No wonder Rolexes are expensive
Discussion
This may have been posted already, but I thought it was really interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhvUKblZf0w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhvUKblZf0w
I disagree with both - Rolex are so expensive because people are prepared to pay for tbe brand. That might well be assisted by both mechanical ingenuity and racing sponsorship, but Rolex are not pricing to cover high costs of materials and workmanship, nor are they trying to fund a sponsorship programme.
^
This.
Rolex is all about the brand cachet, which you pay for in spadefuls – just like the pretty much all the big brands making shedloads of the things.
Rolex – 800K
Omega – 700K
Breitling – 500K
TAG Heuer – 400K
IWC – 300K
No wonder they’re all so commonplace in towns & cities with that production volume.
This.
Rolex is all about the brand cachet, which you pay for in spadefuls – just like the pretty much all the big brands making shedloads of the things.
Rolex – 800K
Omega – 700K
Breitling – 500K
TAG Heuer – 400K
IWC – 300K
No wonder they’re all so commonplace in towns & cities with that production volume.
Jimboka said:
Looks easy enough after watching the video.
Strip down, put the bits through the dishwasher, reassemble in the reverse order. What could possibly go wrong ..
Strip down, put the bits through the dishwasher, reassemble in the reverse order. What could possibly go wrong ..
It doesn't tell me why they are expensive. I can do the same for this £10 Chinese auto with boring piano music and a white coat. (And the help of someone like Variomatic to put the thing back together again.)
thebraketester said:
Its not even a hand made movement.... Mass produced same as many others.
Which is a good thing, it means the product is consistently made to the same standards providing a reliable product across the range.The parts are not hand made as the are made by much more accurate laser guided machines. The movements are still put together by hand and the cases are hand finished.
Hoofy said:
It doesn't tell me why they are expensive. I can do the same for this £10 Chinese auto with boring piano music and a white coat. (And the help of someone like Variomatic to put the thing back together again.)
bobbybee said:
Hoofy said:
It doesn't tell me why they are expensive. I can do the same for this £10 Chinese auto with boring piano music and a white coat. (And the help of someone like Variomatic to put the thing back together again.)
bobbybee said:
thebraketester said:
Its not even a hand made movement.... Mass produced same as many others.
Which is a good thing, it means the product is consistently made to the same standards providing a reliable product across the range.The parts are not hand made as the are made by much more accurate laser guided machines. The movements are still put together by hand and the cases are hand finished.
The suggestion they are somehow overpriced for not being 'hand made' is a bit bizarre.
Virtually no watches are fully hand-made today. At best, some will machine-cut components by CNC/laser, and then finish them by hand (using machine tools) - and they charge for it accordingly.
'A Lange & Sohne' make perhaps the best 'entry level' (entry level in terms of price point only, not a reflection of the superb craftsmanship) example of such, with a simple two or three hand time-only watch starting at over £10k. Some of the real masters - Dufour, Ferrier, Voutilainen etc. - do a lot more, but their prices are astronomical (if you can actually lay hands upon a watch to buy).
Rolex do not purport to be haute horologerie, highly-finished works of art crafted by Swiss elves - their heritage is in making robust, accurate, reliable, 'do anything' sports/tool watches. That's why their most famous models are rooted in some practical purpose e.g. Submariner – Diving; GMT Master – Pan Am Pilots' need for a second time zone; Milgauss – resistance of electro-magnetism in scientific environments.
Of course, like most watches they are a luxury item today, but that still remains their DNA.
In football terms, it’s like criticising Roy Keane for not being Zinedine Zidane.
What is interesting though, is that outside of Seiko, Rolex are perhaps the most 'in-house' and vertically-integrated of brands - virtually everything (with the exception of a very few components) is 100% designed & manufactured by them from scratch, in Switzerland, even to the extent of smelting their own steel & precious metals. Many other big brands buy in cheaper components from the Far East but still manage to sell under the extremely lax 'Swiss Made' dial definition - they may be parts of decent quality, but it's hardly what the consumer has in mind when stumping up thousands for something they imagine to be lovingly crafted in Switzerland.
Edited by UnclePat on Monday 9th October 13:38
With the combined manufacturing volumes of Rolex and Tudor, there is probably a business case for machining all parts in-house, something which cannot really be applied to other brands.
I would need convincing that an ETA movement is inferior to a Rolex movement. The only positive element to it is that it shows that Rolex have a depth of manufacturing ability that not everyone else has.
I would need convincing that an ETA movement is inferior to a Rolex movement. The only positive element to it is that it shows that Rolex have a depth of manufacturing ability that not everyone else has.
BOR said:
With the combined manufacturing volumes of Rolex and Tudor, there is probably a business case for machining all parts in-house, something which cannot really be applied to other brands.
It may be a factor, but I don’t think manufacturing volumes wholly explains it - bear in mind that outside of Rolex/Tudor, the Swiss watch industry is dominated by several huge groups owning multiple brands, the foremost of which are:- Richemont: Vacheron Constantin, A. Lange & Söhne, Jaeger-LeCoultre, IWC, Panerai, Baume & Mercier, Cartier, Montblanc
- LMVH: TAG Heuer, Zenith, Hublot, Bvlgari
- Swatch Group: Omega, Longines, Tissot, Hamilton, Rado, Swatch, Blancpain, Breguet, Glashutte
Whilst the manufacturing facilities for those will not be as integrated or geographically-concentrated as with Rolex, there will still be significant synergies, shared R&D, common management and bulk-purchasing discounts.
Even allowing for that, Omega & TAG Heuer individually are probably each about on a par with Rolex in terms of units produced, and both use parts sourced from outside of Switzerland. Just Omega, Longines & Tissot combined produces probably 3-4 times as many watches annually as Rolex.
A big difference is that Rolex is a family private trust/registered ‘charity’, so unlike the others they don’t have to pander to shareholders, or chase the highest margins by saving costs quite so voraciously.
Rolex has always tended to do things in its own way. Even before they formalised the arrangements through takeovers in recent decades, the Swiss supplier companies they bought tended to have closely worked with Rolex since the early 20th Century, often near exclusively, so as to be almost symbiotic. There is also maybe an argument though that Rolex benefit from a deliberately more streamlined, less complex manufacturing process, with their Oyster cases/bracelets allied to longevity.
BOR said:
I would need convincing that an ETA movement is inferior to a Rolex movement. The only positive element to it is that it shows that Rolex have a depth of manufacturing ability that not everyone else has.
You might find this link of interest: https://www.xupes.com/magazine/article/2016/04/11/...Only one person’s view of course, but independent and a watchmaker.
There’s a tendency to unfairly disparage the humble ETA family of movements, because they are so ubiquitous (partly they are a ‘victim’ of their own success, and partly as a result of historical quirks and economic issues within the Swiss watch industry). However, I’m quite fond of them - in their highest top/chronometer quality format, and properly regulated, they can share similar virtues to the workhorse (i.e. found in the Submariner, Explorer & Datejust) 3130/3135 Rolex movements: reliable, easily serviced, accurate & tough.
Both are mass-produced & machine made (though Rolex do hand-assemble), and in terms of daily wear, I agree that most wearers won’t really notice much difference on the wrist – they’ll just both work fine & without fuss. I also agree than in a stable setting, an ETA can be tweaked to be as accurate as a Rolex. In general though, a Rolex movement is more likely to demonstrate better accuracy, stability and robustness from the outset, and over the long-term.
Even a high-quality ETA 2892 does not have the same pedigree as a Rolex 3130/3135. 100% of all Rolex movements are independently tested & accredited over 15 days by COSC, whereas the vast majority of ETA movements are not. I’m by no means a disciple of the COSC certificate, but that is nevertheless a relevant point. Rolex then go further and test the movement when it comes back from COSC – guaranteeing it to -/+ 2 secs daily (compared to the wider COSC -4/+6 secs daily).
Indeed, even the venerable ETA 2824-2 itself comes in four different quality grades – Standard, Elabore, Top & Chronometer (Top + COSC). If ETA themselves recognise quality tiers within their own product, it’s not difficult to accept that a Rolex movement might be a step or two removed as well.
When you look at Rolex’s premier movements, like that in the new 43mm Sea-Dweller, or their Daytona Chronograph, they are of higher quality than ETA.
