Rolex sells almost a million watches a year now. It's a brand bought by rich, knowledgeable watch nerds as well as plebeian, flashy status-seekers and everyone in between. Rolex are given as gifts often enough whether from family or from your old fat boss for you being the best salesman in the district. And by now in 2017, many ppl are wearing Rolex watches they inherited as the company has been big for well over a generation of customers. In short, a Rolex doesn't signal anything discernible that can be generalized. Ya there are a small % of people who will see it and recognize it and think its expensive, but it is not screaming expensive, it's not screaming anything. Reasons for buying or having or wearing a Rolex may vary but its just a watch now.
Also, a sports watch or any watch with a tuxedo? You're at a party, and hopefully drunk, I would say leave any watch at home. But that's debatable too, so do whatever the fuck you want, assumptions will be made incorrectly regardless. Cheers :)
You're disagreeing with yourself and agreeing with him. His point (I think) is that they adopted a marketing and pricing strategy which promoted brand awareness and maintained brand equity to both the "lower classes", and to the "upper classes" and also to watch enthusiasts, simultaneously.
That is to say, poorer people might recognise Rolexes as being something special, and might strive to buy one, but wealthier people also see it as something special and strive to buy one. And the fact that poorer people can get them doesn't dilute their positioning for wealthier demographics. Or as you put it..."It's a brand bought by rich, knowledgeable watch nerds as well as plebeian, flashy status-seekers and everyone in between."
And I completely disagree with your first statement. I would imagine that almost every adult recognises the Rolex brand. Sure, people might not recognise a Submariner from a distance as being a Rolex, or a Rolex design, but everybody knows the name. Whereas, on the other hand, almost nobody would even know the name Philippe Patek. But then, that's their marketing strategy.
Anyway this is just my experience. Rolex don't "scream expensive", but maybe to a few folks they burp that message. Not a perfect comparison but my old well-worn running shoes cost like $200 (fancy I know ;) few people recognize them, from the ppl who do some think that's expensive ($5 of leather for $200 ZOMG!), some people don't think that's expensive. Just because something is expensive doesn't mean that product "screams" expensive. Just shoes. Just a watch. YMMV
And I completely disagree with your statement. If you are at least a bit into the watches, you know Patek very well.
The part about everybody-recognizes-rolex - well that ain't true either. Over 90% of blue collar workers would see some bigger watch, that's it. Most of my colleagues wouldn't recognize them, and I am talking about private bank in Geneva, home of Rolex (and Patek).
On the other hand, Rolex is literally one of the most recognised and reputable brands in the world. There are companies which track this stuff, and every study ranks them within top 100 in the world for brand equity, recognition, reputation, etc among general consumers. Just with a cursory look now, I see one study from 2014 which ranks them second in the world, only behind Disney:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/arieladams/2014/04/14/why-rolex-...
Don't forget, they sponsor a lot of stuff. You can't watch sports without seeing their logo everywhere. As I said, people wouldn't recognise a Rolex watch...but the brand, yeah.
I'd be extremely surprised if 90% of people in a bank in Switzerland don't know of the brand Rolex.
Rolex + Tuxedo is the look popularised by the James Bond films to the extent that it has taken on a life of its own now.
In other words much of today's target market did not see Bond wear a Rolex in cinemas, and it is a testimony to the strength of Rolex's brand that Omega's own product placement has been hijacked in people's minds.
Debatable, as it is a sports watch (arguably "the" sports watch). Wearing a sports watch with black tie suggests a middle class New Worlder. I happen to like these values (meritocracy, individual rights, equality of all before the law) much more than the alternative so see it as a positive signal. Also, (see [1]) signals ought to be true or the effect will be very negative, since nobody likes a fake, so better the sub with the "tuxedo" if that's "who you are".
The core value of a Rolex over other brands is two fold.
First, the company is ensuring that the value of the watches will never drop through limiting grey market availability and limiting supply generally even in the face of increasing global demand (people now complain about months-long waiting lists for special editions). As you point out this does make it a sort of global gold standard in terms of maintaining value and fungibility.
Second, it shrewdly invests in multi-generational, tightly integrated marketing to maintain the image of the brand in the global lower and middle classes' mind as "the" luxury watch, as well as in the target market (the GP piece is an example).
AFAIK it is the only brand that does it so thoroughly; Patek has similar operations (including bidding on its own vintage stuff, which even involved setting up a museum, to drive prices higher) but targeted at the aspirational upper middle class only [2], and the other brands are considerably less well recognised or not perceived as expensive. This investment in marketing builds "signal equity" for Rolex wearers in that everybody will see it, not just the readers of Hodinkee.
Which is why I disagree with you that:
> it doesn't scream "expensive"
To close on a humorous note: http://www.gq.com/story/male-engagement-ring-rolex
(I would, personally, blow my $50k on the new Laurent Ferrier Montre Ecole. /signalling)
[1] https://www.quora.com/Why-would-anyone-buy-a-Rolex-watch/ans...
[2] http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/luxury_branding_the_f...