Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Should I buy a Rolex Submariner?
- Thread starter GHowie93
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Rolex Submariner is well made, very resistant and appears to hold its value well. I would also say that it is quite a classic piece of watch, it really has not changed much in looks in the last 40 years.
Apparently it is one of the more desirable sport models that is less than $5000 used.
It seems to be one of the few pieces of male jewelry that just seems cool to me to wear.
Enjoy your purchase and maybe listen to some of the posts about purchasing a used model from an honest and known Rolex official dealer or non official but a brick & mortar store close to you.
Apparently it is one of the more desirable sport models that is less than $5000 used.
It seems to be one of the few pieces of male jewelry that just seems cool to me to wear.
Enjoy your purchase and maybe listen to some of the posts about purchasing a used model from an honest and known Rolex official dealer or non official but a brick & mortar store close to you.
I love watches - dont ask me why, seeing as i cant wear them at work!!!
My current favourite is my Omega Seamaster that my wife got me for my 30th.
Yes Rolex are nice watches - I may get one in a few years, but first it's a Breitling and another Omega Seamaster - a planet Ocean, but i'll need to save for the ones I want!
Personally if you want it as it's a good watch and it's what you want go for it, but never see it as an investment, for some reason buying something nice with a reason of oh well i can sell it for a reasonable price later seems wrong to me.
but that's my personal opinion
My current favourite is my Omega Seamaster that my wife got me for my 30th.
Yes Rolex are nice watches - I may get one in a few years, but first it's a Breitling and another Omega Seamaster - a planet Ocean, but i'll need to save for the ones I want!
Personally if you want it as it's a good watch and it's what you want go for it, but never see it as an investment, for some reason buying something nice with a reason of oh well i can sell it for a reasonable price later seems wrong to me.
but that's my personal opinion
I worked in Saudi for 10 years and picked up a Sea Dweller there. Rolex are Ok watches, classic design, as long as you stick to steel. Submariners are OK. If I were to do it again though I think I would get something a bit more discreet, an Explorer 1, or maybe spend a bit more for a Vacheron Overseas or Audemars Royal Oak, don't think I could ever justify stretching for a Patek!
I'd look at the price vs. quality ratio, and I think Rolex is just not at the top of the list. Nowhere near. Two companies that produce excellent quality and beautiful watches are Baume & Mercier and Maurice Lacroix. Comparing my watch to a much more expensive Rolex, all I could say about the Rolex is WTF?
http://www.baume-et-mercier.com
http://www.mauricelacroix.com
http://www.baume-et-mercier.com
http://www.mauricelacroix.com
When those in the know discuss watches there are a couple of factors they use to define the quality. One of the most important is the movement used. It is generally considered that the elite manufacturers are those who make their own movements. These companies are generally also innovating and coming up with new movements with various complications. Rolex is a company that still makes it's own movements, as do Vacheron Constantin, Audemars Piaget, Patek Philippe, Jeager Le Couture (I think), Richard Mille etc. The one thing you will notice about the watches from these companies is that they are expensive!!! Companies like Tag, Omega, Baume and Mercier, Lacroix, do not make their own movements, they buy them in, and as a rule use mass produced movements from a couple of manufacturers. It is possible to find a Tag, Omega, Lacroix etc, all using the same movement. This is the big differentiator.
Another factor is the design. The classic sports watch with a rotating bezel was invented by Rolex, the Submariner was the first of this type. Look at an Audemars Piaget Royal Oak, and you will see that it's bezel shape is highly recognisable and much copied especially over the past few years. I believe the Royal Oak is, or at least was, the most expensive steel sports watch available. Look at Patek's Gondolo, Calatrava and Nautilus watches, again, much copied designs.
Any watch from these elite companies will be a sound investment, and can increase in value several times over. Rolex, particularly the steel sports watches are often considered as being over valued in the market place, but time has shown they at least hold their value. Compare this to the second tier manufacturers such as Tag, Omega etc, where the values drop drastically over time.
Correction: I have researched and Lacroix does make some movements in house, notably the Masterpiece movement. Most of their watches use ETA bought in movements though, I believe. Omega has the Co-Axial movement which was largely developed in house in collaboration with the movement's inventor, though Omega still uses bought in Valjoux and ETA movements in many of their watches.
Last edited:
Maurice Lacroix are a mid range watch company, Rolex are one of the true greats of Swiss watchmaking, no one has even mentioned that Submariners and pretty much all mechanical watches are rubbish time keepers easily beaten by a quartz movement and even worse the servicing requirements are draconian and expensive...a Submariner requires 3 yearly services carried out by Rolex Authorised Service at approximately $1000 a time. Me I'll stick with my $100 solar powered Seiko every time. BTW a good friend of mine was attacked in broad daylight recently by 3 males who took his Yachtmaster and this was in a very rich posh area.
Rolex watches are nice mid-high range watches that do not require anything even remotely close to that much service!!! With a Rolex, one service every 5-7 years is plenty sufficient unless it is damaged or falls way out of COSC standards that a demagnification or regulation can't correct (and those services take a few minutes and are free.) Many owners go over 10 years between service intervals without issues and the watch still runs close to or within COSC standards. The lubricants used today are quite resilient as are the gaskets themselves.
[doublepost=1499232551][/doublepost]Having owned my Submariner for over forty years I can confirm that they need servicing every 3/4 years, Rolex charge $1000 each time and if they meet COSC standards then those standards are pretty poor, I've yet to see any mechanical watch achieve anything like the consistent accuracy of a cheap quartz watch, nice pieces of jewellery but as timepieces meh!
Actually, a ~$150 Seiko Automatic divers watch is probably the best price vs. quality value for this type of watch (automatic divers). At least as accurate as any automatic watch (Rolex Submariner, Omega Seamaster, etc.) at a fraction of the cost.
You wouldn't service a Seiko Automatic, you'd just get a new one if it ever died. Even if you got a new one every three years (which you wouldn't), the Total Cost of Ownership would still be way cheaper than the Rolex, plus you'd be the owner of a more accurate timepiece.
If you want the best price vs. quality value on the planet, you are probably best buying a Seiko quartz watch. I have a Seiko quartz chronograph from the mid-Eighties and I have the battery replaced every four years or so. It has never been serviced, still has its original wristband. That means I've probably spent $150 out of pocket over 30+ years to maintain this device which is way less than I'd expect the maintenance to be on an Omega Speedmaster (which wouldn't keep time as accurately).
This watch is so accurate, I don't even bother adjusting it on a regular basis. I only reset the time during the local daylight-saving time/standard time transitions twice a year or if I travel to a different time zone. It only loses 1-2 seconds per month, resetting it doesn't make any sense.
Buy the Submariner (or Seamaster, or whatever fancy watch) but with the understanding that you are getting a great piece of jewelry, not an accurate timepiece.
You wouldn't service a Seiko Automatic, you'd just get a new one if it ever died. Even if you got a new one every three years (which you wouldn't), the Total Cost of Ownership would still be way cheaper than the Rolex, plus you'd be the owner of a more accurate timepiece.
If you want the best price vs. quality value on the planet, you are probably best buying a Seiko quartz watch. I have a Seiko quartz chronograph from the mid-Eighties and I have the battery replaced every four years or so. It has never been serviced, still has its original wristband. That means I've probably spent $150 out of pocket over 30+ years to maintain this device which is way less than I'd expect the maintenance to be on an Omega Speedmaster (which wouldn't keep time as accurately).
This watch is so accurate, I don't even bother adjusting it on a regular basis. I only reset the time during the local daylight-saving time/standard time transitions twice a year or if I travel to a different time zone. It only loses 1-2 seconds per month, resetting it doesn't make any sense.
Buy the Submariner (or Seamaster, or whatever fancy watch) but with the understanding that you are getting a great piece of jewelry, not an accurate timepiece.
Didn't quartz put a nail in the reason to buy an expensive watch for accuracy? My ideal watch, if I was still using a watch would be a $40, two zone Timex.
I was wondering why this thread got bumped.
Sigh. :facepalm:
Should we correct all the misinformation in the other posts, too?
The OP hasn't been back since he started this thread four years ago, ya know.
