Rolex - Vetting

[yankeeromeo]

Don't really wosh to speak out of turn being so new but I have an opinion!

:D

Or more a suggestion for a discussion

Rolex buyers should be vetted!

Not by affluence (wish I had a dictionary to check that!)
Just the fact not letting wankers own them!


Anyway thats my rant over.

Mark

[Welshwatchman]

I'd be watchless if they did that.

[yankeeromeo]

Not physically.... I mean them tossers think they are david beckham because they have saved the job seekers allowance all year! And have the attitude of 50cent!

[tonelar]

Iguess the term vetting is lost on me... i'm being called a tosser and now hear a newer word.

[Prince]

Originally Posted by tonelar

Iguess the term vetting is lost on me... i'm being called a tosser and now hear a newer word.

Broadly, vetting is a process of examination and evaluation. Specifically, vetting often refers to performing a background check on someone before giving them an award or honor, offering them a position in an organization, etc. In addition, in intelligence gathering, assets are vetted to determine their usefulness.

Obviously, Mark thinks everyone should be evaluated for suitability prior to Rolex ownership.

[Gedanken]

Vetted? What for and by what criteria?

[watchdawg]

I don't think so. Who would set the criteria and what would it be? Who is going to check you out the AD salesmen who thinks the SD tool kit is to release Helium?

[Prince]

Originally Posted by Gedanken

Vetted? What for and by what criteria?

Originally Posted by watchdawg

I don't think so. Who would set the criteria and what would it be? Who is going to check you out the AD salesmen who thinks the SD tool kit is to release Helium?

All excellent questions, gentlemen!

[yankeeromeo]

Least I acheieved my goal.... a good old fashioned debate. Vetting criteria I agree its a tricky one. First passport and driving licence... then we know ho owns which one ;) good for insurance purposes and would make selling a stolen one impossible... similar to a V5.

Thats just a little input for this morning... I save my suggestions up as I broke my foot on friday and will be stuck online for some4weeks !!!

[Incurable]

So would this culminate in something like a worthiness quotient? I don't look forward to being quarantined to the Timex forums. Will there be a mediation process for those miscategorized? This idea is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start. Ugh...

[Prince]

Originally Posted by Incurable

So would this culminate in something like a worthiness quotient? I don't look forward to being quaranteened to the Timex forums. Will there be a mediation process for those mis-catagorized?...

LOL - again, excellent questions, Pat!

[Gedanken]

Originally Posted by yankeeromeo

Least I acheieved my goal.... a good old fashioned debate. Vetting criteria I agree its a tricky one. First passport and driving licence... then we know ho owns which one ;) good for insurance purposes and would make selling a stolen one impossible... similar to a V5.

Thats just a little input for this morning... I save my suggestions up as I broke my foot on friday and will be stuck online for some4weeks !!!

What debate? All the members here have asked for is clarification.

Speaking of clarification, the raison d'etre of this forum is to build an environment for people who appreciate watches, Rolexes in particular. We're not here to dictate who should own a Rolex and who shouldn't because frankly speaking, that's a wank.

[oldbreadstinks]

Originally Posted by yankeeromeo

Don't really wosh to speak out of turn being so new but I have an opinion!

:D

Or more a suggestion for a discussion

Rolex buyers should be vetted!

Not by affluence (wish I had a dictionary to check that!)
Just the fact not letting wankers own them!


Anyway thats my rant over.

Mark

i don't even know any guys who owns a rolex and isn't a wanker

[Gedanken]

Originally Posted by oldbreadstinks

i don't even know any guys who owns a rolex and isn't a wanker

No, no, no - that's "tosser".

[gmt 16750]

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

I'd be watchless if they did that.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!
Priceless mate

[leopardprey]

There is already a vetting process in place for owning a Rolex.

It is must have the financial background to pay $5000 or over for a watch!

[Prince]

Originally Posted by leopardprey

There is already a vetting process in place for owning a Rolex.
It is must have the financial background to pay $5000 or over for a watch!

Indeed! But Mark says "Rolex buyers should be vetted! Not by affluence...Just the fact not letting wankers own them!"

[ginzo]

If Rolex had a choice I would bet they would want "wankers" to own one or more because there are lots and lots of "wankers" in this world and Rolex wants to sell as many watches as possible.

[Prince]

Originally Posted by ginzo

...because there are lots and lots of "wankers" in this world...

A very insightful observation, Robert!!!

[tonelar]

Originally Posted by ginzo

If Rolex had a choice I would bet they would want "wankers" to own one or more because there are lots and lots of "wankers" in this world and Rolex wants to sell as many watches as possible.

They definitely want to sell as many watches as possible. Only thing is... selling as many $5000 (and up) watches definitely limits you to a certain cross section of the watch buying public. They're attempting to broaden into the ultra bling market (anyone see the TT GMT Master IIs on the Rolex web site with the blue and red as well as blue and white stones on their bezels and faces?) with certain models. Who but 50cent would plunk down the cash for a Leaopard Daytona for instance?

The price of ownership limits the product to certain people... I wonder how many first time buyers, wear them for 10-15 years and then baulk at the cost of servicing their watch? I wonder what percentage of Rolex owners even know how to care for their watches?

It might be interesting to see what percentage of Rolex buyers never buy another Rolex after their one time plunking down that kind of money for a wrist watch?

[A. Jacobs]

I wonder if a blue collar worker like myself would be allowed to buy a Rolex if "vetting" was an accepted practice. What a stupid thread, wanker

[Alcan]

If I was a retail merchandiser of high end luxury items such as Rolex watches, I can assure you that "vetting" of potential customers would take a very, very far back seat relative to me paying my franchise fees and store lease for the month. If a customer has the financial wherewithall and I have the product, it's a done deal.

[steve-o]

Wankers...Tossers...please call me "Spanky"

[vcm_dj]

Originally Posted by leopardprey

There is already a vetting process in place for owning a Rolex.

It is must have the financial background to pay $5000 or over for a watch!

Perhaps... but anyone who REALLY wants to own one of these fine timepieces can get into a nice preowned model for a couple of grand... Usually that's the gent's models and it goes up from there for the sports models, obviously. But I really believe there are two types of Rolex people: Those who buy them as status symbols and know nothing about the brand except the name itself, and those who have a genuine appreciation for the development, history, accomplisments, etc. the has made the Rolex name what it is, and I believe that's the company we keep up here on this board... But hey, that's just my opinion - I could be wrong!
-V

[A. Jacobs]

Originally Posted by vcm_dj

Perhaps... but anyone who REALLY wants to own one of these fine timepieces can get into a nice preowned model for a couple of grand... Usually that's the gent's models and it goes up from there for the sports models, obviously. But I really believe there are two types of Rolex people: Those who buy them as status symbols and know nothing about the brand except the name itself, and those who have a genuine appreciation for the development, history, accomplisments, etc. the has made the Rolex name what it is, and I believe that's the company we keep up here on this board... But hey, that's just my opinion - I could be wrong!
-V

Victor,
Very well said

[Gedanken]

Originally Posted by A. Jacobs

Austin,
Very well said

Somehow, I don't think Victor speaks for all of Austin!

[Incurable]

When I was buying my latest, there was a gentleman who blew in and wanted to view a Yachtmaster. His current watch was all about the 'bling' and he chose to try a platinum bezeled rolesium variant. I didn't pay much attention to that but... I did notice he spent quite a bit of time with the mirror, checking out how it looked on his wrist. When it came time to purchase, he chose to use the 'in house' financing which offered 1 year-no interest terms. In the process, he seemed to be having some problems w/proof of residence, etc. All the while, he seemed to be in a hurry to just get it over with. All my instincts were telling me something was fishy about this person and sale. The salesman showed little signs of acknowledging this fact but... in his place, I can understand the implications. He represents the company and can ill-afford to cast disparity upon customers that 'feel' wrong. If the finance company approves him, it's out of his hands and their problem if payments are missed, etc. Furthermore, it's absolutely no business of his why this customer likes, dislikes or chooses one Rolex over another. In this case, my feelings were that this customer was only interested in the bling and probably had questionable means to afford the $8xxx.xx watch he was buying. In fact, considering his trouble w/the credit approval documents necessary, probably wouldn't ever complete the payments for one reason or another. Did the salesman share my feelings? I didn't see any sign of it. He handled things professionally throughout. Even if he did, it would have been a breech of decorum to act upon it.