Originally Posted by
Lazyrider
Botto,
I collect watches and generally speaking stainless steel is stainless steel. If the movements are identical and between 2 watches, the stainless case and bands may vary a little in quality, but that doesn't justify the price difference. The name does.
BTW, I have owned the Seiko Black Monster for many years and the band on this watch is more solid than any Rolex I owned. My Ball Hydrocarbon SH$#s all over the Rolex band. Granted, the resale of the Rolex is fantastic but that is only because people are ignorant and think they are the "best". I saw a guy in my watchmaker's place offer him more for a Rolex than a Patek he had just refurbished. LOL.
This is the $400 2824 eta watch that matches my $2500 2824 eta watch in all regards.
http://www.cresus.fr/montres/histori...p3154,mo1.html
I don't believe it. Another watch guy. The ETA powered Hamilton Khaki Navy and Air Race are other examples.
There is actually some rationality in this thread. The technical merits of Ti and CF have been debated ad nauseum. The issue here is marketing potential. I have several Ti bikes (if I told you how many it would be bragging). I started aquiring Ti bikes and frames, used or NOS, when I got back in cycling a couple of years ago and wanted to teach myself bike wrenching. They range in age from 1993 to 2005. Even so, with the exception of decal wear, each frame is as beautiful as it was when manufactured. More importantly, with the exception of some 1" headsets, they do not look dated. There is only so much you can do with Ti design and styling.
CF has much greater flexibility for more radical design changes (whether or not those changes contribute to performance), thus creating much more of the Detroit "new model year" car marketing hype. And, it must be better than last year's model because the Pro's ride it.
BTW that 5000 OCLV is beautiful. IMHO, some of the 1st and 2nd generation CF bikes are among the prettiest CF bikes out there. The appearance is more function driven design.