Clarkson has a pop at Rolex
Discussion
Whoops. Typo. 993. Trying to type on a phone is challenging. Autocorrect won't help with numbers. And I don't think it was technically a Carrera 2 (just plain old Carrera) but it was sometimes easier to call it that to distinguish it from the more expensive C4. But then again I don't claim any model number knowledge on cars or watches.
Edited by AstonZagato on Sunday 21st June 12:56
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: I thought Clarkson wore Omega which now seem to be the preserve of any salesman who sets foot on our site?
I read that and thought "oh st, I'm saving up for a Seamaster to treat myself on my next big birthday"Then I thought, "do I give a s
t if salesmen have them" Good luck to em if they are earning enough to afford one. I've never liked the styling of the traditional blingy Rolex but always felt that Seamasters were just nice to look at.
Once again though, get behind the headline s
t and JC turns out to be right. AstonZagato said:
Whoops. Typo. 993. Trying to type on a phone is challenging. Autocorrect won't help with numbers. And I don't think it was technically a Carrera 2 (just plain old Carrera) but it was sometimes easier to call it that to distinguish it from the more expensive C4. But then again I don't claim any model number knowledge on cars or watches.
In which case I wholeheartedly apologise. My old 911 is a 993. best car I've ever owned. I am sure there are lots of knobs who drive Porsche's, but then lots drive Ferraris and Astons too. Most modern high end stuff is susceptible to the knob factor unfortunately. Edited by AstonZagato on Sunday 21st June 12:56
Pistom said:
I read that and thought "oh st, I'm saving up for a Seamaster to treat myself on my next big birthday"
Then I thought, "do I give a st if salesmen have them" Good luck to em if they are earning enough to afford one.
I've never liked the styling of the traditional blingy Rolex but always felt that Seamasters were just nice to look at.
Once again though, get behind the headline st and JC turns out to be right.
I'm not knocking either as I have a couple of Rolexes and ignoring their credentials as watches they've done much better than cash in the bank.t, I'm saving up for a Seamaster to treat myself on my next big birthday"Then I thought, "do I give a s
t if salesmen have them" Good luck to em if they are earning enough to afford one. I've never liked the styling of the traditional blingy Rolex but always felt that Seamasters were just nice to look at.
Once again though, get behind the headline s
t and JC turns out to be right. Just found it strange and possibly a little hypocritical to single them out.
I am not what you would call a watch expert but I appreciate quality workmanship and like owning something a bit 'special'. To date, the best watches I've had is a Tag and a Tudor Black Bay. Before I bought the BB, I looked at the 'entry level' Rolex's and in all honesty, they did nothing for me. With the exception of the premium name, they were didn't look all that special to my eyes. Moving up the price range, I know that a lot of people love the submariner but again, for the money I just don't think they look all that special. My dad has a diamond faced Oyster Perpetual and I love it - I believe they are considered a bit old fashioned compared to the more modern versions but it's the one Rolex I think has the wow factor.
My grail watch is the Omega Seamaster Planet Ocean which I hope to buy within the next two years all going to plan.
My grail watch is the Omega Seamaster Planet Ocean which I hope to buy within the next two years all going to plan.
I have a couple of Omegas. A Quartz Seamaster as per James Bond "Goldeneye", and a Planet Ocean (not the 45.5mm big one). I bought the blue Seamaster for the very reason that when I was growing up the Bond films that were being released were Goldeneye (the year I was born), The World Is Not Enough, Die Another Day. All of these had Mr Bond wearing the Seamaster Professional and I just loved it. 10 year old me watching Goldeneye on an old VHS wanted that wristwatch so much 
Now I have one, along with the Planet Ocean which I chose over a Speedmaster because I like the aesthetic and the style. I bought the PO first, 3 years ago I think, and got the blue SMP at the start of this year, because I could justify it with the time between purchases.
I suppose I am technically a salesman as well, but I'm pleased to say the SMP has flown almost completely under the radar. Only a couple of customers have noticed it and that's because they were into watches as well, or in one instance because they had one similar. I don't wear the PO to work, for the very reason that it's harder to keep hidden under the cuff.
A status symbol it is not, thankfully, although if I wore it loose on the wrist so that it was almost halfway down my hand like a ladies bracelet I suspect it would look that way. But then so it would if the watch were a £50 Timex which looked similar. It can be as much a statement as one wants it to be.
Sorry, I've rambled...
Now I have one, along with the Planet Ocean which I chose over a Speedmaster because I like the aesthetic and the style. I bought the PO first, 3 years ago I think, and got the blue SMP at the start of this year, because I could justify it with the time between purchases.
I suppose I am technically a salesman as well, but I'm pleased to say the SMP has flown almost completely under the radar. Only a couple of customers have noticed it and that's because they were into watches as well, or in one instance because they had one similar. I don't wear the PO to work, for the very reason that it's harder to keep hidden under the cuff.
A status symbol it is not, thankfully, although if I wore it loose on the wrist so that it was almost halfway down my hand like a ladies bracelet I suspect it would look that way. But then so it would if the watch were a £50 Timex which looked similar. It can be as much a statement as one wants it to be.
Sorry, I've rambled...
He meant Kelly Clarkson. 
Martin_M said:
My grail watch is the Omega Seamaster Planet Ocean which I hope to buy within the next two years all going to plan.
Hello Sir,I swear you said some time back that you had already had one!? Or is your grail the newer 8500 series PO?
As for the rest of this "debate"...then I can only add the following:
1) I think the whole cast of TOWIE wear a Rolex. Flicking through the telly channels, I admit to pausing on ITV2 if I see Jessica Wright or Chloe Lewis sashaying around in a new bikini, living it up on 'Marbs'. But as I do, I can't fail to notice that every single cast member seems to have walked into Fraser Hart in Lakeside Thurrock, maybe spent an average of 27 minutes and not looked at anything else except the Rolex cabinet.
TOWIE guy: "Yeah one of them mate. Cheers. Have ittttttt-aaaaa!"
Salesperson: 'Sorry sir, the chronograph or the Submariner?'
TOWIE guy: "Nahh mate, the one on the left. That one, yeah. Cheers. I'll take it now, don't worry about the box and that. Cheers."
2) Rolex are common. Sort of to be expected if they send off to COSC anywhere up to 8,900k watches a year. If you add Patek Philippe, Jaeger LeCoultre, IWC, Audemars Piguet, Vacheron Constantin, Piaget, Breguet, Glashutte Original and A. Lange & Söhne yearly output all together...and then multiply that figure by five, you come to an approximation of Rolex's generally reckoned sales total. I do find it a little amusing when you hear of people saying they specialise in Rolex. I mean, with all the information on the internet, the publications, the merciless advertising, how could anyone who is remotely interested in watches not know much about the biggest brand of the lot! It's like saying a teenager is a specialist in the Xbox or Playstation 4 or whatever.
3) They are - generally - supremely well made. If someone genuinely likes watches, and isn't one of those faux douchebags who just want the symbol, then it will be surely a point of appreciation. The VW Golf of watches.
4) But for the width of a Rizla, they are (with Coca-Cola, McDonalds, IBM, et al) the resolute multi-decade branding success story. So no wonder then if that middle manager wants to silently emphasize that he's winning, alongwith the Serengeti shades, the 320d (Touring, of course, as the wife won't put up with a coupe and any pseudo-Lothario posturing) and the new-build on the edge of town, then he absolutely has to have the Submariner to round off the look. Or maybe push on and get the GMT if Robert who runs the three-person accounts payable team back at HQ already has a 'Sub' and you don't want to copy him....
5) The bulk of the range - the Dates, Perpetuals, Sub/Sea/Deeps, GMTs & Explorers - is a representation of corporate alchemy. On a pure business level, bringing out a product, 20, 30, 40 years ago, already well defined and handsome at first iteration, and then exhibiting extreme discipline to only gently evolve the product as the years go by....it's marketing and corporate genius. Very few organisations have proven the ability to do this over time, and tend to chop and change according to fashion and fad. Most business texts implore CEOs and those who manage companies to watch keenly moving trends and be able to pivot their firm to the demands of the moment. The Rolex business model has been diametrically opposite to that: product lineage will begat future product success!
