LAZY / TRAVESTY - Federico Unloads on Rolex

[-Skyfall-]

He's right. For the explorers 50th anniversary this was a weak release. Anyone who disagrees is a blind Rolex fanboy. Could have at least dropped a new color for the Explorer II, and still kept the black and white.

[polaris72]

Federico has an opinion and that’s fine, but I do not agree with him. Also his newest collection piece from independent looks just like a masquerade for a product placement.

[liberalclown]

He is a dealer so he may have invested in ExpIIs thinking Rolex discontinues the current model or any other model, or he may be honest I don’t know, but ranting to Rolex not releasing a new watch is a bit childish. It is a pandemic year and within 9 months they released 41mm Subs, new range of OPs, brought back 36mm Exp, issued new dials to Daytona, DJ, DD, brought customization options to GMTs SkyDs. Yes they may have changed the design of the ExpII but to what, Ceramic bezel? 1971 dial? Green glass? They may still do those, there is no restriction, but even if they don’t, they own the design and it sells like hotcakes.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by BradSomrak

No, he’s not.

When Porsche dropped the 911GT3, they didn’t say “you know what, let’s take our really successful product and just completely change it. Let’s make it look like a Ford (no offense to Ford) just to mix it up. Wouldn’t that be great?”

The American NFL, which just prints money, doesn’t change the game/teams/product annually just for the sake of change; they have a product killing the market, and now just get out of the way. It’s been that way for decades now.

Rolex did not need to do anything to the Explorer 2 - or any other model, really. The demand for the “same” Explorer 2 will not move at all, whatsoever, despite it being “boring.” After people are done ranting, and even assuming a 1-2 people “leave,” 3 or 4 will rush to take their place.

Is the Explorer two tone hideous? Absolutely, IMO. That’s a completely irrelevant aside.

But it defies logic and business reason to take something that is red hot and mess with it, purely for the sake of “change.”

At no point did I say they needed to change the Exp II completely. I was never an advocate of it being given a ceramic bezel or anything like that. But to change absolutely nothing (other than removing the phantom hands), especially for a 50th anniversary piece is bizarre and yes, frankly lazy.

I saw a mock-up of an Exp II with the only difference to the current model being lines in between the bezel numbers like on the original 1655, instead of the current little arrows, and it looked superb. Just different enough without reinventing the wheel. Something like that would've been way less dramatic than the 43mm case + cylops + red text we got on the SD43, but still would've distinguished the 50th Exp II from it's predecessor.

The funny thing is though, Rolex could literally release a dog-biscuit on a elastic band and provided it had a crown logo on it, it'd sell 100 times over. Rolex can literally do anything, or nothing, and fan-boys will lap it up.

(But yes I will agree with you that the TT Exp is hideous beyond words).

[BradSomrak]

Originally Posted by Driver8

At no point did I say they needed to change the Exp II completely. I was never an advocate of it being given a ceramic bezel or anything like that. But to change absolutely nothing (other than removing the phantom hands), especially for a 50th anniversary piece is bizarre and yes, frankly lazy.

I saw a mock-up of an Exp II with the only difference to the current model being lines in between the bezel numbers like on the original 1655, instead of the current arrows, and it looked superb. Just different enough without reinventing the wheel. Something like that would've been way less dramatic than the 43mm case + cylops + red text we got on the SD43, but still would've distinguished the 50th Exp II from it's predecessor.

(But yes I will agree with you that the TT Exp is hideous beyond words).

So, two separate arguments implicated there.

The people arguing there should be sweeping change, I think I addressed above.

To your point, that there should be special anniversary editions, I certainly agree that’s a very fair take. It has certainly been done before.

The concern about the “limited editions” I would have as a brand CEO is they are more often than not gimmicky. What’s one of the biggest Omega knocks right now? Their never ending LEs. (And I like Omega alot). Grand Seiko, for all of its tech prowess, would be much better served scrapping its never ending parade of limited editions.

Even the Patek Nautilus “special” releases were a bit gimmicky; though I acknowledge they sold.

