There are several examples where Rolex have moved to limit the amount of flipping to greys etc, such as the move to retain papers, insist only on local customers, ban customers who’ve been caught flipping etc.
At the risk of injecting a bit too much reality into an otherwise rather fun bit of fantasy anger, on the spectrum of “disgusting” and “unethical” business practices that one can’t condone, it’s rather first world problems to view Rolex with such distaste. How they treat the wealthy wanting their jewelry!
My post wasn't about wealthy watch owners whining about first world problems, but if it makes you feel better to paint it in that light, be my guest.
You’re right, which is evidence not that I’m misstating anything you said but instead that my comment wasn’t addressed to you.
But on your injection regarding how Rolex treats AD’s poorly: I’m a bit confused by its resulting conclusion. That Rolex treats some ADs poorly, while meanwhile Rolex and ADs are also allegedly cooperating to create this market, suggests what? That ADs selling to greys/flippers deserve our sympathy because they’re just sticking it to evil Rolex?
The issue for me is consistency and hypocrisy. Rolex will apply their rules in the most brutal way when it benefits them, and not apply them at all when it benefits them.
Everything they do is perfectly legal of course, but as someone who as argued ad nauseum that legality is not the standard which we should apply in the watch collecting world, this seems to fly right past your ethical radar for some reason.
I never raised legality.
I never said it flew past my ethical radar.
I merely suggested (including toward myself) that regarding the discussion of effects to customers we right-size our outrage that “[a company] will apply their rules in the most brutal way when it benefits them, and not apply them at all when it benefits them.”
I never raised legality.
I never said it flew past my ethical radar.
I merely suggested (including toward myself) that regarding the discussion of effects to customers we right-size our outrage that “[a company] will apply their rules in the most brutal way when it benefits them, and not apply them at all when it benefits them.”
I never suggested that we shouldn't "right-size" our outrage, regarding the discussion of the effects to customers.
I never suggested that we shouldn't "right-size" our outrage, regarding the discussion of the effects to customers.
Did someone say you had suggested that? Wasn’t me.
Really, Al, I see now that I did re-use some of your choice phrases directed at Rolex, and that may have been on my part a lazy regurgitation - but several before you in this thread were using words like “disgusting” etc. over and over to describe the effects on customers (not the ADs), and while maybe I spoke too sloppy by reusing your words and so accidentally drew your ire (easily done, to be fair to me), I was never talking to you.
So hey, Rolex treats ADs shitty sometimes, and ADs together with Rolex treat customers shitty all the times, and fortunately none of us are forced to do business with either!
but several before you in this thread were using words like “disgusting” etc.
