# Grand Seiko vs. Rolex Diver



## UltraMagnetic (Jun 6, 2007)

Grand Seiko Spring-Drive ($6700) or a similar-costing Rolex Diver?


----------



## J.Bond (Jan 17, 2008)

Rolex Submariner/SD any day of the week, month and year.

~JB


----------



## mrbieler (Jun 30, 2006)

I just can't warm up to the hands on the Seiko.:-(


----------



## kripaws (Jun 30, 2008)

UltraMagnetic said:


> Grand Seiko Spring-Drive ($6700) or a similar-costing Rolex Diver?


Uh....$6700 for a Seiko???? Better be made out of gold or platinum and come with a Kawasaki for that kind of price! There's reasons why Rolex can command those dollars....Whats Seiko's reasons????:-s


----------



## aaappp (Dec 12, 2007)

everyone goes down on rolex like its the second comming of christ, its not, that being said doesnt mean that that seiko is worth 6700, neither watch is worth the 6700 for what they provide.


----------



## beebox (Jan 12, 2008)

i really like the seiko spring drive, but i won't pay 7k for one..

i would have to go with the rolex 1680 for that kind of cash,and maybe another seiko mm300.


----------



## TLex (Mar 28, 2007)

Ian, way to start war dude! :-d

* Rolex SD DeepSea: *
Movement: |> |> |>
Case: |> |> |>
Functions: |> 
Depth rating: |> |> |>
Aesthetic: |> |> |>
Innovation:|> |> |>
Cachet:|> |> |>
Exclusivity: |> |>
Price:|>

* Grand Seiko Diver:*
Movement: |> |> |>
Case:|> |> |> 
Functions: |> |>
Depth rating:|> 
Aesthetic: |> |> |>
Innovation: |> |>
Cachet: |> 
Exclusivity: |> |> |>
Price: |> |> |>

Other than the SD DeepSea, I'd take the Grand Seiko Diver over any other Rolex Diver based on case size and material. The power reserve display is nice too.


----------



## Fatpants (Sep 6, 2007)

Looks like someone needs to do some homework on Grand Seiko. Worth the asking price and then some...of course, I voted the GS - waaaaay more interesting, as accurate as a decent quartz watch, and with a pedigree that even Rolex would be jealous of. Built to last and so much more exclusive, it makes a Patek Philippe look common.


----------



## TLex (Mar 28, 2007)

Fatpants said:


> much more exclusive, it makes a Patek Philippe look common.


A very good point Alex, I just amended my post. :-!


----------



## Fatpants (Sep 6, 2007)

TLex said:


> A very good point Alex, I just amended my post. :-!


Hey Lex,

I wanted to add that the movement in the Seiko is a work of art (and genius) compared to the utlitarian "tractor" that sits under the hood of the Rolex.

Rolex 3135:










Seiko Spring drive (the bottom one is the same as that found in the GS Diver):


----------



## TLex (Mar 28, 2007)

Fatpants said:


>


Can't argue with those pics Alex. :-!


----------



## Fatpants (Sep 6, 2007)

Someone will tho' Lex, its inevitable. A "bad" word agaisnt Rolex is like a death mark on some of these watch forums:-d


----------



## TLex (Mar 28, 2007)

UltraMagnetic said:


> Grand Seiko Spring-Drive ($6700) or a similar-costing Rolex Diver?


Hey, you can't just start a thread like this and not give your opinion! Get stuck in mate! :-d You liking the Seiko, right? Not a slave to names or depth ratings. o| :-d Least you can do is come in and sit on the fence! :-d


----------



## Patstarrx (Apr 17, 2008)

Hands down for that kind of money I'll take the rollie.. 
Ian - I'm sure you can get both


----------



## Kent108 (Jan 17, 2007)

Better do your homework. I can understand either opinion, but this is a very valid comparison.

Rolex certainly has the general-population prestige factor advantage, and possibly the resale value advantage.

But the Seiko movement is more technologically advanced and unique (and more difficult to manufacture). (No other non-quartz dive watch has this level of accuracy, or the perfectly smooth-sweep second hand. Except one--the Seiko MM600, which is a bit too chunky/thick for my tastes.)

The Seiko dive watch heritage is every bit the equal of Rolex's.

For fit and finish/manufacturing quality, I haven't handled the Seiko, but I'd bet it's equal to, if not superior to, the Rolex.

The Seiko is also far more rare than the Rolex. This may or may not matter to you, but I can walk around Manhattan for an hour or two and see dozens of Rolexes. Doubt I'll ever see a Grand Seiko unless I'm at a gathering of watch nuts.

(obviously, I went with the Seiko. Nothing against Rolex, but the GS happens to be my No. 1 grail.)



kripaws said:


> Uh....$6700 for a Seiko???? Better be made out of gold or platinum and come with a Kawasaki for that kind of price! There's reasons why Rolex can command those dollars....Whats Seiko's reasons????:-s


----------



## vjb.knife (Feb 11, 2006)

I think this is a valid comparison and by no means one sided either way.

I own two Rolex Subs and the new GMT and I also own a Grand Seiko SBGE001 with the 9R66 Spring Drive Movement. I like all of them and they each have their strong points and weaknesses. 

One thing that I do not understand about this new Diver is that it uses a similar movement to the GS that I have but does not have the GMT function yet it costs more. The SBGE001 is also a 200 meter rated watch and also is roughly the same size. Not sure why that is but it does seem a little high in price when you compare one GS to another GS. 

Now in defense of the Rolex Sub; calling the Rolex 3135 movement a utilitarian tractor is OK as long as you also realize it is one of the toughest and most accurate utilitarian tractors out there and has a proven track record of dependability. I am hoping that the spring drive will hold up as well as it has over the years. Yeah, the spring drive is a lot more accurate like a few seconds a month compared to a few seconds a day but come on how much difference does that really mean in your day to day life. If you have to be on time to things within a few seconds every day I truly feel sorry for you.

To summarize my feelings they are both very nice watches which I would be happy to own. I do agree that the hands on the new GS Diver are not my favorite and as I mentioned above I think it should be a little lower in price but I sure would like to get my mitts on one. And I will also want to get hold of one of the new Rolex Submariners in Stainless Steel when they come out. So generally I do not think either one is far and away a better watch than the other. I want both someday.


----------



## Aqua Spearo (Oct 10, 2007)

The seiko has the superior movement, but its got horrible resell value, and its case is basically a homage of the rolex. There both grossly overpriced though Girard-Perregaux FTW!


----------



## wilfreb (Jul 10, 2007)

both are superb pieces, but i'll take the Rolex.


----------



## Bluesummers (Jan 21, 2007)

I picked Rolex.

Haven't liked this Seiko after hearing the price from the beginning. Don't care if it has the spring drive movement. Don't like the hands and it seems to be flattering Rolex in general... by imitating.


----------



## Dr. Robert (Jun 10, 2008)

Hello, Can I have both,please??? Both are excellent timepieces, but if I had to choose one, the Rolex.
regards, Dr. Robert


----------



## gaijin (Oct 29, 2007)

I picked the Grand Seiko - with reservations.

I have a hard time understanding why this GS 200M Spring Drive costs twice as much as my Seiko 600M Spring Drive with GMT function:










Sure, the finish on the movement in the GS may be better (when both are Spring Drives, is this necessarily so?); but bring the Water Resistance from 600M to 200M, lose the GMT function and charge twice as much?

Sounds like too high a premium for the panache of the GS brand :-s

BTW: my Rolexes are getting far less wrist time after enjoying the +4sec/month accuracy of the SD600M :-!


----------



## obie (Feb 9, 2006)

got a bigger pic of the seiko movement? now thats some watch ****.


----------



## samanator (Mar 8, 2008)

Vote for the Seiko. To match some of the better features like the ceramic bezel insert I believe you would need the deep sea version of the Rolex.


----------



## Dr. Robert (Jun 10, 2008)

Hi L., Titanium....my expensive Ti. aftermarket mountain bike bottom bracket froze to cranks and I had to trash it! I clean my mt. bike after every ride, and was disappointed, back to good old steel! Would that happen on watches? i.e. not being able to open case back etc.??? That said I do like my King Ti. water bottle cage, as it doesn't leave unsightly streaks on my plastic water bottles!!...and it looks cool!!!
regards, Dr. Robert


----------



## Gerry.GEG (Mar 5, 2006)

Unfortunately, The GS suffers from "Seiko-itess" what I mean is, when I talk to guys who spend vast sums of money on high-end watches, most have never heard of the GS line. This means to me mind you, that if I ever purchase a GS (which I probably will at some point - used), I better be happy with no one having any idea that this wasn't bought a the mall for $400. I know it's simplistic but very true. I have owned a few Japan only Citizens. I enjoy the hell out of them and accept that very few appreciate them but me. Most think that they are no different than the crap you find Citizen importing to the U.S. for the mall. 

Sorry, but my Sub commands respect and that's the way it is. Doesn't make it right but it is a fact. 

Rolex wins my vote.


----------



## acdelco (Jan 15, 2008)

i've owned a rolex sub. very good classic watch...but it wasn't for me. i think rolex commands automatic respect from the general public and, of course, many WIS. nevertheless, there's something to be said for a little originality and "going against the grain" with a high quality watch ( probably every bit as good as the sub IMO) that watch connoisieurs and aficionados respect. i don't think you'll see many GS's on the street.

i voted seiko.



Gerry.GEG said:


> Unfortunately, The GS suffers from "Seiko-itess" what I mean is, when I talk to guys who spend vast sums of money on high-end watches, most have never heard of the GS line. This means to me mind you, that if I ever purchase a GS (which I probably will at some point - used), I better be happy with no one having any idea that this wasn't bought a the mall for $400. I know it's simplistic but very true. I have owned a few Japan only Citizens. I enjoy the hell out of them and accept that very few appreciate them but me. Most think that they are no different than the crap you find Citizen importing to the U.S. for the mall.
> 
> Sorry, but my Sub commands respect and that's the way it is. Doesn't make it right but it is a fact.
> 
> Rolex wins my vote.


----------



## Beyond 'The Box' (Jan 11, 2008)

Hard choice. Rolex doesn't make a decent sized watch does it? Oh wait, only one, which is 44mm, being the newest release with the weird writing on a lip beneath the crystal. In turn, I believe the spring-drive Seiko is 44mm, is it not? That's mostly what it depends on for me. Both are great and both worth salivating over, so... Hmm...

*Seiko Pros:*
Spring-drive movement... (bring light comes down from sky - AHHHHHHH!)

*Rolex Pros:*
It's a ROLEX!!! ;D

*Seiko Cons:*
Power-reserve (or something) meter on dial

*Rolex Cons:*
Too small in size

*END RESULTS: SEIKO!*


----------



## Patstarrx (Apr 17, 2008)

For me to pay $7k for a seiko is crazy. Rgdless of the movement, as said the resale value would be horrible. You'd need to find that right buyer. All though Rolex isn't my 
Fav , the fact of the matter is ITS STILL A ROLEX.. AND SEIKO IS STILL SEIKO...
IMHO!


----------



## Kent108 (Jan 17, 2007)

How could a watch that just came out (and to my knowledge, has yet to be sold used) have a horrible resale value (or any resale value at all)? :think:



Aqua Spearo said:


> The seiko has the superior movement, but its got horrible resell value, and its case is basically a homage of the rolex. There both grossly overpriced though Girard-Perregaux FTW!


----------



## Beyond 'The Box' (Jan 11, 2008)

Patstarrx said:


> For me to pay $7k for a seiko is crazy. Rgdless of the movement, as said the resale value would be horrible. You'd need to find that right buyer. All though Rolex isn't my
> Fav , the fact of the matter is ITS STILL A ROLEX.. AND SEIKO IS STILL SEIKO...
> IMHO!


Well said.

And I didn't do my homework or pay enough attention to what Seiko we were talking about here, so my answer has now changed to Rolex (if I had to chose between the two). However, if I had an acutal choice, I'd chose neither. Too many cons for each and the Seiko is in Ti... BOO that! The only watches worth over $1k (in thousand dollar increments) to me are Breitlings and a few obscure selections from other brands (ie: Corum 48mm Admirals Cup Tides).


----------



## Kent108 (Jan 17, 2007)

Patstarrx said:


> Rhe fact of the matter is ITS STILL A ROLEX.. AND SEIKO IS STILL SEIKO...


You say that like it's a bad thing. I choose to take that as a compliment ... to Seiko.


----------



## Tukjaer (Apr 8, 2008)

Well..... Seiko for me..........

Rolex seems to small and "overpriced" for me. I don't have any Rolex and only a Seiko Sumo. Got 3 Omega Seamasters, 2 Breitling SuperOcean, 1 Longines Hydroconquest, 1 Tag Heuer Aquaracer, 1 Oris TT1 300M, 1 Tutima and a few more.

Everyone has a Rolex, not so many has a Seiko GS Diver, that counts too......


----------



## PShow (Dec 27, 2007)

I would take either one as they are both wonderful pieces. However, I would take the Rolex!


----------



## lauro (Jul 20, 2006)

Patstarrx said:


> he fact of the matter is ITS STILL A ROLEX.. AND SEIKO IS STILL SEIKO...
> IMHO!


Rolex marketing strikes again. LMAO.


----------



## Patstarrx (Apr 17, 2008)

Yes a Rolex is very common, but people do recognise and understand the value of one. To tell someone you paid $7k for a Seiko they'd think your out of your mind!


----------



## Kent108 (Jan 17, 2007)

They already do think I'm out of my mind ... :-d:-d



Patstarrx said:


> Yes a Rolex is very common, but people do recognise and understand the value of one. To tell someone you paid $7k for a Seiko they'd think your out of your mind!


----------



## vjb.knife (Feb 11, 2006)

Aqua Spearo said:


> The seiko has the superior movement, but its got horrible resell value, and its case is basically a homage of the rolex. There both grossly overpriced though Girard-Perregaux FTW!


I am not sure why everyone keeps saying that Grand Seiko has horrible Resale value. I have owned and sold several high end Seikos and have come close to breaking even on all of them; SBDX001, SBDB001 and SBDX007.

When it comes right down to it, pretty much any high end watch is grossly overpriced; Girard-Perregaux being a great example. I owned the Seahawk II Pro and it has a bracelet that retails for over $5000; if that is not gross I don't know what is. If I had not gotten a a very unusual and special deal on the watch, bracelet and straps it would have been the biggest looser of any I owned.


----------



## Fatpants (Sep 6, 2007)

Patstarrx said:


> Yes a Rolex is very common, but people do recognise and understand the value of one.


As mentioned above, Rolex's marketing department is the best in the business, which is why everyone knows about them.



Patstarrx said:


> To tell someone you paid $7k for a Seiko they'd think your out of your mind!


I have a question for you: Who do you buy your watches for, yourself or those around you?


----------



## Patstarrx (Apr 17, 2008)

A spokes person for Rolex I am not - that's for sure. And we're all crazy here..=)


----------



## jon.d (May 24, 2006)

UltraMagnetic said:


> Grand Seiko Spring-Drive ($6700) or a similar-costing Rolex Diver?


I own both and the SS SBGA029 at approx 5K after slight discount is on par (and in some respects better than) with a Sub or SD at list price. Then again, I won't see a Seiko GS on the wrist of every poser out there (real or fake) like I do when I am wearing my SD. Just my 2 cents!


----------



## outstretchedhands (Nov 19, 2007)

vjb.knife said:


> I think this is a valid comparison and by no means one sided either way.
> 
> I own two Rolex Subs and the new GMT and I also own a Grand Seiko SBGE001 with the 9R66 Spring Drive Movement. I like all of them and they each have their strong points and weaknesses.
> 
> ...


That's pretty much my thoughts exactly. :-!


----------



## victus1 (Mar 30, 2006)

Fatpants said:


> As mentioned above, Rolex's marketing department is the best in the business, which is why everyone knows about them.
> 
> I have a question for you: Who do you buy your watches for, yourself or those around you?


It's a well known fact that many many many people out there purchase articles of clothing, jewelry, watches, cars, etc. not for themselves.....but for others to admire. The perceived status and public attention do make these people feel better; sort of like a "high". This has been going on since the industrialized revolution and will continue forever. Manufacturers are fully aware of this market segment and hence will market and price these items accordingly.


----------



## jon.d (May 24, 2006)

victus1 said:


> This has been going on since the industrialized revolution and will continue forever. quote]
> What, guys didn't buy and sell horses to get chicks?! I certainly think so:-d.


----------



## OnTimeGabe (Aug 6, 2006)

Patstarrx said:


> Yes a Rolex is very common, but people do recognise and understand the value of one.


Perhaps, but a significant percentage of the people that see your Rolex will assume it's a fake. Especially somewhere like NYC where fakes are readily available.


----------



## Fatpants (Sep 6, 2007)

victus1 said:


> It's a well known fact that many many many people out there purchase articles of clothing, jewelry, watches, cars, etc. not for themselves.....but for others to admire. The perceived status and public attention do make these people feel better; sort of like a "high". This has been going on since the industrialized revolution and will continue forever. Manufacturers are fully aware of this market segment and hence will market and price these items accordingly.


My point is, if you're buying a watch for others to admire, whats the point in buying it in the first place? Surely you buy a watch to please yourself, not one's peers...:roll:


----------



## Tukjaer (Apr 8, 2008)

Patstarrx said:


> Yes a Rolex is very common, but people do recognise and understand the value of one. To tell someone you paid $7k for a Seiko they'd think your out of your mind!


What do I care..... I buy watches for my own pleasure......


----------



## jon.d (May 24, 2006)

Here's my take, the GS Divers (SBGA031 in Ti and 029 in SS) house a technologically advanced movement, are incredibly, incredibly well finished and have a ceramic bezel and are 43+mm. 3 of 4 items that a Rolex SD and Sub currently do not have - no argument that the 3135 is a good movement and depth-ratings aside.
I think a more accurate comparison for price/specs would be the SDDS (Deep Sea). Which is over $8400 and will have an upgraded movement (cerachrom spring or sp?), enhanced bracelet with built-in extension, ceramic bezel, HEV and of course a mean depth rating. 
So, in comparison to a Rolex that has similar materials, components, etc. I think the GS divers are a fair price at 5-6K. 
The rest is personal taste, ego, marketing, brand recognition.... and when I am in Japan, I get the same "response" Rolex owner's do here in the states - recognition and understaning of the timepiece.
Only my opinion.


----------



## UltraMagnetic (Jun 6, 2007)

haha wow....I dont do a lot of these "VS" threads and this is my first poll. (i think)

to TLEX: I voted right away. Seiko.

If this was PVD and had day/date, I'd be wearing itb-)

I like the size (44) and I like the looks better. YES its a Rolex homage IMHO, but its way cooler-looking to me.

a lot of people mentioned HANDS??....when did any of us have a problem changing hands on a watch?

What would you rather have?....mercedes hands?....
not me.

Somebody said I was referring to the sub: Im not. Im referring to whatever $6700 gets you in the Rolex shop...I dont really know current prices:-s Sub GMT SD whatever. 

DeepSea is out cause its 10 stacks

Somebody has made a pretty good point regarding the GP Seahawk.....also quite "pricey". I think I would take this Seiko.

I just like it.


----------



## Robert999 (Apr 29, 2006)

Rolex :-!


----------



## ElChingon7 (Oct 25, 2006)

Seiko all day long for me.

Way to liven things up Ian :-!b-)


----------



## eact (Jan 30, 2008)

Here is an interesting japanese video of the 9R65 spring drive movement.

http://www.seiko-watch.co.jp/gs/special/index.html

Select "9R65" on the left then click on the red button to play. It lasts a couple minutes.

If you are patient, you'll see a little of the hand assembly process after the 3D animation of the movement (same as the english video "Seiko Spring Drive - The Quiet Revolution").


----------



## Tragic (Feb 11, 2006)

Rolex.
Because I'm a shallow poser and buy watches to please others obviously. :roll:


----------



## Beyond 'The Box' (Jan 11, 2008)

Tragic said:


> Rolex.
> Because I'm a shallow poser and buy watches to please others obviously. :roll:


Where's the triple drums thumps with a hi-hat when you need 'em?


----------



## Biginboca (Mar 7, 2006)

Out of these 2 Seiko for me, of course :-!

I love the brand, the watch, the no BS approach to watchmaking, and the hands on the watch itself especially.

Also I can guarantee you that the Seiko would outperform any similarly priced Rolex in an "Objective" feature by feature comparison. Better lume, higher accuracy, longer power reserve, cheaper price, etc, etc...

IN MY OPINION only when you bring those pesky emotions and ego into the buying decision (ie possible need for attention or acceptance from others) does the Rolex score a win. That is clearly evident from the many of the responses I have read thus far.

But for my money the GS SD GMT that Vince owns is really the GS to look at, and for all the reasons he stated. That's where my $$ would really go!


----------



## Puck (Mar 23, 2008)

Seiko for sure. At any given price range, the Japanese do it better. You can bet that a Japanese manufacturer will give you more innovation and more quality for $6700 than a European one would for several thousand more. Rolex is especially notorious for relying on its prestige to jack up its prices. You could get a Submariner for 800 bucks in '83. Some watch-person or other, I'll admit I forget who, opened up a Rolex and posted a review trashing how poorly the movement was finished given the cost of the watch. If I remember correctly, he was particularly irked by the fact that fine metal shavings were found in the case, and holes weren't finished as smoothly as they should have been for the price. I've got an Explorer II, and though it's gorgeous, the clasp on it is flimsier than anything on a $200 Citizen, and the hands are noticeably less well-lumed than the hour markers. You'll find a much larger proportion of $200 Japanese watches on which the second-hand hits the second markers dead-on, than of Swiss quartzes costing 10 times that. The Spring Drive has to be the first real innovation in time-keeping since the introduction of quartz, or at least of wrist-top synching with atomic clocks. And the latter isn't really a technical innovation, so much as an implementation. The Spring Drive is truly new, in the way that Rolex's screw-down back was 3 generations ago. Open up a watch-history or cult-watch book in 30 years, and there'll be a page dedicated to the Spring-Drive the way that there's now a page (or pages) dedicated to the Sub, or the '57 (I think) Speedmaster. Or, for that matter, those 'nam era Seiko divers. This is a chance to get in on the ground floor.


----------



## dibetu (Feb 12, 2006)

Luxury divers, fashion divers, or just plain fashion watches? In reality the days when Rolex would have been used officially as diving tools are long gone. Leisure divers might take a GS or Rolex Deep Sea down with them. I am sure they are very capable but in reality they are used as desk divers these days. While Rolex with its new record watch is still marketing the professional tool or sports accessory; Seiko has taken a whole different approach: In their newest campain in Japan they are advertising the GS diver as a tool for the "urban warrior" diving through the crowded streets with guaranteed success on his side, when wearing the GS. I think that is why 200m were chosen as sufficient on the GS. For this reason, if my life depended on it and if I had to choose between the two I would pick the good old seadweller as a dive tool. As a desk diver the Seiko all the way. Their fit and finish is perfection. Also, in my opinion no other watch in that price range comes even close to the finish of a GS movement. I am talking about quality of decoration, not function! 
In reality the GS sells at around 5K USD while the new Rolex Deep Sea will sell above its list price when it hits the market first. That will make it twice the price of the Seiko. Are they both worth it? To the ones that buy them yes and there will be many many.


----------



## lordsinclair (Mar 21, 2006)

Great question, Ian.|> 

No offence Omega guys, but Rolex and Seiko are arguably the two most integral and influential companies in the history and development of dive watches. 

Both are true in-house _maufactures -_ which I know some dismiss, but I happen to think is an extremely important aspect of the long-term quality and success of their watches.

Personally, I voted for the Seiko. As much as I like Rolex, and miss my Submariner, the Seiko is every bit as capable - as those in the know, know.;-)

But I agree, the GS SD GMT is the most desirable GS of all.



Biginboca said:


> ...But for my money the GS SD GMT that Vince owns is really the GS to look at, and for all the reasons he stated. That's where my $$ would really go!


----------



## Fatpants (Sep 6, 2007)

I think you've pretty much nailed it Alphonse:-!


