If you’ve ever thumbed through a watch magazine, you know that there are many watches out there that are way nicer looking than Rolexes, Henry Winston, for example.
In one magazine I saw a watch listed for $900,000.00. It was a beauty!
IMO, Rolexes seem kinda boring considering all the hype they get.
Any thoughts? 
In addition to being jewel-encrusted, Rolexes have a reputation for extremely finely engineered and reliable movements. No namby-pamby quartz stuff for them; it’s all mechanical. There’s something quite exhilarating about such a tiny piece of incredibly complex machinery.
But I wouldn’t buy one. I’m happy with my Seiko.
Even withouth the bling bling, the design of the “regular” model is classic. I don’t think it has been changed in 50+ years. I’t one of those things people say you pay for the name, when you are actually paying for the design.
If I ever got one, it would be regular steel.
Rolex was also one of (the?) first companies to make a truly accurate wristwatch. When most watchmakers were still making pocketwatches, the Rolex company got into the wristwatch arena on the ground floor. And they did it with some spectacularly accurate timepieces. In fact, they were accused of faking their test results.
In addition to making luxury watches they also made the first waterproof wristwatch (swam the English channel) and provided watches for numerous expeditions to far off places. Including space.
Essentially, they make kick ass timepieces and were among the first to pick up on the wristwatch/pocketwatch trend.
Sorry about no citations, I was in the bookstore yesterday and was reading a book about watches. The book was called… Watches. Or something like that. Lotsa gorgeous pictures.
They used to make things that were hard to make, namely good timepieces. Now, you can buy a timepiece that is better in any practical respect than a Rolex for a few bucks.
So Rolex spend vast amounts of dough on advertising and sponsorship and price their watches outrageously high so that people who are into status symbols will buy them. This, and their history (to answer your GQ question) is what is special about them.
Their sponsorships include expeditions to far off places so that they can use that in their advertising. Of course, the expedition probably won’t actually be relying on the Rolex for keeping the time: any lengthy expedition would use a far more accurate and reliable timekeeper. And a Rolex will of course be heavier than a cheap accurate and reliable no name brand bought from a guy in a stall in Hong Kong, which is a disadvantage to the expedition, no doubt, but worth doing for the sponsorship dollars.
Since the OP is looking more for factual opinions, let’s move this.
samclem GQ Moderator
Another way to answer this question is to ask why do you say they’re special and then give reasons that they’re not? The perception of the general public is that they’re special, so they are. Whether or not that perception is justified is up to the individual.
Name recognition. I’ve never even heard of a Henry Winston. (of course, I’m quite far from being a watch connoisseur)
Did Rolex sponsor the X-Prize guys? NASA issues Omegas but I guess an astronaut could wear their own Rolex too.
Actually, I think I made (another) mistake. I think the guy’s name is Harry Winston.
I agree with others that decades ago Rolex made strong, accurate watches that gained an excellent reputation ‘in the field’. There were always more expensive watches, but Rolex had a reputation thanks to their sponsorship of expeditions and sporting events and their ads touting the fact. So in the dashing days of the '50s and '60s Adventurers wore Rolex. And when they dressed up for their posh parties, Rolex had a fancier model (still using the Oyster case) for them to flash. (Except for James Bond, of course. He wore his stainless steel Sub with his tux.) So Rolex was associated with mountain climbing, yachting, road racing, diving (of course – Comex even had specially-marked Sea Dwellers), and dashing spies.
And they’re not that expensive compared to some other watches. They’re really middle-class watches. Aside from the robust cases, reasonable accuracy for a mechanical watch, and the classic styling of the Oyster case, they’re nothing special. But they still have their cachet. I noticed a lot of Rolexes showing up on the wrists of yuppies in the mid-to-late-'80s. It seemed to be part of the uniform, along with the BMW 320i. It seemed to me that there were a lot of people who really bought into the hype and bought them as status symbols.
So what makes Rolexes special to me? I like the classic (some would say ‘old-fashioned’) design. It’s simple and functional. I like the size and heft. I like the big dial. I like never having to buy batteries. On the GMT II, I like the GMT hand. On the Sub, I like that the watch doesn’t do anything but tell the time – it doesn’t even have the date. A stainless steel Rolex sports watch is a study in classic design and form following function. (I fear I don’t find the dress watches like the Day-Date or the Date-Just very appealing. And I’m not a huge fan of gold.)
Rolex watches benefit from classic styling, an excellent movement, good reviews from people who have actually used them from the tops of mountains to the bottom of the seas, sponsorship of expeditions and sports, James Bond films, artificial exclusivity, and (at least in the '80s) a bunch of yupsters trying to show off.
Benny - I wear a Rolex Submariner. It was a gift from my wife. I wear it because she bought it for me as an heirloom to eventually pass on to our children. It will outlast most watches in terms of having accurate time for decades to come. It’s not flashy, it just a steel watch in my opinion. I like it, I get zero complements on it because no one really notices that it is a rolex because it’s nondescript. If I wanted flashy I’d wear a Breitling, very snazzy. 
IIRC Rolexes were originally considered, only Rolex didn’t offer a manual-wind watch. (There was an issue over whether an automatic watch would work in zero-g.) The Omega Speedmaster was offered in a manual-wind version, and so became the ‘issue’ watch.
I’ve seen photographs of astronauts wearing Rolex GMTs, and I have a photograph in an airshow booklet showing then-Captain Chuck Yeager wearing a Sub. Apparently Rolex were popular with test pilots back in the '50s and '60s.
Middle class? Don’t new ones cost at least $3,000?
That’s a nice looking watch.
Many years ago I recall someone saying that one way to tell if it’s a genuine Rolex is by looking at the movement of the second hand. If it moves with a smooth non jerky movement around the dial, it’s likely a Rolex. I think the person said it’s movement was called “inkablock.”
I, incidentally, own a Zodiac Astrograhpic. It’s solidly built and has the unique feature of a red second hand “dot” that seemingly flows around the dial in thin air. Paid only $300 on ebay and although it hasn’t been made in many years it is flawless because it was never worn.
It’s a bit more than marketing, though they do build upon the image that Rolex is great because, well, it’s Rolex.
Forget about the gems and the gold. If you want a nice looking watch, there are much, much more expensive options. Just google JLC or Petak Phillipe. Before they became status symbols, Rolex watches were simply the most dependable, indestructible watches around. If your watch was a tool, and your life depended upon it working, Rolex was about the best choice you could make.
But times change, and I think even for tool watches there are now better options. I like my Suunto Gekko, but it’s just a gadget so I also pull out a dive table and set my Seamaster as my failsafe (or, less often, my ugly Orange Monster.)
Nooooo! That is an urban legend. NASA scientists never worried about automatic watches working in zero-G. They do. They work on momentum and not weight. The fact is that there were two watches that passed NASA’s rigorous shock, magnetism, and impact tests. One was a Bulova Accutron, the other the Omega Speedmaster. The final discriminator was Omega’s ability to hand wind, the Bulova relied on batteries, which can run out without warning.
I stand corrected. Do you have a cite?
I asked this very question at an upscale jewelry store which sold Rolexes, and was told the pieces and parts for the watches are made on-site at the Rolex factory (wherever that is). They don’t get their parts from suppliers; they make them themselves. This is why they are so expensive, I was told.
Is there any truth to this?
My grandfather owned an Accutron. That really was a middle class watch.
It was a neat watch for its time. If you listened to it you could hear the pinging of the tuning fork.
It is amazing what they’re selling for now, even given how hot vintage watches are.