Rolex Pricing Gone Mad????

[Paulie 50]

Originally Posted by Ck8

2003 and 2004

Were they pre. owned ? because the September 2000 catalogue says £3670. ( and so does my receipt. ) Thank God!!!! i dont think i would pay the current price, would you ?

[Citizenrich]

With gold and platinum roughly at parity: .750 vs. .900 - .950, this would seem to make strategic sense. Am I wrong?

[Citizenrich]

Originally Posted by Paulie 50

Were they pre. owned ? because the September 2000 catalogue says £3670. ( and so does my receipt. ) Thank God!!!! i dont think i would pay the current price, would you ?

My first Rolex was a gift to myself when I graduated business school and got a great job on wall street around 1989. I paid 3200 all in for a TT Sub. I'm told it's worth 5500 or so today. But, more than anything, i enjoyed that watch.

A person could have bought all the Olds 442's they could afford for 5 grand a piece back in 1971. One for each day of the week!

[mailman]

Originally Posted by Megalobyte

Sorry MM, I was just responding using the same term he used prior. You're correct, it's insensitive, though it wasn't meant to be, my apologies.

Originally Posted by MortgageGuy

Even though I wasn't called on this I should have not used this word in my post either. Complete and 100% unacceptable for myself to use this language. Apologies to TRF and anyone I may have offended as well... Sorry guys and gals this is not even a word in my vocabulary.

Apology accepted gentlemen Thank you and have a nice day

[Paulie 50]

Originally Posted by Ck8

2003 and 2004

Originally Posted by Citizenrich

My first Rolex was a gift to myself when I graduated business school and got a great job on wall street around 1989. I paid 3200 all in for a TT Sub. I'm told it's worth 5500 or so today. But, more than anything, i enjoyed that watch.

A person could have bought all the Olds 442's they could afford for 5 grand a piece back in 1971. One for each day of the week!

I feel like an old man telling tales from the past, but i only paid £450 for a 5513, it seems so long ago.

[capote]

Originally Posted by Mickey®

All the more reason to buy a 16610LV or a 14060M or a Speedmaster Moonwatch!!!!!!!!

You are right about that although the LV is priced pretty high these days.

[buddy13]

Being one who works hard for an engineer's wage (which definitely isn't great) I find that many Rolex watches are now outside my budget ...

I've turned to other brands like Omega, IWC etc...

It's very unlikely I'll ever own another Rolex (unless I buy my lowly 14060M back). I'll leave Rolex to the doctors, lawyers, businessman etc...

[buddy13]

Originally Posted by capote

You are right about that although the LV is priced pretty high these days.

Agreed ...

I will never buy a 7000+USD watch that sold for 5000USD a few months back and 4000USD just last year. Blessed are those who have too much money to throw away....well if you've got them, smoke them says me ...

[Paulie 50]

Originally Posted by buddy13

Being one who works hard for an engineer's wage (which definitely isn't great) I find that many Rolex watches are now outside my budget ...

I've turned to other brands like Omega, IWC etc...

It's very unlikely I'll ever own another Rolex (unless I buy my lowly 14060M back). I'll leave Rolex to the doctors, lawyers, businessman etc...

There is no such thing as a lowly Engineer: chuckle: myself being a Marine Engineer; but i do take your point, they seem to have gone over the top with the prices; if you can, buy your old Sub back. Good luck.

[buddy13]

Originally Posted by Paulie 50

There is no such thing as a lowly Engineer: chuckle: myself being a Marine Engineer; but i do take your point, they seem to have gone over the top with the prices; if you can, buy your old Sub back. Good luck.

...we're wealthy in knowledge aren't we ?

Yes I'll def try and get my old sub back...I loved it ...

Failing that I might just throw the cash into a Pelagos. I think it's well priced and looks nice enough !

[Citizenrich]

Originally Posted by Paulie 50

I feel like an old man telling tales from the past, but i only paid £450 for a 5513, it seems so long ago.

And not just 450 quid ... You had to walk up a snow covered hill whilst wearing no shoes just to get to the shop. Then you had to walk back up the same long hill just to get your 5513 home. A man was lucky to keep a roooof over his head back then. Lucky. Eh, the young lads from today wooodn't believe it anyway...foook 'em they it got easy but we were always happy back in those days! Bugger ! Lancaster and Yorkshire!!

[ArcticMoose]

Originally Posted by buddy13

Agreed ...

I will never buy a 7000+USD watch that sold for 5000USD a few months back and 4000USD just last year. Blessed are those who have too much money to throw away....well if you've got them, smoke them says me ...

Buy it for 7000 now, stick it in a safe and sell it for 11000 in two years, when there will be multiple threads started here every week about how 12000 is too much for a watch that used to cost 7000.

[buddy13]

Originally Posted by ArcticMoose

Buy it for 7000 now, stick it in a safe and sell it for 11000 in two years, when there will be multiple threads started here every week about how 12000 is too much for a watch that used to cost 7000.

I now a lot of guys that do that . Owning multiples of Rolex watches.

If I had the money I definitely would.

However I rather put money on a more affordable watch that I enjoy and wear everywhere .

[airchitect]

Thanks China

[novan3]

Originally Posted by roadcarver

I just received my service estimate for my SD, and typically they show the MSRP replacement value. Granted that my SD is no longer in production, surprisingly, the value that RSC indicated was a whopping $12,200!

In 2007, the replacement value indicated was $6,600!

Very interesting. Always a pleasant thing to find out your discontinued watch rose nearly 50% in value just 5 years later. Wonder how exactly they determined that.

[Paulie 50]

Originally Posted by Citizenrich

And not just 450 quid ... You had to walk up a snow covered hill whilst wearing no shoes just to get to the shop. Then you had to walk back up the same long hill just to get your 5513 home. A man was lucky to keep a roooof over his head back then. Lucky. Eh, the young lads from today wooodn't believe it anyway...foook 'em they it got easy but we were always happy back in those days! Bugger ! Lancaster and Yorkshire!!

" Aye, we were lucky to have the price of a cup of tea in those days, there were fourteen of us living in shoe box in middle of road " ( you know the rest, ) " cardboard ? luxury! " Etc etc etc.

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by Mickey®

All the more reason to buy a 16610LV or a 14060M or a Speedmaster Moonwatch!!!!!!!!

The Speedmaster watches, the normal looking ones at least, seem to still be a great value for a nice watch. You can pick up a near mint Speedmaster Pro for under $3,000 on the forums. That seems like a lot of watch for the money. It's hard for me to say the same for a 14060M at $4,000+.

[patek.wis]

Originally Posted by Megalobyte

Sorry MM, I was just responding using the same term he used prior. You're correct, it's insensitive, though it wasn't meant to be, my apologies.

Likewise - I apologize for use of the term. It was not meant to be derogatory.

[Brian J]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

Doesn't appear to be putting many folks off buying. Let's face it, its only enthusiasts like us who a) actually know what a Rolex costs and b) how much they've changed. To the average customer, the perception is that Rolex is an expensive watch, and they'll pay whatever is necessary

This! Let's not forget, we're the weird ones

[Ck8]

Originally Posted by versatile1

Its all relative.
In Sept 2007 I paid 5500.00 Tax in, out the door for a GMT II Coke dial.
At that time I could buy a 5yr old one for 3500.00
In May 2012 I sold that watch for 5400.00

We pay more now, we get more later.

The higher prices would keep me from buying if I thought the used prices would decline. But they wont.

It might be relative between new and used prices; but like property prices in the UK which has gone ridiculously high, not many can get on the property ladder especially first time buyers.

[bscepter]

the thing is, back in the day, rolexes weren't luxury watches, per se. they were just highly reliable swiss watches. and the subs, GMTs, milgausses, and explorers were just "tool watches." expensive, but not inordinately so considering their quality of manufacture (like a leica camera or a zeiss microscope, for instance).

a submariner cost something like $230 in 1966. if price increases were just a matter of inflation, a no-date sub should cost $1,600 today. Instead, a new sub no-date costs over $7,000.

face it - rolex long ago left its tool-watch heritage and has now just become a status symbol.

[wuyeah]

Originally Posted by airchitect

Thanks China

What does China have to do with Rolex Pricing?

[bscepter]

Originally Posted by wuyeah

What does China have to do with Rolex Pricing?

there's a huge demand in china for rolexes and other luxury brands. more demand = higher prices.

[marathonmatt]

Here in Western Australia, Rolex watches are expensive (SS Sub C near the $11k mark, last I checked the AD, though it's been a while). Having said that, they are a relatively inexpensive luxury item, given the luxury tax assessed on other high end items. A Porsche, Ferrari or Lamborghini sells for about 3-4x the US price or higher, and they are becoming quite common on our streets. Anything is "worth" whatever someone is willing to pay for it, and the folks in Geneva know it probably better than anyone.

I think Dr Hanson has hit the nail on the head, and when inflation hits from all this monetized debt the prices are going to get much higher, I would surmise. Get one now.

[wuyeah]

Originally Posted by bscepter

there's a huge demand in china for rolexes and other luxury brands. more demand = higher prices.

I see. Rolex is always high demand watches and their production is pretty high compare with companies in the same league. One would imagine high production = lower cost. Certainly doesn't apply in this case.

[zion_rasta]

I just proudly spent 4% of my salary on a new GMT IIc. Would I do it again?

ahhh, yeah! hello!

[EmpireCity]

Rolex is the best. I just think we'be all been so lucky and were underpaying.

[caryyee]

Rolex's are known all over the world as a luxury product ... so by definition, they are meant to be expensive ... would they be such an awesome brand if they could be bought for say $3-4k?

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by caryyee

Rolex's are known all over the world as a luxury product ... so by definition, they are meant to be expensive ... would they be such an awesome brand if they could be bought for say $3-4k?

If you judge them on the merits of their design and construction... yeah they would be just as "awesome" at $3,000. My GMT2 was fairly "awesome" when I bought it for $3,500 five years ago. The fact that the same watch costs over a thousand dollars more on the used market doesn't make it any more "awesome".

[Exhausted]

I purchased a LV from a Toronto area AD a few days ago and yes...the price was ridiculously steep and probably out of my range. But when you want something bad enough...