----------



## TLex (Mar 28, 2007)

UltraMagnetic said:


> DeepSea is out cause its 10 stacks


Why so? :-s Many watch comparisons I've read in magazines compare watches in different price ranges. The higher priced models just get scored down on pricing. I think comparing the Grand Seiko Diver and Rolex' latest diver the DeepSea is right on the money (excuse the pun). I think they have a lot of similar attributes. And should be compared and will be by many publications in the future, take my word for it mate! :-!


----------



## aaappp (Dec 12, 2007)

disregard post above (i think it was just a moment of jealous anger for not being able to afford the seiko, but yes rolex still sucks ass) the seiko is my choice


----------



## meta4ick (Jul 9, 2007)

The Seiko looks nice, except for the bracelet. I haven't gotten to the point where my mind feels comfortable spending this kind of coin on a Seiko. That is not to say the components aren't worth it.


----------



## chronrad (Jul 7, 2008)

Grand Seiko without hesitation or reservations for me. Everyone's got a Rolex. Does this mean I feel I have to have one? Nope. Most of the people who have a Rolex know next to nothing about their watch. For me a Grand Seiko is much more special.


----------



## UltraMagnetic (Jun 6, 2007)

I loved reading everybody's comments........ thanks guys. 

TLEX: yeah I guess everybody will be comparing the GS to the DeepSea. Same size, etc.

I just left it out because the price was a but higher.

If you hand me a DeepSea and that new GS, Im taking the Seiko.

So hot it hurtso|


----------



## wizurd (Dec 21, 2007)

I have never been a fan of Rolex. I'd take the Seiko, especially since it is a Spring Drive which is a HUGE and amazing innovation. Whoever on the first page only gave the Seiko two thumbs up for innovation needs to have their head inspected.


----------



## UltraMagnetic (Jun 6, 2007)

that would be my friend lex-bubble.b-)



TLex said:


> Ian, way to start war dude! :-d
> 
> * Rolex SD DeepSea: *
> Movement: |> |> |>
> ...


----------



## wizurd (Dec 21, 2007)

kripaws said:


> Uh....$6700 for a Seiko???? Better be made out of gold or platinum and come with a Kawasaki for that kind of price! There's reasons why Rolex can command those dollars....Whats Seiko's reasons????:-s


Care to explain to everyone why a Rolex can command that price? I'd love to hear this.


----------



## UltraMagnetic (Jun 6, 2007)

wizurd said:


> Care to explain to everyone why a Rolex can command that price? I'd love to hear this.


ditto..............:think:


----------



## crc32 (Jan 10, 2007)

victus1 said:


> It's a well known fact that many many many people out there purchase articles of clothing, jewelry, watches, cars, etc. not for themselves.....but for others to admire.


I would not go that far to call it admiration, but signalling a certain standard of living.

Right clothing (or call it 'appearance' and include watches and jewellry) immediately gives you more respect with others.

Of course you do not earn respect with material things but your personality, experience and wisdom, but a positive first impression makes it a lot easier.

Great example for this is a newly hired manager appearing at his first meeting with a tracksuit. It would take great effort to turn the first impression around by demonstrating personality and wisdom.

To get right back on topic, I'd choose the Rolex as well, just because Seiko label their 100USD watches (which are absolute great value for the money) the same way as their 7000USD models.


----------



## RJRJRJ (Apr 5, 2008)

Neither, to be honest. 

However, if I didnt own any nice watches, id pick the Rollie in a heartbeat. If I had a few nice watches already, the Seiko would be my choice. Simple answer.


----------



## GMCtrk (May 24, 2007)

I am seeing a very sad and pathetic trend in this thread. I do not understand why many of you buy watches for other people. What I mean by that is that you are concerned with what other people think of it, the resale value, etc. I buy a watch for me based on the watches merits. Maybe that's why I'm so drawn to Seiko watches.


----------



## wizurd (Dec 21, 2007)

Ask the next random person you see wearing a Rolex why it costs so much....I'm sure you'll get a good laugh!


----------



## Bluesummers (Jan 21, 2007)

wizurd said:


> Ask the next random person you see wearing a Rolex why it costs so much....I'm sure you'll get a good laugh!


Answer: "It's a Rolex"

Didn't laugh and now I hate the guy because he has a Rolex and I don't.


----------



## obie (Feb 9, 2006)

I voted for Seiko in this one. I had to. the submariner was a good watch when I bought it years ago at the bx. but I like bigger watches. watches with substance in design and appeal. my rolex is old and dated for style and its a very light cheap feeling watch with a horrid bracelet. I had it restored and put it up. no sense in wearing it anymore since the days of 39mm divers is about over. also today its a 6500 buck entry fee for a watch thats really not worth it.


----------



## wizurd (Dec 21, 2007)

Bluesummers said:


> Answer: "It's a Rolex"
> 
> Didn't laugh and now I hate the guy because he has a Rolex and I don't.


That would make me laugh. Silly people buying status symbols which never see more than the inside of their sport coat or the maple of their desk.


----------



## Bluesummers (Jan 21, 2007)

I don't find it any worse than people not buying a watch because many people have "name/type" watch.

I own two Seiko's and don't own a Rolex. Don't hate Seiko nor do I dislike Rolex.

Can I see something special in some Rolex watches? Yes. Do I see those qualities in Seiko watches? Yes. 

Personally, I don't see this $7000 Seiko as anything special and/or deserving the cost. Is it the Spring Drive movement? The fact that it has GS on it so therefor it makes it a better watch than all of the other Seiko's?

I think that right there is one single reason why people don't give it respect. Seiko has catagories where as Rolex watches are all "Rolex" watches.


----------



## TLex (Mar 28, 2007)

UltraMagnetic said:


> that would be my friend lex-bubble.b-)


Who else could it be? :-d


----------



## ACK67 (Jul 11, 2008)

I voted for the Seiko, simply because I think it looks better, my opinion of course, but it would be my money getting spent so I go with what I like, not what others like.

I know it's shallow, but the first thing that attracts me to a watch is the look, and that's what I buy on. No point in buying a watch you don't like the look of.


----------



## TLex (Mar 28, 2007)

ACK67 said:


> * I know it's shallow*, but the first thing that attracts me to a watch is the look, and that's what I buy on. No point in buying a watch you don't like the look of.


Not at all shallow mate, no one wants fugly watch, right! :-d


----------



## ACK67 (Jul 11, 2008)

Hell no!!! Not me anyway, and judging by your collection, nor do you.

regards
Simon


----------



## sunster (Apr 17, 2007)

Personally if I had a choice then give me the money I'll buy a Omega Planet Ocean and pocket the change.
But if it had to be between those two, I'd get the Seadweller


----------



## Crue4 (Mar 9, 2006)

Rolex... even it technically the Seiko may be a better built watch..


----------



## Kent108 (Jan 17, 2007)

What he said.



Puck said:


> Seiko for sure. At any given price range, the Japanese do it better. You can bet that a Japanese manufacturer will give you more innovation and more quality for $6700 than a European one would for several thousand more. Rolex is especially notorious for relying on its prestige to jack up its prices.
> 
> ...
> 
> The Spring Drive has to be the first real innovation in time-keeping since the introduction of quartz, or at least of wrist-top synching with atomic clocks. And the latter isn't really a technical innovation, so much as an implementation. The Spring Drive is truly new, in the way that Rolex's screw-down back was 3 generations ago. Open up a watch-history or cult-watch book in 30 years, and there'll be a page dedicated to the Spring-Drive the way that there's now a page (or pages) dedicated to the Sub, or the '57 (I think) Speedmaster. Or, for that matter, those 'nam era Seiko divers. This is a chance to get in on the ground floor.


I might note that Seiko was also the company that introduced the quartz watch. Though I dislike quartzes, way to innovate! :-!


----------



## vjb.knife (Feb 11, 2006)

wizurd said:


> That would make me laugh. Silly people buying status symbols which never see more than the inside of their sport coat or the maple of their desk.


Not everyone who owns a Rolex buys it for status. Regardless of what you think Rolex is a good watch with a long history in diving and rugged use in the field and few brands have that much actual proven use behind them. I am not saying Seiko does not but Rolex certainly does. Cost is only relative to what it's worth is to you personally. Your automatic disdain for Rolex makes me laugh.

I have worn a Rolex much of my lifetime but not a sport coat as often as a parka and hiking boots or wetsuit and fins. And I have seldom sat behind a desk as much as been in the field or the factory. For me it is not a status symbol just a thing that I like. If that's silly then I guess I am, but I don't need to hear it from you.


----------



## J.Bond (Jan 17, 2008)

Can anyone tell me briefly the history behind the Seiko diver in question or Seiko divers in general please? We already know about Rolex's divers and their history.

~JB


----------



## Fatpants (Sep 6, 2007)

Prepare to be educated Mr. Bond (said in my best Blofeld voice:-d)...

http://www.tokunaga.ne.jp/en/museum/list.html

This guy was/is the main designer of Seiko divers watches, and this site is just awesome. Bill Bartlett posted up a vintage 600m Tuna Can yesterday - that watch had 17 worlds first technologies in its construction, as did this one of mine...










Grand Seiko is the top of the line Seiko product (I know Credor is the daddy in the Seiko heirachy, but this is Seiko we're talking about, not Credor). Its ultra exclusive (as its only sold in Japan), and the watches showcase the very best of the companies skills, technologies and ideology. Others here will be able to give you greater detail on the history of Seiko's divers watches, but hopefully this is a good starting point.


----------



## Kent108 (Jan 17, 2007)

"Briefly"? -- Impossible.

But in addition to Tokunaga's online museum, here are some other excellent resources:

http://www.makedostudio.com/watches/seiko-divers/index.html
http://www.fortunecookie.info/scwfaq/



J.Bond said:


> Can anyone tell me briefly the history behind the Seiko diver in question or Seiko divers in general please? We already know about Rolex's divers and their history.
> 
> ~JB


----------



## Beyond 'The Box' (Jan 11, 2008)

You people are funny. They call me the muffin-man.


----------



## J.Bond (Jan 17, 2008)

Kent108 said:


> "Briefly"? -- Impossible.
> 
> But in addition to Tokunaga's online museum, here are some other excellent resources:
> 
> ...





Fatpants said:


> Prepare to be educated Mr. Bond (said in my best Blofeld voice:-d)...
> 
> http://www.tokunaga.ne.jp/en/museum/list.html
> 
> This guy was/is the main designer of Seiko divers watches, and this site is just awesome. Bill Bartlett posted up a vintage 600m Tuna Can yesterday - that watch had 17 worlds first technologies in its construction, as did this one of mine...Grand Seiko is the top of the line Seiko product (I know Credor is the daddy in the Seiko heirachy, but this is Seiko we're talking about, not Credor). Its ultra exclusive (as its only sold in Japan), and the watches showcase the very best of the companies skills, technologies and ideology. Others here will be able to give you greater detail on the history of Seiko's divers watches, but hopefully this is a good starting point.


Thanks for links gents! I will confess Japanese watches have never interested me from a design point. I still prefer Swiss for that and their mechanics. But I now understand Japanese watches better than before and why many WIS' like them. So thanks again. |>

~JB

p.s. That Spring-Drive technology is pretty cool!


----------



## Beyond 'The Box' (Jan 11, 2008)

this is amazing... 99 votes and it's as near a split decision as you get. awesome thread, with a wealth of insight and information to be read through (for both companies/watches).


----------



## vjb.knife (Feb 11, 2006)

UltraMagnetic said:


> Grand Seiko Spring-Drive ($6700) or a similar-costing Rolex Diver?


The actual current price is about $6000 usd in Titanium and $5100 usd in stainless steel.


----------



## stockae92 (Feb 10, 2006)

i will take the seiko

- you don't see it on everybody else wish list, wrist, home display, etc
- spring drive movement (better accuracy and power reserve)
- lume
- adjustable diver extension
- Brightz Ti
- i don't really feel the need of letting people know "i can afford a rolex"


----------



## Tragic (Feb 11, 2006)

I suppose everyone with their noses high in the air confidently saying they "don't need nor want any recognition from others" etc., etc., don't hurry to take pics of whichever new watch they've acquired to post in forums for hale and hearty congratulations? :-d
I'm sure they also eschew any and all status symbols in their purposefully utilitarian lifestyles, as in nice cars, clothes, homes and all that bourgeois riffraff. :roll:


----------



## UltraMagnetic (Jun 6, 2007)

vjb.knife said:


> The actual current price is about $6000 usd in Titanium and $5100 usd in stainless steel.


well _OOOOOOOOOH KAY_ then Vince!!!!!!!

