teddy boy Posted July 9, 2007 Report Share Posted July 9, 2007 In deciding whether the rep is too expensive relative to the gen, is the relevant criteria as a percentage of the gen's purchase price or absolute dollar difference(our Euros, pounds or whatever your currency may be)? The thing that made me consider this question is that several people posted that it was stupid to buy a superocean rep when you could buy used gens in excellent condition for $1500 or so. That makes the rep about 20% of the purchase price of an excellent used gen. Other people responded that the differece is still over $1000 and the good reps have the exact same movement as the gen, albeit unmodified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willith Posted July 9, 2007 Report Share Posted July 9, 2007 To me I don't know if there's so much a % difference I'm looking for. Sometimes it's as much as, lets say I can buy a rep PAM111 for $250 and it uses the same movement as the gen, you can buy aftermarket straps and a new crown/cannon pin and have something about 90% as accurate as the gen or you can pay $3500+ for the real watch, it just doesn't make sense. Then there's times when I'm going to see if I like the watch or it's size so I can buy a rep and "test drive" the watch and see if it works, pay $750 for a nice PAM187 or $10K for a real one and find that I don't like it. Then you can add in that there are some watches that would be fun to wear, but who wants to spend thousands on a watch with a roulette wheel on the dial when you can buy a rep for a few hundred and still have the same fun. I don't know if this even came close to answering your question, but I figured I would ramble on for a while and see if it helped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted July 9, 2007 Report Share Posted July 9, 2007 I guess people will all have their own criteria by which they judge something's value. Personally, I am a penny-pinching JewBoy... I won't pay more for anything than absolutely necessary, and will not pay huge price tags simply because something has a 'Brand Name'. In terms of watches, I'm not desperate to pass the watch off as genuine, so I don't care if the watch is only 80-95% accurate. As long as there are no glaring errors like spelling mistakes or movement faults, I'm happy enough. In terms of what I'm prepared to pay, my personal limit is about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted July 9, 2007 Report Share Posted July 9, 2007 I definitely lean toward the rep/gen ratio approach and away from absolute dollars. But IMHO in order for it to be relevant you have to be able to get that rep very close in terms of aesthetics and functionality. My ratio tops out around 10-12% with the same functionality and a serviced movement. I will go higher for original movement and strong aesthetics. A 7753 196 for $650 plus another $100-200 for relume, datewheel and improved crown leaves you at a 13-15% rep/gen ratio and very good as relates to functionality and aesthetics. I would rather save up for that than buy the Asian 7750 version for $250-300. Other watches like Ultimate PO and Inge work out to about the same ratio after mods. Every once in a while you will find that fabulous anomaly like the VC Overseas or SFSO which even after a mod or two will come in well under 10%. So for me $ are irrelevant other than I can buy fewer if I am going after more expensive ones. Whatever you budget is it is. We all have one. If a rep is not reasonably close to the gen I top out at $100-150 because then it is more of a novelty item. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FxrAndy Posted July 9, 2007 Report Share Posted July 9, 2007 It is not a buying prerequisite as to what % of the gen the rep costs but it makes me feel good when i get 90% of the watch @10% of the price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teddy boy Posted July 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2007 It is not a buying prerequisite as to what % of the gen the rep costs but it makes me feel good when i get 90% of the watch @10% of the price. The reason I raised the question is that I'm pretty conflicted on this one myself. In searching for the gen Omega SMP that I bought, I realized that I could buy a brand new Breitling Super Ocean Steelfish for about $2000. That means that the rep price is 15% or so which seems like a lot. However, you are saving $1700 and the watches have the same basic movement, althought the gen is modded. There is most likely a Superocean in my future, I guess I'll decide whether it's the gen or the rep when the time comes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWP Posted July 10, 2007 Report Share Posted July 10, 2007 The relevance is your budget and your pocketbook. The SFSO swiss rep is an excellent watch with a superior build to it. However, after having many of these pass through my hands you cannot overlook the fact that these are built in back street sweatshops. I have gotten movements that grind when you rotate the crown. Date wheels that do not turn, or if they do they turn at the wrong time. Crowns that pull of, or strip the threads on the tube. The price is great for the amount of watch you get, but face the fact for $2000 you can have a perfect watch backed by a warranty and a company that stands behind them. I own both the rep and the gen. I have to say that side by side you really have to look close at the watch to tell. The question is how much are you willing to spend? $360 for a watch that might at anytime breakdown, or $2000 on something that will last longer than your life. Movement wise it is like comparing a gremlin to a Shelby Mustang GT500. No comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbie Posted July 10, 2007 Report Share Posted July 10, 2007 I go by absolute price. A rep is still a rep no matter how good some of them may be. It's still a bit of a crap shoot in terms of longevity of the movement, crown tube, etc. What if the gen costs $200k? Going by the 10% goal some have quoted, that's still a $20k price tag and you're probably not getting any better quality than a $150 rep of some other watch. I absolutely refuse to pay the $500 price tag for some of the "super reps" such as the HBB. The gen may be $10k or so so it's still a significant savings but I'll still spend $250 on a rep of a $2k watch over that any day. In addition, I'll then consider adding some mods such as AR crystal, lume, gen hands (maybe) and servicing (most likely if it's something I plan on keeping). That can bring my price tag up significantly, but I wouldn't mind because I'm actually getting some quality for my money. If the higher priced reps came with better QC, parts, etc. I'd be okay with it but they don't seem to e.g. .The Zigmeister's opinion of the HBB or the many faults I've read with the Cousteau Diver. In the end, I consider a sale of 35% off the price tag of any product or service to be a pretty good deal so no matter how cheap the gens of some of the $200 reps I'd buy are, I'm still pretty good to pay those prices and don't fact in the "Well I could buy a used gen for "only" another thousand bucks". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted July 10, 2007 Report Share Posted July 10, 2007 A rep is not a rep and a gen is not a gen. A watch is a watch. I always love the references to $20,000 gens. If you have ever owned one or have friends who do you know that it varies greatly. Many reps I own keep better time than significantly more expensive gens. The only thing a Patek Perpetual calendar ever did for me was get sent back and forth to Switzerland perpetually for servicing. The wife's Breguet is perpetually losing time. A colleague's Patek Tourbillon is currently serving as a paper weight. Funny, but not that funny. Ever compare a genuine $15,000 FM Vegas to the $99 rep. The rep's roulette mechanism is substantially better. I am not saying that a rep is as good as a gen. Two entirely different concepts. Gen's have substantially more attention paid to the detail and build quality as they should. But a properly serviced watch (not $50 novelty item of course) which does not have fundamental design flaws should last a lifetime irrespective of who made it. And I absolutely factor in the the rep/gen ratio. It is not the end all and be all but what it does protect you from is ending up investing $500 in a watch you can buy for $1,000. And we all know a number of reps that fall into this category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWP Posted July 10, 2007 Report Share Posted July 10, 2007 A rep is not a rep and a gen is not a gen. A watch is a watch. I always love the references to $20,000 gens. If you have ever owned one or have friends who do you know that it varies greatly. Many reps I own keep better time than significantly more expensive gens. The only thing a Patek Perpetual calendar ever did for me was get sent back and forth to Switzerland perpetually for servicing. The wife's Breguet is perpetually losing time. A colleague's Patek Tourbillon is currently serving as a paper weight. Funny, but not that funny. Ever compare a genuine $15,000 FM Vegas to the $99 rep. The rep's roulette mechanism is substantially better. I am not saying that a rep is as good as a gen. Two entirely different concepts. Gen's have substantially more attention paid to the detail and build quality as they should. But a properly serviced watch (not $50 novelty item of course) should last a lifetime irrespective of who made it. And I absolutely factor in the the rep/gen ratio. It is not the end all and be all but what it does protect you from is ending up investing $500 in a watch you can buy for $1,000. And we all know a number of reps that fall into this category. It is what it is and it aint what it aint lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted July 10, 2007 Report Share Posted July 10, 2007 Exactly - its all relative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbie Posted July 10, 2007 Report Share Posted July 10, 2007 Have you ever owned a $20,000 gen? Nope and nor will I ever. $5k is the most I would ever consider spending on a watch. A rep is not a rep and a gen is not a gen.We're going to have to disagree on that one. But let me explain why I said what I said. Yes, there is going to be variations in watches. Someone may get a rep SFSO that works perfectly awesome and keeps time within +/- 2 seconds/day and I may get one that breaks in 5 hours. So in that regard, a rep is not a rep. However, the main point for me is what happens when The Zigmeister, for example, decides he's had enough and packs it in. There's still FF, rbj, etc. that does work on reps but these individuals are few and far between. So in X years, if no one's available, all of us with reps are SOL if anything goes wrong unless we happen to have the skill set (and most do not) to fix said problem or, more likely, service the watch. With a gen, this is not an issue. There is always going to be someone available to do the work as long as you have $ in hand. A watch is a watch. Fair enough and I understand the point you made below. But that's another reason I will never spend exorbitant amounts of money on a watch. I like time pieces but in the end, they're "just watches". It may be blasphemy for some members on here (from the posts I've read) but I will happily wear a Timex, Fossil, or quartz watch if I like the style. I like the "prestige" and connotation of $$$ of being seen with a(n) [insert expensive watch here] but, to me, that's just a bonus. The main reason I have X watch on my wrist is because I like the style. Many reps I own keep better time than significantly more expensive gens. The only thing a Patek Perpetual calendar ever did for me was get sent back and forth to Switzerland perpetually. The wife's Breguet is perpetually losing time. A colleague's Patek Tourbillon is currently serving as a paper weight. Funny, but not that funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbie Posted July 10, 2007 Report Share Posted July 10, 2007 (edited) Well you edited your post while I was typing up a reply to it. Will just add in a bit more below. I always love the references to $20,000 gens. I pulled that $200k figure out of referral to the recent news of the guy in Russia that lost (since found) his $200k watch in the river and is how I ended up with the 10% equivalent i.e. $20,000. Many reps I own keep better time than significantly more expensive gens. The only thing a Patek Perpetual calendar ever did for me was get sent back and forth to Switzerland perpetually for servicing. The wife's Breguet is perpetually losing time. A colleague's Patek Tourbillon is currently serving as a paper weight. Funny, but not that funny. Ever compare a genuine $15,000 FM Vegas to the $99 rep. The rep's roulette mechanism is substantially better.The thing is that it's not specifically about just keeping time. That is a part of it, yes, but if watch wearers (members of this community and otherwise) were only interested in time-keeping ability we'd all be wearing quartz or digital watches. Most of us on here buy the reps for one or more of the following reasons: 1. Appreciate the technology behind the mechanical watch. 2. Can't afford all the watches they'd like. 3. The style/design/fashion/etc. of the watch. 4. The association/connotation of wearing an expensive watch e.g. the extra attention/service one might receive from being perceived as wealthy. So, again, it's not just about the ability of the rep vs gen vs rep with regards to proper time. But a properly serviced watch (not $50 novelty item of course) which does not have fundamental design flaws should last a lifetime irrespective of who made it. Ideally, yes. And that's why I take heart in some of The Zigmeister's reviews that X movement is almost as good as the Swiss ETA equivalent and should last a lifetime if properly cleaned and lubricated. But that gets back to my previous response regarding availability of individuals to work on those movements over the course of my lifetime... And I absolutely factor in the the rep/gen ratio.It's something I think about. I admit that. But it doesn't factor that heavily into my decision because, as I said previously, even if the gen costs $1,000 and the rep $250 (ignoring all of my previous babble about The Zigmeister et. al. being around to service it) I'm still saving a whopping $750. To me, whether my income is $300k or $30k, $750 is still $750. It's not as good a deal as spending $250 on a "$10k watch" but it's still a deal. If I could be assured that price was directly related to quality, etc. I'd perhaps be willing to spend $1,000 on a $10,000 watch. That's still way under my self-imposed $5,000 limit. But that's not the case. That $1k is still getting me a replica movement that is likely a lot more troublesome that the real deal. Hence my decision to not just go by relative ratio of cost and instead choosing to have an absolute figure. It is not the end all and be all but what it does protect you from is ending up investing $500 in a watch you can buy for $1,000. And we all know a number of reps that fall into this category. Fair enough. I agree with you in a sense. But again, on the flip side something like my Tag Link cost me $239 shipped. Add to that an approximate cost of $230 to get it serviced by The Zigmeister (just to calrify, I have not yet because I just got it). Let's round up and make it an even $500. Suppose I could be relatively certain that there would always be someone around to service the watch every 5 years even if I had to ship the watch off to Uzbekistan. The gen only costs around $2k new and I don't know how much used, so let's say around $1200. I'm only saving $700 but the watch, for all intents and purposes, looks almost exactly like the gen (barring the date wheel and I really don't care) so that $700 is still money saved that could go towards something else because I'm perfectly happy with it. Uggh, I think I lost track of whatever the hell my point was. Hope you can follow my rambling. Edited July 10, 2007 by Jumbie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepsea Posted July 10, 2007 Report Share Posted July 10, 2007 I absolutely refuse to pay the $500 price tag for some of the "super reps" such as the HBB. The gen may be $10k or so so it's still a significant savings but I'll still spend $250 on a rep of a $2k watch over that any day.Absolutely agree. Price ratio is not importmant for me. At least mostly... I compare the uniqueness of the watch and the technical/finishing quality... I'm keen on giving $10k to a gen IWC Big Pilot, but I'd never give the same money to a gen Panerai 127... never. ever. a best rep pam 127 with required modifications is more than enough for me. On the other hand; gens must be inspected or owned for some time in order to compare... and I'm not talking about Panerai, Rolex and Omega... When you inspect closely or own a higher grade watch (Audemars Piguet, Vacheron Constantin or expensiver IWC's etc) you feel reps are astonishing compared to these brands... at least it was so for me... Many reps I own keep better time than significantly more expensive gens. This doesn't mean much... I have a Russian pocket watch that I bought below $20... It keeps perfect time... So what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted July 10, 2007 Report Share Posted July 10, 2007 Where possible, I just buy a bunch of parts and build my own gen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted July 10, 2007 Report Share Posted July 10, 2007 If You have the skills, Ubi has the right idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbie Posted July 10, 2007 Report Share Posted July 10, 2007 If You have the skills, Ubi has the right idea. I don't. I can barely dress myself. I really wish I had the ability to do what a few select individuals on this, and other, forum can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archibald Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 Percentage all the way... My formula would look something like this: My subjective judgement of the reps accuracy + the degree to which I covet the watch - the hassle of having the watch modded = the % of the lowest cost of a used gen I will shell out. For an already modded, ultra-accurate rep that has the same base movement as a gen I absolutely love I can see myself spending 35% of the lowest used gen price. For an accurate but not mindblowing rep that I have to source parts, pay a watchsmith, and wait I'd never go over 15%, which sadly will probably exclude watches like the SFSO from my collection forever. I just bought a rep which, after a final mod to make it not-even-a-wis-could-call-me-out accurate, will end up costing about 30% of a used gen, When you convert that into absolute terms, I got the watch (what does it mater, rep or gen, when nobody can tell the diff w/o opening it?) at 70% off the lowest price it's probably ever sold for. Ain't reps great? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted July 14, 2007 Report Share Posted July 14, 2007 Since I did that one too I guess I violated my own rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t Posted July 14, 2007 Report Share Posted July 14, 2007 i hate this type of discussions i told it many time and will say it again: PLEASE DON`T COMPARE PRICES FROM REPLICAS WITH PRICES FROM GENUINE WATCHES this is absolute unfair. do you know why a gen watch cost $4.000? here are nearly 40% for marketing costs, 10% for development, 10% for QC, 10% aftersale service etc etc etc... and a watch factory in Swiss has MUCH MORE costs as a replica factory in China. it is easy to copy a finished product... it is easy to sell a replica. No marketing costs, no costs for development, no costs for QC, no costs for after sale service and i factory in china will cost less money... it is totaly UNFAIR to copy a product and sell replicas... that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted July 14, 2007 Report Share Posted July 14, 2007 The main reason I have X watch on my wrist is because I like the style. Same here i hate this type of discussions i told it many time and will say it again: PLEASE DON`T COMPARE PRICES FROM REPLICAS WITH PRICES FROM GENUINE WATCHES this is absolute unfair. do you know why a gen watch cost $4.000? here are nearly 40% for marketing costs, 10% for development, 10% for QC, 10% aftersale service etc etc etc... and a watch factory in Swiss has MUCH MORE costs as a replica factory in China. it is easy to copy a finished product... it is easy to sell a replica. No marketing costs, no costs for development, no costs for QC, no costs for after sale service and i factory in china will cost less money... it is totaly UNFAIR to copy a product and sell replicas... that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornerstone Posted July 14, 2007 Report Share Posted July 14, 2007 What Tourby says is absolutely right - but in a way the original question still stands, once you strip out all those costs of legitimate business - what is everyone's yardstick for 'value'? Or to put it another way, at what price from a Chinese dropshipper who doesn't have all those costs do you stop and go...hang on, perhaps I should have a quick look in the TZ sales corner.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t Posted July 14, 2007 Report Share Posted July 14, 2007 Same here Sorry, but I must disagree here. Yes, the 'background costs' you mentioned do all play a part, but ultimately, a genuine watch has the price tag it does, because the Company knows that someone will pay it. I mean, seriously, if factories in China (where some gen parts originate anyway) can produce the same watch for a fraction of the price (yes, I know the R&D costs aren't there) which is just as good as The Real Thing, what is it that actually makes the End Product, worth these vast price tags? Look at the latest offerings from Rolex. What kind of R&D has gone into them? A bunch of exec's watching MTV and saying "Hmmm, young people with champaigne lifestyles and beer tastes.... This is money in our pockets, homes..." The result: A load of blinged out garbage that only the most tasteless and brand-conscious would dream of purchassing. That hardly justifies the price tag... what you are told here???? you ask about profit? A gen watch and a rep has same profit. One cost $2.000 and will sell for $4.000... other will cost $100 and will sell for $200. That Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted July 14, 2007 Report Share Posted July 14, 2007 PLEASE DON`T COMPARE PRICES FROM REPLICAS WITH PRICES FROM GENUINE WATCHES I agree. If one Replica is $200 and the corresponding genuine is $2000 but another replica is the same $200 but the corresponding genuine is $4000, should I get the copy of the cheaper watch or the copy of the more expensive watch? One is "a better savings" and the other is "more realistic to my income". I pay the price I think a replica is worth, regardless of the price of the genuine, unless of course, the price of a genuine is within striking distance of the price of a replica. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted July 14, 2007 Report Share Posted July 14, 2007 what you are told here???? you ask about profit? A gen watch and a rep has same profit. One cost $2.000 and will sell for $4.000... other will cost $100 and will sell for $200. That Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.