Reply With QuoteThe £miliions marketing budget :lol:Originally Posted by Ari
I've long since coveted a Sub Date and a '68 Datejust. Now I know this is going to sound like a stupid question (and probably is), but whilst I "know" they're a bloody good quality watch (by the feel, the look and the reputation), what is it in terms of specification (be it type of construction, materials used, methods, whatever) that stands Rolex apart from mainstream brands?
Why are Rolex deemed to be so good?
The £miliions marketing budget :lol:
Cheers,
Ben
..... for I have become the Jedi of flippers
" an extravagance is anything you buy that is of no earthly use to your wife "
As Ben says - this is one factor - fairly big one mind.The £miliions marketing budget :lol:
There are many watch brands that are far superior to Rolex IMO - but then that is probably another (probably hot) thread....... :wink:
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
//funny mode on//
Perhaps it's the fact someone has to work on them for a whole year??
;)
//funny mode off//
It's just like with Seiko: the tolerances probably aren't too narrow and the movements are simple and rugged.
The cases are thought to be first rate.
I think that the movements are well engineered. They've been using free balances, and large ones at that, for some time. Changes they make seem incremental.
Their hands seems to me extremely well made. Nothing particularly fancy, but nice touches, such as the way that they are bent.
Folks seem to like their dials. I think they are way too busy, and don't much like metal appliques. But the printing, etc., is very crisp.
I think that they are high quality watches. (I've only owned one. And probably won't own another.)
Best wishes,
Bob
Brand recognition, and the iconic status of a few perennially unimproved models (Sub Date, Explorer etc).
The ones I've handled have been extremely well made, crown screwed down really nicely, case was extremely good, etc. The movements are supposed to be top notch as well. Brand recognition and some iconic models also play a part. From what I've seen (don't own one), they make a really, really good watch, market it well and have spent many years building up a brand position that allows them to charge premium prices.
Dave E
Skating away on the thin ice of a new day
they look very nice the name the logo everythings there to appeal to a huge market they are the cocacola of watches 8)
karl
i'm a bit drunk so this is probably bollocks
The dress watches are ineffably vile, and all of them are overpriced... but then again they did give us this:
... which is the coolest watch ever manufactured!
The current submariners are nice enough, just ludicrously overpriced. They're very solid and well made, but it's all irrelevant in a watch that costs nearly three grand; it doesn't matter how hard it is, who the hell is going to put a £3k watch in harm's way?! I'd rather have a PRS 17 or 18 and actually use it.
EW
8)The dress watches are ineffably vile, and all of them are overpriced... but then again they did give us this:
... which is the coolest watch ever manufactured!
The current submariners are nice enough, just ludicrously overpriced. They're very solid and well made, but it's all irrelevant in a watch that costs nearly three grand; it doesn't matter how hard it is, who the hell is going to put a £3k watch in harm's way?! I'd rather have a PRS 17 or 18 and actually use it.
EW
I had a Yachtmaster for 9 years and I still do not know what makes them special. Their design and size has not changed in decades. Thanks to their marketing campaign and a large budget, thats what makes them special.
Now where did I leave my "popcorn" emoticon?
:)
I asked the same question about Omega a while back. In fact I've asked the same question about every premium-branded product I've ever bought.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Hi Ari,
As a confirmed Omega nut, I've always been extremely sceptical about the hype and myth that surrounds Rolex.
Can the somewhat extravagant pricing be justified, are they any better than an equivalent brand, are the machining tolerances and materials so much better in quality than any other Swiss watch maker? These were just some of the questions I have still to answer and somehow doubt I will.
I can tell you this though, recently I was lucky enough to borrow this 5513 from 1967 for a few days.
And even though I thoroughly dislike Mercedes hands, it felt just so right somehow. OK the original bracelet was total rubbish, out and out the worst bracelet I've ever experienced on a watch, but the watch itself was fantastic. It was in great condition for a 40 year old watch, whether this is a result of the steel type they use or maybe it's a cosseted example I can't tell you. It kept perfect time and on a black Nato it didn't shout "look at me, the only thing I know about watches is that Rolex are the best" like a lot of their models.
In the end it's impossible to separate the product from the marketing as they've undoubtably led the field in advertising and marketing since the 60's. My feeling of the watch being just right could just be social and marketing conditioning and my limited watch knowledge or it could be the truth, I'll never know. I do know the lucky owner of the watch wears it pretty much exclusively, even though he's a confirmed WIS and dealer who's had hundreds of prestigious watches over years. He regards it as the watch.
In the end I guess you pays your money and takes your choice.
Cheers,
Gary :)
...What he said. At my workplace, they are as ubiquitous as Mont Blanc pens and Audi TT's (though Porsches seem to be making a comeback recently...). :santa:
Not quite so 'bling" as other brands ... not ETA based like other brands ... more scarce than e.g. Omega ... and most models have more design longevity than other brands ...
But also have drawbacks ... deliberate short supply of some models and probably overpriced.
dunk
"Well they would say that ... wouldn't they!"
And the answer is always the same, I bet. :wink:
The only thing that springs to mind is that they manufacture their own movements; some other watch companies do too of course, but many don't.what is it in terms of specification (be it type of construction, materials used, methods, whatever) that stands Rolex apart from mainstream brands?
I think 'good' is a very broad term; FWIW one of the criteria that I apply to a watch being 'good' is that of robustness - and the 4 Rolex's that I've had have all been very robust.Why are Rolex deemed to be so good?
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
What is a free balance?
Some really interesting and informative posts there gentlemen, thanks. :)
Is the case made of a particularly special metal, or in a special way? I seem to recall something about the "Oyster case" being pressed out of a single block of steel, is that special?
318L Stainless for the SD and Sub.
I missed out the "sprung". Hairsprings are attached on one end to the balance by a collet on the staff, and they are attached to the movement by a stud holder at the other end. On standard movements, the hairspring passes between two pins towards the stud end. The pins are attached to the regulator arm. So, when you move the regulator arm, you are moving these pins. Since the hairspring rubs against the pins (one pin when winding, and one when unwinding) changing the pins' location (by moving the regulator arm) has the effect of lengthening or shortening the hairspring, making it wind/unwind more slowly or more quickly, making the movement run more slowly or less slowly But the regulator system introduces all sorts of messiness,What is a free balance?
A free sprung balance does away with regulator system,. Instead it involves the use of weights to adjust the speed of the system, So although it is more diffcult to regulate such systems, they don't have the the problems associated with making the hairspring run through the pins.
Best wishes,
Bob
Hmmm, that's a tough one. Sat comparing my new Sub LV with my Planet Ocean, and a few things stand out which make the Sub 'good'.
The style of the thing - classic. Compared to the PO the style is a bit 'retro'.
The crown on the Rolex is nice and chunky, screws in a treat. The PO is fine, but a bit 'weedier' somehow.
The bracelet? - well, the PO bracelet is far 'better made' on initial impressions, but is too heavy IMHO, and you can't adjust it yourself.
In comparison, the Rolex bracelet is far lighter, but much more comfortable, and looks the business even if it doesn't 'feel' it. Have seen examples 30 years olod and they still work perfectly!
There are funny things too, which Rolex have right and others really seem to struggle with - ie the bezel. The Rolex one is perfect, the Omega one is fine but is just a bit too easy to turn.
And the movement of the rotor in a Rolex is totally silent - it isn't in the PO, or any other brand of watch I've owned. Doesn't make it work better, but it's cool. The Omega keeps amazing time - +1 second a week (after I had it regulated) - the Rolex gains about +1 per day out of the box, which is fine.
Is the Rolex worth £3k if the Omega costs around £1900?
Yes and no - try selling the PO in 10 years time, I reckon I'd be lucky to get £500, the Rolex? - probably get my £3k back, and the service costs will be roughly the same I imagine, maybe £200 more for the Rolex.
But there's a lot of nonsense about Rolex too - they're mass-produced like everything else, and how else are cases made if not from a solid piece of metal?
I reckon the special steel they use polishes up better than other types, and has a certain look to it, but I can't really explain it - I find it easy to spot a Submariner or GMT from a distance, maybe it's the sheen of the steel?
So, yes they are good, but the initial outlay is expensive and at they end of the day it just tells the time!
So, the Rolex IMHO is a very 'good' watch
Theres always better, but also worse.
At beginning of my watch collecting, I was convinced they were the best. Theyre not, but are very good. Due to my misguidance i spent a lot on Rolex. After a few years i started learning of others. I dreamt of owning an AP - reading about it with a Rolex on my wrist.
I missed out on places like this. I would be a few quid richer if i'd known of Eddie a few years earlier.
Rolex are good. The name rolls off the tongue IMHO. But don't let it suck you in.
Paul
GOT...TO...KILL...CAPTAIN STUPID!
:shock:
Or...
Actually it's stuff like this that really puts me off Rolex, but then I'm not the sultan of Brunei and I guess he's got a bit more money than me :cry:, so maybe Rolex aren't so daft after all.
Cheers,
Gary
Well I own three Rolex. Why do I like them?
They manage to design slightly smaller watches that still look interesting. I prefer bigger watch but have tiny wrist so the Rolex size (39-40 mm) suits me perfectly. I just love the look (on the sports models).
They use a super inhouse movment that is very rugged and keeps almost perfect time.
I like the fact that the design has changed so little over the years it may be boring but I like that a Sub date looks the same 50 years later. I like the history behind the brand, but well it's mostly marketing hype I guess.
But I guess they are overpriced, but if you buy them second hand you don't loose much money when you flip them (so I have been told anyway I have never flipped any of my Rolexes so what do I know)
I have owned several Panerais, and IWC 3536, a Sinn, several Seikos and so on... I have like all of these brand and watches and the difference quality wise between these brands and Rolex isn't that great. So I guess it is better moneywise to buy these brands. But I prefer Rolex that is just me. I buy what I like.
Well said - sums up my experiencies with Rolex.
Always, always wanted one for years - got my first and was made up.
This really got me into watches and I have had a different Rolex year on year for the last 8 - do not have one now, and looking at the new models it is not going to be on my list next year.
IMHO - I hear what Rod says about the PO, but in reality, with a Sub and a PO in each hand the PO is way better made - it just ain't got the heritage made from the marketing that the Sub has- which I think is the problem (for now).
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
I really like my Omega SMP, it's the one watch that i can't ever see me parting with but i did recently buy a SeaDweller just to see what the fuss was all about.
I figure the SD is a pretty safe bet and even if i don't fall for it it's probably not going to cost me very much if anything when i decide to move it on.
So far i like it apart from the lume, the SMP lasts much longer.
Fit and finish on thr Rolex is perfect and it really does have an air of quality about it but then so does the Omega.
I really like the Sub but need a date and hate the cyclopse so the SD was the only way to go.
I was worried it would attract attention but it's actually quite discrete.
I can list horological and practical reasons why the GMTII on my wrist now is a very good watch. And, certainly, it's the watch I wear when I'm under pressure and need unquestioned reliability and accuracy. But there are other watches that can satisfy these needs.
On reflection, I've realised that the reason I bought my first Rolex more than 30 years ago and still wear one now is childhood bronchitis. I was imprinted in doctor's waiting rooms by those advertisements in The National Geographic. Fortunately, they didn't lie.
904L on every stainless item.
316 up to around 1981.
'Fraid so - the price is set by the laws of supply and demand, and every time it's entirely up to me whether or not I demand it enough to pay for its supply :)And the answer is always the same, I bet. :wink:
My Q about Omega was in the context of the new Longines Hydroconquest, sadly not in my Christmas stocking this year, which is exactly half the price of a plain Seamaster, but on quick inspection looks equally well made. Is the Omega "twice" as good? Probably not. Is a plain no-date Sub twice as good as a Seamaster, also probably not. Unfortunately, the setting of prices is a great deal more complicated than that, which is my (enlightened) guess at what the OP was driving at.
Merry Christmas everyone.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
After reading this thread I started googling and found this link with interesting pics and comments. Specially good are the pictures of the balance: after reading Bob´s comments, you just need to look at the pictures to understand the whole thing.
I own many watches, but no Rolex. I would love to have one, but I would have to renounce to so many watches to buy one...Too expensive, IMHO.
Best
Jose M.
http://people.timezone.com/msandler/...ex/Rolex1.html
I love all the Rolex sports watches, although generally I am a vintage Omega freak I was bought up with Sea Hunt and early James Bond films which of course featured Subs on their owners wrists and I always wanted as a boy.
There is not a more iconic watch than the Sub IMO although the SD, Explorer and GMT have very interesting histories of being used by real people in hazardous situations and exploration which is all part of the aura that surrounds them.
Rolex have always been on their own never part of a group like Swatch or one of the luxury empires so they have been free to go their own way.
Where did I leave those old National geographics? :lol:
Cheers,
Neil.
Uupps, back again. I woke up too early today so all the family still sleeping! :wink:
Thinking about the commments on the free hairspring by BobI then realised that in fact Omega is returning to this technology for their coaxial calibers (I own one and I didn´t realise until now!). So Rolex seems to win this battle. Although if you believe in conspiratory theory, another advantage of the free hairspring technology is that regulating the movement can nly be done by the official aftersale service of Omega....Hairsprings are attached on one end to the balance by a collet on the staff, and they are attached to the movement by a stud holder at the other end. On standard movements, the hairspring passes between two pins towards the stud end. The pins are attached to the regulator arm. So, when you move the regulator arm, you are moving these pins. Since the hairspring rubs against the pins (one pin when winding, and one when unwinding) changing the pins' location (by moving the regulator arm) has the effect of lengthening or shortening the hairspring, making it wind/unwind more slowly or more quickly, making the movement run more slowly or less slowly But the regulator system introduces all sorts of messiness,
A free sprung balance does away with regulator system. Instead it involves the use of weights to adjust the speed of the system, So although it is more diffcult to regulate such systems, they don't have the the problems associated with making the hairspring run through the pins.
The omega balance
And the Rolex balance
Because before you became a WIS, you had already been brainwashed into believing that Rolex are the best watches in the world and ownership of one is a visible display of your success.
Take one thousand successful businessmen and offer them the choice of a Rolex Sub or a Seiko Spring Drive. I would bet my house on the outcome.
I've owned maybe a dozen Rolex and still own two as well as several Omega and a PAM 025. Most people are only impressed with the two Rolex.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
I don't wear Rolex anymore but I did for 21 years whilst traveling and living in 38 different countries. I had several subs and GMTs and a Sea Dweller that was my personal favourite. As well as enjoying the ruggedness of the watches and the classic looks, a Rolex was also a security if ever I found myself in the middle of nowhere with no available funds. No matter where you are in the world you can always trade a Rolex or sell it for hard currency. Fortunately, I never had to but it was always there on my wrist just in case. And no, despite traveling in some pretty dodgy places, I was never once mugged or robbed for it.
For most ?ordinary? people who buy Rolex, the watch is 'just above' their means. So if you see someone wearing a Rolex ... down-peg them a couple of notches.
Of course there are £2K Rolex and there are £200K Rolex. These days I hardly see any rich people wearing Rolex, cheap or expensive. And the ones who do, they have dozens of them and have already ordered every model coming out for the next 5 years.
john
Costume jewellery. Ouch!!!
That's the reason i didn't rush into buying a Rolex and im still a bit concerned about wearing it.
To be honest i used to think "flash git" or "w**ker" when i saw someone wearing one.
Hopefully people just think it's a fake if they notice it :D .
Only had one Rolex that was the SD brilliant watch crown action like silk like no other watch I have had apart from my Capeland.
I sold the watch because of its size too small then soon as I sold it low and behold I wanted another one it sent me into wis madness like a lot of people who have owned the SD
Rolex should be good for the money you pay I looked in an AD the other day £2950 for an SD
Mind you once you get into a Rolex thread it rants on for ever
Patrick
Plus:
Nice watches, classic designs, rugged in house movement, free sprung balance.
Minus:
Plain rotor bearing. The movements Achilles heel?
Those of us who like to regulate our watches, the back is pretty difficult to get off without secret knowledge or Rolex spanners. The free sprung balance is much harder to regulate than a screw cam or lever adjuster.
Vast sums of money spent on advertising & sponsorship.
