Talk:Rolex/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Advertising

A lot of this seems to be text from advertising. Check out the very last sentence for an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.208.97 (talkcontribs) 11:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Bold formatting

Is all that bold formatting necessary? I don't like it... TastyCakes 21:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It isn't. I'll remove it.--Shanel 19:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Helium release valve

I have edited the part on the gas valve, which is actually a "helium release valve". Rolex and Doxa S.A. were the co-inventors of this valve, first commercial watch with the valve was actually the Doxa Conquistidor in 1969, followed by the Rolex in 71. This is from the recent article about Doxa in the WatchTime magazine and confirmed in other places, I think its on the Doxa website along with the patent that lists both Doxa and Rolex. edit-- signature Lgreen 16:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Mariana Trench

I find this quite incredible (in both senses of the word). A pressure of 108.6 MPa exists at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. Statements like this needs proper references to stay in a factual document.

"Wilsdorf even went so far as to have a specially made Rolex watch attached to the side of the Trieste bathyscaphe, which went to the bottom of the Mariana Trench. The watch survived and tested as having kept perfect time during its descent and ascent." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.192.78.71 (talkcontribs) 00:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a reference to an article on the Rolex "Deep Sea Special", but this event is also referenced on rolex.com 216.18.38.241 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fake Rolex

It's a fascinating subtopic that could be expanded upon. Travelling the globe, I have seen so many on sale. The fakes are even rated by grades replete with elaborate, slick catalogues and brochures printed for the vendors, with South Korea & China apparently producing some of the highest level "reproductions." These are sometimes called class-A reproductions and are so thoroughly and well-made that its nearly impossible to tell a fake even if one were taken apart. So the name Rolex, then, can apparently be worth 12,000 dollars---minus the 20 Euros one finds them selling for in Italy. . . . Fascinating topic keepable under the Rolex article heading: imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and 75% of fakes are Rolex! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.247.8 (talkcontribs) 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Fake Rolex Made in?

Most good quality fake rolex are made in japan, not only made in china. Most Hong Kong and Macau watch factories already moved to Mainland China, how they made fake? Japanese also make fake product, not only chinese. COMPLETELY BIAS, please in google search "Japan made Rolex replicas" for details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.164.72 (talkcontribs) 01:48-02:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture gallery?

I have added a Rolex picture gallery several times. Why has it been removed? Been trying to add http://www.newturfers.com/bin/mwf/board_show.pl?bid=29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.61.29 (talkcontribs) 13:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Added again and removed again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.61.29 (talkcontribs) 09:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What you posted is not a picture gallery, simple a forum where people post pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedeedum (talkcontribs) 16:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
And the difference is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.27.41 (talkcontribs) 15:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The difference is that you are spamming wikipedia with links to your own forums to drive traffic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedeedum (talkcontribs) 23:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Spamming wikipedia to drive traffic? The page has photos of Rolexes for god's sake. Isnt that what external links are about? I never thought wikipedia would feel threatened by a website that features people posting pictures of their own watches! It's incomprehensible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.15.201 (talkcontribs) 16:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
haha, looks like I am not the only one who thinks your link is spam. Another person removed your link as spam also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedeedum (talkcontribs) 13:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep removing it. I'll keep adding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.21.205 (talkcontribs) 10:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Please don't. It is spam. if you keep adding it you will be blocked from editing all Wikipedia articles. Gwernol 12:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I will not refuse a polite request as above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.58.224 (talkcontribs) 14:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Please ban this guy 59.160.21.205. It's at least the 5th time he did this to advertise his stupid forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedeedum (talkcontribs) 15:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Ban me if you like. I really dont care. But if you want to get your message across it's best that you exercise a degree of politeness. Name calling is so 5th grade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.58.224 (talkcontribs) 14:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I've reverted to the version of criticism from which people had removed some citations, then added some more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.147.239 (talkcontribs) 12:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is the genius who...

... wrote the criticism section? Whoever it is doesnt know swat about watches! I mean what kind of a bafoon compares mechanical with quartz??? Pears and apples anyone??? Seems to have been written by someone who has an issue with Rolex! lutherian 06:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Comparing mechanical with Quartz is like comparing a ferrari to a fiat Uno. The argument being that fiat consumes less petrol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhailb (talkcontribs) 09:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily agree, while the author didn't have the best examples, some of his points were close to the mark. I am somewhat upset that the section was removed, hopefully the forum is opened again and someone will contribute a better criticsm of the brand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathew JJIV (talkcontribs) 03:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, I linked another forum also without knowing that it could be considered spam, sorry. I'm going to submit a couple pictures instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanevan (talkcontribs) 19:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section removed

There is absolutely no need for this, none of the other brand references in wiki contains a criticism section so this entry is totally impartial and POV. lutherian 09:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that's not true. Without defending this particular section (which is poor) there are plenty of other Wiki articles that contain criticism sections, for example Nike, Inc., Pepsi and Microsoft. It is legitimate to include a criticism section where one applies, as long as it is verifiable from reliable sources. I am restoring the section to this article since something is required to present a balanced view of Rolex. Gwernol 12:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I meant watch brand, how come Rolex is the only one that is criticized, this is obviously a smear campaign and nothing else because the contents of the criticism is illogical and absurd, making comparisons with quartz movements! I totally disagree with you on this! lutherian 14:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it is not obviously a smear campaign, and no you did not mention watches: "none of the other brand references in wiki contains a criticism section" right above. It is absolutely valid to have a criticism section. I agree with you that there are serious problems with the text as it stands (which is why I've removed the worst claims and added {{fact}} tags to others) but the solution is to improve the section, not excise it completely. That amounts to sweeping criticism under the rug and is enforcing a point of view. Sorry, Gwernol 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
To expand, there is a reason why Rolex alone amongst watch brands would have a criticisms section. It is such a well-known brand and the prices for its watches are so extravegant that it is bound to attract more direct criticism than other brands do. Let's work to improve the section and ensure it is fair and well sourced instead of just removing it. Gwernol 15:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes I did mention watches, look at the edit summary in the article. As for the prices, I beg to differ, there are many other watch brands out there that sell for similar prices and yet there doesnt seem to be any criticism. Take AP as an example! Anyways, im not going to go into a petty revert war with you suffice it to say that leaving a section devoted to trashy criticism is nothing but pure POV, and I dont believe that you are indifferent to this particular brand! lutherian 16:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see WP:NPA, which your last sentence breaches: I have no interest in Rolex, don't own one and don't have any opinion about whether they are good value or not. I am merely interested in ensuring the article maintains a neutral point of view. Simply denying that criticism exists is a bad idea - it does exist and should be included in the article. Gwernol 16:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
what are you referring to? the fact that I called the contents of the criticism section trashy (which I very much belive it is) or that I get the impression that you are not indifferent to the Rolex brand. Either of these statements of mine can hardly be considered a personal attack, I suggest you revisit the definition.
Also, it seems that others agree with me with regards to removing the criticism section. If you want we can submit this issue to arbitration, I have no problems whatsoever! Cheers lutherian 18:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to your statement that I had a personal agenda related to Rolex. That is an attack on my intentions rather than a discussion of my actions. Please refrain from such comments, they are unfounded. I am not going to continue reverting the section back; I think its a shame that editors of this article will not allow criticisms of Rolex since some of them have validity and are documented. This is the opposite of encyclopedia writing. Gwernol 18:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Relax, I never said that you had a personal agenda, it was an impression I have and as such does not constitute a peronal attack! I agree with you that Rolex is not a perfect company (far from it), but what I find totally unacceptable is that someone decides to target this one watch brand. If there was a criticism section for all the other watch brands on wiki and if they were fair (unlike the rubbish on this one), I would be a happy camper! Furthermore, I think its a good idea that you put the neutrality tag (although i dont agree with your motive) and I would in fact add another tag on the incompleteness of this article! Cheers lutherian 18:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Criticisms aren't being "suppressed" as your checkin comment states when you added the POV tag. I removed this section because Criticism sections are supposed to be well cited. Not only were there very few cites in this section, it was written terribly (spelling errors, grammar errors, etc). An article's criticisms section is supposed to reflect well documented and cited criticisms -- not someone's own personal editorial. The paragraph I removed reflected the latter. As to Lutherian -- what other articles have or do not have is irrelavant here. If you have well-documented criticisms of other watch brands, please add them to their appropriate articles. As all articles are a work-in-progress, such comparaisons are not relevant. Instead, we just look at Wikipedia policy. Such policies as WP:POV state that we need to show all sides. But WP:NOR state that facts, especially controvertial ones, need to be well cited. It was for the latter reason, as well as the unencyclopedic tone and writing style, that I removed the criticisms paragraph. If a proper, well-written and (most importantly) well-cited one is added to the article, I will support its inclusion. --Rehcsif 19:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Pictures?

How can I post a picture of my Rolex watch?

I think that this section deserves photos of real Rolexes as opposed to just that fake.

I own 4 of them and can post personal photos of them. The Yacht master in Platinum, Submariner in Steel and TT ( Steel and Gold) and the GMT master II —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.43.0 (talkcontribs) 08:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you can post pictures but if you find out, you definitely should post them. People should be able to see the true beauty of a genuine Rolex watch rather than the cheap fake one currently posted in the article. To anyone who knows, please post pictures of genuine Rolex watches in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.110.89 (talkcontribs) 08:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
If you took the pictures, just click the "Upload File" link to the left of your screen. Select an appropriate license (I usually use the GFDL/CC combo) and then add an image link in this article to point to your new image (use the existing one as a guideline. There's probably a WP page on how to do this but I'm too lazy to look it up now. --Rehcsif 14:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have uploaded a pic of my YM ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P1010380.JPG) . Someone please format it properly. I just cant figure it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhailb (talkcontribs) 12:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Done with the code [[Image:P1010380.JPG|thumb|right|Rolex Yachtmaster]]. --GraemeL (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I added the text "Rolex Watchmaster" as the image title as that was the only description on the image itself. Feel free to expand it to give some more information. --GraemeL (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I now see that my Yachtmaster picture is up for deletion. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.3.255 (talkcontribs) 16:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please remove Rolex replicas section

I pointed out before, not only taiwan and china made fake rolex. but some PEOPLE edit this and wrote Only Chinese make fake rolex. Does it mean wikipedia is full of Racism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.190.198.135 (talkcontribs) 18:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It says they are MAINLY made in Taiwan and China, and that statement is flagged as {{fact}}. Nowhere in the article does it say "only chinese make fake rolex". Please read carefully before challenging statements. --Rehcsif 19:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhailb (talkcontribs) 13:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV tag

I removed the POV tag. It was added the other day by Gwernol in response to the criticisms section being removed. But as I pointed out above, Criticisms are welcome -- it's just that nobody has come up with any VERIFIABLE / CITABLE criticisms. Personal essays on why you think Rolex's are a rip-off are not encyclopedic and a violation of WP:NOR. I see no need to clutter the article with a POV tag when the reasons for the section's removal had nothing to do with POV. --Rehcsif 19:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Rolex "linkspam"

While many of the external links in the Rolex section might very well be linkspam, not all are. To delete the hubpages.com link, which has the most comprehensive information on Rolex models I've seen on the Web, seems really excessive. There are reviews on all the current, plus plenty of classic models, plus history about the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.0.17 (talkcontribs) 17:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with a link like hubpages.com/hub/Rolex_Watches is two-fold:
  1. It really is a link promoting one person, or at least, one person's view of the Rolex world. Wiki strongly discourages promotional links.
  2. Allowing in one link like this opens the door to many, many other links that are "just a little bit promotional".
Now, either of these wouldn't necessarily be a problem with an article about some obscure area, say polymerase chain reaction where the whole universe of links, self-promotional or not is probably a dozen or so. But it is a problem for a popular topic like Rolex, where everyone and their brother comes along and tries to stick their blatantly self-promotional link in from time to time.
Because of this, I know that I try to keep a much tighter rein on linkspam in articles like Rolex (or Hot tub, to give another example) than I would on PCR. Obviously, though, we work by consensus here so I don't have the last say and I welcome everyone else's opinion on this too.
Atlant 20:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The author is sharing extensive information and subjective feedback about his passion, but he is not after establishing a name for himself. He doesn't mention himself or anything about himself besides a brief bio. I happen to know the author quite closely, and he is just an enthusiast who has spent a lot of time putting together this resource, which he wanted to share with a broader audience of kindred spirits. He was thrilled when I put in a link for it on Wikipedia, since he's a huge fan of the site and uses it a lot.
The fact is, topics like Rolex or, I guess, hot tubs, are going to have a bigger following of dedicated enthusiasts, than something like PCR (all due respect to the scientists out there, naturally). And, his collection of articles does include reviews of many models that Wikipedia doesn't even have articles for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.0.17 (talkcontribs) 21:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll wait for other opinions. By the way, please sign your posts to "talk" pages. You can easily do this by including four tildes (~~~~) after your text. When you press (Save page), these will be replaced by your username (or, for you, IP address) in a handy Wikilinked format. A timestamp will also be included.
Atlant 14:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good--thank you for the tip. I'm completely new to this part of the Wikipedia process. Thank you. 66.92.0.17 00:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm the poster who deleted your links. I did so because after checking your contributions, I noticed that you inserted hubpages.com links into several articles. Don't spam. Exeunt 00:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Point taken and it won't happen any more. Again, I'm new to this; I understand there has to be some control over what gets included and what doesn't. I would just argue that this particular link is useful and provides a lot of complementary information for people researching the topic of Rolex. 66.92.0.17 01:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I did check out the link before deleting it. In all, I found it well-written and informative. However, the fact that there were ads plastered all over the site put me off. This fact alone wouldn't have compelled me to delete your link, but in conjunction with your other external link insertions, I became suspicious of spam. Feel free to reinsert the link--you seem well-intentioned. Exeunt 18:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Exeunt and Atlant. James let me know that he'll continue to add data in the reviews to flesh them out a bit, too. 66.92.0.17 17:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Gwernol removed the link early yesterday with a standardized message to not put external spam links. I tried contacting him using the talk function but have yet to hear a reply. Was that an automated action by a bot? Can I put the link back up? Thank you. 66.92.0.17 23:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Found that the link was removed again. Reverted link. Please do not delete link without at least discussing here. --66.92.0.17 17:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Sweep" second hand

From http://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=tree&goto=2277&rid=0:

A sweep second hand is one that is mounted in the center of the dial and sweeps over the entire face. This is in contrast to a "seconds sub-dial" that is typically at 6 o'clock (AKA "6-eater"). A sweep second hand can be on a quartz or mechanical movement--it does not say anything about whether it ticks once a second or more smoothly. Okay, this isn't a FAQ but rather the maintainer's pet peeve but many newbies misuse the term. Don't believe me? Look it up in the dictionary. 216.18.38.241 15:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Rolex Reference Page

The Rolex Reference Page would be a good add to the external links - www.rolexreferencepage.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.32.148.18 (talkcontribs) 20:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mechanical versus Quartz Sweep Action

The article has it backwards. The seconds hand in mechanical movements of a genuine non-quartz Rolex "tick." Quartz movements in the fake cause the seconds hand to move smoothly. Seth1066 16:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it has been corrected. Seth1066 16:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction: Tick or Sweep?

There is an inconsistency in the Replicas section:

One good test to spot if the watch is a fake or not can be performed simply by looking at it. Most Rolex models have a self-winding mechanical movement, which "ticks" (that is, will move quickly, pause momentarily then repeat the action) from one second indicator to another. The majority of all cheaply made fakes have a simple battery powered quartz movement which makes the second hand move smoothly around the watch face.

and

Some higher-end replicas use quality materials such as reliable ETA automatic movement with a smoothly moving second hand like a genuine Rolex...

So do genuine Rolex tick or sweep? The change to the first paragraph was made by:

14:10, 11 January 2007 138.88.110.35 (Talk) (→Rolex replicas - Switched minute hand movement descriptions, i.e. quartz/fake=smooth; mechanical/genuine=ticks)

I have to mention that I found this article while watching CSI Miami where they find a body underground by listening to the fake Rolex ticking. One of the CSI even said that real Rolex don't tick. Now, that's gotta be true. ;)

Also found this: http://www.qualitytyme.net/pages/rolex_faqs.html

Do genuine Rolex watches tick?

This has been a big misconception regarding Rolex watches, "sweeping" versus "ticking". And in the past people used this as a method of identifying counterfeit Rolex watches.

The truth is, genuine Rolex watches do, in fact, "tick". However, they tick at around 5 to 6 times per second, so it gives the illusion of "sweeping" or "floating" around the dial. If you watch the second hand with a loupe you can see it.

In the past, cheap counterfeits would utilize quartz movements, and thus would "tick" once per second. However, these days counterfeits use mechanical movements that appear to "float", but only at around 3 to 4 times per second. This gives what we call a "choppy step", and can also be spotted with a loupe.

--Zealander 02:22-03:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Contradiction: Tick or Sweep?

From personal experience having owned several genuine Rolex watches, let me clarify: The genuine Rolex has a stop/start "ticking" type movement of the seconds hand. The quartz fake Rolex has a much smoother characteristic to the sweep of its seconds hand where the "ticking" is practically imperceptible. Later "improved" fakes have implemented a mechanical movement to attempt to emulate the real Rolex.

From my memory of having looked at quartz "Foolex" models in the past, the sweep hand was very smooth and I disagree with the quoted website's statement: "In the past, cheap counterfeits would utilize quartz movements, and thus would "tick" once per second." In fact, the obvious characteristic of those movements in the fakes, in any quartz watch, was a smooth running seconds hand. --Seth1066 14:44, 13 January - 16:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I Dont know what these people are saying. I have many rolexs and i know of excellent faxes or replicas that you can see. Swiss Replicas are 28 jewel movement - a rolex is 32 jewel so basicaly its pretty close that the naked eye cant tell. then there are japanese repilicas they have a 22 jewel movement and appearance looks very difficult to tell. Then you have chinese they have either cheap 16 jewel automatic movement or quartz cheapest movement. normally no working dials crappy magnifiying bubble - flaws in priting on dial - lightweight band - obvious to someone who wears the real thing.... good luck.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.131.250 (talkcontribs) 07:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The number of jewels has little to do with the quality of the movement. These jewels are synthetic and literally worthless. Jewels reduce friction by design. Once upon a time they were added because of the public's perception to believe the more the merrier. There are only so many places in the basic movement that these are useful.

Watch movements are actually like engines in cars--they all share similar features, but are quite different in design and are not easy to misidentify by a connoisseur.

Ticking:

Modern Rolexes do in fact "tick" at the rate of 28,800 bph (beats per hour). Each tick happens when the balance wheel oscillates and stops in each direction. Two ticks, therefore, are a full cycle.

28,800 beats per hour = 8 beats per second (beat=tick)

Some ETA Movements tick at that rate as well. Most Chinese and Japanese (some Miyota, Seiko, and Orient) movements that I've seen tick slower, at a rate of 21600 bph or six beats per second. Each beat advances the seconds hand from one tick mark to the next. So it is possible to notice the difference in sound between 6 and 8 per second as well as visual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.19.252 (talkcontribs) 04:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Synthetic jewels are better for watches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.76.122 (talkcontribs) 14:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Tick or sweep? Its irrelevant here

I removed all references from that section - problem solved. Too much space was taken up discussing fakes anyways.

This is an encyclopedia article about REAL rolex watches. Not a "how-to" guide on spotting fakes. I removed the majority of that section. Anyone interested in writing a guide on spotting fakes can start a new article elsewhere.

While we're at it, I notice that a lot of the ref links are actually spam links selling watches/books disguised as footnotes. I am going to change some of these. --Eqdoktor 16:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

New Rolex counterfeits article

I moved the majority of the "Rolex replicas" section into a new article Rolex counterfeits, so no information is lost. Additional info on fake Rolexes can be updated there. --Eqdoktor 15:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Wilsdorf wanted his watches to be affordable"

I'm not usually one for asking for citations for everything and nothing, but "Wilsdorf wanted his watches to be affordable" just doesn't bear the stamp of intrinsic convincingness to my mind. It's too admiring, and too unlike what usually happens in business. I put a {{fact}} tag on it. Bishonen | talk 00:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

"Stupid Rolex"

Theyve recently said that our logo appears to be too similar to theirs, and demanded that we chanded it. Our website is http://obviouslycounterfeit.com but that has the new logo, the old one had a five pronged jesters hat, instead of the three. All of us that have these watches have just been laughing because of how narrowminded a huge corporation can be. Oh, our counterparts have the original five pronged on their website still, but if you order from them, than you wont get a five pronged, but a three —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepinitril (talkcontribs) 15:40-15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Rolex Discussion

Many people these days enjoy the hobby of collecting and talking about Rolex watches, their history, models and horological developments. One of the many places this occurs is on a commercial free (non-profit) forum known as www.rolexforums.com 203.17.236.101 07:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

so how much do they cost

nt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.171.4 (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a look here. Dr.K. 01:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced section

I edited out the following section because it is unreferenced:

Hans Wilsdorf registered the trademark name "Rolex" in La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland in 1908. 1905-1908 however was a time when reports of violence and brutalities from Germany started to hit the press. The British who had formally been allies with the Germans, wanted to distance themselves as much as possible. Anything with a German name was changed. The British Royal family themselves changed their surname from Saxe-Coburg to Windsor. The anti German feeling was also responsible for the dog German Sheppard being changed to Alsatian. Doctors stopped informing mothers that their children had German measles, they now called it Rubella.
The watch makers had the same problem; Hans Wilsdorf was a German sounding name. Alfred Davis made a business decision to change the name of the company. Davis wanted a 5 digit name that could be written across the face of the watch, He liked the name that Timex had. Timex has been manufacturing watches for over 25 years and it was a well known name. The Timex Watch Company made quantity and not quality. It went for the larger market, in doing so its name was well known.
A year earlier in 1906 Henry Royce was advertising his new car that he had partnered with Charles Rolls. The Rolls Royce was built as the world’s most luxurious motor car. It was said the car was so quite that at 40 mph, you could hear a watch ticking. (40 mph was good for a production car in 1906). The symbol of class, elegance and reliability. This was everything Wilsdorf and Davis wanted to say about their watches.
At an, after performance party at The London Brixton Theatre and Opera House October 1906, Davis spoke with Henry Royce and Charles Rolls, Davis himself owned and drove a Rolls Royce Six Cylinder Silver Ghost. Throughout his life he owned Rolls Royce motor cars. He joked with the car makers, “You may be able to hear a watch ticking in your car, but not one of my watches”.
Davis came up with the idea to use part of the Rolls Royce name Known for prestige and quality. Wilsdorf was not happy to change the name.
Most partnerships that have initials as the company name such as DHL, Marks & Spencer and Smith & Western normally put the name and initials in alphabetical order. Not Wilsdorf, it was W & D for his partnership. Even then he had many advertisements as Wilsdorf & Davis. So for Wilsdorf to remove his initial was not a decision he was happy with.
However Davis insisted on the change to continue growth and to disassociate from a German sounding name as much as possible. In the end Wilsdorf gave in, but as you read later, his name once again would appear on many of the company advertisements as managing director. Plus throughout his life he tried various watch companies with his name as the brand name.
Alfred Davis matched the Timex name and Rolls Royce name. The name was more acceptable to Wilsdorf.
ROLLS ROYCE TIMEX became the brand we know and love today.
July 2nd 1908 Wilsdorf & Davis register the name ROLEX.

In addition to the fact that the section tends to wander in unrelated topics such as dog names etc., there are no citations of any type provided. If they can be provided then the section can be restored in a suitably trimmed form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasoskessaris (talkcontribs) 03:50-04:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Rolex an acceptable source for Rolex?

In this edit, another editor removes such comments/warnings as {{dubious}}<!-- Why should Rolex be considered a reliable source for such claims? -->, with the edit summary Because they base their prestige on it. If it were false the other watchmakers would never let them (or us) forget it.

I wonder. Let's imagine that some company falsely claimed that its brand had achieved something or other that had actually been achieved by whatever company was then putting out Omega brand watches. Would Swatch (the owner of Omega) kick up a fuss? If so, how and where?

