Based on my in-depth knowledge of several obscure product fields, I've developed an instinctive skeptical reaction to believing that whatever a layperson thinks of as "the best" is actually "the best".
When it comes to watches, Rolex is obviously the high-end brand that the layperson will be familiar with and will believe to be representative of high quality.
Can someone who is well-versed in high-end watches tell me if they are, in fact, leading the game when it comes to engineering and quality? I seem to recall reading a few years back that Rolexes had abnormally high maintenance costs, but this article directly contradicts that, so perhaps I'm mistaken.
I don't think any of the good watch manufacturers can claim "leading the game in engineering and quality" in the sense that it's way better. Maybe Rolex is statistically 10% better quality (measured how? durability? fit and finish? design?) than the classic "beater" automatic Seiko SKX007 ($200, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000B5MI3Q ), but then the price of the Rolex Sub is >40x higher.
If you're really after extreme durability (which is one aspect of quality), I think you'd be very hard pressed to find an automatic better than the Marathon GSAR, which is about 1/10th the price of a Rolex Sub.
Totally subjective: the "best" watch is a Grand Seiko with a Spring Drive movement. The smooth sweep of the hands are mesmerizing to me. That said, I'm unlikely to ever buy one--I can afford it, but I'd rather blow money on "dubious" computer equipment--unless I start making FY money.
That Spring Drive is a mecha-quartz movement, no? You can find the same one in several other watches, even non-Seiko ones; look for the VK64 or VK63 movements. This one I like in particular:
You can think what you want about their watches (and I certainly think their modern self congradulatory dials filled with a ridiculous amount of text are horrifying), but they are a excellent engineering company running a ruthlessly efficient operation.
One thing that really makes rolex stand out is their quality control. They make nearly 1 million watch movements per year and have an unbelievably low return rate for defects. The true number is a closely guarded secret, but it's tiny. When a watch leaves rolex it's perfect.
Everything that goes into a rolex is made by rolex. There is only 1 other watch company that can say that (seiko), and that only applies to particular lines they make. Rolex makes their own sapphire and hairsprings, 2 of the most complex things to manufacture in the world. The swiss watch world is a complex maze of subvendors and parts bin makers, but rolex does it all themselves, and does it extremly well.
The place rolex really sets itself apart is their bracelets. Put a rolex on and snap the clasp shut and it will just feel different from any watch you have ever worn. They are extremely heavy, but also amazingly comfortable. For the rolex price point no one can even come close to the wearing experience.
If you wanted a luxury steel watch and didn't want to research your options, going and buying whichever rolex you liked the look of would net you an extremly well made watch built to insane tolerances. You could do a lot worse.
You don't buy a Rolex to tell the time. You buy a Rolex to tell the world.
Mechanically, they're mostly pretty average. But they are a Veblen good for sure, and some people treat them as an investment.
Personally I hate divers/chronos and don't want to lost a significant sum of money when I break one or have one stolen, so I have a nice collection of <$200 quartz watches.
> if they are, in fact, leading the game when it comes to engineering and quality?
I don't think so. It's a very high quality _mass produced_ watch. For example to compare it with cars i'd say it's the equivalent of a Mercedes: a very high end car when compared to all cars in the world, but to enthusiasts a Mercedes is quite ordinary/unremarkable.
Other brands have much higher floors of quality (e.g. Patek Philipe, H. Moser, Voutilainen). To continue the car analogy these are the Ferraris, Lamborghinis etc.
I'm not sure if I really qualify as being well versed in high end watches, my only current wristwatches are a Timex and a Casio G-Shock, but I did submit the article and I do have an interest in watches and clocks so I'll try and answer as best I can.
In terms of engineering, Rolex watches tend to be on the simpler side, relative to some of the the complications you find in even higher end watches. They don't employ tourbillons, or minute repeaters, or offer watches with a laundry list of different complications, so in that sense they are not on the cutting edge. On the other hand, the things that Rolex does, they seem to do very well. They spend quite a bit of R&D on research into things like special alloys for watch cases as as well as balance wheels, escapements and mainsprings.
In terms of quality, they seem to have a very well earned reputation. It's also important to note that Rolex produces somewhere around 600k-1 million watches a year. They seem to be very good at producing high quality at very large scale.
Regarding maintenance costs, I don't think Rolex is know as a particularly expensive brand, although again, I don't actually own a Rolex so this is second hand info from watch forums. I think one of the problems in this area is that I doubt most watch buyers, Rolex or otherwise, have any clue about the long term maintenance of watches. And I doubt the salespeople selling Rolexes spend much time educating potential customers on these costs so you probably end up with a bit of sticker shock when people realize they have to send a mechanical watch in for service. I do know that Rolex has received some criticism for making spare parts increasingly hard to get for independent repair shops, requiring customers go through authorized channels.
A complaint levied against the Swiss watch industry recently it that they are very happy to allocate labor & capital to producing and selling watches, but they don't like making the same investments in labor to ensure quick servicing, which has a habit of pissing off customers when they have to send a watch back to Switzerland for months at a time every few years. One of the things Rolex has been working on with regards to mainsprings and other alloys is developing movements that require less frequent lubrication and servicing.
I'll also add that Rolex movements, both the newer ones as well as older ones from the 1960s-70s, have a reputation for being rock solid and relatively straight forward to service, assuming parts availability. I've never worked on Rolex movements myself but I have done minor servicing on several ETA 2824s, a lower end workhorse of the Swiss watch industry, and I've been told that Rolex movements are significantly more robust.
A Rolex is a [fairly ostentatious] signal that the wearer has a very great deal of disposable income: is the engineering quality particularly relevant?
If you're not a watch person, Rolexes might look like ostentatious status symbols. However, the flagship watches that they are most known for (like the Submariner, Milgauss, Daytona etc) are all tool watches first and foremost made mostly of stainless steel.
Like watches, some people buy BMWs because they’re actually very passionate about cars and quality. Spend any amount of time on watch forums and you’ll soon appreciate the engineering involved and the passion that people have for these things.
The fact that it's an impressive feat of engineering is the main reason why I bought a mechanical watch (JLC). Besides, heck, we're talking about watches that can easily last 50+ years. And some even appreciate in value.
Rolex is a fine brand. It's a "safe" choice in the mechanical watch world. Not super high-end. Not total BS schmaltz wrapped around an off the shelf ETA movement.
What it reminds me of most as far as products go is a vintage Land Rover, Toyota Land Cruiser, pre-Chrysler Mercedes-Benz, or air-cooled Porsche. You know the brand will support and service the watch forever and you can expect to find qualified technicians all over the world.
If you're buying a watch not just to show off today, but to pass down through your family, that's worth something. Rolexes generally hold their value well, are durable, keep the same style for decades, and have a relatively conservative look.
Read a little bit about Patek Philippe and their complications (eg. Graves Supercomplication). They're one of the few manufacturers that still make everything in-house. Conservative and understated minimal designs. Beautiful machines.
In terms of pushing the boundaries of material engineering, Richard Mille is doing some interesting things.
They lead the game in terms of signalling disposable income to the 90%ers. They have been beaten by the Japanese in multiple areas for decades.
The best example is that the Swiss used to have accuracy contests which they had to cancel after Seiko systematically bested everybody else for several years (easily Googleable e.g. [1]). Even in the quartz world, the current best is still Japanese with the (comparatively cheap!) $1,000 Citizen Chronomaster, the most accurate non-atomic-sync watch. And your average $80 G-Shock now has the atomic sync functionality.
How about extremes? Whilst everybody else was messing about with fragile and expensive helium valves to deal with coming back up from high pressures required by professional divers, such as those repairing oil rigs, Seiko put together an R&D team and after 8 years of research came up with a design that went deeper with no valve, the 6159 aka "tuna can" [2]. Of course divers now use a dive computer, but if you need a backup the Darth Tuna is very good indeed.
Want some real "handmade" artisanal creds, some ties to history? How about hand painted laquer dials using centuries old traditional methods (see any "urushi" model) or the extreme attention to detail in the Credor line (e.g. [3]).
So the watch world is fragmented into Seiko lovers and haters, the former seeing value in the engineering and artisanship and the latter seeing a lack of brand equity and disposable income signalling that is more easily found in Switzerland (or rather, on what is badged as made in Switzerland, see [4]).
Maintenance costs are not per se an indication of low quality. For example, Seiko's Hi-Beat movements (which "beat", or move the seconds hand, many more times per second than average, generating the illusion of smoother motion) have an exceptionally strong spring and need more frequent servicing as a result of the extra work done by the movement, whereas a $10 vintage HMT watch from the 1970s beating 5x slower might just need its first oiling which you could do yourself.
So the watch world is fragmented into Seiko lovers and haters
That's being a bit disingenuous. I love Seiko's engineering and they have a few watches I like (in fact I'm wearing one right now), but on the whole I find their design aesthetic really hard to like.
When it comes to watches, Rolex is obviously the high-end brand that the layperson will be familiar with and will believe to be representative of high quality.
Can someone who is well-versed in high-end watches tell me if they are, in fact, leading the game when it comes to engineering and quality? I seem to recall reading a few years back that Rolexes had abnormally high maintenance costs, but this article directly contradicts that, so perhaps I'm mistaken.