Post pics of your watches ***Please NO QUOTING PHOTOS***

unkel wrote: »

That was 70 years ago. Before pretty much every regular poster in this forum was born, even Wibbs :pac:

Some advertising if that is still giving Rolex the cachet it has today

Actually Cnoc has a point U. Pre circa 1960 Rolex was almost entirely a brand and had cache in Britain and her commonwealth and didn't sell much beyond it. Certainly in America they were pretty much unknown. If you look at US watch and jewellery periodicals from before that date Rolex are nowhere to be seen. They hadn't much penetration into Europe either. The James Bond connection helped them certainly, but more latterly rather than in period. If they had seen it as a driver of sales they would have kept promoting their brand in franchise in the 70's and 80's but largely left it to others. That said such promotion wasn't really part of most companies radar back then. I mean Aston Martin had to be pleaded with to supply the DB's. The Rolex print ads in US magazines like NG, Time et al made a big impression on that part of the world and beyond and they started to gain traction in the late 60's early 70's.

This trend is also evident in the chronometer trials of the 20th century. Although Hans Wilsdorf was the first to send a wristwatch for testing for all the "Superlative Chronometer" ad copy(it's a trademark of theirs not an accreditation) their participation in the trials themselves was minimal and when they did participate lacklustre and largely gave up after the 40's, with some participation in the 60's.



It was nearly always a shoot out between Omega, Longines and Zenith, with Longines winning the most overall. Movado would be "who??" for most today and they blew Rolex out of the water on wins. I suspect Rolex didn't bother for two reasons: 1) their movements were actually middle of the road and like that well into the 90's, workmanlike, but hardly elegant, or innovative(pre the 21st century one could easily argue their most innovative movement was the Oysterquartz). 2) their market - and Rolex have always known their market -wasn't interested enough back then.

cnocbui wrote: »

Interestingly, I think Tag Heur and Breitling are also just testaments to the power of advertising. I wasn't even aware of their existence until probably the 90's. Breitling's advertising in particular annoys me with their posing next to WW2 fighters like the Spitfire. It's unlikely any WW2 Spitfire pilot climbed into the cockpit wearing a Breitling. It most likely would have been a very ordianary looking Omega.

IWC are another who pad their WW2 history(among other things). Actually unless it was one of the issued Air Ministry pieces which included Omega among others(Zenith, Longines etc), chances are far more likely that if they wore a watch it was a 30's Tank style "dress" watch bought privately. Pre war in the "golden age" of aviation it was brands like Longines, Zenith, Helvetia and others, from the Swiss brands anyway. On the German side of WW2 the fighter pilots were more likely to wear "pilot's watches", for a few reasons. Pilots watches had more market penetration in mainland Europe. In something like the Battle of Britain it was for timing how much go juice they had left in the tanks as they were lacking in range, so privately bought or unit bought chronographs were in play. British pilots on the other hand didn't need a watch. They were scrambled en masse and vectored onto target, so little need for one for timing or navigation. Never mind that if you climb into a Spitfire or Me 109 right there in front of you is a dirty great clock.

For me, Omega has real world world usage cred, wheras Rolex are just a beautifully made poseur. The UK military sourced Omegas in WW2 and NASA did likewise in the 60's and therafter.

Well... in WW2, Omega were just one of many Swiss brands of issued timepieces in play, on both sides. To Rolex' credit they didn't supply the Axis side. Maybe one could argue the Panerai movements, but it's tenuous. As far as later UK MOD dive watches both Omega and Rolex had their issues and had to be tweaked accordingly. Rolex got an improved bezel and an Omega seamaster handset, Omega had to incorporate better sealing and a screwdown crown as the stock test models came back from dives looking like spirit levels. Interestingly when the US navy tried Rolex dive watches a decade earlier their big complaint was they were overpriced, the bracelet was crap and they leaked more than the others on test.

In the end of the day a huge proportion of this stuff is competing ad copy from the brands egged on by the interwebs and naturally enough the various brand camps and fans. The reality can be quite different. I mean for many on forums and the like who are Rolex fans they believe they innovated nearly everything in 20th century horology, but that's not the case by a long margin.

I'd say your Omega is well restorable C. The dial is in great nick, the alloy cases tend to go abit crusty, but are fixable and the movement should come back to life handily enough. Might need a balance staff, but the movement is a good one and many were made so should be easy enough to source one.

Cienciano wrote: »

It's funny how people grow to like or dislike certain brands.

Yeah, it has many influences for each individual. Depends on the type of collector(or not) too. Familial connections, childhood memories, perceptions of status, mechanical(or even electrical) engineering considerations, horological interest, advertising, cultural background. It's kinda mad. T'is a broad church.