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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Apple sells more watches than every other luxury watch brand combined.