An exercise in futility

[TeeJay]

Are you aware that watches become magnetized by everyday items like stereo speakers, drills, tvs & just about anything that has an electric motor? You would be surprised at how easily watches can become magnetized & how often owners pay hundreds of dollars to have their watch repaired when it is just magnetized. The point is that it is not just those who work around high magnetic fields who benefit from parachrom hair springs (& the same can be said for most of Rolex's other innovations). Just sayin..................

I did not know that... I knew that leaving VHS cassettes near/on speakers could affect the tape, and since finding that out, I would not put something like a watch on one 'just in case', but I didn't realize that the issue was so wide-spread, as it's not been an issue which I'd experienced myself. I only started using the quartz watch while tattooing with a coil machine, as I didn't want the output to eventually magnetize a favorite beater, but I didn't realize that an electric motor could also have an effect. Interesting indeed

TeeJay, you are too intelligent to fall for that 'Rolex deserves to have their trademarks & patents stolen because they are a greedy multi-national company.

Since when have we become so Obama-nized to believe that running a business for profit is akin to clubbing baby seals or stealing money from the church?

I guess I just feel that as Rolex (and other companies) intentionally moved manufacturing to China to increase (already massive) profits, their greed earned the bad karma of having their IP stolen and used to make today's near-perfect reproductions, as opposed to the obvious fakes of yesteryear. Additionally, the fact that their watches were not 100% Swiss Made, meant that they were lying to their consumers, another black mark in my book, hence why I feel that the current situation is rather fitting in its cyclic irony, and my lack of sympathy for them

Rolex, like any other successful company, must be in Asia if they want to compete in the global marketplace. In fact, Rolex (along with Apple) spent a decade or so marketing their products in China long before the majority of Chinese citizens were even allowed to buy them. Somewhere in my gigabytes of picture archives, I have photos of a Rolex Daytona poster in Tienanmen Square from the late 1970s (or early 1980s) & I remember thinking that Rolex is going to sack their entire international marketing team when they get the bill for that waste of money. But, as it turned out, it was a brilliant move because those marketing guys did their homework & were 1 of the 1st western companies to see the writing on the Great Wall (that is, China's future), probably even before the Chinese saw it. Once free enterprise took hold in China & people began to amass a bit of extra cash to spend on luxury good, guess what name these nouveau riche immediately thought of? Rolex, of course. And it was not by accident. It was a gamble that cost Rolex alot of money, but it was a gamble that paid off. So why should they be chastised for throwing the dice & (because they did their homework) profiting from a clever investment? Just sayin (again)..............

With regards the situation you describe with the posters, absolutely, there's nothing wrong with creating a demand. And nothing wrong with having product made in China (or elsewhere) and appropriately labeled thus, ie Apple, Nike etc. I don't see that as brand de-valuation, just honest marketing. And of course, nothing wrong with having a brand which is someone's first thought when it comes to Luxury Status (although ironically in Rolex's case, also also often thought of as fake when encountered) What I object to, is the back-hand cost-cutting, and maintaining that 'Swiss Made' claim, while complaining about reproductions which would not evolved to the current level of accuracy, had they kept production in Geneva

[TeeJay]

We may believe that, but most assuredly, the luxury brands do not. I believe that what they contend are lost sales are not because of what we have discussed here,but what the luxury brands call "brand dilution". Here is what they think.And not wanting to sound like a snob, but exactly what i'm describing happened to me. Many years ago, i saved up my pennies, and bought myself a brand new 18k Rolex Day/Date. The price then was about 5k which was a ton of money for a watch. I really didn't know anything about reps, this was before the internet, and all I saw were a few replicas advertised in the back of magazines. i went out of town to buy a vehicle a few months after buying the watch. When i sat down with the sales manager and salesman to work out the purchase details, I noticed that both of them had Rolex "Presidents" very similar to mine on their wrists. Only difference the second hands were jumping, obviously quartz movements. i realized that these were fake, but to the average person they were a Rolex.After that, I saw more and more quartz reps, and after a while, i decided that why have the real thing that I saved for for months, when anybody could pick up a rep for 100 bucks. i sold my Day/Date, and for quite a few years, I didn't own another Rolex, I bought watches from other brands, but that experience soured me on Rolex watches for quite a while. Later on (years later!), I began to see really nice reps on the rep forums, and I decided at that point that maybe my attitude at the time was wrong, I suppose I was bitter about the fact that I worked really ,really hard to save up the money for the real thing and folks who bought the reps were buying them with their "play around" money. I truly believe that the attitude I had way back then is still very prevalent today.There are lots of folks who will not wear a brand of watch, shoes, purse, etc. that is repped to the point that everyone can afford them.Wealthy women, aren't going to rush out to buy a LV bag just because they like the rep that their maid is carrying. That's the reason Rolex and others hate reps, and also why Rolex will never have a Chinese made Rolex branded watch at a lower price point.

I guess my feeling towards Rolex (both as a product and as a company) is that I appreciate the designs and the aesthetics, which is why I like to wear them, but the inverse snob in me refuses to pay X Amount for something which is available (albeit in replica form) at a much more affordable and (IMHO) reasonable price Even if I could afford to buy all the gens I wanted, I would never wear one on principle

[tomhorn]

TeeJay ... my belief is this ... If Rolex starts selling a low priced/quality watch in the $1,000 range then Rolex (the brand) begins to be devalued. If (relatively) anyone can buy one, then it's no longer the watch you're supposed to purchase when 'you've made it' or are celebrating a milestone in your life. It won't happen immediately, but over time it surely will happen. If anyone can buy one, they are no longer 'special'.

This will affect the 'high end line' because people don't buy a $10k Rolex because of it's price. They buy it because it's a Rolex, and what it stands for. If that's no longer the reason, there are a lot of $10k watches out there. Here's a $10k Invicta, for example.

http://www.ebay.com/...pos=33767&gbr=1

Assume that someone equally like the looks of this watch and the Rolex Daytona. Which watch do you think the general consumer is going to pick? The brand they've probably never heard of as being associated with luxury (or worse that they've seen hawked on Shop NBC), or Rolex? Fast forward 10 years when Rolex is selling it's entry level watches everywhere (maybe even on Shop NBC), and the perception that Rolex is special is gone.

Edited September 15, 2012 by tomhorn

[freddy333]

I guess I just feel that as Rolex....intentionally moved manufacturing to China to increase (already massive) profits

Where did you hear that?

[automatico]

"Luxury brands are luxury brands because for the most part people are idiots and live their lives by what others (Marketing gurus) tell them to think/like/wear."

+1

Then there is the nagging question of what to buy...

omega or rolex?

patek or vacheron?

cartier or piaget?

I can not decide.

Moving on to really important questions in life...

Betty or Veronica?

Ginger or Mary Ann?

Wilma or Betty?

All six!

[tomhorn]

Tough call, but Betty

Ginger

Wilma

I have a thing for red-heads, what can I say?

Edited September 15, 2012 by tomhorn

[TeeJay]

Where did you hear that?

That they moved outsourcing of parts to China, or that it was to increase profits? The former was something I've frequently read on the various forums, the latter, is just common sense

[TeeJay]

TeeJay ... my belief is this ... If Rolex starts selling a low priced/quality watch in the $1,000 range then Rolex (the brand) begins to be devalued. If (relatively) anyone can buy one, then it's no longer the watch you're supposed to purchase when 'you've made it' or are celebrating a milestone in your life. It won't happen immediately, but over time it surely will happen. If anyone can buy one, they are no longer 'special'.

This will affect the 'high end line' because people don't buy a $10k Rolex because of it's price. They buy it because it's a Rolex, and what it stands for. If that's no longer the reason, there are a lot of $10k watches out there. Here's a $10k Invicta, for example.

http://www.ebay.com/...pos=33767&gbr=1

Assume that someone equally like the looks of this watch and the Rolex Daytona. Which watch do you think the general consumer is going to pick? The brand they've probably never heard of as being associated with luxury (or worse that they've seen hawked on Shop NBC), or Rolex? Fast forward 10 years when Rolex is selling it's entry level watches everywhere (maybe even on Shop NBC), and the perception that Rolex is special is gone.

