Did Rolex reach the beginning of end

[koko105]

With the continues failure from Rolex year after year to provide something interesting for watch enthusiast & to their brand lover compared to other brands like Audemars Piguet , Patek Phillip , JLC or even Omega (especially after the last release)

and the continues hesitation in taking decisions, lack of imagination and creativity and I will write down some of the points why I am saying that (and I believe fellows in the forum can add more)

1 - one year they release Datjust II and after a while they change it to Datejust 41
2 - change of Deepsea 3 times with no obvious reason
3 - changing the hands of of yachmaster II
4 - Changing the size of the Iconic Submariner from 40 to 41
5 - discontinuing the batman then bring it back again
6 - ambiguous changes they made to Airking and the Explorer

I don't understand what is really happening with the design & creativity team and also with the management & how they approve such weird decisions that at the end will jeopardize the image of the brand

I don't know how long it will take before people stop looking at Rolex as the flagship for the world of horology but it will not be long

From a frustrated Rolex lover

[jdp12199]

Just because you don't understand doesn't mean Rolex doesn't either. Leave it to them to make the watches and you can continue purchasing / wearing them.

[Dan Pierce]

History suggests Rolex will do just fine.
dP

[seosub]

LOL - as long as Rolex is in control of what they do and not the general public they will be fine.

They march to their own drum - this is what they have done for decades and I hope it continues. Years ago many of their watches weren't moving without discount yet they continued with their own way of innovating. Some of those same watches today sell for 3x - they still continue doing the same thing. They believe in their knowledge, approach, process, ability & brand. I'm sure it's also great not having to answer to shareholders - if it was a public company it's likely a Coke would be in the portfolio today & they'd be flooding the market with product.

Some examples of Rolex 'mistakes': Sub LV green on green was a tough sell for years - now not so much. If it was up to the general public the AK wouldn't have a place in the line-up, yet here we are. Exp II would have a ceramic bezel, nope! Etc, etc.

Point is as long as Rolex controls their fate from within, they aren't going anywhere from the top of that watch mountain.

[vinny84]

Not by a long shot. Rolex will always be relevant and at least in the immediate future, you will still not be able to buy anything at retail

[JParm]

On the contrary, I think the "year after year" thing is only a recent disease. Look at what they were doing in the 80's, 90's, early 2000's - pretty much nothing.

VERY slight, iterative changes - which in my opinion is what makes the Crown so great. We don't need splash year in and year out.

[904VT]

I think Rolex screwed up by not leveraging the Cellini line more. This is where they could've built up their complications line. Double Split chronograph, minute repeater, traditional style perpetual calendar, all would be amazing and able to be offered at higher prices. Would've perfectly offset the over-demanded/under-supplied Oyster line while adding brand prestige. Opportunity lost.

[Mystro]

Go to the top of the mountain to find direction within. Rolex is “king” for a reason and beyond what their customers needs to understand. Rolex is on fire and only getting hotter. Brand diversity can help ones collection feel more well rounded.

[aboutadog]

Long game, bud. It's how they arrived.

[TswaneNguni]

Yip,the downward path to ruin started in the 1920's ..its just a question of time..

Really ??

Pointless thread.

[101031-28]

I honestly do not want new releases and changes to the line every year. Can we please go back to Rolex changing things here and there after a decade or so? I don't need nor do I want Rolex to become an apple like, product. End of rant.

[johnliley]

Like Dan said I think Rolex will be just fine. I liken all this to the likes of the 911 and the 1250 GS incremental changes. They sell everyone and everyone wants one. I love my 2015 1200 GSA but if I put it next to a new one most people would only see the color change. Now for that 911?

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

Yip,the downward path to ruin started in the 1920's ..its just a question of time..

Really ??

Pointless thread.

Slow and steady decline

[Krash]

Silly thread.

You can’t even get a Rolex because of how popular they are. This release doesn’t change a damn thing.

They could go years without changing anything, and they’d still be the preeminent force in the watch industry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[904VT]

Originally Posted by 101031-28

I honestly do not want new releases and changes to the line every year. Can we please go back to Rolex changing things here and there after a decade or so? I don't need nor do I want Rolex to become an apple like, product. End of rant.

I agree on this. Where I think Rolex could've done better though, is with the awesome updates to the AirKing (movement, crown guard, clasp?) why not offer new dial options. I don't want Rolex to offer massive changes YOY, but why go thru all the trouble of updating the AirKing for example and keep the same tired old dial. At least add a second option in Blue for example. Perhaps a silver/steel dial as well.

[scrappy]

[skatamail]

hmmmm... one of a few "mass" watchmakers that command a premium... I think not
maybe you should buy a hublot

[Flint]

I think Rolex are doing extremely well and in my view will continue to be successful without any advice from ' Joe public ' . Their product range is vast and oozes quality , this does not happen over night , it is the result of a well run company investing in its people and also massive investment in research and development .

[Jackie Daytona]

It’s a bit of a silly take IMO. If Rolex took the stance you suggest I think they would decline as you suggested. The classic Rolex lines and designs are what they do. Small intermittent updates to each are what keeps it going appropriately.

Seems to be working so far. I haven’t seen a mass Rolex sell of because the added 1 ugly GMT and an improved Air King. I thing the majority of people are just fine with the way they are carrying their business. The classic designs of it all and updating to remain modern is the strategy, and it works. There’s other brands for what you are looking for.

[Harry-57]

Rolex do not require your understanding. If they don't sell a watch you like there are plenty of other people queuing. The current hype spike is not what Rolex are depending on to keep going. They've been doing very well since before most of us were born. It's just more intense at the moment in the grey market. Why? because Rolex make some very popular watches which are in huge demand. Which contradicts your take on it, but you're entitled to think anything you like.

[vletnguyen]

not sure if by failure, you mean selling out of every product produced before it even hit the display case.

Yes, I don't love new watches 2022 but millions of other people might.

[Cambo]

IMHO Rolex has become a bit more inclusive for entry level buyers with many choices/models to choose from. Their higher end pieces will still be relatively exclusive for those who can afford them. If anything, I think they are better positioned for the future.

[chiscott_29]

LOL…Yes, AP and Patek have been so innovative as of late! Have you seen all of their new models???

Rolex has been doing the same thing for years and they are doing just fine. What I am certain they don’t need is more advice from people like us on the message boards.

The reality is this. Nobody wants true innovation from any of these brands. If they came out with something new, they’d be destroyed on social media and “die hard collectors” saying they are deviating from their DNA. Witness the Code as the most obvious example.

It’s fine if you don’t like the updates. But my guess is you’ll be in line to get something, or complaining that you’re shut out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by 904VT

I think Rolex screwed up by not leveraging the Cellini line more. This is where they could've built up their complications line. Double Split chronograph, minute repeater, traditional style perpetual calendar, all would be amazing and able to be offered at higher prices. Would've perfectly offset the over-demanded/under-supplied Oyster line while adding brand prestige. Opportunity lost.

So agree with this. Rolex could have expanded their finer timepieces Cellini line to compete with others in that sector.

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

Yip,the downward path to ruin started in the 1920's ..its just a question of time..
Really ??
Pointless thread.

Agreed. Yet everyone has an opinion and i'd gladly have a beer with him to talk about this.

As for the 'beginning of the end'... and Rolex's recent Joker GMT.

[Solo118]

Originally Posted by koko105

With the continues failure from Rolex year after year to provide something interesting for watch enthusiast & to their brand lover compared to other brands like Audemars Piguet , Patek Phillip , JLC or even Omega (especially after the last release)

and the continues hesitation in taking decisions, lack of imagination and creativity and I will write down some of the points why I am saying that (and I believe fellows in the forum can add more)

1 - one year they release Datjust II and after a while they change it to Datejust 41
2 - change of Deepsea 3 times with no obvious reason
3 - changing the hands of of yachmaster II
4 - Changing the size of the Iconic Submariner from 40 to 41
5 - discontinuing the batman then bring it back again
6 - ambiguous changes they made to Airking and the Explorer

I don't understand what is really happening with the design & creativity team and also with the management & how they approve such weird decisions that at the end will jeopardize the image of the brand

I don't know how long it will take before people stop looking at Rolex as the flagship for the world of horology but it will not be long

From a frustrated Rolex lover

The thing is that Rolex works at a snails pace, evolving not revolving. I am OK with this for the most part, but keep in mind they are not on the same level as AP or PP. They do not care to be imho, as they are pretty much mass produced in comparison.

What I would like to see is Cellini replaced by a super high end product line that could compete with the best AP/PP/VC, Rolex is surely capable but alas it might not be part of their plan.

They can leave everything as is, not make any changes and still be the #1 brand in the business.

[Alan111]

Originally Posted by 904VT

I think Rolex screwed up by not leveraging the Cellini line more. This is where they could've built up their complications line. Double Split chronograph, minute repeater, traditional style perpetual calendar, all would be amazing and able to be offered at higher prices. Would've perfectly offset the over-demanded/under-supplied Oyster line while adding brand prestige. Opportunity lost.

This is a good point and I agree. But opportunity it not yet lost. They could be working on a high-end Cellini line as we speak, but this year would have been a good time to launch something.
I could see a slim 42mm chronograph, or a 39mm annual calendar. We shall see.

[JRell]

I want them to keep the changes to a minimum. I wish they would freeze this lineup for 10 years. The minimal changes are what makes Rolex recognizable and thus iconic.

[2nastie]

People who write stuff like this, doesn't really know Rolex.

Rolex doesn't make new watches (anymore or rarely). They aren't really here to please crowds. Throughout their history, it's been cycling through models and giving them updates.

They'll do just fine. A lot of people upset over nothing, truly shows where this collecting community has gone... to the hypebeasts! (look at me, look at me, if its not new, I dont want!)

[omx5o]

If it ain't broke, don't fix. Rolex are doing just great.

[telesquire]

What tosh.