Rolex Price Increase - Due Soon!
Discussion
) might be able to confirm this, but I've read there is going to be a price increase across the Rolex range this month, by about 8-9% ... So wouldn't a Sub be close to £6K new? There's some discussion over on TZ about it; apparently the U.S. have just had their rise, so expected imminently here.
The prices are getting pretty scary, it'd be interesting to see how sales in the 'traditional' markets of the U.S. & Europe are doing nowadays.
A Deep Sea will be getting close to £8k as well...
The prices are getting pretty scary, it'd be interesting to see how sales in the 'traditional' markets of the U.S. & Europe are doing nowadays.
A Deep Sea will be getting close to £8k as well...
It's utter insanity. Rolex has never really appealed to me anyway (well with the exception perhaps of a Milgauss) but their prices are so ludicrous I'd never consider one unless I was swimming in money.
I just bought a 5 year old Octavia VRS loaded with air conditioning, iPod connectivity, CD changer, nice leather seats.. how they can have the nerve to try and charge the same kind of money for what amounts to nothing more than a basic watch is beyond me. But hey.. people pay it so I guess they'll keep screwing their eager customers. Nice business if you can get it!
I just bought a 5 year old Octavia VRS loaded with air conditioning, iPod connectivity, CD changer, nice leather seats.. how they can have the nerve to try and charge the same kind of money for what amounts to nothing more than a basic watch is beyond me. But hey.. people pay it so I guess they'll keep screwing their eager customers. Nice business if you can get it!
Chicane-UK said:
It's utter insanity. Rolex has never really appealed to me anyway (well with the exception perhaps of a Milgauss) but their prices are so ludicrous I'd never consider one unless I was swimming in money.
I just bought a 5 year old Octavia VRS loaded with air conditioning, iPod connectivity, CD changer, nice leather seats.. how they can have the nerve to try and charge the same kind of money for what amounts to nothing more than a basic watch is beyond me. But hey.. people pay it so I guess they'll keep screwing their eager customers. Nice business if you can get it!
Hi, are you really puzzled by Rolex's prices or just letting off steam? A market's price discovery is set by the buyer not the seller, that's basic economics. Rolex can ask their price but enough bidders are needed or the price falls/they discontinue to trade.I just bought a 5 year old Octavia VRS loaded with air conditioning, iPod connectivity, CD changer, nice leather seats.. how they can have the nerve to try and charge the same kind of money for what amounts to nothing more than a basic watch is beyond me. But hey.. people pay it so I guess they'll keep screwing their eager customers. Nice business if you can get it!
Their prices are a reflection partly of the SwissFranc/GBP rate but mostly about the commodity value of their products. Your Octavia was made in massive numbers and so has no commodity value. Start monitoring the price of precious metals, Au/Ag in particular, and the trend will become clear.
A new Sub in 2015 will be north of 10k and there will be no shortage of buyers, just not many from the western hemisphere.
Colin.
longone said:
Hi, are you really puzzled by Rolex's prices or just letting off steam? A market's price discovery is set by the buyer not the seller, that's basic economics.
Not for Rolex it's not.As price increases so does demand. Most people buy Rolex watches because they are expensive, Rolex simply keep increasing price and supply and so long as everyone in China and Russia want the watches everyone knows to be expensive, Rolex can keep selling them.
Rolex must be amazed people are paying that much for simple date SS sports watches.
Have a look at historical exchange rates for Swiss Franc/GBP. Two years ago the GBP was about 15% stronger v the SF and a Sub was about 5k. It's lost that premium today and so the price of the Sub has to rise. Now, it's also true that most non western hemisphere currencies have become stronger too and so to prevent a carry trade in their products Rolex have to consider the bigger picture, and so prices will, for the forseeable, rise in GBP anyway.
There's no magic or unique law of economics that Rolex enjoys. The Sub hasn't gone up, it's your GBP that has fallen.
Colin.
There's no magic or unique law of economics that Rolex enjoys. The Sub hasn't gone up, it's your GBP that has fallen.
Colin.
longone said:
Hi, are you really puzzled by Rolex's prices or just letting off steam? A market's price discovery is set by the buyer not the seller, that's basic economics. Rolex can ask their price but enough bidders are needed or the price falls/they discontinue to trade.
Colin.
I suppose it's a combination of both. I don't say this as someone who doesn't admire or want to own expensive watches and indeed I did stretch myself to acquire a Speedmaster Pro earlier this year which I adore but I think it's just I have a real issue with barefaced shameless profiteering. Colin.
I just find it hard to accept how the cost of producing, distributing and marketing their watches comes in at even 25% of the price they charge for a watch.
When it's an independent producing a special timepiece for you, like Dornbluth for example, I can understand the high prices. A beautiful wooden box, constant contact with you, a small operation, personalisation options.. I just don't get it with these big companies.
"I just find it hard to accept how the cost of producing, distributing and marketing their watches comes in at even 25% of the price they charge for a watch."
I would agree here. I bought a green Sub in early 2011. It's taken a lot of abuse worn everyday doing all sorts of challenging things for a delicate machine and while a bit battered in appearence it keeps perfect time and after a wash in warm water looks great. But it is still a relatively mass produced item with a lot of generic parts and I have wondered just how profitable the process actually is to Rolex.
I'm not sugesting they exploit their customers, we are all grown ups and there's lots of competing attention for our disposable cash, but I would be interested in learning more about their margins.
My guess is it's not as great as we may imagine but only a guess.
Colin.
