richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (01/18/90)
In article <7606@cs.utexas.edu> knapp@cs.utexas.edu (Edgar Knapp) writes: >In article <1990Jan16.144158.29649@ddsw1.MCS.COM> douglas@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Douglas Mason) writes: >> >>For sale: Rolex Watch, GMT-Master with HJ[D[DJubilee bracelet. >> >[...] >>-Douglas T,,[D[D,[D. Mason -- douglas@ddsw1.UUCP -- MCS, Chic[D[D[D[DSomwhere in Illinois > >I don't believe it. Has comp.sys.mac become a flea market to advertise >all kinds of bullshit? Stop this nonsense or else... > >Furious, > >Edgar > >(knapp@cs.utexas.edu) HI! I AM BIFF. I HAVE ALWAYS WANTED A ROLEX WATCH. THEY ARE REAL NEAT AND I'VE HEARS THEY ARE REAL ACCURATE. CAN YOU TELL ME MORE ABOUT THIS WATCH ? IS IT ONE OF THE ONES WITH THE KNOBS ON THE SIDE ? DOES IT HAVE A DATE ? (WISH I DID :-( :-) IT IS A REAL ONE, RIGHT ? HOW DO WE KNOW IT'S A REAL ONE ? I'VE HEARD THERE A LOT OF COPIES AROUND. WELL GOTTA GO. SEE YOU ON THIS BBOARD LATER. LATER, BIFF@BIT.NET -- BIFF@BIT.NET BIFF@PSUVMA.BIT.NET BIFF@PORTAL.CUP.COM
ARNIE@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu (ARNIE SKUROW) (01/18/90)
"Biff" writes that he has always wanted a Rolex watch. They are real neat and he hears they are real accurate." I'll dispute that. I have a Rolex GMT Master that I purchased as a graduation present to myself in 1965. From the day I took it out of the jewelry shop it gained 1 to 2 minutes per day, even though it had a fancy chronometer certification certificate. I took it back to the jeweler during the first month and had it adjusted rather than demand a new watch. It came back from the jeweler adjusted in the opposite direction; it would lose 30 to 60 seconds per day. Not very good when considering Rolex's hype about their superlative chronometers. This back and forth to the dealer took place for the next six months. The accuracy never was brought into the few seconds per day accuracy claimed by Rolex. After six months I gave up on it and accepted the inaccuracy. In 1967, while on a trip to Geneva, I called the Rolex factory and spoke with their service director, explaining my problem with the watch. He arranged a car to pick me up at my hotel and bring me to their factory in the heart of Geneva where I surrendered the watch for a complete overhaul at no charge. I was also given a discount coupon for one Rolex watch so I would not be without a watch. I purchased a plain, stainless steel Rolex Oyster watch which required daily winding. This watch kept the claimed accuracy of a Rolex Chronometer without being a chronometer. I got my watch back from Rolex some 3 months later and the daily inaccuracy was reduced to 20 seconds average. Still unsatisfactory. Over the ensuing years the date wheel came off its attachments several times. I'd take it to a local dealer who would screw it up even more. Rolex has a policy that if an authorized Rolex dealer services a Rolex watch and does it incorrectly, they will repair it free. My particular Rolex GMT Master has been back to Rolex U.S.A. in New York on several occasions after fruitless attempts by local dealers to make it right. The date wheel popped off its morings around 18 months ago and I finally quit worrying about that feature. Two months ago the crown backed off so I couldn't set the time. The watch has been sitting every since then. I've gone back to wearing my Casio G Shock watch that I purchased for ~$35 and it hasn't lost one minute's time in the year and a half it's been stored in a drawer. Arnie Skurow
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (01/19/90)
In article <12559198238007@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu> ARNIE@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu (ARNIE SKUROW) writes: >"Biff" writes that he has always wanted a Rolex watch. They are real neat >and he hears they are real accurate." > >I'll dispute that. I have a Rolex GMT Master that I purchased as a graduation >present to myself in 1965. From the day I took it out of the jewelry shop it >gained 1 to 2 minutes per day, even though it had a fancy chronometer >certification certificate. [rest of story concerning a hopelessly inaccurate Rolex watch deleted] You had a bad one and should perhaps have told Rolex to either keep trying or get a new watch from them to replace it. The difference between a chronometer and a watch, for those who don't know, is that the former must pass tests for accuracy in 5 different positions (upside down, 45 degrees tilter, etc.) to a certain level of accuracy. If it passes, you can legally call it a chronometer. Rolex gets 95% of the chronometer certificates, Omega and Huer get most of the rest, respectivly. The Omega Constellation is acually a more accurate watch than a Rolex, but the Rolex is much more indestructible. I had a stainless steel datejust from 76 to 80. It was never off more than 3 seconds a day, indeed at one point I took it to the lavish Rolex office in Toronto and told them this. A nice man in a white lab coat said ``ZEES is not acceptible!'', took my watch away, and came back 5 minutes later and said ``now it is PERFECT''. It was. Even though I committed the cardinal sin of taking it off at night, it was still more accurate than quartz LCD watches of the day. I lost it in the ocean in 1980. I wouls point out however that the Timex Titanium is now just as accurate, just as indestructible and even looks a hell of a lot like a Rolex... for $50. Is Rolex the best watch in the world ? Probably. It is a very good comprimise between craftmanship and durability. In an absolute sense, it's the third best watch, coming behind Vacheron et Constantine, and the #1: Patek Philippe.