Why is Tudor losing so much value?

[forcinitijp]

Originally Posted by Scholar

How are you defining cheap or expensive? Rolexes were affordable enough in the 60s and 70s that they were sold alongside snacks and goodies at the shop on military bases. The cost was comparable to the Seiko divers.

By the way, the Rolex prices through the mid-90s, when you adjust for inflation, were lower than Tudor is today. The Black Bay GMT, for example, debuted at exactly the inflation-adjusted price of a 90s 16710. The price of it has since gone up of course. And yes, those Rolexes "lost value" as you put it the moment you bought them. This is completely normal.

Do you think a Mercedes-Benz S-Class or Aston Martin or Aston Martin DB12 or anything else is a bad car because it loses a huge chunk of value the moment you make the purchase?



What? There is an overall reselling bubble in the market, not just for Rolex, due to a combination of fiscal policy and online culture.

Maybe there is some kind of language issue at play here.

You are my hero!! Thank you for the explanation!

[TickTockChuck]

Originally Posted by Watcheroo

It has always been that way. For almost all brands. Normalcy is returning. As others have said, the last 3-4 years were very abnormal for this hobby.

I agree and thank goodness the pendulum is swinging back in favor of buyers. Maybe even Rolex will be 10-15% off at the AD like the good ol' days. Cheers

[TickTockChuck]

Originally Posted by Know1isgod

Tudor makes far too many models. Not every piece demands 4 or 5 variants. Look at the list and start cutting from within.

1926
Black Bay 31/36/39/41
Black Bay 54
Black Bay 58
Black Bay Bronze
Black Bay Chrono
Black Bay GMT
Black Bay P01
Black Bay Pro
Black Bay
Clair de Rose
Pelagos FXD
Pelagos
Ranger
Royal

My thoughts too. Tudor was the quiet cousin until they hit pay dirt with the Black Bay, and now so many variants on the same theme. Omega does the same with the Speedy. So it goes.

[Easy E]

Have you looked at the price list thread DSW recently posted? I think there are way more variants of the “same thing” with Rolex than most people tend to realize.

[White Collar Boy]

I don’t understand the criticism of having too many models. Most of the Tudors look great, so why kill any off? There’s no imperative to buy them all.

[likelyhero]

Beta brand

[RotorSelfWinding]

Originally Posted by TickTockChuck

My thoughts too. Tudor was the quiet cousin until they hit pay dirt with the Black Bay, and now so many variants on the same theme. Omega does the same with the Speedy. So it goes.

They were failing before they created the Black Bay.

[Slimpee]

Tudor over the past five years:

1. New model comes out and everyone gets excited.
2. Supply doesn’t meet demand and secondary prices go above retail.
3. Over 1-3 years, supply meets or exceeds demand and secondary prices fall below retail.
4. Rinse and repeat.

Perhaps certain limited runs/editions and vintage pieces will hold value (Tiger Chronos, Subs) but why is anyone surprised that a run of the mill BB58 has lost value now that supply has caught up?

My BB Chrono and Ranger have “lost value” but I don’t really care because I have them to enjoy them.

[BillA]

To answer the OP’s original question: Perhaps they are dropping value because Rolex watches, which are most peoples first choice may be coming more available. I think that lots of people, not all, buy Tudor because they cannot get a Rolex.

[Sublovin]

Admittedly I didn’t read the entire thread here, but I will tell you that Tudor represents an excellent value proposition in the watch world. I think they are extremely fairly priced considering what you get for the money. Additionally, and I have said here many times, with a bunch of more expensive options I put my Pelagos near the top of the list. It is still my go to beach watch, and the titanium case, long power, reserve, in house movement, Legibility, lume, bezel, etc. is still my go to beach watch and I think an amazing deal. I love the brand.

[shaunylw]

Originally Posted by Sublovin

Admittedly I didn’t read the entire thread here, but I will tell you that Tudor represents an excellent value proposition in the watch world. I think they are extremely fairly priced considering what you get for the money. Additionally, and I have said here many times, with a bunch of more expensive options I put my Pelagos near the top of the list. It is still my go to beach watch, and the titanium case, long power, reserve, in house movement, Legibility, lume, bezel, etc. is still my go to beach watch and I think an amazing deal. I love the brand.

Totally agree, i love Tudor. For the price, extremely hard to beat.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jamesbondOO7]

Why would one buy a Tudor in the first place?

[douglasf13]

Prior to relatively recently, that’s even been the case for most Rolex watches. I bought 4 Rolex watches prior to 2017 and one in 2022, sold them all at some point, and lost money on all of them. Same with two Tudors.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by jamesbondOO7

Why would one buy a Tudor in the first place?

Why wouldn’t one if one liked one?

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by jamesbondOO7

Why would one buy a Tudor in the first place?

Because 1) they’re the closest thing you can get to vintage models new. 2) It’s became more of an “in the know” brand vs. Rolex, which is now largely a status brand. 3) The movements are arguably better.

[Bberry76]

Originally Posted by Neil McCauley

I agree; nothing frustrates me more than talking to a budding collector when their first stipulation for what their potential watch must feature is that it "holds its value".

