Rolex no longer a "tool" watch?

[Andyg]

Google on Mercedes Gleitze and you will get the idea. If you allow yourself to that is.

Also look up the slick trick about the Everest.

Another is the masterfull exploitation of the Chuck Yeager record flight.

Don´t forget the Picard dive ´success´. Third time lucky?

That is just a few examples of how the Rolex Sub could be priced higher than at least as good competitors; the very real if intangible added value of the brand.

Chuck had his Rolex before he broken the sound barrier. All Rolex did was remind people about it.
He did not buy a Seiko, Casio, Hamilton, Omega, Blancpain, etc he bought a Rolex. As I imagine so did Red Adaire and a shed lot of other very successful people who later became famous in their own right and who Rolex went on to use in their advertising.

The bottom line remains that if their product was crap then they simply would not sell, irrespective of the history and the marketing budget. A classic example of this is Jaguar. Once at the top of the heap with multiple Le Mans wins and 25 years later bust!

Crap product = crap sales. (BL jaguar,)

Great product + great marketing = Apple/Rolex/Viagra

[Zolawinston]

I bow to your wise insightful knowledge oh master, as I never had any desire to own a dressed up hairdressers car I know little about them, and yes as it happens I do think that a car with turbo, or ABS on the boot or down the side is just like a watch with Rolex written around the dial it needs a tool to own it.
So called WIS will pay a small fortune for a Milsub, I'm at a loss to think that if Rolex wrote hairdresser, or footballer, or spiv on the dial that 40 years from now they will be so collectable.

That's not a problem, I'm here to help however you also seem to have very little desire to own a new Rolex but that does not stop you having a very strong opinion on the people that do.

Just for the record referring to someone as a 'tool' or implying they are in someway a 'spiv' for owning something you don't like is just a little stereotypical but you are entitled to your opinion and I respect it but don't agree with it.

[ralphy]

My quote was about the advertised features and their relevance today (as is this entire thread in case you hadn't noticed).
If you're going to quote, don't be selective.

I posted the advertisements and they have no relevance to today, they were posted in response to another member who mentioned looking at them when he was younger.

R

[barryw]

I posted the advertisements and they have no relevance to today, they were posted in response to another member who mentioned looking at them when he was younger.

R

[Bruno]

I have worn a Rolex on industrial sites in remote places, where the environment is tough. I have to admit it was an older 2nd hand one, not shiny new. It does the job ok as do other less expensive tool watches.

[ralphy]

When i was a youngster,i used to snorkel with a mask just like that.
God i loved that mask,good practice for mask clearing though!

My first face-mask was the same: rubber, unyieldingly stiff; but yes, it teaches you to mask-clear rather well - through necessity.

R

[learningtofly]

And the usual fanboys loving on the brand.......Again

And you popping up with your disingenuous smilies... Again

(Hang on... isn't this The Draft Thread? )

[awright101]

For me personally I could use my Sub as a tool watch but I love it so much I dont want to hurt it!!

[number2]

That's not a problem, I'm here to help however you also seem to have very little desire to own a new Rolex but that does not stop you having a very strong opinion on the people that do.

Just for the record referring to someone as a 'tool' or implying they are in someway a 'spiv' for owning something you don't like is just a little stereotypical but you are entitled to your opinion and I respect it but don't agree with it.

Ditto, I respect those who's opinions differ from mine, opinions are just that, nothing to fight about.

[Zolawinston]

Ditto, I respect those who's opinions differ from mine, opinions are just that, nothing to fight about.

Agreed, at least we are both clear. I too have a dislike for private plates btw

[poppy]

Wowsers, does this happen with every rolex thread!?

I think the points i have read which seem most salient are those which suggest that the modern rolexes are just as capable as they have always been and that now they arent unique in their capability whereas once upon a time, they were considered by many to be the very best amongst their competition.

I also think, having read this thread, that the kind of vehement hatred shown for the people who buy rolex watches must be a product of the haters witnessing their mothers being soiled by a man in a rolex at some point in their lives.

[seadog1408]

I also think, having read this thread, that the kind of vehement hatred shown for the people who buy rolex watches must be a product of the haters witnessing their mothers being soiled by a man in a rolex at some point in their lives.

Yes, they do seem to react that way!!!!!!!!

[Andyg]

For me personally I could use my Sub as a tool watch but I love it so much I dont want to hurt it!!

I understand this. However the strange thing is that I wear my Rolex's like I stole them. Today I was doing some DIY involving power tools wear my Rail Dial 1665

But I would not wear my Panerai or JLC Legend diving. Why????

Well, deep down I simply don't trust them - crazy I know!!!

[Badger Plus]

Wowsers, does this happen with every rolex thread!?

Apparently, yes it does.

[Sweetwater]

As my last post indicated, I think the entire debate about whether a Rolex is a 'tool' watch is an arid one. It can be used as a tool - those who use them for diving already know that. It is also largely used as a piece of male jewellery that tells the time - as with just about any other watch that costs more than a Casio G-shock.

I think one reason people become defensive about this sort of topic is because we all need some justification for doing what is the entirely irrational act of purchasing a luxury watch, and Rolex's main point of difference, from the 1950s through to the 1980s, was that a Rolex was the essential tinmekeeping tool for any adventurer worth the name, with everything that implies - the tangible (waterproof, reliable, wearable, durable, accurate) and the intangible (associated with great feats of the 20th century, worn by successful people, ergo the sign of a successful person, which could be/should be/is me).

Where the two sides come into conflict is that the Huerticillas of the this world can't seem to go past the irrationality of the purchasing act, whereas those who buy into the romance of having a piece of history on their arm willingly embrace it. There's no doubt that I first became interested in Rolex watches (and watches generally) as a child after seeing an episode of Magnum PI in which the trusty hero is forced to swim for 24 hours in the open sea, his only companion being his trusty GMT Master. I was also an avid reader of old issues of National Geographic and had an unhealthy obession with mountaineering and Reinhold Messner. Everywhere I turned, Rolex advertising was there first. It would be ridiuclous to pretend that the advertising, which highlighted the use of Rolexes as essential tools for adventurers, had no effect on me, even though I never intended to wear a Rolex as a tool. But who cares? I'm wearing Thomas Magnum's watch!

[number2]

Where the two sides come into conflict is that the Huerticillas of the this world can't seem to go past the irrationality of the purchasing act, whereas those who buy into the romance of having a piece of history on their arm willingly embrace it. There's no doubt that I first became interested in Rolex watches (and watches generally) as a child after seeing an episode of Magnum PI in which the trusty hero is forced to swim for 24 hours in the open sea, his only companion being his trusty GMT Master. I was also an avid reader of old issues of National Geographic and had an unhealthy obession with mountaineering and Reinhold Messner. Everywhere I turned, Rolex advertising was there first. It would be ridiuclous to pretend that the advertising, which highlighted the use of Rolexes as essential tools for adventurers, had no effect on me, even though I never intended to wear a Rolex as a tool. But who cares? I'm wearing Thomas Magnum's watch!

And I guess 20 years from now the debate will still be going strong, and someone will pipe up, but who cares?
I'm wearing Gok Wans watch!

[Passenger]

And I guess 20 years from now the debate will still be going strong, and someone will pipe up, but who cares?
I'm wearing Gok Wans watch!

ROFL.

Sadly for many people the things they own end up owning them and this leads to unhapiness since you can never get enough of what you don´t need. Consumerism, advertising and marketing have deliberately made this so in order to sell more. You are what you eat, wear, drive, holiday etc. This is nowhere better evidenced than in the gentlemans watch market, after all only a man of special discernment and sensitivity would strap a horological anachronism to his wrist in the first place... thus the wrist watch becomes a personal avatar transmitting its subtle message to those in the know.

Modern rolex and the design cues they have followed and all that unnecessary verbiage on face and case could be seen as reaching the apogee of conspicuous consumption.

Obviously this an emotionally charged topic.

[seadog1408]

ROFL.

Sadly for many people the things they own end up owning them and this leads to unhapiness since you can never get enough of what you don´t need. Consumerism, advertising and marketing have deliberately made this so in order to sell more. You are what you eat, wear, drive, holiday etc. This is nowhere better evidenced than in the gentlemans watch market, after all only a man of special discernment and sensitivity would strap a horological anachronism to his wrist in the first place... thus the wrist watch becomes a personal avatar transmitting its subtle message to those in the know.

Modern rolex and the design cues they have followed and all that unnecessary verbiage on face and case could be seen as reaching the apogee of conspicuous consumption.

Obviously this an emotionally charged topic.

Crikey, you sound exactly like another member!!, except I can't quite remember who?!!

[number2]

ROFL.

Sadly for many people the things they own end up owning them and this leads to unhapiness since you can never get enough of what you don´t need. Consumerism, advertising and marketing have deliberately made this so in order to sell more. You are what you eat, wear, drive, holiday etc. This is nowhere better evidenced than in the gentlemans watch market, after all only a man of special discernment and sensitivity would strap a horological anachronism to his wrist in the first place... thus the wrist watch becomes a personal avatar transmitting its subtle message to those in the know.

Modern rolex and the design cues they have followed and all that unnecessary verbiage on face and case could be seen as reaching the apogee of conspicuous consumption.

Obviously this an emotionally charged topic.

Very nicely put.

[andrew]

I also think, having read this thread, that the kind of vehement hatred shown for the people who buy rolex watches must be a product of the haters witnessing their mothers being soiled by a man in a rolex at some point in their lives.

<partridge>
Back of the net.
</partridge>

[RAJEN]

Crikey, you sound exactly like another member!!, except I can't quite remember who?!!

There are several such losers around.

[RAJEN]

Re: Originally Posted by poppy

I also think, having read this thread, that the kind of vehement hatred shown for the people who buy rolex watches must be a product of the haters witnessing their mothers being soiled by a man in a rolex at some point in their lives.

Lol,bang on!

[Daddelvirks]

That's how sick sociëty is, people who start hating dead objects like watches or brands.

As if there isn't enough hate already.................

Give an ape a golden ring, it still remains an ugly thing.

Daddel.

[RobDad]

My super reliable Sub is back at St James having gone wrong within the 2 year period following a service which cost £430. Basically I can't adjust the time as the keyless works have gone wrong somehow. I might just be unlucky but its not a watch I'd choose for a situation where my life depended on timekeeping. I'd take my solar atomic frogman. That's a tool watch IMHO even though my wife hates it! Nothing mechanical is as tough as a cheap Japanese digital - not a very romantic or pretty watch to wear but they can take massive abuse without missing a beat.

[forpetesake]

And I guess 20 years from now the debate will still be going strong, and someone will pipe up, but who cares?
I'm wearing Gok Wans watch!

Don't you mean Wan Goks watch!

...its the way I tell 'em...

...just trying to lighten the mood...

[Umbongo]

Wowsers, does this happen with every rolex thread!?

I also think, having read this thread, that the kind of vehement hatred shown for the people who buy rolex watches must be a product of the haters witnessing their mothers being soiled by a man in a rolex at some point in their lives.

Unfortunately, yes it does. With the "fanboys" chipping in as "usual suspects" just as predictably as the "haters" and with just as great a lack of rationality, tolerance for differing opinions and, in some cases, eloquence. One wonders, if your theory on the haters is correct, what traumatic event these fanboys must have witnessed to react with such anger and insecurity...
Six of one and half a dozen of the other I'd say...

[seadog1408]

<partridge>
Back of the net.
</partridge>

He does make me laugh!!

[ralphy]

Unfortunately, yes it does. With the "fanboys" chipping in as "usual suspects" just as predictably as the "haters" and with just as great a lack of rationality, tolerance for differing opinions and, in some cases, eloquence. One wonders, if your theory on the haters is correct, what traumatic event these fanboys must have witnessed to react with such anger and insecurity...
Six of one and half a dozen of the other I'd say...

I don’t think it’s equal at all. Too simplistic to break the diverse views down into two camps (fanboys/haters) for a start: there are lots more shades of opinion over this manufacturer as indeed there is over most other things. But to keep things on a two-camp basis for the moment, IMO the balloon goes up in most Rolex threads when disparaging comments are written about those who own (or just like) the watches.

