My Rolex cost me US$30 in Dubai. It broke within days. I am starting to suspect the Iranian guy who sold it to me out of the backroom of his discount souvenir store might have been telling me a fib about its veracity…
And I agree with CheekyMonkey613. The only person I’ve ever met with a Rolex got it as a graduation present from his parents. Then they bought him a 40 ft yacht. Some middle class!
Poor people where I live wear Rolexes.
Middle Class peope don’t all own them, but a small percentage aspire to and then achive them, and that small percentage overspends what they should, but it is Rolex’s bread and butter. If just 2% of the middle class buys one, that’s alot of business.
Rolexes are not Citibank credit cards. They don’t need 85% market saturation in the middle class. But having so many middle class people wanting one and then seeing a small perectnage get ones firms up the market. Think Hummer, 3 series BMW and 300 series Mercedes.
I still have my automatic Timex that I got when I was ten. Guess what? It’s still ticking! (Or it would if I put some energy into the mainspring.)
Not at all. I happen to like automatic watches. It’s hard to find one for $40. And I’d hardly call my Rolexes “show-off watches”. They’re stainless steel, not gold. (FWIW, I don’t like gold watches. Too “showy”.) I bought my watches for me, not for anyone else. I like the automatic movement. I like the size of the face. I like the simple, functional look of them. I seriously doubt anyone notices what watch I’m wearing (in spite of that new commercial that claims otherwise). A co-worker noticed it after I got it because the sun happened to flash on the crystal and hit her eyes. But generally, I think people don’t notice a person’s watch unless he or she is ostentatious about flashing it around.
I think this is a good analogy. Those vehicles are within reach of much of the middle class. They’re good, solid vehicles (although I don’t know much about the Hummer 2) that do their jobs. Even Porsches are upper-middle class cars. (Hell, even I’ve had a couple of used ones. Great cars, BTW.) So with Rolex. Good, solid, functional; but not exceptional.
Watches ARE a great deal compared to engagement rings, especially if you pay two months salary for one or whatever the rule is. With a watch, you get something functional that YOU get to wear. Everybody’s got a ring, they have no functional value, and unless it’s got a 7 carat diamond, no one is going to notice or care what’s on your finger. And you’ll even be able to sell a fine watch, often, for just as much or more than you paid for it. Back in college, I bought myself a used Rolex Datejust, wore it for about a year, then sold it for $100 more than I paid for it. Good luck doing that with any kind of engagement ring you’d try to offload.
Wonder how long it takes to make this watch. Can’t even begin to imagine how it justifies the price:
http://www.overstock.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi?PAGE=PROFRAME&PROD_ID=588465#
Thankfully, shipping is only $1.
:eek: I wish I could afford to buy I couple of those! (not because I want the watch, you see, but because I want the money that would be required to do so 
)
Damn it! My mom paid $25 for the fake Rolex she bought me in Mexico! Sounds like she got ripped off!
I think it’s more complicated than that. The actual “upper class”/seriously loaded shun gaudy status symbols – they’re tacky. When you see someone wearing a solid gold Presidential with a diamond-encrusted face, you can pretty much bet that they’re not as rich or powerful as they think they are – or at least as they want you to think they are.
Serious players who have nothing to prove seldom wear flashy watches, especially for everyday use. Often, they’ll wear a stainless steel Rolex precisely because they are “Good, solid, functional; but not exceptional.” It’s quite amusing, really. You’ll often see, say, a second year investment banker blow part of his bonus on an expensive, flashy watch while the managing directors wear stainless steel Rolexes or even Omegas.
So Rolex is, paradoxically, both an “entry level” luxury watch for the middle class as well as a common choice for people for whom money is no object.
Though I vaguely recognize these names, please explain what makes these watches better than a Rolex or any other upscale watch.
If a Rolex is wildly overpriced, as you suggest, what makes the two manufacturers you cite any better? It seems to me that beyond a few hundred dollars, you’re paying for design rather than accuracy or functional engineering, thus making the valuation of design inherently subjective and any comparisons speculative.
Bill Clinton sported a 40 dollar Casio Ironman watch during inaugurations and as president.
Black plastic, including the band.
Okay, this is the question that I am trying to get at:
Presumably, every watch maker makes watches which, on average, keep absolutely perfect time. But, the watches they produce have a normal distribution of time loss/gain around accurate time, and you could either end up with a good watch or a bad watch from a given watch maker, who knows?
Also, let’s assume, of course, that we are dealing with purely mechanical watches.
Also, let’s throw in both the durability from regular wear, outside wear, and resistance to shock/water/damage in the mix.
Who produces the absolute longest lasting/most accurate mechanical watch?
Who produces the best value in these regards?
Does the accuracy really matter in any practical sense?