I don't know why anyone needs a watch at all- most of us have a phone if we really need to check the time & if the loss or gain of 1 or 2 seconds a day is important to anyone, & I don't care who they are- they have lost the plot and need to get a life.
My opinion of Rolex watches: expensive stuff that looks like cheap trinkets. I'd rather have a Swatch.
I used to think this way. For the longest time I didn't wear a watch and relied solely on my phone.
However, I'm going back to wearing a watch because:
- In a meeting it's not polite to check my cell phone, but it's ok to glance at my watch
- My watch is waterproof to 100m, while my phone probably survives getting wet a little.
- I can quickly check time while my hands are full. A cell phone needs one free hand.
- I'm actually training myself to not be on my phone all the time. I pull the phone out just to check the time, but before I know it I'd be checking emails, browsing, etc. Not good.
I own at least three Swatch Skins, roughly $100 a piece. Because they're plastic, they look beat up after just a year of use. The crystal and the case are all plastic, so they get scratched up. My current 'beater' watch is a Victorinox with a sapphire crystal and heavy stainless steel case, costing about three Swatches. Only diamond is harder than synthetic sapphire, so it's not gonna scratch.
I actually agree that Swatch offers the best value for money. Swatch is a big company that owns many brands, all of them offer good bang for the buck. Hamilton and Tissot are Swatch brands, priced 2-3 times their plastic sisters but far more durable due to their sapphire and steel construction. Their luxury line, Omega, is every bit as good as any Rolex, yet still costing far less. This is a performance watch worn by Prince William, as well as many SAS soldiers. Oh, and James Bond too.
The -2/+2 seconds accuracy is only important when you consider the price of a Rolex. For a $60 Seiko 5, nobody cares if it's off a little. But, when you pay $8000 for a watch, that thing better perform.