WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Help me understand the Tudor and Rolex appeal.

46K views 759 replies 156 participants last post by  John MS 
#1 ·
I'm a relatively new watch enthusiast. I have a very modest collection of watches that all retail for well under $1000.

I fully understand that the more one pays, the more one gets. I get that a Tudor or Rolex is a higher quality item than any of the watches in my own collection. I don't quite understand how these two brands in particular are held up so much higher than other brands within the same price brackets. Omega, I guess, is probably thought of as an equal, given history and such. Is it just the history of these brands that elevate them? The celebrity endorsements?

I'm baffled by the amount of press the Tudor Black Bay Navy is getting within the watch community. It just looks like another diver to me in a different color. What is the appeal here? I'm asking from a genuine curiosity into a brand that I know very little about. Is the quality you get for that price what sets it apart? Is it different than other Tudor's? What makes it so interesting compared to other divers in the same price category?

I'm here to learn.
 
#2 ·
I'm with you on that. To an untrained eye, there are probably hundreds of watches that look just like a Rolex dive watch of some version. I think it comes down to the person wearing it knowing what it is. Years ago Coach only made black handbags so unless there was someone with a trained eye, women were just carrying a black purse, but the woman carrying it knew it was a Coach and I think the same thing happens with watches.
 
#4 ·
My wife has a Rolex. I've held it many times. I get the quality. My question is if the quality is far superior to other brands in same price brackets? Is that why they are held up above their peers? I've never held a watch in the same price bracket other than a Rolex.
 
#5 ·
I love the fresh perspective, OP. You’re right, to a large extent Tudor and Rolex are hype machines. A few thoughts...

One thing to keep in mind is that Tudor and Rolex are in many ways the originators of what we now take for granted as constituting a mechanical watch. Self-winding movements, water proof cases, steel, sport watches as a category, dive watch design... all of these things Rolex/Tudor either invented or popularized. It often bothers me is how so many brands are derivative of Rolex.

And while of course their watchmaking chops are excellent, you’re right that there’s better value for the money out there strictly speaking. However, part of the premium for Rolex and increasingly Tudor is the brand value. Because they are independent, Rolex are able to control supply and protect the long term value of their brand and watches, and that’s very appealing to buyers. You can expect your Rolex to hold value better than almost all other brands, most of whom have terrible resale value.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#7 ·
I love the fresh perspective, OP. You're right, to a large extent Tudor and Rolex are hype machines. A few thoughts...

One thing to keep in mind is that Tudor and Rolex are in many ways the originators of what we now take for granted as constituting a mechanical watch. Self-winding movements, water proof cases, steel, sport watches as a category, dive watch design... all of these things Rolex/Tudor either invented or popularized. It often bothers me is how so many brands are derivative of Rolex.

And while of course their watchmaking chops are excellent, you're right that there's better value for the money out there strictly speaking. However, part of the premium for Rolex and increasingly Tudor is the brand value. Because they are independent, Rolex are able to control supply and protect the long term value of their brand and watches, and that's very appealing to buyers. You can expect your Rolex to hold value better than almost all other brands, most of whom have terrible resale value.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OK. Now we are getting to it. History here plays a much more important role than I thought.
I have other hobbies. I'm also an audiophile. The general public for a long time believed that Bose was the best you could buy. But when you really started getting into the hobby you realized that there were countless brands that were vastly better than Bose. Bose is a joke among the audiophile community.

I see this is not the case for watches. In this case it seems the general public and the enthusiast community are in agreement about this brand. It's innovations and quality have kept it in high standing.
 
#8 ·
I think it is the Rolex brand recognition, that even people who would never own a Rolex could identify a fluted bezel watch as a Rolex, and that a Rolex means "expensive watch."

My mom will not associate an Omega or Grand Seiko with luxurious watch. As such, there is a robust preowned market demand, and the preowned shops and pawn shops are more willing to take in Rolex than other brands. This feedback loop of value perception, demand, ease of selling just feed itself. Recent sports model shortage and the growing affluence of Chinese/Asian middle-class just fuel the craze even further.

In contrast, I had been asking around the shops to see who would want to buy my mid-range Tag, no one wants to even look at it, lol.
 
#488 ·
Who buys a watch to pawn it? I have an Orient diver that I paid 150 for. It's every bit as good as the Rolex. Of course the Rolex is better, but not by that much considered the cost. 7000 to 150???? If the Rolex gets a 98 rating, the Orient gets a 89. I know some older friends who bought Rolexs in the 1960 for a few hundred dollars. With inflation the current price should be about 1200, not 7000.
 
#10 ·
For Rolex specifically, part of the appeal is that there is so much more demand than supply for the steel sports models in particular, that if you buy one new it is actually more valuable as soon as you leave the AD. They literally cost more on the second hand market than new. Therefore, even if it has cost more to purchase, your value for money is better than anything else that I can think of. Unfortunately that means people want to buy just to resell and that exacerbates the issue with supply and demand, and leads into a situation where it becomes difficult to get ‘on the list’ for a particular model.

As for the new blue Tudor Black Bay - I honestly don’t think that it does look like ‘just another diver’ at all. The sizing of it, the colour way, the bezel material and click ratio, the handset etc all make it unique for a new watch with impressive technical specifications and a stylistic nod towards a historical watch without being a Seiko-style reissue.
 
#61 ·
As for the new blue Tudor Black Bay - I honestly don't think that it does look like 'just another diver' at all.
Not trying to argue, or nitpick, but I can search for blue dive watch and see literally hundreds of watches that look very similar. Your other points comparing it aren't visual, in the sense of just looking at the pictures of blue dive watches.


I stopped looking after the first few rows because of the blatant similarities that a blue dive watch has to another blue dive watch. Plain dial, plain bezel. I like the simplicity of them, which makes them so easy for other companies to make something very very similar. I also had a fossil twenty years ago that looked like this "new" tudor.
 
#420 · (Edited)
I came across a black dial DJ at an AD in Paris a little over a week ago. Thought it was a bit too dressy due to the fluted bezel. Really kicking myself that I didn't just jump on it just based on value alone.
If it was a DJ41, yeah kick yourself lol. I picked up that exact same model but with the Oyster bracelet. Paid $9300 USD, and its already fluctuating after market between $10,200 and $11K (pre-owned). Its my weekend watch, and I would classify it as more "sport blingy" than dressy. I think dressy should be less loud than blingy, but maybe that's just me.

Initially planned to use it as future trade bait at another non-Rolex AD I frequent, but its grown on me.

Buying it is actually what initially got me on the list for the Hulk. I finally got the call at my AD back in CA (I'm in AZ now) to pick up this weekend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Udedokei
#12 · (Edited)
I'm a relatively new watch enthusiast. I have a very modest collection of watches that all retail for well under $1000.

I fully understand that the more one pays, the more one gets. I get that a Tudor or Rolex is a higher quality item than any of the watches in my own collection. I don't quite understand how these two brands in particular are held up so much higher than other brands within the same price brackets. Omega, I guess, is probably thought of as an equal, given history and such. Is it just the history of these brands that elevate them? The celebrity endorsements?

I'm here to learn.
First off, welcome to the forum.

To start answering your question I'll start with a simple question - what makes a watch appeal to anyone at all? I checked out your other thread and apparently for you the design/aesthetics is perhaps the single most important aspect you value. But is that all there is to a watch?

We like to justify our decisions, and not only on a watch purchase. The reason behind that justification is quite simple really - most of us have limited resources and when we dedicate our resources to an acquisition we like to think it's justified, especially when that amount is significant.

Forget about Rolex, Tudor, Grand Seiko, Omega, A Lange & Söhne, Citizen, Tag Heuer for a second...they are nothing but a name. For me personally, an automatic watch needs to be accurate. I don't care if it says Patek Philippe on the dial, if it's not accurate all the hand finishing and prestige doesn't mean jack. Many will then argue why bother with a mechanical watch when a quartz G-Shock is infinitely more accurate than any mechanical watch ever will be? Simple - a quartz movement, while accurate, doesn't really require workmanship to come to that accuracy, the technology is inherently more accurate. And that difference alone makes it far less interesting, let alone impressive, compared to a mechanical timepiece.

The appeal of Rolex/Tudor to me is, again, quite simple. It's a well-rounded package. It's may not have the best finishing in its movements nor casework. It may not have the highest immunity to magnetism. It may not even be the best looking watch. And it sure as heck isn't the most expensive watch brand out there. But for a mass produced timepiece that is reliable, good looking, offers "Superlative accuracy", relatively affordable, and gives you one of the best worldwide service network of all watch manufacturers, what's there NOT to like?

Here's the thing, this subject is BOUND to get haters commenting in no time and will start saying how Rolex is nothing but a marketing hype, driven by "manufactured scarcity and what have you. The strange thing is, anyone can walk into a Rolex AD today and buy a Rolex. What the haters are pissed and complain about is not the scarcity of a Rolex watch, but the fact that they can't walk into an AD and purchase the "hot models" - a stainless steel Daytona at MSRP? Not happening.

But if all you want is a great watch that will last a lifetime, will not break the bank, looks good, and will even have some retained value after you have owned it for decades, anyone can walk into an AD and purchase a Rolex Oyster Perpetual or a Datejust at MSRP or even at a small discount, TODAY.

I purchased my first Tudor in 1995. It was a Tudor Submariner and it cost me over half of my monthly salary back then. It's worth every penny I spent for it and I still own it today.

20 years later after that Tudor purchase, I bought two brand-new Rolex in 2015. Best purchases I've made in a long time and I'll enjoy owning then and passing them to my kids when they graduate in a few years.
 
#125 ·
...Many will then argue why bother with a mechanical watch when a quartz G-Shock is infinitely more accurate than any mechanical watch ever will be? Simple - a quartz movement, while accurate, doesn't really require workmanship to come to that accuracy, the technology is inherently more accurate. And that difference alone makes it far less interesting, let alone impressive, compared to a mechanical timepiece...
If a tiny man-made and precisely machined crystal vibrating at exactly 32,768 Hz, subject only to relativistic error at elevation, perhaps even with added self-compensating circuitry to compensate for temperature and age-induced error thereby improving long-term stability over decades doesn't impress you, then you have never been a physicist.

I find well-crafted mechanical timepieces impressive too from a mechanical engineering standpoint. And let's not even get started on the marvel of atomic timekeeping which can actually measure the aforementioned relativistic effects on time itself.

Each technology is impressive in its own right, and one should not be compared favorably or unfavorably against another.
 
#13 ·
I suppose a big part is the tech and spec that goes into the movement. I bought a BB58 shortly after they were released because of the movement. It’s a bit of a milestone for a Wilsdorf brand and the dimensions sit right in the golden ratio zone. If another established brand like Seiko for example produced a similar piece with comparable spec I’d get one of those too.
 
#16 ·
I've owned a few Rolexes, and truly love both the Explorer (especially the 36mm) and the Milgauss. However, there are of course other watches that are equally well made, many of which cost considerably less. SO, part of the price is the name, and the history/prestige/reputation that it embraces--all things that some consider important. For a few, though, if you stripped away the name, and looked at it or any other watch on its own merits, then really you open the field up much wider than many allow. In a sense, the value of a Rolex is higher if taken with respect to what others think (which many do), but if taken purely on a mechanical/performance basis, many will take other options at an equal or lower price point--this group buys purely to satisfy themselves, without a care of what others think. So, Rolex has a a high relative value, if you take recognition into consideration, a lower value, allowing other players onto the same playing field, if you simply take the watches as mechanical objects, regardless of how they may fare with reputation, depreciation and so forth.
 
#203 · (Edited)
Agree with this sentiment!

Watch hobby (more specifically interest in luxury/expensive watches) is inherently exclusionary, classist activity. Those that can't pay, can't play. Which is fine, I guess, that's just how it works. But in my experience with some watch enthusiasts, especially Rolex fans, they make Rolex out to be this thing that is the best and must-have watch. Which in retrospect I could understand, it is a very well made, nice looking, desirable watch. But I don't like how back when I only had affordable watches, reading these things about Rolex, made me feel like my regular, ordinary watches were not good enough. Granted, some of my regular watches are rather ugly. But I've always felt that ordinary, regular, even ugly watches should be, or are, likeable, as they are, if I could find the way. It never felt right to me that one needs to spend lots of money, to experience Rolex or whatever other brands, in order to validate one's thinking, or that it's impossible to think a cheaper watch is the "better" watch? I don't feel that's right or necessarily true... e.g. My ugly watch is "better" in its care-free bashability, it's more accurate, etc. There's nothing in watch hobby gospel (unless one totally buys into the luxury/Veblen marketed ideas/values) that specifies what one's priorities must be.

I could agree Rolex is really nice on-hand/on-wrist/from third-person perspective, but just because my regular watches are not as "nice" in whatever ways, does not mean I don't/can't like them as they are, or that I am wrong in thinking they are "better" in whatever ways. I feel everyone could like "the best overall", that's easy and a given, but I don't think the luxury watch enthusiast orthodox way is the only way to think about or appreciate watches.

Often times, I saw no point in posting my "ugly" watches, because most people would not see the watch as I do or feel the way I do about the watch. It's not communicated in pictures. e.g. It's feeling free when I'm wearing my "ugly" watch and I don't care, or I don't feel like I'm missing anything.
 
#21 ·
I have owned a couple of watches in various price ranges. I currently own a Rolex OP and an Omega Seamaster 300. I used to have no affinity to the Rolex brand (and still don't, much).

Having said that, the Rolex watches I handled (and the one I own) hit a sweet spot of precision, durability and wrist vomfort that is hard to match. Omega, for example, typically meets equal standards of durability and precision, but their watches are larger, heavier and thus less comfortable. Watches that match Rolex' lightness on the wrist are usually more fragile.

Rolex simply delivers excellence in many dimensions. It is not an undisputed leader in any of them, but a cross the disciplines, it is unmatched.

Tudor (in my perception) delivers a similar if hipper package, but with slightly lesser quality materials. The Black Bay, for example, sports an aluminium bezel insert instead of the Submariner's Cerachrome. In return, they target a lower price point.

At least, that is my rationalisation of the Charme of these brands :)
 
#23 ·
I have owned a couple of watches in various price ranges. I currently own a Rolex OP and an Omega Seamaster 300. I used to have no affinity to the Rolex brand (and still don't, much).

Having said that, the Rolex watches I handled (and the one I own) hit a sweet spot of precision, durability and wrist vomfort that is hard to match. Omega, for example, typically meets equal standards of durability and precision, but their watches are larger, heavier and thus less comfortable. Watches that match Rolex' lightness on the wrist are usually more fragile.

Rolex simply delivers excellence in many dimensions. It is not an undisputed leader in any of them, but a cross the disciplines, it is unmatched.

Tudor (in my perception) delivers a similar if hipper package, but with slightly lesser quality materials. The Black Bay, for example, sports an aluminium bezel insert instead of the Submariner's Cerachrome. In return, they target a lower price point.

At least, that is my rationalisation of the Charme of these brands :)
Yes, I think that balance of robustness, comfort, and wearability is a big part of the Rolex appeal.
 
#24 · (Edited)
Specifically regarding the Tudor Blue Bay 58: this model has a lot of 'hype' right now, but was probably not as popular as the first BB58 iteration in black, which sky rocketed. To understand the reason for the enormous popularity of this watch, you need to go back to 2012, and back to 1953/1958 - bear with me.

In 2012, Tudor kick-started the whole homage dive watch craze which has been running ever since (with pretty much every major manufacturer revisiting their back catalogue, and micro brands galore jumping on board with homages) when they introduced their first Heritage Black Bay model. This hugely successful watch, the black bay red, was a really nicely put together, highly affordable retro-styled interpretation of the Rolex submariner released in 1953. The watch world went a bit wild for this, especially as massive fashion watches had been all the rage for some time, and the black bay was, in comparison, petite. This watch was so successful mainly because of aesthetics. Nice finishing (not amazing), but just a tweaked ETA engine - so the look was the thing.

