15 ms·

Inside Rolex's Manufacturing Facilities (2015)

149 points by Inconel 10y ago

legodt 10y ago
Hey, uh, why the fuck does this website want to send me notifications? That really makes me want to bounce from a page ASAP, especially one that is just serving up an article on the surface.
- Inconel 10y ago
  Hmm, I didn't notice that but I just checked and it looks like I already have notifications blocked. Sorry I submitted such a site. I agree that it is very annoying.
  - legodt 10y ago
    Well I'm mostly curious at this point. The content itself was deeply researched and informative, nothing else seemed fishy on the page. What reasons would a webdev want to enable such a feature on a site like this? And no, I'm not giving a random page permission so I can find out!
    - Inconel 10y ago
      This is just a guess on my part since I always deny these permission requests but I would think maybe accepting the request would allow the website to notify a reader when new articles are posted? Maybe it's something like notifications on an app only this is done via the browser? I feel like I started seeing these requests more frequently about 12-18 months ago. I agree it's very off putting.
      - bitJericho 10y ago
        That's around when windows started supporting it. I love the feature for sites I frequent.
      - gregoryrueda 10y ago
        The only site I allow to send me notifications is dictionary.com because I like getting a word of the day. Other than that, getting an alert from blogs every time a new article is posted gets old really fast.
    - Terribledactyl 10y ago
      To get you to comeback to the site. To demand a higher amount when negotiating with watch companies.
  - jakeogh 10y ago
    Disable JS. Makes the web way better.
Animats 10y ago
Now that's an ad. "We are not in the watch business. We are in the luxury business" - Rolex CEO. Rolex today only gets chronometer certification for about 3% of its output. Any decent quartz watch is more accurate than the best mechanical watches. Chronometer certification for a mechanical watch only requires -4/+6 secs/day. The best quartz watches are good for 5 seconds a year. Unless you also have a boat, a sextant, and a nautical almanac, but no GPS, a chronometer watch isn't going to do you much good.
- DavidWanjiru 10y ago
  My guess is buyers of mechanical watches know this already. I've never seen a luxury watch advert whose main selling point was the accuracy of the watch.
  - Lio 10y ago
    I remember Rolex adverts "from back in the day". I destinctly remember them stating that all their watches were COSC Chronometers and explaining what that meant in terms of accuracy. Now I'm 41 but even then it was post quartz so people weren't buying Rolex watches for their absolute accuracy. Personally, I have an Omega Speedmaster Professional that I've worn almost everyday since my 30th birthday. It's manual wind and keeps even worse time than any Chronometer but I love it and don't covert any other (smart)watch. Owning a mechanical watch is ...odd, I guess. :)
  - rconti 10y ago
    I don't know. Rolex and the like spend a lot of money advertising at sporting events (Tennis, F1, Olympics, etc). Often there is a prominent Rolex clock or "Omega Timing" ("Official Timekeeper!") and there is certainly an implication of precision and accuracy.
- Inconel 10y ago
  Do you have a source on that 3% figure? I believe that only approximately 3% of Swiss watches are COSC[1] certified but I was also under the impression that all Rolex watches are COSC certified. I know Rolex by itself makes up over 50% of annual COSC watches and since Rolex themselves never reveal sales figures I've heard that people use the official annual COSC certification numbers as a barometer to how Rolex is doing. [1]Contrôle Officiel Suisse des Chronomètres - This is Switzerland's official chronometer testing agency.
carsongross 10y ago
If we have to trick rich people into paying too much for something in order to keep this level of manufacturing autism going, I am 100% in favor of it.
hueving 10y ago
Impressive native advertising.
- tobltobs 10y ago
  But therefore the website is ad free. No Adsense, no popups. Seriously, this kind of content is the future the Adblocker fanatics are dreaming of.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 10y ago
    I'd pay real money for a book that goes this in-depth into any subject, especially stuff that isn't generally public knowledge. The subject matter isn't even all that important. If this is the future of advertising bring it on.
    - hueving 10y ago
      The problem with an article sponsored by a company is that it's not going to be objective. It may be in-depth, but it's definitely hiding any conceivable bad PR for Rolex at the same time.
  - toni 10y ago
    But if a website comprises only native advertising, Internet PR, and sponsored articles, Adblockers might start blacklisting the whole site.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - izacus 10y ago
    This is a really ugly strawman you said there.
  - wmeredith 10y ago
    I'm not sure if you meant this to be a condemnation, but it certainly is the future I'm hoping for. This is interesting content based advertising. I much prefer it to the PPC sewer we have now.
chrissnell 10y ago
I treasure my Submariner. It's the one article of fashion I have that goes perfectly with every outfit; it looks great with a tuxedo and it looks just as good with shorts and a t-shirt. It's incredibly well-made: I wear mine every day and after nine years together, it still looks better than the year-old iPhone in my pocket. It's also understated--at least, my stainless steel, black-bezeled Sub Date is--and it doesn't scream "expensive" or "showy" like many watches on both ends of the price spectrum often do. There are a few advantages to owning a Rolex that may not be so obvious: For starters, it's quickly exchangeable for a high percentage of its value in cash in virtually any major city in the world. Because you're always wearing it, that's $8,000+ in cash that you can have in short order if you needed it badly and circumstances prohibit you from accessing your bank account. Another advantage: they almost always appreciate in value over time. Very few physical assets can claim similar long-term value. People have been coveting these watches for nearly a century and that's unlikely to change. I will surely give mine to one of my sons someday. If you can afford it, I highly recommend you treat yourself to one. I get enjoyment every day when I put mine on. I can barely remember any of the cars and trucks I've owned but I spent less on my Sub and I'll never forget it. Thanks for the article, OP.
- qwrusz 10y ago
  Hopefully one never needs to exchange their watch for cash in an emergency but I see the advantage, in general do you insure it against theft or loss while traveling overseas with it?
  - chrissnell 10y ago
    I've travelled to third-world countries [1] with mine and I didn't insure it. I can't say I'd always do this, however. It depends on where you're going and what you're doing. In general, it's not wise to be flashy in a poor place but the stainless steel Sub isn't as obviously expensive as a gold watch and probably wouldn't catch a thief's eye like an iWatch, even though it is well over 10x as valuable. [1] https://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/4246326395/in/album-72157623017712261/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/4246326395/in/album...
wyager 10y ago
Based on my in-depth knowledge of several obscure product fields, I've developed an instinctive skeptical reaction to believing that whatever a layperson thinks of as "the best" is actually "the best". When it comes to watches, Rolex is obviously the high-end brand that the layperson will be familiar with and will believe to be representative of high quality. Can someone who is well-versed in high-end watches tell me if they are, in fact, leading the game when it comes to engineering and quality? I seem to recall reading a few years back that Rolexes had abnormally high maintenance costs, but this article directly contradicts that, so perhaps I'm mistaken.
- RobertKerans 10y ago
  A Rolex is a [fairly ostentatious] signal that the wearer has a very great deal of disposable income: is the engineering quality particularly relevant?
  - tonyedgecombe 10y ago
    Or a signal that they are willing to dispose of a great deal of income.
  - mychael 10y ago
    If you're not a watch person, Rolexes might look like ostentatious status symbols. However, the flagship watches that they are most known for (like the Submariner, Milgauss, Daytona etc) are all tool watches first and foremost made mostly of stainless steel. Like watches, some people buy BMWs because they’re actually very passionate about cars and quality. Spend any amount of time on watch forums and you’ll soon appreciate the engineering involved and the passion that people have for these things.
  - wyager 10y ago
    A lot of my hobbies are based on my appreciation of extremely precise engineering. It's relevant to me.
  - charlesdm 10y ago
    The fact that it's an impressive feat of engineering is the main reason why I bought a mechanical watch (JLC). Besides, heck, we're talking about watches that can easily last 50+ years. And some even appreciate in value.
Inconel 10y ago
I wasn't sure how this article would fair on HN but some seem to be enjoying it, and since crdb brought up Seiko elsewhere in the comments, here is a similar tour of some of Seiko's facilities[1]. It might be worth taking a particularly close look at the part about the Micro Artist Studio. [1]http://www.fratellowatches.com/seiko-factory-visit-trip-report-part-1/ http://www.fratellowatches.com/seiko-factory-visit-trip-repo...
mrbill 10y ago
I own an Omega Seamaster (James Bond Special Edition) - the last thing given to me by my wife before she passed away... However, my dream is to one day be able to afford a used stainless-steel Rolex Sea-Dweller or Submariner.
- ConroyBumpus 10y ago
  Don't discount the Omega Speedmaster Professional. I've had multiple people comment on my "moonwatch"
mrbill 10y ago
Don't forget that Rolex made a quartz watch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolex_Oysterquartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolex_Oysterquartz
hobo_mark 10y ago
As I was reading about the scale of their production process, I had to wonder how many people actually buy rolexes, turns out it's been less and less every year since quite a while: https://twitter.com/vexmark/status/771182258099073024 https://twitter.com/vexmark/status/771182258099073024 "The Swiss watch industry is grappling with some of its toughest times since the quartz crisis of the 1970s and 1980s, when battery-powered watches threatened to make mechanical timepieces obsolete. A drop in Asian tourism to Europe has added to a laundry list of challenges including the strong franc and a four-year anti-graft campaign by the Chinese government." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-20/swiss-watch-exports-drop-15th-month-longest-slump-on-record https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-20/swiss-wat...
rubzah 10y ago
And they said long-form advertisement is dead!
stevenj 10y ago
I'm interested in buying a luxury watch. For all the Rolex fans here: why Rolex over say Breitling or Waldan (I like the look of the Waldans the best)?
- pc86 10y ago
  I am not a fan of the overly complicated watch - I mean complication in the horological sense. I hadn't heard of Waldan before your comment but they aren't my style. Under the right circumstances I could go with a Navitimer but overall Rolex's aesthetic style just appeals to me more. There is no right or wrong answer, especially when it comes to something as subjective as this. If you like the look of Waldan take a look at the Omega Speedmaster which has a fantastic history and a similar style. IWC probably has some pieces you would like as well although I always thought they were a little expensive even compared to other luxury watches. Browse Chrono24 or Govberg and you'll see a few brands you haven't heard of as well and maybe something else will pique your interest.
- Mikeb85 10y ago
  No reason per se... Among watch fans, those who do like Rolex like it for the history, the assumed quality, the in-house movements. Of course other brands have the same prestige and history, brands like Breitling, Audemars Piguet, Omega, etc... I think these brands are valued over some of the smaller brands because of history and certain recognizable designs (Audemars Royal Oak, Rolex Submariner, Omega Speedmaster, etc...). This Waldan brand looks interesting, definitely dressy watches, I'm sure they're quality. I'd say go with what you like.
- hendubz 10y ago
  No one can really make that decision for you but the best advice I can give is seek out any watch that you're considering spending money on and hold it in your hand. Product photos, specs, and reviews rarely do justice to the personal reaction you'll have to the piece itself. I've been disappointed by watches that looked perfect on paper and been surprised by pieces that I never would have considered from just looking at them. What did it for me when I bought my Rolex (2016 Explorer I) was the how the quality of its finishing felt in my hand. It practically vanishes when it's on my wrist thanks to how comfortable and unobtrusive it is but the materials, fit, and finishing on it show undeniably where a lot of the money went.
tombert 10y ago
I've always really liked how the Submariner looks, and apparently so did everyone else, because there are about two billion different varieties of homages to it. While I have no doubt that the Rolex is well-engineered, it's hard for me to believe it's literally a hundred times better than my Invicta Pro Diver, and I won't feel too bad if my Invicta gets stolen...Most people just assume I'm wearing a Rolex. That said, if I had a lot of spare cash I'd probably end up buying a legit Submariner, and if I were eccentric enough, the Paul Newman variety of the Daytona.
noonespecial 10y ago
Rolex, more than anything, makes me optimistic about the "rise of the machines" taking everyone's jobs. There is no reason whatsoever for Rolex watches to exist besides that they make people happy. As a timekeeper, a $20 timex beats them in every way, but as art they are unmatched. Rolex is a giant art project that employs thousands and makes millions happy. That people are willing to pay for this art and the way it is produced is profoundly hopeful.
etjossem 10y ago
Submariner article. http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html

149 points by Inconel 10y ago

Hey, uh, why the fuck does this website want to send me notifications? That really makes me want to bounce from a page ASAP, especially one that is just serving up an article on the surface.

Inconel 10y ago
Hmm, I didn't notice that but I just checked and it looks like I already have notifications blocked. Sorry I submitted such a site. I agree that it is very annoying.
- legodt 10y ago
  Well I'm mostly curious at this point. The content itself was deeply researched and informative, nothing else seemed fishy on the page. What reasons would a webdev want to enable such a feature on a site like this? And no, I'm not giving a random page permission so I can find out!
  - Inconel 10y ago
    This is just a guess on my part since I always deny these permission requests but I would think maybe accepting the request would allow the website to notify a reader when new articles are posted? Maybe it's something like notifications on an app only this is done via the browser? I feel like I started seeing these requests more frequently about 12-18 months ago. I agree it's very off putting.
    - bitJericho 10y ago
      That's around when windows started supporting it. I love the feature for sites I frequent.
    - gregoryrueda 10y ago
      The only site I allow to send me notifications is dictionary.com because I like getting a word of the day. Other than that, getting an alert from blogs every time a new article is posted gets old really fast.
  - Terribledactyl 10y ago
    To get you to comeback to the site. To demand a higher amount when negotiating with watch companies.
- jakeogh 10y ago
  Disable JS. Makes the web way better.

Animats 10y ago

Now that's an ad. "We are not in the watch business. We are in the luxury business" - Rolex CEO. Rolex today only gets chronometer certification for about 3% of its output. Any decent quartz watch is more accurate than the best mechanical watches. Chronometer certification for a mechanical watch only requires -4/+6 secs/day. The best quartz watches are good for 5 seconds a year. Unless you also have a boat, a sextant, and a nautical almanac, but no GPS, a chronometer watch isn't going to do you much good.

DavidWanjiru 10y ago
My guess is buyers of mechanical watches know this already. I've never seen a luxury watch advert whose main selling point was the accuracy of the watch.
- Lio 10y ago
  I remember Rolex adverts "from back in the day". I destinctly remember them stating that all their watches were COSC Chronometers and explaining what that meant in terms of accuracy. Now I'm 41 but even then it was post quartz so people weren't buying Rolex watches for their absolute accuracy. Personally, I have an Omega Speedmaster Professional that I've worn almost everyday since my 30th birthday. It's manual wind and keeps even worse time than any Chronometer but I love it and don't covert any other (smart)watch. Owning a mechanical watch is ...odd, I guess. :)
- rconti 10y ago
  I don't know. Rolex and the like spend a lot of money advertising at sporting events (Tennis, F1, Olympics, etc). Often there is a prominent Rolex clock or "Omega Timing" ("Official Timekeeper!") and there is certainly an implication of precision and accuracy.
Inconel 10y ago
Do you have a source on that 3% figure? I believe that only approximately 3% of Swiss watches are COSC[1] certified but I was also under the impression that all Rolex watches are COSC certified. I know Rolex by itself makes up over 50% of annual COSC watches and since Rolex themselves never reveal sales figures I've heard that people use the official annual COSC certification numbers as a barometer to how Rolex is doing. [1]Contrôle Officiel Suisse des Chronomètres - This is Switzerland's official chronometer testing agency.

carsongross 10y ago

If we have to trick rich people into paying too much for something in order to keep this level of manufacturing autism going, I am 100% in favor of it.

hueving 10y ago

Impressive native advertising.

tobltobs 10y ago
But therefore the website is ad free. No Adsense, no popups. Seriously, this kind of content is the future the Adblocker fanatics are dreaming of.
- SmellyGeekBoy 10y ago
  I'd pay real money for a book that goes this in-depth into any subject, especially stuff that isn't generally public knowledge. The subject matter isn't even all that important. If this is the future of advertising bring it on.
  - hueving 10y ago
    The problem with an article sponsored by a company is that it's not going to be objective. It may be in-depth, but it's definitely hiding any conceivable bad PR for Rolex at the same time.
- toni 10y ago
  But if a website comprises only native advertising, Internet PR, and sponsored articles, Adblockers might start blacklisting the whole site.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- izacus 10y ago
  This is a really ugly strawman you said there.
- wmeredith 10y ago
  I'm not sure if you meant this to be a condemnation, but it certainly is the future I'm hoping for. This is interesting content based advertising. I much prefer it to the PPC sewer we have now.

chrissnell 10y ago

I treasure my Submariner. It's the one article of fashion I have that goes perfectly with every outfit; it looks great with a tuxedo and it looks just as good with shorts and a t-shirt. It's incredibly well-made: I wear mine every day and after nine years together, it still looks better than the year-old iPhone in my pocket. It's also understated--at least, my stainless steel, black-bezeled Sub Date is--and it doesn't scream "expensive" or "showy" like many watches on both ends of the price spectrum often do. There are a few advantages to owning a Rolex that may not be so obvious: For starters, it's quickly exchangeable for a high percentage of its value in cash in virtually any major city in the world. Because you're always wearing it, that's $8,000+ in cash that you can have in short order if you needed it badly and circumstances prohibit you from accessing your bank account. Another advantage: they almost always appreciate in value over time. Very few physical assets can claim similar long-term value. People have been coveting these watches for nearly a century and that's unlikely to change. I will surely give mine to one of my sons someday. If you can afford it, I highly recommend you treat yourself to one. I get enjoyment every day when I put mine on. I can barely remember any of the cars and trucks I've owned but I spent less on my Sub and I'll never forget it. Thanks for the article, OP.

qwrusz 10y ago
Hopefully one never needs to exchange their watch for cash in an emergency but I see the advantage, in general do you insure it against theft or loss while traveling overseas with it?
- chrissnell 10y ago
  I've travelled to third-world countries [1] with mine and I didn't insure it. I can't say I'd always do this, however. It depends on where you're going and what you're doing. In general, it's not wise to be flashy in a poor place but the stainless steel Sub isn't as obviously expensive as a gold watch and probably wouldn't catch a thief's eye like an iWatch, even though it is well over 10x as valuable. [1] https://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/4246326395/in/album-72157623017712261/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/4246326395/in/album...

wyager 10y ago

Based on my in-depth knowledge of several obscure product fields, I've developed an instinctive skeptical reaction to believing that whatever a layperson thinks of as "the best" is actually "the best". When it comes to watches, Rolex is obviously the high-end brand that the layperson will be familiar with and will believe to be representative of high quality. Can someone who is well-versed in high-end watches tell me if they are, in fact, leading the game when it comes to engineering and quality? I seem to recall reading a few years back that Rolexes had abnormally high maintenance costs, but this article directly contradicts that, so perhaps I'm mistaken.

RobertKerans 10y ago
A Rolex is a [fairly ostentatious] signal that the wearer has a very great deal of disposable income: is the engineering quality particularly relevant?
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  Or a signal that they are willing to dispose of a great deal of income.
- mychael 10y ago
  If you're not a watch person, Rolexes might look like ostentatious status symbols. However, the flagship watches that they are most known for (like the Submariner, Milgauss, Daytona etc) are all tool watches first and foremost made mostly of stainless steel. Like watches, some people buy BMWs because they’re actually very passionate about cars and quality. Spend any amount of time on watch forums and you’ll soon appreciate the engineering involved and the passion that people have for these things.
- wyager 10y ago
  A lot of my hobbies are based on my appreciation of extremely precise engineering. It's relevant to me.
- charlesdm 10y ago
  The fact that it's an impressive feat of engineering is the main reason why I bought a mechanical watch (JLC). Besides, heck, we're talking about watches that can easily last 50+ years. And some even appreciate in value.

Inconel 10y ago

I wasn't sure how this article would fair on HN but some seem to be enjoying it, and since crdb brought up Seiko elsewhere in the comments, here is a similar tour of some of Seiko's facilities[1]. It might be worth taking a particularly close look at the part about the Micro Artist Studio. [1]http://www.fratellowatches.com/seiko-factory-visit-trip-report-part-1/ http://www.fratellowatches.com/seiko-factory-visit-trip-repo...

mrbill 10y ago

I own an Omega Seamaster (James Bond Special Edition) - the last thing given to me by my wife before she passed away... However, my dream is to one day be able to afford a used stainless-steel Rolex Sea-Dweller or Submariner.

ConroyBumpus 10y ago
Don't discount the Omega Speedmaster Professional. I've had multiple people comment on my "moonwatch"

mrbill 10y ago

Don't forget that Rolex made a quartz watch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolex_Oysterquartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolex_Oysterquartz

hobo_mark 10y ago

As I was reading about the scale of their production process, I had to wonder how many people actually buy rolexes, turns out it's been less and less every year since quite a while: https://twitter.com/vexmark/status/771182258099073024 https://twitter.com/vexmark/status/771182258099073024 "The Swiss watch industry is grappling with some of its toughest times since the quartz crisis of the 1970s and 1980s, when battery-powered watches threatened to make mechanical timepieces obsolete. A drop in Asian tourism to Europe has added to a laundry list of challenges including the strong franc and a four-year anti-graft campaign by the Chinese government." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-20/swiss-watch-exports-drop-15th-month-longest-slump-on-record https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-20/swiss-wat...

rubzah 10y ago

And they said long-form advertisement is dead!

stevenj 10y ago

I'm interested in buying a luxury watch. For all the Rolex fans here: why Rolex over say Breitling or Waldan (I like the look of the Waldans the best)?

pc86 10y ago
I am not a fan of the overly complicated watch - I mean complication in the horological sense. I hadn't heard of Waldan before your comment but they aren't my style. Under the right circumstances I could go with a Navitimer but overall Rolex's aesthetic style just appeals to me more. There is no right or wrong answer, especially when it comes to something as subjective as this. If you like the look of Waldan take a look at the Omega Speedmaster which has a fantastic history and a similar style. IWC probably has some pieces you would like as well although I always thought they were a little expensive even compared to other luxury watches. Browse Chrono24 or Govberg and you'll see a few brands you haven't heard of as well and maybe something else will pique your interest.
Mikeb85 10y ago
No reason per se... Among watch fans, those who do like Rolex like it for the history, the assumed quality, the in-house movements. Of course other brands have the same prestige and history, brands like Breitling, Audemars Piguet, Omega, etc... I think these brands are valued over some of the smaller brands because of history and certain recognizable designs (Audemars Royal Oak, Rolex Submariner, Omega Speedmaster, etc...). This Waldan brand looks interesting, definitely dressy watches, I'm sure they're quality. I'd say go with what you like.
hendubz 10y ago
No one can really make that decision for you but the best advice I can give is seek out any watch that you're considering spending money on and hold it in your hand. Product photos, specs, and reviews rarely do justice to the personal reaction you'll have to the piece itself. I've been disappointed by watches that looked perfect on paper and been surprised by pieces that I never would have considered from just looking at them. What did it for me when I bought my Rolex (2016 Explorer I) was the how the quality of its finishing felt in my hand. It practically vanishes when it's on my wrist thanks to how comfortable and unobtrusive it is but the materials, fit, and finishing on it show undeniably where a lot of the money went.

tombert 10y ago

I've always really liked how the Submariner looks, and apparently so did everyone else, because there are about two billion different varieties of homages to it. While I have no doubt that the Rolex is well-engineered, it's hard for me to believe it's literally a hundred times better than my Invicta Pro Diver, and I won't feel too bad if my Invicta gets stolen...Most people just assume I'm wearing a Rolex. That said, if I had a lot of spare cash I'd probably end up buying a legit Submariner, and if I were eccentric enough, the Paul Newman variety of the Daytona.

noonespecial 10y ago

Rolex, more than anything, makes me optimistic about the "rise of the machines" taking everyone's jobs. There is no reason whatsoever for Rolex watches to exist besides that they make people happy. As a timekeeper, a $20 timex beats them in every way, but as art they are unmatched. Rolex is a giant art project that employs thousands and makes millions happy. That people are willing to pay for this art and the way it is produced is profoundly hopeful.

etjossem 10y ago

Submariner article. http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html