That's probably true in general, but I think what is bothering some people here is the implication that people buy Rolex watches only because of its perceived prestige and because we like to "flash" it around and show off.

Since I am entirely a vintage collector, "value" is almost completely arbitrary, even more so than for new watches. There is no way to justify the collectible market value of many of my watches. But I get a lot of joy from my Rolex watches, and some of them are amongst my favorites (I know you like yours also, Al). I don't know why people feel the need to constantly suggest that the only reason to own a Rolex is shallow conspicuous consumption. It's an obnoxious assertion. People don't make this accusation with any other brand, and I think it would be far more true for AP, for example.

 

It was the 80s / 90s “masters of the universe” bs. Rolex and Bimmers became the megaphone of the braggart class.

 

I really only collect vintage and I focus on vintage Tudor. I can go into a client wearing an almost unicorn Tudor and nobody is going to know. Tudor was the poor man's Rolex back in the day because you got all Rolex bits 'cept the movement for 60 cents on the dollar.

 

True enough.

Yes, it is a rather obvious thing. Kind of my point. You asked.

I don’t think i personally have an intense reaction or affiliation to the brand (any brand really). You can see that in any of the responses to the three (i think 3 treads we have co-existing on this subject now.). It just happens to be that the constant narrative is Rolex versus Tudor. Rolex not worth the price, Rolex is unattainable therefore...Tudor is better (instead of Tudor is easier to get at a lesser price). To me these are false equivalences. They are also mostly true on a purely factual sense but to dismiss one brand over other because it is not attainable is wrong. I (personally) rather value a brand (any brand) on it’s own merit. And Tudor has plenty of merit without having to use it as a “settling” second price.

My comment is equally applicable to any brand and is really meant to take the onus off the brand and into the collector. Because this sort of narrative is equally blind on any brand. There is almost always a better priced, similar watch, that performs and looks great at a better for less. But then...you’re not really getting what you want are you?

I do like and have Rolex, and Tudor and IWC, and Zenith and JLC and Shinola, and Baume & Mercier and Omega etc etc and I like them all in their own merit. Which is why I have them.

 

Now that’s.a trio!!

 

Thank you. 1957, 1959, 1961

The youngest is officially 60 years old.

 

I can only speak for myself on this point, but for me it's the business practices of the brand, not the watches themselves. The modern Rolex I have zero interest in personally, and I think they are far too gaudy.

 

For modern Rolex, and the vast majority of people who buy them, I don't think this misses the mark at all. Regular people (not collectors) are well known for thinking it is "the best" brand, and that they have "made it" when they own one. This is in large part to the way that Rolex markets their watches.

Case in point...



Is that everyone who buys a Rolex? Obviously not, but to deny that this segment of Rolex buyers exists is sticking your head in the sand I think. The trick is knowing which is which. I don't think we have many of those types here, but on WUS it is full blown taken over by those who have consumed for too much of this:



For example the guy who says that Rolex has surpassed all the trinity brands, simply because Rolex is hard to get, and he gets all kinds of people agreeing with him. The ironic part is he's one of the biggest proponents of "you can't judge it unless you own one" but he has never owned one of the trinity brands. I mean you can't make this shit up. It's batshit crazy stuff, and it's becoming mainstream with "collectors" now too.

 

In fact they are saying the same thing you are advocating for - make your own value judgement and they are deciding the watches are not worth it to them.

I also think people can dismiss a brand for whatever reason suits them, and it's not "wrong" as you have indicated. Again this all goes back to your point that it's the person that puts the value on it for them. You seem to be contradicting yourself a bit.

 

Fair point. And I’m certainly not saying people have to like all brands, or any specific brand. I think the distinction is when the argument is not on what one likes or dislikes personally, but on attaching blanket statements about the worth of something, or the people that buy that “something” based on a personal like or dislike.

Anyway, I see your point and the added context.

Thank You

 

Speaking for myself, it is not disdain, it is more of a refusal to drink the aforementioned Koolaid. Would I like to have a few vintage Rolexes in my collection? Yes. The Sub and the GMT are iconic. But the brand has transcended into status symbol and for some (myself included) this has become repellent to a certain degree.
Omega has in the past chosen a different path. Variety and an effort to market their watches to the top performers in their specific professions or interests. These are the kind of associations that I find attractive.

PS
Rereading my post I realize there is an inherent contradiction in my statement. "an effort to market their watches to the top performers" does imply status, but let me draw a distinction. Rolex as a brand, implies arrival. Omega, to me, implies a top level activity, skill or performance and continued effort in that regard.

 

But that's marketing. And you're right in that Omega tends to be more about the journey and Rolex more about the arrival. An interesting way to put it. But on the other side a lot of Rolex ambassadors like the tennis and golf players and Cameron etc represent "working excellence" and some of the Omega ones "Clooney, Redmain, the Crawford kids) are more about the status of the celebrity on somewhat less physical achievements.

It's an interesting study really. Rolex is pushing the "achievement" path but ends up selling and being very related to celebrity and executive status and, as you put it, "arrival" and Omega is displaying celebrity and executive status "arrival" but ends up projecting into somewhat more "earthy" (for lack of a better word) costumer base.

On a purely marketing value it would be easy to see the difference between Redmain on a Yacht with his fair blowing in the wind, or Cindy Crawfords "misunderstood" model kids, or Clooney in Lake Cuomo as fairly decadent versus Cameron exploring the depths of the ocean, some tennis star winning a tournament (Federer) or a golf icon winning the PGA (Adam Scott). I am not taking anything from any of their personal achievements, It is just a clear difference between Achievement and Arrival that is contrary to how we then perceive the customer base that buys the brand.

And that's marketing for you!! something that I have to be very aware of in my business and that I love exploring.


Then again the Omega perception is also relative as I know many that see an Omega as a huge status symbol. I guess it is all relative.

Longiness is another one that tries to project a similar "class" status.

Perhaps that is the point. The "arrival" craving for Rolex is because of the brand relation to grand achievement wether on car racing, diving or exploration.....and the achievement attraction and lifestyle of Omega is what attracts the workman that is working hard to try to get there.

Anyway, interesting angle you rise. Much more interesting to me than the $ amount conversation.

 

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/47238325/value-based_segmentation_of_luxury_consumption_behaviour.pdf?1468485807=&response-content-disposition=inline; filename=Value_Based_Segmentation_of_Luxury_Consu.pdf&Expires=1623521169&Signature=BhbwFo2znnKIZFKDtJIDqgqD-QzDDSGGhLOAUaciuu6M0Lqd4AqplP29NcaQX0pqoEUvIyveX07uw0Er3ok43dZBywKZAqzWWfUzeBSI5llGOOXpgyWKWyo5nNfAJyImJoilQWYCM4gQECwAyyiwhSugiAiXEzSyU7CYujDTS4~CvbFmfvm44HkH4NfwKXyGZx0u29YnqGzQafnsco-wqok46ru-1nUwrl3sMCzZlom1JpgkfZkLTIyn022DNrLI-cTHtG-eOqSFgP6FH0O02BiybefgOOegTaEEbegx~x25zIyqOpbEsmbU4v2a2xuzZOcyZ8sZwbEJpLNfM4EnTA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
there are a few peer reviewed studies on the psychology of “luxury goods”. I spent a little time reading this it’s a little interesting. Certainly not something I’ve studied in depth nor do I plan to but it’s always interesting to read different ideas.

 

That’s a great looking watch and built like a tank. Nothing in the Rolex line like it, nothing you can compare it to- one wouldn’t buy this watch because it’s “like” anything, you buy it because it’s just bad-ass.

 

Couldn’t agree more and was about to write the same. Someone suggested that Rolexes have a strong design ethos. Gaudy is a very good way of identifying it so far as I am concerned.
I have a Rolex that I really love, because it is discreet, understated and classy.

 

Vintage talking, when I’m thinking about adding a Rolex to my collection, I’m stopped by the fact that I can get almost the same quality for a fraction of the price. And when I see the Tudor equivalent, I feel that something will make me regret not choosing the first one.

For now it has been a powerful catalyst to turn myself to every other brand

 

Which Rolex do you have? Any pic?

 

As a non-Rolex owner (I’m indifferent to the brand purely because they are not in my target price range) it seems from my perspective that it’s exhausting to be a Rolex fan/collector.

Would be nice to see more posts about say the history of the Sea-Dweller, and less obsession with markets and brand comparisons. I can see how this could be frustrating to fans of the brand.

 

Now that’s an interesting take.

I like Tudor, but I found the modern ones a little unbalanced in thickness. (Same for the modern omega Po line. SO I ended up not keeping them except for the blue heritage chrono which is ironic since it’s a modular chrono and even thicker than the divers.