Is Rolex exclusive or not?

[Rolex_07]

What do you guys think? I think that the price of the "cheapest" Rolex is too low, and almost anyone can afford one.

I think that Rolex should limit the amount of watches they produce per year, and that they should raise their prices again.

What do you guys think? Is Rolex exclusive?

[mretzloff]

Nothing is exclusive anymore. Anyone can buy anything with credit.

[James T]

Originally Posted by mretzloff

Nothing is exclusive anymore. Anyone can buy anything with credit.

exactly

[Rolex_07]

Well of course. That's what America and the American dream is all about (spending more than you can make.)

I'm trying to say that too many people are about to write a check or pay cas for these..

[toph]

not sure . yes they are readily available in the USA ,UK and maybe twenty other industrialised countries but i think you will find that worldwide the are pretty much out of the majorities price range. Like the majority of Africa and South America.

also buying a rolex on credit- who does that?

[mretzloff]

Originally Posted by toph

also buying a rolex on credit- who does that?

People who can't afford it.

I don't know about the UK, but here in the US, people buy first, think second. If they have a credit card, they don't even think about their spending.

[chicagowatchman]

Originally Posted by mretzloff

People who can't afford it.

I don't know about the UK, but here in the US, people buy first, think second. If they have a credit card, they don't even think about their spending.

That is why we are in such a mess with the housing market and banking industry.....Lehman Bothers might send the market in to a crash.....hold on tight!

[mretzloff]

Originally Posted by chicagowatchman

That is why we are in such a mess with the housing market and banking industry.....Lehman Bothers might send the market in to a crash.....hold on tight!

I'm just happy I'm too young to own a credit card

[toph]

Originally Posted by mretzloff

I'm just happy I'm too young to own a credit card

never had one either

[toph]

Originally Posted by mretzloff

People who can't afford it.

I don't know about the UK, but here in the US, people buy first, think second. If they have a credit card, they don't even think about their spending.

yes i understand the concept but do you think there are a significant number of people that stick a rolex on a credit card when they cannot afford it. I don't know but the same principles apply here in the UK. i would find that obscene. Just like buying a house without any money- except the banks were backing all that bad debt until a few months ago

[C. Davidson]

Originally Posted by mretzloff

People who can't afford it.

I don't know about the UK, but here in the US, people buy first, think second. If they have a credit card, they don't even think about their spending.

Absolutely true. A major reason for the economic slump the USA is going through now.

[Gil F.]

Originally Posted by C. Davidson

Absolutely true. A major reason for the economic slump the USA is going through now.

I call BS on this one. A major reason we're going through the economic slump is that the U.S. hardly manufactures anything anymore; we are highly dependent on foreign sources for electronics, fuel, food, and textiles; and the corporations here finally got caught with their pants down for creative accounting and bad bets.

Most of the working poor either here don't have health insurance or have inadequate insurance (50%); and many people are charging health costs and FOOD on their credit cards to pay for them ... take a look at the two biggest reasons for consumer bankruptcy sometime. Some frivolousness exists, of course, but don't minimize the legitimate pain many people are going through in this country just because you're above it.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Originally Posted by C. Davidson

Absolutely true. A major reason for the economic slump the USA is going through now.

Er.....what? The "slump" is driven by the combination of 1) a lack of consumer credit (home mortgages), LESS consumer spending, not more, which is a result of the recent spike in oil prices, and silly notion that we can export our manufacturing base off shore, leaving a work force here that isn't educated enough to create a service economy. By your logic, the recent federal tax rebate, which was designed to do exactly what you are criticizing, i.e., blindly spend your check, was wrong. Yes, it did result in increased economic activity in the short run, but I disapprove of it for other reasons.

[toph]

Originally Posted by Gil F.

I call BS on this one. A major reason we're going through the economic slump is that the U.S. hardly manufactures anything anymore; we are highly dependent on foreign sources for electronics, fuel, food, and textiles; and the corporations here finally got caught with their pants down for creative accounting and bad bets.

Most of the working poor either here don't have health insurance or have inadequate insurance (50%); and many people are charging health costs and FOOD on their credit cards to pay for them ... take a look at the two biggest reasons for consumer bankruptcy sometime. Some frivolousness exists, of course, but don't minimize the legitimate pain many people are going through in this country just because you're above it.

Originally Posted by Nigel Tufnel

Er.....what? The "slump" is driven by the combination of 1) a lack of consumer credit (home mortgages), LESS consumer spending, not more, which is a result of the recent spike in oil prices, and silly notion that we can export our manufacturing base off shore, leaving a work force here that isn't educated enough to create a service economy. By your logic, the recent federal tax rebate, which was designed to do exactly what you are criticizing, i.e., blindly spend your check, was wrong. Yes, it did result in increased economic activity in the short run, but I disapprove of it for other reasons.

I agree with you guys. BUT there is another major factor. Banks were lending (here in the UK) £200, 000 to people for a house who earn £20-£30000 (pre tax) a year with no deposit. The same was happening in the USA. Most of this is bad debt as these people cannot afford a house like that and can never pay it off. All the banks jumped on the bandwagon and they were are trading these worthless outstanding loans. As soon as someone went no thanks these debts are worthless then the bubble burst. It is there own fault for lending to people incapable of repaying the money. Very irresponsible and this was bound to happen

[monkfish]

Originally Posted by toph

not sure . yes they are readily available in the USA ,UK and maybe twenty other industrialised countries but i think you will find that worldwide the are pretty much out of the majorities price range. Like the majority of Africa and South America.

also buying a rolex on credit- who does that?

I nearly got one on interest free credit just because its easier than saving up or having it taken in one whack. I dont have any other outgoings so why not

[Rolex_07]

I'm trying to say that too many people are about to write a check or pay cash for these..

[chicagowatchman]

I think Rolex is more of an Icon reconized the world over.....just like Coke, Pepsi, and the Golden Arches!

It is a classic design only changed to a minor degree over the last 40 years or so. It is often copied but never duplicated!

[scottschoe]

Def. not exclusive.

[Letsgodiving]

The more people who can afford a Rolex the better. The luxury/exclusive aspect of Rolex is my least favourite thing about owing a Rolex.

[ingoodtime]

Regardless of credit, it is still exclusive. The least epensive womans model Rolex is what, about 4000.00 MSRP. Like any other brand, there is a top and a bottom. The least expensive mens is what, about 5300.00 I don't think that is affordable for the masses and even if it is, how many would rather buy a Seiko, Citizen, Swiss Army etc. for thousands and thousands less and still have a watch that may last a lifetime. No, a Rolex is not just about the money, it is also about the state of mind.

[chicagowatchman]

Originally Posted by ingoodtime

Regardless of credit, it is still exclusive. The least epensive womans model Rolex is what, about 4000.00 MSRP. Like any other brand, there is a top and a bottom. The least expensive mens is what, about 5300.00 I don't think that is affordable for the masses and even if it is, how many would rather buy a Seiko, Citizen, Swiss Army etc. for thousands and thousands less and still have a watch that may last a lifetime. No, a Rolex is not just about the money, it is also about the state of mind.

[simoesm]

Originally Posted by ingoodtime

[...] No, a Rolex is not just about the money, it is also about the state of mind.

I tottaly agree with Ingoodtime. It is all about a state of mind...

[astcell]

No one cares if you have a Seiko, Bulova, Movado, or Timex. The only things that really get eyeball attention are Rolex and Suunto.

[BigHat]

Exclusive? You must be joking. They dump a million watches into the market each year. You want something exclusive, buy Lange, PP, AP, Vc or one of the super small makers.

[DS/B MINI S]

Originally Posted by BigHat

Exclusive? You must be joking. They dump a million watches into the market each year. You want something exclusive, buy Lange, PP, AP, Vc or one of the super small makers.

Exactly

[toph]

Originally Posted by BigHat

Exclusive? You must be joking. They dump a million watches into the market each year. You want something exclusive, buy Lange, PP, AP, Vc or one of the super small makers.

ok is this a USA only question? because circa 1 million ( less i reckon) watches a year for 6 billion (60 000 million) people suggests to me that they are pretty exclusive. considering some will not be bought - one person will buy 2, 3, 4 or even more, a rolex owner is around 1 in a million (pretty exclusive)

but compared to your top watchmakers as you state- no they are not exclusive

context is everything

[Letsgodiving]

Originally Posted by toph

ok is this a USA only question? because circa 1 million ( less i reckon) watches a year for 6 billion (60 000 million) people suggests to me that they are pretty exclusive. considering some will not be bought - one person will buy 2, 3, 4 or even more, a rolex owner is around 1 in a million (pretty exclusive)

but compared to your top watchmakers as you state- no they are not exclusive

context is everything

I agree. I suppose it depends on your definition of exclusive. The price alone probably excludes 95% of the worlds population who could/would never pay the price for a Rolex. 5k and up for a watch is a dream to most. Is it exclusive to the well to do? No. To the average Joe, however, it certainly is. The average salary in the US is in the upper 20's and the average family earns in the lower 40's and we are one of the richest nations on earth. These watches are out of reach of the vast majority and by that definition they are exclusive.

[BigHat]

Originally Posted by toph

ok is this a USA only question? because circa 1 million ( less i reckon) watches a year for 6 billion (60 000 million) people suggests to me that they are pretty exclusive. considering some will not be bought - one person will buy 2, 3, 4 or even more, a rolex owner is around 1 in a million (pretty exclusive)

but compared to your top watchmakers as you state- no they are not exclusive

context is everything

Chris,
Exclusive is a relative thing. Compared to the billion of Timex-like watches Rolex is exclusive. But in the WIS world. Rolex is the Toyota in terms of numbers.
I am careful to be addressing the volumes (exclusivity) not the quality.

[toph]

Originally Posted by BigHat

Chris,
Exclusive is a relative thing. Compared to the billion of Timex-like watches Rolex is exclusive. But in the WIS world. Rolex is the Toyota in terms of numbers.
I am careful to be addressing the volumes (exclusivity) not the quality.

Yes but ask 100 porcshe 911 owners if a 911 is exclusive they will say - no way -that average joe over there has one.

ask 100 people who drive a Toyota and they will say "oh a 911- thats exclusive alright"

personally i am not saying i agree with either side of the argument but- its just a bit of an unanwerable question by its definition

[chriseskew24]

I belive that in America most people will not spend there money on a Rolex.
But most people if they chose to could obtain a Rolex one way or another.
But again alot of people would consider the price tag ludicrus. On the other hand there are people like myself who are not wealthy by any means. I do well for myself and make well above the national average but am defenantly not wealthy.
What i am is a person who enjoys the nicer things in life (family,friends,golf,cigars,and oh yeah watches) I do not drive a fancy car
and i do not own $60,000 dollars worth of watches. That would be unrealstic for me right now. Not that i woldent want to....

Alot of people dont even have a clew what a Rolex costs people see a Rolex and imedatley think that you have ten thousand dollars on your wrist because of what they have heard from others. Or what people in the spot lite may portray. Some do have well over 10 grand on there wrist but many like myself do not.

I still feel that Rolex is exlcusive not so much because of production numbers but because Rolex is a life style that many are not consernd with. Just my .02

Sorry for going on so long < probably dont even make sence>