Journe1304
612
Very happy for you, but...
this situation is preposterous. The concept of purchasing a product outright is that you own the product; Rolex doesn’t lease or rent out watches. If I were to buy a steel sport Rolex, it’s my right to do with it what I please, whether that’s wearing it, selling it, letting it sit in a safe, or dropping it into the ocean like that old lady in Titanic.
This is a problem of Rolex’s own making. Let’s all be honest here. A Submariner is the quintessential watch, an unassailable part of any collection. But unlike, say, a Nautilus 5711, it’s always been an attainable aspiration. When the guy who’s longed for one finally got that promotion or had that life event to celebrate, he could close his eyes, take the plunge, and get the watch of his dreams. But artificial scarcity is making these pieces not objects of aspiration for the common man, but trinkets of arbitrage for dealers and wealthier people willing/able to pay over list. Rolex is ruining their unique place in the market and in the hearts of those who have always coveted dream-worthy yet attainable watches.
All that said...I’m very happy for you in your specific purchase, and I wish you good health in wearing your new watch!
Another strategy by Rolex to clamp on the grey market flippers
Well
I understand, but I don't understand.
I bought a Daytona ceramic steel last week and no issues though the AD charged a premium giving an excuse of high duties and sales tax ...
Wow
It’s only effective because the customers still buy it.
This is a punishment to the customer
There is one huge factor that makes this policy stupid and that is people and how inventive we are. There are so many ways that this could go wrong. for example,
Rogi I hear you and agree .
What is is this? Reversed communism??
This is not reasonable.
Very happy for you, but...
