Some 1996 Watches Catalog Pages

[marc2828]

If I only had a time machine...

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[offrdmania]

Ill take a 16710 and 16520 please

[mineral]

Originally Posted by offrdmania

Ill take a 16710 and 16520 please

And the 16700 too :). I prefer the quick set in the 16700 over the 16710. Cheers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[marc2828]

Missed a page...

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Rolexavidfan]

Were these readily available at that time in 1996? I bought a DJ 2 tone in that era at a higher price than the GMT or Daytona.

[marc2828]

Originally Posted by Rolexavidfan

Were these readily available at that time in 1996? I bought a DJ 2 tone in that era at a higher price than the GMT or Daytona.

yes. I chose to buy a Breitling Navitimer for about $2k...wanted the Submariner date, but couldn't swing the extra $1k. Didn't even consider a Daytona which was less $. Ugh.

[Soarer]

How times have changed just like that!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jcdeng]

3050 for SS zenith daytona!? Damn, talk about increase in value...

[tseiff]

Confused I am
16700 has a jubilee bracelet - i was sure that the first time this happened on a gmt was for the last one 2018

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by tseiff

Confused I am
16700 has a jubilee bracelet - i was sure that the first time this happened on a gmt was for the last one 2018

It was optional in those days.

[pearson1995]

The explorer ii and Daytona had the same rrp, interesting.

[marc2828]

Originally Posted by pearson1995

The explorer ii and Daytona had the same rrp, interesting.

what is interesting is that I have been looking at these Rolexes since 1991 when my buddy got one for HS graduation...and I just bought an SD43...first Rolex.

[kegan]

Prices were nearly the same in 99 when I bought my 16710, had to wait a whole week
For the red/black. They only had red/blue and black in the case which may have been
16700s. Sales lady said the red/blue one had been there forever and would give me
A great deal on it. It was horrible, thankfully Rolex has solved this.

[Pacc12]

116718 looks so nice!!!!

[Mystro]

Thats what I remember. No one wanted a SS Daytona at $3100.00. It doesnt even have any gold in it. I would rather pay $5k for TT Sub or $8k for TT Daytona. Those were the days and thought process. Oddly enough the 18k Sub price isnt that much different from today.

[schwoo]

In 30-40 years I’m curious as to what today’s watches will cost? A small fortune!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EffJayEm]

Originally Posted by schwoo

In 30-40 years I’m curious as to what today’s watches will cost? A small fortune!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You think so? I do not. Just like we couldn't see the stainless sport watches shooting the moon (or the low supplies that caused that to happen) 25 years ago, no way to know what the world will look like 30-40 years from now, but my best guess is "small fortune" is where we are now, or where we may be in ten years, not where we'll be in 30-40 years.

This is all beyond the scope of this thread, but I don't think prices can hold, let alone hold their trajectory, as we baby boomers die off and our collections/holdings find themselves in jewelry stores, eBay, etc. The next generations just don't have the same fascination with watches. There are of course some fans, but the generation doesn't associate a nice watch with success as much as ours did. Nor are they as fascinated by the mechanical craftsmanship. You need a broad base of buyers to keep the bottom in an industry like this, let alone keep the rally. I believe the numbers bear out the problem: exponentially fewer kids in generation x and (especially) millennials are interested in watches, own them, or collect them as compared to their parents.

Obviously we lived through the quartz days, but the fact that everyone has a phone, and almost everyone has looked at their phone in the prior 4 minutes makes watches more redundant as a tool. It's similar to the quartz problem -- if everyone kept a quartz watch on quick draw in their pocket at all times and checked it every 4 minutes. My sons and their friends are anecdotal, of course, but none wears a watch, and I constantly hear "why, don't you have a phone?" if discussing mine in earshot of younger people. Except for maybe a nice night out, event or wedding, my 22-year-old and 29-year-old don't want to borrow or wear any of my large collection of Pateks when offered (I've offered some very nice daily wearers on long term loan free of charge, always declined). I lived in NYC and Chicago for my entire working life. You used to see legions of bankers, brokers and lawyers in their 20s and 30s, and they would all buy a Rolex submariner or similar with their first big bonus. Those kids are all wearing fit bits (if anything, usually nothing) and fleece vests now. I rarely see anyone under 40 with a $5K+ watch anymore. About a year ago, on a whim, I did a quick mental inventory of the roughly 30 people under 40 in my office. All of them were making $200K+. Not a single one wore a nice watch, which would have been shocking when I was that age. Only one wore any watch at all: a timex on a ribbon.

If you go to a watch convention, or trade show, etc. look around. Or look around your AD next time you're in. The customers, if any, will be 55 or older. Basel is contracting.

Watches have held their value, and in some cases gained, because my baby boomer generation loves them. Lots of people collect watches. People without a lot of money buy one at 55 when they finally pull together some scratch. It's a bucket list check mark to own something like a Rolex.

As we die off 20 or 30 years from now, and all of our collections and collective holdings (the vast majority of automatic watches in existence) get dumped at the same time, I'd expect price correction at least. I'll be gone by then, and I hope for my sons some of my hobby retains some of its value (I'm not selling anything for cash), but I'd be very surprised if we avoided a generational plunge. That goes triple for expensive things that only a true hobbyist would appreciate (a rare dial on a common watch, a rare movement on what outwardly looks similar to more recent items). The buyers will have the knowledge we have of pocket watches. Or fine china. Or highbrow branded silver sets. Or anything else upper middle class and lower upper class in my parents or grandparents generation loved, but people liked less over time. I love wristwatches, and they'll survive, but not with the ubiquity they have now.

Typed more than I meant to here!

[FSUGeoff]

You’ve obviously never heard a rap song before. Pretty sure Drake & Co. is keeping Rolex and “Watches made of glass, that are gripping the bag” status symbols .

Originally Posted by EffJayEm

You think so? I do not. Just like we couldn't see the stainless sport watches shooting the moon (or the low supplies that caused that to happen) 25 years ago, no way to know what the world will look like 30-40 years from now, but my best guess is "small fortune" is where we are now, or where we may be in ten years, not where we'll be in 30-40 years.

This is all beyond the scope of this thread, but I don't think prices can hold, let alone hold their trajectory, as we baby boomers die off and our collections/holdings find themselves in jewelry stores, eBay, etc. The next generations just don't have the same fascination with watches. There are of course some fans, but the generation doesn't associate a nice watch with success as much as ours did. Nor are they as fascinated by the mechanical craftsmanship. You need a broad base of buyers to keep the bottom in an industry like this, let alone keep the rally. I believe the numbers bear out the problem: exponentially fewer kids in generation x and (especially) millennials are interested in watches, own them, or collect them as compared to their parents.

Obviously we lived through the quartz days, but the fact that everyone has a phone, and almost everyone has looked at their phone in the prior 4 minutes makes watches more redundant as a tool. It's similar to the quartz problem -- if everyone kept a quartz watch on quick draw in their pocket at all times and checked it every 4 minutes. My sons and their friends are anecdotal, of course, but none wears a watch, and I constantly hear "why, don't you have a phone?" if discussing mine in earshot of younger people. Except for maybe a nice night out, event or wedding, my 22-year-old and 29-year-old don't want to borrow or wear any of my large collection of Pateks when offered (I've offered some very nice daily wearers on long term loan free of charge, always declined). I lived in NYC and Chicago for my entire working life. You used to see legions of bankers, brokers and lawyers in their 20s and 30s, and they would all buy a Rolex submariner or similar with their first big bonus. Those kids are all wearing fit bits (if anything, usually nothing) and fleece vests now. I rarely see anyone under 40 with a $5K+ watch anymore. About a year ago, on a whim, I did a quick mental inventory of the roughly 30 people under 40 in my office. All of them were making $200K+. Not a single one wore a nice watch, which would have been shocking when I was that age. Only one wore any watch at all: a timex on a ribbon.

If you go to a watch convention, or trade show, etc. look around. Or look around your AD next time you're in. The customers, if any, will be 55 or older. Basel is contracting.

Watches have held their value, and in some cases gained, because my baby boomer generation loves them. Lots of people collect watches. People without a lot of money buy one at 55 when they finally pull together some scratch. It's a bucket list check mark to own something like a Rolex.

As we die off 20 or 30 years from now, and all of our collections and collective holdings (the vast majority of automatic watches in existence) get dumped at the same time, I'd expect price correction at least. I'll be gone by then, and I hope for my sons some of my hobby retains some of its value (I'm not selling anything for cash), but I'd be very surprised if we avoided a generational plunge. That goes triple for expensive things that only a true hobbyist would appreciate (a rare dial on a common watch, a rare movement on what outwardly looks similar to more recent items). The buyers will have the knowledge we have of pocket watches. Or fine china. Or highbrow branded silver sets. Or anything else upper middle class and lower upper class in my parents or grandparents generation loved, but people liked less over time. I love wristwatches, and they'll survive, but not with the ubiquity they have now.

Typed more than I meant to here!

[EffJayEm]

Originally Posted by FSUGeoff

You’ve obviously never heard a rap song before. Pretty sure Drake & Co. is keeping Rolex and “Watches made of glass, that are gripping the bag” status symbols .

I hope you're right. I've seen some pop culture references, just not legions of people wearing them the way you used to in the 80s and 90s. 30-40 years is a LONG time.

[marc2828]

Originally Posted by EffJayEm

You think so? I do not. Just like we couldn't see the stainless sport watches shooting the moon (or the low supplies that caused that to happen) 25 years ago, no way to know what the world will look like 30-40 years from now, but my best guess is "small fortune" is where we are now, or where we may be in ten years, not where we'll be in 30-40 years.

This is all beyond the scope of this thread, but I don't think prices can hold, let alone hold their trajectory, as we baby boomers die off and our collections/holdings find themselves in jewelry stores, eBay, etc. The next generations just don't have the same fascination with watches. There are of course some fans, but the generation doesn't associate a nice watch with success as much as ours did. Nor are they as fascinated by the mechanical craftsmanship. You need a broad base of buyers to keep the bottom in an industry like this, let alone keep the rally. I believe the numbers bear out the problem: exponentially fewer kids in generation x and (especially) millennials are interested in watches, own them, or collect them as compared to their parents.

Obviously we lived through the quartz days, but the fact that everyone has a phone, and almost everyone has looked at their phone in the prior 4 minutes makes watches more redundant as a tool. It's similar to the quartz problem -- if everyone kept a quartz watch on quick draw in their pocket at all times and checked it every 4 minutes. My sons and their friends are anecdotal, of course, but none wears a watch, and I constantly hear "why, don't you have a phone?" if discussing mine in earshot of younger people. Except for maybe a nice night out, event or wedding, my 22-year-old and 29-year-old don't want to borrow or wear any of my large collection of Pateks when offered (I've offered some very nice daily wearers on long term loan free of charge, always declined). I lived in NYC and Chicago for my entire working life. You used to see legions of bankers, brokers and lawyers in their 20s and 30s, and they would all buy a Rolex submariner or similar with their first big bonus. Those kids are all wearing fit bits (if anything, usually nothing) and fleece vests now. I rarely see anyone under 40 with a $5K+ watch anymore. About a year ago, on a whim, I did a quick mental inventory of the roughly 30 people under 40 in my office. All of them were making $200K+. Not a single one wore a nice watch, which would have been shocking when I was that age. Only one wore any watch at all: a timex on a ribbon.

If you go to a watch convention, or trade show, etc. look around. Or look around your AD next time you're in. The customers, if any, will be 55 or older. Basel is contracting.

Watches have held their value, and in some cases gained, because my baby boomer generation loves them. Lots of people collect watches. People without a lot of money buy one at 55 when they finally pull together some scratch. It's a bucket list check mark to own something like a Rolex.

As we die off 20 or 30 years from now, and all of our collections and collective holdings (the vast majority of automatic watches in existence) get dumped at the same time, I'd expect price correction at least. I'll be gone by then, and I hope for my sons some of my hobby retains some of its value (I'm not selling anything for cash), but I'd be very surprised if we avoided a generational plunge. That goes triple for expensive things that only a true hobbyist would appreciate (a rare dial on a common watch, a rare movement on what outwardly looks similar to more recent items). The buyers will have the knowledge we have of pocket watches. Or fine china. Or highbrow branded silver sets. Or anything else upper middle class and lower upper class in my parents or grandparents generation loved, but people liked less over time. I love wristwatches, and they'll survive, but not with the ubiquity they have now.

Typed more than I meant to here!

This topic was covered on this thread at bit.
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=621279

[RHIII]

I remember those days!!!!

The interesting thing is the monumental Rolex price increases over the years - $3k in ‘96 had the ‘buying’ power of almost $5k — in 2018 dollars...not a ‘huge’ delta

....yet the Submariner has increased (price) nearly 170%!!!! (8% per year average - if normally distributed)....

Just a thought....




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[schwoo]

Originally Posted by RHIII

I remember those days!!!!

The interesting thing is the monumental Rolex price increases over the years - $3k in ‘96 had the ‘buying’ power of almost $5k — in 2018 dollars...not a ‘huge’ delta

....yet the Submariner has increased (price) nearly 170%!!!! (8% per year average - if normally distributed)....

Just a thought....




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We all need to buy more!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rolerx]

The daytona


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bxtek]

Wow.....a 16520 Daytona for $3050! Very cool to see this old catalog. Gives me the same feeling of wanting to go back in time as when I see old classifieds ads from the 90's for air cooled Porsches. Thanks for posting!

[Alpino]

Originally Posted by Bxtek

Wow.....a 16520 Daytona for $3050! Very cool to see this old catalog. ...

There's a print error in that list. 16520 have always been more expensive (around +50%) than Gmt's or Sub's.

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by Alpino

There's a print error in that list. 16520 have always been more expensive (around +50%) than Gmt's or Sub's.

The 16520 was $5,100 in 1996 and not $3,050!

[Etschell]

gold sub is equivalent to 34k now adays. plus you can get that model for sub 20k.

the daytona and gmt master 2 have appreciated well. the rest are simply keeping up with inflation

[Dusko.Popov]

It looks like the watches are worth more now than than what they would have been in 1996 dollars adjusted for inflation.

Is anyone able to do determine if these watches have outpaced the value of what the same $3050 would have been worth today if that money would have instead been invested and seen an average increase over the last 19 years?

Would be interesting to know since the “watches aren’t an investment crowd” are a loud and boisterous one here.

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by Dusko.Popov

It looks like the watches are worth more now than than what they would have been in 1996 dollars adjusted for inflation.

Is anyone able to do determine if these watches have outpaced the value of what the same $3050 would have been worth today if that money would have instead been invested and seen an average increase over the last 19 years?

Would be interesting to know since the “watches aren’t an investment crowd” are a loud and boisterous one here.

3k in 1996 is over 18k today in the s and p 500.

that gold sub of 21k is still worth 21k. in the s and p it would be 131k today...

[Dusko.Popov]

Originally Posted by Etschell

3k in 1996 is over 18k today in the s and p 500.

that gold sub of 21k is still worth 21k. in the s and p it would be 131k today...

Thank you.

So the value of the stainless steel 16520 (used) and maybe even the 16710 (unworn, stickered, full provenance) have kept up with the average rate of market investment return.

That’s cool.

The value of the gold Rolex isn’t even close.