[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).