[Nicolas Ecury]

Hi People.

For about 4 years I have owned a Rolex Submariner 16610. While I really enjoyed the watch, Ive always found the watch and design a little bit too plain. Very decent, uberfunctional and neat looking, but a little too plain/conventional, not unlike the Swiss people actually

At my local vintage watch shop I have now come across a vintage Chopard Mille Miglia 8331. I really like the dial with multiple functions, gives off a nice vintage racing car look. (see pic) The deal is that I can trade in my sub for the price I bought it 4 years ago and get back the difference with this watch, which is 2000 E cheaper...

But ofcourse I am in extreme doubt right now.. Is the Rolex the better choice in terms of possible appreciation, patina developing, watchmaker history, quality and durability... Or is the Mille Miglia the way to go if I like the look better..?

Can anybody who knows more about the Mille Miglia vs sub help me with this dilemma?

THANKS

Nicolas

 

[Spaceview M2]

Welcome to the WTF!

It seems your dilemma is more about what you would enjoy wearing and not so much about current,future value. Whats the use in 'keeping' a watch you really don't enjoy. The reason you are considering a trade is you found a watch you seem to like better. End of story. You may find someone that knows more technical knowledge about the two watches in question but your paragraph is more about what you would be happy with wearing so its really about what makes you happy?

 

[Nicolas Ecury]

Thank you for your reply. A big reason that I like the sub is that I know I can wear it all the time and it will remain functional with me for the upcoming decades. I am not so sure about the Mille Miglia because I do not know a lot about Chopard as watchmakers. But in terms of appearance I like the Chopard better and if I can confirm that it is a comparable watch to the sub in terms of the movement, then I think I will go for it.

 

[CometHunter]

Tough choice. And you are truly asking us to compare tangerines to oranges.
Possible appreciation- Hard to compare when it's between a veteran and a new kid on the block. The Sub has existed since 1953. The MM has only been around since 1988 when Chopard created the model to align with the world-famous Italian Mille Miglia auto race and be its Official Timer. The Sub has been able to use that time to build a much wider fan base. Add onto that the fact that Rolex has the largest advertising budget of ANY Swiss watch brand. And don't forget about all those sales based strictly on the fact it was the first "James Bond watch". Those 3 factors do more for a watch's desirability than all the technical achievements added together. With all that going against Chopard, it has been able to hold it's own against the best of watches.
Patina- Your guess is as good as mine. No two watches will visually age the same. More depends on how the watch is treated and exposed to atmospheric elements than the aging of the materials used to make the watch.
Watchmaker history- Chopard wins this one hands-down! Louis-Ulysse Chopard started making his own watches (as well as improvements in watch movement design) in 1860. The Rolex (1906) claim to fame originally had more initially to do with case design and sealing out water (hence the "Oyster" moniker) than anything mechanical. All that came later on.
Reliability- Again we compare a young man to someone of middle age. In its short 30-year history,the Mille Miglia has been just as reliable as the older Submariner. It's just that the Rolex gets all the fascination and print media popularity.

I can see no clear winner in this comparison. The bottom line here is which watch do you see yourself being happier with, 5 and 15 years from now? Which one appeals to your eye more? That is the one you want to buy.