Are Rolex worth the $?

[NutmegCarrera]

Earlier mentioned Air King. Basically a 36mm Oyster Perpetual in a simple white "3 6 9" dial.

Digging it, but miss the Explorer when traveling.

[RSBob]

Nope, but buy it anyway.

[Geronimo '74]

Originally Posted by HHI944

If you're really considering it and have the funds, just do it.
... There's just something about a high end precision machine, whether it's a car, spoon or watch.

This

[javadog]

Originally Posted by CurtEgerer

Jim brings up a good point about servicing costs (for any mechanical watch). It is very expensive. Yes, there are those who say I've owned mine for 20 years and have never done anything to it and it runs. Well, your car may run for a long time too without doing any oil changes.

Anyway, I've often wondered what Rolex's profit margin is on, say, a Submariner? The watch has been around forever with little change. What could it possibly cost to manufacturer one of these things in the volume they're pumping them out? $250? $500? $750, maybe? There's nothing inherently expensive in the materials used. Not bad for a $10,000 watch!

One of the misconceptions here is that Rolex watches look much the same as they always have, therefore the new ones must be substantially the same as the old ones. That's actually incorrect. For example, I doubt there are any parts on a modern submariner that are interchangeable with parts from a submariner of the 70s or 80s. The cases are different, the movements are different, the dials are different, the bezels are different, the crystal is different, the bands are made differently, etc. They may look the same to someone not familiar with them but it is simply not the case. Rolex has a history of making numerous small changes to evolve the precision and reliability of their watches. You have to probably be a watch geek to know this, because it's not something you'll find in their advertising materials. If you subscribe to any of the major watch magazines, you can learn all about this, as they delve into the details when they review a watch, and they also cover major watch expositions where things like this get discussed.

One other, frequent misconception is that a mechanical watch such as a Rolex is always going to be inferior in time keeping to a quartz watch, even the cheapest one. You might be surprised to find that many watches with quartz movements are not all that accurate, over time. You can also adjust a Rolex to keep more accurate time than you think. Any watch will keep time at a different rate depending on the position of the watch, but those rate differences can average out in the normal wearing of a watch. The last new Rolex that I purchased was an Explorer 1 about 15 years ago and I wore that watch continuously, only taking it off periodically to clean it. It neither gained nor lost any time. It was the most reliable and accurate watch I've ever owned. Not all of them are like that, but that sort of accuracy is possible. And, a knowledgeable watch owner can also adjust the long-term rate of their watch, if they take it off at night and experiment with the position that they leave the watch in overnight. Any rate deviations that occur during the day while it is being worn, can often be balanced out by rate changes for a particular resting position of the watch at night.

You also made a comment about materials not being expensive. Rolex is one of the few manufacturers that have gone so far as to make their own materials. You might be surprised to find that they have tweaked the alloys of stainless steel that they use, or invented new formulations for rose gold that are longer lasting, etc. They never were known for spending money on hand finishing their movements, as those would never be seen, but you could never say that they didn't use anything but the best materials available to them.

[sand_man]

Funny story. A couple years ago, I was sitting at a steakhouse bar, enjoying a stiff drink, waiting for a table, and a retired Army Ranger (Vietnam) was sitting next to me and noticed my Rolex. He proceeded to show me his (that didn't come out right): a 1960s no-date Sub that he had purchased new before he enlisted. It had the most amazing patina I've ever seen on a mechanical device...this thing had seen some chit! Anyway, he proceeded to show me his Rolex bar fighting technique. In the heat of battle, he used to take it off his wrist and hold the band in his fist, such that he was using the face of the watch as brass knuckles!!! HAHAHAHHA! I nearly fell off my bar stool laughing!!!!

[javadog]

To expand on what I was talking about before, here's a brief article that talks about the steel that Rolex is using their current watches:

https://precisionwatches.com/rolex-904l-steel/

[Tervuren]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

True dat.

I believe based on some of your posts over the course of this year that tabs may have the right of it in your situation.

But it is difficult to judge from afar some one else's values.

I am not a watch guy to offer any further advice.

[Black968]

People still wear watches? Interesting.

[CurtEgerer]

I'm not disparaging Rolex and I do understand that they manufacture everything in house. An analogy would be Porsche deciding in 1963 that they were going to continue on with the 356 exclusively. No 911, no 996, etc. Just the 356. Yes, they would make tweeks to the design/materials and improvements to the manufacturing process, but 60 years later they were still selling essentially the same 356. Compared to the development and tooling costs of the path Porsche chose, the manufacturing/engineering costs would be almost negligible. A Rolex is basically '356 technology' and that's a big part of the attraction. So I say the cost to produce a Rolex (one without gold, diamonds, etc.) is only in the hundreds of dollars. They aren't handmade - these are production watches with around a million made per year (they're even sold via Walmart these days). The value is in the name. They are awesome watches and the resale speaks for itself.

[Chocaholic]

If I were to get a Rolex, it would be a Submariner Date (stainless) of almost any vintage. It’s truly the “tool watch” in their lineup and aesthetically has not changed much over many decades. Quality is there, no excessive bling and heritage to go with it. The downside is that you’ll see 10 of them every time you walk through an airport or office building.

One other point...as you age, your near vision changes (usually for the worse)...and you won’t always have glasses on. I bought a white dial Daytona some years ago and simply couldn’t read it easily without specs. Sold it a year later. Make sure you select for practical reasons first and foremost.

[GH85Carrera]

Many years ago I went to a buddies house. He was a retired Army Col, and then retired from the commercial real estate business. He lived in an older house, only because he did not want to move. He had more money than he could spend. He wore a Rolex President, covered in diamonds and heavy with gold. I remember he paid more for it and his or my house cost. Of course he used a large bar of silver as a paperweight.

It was an impressive piece of man jewelry. He knew he would never live long enough to spend the money he had earned, and he was right. He was a great guy, and left his fortune to a nice foundation providing scholarships.

[Jims5543]

In that link I posted yesterday there was a 1982 Rolex GMT Master for 13K. If I was in the market I would be looking for one of these.

https://watchestobuy.com/shop/rolex-gmt-master-16750/





If I was dropping 10K on a watch, this would be the one I would go after, number 106 of 150 made, this will only go up in value.

https://watchestobuy.com/shop/tag-heuer-autavia-70th-anniversary-limited-150-rose-gold/

[javadog]

Originally Posted by Jims5543

In that link I posted yesterday there was a 1982 Rolex GMT Master for 13K. If I was in the market I would be looking for one of these.

If I was dropping 10K on a watch, this (Tag Heuer) would be the one I would go after, number 106 of 150 made, this will only go up in value.[/IMG]

To each his own, but a few words of dissent, if I may.

A brand new version of that watch is a better watch in all respects, it is cheaper, more accurate and more practical to own, and Rolex is running short on some of the parts of watches of that vintage, so you may get to the point someday that you can't get it repaired properly.

As for the Heuer, an inexpensive model of that watch would be one thing, but I would not spend 10 grand on one. The quality is not there, and the collectibility is probably less than you think.

[sand_man]

I much prefer the Cerachrom bezel inserts of the "newer" models, compared to the previous material (aluminum? steel?).

[Jims5543]

Originally Posted by javadog

To each his own, but a few words of dissent, if I may.

A brand new version of that watch is a better watch in all respects, it is cheaper, more accurate and more practical to own, and Rolex is running short on some of the parts of watches of that vintage, so you may get to the point someday that you can't get it repaired properly.

As for the Heuer, an inexpensive model of that watch would be one thing, but I would not spend 10 grand on one. The quality is not there, and the collectibility is probably less than you think.

I am by far no expert on what watches will be worth more or less down the line. In my mind a 1 of 150 run of a Heuer will only go up in value over the next 10-20-30 years. Same goes for a vintage Rolex that is extremely popular. I just did a quick search and cannot find another one for sale anywhere.

I am seeing the same vintage GMT going for 8K (Poor shape) to 16K perfect shape. I think this watch is a nice watch to daily wear and still maintain value and go up in value, just from what I am seeing online in a quick search. Being as this one has all the documentation and boxes I think it would be a good purchase.

I found one on Chronotrader for $8,450 and in rough shape.
FS: FS: Rolex GMT Master ref. 1675 w/ Box and Papers


BTW Great site for finding deals, I have used this site a couple of times now.
ChronoTrader Forum - Message Index

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by JavaBrewer

OP, no. Since the time that pocket computers (mobile phones ) arrived the mechanical watch was regulated to man jewelry. They just scream look at me...Rolex being top of that heap. Not a popular opinion here I am sure. Jewelry is for women.

I guess I am old school. I don't currently have a watch, but I miss it. I like the convenience of not having to pull the phone out to see that time it is.

[Oracle]

Not for me but if it fills you, go for it (your money your choice)

But if you're wondering if you should or not.. that means to me you're not 100%

I suggest you wait a bit.. your mind may change and you may hate yourself for spending that much on a watch..

[Rinty]

My wife gave me a GMT for my 28th birthday. I'm 70 now and she died last year, so the watch is a priceless possession. I'll pass it down to my future son in law, and my wife's Rolex has gone to our daughter.

[Rednine11]

I do agree with the early post that stated that pocket cell phones have just about ran the wrist watch obsolete,However on the other side of the coin I say buy it. A new Rolex was always on my bucket list and now its on my wrist. ..OK well usually in the safe.
if you get it PLEASE post pictures as there are no law again watch p@rn ...

[Chocaholic]

Originally Posted by Rinty

My wife gave me a GMT for my 28th birthday. I'm 70 now and she died last year, so the watch is a priceless possession. I'll pass it down to my future son in law, and my wife's Rolex has gone to our daughter.

That’s what it’s all about. Thank you for sharing.