Why ARE Rolexes So Expensive?

[freddy333]

For those who do not know, I think this short video offers a great explanation. Enjoy.

 

[GShocked]

Rolex are a status symbol, James Bond had played a part in that, before Bond Omega had been the "King" in status. They're very good, but the repair costs are a scam IMO. Third party/independent businesses got the shaft, ETA did the same thing to them but luckily Sellita/Ronda have movements for them to service. I like Rolex's older models, but I'll never buy one myself even if it's an investment timepiece. The thinking for me is...I have my OWC Bond and it's arguably better engineered than the original Rolex Bond, it has a compressor case, the Soprod movement has been fantastic. I have no reason to ever get a Rolex, I get enough compliments on it. The next project for me is going to be to get the Casioak then buy the kit. 

 

Oris Aquis using their in house movement is a game changer and a "value" these days, that'll probably be my last automatic that I buy. The rest are G-shocks/Victorinox for daily use. 

oh and another thought to add...realistically James Bond in real life is going to be using a G-shock MTG or Mr.G , maybe this one too: https://www.cwcwatch.com/products/cwc-sbs-issue-divers-watch for real tactical/spy use. 

 

 

[Timelord]

2 hours ago, GShocked said:

Rolex are a status symbol, James Bond had played a part in that, before Bond Omega had been the "King" in status. They're very good, but the repair costs are a scam IMO. Third party/independent businesses got the shaft, ETA did the same thing to them but luckily Sellita/Ronda have movements for them to service. I like Rolex's older models, but I'll never buy one myself even if it's an investment timepiece. The thinking for me is...I have my OWC Bond and it's arguably better engineered than the original Rolex Bond, it has a compressor case, the Soprod movement has been fantastic. I have no reason to ever get a Rolex, I get enough compliments on it. The next project for me is going to be to get the Casioak then buy the kit. 

 

Oris Aquis using their in house movement is a game changer and a "value" these days, that'll probably be my last automatic that I buy. The rest are G-shocks/Victorinox for daily use. 

oh and another thought to add...realistically James Bond in real life is going to be using a G-shock MTG or Mr.G , maybe this one too: https://www.cwcwatch.com/products/cwc-sbs-issue-divers-watch for real tactical/spy use. 

 

 

I couldn’t have put it better myself!!

 

I love the way she  parrot phrases” it takes a whole year to make a Rolex”. Really ?  who would fall for that ?  It is the most insulting comment to swallow in any marketing ploy!  If there is any truth in this, when considering the amount of Rolex pieces in.existence, you would have to employ the whole population of Switzerland if not all of Europe to fall for that BS!
 

Sure enough Rolex is a great well engineered watch but not to the point that you could get away without the usual maintenance that would be required of any Sieko  or Tissot!  If it were something that could tick for 70 years without a service and not have any wearing  parts due to some magical trade secret alloy, then yes she has a point!    I would say that is one of the best $1500 watches that sells for $20,000!   

[freddy333]

11 hours ago, GShocked said:

Rolex are a status symbol, James Bond had played a part in that, before Bond Omega had been the "King" in status.

oh and another thought to add...realistically James Bond in real life is going to be using a G-shock MTG or Mr.G 

 

I think a real Bond would not wear any watch today. There are plenty of other sources for time & I think he would want to be encumbered with as few gizmos as possible. Of course, there was Fleming's comment about 007 using his Rolex Sub as a 'knuckle-duster' in a fight, but that was back when Subs were tools (not VALUABLE jewels) & men were men (rather than 'social justice warriors'). 

 

 

8 hours ago, Timelord said:

I love the way she  parrot phrases” it takes a whole year to make a Rolex”. Really ?  who would fall for that ?

 

I had a relative who worked for Rolex NYC for many years in the 1950s as a master watchmaker (I'm an amateur watchsmith, but have been collecting since the mid-80s). Things may have changed today with CNCs & other modern manufacturing systems, but at least between the 1950s-1970s, the understanding within the industry was that Rolex watches required a year or so to go from design to finished product. If Hodinkee says that remains the case, without evidence to the contrary, I am quite prepared to accept that as fact. Your mileage may vary. Of course, with Rolex just about anything is possible. So never say never.

[Nanuq]

Consider in the late 50s what Rolex had for competition, very few screw down crowns or substantial waterproofing or over engineered crystals and retainers. They were a little better than the competition and priced a little higher.

My 6536/1 was issued to my late woodcutting partner as his dive timer in brown water adventures on peninsulas where they weren’t supposed to be. At the time it was the toughest watch they could get to supply the divers so it was the choice. Now compared to a G-Shock or contemporary diver it looks like a flimsy toy. Times change.

[GShocked]

I'd actually be afraid to have one on as its not so much a tool anymore. It'd be like getting an expensive painting ruined. Kobold is more of a tool company. Sinn too

[freddy333]

1 hour ago, GShocked said:

I'd actually be afraid to have one on as its not so much a tool anymore. It'd be like getting an expensive painting ruined.

 

That is another reason Fleming's Bond would likely not don today's Sub. The current politically-correct Hollywood Bond.......... 

[Timelord]

8 hours ago, freddy333 said:

 

but at least between the 1950s-1970s, the understanding within the industry was that Rolex watches required a year or so to go from design to finished product. 

 

Now that is a more accurate description of what would have happened.  But then again the same can be said about other watch companies that made everything in house including other manufacturers of micro wave ovens, computers, iphones etc.  !!!  Consider Seiko with their 1960-1970s calibers which were also well engineered.  Yet the prices were not to the same exaggeration that Rolex charges for their product!!!!   Surely a lot of behind the scene work happens from designing, prototyping, production setting etc, etc, and etc.  

 

Yeah, when a new Rolex caliber was evolved from the 1570 to the 3035, there could have been even more than a year behind the final stage.  Surely nobody can dispute this.!!!! But the way they phrase it, "takes almost a year to make a rolex"  is really very misleading.

[freddy333]

1 hour ago, Timelord said:

Consider Seiko with their 1960-1970s calibers which were also well engineered.  Yet the prices were not to the same exaggeration that Rolex charges for their product!!!!   Surely a lot of behind the scene work happens from designing, prototyping, production setting etc, etc, and etc.  

 

Seiko definitely makes quality timepieces, but I think they lack the aesthetic finishes (albeit not to the level of Patek) & technological advancements that often appear first in Rolex. 
I have always seen Rolex as the wrist watch equivalent of Mercedes-Benz -- not the highest-end, but offering breakthrough technology along with a wide range within the high-end. Seiko, in my view, is more akin to Acura -- very well made, but generally lacking the distinction & exclusivity that Mercedes offers. I think that if you compare the sound/feel/experience of opening/closing a door on any mid-line Mercedes to any mid-line Acura, you'll appreciate that there IS a difference. Of course, whether that difference justifies the price differential is a personal question. Similarly, operating the crown on any new/properly maintained mid-line Rolex offers a feel that is not quite the same when executing the same operation on a Seiko. This is not to say that Seiko is lacking, they are not; just that I think Rolex offers an overall aesthetic and user experience that is superior to most other watch brands. Again, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, your mileage may vary.

And, to be frank, when considering any form of jewelry one must always factor-in the brand recognition, which, as we all know, is off-the-charts for Rolex; & that is 1 of the reasons many of us are attracted to the brand.

[kidcreole]

For me it's brand above anything else. They've done a terrific job right from the start building the brand and doubling down on its history. I also shudder to think what Rolex's percentage spend on advertising, PR, sponsorships, ambassadors etc to revenue is. Sure they have a decent product but they sell markers for lifestyle and success so we'll pay more to be part of it and show off the fact we've "made it" or "faking it". As watch aficionados we can say that's crap but why do we want them then when we know we can get lesser swiss make with bullet proof eta for a fraction of the price? It's easy we want to be part of it.

[freddy333]

Another Sub owner chimes in on why he owns a Rolex --

 

[GShocked]

15 hours ago, Timelord said:

 

Now that is a more accurate description of what would have happened.  But then again the same can be said about other watch companies that made everything in house including other manufacturers of micro wave ovens, computers, iphones etc.  !!!  Consider Seiko with their 1960-1970s calibers which were also well engineered.  Yet the prices were not to the same exaggeration that Rolex charges for their product!!!!   Surely a lot of behind the scene work happens from designing, prototyping, production setting etc, etc, and etc.  

 

Yeah, when a new Rolex caliber was evolved from the 1570 to the 3035, there could have been even more than a year behind the final stage.  Surely nobody can dispute this.!!!! But the way they phrase it, "takes almost a year to make a rolex"  is really very misleading.

 

I respect Rolex for their contributions, but they haven't really innovated much (other than mainsprings) for a long time. Rolex is a status brand, I'll pass. I have no need to ever buy one, nor do I care about status/bragging. For you guys on this forum you're not in it for bragging, you respect the horology. 

[freddy333]

5 hours ago, GShocked said:

 

I respect Rolex for their contributions, but they haven't really innovated much (other than mainsprings) for a long time.

 

I guess if you gage watch innovations by the month or require, say, a minimum of a dozen innovations/year, I can see your point about Rolex not having innovated "much" for a long time.
However, I think your premise misses the point. Here is a listing of some of Rolex's innovations to come to mind, most of which we all rely on today --

The first waterproof wristwatch (Oyster case & Twin Lock crown)
Easylink
Glidelock
Datejust (date function)
Day-Date (day/date function)
Helium escape valve (with Doxa)
Perpetual rotor
Parachrom hairspring
Paraflex shock absorber
Cerachrom (ceramic) bezel insert
Syloxi hairspring
Chronergy escapement
Everose
GMT function (with Pan Am)

[Timelord]

16 hours ago, GShocked said:

 

I respect Rolex for their contributions, but they haven't really innovated much (other than mainsprings) for a long time. Rolex is a status brand, I'll pass. I have no need to ever buy one, nor do I care about status/bragging. For you guys on this forum you're not in it for bragging, you respect the horology. 

Ditto!!  Well said!  
Yes I like the Rolex submariner and the presidential!  I was a sucker for them when I purchased them and if I were to live again, I would do the same!  But at today’s prices?   I would need to see two psychiatrists plus some other very intense consellor!  

Sure enough their aesthetics, catchy design, their list of undebatable  innovations etc. etc. stands to be proud!  However, Let’s not forget that Rolex mostly used Aegler movements until the early 1950’s and even their cosmograoh which was in Paul Newman’s watch record breaking auction killer used  a valjoux chronograph! So yes your point is exactly like mine!

 

let’s not forget the Blancpain 50 fathoms used in Jacques  Cousteau’s 1952 movie “the silent world” as the chosen water proof divers watch, which other horological collectors argue was what inspired Rolex to create the first submariner as an homage watch to this Blancpain!

 

When you consider a Squale  brand submariner or even a Ginault submariner as homage watches with a high end eta ( even with a chronometer eta no different from a Tudor snowflake eta)  for one twentieth of the price, then my psychiatrist would secretly put me too sleep with a good cyanide anitpressant to save my family from me, especially if I were to justify ispending thousands $$ more on a stainless steel submariner!  Nobody is denying that Rolex are a great piece but not for  5 to even 20 times more than an equivalent quality timepiece!  Looks like TAG heuer is mimicking them by putting exaggerated prices on something no better than an equivalent Tissot!

 

We obviously control the market when considering  an idiot like me spent all his youths savings on both a submariner and a presidential where I could have been wiser in my spending!  Rolex is a great timepiece, but not necessarily reflective of their asking prices at authorised dealers!  My opinion only!

[GShocked]

Give the OWC a look , I love my bond model. Rolex doesn't have to innovate monthly/yearly...ETA is kicking their butt in innovation as of this time. Oris has innovated a bit. Sinn has done nice things too. 

13 hours ago, freddy333 said:

 

I guess if you gage watch innovations by the month or require, say, a minimum of a dozen innovations/year, I can see your point about Rolex not having innovated "much" for a long time.
However, I think your premise misses the point. Here is a listing of some of Rolex's innovations to come to mind, most of which we all rely on today --

The first waterproof wristwatch (Oyster case & Twin Lock crown)
Easylink
Glidelock
Datejust (date function)
Day-Date (day/date function)
Helium escape valve (with Doxa)
Perpetual rotor
Parachrom hairspring
Paraflex shock absorber
Cerachrom (ceramic) bezel insert
Syloxi hairspring
Chronergy escapement
Everose
GMT function (with Pan Am)

,

No dispute from me. I respect those innovations. I just have no reason to buy one. 

[cornerstone]

1 hour ago, Timelord said:

my psychiatrist would secretly put me too sleep with a good cyanide anitpressant

 

I think you need to double check your psychiatrist's credentials!  This one seems a little severe. 

 

It's all complicated by them being speculative assets for some buyers at the moment, it adds a whole different dimension. 

[Timelord]

11 minutes ago, GShocked said:

Give the OWC a look , I love my bond model. Rolex doesn't have to innovate monthly/yearly...ETA is kicking their butt in innovation as of this time. Oris has innovated a bit. Sinn has done nice things too. 

,

you mean this one?

 

 

The only criticism  of this one is that they could have used a Soprod, or even an STP genuine equivalent Swiss movement!  Look there are lots of choices with exceptional qualities minus the astronomical over inflated price tag!

 

I have also had Technos with eta 2830 movements which are the same as the 2836 but much better with the removable screw from the balance [censored] and the incabloc setting which was chronometer certified!  What a gem of a watch this was!  I also had a Technos eta 2832 high beat 36000 high was also chronometer! Such an easy movement to work with!  
 

I also had a 18k gold king seiko high beat!  Foolishly sold it to buy a 18039 day date which I also sold for the same price I purchased it!  Some great profit that was!  Yet the spell I was under was to buy Rolex which later the excorcist price tag cured me from! Lol!

19 minutes ago, cornerstone said:

 

I think you need to double check your psychiatrist's credentials!  This one seems a little severe. 

 

The biggest problem with that industry is trying to work oout who is the patient and who is he “”therapist””

I believe not even Einstein was able to solve that complex equation!

[GShocked]

I have the soprod A10-2 model, he offers seagull and soprod

8 minutes ago, Timelord said:

you mean this one?

 

 

The only criticism  of this one is that they could have used a Soprod, or even an STP genuine equivalent Swiss movement!  Look there are lots of choices with exceptional qualities minus the astronomical over inflated price tag!

 

I have also had Technos with eta 2830 movements which are the same as the 2836 but much better with the removable screw from the balance [censored] and the incabloc setting which was chronometer certified!  What a gem of a watch this was!  I also had a Technos eta 2832 high beat 36000 high was also chronometer! Such an easy movement to work with!  
 

I also had a 18k gold king seiko high beat!  Foolishly sold it to buy a 18039 day date which I also sold for the same price I purchased it!  Some great profit that was!  Yet the spell I was under was to buy Rolex which later the excorcist price tag cured me from! Lol!

The biggest problem with that industry is trying to work oout who is the patient and who is he “”therapist””

I believe not even Einstein was able to solve that complex equation!

 

he has a Bond big crown model, I have it.very good quality. 

https://www.ablogtowatch.com/owc-milsub-ms-6538-james-bond-large-crown-watch-review/

[Nanuq]

2 hours ago, Timelord said:

...Let’s not forget that Rolex mostly used Aegler movements until the early 1950’s and even their cosmograoh which was in Paul Newman’s watch record breaking auction killer used  a valjoux chronograph! 

 

...Nobody is denying that Rolex are a great piece but not for  5 to even 20 times more than an equivalent quality timepiece!

 

Here is perhaps the perfect example.  I'm wearing this one today, 

 

 

And this one sits in a box in Seattle.  Same movement, generally the same watch, but one is 50 to 100x the price of the other.

 

 

55 minutes ago, cornerstone said:

It's all complicated by them being speculative assets for some buyers at the moment, it adds a whole different dimension. 

 

One nice thing about buying a Rolex, once you've bought into the game, you can wear them forever for free.  Plop down $1,800 for a GMT Master in the late 90s, early 2000s, and sell it today for 10x that amount.

 

Unless it's a Clownmaster that nobody really wants, you'll only make money on the beasties.

 

[freddy333]

3 hours ago, Timelord said:

We obviously control the market when considering  an idiot like me spent all his youths savings on both a submariner and a presidential where I could have been wiser in my spending!  Rolex is a great timepiece, but not necessarily reflective of their asking prices at authorised dealers!  My opinion only!

 

Of course, you make some good points. However, if you had purchased non-Rolex diver & formal watches in your youth, how much do you think they would be worth today? In contrast, how much is your vintage Sub & Day/Date worth today?

These, of course, are rhetorical questions because we all know that Rolex watches generally gain value over time & those cheaper, ETA-powered watches generally lose value. We also know that 1950s Rolex watches are timeless & remain relevant & stylish today. Although there are some exceptions, most of the cheaper watches from the same time period are not. And that is why so many 'crazy' people think Rolexes ARE worth the (albeit often crazy) price of admission.

[automatico]

Rule 1:  The buyer sets the price.  Three exceptions that quickly come to mind are food, medicine, and gasoline.  You gotta eat, get check ups, and drive to the strip joint store.

Yeah I know they make electric cars but I don't have a cord long enough to get to the Starlight Club.

 

Imho...higher end watches exist and are expensive only because people will pay the price.  With watches, cars, jewelry etc, serious buyers set the price.  Otoh, it will be 'worth' much less than current market prices to an uninterested party so they will not buy one. 

 

No matter what, I seriously doubt a new Timex will ever sell for $20,000.00 or a new rolex submariner will be $1199.00 at Costco because of the manufacturing cost differences and perception of their 'worth'.  

With high end watches...you pay your money and you usually get screwed make your choice.   

 

Btw...if you all could see my pile of watches you could tell I have made some really bad choices.  Ha!   

[Nanuq]

How about a comparison in a parallel industry?

 

I have a 1963 Colt Python in .357 magnum.  Or you can buy a new Taurus .357 magnum for $330.  Both go bang when you pull the trigger, the Taurus holds more rounds, the Python is a little more reliable and shoots a little better.  But only one of them says PYTHON on the barrel, and it costs ten times as much.  Is it ten times better as a pistol?

 

[KB]

This has probably been said many times in this thread but Rolex's are so expensive because they sell every watch they make.

BTW hi gang

[freddy333]

1 hour ago, Nanuq said:

I have a 1963 Colt Python in .357 magnum.  Or you can buy a new Taurus .357 magnum for $330....Is it ten times better as a pistol?

 

Exactly. Similarly, both a new Prius & a 1961 XKE will get you to the store, but 1 will always make you feel like gold & the other just makes you look fashionably green.

 

p.s., I'm jealous of your '63 Python (been considering 1 of the new Pythons, but have too many things that already go bang to justify the cost)!

[GShocked]

To each their own, I'd personally take a Seamaster 300 over the Submariner because it has a more sporty look to it. METAS is stricter too vs chronometer. Rolex is classic obviously, but that's all they are ever going to be. 

But I'm not planning on ever spending so much money so it doesn't really matter. 

Edited October 4, 2021 by GShocked