Rolex fined $100M for preventing its watches being sold online
usa.watchpro.comIf you haven't heard of The Time Piece Gentlemen, aka Anthony Farer, it's my favorite recent ponzi scheme as he documented the entire thing online.
Because of the scarcity of Rolex's there are 'Grey Market' dealers. And one of those dealers just went to jail on $5million worth of fraud, basically stealing consigned watches.
What's fascinating about the story is that during Covid the prices of the watches 10x'd for some of them so they were going for insane prices. And this guy vlogged the entire thing all the way up to his bust last month. It's a great way to see and learn about these expensive watches, and knowing the whole thing is bullshit is *chefskiss*
https://www.youtube.com/@skerriesrockart
https://robbreport.com/style/watch-collector/anthony-farrer-...
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-11-08/spending...
Rolex are the De Beers of the mechanical watch world. Scarcity and exclusivity is a great way to market luxury. A Rolex Submariner in the 80s was about $1,000 — these days it’s closer to $12,000. A new Daytona is twice that. While they were never cheap, they were affordable for a working professional.
> Rolex are the De Beers of the mechanical watch world.
Except that Rolex doesn't have a monopoly on the watch market. Plenty of other 'fancy' watch brands you can buy (Patek Philippe, Omega, A. Lange & Söhne, etc).
Besides the 'financial' aspect of high-end watches, one can enjoy the different aesthetics different brands have, and the mechanical intricacy of various complicaitons like (e.g.) tourbillons.
A decade ago, a Rolex wasn't much cheaper but it was in effect "free", as it was the only watch you could resale at the same price you bought it, even used and scratched. It wasn't an investment (and you didn't need to put it in a safe), but it wasn't a waste of money either.
(The same can't be said of the other luxury watch brands at all - like cars, they lose at least half their value the second you get them.)
Nowadays I don't know, there seems to be more pump and dump.
Years ago I read somewhere (maybe HN) that much of the utility of these watches is moving cash across borders with less hassle. Since many airports will have stores, you can buy one for cash before getting on a plane and return/sell it on the other end.
Purely hearsay though, I've never had to move enough money to try it out.
As a pure store of value, a few diamonds or a thin stack of 1000 swiss francs banknotes are more efficient. Expensive watches lose value if worn (with the exception, if it is still valid nowadays, of Rolexes), and customs officers can ask to check them (at least to catch fakes).
They are also fantastic ways of paying a bribe.
I think that's the whole point of luxury watches. No rolex owner is under the illusion that they are somehow intrinsically worth so much.
The owners are under no illusions - at least not the professional ones. They are buying an asset that is vastly more efficient to move across borders than cash.
Look at the Singapore Money Laundering Bust a few months back - all handbags and rolexes.
Can’t buyers decide for themselves the value of something?
To some degree, but if something is 100$ worth of parts and 500$ worth of labor it's hard to argue it's actually intrinsically worth 30000$, even if that's what you're willing to pay.
Not if there's a "moat". Which could be unique expertise in making the thing, or through some government enforced monopoly like trademarks (i.e. "brand") or copyrights.
Not on hacker news! Herre the group think only allows for things that everyone agrees on and some are completely non-grata, like BTC, which none, supposedly, like. Let me translate, i have tried to evoke the same argument and "lost" saying the value is what we assign to anything (BTC)
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Rolex transformed into Veblen goods around the time Gshocks were invented
Is it really a Veblen goods when the ROI on marketing/social status increases appropriately?
In the same way a company can pay for marketing, buying a rolex/lambo is like exchanging fiscal currency for social currency.
We don't call buying 100k in adsense a veblen good but buying a 100k watch is?
A Veblen good means the demand increases when the price increases. ROI doesn't factor in.
Nobody would buy 100k of adsense ads if they didn't return more than 100k in revenue. With a Veblen good, the price tag is the point.
Haha, I’m pretty sure a lot of people buy 100K of adsense ads that doesn’t return 100K in revenue.
Good point, though most of them probably don't do it for very long unless they're money laundering (I would argue the big companies like Coca Cola spending on brand maintenance get a good ROI). The list of people who buy Veblen goods who can't ever return a profit is too long to exhaustively list: almost all jewelry, luxury watches, art, and luxury cars for example. It's only dumb luck that a few Rolexes have resale value; they're probably one scandal away from destroying all that value.
It’s strange to know some people think that way, but I’ve never experienced a community where someone would get more respect for having a Rolex. It’s such a bizarre idea - who cares
Like many things, it totally depends on your social circle. Obviously, you're not in the social circles that value Rolexes, just like people in those circles probably don't know anyone who cares about D&D, and think it's a bizarre idea that anyone would want to spend their time that way.
Right - I guess it just feels strange that in zero of my circles, which include the startup, VC, and parts of the finance world, does anyone I've spoken with outwardly care about these things. Perhaps I'm oblivious, or willfully naive, but the idea of purchased bling signaling status strikes me as inherently antiquated. You can't buy cool, etc.
I'm going to offer a guess: say you're a wealthy person (whatever that word means to you) and you want a social filter to keep you from interacting with people who have less wealth. One way to do that is to buy luxury goods and only entertain conversations, dates, etc with people who do. most people would say that's inherently shallow, but say you were super rich, think of how hard it would be to find people to go on trips or activities with. How many times are you going to be met with "oh I can't afford it/can't get the time off work/etc" ? even being polite, that causes friction between friendships. The watch alone isn't going to do it, but taken with the bigger picture, it's at least a hint that you are of some minimum economic status and I imagine some people find that useful.
Interesting; I'd expect you to meet more of those people in those circles actually. Perhaps it's generational?
Incredibly shallow people
Fascinating analogy. While it might not apply to adsense, I think adverts in high-profile slots like the Super Bowl might well have signaling facets much like Veblen goods (for companies).
Robb Report still considers them to be a beginner's watch, and treat the brand as only of interest to people who want to dip their toes into the higher end watch collecting waters.
Yes, because it's inconceivable that a veblen hobby community would ever decide something that costs a few thousand is "the best" as opposed to "beginner". The entire concept of a "beginner" watch that costs $15,000 or thereabouts is such obvious gatekeeping.
Ferrari is exactly the same. You first have to buy a starter Ferrari or two in order to get invited to Ferrari events which in turn might get you an invitation to buy a limited edition Ferrari. Gatekeeping all the way down to maintain artificial scarcity. One might have wheels and the other keeps time (poorly) but they're the same and the scarcity is the product.
> The entire concept of a "beginner" watch that costs $15,000 or thereabouts is such obvious gatekeeping.
A beginner watch is a Seiko SKX (now the 5 line) at US$200, one can also do Hamilton field watches, Longines, Stowa, Nomos, Omega or IWC, etc for a few hundred to a few thousand.
Watch Youtubers like The Urban Gentry, Teddy Baldassarre, etc, cover (and own) watches from all sort of price levels (as do folks in /r/Watches, where you'll see state of the collection (SOTC) posts that have Casio G-shocks).
MY beginner watch was a Casio AE1200. It's about $30.
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/casio-ae1200wh-1a-world-ti...
My friend the AE-1200 is no beginner watch, but rather the epitome of watchmaking.
You two should get a room. I mean, a club. Epitome is quite a strong word in an industry with so many greats.
Or youtubers like Marshall of WatchRevival.
I find that notion ridiculous. There are no beginner’s watches. Only watches. A $20 Casio is a nice way to enter the watch world and remains perfectly fine forever. It uses a CR2016 battery and keeps perfect time. A quartz Seiko is a bit nicer and can be worn for more formal events. A mechanical Rolex sports watch such as an Explorer is a remarkable timepiece yet keeps worse time than the previous two. Buy what makes you happy. A $5 Casio that’s good enough for the pope[0] and Tyler the Creator should be good enough for everyone.
[0] https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/the-pope-tyler-the-creator-wa...
Yeah, people who are into watches don't actually look very highly upon Rolex owners, especially people who own a submariner. The message it conveys is essentially, "I have some of money, but nothing interesting to say."
Sounds like car people. It doesn't really cross your mind what elitists think of your cheap Mustang when you're stacking the neighbor girls on top of each other in the back though.
Part of what was being said though, is that people will often buy a Submariner as a status symbol, yet won't even understand how the functions on it work, and don't go diving anyway. So it's a lot like wearing an expensive brand label on a cheap tee-shirt, in that the people who know... know that the person is pretending to be someone they aren't.
Nouveau riche are notorious for buying things that they can't really use the way they were built to be used, and often wouldn't know how to use them when given the opportunity.
That's the disdain being mentioned. It's not being snobby. It's recognizing people with fake status symbols.
If your story to be told is about stacking girls, then Mustang it is. That's being honest.
It's not a fake status symbol if it's the real watch. Old money gatekeeps silly things like the car you drive or the watch you wear because they are threatened by new money. It's a physical reminder that people can in fact buy their way into the upper class and old money is nothing special. Old money has tried to change the narrative by making class about which luxury beliefs a person holds rather than physical goods for the same reason. It's all driven by insecurity.
I think the GP's point is that if one feels the need to use a status symbol, they're already pretending to be someone they aren't.
Of course a status symbol works to a large extent, otherwise people wouldn't be spending money on them.
I'm nowhere near the social circles of "old money", but I'd imagine they're more amused with seeing people trying too hard to push themselves into upper society, than being insecure about their own status. I mean, I don't have to be upper class to find this behavior somewhat comical.
How is it any more comical than a richer guy buying a different expensive watch to impress his peers? Pricey watches are obviously intended to be status symbols above all else, whether or not you dive.
Truly rich people don't buy things to impress other people. They buy things that impress and inspire themselves, and that are not directly connected to the nuevo riche who are trying to emulate them.
First time I've heard the No True Rich Man argument. I will have to keep that one in the back pocket. Truly an innovative way to spin luxury spending as a virtue.
Sorry if this is a daft question, but what functions are you talking about?
Essentially the same thought here, as I always thought of it as the "actually rich" versus the "nouveau riche."
I promise I mean this question honestly and not sarcastic.
But if having a rolex means you have some money but nothing to say... What type of watch do real watch people buy? And what interesting thing are they saying through their purchase?
To be honest it also depends a lot on which Rolex you buy. Rolex makes (and have made) a ton of different watches over the decades and some of them are really cool and interesting and very desirable among 'real watch people'.
At the end of the day what matters to 'real watch people' is that you are interested in and passionate about the watch you are wearing. If you can talk about the watch you are wearing and what makes it cool and why you love it, then people will think it's cool
In terms of finishing, the best is found outside of Switzerland: either A. Lange & Söhne, or the very high-end Seiko (Grand Seiko and Credor).
Otherwise, real watch people buy vintage watches. Universal (tricompax), Longines, Zenith (el primero), Heuer (not TAG Heuer), Minerva (Cal. 48), Omega... And like with old cars, a real watch person accept a degree a quirkyness: less accurate time keeping (but honestly it's not that bad), manual winding every morning, a blemished dial and scruffed case, finding and befriending a watchmaker with the right skills to maintain it every 3-4 years...
It's part of the charm.
Like with cars, the current batch of watches - on top of being luxury items, when in the past it tended much more towards practicality and "toolness" - doens't have the same flair, style, history or fun.
Custom built wooden watch - all wood, gears, complications, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy4tXbm-HN4
Insanely difficult to make well, barely two or three people in the world are capable, requires a high degree of understanding of various wood types to select for springs, regulation, temp and humidty correction, etc.
https://www.keepthetime.com/blog/valerii-danevych-wooden-wat...
What does it say?
Hard to tell - if I had one, for example, it wouldn't say much beyond I appreciate fine craftsmanship, woodwork, horology, and could afford to spend a quarter of a million on a unique piece of functional artisanship.
Personally I have no watches, chains, jewellry, etc - I'm a don't like things that can catch type of person - but I do like timekeeping and have a sapphire cclock for the precision.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/for-precision-the-sapphire-clock-o...
Cooler model Rolexes for one.
It really depends a lot on the exact watch, since a lot of them have distinct character.
The most prestigious brand is Patek Philippe. The nerds of wall street often wear IWCs. Blancpain, Panerai, Vacheron Constantin, and Breguet all have interesting offerings. The right Rolex (eg a yachtmaster for a passionate sailor) can also say something interesting.
The point is that your watch and its style and complications should ideally reflect what you value and want to show the world. This is kind of the same as car people at this point - there's no right answer, but there are some wrong ones.
That seems like a heavy lift for a watch unless we’re deciding that the watch brand and model is a shibboleth for other social groupings.
I take it you are not into watches.
Watches, cars, ties, and all other kinds of mens' fashion accessories are all the same, it's about communicating who you are through what you wear. Women know a lot about this because it's pretty much mandatory to adopt that attitude about women's clothing. High-end menswear is the same: if you're going to spend the money, spend it on something that fits you.
By the way, nobody who cares about watches will ding you (in terms of social status) for not wearing a watch or wearing a non-fashion watch like an apple watch or a swatch. If you're not into it, you don't have to partake.
Yep, I'd describe myself as not into really anything fashion-wise, although when I think about that harder it's inevitable regardless of what world someone occupies. For me, I'd notice things like outdoor gear and computer peripherals as signals (intentional or otherwise), and much as I'd like to pretend those don't exist, that layer is ever present, for better or worse.
I somehow got on the mailing list for Robb Report.
Their magazine contained a review for a $26,000 decorative rock for your patio. Not a fancy sculpture, just a rock.
I wouldn't take anything they say seriously.
What was the verdict on this rock? Is there a lot of competition in the decorative rock market?
Ah yes, the beginner's rock
More often than not Rolexes are daily wears, not collectibles.
Rolex don't do artificial scarcity and hype campaigns around limited runs like other brands have taken to do. They're at max capacity and if you want to buy one you've just got to get on the list, no short cuts.
> max capacity
As determined by what? Probably the current manufacturing facilities that they have strategically chosen not to expand.
You can't just expand willy-nilly. It takes tons of investment, money, and you need to find a labor force. And what happens if demand softens (like it's doing at this very moment)? Then you're stuck with a bunch of extra capacity doing nothing.
Digging a bit, it seems the wait-list really started to be a thing in 2019.
> It takes a ton of investment.
I'm not an expert, but for an "assembled by hand" luxury product it seems like incremental capacity is much lower risk. They don't need to stand up a factory. Couldn't they hire and train 10% more technicians for assembly? And when demand softens, scale back?
I suspect you’re underestimating what it takes to train a technician for his kind of work. I imagine that could easily be a multi-year process (10 years even), and require a lot of attention from your highly skilled and already in-demand master practitioners.
An element of the decision may also be around quality control. Especially if a lot of the work is highly skilled but still manual human labour.
They are expending manufacturing as much as they can. The constraint is really the workforce.
Glad they are not the main producer of high tech chips then (AKA TSMC)...
If mechanical watches had nearly the order of magnitude of demand that ICs do, then maybe they’d be faster at it.
That doesn't make any sense... The only reasons why you would think they are not restricting supply would be if demand varies randomly widely or if the people planning production and/or purchasing are incompetent.
> Rolex don't do artificial scarcity
That is absolutely not true. They have entire warehouses of “rare” watches that they let drip little by little in the market to keep their value up.
Rolex aren't the best watches but they keep value pretty well for a bunch of models. Some of the grey market prices they charge are pretty ridiculous even wit h prices going down.
Personally I prefer to spend the same amount of money on a nice Lange* than a Rolex. I think the only place where you can get a Rolex is in an airport store.
*=you might still have to wait for your watch to get made.
"Rolex aren't the best watches..."
Has there been a recent independent study of how these luxury watches actually perform as watches (as opposed to their looks and swagger value)?
I'm not likely to ever own one—except for my imitation Rolex clone I bought as a joke in Thailand for about $20 some years back—but it would be interesting to know if there are significant performance and reliability differences between them.
Also, do we know anything about the factory and manufacturing methods that these luxury brands employ. It's said Rolex is very secretive and won't let anyone outside selected employees in its factory so what about the others (Patek Philippe, etc.)?
Rolex has been less secretive nowadays. Still no public tours, but some media types have been invited. https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/inside-rolex
IWC, Zenith and a few other Manufactures do offer tours. It is fairly representative of what Rolex does (on a bigger scale, with more vertical integration). Many other brands and suppliers open their doors every two years in La Chaux-de-fond: https://urbanisme-horloger.ch/biennale-du-patrimoine-horloge...
> how these luxury watches actually perform as watches (as opposed to their looks and swagger value)?
The entire point is looks and swagger value. You can’t ignore it. In terms of time keeping accuracy (ie. bring a watch) they get easily better by any quartz watch.
n of 1 study: the Submariner that I purchased 30 years ago required one maintenance visit during that period. Its accuracy certainly isn’t going to match something that’s talking to a time server but it’s better than the clock in my car which drifts forward by 2 minutes per month. But for a purely mechanical device it’s remarkable.
Inflation Calculator
If in 1980 I purchased an item for $1,000.00 then in 2023 that same item would cost: $3,726.35
Cumulative rate of inflation: 272.6%
Cumulative “rate” of inflation is not a thing. You can tell because your number is not a rate. It’s not “per” anything.
The average rate of inflation over the period you’ve highlighted is about 3% per year.
> Cumulative “rate” of inflation is not a thing.
I copied the words from here: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
You can just say the “cumulative inflation was 272.6%”, or even “the inflation was 272.6%”.
Well it’s wrong.
You need to do (cumulative inflation)^(1/ number years) to figure out what the actual average rate of inflation was over that period.
Raw cumulative inflation is really tough to do anything with unless you’re making apples to apples comparisons for two things over the exact same time period. Even then, using average rate of inflation is better because it’s universal.
We got off on the wrong foot. You are actually smart. It just happens to be in a completely matter of technical fact kind of way and I respect that. I will now continue to read the remainder of your comments in a petty attempt to find something to argue with you about. Maybe it will bring out the best in both of us in the process. Write on my friend.
Good nitpick.
It’s probably a bit of an undercount. But yeah
If you haven't seen this, its a classic - but it shows the original price of a Rolex in the 70's vs. now. [0] To save you a watch - 1975 $345.95 - $500,000 at taping.
In contrast, $345.95 in 1975 is worth $1974.43 now.
Also, "To save you a watch"? ;-)
They've only become scarce in the last 4-5 years, before that you could pretty much get what you wanted minus a couple highly sought-after models.
but there are many suppliers of luxury watches
Yes it is more like Rolex are the Apple of the watch world.
Apple is the Apple of the watch world. Apple sold 54m watches last year, Rolex an estimated 1m.
Apple sells more watches than every other luxury watch brand combined.
Yes, and unlike Rolex, none of Apple's range cost as much as a detached house in Cyprus.
https://watchcharts.com/watches/brand/rolex?page=1&sort=pric...
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/142974947#/?channel=O...
Apple is middle class luxury, not weird posh "luxury".
A Rolex is likely still working if you buy it at an antique market. Apple, not so much. They'll be non-functional and useless well before they could be even considered a 'classic.'
Even old Casio watches from the early 80's have Apple beat on that measure.
if you're after a good time piece, the cheapest Casio F-91W watches are actually better at keeping time than any mechanical watch. I had a few growing up, the straps broke before anything else, and replacing the whole unit was cheaper than getting a "proper" watch serviced.
Not to mention a Rolex appreciate in price as time passes.
Apple watch lose value and become e-waste.
Some Rolexes will appreciate, but not all. Knowing which ones will appreciate is like art or cars. Especially at the entry level you'll most likely be fighting for grey market prices.
"It's an investment" is usually just a cope for people who can't actually afford the watch and don't want to sound foolish.
> The average price of a pre-owned Rolex watch increased from less than US$5,000 in 2011 to more than US$13,000 by the end of 2021, according to a report by the California-based firm published earlier this year.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/over-a-decade-rolex-watches...
Even if the price of a specific watch slightly declines (unlikely given statistics published), it sounds much better than a 100% chance to become eWaste in the case of Apple watches.
On the other hand, if you had taken 10% of that $5000 and spent them on an Apple Watch[0] and put the other 90% into Apple shares, you'd have bought fractionally over 346 shares in 2011 which would have been worth $48,804 in 2021.
[0] keeping the money aside for when the watches were actually released, which wasn't 2011.
I'll keep that in mind the next time I get the urge to spend extravagantly.
The article is about rolexes gaining value over a particular decade. The idea that those 10 years will just happen again (that it's not in a bubble and this is sustainable) is a foolish gamble imo. Basically everyone pushing this is an SEO blog for some watch merchant, keep that in mind as well.
A Rolex will work in 15 years, while an Apple Watch will be unsupported landfill fodder.
A Rolex watch will roughly cost $600 to $1000 USD in servicing every 10 years to run properly (plus an upfront cost of, let's say, $10,000 USD for a certain model of a Rolex Submariner), whereas the Apple Watch Ultra (choosing a high-end model) will cost roughly $799 USD to purchase the latest version every four years or so.
Dollars-wise, there is not much of a gap between the two over a lifetime (unless you skip the servicing of a Rolex watch, which increases the odds of a breakdown and costly repair).
The main value of keeping the same watch would be sentimentality, as shown in the film Pulp Fiction. But the main advantage of mechanical watches over Apple Watches, it seems, is drawn from their aesthetics and an appreciation of their design—rather than as a practical preference based on cost.
If longevity and practicality were the main concerns, a Casio watch—such as the famous F91W or updated alternative with a better backlight such as a W86 or F201WA—would be a better selection.
Who cares if they work after 15 years? It's not like people buy Rolexes to keep track of time.
You’re partly right. I own two luxury watches (worth about $10,000 total). One of them is a Rolex. I wear one every day and yes I use it many times a day to look at the time because it’s less annoying than looking at my phone. Of course, a $10 quartz watch keeps time better. I bought these because I like what they look like, owning nice things is enjoyable, I want to support craftsmanship, and they hold value well. They’re not really a status symbol because 99% of people I interact with don’t know or care anything about watches. I would definitely be upset if they stopped being able to keep time because then I wouldn’t be able to wear them.
I've been wearing the same watch that doesn't work for 10 years.
I went to change the battery years ago, took it out, and never ordered one. It has never bothered me once. The watch looks just as nice, and it usually takes GFs many weeks to realize it's not working. And that's only because it's set to 11:11 which is a common cliche meme type time that girls like. (Yes I set it to that on purpose for a girl once)
A watch is basically a form of acceptable male jewelry. It still acts as jewelry if it doesn't tell time.
Right, but my point is that I want to be able to look at my wrist to tell the time, so if my nice watches stopped working, I’d have to either shell out money for a new nice one, switch to a less nice one, or just accept having to look at my phone for the time. Any of which I would find annoying.
Awesome. What a great story.
Recall that Apple announced the end of its $15,000 Apple Watch.
I wonder what one does with that thing? Personal Watch Museum it would seem.
Imainge having so much money that it does not matter. that is the targeted customer in mind.
I would argue that they used to be. Back in the 70s a Rolex was seen and marketed as more of a “tool watch” than a luxury item.
Huh? 75% of the people I know has an Apple device. Stop fooling yourself.
I mean Rolex is more like Apple (high priced, defending a brand) than DeBeers (owning an entire commodity class)
Yeah, it's a tacky status symbol. What's the problem?
Little unfair to those into horology. Rolex makes quality watches and their history is rich.
Rolex have innovated consistently with their movements and oyster cases, and their manufacturing quality is amazing. Their business practices are questionable though, as the article highlights. I can walk into an AD today and walk out with a Grand Seiko Snowflake. Contrast this with a Rolex AD who will put me on a “waiting list”, even though I’ve purchased from them before and own a few Rolex watches.
Sibling sohc* - looks like your comment is dead. Pointing it out because it didn't seem that bad and this looks abnormal for your history. Maybe one of the words you used?
Yeah, it's pretty sad. At least the time you have to wait to get the chance to buy Rolex, you can get a few Patek's like a 5520P. No years of waiting.
I’d get a Snowflake 10 times out of 10 over a Rolex. Those things are just so cool.
Okay, call them unnecessary status symbols for people to show their wealth. See also fancy cars, gaudy diamond rings. They are kind of in that category.
Even new cell phones, for that matter.
I have an s23 ultra, if I walked around feeling good about myself for that I would feel like a dickhead
Ahem. I agree.
Even the most highly respected brands like Patek are stupendously tacky. Just look at their 2023 lineup: https://www.patek.com/en/collection/new-models-2023
Wow. The nautilus and aquanaut lineups are beyond ridiculous. What the hell are they thinking? Will they sell even a single one of those?
Profoundly ugly. But these fancy watches have moved into speculative investment territory, like sneakers or bitcoin. I get the feeling that patek is trying to reel in rubes with money that think that they can make money by buying and reselling one of these, instead of buying a fancy watch for being a watch.
Patek make beautiful watches, that run for decades, so its especially sad to see them chasing ugly bucks like this. Oh well.
Everything about Rolex is average at best and overpriced mass Produced machine watches at worst.
This is silly. Their movements are among the most accurate out there, putting watch movements by other highly esteemed brands like Patek Philippe to shame
I'm no expert but my recollection from last time I was looking into buying a watch is that quartz watches are 1-2 orders of magnitude more accurate than even top-end mechanical watches.
Yes, this is true, but almost no luxury watch is quartz (unless you count Seiko spring drive which is hybrid quartz/mechanical). So when people compare e.g. Rolex and Patek movements they are comparing mechanical to mechanical.
Patek, VC, Audemars and Journe all make quartz currently.
It's like saying your Tesla has better 0 to 100 kph acceleration than a 70s Aston Martin V8. The answer is "so what?". You're not driving an Aston Martin V8 for the best acceleration, or the gas mileage, or suspensions, or the ease of maintenance. You buy it because it kicks and roars and slips and smells...
You don't generally buy a luxury watch for its accuracy.
And so is a Seiko. For substantially less.
Now you're just making stuff up instead of doing a simple Google search. Regular Seikos (ie a Seiko 5) can expect around +-20 sec per day. Same with Orient and similar brands that use very cheap automatic movements. Rolex watches often do better than +-2sec per day. If you think the difference between the two is marketing you are either engaging in sophistry or painfully uninformed.
This is the classic Rolex fan. Sort of brainwashed and clueless while insulting to others. Both spring drives and grands are more accurate than Rolexes. Beyond that who even cares. If you want accuracy certainly don’t get a mechanical watch.
I am not a Rolex owner or even a fan.
If you meant Seikos high end products you should have said those, no one calls Grand Seikos just Seiko since they are very different. With that in mind I don't think we disagree very much here.
Is this based on emotion or are there facts to back this up? Would love to read about it if it's the latter?
Collectors of Rolexes live in a bizarre netherworld where their watches aren’t mass produced machine made. This isn’t even a secret it’s openly stated. It made of few to no precious materials and is engineering a problem (time keeping) that has been solved in a variety of ways already to super accuracy.
The reality is that a microscopically accurate replica can be made for 300$ in china. This isn’t true for A Lange or FP Journe, yet somehow people act like Rolex is unobtanium.
They are simply the same as an LVMH canvas bag. Objects of desire because they are expensive and have no other unique features. I could get into details like how a blue hairspring is not that special or their movements are fine but nothing outstanding. But most don’t want to go that deep.
Think of it like Bose. They sound good to someone who hasn’t heard anything else good.
Idk, if you decide you want a mechanical dive watch, just by the stats, a Sub Date is under 13mm thick, +2/-2 accuracy, made of hard materials, ceramic, sapphire, and steel alloy (no coating so it can be polished), price after purchase is only going to go up.
I don’t own a Rolex, don’t want to spend that much, invite the crime, or care about the status, but I really would like for Seiko (or another value brand) to step up and offer something comparable.
BOSE - Buy Other Sound Equipment
This feels very much like the "Android is way better than iOS, why pay more?" argument
No you can go into a lot of details of how Apple engineers its cases to its proprietary M chips to technically prove their value. You can also point out value integrations in software. This isn’t a Veblen good and iPhone is very much a measurable utility.
The iPhone and iWatch are clearly status symbols. How many users really need the full power of those chips? How many actually use it?
I could go into very lengthy details into the technical prowess behind Rolex watches.
It's really silly to argue that something with >50% market share (in the US at least) is a status symbol...
Maybe the top end models, but definitely not in general.
Have you heard of the women who would not date men using an Android phone, as well as the kids being pressured or excluded? In some social circles Apple devices are definitely status symbols.
Women don't date homeless men either. That doesn't make having a roof over your head a status symbol.
Everything is a status symbol.
For those who skipped to the comments: They tried to prevent retailers from selling products first purchased from Rolex, and then sold online. "preventing its authorized dealers selling new watches online."
First paragraph of the article
In America, there is the First Sale Doctrine, which mostly(?) lets me do whatever I want with a product in my possession.
What is preventing some nobody from going to these authorized dealers (presumably with no-online-sales agreements), buying up their entire inventory, and then personally offering that online? Just the threat of fakes?
The lack of a profit margin.
An authorized dealer will sell the watch to you for retail value, not wholesale value.
You can go ahead and resell those online as much as you want. I don't see how you'll turn a profit though.
Bah. Especially for a veblen good where they can trivially institute huge price swings. This site (https://millenarywatches.com/rolex-markup/) claims Rolex has a 40% margin.
I suppose it only works if you can make a deal with the authorized seller to split the online proceeds.
Good point. You could probably charge a premium for convenience, but would be hard to make it worth it.
The dealer is unlikely to sell to such a person. It's an authorized dealer. They don't want to lose that status.
Rolex would presumably never again sell to the dealer that allowed one person to buy this much inventory.
I have a couple of colleagues that collect watches - and one of them brought in a high-end replica, think he paid around $500 or so for it, and compared it to the real deal - which he also had. Some kind of Rolex submariner, don't remember what exact model.
To me, they looked identical. Felt identical. If you mixed them up and asked me which one was which, I'd be completely lost. He then pointed me to some youtube vids of people dissecting them, and it seems like you really have to bring out the microscope to tell.
I don't know much about watches, but I'm just thinking that if they are getting so accurate...why would regular people shell out 5 figures for a real one, when you can get those for a couple of hundred bucks?
Don't get me wrong - I like artisanry, but at this point it seems like you're paying the biggest upcharge for name, and nothing much else.
(As for why my colleague bought replicas, apparently he'd wear those while traveling, in case he got robbed or whatever. Even though insurance would cover the original watch, just getting a legit one from stores/dealers has been a huge hassle. Months of wait time, etc.)
> why would regular people shell out 5 figures for a real one
I assure you that “regular” people don’t shell out 5 figures for any watch.
> you're paying the biggest upcharge for name, and nothing much else
Of course.
The point of luxury goods is exclusivity - I've got a real one because I can afford it and you can't, it doesn't matter that it looks the same or even is the same, it not real it's not expensive.
Luxury goods turn economics on its head, the whole point is to overpay for a good which has little in the way of marginal return, to illustrate your wealth and "status".
I'd just call it idiocy or at least pretentiousness, and their counter argument would be that I'm "envious".
Did he have some way to keep them straight? Seems like a recipe for forgetting which one is real and which one is fake.
Good replica is nigh impossible to distinguish with real one without a real one to compare. But they are not identical to the real one. In fact each good replica is manually assembled and you get to QC your actual watch when order (via photos).
That is to say if you have a real and a replica to compare, there is no risk of mistaken between them. There would be difference which you could easily recognize.
Presumably they don't have matching serial numbers.
"you're paying the biggest upcharge for name, and nothing much else."
You're also paying for the design and R&D. And the capability to have the Swiss continue to be able to make watches. The ability of your country to continue making something, even if it doesn't make economic sense is undervalued.
Personally the idea of wearing a fake Rolex for travelling is insane to me.
