Debunking the Myth: Does a Rolex Really Take a Year to Make?

patrick_y · 2020-05-19T15:49:06Z

Explore the myth of 'a Rolex takes a year to make' with WatchProSite. Patrick_y debunks this common misconception, analyzing its origins and impact on luxury watch perception.

patrick_y

WPS member · Rolex forum

56 replies9318 views2 photos

Patrick_y's original post delves into a pervasive myth within the luxury watch industry: the claim that 'a Rolex takes a year to make.' He critically examines the origins and implications of such statements, particularly when propagated by supposed experts. This discussion highlights the importance of skepticism and logical reasoning in navigating watch-related information, urging readers to question even seemingly authoritative sources.

56 collectors discussing this on the WatchProSite forumJoin the Conversation →

A lot of sales people at Rolex dealers have said "A Rolex Takes A Year To Make" or some derivation near that.

I remember first hearing that statement when I was an eight year old kid and found it dubious.

I suppose with EXTREMELY LOOSE definitions, like we need to factor in the time those dinosaurs took thousands of years to turn into oil which lubricates a Rolex, then we can make the statement it takes over a thousand years to make a Rolex. Don't forget that we had to dig mines to mine the iron ore that we later turn into metal to make the watch out of. But the statement also implies it requires Rolex a year to make their own watch.

I can even tell you as a fact that a $100,000 Patek Philippe perpetual calendar doesn't take a year to make, at least not by "normal" definitions. But if you count the time the alligator egg is laid by the female alligator to the time it takes for it to become a watch strap, yes, it does take over a year.

Now, obviously, nobody here is going to admit that they ever believed a Rolex required a year to make. I think I've made certain of that. But what kind of demented person would make such a statement. What kind of ill-advised person would believe that statement?

I wouldn't blame you if you tarred and feathered me if I ever make such an awful statement!

Perhaps one of the reasons why I even present this question is because another watch friend sent me this YouTube video with just the acronym "LOL" because the supposed expert here is just so incorrect. At 1min 12sec, she states "...it takes one year to make a Rolex..."

The supposed expert also makes further incorrect statements that she tries to pass on as facts, but the most glaring one to me is the one I mention above.

I suppose I'd be less surprised if I heard the statement from a poorly trained watch salesperson. But it's a bigger and more painful surprise when it comes from a supposed "watch expert."

Moral of the story here: Be careful whom you believe, a little skepticism is usually healthy, and a good dose of logic will dispel most fabrications. "So much for expert witnesses," a phrase used by many trial lawyers.

Caption: BS Meter.
Photo Credit: Not Mine.

Key Points from the Discussion

The claim that a Rolex takes a year to make is demonstrably false, especially considering the high labor costs in Switzerland where Rolex watches are manufactured. If it took a year of human labor, the labor cost alone would far exceed the retail price of a new Rolex Oyster Perpetual.
While high horology pieces involve significant hand assembly, the idea of a watch taking years to make is a marketing exaggeration. Even complex movements like a Zeitwerk minute repeater, though more time-consuming than a Datejust, do not require years to assemble.
Extending the 'time to make' argument to include the geological formation of raw materials like gold, iron, or even the growth of rubber trees, or the manufacturing of tools and computer chips, renders the 'one year' claim comically understated and illogical.
Rolex account executives and trainers actively dispel these myths, instructing sales professionals to avoid erroneous statements like 'a Rolex takes a year to make' and to use precise terminology such as 'steel and gold' instead of 'two-tone' to maintain product perception.
The propagation of such misinformation by 'experts' on platforms like YouTube, reaching millions of viewers, raises concerns about the public's ability to discern truth from fiction and the broader implications of unverified information.
A rough calculation suggests that a Rolex might involve around 30 hours of labor, assuming a labor cost of $50/hour, which is far from a year's worth of work and highlights the absurdity of the 'one year to make' claim.

The Discussion

K-

K-Lo

May 19, 2020

An expensive watch, it sounds good to their ears. The WIS are probably few and far between so many of these sales people take their chances or odds? Don’t know, just spitballing.

Brandon Skinner

May 19, 2020

Imagine how many employees/watchmakers they would need to produce 1,000,000 watches a year.

patrick_y

May 19, 2020

And they'd have to charge a lot. Geneva is an expensive place to live!

patrick_y

May 19, 2020

But I remember I was a very young kid, under ten, when I first heard this and I thought that couldn't make sense. It just couldn't. GDP per capita in Switzerland being what it is, then the watch would have to cost a lot more money than the $8,000 they charge for a Submariner non date.

cazalea

May 19, 2020

Say 8000 for the Rolex Ave 2000 working hrs in a year Hmm ... $4 per hour? Don’t think so. More realistic guess might be Say $1000 overhead/equipment etc And $500 materials With $1500 labor @ $50/hr = 30 hrs = one person/week And $1500 profit Thus $3500 for distribution

patrick_y

May 19, 2020

I was better at basic mental math when I was a child than I am even now. So just doing some multiplications in my mind, it didn't make sense.

Continue the conversation

This thread is active on the Rolex forum with 56 replies. Share your knowledge with fellow collectors.

Join the Discussion →

Debunking the Myth: Does a Rolex Really Take a Year to Make?

Key Points from the Discussion

Continue the conversation

More from this Forum