I don't really want to advocate for diamonds here. I hate that it's mined at the expense of human welfare. I just want to point out that this article is 17 years old and not much has changed since it was written. Maybe it's not a compelling take?
Arguably moissanite is not analogous to a fake Rolex. Rather, it is analogous to an elegant and good quality watch of a non-luxury brand. To that extent, I think that a good Swatch, Seiko or Casio wristwatch can make for a great gift.
If the diamond's function is to be long-lasting, beautiful, and satisfy the expectations in certain cultures of a gemstone to symbolise one has committed to marry a certain person, then moissanite is a cheaper alternative to an actual diamond which is just as good (or arguably better, in terms of beauty). The same goes for a Rolex. If its function is to look good and be a dependable timekeeping instrument, then many other watchmakers can be a perfectly valid and less expensive option.
However, if a diamond's only function in an engagement ring is to prove that one's partner has spent a large amount of money to commit to marriage, then of course moissanite would indeed be analogous to a "fake Rolex". But then the whole idea of finding an alternative to diamond engagement rings due to the disproportionate price of diamonds would be to beg the question — there cannot be an alternative, for the very purpose of an engagement ring would be to spend a stupid amount of money.
It could easily be argued that your Seiko makes a better watch than a Rolex.
What people are looking for and value in the product will make the argument more or less compelling.
One of those things they might value is the similarity to some other well-known, valued product.
Moissanite apparently looks like a diamond but better. I could say the same about a number of watches in comparison to Rolex.
There appears to be some cultural change happening around smoking. It is very slow despite the proven causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer. The tobacco industry is working hard to ensure they can continue to operate and transition to products that are (at least perceived to be) less harmful to people. However, the speed of this change does not appear to be driven by the severity of lung cancer threat, but by the lobbying power of the tobacco industry that ensures they don't go out of business while the transition is happening.
It's true that for some, a big appeal of a good watch is the "implementation" or the mechanics or electronics that go inside, or the craft on creating it. And others use watches more as jewellery.
But there's always somebody that use them to "show off": while some people will buy a "neat" Seiko, Tudor, or even Rolex, there's always one Cristiano Ronaldo that will buy the 2 million dollar gem covered version, or the tourbillon whatever.
BTW, today there is people commercializing fake Rolex (and others) of a quality so high that even experts have difficulty distinguishing them from the originals. Apparently they're sold under the excuse of protecting your assets: keep your very expensive Rolex on the bank, bring this replica to the party. And they're not cheap, I think I've seen them for around 2k or 3k euro.
https://www.gphg.org/horlogerie/en/watches/antikythera-sunmo...
A Rolex has scarcity value, and can act as a deflationary asset is what's at play there.
I do believe they are having a correction right now as the luxury market starts to bottom.
Buying old Rolex watches is cult activity a bit like buying Elvis's shoes or such at auction for many thousands of dollars—although the latter is likely rarer and ultimately might be of historical interest in centuries to come. Same goes for other engineered products such as old Leicaflex cameras that have sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars when equally engineered high quality products from the same era are simply junked as these days they are perceived to have no value.
It mystifies me why people are so enamored with this stuff. There's nothing special about an old Rolex except they were likely near the best of breed when manufactured, but they have little intrinsic historical value nowadays in that they were very unlikely to contain new technology that altered the course of mechanical engineering at the time they were made. They have never had the historical or technical importance of Harrison's remarkable chronometers which did alter the course of history.
Let me illustrate with an example: I own two of the first cavity magnetron developed during WWII that went into production and is credited with giving the Allies a huge technological advantage over the Axis Powers. Moreover, they are band new in their original cartons and in better condition than the one in this display model: https://www.theiet.org/membership/library-archives/the-iet-a.... (Background info: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260521102_The_Cavit...)
This is truly an historical device that altered history and changed technology—it made centimeter RADAR possible when desperately needed in WWII and it's the forerunner of the device in every microwave oven around the world—yet they're not worth a pinch of shit when compared with an old Rolex—even though there are precious few used ones still in existence (let alone brand new ones in original packaging).
Seems to me, like diamonds, the outrageous values of an old Rolex come from cleaver marketing to the gullible and to those with more money than sense.
Edit: years ago I bought a fake Rolex in Bangkok for about $20 as a joke, it actually kept reasonably good time and looked reasonably genuine—at least it did from a few feet away.
I find devices as your magnetron quite interesting, BTW.
