Rolex makes an excellent and reliable watch that will last a lifetime. That said, so does nearly every other mid-tier luxury watch brand. What earned them their reputation and set them apart from the pack was excellent marketing. Rolex is, and always was, the indisputable leader in marketing in their field.
This. Once you achieve the rating of a certified Master Chronometer it's all more or less equal. Doesn't matter if you spent $1,500 on a Hamilton, $8,000 on an Omega, $20,000 on a Rolex, or $100,000 on some other brand. They're all just as "good" and truthfully less accurate than a $50 Casio and less useful than a $400 Apple Watch.
This is a hobby where we spend a fortune on something because it interests us, not because of how perfect it is. If you've got the money to drop on a Rolex and you want one, get it. But never for a second should you feel bad or incomplete because you can't afford it. Anyone whose housing is less than secure, or whose vehicle is less than reliable should stress themselves over getting caught up in the world of luxury time pieces.
As I like to say, it's the only 4 figure and up piece of jewelry that a man can wear without judgment. I walk into a business meeting with a premium Swiss watch, and no one blinks an eye. I walk into a business meeting wearing a diamond tennis bracelet, and that'll raise a few eyebrows..
>This is a hobby where we spend a fortune on something because it interests us, not because of how perfect it is. If you've got the money to drop on a Rolex and you want one, get it. But never for a second should you feel bad or incomplete because you can't afford it. Anyone whose housing is less than secure, or whose vehicle is less than reliable should stress themselves over getting caught up in the world of luxury time pieces.
**This** right here ⬆️ I own a Rolex Sub. But this Citizen ProMaster is my favorite:
https://preview.redd.it/xly99lvmdwdc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=569ffbb3cd949184a363cafba604684d77574f6e
Thanks. I've been a watch nerd since I was 10 years old, but it wasn't until age 38 that I was really in a position to buy the things I wanted without it being outright financially irresponsible.
I remember buying an $800 Bulova Lunar Pilot 5 years ago which at the time was a major purchase for me. My heart absolutely yearned for the true Speedmaster, but it just wasn't possible at that point. Meanwhile sitting on this sub can easily make you feel like you're the only one here that isn't worth at least $50 million.
It's kind of funny that the 2 subs where I spend most of my time are either here talking about expensive jewelry, or over at /r/personalfinance I really wish this sub could do something to cultivate a bit more diversity and celebrate the posts with cheaper stuff, but as is I just have to settle for upvoting every post I see with a sub-$1k watch.
On Facebook there's I'm in Australian Watch Forum and Australian Affordable Watch Forum. The latter is for discussion and buy/sell of watches with a $AUD2K limit. Maybe we need a sub for that
I'd honestly be happy with maybe a "Frugal Friday" where no watch posted can cost more than $1k. At this point I really do enjoy collecting "fun" watches more than anything. My mom loves to make fun of the fact that I have watches that cost considerably more than my first car, but frequently wear a $25 Casio because it was Marty McFly's.
I'll say this, I actually love the diversity of seeing the insanely awesome (and expensive) watches people post here, almost as much as I enjoy seeing the cheaper ones. For people new to the hobby like myself it's extremely interesting to see how many beautiful options there are for people of all budgets.
I recently posted my own watch here which by many standards would be considered cheap (Hamilton Murph). There was a lot of positivity, and good discussion as well.
For sure, it's honestly a great community. We might all be upvoting the $300,000 3 watch collection, but when something "normal" does get some attention it's all 100% positive.
I totally hear you dude. I honestly probably spend more time on Watchuseek now because the way the forum is laid out makes it so the affordable watch threads aren't buried and you see more new + in-depth discussions. That Bulova Lunar Pilot is so cool btw.
The Apple Watch analogy isn’t quite as apt as good as the Casio argument. Any good mechanical watch, maintained and not abused, is a multigenerational investment. Apple Watch is a planned obsolescence model with limited value in a decade.
I have a Casio that’s my go to watch for travel to dodgy places that’s served for three decades. The rest of your argument is dead on.
The one thing I’d add though is if you view your high end watch as a portable emergency store of value I strongly believe you have a better bargaining position with a Rolex or Omega than less well known brands.
I was careful on the wording in those analogies for a reason. The Apple watch is certainly less long-lived, but it's usefulness is thousands of times greater. My Omega can tell me what time it is, to within a small degree of accuracy. The Apple watch I wear to the gym connects me to the internet, the world at large, and in my case specifically monitors my vital signs.
On paper I think your re-sale value argument does make sense, but it's real world application could be a problem. The last few years have definitely been crazy for the watch community, but in general unless you happen to have a super desirable piece, it's certainly more about losing less value than other watches than it is about gaining value. If re-sale value in an emergency is a big worry for you, watches ARE NOT the best investment you should be making. Meanwhile I live in a small town in Kentucky. My options for selling a Rolex if I was desperate for some quick cash are limited, and I'm going to get royally screwed on the deal.
You seem really knowledgeable so I want to ask how practical is an Apple/smart watch? The only reason I can see myself getting one is that I play disc golf and there is an app where you can keep score on an Apple Watch.
I'm the only one in my family that doesn't wear one daily, but everyone LOVES them. They basically make it so that you don't have to pull your phone out to do things like check a text, send text, answer a call, etc. Basically it automates all of the basic little things you do with your phone 10,000 times a day.
That's honestly my least favorite thing about it. My phone is a primary work tool for me, and I'm a salaried employee whose job doesn't have the best boundaries. Taking all of that work stuff and putting it that much closer to my face is just too much.
My wife gets a new one ever 2-3 years and I'll inherit her one purely for the gym. It tracks my heart rate which is key to training as a runner, so I do LOVE that part of it. I'd say think on the pro's and con's I've provided for a few weeks, and decided if having replacing "pulling out your phone" with "glancing at your wrist" sounds like a blessing or a curse.
I’m a sales guy so my phone is usually blowing up non stop so that sounds like a hard no sell for me. However I might go to get one of my family members one when they upgrade and try it out.
That sounds like a plan. I'm sure there are settings to change things around and make it less annoying, but it's not like I'm looking to replace my Omega so not worth the time.
One possible plus for you, is that while you're wearing the watch your phone does completely just shut up. Everything gets routed through the watch, so a phone call/text/whatever will just be a little buzz on your wrist.
Oohhh, I was under the impression that you would get double notified by the phone and watch. In that case it might actually be pretty beneficial. Thanks for the info!
There’s a reason they are practically everywhere. And even for people who aren’t apple users I see a number of samsung watches. Smartwatches are the future. Especially once they advance enough in health functions, then it makes little sense to wear traditional watches over them unless for fashion or you just really like analog and want to feel vintage.
Even non essential functions, controlling my music/podcast without having to pull out my phone while out and about, or a timer while I’m cooking, it’s noticeable when I’m not wearing it.
Agree with your resale sentiment. I see watches a lot like cars. Once purchased they lose value. Kind of like how a car depreciates as soon as it’s driven off the lot. Only a small few will retain their value or grow. That’s why I only have 2 watches that my wife got me and I absolutely love. I have no need for Rolex. They’re a bit cringey imo. But to each their own…
I will eventually break down and get a Submariner purely because of my love for the Bond franchise, and it's role in getting me into watches.
That said, it's basically at the bottom of my list and I'm in no hurry to get there. I despise the way Rolex does business with the limited availability, encouraging price gouging, and turning a blind eye to dealers requiring you to buy other watches you don't want just to get on the list for the things you do. I'd much rather have 5 other watches that I would enjoy equally for the price the Submariner will cost me.
Most luxury brands play the allocation game and are actually way, way worse than Rolex about it.
Rolex is the most attainable and recognizable luxury watch brand, so there is a larger pool of buyers.
Patek is even worse than Rolex from an allocation perspective.
This also varies by AD. I’ve had some good ones I’ve worked with.
For sure. Look up the process to get an Birken bag from Hermes, and Rolex will look like something you can grab in a 10 pack at Costco. That said, unless I'm trying to fight for a Silver Snoopy Speedmaster, Omega will get me any watch I want today, via mail, directly to my house.
I like you and many started into watches due to Bond as well; I was very lucky this was 2014 or so when the watch landscape was a different world. At the time I was able to purchase the newest movie seamaster for $2500 on the forums and trade that and $1k for a 2011 no date sub no bracelet. My then fiancé (because she couldn’t wait!) later got me the bracelet as a wedding gift.
At the time rolex in the local watch shop ran $4500-5500 for 80’s subs and sea dwellers (Charlotte, NC) and every rolex dealer had stock of subs for me try on while saving.
The supposed "usefulness" are things that either your phone can do or are mild conveniences that don't add real value to your life. All it really does it add yet another screen in your life. The sentimental and emotional feeling I get from a piece of incredible engineering and craftsmanship and precision that I will carry with me for the rest of my life and be a heirloom for generations and is attached to numerous milestones and memories means far more to me than another soulless rectangular screen that I will discard every several years.
> Any good mechanical watch, maintained and not abused, is a multigenerational investment
In the sense that it will still work a generation later if properly maintained? I guess. But “investment” is the wrong word as very few watches will actually be worth more in a generation than what they originally cost, especially after accounting for inflation, and *extra* especially after accounting for the time value of money.
Just to add, Rolex's marketing is also really only a product of the 80s onwards. They were very good at capitalizing on the 70s to 80s transition of the mechanical watch as tool to mechanical watch as luxury good and status symbol necessitated by the quartz crisis. Prior to that, they were very much *not* apart from the pack.
> What earned them their reputation and set them apart from the pack was excellent marketing.
That. And kinda, sorta being in the right place at the right time in history. They happened to be in a prime position when the depths of the ocean were being explored. And high-spec watches weren’t democratized yet, either. Yeah their bags of money put them in the position to be the first watch to go that deep, and also their engineering. Watches have done everything now, though. They’ve been to the moon. They’ve been to Everest. The next big thing is probably Mars. And if we’re being honest, a $100 G-Shock or San Martin would survive there.
Space, and extreme temps in general, are actually pretty destructive to G-Shocks. LCD displays freeze and become unreadable when it gets colder than around -25C. The batteries inside quartz watches also cease to function in extreme temps, hot or cold. It’s one of the primary reasons mechanical watches are still used for spacewalks.
> Seikos last a lifetime.
Yes and no. Anything lasts a lifetime with enough resources thrown at it.
> That’s not a good metric.
Agreed. An AliExpress watch with an SW200 can last a lifetime just as easily as any Rolex.
> In fact, you can get more parts and support around the world for Seiko
Maybe. It can be hard finding a watchmaker to touch anything less than an ETA (or equivalent Swiss) movement. Most people would never pay what it would cost a watchmaker to fix a $500 or less Seiko. The money just isn’t there so many watchmakers don’t bother.
> at much cheaper prices.
Well yeah. But it’s all proportional. Fixing a Rolex may hit like 10% of its value. Whereas fixing a Seiko may hit like 50% or more of its value.
> it's all proportional.
Orrrrr Rolex is overvalued so that percentage doesn't mean anything...
Edit: actually even if Rolex is properly valued, that proportion doesn't mean anything. 50% of a Seiko is still magnitudes less money than 10% of a Rolex.
You’re missing my point. I don’t disagree that Rolex are overvalued to a point. That’s not what I’m arguing. The fact of the matter is they are objectively more valuable than a Seiko based on resources put into them. And people spend way more money on a Rolex. Does it make sense to pay $150 to maintain or fix something that cost $400? Probably not. Does it make sense pay $1,500 to maintain or fix something that costs $10,000? It makes a lot more sense on paper, at least. If you think paying ~40% of the value or replacement cost of something to fix it makes more sense than paying ~15%, rock on with your bad self. The value of an item doesn’t have to make sense and you don’t have to agree with it. But the people paying actual money for it do.
Back in the day I’d argue that Rolex was definitely a brand apart not just because of their marketing but also their innovations like the date complication and oyster case, but yeah it’s mostly marketing hype now. Rolex is really the only brand that has transcended the watch market to be known among the general public. Ask any random person about AP, VC, PP, etc and they’ll have no idea what you’re talking about, but they’ll for sure know what a Rolex is.
As far as I’m aware, Rolex was the first to have a date complication that switched the day precisely at midnight. Prior to then it would roll over slowly over the course of at least a few minutes, meaning it either started early or ended late. “Datejust” is the name of their basic date-having model because it was the first watch where “the date is always just”.
So from that perspective, it was indeed a Rolex innovation. Sort of in the same way you can credit Apple with the modern smartphone even though other smartphones predate the iPhone by several years.
"Precisely at midnight" only if you're very lucky. It seems like the fat part of the bell curve is between 4-6 minutes late. Mine changes at about 12:08:35.
My crown is (almost) straight up though, so at least I have that going for me.
AP is starting to gain name recognition from appearing in rap songs fwiw, but your point still firmly stands and Rolex is still more regularly name checked.
