Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: HamiltonJay

I think they’re unattractive and bulky. Seen nicer 100 dollar Timex.


13 posted on 01/30/2020 6:50:49 AM PST by redshawk ( I want my red balloon. ( https://youtu.be/V12H2mteniE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: redshawk

“Seen nicer 100 dollar Timex.”

Well, not nicer in the mechanical or workmanship sense, but the Timex will most probably keep much more accurate time.

Each half year when I change my work Timex hour to accommodate daylight wasting time, I have not yet found the watch to be greater than 30 seconds off of the NIST time signal. Not bad for six months of daily use.


16 posted on 01/30/2020 6:57:36 AM PST by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: redshawk

Well they are purely mechanical, no quartz so it will never be as small as a Timex.

I have no issue with it being bigger, it has to be.

However as this guy pointed out he bought his for $350 in 1971.

$350 in 1971 dollars adjusted for inflation is $2,220 in todays dollars.

So, for the cheapest Rolex today being 17k or something like that, just doesn’t add up.. so its purely charging buyers money simply for its name, not for its product or quality. Purely a status symbol


18 posted on 01/30/2020 7:07:28 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson