Are Today's Rolexes Overpriced?

[LuminousMaximus]

Originally Posted by G'ed

Omega is overpriced relative to Rolex, if you ask me

Yes After the whole Co-Axial thing and moving toward a Boutique experience, I have not been impressed.

But with ROLEX, I feel that the more you pay for something the more you value it...

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Art 1

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.

Breitling's dive watches are still using ETA-based calibers. And if by "up to recently" you mean 2008 when Rolex started using the Glidelock, you're right. Given that Breitling makes it clear its divers are second-class citizens among its own lineup (its higher-end watches get an in-house movement, and most have higher-end bracelets than the Pro series), I just don't see how they can be an apples-to-apples comparison to Rolex divers.

[rossi46]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Breitling's dive watches are still using ETA-based calibers.

Not entirely true. The 2017 SuperOcean Heritage II line was updated to use Tudor movements.

It was part of a movement exchange where Tudor would start using Breitilng-sourced chronograph movements and Breitling would start using their MT5612 3-handers.

[source: http://watchesbysjx.com/2017/03/hand...-movement.html

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by gegarrenton

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.

I think this point is debatable. For one, by pricing alone, it would seem Omega still sees the Seamaster 300 as at least in the same tier, or possibly higher, than the PO. The Seamaster 300 in stainless, on bracelet, retails for $6600, and that's without a date feature. The newly updated stainless PO on bracelet, with date, retails for $6550.

Also, at the time it came out, the Seamaster 300 was a showcase for all of Omega's latest refinements, including a fully anti-magnetic movement, a Liquidmetal bezel on the standard stainless model (at the time, Liquidmetal on POs was limited to the Ti models, or the one LE premier on the older, 2500 model), and it debuted Omega's new adjustable diver clasp. It actually left the then-current PO looking like a somewhat poorer cousin. These changes have now been incorporated into the PO line, and of course the PO movement is now METAS certified, whereas the Seamaster 300 isn't (yet). So the Seamaster 300 may have some catching up to do, but I just don't see any objective evidence to suggest that the PO is in a higher tier, and therefore the more apt comparison to the Submariner.

The AT isn't a diver, and is priced $1000 under both the Seamaster 300 and PO in SS, so I don't see how that's in a higher tier, or a direct comparison, even if it is nominally in the Seamaster family.

Edit: Just so we're clear, when I say "Seamaster 300," I'm referring to the Master Co-Axial, not the Diver 300M. Omega would really do itself and the rest of us a favor if it could come up with more distinct names for these two models. I guess I'll need to include "MCA" any time I'm referring to the 300, just to avoid confusion.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by rossi46

Not entirely true. The 2017 SuperOcean Heritage II line was updated to use Tudor movements.

It was part of a movement exchange where Tudor would start using Breitilng-sourced chronograph movements and Breitling would start using their MT5612 3-handers.

[source: http://watchesbysjx.com/2017/03/hand...movement.html]

OK, that's news to me, and good to know. I stand corrected on that matter. But if anything, given the movement and level of finishing, as well as pricing, the SOH would seem to be more of a direct comparison with Tudor divers, rather than Rolex. The SO non-H would seem to be struggling to keep up with Omega's Seamaster Diver (nee Professional).

Thanks for the link, but for some reason it's taking me to a blank page.

[gegarrenton]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

I think this point is debatable. For one, by pricing alone, it would seem Omega still sees the Seamaster 300 as at least in the same tier, or possibly higher, than the PO. The Seamaster 300 in stainless, on bracelet, retails for $6600, and that's without a date feature. The newly updated stainless PO on bracelet, with date, retails for $6550.

Also, at the time it came out, the Seamaster 300 was a showcase for all of Omega's latest refinements, including a fully anti-magnetic movement, a Liquidmetal bezel on the standard stainless model (at the time, Liquidmetal on POs was limited to the Ti models, or the one LE premier on the older, 2500 model), and it debuted Omega's new adjustable diver clasp. It actually left the then-current PO looking like a somewhat poorer cousin. These changes have now been incorporated into the PO line, and of course the PO movement is now METAS certified, whereas the Seamaster 300 isn't (yet). So the Seamaster 300 may have some catching up to do, but I just don't see any objective evidence to suggest that the PO is in a higher tier, and therefore the more apt comparison to the Submariner.

The AT isn't a diver, and is priced $1000 under both the Seamaster 300 and PO in SS, so I don't see how that's in a higher tier, or a direct comparison, even if it is nominally in the Seamaster family.

Edit: Just so we're clear, when I say "Seamaster 300," I'm referring to the Master Co-Axial, not the Diver 300M. Omega would really do itself and the rest of us a favor if it could come up with more distinct names for these two models. I guess I'll need to include "MCA" any time I'm referring to the 300, just to avoid confusion.

Actually, I was referring to the base level Diver. The newer Coaxial lines are a marked departure from the classic 300, which is basically what the Diver is. If you hold a classic Seamaster 300 next to a PO, there is no comparison in fit and finish. I definitely agree they need to a better job with product differentiation, Rolex does a much better job there. Even with the AT, there are wildly different watches. I didn't bring that up to say "hey here's a diver", but to illustrate the huge differences in Omega quality and value amongst their range. The old 44mm AT GMT Chrono is one of the nicest Omega watches I've ever handled, the only knock I've ever heard on it is the Piguet movement, though I've had zero issues with it even though I split wood and race sailboats with it from time to time. The bracelet is second only to VC or PP in fact. It's a really nice watch for 9k. Then the other ATs are just ho hum and not worth half.



I do quite like the retro looking Seamaster MCAs that just came out though, those are really nice watches and very similar in purpose to a Sub I think.

[rossi46]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

But if anything, given the movement and level of finishing, as well as pricing, the SOH would seem to be more of a direct comparison with Tudor divers, rather than Rolex.

Thanks for the link, but for some reason it's taking me to a blank page.

link fixed

I agree with you - none of the Breitling divers compare directly to a Rolex.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by gegarrenton

I didn't bring that up to say "hey here's a diver", but to illustrate the huge differences in Omega quality and value amongst their range. The old 44mm AT GMT Chrono is one of the nicest Omega watches I've ever handled.

I get it. Yeah, the AT chrono was nice. I was tempted to pull the trigger on the blue-dial London Olympics version. Ultimately I didn't, but sometimes I wish I had.

Originally Posted by gegarrenton

I do quite like the retro looking Seamaster MCAs that just came out though, those are really nice watches and very similar in purpose to a Sub I think.

My whole reason for comparing the current SM300 MCA to the 114060 was because of their similarity in features: archetypal stainless diver for the brand, no date, on-the-fly adjustable clasp, in-house movement, same WR rating, similar size. A member on another forum did a pretty canny photo comparison between the two models. I tried tracking down the thread, but it seems he deleted the pics. Luckily I saved them. Here's one:

[VicLeChic]

Yes, they are completely overpriced. The.average Joe could afford a Sub with one month salary. Now it's three or four months worth.

[MrTwi]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

At one time, a Rolex was affordable (for those who really wanted one) by either being frugal or eliminating other miscellaneous/unnecessary expenditures. It's a seemingly different story today as $8-10K+ represents a bigger chunk of change even when accounting for current inflation and higher salaries/wages.

Value added pricing. It's what the market will bear. Don't buy them, the price goes down. Simple economics 101.

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

Originally Posted by SpyShopsNYC

YM2 in stainless or gold is top dawg, the statement it tells other’s is the you got it on your own, not passed on to you.

Top dawg? You mean like Randy talking "dawg"? You want to make an impression?

Why is that? Why do you need to make an impression?

[gegarrenton]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

I get it. Yeah, the AT chrono was nice. I was tempted to pull the trigger on the blue-dial London Olympics version. Ultimately I didn't, but sometimes I wish I had.





My whole reason for comparing the current SM300 MCA to the 114060 was because of their similarity in features: archetypal stainless diver for the brand, no date, on-the-fly adjustable clasp, in-house movement, same WR rating, similar size. A member on another forum did a pretty canny photo comparison between the two models. I tried tracking down the thread, but it seems he deleted the pics. Luckily I saved them. Here's one:

Yeah, I agree there.

[storm66]

Originally Posted by VicLeChic

Yes, they are completely overpriced. The.average Joe could afford a Sub with one month salary. Now it's three or four months worth.

Yep totally agree!

[egarc023]

I think paying retail they are def over priced. However I always get mine pre-loved

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

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?

Ouch!

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by rossi46

link fixed

Thanks. I haven't been paying much attention to Breitling lately, and didn't recognize the improvements they made to the model. I think it's a definite step up overall, although I preferred the hands on the original SOH. (I'm still not a fan of the non-Heritage SO line, even if the current iteration is slightly improved over the first rubber bezel phase.)

[eonflux]

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

Yes, overpriced.

In large part due to guys like this.
For each person on this forum who appreciates the interesting horological aspects of Rolex watches, there are 20 guys like this running around out there just looking for bling to show off. And Rolex has milked that. As would any company.

[yhzdude]

i think they are overpriced, for sure, we are paying so some tennis players can wear them for Free.
I don't mind paying for quality, research etc...but i don't like paying for all the advertising.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by 16610v

I dont think they are overpriced.

When an AP steel watch need over 20k, the list price of a ss sub or daytona is very good price

Huh? That's like comparing a Rolls Royce to a Mercedes.

Rolex prices have certainly risen far above the rate of inflation, although, I guess, since people buy them, they're not overpriced.

