The real reason for the SS shortage: No real competition in the SS market

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by Wristwatcherboy

You are right, I apologise to Fleetlord. Just don’t like the thought of watch brands going under and people losing their jobs.

Apologies again, and thanks for your post and wise words!

It’s a passionate topic and I certainly would take no pleasure in seeing brands fail...I was pissed when Fortis went into bankruptcy..

My comments were truly coming from the side of concern. These other brands, which I too own multiple references from, just aren’t putting out a consistently competitive product in terms of design, price, promotion and distribution/production levels compared to Rolex. It’s really not even close at the moment and that lack of parity is a problem.

As Tyler mentioned I see the market in a realistic fashion, which unfortunately is as harsh and cold as I have ever seen it.

If a brand doesn’t have the right mix of exclusivity, retail price to market price ratio, value retention and effective promotion via multiple channels, it will essentially be ignored until something is adjusted, which unfortunately for those particular brands, is usually price. Discount it enough and somebody will finally buy it. In the luxury space, that is just nasty business...

[asiparks]

Originally Posted by inadeje

GS is and will be a passing fad. There’s been a bit of hype surrounding GS lately and where there is hype there are sheep. Needless to say, they’ll be valueless when the hype subsides.

Thank heavens the same couldn’t be said about Rolex, no hype propelled sheep there...
GS is riding a bit of a wave. Fortunately most people are still aghast at the idea of dropping more than $300 on a Seiko, so they’re still readily obtainable without necessitating a reach around at the AD.
And should they become “valueless”, it just means you’ll be able to pick up a brilliant, well made watch for less.

Not sure what it is about people that they have to be constantly validated in their choice of watch, nor that they have to denigrate other brands in the process. A good watch, (and there are loads of them), is no less a watch because it says “Omega” or “Breitling” on the dial

[The Libertine]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Mangoseed, thanks for starting this thread. It's fun to actually discuss and debate the merits of different brands and models. It's been a breath of fresh air from the regular availability, valuation and prediction threads - notwithstanding the fact I am a regular participant in those threads, too.

Agree as well. Other brands hold no interest for me. While I previously liked Omega offerings, releases over the past decade left me shaking my head.

[Wristwatcherboy]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

It’s a passionate topic and I certainly would take no pleasure in seeing brands fail...I was pissed when Fortis went into bankruptcy..

My comments were truly coming from the side of concern. These other brands, which I too own multiple references from, just aren’t putting out a consistently competitive product in terms of design, price, promotion and distribution/production levels compared to Rolex. It’s really not even close at the moment and that lack of parity is a problem.

As Tyler mentioned I see the market in a realistic fashion, which unfortunately is as harsh and cold as I have ever seen it.

If a brand doesn’t have the right mix of exclusivity, retail price to market price ratio, value retention and effective promotion via multiple channels, it will essentially be ignored until something is adjusted, which unfortunately for those particular brands, is usually price. Discount it enough and somebody will finally buy it. In the luxury space, that is just nasty business...

Appreciate your insights and your graciousness in dealing with my post.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by asiparks

Thank heavens the same couldn’t be said about Rolex, no hype propelled sheep there...
GS is riding a bit of a wave. Fortunately most people are still aghast at the idea of dropping more than $300 on a Seiko, so they’re still readily obtainable without necessitating a reach around at the AD.
And should they become “valueless”, it just means you’ll be able to pick up a brilliant, well made watch for less.

Not sure what it is about people that they have to be constantly validated in their choice of watch, nor that they have to denigrate other brands in the process. A good watch, (and there are loads of them), is no less a watch because it says “Omega” or “Breitling” on the dial

where rolex is currently is a fad no question. It doesn't take anything away from the brand or its merits, but its current level is neither normal or organic. Kind of like a few years ago when you could overhear old ladies sitting at McDonalds talking about bitcoin... thats when you knew it was a bubble. Rolex is no different as its attracting all kinds of people who have no interest in watches.

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by inadeje

GS is and will be a passing fad. There’s been a bit of hype surrounding GS lately and where there is hype there are sheep. Needless to say, they’ll be valueless when the hype subsides.

I own Rolex and I don’t (yet) own a GS. I have though handled a few (the Seiko Boutique in Knightsbridge is a great place to spend some quality time) and done a lot of research on them. Objectively, taking all possible criteria into consideration, GS is probably at least on a par with SS Rolex. In terms of all the bits you can see, it’s superior. I also have little doubt that the cost of manufacturing a GS would be more than the cost of manufacturing an equivalent Rolex. Which means (and this is quite obvious) you’re paying a higher proportion of the cost of a Rolex on hype AKA marketing than on a GS - does the brand even have a marketing budget?! That’ll be even more true “when the hype subsides”.

[1William]

I am late to the discussion but the lack of quality from other brands is not a true statement. There are many brand who make at least as good of a watch as Rolex and many are superior in case design and finish and movements. The problem for the other brands is that currently they are not marketed in a similar manner and the hype associated with Rolex is not on the brand they represent. Like all things this to will fade and shift with time. Most of the younger collectors I know move toward the larger brands and tend to focus on what is driven in the media and watch boards. This is a great time for collectors of other brands other than Rolex and PP. There are many deals to be had, great watches to own and money to be saved. I look at it similar to my journey through car buying when I only aspired to a Mercedes-Benz. After some ownership I tried BMW, Range Rover and finally Lexus. I jumped back and forth but have finally landed on Lexus for all of the factors everyone is aware of. Still like the other brands but in the end for quality and value it is Lexus for me. So starts my journey with Grand Seiko. I will always love Rolex but there are a lot of options that are at least as good.

[Etschell]

The only two omegas I would buy is the new seamaster 300m ceramic and the sapphire sandwich moon watch.

However the bezel on the ceramic seamaster is not up to snuff imo.

[Junior_]

Originally Posted by tbjerm

Watchbox has done some reviews pitting the Omega with its comparable Rolex against each other and seeing who takes the crown. Sub lost to Seamster, but Sea Dweller kept its crown against the Planet Ocean.

Saw that. The Seamaster has some things going for it. Movement beats the 313X. But the Seamaster doesn’t beat the Sub because the Seamaster is ugly as shit and the continuity through the ages is a mess.

But to each his own.

[Junior_]

Originally Posted by mr_gray

photo of two watches to calm the situation down

A little watch porn should make everyone happy.

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by mangoseed

It surprises me that this is never brought up as a factor with regards to the Rolex SS shortage.

Omega does nothing but spam out limited editions while their flagship Seamaster has been outdated since the turn of the millennium.

5-10 years ago Breitling were at least somewhat respectable, but now they have the worst resale value I have ever seen and have completely turned their back on the history of the brand. The new ownership is a complete disaster.

What else is there? IWC maybe, but it is a bit of a specific taste. Other than that there are just niche brands like Zenith, JLC etc. I suppose you could consider Grand Seiko.

Rolex is the only solid choice in the current market, even more so if you want a quality bracelet.

While there is some truth to this, it’s far more complicated and has more to do with brand recognition. The vast majority of the world can maybe afford one nice watch. When one gets enough $$ together Rolex is the obvious choice due to brand recognition and marketing.

Now don’t fool yourself, IWC and Breitling have been making solid and I mean solid bracelets long before Rolex ever had. The reality is the Speedmaster and navitimer are the real deal, period and among the most valued and respected chronos ever made. Unlike the Daytona which is largely marketing hype and is almost completely illegible and is far far less functional than the two I mentioned. I own all three and an say that with certainty as I use them as tools for my job, and rely on their function everyday where a cell phone can’t do.


I do agree that Rolex is unique in that they make extreamily well made and reliable pieces that are tough as nails. There sport watch heritage is what makes all their pieces so robust. They walk the line between sport and dressy in a way that no other brand have done. But don’t underestimate their marketing. Rolex is synonymous with success, prestige, etc.

[Cryten]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

The Seamaster lineup is a mess. Too many models..and they keep changing the design every year. Some are vintage looking , some are modern. Some are this, some are that...Too many!

The other Omega references nobody cares about at all, so they aren't worth mentioning.

..........

Breitling. Wow they are in rough shape......... They must make 2000 versions of the Navitimer, which is just poison. Who can even figure out what they want? Forget it, I'll just get a Rolex.

Originally Posted by Roleplay

This is the very reason why I personally think Rolex should slow down on their novelties. Since 2015, they've been churning out so many new things, it's got to take its toll eventually. I think if they release a Coke only one year after Pepsi, it's a wrong move in my opinion. How many variations of the GMT can the market take before it becomes ridiculous?

This is what I think is killing a lot of watch brands. The endless desire for new models to appeal to a generation with the attention span of goldfish. I think Basel isn't helping either as too many brands pump out new models no one asked for just to fill their booth. Was it last year that Omega released over 120 SKUs? That is utter madness. Now Rolex is playing the Basel release game too and I think it's a mistake, I'd like to see them sit a few out.

Originally Posted by Montremoi

Tudor has been on a roll since its revival. But I don't know if you count the brand as separate from Rolex.

Tudor has been on a roll since it's re-release in the US market, but how many versions of the Black Bay do we need? They run the risk of diluting their brand value with endless releases. Look how quickly the Panerai line up exploded into utter confusion, discernible to only the most diehard enthusiast.

[Roleplay]

Originally Posted by Cryten

Tudor has been on a roll since it's re-release in the US market, but how many versions of the Black Bay do we need? They run the risk of diluting their brand value with an endless releases. Look how quickly the Panerai line up exploded into utter confusion, discernible to only the most diehard enthusiast.

This is why I’ve always felt that Rolex should stop making more colour variations of the GMT! To be honest, I’d be very disappointed if they did a Coke this coming Basel.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rashid.bk]

Good thread. It really is true, Rolex has no competition in the ss watch arena at that price.
AP has some great models but they are more civilized and Patek is in another price bracket.
Everyone else is making weird stuff or just experimenting into oblivion like Panerai.

Rolex all day for me, although I do fancy a few APs except that I worry about scratches to much.

[Junior_]

Originally Posted by Chester01

The vast majority of the world can maybe afford one nice watch. When one gets enough $$ together Rolex is the obvious choice due to brand recognition and marketing.

The vast majority of the world cannot afford a $5,000 to $10,000 watch, though the vast majority of those in a modern economy can afford a nice Seiko/Hamilton/Tissot level mechanical watch. Most simply get quartz or now, an Apple Watch.

The vast majority of the affluent can afford one nice $5,000 to $10,000 watch. Or are simply only willing to pay for one nice watch.

I agree with your sentiment, though, and it’s a good point.

What brand makes sense for that person saving up for that “one watch” in that price range? Probably Rolex above all others.

The brand heritage, the timelessness of design, the connection to the past. SS Submariner, DJ, OP, SS GMT all make perfect sense.

Are there other watches from other brands? Of course (e.g., Speedmaster). Tudor is good, too (fake patina aside).

But Rolex is the easiest and obvious choice.

A collector will look to other brands, something easy to do with multiple $5,000 plus watches. But for that “one watch”, Rolex is the safest choice (though again, a Speedmaster is hard to argue with.)

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by Roleplay

This is why I’ve always felt that Rolex should stop making more colour variations of the GMT! To be honest, I’d be very disappointed if they did a Coke this coming Basel.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They really haven't made "a lot" of variations. The only new ss model has actually been the BLNR. The others are actually just revisiting their past models which were proven sellers. I'd welcome a "RONO" rouge noir or whatever they call it. The red ceramic would be incredible, problem is you won't be able to buy it for years.
The only models Rolex has experimented with has been the YM, Milguass and OPs.

[NAVY]

Originally Posted by Wristwatcherboy

Breitling have in fact not turned their back on the history of the brand, but rather the complete opposite. They are bringing out re-releases of vintage pieces and if you knew anything about them you would know that their last few tent pole releases have been very closely inspired and related to watches in Breitlings rich history. And it is exactly the “new ownership” which is responsible for this.

For years past Breitling actually had turned their back on their history, preferring instead to churn out massive and garish fully polished watches instead of referencing their rich heritage and back catalogue of beautiful watches. But this has all changed now, under their new management.

Perhaps before you go criticising every other brand apart from Rolex, it would very much help if you were slightly more informed about them than what you appear to be.

[NAVY]

Originally Posted by mangoseed

Wow what an unnecessarily confrontational and hostile post. With someone who has knowledge of longterm market behaviors, using the term "bubble" is completely erroneous. I can't even follow the logic of the rest of your post, if any exists at all.

Really??

[Roleplay]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

They really haven't made "a lot" of variations. The only new ss model has actually been the BLNR. The others are actually just revisiting their past models which were proven sellers. I'd welcome a "RONO" rouge noir or whatever they call it. The red ceramic would be incredible, problem is you won't be able to buy it for years.

The only models Rolex has experimented with has been the YM, Milguass and OPs.

