"No watch collection is complete without a Rolex".

[rumbletum]

This is what someone said to me today, whilst discussing wristwatches.

I'm not sure whether I agree with this or not. I recognise that Rolex are probably the most well known and iconic brand in fine wristwatch circles and have a great history/heritage, but surely there are many 'better' alternatives available for the same or less money.

Not to mention that, according to my esteemed friend, my own collection is not "complete" (despite owning a Jaeger LeCoultre, Omega, Tag Heuer, Longines, and Nomos plus a few cheapies) as I don't have a Rolex myself!

What do you think?

[The Nur]

To be honest, if you already have a good collection, I dont think a rolex would hurt

[Spice_Weasel]

I don't think a collection is ever complete!

Given that Rolex has made a number of models that could be deemed 'design classics' I see the point. Also, collectors generally know how well the sports models hold their value, so there is that angle too.

Some collections are theme-based so it is conceivable that some would not include any Rolex models.

As a one-off comment, it's a bit snotty and best ignored

[CardShark]

I kinda hear what he's saying but I don't agree with it. Collections are personal things dictated by personal preferences, an individuals taste my change over time or they may choose to focus their collection on a particular type of watch but I wouldn't say that a Rolex is a 'must'.

[justayellowbadge]

At the risk of offending those who like them (and clearly many do) Rolex are somewhat uninspiring, mid range watches.

The comment you quote is akin to someone saying 'no car collection is complete without a BMW.

[kazste]

Coming from someone with a collection which is missing one I see his point. They are such an icon its like having a huge car collection without a ferrari.
I have also heard from quite a few sources whom I trust very much that actually value wise they are very good, definitely one of the best value end end watch making brands out there.

[Threeracers]

Too common! Too many nice watches out there to say that

Mark

[HereBeMonsters]

I would say for a serious collection, you'd have to get some of the early pieces - they were pioneers of serious diving watches back in the day.

As for a modern one though - no point as far as I can see. They do look nice, but have been superceded technically by a great many others.

[andy_s]

I'm with CardShark, yes and no, depending on the direction of your collection.

[LukeBird]

Not the case IMO.
They have made some lovely watches, but the ones that most of us would like (the pioneering watches, as mentioned above) are all far too expensive to even be a consideration.
There are other watches I would sooner have, before I have another Rolex in my collection.

To open the can of worms further, if you want a collection of watches based on best marketing, then yes, your collection needs a Rolex...

[nelly_h]

I can see where he's coming from, but don't agree. As others have said collections are personnal, and the beauty is there are no rules.

To be honest, there aren't mant Rolex's I really like, so getting one into my collection isn't a high priority for me either.

[Slagathore]

I don't really like Rolex, but, if I owned all the watches that I really, really wanted, I'd maybe have to have a Sea Dweller Deep Sea, just for good measur.

[rog007]

Watch collection without a Rolex is like a car enthusiast who has never owned an Alfa (misquoting J Clarkson, but you get my gist).

[SVS]

Threeracers said:

Too common! Too many nice watches out there to say that

+1.

Even if I won the lottery, Rolex wouldn't be on my list. Firstly, the style isn't my personal taste, although I know lots of others like them. Secondly, I feel Rolex's brand image has suffered and comes across as ostentatious to many.

[troc]

My feeling about rolex is the same as my wife's feelings towards BMW. Too common and owned by chavs that have made it. The "nouveau riche" if you like.

Now that's a gross generalization, and wrong! For a start I have a load of good friends with BMWs and I know a few people with rolex watches. None of them fit into the category above. Yet, despite all my personal evidence telling me I'm wrong, I just can't persuade myself to like them at all!

I just think they aren't special enough, they make too many and they are the first thing people buy when winning the lottery. I'll go for a JLC or something german or something obscure instead any day. Same with omega - great watches, the co-axial movement is something I'd like in a watch but they hVe been so over exposed with all the stupid 007 nonsense that I just couldn't get one now. Whilst I'm venting, I have to say Panerai is anothe brand I avoid - too must the latest 'in' watch to have.

I've also never really seen the attraction of dive watches except on divers. I dive. I have a dive watch. I wear it diving. This is nothing against chunky or big watches, just the idea of buying a watch with helium escape valves, locking bezels and 300+ m waterproofing just to wear at your desk seems odd to me. But each to their own and I'm sure I do plenty of silly things that would confuse you all

[Scalper]

rumbletum said:

I recognise that Rolex are probably the most well known and iconic brand in fine wristwatch circles and have a great history/heritage

I really cannot agree with that... they make some half decent midrange sports watches, but nothing more than that.
What rolex really is good at is marketing as the way their brand is perceived by the general public is substantially higher than their actual placement on the market.

thinking about iconic with great history and heritage that is appreciated in fine wristwatch circles Patek, Vacheron, Audemars, JLC would come to my mind.... but definitely not rolex

[rumbletum]

Scalper said:

rumbletum said:

I recognise that Rolex are probably the most well known and iconic brand in fine wristwatch circles and have a great history/heritage

I really cannot agree with that... they make some half decent midrange sports watches, but nothing more than that.
What rolex really is good at is marketing as the way their brand is perceived by the general public is substantially higher than their actual placement on the market.

thinking about iconic with great history and heritage that is appreciated in fine wristwatch circles Patek, Vacheron, Audemars, JLC would come to my mind.... but definitely not rolex

Yes you are right, I probably didn't make myself clear. I meant in the eyes of the general public - how they regard the upper end of the watch market - rather than the genuine enthusiast.

[andy tims]

We'll this would certainly leave a big hole in my collection if I had to sell it



but there aren't that many Rolex models that I really like.

[mildmannered]

When does a selection of watches for different occasions, i.e.
dress watch, daily watch, cheap doesn't matter if I scratch it painting the hall watch and maybe a sports/diving watch start to become an obsession? Sorry, collection

The first time I heard someone tell me that their (insert expensive brand here) required servicing at a cost of hundreds, I honestly thought they were joking!

I own a £100 Rotary...

[andy tims]

[quote=mildmannered
I own a £100 Rotary...
[/quote]

You should step away now then, before you get infected.