Re: Rolex warranty myth?
- From: Frank Adam <fajp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:19:38 +1100
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 18:15:30 -0600, "Honest John"
>"Longfellow" <not@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>"It would seem that Rolex is regarded much as the Cadillac, lots of flash
>but not there for the long haul."
>I personally think that a Rolex watch is akin to a Volvo automobile. Why
>you ask, well I'll tell you, back when I worked selling Toyotas and Volvos
>we (salesman) had a saying: If you buy a Volvo you need to buy two because
>one will be in the shop at all times, and I have a similar feeling about the
>VERY over rated Rolex watches. Of course remember that that is my personal
>opinion and "others" may not share this view, and to those "others" I can
>only say: Pffft... get a life.
While i shouldn't have to describe my feelings about Rolex anymore
around here, i have to say that is incorrect.
There are not too many movements that are as well designed and well
made as the modern-ish Rolex autos. After many years of service those
things generally show absolutely no wear whatsoever. They tend to drop
apart, get cleaned and oiled, then fall back together and boogie
straight up the paper with not a hint of noise or wavering.
Screws will break and scratch your screwdrivers, but not the other way
around, the plates even when slightly corroded come up like new
without any scrubbing. The date and keyless system are solid.
It's one of the best movements out there and i very much doubt that it
will disappear in a hurry due to breakage or wear..occasional horro
That is just my not so humble opinion and to those who disagree i can
only say: Pfft.. come and get me.
ps: The Rolex is no Toyota though, it goes and handles well too, not
just keeps going.. :)
As for the Volvo, as i recall it was voted the most reliable and
safest car(if most boring, slowest and ugliest brick in the street) in
the mid-late '70s by just about everyone. Since then they have fallen