Rolex - help me understand/defend the brand?

[CJQC]

A few of us like watches and we have a WhatsApp group to discuss what we discover and think. None of us are anything close to experts, I would add.

Lately, there seems to be a bit of Rolex chat in the group. Stuff like the quotes below:

"We're just on holiday at the moment. A fair amount of brits at our hotel and so many of them have Rolexes. Almost none of the professional ranges. Mostly Oyster. But it's almost as if people are treating them like swatches."

Followed by: "It is interesting how the brand has such overwhelming market share. I understand entry level but there are people buying platinum Daytonas, solid gold yachmaster II sky dwellers etc that could easily get an AP etc."

"I think it may be something about how they have managed aspiration and branding generally. Look at how they sponsor sports. Yachting, F1, golf, tennis, showjumping to name a few. And they don't do lower class sponsorship, they go big or go home. So when you see their brand within those sports, it's in your face as much as they can get away with. They also choose their sports, opting for the more exclusive ones (in keeping with brand perception). Then comes their pricing strategy and the way in which they purposely keep certain versions of their professional series watches for loyal clients. Brand new, boutique bought Rolexes cost under 5K. On the basis of the marketing and well targeted sponsorship, people often see that possessing a rolex means that they've "made it". They "only" have to spend under 5K to get that validation. That's not a level that they could get into AP, Patek, etc. So they get the customer in early. They then market to him/her relentlessly, pushing better, more sophisticated models. Then, once the customer asks for a Daytona, Pepsi or Hulk GMT II etc, Rolex tell them that they can't have one, which irks them even more and makes them more determined, even if it means buying an Oyster or two,l that they don't really want, just to get the opportunity to buy the pro model. By this time, the customer is so invested in the brand, that they are then willing to go the whole hog. After all, why not buy a platinum daytona from the brand that showed them the love early on with entry level watches?"

"Wonder how well that strategy works given the Chrono24 market? You can pick up pretty much every Rolex apart from the very specialised or rare for less than retail. Means an even lower entry point IMO, making Rolexes the equivalent of expensive G-Shocks to some people."

I think the points they're making above are interesting but overly simplistic. I think they are missing the fact that Rolex makes some absolutely fantastic watches and has a wonderful heritage? My understanding is that after Patek, Rolex is one of the most bullet-proof watch makers around in terms of holding value?

I'm not sure what I'm asking here, but I'd be interested to hear what people on this forum would be saying in response to the above. I've made a couple of points above about their watchmaking and heritage, but if asked to justify it, I don't think I know enough to do so!

I'd be very interested to hear what the forum has to think.

A small request, let's keep it nice and not get personal!

[paskinner]

Any massively successful brand attracts attention; Rolex success is based, at the core, on superbly made products. All the advertising and marketing would fail if there wasn't this excellence at the heart of the brand. Other manufacturers also market heavily..but they don't succeed if the product isn't right. Other manufacturers who grasp this include Mercedes, BMW, Apple, Nike.
Interestingly, Apple shows you can succeed at this exalted level without a long history , if the products are good enough.

[lasz]

I think the points they're making above are interesting but overly simplistic. I think they are missing the fact that Rolex makes some absolutely fantastic watches and has a wonderful heritage? My understanding is that after Patek, Rolex is one of the most bullet-proof watch makers around in terms of holding value?

The relationship between those two things is not fixed - one can be true without the other to a certain extent. It seems that the people you have quoted are looking at Rolex watches more as status symbols and/or male jewellery, rather than as excellent timepieces. Nothing wrong with that (Rolex themselves certainly wouldn't have a problem with that), it's just the question of focus of one person as opposed to another.

[number2]

Is it really that time of year again?

[gbn13]

I tend not to overthink stuff like this and just end up buying watches I like, which in some instances happens to be Rolex models from the Professional range. They just make reliable decent watches and I don’t really care who else does or does not wear them, or where they sit in the pecking order of brands.

[Tony]

I could write the rest of this thread myself.

[Flasher]

Any massively successful brand attracts attention; Rolex success is based, at the core, on superbly made products. All the advertising and marketing would fail if there wasn't this excellence at the heart of the brand. Other manufacturers also market heavily..but they don't succeed if the product isn't right. Other manufacturers who grasp this include Mercedes, BMW, Apple, Nike.
Interestingly, Apple shows you can succeed at this exalted level without a long history , if the products are good enough.

Would agree that Rolex success is partly but importantly down to having a rock solid product, one which I think Mercedes and BMW can only dream off, although they are similar marketed within the luxury markets.

Status and aspirational factors play heavily for luxury goods sales and Rolex with probably Vuitton not far behind have played that game with a mass produced product better than anyone over the last two decades.

Rolex vs Audemars, Audemars would win every time with myself but if you want an instantly recognisable perceived status symbol then Rolex will deliver that probably 99% of the time for most buyers.

[number2]

I could write the rest of this thread myself.

Will it run to the usual 3 or 4 pages?

[RJM25R]

Luxury goods are mainly marketed based on recognition.

If you were to take clothes for example, “labels” like Armani (wings motif) Ralph Lauren (polo logo) and Lacoste (crocodile) are de rigeur.

Rolex is just the same to 99% of people, it’s a label. A datejust or sub is the pinnacle to most people (two tone or gold even moreso). They won’t know Patek or AP even exist, probably because they don’t see them around.

Recognition of the Rolex crown, the bezel and also the jubilee bracelet on some models have pervaded the average persons mind because they see them around.

It’s almost the default “I’m successful I want a Rolly” choice, along with the Mont Blanc meisterstuck pen!

It’s been commonly said that professional/sports models make up very little of Rolex’s sales, and it’s the Datejusts that are much more prevalent, as seen on the wris of many an ex-pat!

[cannondale]

classic looks and a great movement...

[scottie2345]

I cannot help but wonder what percentage you are seeing are fakes!!

Scottie

[Ghost Chilli]

A lot of people who aren't interested in watches probably think Rolex are the best / most exclusive and want a status symbol.

Whether that is true or not is another discussion!

[CJQC]

Thank you to those who replied, interesting thoughts.

To those who seem to be offended or troubled by this thread, please do feel free ignore this one and to view and contribute to other threads. Or, if you would actually like to be helpful, please could you refer us to a thread that you feels deals with things. As a new member, I would appreciate that. Thank you.

[Mick P]

I tend not to overthink stuff like this and just end up buying watches I like, which in some instances happens to be Rolex models from the Professional range. They just make reliable decent watches and I don’t really care who else does or does not wear them, or where they sit in the pecking order of brands.

My thoughts precisely.

[Carl.1]

Rolex are a fine watch. I am impressed by them.

I do think though that people buy them (not all obviously) as a 'look at me' watch.

Why else buy a seriously overpriced watch? Granted if you have a shed load of money it is immaterial but I think the tag still applies.
I know people will argue the point and let them, but it is the truth.

I have considered buying one and at one point was saving for one. I then realized that it was only a watch and for the ever increasing money they demand I could spend elsewhere and not be suckered in to funding their 'machine'. Since then I now look at them with little regard.

Shame really that they now mean so little to me because of their marketing and prices when as I have said I am impressed by the actual watches.

[garyfisher]

Rolex hype! Look at the prices. They are skyrocketing. Everybody wants Rolex. There has to be something about it

[nortonofmorton]

Vintage Rolex has a real allure - I like their history as tool watches and their reputation for innovation (eg first waterproof wristwatch). Like any big brand, people are attracted to the name and that leads to negative connotations but that doesn't stop me from admiring them or dreaming of owning one.

Sent from my CLT-L29 using Tapatalk

[robert75]

No idea, I just buy the watch I like if it happens to be a Rolex do be it.

On pens though montblanc are dreadful, get a Visconti instead.

[nortonofmorton]

No idea, I just buy the watch I like if it happens to be a Rolex do be it.

