• 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!

The watch DISCUSSION thread

ronscuba

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2020
Messages
311
Reaction score
336
One other thought I had was this:

Most people have no idea how big their watch actually looks on their wrist because they only look at it close up when telling the time. Which, I suppose, is important in how it makes you feel. But much like how shoes don't look the same when you look down at them versus how others see them, I'd wager the vast majority of people who think their "small" wrists can't take even a 40-42mm watch because of how giant it looks close up when telling the time would be amazed to see how completely fine it looks seen from a distance—i.e. how other people see it.

We did some family portraits on the beach last year, I wore my 41.5mm Aqua Terra, which before then I occasionally wondered about being too big for my average-sized wrist. But then seeing the photos made me realize the truth—it's fine.
I have a small wrist. I am ok as long as the lugs do not extend past the edge of my wrist. That is 50mm lug to lug for me. My Speedmaster 57 is 41.5, but wears large because the lug to lug is 50mm. I have 42mm watches that are 48mm lug to lug. They definitely look large, but I am ok with it.

20210405_172539.jpg
 

usctrojans31

Distinguished Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
2,151
Reaction score
1,244
Re: Rolex distribution.

Of course Rolex is aware of the goings on at ADs and what's selling and over what period. The Rolex wholesale team regularly gets sell in and sell out numbers from their wholesale network. Rolex controls its production to ensure demand > supply, which also fuels demand. Any claims to the contrary is just PR.
 

Duke Santos

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
331
Reaction score
667
Someone on r/watches the other day made a similar post about how a close up wrist shot doesn't always represent how that watch looks on your wrist from a "normal distance". Consider the two photos the user posted:

View attachment 1596851

vs.

View attachment 1596852
Spot on. Phone cameras will absolutely auto-focus in a way that magnifies the face of the watch relative to the background (one's wrist). My Planet Ocean is large but fits fine on my 7 1/4 wrist (which is broad and flat as opposed to tubular--damn, so rarely get to use that word in a sentence!) with nothing close to overhang, yet pics always seem to show it as hanging off the edges of my wrist.
 

pasadena man

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2017
Messages
212
Reaction score
280
Don’t know if this has been posted yet. A 2018 study found Rolex to be the most reputable company in the world: https://www.statista.com/statistics/516403/most-reputable-companies/

It surprised me because the brand is:
-high priced
-low penetration
-polarizing
-has a lot of detractors
-is off trend for the current zeitgeist (old technology)
-introduced most of their major models over 60 years ago (the DateJust, Sub, GMT-Master, Explorer, Day-Date, and Migauss were all introduced over about a decade, from 1945-1956).
 

Crispyj

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2019
Messages
657
Reaction score
1,482
Modded SKX007
Mismatch of lume colors (hand and hour markers) annoys me a bit :dozingoff:
PXL_20210420_224609078.PORTRAIT.jpg
 

smittycl

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
8,575
Reaction score
12,248

Adsky Luck

Senior Member
Joined
May 21, 2020
Messages
256
Reaction score
482
Don’t know if this has been posted yet. A 2018 study found Rolex to be the most reputable company in the world: https://www.statista.com/statistics/516403/most-reputable-companies/

It surprised me because the brand is:
-high priced
-low penetration
-polarizing
-has a lot of detractors
-is off trend for the current zeitgeist (old technology)
-introduced most of their major models over 60 years ago (the DateJust, Sub, GMT-Master, Explorer, Day-Date, and Migauss were all introduced over about a decade, from 1945-1956).

Rolex unit cost was once estimated to be around $300-800 per unit. I think it's the right order of magnitude.

And the most Rolex make is on gold and precious metal watches and the least but still about $2000 on a single ss watch.
In other worlds, the value of a rolex watch is largely intangible, i.e. in the mind of its owner and those aspiring to own one, for which they pay/prepared to.
 
Last edited:

radicaldog

Distinguished Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
2,979
Reaction score
456
Rolex unit cost was once estimated to be around $300-800 per unit. I think it's the right order of magnitude.