Could Rolex have done a special version of the Explorer 2? In a vaccum, sure. But where does it end? Then every model needs a limited edition. And at what intervals? Next thing you know you’ve oversaturated your market, all to not be perceived as “boring.”

So, I certainly get the argument, but I would error on the side of caution - especially if my business was humming. If I needed to drum up interest, that’s a different story, and certainly not applicable here.

[uhren917]

Who cares.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by RKTINC1

I think I remember seeing a few Explorer two tones from the 50's. ???

The 5701 Explorer Date was two tone.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by BradSomrak

So, two separate arguments implicated there.

The people arguing there should be sweeping change, I think I addressed above.

To your point, that there should be special anniversary editions, I certainly agree that’s a very fair take. It has certainly been done before.

The concern about the “limited editions” I would have as a brand CEO is they are more often than not gimmicky. What’s one of the biggest Omega knocks right now? Their never ending LEs. (And I like Omega alot). Grand Seiko, for all of its tech prowess, would be much better served scrapping its never ending parade of limited editions.

Even the Patek Nautilus “special” releases were a bit gimmicky; though I acknowledge they sold.

Could Rolex have done a special version of the Explorer 2? In a vaccum, sure. But where does it end? Then every model needs a limited edition. And at what intervals? Next thing you know you’ve oversaturated your market, all to not be perceived as “boring.”

So, I certainly get the argument, but I would error on the side of caution - especially if my business was humming. If I needed to drum up interest, that’s a different story, and certainly not applicable here.

The thing is I'm not advocating endless Omega-like LE's either. The "50th Anniversary" SD43 isn't limited, and neither was the 50th LV Sub; Rolex just used the anniversary to make small but significant changes to the models that then became part of the on-going catalogue. The anniversary itself was nothing more than a catalyst to make those minor changes. Here with the Exp II there's nothing visual to show any progress whatsoever. And let's not forget the Exp II has changed through a number of iterations since the 1655. Is the current "new" model the pinnacle of watchmaking? Never to be changed again? Of course it's not - Rolex have just missed a great opportunity to gently evolve what is an aging model while commemorating one of the few milestones Rolex seem to bother about - 50th anniversaries.

I can't help feeling that we'd all be wearing sundials on our arms if the rest of horology had followed Rolex's path at times.

Anyway, I had no intention of buying any new models this year as I'm steering clear of anything 32xx-based. I just found this years releases somewhat amusing.

[BradSomrak]

Originally Posted by Driver8

The thing is I'm not advocating endless Omega-like LE's either. The "50th Anniversary" SD43 isn't limited, and neither was the 50th LV Sub; Rolex just used the anniversary to make small but significant changes to the models that then became part of the on-going catalogue. The anniversary itself was nothing more than a catalyst to make those minor changes. Here with the Exp II there's nothing visual to show any progress. And let's not forget the Exp II has changed through a number of iterations since the 1655. Is the current "new" model the pinnacle of watchmaking? Never to be changed again? Of course it's not - Rolex have just missed a great opportunity to gentle evolve an aging model while commemorating one of the few milestones Rolex seem to bother about - 50th anniversaries.

I can't help feeling that we'd all be wearing sundials on our arms if the rest of horology had followed Rolex's path at times.

Anyway, I had no intention of buying any new models this year as I'm steering clear of anything 32xx-based. I just found this years releases somewhat amusing.

All fair. And I understand/appreciate the distinction you are making.

To your ultimate end point, I’m not sure Rolex is - nor has been, lately - the entity to push the bounds of watchmaking. I simultaneously understand why, from a Rolex perspective, and if people are expecting them to be, therein lies massive figure disappointment.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by BradSomrak

All fair. And I understand/appreciate the distinction you are making.

To your ultimate end point, I’m not sure Rolex is - nor has been, lately - the entity to push the bounds of watchmaking. I simultaneously understand why, from a Rolex perspective, and if people are expecting them to be, therein lies massive figure disappointment.

