- Posts
- 5,112
- Likes
- 17,776
I don't understand the recent Rolex SS craze/shortage. What am I missing?
- Posts
- 1,456
- Likes
- 2,791
DoctorEvil
·I feel like a fool now adding my name onto a list for a GMT2. There are only 2 ADs in my area so what else am I suppose to do if I want a watch? The sales person kept on saying they take care of their customers and insisted on checking my purchase history. Then proceeded to tell me it would be 1-2 years. I told her that I was in no rush and wasn’t planning on flipping it as I was in there getting a battery changed on a 20 yr old watch.
Are my expectations too high. Should I just try for a Sub or Explorer instead? The sales person said she sold a Daytona in 1986 and that was the only time she’s ever seen one..
Mate, don't settle for "near enough is good enough". If you're going to be spending that kind of money then get the watch that you really want. No harm putting your name on the waiting list. You never know, you might actually get your hands on a GMT2 at MSRP in a timely fashion. One year wait in the current climate is not unreasonable. At least the sales assistant was not rude to you or implied that you had to buy another watch/jewellery just to get on the list. From what I hear on various fora, some sales staff have really poor customer service and laugh in people's faces when they inquire about SS Rolex watches. Yours actually sounds half decent.
Edited:
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,988
cvalue13
·
That doesn't really look like a current document ☕ It's dated 20 years ago, for a start.
that 20yr old distribution agreement is the copy at times cited in the plaintiff’s brief
The 20yr old agreement is not what is cited for the brief’s assertions about a "limited supply" model; The 20yr old Rolex document contains no searchable mention of any "limited supply" model.
the “limited supply” notion in the brief is only from cites of the ADs policies - quotes from which ADs policies appear to have been written with email-level attention to substance/grammar.
Not surprising they quote only the AD policies, because pre-discovery how would the salesperson plaintiff have a copy of the ADs actual Rolex license.
If there were any such bad-look-policies explicit in Rolex’s newer AD licenses, I’d suspect Rolex to intervene before discovery to seal the suit from public disclosure.
But for the same reason I’d be surprised if any such bad-look-policies were explicit in a global company’s AD licenses for the same reasons: to keep them out of public eye, Rolex would have to successfully chase confidentiality enforcement to the smallest corners of the globe.
Stranger things have happened, though
- Posts
- 5,157
- Likes
- 46,829
Jones in LA
··Not in LA anymore.I don’t have anywhere near the patience required to read the previous 39 pages of replies to this thread. All I can say is that Rolex has achieved Marketing Nirvana...the ultimate success among all marketing successes. Give them a Hip-Hip-Hooray, wish that your own life unfolds just as successfully, and move along.
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,988
cvalue13
·I don’t have anywhere near the patience required to read the previous 39 pages of replies to this thread. All I can say is that Rolex has achieved Marketing Nirvana...the ultimate success among all marketing successes. Give them a Hip-Hip-Hooray, wish that your own life unfolds just as successfully, and move along.
Them and Nike both
but at least for Nike a person arguably “needs” shoes
- Posts
- 5,157
- Likes
- 46,829
Jones in LA
··Not in LA anymore....but at least for Nike a person arguably “needs” shoes
Or not. We did go for most of our 70,000 years as a species without them 😁
- Posts
- 16,741
- Likes
- 47,365
STANDY
··schizophrenic pizza orderer and watch collectorMate, don't settle for "near enough is good enough". If you're going to be spending that kind of money then get the watch that you really want. No harm putting your name on the waiting list. You never know, you might actually get your hands on a GMT2 at MSRP in a timely fashion. One year wait in the current climate is not unreasonable. At least the sales assistant was not rude to you or implied that you had to buy another watch/jewellery just to get on the list. From what I hear on various fora, some sales staff have really poor customer service and laugh in people's faces when they inquire about SS Rolex watches. Yours actually sounds half decent.
Just do what I do, always wonder into a boutique and ask for a SS model and when told they don’t have one. Ask them to try on a small ladies datejust. Trying that on a nearly 8 inch wrist annoys the fυck out of the sales staff. 👍
No Rolex salesperson is going to phase me.
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,988
cvalue13
·Or not. We did go for most of our 70,000 years as a species without them 😁
Though that shoeless period concentrated in considerably warmer climes* ...
*(currently going on 24hrs without power/heat, hovering nearer to 0*F outside, and I’m tending fire while the wife and kids huddle asleep on the living room floor)
- Posts
- 234
- Likes
- 153
cjoedaniel
·Mate, don't settle for "near enough is good enough". If you're going to be spending that kind of money then get the watch that you really want. No harm putting your name on the waiting list. You never know, you might actually get your hands on a GMT2 at MSRP in a timely fashion. One year wait in the current climate is not unreasonable. At least the sales assistant was not rude to you or implied that you had to buy another watch/jewelry just to get on the list. From what I hear on various fora, some sales staff have really poor customer service and laugh in people's faces when they inquire about SS Rolex watches. Yours actually sounds half decent.
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,988
cvalue13
·
- Posts
- 234
- Likes
- 153
cjoedaniel
·
Yea my short list includes a diver, chronograph and GMT.
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,988
cvalue13
·Yea my short list includes a diver, chronograph and GMT.
I see now what you were trying to say 😉
But when you said “the last thing I need” it reads as though you’re saying you don’t need a GMT because you already have a chronograph.
- Posts
- 16,307
- Likes
- 44,913
JwRosenthal
·Yea my short list includes a diver, chronograph and GMT.
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,988
cvalue13
·So as someone who has only purchased one new watch in my life (all others have been used), what is the allure of buying a new GMT when Rolex has been making a version of this watch for over 60 years?
I’ll give my own view, as someone who has both purchased modern Rolex and is on list for a new GMT.
The below is not intended to be defensible, but instead only an insight to the unorganized swirl that results in such a purchase - no particular order. And notice, some items are “pulls” (an attraction to the modern choice) while other items are “pushes” (a repulsion from the vintage)
• having a modern doesn’t preclude also having a vintage (it’s the U.S. government model of buying: why have one when you can have two for twice the price?)
• the vintage world for Rolex can be a daunting place to comfortably direct a large sum (mmmm, lazy tastes good)
• in sentimental idealism world, the moderns are earmarked for my kids (so that they get them vintage)
• a modern’s “character”/patina will be 100% from me, which in sentimental idealism world my sons will appreciate some day (they’ll end up hating watches, just I wait and see)
• despite reason to the contrary, I do feel a preciousness about my vintage pieces in terms of robustness and wear - perhaps because I find it difficult to balance the vintage cleanliness I enjoy looking at against the risks of wearing it without preciousness?
• if right now I can manage to “get the call” for a modern SS Rolex at MSRP, which is sometimes 1/2 its market value, that will instantly hedge against the true cost of ownership in a way vintage market doesn’t provide (recognizing this rationale seems to conflict with the idea of passing modern to my sons, but here being more of an “eject button” exit possibility if life plans change drastically)
• finally, for me personally, I’m fortunate the budget well allows such an extravagant, even irrational, purchase (and at least it ain’t just a week’s worth of blow)
at the end of the day, I have a cell phone that can tell me the time and perform every “complication” known to man then some: I have no delusions that my watch purchases are anything but the emotional decisions of a sometimes fragile ego with a healthy dash of attraction to the sentimentality surrounding watches.
Which of course is all to say I’m on “the list” for a new GMT but also currently saving for a 16750 😬
- Posts
- 234
- Likes
- 153
cjoedaniel
·I’ll give my own view, as someone who has both purchased modern Rolex and is on list for a new GMT.
The below is not intended to be defensible, but instead only an insight to the unorganized swirl that results in such a purchase - no particular order. And notice, some items are “pulls” (an attraction to the modern choice) while other items are “pushes” (a repulsion from the vintage)
• having a modern doesn’t preclude also having a vintage (it’s the U.S. government model of buying: why have one when you can have two for twice the price?)
• the vintage world for Rolex can be a daunting place to comfortably direct a large sum (mmmm, lazy tastes good)
• in sentimental idealism world, the moderns are earmarked for my kids (so that they get them vintage)
• a modern’s “character”/patina will be 100% from me, which in sentimental idealism world my sons will appreciate some day (they’ll end up hating watches, just I wait and see)
• despite reason to the contrary, I do feel a preciousness about my vintage pieces in terms of robustness and wear - perhaps because I find it difficult to balance the vintage cleanliness I enjoy looking at against the risks of wearing it without preciousness?
• if right now I can manage to “get the call” for a modern SS Rolex at MSRP, which is sometimes 1/2 its market value, that will instantly hedge against the true cost of ownership in a way vintage market doesn’t provide (recognizing this rationale seems to conflict with the idea of passing modern to my sons, but here being more of an “eject button” exit possibility if life plans change drastically)
• finally, for me personally, I’m fortunate the budget well allows such an extravagant, even irrational, purchase (and at least it ain’t just a week’s worth of blow)
at the end of the day, I have a cell phone that can tell me the time and perform every “complication” known to man then some: I have no delusions that my watch purchases are anything but the emotional decisions of a sometimes fragile ego with a healthy dash of attraction to the sentimentality surrounding watches.
Which of course is all to say I’m on “the list” for a new GMT but also currently saving for a 16750 😬
Yes! All good points. I think a new SS at MSRP is way cheaper than vintage with the added robustness of a warranty. Also hoping to generate a vintage heirloom for my kids...but realistically it is more for me. I do tell my wife though that it is one of the very few commodities that I can buy and enjoy without fear of losing most of its value over time.
My original thought was to get something special when I turn 50...but what last year and this year so far has thought me, there aren't any guarantees and every day is a gift. However, the idea of strapping on a $10k plus watch on my wrist isn't quite in accordance with my dharma right now.
- Posts
- 16,307
- Likes
- 44,913
JwRosenthal
·I’ll give my own view, as someone who has both purchased modern Rolex and is on list for a new GMT.
The below is not intended to be defensible, but instead only an insight to the unorganized swirl that results in such a purchase - no particular order. And notice, some items are “pulls” (an attraction to the modern choice) while other items are “pushes” (a repulsion from the vintage)
• having a modern doesn’t preclude also having a vintage (it’s the U.S. government model of buying: why have one when you can have two for twice the price?)
• the vintage world for Rolex can be a daunting place to comfortably direct a large sum (mmmm, lazy tastes good)
• in sentimental idealism world, the moderns are earmarked for my kids (so that they get them vintage)
• a modern’s “character”/patina will be 100% from me, which in sentimental idealism world my sons will appreciate some day (they’ll end up hating watches, just I wait and see)
• despite reason to the contrary, I do feel a preciousness about my vintage pieces in terms of robustness and wear - perhaps because I find it difficult to balance the vintage cleanliness I enjoy looking at against the risks of wearing it without preciousness?
• if right now I can manage to “get the call” for a modern SS Rolex at MSRP, which is sometimes 1/2 its market value, that will instantly hedge against the true cost of ownership in a way vintage market doesn’t provide (recognizing this rationale seems to conflict with the idea of passing modern to my sons, but here being more of an “eject button” exit possibility if life plans change drastically)
• finally, for me personally, I’m fortunate the budget well allows such an extravagant, even irrational, purchase (and at least it ain’t just a week’s worth of blow)
at the end of the day, I have a cell phone that can tell me the time and perform every “complication” known to man then some: I have no delusions that my watch purchases are anything but the emotional decisions of a sometimes fragile ego with a healthy dash of attraction to the sentimentality surrounding watches.
Which of course is all to say I’m on “the list” for a new GMT but also currently saving for a 16750 😬
I guess as someone who has never bought a new car, but rather models 1-3 years used, I have never seen the allure of that “new watch/car smell”, when I can get essentially the same thing for 2/3 retail with smart shopping. I guess that value model is upside down right now with Rolex which I find insane, but this is why I don’t get the craze.
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,988
cvalue13
·I guess that value model is upside down right now with Rolex which I find insane, but this is why I don’t get the craze.
exactly. As soon as you drive it off the lot, it doubles in value.
So I get my name on the list, and won’t be heartbroken if my name isn’t called.
- Posts
- 102
- Likes
- 210
rfcs
·Background: I'm a new Omega fanboy and have been admiring my co-workers vintage Pepsi. When I enquired about the cost/availability of one at my local AD I was nearly laughed out of the store.
So I went home and starting research Rolex and the SS "shortage" issue on the rolex forum but I still don't understand the rolex craze. I think they are beautiful watches, have amazing functionality, history, and style. However, EVEN if only paying retail for a submariner, why would I pay $7.5k when I could get a seamaster for $4k? Not to mention the insane grey market prices on the submariner and GMT's!
People keep mentioning a Rolex bubble, but it seems like that is non-sense. Even the 1 million produced by Rolex will not adequately supply the demand in China, with it's exponentially growing middle class.
I guess my question is, why are people buying into the hype and paying double/triple retail for these SS watches!? When you get into the $15-20k price range it seems like there are much better watches you could spend that money on!
Please educate me!
Answer: basic economics of supply and demand. Customers are willing to pay a mark up or premium for a sports Rolex watch from a grey market dealer of a piece that is not available from virtually any AD at retail price. In theory, Rolex could increase either supply to satisfy demand or the retail prices but has no incentive to do so. Rolex produces 1 million watches a year or so I’m told. Remember, the AD makes a 30% markup on these pieces which are sold at no discount. I assume that Rolex’s profit margins exceed the AD’s and are quite healthy. A manufacturer such as Rolex has NO incentive to increase supply and risk quality or make products less exclusive with consumers. That explains the “shortage” (there is none) or why prices in the secondary market for the sports models are higher than at retail. This also explains, as the lawsuit alleges, why some unscrupulous dealers have an economic incentive to cheat.
- Posts
- 102
- Likes
- 210
rfcs
·What is the evidence for that? Rolex is a private company and doesn't publicize how many watches they produce. Further, they started with random serial numbers around 2010, which makes it impossible to use serials to estimate production numbers. And why would Rolex limit production of certain models? I've read all the theories on that subject. Some are more plausible than others; none are remotely provable.
There’s no evidence of that only speculation. Rolex has no incentive to limit supply. It’s contrary to economic principles. By the way Rolex has no monopoly or market power. If a consumer can’t buy a Sub, all of us in this forum should know, that the Planet Ocean is one capable substitute.
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,988
cvalue13
·I assume that Rolex’s profit margins exceed the AD’s and are quite healthy.
I wouldn’t assume that. Could be true, but it would require some work and info none of us have to assume it.
People also assume it about Nike’s margins on its shoes, but since it is a public company more reverse engineering can be done to find:
Not to say this is gospel or that Rolex’s finances necessarily mirror Nike’s, but instead only to say that an armchair view that commodities must have huge profit margins to the manufacturer isn’t a particularly intuitive assumption
