# Steinhart Ocean Vintage Military compared to Rolex Sub?



## Matt68uk (Nov 13, 2012)

Hi folks, 

not sure if i'm missing something here but just bought a Steinhart Ocean and i am overwhelmed with the quality of this awesome timepiece, now bearing in mind i consider myself to be far from an expert in Watches i cannot justify the massive price difference between the above two watches, i have never owned a Rolex Sub but a good friend of mine has been wearing one for the past 10yrs and i have often talked about it normally resulting in him taking it off to show me the Watch closer!

when i look at the spec of the two Watches and materials used to construct them i just cant see where the extra 5k or so actually comes from, no pun intended towards Rolex as a brand or Rolex enthusiasts, just wondered what other peoples thoughts were on this thats all?

regards
Matt


----------



## chbx (Sep 9, 2013)

a really magnifying cyclops. the rest goes into marketing


----------



## Riker (Mar 31, 2007)

Obviously, the Rolex is made to a different standard but they are mass produced & the exclusivity of them is in my opinion is not what it used to be. Yes, they maintain awesome quality but as chbx said, a massive marketing machine is what has made Rolex what it is today.


----------



## Vinguru (Jun 23, 2011)

True the price difference is big but there are also big differences in quality. Don't get me wrong, steinharts are nice watches but Rolex is just not in the same league.


----------



## twintop (Nov 16, 2012)

First, I do not own a Rolex, I do have a Steinhart Ocean 1 Vintage Red and the Ocean 1 Vintage incoming. But as already said here, I do believe Rolex is in a different league. 
Take a look at the following link and maybe than you'll understand the price difference.

10 Things To Know About How Rolex Makes Watches | aBlogtoWatch


----------



## Matt68uk (Nov 13, 2012)

twintop said:


> First, I do not own a Rolex, I do have a Steinhart Ocean 1 Vintage Red and the Ocean 1 Vintage incoming. But as already said here, I do believe Rolex is in a different league.
> Take a look at the following link and maybe than you'll understand the price difference.
> 
> 10 Things To Know About How Rolex Makes Watches | aBlogtoWatch


 Interesting read,didn't realise Rolex used a higher grade Stainless Steel to the usual 316L used on a lot of other Watches, and it must have cost a fortune to re-kit there engineering workshop out, also didn't know they hand assembled their movements, still find it hard to justify the difference in price between the two brands, but i understand a little more why Rolex have to charge a higher premium for their Watches!.. Thanks for sharing the link!


----------



## adzman808 (Jun 9, 2012)

A lot of the Rolex cost is marketing (and of course dealer network, service network etc)

And what Rolex is marketing is that unlike many watch "makers" (like Steinhart) Rolex makes virtually everything in the watch itself.

So for example whereas there maybe not be much functional difference between a ETA2824 movement as found in a Steinhart* and a 3135 movement found in a Rolex, the fact is the 2824 is found in many watches & the Rolex movement only in Rolex watches - this exclusivity costs.

Also, as good quality as the Steinhart is, the Rolex is very much ahead in terms of case finishing, part fitment, crown action, quality of the ceramic bezel & the touches on the modern Rolex subs, like the glidelock clasp mean the Rolex is truly the superior product

PLEASE don't take this as a criticism of Steinhart - we all know they're great watches at the price point


*Yes I know that Steinhart now have a new movement, but FWIW my understanding is this is a supplier movement and not truly in house


----------



## Chromejob (Jun 18, 2010)

Matt68uk said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> not sure if i'm missing something here but just bought a Steinhart Ocean and i am overwhelmed with the quality of this awesome timepiece, now bearing in mind i consider myself to be far from an expert in Watches i cannot justify the massive price difference between the above two watches, i have never owned a Rolex Sub but a good friend of mine has been wearing one for the past 10yrs and i have often talked about it normally resulting in him taking it off to show me the Watch closer!
> 
> ...


This topic comes up frequently and all the arguments have been documented, surely. Rolex engineering, quality control, and after sales support of their watches is well known. There are details in the design and assembly that, if noticed, may add value. You're not "missing" anything if you don't see them. It doesn't make smaller boutique makers' watches any less appealing, just different.

Buy with your heart and taste, and you won't go wrong (usually). Buying according to price tag, marketing, or peer pressure is often a dicey endeavor.

