TT - Why are they unwanted on the secondary market?

[Culley22]

Originally Posted by HDHNTER

A+ for trolling effort.

Sometimes you throw it out there and you get a bite. :)

[rayt]

Rolex gmt and rolex sub looks good on two tone,I think rolex can get away with it .but stainless steel looks cool.

[mmmk604]

Originally Posted by Mephist

What? I disagree!

Not only Tony Soprano and Elle Macpherson can pull off a full gold watch with gold bracelet. Clay Morrow from Sons of Anarchy can also pull off that look.

I always glance at the watch when I watch the show haha

[TARDIS]

Trends are changing. TT is dated now. SS or Platty if you can afford and it is classy.

Black is bling at the moment, but for how long?

[4therightcause]

The TT looks the best.

Originally Posted by BNALION

If you like a YG, TT or SS Rolex buy one or one of each! I think they are all great watches and wear very well for all occasions!

IMHO - Not dated/cheap/80’s/Sopranos/etc.

[AK797]

I dont think the ole Bluesy has been out of fashion for... ever.

[DJJon]

This thread is beat to death. We get it, lots of guys prefer SS. That's nice. Enjoy.

Others prefer Two Tone. OK, so we do. Who cares.

Fact is the TRF membership is not representative of all Rolex buyers. This place attracts more of the Sub crowd.

Folks do like buying used on this forum, not so much outside of here.

TT buyers are not the 'used watch' crowd.

Why are used Mercedes S Class so unwanted on the secondary market? Same reason.

I am bored with this thread already, yet strangely compelled to add another post.

Peace out.

[vintagewaferthin]

I myself dont mind two tone at all, its just that there isnt a huge market for it since it appeals to some, and doesnt to others.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by DJJon

TT buyers are not the 'used watch' crowd.

Why are used Mercedes S Class so unwanted on the secondary market? Same reason..

Yup...I think that's pretty much it...TT buyers buy new...just like the MB "S" class sedans...they appeal to a segment that buys them new and when they want a new one, they are not dependent on trade in value to get into their next new model.

[Zed82]

Mercedes S-class is also unwanted because of the running costs.

Never been a fan of the TT until i saw the new models in the flesh. The shine and the mixture of gold/steel is just fantastic. The SS models seem so grey and dull now.

[T. Ferguson]

For me the drawback with the TT is the PCL's. That's one reason why, if I got a TT sport watch I'd get the GMT over the Sub.

But I can't help but think the current trend towards SS is more about price than anything else. Say the TT is historically about 50% more than the SS model. Not even a few years ago the TT would cost you MAYBE $2K - 3K more than the stainless. But with the ever increasing prices for a Rolex coupled with the rise in gold prices and the TT watch will cost you more than a $5K premium.

That's enough to convince most people they like the stainless better.

It's just getting harder and harder to get into any Rolex, and the TT that much more so.

[34SF]

I'm not getting this either. I was selling two subs a while back; one TT, one stainless and both were "Z" serials. The stainless sold in less than a day and I still have the TT after months and it wasn't the price. Its like it's radioactive or something. I finally just decided to keep since the offers I was getting were just ridiculous.

[fminus]

Originally Posted by lhanddds

Bought this one for a change from time to time. I have the jubillee bracelet but the leather is a little less blingy and I wear it like this more often. My main choice is ss but it's a nice change.

Wow that's pretty freakin cool

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Gerardus]

I like TT a lot, in fact I am going to buy one to day.
And sell a SS.
Pics and post following later............
Sweet regards, Gerardus :)

[LightOnAHill]

can't wait!!!

[Nick1959]

Is int just a personal preference. Value wise doesn't SS hold a better value in comparison even with gold or platinum. It will be better to buy an SS and then buy real gold for the difference in price.

[RolexDivers]

Yes, SS models are an easier sell and greater appreciation than TT, anyday....

[Vincent65]

It's not just the 'secondary' market - they are less popular, full stop. Much easier to get a big discount on a new TT SUB in an AD than it is for a SS model.

I think certain TT models are awesome, and especially on women, but I personally don't like them for me. Too blingy and 'gansta.' I prefer plain old honest SS tool watches.

Here's my wife's TT YM mid-size, which I got for her this year. I think it looks great on her, but it's hideous on me (of course I tried it on), and not just because it's too small.

[outtatime]

I still think it's funny that people complain about TT watches being too "blingy" and how they want something "toolish and under-the radar", and yet their weapon of choice is still a Rolex.

Sorry, but there is nothing 'under-the-radar' about a SS Submariner.

[68camaro]

Originally Posted by outtatime

I still think it's funny that people complain about TT watches being too "blingy" and how they want something "toolish and under-the radar", and yet their weapon of choice is still a Rolex.

Sorry, but there is nothing 'under-the-radar' about a SS Submariner.

Hey, I resemble this remark

[outtatime]

Originally Posted by 68camaro

Hey, I resemble this remark

I think many around here would

If someone wants "tool", here's my latest acquisition:



Now THIS is a watch I'm not afraid to wear. It also lets you know it's on your wrist.

[MP5]

Nice spork. You might find it funny someone chose a Rolex for a tool watch but for a company built off of just that its not funny at all

[Vincent65]

Originally Posted by outtatime

I still think it's funny that people complain about TT watches being too "blingy" and how they want something "toolish and under-the radar", and yet their weapon of choice is still a Rolex.

Sorry, but there is nothing 'under-the-radar' about a SS Submariner.

I disagree - a modern TT SUB is much more noticeable and ostentatious than a vintage steel one, with very little in the way of shiny surfaces in the first place, let alone after 40 years of use, especially on the riveted or old folded-link bracelets with very 'tool-like,' unrefined edges, or on a simple NATO. That, IMO is 'under-the-radar' as you put it. A steel sports Rolex such as I've described, in those days, was not made as a look-at-me status symbol, but a robust and rugged instrument meant for using in sometimes harsh conditions. I just said that TT was too blingy for my tastes - it wasn't a general 'complaint.'

Here's what I'm talking about, with regards to 'tool' watch/non-bling:

[landroverking]

Funny only ss sub I would have is a 5512/5513. I like the Sub Date only in TT bluesy and 18kt bluesy. As for other TT Rolexes classics include and IMHO are the only way to be had are the DJ and TOG. The Daytona only because of the better selection of dials. As for the GMT don't care for the"c" in any form. GMT in SS with a jubilee or Root Beer with jubilee would be fine with me.

[Gerardus]

I like TT :)
Bought this one today

[outtatime]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

I disagree - a modern TT SUB is much more noticeable and ostentatious than a vintage steel one, with very little in the way of shiny surfaces in the first place, let alone after 40 years of use, especially on the riveted or old folded-link bracelets with very 'tool-like,' unrefined edges, or on a simple NATO. That, IMO is 'under-the-radar' as you put it. A steel sports Rolex such as I've described, in those days, was not made as a look-at-me status symbol, but a robust and rugged instrument meant for using in sometimes harsh conditions. I just said that TT was too blingy for my tastes - it wasn't a general 'complaint.'

Here's what I'm talking about, with regards to 'tool' watch/non-bling:

Fair enough. Where I'm coming from is that I see a lot of people say they want a SS model (or even more specifically an all-brushed SS model) so it's not "blingy". And some will say they want it as a "tool" or to just wear because it's so rugged and can take anything.

But in the case of something new, we're talking about upwards of an $8k watch-not something I'd go banging around in.

Which is why I always find it a bit amusing. I'm not going to say there aren't some people who truly feel these are diving instruments and aren't jewelry. But the vast majority of Rolex buyers/owners (myself included) DO find and treat them as jewelry. And the argument that someone would choose a Submariner over something else (even as "sporkish", whatever that means as my humble Benarus) always seems to be how much better they're made, how they're more reliable, more accurate, etc. I'd say anymore that's very arguable-I spent <$500 on that watch. So far, it's keeping as good as time as my Sub did (maybe even better). The fit and finish is top notch. But if I bang it on a door, while I may cringe, I'm not going to cry about it-and I won't have just devalued it by another few hundred dollars.

I guess I just wish people would be honest about why they HAVE to have a ROLEX for whatever particular purpose they're lauding. Again, I'm not saying you're NOT being honest-I'm sure many are. But for me, I've always thought they look awesome, are recognizable, have top notch fit and finish, and make me feel good wearing them. But I would never wear a Rolex to do yard-work (no matter how old and beat up it was).

Not trying to make anyone unhappy on this fine Thursday afternoon. I'll just go back to enjoying my cheapie "spork" now.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

I disagree - a modern TT SUB is much more noticeable and ostentatious than a vintage steel one, with very little in the way of shiny surfaces in the first place, let alone after 40 years of use, especially on the riveted or old folded-link bracelets with very 'tool-like,' unrefined edges, or on a simple NATO. That, IMO is 'under-the-radar' as you put it. A steel sports Rolex such as I've described, in those days, was not made as a look-at-me status symbol, but a robust and rugged instrument meant for using in sometimes harsh conditions. I just said that TT was too blingy for my tastes - it wasn't a general 'complaint.'

Here's what I'm talking about, with regards to 'tool' watch/non-bling:

Youre right Vincent, that does look crap

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Gerardus

I like TT :)
Bought this one today

Beautiful Gerard, please do a thread with plenty of pics, this is my next watch so need to keep the juices flowing in the mean time.

[james1787]

I like the TT watches, I just may get one if I decide to add a second Rolex but for now my SS sub works

[floater156]

Originally Posted by outtatime

I guess I just wish people would be honest about why they HAVE to have a ROLEX for whatever particular purpose they're lauding. Again, I'm not saying you're NOT being honest-I'm sure many are. But for me, I've always thought they look awesome, are recognizable, have top notch fit and finish, and make me feel good wearing them. But I would never wear a Rolex to do yard-work (no matter how old and beat up it was).

Not trying to make anyone unhappy on this fine Thursday afternoon. I'll just go back to enjoying my cheapie "spork" now.

Here! Here!

This made me laugh at all of the people who claim they purchase Rolex as their TOOL watches and subsequently post a thread about how to polish out a scratch they just got! LOL