Rolex

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rolex is C tier.

Excellent, why, and what other brands are in this tier?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nearly all of the richest men I know age 45 to 70 wear basic $300 Apple Watches. Rolex is like a first gen foreigner thing. And maybe a retired boomer thing.

With a blazer or suit? How gauche.

The richest lawyer I know wears lulu pants and quarter zip sweaters most days.

What does he wear to court, or to the firm?

[Anonymous]

Rolex has a 32.9% market share of the Swiss watch industry. The next closest brand is Cartier at 8.7%.

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/with-rolex-and-cartier-in-another-league-a-deep-dive-on-whos-making-gains-and-whos-feeling-pain-in-t#&gid=1&pid=2

[Anonymous]

Rolex is Rolex. It's a brand and a name and I say this that wears one most days. It's a go anywhere do anything watch. If you buy it to baby it and for the status then you've bought for IMO the wrong reasons. I've worn mine from snorkeling in the Caribbean, shooting, hunting trips, hiking, to nice dinners. A steel Rolex is nice enough to wear to dinner and not feel out of place and simultaneously reliable enough to do what I said before. It works perfectly for me. Could a Seiko or a Casio do that also, yeah probably, but I don't want a Seiko or Casio, I want a piece that's made in house in Switzerland, appreciates in value, is very aesthetically pleasing (IMHO), and with a rich legacy, history, and solid mechanical movement behind it.

[Anonymous]

Wearing my new Sub today 😎

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rolex is Rolex. It's a brand and a name and I say this that wears one most days. It's a go anywhere do anything watch. If you buy it to baby it and for the status then you've bought for IMO the wrong reasons. I've worn mine from snorkeling in the Caribbean, shooting, hunting trips, hiking, to nice dinners. A steel Rolex is nice enough to wear to dinner and not feel out of place and simultaneously reliable enough to do what I said before. It works perfectly for me. Could a Seiko or a Casio do that also, yeah probably, but I don't want a Seiko or Casio, I want a piece that's made in house in Switzerland, appreciates in value, is very aesthetically pleasing (IMHO), and with a rich legacy, history, and solid mechanical movement behind it.

Well said, you nailed the gravitas of Rolex. Even a women’s Rolex Datejust with fluted bezel and jubilee bracelet can go from yachting in rough summer seas during the day to a Michelin restaurant in the evening. They’re robust, water resistant watches with long power reserves and excellent accuracy. If they trigger someone, that’s their problem.

[Anonymous]

Is the Rolex Datejust the perfect watch?

Robust elegance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wearing my new Sub today 😎

Date, or no date? Black bezel?

The Glidelock clasp is a game changer!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rolex is for amateurs. The really rich are buying Richard Mills timepieces.

agree, rolex are kind of tacky, they are very shiny. and they aren't for accuracy- quartz watches all keep better time- its a hobby. I dont think they signal any sort of refinement though, vintage patek or any other watch you get from your grandparents from before the 1940s is an actual flex.

[Anonymous]

Man, what a great problem to not have. Feeling the need to buy a Porsche or a Rolex sounds like a pain in the a**.

[Anonymous]

I think many people are overthinking this. I have a Rolex - just one - because I like wearing a watch and I like the way the fluted bezel looks in white metal. Yes, I "overpaid." Yes, I could have just bought a $20 Timex or looked at my cell phone. But it sounds like many posters here (without Rolexes) have spent way more time thinking about Rolexes than I have. It is not a hobby, a lifestyle, or some kind of political statement for me. It's just a watch to me, not a horological obsession. I don't want to go out and buy a Patek or whatever prestige makers people are claiming are the only real watches.

[Anonymous]

This market research still going on? This illusion of scarcity is so obvious. Just buy if you like it for whatever reason, but i think too many people buy into the marketing that its prestigious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rolex is for amateurs. The really rich are buying Richard Mills timepieces.

agree, rolex are kind of tacky, they are very shiny. and they aren't for accuracy- quartz watches all keep better time- its a hobby. I dont think they signal any sort of refinement though, vintage patek or any other watch you get from your grandparents from before the 1940s is an actual flex.

Yeah, don't buy a Rolex, whatever you do. The time won't even be right.

Yeah. Ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rolex is for amateurs. The really rich are buying Richard Mills timepieces.

agree, rolex are kind of tacky, they are very shiny. and they aren't for accuracy- quartz watches all keep better time- its a hobby. I dont think they signal any sort of refinement though, vintage patek or any other watch you get from your grandparents from before the 1940s is an actual flex.

While I appreciate a vintage Patek as a watch enthusiast, a grandfather’s Patek on the average male’s wrist looks like a women’s watch. That’s not a flex. It’s more of an oddity to a lay person.

Rolex Submariners, both with a date and without, are not shiny at all. Both their cases and bracelets are brushed steel.

I’ve had quartz watches that cost thousands of dollars that kept amazing time, and were also shiny. I liked them very much, but quartz just isn’t the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rolex is for amateurs. The really rich are buying Richard Mills timepieces.

agree, rolex are kind of tacky, they are very shiny. and they aren't for accuracy- quartz watches all keep better time- its a hobby. I dont think they signal any sort of refinement though, vintage patek or any other watch you get from your grandparents from before the 1940s is an actual flex.

This doesn’t happen with a Rolex.