

Your reply to the above comment is a bit caustic. Here’s my take on your argument that explains your position in a rational way:
The bomb-proof and repair free nature of the Rolex comes into play in situations where replacement parts are not readily available. Consider an astronaut on a trip to Mars: they are out in space for months, in a ship where both space and weight are at a premium. A disposable time piece may be cheap on Earth, but without the means to replace it, it becomes a liability.
Similarly, someone on an exploration to a remote region - let’s say a member of the yearly British Antarctic Survey expedition - will not be able to replace a broken timepiece until they return at the end of the season. Not everyone needs a reliable time piece, but those who do - such as medics measuring a patient’s heart rate with a stethoscope - might go for something that has a lower failure rate.
Sure, a $5 timepiece is probably enough for most people, and wearing a Rolex as a status symbol is dumb, but that’s not the only use case for them.





The politicians debating online abuse claim to mean well.