Hacker News Reader

Comment by sunpazed | Hacker News Reader

Rolex are the De Beers of the mechanical watch world. Scarcity and exclusivity is a great way to market luxury. A Rolex Submariner in the 80s was about $1,000 — these days it’s closer to $12,000. A new Daytona is twice that. While they were never cheap, they were affordable for a working professional.

View on HN

> Rolex are the De Beers of the mechanical watch world.

Except that Rolex doesn't have a monopoly on the watch market. Plenty of other 'fancy' watch brands you can buy (Patek Philippe, Omega, A. Lange & Söhne, etc).

Besides the 'financial' aspect of high-end watches, one can enjoy the different aesthetics different brands have, and the mechanical intricacy of various complicaitons like (e.g.) tourbillons.

A decade ago, a Rolex wasn't much cheaper but it was in effect "free", as it was the only watch you could resale at the same price you bought it, even used and scratched. It wasn't an investment (and you didn't need to put it in a safe), but it wasn't a waste of money either.

(The same can't be said of the other luxury watch brands at all - like cars, they lose at least half their value the second you get them.)

Nowadays I don't know, there seems to be more pump and dump.

Years ago I read somewhere (maybe HN) that much of the utility of these watches is moving cash across borders with less hassle. Since many airports will have stores, you can buy one for cash before getting on a plane and return/sell it on the other end.

Purely hearsay though, I've never had to move enough money to try it out.

They are also fantastic ways of paying a bribe.

As a pure store of value, a few diamonds or a thin stack of 1000 swiss francs banknotes are more efficient. Expensive watches lose value if worn (with the exception, if it is still valid nowadays, of Rolexes), and customs officers can ask to check them (at least to catch fakes).

I think that's the whole point of luxury watches. No rolex owner is under the illusion that they are somehow intrinsically worth so much.

Can’t buyers decide for themselves the value of something?

Not on hacker news! Herre the group think only allows for things that everyone agrees on and some are completely non-grata, like BTC, which none, supposedly, like. Let me translate, i have tried to evoke the same argument and "lost" saying the value is what we assign to anything (BTC)

To some degree, but if something is 100$ worth of parts and 500$ worth of labor it's hard to argue it's actually intrinsically worth 30000$, even if that's what you're willing to pay.

Not if there's a "moat". Which could be unique expertise in making the thing, or through some government enforced monopoly like trademarks (i.e. "brand") or copyrights.

The owners are under no illusions - at least not the professional ones. They are buying an asset that is vastly more efficient to move across borders than cash.

Look at the Singapore Money Laundering Bust a few months back - all handbags and rolexes.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Rolex transformed into Veblen goods around the time Gshocks were invented

Is it really a Veblen goods when the ROI on marketing/social status increases appropriately?

In the same way a company can pay for marketing, buying a rolex/lambo is like exchanging fiscal currency for social currency.

We don't call buying 100k in adsense a veblen good but buying a 100k watch is?

A Veblen good means the demand increases when the price increases. ROI doesn't factor in.

Nobody would buy 100k of adsense ads if they didn't return more than 100k in revenue. With a Veblen good, the price tag is the point.

Haha, I’m pretty sure a lot of people buy 100K of adsense ads that doesn’t return 100K in revenue.

Good point, though most of them probably don't do it for very long unless they're money laundering (I would argue the big companies like Coca Cola spending on brand maintenance get a good ROI). The list of people who buy Veblen goods who can't ever return a profit is too long to exhaustively list: almost all jewelry, luxury watches, art, and luxury cars for example. It's only dumb luck that a few Rolexes have resale value; they're probably one scandal away from destroying all that value.

Fascinating analogy. While it might not apply to adsense, I think adverts in high-profile slots like the Super Bowl might well have signaling facets much like Veblen goods (for companies).

It’s strange to know some people think that way, but I’ve never experienced a community where someone would get more respect for having a Rolex. It’s such a bizarre idea - who cares

Incredibly shallow people

Like many things, it totally depends on your social circle. Obviously, you're not in the social circles that value Rolexes, just like people in those circles probably don't know anyone who cares about D&D, and think it's a bizarre idea that anyone would want to spend their time that way.

Right - I guess it just feels strange that in zero of my circles, which include the startup, VC, and parts of the finance world, does anyone I've spoken with outwardly care about these things. Perhaps I'm oblivious, or willfully naive, but the idea of purchased bling signaling status strikes me as inherently antiquated. You can't buy cool, etc.

Interesting; I'd expect you to meet more of those people in those circles actually. Perhaps it's generational?

I'm going to offer a guess: say you're a wealthy person (whatever that word means to you) and you want a social filter to keep you from interacting with people who have less wealth. One way to do that is to buy luxury goods and only entertain conversations, dates, etc with people who do. most people would say that's inherently shallow, but say you were super rich, think of how hard it would be to find people to go on trips or activities with. How many times are you going to be met with "oh I can't afford it/can't get the time off work/etc" ? even being polite, that causes friction between friendships. The watch alone isn't going to do it, but taken with the bigger picture, it's at least a hint that you are of some minimum economic status and I imagine some people find that useful.

Robb Report still considers them to be a beginner's watch, and treat the brand as only of interest to people who want to dip their toes into the higher end watch collecting waters.

Yeah, people who are into watches don't actually look very highly upon Rolex owners, especially people who own a submariner. The message it conveys is essentially, "I have some of money, but nothing interesting to say."

Essentially the same thought here, as I always thought of it as the "actually rich" versus the "nouveau riche."

Sounds like car people. It doesn't really cross your mind what elitists think of your cheap Mustang when you're stacking the neighbor girls on top of each other in the back though.

Part of what was being said though, is that people will often buy a Submariner as a status symbol, yet won't even understand how the functions on it work, and don't go diving anyway. So it's a lot like wearing an expensive brand label on a cheap tee-shirt, in that the people who know... know that the person is pretending to be someone they aren't.

Nouveau riche are notorious for buying things that they can't really use the way they were built to be used, and often wouldn't know how to use them when given the opportunity.

That's the disdain being mentioned. It's not being snobby. It's recognizing people with fake status symbols.

If your story to be told is about stacking girls, then Mustang it is. That's being honest.

It's not a fake status symbol if it's the real watch. Old money gatekeeps silly things like the car you drive or the watch you wear because they are threatened by new money. It's a physical reminder that people can in fact buy their way into the upper class and old money is nothing special. Old money has tried to change the narrative by making class about which luxury beliefs a person holds rather than physical goods for the same reason. It's all driven by insecurity.

I think the GP's point is that if one feels the need to use a status symbol, they're already pretending to be someone they aren't.

Of course a status symbol works to a large extent, otherwise people wouldn't be spending money on them.

I'm nowhere near the social circles of "old money", but I'd imagine they're more amused with seeing people trying too hard to push themselves into upper society, than being insecure about their own status. I mean, I don't have to be upper class to find this behavior somewhat comical.

How is it any more comical than a richer guy buying a different expensive watch to impress his peers? Pricey watches are obviously intended to be status symbols above all else, whether or not you dive.

Truly rich people don't buy things to impress other people. They buy things that impress and inspire themselves, and that are not directly connected to the nuevo riche who are trying to emulate them.

First time I've heard the No True Rich Man argument. I will have to keep that one in the back pocket. Truly an innovative way to spin luxury spending as a virtue.

Sorry if this is a daft question, but what functions are you talking about?

I promise I mean this question honestly and not sarcastic.

But if having a rolex means you have some money but nothing to say... What type of watch do real watch people buy? And what interesting thing are they saying through their purchase?

It really depends a lot on the exact watch, since a lot of them have distinct character.

The most prestigious brand is Patek Philippe. The nerds of wall street often wear IWCs. Blancpain, Panerai, Vacheron Constantin, and Breguet all have interesting offerings. The right Rolex (eg a yachtmaster for a passionate sailor) can also say something interesting.

The point is that your watch and its style and complications should ideally reflect what you value and want to show the world. This is kind of the same as car people at this point - there's no right answer, but there are some wrong ones.

That seems like a heavy lift for a watch unless we’re deciding that the watch brand and model is a shibboleth for other social groupings.

I take it you are not into watches.

Watches, cars, ties, and all other kinds of mens' fashion accessories are all the same, it's about communicating who you are through what you wear. Women know a lot about this because it's pretty much mandatory to adopt that attitude about women's clothing. High-end menswear is the same: if you're going to spend the money, spend it on something that fits you.

By the way, nobody who cares about watches will ding you (in terms of social status) for not wearing a watch or wearing a non-fashion watch like an apple watch or a swatch. If you're not into it, you don't have to partake.

Yep, I'd describe myself as not into really anything fashion-wise, although when I think about that harder it's inevitable regardless of what world someone occupies. For me, I'd notice things like outdoor gear and computer peripherals as signals (intentional or otherwise), and much as I'd like to pretend those don't exist, that layer is ever present, for better or worse.

Cooler model Rolexes for one.

Custom built wooden watch - all wood, gears, complications, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy4tXbm-HN4

Insanely difficult to make well, barely two or three people in the world are capable, requires a high degree of understanding of various wood types to select for springs, regulation, temp and humidty correction, etc.

https://www.keepthetime.com/blog/valerii-danevych-wooden-wat...

What does it say?

Hard to tell - if I had one, for example, it wouldn't say much beyond I appreciate fine craftsmanship, woodwork, horology, and could afford to spend a quarter of a million on a unique piece of functional artisanship.

Personally I have no watches, chains, jewellry, etc - I'm a don't like things that can catch type of person - but I do like timekeeping and have a sapphire cclock for the precision.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/for-precision-the-sapphire-clock-o...

In terms of finishing, the best is found outside of Switzerland: either A. Lange & Söhne, or the very high-end Seiko (Grand Seiko and Credor).

Otherwise, real watch people buy vintage watches. Universal (tricompax), Longines, Zenith (el primero), Heuer (not TAG Heuer), Minerva (Cal. 48), Omega... And like with old cars, a real watch person accept a degree a quirkyness: less accurate time keeping (but honestly it's not that bad), manual winding every morning, a blemished dial and scruffed case, finding and befriending a watchmaker with the right skills to maintain it every 3-4 years...

It's part of the charm.

Like with cars, the current batch of watches - on top of being luxury items, when in the past it tended much more towards practicality and "toolness" - doens't have the same flair, style, history or fun.

To be honest it also depends a lot on which Rolex you buy. Rolex makes (and have made) a ton of different watches over the decades and some of them are really cool and interesting and very desirable among 'real watch people'.

At the end of the day what matters to 'real watch people' is that you are interested in and passionate about the watch you are wearing. If you can talk about the watch you are wearing and what makes it cool and why you love it, then people will think it's cool

Yes, because it's inconceivable that a veblen hobby community would ever decide something that costs a few thousand is "the best" as opposed to "beginner". The entire concept of a "beginner" watch that costs $15,000 or thereabouts is such obvious gatekeeping.

Ferrari is exactly the same. You first have to buy a starter Ferrari or two in order to get invited to Ferrari events which in turn might get you an invitation to buy a limited edition Ferrari. Gatekeeping all the way down to maintain artificial scarcity. One might have wheels and the other keeps time (poorly) but they're the same and the scarcity is the product.

> The entire concept of a "beginner" watch that costs $15,000 or thereabouts is such obvious gatekeeping.

A beginner watch is a Seiko SKX (now the 5 line) at US$200, one can also do Hamilton field watches, Longines, Stowa, Nomos, Omega or IWC, etc for a few hundred to a few thousand.

Watch Youtubers like The Urban Gentry, Teddy Baldassarre, etc, cover (and own) watches from all sort of price levels (as do folks in /r/Watches, where you'll see state of the collection (SOTC) posts that have Casio G-shocks).

MY beginner watch was a Casio AE1200. It's about $30.

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/casio-ae1200wh-1a-world-ti...

My friend the AE-1200 is no beginner watch, but rather the epitome of watchmaking.

You two should get a room. I mean, a club. Epitome is quite a strong word in an industry with so many greats.

Or youtubers like Marshall of WatchRevival.

https://www.youtube.com/c/WristwatchRevival

I find that notion ridiculous. There are no beginner’s watches. Only watches. A $20 Casio is a nice way to enter the watch world and remains perfectly fine forever. It uses a CR2016 battery and keeps perfect time. A quartz Seiko is a bit nicer and can be worn for more formal events. A mechanical Rolex sports watch such as an Explorer is a remarkable timepiece yet keeps worse time than the previous two. Buy what makes you happy. A $5 Casio that’s good enough for the pope[0] and Tyler the Creator should be good enough for everyone.

[0] https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/the-pope-tyler-the-creator-wa...

I somehow got on the mailing list for Robb Report.

Their magazine contained a review for a $26,000 decorative rock for your patio. Not a fancy sculpture, just a rock.

I wouldn't take anything they say seriously.

What was the verdict on this rock? Is there a lot of competition in the decorative rock market?

Ah yes, the beginner's rock

More often than not Rolexes are daily wears, not collectibles.

Rolex don't do artificial scarcity and hype campaigns around limited runs like other brands have taken to do. They're at max capacity and if you want to buy one you've just got to get on the list, no short cuts.

> max capacity

As determined by what? Probably the current manufacturing facilities that they have strategically chosen not to expand.

An element of the decision may also be around quality control. Especially if a lot of the work is highly skilled but still manual human labour.

They are expending manufacturing as much as they can. The constraint is really the workforce.

Glad they are not the main producer of high tech chips then (AKA TSMC)...

If mechanical watches had nearly the order of magnitude of demand that ICs do, then maybe they’d be faster at it.

That doesn't make any sense... The only reasons why you would think they are not restricting supply would be if demand varies randomly widely or if the people planning production and/or purchasing are incompetent.

You can't just expand willy-nilly. It takes tons of investment, money, and you need to find a labor force. And what happens if demand softens (like it's doing at this very moment)? Then you're stuck with a bunch of extra capacity doing nothing.

Digging a bit, it seems the wait-list really started to be a thing in 2019.

> It takes a ton of investment.

I'm not an expert, but for an "assembled by hand" luxury product it seems like incremental capacity is much lower risk. They don't need to stand up a factory. Couldn't they hire and train 10% more technicians for assembly? And when demand softens, scale back?

I suspect you’re underestimating what it takes to train a technician for his kind of work. I imagine that could easily be a multi-year process (10 years even), and require a lot of attention from your highly skilled and already in-demand master practitioners.

> Rolex don't do artificial scarcity

That is absolutely not true. They have entire warehouses of “rare” watches that they let drip little by little in the market to keep their value up.

Rolex aren't the best watches but they keep value pretty well for a bunch of models. Some of the grey market prices they charge are pretty ridiculous even wit h prices going down.

Personally I prefer to spend the same amount of money on a nice Lange* than a Rolex. I think the only place where you can get a Rolex is in an airport store.

*=you might still have to wait for your watch to get made.

"Rolex aren't the best watches..."

Has there been a recent independent study of how these luxury watches actually perform as watches (as opposed to their looks and swagger value)?

I'm not likely to ever own one—except for my imitation Rolex clone I bought as a joke in Thailand for about $20 some years back—but it would be interesting to know if there are significant performance and reliability differences between them.

Also, do we know anything about the factory and manufacturing methods that these luxury brands employ. It's said Rolex is very secretive and won't let anyone outside selected employees in its factory so what about the others (Patek Philippe, etc.)?

> how these luxury watches actually perform as watches (as opposed to their looks and swagger value)?

The entire point is looks and swagger value. You can’t ignore it. In terms of time keeping accuracy (ie. bring a watch) they get easily better by any quartz watch.

n of 1 study: the Submariner that I purchased 30 years ago required one maintenance visit during that period. Its accuracy certainly isn’t going to match something that’s talking to a time server but it’s better than the clock in my car which drifts forward by 2 minutes per month. But for a purely mechanical device it’s remarkable.

Rolex has been less secretive nowadays. Still no public tours, but some media types have been invited. https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/inside-rolex

IWC, Zenith and a few other Manufactures do offer tours. It is fairly representative of what Rolex does (on a bigger scale, with more vertical integration). Many other brands and suppliers open their doors every two years in La Chaux-de-fond: https://urbanisme-horloger.ch/biennale-du-patrimoine-horloge...

Inflation Calculator

If in 1980 I purchased an item for $1,000.00 then in 2023 that same item would cost: $3,726.35

Cumulative rate of inflation: 272.6%

Cumulative “rate” of inflation is not a thing. You can tell because your number is not a rate. It’s not “per” anything.

The average rate of inflation over the period you’ve highlighted is about 3% per year.

> Cumulative “rate” of inflation is not a thing.

I copied the words from here: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

You can just say the “cumulative inflation was 272.6%”, or even “the inflation was 272.6%”.

Well it’s wrong.

You need to do (cumulative inflation)^(1/ number years) to figure out what the actual average rate of inflation was over that period.

Raw cumulative inflation is really tough to do anything with unless you’re making apples to apples comparisons for two things over the exact same time period. Even then, using average rate of inflation is better because it’s universal.

We got off on the wrong foot. You are actually smart. It just happens to be in a completely matter of technical fact kind of way and I respect that. I will now continue to read the remainder of your comments in a petty attempt to find something to argue with you about. Maybe it will bring out the best in both of us in the process. Write on my friend.

Good nitpick.

It’s probably a bit of an undercount. But yeah

If you haven't seen this, its a classic - but it shows the original price of a Rolex in the 70's vs. now. [0] To save you a watch - 1975 $345.95 - $500,000 at taping.

https://i.imgur.com/qGW0gcQ.png

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9Y4bmbh1KY

In contrast, $345.95 in 1975 is worth $1974.43 now.

Also, "To save you a watch"? ;-)

They've only become scarce in the last 4-5 years, before that you could pretty much get what you wanted minus a couple highly sought-after models.

but there are many suppliers of luxury watches

Yes it is more like Rolex are the Apple of the watch world.

I would argue that they used to be. Back in the 70s a Rolex was seen and marketed as more of a “tool watch” than a luxury item.

Apple is the Apple of the watch world. Apple sold 54m watches last year, Rolex an estimated 1m.

Apple sells more watches than every other luxury watch brand combined.

A Rolex will work in 15 years, while an Apple Watch will be unsupported landfill fodder.

Who cares if they work after 15 years? It's not like people buy Rolexes to keep track of time.

You’re partly right. I own two luxury watches (worth about $10,000 total). One of them is a Rolex. I wear one every day and yes I use it many times a day to look at the time because it’s less annoying than looking at my phone. Of course, a $10 quartz watch keeps time better. I bought these because I like what they look like, owning nice things is enjoyable, I want to support craftsmanship, and they hold value well. They’re not really a status symbol because 99% of people I interact with don’t know or care anything about watches. I would definitely be upset if they stopped being able to keep time because then I wouldn’t be able to wear them.

I've been wearing the same watch that doesn't work for 10 years.

I went to change the battery years ago, took it out, and never ordered one. It has never bothered me once. The watch looks just as nice, and it usually takes GFs many weeks to realize it's not working. And that's only because it's set to 11:11 which is a common cliche meme type time that girls like. (Yes I set it to that on purpose for a girl once)

A watch is basically a form of acceptable male jewelry. It still acts as jewelry if it doesn't tell time.

Right, but my point is that I want to be able to look at my wrist to tell the time, so if my nice watches stopped working, I’d have to either shell out money for a new nice one, switch to a less nice one, or just accept having to look at my phone for the time. Any of which I would find annoying.

Awesome. What a great story.

Recall that Apple announced the end of its $15,000 Apple Watch.

I wonder what one does with that thing? Personal Watch Museum it would seem.

Imainge having so much money that it does not matter. that is the targeted customer in mind.

A Rolex watch will roughly cost $600 to $1000 USD in servicing every 10 years to run properly (plus an upfront cost of, let's say, $10,000 USD for a certain model of a Rolex Submariner), whereas the Apple Watch Ultra (choosing a high-end model) will cost roughly $799 USD to purchase the latest version every four years or so.

