I hate thinking about watches this way because they are not investments and if you like what you traded for more than what you traded, good for you. The problem I have with the deal is the exchange of an appreciating asset with possible upside, for one with a lower cost basis, that was depreciated as soon as you left the store and will stay that way. I get that you didn’t want to do a private sale though.
😗
I love this perfect non sequitur. "...they are not investments... The problem I have... is the exchange of an appreciating asset... for one with a lower cost basis, that was depreciated..."
Like I said, I hate thinking that way but that’s not a good deal from my perspective, especially with a dealer.
Like I said, I hate thinking that way but that’s not a good deal from my perspective, especially with a dealer.
Why?
In my brief time on this board I’ve noticed that everyone is adamant that they don’t think of watches in terms of prices, appreciation/depreciation potential, or investment value … but in reality they all do.
In my brief time on this board I’ve noticed that everyone is adamant that they don’t think of watches in terms of prices, appreciation/depreciation potential, or investment value … but in reality they all do.
When we buy or sell, we try to make the best deal we can, win or lose. It has zip to do with our view on these as investment or not. To quote Chester Karras, “you only get what you negotiate. “ If you are happy with the deal, fine.
I’d rather buy a 5k Seamaster than a 15k sub. But if you offered to give me either watch for free... I take the sub... one is a 15k watch and the other is a 5k watch
And I think 99% of this board takes the free sub, if they’re 100% honest
Ahh, Rolex's marketing strategy at work. It's not a 15k watch but Rolex has you believing it is. Rolex is a mid tier brand just like Omega.
You haven't been on this forum length enough to realize this is wrong.
I think I’m right. I think if someone put a BNIB Rolex with a market value of 15k and BNIB Seamaster with MV of 5k and offered you one for free with the stipulation that you can’t sell it you’d take the Rollie. Because that would be an amazing opportunity. Getting the Seamaster for free would be cool too, but they’re easier to afford on your own dime
So, to take your logic one step further, I assume that if the hypothetical choice were between your 15k Rolex and a 20k Jaeger-LeCoultre, you would take the latter. There is virtually no one on this forum, or on any other watch forum for that matter, who would contend that a Rolex is a better watch than a JLC. So if your choice would still be the Rolex, doesn't that indicate that your only real interest in luxury watches is how well they hold their value? A Rolex mentality indeed.
JLC
In my brief time on this board I’ve noticed that everyone is adamant that they don’t think of watches in terms of prices, appreciation/depreciation potential, or investment value … but in reality they all do.
But in my hypothetical deal above, 99% of this board, if they’re absolutely honest, would take the Rolex.
But if you factor in price, and ask would you rather purchase a new model sub for $15k or new model Seamaster 300 for $5k, the vast majority of this board would buy the Omega
And I think 99% of this board takes the free sub, if they’re 100% honest
99% of the board, if honest, takes the free 15k sub over the free 5k Seamaster.
what does this thought experiment prove? IDK but I’m totally convinced that if we did it I would be right.
I think I’m right.
I would consider the MV of the watches and so would you
Sounds like this guy can have this conversation all by himself and doesn't need any actual facts or information. He already knows how everyone thinks. If someone says otherwise, they're just not being honest. He knows.
He'll be at 200 posts in no time at this rate.
