In hindsight, yes, it was too low. But appropriate at the time. Times change and Omega's offerings are going up in retail price (Apollo 8 & 11, and Ed White) and they seem to be able to sell at these prices. No reason to expect a price lower than $10k, and perhaps higher.

 

Obviously the impact isn't going to be as large as $5k, and from what I've seen on the forums, probably not enough data points to drive any real internal pricing convos. The deposit and waitlist activity will have a heavier impact on the pricing, but I'd be surprised if corporate wasn't monitoring OF for feedback. The price will be <= $10k, and they are likely debating between a $2k range.

Yes if its LE then production levels have been set. However, I think consensus here is that it will be LP not LE.

 

if we would break it down IMHO all these watches are because of the market willing to pay it because of the way Omega is marketing them:
> The A11 with gold, ceramic and bracelet was priced high but people were accepting the price differential due to the 50th anniversary.
> The A8 had a manual movement and great dial design so in comparison with a DSOTM is almost priced at the same level -1K
> EW SS no COSC for €13K.

 

FIFY.

 

I really have to applaud Omega for keeping this tight of a seal on this launch.. Unbelievable that we had so little leaked information by now!

 

I’ll buy if I like the watch (well wife has first option).
I never understand why people are so obsessed with price, when it comes to what people will pay later. For me personally assets should be enjoyed personally and never seen as an investment.
Once I buy a watch the moneys gone, done! and I got a sweet watch for the money

 

We had this discussion in different thread but the output is clear - there’s actually only one Speedmaster LE which is not more expansive than recommended retail price. Apollo 17 40th Anniversary. The question is will this be limited or numbered (unlimited) version?

 

Well I do have different replies for that
1: I don't swim in money on a daily basic = I try to spend it wisely
2: I so so so hate to make a bad deal. I cant buy a shirt without checking if the price is right compared to other shops (and even countries).
3: I like nice things... (like anyone on this forum). But for me to have the amount of ex. guitars I have, I traded smart = I don't need to be the first owner.

I was at an Omega event ~1 year ago, where I was standing next to my dealer. I was trying the 2015 Snoopy and I simply LOVED it and signed up for the next one on the spot!

Reading what I wrote I'm 99,99999999% gonna buy it

 

I agree. At the time I purchased the 45th Snoopy, the first snoopy was only selling for ~$5k on places like Chrono24. I thought about buying it to create a set but passed because it didn’t speak to me.

In hindsight, Omega should have made more pieces (price was appropriate) but based on the performance of the first edition, they probably felt they had made right decision.

 

I've thought about this a lot. Noting how many posters in this thread, with deposits placed, said that they would opt out of purchasing if they felt the watch was "not exclusive" or "priced too high", I can't help but wonder if the high resale price (and high resale demand) of the 2015 Snoopy was a phenomenon that came after the initial pieces sold, and there was a perception of value/rising prices/fear of missing out, more than a true appreciation for the watch.

Maybe put another way: while one can argue that Omega left money on the table by not charging a higher MSRP, is it a valid argument to say that had the MSRP been higher, enough buyers might have said "at that price, I'll pass", which in turn would have left the watch available at OBs and ADs at MSRP, consequently capping resale to at or below MSRP?? With that lower price enduring perhaps even to this day: if the 2015 Snoopy hadn't sold out rapidly (had the initial OB/AD MSRP been higher), could it's value might have been much more of an Speedmaster 60th, ST1, or ST2: all gorgeous and appreciated watches in their own right, but trading near MSRP (plus or minus a bit), rather than multiples of MSRP as the 2015 Snoopy is.

In other words, was the 2015 Snoopy MSRP right after all?

 

The price was higher than MSRP right off the bat but not significantly higher. The watch was really popular and sold out immediately. I remember it was double MSRP a couple of years after release and everyone was saying it's crazy to pay double MSRP for any Omega. It recently shot up to $35k+ on Chrono24 and other platforms in I think mid 2019.

 

I agree with @g-boac, a Snoopy in 2015 for an A11 50SS price wouldn't have worked out.

 

It's a celebration watch, sure, but at the end of the day I am exchanging money for a watch, not a celebration. Yes the mission was cool and I can appreciate the accomplishment and what the award represents, but I am not a diehard space fan nor work in the industry. If Omega released the 45th without the Apollo 13 context, I would've loved it almost just as much, but that's just me.

I'm unfortunately not in a financial position where I can just buy a watch while being willfully ignorant towards price action. You are correct that brands sell watches because most people don't weigh value retention as heavily as I do, and watches do depreciate as a whole. However, if I can pick one up from an AD or grey 1-2 years down the line for a few $k less, then I will wait.

It's a similar thought process when buying cars. Only way I'm paying sticker if it's a limited (s/d constraints) model in release trim where there's some possibility of value retention. This doesn't mean that I don't expect most cars to depreciate - I just don't pay full sticker for those vehicles and will wait until there's significant OEM incentives in place. Why buy a brand new maserati quattroporte for $120k when you can buy the same brand new quattroporte in a year for $80k?

 

I've been wondering.. Why is the Apollo 17 40th Anniversary so cheap relative? Is it not easy to read, not good looking in person or why does it seem to be so unpopular?

 

The watch is ugly. The 45 anniversary is much better looking.

 

Haha, fair enough.. It certainly is one of the most unique versions out there.

 

That totally makes sense, but I'm just not sure how you're going to predict the future value of the watch with any certainty outside of Omega doing something crazy like producing 15k of the watch. Otherwise if they do something "reasonable" like ~10k price point / ~7k units, similar to Apollo XI 50th, there's a high likelihood that if you wait around you won't be able to get it at retail.

 

How can you not understand why some people are obsessed with follow on pricing? Not everyone is totally comfortable with the fact that they bought something for $10k, which they could've bought for $7k in a year or 2. I can totally understand your POV - spend the money, enjoy the watch, and not worry about further price action, but I can also understand the other side of it.

If it's truly LE, follow on pricing should be less of a concern. If it's de facto unlimited production, and Omega aren't trying to leave anything on the table (like last time), there's a possibility of them creating a supply imbalance which will ultimately correct in the form of downward pressure on pricing through other non-OB channels.

 

Rang the AD today from where I collected my Ultraman and asked to be put on the list (I’ve no hope probably!). They genuinely haven’t got a clue about what’s coming which even they admitted was pretty unusual this close to a release date. It’s going to be a good one I reckon folks - who needs Rolex??!!!!

 

Not trying to predict the future value of the watch per se - just getting a firm understanding on the supply-side would be enough for me. For example, announcement of ~7k total units or limited production of 4000 units per year for 2 years is enough to make me comfortable. I'm planning on keeping the watch, so any exercise past ballpark projections are futile. Like you mentioned, I just want to avoid anything crazy like 15k units, which they probably won't announce.

However, if high unit production is their true intention, I can see a scenario where they only reveal part of the picture. LP for X years or LP of X units per year, but not both so you can never back into total units. With respect to getting comfortable on follow-on pricing, that type of announcement would be just as bad (and arguably worse) than flat out announcing 15k units upfront.