Artman wrote:This debate will out live us all.
Not so long ago, I posted in a thread at WLs regarding the price of ownership of a Rolex Submariner vs. a Seiko SKX007. With the aid of a calculator and some rounding errors, I came up with something like, over twenty years, the Seiko costing seven cents a day (figuring on owning buying a new SKX after ten years, and never paying for a service, which is, of course, totally insane for a 7S26 movement). The Rolex would cost about a buck fifty a day, figuring on about nine grand for a new one, plus $500 for service every five years. This is a pretty big difference.
Now, I own an SKX007, and it's a great watch, an almost absurd value to the point of me not figuring out how Seiko can actually make a profit on the thing. But the Submariner is, well, a fucking Submariner. Owning something as very nearly perfect as the Submariner can't be broken down in dollars and cents. Comparing the two is an example of stupidity, like comparing a Ferrari with a Trabant.
I've also owned a couple Invicter Prodivers. Both I gave away, one to a guy who may well still own it, the other to my degenerate gambler brother-in-law who fucked it up and killed it in six months. For the price of a couple Prodivers, one can buy an SKX007, which is, unlike the Invicter, a real dive watch, iconic in it's own way, and a superb value, while the Invicter is not. I know there are guys who say that the Prodiver is the One Good Watch that Invicter made, and while I respect their opinion, I disagree. There are plenty of reports (and lawsuits) about the Prodiver flooding in kiddie pools. While there are plenty of reports, and no lawsuits that I know of, saying that the SKX007 does not flood on dives.
Conjurer rests his case.