Reply With QuoteI would have demanded some sort of discount to price in all those covenants. Ridiculous.
I agree.Originally Posted by David_D
No, that's not true in general.
If I buy a watch then, in general, no one asks me what I am going to do with it! Even if I was buying solely to flip it, no lying whatsoever need be involved.
Let me repeat: No lying need be involved.
It's none of their business, of course! There is no good reason whatsoever for it to be any of their business.
Quite so. But it is important to note that some of your stated opinions are objectively wrong.
You may of course continue to choose to think that doing what you want with your own property is morally wrong(!) but, all the same, the objective truth is that (a) you do not buy a watch "on the understanding that" anything and (b) there is no "'implied' deal".
I agree totally. In summary, I can see no moral problem with keeping or disposing of one's own property as one wishes. It is not for anyone else to try and meddle in this more basic of personal life choices. SC, for example, is full of people doing this with all sorts of object. Watches that are currently specially desirable are not magically different in any way.
But watches are still available to buy if they are in the grey channel. They don't just magically disappear.
Also, even if anyone is disadvantaged, would these be the same watch enthusiasts who are disadvantaged by err... other watch collectors who buy these watches and then put them in a safe forever, never to be worn and sold only years later as an investment?
Last edited by markrlondon; 5th September 2019 at 11:20.
I would have demanded some sort of discount to price in all those covenants. Ridiculous.
I'm so glad I already have the ones I like. Buying a Rolex these days looks like a nightmare. If I wanted one, I'd just wait a couple of years for the bubble to burst.
Good points.
That’s fine, but you won’t get discount, won’t get the watch and someone else will buy it instead.
I guess morality is subjective. Here are two example scenarios:
A) Bob (a 'VVIP') customer at AD who has spend £100k+ on PM watches at an AD gets offered a Daytona. Bob then flips this the next day for a tidy profit.
B) Rob, a new customer arrives at AD and strikes up nice conversation about watches and forms relationship with the sales assistant. Customer explains that they'd love to buy a hulk. 2 months later, a rolex delivery arrives including a Hulk. The store manager and sales assistance discuss who the Hulk should go to (these is typical practice at many stores). The sales assistant persuades the manager that Rob would be a good candidate for the Hulk. Rob buys the Hulk and instantly sells it to the pawn shop next door for a tidy profit.
Are either of these situations immoral? Is one more moral than the other?
Neither scenario is immoral. But it illustrates the point that neither of them actually want the watch for themselves, just to sell it for profit.
In my view the whole situation is fuelled by the “must have it now” mentality that has been fostered by the internet. People not wanting the watches for something they want to wear but as a show off trinket that they can post on Instagram to show how special they are in being able to obtain something so rare and exclusive before they either move on to the next item or sell it on for a fat profit.
Does that make them a bad person? No of course not, it all comes down to supply and demand and a superheated market place where particular watches are desired more than others.
The market is what it is. I don’t get stressed by dealers rules or people making money selling watches because it really isn’t that important.
still, it doesn't prove he is not overpaying for the deal.
it would be interesting to know if AD can actually do that.
You are aware of the relative rarity of the watch in the OP? Discount? Really? Your market intelligence seems rather out of date.
You don't speak for all customers. It might hurt you, certainly not me.
Is it indeed! Any data to back that statement up? Would need to be specific to Rolex sold by the OP's dealer, pre & post the introduction of the dealer's sales agreement.
yes I am, and I am only saying that this particular deal still means that the buyer is still overpaying, as he is agreeing to covenants without anything in return.
what he doesn't pay in monetary terms he is paying with restrictions to his rights. I understand the "rarity" (of a machine made wristwatch...), but you really can't argue with these points.
Notionally, perhaps. In reality, not.
I am happy to let you have the last word on this, however it is really in reality and not in theory that these points are valid - assuming that contract is enforceable.
You’d have been laughed out of there.
What business is it of theirs?
Nonsense. A person buying s watch to sell who does not utter the words ‘I promise not to sell it’ is not a liar. Unless yours is some Minority Report standard for watch buyers.
You’re entitled to your view, of course. Even if you’re wrong.
Who cares? Given that neither are based on anything that happened, why waste time wondering about it?
Who needs data? The sports models are not available at ADs. They are available all over the shop from grey dealers for a discount. There’s no need for an empirical study, it’s flippin’ obvious!
Not in the slightest, I bet Bob and Rob would gladly give the AD a reacharound so they could get their grubby mitts on the desired watch.
Fas est ab hoste doceri
If the allegation is that the OP’s dealer’s sales agreement does not lessen the flow of that dealer’s watches to grey dealers, as compared to having no sales agreement, then you need to come up with some valid justification. Otherwise what you and MarkRLondon have said is waffle and lacks credibility.
Just because there are watches at grey dealers does not validate your point. They could have originated from any AD and possibly have been first sold without the type of sales agreement that is being discussed. That is ’flippin obvious’!
The allegation? What are you on about? You know you’re writing on an Internet forum, rather than being the stenographer at the old bailey? The burden of proof here, though it seems obvious, is f*ck all.
If the allegation is that the OP’s dealer’s sales agreement does not lessen the flow of that dealer’s watches to grey dealers, as compared to having no sales agreement, then you need to come up with some valid justification. Otherwise what you and MarkRLondon have said is waffle and lacks credibility.
Just because there are watches at grey dealers does not validate your point. They could have originated from any AD and possibly have been first sold without the type of sales agreement that is being discussed. That is ’flippin obvious’!
It’s can be incredible. We’re having a chat not prosecuting a case. I think you need to stow your sense of drama and grab hold of some self awareness.
Strewth. Calm down.
Those covenants are not as ridiculous as your demand for discount.
Exactly!
100%
All you have to do is forget about your own interests and look at the bigger picture.
When you walk into a shop to buy goods, you are doing a deal. The shopkeeper is selling whatever and your only committment is to agree or not to paying a sum of money for a product along with certain conditions. Neither you or the shop keeper is forced to do the deal. If you don't like it just walk away, it really is as simple as that. By the same token, if the shop keeper does not take a shine to you, he has the right to ask you to leave his shop.
If you buy the product, you can do whatever you want with it and it has nothing to with some moaning old keyboard warrior.
Free market and all that stuff.
True Mick, but then what would these warriors talk about in Watch Talk? Oh, wait, we'd have all those "What should I wear on holiday / to work / in the garden / down the pub ..." type threads.
flippers wouldn't be able to ask ridiculous prices if rolex were not already severely limiting stock and dealers were not power-tripping on who they sell to and under what insane terms.
Quite, Rolex have worsened the problems in their ham-fisted attempts to solve them.
There is no problem, the market has been readjusted to the correct level. The tyre kickers are slowly being kicked out of the scene and about time to.
And when the Instagram crowd move on to the next big thing the market will readjust back to the correct level. This whole thing won't last forever.
No you are looking it from the wrong way round. The fact that people are willing to pay the inflated prices perpetuates the problem. If the stock remained unsold at the grey dealers the price would fall.
I would very much doubt if Rolex are producing less steel professional models than previously its the high demand with the bonus of making a quick buck that keeps the market at this level.
I suspect the market will continue to rise with PP, Rolex and Omega leading the race.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating and the best sellers are the grey dealers who ignore RRP and pitch straight in at the going rate. They all seem doing very well, so there is your proof. Pay the going rate and you can walk out with all the accessories.
The only people who want a return to the "old days" are tyre kickers who are too tight to pay the going rate and good riddance to them.
Not sure I agree, I've been tracking grey dealer prices of most unicorn pieces weekly for almost a year and almost all are showing signs of price weakening recently (steadily and consistently). Nautilus the most of All, Batgirl the most of the Rolex line up. Let's see if it continues, but prices are certainly not on the increase. Can't vouch for Omega as I've not been following.
No boom will continue forever and you may well be right but the situation for Rolex is miles better than what it was say two years ago.
What of those people that are happy to pay list price?
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
If they can buy them at list price then fine but they have to accept the fact that dozens of others are also queuing up for it, so one person lands it, the others don't.
If they want it right now with all the gizmos, go to a grey.
Their choice.
Again, sorry, I don't think I agree. Yes demand is there right now, prices are sky high on the secondary market, but what happens when the recession hits and the cool crowd move on to the next big thing? All I see left are disgruntled enthusiasts losing patience and interest in the brand. I have my name on lists for almost all the hot pieces, I won't get any of them, and frankly I've almost lost enthusiasm to own any of them. So all I see is short term gain, but possibly at the expense of long term gain.
There is no real right or wrong answer and we all have differing views on how Rolex handled their problem. In their shoes I would have done exactly the same but obviously not everyone will agree.
Time will tell if they done the right thing.
They are no longer worthy.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Last edited by GMC41; 8th September 2019 at 13:25.
Calling anyone prepared to pay retail, but not double that a tyre kicker for something that was expensive before the market started messing about is just daft.
Rolex is like Land Rover - their ham-fisted business practices are immune to market forces. Rolex manufacture a situation where customers are treated like sh*t and it doesn’t hurt them. Land Rover build cars that fall apart and it doesn’t hurt them either.
For the record JLR just recorded their biggest loss.
As usual, overly simplistic and demonstrating no real understanding. The grey market has them priced as investment pieces, not as watches, and with no connection to or regard of inherent value. That means that they're beyond the reach of the vast majority of people who wish to buy and wear them; you know, watch lovers? "Tyre kicking" doesn't come into it - it's just another example of your condescending and holier than thou posting style.
Sorry I disagrree. Rolex allowed themselves to get into a situation where some Wayne Slob could walk into an AD and come out with a watch on his wrist after negotiating a double figure discount. That is fatal for a company that wants to trade on a top class brand image.
Today getting a brand new Rolex is very much an expensive achievement.
Rolex 1 Wanye Slob 0
All you have done is demonstrated that your head is up with the faries.
Investors tend to be more reliable than tyre kickers.
You want a Rolex - be prepared to pay for it. That is what Rolex want and they have got it.
You should have asked them why only the UK seem to adopt this ridiculous procedure and why it doesn’t apply to all customers
RIAC
Whoever the resident record keeper is will appreciate the signpost.
And it’s about time!
Yes. Wayne Slob was paying six grand for a three hander and getting a discount. I’m sure you don’t mean to sound horrendously condescending but alas.....
Rolex did nothing of the sort.
This is why your blinkered view fails at the first scrutiny - AD's pay Rolex for stock (at AD prices) and sell them for retail to customers.
You are just coming across as some 'entitled snob' who lauds about with his 'Rolly'.
Rolex 2, Old Snob 0
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Posting Permissions
