Comments on: Rolex: It’s Not What You Think http://danielmiessler.com/blog/rolex-its-not-what-you-think grep understanding Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:15:22 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Daniel Miessler http://danielmiessler.com/blog/rolex-its-not-what-you-think/comment-page-1#comment-24595 Daniel Miessler Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:25:49 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1079#comment-24595 <p>The main thing that drew me to the watch over 10 years ago (and today) is the look of it. I love the refined yet understated appearance of the watch. It looks very "normal", yet very classy at the same time.</p> <p>The looks for me are magnified by the fact that it's a Rolex. And when I say that I mean what goes into the process of making one. The fact that it's one piece of steel, must be tested for a certain amount of time in various atmospheric pressures, the fact that it's COSC certified while being automatic and not quartz, etc.</p> <p>So to me it's about the look of the watch combined with the quality. If the name on the watch was Tag or Movado, then I would be writing about those instead. But for 10 years I've been eying this exact model of this exact brand. The whole time studying the engineering process, how they're made, etc. So it's been a process...a long process...one that finally culminated in me having one.</p> <p>So to say that the Rolex name means nothing to me is crazy -- it clearly does, but not because of how it sounds. It's because of what it "means". Hopefully that makes some sense.</p> The main thing that drew me to the watch over 10 years ago (and today) is the look of it. I love the refined yet understated appearance of the watch. It looks very “normal”, yet very classy at the same time.

The looks for me are magnified by the fact that it’s a Rolex. And when I say that I mean what goes into the process of making one. The fact that it’s one piece of steel, must be tested for a certain amount of time in various atmospheric pressures, the fact that it’s COSC certified while being automatic and not quartz, etc.

So to me it’s about the look of the watch combined with the quality. If the name on the watch was Tag or Movado, then I would be writing about those instead. But for 10 years I’ve been eying this exact model of this exact brand. The whole time studying the engineering process, how they’re made, etc. So it’s been a process…a long process…one that finally culminated in me having one.

So to say that the Rolex name means nothing to me is crazy — it clearly does, but not because of how it sounds. It’s because of what it “means”. Hopefully that makes some sense.

]]> By: Carl M http://danielmiessler.com/blog/rolex-its-not-what-you-think/comment-page-1#comment-24589 Carl M Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:58:41 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/archives/1079#comment-24589 <p>OK, here's where I can talk about not being materialistic. I don't even UNDERSTAND certain aspects of materialism. For $200 or so, you can get a watch that is waterproof (a divers watch), keeps essentially perfect time (sets itself every day), and has other nice functionality. OR, for $5000 or so, you can get a Rolex Submariner. You might say that the Rolex will last longer. That is VERY likely true. I saw an article somewhere recently that said that we could design cellphones that lasted for decades too if we were willing to spend more on them. My reaction to that article was: "Why would I want a 20 year old cellphone when the functionality of cellphones is still changing so fast?" I'd rather have a $200 watch (or .. more likely a $50 watch) that does what I need. If a new watch comes out with added functionality that I think I'd find useful (GPS or whatever), I can get one if I considered it necessary (or even just fun and useful). I could buy a lifetime of watches with lots of different functionality for less than the price of the Rolex.</p> <p>Convince me that you didn't get this watch in part simply because it was a ROLEX (ie: for the name itself ... not for what you claim the name implies, but for the NAME itself).</p> <p>... PS ... I still think that the iPhone (ApplePhone?) is a nifty gadget and wouldn't mind having one (I bet it keeps pretty good time too). So, I understand liking gadgets for their functionality.</p> OK, here’s where I can talk about not being materialistic. I don’t even UNDERSTAND certain aspects of materialism. For $200 or so, you can get a watch that is waterproof (a divers watch), keeps essentially perfect time (sets itself every day), and has other nice functionality. OR, for $5000 or so, you can get a Rolex Submariner. You might say that the Rolex will last longer. That is VERY likely true. I saw an article somewhere recently that said that we could design cellphones that lasted for decades too if we were willing to spend more on them. My reaction to that article was: “Why would I want a 20 year old cellphone when the functionality of cellphones is still changing so fast?” I’d rather have a $200 watch (or .. more likely a $50 watch) that does what I need. If a new watch comes out with added functionality that I think I’d find useful (GPS or whatever), I can get one if I considered it necessary (or even just fun and useful). I could buy a lifetime of watches with lots of different functionality for less than the price of the Rolex.

Convince me that you didn’t get this watch in part simply because it was a ROLEX (ie: for the name itself … not for what you claim the name implies, but for the NAME itself).

… PS … I still think that the iPhone (ApplePhone?) is a nifty gadget and wouldn’t mind having one (I bet it keeps pretty good time too). So, I understand liking gadgets for their functionality.

]]>