Do you think Rolex is going in the right direction?

[Letsgodiving]

Some say Rolex is moving away from producing tool watches and concentrating on more bling and less on professional sport watches.

Rolex seems to not want to support the vintage line of watches that, in large part, made them what they are today. The emphasis at times seems to be on shiny pieces of jewelry rather than rugged utilitarian watches.

Thoughts?

[FlyingMoose]

I think it all comes down to what people buy. They still make the Explorer I. If they produce both simple watches and blingy ones, and people buy more blingy ones, that's not Rolex's fault. They've always had a more bling-related line (the Datejust/OP/etc), but people want an adventerous looking watch that still has bling.

[marshallr47]

I think Rolex has a model for all tastes. Although I don't like all the Rolex models, I think there is a model for everyone.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by marshallr47

I think Rolex has a model for all tastes. Although I don't like all the Rolex models, I think there is a model for everyone.

Agreed. If you like it and it smiles back at you, buy it. If not, don't - can't get simpler than that!!

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by marshallr47

I think Rolex has a model for all tastes. Although I don't like all the Rolex models, I think there is a model for everyone.

Agreed.
dP

[Beef]

I think there is room for all tastes at the table. That being said, I am a utilitarian tool watch guy. This is obvious from my collection. I owe an LV, a GMT II C but, if I were still "beating the bushes," I would not wear either of them there. I'm going to buy a GV when it comes in and that is for the bling alone. The reason I found these watches attractive is they are so radically different. The "radically different" effect is about to wear off after this GV purchase and I'll go back to collecting classic tool watches. Mostly GMT's and EXP's. Merry Christmas All!

[haakon59]

I am not sure that I share a sense that Rolex is going in the wrong direction or that their watches are too blingy. If anything, I think they change very little, although you have to admire that they sell more than 700,000 automatic watches consistently every year. Because of this tremendous success, I think they are reluctant to tamper with a formula that has worked so well.

[frostie]

They are adding more bling to their watches as this is the current trend

[GoldenBear]

All of mine go clockwise....LOL

[mike]

I'm not real sure how to answer. On one hand Rolex position on servicing the vintage pieces that got them where they are is a crying shame.

I'm one that feels Rolex started to make the move away from tool watches in the 80s when gloss dials with small WG surrounds made their debut.

That being said, the changes Rolex has made with the advancement of the maxi-dial etc.... has put them in good stead IMO. While the watches certainly have more bling than before, the upgrades have breathed a lot of new life into the sports line.

[DJF881]

I think they've always had blingy options. The mechanism in the $25k diamond-encrusted options is the same as in the stainless steel, so it's very nice to know that it's a thing perceived to be worth encasing in all that treasure.

Anyway, the notion of the thing as a functional tool is kind of an obtuse value, because wearing a mechanical watch is an aesthetic preference.

Digital watches with robust stopwatch, world-time and diver features are available for mere fractions of the cost of a Rolex, and they do the same job as well or better. The Casio Pathfinders feature altimeters, barometers, compasses, world-time, stopwatch features and automatic calibration to atomic-clock time, and these watches cost about $300.

Of course, digital watches are not as attractive or stylish as a fine timepiece, but as functional tools, they match or exceed clockwork outright, and if you consider the benefit relative to cost, the argument for a Rolex as a tool is really difficult to make.

Only a strong aesthetic preference for clockwork justifies the continued market for these costly mechanical watches in an era where mechanisms to operate accurate, multifunction timekeeping devices can be mass-stamped onto silicon wafers. Let's be realistic; there's a reason why Rolex watches are sold by jewelers instead of camping supply stores or sporting goods stores.

What you're really questioning here is whether the Rolex brand identity of the world-traveling adventurer is being chipped away in favor of some kind of bling-encrusted rapper. But I believe that Rolex has fitted DateJusts and Day-Dates with diamonds for decades (say that three times, fast).

If the ice-crusted sports watches are a new phenomenon, it's a response to the tourist boutiques in high-traffic shopping areas like the store in the Wynn casino, or some of the 5th Avenue shops that get a lot of eyeball traffic. Those things look like they were made to be ogled in a jeweler's case rather than worn, and they probably were.

[Solar]

Originally Posted by DJF881

Anyway, the notion of the thing as a functional tool is kind of an obtuse value, because wearing a mechanical watch is an aesthetic preference...What you're really questioning here is whether the Rolex brand identity of the world-traveling adventurer is being chipped away in favor of some kind of bling-encrusted rapper.

Very well said. All the same sentiments I would have expressed.

I was looking through the Vintage Rolex Sports book last night, and came across a great selection of the good old Rolex adverts I loved so much as a youth. 1970's vintage National Geographic ads, all heralding the watch as an indispensable tool for explorers. Even the Datejusts and other more urbane models were marketed as having the heart and base of a tool watch. The ad where the independant lawyer attests to observing a Rolex Datejust benig boiled in a beaker of water for 10 minutes "...with no deliterious effects..." is one of their best. They're basically saying that Rolex watches look great, they're worn by people who run the world, but they're solid, tough watches, not just jewellery pieces.

Which is why I love Rolex so much. Its a mechanical that keeps excellent time over many years, as Rolex crafts their gear trains to be quite reliable and accurate over the long haul and reasonably easy to service. And all the while the sports models for me have a deep, rich bling that works. And I guess Rolex is heading more in that blingy direction to capture that market share, like it or not.

Still a great watch IMO.

Best,

Chris

Chris

[frostie]

Originally Posted by GoldenBear

All of mine go clockwise....LOL

[Tombstone]

JJ said it well; you get the one you like. Rolex is smart that it try’s to cover multiple tastes. I want to see what comes out of the BIG TRADE SHOW in April 2008. I hope there are better changes than what we saw in 2007.

[f16570]

One mans meat is another mans poison.

f

[watchlady]

I'm not into the bling. I'd like to see more classic style designs and sport classic hybrid models. Hopefully the success of the Milgauss will inspire similar design development at Rolex.