Demand for Rolex hits unprecedented level

Archer

the fanaticism for Rolex is in itself quite astonishing when viewed in that very context.

gbesq

Thank you, Archer. That was precisely my point.

Archer

On the second question, an annual calendar isn't a particularly interesting complication to me, but this is more of a subjective thing.

gbesq

As to interesting complications, when Rolex makes a tourbillion -- as Omega already has -- I'll be impressed.

cvalue13

I’d assumed on charitable read this was the point. Though since it’s never quite phrased as being equally leveled at both brands, it sometimes reads as “I would never eat dog food! I prefer food of the dog!”

I, too, marvel at the branding and business machinery of Rolex, but it seems we depart on the point of it raising my hackles in any way.



I too would not have called (and did not call) out an annual calendar as being particularly interesting on its own.

But an annual calendar + GMT, all facilitated via the command bezel, is to me - collectively - an interesting, uniquely useful, watch.



It’s a bit odd to imply that the reason Rolex has no tourbillon is that Rolex is incapable of making one, rather than Rolex seeing no utility in making one. The latter being most obviously Rolex’s particular vibe.

I find a tourbillion to be nothing more than a complication for complication’s sake, with no demonstrable utility not achieved with far less fanciful (or costly) means in any modern watch - I can appreciate a tourbillon as a watchmaker’s attempt to demonstrate artistry of small bits, but it’s no more than that: a industry flourish with no real utility. The theoretical potential of the tourbillon meets several practical realities in a wristwatch, rendering the tourbillon - all else being equal - a functional (and financial) liability compared to any well crafted modern wristwatch.

Which I would bet green money is almost certainly why Rolex has never bothered to dabble in them.

What sets my interests going instead are complications that make a watch actually more useful, but especially if doing so in the most efficient/elegant of ways.

gbesq

I think that Omega should follow the Rolex/Tudor model. Make the Omega brand unobtainable and then introduce a "not quite Omega" brand -- but sitll worthy -- that wannabe Omega owners can actually buy. We could call it "Nomega." 😁

gbesq

All fair points, sir, and I do appreciate your views as they contribute to a more even discussion.

cvalue13

Good news! 😁 The parent-company analog to “Rolex” is not Omega, but instead Swatch Group, which leaves quite a lot of “nomega” choices including:

• Balmain
• Blancpain
• Breguet
• Calvin Klein watches
• Certina
• Endura
• Flik Flak
• Glashütte Original
• Hamilton
• Harry Winston
• Jaquet Droz
• Léon Hatot
• Longines
• Mido
• Rado
• Swatch
• Swiss Timing
• Tissot
• Union Glashütte

Which of these do we take to be the Tudor of the group? 😁

cvalue13

I’d assumed on charitable read this was the point. Though since it’s never quite phrased as being equally leveled at both brands, it sometimes reads as “I would never eat dog food! I prefer food of the dog!”

cvalue13

I too would not have called (and did not call) out an annual calendar as being particularly interesting on its own.

But an annual calendar + GMT, all facilitated via the command bezel, is to me - collectively - an interesting, uniquely useful, watch.

cvalue13

It’s a bit odd to imply that the reason Rolex has no tourbillon is that Rolex is incapable of making one, rather than Rolex seeing no utility in making one. The latter being most obviously Rolex’s particular vibe.

cvalue13

I find a tourbillion to be nothing more than a complication for complication’s sake, with no demonstrable utility not achieved with far less fanciful (or costly) means in any modern watch - I can appreciate a tourbillon as a watchmaker’s attempt to demonstrate artistry of small bits, but it’s no more than that: a industry flourish with no real utility. The theoretical potential of the tourbillon meets several practical realities in a wristwatch, rendering the tourbillon - all else being equal - a functional (and financial) liability compared to any well crafted modern wristwatch.

Archer

It's Rolex that gains the attention that is disproportionate to it's actual horological "standing"...not Omega. Omega is simply the natural point of comparison, precisely because they are both mid-tier brands of similar quality. And of course this is a forum dedicated to that brand, so finding people here who prefer them is no surprise.



Not to me, but again as I said this is personal preference. I can add and subtract, so a GMT has never been a useful complication for me, and I can also set the date on my watch (if I'm wearing one that has one - I'm not most of the time), so none of these are relevant to me personally. These are really just "cool" complications on the Skydweller, set by using a "cool" method through the bezel. And yes, I've handled and set one...



Rolex isn't a high complication company, and never have been. It really makes no sense for them to "dabble" in anything even remotely difficult, as they simply don't need to to sell the watches. They have the FOMO complication to do that for them. 😉



Again, this is personal preference as to what each person feels is "useful" in a complication. I would argue that the tourbillon is just as useful and cool as an annual calendar and GMT set through the bezel is, to me.

All of it is obsolete technology...

Nobel Prize

There is a lot of talk about the movement being at par with Patek etc. I lack the knowledge to separate marketing from reality on that one so I can't comment.

Archer

Not sure in what way that comparison is made. But from a pure complexity or quality of finishing, it's miles away from what Patek can make.

Finishing is pretty standard Rolex fare, which is better than most people give them credit for in terms of completeness. But quality of finishing is again standard for Rolex, so not anything to get excited about - it's there, but not done to a particularly high degree. I've not worked on one, but from what I've seen, they are made as any other Rolex is made, so no special attention paid to the movement.

gbesq

And all this demand and "investment" speculation for a mass produced, mid-tier luxury brand with no particularly interesting complications. The Rolex marketing machine is a wonder to behold, but I'll stick with Omega.

Faz

Rough, but so true, although I for one, have no particular brand preference.
I used to own several Rolex watches and really enjoyed them quite a bit (I’m still enjoying my 5 digit GMT purchased at a “normal” price!). But the hype of the last few years has totally turned me off the brand. Their new offerings I find overpriced, clunky and overly blingy. The price gouging is grotesque. 35k for a Daytona?? Sadly, the other luxury brands have been riding Rolex’ coattails with regards to pricing and marketing. The ‘No Time to Die’ Seamaster is a good example IMO.

Nobel Prize

If I come across a blue steel one at market price I may though.

Nobel Prize

But remember it is not Rolex selling the Daytona for 35G...it is the market pushing those figures. Wether Rolex distribution controls (or lack there of) are part of the reason the Price points of Rolex watches are high, but not to the astronomical level that customers end up paying for. So, as a brand, judge their pricing points, not the secondary markets

Faz

I agree although Rolex is mum about this phenomenon. Their silence speaks volumes.

Faz

I agree although Rolex is mum about this phenomenon. Their silence speaks volumes.