Reply to Rolex

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Rolex"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[b] 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. [/b]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.

[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics