I frequently read on the various forums here statements of bare (and often uninformed) opinion, stated as fact. Generally, I understand that this is the internet, and that many aren't careful enough to separate fact from opinion. And generally I don't much care.
But the label of "overpriced" is tossed around here like a curse, apparently only because a particular watch, or brand, costs more than that particular person cares to (most likely, can) pay for it.
And, most often, this label is smeared on Rolex.
Now, as background, I'm no fan of Rolex. I'm not against spending absurd amounts of money on a watch, as my little "collection" shows, but nothing about Rolex appeals to me, and much about Rolex repels me. It is more likely that cold lemonade will be on the menu in the nether regions than that I ever will own a Rolex.
But. Almost all watches are luxury items; cell phones keep better time than most of our watches, and most of us carry a cell phone. So, by definition, the proper price for a watch is what the public, in enough number to support that price point for that watch, is willing to pay. Thus, by definition, a watch, or brand, that sells in large numbers (enough to show a profit, for instance), is not overpriced.
Now, back to Rolex. They are a mighty marketing machine, having successfully convinced a large part of the world that their products are the be-all/end-all of horology. And they are, in fact, fine little machines, by any objective standards. The fact that I'm not a fan doesn't change any of that. Rolex sells close to a million watches each and every year, and has revenues in the billions of US dollars.
It is, therefore, by any rational standards, utterly absurd to call a Rolex "overpriced." Or any other of the many fine timepieces so-labeled by so many on this site. It's fine to say "I wouldn't pay that much for that watch," or anything equivalent, but the label of "overpriced" is just absurd, unless you can show that is isn't selling in enough numbers to support itself.