Is Rolex getting "Too Big for It's Britches" ?

[Tools]

With the new in-house movements, it's own metal foundries. and the move to control every aspect of its production, is Rolex going to strangle on its own greed ?

As Nick Hacko and I discussed briefly in an earlier thread, it seems that Rolex, and others, are making it almost impossible for any one else but Rolex itself to provide parts and work on their movements. Perhaps in as little as ten years, it will be the RSC or nothing. Is this a good trend ?

Right now Rolex will generally turn away a Rolex more than 30 years old. That means every few years, another reference will no longer be supported.

If you just take a watch in for a crystal change, they may suggest/require a complete service, even if you just had it done last month.

If the independent is squeezed out, then what are you going to do with your 30 year old wrist brick if, in a few years, nobody can, or will work on it ?

[SPACE-DWELLER]

VERY good and interesting thread!

IMHO, this "trend" sucks!

But Rolex is really not interested in "maintaining" vintage Rolex watches. Rolex is loaded with money, but strangely enough when you are loaded you get even more greedy. Rolex wants to make PROFIT! Sell NEW watches! Period!

[padi56]

Well you could say its very much like the Swatch groups stranglehold on most of the Swiss watch industry.With ETA Valjoux supplying quite a few ebauches for many a high end brand.And Nivarox-Far who supplied most of the escapement parts for most of the Swiss watchmakers even Rolex.This is the main reason for Rolex to develop there own in the parachrome hairsprings simply because they had too.But Rolex has always had a tight grip on there parts etc,especially Rolex USA.And a US court case did any of you know about this?,but 750K to Rolex is peanuts.In today's filing, the Department said that certain provisions of a Rolex policy statement violate the decree by placing restrictions on the use, resale, and pricing of watch parts purchased from Rolex. According to the Department, Rolex's policy is not to sell watch parts to independent watch repair facilities or watchmakers unless the watchmakers agree that they will not use the parts in any watch that has non-Rolex parts or accessories. Rolex's policy also prohibits watchmakers from reselling spare watch parts under any circumstance and from charging an excessive markup for watch parts used in repairs. The Department alleges that these provisions of Rolex's policy violate the terms of the 1960 decree.In 1954, the Department filed an antitrust complaint alleging a wide-ranging conspiracy between Swiss and U.S. watch companies to fix prices, terms, and conditions of the sale of watches and watch parts, to restrict the manufacturing of watches and watch parts in the United States, and to control the export of watches and watch parts into the United States. More than 20 defendants were named in the complaint, including The American Rolex Watch Corporation, which today is known as Rolex Watch U.S.A. Inc.


http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/pres...006/214821.htm

[Nick Hacko]

.

[Paulie]

Originally Posted by Nick Hacko

Padi - the above link is not working please re-post. tnx and 73 !

here it is: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/pres...006/214821.htm

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Nick Hacko

Padi - the above link is not working please re-post. tnx and 73 !

Strange Nick it works for me 73s from MW3ZYE.

[nko51]

Yes, I think it's for the best.

[haakon59]

Seems to me that they are merely protecting themselves from having outsiders dilute the value of their "total" business, i.e., repairs, etc. Lots of manufacturers design their products so that others are not able to produce parts for them, they are protecting themselves economically, so this is pretty common from what I can see. If you have a product where you can't do this, well, then you get lots of fakes and I know that I don't want to buy a Rolex, think that it is real, only to learn later it was a fake and that I overpaid. So yes, it does appear that they are trying to structure things in such a way that they get all the repair work. Other brands do the same when they can, although many have been using common ETA movements, etc. But this trend is reversing itself as ETA has told others they are going to reserve their movements for their own group (Swatch). If Rolex is going to the trouble to research and design and assemble their movements to work well and build their reputation, why should someone not authorized by them be allowed to diminish the quality of their product and reputation? If their reputation suffers because of unauthorized parts and repair personnel, then it is Rolex who suffers, not the unauthorized parties, isn't this correct? They are just pursuing their rational self interest, IMHO.

I do think they should support models older than 30 years though, although my understanding is that their support is 50 years--maybe this is wrong. But let's face it: people should be able to fix their vintage watches via an authorized channel.

[John685]

IMO no matter what Rolex does, there will always be independents available. There's a lot of older Rolexes out there now that are being serviced elsewhere.

[Obsession]

better to buy new models to be protected several years from now...

[Ironstark]

It stands to reason that they would want to portect, enhance and preserve their reputation and whats wrong with that. A lot of money goes into designing and developing their products.
It is not impossible for outside repairers to obtain parts, however it is necessary for these repairers to prove they can work to Rolex standards before they will be supplied. Training/appraisal courses are conducted by affilliates around the world and in Geneva specifically for this purpose. If sucessfully completed then parts etc.. will be supplied.
Surely this is a good thing as it ensures that clients watches will only be worked on by the right people. In work I see so many watches that have been in unskilled hands, I get to see what "work" is done by repairers who are unfamilar with the products and just how many counterfit parts (particularly dials) are fitted to them.
It makes sense for Rolex to be fully independant as it allows them to maintain standards both on the production side and in aftersales and so provide the best service possible.
Their reputation is something it has taken 100 years to devolop and it is something they will work very hard to protect.

[Nick Hacko]

[Perdu]

I have seikos that have lasted almost 30 years and Seiko service them without hassle. The day Rolex turns my sub away with no alternative, the love affair is over.

[Rubenonfire]

Originally Posted by Perdu

I have seikos that have lasted almost 30 years and Seiko service them without hassle. The day Rolex turns my sub away with no alternative, the love affair is over.

Maybe, but you gotta figure they'll be able to service it long after you're gone. What is the timeframe? 50 years after the watch is discontinued? And that's only on the older references...who knows what they'll be able to do on the newer ones.