Comments on: Rolex Versus Timex

By: poormanjones

poormanjones — Wed, 27 May 2009 18:46:45 +0000

the man who buys a rolex doesn’t have financial worries – he doesn’t care if the man serving him super size fries at the drive thru notices – he buys it to show off to his bentley-driving mates – because he likes expensive things – or because he genuinely like the look and feel of a rolex

isn’t is possible that someone would buy a watch because they like it?

what’s to say that because that man is rich – he is necessarily unhappy?

contentment is not derived from wealth or lack of

people can spend their money (hard earned or otherwise) on what they want

By: katy

katy — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:38:30 +0000

not to be negative, but rolexs’ are notoriously bad at keeping time!

yay timex!

By: zack

zack — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:05:04 +0000

I think that a lot of good has come from people who have the drive and money to craft and purchase frivolous items. While it is wrong to idolize people based upon the amount of money they make and show, if the whole world ran on “good enough” then we’d never make progress… although not all “progress” is moving forward.

Too much value has been placed upon finding the cheapest item that can fill a desire.

By: Tick Talk » Why wear a Rolex?

Tick Talk » Why wear a Rolex? — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:54:32 +0000

[...] places to put my money at the moment. That’s why I frequent some financial blogs like Frugal Dad. I hope that later in my career I will be able to buy a modest Rolex without having to put too much [...]

By: Frugal Babe » Archive » When Did Watches Get This Complicated?

Frugal Babe » Archive » When Did Watches Get This Complicated? — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:29:56 +0000

[...] I just took a detour over to Frugal Dad’s website, and came across this article about a Rolex versus a Timex. Reading the article and the comments is a fascinating look into the viewpoints of a wide variety [...]

By: Strabo

Strabo — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:49:05 +0000

You still can get a Rolex for less than 10 000 $ – the list price for a simple Submariner is around 5000 €.

While I personally wouldn’t buy a Rolex because I don’t like the look nor do I have the money freely available I wouldn’t say a Rolex is ridiculous. A well-maintained Rolex is something that will last more than a lifetime – a Timex won’t (on the other hand even 10 Timex are only a faction of the costs of a Rolex).

I use mechanical watches myself and wouldn’t want to go back using something with batteries – buying batteries every few months/years doesn’t seem very ecological to me, not to mention the hassle of changing it.

By: Paul Singh

Paul Singh — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:00:26 +0000

Spending nearly $30K on a timepiece is a little excessive (at least IMHO) but I can’t really talk because I wear an Omega Seamaster (~$4K) that my wife bought me as a wedding present.

I find it especially interesting that no one has commented on the engineering skills required to design something entirely mechanical to keep time.

Frankly, I think it adds a bit of old world class and I’ve enjoyed looking at all the details on the watch — it’s on my wrist every day, regardless of what I’m wearing.

In any case, I’m not proposing that people go out and buy these things. Or that they avoid them all together. The point is that we all find different things important — it’s about finding balance in what you enjoy: some people spend $30K/year in school tuition, others spend that much on purses, coffee, traveling or other stuff. As long as you’re living within your means, what’s the big deal?

Anyways, I’m hoping I haven’t opened myself up to getting flamed in the comments here!

By: Todd A

Todd A — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:40:38 +0000

I love go-fast speedboats. I have for at least 18 years now. I personally can’t make sense of owning any boat (other than a vintage jet-ski) at this time, but sometimes dream of owning such a powerful machine.

For about the first 15 years of this attraction, I surmised that if/when I could afford to, I would have no problem plunking down a couple hundred grand for such a thoroughbred. But, now, I feel differently.

Now, given 200K to spend so frivolously, I would take maybe 20-30K to buy an older, well maintained boat, and use the rest to buy immunizations for those in need in lesser developed nations. I’ve finally realized (and I’m no left-leaning political type), that the ability to buy something doesn’t equal the rationale to buy something, especially when so many others’ fate may depend upon the choice I make. It’s a sobering mid-life observation …

By: Sara at On Simplicity

Sara at On Simplicity — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 04:23:39 +0000

If someone I knew or met wore a Rolex, I’d probably think “fake.” I just don’t live an area where Rolexes seem appropriate.

On the other hand, I’d be a liar if I said that I wouldn’t be excited to inherit one. That’s the sad truth; I’m still a bit sucked in by the hype. (I put it down to editing a bunch of articles that hyped up expensive watches. Job hazard.)

By: Marci

Marci — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 03:48:29 +0000

I’ve actually bought 2 different houses for less than the cost of the rolex. One was $19,000 and on 1/3 acre, rural. Rented it out a few years.I sold it on a land sale contract for $35 at 10.5% interest, 20 years. The other was $22,000, half acre – across the road from city zoning, also a rental for a few years. I sold it on a land sale contract (I carried the paper) for $35,000 also at 11% interest. That 11% interest is very nice coming in like clockwork all these years, with several more to go!

For me – those were better investments than the watch. But that’s just what worked for me – not for others.