Rolex Innovations

[unclejack]

I worked at a watch store just after college. Rolexes are the Lexus of watches. They have no style at all but are reliable and easy to understand for people who don't want to think about their decision.

Sort of like mashed potatoes or babyfood, they are ready to swallow without chewing.

 

[manouche]

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

Very much so or the parts can grind down. Rolex recommends every 5 years but you can get by with 7 years.

As long as it works normaly, there is no need to open the watch.

The manager of the Patek Philippe Place Vendome store told me that.

 

[manouche]

They have no style

I don't agree, they have a style that many cheap brand copy

It is true that most Rolex look cheap and are rather ugly or boring

Though, the Sumariner (with no date) is a nice sport watch. You can not say that it has no style.

 

[Sprezzatura2010]

I don't know. I don't care how many "innovations" they may have, for me a Rolex is always going to cast the same kinds of pejorative aspersions on its wearer as...someone talking about what a "sonic difference" elevating his speaker wires casts. I'd rather wear a Breitling, and I think those are hideous and generally awful, too.

Admittedly, I am not a big watch guy. A watch, to me, should be thin, simple, and unobtrusive. Something like a Patek Philippe Calatrava, or my JLC Master Ultra Thin, that appeals to my senses. There is no need for it to do anything but give a rough approximation of the time, because we all carry cells now. I understand and appreciate that complications are a reflection of the watchmaker's skill and what have you, but ultimately it's about how it looks to me, not what went into it, and cramming a bunch of small stuff on a dial is tacky.

 

[djf881]

Originally Posted by manouche

As long as it works normaly, there is no need to open the watch.

The manager of the Patek Philippe Place Vendome store told me that.

That's surprising and bad advice. Despite what any watch salesman tells you, I believe Rolex (and Patek, and Vacheron, and everyone else) recommend a five year service interval for a mecheanical watch. The one notable exception that I am aware of is the Omega coaxial escapement, which I think has a ten year service interval.

Even if the watch is functioning perfectly, the internals can be wearing down and the lubricants can be dried out. If you wait until the watch stops working, you could be stuck with a much higher ultimate cost to repair the watch.

 

[djf881]

Originally Posted by Sprezzatura2010

Admittedly, I am not a big watch guy. A watch, to me, should be thin, simple, and unobtrusive. Something like a Patek Philippe Calatrava, or my JLC Master Ultra Thin, that appeals to my senses. There is no need for it to do anything but give a rough approximation of the time, because we all carry cells now. I understand and appreciate that complications are a reflection of the watchmaker's skill and what have you, but ultimately it's about how it looks to me, not what went into it, and cramming a bunch of small stuff on a dial is tacky.

I generally agree that a two-tone DateJust or a Day-Date isn't a dress watch. However, I think the distinction is sliding and sports watches are more permissible to wear with a suit, especially during the daytime.

I also take some degree of issue with the fact that Rolex's $30k watches are the same movements as the $6k watches, with more gold and gems. A Day-Date definitely is not my style, and it is definitely about making a signal that even people who aren't paying attention will notice.

Personally, as a younger guy, I am pretty hesitant to wear gold. I don't know anyone my age who regularly wears a gold watch. Personally, I think Rolex is one of several watches to consider among nice stainless steel watches.

 

[mensoption]

I prefer Audemars Piguet Grande complication series. It's al about the details!

 

[Sprezzatura2010]

Originally Posted by djf881

I generally agree that a two-tone DateJust or a Day-Date isn't a dress watch. However, I think the distinction is sliding and sports watches are more permissible to wear with a suit, especially during the daytime.

I wasn't talking about wearing a watch with any specific clothing, but generally. I don't care if one's wearing a polo shirt and shorts or a peak lapel three-piece: I still find bulky watches and ones with lots of junk of the dial tacky, and to some extent establish in my mind a somewhat rebuttable presumption that wearers of such watches are of low discernment and crass taste.

Originally Posted by djf881

A Day-Date definitely is not my style, and it is definitely about making a signal that even people who aren't paying attention will notice.

I hate that kind of "signal" generally.

Originally Posted by djf881

Personally, as a younger guy, I am pretty hesitant to wear gold. I don't know anyone my age who regularly wears a gold watch. Personally, I think Rolex is one of several watches to consider among nice stainless steel watches.

I'm not sure what you mean by "younger," but I do not think gold watches are especially rare in the 25-35 age bracket. In fact, I can think of three people between 24 and 27 I know who recently either bought or were given extremely nice watches in 18kt or rose gold.

 

[djf881]

Originally Posted by Sprezzatura2010

I wasn't talking about wearing a watch with any specific clothing, but generally. I don't care if one's wearing a polo shirt and shorts or a peak lapel three-piece: I still find bulky watches and ones with lots of junk of the dial tacky, and to some extent establish in my mind a somewhat rebuttable presumption that wearers of such watches are of low discernment and crass taste.

Rolexes aren't particularly bulky. The flashy rolexes are flashy because of the gold bracelets and the diamond dials, but the Day Date is a 36mm watch, and so is the Datejust. The Rolex sports watches are 40mm.

