Chronomat01LE wrote:
Outdated and old fashioned designs, but many refer that as timeless...
you know i probably would not have commented on your comment had the thread been titled "strange rolex opinions". The "fact" of the matter is that all you offered is your opinion. As you put it you said "outdated and old fashioned" if that was the case Rolex would not be anywhere close to where they are right now.
Chronomat01LE wrote:
I would have bought it even if the logo on it was not Breitling, of course the fact that it's Breitling assures me of it's quality. So I conclude the watch to be timeless, and I don't need the mass to conclude that.
This is interesting so the fact that this piece has been available for a couple years leads YOU to believe that its a timeless classic. Once again what does this have to do with Rolex
Chronomat01LE wrote:
It's all about marketing, which Rolex has been very successful with...speaking solely of design, Sub C is a just a safe and average watch in my opinion. It has been proven because there are many similar designs but are not popular. You can even find a $30+ quartz casio watch with exactly the same design, except that the logo on it is Casio and not Rolex. My dad has one that he bought 30 over years ago and it's now still running good, more accurate than any brand new automatic watch. Even for automatic watches there are still many similar Sub C designs that equals in quality but with a much lower pricing.
True Rolex is amazing with their marketing and strategic partnerships. But do you really think that just because they throw up some ads and sponsor some events that people just flock to them? I think to most its obvious that the overall simplicity and classic design appeals to a wide range of people and the fact that they acknowledge their existing clientel and dont make such drastic changes to their models and lineup has a lot to do with their success.
As for the design being knocked off by other companies....hey what did you expect. imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Chronomat01LE wrote:
Many People buy it simply because of the prestige that it's recognised by the mass and the value it holds, of course for people in the know they buy it also because of the heritage. If the brand on the watch had not been Rolex, if the value of it would depreciate like what other brands do and the design had not been similar after so many years, I don't think many will find that appealing just simply base on design. Well it is safe, but average IMO, many watches have similar designs as Rolex, not just Sub C but many of it's models. That's why I said strange, but it is understood that it is a marketing magic of Rolex. Many brands also knows this magic.
Yes lots of people do buy it just because its Rolex....so what. Lots of people buy a Mercedes just because its a Mercedes. Does that mean that motor enthusiasts should turn their head from the brand because the average person looks at the car as a status symbol?? This trend of thought makes no sense to me. Its like saying "hey i dont want to acknowledge that this is a great brand because the masses know about it.
Chronomat01LE wrote:
Chanel is a good example, every stone you throw on the street, you hit someone who owns a Chanel Classic bag, even though it is expensive, I don't think it's because they love the design of the bag so much that they don't mind paying thousands for it(of course some still do), but it's simply because of the prestige, the history behind it, the unchanged design for many years and the increasing price that makes people think that it's an investment to get the bag as soon as they can afford. Many people like the prestige of owning the brand first, before they self convince themselves to like the designs.
Nothing wrong with the Chanel bags in my opinion I have bought my wife a few. And yes they are expensive so what?? The reason that they are sought after has to do with the fact that Chanel wants to stay true to Chanel, their quilted pattern is a forever classic very much like LV monogram. They dont feel like they need to be everything to everybody. To be honest I admire them for it
Chronomat01LE wrote:
Well it happens to many of my collegues who wear Rolex. The moment they see someone else wearing watches from other brands, they start questioning why they didn't go for Rolex instead, and when they are in turn asked why go for Rolex, they say, "it's prestigous and recognized", without realizing that the person is wearing a brand of higher end. To summarize, some buy watches like collectibles and arts where they look at many factors when choosing one(heritage, future value, etc), some buy with the hope of being "recognized by the mass" but for some including myself, I simply buy watches that I personally don't get tired of and suitable for my lifestyle. I might also look at those factors that many people in the know look at(eg, heritage,value,etc) but those are secondary to me. I would have gotten a cheap quartz watch if I was able to find one that has such a beautiful dial as the B01, but I couldn't and I intend to pass it down to my descendents anyway like a family heirloom so that's why I went for an automatic watch. I know many will disagree with me because there many Sub C and Rolex owners here. But as I have mentioned, people decide base on different factors when buying watches, my comment doesn't apply to all, but at least to 99% of the Rolex Owners that I have seen. Whether my opinion or mass opinion doesn't conclude what is right, but we are all just voicing our opinions here. No hard feelings if you are a Rolex owner, because I am one of the minority who doesn't like so you can be assured that the mass will be on your side, if you are concerned
it never ceases to amaze me at why people care how much someone knows about a watch. so if a person wears it because they think its status symbole....SO WHAT?!?!? It doesnt cheapen the brand IMO. They like it for their reasons and others have their own. Why does it matter if that guy knows if the sub has a 3135 movement or not. The guy likes a sub and thats cool with me.
From the way it looks you just hate Rolex because of all the wrong reasons. I use to be a lot like that. Thank goodness I woke up and actually realized how cool of brand they actually are.
FULL_LING2012 wrote:
I couldn't agree more. Rolex makes over a million watches a year, where breitling only makes about 100,000. IMO it's more appealing to own something more exclusive. Why buy a watch that's pumped out on a asembly line of robots. When for about the same price, maybe even a bit less you can own a work of art at was made with care. I love that people notice my watch, but than ask what it is.
This comment really just made me laugh. Yes Breitling did over 100,000 watches last year as certified by COSC. But if my knowledge is correct they did over 200,000 a couple years before. Do you really think that upper management said
"hey guys lets lower the production of our watches to try to make them more exclusive"
Dont get it twisted my friend any of the watch manufacturers would kill to be in Rolex position but none of them can. In regards to the watches being put together by robot assembly line all you need do is look at the other watch factories Breitling included and you will soon realize that its pretty much the same assembly line.
Just curious do you feel the watch is more exclusive because your AD told you that or is it what they told you in the Carribean when you walked off the cruise ship. LMFAO
Login
Register
FAQ
