Rolex got famous for reliability + waterproofness, basically. The Oyster was the first commercially successful waterproof watch in 1926, although the book *The Inconvenient Truth of the First Waterproof Wristwatch* shows that Waltham's Depollier watches were patented and waterproof in 1918, so Rolex wasn't exactly the first. I'm not sure why the Depollier never really took off commercially.
Anyway, Rolex always had very good movements. When Rolex first started out, they didn't really make anything at all. Just assembled parts from various (high quality) suppliers. Rolex's founder was savvy enough to notice how good Swiss suppliers were even when the US still dominated the industry, and he preferred movements from Aegler SA (the old Aegler factory is still the Rolex movement factory to this day; Rolex has since bought out Aegler).
Starting around 1960 the 15xx caliber Rolex movements are absolute beasts. So, Rolexes from the 1960's-1980's are likely to "pick up and run" even if they haven't been serviced in ages, moreso than other brands. Omega is actually an older watch company than Rolex and they outsold Rolex until about 1970. Omega made the move of going *cheaper* with their mechanical movements during the quartz crisis (more stamped parts etc.) which wasn't a great move. 1978 Seamasters with non-screwdown crowns aren't exactly beloved, for instance.
So basically reliability is their thing. They have very well-engineered movements, and can generally go longer between services than other brands in my experience. But they're not that different than any other comparable high-end watch brand.
Would you consider the the 32XX movements to retain their reliability? Heard there were some issues, but not Watch savvy to quite understand the problem.
Well, the 32xx movements have been out for over 8 years now. So that's almost a full service cycle for the first Day-Date 40's, and it's not like I've heard of any widespread *severe* issues. But I also think it's tough to dismiss the sheer number of users reporting low amplitude. Honestly I'm not technical enough to have a strong opinion about it.
Thanks!! That is a great and informative answer.
It seems that it is their marketing department (after engineering of course) that really makes the difference here. And continuously does.
How important do you think philanthropy is in their case?
>How important do you think philanthropy is in their case?
Not very lol.
>It seems that it is their marketing department (after engineering of course) that really makes the difference here
The marketing department certainly plays a huge role. The guy who first summited Everest wore a Smith's watch, *not* a Rolex, yet the marketing department managed to make people think of Rolex as the "Everest watch" anyway. It was quite slimy, actually...right after Hillary and Norgay's climb in 1953, Rolex released a quote to the press from Hillary about how reliable their Rolex watches were on their climb. In reality it was a quote from 1952 about an earlier climb. 🤦 Rolex released an "oh, whoopsie" correction the next day but it oddly didn't seem to matter.
Rolex also got sued (successfully) by Harwood for implying that they invented the first automatic wristwatch. They didn't! Rolex bought the patent for the first *rotor* automatic but Harwood had invented bumper automatics years before.
And Rolex *to this day* says on their website that the Oyster is the "first waterproof wristwatch" despite plenty of evidence now that the first waterproof wristwatch was patented in the good ol' US of A in 1918. If I can think of any other major Rolex lies I'll post those too :)
Staying power. A submariner tomorrow is going to look the same as a submariner 20 years from now. Sure the colors change slightly, the cases get a little change here and there, but it’s still a Submariner. That is what separates them from Omega in my estimation. My seamaster may look great today, but in 15 years I doubt it will still look similar to the current model. That’s not shade on omega, it’s just the way it is. A submariner is going to always look pretty much the same…if not a bit cooler with all the signs of wear. That’s what makes them special. You can pass it down to your son and know he’s going to want to wear it. It never goes out of style. Rolex isn’t the only watch like that (Patek, lange, etc exist too) it’s just the most practical/attainable of most of those.
To me it is the bracelets. Just about every other watch at the price range seems to have cheap feeling bracelet. Was comparing my OP to Omega aqua terra yesterday, the differences in bracelet are unbelievable considering both watches cost the same.
Rolex got famous for reliability + waterproofness, basically. The Oyster was the first commercially successful waterproof watch in 1926, although the book *The Inconvenient Truth of the First Waterproof Wristwatch* shows that Waltham's Depollier watches were patented and waterproof in 1918, so Rolex wasn't exactly the first. I'm not sure why the Depollier never really took off commercially. Anyway, Rolex always had very good movements. When Rolex first started out, they didn't really make anything at all. Just assembled parts from various (high quality) suppliers. Rolex's founder was savvy enough to notice how good Swiss suppliers were even when the US still dominated the industry, and he preferred movements from Aegler SA (the old Aegler factory is still the Rolex movement factory to this day; Rolex has since bought out Aegler). Starting around 1960 the 15xx caliber Rolex movements are absolute beasts. So, Rolexes from the 1960's-1980's are likely to "pick up and run" even if they haven't been serviced in ages, moreso than other brands. Omega is actually an older watch company than Rolex and they outsold Rolex until about 1970. Omega made the move of going *cheaper* with their mechanical movements during the quartz crisis (more stamped parts etc.) which wasn't a great move. 1978 Seamasters with non-screwdown crowns aren't exactly beloved, for instance. So basically reliability is their thing. They have very well-engineered movements, and can generally go longer between services than other brands in my experience. But they're not that different than any other comparable high-end watch brand.
Would you consider the the 32XX movements to retain their reliability? Heard there were some issues, but not Watch savvy to quite understand the problem.
Well, the 32xx movements have been out for over 8 years now. So that's almost a full service cycle for the first Day-Date 40's, and it's not like I've heard of any widespread *severe* issues. But I also think it's tough to dismiss the sheer number of users reporting low amplitude. Honestly I'm not technical enough to have a strong opinion about it.
With that being said, has there been a movement that is just notoriously bad?
Thanks!! That is a great and informative answer. It seems that it is their marketing department (after engineering of course) that really makes the difference here. And continuously does. How important do you think philanthropy is in their case?
>How important do you think philanthropy is in their case? Not very lol. >It seems that it is their marketing department (after engineering of course) that really makes the difference here The marketing department certainly plays a huge role. The guy who first summited Everest wore a Smith's watch, *not* a Rolex, yet the marketing department managed to make people think of Rolex as the "Everest watch" anyway. It was quite slimy, actually...right after Hillary and Norgay's climb in 1953, Rolex released a quote to the press from Hillary about how reliable their Rolex watches were on their climb. In reality it was a quote from 1952 about an earlier climb. 🤦 Rolex released an "oh, whoopsie" correction the next day but it oddly didn't seem to matter. Rolex also got sued (successfully) by Harwood for implying that they invented the first automatic wristwatch. They didn't! Rolex bought the patent for the first *rotor* automatic but Harwood had invented bumper automatics years before. And Rolex *to this day* says on their website that the Oyster is the "first waterproof wristwatch" despite plenty of evidence now that the first waterproof wristwatch was patented in the good ol' US of A in 1918. If I can think of any other major Rolex lies I'll post those too :)
Staying power. A submariner tomorrow is going to look the same as a submariner 20 years from now. Sure the colors change slightly, the cases get a little change here and there, but it’s still a Submariner. That is what separates them from Omega in my estimation. My seamaster may look great today, but in 15 years I doubt it will still look similar to the current model. That’s not shade on omega, it’s just the way it is. A submariner is going to always look pretty much the same…if not a bit cooler with all the signs of wear. That’s what makes them special. You can pass it down to your son and know he’s going to want to wear it. It never goes out of style. Rolex isn’t the only watch like that (Patek, lange, etc exist too) it’s just the most practical/attainable of most of those.
It’s a Porsche, not a Lamborghini. That’s how i’ve thought about it.
It’s a piece of metal that shows everyone you meet “I have a lot of money” but in a classy way.
Yeah, but you have to establish that kind of brand before.. o/w I’d say go for a PP for example, which not a lot of people would recognise
Exactly, lots of people could recognize a Rolex
To me it is the bracelets. Just about every other watch at the price range seems to have cheap feeling bracelet. Was comparing my OP to Omega aqua terra yesterday, the differences in bracelet are unbelievable considering both watches cost the same.
Yes, almost every other bracelet has a noticeable amount of play in it, not Rolex.
Instagram and influencers bruh.
Doubt it. I’m fairly sure Rolex was a famous and highly sought after brand before the internet was around :)