I treasure my Submariner. It's the one article of fashion I have that goes perfectly with every outfit; it looks great with a tuxedo and it looks just as good with shorts and a t-shirt. It's incredibly well-made: I wear mine every day and after nine years together, it still looks better than the year-old iPhone in my pocket. It's also understated--at least, my stainless steel, black-bezeled Sub Date is--and it doesn't scream "expensive" or "showy" like many watches on both ends of the price spectrum often do.
There are a few advantages to owning a Rolex that may not be so obvious: For starters, it's quickly exchangeable for a high percentage of its value in cash in virtually any major city in the world. Because you're always wearing it, that's $8,000+ in cash that you can have in short order if you needed it badly and circumstances prohibit you from accessing your bank account.
Another advantage: they almost always appreciate in value over time. Very few physical assets can claim similar long-term value. People have been coveting these watches for nearly a century and that's unlikely to change. I will surely give mine to one of my sons someday.
If you can afford it, I highly recommend you treat yourself to one. I get enjoyment every day when I put mine on. I can barely remember any of the cars and trucks I've owned but I spent less on my Sub and I'll never forget it.
This is how humans infect each other with emotions, I guess. Virality in action. Tell a story of how this object lifts your spirits every day, never lets you down, is there for you in hard times... And it's reassuringly expensive. Value doesn't come cheap.
I own a bit of LVMH (luxury conglomerate) shares and I find it fascinating what they manage to sell to people, but I'm determined never to fall for it.
Debatable, as it is a sports watch (arguably "the" sports watch). Wearing a sports watch with black tie suggests a middle class New Worlder. I happen to like these values (meritocracy, individual rights, equality of all before the law) much more than the alternative so see it as a positive signal. Also, (see [1]) signals ought to be true or the effect will be very negative, since nobody likes a fake, so better the sub with the "tuxedo" if that's "who you are".
The core value of a Rolex over other brands is two fold.
First, the company is ensuring that the value of the watches will never drop through limiting grey market availability and limiting supply generally even in the face of increasing global demand (people now complain about months-long waiting lists for special editions). As you point out this does make it a sort of global gold standard in terms of maintaining value and fungibility.
Second, it shrewdly invests in multi-generational, tightly integrated marketing to maintain the image of the brand in the global lower and middle classes' mind as "the" luxury watch, as well as in the target market (the GP piece is an example).
AFAIK it is the only brand that does it so thoroughly; Patek has similar operations (including bidding on its own vintage stuff, which even involved setting up a museum, to drive prices higher) but targeted at the aspirational upper middle class only [2], and the other brands are considerably less well recognised or not perceived as expensive. This investment in marketing builds "signal equity" for Rolex wearers in that everybody will see it, not just the readers of Hodinkee.
The drawback is that you make it crystal clear to everyone that you have money. That's the one thing that always troubles me with luxury items. How do people who own Porsche's or Ferrari's cope with unwanted attention, assuming that they don't want it. It's one thing wearing a $3k Burberry coat which few could really tell its value and quite a different one wearing an $8k Rolex watch which everyone and their dogs could tell it's a luxury item.
Other than that, I agree with your sentiment. I own a couple of Longines and they're masterpieces of engineering. But they're a bit more discreet than Rolexes :)
>Another advantage: they almost always appreciate in value over time
On balance this is not true for any non limited brand new watch you buy. On balance models that appreciate tend to be discontinued, or a combination of rare reference/variation/materials.
I agree though, If I had a lot of cash laying about, i'd buy lots and lots of good examples of vintage watches from marquee brands.
A friend of mine bought a Rolex Air King about 25 years while he was in college. Paid $1200 (and financed it for $100 a month for a year).
He wears it every day it, to every occasion, and it looks phenomenal. Recently, had it appraised in the $5000 range. He's beat the S&P many times over, not to mention the value he's received of having a nice watch every day.
Yea I get, it's not for everyone. But they're not the worst investments and they're truly beautiful machines. In the words of Ferris Bueller, 'if you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up.'
I think in 2016 there were a handful of occasions when I thought "shit what's the time" and didn't have my phone out or wasn't sat in front of the computer etc. It's not about "an expensive watch is a good watch" but "do I actually want to wear a sodding watch?"
Hopefully one never needs to exchange their watch for cash in an emergency but I see the advantage, in general do you insure it against theft or loss while traveling overseas with it?
I treasure my Submariner. It's the one article of fashion I have that goes perfectly with every outfit; it looks great with a tuxedo and it looks just as good with shorts and a t-shirt. It's incredibly well-made: I wear mine every day and after nine years together, it still looks better than the year-old iPhone in my pocket. It's also understated--at least, my stainless steel, black-bezeled Sub Date is--and it doesn't scream "expensive" or "showy" like many watches on both ends of the price spectrum often do.
"There are a few advantages to owning a Rolex that may not be so obvious: For starters, it's quickly exchangeable for a high percentage of its value in cash in virtually any major city in the world."
Please define "high". I have seen a Rolex sold for less than its value in gold (gold rolex).
They have sales tax (20% in Europe). The shop has likely something like a 100% mark up on a watch. Most of the costs of the Rolex are for advertisement. You can get a same quality watch for a tiny fraction of the price.
"Because you're always wearing it, that's $8,000+ in cash that you can have in short order if you needed it badly"
If it is not made out of gold, I suspect you would get 1 or 2 grand for it. On a good day.
"We are not in the watch business. We are in the luxury business" - Rolex CEO.
Rolex today only gets chronometer certification for about 3% of its output. Any decent quartz watch is more accurate than the best mechanical watches. Chronometer certification for a mechanical watch only requires -4/+6 secs/day. The best quartz watches are good for 5 seconds a year.
Unless you also have a boat, a sextant, and a nautical almanac, but no GPS, a chronometer watch isn't going to do you much good.
Do you have a source on that 3% figure? I believe that only approximately 3% of Swiss watches are COSC[1] certified but I was also under the impression that all Rolex watches are COSC certified.
I know Rolex by itself makes up over 50% of annual COSC watches and since Rolex themselves never reveal sales figures I've heard that people use the official annual COSC certification numbers as a barometer to how Rolex is doing.
[1]Contrôle Officiel Suisse des Chronomètres - This is Switzerland's official chronometer testing agency.
I believe the % from Rolex that get certified is 100%. Not 3%.
Most major high-end movements are better than -4/+6 seconds a day anyway.
Mechanical watches are not trying to be accurate compared to quartz watches. Rolex watches could lose 1 minute a day in accuracy and would still sell thousands of watches a year.
Everyone has a phone in their pocket, this product/toy/luxury is not about keeping time.
My guess is buyers of mechanical watches know this already. I've never seen a luxury watch advert whose main selling point was the accuracy of the watch.
> Any decent quartz watch is more accurate than the best mechanical watches.
Nobody I know who enjoys mechanical watches would disagree with you on this. You do not buy a mechanical watch, especially a Rolex or similar brand, because you want to know what time it is.
Note also that Rolex supplies parts only to registered dealers and repair shops, and they are expected to turn away watches with shady provenance which might be grey market. They even make the repair shop return the worn parts, to prevent refurbishing and re-use. While independent dealers can source alternative parts, you now have a watch with parts potentially better but more likely worse than original manufacture.
As much as I appreciate what Rolex can do and be, I find this parts-and-repair behavior really tacky.
Rolex goes a step beyond COSC with their Superlative Chronometer certification. While I hate they splash it all over the dial, 100% of the movements they make are certified to +2/-2 seconds per day. That even includes the new Air King, which historically hasn't been chronometer certified and why it was always the lowest cost Rolex.
Even the Tudor in house movements are being COSC certified now. Tudor has always used the highest grade ETA movements which can be COSC certified but never bothered to. Now the new movements they are making themselves are going in for testing.
Mechanical watches will never be as accurate as a good quartz watch, that is an indisputable fact. On the other hand, telling the time with nothing but springs and gears has an analogue magic that delights me every time I wear one of my mechanical watches. When I spend the day surrounded by integrated circuits and batteries it's really relaxing to have something nearby that is disconnected and simple.
I own a thermo-corrected quartz watch and I can't measure the drift on it. Between the twice yearly changes due to daylight saving time the drift is less than a second. I continue to be amazed that I can have something this accurate strapped to my wrist.
Based on my in-depth knowledge of several obscure product fields, I've developed an instinctive skeptical reaction to believing that whatever a layperson thinks of as "the best" is actually "the best".
When it comes to watches, Rolex is obviously the high-end brand that the layperson will be familiar with and will believe to be representative of high quality.
Can someone who is well-versed in high-end watches tell me if they are, in fact, leading the game when it comes to engineering and quality? I seem to recall reading a few years back that Rolexes had abnormally high maintenance costs, but this article directly contradicts that, so perhaps I'm mistaken.
I don't think any of the good watch manufacturers can claim "leading the game in engineering and quality" in the sense that it's way better. Maybe Rolex is statistically 10% better quality (measured how? durability? fit and finish? design?) than the classic "beater" automatic Seiko SKX007 ($200, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000B5MI3Q ), but then the price of the Rolex Sub is >40x higher.
If you're really after extreme durability (which is one aspect of quality), I think you'd be very hard pressed to find an automatic better than the Marathon GSAR, which is about 1/10th the price of a Rolex Sub.
You can think what you want about their watches (and I certainly think their modern self congradulatory dials filled with a ridiculous amount of text are horrifying), but they are a excellent engineering company running a ruthlessly efficient operation.
One thing that really makes rolex stand out is their quality control. They make nearly 1 million watch movements per year and have an unbelievably low return rate for defects. The true number is a closely guarded secret, but it's tiny. When a watch leaves rolex it's perfect.
Everything that goes into a rolex is made by rolex. There is only 1 other watch company that can say that (seiko), and that only applies to particular lines they make. Rolex makes their own sapphire and hairsprings, 2 of the most complex things to manufacture in the world. The swiss watch world is a complex maze of subvendors and parts bin makers, but rolex does it all themselves, and does it extremly well.
The place rolex really sets itself apart is their bracelets. Put a rolex on and snap the clasp shut and it will just feel different from any watch you have ever worn. They are extremely heavy, but also amazingly comfortable. For the rolex price point no one can even come close to the wearing experience.
If you wanted a luxury steel watch and didn't want to research your options, going and buying whichever rolex you liked the look of would net you an extremly well made watch built to insane tolerances. You could do a lot worse.
You don't buy a Rolex to tell the time. You buy a Rolex to tell the world.
Mechanically, they're mostly pretty average. But they are a Veblen good for sure, and some people treat them as an investment.
Personally I hate divers/chronos and don't want to lost a significant sum of money when I break one or have one stolen, so I have a nice collection of <$200 quartz watches.
> if they are, in fact, leading the game when it comes to engineering and quality?
I don't think so. It's a very high quality _mass produced_ watch. For example to compare it with cars i'd say it's the equivalent of a Mercedes: a very high end car when compared to all cars in the world, but to enthusiasts a Mercedes is quite ordinary/unremarkable.
Other brands have much higher floors of quality (e.g. Patek Philipe, H. Moser, Voutilainen). To continue the car analogy these are the Ferraris, Lamborghinis etc.
I'm not sure if I really qualify as being well versed in high end watches, my only current wristwatches are a Timex and a Casio G-Shock, but I did submit the article and I do have an interest in watches and clocks so I'll try and answer as best I can.
In terms of engineering, Rolex watches tend to be on the simpler side, relative to some of the the complications you find in even higher end watches. They don't employ tourbillons, or minute repeaters, or offer watches with a laundry list of different complications, so in that sense they are not on the cutting edge. On the other hand, the things that Rolex does, they seem to do very well. They spend quite a bit of R&D on research into things like special alloys for watch cases as as well as balance wheels, escapements and mainsprings.
In terms of quality, they seem to have a very well earned reputation. It's also important to note that Rolex produces somewhere around 600k-1 million watches a year. They seem to be very good at producing high quality at very large scale.
Regarding maintenance costs, I don't think Rolex is know as a particularly expensive brand, although again, I don't actually own a Rolex so this is second hand info from watch forums. I think one of the problems in this area is that I doubt most watch buyers, Rolex or otherwise, have any clue about the long term maintenance of watches. And I doubt the salespeople selling Rolexes spend much time educating potential customers on these costs so you probably end up with a bit of sticker shock when people realize they have to send a mechanical watch in for service. I do know that Rolex has received some criticism for making spare parts increasingly hard to get for independent repair shops, requiring customers go through authorized channels.
A complaint levied against the Swiss watch industry recently it that they are very happy to allocate labor & capital to producing and selling watches, but they don't like making the same investments in labor to ensure quick servicing, which has a habit of pissing off customers when they have to send a watch back to Switzerland for months at a time every few years. One of the things Rolex has been working on with regards to mainsprings and other alloys is developing movements that require less frequent lubrication and servicing.
I'll also add that Rolex movements, both the newer ones as well as older ones from the 1960s-70s, have a reputation for being rock solid and relatively straight forward to service, assuming parts availability. I've never worked on Rolex movements myself but I have done minor servicing on several ETA 2824s, a lower end workhorse of the Swiss watch industry, and I've been told that Rolex movements are significantly more robust.
A Rolex is a [fairly ostentatious] signal that the wearer has a very great deal of disposable income: is the engineering quality particularly relevant?
I wasn't sure how this article would fair on HN but some seem to be enjoying it, and since crdb brought up Seiko elsewhere in the comments, here is a similar tour of some of Seiko's facilities[1]. It might be worth taking a particularly close look at the part about the Micro Artist Studio.
I own an Omega Seamaster (James Bond Special Edition) - the last thing given to me by my wife before she passed away... However, my dream is to one day be able to afford a used stainless-steel Rolex Sea-Dweller or Submariner.
Rolex, more than anything, makes me optimistic about the "rise of the machines" taking everyone's jobs. There is no reason whatsoever for Rolex watches to exist besides that they make people happy. As a timekeeper, a $20 timex beats them in every way, but as art they are unmatched.
Rolex is a giant art project that employs thousands and makes millions happy. That people are willing to pay for this art and the way it is produced is profoundly hopeful.
As I was reading about the scale of their production process, I had to wonder how many people actually buy rolexes, turns out it's been less and less every year since quite a while:
"The Swiss watch industry is grappling with some of its toughest times since the quartz crisis of the 1970s and 1980s, when battery-powered watches threatened to make mechanical timepieces obsolete. A drop in Asian tourism to Europe has added to a laundry list of challenges including the strong franc and a four-year anti-graft campaign by the Chinese government."
No one can really make that decision for you but the best advice I can give is seek out any watch that you're considering spending money on and hold it in your hand. Product photos, specs, and reviews rarely do justice to the personal reaction you'll have to the piece itself. I've been disappointed by watches that looked perfect on paper and been surprised by pieces that I never would have considered from just looking at them.
What did it for me when I bought my Rolex (2016 Explorer I) was the how the quality of its finishing felt in my hand. It practically vanishes when it's on my wrist thanks to how comfortable and unobtrusive it is but the materials, fit, and finishing on it show undeniably where a lot of the money went.
I am not a fan of the overly complicated watch - I mean complication in the horological sense. I hadn't heard of Waldan before your comment but they aren't my style. Under the right circumstances I could go with a Navitimer but overall Rolex's aesthetic style just appeals to me more.
There is no right or wrong answer, especially when it comes to something as subjective as this. If you like the look of Waldan take a look at the Omega Speedmaster which has a fantastic history and a similar style. IWC probably has some pieces you would like as well although I always thought they were a little expensive even compared to other luxury watches.
Browse Chrono24 or Govberg and you'll see a few brands you haven't heard of as well and maybe something else will pique your interest.
No reason per se... Among watch fans, those who do like Rolex like it for the history, the assumed quality, the in-house movements. Of course other brands have the same prestige and history, brands like Breitling, Audemars Piguet, Omega, etc... I think these brands are valued over some of the smaller brands because of history and certain recognizable designs (Audemars Royal Oak, Rolex Submariner, Omega Speedmaster, etc...).
This Waldan brand looks interesting, definitely dressy watches, I'm sure they're quality. I'd say go with what you like.
Hey, uh, why the fuck does this website want to send me notifications? That really makes me want to bounce from a page ASAP, especially one that is just serving up an article on the surface.
If we have to trick rich people into paying too much for something in order to keep this level of manufacturing autism going, I am 100% in favor of it.
I've always really liked how the Submariner looks, and apparently so did everyone else, because there are about two billion different varieties of homages to it.
While I have no doubt that the Rolex is well-engineered, it's hard for me to believe it's literally a hundred times better than my Invicta Pro Diver, and I won't feel too bad if my Invicta gets stolen...Most people just assume I'm wearing a Rolex.
That said, if I had a lot of spare cash I'd probably end up buying a legit Submariner, and if I were eccentric enough, the Paul Newman variety of the Daytona.
[+] [-] chrissnell|9 years ago|reply
There are a few advantages to owning a Rolex that may not be so obvious: For starters, it's quickly exchangeable for a high percentage of its value in cash in virtually any major city in the world. Because you're always wearing it, that's $8,000+ in cash that you can have in short order if you needed it badly and circumstances prohibit you from accessing your bank account.
Another advantage: they almost always appreciate in value over time. Very few physical assets can claim similar long-term value. People have been coveting these watches for nearly a century and that's unlikely to change. I will surely give mine to one of my sons someday.
If you can afford it, I highly recommend you treat yourself to one. I get enjoyment every day when I put mine on. I can barely remember any of the cars and trucks I've owned but I spent less on my Sub and I'll never forget it.
Thanks for the article, OP.
[+] [-] Luc|9 years ago|reply
I own a bit of LVMH (luxury conglomerate) shares and I find it fascinating what they manage to sell to people, but I'm determined never to fall for it.
[+] [-] crdb|9 years ago|reply
Debatable, as it is a sports watch (arguably "the" sports watch). Wearing a sports watch with black tie suggests a middle class New Worlder. I happen to like these values (meritocracy, individual rights, equality of all before the law) much more than the alternative so see it as a positive signal. Also, (see [1]) signals ought to be true or the effect will be very negative, since nobody likes a fake, so better the sub with the "tuxedo" if that's "who you are".
The core value of a Rolex over other brands is two fold.
First, the company is ensuring that the value of the watches will never drop through limiting grey market availability and limiting supply generally even in the face of increasing global demand (people now complain about months-long waiting lists for special editions). As you point out this does make it a sort of global gold standard in terms of maintaining value and fungibility.
Second, it shrewdly invests in multi-generational, tightly integrated marketing to maintain the image of the brand in the global lower and middle classes' mind as "the" luxury watch, as well as in the target market (the GP piece is an example).
AFAIK it is the only brand that does it so thoroughly; Patek has similar operations (including bidding on its own vintage stuff, which even involved setting up a museum, to drive prices higher) but targeted at the aspirational upper middle class only [2], and the other brands are considerably less well recognised or not perceived as expensive. This investment in marketing builds "signal equity" for Rolex wearers in that everybody will see it, not just the readers of Hodinkee.
Which is why I disagree with you that:
> it doesn't scream "expensive"
To close on a humorous note: http://www.gq.com/story/male-engagement-ring-rolex
(I would, personally, blow my $50k on the new Laurent Ferrier Montre Ecole. /signalling)
[1] https://www.quora.com/Why-would-anyone-buy-a-Rolex-watch/ans...
[2] http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/luxury_branding_the_f...
[+] [-] elorant|9 years ago|reply
Other than that, I agree with your sentiment. I own a couple of Longines and they're masterpieces of engineering. But they're a bit more discreet than Rolexes :)
[+] [-] pravda|9 years ago|reply
http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
[+] [-] rahilb|9 years ago|reply
On balance this is not true for any non limited brand new watch you buy. On balance models that appreciate tend to be discontinued, or a combination of rare reference/variation/materials.
I agree though, If I had a lot of cash laying about, i'd buy lots and lots of good examples of vintage watches from marquee brands.
[+] [-] spaceflunky|9 years ago|reply
He wears it every day it, to every occasion, and it looks phenomenal. Recently, had it appraised in the $5000 range. He's beat the S&P many times over, not to mention the value he's received of having a nice watch every day.
Yea I get, it's not for everyone. But they're not the worst investments and they're truly beautiful machines. In the words of Ferris Bueller, 'if you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up.'
And for the super skeptical, here's a video of a man who bought a Rolex GMT Master in the 60s for $120 and had it appraised in the $80k range (despite decades of heavy use). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li0mRLcGbU8&feature=youtu.be
[+] [-] Ntrails|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] criddell|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rahelzer|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qwrusz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BadassFractal|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lazyant|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tiatia|9 years ago|reply
"There are a few advantages to owning a Rolex that may not be so obvious: For starters, it's quickly exchangeable for a high percentage of its value in cash in virtually any major city in the world."
Please define "high". I have seen a Rolex sold for less than its value in gold (gold rolex).
They have sales tax (20% in Europe). The shop has likely something like a 100% mark up on a watch. Most of the costs of the Rolex are for advertisement. You can get a same quality watch for a tiny fraction of the price.
"Because you're always wearing it, that's $8,000+ in cash that you can have in short order if you needed it badly" If it is not made out of gold, I suspect you would get 1 or 2 grand for it. On a good day.
[+] [-] JohnJamesRambo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Animats|9 years ago|reply
"We are not in the watch business. We are in the luxury business" - Rolex CEO.
Rolex today only gets chronometer certification for about 3% of its output. Any decent quartz watch is more accurate than the best mechanical watches. Chronometer certification for a mechanical watch only requires -4/+6 secs/day. The best quartz watches are good for 5 seconds a year.
Unless you also have a boat, a sextant, and a nautical almanac, but no GPS, a chronometer watch isn't going to do you much good.
[+] [-] Inconel|9 years ago|reply
I know Rolex by itself makes up over 50% of annual COSC watches and since Rolex themselves never reveal sales figures I've heard that people use the official annual COSC certification numbers as a barometer to how Rolex is doing.
[1]Contrôle Officiel Suisse des Chronomètres - This is Switzerland's official chronometer testing agency.
[+] [-] qwrusz|9 years ago|reply
Most major high-end movements are better than -4/+6 seconds a day anyway.
Mechanical watches are not trying to be accurate compared to quartz watches. Rolex watches could lose 1 minute a day in accuracy and would still sell thousands of watches a year.
Everyone has a phone in their pocket, this product/toy/luxury is not about keeping time.
[+] [-] DavidWanjiru|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pc86|9 years ago|reply
Nobody I know who enjoys mechanical watches would disagree with you on this. You do not buy a mechanical watch, especially a Rolex or similar brand, because you want to know what time it is.
[+] [-] mwexler|9 years ago|reply
As much as I appreciate what Rolex can do and be, I find this parts-and-repair behavior really tacky.
[+] [-] theluketaylor|9 years ago|reply
Even the Tudor in house movements are being COSC certified now. Tudor has always used the highest grade ETA movements which can be COSC certified but never bothered to. Now the new movements they are making themselves are going in for testing.
Mechanical watches will never be as accurate as a good quartz watch, that is an indisputable fact. On the other hand, telling the time with nothing but springs and gears has an analogue magic that delights me every time I wear one of my mechanical watches. When I spend the day surrounded by integrated circuits and batteries it's really relaxing to have something nearby that is disconnected and simple.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] danieltillett|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] muse900|9 years ago|reply
Also I appreciate mechanical automatic over quartz movement, and I also love hacking the winding etc.
Also don't forget obviously if you have a mobile phone that can connect to the internet you'll always have the time right no matter what.
Watches nowadays are some kind of a prestige thing really, its like women handbags.
[+] [-] baddox|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wyager|9 years ago|reply
When it comes to watches, Rolex is obviously the high-end brand that the layperson will be familiar with and will believe to be representative of high quality.
Can someone who is well-versed in high-end watches tell me if they are, in fact, leading the game when it comes to engineering and quality? I seem to recall reading a few years back that Rolexes had abnormally high maintenance costs, but this article directly contradicts that, so perhaps I'm mistaken.
[+] [-] semi-extrinsic|9 years ago|reply
If you're really after extreme durability (which is one aspect of quality), I think you'd be very hard pressed to find an automatic better than the Marathon GSAR, which is about 1/10th the price of a Rolex Sub.
https://www.marathonwatch.com
[+] [-] theluketaylor|9 years ago|reply
One thing that really makes rolex stand out is their quality control. They make nearly 1 million watch movements per year and have an unbelievably low return rate for defects. The true number is a closely guarded secret, but it's tiny. When a watch leaves rolex it's perfect.
Everything that goes into a rolex is made by rolex. There is only 1 other watch company that can say that (seiko), and that only applies to particular lines they make. Rolex makes their own sapphire and hairsprings, 2 of the most complex things to manufacture in the world. The swiss watch world is a complex maze of subvendors and parts bin makers, but rolex does it all themselves, and does it extremly well.
The place rolex really sets itself apart is their bracelets. Put a rolex on and snap the clasp shut and it will just feel different from any watch you have ever worn. They are extremely heavy, but also amazingly comfortable. For the rolex price point no one can even come close to the wearing experience.
If you wanted a luxury steel watch and didn't want to research your options, going and buying whichever rolex you liked the look of would net you an extremly well made watch built to insane tolerances. You could do a lot worse.
[+] [-] richthegeek|9 years ago|reply
Mechanically, they're mostly pretty average. But they are a Veblen good for sure, and some people treat them as an investment.
Personally I hate divers/chronos and don't want to lost a significant sum of money when I break one or have one stolen, so I have a nice collection of <$200 quartz watches.
[+] [-] rahilb|9 years ago|reply
I don't think so. It's a very high quality _mass produced_ watch. For example to compare it with cars i'd say it's the equivalent of a Mercedes: a very high end car when compared to all cars in the world, but to enthusiasts a Mercedes is quite ordinary/unremarkable.
Other brands have much higher floors of quality (e.g. Patek Philipe, H. Moser, Voutilainen). To continue the car analogy these are the Ferraris, Lamborghinis etc.
[+] [-] Inconel|9 years ago|reply
In terms of engineering, Rolex watches tend to be on the simpler side, relative to some of the the complications you find in even higher end watches. They don't employ tourbillons, or minute repeaters, or offer watches with a laundry list of different complications, so in that sense they are not on the cutting edge. On the other hand, the things that Rolex does, they seem to do very well. They spend quite a bit of R&D on research into things like special alloys for watch cases as as well as balance wheels, escapements and mainsprings.
In terms of quality, they seem to have a very well earned reputation. It's also important to note that Rolex produces somewhere around 600k-1 million watches a year. They seem to be very good at producing high quality at very large scale.
Regarding maintenance costs, I don't think Rolex is know as a particularly expensive brand, although again, I don't actually own a Rolex so this is second hand info from watch forums. I think one of the problems in this area is that I doubt most watch buyers, Rolex or otherwise, have any clue about the long term maintenance of watches. And I doubt the salespeople selling Rolexes spend much time educating potential customers on these costs so you probably end up with a bit of sticker shock when people realize they have to send a mechanical watch in for service. I do know that Rolex has received some criticism for making spare parts increasingly hard to get for independent repair shops, requiring customers go through authorized channels.
A complaint levied against the Swiss watch industry recently it that they are very happy to allocate labor & capital to producing and selling watches, but they don't like making the same investments in labor to ensure quick servicing, which has a habit of pissing off customers when they have to send a watch back to Switzerland for months at a time every few years. One of the things Rolex has been working on with regards to mainsprings and other alloys is developing movements that require less frequent lubrication and servicing.
I'll also add that Rolex movements, both the newer ones as well as older ones from the 1960s-70s, have a reputation for being rock solid and relatively straight forward to service, assuming parts availability. I've never worked on Rolex movements myself but I have done minor servicing on several ETA 2824s, a lower end workhorse of the Swiss watch industry, and I've been told that Rolex movements are significantly more robust.
[+] [-] RobertKerans|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Inconel|9 years ago|reply
[1]http://www.fratellowatches.com/seiko-factory-visit-trip-repo...
[+] [-] mrbill|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ConroyBumpus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noonespecial|9 years ago|reply
Rolex is a giant art project that employs thousands and makes millions happy. That people are willing to pay for this art and the way it is produced is profoundly hopeful.
[+] [-] rubzah|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hueving|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hobo_mark|9 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/vexmark/status/771182258099073024
"The Swiss watch industry is grappling with some of its toughest times since the quartz crisis of the 1970s and 1980s, when battery-powered watches threatened to make mechanical timepieces obsolete. A drop in Asian tourism to Europe has added to a laundry list of challenges including the strong franc and a four-year anti-graft campaign by the Chinese government."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-20/swiss-wat...
[+] [-] mrbill|9 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolex_Oysterquartz
[+] [-] stevenj|9 years ago|reply
For all the Rolex fans here: why Rolex over say Breitling or Waldan (I like the look of the Waldans the best)?
[+] [-] hendubz|9 years ago|reply
What did it for me when I bought my Rolex (2016 Explorer I) was the how the quality of its finishing felt in my hand. It practically vanishes when it's on my wrist thanks to how comfortable and unobtrusive it is but the materials, fit, and finishing on it show undeniably where a lot of the money went.
[+] [-] pc86|9 years ago|reply
There is no right or wrong answer, especially when it comes to something as subjective as this. If you like the look of Waldan take a look at the Omega Speedmaster which has a fantastic history and a similar style. IWC probably has some pieces you would like as well although I always thought they were a little expensive even compared to other luxury watches.
Browse Chrono24 or Govberg and you'll see a few brands you haven't heard of as well and maybe something else will pique your interest.
[+] [-] Mikeb85|9 years ago|reply
This Waldan brand looks interesting, definitely dressy watches, I'm sure they're quality. I'd say go with what you like.
[+] [-] etjossem|9 years ago|reply
http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
[+] [-] legodt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carsongross|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tombert|9 years ago|reply
While I have no doubt that the Rolex is well-engineered, it's hard for me to believe it's literally a hundred times better than my Invicta Pro Diver, and I won't feel too bad if my Invicta gets stolen...Most people just assume I'm wearing a Rolex.
That said, if I had a lot of spare cash I'd probably end up buying a legit Submariner, and if I were eccentric enough, the Paul Newman variety of the Daytona.