On pens though montblanc are dreadful, get a Visconti instead.

Ah, my trusty Parker pen will always have my heart

Sent from my CLT-L29 using Tapatalk

[RJM25R]

No idea, I just buy the watch I like if it happens to be a Rolex do be it.

On pens though montblanc are dreadful, get a Visconti instead.

Same argument, different product.

Most people have heard of Mont Blanc, so it’s the default choice.

[Lammylee]

Through marketing and perceived quality Rolex are the highest profile brand that are known amongst the none watch obsessed public who mainly purchase them as a status symbol.

They are also purchased by watch collectors due to their design, heritage and build quality.

I don't think any other brand comes close to appealing to both camps.

[Velorum]

Will it run to the usual 3 or 4 pages?

I particularly liked the thread in which Cilla stated that Vostok made better watches and in response Burnsey had one of his entertaining outbursts. I joined in for a few posts but was punching well above my weight so returned to being a mere spectator. Managed to have a good insult hurled in my direction though.

About 4 years ago I think.

[AlphaOmega]

I remember the thread that descended through the various circles of Hell until someone posted a picture of copulating hyenas.

Not suggesting this one will go that far but it certainly has potential.

Just to add a little petrol to the flames, here are some useful phrases to keep this thing burning:

- new money
- wear what you like
- milsub
- DRSD
- stickers
- my AD is bigger than your AD

[paskinner]

The clocks go back soon; got to have something to keep us warm during the dark days ahead.
Failing that, how about:
'Are Omega as good as Rolex?'

[JimbobIJones]

A combination of quality, great marketing and a whole lot of luck.

Rolex's early days as being a relatively affordable but reliable brand made it popular with cultural icons of the beats and modernist writers/artists of the early 20th century who are associated with ruggedness and coolness. This helped immensely when they decided to push upmarket and helped cement their image in cultural memory.

Rolex's marketing was also genius. They managed to get their watches where they would be seen, through sponsorship and gifts to the famous and the influential. They gifted fancy watches to presidents, for example, and paid for their watches to appear in countless films which reinforce the idea of rugged coolness.

They are also lucky in that they were in an excellent position to exploit market trends when tastes switched from "dressy" watches to more rugged, sporty watches. Their flagship models - the Submariner and Daytona - were both tool watches when first envisaged and not super expensive "luxury" goods.

[Itsguy]

I remember the thread that descended through the various circles of Hell until someone posted a picture of copulating hyenas.

Not suggesting this one will go that far but it certainly has potential.

Just to add a little petrol to the flames, here are some useful phrases to keep this thing burning:

- new money
- wear what you like
- milsub
- DRSD
- stickers
- my AD is bigger than your AD

For maximum points replies should also include one or more of the following useful phrases:
'Iconic design classic'... 'The vintage ones are so much nicer'...'They've ruined the lugs, it looks like a bloody barrel'...'Veblen's theory of conspicuous consumption states that...'
And then follow up with something about the service network, brand recognition and residuals. That should probably cover it.

[inspector gadget]

Don't forget that to be a true believer one needs to be on the 'List' or several lists and have access to many AD's, this is part of the current surge in interest of the brand, not forgetting it is also cool to be told that you cannot have a particular watch however much money you have at your disposal. I think its now also true that the St/Stl models are worth more than the 18ct versions of the same model, please correct me if i'm wrong there. Here is a nice one coming up on the 30th of the month, up to £54K already...

https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/a...a-a97300ccf366

[Umbongo]

Another "here we are again" moment. This subject has been done so often and rarely ends well.

I own a rolex. Im certain l spent more than its actually worth in the grand scheme of things, but that's the price they are and if you want one you pay it. It's not twice as good as a watch half its price, but you can't get a half price seadweller - and l wanted a seadweller.

It used to amuse me to watch threads like this - with the blinkered brand worshippers squabbling with the bitter have-nots and zealous haters, but it doesn't anymore. It's like watching an episode of a comedy show to the point where you can act it out yourself - it loses its entertainment value somewhat, but for some reason you'll watch it again...

[Yorkshiremadmick]

Like you Umbongo I lusted after a new watch, I had sold my Bi metal sub with blue face. Then started on the track of which next. I got a watch off this forum, in 2012. A Sea Dweller dated to 2000 with drilled lug holes Swiss only dial. Yes I’m sure I paid more than the watch was when it was new. But in reality I was happy to buy it.
But I’m not sure I would be happy now trying to get a Daytona for example, as the prices are ridiculous secondhand.
But you can’t get a half price Daytona. The OP & Datejust models still seem very good value.



Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[rigster2]

I cannot help but wonder what percentage you are seeing are fakes!!

Scottie

My thoughts exactly nowadays.


Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app

[gray]

I don't understand why folks complain about watch related topics being discussed many times on a watch related forum.

If you don't want to read it, don't. If you don't want to contribute, don't. If you want to moan about it, knock yourself out - and I'll skip over your post the way you should have skipped over the thread.

I reckon you could stop 10 Rolex owners at random and find ten different reasons for buying into the brand. That's probably what makes it such a successful brand.

[wantasub]

The more I understand the brand, the less inclined I've become in wanting a Rolex.

Take my username, I did want a sub...but now because i've seen lots of people having one, the forum posts with countless people having one......meeting people that have a rolex - they all seem to have a sub...lol....

I then started looking at Daytonas, but the waiting list is silly and I don't want to spend £15k on one.....

have now had my head turned by a VC Overseas!

[snowman]

Never liked them much, I struggle to understand the adoration for the brand, rather than specific models and find comments about 'my AD' and 'residuals' reinforce my prejudices about the brand, although a few of their watches are quite nice and you can't really quibble with the quality.

Nice enough watches if you like the designs, but I remain baffled about the adoration.

Clever, savvy marketing has lifted their watches to a position in the market they don't really deserve.

M

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[CJQC]

I don't understand why folks complain about watch related topics being discussed many times on a watch related forum.

If you don't want to read it, don't. If you don't want to contribute, don't. If you want to moan about it, knock yourself out - and I'll skip over your post the way you should have skipped over the thread.

I reckon you could stop 10 Rolex owners at random and find ten different reasons for buying into the brand. That's probably what makes it such a successful brand.

It's the safety/anonymity of the internet where you can behave in a manner you never would in person. Your bit in bold above is common sense that some would be well worth considering.

Either way, a couple of questions from me.

1. How does the build quality of a Rolex (which I assume is the same across the range) compare to AP, Patek, Vacheron etc

2. How do their movements compare to the same brands?

[Massi1234]

It's the safety/anonymity of the internet where you can behave in a manner you never would in person. Your bit in bold above is common sense that some would be well worth considering.

Either way, a couple of questions from me.

1. How does the build quality of a Rolex (which I assume is the same across the range) compare to AP, Patek, Vacheron etc

2. How do their movements compare to the same brands?

I had a Rolex for 25 years, a very italian gift from my family and in 25 years with a patchy service history (twice) has stopped once... And i used it most of the time... Including gym, pool, cycling, jogging... I can't speak for the finish and movement but it certainly is a battle axe of a watch. After all it is a lot of small moving parts. The fact that it has been so reliable on such a continuous stretch suggests to me that it is a good quality build.

I have a PP and it certainly seems more refined but more delicate. Same for a AP Royal Oak... The movement which you can see is most likely way more refined. And they've both been slightly more accurate than the Rolex. But would not dare take either near gym or swimming pool!

[sweets]

To the OP, there is nothing you need to defend in the first post on this topic. There are views and observations, no "facts" that are in any way detrimental to the Rolex image.

One can just as easily quote us views that extol Rolex's ability to evolve their classical designs and reinvent them with ever better materials, finishing and attention to detail.
It is just as simple to deride their lack of innovation in that regard. Two sides of looking at the same thing.

