Talk:Rolex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rolex article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Priority 3  

    Contents

    [edit] Criticism

    - I've reverted to the version of criticism from which people had removed some citations, then added some more.

    A lot of this seems to be text from advertising. Check out the very last sentence for an example.

    Is all that bold formatting necessary? I don't like it... TastyCakes 21:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

    It isn't. I'll remove it.--Shanel 19:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

    I have edited the part on the gas valve, which is actually a "helium release valve". Rolex and Doxa S.A. were the co-inventors of this valve, first commercial watch with the valve was actually the Doxa Conquistidor in 1969, followed by the Rolex in 71. This is from the recent article about Doxa in the WatchTime magazine and confirmed in other places, I think its on the Doxa website along with the patent that lists both Doxa and Rolex. edit-- signature Lgreen 16:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)



    I find this quite incredible (in both senses of the word). A pressure of 108.6 MPa exists at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. Statements like this needs proper references to stay in a factual document.

    "Wilsdorf even went so far as to have a specially made Rolex watch attached to the side of the Trieste bathyscaphe, which went to the bottom of the Mariana Trench. The watch survived and tested as having kept perfect time during its descent and ascent."


    I added a reference to an article on the Rolex "Deep Sea Special", but this event is also referenced on rolex.com 216.18.38.241 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Fake Rolex

    It's a fascinating subtopic that could be expanded upon. Travelling the globe, I have seen so many on sale. The fakes are even rated by grades replete with elaborate, slick catalogues and brochures printed for the vendors, with South Korea & China apparently producing some of the highest level "reproductions." These are sometimes called class-A reproductions and are so thoroughly and well-made that its nearly impossible to tell a fake even if one were taken apart. So the name Rolex, then, can apparently be worth 12,000 dollars---minus the 20 Euros one finds them selling for in Italy. . . . Fascinating topic keepable under the Rolex article heading: imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and 75% of fakes are Rolex!

    [edit] Fake Rolex Made in?

    Most good quality fake rolex are made in japan, not only made in china. Most Hong Kong and Macau watch factories already moved to Mainland China, how they made fake? Japanese also make fake product, not only chinese. COMPLETELY BIAS, please in google search "Japan made Rolex replicas" for details. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.86.164.72 (talk • contribs) .

    [edit] Picture gallery?

    I have added a Rolex picture gallery several times. Why has it been removed? Been trying to add http://www.newturfers.com/bin/mwf/board_show.pl?bid=29

    Added again and removed again!

    [edit] Picture gallery?

    What you posted is not a picture gallery, simple a forum where people post pictures.

    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.183.61.29 (talk • contribs) .

    And the difference is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.183.27.41 (talk • contribs) .

    The difference is that you are spamming wikipedia with links to your own forums to drive traffic.

    Spamming wikipedia to drive traffic? The page has photos of Rolexes for god's sake. Isnt that what external links are about? I never thought wikipedia would feel threatened by a website that features people posting pictures of their own watches! It's incomprehensible!

    haha, looks like I am not the only one who thinks your link is spam. Another person removed your link as spam also.

    Keep removing it. I'll keep adding it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.160.21.205 (talk • contribs) .

    Please don't. It is spam. if you keep adding it you will be blocked from editing all Wikipedia articles. Gwernol 12:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

    Ok. I will not refuse a polite request as above.

    Please ban this guy 59.160.21.205. It's at least the 5th time he did this to advertise his stupid forum.

    Ban me if you like. I really dont care. But if you want to get your message across it's best that you exercise a degree of politeness. Name calling is so 5th grade.

    [edit] Who is the genius who...

    ...wrote the criticism section? Whoever it is doesnt know swat about watches! I mean what kind of a bafoon compares mechanical with quartz??? Pears and apples anyone??? Seems to have been written by someone who has an issue with Rolex! lutherian 06:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

    I agree. Comparing mechanical with Quartz is like comparing a ferrari to a fiat Uno. The argument being that fiat consumes less petrol.

    I wouldn't necessarily agree, while the author didn't have the best examples, some of his points were close to the mark. I am somewhat upset that the section was removed, hopefully the forum is opened again and someone will contribute a better criticsm of the brand.

    Ooops, I linked another forum also without knowing that it could be considered spam, sorry. I'm going to submit a couple pictures instead.


    [edit] Criticism section removed

    There is absolutely no need for this, none of the other brand references in wiki contains a criticism section so this entry is totally impartial and POV. lutherian 09:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry but that's not true. Without defending this particular section (which is poor) there are plenty of other Wiki articles that contain criticism sections, for example Nike, Inc., Pepsi and Microsoft. It is legitimate to include a criticism section where one applies, as long as it is verifiable from reliable sources. I am restoring the section to this article since something is required to present a balanced view of Rolex. Gwernol 12:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    I meant watch brand, how come Rolex is the only one that is criticized, this is obviously a smear campaign and nothing else because the contents of the criticism is illogical and absurd, making comparisons with quartz movements! I totally disagree with you on this! lutherian 14:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, it is not obviously a smear campaign, and no you did not mention watches: "none of the other brand references in wiki contains a criticism section" right above. It is absolutely valid to have a criticism section. I agree with you that there are serious problems with the text as it stands (which is why I've removed the worst claims and added {{fact}} tags to others) but the solution is to improve the section, not excise it completely. That amounts to sweeping criticism under the rug and is enforcing a point of view. Sorry, Gwernol 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    To expand, there is a reason why Rolex alone amongst watch brands would have a criticisms section. It is such a well-known brand and the prices for its watches are so extravegant that it is bound to attract more direct criticism than other brands do. Let's work to improve the section and ensure it is fair and well sourced instead of just removing it. Gwernol 15:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    Yes I did mention watches, look at the edit summary in the article. As for the prices, I beg to differ, there are many other watch brands out there that sell for similar prices and yet there doesnt seem to be any criticism. Take AP as an example! Anyways, im not going to go into a petty revert war with you suffice it to say that leaving a section devoted to trashy criticism is nothing but pure POV, and I dont believe that you are indifferent to this particular brand! lutherian 16:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    Please see WP:NPA, which your last sentence breaches: I have no interest in Rolex, don't own one and don't have any opinion about whether they are good value or not. I am merely interested in ensuring the article maintains a neutral point of view. Simply denying that criticism exists is a bad idea - it does exist and should be included in the article. Gwernol 16:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    what are you referring to? the fact that I called the contents of the criticism section trashy (which I very much belive it is) or that I get the impression that you are not indifferent to the Rolex brand. Either of these statements of mine can hardly be considered a personal attack, I suggest you revisit the definition.
    Also, it seems that others agree with me with regards to removing the criticism section. If you want we can submit this issue to arbitration, I have no problems whatsoever! Cheers lutherian 18:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    I was referring to your statement that I had a personal agenda related to Rolex. That is an attack on my intentions rather than a discussion of my actions. Please refrain from such comments, they are unfounded. I am not going to continue reverting the section back; I think its a shame that editors of this article will not allow criticisms of Rolex since some of them have validity and are documented. This is the opposite of encyclopedia writing. Gwernol 18:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    Relax, I never said that you had a personal agenda, it was an impression I have and as such does not constitute a peronal attack! I agree with you that Rolex is not a perfect company (far from it), but what I find totally unacceptable is that someone decides to target this one watch brand. If there was a criticism section for all the other watch brands on wiki and if they were fair (unlike the rubbish on this one), I would be a happy camper! Furthermore, I think its a good idea that you put the neutrality tag (although i dont agree with your motive) and I would in fact add another tag on the incompleteness of this article! Cheers lutherian 18:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    Criticisms aren't being "suppressed" as your checkin comment states when you added the POV tag. I removed this section because Criticism sections are supposed to be well cited. Not only were there very few cites in this section, it was written terribly (spelling errors, grammar errors, etc). An article's criticisms section is supposed to reflect well documented and cited criticisms -- not someone's own personal editorial. The paragraph I removed reflected the latter. As to Lutherian -- what other articles have or do not have is irrelavant here. If you have well-documented criticisms of other watch brands, please add them to their appropriate articles. As all articles are a work-in-progress, such comparaisons are not relavant. Instead, we just look at Wikipedia policy. Such policies as WP:POV state that we need to show all sides. But WP:NOR state that facts, especially controvertial ones, need to be well cited. It was for the latter reason, as well as the unencyclopedic tone and writing style, that I removed the criticisms paragraph. If a proper, well-written and (most importantly) well-cited one is added to the article, I will support its inclusion. --Rehcsif 19:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Pictures?

    How can I post a picture of my Rolex watch?

    I think that this section deserves photos of real Rolexes as opposed to just that fake.

    I own 4 of them and can post personal photos of them. The Yacht master in Platinum, Submariner in Steel and TT ( Steel and Gold) and the GMT master II

    I don't know how you can post pictures but if you find out, you definitely should post them. People should be able to see the true beauty of a genuine Rolex watch rather than the cheap fake one currently posted in the article. To anyone who knows, please post pictures of genuine Rolex watches in the article.
    If you took the pictures, just click the "Upload File" link to the left of your screen. Select an appropriate license (I usually use the GFDL/CC combo) and then add an image link in this article to point to your new image (use the existing one as a guideline. There's probably a WP page on how to do this but I'm too lazy to look it up now. --Rehcsif 14:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

    I have uploaded a pic of my YM ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P1010380.JPG) . Someone please format it properly. I just cant figure it out

    Done with the code [[Image:P1010380.JPG|thumb|right|Rolex Yachtmaster]]. --GraemeL (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, I added the text "Rolex Watchmaster" as the image title as that was the only description on the image itself. Feel free to expand it to give some more information. --GraemeL (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Please remove Rolex replicas section

    I pointed out before, not only taiwan and china made fake rolex. but some PEOPLE edit this and wrote Only Chinese make fake rolex. Does it mean wikipedia is full of Racism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.190.198.135 (talk • contribs) .

    It says they are MAINLY made in Taiwan and China, and that statement is flagged as fact. Nowhere in the article does it say "only chinese make fake rolex". Please read carefully before challenging statements. --Rehcsif 19:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

    Many thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suhailb (talk • contribs) .

    I now see that my Yachtmaster picture is up for deletion. Why?

    [edit] Removed POV tag

    I removed the POV tag. It was added the other day by Gwernol in response to the criticisms section being removed. But as I pointed out above, Criticisms are welcome -- it's just that nobody has come up with any VERIFYABLE/CITABLE criticisms. Personal essays on why you think Rolex's are a rip-off are not encyclopedic and a violation of WP:NOR. I see no need to clutter the article with a POV tag when the reasons for the section's removal had nothing to do with POV. --Rehcsif 19:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Rolex "linkspam"

    While many of the external links in the Rolex section might very well be linkspam, not all are. To delete the hubpages.com link, which has the most comprehensive information on Rolex models I've seen on the Web, seems really excessive. There are reviews on all the current, plus plenty of classic models, plus history about the company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.0.17 (talk • contribs) .

    The problem with a link like hubpages.com/hub/Rolex_Watches is two-fold:
    1. It really is a link promoting one person, or at least, one person's view of the Rolex world. Wiki strongly discourages promotional links.
    2. Allowing in one link like this opens the door to many, many other links that are "just a little bit promotional".
    Now, either of these wouldn't necessarily be a problem with an article about some obscure area, say polymerase chain reaction where the whole universe of links, self-promotional or not is probably a dozen or so. But it is a problem for a popular topic like Rolex, where everyone and their brother comes along and tries to stick their blatantly self-promotional link in from time to time.
    Because of this, I know that I try to keep a much tighter rein on linkspam in articles like Rolex (or Hot tub, to give another example) than I would on PCR. Obviously, though, we work by consensus here so I don't have the last say and I welcome everyone else's opinion on this too.
    Atlant 20:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

    I respectfully disagree. The author is sharing extensive information and subjective feedback about his passion, but he is not after establishing a name for himself. He doesn't mention himself or anything about himself besides a brief bio. I happen to know the author quite closely, and he is just an enthusiast who has spent a lot of time putting together this resource, which he wanted to share with a broader audience of kindred spirits. He was thrilled when I put in a link for it on Wikipedia, since he's a huge fan of the site and uses it a lot.

    The fact is, topics like Rolex or, I guess, hot tubs, are going to have a bigger following of dedicated enthusiasts, than something like PCR (all due respect to the scientists out there, naturally). And, his collection of articles does include reviews of many models that Wikipedia doesn't even have articles for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.0.17 (talk • contribs) .

    I'll wait for other opinions. By the way, please sign your posts to "talk" pages. You can easily do this by including four tildes (~~~~) after your text. When you press (Save page), these will be replaced by your username (or, for you, IP address) in a handy Wikilinked format. A timestamp will also be included.
    Atlant 14:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

    Sounds good--thank you for the tip. I'm completely new to this part of the Wikipedia process. Thank you. 66.92.0.17 00:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

    I'm the poster who deleted your links. I did so because after checking your contributions, I noticed that you inserted hubpages.com links into several articles. Don't spam. Exeunt 00:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

    Point taken and it won't happen any more. Again, I'm new to this; I understand there has to be some control over what gets included and what doesn't. I would just argue that this particular link is useful and provides a lot of complementary information for people researching the topic of Rolex. 66.92.0.17 01:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    I did check out the link before deleting it. In all, I found it well-written and informative. However, the fact that there were ads plastered all over the site put me off. This fact alone wouldn't have compelled me to delete your link, but in conjunction with your other external link insertions, I became suspicious of spam. Feel free to reinsert the link--you seem well-intentioned.Exeunt 18:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you Exeunt and Atlant. James let me know that he'll continue to add data in the reviews to flesh them out a bit, too. 66.92.0.17 17:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

    Gwernol removed the link early yesterday with a standardized message to not put external spam links. I tried contacting him using the talk function but have yet to hear a reply. Was that an automated action by a bot? Can I put the link back up? Thank you. 66.92.0.17 23:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

    Found that the link was removed again. Reverted link. Please do not delete link without at least discussing here. --66.92.0.17 17:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] "Sweep" second hand

    From http://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=tree&goto=2277&rid=0:

    A sweep second hand is one that is mounted in the center of the dial and sweeps over the entire face. This is in contrast to a "seconds sub-dial" that is typically at 6 o'clock (AKA "6-eater"). A sweep second hand can be on a quartz or mechanical movement--it does not say anything about whether it ticks once a second or more smoothly. Okay, this isn't a FAQ but rather the maintainer's pet peeve but many newbies misuse the term. Don't believe me? Look it up in the dictionary. 216.18.38.241 15:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Rolex Reference Page

    The Rolex Reference Page would be a good add to the external links - www.rolexreferencepage.com

    [edit] Mechanical versus Quartz Sweep Action

    The article has it backwards. The seconds hand in mechanical movements of a genuine non-quartz Rolex "tick." Quartz movements in the fake cause the seconds hand to move smoothly.Seth1066 16:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

    Looks like it has been corrected Seth1066 16:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


    [edit] Contradiction: Tick or Sweep?

    There is an inconsistency in the Replicas section:

    One good test to spot if the watch is a fake or not can be performed simply by looking at it. Most Rolex models have a self-winding mechanical movement, which "ticks" (that is, will move quickly, pause momentarily then repeat the action) from one second indicator to another. The majority of all cheaply made fakes have a simple battery powered quartz movement which makes the second hand move smoothly around the watch face.

    and

    Some higher-end replicas use quality materials such as reliable ETA automatic movement with a smoothly moving second hand like a genuine Rolex...

    So do genuine Rolex tick or sweep? The change to the first paragraph was made by:

    14:10, 11 January 2007 138.88.110.35 (Talk) (→Rolex replicas - Switched minute hand movement descriptions, i.e. quartz/fake=smooth; mechanical/genuine=ticks)

    I have to mention that I found this article while watching CSI Miami where they find a body underground by listening to the fake Rolex ticking. One of the CSI even said that real Rolex don't tick. Now, that's gotta be true. ;)

    Also found this: http://www.qualitytyme.net/pages/rolex_faqs.html

    Do genuine Rolex watches tick?
     This has been a big misconception regarding Rolex watches, "sweeping" versus "ticking". And in the past people used this as a method of identifying counterfeit Rolex watches.
    The truth is, genuine Rolex watches do, in fact, "tick". However, they tick at around 5 to 6 times per second, so it gives the illusion of "sweeping" or "floating" around the dial. If you watch the second hand with a loupe you can see it.
    In the past, cheap counterfeits would utilize quartz movements, and thus would "tick" once per second. However, these days counterfeits use mechanical movements that appear to "float", but only at around 3 to 4 times per second. This gives what we call a "choppy step", and can also be spotted with a loupe.

    --Zealander 02:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC) \

    [edit] RE: Contradiction: Tick or Sweep?

    From personal experience having owned several genuine Rolex watches, let me clarify: The genuine Rolex has a stop/start "ticking" type movement of the seconds hand. The quartz fake Rolex has a much smoother characteristic to the sweep of its seconds hand where the "ticking" is practically imperceptible. Later "improved" fakes have implemented a mechanical movement to attempt to emulate the real Rolex.

    From my memory of having looked at quartz "Foolex" models in the past, the sweep hand was very smooth and I disagree with the quoted website's statement: "In the past, cheap counterfeits would utilize quartz movements, and thus would "tick" once per second." In fact, the obvious characteristic of those movements in the fakes, in any quartz watch, was a smooth running seconds hand. --Seth1066 14:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


    The number of jewels has little to do with the quality of the movement. These jewels are synthetic and literally worthless. Jewels reduce friction by design. Once upon a time they were added because of the public's perception to believe the more the merrier. There are only so many places in the basic movement that these are useful.

    Watch movements are actually like engines in cars--they all share similar features, but are quite different in design and are not easy to misidentify by a connoisseur.

    Synthetic jewels are better for watches.

    Ticking:


    Modern Rolexes do in fact "tick" at the rate of 28,800 bph (beats per hour). Each tick happens when the balance wheel oscillates and stops in each direction. Two ticks, therefore, are a full cycle.

    28,800 beats per hour = 8 beats per second (beat=tick)

    Some ETA Movements tick at that rate as well. Most Chinese and Japanese (some Miyota, Seiko, and Orient) movements that I've seen tick slower, at a rate of 21600 bph or six beats per second. Each beat advances the seconds hand from one tick mark to the next. So it is possible to notice the difference in sound between 6 and 8 per second as well as visual.

    [edit] RE: Contradiction: Tick or Sweep?

    I Dont know what these people are saying. I have many rolexs and i know of excellent faxes or replicas that you can see. Swiss Replicas are 28 jewel movement - a rolex is 32 jewel so basicaly its pretty close that the naked eye cant tell. then there are japanese repilicas they have a 22 jewel movement and appearance looks very difficult to tell. THen you have chinese they have either cheap 16 jewel automatic movement or quartz cheapest movement. normally no working dials crappy magnifiying bubble - flaws in priting on dial - lightweight band - obvious to someone who wears the real thing.... good luck..

    [edit] Tick or sweep? Its irrelevant here

    I removed all references from that section - problem solved. Too much space was taken up discussing fakes anyways.

    This is an encyclopedia article about REAL rolex watches. Not a "how-to" guide on spotting fakes. I removed the majority of that section. Anyone interested in writing a guide on spotting fakes can start a new article elsewhere.

    While we're at it, I notice that a lot of the ref links are actually spam links selling watches/books disguised as footnotes. I am going to change some of these. --Eqdoktor 16:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

    I moved the majority of the "Rolex replicas" section into a new article Rolex counterfeits, so no information is lost. Additional info on fake Rolexes can be updated there. --Eqdoktor 15:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] "Wilsdorf wanted his watches to be affordable"

    I'm not usually one for asking for citations for everything and nothing, but "Wilsdorf wanted his watches to be affordable" just doesn't bear the stamp of intrinsic convincingness to my mind. It's too admiring, and too unlike what usually happens in business. I put a {{fact}} tag on it. Bishonen | talk 00:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

    [edit] so how much do they cost

    nt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.171.4 (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    Have a look here. Dr.K. 01:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Unreferenced section

    I edited out the following section because it is unreferenced:

    Hans Wilsdorf registered the trademark name "Rolex" in La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland in 1908. 1905-1908 however was a time when reports of violence and brutalities from Germany started to hit the press. The British who had formally been allies with the Germans, wanted to distance themselves as much as possible. Anything with a German name was changed. The British Royal family themselves changed their surname from Saxe-Coburg to Windsor. The anti German feeling was also responsible for the dog German Sheppard being changed to Alsatian. Doctors stopped informing mothers that their children had German measles, they now called it Rubella. The watch makers had the same problem; Hans Wilsdorf was a German sounding name. Alfred Davis made a business decision to change the name of the company. Davis wanted a 5 digit name that could be written across the face of the watch, He liked the name that Timex had. Timex has been manufacturing watches for over 25 years and it was a well known name. The Timex Watch Company made quantity and not quality. It went for the larger market, in doing so its name was well known. A year earlier in 1906 Henry Royce was advertising his new car that he had partnered with Charles Rolls. The Rolls Royce was built as the world’s most luxurious motor car. It was said the car was so quite that at 40 mph, you could hear a watch ticking. (40 mph was good for a production car in 1906). The symbol of class, elegance and reliability. This was everything Wilsdorf and Davis wanted to say about their watches. At an, after performance party at The London Brixton Theatre and Opera House October 1906, Davis spoke with Henry Royce and Charles Rolls, Davis himself owned and drove a Rolls Royce Six Cylinder Silver Ghost. Throughout his life he owned Rolls Royce motor cars. He joked with the car makers, “You may be able to hear a watch ticking in your car, but not one of my watches”.

    Davis came up with the idea to use part of the Rolls Royce name Known for prestige and quality. Wilsdorf was not happy to change the name. Most partnerships that have initials as the company name such as DHL, Marks & Spencer and Smith & Western normally put the name and initials in alphabetical order. Not Wilsdorf, it was W & D for his partnership. Even then he had many advertisements as Wilsdorf & Davis. So for Wilsdorf to remove his initial was not a decision he was happy with. However Davis insisted on the change to continue growth and to disassociate from a German sounding name as much as possible. In the end Wilsdorf gave in, but as you read later, his name once again would appear on many of the company advertisements as managing director. Plus throughout his life he tried various watch companies with his name as the brand name.

    Alfred Davis matched the Timex name and Rolls Royce name. The name was more acceptable to Wilsdorf. ROLLS ROYCE TIMEX became the brand we know and love today. July 2nd 1908 Wilsdorf & Davis register the name ROLEX.

    In addition to the fact that the section tends to wander in unrelated topics such as dog names etc., there are no citations of any type provided. If they can be provided then the section can be restored in a suitably trimmed form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasoskessaris (talk • contribs) 03:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Is Rolex an acceptable source for Rolex?

    In this edit, another editor removes such comments/warnings as {{dubious}}<!-- Why should Rolex be considered a reliable source for such claims? -->, with the edit summary Because they base their prestige on it. If it were false the other watchmakers would never let them (or us) forget it.

    I wonder. Let's imagine that some company falsely claimed that its brand had achieved something or other that had actually been achieved by whatever company was then putting out Omega brand watches. Would Swatch (the owner of Omega) kick up a fuss? If so, how and where?

    I don't suppose that Rolex would lie. I do suppose that companies, Rolex included, paint as rosy a picture of their past as isn't obviously incompatible with the truth. If this stuff about Rolex is noteworthy, it will surely be noted in an independent source.

    (Though if the material about flashy watch companies in WP is any index of the quality of independent writing on such companies, I start to wonder. Every article I look at has some nuggets of facts [or apparent facts] of some note floating around in a soup of peacock terms, name-dropping and gibberish. Omega is certainly no exception.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    I suggest that you read the books listed in the reference section Racklever (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    I don't have any of them. If you do, perhaps you could start the process of adding specific references for specific assertions. It's a terribly dreary job, I realize, but it's one that somebody has to do. -- Hoary (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    I haven't had the time or unfortunately even the inclination to investigate the chronometer claim on the web but this is a cornerstone claim by Rolex. Their watches carry the notice Superlative chronometer officially certified to this day. I can't imagine they would undermine the certification process by falsely claiming they were the first to be certified. After almost a century since this claim was made noone on Earth has come forward to debunk it. That includes competitors who would love to see Rolex with their pants down, private investigators, the press, the National Enquirer to just name a few in the West, not to mention the Russians in the East who would love to claim yet another first against the West. It would be suicidal for Rolex to so expose itself through the centuries to so many diverse and sleuthy sources. That it is notable I have no doubt. This is the first time a chronometer passed rigorous standards based on objective criteria and we all know how important Time is. While I agree with your fanboy and other comments, even your rosy picture comments I would like to point out that Rolex may be a commercial site and it may want to embellish the appeal of its products but when playing with history it does have integrity even, for the jaded, for simple self preservation reasons. Dr.K. (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    You bring up a number of points, Dr K. No, I don't think that Rolex would lie. (I don't think its rival watchmakers would lie either, not even those Russians.) But both before I arrived at it and the last time I looked, the Rolex article cited a Rolex source in more than one place. This article on Rolex is rather longer than others on such brands as Ulysse Nardin, but all the watch articles I've looked at so far share the appearance of dodgy sourcing, and several make claims that seem very similar or even the same (and thus mutually incompatible). Now, I know squat about watches (as may be painfully obvious), but I am slightly acquainted with cameras, which have certain similarities. With camera history, you'll often find that scrupulous investigators agree in independently published books on which is the first commercially-sold example ("A") of a particular innovation, and that they'll further agree that it has design flaws (anywhere between merely irritating and so bad as to render the product unreliable and thus unusable) that are ironed out by one ("B") or more of the innovator's slightly later rivals. The manufacturer of "B" (or more likely the owner of its brand name) can honestly claim that "B" was the first successful example; "B" can supplant "A" in the popular imagination; "B" certainly does deserve credit (as does "A"): all in all it's a lot safer not to depend on corporate histories by Nikon, Canon, etc. (or even nominally independent but rather too admiring histories of these) but instead to use books by people who've considered their claims and also the claims made by and for companies (such as Zunow and Miranda) that no longer exist and are largely forgotten. -- Hoary (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    I agree in principle with your ideas and the point about the comparative analysis from independent sources and I find the camera analysis analogy a good one. I don't have any watch analysis books unfortunately and that's a problem at this point. I agree with most of your tags save maybe the ones about the chrono certification and the first waterproof watch where again I tend to believe Rolex (except if, as usual, we ignored some little known Russian first in the area :}. Finally I don't even know if there are any books that compare watches in the same way they compare cameras. With time I hope something can be found. I can also see if the books suggested by Racklever can be obtained. Thanks for your reply and take care. Dr.K. (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'm glad we're on the same wavelength. I do think that all these claims should be sourced, but I certainly wouldn't insist that people forgo their plans for Kwanzaa or Christmas or whatever (sourcing the Rolex article can wait a little), and I'm not going to be a jerk and reinsert the warning tags (unless perhaps somebody says something that gets me rattled, but there seems little risk of that happening). ¶ Two other interesting things about camera history are that "features" often assumed to be unitary turn out to have been introduced piecemeal, and that a great number of apparent novelties turn out to be a lot older than most people assume. Perhaps the world of watches is similar. ¶ I'm not sure that I want to get much more interested in watch history: I fear it could develop into a particularly expensive obsession! -- Hoary (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    The funny thing is we are much more in tune than I realised at the beginning. I have camera books and I am much more interested in camera evaluations than I am in watches. So I ditto all your comments without hesitation. As far as expenses you are absolutely right. Having the camera bug is one thing, adding the watch bug is something to be avoided at all costs (no pun intended). Thank you for your great comments. It's been a great pleasure meeting you. All the best of the season to you too. Bye for now and who knows we might meet again in some camera article in the future. Dr.K. (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] How much of this must we take on trust?

    Some aspects of this sweeping edit of Racklever's are indeed improvements, but on balance I'm highly tempted to revert Racklever's edit.

    The claims that had "{{fact}}" attached to them may indeed be backed up by this or that among the "references" (none of which I have seen). And some of the references smell good. But others smell highly suspect. Anyway, discrete claims should be backed up by specific sources, or anyway they should when anyone asks.

    That's how I for one endeavor to edit articles. Sometimes I'm less energetic about this than I should be, and sometimes I screw up. On rare occasion I may even accidentally delete a "{{fact}}" flag that somebody else has added. But I am sure that I have never deleted a number of "{{fact}}" flags, citing evidence in unspecified places within any of a number of sources.

    As it is, the Rolex article strikes me as being on the longer side but otherwise typical of en:WP's articles on wristwatch brands: not so much encyclopedia material as fansite material.

    Alternatively, perhaps I just don't understand the "mystique" of "luxury brands", and should be awe- and dumbstruck by their price-tags into worshipful silence. -- Hoary (right now wearing no wristwatch whatever) 11:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC) ... typos fixed Hoary (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Status symbols

    Resolved.

    I reverted this edit: (diff). The reason is this edit refers to the super rich. The very rich are a tiny minority. Their view on what constitutes a status symbol cannot possibly outweigh the rest of society which outnumbers them greatly. Dr.K. (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

    Compromise wording was found. Dr.K. (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Submariner Temperature

    The submariner page said in Antarctica is withstood temperatures of -45 Celsius (-49 fahrenheit), that sounds as if it is not low enough, as I have worn far less expensive watches in temperatures of that magnitude in the north of Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.87.238 (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

    Excellent point. Yet there is a citation needed tag for it. What can I say? Dr.K. (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    BTW the original citation from Rolex specified the -45 degrees but it was considered unreliable. Dr.K. (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Rolex/Timex

    The assertion that Rolex is a combination of Rolls Royce and Timex needs references, IMHO. Timex name according to every verifiable source I've found in print or on the web says the name wasn't used on a watch until after WW 2. It's interesting if it can be substantiated to any degree although even finding a late 19th century Timex pocket watch, advertisement, or other documentation would still not make the statement any more than speculation (which as far as I can tell, every story about how Rolex got its name basically is, at this point.)68.175.58.77 (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

    I agree completely. Especially since the suffix -ex is a common one. Words such as Rex, Alex, Convex, Latex, Vortex, Apex, Index, Annex (even sex) and many others all end in -ex. Many companies' names such as Amex, FedEx, Terex etc. end in -ex as well. Why does the ending -ex, that Rolex has, belong to Timex? That sounds sillier by the minute (forgive the pun if you can). Dr.K. (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Absurdly POV first paragraph.

    So the assertion that the ultra-wealthy supposedly consider Rolex to be a "reverse status symbol" is SOOO important that it must be included in the SECOND LINE?

    I would posit that this extreme minority position is so breath-takingly unimportant that its very inclusion in an encyclopedic article is a matter of debate. Why not include the opinions of Kalahari Bushmen, or left-handed Anabaptists in the first sentence? Surely their views on the cachet of Rolex are equally vital to those of the ulta-rich on this topic?

    In my opinion, this is a very cheap shot by someone with an agenda. HedgeFundBob (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    I completely agree with you. Your points are well made. I tried to mitigate this but I ended in an edit war (diff), (diff) etc. and I compromised by including this first paragraph the way it is now. But I was never happy with this addition, because as you say (and as I originally said) it reflects the view of a tiny minority and puts undue weight on it as per WP:UNDUE. I tried to revert this but I was called a corporate shill (diff). After this, and seeing no other user discussing it, I compromised. However since you also disagree I say let's take this out from the intro and if we must just add it in another place somewhere else. Thanks for your input. Dr.K. (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    I think the problem with the assertion is that it not only relies on rather glib reportage that was not intended to be taken especially seriously (it doesn't get much less relevant than a puff piece focusing on rich folk patting themselves on the back -- Robin Leach, much?), but it would seem to lead to rather unencyclopedic p*ssing matches among adherents to various marks. For instance, based on the cited articles, do we then slope off to the Mercedes piece and note those vehicles are seen as downmarket by the mega-rich? Do we head over to Raymond Weil and beat up on them for having even less mystique among the richest .0000001% of the population than does Rolex? These activities don't seem to do much to further knowledge.
    'Undue' is correct! HedgeFundBob (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    I completely agree that it was a "puff" article, not to be taken seriously and it was given undue weight. Including such criticism would be the equivalent of introducing a "Snob section" to every luxury brand article where every snob would be able to sound off against the brand. To further highlight these comments by placing them in the intro would be adding insult to injury. But to be fair to the super rich, I am sure that not all of them are snobs. I am certain that many among their class appreciate the design and quality of Rolex and in no way consider it to be a reverse status symbol. Therefore it is only the snobs among the very rich, a subgroup of an already small group that have this view. Thanks for this exchange of ideas that made it possible to clear this small but significant point. It's been a pleasure talking to you and to finally correct this deficiency in the article. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Trivia section

    I generally agree that trivia sections should be worked into the body of the articles. However this one poses a small question. Some well-intentioned soul added a rapper as a Rolex wearer, I move for deletion as flavour of the month celebrities aren't meritorious. However, but James Bond is one of perhaps three or four fictional characters like Sherlock Holmes and Superman, cast a long shadow over the culture. Perhaps the trivia section could be deleted and the 007 footnote mentioned in another section of the article. When the Bond novels were penned, there was privation in Post War Britain, which is what make the books appeal, et cetera... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.18.184 (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    I agree. Well, the section title is already not "trivia", therefore I simply remove the tag which was introduced with this revision. --Cyfal (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    Good points. I agree with both of your comments. Dr.K. (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Wilsdorf a watchmaker?

    Try getting this right. From the History section:

    In 1905 German watchmaker Hans Wilsdorf ... Contrary to popular belief, Hans Wilsdorf was neither Swiss, nor a watchmaker.

    79.77.52.69 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)