I was just going off Seiya's site!!!!!

5 stacks for the SS|>|>|>|>|>|>|>?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

please tell us (or PM me) where to get it

sounding better all the time!!!!!!!:rodekaart:rodekaart:rodekaart:rodekaart:rodekaart


----------



## UltraMagnetic (Jun 6, 2007)

i have spent so many hours on that site......its just remarkableb-)



Fatpants said:


> Prepare to be educated Mr. Bond (said in my best Blofeld voice:-d)...
> 
> http://www.tokunaga.ne.jp/en/museum/list.html
> 
> ...


----------



## UltraMagnetic (Jun 6, 2007)

Tragic said:


> I suppose everyone with their noses high in the air confidently saying they "don't need nor want any recognition from others" etc., etc., don't hurry to take pics of whichever new watch they've acquired to post in forums for hale and hearty congratulations? :-d


John I NEVER do that!!!


----------



## lordsinclair (Mar 21, 2006)

J.Bond said:


> Can anyone tell me briefly the history behind the Seiko diver in question or Seiko divers in general please? We already know about Rolex's divers and their history.
> 
> ~JB


In additon to the link from Fatpants to Ikuo Tokunaga's incredible site, a huge amount of information and links about the development of Seiko divers can be found here:

http://www.makedostudio.com/watches/seiko-divers/index.html

The bottom line for me is the fact that more divers wear/have worn a Seiko whilst diving than any other make. If that doesn't give them the right to be taken as seriously as Rolex when it comes to a $6,000 diver, then I don't know what does.


----------



## chronrad (Jul 7, 2008)

Tragic said:


> I suppose everyone with their noses high in the air confidently saying they "don't need nor want any recognition from others" etc., etc., don't hurry to take pics of whichever new watch they've acquired to post in forums for hale and hearty congratulations? :-d
> I'm sure they also eschew any and all status symbols in their purposefully utilitarian lifestyles, as in nice cars, clothes, homes and all that bourgeois riffraff. :roll:


I think you've got it wrong. GS fans don't eschew that bourgeois stuff so much as that their tastes are closer to bespoke than bourgeois. A GS is a much higher status symbol than a mere Rolex. Perhaps they don't care so much about recognition from everyman on the street as much as that from a more elite and refined group of educated watch geeks. I appreciate the honesty and history and in house manufacture of a vintage Rolex. They were indeed good watches. But the modern ones are pretty common. They're still good watches, just not in the same league as the GS.

Honestly I don't think either of these divers is really worth it. I'll take my Orient Star 300m yellow diver over these choices any day. I *am* going to buy a watch in this price range soon, but it will probably be a GS with the 9S67 movement, such as SBGL017, or one with the 9R86, such as SBGC003 or SBGC005. I certainly wouldn't spend that kind of money on a common Rolex though.


----------



## Torrid (May 20, 2007)

I like the GS, but I'll take the SeaDweller.


----------



## outstretchedhands (Nov 19, 2007)

Tragic said:


> I suppose everyone with their noses high in the air confidently saying they "don't need nor want any recognition from others" etc., etc., don't hurry to take pics of whichever new watch they've acquired to post in forums for hale and hearty congratulations? :-d
> I'm sure they also eschew any and all status symbols in their purposefully utilitarian lifestyles, as in nice cars, clothes, homes and all that bourgeois riffraff. :roll:


Actually, no. I post pics of my watches for the benefit of this community. I get a lot from it and like to give something useful back. I like to use different straps on many of my watches and folks here like to see how they look. That's why I post images here, not because I need a pat on the back.

I also don't buy any watch for the status it affords me. In fact, quite the opposite, I binned my SD because of the signal it may send out to some of the inmates in a prison I do work in during my spare time.

I now have a Seiko MM300 and most people here in the UK would assume it's a $200 watch. That suits me perfectly. ;-)


----------



## Dr. Robert (Jun 10, 2008)

Yo, O. you are a cool dude...one of the coolest guys on this forum! (I'm saving up for one of your excellent kevlar dive straps!) Have a good weekend!
regards, Dr. Robert


----------



## Fatpants (Sep 6, 2007)

Never a truer word spoken OS


----------



## watchboy (Feb 13, 2006)

gaijin said:


> i Picked The Grand Seiko - With Reservations.
> 
> I Have A Hard Time Understanding Why This Gs 200m Spring Drive Costs Twice As Much As My Seiko 600m Spring Drive With Gmt Function:
> 
> ...


*ditto!!!!*:-!:-!:-!


----------



## outstretchedhands (Nov 19, 2007)

Dr. Robert said:


> Yo, O. you are a cool dude...one of the coolest guys on this forum! (I'm saving up for one of your excellent kevlar dive straps!) Have a good weekend!
> regards, Dr. Robert


Haha! Thanks Dr. R and Fatpants!


----------



## Zeke (Oct 4, 2007)

I went Seiko.

58 votes to 58 votes.

"Dead heat."


----------



## gyapp (May 26, 2008)

I think the Seiko's a better watch, and in most cases I would choose one if I'm buying it for daily use. I know some people in my life with Rolexes, and generally they are of the "above 45 years of age" group. I hardly see anyone in their 30s or early 40s with a Rolex on since it's more of a status symbol which older people wear, rather than a tool watch.

Where I came from, and where I am right now when people see someone in their 30s and early 40s with a Rolex on, 99% of the time they'll generally think that the person's wearing a fake Rolex. The bias isn't as bad towards Omegas.

Yes, I understand that one shouldn't wear a watch for others. But I'd rather not get ambushed in a dark alley by a couple of thugs who recognizes that I'm a walking piggy bank because they saw there's a Rolex on my wrist.


----------



## 2500M_Sub (Apr 12, 2008)

First off I like Seiko but that watch is not worth 6700! 200m rating and styling stolen from Rolex! Sorry Ill put a little more money and buy the Rolex Deep Sea. Ok the movement is great, but the styling is not very spectacular, truth is I like the styling of the Marine Master 300 better. Next time they put out an expensive diver they should be more original and offer some cool and unique features. I cant believe some guys actually bought this watch at that price, so many other choices for that money. To each their own I guess. The watch is boring :-(. Just my 2 cents.

Regards,

Ren


----------



## outstretchedhands (Nov 19, 2007)

2500M_Sub said:


> First off I like Seiko but that watch is not worth 6700! 200m rating and styling stolen from Rolex! Sorry Ill put a little more money and buy the Rolex Deep Sea. Ok the movement is great, but the styling is not very spectacular, truth is I like the styling of the Marine Master 300 better. Next time they put out an expensive diver they should be more original and offer some cool and unique features. I cant believe some guys actually bought this watch at that price, so many other choices for that money. To each their own I guess. The watch is boring :-(. Just my 2 cents.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ren


I have to say I prefer the styling of the MM300 and SD 600, too.


----------



## Kent108 (Jan 17, 2007)

I don't think the styling is at all like Rolex's. Unless you mean that they both have black dials and black bezels :roll: ... Totally different hands, completely different dials, different case and bracelet.

Oh, and different (cool and DEFINITELY unique) features as well. (One-of-a-kind movement, power reserve feature on the Seiko.)



2500M_Sub said:


> First off I like Seiko but that watch is not worth 6700! 200m rating and styling stolen from Rolex! Sorry Ill put a little more money and buy the Rolex Deep Sea. Ok the movement is great, but the styling is not very spectacular, truth is I like the styling of the Marine Master 300 better. Next time they put out an expensive diver they should be more original and offer some cool and unique features. I cant believe some guys actually bought this watch at that price, so many other choices for that money. To each their own I guess. The watch is boring :-(. Just my 2 cents.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ren


----------



## obie (Feb 9, 2006)

I bypassed them both and went straight to the zenith defy for poser status.|>


----------



## obie (Feb 9, 2006)

yamahaki said:


> I bypassed them both and went straight to the zenith defy for poser status.|>


this guy rocksb-)


----------



## 2500M_Sub (Apr 12, 2008)

Kent108 said:


> I don't think the styling is at all like Rolex's. Unless you mean that they both have black dials and black bezels :roll: ... Totally different hands, completely different dials, different case and bracelet.
> 
> Oh, and different (cool and DEFINITELY unique) features as well. (One-of-a-kind movement, power reserve feature on the Seiko.)


 Im sorry but I think its very clear where the inspiration came from. Look at the hour hand different shape but still mercedes style, The style of the Rolex sub is iconic and im sure seceretly the designers would even tell you this is their version. Nothing wrong with that but at the price point something better could have been realised. The spring drive doesnt wow me either. I think Seiko has much better designs than this watch, but it is clear that this is their version , answer or what ever to the iconic Rolex Sub, dont be fooled to think otherwise.

Regards,

Ren


----------



## outstretchedhands (Nov 19, 2007)

yamahaki said:


> this guy rocksb-)


----------



## UltraMagnetic (Jun 6, 2007)

yamahaki said:


> this guy rocksb-)


indeed


----------



## obie (Feb 9, 2006)

Not to be a snot on this but as far as them looking alike? other than they are both watches they are completly different. If I needed a homage watch I'd get an Invicta 8926. oh, wait. I already did.:-d the seiko is clean and uncluttered. also the movement is unique to seiko. while I don't have one with this movement I do have some direct drive seikos that are way above most of my other watches in terms of pure accuracy. I stayed away from the more expensive seikos. but when the direct drive came out and I could wind it and use the power reserve, well that changed my perception on seikos. I still have some blue monsters. while looking nice, the non winding movement bugged me. fit and finish on my kinetics is on a par with similar priced swiss and german watches. I'm not going to say the ff is better, but its pretty darn good for what it is. so theres my take on these watches. the rolex is a rolex and if you want one for the name and its history than its a good buy even at current prices. but if you need accuracy and don't buy into a name then the seiko is certainly worth a second look. I find that the more I collect and from reading reviews on the seikos from numerous respected members that my perception of the brand is changing.


----------



## UltraMagnetic (Jun 6, 2007)

I'd give it a month before he owns one.



yamahaki said:


> Not to be a snot on this but as far as them looking alike? other than they are both watches they are completly different. If I needed a homage watch I'd get an Invicta 8926. oh, wait. I already did.:-d the seiko is clean and uncluttered. also the movement is unique to seiko. while I don't have one with this movement I do have some direct drive seikos that are way above most of my other watches in terms of pure accuracy. I stayed away from the more expensive seikos. but when the direct drive came out and I could wind it and use the power reserve, well that changed my perception on seikos. I still have some blue monsters. while looking nice, the non winding movement bugged me. fit and finish on my kinetics is on a par with similar priced swiss and german watches. I'm not going to say the ff is better, but its pretty darn good for what it is. so theres my take on these watches. the rolex is a rolex and if you want one for the name and its history than its a good buy even at current prices. but if you need accuracy and don't buy into a name then the seiko is certainly worth a second look. I find that the more I collect and from reading reviews on the seikos from numerous respected members that my perception of the brand is changing.


----------



## Kent108 (Jan 17, 2007)

I don't think it's very clear at all, and I'm sure the Seiko designers would tell you just the opposite (and believe it, sincerely.)

Calling this Seiko a derivative of the Rolex is like saying a Honda is just a derivative of the Model T. After all they both have rubber tires, take gasoline and have a steering wheel and a brake pedal, right?

"Look at the hour hand, different shape, but still ..."

Look at the dial. It's different but it's black, so it's derived from Rolex. Look at the bracelet: metal, just like Rolex! And look, it has an hour hand and a minute hand and a second hand, just like Rolex! :roll:

I'll admit the hour hand of the Seiko is a little derivative. But not of the Rolex mercedes hand. They're called cathedral hands, and in using them in this watch, Seiko shows originality since such hands, from what I've seen, aren't usually used in dive watches.

IMO, Seiko stopped needing to prove they were "just as good" as their Swiss counterparts a long time ago. Their products, including this one, stand on their own merits and are held to their own (sometimes higher) standards. If the GS doesn't impress you, that's fine. But in no way could it be ever termed a wannabe of anything else on the market.



2500M_Sub said:


> Im sorry but I think its very clear where the inspiration came from. Look at the hour hand different shape but still mercedes style, The style of the Rolex sub is iconic and im sure seceretly the designers would even tell you this is their version. Nothing wrong with that but at the price point something better could have been realised. The spring drive doesnt wow me either. I think Seiko has much better designs than this watch, but it is clear that this is their version , answer or what ever to the iconic Rolex Sub, dont be fooled to think otherwise.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ren


----------



## TLex (Mar 28, 2007)

Beyond 'The Box' said:


> Hard choice. *Rolex doesn't make a decent sized watch does it? Oh wait, only one, which is 44mm*, being the newest release with the weird writing on a lip beneath the crystal. In turn, I believe the spring-drive Seiko is 44mm, is it not? That's mostly what it depends on for me. *Both are great and both worth salivating over*, so... Hmm...


The DEEPSEA is 43mm (maybe even 43.6mm I read somewhere, bigger the better). I'm salivating over both as well. ;-)


----------



## Naturally (Feb 9, 2007)

Rolex, only for the excellent worlwide support.

GS is a local japanese model and need to be shipped back for the smallest repairs. My experiences with the local support from Rolex was excellent and I understand that it is excellent worldwide.

The GS is a very high-end watch piece.


----------



## spogehead (Sep 2, 2007)

Rolex got my vote for no other reason than I prefer the brand, Seiko does nothing for me I'm afraid and I can't stand those hands on the GS....... and yes I am a snob! :-d


----------



## DMB (Sep 9, 2007)

Bluesummers said:


> I think that right there is one single reason why people don't give it respect. Seiko has catagories where as Rolex watches are all "Rolex" watches.


Bingo .... that about nails it. - David


----------



## codymac (Jun 22, 2008)

wizurd said:


> Care to explain to everyone why a Rolex can command that price? I'd love to hear this.


That's easy (and arguably the same reason for the GS) - market control. It's certainly not a case of manufacturing or technology costs in either case, and the statement holds true with "luxury" goods outside of the watch world as well.

I vote for buying whichever one speaks to you. I voted Rolex in the poll, but as much due to not caring at all for this particular Seiko as anything else.


----------



## bompi (Jul 21, 2007)

Definitely voted for the GS. Owning already a very basic GS, I'm already convinced by the overall quality in the making, the care to the details, not to mention the amazing springdrive movement which is, at any rate, unique.

Anyway, the GS is slightly overpriced, when compared with former GS prices. I suppose GS is getting trendier these days ...


----------



## Londonboy (Oct 23, 2007)

Great thread Ultra. Do you sit around dreaming these up? 

I can't add much really cos I've never seen a Spring Drive up close and personal. I have, as I'm sure we all have, read many of these type of questions. Great points posted from both 'sides'.

Seiko know that most people worldwide, and especially in the US, who were planning on spending 6 or 7 large on a watch, will buy a Rolex. They probably wouldn't even look at Seiko to begin with, if spending that kind of dough either. This would be their (Seikos)primary reason for not even bothering to try and push the high end Seikos into other markets. Very few people outside Japan would spend that kind of dough on a Seiko. 

Outside of the WIS community 99.9% of people think Seikos top out at what, $1000, $1500? Most haven't heard of the 300m Marinemaster, let alone all the Spring Drive collection. 

I think it's partly snobbism, partly 'keeping up with the Joneses', but most of all it's ignorance. 

If anybody that's posted on this thread held the same poll in their place of work, local bar etc, I bet everybody would report back Rolex won hands down. It's just the way it is. 

Great thread. 

For non-English speakers: dough=money large=thousand


----------



## jon.d (May 24, 2006)

Playing around with a bit of macro - not great, but OK for a compact digi. It appears approx. 49.8% or so of you will be interested in this post! Have a great weekend.


----------



## Eric L. (Sep 29, 2006)

I am surprised I did not find this thread sooner! I voted for the Seiko, which I find to be less common and it will not draw attention like a Rolex. I recently returned from a trip in Europe and I saw a lot of folks wearing Subs - I admit it does look nice. Ok, most of them were probably fakes, but from a distance, you cannot tell. The watch also doesn't look small on other people's wrists, even though I imagine a 40mm would feel tiny to me. 

This thread has been very entertaining to read. I find it hard to believe that people who buy a Rolex do it because "its a good company with a fine history" - sorry its because of the prestige associated with the brand. As for not paying $5000-7000 for a Seiko, thats fine....makes the watch more exclusive for people who are willing to pay it.


----------



## UltraMagnetic (Jun 6, 2007)

haha no.....:-d I rarely if ever do polls or a "vs" thread. I honestly don't even read 99.9% of these type of threads and DEFINITELY stay away from the bickering.

Its just not that serious to me;-)

If you like a watch, then you like it. Fine with me

my #1 watch criteria is LOOKS, so there that goes:roll:

but I LOVE reading this one. We have some really smart guys here and some really well-informed WIS's , as you can see.

I just REALLY want the GS I guess is why I posted this one. Rolex dont really do much for me. Nice watches! of course, but.....I dunno.

I totally agree with your bar poll. You wouldn't have a single vote for a Seiko.

I don't call that ignorance, I call that incredible marketing.

What Rolex has done is remarkable. The best branding example I can think of. Beyond genius.....and a good product helps|>

thanks for weighing inb-)

Ian



Londonboy said:


> Great thread Ultra. Do you sit around dreaming these up?
> 
> If anybody that's posted on this thread held the same poll in their place of work, local bar etc, I bet everybody would report back Rolex won hands down. It's just the way it is.
> 
> Great thread.


----------



## UltraMagnetic (Jun 6, 2007)

wow!!

any Rolex guys care to retract their vote?:-d

COMPACT DIGI!?!?!??!?!?!??!

I couldn't do that with a Hasselblad!!!

AMAZING......damn I want one:-(

tell us about the watch please! And THANKS for the _amazing_ pics



jon.d said:


> Playing around with a bit of macro - not great, but OK for a compact digi. It appears approx. 49.8% or so of you will be interested in this post! Have a great weekend.


----------



## Fatpants (Sep 6, 2007)

Great shot, and look at the quality of the dial:-!


----------



## gerrylb (Mar 5, 2008)

I voted for the Seiko. As I mentioned in another thread, where I live Rolex is perceived as as the watch of corrupt politicians (heck, we have a member of congress who's named Rolex!). Seiko, on the other hand, is viewed as an "everyman's" brand. I doubt 1 in 100,000 Filipinos are aware that there exist Seiko models that cost more than $500, let alone $6000! Given that, I'd far rather be seen as "everyman" than mistaken for a dirty politico.

My brain says the Rolex, as it would be much easier to dispose of should I need emergency cash. But my snobbish, WIS heart says GS, the hell if anybody i ever meet has the slightest idea what its worth and why its so damn expensive! My wife says if I ever come home with either one I'll be sleeping in the garage for a month!


----------



## Fatpants (Sep 6, 2007)

gerrylb said:


> my Wife Says If I Ever Come Home With Either One I'll Be Sleeping In The Garage For A Month!


Lol:-!


----------



## gaijin (Oct 29, 2007)

gerrylb said:


> My wife says if I ever come home with either one I'll be sleeping in the garage for a month!


Only a month?

Hmmmmmmm ... might be worth considering ... :-!


----------



## ptolemy (Apr 25, 2007)

*hey ian 70-71 on vote, can this be any tighter??*

i am guessing seiko will be by far rarer than rolex.

i am not sure how many seiko's will be mad each year but i doubt more than 500. it's also will be hand made and the movement is very robust and dare i say more precise than rolex

in the end, it's your stacks, and your decision. but here is what i can say about these:

1. utility wise they are probably even.
2. eclectic wise, seiko is ways ahead(1st gs diver ever)
3. 'know-how' wise seiko is way ahead
4. history wise - both are top 5 IMO along with omega and few others
5 brand recognition wise rolex
6 finish wise, i am guessing seiko
7 resale value - tough one, rolex easy sell/minimal loss, seiko harder sell, maybe even for profit

good luck with the decision


----------



## lordsinclair (Mar 21, 2006)

*71 v 70*

Day 4, and Seiko edges Rolex by one vote!

I am very impressed that the tone has remained civil and courteous throughout.|>

So will you be using Higuchi or Seiya, Ian?;-)


----------



## watt (Apr 20, 2008)

Eric L. said:


> This thread has been very entertaining to read. I find it hard to believe that people who buy a Rolex do it because "its a good company with a fine history" - sorry its because of the prestige associated with the brand.


Yes very interesting. Not sure about your premise of Rolex = poser, though.



UltraMagnetic said:


> wow!!
> 
> any Rolex guys care to retract their vote?:-d


Not necessarily a Rolex person, but still unconvinved Seiko is even playing the same game let alone in the same league as Rolex. IMO, we're talking Toyota (and in this case it's luxury division, a Lexus) versus a Mercedes Benz or a Daimler. Top end vehicles, but one is neveaux riche and the other two timeless.


gerrylb said:


> Rolex, as it would be much easier to dispose of should I need emergency cash.


That one feature tops the Rolex divers. Imagine cashing in your Seiko for a plane ticket in Instanbul or Mogadishu and see how far you get. Although you probably won't get mugged for your Seiko in either of those places either.


Fatpants said:


> Hey Lex,
> 
> I wanted to add that the movement in the Seiko is a work of art (and genius) compared to the utlitarian "tractor" that sits under the hood of the Rolex.


Haha. Funny.


Kent108 said:


> For fit and finish/manufacturing quality, I haven't handled the Seiko, but I'd bet it's equal to, if not superior to, the Rolex.


Haha. Even funnier. I bet it isn't.


Aqua Spearo said:


> The seiko has the superior movement, but its got horrible resell value, and its case is basically a homage of the rolex.


As stated by someone else, perhaps time will tell on the superiority of movements, but its seems to me we're talking a movement a few years old versus 15-20 years and now tht older movement is being replaced by a superior one using superior components.



UltraMagnetic said:


> YES its a Rolex homage IMHO, but its way cooler-looking to me.


And this is funny from the thread starter himself and closes the book - if one is an hommage, there is nothing else to say.:rodekaart


----------



## TLex (Mar 28, 2007)

lordsinclair said:


> I am very impressed that the tone has remained civil and courteous throughout.|>


I hope you haven't spoken too soon, Martin. :think:


----------



## watt (Apr 20, 2008)

TLex said:


> I hope you haven't spoken too soon, Martin. :think:


 I assume, since you posted after my post, that you're referring to my post not being civil and courteous? Are you kidding, on a better-than-thou power trip or am I barking up the wrong tree? I don't get the point of your post - perhaps you can expound?

Perhaps I should explain my perspective - regardless of the movement, the exculsivity of the Japan-only GS, it remains a Seiko. 99.999999% of the planet sees the Seiko as an every-man watch, akin to Timex and Casio. I understand the heritage and the in-house movement thing, as if that's a pole to run a flag up, but it's a Seiko and I'm stuck on that. I wish I could get my hands on one, wear it for a while and be able to comment on the value, craftsmanship and quality of the piece. Otherwise, I have to stick to my learned stereotype, that it's a Seiko! An everyman watch, not worthly of being mentioned with an iconic Rolex diver. This post, my previous post are my opinions. Am I not a simple dive watch forum poster with an opinion, which is what I see in all the other posts, or am I not in the first name exclusive boys club yet. Shall I post lemming comments to get in , or is there another way?


----------



## Neil(UK) (Jan 19, 2008)

First time I look in on this forum and I come across this. 

I voted Rolex even though I am a big Seiko fan and I'll tell you why........

Aside from the fact I prefer the look of the Rolex I really like Seikos mechanical watches but have serious worries about the longetivity of the spring drive and it's value.

As all serious seiko owners know they are not very interested in supplying parts for their old models. What if the module needs replacing in the future in the spring drive?

They will probably give a guarantee on availability but It's not like an ordinary mechanical where even if parts are not available a watchmaker can make the part is it?

And even if the module is available, what about when they can mass produce these?

Look at Seiko kinetic.

Very expensive new technology when it first surfaced, now can be bought very cheaply as can quartz, another Seiko movement that was hugely expensive at inception.

Will that happen to spring drive? I have an idea it will if history is anything to go by and many of these spring drive watches could turn into expensive white elephants. 

I really appreciate Seikos and have any number including vintage GS and chronometer so don't think me as biased towards Rolex. b-)

Also although some people think the brand worship of Rolex sets the buyers out as ignorant idiots I also see a lot of "inverted snobbery" from Seiko worshippers. ;-) 

WIS'es who know what they are talking about can see the good points in any good quality watch.

I consider myself in both camps so am of course exempt. :-d ;-)


----------



## Tragic (Feb 11, 2006)

> Am I not a simple dive watch forum poster with an opinion, which is what I see in all the other posts, or am I not in the first name exclusive boys club yet. Shall I post lemming comments to get in , or is there another way?


:-! 
It's a badge of advanced WISdom roll to disparage Rolex and their owners with vigor.
Both your posts were excellent.


----------



## TLex (Mar 28, 2007)

watt said:


> I assume, since you posted after my post, that you're referring to my post not being civil and courteous? Are you kidding, on a better-than-thou power trip or am I barking up the wrong tree? I don't get the point of your post - perhaps you can expound?
> 
> Perhaps I should explain my perspective - regardless of the movement, the exculsivity of the Japan-only GS, it remains a Seiko. 99.999999% of the planet sees the Seiko as an every-man watch, akin to Timex and Casio. I understand the heritage and the in-house movement thing, as if that's a pole to run a flag up, but it's a Seiko and I'm stuck on that. I wish I could get my hands on one, wear it for a while and be able to comment on the value, craftsmanship and quality of the piece. Otherwise, I have to stick to my learned stereotype, that it's a Seiko! An everyman watch, not worthly of being mentioned with an iconic Rolex diver. This post, my previous post are my opinions. Am I not a simple dive watch forum poster with an opinion, which is what I see in all the other posts, or am I not in the first name exclusive boys club yet. Shall I post lemming comments to get in , or is there another way?


WTF are you talking about. :-s If I want to say something about you I will quote your post directly like this. It is pretty surprising that this thread hasn't turned into the bickering and slanging that usually ensues these kinds of threads but we can only hope, right? And you can say what you like about Seiko or Rolex too and I won't give a monkeys, knock yourself out!


----------



## Torrid (May 20, 2007)

I'm not saying depth rating is the end all and be all when it comes to expensive divers, but 200m? Come on! I keep looking at the Direct Drive Kinetic diver and saying the same thing. I think at this price point, super huge depth ratings work into part of the panache. That GS is sure sweet though. As I said earlier, with this kind of money, I think I'm buying the SeaDweller with these being my two choices. In all actuality when it comes to my money, I'd buy the SDMM600, the Direct Drive diver on rubber strap and pocket the rest.


----------



## aaappp (Dec 12, 2007)

tragic, so what was excellent about this mans posts 

back to the topic at hand i agree with a point that torrid brought up about the depth rating on the seiko, for 6700$ large why would they go with the same depth rating that can be found on there 150$ divers. all of this almost makes me think that they just test the watch to 200m and call it a day because i am sure they could be suitable beyond that or maybe they are just realistic and known that 99% of people will never go down that far so they consider it useless, i am not sure but this is definatly one area where rolex has the leg up.


----------



## AAH (Oct 17, 2007)

x3



DMB said:


> Bingo .... that about nails it. - David


----------



## OnTimeGabe (Aug 6, 2006)

OK guys, I'm editing some posts to remove the profanity and name calling. This has been a great thread, and I really hope we can keep it going without the discussion going south. Let me remind everyone of WUS Rule #1:

_"Members will be kind and courteous, and respectful to other members and the moderators. No direct or indirect personal attacks or insults of any kind will be allowed. Posts which antagonize, belittle or humiliate other members and/or the moderators will not be tolerated..."_

Thanks for your cooperation, everyone.


----------



## UltraMagnetic (Jun 6, 2007)

I think you should stick around Neil.

spoken like a watch guy.All of us here can dig that|>



Neil(UK) said:


> First time I look in on this forum and I come across this.
> 
> I voted Rolex even though I am a big Seiko fan and I'll tell you why........
> 
> ...


----------



## UltraMagnetic (Jun 6, 2007)

gerrylb said:


> My wife says if I ever come home with either one I'll be sleeping in the garage for a month!


I assume you are out there now, right?

Just lean the seat all the way back--- its fine.


----------



## UltraMagnetic (Jun 6, 2007)

lordsinclair said:


> So will you be using Higuchi or Seiya, Ian?;-)


Seiya-San says 6700
Higuchi is 5100

?!?!

What am I missing guys?


----------



## gerrylb (Mar 5, 2008)

watt said:


> I assume, since you posted after my post, that you're referring to my post not being civil and courteous? Are you kidding, on a better-than-thou power trip or am I barking up the wrong tree? I don't get the point of your post - perhaps you can expound?
> 
> This post, my previous post are my opinions. Am I not a simple dive watch forum poster with an opinion, which is what I see in all the other posts, or am I not in the first name exclusive boys club yet. Shall I post lemming comments to get in , or is there another way?


What the hell got this fella all paranoid? This little discussion was coming along so well and peacefully. I backread a bit and saw no reason for you to get all defensive, no one was jumping all over your opinions. Keep your cool dude! We're all watch lovers here!


----------



## Al G. (Feb 8, 2006)

UltraMagnetic said:


> I assume you are out there now, right?
> 
> Just lean the seat all the way back--- its fine.


I have found that garage life can be quite adequate.....I have cable TV and a fridge full of beer....All is well. :-d


----------



## lordsinclair (Mar 21, 2006)

UltraMagnetic said:


> Seiya-San says 6700
> Higuchi is 5100
> 
> ?!?!
> ...


Seiya-san has the SBGA031 listed, which is the Ti version. Maybe Katsu-san is quoting for the SBGA029, which is the SS version? If I remember correctly, there is about 1,000USD difference in the list price. Higuchi's discounts are always a little more generous, which I am sure is due to the fact that he owns a large watch store, whereas Seiya is a one man Internet band.


----------



## Neil(UK) (Jan 19, 2008)

Neil(UK) said:


> First time I look in on this forum and I come across this.
> 
> I voted Rolex even though I am a big Seiko fan and I'll tell you why........
> 
> ...


Come on you spring drive fans................;-)


----------



## gerrylb (Mar 5, 2008)

Al G. said:


> I have found that garage life can be quite adequate.....I have cable TV and a fridge full of beer....All is well. :-d


What we will endure to indulge in our hobby. . . time to stow some blankets and pillows in the car.

Interesting voting results so far, Seiko is doing a lot better than I thought it would.


----------



## Patstarrx (Apr 17, 2008)

Is this thread still going???????????????????????????


----------



## dibetu (Feb 12, 2006)

Patstarrx said:


> Is this thread still going???????????????????????????


There will never be an end to this! Its the eternal fight of two titans and its followers.:-d:-d:-d
The two are becoming more alike as time goes on, one trying to go more upmarket like the other, the other trying to output more every year, hoping to come close to the other. 
Thank god it is not a matter of life and death, only watches.


----------



## vjb.knife (Feb 11, 2006)

Torrid said:


> I'm not saying depth rating is the end all and be all when it comes to expensive divers, but 200m? Come on! I keep looking at the Direct Drive Kinetic diver and saying the same thing. I think at this price point, super huge depth ratings work into part of the panache. That GS is sure sweet though. As I said earlier, with this kind of money, I think I'm buying the SeaDweller with these being my two choices. In all actuality when it comes to my money, I'd buy the SDMM600, the Direct Drive diver on rubber strap and pocket the rest.


To me the large depth ratings are beginning to be a turn off. I almost find it insulting for them to suggest that these ratings are usable in any way at all. I think that if the watch has a good solid 200 meter rating that you can count on then that is very far past what I need and is plenty of safety factor. 

These ratings that not only extend beyond the use of 99.99999% of all the owners of the watch (which in truth 100 meters does) are just becoming rediculous. And then when the companies send the ratings plumeting to below the point that any man has ever ventured by 2x, 3x and even up to 5x is just plain stupid. But people slurp it up just because it's there and maybe someday they will get the chance to dive to the bottom of the Challenger Deep, oh please give me a friggin break.

Trust me if you ever get an invitation to dive deeper then 150 feet, much less 500 feet, pass on it. It's too dangerous and there is not one friggin thing down there worth looking at. Get in a Submersible instead, that one I would jump on.


----------



## rajenmaniar (Feb 8, 2006)

vjb.knife said:


> To me the large depth ratings are beginning to be a turn off. I almost find it insulting for them to suggest that these ratings are usable in any way at all. I think that if the watch has a good solid 200 meter rating that you can count on then that is very far past what I need and is plenty of safety factor.
> 
> These ratings that not only extend beyond the use of 99.99999% of all the owners of the watch (which in truth 100 meters does) are just becoming rediculous. And then when the companies send the ratings plumeting to below the point that any man has ever ventured by 2x, 3x and even up to 5x is just plain stupid. But people slurp it up just because it's there and maybe someday they will get the chance to dive to the bottom of the Challenger Deep, oh please give me a friggin break.
> 
> Trust me if you ever get an invitation to dive deeper then 150 feet, much less 500 feet, pass on it. It's too dangerous and there is not one friggin thing down there worth looking at. Get in a Submersible instead, that one I would jump on.


Vince,
Your points are valid, about the need or practibality of higher depth ratings. But when it comes to dive watches, at higher costs, one expects higher depth ratings. Just like when buying fast cars, one looks at the horsepower,torque, 0 to 60 numbers, power to weight ratio etc, tho for most city drivers they dont matter in real life.
I make no qualms about the fact that I find a 2000m meter depth rating sexier than a 200m rating, tho I dont dive at all.


----------



## chronrad (Jul 7, 2008)

Neil(UK) said:


> Come on you spring drive fans................;-)


Come on what? Your post was one of the most well thought out and articulated in the whole thread! This is the sort of discussion that's so sadly difficult to have when anyone tries to question anything about Rolex. I'd like to see more of this, on either side.


----------



## vjb.knife (Feb 11, 2006)

Eric L. said:


> This thread has been very entertaining to read. I find it hard to believe that people who buy a Rolex do it because "its a good company with a fine history" - sorry its because of the prestige associated with the brand. As for not paying $5000-7000 for a Seiko, thats fine....makes the watch more exclusive for people who are willing to pay it.


I see you are sort of quoting a part of my first post in this thread but taking it out of context so I will respond by saying you are better off to speak for yourself or keep your opinions to the physical aspects of the watch in discussion. I said "Rolex is a good watch with a long history in diving and rugged use in the field and few brands have that much actual proven use behind them" and I stand behind that remark as one of MY reasons for buying them. I have had Rolex watches since 1983 and would have owned one earlier but just did not ever get to it. I have taken Rolex and Seiko watches diving more times than most of the guys around the forums. They are both rugged dependable brands and that is primary in my consideration of them.

Anyone can make any type of comment relating to why they like or don't like a particular watch and that makes sense, but making a comment regarding someone else's thought process when evaluating a watch does not.

Whether or not you buy a watch for prestige is something you are qualified to speak on, but why I buy a particular watch is not. When you make a statement as you did above you are basically calling me a liar, please refrain from doing it again.

And by the way I own a Grand Seiko as well as a Rolex.


----------



## vjb.knife (Feb 11, 2006)

rajenmaniar said:


> Vince,
> Your points are valid, about the need or practibality of higher depth ratings. But when it comes to dive watches, at higher costs, one expects higher depth ratings. Just like when buying fast cars, one looks at the horsepower,torque, 0 to 60 numbers, power to weight ratio etc, tho for most city drivers they dont matter in real life.
> I make no qualms about the fact that I find a 2000m meter depth rating sexier than a 200m rating, tho I dont dive at all.


Raj I see your point and it's fine. I am just saying that that is what I personally am starting to feel like. I have certainly had my share of 1000m, 2000m and even 3000m rated watches. I am just starting to change my feeling about that aspect of the whole Dive Watch mystique I guess. But I still like a fast car.


----------



## chronrad (Jul 7, 2008)

vjb.knife said:


> To me the large depth ratings are beginning to be a turn off. I almost find it insulting for them to suggest that these ratings are usable in any way at all.


I've started to feel the same way, especially with all these new "brands" coming out with so many dive watches with serious ratings. I don't have as much of a problem with it from Rolex, Seiko, and others who have been making pioneering advances in dive watch technology for years. But the one criticism I'd make about Rolex and the increasing depth ratings is, why does it have to come along with so much bloody text on the dial, and now the chapter ring and the new locking ring or whatever it is? If you're making a super depth rated watch as an engineering exercise that's great, but put the over the top rating under the bottom, on the caseback.

Anyway, it's good to hear the perspective of a real diver on this, thanks Vince.


----------



## Kent108 (Jan 17, 2007)

Yes, ideally, they should stick a SpringDrive movement into the case/dial/etc. of the MM300 Auto and be done with it. That might even end all my watch buying permanently! ;-)



outstretchedhands said:


> I have to say I prefer the styling of the MM300 and SD 600, too.


----------



## Kent108 (Jan 17, 2007)

watt said:


> Perhaps I should explain my perspective - regardless of the movement, the exculsivity of the Japan-only GS, it remains a Seiko. 99.999999% of the planet sees the Seiko as an every-man watch, akin to Timex and Casio.


Not true. In Asia, which has always been Seiko's primary market focus, Seiko is well respected across price demographics.

Your perception of Seiko as "like a Timex or Casio" is based on the fact that Seiko really doesn't give a hoot about the U.S. market or what Americans think of their products, to be perfectly honest. They sell out of all the higher-end watches that they make as it is. In the case of this watch, considering how few watchmakers (20, I believe) they've designated as skilled enough to craft the SpringDrive movement, they'd never be able to meet demand if they expanded their geographic focus.

Otherwise, there are any number of ways they could have, in their many-decade history, changed American perception of the brand.

- Kent


----------



## Kent108 (Jan 17, 2007)

watt said:


> Not necessarily a Rolex person, but still unconvinved Seiko is even playing the same game let alone in the same league as Rolex. IMO, we're talking Toyota (and in this case it's luxury division, a Lexus) versus a Mercedes Benz or a Daimler. Top end vehicles, but one is neveaux riche and the other two timeless.


Not a huge car enthusiast, but considering the high respect Toyota Racing Development commands in the automotive world, I actually think Lexus is probably every bit qualified to "play in the same league" as Mercedes or BMW or whoever, whether we're talking about engineering or luxury.

"Nouveau riche" is just a term used by wealthy families who have given up trying to contribute to society, whose assets are on the decline, and who have no clue what to do about it but sneer.



watt said:


> That one feature tops the Rolex divers. Imagine cashing in your Seiko for a plane ticket in Instanbul or Mogadishu and see how far you get. Although you probably won't get mugged for your Seiko in either of those places either.


I will readily concede this. It is indeed easier to convert a Rolex into cash. Which is good. Then you can put it to better use and buy a Seiko with the money! :-d



watt said:


> Haha. Even funnier. I bet it isn't.


Considering that the fit and finish of Seiko's Prospex divers match those of their Swiss counterparts charging twice the price, I'm willing to take the bet that the GS Seiko also is a better value than others at this price point. See: massive huge macro shots posted by somebody else recently in this thread for a hint.



watt said:


> As stated by someone else, perhaps time will tell on the superiority of movements, but its seems to me we're talking a movement a few years old versus 15-20 years and now tht older movement is being replaced by a superior one using superior components.


On the other hand, I think it seems to me we're talking about a watch company who's given up trying to innovate and instead coasting on its reputation, compared to a watch made by a company who still cares and is always pushing for improvement.



watt said:


> And this is funny from the thread starter himself and closes the book - if one is an hommage, there is nothing else to say.:rodekaart


But neither is an homage to the other. So there is. As has been said, this thread (or at least this argument) will never die. <shrug>.


----------



## mooster (May 23, 2008)

ROLEX for me please..


----------



## vjb.knife (Feb 11, 2006)

Kent108 said:


> Yes, ideally, they should stick a SpringDrive movement into the case/dial/etc. of the MM300 Auto and be done with it. That might even end all my watch buying permanently! ;-)


I am not sure that I would buy it. I have had two Spring Drives and still own the SBGE001 and they are most likely a fantastic movement in every way but for me the one thing that has not been proven is the dependability. I am hoping it will be very dependable and have every reason to believe it would be but it will take time for that.

Besides the 8L35 Auto movement that is in the Marine Master 300 Meter is fantastic in it's own right and that is one of the few watches that I have owned and sold but I am sure that I will buy it again. I like it the way it is.

I think if they offered the new 200 Meter Diver with the 8L35 auto movement in it I would be more inclined to buy it (at a lower price point of course).


----------



## Fatpants (Sep 6, 2007)

Way to make friends.


----------



## tsis3 (Jul 29, 2008)

Frankly, to me..a Seiko is a Seiko. Period........


----------



## gerrylb (Mar 5, 2008)

tsis3 said:


> Frankly, to me..a Seiko is a Seiko. Period........


And that can actually be a very good thing! :-!


----------



## Kent108 (Jan 17, 2007)

If by "Seiko" you mean "totally awesome," then I agree!



tsis3 said:


> Frankly, to me..a Seiko is a Seiko. Period........


----------



## tsis3 (Jul 29, 2008)

My response did not mean to be offensive. What I am trying to say is that it's hard for me to justify spending $6700 on a Seiko..even though I know the quality is on par with Rolex...


----------



## gerrylb (Mar 5, 2008)

^^^No offense taken dude! Most of us are perfectly aware of how the Seiko brand is generally perceived. Which makes some of us take a slightly perverse pleasure in the fact that we're among the minority who know better! Does that sound inane or what?


----------



## Kent108 (Jan 17, 2007)

No worries.

As the poll result shows, you're far from the only one, and Rolex didn't get such a sterling reputation by accident ...



tsis3 said:


> My response did not mean to be offensive. What I am trying to say is that it's hard for me to justify spending $6700 on a Seiko..even though I know the quality is on par with Rolex...


----------



## Bluesummers (Jan 21, 2007)

gerrylb said:


> ^^^No offense taken dude! Most of us are perfectly aware of how the Seiko brand is generally perceived. Which makes some of us take a slightly perverse pleasure in the fact that we're among the minority who know better! Does that sound inane or what?


That sounds more smug than what someone wearing a Rolex would say. Giving Seiko wearers a bad name already. :rodekaart


----------



## Nalu (Feb 14, 2006)

vjb.knife said:


> Trust me if you ever get an invitation to dive deeper then 150 feet, much less 500 feet, pass on it. It's too dangerous and there is not one friggin thing down there worth looking at. Get in a Submersible instead, that one I would jump on.


I disagree wholeheartedly - this is a common 'sport diver' myth and I'm surprised you'd repeat it Vince. With the advent of SCUBA rigs capable of reaching these depths being available on the commercial market, a great deal of exploration is now being done in the intermediate depths of 150-500 fsw.

One reason behind this myth is the fact that undersea exploration in the past has been concentrated in two regions: sport diving/SCUBA depths (e.g. JYC) and habitat or submersible depths (>150m). Very little work was done in the intermediate depths. Now that it is being done, new species are being discovered and new bio-systems are being documented. I'd refer interested folks to: http://www.marineexploration.org/ for more information.


----------



## gerrylb (Mar 5, 2008)

Bluesummers said:


> That sounds more smug than what someone wearing a Rolex would say. Giving Seiko wearers a bad name already. :rodekaart


I did say it was kinda inane didn't I? :-d


----------



## Bluesummers (Jan 21, 2007)

gerrylb said:


> I did say it was kinda inane didn't I? :-d


Yeah, but did you mean it? Got to nip that Seiko smug talk before you actually believe it. I mean we're talking Rolex vs Seiko here.

BTW, Rolex is winning. High fives all around.


----------



## Neil(UK) (Jan 19, 2008)

chronrad said:


> Come on what? Your post was one of the most well thought out and articulated in the whole thread! This is the sort of discussion that's so sadly difficult to have when anyone tries to question anything about Rolex. I'd like to see more of this, on either side.


Thanks Chronrad,

It's just that I had cast aspersions on the whole Seiko spring drive concept and none of the Spring drive fans would take me up on my argument.

Do they secretly agree with me?


----------



## gerrylb (Mar 5, 2008)

^^^What's your problem dude? Yes, I'm rather proud of my knowledge of Seiko's quality and heritage, and yes, I'm aware there's a certain amount of silliness in all this "I-know-more-than-the-average-watch-buyer-so-there!" attitude! 

Sheesh! You try to be self-effacing and look what it gets ya!

PS-That was for Bluesummer, not you Neil. Heheh.


----------



## TLex (Mar 28, 2007)

Come on! When is this pole gonna close so I can go and celebrate by buying GS Diver / Any Rolex diver in the same price range! :-s :-d


----------



## watt (Apr 20, 2008)

Kent108 said:


> I will readily concede this. It is indeed easier to convert a Rolex into cash. Which is good. Then you can put it to better use and buy a Seiko with the money! :-d


:-d



Kent108 said:


> But neither is an homage to the other. So there is. As has been said, this thread (or at least this argument) will never die. <shrug>.


You're correct.


----------



## watt (Apr 20, 2008)

TLex said:


> WTF are you talking about. :-s



I thought I wrote what I was talking about? o|




TLex said:


> If I want to say something about you I will quote your post directly like this.


OK and that's why I asked - for clarification. So what was your post about? :roll:


----------



## Nalu (Feb 14, 2006)

watt said:


> You're correct.


He's wrong. I'm here to tell you that this thread will die if the _ad hominem_ attacks and pointless posts continue. Make your case for the watch you favor or otherwise contribute to the debate. Endless bickering and insults add nothing to the useful discussion in progress and will result in the thread being closed.

Gabe has already posted a warning and edited posts which have violated the standards of WUS. Take heed. Those attempting humour, especially subtle humour like sarcasm, litoty or irony, should already be aware that it does not come across well on the internet. I suggest the generous use of emoticons to mitigate your words and prevent misunderstandings.


----------



## gerrylb (Mar 5, 2008)

^^^Hear ya loud and clear boss! Just that some people get so darn defensive. . .

Anyhow, I am honestly surprised at how close the voting is. I would've predicted that the Rollie would be miles ahead by this time.


----------



## OnTimeGabe (Aug 6, 2006)

watt said:


> OK and that's why I asked - for clarification. So what was your post about? :roll:


This line of discussion is over, watt. Please refrain from further posts not related to the thread topic.


----------



## Molle (Mar 30, 2006)

Already made my choice:





































Some pictorial Seiko Diver's history:


----------



## Nalu (Feb 14, 2006)

gerrylb said:


> Anyhow, I am honestly surprised at how close the voting is. I would've predicted that the Rollie would be miles ahead by this time.


Me too. Speaks to what dive watch afficionados value vice what the average luxury watch buying person finds attractive.

I haven't voted since I wouldn't buy either of these watches (GMTs are rarely interesting to me, even as someone who travels a great deal), but if forced to would probably select the Rolex as I don't find the GS all that attractive. Yet I've learned a lot in this thread and appreciate all the productive comments :-!

Superb group photo Molle - it is indeed a Seiko history lesson in one shot!


----------



## UltraMagnetic (Jun 6, 2007)

Molle said:


> Already made my choice:
> Some pictorial Seiko Diver's history:


Molle that _HURT_. That hurt me deep inside.

I quit:-(

Ian


----------



## gyapp (May 26, 2008)

I discussed this topic with a non-watch collector, and I asked him which would he get. He immediately said the Rolex, and I asked him why. The answer is that the watch is more highly-desired brand, and he could easily get more for it if he decides to sell it for emergency cash.

Then I asked him this hypothetical question which I'll post for you all now. Let's say that Rolex as a brand is similar to Seiko, or Seiko is as well-regarded as Rolex internationally. Both are priced similarly and have the same reputation, and the only difference between both watches is their build and movements. Which one would you get?

When you take the brand, historical significance and "perceived" value away from the whole equation, and just base your consumer mindset on the build qualities of both watches, I think they're both very similar and I would probably give higher points to Seiko for their innovation of their Spring-Drive movement.

It's the same with cars. Take a European car and a similar-class Japanese car. Cover up the brand and anything to give away its brand, and give the car to any normal driver and ask them to test-drive both vehicles. After that, ask them to review both vehicles and ask them which vehicle they will choose. Then show them the price tags and the brands. I'm very sure we'll come up with very interesting results from such tests.


----------



## Janne (Apr 16, 2007)

This thread has given me a lot of amusement. Imagine how (adult ?) feelings can heat up over two watches!!!

My 2 lire's: I would think the Seiko is the superior watch technically/mechanically.
It lacks just the "streed cred" and name of the Rolex.
Maybe Seiko should "invent" a new name to sell this product under. Think Toyota-Lexus and other Japanese car manufacturers.
Then maybe even Non WIS would appreciate the Japanese product.
Thinking, did not Seiko make a High End watch in the eighties?? Under a different name?


----------



## watt (Apr 20, 2008)

Nalu said:


> He's wrong. I'm here to tell you that this thread will die if the _ad hominem_ attacks and pointless posts continue. Make your case for the watch you favor or otherwise contribute to the debate. Endless bickering and insults add nothing to the useful discussion in progress and will result in the thread being closed.
> 
> Gabe has already posted a warning and edited posts which have violated the standards of WUS. Take heed. Those attempting humour, especially subtle humour like sarcasm, litoty or irony, should already be aware that it does not come across well on the internet. I suggest the generous use of emoticons to mitigate your words and prevent misunderstandings.


How many emoticons should be used? I used two in 25 words and three short sentences.:-s I don't think litoty is part of humor :rodekaarteither. Nor were my comments intended to be so. Just joining in the discussion.



gerrylb said:


> ^^^Hear ya loud and clear boss! Just that some people get so darn defensive. . .


Maybe I misunderstand but if I get defensive by asking for clarifaction to a post that has "what the ****" in it even though it is abbreviated, someone somewhere (even if it isn't directed at my post) has been called 'defensive' and they don't get a repremanding mod post! Isn't that antagonistic, per the rules?



OnTimeGabe said:


> This line of discussion is over, watt. Please refrain from further posts not related to the thread topic.


In regards to the term "grand" in Grand Seiko does it have a different meaning in Japanese than simple "bigger, better, larger" as in English? Is this post satisfactory?


----------



## DMB (Sep 9, 2007)

Could I have both please? - David


----------



## lordsinclair (Mar 21, 2006)

Dive Forum pic of the year!|> Just fantastic.



Molle said:


>


----------



## Goalie (Jan 14, 2007)

Uh, is this where I vote against the Dreadnought?


----------



## Rudy50 (Sep 10, 2007)

Without question, ROLEX! Nothing bad against the Grand Seiko, it has a wonderful movement, and IMO even better then the Subs. But when you look at history and resale value the Rolex is unmatched. The Rolex is like a Harley Davidson on your wrist. It would be extremely hard for me to spend over $6000 on a brand like Seiko, who sales $15 watches at Target. You will not find a Rolex at a bargain store!


----------



## codymac (Jun 22, 2008)

I've turned a lot of my Swiss watch wearing friends and coworkers on to Seiko. Yup, Seiko. They'd never even considered it before and now a couple of my coworkers regularly sport Seikos.

Why? Because, for them, much like myself, part of the real beauty of a Seiko is what you get for your money when you buy something like an SKX007. You get a great watch for your money.

When we're talking Seiko, for me, the beauty of that value decreases in direct proportion to the increase in price. If I could walk in and buy a Rolex for $200, I'd probably feel the same way about Rolex.


----------



## Neil(UK) (Jan 19, 2008)

codymac said:


> Why? Because, for them, much like myself, part of the real beauty of a Seiko is what you get for your money when you buy something like an SKX007. You get a great watch for your money.
> 
> When we're talking Seiko, for me, the beauty of that value decreases in direct proportion to the increase in price.


Couldn't agree more.

Plus I have reservations about the value of the whole spring drive concept as I posted earlier.


----------



## dtmartin46 (Aug 28, 2006)

Goalie said:


> Uh, is this where I vote against the Dreadnaught?


:-d


----------



## jblaze (Apr 18, 2008)

What are the sizes on each? If similar, I say Rollie.


----------



## Nalu (Feb 14, 2006)

watt said:


> How many emoticons should be used? I used two in 25 words and three short sentences.:-s I don't think litoty is part of humor :rodekaarteither. Nor were my comments intended to be so. Just joining in the discussion.


My comment was for everyone and really not posted for discussion. If it applies to you, then act accordingly. Understatement (litoties - my mispelling) is a widely used form of humour, though possibly it's not part of your repertoire.

"Joining in the discussion" involves more than referring to others' posts as laughable, 'calling out' other members and attempting to cap the discussion. You made some excellent points, but the gratuitous digs were unnecessary and contributed to the decline of this thread. TLex has adjusted fire as have others, please do the same.


----------



## kid-a (Apr 3, 2008)

Voted Rolex. Call me crazy but I can't see me wearing the Seiko for that price tag. A Rolex SD would be a good addition to my collection. If given the option to vote other, I would.


----------



## Tragic (Feb 11, 2006)

I vote the powers that be close the poll (if not the thread) next time it's tied in the interest of world peace. :-d


----------



## OnTimeGabe (Aug 6, 2006)

Tragic said:


> I vote the powers that be close the poll (if not the thread) next time it's tied in the interest of world peace. :-d


Way ahead of you, Tragic - I'm hoping for 100 to 100. ;-)


----------



## lordsinclair (Mar 21, 2006)

Tragic said:


> I vote the powers that be close the poll (if not the thread) next time it's tied in the interest of world peace. :-d


I don't know, John. This is pretty sedate stuff compared to some of the Omega v Rolex threads I've read over the years.:-d


----------



## Tragic (Feb 11, 2006)

lordsinclair said:


> I don't know, John. This is pretty sedate stuff compared to some of the Omega v Rolex threads I've read over the years.:-d


I know that better than ANYONE, trust me. :roll:


----------



## FrankinCA (Aug 22, 2007)

*Submariner for me personally>>>*

I have one and It's my favorite Rolex.

I don't know too much about Seiko other than they are an in house manufacturer.

Frank


----------



## lordsinclair (Mar 21, 2006)

Tragic said:


> I know that better than ANYONE, trust me. :roll:


Yeah, those Omega nuts can be brutal. Probably because they know Rolex always wins!;-)


----------



## gerrylb (Mar 5, 2008)

lordsinclair said:


> Yeah, those Omega nuts can be brutal. Probably because they know Rolex always wins!;-)


Uh-oh, now the Omega fellas are gonna join the fray!


----------



## lordsinclair (Mar 21, 2006)

gerrylb said:


> Uh-oh, now the Omega fellas are gonna join the fray!


Seiko v Omega? Now that would be fun!:-d Especially as Seiko would win every time...;-)

(Omega fans please note that I am only joking here. No gauntlet has been thrown down. This is still the Seiko v Rolex thread b-)).


----------



## kid-a (Apr 3, 2008)

lordsinclair said:


> Seiko v Omega? Now that would be fun!:-d Especially as Seiko would win every time...;-)
> 
> (Omega fans please note that I am only joking here. No gauntlet has been thrown down. This is still the Seiko v Rolex thread b-)).


Ok, I will put my mace away LOL


----------



## OnTimeGabe (Aug 6, 2006)

OK guys, we hit the magic 100 vs. 100 tie, so I closed this poll lest it drag on for ages. Given how close the tally stayed throughout, I figured the best way to end this was in a dead heat. b-) Comments are still open, though it seems that just about everything that can be said, already has. Great thread, Ian, and thanks to everyone who chipped in! :-!


----------



## ilan (Feb 4, 2009)

Dr. Robert said:


> Hi L., Titanium....my expensive Ti. aftermarket mountain bike bottom bracket froze to cranks and I had to trash it! I clean my mt. bike after every ride, and was disappointed, back to good old steel! Would that happen on watches? i.e. not being able to open case back etc.??? That said I do like my King Ti. water bottle cage, as it doesn't leave unsightly streaks on my plastic water bottles!!...and it looks cool!!!
> regards, Dr. Robert


Well, I got Zipp carbon water bottle cages










which also don't leave marks and look cool, but I don't know if I'm ready for a carbon dive watch . However, I do have a Ti wedding ring. On the other hand, I can never figure out (and no watch dealer can tell me) what kind of Ti these watches are made of. My wedding ring is 6Al/4V, these days most bicycle frames use 3Al/2V as the former is apparently too hard. Personally, I would like a watch made out of the 6Al/4V, which is aircraft grade Ti.

In any case, I vote for the Seiko because of the Spring Drive and because of the Ti. I think steel is just too massive for a big watch and prefer Ti if it isn't totally sad looking, as on the disappointing Omega Seamaster, which I would have bought otherwise. I currently am wearing a Swiss Army Summit Ti watch.

One last point: If I'm not mistaken, Seiko uses the ISO "divers" depth rating on its dive watches which is a standardized torture test which is much more cruel than just making sure the watch can withstand 20 bar constant uniform pressure (any egg could probably pass that test but wouldn't be called very resistant otherwise). I'm not sure whether it applies to this watch in particular though.

I guess the conclusion would be that I'm Shimano, not Campagnolo. Well, my latest bike an Cervelo R3-SL (winner of last year's Tour de France) is all Shimano, but I did get the Campagnolo cranks because I really like them. I suppose the conclusion is that I will get the Seiko watch and replace with Rolex hands.

-ilan


----------



## putnam dan (Sep 24, 2009)

I'd guess that the Seiko costs more to produce and Rolex spends more on advertizing.


----------



## ziddy76 (Jan 1, 2010)

I wonder how much of a difference the Grand Seiko is to the Seiko 600M Diver? They both use similar casing, dial, power reserve display. Don't quote me, but think different spring drives, 600M has 30 Jewel movement and the Grand Seiko a 33 Jewel Movement? Aside from the name seems to be a $2000 difference. I understand how rare these GS watches are also. But if price too high, would think the normal Seiko Diver be a good enough replacement?

I did not read this entire thread, did the OP end up buying the GS or the Sub?


----------



## linsook (Aug 2, 2008)

..


----------



## Zidane (Feb 11, 2006)

Why would anyone bring back a two year old post that had already been resurrected TWICE just to post ".."? :roll:


----------



## alexkarbo (Nov 6, 2009)

kripaws said:


> Uh....$6700 for a Seiko???? Better be made out of gold or platinum and come with a Kawasaki for that kind of price! There's reasons why Rolex can command those dollars....Whats Seiko's reasons????:-s


LMAO!!! :-d +1 7k seiko wow!


----------



## linsook (Aug 2, 2008)

Zidane said:


> Why would anyone bring back a two year old post that had already been resurrected TWICE just to post ".."? :roll:


I was high.


----------



## Zidane (Feb 11, 2006)

linsook said:


> I was high.


LMFAO. Can't argue with that. :-!


----------



## teslakite (May 18, 2011)

This thread really highlighted the high calibre of WUS forum goes- I didn't know this level of intellect still existed on the internet (case-in-point: youtube comments...).

Character is not defined by the watch the person wears, but the actual person itself. A janitor can wear a Rolex and if you took one look you would immediate assume it was fake. Yet you would never be suspicious of a man emerging from a Maserati with such a Rolex. The Seiko doesn't suffer from this problem- it is in a way more innocent and less tainted by society. If this poll was still open, I would vote for the Seiko. 
I opened an account just to post this! Hope it made grammatical sense hahah. Good day good sirs!


----------



## OnTimeGabe (Aug 6, 2006)

Thanks for the comment and welcome aboard. This was a good thread but I'm going to lock it now before we get people responding to posts that are 3 years old. ;-)


----------

