Yacht Master 40 vs Sub-Hulk
Discussion
Simple question really; why is the Yachty 40 over 2000GBP more than than the Sub-Hulk?
Whilst it's a little rinse-repeat with small variation when it comes to much of the Rolex diver lineup, they're normally pretty good at adding value as you go up; thicker crystal, hev, thicker case, better clasp. With regards the yachty vs the sub-hulk though:
- The clasp is inferior on the yachy
- I'd argue polishing to a high shine vs directional brushing is also easier (read: cheaper), not that I'm an expert
- The yachy case is thinner; and with the inferior depth rating I suspect there's less metal
- Whilst the crystal could be thinner in the yachty, for economies of scale it wouldn't surprise me if they're equivalent
- Dials are equivalent
- Movements are similar (limiting discussions to the previous gen yachty)
And so to the bezel: No. of clicks are different, bi vs uni-directional on the sub and of course bezel material; solid machined platinum vs ceramic. I believe there's a cost difference in favour of the yachty there in the bezel but not 2g's worth. Am I missing something and am I the only one intrigued by this? I've not seen a discussion anywhere where the price is the focus.
Whilst it's a little rinse-repeat with small variation when it comes to much of the Rolex diver lineup, they're normally pretty good at adding value as you go up; thicker crystal, hev, thicker case, better clasp. With regards the yachty vs the sub-hulk though:
- The clasp is inferior on the yachy
- I'd argue polishing to a high shine vs directional brushing is also easier (read: cheaper), not that I'm an expert
- The yachy case is thinner; and with the inferior depth rating I suspect there's less metal
- Whilst the crystal could be thinner in the yachty, for economies of scale it wouldn't surprise me if they're equivalent
- Dials are equivalent
- Movements are similar (limiting discussions to the previous gen yachty)
And so to the bezel: No. of clicks are different, bi vs uni-directional on the sub and of course bezel material; solid machined platinum vs ceramic. I believe there's a cost difference in favour of the yachty there in the bezel but not 2g's worth. Am I missing something and am I the only one intrigued by this? I've not seen a discussion anywhere where the price is the focus.
I'm sure Rolex would try referencing the choice of platinum as parent metal for the bezel as justification with machining ops and blasting for good measure, as you've pointed out. It's a similar price uplift on the DJ going from the smooth (steel) bezel to fluted white gold bezel, for comparison.
Not like the mere smattering of platinum via PVD on top of the ceramic bezel insert on my pauper Sub hulk :-)
Not like the mere smattering of platinum via PVD on top of the ceramic bezel insert on my pauper Sub hulk :-)
Edited by Arun_D on Monday 19th August 16:39
Why do dogs lick their b*lls? Because they can…
If asked, Rolex might reference the platinum in the bezel as the reason for the Yachtmaster’s higher RRP, but I think there’s precious little justification/explanation that can be gleaned from just looking at the raw materials used & their quantities.
For instance, the RRP (not second-hand pricing) differential between a precious metal Submariner and a stainless steel one cannot solely be explained if you take into account the extra market value of the metal used (nor even the potential extra costs for machining, transporting, securing & waste-recycling associated with precious metals).
As another example, the £800 difference between a Submariner ‘No Date’ and a Submariner Date – a few gears, a date wheel and a sliver of cyclops sapphire don’t cost £800, of course they don’t.
The self-evident reason is an artificial pricing structure, and image.
The Yachtmaster is issued for those who want a flashier-looking Submariner-alike watch, and crucially, it must look different to the Submariner – what’s the point of spending that extra lolly on your Yachtmaster if everyone just mistakes it for the cheaper Submariner? (Of course, I know some just plain like the aesthetic and the thinner case on wrist – the rhodium & blue dialled Yachtmaster is quite beautiful in its own right).
Why do you think Rolex released the new stainless steel & ceramic GMT Master II ‘Pepsi’ on a Jubilee bracelet, and not an Oyster bracelet? Purely because if they released it on an Oyster, no-one could easily from a distance tell the difference between the white gold ceramic Pepsi and the stainless steel ceramic Pepsi, and that would annoy a lot of image-conscious white gold owners who spunked their extra cash on the prestige of precious metal (and yes, I appreciate some buy white gold for the feel - both emotional & physical - as opposed to the slightly warmer visual tone or any posing purpose).
It’s also the reason why Tudor is deliberately pitched at a lower price point, well below the ‘parent’ Rolex.
And I don’t criticise Rolex for that – it’s common retail practice, and good business sense.
Luxury goods are nonsensical by their very nature – looking for logic will drive you demented
If asked, Rolex might reference the platinum in the bezel as the reason for the Yachtmaster’s higher RRP, but I think there’s precious little justification/explanation that can be gleaned from just looking at the raw materials used & their quantities.
For instance, the RRP (not second-hand pricing) differential between a precious metal Submariner and a stainless steel one cannot solely be explained if you take into account the extra market value of the metal used (nor even the potential extra costs for machining, transporting, securing & waste-recycling associated with precious metals).
As another example, the £800 difference between a Submariner ‘No Date’ and a Submariner Date – a few gears, a date wheel and a sliver of cyclops sapphire don’t cost £800, of course they don’t.
The self-evident reason is an artificial pricing structure, and image.
The Yachtmaster is issued for those who want a flashier-looking Submariner-alike watch, and crucially, it must look different to the Submariner – what’s the point of spending that extra lolly on your Yachtmaster if everyone just mistakes it for the cheaper Submariner? (Of course, I know some just plain like the aesthetic and the thinner case on wrist – the rhodium & blue dialled Yachtmaster is quite beautiful in its own right).
Why do you think Rolex released the new stainless steel & ceramic GMT Master II ‘Pepsi’ on a Jubilee bracelet, and not an Oyster bracelet? Purely because if they released it on an Oyster, no-one could easily from a distance tell the difference between the white gold ceramic Pepsi and the stainless steel ceramic Pepsi, and that would annoy a lot of image-conscious white gold owners who spunked their extra cash on the prestige of precious metal (and yes, I appreciate some buy white gold for the feel - both emotional & physical - as opposed to the slightly warmer visual tone or any posing purpose).
It’s also the reason why Tudor is deliberately pitched at a lower price point, well below the ‘parent’ Rolex.
And I don’t criticise Rolex for that – it’s common retail practice, and good business sense.
Luxury goods are nonsensical by their very nature – looking for logic will drive you demented
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff