The Breitling Watch Source Forums

There has been various posts on here and general comments I've heard about the price of new Breitlings (and others) being too expensive, but I've noticed some really odd pricing going on with the used market.

For example, when I got my first Swiss watch back in 1992, it was a toss-up between a Breitling Jupiter Pilot, new at £590, or a used Rolex Explorer II at £600. I went for the Jupiter; still going stong today, a really beautiful piece of kit, it is basically a quartz version of the Navitimer; I couldn't stretch to a self-winder at that time! Anyway, looking at the Explorer now and they retail at over £3,500. That is a steel watch, going for a similar price to a used Breitling Chronomat in solid 18K gold.

The Rolex is actually quite commonplace in second hand dealers; it is not as if it is a rare piece or anything. It is no more desirable now than it was when I considered it at the time. I would have thought it would have gone up a little, but a six to seven times increase in value?

Also, how many Rolexes do you see for sale, compared to others, including Breitling, Jaeger, Vacheron, etc etc? This tells me that Rolex are actually turning them out by the thousand - perhaps tens of thousands - so by getting a Rolex you aren't getting anything really special. As an example in my local town, there is a watch dealer selling second hand Rolexes - there are just loads for sale! They do get the occaisional watch from someone else, I remember seeing a Jaeger Reverso, it just looked so much more special. It was in solid 18K gold, £5,000, so about the same price of one of the steel Rolexes. I think it is just madness. Don't get me wrong, Rolexes are very nice watches, but another thing - I've had a look at them, my brother had one, and they are nice, yes, but apart from the 'Rolex thing' I just don't see why they are priced so high. They are certainly not as nicely finished in many respects as Breitlings. At best, they should be about the same value as Breitling; and most certainly a peg below the likes of Jaeger and Patek, etc etc.

Incidentally the Jaeger wasn't for sale for long - maybe that says something!

Many reasons why Rolex is above Breitling in the pricepoint.

One of which are the name of the brand and recognition by everyone. The other is that compared to Breitling (apart from recently), Rolex uses in-house movements, which is more desirable and more expensive to product (i would guess).

I guess the experts can give you another thousand reasons.

_________________
Mat

Breitling Navitimer 01
Omega Seamaster 300mc
Omega Speedmaster Pro "Mitsukoshi Mod"
Seiko Prospek Orange Samurai

Hi SimonC,

Good observation.

I can remember when I went with my wife to Andrew Michaels back in 2008 to buy our latest watches. For me the Airwolf and my wife the Oceane. While we were waiting for the bracelets to be adjusted and the necessary paperwork to be completed etc, a couple who viewed a number of watches next to us finished what they were doing and left. The assistant was about to clear the watches away and so I asked to have a quick look. Two of the watches left were similarly priced around the £3,000 mark - one was a Rolex and the other (you've guessed it) a Breitling. When I compared the 2 side by side - I have to admit that I was surprised. There was just no comparison. The Rolex just looked like a erm ..... watch. The Breitling seemed to be in a different league (please forget my bias here for a sec as I did try to look objectively) - it looked not only functional, but well polished and finished off like a fine piece of good jewellery. Now, if you are paying that kind of money you expect to get something special which is why I am glad I went for the Breitling and not a Rolex.

So in my opinion, the Breitling looked fantastic whereas the Rolex looked....... like a non-descript watch. Granted, looks aren't everything and 'all that sparkles is not gold' but although nice watches - Rolex are just simply boring. Perhaps that is why there are a lot of second hand Rolex watches in your local Jewellers Simon. I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of flak over that one but hey, that's my opinion .

_________________
TAG Professional (Silver/Gold) 2000 - still going strong and kept as spare when Wolf is away.
Breitling B1 (Blue) 2003 - 2008.
Breitling Airwolf (Black Sunburst) 2008 - Date.

The reason you see more Rolex pre-owned for sale is Rolex produces almost one million a year, far more than anyone else. They have the biggest market share of the Swiss industry and thus you will see more pre-owned for sale at any given time. Respectfully it is naive to suggest the number of used Rolex for sale represents owner dissatisfaction. It is simple mathematics. Rolex has a masterful, some might suggest maniacal, control of demand and supply. They rule their ADs with a heavy fist to limit discounting. A family owned jeweler in Phoenix and Rolex AD for 68 years just closed their doors because Rolex found out they were over-discounting. As a rule Rolex retain value very well.

I see many JLC and AP on the for sale boards. These brands produce a fraction of what Rolex does. I'd wager the ratio of used watches for sale to numbers produced is much lower for Rolex than AP Or JLC, especially considering my AP AD told me they produce about 2500 a year.

As for the opinion on their aesthetics, I do not agree personally. And that is all any opinion on a watch brand is - subjective.

IMHO

_________________
SHARKMAN

Well, that makes the world an interesting place of course; if we all liked the same thing it would be a bit boring of course!

Another point I'd like to make - I'm sure a watch expert will be able to explain in intricate detail as to why Rolex are so expensive, yes they may well be better made than other makes, etc etc. However when I got my second watch, a Chronomat GT, it was at the same time as my brother got a Rolex Datejust; the thing is, he wanted a Rolex, nothing was going to make him change his mind. I mean, fantastic, he got what he wanted, great, but how many Jaegers, Audemars, Pateks had he seen before buying? Yes, none. He clearly was seduced by the Rolex 'thing', this image they have about being the absolute ultimate, when in reality a person with a bit of knowledge knows the best watches of all are made by Patek Phillippe, for example. By the way my Chronomat looked so much better finished off and simply a higher quality product than the Rolex.

I've seen many second hand Rolexes costing big money, far more expensive than other makes, and the bracelet is loose, lots of scratches, etc etc yet is still priced very highly. My Pilot bracelet on the Chrono is still as tight as it was when I got it over ten years ago.

So, going to my original post, I think Rolexes are just highly priced second hand because they are seen as the 'ultimate'; but in reality no better than the 'typical' top Swiss maker. I think it is clever marketing; for example, in my local town, you see the usual makers, Cartier, Tag, etc (dare I say it Breitling also) and of course Rolex are far higher priced than those; if there were more Audemars/Jaeger etc for sale I'm sure people would buy less Rolex, just because they would get to see the alternatives more. Oh yes and less marketing spent on things like the Wimbledon tennis tournament where they are one of the main sponsors.

But going back to second hand again - who on Earth would buy a steel Rolex, when for the same money you can get a solid gold Breitling or other quality watch?

I wouldn't want to start the Rolex thing again but I fully agree with you Tom: opinion or/and personal taste is subjective. No one can argue about this.

_________________


- This is Ghost Rider requesting a fly-by. - Negative Ghost Rider. The pattern is full.

Rolex command more value resale because they are Rolex - simple supply and demand and quality has nothing to do with it (or at least very little). Rolex is excellent quality and compares favourably to Breitling in many categories - especially in the models that are being discussed, but there will always be retained value for Rolex because they're Rolex!



Another example of image driving the market.

As Tomcat says, tastes are subjective. But to come on here and say that Rolex are no better than the typical top Swiss maker is absolute rubbish. Have you taken 5 minutes to read about what Rolex does in their factory?? They're one of the only Swiss manufacturers that have a foundry on site where they cast their own metal, they make their own cases, bracelets, and every component of their movement. They don't outsource those functions to other companies, they do it all themselves. Their steel is basically surgical grade steel and their manufacturing capabilities far exceed the nearest two competitors Omega and Breitling.

If you don't like their look or their design or how they manipulate their dealers or how they advertise, that's fine, but your other comments are off base.

_________________
"I don't own any watches, I just lease them"

One can argue about how boring Rolexes can be, but Breitling has arguably had the opposite problem. Many of us have complained about all the changes in the last year and a lack on continuity. That's not how to continue building and nurturing a brand. And that's after a very successful period of time in which Breitling was popular because it made hay and maxed out on bling during the bling craze. Watch companies have done well over the years making only variations of a strong singular visual theme i.e. Panerai. Their prices, like Rolex, don't make sense either. But they, and in particular Rolex, built a product and established a look easily recognizable and highly thought of. To most folks, Rolex may be the only 'nice' watch they actually know of. They wouldn't know the first thing about a Patek and furthermore wouldn't want one because it made no sense to them.

As some of you know, I have been in the process of re-doing my collection, selling some of my watches to pull some cash out for a while and replacing some for a smaller collection. Which one was the easiest to sell? Of course, a Rolex. Didn't matter that there are tons out there for sale. For that same reason, and the fact that it's a very nice watch, not the best but very nice, one of the replacement watches in my reduced collection will likely be a Rolex.

_________________
Scott

AP Royal Oak 15400, silver
Zenith Chronomaster El Primero Classic Cars
Vintage gold Corum
Rolex DJ 36 TT, oyster dial, oyster/smooth
Baume & Mercier Riviera 200m, silver dial/aquamarine bezel
Breitling Superocean 57, rose/stainless

Scott, I think you've hit the nail on the head with the fact that Rolex have a strong recognisable theme. Their 20 year old Submariners look similar to the current Submariners for example. The changes have been relatively subtle.

If you looked at some 20 year old watches from other brands and compare it to their current equivilant model I think it would be fair to say you could easily see the difference.

I can easily see why some people may think Rolex wacthes are boring but to me their just a classic design.

That's easy, if you're producing the same design for 30 years.