I would agree here. I bought a green Sub in early 2011. It's taken a lot of abuse worn everyday doing all sorts of challenging things for a delicate machine and while a bit battered in appearence it keeps perfect time and after a wash in warm water looks great. But it is still a relatively mass produced item with a lot of generic parts and I have wondered just how profitable the process actually is to Rolex.
I'm not sugesting they exploit their customers, we are all grown ups and there's lots of competing attention for our disposable cash, but I would be interested in learning more about their margins.
My guess is it's not as great as we may imagine but only a guess.
Colin.
Hoofy said:
LukeBird said:
Nothing major, no; a few innovations, like the Parachrom spring, but fundamentally it's the same.
Is the spring worth the extra £3k (guestimate price increase over 20 years)?for example it will mean the watch itself is worth approx £2.5K more when you sell it.
x5x3 said:
can you define "worth"?
for example it will mean the watch itself is worth approx £2.5K more when you sell it.
Point taken. But ignoring resale as many don't buy a watch with a view to selling it later on, is the watch worth the extra money because it has this new spring? Or are you essentially buying the same watch but paying a lot more for it than you need to? I am sure you know what I mean.for example it will mean the watch itself is worth approx £2.5K more when you sell it.
I was going to use analogies but I can't think of one that is wholly suitable - for instance, I'm sure my house wasn't worth much 20 years ago but there's more a need for me to pay the price I did than to own any "luxury" watch as I could pay for a Casio house if I was willing to live in, say, Taiwan.
Edited by Hoofy on Saturday 2nd June 14:36
Hoofy said:
x5x3 said:
can you define "worth"?
for example it will mean the watch itself is worth approx £2.5K more when you sell it.
Point taken. But ignoring resale as many don't buy a watch with a view to selling it later on, is the watch worth the extra money because it has this new spring? Or are you essentially buying the same watch but paying a lot more for it than you need to? I am sure you know what I mean.for example it will mean the watch itself is worth approx £2.5K more when you sell it.
I was going to use analogies but I can't think of one that is wholly suitable - for instance, I'm sure my house wasn't worth much 20 years ago but there's more a need for me to pay the price I did than to own any "luxury" watch as I could pay for a Casio house if I was willing to live in, say, Taiwan.
Edited by Hoofy on Saturday 2nd June 14:36
Would I buy so many if they were only going to be worth 50% of their purchase price (e.g. my car - on a good day), or even worse say 25% (clothes/gadgets/PC etc)?
The only similar product I can think of is my Canon L lenses, some of which are actually worth more than I paid for them.
x5x3 said:
I agree, but for me, the resale value is part of the purchase equation, how many other products can you buy which give you the pleasure of ownership but have a very high re-sale value?
Would I buy so many if they were only going to be worth 50% of their purchase price (e.g. my car - on a good day), or even worse say 25% (clothes/gadgets/PC etc)?
The only similar product I can think of is my Canon L lenses, some of which are actually worth more than I paid for them.
It doesn't really answer my question. I appreciate watches as much as any other watch enthusiast (I think my large collection substantiates this) but I really don't think the current prices are worth it unless you view them as a tradable commodity.Would I buy so many if they were only going to be worth 50% of their purchase price (e.g. my car - on a good day), or even worse say 25% (clothes/gadgets/PC etc)?
The only similar product I can think of is my Canon L lenses, some of which are actually worth more than I paid for them.
I do think, though, that watch companies can increase the price as they see fit - supply and demand rules the day. And damn those Chinese and Russian billionaires for liking the premium brands!
I bought two GMTs (1 SS and 1 BI) just before price rises. Wore both of them for 3-4 years and then sold for pretty much what I paid for them. The SS was bought at £2K (sold at £1950) and the BI (with ceramic bezel) was bought at £4.5K (sold at £4.2k). If you can take the initial hit and buy the right model then its money in the bank in my opinion.
P
P
sorry - was not trying to suggest anyone is not a watch enthusiast, just trying to understand people's opinions and views better.
As you say, with watches there is a significant part of the customer base where the difference between £1K and £2K, or even £10K or £20K means very little and that does give companies an opportunity to do what their shareholders expect - and that is make a profit.
To stay on-topic, I believe Rolex is a for-profit charity which distributes a proportion of its profits to charitable organisations - so we can give to charity and get most of our money back without the government accusing us of tax-avoidance
For me though, the re-sale value has to be part of the purchase equation and therefore is included in my definition of worth.
Consider this then as a scenario, Rolex (or any other brand) cuts their prices by 50%, what does that do for your existing purchases - they lose most of their value overnight, it is the continuing rising prices which protect the premium brand (and this applies to any premium brand not just watches) value. Clearly 50% is extreme, but even a 5-10% cut once or twice would undermine the perceived brand value and affect re-sale prices.
As you say, with watches there is a significant part of the customer base where the difference between £1K and £2K, or even £10K or £20K means very little and that does give companies an opportunity to do what their shareholders expect - and that is make a profit.
To stay on-topic, I believe Rolex is a for-profit charity which distributes a proportion of its profits to charitable organisations - so we can give to charity and get most of our money back without the government accusing us of tax-avoidance
For me though, the re-sale value has to be part of the purchase equation and therefore is included in my definition of worth.
Consider this then as a scenario, Rolex (or any other brand) cuts their prices by 50%, what does that do for your existing purchases - they lose most of their value overnight, it is the continuing rising prices which protect the premium brand (and this applies to any premium brand not just watches) value. Clearly 50% is extreme, but even a 5-10% cut once or twice would undermine the perceived brand value and affect re-sale prices.
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff