What do you think of gold and diamond watches for men?

[ChuckBerry]

I've noticed there is a wide variety of golden and diamond watches for men presented in different brands. I went to one of the popular online stores and filtered golden + men's watches as well as diamond + men's watches. So I got about 80 men's diamond and more than 100 golden watches results. So I wonder if someone ever bought those? I understand why a woman would want a golden or diamond watch (or anything golden or diamond, really), but what makes a man want and wear such a watch?

Another question - I assume I'm not an expert, but "gold dial" watch doesn't necessarily mean they are really gold? It could refer to a color.
I've notice this watch Edit- removing spam link says it's gold dial.

However this Bell and RossEdit- removing spam link should be really gold as it has "18K pink gold" in the description. So I assume the 1st refers to a gold color while the 2nd is really gold. How do you make difference? Or do you just look at the price?))

 

[Foxer55]

Gold is one thing, diamonds are another. I'm a watch collector and have many watches of varying value. Most 'gold' watches are actually 'gold filled' which means a metal base of the watch case is pressed into a very, very thin gold film. This makes the whole case look gold but it is called gold filled. There is long history to this process that has to do with gold availablity and international prices, etc., etc. Only the high end watches such as Rolex, Blancpain, and Audemars are really gold and are very costly.

Diamonds, to me, are just a way of showing off. That's OK if you have a lot of money or are a celebrity, I don't deny anyone the audaciousness.

I favor Rolex watches and the older Tudor watches. Tudor was the low end watch Rolex used to make but it spun off into its own brand a few years ago and no longer has the Rolex cache. Rolex may be dismissed by the snooty I-have-it-all crowd but in my estimation they are a rock solid, quality watch without equals. Yes, they are expensive but if you take care of them they are an investment. Rolex is a keen, privately held business and they play the market so that my GMT Master below is now worth almost 50 times what I paid for it. I have a beautiful Tudor chronograph below I bought earlier this year that is both gold (real) and stainless. I wear this watch with brown and green, etc.



In my estimation, gold watches should be worn with brownish attire. Any brown, olive, or tan applies. Stainless and silver should be worn with black, blue, gray, etc. Like any style they can be mixed and matched.

The watch below is my all time personal favorite pride and joy. Its been with me ever since I got it in Germany 50 years ago. I wear it with blue, black, and gray attire.



So, yeah, gold is OK but do you want gold filled or real gold which is costly, driving the price of a watch to several thousands of dollars. Same thing with diamonds, if you want to be flashy that's OK but, again, you'll have to pay for real gems. And don't worry, if you inform yourself, select a high end watch that has appeal, you may pay something like $10K and up but that watch will always be worth more than you paid for it - provided you make an educated purchase.

 

[Seb Lucas]

Yuk is what I think: never a better sign of new money or crook than large, shiny gold watches with jewels. But I'd defend to the death any man's right to wear them (even if they look like a pimp).

 

[Edward]

I have the soul of a dandy. I love the ostentation of wholly unnecessary men's jewellery - cufflinks, watches, rings... Ideally, I like goldtone for daywear and silvertone for evening. Diamonds are a no-no for me; not for aesthetic reasons, but because of what the trade in them seems to inevitably involve. The bigger complaint I have about contemporary men's watches is the size and complexity of most. I only want it to tell the time, not be capable of felling an elephant, and I only want one dial. A date-window is undesirable but not a deal breaker (due to lack of designs without, really); any more than a single knob / button on the watch is not for me. Needless to say, 99.9% of the watches which actually fit my preferences are beyond my pocket.

 

[Fiona]

As a woman I have to say that it might be a bit too flashy, but in the end it really depends on your type and the choice of attire when wearing such a watch. generally though I would advice for more subtle accessories

 

[Tomasso]

Rolex..... in my estimation they are a rock solid, quality watch without equals.

I don't think there is anybody in the watch industry, Rolex included, who would agree with your assessment "without equals." This link says just about all there needs to be said about the place that Rolex holds in the hierarchy of watches.


http://www.chronocentric.com/watches/brands.shthttp://www.chronocentric.com/watches/brands.shtml

 

[Foxer55]

Edward,

I have the soul of a dandy. I love the ostentation of wholly unnecessary men's jewellery - cufflinks, watches, rings... Ideally, I like goldtone for daywear and silvertone for evening. Diamonds are a no-no for me; not for aesthetic reasons, but because of what the trade in them seems to inevitably involve. The bigger complaint I have about contemporary men's watches is the size and complexity of most. I only want it to tell the time, not be capable of felling an elephant, and I only want one dial. A date-window is undesirable but not a deal breaker (due to lack of designs without, really); any more than a single knob / button on the watch is not for me. Needless to say, 99.9% of the watches which actually fit my preferences are beyond my pocket.

Let me recommend to you and others that you can find wonderful old watches such as Bulova, Gruen, Hamilton, and even Rolex and Tudor on used and vintage watch sites (some below). Or stop by a good watch store. A really good watch store will have some nice old watches at reasonable prices. These old watches can run anywhere from $150 into the thousands. Personally, I think owning an old Illinois or Hamilton wrist watch shows real finesse. Just think, some guy paid $5 or $10 for a watch in 1930 and you buy that same watch he owned for $250 now but it willl never be worth less than $250 if you take care of it. Its like saving your money in the bank but having fun using it at the same time. I'm a believer in the collectability and value of these fine old watches.

See the beautiful old Bulovas on this page:

http://www.thewatchguy.com/pages/BULOVA.html

Check these sites for watches:

http://www.girards.com/

http://www.darlor-watch.com/

http://www.watchcat.com/index1.htm

 

[HudsonHawk]

I don't think there is anybody in the watch industry, Rolex included, who would agree with your assessment "without equals." This link says just about all there needs to be said about the place that Rolex holds in the hierarchy of watches.


http://www.chronocentric.com/watches/brands.shthttp://www.chronocentric.com/watches/brands.shtml

Link thingie no work.

 

[gtdean48]

Bad link in the URL AC.... Good one is inside it tho....http://www.chronocentric.com/watches/brands.shtml

I don't think there is anybody in the watch industry, Rolex included, who would agree with your assessment "without equals." This link says just about all there needs to be said about the place that Rolex holds in the hierarchy of watches.


http://www.chronocentric.com/watches/brands.shthttp://www.chronocentric.com/watches/brands.shtml

 

[Foxer55]

Fiona,

As a woman I have to say that it might be a bit too flashy, but in the end it really depends on your type and the choice of attire when wearing such a watch. generally though I would advice for more subtle accessories

I think diamonds look fine on a woman. Women are usually bejewelled anyway. There is a line of watches for women, high end watches, I don't remember who makes them, but they have a double glass face in the watch. There are diamonds between these two faces that float around. Very unique design. If you have something like a Torneau store near you, you can see them there. These watches run about $20K. Tell your SO you'd like to have one.

 

[Foxer55]

A.C. Lyles.

I don't think there is anybody in the watch industry, Rolex included, who would agree with your assessment "without equals." This link says just about all there needs to be said about the place that Rolex holds in the hierarchy of watches.

Not sure what you mean here but, if you are contradicting my statement, I will still stand by what I said. Yes, there are other 'good' watches but I don't think you'll find a 1970s Omega that sold for a few hundred dollars but is now worth somewhere north of $100,000. Several Rolex models fall in this category including the 'Paul Newman' Daytona Rolex and the 'James Bond' Submariner Rolex. I bought a new stainless steel Daytona just a few years ago and its value has already exceeded more than 10% a year. Why? Because it is a ROLEX which means it is nearly indestructable and it is a famed Rolex to boot.

While you may acquire a gold Audemars its value will not appreciate like the Rolex because of 2 reasons: (1) its a 'fancy' watch and (2) Rolex knows how to play the market. A fancy watch is not a robust block of stainless steel like the Rolex, yet furthermore, Rolex is one of the most secretive companies in the world and they wisely, and with great care, manipulate their brand and models. No, they don't follow the market, they make the market and they do so with a very, very conservative business acumen. You will note that Omega, Bulova, and many, many watch makers have imitated the Rolex oyster case with rotating bezel which was introduced decades ago by Rolex.

I will admit there are other nice watches out there, and I own some vintage ones, but in my experience nothing has the basic serviceability, robust design or useability, maintains its value, and has the everyman, down to earth appeal of a Rolex.

 

[Edward]

I don't think there is anybody in the watch industry, Rolex included, who would agree with your assessment "without equals." This link says just about all there needs to be said about the place that Rolex holds in the hierarchy of watches.


http://www.chronocentric.com/watches/brands.shthttp://www.chronocentric.com/watches/brands.shtml

Rolex have certainly been very successful in brand management over the years. Clearly know what they are doing viz-a-vis the market. People inside the trade have expressed different points of view to me over the years. A friend's grandfather, now deceased, spent his working life in the wholesale jewellery trade and really did not rate Rolex as superior timepieces (actually, he was firmly of the opinion they were vastly overrated, and he preferred not to carry them in stock!).

Spending thousands of dollars on a watch buys you the additional jewelry features of the watch. It does not buy you a more accurate timepiece.

(From the article AC Lyles links to)

This has certainly always been the advice of my own jeweller (also in the wholesale trade). A very modest outlay gets you a quality movement; much beyond that, wht you are paying for is the casing, the glass, and other cosmetic upgrades. Reminds me of the old Sekonda tag "Beware of Expensive Imitations". Not that this necessarily means the expensive watches have no more value than a cheaper piece with the same movement, but there are limitations.

Personally, I like the look of some of the old Rolexes from the forties and earlier, but as is the case with so many brands of men's watch nowadays, I find their current offerings too clunky and too feature-heavy for my tastes. As a knee-jerk reaction I'd prefer something from a less "obvious" brand, but that's personal taste with no reflection on the quality of their product. Ditto my reservations about spending that kind of money on a timepiece to begin with.

If I can ever justify the cost, my current dream watch is one of the Hamilton Ventura models with the automatic movement. I like the odd combination of the older technology with the design of a watch that was futuristic and 'new' (I believe it was the first battery-powered quartz watch on the market?), which fits perfectly with my own aesthetic.

Edward,



Let me recommend to you and others that you can find wonderful old watches such as Bulova, Gruen, Hamilton, and even Rolex and Tudor on used and vintage watch sites (some below). Or stop by a good watch store. A really good watch store will have some nice old watches at reasonable prices. These old watches can run anywhere from $150 into the thousands. Personally, I think owning an old Illinois or Hamilton wrist watch shows real finesse. Just think, some guy paid $5 or $10 for a watch in 1930 and you buy that same watch he owned for $250 now but it willl never be worth less than $250 if you take care of it. Its like saving your money in the bank but having fun using it at the same time. I'm a believer in the collectability and value of these fine old watches.

Thanks, yes, I'll have a look at those.

 

[Foxer55]

Edward,

Rolex have certainly been very successful in brand management over the years. Clearly know what they are doing viz-a-vis the market. People inside the trade have expressed different points of view to me over the years. A friend's grandfather, now deceased, spent his working life in the wholesale jewellery trade and really did not rate Rolex as superior timepieces (actually, he was firmly of the opinion they were vastly overrated, and he preferred not to carry them in stock!).

Rolex is peculiar and I have heard very demanding in how they do business. And I know watchmakers and jewelers who have said the same thing as your friend's grandfather. On the other hand, I've also heard good things about Rolex and their product discipline.

Spending thousands of dollars on a watch buys you the additional jewelry features of the watch. It does not buy you a more accurate timepiece.

This is true, however, spending thousands of dollars on a particular kind of watch has the possibility of becoming quite an investment. To date, there is no question I have gained financially by becoming interested (as a result of my own Rolex ownership) in watches and their ownership.

 

[bburtner@moran]

Whatever floats yer boat.

 

[HudsonHawk]

My $0.02...I own a Rolex, an Omega and a $17 Timex. The Timex keeps the best time. You don't buy any brand of luxury watch because of its time-keeping.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I have a "gold" watch with "diamonds" at the hour. It's not overly flashy, but has enough flash to make it look like you're doing well for yourself.

 

[Foxer55]

HudsonHawk,

My $0.02...I own a Rolex, an Omega and a $17 Timex. The Timex keeps the best time. You don't buy any brand of luxury watch because of its time-keeping.

I like Timex, they're a good ole everyman watch and I own two of them. The problem with modern Timex watches is they're all battery watches. Yuk.

 

[Quigley Brown]

I have a couple of vintage 40s ones I purchased at pawn shops. Nothing fancy. But I slowly started to forget to keep them wound up so I just quit wearing them. These days anywhere you look you're able to see what time it is.

 

[Talbot]

I own a few vintage and contemporary Rolex's. I enjoy them, but I don't think they the last word in quality, and certainly not in status

Get what you like the look of. There is a lot to choose from out there, and vintage timepieces represent extremely good value.

 

[Edward]

This is true, however, spending thousands of dollars on a particular kind of watch has the possibility of becoming quite an investment. To date, there is no question I have gained financially by becoming interested (as a result of my own Rolex ownership) in watches and their ownership.

Certainly. Market value is rarely (if ever) based on utilitarianism alone.

My $0.02...I own a Rolex, an Omega and a $17 Timex. The Timex keeps the best time. You don't buy any brand of luxury watch because of its time-keeping.

Precisely.