Rolex: It’s Not What You Think
By Daniel Miessler on January 22nd, 2007: Tagged as BMW | Gadgets | Geek | Philosophy | Watches
Since getting my watch I’ve received some pretty interesting reactions from people. The biggest misconception people seem to have about Rolex is that any Rolex is better than any non-Rolex. Or to put it another way, they simply think that Rolex is the “top of the line”, “best of the best”, most expensive, etc, etc.
This is simply not the case.
Rolex makes really excellent watches, don’t get me wrong — but Rolex is more comparible to like a $50,000 BMW than it is to a $250,000 Porsche, Ferrari, or Rolls. There are many watches that are 1) more expensive, 2) more exclusive, and 3) more accurate. There are also other brands that rival or surpass Rolex’s engineering — Patek Philippe is one example.
The thing that attracts me to Rolex, however, is their focus on rigorous testing and durability combined with the accuracy and appearance. Rolex tightly controls every element of the materials selection, the engineering, assembly, etc — all so that they can guarantee that the watch will last for multiple decades. I’ve met several people who’ve had their Rolex for 25-40 years and have never had it serviced.
This is what I like about the Rolex Submariner. Very high standards, excellent durability, meticulous testing procedures — all resulting in a piece that is superbly engineered, highly functional and looks great without calling too much attention to itself. The Patek pieces, for example, are incredibly awesome, but many of their movements can be damaged by the G-forces from as little as a Golf swing.
I compare my watch (the Submariner) to a low-end BMW or a Glock. Both of these are really excellent brands, but they place their emphasis on quality engineering and durability rather than being exotic or flashy. There are cars that are faster than a BMW, corner better than they do, and even cars that look better. The point is that the BMW does all these things really well for general use.And that’s how I feel about my watch. It’s the perfect balance of the qualities that I look for.
So the next time someone freaks out about someone having a Rolex, point out that there are many watches that surpass Rolex in one or more areas. They aren’t “the best” (as if there really were such a thing). They’re just extremely decent. And that’s what I like about them.
--
OK, here’s where I can talk about not being materialistic. I don’t even UNDERSTAND certain aspects of materialism. For $200 or so, you can get a watch that is waterproof (a divers watch), keeps essentially perfect time (sets itself every day), and has other nice functionality. OR, for $5000 or so, you can get a Rolex Submariner. You might say that the Rolex will last longer. That is VERY likely true. I saw an article somewhere recently that said that we could design cellphones that lasted for decades too if we were willing to spend more on them. My reaction to that article was: “Why would I want a 20 year old cellphone when the functionality of cellphones is still changing so fast?” I’d rather have a $200 watch (or .. more likely a $50 watch) that does what I need. If a new watch comes out with added functionality that I think I’d find useful (GPS or whatever), I can get one if I considered it necessary (or even just fun and useful). I could buy a lifetime of watches with lots of different functionality for less than the price of the Rolex.
Convince me that you didn’t get this watch in part simply because it was a ROLEX (ie: for the name itself … not for what you claim the name implies, but for the NAME itself).
… PS … I still think that the iPhone (ApplePhone?) is a nifty gadget and wouldn’t mind having one (I bet it keeps pretty good time too). So, I understand liking gadgets for their functionality.
Comment by Carl M — 1/22/2007 @ 1:58 pm
The main thing that drew me to the watch over 10 years ago (and today) is the look of it. I love the refined yet understated appearance of the watch. It looks very “normal”, yet very classy at the same time.
The looks for me are magnified by the fact that it’s a Rolex. And when I say that I mean what goes into the process of making one. The fact that it’s one piece of steel, must be tested for a certain amount of time in various atmospheric pressures, the fact that it’s COSC certified while being automatic and not quartz, etc.
So to me it’s about the look of the watch combined with the quality. If the name on the watch was Tag or Movado, then I would be writing about those instead. But for 10 years I’ve been eying this exact model of this exact brand. The whole time studying the engineering process, how they’re made, etc. So it’s been a process…a long process…one that finally culminated in me having one.
So to say that the Rolex name means nothing to me is crazy — it clearly does, but not because of how it sounds. It’s because of what it “means”. Hopefully that makes some sense.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 1/22/2007 @ 2:25 pm