Rolex: It’s Not What You Think

Since getting my watch I’ve received some pretty interesting reactions from people. The biggest misconception people seem to have about Rolex is that any Rolex is better than any non-Rolex. Or to put it another way, they simply think that Rolex is the “top of the line”, “best of the best”, most expensive, etc, etc.

This is simply not the case.

Rolex makes really excellent watches, don’t get me wrong — but Rolex is more comparible to like a $50,000 BMW than it is to a $250,000 Porsche, Ferrari, or Rolls. There are many watches that are 1) more expensive, 2) more exclusive, and 3) more accurate. There are also other brands that rival or surpass Rolex’s engineering — Patek Philippe is one example.

The thing that attracts me to Rolex, however, is their focus on rigorous testing and durability combined with the accuracy and appearance. Rolex tightly controls every element of the materials selection, the engineering, assembly, etc — all so that they can guarantee that the watch will last for multiple decades. I’ve met several people who’ve had their Rolex for 25-40 years and have never had it serviced.

This is what I like about the Rolex Submariner. Very high standards, excellent durability, meticulous testing procedures — all resulting in a piece that is superbly engineered, highly functional and looks great without calling too much attention to itself. The Patek pieces, for example, are incredibly awesome, but many of their movements can be damaged by the G-forces from as little as a Golf swing.

And that’s how I feel about my watch. It’s the perfect balance of the qualities that I look for.

So the next time someone freaks out about someone having a Rolex, point out that there are many watches that surpass Rolex in one or more areas. They aren’t “the best” (as if there really were such a thing). They’re just extremely decent. And that’s what I like about them.

Related posts: