Has the Rolex bubble finally burst? Perhaps it has
Discussion
Oilleak said:
Vipers said:
When I worked offshore in the diving industry, the majority of the more elderly divers and dive crew all wore a Rolex, mind you they were not all priced at silly money, my Sea Dweller was £200 in the 70’s
wow you could be a millionaire today
Vipers said:
Oilleak said:
Vipers said:
When I worked offshore in the diving industry, the majority of the more elderly divers and dive crew all wore a Rolex, mind you they were not all priced at silly money, my Sea Dweller was £200 in the 70’s
wow you could be a millionaire todayWhy dont we set up a PH Rolex buying syndicate??
birdcage said:
Hi Oileak, I was about to go to the trouble of doing this but then I though I would have a quick look at the threads you have started, merely to see if there even the slightest possibility of a 'win' for me.
It seems there isn't so you will just have to take my word for it.
PS I drove back to my country house in my Rolls Royce (true) which was a bit dicey as it only does 10 miles to the gallon and we didn't have a full tank.
Can you speak up a bit? I can barely hear you.It seems there isn't so you will just have to take my word for it.
PS I drove back to my country house in my Rolls Royce (true) which was a bit dicey as it only does 10 miles to the gallon and we didn't have a full tank.
Harry Flashman said:
Not going to happen as that is what Tudor is for. Rolex is going to try to be VC/Patek, it seems.
It's far too late for that. As this thread vividly demonstrates, Rolexes have now become irrevocably tarnished with the image of the people who are now buying them at a premium and `flexing' them. It's a great shame for those of us who have owned a Rolex for decades during which time they only attracted occasional interest from genuine watch enthusiasts. Rolex has always been a respected brand, but rather like Burberry a few years back the brand is now in serious danger of becoming an embarrassment because of its association with rappers, influencers etc.
VC, PP and similar brands are hopefully too small in numbers and too restrained in their designs to appeal to the bling lovers, whereas Rolex seem happy to pander to them. In any case, whereas every moron on Instagram knows about Rolexes I'd guess hardly any of them would recognise a VC or a PP. And the one absolute necessity for such people is that the watch must be instantly recognisable at typical camera distance. The flashier Rolexes are but the average VC/PP is certainly not.
Exactly. I'm quite enjoying the followers of a clichéd brand getting shirty about it becoming an even more clichéd brand, and whingeing about young people showing of watches that, in living memory, have been the most instantly recognisable watch brand in the world.
They were flashy in the 80s. They were never the understated choice for the discerning hobby horologist, no matter the weak protestations emanating from this thread. Patrick Bateman is pictured wearing a Datejust for a reason. That reason isn't because he is a master diver who takes his watch to the bottom of the ocean every week.
You bought a Rolex because it was a Rolex. Not because there weren't other, cheaper and sometime better tool watch options out there. The brand has been premium and glitzy for as long as I can remember.
The irony appears lost on all of the folk claiming they will sell their Rolexes because people are showing off their a Rolexes.
Delicious.
They were flashy in the 80s. They were never the understated choice for the discerning hobby horologist, no matter the weak protestations emanating from this thread. Patrick Bateman is pictured wearing a Datejust for a reason. That reason isn't because he is a master diver who takes his watch to the bottom of the ocean every week.
You bought a Rolex because it was a Rolex. Not because there weren't other, cheaper and sometime better tool watch options out there. The brand has been premium and glitzy for as long as I can remember.
The irony appears lost on all of the folk claiming they will sell their Rolexes because people are showing off their a Rolexes.
Delicious.
Edited by Harry Flashman on Monday 27th September 07:53
Harry Flashman said:
Exactly. I'm quite enjoying the followers of a clichéd brand getting shirty about it becoming an even more clichéd brand, and whingeing about young people showing of watches that, in living memory, have been the most instantly recognisable watch brand in the world.
They were flashy in the 80s. They were never the understated choice for the discerning hobby horologist, no matter the weak protestations emanating from this thread. Patrick Bateman is pictured wearing a Datejust for a reason. That reason isn't because he is a master diver who takes his watch to the bottom of the ocean every week.
You bought a Rolex because it was a Rolex. Not because there weren't other, cheaper and sometime better tool watch options out there. The brand has been premium and glitzy for as long as I can remember.
The irony appears lost on all of the folk claiming they will sell their Rolexes because people are showing off their a Rolexes.
Delicious.
You are right, it's just that all this has been turned up to 11 in the last few years...so even more "delicious" for you. They were flashy in the 80s. They were never the understated choice for the discerning hobby horologist, no matter the weak protestations emanating from this thread. Patrick Bateman is pictured wearing a Datejust for a reason. That reason isn't because he is a master diver who takes his watch to the bottom of the ocean every week.
You bought a Rolex because it was a Rolex. Not because there weren't other, cheaper and sometime better tool watch options out there. The brand has been premium and glitzy for as long as I can remember.
The irony appears lost on all of the folk claiming they will sell their Rolexes because people are showing off their a Rolexes.
Delicious.
Edited by Harry Flashman on Monday 27th September 07:53
My advice is isolate yourself from the silliness that is Instagram, and any other social media that is exposing the vile underbelly of our world. Why on Earth would I let my choices and opinions be swayed by someone in the US who isn’t even in possession of a real face?
Edited by Tony1963 on Monday 27th September 18:14
Harry Flashman said:
Exactly. I'm quite enjoying the followers of a clichéd brand getting shirty about it becoming an even more clichéd brand, and whingeing about young people showing of watches that, in living memory, have been the most instantly recognisable watch brand in the world.
They were flashy in the 80s. They were never the understated choice for the discerning hobby horologist, no matter the weak protestations emanating from this thread. Patrick Bateman is pictured wearing a Datejust for a reason. That reason isn't because he is a master diver who takes his watch to the bottom of the ocean every week.
You bought a Rolex because it was a Rolex. Not because there weren't other, cheaper and sometime better tool watch options out there. The brand has been premium and glitzy for as long as I can remember.
The irony appears lost on all of the folk claiming they will sell their Rolexes because people are showing off their a Rolexes.
Delicious.
Spot on.They were flashy in the 80s. They were never the understated choice for the discerning hobby horologist, no matter the weak protestations emanating from this thread. Patrick Bateman is pictured wearing a Datejust for a reason. That reason isn't because he is a master diver who takes his watch to the bottom of the ocean every week.
You bought a Rolex because it was a Rolex. Not because there weren't other, cheaper and sometime better tool watch options out there. The brand has been premium and glitzy for as long as I can remember.
The irony appears lost on all of the folk claiming they will sell their Rolexes because people are showing off their a Rolexes.
Delicious.
Edited by Harry Flashman on Monday 27th September 07:53
Rolex have always had examples in their range which are flashy for as long as I can remember.
They've always been the weapon of choice for the working man done good ie the plumber, small businessman etc. They've often gone for the gold and steel models to show that their years of graft have got them somewhere financially, and nothing wrong with that at all.
Nowadays we have the insta crowd flashing them instead/as well. That can be annoying as unlike the earlier example I doubt they've been grafting 12 hours a day for 20 years
But as I said, and others have also mentioned, just don't subscribe to insta and the like. I don't.
Legacywr said:
Anybody? Sometimes this needs to be a sensible forum… surely?
Legacywr said:
Legacywr said:
Anybody? Sometimes this needs to be a sensible forum… surely?
You won't have to cross the hallowed threshold of a Rolex dealer, or cross paths with a Rolex shop assistant. Or wait. That's got to be worth a few k. Overall, a bargain.
number2 said:
Legacywr said:
Legacywr said:
Anybody? Sometimes this needs to be a sensible forum… surely?
You won't have to cross the hallowed threshold of a Rolex dealer, or cross paths with a Rolex shop assistant. Or wait. That's got to be worth a few k. Overall, a bargain.
Just double check the sizing on each side of the OysterFlex to ensure it hasn’t been ordered with something weird.
Edited by DoubleSix on Monday 27th September 13:31
Edited by DoubleSix on Monday 27th September 13:32
Following the recent Rolex statement, several watch industry commentators have suggested that Rolex isn't happy with the way that AD's are 'allocating' the supply of watches, and Rolex worries it is harming the brand image.
This all speculation of course, but if the speculation is correct and Rolex are worried about leaving the allocation decisions to AD's, how would they solve the problem? They have made it clear they cannot solve the supply and demand issue anytime soon, which is understandable, but the allocation issue is a different matter.
Perhaps they will instruct the AD's to ignore customer spend, and allocate to people who haven't purchased a Rolex recently? Or maybe they will start saying that each individual customer can only buy one watch every 5 years or something? Or some other system to ensure that every customer gets the same opportunity to buy a watch as anyone else.
No idea really. I can't really see Rolex wanting to get involved in it all, but if they see the current AD shenanigans as being bad press, then I suppose they have to act.
This all speculation of course, but if the speculation is correct and Rolex are worried about leaving the allocation decisions to AD's, how would they solve the problem? They have made it clear they cannot solve the supply and demand issue anytime soon, which is understandable, but the allocation issue is a different matter.
Perhaps they will instruct the AD's to ignore customer spend, and allocate to people who haven't purchased a Rolex recently? Or maybe they will start saying that each individual customer can only buy one watch every 5 years or something? Or some other system to ensure that every customer gets the same opportunity to buy a watch as anyone else.
No idea really. I can't really see Rolex wanting to get involved in it all, but if they see the current AD shenanigans as being bad press, then I suppose they have to act.
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff