Discussion:
Marcello C Nettuno 3...Many questions.
(too old to reply)
j***@netzero.net
2005-10-24 01:12:29 UTC
Permalink
Why does it cost so much more than the other ETA 2824 sub look alikes?
Is it worth it? Is its movement upgraded to the point that it is as
good as the ETA 2892.A2 ? Why wouldn't they use an ETA 2892.A2 in the
first place? Is a model 4 coming soon?
j***@netzero.net
2005-10-24 13:11:47 UTC
Permalink
One more thing. Is the ETA 2824 used in the Nettuno of a higher grade
than used in the Hamilton Khaki Action Auto? I understand that the
Hamilton upgraded the 2824 beyond the 'standard'.
Post by j***@netzero.net
Why does it cost so much more than the other ETA 2824 sub look alikes?
Is it worth it? Is its movement upgraded to the point that it is as
good as the ETA 2892.A2 ? Why wouldn't they use an ETA 2892.A2 in the
first place? Is a model 4 coming soon?
Jack Denver
2005-10-24 17:09:58 UTC
Permalink
I don't have precise answers for you, e.g. what exact grade of 2824 Marcello
C. uses, but I do have some general answers:

Historically, the 2892 was found in "better" watches and always comes thru
with a high grade assortment (meaning the quality of the springs, balance
wheel, shock protector, etc.). The 2824 was the more plebian movement and
is available in various grades. However, if you equip a 2824 with a
"chronometer" grade assortment (which ETA will gladly do for you) its
performance is virtually indistinguishable from a 2892. To use an
automotive analogy, at one time VW was the economy brand and Audi the upper
range. But nowadays if you buy a VW equipped with all the options it is
indistinguishable in luxury and performance from a standard Audi.

The 2824 is somewhat thicker and a better fit for a dive watch case. A 2892
is still probably out of the price range of a Nettuno. The cost to a
manufactuer would be lower in both cases, but for comparison, Frei sells
2892's for around $250 and 2824's for around $86.

If you could see the Nettuno in person you would see that the fit and finish
are noticeably better than say a Sandoz - the movement more decorated, a
better, thicker band, a nicer quality dial, etc. Whether this is worth the
extra premium is up to the buyer. In general, in watches (as in many other
luxury goods) there is a high degree of diminishing returns: your biggest
"bang for the buck" comes in the first $50, that gets you from nothing to a
Seiko 5 on your wrist. After that, all improvments are marginal by
comparison and each increment of money buys you more "intangibles" such as
name and style and less in the way of actual performance increase.
Post by j***@netzero.net
Why does it cost so much more than the other ETA 2824 sub look alikes?
Is it worth it? Is its movement upgraded to the point that it is as
good as the ETA 2892.A2 ? Why wouldn't they use an ETA 2892.A2 in the
first place? Is a model 4 coming soon?
Olaf Peuss
2005-10-25 09:36:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@netzero.net
Why does it cost so much more than the other ETA 2824 sub look alikes?
Is it worth it?
Yes and no. If you're only interested in a functional watch, a Sandoz,
Invicta or Ollech & Wajs will do well. Viewed under the aspect of purely
horological value, the Nettuno 3 isn't worth the markup. If you also
want a very nicely finished case with an overall finish quality that is
at least as good as that to be found in an Omega Seamaster (and a
bracelet that beats the Rolex and even Omega bracelets hands down), then
you might want to go for the Nettuno 3.

All in all, the Nettuno 3 is definitely one of the finer Sub D knock-offs.
Post by j***@netzero.net
Is its movement upgraded to the point that it is as
good as the ETA 2892.A2 ?
Definitely not. All movements inside Marcello C watches are of "elabore"
quality (second best grade with Geneva stripes on the rotor), but
otherwise techically unmodified. They all feature ETA's standard
components for "elabore" quality movements.
Post by j***@netzero.net
Why wouldn't they use an ETA 2892.A2 in the
first place? Is a model 4 coming soon?
Well, the price difference between those two movements is more than $150
- simply too much to case a 2892-A2 in a $500 watch!
The technical differences between the 2824-2 and 2892-A2 are concisely
described in Walt Odets' article on TZF
<http://www.timezone.com/library/archives/archives631704838628270188>

If you're longing for a watch with a 2893-A2 (2892-A2 + GMT) movement,
you might want to take a look at the Nettuno 3 GMT or even the Tridente
GMT. Both watches are considerably more expensive than the plain-vanilla
Nettuno 3, though.

AFAIK, there are currently no plans to release a new version ("Nettuno
4") since the Nettuno 3 was only launched at the end of 2003.

Best regards,
OP
Jack Denver
2005-10-25 15:28:38 UTC
Permalink
Agree with almost everything you say. But ETA seems to have re-organized
its lineup slightly. Formerly, the top grade of 2824 was called (with
unusual directness for the Swiss) "Top" (and the second best grade was
indeed elabore'). You could order the top with a chronometer assortment,
but it called was a "top with chronometer assortment" and not a separate
grade. So what you said was formerly correct. However, according to this
more recent chart:

https://secure.eta.ch/CSP/DesktopModules/ViewDoc.aspx?DocId=177&DocType=DT

on page 6

the highest grade of 2824 is now called "Chronome'tre" and Elabore' is two
grades down from the highest. From what I can tell, the standard/elabore
and the top/chronometre pairs both come thru with the same assortment but
the superior brother of each pair must get more adjustment so that it
performs better.


In the chart, note again the many choices of parts grade that go into making
up a movement - hairspring, mainspring, balance wheel, shock protector, etc.
I also understand that if you give ETA a sufficiently large order, you can
order "a la carte" and they will make up the movement any way you tell them
within the limits of their parts bin and their manufacturing technology - to
start with many manufacturers order custom rotors with their name engraved
but you can also add more decoration and mix & match components & finishes -
gold or rhodium plate, etc.
Post by Olaf Peuss
Post by j***@netzero.net
Why does it cost so much more than the other ETA 2824 sub look alikes?
Is it worth it?
Yes and no. If you're only interested in a functional watch, a Sandoz,
Invicta or Ollech & Wajs will do well. Viewed under the aspect of purely
horological value, the Nettuno 3 isn't worth the markup. If you also
want a very nicely finished case with an overall finish quality that is
at least as good as that to be found in an Omega Seamaster (and a
bracelet that beats the Rolex and even Omega bracelets hands down), then
you might want to go for the Nettuno 3.
All in all, the Nettuno 3 is definitely one of the finer Sub D knock-offs.
Post by j***@netzero.net
Is its movement upgraded to the point that it is as
good as the ETA 2892.A2 ?
Definitely not. All movements inside Marcello C watches are of "elabore"
quality (second best grade with Geneva stripes on the rotor), but
otherwise techically unmodified. They all feature ETA's standard
components for "elabore" quality movements.
Post by j***@netzero.net
Why wouldn't they use an ETA 2892.A2 in the
first place? Is a model 4 coming soon?
Well, the price difference between those two movements is more than $150 -
simply too much to case a 2892-A2 in a $500 watch!
The technical differences between the 2824-2 and 2892-A2 are concisely
described in Walt Odets' article on TZF
<http://www.timezone.com/library/archives/archives631704838628270188>
If you're longing for a watch with a 2893-A2 (2892-A2 + GMT) movement, you
might want to take a look at the Nettuno 3 GMT or even the Tridente GMT.
Both watches are considerably more expensive than the plain-vanilla
Nettuno 3, though.
AFAIK, there are currently no plans to release a new version ("Nettuno 4")
since the Nettuno 3 was only launched at the end of 2003.
Best regards,
OP
Blue Fins at Sea
2005-10-25 23:17:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olaf Peuss
Post by j***@netzero.net
Why does it cost so much more than the other ETA 2824 sub look alikes?
Is it worth it?
Yes and no. If you're only interested in a functional watch, a Sandoz,
Invicta or Ollech & Wajs will do well. Viewed under the aspect of purely
horological value, the Nettuno 3 isn't worth the markup. If you also
want a very nicely finished case with an overall finish quality that is
at least as good as that to be found in an Omega Seamaster (and a
bracelet that beats the Rolex and even Omega bracelets hands down), then
you might want to go for the Nettuno 3.
All in all, the Nettuno 3 is definitely one of the finer Sub D knock-offs.
Post by j***@netzero.net
Is its movement upgraded to the point that it is as
good as the ETA 2892.A2 ?
Definitely not. All movements inside Marcello C watches are of "elabore"
quality (second best grade with Geneva stripes on the rotor), but
otherwise techically unmodified. They all feature ETA's standard
components for "elabore" quality movements.
Post by j***@netzero.net
Why wouldn't they use an ETA 2892.A2 in the
first place? Is a model 4 coming soon?
Well, the price difference between those two movements is more than $150
- simply too much to case a 2892-A2 in a $500 watch!
The technical differences between the 2824-2 and 2892-A2 are concisely
described in Walt Odets' article on TZF
<http://www.timezone.com/library/archives/archives631704838628270188>
If you're longing for a watch with a 2893-A2 (2892-A2 + GMT) movement,
you might want to take a look at the Nettuno 3 GMT or even the Tridente
GMT. Both watches are considerably more expensive than the plain-vanilla
Nettuno 3, though.
AFAIK, there are currently no plans to release a new version ("Nettuno
4") since the Nettuno 3 was only launched at the end of 2003.
Best regards,
OP
For Opaf and other experts ...

Question: is the Nettuno 3, model 2007.2 quality (fit, finish and
band) is at least as the Rolex Submariner? What kind of steel they use
for Nettuno 3 watch?

I also interested in Hamilton Chrono watch, they use Valjoux 7750
movement on ebay for less than $500.00, since Marcello use the same
movement on their more expensive line watch (eg 2015.1 model) , I
wonder if the Marcello fit, finish and quality of material offset the
cost?
Blue Fins at Sea
2005-10-25 23:30:19 UTC
Permalink
I wrote: is at least as the Rolex Submarine, I mean "at least as good
as the Rolex Sub case and band quality"
Bo Williams
2005-10-26 00:33:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blue Fins at Sea
I wrote: is at least as the Rolex Submarine, I mean "at least as good
as the Rolex Sub case and band quality"
I've not held a Marcello C, but I can tell you for a fact that it's not
that tough to be "at least as good as the Rolex Sub case and band
quality." A Submariner in the metal is not necessarily disappointing,
but neither is it is overly impressive.

I would suspect, from Marcello C's net press, that the Nettuno 3 is
probably even the *more* sybaritic experience, if you can truly divorce
yourself from the Rolex mystique.
--
Bo Williams - ***@hiwaay.net
http://hiwaay.net/~williams/
Blue Fins at Sea
2005-10-26 15:42:48 UTC
Permalink
i live in a place where not all watches are available in one store. I
own Sub, frankly, because it is original in sub style. I agree, the
price is way over price if you look under its skins. My dad has omega
seamaster (I think) my sub is clearly better finish than his.
I mrely use Sub as a standard. I agree, my other humble OSR watch is as
good finish as my sub, the band seems to be better constructed.
Jack Denver
2005-10-26 15:05:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blue Fins at Sea
Question: is the Nettuno 3, model 2007.2 quality (fit, finish and
band) is at least as the Rolex Submariner? What kind of steel they use
for Nettuno 3 watch?
Almost all stainless watches other than Rolex use 316L steel. Rolex uses
904L which is more expensive and slightly more corrosion resistant but the
difference is more theoretical than real. In actual performance there is
little if any difference. Rolex's use of a different steel is sometimes
used by Rolex fans/salesmen as an explanation for why they are so expensive
but it is a totally inadequate explanation since even in 904L the steel
content in a watch has a minimal value. 316L goes for around $1/lb, 904L
for maybe $3. A watch with metal band has around a 1/4 of lb. of steel in
it... being generous to account for machining losses, we can say that a
Rolex has maybe $1.50 worth of steel in it. That leaves another $3000+ to be
accounted for.

Rolex is famous for the poor quality of its bands. I have seen under $100
watches with noticeably better bands than Rolex. There have been some
clever advances over the last 50 years in designing forged metal clasps
that fold flat and unobtrusively and are comfortable but Rolex has stuck
with its ancient stamped sheet metal design. That Rolex charges over $500
for a replacement of its pathetic tin buckled band gives you an idea of how
overpriced the entire watch is. The Nettuno band is nicer but this is not
saying much.Submariner cases are also famous for their sharp lugs that dig
into your flesh.


The one area where the Rolex has the Nettuno beat is in the movement. Rolex
movements are not that well finished but they use a free sprung balance
which is considered horologically superior and they run within chronometer
specs. Again the actual difference on the wrist will be minimal if any but
you have to give Rolex the win in that column. But again it is far fetched
to say that the quality of the movements justifies the Rolex premium. The
premium obviously exists in the market in that Rolex is able to sell these
watches for a high price, but I attribute that to the "famousness" of the
Rolex trademark which has a greater impact on the price than any actual
feature of their watches.
Post by Blue Fins at Sea
I also interested in Hamilton Chrono watch, they use Valjoux 7750
movement on ebay for less than $500.00, since Marcello use the same
movement on their more expensive line watch (eg 2015.1 model) , I
wonder if the Marcello fit, finish and quality of material offset the
cost?
As we have discussed before, there are very high diminishing returns on
improvments to watches. No doubt the Marcello is nicer finished than the
Hamilton Khakis but whether the increased cost is worth it is up to the
buyer. Certainly the performance and durability of the two 7750 based
watches will be similar so the benefits will be largely intangible in the
form of "nicer" appearance. If you were to compare the two watches closely
side by side under magnification you might see difference that are not
obvious (and that your friends will never ever see) - the way the markers
on the dial are constructed, the method that the bracelet is held together
(screws vs. pins), etc. These all add to the cost but in most cases the
cheaper way "gets the job done" just as well. But they say "the great is
the enemy of the good" and some people want not just "good enough" but the
best, price be damned. Swatch can also offer the Hamiltons economically
since they make the movements themselves and since they import most of the
rest of the components from Asia for assembly in Switzerland.
Tony Stanford
2005-10-26 15:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Having once owned a Rolex 'superlative chronometer', and having been
appalled both by its 2-yearly need for (expensive!) repair and its
failure to keep time within chronometer limits for longer than 6 weeks,
I agree with all the negative comments people make.

Could its undeserved reputation be a hangover from the time when Rolex
was once - 60, 70 years ago? - a superlative watch, worth its then
price? Or was its reputation and value always overestimated? I thought
that once upon a time Rolex made their own movements, and they were
something special.
--
Tony Stanford
Jack Denver
2005-10-26 15:45:18 UTC
Permalink
They do make all their movments. At one time the price was not so out of
line with the value, but their prices have risen tenfold over the last
couple of decades while the watches have remained more or less the same.
They were never "superlative" except on their own dials but they were good
"tool watches". At $600 today a Submariner would still be a good watch but
at $3000+ it's a joke.
Post by Tony Stanford
Having once owned a Rolex 'superlative chronometer', and having been
appalled both by its 2-yearly need for (expensive!) repair and its failure
to keep time within chronometer limits for longer than 6 weeks, I agree
with all the negative comments people make.
Could its undeserved reputation be a hangover from the time when Rolex was
once - 60, 70 years ago? - a superlative watch, worth its then price? Or
was its reputation and value always overestimated? I thought that once
upon a time Rolex made their own movements, and they were something
special.
--
Tony Stanford
Tony Stanford
2005-10-26 16:03:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Denver
They do make all their movments.
Ah... I'm getting confused. I've seen Rolex watches on eBay advertised
with 2836 movements, so I thought they were just modifying ETA
movements, rather than making their own.

See:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ROLEX-S-STEEL-SUBMARINER-BLACK-WATCH-ETA-2836_W0QQi
temZ5044728935QQcategoryZ81781QQssPageNameZWD2VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

(How do you paste in long links without the line breaks ruining a clean
paste for the reader?)
--
Tony Stanford
Blue Fins at Sea
2005-10-26 16:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Stanford
Post by Jack Denver
They do make all their movments.
Ah... I'm getting confused. I've seen Rolex watches on eBay advertised
with 2836 movements, so I thought they were just modifying ETA
movements, rather than making their own.
Rolex makes their own movement, except they use Zenith El Primero
movement for their Daytona line. What you see is a fake watch.
Tony Stanford
2005-10-26 17:19:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blue Fins at Sea
Rolex makes their own movement, except they use Zenith El Primero
movement for their Daytona line. What you see is a fake watch.
I see, I see! Lucky I wasn't tempted to buy one, since the prices are
Rolex-like! :-}}
--
Tony Stanford
Olaf Peuss
2005-10-26 17:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blue Fins at Sea
Rolex makes their own movement, except they use Zenith El Primero
movement for their Daytona line. What you see is a fake watch.
You're right and wrong: Rolex did use Zenith's El Primero for the
Cosmograph Daytona indeed but the changed over to their own calibre a
couple of years ago. This is why Rolex fans are willing to cough up
unheard amounts of money for used Daytona watches from the first series
when they featured the best chronograph calibre available.

And you course, all Rolex watches with ETA movements are fakes. Rolex
call their own fakes with ETA movements not "Rolex" but "Tudor". :-)

Best regards,
OP
St. John Smythe
2005-10-26 17:40:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Stanford
Ah... I'm getting confused. I've seen Rolex watches on eBay advertised
with 2836 movements, so I thought they were just modifying ETA
movements, rather than making their own.
Those aren't Rolex watches, Tony, they're "Rolex" watches, if you catch
my drift...

Blue Fins at Sea
2005-10-26 15:48:56 UTC
Permalink
rolex is relative a bargain if you compared them to Frank Muller, and
other $60K or more watch. As I suspect, Swiss watch price will be
corrected. My sub time keeper is fairly unremarkable, +/-3 sec perday
depends how I wear it. People pay a dear price just to carry a name, I
think. People pay too much attention to my sub, more than I do.
Olaf Peuss
2005-10-26 17:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blue Fins at Sea
For Opaf and other experts ...
^^^^
"Olaf", if you don't mind.
BTW: I don't consider myself an expert, just a watch enthisast. :-)
Post by Blue Fins at Sea
Question: is the Nettuno 3, model 2007.2 quality (fit, finish and
band) is at least as the Rolex Submariner? What kind of steel they use
for Nettuno 3 watch?
Rolex use alloy 904 L, Marcello and nearly all other makers of steel
watches use alloy 316 L, which is a little softer than 904 L, but also
lower in nickel, i.e. better for people who are sensitive to allergic
skin irritations caused by nickel. 904 L is a much more expensive,
harder-to-process and somewhat tougher material with a higher resistance
against scratches, corrosion caused by chemicals and salt water. In
everyday situations, however, these advantages will hardly ever
materialise and do certainly not outweigh triple the material price for
904 L compared to 316 L.

The case and bracelet quality in a Nettuno 3 is simply astounding at
that price level. The bracelet features only solid links and a flip lock
with a massive folding and safety clasp, and unlike in Rolex Oyster
bracelets, no folded steel sheets are to be found in the Nettuno or
Tridente bracelets. In Marcello's watchcases and bracelets, there are no
sharp edges to be found, all edges are bevelled, and even the surfaces
between the lugs are polished and neatly finished.

However, the quality of the dial, hands and the superluminova coating
for the dial index is better in the Rolex by a far cry. Also, the
cyclops lens for the date display features a 2.5 x magnification in the
Rolex and only 1.5 x in the Nettuno.
And I'm not even trying to compare the Rolex 3135 calibre with a
run-of-the-mill ETA 2824-2.
Post by Blue Fins at Sea
I also interested in Hamilton Chrono watch, they use Valjoux 7750
movement on ebay for less than $500.00, since Marcello use the same
movement on their more expensive line watch (eg 2015.1 model) , I
wonder if the Marcello fit, finish and quality of material offset the
cost?
As I'm not too familar with chronograph watches, I'd be a bad guide
here. Just makes sure which quality assortment Hamilton use for their
watches. Finish-wise, Marcello is hard to beat at their price level.

HTH and best regards,
OP
Continue reading on narkive:
Search results for 'Marcello C Nettuno 3...Many questions.' (Questions and Answers)
4
replies
What's in Bologna, Italy?
started 2007-10-23 19:16:54 UTC
italy
Loading...