The assertion you made is potentially a legitimate one according to the terms of the original post, which, after all, asks what watches one thinks represent value for money. We are obliged to some degree therefore to consider price points relative to what we perceive to be the value offered. I don't think it at all inappropriate to make the assertion, as such, that Rolex offers poor value for the dollar relative to other watches; what I suggest (and it is merely a suggestion) is that for the assertion to be meaningful, we must first agree on what value is, and on whether or not there is some reasonably objective framework within which we can discuss a correlation between value and price.
And I think that the more you consider such a matter, the more slippery coming up with such an agreement (on what constitutes value) and such a framework (an objective correlation of value and price) will seem.
Cheers,
JF