# JLC is not on par as a brand with rolex? please comment



## tle

Dear fellow JLC owner!

I have a JLC master control date 18k rose gold in mint condition purchased from AD in mid 2012. In the intend to slip it for a rolex batman or Daytona, of course i will add more cash if the Daytona is new, i have sent a pm to this man on rolex forum to ask if he wanted to trade his Daytona($9100 was his asking price). He got back to me with insulted comment saying i am dreaming(even thus i was just asking nicely whether he want to trade or what he is thinking), asking me to explain to him why would anyone flip a rolex batman and don't even think about Daytona!

Here is my watch. please let me know if i am a dreamer and lets me face the harsh reality thats JLC is cheap!










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Alex_TA

The harsh reality is that JLC is one of the worst brands in keeping its value. It goes down like a stone up to 60%, and even then it's hard to find a buyer.

But from the pure horological point of view JLC situated much higher than Rolex. You have a great watch, keep it and enjoy it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Essthetix

Obviously, JLC isn't cheap. And you're not far-fetched to think that someone might consider either of those trades. But in reality, or should we say 9.7 times out of 10, people - and especially dealers/flippers - are not going to want to trade similar valued Rolex's for JLC's; the demographic for Rolex is simply waaay bigger. And even then, especially if this is a dealer you're attempting to trade with, they're probably not even going to consider a similar-valued Rolex for their own Rolex - just because there's always a risk in trading. And dealers, by definition, exist to make profit.

For the record, I prefer JLC and think your Master Control Date looks gorgeous. But I wouldn't trade either of the Rolex's straight up, just due to their market value and appeal. No matter what your preferences are, there's something to be said about owning what everyone else wants to own.

Regardless, though, your proposition was far from ridiculous. And there's simply no excuse for being rude.


----------



## Monad

It looks like you found a Rolex elitist. While it's true that JLC loses value much faster than Rolex, if you offered to add cash to the trade it definitely could be a fair bargain.

That said, I think you'll find a lot of Rolex owners who don't know much about other brands, and as such don't respect them. In this case you're better off selling the JLC separately and purchasing the Rolex, although I would wonder why you'd want to down-grade.


----------



## bowxser

JLC resale isn't as strong and doesn't have as much market share. No matter if the JLC is in precious metal or not. It's hard to re-sell


----------



## tle

to be honest, i am also a rolex fan but i do open up to new prospective, like i have been so happy that i'd flip the explorer2 39mm for PAM523 and i think the pam is way more interesting, even the resell value might be not as good as rolex but hey, u guy don't buy/trade watch with thinking of resell value all the time right? maybe its just me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cheesydude

lol u did ask on a rolex forum...but the daytona is well regarded in the rolex realm


----------



## sevencycles

Jaeger LeCoultre is a keeper. JLC watches are a connoisseur choice. Rolex is for everyone.


----------



## tle

cheesydude said:


> lol u did ask on a rolex forum...but the daytona is well regarded in the rolex realm


YES...and i got a die hard fan one as well


----------



## bradfordcharles

Keep the JLC. For me, the only place Rolex comes close is with the Cellini line.

The rest are fine as tools, but they don't sing like a JLC.


----------



## Gunnar_917

Essthetix said:


> Obviously, JLC isn't a cheap. And you're not far-fetched to think that someone might consider either of those trades. But in reality, or should we say 9.7 times out of 10, people - and especially dealers/flippers - are not going to want to trade similar valued Rolex's for JLC's; the demographic for Rolex is simply waaay bigger. And even then, especially if this is a dealer you're attempting to trade with, they're probably not even going to consider a similar-valued Rolex for their own Rolex - just because there's always a risk in trading. And dealers, by definition, exist to make profit.
> 
> For the record, I prefer JLC and think your Master Control Date looks gorgeous. But I wouldn't trade either of the Rolex's straight up, just due to their market value and appeal. No matter what your preferences are, there's something to be said about owning what everyone else wants to own.
> 
> Regardless, though, your proposition was far from ridiculous. And there's simply no excuse for being rude.


This sums it up very well!


----------



## Citlalcoatl

Gunnar_917 said:


> This sums it up very well!


Agree 100%. It's not that JLC is an inferior brand, an inferior quality, or makes an inferior watch...in fact its probably (in my opinion at least) superior in 2 out of 3. The key component is "branding" and, quite frankly, Rolex hold their value more simply because of the wider appeal and brand-recognition. Sure most watch connoisseurs who "know" are aware of JLC and it's fantastic innovations and quality, but there are far more out there who have never heard of it. It doesn't mean the uneducated are right...it just means there are more of them who buy watches.

It's like in house-flipping. Its simply easier, in general, to flip a quality lower costing, smaller house rather than a mansion in the millions because there are more potential buyers and a house flipper (or a watch dealer) does not want to get stuck with something they can't move as easily.

Still no excuse for rudeness, even on the internet. I wouldn't trade the JLC you have anyway.


----------



## mattfm

Rolex: everyone....
JLC: Connoisseur and watch lovers.

I have a Submariner C and 2 JLCs (Reverso and steel`s Master Control)

If i had to choose only one watch for life, i would take the Submariner because it`s a tank and could be used with a black tie... 

But if i had to choose between the brands, i would take JLC until the death...


----------



## tle

mattfm said:


> Rolex: everyone....
> JLC: Connoisseur and watch lovers.
> 
> I have a Submariner C and 2 JLCs (Reverso and steel`s Master Control)
> 
> If i had to choose only one watch for life, i would take the Submariner because it`s a tank and could be used with a black tie...
> 
> But if i had to choose between the brands, i would take JLC until the death...


well well... i have the exact same thought about sub-c


----------



## heb

In terms of long term accuracy and durability, I think your statement is correct. 

heb


----------



## cfracing

In terms of quality, yes. In terms of design and technical innovation, I would argue that JLC is above Rolex. However, in the "marketplace" the perception _and_ therefore reality is Rolex is *the* brand and retains its value better because of it than just about any other brand except perhaps for the very expensive Patek Philippe.


----------



## qtip.416

I was was about to reply but this sums up my thoughts exactly.

+1



mattfm said:


> Rolex: everyone....
> JLC: Connoisseur and watch lovers.
> 
> I have a Submariner C and 2 JLCs (Reverso and steel`s Master Control)
> 
> If i had to choose only one watch for life, i would take the Submariner because it`s a tank and could be used with a black tie...
> 
> But if i had to choose between the brands, i would take JLC until the death...


----------



## theEntreriCode

heb said:


> In terms of long term accuracy and durability, I think your statement is correct.
> 
> heb


Hey there, I do not own either a JLC or a Rolex (saving up for either a Daytona or a MUT Moon); Is this an apples to apples comparison? I wouldn't expect a Rose Gold dress watch to be as durable as a Sub or Explorer, but I would expect a Reverso to be as durable as say a Cellini. I haven't done too much research on JLC movement accuracies so I don't really know too much about it. Still though, considering the tests JLC put their watches through, shouldn't they operate much much tighter than COSC?



cfracing said:


> In terms of quality, yes.


Hi! Can you please elaborate how quality of Rolex is superior to JLC? This is what I think:

1) If extremely rough use is important then, then yes, in that respect Rolex is probably superior 
2) If case, dial and hand finishing is important to you then JLC has a superior quality

There are many many more qualitative and quantitative factors when considering watch quality, such as ease of service, cost of ownership etc. I'd be very interested in hearing why you feel Rolex quality is superior to JLC's. I've handled numerous time pieces from both on several occasions, and to me, the JLC's have always seemed far far above Rolex in quality. At least those factors I can assess without owning either. I agree with your assessment of brand perception. A friend of a friend bought a USD 100,000 Rolex and he has no clue about watches other than "Rolex are the best"; The guy also happens to be a billionaire real estate magnate so we definitely live in diametrically opposite worlds..he has several Bentleys, Rolls Royces, Maseratis and some other exotic super cars, I drive a VW and dream of buying a 328i so I won't presume to try understand his rationale behind his decisions beyond prestige and a place to park some tax free money. My friend who is more of an average Joe who has become successful in his career, tells me that he knows nothing about watches but has always thought Rolex to be the best. He is now beginning to see the difference between his dress Rolexes and VC, PP, JLC, AP, GO and ALS dress watches. In fact, he is considering hawking his Gold Rolex for a better quality dress watch from one of those companies. Thats not something your average Rolex fanboy in my neck of the woods would even think about. I say friend but really he started out as a work mentor 15 years my senior so we do view the world differently.


----------



## Tristis

theEntreriCode said:


> Hey there, I do not own either a JLC or a Rolex (saving up for either a Daytona or a MUT Moon); Is this an apples to apples comparison? I wouldn't expect a Rose Gold dress watch to be as durable as a Sub or Explorer, but I would expect a Reverso to be as durable as say a Cellini. I haven't done too much research on JLC movement accuracies so I don't really know too much about it. Still though, considering the tests JLC put their watches through, shouldn't they operate much much tighter than COSC?
> 
> Hi! Can you please elaborate how quality of Rolex is superior to JLC? This is what I think:
> 
> 1) If extremely rough use is important then, then yes, in that respect Rolex is probably superior
> 2) If case, dial and hand finishing is important to you then JLC has a superior quality
> 
> There are many many more qualitative and quantitative factors when considering watch quality, such as ease of service, cost of ownership etc. I'd be very interested in hearing why you feel Rolex quality is superior to JLC's. I've handled numerous time pieces from both on several occasions, and to me, the JLC's have always seemed far far above Rolex in quality. At least those factors I can assess without owning either. I agree with your assessment of brand perception. A friend of a friend bought a USD 100,000 Rolex and he has no clue about watches other than "Rolex are the best"; The guy also happens to be a billionaire real estate magnate so we definitely live in diametrically opposite worlds..he has several Bentleys, Rolls Royces, Maseratis and some other exotic super cars, I drive a VW and dream of buying a 328i so I won't presume to try understand his rationale behind his decisions beyond prestige and a place to park some tax free money. My friend who is more of an average Joe who has become successful in his career, tells me that he knows nothing about watches but has always thought Rolex to be the best. He is now beginning to see the difference between his dress Rolexes and VC, PP, JLC, AP, GO and ALS dress watches. In fact, he is considering hawking his Gold Rolex for a better quality dress watch from one of those companies. Thats not something your average Rolex fanboy in my neck of the woods would even think about. I say friend but really he started out as a work mentor 15 years my senior so we do view the world differently.