Probably cost about three times they are worth relative to other brands,(mind you Tags are drastically overpriced too).
Normally bought for totally the wrong reasons by posers and status seekers, who couldn't tell the difference betwen a Miyota 0 jewel quartz movement and a Patek Philippe minute repeater movement even if they were pointed out.
I'm not getting at WIS types, at least they know what they are buying and have made a choice based on the plusses above.
Definitely a mugger magnet!
The Sumbariner has caused more makers to produce"tribute" watches than almost all the other style icons put together.
They keep hiking the prices in the knowledge that the status seekers are just waiting to bite.
Cheers,
Martin :evil:
I only have one Rolex, but it was my first WIS purchase and it didn't come off my wrist for over a year.
Rubbish. Quality vintage Omega movements never had a ball bearing rotor and are still going well after 50 years.
If you have the watch serviced at correct intervals you will never have a problem.
Got to be a good thing. Keeps the DIY types out. :wink:
Every big brand spends a fortune on advertising.
Rolex are actually the cheapest Swiss maker with an in house movement.
I bow to your superior knowledge on the above points. :lol: :wink:
Cheers,
Neil.
Interesting reply Neil.
I put a question mark after the "Achilles heel stuff! :wink:
How often should a Rolex be serviced? Every five years at £200 a throw is going to mount up.
I have heard of rotor problems with Rolex watches that haven't been serviced at regular intervals. :(
The plain versus ball bearing rotor conundrum is questionable. I just wouldn't fancy riding my bicycle with plain wheel, or pedal bearings. I know cars use plain metal big end bearings, but they use "slippery" white metal bearing liners and are pressure lubricated. :shock:
Even you have to admit they really pretty much take the biscuit when it comes to advertising. I have decades worth of old National Geographic magazines and almost all of them have a full page advert about some intrepid hero or another and their Rolex Submariner, GMT master etc
Cheers,
Martin
Omega's experience with the Speedmaster shows that it's as good as Rolex at milking something that happened decades ago as if it was still relevant today. Problem is of course, Omega's diver has to actually *do* something first other than appear in a film as a result of the payment of millions of dollars :D
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Hmm. Peace on earth and goodwill to men an' that, but I think this says more about the observer than the observed; not all British people think that "pegging" people is the be-all and end-all of assessing personal worth. And even if it was, how would us class-ridden types deal with people wearing Rolex hand-me-downs?
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
I don't think something like you have described on a bicycle that is under pressure from the road or your feet can really equate to a little rotor flopping about freely in a watch. :wink:
Agree. I love those old ads and collect them. :D
Cheers,
Neil.
Well, that's me down-pegged then - which is a shame, being that my Rolex's had taken me just above my 'ordinary' means.:roll:
Sorry to disappoint, but I only own a third of a dozen - and haven't ordered any model coming out. :D
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
I've never quite understood the overpriced thing.
They use high grade steel harder than anyone else uses, and they have in house movements - name any other in house movement manufacturer in europe with prices at 3K.
no I don't have one and I don't particularly want one unless they get much bigger.
Swiss? There's Jaeger, but you'll only get a base one for the price of a Sub and that won't have a bracelet, WR or much in the way of lume. Some base Reversos in the women's size are comparably priced to a DJ, though.
Also some of Zenith's more modest time-only watches are in that range I think.
Rolex's steel is more corrosion-resistant than the usual stainless steel used in watchmaking. Not sure how much harder it is in the short term, though.
The problem with the word "overpriced" is that it implies that excessive profits are being made by the business owner, the manufacturer or the distributor - or all three. A few economics lessons, plus some elemental business sense, will demonstrate why that is rarely, if ever, the case in the modern world (and yes, that includes Rolex).
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
These threads are endless :lol:
What comes to the price I see it like this: in the modern world you are what you buy and the image is the product. So, in other words it is quite simple: consumers buy products that they think are good bang for the buck. Another thing is what makes something a "bang" for whom. - Some like the design, some like the history, some like the image and some think Rollie is the best overall compilation of the aforementioned, hence willing to pay what is asked for them.
PS. my dad can beat yours :lol:
PSS. IWC is a better watch :wink: :D
Posting Permissions
