Some 1996 Watches Catalog Pages

[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!

[oldman2005]

Pretty interesting, 20 years from now in 2038, someone will say, OMG I should have gotten that Daytona-C or S43 Mark1 back in 2018, their MSPR was only....

Hope I'll get my SS BLRO by then LOL

[EffJayEm]

Originally Posted by Ravager135

To me, these prices seem pretty reasonable considering the time. They still weren’t cheap. I received a 16610 in 2008 as a gift and the receipt shows it was purchased for a little over 5k. I was there when I picked it out and I remember the 16610LV was identical in price.

When things went ceramic is when the costs really started to soar. What shocks me most was how affordable the Daytonas were.

Stainless was not what it would become. It's tough to accurately describe, but the pure stainless simple models were thought of similarly to how people would look at the lowest trim BMW or Mercedes on their entry-level sedan with spartan options, mediocre trim and a small engine. People thought: what's the point and you're paying for ad copy. That's not to say the analogy is factual true. But it's how people thought.

[T01]

Very cool!

[BLACKHORSE 6]

Great post.

[Speedbird-1]

I bought my 1675 from WOS, Bond St, for £224 in 1974.
I was young and impetuous, and didn't ask for a discount.

[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!

[faz]

Awesome pictures. Thanks for sharing. Nice prices, but nothing has changed really: I can’t afford a PM Daytona now, and couldn’t afford it then! 🤪


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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

[MattPegler]

I doubt the Explorer II would sell very well today with the same RRP as a Daytona

[Starplanet]

The best watches are vintages.

[roosvelt]

Thanks for posting the adds . It was enjoyable to look at!

[Random Guy]

My grandfather bought the Air king I’m currently wearing in 81 for $700, my uncle got it serviced in 88 for $100, I got serviced again couple weeks ago and costed me $900, wow.

[GreatScott]

The jubilee is cheaper than the oyster.

I was eyeing the sub back then, 20 years later and I am still kicking my a$$ for not buying it. Not just due to the increase in value, but more because I am sure if I had I would have not purchased the thousands of dollars in other watches before I went back to Rolex.

[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!

[Ravager135]

Originally Posted by Etschell

people didnt want them back then as much as now. i think tastes have changed.

I wonder how much of that has to do with tastes and aesthetics of the time? I know two-tone models were more popular. My father's first and only Rolex is a two-tone, black dial Submariner Date 16613LN. My first suspicion was that since the Daytona did not have an in house movement, that may have affected the price as well. I am not sure how true that is.

Again, I did not get into collecting until 2007-2008. The stainless steel Daytona was already on its way to becoming a difficult to source model at that point. I can't speak for when the real flip in desirability took place. The one lesson I have learned however is how fickle the Rolex market is. So many people think they know what is rare and what will appreciate in value. Tell that to the people who bought the GV Milgauss when it first came out... It went for well over MSRP and now they can be had for less than. Doesn't change the fact that the Milgauss is an awesome watch. Which brings me back to my contention all along: buy what makes you happy!

[Ravager135]

Originally Posted by EffJayEm

Stainless was not what it would become. It's tough to accurately describe, but the pure stainless simple models were thought of similarly to how people would look at the lowest trim BMW or Mercedes on their entry-level sedan with spartan options, mediocre trim and a small engine. People thought: what's the point and you're paying for ad copy. That's not to say the analogy is factual true. But it's how people thought.

I totally get it. As I said above, I remember my dad buying his first Rolex and he went with a two-tone Submariner Date. The price difference wasn't much and people just had the mindset of getting "higher end" model that they could afford. I'll be proud to inherit that watch some day long from now, but I wish he picked up a GMT-Master in stainless steel!

[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

[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.