# JLC quality compared to Rolex



## ndrs63

This is a question to those of you who had both brands. Just curious whether there is a quality difference in terms of details, polish, etc. I am considering either a Reverso or a sector dial master Chrono as my next purchase.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jooxbox

I've handled more JLC than Rolex, but have had both. 

It really depends on the watch, but in general, JLC's are dressier and Rolex is the epitome, by and large, of a tool watch. Tool watches inherently feel more reliable and solid, but usually less polished.

Rolex also makes pretty much the same models year over year while JLC often puts out limited editions, new types it later retires, etc.

As such, you might find a slight edge given to Rolex for durability and overall construction design just because they have perfected what they are doing after so many years. However, I have seen some beautiful polishing and details on my JLC's because that is how they are designed - look at the MUT moon or Deep Sea Chrono, for example. JLC knows how to make a beautiful, detailed watch.

I doubt you would be disappointed with JLC quality in the details and polishing aspect, as you long as you realize it's a different, less sporty watch.


----------



## firefly0071

I would say that Rolex is better on bracelets having a small number of models and perfected for their needs.

JLC is better at the movement and dial design.


----------



## Watchbreath

Did Rolex finally do something about those crappy claps and hollow bracelets?


firefly0071 said:


> I would say that Rolex is better on bracelets having a small number of models and perfected for their needs.
> 
> JLC is better at the movement and dial design.


----------



## oztech

I have never owned a JLC but I sure want to after trying on a MUT small second as for Rolex my Explorer will be my keeper for a black dialed sport watch that can do it all for attire.


----------



## ndrs63

Watchbreath said:


> Did Rolex finally do something about those crappy claps and hollow bracelets?


must have been very long time ago, as recent bracelets reached perfections, in my opinion.


----------



## Watchbreath

About 15 years or so, is that a "very long time ago"?


ndrs63 said:


> must have been very long time ago, as recent bracelets reached perfections, in my opinion.


----------



## ndrs63

Watchbreath said:


> About 15 years or so, is that a "very long time ago"?


Apparently so. I have yet to find a brand that makes better bracelets nowadays

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gunnar_917

Own watches from both and hands down I prefer Rolex

The Reverso you can't get a decent equivalent of in Rolex however for something more casual (like the sector dial) I'd be getting a Rolex SS watch.


----------



## American Jedi

I own a few of both, and JLC for the most part wins hands down as far as the level of craftsmanship that goes into there timepieces.


----------



## michael8238

If you are talking about something like the Duometre line, JLC def beats Rolex---in fact the finish is prob as high as a 'mass produced' piece can get.
However for more entry level models, I think Rolex has the edge over JLC.
To me Reverso is prob the higher quality entry level JLC.
Also, some can even argue that there are things modern Rolex does better than not just JLC, but a lot of higher end brands---their metal machining of indices, bracelets, and bezels are quite impressive.


----------



## ndrs63

American Jedi said:


> I own a few of both, and JLC for the most part wins hands down as far as the level of craftsmanship that goes into there timepieces.


See, that's exactly the part I'm not getting. Perhaps the pics make no justice, and JLC must have it's own reasons, but painted indices look cheaper than applied ones. Perhaps you can explain your conclusion.... Thanks !!


----------



## ndrs63

michael8238 said:


> If you are talking about something like the Duometre line, JLC def beats Rolex---in fact the finish is prob as high as a 'mass produced' piece can get.
> However for more entry level models, I think Rolex has the edge over JLC.
> To me Reverso is prob the higher quality entry level JLC.
> Also, some can even argue that there are things modern Rolex does better than not just JLC, but a lot of higher end brands---their metal machining of indices, bracelets, and bezels are quite impressive.


So does Reverso come close to Rolex? I do love Reverso and intend to check it out at my next AD visit

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## michael8238

ndrs63 said:


> So does Reverso come close to Rolex? I do love Reverso and intend to check it out at my next AD visit
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They are still very very different watches...I guess I was just trying to say, the Reverso has a better perceivable quality than some of the other entry level JLCs.


----------



## briang583

The answer is in the question my friend............how does bla bla bla bla bla compare to *trumpets....*flag wavers.....*drum roll....*narration from the voice of Mark Strong.........ROLEX!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## American Jedi

ndrs63 said:


> See, that's exactly the part I'm not getting. Perhaps the pics make no justice, and JLC must have it's own reasons, but painted indices look cheaper than applied ones. Perhaps you can explain your conclusion.... Thanks !!


Agreed. The applied markers of the Rolex present as higher quality, and of course my opinion is subjective at best; however, in the metal it is hard for me to favor the Rolex for its craftsmanship over JLC. The latter just seems to have more facets that invite the owner to look a little closer.

I love my Rolex watches, but for different reasons. For me the JLCs just seem more thought out in overall execution. Like how the Master compressior date wheels match, and complement dial components. sometimes just better symmetry and design.

One example could be the deep sea chronograph vs the Daytona. The Daytona is gorgeous but it's dial is hardly symmetrical, screw down pushers do not make sense, and it is barely legible at a glance.

The JLC is very legible, symmetrical, boasts user accessible pump pushers while retaining ISO dive rated water resistance. Plus they even add a chrono activation indicator while they're at it. Maybe for some extra fun, or just for more character.

For me it's like an AP. I never appreciated it's craftsmanship either until I had one in hand . Pictures just do not do it justice.
All in all I believe the quality of each is very high; however I believe JLC has quality as well as a bit more character.

















For the sake of fairness it seems more logical to compare sports watches if we are talking Rolex, but JLC really shines in its high complication pieces. They are not known as the watchmakers watchmaker for nothing. There movements power all three of the holy Trinity brands, and more. Some even argue that a JLC is one of the best bargains out there. Boasting Patek quality for Rolex coin.


----------



## jooxbox

ndrs63 said:


> See, that's exactly the part I'm not getting. Perhaps the pics make no justice, and JLC must have it's own reasons, but painted indices look cheaper than applied ones. Perhaps you can explain your conclusion.... Thanks !!


Well, JLC has plenty of applied indices models. The Deep Sea Chronograph shown here (one of my favorites) is a modern interpretation of a vintage style diver. The first divers pretty much all had painted or printed markers, as far as I am aware.

The Deep Sea is unusually beautiful, as the markers seem to be hand painted on with lume. It's not printed, our at least, doesn't look to be.


----------



## SuperOrbital

Watchbreath said:


> About 15 years or so, is that a "very long time ago"?
> 
> 
> ndrs63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> must have been very long time ago, as recent bracelets reached perfections, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

They made those deep into the 2000s, probably closer to 10 than 15 years.


----------



## chronomaestro

There can be no fair comparison between JLC and Rolex. Both are reputable companies with real history behind the brand name. If you want a JLC, buy a JLC. If you want a Rolex, buy a Rolex. Don't buy one just because you believe the quality is better than the other. This is a pointless debate as you will never have the real answer. Can you say an apple is a better fruit than an orange? Or vice versa?

If you can afford both then buy a Rolex sport watch and a JLC dress watch (or the other way around). You will not go wrong with either brand.


----------



## W12grady

I have a number of both. Like the other reader stated, JLC makes unique variations. The quality is the the same but the Jaeger wins hands down on style. I like especially the ultra thin Reversos. I just purchased the new Burgandy dial and it is beautiful.


----------



## SCSailor

I have both. I have a Rolex submariner and a Datejust. A Rolex is a more robust watch. That’s what it is intended to be, of course. Neither of mine are dress watches, though both can certainly be worn with anything. I wanted a proper dress watch so I bought a JLC. I have a master ultra thin date. The JLC is a more delicate feeling watch. It’s lighter and the rotor is a little noisy. I’ve never heard the rotor spin in a Rolex. The JLC is a gorgeous watch and the attention to detail in the movement is very impressive. I love the 22c rotor, blued screws, etc. It’s an under the radar watch, something I also like about it. Generally speaking, only people who really know watches will recognize a JLC on your wrist. I think that’s pretty cool too. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Porsche993

SCSailor said:


> Generally speaking, only people who really know watches will recognize a JLC on your wrist. I think that's pretty cool too.


Thats why I like my Geophysic True Second. To the uninformed it works like a quartz. Only you and the cognoscenti would get the significance and horological complexity.


----------



## Bulgoki

ndrs63 said:


> See, that's exactly the part I'm not getting. Perhaps the pics make no justice, and JLC must have it's own reasons, but painted indices look cheaper than applied ones. Perhaps you can explain your conclusion.... Thanks !!


Agreed 100%. All I could think was that the pictures prove the opposite. Would much prefer the Subs based on fit and finish, even if I'm not a huge fan of Subs.


