Because of the scarcity of Rolex's there are 'Grey Market' dealers. And one of those dealers just went to jail on $5million worth of fraud, basically stealing consigned watches.
What's fascinating about the story is that during Covid the prices of the watches 10x'd for some of them so they were going for insane prices. And this guy vlogged the entire thing all the way up to his bust last month. It's a great way to see and learn about these expensive watches, and knowing the whole thing is bullshit is *chefskiss*
https://www.youtube.com/@skerriesrockart
https://robbreport.com/style/watch-collector/anthony-farrer-...
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-11-08/spending...
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.
(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.
Purely hearsay though, I've never had to move enough money to try it out.
Look at the Singapore Money Laundering Bust a few months back - all handbags and rolexes.
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?
Ferrari is exactly the same. You first have to buy a starter Ferrari or two in order to get invited to Ferrari events which in turn might get you an invitation to buy a limited edition Ferrari. Gatekeeping all the way down to maintain artificial scarcity. One might have wheels and the other keeps time (poorly) but they're the same and the scarcity is the product.
[0] https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/the-pope-tyler-the-creator-wa...
Their magazine contained a review for a $26,000 decorative rock for your patio. Not a fancy sculpture, just a rock.
I wouldn't take anything they say seriously.
As determined by what? Probably the current manufacturing facilities that they have strategically chosen not to expand.
That is absolutely not true. They have entire warehouses of “rare” watches that they let drip little by little in the market to keep their value up.
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.
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.)?
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%
The average rate of inflation over the period you’ve highlighted is about 3% per year.
Also, "To save you a watch"? ;-)
First paragraph of the article
What is preventing some nobody from going to these authorized dealers (presumably with no-online-sales agreements), buying up their entire inventory, and then personally offering that online? Just the threat of fakes?
An authorized dealer will sell the watch to you for retail value, not wholesale value.
You can go ahead and resell those online as much as you want. I don't see how you'll turn a profit though.
To me, they looked identical. Felt identical. If you mixed them up and asked me which one was which, I'd be completely lost. He then pointed me to some youtube vids of people dissecting them, and it seems like you really have to bring out the microscope to tell.
I don't know much about watches, but I'm just thinking that if they are getting so accurate...why would regular people shell out 5 figures for a real one, when you can get those for a couple of hundred bucks?
Don't get me wrong - I like artisanry, but at this point it seems like you're paying the biggest upcharge for name, and nothing much else.
(As for why my colleague bought replicas, apparently he'd wear those while traveling, in case he got robbed or whatever. Even though insurance would cover the original watch, just getting a legit one from stores/dealers has been a huge hassle. Months of wait time, etc.)
I assure you that “regular” people don’t shell out 5 figures for any watch.
> you're paying the biggest upcharge for name, and nothing much else
Of course.
Luxury goods turn economics on its head, the whole point is to overpay for a good which has little in the way of marginal return, to illustrate your wealth and "status".
I'd just call it idiocy or at least pretentiousness, and their counter argument would be that I'm "envious".
That is to say if you have a real and a replica to compare, there is no risk of mistaken between them. There would be difference which you could easily recognize.
You're also paying for the design and R&D. And the capability to have the Swiss continue to be able to make watches. The ability of your country to continue making something, even if it doesn't make economic sense is undervalued.
You’re just as much as a target for physical violence. Sure, you don’t lose as much financially if your watch is taken, but you’re just painting a massive target on your back.
For what, to be seen as wealthy when travelling? To flex your status?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12881935/amp/Gang-m...
This man was stabbed to death for his fake Patek Philippe watch.
Absolutely senseless
It's interesting that competitors can be used in such a case as a benchmark of what is a legitimate strategy. Which makes it all the worse when they collude or fix a market.
I say this is a good move. You should be able to sell them online. The second-hand dealers do it and it works fine.
This also doesn't really affect the exclusivity of the product either. The ADs still get to control supply and will still probably not sell to people unless they know them (which sucks).
It’s a bit of a bummer because several other brands have tried to sell on actual quality struggle. Artificial scarcity is just too strong a draw.
I'm very interested in the Corvette EV due in 2025. But knowing how much Chevy limits production of the Corvette Z06, I imagine they'll put similar road blocks in front of the EV.
Like, why don't they want my $150K+?
To be fair, you're disconnected from economic reality if you think dropping $10k on a watch today isn't a big financial move.
Additionally, money can only move one just a little bit higher in social hierarchy. Those influencers influence young minds to consume more and more stuff, get money from the brands they are advertising, spend on expensive things - which are produced and sold by rich people. Direction of flow is always the same, rich gets richer, poor stays poor, so called "no-name kids" continue driving people to consume (mostly) useless things.
Also, anybody can get a credit card and build a credit limit relatively quickly that will buy (though not pay for) multiple Rolexes.
there is more niche affinity to certain brands and aesthetics that are seen as far more coveted than rolex, from the people that matter. as in, there are absolutely some circles of people that will lend you respect for the curated taste and often have access to resources reserved for people that prove it with these material things, whereas rolex will be a neutral to negative signal.
no different than wearing a suit in a professional setting, to one thats fitted, or cufflinks, there are just levels to it that continue with accessories.
aside from that, one benefit is that thieves typically don't recognize other brands. they recognize rolexes and a couple others though.
The AD in question lost their status in 2013, way before Rolex mania came about and no one could buy a sub anymore.
And given the recent downswing in Rolex prices on secondary markets and the drop in wait time of the hyped watches, it’s quite plausible that soon some models will sit for long periods of time
Watches are fascinating to me, because the high status watches are so gaudy and HUGE.
This trend has infected shoes for a while too. Have you seen some of the popular Balenciaga shoes? [1][2] They look like absolute joke clown shoes to me, but people pay thousands for them new, and even more resale if they’re rare.
[1] https://www.balenciaga.com/en-us/hardcrocs™-mule-black-81053...
[2] https://footwearnews.com/business/business/balenciaga-triple...
It’s a luxury item, who cares?
They could require a two year advance appointment and visit to HQ before buying, for all I care.
They should put their nose in Amazon’s business of commingling and allowing fakes and swapping products on reviews and that bullshit that does affect the Joels et Maries.
I'm not sure how I feel about this one.
If the dealers don’t like the terms, they can sell other brands and need to stop tattling to Maman.
Of all the problems, busybodies decided this was the important one to make a stand on. Fixing potholes in the roads would be more worthwhile. Kids are sleeping cold and hungry in the streets, but sacré bleu at not being able to point-and-drool for a fancy watch.
So-called Competition “Authorities” everywhere can go pound sand.
Manufacturers place conditions on how their products are sold, at what price and to whom. "No online sales" is no different to requiring an authorized retailer to sell something at MSRP or no more than 1 or 2 or 3 per customer or only to local residents.
That's also illegal in most jurisdictions. It's called "restraint of trade" and it's illegal because it interferes with the normal functioning of a free market and disadvantages consumers.
It's extremely common, so I don't where it's illegal.
There are limitations if you're in a monopoly situation, but Rolex is not that.
I'm baffled by this, and what law or legal principle they are attempting to use, and why they would apply it here but not in the thousands of other situations.
I really like Seiko mechanicals when I need a watch.
If I had infinite money I'd get an Omega and then a used F.P. Journe with tourbillon (I found one in Tokyo that was comparable in price to a Rolex).
Rolex is the Gucci of watches, every one knows the name but very few people get them because they authentically like the brand (in my opinion)
"you must sell online!!!!"
When you sell valuable physical objects that have a high risk of counterfeiting, the secure way is to associate a "digital twin" of the object that has verifiable provenance and this is exactly what NFTs as a technology are good at.
edit: Thanks to everyone that downvoted this to -4 despite the numerous good remarks in comment that spark a solely technical discussion on the topic. Please come over your hate.
It's also over engineering. A serial number and a registration process can go a long way.
The only thing you need is the root Rolex certificate and you can authenticate the watch. You also need to have a signed copy of the serial inside the enclave so it can't be transferred (inside the certificate)
Near-universally applicable lemma.
Not really, that just punts the problem to another area. This problem has been about as solved as it's going to get ages before the idea of crypto. NFT's don't actually add much other than a different layer and one technique of digital record keeping.
Same reason I wouldn't buy a certified Jordan autograph and then sell the certificate of authenticity.
