|
|
Posted by HockeyTownUSA on 06/09/07 14:17
<factchecker76@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181072788.495822.67440@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 4, 10:15 pm, Heinrich Galland <heinri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <eKGdnSqoPIZY5fnbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdn...@comcast.com>, infiltrate
>>
>> <googoog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > Exactly...you gotta pay for quality.
>> > wrong. sure sometimes its like that but a lot of times thats the way
>> > the
>> > marketers want you to think. i have a $20 timex non-digital watch that
>> > for
>> > the last 5yrs has kept perfect time even after it getting banged,etc...
>>
>> As apposed to Rolex which cost $20,000 and looses a minute or two a day!
>
> A Rolex has a mechanical movement as opposed to a quartz movement and
> most are certified chronometers which means they are accurate to
> within -2 to +3 seconds a day (I believe somewhere around there). If
> your Rolex loses a minute or two a day it needs to be serviced. Not
> saying Rolexes are the best watch for the money but they keep good
> time (for a mechanical watch), have a great service network (you can
> send in your Rolex for service and it will come back looking new every
> time), are really durable and hold their value well due to Rolexes'
> iron hand and savvy marketing. Whoever wrote this is obviously
> talking out their ass as not too many Rolexes are $20k maybe a solid
> Platinum Day Date. Comparing a Rolex to a Timex is like comparing a
> classic European sports car to a KIA and saying the KIA gets better
> mileage.
>
Actually quartz is better:
http://www.chronocentric.com/watches/accuracy.shtml
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|