----------



## Bulgoki

I own a Datejust, an Oyster Perpetual, and two Reversos. My wife owns a DJ and OP. They are all wonderful watches. As far as style, I think it's absurd to say one is better than the other because that is purely subjective. I am captivated by the Art Deco design of the Reverso, but I am equally captivated by the way Rolex perfected the subtle flow among the case, bezel and bracelet in the DDs, DJs and OPs, and I really love their more recent dial designs too.

As far as consistency in QA/QC, Rolex is hands down the winner in my personal experience and based on research I've done. Every Rolex I have owned, and just about all I've even heard about, were flawless in operation, with the only exception being a DJ my wife used to own that needed to be calibrated (after which is was flawless). Both of my Reversos lose about 8 seconds per day, with one having been calibrated already, and my wife had to return hers because it was never adjustable to anywhere near 8 seconds per day. I'm OK with 8 seconds per day, actually, because . . . I don't know, I just am. Maybe I'll try having them calibrated further, but I just love, love, love those Reversos. But there's something amazing about the DJs and OPs deviating only about one second per day and averaging only a few seconds off at the end of a month, and continuing to do so for years on end of frequent wearing. And, while some JLC owners report similar accuracy, many, many do not, and it's easy to find their posts.

As far as quality of fit and finish, I'd say they are equals, with two caveats: (1) there is no doubt certain JLCs are more exotic when it comes to complications than Rolex, so there it's apples and oranges, and (2) until about 15 years ago, Rolex fit and finish was not as good as it is today. My 1996 DJ, which I bought new and has been fabulously reliable ever since, is not the equal in fit and finish to my recently purchased OP (although primarily limited to the bracelet).

I think of Rolex as plug and play, and JLC as more of a high maintenance tweaker watch, at least initially out of the box.


----------



## SethThomas

JLC is a master of high horology movements and finishing. They regularly build Tourbillons and Minute repeaters as a staple to their yearly releases at very (comparably) reasonable prices.There is no equivalent in Rolex's lineup except for a very few one offs that are not really for sale. JLC's linup includes the amazingly small tourbillon and minute repeater in their Reversos, as well as their top notch Duometre finishing.


----------



## nicholasnick

American Jedi said:


> I own a few of both, and JLC for the most part wins hands down as far as the level of craftsmanship that goes into there timepieces.


Love this collection! well done


----------



## SCSailor

Rolex, to me, is a bit like Apple. It makes a beautiful product that just works. You don’t have to think about it or do any maintenance for years, sometimes many years. A Rolex is a safe choice. A JLC is a little more exotic. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## American Jedi

American Jedi said:


> I own a few of both, and JLC for the most part wins hands down as far as the level of craftsmanship that goes into there timepieces.


Thanks. I would have to say the JLCs are my favorite over the my Rolex Watches.


----------



## Nicocamp353

Rolex sport are very limited now. Nice alternative

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## kasemo

My new one......









Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


----------



## bsh_watch

It depends on what type of "quality" you want. Rolex is superlative in terms of their case building, robust movements and classic tool watch styling. In this more rugged sense, Rolex is hard to beat. However, many people know this and so SS models have been through the roof recently. JLC, on the other hand, offers better movement finishing, more model variations and IMHO the best deal in watches today. You can go used an get a really good deal on a Master Control, Reverso, or vintage Memovox. 

I picked up the Master Control Date two years ago and also have an Explorer I. Both are quality watches but just serve very different purposes. So if you define quality as the ability to keep moving through adverse conditions, then Rolex. If you define it as delicate excellence, then JLC. I've never once thought about harming my Explorer I when I wear it (golfing, hiking, skiing, etc.), however I am more careful when wearing the JLC. Compared to the Rolex, it's certainly more fragile.


----------



## firefly0071

I don't see Rolex as a tool watch on the construction sites that I inspect. Not much of a tool watch.


----------



## thoughtnewbie

SCSailor said:


> Rolex, to me, is a bit like Apple. It makes a beautiful product that just works. You don't have to think about it or do any maintenance for years, sometimes many years. A Rolex is a safe choice. A JLC is a little more exotic.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


now that I think about it this is a great analogy...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rw93

In my experience
Rolex service > jlc 
Rolex precision > jlc


----------



## BDsnowcastle

I personally own both brands. I have only one JLC which is a Navy Seal GMT chronograph GMT. I think someone at JLC stayed up late nights trying to figure out how to add more useless features to their watch and make the entire face overly busy. Seriously, a day and night indicator. Then no sweep second hand and instead a white and contrast line window going round and round. I love the watch and I hide the GMT feature under the hour hand so it doesn't distract. The rubber articulated bracelet is maybe the most comfortable I've worn but the clasp is a poor design. The clasp does allow the easiest way to adjust length I've ever seen and I like that feature. Rolex however is the best of the two watches in my opinion. I've had a GMT I wore for a daily watch as a LEO for over 25 years, and my brother wore it for several years in Vietnam before he traded it to me. I've also had a submariner w/o date and a submariner date version and now own a couple of Seadwellers to boot. They are superb and keep perfect time. The thing that worries me the most about my JLC is all the horror stories that keep coming out of the Richmont Service Center in Dallas. While I have considered purchase or trade into another JLC NSM Alarm version, those horror stories and the problems I keep reading about may drive me away. Richmont doesn't seem to care enough to solve the problems with the service center.


----------



## phsiao08

rw93 said:


> In my experience
> Rolex service > jlc
> Rolex precision > jlc


savage


----------



## Alexanderchu

I have a TT1931 Reverso and a Rolex Explorer 1 and the Explorer sees WAY more wrist time than the JLC (so much so that I occasionally think about selling it). As an everyday piece Rolex wins by a mile - a steel sports watch in 2019 is appropriate for 95% of occasions that one might reasonably find themselves in. Added to that, the Rolex is more robust (my Reverso was running out of spec for a long while until I put it in for a full service a few months ago), a more durable (the Reverso is an absolute scratch magnet, while the Rolex looks decent with a few scratches on it), and the Rolex is also a more versatile watch (as much as people like to think the Reverso is/was a sports watch, it's hardly the case anymore).

So unfortunately, with the benefit of hindsight, I probably have a little buyer's regret on the Reverso, while I have none with my Rolex and will remain a cornerstone of my small collection.


----------



## Porsche993

rw93 said:


> In my experience
> Rolex service > jlc
> Rolex precision > jlc


Not in my experience.


----------



## jaycwb

In terms of craftmanship and finishing, JLC is far more superior to Rolex.


----------



## sleeperj74

Talking to a long-time watchmaker who said that Rolex makes better cases than most. Then he said, JLC makes better movements than anyone.


----------



## Magic-Matt

ndrs63 said:


> must have been very long time ago, as recent bracelets reached perfections, in my opinion.


I agree the modern bracelets are a long shot from the original hollow links and stamped clasps... however, there are more sophisticated and innovative systems out there in my opinion... one that impressed me and always stuck in my mind was on my Glashutte Original Sports Evolution, you didnt even need to take the watch off to micro adjust the bracelet, just press a button on the clasp (the logo) and hey presto!


----------



## ndrs63

Magic-Matt said:


> I agree the modern bracelets are a long shot from the original hollow links and stamped clasps... however, there are more sophisticated and innovative systems out there in my opinion... one that impressed me and always stuck in my mind was on my Glashutte Original Sports Evolution, you didnt even need to take the watch off to micro adjust the bracelet, just press a button on the clasp (the logo) and hey presto!


I know, the GO bracelet is amazing. It's the aesthetics that I'm not warmed up to. That watch is incredible. Quality is at par with Rolex. Too bad they stopped making them

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Perseus

firefly0071 said:


> I don't see Rolex as a tool watch on the construction sites that I inspect. Not much of a tool watch.


While I don't question the durability of a Rolex, I don't consider them tool watches after they started using white gold for indices and hands.


----------



## Zama

Gold is used in tools and industrial equipment all the time.

The question you should be asking is WHY is rolex using gold here?

Is it to be flashy? I would say no - it's a white metal, consumers wouldn't visually spot the difference.

Rolex used gold here as, since it's nonreactive, it will help prevent aging of the dial.

I think that's not necessarily out of line with "tool".


----------



## spidaman

Unfortunately, I always go down Pirsig's rabbit hole of Metaphysics of Quality, so I have trouble with these questions.

I fall back to: I know what I like and I like more than one watch. In terms of quality of design beyond tool watch aesthetics, JLC hands down. In terms of robustness, would have to go with Rolex. I could see owning both and being happy with both.

Cheers!


----------



## firefly0071

I have 3 JLC watches and 1 Rolex. 

I liked them all but I prefer the JLC dial attention. 

My Rolex Oyster Perpetual has 18k indices etc. The Oyster Perpetual has been around for a very long time and the design and construction has very fine-tuned. It's a great watch.

I look at the variety of JLC watches that JLC offers now and in the past and can see JLC reinventing watch lines more regularly. For that and dial quality, I would be more of a JLC collector than a Rolex one.