I could further bore you to death as to the particular features that differentiate the two – in particular the balance wheel/hairspring – but it’s not really necessary.
Zebrs said:
I disagree with both - Rolex are so expensive because people are prepared to pay for tbe brand. That might well be assisted by both mechanical ingenuity and racing sponsorship, but Rolex are not pricing to cover high costs of materials and workmanship, nor are they trying to fund a sponsorship programme.
They are prepared to pay cos of marketing which establishes and maintains the brand. There is nothing special or particularly innovative about Rolex that justifies its prices or pre emminence over other high street brands. It is pure and simple 'brand' and not much more. There is no real mechanical or design ingenuity, they've been churning out the same watches and movements by the millions for decades. hell, it took them decades to change from hollow bracelet links to solid despite the well known 'stretch' problem.
The only real unique element is the 'recent' use of 904L steel (which as a material is cheaper than 316L). The downside of the more corrosion and scratch resistant 904L is it is much harder to machine upping manufacturing costs, but when you are chucking them out in the volume Rolex does, that addition cost and initial investment in tooling will be minimal for each case produced. The other issue will be additional allergenic risk due to the higher nickel content, although this is minimal.
The price of a Rolex (and to be fair most of the other high street brands) is largely down to marketing and building the brand image along with margins up the supply chain.
UnclePat said:
You might find this link of interest: https://www.xupes.com/magazine/article/2016/04/11/...
Only one person’s view of course, but independent and a watchmaker.
There’s a tendency to unfairly disparage the humble ETA family of movements, because they are so ubiquitous (partly they are a ‘victim’ of their own success, and partly as a result of historical quirks and economic issues within the Swiss watch industry). However, I’m quite fond of them - in their highest top/chronometer quality format, and properly regulated, they can share similar virtues to the workhorse (i.e. found in the Submariner, Explorer & Datejust) 3130/3135 Rolex movements: reliable, easily serviced, accurate & tough.
Both are mass-produced & machine made (though Rolex do hand-assemble), and in terms of daily wear, I agree that most wearers won’t really notice much difference on the wrist – they’ll just both work fine & without fuss. I also agree than in a stable setting, an ETA can be tweaked to be as accurate as a Rolex. In general though, a Rolex movement is more likely to demonstrate better accuracy, stability and robustness from the outset, and over the long-term.
Even a high-quality ETA 2892 does not have the same pedigree as a Rolex 3130/3135. 100% of all Rolex movements are independently tested & accredited over 15 days by COSC, whereas the vast majority of ETA movements are not. I’m by no means a disciple of the COSC certificate, but that is nevertheless a relevant point. Rolex then go further and test the movement when it comes back from COSC – guaranteeing it to -/+ 2 secs daily (compared to the wider COSC -4/+6 secs daily).
Indeed, even the venerable ETA 2824-2 itself comes in four different quality grades – Standard, Elabore, Top & Chronometer (Top + COSC). If ETA themselves recognise quality tiers within their own product, it’s not difficult to accept that a Rolex movement might be a step or two removed as well.
When you look at Rolex’s premier movements, like that in the new 43mm Sea-Dweller, or their Daytona Chronograph, they are of higher quality than ETA.
I could further bore you to death as to the particular features that differentiate the two – in particular the balance wheel/hairspring – but it’s not really necessary.
Thank you.Only one person’s view of course, but independent and a watchmaker.
There’s a tendency to unfairly disparage the humble ETA family of movements, because they are so ubiquitous (partly they are a ‘victim’ of their own success, and partly as a result of historical quirks and economic issues within the Swiss watch industry). However, I’m quite fond of them - in their highest top/chronometer quality format, and properly regulated, they can share similar virtues to the workhorse (i.e. found in the Submariner, Explorer & Datejust) 3130/3135 Rolex movements: reliable, easily serviced, accurate & tough.
Both are mass-produced & machine made (though Rolex do hand-assemble), and in terms of daily wear, I agree that most wearers won’t really notice much difference on the wrist – they’ll just both work fine & without fuss. I also agree than in a stable setting, an ETA can be tweaked to be as accurate as a Rolex. In general though, a Rolex movement is more likely to demonstrate better accuracy, stability and robustness from the outset, and over the long-term.