All true enough.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by szabo_martin

So whats new? Every unveil people expect monumental changes then get disappointed. Rolex doesn't change because it doesn't have to, plus if they made drastic changes people would bemoan that as well.... same story every year

[beshannon]

Who?

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

The 5701 Explorer Date was two tone.

Good call!

So, Rolex is not really coming out of left field, they're just sort of reprising a long forgotten reference.

[enjoythemusic]

Roflololol why bother, who cares, and click bait ...

I'm waiting for the blogger who says whatever is the most controversial. Doesn't matter the complaint, just make big headlines.


ROLEX IS BORING

BIG ROLEX MISTAKE WE ALL MISSED

ANOTHER MISS BY ROLEX

YOU WONT BELIEVE WHAT ROLEX DID NOW


Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn about these vloggers.

[RationalPragmatist]

How can you take him or most any of the YouTube Watch Gurus seriously? One thing is for sure. When Fed, Mosso, or other YT dealers bagging on Rolex happen to sell these two-tone Explorers to the general public (vice horology enthusiasts), they'll have a big smile on their face and tell the customer what a wonderful choice they made 😜

[brandrea]

He’ll suddenly convert to fanboy when Delray Watch gets their first new Rolex release to sell

[Jpccarguy]

IMHO, the new release isn’t disappointing, but isn’t anything like the September event. I don’t pretend to second guess what Rolex does. They’re doing fine without my input, and they wouldn’t care, anyway. If the lack of frenzy like that in September gets me one of my grail pieces sooner, so much the better!

[101031-28]

I have been a Rolex collector for the past 32 years. The brand is known for making subtle changes over the course of sometimes decades, not yearly. So, I am happy to see a level of continuity, vs regular changes/makeovers.

[47Fountain]

He lost me at "condish". Man Up.

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by BLNR Nairobi

Fed is just sore that Rolex is outselling the typically-tired watch brands he sells in his website. Brands that are more likely than not to go extinct in the next 5-7 years.

Oh this made me laugh

[Tridor]

He's complaining because, as a dealer, Rolex hasn't given him anything new that will be in heavy demand. Hence, he makes less $$. Based on what I saw today, I'm not motivated at all to purchase any of the new Rolexes offered currently.

[macrowatch]

Seems like when banks go ‘way’ the fed didn’t give us the policy we wanted.

[Cambo]

Yeah....Federico or Rolex...who’s the clown here? You tubers trying to talk smack on a company that has been successful long before they were born....I’m sure Rolex is despairing over losing yet another YT’er...until next week when he’s back shovelling the same old crap...ugh!

[Malum]

Personally I am glad Rolex makes small incremental changes . Every Rolex you own is distinct and in most cases not ubiquitous. Making constant changes , new variations or countless LE models definitely dilutes the brand or any brand for that matter .

[Me4u2night]

Originally Posted by woof

Fed had a meltdown!!!!

+1

He sounds like Paul Thorpe when he claimed to be quoting YouTube multiple times

[Fleetlord]

Some watch dealers are really trying to get people off Rolex because their margins are really low. Fed is one of these.

He sends emails headed like the pic below and posts anti-Rolex jibber jabber to sway people to the much higher margin stuff he sells...stuff he buys low because it’s “very soft”...but he can make greater margins. Not surprised at all.

[Krash]

I think it’s a weak release too. Both Rolex and Tudor. Admittedly, I didn’t watch the video yet...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rolexjackson]

Originally Posted by xekret

He is the joke.

yes he is for sure the joke

[horseShu]

it's an unfortunate reality.

truly independent youtubers do give a more honest commentary, but it's very hard for them to keep churning out content coz watches are expensive. he's gonna have to be filthy rich, or have lots of watch friends whom he can borrow some pieces to comment or review.

youtubers who are affiliated to watch stores... well, we all know that there's always an business angle in their videos. hodinkee, watchfinder, watchbox, etc. hey, you gotta pay the bills.

if anything, i consider them as "watch dealer's perspective". not as watch enthusiasts, despite how often they claim that they are.

[mattonthewater]

Who cares what Faterico says? He’s a grey market dealer sucking on the teat and preying on the consumer.