Which gen to buy?

[Craig S]

Evening all!

Well, I have finally (has took me years!) saved up my hard cash to buy myself a gen which I'm gonna store for investment purposes. Got a few in mind.

-New 2010 Sub with ceramic bezel

-2009 Sub LV

-Breitling "code yellow" skyland

-And at a push, the plati Yachtmaster.

Anybody fgot any suggestions on which of these will probably increase in value at a better ratio? Im looking at the watch as a 30 years + investment.

My head tells me rolex YM due to the precious metals and the fact its a rolex, or the "code yellow" breitling, as they only making 1000.

What you think guys?

P.S Before I get flamed, yes i know watches are to be worn, but I'm looking to these investments as my long term pension hopefully. Got no faith in the private pension system etc. Wil still wear it, just only on very special occasions)

C.

[HauteHippie]

Luxury items aren't investments, unfortunately. I couldn't recommend buying them for that purpose. There is no way to know what the demand for anything will be 20 years from now. And the vintage pieces that have become highly valued in this day and age are more or less flukes. Nobody can know in the present that a particular dial or watch model will be discontinued after a short lived production run, for example. But that is, largely, what makes many things more sought after in the future - rarity. And even then, 20 years from now, people might have moved on to something else causing the collectibles of today to drop in value. You just never know. That Yachtmaster does contain platinum, so it might well go up in value. But it could also be a very unpopular model that doesn't carry much of a premium in the future. Better off just buying a chuck of platinum, IMO. And that's what is a far better bet anyhow, especially in terms of real (vs nominal) value in 30 years. Gold or platinum bullion over a luxury item like overpriced watches any day of the week and twice on Sunday, if investment is the purpose.

[rolexmaniac88]

I tend to agree with chieftang. Not a real investment. However, if your in the shorter term, you can easily plan for the Tudors such as the snowflakes and all which are currently undervalued compared to their rolex counterparts to gain value in the near future. Therefore, IMHO, you'd better buy one of these beauties rather than a very recent rolex. Plus, the vintage appeal is like no other!

Hope that helps,

[jeff g]

Patek Phillipe would be a good investment.

[wisrep2010]

IMHO watches in general should not be look at as an investment, unless you are fortunate enough to get a PP 5070, 5790 or any of the very few highly desirable ones - all the other ones loose their value like any other high end brand - In my experience the fact that a watch is limited also doesn't necessarily translate into a higher value down the road.

My advice: pick the one that really talks to you and buy because you want to wear it and not because you consider it an investment

[HauteHippie]

In my experience the fact that a watch is limited also doesn't necessarily translate into a higher value down the road.

Right... Things can be rare simply because nobody wants them, too.

[wisrep2010]

Right... Things can be rare simply because nobody wants them, too.

[Craig S]

I do like the code yellow Skyland I must say, It would get plenty wrist time. :)

[Watchmeister]

When it comes to luxury goods it is usually about value preservation rather than appreciation so my first thought is start by buying in the used market. None on the list strike me as "investment" pieces. The fact that you list multiple Rolexes and one Breitling tells me you either want a Breitling or have too many Rolexes already. Which one is it? Start with that.

[TeeJay]

Luxury items aren't investments, unfortunately. I couldn't recommend buying them for that purpose. There is no way to know what the demand for anything will be 20 years from now. And the vintage pieces that have become highly valued in this day and age are more or less flukes. Nobody can know in the present that a particular dial or watch model will be discontinued after a short lived production run, for example. But that is, largely, what makes many things more sought after in the future - rarity. And even then, 20 years from now, people might have moved on to something else causing the collectibles of today to drop in value. You just never know. That Yachtmaster does contain platinum, so it might well go up in value. But it could also be a very unpopular model that doesn't carry much of a premium in the future. Better off just buying a chuck of platinum, IMO. And that's what is a far better bet anyhow, especially in terms of real (vs nominal) value in 30 years. Gold or platinum bullion over a luxury item like overpriced watches any day of the week and twice on Sunday, if investment is the purpose.

+1

If you want an investment, buy shares, watches are for wearing, not living in safes

[opti]

Get the Breitling, cause it rocks

[iceberg1459]

got a gen sub lv(2010,out of production), i bought it because i like the looks and wear daily, plus, likely it wont become worthless in 5+ years (more likely be worth more)

[ubiquitous]

Kinda funny... Watchmeister and I were just talking about watch values in general offline, and how most usually tank on depreciation.

Markets overall are kinda of soft; a great time to be buying for personal use, but I wouldn't bank money on a watch being an investment, especially a modern, high volume production piece from any of the large commercial brands where 'mass production' is more of the norm (with few exceptions to the rule; e.g. Patek).

If you purchase watches with intrinsic value based on commodities such as gold or platinum, you will always have, at the very least, the melt value/weight of those precious metals (as jewelry, the value of gold is not 1:1 with bullion or uncirculated coins, I think?), but chief makes an excellent point; one may as well just buy bullion and stash that in the safe as well. whether a watch or a lump of metal, if it's sitting in the safe, it's doing the same thing (and a bar of precious metal is easier to liquidate than selling a watch).

Or, if you are familiar with vintage pieces within certain brands or niche, one could always buy with a fair amount of confidence that those pieces are likely to at least retain their value, but speculating on value increase/decrease should be the least of your concerns as there is never a guarantee with fickle collectors driving the market force (one correlation I can point to on this was the once hot Bubbleback Rolex as a good example as to why these things are never forever). Also, the immediate downside to the vintage angle is that most of the examples to have further potential increase in value have already achieved and realized a significant portion of their gains, so you'd be buying high (or slightly under depending).

One segment that I have observed some decent value retention is with the Independents. Seems to me that Philippe Dufour, Vianney Halter, F.P. Journe, etc. all at least hold their value instead of plummeting in depreciation. Then again, in this league, there is a small market for such limited pieces. However, with the wait times that most collectors were willing to wait for, say a Simplicity, I have to suspect that many of those individuals would be willing to pay a premium to get theirs sooner than later.

Bottom line; buy a watch to wear and enjoy. If you are looking for an investment vehicle, there are plenty of other options to choose from.

[OSRep]

Some really good information guys, thanks chief, ubi etc!

For the purpose of this thread I'd say the new Ceramic Sub (again, not as an investment, but just because its a nice watch).

[woody]

agree with others, buy what you like and don't necessarily look at it from the investment angle. if investment is what you are after, get a patek. those are pretty safe, as investment. otherwise just buy what speaks to you. good luck.

[Craig S]

Cheers for the feedback all. Appreciated.

Well, the ceramic sub is awesome, but for the same price i can get the Breitling. One of only 1000, so limited edition of sorts and sweet too. Decisions decisions!!!!

[Tom Groffin]

At the grand old age of 77 I disagree with you about pensions. I don't think that any watch that you buy will provide you with the means of living a comfortable life when you retire. If you are set on buying a watch which will appreciate over time I recommend Patek Philippe. I bought a Nautilus ss with blue dial set with diamond markers 15 years ago. I wear it regularly and it has worn well. A recent valuation for insurance has shown it has appreciated nicely. However, it would never keep me in a reasonable style of living. Buy a watch to enjoy on your wrist and look at the alternative ways of building a portfolio to give you a comfortable life when you are old.