Buying my first ever Rolex ..... Please advise ....
Discussion
paulguitar said:
Zoon said:
paulguitar said:
Mine's as accurate as my Rolexes. The ETA movement is pretty well proven, I think.
+/- 20 seconds a day, my Rolex is 2I think it is down to how well regulated it is. The Rolexes are indeed chronometer rated, standard Ward Trident is not, but mine has performed, since new, as well as any of my Rolexes and Breitlings did, and a lot better than my Girard Perregaux.
Zoon said:
paulguitar said:
Zoon said:
paulguitar said:
Mine's as accurate as my Rolexes. The ETA movement is pretty well proven, I think.
+/- 20 seconds a day, my Rolex is 2I think it is down to how well regulated it is. The Rolexes are indeed chronometer rated, standard Ward Trident is not, but mine has performed, since new, as well as any of my Rolexes and Breitlings did, and a lot better than my Girard Perregaux.
Tony1963 said:
lostkiwi said:
paulguitar said:
Rolex could likely sort the issue within a matter of weeks and chooses not to do so.
This.Does it?
Tony1963 said:
lostkiwi said:
paulguitar said:
Rolex could likely sort the issue within a matter of weeks and chooses not to do so.
This.The most common sentiment is "don't know why Rolex aren't increasing production" usually followed by speculation about reasons why.
In a highly robotocised manufacturing process such as Rolex one of the benefits is the ability to reprogram lines quickly according to demand. Rolex have clearly chosen not to do so.
Furthermore the shortage has been present for 4 years or more now. A company with revenues of more than $5bn per year should have the resources to react very rapidly to changes in the market.
Edited by lostkiwi on Friday 17th May 13:58
Zoon said:
paulguitar said:
Mine's as accurate as my Rolexes. The ETA movement is pretty well proven, I think.
+/- 20 seconds a day, my Rolex is 2My Magrette Kara (@€799) is +4 seconds per day.
If we want real self contained (i.e not dependent on outside radio etc) accuracy my Bulova Military Heritage @£127 is under 15 seconds per year.
You don't buy mechanical watches for their accuracy. If you want accuracy buy quartz.
lostkiwi said:
My Mühle Glasshütte (at £1100) is +2 to +4 seconds per day depending how I leave it overnight.
My Magrette Kara (@€799) is +4 seconds per day.
If we want real self contained (i.e not dependent on outside radio etc) accuracy my Bulova Military Heritage @£127 is under 15 seconds per year.
You don't buy mechanical watches for their accuracy. If you want accuracy buy quartz.
I'm own a number of quartz and mechanical watches.My Magrette Kara (@€799) is +4 seconds per day.
If we want real self contained (i.e not dependent on outside radio etc) accuracy my Bulova Military Heritage @£127 is under 15 seconds per year.
You don't buy mechanical watches for their accuracy. If you want accuracy buy quartz.
My comparison was between two mechanical watches, one rated at ten times more accurate than the other.
I know we should all buy a Casio digital and have done with it.
dvs_dave said:
Nobody wants a datejust, that’s why you can easily get them.
Not sure if that is true?All the cool kids are now looking at Oysters, Datejusts, Explorers and Day Dates.
Sports models will always do OK, especially in steel, but there seems to be a little bit of a revolution going on at the moment. Certainly the guys who I know in the fashion industry, loads of Datejusts and Oysters being worn from guys who have always worn Subs and GMTs etc.
I think a lot of it is self justification, with aRolex steel sports you know you can buy new and get your money back in 8 years time regardless of market swings.
My AD is now offering to buy new steel, including Oysters etc., back for current list price in 8 years time, that says quite a bit.
They also said sales of the classic range are doing incredibly well.
Zoon said:
lostkiwi said:
My Mühle Glasshütte (at £1100) is +2 to +4 seconds per day depending how I leave it overnight.
My Magrette Kara (@€799) is +4 seconds per day.
If we want real self contained (i.e not dependent on outside radio etc) accuracy my Bulova Military Heritage @£127 is under 15 seconds per year.
You don't buy mechanical watches for their accuracy. If you want accuracy buy quartz.
I'm own a number of quartz and mechanical watches.My Magrette Kara (@€799) is +4 seconds per day.
If we want real self contained (i.e not dependent on outside radio etc) accuracy my Bulova Military Heritage @£127 is under 15 seconds per year.
You don't buy mechanical watches for their accuracy. If you want accuracy buy quartz.
My comparison was between two mechanical watches, one rated at ten times more accurate than the other.
I know we should all buy a Casio digital and have done with it.
ZesPak said:
Anyone who thinks they can't produce more has some serious blinkers on.
And then, once they've successfully cheapened their product by flooding the market with it (many here slag of rolex for the sheer numbers produced, ironically) the demand will begin to drop as Tag Heuer's dropped twenty to thirty years ago.
Naa. Rolex are doing something very right, and they're not in it for the good of anyone here. They're making a shed load of cash, we ain't.
I’m of a very firm opinion that Rolex should increase both the supply and the rrp at official dealers , increase the profit margin for the dealers who invest in the stock , branding and staff training.
That would slow down the grey market overnight to a trickle at best.
Madness that a grey dealer should be selling a GMT Pepsi for £14k when they’re only £7.1k rrp.
That would slow down the grey market overnight to a trickle at best.
Madness that a grey dealer should be selling a GMT Pepsi for £14k when they’re only £7.1k rrp.
Zoon said:
Do you mind me asking who?
Windsor Bishop Norwich are offering that. They were offering to buy back at retail at 10 years, but James said they are now changing that to 8 years.
I guess the strong residuals and regular price increases means it makes sense to them?
I'm sure there will be some caveats like, it will have needed a service at year 6 and has to be in excellent condition, but still helps justify buying new.
lostkiwi said:
Have a decent read around the horological press.
The most common sentiment is "don't know why Rolex aren't increasing production" usually followed by speculation about reasons why.
In a highly robotocised manufacturing process such as Rolex one of the benefits is the ability to reprogram lines quickly according to demand. Rolex have clearly chosen not to do so.
Furthermore the shortage has been present for 4 years or more now. A company with revenues of more than $5bn per year should have the resources to react very rapidly to changes in the market.
What about the testing and certifying of the watches post-production? What about the parts of the process that aren't carried out by robots? What about the supply of materials? If a robot is operation for 24 hours and costs say £2m, you need to buy it, install it somewhere, have it maintained etc. And all to satisfy those who don't like the brand anyway? Have a word with yourself!The most common sentiment is "don't know why Rolex aren't increasing production" usually followed by speculation about reasons why.
In a highly robotocised manufacturing process such as Rolex one of the benefits is the ability to reprogram lines quickly according to demand. Rolex have clearly chosen not to do so.
Furthermore the shortage has been present for 4 years or more now. A company with revenues of more than $5bn per year should have the resources to react very rapidly to changes in the market.
Edited by lostkiwi on Friday 17th May 13:58
gizlaroc said:
Zoon said:
Do you mind me asking who?
Windsor Bishop Norwich are offering that. They were offering to buy back at retail at 10 years, but James said they are now changing that to 8 years.
I guess the strong residuals and regular price increases means it makes sense to them?
I'm sure there will be some caveats like, it will have needed a service at year 6 and has to be in excellent condition, but still helps justify buying new.
Tony1963 said:
lostkiwi said:
Have a decent read around the horological press.
The most common sentiment is "don't know why Rolex aren't increasing production" usually followed by speculation about reasons why.
In a highly robotocised manufacturing process such as Rolex one of the benefits is the ability to reprogram lines quickly according to demand. Rolex have clearly chosen not to do so.
Furthermore the shortage has been present for 4 years or more now. A company with revenues of more than $5bn per year should have the resources to react very rapidly to changes in the market.
What about the testing and certifying of the watches post-production? What about the parts of the process that aren't carried out by robots? What about the supply of materials? If a robot is operation for 24 hours and costs say £2m, you need to buy it, install it somewhere, have it maintained etc. And all to satisfy those who don't like the brand anyway? Have a word with yourself!The most common sentiment is "don't know why Rolex aren't increasing production" usually followed by speculation about reasons why.
In a highly robotocised manufacturing process such as Rolex one of the benefits is the ability to reprogram lines quickly according to demand. Rolex have clearly chosen not to do so.
Furthermore the shortage has been present for 4 years or more now. A company with revenues of more than $5bn per year should have the resources to react very rapidly to changes in the market.
Edited by lostkiwi on Friday 17th May 13:58
As for the robots, the ones producing less desirable brands can be re-tasked. Same for the small amount of non-robot work.
People seem to have this ridiculous idea that Rolexes are hand made by pixies in a grotto in Switzerland. There aren't enough pixies to turn out a complete watch every 30 seconds (assuming 24x7x365 production). Not unless they have a limitless supply of magic fairy dust.
Edited by lostkiwi on Friday 17th May 16:54
Tony1963 said:
lostkiwi said:
Have a decent read around the horological press.
The most common sentiment is "don't know why Rolex aren't increasing production" usually followed by speculation about reasons why.
In a highly robotocised manufacturing process such as Rolex one of the benefits is the ability to reprogram lines quickly according to demand. Rolex have clearly chosen not to do so.
Furthermore the shortage has been present for 4 years or more now. A company with revenues of more than $5bn per year should have the resources to react very rapidly to changes in the market.
What about the testing and certifying of the watches post-production? What about the parts of the process that aren't carried out by robots? What about the supply of materials? If a robot is operation for 24 hours and costs say £2m, you need to buy it, install it somewhere, have it maintained etc. And all to satisfy those who don't like the brand anyway? Have a word with yourself!The most common sentiment is "don't know why Rolex aren't increasing production" usually followed by speculation about reasons why.
In a highly robotocised manufacturing process such as Rolex one of the benefits is the ability to reprogram lines quickly according to demand. Rolex have clearly chosen not to do so.
Furthermore the shortage has been present for 4 years or more now. A company with revenues of more than $5bn per year should have the resources to react very rapidly to changes in the market.
Edited by lostkiwi on Friday 17th May 13:58
They are in the business of mass production and have been for decades. They also have spectacular cash reserves.
I’m quite aware of the mass production side of it. No illusions here.
However, I doubt very much whether Rolex have had people lounging about the factory, joking about the days when they used to work hard. It will all be monitored, and Rolex will be more than ready to make more money in the long term, if they can.
They’ve more experience in watch manufacturing and marketing than, at a guess, anyone on this forum. They’ve seen other manufacturers fail to varying degrees. I think I’m right in saying that back when Fidel Castro wore two Rolex watches at the same time, they weren’t seen in the way they are now. He wore them just because they were good quality watches, and available to him. So, in the last 60 years or so, Rolex have been doing a bloody good job of not only surviving in a tough world, they’ve flourished.
And as is typical for Brits, a successful company or individual is slagged off. By people who are less successful. Funny.
I looked at many watches before going for the Daytona, and to be honest, trying to find ones I even liked the look of drained me. It’s very tiring, and living in East Anglia, not in a major city, means that even looking at boutique watches requires a day in London. Er, no thanks.
However, I doubt very much whether Rolex have had people lounging about the factory, joking about the days when they used to work hard. It will all be monitored, and Rolex will be more than ready to make more money in the long term, if they can.
They’ve more experience in watch manufacturing and marketing than, at a guess, anyone on this forum. They’ve seen other manufacturers fail to varying degrees. I think I’m right in saying that back when Fidel Castro wore two Rolex watches at the same time, they weren’t seen in the way they are now. He wore them just because they were good quality watches, and available to him. So, in the last 60 years or so, Rolex have been doing a bloody good job of not only surviving in a tough world, they’ve flourished.
And as is typical for Brits, a successful company or individual is slagged off. By people who are less successful. Funny.
I looked at many watches before going for the Daytona, and to be honest, trying to find ones I even liked the look of drained me. It’s very tiring, and living in East Anglia, not in a major city, means that even looking at boutique watches requires a day in London. Er, no thanks.
Tony1963 said:
I’m quite aware of the mass production side of it. No illusions here.
However, I doubt very much whether Rolex have had people lounging about the factory, joking about the days when they used to work hard. It will all be monitored, and Rolex will be more than ready to make more money in the long term, if they can.
They’ve more experience in watch manufacturing and marketing than, at a guess, anyone on this forum. They’ve seen other manufacturers fail to varying degrees. I think I’m right in saying that back when Fidel Castro wore two Rolex watches at the same time, they weren’t seen in the way they are now. He wore them just because they were good quality watches, and available to him. So, in the last 60 years or so, Rolex have been doing a bloody good job of not only surviving in a tough world, they’ve flourished.
And as is typical for Brits, a successful company or individual is slagged off. By people who are less successful. Funny.
I looked at many watches before going for the Daytona, and to be honest, trying to find ones I even liked the look of drained me. It’s very tiring, and living in East Anglia, not in a major city, means that even looking at boutique watches requires a day in London. Er, no thanks.
Rolex don't exactly play on a level playing field. However, I doubt very much whether Rolex have had people lounging about the factory, joking about the days when they used to work hard. It will all be monitored, and Rolex will be more than ready to make more money in the long term, if they can.
They’ve more experience in watch manufacturing and marketing than, at a guess, anyone on this forum. They’ve seen other manufacturers fail to varying degrees. I think I’m right in saying that back when Fidel Castro wore two Rolex watches at the same time, they weren’t seen in the way they are now. He wore them just because they were good quality watches, and available to him. So, in the last 60 years or so, Rolex have been doing a bloody good job of not only surviving in a tough world, they’ve flourished.
And as is typical for Brits, a successful company or individual is slagged off. By people who are less successful. Funny.
I looked at many watches before going for the Daytona, and to be honest, trying to find ones I even liked the look of drained me. It’s very tiring, and living in East Anglia, not in a major city, means that even looking at boutique watches requires a day in London. Er, no thanks.
They're wholly owned by the Wilsdorf Foundation who are registered as a charity. Accordingly they pay zero tax.
Under the terms of the foundation they are permitted to pay expenses and salaries, money in perpetuity to the descendants of Hans Wilsdorf's nieces and nephews (he had no children) and reinvestment into the company. In effect that means that unlike other companies they pay zero tax. They also refuse to disclose how much they distribute to charities.
You can bet there are some serious salaries in the boardroom.....
Whilst some might call that good business I personally see it as another example of the shady ethics surrounding the brand, especially since they refuse to divulge any information about the way their charity distributes it's very large sums of cash.
There is no doubt Rolex are masters of marketing. They didn't even produce their own movements until 2004 (prior to this movements were made by Aegler or Valjoux (for chronographs). Rolex may have assembled the movements but they neither designed nor manufactured them.
If you like your Rolex I'm pleased for you.
I personally wouldn't buy one as I would rather spend my money supporting a less ostentatious brand that doesn't feel the need to put "Superlative Chronometer" on the dials of its watches or (historically) demand the COSC results say "particularly good results".
Edited by lostkiwi on Friday 17th May 18:59
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff