The drums are certainly being banged tonight.
FYI the real idiots, are those who buy a bauble in the certain knowledge that it will depreciate in value over the life of your ownership and/or buy things that fail to give them joy.
Spoken as Rolex and 911 owner.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Anyone who buys something that depreciates is a 'real idiot'? Hopefully that isn't what you meant to say?Originally Posted by Andyg
The drums are certainly being banged tonight.
FYI the real idiots, are those who buy a bauble in the certain knowledge that it will depreciate in value over the life of your ownership and/or buy things that fail to give them joy.
Spoken as Rolex and 911 owner.
to be quite honest, a lot. If parents are passionate about something it tends to imprint onto their children. Celebrity examples might be racing drivers such as Mick Schumacher, football players such as Kasper Schmiechel, politicians such as Stephen Kinnock, singers such as Mabel etc. It's not always the case but it is quite common.
I’m not sure a few celebrity examples are representative of everyday life but sure some follow but I’d think the majority don’t and a proportion positively rail against any expectations to follow.
I haven't read that in the thread yet so can't agree with that statement and seeing how Rolex threads used to get locked quite often everywhere this one has been pretty civil.
Mick are you on the list for anything currently?
Nope - I am down to two Rolex and that's enough for any sane person. I may well treat myself to a Gondola but here comes the back track, the Rolex Cellini Prince looks a good alternative.
BTW one does go on a waiting list at the age of 72, I don't want the call at my own funeral.
Don't get a Gondolo without going on the list for something like an Aquanaut at the same time. Wasted opportunity otherwise.
Last edited by wileeeeeey; 8th November 2021 at 09:27.
This will be my last purchase, the urge to acquire material goodies is fast waning.
Brilliant, I have a couple of indulgences for sale, they haven't be on the market since 1567 and so must be a rapidly appreciating asset class. Any interest? You will, of course, have to build your relationship with The Brand first...
Mick, how can you be 'down' to two Rolex? You've always said never ever ever ever sell a Rolex!
A lot of people on here have followed that mantra of yours, have you literally put the entire system on trial by flogging a Rolex? This could bring the whole lot down!
I have gifted three of them to my sons. I have asked them to pass them in turn onto their sons who will be able to do what they want with them.
I thought for a second that I felt a disturbance in the force, but we can all rest easy :-)
P.S. nice thing to do for your children :-)
Yup. For a moment the whole Rolex universe was shaken to the core. Good thing Mick clarified in timely manner, otherwise the market was about to be flooded with pre owned Rolexes being dumped:-). Watchfinder was shaking in its boots.
Hang on? you only had five Rolex? that's barely an armful. What sort of a fan boy do you think you are?
Actually the wifes daily beater is a YG Rolex, so in reality six. Five Rolex is surely enough for any man.
Did you lend her it? If so, shame on you, if not, Five.
Of course it's not enough, shredded wheat perhaps, but Rolex? Five is barely conspicuous or even consumption. At least tell me you own Dowling's 'The Best Of Time: Rolex Wristwatches', so you know all about the watches that made Rolex's reputation rather than the shiny shit they shill these days.
Because right now you are not even moving the needle on my Jakeometer. I thought you liked Rolex?
At least tell me you have a couple of Tudor, they count as half...
Rajen, please tell me that you are at least in double figures?
Last edited by M4tt; 8th November 2021 at 14:55.
That's me out then!
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Duggans in the Burlington Arcade, they'll see you alright. It's either that or Omega.That's me out then!
Omega it is then!
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Popped into the newly refurbished Goldsmiths in Reading.
I thought I’d be silly and ask if they still had my registered interest in a Polar EXP 2.
Very helpful young lady sat me down…went through my various purchases I’ve done over the years.
She noticed I’d bought a Polar EXP 2 in 2011.
She proceeded to tell me I wouldn’t be allocated one as I already had one.
We’ll grandchildren anyway.
His sons are now saddled with watches that they need to look after and care for until their kids are old enough to have them. So they either have to wear them carefully with regular servicing or shut them away in a safe.
Once Micks grand children are old enough, his children can relinquish their responsibilities and their children can cash in for a nice profit and buy an Apple Watch!
Last edited by Dave+63; 8th November 2021 at 18:25.
I agree with much of what you say but not the bit about they reliably keep good time. I’d owned a variety of Rolex watches over 30-years and a Green Seal 116233 Datejust was the worst timekeeper I’ve ever owned.
Rolex had three attempts at getting it within COSC tolerance let alone +/-2 seconds per day and my watch was returned damaged which Rolex refused to rectify. Fortunately the AD I bought it from new and myself had taken images of the watch before it went to Rolex and they refunded me the cost of the watch.
I sold my remaining Rolex watches and moved over to Omega who, for me, make more attractive and more interesting watches that you can actually buy through an AD and are backed by fantastic customer service.
On top of this I think the look of Rolex watches went downhill when they moved to the maxi case design so I’m happy to say that they finally cured my addiction to the brand.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ive been as liberal in my criticism of rolex over the years as I have with my praise, but Im going to say that your experience regarding accuracy is not the norm. The three rolex I have owned have had admirable accuracy and my current one - a SD4000c - if worn constantly, gains a second weekly rather than daily.
As for design - well, thats just preference - personally I think Omega do too many variations of the same thing and (famously) too many gimmicky "limited" edition models to be as classy as they once were.
Come on,Matt. I think you are smarter than that. Inspite of my vigorous push back on disingenuous commentary on Rolex, I am hardly a Rolex fan boy. Just the other day someone accused me of being a Bremont fanboy. I just like showing the mirror to people who indulge in a certain kind of behaviour here. It often ends up being on Rolex threads but is certainly not limited to Rolex.
On the issue of how many Rolexes I own, I can probably match up one for every tiny ugly old POS you have:-)
Not really but it sounded good when I typed it 😂
Where (I mean, outside of your imagination, of course)?
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Not so much fanboy but more like Rolex secret police.
Any perceived criticism of the brand and the antennae tweaks and Raj is out patrolling the thread trying to extinguish any flames of dissent.
Did I hear a whistle or was it just my imagination?.-)
That might be a little bit closer to the truth:-)
I can assure that you would be genuinely dismayed at how many tiny ugly old POS I own. I’ll buy any old crap, even Rolex or Tudor if they are cheap enough.
I think I have some idea. Much as I like to bait you, I do enjoy your posts about those as it makes interesting reading and there is always some fascinating tit bit to along with it.
I bet you don't. There's so many tiny ugly old POS on ebay and it's rare that I can't rationalise buying them, the more I know, the easier it gets.
In that case, it is a pity you are not active in this part of the forum and it takes a contentious post like this to draw you out. I have seen your older posts even on WUS but gone are those days, sadly.
Find me something I haven’t written a thousand words on already. More to the point, something that would generate enough interest.
Point in case.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/294518921415
After watching it sit there for months I finally wrote a short explanation for a low offer which was accepted.
New, they cost a fortune, it’s from ‘71, it’s a thermocompensated movement running at 16k that can be tuned to ridiculous accuracy using jumpers, not even a pot. The dial was hand made, the watch was hand assembled. It’s using a mask rom rather than an eprom so it really could last forever. More to the point it’s the worlds first mass market quartz, before the 32k VFA which is infinitely more common. Sure it needs a new crystal and a second hand, but in a sane world, these gems, especially the early versions which were closer to the 35sq than the later 38 stuff, should be both frighteningly expensive and heavily discussed.
All I’ve just done is drive the price up a bit for a bit. No one cares, so I just get on with my hobby.
Long may the Rolex 'madness' continue, it has seemed to have a nice rubbing off effect on other so called 'lesser' brands and divers that some of us may have bought cheap years ago.
I didn’t say it was the norm; many of my other Rolex had stayed well within the Green Seal tolerance when it was still a only a Red Seal!
My point was more that, in my experience, their Customer Service sucked and killed the brand for me.
The Customer Service from Omega is, again in my experience, streets ahead.
Regarding aesthetics I would say that I much prefer the domed glass on many other brands - including Tudor - and whilst I appreciated the functionality of the Cyclops never really grew to love it.
To each their own
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Or, just maybe, watches have become more popular in general?
