Reliability of O+W?

[matthew_h]

I'm seriously thinking about an O+W M4 but they seem kind of ominously cheap. Am I being overly cautious or is there a good reason that they are so much less than the Submariner that they are obviously based upon?

Would one be a sensible long term prospect?

Can anyone comment?

[owenemyr]

I have a number of O&W watches but prior to their 1984 bankruptcy, and they were using Valjoux 7733/7736 movements in their chronos based upon the original Breitling Navitimers (pre 1973), since they bought a large amount of the liquidated Breitling stock.
I have found them excellent, and you can probably still get these vintage models from Chronomaster as "new old stock", and look for the "aviation" range of models.

[tertius]

I have two - one bought very recently and they've both been fine, except for when I dropped the Big Time. It was a bit wonky after that so its currently off for servicing ...

Personally I like them a lot, very nice, simple designs.

[digger_R]

They are excellent watches in my opinion and experience, I've been thinking about an M4 or M5 for a while now. I may just stump up the cash for another Sea Dweller though....

As for O&W my Defender 2 is faultless, keeps excellent time and looks fantastic

The rumours of the 'issues' they are having seem to be just rumours. I haven't actually heard anything of the kind outside this forum.

[matthew_h]

Thanks chaps. It wasn't really the rumours that I was thinking about as they do just seem to be just that.

My main thought was how the O+W watches could be such good quality and yet nly be about a twentieth of the price of their equivalent Rolexes. I know there will be a reasonable amount of mark up on the Rolexes but the difference here is really very big.

I also know that the £150 O+Ws are not Sapphire crystal but that only makes about £100 difference tops.

I guess it is just that "if something seems too good to be true, it usually is" thing going round in my mind.

Are they really the bargain that they seem to be?

[tertius]

matthew_h said:

Thanks chaps. It wasn't really the rumours that I was thinking about as they do just seem to be just that.

My main thought was how the O+W watches could be such good quality and yet nly be about a twentieth of the price of their equivalent Rolexes. I know there will be a reasonable amount of mark up on the Rolexes but the difference here is really very big.

I also know that the £150 O+Ws are not Sapphire crystal but that only makes about £100 difference tops.

I guess it is just that "if something seems too good to be true, it usually is" thing going round in my mind.

Are they really the bargain that they seem to be?

So a few reasons why the Rolex is a lot more expensive (bearing in mind I've never actually seen an M4):

1. The Rolex has an in house movement, the O&W has a stock ETA

2. Rolex make practically every part of the watch themselves, O&W will buy in parts and assemble

3. the O&W case and bracelet will not be anything like the quality of the Rolex

4. the mark up on the Rolex is probably astronomic

There is no doubt the Rolex is probably the "better" watch, whatever that means, but that the O&W is an excellent watch offering fantastic value for money.