Even a high-quality ETA 2892 does not have the same pedigree as a Rolex 3130/3135. 100% of all Rolex movements are independently tested & accredited over 15 days by COSC, whereas the vast majority of ETA movements are not. I’m by no means a disciple of the COSC certificate, but that is nevertheless a relevant point. Rolex then go further and test the movement when it comes back from COSC – guaranteeing it to -/+ 2 secs daily (compared to the wider COSC -4/+6 secs daily).
Indeed, even the venerable ETA 2824-2 itself comes in four different quality grades – Standard, Elabore, Top & Chronometer (Top + COSC). If ETA themselves recognise quality tiers within their own product, it’s not difficult to accept that a Rolex movement might be a step or two removed as well.
When you look at Rolex’s premier movements, like that in the new 43mm Sea-Dweller, or their Daytona Chronograph, they are of higher quality than ETA.
I could further bore you to death as to the particular features that differentiate the two – in particular the balance wheel/hairspring – but it’s not really necessary.
I enjoyed reading that
sparkyhx said:
The only real unique element is the 'recent' use of 904L steel (which as a material is cheaper than 316L). The downside of the more corrosion and scratch resistant 904L is it is much harder to machine upping manufacturing costs, but when you are chucking them out in the volume Rolex does, that addition cost and initial investment in tooling will be minimal for each case produced. The other issue will be additional allergenic risk due to the higher nickel content, although this is minimal.
The price of a Rolex (and to be fair most of the other high street brands) is largely down to marketing and building the brand image along with margins up the supply chain.
Slight point(s) of order… 904L is not more scratch resistant to 316L, the latter is actually a bit harder than the former. Supposedly, the former, when polished, looks shinier than 316L, and 26% Ni content is not really minimal, for those who have an allergy to it.The price of a Rolex (and to be fair most of the other high street brands) is largely down to marketing and building the brand image along with margins up the supply chain.
The reality is that Rolex used a material that no-one else in the industry was, as another signifier of how they are the bog’s dollocks.
If there was any true benefit, and given the numbers Breitling and Omega also churn out annually, they’d have done likewise.
sparkyhx said:
They are prepared to pay cos of marketing which establishes and maintains the brand. There is nothing special or particularly innovative about Rolex that justifies its prices or pre emminence over other high street brands. It is pure and simple 'brand' and not much more.
Yep, I 100% agree Rolex are masters of heavy marketing, and it of course plays a part in both the price & the 'aura' (but isn't that true of any brand, in any field?). And yes, often their marketing can be cringe-worthy or misleading, but again, that's not unique to them.As established, Rolex makes 800,000 or so watches a year, and I've read that they have something like all 20 of the top-selling watch models in the UK priced at over £5k. If anything, Rolex prices are too cheap in the UK, contributing to a shortage of certain models here.
Pretty hard to consistently do that over the decades if you're making sh*tty product.
Unless, of course, you know something different to the millions who've bought the watches and worn them for decades. There's a reason vintage Rolex is such a 'thing' - they're well-built enough to still be working decades later, and to still hold value.
I've included above a link to a professional watchmaker's verdict on a Rolex movement, and what differentiates & elevates it over competitors. Did you read it? I've tried to do that because there's no point me just coming in here and squealing that "Rolex is the bestest eva!!!".
Frankly, if this is to be a serious debate, there's little point bringing vague generalizations to the table with no factual, technical substance to back up opinion.
sparkyhx said:
There is no real mechanical or design ingenuity, they've been churning out the same watches and movements by the millions for decades. hell, it took them decades to change from hollow bracelet links to solid despite the well known 'stretch' problem.
Same watch models for decades? Totally agree. Rolex is often (rightly, perhaps) accused of being a bit dull in that regard, but then again, if you yourself had a business that had hit upon a few iconic designs, much-imitated by others, and still flew out the door quicker than you could make them, would you f*ck with them? Rolex are a pretty conservative lot, because that's what their customers want - check out Tudor for some of Rolex's more adventurous side.Movements? Possibly so. Their 313X series has been going for 30 or so years. But it hasn't done so unchanged - their Parachrom hairspring is the heart-beat (literally) of a watch, the vital time-keeping organ, and that was a more recent inclusion. Again, not sure what your point is - that family of movements is revered within the industry for being pretty much as good as it gets in a three-harder workhorse, and in terms of accuracy it's hard to better. Why would you be in a hurry to change a winning formula? If it has any weak-points it's in the auto-winding system, but then again that's a trade-off they've made for some other benefit. As stated earlier, Rolex have newer movements in certain models which are better again (and more expensive). Incidentally, you'll find most of the movements used in watches today have themselves been around for decades.
Bracelets? Yes, they needed to improve them and they did. However, there wasn't much wrong with the old ones (some still prefer them) and how many others have copied that 3-link Oyster design over the years? F*ckloads.
Stretch? There was nothing particularly wrong with the bracelet (though at the price point it was not commensurate). Yes, hollow links can make it easier, but the majority of bracelets were similar. Metal on metal rubs and wears. The issue is that Rolex is not a disposable product, so people keep them for a very long time (check out the vintage market). Wear the same bracelet 18 hours a day for several decades and of course it becomes knackered. Tools wear out - do you keep your Tyres for decades?
'No real mechanical or design ingenuity' - here's a list of just some of the innovations that Rolex pretty much perfected (i.e. they may have bought existing patents & improved, or they may have invented outright): First wrist-watch Chronometer. Water-proof cases. Dive Watches (some debate about that). First watch waterproof to 100m. Digital date & day displays on dial. Automatic 360 degree rotor self-winding (from an earlier, inferior Harwood design). Screw-down crowns (from a less-developed patent). GMT function. 'Cyclops' date magnifier. Helium Release Valve (alongside Doxa).
In recent years, they popularized using ceramic as a bezel insert (though ceramic itself of course has a long history of use in other areas). Has anyone else developed a mass production one-piece bi-colour ceramic bezel insert? Their Parachrom hairspring is 10x more anti-magnetic and shock-resistant than Nivarox, the alloy still used by most brands in hairsprings.
sparkyhx said:
The only real unique element is the 'recent' use of 904L steel (which as a material is cheaper than 316L). The downside of the more corrosion and scratch resistant 904L is it is much harder to machine upping manufacturing costs, but when you are chucking them out in the volume Rolex does, that addition cost and initial investment in tooling will be minimal for each case produced. The other issue will be additional allergenic risk due to the higher nickel content, although this is minimal.
904L is not cheaper than 316L. It's perhaps three times more expensive than 316L stainless steel. The actual cost differential per watch case is only a few quid though.904L is not harder to machine - it's still a slightly-tweaked stainless steel, and the same tools as for 316L work fine. Rolex just changed their machines to stamp rather than machine case blanks. That was the higher cost (which they will have recouped over years because stamping is quicker than machining).
904L is not more scratch resistant than 316L - it's softer (Brinell HB scale 150 vs. 217), but stronger and more corrosion resistant, yes.
sparkyhx said:
The price of a Rolex (and to be fair most of the other high street brands) is largely down to marketing and building the brand image along with margins up the supply chain.
One interesting point about the Rolex brand is that, yes, you pay for it at the till - of course you do. The difference is that you can wear a popular SS sports Rolex for 20 years and still sell it for more than you paid (even adjusting for currency inflation). That's a benefit that many owners appreciate, and one that is attributable to not just the build quality, but more so the Rolex brand. Is that a waste of money? What other product do you own that you can use every day for a decade and sell for more than you paid? Not many other watch brands either.Sorry for the long post. I'm not a Rolex fan-boy (I have owned just one in my life, alongside other brands, and I'm not likely to add to it), but the amount of ill-informed nonsense talked gets on my t*ts. Know why I'm not in the car section right now talking about engines? Because I know f*ck all about them. That's the difference.
The irony is, it's just because Rolex are so well known that they attract the crazies. TAG Heuer can get caught passing-off a Seiko movement as their own design; Bremont can lie about developing their own in-house movement; IWC can get away with charging Rolex prices for Mark XVIII pilot watches with the same £250 ETA movements you'll find in watches a fifth of the price, and nobody cares, because nobody looks closely enough, because everyone has an opinion on Rolex.
As you were.
Edited by UnclePat on Sunday 15th October 09:12
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff