/fa/ - Fashion

>>17753758
You just answered you own question. If it were unaffordable, "professionals" wouldn't have been able to afford them. Rich people throughout human history are not generally linked to dangerous manual labor like soldiery, commercial diving etc.
It needed to be tough and built to beat. If it were too expensive who did they expect to buy it? The cashed up man about town didn't wear some prole's diving watch back in the day, they wore delicate gold dress watches.
If a GI grunt sent to Vietnam had a choice between the Submariner, a months salary or something, or the Zodiac SeaWolf, a fortnight's salary or whatever, then they were more within reach of "the common man" than they are today. The jewelryfication of the rolex tool watch line came as a reaction to the seiko incited quartz crisis which posed such an existential threat to the entire swiss industry those that didn't turn into pure jewelry and Veblen goods died out.
What's the professional going to choose? A relatively delicate wrist time teller that's expensive to repair if they bang in on some rocks or the latest tech of the day that's an order of magnitude more accurate and less delicate all at the expense of a battery change every once and a while? It's a tool; they'll choose the best one.
Same reason steam powered I dunno, drills or whatever are no longer being used or why modern soldiers seemingly exclusively wear gps-enabled shit like garmin, suunto, casio protrek and g-shock rather than the larpers' favorite "muh issued analog field watch".
>I'd assume post 80s every professional watch would just be a quartz gshock
Analog quartz divers existed as well and superseded their mechanical counterparts. Seiko, Citizen etc. Cheaper than the competition. Every single one I've seen that's survived to be sold 2nd hand is beat to absolute shit, as was their purpose.

>>15817998
Can't say I disagree. Rolex might not be the ones with the most brand tax but they're certainly up there. Buy a tudor black bay instead, it's as close as you can get nowadays to a sub with the brand tax removed.

>>14525513
Because it's a scam and a worthless trinket.

>>14171480
Maybe stop living above your means?
Rolex is overpriced.
>massproduce watches
>deliver only a limited amount of watches to shops to keep demand high
>increase prices constantly and market it as innovations or R&D

Search for "rolex stainless steel watch shortage" on YT to get an insight. Also people buy them up and flip them, further increasing the price.
I wouldn't want to be involved with this mess. Even tho i know so little about what's going on, i'd already feel cheated if i spent money on one of these watches. Also modern rolex is soulles and boring. If you want one, get at least something older with more charme.

Yep it's a scam and the greatest delight of a marketing exec. They managed to trick people that paying for more for dated technology and worse timekeeping is somehow luxurious.

>>13977288
>Wasting money on a brand name
Rolex is for niggers

Such an innovative and timeless company

They'll defend this too

>>13944188
Not him, but do tell me what changed between 2006 and 2014 to justify a near doubling in price of the submariner.

>>13928316
Never

EVER

Fall for the Rolex meme.

daily reminder that people who buy for the brand are little more than drooling idiots to be fleeced for money

I'm a fairly serious hobbyist watchmaker and have strong, objectively correct opinions on this. Basically everyone here is wrong (and autistic). All analogies presented thus far have failed.

Understand that 'value' in watches above a certain price point is almost entirely brand driven. That is to say, no matter how hard timepiece autismos try to rationalize their purchases in value oriented terms (usually about as effectively and accurately as listening to a typical anti-gun cat lady try to talk about what guns to ban after a mass shooting), the inarguable truth is that past a certain price point, watches price as luxury items with NO (repeat, NO) attachment to intrinsic value. Rolex realized in the 1980's that the more they charged, the better off their brand was and a phenomenon was born.

Such is the nature of people spending $50,000 on a timepiece. It's not about the watch. It's about signaling how much money you have to others who might recognize it. There are no such people in this thread, nor will you ever be there. So, if you want an accurate narrative on watches, here it is.

You should own three different 'levels' of watches. Work/Adventure, business casual and dress.

1) Work/Adventure. The watch you wear when you're deep sea fishing. This should be a Casio G Shock if you're poor, Hamilton if you're slogging along, Brietling, Omega, Rolex if you're doing OK. Maybe an IWC Portuguese or above if you're rich but there comes a point when it's just retarded. Stainless finish, usually bracelet, not strap, but strap OK in some circumstances. Size: Large.

2) Business Casual. Leather strap wins so fucking hard here, as does gold and (here's the hard part for autistic watch faggots) INTERMEDIATE SIZE. You can go vintage, you can go moderne. Gold case, leather strap, intermediate size. Win.

3) Dress; it doesn't matter. Just nothing with diamonds or precious stones of any kind