----------



## Navman007

Zama said:


> Gold is used in tools and industrial equipment all the time.
> 
> The question you should be asking is WHY is rolex using gold here?
> 
> Is it to be flashy? I would say no - it's a white metal, consumers wouldn't visually spot the difference.
> 
> Rolex used gold here as, since it's nonreactive, it will help prevent aging of the dial.
> 
> I think that's not necessarily out of line with "tool".


Exactly!


----------



## zephyrus17

I think with JLC now offering 8 years warranty on their watches, they have a bit more confidence in their own workmanship than Rolex.


----------



## J.P.JONES

zephyrus17 said:


> I think with JLC now offering 8 years warranty on their watches, they have a bit more confidence in their own workmanship than Rolex.


Is the 8-year warranty transferable to the next owner?


----------



## Porsche993

J.P.JONES said:


> Is the 8-year warranty transferable to the next owner?


I've not read its non-transferable. Warranties usually follow the watch.


----------



## Impeccable Watches

The JLC Master Control Date in Sector dial was my first watch, and it to this day still feels superbly crafted in hand. 
This is after handling numerous high end watches.

But like someone said earlier in this thread, its definitely dressier so the ones you're after won't have that 'tool watch' feel.


----------



## Navman007

Comparing Rolex with JLC is really not a fair comparison. If you have a particular model in mind that is a different case. For example, you can compare the new generation Polaris with the new generation Submariner.
I am sure neither JLC is trying to be Rolex nor Rolex is trying to be JLC. Especially Rolex has always been very original and conservative with their offerings. They know what their speciality is and they stick to it.
I own both Rolex and JLC and like them both. If I had to let one go maybe I will let go the JLC simply because sports models of Rolex hold their value well and they are outstandingly robust.
If I had to buy a tool watch then without any hesitation I would buy a Rolex. I use my tool watches as tool watches. Whether I am swimming, gardening, camping I dont take it off. But I am not that confident about JLC tool watches. I dont understand how Polaris is a dive watch but none of the crowns are screw down. Maybe the crown doesn't even have to be screwed down, but I just dont feel comfortable. Read this page:
https://www.watchuseek.com/f419/polaris-just-4758201-5.html
Its beyond my understanding how the initial design had flaws and they had to recall watches of the first batch. They claim they do so many testing and all; definitely not true. Another thing I dont like about JLC is how Richemont group has one service centre (in Canada) where all their watch brands (with some exceptions) are serviced. You will find many many horror stories of JLC servicing. 
Having said all these JLC is a historically important brand and I wish them all the best. I really really welcome their new 8 year warranty. And finally, I get immense pleasure wearing my MUT Moon.


----------



## zephyrus17

Sure, with a screw down crown, you are 100 % sure that it's closed. But with model seals, the screw down feature is more of a peace-of-mind thing than anything else. I have gone swimming in my Polaris and it's been totally fine.

With regards to the recalls, I am in the automotive industry, so recalls are common. There are many reasons that could leak to recalls, not all of them are immediate issues. Some are as a precaution, others might be because a certain batch of parts from a supplier turn out to be bad. Again, there are so many possibilities.


----------



## nicholasnick

I love both brands and they both have their own strengths. I adore my Rolexes and, as others have said, they are the epitome of tool watches. The have a heft combined with a precision that I love. That said, JLC are far more delicate and creative in some respects. I love some of their open back movements and smaller details. They are excellent dress pieces.


----------



## dak_la

I own a JLC Master Compressor GMT for >7 years and recently got an Explorer I 214270. The Exp 1 to me is a simple, no-frill, tool watch that I can just put it on without having to think about anything (what I'm wearing, where I'm going, what I'm doing, etc.). I have confident that it will be fine on my wrist regardless. On the hand, the Exp 1 feels like an extremely precised, well-engineered machine.

The JLC didn't give me that feeling (doesn't mean that it's not just as robust). What JLC has - more interesting dial construction and designs, more interesting movement, and more unique implementation of the GMT feature. The movement was designed new specifically for this watch (and the Hometime), and many design decisions seem to be consciously made to make this a robust movement (e.g., free spring variable inertia balance, ceramic ball bearing, consciously selecting uni-directional (as opposed to bi-directional) winding mechanism based data and studies on real-world usage showing that it's more efficient, and others). Information is based on: https://www.watchprosite.com/jaeger-lecoultre/in-search-of-the-perfect-movement-autotractor-first-used-in-home-time-and-dualmatic-/2.274138.1784863/ A quote on its shock resistant design from that website "In addition to Incabloc, both ends of the spiral are welded by laser to the stud and collet plus additional 2 ??catches?? which will prevent alteration to the setting as a result of a violent impact on the watch. Repeated shock tests demonstrated seemingly unable to damage or stop the watch."