Regular black ceramic, Batman, Root Beer, Pepsi, all in less than ten years with almost no change to the design of the rest of the watch. Variations to other professional models, not so much. And not far off Tudor’s number of Black Bay variations that the previous post mentioned. Just pointing out that prior to this, the change in the Rolex professional line up was much slower.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by Roleplay

Regular black ceramic, Batman, Root Beer, Pepsi, all in less than ten years with almost no change to the design of the rest of the watch. Variations to other professional models, not so much. And not far off Tudor’s number of Black Bay variations that the previous post mentioned. Just pointing out that prior to this, the change in the Rolex professional line up was much slower.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thats less than the dial choices in your typical DJ. Overall there are literally thousands of DJ possible configurations. No idea why a handful would be excessive

[MTBer]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

Good thread. It really is true, Rolex has no competition in the ss watch arena at that price.
AP has some great models but they are more civilized and Patek is in another price bracket.

I think this is spot on, for reasons that have nothing to do with specific watches. Rolex, simply by virtue of being Rolex at this point, is the yard stick by which other brands are measured. Anything less expensive is written off as inferior or ‘lower tier’ regardless of technical merit. Subjectively, if something looks too similar to a Sub, people deride it for being a Sub Clone. If the design deviates from the Sub design too much, it’s described as ‘quirky’ or ‘niche’.

Anything more expensive than Rolex tends to automatically get bumped from competition because it’s ‘higher tier’ and not a fair comparison. And anything equal in price to Rolex loses because, who wants to pay Rolex money for something that isn’t a Rolex?

So the question to the strictly Rolex faithful- what would a brand like Omega need to do in order to earn your money when choosing between a Sub and a Seamaster? To ensure it’s strictly about the watch, let’s assume Omega has:
1) Streamlined their product lines
2) Gotten serious about marketing (i.e., no more fashion nonsense, instead focusing on historical, technical accomplishments and using relevant, respected ambassadors to convey that message
3) Tightened up supply- maybe not to the level Rolex has, but enough so that an SMP purchased at full MSRP from the Boutiue on Friday is still worth at least 80% on the secondary market Monday.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by Roleplay

Regular black ceramic, Batman, Root Beer, Pepsi, all in less than ten years with almost no change to the design of the rest of the watch. Variations to other professional models, not so much. And not far off Tudor’s number of Black Bay variations that the previous post mentioned. Just pointing out that prior to this, the change in the Rolex professional line up was much slower.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All those colors have been in Rolex's resume or list of colors since the 90s. I understand they're new ceramic releases but it isn't anything new. The CNHR is a slight twist but still just an update to the older. They all sold concurrently as well.

The BLNR is the standout. but as you said, no change and same design...EXACTLY!! and that's why Rolex dominates the ss watch market. Thank God there hasn't been any change to the design, this is why I love Rolex. Classic timeless formula...no fancy shmansy thick or weird shapes and sizes.

Just the same formula they got right the first time way back in the 50-60's, all I could possibly ask for is to slim down the Submariner lugs one mill on each side, it's the perfect watch. Walk into Breitling and it's like a circus, a Macy's watch counter and Panerai, $20k for a watch with weird colors in 47mm with a rubber strap- they must want it more than me because I just look and leave it right there in the case for them to enjoy.

[Roleplay]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

thats less than the dial choices in your typical DJ. Overall there are literally thousands of DJ possible configurations. No idea why a handful would be excessive

Yes, I completely agree, which is why I specifically referrred to professional models.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by Junior_

The vast majority of the world cannot afford a $5,000 to $10,000 watch, though the vast majority of those in a modern economy can afford a nice Seiko/Hamilton/Tissot level mechanical watch. Most simply get quartz or now, an Apple Watch.

The vast majority of the affluent can afford one nice $5,000 to $10,000 watch. Or are simply only willing to pay for one nice watch.

I agree with your sentiment, though, and it’s a good point.

What brand makes sense for that person saving up for that “one watch” in that price range? Probably Rolex above all others.

The brand heritage, the timelessness of design, the connection to the past. SS Submariner, DJ, OP, SS GMT all make perfect sense.

Are there other watches from other brands? Of course (e.g., Speedmaster). Tudor is good, too (fake patina aside).

But Rolex is the easiest and obvious choice.

A collector will look to other brands, something easy to do with multiple $5,000 plus watches. But for that “one watch”, Rolex is the safest choice (though again, a Speedmaster is hard to argue with.)

Agreed, and it’s hard to argue as of all the choices, Rolex will hold its value far better than all other brands, save for a few select models from AP or PP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fleetlord]

The mentioning of GS in all of this brings up some interesting observations I have made via owning and using some GS references.

Other than the branding inadequacy with the general public (how much for a Seiko!) , the problem I have is the cost cutting and poor execution in some regards compared to ultra high end execution in other areas...

For example...I have a GS Snowflake. It has a gorgeous and perfect dial. The hand set is perfectly polished, even under the inspection of a loupe. Absolutely brilliant level of attention to detail. So all is well until you unscrew the crown, set the time and screw the crown back down again. Uh oh. That crown sucks. The threads are gritty and it takes some effort to seat it properly first to avoid stripping it out. Compare that to the crown on a Rolex Explorer 1, a similar size watch. No comparison whatsoever. The Rolex crown is perfect in its functionality and execution...so why would GS spend so much effort on the dial and hands, but install a lousy crown?

Same with the GS bracelet. Each link is noticeably well crafted and smooth with no hotspots or sharp edges, dare I say nicer than a modern Rolex oyster bracelet in that regard...which I do find the links to have a sharp edge.

So after all that craftsmanship and attention to detail focused on the bracelet links, what does Seiko do? Oh, they put it together with pins and collars they use on a $200 Macys Seiko...that and a rebranded clasp they swiped from their other cheaper references. Wtf??? Seiko claims they need to use pins and collars because TI bracelet screws in Ti bracelet don’t work well..Idk..Breitling figured that out a long time ago....plus they still use pins and collars in other GS references that are SS..why? Nothing ruins the feel of a luxury watch than a crappy crown and seeing some pin heads poking out the end of a bracelet...

Rolex design quality is more consistent across the whole of the watch. The other guys might do one specific thing better, like GS and their dials, but Rolex presents the best overall package at these price points.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by Roleplay

Yes, I completely agree, which is why I specifically referrred to professional models.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

so you should have less choice because its professional? Thats was my point. Why is it ok for a thousand DJ models, but if someone wants a BLRO, BLNR, LN, CHNR etc then thats too many choices. I dont get it

[Roleplay]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

so you should have less choice because its professional? Thats was my point. Why is it ok for a thousand DJ models, but if someone wants a BLRO, BLNR, LN, CHNR etc then thats too many choices. I dont get it

It was in response to Cryten’s comment on Tudor about “how many versions of the Black Bay do we need” and how he feels it is diluting the brand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Juantxo]

The power of psychology. The price of building a brand’s name. Very little rationality about it. Although Rolex no doubt builds dependable, sturdy watches.

[Mystro]

Some people new in the watch game put the “professional” line on a pedestal when it’s just another marketing angle from Rolex compared to the DJ, DD, etc.. There is nothing more “professional” about the entire line or manufacturing standards.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by MTBer

I think this is spot on, for reasons that have nothing to do with specific watches. Rolex, simply by virtue of being Rolex at this point, is the yard stick by which other brands are measured. Anything less expensive is written off as inferior or ‘lower tier’ regardless of technical merit. Subjectively, if something looks too similar to a Sub, people deride it for being a Sub Clone. If the design deviates from the Sub design too much, it’s described as ‘quirky’ or ‘niche’.

Anything more expensive than Rolex tends to automatically get bumped from competition because it’s ‘higher tier’ and not a fair comparison. And anything equal in price to Rolex loses because, who wants to pay Rolex money for something that isn’t a Rolex?

So the question to the strictly Rolex faithful- what would a brand like Omega need to do in order to earn your money when choosing between a Sub and a Seamaster? To ensure it’s strictly about the watch, let’s assume Omega has:
1) Streamlined their product lines
2) Gotten serious about marketing (i.e., no more fashion nonsense, instead focusing on historical, technical accomplishments and using relevant, respected ambassadors to convey that message
3) Tightened up supply- maybe not to the level Rolex has, but enough so that an SMP purchased at full MSRP from the Boutiue on Friday is still worth at least 80% on the secondary market Monday.

I would buy an Omega if they themselves invest in and believe in their own design and movements. Omega releases a watch and two years later releases a new model with a new movement. If you don't have faith in a product to survive past three or four years than why should I.
This is why the traditional Speedmaster still does well. Everything else is a science experiment.
Look at Karl Lagerfeld's AP a watch from the early 70s that looks about the same as one from 2019. I can appreciate that, I buy an Omega today and next couple years it's obsolete aesthetically and mechanically. So the new one is "better?" , well if so, then you were selling me an inferior product a couple years ago, why didn't you just wait to get it right.
I believe the first gen PO 2500 is still the best looking and best fitting one and the co-axial D series is a great movement...now we're on our fourth iteration I think...
The Submariner has been the same watch throughout that whole debacle. So which would I chose, which is more valuable as a sound product.