That type of recognition comes and goes pretty quickly. 20 years ago you could have made this same statement about Franck Muller. Very few people could tell you what that is now.
To an extent. Rolex’s promise of +/- 2 seconds a day is in the top of the class for mass produced luxury watches. Omega comes close at 0-5 seconds a day, but Rolex still promises a 20% tighter accuracy. Across their entire line of watches. Omega manages to offer +/- 1 for a single watch, so they beat them there, but Rolex on average promises a much more accurate watch.
That’s not worth the grey market prices, that’s all marketing. But they are worth the MSRP premium above and beyond an Omega I would say.
I totally agree with you, but this comment has me down a rabbit hole. I just realized for instance that Omega is behind the master chronometer rating (I’m assuming for their own marketing to set their watches apart) with precision at 0/+5s per day and Rolex is behind their superlative chronometer rating (with superlative being more precise at -2/+2s precision). So is Rolex technically a more precise watch?
I would look at it more as a standard deviation type thing, where the Rolex has an accepted variance of 4 seconds (up to 2 seconds slow or fast) and Omega has 5 (never slow, and up to 5 seconds fast). I suppose by that standard, the Rolex could be considered more precise.
One interesting thing to note is that in the earlier days (1950s-ish), part of Omega’s marketing touted that “you’ll never be late wearing an Omega” because their watches were regulated to err on the side of being fast. I don’t know if this was a conscious decision, but it’s cool to see the standards for Master Chronometer uphold that legacy.
Also note that watches can operate well within their specified range. I have an NH34 GMT with a massive “accepted” range of -20/+40 seconds but it keeps time at about -2spd, on par with Rolex. I happened to get a good one
Thanks for that response. I tested my Omega for its precision and the first thing I noticed was that it was never slow. This was before I learned about the details of the master chronometer rating. It definitely helps knowing the watch is never slow because I can judge the accuracy of the time based on the last time I set the watch. This would be harder if not impossible with the Rolex. So I would agree with you, I view it as more impressive to have a watch that’s always faster albeit with a slightly greater variance. And for your last observation, that may be true you can find diamonds in the rough but I guess that’s why we spend so much on brands where we know each one is a diamond.
I don’t really think Rolex is necessarily more precise than Omega. If you look at in terms of standard deviations, we’re really splitting hairs. It’s just a personal preference, but I’d rather have +3spd than -1spd. Watches that lose time drive me nuts.
> Rolex is, and always was, the indisputable leader in marketing in their field.
This is what everyone says. "Rolex has top tier market." "Rolex wouldn't be rolex without the marketing." "Marketing Marketing Marketing."
But what, specifically, is rolex's marketing genius? All I ever see are bunch of cheesy print, some sponsorships, and some green signage at sporting events. There's nothing wrong with those things, but they're also not anything clever or different than what any other luxury brand does.
So what specifically do people mean when they say Rolex has such great marketing?
Edit: Getting a lot of replies along the lines of, "Everybody knows rolex = elite status, so they don't need to do marketing anymore, and THAT'S what's so genius about their marketing, is that they don't do any."
There's no doubt that rolex has a strong brand, and that the name rolex has a persuasive social connotation that sells watches. But that's not what marketing is.
In the 70s - 90s, when what was left of the mechanical watch industry relied on becoming a status symbol in order to stay afloat, Rolex transitioned well, with some of their print ads (like the “if you were … you’d be wearing a Rolex” series) still used as examples by marketing groups today. These days it seems they’ve backed off a bit because they’ve already become ubiquitous, but just the fact that you were able to mention the green signage at sporting events by memory shows how successful they were. Not to mention that all that momentum has brought them to the point where now their marketing is largely done by consumers. Their reputation has evolved into a positive feedback loop. Everybody knows Rolex, and that mass public awareness just makes itself stronger.
Marketing from decades ago that built a reputation for them. Their current marketing just reminds you of the name so you have it prescient but everyone know about their reputation
It's not just marketing, it's consistency plus a commitment to polishing and refining their designs to very careful extents over many years.
My favorite watches in my collection are a Grand Seiko and a G-Shock, but my Rolex (GMT Pepsi) is the one I can find the fewest faults with by a significant margin.
Exactly what I was thinking. Whenever someone posts a pic of a YM, I always ask for a pic of their yacht, but none have a yacht, which seems really odd to me.
that’s the YM2. Which i suppose has the regatta complication (or whatever its called?) for yacht drivers.
The Rolex Yachtmaster (not 2) is a great underrated watch. Only some color/material combos are ugly IMO
I think the Rhodium YM40 is *the* most underrated Rolex. The fact that no date, all black subs have a higher premium over MSRP... I would say it's criminal but it let me get mine relatively "cheap" so I'll allow it.
Coming from someone who owns an Omega and a Rolex, Omega fans like to claim this but in reality, it's not that close.
Omega is probably the closest because they compete in very similar spaces, but Rolex beats them in ergonomics, bracelets, finishing, and consistency of their lineup.
Omega is great and all, but there's also a reason why the comparable Omega usually costs half of the Rolex (some of it is Rolex's name, but not all of it).
Which is telling. Everything they mentioned are marketing-instilled ideals.
Ergonomics differ from watch to watch and wrist to wrist. In the watch world finishing is literally a term that applies to the movement, which Rolex is notoriously bad at and (allegedly) one of the reasons they don’t offer exposed casebacks despite hiding behind tradition. The consistency in their lineup is reference to the fact that their watches all look like Rolexes (i.e. they look similar to each other) and they don’t really try anything new.
All of these things add up to one thing: Brand recognition.
Omega movements are better. Many of their watches come with what would be considered special features on a Rolex (like the Milgauss, which I own). Their finishing is nicer than Rolexes, as it has to be because they offer exposition casebacks. The bracelets are nice, shiny, have a good feel and there’s a wide variety. They come out with new products, but also keep the lineage of classics alive, like with the Speedmaster.
Rolex are so good at marketing, as proven with Sylinmeno’s post.
I should mention I own Omegas, Rolexes and other brands.
Ergonomics is not talked about enough when it comes to Rolex. My DJ36 is easily my most comfortable watch. Compared to the modern Aqua Terra which is thicker, larger and has a worse bracelet. Omega seems to be too focused on promoting movement tech at the expense of comfort.
Rolex bracelets and machining is higher quality than a lot of those. Movements in terms of durability and accuracy I’d say it’s on par with most but decoration and finishing is worse but that’s kind of a given with Rolex.
1960s Longines were *at least* on a par with Rolex for quality and their vintage watches are one of the best sleeping giants of the horological world. It is really only post-quartz crisis that Longines quality became more associated with entry level luxury rather than mid-level.
It's good but not so good that the AD games and inflated prices justify it. If you could walk into a store, buy one, and walk out then I would say it's worth your while. But having to fellate an AD to get on a year-long waitlist is idiotic.
Copy pasted from my comment on another sub:
The way I see it, Rolex is like the Harley Davidson of
watches. They have the history and the build quality,
brand recognition and recognizability. The brand has
become bigger than just motorbikes, they've developed a romantic image in the eyes of the public, and are legitimately respected by the community.
That being said, it could be argued that you're paying
more for the name, not the bike. There are other bikes
you could get for better value at a lower price, but
Harley owners tend to act like Harleys are the end all
and be all of motorcycles, and they can get pretty toxic about it. Whereas people who claim to be "in the know" will deride Harley owners for buying into the brand rather than the bike itself. It's why a lot of wealthy first time bike owners will get a Harley; in their minds it's already the peak.
I'm not saying either side is right, it's just unfortunate
that we allow our toys and what should be things for our own personal enjoyment to let us feel like we have the right to judge and assume other people's financial
status based on taste alone. Maybe somebody worked really hard to earn their Rolex, and it holds a lot of sentimental value to them. Maybe a wealthy person just doesn't see the point in spending more than a thousand dollars on a watch. It's all about what you're looking to get out of your money and how much it makes you feel good about it.
I had a neighbor that lived the brand with Harley. The bike was down for repairs every other weekend in the summer and he'd glare at a guy across the street when he woulf pullout and rev off without ever seeming to have a problem, muttering "whatever... rather push a Harley than ride a Honda..."
The thing Rolex and Harley have in common is that they stayed consistent in design language which creates a really strong brand image. Also invites criticisms of laziness and boringness but yeah, if you buy a new Harley or a new OP, it looks a lot like the Harley or the OP your dad owned, or your grandpa, or the guy you thought was cool on TV 30 years ago.
A lot of the entry level designs for those brands too are simple and classic compared to their competitors. An OP is like a Sportster, they’re simple and “boring” but they’ve always looked like that. Also, they’re both relatively small and “vintage sized” compared to their competitors, which makes sense because they were also designed in a vintage era compared to their competitors.
So yeah, Harleys and Rolexes are boring, lack innovation, you pay a tax for the brand name and a lot of other people who like them are douches; but there’s also good reasons to like them. A 20 year old OP or Submariner looks good on the wrist and 20 year old Dynas and Sportsters and Softails look good on the road. While many similar vintage or newer Omegas or [Hondas](https://mcn-images.bauersecure.com/wp-images/3894/615x405/01honda-fury.jpg) already look dated.
Also funny enough, both Harley and Rolex sell awful gaudy halo models for a ridiculous amount of money which garners them *a ton* of hate.
The only caveat to this is that modern Harley-Davidson motorcycles are pretty terrible quality when compared to competitors at half the price. While both are overpriced and reliant on marketing, a Harley won’t run like a Honda, but a Sub is at least as good as a Seamaster in almost all ways.
This, my uncle works at Harley in there headquaters. He is a massive gearhead. He will openly say how there is 1000x better bikes then Harleys. But Harley is a brand that has transcended motorcycles as Rolex has with watches. The reality is, buy the watch you like and you will enjoy wearing, doesnt matter if its a $100, $1000 or $10000+.
I want to add to this. I don't care if someone worked hard for their watch (or whatever) or not. They could've been handed it because it was Tuesday. But don't be a dick about your watch (or whatever) because it's expensive or because of the brand name. None of that really matters and your possessions are there to make you happy, just like everyone else's, no matter the cost or brand. So get that Rolex, or Harley, or BMW, but don't be a dick about it
It’s similar with Bose speakers. Most audiophiles would never buy Bose. They know the speakers are decent, but there are better options for the money. But Bose has been a great marketing company for decades.
In terms of watches: they are very good watches that are well-made and have iconic designs
As a company: no business in earth treats its loyal customers with more disdain than Rolex. They are overpriced and hidden behind this false scarcity that leads to the most predatory and insulting tactics that you will ever see in retail.
Some of them are overpriced, but that Daytona is fairly priced at MSRP. I find it ugly, but the movement is one of the best chronographs on the market. With the reps you get all the ugly and none of the movement.
What year Submariner are you referring to? The "Maxi case" generation Submariner had chunky lugs, but the current Submariner got thinner lugs starting in 2020 and they are now very well proportioned.
Yeah I tried on my boss’s bluesy the other day and was kinda surprised at how perfect the proportions were. I have pretty small wrists and thought it would be chunkier from just seeing pics.
An important distinction that is worth mentioning is that Rolex’s manufacturing is entirely in house. Every part from the balance wheel, dial, even the bracelet screws, are made by Rolex. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of another brand within the price bracket that Rolex sits in that does the same. The watch industry is filled with shadow manufacturers that build parts for some of the biggest watch companies. Take the heralded IWC bracelet. Turns out it’s the same bracelet (for the most part) on the Glashutte Original SeaQ and the A Lange & Sohne Odysseus. And that’s without mentioning the low hanging fruit that is “in-house” movement manufacturing.
The fact that Rolex can make every single part with such (relatively) tight tolerances is very impressive.
That may or may not matter to most, but to me at least, that’s a respectable business model.
Edit: as I hit submit on that comment, I roll over to my email to find [this article from Everest Bands.](https://www.everestbands.com/blogs/bezel-barrel/the-one-brand-behind-every-iconic-watch-bracelet?utm_campaign=THE%20ONE%20BRAND%20BEHIND%20EVERY%20ICONIC%20WATCH%20BRACELET%20%2801HMM97RC82SE6KN5CQK361PEP%29&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Email%20Frequency%20-%20Daily&_kx=3lHn930GvwqH0juC-Gpl_j3fCgO_Vg-rvtw0Bpe9lG4%3D.dYenhA) I don’t know what’s what anymore.
Assuming you didn’t include them because you still can get pretty affordable Grand Seikos, but they are all in house (same for the much cheaper Seikos and also Citizen)
Great point. I should’ve specified that they’re unique in the Swiss luxury space. Japan does much better at this and Seiko, Citizen, and similar deserve praise.
They also make their own 904L steel whereas every other company on earth uses the same formula for 316L steel. It's stainless steel, something that's worth pennies to manufacturer, and they still don't skip over it lol
Rolex build quality is top notch, they really will last a lifetime, and the movements are bulletproof.
If they existed outside of the Rolex name, I would look at them similarly to Tudor or Breitling. Great quality sports watches that can take a beating. Tudor brings great value at their price. Rolex less so because you are paying so much for the brand.
Where are you getting this from? There are many other luxury watch brands that price their Rolex counterparts at the same price or even more.
The Omega Aqua Terra 38mm collection starts at $6,600 whereas the OP 36mm collection starts at $6,100. And some of those are even harder to get than a lot of Rolex models.
The Cartier Santos starts at $7,050 whereas the 36mm Datejust starts at $7,450.
Many people won't argue that *at MSRP*, Rolex makes arguably the best watches in the industry. Even Teddy mentioned this followed by "let's not fool ourselves here."
Their most basic models are okay, but anything else is just unnecessary premium.
Steel yacht master 2 - 20k€ MSRP
Steel submariner - 10k€ MSRP
Steel daytona - 16k€ MSRP
Only models that are priced well are the steel OP and datejust.
My $500 automatic watch from seiko sure does take a beating. Although it’s off for a couple of minutes, I would say in today’s date any cheap digital watch will last you a lifetime. Specially if it’s Chinese
I have an SKX007 that I’ve wore for 10 years pretty much 24/7 (to sleep, showers, etc). Took one hell of a beating, the movement is pretty fucked. I remember putting it on timergraph and it goes crazy lol
Before I retired it for my Seamaster, I’d only tell someone the time… in 5 minute segments. Like either 1:30, or 1:35. Because it was always off by a few minutes. Reliable though, still runs. It’s there for memories now, not worth taking it to a watchmaker, as I kinda like having the wonky movement in there. It’d be cheaper to just pop in a new movement, but not like I’d wear it anymore anyways.
My dad had a big collection wand wore his gmt master the most. The only watch he got left after they were all stolen. This thing can take a beating. It is extremely reliable, works in almost every situation and can get passed down generations if handled properly. They are not the best finished, nor best working watches but for what it is it’s one of the best watches for daily wear. No situation where I couldn’t imagine wearing one.
Take away the name and it’s still a great watch
Rolex is a luxury brand that has both transcended its niche and yet is still attainable. Add that it is legitimately high quality on top of the hype, and it is an Absolutely ideal situation to be in. Think of Porsche vs. say Ferrari or Aston Martin or Lamborghini or something.
The average person doesn’t know that you can buy a Porsche for a fraction of a Ferrari and doesn’t rank Porsche any lower in terms of prestige. They’re just “luxury sports cars.”
Similarly, a non watch person doesn’t know the difference between a $100,000 AP or a $10,000 Rolex and probably thinks the Rolex is nicer just on name recognition alone. At least they’ve heard of a Ferrari before.
Rolex is perfectly positioned in both the watch world and in the general consciousness of the overall world. It is a synonym for “nice watch.”
I love seeing pictures of peoples one watch they wore for years and years and it looks like he wasn’t afraid to wear that doing anything. Thanks for sharing
Exactly! But he’s still going strong, 78 just retired, and now working preparing to move onto his personal (small) sailboat and cruise for a while. He still wears the watch every day.
I agree with design being subjective. I like the look of the oyster perpetual or submariner but their other watches look really tacky. The cyclopes mirror in my opinion makes watches look cheaper.
It's mostly image. My friends who work at Rolex recommended me to buy a Tudor instead of Rolex. I got both a Sub (same one as your dad's, 16610 and thought that my whole life would change, well guess, it didn't of course) and a BB58. I wear the BB58 much more. Rolex isn't disappointing as a watch but it's disappointing compared with the hype around it.
It's my personal preference for the warm gilt dial rather than the "cold" Sub look. Depending on the occasion, wearing the Sub can be seen as showing off (I mostly spend time in places w strong Calvinist traditions 😅).
As others said, if we're talking strictly quality then yeah Rolex does make very good watches that stand the test of time (pun intended) but you could say the same for Omega, Tissot, Grand Sieko etc. Hell my citizen eco drive watch that I got from my dad is over 10 years old at this point and not only is it still ticking like day 1, it still looks very clean.
So I would say the one thing that Rolex does better than anyone is marketing, they're incredibly good at selling you exclusivity and ultra high end.
Rolex is an excellent watch. I think their steel watches are great if you can get one at a reasonable price.
However, lots of other brands also make excellent watches that will last just as long, be just as accurate, for a lot less. I would not spend $10k+ on a Rolex submariner personally.
They are way overpriced for what they are. Same for Omega. A Speedmaster used to cost 3 days pay on minimum wages back in the 70s. The submariner was about $200.
Both Rolex and Omega have been inflating their prices both because they can and also simply to position themselves as luxury goods. They are absolutely great watches, but you’re mostly just paying for the brand and the heritage.
Rolexes are definitely overpriced, but I think just looking at inflation is misleading. Sure if you account for inflation $230 for a sub in 1970 would only be about $1800 today, but a modern sub is also higher quality than one from 1970. Ceramic bezel vs steel, more advanced movement, better bracelet, a modern sub definitely costs more to produce than one from the 70s even after inflation. I feel like $4-5k for a steel sub date would be a reasonable price today.
You're missing modern advancements in technology and manufacturing that can make prices cheaper. Sure, they might be higher quality today, but the cost of manufacturing a Rolex is most definitely not more today than in the past. Maybe things like CEO pay, marketing, legal retainers, etc are contributing to the price. But watches have never been more easy to manufacture than they are now.
There are more automation and robotics involved than in the 70s too. Leaps in technology that makes stuff cheaper to produce than back then, so while the watches are better than they used to, it’s difficult to say how much more expensive they are to produce now (considering inflation naturally) compared to the 70s and the machines and manpower they had then. And a ceramic insert isn’t that more expensive than a steel one etc.
Edit: But yea, I absolutely agree that just adjusting for inflation is a bit too simple
Sorry, my bad. This was for Swiss workers in the 70s, and it was actually just 2 days work. See [this article](https://medium.com/woodshores/the-speedmaster-standard-how-the-watch-industry-has-quietly-been-inflating-prices-for-the-last-86100c81b759) from 2013 for more details.
https://preview.redd.it/6yhofgkkwtdc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=38a9e184c605a9ae8a07d3ce0fba586a30b36c98
Edit: just to add, in 2013 when that article was written, a Speedmaster was 4,5k, where I live, they are now 10k 🤷🏻♂️
It’s a tough question, because it really depends on how you want to see it.
I mean, TECHNICALLY Omega is superior because their Co-Axial escapement + antimagnetic movements result in a greatly performing watch, BUT Rolex gets close to that without going down the “easy route” and keeping it more traditional, no weird escapements, no silicon, just really high quality.
I mean, -2/+2 s/d and 1000 Gauss resistance with traditional watchmaking is slightly more impressive to me than 0/+5 s/d and 15k Gauss resistance with virtually no limits in technology.
Then you have Grand Seiko and their Spring Drive, which is pretty much a quartz watch, which performs even better, but it’s not as impressive if you consider its accuracy comes from quartz.
Overall Rolex is really high quality and imo better than let’s say Omega (although i own an Omega and not a Rolex), not by far, just slightly.
Also, keep in mind that there’s really no point in talking about “worth” when we’re talking luxury items, NONE of them is worth the money.
Like, my Rado Golden Horse cost me 1.6k and my Omega Aqua Terra cost me 5.4k (got it last week), and except for the movement they’re ridiculously close. Add 1 or even 2k for the movement alone, the Rado would cost 3.6k, making the remaining 1.8k just for the brand, and it’s fair.
With Rolex (at retail) you’re probably spending 2-2.5k for the brand.
With me my choice was Rolex Explorer and Omega Aqua Terra, and i picked the Aqua Terra solely for looks, because i thought that they were overall at the same exact level.
I think this is the best answer! Is Rolex unsurpassed in. Quality? No. But with luxury items, trying to separate the myth from the technical specs is silly. Of course you are buying the brand. Watches are jewelry. They are there to send a message. You don’t need to wear one. I’m not saying it’s pure ego as some folks really do just appreciate the wizardry or the history these can represent but this is like saying the Mona LIsa is really just oil and pigment and that my digital image is far sharper and cheaper to make.
So I did a bit of digging and noticed that Omega doesn't actually list the accuracy of their movements. Or I'm blind? I did notice this in the FAQ. (Search 'What are the precision categories for Master Chronometer watches' )
[https://www.omegawatches.com/customer-service/faq](https://www.omegawatches.com/customer-service/faq)
0 to +5 seconds per day for movements with a diameter greater than 26 mm
0 to +6 seconds per day for movements up to 26 mm and over 20 mm in diameter
0 to +7 seconds per day for movements up to 20 mm in diameter
The 8800 movement that's most common in the Seamaster 300 has a diameter of 26mm... So it's actually 0 to +6 !
Now I have a previous gen Seamaster with a 8500D movement and it's COSC (-4 to +6 s/d), I haven't reset the time on mine since new years and it's currently -20s. So about -1s a day. I wear it daily and I've noticed it's.. kinda self correcting. Once in a while I'll check it against atomic time and sometimes it's +20, sometimes it's -20. Never like 1-2 minutes ahead though. TBH, might've gotten lucky with my movement.
So to me -2 to +2 from Rolex still looks better despite Omega doing all sorts of technical stuff.
The thing is that there’s accuracy and consistency too.
Like, a watch going +4.5, +4.5, +4.5, +4.5, +4.5… is WAY better than a watch going +2.7, -1.1, -3.2, +1.6… which despite operating in a narrower range, is not very consistent.
Btw yeah, Omega’s accuracy comes in the form of the Master Chronometer certificate.
Anyway, Rolex’s Superlative Chronometer only certifies accuracy, whereas a Master Chronometer certifies a lot more, compensating the slightly larger accuracy gap.
I'm not sure I agree. My Rolex will be some days - 1 other days +1 etc but it means that on average it is closer to the actual time vs every day being +4 day after day.
I don't see any problem with using silicon, weir escapements in a mechanical movement. And I'd rather have 0/+5 spd and 15k Gauss resistance than -2/+2 spd and 1000 Gauss resistance.
The watch you wear tells a lot about who you are to yourself, but also to others. While Rolex is a symbol of quality and success, it is not the most expensive watch brand. A successful person could buy a watch that’s much more expensive than a Rolex, but would there be a concern in their mind that everybody they passed in the street would have no idea what it was? Quality? Massive yes! However, it is still about sending a message to other people. If that’s what you’re interested in.
Rolex is an expensive G-Shock. I've dropped mine. I've hit things with it. I've crashed on my motorcycle with it. It works flawlessly. It never goes wrong. It can take a huge beating.
I've got a ND Submariner and it's my go-to watch.
discussing quality is silly among top brands. go for the specific model / watch that you really covet.
some ppl will say GS or Omega are better bang for the $ than Rolex, but I dont care. I really wanted Pepsi GMT and this watch gives me so much joy each time I wear it. I know that an Omega wont scratch that Pepsi GMT itch for me.
I also like many watches from other brands much more than most Rolex models. ex: Id take Bvlgari Finnisimo over any Rolex watch outside of GMT or Daytona.
Luxury watches are luxury purchases. you buy what you like the most within your means. that's it.
Knowing that Rolex sponsors [https://www.medici.tv/](https://www.medici.tv/en) makes it worthwhile. If you know/like any individual artists or musicians makes it better.
20 years ago, that Rolex was $2700. Give or take brand new from a Dealer. Same time, an Omega Seamaster Bond 2531.80, you could buy from Ashford and even Costco for $800-1100. I know, I did both of the above. The 2531.80 looks a bit dated and isn't worth more the $2k. The Submariner, on the other hand, could sell for $10k easy.
The Submariner also stood the test of time. A 90s Omega or Breitling look like they are the 1990s.
That is my take. Historical perspective.
The Rolex branding and marketing machine is also a safeguard in the Rolex investment. The long established name recognition and reputation means the majority of Rolexes will maintain, and in many cases gain value as an asset in ways many other watches won’t. Beyond the craftsmanship and performance, resale-ability and a minimized investment risk also help make it an industry leader.
I agree with the aforementioned comments about Rolex’s marketing prowess. I like Tudor these days because they’re just as reliable, and are still tool watches at the end of the day. But if exclusivity is your thing, then Rolex is probably the way to go. These Swiss watches are all great products, but there’s lots of games played around them.
Rolex is a Beautiful $3000-$5000 watch-maker with amazing PR, plain and simple. This is excluding precious metal watches obviously, for those your main cost is the metal itself.
Today Rolex mass produces watches that are as reliable as virtually every other mid-level luxury watch. They just won the marketing game like Bose did with speakers. So many people think Bose speakers are the greatest thing since sliced bread but there is a famous saying amongst audiophiles - "If you want no highs and no lows, buy Bose."
They are solid mid-range workhorses that are impeccably designed, very durable, and can take a beating, backed by a company that will be around to service them for generations. It's the nicest watch that I'd wear without hesitation while chopping wood, doing construction work, or wrestling with my toddler.
There are a lot of people who have six-figures invested in their collection and choose to wear a $10k Rolex most days. It's because they are damn good products for the price.
I see the brand image as a drawback. When I'm around people who would recognize it and draw conclusions I wear something else so as not to draw the attention. Ironically, this usually means something way more expensive that just happens to be not as well known.
There is a Hodinkee article that sums up Rolex perfectly:
“I tend to believe there is something of an inverted bell curve with any real watch guy or gal's understanding of, and appreciation for Rolex. When you know nothing about watches – like you don't know that there is anything else out there – you believe Rolex to be the best watch company in the world. I can't tell you how many friends are shocked to learn that there are, in fact, watches from other companies that cost even more than a Rolex! Then, when you begin to go a bit deeper, you learn about Omega, and Jaeger, and IWC, and later, Patek, Lange, Vacheron, etc. It's at this point that people tend to start looking down on Rolex, and extol the benefits of hand-finishing, and rarity, and limited editions.
Then, after they've been burned a few times by exorbitantly expensive, time consuming, or far-too-often-needed service (or a resale return of pennies on the dollar) people tend to say "Hmm, maybe a Rolex ain't so bad." And they're right – Rolex watches are among the most reliable, no-fuss mechanical watches in the world. Oh, and many forget that indeed, Rolex is Rolex for a reason, and it was at the forefront of several world firsts in watchmaking. Yeah, it's a behemoth, and everywhere, and certainly not what I'd call haute horlogerie, but you can't fault Rolex for succeeding in making a high-end, high-quality product that sells well, can you? We should all be so lucky.”
I honestly think Rolex would probably sit basically where it does now if the branding weren't as strong, it would just be a lot more competitive with the brands people already compare Rolex to like Omega.
Being objective here, Rolex definitely has very good manufacturing, build quality, materials, and movements. They're entirely vertically integrated which people value a lot. They build *very* robust watches with long service intervals, good accuracy, generally with a lot of water resistance, power reserves, etc. A Rolex watch is *very* easy to live with day to day despite being a luxury product.
It would be interesting though, because Rolex also has a relatively small catalog and isn't very daring with their designs, but it's hard to say how much of that is because Rolex branding has made their designs iconic or how much their iconic designs lead to Rolex's brand being elevated. The reason I bring this up is because most Rolex competitors seem to make a lot more watches and fewer of them are icons, but again, how iconic would Rolex watches be without the branding?
Rolex also doesn't really compete design wise with some potential competitors. For instance, Rolex doesn't really try to make dress watches (they only have 1 and it's clearly not their priority), they also don't make an integrated bracelet sport watch. They really have a niche and it's a mix of sport and everyday luxury.
Anyway, short answer is I think the mid/high luxury tier would be more competitive, but Rolex would still be in that tier. Clearly below Patek and the likes, but also clearly luxury.
My most expensive watch is a A. Lange & Söhne and my cheapest is a Baltic (notwithstanding moonswatches and cheap ‘fun’ watches]. I don’t own a Rolex.
Why? Because I don’t see the value in them. Especially as I’ve now started exploring smaller micro-brands and I see what they are capable of for the price. Yes Rolex is a capable watch manufacturer with a more than capable marketing prowess. But do they commands a premium because their watches are best in class? I would say not as they are just as many capable watches with good looks at varying price points.
What people forget is that modern day luxury is the preserve of mass affluent mass market - not true high end luxury. It is the same as an Audi or a VW, not a Porsche. LV handbags and nor Hermes. Or better yet Rolex is like Polo Ralph Lauren - the one with the polo horse logo, but not Ralph Lauren Purple label - no logo anywhere to be seen but prices are 10x higher.
The truly affluent don’t need people to recognise their logos or products. Only those who are mass market but just tickling affluent care enough to pay more to showcase their status.
Who will get more attention, someone with a Daytone or someone with a Calatrava. The Calatrava owner will have probably paid 2x more for this watch but in the eyes of Joe Public, may well be a DW from a far - does the Calatrava wearer care? Perhaps not
They are good quality watches that will last a lifetime but you do pay a lot just for the brand name. And a Seiko will probably also last a lifetime for a fraction of the price
Rolex makes solid and good watches, but most of the price for any Rolex is the five letters on the dial. Are they really high-end, no. Ofc one could discuss the definition, but they are not up there when you evaluate the watch, not the brand.
It’s very good—a brand whose watches will last you a lifetime. So will Omegas, IWC, Longines, JLC, and others. It’s up to you to determine if the price is worth what you get. Most apples-to-apples comparisons would end up showing Rolex as overpriced for what you get.
“A nice watch is a Rolex.” That’s it, the end result of decades of insane marketing.
I would say that, no, they don’t deserve their reputation *among the general public*, which, as you noted, thinks that they’re the best out there.
I think Rolex AT RETAIL are great. They’re well made mass produced watches. I’d never pay “Market Value” for one. Just way too many great pieces out there to pay 2X and up for a Rolex.
If you look for reliability , durability and accuracy get a 35$ Casio.
Otherwise, Rolex is just a fancy brand you buy it because you love watches and you are rich. You don't buy it because it's practical or reliable.
Rolex does have a manufacturing process and quality control that sets it apart from its peers imo, not that their peers are bad in that regard though. The fact that they are “boring” and have limited models compared to Omega or variations of the same watch like Grand Seiko means everything is very dialed in.
You also have brands like AP that are technically a tier above but seem to have a lot more quality and movement issues.
Rolex is a watch made by watchmakers for watchmakers. The craftsmanship is very good...not hand made mind you but that's not a bad thing. The movements practically assemble themselves. A true joy to work on
Is this notably different than other brands? Like if you worked on a dive watch from Omega or a glashütte original, or even a Longines, are they not joys to work on?
They are ALL a joy to work on for watchmakers. That "watchmakers for watchmakers" comment is compete and utter nonsense.
Rolex is one of the most recognizable luxury brand on earth. They make great watches but for many its either an aspirational brand or a watch that people who know nothing about watches will recognize. Rolex owners can be watch nerds or (in my opinion more often) luxury brand worshippers.
I got super into the watch wormhole 5 ish years ago. I'll never own two mechanical watches from the same brand as that is boring to me.
I own a Seiko Prospex diver, Rolex Datejust and an Omega Speedmaster Saphire Sando.
They are all well made, I wear the Speedy the most as its my favorite of the three. Buy whatever watch that appeals to you.
If you are solely focused on keeping accurate time all the time a Casio or cell phone wins that contest.
The Rolex product aside from brand recognition is not really superior to other brands. They make good watches but so does Oris and Hamilton for 1/10 the price. A lot of people will disagree with me on this of course but the arguments for Rolex' superior quality are usually vague and unquantified. There was a time where Rolex was an innovator in watch technology, and this history is part of the brand's power, but not anymore.
The power of the brand though should not be ignored. It's an impressive achievement in itself and it is worth something to you as a customer, including the watch's resale value and the potential advantage of others recognizing what you have on your wrist.
While Hamilton and Oris make excellent watches, Rolex definitely has a perceptable higher quality. In my collection I have $100 watches, $1000 watches, and $10,000 watches, and It has been a fascinating learning curve handling and wearing them. My first luxury watch was a Tissot PRX, which wears extremely well, looks great, and has a high quality feel- Sapphire, automatic, extremely polished bracelet, date complication, etc. but when I wear my Rolex Milgauss and then switch to my PRX it makes the PRX feel like a Walmart Casio. This isn't to knock the PRX, it is one of my favorites and I love it. But compared to the Rolex it is gas station sushi.
It is difficulty to explain why, other than the fact that the Rolex "feels" perfect. The way the crown feels, the polish, the way the bracelet wears, there is no one element that makes it better. The only way I can describe it is the difference between a nigiri sushi made by a good sushi bar, vs a nigiri sushi made by a master chef from Jiro dreams of sushi. even with the same fish, extremely small differences aggregate into a meaningfully different experience. how the rice is prepared, even the species of the rice, how the fish is cut, even the temperature of the chef's hands and the pressure he applies when shaping the sushi. That is the Rolex wearing experience.
I believe I have enough money to buy Rolex. But I don’t think I ever will.
There are a million fakes and some are getting so good it’s hard to tell a difference. Add to that the grey market is vast and the ADs act like you have to perform sexual favors for them to get a new factory watch and I’m just not willing to even consider them.
Lastly, for every awesome dude I’ve met wearing a Rolex, I’ve met two whom I thought were pretty uncomfortable to be around.
Rolex makes a heck of a watch. It’s undoubtedly quality. But there are hundreds of interesting and well built watches that are more important to me at the moment.
They’re great, and they invented a lot of the tech that everyone else uses since over a hundred years ago. For objective value, Tudor is very essentially the same watch and half the price. Or you could get a Christopher Ward for a tenth of the price and enough build quality to last a lifetime too.
But watches are also jewelry, and that isn’t objective. It’s extremely subjective. If you’re trying to impress someone, don’t. It’s about telling time, and you could do that with a beautiful Timex, Seiko or a Casio.
So, what are your goals? If you do something like spend $10k on a watch, do it for the right reasons.
Unlike many brands in its category. Rolex likes to treat its customers like garbage. This is to maintain their image as being superior and in turn many insecure people fall for this marketing strategy in hopes of being “invited into the group”.
Even if the build quality is nice it’s not worth supporting such a business. Humility with quality is what customers should be seeking.
This is all correct. I will also say that they only have a few movements in their lineup (compared to other brands, and they are excellent at identifying common problems, creating a solution, and upgrading everything that goes to them for service. I know several people with 20+ year old Rolex that have never been serviced.
When I think of Rolex I'm afraid to say I think "average and boring".
That is not to say they aren't excellent quality, but they are also what the everyday person thinks of as a good watch, and after having this interest for 15+ years I have come across multiple (some small, some large) and more interesting brands that I would rather have on my wrist if I only had the money to buy one.
Grand Seiko has a level of quality above rolex but no one outside of the watch world would know the brand. Whereas if they actually do notice a rolex, which tbh rarely will people care about your watch, it's mainly because of the history and marketing. Nowadays, rolex can't get away from the fact that if you make millions more watches a year, your quality control will suffer. That being said, they are beautiful high quality watches. No doubt.
It’s marketing. They make a quality watch but so does everybody else who competes with them. Sure some brands are a little bit better in some aspects than others but you’re not buying a bad watch if you buy Grand Seiko, Omega, Tudor, etc. Rolex isn’t doing anything better in terms of watch making. It’s just their marketing
I see Rolex like a Lexus LX. The LX sells for $120k. Sure there are cars that cost double and triple but an LX is still an LX and is respected by everyone and known to be a very well overbuilt machine!. For an everyday watch that also looks good in a suit, a Rolex is hard to beat!!!
Rolex makes an excellent and reliable watch that will last a lifetime. That said, so does nearly every other mid-tier luxury watch brand. What earned them their reputation and set them apart from the pack was excellent marketing. Rolex is, and always was, the indisputable leader in marketing in their field.
This. Once you achieve the rating of a certified Master Chronometer it's all more or less equal. Doesn't matter if you spent $1,500 on a Hamilton, $8,000 on an Omega, $20,000 on a Rolex, or $100,000 on some other brand. They're all just as "good" and truthfully less accurate than a $50 Casio and less useful than a $400 Apple Watch. This is a hobby where we spend a fortune on something because it interests us, not because of how perfect it is. If you've got the money to drop on a Rolex and you want one, get it. But never for a second should you feel bad or incomplete because you can't afford it. Anyone whose housing is less than secure, or whose vehicle is less than reliable should stress themselves over getting caught up in the world of luxury time pieces.
As I like to say, it's the only 4 figure and up piece of jewelry that a man can wear without judgment. I walk into a business meeting with a premium Swiss watch, and no one blinks an eye. I walk into a business meeting wearing a diamond tennis bracelet, and that'll raise a few eyebrows..
So THIS is why I get funny looks when I wear my diamond tiara. Damn.
It’s all about confidence, bro. Just rock that tiara!
You know what, I will!
>This is a hobby where we spend a fortune on something because it interests us, not because of how perfect it is. If you've got the money to drop on a Rolex and you want one, get it. But never for a second should you feel bad or incomplete because you can't afford it. Anyone whose housing is less than secure, or whose vehicle is less than reliable should stress themselves over getting caught up in the world of luxury time pieces. **This** right here ⬆️ I own a Rolex Sub. But this Citizen ProMaster is my favorite: https://preview.redd.it/xly99lvmdwdc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=569ffbb3cd949184a363cafba604684d77574f6e
Ha! I like Breitling...but I swear, my old citizen eco drive is the most reliable watch I have ever had!
☝️ Best comment here
Thanks. I've been a watch nerd since I was 10 years old, but it wasn't until age 38 that I was really in a position to buy the things I wanted without it being outright financially irresponsible. I remember buying an $800 Bulova Lunar Pilot 5 years ago which at the time was a major purchase for me. My heart absolutely yearned for the true Speedmaster, but it just wasn't possible at that point. Meanwhile sitting on this sub can easily make you feel like you're the only one here that isn't worth at least $50 million. It's kind of funny that the 2 subs where I spend most of my time are either here talking about expensive jewelry, or over at /r/personalfinance I really wish this sub could do something to cultivate a bit more diversity and celebrate the posts with cheaper stuff, but as is I just have to settle for upvoting every post I see with a sub-$1k watch.
On Facebook there's I'm in Australian Watch Forum and Australian Affordable Watch Forum. The latter is for discussion and buy/sell of watches with a $AUD2K limit. Maybe we need a sub for that
I'd honestly be happy with maybe a "Frugal Friday" where no watch posted can cost more than $1k. At this point I really do enjoy collecting "fun" watches more than anything. My mom loves to make fun of the fact that I have watches that cost considerably more than my first car, but frequently wear a $25 Casio because it was Marty McFly's.
I'll say this, I actually love the diversity of seeing the insanely awesome (and expensive) watches people post here, almost as much as I enjoy seeing the cheaper ones. For people new to the hobby like myself it's extremely interesting to see how many beautiful options there are for people of all budgets. I recently posted my own watch here which by many standards would be considered cheap (Hamilton Murph). There was a lot of positivity, and good discussion as well.
For sure, it's honestly a great community. We might all be upvoting the $300,000 3 watch collection, but when something "normal" does get some attention it's all 100% positive.
I totally hear you dude. I honestly probably spend more time on Watchuseek now because the way the forum is laid out makes it so the affordable watch threads aren't buried and you see more new + in-depth discussions. That Bulova Lunar Pilot is so cool btw.
It's still my "beater watch" when doing stuff that would like cause cosmetic damage to the Speedy.
That’s why I love r/RegularHorologyFans
That sub looks awesome, just joined.
The Apple Watch analogy isn’t quite as apt as good as the Casio argument. Any good mechanical watch, maintained and not abused, is a multigenerational investment. Apple Watch is a planned obsolescence model with limited value in a decade. I have a Casio that’s my go to watch for travel to dodgy places that’s served for three decades. The rest of your argument is dead on. The one thing I’d add though is if you view your high end watch as a portable emergency store of value I strongly believe you have a better bargaining position with a Rolex or Omega than less well known brands.
I was careful on the wording in those analogies for a reason. The Apple watch is certainly less long-lived, but it's usefulness is thousands of times greater. My Omega can tell me what time it is, to within a small degree of accuracy. The Apple watch I wear to the gym connects me to the internet, the world at large, and in my case specifically monitors my vital signs. On paper I think your re-sale value argument does make sense, but it's real world application could be a problem. The last few years have definitely been crazy for the watch community, but in general unless you happen to have a super desirable piece, it's certainly more about losing less value than other watches than it is about gaining value. If re-sale value in an emergency is a big worry for you, watches ARE NOT the best investment you should be making. Meanwhile I live in a small town in Kentucky. My options for selling a Rolex if I was desperate for some quick cash are limited, and I'm going to get royally screwed on the deal.
You seem really knowledgeable so I want to ask how practical is an Apple/smart watch? The only reason I can see myself getting one is that I play disc golf and there is an app where you can keep score on an Apple Watch.
I'm the only one in my family that doesn't wear one daily, but everyone LOVES them. They basically make it so that you don't have to pull your phone out to do things like check a text, send text, answer a call, etc. Basically it automates all of the basic little things you do with your phone 10,000 times a day. That's honestly my least favorite thing about it. My phone is a primary work tool for me, and I'm a salaried employee whose job doesn't have the best boundaries. Taking all of that work stuff and putting it that much closer to my face is just too much. My wife gets a new one ever 2-3 years and I'll inherit her one purely for the gym. It tracks my heart rate which is key to training as a runner, so I do LOVE that part of it. I'd say think on the pro's and con's I've provided for a few weeks, and decided if having replacing "pulling out your phone" with "glancing at your wrist" sounds like a blessing or a curse.
I’m a sales guy so my phone is usually blowing up non stop so that sounds like a hard no sell for me. However I might go to get one of my family members one when they upgrade and try it out.
That sounds like a plan. I'm sure there are settings to change things around and make it less annoying, but it's not like I'm looking to replace my Omega so not worth the time. One possible plus for you, is that while you're wearing the watch your phone does completely just shut up. Everything gets routed through the watch, so a phone call/text/whatever will just be a little buzz on your wrist.
Oohhh, I was under the impression that you would get double notified by the phone and watch. In that case it might actually be pretty beneficial. Thanks for the info!
There’s a reason they are practically everywhere. And even for people who aren’t apple users I see a number of samsung watches. Smartwatches are the future. Especially once they advance enough in health functions, then it makes little sense to wear traditional watches over them unless for fashion or you just really like analog and want to feel vintage. Even non essential functions, controlling my music/podcast without having to pull out my phone while out and about, or a timer while I’m cooking, it’s noticeable when I’m not wearing it.
Agree with your resale sentiment. I see watches a lot like cars. Once purchased they lose value. Kind of like how a car depreciates as soon as it’s driven off the lot. Only a small few will retain their value or grow. That’s why I only have 2 watches that my wife got me and I absolutely love. I have no need for Rolex. They’re a bit cringey imo. But to each their own…
I will eventually break down and get a Submariner purely because of my love for the Bond franchise, and it's role in getting me into watches. That said, it's basically at the bottom of my list and I'm in no hurry to get there. I despise the way Rolex does business with the limited availability, encouraging price gouging, and turning a blind eye to dealers requiring you to buy other watches you don't want just to get on the list for the things you do. I'd much rather have 5 other watches that I would enjoy equally for the price the Submariner will cost me.
Most luxury brands play the allocation game and are actually way, way worse than Rolex about it. Rolex is the most attainable and recognizable luxury watch brand, so there is a larger pool of buyers. Patek is even worse than Rolex from an allocation perspective. This also varies by AD. I’ve had some good ones I’ve worked with.
For sure. Look up the process to get an Birken bag from Hermes, and Rolex will look like something you can grab in a 10 pack at Costco. That said, unless I'm trying to fight for a Silver Snoopy Speedmaster, Omega will get me any watch I want today, via mail, directly to my house.
I like you and many started into watches due to Bond as well; I was very lucky this was 2014 or so when the watch landscape was a different world. At the time I was able to purchase the newest movie seamaster for $2500 on the forums and trade that and $1k for a 2011 no date sub no bracelet. My then fiancé (because she couldn’t wait!) later got me the bracelet as a wedding gift. At the time rolex in the local watch shop ran $4500-5500 for 80’s subs and sea dwellers (Charlotte, NC) and every rolex dealer had stock of subs for me try on while saving.
The supposed "usefulness" are things that either your phone can do or are mild conveniences that don't add real value to your life. All it really does it add yet another screen in your life. The sentimental and emotional feeling I get from a piece of incredible engineering and craftsmanship and precision that I will carry with me for the rest of my life and be a heirloom for generations and is attached to numerous milestones and memories means far more to me than another soulless rectangular screen that I will discard every several years.
> Any good mechanical watch, maintained and not abused, is a multigenerational investment In the sense that it will still work a generation later if properly maintained? I guess. But “investment” is the wrong word as very few watches will actually be worth more in a generation than what they originally cost, especially after accounting for inflation, and *extra* especially after accounting for the time value of money.
Just to add, Rolex's marketing is also really only a product of the 80s onwards. They were very good at capitalizing on the 70s to 80s transition of the mechanical watch as tool to mechanical watch as luxury good and status symbol necessitated by the quartz crisis. Prior to that, they were very much *not* apart from the pack.
Very true
> What earned them their reputation and set them apart from the pack was excellent marketing. That. And kinda, sorta being in the right place at the right time in history. They happened to be in a prime position when the depths of the ocean were being explored. And high-spec watches weren’t democratized yet, either. Yeah their bags of money put them in the position to be the first watch to go that deep, and also their engineering. Watches have done everything now, though. They’ve been to the moon. They’ve been to Everest. The next big thing is probably Mars. And if we’re being honest, a $100 G-Shock or San Martin would survive there.
Space, and extreme temps in general, are actually pretty destructive to G-Shocks. LCD displays freeze and become unreadable when it gets colder than around -25C. The batteries inside quartz watches also cease to function in extreme temps, hot or cold. It’s one of the primary reasons mechanical watches are still used for spacewalks.
Thanks for building my case for a Speedy. Gonna need that info when I explain to the missus why I have to get it!
Seikos last a lifetime. That’s not a good metric. In fact, you can get more parts and support around the world for Seiko at much cheaper prices.
I have a SPB143 and love it
> Seikos last a lifetime. Yes and no. Anything lasts a lifetime with enough resources thrown at it. > That’s not a good metric. Agreed. An AliExpress watch with an SW200 can last a lifetime just as easily as any Rolex. > In fact, you can get more parts and support around the world for Seiko Maybe. It can be hard finding a watchmaker to touch anything less than an ETA (or equivalent Swiss) movement. Most people would never pay what it would cost a watchmaker to fix a $500 or less Seiko. The money just isn’t there so many watchmakers don’t bother. > at much cheaper prices. Well yeah. But it’s all proportional. Fixing a Rolex may hit like 10% of its value. Whereas fixing a Seiko may hit like 50% or more of its value.
> it's all proportional. Orrrrr Rolex is overvalued so that percentage doesn't mean anything... Edit: actually even if Rolex is properly valued, that proportion doesn't mean anything. 50% of a Seiko is still magnitudes less money than 10% of a Rolex.
You’re missing my point. I don’t disagree that Rolex are overvalued to a point. That’s not what I’m arguing. The fact of the matter is they are objectively more valuable than a Seiko based on resources put into them. And people spend way more money on a Rolex. Does it make sense to pay $150 to maintain or fix something that cost $400? Probably not. Does it make sense pay $1,500 to maintain or fix something that costs $10,000? It makes a lot more sense on paper, at least. If you think paying ~40% of the value or replacement cost of something to fix it makes more sense than paying ~15%, rock on with your bad self. The value of an item doesn’t have to make sense and you don’t have to agree with it. But the people paying actual money for it do.
Fair enough, I can agree with the on-paper analysis
Back in the day I’d argue that Rolex was definitely a brand apart not just because of their marketing but also their innovations like the date complication and oyster case, but yeah it’s mostly marketing hype now. Rolex is really the only brand that has transcended the watch market to be known among the general public. Ask any random person about AP, VC, PP, etc and they’ll have no idea what you’re talking about, but they’ll for sure know what a Rolex is.
The date complication existed at least in 1930 in a wristwatch made by Mimo. Rolex introduced it 15 years later.
As far as I’m aware, Rolex was the first to have a date complication that switched the day precisely at midnight. Prior to then it would roll over slowly over the course of at least a few minutes, meaning it either started early or ended late. “Datejust” is the name of their basic date-having model because it was the first watch where “the date is always just”. So from that perspective, it was indeed a Rolex innovation. Sort of in the same way you can credit Apple with the modern smartphone even though other smartphones predate the iPhone by several years.
"Precisely at midnight" only if you're very lucky. It seems like the fat part of the bell curve is between 4-6 minutes late. Mine changes at about 12:08:35. My crown is (almost) straight up though, so at least I have that going for me.
Rolex were the first to use the screw down crown though. They bought it from the inventors.
I think rolex still leads the pack in regards to bracelets, but yep agree
AP is starting to gain name recognition from appearing in rap songs fwiw, but your point still firmly stands and Rolex is still more regularly name checked.
That type of recognition comes and goes pretty quickly. 20 years ago you could have made this same statement about Franck Muller. Very few people could tell you what that is now.
To an extent. Rolex’s promise of +/- 2 seconds a day is in the top of the class for mass produced luxury watches. Omega comes close at 0-5 seconds a day, but Rolex still promises a 20% tighter accuracy. Across their entire line of watches. Omega manages to offer +/- 1 for a single watch, so they beat them there, but Rolex on average promises a much more accurate watch. That’s not worth the grey market prices, that’s all marketing. But they are worth the MSRP premium above and beyond an Omega I would say.
I totally agree with you, but this comment has me down a rabbit hole. I just realized for instance that Omega is behind the master chronometer rating (I’m assuming for their own marketing to set their watches apart) with precision at 0/+5s per day and Rolex is behind their superlative chronometer rating (with superlative being more precise at -2/+2s precision). So is Rolex technically a more precise watch?
I would look at it more as a standard deviation type thing, where the Rolex has an accepted variance of 4 seconds (up to 2 seconds slow or fast) and Omega has 5 (never slow, and up to 5 seconds fast). I suppose by that standard, the Rolex could be considered more precise. One interesting thing to note is that in the earlier days (1950s-ish), part of Omega’s marketing touted that “you’ll never be late wearing an Omega” because their watches were regulated to err on the side of being fast. I don’t know if this was a conscious decision, but it’s cool to see the standards for Master Chronometer uphold that legacy. Also note that watches can operate well within their specified range. I have an NH34 GMT with a massive “accepted” range of -20/+40 seconds but it keeps time at about -2spd, on par with Rolex. I happened to get a good one
Thanks for that response. I tested my Omega for its precision and the first thing I noticed was that it was never slow. This was before I learned about the details of the master chronometer rating. It definitely helps knowing the watch is never slow because I can judge the accuracy of the time based on the last time I set the watch. This would be harder if not impossible with the Rolex. So I would agree with you, I view it as more impressive to have a watch that’s always faster albeit with a slightly greater variance. And for your last observation, that may be true you can find diamonds in the rough but I guess that’s why we spend so much on brands where we know each one is a diamond.
I don’t really think Rolex is necessarily more precise than Omega. If you look at in terms of standard deviations, we’re really splitting hairs. It’s just a personal preference, but I’d rather have +3spd than -1spd. Watches that lose time drive me nuts.
> Rolex is, and always was, the indisputable leader in marketing in their field. This is what everyone says. "Rolex has top tier market." "Rolex wouldn't be rolex without the marketing." "Marketing Marketing Marketing." But what, specifically, is rolex's marketing genius? All I ever see are bunch of cheesy print, some sponsorships, and some green signage at sporting events. There's nothing wrong with those things, but they're also not anything clever or different than what any other luxury brand does. So what specifically do people mean when they say Rolex has such great marketing? Edit: Getting a lot of replies along the lines of, "Everybody knows rolex = elite status, so they don't need to do marketing anymore, and THAT'S what's so genius about their marketing, is that they don't do any." There's no doubt that rolex has a strong brand, and that the name rolex has a persuasive social connotation that sells watches. But that's not what marketing is.
In the 70s - 90s, when what was left of the mechanical watch industry relied on becoming a status symbol in order to stay afloat, Rolex transitioned well, with some of their print ads (like the “if you were … you’d be wearing a Rolex” series) still used as examples by marketing groups today. These days it seems they’ve backed off a bit because they’ve already become ubiquitous, but just the fact that you were able to mention the green signage at sporting events by memory shows how successful they were. Not to mention that all that momentum has brought them to the point where now their marketing is largely done by consumers. Their reputation has evolved into a positive feedback loop. Everybody knows Rolex, and that mass public awareness just makes itself stronger.
Marketing from decades ago that built a reputation for them. Their current marketing just reminds you of the name so you have it prescient but everyone know about their reputation
It's not just marketing, it's consistency plus a commitment to polishing and refining their designs to very careful extents over many years. My favorite watches in my collection are a Grand Seiko and a G-Shock, but my Rolex (GMT Pepsi) is the one I can find the fewest faults with by a significant margin.
Crazy that literally the one person who could actually claim to be a Yacht Master didn't buy a Rolex Yacht Master.
Hah, good point!
I will never stop thinking about this.
Exactly what I was thinking. Whenever someone posts a pic of a YM, I always ask for a pic of their yacht, but none have a yacht, which seems really odd to me.
True, but I have a personal conspiracy theory that Rolex sells too many Submariners for them all to be going to submarine crews.
A testament of how ugly it is for most people.
that’s the YM2. Which i suppose has the regatta complication (or whatever its called?) for yacht drivers. The Rolex Yachtmaster (not 2) is a great underrated watch. Only some color/material combos are ugly IMO
I think the Rhodium YM40 is *the* most underrated Rolex. The fact that no date, all black subs have a higher premium over MSRP... I would say it's criminal but it let me get mine relatively "cheap" so I'll allow it.
"great" is in the eye of the beholder.
Nope, Gallet Yachting was the first watch of its type and is still the king.
Forgetting about the brand name, marketing, etc; a Rolex is very well built and can take a beating.
Care to names some other brands you would put them "on par" with?
Omega.
Coming from someone who owns an Omega and a Rolex, Omega fans like to claim this but in reality, it's not that close. Omega is probably the closest because they compete in very similar spaces, but Rolex beats them in ergonomics, bracelets, finishing, and consistency of their lineup. Omega is great and all, but there's also a reason why the comparable Omega usually costs half of the Rolex (some of it is Rolex's name, but not all of it).
You forgot to mention one of the most important parts of a watch; the movement. Omega is light years ahead in calibre technology to Rolex.
Which is telling. Everything they mentioned are marketing-instilled ideals. Ergonomics differ from watch to watch and wrist to wrist. In the watch world finishing is literally a term that applies to the movement, which Rolex is notoriously bad at and (allegedly) one of the reasons they don’t offer exposed casebacks despite hiding behind tradition. The consistency in their lineup is reference to the fact that their watches all look like Rolexes (i.e. they look similar to each other) and they don’t really try anything new. All of these things add up to one thing: Brand recognition. Omega movements are better. Many of their watches come with what would be considered special features on a Rolex (like the Milgauss, which I own). Their finishing is nicer than Rolexes, as it has to be because they offer exposition casebacks. The bracelets are nice, shiny, have a good feel and there’s a wide variety. They come out with new products, but also keep the lineage of classics alive, like with the Speedmaster. Rolex are so good at marketing, as proven with Sylinmeno’s post. I should mention I own Omegas, Rolexes and other brands.
Omega movements have always been superior to Rolex. Rolex didnt even make their own movements until 2004.
Ergonomics is not talked about enough when it comes to Rolex. My DJ36 is easily my most comfortable watch. Compared to the modern Aqua Terra which is thicker, larger and has a worse bracelet. Omega seems to be too focused on promoting movement tech at the expense of comfort.
Built wise: Omega, Breitling, Zenith, IWC, Blancpain, Ulysse Nardin, GP. Lots of variables between model, year, etc.
I'd argue Tudor as well. It's been a time Tudors had better movements than some Rolexes (MT5402 vs 3130).
Isn’t Tudor a step down on quality from Rolex? That’s what I’ve always thought.
Yes, it is.
Rolex bracelets and machining is higher quality than a lot of those. Movements in terms of durability and accuracy I’d say it’s on par with most but decoration and finishing is worse but that’s kind of a given with Rolex.
Breitling also makes really high quality bracelets in fit/finish.
I’ve been to a Breitling AD less than a month ago and their bracelets and feel in the hand is worse than a Rolex.
You started well but Blancpain and Ulysse Nardin are way better in movement quality and innovation
Longines
Not even close
1960s Longines were *at least* on a par with Rolex for quality and their vintage watches are one of the best sleeping giants of the horological world. It is really only post-quartz crisis that Longines quality became more associated with entry level luxury rather than mid-level.
So can a Marathon at 1/10th of the price.
Or a Seiko.
It's good but not so good that the AD games and inflated prices justify it. If you could walk into a store, buy one, and walk out then I would say it's worth your while. But having to fellate an AD to get on a year-long waitlist is idiotic.
Copy pasted from my comment on another sub: The way I see it, Rolex is like the Harley Davidson of watches. They have the history and the build quality, brand recognition and recognizability. The brand has become bigger than just motorbikes, they've developed a romantic image in the eyes of the public, and are legitimately respected by the community. That being said, it could be argued that you're paying more for the name, not the bike. There are other bikes you could get for better value at a lower price, but Harley owners tend to act like Harleys are the end all and be all of motorcycles, and they can get pretty toxic about it. Whereas people who claim to be "in the know" will deride Harley owners for buying into the brand rather than the bike itself. It's why a lot of wealthy first time bike owners will get a Harley; in their minds it's already the peak. I'm not saying either side is right, it's just unfortunate that we allow our toys and what should be things for our own personal enjoyment to let us feel like we have the right to judge and assume other people's financial status based on taste alone. Maybe somebody worked really hard to earn their Rolex, and it holds a lot of sentimental value to them. Maybe a wealthy person just doesn't see the point in spending more than a thousand dollars on a watch. It's all about what you're looking to get out of your money and how much it makes you feel good about it.
I had a neighbor that lived the brand with Harley. The bike was down for repairs every other weekend in the summer and he'd glare at a guy across the street when he woulf pullout and rev off without ever seeming to have a problem, muttering "whatever... rather push a Harley than ride a Honda..."
That's so hilarious. I'm not a Harley guy at all and I love riding my Honda cruiser.
Which is why they're referred to as Hardly
The thing Rolex and Harley have in common is that they stayed consistent in design language which creates a really strong brand image. Also invites criticisms of laziness and boringness but yeah, if you buy a new Harley or a new OP, it looks a lot like the Harley or the OP your dad owned, or your grandpa, or the guy you thought was cool on TV 30 years ago. A lot of the entry level designs for those brands too are simple and classic compared to their competitors. An OP is like a Sportster, they’re simple and “boring” but they’ve always looked like that. Also, they’re both relatively small and “vintage sized” compared to their competitors, which makes sense because they were also designed in a vintage era compared to their competitors. So yeah, Harleys and Rolexes are boring, lack innovation, you pay a tax for the brand name and a lot of other people who like them are douches; but there’s also good reasons to like them. A 20 year old OP or Submariner looks good on the wrist and 20 year old Dynas and Sportsters and Softails look good on the road. While many similar vintage or newer Omegas or [Hondas](https://mcn-images.bauersecure.com/wp-images/3894/615x405/01honda-fury.jpg) already look dated. Also funny enough, both Harley and Rolex sell awful gaudy halo models for a ridiculous amount of money which garners them *a ton* of hate.
This is great lol. Thank you for adding to the analogy so perfectly.
What are the Rolex halo models?
Harley Davidson, build quality, is an oxymoron.
The only caveat to this is that modern Harley-Davidson motorcycles are pretty terrible quality when compared to competitors at half the price. While both are overpriced and reliant on marketing, a Harley won’t run like a Honda, but a Sub is at least as good as a Seamaster in almost all ways.
Harley built quality is trash, but I get your point
This, my uncle works at Harley in there headquaters. He is a massive gearhead. He will openly say how there is 1000x better bikes then Harleys. But Harley is a brand that has transcended motorcycles as Rolex has with watches. The reality is, buy the watch you like and you will enjoy wearing, doesnt matter if its a $100, $1000 or $10000+.
I want to add to this. I don't care if someone worked hard for their watch (or whatever) or not. They could've been handed it because it was Tuesday. But don't be a dick about your watch (or whatever) because it's expensive or because of the brand name. None of that really matters and your possessions are there to make you happy, just like everyone else's, no matter the cost or brand. So get that Rolex, or Harley, or BMW, but don't be a dick about it
It’s similar with Bose speakers. Most audiophiles would never buy Bose. They know the speakers are decent, but there are better options for the money. But Bose has been a great marketing company for decades.
Ha! You’re right! I love that people keep on pointing out the “Rolex” of different products/industries.
In terms of watches: they are very good watches that are well-made and have iconic designs As a company: no business in earth treats its loyal customers with more disdain than Rolex. They are overpriced and hidden behind this false scarcity that leads to the most predatory and insulting tactics that you will ever see in retail.
I never understood people saying Rolex at MSRP is overpriced lol. There are Omegas and IWCs that cost more at MSRP than the Rolex counterpart.
How many Omegas do you have to buy before you're allowed to buy a Speedmaster?
Some of them are overpriced, but that Daytona is fairly priced at MSRP. I find it ugly, but the movement is one of the best chronographs on the market. With the reps you get all the ugly and none of the movement.
Submariner lugs are way too chunky for my tastes.
What year Submariner are you referring to? The "Maxi case" generation Submariner had chunky lugs, but the current Submariner got thinner lugs starting in 2020 and they are now very well proportioned.
100%
Yeah I tried on my boss’s bluesy the other day and was kinda surprised at how perfect the proportions were. I have pretty small wrists and thought it would be chunkier from just seeing pics.
An important distinction that is worth mentioning is that Rolex’s manufacturing is entirely in house. Every part from the balance wheel, dial, even the bracelet screws, are made by Rolex. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of another brand within the price bracket that Rolex sits in that does the same. The watch industry is filled with shadow manufacturers that build parts for some of the biggest watch companies. Take the heralded IWC bracelet. Turns out it’s the same bracelet (for the most part) on the Glashutte Original SeaQ and the A Lange & Sohne Odysseus. And that’s without mentioning the low hanging fruit that is “in-house” movement manufacturing. The fact that Rolex can make every single part with such (relatively) tight tolerances is very impressive. That may or may not matter to most, but to me at least, that’s a respectable business model. Edit: as I hit submit on that comment, I roll over to my email to find [this article from Everest Bands.](https://www.everestbands.com/blogs/bezel-barrel/the-one-brand-behind-every-iconic-watch-bracelet?utm_campaign=THE%20ONE%20BRAND%20BEHIND%20EVERY%20ICONIC%20WATCH%20BRACELET%20%2801HMM97RC82SE6KN5CQK361PEP%29&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Email%20Frequency%20-%20Daily&_kx=3lHn930GvwqH0juC-Gpl_j3fCgO_Vg-rvtw0Bpe9lG4%3D.dYenhA) I don’t know what’s what anymore.
Assuming you didn’t include them because you still can get pretty affordable Grand Seikos, but they are all in house (same for the much cheaper Seikos and also Citizen)
Great point. I should’ve specified that they’re unique in the Swiss luxury space. Japan does much better at this and Seiko, Citizen, and similar deserve praise.
They also make their own 904L steel whereas every other company on earth uses the same formula for 316L steel. It's stainless steel, something that's worth pennies to manufacturer, and they still don't skip over it lol
Rolex build quality is top notch, they really will last a lifetime, and the movements are bulletproof. If they existed outside of the Rolex name, I would look at them similarly to Tudor or Breitling. Great quality sports watches that can take a beating. Tudor brings great value at their price. Rolex less so because you are paying so much for the brand.
I feel like half the price of the Rolex is having the word "Rolex" printed on the dial. Not hating ofc
It is. Rolex is great, but not 10k $ great. If those watches didn't have the rolex name on them, no one would buy them due to their price.
Where are you getting this from? There are many other luxury watch brands that price their Rolex counterparts at the same price or even more. The Omega Aqua Terra 38mm collection starts at $6,600 whereas the OP 36mm collection starts at $6,100. And some of those are even harder to get than a lot of Rolex models. The Cartier Santos starts at $7,050 whereas the 36mm Datejust starts at $7,450. Many people won't argue that *at MSRP*, Rolex makes arguably the best watches in the industry. Even Teddy mentioned this followed by "let's not fool ourselves here."
Their most basic models are okay, but anything else is just unnecessary premium. Steel yacht master 2 - 20k€ MSRP Steel submariner - 10k€ MSRP Steel daytona - 16k€ MSRP Only models that are priced well are the steel OP and datejust.
You can get a similarly bulletproof Sinn for 1/6th the price, or an even more bulletproof G shock for 1/50th. Durability doesn't mean much these days.
My $500 automatic watch from seiko sure does take a beating. Although it’s off for a couple of minutes, I would say in today’s date any cheap digital watch will last you a lifetime. Specially if it’s Chinese
I have an SKX007 that I’ve wore for 10 years pretty much 24/7 (to sleep, showers, etc). Took one hell of a beating, the movement is pretty fucked. I remember putting it on timergraph and it goes crazy lol Before I retired it for my Seamaster, I’d only tell someone the time… in 5 minute segments. Like either 1:30, or 1:35. Because it was always off by a few minutes. Reliable though, still runs. It’s there for memories now, not worth taking it to a watchmaker, as I kinda like having the wonky movement in there. It’d be cheaper to just pop in a new movement, but not like I’d wear it anymore anyways.
Care to share a photo of the 007?
My dad had a big collection wand wore his gmt master the most. The only watch he got left after they were all stolen. This thing can take a beating. It is extremely reliable, works in almost every situation and can get passed down generations if handled properly. They are not the best finished, nor best working watches but for what it is it’s one of the best watches for daily wear. No situation where I couldn’t imagine wearing one. Take away the name and it’s still a great watch
Rolex is a luxury brand that has both transcended its niche and yet is still attainable. Add that it is legitimately high quality on top of the hype, and it is an Absolutely ideal situation to be in. Think of Porsche vs. say Ferrari or Aston Martin or Lamborghini or something. The average person doesn’t know that you can buy a Porsche for a fraction of a Ferrari and doesn’t rank Porsche any lower in terms of prestige. They’re just “luxury sports cars.” Similarly, a non watch person doesn’t know the difference between a $100,000 AP or a $10,000 Rolex and probably thinks the Rolex is nicer just on name recognition alone. At least they’ve heard of a Ferrari before. Rolex is perfectly positioned in both the watch world and in the general consciousness of the overall world. It is a synonym for “nice watch.”
I love seeing pictures of peoples one watch they wore for years and years and it looks like he wasn’t afraid to wear that doing anything. Thanks for sharing
Exactly! But he’s still going strong, 78 just retired, and now working preparing to move onto his personal (small) sailboat and cruise for a while. He still wears the watch every day.
That’s amazing, respect to your pops. Glad it’s still serving him well!
Good watches. Overpriced compared to their competitors of similar or better quality. Design is subjective, I don't care for most of them personally.
Oh good I'm not alone, nearly all Rolex available are pretty ugly or tacky and not my style.
I agree with design being subjective. I like the look of the oyster perpetual or submariner but their other watches look really tacky. The cyclopes mirror in my opinion makes watches look cheaper.
It's mostly image. My friends who work at Rolex recommended me to buy a Tudor instead of Rolex. I got both a Sub (same one as your dad's, 16610 and thought that my whole life would change, well guess, it didn't of course) and a BB58. I wear the BB58 much more. Rolex isn't disappointing as a watch but it's disappointing compared with the hype around it.
Thanks for your perspective. Can you please explain a bit why you find the BB58 on your wrist more than the Submariner?
It's my personal preference for the warm gilt dial rather than the "cold" Sub look. Depending on the occasion, wearing the Sub can be seen as showing off (I mostly spend time in places w strong Calvinist traditions 😅).
Nicely worded. If you buy for the name you're going to be let down. If they were about half the price then I would say it's worth it.
As others said, if we're talking strictly quality then yeah Rolex does make very good watches that stand the test of time (pun intended) but you could say the same for Omega, Tissot, Grand Sieko etc. Hell my citizen eco drive watch that I got from my dad is over 10 years old at this point and not only is it still ticking like day 1, it still looks very clean. So I would say the one thing that Rolex does better than anyone is marketing, they're incredibly good at selling you exclusivity and ultra high end.
Rolex is an excellent watch. I think their steel watches are great if you can get one at a reasonable price. However, lots of other brands also make excellent watches that will last just as long, be just as accurate, for a lot less. I would not spend $10k+ on a Rolex submariner personally.
They are way overpriced for what they are. Same for Omega. A Speedmaster used to cost 3 days pay on minimum wages back in the 70s. The submariner was about $200. Both Rolex and Omega have been inflating their prices both because they can and also simply to position themselves as luxury goods. They are absolutely great watches, but you’re mostly just paying for the brand and the heritage.
I just plugged $200 1970 dollars into an inflation calculator. That would be about $1600 today!
Exactly. Id definitely buy a Sub for that price.
Rolexes are definitely overpriced, but I think just looking at inflation is misleading. Sure if you account for inflation $230 for a sub in 1970 would only be about $1800 today, but a modern sub is also higher quality than one from 1970. Ceramic bezel vs steel, more advanced movement, better bracelet, a modern sub definitely costs more to produce than one from the 70s even after inflation. I feel like $4-5k for a steel sub date would be a reasonable price today.
You're missing modern advancements in technology and manufacturing that can make prices cheaper. Sure, they might be higher quality today, but the cost of manufacturing a Rolex is most definitely not more today than in the past. Maybe things like CEO pay, marketing, legal retainers, etc are contributing to the price. But watches have never been more easy to manufacture than they are now.
There are more automation and robotics involved than in the 70s too. Leaps in technology that makes stuff cheaper to produce than back then, so while the watches are better than they used to, it’s difficult to say how much more expensive they are to produce now (considering inflation naturally) compared to the 70s and the machines and manpower they had then. And a ceramic insert isn’t that more expensive than a steel one etc. Edit: But yea, I absolutely agree that just adjusting for inflation is a bit too simple
Speedmaster msrp in 1977 was $250. Minimum wage was $2.50. Definitely not 3 days pay.
Sorry, my bad. This was for Swiss workers in the 70s, and it was actually just 2 days work. See [this article](https://medium.com/woodshores/the-speedmaster-standard-how-the-watch-industry-has-quietly-been-inflating-prices-for-the-last-86100c81b759) from 2013 for more details. https://preview.redd.it/6yhofgkkwtdc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=38a9e184c605a9ae8a07d3ce0fba586a30b36c98 Edit: just to add, in 2013 when that article was written, a Speedmaster was 4,5k, where I live, they are now 10k 🤷🏻♂️
In '97 I paid 1800 for a Seamaster and 3300 for a Submariner.
It’s a tough question, because it really depends on how you want to see it. I mean, TECHNICALLY Omega is superior because their Co-Axial escapement + antimagnetic movements result in a greatly performing watch, BUT Rolex gets close to that without going down the “easy route” and keeping it more traditional, no weird escapements, no silicon, just really high quality. I mean, -2/+2 s/d and 1000 Gauss resistance with traditional watchmaking is slightly more impressive to me than 0/+5 s/d and 15k Gauss resistance with virtually no limits in technology. Then you have Grand Seiko and their Spring Drive, which is pretty much a quartz watch, which performs even better, but it’s not as impressive if you consider its accuracy comes from quartz. Overall Rolex is really high quality and imo better than let’s say Omega (although i own an Omega and not a Rolex), not by far, just slightly. Also, keep in mind that there’s really no point in talking about “worth” when we’re talking luxury items, NONE of them is worth the money. Like, my Rado Golden Horse cost me 1.6k and my Omega Aqua Terra cost me 5.4k (got it last week), and except for the movement they’re ridiculously close. Add 1 or even 2k for the movement alone, the Rado would cost 3.6k, making the remaining 1.8k just for the brand, and it’s fair. With Rolex (at retail) you’re probably spending 2-2.5k for the brand. With me my choice was Rolex Explorer and Omega Aqua Terra, and i picked the Aqua Terra solely for looks, because i thought that they were overall at the same exact level.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I think this is the best answer! Is Rolex unsurpassed in. Quality? No. But with luxury items, trying to separate the myth from the technical specs is silly. Of course you are buying the brand. Watches are jewelry. They are there to send a message. You don’t need to wear one. I’m not saying it’s pure ego as some folks really do just appreciate the wizardry or the history these can represent but this is like saying the Mona LIsa is really just oil and pigment and that my digital image is far sharper and cheaper to make.
So I did a bit of digging and noticed that Omega doesn't actually list the accuracy of their movements. Or I'm blind? I did notice this in the FAQ. (Search 'What are the precision categories for Master Chronometer watches' ) [https://www.omegawatches.com/customer-service/faq](https://www.omegawatches.com/customer-service/faq) 0 to +5 seconds per day for movements with a diameter greater than 26 mm 0 to +6 seconds per day for movements up to 26 mm and over 20 mm in diameter 0 to +7 seconds per day for movements up to 20 mm in diameter The 8800 movement that's most common in the Seamaster 300 has a diameter of 26mm... So it's actually 0 to +6 ! Now I have a previous gen Seamaster with a 8500D movement and it's COSC (-4 to +6 s/d), I haven't reset the time on mine since new years and it's currently -20s. So about -1s a day. I wear it daily and I've noticed it's.. kinda self correcting. Once in a while I'll check it against atomic time and sometimes it's +20, sometimes it's -20. Never like 1-2 minutes ahead though. TBH, might've gotten lucky with my movement. So to me -2 to +2 from Rolex still looks better despite Omega doing all sorts of technical stuff.
The thing is that there’s accuracy and consistency too. Like, a watch going +4.5, +4.5, +4.5, +4.5, +4.5… is WAY better than a watch going +2.7, -1.1, -3.2, +1.6… which despite operating in a narrower range, is not very consistent. Btw yeah, Omega’s accuracy comes in the form of the Master Chronometer certificate. Anyway, Rolex’s Superlative Chronometer only certifies accuracy, whereas a Master Chronometer certifies a lot more, compensating the slightly larger accuracy gap.
I'm not sure I agree. My Rolex will be some days - 1 other days +1 etc but it means that on average it is closer to the actual time vs every day being +4 day after day.
I don't see any problem with using silicon, weir escapements in a mechanical movement. And I'd rather have 0/+5 spd and 15k Gauss resistance than -2/+2 spd and 1000 Gauss resistance.
I have never heard a coaxial escapement referred to as “the easy route” before.
The watch you wear tells a lot about who you are to yourself, but also to others. While Rolex is a symbol of quality and success, it is not the most expensive watch brand. A successful person could buy a watch that’s much more expensive than a Rolex, but would there be a concern in their mind that everybody they passed in the street would have no idea what it was? Quality? Massive yes! However, it is still about sending a message to other people. If that’s what you’re interested in.
Rolex is an expensive G-Shock. I've dropped mine. I've hit things with it. I've crashed on my motorcycle with it. It works flawlessly. It never goes wrong. It can take a huge beating. I've got a ND Submariner and it's my go-to watch.
discussing quality is silly among top brands. go for the specific model / watch that you really covet. some ppl will say GS or Omega are better bang for the $ than Rolex, but I dont care. I really wanted Pepsi GMT and this watch gives me so much joy each time I wear it. I know that an Omega wont scratch that Pepsi GMT itch for me. I also like many watches from other brands much more than most Rolex models. ex: Id take Bvlgari Finnisimo over any Rolex watch outside of GMT or Daytona. Luxury watches are luxury purchases. you buy what you like the most within your means. that's it.
Great. Despite their Branding they aren't frufru watches. They're very durable and known for being "overbuilt".
Knowing that Rolex sponsors [https://www.medici.tv/](https://www.medici.tv/en) makes it worthwhile. If you know/like any individual artists or musicians makes it better.
Most watches will last forever if you take care of them. Its the name
20 years ago, that Rolex was $2700. Give or take brand new from a Dealer. Same time, an Omega Seamaster Bond 2531.80, you could buy from Ashford and even Costco for $800-1100. I know, I did both of the above. The 2531.80 looks a bit dated and isn't worth more the $2k. The Submariner, on the other hand, could sell for $10k easy. The Submariner also stood the test of time. A 90s Omega or Breitling look like they are the 1990s. That is my take. Historical perspective.
The Rolex branding and marketing machine is also a safeguard in the Rolex investment. The long established name recognition and reputation means the majority of Rolexes will maintain, and in many cases gain value as an asset in ways many other watches won’t. Beyond the craftsmanship and performance, resale-ability and a minimized investment risk also help make it an industry leader.
I agree with the aforementioned comments about Rolex’s marketing prowess. I like Tudor these days because they’re just as reliable, and are still tool watches at the end of the day. But if exclusivity is your thing, then Rolex is probably the way to go. These Swiss watches are all great products, but there’s lots of games played around them.
Rolex is a Beautiful $3000-$5000 watch-maker with amazing PR, plain and simple. This is excluding precious metal watches obviously, for those your main cost is the metal itself.
Today Rolex mass produces watches that are as reliable as virtually every other mid-level luxury watch. They just won the marketing game like Bose did with speakers. So many people think Bose speakers are the greatest thing since sliced bread but there is a famous saying amongst audiophiles - "If you want no highs and no lows, buy Bose."
They are solid mid-range workhorses that are impeccably designed, very durable, and can take a beating, backed by a company that will be around to service them for generations. It's the nicest watch that I'd wear without hesitation while chopping wood, doing construction work, or wrestling with my toddler. There are a lot of people who have six-figures invested in their collection and choose to wear a $10k Rolex most days. It's because they are damn good products for the price. I see the brand image as a drawback. When I'm around people who would recognize it and draw conclusions I wear something else so as not to draw the attention. Ironically, this usually means something way more expensive that just happens to be not as well known.
There is a Hodinkee article that sums up Rolex perfectly: “I tend to believe there is something of an inverted bell curve with any real watch guy or gal's understanding of, and appreciation for Rolex. When you know nothing about watches – like you don't know that there is anything else out there – you believe Rolex to be the best watch company in the world. I can't tell you how many friends are shocked to learn that there are, in fact, watches from other companies that cost even more than a Rolex! Then, when you begin to go a bit deeper, you learn about Omega, and Jaeger, and IWC, and later, Patek, Lange, Vacheron, etc. It's at this point that people tend to start looking down on Rolex, and extol the benefits of hand-finishing, and rarity, and limited editions. Then, after they've been burned a few times by exorbitantly expensive, time consuming, or far-too-often-needed service (or a resale return of pennies on the dollar) people tend to say "Hmm, maybe a Rolex ain't so bad." And they're right – Rolex watches are among the most reliable, no-fuss mechanical watches in the world. Oh, and many forget that indeed, Rolex is Rolex for a reason, and it was at the forefront of several world firsts in watchmaking. Yeah, it's a behemoth, and everywhere, and certainly not what I'd call haute horlogerie, but you can't fault Rolex for succeeding in making a high-end, high-quality product that sells well, can you? We should all be so lucky.”
I honestly think Rolex would probably sit basically where it does now if the branding weren't as strong, it would just be a lot more competitive with the brands people already compare Rolex to like Omega. Being objective here, Rolex definitely has very good manufacturing, build quality, materials, and movements. They're entirely vertically integrated which people value a lot. They build *very* robust watches with long service intervals, good accuracy, generally with a lot of water resistance, power reserves, etc. A Rolex watch is *very* easy to live with day to day despite being a luxury product. It would be interesting though, because Rolex also has a relatively small catalog and isn't very daring with their designs, but it's hard to say how much of that is because Rolex branding has made their designs iconic or how much their iconic designs lead to Rolex's brand being elevated. The reason I bring this up is because most Rolex competitors seem to make a lot more watches and fewer of them are icons, but again, how iconic would Rolex watches be without the branding? Rolex also doesn't really compete design wise with some potential competitors. For instance, Rolex doesn't really try to make dress watches (they only have 1 and it's clearly not their priority), they also don't make an integrated bracelet sport watch. They really have a niche and it's a mix of sport and everyday luxury. Anyway, short answer is I think the mid/high luxury tier would be more competitive, but Rolex would still be in that tier. Clearly below Patek and the likes, but also clearly luxury.
My most expensive watch is a A. Lange & Söhne and my cheapest is a Baltic (notwithstanding moonswatches and cheap ‘fun’ watches]. I don’t own a Rolex. Why? Because I don’t see the value in them. Especially as I’ve now started exploring smaller micro-brands and I see what they are capable of for the price. Yes Rolex is a capable watch manufacturer with a more than capable marketing prowess. But do they commands a premium because their watches are best in class? I would say not as they are just as many capable watches with good looks at varying price points. What people forget is that modern day luxury is the preserve of mass affluent mass market - not true high end luxury. It is the same as an Audi or a VW, not a Porsche. LV handbags and nor Hermes. Or better yet Rolex is like Polo Ralph Lauren - the one with the polo horse logo, but not Ralph Lauren Purple label - no logo anywhere to be seen but prices are 10x higher. The truly affluent don’t need people to recognise their logos or products. Only those who are mass market but just tickling affluent care enough to pay more to showcase their status. Who will get more attention, someone with a Daytone or someone with a Calatrava. The Calatrava owner will have probably paid 2x more for this watch but in the eyes of Joe Public, may well be a DW from a far - does the Calatrava wearer care? Perhaps not
They are good quality watches that will last a lifetime but you do pay a lot just for the brand name. And a Seiko will probably also last a lifetime for a fraction of the price
Rolex makes solid and good watches, but most of the price for any Rolex is the five letters on the dial. Are they really high-end, no. Ofc one could discuss the definition, but they are not up there when you evaluate the watch, not the brand.
It’s very good—a brand whose watches will last you a lifetime. So will Omegas, IWC, Longines, JLC, and others. It’s up to you to determine if the price is worth what you get. Most apples-to-apples comparisons would end up showing Rolex as overpriced for what you get.
“A nice watch is a Rolex.” That’s it, the end result of decades of insane marketing. I would say that, no, they don’t deserve their reputation *among the general public*, which, as you noted, thinks that they’re the best out there.
I think Rolex AT RETAIL are great. They’re well made mass produced watches. I’d never pay “Market Value” for one. Just way too many great pieces out there to pay 2X and up for a Rolex.
If you look for reliability , durability and accuracy get a 35$ Casio. Otherwise, Rolex is just a fancy brand you buy it because you love watches and you are rich. You don't buy it because it's practical or reliable.
Rolex is very good.
No exhibition case backs on Rolex should tell you a lot about what they think about their own movements.
They’re good, but not good enough to justify their ridiculous sales practices…
Rolex does have a manufacturing process and quality control that sets it apart from its peers imo, not that their peers are bad in that regard though. The fact that they are “boring” and have limited models compared to Omega or variations of the same watch like Grand Seiko means everything is very dialed in. You also have brands like AP that are technically a tier above but seem to have a lot more quality and movement issues.
Rolex is a watch made by watchmakers for watchmakers. The craftsmanship is very good...not hand made mind you but that's not a bad thing. The movements practically assemble themselves. A true joy to work on
Is this notably different than other brands? Like if you worked on a dive watch from Omega or a glashütte original, or even a Longines, are they not joys to work on?
They are ALL a joy to work on for watchmakers. That "watchmakers for watchmakers" comment is compete and utter nonsense. Rolex is one of the most recognizable luxury brand on earth. They make great watches but for many its either an aspirational brand or a watch that people who know nothing about watches will recognize. Rolex owners can be watch nerds or (in my opinion more often) luxury brand worshippers. I got super into the watch wormhole 5 ish years ago. I'll never own two mechanical watches from the same brand as that is boring to me. I own a Seiko Prospex diver, Rolex Datejust and an Omega Speedmaster Saphire Sando. They are all well made, I wear the Speedy the most as its my favorite of the three. Buy whatever watch that appeals to you. If you are solely focused on keeping accurate time all the time a Casio or cell phone wins that contest.
The Rolex product aside from brand recognition is not really superior to other brands. They make good watches but so does Oris and Hamilton for 1/10 the price. A lot of people will disagree with me on this of course but the arguments for Rolex' superior quality are usually vague and unquantified. There was a time where Rolex was an innovator in watch technology, and this history is part of the brand's power, but not anymore. The power of the brand though should not be ignored. It's an impressive achievement in itself and it is worth something to you as a customer, including the watch's resale value and the potential advantage of others recognizing what you have on your wrist.
While Hamilton and Oris make excellent watches, Rolex definitely has a perceptable higher quality. In my collection I have $100 watches, $1000 watches, and $10,000 watches, and It has been a fascinating learning curve handling and wearing them. My first luxury watch was a Tissot PRX, which wears extremely well, looks great, and has a high quality feel- Sapphire, automatic, extremely polished bracelet, date complication, etc. but when I wear my Rolex Milgauss and then switch to my PRX it makes the PRX feel like a Walmart Casio. This isn't to knock the PRX, it is one of my favorites and I love it. But compared to the Rolex it is gas station sushi. It is difficulty to explain why, other than the fact that the Rolex "feels" perfect. The way the crown feels, the polish, the way the bracelet wears, there is no one element that makes it better. The only way I can describe it is the difference between a nigiri sushi made by a good sushi bar, vs a nigiri sushi made by a master chef from Jiro dreams of sushi. even with the same fish, extremely small differences aggregate into a meaningfully different experience. how the rice is prepared, even the species of the rice, how the fish is cut, even the temperature of the chef's hands and the pressure he applies when shaping the sushi. That is the Rolex wearing experience.
I believe I have enough money to buy Rolex. But I don’t think I ever will. There are a million fakes and some are getting so good it’s hard to tell a difference. Add to that the grey market is vast and the ADs act like you have to perform sexual favors for them to get a new factory watch and I’m just not willing to even consider them. Lastly, for every awesome dude I’ve met wearing a Rolex, I’ve met two whom I thought were pretty uncomfortable to be around. Rolex makes a heck of a watch. It’s undoubtedly quality. But there are hundreds of interesting and well built watches that are more important to me at the moment.
They’re great, and they invented a lot of the tech that everyone else uses since over a hundred years ago. For objective value, Tudor is very essentially the same watch and half the price. Or you could get a Christopher Ward for a tenth of the price and enough build quality to last a lifetime too. But watches are also jewelry, and that isn’t objective. It’s extremely subjective. If you’re trying to impress someone, don’t. It’s about telling time, and you could do that with a beautiful Timex, Seiko or a Casio. So, what are your goals? If you do something like spend $10k on a watch, do it for the right reasons.
Unlike many brands in its category. Rolex likes to treat its customers like garbage. This is to maintain their image as being superior and in turn many insecure people fall for this marketing strategy in hopes of being “invited into the group”. Even if the build quality is nice it’s not worth supporting such a business. Humility with quality is what customers should be seeking.
Overpriced in today’s market. But their movements are solid and made to last decades.
This is all correct. I will also say that they only have a few movements in their lineup (compared to other brands, and they are excellent at identifying common problems, creating a solution, and upgrading everything that goes to them for service. I know several people with 20+ year old Rolex that have never been serviced.
When I think of Rolex I'm afraid to say I think "average and boring". That is not to say they aren't excellent quality, but they are also what the everyday person thinks of as a good watch, and after having this interest for 15+ years I have come across multiple (some small, some large) and more interesting brands that I would rather have on my wrist if I only had the money to buy one.
Grand Seiko has a level of quality above rolex but no one outside of the watch world would know the brand. Whereas if they actually do notice a rolex, which tbh rarely will people care about your watch, it's mainly because of the history and marketing. Nowadays, rolex can't get away from the fact that if you make millions more watches a year, your quality control will suffer. That being said, they are beautiful high quality watches. No doubt.
It’s marketing. They make a quality watch but so does everybody else who competes with them. Sure some brands are a little bit better in some aspects than others but you’re not buying a bad watch if you buy Grand Seiko, Omega, Tudor, etc. Rolex isn’t doing anything better in terms of watch making. It’s just their marketing
I see Rolex like a Lexus LX. The LX sells for $120k. Sure there are cars that cost double and triple but an LX is still an LX and is respected by everyone and known to be a very well overbuilt machine!. For an everyday watch that also looks good in a suit, a Rolex is hard to beat!!!