If you haven't heard of The Time Piece Gentlemen, aka Anthony Farer, it's my favorite recent ponzi scheme as he documented the entire thing online.
Because of the scarcity of Rolex's there are 'Grey Market' dealers. And one of those dealers just went to jail on $5million worth of fraud, basically stealing consigned watches.
What's fascinating about the story is that during Covid the prices of the watches 10x'd for some of them so they were going for insane prices. And this guy vlogged the entire thing all the way up to his bust last month. It's a great way to see and learn about these expensive watches, and knowing the whole thing is bullshit is *chefskiss*
Rolex are the De Beers of the mechanical watch world. Scarcity and exclusivity is a great way to market luxury. A Rolex Submariner in the 80s was about $1,000 — these days it’s closer to $12,000. A new Daytona is twice that. While they were never cheap, they were affordable for a working professional.
> Rolex are the De Beers of the mechanical watch world.
Except that Rolex doesn't have a monopoly on the watch market. Plenty of other 'fancy' watch brands you can buy (Patek Philippe, Omega, A. Lange & Söhne, etc).
Besides the 'financial' aspect of high-end watches, one can enjoy the different aesthetics different brands have, and the mechanical intricacy of various complicaitons like (e.g.) tourbillons.
A decade ago, a Rolex wasn't much cheaper but it was in effect "free", as it was the only watch you could resale at the same price you bought it, even used and scratched. It wasn't an investment (and you didn't need to put it in a safe), but it wasn't a waste of money either.
(The same can't be said of the other luxury watch brands at all - like cars, they lose at least half their value the second you get them.)
Nowadays I don't know, there seems to be more pump and dump.
Robb Report still considers them to be a beginner's watch, and treat the brand as only of interest to people who want to dip their toes into the higher end watch collecting waters.
Rolex don't do artificial scarcity and hype campaigns around limited runs like other brands have taken to do. They're at max capacity and if you want to buy one you've just got to get on the list, no short cuts.
Rolex aren't the best watches but they keep value pretty well for a bunch of models. Some of the grey market prices they charge are pretty ridiculous even wit h prices going down.
Personally I prefer to spend the same amount of money on a nice Lange* than a Rolex. I think the only place where you can get a Rolex is in an airport store.
*=you might still have to wait for your watch to get made.
If you haven't seen this, its a classic - but it shows the original price of a Rolex in the 70's vs. now. [0] To save you a watch - 1975 $345.95 - $500,000 at taping.
For those who skipped to the comments: They tried to prevent retailers from selling products first purchased from Rolex, and then sold online. "preventing its authorized dealers selling new watches online."
In America, there is the First Sale Doctrine, which mostly(?) lets me do whatever I want with a product in my possession.
What is preventing some nobody from going to these authorized dealers (presumably with no-online-sales agreements), buying up their entire inventory, and then personally offering that online? Just the threat of fakes?
I have a couple of colleagues that collect watches - and one of them brought in a high-end replica, think he paid around $500 or so for it, and compared it to the real deal - which he also had. Some kind of Rolex submariner, don't remember what exact model.
To me, they looked identical. Felt identical. If you mixed them up and asked me which one was which, I'd be completely lost. He then pointed me to some youtube vids of people dissecting them, and it seems like you really have to bring out the microscope to tell.
I don't know much about watches, but I'm just thinking that if they are getting so accurate...why would regular people shell out 5 figures for a real one, when you can get those for a couple of hundred bucks?
Don't get me wrong - I like artisanry, but at this point it seems like you're paying the biggest upcharge for name, and nothing much else.
(As for why my colleague bought replicas, apparently he'd wear those while traveling, in case he got robbed or whatever. Even though insurance would cover the original watch, just getting a legit one from stores/dealers has been a huge hassle. Months of wait time, etc.)
The point of luxury goods is exclusivity - I've got a real one because I can afford it and you can't, it doesn't matter that it looks the same or even is the same, it not real it's not expensive.
Luxury goods turn economics on its head, the whole point is to overpay for a good which has little in the way of marginal return, to illustrate your wealth and "status".
I'd just call it idiocy or at least pretentiousness, and their counter argument would be that I'm "envious".
"you're paying the biggest upcharge for name, and nothing much else."
You're also paying for the design and R&D. And the capability to have the Swiss continue to be able to make watches. The ability of your country to continue making something, even if it doesn't make economic sense is undervalued.
Personally the idea of wearing a fake Rolex for travelling is insane to me.
You’re just as much as a target for physical violence. Sure, you don’t lose as much financially if your watch is taken, but you’re just painting a massive target on your back.
For what, to be seen as wealthy when travelling? To flex your status?
Rolex will need it's watches to phone home then, so they can remote-brick a watch that was sold online. Cough.. Sorry... did I say brick? I mean end the free included SaaS subscription.
> Rolex’s competitors have not used the same tactics despite facing similar risks.
It's interesting that competitors can be used in such a case as a benchmark of what is a legitimate strategy. Which makes it all the worse when they collude or fix a market.
I own a couple of Rolexes, neither were purchased from an AD simply because I live in a place that has no ADs and I'm not travelling hours to play the AD waitlist game.
I say this is a good move. You should be able to sell them online. The second-hand dealers do it and it works fine.
This also doesn't really affect the exclusivity of the product either. The ADs still get to control supply and will still probably not sell to people unless they know them (which sucks).
I had to look up AD (authorized dealer).
Is it just a watch-world thing to not write it out in full? I’ve only seen it with other tech products and it’s usually written out.
Rolex, LVMH, Ferrari, and those who try to falsely limit distribution are the path forward for luxury. It’s clear that main stream culture eats up a canvas bag with no defining quality features or a machine made watch that can be copied for 200$ nearly perfectly as long as they feel it’s exclusive.
It’s a bit of a bummer because several other brands have tried to sell on actual quality struggle. Artificial scarcity is just too strong a draw.
Never experienced issues getting anything from LVMH. What's scarce there? If you message your sales person they will have it next time you visit the store.
I'm very interested in the Corvette EV due in 2025. But knowing how much Chevy limits production of the Corvette Z06, I imagine they'll put similar road blocks in front of the EV.
Rolex is seriously overpriced. Not sure why people are so excited about them. Grand Seiko for example has better movements, better Q&A[0]. Is name really worth that much?
Are people still impressed by Rolexes? This is not the 90s or 80s anymore when dropping $10k on a watch was a big move. Things have really exploded post-Covid with influencer culture and wealth appearing seemingly ex nihilo. These nobody, no-name kids seem to have so much money, even.
Well, distribution of wealth is still more or less the same; the gap is even wider and wider now.
Additionally, money can only move one just a little bit higher in social hierarchy. Those influencers influence young minds to consume more and more stuff, get money from the brands they are advertising, spend on expensive things - which are produced and sold by rich people. Direction of flow is always the same, rich gets richer, poor stays poor, so called "no-name kids" continue driving people to consume (mostly) useless things.
I don't know about Rolexes specifically, but there is definitely a male subculture of people obsessed with watches who will be impressed by somebody sporting the right bling. I'm not into it, but I can see why many people are given they roll art, engineering, collecting, and conspicuous display of power/wealth all into one.
"Seem to have" is relevant. There's an entire industry focused around renting you a mansion in the hills, Ferrari, Rolex, chain, cameras and lighting equipment... For 4 hours so you can do your Insta shoot and head back to your normal life.
Also, anybody can get a credit card and build a credit limit relatively quickly that will buy (though not pay for) multiple Rolexes.
It all depends on who you're trying to appeal to. There's a big segment of the (male) population that's really, really into watches. Kevin Rose famously got distracted by the vertical for a good few years (I think it was "Hodinkee?" or something equally unserious.)
they are, rolexes are engineered well and most recognizable.
there is more niche affinity to certain brands and aesthetics that are seen as far more coveted than rolex, from the people that matter. as in, there are absolutely some circles of people that will lend you respect for the curated taste and often have access to resources reserved for people that prove it with these material things, whereas rolex will be a neutral to negative signal.
no different than wearing a suit in a professional setting, to one thats fitted, or cufflinks, there are just levels to it that continue with accessories.
aside from that, one benefit is that thieves typically don't recognize other brands. they recognize rolexes and a couple others though.
Why on earth would a Rolex AD want to sell watches online? The regular pieces e.g Submariners are out of stock 99% of the time, and once stock comes in there's waitlist with 500 people. For the more expensive ones that are in stock, I doubt many clients (outside of scalpers) would be purchasing those sight unseen. Doesn't make much sense to me. It bad for ADs and customers, really only benefits scalpers.
It wasn’t always the case. And it won’t always be the case in the future
The AD in question lost their status in 2013, way before Rolex mania came about and no one could buy a sub anymore.
And given the recent downswing in Rolex prices on secondary markets and the drop in wait time of the hyped watches, it’s quite plausible that soon some models will sit for long periods of time
I dont see a problem with it. Moreover it improves their employment numbers, lest these clerks go unemployed and “automated” out of a job.
It’s a luxury item, who cares?
They could require a two year advance appointment and visit to HQ before buying, for all I care.
They should put their nose in Amazon’s business of commingling and allowing fakes and swapping products on reviews and that bullshit that does affect the Joels et Maries.
I think the catch is it's not Rolex that isn't selling the watches online, it's preventing affiliated dealers from doing it. They are controlling other people's business interests. I can see both sides on this one. Rolex feels like it could devalue the brand exclusivity and the dealers feel that it impedes them from doing legal business.
There was (is?) a huge problem with Rolex watches being listed online for scalping prices by authorized dealers so that they would be sold before they were ever even really in the store. It was really hard to just buy a Rolex officially.
This is a silly decision and should be overturned on appeal. Who knows if it will be.
Manufacturers place conditions on how their products are sold, at what price and to whom. "No online sales" is no different to requiring an authorized retailer to sell something at MSRP or no more than 1 or 2 or 3 per customer or only to local residents.
> requiring an authorized retailer to sell something at MSRP
That's also illegal in most jurisdictions. It's called "restraint of trade" and it's illegal because it interferes with the normal functioning of a free market and disadvantages consumers.
Exactly -- this is no different from lots of other restrictions manufacturers already put in place.
I'm baffled by this, and what law or legal principle they are attempting to use, and why they would apply it here but not in the thousands of other situations.
It’s kinda crazy if they can cite you for not selling your product on a platform that didn’t even exist 100 years ago. I bet the reasoning is going to be very rich and well articulated.
Rolex is very happy to use retailers to sell their watches, they're just not happy with retailers having the freedom to sell their watches as they deem appropriate.
It's basically retailer freedom to sell as they wish vs Rolex's freedom to prevent the retailer selling as it wishes, and I tend instinctively to support the little guy in these fights.
First sale doctrine presumably applies? If the retailers have purchased stock from a manufacturer, then they own it and they can do whatever the heck they want with it.
I think we should be extremely sceptical of any definition of "freedom" that prioritizes the ability of big, wealthy companies to restrict the actions of smaller firms and individuals.
I think it’s less about forcing Rolex to sell online, and more about forbidding them from preventing their partners from selling online, if I’m reading it correctly. Rolex can sell only in B&M (if they wanted to sell direct) but they can’t make that business model a condition of their partnership program.
There are probably ways to make it very onerous for partners to sell online though.
When you sell valuable physical objects that have a high risk of counterfeiting, the secure way is to associate a "digital twin" of the object that has verifiable provenance and this is exactly what NFTs as a technology are good at.
edit: Thanks to everyone that downvoted this to -4 despite the numerous good remarks in comment that spark a solely technical discussion on the topic. Please come over your hate.
This would only work if the NFT was signed by a key kept on the real watch in a Secure Enclave of some kind, but then you don’t need the blockchain, just a database maintained by Rolex. The blockchain doesn’t buy you anything here.
We already solved this problem decades ago with certificates of authenticity and standard record-keeping, which if I understand correctly, Rolex (and a number of other high-end watch companies) already employs.
Not really, that just punts the problem to another area. This problem has been about as solved as it's going to get ages before the idea of crypto. NFT's don't actually add much other than a different layer and one technique of digital record keeping.
nyjah|2 years ago
Because of the scarcity of Rolex's there are 'Grey Market' dealers. And one of those dealers just went to jail on $5million worth of fraud, basically stealing consigned watches.
What's fascinating about the story is that during Covid the prices of the watches 10x'd for some of them so they were going for insane prices. And this guy vlogged the entire thing all the way up to his bust last month. It's a great way to see and learn about these expensive watches, and knowing the whole thing is bullshit is *chefskiss*
https://tv.watchscammer.com
https://www.youtube.com/@skerriesrockart
https://robbreport.com/style/watch-collector/anthony-farrer-...
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-11-08/spending...
sunpazed|2 years ago
throw0101b|2 years ago
Except that Rolex doesn't have a monopoly on the watch market. Plenty of other 'fancy' watch brands you can buy (Patek Philippe, Omega, A. Lange & Söhne, etc).
Besides the 'financial' aspect of high-end watches, one can enjoy the different aesthetics different brands have, and the mechanical intricacy of various complicaitons like (e.g.) tourbillons.
aredox|2 years ago
(The same can't be said of the other luxury watch brands at all - like cars, they lose at least half their value the second you get them.)
Nowadays I don't know, there seems to be more pump and dump.
the_black_hand|2 years ago
skhr0680|2 years ago
ksaj|2 years ago
Bayart|2 years ago
wdb|2 years ago
Personally I prefer to spend the same amount of money on a nice Lange* than a Rolex. I think the only place where you can get a Rolex is in an airport store.
*=you might still have to wait for your watch to get made.
MuffinFlavored|2 years ago
If in 1980 I purchased an item for $1,000.00 then in 2023 that same item would cost: $3,726.35
Cumulative rate of inflation: 272.6%
samstave|2 years ago
https://i.imgur.com/qGW0gcQ.png
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9Y4bmbh1KY
ipqk|2 years ago
paulpauper|2 years ago
artursapek|2 years ago
AniseAbyss|2 years ago
[deleted]
hayksaakian|2 years ago
First paragraph of the article
fbdab103|2 years ago
What is preventing some nobody from going to these authorized dealers (presumably with no-online-sales agreements), buying up their entire inventory, and then personally offering that online? Just the threat of fakes?
TrackerFF|2 years ago
To me, they looked identical. Felt identical. If you mixed them up and asked me which one was which, I'd be completely lost. He then pointed me to some youtube vids of people dissecting them, and it seems like you really have to bring out the microscope to tell.
I don't know much about watches, but I'm just thinking that if they are getting so accurate...why would regular people shell out 5 figures for a real one, when you can get those for a couple of hundred bucks?
Don't get me wrong - I like artisanry, but at this point it seems like you're paying the biggest upcharge for name, and nothing much else.
(As for why my colleague bought replicas, apparently he'd wear those while traveling, in case he got robbed or whatever. Even though insurance would cover the original watch, just getting a legit one from stores/dealers has been a huge hassle. Months of wait time, etc.)
krisoft|2 years ago
I assure you that “regular” people don’t shell out 5 figures for any watch.
> you're paying the biggest upcharge for name, and nothing much else
Of course.
dkjaudyeqooe|2 years ago
Luxury goods turn economics on its head, the whole point is to overpay for a good which has little in the way of marginal return, to illustrate your wealth and "status".
I'd just call it idiocy or at least pretentiousness, and their counter argument would be that I'm "envious".
phamilton|2 years ago
thsksbd|2 years ago
You're also paying for the design and R&D. And the capability to have the Swiss continue to be able to make watches. The ability of your country to continue making something, even if it doesn't make economic sense is undervalued.
zht|2 years ago
You’re just as much as a target for physical violence. Sure, you don’t lose as much financially if your watch is taken, but you’re just painting a massive target on your back.
For what, to be seen as wealthy when travelling? To flex your status?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12881935/amp/Gang-m...
This man was stabbed to death for his fake Patek Philippe watch.
Absolutely senseless
iaw|2 years ago
quickthrower2|2 years ago
makeitdouble|2 years ago
It's interesting that competitors can be used in such a case as a benchmark of what is a legitimate strategy. Which makes it all the worse when they collude or fix a market.
neighbour|2 years ago
I say this is a good move. You should be able to sell them online. The second-hand dealers do it and it works fine.
This also doesn't really affect the exclusivity of the product either. The ADs still get to control supply and will still probably not sell to people unless they know them (which sucks).
whycome|2 years ago
tsunamifury|2 years ago
It’s a bit of a bummer because several other brands have tried to sell on actual quality struggle. Artificial scarcity is just too strong a draw.
wdb|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
Sohcahtoa82|2 years ago
I'm very interested in the Corvette EV due in 2025. But knowing how much Chevy limits production of the Corvette Z06, I imagine they'll put similar road blocks in front of the EV.
Like, why don't they want my $150K+?
helij|2 years ago
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKrJOMaFuyA
sonicanatidae|2 years ago
paulpauper|2 years ago
metaphor|2 years ago
To be fair, you're disconnected from economic reality if you think dropping $10k on a watch today isn't a big financial move.
nalekberov|2 years ago
Additionally, money can only move one just a little bit higher in social hierarchy. Those influencers influence young minds to consume more and more stuff, get money from the brands they are advertising, spend on expensive things - which are produced and sold by rich people. Direction of flow is always the same, rich gets richer, poor stays poor, so called "no-name kids" continue driving people to consume (mostly) useless things.
jurassic|2 years ago
argiopetech|2 years ago
Also, anybody can get a credit card and build a credit limit relatively quickly that will buy (though not pay for) multiple Rolexes.
Andrex|2 years ago
yieldcrv|2 years ago
there is more niche affinity to certain brands and aesthetics that are seen as far more coveted than rolex, from the people that matter. as in, there are absolutely some circles of people that will lend you respect for the curated taste and often have access to resources reserved for people that prove it with these material things, whereas rolex will be a neutral to negative signal.
no different than wearing a suit in a professional setting, to one thats fitted, or cufflinks, there are just levels to it that continue with accessories.
aside from that, one benefit is that thieves typically don't recognize other brands. they recognize rolexes and a couple others though.
kshahkshah|2 years ago
roflchoppa|2 years ago
the_black_hand|2 years ago
zht|2 years ago
The AD in question lost their status in 2013, way before Rolex mania came about and no one could buy a sub anymore.
And given the recent downswing in Rolex prices on secondary markets and the drop in wait time of the hyped watches, it’s quite plausible that soon some models will sit for long periods of time
veblengoods101|2 years ago
ryanSrich|2 years ago
Loughla|2 years ago
Watches are fascinating to me, because the high status watches are so gaudy and HUGE.
dboreham|2 years ago
mc32|2 years ago
It’s a luxury item, who cares?
They could require a two year advance appointment and visit to HQ before buying, for all I care.
They should put their nose in Amazon’s business of commingling and allowing fakes and swapping products on reviews and that bullshit that does affect the Joels et Maries.
bongodongobob|2 years ago
I'm not sure how I feel about this one.
I_Am_Nous|2 years ago
djoletina|2 years ago
LanceH|2 years ago
jmyeet|2 years ago
Manufacturers place conditions on how their products are sold, at what price and to whom. "No online sales" is no different to requiring an authorized retailer to sell something at MSRP or no more than 1 or 2 or 3 per customer or only to local residents.
dkjaudyeqooe|2 years ago
That's also illegal in most jurisdictions. It's called "restraint of trade" and it's illegal because it interferes with the normal functioning of a free market and disadvantages consumers.
crazygringo|2 years ago
I'm baffled by this, and what law or legal principle they are attempting to use, and why they would apply it here but not in the thousands of other situations.
iaw|2 years ago
I really like Seiko mechanicals when I need a watch.
If I had infinite money I'd get an Omega and then a used F.P. Journe with tourbillon (I found one in Tokyo that was comparable in price to a Rolex).
Rolex is the Gucci of watches, every one knows the name but very few people get them because they authentically like the brand (in my opinion)
luxuryballs|2 years ago
CrazyStat|2 years ago
causality0|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
dsgnr|2 years ago
[deleted]
pulse7|2 years ago
[deleted]
axlee|2 years ago
Rolex is very happy to use retailers to sell their watches, they're just not happy with retailers having the freedom to sell their watches as they deem appropriate.
It's basically retailer freedom to sell as they wish vs Rolex's freedom to prevent the retailer selling as it wishes, and I tend instinctively to support the little guy in these fights.
makeitdouble|2 years ago
It can't be black and white and companies having no power to do so whatever the circumstances or contract.
ForHackernews|2 years ago
I think we should be extremely sceptical of any definition of "freedom" that prioritizes the ability of big, wealthy companies to restrict the actions of smaller firms and individuals.
rmbyrro|2 years ago
aksss|2 years ago
There are probably ways to make it very onerous for partners to sell online though.
bongodongobob|2 years ago
mensetmanusman|2 years ago
"you must sell online!!!!"
poundtown|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
throwme_123|2 years ago
When you sell valuable physical objects that have a high risk of counterfeiting, the secure way is to associate a "digital twin" of the object that has verifiable provenance and this is exactly what NFTs as a technology are good at.
edit: Thanks to everyone that downvoted this to -4 despite the numerous good remarks in comment that spark a solely technical discussion on the topic. Please come over your hate.
treyd|2 years ago
jandrese|2 years ago
ToucanLoucan|2 years ago
ska|2 years ago
Not really, that just punts the problem to another area. This problem has been about as solved as it's going to get ages before the idea of crypto. NFT's don't actually add much other than a different layer and one technique of digital record keeping.
colineartheta|2 years ago
Coffeewine|2 years ago
notfed|2 years ago
rmbyrro|2 years ago
kadoban|2 years ago