If you dont own a Rolex by the age of 50

[gtnator]

Originally Posted by amh

Actually there is some truth to what the guy said. In Western nations we're living in an incredible period of prosperity, the greatest in world history. Even people with entry level jobs _could_ afford a Rolex, but they tend to blow their money on other things instead (booze, Starbucks, cars, vacations, clothes etc.) I have little pity on 'the poor' in any Western country, they are actually fat and rich. Even the homeless are very well off (I remember a certain guy who drives a Mercedes.)



The poor in 3rd world countries are indeed poor, electricity and running water are a luxury. It's easy to forget how well off we are.

Good points


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bobernet]

This is an age where people love to be offended. I think western folks are born with two settings anymore, and constantly switch between "narcissistic angst" and "appalled."

He clearly didn't mean people in sub-Saharan Africa barely surviving. He didn't just come out with it apropos of nothing. It was in context of people being drama queens about a world leader wearing a nice watch.

It was a dumb way to say it, but his point - which was clearly, "a Rolex is no big deal, get over it and move on" - was completely rational and appropriate.

[WEST HAM ROLEX]

If you don't own a Rolex by the time your 50

You do the same as my mate......you treat yourself (in his case Daytona)
To yourself for your 50th

[mactruck]

[jdpny]

Lots of people start out with the deck stacked against them in life. Not trying to make excuses, but sometimes simply pulling yourself out of crippling poverty is a fantastic accomplishment in its own right. So the guy who started out destitute as a kid, but is now driving a Honda civic, providing for his family, and living comfortably should not be shamed because he doesn't have excessive disposable income.

Yes

[MrTwi]

First post so old timers can skewer me if I get this wrong. I understand. I am from the outside looking in and I think many here are looking from within a bubble and not seeing what is outside the bubble.

I looked up the subject of this article and it was written in 2009. Today he's in his mid-80s and worth over $185M. He later said the readership misunderstood his comment as it was meant to mean, roughly, Rolex is an icon and whether you like it or not, represents a dream, something to aspire to. Roughly the idea.

Looking from the outside I think what he's trying to say is that by the time one is at the peak of one's career, which might be more or less 50, pick a year, that's about it. Most people retire in 15 years or so. I don't think he is talking about steel watches but gold or platinum. From the outside, when people think Rolex, they think President Watch, gold. Some might think steel Submariner but for most, the "dream" is the gold watch. Back in the day, you retired and got a gold watch. One has to remember that the public does not live within the bubble of collectors or experts in the field. They could not care less about reference numbers, watch components, dates, tolerances, etc. All they know is one thing or two: Gold President Watch, Steel Submariner from James Bond. They don't collect them, they don't read about them, they do envy them and buy replicas and the like to "be like the original".

His "dream" is no different than someone wanting Louis Vuitton leather goods, a high end sports car, drink Dom Perignon, have a high end Goose Feather winter Parka, or whatever iconic piece of merchandise is considered an icon. I don't think he was talking about buying second or third hand used goods. In other words, I think he meant if you haven't bought a new Gold Rolex by 50, you probably won't because its all downhill from there.

Once one has a certain amount of money, the watch is just a watch. Its something to tell time. He could be picking up his new Ferrari tomorrow and buying a new Yacht. I don't know. Maybe he's buying a $40,000 antique desk for his office along with some $20,000 antique lamps. A$75,000 new Rolex is not worth much compared to the other expensive things. Its all relative.

I can be totally wrong. I could be reading this wrong, but that is what I got from the original article, and the follow on article, was his intention was more in line with the ability to buy iconic articles. That also doesn't mean he's right as obviously humans are more important than "things". But if you accept the premise he is talking about buying an expensive, new, iconic item by 50, then if one does not have the disposable income, I think he means chances are, its not going to happen as you grow older and presumable are not working. Setting aside the obvious like lotteries, inheritance, windfalls, etc. He was not intending to be contemptuous, mean, or the like but rather looking at things pragmatically.

Then again, I could have totally misread his intentions.

[hugs]

Originally Posted by cda555

Lots of people start out with the deck stacked against them in life. Not trying to make excuses, but sometimes simply pulling yourself out of crippling poverty is a fantastic accomplishment in its own right. So the guy who started out destitute as a kid, but is now driving a Honda civic, providing for his family, and living comfortably should not be shamed because he doesn't have excessive disposable income.

This is a great point.

I read about a very high profile businessman who made a multi billion dollar empire using inherited money. If he instead dumped the money in BRK (an investment/pension fund), he would have more money today than he does in reality.

Obviously he is still very successful but one could say that to work all your life and make less money than if you had put it into a fund and sat idle for 30 years, the guy who started with nothing and made a modest life for himself is, relatively, more successful.

[SeaAndSky]

Originally Posted by dubins930

This is why Rolex is now known more for being worn by douchebags, more so than for being amazing timepieces...

Lol. Agreed. I see so many people with nice things behave like boorish entitled clowns.

[Widows Son]

I read somewhere that the French Presidents wife actually bought him a Patek because it was far less flashy than the Rolex's he was wearing. 99% of the people wont's realize that it cost 3x what a Rolex would!!!
Perception, perception, perception!!!!