Rolex buying "experience" has left me kinda sour

[6172crew]

I took my brother in-law shopping for his first real watch. I wanted to make sure he got to see the most and try them all on while in Las Vegas and southern Texas.

He ended up getting a snowy valley GS. He liked the effort made to make it look different, the lume dial and the way the watch wore. GS and even the turtle Seiko have that weird bevel on the backside that allow them to sit lower than a thicker watch should. He was offer a date just that day but he didn’t feel like it was that special. The Omega GMT was another one he spent a little time looking at and I wasn’t sure if he would go that way or not but I think it was probably too traditional like the date just.

He even wore a BLRO for 10 minutes and just didn’t seem stare at it like I do when I try one on.

The Tudor is another one to look at but I don’t like the coin bezel and they are thicker than I’d like so I’m sticking with the “wait list”.

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by Neil McCauley

That wasn't really the point though, the statement was that Rolex is only dominant because of their marketing. Which is completely false. Nod to their marketing though, as I've said in previous posts on the thread, it's incredibly unique and exceptional in many ways.

Neil. It's estimated that Rolex's marketing budget is between 50-100 million US dollars per year. Half a billion to a billion dollars per decade.

Think about that.

[Neil McCauley]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

You remind me of certain car enthusiasts who only like, say, BMW cars and will not tolerate any criticism of BMW whatsoever.

I'm obviously a Rolex fan, otherwise I wouldn't own any. I'm able to step outside the Rolex bubble, and look at other brands as well. Every brand has its strengths and weaknesses. Try it, if you like. If you don't, then don't. Why should I care?

I think it's fair that when you make a comment like you did, to be questioned to come up with some objective reasons as to why your statement is correct.
You didn't manage to do that, all your responses were subjective and open to debate

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

"Why does GS lose $5K per watch (per your example) and how is that better?"

Resale value and market demand are frankly irrelevant to me, because I don't view watches as investments. The only reason why Rolex is dominant is marketing.

"Why is an exhibition caseback better?"

Because it allows you to look at the exquisite finishing of the movement. If you're not interested in the movement, it's not compulsory to look. Why do some high-end Ferraris etc. have glass covers on their engines?

"Why isn’t continuity of design better?" GS are reissuing some of their classic designs from the 1960s, and have strong design roots in their "Heritage" range.

"Why is a quartz assisted mechanical movement better?" Because of the smooth sweep of the second hand, and timekeeping accuracy. If you don't want a Spring Drive, you can choose from either 4Hz or 5Hz mechanical movements, either autos or manual wind with very long power reserves.

"the marketplace doesn’t agree" The marketplace thinks Rolex is better than JLC. McDonalds dominates the restaurant industry...

Oh man, if losing value on secondary is the metric my Vacherons are the worst watches ever made. I could buy any colorway Daytona from DavidSW with the loss on a single rose gold VC.

[Oxfordian]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

Neil. It's estimated that Rolex's marketing budget is between 50-100 million US dollars per year. Half a billion to a billion dollars per decade.

Think about that.

Wow, if these figures are correct its no wonder everyone wants a Rolex.

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by Neil McCauley

I think it's fair that when you make a comment like you did, to be questioned to come up with some objective reasons as to why your statement is correct.
You didn't manage to do that, all your responses were subjective and open to debate

Post#126

[Neil McCauley]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

Neil. It's estimated that Rolex's marketing budget is between 50-100 million US dollars per year. Half a billion to a billion dollars per decade.

Think about that.

I still don't see your point.

You can spend billions of $$ on marketing but if your product is garbage you're still going to fail.

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by Oxfordian

Wow, if these figures are correct its no wonder everyone wants a Rolex.

This 7 minute film explains an awful lot about Rolex, and why people think wearing a big steel sports watch with a suit is OK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwMY...asebackWatches

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by Neil McCauley

I still don't see your point.

You can spend billions of $$ on marketing but if your product is garbage you're still going to fail.

Where did I say that Rolex is garbage? Grand Seiko are better, that's all.

[Neil McCauley]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

Where did I say that Rolex is garbage? Grand Seiko are better, that's all.

Oh wow lol

I was responding to the person who commented that Rolex is only dominant due to its marketing, but you highjacked it.

Go polish your zaratsu or something

Correction - Oh that person, was you hahaha! - You said that Rolex is only dominant due to its marketing, which is a totally dumb statement and not true. it's about balance, you have to have a great product to back it up. If grand seiko had the marketing budget that Rolex does, I still don't think they would have the appeal that Rolex does today. People just don't resonate with it. It's a niche brand, and always will be.

[Oxfordian]

Originally Posted by Neil McCauley

I still don't see your point.

You can spend billions of $$ on marketing but if your product is garbage you're still going to fail.

If your product is garbage you're unlikely to have billions of $$ to spend on marketing, millions or hundreds of thousands yes but billions no. I get your drift though, the product has to stand up to scrutiny at some point.

[suzika64]

Originally Posted by Neil McCauley

Oh wow lol

I was responding to the person who commented that Rolex is only dominant due to its marketing, but you highjacked it.

Go polish your zaratsu or something

Correction - Oh that person, was you hahaha! - You said that Rolex is only dominant due to its marketing, which is a totally dumb statement and not true. it's about balance, you have to have a great product to back it up. If grand seiko had the marketing budget that Rolex does, I still don't think they would have the appeal that Rolex does today. People just don't resonate with it. It's a niche brand, and always will be.

With a good marketing campaign you can make even a very worthless product shine. But only for a short time, then it bursts like a balloon.... Look at the MVMT example. It's not like it will last for 100 years like Rolex does.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

You remind me of certain car enthusiasts who only like, say, BMW cars and will not tolerate any criticism of BMW whatsoever.

I'm obviously a Rolex fan, otherwise I wouldn't own any. I'm able to step outside the Rolex bubble, and look at other brands as well. Every brand has its strengths and weaknesses. Try it, if you like. If you don't, then don't. Why should I care?

I currently own seventeen watches, down from thirty, only four of them Rolex. You remind me of someone who tries to establish their superiority through diminishment of others. My point is that you are wrong, that Grand Seiko is not objectively better than Rolex, it is merely different. My point is not and has never been that Rolex is above criticism. And you care enough about my opinion to argue with it.

I have nothing against Grand Seiko, I respect the brand just as I respect the Seikos already in my watch box, they just don’t make anything I want to wear and they are not objectively “better.”

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

I currently own seventeen watches, down from thirty, only four of them Rolex. You remind me of someone who tries to establish their superiority through diminishment of others. My point is that you are wrong, that Grand Seiko is not objectively better than Rolex, it is merely different. My point is not and has never been that Rolex is above criticism. And you care enough about my opinion to argue with it.

I have nothing against Grand Seiko, I respect the brand just as I respect the Seikos already in my watch box, they just don’t make anything I want to wear and they are not objectively “better.”

Ugh.

Whatever, dude.

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by Neil McCauley

You said that Rolex is only dominant due to its marketing, which is a totally dumb statement and not true.

How do you know it's not true? We can't reshape the watch world with Rolex marketing removed from it.

Hans W established the brand based on marketing. They made many dubious and sometimes outright untrue claims, such as the world's first self-winding watch as an example. That had to be retracted.

They also claimed Rolex was the first watch at the top of Everest, also untrue apparently, that was Smiths. The Explorer didn't exist in 1953, but today it's the Everest watch. The Submariner wasn't the first dive watch, and was rejected by the US Navy on quality grounds. Throughout the 50s and 60s, the high quality brand was Omega, and Rolex was the cheapie. That's been turned on its head by marketing.

Anyway, clearly I have upset some very thin-skinned Rolex fans by daring to suggest that the Japanese can do things better, so I'll leave it there.

[Torshalla]

The great part about the “lists” is that getting the opportunity to buy a Rolex from an AD at list price is in itself an achievement… so no need for any other achievement to justify pulling the trigger :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Littletommy]

Originally Posted by csaltphoto

Yeah... I get that. That was my experience too. So I went gray and got treated like a customer.

^^This.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

Anyway, clearly I have upset some very thin-skinned Rolex fans by daring to suggest that the Japanese can do things better, so I'll leave it there.

No, you made blanket assertions that you argued but failed to support. The only one upset here is you.

[Oxfordian]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

I currently own seventeen watches, down from thirty, only four of them Rolex. You remind me of someone who tries to establish their superiority through diminishment of others. My point is that you are wrong, that Grand Seiko is not objectively better than Rolex, it is merely different. My point is not and has never been that Rolex is above criticism. And you care enough about my opinion to argue with it.

I have nothing against Grand Seiko, I respect the brand just as I respect the Seikos already in my watch box, they just don’t make anything I want to wear and they are not objectively “better.”

So true, all watches are basically the same, they tell the time.

How they do this and how they show this are what makes the brands different, and that's what I like this hobby.

[goldfixer21]

Rolex is a marketing genius. There is no denying it. If you took any Rolex model, and put a different name on the dial, it would be just another nice watch. The market for stainless sport models in many cases ,is driven by profit, not the desire to wear that particular watch. How else would so many new unworn models be available on the gray market? I'm not complaining, it's a free market, individuals are not forced to pay 2X MSRP for some models.

[Ferrari-F430]

Hopefully the slowing of the grey market diminishes the wait at an AD! If people can’t flip them and the AD’s can’t sell them out the back door (allegedly) then it will be more about obtaining a luxury watch because you want it and not because you know it’s worth thousands more than what you paid (like the good old days).

[Neil McCauley]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

How do you know it's not true?

Because you cannot run a company for 100years plus at the top of its game purely on marketing. If you think that is the case you're a fool. You have to have products to back up the claims, otherwise the marketing is meaningless and you get caught out eventually. This is not just relating to Rolex, this is every brand to have ever existed. This isn't me giving an opinion on Rolex, it's fact, it's how things work. Rolex is not just dominant as a result of its marketing, end of chat.

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

Anyway, clearly I have upset some very thin-skinned Rolex fans by daring to suggest that the Japanese can do things better, so I'll leave it there.

People who lose in debate over things often resort to low-hanging fruit and insults. If it makes you feel better that you think you have upset some of us, have at it, buddy. Enjoy it, you're right, you won the internet battle today.

[IGY]

Originally Posted by Neil McCauley

...If you think that is the case you're a fool.

Originally Posted by Neil McCauley

...People who lose in debate over things often resort to low-hanging fruit and insults.

Perfect demonstration.

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

No, you made blanket assertions that you argued but failed to support. The only one upset here is you.

I supported them in post #126. Have a read.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...&postcount=126

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by Neil McCauley

Because you cannot run a company for 100years plus at the top of its game purely on marketing.

This is known as a "straw-man argument". Misrepresent what the other person has said, and then attack that.

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by IGY

Perfect demonstration.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

I supported them in post #126. Have a read.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...&postcount=126

Circling back to your opinion. I gotta give you credit, you are committed to the bit.

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

Circling back to your opinion. I gotta give you credit, you are committed to the bit.

Not my opinion.

For instance, some examples: it is a fact that Rolex are made by machine and GS are hand-finished.

GS also offer more movement options.

GS have higher-quality finishing.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

Not my opinion.

For instance, some examples: it is a fact that Rolex are made by machine and GS are hand-finished.

GS also offer more movement options.

GS have higher-quality finishing.

Now you’re just repeating yourself. It’s a little sad.

[Marcjvr]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

I have nothing against Grand Seiko, I respect the brand just as I respect the Seikos already in my watch box, they just don’t make anything I want to wear and they are not objectively “better.”

Dunno man

Watch this review of Rolex vs grand seiko vs A Lange and Sohn, all under magnification, and the Rolex comes last. Rolex also gets skewered in the comments because of the findings in the video


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hKrJOM...9hcmlvbg%3D%3D