Rolex giving up SS sport watch market to other manufactures such as Omega,...?

[aczaja10]

Originally Posted by ryvius

Honestly the scarcity makes Rolex more of a challenge and therefore more desirable.

That's exactly how many of us, including myself, see the shortage. Having said that, the SS scarcity has made me really want a PM piece. Never saw myself as a gold guy, either.

I bought a TT GMT (yellow and black) a few months ago. I would have never considered one in the past. And, if I could be honest, it's my favorite watch. I have a BLNR and a Hulk, too, which I know is crazy to say. The TT GMT just sings to me. I absolutely love it. The little bit of extra heft makes me feel like I am wearing a truly special piece every time I put it on.

[cvo]

If it is a better watch, why can’t they sell them? I have researched Omega’s Seamaster models for many years, there are just too many versions because Omega can’t seem to develop a watch that can compete with the sub.

[Pauln]

No. Most people who want a Rolex are going to end up with a Rolex. They’re not going to “settle” for an Omega.

[astewartconst]

Yes I think Rolex is losing due to the shortage. I use to be exclusively a Rolex owner then ventured into a Jaeger deep sea vintage chrono, Omega seamaster, Omega 60th speedy and some others. I still like Rolex but
there are other brands as good or better. The new Seamaster for example..try one on and then ask yourself if you want to go beg a dealer for one at double the cost of the Seamaster. Not to say people won’t come back to Rolex but once they experience other brands they might never be exclusive Rolex buyers. There are a lot of great watches out there


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[irate.alien]

I don't think they're going to give up the SS sports segment, but I have a feeling they're going to try to bump themselves up a notch to play with the big boys (AP, VC, PP, ALS), and leave Tudor to fill their previous niche. They'd have to chop production, do more hand finishing, use crystal case backs (gasp!), etc. But then again, given what I'm afraid is going to happen to the economy in '19 and '20, now might not be the best time to try something like that. Hope I'm wrong about both!

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by Krash

I know I’m going to get flamed for this, but Omega is a lot closer to Rolex than Tudor is to Omega. My 2 cents...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree.

[dtwer]

Originally Posted by jps3b

Agree with you regarding the humor that the Sesmaster is better than the Submariner. But Tim has to say that because his employer sells both brands. The Submariner sells itself. The Seamaster needs a clever sales professional to put it on the wrists of potential buyers.

Either way, I really enjoyed the video. The new Seamaster is a very handsome watch. I thoroughly love mine. I purchased it in 1998. A year after buying my first Submariner (16610) therefore I never experienced the feeling of “settling”.

Can I also just say that nobody does it like Mr. Tim Mosso. He’s in a league of his own. And I always have to post pics







@jps3b

Lovely watches that you have.

I would say the 2500 era wave dial Seamaster is the last of the legendary Seamaster. The new “clones” are just that, the clones. The new wave dial fails to recreate the classic style.

[Fleetlord]

IMHO, I think it's the opposite..

While not Omega specifically, I do think the dominance of Rolex is going to put a few brands out of business...or very close to it.

[Molnboman]

I think the investment in Tudor recently ( 18-24 months ) in new models and increased marketing was to strengthen the “gatekeeper” brand for Rolex. To put more pressure on Omega and take market share away from them and cheaper mid price brands.

[glamorama]

Originally Posted by oldman2005

The other day, I dropped by my favourite AD just to chitchat a bit and collect some Rolex magazines, of course as usual the AD had nothing in SS sport. An asian couple walked in and I overheard them asking for a SS Submariner and I was not surprised that they walked out empty handed. We shopped around and later on dropped by a huge watch retailer in the same mall that carries everything from Patek, JLC, to Omega and other brands. We walked to the Omega display and met the same couple at the Rolex AD, they were in process of purchasing a new Omega Seamaster 300.

The lower priced stainless steel sport watch market competition is fierce with so many brands, do you think that Rolex is giving up this market segment and move to higher priced higher profit margin of DJ/TT/PM and leaving this stainless steel market for others to feed on?

Many even think the new Omega Seamaster is a better watch than the Submariner:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vhi5-dZSQ

Ridiculous thought. They do however give some to their own Tudor.

[Tavli3]

Was in St Barths last month and walked into the Ad there, of course no SS sport watches but the cases were full. Well over 100 watches in stock. I was with my friend who was wearing his Planet Ocean and when I tried on a Pm Sub he turned the bezel while it was on my wrist and then turned his and said wow what a difference. So I tried and yes there was no comparison between the two. You could just feel the vast superiority of the Sub. It was like vault door vs file cabinet draw.

I have nothing against Omega and love my vintage Speedy but I think dollar for dollar Rolex is a better buy. My friend's comment was I guess that's what you get for 20K more! I responded by saying I think if you tried a SS model it would be the same quality feel. Now since I don't own a modern SS Sub I can't say it has the same bezel feel as a PM model but I would think it would.

So the question really is, is an Omega can buy now better than a Rolex can't buy for 2-4 years no buy? All I can say is that after being snubbed at the Rolex AD in the local mall I walked across the hall and placed a 5K deposit on the Apollo 11 50th. I'll let you know if I have buyers remorse if and when I get it. If I could have gotten a SS Rolex in any sort of reasonable time or even put on a list there would have been no Speedy purchase decision to make.

[Tha Baron]

Originally Posted by train-time

Absolutely!! I decided some time ago to look past the brand after being loyal for over 25 years. I just haven't decided which brand to move on to. I am considering Omega or Breitling currently but do not want to rush.

My wife recently told me to sell her new Datejust which is about 2 years old and never worn after she heard how Rolex is treating loyal mom & pop ADs especially the local AD that supplied our watches which was just cut by Rolex. Bye, bye Rolex!!

Breitling? Let’s not get crazy!

[rudestew]

What ever Rolex,s business plan is it’s not mine ,months that turn into years desire that turns into frustration is a stupid model , and do people really think Rolex is that much better than omega ? For me it’s a sideways move .

[MTdweller]

Yes, Rolex may be losing some SS sales to other brands due to unavailability. However, overall demand is driving the desirability of their SS pieces to astronomical heights, even pushing some towards TT and PM. For example, TT Daytonas can be had for less than DaytonaC secondary market prices, with PM attainable for a few thousand more. This is obviously a very favorable position for Rolex to be in so I don’t ever see a scenario where they stop producing SS watches.

[codecow]

Originally Posted by burnthesehills

If you want a Rolex, you’ll never be happy with simply an Omega. You’ll either wait for the Rolex or end up buying both.

An Omega isn’t simple, how dare you sir!

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by oldman2005

The other day, I dropped by my favourite AD just to chitchat a bit and collect some Rolex magazines, of course as usual the AD had nothing in SS sport. An asian couple walked in and I overheard them asking for a SS Submariner and I was not surprised that they walked out empty handed. We shopped around and later on dropped by a huge watch retailer in the same mall that carries everything from Patek, JLC, to Omega and other brands. We walked to the Omega display and met the same couple at the Rolex AD, they were in process of purchasing a new Omega Seamaster 300.

The lower priced stainless steel sport watch market competition is fierce with so many brands, do you think that Rolex is giving up this market segment and move to higher priced higher profit margin of DJ/TT/PM and leaving this stainless steel market for others to feed on?

Many even think the new Omega Seamaster is a better watch than the Submariner:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vhi5-dZSQ

Lol, god no. Remember tool watches are their DNA and have been their most popular watches for years. The competition is indeed fierce for everyone in second place. I own and appreciate many brands, but seamaster is not a submariner. They are blowing the others away and aiming for the AP segment next.

[VicLeChic]

Rolex is promoting Tudor to fill the gap in the sports steel segment. It's a strategic decision. My belief is the only thing that keeps Rolex making lower margin sports steel watches is the will to respect their heritage, where they're coming from as a brand originally dedicated to tool watches before luxury watches.

Higher margins in TT and PM combined with limited production capacity and the strategy to be a luxury brand explain why the they don't make more sports steel pieces. Tudor can take care of that segment.

[TopDog2315]

In my opinion (having owned both) the quality finish on the Sub is far superior as well as the movement. The only argument here is the availability/price and I can see how people settle with Omega or other brands because of this!

I would wait until a Sub is available at an AD, or pick one up on the grey market or even on this forum (where there are lots for sale from reputable individuals) over settling wth something that I might regret or end up selling in the near future anyway.

Rolex knows what they are doing, they have for years! :thumbs:

Omega just can't catch up, and so they are trying hard to separate themselves - hence the whole co-axial marketing...

The question is will this movement stand the test of time like the 3135!

[TswaneNguni]

Omega,been there,done that and didn't stand the test of time in my collection.

[Cabaiguan]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Certainly if there isn’t a Rolex in the case and a buyer wants/needs a new watch, they will be buying another brand. It’s just a watch and most would never wait a few months to purchase a SS watch. Omega has to be seeing stronger sales. Being better or not is meaningless if Rolex doesn’t show up to be considered in the purchase process. Rolex loses these sales by their own strategy. Normal buyers won’t be bothered by the buying process for a Rolex. Remember to the sane world...”It’s just a watch”.

This. Seems like a poor strategy on Rolex’ part. Sales are just walking away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cabaiguan]

Originally Posted by VanAdian

The idea that Rolex is somehow losing out on business because of personal and/or anecdotal inability to find a SS piece is misguided. Rolex couldn’t care less about you not being able to find the watch you want. They are making and selling just as many as they want to. Trying to find some justification for them to stop SS production at this point is absurd.

I disagree. They ARE losing out on business. Now, whether they care or not is another question. However, basic economics would dictate that you increase supply to meet high demand to maximize your profits. So, yes, they are not optimizing the curve and giving up sales.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brandrea]

SS professional references are at the very heart of the brand. No.

[MR. STEEL]

Rolex = Luxury Steel Sports watches
Everyone else = Sports watches

[beshannon]

Originally Posted by oldman2005

do you think that Rolex is giving up this market segment and move to higher priced higher profit margin of DJ/TT/PM and leaving this stainless steel market for others to feed on?

No

[Late]

Originally Posted by rudestew

What ever Rolex,s business plan is it’s not mine ,months that turn into years desire that turns into frustration is a stupid model , and do people really think Rolex is that much better than omega ? For me it’s a sideways move .

You are correct; Rolex' business model is more successful than yours.
But... Rolex is that much better than Omega. Or at least much better. The materials are higher, the specifications tighter. But even so...
People are buying more than the quality. The newest Hyundia may be at BMW levels of performance, quality and finish at a lower price, but people still lust after the pedigree and the roundel, because they imply the track record and history.
What separates an Omega from a Grand Seiko in your mind?

[landroverking]

I have a friend that I know has a Sub Date, Omgea and a G-Shock.
I use to see him wear the Omega on a regular basis, now I see him wear only the Sub and G.
The point I’m making it seems to be not just buying the watch, but choosing to wear Rolex over Omega. Just like sales.

[Gerardus]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

Omega,been there,done that and didn't stand the test of time in my collection.

x2

[watchmework]

That’s a negative ghost rider.

[dtwer]

Originally Posted by Cabaiguan

I disagree. They ARE losing out on business. Now, whether they care or not is another question. However, basic economics would dictate that you increase supply to meet high demand to maximize your profits. So, yes, they are not optimizing the curve and giving up sales.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know what you mean. But if doing business were that straightforward, we wouldn’t have seen the sad stories like the Richemont Group having to spend $585M of their own money to buy back their unsold watches to destroy.

I imagine the executives of the Richemont Group had also been under the same assumption that they would optimize the curve and cash in if they simply produced as many watches as the “demand” dictated.

The truth is nobody really knows where demand flatlines or declines in a marketplace. So to produce goods according to short term spikes in demand is a myopic strategy that invites disproportional downside risk. Rolex, fortunately, has the wisdom to not fall into that strategic error. That also ensures the Rolex watches you and I own retain good values. That is a good thing and I never wish for Rolex to change that.

[MariettaMike]

Originally Posted by Tha Baron

Breitling? Let’s not get crazy!

Breitling? Lets not get crazy!? Really? What’s wrong with Breitling watch’s?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk