The Breitling Watch Source Forums

GMT II in my opinion. It is a great watch and will hold it's value better value if you decide to sell it in the future. Also, I voted based on personal experience. I have a "Z" TT GMT II.

Let us know what you decide and post a few pics.....

_________________
Regards,

Troy

Breitling Bentley Mark VI
Rolex GMT Master II TT Ceramic "Z"
Rolex Explorer II - White dial

As a Breitling dealer I have to recommend the Breitling. There is one major problem with rolex (Besides their treatment of delers): Whenever You buy a Rolex, its old technology. Rolex has stopped innovating. They are just hoarding their money. Well, maybe they are investing it in Bucherer, but there is no development in movements. They where the last company to have cheaply made clasps (worse than any 300 US$ Seiko!) and lousy bracelets. There are a lot of other brands I don't sell, which are excellent (like IWC, Jaeger, Panarai), but no brand claims absolute luxury and exclusivity while on the other hand supplying the largest quantity of watches. Rolex produces about 6 times the quantity of Breitling, app. 1,5 times the quantity of Omega, more than any other luxury watch producer). And people who buy it, think they buy an exclusive piece. They just lack innovation and quality...

BG
Alien

_________________
http://www.ellert.at

Thank you for that perspective Alien

Thanks for sharing this information. I was interested in the number of quantities these major brands produce. When I went to see the Glashutte watches, the guy told me that Rolex produces around 1.5M watches a year and Glashutte is around 10k. Very insightful info and I didn't know that Breitling produces less than Omega and Rolex....very cool

Any other stats like this, I would be interested in learning about.

Thanks!

_________________
Alex
Breitling - Navitimer
Breitling - SuperOcean
Breitling - Chrono SuperOcean

your trying compare a 6.75 to a GMT! They are vastly different watches and like comparing apples to oranges. One has a chrono and is quite larger. You should compare last years Superocean to the GMT and then see the price difference. If the chrono is not an "upgrade" then why are usually so much more? Rolex does have high quality watches but I feel most but not all people buy a Rolex because they want the so called status of owning a Rolex.

I'll clarify my point. It isn't whether a chronograph is "less" or "more" of a watch. It's that chronograph watches are inherently more complicated than standard watches, and within a given series by a given manufacturer, are always going to be more expensive. Therefore, it does not make sense to take a non-chronograph Rolex, compare it to a chronograph Breitling, point out that the two are more or less the same in price (and, for the record, the Rolex still costs more), and use that as "proof" that Rolexes aren't overpriced.

I agree with Mr. Clean that if you want to make a fair comparison of prices between models, choose watches that offer the same functions and complications. The lowest priced Rolex Daytona (their chronograph offering) is $11,495, compared to a Blackbird at $6945, and the Daytona doesn't even have a date feature, to say nothing of a big date, like the Blackbird. The Rolex GMT Explorer II in SS retails for $7275. The closest equivalent I can find among Breitling's current models is the Colt GMT+, which retails for $3375.

Now, we can debate the merits of the respective models, and see what Rolex offers in theirs to justify their higher prices. But I think it is at least reasonable to hold the point of view that when comparing two watches by two top makers, both with similar features, the one that costs a hefty percentage more can be considered overpriced. I'm not stating this as my position, but rather as a reasonable position some people might have. If you disagree, I welcome your input.

Well most everyone has good points, but it always gets down to personal tatse. Although most of my watches are Breitlings, and I do own a BB, my finest timepiece in my opinion, is my GMTIIc. Even with a large wrist, it wears perfectly. My best chrono? My BB.

So why not get both!

Have a great weekend guys,

-Don

_________________
An ever changing collection.....

Always the best advice.

that comparison is comical

_________________
"I don't own any watches, I just lease them"

Serge, do you have anything substantial to offer? Insults and casual dismissals are the hallmarks of someone who dogmatically clings to a position without having a rational basis for it. Not to mention, it's insulting to those of us who believe our points of view are valid and actually take to the time to articulate them. If you've got reasons for feeling the way you do, please share them; I really would like to hear them. If all you can do is hurl epithets and make fun - well, it's not my place to tell you to shut up, but I don't imagine you're gaining much credibility in the process.

I disagree with your eloquent paragraph that you previously posted. Let's compare a Rolex which doesn't have a chrono and compare it to the Patek Philippe 5120 which also doesn't have a chrono or even a date wheel for that matter, and is 3x more expensive than the Rolex GMT. Is it fair to say that the Patek is overpriced?? Absolutely not!! It's a hand built one of a kind movement by arguably the greatest watch manufacturer. Same holds true when comparing the Supereocean and a Rolex GMT. I'm not even wasting my time going through that comparison because it's ridiculous.

As for gaining credibility, that's the last thing I care about. I get it...you don't like that I called you out on the "rolex gives you less of a watch" comment....no one likes to be called out, but that couldn't be more wrong.

_________________
"I don't own any watches, I just lease them"

The Rolex Forum is looking for more brown nosers...why don't you go their for a while. If the GMT did not have the Rolex on the face, people would probably ridicule it and make fun of it