[hilbert42]

"I think watches can be a bit different... At least expensive watches retain more of their value, or even go way up in the case of Rolex."

Buying old Rolex watches is cult activity a bit like buying Elvis's shoes or such at auction for many thousands of dollars—although the latter is likely rarer and ultimately might be of historical interest in centuries to come. Same goes for other engineered products such as old Leicaflex cameras that have sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars when equally engineered high quality products from the same era are simply junked as these days they are perceived to have no value.

It mystifies me why people are so enamored with this stuff. There's nothing special about an old Rolex except they were likely near the best of breed when manufactured, but they have little intrinsic historical value nowadays in that they were very unlikely to contain new technology that altered the course of mechanical engineering at the time they were made. They have never had the historical or technical importance of Harrison's remarkable chronometers which did alter the course of history.

Let me illustrate with an example: I own two of the first cavity magnetron developed during WWII that went into production and is credited with giving the Allies a huge technological advantage over the Axis Powers. Moreover, they are band new in their original cartons and in better condition than the one in this display model: https://www.theiet.org/membership/library-archives/the-iet-a.... (Background info: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260521102_The_Cavit...)

This is truly an historical device that altered history and changed technology—it made centimeter RADAR possible when desperately needed in WWII and it's the forerunner of the device in every microwave oven around the world—yet they're not worth a pinch of shit when compared with an old Rolex—even though there are precious few used ones still in existence (let alone brand new ones in original packaging).

Seems to me, like diamonds, the outrageous values of an old Rolex come from cleaver marketing to the gullible and to those with more money than sense.

Edit: years ago I bought a fake Rolex in Bangkok for about $20 as a joke, it actually kept reasonably good time and looked reasonably genuine—at least it did from a few feet away.

[tecleandor]

Oh, that of course. I'm not in the "showing off jewelry" nor the "speculating with Rolex" business. I was talking more to the "but diamonds are also an investment" side. I'm more into technique and curiosity and I'm more than delighted by my Casio, Seiko, Vostok... I even have a fake Omega too :)

I find devices as your magnetron quite interesting, BTW.

[hilbert42]

Re magnetrons, there's a bit of a story behind how I acquired them. Those devices would hardly ring a bell with many electronics people, even those who recognized them as such likely wouldn't think they were important from an historical stance.

When I was a kid I used to rat old WWII surplus radio/radar gear for parts and whilst I never came across any of that first generation of magnetrons I'd seen photos of them in books on radar.

Many decades later I was helping someone move an old aircraft engineering works of WWII vintage that manufactured parts to a new location. It was not only crammed full of machine tools, lathes, milling machines, metrology equipment etc. but just about everything under the sun. For example Singer sewing machines of about 1880s vintage, uranium glass wine glasses, Arts and Crafts Movement lamp shades, oil lamps, old glasses, tons of old magazines, old chemical lab equipment and bottles of partly-used reagents, half-used cans of aircraft paint, wooden aircraft propellers from 1930s etc., etc., including dead rats were among the many thousands of different items—all piled up to the gunnels. One could hardly move and it was dangerous as one could be injured on junk, sheet metal offcuts, piles of sharp swarf and such—if you've ever seen those TV programs on hoarders you'd get the picture.

Anyway, those magnetrons were amongst literally tons of junk destined for the tip and it's just a very lucky fluke that I spotted them. I'd never seen one for real before but I instantly recognized them for what they were. It was a most fortuitous find.

The owner of the factory couldn't have cared less about them and they'd almost certainly have ended up in landfill if I hadn't spotted them. How these magnetrons originally ended up there was that his father who originally owned the factory was a compulsive auction goer and bought huge loads of military disposals at auction after the War.

[RandomLensman]

Signalling value is real and not related to gullibility. (There is a lot of costly signalling by animals as well.)

[hilbert42]

I'd argue that signalling honed by eons of evolution is significantly different to signaling dictated by fashion, it has evolutionary purpose, and it may be costly.

Fashion is fickle and can change quickly. Diamonds weren't really fashionable until De Beers started its Diamonds are Forever campaign decades ago; same with jeans, they didn't become a fashion statement until the 1950s when James Dean, Marlon Brando et al appeared in them in movies.

That type of signalling is only effective after marketing and often—but not always—has little beneficial outcome other than to benefit those who started the fashion or craze, and it's usually the gullible and or susceptible who pick up and run with such signals. In, say, the 1950s, unless you were a manual laborer or a gang member, it wasn't respectable to wear jeans. Back then, those who wished to become gang members—a la the 1950s Rebel Without a Cause — would follow the jeans/leather jacket dress code of the gangs, others would consider those who did as 'greasers' and or possible criminal elements.

In many instances signalling can be missed altogether especially so those who are not its intended recipients, and when it's recognized its effects aren't always positive. Whenever I see someone wearing a Rolex I think 'pretentious bastard, clearly you aren't sophisticated enough to wear another classy watch that would equally signal your intent but not show you up to be a dork'.

[RandomLensman]

The seriously rich and powerful valued diamonds well before that marketing campaign (just look at the Imperial State Crown).

Btw., your reaction to a rolex suggests that you are not an intended recipient anyway.

[hilbert42]

You're right, clearly I'm not the intended recipient. Leaving my fashion comments aside, my other principal objection is paying for something that likely has a 1000%+ markup on its manufacturing costs, one pays for the Rolex name-not the product.

I'm not saying the watch isn't engineered with precision as clearly it is, but one knows something is wrong when Rolex guards its manufacturing processes the way of state secrets (no one outside the company can gain access to its plant). Of course, Rolex claims this is to protect it from industrial espionage, I'd equally argue that its highly automated precision numerical control equipment can turn watches out like sausages and the company's ongoing worry is that the world will discover how cheap they are to make. That would be a marketing and PR stuff-up par excellence.

I would not buy a Rolex because I know I'd been ripped off. BTW, my grandfather was a watchmaker and jeweler and he taught me to be aware that much of the trade was build on illusion and mirrors. He didn't just repair watches, he had a precision watchmaker's lathe and similar equipment and could make parts, gears, subsections of Incabloc shock protection systems, etc. for watches and clocks that weren't available in suppliers' spares catalogs. He not only repaired jewellery but also made it. I have a gold and platinum tie pin with a black opal made by him (mind you, I wouldn't be seen dead wearing it).

Right, not only have the rich and powerful always valued diamonds but also most who've come in contact with them and other precious stones have always done so. But it was only in the 20th Century, and then mainly in anglophone countries, that diamond ownership took off among us commoners as a result of cleaver marketing.

[RandomLensman]

There are many things with huge mark-ups but some people really hate that and that is OK (whether or not Rolex has a 90%+ profit margin I wouldn't know).

Yes, the retail marketing campaign for diamonds was quite successful (so where others btw., for example, for retail stock ownership after WWII).