If Rolex dropped 30% after purchase like other brands would it still be number 1?

Most people buy them for the name not as an investment.

Scarcity? They sell over a million watches per year....

Thought it was implied as we are all watch enthusiast here and know the game.

The data is the data, really. Assuming demand for Rolex and Tudor are roughly equivalent (though given how many BB58's you see relative to Subbies...)

Cartier drops in price but they sell a ton. Like someone commented above, they buy it for the name and prestige of that name.

Rolex is a fiat currency, backed solely on faith and trust. If that’s lost, it’s value will plummet.

I wouldn’t say scarcity keeps them popular. It wasn’t until covid that all this waitlist culture started. Rolex was still #1 even when you could walk into any store and grab one. Just my opinion tho.

But you can’t argue that a BIG portion of their buyers are buying for “investment” or at least value retention and if they no longer held value like other brands all they are left with is brand name and quality now are they still number 1 after that?

This is a very interesting question, I think Rolexes are to watches just like iPhones are to phones. They’re at a different league from everyone else. Yes, there are fancier watches (like there are fancier phones like Vertu) but iPhones are just so much more coveted than even comparable Samsung phones. Same thing with Rolexes.

I don’t think most people buy them to flip, I’d imagine most people buying are doing so as heirloom pieces. As a sign they’ve made it, as something they can pass on to their future children. With this in mind, I don’t think resale value is the main reason why they’re so popular. It certainly doesn’t hurt though.

Good insight!

Yes they are better than similar priced watches which do drop down in my opinion.

Who says Rolex is the number one brand? Most famous perhaps, but the absolute number one brand. That's subjective.

My thought exactly. They have perfected the sports watch and I think do it better than fancier brands which charge more money.

Truth

Rolex is the watch name recognized by non-watch people. That's an enviable place in brand recognition.

"scarcity" should never be in the same sentence as Rolex.

While Rolex does sell somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.2 million watches annually, they do not have the biggest market share. The Swiss are not the only nation that makes watches.

And I say this as the owner of three Rolex watches.

If they made 50 a year then I'd accept the nonsense about waiting lists and sucking up to shop workers to try and get one. But it's 1,000,000 sales per year for an item that retails at, say, £10,000 each. Comparing them to sales of an Apple watch at £500 or a Timex at £50 doesn't make sense, completely different markets

For reference, what I see online is that in 2022 Casio generated $1.9B in revenue, Seiko Group generated $1.7B in revenue and Rolex generated $9.7B in revenue. Timex did $1.4B in 2023.

The number of units produced is irrelevant. The actual accumulation of cash is where the rubber hits the road.

It’s not about the number of watches it’s about market share, how much revenue created, and Rolex are number 1. No one else comes close.

I think it’s the opposite causation. They don’t drop 30% because there is demand for them.

Haha, it's context for the same product despite the price. Take it how you want. You choosing to ignore it is a choice you've made. The "nonsense" you speak of is an assumption. That's not the case for everyone.

There's a difference between context and providing lots of big numbers. Anyone comparing sales volumes of Rolex to Timex watches is just comparing Apples with Pears, you can bet your life that those type of comparisons don't happen at Rolex board meetings.

I also noticed someone mentioned there are 8bn people on the planet so selling a million watches per year is only a small percentage - that's also an absolute nonsense comparator.

It's not irrelevant. It adds additional context to the discussion.

Everybody here is talking about big numbers. In fact that's in the question that started the discussion. #1 by sales volume. Who is talking about Rolex board meetings? We are people that buy watches on a message board app lol

The original post raised the issue of 'scarcity'. 1,000,000 watches produced per year does not make them 'scarce'. Comparing the sales of a high value luxury item to a cheap everyday item is also not a logical comparator. Saying 'but Apple sells 50m watches a year so Rolex are scarce at 1m' sounds like it makes sense at first but the markets for those two items are almost totally different.

The original post we are replying to is a question as to whether Rolex remains "#1" with a price drop. We know Rolex in number one in sales volume. Sales volume for Rolex (and any brand) is a big number. Scarcity never came up in my posts. You brought it up. My original post adds context for watch popularity in general.

Oh, based on revenue. So that would mean Apple is the world's number one watchmaker.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/apple-watch-sales-pause-over-patent-issues-unlikely-to-dent-revenue-significantly-experts

Well of course based on revenue, and apple doesn’t count. My iPhone has a clock on it but it’s not a pocket watch.

Absolutely. Most who buy them don't know what they're really worth and would be more than happy to get them cheaper.