Value of DD40 vs DD2?

[Abdon]

I pose this question in earnest, as I have recently had a discussion with a friend and fellow enthusiast regarding this fine timepiece.
The reason for the question is as follows: The DD2 has solid links in the bracelet, and the case is larger than the DD40. The DD40 has ceramic inserts in all of the bracelet's links, and is smaller, hence less gold than the DD40. Yet, the DD40 is priced the same as the DD2.
Initially I thought having ceramic inserts was a great idea to prevent bracelet "bend" as is seen in the older more "loved" DD's, however, wouldn't the solid links of the DD2 prevent bracelet bend just the same? I was initially very enthusiastic about acquiring the new DD40, but after pondering the above, I decided on the DD2. Actually, I have wanted the DD2 for a while, and I am very happy with it...the fact that it will be discontinued only sped up my purchase. I am just wondering why Rolex would be charging the same for a smaller watch with less gold. Perhaps the new movement is what makes it more expensive?
Anyway, just some things to think about, and any opinions and thoughts are welcomed!

[watchwatcher]

I think the amount of gold you're talking about would be fairly insignificant. Plus with the new watch, there is a new movement.

[trackntrail]

Having solid links doesn't prevent bracelet stretch. What causes this is actually the pins and sometimes springbars wearing down over time and allowing them to wiggle inside the links of the bracelet allowing it to flex.

[doc76]

Although the total amount of gold is likely less on the 40 which would theoretically result in a lower price, a new movement combined with inflation keeps it the same price.
I currently own the DD2 which I think is a perfect dress watch. I will definitely not be trading it for the smaller DD40.

[returntorolex]

I thought the DD2 had ceramic inserts as well.

[kunlun]

I think the OP is asking good questions, however, in mentioning the amount of gold in Rolex watches reminds me that there have been a few other threads with other people who have posted variants of "there's MORE GOLD in the DD2" or "Rolex went down 1mm FOR KEEPING ALL THE GOLD TO THEMSELVES". To address that side of things:


As others have said in other threads, it's really not about the precious metal amount as the price doesn't justify the amount of precious metal that's there whatsoever. Not at all. Sorry. Nope.


You pay a premium for a precious metal watch that is about effort to work with the precious metal and much, much more about paying a lot for... well, just paying a lot extra beyond the value of the metal for nothing other than the perception that such a watch is valuable.


With that in mind, it would be plain straight up stupid to buy a precious metal rolex for the value of the precious metals in the watch. You can buy the precious metals themselves and get much, much more of any precious metal for the same price. We've had one or two WHERE'S ME GOLD threads and those people are dumb for buying a gold DD2 versus a DD40, based on the idea that they are getting more gold, period. Buy a DD2 because you love the look or for any reason you like, but not because you think the amount of precious metal anywhere near justifies the price of the watch.


Now on to the OP's questions: The DD2 does have ceramic inserts, I was told (by an AD, so that's always questionable!). It seems as though these may have been improved on perhaps in the DD40 or perhaps they are quite similar, I'm not sure why Rolex would be announcing them for the DD40 if there wasn't a change made. Certainly, for the OP's question, if it were solid gold (which is isn't), then you'd have the old problems with the bracelet due to the properties of gold. The gold is the problem, basically. "Solid gold doesn't fix problems, it causes them." Words to live by!

The DD40 in one's hand is a very different looking watch than the DD2. I understand that people love their DD2, but man, the DD40 is very differently proportioned and I know people will have the reaction I had when I saw it: "This is a great looking watch". The greater accuracy, 70hr power reserve, greater durability, re-engineered calibre is neat, too.

[gt3pilot]

Originally Posted by returntorolex

I thought the DD2 had ceramic inserts as well.

Yes on the Platinum model



-Scott B.

[Abdon]

Originally Posted by kunlun

I think the OP is asking good questions, however, in mentioning the amount of gold in Rolex watches reminds me that there have been a few other threads with other people who have posted variants of "there's MORE GOLD in the DD2" or "Rolex went down 1mm FOR KEEPING ALL THE GOLD TO THEMSELVES". To address that side of things:


As others have said in other threads, it's really not about the precious metal amount as the price doesn't justify the amount of precious metal that's there whatsoever. Not at all. Sorry. Nope.


You pay a premium for a precious metal watch that is about effort to work with the precious metal and much, much more about paying a lot for... well, just paying a lot extra beyond the value of the metal for nothing other than the perception that such a watch is valuable.


With that in mind, it would be plain straight up stupid to buy a precious metal rolex for the value of the precious metals in the watch. You can buy the precious metals themselves and get much, much more of any precious metal for the same price. We've had one or two WHERE'S ME GOLD threads and those people are dumb for buying a gold DD2 versus a DD40, based on the idea that they are getting more gold, period. Buy a DD2 because you love the look or for any reason you like, but not because you think the amount of precious metal anywhere near justifies the price of the watch.


Now on to the OP's questions: The DD2 does have ceramic inserts, I was told (by an AD, so that's always questionable!). It seems as though these may have been improved on perhaps in the DD40 or perhaps they are quite similar, I'm not sure why Rolex would be announcing them for the DD40 if there wasn't a change made. Certainly, for the OP's question, if it were solid gold (which is isn't), then you'd have the old problems with the bracelet due to the properties of gold. The gold is the problem, basically. "Solid gold doesn't fix problems, it causes them." Words to live by!

The DD40 in one's hand is a very different looking watch than the DD2. I understand that people love their DD2, but man, the DD40 is very differently proportioned and I know people will have the reaction I had when I saw it: "This is a great looking watch". The greater accuracy, 70hr power reserve, greater durability, re-engineered calibre is neat, too.

EXCELLENT points made, thank you for this response!!!

[andrewd]

I think the long term value of the DD40 is likely to be higher once the big watch fad fades away and the DD2 becomes a white elephant.

[liuk3]

However that white elephant as an endangered species could become collectible. I say though buy what you like and not as an investment vehicle. I personally like the smaller size better for a dress watch but do think that the DD2 will become collectible even if I think it personally looks kind of clownish on me as a dress watch. To each his own.

[beer]

So thanks to these "ceramic inserts" bracelet stretch is no longer a problem?

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

I think the amount of gold you're talking about would be fairly insignificant. Plus with the new watch, there is a new movement.

Pretty much sums it up

[tom2517]

Luxury goods companies price their products at prices they think you are willing to pay, not how much it cost them to produce.

PP priced the 5004 steel version higher than the platinum, you thank that makes sense? They can do it because it's limited run and in "rare" steel so they can get away with it.

[Racerdj]

My thoughts too.

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

I think the amount of gold you're talking about would be fairly insignificant. Plus with the new watch, there is a new movement.

[77T]

Originally Posted by beer

So thanks to these "ceramic inserts" bracelet stretch is no longer a problem?

We shall see over time. While theory would indicate a reduced stretch - the number of "broke my ceramic bezel" threads would suggest a new potential bracelet issue once a few million of the DD40s get into stream.

A quickly shattered bracelet insert will be an expensive substitute for a bit of stretch induced over decades of use.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[returntorolex]

Originally Posted by 77T

We shall see over time. While theory would indicate a reduced stretch - the number of "broke my ceramic bezel" threads would suggest a new potential bracelet issue once a few million of the DD40s get into stream.

A quickly shattered bracelet insert will be an expensive substitute for a bit of stretch induced over decades of use.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good point. How many DD do you think Rolex sells in a year? A few million may take 15-20 years to get into the stream.

[jthop]

Buy the watch that sings to you. If you start analyzing "value" I think you'll find they are all ridiculously overpriced.

[rebel_1]

Originally Posted by jthop

Buy the watch that sings to you. If you start analyzing "value" I think you'll find they are all ridiculously overpriced.

I agree wholeheartedly. I never try to make sense of the pricing. I have a RG DD2 w Ivory dial. The new DD40 is awfully tempting. Hopefully I'll be able to try one on this week while I'm in Las Vegas.

[kilyung]

Originally Posted by 77T

We shall see over time. While theory would indicate a reduced stretch - the number of "broke my ceramic bezel" threads would suggest a new potential bracelet issue once a few million of the DD40s get into stream.

A quickly shattered bracelet insert will be an expensive substitute for a bit of stretch induced over decades of use.

While I get your point Paul, I don't see how the ceramic insert could shatter. Maybe if the bracelet was bent/crushed but then you'd have bigger problems than broken ceramic inserts.

[Vanmarsenille]

Originally Posted by andrewd

I think the long term value of the DD40 is likely to be higher once the big watch fad fades away and the DD2 becomes a white elephant.

I can't think of a watch that Rolex has discontinued, that has gone down in value over the long term...

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Abdon

. .
1. The reason for the question is as follows: The DD2 has solid links in the bracelet, and the case is larger than the DD40. The DD40 has ceramic inserts in all of the bracelet's links, and is smaller, hence less gold than the DD40. Yet, the DD40 is priced the same as the DD2.
. . 2. I am just wondering why Rolex would be charging the same for a smaller watch with less gold. Perhaps the new movement is what makes it more expensive?
. . .

1. The DDII has inserts too, as do many models with gold links. The ceramic inserts will keep your $20,000.000 bracelet in good condition for many years. Many 20 year old solid gold bracelets are worn beyond repair and this will help that issue tremendously. That alone is worth an increase in price. The technology alone makes the DD40 worth more than the DDII.

2. Rolex does not and has never charged for the "amount of gold" in their watches, nor has any precious metal jewelry manufacturer. You do not buy jewelry on it's gold weight, even though some shops do sell chains by the gram or by the inch at greatly inflated value. Rolex prices are based on "market value"; what a willing buyer will pay a willing seller.

[jonnyz1245]

Originally Posted by Tools

1. The DDII has inserts too, as do many models with gold links. The ceramic inserts will keep your $20,000.000 bracelet in good condition for many years. Many 20 year old solid gold bracelets are worn beyond repair and this will help that issue tremendously. That alone is worth an increase in price. The technology alone makes the DD40 worth more than the DDII.

2. Rolex does not and has never charged for the "amount of gold" in their watches, nor has any precious metal jewelry manufacturer. You do not buy jewelry on it's gold weight, even though some shops do sell chains by the gram or by the inch at greatly inflated value. Rolex prices are based on "market value"; what a willing buyer will pay a willing seller.

While I agree that Rolex does not charge for the amount of gold in their watches, nor does anyone else for that matter, I disagree that Rolex prices their pm watches at market value. If they did, they would not be readily available at 10-20-30% off MSRP right out of that gate. You or I can buy a WG, Plat, or RG Rolex with very little effort at a substantial discount off list, at least in the US you can. I was just offered a WG Pepsi from an AD at 20% off the other day. Watch had been sitting in his case for a 3 months and he had a another one in the safe. This is a large AD too. Same AD offered me 25 off a DDII. YMMV!

[Willygallardo]

Gonna scoop myself a dd2 for sure value gonna go up.

[beer]

Thanks for the replies to my question

Originally Posted by kilyung

While I get your point Paul, I don't see how the ceramic insert could shatter. Maybe if the bracelet was bent/crushed but then you'd have bigger problems than broken ceramic inserts.

Im not educated on this but I think the same. If the watch took a shock surely the softer gold would absorb most of the shock before it could shatter the ceramic, unless it was an extremely hard knock that no watch would survive anyway

[phatotto]

Originally Posted by Willygallardo

Gonna scoop myself a dd2 for sure value gonna go up.

Seems like people always want what they can't have... I think you are right, the $$ will hold strong at that very least on them.......

[77T]

I should add that I don't predict a widespread problem with the ceramic inserts - just saying we don't usually know the outcome of a new item until the masses have at it under the many variables of real life.

Time will tell but I'm hoping this is an improvement for the vast majority of owners.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Psmith]

Originally Posted by 77T

We shall see over time. While theory would indicate a reduced stretch - the number of "broke my ceramic bezel" threads would suggest a new potential bracelet issue once a few million of the DD40s get into stream.

A quickly shattered bracelet insert will be an expensive substitute for a bit of stretch induced over decades of use.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Vanishingly unlikely imho. An event that shatters a bracelet insert will probably leave you with a destroyed bracelet.

I don't recall many broken ceramic insert threads during the decade in which they've been on the market, and these are far more exposed to the rigors of use.

[GhostInTheMachine]

I thought the DD40 replaces the DD2, so it's just a matter of clearing out stock? Shortly in the future when the stock is cleared, the DD2 is history correct?

[Tools]

Originally Posted by GhostInTheMachine

I thought the DD40 replaces the DD2, so it's just a matter of clearing out stock? Shortly in the future when the stock is cleared, the DD2 is history correct?

I believe that this is correct.


I also believe that the DD II will not go up in value or suddenly become a collectors item. It is a false notion that this is what occurs with discontinued models all the time..

[Nidal]

Originally Posted by andrewd

I think the long term value of the DD40 is likely to be higher once the big watch fad fades away and the DD2 becomes a white elephant.

Ditto. There is give or take 12k worth of actual gold in DD rest is profit and craftsmanship etc. 40 mm is timeless. 41-42-44 is contemporary. My opinion