I should first state that I am technically not on par with some of the experts on this forum, but my question is "are these movements as good as the hype suggests?"
My Aqua Terra seems to be very reliable, cranks up easily, holds its reserve as advertised, is three years old with no service needed for a couple more...but I still hear Rolex lovers (and a good friend leading the pack) preferring their movements over these. Is this valid?
I also notice value on these ATs seems to diminish with mine 30% below rrp now. Have they made too many? Is the Rolex "premium" and role as an alternate currency mean they continue to dominate on the value spectrum?
I was led to believe these 8500s were technically advanced and reliability and long service intervals particularly appealing.
Would appreciate any education. Thanks.

 

Personally I don't think the relative merits of a modern-day Rolex caliber vs. Omega could be compared until the watches are 50+ years old -- it would take that long to maybe determine whether or not the coaxial escapement yielded a longer service life as Omega claims. The ability of Rolex watches to hold their value so well is not due to technical superiority, but rather, to Rolex's marketing superiority: Rolex is the world's most recognizable brand of anything.

You've got a beautiful watch, by the way

 

The 8500 has had it's share of problems already...hour hand synchronization problems, DLC coated barrel problems, and premature pivot wear on the balance staff on the anti-magnetic versions. The fact is that all movements go through these growing pains, so a Rolex 3135 made back in 1988 won't be the same as one made recently, so all brands make subtle changes over time to address problems that crop up.

It's way too early to say if the 8500 will be reliable long term, but in terms of increased service intervals, that is really just a marketing thing. There's a lot more to a watch than just an escapement, and no matter how maintenance free you make one parts of the watch, the other parts still need attention like they always did.

Cheers, Al

 

Thanks...very interesting

 

Agreed. I've been looking at a 36mm Exp 1 and can't believe the price for a local daler's 2004 model...£3650! A used AT 8500 there is a £1000 cheaper to a 3 year old! Reliability of course is a different matter as I'll new Rolex movements coming in...that marketing machine is impressive.

 

I think you're oversimplifying the outside forces that determine consumer market pricing. Yes, actual quality/reliability of the movement, advertising, q factor, etc have a say, but other more fickle elements often produce the largest variations in selling/buying price.

And value is a completely subjective term, while price is objective. A beater watch which matches a wide swath of your outfit, keeps good time, and costs a pittance to service might be of greater inner "value" then the steel Patek triple calendar that never leaves the safe. Trying to determine "value" off of a single dealer's piece and other anecdotal evidence will only cloud your knowledge further.

In other words - it looks like you're looking for answers as to why Rolex prices are higher than Omega, and the answer as always is it's complicated.

 

There is nothing wrong with your watch. I have the same with a SS bracelet I wear everyday. I bought it because I think it's a beautiful watch. Don't let your Rolex friend rain on your parade.