11 ms·
Rolex are the De Beers of the mechanical watch world. Scarcity and exclusivity is a great way to market luxury. A Rolex Submariner in the 80s was about $1,000 —
by sunpazed 3y ago
Rolex are the De Beers of the mechanical watch world. Scarcity and exclusivity is a great way to market luxury. A Rolex Submariner in the 80s was about $1,000 — these days it’s closer to $12,000. A new Daytona is twice that. While they were never cheap, they were affordable for a working professional.
- paulpauper 3y agobut there are many suppliers of luxury watches
- quickthrower2 3y agoYes it is more like Rolex are the Apple of the watch world.
- sunpazed 3y agoI would argue that they used to be. Back in the 70s a Rolex was seen and marketed as more of a “tool watch” than a luxury item.
- mperham 3y agoApple is the Apple of the watch world. Apple sold 54m watches last year, Rolex an estimated 1m. Apple sells more watches than every other luxury watch brand combined.
- miah_ 3y agoA Rolex will work in 15 years, while an Apple Watch will be unsupported landfill fodder.
- LunaSea 3y agoWho cares if they work after 15 years? It's not like people buy Rolexes to keep track of time.
- School-Cotton 3y agoYou’re partly right. I own two luxury watches (worth about $10,000 total). One of them is a Rolex. I wear one every day and yes I use it many times a day to look at the time because it’s less annoying than looking at my phone. Of course, a $10 quartz watch keeps time better. I bought these because I like what they look like, owning nice things is enjoyable, I want to support craftsmanship, and they hold value well. They’re not really a status symbol because 99% of people I interact with don’t know or care anything about watches. I would definitely be upset if they stopped being able to keep time because then I wouldn’t be able to wear them.
- talldatethrow 3y agoI've been wearing the same watch that doesn't work for 10 years. I went to change the battery years ago, took it out, and never ordered one. It has never bothered me once. The watch looks just as nice, and it usually takes GFs many weeks to realize it's not working. And that's only because it's set to 11:11 which is a common cliche meme type time that girls like. (Yes I set it to that on purpose for a girl once) A watch is basically a form of acceptable male jewelry. It still acts as jewelry if it doesn't tell time.
- School-Cotton 3y agoRight, but my point is that I want to be able to look at my wrist to tell the time, so if my nice watches stopped working, I’d have to either shell out money for a new nice one, switch to a less nice one, or just accept having to look at my phone for the time. Any of which I would find annoying.
- throwaway2037 3y agoAwesome. What a great story.
- samstave 3y agoRecall that Apple announced the end of its $15,000 Apple Watch. I wonder what one does with that thing? Personal Watch Museum it would seem.
- paulpauper 3y agoImainge having so much money that it does not matter. that is the targeted customer in mind.
- jyunwai 3y agoA Rolex watch will roughly cost $600 to $1000 USD in servicing every 10 years to run properly (plus an upfront cost of, let's say, $10,000 USD for a certain model of a Rolex Submariner), whereas the Apple Watch Ultra (choosing a high-end model) will cost roughly $799 USD to purchase the latest version every four years or so. Dollars-wise, there is not much of a gap between the two over a lifetime (unless you skip the servicing of a Rolex watch, which increases the odds of a breakdown and costly repair). The main value of keeping the same watch would be sentimentality, as shown in the film Pulp Fiction. But the main advantage of mechanical watches over Apple Watches, it seems, is drawn from their aesthetics and an appreciation of their design—rather than as a practical preference based on cost. If longevity and practicality were the main concerns, a Casio watch—such as the famous F91W or updated alternative with a better backlight such as a W86 or F201WA—would be a better selection.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ben_w 3y agoYes, and unlike Rolex, none of Apple's range cost as much as a detached house in Cyprus. https://watchcharts.com/watches/brand/rolex?page=1&sort=price_desc https://watchcharts.com/watches/brand/rolex?page=1&sort=pric... https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/142974947#/?channel=OVERSEAS https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/142974947#/?channel=O... Apple is middle class luxury, not weird posh "luxury".
- ksaj 3y agoA Rolex is likely still working if you buy it at an antique market. Apple, not so much. They'll be non-functional and useless well before they could be even considered a 'classic.' Even old Casio watches from the early 80's have Apple beat on that measure.
- hu3 3y agoNot to mention a Rolex appreciate in price as time passes. Apple watch lose value and become e-waste.
- ohdannyboy 3y agoSome Rolexes will appreciate, but not all. Knowing which ones will appreciate is like art or cars. Especially at the entry level you'll most likely be fighting for grey market prices. "It's an investment" is usually just a cope for people who can't actually afford the watch and don't want to sound foolish.
- hu3 3y ago> The average price of a pre-owned Rolex watch increased from less than US$5,000 in 2011 to more than US$13,000 by the end of 2021, according to a report by the California-based firm published earlier this year. https://www.barrons.com/articles/over-a-decade-rolex-watches-outperformed-the-stock-market-01672177029 https://www.barrons.com/articles/over-a-decade-rolex-watches... Even if the price of a specific watch slightly declines (unlikely given statistics published), it sounds much better than a 100% chance to become eWaste in the case of Apple watches.
- amelius 3y agoHuh? 75% of the people I know has an Apple device. Stop fooling yourself.
- quickthrower2 3y agoI mean Rolex is more like Apple (high priced, defending a brand) than DeBeers (owning an entire commodity class)
- artursapek 3y agoYeah, it's a tacky status symbol. What's the problem?
- modernpink 3y agoEverything is a status symbol.
- neom 3y agoLittle unfair to those into horology. Rolex makes quality watches and their history is rich.
- tsunamifury 3y agoEverything about Rolex is average at best and overpriced mass Produced machine watches at worst.
- wfme 3y agoIs this based on emotion or are there facts to back this up? Would love to read about it if it's the latter?
- tsunamifury 3y agoCollectors of Rolexes live in a bizarre netherworld where their watches aren’t mass produced machine made. This isn’t even a secret it’s openly stated. It made of few to no precious materials and is engineering a problem (time keeping) that has been solved in a variety of ways already to super accuracy. The reality is that a microscopically accurate replica can be made for 300$ in china. This isn’t true for A Lange or FP Journe, yet somehow people act like Rolex is unobtanium. They are simply the same as an LVMH canvas bag. Objects of desire because they are expensive and have no other unique features. I could get into details like how a blue hairspring is not that special or their movements are fine but nothing outstanding. But most don’t want to go that deep. Think of it like Bose. They sound good to someone who hasn’t heard anything else good.
- skhr0680 3y agoI don’t think it’s a coincidence that Rolex transformed into Veblen goods around the time Gshocks were invented
- Racing0461 3y agoIs it really a Veblen goods when the ROI on marketing/social status increases appropriately? In the same way a company can pay for marketing, buying a rolex/lambo is like exchanging fiscal currency for social currency. We don't call buying 100k in adsense a veblen good but buying a 100k watch is?
- throwup238 3y agoA Veblen good means the demand increases when the price increases. ROI doesn't factor in. Nobody would buy 100k of adsense ads if they didn't return more than 100k in revenue. With a Veblen good, the price tag is the point.
- rubyfan 3y agoHaha, I’m pretty sure a lot of people buy 100K of adsense ads that doesn’t return 100K in revenue.
- throwup238 3y agoGood point, though most of them probably don't do it for very long unless they're money laundering (I would argue the big companies like Coca Cola spending on brand maintenance get a good ROI). The list of people who buy Veblen goods who can't ever return a profit is too long to exhaustively list: almost all jewelry, luxury watches, art, and luxury cars for example. It's only dumb luck that a few Rolexes have resale value; they're probably one scandal away from destroying all that value.
- ssivark 3y agoFascinating analogy. While it might not apply to adsense, I think adverts in high-profile slots like the Super Bowl might well have signaling facets much like Veblen goods (for companies).
- wdb 3y agoRolex aren't the best watches but they keep value pretty well for a bunch of models. Some of the grey market prices they charge are pretty ridiculous even wit h prices going down. Personally I prefer to spend the same amount of money on a nice Lange* than a Rolex. I think the only place where you can get a Rolex is in an airport store. *=you might still have to wait for your watch to get made.
- hilbert42 3y ago"Rolex aren't the best watches..." Has there been a recent independent study of how these luxury watches actually perform as watches (as opposed to their looks and swagger value)? I'm not likely to ever own one—except for my imitation Rolex clone I bought as a joke in Thailand for about $20 some years back—but it would be interesting to know if there are significant performance and reliability differences between them. Also, do we know anything about the factory and manufacturing methods that these luxury brands employ. It's said Rolex is very secretive and won't let anyone outside selected employees in its factory so what about the others (Patek Philippe, etc.)?
- benhurmarcel 3y ago> how these luxury watches actually perform as watches (as opposed to their looks and swagger value)? The entire point is looks and swagger value. You can’t ignore it. In terms of time keeping accuracy (ie. bring a watch) they get easily better by any quartz watch.
- kashunstva 3y agon of 1 study: the Submariner that I purchased 30 years ago required one maintenance visit during that period. Its accuracy certainly isn’t going to match something that’s talking to a time server but it’s better than the clock in my car which drifts forward by 2 minutes per month. But for a purely mechanical device it’s remarkable.
- aredox 3y agoRolex has been less secretive nowadays. Still no public tours, but some media types have been invited. https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/inside-rolex https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/inside-rolex IWC, Zenith and a few other Manufactures do offer tours. It is fairly representative of what Rolex does (on a bigger scale, with more vertical integration). Many other brands and suppliers open their doors every two years in La Chaux-de-fond: https://urbanisme-horloger.ch/biennale-du-patrimoine-horloger-2024/ https://urbanisme-horloger.ch/biennale-du-patrimoine-horloge...
- Bayart 3y agoRolex don't do artificial scarcity and hype campaigns around limited runs like other brands have taken to do. They're at max capacity and if you want to buy one you've just got to get on the list, no short cuts.
- phamilton 3y ago> max capacity As determined by what? Probably the current manufacturing facilities that they have strategically chosen not to expand.
- yardstick 3y agoAn element of the decision may also be around quality control. Especially if a lot of the work is highly skilled but still manual human labour.
- Bayart 3y agoThey are expending manufacturing as much as they can. The constraint is really the workforce.
- llamaInSouth 3y agoGlad they are not the main producer of high tech chips then (AKA TSMC)...
- zappb 3y agoIf mechanical watches had nearly the order of magnitude of demand that ICs do, then maybe they’d be faster at it.
- llamaInSouth 3y agoThat doesn't make any sense... The only reasons why you would think they are not restricting supply would be if demand varies randomly widely or if the people planning production and/or purchasing are incompetent.
- samstave 3y agoIf you haven't seen this, its a classic - but it shows the original price of a Rolex in the 70's vs. now. [0] To save you a watch - 1975 $345.95 - $500,000 at taping. https://i.imgur.com/qGW0gcQ.png https://i.imgur.com/qGW0gcQ.png https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9Y4bmbh1KY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9Y4bmbh1KY
- userbinator 3y agoIn contrast, $345.95 in 1975 is worth $1974.43 now. Also, "To save you a watch"? ;-)
- ksaj 3y agoRobb Report still considers them to be a beginner's watch, and treat the brand as only of interest to people who want to dip their toes into the higher end watch collecting waters.
- pclmulqdq 3y agoYeah, people who are into watches don't actually look very highly upon Rolex owners, especially people who own a submariner. The message it conveys is essentially, "I have some of money, but nothing interesting to say."
- ksaj 3y agoEssentially the same thought here, as I always thought of it as the "actually rich" versus the "nouveau riche."
- evantbyrne 3y agoSounds like car people. It doesn't really cross your mind what elitists think of your cheap Mustang when you're stacking the neighbor girls on top of each other in the back though.
- ksaj 3y agoPart of what was being said though, is that people will often buy a Submariner as a status symbol, yet won't even understand how the functions on it work, and don't go diving anyway. So it's a lot like wearing an expensive brand label on a cheap tee-shirt, in that the people who know... know that the person is pretending to be someone they aren't. Nouveau riche are notorious for buying things that they can't really use the way they were built to be used, and often wouldn't know how to use them when given the opportunity. That's the disdain being mentioned. It's not being snobby. It's recognizing people with fake status symbols. If your story to be told is about stacking girls, then Mustang it is. That's being honest.
- evantbyrne 3y ago
- the_black_hand 3y agoI think that's the whole point of luxury watches. No rolex owner is under the illusion that they are somehow intrinsically worth so much.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago[dead]
- jaredklewis 3y agoCan’t buyers decide for themselves the value of something?
- jakupovic 3y agoNot on hacker news! Herre the group think only allows for things that everyone agrees on and some are completely non-grata, like BTC, which none, supposedly, like. Let me translate, i have tried to evoke the same argument and "lost" saying the value is what we assign to anything (BTC)
- thatguy0900 3y agoTo some degree, but if something is 100$ worth of parts and 500$ worth of labor it's hard to argue it's actually intrinsically worth 30000$, even if that's what you're willing to pay.
- hnfong 3y agoNot if there's a "moat". Which could be unique expertise in making the thing, or through some government enforced monopoly like trademarks (i.e. "brand") or copyrights.
- gmerc 3y agoThe owners are under no illusions - at least not the professional ones. They are buying an asset that is vastly more efficient to move across borders than cash. Look at the Singapore Money Laundering Bust a few months back - all handbags and rolexes.
- MuffinFlavored 3y agoInflation Calculator If in 1980 I purchased an item for $1,000.00 then in 2023 that same item would cost: $3,726.35 Cumulative rate of inflation: 272.6%
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jncfhnb 3y agoCumulative “rate” of inflation is not a thing. You can tell because your number is not a rate. It’s not “per” anything. The average rate of inflation over the period you’ve highlighted is about 3% per year.
- MuffinFlavored 3y ago> Cumulative “rate” of inflation is not a thing. I copied the words from here: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
- mr_toad 3y agoYou can just say the “cumulative inflation was 272.6%”, or even “the inflation was 272.6%”.
- jncfhnb 3y agoWell it’s wrong. You need to do (cumulative inflation)^(1/ number years) to figure out what the actual average rate of inflation was over that period. Raw cumulative inflation is really tough to do anything with unless you’re making apples to apples comparisons for two things over the exact same time period. Even then, using average rate of inflation is better because it’s universal.
- spacebacon 3y agoWe got off on the wrong foot. You are actually smart. It just happens to be in a completely matter of technical fact kind of way and I respect that. I will now continue to read the remainder of your comments in a petty attempt to find something to argue with you about. Maybe it will bring out the best in both of us in the process. Write on my friend.
- ipqk 3y agoThey've only become scarce in the last 4-5 years, before that you could pretty much get what you wanted minus a couple highly sought-after models.
- throw0101b 3y ago> Rolex are the De Beers of the mechanical watch world. Except that Rolex doesn't have a monopoly on the watch market. Plenty of other 'fancy' watch brands you can buy (Patek Philippe, Omega, A. Lange & Söhne, etc). Besides the 'financial' aspect of high-end watches, one can enjoy the different aesthetics different brands have, and the mechanical intricacy of various complicaitons like (e.g.) tourbillons.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago[dead]
- aredox 3y agoA decade ago, a Rolex wasn't much cheaper but it was in effect "free", as it was the only watch you could resale at the same price you bought it, even used and scratched. It wasn't an investment (and you didn't need to put it in a safe), but it wasn't a waste of money either. (The same can't be said of the other luxury watch brands at all - like cars, they lose at least half their value the second you get them.) Nowadays I don't know, there seems to be more pump and dump.
- extraduder_ire 3y agoYears ago I read somewhere (maybe HN) that much of the utility of these watches is moving cash across borders with less hassle. Since many airports will have stores, you can buy one for cash before getting on a plane and return/sell it on the other end. Purely hearsay though, I've never had to move enough money to try it out.
- tycho-newman 3y agoThey are also fantastic ways of paying a bribe.
- aredox 3y agoAs a pure store of value, a few diamonds or a thin stack of 1000 swiss francs banknotes are more efficient. Expensive watches lose value if worn (with the exception, if it is still valid nowadays, of Rolexes), and customs officers can ask to check them (at least to catch fakes).