Are Today's Rolexes Overpriced?

[Roll the Lex]

My wife sees them as horribly overpriced...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kog]

Don't Omega watches us an ETA movement? Rolex are all in house.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by kog

Don't Omega watches us an ETA movement? Rolex are all in house.

Omega is mostly in house now, too, but not 100%. However, their ETA-based models are commensurately lower in price. Omega and Rolex are kind of like the Beatles and the Beach Boys, in that they keep one-upping each other. For instance, Rolex comes out with an anti-magnetic hairspring, so Omega comes out with an anti-magnetic movement. Omega comes out with 60-hour power reserve, so Rolex ups theirs to 70.

[lecorsaire]

Rather expensive for what many of them are, yes. Overpriced, no. While it's true that in the '70s someone earning the median salary could more easily afford let's say a Submariner for example. In fact I think I once calculated that if someone spent their entire income (around $6k) on Subs they could buy over 20 of them at $230 a pop. Today's median salary is somewhere above $50k which would result in only being able to buy about 5 of them at retail.

So yes, Rolex is much more expensive today and they were an incredible value for money back 4 decades ago considering how much some of these watches are worth today. Especially the better examples with original bracelet and uniform cream patina. However I still think Rolex is a good value today. They are perhaps made better now than ever and they have excellent appreciation potential.

If criteria is based just on design, quality and decent accuracy, then there are obviously much less expensive options for a quality Swiss automatic watch. You are definitely paying a premium for Rolex's heritage and how iconic their watches are but in no way are you getting ripped off. The SS versions are the best bang per buck since you get the same quality, finish and movement as the PM models for a third of the price in most cases. The steel they use is arguably better and has a nicer luster than the 316L that most manufacturers use. That said a PM Rolex is a true luxury watch and luxury is never cheap. It's the difference between an entry-level German car and their real luxurious models well north of $80k.

[AK797]

With the Nautilus on the verge of a 20% price rise, the Sub and others are looking more underpriced by the second... expect price rises on all popular models now.

[lecorsaire]

Originally Posted by AK797

With the Nautilus on the verge of a 20% price rise, the Sub and others are looking more underpriced by the second... expect price rises on all popular models now.

So it's going from $24,800 to over $29k? That's pretty high for the basic 5711 for what it is. With the demand and market prices where they are, unfortunately I don't see myself having this watch for a long time. I know someone who was fortunate to pick up a 5712 for retail in London just this month with no prior Patek purchase history. Luck definitely plays a role.

[lecorsaire]

Originally Posted by AK797

With the Nautilus on the verge of a 20% price rise, the Sub and others are looking more underpriced by the second... expect price rises on all popular models now.

I feel more and more regret not pulling the trigger on certain watches when I had the chance before the summer. A mint Hulk for $7500 among others. How naïve I was to think prices would remain where they were for a while. I should've foreseen the consequences of the bull market and imminent tax cuts as well as the surge in Bitcoin. All of these things have contributed to the current situation in additional to lower shipments to ADs.

[Wiener48]

Are the modern Rolex watches overpriced?

NO when you are also buying vintage Rolex ;-)

[Tha Baron]

One of these days, I’m just gonna drill a half inch hole through a $10k stack of 100s and loop it around my neck with a bungee cord. Get a green sharpie and write ”ROLEX” across 1 inch cloth tape and slap it across Bens face. That’ll show em

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by SpyShopsNYC

If you was in the Amazon forest and had a Rolex on they would know it. I went to my high school reunion and I wanted to show my status so I wore the Rolex not my IWC. I wore my YM2 116688


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would feel bad saying I think that watch is bit gauche. But you'll probably take it as a compliment.

[No SUBctitute]

I actually really like this question because there are different ways to approach it. I would look at it from the perspective of, are there other watches that are just as good for less money?

The Sub is the iconic Rolex so let's use that. I tend to think the Sub is NOT overpriced since, IMHO, for its price range it has the highest quality: watch movement, steel, clasp, bracelet, bezel and bezel movement, and fit/finish.

Here are some dive watches priced under the Sub. I'm not sure any have the whole package as does the Sub. I am open to being convinced otherwise. Does anyone think these watches are as good an overall watch as the Sub? What other dive watches compare favorably to the Sub for the same or less money?

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by No SUBctitute

Does anyone think these watches are as good an overall watch as the Sub? What other dive watches compare favorably to the Sub for the same or less money?

I can't think of any. I have an Omega Seamaster 300, which is probably the closest thing Omega offers to an 114060. It's a great watch in its own right, but I wouldn't opt for it over the Rolex. (I prefer the Sub Date, but even without the date, I'd still say Rolex wins over the Seamaster.) Same goes for the other watches in your lineup. Even a Blancpain FF or Bathyscaphe, which are both pretty badass (and of course are more expensive than the Sub), have no fine adjustment on the clasp. They lose out of the gate for me, since I've been spoiled by the Glidelock, as well as Omega's adjustable clasp.

[omx5o]

Given the lack of supply and an old one costs more than a new one, they’re actually underpriced at retail.

[jimcameron]

If the retail price of a 36 Datejust in gold is about $29K and the retail price of a steel DJ36 is about $7K, I doubt the value of the gold content is $22K. So does that price difference suggest there is a substantial vanity factor included in Rolex's determination of msrp?

[Art 1]

Originally Posted by jimcameron

If the retail price of a 36 Datejust in gold is about $29K and the retail price of a steel DJ36 is about $7K, I doubt the value of the gold content is $22K. So does that price difference suggest there is a substantial vanity factor included in Rolex's determination of msrp?

Yes. There has to be.

[Art 1]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

I can't think of any. I have an Omega Seamaster 300, which is probably the closest thing Omega offers to an 114060. It's a great watch in its own right, but I wouldn't opt for it over the Rolex. (I prefer the Sub Date, but even without the date, I'd still say Rolex wins over the Seamaster.) Same goes for the other watches in your lineup. Even a Blancpain FF or Bathyscaphe, which are both pretty badass (and of course are more expensive than the Sub), have no fine adjustment on the clasp. They lose out of the gate for me, since I've been spoiled by the Glidelock, as well as Omega's adjustable clasp.

IMO the Breitling dive watches are just as good and up to recently had a far superior bracelet. It's too bad they deviated so much from the Superocean and Superocean Pro as much as they have. And the price is not even close to the Sub.

[adg31]

Originally Posted by No SUBctitute

I actually really like this question because there are different ways to approach it. I would look at it from the perspective of, are there other watches that are just as good for less money?



The Sub is the iconic Rolex so let's use that. I tend to think the Sub is NOT overpriced since, IMHO, for its price range it has the highest quality: watch movement, steel, clasp, bracelet, bezel and bezel movement, and fit/finish.



Here are some dive watches priced under the Sub. I'm not sure any have the whole package as does the Sub. I am open to being convinced otherwise. Does anyone think these watches are as good an overall watch as the Sub? What other dive watches compare favorably to the Sub for the same or less money?

This:

Good enough for Jacques Cousteau so should compare reasonably well as a dive watch.
Great timekeeper sitting well inside the +/-2 spd quoted by Rolex, incredibly solid build quality, iconic design with one of the most comfortable bracelets I've worn - and way cheaper than even the 114060.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[AK797]

Originally Posted by lecorsaire

I feel more and more regret not pulling the trigger on certain watches when I had the chance before the summer. A mint Hulk for $7500 among others. How naïve I was to think prices would remain where they were for a while. I should've foreseen the consequences of the bull market and imminent tax cuts as well as the surge in Bitcoin. All of these things have contributed to the current situation in additional to lower shipments to ADs.

Don't be hard on yourself, predicting is a mug's game and impossible, best to have a general gameplan and be ready to act when the market changes, whatever market it is. Maybe easy for me to say as I got the LVc just before the big move in summer, but if we play that game we will always be frustrated, just like we can never buy low and sell high all the time. It's about staying sane not being right.

[DonBateman]

Supply and demand. From a market stand point they are priced appropriately, otherwise they wouldn't sell so well. From an intrinsic value standpoint, they are way overpriced.

[DonBateman]

Originally Posted by No SUBctitute

I actually really like this question because there are different ways to approach it. I would look at it from the perspective of, are there other watches that are just as good for less money?

The Sub is the iconic Rolex so let's use that. I tend to think the Sub is NOT overpriced since, IMHO, for its price range it has the highest quality: watch movement, steel, clasp, bracelet, bezel and bezel movement, and fit/finish.

Here are some dive watches priced under the Sub. I'm not sure any have the whole package as does the Sub. I am open to being convinced otherwise. Does anyone think these watches are as good an overall watch as the Sub? What other dive watches compare favorably to the Sub for the same or less money?

All these watches are fairly the same. Only if you took them apart and compared movements would you find the small differences. Some may be more comfortable then others or more appealing to the eye, but for all intents and purposes, they are equal. You pay for the name.

[gegarrenton]

Originally Posted by Tha Baron

One of these days, I’m just gonna drill a half inch hole through a $10k stack of 100s and loop it around my neck with a bungee cord. Get a green sharpie and write ”ROLEX” across 1 inch cloth tape and slap it across Bens face. That’ll show em

I legit lol'd.

[Flier]

[QUOTE=Investr;8211768]Oh brother......:thinking
Lol

[gegarrenton]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

I can't think of any. I have an Omega Seamaster 300, which is probably the closest thing Omega offers to an 114060.

I actually disagree with this, and I think it's why so many people talk over each other when comparing Rolex and Omega. The Seamaster 300 is way below not just the Sub, but most of Omega's offerings. The better PO and AT models are what actually competes with the Sub.

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Same goes for the other watches in your lineup. Even a Blancpain FF or Bathyscaphe, which are both pretty badass (and of course are more expensive than the Sub), have no fine adjustment on the clasp. They lose out of the gate for me, since I've been spoiled by the Glidelock, as well as Omega's adjustable clasp.

I'd take a FF in a heartbeat, but that is just from personal preference and not because one is better than the other. I think they started basically identical, and diverged in purpose. The glide lock doesn't do much for me personally, since basically any traditional clasp watch I find a non starter. Double deployant or nothing.

[Flier]

Originally Posted by SpyShopsNYC

If you was in the Amazon forest and had a Rolex on they would know it. I went to my high school reunion and I wanted to show my status so I wore the Rolex not my IWC. I wore my YM2 116688


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[adg31]

Originally Posted by AK797

Don't be hard on yourself, predicting is a mug's game and impossible, best to have a general gameplan and be ready to act when the market changes, whatever market it is. Maybe easy for me to say as I got the LVc just before the big move in summer, but if we play that game we will always be frustrated, just like we can never buy low and sell high all the time. It's about staying sane not being right.

Don't sweat it, I swapped out a new LV for a new 16610 in 2009.
Long before that I passed up on a Mil-Sub back in the early 80's when they could be had for less than £1000.
It's all part of life's rich pageant...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dnpina]

Originally Posted by SpyShopsNYC

If you was in the Amazon forest and had a Rolex on they would know it. I went to my high school reunion and I wanted to show my status so I wore the Rolex not my IWC. I wore my YM2 116688


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Rolex + Cartier. you certainly showed them

[Csu87]

Its all supply and demand. Prices of Rolex are high because they want to keep the allure of exclusivity and luxury.


If you look at the price trends of used Rolex, as well as many other luxury brands, the prices fluctuate dramatically throughout the year. Prime gift giving times like V-Day, Graduations, and XMas youll see prices take a turn up. but that time between you can see prices drop and get a good deal on the used market.

[semi-ambivalent]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Omega is mostly in house now, too, but not 100%. However, their ETA-based models are commensurately lower in price. Omega and Rolex are kind of like the Beatles and the Beach Boys, in that they keep one-upping each other. For instance, Rolex comes out with an anti-magnetic hairspring, so Omega comes out with an anti-magnetic movement. Omega comes out with 60-hour power reserve, so Rolex ups theirs to 70.

That's correct, and it's how it's supposed to work, competition. What's very much a part of it now is the ever declining return on the R&D. If you're now at -2/+2 seconds what do you spend to get that down to 1 second? And what must that watch cost to recoup? And how much do you lose providing warranty support for that one second? Accuracy is very nice but the improved shock resistance of e.g., the 3255 is a biggie for me. More so than is power reserve. Going in-house might provide savings but it also provides control. That's important. Secrecy too.

And don't forget the buyer's currency (here, the dollar) is worth less every quarter.

[BristolCavendish]

Originally Posted by SpyShopsNYC

If you was in the Amazon forest and had a Rolex on they would know it. I went to my high school reunion and I wanted to show my status so I wore the Rolex not my IWC. I wore my YM2 116688

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's very reassuring to learn that even the Yanomamo tribesmen are now familiar with the various Rolex models. What's next on their cultural awareness agenda, Hermes handbags and Christian Louboutin stillettos for the womenfolk?

[semi-ambivalent]

Originally Posted by bio guyver

This is what I call symbol of status. King of watches

Best post here. Of all watches less, or more, or vastly more expensive, Rolex above all others remains iconic for the "average person". There are a lot of more expensive watches out there, most of which will remain unknown to the masses. But Rolex has perfectly crafted a niche where someone (a lot of people, actually) can think they are over-priced but not hold it against them. To have someone not think "$8k, that's BS." But "$8k, that's an awful lot, but I'm going to have one some day." Easy consumer credit has tarnished the value of such aspirations because it takes struggle and discipline and satisfaction in achieving a goal and replaces it with instant access and debt+interest.

A SS Rolex is the best deal going for the money paid if you're after a watch for a lifetime. Want to throw some "prestige" into it? Get a PM, but that's not where the value is. Even the humble OP has orders of magnitude more real stuff to it than some Birkin bag. But that's just the sort of writing I'd expect to find in The Economist.