Will Rolex values drop significantly in the coming years?

[Ballaratboy]

I am 63 years old, my son is 30 and he absolutely wants my Rolex and Tudor watches when I pass away or decide to give them to him earlier. I hope there is always a market for watches such as Rolex. Having said that, who knows really? I don't, but sincerely hope so.

[Jambo86]

Originally Posted by teo

Watch is not only for telling time, it is a piece of art. Art has value and will appreciate. Look at how much is paul newman's daytona went for in auction. Who will want a vintage apple watch? Apple watch got totally no value. When u need to change apple phone and apple watch every two years is too much money wasted.

Whilst I agree that an Apple watch won't hold value, I would say that people buying those aren't necessarily worried about resale value further down the line. A Rolex costs roughly £6500, that buys you 26 Apple watches at £250 each. Say you keep each one for 2 years and you can see how someone can get through a big chunk of their lifetime with a new Apple watch every couple of years, all for the price of one Rolex. I don't think that can be considered a money waste.

I think this is an entirely different ball game to the quartz wars.

[rolex75216]

Yes, for sure! I think you should wait a couple years to purchase your grail because as time moves on prices will get a lot cheaper and then you will be able to pick it up at a huge discount! If that sentence sounds a bit off to you then you can assume prices will not be going down any time soon.

[bradleyt09]

I believe there will always be a market for prestige brands. I don't see Rolex values dropping in the future. Paul Newman's Rolex just sold at auction for 17.8M.

[montecarlo77]

There are many great answers here from people on all sides of this conversation! Coincidentally, Fossil just reported earnings after the market closed today and the stock is down another 15% in after hours trading due to weak guidance....

So maybe Rolex does well more as a jewelry/status item and watchmakers on the low end suffer?

[montecarlo77]

Originally Posted by Jambo86

Whilst I agree that an Apple watch won't hold value, I would say that people buying those aren't necessarily worried about resale value further down the line. A Rolex costs roughly £6500, that buys you 26 Apple watches at £250 each. Say you keep each one for 2 years and you can see how someone can get through a big chunk of their lifetime with a new Apple watch every couple of years, all for the price of one Rolex. I don't think that can be considered a money waste.

I think this is an entirely different ball game to the quartz wars.

I agree this is totally different and not comparable to the "quartz wars". A number of people are bringing up Paul Newman's Daytona, but that is a one-off and (it was also ridiculous) we cannot gauge the future health of the watch market based on what a couple of aged billionaires did for this one watch. In fact the Newman sale could be a sign of a top in the market, and will future billionaires want to buy Justin Bieber's (or some other celebrity) Rolex 40 years from now for $17 million?

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by montecarlo77

There are many great answers here from people on all sides of this conversation! Coincidentally, Fossil just reported earnings after the market closed today and the stock is down another 15% in after hours trading due to weak guidance....

So maybe Rolex does well more as a jewelry/status item and watchmakers on the low end suffer?

That's certainly what got Rolex through the quartz crisis, but, again, if smartwatches become indispensable throughout the coming decades via something like accurate health tracking and diagnosis, then I think things could change. We'll see.

Incidentally, we recently received a 115 year old gold pocket watch from my wife's grandmother, and I was shocked that, after sitting in a safe deposit box for who knows how long, I cranked the thing up and it's running -2 seconds per day. That being said, I looked up its value and it wasn't very encouraging.

[HONDABBQ]

I would think that a very high percentage of high end watches, especially Rolex are based on status not in the horological aspects.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by HONDABBQ

I would think that a very high percentage of high end watches, especially Rolex are based on status not in the horological aspects.

Yeah, I think the question becomes, if we're all compelled to wear smart watches over the coming years, who's gonna actually wear a mechanical watch on the other wrist? There are plenty of other status-y things out there, if that's the goal.

[masterp07]

Rolex broke their sales record in 2016 and will again have another breaking record year in 2017. They are not going anywhere nor have any reason to believe their business will decline nor the desire for their watches decline.

[montecarlo77]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Yeah, I think the question becomes, if we're all compelled to wear smart watches over the coming years, who's gonna actually wear a mechanical watch on the other wrist? There are plenty of other status-y things out there, if that's the goal.

Douglasf13: I agree that is the question....At some point in time using a pocket watch was a status symbol and then unthinkably (back then) it became something you would associate with your grandparents.

Another poster said he did not think Rolex wristwatch is bought for the horological aspects (and I agree) but what if wearing a wristwatch is something that millennials and their kids end up associating as something only old people or their grandparents do? Then wearing a wristwatch could become out of fashion and no longer a status symbol as many of the top gold pocket watch makers ended up as being. At some point, a pocket watch no matter how much gold it had and who the maker was, was no longer a status symbol, it was a sign you were out of date and old.

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Yeah, I think the question becomes, if we're all compelled to wear smart watches over the coming years, who's gonna actually wear a mechanical watch on the other wrist? There are plenty of other status-y things out there, if that's the goal.

Those that appreciate real engineering and craftsmanship of a mechanical living machine. It’s no different in why a Steinway or Lespaul isn’t ever going away and is always desired above it’s digital counter part. I would argue that in a more disposable digital world it will be sought after even more.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Those that appreciate real engineering and craftsmanship of a mechanical living machine. It’s no different in why a Steinway or Lespaul isn’t ever going away and is always desired above it’s digital counter part. I would argue that in a more disposable digital world it will be sought after even more.

It's different than a Les Paul or a Steinway, because those are art making instruments. Art making devices will likely be the last bastion of analog technology. Sure, making watches or cars can be considered an art in itself, but, as the consumer, we're not making art with them. Higher end watch makers, like Patek and above, will probably be the remaining brands of interest to the art collectors at that point.

When we're all being driven around in-self driving electric cars with health tracking computers strapped to our wrist in 40 years, the interest in mechanical watches and classic cars will surely wane. We're likely at the tail end of the analog era, which may be why we're seeing such a large final run up on prices of vintage Rolex and Porsches over the last decade. It may be the last hurrah of buyers grasping at their childhood.

BTW, this is coming from someone who loves both mechanical watches and Porsches. I'm just trying to read the writing on the wall. I'm sure mechanical watches will stick around in some regard, but it will likely be for a much more niche audience.

[HONDABBQ]

Originally Posted by montecarlo77

Douglasf13: I agree that is the question....At some point in time using a pocket watch was a status symbol and then unthinkably (back then) it became something you would associate with your grandparents.

Another poster said he did not think Rolex wristwatch is bought for the horological aspects (and I agree) but what if wearing a wristwatch is something that millennials and their kids end up associating as something only old people or their grandparents do? Then wearing a wristwatch could become out of fashion and no longer a status symbol as many of the top gold pocket watch makers ended up as being. At some point a pocket watch no matter how much gold and who the maker was no longer was a status symbol, it was a sign you were out of date and old.

There is enough money and ego out there to support luxury timepieces in our lifetimes. Again, just like high end cars, watches are a status symbol. I feel even more so as it's not relevant to day to day living. A car has a purpose, to get you from A to B. Spending 10-80k on a watch is more "frivolous".
There are enough young millennials that still recognize the want for the watch on the wrist. They are children of those that bought them and it has been instilled in their lifestyle. Think of the money that's out there, and not if the celebrity variety. You grow up seeing it, and you want/ need to continue it.

Love him or hate him, ACIII said, women have all kinds of luxury jewelry they are able to wear. A man really only has one. A watch.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by HONDABBQ

There is enough money and ego out there to support luxury timepieces in our lifetimes. Again, just like high end cars, watches are a status symbol. I feel even more so as it's not relevant to day to day living. A car has a purpose, to get you from A to B. Spending 10-80k on a watch is more "frivolous".
There are enough young millennials that still recognize the want for the watch on the wrist. They are children of those that bought them and it has been instilled in their lifestyle. Think of the money that's out there, and not if the celebrity variety. You grow up seeing it, and you want/ need to continue it.

Love him or hate him, ACIII said, women have all kinds of luxury jewelry they are able to wear. A man really only has one. A watch.

What's interesting is that electric engines are already becoming accepted in the highest end sports cars, and it won't be long before they're fully electric. What says "status" more than buying a $15K Apple Watch that you essentially throw away after a couple of years?

[Mystro]

Technology has nothing to do with style and the human spirit. Mechanical devices will always appeal to the engineer in many of us. This argument was made with the quartz watch and the human spirit proved the mechanical watch wasn’t going to be obsolete. The average person doesn’t buy $10k time pieces now nor will the next buyer of the mechanical watch be the “average” person. The appeal of a mechanical device that can keep time without electronics or batteries will always be appealing to many.
Electronics are cold and soulless. I am betting that view point will always be true by those with the means to afford to purchase a premium automatic watch.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Technology has nothing to do with style and the human spirit. Mechanical devices will always appeal to the engineer in many of us. This argument was made with the quartz watch and the human spirit proved the mechanical watch wasn’t going to be obsolete. The average person doesn’t buy $10k time pieces now nor will the next buyer of the mechanical watch be the “average” person.

