I'd say that Rolex is the Kardashian of the watch world, but it's been a while since I've heard about that clan. Rolex [Nothing interesting since before you were born!(R)] somehow still gets publicity despite doing nothing interesting this century. It is truly baffling. They are solid and the design is as nice as when they were new some sixty years ago. Oh, I like that they use solid case backs. It's like talking about a hammer. Nice tool! Very well then.
Oh, I was thinking of their prettier models when @ayadai said they were ugly, but yes I now realize that he is right. They make many ugly watches too. I think the ones that don't come in precious metal are known ugly models.
I think at a high level folks in the hobby sometimes misdirect toward the Rolex brand a frustration resulting from a market phenomena that can’t really be reasonably “blamed” on any one entity.
At a high level Rolex is a really top tier watch brand vs. it’s comparables at retail price, but the brand gets misdirected flak in the hobbyist community due to the success of their marketing, which creates a situation where desirable Rolex models trade at prices at which they are, in many ways, not a good value at all vs. their comparables.
Rolex is a brand with several lines that are more than iconic - almost definitional - as it relates to the modern wristwatch. They make durable and reliable watches. And frankly they have designed some of the best looking watches around in my personal opinion, including the submariner and Pepsi GMT.
They (and others) have been so succesful in marketing their products that their production plan (price / volume) does not “clear the market” - I.e. many people are left saying “I would have given you over retail if you had saved one for me.”
Should a luxury brand in this position simply produce more watches? This is a complex decision. The Rolex company does focus on some measure of shareholder value, but is also a non profit which funnels funds to causes of interest (exact structure not totally clear to me). But through either of these lenses - if their marketing has been so successful that they can easily hit their budget and their forecasts, then why take the risk of diluting or altering their brand identity and perception? I can understand their decision making.
This leads to a situation where ADs sell based on relationship, which I also understand, and the grey market serves to “clear the market” at a more representative price. At this price, many Rolex watches are, through many lenses, not a good value. For example does it really make sense for a Pepsi to trade at $22K when you can get a pre owned Overseas for $30K? Answer is of course no across many lenses of horological comparison, but ultimately prices are what the market will bear. But for people in the know it is frustrating to have to pay up for the beautiful design, when you know you are really sacrificing along other key criteria.
Perhaps when people say “Rolex” they are really referring to these market phenomena, but I do think it valuable to delineate between what is a really excellent watchmaker and what is a much less excellent market situation for folks in the watch hobby.
Their aesthetic don't speak to me and, as a designer, their dated font choices are an instant turn off. Their marketing and disrespect for the customers are repelling. Not to mention their association with the flex culture outside of the watch enthusiast bubble. I have no aspiration to own any Rolex product, now or ever. 🙂
Agreed with @AllTheWatches , there was a time when I really wanted a specific Sub. Now not so much, I like tool watches so out of the many expensive options I naturally have trended to eventually getting a Tudor or a Sinn.
That being said, someone wants to donate an issued Rolex MilSub, or by some weird freak of nature I am ever able to afford one, I'd do so in a HEARTBEAT. (Same goes for TR-660, 50F, or OG Benrus Type I/II)
Disclaimer: I have some totally offensive opinions about Rolex watches and design in general. Just my opinion, not fact, and if you like your watch, then it's a good watch. Seriously, the only thing that matters is the value you place on your watches.
Okay, you've been warned.
I mostly think of Rolex as the "Boomer Watch." And I don't really mean that offensively, just that seems to be their target market. The design language looks like it's speaking to the kind of person who thinks gaudy is fancy and fancy is good. Like they're appealing to the 80's Reaganomics era idea of "successful." Few have that kind of subtle beauty I prefer, and so many have diamonds. I hate diamonds. They're unethically sourced and, again, just gaudy. Also, date window magnifiers are so ugly and distracting. I get it though, their demographic skews older, and that means less detail in their vision. It makes total sense and I am glad they cater to the people who need that.
There have been a few I've considered passable but, for the most part, the design language Rolex goes for just isn't for me.
We use cookies (and other similar technologies) for many purposes, including to improve your experience on
our
site and measure analytics. Click "Accept all" to accept these uses. Read more in our Cookie Policy.
This account is verified. WatchCrunch has confirmed that this account is the
authentic presence for this person or brand.
I'd say that Rolex is the Kardashian of the watch world, but it's been a while since I've heard about that clan. Rolex [Nothing interesting since before you were born!(R)] somehow still gets publicity despite doing nothing interesting this century. It is truly baffling. They are solid and the design is as nice as when they were new some sixty years ago. Oh, I like that they use solid case backs. It's like talking about a hammer. Nice tool! Very well then.
Oh, I was thinking of their prettier models when @ayadai said they were ugly, but yes I now realize that he is right. They make many ugly watches too. I think the ones that don't come in precious metal are known ugly models.
I think at a high level folks in the hobby sometimes misdirect toward the Rolex brand a frustration resulting from a market phenomena that can’t really be reasonably “blamed” on any one entity.
At a high level Rolex is a really top tier watch brand vs. it’s comparables at retail price, but the brand gets misdirected flak in the hobbyist community due to the success of their marketing, which creates a situation where desirable Rolex models trade at prices at which they are, in many ways, not a good value at all vs. their comparables.
Rolex is a brand with several lines that are more than iconic - almost definitional - as it relates to the modern wristwatch. They make durable and reliable watches. And frankly they have designed some of the best looking watches around in my personal opinion, including the submariner and Pepsi GMT.
They (and others) have been so succesful in marketing their products that their production plan (price / volume) does not “clear the market” - I.e. many people are left saying “I would have given you over retail if you had saved one for me.”
Should a luxury brand in this position simply produce more watches? This is a complex decision. The Rolex company does focus on some measure of shareholder value, but is also a non profit which funnels funds to causes of interest (exact structure not totally clear to me). But through either of these lenses - if their marketing has been so successful that they can easily hit their budget and their forecasts, then why take the risk of diluting or altering their brand identity and perception? I can understand their decision making.
This leads to a situation where ADs sell based on relationship, which I also understand, and the grey market serves to “clear the market” at a more representative price. At this price, many Rolex watches are, through many lenses, not a good value. For example does it really make sense for a Pepsi to trade at $22K when you can get a pre owned Overseas for $30K? Answer is of course no across many lenses of horological comparison, but ultimately prices are what the market will bear. But for people in the know it is frustrating to have to pay up for the beautiful design, when you know you are really sacrificing along other key criteria.
Perhaps when people say “Rolex” they are really referring to these market phenomena, but I do think it valuable to delineate between what is a really excellent watchmaker and what is a much less excellent market situation for folks in the watch hobby.
Their aesthetic don't speak to me and, as a designer, their dated font choices are an instant turn off. Their marketing and disrespect for the customers are repelling. Not to mention their association with the flex culture outside of the watch enthusiast bubble. I have no aspiration to own any Rolex product, now or ever. 🙂
D, Not obsessed, but buy them when there is one I want.
Agreed with @AllTheWatches , there was a time when I really wanted a specific Sub. Now not so much, I like tool watches so out of the many expensive options I naturally have trended to eventually getting a Tudor or a Sinn.
That being said, someone wants to donate an issued Rolex MilSub, or by some weird freak of nature I am ever able to afford one, I'd do so in a HEARTBEAT. (Same goes for TR-660, 50F, or OG Benrus Type I/II)
Rolex is a great brand. The game ADs play is not great
I want just one Rolex.
Your answer options are framing at its best. My choice is D: They’re great watches and I own one, but I’m not obsessed with them.
Disclaimer: I have some totally offensive opinions about Rolex watches and design in general. Just my opinion, not fact, and if you like your watch, then it's a good watch. Seriously, the only thing that matters is the value you place on your watches.
Okay, you've been warned.
I mostly think of Rolex as the "Boomer Watch." And I don't really mean that offensively, just that seems to be their target market. The design language looks like it's speaking to the kind of person who thinks gaudy is fancy and fancy is good. Like they're appealing to the 80's Reaganomics era idea of "successful." Few have that kind of subtle beauty I prefer, and so many have diamonds. I hate diamonds. They're unethically sourced and, again, just gaudy. Also, date window magnifiers are so ugly and distracting. I get it though, their demographic skews older, and that means less detail in their vision. It makes total sense and I am glad they cater to the people who need that.
There have been a few I've considered passable but, for the most part, the design language Rolex goes for just isn't for me.
Rolex puts out quality watches. Been fortunate to get the ones I like but I wouldn’t lose sleep if they weren’t available.