Rolex GMT 2 Pepsi clone
Discussion
Or this one-
http://www.creationwatches.com/products/seiko-dive...
They are blue, just not a great shot of the colour.
eg-
http://www.creationwatches.com/products/seiko-dive...
They are blue, just not a great shot of the colour.
eg-
really like this one
http://www.steinhartwatches.de/en/GMT-OCEAN-1-BLUE...
and in stock here
http://www.chronomaster.co.uk/steinhart/watches/di...
it isn't quartz tho
\
http://www.steinhartwatches.de/en/GMT-OCEAN-1-BLUE...
and in stock here
http://www.chronomaster.co.uk/steinhart/watches/di...
it isn't quartz tho
\
TheEnd said:
Or this one-
http://www.creationwatches.com/products/seiko-dive...
They are blue, just not a great shot of the colour.
eg-
I have that one as a daily beater ie on site days. Looks brill and great value for money http://www.creationwatches.com/products/seiko-dive...
They are blue, just not a great shot of the colour.
eg-
Whatever you think of the homages in their range, Steinhart watches are high quality IME. There's a lot of truth in the adage that Steinhart offers 80% of a Rolex for 10% of the cost. (I've tried on both.)
Steinhart shows can be done when you drop the cost of sponsoring Formula 1, Wimbledon, numerous 'brand ambassadors' like Roger Federer and Tiger Woods, magazine advertising and price positioning as a Veblen good. (Of course, brands like Rolex use these marketing tactics because they work.)
However, I'd far rather Steinhart produced less homages. I prefer their own designs.
Steinhart shows can be done when you drop the cost of sponsoring Formula 1, Wimbledon, numerous 'brand ambassadors' like Roger Federer and Tiger Woods, magazine advertising and price positioning as a Veblen good. (Of course, brands like Rolex use these marketing tactics because they work.)
However, I'd far rather Steinhart produced less homages. I prefer their own designs.
I've been wearing a Steinhart Pepsi GMT as my daily for 2 years now, bought it when my Submariner went off for a service as a kind of 'courtesy watch'. Got it off Neil at Chronomaster who is only down the road from me, had no problems with it, keeps good time, the bezel isn't as scratch resistant as the Rolex but new ones are only £25! I actually prefer it's larger size, 42mm versus 40mm and the clasp is more robust than the Rolex.
SVS said:
Steinhart shows can be done when you drop the cost of sponsoring Formula 1, Wimbledon, numerous 'brand ambassadors' like Roger Federer and Tiger Woods, magazine advertising and price positioning as a Veblen good. (Of course, brands like Rolex use these marketing tactics because they work.)
Serious question - do you really think that's the difference between Steinhart and Rolex?I own both BTW.
Hi Yeti,
Serious answer - no. I've tried on both Rolex and Steinhart watches. Quite aside from the significant difference in movements, I can tell there's a difference in fit and finish. Though I didn't find the difference as big as I expected.
Marketing must account for a significant part of the cost of a Rolex, because Rolex invests hugely in sponsorship and other marketing activities. For example, Rolex sponsors Formula 1 (an estimated $350m over ten years). Rolex sponsors other major events, such as Wimbledon. Rolex has a small army of 'brand ambassadors' like Tiger Woods, none of whom come cheap. Rolex undertakes significant advertising in print and other media. This all adds up! In short, when you buy a Rolex, you become the sponsor of major sporting events and celebrity sportspeople
You also get a very nice watch to go with it 
In addition, Rolex management isn't stupid: they will have thought carefully about price positioning and ensuring Rolex maintains its Veblen status (like most luxury brands). It's a key marketing principle.
Rolex isn't alone. Many other brands - from Omega to Hublot - are the same. It's how luxury brands work. A watchmaker on WUS posted that he'd analysed the cost of parts in a steel Rolex. He claimed that a typical steel Rolex comprised $600 worth of parts (plus the cost of labour, which is important). If true, it would explain how Steinhart can do what they do. I'm not knocking Rolex, as I imagine other major brands are similar.
Re: Steinhart, I found its build quality compares favourably with an entry level Longines or TAG Heuer. I've owned each of the three at different times.
Serious answer - no. I've tried on both Rolex and Steinhart watches. Quite aside from the significant difference in movements, I can tell there's a difference in fit and finish. Though I didn't find the difference as big as I expected.
Marketing must account for a significant part of the cost of a Rolex, because Rolex invests hugely in sponsorship and other marketing activities. For example, Rolex sponsors Formula 1 (an estimated $350m over ten years). Rolex sponsors other major events, such as Wimbledon. Rolex has a small army of 'brand ambassadors' like Tiger Woods, none of whom come cheap. Rolex undertakes significant advertising in print and other media. This all adds up! In short, when you buy a Rolex, you become the sponsor of major sporting events and celebrity sportspeople
You also get a very nice watch to go with it In addition, Rolex management isn't stupid: they will have thought carefully about price positioning and ensuring Rolex maintains its Veblen status (like most luxury brands). It's a key marketing principle.
Rolex isn't alone. Many other brands - from Omega to Hublot - are the same. It's how luxury brands work. A watchmaker on WUS posted that he'd analysed the cost of parts in a steel Rolex. He claimed that a typical steel Rolex comprised $600 worth of parts (plus the cost of labour, which is important). If true, it would explain how Steinhart can do what they do. I'm not knocking Rolex, as I imagine other major brands are similar.
Re: Steinhart, I found its build quality compares favourably with an entry level Longines or TAG Heuer. I've owned each of the three at different times.
Edited by SVS on Saturday 9th August 22:03
All I can say is this regards Rolex. My Sub was made in 1988 rebuilt in 2008 movement only. My watch still looks and works like it did when brand new. Now cost in 1988 to buy brand new circa £980 rebuild cost in 2008 was £450 . If I sell this watch now I should quite easily attain £3200. Now all I can say is that Steihart and quite a few other makes are never going to even get close to those figures. Rolex I rest my case
Those numbers aren't as profitable as they look. Firstly, there's the cost of servicing a Rolex (say £450 per service in today's money, approximately every 5 years). Secondly, there's inflation: £980 in 1988 isn't the same as £980 in 2014. However, I wasn't arguing against owning a Rolex. They have clearly increased in value, even above inflation.
I was arguing that Rolex is an example of a watch brand that spends a lot on marketing. These costs have to be paid for by the consumer.
Rolex isn't the only example, because luxury brands rely on their marketing. Rolex's $350m sponsorship of Formula 1, Omega's sponsorship of the Olympics and Hublot's sponsorship of the football World Cup all exemplify this. These are big sponsorship costs for which the consumer has to pay.
These watch brands sponsor sporting events and sportspeople, in order to create an association between sports and their watches. It's a mechanism they use to create brand equity. However, it plainly costs a lot of money (for which the consumer ultimately pays as part of the price of a watch). As long as the brand equity remains high, however, it boosts resale value.
I also suggested that watch pricing isn't accidental. Brands like Rolex and Omega employ smart marketing people who know that pricing impacts brand positioning. Luxury brands have to be priced expensively, because people associate a high price with high quality and exclusivity.
Steinhart is interesting because it doesn't use any of these marketing tactics. But then it's only a boutique brand in size.
I was arguing that Rolex is an example of a watch brand that spends a lot on marketing. These costs have to be paid for by the consumer.
Rolex isn't the only example, because luxury brands rely on their marketing. Rolex's $350m sponsorship of Formula 1, Omega's sponsorship of the Olympics and Hublot's sponsorship of the football World Cup all exemplify this. These are big sponsorship costs for which the consumer has to pay.
These watch brands sponsor sporting events and sportspeople, in order to create an association between sports and their watches. It's a mechanism they use to create brand equity. However, it plainly costs a lot of money (for which the consumer ultimately pays as part of the price of a watch). As long as the brand equity remains high, however, it boosts resale value.
I also suggested that watch pricing isn't accidental. Brands like Rolex and Omega employ smart marketing people who know that pricing impacts brand positioning. Luxury brands have to be priced expensively, because people associate a high price with high quality and exclusivity.
Steinhart is interesting because it doesn't use any of these marketing tactics. But then it's only a boutique brand in size.
Edited by SVS on Sunday 10th August 03:19
You can also buy direct from Steinhart, and with the £ getting stronger against the euro they are really good value. Last time I looked their GMT was about £330. I have their OVM and it's a great watch. Paid about 320 for it a year ago, they are now about 280 from Steinhart. Great value. Looks really nice on a leather strap. I bet their Pepsi would be great on a light brown strap.
SVS said:
A watchmaker on WUS posted that he'd analysed the cost of parts in a steel Rolex. He claimed that a typical steel Rolex comprised $600 worth of parts (plus the cost of labour, which is important). If true, it would explain how Steinhart can do what they do. I'm not knocking Rolex, as I imagine other major brands are similar.
He is not taking into account the designing, years and years of factory costs, R&D costs, testing, COSC certification, smelting, forging, machining, watchmaker training, their pensions, their healthcare the list is absolutely endless! Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting a 6k Rolex costs 6k to make, but suggesting it's a $600 watch being sold for $10,000 is also silly. It's fairly well known that the dealer mark-up is about 35%... Maybe Rolex profit is 50%? Good for them I say.Steinhart buy in a cheap, mildly (at all?) regulated movement and drop it into a nice Chinese made case on a nice Chinese made bracelet. Zero associated costs, a few guys tightening some screws and giving a quick polish. I am very glad they exist because for the money, I think they are superb and agree thay are the equal of many more expensive Swiss brands - anything up to say £1000 might be a ballpark figure. A great way into owning a mechanical watch. Good for them too!
I've got an automatic Seiko SKx009 with a Pepsi bezel and jubilee bracelet. I'd recommend it, i've had it for over 5 years with zero problems. People think it's a lot more 'special' i.e. expensive than it is, yet I bought it online for about £110. One day i'll have a rolex gmt, but this one suits me fine.
yeti said:
SVS said:
Steinhart shows can be done when you drop the cost of sponsoring Formula 1, Wimbledon, numerous 'brand ambassadors' like Roger Federer and Tiger Woods, magazine advertising and price positioning as a Veblen good. (Of course, brands like Rolex use these marketing tactics because they work.)
Serious question - do you really think that's the difference between Steinhart and Rolex?I own both BTW.
I would be surprised if the unit cost for a Sub is more than £400 - the rest is largely all the above. the biggest cost difference is probably the Steel they use 904L vs 316L
Would I have a Kermit - hell yes.
Edited by sparkyhx on Tuesday 12th August 21:30
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff