Watch Enthusiasts - Rolex Daytona

mrushton

There is a used one (Jan 2011) on http://www.theoldwatchshop.com for £7k,comes with full documentation,box etc. I've had a few watches from the owner (Mike) and he's a watch fanatic (amazing collection). It's under the Rolex section of the site. Listed as available today and it's the white face. Looks mint from the pics and that's the one I'd have and save a grand.

beancounter

Monkeypump, thanks for trying - much appreciated.

Watches of Switzerland now hold the record for the most ridiculous waiting list at FIVE years :shock:

I'm still "hoping" to source something through an AD before I go the grey or second hand route. I'm aware of all the grey dealers in London and also people like Ian Blowers in Hull and, indeed, The Old Watch Shop in Southport.

Grey premium for an unworn 116520 appears to be £800 - £1000 which is significant on top of the £8k rrp.

Thanks again

bc

mrushton

The shop I mentioned above is a Rolex-trained dealer and moves a lot of watches. Chances are that Daytona will be a 'safe queen' so it will be as new, you save money and no waiting, but you pays the money....

kentphil

have a look at this?

http://www.jameslist.com/watches/rolex/daytona

feltkuota

If I had 8k burning a hole in my pocket and wanted a watch then:

a Bremont EP120 Spitfire.

verylonglegs

EdgarAllenPoe wrote:

On a slightly different note do people cycle in their watches? I wear a Submariner and usually take it off when I'm cycling just in case I should wipe out for whatever reason and scratch it to pieces.

No I don't wear a watch on the bike, the main reason being I find a heavy divers watch can be quite uncomfortable after a while due to the vibrations from holding onto the bars making it move around and it will chafe a fair bit. And it would look daft along with cycling kit too, obviously

guinea

Here's one of my Panerai watches that went down the road.



My hip came off worse.

I wear my watch on the bike, just not leather straps as they get smelly.

ben@31

beancounter wrote:

So, I've just sold my Ducati after 12 years of ownership.
- what would you buy for £8k?

Thanks for any advice forthcoming

bc

Bizarrely if I had £8k to burn I would buy a Ducati 996 SPS and not the watch. I don't have a bike licence so I would keep the Ducati in my living room to look at, as a piece of art. When 996's came out all them years ago, I thought they were the most beautifully designed transport ever. Once when I stopped off at a Ducati dealer to look at one, another was started up in the workshop and the throttle blipped a few times, god the engine noise was fantastic.

They're a babe magnet, must be hard riding down the road with these clinging to the front...

EdgarAllenPoe

guinea wrote:

Here's one of my Panerai watches that went down the road.



My hip came off worse.

I wear my watch on the bike, just not leather straps as they get smelly.

Christ that's it, never wearing my Sub cycling again, I would cry!

beancounter

ben@31 wrote:

Bizarrely if I had £8k to burn I would buy a Ducati 996 SPS

Bizarrely that's exactly what I've just sold, y2k model full Ohlins etc.

12 years of ownership and 18,000 miles.

Only 800 miles in the last 3 years though, hence the sale.

Life moves on.

bc

BowtomePhil

Honda fireblade for me, love the style.

But if I had 8k burning a hole, my wife would spend it. So I spend everything I get then I don't amass that much.

Monkeypump

verylonglegs wrote:

EdgarAllenPoe wrote:

On a slightly different note do people cycle in their watches? I wear a Submariner and usually take it off when I'm cycling just in case I should wipe out for whatever reason and scratch it to pieces.

No I don't wear a watch on the bike, the main reason being I find a heavy divers watch can be quite uncomfortable after a while due to the vibrations from holding onto the bars making it move around and it will chafe a fair bit. And it would look daft along with cycling kit too, obviously

As above, anything metal would (for me) be too heavy and clunk around. The fear of ruining something expensive also puts me off. I wear a years-old G-Shock for all sports - despite years of abuse, it's proved indestructable so far.

If I had £8k spare, the Deep Sea would be put on the back burner and the cash would go towards our wedding. Christ, being a grown-up is a drag sometimes.

mrushton

Tell me about it. I moved a number of watches on (Panerai,Rolex,JLC,IWC) when my daughter was born as they were sat in a safebox never being worn and I decided to use the money elsewhere. Things had got out of hand tho' when I flew to Paris to commission a strap for the Panerai. Owners of this brand will know the score.Plus I got annoyed in W of Switzerland when I was trying to purchase a Radiomir GMT/Alarm which they didn't seem to want to sell me!

http://www.paneristi.com for those who are interested

andyoh

Beancounter,

I've just picked up this thread. I've had a S/S Daytona black face for 7 years now and I wear it everyday, but not whilst riding the bike. I've had it serviced once and it has been faultless. If you want one quickly the best route is to go previously owned. Carr Watches near Liverpool Street Station in the City of London have a couple in their window. The last time I looked one in their window was also unworn. Unless you are prepared to wait via the AD route which as you are aware is around 2-5 years, go previously owned. Most of the previously owned examples have been serviced and look like new.

Good luck.

pinno

From a sheer engineering point of view, a watch is a fantasic piece of engineering. But I cannot believe the silly money people are willing to spend on a watch.
I rarely wear watches, I have 4 of them. I either take them off to wash my hands and leave them somewhere or they break. I wear a watch when I am on the continent on my right wrist so that it reminds me of the side of the car the verge should be on. There is a clock in my car, the kitchen, my mobile phone, my cycle computer, on the wall at work, on the cooker and time checks on the radio, my PC and on the TV.

So here is a thing - IF:
You don't want some serious hookers, viagra, cocaine, a new kitchen or bicycle or another motorbike and your house is done, why not give the money to the WWF, Greenpeace, MacMillan Cancer Relief or some Bear sanctuary ? Why buy an obscenely expensive watch that would amount to double or triple the salary of the average man in the 3rd/developing world ?
I would have no qualms whatsover with putting a12K, no 100K watch in my vice and taking great delight in smashing it into hundreds of mangled little pieces. I would never put something so obscenely expensive, vulgar and inappropriate on my wrist no matter what the reasons for buying one above £100 unless you were a diver or a pilot.
Carry on perpetuating the materialism veiled in terms of 'collector' or 'enthusiast', but don't ever use the term 'worth it' or 'investment' because you are not investing anything into the wellbeing or future of anything useful, only your odd eccentricities, vanities or egos.
I'll get the petrol... you come up with a reasoned argument other than 'its my money and i'll do what I like with it'.

StillGoing

beancounter wrote:

So, I've just sold my Ducati after 12 years of ownership. I'm a bit too old and knackered for sports bikes now so I won't be replacing it.

I don't feel the need for any more cycles so I'm going to blow the proceeds on another lifetime ambition, a Rolex Daytona.

To all those who know about such things:-

- is there still a waiting list - how long?
- white face or black face?
- what would you buy for £8k?

Thanks for any advice forthcoming

bc

Don't buy a Rolex, shop around and try and find a Patek Phillippe or a Vacheron Constantin at a low price. Alternatively an Audemars Piguet. But, a Raymond Weil is Swis made with excellent workings and a decent one won't cost much more than £1,000 leaving you with change to use elsewhere whilst still having a quality timepiece on your wrist.

guinea

pinarello001 wrote:

I would never put something so obscenely expensive, vulgar and inappropriate on my wrist no matter what the reasons for buying one above £100 unless you were a diver or a pilot.

Coming from a guy signing himself as Pinarello...

You could just as easily have written "I would never ride something so obscenely expensive, vulgar and inappropriate no matter what the reasons for buying one above £100 unless you were a professional cyclist."

Watches are amazingly beautiful and technical works of art. They are hugely expensive to make and as luxury items even more expensive to buy.

Unlike bikes. Which although beautiful and expensive cost tuppence to make.

