Reply With QuoteI like that list. Can send it to my Dad to prevent the how much??? comments when he / if he realises my Loris is a Rolex DJ 1
Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
I like that list. Can send it to my Dad to prevent the how much??? comments when he / if he realises my Loris is a Rolex DJ 1
Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
Not a bad article, but a price rise every year?
Sent from my fingers using Typing.
Thanks for posting
Yes I think this proves they are far superior than a Grand Seiko in every way,
in 5...4....3....2....1....
Seems that Iconic are trying to do a sales pitch - not so much an article
Is point 3 correct;Rolex uses a -2 / +2 deviation and guarantee this for five years?
:D Oh you… :)Originally Posted by soundood
The level of BS in that article is summed up for me with the "Rolex innovations" section. The "writer" goes on about some minor bracelet guff. Ehh wut? Sadly typical of much of the online recent fanboy stuff. Beyond daft when said hipsters are usually blissfully unaware of the long list of actual Rolex innovations that makes up one of the deepest and broadest list of innovations in wristwatch history.
Just leaving Rolex out of the equation, whatever brand the writer was slurping cool aid for, they've done a spectacularly poor job of it. There are few people on this forum who couldn't do a better job, at the very least, adding a bit of factual detail to justify their opinions.
I stopped reading when I got to this bit..
..."timeless design, 904L stainless steel etc."
Rolex are expensive...
Rolex are easilly recognisable...
What is this, a muggers charter.
Headline: Trader finds reasons why you should buy their stock.
Maybe good reasons, maybe not. If you like them, buy them; if not, don't. ;-)
Been a few years now since a UK increase. With the two rises in Europe since last year and the euro coming down from its 1.43 high to around 1.25, UK prices are fairly reasonable now in comparison.
Rolex is recognised... Tells me potential motivations (for some) when buying them... And puts me off a bit, although those 70's DJ's that keep appearing do peak my interest for the brand!
Definitely try one of those 70s DJs if you're tempted. Such brilliant, versatile and quite stealthy watches. Great value too when compared to the equivalent sub. Go for it
Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
And did you not know that before?
I think everyone knows there's a split between people who buy them for the perceived status of a recognised 'expensive' brand, and people who buy them because they are damned fine watches. What that split is, we don't know...
The ticket home made me smile.A real life saver if you lose your wallet in Calais.
And didn't Stella Artois corner the reassuringly expensive market?
Last edited by patrick; 17th April 2016 at 09:25.
Waiting in anticipation for that.
Hell, why not. As a recognised forum Rolex hater, I'm happy to have a go.
The most important fact about Rolex, and fact it is, is the remarkable character and vision of the man behind Rolex, Hans Wilsdorf. Wilsdorf was both a true visionary and an all round decent guy - why this is the case will become clearer in a while. However, Hans Wilsdorf has to be number one in every way.
When it comes to innovation, Rolex didn't invent the screw down crown, that was Dennison, but in a pocket watch. Rolex didn't invent the screw back watch, Dennison again, or the automatic, Harwood, or even the waterproof watch, Dennison, again, in a pocket watch, Fortis (for Harwood) in a wristwatch. However, what Wilsdorf did do was see the value of all of these innovations, buy the patents to them and pull them together in a wristwatch that was both waterproof and conformed to the traditional shape of a watch. We could argue over the details, but that's got to be a solid two. It also brings us to the easiest one of all.
The oyster case. That's three. Currently celebrating its ninetieth birthday and benefiting from a steady evolution over all of that time, this is the case to beat.
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/fo...ter-wristwatch
I'm trying to think of another brand who have done it better... Tudor?
Product placement. Slapping a Rolex Oyster on the wrist of Mercedes Gleitz in 1927 was an act of genius.
http://www.qualitytyme.net/pages/rol...m_gleitze.html
An act of genius repeated again and again. Why was Scott wearing a Rolex? Because it was given to him. Why was Tenzing wearing a Rolex on Everest, because heed been given one the year before as lead sherpa of the Lambert expedition, Why were free Rolex and a contract of employment waiting for Hunt and Hillary on their return? Because Wilsdorf was a marketing genius who wasn't going to let a minor detail like backing the wrong horse get in his way. A recurrent theme. Pick your favourite example. That's four.
Beyond that, Rolex have a long history of using their watches to make a point. It's easy to forget that Willsdorf was, while born in Bavaria, a British citizen and an Anglophile, who actually started selling watches in England with 'Wilsdorf and Davies'. His wife, Florence, was British, his business partner was British (and his brother in law having married his sister Anna). During WWII, the offer of free Rolex watches to British officers was not also offered to German officers. Here was Wilsdorf making a rather clear point... In fact, to amplify that point, It's worth wondering if what Wilsdorf was doing was identifying individuals as prisoners of war who would then have to be treated as such. As an informal adjunct to the Red Cross it's not a bad idea.
http://www.wristwatchreview.com/2014...wwii-pow-camp/
Note that the letter was personally signed by Wilsdorf...
I could go on about the myriad other acts of both charity and astute product placement, but, one way or another, that's got to be worth a five.
That's a start...
Last edited by M4tt; 17th April 2016 at 18:53.
l know.
Well, they weren't free were they - Hans got his money after the war - with the bonus that loads of war heroes from the wealthy classes were making rolex the watch to be seen wearing. A generation of young survivors who served under these men would forever more see rolex as an "officers watch" - furthering their aspirational image.
Wilsdorf had the Midas touch.
Absolutely, free at the time, my mistake. But yes, I don't deny for a moment that much that Wilsdorf did served multiple purposes. Mind you, I haven't even got to his real charity work, which appears to me to be entirely altruistic...
Nicely put.
Ok, part two. So here's a translation of the founding constitution of the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation, the owners of Rolex.
I'm going to call this six and seven. Six because, well, just read it! Seven, because Rolex don't remotely advertise the fact that they really are leading the way in being the sort of company we need more of that behaves with profound social responsibility. I had to drag this out of the commercial register of the Canton of Geneva and translate it. As far as I'm aware no one else has.
FOUNDATION HANS WILSDORF
Incorporated in Geneva by
Mr Gustave Martin, notary
1 August 1945
Constitution
Modified:
February 3, 1954
January 21, 1986
June 6, 2003
August 4, 2004
January 14, 2005
28 June 2007
June 23, 2008
and finally November 12, 2008
DEED OF FOUNDATION
ARTICLE 1
Name
This is made in accordance with articles 80 onwards and article 335 of the Swiss civil code and also in accordance with the special provisions described below. This foundation shall have the legal title: Hans Wilsdorf Foundation (previously known as the Hans Wilsdorf (Rolex SA) Foundation Geneva).
Article 2
Headquarters
The headquarters of the foundation is in the canton of Geneva. It is registered in the commercial register and under the supervision of a competent authority.
Its duration is indefinite.
Article 3
Objectives
The Foundation has the following goals
a) To collect all relevant assets to ensure the protection, maintenance and profitability of the foundation, in accordance with the instructions and the wishes of the donor.
For all economic assets that accrue, including all shares, companies and rights as may be donated by the first founder and that accrue to him, the foundation has the primary mission to continuously monitor these assets to maintain their ongoing operations as a functioning whole and to ensure that their operation is in the spirit and traditions of their founder.
b) The primary purpose of all income and resources must be to maintain and develop the resources and properties belonging to the foundation.
c) When available, allocate money for yearly donations to charities and sponsorship that have the following aims:
l) Support for blind people living in the Canton of Geneva
2) To discreetly aid deserving and cultured women of the Canton of Geneva who do not have the resources to support themselves.
3) Animal welfare
4) Other humanitarian, cultural and philanthropic works based in the canton of Geneva.
5) The General Hospice and Central Social Help Desk (previously central Bureau of Charity) in Geneva.
6) Scholarships for promising young students who cannot afford to continue their secondary or higher education in the schools, colleges, polytechnics, trade schools and universities of Geneva. To also establish prizes for students in the middle schools of Geneva who distinguish themselves in the study and knowledge of modern foreign languages.
7) Establishment of a fund for the support of deserving students and apprentices who are hampered in their study due to disease or whose families cannot afford appropriate treatments or cures.
d) A grant, if possible annually, to the Geneva watchmaking school to be split equally between funding research techniques and funding particularly deserving students. This should be distributed as awards from The Foundation Hans Wilsdorf (Rolex SA), Geneva.
e) An annual award, when available, to the industrial art departments of The School of Applied Arts (EAA) and the High School of Arts and Design (HEAD) (previously School of Arts Decorative) in Geneva. This award is to be distributed as ‘The Hans Wilsdorf prize’, to deserving candidates in the class of enamellers, enamel painters and jewelers. This award should be focused, by the management, on developing the skills required to apply these techniques to watch decoration.
f) A grant, when available, to the Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences at the the University of Geneva (or possibly to any another faculty) to facilitate the
studies of full time students who, through publication or committed research, further the understanding of trade, export or possibly any other interesting topic.
The professors of the relevant faculty may freely decide on the allocation of these grants
g) An annual grant, when available, to the CSEM. The Swiss Centre for electronics and micro-engineering research and development (previously known as the Swiss Watchmaking Research Laboratory) at Neuchâtel (or to any other body which might replace it) This grant would be to facilitate certain special work and contribute to the costs of the professional education of deserving students training as watchmaking engineers.
h) When disposable income is available, some is to be allocated to the nephews and nieces of the founder and his descendants, for the payment of fees for education, setting themselves up and similar purposes. The Foundation board will have the power to decide the amount allocated.
Between the early seventies and the early eighties, the mass market mechanical Swiss watch industry died. Without Rolex, free of debt, shareholders and with plenty of money in the bank, carrying on as if nothing had happened, and showing that decent mass market mechanical watches were still something that there could be a demand for post quartz, I find it hard to imagine that the remarkable recovery that took place subsequently could ever have done so. I concede this is far more of an opinion than the first seven points, but I think it's a good one. Call it eight.
Ok, I'm running out of steam, but eight isn't bad...
This article is 10% fact and 90% bollocks.........I'm sure most of us know that!
Paul
What a joke of an article - does Iconic Watches no favours.
The best things about Rolex
a) Strong Secondhand values
b) Limited selection of classic designs which never seem to go out of fashion unlike some manufacturers (Panerai, Omega, Tag, Blancpain, AP, take note)
c) Reliability and pretty much bomb proof (Brietling take note)
d) Excellent after market service - (JLC, Panerai, take note)
e) Limited suppliers coupled with excellent branding and marketing, which makes them "aspirational" - also see b)
f) Strong secondhand values.
To me they are the BMW of the watch world. Good quality product/ classic designed/ aspiration to many, and a range that covers everything from Minis right through to Rolls Royce.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
11. So popular that even advertorials about them attract whole threads of comments
12. A lifetime of people asking if it's real
agree with all that the article show, it is generally recognized that Rolex is one of the famous national watch brand.
Rolex without the in-house movement is still a fantastic watch but it loses its allure and I would not have any interest in them.
Fun fact: From the foundation of Rolex until 2004, no Rolex movements were in fact in house. At the very beginning, Rolex made nothing at all. They bought cases from several suppliers, including Dennison and movements from elsewhere. Very early on, Rolex settled on Aegler as their movement manufacture of choice. While Aegler supplied many clients until 1920, only Rolex and Gruen between 1920 and 1932 and Rolex alone from 1932 until 2004, the fact is that they were a separate company, albeit one that serviced only Rolex.
Again, a dig through the archives shows that while Aegler S.A. traded as Manufacture des Montres Rolex S.A. from 1932 until 2004, the owners remained the Aegler family and the registered name remained Aegler S.A.
In short, from foundation to 2004 Rolex were not a manufacture. They started of as an assembly in 1905, became a case maker in 1920 or so and finally acquired a manufacture in 2004.
Feel free to lose interest in pre 2004 Rolex!
