I just saw the body camera footage of Tiger Woods’ DUI arrest on YouTube. A lot of people are going to get a look at his Rolex Deepsea Sea-Dweller. A Rolex is so easy to pick out on someone’s wrist.

Anonymous wrote:Compare to a Patek (50k watches/year) or IWC (70k/year). These two are different categories price-wise, but anyone wearing either of those probably appreciates watches.

Patek, AP and VC are the Holy Trinity of watch making, but most of their collections don’t appeal to me. The Patek Aquanaut and Calatrava are fine, but wouldn’t be my first choices in each of their respective categories. I feel the same about VC, but I am intrigued by their cushion cased American 1921 model with the dial that’s rotated 45 degrees to the right. If I had to choose I’d go for the AP Royal Oak Jumbo Extra-Thin in stainless over Patek’s Aquanaut.

Personally I’d go with a simple Breguet for a dress watch. They have some wonderful watches with small seconds sub-dials on either enamel, or guillochè dials. I’d also consider a JLC Reverso Duoface in the classic smaller size.

What makes you think that people who appreciate watches don’t appreciate Rolex? Why wouldn’t anyone appreciate a watch company as successful in the luxury market as they are? It’s not easy to make that many in house, reliable, accurate movements each year. Hell, they have their own foundry to produce 904L Oystersteel as well as the gold alloys they use for their watches. They also offer a 5-year warranty(as does AP). Patek and VC only offer a 2-year warranty.

I obviously appreciate Rolex, but here are the brands I’ve owned, or currently own.

Apple Watch
Baume & Mercier
Breitling
Citizen
Frédérique Constant
G-Shock
Glashütte Original
Grand Seiko
Hamilton
IWC
Longines
Marathon
Nomos
Omega
Rolex
Seiko
Sinn
Stowa
Tag Heuer

I personally love IWC, but the demand just isn’t there for their watches. Additionally, some of their in house movements aren’t necessarily in house. They’re sourced from companies owned by Richemont, their parent company. I may pick up a Mark XX in the future because I love simple fliegers, and the adjustable push-button clasp on its bracelet is one of the slickest designs in the industry.

Anonymous wrote:My husband wears his dad’s Rolex. It’s much more sentimental (dad died) than status symbol. No idea what it’s worth - maybe not much bc very old.

You may be surprised by its current value.

My husband wears his dad’s Rolex. It’s much more sentimental (dad died) than status symbol. No idea what it’s worth - maybe not much bc very old.

Anonymous wrote:Prosaic

LOL! You misspelled iconic. Their strategy of design continuity and marketing has served them well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why wouldn’t you consider Rolex prestigious?

Because 1.1 million people bought a Rolex last year.

I wasn’t aware that prestige was a function of manufacturing constraints and lower consumer demand.

Prosaic

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why wouldn’t you consider Rolex prestigious?

Because 1.1 million people bought a Rolex last year.

1.1mln is not deceiving. That many watches with the name Rolex are being sold each year and (ideally) ending up on people's wrists. It doesn't matter if it's different models of Rolex, they're all Rolexes.

That means they aren't rare. They're just the standard "luxury" watch you get, especially when you know nothing about watches. Rolexes are great quality, but they are very mainstream.

Compare to a Patek (50k watches/year) or IWC (70k/year). These two are different categories price-wise, but anyone wearing either of those probably appreciates watches.

Anonymous wrote:It's the McDonald's of luxury watches. Everyone has one.

And yet Rolex will require you to get on a waiting list for most models, even though they produce 1.1mln watches a year -- the largest watch producer in the world.

People keep throwing around the 1.1M watches produced each year statistic.

The majority of those are Oyster Perpetuals and Datejusts. The Datejust alone has +/- 700 different combinations of dials, bezels, bracelets and watch materials(steel vs precious metal).

There are somewhere between 1,400 and 1,800 authorized Rolex dealers. When you divide 1.1M by 1,600 that provides an average number of 688 watches per year for each dealer. That’s under 2 watches a day they could sell.

Does that put things in perspective?

Most of the watches sold are the gateway models. As previously mentioned, the OP & DJ lines, but also the Air King and Explorer 1 models.

In total Rolex sells 15 distinct model families. Some are produced in significantly smaller numbers annually, which leads to scarcity and increases demand.

The Submariner and Submariner date are the watches most people see day to day. They are very versatile, and on the lower end of Rolex pricing at $10,500 and $11,350 respectively in steel. In the current catalog there are only 3 steel variants. The Submariner no-date comes one way, steel oyster bracelet, black dial, black bezel. It’s what James Bond wore until Omega paid to be Bond’s watch. The Submariner date in steel only differs in that it offers both a black and green bezel. No one outside of Rolex knows how many Subs they make each year, but it’s not enough to satisfy demand. That’s why there are waits.

When you get into the GMT-Master IIs, Daytonas, Land-Dwellers and Sky-Dwellers the demand goes through the roof while the available supply also drops. Dealers may get one or two of these models a year in the most sought after configurations.

All that to say, the 1.1M number can be deceiving.

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.

Ironically, there are neo-vintage Rolex watches that are co-branded with Tiffany & Co. dials that were sold at Tiffany locations from 1960-1990. They are now worth a lot.

https://www.chrono24.com/rolex/gmt-master--id23803974.htm?searchHash=ab7ec859_GaGPx8&pos=5

Anonymous wrote:These posts on this thread seem to be written by Rolex flacks. Or worse, by ChatGPT. Reminder: Chat GPT is forbidden on DCUM. Jeff's policy.

The above quote is cute.

When a person has knowledge about Rolex beyond descriptors like “tacky” and “gaudy” they must be undercover marketers that use AI to formulate posts on a women’s forum.

**Spoiler Alert** I’m wearing an Omega right now.

These posts on this thread seem to be written by Rolex flacks. Or worse, by ChatGPT. Reminder: Chat GPT is forbidden on DCUM. Jeff's policy.

Anonymous wrote:rolex are kind of tacky

What makes Rolex tacky? Jacob & Co. is tacky. Richard Mille is tacky. The AP Royal Oak Offshore is tacky.

Anonymous wrote:they are very shiny

What watch do you wear that isn’t shiny? Some of the most ubiquitous Rolex models are not shiny. The Submariner, Submariner date, Explorer and Explorer II all have a brushed steel case and bracelet. Their best selling watch of all time is the Datejust. It’s the most configurable watch in their catalog. If a customer chooses a domed bezel and an Oyster bracelet they’d have a wonderfully understated watch.

Anonymous wrote:they aren't for accuracy

A Rolex “superlative chronometer” is certified to run +/- 2 seconds per day. The movement that generate that accuracy has about 200 tiny pieces.Rolex is one of only a handful of watch companies that make everything in-house. They have their own foundry to make the 904L steel they use for watches. They make their own white gold components , that are actually grey gold. It doesn’t need to be rhodium plated.

Anonymous wrote:I dont think they signal any sort of refinement though

Refinement? My watches tell time and I like the way they look. Why are you so concerned with “refinement?” I was at a board meeting for a few days last week and 70%+ were wearing a Rolex of some type. These were very accomplished people.

Anonymous wrote:vintage patek or any other watch you get from your grandparents from before the 1940s is an actual flex.

Flex? You really seem overly concerned with signaling some twisted notion of superiority. Watches are made to be worn. You aren’t going to wear your grandfather’s 34mm Patek on its skinny leather strap to the beach on vacation. A Rolex can go from snorkeling to a Michelin restaurant in the same day. It’s practical, very well made, reliable and widely accepted for almost any occasion. I wouldn’t wear a Rolex for black tie, but you could.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why wouldn’t you consider Rolex prestigious?