Dollars-wise, there is not much of a gap between the two over a lifetime (unless you skip the servicing of a Rolex watch, which increases the odds of a breakdown and costly repair).

The main value of keeping the same watch would be sentimentality, as shown in the film Pulp Fiction. But the main advantage of mechanical watches over Apple Watches, it seems, is drawn from their aesthetics and an appreciation of their design—rather than as a practical preference based on cost.

If longevity and practicality were the main concerns, a Casio watch—such as the famous F91W or updated alternative with a better backlight such as a W86 or F201WA—would be a better selection.

Yes, and unlike Rolex, none of Apple's range cost as much as a detached house in Cyprus.

https://watchcharts.com/watches/brand/rolex?page=1&sort=pric...

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/142974947#/?channel=O...

Apple is middle class luxury, not weird posh "luxury".

A Rolex is likely still working if you buy it at an antique market. Apple, not so much. They'll be non-functional and useless well before they could be even considered a 'classic.'

Even old Casio watches from the early 80's have Apple beat on that measure.

Not to mention a Rolex appreciate in price as time passes.

Apple watch lose value and become e-waste.

Some Rolexes will appreciate, but not all. Knowing which ones will appreciate is like art or cars. Especially at the entry level you'll most likely be fighting for grey market prices.

"It's an investment" is usually just a cope for people who can't actually afford the watch and don't want to sound foolish.

> The average price of a pre-owned Rolex watch increased from less than US$5,000 in 2011 to more than US$13,000 by the end of 2021, according to a report by the California-based firm published earlier this year.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/over-a-decade-rolex-watches...

Even if the price of a specific watch slightly declines (unlikely given statistics published), it sounds much better than a 100% chance to become eWaste in the case of Apple watches.

The article is about rolexes gaining value over a particular decade. The idea that those 10 years will just happen again (that it's not in a bubble and this is sustainable) is a foolish gamble imo. Basically everyone pushing this is an SEO blog for some watch merchant, keep that in mind as well.

On the other hand, if you had taken 10% of that $5000 and spent them on an Apple Watch[0] and put the other 90% into Apple shares, you'd have bought fractionally over 346 shares in 2011 which would have been worth $48,804 in 2021.

[0] keeping the money aside for when the watches were actually released, which wasn't 2011.

I'll keep that in mind the next time I get the urge to spend extravagantly.

if you're after a good time piece, the cheapest Casio F-91W watches are actually better at keeping time than any mechanical watch. I had a few growing up, the straps broke before anything else, and replacing the whole unit was cheaper than getting a "proper" watch serviced.

Huh? 75% of the people I know has an Apple device. Stop fooling yourself.

I mean Rolex is more like Apple (high priced, defending a brand) than DeBeers (owning an entire commodity class)

Yeah, it's a tacky status symbol. What's the problem?

Little unfair to those into horology. Rolex makes quality watches and their history is rich.

Everything about Rolex is average at best and overpriced mass Produced machine watches at worst.

Is this based on emotion or are there facts to back this up? Would love to read about it if it's the latter?

Collectors of Rolexes live in a bizarre netherworld where their watches aren’t mass produced machine made. This isn’t even a secret it’s openly stated. It made of few to no precious materials and is engineering a problem (time keeping) that has been solved in a variety of ways already to super accuracy.

The reality is that a microscopically accurate replica can be made for 300$ in china. This isn’t true for A Lange or FP Journe, yet somehow people act like Rolex is unobtanium.

They are simply the same as an LVMH canvas bag. Objects of desire because they are expensive and have no other unique features. I could get into details like how a blue hairspring is not that special or their movements are fine but nothing outstanding. But most don’t want to go that deep.

Think of it like Bose. They sound good to someone who hasn’t heard anything else good.

Idk, if you decide you want a mechanical dive watch, just by the stats, a Sub Date is under 13mm thick, +2/-2 accuracy, made of hard materials, ceramic, sapphire, and steel alloy (no coating so it can be polished), price after purchase is only going to go up.

I don’t own a Rolex, don’t want to spend that much, invite the crime, or care about the status, but I really would like for Seiko (or another value brand) to step up and offer something comparable.

