Speaking personally, I've had a Submariner I picked up twenty something years ago for just over 2k and for all those years it was my daily wear.  Over the years, I've started a small collection including other rolexes that I'll wear from time to time depending on occasion.  However, lately I've found it hard to leave my Sub in a gym locker room or wear it work (sometimes I work in shady areas).  If I had to replace the sub it would be virtually irreplaceable.  No way would I spend over 10k today for one.   My collection is insured, but still.

I wonder if other people have stopped wearing these watches because of their inflated prices.  They were supposed to be tool watched.  Luxury watches, but still tool watches.  This is just nuts.

(Wearing a <$200 citizen pro diver someone gifted to me last week right now).


ETA:  Also, how long can Rolex and AP retail shops stay open with literally NOTHING in the display cases?  Something has to give somewhere.

Its crazy now, I was going to buy a GMT master II in 2012 for well under $4k just because, but backed off last minute bc I had a crazy thought about it being worth more than my car at the time. Now its waiting lists and even guides on how to schmooze the salespeople to get on their “short list” and they are about $12k.  I like the watch, but not that much. Especially after having some nice watches and a couple of nice new cars since then. Im kind of over it at the moment

2 kinds of people buy Rolex today.

People who legitimately have fuck you money.

And people who pretend to have fuck you money but likely never will because they spend 10k on dumb shit like a watch.

Then why are you in this forum?

Why shouldn't I be?

Because I answered your question in a fashion you find unpalatable?

No.  Because you think watches are "dumb shit".  In the watches forum.

So gtfo.

I love the sound of a rolex Sub when my wrist is under my pillow. The high-beat movement jingles me to sleep. But yes, they are way too expensive for their own good now.

No I don't I think watches are awesome.

I think buying a 10k watch while you are living in an apartment and have $877 in your 401k is dumb shit. In other words making poor financial decisions.

Is a 10k Rolex a good investment today is the question,  and the answer is " If you have a widely diversified and well funded portfolio then quite possibly yes. If you are driving an 86 Corolla and working at Best Buy then probably not."

The fact that Rolex AD's require previous purchase history to get on their waiting list, i'd say yes they are too expensive for their own good. I've been more impressed with Tudor's designs than what Rolex pushes out these days.

The quality of Tudor is excellent.  But it's all black bay black bay black bay... which is just a sub knock off.  (kinda sorta).

I bought a Rolex Explorer at the Navy PX in Yokosuka, Japan in 1966 for $121. At that time it was selling for around $350 back in the states. They don't make that exact model anymore but to get something comparable now costs around $6000. So hell yeah they're way overpriced.

If the market is driving their price, then it's undoubtedly a very good thing FOR Rolex.

If people want to spend the money on one, it's only adds to their brand/imagine.

As a "luxury" brand, their watches are made for the top 1-2% of income earners who simply wear a logo on their wrists. Their primary customer is happy to pay MORE for their watches as they are made less accessible to "poors".

Luxury 101.... it ain't luxury if most people can afford it.

I don't think you can compare THAT far back.  That was the day before the quartz revolution when ALL watches were mechanical tools.  When the mechanical/automatic was seen as a hand crafted luxury item versus a mass produced quartz watch is when they took on a whole new status.   That said, until a few years ago, they were still obtainable.  You just had to pay.  Now grey market dealers are just sitting on these watches, not selling them as they think they are making more money from the appreciation in value rather than from an outright sale.
And for now, they are not wrong.

You guys know that Rolex and Tudor are two sides of the same coin don't you?

My point is, even if you can afford it, you're not going to wear it.  Your going to stick it in a draw or in a safe and whip it out for a bar mitzvah or wedding.

yes

If you wouldn't wear it on a daily basis, then you can't really afford it. Why would you buy a watch and then not wear it?


A poster above is correct, even if people don't appreciate how blunt it was said.

Watches are utility pieces and or fashion accessories. It's no different than a wealthy woman wearing her jewelry. Generally speaking, they wear expensive items each day because it's part of an image and they can afford to buy more if they would need to. We're talking about the people who will spend that kind of cash on a night out and not think 2x about it.

Either way, the people I know who wear roles are either wannabes wealthy, have an appreciation for watches and are collectors, or they are actually filthy rich and drive a different 150k+ car each day of the week.

I think yes. I've been wearing an Omega Seamaster for 11 years now. It's really great, but now that I have a second son I'd like a second watch so I can pass something on to each of them. The Omega is worth more than my car was for a few years. The Rolex I want is a tough price to swallow. I want the two tone I think, but that's like $13k. And while I could sell some gun stuff and save up my spare cash and not be hurt financially to buy it, I couldn't go do it on a whim. It doesn't seem worth that to me currently.

Sure, would be nice to wear and have but honestly for that price I could take my family to Europe for a month, or drive around America for like 3 months. Might be a better source of memories than a piece of metal

They have kept a classic business model without rotating CEOs, public shareholders, and decisions based on short term quarterly metrics.  While maintaining domestic production and manufacturing.  They could easily have gone that route, had a huge IPO, chased every fashion trend short term, shifted into "Rolex International" with non Swiss, higher market share, lower end watches, etc.

And ended up shit like many companies that have gone that route.

The built a high quality item for decades.  The made an entire different brand for lower priced but still quality items.  Decades before anyone else thought of it vs just expanding their name into lower price point items.  They had locked in a reputation for a solid, dependable, quality work horse.  Then spent over a decade fostering them into an interesting, discerning, item for cool, adventurous, etc. customers.  And something nice they buy for their wives as well.

The quartz crisis hit.  They stuck with their model.  Instead of crashing like most of the other Swiss, during this period they leveraged that reputation increasingly into a luxury item.  They went from five times to ten times the price of similar quality items to twenty times the price over a twenty year period.  While other companies cut quality and value, etc.

They have become so overpriced yet still so desirable they still sell every watch they make and are behind demand.  Their "budget" subsidiary sells every watch they make at a price point above most other watch companies.

Everyone who decides to hell with Rolex just makes room for someone on an AD waiting list or one less of a dozen emails a gray market seller gets.

From a marketing and business perspective, it's amazing what they have accomplished.

If you look at a graph of the inflation adjusted income of people since, say when a SS Sub was 200$, a Seiko diver was 125$, and a SM300 was 175$, just before the quartz implosion,
compared with housing, cars, education, etc.,
the lower the income you are looking at, the lower the wage increase.
Even the top 1% is very unimpressive.  It gets interesting at the top 0.1%.  It gets insane at the top 0.01%.  

They made about 100K watches a year around 1960.  250K around 1970.  They hit 500K in the 1980s.  In 2015 around 800K.  We kind of lose some key data points after that, but probably around one million a year now.

In comparison, while Rolex's watch sales increased about 900%,
The population of the world has only increased about 150%.

And even more amazing, the inflation adjusted price of one of their watches over the past, say 55 years, would make a SS Submariner date at price point of about $1500.  A fraction of what a new one costs.

The sad part, is the whole population of guys that "made" the image of the watch around that time,
The Green Beret, the engineer driving around Africa in a Defender doing remote power station installation, recreational and commercial divers, the anthropology professor examining ruins on a mountain top, the oil company man switching from land cruiser to dog sled exploring new sources, etc. have kind of been priced out.  Now granted, there are more items more suited than a mechanical watch for those guys.

I believe that the current Rolex prices are massively inflated.  Some might look at Rolex and think it’s rare or hard to find and would want to pay more, I.e. supply and demand.

I personally think Rolex is an inferior company if it can’t keep up with demand.  I might think differently of Rolex supply and demand if Rolex would produce something of similar quality to Patek or A Lange & Sohne but they don’t, it’s a good quality tool watch.  

For me I think Omega is a better company as I have received better customer service and they have the equipment to keep up with demand, I.e. better business processes.

I'm thinking this too.  There will (hopefully) always be a market for people who want a Rolex.  My feeling is however, that they are being treated as an investment vehicle by too many. When you have all speculation but limited fundamental (just go with this for now) value, you have a bubble.

Seamasters don't have to be that expensive.

You can pick up used on Crown & Caliber starting around $2500.

I had a scare when I misplaced my Omega that was a gift from my wife 25 years ago and bought a spare a few years back.
It is in great condition and runs within specs.