I don't suppose that Rolex would lie. I do suppose that companies, Rolex included, paint as rosy a picture of their past as isn't obviously incompatible with the truth. If this stuff about Rolex is noteworthy, it will surely be noted in an independent source.

(Though if the material about flashy watch companies in WP is any index of the quality of independent writing on such companies, I start to wonder. Every article I look at has some nuggets of facts [or apparent facts] of some note floating around in a soup of peacock terms, name-dropping and gibberish. Omega is certainly no exception.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the books listed in the reference section Racklever (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any of them. If you do, perhaps you could start the process of adding specific references for specific assertions. It's a terribly dreary job, I realize, but it's one that somebody has to do. -- Hoary (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't had the time or unfortunately even the inclination to investigate the chronometer claim on the web but this is a cornerstone claim by Rolex. Their watches carry the notice Superlative chronometer officially certified to this day. I can't imagine they would undermine the certification process by falsely claiming they were the first to be certified. After almost a century since this claim was made noone on Earth has come forward to debunk it. That includes competitors who would love to see Rolex with their pants down, private investigators, the press, the National Enquirer to just name a few in the West, not to mention the Russians in the East who would love to claim yet another first against the West. It would be suicidal for Rolex to so expose itself through the centuries to so many diverse and sleuthy sources. That it is notable I have no doubt. This is the first time a chronometer passed rigorous standards based on objective criteria and we all know how important Time is. While I agree with your fanboy and other comments, even your rosy picture comments I would like to point out that Rolex may be a commercial site and it may want to embellish the appeal of its products but when playing with history it does have integrity even, for the jaded, for simple self preservation reasons. Dr.K. (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
You bring up a number of points, Dr K. No, I don't think that Rolex would lie. (I don't think its rival watchmakers would lie either, not even those Russians.) But both before I arrived at it and the last time I looked, the Rolex article cited a Rolex source in more than one place. This article on Rolex is rather longer than others on such brands as Ulysse Nardin, but all the watch articles I've looked at so far share the appearance of dodgy sourcing, and several make claims that seem very similar or even the same (and thus mutually incompatible). Now, I know squat about watches (as may be painfully obvious), but I am slightly acquainted with cameras, which have certain similarities. With camera history, you'll often find that scrupulous investigators agree in independently published books on which is the first commercially-sold example ("A") of a particular innovation, and that they'll further agree that it has design flaws (anywhere between merely irritating and so bad as to render the product unreliable and thus unusable) that are ironed out by one ("B") or more of the innovator's slightly later rivals. The manufacturer of "B" (or more likely the owner of its brand name) can honestly claim that "B" was the first successful example; "B" can supplant "A" in the popular imagination; "B" certainly does deserve credit (as does "A"): all in all it's a lot safer not to depend on corporate histories by Nikon, Canon, etc. (or even nominally independent but rather too admiring histories of these) but instead to use books by people who've considered their claims and also the claims made by and for companies (such as Zunow and Miranda) that no longer exist and are largely forgotten. -- Hoary (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree in principle with your ideas and the point about the comparative analysis from independent sources and I find the camera analysis analogy a good one. I don't have any watch analysis books unfortunately and that's a problem at this point. I agree with most of your tags save maybe the ones about the chrono certification and the first waterproof watch where again I tend to believe Rolex (except if, as usual, we ignored some little known Russian first in the area :}. Finally I don't even know if there are any books that compare watches in the same way they compare cameras. With time I hope something can be found. I can also see if the books suggested by Racklever can be obtained. Thanks for your reply and take care. Dr.K. (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad we're on the same wavelength. I do think that all these claims should be sourced, but I certainly wouldn't insist that people forgo their plans for Kwanzaa or Christmas or whatever (sourcing the Rolex article can wait a little), and I'm not going to be a jerk and reinsert the warning tags (unless perhaps somebody says something that gets me rattled, but there seems little risk of that happening). ¶ Two other interesting things about camera history are that "features" often assumed to be unitary turn out to have been introduced piecemeal, and that a great number of apparent novelties turn out to be a lot older than most people assume. Perhaps the world of watches is similar. ¶ I'm not sure that I want to get much more interested in watch history: I fear it could develop into a particularly expensive obsession! -- Hoary (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The funny thing is we are much more in tune than I realised at the beginning. I have camera books and I am much more interested in camera evaluations than I am in watches. So I ditto all your comments without hesitation. As far as expenses you are absolutely right. Having the camera bug is one thing, adding the watch bug is something to be avoided at all costs (no pun intended). Thank you for your great comments. It's been a great pleasure meeting you. All the best of the season to you too. Bye for now and who knows we might meet again in some camera article in the future. Dr.K. (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

How much of this must we take on trust?

Some aspects of this sweeping edit of Racklever's are indeed improvements, but on balance I'm highly tempted to revert Racklever's edit.

The claims that had "{{fact}}" attached to them may indeed be backed up by this or that among the "references" (none of which I have seen). And some of the references smell good. But others smell highly suspect. Anyway, discrete claims should be backed up by specific sources, or anyway they should when anyone asks.

That's how I for one endeavor to edit articles. Sometimes I'm less energetic about this than I should be, and sometimes I screw up. On rare occasion I may even accidentally delete a "{{fact}}" flag that somebody else has added. But I am sure that I have never deleted a number of "{{fact}}" flags, citing evidence in unspecified places within any of a number of sources.

As it is, the Rolex article strikes me as being on the longer side but otherwise typical of en:WP's articles on wristwatch brands: not so much encyclopedia material as fansite material.

Alternatively, perhaps I just don't understand the "mystique" of "luxury brands", and should be awe- and dumbstruck by their price-tags into worshipful silence. -- Hoary (right now wearing no wristwatch whatever) 11:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC) ... typos fixed Hoary (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Status symbols

Resolved

I reverted this edit: (diff). The reason is this edit refers to the super rich. The very rich are a tiny minority. Their view on what constitutes a status symbol cannot possibly outweigh the rest of society which outnumbers them greatly. Dr.K. (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Compromise wording was found. Dr.K. (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Submariner Temperature

The submariner page said in Antarctica is withstood temperatures of -45 Celsius (-49 fahrenheit), that sounds as if it is not low enough, as I have worn far less expensive watches in temperatures of that magnitude in the north of Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.87.238 (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. Yet there is a citation needed tag for it. What can I say? Dr.K. (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW the original citation from Rolex specified the -45 degrees but it was considered unreliable. Dr.K. (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Rolex/Timex

The assertion that Rolex is a combination of Rolls Royce and Timex needs references, IMHO. Timex name according to every verifiable source I've found in print or on the web says the name wasn't used on a watch until after WW 2. It's interesting if it can be substantiated to any degree although even finding a late 19th century Timex pocket watch, advertisement, or other documentation would still not make the statement any more than speculation (which as far as I can tell, every story about how Rolex got its name basically is, at this point.) 68.175.58.77 (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. Especially since the suffix -ex is a common one. Words such as Rex, Alex, Convex, Latex, Vortex, Apex, Index, Annex (even sex) and many others all end in -ex. Many companies' names such as Amex, FedEx, Terex etc. end in -ex as well. Why does the ending -ex, that Rolex has, belong to Timex? That sounds sillier by the minute (forgive the pun if you can). Dr.K. (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Absurdly POV first paragraph.

So the assertion that the ultra-wealthy supposedly consider Rolex to be a "reverse status symbol" is SOOO important that it must be included in the SECOND LINE?

I would posit that this extreme minority position is so breath-takingly unimportant that its very inclusion in an encyclopedic article is a matter of debate. Why not include the opinions of Kalahari Bushmen, or left-handed Anabaptists in the first sentence? Surely their views on the cachet of Rolex are equally vital to those of the ulta-rich on this topic?

In my opinion, this is a very cheap shot by someone with an agenda. HedgeFundBob (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. Your points are well made. I tried to mitigate this but I ended in an edit war (diff), (diff) etc. and I compromised by including this first paragraph the way it is now. But I was never happy with this addition, because as you say (and as I originally said) it reflects the view of a tiny minority and puts undue weight on it as per WP:UNDUE. I tried to revert this but I was called a corporate shill (diff). After this, and seeing no other user discussing it, I compromised. However since you also disagree I say let's take this out from the intro and if we must just add it in another place somewhere else. Thanks for your input. Dr.K. (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem with the assertion is that it not only relies on rather glib reportage that was not intended to be taken especially seriously (it doesn't get much less relevant than a puff piece focusing on rich folk patting themselves on the back -- Robin Leach, much?), but it would seem to lead to rather unencyclopedic p*ssing matches among adherents to various marks. For instance, based on the cited articles, do we then slope off to the Mercedes piece and note those vehicles are seen as downmarket by the mega-rich? Do we head over to Raymond Weil and beat up on them for having even less mystique among the richest .0000001% of the population than does Rolex? These activities don't seem to do much to further knowledge.
'Undue' is correct! HedgeFundBob (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree that it was a "puff" article, not to be taken seriously and it was given undue weight. Including such criticism would be the equivalent of introducing a "Snob section" to every luxury brand article where every snob would be able to sound off against the brand. To further highlight these comments by placing them in the intro would be adding insult to injury. But to be fair to the super rich, I am sure that not all of them are snobs. I am certain that many among their class appreciate the design and quality of Rolex and in no way consider it to be a reverse status symbol. Therefore it is only the snobs among the very rich, a subgroup of an already small group that have this view. Thanks for this exchange of ideas that made it possible to clear this small but significant point. It's been a pleasure talking to you and to finally correct this deficiency in the article. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Trivia section

I generally agree that trivia sections should be worked into the body of the articles. However this one poses a small question. Some well-intentioned soul added a rapper as a Rolex wearer, I move for deletion as flavour of the month celebrities aren't meritorious. However, but James Bond is one of perhaps three or four fictional characters like Sherlock Holmes and Superman, cast a long shadow over the culture. Perhaps the trivia section could be deleted and the 007 footnote mentioned in another section of the article. When the Bond novels were penned, there was privation in Post War Britain, which is what make the books appeal, et cetera... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.18.184 (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Well, the section title is already not "trivia", therefore I simply remove the tag which was introduced with this revision. --Cyfal (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Good points. I agree with both of your comments. Dr.K. (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wilsdorf a watchmaker?

Try getting this right. From the History section:

In 1905 German watchmaker Hans Wilsdorf ... Contrary to popular belief, Hans Wilsdorf was neither Swiss, nor a watchmaker.

79.77.52.69 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the history section repeats and contradicts itself. It needs some copy editing.--Srleffler (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Rolex at the "top of the spamlist"

I reverted this (WP:AGF) edit twice already, because it's not Rolex's fault that all the fake Rolex industry does is email everyone on the planet with fake Rolex deals. Please discuss this before adding this unsuitable piece of info in the introduction of the article. Also don't forget WP:3RR. Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Synonym of spam and Rolex's fault.

Tasoskessaris, Wikipedia is not appropriate place to investigate, whos fault results millions of messages of unwanted announcements. Now, in the most of cases, "rolex" means aggressive adverticement of anything - drugs, fake documents, sex-toys, poor movies, stinky ham - anything, that make us to womit - and only few people know, that "rolex" also may mean "clock". The online encyclopedy should indicate the current meaning of the word, not the meaning it had in the past century. Please, recover the reference I suggest. dima (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you insist please put this stuff into popular culture but not in the introduction. It simply does not belong there as you (I hope) understand. Thank you again. Dr.K. (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Dr.K., I see, you want to separate the luxury from the pop-culture. I shall try to do it, but it takes some time.. dima (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Domitory/dima, you say: Now, in the most of cases, "rolex" means aggressive adverticement of anything - drugs, fake documents, sex-toys, poor movies, stinky ham - anything, that make us to womit - and only few people know, that "rolex" also may mean "clock".
Let's see the evidence for this.
I see that you moved this article from "Rolex" to "Rolex(company)" (sic). Presumably you meant "Rolex (company)". I moved it back. If you want to move it to "Rolex (company)" (or anywhere else), provide reasoning for this here, and wait to get agreement. Before you get agreement, do not move it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Aside from dubious sources such as tidbits.com? (please give me a break) and the so called major revamping inflicted on this ill fated article which is simply a front for WP:OR, I really don't have much to complain about. Doubtful spam related research should be done in another article such as Rolex spam messages debate or something similar not here. Alternatively we can move this article to another name such as Rolex S.A. or Rolex watch company or anything else so that the actual watch company escapes the rather unfortunate fate to become a casualty of such an example of bad editing and bad info. Dr.K. (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dr.K., you return version, which looks like an adverticiement boolket of the company. It is not prudent.
The encyclopedic article should mention and explain meanings of the word.
The main meaning of "Rolex" is trash, junk, spam, aggressive adverticement. (For this reason I tried to save the description of company to separate article).
The second meaning is ridiculously expensive and ugly staff, that gets huge amounts of advertising.
The third meaning is company, which did good mechanical watches in the past century and tries to compete with electronic devices, using aggressive adverticement, rolex in the first meaning.
dima (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dima thank you for your comments. It is ok to tag the article the way you did. This way other editors will have the chance to try to improve it through consensus. Thank you for being reasonable. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Domitori/dima, it's better that you continue to make unsupported assertions about Rolex here in the talk page than in the article itself; but even here in the talk page they're pretty much a waste of space. Where is the evidence for what you are saying? As long as you don't present any, you're better off posting your thoughts to some "Why I hate Rolex" BBS somewhere or other. Meanwhile, this is an encyclopedia, based on evidence. -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Rolex means SPAM.

I shall add references below. dima (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

cites

Usually, the people know about Rolex, that it is top among rolex-spam. Here is typical example of that the people know about Rolex:

(cite begin)

Try it for yourself - u will be amazed!!
- The worlds largest online retailer of luxury products, including:
*  Rolex Sports Models
*  Rolex Datejusts
*  Breitling
*  Cartier
*  Porsche Design
*  Dolce & Gabbana
*  Dior
*  Gucci
*  Hermes Watches
*  Patek Philippe

(cite end)

The normal people trash such messages without to analyze what kind of viagra or breath enlarges do these staff mean. All other meaning of the word "rolex" should be apecified as "other meaning", because they do not dominate. The dominant meaning is spam, junk email.

W.Sturgeon, 2004: Rolex watches have long been seen as a must-have product among the aspiring nouveau riche--but the brand, built upon high standards of quality and prohibitive costs, is in danger of being sullied by unsolicited e-mail. In the same way that Viagra has been a brand made synonymous with spam, so Rolex is in danger of becoming a generic byword for unsolicited e-mails. [1]

K.Hill, 2004: Examining all the spam seen in the last month, Sophos' global monitoring stations have recorded a 300% rise in the number of junk emails referencing Rolex. [2]

I.Thomson, 2004: Spammers are increasingly banking on the Rolex brand name to get users to open their emails. [3]

Rolex is at the top of spamlist in 2005 [4]

A.Kayhill, 2006: Trust me, I don’t need Viagara. Or a mortgage. Or Rolex watches. Or “dates” with young girls. [5]

D.Harley: Most people don’t want phish, 419s, pump and dump scams, misdirected virus alerts, viagra and Rolex spam,.. [6]

antispam advertiscement: You just sit there - angry - hitting the delete key over and over again - looking at ads from people who want to help you get rich quick - enlrade things - sell you porn - rolex watches - credit cards - mortgages - web cams - and pills, pills, pills! [7]

Example of use of word Rolex as synonym of "spam": [8] [9]

Rolex remains in the virus list: http://www.viruslist.com/en/analysis?pubid=204792006

