The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Now thats entertaining. Sleek an modern if you like rubber bezels, very modern; I wish Rolex would get with the times and give me a rubber sub, what are they thinking

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

More entertaining than a Rolex fanboy losing it on a Breitling board ...???

Dude I've had 17 Breitlings and only 4 Rolex, I'm a Breitling fan so chill the &$?! Out.

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

Serge are you making a new friend LOL

_________________
End of Discussion.

My life wouldn't be balanced without some form of watch forum controversy. I long for it.

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

I wouldn't buy a pre-owned Rolex Explorer from the jeweler you listed unless they knocked quite a bit off the price.

By gold chronomat I assumed you meant including a gold bracelet - comparing apples (SS watch with SS bracelet) to oranges (gold watch with gold bracelet). The bracelet versus the strap is part of the price difference to the Rolex with a SS bracelet.

So why do gold models of most brands lose so much on resale? As near as I can tell, the person who buys new pays a considerable premium above the cost difference of the metal. So what happens on resale? Why wouldn't the gold retain instrinsice value or even appreciate? Well, because the gold is molded into the shape of a watch case, has a movement in it, a dial, crystal. It's not a hunk of gold - it's a watch. Take any basic 18k gold chain in and you can get near the going value of the gold. It's just a chain. All the other things discussed in this thread impact resale value of the watch. The gold chain is effectively a hunk of gold.

Also, the demand for a solid gold Chronomat housing a reworked 7750 movement is different than, say, a higher end watch where the metal used is an insginificant cost factor.

Bottom line - whether it's a SS Chronomat or gold Chronomat, they will resell in the ballpark of 50% of original retial. A Rolex will resale at between 75%-over 100% depending on model and likewise it will make no difference to the percentage depreciation for gold versus SS.

All of the above is rather broad brush, but you get the idea.

_________________
SHARKMAN

I think it really all boils down to the fact that Rolex has done an unbelievable job of promoting their brand. They have created a demand for their timepieces that is 2nd to none. Ask any person on the street to name one high end watch brand (you know kinda like the old gam show Family Fued", and a bet you 80 out of 100 people will say Rolex. That does not mean they are the best...just that they have done a better job than their competitors at creating a brand that is easily recognized and thought highly of. Then you add to that the fact that Rolex makes a he'll of a watch, and now you have WIS wanting to buy their watches.

Not to say that PP, AP, JLC, GO, etc don't make better or more complicated or higher quality timepieces...but the same demand just isn't there. That's why the resale value isn't the same % of the retail price.

Hindsight is obviously 20/20...really not a good fiscal decision to select quartz (anything) vs a Rolex. With that said, vintage Rolex watches are getting a decent price on the used market.

_________________
Breitling SuperOcean Steelfish - 2009
Breitling B-2 - 2002
Rolex DateJust 18k/ SS (1984 vintage)
Omega Seamaster (1958 vintage)
Maurice Lacroix Masterpiece MP6318 - 2003
Tag Heuer Carrera Chronograph CV2013-3
Victorinox DiveMaster 500

Well yes hindsight is a good thing - however I didn't buy the Jupiter as an investment. Likewise the other watches I have. I got them because I liked them; if I liked the look of Rolex I would have got the Rolex. Actually, the Jupiter is probably now worth around £1,500 going by recent sale prices; quite rare now! Even today I would still prefer the Jupiter over the Explorer 2; for a self winder I have the Chronomat (yes I know, which one to wear; then there is the Emergency Orbiter watch... decisions, decisions... nice dilema to have!).

Incidentally please don't make this thread a Rolex bashing session; I was just after general 'chat' about why Rolexes seem to hold their value compared to other brands, even the really top ones like Jaeger, PP, etc etc. Rolex are really nice, you know; just their s/h values make no sense to me. Likewise even their gold watches are not (relatively) very highly priced; for example a gold day-date with a leather strap comes in close to a steel Datejust; that wasn't the case about ten/twenty years ago.

But like I said previously, it can only really be a good thing for me looking for a goldie; plenty of choice out there. Now to start saving!

Dude I've had 17 Breitlings and only 4 Rolex, I'm a Breitling fan so chill the &$?! Out.[/quote]

Yeah but how many do you have left of each. Definitely a Rolex fanboy Serge, I mean the JLC's, IWC's, Breguet's, multiple PAM's, Breitlings, Zeniths and Omegas and the AP you've owned in no way make your opinion about the Swiss watch market relevant.

_________________
"Leave the gun, take the cannoli."

Not that Serge needs any help defending himself, but I think he entered the discussion as a response to posters blasting Rolex as a brand not worth the money, or of inferior styling or construction. Everybody here has admitted that styling is subjective, but reciting everything he has owned and owns now, I think you just qualified him as someone who has owned a lot of high-end brands, and can speak to how good Rolex is by hands-on comparative analysis.

_________________
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

Once more - supply (controlled by the manufacturer) and demand (influenced by the manufacturer) are the entire answer.

As for Rolex, no one can dispute 2 things - (1) they are excellent timepieces and (2) they must be combining a nice product, artful supply control, and masterful demand influence because they consistently beat the living crap out of all comers in production and sales.

Boring? Hmm, I've owned a couple JLCs and IWCs etc...and didnt find them any more exciting than the GMT Master IIc that's been on my wrist while traveling the past week.

But for pure visual presence and fun, I still fall back on the classic rider tab Breitlings. Different watches for different purposes.

_________________
SHARKMAN

Normally I stay out of these debates but, in this case I can partially agree with the OP. I'll use the SubC as an example.

The innovation of the SubC is little to none. The watch is powered by the 3135 which is hardly ground-breaking. Yes, yes it is an entirely in-house movement and good for them. For god's sake don't give them credit on the Glidelock as an innovation. It is a beautiful feature in every way. I love the adjustability and wish I owned a watch with that feature. However, this clasp is from the company that churned out the same POS bracelet for 10 years too long. The ceramic bezel and it's movement are lovely but, they were not the first to make that move. Rolex claims their 904 SS is some kind of god-send but, it was a readily available alloy when they decided to use it. Yes, they are the only manufacturer to use that particular alloy but, it does not make a substantive difference. If I made a watch of 409 SS would anyone know the difference beyond what their AD has told them? Don't even try to preach corrosion resistance...

The OP made a good point. The pre-owned Rolex market is driven by the prices of new Rolex watches (no surprise) and the relative demand for Rolex watches in general - neither of which make sense at all. If half of the world with the funding to buy a Rolex had equal knowledge of modern watches they wouldn't step near a Datejust II at $9k. They're getting taken plain and simple. There are countless manufacturers with equal or better qualifications that offer a nicer and more complete watch at the same price point. AP has done with the ROO what Rolex has done with their entire brand - they charge that much because they can. Consider them the Aston Martin of the watch world.

Now the sensibility in my post... Why is the SubC popular at it's somewhat ridiculous USD price?? It offers a package that no other manufacturer has. It is a classically sized diver with modern features, great aesthetics, and simple packaging. Hell, if it didn't have Rolex on the dial I would own one. Unfortunately no other manufacturer offers the same package. Omega took a stab at the SubC with the new PO but, IMO they didn't quite get the job done. Maybe Breitling will compete??? (OK...that last sentence was a joke)

Serge, if you send me hate-mail by PM I promise to post it in this thread.

_________________
Steelfish GMT LE (white)

I don't send hate mail via PM, only fools do that. I have no issue tellin someone to their face in a public forum that I dislike them; I've done it plenty of times

You gloss over the features of the sub as of they're no big deal, 904 ss, ceramic bezel, glide lock clasp, and all in house movement. If its no big deal then every company must be doing it then right?????

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

I think Rolex is what it is. Rolex. The name says it all. It's a great watch company and it's great for the luxury watch "world" in general.

I think the GMT 2c is one of the nicest looking watch out there (although i hate Rolex's hour hand).

Everyone like what they like... so what's the big fuss? Good thing we don't all have the same tastes...that would be quite boring.

_________________
Mat

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