The immediate effect of this knowledge was (a) I’m never going to buy a gray-market rolex and (b) it made me happy to have a two-tone rolex, because at least the fact that it’s real gold is impossible to fake (I mean, it can obviously be faked with plating, etc., but my point is that about ~$7K of the value of my bluesy is literally just the precious-metal value, which you’re obviously not getting from a fake), to the point where it’s weird to me that the stainless steel models are still the ones everyone wants. The larger effect is making me question whether it’s worth it to buy Rolexes in general; you try to find poasts on this (kind of obvious) dilemma on the hobbyist forums or reddit or whatever and you just see 500 poasts of rolex owners getting MAF at owners of fakes and calling them names, which frankly just seems to support my point.

This problem seems most acute with rolex, specifically, where it looks to me like fakes outnumber real ones like 10:1, and are GOOD. There are clones of pateks and APs and what have you, but I’m skeptical they’re anywhere near as good as these rolex clones. But the truth is (and this probably goes for a lot of us): I have conservative tastes, and I like the way Rolexes look; I do not really like the look of these haute horology square skeletonized watches with 17 complications showing the moon phase and when you’re due for your next bowel movement. I like the look of the submariner. (There are some exceptions, and I am in the market for a relatively conservative patek dress watch… which probably has the same problems.)

Any watchmos want to weigh in?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5720299&forum_id=2#48902898)

We obviously aren't in the same position in that you seem like you have a real "passion" for it or whatever, whereas I'm buying for almost the exact same reason as I bought my wife a porsche cayenne--need an suv, like the brand, have the money, have a passing but non-passionate affinity for the non-brand-derived aspects of the brand's performance/appearance.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5720299&forum_id=2#48903039)

This is not an unusual space to be in in any market with luxury goods, and the only thing that really sets watch-selection apart is that the widespread proliferation of fakes has made the entire enterprise kind of risky in the signals that it sends.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5720299&forum_id=2#48903138)

But I don't really get the point of your poast. Are you saying it's bad to want to dabble in luxury goods if you're not genuinely passionate about the good in question?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5720299&forum_id=2#48903186)

But it put *something* on their wrist and avoided the pretentiousness trap (and I assume, like me, they wanted to see if it actually had positive-value functionality). The thing is, unlike the aforementioned lawyers I respect, I still do occasionally pick up sluts, both prole girls at the bar and dumb 3Ls at the local TTT's networking events.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5720299&forum_id=2#48903076)

It came closest to having real functionality for fitness reasons, but I'm a "bro splits 2-3x/week and jog when you get the chance" kind of guy, and for someone like that it isn't worth the time learning how to use the features.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5720299&forum_id=2#48903101)

It's a tough spot for mid-6-figure lawyers who just like the way rolexes look and find the brand to be a good level of fancy-enough but not ostentatious.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5720299&forum_id=2#48903009)

i remember $20 ones in shanghai that were obv junk

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5720299&forum_id=2#48903014)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx32LYre0R4

He says it's a thousand dollars, but they really go for $600. Even though this guy is clearly, explicitly in the tank for Rolex (to the point of transparently lying about a handful of aspects of these fakes), his case for buying real is chillingly unconvincing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5720299&forum_id=2#48903020)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5720299&forum_id=2#48903037)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5720299&forum_id=2#48903960)

I've been tempted to get a dark side speedmaster a few times but you Rolex snobs make me not want a watch

Even Tag Heuer Formula 1 with rubber parts is more pleasing to my eye than a basic bitch Rolex

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5720299&forum_id=2#48903108)

If pretty cheap, I think it exposes high end watchmaking as completely obsolete.

A watch is just a bunch of parts assembled together. If the replicas are the same materials comprising the same parts and assembled an identical way for a fracture of the price, why is anyone paying so much for a Rolex or any other high end watch?

It’s literally just vanity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5720299&forum_id=2#48903883)

The effect you're describing is true of a lot of goods and services--especially if we're realistic about the personal value being imparted by qualities that are technically distinct to the luxury brand but in practice not that important (e.g., the ability of a porshe to go 0-60 in under 3 seconds)--but yes, watches, and in particular luxury non-precious metal watches, and specifically rolex, are pretty egregious offenders.

EDIT: For me personally (and my financial situation, and my like but not love of watches, and my boring tastes in watches), I don't regret having one real $18K rolex, but in a world without fakes I could imagine building a collection with the pepsi (half-red, half-blue bezel with black dial), hulk (green dial and bezel), iron man (red and red), panda daytona, etc. In the actual world where that $75K collection could be put together with convincing frauds for $3K, I'll probably just abstain altogether.

EDIT #2: I guess I should also quibble with your poast in that, true to their nature, chink fraudsters aren't *quite* as good as multigenerational swiss craftsmen. But as I said, the exteriors of the watches are in effect indistinguishable: look at the Youtube video I poasted above; the guy points out 2-3 ways that the outside of the fake is slightly inferior to (and sometimes just different from) the real one, but they're all clearly within the realm of possibility of a real one, and he's only attributing those differences to the fact of one watch being a replica after the fact once he's concluded that it's a replica, which he actually only does from pulling apart the watch interior. (He partially acknowledges this when he concedes that you can't even *identify* these differences unless you have a genuine on hand to compare to.) The interiors of the watches are also mostly clones these days, but supposedly a trained authenticator can relatively quickly notice the inferior quality of a new fake vs. a new real rolex. The x factor is that, again, new fakes perform well within the specs that rolex publishes for their watches (because those specs, obviously, cover non-new watches), so even when comparing the internal workings, it's a "well this fake will see a decrease in performance/specs at, on average, a much faster rate than a real rolex would, assuming equivalent treatment/maintenance". Which is a pretty underwhelming basis for an $11K/2000% price difference, to most people.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5720299&forum_id=2#48903906)