BOSE - Buy Other Sound Equipment

This is silly. Their movements are among the most accurate out there, putting watch movements by other highly esteemed brands like Patek Philippe to shame

And so is a Seiko. For substantially less.

Now you're just making stuff up instead of doing a simple Google search. Regular Seikos (ie a Seiko 5) can expect around +-20 sec per day. Same with Orient and similar brands that use very cheap automatic movements. Rolex watches often do better than +-2sec per day. If you think the difference between the two is marketing you are either engaging in sophistry or painfully uninformed.

This is the classic Rolex fan. Sort of brainwashed and clueless while insulting to others. Both spring drives and grands are more accurate than Rolexes. Beyond that who even cares. If you want accuracy certainly don’t get a mechanical watch.

I am not a Rolex owner or even a fan.

If you meant Seikos high end products you should have said those, no one calls Grand Seikos just Seiko since they are very different. With that in mind I don't think we disagree very much here.

I'm no expert but my recollection from last time I was looking into buying a watch is that quartz watches are 1-2 orders of magnitude more accurate than even top-end mechanical watches.

Yes, this is true, but almost no luxury watch is quartz (unless you count Seiko spring drive which is hybrid quartz/mechanical). So when people compare e.g. Rolex and Patek movements they are comparing mechanical to mechanical.

Patek, VC, Audemars and Journe all make quartz currently.

It's like saying your Tesla has better 0 to 100 kph acceleration than a 70s Aston Martin V8. The answer is "so what?". You're not driving an Aston Martin V8 for the best acceleration, or the gas mileage, or suspensions, or the ease of maintenance. You buy it because it kicks and roars and slips and smells...

You don't generally buy a luxury watch for its accuracy.

This feels very much like the "Android is way better than iOS, why pay more?" argument

No you can go into a lot of details of how Apple engineers its cases to its proprietary M chips to technically prove their value. You can also point out value integrations in software. This isn’t a Veblen good and iPhone is very much a measurable utility.

The iPhone and iWatch are clearly status symbols. How many users really need the full power of those chips? How many actually use it?

I could go into very lengthy details into the technical prowess behind Rolex watches.

It's really silly to argue that something with >50% market share (in the US at least) is a status symbol...

Maybe the top end models, but definitely not in general.

Have you heard of the women who would not date men using an Android phone, as well as the kids being pressured or excluded? In some social circles Apple devices are definitely status symbols.

Women don't date homeless men either. That doesn't make having a roof over your head a status symbol.

Rolex have innovated consistently with their movements and oyster cases, and their manufacturing quality is amazing. Their business practices are questionable though, as the article highlights. I can walk into an AD today and walk out with a Grand Seiko Snowflake. Contrast this with a Rolex AD who will put me on a “waiting list”, even though I’ve purchased from them before and own a few Rolex watches.

Yeah, it's pretty sad. At least the time you have to wait to get the chance to buy Rolex, you can get a few Patek's like a 5520P. No years of waiting.

Sibling sohc* - looks like your comment is dead. Pointing it out because it didn't seem that bad and this looks abnormal for your history. Maybe one of the words you used?

I’d get a Snowflake 10 times out of 10 over a Rolex. Those things are just so cool.

Okay, call them unnecessary status symbols for people to show their wealth. See also fancy cars, gaudy diamond rings. They are kind of in that category.

Even new cell phones, for that matter.

I have an s23 ultra, if I walked around feeling good about myself for that I would feel like a dickhead

Ahem. I agree.

Even the most highly respected brands like Patek are stupendously tacky. Just look at their 2023 lineup: https://www.patek.com/en/collection/new-models-2023

Wow. The nautilus and aquanaut lineups are beyond ridiculous. What the hell are they thinking? Will they sell even a single one of those?

Profoundly ugly. But these fancy watches have moved into speculative investment territory, like sneakers or bitcoin. I get the feeling that patek is trying to reel in rubes with money that think that they can make money by buying and reselling one of these, instead of buying a fancy watch for being a watch.

Patek make beautiful watches, that run for decades, so its especially sad to see them chasing ugly bucks like this. Oh well.

Everything is a status symbol.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com