- Posts
- 185
- Likes
- 179
abgul
·I'm not too across historical changes. But they do make small changes in every iteration - both additions and killing off watches. More avantgarde with Tudor whose brand is growing.
Please consider donating to help offset our high running costs.
https://monochrome-watches.com/top-50-swiss-watch-brands-2020-market-share-sales-editorial/
Looks like they doing okay
As someone wrote on TRF..."Rolex has transitioned from making watches you can't buy, to making watches you don't want to buy".
They may have watches that don't appeal to you or some others, but it is often the Rolex watch that is less main stream that becomes the sought after collectible in future years.
Will there really be any fun to collecting though? With all the modern safe queens and grey dealer stock, "NIB/NOS" specimens of recent references will be fairly common as opposed to when they were used as tools.
Little awkward, since guy is also the “don’t buy the new Speedmaster” guy
I was just reading an article that touched on some of the same points that I've been pointing out on this forum to members for a while now. People need to be careful what brands and watches they buy as we've most likely hit peak demand. If I had multiple Rolex, I would sell most of them. As Buffett says, be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.
https://www.scmp.com/magazines/styl...-watch-really-better-swiss-timepiece-heritage
While you’ve been flogging *similar* (-ish) points to this article for quite a while, this article is unlikely to give you any new traction for - just to name - a few reasons:
(1) there continues to be nearly zero data to suggest that smart watches are eating into any material portion of the segment of watches we on these forums care about; instead, the segment of Swiss watches that are being made obsolete by smart watches are quartz, or low-end mechanicals (which trend seems relevant but basically ignored by the article you cite).
(2) in fact, the data that does exist shows a rise in both the number of units and MSRP (mostly the latter) of the modern watches we on forums like this care about (I both admit but also insist that COVID has injected externalities on the most recent data that are too hard to tease out yet, perhaps explaining why the article you cited doesn’t really bother even trying to deal with the nuance)
(3) by-in-large, people on this forum with any experience don’t care if we’ve hit peak modern demand and pricing; we’re unlikely to buy an “inflated” modern piece unless it’s consciously scratching a sentimental or care-to-the-wind sort of itch, or we’re lucky enough our incomes de-risk the purchase
(4) fourth and finally, the central points of critique that both you and those like the author have been flogging are probably best epitomized by the Rolex family, which - like it or don’t - appears on paper to be thriving better than any other Swiss luxury manufacturer, which tends to suggest something’s “off” in the flogging. Could it’s time be coming? Sure. But nothing succeeds like success.
Besides, aren’t you the guy who for almost two years years has been repeatedly insisting Rolex must make MORE watches to not be evil? A bit ironic, if now it’s true they must also heed your warning and brace themselves for peak demand...
Innovator's Dilemma. Do you know it?
Ceteris paribus, if you raise prices faster than unit decreases or plateau, you can still grow revenues and earnings.
Sure, when prices start heading down, there will be plenty of people crying on this forum.
When that happens, I hope you'll be around to apologize to those you've told to keep buying into the bubble.
As the article points out, things are great until they're not.
No, I'm the guy that says that Rolex should stop manipulating their customers with propaganda to earn a buck. I know you think it's fantastic that someone lies to your face in order to make money from you but for most people, they think that's despicable.
And I personally have never bought a watch that costs more than a weeks’ salary. YMMV