Too bad all the photos are gone from that website now.

Based on my "real-world" usage, I would say its winding mechanism is at least just as good and likely better than another bi-directional movement I have. I have also worn it and banged it around enough to feel pretty confident about its robustness. I also like the way that the home (skeleton) hour hand can be hidden behind the main hour hand when not in use to keep the design clean. Surprisingly, the JLC is more legible than the Rolex in most instances.

So which has better quality? Depending on what qualities are you looking... I like the analogy that one of the posters above made -- Rolex feels like a somewhat dull but well made (very well made no less) tool, and JLC feels more exotic.

If I am forced to be down to one watch, it would doubtlessly be the Exp 1. But it's great to have variety


----------



## double

JLC's quality is just as good if not better than Rolex. Most JLC pieces have much more complicated movements so it's really tough to compare the two.


----------



## zephyrus17

@dak_la when I bought the Polaris I didn't have a clue about the mechanism in it. I, of course, knew a JLC mechanism won't be a poor one. But after reading around did I realize how technically advanced it was for that price point.


----------



## dak_la

zephyrus17 said:


> @dak_la when I bought the Polaris I didn't have a clue about the mechanism in it. I, of course, knew a JLC mechanism won't be a poor one. But after reading around did I realize how technically advanced it was for that price point.


Which Polaris do you have? As many have said before, JLC offers some really good value proposition, something that is close to the holy trinity with a small fraction of the price, especially with respect to the movement. Its perceived delicateness is really just a perception, in fact it might be even more robust than some of the proven workhorse movements out there. The only thing it lacks is some veterans showing a beat up watch telling stories about how it survives all the atrocities. But I have also seen many Seiko 5 that have survived similar fate.

On the other hand, I can also appreciate simple, proven workhorse movements such as the ETA 2892, Rolex 3135, etc. with the "it ain't broke, why fix it" mindset. So really, I appreciate different aspects of the watches when I look at JLC and Rolex, and I like them both.


----------



## zephyrus17

I have the Polaris Date Limited Edition. There's a watch for everyone, I don't understand why does everyone need to get all smug, personal, or attach someone's preferences with a judgment of character.


----------



## dak_la

zephyrus17 said:


> I have the Polaris Date Limited Edition. There's a watch for everyone, I don't understand why does everyone need to get all smug, personal, or attach someone's preferences with a judgment of character.


That's a gorgeous watch!


----------



## Whiteshields1830

I’ve owned both and I must say that the JLC is more a delicate watch vs Rolex. Depends on what you looking to get but I had the JLC ultra thin moon and a Rolex submariner - both different watches and built different but JLC always had more the elegance and dressier watch


----------



## WatchEater666

Rolex does one thing really well and that's about it. Simple tool watches which are pretty overpriced but get a pass due to their easy resale/value retention. If I was buying once and never reselling/trading then I would go JLC all day. I am in the process of selling some of my watches now for a DuoMetre...


----------



## MyNameIsVigil

Each has their strengths and weaknesses, but overall I think JLC beats Rolex. Their finishing is particularly strong. I have the sector dial date, and I'd highly recommend the chrono. The chrono is absolutely stunning, but a date is a must-have for me  The dial has incredible depth and detail, and the blue accents are a lot of fun.


----------



## InTheBoxWithPapers

Rolex has the more recognizable name
Jaeger lecoultre has the better product

Rolex is a great watch and many of their products are in the same ballpark as the master ultra thin models. 

But where Rolex and JLC separate is that they only reason a Rolex will ever go above $10k is due to precious metal or stones being added to the mix. JLC has watches go above six figures based on the quality of their movements. 

JLC can’t touch the Rolex name brand recognition, but Rolex can’t touch the quality of horological out out by JLC.


----------



## cmchong77

I ‘ve just sent my AMVOX1 back to JLC to stick back the 4 o’clock marker which has fallen off the dial (actually, on the rotatable inner bezel). This is not the first time - the 2 o’clock marker came off in 2017 which I reported in one of the quality threads below . In contrast, my Explorer 1 has been perfect so far 🙂 but the Rolex is a simple 3 handed watch. The AMVOX has an alarm, rotatable bezel and date . I tried to use my JLC as an everyday watch but .. disappointed 😞


----------

