Rolex Long Term Investment Pieces

[lostkiwi]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

That’s fine lostkiwi but, wouldn’t you find it wholly strange if I looked down on you because you failed to make money from your hobby like I do?

Because all the sneering and posturing on these threads is tantamount to doing exactly that. Pomposity directed towards your fellow collectors and enthusiasts because they don’t share your view. The cleric looking down on the clergy I suppose.

We both love watches but buy and wear for different reasons, where’s the harm in that?

• for full and frank clarification I must point out that I bought and own a Cellini-so I’m not all bad!

Its not about sneering or looking down. Its about the motivation for collecting.
If you buy to sell thats not collecting and severely limits your choices as few brands will return a profit on selling. I don't expect to sell my Grahams and if I did I know I'd take a hit but then I didn't buy to sell, I bought because I like them and want to wear them.

My latest purchases have all been sub £1000 because again I liked them for what they were (Bulova Lunar Pilot, Dan Henry 1973, Magrette Kara and CW C8 Flyer vintage). None of them will return a profit on sale but by the same token none will cause me financial hardship either (the only exception is the CW as it was bought so cheap it will likely gain me a whole £50-100 if sold).
What all of them give me is a degree of pleasure in wearing them. Would the pleasure be any higher for having bought a watch I can sell for a profit later? Unlikely as for me its not usually a factor in purchase. In fact the CW is the least likely to be worn on a regular basis and is the only one to possibly return a future profit!

I get people want to have nice watches (I have a number myself - Pams, Grahams, Omegas, a Moser etc) but if the sole motivation is to return a future profit on something nice its not collecting watches, its making money and the title of this thread is a classic example.
You yourself have said how annoying the weekly "What is my Rolex worth" threads are so I'm sure you have some of the same views.

Funnily enough the Cellini is possibly the only the only Rolex I'd consider as its not another done to death dive watch variation and at least shows the buyer had an original thought when it was purchased!

[lostkiwi]

desolate said:

lostkiwi said:

The Sharesave scheme we had was zero risk.
You were guaranteed to get back what you put in as a minimum.

Even if the company you work for went bust?

It would be pretty obvious it was happening. The share price would tank and you'd have enough warning to remove the funds.

[mikeveal]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

You know what’s more sickly than the weekly Rolex values thread?

The righteous bleating that comes from people trying to lord it over anyone dares mention it.

Seriously, get over yourselves.

I have no problem with people making money from their hobby.
I have no problem with people asking "How much am I likely to lose", or "Will I get my money back if I buy...".
I see no one trying to 'lord it over' the OP.

But a watch is not a sensible investment. It's a watch. Treat is as the latter and you won't be disappointed. Treating it as the former implies that you can ill afford to lose money on your "investment". If a Rolex could be purchased for your idea of an insignificant sum, then your investments would be far more serious.

When was the last time you heard a financial advisor tell anyone to buy as many new Rolex watches as they can afford and put them in a safe? That's a ridiculous idea and so is buying one watch and treating it in the same way.

[James_B]

lostkiwi said:

ShareSave scheme at work. The deal we had was at the start of the period the company gave a share price on the day less 20%. We than nominated an amount to pay in to the scheme each month (there are maximums). At the end of the term we get the retail value of the shares on the day we nominate to sell or can hang onto the shares. The company shares did pretty well over the three years my term was for....

That is a really long way from zero risk, unless your employer is the government. Even if your company is AAA rated, there is still risk that they go down and take your money with them.

[lostkiwi]

James_B said:

lostkiwi said:

ShareSave scheme at work. The deal we had was at the start of the period the company gave a share price on the day less 20%. We than nominated an amount to pay in to the scheme each month (there are maximums). At the end of the term we get the retail value of the shares on the day we nominate to sell or can hang onto the shares. The company shares did pretty well over the three years my term was for....

That is a really long way from zero risk, unless your employer is the government. Even if your company is AAA rated, there is still risk that they go down and take your money with them.

Seriously?
It's about as close to zero risk as you'll get.

[Blown2CV]

So you are saying investment as in something that won't lose money. The generally accepted definition of an investment is something that increases in value.

[audidoody]

I wish my financial advisor had told me to load up with GMT II Pepsi’s for £2,000 a pop in 2001

[audidoody]

I wish my financial advisor had told me to load up with GMT II Pepsi’s for £2,000 a pop in 2001

[calumc]

Thanks for the opinions and advice guys.

Just to clarify for those jumping down my throat for asking a perfectly acceptable question:

- The purchase of the watch is not purely for investment purposes, but why would I not want a beautiful watch which will also hold/appreciate in value?

- I have property and many other investments so retaining as much equity as I can in something is always going to be a considering factor for anything I buy, may it be a jacket at £3000 or a watch at £9000. Is there anything wrong with that?

Anyway, in my experience, being very financially sensible means more money in the long run, which means I can afford more luxuries and enjoy things more. If you don't scrutinise your spending, you may find yourself worse off.

[Blown2CV]

calumc said:

Thanks for the opinions and advice guys.

Just to clarify for those jumping down my throat for asking a perfectly acceptable question:

- The purchase of the watch is not purely for investment purposes, but why would I not want a beautiful watch which will also hold/appreciate in value?

- I have property and many other investments so retaining as much equity as I can in something is always going to be a considering factor for anything I buy, may it be a jacket at £3000 or a watch at £9000. Is there anything wrong with that?

Anyway, in my experience, being very financially sensible means more money in the long run, which means I can afford more luxuries and enjoy things more. If you don't scrutinise your spending, you may find yourself worse off.

not need to get shirty. You used the word investment, and that has a particular meaning.

[anonymous-user]

I'd love to know what 3k jacket keeps its value as well.

[calumc]

Blown2CV said:

not need to get shirty. You used the word investment, and that has a particular meaning.

Yes it does, which I've acknowledged. "Not purely for investment" - do you know what that means?

Many of my investments are dumb in the sense I get no real practical use out of them, but I would like an investment which can be used on a daily basis and provide me with some enjoyment.

[calumc]

desolate said:

I'd love to know what 3k jacket keeps its value as well.

Many obscure collaboration pieces do. My various supreme pieces have actually gained me money - once worn.

[Blown2CV]

calumc said:

Blown2CV said:

not need to get shirty. You used the word investment, and that has a particular meaning.

Yes it does, which I've acknowledged. "Not purely for investment" - do you know what that means?

Many of my investments are dumb in the sense I get no real practical use out of them, but I would like an investment which can be used on a daily basis and provide me with some enjoyment.

Not purely for investment i.e. not at all for investment. Can you just stop using the word investment then? It's just a purchase. Using the word investment makes you sound like you're in the top 1% of watch experts whereas in reality you're a bloke buying a watch. There is nothing wrong with just saying you're buying a watch.

[calumc]

Blown2CV said:

Not purely for investment i.e. not at all for investment. Can you just stop using the word investment then? It's just a purchase. Using the word investment makes you sound like you're in the top 1% of watch experts whereas in reality you're a bloke buying a watch. There is nothing wrong with just saying you're buying a watch.

I think you should drop the attitude - doesn't make you sound cool... As I've said before, it's not purely for investment but having a watch that appreciates in value would be a bonus - making it an investment. If I wanted to "purchase", I'd buy a lovely tag which will drop in value like a brick.

[Blown2CV]

calumc said:

Blown2CV said:

Not purely for investment i.e. not at all for investment. Can you just stop using the word investment then? It's just a purchase. Using the word investment makes you sound like you're in the top 1% of watch experts whereas in reality you're a bloke buying a watch. There is nothing wrong with just saying you're buying a watch.

I think you should drop the attitude - doesn't make you sound cool... As I've said before, it's not purely for investment but having a watch that appreciates in value would be a bonus - making it an investment. If I wanted to "purchase", I'd buy a lovely tag which will drop in value like a brick.

you're the one with the attitude little buddy. You are not making an investment.

[anonymous-user]

calumc said:

Many obscure collaboration pieces do. My various supreme pieces have actually gained me money - once worn.

Fair enough. £3k for Supreme though. Tres expensive, non?

[Dolf Stoppard]

Sub, Sea Dweller, GMT II and Daytona are very unlikely to lose money, and will probably give you a reasonable return if you try to move them on - I’d perhaps also include a white faced / GV Milgauss. Explorers / Explorer IIs are perhaps not quite as popular, but still a good buy.

As above, there are better ‘investments’, but a SS Rolex is one of those rare things you can buy, use, enjoy, and sell on, without it costing you anything. I’d therefore say buy the watch(es) you like the most and enjoy them, safe in the knowledge you’re probably wearing them for ‘free’.

[Blown2CV]

calumc said:

Blown2CV said:

you're the one with the attitude little buddy. You are not making an investment.

Whatever you say - you're obviously just a little keyboard warrior that's probably skint anyway...

I just thought you were a bit misguided to start with, now you just sound unbelievably childish. You're really not helping yourself.

[LaurasOtherHalf]

I’d agree with Dolf about Explorers, I advised my partner to buy his son a white dial Explorer II last summer as they were really down in the dole drums at £3-4K. They’ve crept up but should still have headroom yet. A big hands version looks lovely on an orange Everest rubber band as well.

In fact there’s a private sale one on C24 that I chatted with, March 2018 including the extra strap and he’ll take £5k.

Another one that seems undervalued is the standard black ceramic GMT II with the green hand. Lots available at under list second hand which is plain daft when you see what the older/newer but coloured ones are doing-it’s bound to get dragged up if this bubble continues.

I’d also take a chance on a bi metal Daytona at around £8k-if you can get away with the gold.