I agree with your conclusion but not your reasons…
Posted By: Chicagoland Chuck Maddox <cmaddox3@sbcglobal.net>
Date: 3/9/06 01:43 GMT
In Response To: some thaughts (georges zaslavsky)
some thaughts Posted By: georges zaslavsky Date: 3/8/06 19:57 GMT
In Response To: Nice work, agent Deaton! (Digger-D)
will a P0 ever have the colelctible of a 5512, 5513 or a 1680 sub? No probably never because it is a watch which more the result of marketing than a true a diver as compared to the sub. I agree that a PO will probably not have the collectability of early subs, but not for the reasons you cite Georges...
I think the facts that the Submariners are far older watches, that did not enjoy the wide production or wild popularity that the PO has enjoyed since it's introduction will likely have a far greater effect on the collectablity than a few people's perception on marketing or lack there of.
The "Little Bird's" 1955-1956-1957 T-Birds never sold in high volume. Their best year, 1957, Ford only sold just over 21,000 examples. The 1958 T-Bird, which was available side by side through December 1957 sold more in 1958 than the entire 3 year run of the 2-seater Birds. You know how many people want a 1958 T-Bird today? Virtually no one. While the early birds attract a flock (pardon the pun) of potential buyers whereever they go.
Comparing a vintage Rolex in collectability to an in production PO is like comparing a modern Thunderbird to a Classic 2-Seater Bird. It's not a fair comparision. One can compare like year to like year or 40th year performance vs. 40th year performance, but comparing a new in-production watch vs. a 40 year old vintage watch is not particularly useful.
Plus the coaxial is very far to be a reference unlike the rolex 15xx, 30xx and 31xx calibres. If we should be so lucky, we'll compare notes in 40 years to see how the PO's collecability fairs in comparision to the Rolex's 40 year marks...
-- Chuck
1)The PO was a product made in order to counter attack the sea dweller market. I disagree...
The PO was a product made in order to make money!
That is it's primary mission.
Additionally I also believe that the PO was made to compete directly with both the Submariner and the 'Dweller as well as other products on the market including (but not limited to) TAG's and Breitling's.
The P0 is not a sea dweller. Agreed, The PO is not a 'Dweller, nor is it a Submarnier nor are either of the Rolex's a PO.
And the movement is not even modified by Omega but by Eta ETA does the work for Omega, to Omega's specifications as a quasi-"Sub-Contractor".
as the opposite to the Sea Dweller who has the calibre 3135 Rolex's use their own In-House movement.
a proven and very reliable movement since 1988. Which has been around longer than the Co-Axial.
You know how are generally consider eta 2824-2892a2 powered watches in terms of collectibility and value. Collectability varies, sometimes widely.
They are far to be in the same playground than watches with older inhouse vintage movements or modern watches with inhouse/lemania/piguet movements. I'm at risk of going off on a tangent as I am not certain of your meaning Georges.
If by Piguet movements you're referring to the Omega utilized c.33xx's, I'm not convinced that being in close proximity is good thing.
A modern Breguet or Blancpain will always have more value than a watch powered by an eta 2892a2 or an eta 2824 or an eta 2836. Yes, it will, however a Modern Breguet or Blancpain will also cost twice to three times (if not more) as much. A modern Ferrari will always have more value than a Mustang because it's high initial cost as well.
The sea dweller was tested by the comex since the 70's and it is a true tool watch unlike the PO which is a pure marketing product. I'd agree if I didn't think that the Planet Ocean was not up to the task of being a more than adequate "tool/dive watch". If at Planet Ocean can't live up to it's Marketing hype, then I'd agree with you. But I haven't read anything on PO's failing when used in such a manner.
I think the facts that the Submariners are far older watches, that did not enjoy the wide production or wild popularity that the PO has enjoyed since it's introduction will likely have a far greater effect on the collectablity than a few people's perception on marketing or lack there of.
2)No, I disagree here. The sub was launched in 1953 the same year that was launched the Blancpain fifty fathoms popular in the usmc and the us navy seals where it was sold under the brand tornek-rayville), both were very popular among divers at that time. People who baught them were probably looking for something of higher quality than the competition at that time. I don't believe Omega (or Breitling or Heuer for that matter) were building much in the way of "true Dive watches" in 1953. So I don't think I can disagree with your reply statement.
I continue to contend that it's really difficult to compare a 30-50+ year old watch to one which is currently in production in terms of collectability now. There is no real great collector's value in a Planet Ocean today because one can buy them new at a dealer (authorized/gray)... Were it a limited edition, maybe a still available new model might have more collector value than non-LE, but my point is the PO is still in production.
3)Yes the 1958 tbird is often referred as the square bird it became a personal car and killed what was the 55-57 t bird a sports car. eh... Disagree... The decision was made to make the T-Bird a 4-Seater (because baby-boomers were having kids) as early as mid 1956 (It took time to bring new models on line even then).
Incidentally, Ford never in their literature called the 2-Seat "Little Bird" a Sports Car, but a "Personal" or Executive car, or Sporty car. They didn't want to equate the T-Bird with much less expensive imports.
4)Rolex uses the 31xx movment since 1988 which has never known a single problem since its introduction Oh, I'm sure that there has been a failure or problem of some sort in a 33xx Rolex in the past 17 years. I've never heard that there were problems with that movement though of the nature of the early Co-Ax's or the c.33xx's (or even El-Primeros which didn't get the proper high speed oils their first services).
unlike the calibre 1120 and some of the 2500 that have known the problem of sudden stop which tells a lot about the quality of Eta. Don't know about the 1120 (I don't follow it). The problem the 2500 had initially was due to the (over) lubrication of the new Co-Axial movement... The lub was geting places it wasn't supposed to be and causing problems.
I don't think that this equates to ETA producing bad quality work, just that a radically new movement had some issues that were quickly resolved.
I don't feel ETA the company, or mass production in general is evil. Nor do I feel ETA's are _bad_ movements. They are mass produced and they aren't in-house or exclusive most of the time. I know Georges you don't like them. That's fine. They are what they are. They are often good for their intended duties.
Even today after many years the Rolex movements perform very well and are considered as far superior to any eta movements. I'm not certain of the degree of superiority, but I wouldn't disagree with that, only point out that superiority does come with a notable initial and periodic (regular service with Rolex) cost.
Omega older inhouse movements are also of far better quality than etas Most people would agree with you on that. I among them.
and I have not a single doubt about it.Something that lasts and that was never prone to problems tells a lot of the durability and quality of the product. Well, all watches are subject to issues with use, and require maintainance. I would hope people wouldn't buy a Rolex expecting it'll run forever without any care.
5)The 2500 is a thinner calibre than the rolex 3135 (introduced in 1988) and the rolex 3035 (introduced in 1977)who both are 28800bph and have the microstella balance. The construction of the 3035 and 3135 is far more robust than the construction of the 2500 and also the rotor jeweled pivot on the rolex movement is far more robust than the ball rotor on the 2500. I don't recall mentioning the thinness of the movements in the context of comparing vintage watch collectability with regards to current production watches.
There is a difference of product resulting from a marketing hype and something proven through the years with a real feedback and many proofs to back it up. And the Planet Ocean is only one year old (or less if you count when it actually was available vs. when it was announced).
You make my point. It's very difficult to compare such a young watch with a vintage watch.
just my honest opinion.
regards
georges | 