Tudor is essentially the new Rolex, really, and Rolex is fancier jewelry now.

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by adg31

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

Thanks for the insight into that. I didn't realize it was so accurate!

[No SUBctitute]

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....... They lose out of the gate for me, since I've been spoiled by the Glidelock, as well as Omega's adjustable clasp.

Thanks for the insight. I would love to see Glidelock expanded to other watches! :-)

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Rolex prices have certainly risen far above the rate of inflation

If I'm reading that chart correctly, once adjusted for inflation, the increase in price doesn't appear to be that much, especially when one considers the improvements in the model over time, as well as the increasing brand cachet and consumer demand. In fact, based on that chart, nearly 85% of the price increase since 1957 has been pure currency inflation.

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by Art 1

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.

I also liked the Superocean style. I don't care as much for the big Brietling chronos.

[Paul7]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Prestige and over priced seem to go hand in hand. Rolex could probably charge more and still have a waiting list for many of their models. Rolex is the master and thank goodness they don’t make the same mistakes as their competition like Omega. If anything, Rolex ever so slightly pushes even more upscale each year.

And if you're like me and don't like the blingy upscale new stuff, there are lots of used ones for under $4K.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

If I'm reading that chart correctly, once adjusted for inflation, the increase in price doesn't appear to be that much, especially when one considers the improvements in the model over time, as well as the increasing brand cachet and consumer demand. In fact, based on that chart, nearly 85% of the price increase since 1957 has been pure currency inflation.

On second thought, I tracked down the article that graph is from, and it appears the label for the red line is incorrect. Here's the explanation from the article: "On the chart above, you will see in black how prices of the Rolex Submariner No-Date changed from 1957 all the way through May, 2014. In red we marked how the original 1957 price of $150 would have changed had it followed monetary inflation only." [Emphasis added.] However, the label for the red line in the graph itself says it is incorporating all Sub ND models up to the present time in the price adjustment. Based on which explanation applies to the red line, the graph means two different things. I took it to represent what the price of a Submariner in any given year would be in 1957 dollars, when in fact it is just the opposite: the price of a 1957 Rolex in the dollar value of any given year. Consequently, my previous comment on the graph was uninformed...or rather, it was made based on the misinformation in the graph itself.

[HogwldFLTR]

I'd say Rolex has earned their pricing. Consider early Rolexes earned a market niche and reputation though rock solid design and implementation. That reputation has remained pretty much untarnished. Their watches have gotten considerably better, imho, as has their reputation. This has created the demand. Their supply is limited and thus the pricing has really sky rocketed. The watches aren't now just rock solid, they are luxury items with years of expected life based on the performance of past designs. Very few things have the expected lifetime that a Rolex has. Martin Guitars come with a life time warranty. Harleys last for a life time. Some luxury cars are worth keeping for a life time. Most of the world is disposable. Looking at cost yesterday and today and trying to explain it by inflation is fallacious. There is so little that stands the test of time.

[Jim Smyth]

My wife's uncle bought a Sub in the 70's/80's for a few hundred dollars if I remember the story correctly. He still has it and wears it daily. Today that same model is 8K+. Overpriced, you bet. But as long as people keep forking over the money it wont end. Rolex is a master at marketing and manipulating the prices to always keep driving them upwards.

[semi-ambivalent]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Huh? That's like comparing a Rolls Royce to a Mercedes.

Rolex prices have certainly risen far above the rate of inflation, although, I guess, since people buy them, they're not overpriced.

Tudor is essentially the new Rolex, really, and Rolex is fancier jewelry now.

Rolex will never let Tudor deeply cannibalize Rolex sales. If you buy a Tudor Rolex will view it as an indicator of future sale of a Rolex of higher price. That's why they will never let Rolexes become nothing more than "fancier jewelry". That's a creation of the buying public (and Rolex detractors, but I'm no Pollyanna, Rolex *is* out to make money). Louis Vuitton handbags made of plastic are "fancier jewelry". Engineering the calibre 3255, when you already have some of the best movements in the business, is not.

Thank you for the graph. Also amply demonstrates the destruction of your dollar.

[BristolCavendish]

Originally Posted by Jim Smyth

Rolex is a master at marketing and manipulating the prices to always keep driving them upwards.

Originally Posted by semi-ambivalent

Rolex will never let Tudor deeply cannibalize Rolex sales. If you buy a Tudor Rolex will view it as an indicator of future sale of a Rolex of higher price. That's why they will never let Rolexes become nothing more than "fancier jewelry". That's a creation of the buying public...

^^^^This sums it up pretty well as the Rolex sales strategy doesn't require an MBA for further clarification and/or comprehension

[yessir69]

Yes.

[Exploradori]

Yes. They are overpriced. As are most assets.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk