Should Rolex apply this Ferrari strategy ?

[44x16]

good luck with that.

[pepsiretail]

Originally Posted by schoolboy

Was reading this article about Ferrari, and it has what seems like a really good strategy in it, that apparently Ferrari uses for a specific car

It says Ferrari has the right to purchase back the car if you should decide to sell it within 18 months of ownership

Maybe Rolex can use that to stop flippers of hot watches and use it to stop the grey market??

Rolex relies on super inflated grey prices to sustain brand interest.

Q. If Rolex bought back your watch what would happen to it?

A. Rolex themselves would sell it pre owned at the super inflated rate so nothing would change, Rolex would become the flipper in their own grey market.

[Nikrnic]

Reminds me of the new Ford GTs. Buyers had to sign contracts not to resell them for profit (forget how long). Wrestler John Senna sold his at Mecum Auctions but Ford lost the lawsuit.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[mountainjogger]

Originally Posted by exador

Ferrari sells around 8,400 units per year. Rolex 100 times that. So big fat NO.

And the average Ferrari is a lot more expensive than the average Rolex. Not the same ban per transaction. Rolex would loose tons of money undertaking such a monumental task. They would never do it.

[alphadweller]

That would kill the secondary market. So the only way to buy a hot model relatively new would be through an AD. And we're back to square 1, ADs won't sell them to most customers. At least in the secondary market anyone could stand a chance to find what they're looking for, at a price of course, but to some it's better than nothing.

[Rado63]

I don't believe Rolex can stop the flippers of watches, because the watches get sold to a top tier client who either keeps the watch, sells it, or trades it. And this habit of selling to top tier isn't going to stop. In 2016 I went to my local AD and asked for 116500LN , and was asked what my purchase history with the store had been. I had none. consequently no Daytona. I went to my local Patek Philippe AD and asked for Nautilus 5711 A. I was asked basically same question and was told that the store would never sell a 5711A to a client without significant history, the owner would not allow it and Patek would not allow it. The rationale being the flipper doesn't have history. I would contend that the flippers have to be the top tier clients otherwise regular guys don't get offered these models.

[RHIII]

Originally Posted by schoolboy

.

Every hyped up reference for sale that is marked up is being flipped if the seller paid less for the watch. Isn’t that the definition of flipping something? To buy, then resell at a higher price?

No. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with someone selling a watch for a multitude of reasons. Whether or not there is profit or loss is immaterial.

The definition of flipping can mean MANY things in this hobby - up until the recent years - could have (and did) include trading for something else. As is and has been done for many many years in the hobby, and the subject of many an article.

Now the connotation of “flipping” is accompanied with loathing. To a degree I concur.

A “flipper” of late is an individual who purchases a watch SOLELY to sell and make a profit. This individual wants to maintain as much of a BNIB condition as possible and has no intent of using, wearing, or enjoying the watch. They merely want to acquire and turn right around and sell. I used to see the exact same thing when I collected Scotty Cameron putters for many years. Now, this is not to be confused with the secondary market...that is simply business.

This is VERY different from an individual who buys a watch, has their name in the warranty card, wears it, and just decides they don’t want it—- and might rather have something different...and just might happen to be able to “upgrade” based on a particular reference. Whether is be material or manufacturer. Not everyone has an unlimited budget - and this can be very advantageous. Two VERY different things.

Regarding the Ferrari analogy....big difference in a mass produced $10kish watch - and a very limited $250k plus automobile.

I understand your position, mostly.

Just my .02

[Brny11]

Originally Posted by exador

Ferrari sells around 8,400 units per year. Rolex 100 times that. So big fat NO.

This.

Was about to google the stats. You saved me time...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[scurfa]

They make 6000 a day, not sure it’s the same at Ferrari


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[schoolboy]

Originally Posted by RHIII

No. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with someone selling a watch for a multitude of reasons. Whether or not there is profit or loss is immaterial.

The definition of flipping can mean MANY things in this hobby - up until the recent years - could have (and did) include trading for something else. As is and has been done for many many years in the hobby, and the subject of many an article.

Now the connotation of “flipping” is accompanied with loathing. To a degree I concur.

A “flipper” of late is an individual who purchases a watch SOLELY to sell and make a profit. This individual wants to maintain as much of a BNIB condition as possible and has no intent of using, wearing, or enjoying the watch. They merely want to acquire and turn right around and sell. I used to see the exact same thing when I collected Scotty Cameron putters for many years. Now, this is not to be confused with the secondary market...that is simply business.

This is VERY different from an individual who buys a watch, has their name in the warranty card, wears it, and just decides they don’t want it—- and might rather have something different...and just might happen to be able to “upgrade” based on a particular reference. Whether is be material or manufacturer. Not everyone has an unlimited budget - and this can be very advantageous. Two VERY different things.

Regarding the Ferrari analogy....big difference in a mass produced $10kish watch - and a very limited $250k plus automobile.

I understand your position, mostly.

Just my .02

Oh okay.

I understand what you’re saying.

Because if someone bought it to use it, didn’t like it, then why would they sell for msrp if they could sell for more to upgrade?

Plus if they don’t up sell, someone else might

Very good point

Thanks for sharing, I was just thinking maybe it could apply to Rolex

But I’ve seen some comments already that point out how difficult it would be, or why Rolex shouldn’t do it

[schoolboy]

Originally Posted by Rado63

I don't believe Rolex can stop the flippers of watches, because the watches get sold to a top tier client who either keeps the watch, sells it, or trades it. And this habit of selling to top tier isn't going to stop. In 2016 I went to my local AD and asked for 116500LN , and was asked what my purchase history with the store had been. I had none. consequently no Daytona. I went to my local Patek Philippe AD and asked for Nautilus 5711 A. I was asked basically same question and was told that the store would never sell a 5711A to a client without significant history, the owner would not allow it and Patek would not allow it. The rationale being the flipper doesn't have history. I would contend that the flippers have to be the top tier clients otherwise regular guys don't get offered these models.

That’s a very good point too

I guess Rolex must be in on it then

[RHIII]

Originally Posted by schoolboy

Oh okay.

I understand what you’re saying.

Because if someone bought it to use it, didn’t like it, then why would they sell for msrp if they could sell for more to upgrade?

Plus if they don’t up sell, someone else might

Very good point

Thanks for sharing, I was just thinking maybe it could apply to Rolex

But I’ve seen some comments already that point out how difficult it would be, or why Rolex shouldn’t do it

Exactly. Get while the getting is good. I simply think that those who purchase watches for enjoyment of the hobby - and the piece reserve the right to do whatever they wish for their continued enjoyment - regardless.

Those coming out of the woodwork to try to make a quick $2k-$5k profit....not so much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[schoolboy]

Originally Posted by RHIII

Exactly. Get while the getting is good. I simply think that those who purchase watches for enjoyment of the hobby - and the piece reserve the right to do whatever they wish for their continued enjoyment - regardless.

Those coming out of the woodwork to try to make a quick $2k-$5k profit....not so much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree 100%

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by timepieceluvr

Rolex is NOT Ferrari


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[007timer]

That’s not a scalable model. What benefit does Rolex have to adopting such a policy. What will they do with the watch that’s now pre-owned that they bought back at MSRP?

Not a feasible option


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[medtner]

Ferrari tries to implement this but you can always sell to a private dealer and make more $, even if the selling dealer knows about it, it is unlikely that it can do anything.
Same is true reg new MB models like G-AMG, I signed a form not to export the car within 24 months of purchase but I can always sell it to private party dealer, current used value is 15-30k above MSRP but will drop with time.
When Ferrari introduces the new SUV, it will increase the production volume similar to RR, Labo and Aston Martin. Rolex seems to hold its value around MSRP ( may be more or less depending on models) but cars do not ( unless it is a special production model which is not very common). There are many car-named watches or officially branded watches for certain cars but Rolex remains unique.

[NachoNeal]

THE ROLEX POLICE
i like it.

[blown5.0]

+1

Originally Posted by rashid.bk

ferrari makes a few hundred cars a year...rolex makes several hundred thousand.
Ferrari has it easier tracking purchase history because a buyer spends six figures.
Rolex would waste a lot of administration processing keeping track of hundreds of thousands of watches sold globally.

Should hermes adopt this strategy for birkin bags, lv, goyard....etc, i honestly think we're looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.
Ask ellen if there's a shortage...she could get any rolex she wants instantly, but normal peasant folks like me have to get in line and wait. Such is life, it's not a problem, it's society and capitalism. Try to solve "those problems", good luck.

[Pantheon]

I think everyone here is missing the point imho. Just using the Daytona as an example. There have been a "supply shortage" on them for over a decade a buyback program is not the answer. Rolex just needs to stop being jerks and produce more of them. Once a supply and demand equilibrium has been reached the gray market will adjust accordingly. They know what's going on. They just want everyone to play this stupid little waiting game .

Along with AP, and PP they've mastered the game of using SS pieces to move more of their higher margin PM pieces. I think it's a huge turnoff but for some people the hunt brings them a high so to each their own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bezler]

Originally Posted by The Libertine

And after purchasing back, then what?

Why, back to the ADs to sell mint pre-owned at huge markup of course!

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk