“All about the benjamins” Is that so? Since a few years, there are a lot of watchbrands on the market who produce watches with designs of (in this example) Rolex. Especially the Rolex Submariner. Now, we all know it is not done to own/buy/obtain copies of watches. It doesn’t mind if it is a 10 USD fake bought in Canal Street NYC or a 150 USD copy bought on the internet. However, it seems to be legit and accepted to buy a MarcelloC Tridente or Nettuno which start in price around 400 Euro to 695 euro. This way you have something that looks like a Rolex Submariner for a fraction of the price of one. The same goes for Invicta, which are a bit cheaper I think.

However, the thing is (there are even guys that try to deny that it looks like a Submariner and just say they almost no design is original or unique), people tend to say something like this “Hey, how do you like my new MarcelloC watch. It looks like a Rolex Sub, but at the fraction of the price and just as good” or maybe even more subtile, “Hey, how do you like my new MarcelloC watch, Rolex Submariner design for just a few hundred Euros”. Can you conclude that it is really “all about the benjamins”? That, if they had the money, would buy a Rolex Submariner over a MarcelloC or Invicta? To each his own, but I would rather spend my money on something unique or ‘original’. MarcelloC and Invicta both have some original and ‘unique’ models as well btw. This rant is not meant to bash these brands, but a way to determine if it is really about the money or if people really really like their MarcelloC/Invicta for its looks, quality and price…

What do you think? You can use the comments button to post a reacion with your views..

  • BW

    I don’t see the problem in bashing these brands, RJ. Recently I was in a men’s clothing shop where they had u-boat watches. Not quite a copy to the level that you mean, but they appeared to me as Panerai rip-offs anyway.

  • Ryan

    There are Omega and and other fine watches in my family… I chose to purchase a Marcello C Nettuno 3 even though I was about to buy a Seamaster. I could choose… I feel the Marcello is essentially equal in quality-perhaps even superior in some regards (REALLY–although it hurts the pride of some to admit this). The accuracy is actually superior to the Titanium “Chronometer” Seamaster in the family, and as you have noted it’s a fraction of the price. The only drawback is what you also noted— it IS CLEARLY a copy of the Submariner. To deny this is to admit ones bias. I also really admire the design of the Seamaster.

    My opinion is that as long as the inspiration was a good design and (very importantly) the quality is EXTREMELY comparable then the originality means little to me. More specifically, PERSONALLY I don’t see myself spending many times as much solely for originality (which in truth is what’s largely being done when the Marcello C watches are compared to other watches like the Seamaster I love or even the Submariner in many ways). However, if one values that originality so much one really can’t put a price on it. That’s also a fact.

    So, in answer to your question: Yes, some people really would/do by the Marcello C even when they can purchase the watches that inspired its design. The idea is that the only REAL sacrifice made is the originality, but the gain can be several thousand dollars. As for the Invicta, I don’t personally feel it’s able to compete with the watches that inspired it… Although they are just fine, my answer (where I am concerned) doesn’t apply to Invicta.

  • Robert-Jan

    Thanks for your comment Ryan. To each his own ofcourse, and comparisons are dangerous because it is hard to make statements without being a watchmaker or at least someone who is into every detail of a watch. However, thanks for your comment and nice to read your point of view.

  • Ryan

    Not a problem Robert. I’m extremely detail oriented and this is precisely why I say what I say about the Marcello C line (frankly I am also a skeptic and was partially expecting to return the “inexpensive” Marcello C Nettuno—didn’t happen). I admit though that I admire the sea-monster on the back of the Seamaster more than just about any divewatch back— it actually helps keep the watch from sliding about in addition to looking nice. Additionally, due to the use of a 2892 movement the Seamaster is thinner than the Marcello C products. Fortunately Marcello C does basic but outstanding modifications to the standard 2824.

    There’s NO doubt that originality is far from their (Marcello C) strong point and that alone can be worth endless $$ to many. However, I thank you for posting a question that I could enthusiastically dive into.

    And you nailed it, “to each his own”.

  • Richard

    I just purchased a Marcello C Nettuno 3, Black, and it looks like a Rolex, its true. It also advertises the same water resistance, which is probably true, and keeps very accurate time. I also have an Omega 120 Seamaster (Gold and SS) and Oris Chronometer. I wear the MarcelloC. I could easily afford the Rolex. I just cannot see dumping the money into that. I love watches, but I don’t like the feeling of being taken advantage of. The MarcelloC is a handsome design, and practical except, as with the Rolex, large.

    But as to originality: What part of the Rolex is original? Not the black dial, not the rotating bezel, or is it the cyclops? I think the original part is the price. $5,000 for a watch that can be duplicated by MarcelloC for $600?

    What Rolex has is a fabulous marketing and advertising program, and a handsome watch. What is happening in Asia now is that other brands are commanding more attention because they do have originality.

    As to returning the MarcelloC, that is an option because it is ordered over the internet in the US. I don’t think they get many sent back. Once you put it on you do not want to take it off.

  • Robert-Jan Broer

    Hello Richard,

    I wanted to explain something to you about Rolex, but when you wrote ‘What part of the Rolex is original… …MarcelloC for $600?’ I gave up already.

    MarcelloC is floating on the succes of Rolex’s design (the whole watch, not just only parts), however, if you don’t see this. Explanation is useless.

    If you gain interest in watches (you are clearly not a collector or watchfanatic), re-read your message after, let’s say, 2 years from the point you gain interest in watches, and e-mail me again.

  • Richard


    I am not a watch fanatic, although I may be an inadvertant collector, because I like watches inordinately. I have a number of watches, including an old Mido Multifort.

    I am also a photographer, in addition to being an attorney. In photography we have “collectors” as well, and one group, which is the subject of continuing mirth, are people that collect cameras, but not just old cameras, but Leicas. They don’t use the cameras, you understand. They do succeed in driving up the prices, but they do not contribute anything to photography in general.

    Other collector focus their energy on other brands, it is true.

    But the Leica collectors focus on the most expensive brand, and treat it not as a machine, a tool, or even a toy, but as an idol to be worshipped, an inanimate object of admiration. They tend to mock all newer cameras as lesser and derivative. (The digital cameras have slightly reduced this activity.)

    As to MarcelloC floating on Rolex’s design: Perhaps, but only perhaps. I ask you, how many “Aviator” watch clones are there? Black dial, white arabic numerals, sweep second hand? A hundred? Every high end sporting or manly watch manufacturer (IWC among others) seems inclined to produce one or more versions of that watch. Are they all copies of the first manufacturer? Perhaps, but so what? They tend to be handsome watches, but no one has really produced an iconic Aviator watch.

    And what of diving watches? There are dozens of producers, and all with very similar results, except for the orange dial models, which are truly sporting in appearance. The orange dial ones might even be the most practical, but I wouldn’t know, because I have never investigated the issue and have no plans to do so. I suspect they might the kind of watch an actual diver might use.

    So: How many people really dive with an expensive Rolex on their wrist? Not many, certainly. Any? I read about these watches as dress watches, mostly, as objects of status or importance, not as tools. I mean, really, a gold submariner? How can anyone take that seriously as a dive watch? It is a fashion statement, a personal statement, and, as a statement, meant to be heard, or in this case, seen. The stainless submariner is only slightly less a statement.

    The purpose of those watches is ego satisfaction, and if they do that, then fine, because that is their purpose. However, if that is their purpose, and their stated justification for their value is their apparent quality, they cannot quibble if watches of equal quality appear, and raise the issue of design.

    If by definition a watchfanatic is someone who has lost their sense of proportion about the issue, as fanatic generally means, then you are right, I’m not in that group.

    I hope you will excuse me for not waiting for two years to respond. If you look closely at a Nettuno3, which I can certainly excuse you for not doing, you will see many differences from a Submariner: The face, the band, the bezel, the brushed stainless on the crown guard sholders.

    MarcelloC also produces a variety of other models of very high quality. An Aviator watch too.


  • Matt V.