Clarkson is famously acerbic. Doesn't mean his observations are wrong. Merely that the person who couldn't care less for knowing what's what between a 5512, a DeepSea and the Red Sea, but wants what they perceive to be the brand is ripe for poking fun at. And cars, watches, stamps...well it's perfect ground for the culture clash between those who "think" they are genuine enthusiasts and the image victim.
tigerkoi said:
Hello Sir,
I swear you said some time back that you had already had one!? Or is your grail the newer 8500 series PO?
As for the rest of this "debate"...then I can only add the following:
1) I think the whole cast of TOWIE wear a Rolex. Flicking through the telly channels, I admit to pausing on ITV2 if I see Jessica Wright or Chloe Lewis sashaying around in a new bikini, living it up on 'Marbs'. But as I do, I can't fail to notice that every single cast member seems to have walked into Fraser Hart in Lakeside Thurrock, maybe spent an average of 27 minutes and not looked at anything else except the Rolex cabinet.
TOWIE guy: "Yeah one of them mate. Cheers. Have ittttttt-aaaaa!"
Salesperson: 'Sorry sir, the chronograph or the Submariner?'
TOWIE guy: "Nahh mate, the one on the left. That one, yeah. Cheers. I'll take it now, don't worry about the box and that. Cheers."
2) Rolex are common. Sort of to be expected if they send off to COSC anywhere up to 8,900k watches a year. If you add Patek Philippe, Jaeger LeCoultre, IWC, Audemars Piguet, Vacheron Constantin, Piaget, Breguet, Glashutte Original and A. Lange & Söhne yearly output all together...and then multiply that figure by five, you come to an approximation of Rolex's generally reckoned sales total. I do find it a little amusing when you hear of people saying they specialise in Rolex. I mean, with all the information on the internet, the publications, the merciless advertising, how could anyone who is remotely interested in watches not know much about the biggest brand of the lot! It's like saying a teenager is a specialist in the Xbox or Playstation 4 or whatever.
3) They are - generally - supremely well made. If someone genuinely likes watches, and isn't one of those faux douchebags who just want the symbol, then it will be surely a point of appreciation. The VW Golf of watches.
4) But for the width of a Rizla, they are (with Coca-Cola, McDonalds, IBM, et al) the resolute multi-decade branding success story. So no wonder then if that middle manager wants to silently emphasize that he's winning, alongwith the Serengeti shades, the 320d (Touring, of course, as the wife won't put up with a coupe and any pseudo-Lothario posturing) and the new-build on the edge of town, then he absolutely has to have the Submariner to round off the look. Or maybe push on and get the GMT if Robert who runs the three-person accounts payable team back at HQ already has a 'Sub' and you don't want to copy him....
5) The bulk of the range - the Dates, Perpetuals, Sub/Sea/Deeps, GMTs & Explorers - is a representation of corporate alchemy. On a pure business level, bringing out a product, 20, 30, 40 years ago, already well defined and handsome at first iteration, and then exhibiting extreme discipline to only gently evolve the product as the years go by....it's marketing and corporate genius. Very few organisations have proven the ability to do this over time, and tend to chop and change according to fashion and fad. Most business texts implore CEOs and those who manage companies to watch keenly moving trends and be able to pivot their firm to the demands of the moment. The Rolex business model has been diametrically opposite to that: product lineage will begat future product success!
Clarkson is famously acerbic. Doesn't mean his observations are wrong. Merely that the person who couldn't care less for knowing what's what between a 5512, a DeepSea and the Red Sea, but wants what they perceive to be the brand is ripe for poking fun at. And cars, watches, stamps...well it's perfect ground for the culture clash between those who "think" they are genuine enthusiasts and the image victim.
I wish I'd written that.I swear you said some time back that you had already had one!? Or is your grail the newer 8500 series PO?
As for the rest of this "debate"...then I can only add the following:
1) I think the whole cast of TOWIE wear a Rolex. Flicking through the telly channels, I admit to pausing on ITV2 if I see Jessica Wright or Chloe Lewis sashaying around in a new bikini, living it up on 'Marbs'. But as I do, I can't fail to notice that every single cast member seems to have walked into Fraser Hart in Lakeside Thurrock, maybe spent an average of 27 minutes and not looked at anything else except the Rolex cabinet.
TOWIE guy: "Yeah one of them mate. Cheers. Have ittttttt-aaaaa!"
Salesperson: 'Sorry sir, the chronograph or the Submariner?'
TOWIE guy: "Nahh mate, the one on the left. That one, yeah. Cheers. I'll take it now, don't worry about the box and that. Cheers."
2) Rolex are common. Sort of to be expected if they send off to COSC anywhere up to 8,900k watches a year. If you add Patek Philippe, Jaeger LeCoultre, IWC, Audemars Piguet, Vacheron Constantin, Piaget, Breguet, Glashutte Original and A. Lange & Söhne yearly output all together...and then multiply that figure by five, you come to an approximation of Rolex's generally reckoned sales total. I do find it a little amusing when you hear of people saying they specialise in Rolex. I mean, with all the information on the internet, the publications, the merciless advertising, how could anyone who is remotely interested in watches not know much about the biggest brand of the lot! It's like saying a teenager is a specialist in the Xbox or Playstation 4 or whatever.
3) They are - generally - supremely well made. If someone genuinely likes watches, and isn't one of those faux douchebags who just want the symbol, then it will be surely a point of appreciation. The VW Golf of watches.
4) But for the width of a Rizla, they are (with Coca-Cola, McDonalds, IBM, et al) the resolute multi-decade branding success story. So no wonder then if that middle manager wants to silently emphasize that he's winning, alongwith the Serengeti shades, the 320d (Touring, of course, as the wife won't put up with a coupe and any pseudo-Lothario posturing) and the new-build on the edge of town, then he absolutely has to have the Submariner to round off the look. Or maybe push on and get the GMT if Robert who runs the three-person accounts payable team back at HQ already has a 'Sub' and you don't want to copy him....
5) The bulk of the range - the Dates, Perpetuals, Sub/Sea/Deeps, GMTs & Explorers - is a representation of corporate alchemy. On a pure business level, bringing out a product, 20, 30, 40 years ago, already well defined and handsome at first iteration, and then exhibiting extreme discipline to only gently evolve the product as the years go by....it's marketing and corporate genius. Very few organisations have proven the ability to do this over time, and tend to chop and change according to fashion and fad. Most business texts implore CEOs and those who manage companies to watch keenly moving trends and be able to pivot their firm to the demands of the moment. The Rolex business model has been diametrically opposite to that: product lineage will begat future product success!
Clarkson is famously acerbic. Doesn't mean his observations are wrong. Merely that the person who couldn't care less for knowing what's what between a 5512, a DeepSea and the Red Sea, but wants what they perceive to be the brand is ripe for poking fun at. And cars, watches, stamps...well it's perfect ground for the culture clash between those who "think" they are genuine enthusiasts and the image victim.
Right on the button on so many levels.
Edited by tumble dryer on Sunday 21st June 23:38
mikees said:
AstonZagato said:
Plenty of knobs drive Astons.
Not met many. I've never owned a Rolex, although I've bought them as birthday/christmas gifts for others. I think they're a bit mass market and Clarkson, therefore, has a point - they're the standard aspirational watch. Bit like a 911. Great bit of kit, but somehow not very 'original'.
I realise this will be a deeply unpopular view amongst Rolex owners.
I have never owned a Rolex,possibly because I associated them for years with yachting and diving and so on rather than display. Of course, I do understand that people buy watches as much for display as for anything else,since they have no real function that can't be done better on an iPhone. Given that,if people like them,why not?
How many exotic cars are bought by hardcore PH superfit track aficionados compared to overall sales totals? Yet,the motivation to buy because you like to show off,fulfil your need for status or whatever is perfectly valid. People are often insecure or striving to feel in some way that they have arrived at some imagined status.
I am not going to judge someone by the ownership of a particular car or watch.
How many exotic cars are bought by hardcore PH superfit track aficionados compared to overall sales totals? Yet,the motivation to buy because you like to show off,fulfil your need for status or whatever is perfectly valid. People are often insecure or striving to feel in some way that they have arrived at some imagined status.
I am not going to judge someone by the ownership of a particular car or watch.
NicD said:
They were naff (to me) when I first had sufficient to buy one, so, an awful long time ago.
This. Anyone over 40 must remember when gold Rolexs were as de rigueur as red braces for "Loadsamoney" city wkers?Good though they may be, that image (and the simple fact that I don't really like any of their designs very much) has always put me off.
I guess if you're younger then they don't have that image...
M
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff