Is Rolex a "trashy watch?"

[DSJ]

Hope my title got your attention.

I’m trying to figure out how to reconcile myself with this stereotype: “Rolex is for nouveaux rich.” “Rolex is a status symbol.” “Rolex is overrated and overpriced.” “Wearing a Rolex is a good way to show people that you have more money than you know what to do with it.” “Rolex is for people who want to flaunt their status.”

I’m sure most of us have heard this before. There was a similar thread earlier this month:
http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=33004

Poignant quotes include:

"Especially the nouveaux-riche Russians are turning their backs to Rolex watches, typically the Day-Date in YG, since Rolex watches are considered "bad taste" and a signal for being nouveax-riche. So therefore the Russians go for other high-end brands like Patek and VC. Money is NO issue for the richest of the Russians. The MSRP for the GMT II "Ice" is pocket money for some of them. But they choose other brands than Rolex to show they have "style".” – Bo’s AD

“As I said before...most premiership footballer's wear Rolex. They earn in excess of £100000 a week.
A true story...my Father's cousin was in Harrods looking at Rolex when a well known Manchester United footballer came in and picked up a diamond encrusted Daytona on a leather strap. He then asked his girlfriend and the sales assistant did they "think it was too blingy for the training ground?" That is a £60000 watch!!!!
I don't know what the situation is in the Rest of Europe, US or Asia but most multi millionaires here still wear Rolex...sports stars, tv stars, movie stars and popstars...they all have them on.
Only watch fanatics are interested in complex movements. Most people with money want a watch that they consider the best and Rolex's acute marketing history has made that so.” – James

It’s a good thread, but I am starting my own because of personal experiences since owning my Rolex. My wife and I are financially self-made. I did have some help in college from my family, but mostly it was on my own. I live in Minnesota now, but grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Bay Area’s wealth are a curious mix of old and new money. I grew up around old money. My dad’s family lived in Palo Alto for many years, and came from prominent East Coast and British families. Grandpa had a Patek Philippe (now missing), or wore gold pocket watches.

When I was wearing Omega, Hamilton, Mido, etc., few people paid notice because they are more obscure “entry luxury” brands. Those who did notice, appreciated them for their subtlety as quality timepieces. Now I’m a Rolex guy.

I wanted and now own Rolex for the following reasons:
1. Classic watch – EVOLUTIONARY changes rather than REVOLUTIONARY
2. History – Company has a strong and proud history
3. Good quality/durability balance.
4. Good match to my style/personality
5. Comparatively strong resale value
6. Prestige (although very minimal to me, but I have to admit it a little)

However, in addition to positive feedback, I’m getting negative as well, including the first quotes at the top of this post. In Minnesota, there is less money, so it’s more obvious when I wear my Rolex, especially Bluesy. The cars I drive stand out here in Minnesota, but in California, they are hardly noticed. In the Bay Area, the old money people look at Rolex as something the “dot com-ers” wear when they cash out their stock after IPO, or professional athletes who don’t know better, or lottery winners, where as the old money set wears “better brand” watches, like PP, VC, etc. Many view TAG Heuer in similar fashion.

Here’s another interesting link which berates Rolex:
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/lux.html

Many of us have long aspired to own a Rolex and worked hard to achieve ownership. I see Rolex as one of a few brands that are either at the top of the “lower luxury” tier (Omega, TAG Heuer, Hamilton, Longines, Zenith, etc.), or the bottom of the “upper luxury” tier, which, in both cases, is an enviable position.

Here’s another question, should Rolex reposition itself to compete more squarely with the “Geneva Seal” set,
http://www.timezone.com/library/itsa...74732705524456
or remain in its current marketplace, which I personally think it created, and others (like Omega) strive to compete in?

This is a rambling post, but if you deal with this, how do you reconcile it? I mention my top-5 as my reasons, and because of the intangible enjoyment I receive from wearing a Rolex. Would I like to own other more “old school” brands? Yes, I hope to someday own a PP, JLC and other interesting watches. But Rolex is THE brand for me above all others, in that I MAY own a PP, and would be privileged to, but not to the exclusion of Rolex.

Thanks for letting me vent, and any discourse would be appreciated. I know I’m preaching to the choir. http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=33089

[JJ Irani]

One word, David - NO!!!

[f16570]

David, No

[Prince]

I'll chime in with the comment other fine members have provided: NO!!!

[DJF881]

Well, the fact is that a solid gold watch on a solid gold bracelet is not the cutting edge of sophisticated style these days.

I don't think that a discerning consumer of luxury products would be likely to prefer the Day-Date over its competitors in the price bracket. I think it's correctly perceived as a watch for people who want to wear a lot of precious metal.

I also think the DateJust is a little bit behind the times. They're selling them with interesting dials on alligator straps in solid gold models, and that's a big improvement.

A dress watch should be simple but not boring, beautiful but not ostentatious, and, as a prestige piece, it should be, in some way, rare. Rolex doesn't really make the grade here. The movements are fairly pedestrian, and the Day-Date movement is a minor complication of the DJ/Sub movement. Pateks, VC and AP, by contrast, are watches that are, to a much larger degree, handmade, and made in small numbers.

The Rolex sports watches are fantastic, though. The guy in the link, getting all stoked for the Aquanaut and dismissing Rolex because of the Odets review of the Explorer 1, is pretty absurd. Odets and the watch snobs at TZ don't think much of the Aquanaut at all. Anyway, the high-end brands have mixed success with sports watches. The Aquanaut is not well-liked, the Royal Oak is nice, but extremely expensive. I think the Vacheron Overseas is a gorgeous watch, but Rolex wins on price and relative function. Also, all of those brands have much higher repair costs.

The metal bracelet makes sense on a sports watch, because it can get wet and will dry quickly, it will not stretch or distort its shape easily, it won't get brittle and crack, as rubber and leather can, it won't absorb sweat or become discolored, and it is, all in all more durable.

[OYSTERMANN]

The solid gold models can be rather ostentatious, but, in all honesty, I think the Day Date is comparitively restrained in comparison to, perhaps, the new Yachtmaster, or even the Subs, when these are made from all gold - mainly due to their sheer size. Certain people may find it a case of gilding the lilly even further with the addition of diamonds etc., but 'm sure we all agree that the superb finish and craftsmanship are never in question.

[CPTL]

Originally Posted by DJF881

A dress watch should be simple but not boring, beautiful but not ostentatious, and, as a prestige piece, it should be, in some way, rare. Rolex doesn't really make the grade here. The movements are fairly pedestrian, and the Day-Date movement is a minor complication of the DJ/Sub movement. Pateks, VC and AP, by contrast, are watches that are, to a much larger degree, handmade, and made in small numbers.

This is a great paragraph. Completely agree.

Rolex is behind on dress models. I think the classic dress watch is a 35-39mm simple, thin case on a well made strap. Toss in a couple of complications, and maybe a display back. I got the DJ to fill this niche, but I would much rather have a Calatrava, Lange, or several others. I simply cannot afford them, and I love Rolex--so the DJ it is, but on a crocodile strap, of course.

In the sports world, however, Rolex is king. Undisputed, IMO.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Personally, I love Rolex watches and don't consider them as trash, at all. Had I had that feeling about them, I would not have bought them. But as I state in the other thread, in some places of the world the status of owning a Rolex has changed.

[mfer]

blasphemy!!!!

[seantk]

Originally Posted by DSJ

but most multi millionaires here still wear Rolex...

Statistically most millionaires do not wear Rolexes or other high end watches. Source "The Millionaire Next Door" by Thomas J Stanley, Ph.D. & William D. Danko, Ph.D

A Rolex will have a different meaning to each person who is wearing one. I do not think they are "trashy". I have been fascinated with the Rolex brand as long as I can remember and I knew some day I would own one, so I learned as much as I could by reading "The Rolex Report" and by joining this forum. I like the combined ruggedness and simplistic beauty of the Rolex.

I am not wealthy, but I live well, I live in a small house and I drive a pick up truck. I saved for my Sea Dweller and paid cash for it.

I decided to buy a Rolex in 2008 because I will turn 40 this year, I will have been at the same company for 20 years and my 1st child (son Joshua) will turn one!!! 3 milestones in my life!!

While most people may recognize the Rolex name, however someone other than a WIS will probably not recognize what is on your wrist

Sean

[Defiancekofb]

It's really this simple, who gives a damn what other people think? I wear a rolex because of quality and history that goes into making my timepiece. I know obviously you will encounter haters that will say "Oh is that a REAL Rolex?" But pay them no mind, you know that is just a defense mechanism excuse.

For example, if I run into someone that drives a ferrari, I will go up and compliment them, I will not say "Oh you should have bought an enzo." Because #1 it exposes your defense mechanism, #2 your being a dickhead.

[Dave Kopf]

Simple answer: Yes.

and I don't give a rat's @ss. Whenever some hater throws that crap at me I simply agree and laugh in their face.

In the end, who cares. I like my GMT II pepsi and my Sub and could care less what anyone else thinks or says about them.

[Whiskey]

Like the quote from the movie "The Boiler Room";

................anyone that says money is the root of all evil doesn't f$%king have any"!

Same goes to those who talk bad about a nice watch, car, house, etc etc.

You know what I hate? People/politicians/celebraties who bitch about poverty and global warming and then drive home in their V8 SUV to their 10-room, 4 baths, triple garage mansion.......................people like Al Gore.

Al Gore is trash!

[Prince]

Originally Posted by Whiskey

...You know what I hate? People/politicians/celebraties who bitch about poverty and global warming and then drive home in their V8 SUV to their 10-room, 4 baths, triple garage mansion.......................people like Al Gore.

Al Gore is trash!

I know you enjoyed getting that off your chest!!!

[Ragu]

in one word "hell no"

[Welshwatchman]

By "trashy" I take the definition to be "tastelessly showy".

There is an argument that the Leopard, Zebra and 1,000 diamond variants are a little "showy".

Most Rolex watches range from the soberly bland to the quietly exotic and they all share the same common heritage and excellent of engineering.

Who's opinion counts? It is certainly not the snooty twanger who would label our watches this way.

[Prince]

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

..."snooty twanger"...

LMAO

[Ed Rooney]

Mine is trashy. You see a lot of pimps wearing Sea-Dwellers.

[DSJ]

Great responses. And no, I don't give a rip what people think of me! My wife is much more image conscious than I am, so she often says, "You're going out in that?"

I just wanted to hear if others have gotten this at all, and what their responses are.

[Art 1]

No, mine are never noticed infact.

[JBat]

Trashy? I don't think so. Most Rolex's aren't flashy enough to be trashy and I've yet to have mine noticed.

[roadcarver]

Its only trashy if you see it used or shown at a porn show

[JostheBoss]

Rolex is well and truly ICONIC!!! It alone has set the standard for so many features a person takes for granted in a wristwatch. Trashy, NO. Timeless...we'll see!

[Nick Stenov]

Rolex has never been traschy.

About the statussymbol, then 20 years ago Rolex was more a statussymbol than now. There has been such an economic increase over the last 20 years, so almost everybody who wants a Rolex can buy one. Most of them a used ofcourse, but a whole lot of people a new one.

Besides. Over the last 20 years, the world has opening up there eyes more for brands like IWC, and the new Omega Co-Axl watches.

My boss told me once, that half the people who owns Bang And Olufsen stereos (superdesign danish steros and tv from $ 7,000 - 30,000), really have no money in cash. I guess that many who are between 20 - 30 years old, and own Rolex, don´t have much cash either. That cash is spent on cars and watches and perhaps a new house where the bank owns 90 % of it all. So owning a Rolex does not mean, that you have more money than you know what to do with it. It shows that you in general either have some good income, or you used to have a good income. I know 2 studiens, who saved up $ 500 for downpayment on a Rolex, and the rest of the money ($ 5,000 - 6,000), was paid with no interest over the next 12 mounths. They were almost as poor as a house ratt, but they spend every penny they earned on a watch. Very scary I think.




Regards


Nick

[fwellers]

Originally Posted by Nick Stenov

I guess that many who are between 20 - 30 years old, and own Rolex, don´t have much cash either. That cash is spent on cars and watches and perhaps a new house where the bank owns 90 % of it all.

Exactly. It's all about priorities. Some have priorities to save for their kids college funds, some have priorities to drive Mercedes Benz or Porche, some spend on high power stereo and or camera equipment etc...
Of course some can do ALL of that.
For me, I have no kids, drive a prius, and have this wristwatch vice/priority.
My wife likes expensive purses and diamonds.

[Nick Stenov]

Yes. And I make only $ 39,000 a year in sallery. Have no kids and no car. I drive a bike and I have a used 28 year old Rolex OQ, which I paid $ 3,100 for 4,5 years ago, and I have a $ 4,000 Yahamha Stereo and a $ 2,000 Thomson TV from France

My cash fortune is $ 1,200

Regards


Nick

[fwellers]

Originally Posted by Nick Stenov

Yes. And I make only $ 39,000 a year in sallery. Have no kids and no car. I drive a bike and I have a used 28 year old Rolex OQ, which I paid $ 3,100 for 4,5 years ago, and I have a $ 4,000 Yahamha Stereo and a $ 2,000 Thomson TV from France

My cash fortune is $ 1,200

Regards


Nick

Ya can't take it with you, or as they say, a death shroud has no pockets.

[ProudSubOwner]

Think class, not trash! Rolex is, I think, a classy quality watch. I just don't think of it as a gaudy status symbol. I am proud to wear it, don't get me wrong, but I don't wear it to show off, except for the fact that I like quality products.

[MAC4130]

Trash !!! Definetly NO!

I think I have laready said a little about this talk to the Watchmaker over at my AD.

MY AD aslo sells Jaeger LeCoultre, Corum, Chopard, Omega, Panerai, Breitling, Tag, Baume&Mercier.

So Talking to the Watchmaker, he tells me that THE BEST watch from a mechanical point of view is the ROLEX, because of how it's made, it is realiable, easy to service and super accurate!

When I was about to get my Rolex (TTGMTIIC) I could have opted to buy a SS JLC Master World Gographic, which is one of the most amazing movements from JLC, they where about $3k difference, but I have seen some of the tests conducted by Time Magazine to JLC or Patek or VC or AP and none of them where as accurate as the GMTIIC! , unless of course you went up to those 30 or 40k watches!
Would I buy a JLC, PP, VC? shure I would...will... but I wanted to buy the Rolex First!
Why should someone that thinks has class buy a PP, VC,JLC or AP?
because they are THE most expensive watches on earth!!!! So I do not necessarily think they are buying to show their great taste for watches, they are also showing off, some of them buying a watch worth 150k or even more! so so now hows showing off???? Who's got the bling, bling watch????

[DSJ]

Originally Posted by MAC4130

Trash !!! Definetly NO!

I think I have laready said a little about this talk to the Watchmaker over at my AD.

MY AD aslo sells Jaeger LeCoultre, Corum, Chopard, Omega, Panerai, Breitling, Tag, Baume&Mercier.

So Talking to the Watchmaker, he tells me that THE BEST watch from a mechanical point of view is the ROLEX, because of how it's made, it is realiable, easy to service and super accurate!

When I was about to get my Rolex (TTGMTIIC) I could have opted to buy a SS JLC Master World Gographic, which is one of the most amazing movements from JLC, they where about $3k difference, but I have seen some of the tests conducted by Time Magazine to JLC or Patek or VC or AP and none of them where as accurate as the GMTIIC! , unless of course you went up to those 30 or 40k watches!
Would I buy a JLC, PP, VC? shure I would...will... but I wanted to buy the Rolex First!
Why should someone that thinks has class buy a PP, VC,JLC or AP?
because they are THE most expensive watches on earth!!!! So I do not necessarily think they are buying to show their great taste for watches, they are also showing off, some of them buying a watch worth 150k or even more! so so now hows showing off???? Who's got the bling, bling watch????

Well said Mac, thanks!