Both ugly watches though….

The sub really hasn’t changed much since the 60’s. It looks kind of dated and funny next to other modern watches like Tag, Omega & Montblanc.

I love my Seamaster but the Nettunos of the world have their place and their owners shouldn’t be scorned.

Quite honestly, I could afford a new Submariner, if I wanted one. For that matter there are many used ones available in Hong Kong, for much less than new. I wonder why? They found something better to do with the money?

This whole mechanical watch business is just absurd, really, as much as I enjoy the shiny little mechanical marvels. Watches at these prices are just jewelry for men, and buying a basic stainless steel waterproof watch for more than $1,000 is just an expensive fashion statement. The Rolex prices are just payment for exclusivity and for their advertising budget and, as noted above, by demand for the watch as a status symbol. This is just falling for advertising and marketing, especially the “marque” concept, and the desirability of “in-house” movements.

But I think my next watch will be either the double chrono or the GMT model from Marcello C, both beautiful and classic watches and, based on the performance of the Nettuno, they will run like chronometers, even without the papers. However, I am tempted by the Maurice Lacroix Pontos, the 42mm version.

my 2 cents… yes I’m buying a marcello to replace my dead Aeromatic Tauchmeister GMT (chinese automatic movement in german case…hey it was really waterproof in jamaica).

ramon

So as a dive and lover of watches I look at form, function and loss. What do you do when you loose that Rolex. I love the Marcello C because if is a solid well built watch that can take a hard dive trip and still look great. The steel in the Marcello and the Rolex are compreble. Is the Marcello under priced as compared to the price of the Rolex?

Just show me a Marcello watch who equals my Sea-Dweller in terms of accuracy.I doubt that you will be able to,as my SD looses about 1 - one- second each WEEK.And that is exactly where your benjamins go.Quality and accuracy for a very long period of time.
Another example if you wish:
Try unscrewing the crown of you precious Marcello and after that go to your local Rolex AD and try the Triploc-Croen of a Rolex Diver.You actually Feel the diffrence.No friction at all and the movement is disconnected once you push down on the crown(that´s why you DO hear the movement being wound when rescrewing the crown on your ETA-Marcello and you don´t hear that clicking sound coming from a Rolex Diver while doing that)

Then,Rolex clearly uses superior (Grade 904)- hence more expensive- steel than Marcello and the indexes and Markers used are made from white gold.

The movement in your Marcello is a cheap ETA with minor changes by Marcello ( lettering on the rotor etc.)while the Rolex uses a in-house manufactured COSC certified movement.

Shall I carry on? Don´t just say that a Marcello is about the same quality as a Submariner - OR - Rolex watches are overpriced as you can get a Marcello for a 10th of what you will have to spend for a Rolex.
The truth is, that you only get a watch LOOKING like the legendary SUB that has nothing in common with the real thing except for the design.

You´ll most likely not like the sound of this but it´s the truth!

I mention all this to convey that I know a bit about watches. I am not a watchmaker but I know a fair amount, far more than the average consumer.

I would NEVER spend that kind of money on a Rolex Sub. If I was going to spend that kind of money I would spend MORE on an IWC. My choice. Someday I will when I can.

I enjoy the overall Sub look, and while the Marcello Nettuno does resemble it, I can HONESTLY say that I PREFER the Marcello dial and indices. The indices are a totally different shape than the ones on the Sub and I think WAY more attractive. I bet the whole watch is better constructed as well. I will let you know when I know for sure. The ONLY thing, IMO, that the Rolex provides which is unique is the in house Rolex movement, which is a great movement. Beyond the status symbol, pound for pound, based on many photographs and trusted friends’ opinions, the Marcello *looks* like a better watch for the money.

My father has a classic Rolex Sea-Dweller which has stood the test of time, and although it’s a bit beat up, the weight and overall construction do not thrill me. I’d say it’s not as well constructed as any of my modern or vintage pieces. The movement, IMO, makes it horologically interesting, along with some of the history, but that’s it. It’s not worth the money in real terms but you wouldn’t lose money on it either so it’s a good investment. They aren’t always the same thing.

Certain older Rolex models do rise in price exponentially if they are deemed rare, like the Red Subs and my father’s “Rail Dial” Sea-Dweller, but those are….. rare exceptions. If I pay over $4k for a Rolex and I can sell it for a bit less used. If I buy it used I can sell it for the same amount. Same holds true for the Marcello or any other quality watch. Granted the Rolex will ALWAYS have a buyer at the ready and it does have the advantage of being a very liquid asset, but on the flip side it puts you more at the risk of mugging or worse since status symbols can go both ways depending on who notices the status part.

I have called teh Marcellos a Rolex “copy” in the past, but upon serious reflection I think there are many shades of grey to be considered when talking about such matters. Also, this is *our* concern. Matt raises good comparisons to cars and other merchandise which most people buy and never consider might have been “inspired” by something else.

To each his own….

First, buying an expensive watch is an emotional, not a rational, decision.

As an emotional decision it is not well suited to a rational explanation, or justification, and attempts at a rational explanation of the purchase decision will probably lead further and further away from the truth. The Submariner, and indeed any Rolex, is not a hand made watch, as we all know, but it is an expensive watch, and a handsome design. Such a purchase represents far more than a desire to have an instrument to tell time, and indeed is probably more about having the watch tell others, and the wearer, something about who the wearer is, or thinks he is, or what he wants others to think he is.

Second, the Submariner is not a serious dive watch. Why? The Cyclops and date, to start with: There is no need for the date on a dive watch, and certainly no need for a Cyclops. The original Submariner model did not have those features. The beautiful polishing is also unnecessary, because it is a purely aesthetic element that only adds to the cost. In addition, there is the cost of the watch itself: $4,000 for a dive watch? At that price, as others have pointed out, the diver is going to be worried about the watch, and distracted by that while diving, an issue in itself. The Submariner has become a toy, not a tool.

So the Submariner itself is a bit of a fraud, and not a true dive watch, although it is a handsome and strong design, and a handsome watch. It can be used for diving, yes, but that is not its purpose at all. The watch design, in combination with the cost, has a specific message, as noted above, and the actual purpose of the watch, in its present form, is more about conveying that message than diving, whatever the history of the watch may be. The message conveyed now by the Submariner is that the wearer is a man who needs a massive, manly watch, an active man, a man of power and, of course, money. What is also being said, of course, because the watch is not a real dive watch, because it is a toy rather than a tool, and because it is a message watch, is that the wearer is a bit of a poseur.

So buying a watch that resembles the Submariner design, but is not a Submariner, says several things. Obviously, it says that the buyer did not spring for a Submariner. It certainly says that the buyer admires the Submariner design.

The Nettuno 3, in the end, resembles a watch that is a bit of a fraud: A handsome watch, the Submariner, but still a fraud. The Submariner can be used as a dive watch, but it is a watch that is now more about conveying a message than about diving.

How bad can it be, from any perspective, to have a watch that uses some of the design elements of a watch that is itself a bit of a fraud? Clearly there are elements of mockery and subversion in the purchase of such a watch, tweaking the nose of the established order. Of course there are also elements of thrift and practicality. There is probably more that can be said, for that matter, in regard to buying a watch that resembles a watch worn by poseurs.

Third, as to the Submariner, and the Sea Dweller, there is no doubt that some people, as you note elsewhere, wear them as dive watches, which might make some sense, since they are water resistant. But banging them around and scratching them up? What is that all about? That makes as much sense as using a new Mercedes in a destruction derby. What seems clear is that such activity is certainly a minority practice, as most of the Submariners I see are in perfect condition and worn by well-fed young and middle-aged men. Banging up a dress watch, an image watch, which is what the Submariner is, makes no sense at all.

In regard to build quality there is no doubt that the Submariner has the edge. But is that any wonder, considering the price differential? There is no doubt that a $4,000 dollar watch ought to have better build quality than a $600 watch. Or, put another way, if for $4,000 Rolex can’t build a fabulous watch they really ought to be in another business. From another perspective, and again, relating this to cars, Mercedes cars may be better than Fords, but the somewhat enhanced quality certainly cannot fully justify the substantially increased price. The issue exists on a practical level and on the basis of diminishing returns: At some point the increased quality costs far more than any particular real benefit.

The Submariner is, or has become, just another form of expensive jewelry for men. All about the benjamins? Perhaps. But perhaps not in the way you meant.

It was funny to read “I still wonder why you are so passionate about this topic; after all, it’s only watches…” while you just spent an ever larger amount of text to this subject than I did.

No, it is not okay for other brands to make 100% copies of an extisting design. Bulova did this as well, Tag Heuer I don’t know.. but when I see one, it is going to get it. If you are referring to the Omega Seamaster 300 models from the 60s, these have a similair look to the early Submariners. However, if you hold them next to eachother, they are no copies.

Invicta is a shameless copy, and a bad one. I can’t understand why you defend Invicta’s quality so much, I have hold a few and the finish was very poor.

I don’t know if you hold Rolexes lately, but they all have Solid End Links now. The bracelet on Rolexes have a flimsy look&feel, I agree, but they never failed on me.

Also, the finish on a Rolex case, dial, hands, movement is superior over those of Invicta, if you don’t see this, it is your good right to never buy copies.

As for cars, I have never seen a Kia looking like a Benz or Bimmer. I am not familair with all models, this depend on the content you are living on as well. I dislike Kia cars for their poor quality though, the Kia Sortento for example is used by some of my co-workers and they have (had) a lot of trouble with the electronics.

MarcelloC is a shameless copy of the Rolex, just like the Invicta. But has quality in terms of finish. That’s at least one pro. However, to each his own, I don’t want to own a copy of something. If you don’t mind, good for you, it saves a few bucks. For under 1000 USD, I would buy a used Omega Seamaster Pro instead of a MarcelloC, or a Sinn model.

Just my 2 cents as well..

But than again, why are you defending the Rolex Submariner that much? Are you just defending the looks and 40 year old design that has become a dive watch standard? Or are you defending that fact that Rolex charges over $4,000 for a watch with stamped endpieces and sheet metal deployant, mass produced at a production volume of a few hundred thousand units a year that hasn’t really been improved upon in decades but prices are steadily climbing?

Is your argument really about watches and quality timepieces, or is it about the marketing fluff and brand image?

Why exactly did you pick Invicta (trying to imitate Rolex into great detail, almost a replica) and Marcello (trying to pay homage to a vintage Zodiac red dot diver) that look VERY different side by side (I have owned the Invicta).

Why is it OK for e.g. an early Omega or a Bulova, Longines, TAG Heuer, Citizen, Seiko, O&W and so many others to produce watches closely resembling the submariner look, but you are bothered by a Marcello C. with enough unique details to be clearly different?

Why exactly is it that Marcello C. is threatening, or so it seems, to you?

Because they proove that you can make a high quality watch for under $1,000 and put the Rolex sub at multiple times that price to shame in attention to detail (like the bracelet, like the finish between the lugs that you can’t usually see on the Rolex, like the bezel)?

Based on your argument, shouldn’t Lexus, Kia, Mitsubishi etc. be shunned because they try to look like a Mercedes or BMW? What about sports jerseys of your favourite team, the “affordable” ones that aren’t quite as expensive as the official product? What about “no-name” groceries (white label stuff)?

I still wonder why you are so passionate about this topic; after all, it’s only watches…

Just my humble 2 cents

Matt