# Steinhart & Rolex



## DannyBoy123 (Aug 11, 2010)

Clearly the new release from Steinhart is very similar to a DSSD. 

Before you all leap up and down I don't have an issue with that. Especially as I own a Panerai rep from DSN,how could I.

Here's my question. I'm slightly curious as to why Rolex don't prosecute companies like Steinhart who closely mimic their products - wouldn't they have patented or copyright on a design/style or can they only do so if you make an exact replica and use their name?

As for the new 44, hope it comes in non GMT version soon and I'll be buying it. I trust this question won't be viewed as inflamatory. I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## Aristotle (Feb 17, 2011)

This such case was happend between Ken's MM20 and Panerai due to the similar crown guard , just that piece. That means , similar case, 24mm lug, dial , that were not issues as long as it's not exactly the same milimetres by milimetres.

Other case is , Dievas Cali and PAm 249 , they don't have issue for each other ' do they ?

A lot closely but nothing the same (meaning we can't swap any pieces from Steinhart to Rolex)


----------



## edwinwalke (Aug 9, 2010)

DannyBoy123 said:


> Clearly the new release from Steinhart is very similar to a DSSD.
> 
> Before you all leap up and down I don't have an issue with that. Especially as I own a Panerai rep from DSN,how could I.
> 
> ...


I am pretty sure that the unauthorized Ocean 44 links that got posted for a short time last week had a non GMT version with black bezel. Been looking for it myself. Has the ETA 2824 movement and is a very good homage to the Rolex DSSD.


----------



## Bertelsen (Oct 24, 2010)

There is a non gmt version yes.


----------



## exxondus (Sep 10, 2007)

it will be weird to follow the DSSD and not produce one without the GMT now wont they.


----------



## edwinwalke (Aug 9, 2010)

When the links were posted last week there were 4 watches. Unless they decided not to release it for some reason it should be revealed sometime soon. They may be waiting for the supply to arrive.


----------



## laughinggull (May 8, 2006)

So there will be a non-GMT version for sure?


----------



## alllexandru (Nov 5, 2010)

1000%


----------



## Chromejob (Jun 18, 2010)

I would say *99 & 44/100 % sure*. Gunter is entitled to change his mind. There WAS an Ocean 44 in planning, and there WAS a non-GMT version posted to the site briefly (but not directly linked). The product description has been withdrawn, for whatever and however many reasons Steinhart has. He's entitled to change the specs, price, or availability. I just hope that WUS members may get a crack at a limited variation on it. (DLC? Ceramic bezel insert? Hand or dial changes?)

As for lawsuits, if Rolex decided to file suit against everyone who made a Sub-alike, it'd be like swatting flies at a garbage dump. Too many people have emulated the classic design, and done interesting variations on the theme. Rolex _could_ just come out with new designs, like anyone else.

As Riker likes to say, be patient and keep watching....


----------



## thsiao (Jan 8, 2009)

My question would be, why would Gunter even want to make a watch that looks so much like the SDDS to begin with? Steinhart can definitely make their own designs so I really do not understand why they continue to have some models that are simply a knockoff of other watches. IMHO it brings Steinhart's reputation down and makes too many people think they are just another company copying other companies when we all know they are much more than that.


----------



## Chromejob (Jun 18, 2010)

thsiao said:


> My question would be, why would Gunter even want to make a watch that looks so much like the SDDS to begin with? Steinhart can definitely make their own designs so I really do not understand why they continue to have some models that are simply a knockoff of other watches. IMHO it brings Steinhart's reputation down and makes too many people think they are just another company copying other companies when we all know they are much more than that.


Answers are easy. Growing his market by issuing something that will sell that 4-5 other companies aren't already selling with an ETA movement..... Getting new customers (i.e. the Ocean line are a "gateway drug" to Gunter's other design lines).... Testing out the supplier for these on something like this before doing something a bit more involved (e.g. the Ocean Black DLC).... There are many good reasons why Steinhart would do this.

"Pleasing" highly demanding WISers may not on the agenda at all. I see nothing in the sales blurbs that indicates, "Watch savants, this is _for you!_"


----------



## fotoman (Jun 2, 2010)

thsiao said:


> My question would be, why would Gunter even want to make a watch that looks so much like the SDDS to begin with? Steinhart can definitely make their own designs so I really do not understand why they continue to have some models that are simply a knockoff of other watches. IMHO it brings Steinhart's reputation down and makes too many people think they are just another company copying other companies when we all know they are much more than that.


coz PP might not like the original design as much as Rolex's. then the watch won't sell well.:think:


----------



## acello27 (Sep 4, 2009)

I believe Rolex stole (or copied or whatever) the Sub design from BlancPain.
I think it's interesting that Steinhart can make a Rolex-Sub-GMT, etc... at one tenth the price
and 90% of the quality.


----------



## cuts33 (Jan 3, 2011)

acello27 said:


> I believe Rolex stole (or copied or whatever) the Sub design from BlancPain.
> I think it's interesting that Steinhart can make a Rolex-Sub-GMT, etc... at one tenth the price
> and 90% of the quality.


Rolex makes them for the same price that Steinhart does. That extra 90% you are paying is for their overhead - advertising, endorsement deals, 1000's of employees worldwide, etc. Not to mention the "premium" they feel entitled to because at some point in history people decided that having a genuine Rolex was the ultimate status symbol in terms of watches.


----------



## acello27 (Sep 4, 2009)

cuts33 said:


> Rolex makes them for the same price that Steinhart does. That extra 90% you are paying is for their overhead - advertising, endorsement deals, 1000's of employees worldwide, etc. Not to mention the "premium" they feel entitled to because at some point in history people decided that having a genuine Rolex was the ultimate status symbol in terms of watches.


Yes. That's what I meant. Could have worded it better.


----------



## Chromejob (Jun 18, 2010)

cuts33 said:


> Rolex makes them for the same price that Steinhart does. That extra 90% you are paying is for their overhead - advertising, endorsement deals, 1000's of employees worldwide, etc. Not to mention the "premium" they feel entitled to because at some point in history people decided that having a genuine Rolex was the ultimate status symbol in terms of watches.


Color me skeptical. I'm sure that a Rolex aficionado could point out a dozen things that Rolex does better or uses higher quality materials and workmanship. Doesn't make it a "better" watch, but a believably more expensive one. This is not to say I think they're reasonably priced, I think they're inflating MSRP considerably. I just don't think the price difference is 100% attributable to marketing, endorsements, etc.


----------



## handwound (Feb 11, 2006)

Aristotle said:


> This such case was happend between Ken's MM20 and Panerai due to the similar crown guard , just that piece. That means , similar case, 24mm lug, dial , that were not issues as long as it's not exactly the same milimetres by milimetres.
> 
> Other case is , Dievas Cali and PAm 249 , they don't have issue for each other ' do they ?
> 
> A lot closely but nothing the same (meaning we can't swap any pieces from Steinhart to Rolex)


That lawsuit worked because Panerai has trademarked the CG shape. Rolex hasn't trademarked anything other than the name and the crown logo, to my knowledge. So, as long as they don't use those two things....


----------



## hooperman42 (May 12, 2006)

I agree as a collector over the years Rolex has been in my past dealings, a wonderful company to deal with believe it or not. Its like the guy who buys a Rolls and never pays for service. Etc. They are waaaay over priced from when I bought my brand new submariner with date in 1988 for $ 1895 from an AD. But I have owned countless datejusts, explorers, exp 2's, a 57 GMT, 69 sub, many other subs, and even a Daytona. Its jewelery that tells time. And yes they do not use the same metal as Steinhart. They use - which affords in my estimation no value, the higher grade SS but who cares. It's like the new Audi commercial about leaving behind "Old Luxury" I grew tired of the gross amounts that the people at Rolex were making for salaries etc while overcharging the public. Yes some great product but also some inferior stamped steel bracelets (the Oyster was the worst! just compare it to a Steinhart or better yet; a MarcelloC!!!). But to each his own. Go to the Rolex site and put on your post and see how they treat you!!!! Ha! You will get the wrath! That's not for me anymore. I havre sold all of those watches and many others that I should not have. I kick myself over some of them that I could leave to my son. But non are the Rolex ones. Frankly they are ripped off so often in design to say they stole from Bancplan is like saying Ferrari stole from a corvette. Its all good. Buy what you want - be a good steward of the money you have earned and need for your family and in fact is God's anyways. To me I have learned its actually more fun to wear a Steinhart and I love when people ask if its a Rolex. I am always ready for that. Just ordered the 44mm. I dont expect to get that question as much since this new one has... lets say.... some big stones. Let the old bankers and young upstart salemen have the Rolex. For me.... Ill take the Steinhart and many others. If Steinhart does a knock off of a Omega I WILL be unhappy. Also overpriced but alot of class in Omega watches. So enjoy.... and hey just for kicks .. put your post "Steinhart/Rolex" on the Rolex forum. And do it on the timezone one too - those guys will go ballistic --- tee he. Hooperman


----------



## fotoman (Jun 2, 2010)

You guys really believe 90% you are paying for a Rolex is for the overhead - advertising, endorsement deals etc? I don't buy it. Holding a Rolex sub and Steinhart Diver in hand, the difference could be easily identified. Not to mention the movement inside the case. In other words, if 90% is paid for overhead, then a sub (16610 MSRP $6000 or so) is only worth $600 , which is ridiculously impossible. Manufacturing every component in a Rolex watch to meet a much higher and stricter standard can increase the cost not linearly but sometimes exponentially. 

BTW, I once held a Stowa flieger, a Steinhart pilot, a Speedbird III and an IWC Mark XVI in my hand, I would say the details and quality are sort of proportional to the price with my naked eyes. So I would say Steinhart makes nice watches but you just get what you paid for, no more no less.


----------



## jagmichael (Oct 15, 2010)

I know some people want something original and believe this to be a rip off of Rolex. I like the watch and look at it as a hybrid of the Rolex and the new iwc aquatimer. I think this combination makes a great looking unique watch and for a very affordable price. I love the new iwc aquatimer and I've always wanted the new sea dweller. But honestly not a Rolex fan. I love this new steinhart! If you like it like it. If not then don't.


----------



## Riker (Mar 31, 2007)

Just waiting for the Rolex fella's to get involved in this.....:-d..

This is a discussion that has been going for years, longer than Steinhart has been around. Take 10 minutes & search on the net looking at all the watch brands that have clearly used some or alot of Rolex original designs. Clearly there are a number of big brands in that group that have done it so why should Steinhart be any different. As a point of interest, the Ocean line are Steinharts biggest sellers so obviously the majority don't have any issue with it.