The potential of the quartz watch was very different than the potential of the smartwatch. Either way, I don't get the sense that your average Rolex buyer (i.e. not us forum watch nerds) would have any problem buying a Rolex smartwatch for $10K, just like the average Porsche buyer will have no problem buying electric Cayennes...much to the chagrin of mechanical watch wearing, heel toeing' drivers such as myself. We'll be around, but our numbers will undoubtedly shrink.

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

The potential of the quartz watch was very different than the potential of the smartwatch. Either way, I don't get the sense that your average Rolex buyer (i.e. not us forum watch nerds) would have any problem buying a Rolex smartwatch for $10K, just like the average Porsche buyer will have no problem buying electric Cayennes...much to the chagrin of mechanical watch wearing, heel toeing' drivers such as myself. We'll be around, but our numbers will undoubtedly shrink.

How well was the Rolex oyster quartz received??? There is your answer. At that time, that was cutting edge tech. Both my kids 8yr and 9yr desire the look of Dads mechanical watch over Dad’s gps smart watch. Even the younger drivers find the appeal of a tune muscle cars exhaust over the sound of a electric cars hairdryer sound. What I am getting at is the human being looks beyond practicality and efficiency in many experiences.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Mystro

How well was the Rolex oyster quartz received??? There is your answer. Both my kids 8yr and 9yr desire the look of Dads mechanical watch over Dad’s gps smart watch. Even the younger drivers find the appeal of a tune muscle cars exhaust over the sound of a electric cars hairdryer sound. What I am getting at is the human being looks beyond practicality and efficiency in many experiences.

Quartz was very different, as it didn't add much in functionality.

Now we're seeing a new sea change in wristwatches, where Apple has become the #1 seller in only a few years, and the tech is still in its infancy. Once people get used to that functionality, it will be hard to go back, and, day to day, I see more Apple Watches than any other watch by far. Sure, the kids of watch nerds like you and me may be interested in mechanical watches, but that interest in the future surely won't be what it is today...unless Rolex keeps rising their prices so much vs. inflation that they make their numbers by selling a handful of million dollar watches.

[montecarlo77]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Technology has nothing to do with style and the human spirit. Mechanical devices will always appeal to the engineer in many of us. This argument was made with the quartz watch and the human spirit proved the mechanical watch wasn’t going to be obsolete. The average person doesn’t buy $10k time pieces now nor will the next buyer of the mechanical watch be the “average” person. The appeal of a mechanical device that can keep time without electronics or batteries will always be appealing to many.
Electronics are cold and soulless. I am betting that view point will always be true by those with the means to afford to purchase a premium automatic watch.

Mystro: Can't these arguments also have been made for pocket watches and yet no one uses pocket watches today even though they are mechanical devices that appeal to the engineer? I think you are right that there will always be some market for a watch like a Rolex, but I agree with Douglasf13 that this market is likely to SHRINK considerably in the coming years and that will have significant impact to Rolex values on the used watch market.

[EDL7]

I see Rolex continuing for a while at the high end of things..then suddenly..its all over for them..
Don't know what the exact reason would be...maybe they have had enough after awhile..and the show just stops..
Maybe the $$ aren't there anymore..
Maybe they go the way of the dodo bird..
Most likely..people just get tired of high end watches..
Everything has a beginning and a middle and end..everything..including Rolex..
Enjoy em while they are here..
Nothing lasts forever..

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Quartz was very different, as it didn't add much in functionality.

I'll have to disagree.
Digital quartz added heaps of functionality.
The problem was it was mostly useless in a practical sense.

I had one of the good ones back in the day and asside from the alarm and on very, very rare occasions the stop watch function. It added nothing to my life what so ever in real terms.
It was more of a novelty than anything.

I see the novelty factor coming into play with these so called smart watches.
The same falabilities are present with smart tv's and everything else tech related.
Not to mention redundancy after a short period of time.
It's not worth the bother IMO.
Especially if one just wishes to tell the time day and or night in an expedient manner.
Especially with failing eyesight coming in to play.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by montecarlo77

Douglasf13: I agree that is the question....At some point in time using a pocket watch was a status symbol and then unthinkably (back then) it became something you would associate with your grandparents.

