Rolex As A Status Symbol

[Daytona king]

Originally Posted by INC

TLDR about "what is a status symbol" & Rolex

I think for an absolute outsider, Rolex means that the person who wears it is "certainly rich". This does not mean that Rolex is a status symbol, but that people have no idea that it is actually a mass-produced watch.

For a somewhat knowledgeable person, the TERM Rolex MAYBE means those models that have a NICKNAME, or have meteorite dials, or PM versions of some sought-after model, such as a Platona. In such a case, the knowledgeable person knows that whoever has one of these is truly wealthy and demanding, because these watches are really not available and affordable to everyone.

However, I think HERE, in this place, what should be understood by "status symbol" is someone who has been buying their Rolexes from an AD for decades, and whom Rolex itself considers to belong to a special category of customers. They are mostly the ones who can obtain off-catalog models at all.

So it's not really the ownership of a Rolex that can be considered a status symbol, but the fact that someone can buy any Rolex they want because their AD will happily set it aside and sell it to them.

This is truly a status thing. However, it is only symbolized by the watch. That is why you can almost never tell what status someone has in life just by wearing a Rolex! It is NOT about money, it is about the ability that these people have achieved in their lives. Which is really not easy these days because we do not live in the same time as those who bought Rolex a few decades ago. When they had a lot on their minds, they just did not buy a watch because it expressed their status. Back then, they simply bought the watches they loved.

In my opinion, therefore, those who are searching for the meaning of this are really searching for the "meaning of life" or the "meaning of Rolex." They are the ones who desperately need an ideology to explain to themselves why it is worth spending a lot of money on a mass-produced watch based on decades of technology.

You said it yourself in the beginning. Most people would see a Rolex on your wrist and assume you are rich.

The second part is that you state Rolex is massed produced so they are not a status symbol. You still can’t walk into a Rolex store and buy a hot model Rolex. You have to go on a waitlist. A lot of times buy the entry level watch. By the time you get the watch you want you have already spent around $10-$20k on other stuff to get the opportunity to be offered that watch at a later date. Rolex even being massed produced is only on about 1 percent of the world’s populations wrist.

Let’s not even bring up what one must do to get a SS Pepsi or Daytona at retail.

If a $15k SS chronograph watch with a white dial cost you at least $100k in prior purchases just to be offered isn’t a status symbol I’m not sure what is. When I see a SS panda I don’t see a $15k watch. I see a watch that a person who spent massive amounts of money to get. They climbed the mountain top and they won.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[INC]

Originally Posted by Daytona king

You said it yourself in the beginning. Most people would see a Rolex on your wrist and assume you are rich.

But it is NOT necessary true. This is only a belief, not a fact.

You still can’t walk into a Rolex store and buy a hot model Rolex. You have to go on a waitlist.

I think exactly the same: Owning a "hot model" is NOT comparable to simply owning an "ordinary" Rolex. Owning a watch with a price tag of at least five figures, with at least 2/3/4 at the beginning of the price tag, already means that someone is well-off - but not necessarily rich. So this kind of watch can already indicate a kind of status, IF it is not just the watch that shows that it is part of the lifestyle for someone. But this statement is true for ALL watches in this price range So owning a single watch like this is definitely NOT a Rolex-specific status symbol.

Rolex even being massed produced is only on about 1 percent of the world’s populations wrist.

In my opinion, this is a common mistake. Wealth is NOT distributed equally among the world's population, so the value of production should not be divided by the number of people. The reality is that those who can afford to wear a watch at all are less than 1/3 of the world's population. Those who are willing to buy a MORE EXPENSIVE watch are perhaps 10% of that. So we are not talking about 1%, but more like 10%. This is still not a "too high percentage", but it is high enough to see that even based on this calculation, owning a Rolex IN ITSELF is not a status symbol.

Let’s not even bring up what one must do to get a SS Pepsi or Daytona at retail.

You're repeating my words That was exactly my conclusion, that owning a NICKNAMED or PM watch is indeed a status symbol. However, the real status symbol is IF you have a record with an AD and you can get it at MSRP. Please see:

If a $15k SS chronograph watch with a white dial cost you at least $100k in prior purchases just to be offered isn’t a status symbol I’m not sure what is.

Exactly as I wrote and you write. IT IS NOT THE WATCH that is the status symbol in itself, BUT THE STATUS that you can buy it THIS WAY. However, you do not know this from seeing an SS chronograph on someone's wrist, because they may not have bought it that way, but simply bought it second-hand. So while it is certain that the person is not a poor guy, it is not certain that they are in the status that presupposes having previously spent hundreds of thousands of dollars.

When I see a SS panda I don’t see a $15k watch. I see a watch that a person who spent massive amounts of money to get. They climbed the mountain top and they won.

And that's why you're wrong, because you are just assuming that he bought it from an AD, with a huge upfront investment. Keep in mind that this is not a well-founded prejudice, as he could have bought it on the used market for a little bit, a lot more, BUT without any upfront investment, so in genaral: For far less money than you prejudicated.

That is why I believe that a strong and KNOWN AD relationship is a real status symbol, as is wearing "very expensive"/nickname/PM/non-catalog watches.

But wearing a Rolex by itself is not.

[BraveBold]

I cannot believe I am again adding to this thread. But little to do between reps during a workout so…

Rolex is a status symbol. Full stop. Not really debatable.

Every individual’s reason to wear a Rolex may differ, sometimes slightly and sometimes significantly from “typical” (which likely has a healthy dose of status). Rolex does make an exceptional quality watch (virtually without peer in terms of what it does well and its overall machined quality/reliability).

I think in some cases this debate is prolonged by folks not understanding the meaning of “status symbol” and perhaps also driven by non-native English translations that don’t really capture the meaning.

Status symbol is not all encompassing; there is a wide range of different personal preferences to what might “impress” you. Someone may be extremely wealthy and among their group the highly educated are conferred additional status. Perhaps among the most highly educated, exceptional intellectual aptitude (raw intelligence) confers status. Among the educated and wealthy, some might view legacy and influence as conferring status (old money). Some may view innovation and independence (new money). Physical traits can confer status. Some may view choosing a family-oriented path as the ultimate status, superior to all others. The list is endless.

But simplified to the most broadly applicable definition and avoiding delving into myriad alternatives, yes, Virginia, a Rolex watch IS a status symbol.

[bluestreak]

If Rolex were not a status symbol, there would not be so many forgeries. The fact that so many people want even the appearance of wearing a Rolex is probably all evidence we need.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

Rolex is a status symbol. Full stop. Not really debatable.

A hundred and fifty-four posts about a subject that isn’t debatable.

Remarkable.

[mac112]

I personally love watches, Rolex watches are durable and can stand the test of time, it's often associated with luxury and exclusivity, making it a prominent status symbol, their strategic marketing effort including partnerships with influential individuals further solidified the brands luxury image.

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

A hundred and fifty-four posts about a subject that isn’t debatable.

Remarkable.

Agreed. It is remarkable.

Since folks here love the use of AI, here is ChatGPT’s summary. My prompt is included below.

Question: Is Rolex’s perception as being a status symbol among the general public debatable? Ignore any questions of idiosyncratic views, or personal opinions on whether it should be, or why it is. In terms of the word “debatable” measure against its common usage.

Response: Rolex’s perception as a status symbol among the general public is not debatable in the common usage of the word “debatable.” In general discourse, “debatable” refers to something that is open to discussion or subject to doubt. Rolex is widely recognized as a status symbol by the general public, given its association with luxury, wealth, and success. This perception is well-established and not commonly questioned, making it a generally accepted view rather than something “debatable” in the typical sense of the term.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

.

[Marcjvr]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

A hundred and fifty-four posts about a subject that isn’t debatable.

Remarkable.

160 actually

[Daytona king]

Originally Posted by INC

But it is NOT necessary true. This is only a belief, not a fact.



I think exactly the same: Owning a "hot model" is NOT comparable to simply owning an "ordinary" Rolex. Owning a watch with a price tag of at least five figures, with at least 2/3/4 at the beginning of the price tag, already means that someone is well-off - but not necessarily rich. So this kind of watch can already indicate a kind of status, IF it is not just the watch that shows that it is part of the lifestyle for someone. But this statement is true for ALL watches in this price range So owning a single watch like this is definitely NOT a Rolex-specific status symbol.



In my opinion, this is a common mistake. Wealth is NOT distributed equally among the world's population, so the value of production should not be divided by the number of people. The reality is that those who can afford to wear a watch at all are less than 1/3 of the world's population. Those who are willing to buy a MORE EXPENSIVE watch are perhaps 10% of that. So we are not talking about 1%, but more like 10%. This is still not a "too high percentage", but it is high enough to see that even based on this calculation, owning a Rolex IN ITSELF is not a status symbol.