The watch took off (completely reinvigorating Tudor as a brand) and spawned a blue and a very shortly-lived black version, and then Tudor launched a new version with an in-house movement and expanded the line further. This in-house version had one perceived drawback: the case size was not slim enough for some. The ETA model was 12.8mm thick with a 'slab side' middle case which drew some criticism. The in-house added another couple of mm to the case depth, compounding this drawback. In response to this criticism, Tudor developed and released the Black Bay 58 - aesthetically almost identical to the original black bay in black, but with a reduced case size and, crucially, thickness, making it closer to the Rolex Submariner of 1953 and the Tudor Submariner of 1958, which its name hearkens back to. With hindsight, these are the dimensions Tudor should have hit with their first Black Bay in 2012 (the trend for big watches perhaps made them hedge their bets, plus before the massive success of the Black Bay line, I doubt they had the resources to design an in-house to fit the smaller case size).

You will probably have to join a waiting list for either 58 if you want one as it hit the sweet spot in terms of size and design following the original 2012 releases, which in large part fuelled the current trend for homage divers. The 58 Blue, being the newest iteration of 58, has hit the headlines. I expect the red version they are almost certain to bring out next year will do the same, but even more so. To put it simply, Tudor set the zeitgeist when they brought out the first Black Bay - it caught the imagination and ticked a lot of boxes, crucially price point and aesthetics. It was an extremely influential release.

Although the 58 is the Tudor Black Bay model I think will stand the test of time in terms of design, the one to have may be the original ETA in black as it was only manufactured for 6 months. This makes it, I think (correct me if I'm wrong WIS), the shortest run of any Tudor model ever. But maybe I'm biased, as this is the model I own...

15376618
 
#27 ·
Good question - and I have a unfavourable opinion maybe.

It is the psychological edge they have built over several decades. Some of these watch brands have hit the bullseye in marketing and promotions - right place, right time since long. Nothing that they have put in the watch is ground breaking. It is a dependable piece of time keeping. But the aura of the brand and the history justify the high price tag associated with it. Yes, 10 years back you could walk in to a AD and get a SS Rolex. But 10 years back, there were also fewer watch "collectors" and there were much cheaper options then too.
Add to this the human tendency to "keep up with the joneses" - there are probably far more comfortable and more intricate watches than Rolex / Tudor. But owning them is like being in a selective club, which is sought after. And there are not many people that will admit the feeling of owning one may not be as exclusive as it felt before getting in. There have been some people on forums that have admitted that it was underwhelming and flipped the watch, but definitely fewer than other brands. And the hope of flipping the watch for a profit later also makes people stick to them once they get it.
 
#33 ·
Good question - and I have a unfavourable opinion maybe.

It is the psychological edge they have built over several decades. Some of these watch brands have hit the bullseye in marketing and promotions - right place, right time since long. Nothing that they have put in the watch is ground breaking. It is a dependable piece of time keeping. But the aura of the brand and the history justify the high price tag associated with it. Yes, 10 years back you could walk in to a AD and get a SS Rolex. But 10 years back, there were also fewer watch "collectors" and there were much cheaper options then too.
Add to this the human tendency to "keep up with the joneses" - there are probably far more comfortable and more intricate watches than Rolex / Tudor. But owning them is like being in a selective club, which is sought after. And there are not many people that will admit the feeling of owning one may not be as exclusive as it felt before getting in. There have been some people on forums that have admitted that it was underwhelming and flipped the watch, but definitely fewer than other brands. And the hope of flipping the watch for a profit later also makes people stick to them once they get it.
Isn't that the same with any brand?

Take Grand Seiko for instance, the narrative I believe was "their finishing is so perfect that only people in the know knows to appreciate a Grand Seiko"? [emoji57]

Look close enough, however, will reveal the so called "Zaratsu polishing" has the same orange peel effect as any other highly polished stainless cased watch.

No I'm not bashing Grand Seiko, in fact I do own a Grand Seiko. I'm simply saying if you believe what Rolex/Tudor offers is nothing more than marketing, it's perhaps the same with any mass produced luxury product.

For what it's worth, what you outlined above is exactly my experience with Grand Seiko...the accuracy was subpar compared to any of my Tudor/Rolex watches so I gave it to my daughter after owning it for a year.
 
#28 ·
History for sure plays a role, in the price and the interest that people have in the brand. That said as the majority of the folks noted in this post, you really have to hold and touch the watch, see it in person to understand the quality in execution, in the production of a watch. Holding a Rolex for the first time, allows you to see what people have been talking about. Welcome to the form and have an awesome day.
 
#30 · (Edited)
Essentially $$$.

Rolex watches are not better than Omega and certainly inferior to PP, AP, VC, Zenith, they don't more parts in house than Seiko and untile the 80s they weren't anything really special, just good watches with a decent price (a Sub in 1969 was priced $200, a Seiko 6105 or a Bulova Devil diver about 100, check now the difference).

Since the late 80s Rolex created an enormous marketing monster and he hammered the heads of consumers trying to convince them that they had invented everything in watch history and if you wanted to be successful you had to have one.

To add injury to insult they also started to raise the price for new model in order to "pull" the price of the used ones in order to create the phenomena that used ones could be sold for higher the price of new few years later, therefore creating the "investment effect" in the mind of consumers. How long can this game continue I don't know, but the fact is this is leading to the general price increase on the market (Grand Seiko is the worst case, but also a Speedmaster pro retailer for 2000 in 2009, now it's over 4000) and this is also risking to have negative effect on the industry not to mention our pockets.

Again, in 1969 the Submariner was priced the equivalent of $1200 today, in 1992 the father of a friend o'mine paid $2000 for one in Lugano, now they want $10.000 and a waiting list of years.

It is clear that the value of this brand is artificially inflated.
 
#94 ·
Essentially $$$.
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

This is seriously hilarious!
Thanks for making my point. Like I've stated elsewhere on WUS, all some see when they encounter a nice watch, like a Rolex, are dollar signs. That might be funny to you, but IMO it is the most unfortunate and problematic part of this hobby.
 
#31 ·
A Rolex is the "go to" luxury watch for the masses. The favored watch of the upper middle class... doctors, lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, etc. People whose livelihoods depends on appearances and being taken seriously. It is about as "rare" as a Mercedes in Beverly Hills. Yes, it is well made. But the price in no way reflects the true value of the watch. Know that you are paying at least a 100% mark up for image alone. If you want to know what the true price of the Rolex should be, just look at Tudor. Pretty much the same quality for half the price. And in some ways better. Rolex is pretty much a marketers dream, high prices AND high volume!

Folks that care more about the watch itself than its image (folklore, marketing, etc.) can easily find something twice as good as Rolex for the same money. And something infinitely more interesting and unique. But that will take time and research, something busy professionals often lack. Now, Rolex is aware of all this. They also know that Rolex's blatant lack of exclusively is something that many of the truly rich and watch aficionados snicker at. That is their biggest weakness. What we are now seeing with the rediculous waitlists and "planned shortages" is their response. Also their limited runs of new dial colors ala "the Hulk" and now filtering down into the Tudor BB "Blue 58" model. With many of their boutiques now closed, malls shuttering, and dealers beginning to disappear, Rolex is probably wishing they could return to the days of high production. Most likely, they will raise prices again in response to a prolonged decline in sales.
 
#32 ·
Rolex is very interesting, both as a watchmaker and as a brand. I think the hugely wide appeal is that it manages to do something that most brands, whatever they make, only dream of. Simply - Rolex is many things to many people.

Think about that for a moment and think about it in the context of your question and the responses to this thread. Some people hate it - of course that's fine but ignore that for a moment, we know what it is to them and it doesn't necessarily help your understanding (though it's hated for many reasons, which may or may not help make my point). Think about the range, think about who buys them, think about why they buy them and think about what that tells you about the brand.

The reason people buy them, the kinds of people they are and they things they buy and buy them for are so varied that it makes very clear that Rolex has an enormous and wide appeal. It also has a huge recognition.

This is their genius.

Rolex has, I don't think, never been so popular, so wanted and so recognisable. This is the legacy of a long, long history of innovation, marketing and other things. Not only that it is many things to many people, but that it actually can be.

I'm a Rolex owner. I'm not a fanboy - my tastes and likes are very specific. I like their dive watches very much but I can take or leave almost everything else bar the Explorer. I think a number of posters here would think of my as being part of the 0.1% of Rolex owners who use their watch for its intended purpose. I am a diver and I use a Rolex Submariner as a backup timer when I'm in the water. It has been with me for countless dives. It has never failed me and this is why I bought it. I had been a long time Omega customer, again using their Dive watches to dive. My Omega failed (not in the water) and the situation in repairing it was such I felt I needed an alternative. I chose Rolex for robustness and reliability, money didn't come into it.

To many, the fact I own a Rolex lumps me together with the people who buy the tiger print Daytonas. Rolex has a wide appeal because that's just nonsense.

If you're interested in Rolex and you decide you have your reasons, you'll find a Rolex that appeals to you. If you're not into them, I'd urge you to understand their history as someone interested in watches - if nothing else the brand's history is fascinating (particularly the history of their diving watches).

Anyhow, here's a picture of a Submariner at depth on my left forearm (on the way up on a decompression stop at c. 20m), some users do like to get them wet.
15376695
 
#34 ·
I think one think that's intangible about Rolex is their overall great design esthetics. While their are some rare misses, their core line is simply well-balanced and harmonious with the subtle tapering bracelet. Objectively (without the meaning associated with the brand in play), I would choose a Rolex design over many others.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#36 ·
Is it fair to say Rolex is the “Lexus” of watches?

A Lexus is a fine vehicle. It’s pretty, many prominent people own one. Deep down though, it’s an overpriced, well marketed Toyota. There is nothing interesting about a mass marketed Lexus. Their super cars are a different story...

When I see a Rolex on someone’s wrist, more often than not it’s someone who wants to look good and doesn’t have much of an interest about watches. When I see a Rolex, I see a Lexus on a wrist.

There is nothing wrong with this, but a Rolex is about as impressive as a Lexus.
 
#106 ·
Is it fair to say Rolex is the "Lexus" of watches?

A Lexus is a fine vehicle. It's pretty, many prominent people own one. Deep down though, it's an overpriced, well marketed Toyota. There is nothing interesting about a mass marketed Lexus. Their super cars are a different story...

When I see a Rolex on someone's wrist, more often than not it's someone who wants to look good and doesn't have much of an interest about watches. When I see a Rolex, I see a Lexus on a wrist.

There is nothing wrong with this, but a Rolex is about as impressive as a Lexus.
Nope, not a good compare at all. I think a more apt comparo is rolex is like porsche and audi is like tudor. Grand seiko is more like Lexus. The build quality is superb in a grand seiko, just like Lexus. Not many people dream of owning a lexus however. And in many places, to many people, lexus is pretty boring and dull. I know I'd never own a lexus for myself. And even though lexus has sporty models, at least in the US, no one buys them. Their front wheel drive based options sell best for Lexus. Eh.

So here's the thing with porsche and rolex. Joe/Jane Q Public can buy something from these brands because of the badging and the reputation for a very high quality product. Enthusiasts can also buy from both brands with the idea that you'll get exactly the performance they expect from the brands. It's rare that you have very well known brands that are respected and trusted by the public and by enthusiasts in equal proportions. That's the magic of both brands.

So where does Audi come in? It's the slightly less high end relative of the more "valuable" and lauded brands. But at the end of the day, the quality of the product is about as good as the fancier relative. There are some elements that separate the two brands which maintain the separation and make audi/tudor more mainstream than porsche/rolex. So there are some elements which are objectively better in a rolex than a tudor, but functionally in how most people use their watches, the experience between the two aren't worlds different.

The universal appeal is what makes Rolex so special. Tudor certainly less so, though they make a great product as well. The robustness of the movements, timeless designs, and general attention to detail is what keeps enthusiasts interested whereas the marketing efforts keep the interest of Joe/Jane Q Public.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 
#40 ·
To start I own both Rolex and Omega ...now for the bashers who say Rolex is all marketing hype .
What brand introduces a new" Limited Edition" watch ...whenever a new 007 movie comes out , a spaceship is launched or there is some kind of sailboat race ?? Just saying
 
#42 ·
Same reason, if you they could afford it, someone would want a Mercedes or Porsche over a Mazda or Ford (at least in the case or Rolex). They are better looking, better performing, higher quality, funner and more prestigious cars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 135922 and liwang22
#44 ·
My first "good" watch was a Rolex, I purchased while I was in the service back in 1984. Since then I have switched back and forth between Rolex and Omega as my daily wear watch, but have always had one of each in my very small collection. As much as I like Omega, I feel like Rolex simply does a better job of not making a lot of changes to the design of their core models. A 36mm Datejust today, pretty much looks exactly like a Datejust from 50 years ago. I like that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. Rolex has the advantage of having it's sister company Tudor, where it is able to make bolder and more contemporary changes to it's designs.
15376778

Me, my dog, and my 18600 Rolex Submariner date in 1987.

If you purchase a Rolex second hand, and hold on to it a year or so, you can be just about guaranteed to get you money back. If their design do not appeal to you, then prestige and brand recognition is not a particularly good reason to purchase one, buying a watch to impress other people is a pretty terrible reason to buy something that expensive. But they remain very solid mechanical watches, and have what I believe are enduring designs. I realize that there is a lot of hype around the brand, and to be honest with you, sometimes that hype tends to push me away from the brand, but at the end of the day if you like their designs, and you have the means to acquire one, do it.
15376779

Here is what I now put on my wrist just about every day. It was a draw between this and the Omega Aquaterra. This was about 40% more than the Omega, but at the end of the day made me happier.
As you move through your watch collecting journey, you should make decisions about what makes you happy. Build your collection around pieces that make you smile when you put them on. If a Rolex happens to make it's way into collection, that is great, but don't for a minute think that one needs to be there. People who say things like, "every serious collection needs a Submariner, or a Speedmaster" are either insecure or trying to sell you something. What every collection needs are pieces you like, and bring you happiness. That is on you, and your preferences, not theirs.
 
#66 ·
My first "good" watch was a Rolex, I purchased while I was in the service back in 1984. Since then I have switched back and forth between Rolex and Omega as my daily wear watch, but have always had one of each in my very small collection. As much as I like Omega, I feel like Rolex simply does a better job of not making a lot of changes to the design of their core models. A 36mm Datejust today, pretty much looks exactly like a Datejust from 50 years ago. I like that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. Rolex has the advantage of having it's sister company Tudor, where it is able to make bolder and more contemporary changes to it's designs.
View attachment 15376778
Me, my dog, and my 18600 Rolex Submariner date in 1987.

If you purchase a Rolex second hand, and hold on to it a year or so, you can be just about guaranteed to get you money back. If their design do not appeal to you, then prestige and brand recognition is not a particularly good reason to purchase one, buying a watch to impress other people is a pretty terrible reason to buy something that expensive. But they remain very solid mechanical watches, and have what I believe are enduring designs. I realize that there is a lot of hype around the brand, and to be honest with you, sometimes that hype tends to push me away from the brand, but at the end of the day if you like their designs, and you have the means to acquire one, do it.

Here is what I now put on my wrist just about every day. It was a draw between this and the Omega Aquaterra. This was about 40% more than the Omega, but at the end of the day made me happier.
As you move through your watch collecting journey, you should make decisions about what makes you happy. Build your collection around pieces that make you smile when you put them on. If a Rolex happens to make it's way into collection, that is great, but don't for a minute think that one needs to be there. People who say things like, "every serious collection needs a Submariner, or a Speedmaster" are either insecure or trying to sell you something. What every collection needs are pieces you like, and bring you happiness. That is on you, and your preferences, not theirs.
This right here...that Sub 16800 bought for ? what's that sucker worth now! That kind of appreciation in value might be not as good today with the new cost of Rolex but I dare say and would bet that a son or daughter could sell ours long after we are gone and get a lot more for it than we paid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top