Both. I think it is a symbiotic positive feedback loop (or negative feedback if you prefer lower prices overall).
So you think that there is a relationship between 'building a relationship at your dealer' and the climb in price of, say, the West End Watch Co. Sowar models? Or the small POS Rolex no one at all recognised earlier.
Hands up any folks who collect Rolex you can't date from the serial number, who also collect vintage Cyma, Eterna or Hamilton for example. I'm sure there are a few, but only a few.
You could put it like that but it would be missing the point, assuming you weren't being humorous.
It is more general: There has been a convergence of trends which have built upon one another. The social media zeitgeist has hit mainstream; it was once growing in importance but now it is mainstream and a trendsetter. More than that, it (and the people within it, both influencers and consumers) feed off trends and magnify them. This in itself is a feedback loop. And then in terms of watches specifically, this new feedback structure of influence, desire, perceived peer pressure, and consumption automatically has been applied to desirable watches that have always been in the public eye, first and foremost Rolex. This has pushed up Rolex demand to make them practicably unobtainable to most people but, look!, there are loads of other watches you can buy. As demand rises for Rolex outside of accessibility, so awareness of and demand for other watch brands increases to fill that void. I say a "void" but of course it wasn't a void for most people until the new social media-driven world made them aware that watches were a thing they had to have.
And so Seikos rise in price, G10s rise in price, yes even West End Sowars and painfully overpriced West End Day-Dates, all watches rise in price because awareness of them is wider than it has ever been before and thus they are newly desirable. The more that people read social media, the more people are drawn in, the more that they are directed to desire watches from manufacturers that seem to have little to do with the heights of Rolex or PP, etc.
And so yes, watches have become more popular in general. And this is the reason.
It is the same reason that Rolexes are now so unobtainable.
None of it happened out of the blue. It happened out of free, constant, ubiquitous connectedness and the nature of humans: That is for some to influence and most to consume that influence.
What have collectors got to do with it? :-)
Collectors of anything, from watches to model trains to paperclips are always the nerdy minority. They.... err... we, are not the mass market.
What this is about is the mass market. When NATOs became trendy a few years that was a sign that this social media-driven feedback loop was already in place. ;-)
Last edited by markrlondon; 9th November 2021 at 14:01.
That, sir, is a corker. And a great write-up as usual from you. I think it would look nice alongside my Smiths Quasar . . . . 1971 is a birth year for me, too. (50 next Tuesday.)
It's an interesting abductive argument, now explain why Swatch group, for example, were not the driver of the whole thing. Rolex have barely changed their game since the mid seventies. Swatch on the other hand have built an entire business model, from Flic Flac to Breguet on the premise that they are going to be the driver of a wristwatch and especially a mechanical renaissance.
Rolex have benefited from this, but it's far easier to argue that the current renaissance starts with Swatch, while Rolex have stuck to their same old same old model, even with a few disasters like the Cal.3000, while it's Nicola Hayek who explicitly stated, a few decades ago, that it was his mission to achieve this end.
What exactly have Rolex done to set up the current situation. When you have someone who stood up and said what they are going to do and then done it step by step and another group who have said and done naff all...
And I'm pretty certain that the link between West End and Patek is easy to make, So easy that I bet I could have a sub £100 watch which is indistinguishable from a PP 565 (for those who don't know what that is:
https://www.chrono24.co.uk/patekphilippe/ref-565.htm
that's £21,000 to £66,000 in steel)
and not far off the quality - by the end of the day if I put my mind to it...
But your paperclip point is entirely fair.
Last edited by M4tt; 9th November 2021 at 13:26.
It would - both, when you look at them, have a very slight tinge of built in a shed, which is always attractive.
Happy birthday old man. I hope you enjoyed your pub quiz questions.
Stop thinking like a collector. Really.... you seem to be seeing things from too parochial a perspective. :-)
The mass market has heard of Swatch of course: They make fun little plastic watches that were a thing in the 80s, right?
But everyone has heard of Rolex. Even if one had taken no interest in watches before social media became mainstream, most people would still have heard of Rolex. Therefore it should come as no surprise that the Rolex brand was ideal as a nucleus for what came forth from the social media revolution.
You are thinking about it as if what watch companies do is the be all and end all. It seems to me that you're looking at it from the wrong way round.
As I say, this is something that originated outside of watches and has affected way more than watches. But, in the context of watches, watch companies, social media, and consumers are now in symbiotic reinforcement loop relationship. They didn't make it (other than through their mere presence). But they are now scrambling to make the best of it.
No, because you are still thinking parochially. :-) Stop thinking about it like a watch collector.
Watches, like other veblen consumer goods, have been sucked in. But watches didn't create it (at least not on their own). It took a genuine paradigm shift in how the world communicates, thinks, and FOMO for all this to happen.
The phrase "paradigm shift" is much overused but it is wholly correct in this case. The net effect of social media and how it has changed the world has been remarkable. It took a long time for the momentum to build but now it has turned into a juggernaut of near-ubiquitous communications and subconscious/emotional influence. It was the mobile revolution that really allowed it to reach its current level of impact.
You realise that this is watch collector nerd minutiae, right? ;-)
Yes, you'll have a social media audience for interesting observations like that but.... it will be small. You're not going to be the next mainstream social media influencer with nuggets of info like that. You are already outside the zeitgeist.
There is a lewd joke on the Internet (in social media circles far from here) that goes: "This is evolution and you are not involved". And this phrase applies very neatly to what I am describing here. Social media (and the changes it is bringing to watches, mainstream watch awareness, and desire and demand, as well as to other areas of veblen goods) are (a form of) evolution and most of us here are not really involved in it. We are witnessing it, we do not fully understand it, and we are trying to keep up where we need to. But we're not the drivers of it.
Last edited by markrlondon; 9th November 2021 at 13:47.
And you are a little too comfortable with the ad hominem seasoned by a passive aggressive emoticon. But I digress. I think perhaps you need to let go of the spandrel of Rolex's brand and need to revisit Hayak's vision, He explicitly saw Swatch as a way of stopping the rot, Omega and other classic brands were the way to turn it around.
So no, many may not have heard of Swatch group, but they are, as demonstrated, bigger than Rolex, and, in providing most of the Swiss watch industry with their movements through the renaissance and until quite recently, they were infinitely more influential, even if most folks are not aware of just how utterly ubiquitous the Swatch group ETA movements were. That was deliberate. When a visonary says he's going to do something, does it very publicly and, in the process, grows a bankrupt group to the biggest one in Switzerland, it's perverse to credit another company who carried on doing what they had always done.
Now it's my turn to return the condescension. A paradigm is a very specific idea in the philosophy of science, to do with the way that a person's training influences how they see the world and the role that has in theory generation, testing, verification and falsification. A paradigm shift occurs when the explanatory tools in the old way of looking In all other uses it's vague bullshit.
Please, feel free to prove me wrong on this. I hope you have a copy of Kuhn's book in hand as you do so or it may not go well. Even if this were not the case and you are confusing a disruptive technology with a paradigm shift, youprobably need to demonstrate at least correlation, not that that proves causation- what was happening when?
Furthermore, you are conflating watches qua goods with watches qua Veblen goods. The Swiss watch industry was killed by the oil shocks and consequences and the fact that it turned out that a quartz didn't have to be more expensive than a car to be ultra accurate. Every company suffered, Rolex just happened to have a few advantages - deep reserves, no shareholders outside the company and low development costs (at the time). so they weathered the storm better than most. However, just as Rolex tried to position themselves closer to JLC and hold on so on, Hayek took the quartz revolution on toe to toe. he kept mechanicals and whole brands going using the 2824 and 2892 and he kept the vision of high to mid market mechanical alive.
It doesn't matter what social media did in the mid nineties, by then the crucial move had happened
https://www.forbes.com/sites/billion...h=253a358540f4
and we see for example, the Bond Seamaster , initially in quartz, high precision quartz and he slow return of mechanicals. Sure social media blathered, but they had to have something to blather about. Hayek offered that.
What has happened to social media is interesting, but I just don't think it demonstrates what you think it does. Sure, social pressure is huge, it always was, now it's digital hearths and watercooolers, rather than literal ones. Reactions may be faster and Rolex have definitely played a Veblen blinder in the last decade, but that's not how it grew at the time. You are obsessing about the spandrel and missing the buttress that did the work.
Oh and for what it's worth, and yeah, for the geek, I've dug up the precise case used in the PP565.
I'll wait until it's in the post and then I'll talk about it a bit.
Last edited by M4tt; 9th November 2021 at 15:40.
Rolex, solid watches. I have some, and I’m not immune to the frustration, as so far it’s 25 months waiting for a GMT.
But.. There are so many cool watches that can deliver joy now.
Rolex, all very worthy, but don’t take it all too seriously, and find time for a little fun.
Dave
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The near-final sentence first.
I think this sentence summarises our different views.
You think, if I may paraphrase and summarise, that none of this can be understood without understanding Hayek's and Swatch Group's historical role. If one is interested in the history of the Swiss industry then I'd agree. But this isn't about history. (Yes, I know that history is important, but sometimes it can be a distraction. This is one of those times).
I think it is fundamentally missing the point to obsess about Hayek as you seem to do. You say I am obsessing about Rolex, whereas to me you seem to be obsessing about a historical side note (an interesting one to be sure but still a side note in practice).
Why do I say that it is a side note? Because what Hayek did is past. The sphere of social media, that is to say the world as a whole now, doesn't care.
What provided the nucleus for social media to grasp watches was primarily, initially Rolex, the thing that real people had actually heard of. It didn't matter about Swatch's hard work. It just a matter of what people had heard of. And it exploded from there in the manner I described previously.
Sure, you can point out that Hayek and Swatch had a role to play in there being something to grasp, that nucleus I referred to, and you can quite reasonably think of that as a "buttress" if you want, but the world (in the form of always-connected, near-ubiquitous social media) came to watches (and other consumer goods), not the other way round.
I think the above really does cover the basis of our differing views. Anyway, here is the longer and more detailed reply if it is of interest. I won't comment again on this matter in this thread.
Yes, sure. As I said: This is interesting history and you'd have a specialist audience for detailed knowledge like this.
But all this is nothing directly to do with what why the world has changed. Really... I think you're persisting in focussing on the detail and missing the big changes.
It doesn't matter that Swatch is bigger than Rolex. It's Rolex that people were most likely to have heard of.
<sigh> That's not passive aggressive. My use of emoticons in that manner is a way of communicating the idea that what I was saying was explicitly not meant not be insulting or aggressive! I was (trying to) semi-humorously point out how it seems to me that you are seeing things through the wrong end of the telescope, to use another metaphor. It was necessary to say it in an honest manner but without intending it to be aggressive/insulting/condescending.
So I apologise if my emoticons which were intended to defuse only served to inflame.
I wonder of this misunderstanding over emoticons in part demonstrates how our world views differ.
Again, I think you are, quite genuinely, seeing things from an overly parochial perspective. (And whilst honest I do not mean this to be condescending).
You say that returning the condescension and so, if I must play along with your condescension, what you say here is right of course. And, as such, what you say above is an excellent basis for understanding why "paradigm shift" is sensibly, reasonably and properly used in other areas out there in the real world. Just as I used it, in fact.
Well, no, this blanket statement, if honestly meant, represents nothing more than a rejection of stuff you don't like, a dislike of the new, a demonstration of the "NIH" line of thinking.
Drop the parochialism and condescension (real or put on) and accept how phrases may be sensibly, reasonably and properly used outside of their original, very precise, contexts.
I did say that "paradigm shift" is overused, so in a sense I agree with you to a limited extent, but it also is self-evident in the real world that the phrase can be used outside of the narrow context in which you prefer it.
It would seem that you didn't complete your definition of "paradigm shift" above but I think enough is there to see what you mean. If I may paraphrase (and no doubt over-simplify) what I think you meant, "paradigm shift" refers to a fundamental change in understanding such that old tools and old ways of thinking are no longer applicable. If that (or anything remotely like it) is correct then the phrase most certainly can sensibly, reasonably and properly apply to changes outside of the narrow context of "the philosophy of science".
Specifically, I used it to refer to an incredible change in how, when, how often people communicate. Old ways of understanding the spread of demand, or emotion, of information no longer apply. We need to find new ways to understand what is happening. In other words, referring to this as a "paradigm shift" is really quite apt.
You still don't like it? <shrug> As I humorously said in my previous message, this is what evolution looks like and by rejecting it you are not part of it.
Who is Kuhn? One might also ask: Who is Swatch Group?
You presumably mentioned Kuhn, whom I presume is the originator of the phrase, as a form of social proof.
But here's the thing: Kuhn doesn't count now. What he invented is no longer his. He is genuinely an irrelevance in this context.
This is evolution and he's not involved.
And no, using "paradigm shift" in contexts outside of "the philosophy of science" does not necessarily magic it into "vague bulls41t". I'll agree that "paradigm shift" is overused in my view and is often applied where changes in understanding or reality are minor. However, I chose specifically to use it because what is happening with the growth, connectedness and ubiquity of social media really does represent something utterly new that is not readily understood using previous understanding.
I am guilty of the denial of progress in language too. I detest the way that question marks are increasingly used to indicate uncertainty rather than a question. And yet I choose to accept it because it is evolution and no one owns question marks, just as no one, not even Kuhn's ghost, owns "paradigm shift".
Oh dear, I am shocked at your reference to such a widely misused term. ;-) I would not say that what I am describing is a "disruptive technology" since it is not a single technology. As I mentioned before, it is the culmination of several things (technologies, mass psychology, economics) that have come together to create a deeply fundamental change in how people communicate.
Yes, history is interesting. You're still looking at it from wholly the wrong direction, I think.
Yes, I do agree with what you say. Hayek was clever. He saved much of the Swiss watch industry. But for you to focus on this, accurate though it is, is (once again!) to miss the point that what we are seeing here came in from outside of the watch industry (and that it was the Rolex name, the name, not the company, that was the primary demand-building nucleus).
Good grief. Are you aware that social media of the sort that did all this did not even exist in the mid 1990s?
In the mid 1990s, web forums were not even much of a thing, relying on static HTML and CGI scripts where they existed at all. The height of social media technology at the time was BBSs, Usenet, and mail lists. At the time I was a user of (and later worked for) a company that years later, when social media "became a thing", described itself as the original social media platform!
However, the influence (within its small sphere of influence) that Usenet had at the time presaged the world-changing influence of more disparate, more graphical, more ubiquitous, more permanently connected forms of social media are having now on people's thinking and habits and preferences.
In that case I would say that you are vastly, utterly, failing to comprehend the significance of what is happening. Watches are but a tiny part of it, which is one of the things I've been trying to say. You think I am obsessing about Rolex but, really, Rolex was just lucky.
In brief summary, you think that it is the clever work of Hayek that saved most of the Swiss watch industry and led to the growth in interest in watches that we see today.
As I said above, I agree that Hayek saved most of the Swiss watch industry. His work, and the existence of Rolex and its name recognition amongst normal people, gave the social media revolution a nucleus on which to bite in the context of watches.
However, you seem to want to see the radically changing world through the parochial view of watches and Hayek. This is wholly missing the bigger point.
Saying that "What has happened to social media is interesting" is like saying "the invention of gunpowder is interesting".
Of course, maybe I just see it that way because I am a technologist first and a watch collector second. But I'd like to say that I am a technologist first because I know what really matters. ;-)
Last edited by markrlondon; 9th November 2021 at 16:40.
*edit* Actually, that's unfair, you are making a case. I don't agree with it and I'm just not that interested in arguing it, mostly because it is precisely in my area of expertise and arguing with non specialists about a specialist subject isn't hugely rewarding.
Last edited by M4tt; 9th November 2021 at 19:11.
and quite splendid they are too.Omega it is then!
Cheers me dear!
The Planet Ocean was the watch that led me down this horological rabbit hole in the first place. The 1120 movement Seamaster is just a classic I always wanted and had to have. As for the quartz it must be over 40 years old and is amazingly accurate. Probably stop one day never to go again, but it pleases me with it's quirky setting button and squared case reminiscent of an Allegro steering wheel.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
