Is the Cheapest Rolex Still Worth It?

You can absolutely get a functionally superior watch for less money.

Rolex makes a wonderful watch, and nothing in their catalog is made poorly. But well more than 50% of the price buys you history, hype, and marketing - not a superior watch.

People will immediately rebut this with the phrase "fit and finish". That's a phrase people use across many industries to rationalize spending extra money when they can't list specific, measurable traits of a superior product.

I've handled many Rolexes. Not one has wowed me in any specific way. Several felt somewhat cheap compared to their contemporary peers. But they remain cool to me because I'll admit I buy into the history and marketing.

My Breitling Superocean has more water resistance, more scratch resistant steel, a more securely affixed bezel, a COSC certified movement that is cheaper to service, and a more interesting bracelet design than the Sub. (The Sub's bracelet does win on micro adjust, but loses because of the hideous cyclops.)

Would I still like to own a no-date Sub? Yes.

Is it "better"? No.

Rolexes are great watches. That being said, I agree there are so many great (better?) options.

However, the average person only knows Rolex. Can’t lose either way.

I think that the heart wants what the heart wants. If you buy a Rolex, you are getting a high quality watch at an arguably fair price relative to market. But let's be honest, most will not buy a Rolex for those reasons alone. Plenty of watches are going to be in the mix at those prices or offer same/better standards at lower prices/value. None, however, offer the *story* of Rolex and the social value that we place in these items.

Rolex is the standard: some will value it greatly, others minimally, but it is the benchmark. Not the best, not the worst, the benchmark. And if that is meaningful to you and you have the means to acquire it, you buy it and it makes you happy.

This hobby of ours is measured, scrutinized and assessed to extremes by most of us, but the reality is that none of that matters if holding the piece in your hand and seeing it on your wrist doesn't stir you emotionally in some way. So what's the value or worth of that and does the watch in question fall within that value? That's the answer, imo.

On paper Omega watches have better specs then a Rolex however it’s still not a Rolex

Better is subjective and only relative you his own personal usage.

Does my vintage Rolex Air King (a cheap Rolex) keep better time than my Seiko SSK001… yes. Is the Rolex as useable as my Steinhart… no. Is it as tough or technologically advanced as my Omega SMP diver 300… hell no. In fact, nothing in my collection is as accurate or tough or as good value for money than my G-Shock 5610u.

So what is better? Depends on what is important to you and how you plan on using it.

So tell your friend to be honest with themselves. Tell them to buy what they love and for what ever reason means something to them.

Do let him know though that a “cheap” Rolex is like a cheap Aston Martin or an old Range Rover. Can you afford to buy it? Yes, but can you afford to run and service it, only using it on weekends and if the weather is just right?

To be frank, I find it odd when people discuss watches like this, and I know I could totally be out on an island. I get the a Rolex is a Rolex concept but the way you’ve phrased your buddy’s intentions makes me feel he is just ticking boxes off on a checklist - like he is buying a Rolex to say he owns a Rolex. I feel the same way when someone says they NEED a pilot watch or a chronograph or a field watch just because they don’t have one yet.

To answer your question, if I could buy the cheapest model Rolex would I over another watch of apparent better quality? Absolutely, but only if that was the model I actually liked and wanted in the first place.

Only a Rolex is a Rolex! 😂

Seriously though, Rolex quality is as good if not better than all watches remembering that eventually all watches will wear out. It all depends on how much you wear it and what conditions you subject it to.

Really? In what respect?

I’ll concede equal but certainly not better.

BTW, I own multiple examples of both.

Yeah. I’d definitely buy the Rolex (cheapest would be OP 36 at $6200, Explorer 1 at $7200). Better quality at the same price, I can’t think of one. Same quality at a little cheaper, Omega and Grand Seiko. If I had a Rolex I’d look at those two, if I didn’t I’d get the Rolex.

First off, kidding and serious, this article provided no support of quality to entry level price and some of these values I hope don’t provide a jaded look into what your buddy thinks is available at that price range. I think these things are important to view as the diminished quality of a 35 year old $1,500 Air King that has been drug behind a tractor is a significantly different starting point quality wise than a retail model knocking on $9K after taxes.

Rolex makes a solid watch, subjectively you have to determine if the value or price difference to its contemporaries is more, less, or equal to you. That’s it.

Obviously a lot of it goes back to personal preference like choosing a car to buy.

To start the co-axial movement and leading the charge with META, Gauss/anti-magnetism, finishing of movement with glass rear case are positives for Omega.

Not looking at specs, Omegas are generally less painful to access and more under the radar with the public. Both have classic models and are brands with good stories to tell.

BTW, I’m pro Rolex 🤣

I own one of the cheapest Rolexes in the ref 126900 Air King. Did I buy it because of the brand name on the dial? Partially, yes.

But that's because it was Rolex that introduced the model in 1945 to honour Royal Air Force pilots in the battle of Britain.

The modern version retains that original typeface as part of its character. It has the lineage of nearly 80 years of design iteration.

So yeah, if it were just the aesthetics (which I love), I could go and buy some cheap Pagani fake version, but then i'd be missing out on a huge chunk of why I want the watch.

Now I have it and can compare to my assortment of other watches, I can say that it feels like a very premium product. It is more accurate than any other watch I own, still within 5 seconds after 26 days, and the AR is by far the best. The Lume is absolutely incredible. My Zulu Time is probably slightly brighter initially, but the Air King easily out lasts it.

Is it worth it? To me, absolutely yes.

I would buy preowned, pre ceramic, my opinion is that they are jewelry now. NO longer tool watches that the company started out producing. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't buy or own a brand new one today.

Not at all worth it to buy just based on the brand name. Screw flexing, we all die someday and you can't take it with you. If he loves what Rolex has to offer, fine, but don't buy the name.

That's a sad story.

I am curious about your statement (Rolex was much less durable than my other watches, it wore out more in the same time)

I see in your profile you are only 27.

How did you wore out a Rolex if you are only 27 ? You had it on your wrist since you were a baby and you banged the watch against everything?😊

I have old watches from the 60ies (a Tissot and a Nivada) that are clearly of lesser quality than Rolex and they are still ticking today without any service (that I know of)...

Can you share some details with us, ´cause I find it really weird...

I have been collecting for awhile and had been anti-Rolex on principal…price, availability and AD ridiculous-ness. And then, on a whim, I bought an OP. It’s a great watch…better than my Omega Acqua Terra and most of my other pieces. While I’m not now going to start collecting Rolexes, I do feel a bit embarrassed for letting principal get in the way of owning an excellent watch.

At msrp I think the cheapest Rolexes like the oyster perpetuals are some of the best watches you can buy for their price. They retain most of their value and my OP is like 60% over what I paid for it. At list price the cost of ownership is 0-positive. Your money is essentially on hold and not lost so that of itself makes it a good prospect. Coming to the specs of the watch it’s self I think the OP is a perfect everyday watch for any situation and that it’s ergonomics are top of its class. Attached with all the history and everything else I think they are the best watches for their price points. I am a huge rolex fan but I because one because their watches are simply awsome

I agree it’s hard to justify the price of an OP. I don’t slight anyway who believes their money would be better spent elsewhere. It is definitely a high ask for a “time only” watch. Having an Explorer myself though, it is easily my most enjoyed and most wearable watch.

The 124270 is sadly held back by its 19mm lug width and strap-hostile case, design choices that certainly detract from the watch’s potential. But it wears so well, and inspires a confidence in itself that I haven’t quite been able to match with anything else. I attribute this to the Oyster case, which I absolutely love. It takes on scratches and scuffs but still looks fantastic and, if I haven’t emphasized it enough, it’s supremely comfortable. Rolex movements are also rated incredibly highly. They may not be METAS level good, but they’re beautifully made, immensely reliable, and backed by the most successful watch company in the world.

If you want an OP, it can easily be your “one watch.” Yes, other watches can be as well, even much much less expensive pieces, but if you want an OP, there’s no question it’s a fantastic watch.

Agreed on personal taste.

However, modern Rolex watches are just as precise as a co-axial movement. It did not used to be that way. For instance, my mid 2000's Datejust ran within COSC but it wasn't close to the accuracy of the co-axial Planet Ocean I acquired shortly thereafter. Fast forward about 10-15 years. The modern Rolexes I have all run within 2 seconds per day, often with 0 deviation on the wrist when compared to the same time source. My Metas Omega Speedmaster is also very nice but it will be off by a second or two at the end of the day. Point is co-axial movements offer no more accuracy than Rolex and sometimes slightly inferior. Wasn't always the case. BTW, I'm sure you know the Parachrom Bleu hairspring is antimagnetic.

Now don't get me wrong. I think the world of Omega, Metas and all, surely there is another in my future, but both brands are pretty equal. Rolex simply gets the nod due to greater retained monetary value. 😀

I’m no technical expert but I thought the co-axial selling point was also reduced wear and tear in the movement so longer service time. Yes the Parachrom hairspring has been a selling point for the E2 for years and finally now in a lot more movements. My preference to Rolex has been the feel, comfort and aesthetics. I do like a good bracelet and they’ve been the leader in clasps.

I have a Grand Seiko and a Date Just41. The Rolex feels way higher quality even blind folded. The way the bracelet bends, you can just tell.

Most definitely yes. The OPs are phenomenal GADAs

Bit of history review, co-axial movements were originally offered to Rolex but they turned the inventor down. Then he went to Omega and the rest is history. They are a selling point when compared to most movements out there these days, but Rolex really worked on it to the point of movement equality.

As far as servicing goes, Rolex recommends TEN (yes, 10) years between servicings depending on the model and use. Tudor makes the same recommendation. Omega, on the other hand with the co-axial movement, recommends every 5-8 years between servicings. I was slightly "shocked" when I read that on the Rolex page, btw.

Given this, no advantage for co-axial movements over Rolex movements as far as service goes.

Now the vast majority.... 😉

On that basis, stalemate 🤣makes me even happier that I’m pro Rolex 👍 luv ya work 🥳

I agree...I love GS and have a few. Rolex bracelets are superior. Question...how do you rate GS versus Rolex if you take the bracelet out of the comparison?

Yeah, pretty much. I started wearing it when I was 14-15 years old and last month it had to be serviced because the clip doesn't lock and the watch started falling off my wrist.

Btw, I agree with you, my other watches that are passed around in the family are in pretty good condition. That is the issue. 13 year is not that long. That's what this entry is really about, it's a question I'm asking if it's just me or if more people think like me.

I know 14 years old with a Rolex sounds pretty weird, but that's the middle east culture, what can a guy do 😂😎

the lad only read what he came across when he wrote investment watches. not bad for an introduction to the topic. there is always space for some improvement:))

Ah, ok, so it was more a bracelet/clasp problem.

Yeah I know, there are many people in the middle east with a lot of money... and a lot of women 😁.... I was born in the wrong country 😅