You're not the first to ask. Search the forums, you'll find the old discussions.

// Tapatalk HD for Android - Nexus 7 //


----------



## ghostryder (Oct 9, 2011)

I am a big fan of Steinhart, as I own the O1VM and recently picked up the O1V. I also own another popular high quality sub homage, the Squale 20 ATMOS. I am also lucky to own a Sub LV and a Tudor BB. So I can offer some insight on experience.

While I am no expert on manufacturing or engineering, it is obvious that the little details that Rolex pays attention to and the lower level of tolerances makes a difference. When I wear the Rolex Sub or the Tudor BB, I certainly notice the difference in how the bezel clicks, how the bracelet fits and feels on my wrist, the fit of the end links onto the case, the look of the steel used, the very crisp and detailed printing on the dials, etc. I am sure there are a number of other little things that I cannot articulate, but the overall feel is certainly different and represents the quality and effort that goes into producing a Rolex. 

I also think when choosing to buy a Rolex, you are paying for the name and the history associated with the brand, which is important for some people (i.e., the goodwill value). 

Despite the above, I agree that the inflated prices of Rolexes (especially in the last decade) is largely due to marketing and the mystique in the brand created by popular culture. 

Does all the above justify a 10x price difference between the Rolex and a Steinhart? Probably not. 

Certainly, if you like the sub look, the Steinhart (and Squale) offers incredible value for its price point and gets you pretty close to the feel of a Rolex. 

I think Steinhart offers something at a reasonable price point that Rolex can't, which is it allows those of us who like the historic Rolex models (ref. 5517, ref. 6200) to acquire something we couldn't easily do in the marketplace and with a modern movement and manufacturing. 

For what it's worth, my 2 cents.


----------



## subrosa (Dec 2, 2008)

The OVM is a great watch, and while it does hold it's own...you do pay for perfection. The argument could be made the bracelet is better than the old non-solid end link Rolex bracelet which is quite a sad thing in person. I feel like Rolex should retroactively apologize for that and make up some solid end links for vintage pieces. 

Where the OVM wins me over is that it doesn't have a paragraph of writing on the dial, sword hands, no cute little gold applied indexes. It really only needs drilled lugs to make it about perfect (maybe a little smaller, but that is being picky). Yes it's a homage, but Rolex doesn't make watches like this anymore, so it's fine by me.


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

Chromejob said:


> This topic comes up frequently and all the arguments have been documented, surely.
> 
> You're not the first to ask. Search the forums, you'll find the old discussions.


Exactly. This is one of the most frequently repeated and well-beaten subjects in the Steinhart sub-forum. Didn't one of these threads just finishing running a couple of weeks ago? And since they typically become problematic and rarely end well, I'm going to remind everyone in advance to keep their comments civil.


----------



## Hoppyjr (Aug 11, 2006)

Please stop. Anyone with any common sense knows that Steinhart and Rolex are not even remotely close competitors. Rolex is at an entirely different level, but if I have to explain that further you clearly won't understand. Steinhart is a very well made watch for the price and much more appreciated by the "common" man, if you will pardon the expression. If you do believe the brands are equal, please contact me via PM. I'm a Nigerian prince and need to move some money around, but need your help first....... :roll:


----------



## Plus9GMT (Nov 3, 2013)

Chromejob said:


> This topic comes up frequently and all the arguments have been documented, surely. Rolex engineering, quality control, and after sales support of their watches is well known. There are details in the design and assembly that, if noticed, may add value. You're not "missing" anything if you don't see them. It doesn't make smaller boutique makers' watches any less appealing, just different.
> 
> Buy with your heart and taste, and you won't go wrong (usually). Buying according to price tag, marketing, or peer pressure is often a dicey endeavor.
> 
> ...


Well said, Chromejob.


----------



## Matt68uk (Nov 13, 2012)

Thanks for all your views!


----------



## mrchan (Nov 3, 2013)

Matt68uk said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> not sure if i'm missing something here but just bought a Steinhart Ocean and i am overwhelmed with the quality of this awesome timepiece, now bearing in mind i consider myself to be far from an expert in Watches i cannot justify the massive price difference between the above two watches, i have never owned a Rolex Sub but a good friend of mine has been wearing one for the past 10yrs and i have often talked about it normally resulting in him taking it off to show me the Watch closer!
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if you are aware of the pedigree of the Rolex brand, it is not even in the same league as Steinhart. The quality control, the finish, the fully in house manufacture, etc. How many companies do you know create their own steel, smelt their own gold? People tend to diss Rolex a lot without truly knowing the true story behind them. They have tonnes and tonnes of patents and are the pioneers in many things. I don't own a Rolex at the moment but plan to own that ceramic submariner at some stage.

That being said however, the SOVM is pretty damn nice looking. Want to order it but its outta stock


----------



## hanzo (Feb 24, 2012)

mrchan said:


> I'm not sure if you are aware of the pedigree of the Rolex brand, it is not even in the same league as Steinhart. The quality control, the finish, the fully in house manufacture, etc. How many companies do you know create their own steel, smelt their own gold? People tend to diss Rolex a lot without truly knowing the true story behind them. They have tonnes and tonnes of patents and are the pioneers in many things. I don't own a Rolex at the moment but plan to own that ceramic submariner at some stage.


I salute the Rolex marketing department 😀

Sent from my Nexus 7


----------



## Sigfortunata (Apr 25, 2013)

twintop said:


> First, I do not own a Rolex, I do have a Steinhart Ocean 1 Vintage Red and the Ocean 1 Vintage incoming. But as already said here, I do believe Rolex is in a different league.
> Take a look at the following link and maybe than you'll understand the price difference.
> 
> 10 Things To Know About How Rolex Makes Watches | aBlogtoWatch


I don't dispute Rolex make historically significant, robust reliable quality watches (after all we on a forum on a thread devoted to a homage of one of their historical watches) but having read the list of 10 things I now see why they feel justified is asking so much for their watches, I would be paying for the security of their gold and associated foundry, their gem experts salaries and their R&D and they don't mention sponsorship and advertising either. Nice watches but no I'm not sure they are truly worth the prices they charge.


----------



## Tuff_Guy_Tony (Feb 22, 2012)

I think a better comparison would be steinhart to Tudor.


----------



## hbk75 (Dec 25, 2006)

Matt68uk said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> not sure if i'm missing something here but just bought a Steinhart Ocean and i am overwhelmed with the quality of this awesome timepiece, now bearing in mind i consider myself to be far from an expert in Watches i cannot justify the massive price difference between the above two watches, i have never owned a Rolex Sub but a good friend of mine has been wearing one for the past 10yrs and i have often talked about it normally resulting in him taking it off to show me the Watch closer!
> 
> ...


The movement is the main difference. I can go on with a rolex for 3 months without resetting time and it goes 1 min faster after 90 days. This is just like toyota vs lamborghini, both cars bring you to the same places.


----------



## Loevhagen (Dec 15, 2013)

Tuff_Guy_Tony said:


> I think a better comparison would be steinhart to Tudor.


What is Tudor compared to Rolex then; quality wise?


----------



## vokotin (Jun 2, 2011)

Loevhagen said:


> What is Tudor compared to Rolex then; quality wise?


Today the quality is slightly different, but in the past was almost the same, the only difference was the movement.


----------



## Riker (Mar 31, 2007)

As I understand both Rolex & Tudor cases are made side by side, what differentiates is the quality of movement & the time given to the manufacture of, quality of parts & extra work put into the Rolex calibers. If I am not right on this someone will correct me....;-)



vokotin said:


> Today the quality is slightly different, but in the past was almost the same, the only difference was the movement.


Where all this sits in relation to the OVM doesn't really matter. Similar looks, different watches. Many (not all) owners of a Rolex won't bother with a Steinhart & many owners (not all) of Steinhart that could buy a Rolex won't spend the extra money on a very well marketed brand just because that brand is Rolex.


----------



## kelt (May 17, 2013)

Riker said:


> As I understand both Rolex & Tudor cases are made side by side, what differentiates is the quality of movement & the time given to the manufacture of, quality of parts & extra work put into the Rolex calibers. If I am not right on this someone will correct me....;-)
> 
> Where all this sits in relation to the OVM doesn't really matter. Similar looks, different watches. Many (not all) owners of a Rolex won't bother with a Steinhart & many owners (not all) of Steinhart that could buy a Rolex won't spend the extra money on a very well marketed brand just because that brand is Rolex.


A Steinhart OVM on the wrist can provides just as much pleasure as a Rolex Sub or Tudor BB, these are different style of watches, the three of them worth having.


----------



## Plus9GMT (Nov 3, 2013)

I love my Steinhart collection, I have three divers and each stands its own.
I also think there should be enough diversification without comparison to enjoy each time piece for what it is.


----------



## fenian (Feb 22, 2013)

ghostryder said:


> I am a big fan of Steinhart, as I own the O1VM and recently picked up the O1V. I also own another popular high quality sub homage, the Squale 20 ATMOS. I am also lucky to own a Sub LV and a Tudor BB. So I can offer some insight on experience.
> 
> While I am no expert on manufacturing or engineering, it is obvious that the little details that Rolex pays attention to and the lower level of tolerances makes a difference. When I wear the Rolex Sub or the Tudor BB, I certainly notice the difference in how the bezel clicks, how the bracelet fits and feels on my wrist, the fit of the end links onto the case, the look of the steel used, the very crisp and detailed printing on the dials, etc. I am sure there are a number of other little things that I cannot articulate, but the overall feel is certainly different and represents the quality and effort that goes into producing a Rolex.
> 
> ...


I agree with those two cents. I was the kind of person who never thought I would want to wear a Rolex, until I learned more about the brand, dedication to quality, history, etc. I recently listened to the Hourtime Podcast #149 with Ariel Adams and Jake (from Jake's Rolex Watch Blog)&#8230;Wow&#8230;I learned a lot and didn't realize how much work and effort, including a ton of hand finishing that goes into each Rolex. The are but aren't mass-produced--in numbers, yes&#8230;in finishing, not quite. I highly recommend listening to the podcast.

Some examples, beside in-house movements: Rolex makes their own recipe of golds for their watches. Gold cases are not gold-plated, but solid. They make their own metal alloy that is used for the balance springs for optimal performance. The steel cases are made out of the highest quality steel (904L) in the watch industry (most use 316L) that makes it the most scratch resistant and long wearing. All movements are sent out for COSC certification, and are tested multiple times after coming back from COSC, and some would say the tests run by Rolex are more stringent than COSC. Dealer networks are everywhere (unlike many other brands).

A while back I was curious about what a Rolex would've cost in the mid-fifties. After some research using currency inflation calculators, with adjustments I estimate that a new Rolex would have cost my grandfather about $600-800 of 2014 dollars, new, for a Sub. By the early 1960s, no doubt because of popularity (thanks to 007) the new cost of a Sub went up to roughly $1,200-1,400 in 2014 dollars. Would I have payed those amounts for a high quality Sub back then, regardless of the brand name? Yes&#8230;because I just bought a O1V Steinhart!

But I feel that's the whole point with Steinhart watches. They make available an extensive line of some extremely unique, vintage-inspired pieces that you can't find in other brands.

My absolute, ultimate grail watch would be the Rolex 60th Anniversary Sub. The HS01 was limited to 60 pieces, and went for 15,000 GBP, and many of us don't have the kind of $$. Or I would love to have a mint, original Rolex 6200 or 5517 Milsub, but instead I can afford a Steinhart OV1 and/or a OVM&#8230;.As soon as I saw the O1V I knew I had to have it, and instantly recognized it to be a 6200 homage. The 6200 represents my favorite 2 watch designs in one: Submariner case with an Explorer 1 dial.


----------



## Riker (Mar 31, 2007)

Spot on.....!



Plus9GMT said:


> I love my Steinhart collection, I have three divers and each stands its own.
> *I also think there should be enough diversification without comparison to enjoy each time piece for what it is.*


----------



## vokotin (Jun 2, 2011)

Thanks for the side by side pic mate, great trifecta there and no doubt.. for the price the OVM really stands out! b-)
Enjoy. :-!



Plus9GMT said:


> I love my Steinhart collection, I have three divers and each stands its own.
> 
> View attachment 1382593


----------



## Plus9GMT (Nov 3, 2013)

vokotin said:


> Thanks for the side by side pic mate, great trifecta there and no doubt.. *for the price the OVM really stands out!* b-)
> Enjoy. :-!


Cheers! 
The OVM sure does.


----------



## supawabb (Aug 27, 2007)

Plus9GMT said:


> I love my Steinhart collection, I have three divers and each stands its own.
> I also think there should be enough diversification without comparison to enjoy each time piece for what it is.
> 
> View attachment 1382593


Agreed, very well said.