Last edited:
I had my stainless steel Rolex since I was 13,it's the old "kinetic drive" submariner,mine is probably from early or mid 1970s,with the right care and service (once every third year at a qualified watchmaker for cleaning,occasional replacement of worn parts and adjustments). If you want one,and got the money,go for it,I still use mine sometimes,but as it lack some functions,that's not available on mechanical watches I prefer my aw2 for daily use. However,when I work,I mostly use either the Rolex or my doxa diver watch,as the Apple Watch don't cope well with heavy underwater work at 35 to 60 fathoms.
Some light reading here (I see that a lot of participants in this FOUR YEAR OLD THREAD are in "Stage 2") --
And one of many threads in another forum:
http://forums.watchuseek.com/f23/five-stages-rolex-ownership-3307458.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackfo...he-worlds-most-recognized-watch/#560082cb216c
And one of many threads in another forum:
http://forums.watchuseek.com/f23/five-stages-rolex-ownership-3307458.html
I thought you were saying they needed to be serviced 3 times A YEAR! My bad!
[doublepost=1499453637][/doublepost]
An old Seiko SKX007 of mine is more accurate than my COSC certified Breitling, and the only service it has ever had is me lubricating it. After adjusting it for the amount I move, it now gains about 1.5 seconds a day. For that movement it's unusually accurate, but amusing nonetheless given it's a sub-$100 watch with a movement that is now running as well as the Master Coax.
[doublepost=1499453878][/doublepost]
I thought about a Patek once, but I then decided that I would keep the kidney in case I ever needed a spare.
Last edited:
Paraphrasing:
"You never actually own a kidney. You just look after it for the next generation."
Im sorry you had to read all of the opinions of all of these un-enlightened souls (tongue-in-cheek but kinda being serious). First of all, a Rolex is not tacky - anyone who says that has a tacky mindset and doesnt understand the value of buying quality items that will last a (several) lifetime(s).
Second, you will spend more much more than 5k in a lifetime buying cheap watches that arent worth a damn. Its more expensive to be cheap. That's true of everything you buy. Buy quality not quantity. When you hand your grandson your first Rolex (that will be worth much more than you paid for it) you will be passing on a watch AND a belief system of expecting and striving for the best. Owning a Rolex is not just a watch, it shows high ideals.
I could go on - but in short - wearing a Rolex tells the world two things A. I know what quality is B. I have the means to enjoy quality. Most people dont have what it takes to put A and B together.
Peace.
Acccording to Rolex and most horologists that I know 1970’s Submariners require a minimum of a 3 yearly service and current cost is over $1000. Timekeeping is abysmal compared to my Solar Seiko, ie +/- 1-2 minutes per day compared to 1/2 seconds per month.
[doublepost=1519794299][/doublepost]
In 2018 wearing a Rolex tells the world two things, A. I have more money than sense. B my investment skills are extremely poor. Most sensible people have no problem putting A plus B togetether
Let’s say this is all true. If I’m assuming the OP isn’t moderately wealthy, then anybody suggesting that they buy a $5000 watch at that age instead of investing it for retirement or saving it for an emergency fund is just wrong. Buying things like this without having the means is how and why we end up in the state we are in in the US. The Rolex will end up in a pawn shop at OP’s age.
You must know some horologists that are both crummy and extremely overpriced.
My watchmaker-who BTW has been to Rolex in Switzerland a few times for continuing education after getting his WOSTEP diplomat 30 years ago-charges ~$500 to service a 3035 movement from this era and suggests 5-7 years. Neil wouldn't let a watch leave his shop unless it was at least meeting the the +3/-5s a day standard that they were certified for when new, and gets most of them better.
I wear a Datejust from ~1980 with a 3035 every day. I just put it on every day, and only mess with it when the time changes. It's usually off by ~5s at the time change.
[doublepost=1519827520][/doublepost]
In 2018 wearing a Rolex tells the world two things, A. I have more money than sense. B my investment skills are extremely poor. Most sensible people have no problem putting A plus B togetether
Or perhaps someone
a. Collects watches and
b. Was given a Rolex as a gift