You can't guarantee this, and in my humble opinion, if you cannot afford to lose money on it, you can't afford it.

100% Agree

[Madman37]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Annual production in 2023 for Rolex is 1.2 million watches, Tudor produces 300,000.
dP

You have no idea how many of that 1.2 million is which model as a breakdown. Until you know that you can’t say which rolex is rare and not rare

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by jamesbondOO7

Why would one buy a Tudor in the first place?

Because they are fine-quality timepieces that are durable and backed by excellent service. They're also accurate, and imho some models look very nice on my wrist.

Perhaps an Apple watch is more your style?

PS: Get the H. Moser Apple look-alike, troll your Apple-loving friends

[Cassian739]

In order to answer the question "why is Tudor losing so much value?" One must first believe that they are meant to hold value - with valued defined as the retail price paid.

Like almost all luxury goods, I never assumed that Tudor watches were meant to hold value. With that said, they also don't depreciate nearly as quickly as other luxury watch brands; which is nice.

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by Madman37

You have no idea how many of that 1.2 million is which model as a breakdown. Until you know that you can’t say which rolex is rare and not rare

I never speculated which Rolex is rare or even care. Not on my radar.
dP

[Stupot]

Just saw a new unworn BB58 GMT not attract any bids on a UK eBay auction starting at £3500, list is £3960.

That must be around 12% less than list on a brand new model and no takers.

Much as I love the brand, and have 3 which thankfully are all keepers, they are a residual disaster.

[7enderbender]

I’m not sure I understand the question, but frankly,I don’t care. Watch “value” for me is a question pertaining to the insurance policy at best. Otherwise, I never sell anything. People can deal with that when I’m dead. And by my estimation I come very much out on top with the majority of my collectibles with regard to market value vs what I paid for things.

I’m looking to get the BB58 GMT. Seems like a very fair value even new. If I can get it for less even better. I’m interested because I like it and actually prefer it over the current Rolex GMT offerings. And I’m not invested enough in a GMT watch to splurge on a vintage specimen. So the 58 actually hits the spot perfectly.

[the dark knight]

It's just the way it's supposed to be, most brands lose quite a bit of value right off the bat. Pandemic era distorted things for a while, now things are more "normal".

I also wonder if Tudor is making a concerted effort to actually get watches to customers because Rolex can't do the same. The new releases of the last 2-3 years seem to be arriving faster and made more widely available than in the past.

BTW, this is happening to all the brands that it is "supposed" to be happening to, which is most of them. Omega, IWC, Grand Seiko, Breitling, JLC, etc. Most of the non-LE hype models from these brands are getting killed in resale.

[shaunylw]

Originally Posted by 7enderbender

I’m not sure I understand the question, but frankly,I don’t care. Watch “value” for me is a question pertaining to the insurance policy at best. Otherwise, I never sell anything. People can deal with that when I’m dead. And by my estimation I come very much out on top with the majority of my collectibles with regard to market value vs what I paid for things.

I’m looking to get the BB58 GMT. Seems like a very fair value even new. If I can get it for less even better. I’m interested because I like it and actually prefer it over the current Rolex GMT offerings. And I’m not invested enough in a GMT watch to splurge on a vintage specimen. So the 58 actually hits the spot perfectly.

Super fair value, just picked mine up and I’m very happy with it. I had the AD order me the rubber strap, and we will swap the clasp from the bracelet. It was only like $200 or so to get the rubber as well. It’s a great watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by Scholar

How are you defining cheap or expensive? Rolexes were affordable enough in the 60s and 70s that they were sold alongside snacks and goodies at the shop on military bases. The cost was comparable to the Seiko divers.

By the way, the Rolex prices through the mid-90s, when you adjust for inflation, were lower than Tudor is today. The Black Bay GMT, for example, debuted at exactly the inflation-adjusted price of a 90s 16710. The price of it has since gone up of course. And yes, those Rolexes "lost value" as you put it the moment you bought them. This is completely normal.

Do you think a Mercedes-Benz S-Class or Aston Martin or Aston Martin DB12 or anything else is a bad car because it loses a huge chunk of value the moment you make the purchase?



What? There is an overall reselling bubble in the market, not just for Rolex, due to a combination of fiscal policy and online culture.

Maybe there is some kind of language issue at play here.

So a watch that cost more than the median weekly wage was affordable? I realize you said “affordable enough” but they were high end in the 60s and 70s. Being about 2x the median weekly wage was not affordable then (and wouldn’t be now). Certainly Seikos weren’t at that price point…

As for holding value, over time the higher pace of Rolex price inflation has made them a very good (and consistent) store of value. The speculative fervor of the past 3 years was extreme - but not limited to watches. Also, that fervor didn’t start before the big stimulus dollars… that (prior) aspect was wealth driven vs a much slower supply increase.

The consistent inflation of msrp, plus slow supply increase and mass brand awareness means Rolex will continue to hold value exceptionally well. This is despite my expectation of a near term drop in demand as the economy weakens…