You're crossing two different aspects there. You may think it's semantics but there's a difference between a company limiting supply or not increasing supply in reaction to a (temporary?) increase in demand. The former would make Rolex complicit in the lack of sports models at ADs and the rise of grey market prices. The latter does not. I'm sure it's not a case of simply flicking a switch to create more supply. If their manufacturing is optimised it's reasonable to assume an increase in supply would require significant capital investment in manufacturing. If you're Rolex would you do this? I can see why they haven't. They're selling almost all their watches before they hit the showroom floor, demand and brand prestige is through the roof and they haven't had to spend significantly to achieve this. They're not beholden to shareholders and why take the risk of spending a load of money to increase production to meet what is likely a temporary surge in demand. If they did this and demand returns to normal levels, they'll have spent a fortune to likely end up with a sub optimal manufacturing process and a loss of brand prestige. My two penneth but I can completely see how we've ended up here by Rolex deciding not to have a knee jerk reaction to increased demand rather than them thinking "we'll cut back on supply to make watches even more desireable" which by the way would cost them money.