----------



## alexbttr (Jan 28, 2014)

My 2 cents 

I have not neither a Rolex nor a Tudor nor a Steinhart but, I think objectively, it's not so correct to compare objects with a so different cost.


I think that a good part of the cost of a Rolex (or Tudor, on the other hand) is due to marketing, history (and with the related innovations in the horological field) and so on...but a part of this cost I'm almost sure is due to production processes having very high performance (in terms of quality, first of all) ... 

So, the question is obvious at this point : "How can I compare two brands, the first of the which produce the same goods of the second one but sell them at a cost that is one tenth ?"


Maybe the correct question could be : 

"Starting from the difference of prices, what part of this difference is due to the quality ?"
(in other terms: "How much in percentage the quality of a Steinhart is if compared with the quality of a Rolex ? One tenth, like the cost ? Or ...")

Differently the answer is very simple...and obvious! Imho!

Bye


----------



## Matt68uk (Nov 13, 2012)

Uwe W. said:


> Exactly. This is one of the most frequently repeated and well-beaten subjects in the Steinhart sub-forum. Didn't one of these threads just finishing running a couple of weeks ago? And since they typically become problematic and rarely end well, I'm going to remind everyone in advance to keep their comments civil.


sorry no disrespect intended, but this has always been a bug bare of mine, you say this has been repeated, well i bet most of the threads on forums these days have, and don't try and fix what is not broke, it's almost like was you was hoping for it to become un-civil and problematic so you can use your mighty moderator powers! 

remember... Threads keep forums alive!


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

Matt68uk said:


> sorry no disrespect intended, but this has always been a bug bare of mine, you say this has been repeated, well i bet most of the threads on forums these days have, and don't try and fix what is not broke, it's almost like was you was hoping for it to become un-civil and problematic so you can use your mighty moderator powers!


I'm not following your logic at all, which implies that when I remind everyone to remain respectful that I actually want the opposite to happen. Huh? Obviously, since you don't have any respect for my years of experience here or the fact I know which threads in Steinhart tend to boil over, I'd suggest you spend a little time familiarising yourself with the history of this sub-forum and the previous threads on this subject. I'll also remind you that discussion of moderation is not allowed on WUS, so in the future if you have any "bug bares" I'd suggest you send them to me in a PM.


----------



## JeffW2 (Jul 30, 2013)

Riker said:


> .....
> 
> Where all this sits in relation to the OVM doesn't really matter. Similar looks, different watches. Many (not all) owners of a Rolex won't bother with a Steinhart & many owners (not all) of Steinhart that could buy a Rolex won't spend the extra money on a very well marketed brand just because that brand is Rolex.


There are other reasons not to buy the Rolex. Rolex is a well made in-house watch and much more watch then Steinhart, but I have never seen a Rolex that interested me. Cyclops - no thanks. 40mm - no thanks. Yellow gold - no thanks. I am not a big fan of bracelets either.

I only buy watches I like! The Rolex is not a money issue.

So I would buy a Steinhart 42mm before a Rolex sub, but I am concerned it would be a little too small also.

Jeff


----------



## Riker (Mar 31, 2007)

Yep, fair enough...... I am kind of in the same boat with Rolex, I never took to the design or the mass production v's exclusivity paradox however, I do like Blancpains FF & subsequently I really like the O1V.... I like it enough that ill just have to get one when things settle down at Steinhart HQ..



JeffW2 said:


> There are other reasons not to buy the Rolex. Rolex is a well made in-house watch and much more watch then Steinhart, but I have never seen a Rolex that interested me. Cyclops - no thanks. 40mm - no thanks. Yellow gold - no thanks. I am not a big fan of bracelets either.
> 
> I only buy watches I like! The Rolex is not a money issue.
> 
> ...


----------



## mrchan (Nov 3, 2013)

Plus9GMT said:


> I love my Steinhart collection, I have three divers and each stands its own.
> I also think there should be enough diversification without comparison to enjoy each time piece for what it is.