And the most Rolex make is on gold and precious metal watches and the least but still about $2000 on a single ss watch.
In other worlds, the value of a rolex watch is largely intangible, i.e. in the mind of its owner and those aspiring to own one, for which they pay/prepared to.
Interesting. In a sense, that makes Rolex the ultimate fashion watch. People pay for a Rolex like they pay for a basic Gucci o Vuitton wallet or handbag: mid-quality products that sell at a luxury price because people are mesmerised by the brand name. Not the epitome of taste and discernment, if you ask me. And that's even before we start asking questions about the design coherence of current Rolex offerings (I say this as a big fan of vintage Rolex).
 

NakedYoga

Distinguished Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
1,706
Reaction score
1,794
Modded SKX007
Mismatch of lume colors (hand and hour markers) annoys me a bit :dozingoff:
View attachment 1596907
Interesting. I have a ~15 year old SKX007 that I still wear regularly working in the yard, etc. Never been serviced and loses time at a rapid rate. Should probably give it a little TLC.

IMG_20210417_105549.jpg
 

Dino944

Distinguished Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
6,365
Reaction score
5,490
Rolex unit cost was once estimated to be around $300-800 per unit. I think it's the right order of magnitude.

And the most Rolex make is on gold and precious metal watches and the least but still about $2000 on a single ss watch.
In other worlds, the value of a rolex watch is largely intangible, i.e. in the mind of its owner and those aspiring to own one, for which they pay/prepared to.
Where is that estimate from? What is your source? Sorry, but sounds completely ridiculous.

As for value...you could say that about any watch. Hell, Pateks, often use old movements so little R&D. They were selling Calatravas in late 90s and early 2000's for about 10K and you could get a 30-35% discount (so 6-7K). Not much has been done to turn them into $25K watches. The big thing that caused a price hike, they realized Franck Muller was selling steel watches for about the price of their gold ones....so what did they do jack up the prices.
 
Last edited:

UnFacconable

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
2,823
Reaction score
3,763
Interesting. In a sense, that makes Rolex the ultimate fashion watch. People pay for a Rolex like they pay for a basic Gucci o Vuitton wallet or handbag: mid-quality products that sell at a luxury price because people are mesmerised by the brand name. Not the epitome of taste and discernment, if you ask me. And that's even before we start asking questions about the design coherence of current Rolex offerings (I say this as a big fan of vintage Rolex).
Honestly your anti-Rolex stance just comes across as petty and thinly-veiled bias. The fact that you are clinging to the Walt Odets takedown betrays your intentions.

You could make a strong case for Rolex as the best movement maker in the world if you care about durable movements built to function at a high level for a really long time. High end horologists love to noodle on tourbillons, remontoirs, fancy escapements, etc. but do any of them really outperform a simple Rolex time only movement? If they do on day one, do they 5 years later without any services? We've all heard plenty of stories of 20 year old Rolexes still keeping great time. I've made it clear I don't appreciate people converting opinions into facts so I'll be clear and say that I understand why people apply superlatives to Rolex movements. I have a couple of Rolexes that are seldom worn but without fail when I decide to check how they are keeping time - it's always bang on. I can't say the same for my other timepieces.

Sure, quartz movements work better but what does that have to do with what Rolex is making and selling? I accept Rolex at face value - they are largely designing and building heirloom quality tool watches and other simple watches that are meant to function at a high level for a really long time and they are arguably doing it better than anyone else. Some may prefer Patek, but their movements tend to be less robust and have more frequent (and more expensive) servicing requirements. Patek isn't really in the every day heirloom market like Rolex.

Is it true that the people @radicaldog looks down on also like Rolexes? Sure, no one is questioning that. But the fact that it bothers you so much shows that your view is largely about perception and not really about Rolex the watchmaker. There are shitty people buying great products of every kind in every market. I know people who buy Birkins and Rolexes. The fact that shitty people buy nice things for the "wrong" reasons doesn't mean we should ignore the "right" reasons.

Moreover, and most importantly in the SF arena, these transparent attempts to devalue Rolex in this forum are tiresome. You may have such a highly refined sense of design and intellectual purity that you can't live with the Rolex aesthetic and production choices and that's perfectly fine. Don't buy a Rolex because they aren't right for you. But the way you advocate against Rolex and in favor of your idiosyncratic modernity preferences is reminiscent of another strident poster who is obsessed with defining objective superiority and it's no more entertaining.
 

smittycl

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
8,575
Reaction score
12,248
Honestly your anti-Rolex stance just comes across as petty and thinly-veiled bias. The fact that you are clinging to the Walt Odets takedown betrays your intentions.

You could make a strong case for Rolex as the best movement maker in the world if you care about durable movements built to function at a high level for a really long time. High end horologists love to noodle on tourbillons, remontoirs, fancy escapements, etc. but do any of them really outperform a simple Rolex time only movement? If they do on day one, do they 5 years later without any services? We've all heard plenty of stories of 20 year old Rolexes still keeping great time. I've made it clear I don't appreciate people converting opinions into facts so I'll be clear and say that I understand why people apply superlatives to Rolex movements. I have a couple of Rolexes that are seldom worn but without fail when I decide to check how they are keeping time - it's always bang on. I can't say the same for my other timepieces.

Sure, quartz movements work better but what does that have to do with what Rolex is making and selling? I accept Rolex at face value - they are largely designing and building heirloom quality tool watches and other simple watches that are meant to function at a high level for a really long time and they are arguably doing it better than anyone else. Some may prefer Patek, but their movements tend to be less robust and have more frequent (and more expensive) servicing requirements. Patek isn't really in the every day heirloom market like Rolex.

Is it true that the people @radicaldog looks down on also like Rolexes? Sure, no one is questioning that. But the fact that it bothers you so much shows that your view is largely about perception and not really about Rolex the watchmaker. There are shitty people buying great products of every kind in every market. I know people who buy Birkins and Rolexes. The fact that shitty people buy nice things for the "wrong" reasons doesn't mean we should ignore the "right" reasons.

Moreover, and most importantly in the SF arena, these transparent attempts to devalue Rolex in this forum are tiresome. You may have such a highly refined sense of design and intellectual purity that you can't live with the Rolex aesthetic and production choices and that's perfectly fine. Don't buy a Rolex because they aren't right for you. But the way you advocate against Rolex and in favor of your idiosyncratic modernity preferences is reminiscent of another strident poster who is obsessed with defining objective superiority and it's no more entertaining.
I’ve had my Sub for 21 years and never yet had it serviced. Runs extremely well. Within COSC standards so I’ve never felt the need to get it worked on.
 

UrbanComposition

Distinguished Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
6,059
Reaction score
17,953
I don't know very much about watches, but my "one watch" collection would be this Rolex Datejust. I inherited it from my father, who bought it in the 1960s shortly after graduating college. My family is from Saigon, and they escaped the Vietnam War, then the killing fields in Cambodia, and then the Iranian Revolution. Each time when fleeing, my dad had this watch with him. One time, my dad got robbed while in the US and someone pointed a shotgun in his face. Right before they approached, however, he had the calmness of mind to slip his watch off his wrist and throw it into the corner (his hands were under a counter and they couldn't see). Some years later, he gave it to me when I turned 30.


View attachment 1595781


I love the watch and it's easily the most important material thing I own. However, I only wear it with suits and sport coats. I find it too dressy for my casualwear, which goes between workwear (e.g. vintage Lee trucker with raw denim jeans and an RRL flannel) and some contemporary stuff (e.g. Margiela five-zip). I even find it too dressy for some CM-adjacent casualwear, like stuff from Kaptain Sunshine. Been thinking about buying a Rolex Submariner for casual outfits (mostly workwear and Kaptain Sunshine type stuff).

I have a friend who's really into clothing and watches, and I admire his taste. Sometimes we meet up for dinner and drinks when he's in San Francisco. When I mentioned to him my plan to buy a Rolex Sub, he said that he thinks I should buy a Rolex Explorer (1016) instead. He thinks it suits my personality better. I've been mulling on it.
Funny, those are the two watches I'm also considering. About 6 months or so ago I was enamored with the idea of an electrician owning a Milgauss but the color/shape/layout doesn't move me at all. The Explorer does, as does the Sub.
 

Viral

Distinguished Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
3,880
Reaction score
817
@Dino944 os that Daytona all-gold? The pics have a yellow hue cast on the watch but I can’t tell if it’s SS or YG.

looking good for a 27 yr old 👌🏽
 

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by

Featured Sponsor

Threads of Apollo Leather Jackets: Which 2-tone colourway do you like the best?

  • Blue

  • Red

  • Gold

  • All of the Above

  • None of the Above


Results are only viewable after voting.

Related Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
460,127
Messages
9,984,119
Members
207,914
Latest member
dorendra
Top