Rolexes fail at being watches compared to other products that cost $5. A “bomb-proof piece of jewelry” is not a convincing argument. The whole point is showing that you have money.
Because things have always been the way they are today.
The point I’m making that you’re either ignoring or that you’re not understanding is that Rolex’s weren’t always so expensive, especially when you consider they’re mechanical and not digital, extract power from your wrist’s motion and have been known to run decades without any maintenance all in extreme conditions… and all that at a time when your cheap five dollar watch didn’t even fucking exist, and has never been able to replicate it’s endurance. Rolexes started as the affordable-but-reliable option and became the highly-valued, expensive pieces they are today because of their utility.
Completely unlike lambo supercars, which have always been temu ferrari, and catered to a very select group of stupid people.
that you think rolexes fail just demonstrates you don’t actually know what a rolex is, or who used them. and that’s okay. but don’t sit there and pretend like your $5 cheap piece of crap whose band will break inside a month is comparable. It’s laughably not.
Your reply to the above comment is a bit caustic. Here’s my take on your argument that explains your position in a rational way:
The bomb-proof and repair free nature of the Rolex comes into play in situations where replacement parts are not readily available. Consider an astronaut on a trip to Mars: they are out in space for months, in a ship where both space and weight are at a premium. A disposable time piece may be cheap on Earth, but without the means to replace it, it becomes a liability.
Similarly, someone on an exploration to a remote region - let’s say a member of the yearly British Antarctic Survey expedition - will not be able to replace a broken timepiece until they return at the end of the season. Not everyone needs a reliable time piece, but those who do - such as medics measuring a patient’s heart rate with a stethoscope - might go for something that has a lower failure rate.
Sure, a $5 timepiece is probably enough for most people, and wearing a Rolex as a status symbol is dumb, but that’s not the only use case for them.
rolexes are actually extremely well made, though. that’s why they became so well-valued.
They were the watches people used because they were reliable and bomb-proof. (sometimes literally.)
They never kept accurate time. Asian knockoffs work better.
Rolexes fail at being watches compared to other products that cost $5. A “bomb-proof piece of jewelry” is not a convincing argument. The whole point is showing that you have money.
/sigh
Because things have always been the way they are today.
The point I’m making that you’re either ignoring or that you’re not understanding is that Rolex’s weren’t always so expensive, especially when you consider they’re mechanical and not digital, extract power from your wrist’s motion and have been known to run decades without any maintenance all in extreme conditions… and all that at a time when your cheap five dollar watch didn’t even fucking exist, and has never been able to replicate it’s endurance. Rolexes started as the affordable-but-reliable option and became the highly-valued, expensive pieces they are today because of their utility.
Completely unlike lambo supercars, which have always been temu ferrari, and catered to a very select group of stupid people.
that you think rolexes fail just demonstrates you don’t actually know what a rolex is, or who used them. and that’s okay. but don’t sit there and pretend like your $5 cheap piece of crap whose band will break inside a month is comparable. It’s laughably not.
Your reply to the above comment is a bit caustic. Here’s my take on your argument that explains your position in a rational way:
The bomb-proof and repair free nature of the Rolex comes into play in situations where replacement parts are not readily available. Consider an astronaut on a trip to Mars: they are out in space for months, in a ship where both space and weight are at a premium. A disposable time piece may be cheap on Earth, but without the means to replace it, it becomes a liability.
Similarly, someone on an exploration to a remote region - let’s say a member of the yearly British Antarctic Survey expedition - will not be able to replace a broken timepiece until they return at the end of the season. Not everyone needs a reliable time piece, but those who do - such as medics measuring a patient’s heart rate with a stethoscope - might go for something that has a lower failure rate.
Sure, a $5 timepiece is probably enough for most people, and wearing a Rolex as a status symbol is dumb, but that’s not the only use case for them.
Some Casio “black” watches have been recovered in some gardens after being buried for years and were still working 🤷♂️