Well said, I am in agreement. I shall get the Rolex sub ceramic 116610 and ALSO get the steinhart OVM. The Tudor is however, not to my tastes. Thanks for the lovely pic of it side-by-side though 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MrDagon007 (Sep 24, 2012)

The Tudors, I am pretty sure, use the top grade ETA movement. I examined the Pelagos and the Black Bay. The Pelagos is certainly not cheap but in my opinion it still offers some relation between quality and price, which I have dififculty with looking at Rolex prices. Sure, the Rolex movement should be extremely reliable, probably better than ETA top grade in that respect, but still...
Coming back to the Pelagos, it is probably not worth the multiple of the Steinhart, but it must be said that:
- it has a very nicely finished titanium case
- the bracelet and clasp are truly awesome, it really feels high end and very well engineered, there is no comparison to the Steinhart bracelet
- the ceramic bezel with inlaid lume is nice, in general the lume is pretty good as well
- and as I mentioned the top grade ETA movement. It is also said to be very well adjusted.
Yes, it is one of those watches (together with certain Omegas) that sometimes tempt me to sell most of my current collection and reduce to 2 or 3 watches with one top level watch as the daily wearer.


----------



## wilcoxen.4 (Jan 25, 2014)

Just had a gentleman say to me "is that the new one" looked at him quizzically, new what? He said Rolex. I explained steinhart to him and he loved the watch! Pretty cool experience!

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ipromise (Jan 14, 2013)

MrDagon007 said:


> The Tudors, I am pretty sure, use the top grade ETA movement. I examined the Pelagos and the Black Bay. The Pelagos is certainly not cheap but in my opinion it still offers some relation between quality and price, which I have dififculty with looking at Rolex prices. Sure, the Rolex movement should be extremely reliable, probably better than ETA top grade in that respect, but still...
> Coming back to the Pelagos, it is probably not worth the multiple of the Steinhart, but it must be said that:
> - it has a very nicely finished titanium case
> - the bracelet and clasp are truly awesome, it really feels high end and very well engineered, there is no comparison to the Steinhart bracelet
> ...


Don't forget to mention the ever cool snowflake hands and square markers. If the Black Bay went with the square markers too, I can't see how I'd resist...


----------



## mesaboogie18 (Jul 18, 2013)

I handled a brand new SubC Date and Hulk green SubC recently. To be completely honest, I was neither floored, nor blown away by the Submariners. They did not feel more expensive than my OVM or OVR. In fact, my Steiny's are heavier than the Sub. The lack of AR coating on the Submariner makes the Rolex less attractive than the Ocean Ones IMHO. Too much glare. The bracelet on the Sub is much nicer, but I won't be dishing out $7-$8k for a Rollie anytime soon. The new blue/black GMT Master II however, is pretty sweet.


----------



## Delta Watch USA (Jul 22, 2020)

Vinguru said:


> True the price difference is big but there are also big differences in quality. Don't get me wrong, steinharts are nice watches but Rolex is just not in the same league.


Yes, you really need to hold both in hand, side by side to see the details and feel the quality.


----------



## ssmith3046 (Jun 21, 2015)

I had a Rolex cosmograph and sold it when I got a divorce years ago, mutual consent on the divorce with my now ex and I. It was an older watch and had increased in value over the years. I'll just say it paid for everything and cleared what debt we had off the table. It served its purpose. I doubt if I'll ever own another Rolex and I'm ok with that. I'm more than happy with Steinhart watches now days.


----------



## Delta Watch USA (Jul 22, 2020)

Wow, sorry on both accounts.


----------



## ssmith3046 (Jun 21, 2015)

Delta Watch USA said:


> Wow, sorry on both accounts.


Thanks but it's OK. That's been almost 30 years ago and life has been great. I recently added a Steinhart Ocean Vintage GMT to my collection and love it. No, Steinhart watches aren't Rolex watches but you get a lot of bang for your buck with Steinhart. Haven't taken it off since it was delivered!


----------



## Delta Watch USA (Jul 22, 2020)

Well, I think this is why homages exist, consumers get the look they want but not with the high price. That said, as I have studied watch brands, most tend to borrow from each other, since style themes are common & influenced by culture & fashion. Enjoy this great hobby.


----------



## ssmith3046 (Jun 21, 2015)

Delta Watch USA said:


> Well, I think this is why homages exist, consumers get the look they want but not with the high price. That said, as I have studied watch brands, most tend to borrow from each other, since style themes are common & influenced by culture & fashion. Enjoy this great hobby.


I agree. There are plenty of affordable watches available, like Seiko for instance, where $200 or less will get you a good watch.