I have that same feeling that people think of a watch as an investment.  There are better investments out there than a watch.  I’ve never received a dividend payment from a watch.  A watch is something you buy for your personal enjoyment.

Thanks, not sure I'd want another seamaster, honestly. I love the brand and like mine, but after a decade it seems times change a bit and none of the Omega stuff on C&C excites me or looks that different than what I have. One watch I want to see in person is the Tudor bronze. Interesting and should be substantial feeling, and 15k cheaper than gold
https://www.tudorwatch.com/en/watches/black-bay-fifty-eight/m79012m-0001

The company I work for lets you pick a Rolex out of a catalog, any one you want, on your 20 year anniversary.  I plan on selling mine and buying a black Gibson Les Paul Custom.

Want a submariner bad but settled for a Steinmark Ocean One 39. $500 looks just like a Submariner

Would you buy a sterile Submariner for 10k?

If the answer is "no" then you aren't buying it because you appreciate the beauty and utility of a finely crafted timepiece.

Without a doubt, the sub is still one of my favorite watches.  Its history, its timeless look, its simple and minimal design all for function, its craftsmanship, its durability, its practicality.  But 15k for a new sub is just bonkers.

ETA: The same can be said for the new GMT II.  (Hey remember when Jubilee bracelets were derided in favor of the president bracelets on day/dates?)

Yep. Marketing and economics 101.

Had a conversation about this many years ago, with a guy in the uber Hi Fi audio equipment segment. As ge put it, "You can choose to go into cheap commodities that EVERYONE needs or uses, and know that no matter what, they still need these things, but your margins are low, and you need volume just to get by. Or you can market to the 0.1%, where ONE sale can make more than the average person makes in a year. Even when the economy tanks, there will ALWAYS be rich people. WHO is/stays/gets rich under different circumstances may change, but there will always be rich people".

How uber HiFi? They had a pair of speakers in an individual showroom with a price tag just over $1,000,000. Anyone buying those generally also buys amps that cost $XX,XXX to $XXX,XXX EACH (one amp per speaker) and speaker cables that cost $XX,XXX EACH, not to mention the transport, interconnects etc.

The more expensive certain watch brands become, the more desirable they are to the folks who wear them as a statement (whatever that statement may be).

At msrp, they are priced about right for what they are (with a little brand premium).

The opposite is Omega which generally transact at a large discount.

I do think the aftermarket prices are crazy, but I don't think the retail prices are too bad. The problem is you have to buy their non-moving pieces and get on a waitlist. I'm not going to go through all that, nor do I have the money to buy pieces I don't want. When the time comes I think I'll go with Zenith. The Defy is a work of art, but the El Primero is a classic. Tough choice. Definitely worth a look.

I've owned many Rolex models over the years, bought, sold, and traded most of them overtime for other watches - But today's prices are ridiculous and take all the fun out of owning or flipping these pieces. Today I lean towards brands like Sinn and Tudor, Seiko for quality and value- let Rolex continue on their path of overpriced insanity.

@ramairthree

That was an excellent post.

dbl tap

1.) They set sales records in 2019, 2020, and I will assume this year as well.
2.) They sell every single watch they make.
3.) AD's have inventory, it's either luck or relationships that will get you one.
4.) Rolex loves the grey market, as it creates intense demand for the brand, which leads back to #3 above.
5.) It's still a tool watch, the current references are the most durable made to date. That said it is also jewelry.
6.) All discontinued models will continue to rise in price. Cheapest Sub is new:124060 or 126610 are both under $10K new.
7.) I also have a 20yr old Sub and while it's my favorite, you get far more for your money with new references.
8.) Insure your watch for actual replacement value. If something happens to my 16610, my policy would pay out $12k for me to get another one. Which I would, thus the insurance.
9.) Wear it and enjoy it, its only worth $ if you sell it.



Investment? I bought it to wear and enjoy regardless of it's market value.

no they don't.

I called on a Tuesday to an AD 3 hours away, had a chat, drove to get a Sub the next morning.

zero history, this was 2 weeks ago.

I'll now make the drive if I want another new reference.

I agree that Tudor is more fun and I think needs to expand the BB58 line and make a thinner Pelagos.

FUCK YES I would.

I am about to send a 2 week old Sub to get fully brushed.

I would shit my pants for a sterile sub.

Hell I've made that post for years here.

ETA:

Fully brushed (Bergeon wheel) this one in the garage after using a knife/hammer to take the cyclops off. Had my CW21 source and toss on a set of 16610LV hands too.







Going to let LA WatchWorks do the work on this though.

This one is at RollieWorks right now waiting on a service. No polish for it.

Nice!

Mike said he is the busiest he’s ever been at the moment. He was who I went to first about the sub brushing but he said it would be months before he can do any side projects.

So Edvi and Beau at LA Watch Works get it. Dropping it off this morning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good

That is gorgeous...

Yes, a waste of money IMHO. Most of the watch guys I've read online (I go into spurts) claim the Rolex submariner is a $1,000-1,200 watch. That's comparable worth comparing the quality of other brands of sub watches. There are so many watches out there that look similar with the same build quality in the $500-800 range. It's vanity for vanities sake.

Lol why buy trijicon when holo sun is out there.

I also have many of the $500-800 micros, even the $2k ones don’t have the same build quality. Against some of the older references sure, but not the ceramics.

I wouldn't think that would be too good of a perk since you can't purchase most of the models from an AD

Just left an AD who had a yellow gold Yatchmaster II in stock. It was sweet, but not $43,550 sweet.

What part of GA?

Curious as I find the “not in MSA” or “not a massive AD” in the surrounding areas have better luck.

Ex: Finding a good AD in Athens vs ATL.

I’m actually in the suburbs of Chicago visiting my parents. It was at an AD called C.D. Peacock in Woodfield Mall, in Shaumburg.

My mom was looking at maybe ordering a rolex, so I told the guy I’d buy her $16,000 watch if he gets me a green submariner

His ears perked up a little….

Crappy iphone picture I took of it


Attached File

Call me crazy, but I think that Yellow Gold Yacht Master II is one of the ugliest watches I've ever seen, definitely ugliest Rolex. I bet they will be selling for over $200k after they discontinue that monstrosity.

That being said, I didn't understand the Rolex hype until I got my hands on an Explorer II then later a Sub. They are a HUGE step above any $1k watch I've seen. However functionally, they did not seem to be much better than the equivalent Tudors. I look at it from the perspective that Rolex is worth the retail price and falls perfectly inline with the market value trendline (on second thought they might be one of the biggest influences on the market value trendline), but Tudor has an incredible value proposition and has deviated from the market value trendline (in a good way).

I disagree. Apples and oranges analogy. Again, in my humble and admittedly ignorant opinion. I only know one co-worker with a Rolex Sub and that was in the mid 90's. I don't own one, but can obviously read reviews and chatter online as well as having tried a few on at the local authorized dealer. They're really nice and obviously the Hallmark design. My personal barrier to purchasing one is price and more importantly value. I'm frugal as well as realistic and I simply do not think that the value is commensurate with price. I would definitely be a buyer for one in the $1,200 range. I just do not see tangible evidence that a $10,000 Rolex is that much better than a $600-1,200 Seiko. That was the jist of the question in the OP.

Yes it is ugly IMO.



How so, they are both optics that let you put rounds on target, just as these are both devices to tell time. Not intending to be an argument, some are built to different standards - doesn't imply one is necessarily better.

If you held a Sub in the mid 90's chances are that it was an older reference (4 or 5 digit) and yes those compared to modern watches from Seiko or Citizen seem underwhelming - compared to modern pieces. I agree the 93150 bracelet on the 90's-2009 models does leave a lot to be desired.

As noted in the other thread on Sub's, I do not feel that a 16610 is worth the $10-13k the market is commanding of it. For years 2010-2016 you could get one easily for +/- $3k and I think that is the true value of that reference from a cost standpoint. Notably when that puts you roughly 10-20% more than era Omega and Tag models.

Enter the new references, the 124060 and 126610 models. They are worth the cost of entry from a manufacturing standpoint, simply amazing build quality. Would I pay over MSRP, nope.

Random Rob is probably one the best Seiko and Citizen content providers on YouTube, hear his perspective.



They are expensive, but depending on how you look at it - they make sense or they don't.