It will, eventually, stick somewhere.

And, it's one way of keeping their design costs down to a minimum.

_________________


- This is Ghost Rider requesting a fly-by. - Negative Ghost Rider. The pattern is full.

Yes of course - however I think you have misunderstood me. Of course Rolex is a supreme quality watch maker. It is just that when you look at the absolute top of the Swiss watch industry, Patek Phillipe are for me at the very top, followed by companies like Jaeger, Vacheron, Audermars, etc etc. Rolex are probably close to these; Breitling also. When you see the amount of watch companies offering watches, to be in the 'top 10' is a tremendous achievement, and Rolex are definately in there. It is just that when I've seen these second hand Rolexes they just don't seem to have the intrinsic quality of Jaeger, or even Breitling. So this once again links into my original posting. You can get a steel Rolex Explorer 2 that might be 30 years old that is more expensive than a ten years old Chronomat in solid gold. That is my main query. How can the value of these watches make sense? The appeal of the Explorer watch hasn't changed; it has a movement that is 100% Rolex made, OK; but it did twenty years ago, when I bought my first watch. It was worth £600 then; now the same watch retails at over £3,500.

That makes no sense to me, considering other watches from Patek, etc have not gone up by anywhere near this amount. And then looking at Breitling, yes it is correct to say some of their recent offerings are not to everyones' taste; I personally don't really like the Bentley watches, for example (a general rule is these watches will appeal to footballers and celebs, reason enough I suppose LOL). However the value of say the Navitimer has hardly moved; and you can't really get a more famous watch than that. This is what is so odd to me.

100% agree with this statement. In my opinion, Rolex is overrated, overpriced and simply looks old and boring in comparison to the sleek and modern designs of a Breitling watch. Rolex is still popular but no longer holds the same level of prestige to the wearer as it used to maybe 10-20 years ago!

First off, show me the solid gold chronomat I can get for $3k Or 4k like a used Explorer II and I will buy a dozen of them. There are certain models/years of Rolex that are considered collector pieces and I really don't get that either, but the run of the mill Used Explorer, GMT Master, Sub, or Date Just (gold/silver) do not command that sort of price. They are all over the TZ and watchnet under $5k forums.  

Also precious metal watches simply take a bigger hit on the used market. Buying a new gold watch and then later selling it results in a much larger percentage loss than SS, regardless of brand.  Just because the price of gold of gold increases does not mean a gold watch retains more value - you get bludgeoned on gold watch resale. 

A point I believe Roff made is that while most of us assume PP is the preeminent brand, there is marketing image involved there as well. Their prices are artificially inflated by image, marketing, and supply and demand control. In other words, any given PP isn't likely ten times the watch a JLC Master Calendar is. But we have been lead to believe they are. 

Rolex has increased more than Breitling, true. Why? Because they CAN! It isn't more complicated than that. Rolex will price their product to the point allowed by their own demand and supply profile. 

Meanwhile,  Breitling was busy making a valient and succesful effort to establish itself as a real player. Why didn't Breitling increase price as much as Rolex?  Because they could NOT.  Their specific demand and supply picture was different than Rolex. But once they established their firm market position the price increases came more and more often. Rolex had an 8% increase this summer. Breitling had two 4% increases this year. Guess who had a higher % increase. And the new models are priced higher,  even those without in-house movements. 

What about PP? Given their price point they simpy cannot look at trying to match the % increases of Rolex or they wouldn't have a single watch under $100k. 

So I do "get" it as a function of basic microeconomics 101. That's all it is. 

_________________
SHARKMAN

[quote="sharkman]First off, show me the solid gold chronomat I can get for $3k Or 4k like a used Explorer II and I will buy a dozen of them.[/quote]

OK; here we go. This is an Explorer 2 in my local dealer, Market Cross Jewellers. This in fact was the same place where I considered the second hand Explorer 2 all those years ago for £600 (UKP) - don't think it is the same one LOL:

http://www.marketcrossjewellers.com/wat ... dial-p1696

And here was have a second hand 18K Chronomat being sold in a dealer in Southern England (look about 4/5ths the way down the page):

http://rgwatches.co.uk/page6.php

Which is about typical prices for this watch; OK not quite the same value but close enough. Searches on the 'net gives plenty of gold Chronomats at below £4k.

So this illustrates what I mean. Yes so a gold watch loses a lot of value on the second hand market, but how come they lose so much? New, these were about £9K wth a solid gold case/leather strap - so if they were new today they would be around £20K (can't exactly compare with the current Chronomat as they are a different size now).

Actually though, I'm not too bothered; I have a lovely set of watches; I am looking to add to this with a gold one; I've always wanted a solid gold watch, so it is good news for me, that they are such relatively low prices!