Inside Rolex's Manufacturing Facilities (2015)
hodinkee.com
hodinkee.com
There are a few advantages to owning a Rolex that may not be so obvious: For starters, it's quickly exchangeable for a high percentage of its value in cash in virtually any major city in the world. Because you're always wearing it, that's $8,000+ in cash that you can have in short order if you needed it badly and circumstances prohibit you from accessing your bank account.
Another advantage: they almost always appreciate in value over time. Very few physical assets can claim similar long-term value. People have been coveting these watches for nearly a century and that's unlikely to change. I will surely give mine to one of my sons someday.
If you can afford it, I highly recommend you treat yourself to one. I get enjoyment every day when I put mine on. I can barely remember any of the cars and trucks I've owned but I spent less on my Sub and I'll never forget it.
Thanks for the article, OP.
[1] https://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/4246326395/in/album...
At the time it struck me as really odd, but now that I know some people who own expensive watches I sort-of get it.
Selling your watch for quick money (usually in a foreign country or after being robbed, crashed etc) is a common film staple in tons of adventure/noir etc movies.
I own a bit of LVMH (luxury conglomerate) shares and I find it fascinating what they manage to sell to people, but I'm determined never to fall for it.
I have a Kazakh-American friend who did some contract work as a pipeline welder in Kazakhstan who told me all of the watch shop windows in Astana would empty out every time large oil/gas deals were being signed.
This segment of the luxury goods market is indeed very interesting.
I do think there is something very cool about the engineering that goes into watches, and they are somewhat unique in the way they combine both engineering and more traditional artistry like hand finishing or enamel/lacquered dial work.
I should probably point out in case there is some confusion that I most certainly don't work for Rolex or the Swiss watch industry even though I sound somewhat like a shill in these comments.
Yes, I appreciate that, and I do too! Besides, at times I need to do some status signalling too. No disrespect intended.
I think you are being a bit harsh. You can get some perfectly fine mechanical watches at the 500 euro mark. Brands like Certina, Hamilton, Seiko and (to a lesser extent) Victorinox have several models in that price range which are perfectly well made.
For 3k you are either looking for something extremely fancy or you are already paying for 2k for the brand. Below a few brands, some very old, all of them use swiss made mechanical automatic movement. I don't remember having been in an airport and not having seen Rolex advertisement. But someone is paying for this advertisement. And again, if you buy from a dealer he may have something like a 100% mark up.
http://www.archimede-uhren.de/
http://www.ebay.de/usr/erkahund
https://www.steinhartwatches.de
Here is an estimate of Rolex cost vs price and it is close what I suspected. " by gathering publicly available prices for similar products, we can estimate that the production cost of an average stainless steel Rolex watch retailing at USD 5,000 is less than USD 1,000. Maybe even less than USD 750."
https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-it-actually-cost-Rolex-t...
I don't say don't buy one. But understand that you pay 80% of the cost for the brand. If you need the brand, buy it. If you just like the mechanics you can get a very good watch for a tiny fraction of the price.
This little assemblage of $500 in parts is worth far more to me than the $8,000 that it's ostensibly worth. It has been there with me for so many of the most important events in my life:
My wedding: https://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/3763369152/in/album...
My newborn first child: https://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/7515534464/in/album...
Epic Utah adventure with my best friends: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7247/7087962645_3d48ebb50b_z.j...
Filthy from the craziest day where we drove 250 miles of rough off-road trail in one day in the Owyhee Desert of Northern Nevada: https://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/20220695396/in/albu...
Btw, you should start a blog!
I don't blog much but I have done a few stories for Expedition Portal:
http://expeditionportal.com/expedition-journal-the-owhyee-de...
Here's the story of importing the truck:
http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/103685-Rocinan...
And a story about a Utah trip:
http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/111216-Utah-Ro...
Its a reference to the colonial days in the Caribbean. The folks who had money made if from agriculture and used the Land Rover to transport goods and traverse the rough terrain.
Nah, my emotions work differently, and for physical objects I prefer stuff that is easily replaceable.
Also I'm pretty much Scrooge McDuck.
Debatable, as it is a sports watch (arguably "the" sports watch). Wearing a sports watch with black tie suggests a middle class New Worlder. I happen to like these values (meritocracy, individual rights, equality of all before the law) much more than the alternative so see it as a positive signal. Also, (see [1]) signals ought to be true or the effect will be very negative, since nobody likes a fake, so better the sub with the "tuxedo" if that's "who you are".
The core value of a Rolex over other brands is two fold.
First, the company is ensuring that the value of the watches will never drop through limiting grey market availability and limiting supply generally even in the face of increasing global demand (people now complain about months-long waiting lists for special editions). As you point out this does make it a sort of global gold standard in terms of maintaining value and fungibility.
Second, it shrewdly invests in multi-generational, tightly integrated marketing to maintain the image of the brand in the global lower and middle classes' mind as "the" luxury watch, as well as in the target market (the GP piece is an example).
AFAIK it is the only brand that does it so thoroughly; Patek has similar operations (including bidding on its own vintage stuff, which even involved setting up a museum, to drive prices higher) but targeted at the aspirational upper middle class only [2], and the other brands are considerably less well recognised or not perceived as expensive. This investment in marketing builds "signal equity" for Rolex wearers in that everybody will see it, not just the readers of Hodinkee.
Which is why I disagree with you that:
> it doesn't scream "expensive"
To close on a humorous note: http://www.gq.com/story/male-engagement-ring-rolex
(I would, personally, blow my $50k on the new Laurent Ferrier Montre Ecole. /signalling)
[1] https://www.quora.com/Why-would-anyone-buy-a-Rolex-watch/ans...
[2] http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/luxury_branding_the_f...
Rolex sells almost a million watches a year now. It's a brand bought by rich, knowledgeable watch nerds as well as plebeian, flashy status-seekers and everyone in between. Rolex are given as gifts often enough whether from family or from your old fat boss for you being the best salesman in the district. And by now in 2017, many ppl are wearing Rolex watches they inherited as the company has been big for well over a generation of customers. In short, a Rolex doesn't signal anything discernible that can be generalized. Ya there are a small % of people who will see it and recognize it and think its expensive, but it is not screaming expensive, it's not screaming anything. Reasons for buying or having or wearing a Rolex may vary but its just a watch now.
Also, a sports watch or any watch with a tuxedo? You're at a party, and hopefully drunk, I would say leave any watch at home. But that's debatable too, so do whatever the fuck you want, assumptions will be made incorrectly regardless. Cheers :)
You're disagreeing with yourself and agreeing with him. His point (I think) is that they adopted a marketing and pricing strategy which promoted brand awareness and maintained brand equity to both the "lower classes", and to the "upper classes" and also to watch enthusiasts, simultaneously.
That is to say, poorer people might recognise Rolexes as being something special, and might strive to buy one, but wealthier people also see it as something special and strive to buy one. And the fact that poorer people can get them doesn't dilute their positioning for wealthier demographics. Or as you put it..."It's a brand bought by rich, knowledgeable watch nerds as well as plebeian, flashy status-seekers and everyone in between."
And I completely disagree with your first statement. I would imagine that almost every adult recognises the Rolex brand. Sure, people might not recognise a Submariner from a distance as being a Rolex, or a Rolex design, but everybody knows the name. Whereas, on the other hand, almost nobody would even know the name Philippe Patek. But then, that's their marketing strategy.
And I completely disagree with your statement. If you are at least a bit into the watches, you know Patek very well.
The part about everybody-recognizes-rolex - well that ain't true either. Over 90% of blue collar workers would see some bigger watch, that's it. Most of my colleagues wouldn't recognize them, and I am talking about private bank in Geneva, home of Rolex (and Patek).
On the other hand, Rolex is literally one of the most recognised and reputable brands in the world. There are companies which track this stuff, and every study ranks them within top 100 in the world for brand equity, recognition, reputation, etc among general consumers. Just with a cursory look now, I see one study from 2014 which ranks them second in the world, only behind Disney:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/arieladams/2014/04/14/why-rolex-...
Don't forget, they sponsor a lot of stuff. You can't watch sports without seeing their logo everywhere. As I said, people wouldn't recognise a Rolex watch...but the brand, yeah.
I'd be extremely surprised if 90% of people in a bank in Switzerland don't know of the brand Rolex.
Anyway this is just my experience. Rolex don't "scream expensive", but maybe to a few folks they burp that message. Not a perfect comparison but my old well-worn running shoes cost like $200 (fancy I know ;) few people recognize them, from the ppl who do some think that's expensive ($5 of leather for $200 ZOMG!), some people don't think that's expensive. Just because something is expensive doesn't mean that product "screams" expensive. Just shoes. Just a watch. YMMV
Rolex + Tuxedo is the look popularised by the James Bond films to the extent that it has taken on a life of its own now.
In other words much of today's target market did not see Bond wear a Rolex in cinemas, and it is a testimony to the strength of Rolex's brand that Omega's own product placement has been hijacked in people's minds.
Other than that, I agree with your sentiment. I own a couple of Longines and they're masterpieces of engineering. But they're a bit more discreet than Rolexes :)
Could be a good project if you could make headway
Well, who said it's unwanted?
Besides, they often have bodyguards, and of course they don't regularly mingle with commoners. Difficult to get robbed in some Swiss chalet or some expensive neighborhood. And there everybody has money anyway, so they don't stand out much.
for the same reason, I wear modest watches to client pitches. too pricey they'll assume we are making out better than them and thus we won't be enforcing the "clients first" mantra. The same also goes for hotels. When I travel to clients and they ask where I am staying, I'd be a fool to say the "Four Seasons". If you stay at the Marriott, they assume you product is priced fairly.
Of course, when I go to a meeting I'm aware that perception matters, and in certain contexts there's a good chance I'm going to meet somebody wearing a nice watch who might make judgement about me based on what I'm wearing (human nature sucks sometimes). So I'm not going to turn up for a pitch wearing one of my Seikos (even though I love them) because they're probably too affordable and, frankly, too casual (Orange Monster anyone?). What I need is something classy and relatively refined without being flashy or ostentatious. Eventually, specifically to fulfil that role, I bought a used Omega Seamaster (which has become just about my favourite watch because it's so versatile).
I'd certainly think twice about wearing a Rolex for a pitch because there's always the risk it might make you look expensive, but I wouldn't think twice about wearing the same watch in a social context. Why? Because I love a good timepiece, and since none of my good friends are into watches they never notice what I'm wearing anyway, so I can get away with anything within reason. (Btw, I'm talking about stainless steel models here; if you're talking gold that is a different matter because just by its very nature it's attention grabbing.)
I would posit that any meeting you go to where you are trying to sell something perception matters.
There's a more recent comparison video of him driving an Aston Martin, a more expensive and arguably much nicer car, but because it's silver nobody gives a shit.
Unless you are truly flashy (red Ferrari, diamond watch) typically nobody will notice. And to the Rolex point specifically, there are more non-Rolex watches that look nearly identical to the Submariner than there are actual Submariners.
A friend of mine has what I thought for years was a Pepsi bezel GMT II. I caught a better look at it randomly and it turns out it's a Seiko.
Protip guys: vanishingly few ladies want someone with a nice car (and all that comes with).
People I know that say similar things (along with comments about inappropriate sizing of their parts to compensate for) usually never drove any sports car, so have no clue how much joy this seemingly tedious task can bring on. And if you can afford it, why not go for a better experience with <insert_your_activity> ?
On balance this is not true for any non limited brand new watch you buy. On balance models that appreciate tend to be discontinued, or a combination of rare reference/variation/materials.
I agree though, If I had a lot of cash laying about, i'd buy lots and lots of good examples of vintage watches from marquee brands.
Same applies to rare luxury cars, real estate, etc.
"There are a few advantages to owning a Rolex that may not be so obvious: For starters, it's quickly exchangeable for a high percentage of its value in cash in virtually any major city in the world."
Please define "high". I have seen a Rolex sold for less than its value in gold (gold rolex).
They have sales tax (20% in Europe). The shop has likely something like a 100% mark up on a watch. Most of the costs of the Rolex are for advertisement. You can get a same quality watch for a tiny fraction of the price.
"Because you're always wearing it, that's $8,000+ in cash that you can have in short order if you needed it badly" If it is not made out of gold, I suspect you would get 1 or 2 grand for it. On a good day.
Precious metal rolexes don't hold their value nearly the same way as steel ones, since part of owning a gold rolex is the accomplishment of being able to buy it in the first place. They also come with a dizzying array of options, so if you want the right one you have to buy new. Sports rolexes have few options so they are interchangeable. Rolex has pulled off a neat trick of making them thought to be rare while selling nearly a million a year.
I find the latter nicer to be around overall.
Tudor is a Rolex sub brand that uses Rolex cases but swaps in more generic swiss movements. Less expensive servicing, especially since you don't need to send it to rolex, but all the Rolex quality on the outside.
He wears it every day it, to every occasion, and it looks phenomenal. Recently, had it appraised in the $5000 range. He's beat the S&P many times over, not to mention the value he's received of having a nice watch every day.
Yea I get, it's not for everyone. But they're not the worst investments and they're truly beautiful machines. In the words of Ferris Bueller, 'if you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up.'
And for the super skeptical, here's a video of a man who bought a Rolex GMT Master in the 60s for $120 and had it appraised in the $80k range (despite decades of heavy use). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li0mRLcGbU8&feature=youtu.be
So your friend has a 25 year old Air King? This is not a vintage piece, it's just an old piece. Worth? $1500 - $2000 depending on condition. Secondly, in 25 years he had to service it at least 3 times. Each service cost? $400 - $800 depending on the issues. If he polished it, $500 more.
So all in he's put in $1,200 + ~$1,500 = $2,700.
Now had he place $1,200 in the S&P 500 on 1991 (exactly 25 years ago), he would have at the end of December 31 exactly $13,588 dollars (~9.78% on average per year).
I don't understand how you can say he beat the S&P many times over.
"We are not in the watch business. We are in the luxury business" - Rolex CEO.
Rolex today only gets chronometer certification for about 3% of its output. Any decent quartz watch is more accurate than the best mechanical watches. Chronometer certification for a mechanical watch only requires -4/+6 secs/day. The best quartz watches are good for 5 seconds a year.
Unless you also have a boat, a sextant, and a nautical almanac, but no GPS, a chronometer watch isn't going to do you much good.
I destinctly remember them stating that all their watches were COSC Chronometers and explaining what that meant in terms of accuracy.
Now I'm 41 but even then it was post quartz so people weren't buying Rolex watches for their absolute accuracy.
Personally, I have an Omega Speedmaster Professional that I've worn almost everyday since my 30th birthday. It's manual wind and keeps even worse time than any Chronometer but I love it and don't covert any other (smart)watch.
Owning a mechanical watch is ...odd, I guess. :)
I know Rolex by itself makes up over 50% of annual COSC watches and since Rolex themselves never reveal sales figures I've heard that people use the official annual COSC certification numbers as a barometer to how Rolex is doing.
[1]Contrôle Officiel Suisse des Chronomètres - This is Switzerland's official chronometer testing agency.
Most major high-end movements are better than -4/+6 seconds a day anyway.
Mechanical watches are not trying to be accurate compared to quartz watches. Rolex watches could lose 1 minute a day in accuracy and would still sell thousands of watches a year.
Everyone has a phone in their pocket, this product/toy/luxury is not about keeping time.
The Rolex Submariner has increased in price about 3x to 6x over inflation since its introduction in 1957.[1]
[1] http://www.ablogtowatch.com/rolex-prices-past-60-years-revea...
Anyway COSC is just marketing bullshit in my opinion, I don't think it matters or many people care about it, if they ever did. COSC is like Consumer Reports/JD Power (& Associates) certificates but for watches. People have long realized the useless scam of such things and know big corporations are probably slanging crap products that work more or less as expected, with a shady-at-best warranty in case it doesn't, and don't care about these tests.
That inflation link means you could have bought and worn a mechanical Rolex you liked wearing for decades and made money on it! And at a return % way better than saving the cash and more comparable to the % investing in stocks. Assuming you're diversified, anytime you can enjoy an investment more than just a # sitting in a bank or brokerage account somewhere that is great. Sign me up.
How have the prices of second-hand quartz watches compared to the prices of 2nd hand mechanical watches? Not good for quartz defenders I am guessing. What's the point of companies like Breitling continuing to make quartz watches anyway...
Also I appreciate mechanical automatic over quartz movement, and I also love hacking the winding etc.
Also don't forget obviously if you have a mobile phone that can connect to the internet you'll always have the time right no matter what.
Watches nowadays are some kind of a prestige thing really, its like women handbags.
As much as I appreciate what Rolex can do and be, I find this parts-and-repair behavior really tacky.
Nobody I know who enjoys mechanical watches would disagree with you on this. You do not buy a mechanical watch, especially a Rolex or similar brand, because you want to know what time it is.
With past watches, one little issue that required a visit to a repair shop would inevitably incur the $30 "the battery need replacing" tax. Nevermind that I just had it replaced a few months prior.
Even the Tudor in house movements are being COSC certified now. Tudor has always used the highest grade ETA movements which can be COSC certified but never bothered to. Now the new movements they are making themselves are going in for testing.
Mechanical watches will never be as accurate as a good quartz watch, that is an indisputable fact. On the other hand, telling the time with nothing but springs and gears has an analogue magic that delights me every time I wear one of my mechanical watches. When I spend the day surrounded by integrated circuits and batteries it's really relaxing to have something nearby that is disconnected and simple.
When it comes to watches, Rolex is obviously the high-end brand that the layperson will be familiar with and will believe to be representative of high quality.
Can someone who is well-versed in high-end watches tell me if they are, in fact, leading the game when it comes to engineering and quality? I seem to recall reading a few years back that Rolexes had abnormally high maintenance costs, but this article directly contradicts that, so perhaps I'm mistaken.
Like watches, some people buy BMWs because they’re actually very passionate about cars and quality. Spend any amount of time on watch forums and you’ll soon appreciate the engineering involved and the passion that people have for these things.
Mechanically, they're mostly pretty average. But they are a Veblen good for sure, and some people treat them as an investment.
Personally I hate divers/chronos and don't want to lost a significant sum of money when I break one or have one stolen, so I have a nice collection of <$200 quartz watches.
In terms of engineering, Rolex watches tend to be on the simpler side, relative to some of the the complications you find in even higher end watches. They don't employ tourbillons, or minute repeaters, or offer watches with a laundry list of different complications, so in that sense they are not on the cutting edge. On the other hand, the things that Rolex does, they seem to do very well. They spend quite a bit of R&D on research into things like special alloys for watch cases as as well as balance wheels, escapements and mainsprings.
In terms of quality, they seem to have a very well earned reputation. It's also important to note that Rolex produces somewhere around 600k-1 million watches a year. They seem to be very good at producing high quality at very large scale.
Regarding maintenance costs, I don't think Rolex is know as a particularly expensive brand, although again, I don't actually own a Rolex so this is second hand info from watch forums. I think one of the problems in this area is that I doubt most watch buyers, Rolex or otherwise, have any clue about the long term maintenance of watches. And I doubt the salespeople selling Rolexes spend much time educating potential customers on these costs so you probably end up with a bit of sticker shock when people realize they have to send a mechanical watch in for service. I do know that Rolex has received some criticism for making spare parts increasingly hard to get for independent repair shops, requiring customers go through authorized channels.
A complaint levied against the Swiss watch industry recently it that they are very happy to allocate labor & capital to producing and selling watches, but they don't like making the same investments in labor to ensure quick servicing, which has a habit of pissing off customers when they have to send a watch back to Switzerland for months at a time every few years. One of the things Rolex has been working on with regards to mainsprings and other alloys is developing movements that require less frequent lubrication and servicing.
I'll also add that Rolex movements, both the newer ones as well as older ones from the 1960s-70s, have a reputation for being rock solid and relatively straight forward to service, assuming parts availability. I've never worked on Rolex movements myself but I have done minor servicing on several ETA 2824s, a lower end workhorse of the Swiss watch industry, and I've been told that Rolex movements are significantly more robust.
If you're really after extreme durability (which is one aspect of quality), I think you'd be very hard pressed to find an automatic better than the Marathon GSAR, which is about 1/10th the price of a Rolex Sub.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JP4E72O
Edit: my mistake, the Spring Drive is another beast entirely, and it is truly beautiful, I agree.
The best example is that the Swiss used to have accuracy contests which they had to cancel after Seiko systematically bested everybody else for several years (easily Googleable e.g. [1]). Even in the quartz world, the current best is still Japanese with the (comparatively cheap!) $1,000 Citizen Chronomaster, the most accurate non-atomic-sync watch. And your average $80 G-Shock now has the atomic sync functionality.
How about extremes? Whilst everybody else was messing about with fragile and expensive helium valves to deal with coming back up from high pressures required by professional divers, such as those repairing oil rigs, Seiko put together an R&D team and after 8 years of research came up with a design that went deeper with no valve, the 6159 aka "tuna can" [2]. Of course divers now use a dive computer, but if you need a backup the Darth Tuna is very good indeed.
Want some real "handmade" artisanal creds, some ties to history? How about hand painted laquer dials using centuries old traditional methods (see any "urushi" model) or the extreme attention to detail in the Credor line (e.g. [3]).
So the watch world is fragmented into Seiko lovers and haters, the former seeing value in the engineering and artisanship and the latter seeing a lack of brand equity and disposable income signalling that is more easily found in Switzerland (or rather, on what is badged as made in Switzerland, see [4]).
Maintenance costs are not per se an indication of low quality. For example, Seiko's Hi-Beat movements (which "beat", or move the seconds hand, many more times per second than average, generating the illusion of smoother motion) have an exceptionally strong spring and need more frequent servicing as a result of the extra work done by the movement, whereas a $10 vintage HMT watch from the 1970s beating 5x slower might just need its first oiling which you could do yourself.
[1] http://watchesbysjx.com/2013/06/explaining-seikos-legendary-...
[2] http://wornandwound.com/a-look-at-seikos-early-divers/ - not a great source admittedly but if I find better I'll update the link.
[3] https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/with-the-seiko-eichi-ii-ve...
[4] https://www.indy100.com/article/cheese-one-million-pound-wat...
That's being a bit disingenuous. I love Seiko's engineering and they have a few watches I like (in fact I'm wearing one right now), but on the whole I find their design aesthetic really hard to like.
I don't think so. It's a very high quality _mass produced_ watch. For example to compare it with cars i'd say it's the equivalent of a Mercedes: a very high end car when compared to all cars in the world, but to enthusiasts a Mercedes is quite ordinary/unremarkable.
Other brands have much higher floors of quality (e.g. Patek Philipe, H. Moser, Voutilainen). To continue the car analogy these are the Ferraris, Lamborghinis etc.
Audemars Piguet > Patek Phillippe > A. Lange & Söhne > Rolex > IWC> JLC > Omega > Breitling ..
In terms of pushing the boundaries of material engineering, Richard Mille is doing some interesting things.
What it reminds me of most as far as products go is a vintage Land Rover, Toyota Land Cruiser, pre-Chrysler Mercedes-Benz, or air-cooled Porsche. You know the brand will support and service the watch forever and you can expect to find qualified technicians all over the world.
If you're buying a watch not just to show off today, but to pass down through your family, that's worth something. Rolexes generally hold their value well, are durable, keep the same style for decades, and have a relatively conservative look.
One thing that really makes rolex stand out is their quality control. They make nearly 1 million watch movements per year and have an unbelievably low return rate for defects. The true number is a closely guarded secret, but it's tiny. When a watch leaves rolex it's perfect.
Everything that goes into a rolex is made by rolex. There is only 1 other watch company that can say that (seiko), and that only applies to particular lines they make. Rolex makes their own sapphire and hairsprings, 2 of the most complex things to manufacture in the world. The swiss watch world is a complex maze of subvendors and parts bin makers, but rolex does it all themselves, and does it extremly well.
The place rolex really sets itself apart is their bracelets. Put a rolex on and snap the clasp shut and it will just feel different from any watch you have ever worn. They are extremely heavy, but also amazingly comfortable. For the rolex price point no one can even come close to the wearing experience.
If you wanted a luxury steel watch and didn't want to research your options, going and buying whichever rolex you liked the look of would net you an extremly well made watch built to insane tolerances. You could do a lot worse.
[1]http://www.fratellowatches.com/seiko-factory-visit-trip-repo...
Rolex is a giant art project that employs thousands and makes millions happy. That people are willing to pay for this art and the way it is produced is profoundly hopeful.
Seriously, this kind of content is the future the Adblocker fanatics are dreaming of.
https://twitter.com/vexmark/status/771182258099073024
"The Swiss watch industry is grappling with some of its toughest times since the quartz crisis of the 1970s and 1980s, when battery-powered watches threatened to make mechanical timepieces obsolete. A drop in Asian tourism to Europe has added to a laundry list of challenges including the strong franc and a four-year anti-graft campaign by the Chinese government."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-20/swiss-wat...
For all the Rolex fans here: why Rolex over say Breitling or Waldan (I like the look of the Waldans the best)?
There is no right or wrong answer, especially when it comes to something as subjective as this. If you like the look of Waldan take a look at the Omega Speedmaster which has a fantastic history and a similar style. IWC probably has some pieces you would like as well although I always thought they were a little expensive even compared to other luxury watches.
Browse Chrono24 or Govberg and you'll see a few brands you haven't heard of as well and maybe something else will pique your interest.
This Waldan brand looks interesting, definitely dressy watches, I'm sure they're quality. I'd say go with what you like.
What did it for me when I bought my Rolex (2016 Explorer I) was the how the quality of its finishing felt in my hand. It practically vanishes when it's on my wrist thanks to how comfortable and unobtrusive it is but the materials, fit, and finishing on it show undeniably where a lot of the money went.
Sorry I submitted such a site. I agree that it is very annoying.
What reasons would a webdev want to enable such a feature on a site like this? And no, I'm not giving a random page permission so I can find out!
I feel like I started seeing these requests more frequently about 12-18 months ago. I agree it's very off putting.
While I have no doubt that the Rolex is well-engineered, it's hard for me to believe it's literally a hundred times better than my Invicta Pro Diver, and I won't feel too bad if my Invicta gets stolen...Most people just assume I'm wearing a Rolex.
That said, if I had a lot of spare cash I'd probably end up buying a legit Submariner, and if I were eccentric enough, the Paul Newman variety of the Daytona.