Is Rolex Boring Anybody Else?

Exactly. So when you said this:

"Fact is even watch makers wear Rolex."

And used it as some sort of proof of Rolex quality, it was not on, just as I said. Unless you work for Rolex marketing department maybe? 😉 Yes of course I know what companies do, but that is far from the way you used the information about what watchmakers wear, but you know that.

Look you can like Rolex all you want, and believe what you want about the company - it really isn't going to change my day much either way. I'm just pointing out that the things you said Rolex didn't do, they actually do.

Rolex has good qualities and bad - they have made good products and movements and bad - they make nice watches and ugly watches - they are no different than any other maker, which is really the point. They have a few iconic models that they have not changed much in decades, and some people love that, and some are completely bored with it. We all have different tastes, thankfully.

Cheers, Al

Never said they were, only that these are 100% genuinely made by Rolex, which was what was being questioned.

Is this based on a watchmaker census or just a wild guess? BTW you'll struggle to find any here that are that keen on Rolex as there are zero parts accounts in Australia and RSC forces everyone to send them down to Melbourne

If it were wikipedia we'd stick one of those little [Citation needed] qualifiers on that statement 😀

I know a lot of watchmakers and have been to several conventions where hundreds of watchmakers are present, and they wear all sorts of different watches. Yes, some wear Rolex, Omega, Tag, PP, VC, Bulova, some carry pocket watches and really any number of other brands. I certainly recall one who wore a watch made Roger Smith, because you don't see those every day.

There is a very strong correlation between what these people work on day to day, and what they wear. If you are watchmaker at a Rolex dealer, yes it's logical you will be wearing a Rolex. Not because it's superior technically to other brands, but because you get a discount on the watch to start, you fix them all day long, and your boss would likely encourage you to wear what they sell so when you come out to speak to a customer it will again make people think exactly as you are doing - because the guy who repairs them is wearing one, they must be the best. And of course, you have ready access to repair parts. Before I became a watchmaker, I didn't own an Omega (had no interest in them to be honest), and now I own 3, and Omega is the brand I service the most - it's not a coincidence.

I have been to other places outside of conventions where there are 50+ watchmakers all in one place, and I can assure you not one of them was wearing a Rolex. When I went through the Blancpain factory, not one was wearing a Rolex who worked there. When I went through the JLC factory, again no one wearing a Rolex, same with AP, VC, PP, Chopard, well you should be getting the picture...again where you work and what you work on has a big impact on what watch you wear.

As a watchmaker, I can tell you that ease of repair is not necessarily related to the quality of the movement in many ways. Having access to parts is key as Ash has stated. It doesn't matter to a watchmaker if the movement is robust, accurate, etc. because if you can't get parts, it quickly becomes VERY difficult to service.

Rolex is the king of watch marketing and they certainly know what they are doing - I have never argued that so for me that whole aspect as a counter argument is nothing but a straw man. They have everyone convinced their mid-tier watch is the best...a crown for every achievement and all that...

Cheers, Al

I think everyone is right on this argument, as argument goes there is really no black and white on this one. Rolex is iconic...no question, Rolex has chosen a slightly more conservative design strategy that has hurt them on the market of "early adopters" but has establish them on the market of "Brand followers" and also helped with the status symbol they have acquired. This means the majority of their efforts (not all) and resources are on maintaining that status symbol and supporting the iconic and established brand and lines that a vast majority of watch lovers eventually gravitate to, either as a first luxury "i made it" benchmark watch, or a later Iconic staple watch. They venture into the bling, bling flashy tacky market as a secondary source- At equal quality Omega (as an example) is more geared towards the early adopter market with new models, strong marketing on media and film, looking for iconic brand ambassadors from Clooney to Bond to Phelps, The Olympic games...on other words a Young (or youthfully modern) sexy, sporty, dynamic market. The success of their new models and the effort over the more established models is clear indicative of the strategy. They are not by any means letting go of the moon watch, the seamasters, the DeVille's...but they are also very invested on being seen as innovative on design technologies and movement advances...even if those advances (coaxial, Master coaxial etc) are not really that new or, in real world application unless you operate MRI machines all day, that tremendously relevant to time keeping over a Rolex or even an ETA movement....but they make us believe it is, and it certainly is an added effort and value. So in this case the Iconic, historic market is secondary to Omega...not unimportant, but secondary. In other words they are supported by it and it brings value and $ to the brand, and most importantly historic legitimacy, but not as much as catering to their primary market...early adopters, sports, entertainment etc.

The Seamster300 MC fever pitch growth and sales since the Bond announcement is a perfect example...it won't last, not with that model, in fact there are an increasing number of units on sale on the secondary market...but they sold and for a while there was nowhere to look, nowhere to go without that watch being there... like the SMPc Brosnan Bond in the 90's, like the PO Bond in the 2000...and like the next bond 3 or 4 years from now.

Please note I am not saying either of these brands neglects their secondary markets, they both value them and both profit from them, but their primary efforts, bread and butter and Brand value is based on overlapping, albeit diametrically opposed strategies and identities.

Also, please note I am not qualifying either brand's strategy. I and own and love both brands and to date I am certainly not tossing either one away.

Lastly, the second hand and collector market is strong on both brands, but while brand value and new product value is often very linked to the second hand market value the fact that Speedmasters have such an amazing collector prize point for what they are as well as constellations and SMP300 (original vintage) watches does not take away from what the Omega Industries current strategies are. I am sure there are divisions within Omega heavily invested on keeping that legitimacy to their past, but unlike Rolex which is privately owned, Omega has no recourse but to seek continuous growth and relevance as they are part of a larger group, and subject to other business regulations and benchmarks...as much as they may want to be as conservative as Rolex, they cannot afford to because the investor boards and trusts behind it are as interested on watches as they are in diapers...the bottom line is all that matters to them. Not a criticism, just a reality, and if anything it is commendable that despite the pressure Omega continues to deliver high quality products and is committed to a certain brand standard.

Rolex cannot escape their anchoring...even when they tried to appeal to a submarket...or rather a broader market with Tudor, they still ended up creating another mid/high end brand for tool and sports watches that has tremendous Brand power behind it.

I walked by the Swatch store on broadway yesterday and they have many watches that strongly resemble Omega (they are after all part of the same company) or you could say that there are Omegas that closely resemble swatch as well. SWATCH is a good brand...a great brand...but a different demographic altogether from the higher end Omega...and certainly no one would put them on the same line with Rolex.

These are all CURRENTLY part to the Omega collection

I don't think there is a major brand out there that doesn't make some hideous watches really.