You’re just as much as a target for physical violence. Sure, you don’t lose as much financially if your watch is taken, but you’re just painting a massive target on your back.
For what, to be seen as wealthy when travelling? To flex your status?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12881935/amp/Gang-m...
This man was stabbed to death for his fake Patek Philippe watch.
Absolutely senseless
There are a couple non-superficial distinctions in terms of metallurgy and certain materials but by and large not that much.
Rolex will need it's watches to phone home then, so they can remote-brick a watch that was sold online. Cough.. Sorry... did I say brick? I mean end the free included SaaS subscription.
> Rolex’s competitors have not used the same tactics despite facing similar risks.
It's interesting that competitors can be used in such a case as a benchmark of what is a legitimate strategy. Which makes it all the worse when they collude or fix a market.
I own a couple of Rolexes, neither were purchased from an AD simply because I live in a place that has no ADs and I'm not travelling hours to play the AD waitlist game.
I say this is a good move. You should be able to sell them online. The second-hand dealers do it and it works fine.
This also doesn't really affect the exclusivity of the product either. The ADs still get to control supply and will still probably not sell to people unless they know them (which sucks).
I had to look up AD (authorized dealer). Is it just a watch-world thing to not write it out in full? I’ve only seen it with other tech products and it’s usually written out.
Rolex, LVMH, Ferrari, and those who try to falsely limit distribution are the path forward for luxury. It’s clear that main stream culture eats up a canvas bag with no defining quality features or a machine made watch that can be copied for 200$ nearly perfectly as long as they feel it’s exclusive.
It’s a bit of a bummer because several other brands have tried to sell on actual quality struggle. Artificial scarcity is just too strong a draw.
Never experienced issues getting anything from LVMH. What's scarce there? If you message your sales person they will have it next time you visit the store.
The Hermès Birkin bag[0] is probably a better example.
It's the same thing as the OP isn't it? Try buying the LV tote online. You can't. You have to call to be put on an artificial waitlist to spend $2000 on a bag.
I never experienced a waiting list for LV. I can happily buy a Neverfull Tote bag online. If I order it today I have it on time for Christmas. Definitely not the Rolex experience of years long waiting list.
Maybe it's because I message the sales person ahead of time when I go to the store and indicate what I want to see so they get it in the store for me. That's not even possible with Rolex.
It's frustrating tbh.
I'm very interested in the Corvette EV due in 2025. But knowing how much Chevy limits production of the Corvette Z06, I imagine they'll put similar road blocks in front of the EV.
Like, why don't they want my $150K+?
Rolex is seriously overpriced. Not sure why people are so excited about them. Grand Seiko for example has better movements, better Q&A[0]. Is name really worth that much?
To some people, the name is the only part they purchased. The workings could be made of gummy bears and they'd be fine because it's a ROLEX.
Are people still impressed by Rolexes? This is not the 90s or 80s anymore when dropping $10k on a watch was a big move. Things have really exploded post-Covid with influencer culture and wealth appearing seemingly ex nihilo. These nobody, no-name kids seem to have so much money, even.
> This is not the 90s or 80s anymore when dropping $10k on a watch was a big move.
To be fair, you're disconnected from economic reality if you think dropping $10k on a watch today isn't a big financial move.
I interpreted “big” to mean “impressive to your neighbors”, not “big” as in “financially significant.”
Well, distribution of wealth is still more or less the same; the gap is even wider and wider now.
Additionally, money can only move one just a little bit higher in social hierarchy. Those influencers influence young minds to consume more and more stuff, get money from the brands they are advertising, spend on expensive things - which are produced and sold by rich people. Direction of flow is always the same, rich gets richer, poor stays poor, so called "no-name kids" continue driving people to consume (mostly) useless things.
I don't know about Rolexes specifically, but there is definitely a male subculture of people obsessed with watches who will be impressed by somebody sporting the right bling. I'm not into it, but I can see why many people are given they roll art, engineering, collecting, and conspicuous display of power/wealth all into one.
For some guys it's cars, for some it's watches. It's kinda weird seeing the men of my generation run around trying to find their "X" for "Yeah, I'm the <X> guy. Impressed?"
hypergamy. (particularly male) humans have been in a status conscious rate race since caveman days, it's built in and not likely to change. consciously avoiding it is just an alternate strategy in the same game, like the "wears sneakers with a tux" guy.
I wish the men around me didn't choose cars for how much noise they make, I live on a somewhat busy street.
The internet has just ruined niche culture a bit in my opinion.
I used to be harder to find people in to a specific sub-culture but now it is easy to find a subeditor or whatever. They just feed off each other until they are insufferable.
Beer, mechanical keyboards, watches, whatever.
"Seem to have" is relevant. There's an entire industry focused around renting you a mansion in the hills, Ferrari, Rolex, chain, cameras and lighting equipment... For 4 hours so you can do your Insta shoot and head back to your normal life.
Also, anybody can get a credit card and build a credit limit relatively quickly that will buy (though not pay for) multiple Rolexes.
It all depends on who you're trying to appeal to. There's a big segment of the (male) population that's really, really into watches. Kevin Rose famously got distracted by the vertical for a good few years (I think it was "Hodinkee?" or something equally unserious.)
they are, rolexes are engineered well and most recognizable.
there is more niche affinity to certain brands and aesthetics that are seen as far more coveted than rolex, from the people that matter. as in, there are absolutely some circles of people that will lend you respect for the curated taste and often have access to resources reserved for people that prove it with these material things, whereas rolex will be a neutral to negative signal.
no different than wearing a suit in a professional setting, to one thats fitted, or cufflinks, there are just levels to it that continue with accessories.
aside from that, one benefit is that thieves typically don't recognize other brands. they recognize rolexes and a couple others though.
Think it is having the opposite effect you’re assuming. You might have just gotten older…
I’m impressed with the engineering. But not so much as a “flaunt it” item.
Why on earth would a Rolex AD want to sell watches online? The regular pieces e.g Submariners are out of stock 99% of the time, and once stock comes in there's waitlist with 500 people. For the more expensive ones that are in stock, I doubt many clients (outside of scalpers) would be purchasing those sight unseen. Doesn't make much sense to me. It bad for ADs and customers, really only benefits scalpers.
It wasn’t always the case. And it won’t always be the case in the future
The AD in question lost their status in 2013, way before Rolex mania came about and no one could buy a sub anymore.
And given the recent downswing in Rolex prices on secondary markets and the drop in wait time of the hyped watches, it’s quite plausible that soon some models will sit for long periods of time
One thing is clear, don't post about horology or mechanical timepieces here. There's a vocal demographic in HN that does not appreciate them.
This is why I've always liked Omega. Not as high status as Rolex, but a luxury watch nonetheless, and one you can easily purchase direct online.
I've had a mechanical Timex camper for years. Legitimately, I think I've had it for 25 years. It has never lost time that I can tell. It was $75?
Watches are fascinating to me, because the high status watches are so gaudy and HUGE.
> Watches are fascinating to me, because the high status watches are so gaudy and HUGE.
This trend has infected shoes for a while too. Have you seen some of the popular Balenciaga shoes? [1][2] They look like absolute joke clown shoes to me, but people pay thousands for them new, and even more resale if they’re rare.
[1] https://www.balenciaga.com/en-us/hardcrocs™-mule-black-81053...
[2] https://footwearnews.com/business/business/balenciaga-triple...
I wear triples (pretty much daily) and they are by far the most comfortable shoe I've ever worn. Got them on sale for $600CAD in 2019 and they're still going strong today, I think I can probably get another 4/5 years out of them. I'm kinda embarrassed, but honestly, I recommend them, they're a great shoe.
Wow, those are awful looking.
Regardless of what the other poster says about comfort, those are almost peak, "emperor's new clothes" fashion.
Very much so. Balenciaga is in on the joke, so to speak. Their stuff makes fun of the industry they're in while being right in the middle of it. (For example, hit up your favorite search engine for "Balenciaga ikea bag".)
> the high status watches are so gaudy and HUGE
The ones you noticed
How's this for a hot take:
Any watch over 38mm is meant to attract attention to itself first, and look proportional on a large wrist second.
Sometimes even from Costco.
I dont see a problem with it. Moreover it improves their employment numbers, lest these clerks go unemployed and “automated” out of a job.
It’s a luxury item, who cares?
They could require a two year advance appointment and visit to HQ before buying, for all I care.
They should put their nose in Amazon’s business of commingling and allowing fakes and swapping products on reviews and that bullshit that does affect the Joels et Maries.
I think the catch is it's not Rolex that isn't selling the watches online, it's preventing affiliated dealers from doing it. They are controlling other people's business interests. I can see both sides on this one. Rolex feels like it could devalue the brand exclusivity and the dealers feel that it impedes them from doing legal business.
I'm not sure how I feel about this one.
Here’s how to feel about it: MYOB.
If the dealers don’t like the terms, they can sell other brands and need to stop tattling to Maman.
Of all the problems, busybodies decided this was the important one to make a stand on. Fixing potholes in the roads would be more worthwhile. Kids are sleeping cold and hungry in the streets, but sacré bleu at not being able to point-and-drool for a fancy watch.
So-called Competition “Authorities” everywhere can go pound sand.
Yeah that's where I lean. I don't think these dealers have a "right" to sell Rolex's. If they don't like the terms set forth by Rolex, don't sell them.
And that's what we did. I was working for a Rolex AD for about 10 years, and they were an AD for decades. One day they got fed up with the 'rules' and dropped their AD status and started selling Rolex on the "secondary" market. These were never worn watches in original boxes and papers and in no way different than the watch we sold as an AD. Just second-hand. We suddenly had access to the inventory that our customers wanted when they wanted it, and told Rolex to get stuffed.
And yes, watching objectively well off people argue about luxury items as if it's important is always entertaining to me.
Where did the sudden increase in inventory come from once they dropped their agreement with Rolex?
Unless there’s some evidence that the legal system (which isn’t responsible for homelessness) is enforcing business rules instead of helping starving, cold children… then that’s a false dichotomy.
Nike and other brands have deals with many third party retailers that prevent those retailers from offering discounts on their items. How is this different than that?
As the article mentions, the court did allow that practice:
"The watchmaker successfully defended its practice of enforcing recommended retail prices for its retailers, with the authority accepting that preventing the sale of fake Rolex watches and grey market trading are legitimate commercial aims."
but for the online-selling bit:
"The French authority rejected a defence from Rolex’s lawyers that restrictions are needed to prevent counterfeiting and parallel trade in its watches."
There was (is?) a huge problem with Rolex watches being listed online for scalping prices by authorized dealers so that they would be sold before they were ever even really in the store. It was really hard to just buy a Rolex officially.
I'm not really following. Scalping prices = market value. The "problem" is that authorized dealers were selling watches at market value rather than at some other price at retail?
Stuff like this:
https://atelierdegriff.com/2021/02/14/breaking-major-rolex-a...
> The allegations made in this case are just about as juicy as they get and puts the spotlight dead center on the terrible practice of Authorized Dealers directly selling popular watch models into the grey market. This practice of course artificially increases the rather silly prices customers have to pay on the grey market in order to avoid decades long waiting lists.
I had to chuckle at this.
You’d think they’d be talking about loafs of bread in the USSR, the way they describe it.
It really is an issue that's hard to feel empathy for. "Poor rich people, they can't buy a status symbol on a whim anymore" but grey market also means increased risk of counterfeit watches.
There's a bunch of stuff alleged there, but I'm still not clear on what you think the "problem" is?
As this piece about the dismissal of the first case notes: https://nationaljeweler.com/articles/10782-former-employees-...
"[...] it is not illegal to violate Rolex policies or to sell watches on the gray market."
The other allegations (immigration fraud, income tax evasion, etc.) don't seem to be especially related to the market price of watches.
If the market value of watches is actually much higher than what they go for at retail, the "problem" of lack of availability is effectively being caused by watchmakers a) making too few watches and/or b) not setting the retail price of their watches high enough.
It's against the Rolex Authorized Dealer terms. Authorized Dealers are supposed to sell the watches retail only. It not being illegal doesn't have much to do with it.
I agree, the bottom line should be: they should be able to make this decision.
After extensive judicial proceedings it was found that Rolex wasn't French.
This is a silly decision and should be overturned on appeal. Who knows if it will be.
Manufacturers place conditions on how their products are sold, at what price and to whom. "No online sales" is no different to requiring an authorized retailer to sell something at MSRP or no more than 1 or 2 or 3 per customer or only to local residents.
> requiring an authorized retailer to sell something at MSRP
That's also illegal in most jurisdictions. It's called "restraint of trade" and it's illegal because it interferes with the normal functioning of a free market and disadvantages consumers.
Illegal where specifically?
It's extremely common, so I don't where it's illegal.
There are limitations if you're in a monopoly situation, but Rolex is not that.
United States:
Q: One of my suppliers marks its products with a Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price (MSRP). Do I have to charge this price?
A: The key word is "suggested." A dealer is free to set the retail price of the products it sells. A dealer can set the price at the MSRP or at a different price, as long as the dealer comes to that decision on its own. However, the manufacturer can decide not to use distributors that do not adhere to its MSRP.
https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
Australia:
It's illegal for suppliers to impose minimum prices for the resale of their goods or services.
For example, suppliers must not:
• set minimum prices in formal policies or agreements offer retailers a discount if they sell at or above a minimum price
• refuse to supply retailers that sell below a minimum price
• punish retailers for selling below a set price, for example, by taking away a discount or sending a warning.
https://www.accc.gov.au/business/competition-and-exemptions/...
EU/UK:
Generally speaking, suppliers are entitled to recommend retail prices to their suppliers, but any attempt to restrict the price at which products are sold will constitute vertical price-fixing, which is in breach of EU law
https://www.howatavraamsolicitors.co.uk/know-illegal-supplie...
Exactly -- this is no different from lots of other restrictions manufacturers already put in place.
I'm baffled by this, and what law or legal principle they are attempting to use, and why they would apply it here but not in the thousands of other situations.
I had a watch streak.
I really like Seiko mechanicals when I need a watch.
If I had infinite money I'd get an Omega and then a used F.P. Journe with tourbillon (I found one in Tokyo that was comparable in price to a Rolex).
Rolex is the Gucci of watches, every one knows the name but very few people get them because they authentically like the brand (in my opinion)
It’s kinda crazy if they can cite you for not selling your product on a platform that didn’t even exist 100 years ago. I bet the reasoning is going to be very rich and well articulated.
They’re not being cited for not selling on the internet. They’re being cited for forbidding other people from selling on the internet.
Other people being their watch dealers though. The people who have an agreement with them on things like how they can be sold and at what price.
Seems ass-backwards to me. Enforcing a specific type of sales experience is much more reasonable than forcing prices.
That's so weird.
"you must sell online!!!!"
dont be a rolex dealer then..pound sand..they should be able to control their brands exclusivity.
That's a legitimately good use case for NFTs.
When you sell valuable physical objects that have a high risk of counterfeiting, the secure way is to associate a "digital twin" of the object that has verifiable provenance and this is exactly what NFTs as a technology are good at.
edit: Thanks to everyone that downvoted this to -4 despite the numerous good remarks in comment that spark a solely technical discussion on the topic. Please come over your hate.
You don't need NFTs to do this though, you can just use signed commitments stored in some public log.
Yeah, doesn't even make sense for something like this to be decentralized, it should be run by Rolex so they can catch edge cases and correct them by fiat
Yup. If your father dies, and leaves you a Rolex, but does make a way to give you access to the keys to the nft, would the Rolex stop being authentic?
When we are talking about digital proof of ownership of physical goods, any solution that can fail synchronization of the record due to entirely foreseeable events like death, ownership disputes, etc is a failed solution.
Good remark. I think it is simpler to just use a public blockchain that having Rolex properly build "open" cloud services to do that and maintain it themselves over the long run.
Software engineers forget that the general public isn't capable of or willing to generate a private key and keep it secure for the long term. It's a deal breaker. Crypto isn't the answer.
It's also over engineering. A serial number and a registration process can go a long way.
I'm a security engineer and I'm not sure I'm capable of keeping a private key secure for the long term.
This would only work if the NFT was signed by a key kept on the real watch in a Secure Enclave of some kind, but then you don’t need the blockchain, just a database maintained by Rolex. The blockchain doesn’t buy you anything here.
Essentially PKI, store a certificate signed by rolex and it's corresponding private key in the enclave.
The only thing you need is the root Rolex certificate and you can authenticate the watch. You also need to have a signed copy of the serial inside the enclave so it can't be transferred (inside the certificate)
> ... blockchain doesn’t buy you anything...
Near-universally applicable lemma.
We already solved this problem decades ago with certificates of authenticity and standard record-keeping, which if I understand correctly, Rolex (and a number of other high-end watch companies) already employs.
> the secure way is to associate a "digital twin"
Not really, that just punts the problem to another area. This problem has been about as solved as it's going to get ages before the idea of crypto. NFT's don't actually add much other than a different layer and one technique of digital record keeping.
How does having a “digital twin” of the physical object prevent the object from being counterfeited?
You shouldn't be able to transfer the NFT yourself. Each transfer should be attested by an official dealer (for a transfer fee).
The digital owner of the item needs to be synchronised with the physical owner of the item. The authenticity then can be confirmed by crypto.
How do you "print" the association in the physical object? What would prevent this association to be faked?
The devices can ship with an embedded hardware security module that holds a private key. The private key has its public key whitelisted by Rolex, and can be used to sign a message transferring the ownership to the current owner's public key. If you can do this transfer action, the device is legitimate. Of course you'd need to check that the public keys/addresses match Rolex's.
To me, it sounds like no manufacturer will ever implement this because 99% of end users have no chance of learning how to use it
That's fair, and manufacturing and UX could very well be a challenge. But the technology does work
Synchronized how? Confirmed by whom?
This has the same oracle problem that all these blockchain-for-X dreams do.
Synchronisation is the hard part. I suppose there are a few different ways to do it. One way would be to use a hardware that holds a private key in a secure chip, and whoever has access to the physical watch can sign a message with that key to point to an arbitrary address. This can then be submitted to the blockchain. Confirmation is easy, as the blockchain takes care of that. It would be emitted by a verifiable/trusted public key. If the address is not Rolex's address, the item is fake.
At first i thought this was a pretty well done satire, but after reading over it multiple times, i am not sure.
And it imo says more about the general state of discussion of crypto/nft, rather than about your comment specifically.
Wouldn’t that make it easier to make fakes, if everyone could trivially look up what the serial number and features were supposed to be?
Yeah because blockchain and NFTs totally solve the problem of Internet fraud.
And what prevents them from faking the association to the digital token?
You shouldn't be able to transfer the NFT yourself. Each transfer should be attested by an official dealer (for a transfer fee).
Ok so you trust the dealer explicitly, and you are paying them each time to keep providence. What does the NFT buy you when you could just ask Rolex?
What would stop someone from selling the digital twin to scammers to make better fakes, and just keeping the watch?
Because your watch will go down in value since people will assume it's fake when you try to sell it and you don't own the corresponding NFT.
Same reason I wouldn't buy a certified Jordan autograph and then sell the certificate of authenticity.