Last edited by M4tt; 18th April 2016 at 13:41.
The manufacturer they acquired... This was Montres Rolex S.A. then?
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
That article is annoyingly smug - tolerable if it was accurate, but its full of tosh. "Don't use silly ambassadors"?! Are Iconic the new authority on what is and isn't acceptable? And does that mean Buzz Aldrin is a silly choice? Their words, not mine.
Oysterquartz?
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Nope. That's not even the trade name and certainly not the registered name.
I always thought Rolex leveraged the Swiss collaborative Beta 21 quartz movement from around 1970 as the basis for their in-house quartz? I'm sure they made a few watches with said movement in them. I think the oysterquartz we know today didn't arrive on the scene until the late '70s or early 80's.
As it is heavily based on the 313x, I'd rather think the work was done by Aegler in Bienne. Of course, I'd be delighted to be shown otherwise...
Yes Rolex were part of the CEH group and the Beta 21 was, like most their first quartz. The main opposition was the 352 from GP which set the standard for pretty well everything to follow. Compared to that the Beta 21 looked like a complete bodge. Which it was.
The in-house movements (5035/5055) were built from 1977 onwards, there were 1,000 Beta 21’s made and they ended in 1972.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Sure, but in house in Bienne (Aegler) or Geneva?
I don’t know, Rolex certainly claim it as their own design.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Absolutely, but they also claim all the other movements as their own designs too, even though the 12xx have clear roots in Aegler movements from when they still supplied Gruen. I'm not denying that the relationship between Aegler and Rolex was such that it's easy to forget that they were two companies, but until 2004 they were. You will not find the name Aegler on any Rolex movements from the thirties onwards.
So I guess there was quite a shift when they finally went in-house instead of being outsourced then? Presumably they were able to start developing movements to their own specifications, for example in sizes that fitted the cases, and following a new movement development strategy of slow, steady improvement (vs. whatever it was they were doing before). Also, did this 3rd-party company sell movements to other companies - I assume after Rolex bought them, they stopped doing that.
Also as there was no connection between Rolex and their outsourced supplier, Rolex must have been pretty miffed about another company trading with the name "Rolex" in the title. I'm surprised they didn't sue...
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
I did...
And I agree there is a split... I guess I am concerned about feeling a little self conscious about what people might assume about me if clocking one on my wrist - "he's a flash git"
I like some of the watches and could probably overcome it...
Montreal Rolex SA, were incorporated in 1913, then became a subsidiary of Rolex in 2004
According to Bloomberg anyway
Http://www.bloomberg.com/research/st...capid=22863906
Not strictly separate, after 1919
In 1919, Rolex purchased a percentage of the Aegler company and began to call itself Aegler S.A. Rolex Watch Company. Soon after that, Wilsdorf bought out Davis’s share of the company and moved the office to Geneva where he registered “Montres Rolex S.A.” on January 17th. Wilsdorf settled in Geneva in order to let the factory in Biel be entirely devoted to manufacturing watch movements where Geneva would focus upon creating case models that fit cosmopolitan tastes. The movements were manufactured in Biel/Bienne, but the watches are assembled in Geneva.
Don't mention the cal72 and Zenith movements that Rolex used or there might be trouble.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
A great conversation starter..."Is that Rolex real?", "As it happens, yes. The name's Carter, J J Carter"
Last edited by J J Carter; 18th April 2016 at 19:33.
1, 4 & 8
Except that in the mid 1930s, Gruen were bought out, both Wilsdorf and Aegler bought back each other's shares and the the two companies carried on by what is described as 'a gentleman's agreement'. With Rolex only buying Aegler movements and Aegler only supplying Rolex. The exception was, for some time, complications such as chronographs.
I'm afraid the source you cut and pasted from simply isn't a very good one and repeats several myths.
https://beckertime.com/the-evolution-history-of-rolex/
If you don't have access to any of the books on the subject, try this chap, who is significantly more authoritative:
http://www.timezone.com/2012/12/13/t...james-dowling/
Posting Permissions
