>>18526305
The "luxuriousness" of Rolex is generally overrated (oh wow you made an incomplete calendar and it only took you 30 years, congratulations you are now on par with where everyone else was in the 90s), that's one thing to keep in mind but as far as UN is concerned they have a few things over Rolex :
>UN is in another universe when it comes to complications
>UN has better craftsmanship, as in they have craftsmanship in the first place whereas Rolex is pretty much entirely made by machines and operators
>UN has a history of innovation in recent years which is worth mentionning. See how everyone is moving to silicon hairsprings? They did it first.
>lesser known brand so you can have something that's not going to be on the wrist of every 50-something having a midlife crisis
It comes with some drawbacks though :
>lesser known brand so nobody will know or care what your watch is aside from turbonerds who will likely just know about the Freak
>"unique styling" aka most of their watches look horrendous and are huge
>all-proprietary for an independant brand, meaning service will take forever and cost a ton
>prices are not very competitive. Their least expensive watches (time and date titanium Diver with a home-built ETA with modifications thus likely to be some end of stock and soon to be discontinued ; and Torpilleur in steel, date and power reserve) are 8k and 10k at retail. I don't need to tell you that you have "better options" if you care about specs
>no value retention whatsoever if that's something you care about
Are they "more luxurious" than Rolex? I would say yes, easily.
Are they CONSIDERED more luxurious than Rolex by most people? No, because most people have a seriously inflated idea of how luxurious Rolex is, and no idea of what makes Ulysse Nardin what they are. And a lot of their models won't have a "luxurious look" at first glance. ESPECIALLY their divers which are mostly titanium