The Watch Appreciation Thread - Part two (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, Jaeger LeCoultre,

[dopey]

I am someone who doesn't like Rolex on principle, but thinks they make great watches, many of which are beautifully designed.

 

[dopey]

My biggest complaint about Rolex (apart from the stupid day counters they use everywhere) is that the Skydweller is a brilliant piece of mechanical design and engineering and they should have somehow done better in terms of ther display and dial design. I feel they tried to hard to use the standard Rolex sport model visuals and that tied them into a crowded word-salad clutter. If they were willing to have it look a little less Rolex-ey, it could be beautiful as well as brilliant.

 

[mak1277]

I am someone who doesn't like Rolex on principle, but thinks they make great watches, many of which are beautifully designed.

Not to open a can of worms, but I'm curious what your objection is...if you think a company makes great & beautiful watches, I would be hard pressed to have a problem. Unless you know their executives kick puppies or something.

 

[LA Guy]

Just buy a Hublot. You get a much richer history and more class than Rolex.

I would wear a Hublot if someone were to fund the purchase. I would explain it as "A G-Shock, but without the functionality of a G-shock, nor the originality. Also, much more expensive." I would not buy a Hublot however, since I don't have enough money to engage in such an elaborate joke. It would be a bit of fun though.

 

[dopey]

Not to open a can of worms, but I'm curious what your objection is...if you think a company makes great & beautiful watches, I would be hard pressed to have a problem. Unless you know their executives kick puppies or something.

Mostly the ground that his been well-trod before. The image associated with the watch is of a trashy over-priced product bought by idiots. It feels like a coincidence that the product is, in fact, quite good. Rolex marketing and consumer hype makes me want to be a cool-kid and dump on the brand, and it is annoying that I really can't because they make great watches.

 

[mak1277]

Mostly the ground that his been well-trod before. The image associated with the watch is of a trashy over-priced product bought by idiots. It feels like a coincidence that the product is, in fact, quite good. Rolex marketing and consumer hype makes me want to be a cool-kid and dump on the brand, and it is annoying that I really can't because they make great watches.

That’s fair. I’ll admit I felt very much the same way. Then I tried one on and immediately quit caring about the “stigma” of owning one.

 

[LA Guy]

Not to open a can of worms, but I'm curious what your objection is...if you think a company makes great & beautiful watches, I would be hard pressed to have a problem. Unless you know their executives kick puppies or something.

I'm can't speak for @dopey - but for me, the brand just carries with it a lot of negative baggage. That said, I've been warming up to some vintage Datejusts. I really do like the bezel of the 1603 and 16030, and the 1803 Day-Date really does catch my eye.

Gifts, etc... things that have sentimental value outside of their actual value, I can justify on that basis alone, and I have everything from a trashy dresser that I got at Marshalls in Boston 15 years ago, to a very expensive watch.

 

[taxgenius]

I am someone who doesn't like Rolex on principle, but thinks they make great watches, many of which are beautifully designed.

Just curious, which watches do you admire?

 

[dopey]

R

Just curious, which watches do you admire?

Rolex? Explorer, Daytona, no-date Sub, plain Oyster Perpetual, some Air Kings. Don’t really love the Millgaus. And while I am not a fan of the day counter, I could live with the dual time zone models if that were particularly useful to me.
If I didn’t have any other watches and needed to buy one, I would probably get an Explorer, and while I am not not-picky about models, I would prefer a smaller model so would look for a 36mm in the used market. Or else a white faced plain oyster. Or a no-date Sub. That, too, is hard to beat.

 

[Andy57]

Mostly the ground that his been well-trod before. The image associated with the watch is of a trashy over-priced product bought by idiots. It feels like a coincidence that the product is, in fact, quite good. Rolex marketing and consumer hype makes me want to be a cool-kid and dump on the brand, and it is annoying that I really can't because they make great watches.

I'll repost part of something I wrote a few weeks ago...

My dad, so obviously a beginner, was a lifelong fan of Rolex. To him, as to so many others, Rolex was the pre-eminent watch brand. He liked things that did what they were supposed to do, day in and day out, without fuss and without requiring a lot of attention. To him, a Rolex would tell time accurately, and virtually for ever. It was another tool and he loved tools. I've never met anyone who took better care of his tools than my dad. I think he just respected the idea behind a Rolex, certainly behind a watch like an Explorer or a Submariner.

[...]

I think the understated, rock-solid reliability of a Rolex, and the importance of that sense of suitability for the task, is rather underestimated by those who disparage the brand. Yes, there are finer examples of haute horologie in the watch firmament, but that's not what a Rolex is or what it represents to those who regard Rolex so highly. A Rolex is like the guy who never calls the game on account of rain. Who shows up when you need help and will do whatever you need. Someone who will stand by you when you need someone to stand by you. Someone who says, "I got this". Someone like your dad, I hope. Someone like my dad. Those guys like Rolex.

Yeah. Those idiots.

 

[LA Guy]

I'll repost part of something I wrote a few weeks ago...

My dad, so obviously a beginner, was a lifelong fan of Rolex. To him, as to so many others, Rolex was the pre-eminent watch brand. He liked things that did what they were supposed to do, day in and day out, without fuss and without requiring a lot of attention. To him, a Rolex would tell time accurately, and virtually for ever. It was another tool and he loved tools. I've never met anyone who took better care of his tools than my dad. I think he just respected the idea behind a Rolex, certainly behind a watch like an Explorer or a Submariner.

[...]

I think the understated, rock-solid reliability of a Rolex, and the importance of that sense of suitability for the task, is rather underestimated by those who disparage the brand. Yes, there are finer examples of haute horologie in the watch firmament, but that's not what a Rolex is or what it represents to those who regard Rolex so highly. A Rolex is like the guy who never calls the game on account of rain. Who shows up when you need help and will do whatever you need. Someone who will stand by you when you need someone to stand by you. Someone who says, "I got this". Someone like your dad, I hope. Someone like my dad. Those guys like Rolex.

Yeah. Those idiots.

I think that there are a lot of solid guys who like Rolexes, including present company. I see a ton of Rolex fans around here, and the more I look at the product, the more I can really appreciate not only the watches, but the fidelity to some rock solid designs. The thing that I love about Omegas, for example - the fact that a TV cased gold plated Omega Constellation is undeniably a watch from the 70s - is precisely the opposite of Rolex's approach, it seems. A 1601 datejust from the 1960s is not that different from a 16014 datejust from the 1980s, which, crystal aside, is not that different from the successor to the 1601 series that is the current model with the white gold fluted bezel.

That said, there is no hiding from the fact that there is a certain clientele for Rolex that makes the brand a bit less desirable to some. Some models - the subs and the GMTs, for example, are the watch of choice of arrivistes. I think that @dopey recognizes that this might be unfair, but it nevertheless makes him not want one.

 

[Belligero]

What, you think the other watchmakers don’t have a “certain clientele” you disapprove of?

Buddy, have I got news for you.

 

[Scuppers]

Watch appreciation thread, isn’t it?

 

[culverwood]

Like it or not the "certain clientele" associated with Rolex is a large population of people if not a large proportion of Rolex owners. Other brands, Hublot excepted, do not carry the same stigma. I say this as an admirer of their watches.

 

[LA Guy]

What, you think the other watchmakers don’t have a “certain clientele” you disapprove of?

Buddy, have I got news for you.

Well, of course they do. But for a good long while, Rolex was seen to be the watch brand of arrivistes. I think that this conversation extends well beyond watches and into the semiotics of dress. There are certain brands - Burberry and Stone island come to mind - whose popularity in the UK has never been able to overcome the association with soccer hooligans and Chavs, despite widespread international acceptance. Stone Island isn't even an English brand.

My point was that branding is very important, that's all. I'm not particularly anti any brand on the merits, but I try to not be so naive as to not think that I can overcome all of my biases, either.