Omega makes a bunch of 45 mm watches, many of the Panerais are 47mm, Breitlings are big, and IWC makes a pilot watch that is, I believe 52mm.

Also, I am not sure what you're referring to about junk on the dial. The chronograph watch is kind of a classic thing. I don't know what's objectionable about the dial of the Submariner or the Datejust? I'd argue that the DJ and the Sub are design classics.

I hate that kind of "signal" generally.

You know, a lot of the people wearing day-dates really view them as a sign of personal achievement. It's the sort of watch you buy when you're the first one in your family to be able to afford something like that. I can totally understand why it's considered to be in bad taste to flash a lot of gold, but if you are of the opinion that you've clawed your way up from the bottom and you've earned that, I can totally see why you might wear something flashy.

Also, it's important for signalling prosperity in certain situations. For people providing professional services to people who wouldn't recognize a VC or a PP, a gold watch indicates that the wearer is good or successful at what they do.

I'm not sure what you mean by "younger," but I do not think gold watches are especially rare in the 25-35 age bracket. In fact, I can think of three people between 24 and 27 I know who recently either bought or were given extremely nice watches in 18kt or rose gold.

Well, outside of the subset of the population whose parents give them $20k watches, a Submariner is a pretty nice watch.

 

[Sprezzatura2010]

Originally Posted by djf881

Rolexes aren't particularly bulky. The flashy rolexes are flashy because of the gold bracelets and the diamond dials, but the Day Date is a 36mm watch, and so is the Datejust. The Rolex sports watches are 40mm.

I'm not familiar with the different models, because none of them are of the slightest interest to me.

Originally Posted by djf881

Omega makes a bunch of 45 mm watches, many of the Panerais are 47mm, Breitlings are big, and IWC makes a pilot watch that is, I believe 52mm.

And all of those are far too big. Gangsta thug too big.

Originally Posted by djf881

Also, I am not sure what you're referring to about junk on the dial. The chronograph watch is kind of a classic thing.

"Classic" and "tacky" are hardly mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by djf881

You know, a lot of the people wearing day-dates really view them as a sign of personal achievement. It's the sort of watch you buy when you're the first one in your family to be able to afford something like that. I can totally understand why it's considered to be in bad taste to flash a lot of gold, but if you are of the opinion that you've clawed your way up from the bottom and you've earned that, I can totally see why you might wear something flashy.

There are two schools of thought here. One says that when you score a touchdown, you should act like you've been in the end zone before. And then there are jackasses like Terrell Owens. I much prefer the former to the latter.

Originally Posted by djf881

Also, it's important for signalling prosperity in certain situations. For people providing professional services to people who wouldn't recognize a VC or a PP, a gold watch indicates that the wearer is good or successful at what they do.

I was under the impression that one indicates that he is good or successful by...actually being good or successful, not by brandishing an ugly trinket. Or even an attractive trinket.

 

[djf881]

Originally Posted by Sprezzatura2010

I'm not familiar with the different models, because none of them are of the slightest interest to me.


Well, my opinion is that the solid gold Rolexes are generally inappropriate, but that Rolex's stainless steel are really top notch.

If I were going to buy a gold dress watch, I would absolutely buy a Patek or a VC.

I would prefer to present myself as affluent, appreciative of good design, and active and adventurous. I think that's what you present by wearing one of the nicer steel chronos or divers.

A Calatrava is a fine and delicate thing that you would never wear on a motorcycle or a sailboat or on top of a mountain, or on a basketball court, or even a golf course.

The common objection to Rolex is that the company makes about 25 watches for every one Patek or VC makes, and, on top of that, is the most widely counterfeited watch in the world, and, therefore is therefore much less exclusive than the super-luxe brands.

And all of those are far too big. Gangsta thug too big.

I'm with you on the huge Panerais and the Big Pilots, but 40-42 is standard and has been for decades. The VC overseas is 42mm.

"Classic" and "tacky" are hardly mutually exclusive.

Chronos generally are very popular and very stylish. Once again, this is for people who want a more rugged-looking watch that indicates a more active lifestyle. Paul Newman famously wore a Rolex Daytona. The astronauts wore the Omega Speedmaster on the Apollo missions.

There are two schools of thought here. One says that when you score a touchdown, you should act like you've been in the end zone before. And then there are jackasses like Terrell Owens. I much prefer the former to the latter.

The solid gold Rolex is the epitome of the "new money" thing to buy. That said, a guy who breaks through coverage and makes a spectacular 50 yard run to the end zone has a right to celebrate when he gets there.

I think that the sort of guy who is the first in his family to be able to afford a $25000 watch has a right to be pretty proud of himself.

Of course, a lot of criminal types and badly-behaved celebrities also flock toward these things.

I was under the impression that one indicates that he is good or successful by...actually being good or successful, not by brandishing an ugly trinket. Or even an attractive trinket.

Some people don't have to care about impressing the sort of people who are impressed by big gold watches, and some people do. There are a lot of affluent people who provide professional services to people who have limited sophistication.

A huge chunk of the population will assume that the cardiologist or the divorce lawyer with the big gold watch must be doing better than the guy who doesn't have one.