The Rolex image, as cultivated by the company itself, has remained remarkably consistent over the years.

The interpretation of that image has changed and fractured more recently. People seem to be more passionate in their views, for and against. Or perhaps it is just places like this and other forums that give air to these views. Most of the population are ambivalent to it all, and we just need to retain our sense of perspective on it.

Dave

[Stringer]

I like & respect Rolex, but without qualms reserve some criticism for the brand also.


Problem is, any online discussion rapidly tends to depart from the sensible and instead attracts wildly differing & frothing ends of the idiot spectrum.


For that reason I can rarely be ars*d to view Rolex threads these days. It's like arguing on Twitter or shovelling water up a hill - a colossal waste of f*cking time.

[davidj54]

I don’t normally discuss Rolex as I don’t own one, and have only handled one a couple of times. I think they have a quality of being perceived as a status symbol and therefore garnering, from some quarters, negative connotations. That comes from their luxury marketing strategy and, maybe, certain celebs that wear their blingier offerings. But underneath all that, the product is undeniably top quality. Given the surplus funds I would have a Sub and an Explorer in my collection in a heartbeat. They look amazing aesthetically, are built to last a lifetime and have true horological heritage. People shouldn’t let things like the snobbishness of watch geeks of the gaudiness of celebrity detract from what is undeniably a first class product.

Many actual owners who aren’t watch enuthusiast won’t appreciate that, nevermind non owners. My father in law has worn Timex’s for 50 years. He could afford a Rolex, but would rather gnaw his own leg off than spend £8k on a watch!

Before I got into watches I ‘knew’ that Rolex was a top quality watch, but I didn’t know why. I knew sod all about the history, the build quality, the movement. So what did I know? I knew what the marketing was telling me; that it was desirable, and therefore must be great. Bloke’s got a Rolex = he’s successful, it’s literally as simple as that to 99% of people. That’s why so many people would rather wear a Rolex copy than a legit in-house Seiko. And that’s why from certain quarters that level of snobbery almost gets inverted on Rolex. It’s a funny situation, and one which they are as guilty as anyone of evolving.

[optix]

The more I understand the brank, the less inclined I've become in wanting a Rolex.

Take my username, I did want a sub...but now because i've seen lots of people having one, the forum posts with countless people having one......meeting people that have a rolex - they all seem to have a sub...lol....

I then started looking at Daytonas, but the waiting list is silly and I don't want to spend £15k on one.....

have now had my head turned by a VC Overseas!

Once you get the overseas, you'll never consider a rolex ever again.

I've used mine swimming, running, in the gmt gym, in Hiit classes & it's held up fine



Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[oldoakknives]

I like Rolex watches, well some, not all. And probably not the same as others on here. I also like Omega, Seiko, Bulova, Tag and quite a few others. I don't much like Breitling although their Superocean has some appeal and never really understood the appeal of Tudor. But I like reading about watches of all makes and might change my mind either way about any of them with their next model.
If it's in Watch Talk, and about watches, I'm good with that.
Ian

[M4tt]

I could write the rest of this thread myself.

Only if you suffered from MPD...

[murkeywaters]

Always really liked the Seadweller, tried one on at a GTG and it reaffirmed and then some that it is the watch I really want..


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[kaiserphoenix]

I had a Rolex for 25 years, a very italian gift from my family and in 25 years with a patchy service history (twice) has stopped once... And i used it most of the time... Including gym, pool, cycling, jogging... I can't speak for the finish and movement but it certainly is a battle axe of a watch. After all it is a lot of small moving parts. The fact that it has been so reliable on such a continuous stretch suggests to me that it is a good quality build.

I have a PP and it certainly seems more refined but more delicate. Same for a AP Royal Oak... The movement which you can see is most likely way more refined. And they've both been slightly more accurate than the Rolex. But would not dare take either near gym or swimming pool!

It’s hard to generalise as both AP and Patek have simple 3 hand movements to minute repeaters and tourbillions. Rolex are considered (and deservedly so) very reliable. But you have to remember that they basically make 3 hand watches with a date. Yes the skydweller is an annual calendar but most rolex are 3 hander s. If you compare that with a Patek or AP or any other 3 hander they all tend to be very reliable. The Patek 324 cal for example is bullet proof and so is the AP in-house cal. So it’s hard to compare.

Rolex also excels in the after service vs many other brands (ie richemont) and that helps keep the value and trust in the brand also.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Itsguy]

I don't understand why folks complain about watch related topics being discussed many times on a watch related forum.

If you don't want to read it, don't. If you don't want to contribute, don't. If you want to moan about it, knock yourself out - and I'll skip over your post the way you should have skipped over the thread.

I reckon you could stop 10 Rolex owners at random and find ten different reasons for buying into the brand. That's probably what makes it such a successful brand.

I’m afraid the cynicism is down to the sheer volume of trolling on this topic that the forum has been subjected to by bitter and twisted ex or current members of late. It’s exhausting and corrosive, and has made it quite hard to know if any seemingly innocent question from a relative newcomer is really what it seems. I’m quite happy to discuss this most polarising of brands as it’s an interesting phenomenon, but it’s like shooting ducks in a barrel for trolls who want to promote an argument that’s embarrassing for all concerned. If the original post was made in good faith then I’m sorry to say that’s the context that these discussions take place in these days.

[nunya]

Mostly Oyster. But it's almost as if people are treating them like swatches.[/I]"

I had to laugh at this comment. Swatch = robust and waterproof as is a DJ, just different price brackets, that's all, both are still just F watches

[Andyg]

I am today wearing a 38 year old Pepsi Rolex GMT, which cost me about £2800 in 2000 (now worth about £10k) whilst reading about the new Ceramic Rolex Pepsi GMT currently selling for around £15k, if you can find one. Both are Rolex, do the same job and to 99% of the global population look virtually identical.

So even if you ignore the brand, it's history, it's design, its desirability, robustness, etc, it actually makes good financial sense, assuming you don't over pay and keep the watch over 5 years or more.

[mrushton]

Luxury goods are mainly marketed based on recognition.

If you were to take clothes for example, “labels” like Armani (wings motif) Ralph Lauren (polo logo) and Lacoste (crocodile) are de rigeur.

Rolex is just the same to 99% of people, it’s a label. A datejust or sub is the pinnacle to most people (two tone or gold even moreso). They won’t know Patek or AP even exist, probably because they don’t see them around.

Recognition of the Rolex crown, the bezel and also the jubilee bracelet on some models have pervaded the average persons mind because they see them around.

It’s almost the default “I’m successful I want a Rolly” choice, along with the Mont Blanc meisterstuck pen!

It’s been commonly said that professional/sports models make up very little of Rolex’s sales, and it’s the Datejusts that are much more prevalent, as seen on the wris of many an ex-pat!

This. Apply to any of the really high end brands like Hermes/LV/Tiffany/Cartier/Chanel. Handbags and watches and jewellery available everywhere but certain brands just have a cachet and people want to buy into it. There are people on here who prob have a MontBlanc pen but wouldn't have the watches yet there are other brands of pen available. Luxury goods are a strange market. Get it right and the money rolls in. get it wrong or the wrong people have them and the brand loses it's cachet. think Burberry in the 80s when it was regarded as 'chav' in the UK but was a major brand in Europe/Far East. We think of those bejewelled Mid-East Rolex as too much yet in certain parts of the world they are a sign of success.

[monogroover]

The thing with watches is - for their actual stated ostensible purpose, you can get as much watch as you'll want or need for about £200. Anything you pay over and above a few hundred quid is subjective personal taste, and there's no way to argue it rationally.

[nunya]

^^^^^^
£200? more like £10, robust, waterproof, accurate, reputable manufacturer. etc etc. etc.

[Robert189598]

There are a couple Rolex models that really appeal to me but, the image of the brand, as merely a status symbol , has always put me off pulling the trigger.