$210.00 Submariner

[mikkolopez]

now if i can only tell my Dad and Mom to get me a dozen of them Subs when they were thinking of making me.

[GeoGio Greece]

Yes, its true, prices then were quite affordable, today they are sky high.

I got my first, a 1665, ( as I was to find later ), in 1971, and at that period, it was not much more expensive compared with other famous brands of the period, such as Omegas-Venus, etc.

The one in the ad is IMO a 5512, the bezel is turned to show the ability to measure the "elapsed" time, and the bezel is a friction type without clicks and turns in both directions.

You just turn it and it stays in the new position, provided that the O-ring spring is properly adjusted and clean from all the dirt it collects.

This 1665 was sold some years later With my lesson learned I keep my 5513 for EVER

[Bangel]

Maybe we'll be saying the same thing about current submariner prices in 46 years time?

[cop414]

Originally Posted by Bangel

Maybe we'll be saying the same thing about current submariner prices in 46 years time?

Hmmm, I'll be 98 years old then, maybe my grandchildren will be saying it about my watch!

[Bangel]

Originally Posted by cop414

Hmmm, I'll be 98 years old then, maybe my grandchildren will be saying it about my watch!

Haha! That's where that time machine someone mentioned comes in useful as well.

PS: We're close to the same vintage.

[cop414]

Originally Posted by Bangel

Haha! That's where that time machine someone mentioned comes in useful as well.

PS: We're close to the same vintage.

Old guys rock!!

[77T]

So I went looking for some reference point other than simple inflation to compare the rise of the Sub's MSRP. Considering Rolex's target market for luxury Swiss watches, I looked for corporate salary comparisons over the past 50 years. Found a study that showed between 1955-2005, the median total compensation (incl. stock options) for upper management (from CEOs thru VPs) skyrocketed, too. http://www.vanderbilt.edu/econ/sempapers/Frydman1.pdf

But the Rolex Sub MSRP (as a % of the median comp.) was higher by a factor of 4x - so it has even outpaced Executive median compensation during that 50 year period. I couldn't find more recent data that had undergone peer review, but I figure the price increases since 2005 has raised that factor further.

Using a "comp./hr. analogy", an Exec. had to expend about 1/2 hr. worth of compensation in 1955 dollars to buy a Sub; in 2005 the median Exec had to expend 2.15 hrs. worth of comp. A crown for every achievement...

[bscepter]

Originally Posted by 77T

Considering Rolex's target market for luxury Swiss watches, I looked for corporate salary comparisons over the past 50 years

they didn't used to be "luxury swiss watches." not the SS ones, anyway. my father in law got his GMT as a wedding present from his wife in '69. she paid, i think $300 for it - not cheap, but not crazy-expensive. he was in the air force at the time. he then wore it every day as an electrical company lineman, beating the ever-living sh*t out of it over the course of 30+ years. it was a true "tool watch" for him.

epilogue: for his 60th b-day, we sent it to bob ridley and had it restored (keeping all original parts, natch.), and he's wearing it again.

so, in 1967, a sub cost $210, which was comparable with many other swiss watches, and certainly within the reach of just about anyone with a decent job. certainly not the domain of the wealthy as it is today.

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by 77T

So I went looking for some reference point other than simple inflation to compare the rise of the Sub's MSRP. Considering Rolex's target market for luxury Swiss watches, I looked for corporate salary comparisons over the past 50 years. Found a study that showed between 1955-2005, the median total compensation (incl. stock options) for upper management (from CEOs thru VPs) skyrocketed, too. http://www.vanderbilt.edu/econ/sempapers/Frydman1.pdf

That's great work. The only missing factor would be the USD to Swiss Franc conversion rates. I'm wondering how much of the huge explosion in Rolex prices is due to the devaluation of the USD.

[porschejeff]

Cool ad. Thanks for sharing.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by bscepter

so, in 1967, a sub cost $210, which was comparable with many other swiss watches, and certainly within the reach of just about anyone with a decent job. certainly not the domain of the wealthy as it is today.

Personally, I don't think that today's Sub is the domain of the wealthy, as I have virtually no wealth.

I have a sufficient cash-flow to enjoy a few nice things with some planning.

The Subs today, including my 14060M, are much more refined than the Subs of that era and consequently more expensive to make, regardless of the currency standard applied.

Of course, I would also say that it's true that there is a far greater demand for Rolex today than there ever has been, except perhaps the Eighties, when a Rolex was de rigueur for Yuppies (Young Upwardly-mobile Professionals).