Some members have recently mentioned accuracy issues with their JLCs in the last few weeks in this forum (jaeger-lecoultre-watch-accuracy-standards-2956666, jlc-master-geographic-inaccuracy-issue-2936122).

The watches mentioned seemed to be primarily be reversos & geographic (caliber 929). Do remember the selection bias as the only people compelled to reply to threads about accuracy issues tend to be the ones who have had said issues.

For what it's worth, I purchased a JLC MUT Moon in the last few months, and it is running +2.5s a day like clockwork (can't seem to separate it from my wrist unless I'm rock climbing). Have already had several spur of the moment conversations and now know a few WIS at work, but it flies completely under the radar to others except as "a nice watch" since it isn't a ROLEX (which was another reason I preferred it).

If you are entertaining the idea of eventually flipping the watch for something else and like both though, as others have said in this thread (and I agree with) the Daytona hands down will be the better purchase.


----------



## Monad

Tristis said:


> If you are entertaining the idea of eventually flipping the watch for something else and like both though, as others have said in this thread (and I agree with) the Daytona hands down will be the better purchase.


Or, purchase used. If you do it right you'll lose about as much on a Rolex as a JLC, and you can get a lot more JLC for the same amount of cash.

The friend above might not think this way, but then again, a number of very wealthy people I know actually prefer older watches, as what's the fun in just going to the shop and buying something when you can afford anything on display? It's the hunt that's fun.


----------



## theEntreriCode

Tristis said:


> Some members have recently mentioned accuracy issues with their JLCs in the last few weeks in this forum (jaeger-lecoultre-watch-accuracy-standards-2956666, jlc-master-geographic-inaccuracy-issue-2936122).
> 
> The watches mentioned seemed to be primarily be reversos & geographic (caliber 929). Do remember the selection bias as the only people compelled to reply to threads about accuracy issues tend to be the ones who have had said issues.
> 
> For what it's worth, I purchased a JLC MUT Moon in the last few months, and it is running +2.5s a day like clockwork (can't seem to separate it from my wrist unless I'm rock climbing). Have already had several spur of the moment conversations and now know a few WIS at work, but it flies completely under the radar to others except as "a nice watch" since it isn't a ROLEX (which was another reason I preferred it).
> 
> If you are entertaining the idea of eventually flipping the watch for something else and like both though, as others have said in this thread (and I agree with) the Daytona hands down will be the better purchase.


Good to know. +2.5 s/day is not something I'd have a problem with. I doubt I'd flip either of the watches, well maybe the Daytona as they're so common if I get bored of it and don't have an emotional attachment to it. There are many permutations and combinations that would go into the decision. The Wifes been talking about getting a Rolex. If she is serious about it and likes the new Cerachrom Bezel Daytona, I might just buy her one instead. We have both been talking about starting a family. If that happens then either of the watches would be great legacy pieces for a Boy or Girl, but, my personal preference would be for a RG MUT Moon.



Monad said:


> Or, purchase used. If you do it right you'll lose about as much on a Rolex as a JLC, and you can get a lot more JLC for the same amount of cash.
> 
> The friend above might not think this way, but then again, a number of very wealthy people I know actually prefer older watches, as what's the fun in just going to the shop and buying something when you can afford anything on display? It's the hunt that's fun.


 Used is something to think about. This would be my first seriously expensive (to me) watch. As of today, I highly doubt I'd ever consider flipping one and if I do go the JLC route for a legacy piece, I'd definitely want to buy it new! Discounts available on the RG MUT MOON put it in the range of the SS Daytona Of-Course, if it is a Daytona, I can always use my friends reference to get my paws on one without having to wait a long time for it, and, given their resale values, it would make zero sense for me to buy used. He's dead set agains used, and, not being a WIS, does not care about classic time pieces or movements. Just wants a watch to look good. He is also getting tired of the way people perceive him when he wears his Rolexes, so he's pretty much stopped. Doesn't wear a watch every day or wears a cheap $20 Timex when wearing a watch is critical for him.


----------



## bigclive2011

I have both Rolex models and a JLC Reverso.

I think it is hard to compare separate brands as they have their own style and intended purpose.

The OP is looking to trade to a Rolex sports which are the most desirable and hard to find watches in the range, and hence hold their values the best.

So my comment to the OP's question is No. They are Horologically superior, but commercially inferior, so the comparison is unfair.

I am glad to have both in my collection, and love them both equally, albeit in different ways.


----------



## Addicted

In my collection I 3 rolex's and a JLC MUT RG. Sorry to say this in the JLC but the rolex's I own keep way better time than the JLC. I am actually quite disappointed with the JLC, runs anything upto 30 seconds a day, although I have to say it really does sparkle, and visually it is way higher. Stunning watch.


----------



## theEntreriCode

Addicted said:


> In my collection I 3 rolex's and a JLC MUT RG. Sorry to say this in the JLC but the rolex's I own keep way better time than the JLC. I am actually quite disappointed with the JLC, runs anything upto 30 seconds a day, although I have to say it really does sparkle, and visually it is way higher. Stunning watch.


Maybe your JLC movement is magnetized? an easy check would be to use your mobile compass and see if it deviates close proximity to your watch. If it is, then its and easy fix. I don't think you need to apologize about for stating your experience. After all, if one can't get objective opinions, then what is the use of these forums?


----------



## cfracing

cfracing said:


> In terms of quality, yes. In terms of design and technical innovation, I would argue that JLC is above Rolex.





theEntreriCode said:


> Hi! Can you please elaborate how quality of Rolex is superior to JLC?


Please take a deep breath and relax. You misinterpreted the intent of my statement. I never said or implied that Rolex was superior to JLC in quality. 
*EDIT:* OK, I may have contributed to the misunderstanding. I read the original question as "Is JLC not on par as a brand with rolex?" My answer was supposed to mean "In terms of quality, yes (it is on par)" not "yes (it is not on par)" as you, and probably everyone else read it. I apologize for any misunderstanding from my poor wording.

I am a big fan of the JLC brand. My response about the relative quality of the brands is based on the original question that came from the point of view that JLC as a brand might be _inferior_ to Rolex. My response reflected that quality was at least on par and while I might feel it could even be superior to Rolex, I did not feel as strongly, or as certain, about it to include it with the JLC design and technical innovation which I did think is clearly superior in the next sentence.


----------



## RobS72

There are very few brands of anything in the world on a par with Rolex.

I've no doubt that a Rolex bought today will still be seen pretty much the same way in twenty years time as it is now, a great, well made watch and status symbol and you probably won't lose too much in depreciation compared to anything else you buy.....they're safe...mostly because unlike JLC they don't do anything adventurous in terms of design. The movements are gradually refined and it's hardly surprising people say they keep better time when about the most advanced complication they include is a date. Where's their tourbillon? Repeater? Perpetual Calendar?


----------



## Alex_TA

RobS72 said:


> There are very few brands of anything in the world on a par with Rolex.
> 
> I've no doubt that a Rolex bought today will still be seen pretty much the same way in twenty years time as it is now, a great, well made watch and status symbol and you probably won't lose too much in depreciation compared to anything else you buy.....they're safe...mostly because unlike JLC they don't do anything adventurous in terms of design. The movements are gradually refined and it's hardly surprising people say they keep better time when about the most advanced complication they include is a date. Where's their tourbillon? Repeater? Perpetual Calendar?


What an incredible source of wisdom!


----------



## RobS72

Alex_TA said:


> What an incredible source of wisdom!


There's no need to be patronising.


----------



## Essthetix

I think it's pretty clear that most people would take similar valued Rolex's over JLC's. The reasons have been mentioned throughout this thread, so I won't bother restating them.

But if it's any consolation to the OP, the theory of market appeal applies to other brands as well - even those that are widely thought of as being 'above' JLC. Take Breguet, for example. Or even Vacheron Constantin. In any case, I'm not going to trade a Daytona for, say, a VC Overseas of like value. I probably wouldn't even trade a Geophysic (if I had one) for the same VC. Does that make Rolex or JLC above VC? Not necessarily, but I find VC's (at least the ones in my price range) uninteresting, and lacking charisma.

Things get trickier if we move up to AP, though. Because - in my opinion, at least - AP has that VC/JLC horological pedigree *and* that Rolex 'captainofthefootballteam' coolness, albeit to a lesser extent. Speaking of which, here's a hard decision to make: 2 Dayonas or an AP Royal Oak Ultra Thin (15202)? I'd go with the AP, but I bet just as many if not more people would pick the 2 Daytona's. 

Rolex doesn't have everything. But what it has, it has the most of. And for one reason or another, that counts for a lot.


----------



## tle

Best explanation to date! seriously when i purchased my JLC (from AD boutique in Sydney), it was more expensive/rare than the Daytona but at the time I'd already own 3 Rolex (sub, explore2,datejust), i was thinking im not going to get another Rolex this time. they just look so much a like. I dont denial the fact that i am also a Rolex's fan and i do understand why they are keeping their value well. When i bought my datejust with big stone as my first watch(not really into watch at the time), it was just purely for public recognition as wealth but after wearing it for 6years. It has amazed me how well it was made and still keeping good time. It still look as good as when i purchased it. Now after serviced,i have gave its to my dad, he wear it everyday, doing house repair, lawn mowing, gardening work and it still does not getting any wear off. Even thus i dont think they are far more superior to JLC,the finished quality is top class and in rose gold. It was just really shocking me how deviated the value can be as one of the top brand watchmaker while where somewhere in Asia, people still buying Omega Seamaster vintage piepan 18k gold for $5000 to $7000.



Essthetix said:


> I think it's pretty clear that most people would take similar valued Rolex's over JLC's. The reasons have been mentioned throughout this thread, so I won't bother restating them.
> 
> But if it's any consolation to the OP, the theory of market appeal applies to other brands as well - even those that are widely thought of as being 'above' JLC. Take Breguet, for example. Or even Vacheron Constantin. In any case, I'm not going to trade a Daytona for, say, a VC Overseas of like value. I probably wouldn't even trade a Geophysic (if I had one) for the same VC. Does that make Rolex or JLC above VC? Not necessarily, but I find VC's (at least the ones in my price range) uninteresting, and lacking charisma.
> 
> Things get trickier if we move up to AP, though. Because - in my opinion, at least - AP has that VC/JLC horological pedigree *and* that Rolex 'captainofthefootballteam' coolness, albeit to a lesser extent. Speaking of which, here's a hard decision to make: 2 Dayonas or an AP Royal Oak Ultra Thin (15202)? I'd go with the AP, but I bet just as many if not more people would pick the 2 Daytona's.
> 
> Rolex doesn't have everything. But what it has, it has the most of. And for some reason or another, that counts for a lot.


----------



## Ripper444

Guess I am the odd ball out. I jut flipped my daytona and some cash my way for my first JLC. I will be honest that the Daytona is way more refined. It was so accurate, with an extended warranty for 3 years by rolex. The JLC deep sea lacks lume and has a very loud rotor. To me these things make the Daytona far superior in quality. The reason I wanted to get rid of it is because people look at my wrist and I do not like that. With JLC they have no idea at all. Overall the JLC is a very nice watch but Rolex is Rolex.


----------



## UofRSpider

I personally think JLC's as a whole are boring. Their designs are boring, dials are monotone and boring. With that said I think they hold a very respectable spot in the horological world. I just dont care for them. No intention of mine to discredit the brand. Wonderful craftsmanship, just not for me.


----------



## logan2z

UofRSpider said:


> I personally think JLC's as a whole are boring. Their designs are boring, dials are monotone and boring. With that said I think they hold a very respectable spot in the horological world. I just dont care for them. No intention of mine to discredit the brand. Wonderful craftsmanship, just not for me.


Just curious, why do you hang out on the JLC forum then?


----------



## UofRSpider

logan2z said:


> Just curious, why do you hang out on the JLC forum then?


Because I appreciate the craftsmanship and passion that goes into every JLC made.


----------



## oztech

i would not trade or flip that is a beautiful dress watch that I think you would regret letting go down the road.


----------



## Tomatoes11

I own two Rolex and two JLC's. I consider my JLC's superior and baby them a lot more, even though I know both Rolex watches are probably already worth more. It wasn't that way when I paid for them though.


----------



## KS1144

JLC is not on par with Rolex in brand recognition, value retention and manufacturing infrastructure. 

JLC in it's higher models exceeds everything on the Rolex roster in refinement and have a wider variety of offerings stylistically. JLC's have a bigger cool factor among watch enthusiasts.

Rolex is going to get more daily use from most people, take that for what it's worth.


----------



## ovalglow

Not that this hasn't been said in this thread in a number of ways, but Rolex has name recognition beyond the watch community that JLC doesn't. Of course, for some, that's a positive. I think if you take your time, you could eventually find someone willing to trade... a watch enthusiast looking to upgrade past an expected Rolex. As many have said though, I'd consider keeping the JLC. It's watch guy's watch.


----------



## upupa epops

Brand recognition aside (for example a certain Mr. Bieber is known by more people than [insert influential band here]) but try and compare JLC's Duometres with anything in Rolex's range and it will all become more clear to you who belongs where...


----------



## VictorChief

If you're trying to impress people that don't know anything about watches, then Rolex is the obvious choice. It will hold value, everyone knows what it is. It's a commodity item in a way and you can use it and re-sell it without taking too much of a hit.

If you're into movements and 'artistic' finish, the JLC is clearly superior. The rolex finish is more industrial for sure and much more mass produced. An annual production of 20-40x more (as it has more demand).

To me, I like both brands, but for different reasons.


----------



## 4star

Yes, but if your buying pre owned and the bulk of the depreciation has been taken they are not bad buys. Really like any watch. But yes if you buy new they will not hold value, unless you get a fantastic discount on your new piece.


----------



## montelatici

People that know about watches will know that a person that wears a Rolex is a poseur. Really wealthy people that know nothing about watches don't wear Rolex watches. They will wear a 100k Patek Phillipe. Poseurs wear Rolex watches. I used to be a poseur and still have that poseur Rolex, but I now wear a Panerai and own a Reverso.


----------



## vealmike

Everyone and their dog knows that Rolex make the worlds best watches. You can't buy better.

Only watch enthusiasts will know that's a load of old tosh.


----------



## heb

If one's main criteria are long term precision and reliability in a mechanical wristwatch, NO brand is on a par with Rolex. JLC has a long history of good watchmaking; seems like most of today's well established upper shelf watch brands have some connection with JLC or maybe just the "L" part of the name.

heb


----------



## aaroniusl

Horologically-wise I feel JLC is definitely on par or better than Rolex. But reliability, durability and accuracy-wise I can't really comment as I don't own a JLC yet. But Rolex in general are almost bulletproof and its dead accurate. Rolex service centres' turnaround time for servicing is also quite fast as compared to alot of other brands.


----------



## bayarea508

The brand name of Rolex will always have brand name recognition, which makes it the safer choice(easier to resell). But for me, JLC is on Par with Rolex (depends on the model obviously). Though it takes more of a watch enthusiast to know it


----------



## Zambian4ever

Owning both brands, I don't feel the need to compare one against the other. Both are amazing brands, but have different philosophies as watchmakers. Rolex definitely holds its $ value better, but if you buy a JLC at the right price then it isn't that big of a gap.


----------



## mountbatten

heb said:


> If one's main criteria are long term precision and reliability in a mechanical wristwatch, NO brand is on a par with Rolex. JLC has a long history of good watchmaking; seems like most of today's well established upper shelf watch brands have some connection with JLC or maybe just the "L" part of the name.
> 
> heb


I agree.


----------



## ayuboi86

with finite $ of course we need to rationalize our purchases, but I would say at different points in life you want different things, so you will be comparing against immediate/future wants in current financial context and not between brands.


----------



## Prahasaurus

The problem is that "value" is very subjective. I do not buy watches to sell them, I buy them because I like the watch and the brand, and it makes me happy to wear the watch and be associated with the values the watch represents. I try to buy pre-owned to avoid significant value loss, as well.

I don't own a Rolex, simply because I don't really identify with the brand. On the other hand, I do love some of their watches. Eventually I could see myself purchasing a Datejust, for example, which I believe is a fantastic dress watch. I don't really associate with the Rolex brand because I believe (perhaps unfairly?) it's the choice for people who want an expensive watch, without really knowing or caring much about horology. I also don't want to draw attention to my watch based on the brand alone. Just like I don't wear clothes to show off a brand. Subtle elegance is what I hope to achieve, and that's not so easy with a Rolex (elegant, absolutely, but subtle?)...

I don't yet own a JLC, either, but I absolutely love the look of both the Reverso (an iconic watch) and the Master Ultra Thin. I'll own those watches before I purchase my first Rolex (definitely a Datejust, when the time is right). 

But to each his own. Sometimes I look at watches on these forums which everyone seems to love and think, "I would never be caught dead in that watch." Im sure others would say the same about my choices. Which is why I never take what people say about my watch preferences too seriously. I know what I like, I'm confident in what I own, and that is enough for me.


----------



## Prahasaurus

And to follow up on my previous post, and give you an example of how irrational I am, I am quite sure I would already own a Rolex Datejust if few people knew about Rolex. Even if that meant I would pay full price, and the resale prices were very low! 

In other words, I would gladly pay 6000 USD for a beautiful stainless Datejust if nobody knew much about the brand, and hence I would never be able to sell it for more than, say, 2000 USD... So even though the resale value would be terrible, I would be very happy wearing such a beautiful watch, and knowing few people knew much about Rolex.

But since Rolex is such a recognizable brand, I now don't want to pay 6000 USD for the same watch, knowing that I could always sell it for a similar amount. It's still the same watch, and now the conditions are better for me, but I just don't want it as much. So I suppose the moral of the story is that resale values mean little to me when purchasing a luxury watch. But I recognize I'm probably in the minority.


----------



## Prahasaurus

tle said:


> I have a JLC master control date 18k rose gold in mint condition purchased from AD in mid 2012. In the intend to slip it for a rolex batman or Daytona, of course i will add more cash if the Daytona is new, i have sent a pm to this man on rolex forum to ask if he wanted to trade his Daytona($9100 was his asking price). He got back to me with insulted comment saying i am dreaming(even thus i was just asking nicely whether he want to trade or what he is thinking), asking me to explain to him why would anyone flip a rolex batman and don't even think about Daytona!


Interestingly enough, and I swear by chance, I was just reading an archived AMA from the WatchSnob on Reddit, and he responded as follows, when asked what the most overrated watch was of all time:

_As to your second question there are once again too many to count, but may I single out one currently especially egregious example: the Rolex Daytona. In its current incarnation is is a perfectly decent mid-range sports watch but they have, as collectible watches, become nothing more than something for wealthy idiots over which to have six (or seven) figure pissing contests._


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Watches/comments/2eqkan


----------



## Genco

I could see a collector flipping one of the Rolex models for the right Reverso...looking to get into an iconic tank/dress watch. It depends on the JLC model.


----------



## Tallest

I mean if I said "selling Daytona or will exchange for JLC+cash dress watch" then its a fair trade. If i said "selling Daytona" and someone sent me a request to flip it for a JLC dress watch and I already had dress watch, that also happens to depreciate a lot - why would I bother? It is such a bizzare trade!  I dont get what the issue is, but so much is said about which brand is what, and someone even brought up the bloody Watchsnob who basically wrote entertainment pieces. Come on.


----------



## Snuggie

Both are great brands and have their own merits. Problem is people who do not know watches will praise Rolex and people who thinks that they know watches will start talking trash about Rolex without really understanding why.


----------



## Exdeath

JLC doesn't hold its value as well as Rolex, unfortunately. I had a mint condition Deep Sea Cermet I couldn't even let go for close to half of retail.


----------



## Herbalizer

For me the JLC Master Control is one of the most beautiful understated watches made, and should be worn as such. Other brands are just that... Brands. I say, wear what makes you happy and the hell with everybody else. Like the post above says "Confidence in what you own"


----------



## BerutoSenpai

JLC is not on par with rolex, because JLC is a higher brand then Rolex, in my opinion....


----------



## 2amwagon

Every new kitchen starts with a chef's knife: all purpose, it chops, gets the job done... A tool.

Then hopefully acquires a santoku, and chopping becomes slicing, and much more satisfying... An instrument.

Every kitchen "needs" a chef's knife, not everyone evolves to a santoku, hence the demand imbalance.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## aaroniusl

I was recently considering flipping a Rolex and Nomos for the Deep Sea Chronograph. So to me, JLC is *not not on par* with Rolex.


----------



## Jon-Pierre

I'd take your watch over a rolex any day. Can't buy class my friend.


----------



## 4star

I agree buy pre owned, then there much less if any (if you buy at bottom) depreciation to take. Trades are hard anyway, you have to agree on two watch values. 

I just got my 1st JLC (8th watch purchase) and none of them have been Rolex. They are a good brand but don't do it for me, they are impressive at holding value. I agree, Rolex markets well, JLC is not a mass market brand. The general population has no view on JLC or knowledge of it. I have "watch guys" at work I chat with that did not know who JLC was when I showed them my watch.


----------



## Zain A

In my opinion the difference between Rolex and JLC in terms of brand strength is simply because of how the brands behave. Rolex acts like the market leader they are, they offer little to no discounts and market heavily. Sometimes it seems like they are willing to take a small loss today (limiting supply of certain models, not offering deep discounts even when watch sales are down globally) to build a stronger brand for tomorrow, its almost snobbish. JLC on the other hand don't seem to value themselves too much, there are deep discounts to be had on most JLC models if you shop around, they also recently reduced their prices by 7-10%, this would never happen in the Rolex world. JLC also barely markets apart from some film/cinema events where celebrities who probably know nothing about watches are handed out watches. To summarize very little investment in the brand and it reeks of poor brand management.

From a product perspective, JLC is simply in another league compared to Rolex, you just need to compare how the movements are decorated. A high end JLC is closer to an entry level Patek, VC or AP in terms of finishing.


----------



## PATCOOK

There is no comparison from horological ,pedigree and historical point view JLC wins by a mile . JLC is a brand of true elegance and integrity( not much valued nowadays) only loses to agressive business,trend and ignorance .Nothing against Daytona which is a great watch in its own rights but again it plays in a different ligue.Keep that beauty and find your way to get that Daytona. cheers


----------



## AlistairD

Before buying my Amvox had a look at a few Rolex's and IMHO there was no comparison in terms of exclusivity...

A

Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk


----------



## 3demon

From experience, I'll say that JLC was dodgy when it came to reliability and service. It seems like their steel is an alloy made with butter - not sure why, but ALL JLCs I've handled seem to really show their scratches in an unflattering way. 

I've seen JLCs break and go back to Switzerland for repair, only to return and break in the exact same way again. I just don't trust their reliability, even with the 1000 hr movements.

Rolex doesn't seem to suffer from these isses.


----------



## phillycheez

The hypocrisy in this thread is hilarious 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## G35driver

JLCs are nice. Had no idea the resale was that bad tho. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Prahasaurus

G35driver said:


> JLCs are nice. Had no idea the resale was that bad tho.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Do we have any hard data on this? With such a liquid secondary market for luxury watches, and with major on-line sites collecting this information, I would think we would know quite well how luxury brands hold their value over time.

Rolex has done a great job of positioning themselves as "the" luxury watch. Let's keep it real, for 99% of people, Rolex is the only luxury watch brand around. Show any random person a Patek, Lange, and Rolex, and have them choose the most expensive watch from the bunch, and my guess is Rolex would be the overwhelming choice. And this helps maintain the Rolex value, even among people who do understand luxury watches. Because the Rolex market is incredibly wide, unlike the Jaeger market. If you're looking to purchase an "expensive" watch, you can never go wrong with a Rolex, because the recipient will know right away that you paid a lot of money.


----------



## rob_honer

Beautiful watch you got there and one of my favorites in my collection. I also have a Rolex Day date and my JLC gets much more wrist time. I would part with the Rolwx before I would my JLC,










PATCOOK said:


> There is no comparison from horological ,pedigree and historical point view JLC wins by a mile . JLC is a brand of true elegance and integrity( not much valued nowadays) only loses to agressive business,trend and ignorance .Nothing against Daytona which is a great watch in its own rights but again it plays in a different ligue.Keep that beauty and find your way to get that Daytona. cheers
> 
> View attachment 10767106


----------



## cmchong77

Someone mentioned about "long term precision and reliability in a mechanical wristwatch" and Rolex is tops, and unfortunately I have to agree with that. I am one of those who sold my Rolex for JLC watches to be worn everyday. I bought a chronograph and an alarm, and both had issues within a few years. I have a Stowa for a beater so I baby my JLCs, but due to everyday wear they have nicks and swirls on the case. That's fine with me because I love the JLCs and wear them everyday. Then one of the markers dropped off the alarm watch - I could see dried glue and there are 2 pins holding it to the dial. I took it to JLC and they pointed to the marks on the case. "Not to be worn as a Rolex" was one of the comments and was charged. Ok, I understand the watch is more delicate with an alarm complication. However, I need watches that I can wear everyday and I almost bought the "true second" to add to the rotation (cos the casework looks so good and subtle!). If I cannot wear a JLC everyday then I will go back to Rolex. A 2016 Explorer-1 probably ..


----------



## phillycheez

cmchong77 said:


> Someone mentioned about "long term precision and reliability in a mechanical wristwatch" and Rolex is tops, and unfortunately I have to agree with that. I am one of those who sold my Rolex for JLC watches to be worn everyday. I bought a chronograph and an alarm, and both had issues within a few years. I have a Stowa for a beater so I baby my JLCs, but due to everyday wear they have nicks and swirls on the case. That's fine with me because I love the JLCs and wear them everyday. Then one of the markers dropped off the alarm watch - I could see dried glue and there are 2 pins holding it to the dial. I took it to JLC and they pointed to the marks on the case. "Not to be worn as a Rolex" was one of the comments and was charged. Ok, I understand the watch is more delicate with an alarm complication. However, I need watches that I can wear everyday and I almost bought the "true second" to add to the rotation (cos the casework looks so good and subtle!). If I cannot wear a JLC everyday then I will go back to Rolex. A 2016 Explorer-1 probably ..


And this was the reason why I chose Rolex as my next watch.

It was between an sd4k and the the jlc tribute deep sea chronograph.

Two completely different watches but the watches I wanted and at the same price point.

When I buy a watch I wear it everyday. And while I don't do anything stressful I need it to take bumps and hits every now and then.

My grail is a Patek aquanaut which can be in reach in a few years time. But I keep thinking about how durable it is for every day use...

Or I can scratch my lust to owning a Patek and get a Rolex 1655.. My favorite Rolex model of all time that can no doubt still take a beating from every day use.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## cmchong77

To be fair, my first encounter with JLC a few years back ended positive. The minute hand on my Master Chronograph started slipping when I pulled the crown to set the time, happened within a year of ownership. Took it to JLC, same "lecture" about me abusing the watch due to the marks on the case. I told them to open the watch up and charge me if I did mishandle the watch. In the end, the repair was covered under warranty, the watch was polished like new and they even included a nice box when the watch was returned to me. My daily job involves mostly typing on the keyboard. Sometimes I put my hand into a metal cabinet, brush the sides and nick the bezel/ lugs .


----------



## varvn

From a horological standpoint, very few brands can come close to JLC. Take a gander at their Hybris Mechanica collection or even the Hybris Artistica collection. One look at the minute repeater A Rideau Reverso or their Spherotourbillons and you wont stop staring for hours. Having said that, being a owner of a Reverso Duo and a Submariner, I can tell that the Sub is such a carefree watch; can be worn during - rain, snow, run, hike, swim, you get the point. It holds value so damn well. The Reverso? Not so much. I even have to be cautious washing my hands with it on. I hate that about most JLCs. That and the fact that resale value sucks. Rolex marketing has done such a fabulous job of exploiting the human psyche that they are basically like currency when bought pre-owned. The Daytonas hold they value very very well too. I can see why the other party was snarky in this case.....by the way, the JLC you have is beautiful!


----------



## Cocas

To me, JLC Reverso basic model is equivalent to Rolex Cellini basic model!


----------



## Adw234

I own both JLC and Rolex. I'm simply not educated enough to get into the details like other WUS members are, however I love that my JLC is more low-key to non watch enthusiasts. My Datejust is complimented on a regular basis - "nice rolex", whereas only true enthusiasts have ever complimented my JLC Deep Sea Chrono.


----------



## sonofeve

I totally agree with adw234 on jlc fly under the radar status. It's even more satisfying when ppl compliment your watch but did not know it's a luxury item hence making their appreciation unbiased. 

I own a reverso duoface and Panerai. Most of the time ppl only takes notice and know bout the pam instead of The reverso.

Sent from my VKY-L29 using Tapatalk


----------



## V10K+

Four years ago I would have said JLC > ROLEX - I even told that to a Rolex salesman in Mall of America. After owning two JLC Reverso Squadras, and 3 semi vintage Rolex's - I love my Rolex DJs more. Both manufactures put alot of thinking in their products but I feel Rolex does a better job. I like JLC for taking risks, but I love Rolex for its tradition and heritage. I do feel that the build quality of Rolex far surpasses JLC but JLC is much shinier and sexier new.

I wish the Squadra line would have been more successful and I wish JLC had done much more with it. I feel its the Reverso for the modern age. I really wish JLC would make watches that incited my passion more so I could give up my Rolex OQ obsession.


----------



## sonofeve

I still prefer the classic shape instead of squadra.









Sent from my VKY-L29 using Tapatalk


----------



## V10K+

To me JLC look better in rectangles or squares. I used to love the original reverso for its iconicness, but it seems too small and dainty now. The Squadra while not iconic had a boldness and manliness to it. The regular reverso looks a bit effeminate and delicate in comparison.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

Essthetix said:


> Obviously, JLC isn't cheap. And you're not far-fetched to think that someone might consider either of those trades. But in reality, or should we say 9.7 times out of 10, people - and especially dealers/flippers - are not going to want to trade similar valued Rolex's for JLC's; the demographic for Rolex is simply waaay bigger. And even then, especially if this is a dealer you're attempting to trade with, they're probably not even going to consider a similar-valued Rolex for their own Rolex - just because there's always a risk in trading. And dealers, by definition, exist to make profit.
> 
> For the record, I prefer JLC and think your Master Control Date looks gorgeous. But I wouldn't trade either of the Rolex's straight up, just due to their market value and appeal. No matter what your preferences are, there's something to be said about owning what everyone else wants to own.
> 
> Regardless, though, your proposition was far from ridiculous. And there's simply no excuse for being rude.


so very true and sometimes a lot of Rolex owners rarely know a thing about other brands or about watchmaking in general, so they feel the need to degrade other non Rolex owners. Sell the JLC seperately and buy the daytona if you want to. Good luck.


----------

