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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.