: If this is true for Rolex movements, then it
: would hold true for Omega and their ETA and
: Piguet and Lemania based movements. These
: movements use modern lubricants as well.
: I won't say that an ETA movement is of the same
: quality as a Rolex movement, but I will say
: that it is capable of keeping time just as
: well or better because all mechanical
: watches are different.
: I think this is going to be a Cold Case File.
: Rolex is not the "gold standard"
: by any stretch of the imagination. If
: someone offered me a Patek Philippe or an
: Audemars Piguet watch, why would I possibly
: choose an assembly line Rolex over these
: hand crafted works of art?
I think we agree on all the major points. There is nothing wrong with mass production. I would not choose the Patek Phillipe for a few reasons. None of them have anything to do with the quality of the movement.
Henry Ford already made the case for mass production. Before he opened the assembly line most cars were hand-made. The economies of scale stifled the growth of the industry.
I like mass production becauses insures that if I need a part , there is a replacement. It also means that I can find people to repair it. And it makes it more likely that I will buy the watch because of the lower price.
That means more money for research and development of movements like the co-axial movement.
From what I gather Rolex and Omega were like Mercedes and BMW. They were into the same market. Then something happened. Rolex got popular and Omega had to make some corporate decisions that changed it.
Some Omega owners still cling to that old rivalry, but I don't know that they are that close anymore as they were before Omega chose to just modify ETA movements to save costs.
I have the Jubliee bracelet. I would say it is as good as my Omega bracelet, except for the clasp.
What I do know that my old Rolex is now worth twice what I paid for it, even though with inflation, it might be about the same.
I bought my 1985 SS Datejust because at the time , it was the best watch on the market. I didn't care about all the other things. I just like the best of things. Back then , the name value was not as high as it is now. It was still just another watch. No one mentioned an Omega to me.
It seems over the years , Rolex has just made different decisions on it's future. They have paid off when people are willing to stand in line to pay a lot of money for them. You have to believe in the free marketplace. People vote with their dollars.
I bought my Omega because I didn't want another Rolex. Next, I may get a Tag Heuer or Breitling. A Patek Phillipe or other hand-made watch in not in my future. I am not an "art" person. I like utility. My Omega is my sport watch and my Rolex is my dress watch. My Omega goes diving, my Rolex to the Grammies.
I want to thank you for all your great advice in making my final decision. I hope that if you want a Patek Philippe that you get to own one. I believe in seeing people live their dreams. I have lived my dream.
I have told a lot of people about the forum. A few have even bought Omegas since then. One bought a vintage 1960's Omega. Who knows, the tide may turn in Omega's favor. I love them both for their own reasons. As you said , it's a matter of choice.
I doubt the passion with subside. It is one subject that seems to bring out the best and the worst in watch owners.
But when you start buying a handmade TV, VCR or microwave, then I might believe your point about the Patek is valid. Art is much too subjective.
I can tell you that side by side in the winder so far, the Rolex is more accurate. But that may change. I agree all watches are individuals.
If Omega sells more watches maybe they can one day reclaim their past glory. I hear people comparing them to Tag Heuer's all the time. That can't be a good thing.
And over the weekend on one of those Home Shopping Networks, they were hawking Croton watches. The guy kept saying that the watches had an "ETA movement" in them. Who knows, maybe next they will wind up in Timex's.
