Hacker News Reader

Comment by scald | Hacker News Reader

I think the point about Swiss makers being in trouble with the younger generation is valid. I'm 28, and have always had a great appreciation for fine watches. This is mainly because I grew up seeing my dad appreciate them, and many of the people I'd classify as successful were appreciating them. I wonder though, how many in my generation will teach their children - intentionally or not - that a reasonably successful individual owns the best smartwatch to control their Tesla and their smart home, and not a Rolex? It isn't a stretch to think Rolex could partner with someone to be that brand of smartwatches. Today, smartwatches aren't competing with classic timepieces. In 10 years, there's a real chance that they will.

View on HN

A Rolex is a complete waste of money. For less than a very small fraction of the price of a Rolex you can get a watch that will perform just as good or possibly even better.

The only reason Rolex owners have Rolexes is to show they can afford one. And they can't wait to tell you about it.

Parents that teach their children that successful people buy overpriced trinkets are losing an opportunity to teach their kids the difference between 'good enough' and conspicuous consumption.

Tell that to every girl wearing ear rings or a diamond ring or a guy wearing a necklace. People accessorize. Get over it. For less tha the price of a mid range rolex you can also buy a rubidium atomic oscillator. I'm failing to see your point?

The point is, to the point of being pointless: that you can buy stuff because it has utility or that you can buy stuff for signalling purposes.

A Rolex is signalling stuff masquerading as utility stuff.

The utility value of a Rolex is approximately $50 (the price of a half-decent watch that will tell the time accurately for many years to come, assuming your phone doesn't already do that for you). The rest is signalling value (and in the case of a gold one some intrinsic value).

I'm perfectly ok with you not seeing my point. In the end the guy with the jeans and the t-shirt is quite possibly a lot wealthier than the guy with the Ferrari and the Rolex. (Especially when they're not bought with cash.)

I'm not sure it's always just about utility vs. signalling. I have no care for social signalling at all, but if I had money to throw away I would probably buy some things which you classify as signalling devices. For sure, though, I certainly wouldn't buy a blinged out gold Rolex (hideous) but rather something like a Speedmaster (on which I'd probably put a NATO or a velcro strap), and certainly not a sports car you can drive on public roads. Sure, both of these machines don't have that much practical utility, but they are engineering works of art. Just as some people collect art to show off their money, or store capital, some collect it because they appreciate good taste and amazing craftsmanship. It's still irrational but I wouldn't put it in the same bag as signalling.

I see many other high end watches as waste of money, but not rolex. If you buy a Gold Rolex they actually appreciate with time or at the least you won't loose much value when you do sell it. I agree the reasons you have suggested are primary reasons people do buy high end watches.

why then, whenever a movie hero tries to sell his Rolex to get some money, he gets $20-50 max?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com