Another poster said he did not think Rolex wristwatch is bought for the horological aspects (and I agree) but what if wearing a wristwatch is something that millennials and their kids end up associating as something only old people or their grandparents do? Then wearing a wristwatch could become out of fashion and no longer a status symbol as many of the top gold pocket watch makers ended up as being. At some point, a pocket watch no matter how much gold it had and who the maker was, was no longer a status symbol, it was a sign you were out of date and old.

I suppose you may have a point, altho it seems very unlikely that something could come up to replace a Rolex at this price point when the top three brands signifying wealth and status for men are Rolex, Ferrari and Porsche, and these have taken many careful years to become the internationally respected and revered symbols they are, history and achievement is critical here. Something could possibly emerge to replace Rolex but I can't see it, just as it is hard to see the other two car behemoths being side-lined from history.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Dirt

I'll have to disagree.
Digital quartz added heaps of functionality.
The problem was it was mostly useless in a practical sense.

I had one of the good ones back in the day and asside from the alarm and on very, very rare occasions the stop watch function. It added nothing to my life what so ever in real terms.
It was more of a novelty than anything.

I see the novelty factor coming into play with these so called smart watches.
The same falabilities are present with smart tv's and everything else tech related.
Not to mention redundancy after a short period of time.
It's not worth the bother IMO.
Especially if one just wishes to tell the time day and or night in an expedient manner.
Especially with failing eyesight coming in to play.

Mechanical watches already had stop watches, alarms, etc. There were a few new options with quartz, but it wasn't anything near a smartwatch. That being said, it's likely going to be health metrics that puts the smartwatch over the edge, and we're not there yet, so we'll see.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by AK797

I suppose you may have a point, altho it seems very unlikely that something could come up to replace a Rolex at this price point when the top three brands signifying wealth and status for men are Rolex, Ferrari and Porsche, and these have taken many careful years to become the internationally respected an revered symbols they are, history and achievement is critical here. Something could possibly emerge to replace Rolex but I can't see it, just as it is hard to see the other two car behemoths being side-lined from history.

Well, I do think it's interesting that Porsche is embracing fully electric vehicles, which is essentially akin to Rolex making a smartwatch.

[Melanotaenia]

For a long time people knew that Quartz watches kept better time than an Automatic, and Rolex still sells well; now there are smartphones and watches that sync time with satellites and are even more precise than Quartz, and still Rolex sells. I don't see the brand going anywhere anytime soon.

I think people but a Rolex for much more than the fact that they tell the time, which is why they are still so sought after and respected. Just my .02!

[chad362wiley]

I'm a teen and have no interest in anything but high end brands, i think the true high end brands like rolex, AP and PP will live in forever due to their societal place as "status symbols" in addition to the real quality that they provide to customers

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Melanotaenia

For a long time people knew that Quartz watches kept better time than an Automatic, and Rolex still sells well; now there are smartphones and watches that sync time with satellites and are even more precise than Quartz, and still Rolex sells. I don't see the brand going anywhere anytime soon.

I think people but a Rolex for much more than the fact that they tell the time, which is why they are still so sought after and respected. Just my .02!

And yet there's the irony of current makers trying to sell us on new technology that improves the timekeeping and stability of these movements.

I don't think Rolex is going anywhere until there is a compelling technology on the wrist that becomes a necessity for most people. The slight improvement of quartz timekeeping over a mechanical isn't all that big of a deal, but I can see smartwatches someday getting to that tipping point.

[marc2828]

I do not own a Rolex yet, but always wanted one. I do worry about depreciation due to technology, but I firmly believe Rolex is different...as is Patek, and Audemars. I think the companies that do not "over produce", make their own movements, and are not owned by someone else, will hold their value. I think mechanical watches will be like vintage cars. Guys that bought gold Breitlings with diamonds at full msrp are going to lose money. Stainless steel Rolex watches...not going to lose very much at all. Just my opinion.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Well, I do think it's interesting that Porsche is embracing fully electric vehicles, which is essentially akin to Rolex making a smartwatch.

Not really. Darwinian survival of the fittest is not only the strongest but also the most adaptive and in the "polluted" car market there is far more need for that, not so much for watches.