Rolex

[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

Yeah, it's jewelry for men. There's nothing wrong with that, but own it, guys.

[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.

This is not at all "the ultimate sign of wealth." Discernment? Ok. To a somewhat odd level. Most people, including most extremely wealthy people, don't even know the word "horlogerie," and don't care too.

At any rate, no such thing as true social climbing. You'll never "attain" membership in the UC if you weren't born into it. And no FP Journe is going to change that. UC people aren't looking at your watch as some kind of signifier anyway; only desperate UMC strivers are doing that. I wear my grandmother's Patek Phillipe most days, and no one knows what it is. My grandfather, far wealthier than most people walking around wearing watches that cost 6 figures, wore a Timex.

[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.

A billionaire friend of mine drives a Mustang. I love him for that, lol. Fits his personality well.

[Anonymous]

Rich people own several luxury homes. Whether you wear a nice luxury watch or wear a $300 Apple Watch, you either have a portfolio of real estate or you don't. A luxury watch alone is not fooling anyone but maybe some bottom caste nitwits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A billionaire friend of mine drives a Mustang. I love him for that, lol. Fits his personality well.

Yep. The billionaires and multimillionaires I know tend to have quirks, hobbies, interests. They aren’t worried about being on some exclusive waiting list to shop. That is ridiculous. Rich people also eat McDonalds and drink cheap beer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not at all "the ultimate sign of wealth." Discernment? Ok. To a somewhat odd level. Most people, including most extremely wealthy people, don't even know the word "horlogerie," and don't care too.

At any rate, no such thing as true social climbing. You'll never "attain" membership in the UC if you weren't born into it. And no FP Journe is going to change that. UC people aren't looking at your watch as some kind of signifier anyway; only desperate UMC strivers are doing that. I wear my grandmother's Patek Phillipe most days, and no one knows what it is. My grandfather, far wealthier than most people walking around wearing watches that cost 6 figures, wore a Timex.

The idea of rich guys comparing watches makes me think of the business card scene in American Psycho.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But is it actually the best watch out there? Nah.

Define best.

They’re as accurate alost any other mechanical watch.

Many of their models are icons. They have histories.

There aren’t many watches that can seamlessly transition from the beach, to t-shirt and jeans and then a suit and tie.

Unless you’re a fussy twit, ALL watches can do that.

[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?

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.

Omega here for me as well. Seamaster 300M. It was an anniversary gift from my wife. I have a Hamilton Khaki that I like as well but wear the Omega more often. I looked at several different Rolex watches and I just thought they were kind of cliched, even though they were the OG of that particular style of watch. LOL.

[Anonymous]

What watch do all the fighter pilots group order? I gotta call my brother….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What watch do all the fighter pilots group order? I gotta call my brother….

Top Gun aviators are issued IWC pilot watches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s odd that Rolex is so divisive. The company has a rich horological history, and their branding is unparalleled.

At a time when smartphones and Apple Watches are ubiquitous Rolex is as popular as ever.

By branding you mean advertising budget... There is a world of beautiful, elegant, better made watches out there but because 98% of humans are 98% lemming, most don't even consider them.

Rolex watches are ugly.

That is an opinion. And not even a very informed one.

Oh honey, I know watches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s odd that Rolex is so divisive. The company has a rich horological history, and their branding is unparalleled.

At a time when smartphones and Apple Watches are ubiquitous Rolex is as popular as ever.

By branding you mean advertising budget... There is a world of beautiful, elegant, better made watches out there but because 98% of humans are 98% lemming, most don't even consider them.

Rolex watches are ugly.

That is an opinion. And not even a very informed one.

Oh honey, I know watches.

Your “knowledge” appears tainted with bias.

Watch snobs are some of the nerdiest, jaded people on the planet.

Rolex produces 1M+ robust watches annually with excellent QC, tight tolerances, with an accuracy of +2/-2 seconds per day.

Are some Rolex watches unattractive? Of course, but their icons are generally true to their heritage, and any collection is incomplete without one of them.

[Anonymous]

The Pepsi GMT Master 2 is foolishly being discontinued by Rolex in Q1. It’s one of their most sought after models with massive waitlists.

The GMT Master 2 has virtually perfect proportions at 40mm wide, 48mm across the wrist and 12.2mm tall.

I think I’ll pivot to the Batgirl GMT as a backup plan. What do people think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not at all "the ultimate sign of wealth." Discernment? Ok. To a somewhat odd level. Most people, including most extremely wealthy people, don't even know the word "horlogerie," and don't care too.

At any rate, no such thing as true social climbing. You'll never "attain" membership in the UC if you weren't born into it. And no FP Journe is going to change that. UC people aren't looking at your watch as some kind of signifier anyway; only desperate UMC strivers are doing that. I wear my grandmother's Patek Phillipe most days, and no one knows what it is. My grandfather, far wealthier than most people walking around wearing watches that cost 6 figures, wore a Timex.

The idea of rich guys comparing watches makes me think of the business card scene in American Psycho.

Yes!

Hilarious. And fiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s odd that Rolex is so divisive. The company has a rich horological history, and their branding is unparalleled.

At a time when smartphones and Apple Watches are ubiquitous Rolex is as popular as ever.

By branding you mean advertising budget... There is a world of beautiful, elegant, better made watches out there but because 98% of humans are 98% lemming, most don't even consider them.

Rolex watches are ugly.

That is an opinion. And not even a very informed one.

Oh honey, I know watches.

When they start up with the "Oh honey" you know they haven't had their finger on the pulse of anything, culturally speaking, since 1983.