• Hi, I am the owner and main administrator of Styleforum. If you find the forum useful and fun, please help support it by buying through the posted links on the forum. Our main, very popular sales thread, where the latest and best sales are listed, are posted HERE

    Purchases made through some of our links earns a commission for the forum and allows us to do the work of maintaining and improving it. Finally, thanks for being a part of this community. We realize that there are many choices today on the internet, and we have all of you to thank for making Styleforum the foremost destination for discussions of menswear.
  • This site contains affiliate links for which Styleforum may be compensated.
  • We would like to welcome House of Huntington as an official Affiliate Vendor. Shop past season Drake's, Nigel Cabourn, Private White V.C. and other menswear luxury brands at exceptional prices below retail. Please visit the Houise of Huntington thread and welcome them to the forum.

  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

    Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

Dino944

Distinguished Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
7,703
Reaction score
8,667
Oh, I'm quite aware that they're all as guilty as each other.
View attachment 1279207
But the discussion was about Rolex and my point was that there seems to be this idea that they (more than others) have stayed true to an ideal of honest watchmaking. I'm sure it can be argued that, to some extent and in certain aspects, they have. But they also churn out a lot of gaudy tat aimed at a certain market (I am in full-on snob mode now). And even their "no nonsense" tool watches have become more ostentatious. Whether this is deliberate, e.g. with polished parts such as you describe, or as side effect of rational design changes, such as the use of ceramic bezels, the overall effect is a blingier watch. Perhaps that trend started even earlier than I realised, but it seems to be a continuing one.

To your last comment, I suppose they (and the other guilty brands) could stop producing these watches, but this would be at the expense of their bottom lines. So of course this will never happen. The public gets what the public wants, I guess!

Maybe its more of to what degree they can stay true to the products they made in the past. Many of the changes we see are probably because of the public at large has changed. My parent's generation didn't walk around in T shirts that said LV, Balmaine, Balenciaga etc. Perhaps today's generation likes or wants more bling and so it is the watch companies' response to that demand. If people want something and one watch company doesn't make it, perhaps then people shift their purchases to brands that respond to their wishes. Rolex was one of the last companies to start making watches that were over 40mm. Dedicated Rolex forums had lots of posting that they wanted to see bigger watches from Rolex. Rolex finally gave in with the Deep-Sea. Did it need to be that large? Probably not, after all 40mm Sea-Dwellers and Subs of the past were certainly more than adequate in the days before dive computers, when divers actually depended on their wristwatches. In addition, a company like Rolex has the task of continuing to make watches that look like their classics, which people expect to be tool watches, but also appealing to people who already have the classic models and want something different, and to try to appeal to completely new buyers who want something modern.
 

LA Guy

Opposite Santa
Admin
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2002
Messages
57,371
Reaction score
36,213
Didn't someone say there are four stages of watch appreciation?

1. Knows little about watches, and loves Rolex because they are a status symbol
2. Learns a little bit more about watches, and hates Rolex because it's too popular
3. Learns some more, and starts to appreciate Rolex
4. Learns even more, and once again loves Rolex because they are great watches with a rich history

Or something like that, I'm paraphrasing.
Funny, and of course fairly simplistic, like all memes must be. That said, and I know that @dopey has been into watches much longer than me, but it's possible that one both likes the watches, and even the company, but is turned off by some aspects of the brand image. I think that I fall into this category. Human beings are complex and not particularly self-consistent.
 

tim_horton

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
1,285
Reaction score
653
Funny, and of course fairly simplistic, like all memes must be. That said, and I know that @dopey has been into watches much longer than me, but it's possible that one both likes the watches, and even the company, but is turned off by some aspects of the brand image. I think that I fall into this category. Human beings are complex and not particularly self-consistent.

Yeah, it was only meant to be tongue in cheek. I don't own any Rolexes FWIW. I admire them but I just wouldn't have a place for them in my limited rotation, and I'm not really a collector for collecting's sake. When I want to wear a sport watch, I wear a modern one like a Garmin, which is much more useful to me in terms of functionality. And when I want to wear a dress watch, there are models other than Rolex that I prefer.
 

LA Guy

Opposite Santa
Admin
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2002
Messages
57,371
Reaction score
36,213
Maybe its more of to what degree they can stay true to the products they made in the past. Many of the changes we see are probably because of the public at large has changed. My parent's generation didn't walk around in T shirts that said LV, Balmaine, Balenciaga etc. Perhaps today's generation likes or wants more bling and so it is the watch companies' response to that demand. If people want something and one watch company doesn't make it, perhaps then people shift their purchases to brands that respond to their wishes. Rolex was one of the last companies to start making watches that were over 40mm. Dedicated Rolex forums had lots of posting that they wanted to see bigger watches from Rolex. Rolex finally gave in with the Deep-Sea. Did it need to be that large? Probably not, after all 40mm Sea-Dwellers and Subs of the past were certainly more than adequate in the days before dive computers, when divers actually depended on their wristwatches. In addition, a company like Rolex has the task of continuing to make watches that look like their classics, which people expect to be tool watches, but also appealing to people who already have the classic models and want something different, and to try to appeal to completely new buyers who want something modern.
I think that the Rolex models between 34 mm and 36mm (and also the Omegas Chronographs of the same size) are pretty much perfect. They fit well on most wrists (I think that he lugs are generally around 40-42mm), and are perfectly legible except to the truly visually impaired (so, me without glasses). I can see why some tool watches should be somewhere around 38-40 mm.

Some people say that that a smaller watch looks small on their wrist, but frankly, my vintage Omega Seamaster/DeVille chronographs, at 35mm without a crown, wear as large as a Daytona, which is quite a bit larger. I think that except for really big people, a 36mm watch is never going to look too small.
 

LA Guy

Opposite Santa
Admin
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2002
Messages
57,371
Reaction score
36,213
Yeah, it was only meant to be tongue in cheek. I don't own any Rolexes FWIW. I admire them but I just wouldn't have a place for them in my limited rotation, and I'm not really a collector for collecting's sake. When I want to wear a sport watch, I wear a modern one like a Garmin, which is much more useful to me in terms of functionality. And when I want to wear a dress watch, there are models other than Rolex that I prefer.
I wear a Mudmaster for function. I've heard decent things about Garmin, but for pure tank-like qualities, I think that it's hard to beat a G-shock mudmaster. Probably the only way to increase it's durability using current technology would be to put a crystal on top of the existing crystal, to build on its case in a case philosophy. Otherwise, we are still waiting for the crew of the Enterprise to come and give us the formula for transparent aluminum.
 

Andy57

Distinguished Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Messages
4,854
Reaction score
16,088
Then perhaps you need to get out more.?

The vast majority of people would describe a Rolex as a piece of bling. The shiner and more ostentatious, the blingier. Of course, there is bling and there is bling, and the GMT is not the blingiest. But on the blingy scale you must admit that your lovely vintage model sits somewhere towards utilitarian and the jubilee model somewhat closer to Kardashian.
Well, I'm sorry, a stainless steel tool watch ain't bling. So I call bullshit on that and on your assertion regarding the "vast majority" of people. I'm aware of one person who thinks that.

Meanwhile, in other arriviste idiocy:

1279281
 

Andy57

Distinguished Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Messages
4,854
Reaction score
16,088
I buy watches (or other items) because I like them, and I appreciate the designs, the workmanship, and their history. I'm not an anthropologist, and I don't purchase items or avoid purchasing them because of the social attributes of a brand.

Your discussion about "over work. living in sub humane spaces, having a poor diet" has nothing to do with Rolex, Omega, Patek, etc. They didn't cause those conditions to exist. Those conditions have existed in various parts of the world long before their were wristwatch companies. So I have no idea what your point is.

Misused your reply? You bashed someone's idea of purchasing a Rolex Datejust because to you their designs aren't courageous enough and they don't inspire curiosity. Then you told a rather far fetched story in which you stereotyped Rolex owners as bad guys wearing poly blend suits, but you have an instantly special relationship with the Speedmaster wearer, because you complimented his choice of watch. You guys then buy each other drinks and it is a magical evening. All of which seemed like a cute fairy tale.
Couldn't have put it better.
 

usctrojans31

Distinguished Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
2,239
Reaction score
1,366
I once saw a person wearing a poly blend suit and Rolex. He walked into the pub, immediately punched the bartender in the face, slapped the butts of every woman and then proceeded to pee in a beer glass and tell everyone it was premium lager and the plebs should be grateful he was sharing this delightful brew.

Afterwards, he walked out into the destitute environment and proceeded to murder children and kittens. He was laughing about his plans for penguincide. He muttered "my explorer goes with me to the south pole, so **** those flightless twat birds. I do whatever I want for I wear a Rolex, watch of the 1%"
 

an draoi

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2018
Messages
391
Reaction score
557
Well, I'm sorry, a stainless steel tool watch ain't bling. So I call bullshit on that and on your assertion regarding the "vast majority" of people. I'm aware of one person who thinks that.

Meanwhile, in other arriviste idiocy:

View attachment 1279281
A vast majority of people on this thread, probably not. In the real world, a watch which retails at close to GBP10k but which changes hands for more than twice that and which glitters like a piece of jewellery would be regarded as a piece of bling by the vast majority of people, regardless of its material of construction or its nominal utility. If you don't understand this, then you really do need to get out more.

EDIT: FAOD referring here to the Daytona, not the GMT
 
Last edited:

an draoi

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2018
Messages
391
Reaction score
557
I once saw a person wearing a poly blend suit and Rolex. He walked into the pub, immediately punched the bartender in the face, slapped the butts of every woman and then proceeded to pee in a beer glass and tell everyone it was premium lager and the plebs should be grateful he was sharing this delightful brew.

Afterwards, he walked out into the destitute environment and proceeded to murder children and kittens. He was laughing about his plans for penguincide. He muttered "my explorer goes with me to the south pole, so **** those flightless twat birds. I do whatever I want for I wear a Rolex, watch of the 1%"
And then the Omega guy stood up, raised his fist skywards and said "Who wants to come to the moon?" and everyone cheered.
 

Dino944

Distinguished Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
7,703
Reaction score
8,667
Yes, and no. Brand image is carefully cultivated and protected.

For an example outside of watch brands, North Face was very wary to not become a lifestyle brand in the early 2000s, the reason being the trends come and go, and being perceived as a lifestyle brand rather than a performance brand would hurt their image with their core, outdoor activities oriented, audience. That has changed a bit recently, with editions specifically of classic 90s models, but they are still quite careful with their distribution, though not nearly as restrictive as they were in the early 2000s. They also wanted, for a very long time, to take away the license for North Face Purple Label, which is still only available through Japanese retailers, and is much "trendier". That seems to have passed though, as The North Face, like a lot of companies, have realized that they can control their brand image by distributing different products to different stockists, in different markets. Nike is probably the leader in this.

Hermes boutiques in Asia are notoriously undersupplied, and most likely, completely by design. I have a couple of chaine d'Ancre bracelets that I wear, and I got them really easily. Just pointed and clicked. In one case, I had to wait a bit longer because they had no more for internet only, and a bracelet had to be recalled from a boutique, and made sure that it was up to Hermes standards to sell. I have a Crescendo bracelet that is apparently being forged from rare silver in France, since the original delivery date was pushed back a few more months to about a year from when I first ordered it. But nonetheless, they were happy to do it. By contrast, sought after pieces like the silver Chaine d'Ancre are in notoriously short supply in Asia, and they go for $1000 over the North American retail price on the secondary market. I had to explain to some cousins living in Asia, that while Hermes is well respected in North America, excepting the Kelly and Birkin bags, there is no hype around the brand, not really, nor are there slews of teems who are interested in the jewelry and who could potentially devalue the brand.

LVMH also has some pretty ironclad agreements with retailers stocking their marquee brands.

Rolex is not the only watch company to be slow in understanding its customers and re-aligning itself in the market. Seiko, long seen as a mid-market brand outside of Japan (n Cantonese, there is a bit of a pun that transliterates "Seiko" to mean "Dead poor), decided to go the other way, and make their luxury product their core product for the North American market. I forget who wrote this, but there are horror stories of Rolex tossing very valuable vintage dials and slapping in a brand new one. Because, well, who wouldn't prefer a brand new dial?

That Rolex is pulling the accounts of so many authorized dealers may signal that they are trying to control their brand image more closely.

Interesting points. I didn't know much about North Face. Although, I know about Hermes handbags, I was not aware of the shortage of their bracelets in Asia.

Rolex is pulling AD accounts, and yes it controls the image of the brand. It also eliminates concerns about discounts and it allows the company to retain 100% of the profit rather than sharing some of it with an AD.


I think that the Rolex models between 34 mm and 36mm (and also the Omegas Chronographs of the same size) are pretty much perfect. They fit well on most wrists (I think that he lugs are generally around 40-42mm), and are perfectly legible except to the truly visually impaired (so, me without glasses). I can see why some tool watches should be somewhere around 38-40 mm.

Some people say that that a smaller watch looks small on their wrist, but frankly, my vintage Omega Seamaster/DeVille chronographs, at 35mm without a crown, wear as large as a Daytona, which is quite a bit larger. I think that except for really big people, a 36mm watch is never going to look too small.

I'm not an oversized watch guy. I only own one watch that is over 40mm. I'm generally most comfortable in cases that are 36-40mm. However, there is a big segment of the market that for many years pushed for watches that are 42mm or larger. Some reached caricature like proportions that seemed unwearable (at least to my eye). Personally, I found some of the VC Patrimony and Piaget Altiplanos became too large considering how thin they were and they looked like pancakes on a leather straps. It does seem to be changing and we have been seeing a return to normal sized dress watches each year (JLC Tribute Reversos, the Cartier Tank Louis Cartier, and Tank Cintree).
 

Texasmade

Stylish Dinosaur
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
28,341
Reaction score
37,195
Rolex is pulling AD accounts, and yes it controls the image of the brand. It also eliminates concerns about discounts and it allows the company to retain 100% of the profit rather than sharing some of it with an AD.
Rolex doesn't actually own their boutiques. It's usually another AD that built out a Rolex exclusive store so Rolex doesn't really retain 100% of the profit.
 

Ambulance Chaser

Stylish Dinosaur
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2002
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
10,021
Rolex is the Taylor Swift of watches: A corporate juggernaut that is dismissed and hated on for being popular among those with "questionable" taste, but that makes a product that is much better than people (including people in the know) give it credit for. I admire what Rolex does, but I don't think I would add a modern Rolex to my small collection simply because I tend to like things that are more uncommon. That said, if I won the lottery tomorrow, one of the very first things I would buy is the best Explorer II Reference 1655 I could find. It is such a delightfully weird un-Rolex sports Rolex: no maxi lume plots, no Mercedes hand, and a completely useless complication.
 

Featured Sponsor

How important is full vs half canvas to you for heavier sport jackets?

  • Definitely full canvas only

    Votes: 55 36.7%
  • Half canvas is fine

    Votes: 59 39.3%
  • Really don't care

    Votes: 15 10.0%
  • Depends on fabric

    Votes: 26 17.3%
  • Depends on price

    Votes: 26 17.3%

Forum statistics

Threads
505,138
Messages
10,578,724
Members
223,894
Latest member
milesmartin274
Top