Rolex production breakdown theory article

[Madman37]

Hi All

This was an interesting read to see how many of which model rolex produces. The author put a lot of effort into trying to breakdown what it could be although nobody will ever know.

https://www.thewatchmuse.com/blog/a-...r%20revenue%3F

[rolexgs]

its too long, could you sum up in one sentence?

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by rolexgs

its too long, could you sum up in one sentence?

It’s a mildly entertaining, but ultimately completely flawed, flight of fancy by the author. It’s all based on incomplete and flawed “data” (with C24 being a large part apparently), and huge unsubstantiated assumptions (i.e. guesswork). He/she even prefaces it by saying it’s not exact and there’s actually no way knowing if it’s even close.

Only Rolex knows this stuff, and they ain’t tellin’!

[fishingbear]

Originally Posted by rolexgs

its too long, could you sum up in one sentence?

We don’t know, they don’t know and Rolex makes great watches all while brilliantly marketing them.

[Calatrava r]

Rolex as a private foundation does not release any numbers on anything. As said, this is speculation.

[daveswordfish]

The author lost me at “Chrono24.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Harry-57]

Didn't we have this a few weeks ago? It was flawed nonsense then and it still is.

[Leox7899]

Sigh.
Since everyone is complaining Ill just come along and say its interesting and nice to see someone doing some rough maths on the proportions of Rolexes out there, even if the method is flawed.

[Commander C.]

Originally Posted by Leox7899

Sigh.
Since everyone is complaining Ill just come along and say its interesting and nice to see someone doing some rough maths on the proportions of Rolexes out there, even if the method is flawed.

Yeah, I don't understand the hostility toward the article. Given that we apparently can't know exactly how many watches Rolex produces, the author has made a plausible attempt at estimating the numbers. Perhaps the armchair critics have a better method? Or they think it is stupid to be interested in production numbers?

[vliberman]

Interesting read, thx for posting….

[Harry-57]

Originally Posted by Leox7899

Sigh.
Since everyone is complaining Ill just come along and say its interesting and nice to see someone doing some rough maths on the proportions of Rolexes out there, even if the method is flawed.

Rough is putting it politely. The maths is incidental, it's the statistics that it stands or falls on. I don't see any statistical rigour at all. Unless I missed it I can't find a p value either, although it was a long article. I'd give it p=0.5, AKA pure guesswork, AKA aimless research.

[Madman37]

Lol thanks for all your replies. I did say it was a theory. Not exact. I think he made an attempt with the data he had to try and explain what it could be.

I found the daytona production part interesting and also how many actual variations there are when you consider it them as the total of the 1million watches they produce.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by rolexgs

its too long, could you sum up in one sentence?

Here's the one sentence summary from the article.

Using these values and other public information, primarily from Chrono24, the production of each model and subsequent revenue has been modelled. Unfortunately, whether this is close to reality we will never know!

To add, all the articles statistical bs aside, to base production numbers on a market which aims at yielding the highest profits is statistically invalid. The market will be dominated by those which are most in demand therefore likely magnifying the least available and most sought after models.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Harry-57

Didn't we have this a few weeks ago? It was flawed nonsense then and it still is.

We did Harry

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by Commander C.

Yeah, I don't understand the hostility toward the article. Given that we apparently can't know exactly how many watches Rolex produces, the author has made a plausible attempt at estimating the numbers. Perhaps the armchair critics have a better method? Or they think it is stupid to be interested in production numbers?

Not really being an armchair critic - it's just that I'm an economist by qualification and a large part of that training involves using and interpreting statistics and data. You can have the best methodology in the world, but if the underlying data you put in is garbage then you'll still get garbage out. When you know a bit about such things, it's easy to see when methods and data are flawed.

Do I have a better method? No, because unless we can get our hands on actual data from Rolex, there is literally no reliable way of getting to anything that's better than guesswork.

Good on the OP for posting it up (although it has been posted before), and fair play to the original author for taking the time to write it..... but let's not think it's anything more than a guess (and not an overly educated guess at that).

[Harry-57]

Originally Posted by brandrea

We did Harry

Nice to know I'm not completely bonkers (the operative word being completely). Thanks Brian.

[Robf52]

Originally Posted by Driver8

Not really being an armchair critic - it's just that I'm an economist by qualification and a large part of that training involves using and interpreting statistics and data. You can have the best methodology in the world, but if the underlying data you put in is garbage then you'll still get garbage out. When you know a bit about such things, it's easy to see when methods and data are flawed.

Do I have a better method? No, because unless we can get our hands on actual data from Rolex, there is literally no reliable way of getting to anything that's better than guesswork.

Good on the OP for posting it up (although it has been posted before), and fair play to the original author for taking the time to write it..... but let's not think it's anything more than a guess (and not an overly educated guess at that).

Agree. It's an honest mental exercise but purely speculative.

[faimag]

The actual number is unknown to us, but irrelevant as well. It is clearly "not enough".

[VictorGMT]

It's REALLY bad.

As HogwldFLTR highlighted:

"Using these values and other public information, primarily from Chrono24, the production of each model and subsequent revenue has been modelled. Unfortunately, whether this is close to reality we will never know!"

So more Daytona's than any other professional model, because they are a fourth of the models on Chrono24.

This is the same as saying Taylor Swift sells a fourth of the concert tickets annually in the US, because a fourth of the tickets on StubHub are for Taylor Swift. It's a nonsensical leap.

[WilsdorfNDavis]

Originally Posted by Madman37

Hi All

This was an interesting read to see how many of which model rolex produces. The author put a lot of effort into trying to breakdown what it could be although nobody will ever know.

https://www.thewatchmuse.com/blog/a-...r%20revenue%3F

Old article from January...been talked about in a few threads already.

[Madman37]

Ahhh sorry all didn’t realise it was posted oh well

[WilsdorfNDavis]

No worries mate