Given the generalisation of the term ‘tool’, when it comes to just about any watch it could be argued that it did or did not apply, however the discussion gets heated when it shifts to personal comments about the owners of the watch. No-one likes to be denigrated for their personal choice(s) and so they understandably become defensive. There have been plenty of comments both for and against the brand in this thread and most of them have been thoughtful and factual. Less so though are the comments about the type of person who owns (or aspires to own) a Rolex: they add nothing positive to the debate.

That Rolex are rather good at marketing their brand is a given and I doubt anyone would argue otherwise, but personal choice is rarely down to that element alone and the mere fact we are a community of watch-enjoyers would suggest our choices are more complex than of those who merely purchase a watch for it's ’tool’ aspect i.e. solely telling the time.

A bit more ‘live and let live’ would go a long way whenever the subject of Rolex is brought up, IMO.

R

[Zolawinston]

I don’t think it’s equal at all. Too simplistic to break the diverse views down into two camps (fanboys/haters) for a start: there are lots more shades of opinion over this manufacturer as indeed there is over most other things. But to keep things on a two-camp basis for the moment, IMO the balloon goes up in most Rolex threads when disparaging comments are written about those who own (or just like) the watches.

Given the generalisation of the term ‘tool’, when it comes to just about any watch it could be argued that it did or did not apply, however the discussion gets heated when it shifts to personal comments about the owners of the watch. No-one likes to be denigrated for their personal choice(s) and so they understandably become defensive. There have been plenty of comments both for and against the brand in this thread and most of them have been thoughtful and factual. Less so though are the comments about the type of person who owns (or aspires to own) a Rolex: they add nothing positive to the debate.

That Rolex are rather good at marketing their brand is a given and I doubt anyone would argue otherwise, but personal choice is rarely down to that element alone and the mere fact we are a community of watch-enjoyers would suggest our choices are more complex than of those who merely purchase a watch for it's ’tool’ aspect i.e. solely telling the time.

A bit more ‘live and let live’ would go a long way whenever the subject of Rolex is brought up, IMO.

R

What an amazingly insightful post that IMO really sums up the whole debate, if debate is the right word! Personally for me it's the 'insulting' comments about the individuals that choose to like or purchase Rolex watches that's annoyingly stereotypical, not the criticism of the products themselves

[RAJEN]

I don’t think it’s equal at all. Too simplistic to break the diverse views down into two camps (fanboys/haters) for a start: there are lots more shades of opinion over this manufacturer as indeed there is over most other things. But to keep things on a two-camp basis for the moment, IMO the balloon goes up in most Rolex threads when disparaging comments are written about those who own (or just like) the watches. Given the generalisation of the term ‘tool’, when it comes to just about any watch it could be argued that it did or did not apply, however the discussion gets heated when it shifts to personal comments about the owners of the watch. No-one likes to be denigrated for their personal choice(s) and so they understandably become defensive. There have been plenty of comments both for and against the brand in this thread and most of them have been thoughtful and factual. Less so though are the comments about the type of person who owns (or aspires to own) a Rolex: they add nothing positive to the debate. That Rolex are rather good at marketing their brand is a given and I doubt anyone would argue otherwise, but personal choice is rarely down to that element alone and the mere fact we are a community of watch-enjoyers would suggest our choices are more complex than of those who merely purchase a watch for it's ’tool’ aspect i.e. solely telling the time. A bit more ‘live and let live’ would go a long way whenever the subject of Rolex is brought up, IMO. R

Exactly. Very aptly put.
It is very simplistic to compare haters with the other side. Actually, stupid to do so.

[Passenger]

There are several such losers around.

Rajen, I´m curious what in my comment (reproduced below) about consumerism led you to label me a loser?

"Sadly for many people the things they own end up owning them and this leads to unhapiness since you can never get enough of what you don´t need. Consumerism, advertising and marketing have deliberately made this so in order to sell more. You are what you eat, wear, drive, holiday etc. This is nowhere better evidenced than in the gentlemans watch market, after all only a man of special discernment and sensitivity would strap a horological anachronism to his wrist in the first place... thus the wrist watch becomes a personal avatar transmitting its subtle message to those in the know.

Modern rolex and the design cues they have followed and all that unnecessary verbiage on face and case could be seen as reaching the apogee of conspicuous consumption.

Obviously this an emotionally charged topic. "

[Meinessex]

I also think, having read this thread, that the kind of vehement hatred shown for the people who buy rolex watches must be a product of the haters witnessing their mothers being soiled by a man in a rolex at some point in their lives.

I hear Jimmy Savile had that effect on a lot of people.

Maybe the fanboys love for the brand is inherited in their genes?

[Martin123]

No probably not for a long time but Ralphy reminds me of a time it could have been and the romance/marketing of that is probably why a lot of us like them.
The rest is predictable like a bad zombie movie, if Rolex is around at the end of days it would be invaluable as a tool magnet. Us fanboys should write a script.

[Umbongo]

Exactly. Very aptly put.
It is very simplistic to compare haters with the other side. Actually, stupid to do so.

Well, actually, no - it's not - and to say it is is, in itself, very simplistic.
You know that "live and let live" part of the post you find so "very aptly put"?
Well, using words like "stupid" to attempt to describe opinions that challenge yours isn't really in the spirit of that post...

...just saying...

[Tinker]

My Rolexes have been and are instruments to influence people.

This isn't the only reason I've bought them, but it's certainly one.

[number2]

My final shot at this so here goes, to make things clear, I don't hate either the brand (Rolex) or the people that now flock to buy them, however many Subs, Seadwellers, Deepseas, Yachtmasters, they may have in their collections, due to marketing and following fashion Rolex now sell many more watches PA than 40 years ago which is of course is what business is all about, I accept that Rolex would be dead and buried by now if everyone was a grumpy old git like me, who only ever bought one Rolex because it was just the one watch I would ever need, smart, smart casual, diving, mountaineering, out on a date, in the gym, on the beach, etc etc, I never gave a thought to what others thought about my watch, because it was just that a watch not a fashion statement, I fully accept that the current generation of celeb brand trend icons are not my cup of tea, I bought my then subtle, discreet Rolex as a time keeping tool, where as Tinker so aptly put it

My Rolexes have been and are instruments to influence people.

This isn't the only reason I've bought them, but it's certainly one.

The nature of the beast seems to be just that, its what others think about you because you wear a Rolex, and Rolex now make their product to be as noticeable as possible, clearly not as bad as Hublot, but subtle, discreet I ask you?
Ask yourself the question why did I buy a Rolex, yes its because you had the money, but why else?

[The Hack]

...note I said 'luxury', so in the >£3k price bracket. Being sensible, no one NEEDS a £3k - £6k 'tool' watch (a £200 G-Shock or Seiko will do the job), but if that's the budget, then there's nothing else that compares in terms of ability to take knocks and abuse.

I agree that there is a perceived image (amongst some of the great unwashed) of Rolex owners all being w@ankers. Some owners for sure are arrogant, pretentious tossers - but don't bring down the brand because of that.

In the same way Porsche drivers tend to be have the same PR problem - but if you can afford a Porsche and don't buy one because of this 'image problem', then you would be passing up one of the best 'driver's' cars ever made. Seriously - nothing short of a Ferrari or Lambourghini (or dedicated track-focused car) comes close. Maserati / Aston Martin? BOATS in comparison (and I have driven them all).

Anyway - going a bit off topic. :) Stainless steel Rolex models will always be the best luxury tool watches available. Whether most owners appreciate the quality and the history of the brand is another matter.

[Zolawinston]

My final shot at this so here goes, to make things clear, I don't hate either the brand (Rolex) or the people that now flock to buy them, however many Subs, Seadwellers, Deepseas, Yachtmasters, they may have in their collections, due to marketing and following fashion Rolex now sell many more watches PA than 40 years ago which is of course is what business is all about, I accept that Rolex would be dead and buried by now if everyone was a grumpy old git like me, who only ever bought one Rolex because it was just the one watch I would ever need, smart, smart casual, diving, mountaineering, out on a date, in the gym, on the beach, etc etc, I never gave a thought to what others thought about my watch, because it was just that a watch not a fashion statement, I fully accept that the current generation of celeb brand trend icons are not my cup of tea, I bought my then subtle, discreet Rolex as a time keeping tool, where as Tinker so aptly put it



The nature of the beast seems to be just that, its what others think about you because you wear a Rolex, and Rolex now make their product to be as noticeable as possible, clearly not as bad as Hublot, but subtle, discreet I ask you?
Ask yourself the question why did I buy a Rolex, yes its because you had the money, but why else?

I think you have made your point perfectly in this post, it took a while but I think I now know what you mean

I bought mine because I appreciate the quality, the history and the fact I get a buzz out of wearing them which I find hard to explain, oh and it looks great on my wrist while driving my Porsche! I have other watches too so hopefully have a benchmark to judge Rolex by and to me whilst accepting Rolex have huge profit margins are the best my money can buy.

[Daddelvirks]

Let's face it, they are all shite................

If you are trying to impress people with a watch..........! in what f'cucking dimension are you living???

I wear this or that for a meeting, but the other one to a funeral and my diver when swimming, bla bla bla, what does it matter?? nobody cares, except you yourself.

Daddel.

[RobDad]

I'm neither a fanboy or a hater, for years I wore a Sub without a care - in the pub, on the beach and at work etc - the only thing that began to irritate me were the surprising number of 'wow is that a Rolex' comments from the too much hairgel , drives a BMW and wears a yellow tie brigade who somehow thought I was part of their brand and image driven lifestyle. I just like the iconic design of a stainless steel Rolex and I could afford one so I bought it. Some people like classic cars, pens, boats, houses, paintings, all kinds of stuff. I just like the Rolex Sub, that's it. Outside of wis fora I don't think anyone really reads that much into it to be honest, these posts just as to the illusion that they do. If someone judges me by my watch I don't much care for their opinion!!

[Tinker]

My Rolexes have been and are instruments to influence people.

This isn't the only reason I've bought them, but it's certainly one.

And it works.

[Daddelvirks]

And it works.

Daddel.

[forpetesake]

My Rolexes have been and are instruments to influence people.

This isn't the only reason I've bought them, but it's certainly one.

A real-world truth and a breath of fresh air.

My Non-WIS Rolex wearing friends do use theirs as tools...business tools. For them Rolex is an obvious choice which they didn't need to overthink or agonise about.
I don't talk about TZ-UK to my mates...how they might laugh at this thread.

[learningtofly]

A real-world truth and a breath of fresh air.

My Non-WIS Rolex wearing friends do use theirs as tools...business tools. For them Rolex is an obvious choice which they didn't need to overthink or agonise about.
I don't talk about TZ-UK to my mates...how they might laugh at this thread.

Yes, it is obvious (in a business context, anyway) and I hinted as such when I suggested my Daytona was also jewellery. I pretty much always want to convey a certain image (which can be quite changeable) when I'm working and clothes/shoes/watch/pens, etc. all form a part of that.

That's virtually never the case in a purely social context, when I just wear what I feel like wearing at the time. Even then, though, there might be some subliminal messaging going on that I'm not conscious of.

[steptoe]

Anyone got the time...............

[burnsey66]

Their sports range have remained more than capable of carrying out any tool watch duties, but, unlike sone brands offerings, they are pretty universal in their application.

[number2]

Their sports range have remained more than capable of carrying out any tool watch duties, but, unlike sone brands offerings, they are pretty universal in their application.

Have you practiced that line before?
Because its quite good

[wrecker]

My Rolexes have been and are instruments to influence people.

I truly pity anyone who was/is influenced by the wristwatch of another.

[andrew]

I think you have made your point perfectly in this post, it took a while but I think I now know what you mean

I brought mine...

Where did you bring it to? :D

Someone made the point that Rolex is designed to be as noticeable as possible. I'm sorry but that doesn't wash, in a sea of huge, ostentatious wristclocks from Omega (20mm thick!), IWC (48mm across, and all black!), Breitling (shiny!) and Zenith (two inches of faux-aged goodness!) all of which are right in Rolex's target market. If you want someone to notice your watch, other manufacturers do it much better.

[burnsey66]

Have you practiced that line before?
Because its quite good

I impressed myself to be honest

I truly pity anyone who was/is influenced by the wristwatch of another.

Pity?

Bit strong I'd say, but with that view, perhaps you should do an urgent Public Service Announcement for all members here to leave, immediately.