    Zuum quique…to each his (or her) own. You said it, Robert! 🙂

    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


  • Robert-Jan


    It was funny to read “I still wonder why you are so passionate about this topic; after all, it‚Äôs only watches‚Ķ” 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..

  • Richard Stone

    I have a few more thoughts about the “Benjamins” issue you raised.

    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.

  • Tom C

    I don’t have a Marcello yet, but I might get one eventually. I own a yellow dialed Doxa diver, and a rare Dreadnought dive watch, among others. I have a vintage Breitling chronograph. I have a Movado museum watch. I own a nice decorated Unitas aviator and an NOS Mido Ocean Star Datoday. I have a Zeno Explorer which *is* a dead clone of an old Rolex Explorer 1016, which isn’t produced anymore so the Zeno lets me have that look while old used 1016’s cost more than $4000 due to collector demand.

    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….

  • Oliver

    Everybody who seriousely thinks he can compare a Marcello watch to a Rolex Sub or Sea-Dweller has either NOT had the opportunity to hold a REAL Rolex watch in person or is absolutely insane and trying to bash the Brand rolex using arguments like the “poor quality clasp” etc.

    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 РOR РRolex 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!

  • bill12

    I enjoy watches and yes people do wear rolex’s diving. I have been on a dive when a guy lost his $10,000. We looked for it for 2 days without finding it. We talking about one very sad man and one very angry wife.

    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?

  • ramon

    For me I love the submariner design, but I want to abuse it (i.e. wear it from my house to my job and to the beach). If I had a sub I would treat it like my breitling and wear it when I want to show off a nice watch. I am not willing to wear my brietling to the beach, but hey for a $400 automatic, I’ll go snorkeling and skydiving with it.

    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).


  • Tauchmeister1937

    Aeromatic and Tauchmeister seem to be growing in popularity in the UK. I notice that Werners Flying watches have a rival now – Telford Services who are a specialist military watch dealer with a good selection of Tauchmeister and Aeromatic.

  • Scott

    Oliver, the movement decoupling from the crown on the rolex is a function of the triplock crown. This feature is on many decent screw-down stainless steel crowns, many produced in Hong Kong. I know what you are talking about, but this feature on rolex is on numerous other watches and really is no big deal.

  • Richard Stone

    Well, I ‘ve had the Marcello C Nettuno 3 for more than two years now. So now do i qualify for instruction about how wonderful the Rolex is? The Nettuno keeps excellent time, appears indestructible, and is both comfortable and substantial. It is also a handsome watch. I have repeatedly worn it swimming in fresh and salt water, with no problems. Now, I wonder how the Rolex is better than that. Ahh, the white gold on the face. There is no wonder the Rolex costs more, and that has certainly got to be some of the most expensive white gold (gram for gram) ever sold. That is the mystery of the gold cases for watches, in which a very small amount of gold goes for over $10,000. Gentlemen, this is not payment for quality. This is payment for exclusivity, in which the price alone determines who will own the object. The same is true for the Rolex. The story of the lost $10,000 dive watch is instructive.

  • Dan

    I have just brought a Nettuno 3 and I am delighted with it. I have always admired the Rolex Submariner but I also feel it is one of the over priced watches on sale. I don’t see how the quality of the Rolex can justify the price when the design has changed little over many years, whilst the asking price has steadily increased. The reason for these price increases is simply a due to a rise in the desirability of the rolex as a status symbol for the average joe in the street and NOT because it’s has become more sort after by true watch collectors.
    In the 1980’s the Rolex brand was embraced by the “yuppie” culture and consequently prices went through the roof. Rolex now represents the ultimate status symbol in watches, but probably the worst value for money.
    Of course the quality and originality of the Rolex sub can justify a price differential over the Marcello and other watches that are clearly inspired by the design. But can it justify a 10 fold increase in the asking price over an already high quality watch, not to mention the obscence servicing costs?! Of course not!

  • Richard Stone

    I have been living in Asia now for about eight months, and the watch purchases here are instructive. It’s Rolex, Rolex, Rolex, as if there were no other high-end watch. Can we say boring, boring, boring? It makes me more pleased than ever with the Nettuno 3, which gives the look and function of an excellent dive watch without the exorbitant cost of the Submariner. Of course, the cost is actually what counts here, as the new rich and gangsters all wear Rolexes, just to show they have the money. It’s like a rite of passage, or a symbol of belonging to a club.

    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.

  • Jon

    I can afford and have owned/own Rolex & Omega, and have also chosen to own Steinhart and Nettuno3… I see nothing wrong with finding a strong value/price/performance ratio in something. My Steinhart GMT runs +/- 1 sec./day, better than my Rolex.

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

  • mr. vereen

    you guys are soo entertaining. my question to all of you,whether youre horoligists or just into the watches for sheer functionality?,because it would proove kinda stupid to own rolex or any other watch for any other reason. myself; watch crazy!!!!!! to qualify: IWC-LECOULTURE-LACROIX-XEMEX-HUBLOT, and guesse what…..i got an invicta! yes i can afford a whole lot of watches, but you know what?, if i did like rolex id have one #1.,and if i did i damn sure wouldnt be swimming in it!!!!#2., and lastly when i bought the invicta the dealer told me that there was a test where the invicta and the rolex were put into cookie sheets and baked for 1/2hr.,-the invicta came out working,. im thinking for 4k (which aint a lot for a watch)i’ll take the invicta because its probably just as good a watch as the rolex that cant take the heat. too, has the true performance of the two been critiqued by a watchmaker?, because i would feel stupid to own rolex or any other watch only to have one being made that does the exact same things better or just the same. (maybe its just me?). again note i only buy the watches i like because i like them.!!! my next purcahse will probably be a PARMIGIANI,but the timex probalbly could do just the same.

  • scott

    The Nettuno is definitely a knock-off of the Rolex Submariner. The Rolex is probably better made and more precise too.

    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.

  • jon

    Until two weeks ago when I saw an invicta on Amazon and foolishly believed that it was reduced from 1300 to 295, I had NO idea what a Rolex Sub was, and no idea that the invicta was a copy of that watch (of course I knew about Rolex). I thought I was getting an amazing deal on a watch that seemed to me to combine sportiness with elegance in a very effective way (I think I dislike dress watches AND super sporty watches). Most of the people who see your watch on your wrist will not know about the whole Submariner/Seadweller thing – so they won’t be in a position to think ‘oh, he’s a bit of joke – trying to look like a hip spy ganster millionaire when he’s really a car salesmen’ etc. etc. What really motivates these threads is that some people want to say – ‘you sad, sad, man – you want to look rich and stylish – like me – even though you’re poor and square’ and other people want to say ‘you sad, sad, man – all you care about is looking rich and stylish – I’m above that – I buy my watches based on their function and affordibility’. The interesting thing is that we’re all (rich, poor, stylish, square) BOYS, and we are all more concerned than MEN should be with our little toys – and we don’t want to be told by other boys that their toy is better and cooler and more expensive than ours – which is to say, we like to think of our little toy as being better and cooler and more expensive than the other little boys’ toys. My advice – and its not just my ‘two cents’ worth, its the result of a great deal of research aimed at uncovering the relevant FACTS – is that if you get a new Seiko Monster and a used Marcello C you’ll have the whole dive watch thing SOWN UP. (But then you’ll have to stop getting yourself new watches). By the way – I found none of you amusing except the guy – Mr Vereen – who claimed to find you all amusing.

  • Chris

    I just have to say that I purchased the Nettuno 3 and it is worth every penny. I have owned a Omega Aqua Terra Seamaster and a Submariner. Got rid of them both. The omega didn’t keep acurate time. The submaster I thought had a not so good feeling bracelet. I sold it for almost what I paid for it. Just didn’t think it was worth the 5 grand. My nettuno 3 is better than my previous Rolex in feel and looks. I like the more subtle look. I recommend Marcello C to people who want a high quality watch that keeps very accurate time.

    If not, waste your money on a new sub for the new price of$ 6,500. (by the way they haven’t changed anything on that watch for years except a couple grand) or invest it.