Myth busting the idea that Rolex is something now that it wasn’t before
There’s a common thread I’ve seen in watch commentary (usually YouTube, but other media as well) that Rolex has become a high-priced status symbol that has left its roots as an “Everyman” tool watch.
But I remember the late 70s and early 80s. Rolex already had the reputation of being a high-priced luxury good. Nice watches. Dependable watches. Well-made watches. Some “tool” watches (though I don’t think that term was used a lot back then). But they were also a financial status symbol and leaned heavily into that.
Attached ad showed up in Rolex World today, dated 1971.
None of this is bashing Rolex, old or new. It is just a word of caution. A lot of what is out there on the Internet about the history and mystique of watches and what they were at some point in the romanticized past that they aren’t today is filler and fluff. If enough people say something over and over again, it starts to sound true.
Bulova, Hamilton, Seiko, Timex… Those were “Everyman” brands.
"A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure." - Segal’s Law
Well put. The internet is a dangerous place for misinformation in any 'fandom'. Basically, someone along the line has declared, "Uh, yeah, it was the yuppies, around 1987, and Wall Street, and all of that... it pushed Rolex away from being a tool watch and into a status symbol..." and then that's been repeated, and believed, ad nauseum, by thousands since. It's one of those scenarios where someone - who probably wasn't even born at the time - has seen how yuppies in the 80s loved their Rolex's and, in turn, has put 2+2 together and got 8. And instead of thinking, "Have I really got this right?" has just run with it, as reality.
That bracelet looks all stretched out!
Rolex has been a luxury good for decades. Inflation and stories about soldiers buying Rolex at the PX may have distorted our view.
This is the ad that really got to me in the early 80s.
I remember when wearing a Rolex was part of the uniform for the young successful investing banker of the 80's.
You have to hand it to Rolex they definitely know how to advertise
That bracelet looks all stretched out!
Rolex has been a luxury good for decades. Inflation and stories about soldiers buying Rolex at the PX may have distorted our view.
This is the ad that really got to me in the early 80s.
They did stretch back in the days when the small links were hollow not solid as they are today. Older jubilee bracelets are well know to stretch. I still remember my sales lady making a comment about the small links being solid as opposed to hollow loops back in 2006 when I purchased my first Rolex, a Datejust on jubilee bracelet. But that is another story.
I am going to push back gently. I agree with your main point that Rolex had positioned itself as a luxury brand well before the 1980's. I think that the meaning of luxury changed in the meantime.
In the post-war economies luxury goods were more rare for a time. It was really the 1960's before consuming could overtake rebuilding in the non-U.S. world. The U.S. market was protected by tariffs to help the American watch manufacturers. Luxury watch makers had excess goods and restricted demand. The 1960's were a great time to buy a luxury watch. The difference in price between an "everyman" watch and a luxury watch would never again be as close. Rolex (and others) dumped watches at lower prices then they would have liked. Old companies like Eterna, IWC, and Universal Geneve struggled, before the "Quartz Crisis" (UG was owned by Bulova, Laco by Timex, for example).
A second quibble, this is just the vintage guy in me: Bulova and Hamilton were not "everyman" watches in the way that Timex was. When I buy a vintage watch I try to find an old print ad to contextualize the watch. What was the company trying to sell? I adjust for inflation using a common internet calculator. Most of the Bulova and Hamilton lines sold for the equivalent of between $700 and $2000 USD in today's money. That is a level up from "everyman". Timex was priced as it is today. Seiko was all over the place. In the 1950's the most expensive Hamilton sold for an equivalent of $50,000 in today's dollars.
I am going to push back gently. I agree with your main point that Rolex had positioned itself as a luxury brand well before the 1980's. I think that the meaning of luxury changed in the meantime.
In the post-war economies luxury goods were more rare for a time. It was really the 1960's before consuming could overtake rebuilding in the non-U.S. world. The U.S. market was protected by tariffs to help the American watch manufacturers. Luxury watch makers had excess goods and restricted demand. The 1960's were a great time to buy a luxury watch. The difference in price between an "everyman" watch and a luxury watch would never again be as close. Rolex (and others) dumped watches at lower prices then they would have liked. Old companies like Eterna, IWC, and Universal Geneve struggled, before the "Quartz Crisis" (UG was owned by Bulova, Laco by Timex, for example).
A second quibble, this is just the vintage guy in me: Bulova and Hamilton were not "everyman" watches in the way that Timex was. When I buy a vintage watch I try to find an old print ad to contextualize the watch. What was the company trying to sell? I adjust for inflation using a common internet calculator. Most of the Bulova and Hamilton lines sold for the equivalent of between $700 and $2000 USD in today's money. That is a level up from "everyman". Timex was priced as it is today. Seiko was all over the place. In the 1950's the most expensive Hamilton sold for an equivalent of $50,000 in today's dollars.
Just a quibble to your quibble from someone who works in labor economics… Be careful about calculators translating one year’s dollars to current, particularly over large timespans. Inflation hits in a non-uniform manner across different goods, services, and sectors. The same is true for total compensation across different industries and jobs.
Really great post. I agree. This argument that Rolex used to be less luxury is often used in a way to feel superior to people buying modern Rolex for “the wrong reasons.”
“For some years now, I have been considering the idea of making a watch that our agents could sell at a more modest price than our Rolex watches, and yet one that would attain the standard of dependability for which Rolex is famous. I decided to form a separate company, with the object of making and marketing this new watch. It is called the Tudor watch company.”
~ Hans Wilsdorf
You have to hand it to Rolex they definitely know how to advertise
"Getting to the top is optional. Getting down, mandatory."
A man with his priorities straight!
Rolex is very good at marketing. When you want to impress your car salesman, buy a .... you know what.