Apologies for the delay, I was travelling yesterday, and father in law's mobile wifi cut out as I was about to respond I quite agree, no one would ever associate Invicta with a luxury 'Yeah, I've Made It!" watch. Just because something is expensive, doesn't necessarily make it classy or prestigious (ie neuveau riche yobs like soccer players...) I'm not suggesting that Rolex stop making the High End watches... Ceasing production of High End to sell budget stuff, yes, that would totally change the perception towards the brand, but what I was suggesting, was that they release a budget line to accompany the High End line. Even though a budget line would be universally affordable, the High End line would still retain that level of exclusivity and awareness of Rolex as a quality brand. My other thought with that, is that it would be a proactive move against counterfeiting, because it would be directly removing the demand. With regard your point about people buying it 'because it's a Rolex', those type of people are pretty shallow and pretentious, and I don't give their opinions much credence. People buying a Rolex because they appreciate the history of the company and the quality of the build, is a different matter, and those people would value the brand regardless of the price. Just because something is not expensive, it doesn't mean that it is not good, and equally, just because everyone is able to have something, at a suitable pricepoint, that shows that the product is good, for everyone to want it This is why I believe that a parallel budget line would not reduce the perception of Rolex as quality watch makers, and would not reduce their exclusivity (as there would still be a better engineered and more exclusive High End line)

[RomanZach]

I'd like to make a quick point - I owned a gen 16610lv around two years ago. I paid £4075 from an AD and for about a week was delighted until it kind of hit home that I'd bought a stainless steel watch that actually had a crooked cyclops. The watch went back and I was given a replacement by the dealer. I never felt the same about the watch and eventually sold it on. I get the fact that Rolexes are a luxury item etc, but for me still mass produced and severely overpriced. A pal of mine has a GMT 2 that was purchased brand new for around half the price of my sub around 2003. I will never buy gen again, for me it borders on pointless when I can get a TC or BK for next to nothing in comparison.

[TeeJay]

I'd like to make a quick point - I owned a gen 16610lv around two years ago. I paid £4075 from an AD and for about a week was delighted until it kind of hit home that I'd bought a stainless steel watch that actually had a crooked cyclops. The watch went back and I was given a replacement by the dealer. I never felt the same about the watch and eventually sold it on. I get the fact that Rolexes are a luxury item etc, but for me still mass produced and severely overpriced. A pal of mine has a GMT 2 that was purchased brand new for around half the price of my sub around 2003. I will never buy gen again, for me it borders on pointless when I can get a TC or BK for next to nothing in comparison.

This might be a silly question, but didn't you notice the offset cyclops in the AD, or was it only a minor misalignment which took a while to be noticeable?

[RomanZach]

I just didn't see it. I went from an Air King to the Sub and did not notice at the time. Maybe my point is, you expect perfection for £4000, on a steel watch made by Rolex. There should be no excuses, but then again, they do mass produce one million watches a year........

[TeeJay]

I just didn't see it. I went from an Air King to the Sub and did not notice at the time. Maybe my point is, you expect perfection for £4000, on a steel watch made by Rolex. There should be no excuses, but then again, they do mass produce one million watches a year........

That's fair enough I think that expectation is down to Rolex's hyped reputation for excellence, but it's interesting that they do occasionally let a 'factory seconds' slip through the net every now and again

[freddy333]

That they moved outsourcing of parts to China, or that it was to increase profits? The former was something I've frequently read on the various forums, the latter, is just common sense

The former. To the best of my knowledge, while ancillaries like straps or springbars may sometimes be sourced (by dealers) locally, all Rolex watches are currently made in Switzerland.

[TeeJay]

The former. To the best of my knowledge, while ancillaries like straps or springbars may sometimes be sourced (by dealers) locally, all Rolex watches are currently made in Switzerland.

From my understanding of 'the word on the street', although the pieces of the watch are assembled in Switzerland, those component parts are being manufactured in China and then shipped to Switzerland for assembly. I saw a post a while back stating that to be considered 'Swiss Made' there had to be a certain percentage of parts either fabricated or assembled in Switzerland (movement must be entirely locally made) and then originally 50%, which I believe was then scaled up to 80% assembly to maintain the status. I'm sure that at least some of the parts are being made in China, or at least, that is certainly what I've seen people posting over the years

[panerai153]

I'm not certain that thte 80% rule has gone into effect. There was quite a bit of push back from some of the brands when this was proposed. I read the regulations a few months ago, but there is some vagueness to it. Especially as to what the 80% would entail. lots of price, ratios, adding up costs and plugging them into a formula to come up with the magic number. It looks to me liike some compamies could ,if they wanted, price their Chinese/foreign made components very cheap, and their Swiss parts and labor very high and get a lot more Chinese or foreign made parts into a watch and still make the 50% ratio. Possibly much more difficult if the ratio went to 80%

[FxrAndy]

To be honest i have never heard of Rolex producing in the far east, Hublot on the other hand!!!!!!

[davylloyd]

Well my original post was about what I consider the futility of the luxury brands in employing agents to assist customs in searching out and destroying replicas.

The debate has now widened into something more interesting, but although I can see many different viewpoints, I have to say nothing here has changed my original stance. I guess you'd find all ends of the spectrum on these pages, just as you would in any walk of life.

In the world of gens, there will be people who buy them having spent years pursuing the idea, having researched the market thoroughly, having learned a great deal about the watchmakers art, about what separates one brand or one model from another. At the other end of the scale will be the chinless wonder who has the watch bought for him by a rich daddy, simply to mark his progeny out as a 'have' rather than a 'have not'. He will probably know less about the mechanical marvel strapped around his wrist than he knows about what daddy does for a living, and will care even less than that.

The first rep I ever saw was in the early seventies, (yes, of course it was a Rolex!), and in the intervening years, the industry has become much larger, more expert, and more accessible, in spite of, (and maybe even because of), the efforts of the Swiss watch industry.

All my instincts lead me to believe that the reason they pursue the rep industry so visibly is to disassociate themselves with the 'tat' that we all buy, to maintain the snob value.

As regards the outsourcing of components, I think sometimes the only part that is actually made in Switzerland is the dial. That's why it says so at the bottom

[freddy333]

From my understanding of 'the word on the street', although the pieces of the watch are assembled in Switzerland, those component parts are being manufactured in China and then shipped to Switzerland for assembly.

Sorry, TeeJay, but that is just wrong. These types of rumors have been surfacing for many years &, to my knowledge, there has never been any credible evidence proving that Rolex is currently assembling or producing any of their watches outside their factories in Switzerland.

I saw a post a while back stating that to be considered 'Swiss Made' there had to be a certain percentage of parts either fabricated or assembled in Switzerland (movement must be entirely locally made) and then originally 50%, which I believe was then scaled up to 80% assembly to maintain the status. I'm sure that at least some of the parts are being made in China, or at least, that is certainly what I've seen people posting over the years

The proposed 'Swiss-Made' rule you refer to does not pertain to the majors like Patek, VC or Rolex. It is meant for those companies who source ebauches from other vendors (as opposed to manufacturing them in-house as Patek, VC & Rolex do).

[TeeJay]

I'm not certain that thte 80% rule has gone into effect. There was quite a bit of push back from some of the brands when this was proposed. I read the regulations a few months ago, but there is some vagueness to it. Especially as to what the 80% would entail. lots of price, ratios, adding up costs and plugging them into a formula to come up with the magic number. It looks to me liike some compamies could ,if they wanted, price their Chinese/foreign made components very cheap, and their Swiss parts and labor very high and get a lot more Chinese or foreign made parts into a watch and still make the 50% ratio. Possibly much more difficult if the ratio went to 80%

It's certainly an interesting subject, but I think it's only right that they adopt that higher percentage to maintain that Swiss Made status. To be fair, branding is thus that a change in production location is unlikely to have any effect on people's appreciation of the brand itself, after all, companies like Nike outsource their goods, and people still buy them

[TeeJay]

To be honest i have never heard of Rolex producing in the far east, Hublot on the other hand!!!!!!

They got a bit cross about some ceramic bezels finding their way out the back door of the factories, if I recall

[TeeJay]

Sorry, TeeJay, but that is just wrong. These types of rumors have been surfacing for many years &, to my knowledge, there has never been any credible evidence proving that Rolex is currently assembling or producing any of their watches outside their factories in Switzerland.

That's fair enough, I just don't have much faith in Rolex to not follow the examples of those like Hublot, so it wouldn't surprise me if they do have some parts outsourced, and have the legal clout to keep it quiet

The proposed 'Swiss-Made' rule you refer to does not pertain to the majors like Patek, VC or Rolex. It is meant for those companies who source ebauches from other vendors (as opposed to manufacturing them in-house as Patek, VC & Rolex do).

If I recall, the movements had to be entirely locally manufactured as a base requirement, but there was also an additional percentage criteria relating to the overall build as well

[FxrAndy]

You can buy a21j movements that are Swiss made as well