is even more mind baffling that your justifications, for your feelings as you say, are so absurd and grossly exaggerated and it should be expected that it may be challenged in an open forum that this is. That's all. Anyway, say what you will. Just be happy with what you have and try not to creep yourself out with your own perception of the world.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


seems a bit aggressive?

let me articulate why I'd feel a bit off wearing depreciating two mortgage payments on my wrist. I like wearing watches, but I don't like to baby things. I enjoy watch on several levels of my senses : tactile, auditory, heft/acceleration, olfactory, visuals, appreciation of craftsmanship, etc.

of those and other positive factors, the cost of entry for Rolex overwhelms my appreciation for Rolex as I'm consumed by having to baby it. A gouge or a scratch would devalue a Rolex as much as a whole Steinhart watch itself. knowing this would cause me to not wear it as much and not enjoy it as much.

Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk


----------



## Farmfield

Watchfreek said:


> Yes and I have said YOU are entitled to YOUR feelings. And I asked how an AP on YOUR arm would feel. Is that more difficult to comprehend than a Masters of Engineering course? With the sort of qualification and being as worldly as you claim, then it is even more mind baffling that your justifications, for your feelings as you say, are so absurd and grossly exaggerated and it should be expected that it may be challenged in an open forum that this is. That's all. Anyway, say what you will. Just be happy with what you have and try not to creep yourself out with your own perception of the world.


Yes, I did clearly misread what I bolded, I apologize.

But you accused me of being ignorant, uneducated and having a flawed sense of reasoning, which isn't very nice, so I responded in kind. Then I stated my education level and experiences to disprove your flawed assumption.

Anyhow, I'm sorry my feeling towards the watches I use somehow makes you angry and offended, but seriously dude, that's your issue, not mine.


----------



## Watchfreek

Farmfield said:


> Yes, I did clearly misread what I bolded, I apologize.
> 
> But you accused me of being ignorant, uneducated and having a flawed sense of reasoning, which isn't very nice, so I responded in kind. Then I stated my education level and experiences to disprove your flawed assumption.
> 
> Anyhow, I'm sorry my feeling towards the watches I use somehow makes you angry and offended, but seriously dude, that's your issue, not mine.


No dude, your feelings towards watches does not offend or anger me the slightest. We all have our reasons for wanting to wear or not wear a certain watch. I own several Rolexes and also don't wear them, but for reasons that are different to yours, what skimming had detailed or another person. I fully understand that.

Your choice of watch is also none of mine, or anyone else's business.

If what I had said came across as being "aggressive" (as skimming had put it), that was not what was intended either, so I would apologize. Your justification for your feelings towards wearing a Rolex, to be honest, came across as being rather absurd. So just for the record, I will restate and clarify my points once more for you:

1. Your choice of watch is really of no concern to anyone. Get and wear what you like. However, there is no real point in trying to justify why you would not buy/wear one particular brand. As with anything, trying to justify a decision, more than necessary may be conceived as a lack of confidence in that decision, or even yourself (N.B. the use of words - "may be").

Using a justification that is exaggerated or untrue to back this up was even worst. I chose "ignorant" to describe it, but it was not really an accusation. And oh, I'd also used the words "*seen as *flawed, unfounded, grossly exaggerated, misinformation and misconception" but never "your education" - that would be too personal;-).

2. You have also tried to justify your argument or reasoning by mentioning your qualification and world exposure, which no one could or would bother to verify anyway so what's the point? In your case it did nothing more than add to the perceived desperation to justify a weak point because your claim of worldliness and a higher education, was highly inconsistent with your reasoning. To say that you have traveled the world when in a large part of the world, Asia in particular (which is partly considered "third world" btw), genuine Rolexes (and I'm just talking about the sports models in question here) are owned by a majority of low to middle income earners - most of them being property salesmen and even laborers. They would often own more than one in fact. Sure it may be a cultural thing but fact is they can afford them and it doesn't take a lifetime to acquire them and with a Masters in Engineering degree, I am certain it would not take you more than a few months, if at all. Point is, Rolexes are not the grail watch that you allude them to be and there are much more expensive watches. So is it not a bit absurd to say that (a) a Rolex GMT Master II costs as much as *most* people's life earnings and therefore beyond reach, and (b) that you have traveled, and presumably seen the world to even come up with such statements? One would also wonder whether the logic being presented here is consistent with an Engineering bachelor's degree, let a lone a Master's degree. Again, it is something we cannot verify nor care to do so but when it is brought into the argument in this way, it becomes highly questionable.

This whole thread probably came about because someone saw the need to justify their Ocean purchase, in much the same way you tried to justify your reason for not wearing a Rolex. There's no reason to do so. First I had a problem with people flaming Rolex for being a ripoff based on looks and then not wearing a Rolex because it costs a lifetime's worth of earnings - all very untrue justifications and accusations. After all this is a discussion forum and people come here for information and to, well,......."discuss". So if people cannot have a sensible discussion or cannot reach agreement on something then, so be it. Most of us are not here to win any fights. True sometimes we get into heated arguments but at the end of the day, winning or losing has very little significance.

In any case, I hope this clarifies any misunderstandings. If not, I would not bother boring other members of this board with this senseless debate any further.

Peace, and do have a nice day :-!


----------



## Farmfield

Yeah, I overreacted to - and as usual when temperature rises, you 'read angrily', with is a trap for your brain to look for or twist anything into a perceived negative. Not good. But as I said, I was expressing my view on what I wear, I didn't mean to come off as offensive. I can also add that I have worn Submariners back in the day, when travelling (though I would never dare that today) as 'insurance' - better currency than any travel check - so it's not like I wouldn't wear a Rolex, but I'm a toolwatch kinda guy as well as pretty 'Swedish' in terms of my politics (so basically "communist" by any US standard, even though I'm mid/right wing in terms of Swedish politics, hehe) so I'm just not fond of personal 'excess'. I try however not to put that as a judgement towards others - or at least show it. 

And the good thing about this whole debacle is I now know this is an unpopular subject thus something to avoid to keep the peace in the forum.


----------



## Watchfreek

It's all good mate. It would have been less controversial if you hadn't used exaggerations (e.g. a "lifetime of earnings") - "cost of a kidney" might have been better, if not, funnier to state your point. 

Peace bro |>


----------



## Farmfield

Watchfreek said:


> It's all good mate. It would have been more less controversial if you hadn't used exaggerations (e.g. a "lifetime of earnings") - "cost of a kidney" might have been better, if not, funnier to state your point.
> 
> Peace bro |>


Looking back, I would say my use of 'ashamed' was probably my major mistake - and it was also poorly expressed as 'shame' was never the issue, but the weirdness of that cost for that size product - but if I'd left that out, I don't think anyone had reacted.

And you gotta read up on your exchange rates, last I heard a kidney was only worth like 2 Ipads. And though I'm kidding, I'm not even kidding. Sad day for reality.


----------



## Henraa

Rmalone said:


> When exactly did it become shameful to be successful? I can't afford a Rolex, but that doesn't mean someone who can should feel ashamed to wear one. Very few people care that your wearing a watch let alone what kind of watch.


It's interesting what you say about very few people care what type of watch you wear and that is very true. I made a similar point earlier and it's something I have experienced. People say 'nice watch' occasionally but it's very rare they'll ask what it is in regards to brand. Obviously it's always nice when someone takes an interest in a watch you are wearing but owning them is for personal enjoyment more than anything else for me. I would love to be in a position where a Rolex was appropriate for someone like me, but if I wore one now, I'd most likely get asked why I'd spent so much money on a watch lol, and they'd be right! lol. I think if I was given a Rolex tomorrow, I'd wear it for a few weeks to get some enjoyment out of it, sell it, buy a couple of cheaper submariner style watches and take the family on a nice holiday with the rest


----------



## lorsban

> I would love to be in a position where a Rolex was appropriate for someone like me, but if I wore one now, I'd most likely get asked why I'd spent so much money on a watch lol, and they'd be right! lol. I think if I was given a Rolex tomorrow, I'd wear it for a few weeks to get some enjoyment out of it, sell it, buy a couple of cheaper submariner style watches and take the family on a nice holiday with the rest


Hmm...valid sentiment. There are a couple of situations where I'd feel as you do; one being if my wife/family suddenly saw me spending for one for the first time. Second would be if my workmates just got laid off and I didn't and bought a watch and wore it in front of them.

Both awkward situations for sure.

Luckily, my wife is on board with watches. She's a quality over quantity type more than I am actually. But I am also in the same position as you where I'd rather spend for a vacation than just myself with a watch.

With the work thing, well you just have to be mindful of the situations you may find yourself in - with the economy being what it is. That's why it's nice to have some "stealth" watches that are very good but don't attract too much.

Rolex has a couple, Explorer 2 and Yachtmaster. Both those watches don't really scream Rolex like a Sub/GMT/DJ do. The YM actually looks like a Tag.

Titanium watches are also good for stealth because it looks dull and tool like.

Homages that look A LOT like expensive watches could have the opposite effect. People would likely mistake it for the real deal and give you flak for it. Which is worse than buying a good stealth watch that looks unrecognizable to most.


----------



## Farmfield

About the perception of wearing a Rolex, that's kinda a non issue in Sweden. No one here is gonna think less of you if you wear a Rolex - because, unless you drive a Porsche or alike, no one will believe it's real anyway. That's because Swedes love Thailand and so many people visit every year, bringing home fake Rolex'es droves, in Sweden there's probably a 1.000:1 ratio of fakes to the real deal...


----------



## Watchfreek

Anyone who judges someone by the watch that they wear isn't worth the time of day anyway IMO so why even worry about it? Truth is, there are really good fakes, there is flipping and there are also many successful and/or rich people who wear Seiko's and Casio's or no watch at all. So what watch a person wears should not mean anything at all and if a person makes assunptions about someone else by that, they are fools anyway. The same goes for the type of car someone drives and don't forget there is financing for those too which makes ownership, for whatever length of time, possible. Those who go through the trouble of doing that should also not be worth the time of day by my standards. 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


----------



## Henraa

lorsban said:


> Luckily, my wife is on board with watches. She's a quality over quantity type more than I am actually. But I am also in the same position as you where I'd rather spend for a vacation than just myself with a watch.


My wife understands I enjoy watches, but would draw the line at understanding if I wanted to spend over £1000 on one. Our money is precious and if a watch costs the same as a family holiday, I'd likely get it in the neck. I'm happy to have discovered Steinhart in that respect because they make good quality homage watches that are affordable and keeps me in the good books at home lol.



lorsban said:


> Homages that look A LOT like expensive watches could have the opposite effect. People would likely mistake it for the real deal and give you flak for it. Which is worse than buying a good stealth watch that looks unrecognizable to most.


I'm yet to meet anybody who gives flak for wearing a homage, but appreciate they exist because I've read some heated threads airing this sort of opinion. Personally I think I'd laugh in somebody's face if they started giving me attitude because the watch I am wearing resembles a Rolex. That is their problem not mine at the end of the day, and there are bigger things in life to worry about. The same goes for people who give Rolex wearers attitude because they own a more luxury watch. I can understand people being privately miffed if they see fakes for sale because it is an industry undermining and making money from a brand whilst passing itself off as that said brand. A homage is something that takes elements from an iconic watch but looks different enough for people not to think its the watch it is paying homage to. Plus the branding makes the difference obvious. This is why again I like the Steinhart range because they have similarities but you can see they are different. There is a place for both in the market IMHO. I'm itching to get my OVM now and keep checking my phone every couple of hours to see if I have shipping confirmation. I think I have another week at least before that comes through and somehow the wait makes it all the more worth while!!


