Why Isn't Rolex Considered One Of 'The Big Three'?

[Gr8]

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/wh...-the-big-three

[AJMarcus]

Because it’s really just an informal thing. Has no weight and no value. Besides, Rolex is truly in its own league. No watch manufacturer does what they do and on their scale. That’s my two cents anyway. Enjoy your Rolex.

[Ravager135]

Because it's not. Not by tradition, finish, or prestige. Rolex has never sought to be PP, AP, VC by its own admission or standards. It doesn't matter that the entire watch community looks to what Rolex does (even the Big Three). It doesn't matter that their watches are traded in the same circles as those other brands. Rolex is a mass produced, robust timepiece of a different heritage.

The brand that is probably most deserving (it's really already eclipsed PP, AP, and VC in my opinion) is ALS.

[Henrimontgomery]

Zero hand work that’s why. It’s all done my machines.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by Ravager135

Because it's not. Not by tradition, finish, or prestige. Rolex has never sought to be PP, AP, VC by its own admission or standards. It doesn't matter that the entire watch community looks to what Rolex does (even the Big Three). It doesn't matter that their watches are traded in the same circles as those other brands. Rolex is a mass produced, robust timepiece of a different heritage.

The brand that is probably most deserving (it's really already eclipsed PP, AP, and VC in my opinion) is ALS.

Spot on.

Rolex aren't "high horology".... and that's not a bad thing at all. The level of finishing (especially on the movement), while still very good, isn't hand-finished. Also, with the exception of the SkyDweller, Rolex have no movements with fancy/unusual complications - no minute repeater, no tourbillon, no flyback, no perpetual calendar, no annual calendar, no rattrapante, etc. Could they make these things? Yes of course they could, but they choose not to as it's not their target.

They're "just" very well designed, well made (but mass produced), robust timepieces, that will stand the test of time both in terms of looks/design and mechanicals. Rolex have always carved their own path.

[JJGreen]

I love Rolex and own a few, but those others are in a different league. From history to prestige to finishing to price point and on...

[vliberman]

Originally Posted by Henrimontgomery

Zero hand work that’s why. It’s all done my machines.

not true... why even say this nonsense... just think gem setting... do u think machine does it?

[Sunstreaker]

I don't believe Rolex can even compare to the holy trinity or even ALS. Rolex makes reliable, tough, time machines built to be work horses. Not beautiful time machines that are delicate works of art. They will never be at the level of the holy trinity, no mater how many clear case backs they add to their watches. Just my 2-cents.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Ravager135

Because it's not. Not by tradition, finish, or prestige. Rolex has never sought to be PP, AP, VC by its own admission or standards. It doesn't matter that the entire watch community looks to what Rolex does (even the Big Three). It doesn't matter that their watches are traded in the same circles as those other brands. Rolex is a mass produced, robust timepiece of a different heritage.

The brand that is probably most deserving (it's really already eclipsed PP, AP, and VC in my opinion) is ALS.

Another ^^^

[JSolution]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Another ^^^

I’d agree also.

[Bxtek]

There's something (great) to be said about Rolex when there's an article published on why they aren't part of the "Big Three".

[noshame]

I agree with posts #2 and 3. I've never thought of Rolex the same way I think of PP, AP, or VC. If I did, I could never afford one!

[MrMercedes]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Another ^^^

[Tim Plains]

The big three are high horology.
Rolex is high volume horology.

[White Collar Boy]

Thanks for sharing, hadn't read that excellent little Forster article before. "[A]s usual, the reality is much more interesting."

[Jack T]

Crafting timepieces vs selling watches

[Daytonaman799]

Finishing, production levels, complications all a factor.

[amh]

It doesn't need to be in that "club" anyway. It's already #1



Reference:
Google "number one watch company"

[vliberman]

Originally Posted by Tim Plains

The big three are high horology.
Rolex is high volume horology.

Both AP and PP produce massive amount of watches... could be as many as 150k between them.. how are these not high volume horology??????

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by vliberman

Both AP and PP produce massive amount of watches... could be as many as 150k between them.. how are these not high volume horology??????

It's all relative. Rolex churn out circa 1m a year, while PP make 60k-ish, AP make circa 40k, and VC just 20k. So PP make just 6% of the volume that Rolex produce. VC just 2%.

When you consider the numbers that non-luxury brands produce - for example, Tissot make circa 4m a year; G-Shock around 9m per year - 20k-60k is a pretty small number in the grand scheme of watchmaking.

[enjoythemusic]

Maybe the real question is:

What's the next level up from those three... and which three brands/watchmakers are the highest level of Horology?

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by amh

It doesn't need to be in that "club" anyway. It's already #1



Reference:
Google "number one watch company"

Absolutely correct. Rolex is so dominant that it has its own level.

[news]

Rolex is "The big one" standing apart from all other watch brands.

[dubins930]

If you hold one of the big 3 you instantly know why Rolex is not one of them

[DJ2020]

Originally Posted by dubins930

if you hold one of the big 3 you instantly know why rolex is not one of them

this!

[Burlington]

Does it need to be ?

What Rolex does, it does like no other watch brand on the planet.

Indeed the ‘Rolex effect’ could probably be said to have crossed industries also, certainly the luxury space.

Being part of the trinity isn’t their goal, and why should it be. Different spaces all together. But Rolex’s success has certainly been the tide that raised all boats.

[J!m]

Let us not forget Grand Seiko.

I’d place them in the (sizable) gap between Rolex and the trinity. Many of their designs are masterpieces, and even their mass produced regular Seiko ca. $500 watches have fit and finish on par with Rolex. GS are pretty much completely hand made (like the trinity) at a more accessible price point.

And I’m sure there are other players in that gap I am not familiar with…

[KY..]

Originally Posted by Gr8

Why Isn't Rolex Considered One Of 'The Big Three'?
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/wh...-the-big-three

Why be 1 of 3 when Rolex is already 1 of 1 in vintage and modern desirability?
Rolex is the undisputed king of the hill whether we like it or not…
All others are playing catch up no matter how haute horology they may be.

[Wcdhtwn]

Originally Posted by Driver8

Spot on.

Rolex aren't "high horology".... and that's not a bad thing at all. The level of finishing (especially on the movement), while still very good, isn't hand-finished. Also, with the exception of the SkyDweller, Rolex have no movements with fancy/unusual complications - no minute repeater, no tourbillon, no flyback, no perpetual calendar, no annual calendar, no rattrapante, etc. Could they make these things? Yes of course they could, but they choose not to as it's not their target.

They're "just" very well designed, well made (but mass produced), robust timepieces, that will stand the test of time both in terms of looks/design and mechanicals. Rolex have always carved their own path.

The SkyD is an annual calendar, no?

[Stud Screw]

Why isn’t Seiko?