Interesting WIS conversation, PP Vs Rolex, Name recognition

[Roger Lococco]

I only buy the watches that I like, but I must admit that I’m sure my tastes were shaped by my early years where Rolex was the absolute gold standard for luxury watches. Kind of like how our perceptions of beauty are in part shaped by society.

In general, I don’t like Pateks. But for some reason I’ve always loved the Aquanaut and would absolutely love to add one to my collection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[the_natural]

Originally Posted by Roger Lococco

In general, I don’t like Pateks. But for some reason I’ve always loved the Aquanaut and would absolutely love to add one to my collection.

Same. The Aquanaut is the only one I like, too.

[vipereaper30]

For some time I was under the impression that a PP was the top of the list for a collector to attain. Then I started collecting PP only to find I rarely chose to wear the watches over my Rolex. Not because I didn't think someone would notice my watch, but because the PP watches all felt fragile on my wrist. I lead too active of a lifestyle to embrace PP and Rolex can't be beat for my use and needs.

[Old Geezer]

Sports watches, especially divers have always been my preferred style of watch from my first water resistant Timex when I was about 5 or 6 years old. I absolutely fell in love with the Submariner as a kid/teen from the ads in Skin Diver Magazine and National Geographic. I knew it was special and I aspired to own one some day. I finally got one and wore it for many years as my only watch. I still own and wear it.
As I progressed through my professional career and could afford more luxury timepieces I shopped many brands, including ALS, AP and PP. When I put them on my wrist, nothing. They just didn't appeal to me so I'd go buy another Rolex Sub, GMT or Daytona. I also own a Breitling Chronomat GMT that I quite enjoy. The first and most criteria for me when looking at a timepiece is that it appeals to me aesthetically. Then I look at its technical specifications, etc.
Sure, a PP is a work of art but a Rolex isn't exactly junk. It's a very fine timepiece of very good quality.
As far as others recognizing what I'm wearing, who wears a $40K WG Sub that looks like a $10K Sub if you even know it's a Rolex or looks like a $300 Seiko if you're not into watches It's weird, I've never gotten a comment when wearing any of my Rolex that mentioned it was a Rolex. The few comments I've received have been more generic "nice watch" comments. In my mind I assumed they knew it was a Rolex but maybe not and they just liked the style of the watch. Maybe someone has admired my watch and didn't comment. I guess the tiny bit of pride in the Rolex brand and recognition you mention would kick in if someone complimented my Rolex acknowledging it as a Rolex .

[jaySL350]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Hi Paul

Here's my take on it.

The individual who chose the Patek is a true WIS because he chose a watch watch because of what it was.

The individual who chose the AG Rolex was not, in fact, a true WIS, because he chose a watch because of what it represented.

I've been into watches and Rolex since the early 80's. Back then basically no one knew, or cared about "Rolex" other than probably National Geographic readers or professional divers.

The fact that now my watches are "insta"ntly recognisable to a far, far larger section of the public is very much a negative for me, but then I don't buy anything to impress others.

So I won't say the recognisability weighs in at nothing - because it does. But its a negative.

This,,,

[SDGT3]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

What do you think? How much does the recognizability of a Rolex, as a fine and expensive timepiece, by a non-WIS, influence your love for the brand and buying decision making?

PS Please don’t say it weighs in at absolutely nothing, I would find that hard to believe. It could be a very very small amount, but I think we are all proud to wear and show what is the most recognized watch brand in world at least a tiny tiny bit. Further more I don’t think there is anything wrong with that.

I can honestly say it means nothing. In fact, I shy away from others recognizing my watch, be it friends or strangers who comment on it. My watches are for my enjoyment and each represent and mean something different to me and life moments. Proud to wear them, but not show them off.

Personally, the designs of PPs are not for me, but recognize they are incredible time pieces.

[ArtNouveau]

In the early 2000’s I could have bought the Jumbo Aquanaut with both bracelet and strap for around $8100. There was also the SS Neptune with integrated bracelet for about the same, and a SS model with complications for around $11K.
They did nothing for me then and the fact that they have skyrocketed in value hasn’t changed that. I have no real use for a dress watch either so the Calatrava and related pieces aren’t desirable to me either.
Name recognition not a factor, I sincerely doubt I will ever own or desire a PP.

[HMHM]

I think both Rolex and PP are really good at what they do and the difference is negligible at the end of the day. In the end it all comes down to the buyer. Some Rolex are better than some PP by design and vice versa. To make a blanket statement that PP > all Rolex watches is fairly ignorant and unfair.

[enjoythemusic]

Sounds like a group of one-dimensional thinkers. Am sure there was more to this OP (i hope). imho just agree with them and move on and do what makes you happy. Herd mentality happens, and usually, it's best to just be quiet and let their own echo chamber resonate.

i love Rolex, and their reputation in solid durability is excellent. Rolex produces a timepiece you can truly wear daily and beat the living sh*t out of. Fun to wear and makes for 'being neutral' around most WIS'ers.

So the real question is, were you bored hearing the same ol' same ol' from typical mainstream WIS'ers? Were there other brands discussed? And if so, anything truly interesting and unique that moves horology forward?