----------



## ilitig8

I think this thread is illustrative of two things:

1. the law of diminishing returns and how different people find their comfort zone at radically differing places

2. the fact that the quality of goods tend to either get significantly better or significantly worse over time, watches in general have followed the former trend


----------



## Falcon15e

I recently boutique fondled a new submariner the other day. And honestly, I felt nothing. Sure, my steiney doesn't have some of the mirror luster or whatever else "pixie dust" that an extra $6000 pays for but it felt as though the Rolex was a fat kid sitting there sticking his tounge out at me. I glanced at my Steinhart and he just gave me a steady stare and a wink. Like we were in on a joke together. 

Now, I used some anthropomorphic descriptors there, but I think the folks in my camp can understand. 

Sent from my HTC One mini using Tapatalk


----------



## Farmfield

In a way this comparison is like comparing a VW Passat to a BMW M5 - the major difference being you can pretty easily notice the difference between the two cars while it's pretty hard to notice between the two watches. At least for most of us. 

Sent from my P6-U06 using Tapatalk


----------



## Loevhagen




----------



## Ed.YANG

*OUCH!!!*
Sometime... wouldn't it be better if one goes for budget friendly yet lesser known piece better?
Watch Lover Celebrity John Mayer Sues Bob Maron For $656,000 After Buying Several 'Counterfeit' ROLEX Timepieces | aBlogtoWatch


----------



## mrfourcows

kelt said:


> When you are the owner of a Rolex, you are the sponsor of many sport events in golfing, sailing, car racing.....


HAHAHA


----------



## wm5382

As much as i like my steinhart, you can not compare it to the rolex in all aspect...

I have the steinhart nav b uhr gnomon limited edition 47mm and i like it a lot

But have you ever seen the inside movement of steinhart?

No where as near as rolex in my opinion and that's just the movement, look also at the overall finish, longevity and resale value angle

Do consider my view from a guy who own 3 rolexes (excluding the wife rolexes) and 1 steinhart

I never meant to bash steinhart, trust me... I really do love my steinhart but they are not in the same league as rolex


----------



## wm5382

Loevhagen said:


> Price ratio Steinhart GMT vs Rolex GMT from Baselworld 2014 = 1:100.
> 
> View attachment 1433870


It's not even a fair comparison, the Rolex GMT Ceramic Pepsi Bezel in your pic weight 2 ounces and not to mention, it is solid white gold...


----------



## MrDagon007

wm5382 said:


> It's not even a fair comparison, the Rolex GMT Ceramic Pepsi Bezel in you pic weight 2 ounces and not to mention, it is solid white gold...


Not to mention that the bezel is properly bidirectional and that it's movement's GMT function works more usefully.


----------



## Watchfreek

A topic thats been beaten to death but never seems to end. I dont see the need to compare the two except to justify to oneself their own purchase. Comparing a white gold cased with ceramic bezel watch with a S/S cased with aluminum bezel watch alone says it all really....


----------



## Watchfreek

MrDagon007 said:


> Not to mention that the bezel is properly bidirectional and that it's movement's GMT function works more usefully.


The bezel action is a simple and almost costless fix I.E. difference, the GMT function on the other hand is more difficult to replicate with a significant jump in cost.


----------



## Henraa

No need to compare for me. The Rolex is far beyond any money I'd wish to spend on a watch so the Steinhart wins every time. I am well aware the Rolex exceeds it in craftsmanship and quality but that doesn't matter in the slightest. Most people don't care what's on your wrist anyway in my experience lol.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheGanzman

I remember 10 years ago, after buying a 1959 Rolex 6538 Big Crown - thinking "Boy, I've made the BIG TIME now!" 18 months of DAILY wear later, after ONE SINGLE (watch fanatic) person "noticed" it, I sold it and never looked back. Now, I likes me some Steinhart Ocean 1 "Comex Homage" - a WHOLE LOT cheaper than a real Rolex Comex Submariner, which after all NO ONE would wear in their right mind except maybe an original Comex diver that didn't pay collector prices for one. Oh yeah, more practical too, with lume that actually GLOWS all night long, and with a sapphire crystal:


----------