You're repeating my words That was exactly my conclusion, that owning a NICKNAMED or PM watch is indeed a status symbol. However, the real status symbol is IF you have a record with an AD and you can get it at MSRP. Please see:



Exactly as I wrote and you write. IT IS NOT THE WATCH that is the status symbol in itself, BUT THE STATUS that you can buy it THIS WAY. However, you do not know this from seeing an SS chronograph on someone's wrist, because they may not have bought it that way, but simply bought it second-hand. So while it is certain that the person is not a poor guy, it is not certain that they are in the status that presupposes having previously spent hundreds of thousands of dollars.



And that's why you're wrong, because you are just assuming that he bought it from an AD, with a huge upfront investment. Keep in mind that this is not a well-founded prejudice, as he could have bought it on the used market for a little bit, a lot more, BUT without any upfront investment, so in genaral: For far less money than you prejudicated.

That is why I believe that a strong and KNOWN AD relationship is a real status symbol, as is wearing "very expensive"/nickname/PM/non-catalog watches.

But wearing a Rolex by itself is not.

A few points, there are roughly 8.2 billion people on this planet. No way can 10 percent of that population own a Rolex.

Rolex produces roughly 1 million watches a year. Which is a lot for a luxury brand imo. You are stating that roughly 820 million people a year buy Rolexes with your math.

2nd point. Even if they couldn’t buy a SS panda at retail they have to spend over $30k for a new one on the grey market. That is still a crazy high price tag that any normal non watch person would think would be insane. A panda Daytona is one of, if not the top of the peak of Rolex status symbols for watches as well as the DD imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Daytona king]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

I cannot believe I am again adding to this thread. But little to do between reps during a workout so…

Rolex is a status symbol. Full stop. Not really debatable.

Every individual’s reason to wear a Rolex may differ, sometimes slightly and sometimes significantly from “typical” (which likely has a healthy dose of status). Rolex does make an exceptional quality watch (virtually without peer in terms of what it does well and its overall machined quality/reliability).

I think in some cases this debate is prolonged by folks not understanding the meaning of “status symbol” and perhaps also driven by non-native English translations that don’t really capture the meaning.

Status symbol is not all encompassing; there is a wide range of different personal preferences to what might “impress” you. Someone may be extremely wealthy and among their group the highly educated are conferred additional status. Perhaps among the most highly educated, exceptional intellectual aptitude (raw intelligence) confers status. Among the educated and wealthy, some might view legacy and influence as conferring status (old money). Some may view innovation and independence (new money). Physical traits can confer status. Some may view choosing a family-oriented path as the ultimate status, superior to all others. The list is endless.

But simplified to the most broadly applicable definition and avoiding delving into myriad alternatives, yes, Virginia, a Rolex watch IS a status symbol.

You are 100 percent correct. Rolex watches are status symbols. You or others may not wear it as a status symbol but that doesn’t change the fact that Rolex is 100 percent a status symbol. Some may argue it is THE status symbol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by Marcjvr

160 actually

Keep us updated.

[INC]

Originally Posted by Daytona king

A few points, there are roughly 8.2 billion people on this planet. No way can 10 percent of that population own a Rolex.

That is not what I said. I said there are about 1 billion people in a position to buy a non-entry level, non-cheap watch. So far, based on calculations posted on the forum, there have been about 100 million Rolexes produced. This is the 10% I was referring to. A brand which made 100 million product, which can be distributed in 1B people, CAN NOT BE a status symbol.

2nd point. Even if they couldn’t buy a SS panda at retail they have to spend over $30k for a new one on the grey market.

Sorry. I think it's because what I am writing is not clear, that I do not live in the United States. What I wanted to talk about is that "owning a Rolex" is simply not the same as, say, "owning an SS Panda." The latter is undoubtedly a status symbol, the former is not.

Let me show you an actual example from Chrono24:



That is about $2,800. Do you really think that if someone wears one, they are rich? Please DO NOT ALWAYS refer to "new" watches or the ability to buy a new Rolex! What I want to point out that being able to do that IS a status symbol, BUT simply owning a Rolex in itself IS NOT.

So to summarize my point:

- the ability to buy a new Rolex is a status symbol;
- the ability to buy or own a Rolex with a nickname is a status symbol;

but simply owning "A" Rolex in itself is NOT a status symbol, as there is NO status that ownership represents in itself.

In short, not the ownership is a status symbol in general, but:

- the ability to buy/own a hot/nicknamed/PM Rolex as a wealthy man;
- owning a Platona is more;
- fe. the ownership of an Eye Of The Tiger IS definitely higher level;
- to own the Paul Newman's Daytona is the ultimate Elysium.

So yes, in the latter cases we can talk about Platonas, Daytonas, PM watches, Batman, Coke, Pepsi, Batgirl, Hulk, Smurf, Midas and so on... but as you can see, in this case we are NOT talking about "Rolexes". These are the cases when we are talking about THESE WATCHES, which are truly status symbols. And the point in this case is that it does not change the fact that Rolex makes them. Along with many other mass-produced and relatively inexpensive watches...

[bluestreak]

Originally Posted by INC

That is not what I said. I said there are about 1 billion people in a position to buy a non-entry level, non-cheap watch. So far, based on calculations posted on the forum, there have been about 100 million Rolexes produced. This is the 10% I was referring to. A brand which made 100 million product, which can be distributed in 1B people, CAN NOT BE a status symbol.



Sorry. I think it's because what I am writing is not clear, that I do not live in the United States. What I wanted to talk about is that "owning a Rolex" is simply not the same as, say, "owning an SS Panda." The latter is undoubtedly a status symbol, the former is not.

Let me show you an actual example from Chrono24:



That is about $2,800. Do you really think that if someone wears one, they are rich? Please DO NOT ALWAYS refer to "new" watches or the ability to buy a new Rolex! What I want to point out that being able to do that IS a status symbol, BUT simply owning a Rolex in itself IS NOT.

So to summarize my point:

- the ability to buy a new Rolex is a status symbol;
- the ability to buy or own a Rolex with a nickname is a status symbol;

but simply owning "A" Rolex in itself is NOT a status symbol, as there is NO status that ownership represents in itself.

In short, not the ownership is a status symbol in general, but:

- the ability to buy/own a hot/nicknamed/PM Rolex as a wealthy man;
- owning a Platona is more;
- fe. the ownership of an Eye Of The Tiger IS definitely higher level;
- to own the Paul Newman's Daytona is the ultimate Elysium.

So yes, in the latter cases we can talk about Platonas, Daytonas, PM watches, Batman, Coke, Pepsi, Batgirl, Hulk, Smurf, Midas and so on... but as you can see, in this case we are NOT talking about "Rolexes". These are the cases when we are talking about THESE WATCHES, which are truly status symbols. And the point in this case is that it does not change the fact that Rolex makes them. Along with many other mass-produced and relatively inexpensive watches...

What on earth are you talking about. If even one percent of the population know what a Hulk, Pepsi, Daytona or a Platona are, I’d be extremely surprised. People are conflating an extremely niche forum with the general public. The average joe on the street knows “Rolex”= expensive, flashy and that’s it.

And also, 2800 dollars to the average person is a crapton of money on a wristwatch. Again, I’d be surprised if one percent of people ever spent more than that on a watch.

And it doesn’t even matter if you need to be rich to buy a Rolex, what matters is that if you’re wearing one, the large. majority of folks who see it are going to think you’re successful. That’s the very definition of a status symbol.

[NachoNeal]

Originally Posted by INC

Well, so be it. But then what is the status that a Rolex symbolizes?

That's actually a good question. To me, it's a negative status (present company - and all watch enthusiasts - excluded). There is an overwhelming, disproportionate amount of Dbags that wear Rolex. It's just a fact.

[INC]

Originally Posted by bluestreak

If even one percent of the population know what a Hulk, Pepsi, Daytona or a Platona are, I’d be extremely surprised.

Exactly. And precisely, these are the people who know that owning a watch like this means something.

People are conflating an extremely niche forum with the general public. The average joe on the street knows “Rolex”= expensive, flashy and that’s it.

Exactly as you wrote. They will NOT think about the "status of the wearer", but they will think that this is a person who flaunts and who "wears expensive, flashy things, AND THAT'S ALL. These are not my words, but yours. They don't see the watch enthusiast in them because they do not even know what that term means.

But while we are at it, let me ask: who cares what an average Joe thinks of someone? Is that a status symbol?

Come on, 90% of the world envies Americans and Europeans because of their well-being. Even without a Rolex. Our LIFESTYLE is NOT affordable and incomprehensible to the majority of humanity. Based on this, do you really think they will care what kind of watch we wear? That they should be the ones to talk about this issue? You know, unlike them, we can eat all day, even several times a day, we have money for a home, a car, clean water, we can bathe in hot water, or can eat even caviar, or buy a football team? See the truth, our lifestyle is a very high-level status symbol in itself, if you want to compare our opportunities with them. Without any watch.

So if you want to define a status symbol in the first world, please don not include in your calculation the rest of the world, because you are not fooling them, or me, but you are fooling yourself.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by bluestreak

What on earth are you talking about. If even one percent of the population know what a Hulk, Pepsi, Daytona or a Platona are, I’d be extremely surprised. People are conflating an extremely niche forum with the general public. The average joe on the street knows “Rolex”= expensive, flashy and that’s it.

And also, 2800 dollars to the average person is a crapton of money on a wristwatch. Again, I’d be surprised if one percent of people ever spent more than that on a watch.

And it doesn’t even matter if you need to be rich to buy a Rolex, what matters is that if you’re wearing one, the large. majority of folks who see it are going to think you’re successful. That’s the very definition of a status symbol.

Exactly.

I mentioned Tag Heuer above. People wont even walk into a Tag Heuer boutique because they can’t afford a $2,800 watch. And these same people know a Rolex is on a completely different level than Tag.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bluestreak]

Originally Posted by INC

Exactly. And precisely, these are the people who know that owning a watch like this means something.



Exactly as you wrote. They will NOT think about the "status of the wearer", but they will think that this is a person who flaunts and who "wears expensive, flashy things, AND THAT'S ALL. These are not my words, but yours. They don't see the watch enthusiast in them because they do not even know what that term means.

But while we are at it, let me ask: who cares what an average Joe thinks of someone? Is that a status symbol?

Come on, 90% of the world envies Americans and Europeans because of their well-being. Even without a Rolex. Our LIFESTYLE is NOT affordable and incomprehensible to the majority of humanity. Based on this, do you really think they will care what kind of watch we wear? That they should be the ones to talk about this issue? You know, unlike them, we can eat all day, even several times a day, we have money for a home, a car, clean water, we can bathe in hot water, or can eat even caviar, or buy a football team? See the truth, our lifestyle is a very high-level status symbol in itself, if you want to compare our opportunities with them. Without any watch.

So if you want to define a status symbol in the first world, please don not include in your calculation the rest of the world, because you are not fooling them, or me, but you are fooling yourself.

Who cares what the average Joe thinks? What do you think this whole conversation is about? Status symbols aren’t for your friends or people who know you well, they are there to broadcast something (usually wealth) to someone that doesn’t know you.
To almost everyone in the western world, if they see you wearing a Rolex, they are going to think you have money. It doesn’t matter if you actually are rich, it doesn’t matter if you paid for it with credit cards or bought it gray, it puts out the image of someone with money.

I think people are so defensive because they see this thread as accusing *them* of buying a Rolex to broadcast wealth. So fine, for the people here, the true watch and Rolex enthusiasts, that had nothing to do with it. But most people are buying to watch to broadcast wealth, sophistication, connections, whatever. And that’s fine. It’s why everyone doesn’t go around in brown sackcloths. They want to project an image.

Again, I don’t even know why this is controversial.

[Marcjvr]

Originally Posted by NachoNeal

That's actually a good question. To me, it's a negative status (present company - and all watch enthusiasts - excluded). There is an overwhelming, disproportionate amount of Dbags that wear Rolex. It's just a fact.

Amen

[espanol]

Originally Posted by NachoNeal

That's actually a good question. To me, it's a negative status (present company - and all watch enthusiasts - excluded). There is an overwhelming, disproportionate amount of Dbags that wear Rolex. It's just a fact.

[77T]

Deep down, many want to impress others by displaying a status symbol. It makes some feel good about themselves. That's a good thing as long as it stops short of one becoming a "conspicuous consumer".

Rolex is a "Veblen good" by definition methinks. Not the only one, but a well-known one.

Well, sociologist Thorstein Veblen, wrote about we who acquire luxury goods and services. He believed a segment did so primarily to visibly signal their wealth and social status to others. I suppose there are some of us who are so minded. Many are not.

We have a great forum - one where a broad cross-section of people appreciate fine Swiss, German, Japanese, and independent brands of watches. Fine little marvels of precision and workmanship.

Sure a Rolex is a status symbol...
Stop short of using one as a status signal


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[INC]

Originally Posted by bluestreak

Who cares what the average Joe thinks?

You cited this as an argument, not me.

Status symbols aren’t for your friends or people who know you well, they are there to broadcast something (usually wealth) to someone that doesn’t know you.

Well, maybe this is the root of the misunderstanding between us:

- I NEVER intended to flaunt my wealth with my outfit and especially my watches;
- so-called "status symbolists" on the other hand WANT to show that they are "rich", mostly by wearing a Rolex. In their opinion, this is the only thing that can give them serious self-confidence about being richer than the average Joe or the other 99% of the world.

You know, I think it is precisely this latter mentality that is why so many "is it safe to wear a Rolex" topics are started here. Because for the latter, THIS is an important question, "is it worth showing off that I am rich", while for the former group, the question is meaningless, since it does not even arise in them! For them, wearing a watch is not a status symbol, a self-expression, but they simply put on the watch that they like in the morning. Even if it is a Rolex on some or all days.

In my personal view:

I DO NOT want anyone to judge or make an opinion based on my watch or what I wear. I want to express myself based on who I am and I do not want anyone to judge me based on what my outfit express.

Causality. And you know what? I am starting to feel that where the Rolex world is going, I am more and more inclined to wear watches that are beautiful, interesting, and definitely not in the category of being judged on my MATERIAL status.

Morover, based on this, I can feel more and more:

To almost everyone in the western world, if they see you wearing a Rolex, they are going to think you have money.

TO LEAVE THE WORLD OF ROLEX FOREVER, because this flashy, posh world has nothing to do with me anymore. I do not want people to see this in me, to see me like this when they show up.

This is NOT ME anymore.

But most people are buying to watch to broadcast wealth, sophistication, connections, whatever.

If this is the status that Rolex represents today, then it's time for me to say goodbye.

Again, I don’t even know why this is controversial.

Because in my opinion you can not see the forest for the trees: A status symbol of this type, a status symbol for this purpose, this status symbol actually does not represent positive, but negative emotions.

[waterman1]

I just spent a few minutes over on the RM thread here on TRF in non-Rolex watches, just for fun. Spend a few minutes reading some of those posts and it will make you reconsider rolex as a status symbol.

[geoach]

end this thread and just say...................IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS WHAT PEOPLE THINK OF ME !!!!!

[OG1982]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

I cannot believe I am again adding to this thread. But little to do between reps during a workout so…

Rolex is a status symbol. Full stop. Not really debatable.

Every individual’s reason to wear a Rolex may differ, sometimes slightly and sometimes significantly from “typical” (which likely has a healthy dose of status). Rolex does make an exceptional quality watch (virtually without peer in terms of what it does well and its overall machined quality/reliability).

I think in some cases this debate is prolonged by folks not understanding the meaning of “status symbol” and perhaps also driven by non-native English translations that don’t really capture the meaning.

Status symbol is not all encompassing; there is a wide range of different personal preferences to what might “impress” you. Someone may be extremely wealthy and among their group the highly educated are conferred additional status. Perhaps among the most highly educated, exceptional intellectual aptitude (raw intelligence) confers status. Among the educated and wealthy, some might view legacy and influence as conferring status (old money). Some may view innovation and independence (new money). Physical traits can confer status. Some may view choosing a family-oriented path as the ultimate status, superior to all others. The list is endless.

But simplified to the most broadly applicable definition and avoiding delving into myriad alternatives, yes, Virginia, a Rolex watch IS a status symbol.

Yikes, thats a long rest between sets...

[Number3]

Originally Posted by OG1982

Yikes, thats a long rest between sets...

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by OG1982

Yikes, thats a long rest between sets...

LOL. Working out at the moment - and again in between sets.

That would be a long rest, probably 4 minutes worth. If I didn’t put the phone down and do an additional set between… funny how that works, right?

Honestly, could be either. I type around 120 wpm on a proper keyboard but on my phone it is nearer 60-70… when you learn to type long and detailed responses on a blackberry, you become pretty adept.

[OG1982]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

LOL. Working out at the moment - and again in between sets.

That would be a long rest, probably 4 minutes worth. If I didn’t put the phone down and do an additional set between… funny how that works, right?

Honestly, could be either. I type around 120 wpm on a proper keyboard but on my phone it is nearer 60-70… when you learn to type long and detailed responses on a blackberry, you become pretty adept.

All good, just having a bit of fun...

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by OG1982

All good, just having a bit of fun...

I hope so. That’s the point of the forum (aside from showing off, of course)…