  1. ^ Will Sturgeon. 'Rolex' spam taps into bling-bling culture. ZDNet News: Oct 25, 2004 http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5425119.html
  2. ^ Kathleen Hill. Experts report 300% increase in Rolex spam. Vibe, October 28, 2004. http://itvibe.com/news/2962/
  3. ^ Iain Thomson. Spammers suggest a Rolex for Christmas. Informatics, 16 Dec 2004
  4. ^ Rich Kawanagh. The top ten email spam list of 2005. Itvibe news, 2006, january 02, http://itvibe.com/news/3837/
  5. ^ Alexis Kayhill. Stopping Junk Mail. How Can You Beat Spam? Mac360, October 31, 2006, http://mac360.com/index.php/mac360/comments/poll_how_do_you_stop_junk_mail/
  6. ^ David Harley. Spam vigilants haven't gome away. Waterside Productions, 2007, january 29; http://watersidesyndication.com/inbusiness/?p=26
  7. ^ How Much are Spam and Viruses Costing you? http://www.junkemailfilter.com/spam/cost_of_spam.html
  8. ^ D.Mash. Sweetheart wants a Rolex? 2005 july 18, http://doris-mash.blogspot.com/2005/07/sweetheart-wants-rolex.html
  9. ^ S.Symantec. 12 days of Christmas spam. http://www.igotspam.com/50226711/tis_the_season_to_be_spammed.php

Objections

Hi Dima. I quote from above: so Rolex is in danger of becoming a generic byword for unsolicited e-mails.
Even if we assume this is WP:RS it still says: in danger of becoming which is different from: It already is. So let's wait until it becomes and by then hopefully the citations will increase and will become more reliable. When this time comes we'll include this info in the article. Your second reference mentions "It will be interesting to see what measures Rolex takes to protect its name" which is reasonable. It does not say Rolex is spam. Dr.K. (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Tasoskessaris, I did not finish yet. I collect cites which show, that meaning does the word "rolex" have now, and why it is so. dima (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Tasoskessaris, I finish the basic part. Please, specify the main meaning of the word in the article, including the cites. dima (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Like I said before. These citations are not stating that Rolex is spam. Therefore they are not enough to change the article as it currently stands. So I don't agree that Rolex is spam. I agree with Hoary that you have not made your case. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Rolex is known as top of aggressive adverticement through email. This is special king of spam. Only few users know that Rolex may mean also a time measuring device. In the current version, the article is wrong. Please, correct the paper. dima (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Rolex is known as top of aggressive adverticement through email. / I'll concede that "Rolex" is known as a string appearing in the subject lines of many spam messages. ¶ This is special king of spam. / I don't know what you mean. If it is that the Rolex company spams or employs other companies to spam for it, this is a serious allegation and one that you haven't started to substantiate. ¶ Only few users know that Rolex may mean also a time measuring device. / That would depend on what you mean by "few users". Look, the second in the list of featured articles is An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump. While I know what that is without looking, I bet many users do not. I further propose that a greatly larger number of users know that a Rolex is a wristwatch than know that Experiment is a painting by Wright. ¶ In the current version, the article is wrong. / Nonsense. The use by spammers of the string "Rolex" -- whether to sell actual or fake Rolex watches or merely to get attention from the brand-obsessed -- depends on mass recognition by the public that "Rolex" is the name on expensive wristwatches. ¶ You've fatally confused denotation and connotation. Rolex now has strong connotations of spamming. (It probably also has other undesirable connotations, such as conspicuous consumption or vulgarity. It may have good connotations too.) But it has two overwhelmingly important denotations: (i) wristwatches branded "Rolex" and assumed to be manufactured by a company of that name, and (ii) the company that nominally (and in most cases actually) makes those wristwatches. Encyclopedia articles are about what's denotated, not what's connotated. -- Hoary (talk) 09:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • So without consensus and discussing it properly, you trashed the entire original Rolex article, turned it into a disambiguation article based on your own opinions of what Rolex is? You didn't even move the article to Rolex (company) to preserve the history. I must disagree with you, as others already have, Rolex does not mean spam. Please undo your changes and discuss it properly first. - TexMurphy (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Domitori's editing privileges have been temporarily suspended due to repeated attempts to blank/move this article without consensus. I'd appreciate it if someone could check over the revert to ensure that I have restored the page properly. Thank you. --Ckatzchatspy 09:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do that. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Article was reverted properly to proper version. Thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What is happening?

Hey, what is happening? Dr.K and skats, will you explain your point of view?

  • 1. Do you think that company Rolex is not at the top of the spam list?
  • 2. Do you think that "Rolex" has no other meanings, excep[t that specified in the current version?
  • 3. Do you see any differences between the currned version and a pro-Rolex (copmpany) adverticement booklet?
  • 4. Why do you insist on the version that has no crytics of Rolex at all?

dima (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What is happening, Domitori/dima, is your demonstration that you have not bothered to read what was written (about denotation versus connotation, and other matters) in a section shortly above.
And what is likely to happen is either of two things. (a) You will take the trouble to read and think; or (b) you will continue to edit as you unilaterally think is best, and will get yourself another, longer block. -- Hoary (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You say (in an edit comment) I would like the defensors of the current version to answer my questions.

I am not a defendant of the current version. I'll go further than that and say that you actually bring up a real issue with articles such as this.

The issue is of what a so-called "luxury brand" is about. Ostensibly, you're paying all that money for some quasi (or actual) jewelry that tells you the time reliably and precisely. But you don't need much of a brain to realize that the aesthetic or time-keeping differences between Rolex and much cheaper alternatives can be very trivial. At least since the introduction of reliable, durable and battery-free quartz watches, what has set Rolex apart has been less a matter of timekeeping than one of image. It's an image that Rolex assiduously burnishes, with a huge advertising budget. If this image is important for encyclopedic as well as sales purposes, then (i) a Wikipedia article potentially amplifies it, and the editors should be wary of doing this, and (ii) cracks in the image are important and spam may be an issue. If the image is not importantm then the article doesn't have to rattle on about Paul Newman, James Bond, etc.

The question of how to deal with such "image" matters as product placement, celeb "ambassadors", collectibility, etc., is one that isn't limited to Rolex but instead extends to just about every wristwatch company I can think of, of course including those that advertise lavishly in Playboy and similar magazines for the status-conscious but also including Casio and the ex-Soviet companies. It's rather silly to discuss it in this talk page; it ought to be discussed elsewhere. If you would like to initiate a discussion about it, I strongly suggest that you first think long and hard about the matter, write as rational and even-handed draft as you can, polish it to make it as persuasive as possible, and only then post it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


Dear Noary. Perhaps, I was wrong putting all my questions at once. Let us try one by one.

  • Do you aee any differences between the current version of the article and a pro-rolex(company) adverticement booklets?

Sincerely dima (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do.
But if you're asking whether I see a sufficient difference between articles on watch brands (including Rolex) and the kind of stuff that these companies write about themselves in their catalogs, no I don't.
However, this certainly does not mean that I think articles Rolex (and Omega, Pathek Philippe and the rest) should be "balanced" by "criticism" about how they're widely spammed.
I'm inviting you to think calmly and deeply about what is encyclopedic about so-called luxury brands. I don't claim to know the answer. I am sure, however, that tossing complaints about spam together with starstruck descriptions of movie product placement does not create good articles. And if you think that this Rolex article is bad, I invite you to look at the others. For example Panerai tells the world: Panerai watches are amongst the most scarce in the world. In fact, the watch manufacturer can lay claim to being the most elusive watch brand globally - regularly producing fewer watches than the market demands. This is of course utter horseshit: if you pay me for them (and a 20% margin for my time and trouble), I can buy you a (genuine) Panerai wristwatch 360 days a year (the shops I have in mind take short breaks in the new year). Now, defects in the Rolex article are not excused by defects in the Panerai article, but I put it to you that defects in articles such as this are systemic. -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I watched article Panerai. I am not sure if it is good article, but I believe, there are more Panerai watches than parenai junk messages. As for Rolex, there is no doubts: the amonut of Rolex messages greatly exceeds the amount of rolex watches. At this proportion, quality of watches already does not matter: even if the watches are good, the main meaning is spam. Please, convert the article to diambig. dima (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
When you say that the main meaning is spam it's again very clear that you haven't bothered to read what I and others have written to you. So I can't be bothered to attempt to communicate with you. -- Hoary (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hoary, I answer all your questions. I would not say the same about you. You could not even indicate what is the difference between the present state of the article and adverticement booklets.dima (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The evidence that "Rolex means spam" shows clearly that this meaning (of which I had never heard) is derived directly from Rolex as a notably desirable timepiece. This notable desirability is contemporary. "Domitori" must provide a very reliable source to back his claim that the secondary meaning has eclipsed the primary meaning or else settle for a note at the bottom. Redheylin (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way - what is the primary meaning of Spam?? Redheylin (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Primary meaning, SPAM

Redheylin, I answer your question: If primary means "main", then the "primary" meaning of "spam" is aggressive adverticement (that include rolex messages as special kind). If "primary" refers to the time scale, to the etymology, then the "primary" meaning of "spam" is kind of ham that became famous as an example of aggressive adverticement and gave name to the general phenomenon.dima (talk)

Redheylin, I provided the references, that indicate that rolex means spam through email. Let some admin recover them here, and we can discuss them. Please, specify your point of fiew. Do you think that amount of rolex clocks exceeds the amount of rolex messages? Do advocates of the rolex (company) deny the statement that rolex is at the top of the spam list?dima (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The ratio of number of watches sold to number of spam messages is not relevant to the question of whether "spam" is the primary meaning of the word "Rolex" (or even if it is a meaning of the word at all.)--Srleffler (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Assuming the number of spam messages is greater than the number of timepieces produced, Rolex could actually turn the situation around by producing more watches. Producing more genuine Rolex watches would lower their price and this would undercut the spammers' income. The spammers would then go out of business and Rolex would not be associated with spam by default. Dr.K. (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
But on a sober second thought please do not quote me on my comment above. Dr.K. (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
That's all beside the point. The ratio of number of spam messages to the number of timepieces is irrelevant to the meaning of the word "Rolex", because all of the Rolex spam messages are about watches. They are promoting watches for sale. Dima's argument is analogous to claiming that because Toyota advertises their cars for sale on television, "Toyota" must be a generic word for a television set. That would not be true no matter how many advertisements there were nor how many cars were sold.
Now, it is certainly true that large sales of fake Rolexes and promotion of them via email may affect the value of the Rolex company's brand, and the article could discuss this, but that is a very different matter from the meaning of the term itself.--Srleffler (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I quote the second of my comments above: "But on a sober second thought please do not quote me on my comment above." I meant to imply that my first comment about Rolex increasing the production of its watches, was simply meant as a joke. In my edit summary I also noted "We may need a grain of salt or two" indicating that my comments were meant in jest. Anyway I do agree with your well posed previous reply that "The ratio of number of watches sold to number of spam messages is not relevant". In fact not only I agree with it but I find the actual question: "Do you think that amount of rolex clocks exceeds the amount of rolex messages?" utterly bizarrre and indicative of the size of the communication gap we have with this editor. So thank you for your reply to my comments since it gave me the opportunity to clarify my previous humourous (or at least attempted humour) replies and to elaborate. In addition I find your new edits about spam a reasonable attempt at compromise and accomodation and I thank you for it. Given the existing communication gap however, only time will tell if your eminently logical and serious attempt at compromise will bring the stability this article needs. It's been a pleasure meeting you. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tag NPOV while the discussion is not finished. dima (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dima, you say: the "primary" meaning of "spam" is kind of ham that became famous as an example of aggressive adverticement and gave name to the general phenomenon / You've even got "spam" wrong. Spam came to mean junk mail not because of advertising by Hormel but via a sketch in a Monty Python program. ¶ You still haven't provided a single example of the use of "rolex" (either countable or non-countable) to mean junk mail. Other than whimsically, does anyone, anywhere say anything like any of the following?
  • Have you read any of the Nigerian rolex recently? They're so bad they're funny.
  • Since I installed my new rolex filter, I've only got two or three rolexes a day.
  • You believed that Bill Gates was going to give you half a million bucks? That's the dumbest rolex ever.
  • What is it with rolex -- why can't they spell "viagra" right?
  • If all that rolex for "generic V!@gra" were true and I bought all that stuff, I guess my dick would be three metres long by now.
But enough, let's not do this to death. -- Hoary (talk) 06:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hoary, below are examples you ask. dima (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. Say good bye to viagra, rolex and other unwanted bogus emails... - http://www.spamsafemail.com/index.html
  2. avalanche of Viagra ads and Rolex pitches http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2005/01/19/microsoft_spam/index.html
  3. recent upsurge in Rolex spamhttp://www.well.com/conf/inkwell.vue/topics/236/Brian-McWilliams-Spam-Kings-page02.html
  4. VIAGRA AND ROLEX WATCHES JUNK E-MAILS! http://www.combat-diaries.co.uk/diary30/spam%20viagra,%20rolex.htm

I've taken the liberty of reformatting and numbering them.

They're great examples of what I've said. Let's look at the head nouns. These are, respectively: 1, "emails". 2, "pitches". 3, "spam". 4, "e-mails". In not one of these is "rolex" used to mean junk mail. Oh, sure, "Rolex" is a name on spam and may have acquired spam connotations. This does not mean that "rolex" means spam, and indeed you have kindly provided fresh evidence that "rolex" does not mean spam and instead requires "email" or similar. (Compare the imaginary Say good bye to viagra and other unwanted bogus rolex or avalanche of rolexes or recent upsurge in rolex.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

A malformed request was posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. This discussion doesn't meet the criteria for requesting a third opinion. Only TWO editors must be involved in the dispute for a third opinion to act as a tie-breaker. Furthermore, the request did not describe the dispute in a neutral fashion as required.

That said, in order for the article to equate Rolex to spam, you need independent, verifiable, reliable sources that use the term "rolex" in this context. Otherwise it's just pop-culture vernacular. Blogs, forums, or other community sites aren't acceptable sources either. =Axlq 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Axlq. Your well framed opinion and guidance are greatly appreciated. Dr.K. (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Added mention of spam to article

While I disagree with Domitori's edits, I added a brief mention of spam to the section on counterfeit Rolexes. I believe some mention of this is justified, given that it does appear to be a common subject of spam promotions. I used two of Domitori's sources. I'm not sure they are the best reliable sources, but perhaps better sources for the same information can be found. --Srleffler (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Without having looked into the sources, it does seem reasonable to add info about the spam to this section. --OnoremDil 06:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong preamble

The statement watches are popularly considered status symbols is wrong. It would be neutral to write Several authors mentions these watch as atatus symbols, because in the popular culture, rolex is considered as source of spam, junk, trash, and, therefore, an indication that the owner is easy to be governed with aggressive propaganda. dima (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You've provided sources that confirm that (counterfeit) Rolex is currently one of the most spammed brands. That information now appears in the article. You haven't provided a source that says Rolex is considered as source of spam, junk, trash, and, therefore, an indication that the owner is easy to be governed with aggressive propaganda in popular culture. I'm starting to wonder if this is a communication gap or just pointy? --OnoremDil 12:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Good points. At this unfortunate stage of events we've just crossed over from SPAM to pop-psychology though WP:OR. It does not bode well for logic and communication. Dr.K. (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Dil, you are not correct. I have indicated the sites, that consider rolex as source of spam. Please read the definition of popular culture. The point of view of popular culture may coincide with that of mass media, and may not. In the case of "rolex", the mayority of population of internet have very negative opinion about rolex. The preamble is wrong. dima (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you plase supply reliable quotes as to the following points:
  1. What is the Internet population?
  2. How big is it?
  3. What percentage of this (Internet) population believes Rolex is spam?
  4. What percentage of the Earth's population believes Rolex is spam?
Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You have not indicated sites that consider rolex as a source of spam. You've indicated sites that acknowledge that rolex is a common subject in spam. There's a significant difference. You've also not proven, in any way, that the view of the majority coincides with your argument. --OnoremDil 22:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This all appears to be original research. You are expressing your own opinion about rolex, not citing a source that explicitly discusses the view of "rolex" in popular culture.--Srleffler (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I can answer some of questions by Dr.K.:
In 99.99% of cases, "Rolex" means "spam", the messages are trashed. In 0.01% of cases, "Rolex" means "watch". Here is the reference:

ALEX MINDLIN.
Seems Somebody Is Clicking on That Spam.
New York Times, 2007.07.03,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/03/technology/03drill.html

The most usual meaning of "Rolex" is spam; more spam than viagra and pornography. In the present form, the article is wrong. dima (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Domitori I'm afraid you are still inventing things. Where did you get the 99.99% number from? The New York Times article never mentions this number. It mentions nothing of the kind. It never says that 99.99% of the time Rolex means spam and 0.01% of the time it means watch. These numbers are invented by you. Please understand this is an encyclopedia not an invention paradise. We cannot put this stuff into the article just because you gave us these numbers. But anyway, the writing is clearly visible on the wall. No matter what I come up with I'm afraid you will be playing the same tune. I'm also afraid I have other much better things to do than waste my energy like the proverbial man shouting in the desert. It won't do us any good this way. So I just give up trying to persuade you. I will not reply to any more of your original research. I suggest you take some time off and maybe get involved in some other, more fruitful, project. Trying to ridicule an established and historic name like Rolex and equate it to spam through a myriad of illogical and misleading statements is neither recommended nor profitable. Like I said please don't try to reply to me because I will not waste my time anymore. Let's move on. Dr.K. (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Cite: The third most successful variety is spam advertising Rolex watches, 0.0075 percent of which get clicked on, according to an analysis by CipherTrust, a large manufacturer of devices that protect networks from spam and viruses. I rounded 0.0075 to 0.01, because the only order of magnitude is important. The preamble of article is wrong; it violates the principles of Wikipedia. dima (talk) 06:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm going to try to help you understand because the point you just made is so illogical as to merit special attention. You see Rolex means watch 100% of the time. That's one hundred percent of the time. People know that a cheap Rolex is not a desirable watch because they want the real thing. That's why they don't bother to open the email because they know the quality of the watch offered in the email is not good, however if you bothered to ask them they'll tell you that Rolex means watch, not spam. Fake Rolexes are watches. Just not attractive watches to 99.9925% of the people. There is however a tiny minority of 0.0075% who, for reasons of their own, choose to open the email to see what kind of watch the fake Rolex is. Therefore the numbers are as follows: People know 100% of the time Rolex means watch. People know cheap Rolex means bad watch but watch nonetheless. 99.9925% of the people don't like cheap watches and don't open the emails but still they know that cheap Rolex means cheap watch. The left over 0.0075% know the same thing, i.e. that they are looking at a cheap watch, but they succumb to temptation and open the email just from curiosity. So you see there is no connection between the word Rolex and spam. Rolex always means watch. Let me put it a different way. If people started cooking Rolexes and serving them with sauce that doesn't make the Rolex food. That people serve fake Rolexes in emails doesn't make the fake Rolexes spam. Only the message is spam, not the watch. Dr.K. (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
B-b-b-b-but what if people start cooking spam and serving it as food??????? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. That would lead to edible emails. Maybe a Rolex could be served as the side dish. But I shouldn't say that. It might associate Rolex (food) with Spam (food). Dr.K. (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be better rolex (watch), spam (food); rolex (junk), spam (junk). dima (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
If you create the third of these (or anything like it), it may receive a n obscure afterlife at Deletopedia, but you're also likely to get a longer block for disruptive editing, etc etc etc. Hoary (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Although the gist of this is right, actually Rolex doesn't mean wristwatch all of the time. See these among others. Also, I'm puzzled by the certainty that 100% of the spammed "Rolex" watches are fake: my own uneducated guess is that many spams refer to the real thing if they mean anything at all; but they mean nothing because those people stupid enough to send off their credit card details will get nothing back (except headaches). As for the appeal of fake Rolexes, I think some are so bad that they're funny, and I particularly like the ones with dummy "complications" that do nothing whatever. My point being, although "Rolex" does not "mean" spam, and although one person hereabouts seems to be so obsessed by this "meaning" as to be incapable of reading the simplest counterargument, we others should be careful not to simplify our own messages to the point where genuine holes are obvious in them. And now I think I'll strap on my ludicrous Breitling-or-similar wannabe (complete with dummy dials, bought in Harajuku for ¥1000), and head off to paid work. Hoary (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hoary hi. I agree that Rolex doen't mean watch all the time (no pun intended) but the camerapedia entry is a secondary meaning and only for an obscure antique camera that does not exist anymore. Not to mention that the obscure camera may have been a copyright infringement on the Rolex marque and that's why it got discontinued. As far as emails I don't think Rolex as a company makes any sales through emails. Its dealer network is exclusive and well established. Anyone can sell any watch they want through the mail but that doesn't make them official dealers as you mentioned. As far as your fake Breitling you are on the right track. Breitling is my other favourite marque. So you chose well. Even if fake it still looks good (from afar). Function is not guaranteed however. But who cares about the details. Now since we are on the topic I'm on my way to program my Timex. Genuine Timex Datalink that is. It's a classic and I treat it like a Panerai. Dr.K. (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Not a copyright infringement but a trademark infringement, I think. ¶ Today I decided that my pseudo-Italian pseudo-Breitling was just too big and awkward so I'm wearing a ¥3000 Casio instead. It has a timer dial on the outside so that pathetic urban commuter owners such as myself can fantasize that they are doing jamesbondy things involving explosives. -- Hoary (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
If the dial is motorized you've got something there. Especially if it has a miniature saw blade. Dr.K. (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is crazy. This talk page is the first I've heard of it. Ninety percent of people still recognize Rolex primarily as a watch (and a status symbol). 24.151.30.14 (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Note re: the "spam" proposal

I certainly don't wish to interrupt the discussion prematurely. However, it appears that there is no consensus whatsoever to make changes on the scale Domitori ("Dima") is requesting, and that the editor's insistence on pursuing this action is becoming disruptive. If editors are interested in continuing this discussion, please express that here. Otherwise, it would seem prudent for Domitori to desist from pursuing this matter. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 09:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ckatz for your suggestion. Your comment about ending the discussion prematurely was really humorous whether intended or not. The reason for the humour is that it is an understatement of the first order. This discussion is way past due for any use to the project, or the participants. I think participating any further in this discussion is an absolute waste of bandwidth. It fundamentally goes against the primary function of the talk page as a place to discuss improvements to the article. What we are discussing are not improvements to the article but refutations of bizarre objects of WP:OR. Other users have expressed similar points above. At least that's my take on it. Thank you for asking and for your continued asistance in this process. Dr.K. (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
What I often suggest in cases like this, where a particular user is continuing to push a proposal that has been unanimously rejected by the rest of the community, is the following:
  • If the user makes a short (2-4 sentences) comment on the talk page, ignore it.
  • If the user makes a long comment on the talk page, remove it as per WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM.
  • If the user makes the change to the article after a unanimous consensus against the change has been so convincingly established, WP:BOLD no longer applies and the change should be reverted as vandalism.
That's really the only way to deal with people like this. Their personal ax is in such need of grinding that they cannot be reasoned with like a human being. WP:RBI is appropriate here. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Self-contradictory paragraph

The paragraph below contradicts itself. I am pruning it down in the article. Are the exot dial watches named after Newman because his wife gave him one, or because he wore one in "Winning", or is the reason uncertain? Only one of these possibilities is correct. If anyone can rewrite this with proper sources and without contradiction, go for it.--Srleffler (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul Newman has worn a Rolex Cosmograph "Daytona" since 1972, when his wife (Joanne Woodward) gave him the watch with an inscription on the back: "Drive Slowly, Joanne". Thus, certain "exot dial" models have become known as "Paul Newmans" and are quite collectible. How Newman's name became attached to these watches is uncertain, but several theories have evolved. One such theory claims Newman wore a Rolex Daytona in the 1969 movie "Winning" about Indy car racing. However, this is incorrect.<ref>30 Year Love Affair, The Paul Newman Daytona, by John E. Brozek, Infoquest Publishing 2005; Rolex Daytona 90 by James Montgomery</ref>

Hi Srleffler. So far you've done an excellent job copyediting the article. I also agree with your opinion regarding the Paul Newman section. If you don't have time to do it I'll give it a try in the next few days. However if you are so inclined please go ahead and finish the job. Best regards. Dr.K. (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The first reference is at http://www.iwmagazine.com/uploads/pdfs/issue_70_archivedweb.pdf, page 40. The same author has another article on his website, but I haven't been able to locate the magazine in which it was apparently published.--Srleffler (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO I don't think that's a problem as long as there is a reference to the magazine. In this case it is similar to having a hardcopy as opposed to an online copy. At least there is a reference that can be checked/verified in due time. Dr.K. (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)