However, if you think either watches or bikes are obscene, vulgar and inapopriate then it probably says more about you. Just let other wear what you like.

GiantMike

I have a Breitling Aerospace Tornado F3 limited edition and a Casio G-Shock. Both tell the same time.

If I had £8000 I'd stick it in the bank with the rest of my money and retire a couple of months earlier.

schweiz

guinea wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

I would never put something so obscenely expensive, vulgar and inappropriate on my wrist no matter what the reasons for buying one above £100 unless you were a diver or a pilot.

Coming from a guy signing himself as Pinarello...

You could just as easily have written "I would never ride something so obscenely expensive, vulgar and inappropriate no matter what the reasons for buying one above £100 unless you were a professional cyclist."

Watches are amazingly beautiful and technical works of art. They are hugely expensive to make and as luxury items even more expensive to buy.

Unlike bikes. Which although beautiful and expensive cost tuppence to make.

However, if you think either watches or bikes are obscene, vulgar and inapopriate then it probably says more about you. Just let other wear what you like.

+1

My watch and my BMC cost about the same amount. I know which one is worth more in terms of R&D, workmanship, quality, materials and long term 'value' and it's not the one with the saddle!

BowtomePhil

It's his money he can do what he wants, if you want to give your spare money Pinarello then please do it and I will clap my hands. But we have no right to dictate to others. Are you also saying you have nothing of worth?

I personally would spend the money on a car and maybe £1000 max on a watch, my choice.

GiantMike

pinarello001 wrote:

I'll get the petrol... you come up with a reasoned argument other than 'its my money and i'll do what I like with it'.

BowtomePhil wrote:

It's his money he can do what he wants,

BowtomePhil

I also can't be told what to say.

There really is no other argument, it is up to him entirely.

mudcow007

Omega for me, every day of the week

Rolex's have a Boycie from "only fools an horses" air about them

Omega's are she-xy

verylonglegs

I thought the post by pinarello was trolling because he was bored as the thread has been around for a while now before he suddenly piped up with that.

Wulz

The whole watch thing is quite tough to get across to people who dont think along those lines. Im not sure you can persuade someone who cant quite get it why it works for others. Some people understand it but still would not spend the money themselves but some people will never quite see the point.

Im very much in the get it camp as i purchased a 2008 Rolex LV 16610 Sub from new and love it to bits.

Spent the first year or so having a fly stare at it and still have a little moment now and then.

I guess it`s a bit like art, people i know who collect art say "dont buy something because you think it will earn you money, buy it because you enjoy it and see what happens!"

Worth remembering what 8K will do in the bank these days, not that much. To have something you really want and have the potential to maintain equity or maybe even increase it, is quite a nice situation to find yourself in. Worst case, it proves to be a bad investment. If you bought it for the right reasons then this scenario wont hurt you.

Id say happy hunting, Id love a white SS Daytona but for what its worth, having an LV already id prob still go for the green Milgauss, but thats just me!

Good luck

StillGoing

A quality watch with Swiss workings will more than likely accumulate in value and work faultlessly for decades. Alternatively a cheap watch is just a disposable commodity much like cars and cycles. The problem with some watch brands is they've become tainted. At one time a Rolex was the watch make everyone wanted, but with so many footballers and criminals wandering around wearing them, they've fallen down the desirable table. They're still a high quality watch, just a bit chavy. If a brand is only sold in a quality jewellers or watchsmiths, then I'll look at it. But if I can see it being sold in a clothing or sports shop down the high street, then it isn't for me.

Read this in watch snob recently:
What are your thoughts on the new Rolex Sky-Dweller? Something new and exciting from a brand that usually doesn't make big splashes or an utter monstrosity?

Sit up and take notice because the Sky-Dweller is the most significant Rolex development since the brand developed its own chronograph movement for the Daytona two decades ago. Never mind that the Sky-Dweller is one of the ugliest watches in existence. Just ponder the mere fact that Rolex has released an annual calendar movement, one with several major innovations, and let it sink in.

Sure, Rolex has always made a fine watch, but its recent focus has mainly been on hairsprings, bezel materials and clasps. And before someone smugly cites the Yachtmaster II, I’ll say that was probably the biggest waste of R&D francs Rolex has ever spent, not to mention a contender to the Sky-Dweller for the ugliest watch title.

As for the Sky-Dweller’s appearance, design has never been Rolex’s strong suit. Let’s face it: All of the Oyster-cased watches are about as comely as a middle-aged Catholic school matron, so expectations are low to begin with. But this watch’s aesthetics look as though there was no budget left after developing the movement, so the same nerds who designed the movement cobbled it together on a weekend retreat. So, to answer your question, the Sky-Dweller is both -- new and exciting and a monstrosity.

meesterbond

Unfortunately, unless you're very lucky, I doubt many new watches will actually appreciate in value over time, short of a limited edition Patek kept in the plastic and never worn. The rate at which the big brands are putting prices up means that secondhand is frequently a far better route.

Trying to justify the cost of any Swiss watch is pretty much futile. Ok, there's a load of R&D that goes into the movement, but (until pretty recently) most were based on a fairly generic ETA ebauche which cost a fraction of the sales price.

That Sky-Dweller is ugly though. Never really 'got' Rolex to be honest - although I do rather like the green Milgauss. I've got a small collection of watches (5 or 6 nice ones) which I've tended to buy to mark specific occasions... the only problem with that is that I need to have another child if I'm to justify the AP RO or Fifty Fathoms I fancy next!

Tom Butcher

It's a fascinating thread, I never knew so many people had the money or the interest to spend that much on a watch. Looking at some of the watches mentioned it is hard not to conclude that the desire for these watches is simply because they are expensive. It's about the exclusivity that 90% of the population can't have one.

They look quality of course - but nothing out of the ordinary. I'll take the word of those that seem to know that the value isn't justified by the engineering that goes into them. They certainly aren't art. OK maybe some make a good investment but if you have enough money to throw 8k at a watch then are you really bothered about whether your watch makes you a little bit more (maybe you are and that's where I've been going wrong).

Personally I don't think I'd get one - I'm quite happy with a Casio G-Shock and even if I could afford a Rolex or whatever I don't think I'd buy - though maybe if I was in the position to buy one I'd think differently. This probably sounds like I'm judging those that do buy them - but in truth I'm not. I do find the whole idea of paying for a brand a bit silly - but not the paying 8k for a watch if there is 8k worth of workmanship and materials in it. Same with bikes - I'd buy say a DeRosa - but I wouldn't buy a DeRosa if I could get the same bike with different stickers on it for half the price.

StillGoing

meesterbond wrote:

Unfortunately, unless you're very lucky, I doubt many new watches will actually appreciate in value over time, short of a limited edition Patek kept in the plastic and never worn. The rate at which the big brands are putting prices up means that secondhand is frequently a far better route.

Trying to justify the cost of any Swiss watch is pretty much futile. Ok, there's a load of R&D that goes into the movement, but (until pretty recently) most were based on a fairly generic ETA ebauche which cost a fraction of the sales price.

That Sky-Dweller is ugly though. Never really 'got' Rolex to be honest - although I do rather like the green Milgauss. I've got a small collection of watches (5 or 6 nice ones) which I've tended to buy to mark specific occasions... the only problem with that is that I need to have another child if I'm to justify the AP RO or Fifty Fathoms I fancy next!

I think some watches are increasing in value still without being wrapped in cotton wool. Even the Raymond Weil Freelancer I wear everyday is going up gradually though possibly because punters are realising there isn't £20,000 worth of difference between a PP and an Oris. For his money the OP could get himself a very nice Vacheron Constantin that will have far more prestige than a Rolex.

meesterbond

Funnily enough there is an absolutely gorgeous VC Overseas Chrono on the TZ-UK sales corner at the mo for sub £8k... that's a £15k watch for Daytona money....