Why I think a Seiko is a watch, a Rolex actually wants to be

While I get your point, I think what Rolex actually wants to make is whatever will get them the most profit. I’m not a hater, I own a Rolex and would love to own a few more, but I think Rolex is right where they want to be.

My take is that your watch is what we wish Rolex would make. Part of what I love about Tudor is that they’re a lot closer to making what Rolex used to make and charging what Rolex used to charge.

Whatever the case, I think Seiko has made a really good GMT.

You put it way better than I did. 🙏

Well, higher end Seikos nowadays are the watches Rolex used to be. The OPs and Subs of yesteryear were no-nonsense watches that were rugged, with good water resistance, kept good time, flew under the radar and could be dressed up and down. They were priced at a premium, but a premium that people who wanted to have 1 quality watch to wear as a daily for decades could afford.

This couldn’t further from today’s reality for Rolex.

Seiko also wants to make profit as well… can we just add that.

I think this thread is basically a lament to when watches cost less (albeit relative). I agree that arguing for a Rolex as a tool watch might be a non-starter now, but I’d argue that the Seiko GMT is not a “tool” either. Watches are fashion, if anything, post 1980s, this is how the industry has positioned itself in order to generate revenue: desire over functionality… we just have to live with it.

Seiko is not the new Rolex... let’s not go down this rabbit hole.

Irony also that Tudor being budget Rolex, but are still a luxury item now in their own right.

I also don’t think watches are really something to capture that spirit of adventure either, that would be the adventure itself. I’ve been around… what was on my wrist didn’t enhance or detract from the journey or the experience.

Attainability and the ability to connect to one's persona is a powerful thing for a watch.

I own both and appreciate both for the same reasons you mention loving Seiko.

This thing feels just as good as a Rolex Submariner, but after buying it and owning this watch for a week now, I wouldn’t actually want a Rolex Submariner. This design has been done so many times for so long, I actually think it’s boring now. 😂🤣

This is why Tudor exists, though Tudor is a luxury tool watch in its own right now as it has moved up market to fill the gap that Rolex left when they switched focus to the luxury watch market rather than the tool watch market.

I still like the Seiko/Citizen for the entry level market of quality tool watches though I’d argue the Seiko 5 gmt isn’t particularly good as a tool watch without the screw down crown for water resistance

As for the adventure side, that’s all smoke and mirrors marketing. We wear them because we like them not because we’re climbing a mountain or deep sea diving. We’d be wearing a garmin computer for either of those activities in todays world due to the massive increase in useful information provided without sacrifice of durability

We may not agree on everything. But this ⬆️ is 100% accurate. Well said

I think Rolex is what Seiko wants to be but they are falling short by several billion dollars in revenue every year.

They aren’t pushing Grand Seiko so hard in the Rolex market segment because they like pumping out cheap watches for chump change.

Rolex gives you Tudor. End of story.

Lol

I agree, but I am not sure about the "it keeps time well", consistently on the hand for a long period of time, but one doesn't need to go to Rolex prices to do that.

Nothing is cheap any longer…watches, food, cars, etc. Printing money has consequences….😊😊

I agree that "What Rolex is" has evolved, and this is frustrating in contrast to their attempt to stay consistent with their brand narrative.

That said, I think Seiko is its own special thing.

Even in the 1960's, if you bought a Rolex, it was more than just an entry level watch. It was marketed as what people who were at the top of their game owned. Yes, it didn't cost a small fortune, but it still required a little financial discomfort. It was a special occasion treat.

Seiko is wonderful in their own way, but their accessibility puts them more in the space of what maybe a Hamilton or Elgin would have been (I think? This all happened before I was born.)

Anyway, gorgeous watch. Thinking about getting one myself.

They do. The problem is that you'll need to regulate them to how you wear them, in order to compensate for positional differences.

My NH34 mod I'm wearing today has been running for six hours and still hasn't gained or lost a second.

But to be honest, accuracy has always been the least of the problems, as I change watches on a daily basis. If I wanted a watch to keep exact time, I would get a "real watch", and that means quartz.

And in that sense Seiko isn't Rolex either, because both are anachronisms. The Apple watches or a Garmin dive computer have taken over the functional aspects.

But Seiko watches look nice, at least from my subjective point of view.

As much as Rolex used to make tool watches, they were always luxury tool watches. We all wish they cost $2k again, but that was a lot of money back then. Like today, there weren’t many people that had the money and the mindset to actually wear them for adventuring.

What if any watches we take adventuring has more to say about us than the manufacturer. I’ve taken my $1k Jack Mason GMT on a 17 mile hike in the Grand Canyon, on several ski trips and into more than one hot tub. Now for sum it’s just stupid to do that stuff with a watch of that price…this is why GShocks exist. To me, having the watch as part of my memories is worth the risk. To many it is not.

So yeah, Rolex isn’t really making tool watches anymore, but if you’ve got the money and the mindset there’s nothing to say you couldn’t wear them to work or on adventures.

So, is this Luminox really an adventure watch? It is more so today than, say, an Explorer or the new Hamilton Khaki Expedition. I often wonder why anyone would take a steel sports watch worth over $1000 dollars into an environment like this unless you were being sponsored by them, or if you have an aversion to money. In the 1940s and 1950s Rolex would throw Oyster Perpetuals at you if you even hinted you might climb Mount Everest, such was the desire to get their beloved mechanicals up there… I am just fucking about in Costa Rica, no watch company is going to sponsor that shit.

… and that’s me on record for expensive watches and adventuring. We are in agreement, and a lot of the association with certain brands is just marketing from years when colour photography was not a thing; deliberate marketing.

I promise I don’t have an aversion to money, but I have a different approach to my belongings than many. I buy things to use them and do my best not to be afraid of damaging them. If it’s something I’d have to baby and worry about it’s something I don’t buy. So while a thousand dollars isn’t nothing to me, I don’t see it as an amount I can’t risk.

I should also mention that my general attitude towards life is that it’s not nearly so dangerous as people think. I see people who’ve had horrible accidents or been the victims of violence at work all the time, but I just can’t bring myself to worry too much about that. These things happen, but not very often. So I’ll take my chances taking a watch skiing or in a hot tub. Yes they could get damaged, but probably they won’t. Yes that expensive diver could leak, but probably it won’t.

Everybody has their comfort zone, and that’s mine.