[Mystro]

Certainly the “Rolex” reputation is worth a lot. It’s reputation has many facets and reliability and robustness is one of them. I value that “robustness” trait more so than movement finishing. A beautiful delicate watch means nothing to me if it is fussy and fragile.
Simply because these luxury items are strapped to my arm and not sitting in a display case as a trophy.

[Chewbacca]

To me

A Rolex screams money (I made it and want you to know it)

A Patek whispers wealth (I have it and don’t care/prefer you not know it)


This is the difference and it influences the choice for the majority of buyers today. Maybe not pre-1980s but this is where the brands sit.

Today people simply equate association/endorsements/ad placement, volume/weight, retail theater/boxing, and recognition with value and validation of money well spent.

My take anyway.

[rolexpatek363]

The Rolex toughness thing is being wheeled out again. Drop any mechanical watch five feet onto a tiled floor and you'll kill it stone-dead. PPs are no more fragile than Rolex, waterproofness aside.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

While I really enjoy reading people’s thoughts on watches and their own personal watch journeys I think it’s pointless and maybe a little dangerous to assign motivation and designations of credibility to others. I would love to own a Patek but I can’t just choose to be able to afford one. My income while steady is not luxurious. I divert a percentage of that income to the pursuit, purchase and enjoyment of watches. Given the limits of those resources Rolex represents the pinnacle of my aspirations, they are expensive enough to be aspirational and yet inexpensive enough to use daily in the real world. Knowing myself I just wouldn’t be comfortable wearing a Patek or AP or Lange as a knockaround watch. Rolex fills that role for me. So my aspirations are throttled by my income and I am perfectly content with that. Am I a WIS? I really don’t know, I’m just a guy who still has his first Mickey Mouse watch from 1967 and a whole bunch of others. Assign me whatever designation you will.

[HMHM]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

The Rolex toughness thing is being wheeled out again. Drop any mechanical watch five feet onto a tiled floor and you'll kill it stone-dead. PPs are no more fragile than Rolex, waterproofness aside.

I think there are some truths about Rolex and its reliability/robustness. For one, I do not need to set the date with a pen. Two, I can just wind the watch 60x with Rolex as opposed to Patek which I need to be more careful to not wind it more than 10-15x as stated in the manual. Three, I can set the date on a Rolex anytime I want as opposed to Patek which one has to be careful not to set the date between 9pm and 3am to avoid damaging the movement. Fourth, just higher water resistance for most Rolex sports models compared to Nautilus/Aquanaut.

Patek really shines with finishing and complication but lets not diminished the strength of Rolex just because its more mass produced.

[Harry-57]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Hi Paul

Here's my take on it.

The individual who chose the Patek is a true WIS because he chose a watch watch because of what it was.

The individual who chose the AG Rolex was not, in fact, a true WIS, because he chose a watch because of what it represented.

Nicely put. Pretty much what I thought.

[ap1]

Originally Posted by duquephart

Only one of your friends is WIS.

Lol, this (hint the pp guy)

[Jmaster]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

The Rolex toughness thing is being wheeled out again. Drop any mechanical watch five feet onto a tiled floor and you'll kill it stone-dead. PPs are no more fragile than Rolex, waterproofness aside.

Totally agree with this. Rolexes are well built but most are under the misconception that they are “tough”

I didn’t know better early in my Journey, and my Explorer II wasn’t so sturdy as others would suggest here. Even without dropping it, it stopped working after years of wearing and I had to replace the case because it was pushing against the movement, according to RSC. This experience reconfirm that these are mechanical pieces that are prone to failure, regardless of Rolex or PP or most other brand.

[Easy E]

Rolex was a progression in my watch journey. Years ago, when our company was laying roots ther was no money for such items. My first Rolex was a 114060, I wanted a nice, reliable, “high end” watch but also didn’t want to be in your face about. I thought that fit perfectly. Since then my collection has grown well. I now own about 30 watches from Seikos to VC, Rolex is about 1/3. One of my last purchases, earlier this year, was YG DD. I am maybe too self conscious about the message that sends, so I am low key when and where that is worn. That being said, I wear it everyday when I get home from work. That watch is for me, for my enjoyment.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Jmaster

Totally agree with this. Rolexes are well built but most are under the misconception that they are “tough”

I didn’t know better early in my Journey, and my Explorer II wasn’t so sturdy as others would suggest here. Even without dropping it, it stopped working after years of wearing and I had to replace the case because it was pushing against the movement, according to RSC. This experience reconfirm that these are mechanical pieces that are prone to failure, regardless of Rolex or PP or most other brand.

Yeah, there are things that make a Rolex more durable, like robust movements with full balance bridges, screw down crowns, etc., but a Rolex is still probably closer to a Patek than a G-Shock, in terms of durability.

How long had it been since your Exp II was serviced when that issue popped up?

[Jmaster]

Around 4 years. I have it since 2003. The first 10 years were great, and I didn’t service it until 2013, then 4 years after that it just stopped. Brought it to RSC and they said I need to replace with a service case. Basically, the cost of that service was like 70% of a new watch…if it isn’t my wedding watch and my wife was giving me grief, I would have just go buy a different watch…

[zengineer]

I aspire to neither Patek or gold really but would definately choose the gold Rolex. It isn't at all about it being recognizable to others though, it's more about the Rolex brand more suiting my personal style...or maybe personality. A gold Rolex is still just a Rolex and in a way still the "everyman/working man's luxury watch brand". I like nice stuff but Patek has that rich guy vibe in my mind...Bently, $300 dress shirts, $1000 shoes, $50 socks and a PP watch. I wouldn't feel myself. I'm more BMW, Land's End shirts, Allen Edmonds shoes and 3 pack for $12 socks and a Sub...and it would have to be white gold.

No offense to any Patek owners, but I just couldn't pull it off standing next to my tractor..

Sent using Tapatalk

[rolexpatek363]

A common UK trope is the gold Rolex, sovereign ring, secondhand Jag and sheepskin coat. It's a bit Arthur Daley.

[pursang_]

non-WISes would not recognize the name was not only NOT a detriment, but an advantage.

Sorry but this could not be any more wrong.

Patek has flooded hip hop music and the brand recognition grows by the day.

[GGGMT]

I like engaging with people (other than a mugger) who notice what watches I’m wearing. And I always engage if I notice of somebody wearing a Rolex, VC, APC, etc., Because there’s always a good story behind it and it’s interesting. perhaps that puts me in the “what it represents” camp. People who don’t know Watches don’t give a


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JRell]

Originally Posted by pursang_

Sorry but this could not be any more wrong.

Patek has flooded hip hop music and the brand recognition grows by the day.

Oh it’s true - most of my friends and family could give a rats butt about watches, they do not know what a Patek is and probably only think of Rolex as a good watch.

[DAC2]

Nobody EVER sees my watches. They are ALWAYS under a sleeve or... under a wrist cover.
Being a female....I would be terrified to wear ANY expensive watch out in public. Its been like that for 30 PLUS years. I LOVE PM because its heavy.... and my DD. Plat. because its
REALLY heavy. PP watches ( expect the calatrava) look VERY ugly to me... and they feel like nothing on the wrist. Some people like that.

I like the simple design of Rolex. Most watches look unattractive to my eye. I own Rolex because its what i like. Thats just my taste.... to each his own. I would never buy ANY watch to impress someone. I guess if you want to flex... you have lots of choices...
but mine stay hidden. I only buy them for me.

[JRell]

[QUOTE=DAC2;12486275]Nobody EVER sees my watches. They are ALWAYS under a sleeve or... under a wrist cover.
Being a female....I would be terrified to wear ANY expensive watch out in public. Its been like that for 30 PLUS years. I LOVE PM because its heavy.... and my DD. Plat. because its
REALLY heavy. PP watches ( expect the calatrava) look VERY ugly to me... and they feel like nothing on the wrist. Some people like that.

I like the simple design of Rolex. Most watches look unattractive to my eye. I own Rolex because its what i like. Thats just my taste.... to each his own. I would never buy ANY watch to impress someone. I guess if you want to flex... you have lots of choices...
but mine stay hidden. I only buy them for me.[/QUOTE

Agree with Rolex just looks great, that is why I love them.

[GGGMT]

[QUOTE=JRell;12486281]

Originally Posted by DAC2

Nobody EVER sees my watches. They are ALWAYS under a sleeve or... under a wrist cover.
Being a female....I would be terrified to wear ANY expensive watch out in public. Its been like that for 30 PLUS years. I LOVE PM because its heavy.... and my DD. Plat. because its
REALLY heavy. PP watches ( expect the calatrava) look VERY ugly to me... and they feel like nothing on the wrist. Some people like that.

I like the simple design of Rolex. Most watches look unattractive to my eye. I own Rolex because its what i like. Thats just my taste.... to each his own. I would never buy ANY watch to impress someone. I guess if you want to flex... you have lots of choices...
but mine stay hidden. I only buy them for me.[/QUOTE

Agree with Rolex just looks great, that is why I love them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GGGMT]

[QUOTE=JRell;12486281]

Originally Posted by DAC2

Nobody EVER sees my watches. They are ALWAYS under a sleeve or... under a wrist cover.
Being a female....I would be terrified to wear ANY expensive watch out in public. Its been like that for 30 PLUS years. I LOVE PM because its heavy.... and my DD. Plat. because its
REALLY heavy. PP watches ( expect the calatrava) look VERY ugly to me... and they feel like nothing on the wrist. Some people like that.

I like the simple design of Rolex. Most watches look unattractive to my eye. I own Rolex because its what i like. Thats just my taste.... to each his own. I would never buy ANY watch to impress someone. I guess if you want to flex... you have lots of choices...
but mine stay hidden. I only buy them for me.[/QUOTE

Agree with Rolex just looks great, that is why I love them.

Agree, Rolex always on. Rolex in Guatemala earlier this month




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JRell]

[QUOTE=GGGMT;12486289]

Originally Posted by JRell

Agree, Rolex always on. Rolex in Guatemala earlier this month




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great shot - I bet it was a fantastic experience!