Rolex

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL at those who think you can walk into a Rolex dealer and out with a new watch. Not likely in most cases. Ever heard of waiting lists?

I walked into an AD and was able to try on different Rolex models and walked out with one the same day. Of course, it wasn't one of the rare coveted models, but yes you can walk in and buy a Rolex. Unless things have really changed that much in 10 years?

They haven't changed. You absolutely can walk into a place like Lenkersdorfer and walk out with a Rolex. People on this forum like to blah blah blah about how you have to have a special relationship with a jeweler and get on a waiting list and blah blah blah that there is no such thing as walking into a store in the mall and buying a Rolex. But you absolutely can. You aren't going to get a rare one, no. But most people here are not getting that anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a difference between Tiffany / LV and Rolex. Someone upthread mentioned Tiffany silver items and the LV neverfull, compared to entry level stainless Rolex models. I think the entry level Tiffany items are nothing special and not well made, and the brand has made me think twice about buying their diamond items or anniversary items, since their service has also suffered. If you do a quick search, you'll see people decrying LV and Tiffany as having cheapened the brand - both by trying to gain the masses with cheap items, but also with cheaper production and finishing. I haven't so far seen any complaints that Rolex now makes crap watches, even when discussing their mass produced, inexpensive models.

This.

And fwiw, Tiffany and LV have done an amazing job at marketing at the masses -- I'm sure Tiffany has made much, much more money selling those sad bean necklaces than they have designing fancy stuff for Hollywood royalty or whatever. LV had kept itself alive selling Speedy bags to people who wait in line to enter the store at the mall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked very closely with Rolex for many years and the reason why they sell so many now is they changed their marketing and now everyone wants one. In the US they used to market to a very select crowd and now they are marketing everywhere.

There was a power struggle after Allen Brill died in 2010 about how to run Rolex USA and they hired their in house marketing guy who changed the way they marketed the company and for a few years it didn't do very well especially around 2012-15 when sales dipped because of the economy but as the economy recovered, the marketing to everyone really took off and their hybrid approach of exclusivity and putting their name on everything changed everything as did the popularity of F1 which used to be very exclusive now anyone can go enjoy the race and while the US Open Golf Tournament used to be their only sponsorship, every tournament is now sponsored by them.

Are they the best watch? no, are they the most popular top brand yes but it's not as exclusive as it once was.

You basically nailed it, but the iconic nature of brand Rolex coupled with just enough exclusivity to keep it out of reach for most folks makes it aspirational.

And one is still getting a beautiful watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a difference between Tiffany / LV and Rolex. Someone upthread mentioned Tiffany silver items and the LV neverfull, compared to entry level stainless Rolex models. I think the entry level Tiffany items are nothing special and not well made, and the brand has made me think twice about buying their diamond items or anniversary items, since their service has also suffered. If you do a quick search, you'll see people decrying LV and Tiffany as having cheapened the brand - both by trying to gain the masses with cheap items, but also with cheaper production and finishing. I haven't so far seen any complaints that Rolex now makes crap watches, even when discussing their mass produced, inexpensive models.

This.

And fwiw, Tiffany and LV have done an amazing job at marketing at the masses -- I'm sure Tiffany has made much, much more money selling those sad bean necklaces than they have designing fancy stuff for Hollywood royalty or whatever. LV had kept itself alive selling Speedy bags to people who wait in line to enter the store at the mall.

I agree with that.

However, I don't agree that Rolex is exclusive. It just mass-markets itself to a slightly smaller, more moneyed group. But there are way more exclusive groups who focus on invitation-only watchmakers that most people have never heard of... and those watches are currently the ultimate sign of wealth and discernment (Philippe Dufour, FP Journe, etc). Those are only available to loyal collectors who have proven that they appreciate the work. The clients of haute horlogerie, high watchmaking in French, like haute couture, wouldn't be seen dead with a Rolex, just like a PP above wouldn't be seen dead with an item from Tiffany's.

It's all a Hall of Mirrors, people. There will always be something more exclusive, more expensive, more unattainable.

Lesson for the people on DCUM:
1. Please accept that the social message you're sending will be read VERY differently by people in different socio-economic groups.
2. Know your audience: if you're social climbing (I'm not judging), be aware of what level you want to attain and to whom you're really messaging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a difference between Tiffany / LV and Rolex. Someone upthread mentioned Tiffany silver items and the LV neverfull, compared to entry level stainless Rolex models. I think the entry level Tiffany items are nothing special and not well made, and the brand has made me think twice about buying their diamond items or anniversary items, since their service has also suffered. If you do a quick search, you'll see people decrying LV and Tiffany as having cheapened the brand - both by trying to gain the masses with cheap items, but also with cheaper production and finishing. I haven't so far seen any complaints that Rolex now makes crap watches, even when discussing their mass produced, inexpensive models.

This.

And fwiw, Tiffany and LV have done an amazing job at marketing at the masses -- I'm sure Tiffany has made much, much more money selling those sad bean necklaces than they have designing fancy stuff for Hollywood royalty or whatever. LV had kept itself alive selling Speedy bags to people who wait in line to enter the store at the mall.

I agree with that.

However, I don't agree that Rolex is exclusive. It just mass-markets itself to a slightly smaller, more moneyed group. But there are way more exclusive groups who focus on invitation-only watchmakers that most people have never heard of... and those watches are currently the ultimate sign of wealth and discernment (Philippe Dufour, FP Journe, etc). Those are only available to loyal collectors who have proven that they appreciate the work. The clients of haute horlogerie, high watchmaking in French, like haute couture, wouldn't be seen dead with a Rolex, just like a PP above wouldn't be seen dead with an item from Tiffany's.

It's all a Hall of Mirrors, people. There will always be something more exclusive, more expensive, more unattainable.

Lesson for the people on DCUM:
1. Please accept that the social message you're sending will be read VERY differently by people in different socio-economic groups.
2. Know your audience: if you're social climbing (I'm not judging), be aware of what level you want to attain and to whom you're really messaging.

Philippe Dufour wears a Rolex GMT-Master II Pepsi frequently. Square that circle my friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have watches that are worth more than single family homes in this area.

Keeps the same time as my kids mickey mouse watch too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have watches that are worth more than single family homes in this area.

Keeps the same time as my kids mickey mouse watch too

Likely worse sadly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a difference between Tiffany / LV and Rolex. Someone upthread mentioned Tiffany silver items and the LV neverfull, compared to entry level stainless Rolex models. I think the entry level Tiffany items are nothing special and not well made, and the brand has made me think twice about buying their diamond items or anniversary items, since their service has also suffered. If you do a quick search, you'll see people decrying LV and Tiffany as having cheapened the brand - both by trying to gain the masses with cheap items, but also with cheaper production and finishing. I haven't so far seen any complaints that Rolex now makes crap watches, even when discussing their mass produced, inexpensive models.

This.

And fwiw, Tiffany and LV have done an amazing job at marketing at the masses -- I'm sure Tiffany has made much, much more money selling those sad bean necklaces than they have designing fancy stuff for Hollywood royalty or whatever. LV had kept itself alive selling Speedy bags to people who wait in line to enter the store at the mall.

I agree with that.

However, I don't agree that Rolex is exclusive. It just mass-markets itself to a slightly smaller, more moneyed group. But there are way more exclusive groups who focus on invitation-only watchmakers that most people have never heard of... and those watches are currently the ultimate sign of wealth and discernment (Philippe Dufour, FP Journe, etc). Those are only available to loyal collectors who have proven that they appreciate the work. The clients of haute horlogerie, high watchmaking in French, like haute couture, wouldn't be seen dead with a Rolex, just like a PP above wouldn't be seen dead with an item from Tiffany's.

It's all a Hall of Mirrors, people. There will always be something more exclusive, more expensive, more unattainable.

Lesson for the people on DCUM:
1. Please accept that the social message you're sending will be read VERY differently by people in different socio-economic groups.
2. Know your audience: if you're social climbing (I'm not judging), be aware of what level you want to attain and to whom you're really messaging.

Philippe Dufour talking about his Roles during a Watchbox interview, start at the 23:12 mark. He’s on a whole different level than the jaded and misguided consumers you mentioned.

[Anonymous]

I disagree with the premise that Rolex is only acceptable if it’s exclusive. Someone upthread mentioned their watches cost more than single family homes. Fine, but I think money, wealth, class, etc IMO mean you can pretty much wear and do what you want (within reason).

I like my Rolex and I also like plain white tshirts from the Gap and Reeboks. If I think it’s good, I choose it. What is the use of having money and being in the 1% if I’m “required” to wear a 100K watch, fine cashmere, dressy shoes, and 10K coats? That kind of image is some weird idea of rich people that non-rich people and new money people seem to have. The richest and most powerful guy I know actually has a Subaru as his primary car.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I disagree with the premise that Rolex is only acceptable if it’s exclusive. Someone upthread mentioned their watches cost more than single family homes. Fine, but I think money, wealth, class, etc IMO mean you can pretty much wear and do what you want (within reason).

I like my Rolex and I also like plain white tshirts from the Gap and Reeboks. If I think it’s good, I choose it. What is the use of having money and being in the 1% if I’m “required” to wear a 100K watch, fine cashmere, dressy shoes, and 10K coats? That kind of image is some weird idea of rich people that non-rich people and new money people seem to have. The richest and most powerful guy I know actually has a Subaru as his primary car.

Classic DCUM to spam these corny old wasp tropes. You allegedly know one outlier rich miser who drives a prole car... never mind that Land Rover Alexandria sells more $120,000+ full size Range Rovers than any dealer outside of California.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL at those who think you can walk into a Rolex dealer and out with a new watch. Not likely in most cases. Ever heard of waiting lists?

I walked into an AD and was able to try on different Rolex models and walked out with one the same day. Of course, it wasn't one of the rare coveted models, but yes you can walk in and buy a Rolex. Unless things have really changed that much in 10 years?

John Mulaney has a rather insane Rolex buying story in his latest stand up (his spending was restricted so he bought a Rolex and then immediately resold it to buy drugs).

Wow. So edgy and hilarious.

Is there any comic more astroturfed than that closeted dweeb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL at those who think you can walk into a Rolex dealer and out with a new watch. Not likely in most cases. Ever heard of waiting lists?

I walked into an AD and was able to try on different Rolex models and walked out with one the same day. Of course, it wasn't one of the rare coveted models, but yes you can walk in and buy a Rolex. Unless things have really changed that much in 10 years?

The market did change in the last 10 years, though not just for Rolex. It was a mix of people being stuck at home for Covid + a lot of rich crypto folks looking for how to spend their money. They latched onto watch collecting as a hobby and that drove up prices.

I have an Omega and and IWC and both work perfectly fine for my needs and look good too. They're not cheap, but about half the retail price of a similar Rolex and easy to obtain.

[Anonymous]

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

You mean Richard Mille? obviously an expert.

[Anonymous]

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

Richard Mille makes chunky, visually loud abominations. They’re the purple hair of the watch world.