----------



## davidinjackson (May 10, 2020)

Any idea how long the Gnomon OVM 39 (exclusive) has been out of stock? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gball (Jul 11, 2018)

I have an OVM, and I find it is a great value for the money, and a really excellent choice for a stylish, well-built, comfortable watch with a reliable and accurate (and easy to service) movement. The level of finishing and overall buildis excellent, but again, _for the money_. Compared to my Rolex, Tudor, Omega (which I recently sold), Stowa or even my Longines and Hamilton it becomes very apparent very quickly where the cost savings were realized. That doesn't lessen the enjoyment I get from wearing the watch one bit, not at all, but its in the details that these things, which at the end of the day are pieces of functional jewelry, differentiate themselves.


----------



## davek35 (Jun 12, 2017)

davidinjackson said:


> Any idea how long the Gnomon OVM 39 (exclusive) has been out of stock?


Available this morning!


----------



## davidinjackson (May 10, 2020)

davek35 said:


> Available this morning!


Guess it's time for me to put up or shut up.


----------



## davidinjackson (May 10, 2020)

Just to be clear: The 39 OVM is made by Steinhart and sold exclusively by Gnomon, not made by Gnomon under a licensing agreement with Steinhart, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## davek35 (Jun 12, 2017)

davidinjackson said:


> Just to be clear: The 39 OVM is made by Steinhart and sold exclusively by Gnomon, not made by Gnomon under a licensing agreement with Steinhart, right?


Correct. I recently sold the Explorer style and still have the Vintage Red 39. Nice watches for the money!


----------



## Rolexoman (Jun 7, 2020)

I like the looks of there watches and as the OP said it’s a lot for the money


----------



## Diver Dan (Sep 11, 2013)

Agree with most of the posts. I could be tempted by a Tudor BB58 if a few grand came my way but really couldn’t see myself ever buying a Rolex. I appreciate their quality and history but I’m also aware of how much money they plough into events like yacht and horse racing etc. that’s never going to be my scene. It’s the old adage of life imitating art and vice-versa. I love my OVM because it’s a tool, not a jewel. I’ve probably got a lot more in common with the crewmen below the waves that the original Milsub was intended for than the yachties on the surface.


----------



## outlaw468 (Jan 10, 2011)

I think I big part is the movement.


----------



## djgallo (Feb 20, 2006)

I really like Steinhart, and own both Steinhart and Rolex divers. Rolex is in a different league, and if you hold one of each and compare them....enough said. I will reiterate what others have said, you do “get a lot for your money” with Steinhart!


----------



## Eugene Hot (Jun 30, 2020)

If you need to know the time - you can buy Casio for $ 5-10, if you want to enjoy wearing high-quality accurate mechanical watches - you will be satisfied with Steinhart timepiece, if you want to emphasize the status - buy a Rolex. But Rolex maintenance will cost you 2-3 Steinharts within 5 years.


----------



## Sixracer (Sep 6, 2013)

I don’t own a Rolex but my Omega and my Breitling are in a different league vs my Steinharts. The lume on the Omega (not just the brightness it the differences in color between the various hands/indicators), and the finish/polish/variation on the Breitling come to mind. A lot of the details you might not even notice until you live with the watch. 

IMO Rolex is in another league vs Omega and Breitling. Rolex has so much money, the R&D that went into your Sub far exceeds its sale price. The steel is from their own foundry! By that rationale they are underpriced for what they are.

I’ll add, I always wondered what was so special about an AP Royal Oak. Then I studied one for 5-10 mins in person. The details started to become apparent. The precision of the alignment and fit, the number of independent polishing and brushing steps to create the finish.


----------



## SlCKB0Y (Feb 6, 2013)

This thread: "Why does an Enzo cost so much when I got this? I don't understands!"


----------



## davidinjackson (May 10, 2020)

This is my two watch diver collection: Steinhart OVM 39 on a bracelet and Casio Duro ($45 from Amazon) on a NATO (same colors as pictured in your photo). Perfect pair.



Eugene Hot said:


> If you need to know the time - you can buy Casio for $ 5-10, if you want to enjoy wearing high-quality accurate mechanical watches - you will be satisfied with Steinhart timepiece, if you want to emphasize the status - buy a Rolex. But Rolex maintenance will cost you 2-3 Steinharts within 5 years.
> 
> View attachment 15507081
> View attachment 15507082
> View attachment 15507083


----------

