So I’ve been getting a lot of spam lately, and it all seems to be hawking drugs or Rolexes. As described in the [url=“http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=284000"]"No Play for Mr Grey”** thread, the drug-sellers prey upon the sense of shame and inferiority created in us by advertisers… quite understandable, if evil.
What I don’t understand is: what is the attraction of Rolexes? I’ve seen them; they’re big, clunky, and ugly-looking.
Er, let me repost that link… I mangled the URL.
The “No Play for Mr Grey” thread.
Part of it is that it really is an (I hate myself for saying this) “exquisite timepiece,” a little marvel of non-modern technology that will probably be a family heirloom for generations. The other part of it is that simply wearing a baseball hat that says “I AM RICH AS $HIT” is generally considered gauche and unconvincing.
That’s an opinion, of course. I wear a GMT II, and I have a couple of vintage Subs. I like the way they look. But then, they’re “sports watches”; I find the “dress” Rolexes ugly. (By “dress” Rolexes, I mean the DateJust models specifically, especially when they’re gold.)
They’re seen by the Masses as a symbol of success, probably because people think they’re expensive. In reality, they’re “middle class” watches. Yes, they’re more expensive than TAGs, Breitlings, Omegas, etc.; but they’re not nearly as expensive as several other watches. Anyone who flaunts a Rolex (IMO) is someone who is gauche. They’re saying, “Look how successful I am! I’m wearing a Rolex!” For them, it’s a status symbol.
On the other hand, some people just like the way they look. I could have saved a little money and bought one of the other watches I mentioned (and I still want an Omega Speedmaster), but I liked the “big, clunky” look of the stainless steel Oysters. I knew that a Rolex is not a status symbol and that it’s very un-hip to wear one, nor did I care. Neither does anyone else. (Well, one co-worker noticed it and made sure everyone else did. And a gas station attendant said it was pretty, but I don’t think she knew what it was.)
But consider who is likely to read spam and/or to buy the product. They’re probably people for whom a Rolex is a status symbol. “Ooh! If I get one of these, I’ll get laid!” The spamsters play on this consumerist attitude to get the attention of people they want to scam, and who will likely be attracted by their pitch.
Well, it’s a “pretty good” timepiece. A $10 quartz watch will probably be more accurate. I don’t know about them being “heirlooms” though. I consider my dad’s 1974 Seiko Bell-Matic more of an heirloom.
Cut me some slack, I’m “nouveau middle class.” 
In the original Ian Fleming novels, James Bond used a Rolex Oyster Perpetual.
It’s the usual equation; unjustly perceived high-value product + even cheaper knock-off forgery + idiot consumers = perfect market conditions for scammers and spammers.
These ‘rolexes’ will be bought by the same idiots who believe they can become rich doing nothing, be a stud on ‘natural vi@gra’ and lose weight effortlessly with pills.
So Johnny, what is a good watch to buy if you don’t want to appear like a nouveau middle class poseur? My swiss watch is a $70 Wenger from Costco that looks like a half assed submariner with the squiggly face of a Seamaster. It’s a nice watch but I’d really like a quality automatic with a sapphire crystal without paying for status.
I don’t have an opinion on Rolexes.
I just came in here to see if it had anything to do with the insane amounts of Rolex spam I’ve gotten lately.
I seriously doubt that you will receive a genuine Rolex if you buy one from a spammer. More likely you will get a genuine Rolix or Relox. With the hands painted on the face in the 10:10 position. :dubious:
I’d say, “Don’t care if you look like a nouveau middle class poseur. Get what you like.”
As for a good automatic watch that doesn’t cost quite so much, Omega has some nice ones. I want the stem-wind Speedmaster. (The “official NASA watch” is not automatic.) They also make an automatic Speedy. The Seamaster is also a handsome watch. An advantage of Omegas is that that company isn’t so persnickety about non-authorised dealers. TAG-Heuer also have some autos, but I haven’t found a TAG that I really like.
I think it comes down to what you think a watch is for. Of course, the primary function of a watch is to tell time. After that I think people fall into 2 broad categories, those who see the watch as jewelry, and those who see it as a tool. To me, the Rolexes, Tags, etc all count as jewelry while Timexes, and no-namers from Wal-Mart are tools.
During my drug abuse days, I lost a lot of weight eating nothing but pills. So it is possible. I don’t know about the other things, though.
Did you all see The Apprentice last week? Some bozo was grousing because the task required him to massage a dog. He said something like “So there I was, wearing a Rolex Presidential, rubbing this smelly dog!” I was laughing my ass off at that. I mean, really. Like having an expensive watch somehow exempts you from the unpleasant parts of life?
And I don’t know why he thought anybody would be impressed that he had a Rolex. Anybody with a few extra samoleons can buy one. (Though if it really did exempt you from having to deal with unpleasant stuff, it would be a good investment.) I’m just not impressed with anything that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can go into a store and buy. So you have a lot of money? BFD. Maybe it’s because I grew up in one of the richest towns in America, but random expensive stuff doesn’t even rate a second glance from me.
And while I don’t necessarily think of Rolexes as being “nouveau middle class poseur,” I do think that anyone who actually refers to his or her fancy watch as being one. (Hopefully you’ll excuse me for doing just that below.)
=Johnny L.A.] I don’t know about them being “heirlooms” though. I consider my dad’s 1974 Seiko Bell-Matic more of an heirloom.
[/QUOTE]
There’s nothing inherent about anything that makes it an heirloom. It’s just what it means to the people who consider it one. But since we’re on the subject, I’ll tell you a sad story about an heirloom Rolex.
My dad had a Submariner. He wore it constantly for, what, 30 or more years? Once in a blue moon, he wore a “dress watch,” and it looked completely out of place to me. His watch was just a part of his arm.
A friend of the family, who is more prone to buying new stuff, got a new watch, and gave his old Rolex to his daughter, who always wore it. I thought it looked cool, so I used to tease my dad.
I’d say “Nice watch. Can I have it?”
He’d snort and say “Yeah right. You can have it after I’m dead.”
Oh well, I guess I’d have to wait 30 or 40 years. But, you can guess what happened. He was diagnosed with an aggressive lymphoma this year, and died this August. 
After he died, my Mom asked us if there is anything of his that we wanted. I felt guilty about asking for something that might have a lot of sentimental value to her and was also so expensive, but I realized that I really wanted to have it. What can I say, I’m a sucker for black humor.
I really love it. To me, it symbolizes everything my father was about. He was an avid yachtsman, to say the least. No wonder he chose a Submariner. (Check out some of the vintage ads on the Rolex site.) The watch is extremely sturdy and practical, just like my dad. And he taught me to value quality and durability. He liked having “the best,” and taught me that it was worth paying more for something that was of excellent quality, but only if you took care of it and kept it for a long time.
Which is not to say that I’m under any illusions about Rolexes being the best timepieces in the world or anything. My mom has been wearing hers for just as long as my dad had his, and it’s been 30 years of grousing about how a Timex would keep better time! Oh well. 
I guess I just lean towards kferr’s ‘watch as tool’ camp. Although, actually, I do not have a watch. I use the clock in my cellphone. Which, operationally, puts me in the camp of those who use a pocket watch, I suppose.