As with handwounds comment, to the best of my knowledge Rolex hasn't patented a design other than the crown logo & names. The basic design ethos of Rolex's is such a generalised design anyway that any number of watches can & do look similar in varying degrees. Look at the thousands of spin off's from the original rotating bezel design, hand designs etc, etc, etc...... 

I guess this discussion of other brands utilising original Rolex design will continue to have a life no matter what happens. As long as other watch brands continue the trend that the mecurial Rolex design be made available at a more user friendly price then they will always be popular...


----------



## Chromejob (Jun 18, 2010)

I think the perennial interest in this topic is partly due to someone wanting a Rolex, but getting another for any number of reasons (incl. price, needing a "tool watch," wanting one that can be lost without shedding tears, etc.), or not wanting a Rolex but recognizing that the homage is "one step removed," or.... I dunno. The anecdotes always seem to surface of someone asking an homage owner, "Ooooh, is that a Rolex?" or even the rare occurence of someone saying, "Oh, nice Rolex clone" (not recognizing it's the real thing).... 

Not that I worry, but the nice thing about a Steinhart is that ... you can mod it. Make it a little more original, or buy the vintage looking model (hello, Vintage Red owners). Granted the severely modded model in the sales corner is an extreme case, but you can change your Steinhart a little and you're not "degrading" the value of a $5000 watch. I would think that's self-evident, and a more compelling reason to enjoy owning a really well made homage like this as opposed to an Alpha or Invicta.


----------



## mtbmike (Sep 12, 2007)

acello27 said:


> I believe Rolex stole (or copied or whatever) the Sub design from BlancPain.
> I think it's interesting that Steinhart can make a Rolex-Sub-GMT, etc... at one tenth the price
> and* 90% of the quality*.


Of the 3 Steinhart's I have owned 2 were poor quality. The first I purchased over 4 years ago from Steinhart USA has no issues but is still no where near the same league as a Rolex Sub. The Sub Dial, crown and date wheel are way better than any Ocean 1 offering! The other 2 purchased here were nothing to get excited about. In fact of the 20+ Seiko SKX's I have in my collection all blow away Gunter's 2 Steinhart's. Better bezel action, way smoother crowns and better lume. All cost a quarter of a Ocean 1 so maybe they are 75% better than Steinhart! My 2 Debaufre's Ocean 1's are also far better quality. As far as the Sub bracelet bashing goes I have never had any issue with it and find it much more comfortable then the Ocean 1. With all the praise for how great the ocean 1 bracelet is I beg to differ. Even my good Steinhart had a gaping gap between the clasp and links. I found a tutorial on the web to remedy this problem that included removing the divers extension and pounding the bend out the clasp using a hammer and block of wood!


----------



## mngambler (Nov 2, 2009)

fotoman said:


> You guys really believe 90% you are paying for a Rolex is for the overhead - advertising, endorsement deals etc? I don't buy it. Holding a Rolex sub and Steinhart Diver in hand, the difference could be easily identified. Not to mention the movement inside the case. In other words, if 90% is paid for overhead, then a sub (16610 MSRP $6000 or so) is only worth $600 , which is ridiculously impossible. Manufacturing every component in a Rolex watch to meet a much higher and stricter standard can increase the cost not linearly but sometimes exponentially.
> 
> BTW, I once held a Stowa flieger, a Steinhart pilot, a Speedbird III and an IWC Mark XVI in my hand, I would say the details and quality are sort of proportional to the price with my naked eyes. So I would say Steinhart makes nice watches but you just get what you paid for, no more no less.


I've seen an article linked on this forum somewhere that was written by a watchmaker, he basically broke down the actual costs of a rolex, maybe someone else on here has the link? If my memory is worth anything I believe it was something like $800-$1000 in real life material costs for something that went for 5k, hopefully someone knows what I am referring too


----------



## fotoman (Jun 2, 2010)

mngambler said:


> I've seen an article linked on this forum somewhere that was written by a watchmaker, he basically broke down the actual costs of a rolex, maybe someone else on here has the link? If my memory is worth anything I believe it was something like $800-$1000 in real life material costs for something that went for 5k, hopefully someone knows what I am referring too


The materials cost is just part of the total cost for watch making. It's the manufacturing and quality control process that make the total price hefty IMO. Just like some high-end camera lenses with specially ground glass elements, they can cost 10x or more than the normal ones.


----------



## acello27 (Sep 4, 2009)

mtbmike said:


> Of the 3 Steinhart's I have owned 2 were poor quality. The first I purchased over 4 years ago from Steinhart USA has no issues but is still no where near the same league as a Rolex Sub. The Sub Dial, crown and date wheel are way better than any Ocean 1 offering! The other 2 purchased here were nothing to get excited about. In fact of the 20+ Seiko SKX's I have in my collection all blow away Gunter's 2 Steinhart's. Better bezel action, way smoother crowns and better lume. All cost a quarter of a Ocean 1 so maybe they are 75% better than Steinhart! My 2 Debaufre's Ocean 1's are also far better quality. As far as the Sub bracelet bashing goes I have never had any issue with it and find it much more comfortable then the Ocean 1. With all the praise for how great the ocean 1 bracelet is I beg to differ. Even my good Steinhart had a gaping gap between the clasp and links. I found a tutorial on the web to remedy this problem that included removing the divers extension and pounding the bend out the clasp using a hammer and block of wood!


Ok. How about 50% of the quality for 1/10th the price? : )
Kinda like a really sporty Fiat for 20k vs a 200k Ferrari. 
Yes, if I could afford it or one was given to me, I would have a Rolex or Ferrari.
Probably a new Explorer one. 39mm and very minimal. Actually I can afford one of these. And would be a great addition to my G's.
Never owned a Steiny diver so I guess I should keep quiet.
I have owned an Aviation and a Pilot. So I should be talking about overpriced IWC's ; )
And yes Seiko's are probably the best quality for the $.


----------



## grabtime (Mar 5, 2010)

A Steinhart is not a Rolex. However both are great watches in their own right. I am desperate for a Vintage Red to wear more frequently than my vintage GMT I.


----------



## India Whiskey Charlie (Feb 22, 2011)

*How About MkII?*

Do any of you have an MkII homage you can compare the quality of which with both the Steinhart and Rolex?

Milsub (HRV) non-date rubber strap with Dive time-elapse bezel Detail Page


----------



## hooperman42 (May 12, 2006)

*Re: How About MkII?*

:-!I have had them all. Rolex, Breitling, Omega Glashutte, Zenith, U Nardin, IWC and many many of each... so name one? Ok not any over $ 15K.
I am looking at this 44mm Ocean. Forget all the looks like a Rolex rubbish - its as nice looking as nearly anything I have owned. To the guy with the old Debaufre's you must have had old stock or pre screwed bracelets etc cuz I have both a Steinhart and Rolex Oyster and the Rolex is stamped and cheap feeling. Hey you had ought to see the streeeeeeetch oyster I had on my 50's GMT - can you say rolled steel? My 47mm older model B Dial - see pic is as nice as my Glashutte was - other than the stock movements vs the in house movements and all that noise. But I use it to tell time.... and ... well it does. I have had limited edition speedies, a 321 speedy pro from 1967 - yep that should have been a keeper.... and many others.... my list below is just the ones I thought of and I can think of at leasdt 3 Navitimers by Breitling I left off at a minimum. Wear what you like. I mean if Anonimo didnt rip off Panerai after their internal split there would be Anonimo (any guess why they named it Anonimo?). To me wear what you want. Rolex has a stigma and not always a good one... but then so does my BMW. Only I know what I paid (I gotta whale of a deal) but I never felt comfortable in a mercedes for some reason and perhaps why I ended up selling all the Rolex stuff. If you want the real deal in a nice watch get a Patak and call it a day or any number of the Ademaurs P's and other names I cant pronounce. Frankly in my eyes that Milsub is a snoozer big time. Oh and another one comes to mind... one of the best values in a dive watch? DOXA. Cant be beat. I have had 5. Since then I have sold all of that due to financial issues and personal issues but I can tell you its all vanity unless its fun to wear. I like my BMW because of its quality and the price I got it at. And same goes for these watches called Steinhart. I am happy with my decision to get this new one. And even glad I passed on the cult following Stowa for the marine Steinhart since it is 44mm which is perfect for me. Guess what I just realized I think Steinhart may have a cult following starting too and Stowa has been around since early war times.


----------



## exxondus (Sep 10, 2007)

A 10-50 bucks casio beats both Steinhart & Rolex hands down in terms of functionality n value for money. 

Hence, all the arguement abt overpricing n value for money really sounds weird. Ultimately, buy what you like and don critise others' decision. 

Steinhart got popular cos of their triton range? Their aviator range? Possibly but unlikely. Its probably due to their Nav and Ocean range. Why? Cos people like the classic designs. Where it came from? Its anyones guess. Does it matter? Yes to some n No to others. We live in an age where intellecture property (designs,etc) is something no one really cares and hence, whenever a design is popular we will start seeing others paying homage all of a sudden and everyone will feel its correct to do so and start bashing the original design sellers as charging a premium. Sad but true. 

I don mind the ocean 44 copying the Dssd's design but only wished they dint also copy that closely and followed the rehaut wordings sigh. Not yo sure what is seeing Ocean 44 in words there gg to do anything other than tell peoplr exactly where the inspiration came from.

Lets agree to disagree that Steinhart is a business just like any others and for a business, profit is a KPI. If in the future they have a chance to increase prices due to popularity, do you think they won't? I have already come to terms,for now only hopefully, it needs to remain as a 70% homage maker and 30% original maker to survive. Haven't you? Peace out.


----------



## acello27 (Sep 4, 2009)

*Re: How About MkII?*



hooperman42 said:


> :-!I have had them all. Rolex, Breitling, Omega Glashutte, Zenith, U Nardin, IWC and many many of each... so name one? Ok not any over $ 15K.
> I am looking at this 44mm Ocean. Forget all the looks like a Rolex rubbish - its as nice looking as nearly anything I have owned. To the guy with the old Debaufre's you must have had old stock or pre screwed bracelets etc cuz I have both a Steinhart and Rolex Oyster and the Rolex is stamped and cheap feeling. Hey you had ought to see the streeeeeeetch oyster I had on my 50's GMT - can you say rolled steel? My 47mm older model B Dial - see pic is as nice as my Glashutte was - other than the stock movements vs the in house movements and all that noise. But I use it to tell time.... and ... well it does. I have had limited edition speedies, a 321 speedy pro from 1967 - yep that should have been a keeper.... and many others.... my list below is just the ones I thought of and I can think of at leasdt 3 Navitimers by Breitling I left off at a minimum. Wear what you like. I mean if Anonimo didnt rip off Panerai after their internal split there would be Anonimo (any guess why they named it Anonimo?). To me wear what you want. Rolex has a stigma and not always a good one... but then so does my BMW. Only I know what I paid (I gotta whale of a deal) but I never felt comfortable in a mercedes for some reason and perhaps why I ended up selling all the Rolex stuff. If you want the real deal in a nice watch get a Patak and call it a day or any number of the Ademaurs P's and other names I cant pronounce. Frankly in my eyes that Milsub is a snoozer big time. Oh and another one comes to mind... one of the best values in a dive watch? DOXA. Cant be beat. I have had 5. Since then I have sold all of that due to financial issues and personal issues but I can tell you its all vanity unless its fun to wear. I like my BMW because of its quality and the price I got it at. And same goes for these watches called Steinhart. I am happy with my decision to get this new one. And even glad I passed on the cult following Stowa for the marine Steinhart since it is 44mm which is perfect for me. Guess what I just realized I think Steinhart may have a cult following starting too and Stowa has been around since early war times.


Nice trio. Very diverse.


----------



## ArticMan (Feb 12, 2010)

*Re: How About MkII?*

Mach, Ocean 1, Ocean GMT, Ocean vintage GMT, Ocean 44 .... Mayby they are aiming to cover whole Rolex line with they "homeages". I've lost all my respect toward that brand and won't ever buy another Steinhart again.


----------



## CzechMate (Sep 11, 2009)

*Re: How About MkII?*



hooperman42 said:


> I agree as a collector over the years Rolex has been in my past dealings, a wonderful company to deal with believe it or not. Its like the guy who buys a Rolls and never pays for service. Etc. They are waaaay over priced from when I bought my brand new submariner with date in 1988 for $ 1895 from an AD. But I have owned countless datejusts, explorers, exp 2's, a 57 GMT, 69 sub, many other subs, and even a Daytona. Its jewelery that tells time. And yes they do not use the same metal as Steinhart. They use - which affords in my estimation no value, the higher grade SS but who cares. It's like the new Audi commercial about leaving behind "Old Luxury" I grew tired of the gross amounts that the people at Rolex were making for salaries etc while overcharging the public. Yes some great product but also some inferior stamped steel bracelets (the Oyster was the worst! just compare it to a Steinhart or better yet; a MarcelloC!!!). But to each his own. Go to the Rolex site and put on your post and see how they treat you!!!! Ha! You will get the wrath! That's not for me anymore. I havre sold all of those watches and many others that I should not have. I kick myself over some of them that I could leave to my son. But non are the Rolex ones. Frankly they are ripped off so often in design to say they stole from Bancplan is like saying Ferrari stole from a corvette. Its all good. Buy what you want - be a good steward of the money you have earned and need for your family and in fact is God's anyways. To me I have learned its actually more fun to wear a Steinhart and I love when people ask if its a Rolex. I am always ready for that. Just ordered the 44mm. I dont expect to get that question as much since this new one has... lets say.... some big stones. Let the old bankers and young upstart salemen have the Rolex. For me.... Ill take the Steinhart and many others. If Steinhart does a knock off of a Omega I WILL be unhappy. Also overpriced but alot of class in Omega watches. So enjoy.... and hey just for kicks .. put your post "Steinhart/Rolex" on the Rolex forum. And do it on the timezone one too - those guys will go ballistic --- tee he. Hooperman





hooperman42 said:


> :-!I have had them all. Rolex, Breitling, Omega Glashutte, Zenith, U Nardin, IWC and many many of each... so name one? Ok not any over $ 15K.
> I am looking at this 44mm Ocean. Forget all the looks like a Rolex rubbish - its as nice looking as nearly anything I have owned. To the guy with the old Debaufre's you must have had old stock or pre screwed bracelets etc cuz I have both a Steinhart and Rolex Oyster and the Rolex is stamped and cheap feeling. Hey you had ought to see the streeeeeeetch oyster I had on my 50's GMT - can you say rolled steel? My 47mm older model B Dial - see pic is as nice as my Glashutte was - other than the stock movements vs the in house movements and all that noise. But I use it to tell time.... and ... well it does. I have had limited edition speedies, a 321 speedy pro from 1967 - yep that should have been a keeper.... and many others.... my list below is just the ones I thought of and I can think of at leasdt 3 Navitimers by Breitling I left off at a minimum. Wear what you like. I mean if Anonimo didnt rip off Panerai after their internal split there would be Anonimo (any guess why they named it Anonimo?). To me wear what you want. Rolex has a stigma and not always a good one... but then so does my BMW. Only I know what I paid (I gotta whale of a deal) but I never felt comfortable in a mercedes for some reason and perhaps why I ended up selling all the Rolex stuff. If you want the real deal in a nice watch get a Patak and call it a day or any number of the Ademaurs P's and other names I cant pronounce. Frankly in my eyes that Milsub is a snoozer big time. Oh and another one comes to mind... one of the best values in a dive watch? DOXA. Cant be beat. I have had 5. Since then I have sold all of that due to financial issues and personal issues but I can tell you its all vanity unless its fun to wear. I like my BMW because of its quality and the price I got it at. And same goes for these watches called Steinhart. I am happy with my decision to get this new one. And even glad I passed on the cult following Stowa for the marine Steinhart since it is 44mm which is perfect for me. Guess what I just realized I think Steinhart may have a cult following starting too and Stowa has been around since early war times.


Well said... |>


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

*Re: How About MkII?*



ArticMan said:


> Mach, Ocean 1, Ocean GMT, Ocean vintage GMT, Ocean 44 .... Mayby they are aiming to cover whole Rolex line with they "homeages". I've lost all my respect toward that brand and won't ever buy another Steinhart again.


So you keep repeating. I respect that Steinhart is not your cup of tea; you've already driven your views home in other threads here, so is there some reason that you feel the need to keep repeating yourself? Why can't you just respect the fact that some people really enjoy these watches and let them have their fun? If you've lost all 'respect' and have no intent of buying another Steinhart I'd suggest that you visit another forum here on WUS, because right now it appears that you're intentionally being malicious.


----------



## NCsmky (Dec 26, 2009)

*Re: How About MkII?*



CzechMate said:


> Well said... |>


I agree.


----------



## ArticMan (Feb 12, 2010)

*Re: How About MkII?*



Uwe W. said:


> So you keep repeating. I respect that Steinhart is not your cup of tea; you've already driven your views home in other threads here, so is there some reason that you feel the need to keep repeating yourself? Why can't you just respect the fact that some people really enjoy these watches and let them have their fun? If you've lost all 'respect' and have no intent of buying another Steinhart I'd suggest that you visit another forum here on WUS, because right now it appears that you're intentionally being malicious.


Well, I don't feel like repeating, because last time I wrote that, you removed my post...:-!


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

*Re: How About MkII?*



ArticMan said:


> Well, I don't feel like repeating, because last time I wrote that, you removed my post...:-!


It was deleted by another mod, so fair enough, we'll consider the post in this thread to be your official recorded opinion.


----------



## StufflerMike (Mar 23, 2010)

*Re: How About MkII?*



Uwe W. said:


> It was deleted by another mod, so fair enough, we'll consider the post in this thread to be your official recorded opinion.


For the record: Your post was deleted by me and an explanation has been given in the other thread. You should know better though.


----------



## wellers73 (Jan 2, 2011)

*Re: How About MkII?*

I had an interesting experience today. I decided to compare my four week old Steinhart Vintage Red to an actual Rolex Submariner. A very kind saleswoman at my local Rolex AD let me thoroughly check out and try on a brand new ceramic bezel Submariner, a 116610LN. First let me say that I love my Steinhart very much, and am extremely happy with it. However, there is a very noticeable difference between these two watches. I hate to say it's a difference in quality, because I think the Steinhart is a very high quality watch, easily the best watch I own. However, the Rolex is in a much different league. The feel of the bezel and the crown were where it was most obvious. The Rolex felt both stiffer and smoother than what I was used to. Everything felt very solid and strong. The bracelet is thinner than the Steinhart, but felt more durable, like it's made of a different type of metal.

Of course, I don't know if this adds up to a difference of about $6800. And perhaps it's not even fair to compare the Vintage Red and a new ceramic Sub. Maybe I should see what a vintage "red" Submariner feels like. I'm also planning to go to an Omega AD, and see how the Vintage Red compares to watches that are priced in between Rolex and Steinhart.


----------



## exxondus (Sep 10, 2007)

*Re: How About MkII?*



wellers73 said:


> I had an interesting experience today. I decided to compare my four week old Steinhart Vintage Red to an actual Rolex Submariner. A very kind saleswoman at my local Rolex AD let me thoroughly check out and try on a brand new ceramic bezel Submariner, a 116610LN. First let me say that I love my Steinhart very much, and am extremely happy with it. However, there is a very noticeable difference between these two watches. I hate to say it's a difference in quality, because I think the Steinhart is a very high quality watch, easily the best watch I own. However, the Rolex is in a much different league. The feel of the bezel and the crown were where it was most obvious. The Rolex felt both stiffer and smoother than what I was used to. Everything felt very solid and strong. The bracelet is thinner than the Steinhart, but felt more durable, like it's made of a different type of metal.
> 
> Of course, I don't know if this adds up to a difference of about $6800. And perhaps it's not even fair to compare the Vintage Red and a new ceramic Sub. Maybe I should see what a vintage "red" Submariner feels like. I'm also planning to go to an Omega AD, and see how the Vintage Red compares to watches that are priced in between Rolex and Steinhart.


u probably need to take note when comparing vintages of the technology back then, vs the technology we have at present. What was extremely excellent at that time is not gg to look much in today's standards.

Anyway, other than price and looks, I think its not very fair to be comparing quality of homages with the article of their inspiration. Furthermore, Quality when tagged with price becomes extremely subjective in relativity comparisons.

so just buy what you feel is worth your hardearn money and be contented.


----------



## Riker (Mar 31, 2007)

*Re: How About MkII?*

Interesting weller... I am sure you enjoyed the time to play with the Roley & compare the two brands. I have no doubt the Rolex was/is a more solid better put together piece, it should be. Rolex have had many years to perfect these watches in every way, feel, precision etc. They recoup these costs of all this precision work & marketing by charging an arm & a leg & they have every right to. However, I qualify my above statements by saying that Rolex's are mass produced, mass maketed watches so the exclusivity is not as many would wish it to be & this is why Steinhart makes such a compelling argument. Good quality swiss made watches at sensational prices. If you are not a brand snob Steinhart Oceans are a superb alternative...;-)



wellers73 said:


> I had an interesting experience today. I decided to compare my four week old Steinhart Vintage Red to an actual Rolex Submariner. A very kind saleswoman at my local Rolex AD let me thoroughly check out and try on a brand new ceramic bezel Submariner, a 116610LN. First let me say that I love my Steinhart very much, and am extremely happy with it. However, there is a very noticeable difference between these two watches. I hate to say it's a difference in quality, because I think the Steinhart is a very high quality watch, easily the best watch I own. However, the Rolex is in a much different league. The feel of the bezel and the crown were where it was most obvious. The Rolex felt both stiffer and smoother than what I was used to. Everything felt very solid and strong. The bracelet is thinner than the Steinhart, but felt more durable, like it's made of a different type of metal.
> 
> Of course, I don't know if this adds up to a difference of about $6800. And perhaps it's not even fair to compare the Vintage Red and a new ceramic Sub. Maybe I should see what a vintage "red" Submariner feels like. I'm also planning to go to an Omega AD, and see how the Vintage Red compares to watches that are priced in between Rolex and Steinhart.


exxondus, spot on mate....:-!



exxondus said:


> so just buy what you feel is worth your hardearn money and be contented*.*


----------



## Nyegaard (Jan 18, 2011)

When it comes to rolex, a lot of people mistake "costly" for "exclusive". They may or may not be overpriced (I'd say not, simply because they sell - a lot) but people need to understand what they buy when they buy a rolex. Its far from just the sum of the very well made parts and that legacy, the heritage and the stigma is all part of it.

Each to his own but a Brand new sub will cost far more then all my current watches combined. I'd rather have what I have, but thats me. 

I do wish that steinhart would focus more on pure innovation though. They are clearly capable, the 20 run marine chrono and lse pilot looks amazing and i wish there where more high quality, original watches from steinhart. But thats my view .


----------



## grabtime (Mar 5, 2010)

Nyegaard said:


> I do wish that steinhart would focus more on pure innovation though. They are clearly capable, the 20 run marine chrono and lse pilot looks amazing and i wish there where more high quality, original watches from steinhart. But thats my view .


110% agree with this. I wish Steinhart would concentrate on their obvious talent for quality and ability by developing unique pieces which they have proved they can.


----------



## Titan II (Dec 11, 2010)

Nyegaard said:


> I do wish that steinhart would focus more on pure innovation though. They are clearly capable, the 20 run marine chrono and lse pilot looks amazing and i wish there where more high quality, original watches from steinhart. But thats my view .


Okay, here's my take. If Steinhart moved it's focus to producing and marketing it's own designs then the people on this forum who are continuously praising Steinhart for their affordability probably wouldn't be able to afford all the Steinhart pieces in their collection.

I'm no expert but I'd think that creating and marketing ones own designs is probably very expensive. Creating their homage pieces is what allows Gunter to keep his doors open and to produce the odd original. I'm sure very successful watch companies didn't just open up shop and start pumping out watches. It took them a long time to build their reputation and perfect their craft that eventually allowed them to demand a very high price for their pieces. If I'm not mistaken I believe I read somewhere on the forum that Steinhart Watches began in 2006/2007?

Please people, have some patience and grow with the company. One day you will have the great pleasure to pass on Steinhart pieces to your loved ones and tell them that you were one of the first to buy original Steinhart watches. Can you imagine 50 years down the road even higher quality, vintage Steinhart watches that had been built with in-house movements? They will have gotten to where other high quality watch companies are today.

Patience people, that's the joy of collecting watches (and anything else for that matter).

Enjoy your Steinharts all,

Rene


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

Titan II said:


> Okay, here's my take. If Steinhart moved it's focus to producing and marketing it's own designs then the people on this forum who are continuously praising Steinhart for their affordability probably wouldn't be able to afford all the Steinhart pieces in their collection.
> 
> I'm no expert but I'd think that creating and marketing ones own designs is probably very expensive. Creating their homage pieces is what allows Gunter to keep his doors open and to produce the odd original.


Bang on. Offering models that mimic existing designs is most likely a means to an end for Steinhart. By using existing case, hand and dial designs they can keep the pricing reasonable for a large part of their collection. And the profits from those money-makers can then be re-invested into original designs. It's a building process - it takes time.

On the other hand, I really don't understand why some people protest so vehemently about these watches. If you don't like the designs that were inspired by Rolex (or other brands), you don't have to buy them. You can ignore them - or just look the other way. However, judging the popularity of those models in this forum, you're in in the minority. With the strong sales that these Steinharts enjoy, why on earth would the company even consider not offering them?


----------



## Nyegaard (Jan 18, 2011)

Oh don't get me wrong, people are obviously enjoying this part of the Steinhart brand, I'm not going to play a grinch part and wish to take that away even though it's not my cup of tea.

I do however think it might not be the best plan for the brand, but who knows. I'd much rather not have a watch associated with "those guys who simply copy rolex, eh" if you catch my drift, but that's highly personal.

No, my main gripe with it is that it obviously takes just as much effort to design, sell and support the "rolex-homages" as it would to devote time to making what we've seen Steinhart do.

But I think you are correct, it's probably what keeps the company running.

I just wish they would've made some 42ish mm sandwitchdialed beauty with a top grade movement ;-). We all saw how amazingly fast the marine chrono sold.


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

Nyegaard said:


> No, my main gripe with it is that it obviously takes just as much effort to design, sell and support the "rolex-homages" as it would to devote time to making what we've seen Steinhart do.


Triton would be the best person to comment on this, but it's my guess that it costs much more to have a dial, hands and case of your own design manufactured, never mind the development and fine-tuning an original design would require. Using readily available Mercedes hands, for example, has to be a cost saving over hands that isn't being used by anyone else.



Nyegaard said:


> I just wish they would've made some 42ish mm sandwitchdialed beauty with a top grade movement ;-). We all saw how amazingly fast the marine chrono sold.


Do you mean the model that bore a striking resemblance to Panerai's Mare Nostrum? Didn't they only produce 20 of those? Such a small quantity could easily be accounted for by the hardcore Steinhart fans who would buy anything and everything the company makes. I wonder if they could have sold that particular model by the hundreds? I doubt it, but we can only speculate how many Ocean models are being shipped on a regular basis.


----------



## Riker (Mar 31, 2007)

This topic has some legs doesn't it......

It is very simple economics that will continue to see the Ocean series in the Steinhart portfolio. Many people will simply not pay many thousands of $$$$ for a watch just because it says Rolex on the dial. For most the possibility to spend this kind of cash is a dream. How lucky for those that like the style that Steinhart has the Ocean line as a supremely cost effective alternative & here again is the proof, they sell & sell well. As I wrote above & will again mention, the Oceans sell in the greatest numbers so they are obviously a revenue source that will be maintained. In saying all that Steinhart are quite innovative in their ideas & it would be foolish to think that they haven't big plans to expand the portfolio even further. Steinhart are in a unique position where they can play both sides of the coin. Utilise existing design influences & utilise their own in house design ideas. For those that mention they wish Steinhart would offer more then you need to maintain an interest in Steinhart because I can tell you that what is on the drawing board & what is coming will offer a great differentiation of product & cater to many peoples likes. Without saying too much, maybe even offer up some new ideas just as the Triton line was a new idea...

Triton & Gunter are busy boy's designing the future direction of Stenhart & have some awesome things going on. Remember, Steinhart have not been around for many decades like Rolex or others so they have needed to have part of their portfolio support a certain popular design direction. As it stands now, after only a few years they have already achieved alot & this momentum will continue to see them evolve. Be patient & keep a look out for what is coming from Steinhart......


----------



## edwinwalke (Aug 9, 2010)

Uwe W. said:


> Bang on. Offering models that mimic existing designs is most likely a means to an end for Steinhart. By using existing case, hand and dial designs they can keep the pricing reasonable for a large part of their collection. And the profits from those money-makers can then be re-invested into original designs. It's a building process - it takes time.
> 
> On the other hand, I really don't understand why some people protest so vehemently about these watches. If you don't like the designs that were inspired by Rolex (or other brands), you don't have to buy them. You can ignore them - or just look the other way. However, judging the popularity of those models in this forum, you're in in the minority. With the strong sales that these Steinharts enjoy, why on earth would the company even consider not offering them?


My thoughts exactly. I like the Oceans -- Have the Vintage Red and the GMT Pepsi. Will probably purchase one of the other Steinhart models as they are good value but for now the Oceans suit my desires and I am glad Gunter offers them.


----------



## Nyegaard (Jan 18, 2011)

Uwe W. said:


> Triton would be the best person to comment on this, but it's my guess that it costs much more to have a dial, hands and case of your own design manufactured, never mind the development and fine-tuning an original design would require. Using readily available Mercedes hands, for example, has to be a cost saving over hands that isn't being used by anyone else.


I'm not going to disagree, it probably is a lot cheaper. But I guess it depends, if they have to make and design a lot of elements in-house, it's going to be costly. If they can just buy a more or less complete watch from the manufacturer with their own logos its guaranteed to be cheaper, but I don't know how Steinhart actually makes these.



Uwe W. said:


> Do you mean the model that bore a striking resemblance to Panerai's Mare Nostrum? Didn't they only produce 20 of those? Such a small quantity could easily be accounted for by the hardcore Steinhart fans who would buy anything and everything the company makes. I wonder if they could have sold that particular model by the hundreds? I doubt it, but we can only speculate how many Ocean models are being shipped on a regular basis.


Yup, thats the one, ironically enough. Thing is though, on that very model they made something that far outshone the Panerai it was a homage to. The Steinhart was, by far, more interesting and looks just plain better (disclaimed: this is only from watching both in painstakingly obsessive ways in pictures).

It shows what Steinhart is capable of. I have a feeling their manufacturers are put to the test on such projects though.

All this being said, all the custom projects and limited editions kind of bug me as well, especially when the best pieces (like that new Chrono just posted on this forum) never make it to comercial production. I see the appeal and the amazing feel for those involved, but wouldn't it be cool if they had a signature piece on the collection that outshone all these? Something totally in-house designed, something with a fit and finish and features that would be truly unique?

I digress, I'm sorry. I just know what Steinhart is captable of and would love to see more of it available to the general public in non-limited runs. Will be very exciting to see what Riker is talking about down the line . The talent is obviously there, they just need to get the funds and time (I presume) to get it all together.


----------



## DNW (Oct 24, 2010)

Like Edwin, I have a VR and a Pepsi GMT. I like the simple classic look of these watches, and they are a little dressier than my Resco, Sinn, etc. I want to have them in my collection AT STEINHARTS PRICEPOINT. I would not want the Rolex version, I just don't like them THAT much. I could also care less about the Rolex brand, maybe I am not enough of a WIS to care.


----------



## Chromejob (Jun 18, 2010)

*My two cents....*



Uwe W. said:


> ... On the other hand, I really don't understand why some people protest so vehemently about these watches. If you don't like the designs that were inspired by Rolex (or other brands), you don't have to buy them. You can ignore them - or just look the other way. However, judging the popularity of those models in this forum, you're in in the minority. With the strong sales that these Steinharts enjoy, why on earth would the company even consider not offering them?


It may not be _the watches_ that some object to so much, as _the appreciation_ of those watches by WIS all over (and WUS specifically). It creates disturbances in The Force  when people show great interest in and appreciation of watches by a boutique maker that are repros/homages to classic designs. Those who cling to the exclusivity of a true Rolex (whatever exclusivity you can claim for a widely sold luxury item) are possibly irked when WIS types go ga-ga over a Swiss-made 320€ homage version with an ETA movement. :-|

Me, I like the O1VR because it's bringing back a vintage design that you can't get from a Rolex without some Project X or other modification (like, IIRC, Daniel Craig's rumored watch a few years back). The Ocean Black/Green, meh, I can get a comparable "current Rolex" repro from a number of places. But I know many here love theirs, cheers to them, and I suspect that Gunter sells a lot of those which funds the rent and salaries, etc. None of us can fault him for that. And all while still being able to answer the phone and talk to customers personally. (That's the Dark Day tipping point for any company when the owner/proprietor can't deal with customers regularly because there are so many. With luck and good fortune, Gunter will get to that point, and we'll all "fondly remember" o| the good ol' days when he was accessible. :-()

I do wish he'd done more of the MARINE Chronograph Spezial Edition ... 20 is barely a split-second blip on the WIS radar, I guess it was one-off limited run. (And I think it looks more distinctive and elegant than the Mare Nostrum.) Doing series like 500 or 1000 generates a larger radar signature in the WIS world, and gets seen more. I love my Orient 2010 STI Series I, #478/1000, great watch, enjoy showing it off, and it gives me some pride that I've got something a bit less commonplace than a Mako or even the 60th Anniversary model. Watches like the _Proteus _and MKII's _Kingston _get attention, and build interest in the brand.

If Gunter ONLY did originals, I presume he'd have to follow the business model of Bremont, making a small line of rather expensive watches to recoup investments/expenses and make a little profit. A middle ground could be doing more limited runs that bring in a bit of change, sell the commonly appealing Oceans to dilettantes, and then watch the market for the original designs grow as the brand gathers more notoriety. Pure speculation on my part, no less selfish because I'd LOVE to own 1-2 limited run watches from this man. The marine chrono sold out in, what, hours? I'll bet a lot of readers in this thread don't even know what it was. :think:

All this is to say that when Rolex aficionados "suggest" that Gunter stick to his original designs, it's not that his Ocean line aren't any good, but that Steinhart fans make so much noise about the "Vintage" models, and the new DSSD-style models, that his original watches are relegated to the chorus line. It's not that his Ocean watches are his _best_, or most _popular_, but simply (if I understand correctly) his _best-selling_ line.


----------



## mtbmike (Sep 12, 2007)

* Re: Steinhart & Rolex???*

*RE:* I have a VR and a Pepsi GMT. *I like the simple classic look *of these watches....... I would not want the Rolex version, *I just don't like them* THAT much.

So you don't like Rolex Sub's or GMT's but you do like the look of the the Steinhart tribute? Kinda like saying I just don't like AC Shelby Cobra that much but own a replica?

The most popular watches Gunter sells are Rolex Homage's which tells me people like the look of the Rolex models he copies a lot. ​


----------



## shania176 (Apr 4, 2010)

They have limited resources, and by focusing these resources to Ocean 1 and other well selling product lines they optimize their profit. If they would change their main focus to new product lines/designs/etc, that would be away from doing Ocean 1s and other current stuff, thus lowering their (short-term)profits. If they want to do both they have to expand and that means higher costs(=prices). 

I'd still hope that they would do this, but at the moment it's probably not best decision for them..


----------



## Chromejob (Jun 18, 2010)

DNW said:


> Like Edwin, I have a VR and a Pepsi GMT. I like the simple classic look of these watches, and they are a little dressier than my Resco, Sinn, etc. I want to have them in my collection AT STEINHARTS PRICEPOINT. I would not want the Rolex version, I just don't like them THAT much. I could also care less about the Rolex brand, maybe I am not enough of a WIS to care.





mtbmike said:


> ... So you don't like Rolex Sub's or GMT's but you do like the look of the the Steinhart tribute? Kinda like saying I just don't like AC Shelby Cobra that much but own a replica?


Rolex has some details and tells that others' homages don't have. E.g. the "Rolex Rolex Rolex..." engraving around the rehaut is, to me, a grossly excessive touch. The crown on the crystal isn't that obtrusive, but some might not like that. Rolex also does finishing on the case that others don't invest in.

I think DNW also asserted liking the Sub look _at Steinhart's pricepoint_, but not so much that he'd want one _at Rolex's pricepoint_.


----------



## graymadder (Jul 19, 2010)

*Re: My two cents....*

I don't understand why people don't look at these watches as generics as opposed to homages/replicas. To me the word generic more closely represents what they actually are. Homage is just a dumb word and replica has a negative feel. Maybe to WIS (which is another word I think is dumb, but that's another topic for another thread) these words have more meaning. I have not ran into one person outside of this forum who would come close to be considered a WIS and myself included. But when I compare my knowledge to their knowledge about watches I find myself knowing a lot more. I feel like a geek when I start talking and realize that i'm the only person in the room and most likely the building that knows what ETA is etc. Every person that I have come across that owns a Rolex or Omega, they know nothing about watches. They may know different models and costs but they know nothing else.

I have only been into watches for the past 7 months and now I am always looking at people's watches. So when I see people that I know that I haven't seen in awhile I take note of their watch. Just yesterday I was at a BBQ at a friends house and I saw a someone I hadn't seen in awhile. I noticed he had a submariner style watch and when I got closer I noticed it was a Rolex. So I wanted to talk about watches with him and found that this ended really quickly. I was wearing my Ocean VR and he asked to see it. I took it off and he said oh it has a sweeping second hand just like my watch. That was the extent of his knowledge. He bought the watch because of the name and cost. He has the money so that explains it. But he knows nothing about the brand etc. In fact he complained because it gains 3 minutes or so every couple of months and he has to reset it. He said that is the problem with automatics.

I am not saying anyone who owns a Rolex doesn't know anything about watches, but WIS are a small percentage of the actual population. I bought a Steinhart because of the value to money. I can't afford a Rolex. I could save for awhile and eventually buy one, but when I look at my income and look at the cost it just doesn't make sense. The cost to service it every 3-5 years would cover the cost of a new Steinhart. I chose the VR for many of the same reasons that have been mentioned. It is a watch that you can't currently buy and it looks a little different then the existing Rolex line. I like the look of milsub watches and Steinhart's VR fits for me and the pricing is perfect for my lifestyle.


----------



## CzechMate (Sep 11, 2009)

*Re: My two cents....*



graymadder said:


> I don't understand why people don't look at these watches as generics as opposed to homages/replicas. To me the word generic more closely represents what they actually are. Homage is just a dumb word and replica as a negative feel. Maybe to WIS (which is another word I think is dumb, but that's another topic for another thread) these words have more meaning. I have not ran into one person outside of this forum who would come close to be considered a WIS and myself included. But when I compare my knowledge to there knowledge about watches I find myself knowing a lot more. I feel like a geek when I start talking and realize that i'm the only person in the room and most likely the building that knows what ETA is etc. Every person that I have come across that owns a Rolex or Omega, they know nothing about watches. They may know different models and costs but they know nothing else.
> 
> I have only been into watches for the past 7 months and now I am always looking at people's watches. So when I see people that I know that I haven't seen in awhile I take note of their watch. Just yesterday I was at a BBQ at a friends house and I saw a someone I hadn't seen in awhile. I noticed he had a submariner style watch and when I got closer I noticed it was a Rolex. So I wanted to talk about watches with him and found that this ended really quickly. I was wearing my Ocean VR and he asked to see it. I took it off and he said oh it has a sweeping second hand just like my watch. That was the extend of his knowledge. He bought the watch because of the name and cost. He has the money so that explains it. But he knows nothing about the brand etc. In fact he complained because it gains 3 minutes or so every couple of months and he has to reset it. He said that is the problem with automatics.
> 
> I am not saying anyone who owns a Rolex doesn't know anything about watches, but WIS are a small percentage of the actual population. I bought a Steinhart because of the value to money. I can't afford a Rolex. I could save for awhile and eventually buy one, but when I look at my income and look at the cost it just doesn't make sense. The cost to service it every 3-5 years would cover the cost of a new Steinhart. I chose the VR for many of the same reasons that have been mentioned. It is a watch that you can't currently buy and it looks a little different then the existing Rolex line. I like the look of milsub watches and Steinhart's VR fits for me and the pricing is perfect for my lifestyle.


Wise words...


----------



## Nyegaard (Jan 18, 2011)

*Re: My two cents....*

Very wise words and very true .

If I'm ever ending up with a "generic", it'll most likely be some milsub or redsub styled watch. I'm not going to add a second mortgage to buy a Rolex Milsub anytime soon, that's for sure ;-).


----------



## Chromejob (Jun 18, 2010)

*Re: My two cents....*



Nyegaard said:


> ... I'm not going to add a second mortgage to buy a Rolex Milsub anytime soon, that's for sure ;-).


And totally unnecessary, as I will demonstrate in a forthcoming post....


----------



## delco714 (Nov 30, 2010)

Hate to say it, but I agree. Any person I have ever talked to that owns a MODERN Rolex knows nothing about watches (certainly not all are like this). A doc I worked with has the two tone gold date just. He knew it didn't have a battery but didn't even understand the concept of automatic. Bet he never had it serviced in the 10yrs he's owned it.


----------



## medtech (May 26, 2007)

To the OP,
Rolex has hundreds, if not thousands of patents, but many of them have expired, so others are free to copy those aspects. Secondly, the 44 is hardly a copy being that it is only waterproof to 300m, no ceramic bezel, no gas escape valve (useless anyway), and currently has a GMT hand.

To the post about Blancpain. Sorry, it was the other way around. Rolex was the first, blancpain followed shortly after.

As far as the current topic...Steinhart is no more a Rolex than a Miata is a Porsche. There is nothing wrong with any of those choices. These are all good products, let's appreciate them for what they are. If you want fun transportation, you buy a Miata. If you want a "driving experience" you buy a modern Porsche.

Even though I'm not a fan of the new Ocean 44, I think Steinhart has a lot of fun designs, gives good value for the money, and has a reputation for excellent customer service. What more could you want??

(If the question is: Which watch came out first, the Sub or the FF, then it was in fact the FF. However I don't really see that fact as significant since Rolex had designed/manufactured Military dive watches for Panerai since the mid '30s)


----------



## Chromejob (Jun 18, 2010)

*What more could you want?*

Chocolate. :think:

But many got that, too, so I think we all _doth protest too much_.


----------



## edoze (Mar 30, 2010)

medtech said:


> To the post about Blancpain. Sorry, it was the other way around. Rolex was the first, blancpain followed shortly after.


Not so sure about that IMO! The timelines are very close, with most giving the nod to the FF.

Try Rolex Submariner or Blancpain 50 fathoms? - The Military Watch Resource - Community Fora for further opinion.


----------



## Chromejob (Jun 18, 2010)

*Re: My two cents....*



Chromejob said:


> And totally unnecessary, as I will demonstrate in a forthcoming post....


Voila!


----------



## Cali kid (Feb 7, 2009)

First off the FF came before the Submariner, now that ive got that out of the way i had a Rolex in my collection for 28 years starting with a used 1978 GMT Master I 1675 that i bought in 1983 for 400 bones wore for 7 years and gave it to my younger brother who wore it for another 15 years.. thats 22 years in the same family and he sold it in 2005 for 1500 bones! when i gave the GMT Master to my brother i picked up a used 16610 sub and wore it from 1990 until i bought a brand new 16613 Blue dial TT sub that i still own today..28 years and never a problem but the fact that i wanted a GMT Master again and when i saw the new Steinhart GMT ocean 44 i didnt see a copy of the DSSD or the GMT Master, i saw a cool GMT, i never bought a ocean one because i felt it was a copy of the Rolex but this new piece isnt close to a Rolex GMT Master II. Now when the three hand model comes out i'm sure more and more DSSD owner will complain, hell if i owned one i just might too! Anyway i ordered the Ocean 44 blue/red bezel just like my old Rolex but the comparisons stop right there.... Fedex dropped a box off at my house today and i think the watch is made so well its worth double the price and this is from a Rolex guy!
Gotta love it!!


----------



## acello27 (Sep 4, 2009)

Cali kid said:


> First off the FF came before the Submariner, now that ive got that out of the way i had a Rolex in my collection for 28 years starting with a used 1978 GMT Master I 1675 that i bought in 1983 for 400 bones wore for 7 years and gave it to my younger brother who wore it for another 15 years.. thats 22 years in the same family and he sold it in 2005 for 1500 bones! when i gave the GMT Master to my brother i picked up a used 16610 sub and wore it from 1990 until i bought a brand new 16613 Blue dial TT sub that i still own today..28 years and never a problem but the fact that i wanted a GMT Master again and when i saw the new Steinhart GMT ocean 44 i didnt see a copy of the DSSD or the GMT Master, i saw a cool GMT, i never bought a ocean one because i felt it was a copy of the Rolex but this new piece isnt close to a Rolex GMT Master II. Now when the three hand model comes out i'm sure more and more DSSD owner will complain, hell if i owned one i just might too! Anyway i ordered the Ocean 44 blue/red bezel just like my old Rolex but the comparisons stop right there.... Fedex dropped a box off at my house today and i think the watch is made so well its worth double the price and this is from a Rolex guy!
> Gotta love it!!


 See. I was right about the BP ; )
And the Steiny is worth 2x the price and the Rolex? I would buy it at half the price.
And yes it is superior and has resale, yada yada...
99% of expensive watch owners are posers. Ok 90% : )
Dammit I still like the Rolex Explorer one!
And the MKll isn't the same. But a better value......?


----------



## cuts33 (Jan 3, 2011)

I think he was saying that he would pay 2x what Steinhart charges for the Ocean 44 but it is not fair to compare it to the quality of a Rolex. 

And I don't necessarily agree with the "poser" comment but I think the reality of it is that if you were to poll 100 people and ask that what brand comes to mind when you think of a watch that symbolizes status and prestige - 90 of them will say Rolex. Those same 90 will buy a Rolex if they could afford it without knowing anything more about the brand or what makes a quality timepiece. 

If you polled the same 100 people and asked them if they have ever heard of Steinhart you would be lucky if 1 person answered yes. 

I have no doubt that percentage wise, Steinhart owners know way more about watches in general than Rolex owners. The same can probably said about owners of other various "boutique" watches. This makes sense since Steinhart is not exactly a household name and the only way most of us even know of the brand is because we did some research into the matter. 

I am not going to pretend a Steinhart is on the same level as Rolex in terms of quality but what I have no hesitation in saying is that dollar for dollar, Steinhart represents a superior value.

If you take into account the materials and craftsmanship used by Rolex and cut out the "prestige" factor and the marketing, etc., I find it hard to believe a Rolex Sub should cost anything more than $1,500.00 - $2,000.00. 

I also know that I can buy 5 Steinharts without my wife batting an eye but if I came home with one Rolex she would shoot me dead where I stand. So there is something to be said for that too.


----------



## Cali kid (Feb 7, 2009)

Thank you i rambled on, yes a believe the steinhart is as nice or nicer than anything out there right now in the 1000 dollars range! Fit and finish are amazing, nice ETA GMT movement and owning it for about 30hrs its +4 seconds! Rolex will hold its value better and i will always have one in my collection but there is room for many brands and i shouldnt have to feel bad because i bought a watch for 570.00 dollars and dig it! there are alot of pieces out there for 20 grand that i just dont get..... i buy what i like and the price isnt the first thing on the list when i'm looking!


----------



## Riker (Mar 31, 2007)

A perfect, simple & for many a logical approach.... Well said Cali...;-)



Cali kid said:


> *there is room for many brands and i shouldnt have to feel bad because i bought a watch for 570.00 dollars and dig it!* there are alot of pieces out there for 20 grand that i just dont get..... *i buy what i like and the price isnt the first thing on the list when i'm looking!*


----------



## mtbmike (Sep 12, 2007)

*Steinhart Posers - ROLEX WANNABES!*

I work with a guy from Chile who's mom brought him a GMT when he graduated from college in the late 50s. He has worn it proudly every day and continues to. Unless he looses it I know he will never own another watch. He knows little about Rolex or any other watches and has no interest in what they might be worth. So does this make him a poser? Not everyone who owns a Rolex is a WIS. Many who wear them have owned them for ages because they are quality pieces that last a lifetime.

*I WOULD LABEL YOU STEINHART FANS WHO BASH ROLEX AS POSERS LONG BEFORE SOMEONE WHO HAS WORN THE SAME WATCH FOR LONGER THAN MOST OF YOU HAVE BEEN ALIVE.*


----------



## Bertelsen (Oct 24, 2010)

*Re: Steinhart Posers - ROLEX WANNABES!*

I have both Steinhart Ocean 1 VR and a 116610LV, I do not consider myself as a poser. 
The Rolex Sub has a lot of history, and its a great watch.

Steinhart is making their history right now. 
Why are we Rolex Wannabes?


----------



## spen (Jan 19, 2011)

*Re: Steinhart Posers - ROLEX WANNABES!*

Well said. Is the history, not the price.


----------



## JBax (Jan 26, 2011)

*Re: Steinhart Posers - ROLEX WANNABES!*

Rolex makes great watches. Steinhart makes great watches.

I will not pay the excessive premium for a rolex which is why my brand of choice for a watch in that same area of quality/heritage/luxury is Omega. I cannot see any good reason(s) why a Rolex should cost twice as much or more as an Omega. I have also read like others have stated in this thread that most Rolex watches cost no more than $1,000 to make but they sell them for a minimum of 5 or 6 times that price. Outrageous.


----------



## Chromejob (Jun 18, 2010)

*Re: Steinhart Posers - ROLEX WANNABES!*



acello27 said:


> ... 99% of expensive watch owners are posers. Ok 90% : ) ...


I'm smiling when I say,... "Troll."

I don't even have to ask for your corroborating data because you won't have any.



mtbmike said:


> ... I WOULD LABEL YOU STEINHART FANS WHO BASH ROLEX AS POSERS LONG BEFORE SOMEONE WHO HAS WORN THE SAME WATCH FOR LONGER THAN MOST OF YOU HAVE BEEN ALIVE.


What, _both of them? _  ... I really don't think there's a large contingent of Steinhart's fans in toto "who bash Rolex," as proud owners of the O1VR, Ocean Vintage GMT, and others, are most certainly fans of the classic designs. I like both the classic, and current, offerings from Rolex *for what they are.* I think the "Rolex" bashing is 1/2 trolling, 1/2 idle braggadocio.










BTW, I couldn't help noting that your avatar is a Sub interpretation by Seiko. Does that make you a "wannabe" or "poser?" I doubt it.

*"A Rolex? Probably. They were on the heavy side, but they work. And at least you could see the time in the dark with those big phosphorous numerals." *

... The acquaintance you mentioned reminded me of one of the reasons that Rolex' have such a rep in the latter 1/2 of the 20th century. Simplicity, reliability, elegance; classic Rolexes have all three. Ian Fleming wore an old Explorer, and in OHMSS he had Bond musing on a replacement for his destroyed watch, "A Rolex? Probably..." for the big chunky sturdy case and "big, luminescent numerals" (probably in contrast to the slim baton hour markers of contemporary alternatives). IOW, it was good value-for-money and -- my impression -- unpretentious (at least, in 1963) as Bond generally preferred. (Recall that in the last novel, he was considering turning own a Knighthood as "Sir James Bond" didn't suit him.) _Maybe_ it was an ex-military style, or perhaps just similar to wartime "pilot watch" designs with Arabic numerals and thick hands. It's widely speculated that Fleming specified a Rolex as Bond's timepiece of choice due to the practice of Rolex supplying watches gratis upon application by British POWs in WWII. (Fleming was an intelligence officer in WWII, and as I recall Bond was supposed to be a RN frogman, perhaps a UDT specialist.)










I vehemently dislike the association of Rolex Subs (and Omegas) with OO7 (on film) as a sort of pretentious, fancy-pants accessory because its origins (in the novels) was as a simple, reliable timepiece that could accompany him on missions (which often, as in LIVE AND LET DIE and IIRC THUNDERBALL required demanding underwater work). My impression of Bond (novels) was living a rather Spartan life, with little if any flamboyance. The Rolexes of the 1950s and 1960s suited him. Today's market placement of Rolex would probably nix it as a choice for him (not least because he wasn't independently wealthy).[1] All of this IMHO naturally.

Anyway, thank you for letting me ramble._ I'll be appearing here all week. Please remember to tip your waiters and waitresses. Thank you and good night._


----------



## cuts33 (Jan 3, 2011)

*Re: Steinhart Posers - ROLEX WANNABES!*



Chromejob said:


> Anyway, thank you for letting me ramble._ I'll be appearing here all week. Please remember to tip your waiters and waitresses. Thank you and good night._


...and don't forget to try the meatloaf.


----------



## Nyegaard (Jan 18, 2011)

*Re: Steinhart Posers - ROLEX WANNABES!*

You're very right about 007 and Rolex as far as my own interpretation can take me.

Heck, in todays worlds he'd probably run around with a Marathon GSAR or something similar ;-).


----------



## shania176 (Apr 4, 2010)

*Re: Steinhart Posers - ROLEX WANNABES!*



JBax said:


> I have also read like others have stated in this thread that most Rolex watches cost no more than $1,000 to make but they sell them for a minimum of 5 or 6 times that price. Outrageous.


Thats probably not even close to the real facts. And even if it was (which it's not), it's not outrageous because plenty of people want to buy them, so clearly they're worth the prices.


----------



## Chromejob (Jun 18, 2010)

*Re: Steinhart Posers - ROLEX WANNABES!*



Chromejob said:


> ... Heck, in todays worlds he'd probably run around with a Marathon GSAR or something similar ;-).


Or a Seiko Monster... Tissot T-Touch...? Or a *Steinhart Triton*! It's fun to speculate. I dunno, what did the RN or SAS issue to their men in the 1990s? During some eras, the services issue crap, and the servicemen get something good on their own (meager) income. E.g. O&W watches during the Vietnam War.

One of the lines I liked in CASINO ROYALE was "... Former SAS men with big watches and easy smiles."[1] Bang on. He'd probably be a bit young to be a Falklands War vet, but I'd like to think that Bond maybe was a young Desert Storm vet, stayed in, moved to SAS or another commando unit, migrated over to covert (black ops) or other field intelligence collection duties, then applied to MI5 when promoted to O4 or O5 (faced with seeing less action and "in the thick of it" duty).

I don't think a man who wants to blend in to crowds wears an expensive de luxe item. Something practical, reliable, functional, stylish. Maybe with an alarm and 2nd time zone? ... This served me well for 12 years, and I was amused to find that a certain action movie star liked his, too.










Maybe this is part of the "backlash" against Rolex that some have. It was once an affordable, superb watch, with some "adventure" and "military" credibility and heritage, and that has been nuked from orbit by the current marketing positioning of their bestselling watches. (shrug) Boo-hoo. There are always great products waiting in the wings when well-regarded products reach the event horizon of mass popularity. Seems so many kids now want "the big bad-*** Seiko Monster" automatic watch that wasn't so popular 20 years ago when quartz was all the rage. An old time Brit diver has a page in which he reminisces having 3-4 *Rolex 5517*s in his desk drawer, *none of his divers would wear them *because "they weren't cool like the Seiko divers," which cost "about £30 at the time." LOL Look at what 5517s go for now on Fleabay! :roll:

[1] I must be remembering wrong, IMDb has it "easy smiles and expensive watches." Why would a former SAS officer wear an expensive watch?


----------



## delco714 (Nov 30, 2010)

Worth is relative. Something is only worth what one is willing to pay for it. Rolex has a name and people with money pay Rolex for a watch that they perceive to have status and prestige amongst others and their perceptions (aka most mere citizens think rolex are the most expensive watches there are). It is what it is.


----------



## medtech (May 26, 2007)

acello27 said:


> I believe Rolex stole (or copied or whatever) the Sub design from BlancPain.
> I think it's interesting that Steinhart can make a Rolex-Sub-GMT, etc... at one tenth the price
> and 90% of the quality.


Ok, after some research it's fairly clear to me that Rolex never stole/copied any designs. Rolex had been working on waterproof wristwatches since the days of the pocketwatch (the oyster case has been around since 1926). In *1935* Panerai came to Rolex and asked them to design a Dive watch for the Italian navy. Prior to WWII Rolex even manufactured these watches for Panerai. These Rolex designed and manufactured military dive watches were used by the Italian, German, and Egyptian frogmen all the way into the late '50s.

Submariner prototypes existed in '52/'53. There's no evidence that BP was working on any dive watch prior to the French Combat Divers approaching them with the FF design in '52. BP introduced the FF at Basel in '53, but mostly just to the military. Later that year a Submariner prototype went to a depth of 10,335ft on the bathyscape. The Sub was then officially released at Basel in '54. Others then followed in '55. A civilian version of the FF was released in France in '54 by the LIP watch company (who interestingly enough had passed on the design earlier).

Also, Hans Wilsdorf was obsessed with Patents and Copyrights (as many were in that era). He copyrighted everything he could, and bought the rights to any technology he thought might be important/useful. If fact the original Submariners had black paint over the name because Rolex didn't yet own the rights to it.

Oh, and the 44 is starting to grow on me. I like some of the pics, but am still turned off by the chapter ring and the lack of lume on the bezel insert.

(Sources were: "Rolex Wristwatches" by Dowling & Hess; Jake's Rolex Blog; various internet articles for the FF history)


----------



## Chromejob (Jun 18, 2010)

Thanks for posting that. I was aware of most of that history, but too lazy to repost here, and with references to boot. Bravo.


----------



## Cali kid (Feb 7, 2009)

cuts33 said:


> Rolex makes them for the same price that Steinhart does. That extra 90% you are paying is for their overhead - advertising, endorsement deals, 1000's of employees worldwide, etc. Not to mention the "premium" they feel entitled to because at some point in history people decided that having a genuine Rolex was the ultimate status symbol in terms of watches.


I just dont buy that, having enough room in my box for both brands there is a huge difference and while Steinhart puts out an amazing product for the cost! Rolex is a whole other animal, owns its foundries and make all its metals incuding gold and platinum, i dont think there is any part they dont build themselves anymore or a company they own buillds it. Its just the benmark and a whole lot of brands have tried to copy and the easy part is to make something look a submariner (think invicta) but its a totally different thing to build a product that will last a lifetime! while i agree their price are inflated look at brand like Panerai and the coin they demand for a company that built like 300 watches from 1930 thru 1992 and with the help of Rolex in the beginning! I love my Ocean 44 GMT but i dont think there is a need to bash rolex in the process to make me feel better about my Steinhart! Rolex has so many patents and can do things that no watch company in the world would think to try and the most glaring thing your missing is research and design, do you think the DSSD just popped up after a couple months, easy for some brands to go to china and copy a rolex case (not say Steinhart does that) buy a dial and some hands and call it a submariner! There are enough buyers to make both companies successfull but Steinhart guys bashing Rolex is just as bad as Rolex guys bashing Steinhart!


----------



## Cali kid (Feb 7, 2009)

*Re: How About MkII?*



hooperman42 said:


> :-!I have had them all. Rolex, Breitling, Omega Glashutte, Zenith, U Nardin, IWC and many many of each... so name one? Ok not any over $ 15K.
> I am looking at this 44mm Ocean. Forget all the looks like a Rolex rubbish - its as nice looking as nearly anything I have owned. To the guy with the old Debaufre's you must have had old stock or pre screwed bracelets etc cuz I have both a Steinhart and Rolex Oyster and the Rolex is stamped and cheap feeling. Hey you had ought to see the streeeeeeetch oyster I had on my 50's GMT - can you say rolled steel? My 47mm older model B Dial - see pic is as nice as my Glashutte was - other than the stock movements vs the in house movements and all that noise. But I use it to tell time.... and ... well it does. I have had limited edition speedies, a 321 speedy pro from 1967 - yep that should have been a keeper.... and many others.... my list below is just the ones I thought of and I can think of at leasdt 3 Navitimers by Breitling I left off at a minimum. Wear what you like. I mean if Anonimo didnt rip off Panerai after their internal split there would be Anonimo (any guess why they named it Anonimo?). To me wear what you want. Rolex has a stigma and not always a good one... but then so does my BMW. Only I know what I paid (I gotta whale of a deal) but I never felt comfortable in a mercedes for some reason and perhaps why I ended up selling all the Rolex stuff. If you want the real deal in a nice watch get a Patak and call it a day or any number of the Ademaurs P's and other names I cant pronounce. Frankly in my eyes that Milsub is a snoozer big time. Oh and another one comes to mind... one of the best values in a dive watch? DOXA. Cant be beat. I have had 5. Since then I have sold all of that due to financial issues and personal issues but I can tell you its all vanity unless its fun to wear. I like my BMW because of its quality and the price I got it at. And same goes for these watches called Steinhart. I am happy with my decision to get this new one. And even glad I passed on the cult following Stowa for the marine Steinhart since it is 44mm which is perfect for me. Guess what I just realized I think Steinhart may have a cult following starting too and Stowa has been around since early war times.


While i agree with most of what you said, when Panerai was bought and left for greener pastures 99% of its work force stayed in Italy and went to work for who........Anonimo, the case markers all the way down to a third generation family of leather workers who make the straps! Building watches using the same machinery Panerai had used and until they became a true manufacturer used the same movements! Some say Anonimo makes the best cases in the world and by the looks of things they agree because they're prices are right up there with the Big P in alot of models!


----------



## Nyegaard (Jan 18, 2011)

*Re: How About MkII?*

What makes rolex somewhat unique in the world of watches is that they're not "made up", by that I mean they are what they are.
Panerai - plays heavily on a history they barely have (and what they do have, Rolex played a very very big role).
Perrelet - play on the fact that some dude named Perrelet invented the automatic self winding watch and some 200 years later someone in his family sold the brand name to festina.

I could go on, but the point is, rolex is simply rolex. They don't pretend, their heritage is true, their inventions are real, their stuff just works.

Overpriced? Not at all. Horribly expensive? Indeed. Worth the money? Not in materials, but maybe to you.

People have to realize that a watch like a rolex isn't overpriced, its merely expensive. Someone selling a watch with an ETA movement in a chineese case for $6000, now thats overpriced (and not as uncommon as you may think).

That being said, people must also realize that a rolex is not rare or unique, they make about a million watches a year (really). If anything, you have to compare rolex to seiko, which holds true in far more areas then you may think. A seiko for the rich perhaps? ;-).


----------



## Chromejob (Jun 18, 2010)

*Re: How About MkII?*

And let's not forget economical (or not) "Swiss Made" watches with Chinese movements. It have one ... it's a good watch (Shanghai 3L movement, I'm told), but I'm glad I didn't pay more than 255€.


----------



## Cambio (Oct 8, 2010)

Uwe W. said:


> Do you mean the model that bore a striking resemblance to Panerai's Mare Nostrum? Didn't they only produce 20 of those? Such a small quantity could easily be accounted for by the hardcore Steinhart fans who would buy anything and everything the company makes. I wonder if they could have sold that particular model by the hundreds? I doubt it, but we can only speculate how many Ocean models are being shipped on a regular basis.


Do you have a link or photo for this? I'm new to all of this, so have no background to draw upon.

Thanks,
adam


----------



## Chromejob (Jun 18, 2010)

Nevermind.


----------



## India Whiskey Charlie (Feb 22, 2011)

Cambio said:


> Do you have a link or photo for this? I'm new to all of this, so have no background to draw upon.


Galerie · Marine Chronograph, Edizione Limitata Grigio.. - Steinhart Watches


----------



## acello27 (Sep 4, 2009)

*Re: Steinhart Posers - ROLEX WANNABES!*



Chromejob said:


> I'm smiling when I say,... "Troll."
> 
> I don't even have to ask for your corroborating data because you won't have any.
> 
> ...


I have data.
I have 9 friends who buy expensive watches (amongst other things) and don't understand or even wear (use)
them. They admit their reason is to impress others ie. poser. And one friend who does use and understand the history of and quality of a product
before consuming to impress. 
Females are about 50% of the population. They are the ultimate posers : ) And consumers.
You know - for procreating and such. Evolution sells!!!


----------



## Chromejob (Jun 18, 2010)

*Re: Steinhart Posers - ROLEX WANNABES!*



acello27 said:


> I have data.
> I have 9 friends who buy expensive watches (amongst other things) and don't understand or even wear (use)
> them. They admit their reason is to impress others ie. poser. And one friend who does use and understand the history of and quality of a product
> before consuming to impress.
> ...


Haha, that's not data, that's _anecdotal evidence_. Small difference, but critical. As for your assessment of women ... I'm not even going to touch that. :think:

All in fun, of course....


----------



## exxondus (Sep 10, 2007)

*Re: Steinhart Posers - ROLEX WANNABES!*



acello27 said:


> I have data.
> I have 9 friends who buy expensive watches (amongst other things) and don't understand or even wear (use)
> them. They admit their reason is to impress others ie. poser. And one friend who does use and understand the history of and quality of a product
> before consuming to impress.
> ...


9 hmmm....you sure have a nice sample size for data analysis 

but with all due respect to everyone, I think this comparison is pretty pointless. We should all just agree that at the end of the day, there are Rolex supporters, and there are Steinhart Supports. Each buy what they like and can afford.

And we all enjoy our watches. period..

cheers everyone! the world is big enuff for another homage maker.


----------



## Fender (May 17, 2008)

I have a question for you all. If the Rolex sub was the same price as the Ocean 1, which one would you buy?


----------



## acello27 (Sep 4, 2009)

Fender said:


> I have a question for you all. If the Rolex sub was the same price as the Ocean 1, which one would you buy?


I'd have to compare them in the metal to really make a decision. And you do mean the Steiny's price right? : )
I haven't seen an Ocean 1. I have played with a new Sub no date. It's gorgeous.
The bracelets are nicer than the previous ones. The bezel rotation is awesome.
I believe the markers and hands are white gold. The crown mechanism is one of the best around.
904 SS? I hear it's pretty much similar to 316L. Apparently more corrosion resistant.
40mm vs 42mm is irrelevant to me. I have a small wrist.
The movement in the Sub is superior to the 2824. By that I mean more durable, better quality parts and hopefully
within COSC specs. I don't like the cyclops so a non date Sub would be my choice.
And I would wear it the way it is supposed to be worn. In the ocean, pools, shower, saunas, skiing, light sports - tennis, frisbee, golf,
etc... Anything more extreme - mountain biking, gym(weights, boxing, etc...) ice hockey - I have a G for.
And it looks great with a suit or t-shirt. So would the Steiny : )
I guess for me it would be kinda like owning a Ferrari. It wouldn't sit in the garage and only go out in nice weather.
I would take it to the track and for sure drive it in the rain.
I think quality products like a Rolex or Ferrari should be used for what they were built for.
Hence my poser comment earlier. Some people buy nice things and don't use them for fear of ruining them.
And to impress others!
I'm not rich so I would settle for the Steiny and a Miata MX-5.


----------



## Chromejob (Jun 18, 2010)

Fender said:


> I have a question for you all. If the Rolex sub was the same price as the Ocean 1, which one would you buy?


Ah, just what this wheezing thread needs to get off life support, another troll-like question. :roll:


----------



## Chromejob (Jun 18, 2010)

WTH? Why is the forum double-posting for me? I hit ALT-SHIFT-S once as usual.... Grrr.


----------



## mrpete (Dec 13, 2006)

*Re: How About MkII?*



uwe w. said:


> so you keep repeating. I respect that steinhart is not your cup of tea; you've already driven your views home in other threads here, so is there some reason that you feel the need to keep repeating yourself? Why can't you just respect the fact that some people really enjoy these watches and let them have their fun? If you've lost all 'respect' and have no intent of buying another steinhart i'd suggest that you visit another forum here on wus, because right now it appears that you're intentionally being malicious.


ditto!


----------



## Fender (May 17, 2008)

Chromejob said:


> Ah, just what this wheezing thread needs to get off life support, another troll-like question. :roll:


There's nothing troll-like about that question. It's a fair question due to the nature of the entire thread, which I DID NOT start. The fact that you see as troll-like tells me which one you would buy, and you don't want to admit it. This used to be such a friendly forum. Now you can even ask a question without being called a troll. Sad


----------



## Chromejob (Jun 18, 2010)

*Please allow me to unruffle thine feathers*



Fender said:


> There's nothing troll-like about that question. It's a fair question due to the nature of the entire thread, which I DID NOT start. The fact that you see as troll-like tells me which one you would buy, and you don't want to admit it. This used to be such a friendly forum. Now you can even ask a question without being called a troll. Sad


Sit back down in the saddle, please. I didn't call you a troll. I said the question was "troll-like." That means, "similar in nature" or "bearing some qualities of." Wiktionary defines it (etymology 2, noun, meaning 3) "a deliberatly inflammatory post to a newsgroup." My OED says, "send ... with the intention of provoking an angry response." (It did get an angry response, from me, but let's ignore that for the moment.) Now, it probably was *not* your deliberate intention to cause drama, but it may yield more drama and disturbance anyway, hence I said "troll-like," meaning in net result, not intent.

The topic of Rolex vs. cheaper homages has raged for years, and continues to rage, and threads on the topic get a) more tiresome and b) more predictable the more that you read them. Arguments on many sides can be carbon copied and reused indefinitely. I'm really not sure there's anything new to be said. So asking, "if they were the same price, which would you buy" (ahem, they are NOT the same price, and mostly likely do NOT cost the same to produce) seems to do little more than heat up the leftover arguments in the fridge with repeat statements of conjecture and opinion about the inherent value of the watch, aside from RRP. I've already read these arguments until I see crowns in my eyes. :roll:

I'm not being unfriendly. I'm calling it like I see it, and I think this ancient, desiccated issue has no life in it until someone stirs the pot (whatever his/her intent, innocent or mischievous) with another invitation to further conjecture and arguments. Example, on another forum, there's a proud Rolex owning member who posts in nearly each and every thread about Submariner homages a pic of the original and some quip like, "quit being cheap, man up and buy the real thing." :roll: Very tiresome.

A smart person would just tell me to stop reading. Probably a good idea.

*** b-) ***

*But* I'll play your game. I'd take the Rolex for 268 Euros, easy. It's got more refined finishing of the case details, a nicer dial, more elegant hands, slightly more accurate movement (COSC), and (so I presume) fewer QC issues. After sales support is roughly the same, I guess, between the gracious AD down the street or the personable staff of Steinhart in Augsberg, DE. Gee, that was hard (not).

Of course, if all Rolex subs sold for 268 Euros, a lot of the exclusivity and "hype" about them would evaporate among those actually looking for a watch to spend 4000 Euros on, you could buy them at Macy*s and Nordstrom and Belk and Sears. It would still be the same watch, but ubiquitous as Casios.


----------



## Fender (May 17, 2008)

*Re: Please allow me to unruffle thine feathers*



Chromejob said:


> My OED says, "send ... with the intention of provoking an angry response." (It did get an angry response, from me, but let's ignore that for the moment.)


Your anger is your own. I just asked a question and a fair question given the subject matter of the thread, which I did not start. The fact that you will not just leave it alone again is your problem, I'm going to. So any reply by you, will not get any further response from me, as you don't or won't see that my question is a valid one and not meant to anger anyone.

[/QUOTE]*But* I'll play your game. [/QUOTE]

There is no game, just a question. That fact that you take it as one is interesting.

Feel free to read every post I've ever made on this forum or Seiko, or Hamilton. I have never said a bad word about any brand including Steinhart. Can you say the same? I've been helpful when I could be, and now and then I asked questions.

I think comparing Rolex and Steinhart is ridiculous at best, but I do not mean to "flame" the OP either. I thought, and still think that at the same price, Ocean 1 owners would soon jump ship and buy a Rolex. I did not start this comparison, and I figured my question would make people think a bit about what they really want. I did not make it to anger anyone.

I do not own, nor will I ever own a Rolex sub or any other Rolex. If I had that kind of money sitting around I certainly wouldn't buy a watch with it.

I do own a Steinhart however, which gives me the right to ask a simple question.


----------



## acello27 (Sep 4, 2009)

acello27 said:


> I'd have to compare them in the metal to really make a decision. And you do mean the Steiny's price right? : )
> I haven't seen an Ocean 1. I have played with a new Sub no date. It's gorgeous.
> The bracelets are nicer than the previous ones. The bezel rotation is awesome.
> I believe the markers and hands are white gold. The crown mechanism is one of the best around.
> ...


Did anyone understand my comment of poser vs user?
It's a valid one. Use the product you pay for! : )
I am not a troll. Look at my posts. And I had 1000 posts at TZ.com before their elitist crap pissed me off.
This site is cool. Let's keep it that way.


----------



## Chromejob (Jun 18, 2010)

*Re: Please allow me to unruffle thine feathers*

:roll:



Fender said:


> ... as you don't or won't see that my question is a valid one and not meant to anger anyone......


Reread my post again....



Chromejob said:


> ...  it probably was *not* your deliberate intention to cause drama, but it may yield more drama and disturbance anyway, hence I said "troll-like," meaning in net result, not intent.....


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

*Re: Please allow me to unruffle thine feathers*

It was inevitable that a thread dealing with this subject was going to degrade at some point. The subject has been exhaustively discussed, so for the sake of maintaining peace and in consideration that many of the latest posts have had nothing to do with Steinhart, I'm closing this thread. Anyone who is champing at the bit to continue this theme and has something new to say can do so in a new thread.


----------

