Forums Latest Members
  1. WatchVaultNYC Jul 12, 2016

    Posts
    3,719
    Likes
    4,189
    So I was planning on going to a watch meet up and was trying to decide on what to bring from my watch box. I decided it should be the most interesting pieces in my small collection. But then "interesting" is subjective, so I decided to select based on relative rarity, and used as a proxy for rarity the number of listings for that model on Chrono24. I figure, fewer watches sold, the more interesting they were.

    I am aware that sometimes watches though rare are of no interest to anyone, but still there were some stark differences when you see some of the numbers:

    Tudor Sub 76100 - 7
    '65 Speedy 145.003 - 1
    Tudor Big Block 79180 - 24
    Tudor Big Block 79160 - 5
    Omega "Sword Hands" 2254.50 -8
    Rolex Explorer 1016 - 136
    Rolex GMT Master 1675 -434
    Tudor Snowflake Sub 7016 - 3
    Omega Flightmaster - 30
    Omega Aqua Terra 2504.80 - 1
    Omega SMP "Bond" 2531.80 - 38

    Like for example the Explorer 1016 and the GMT Master 1675 are many people's grail watches, but there are hundreds upon hundreds of them for sale, as compared to a 7016 Tudor Snowflake Sub, where there were only 3.

    Its it because Rolex distorts the vintage market? Other thoughts?
     
    littlesheep81 likes this.
  2. ulackfocus Jul 12, 2016

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,968
    "Rare" doesn't necessitate "desirable" and "desirable" doesn't necessitate "rare". Look no further than Speedmasters for a lesson in supply and demand and it's effect on price.

    If that question read "Is it because the name Rolex distorts some vintage collector's brains?" then my answer would be a definitive YES.
     
  3. Nobel Prize Spell Master! Jul 12, 2016

    Posts
    6,832
    Likes
    13,409
    No, it's because the production was high and the demand is high so they're always moving around. Rolex as a company does nothing to preserve, increase or distort the vintage market in any way, they don't really benefit much from it so they don't care outside of the overall brand perception it creates for new buyers. It's the collectors and hobbyists that create and affect that market.

    It is also because the Rolex vintage market is more accessible and understandable to new collectors. The Brand has an automatic seal of approval. It is a little alter in the life of a hobbyist that you start appreciating the subtends and rarer pieces...and even later when you actually don't give a damn and you value watches on their individual merit. So a newish collector (like me for example) starts on a path that leads directly to Rolex, Omega Speedies...seamasters...and slowly into the luxury brands JLC, Vacheron, Patek etc the subbrands like Tudor or Seiko etc etc
     
    OMGRLX, littlesheep81 and Jking like this.
  4. WatchVaultNYC Jul 12, 2016

    Posts
    3,719
    Likes
    4,189
    Yes, I'm not saying the company is actively doing anything. Just that vintage Rolex watches behave differently than everything else,
     
  5. Taddyangle Convicted Invicta Wearer Jul 12, 2016

    Posts
    4,817
    Likes
    31,395
    You can never go wrong bringing any speedy to a get-together. The more the better.

    If I can't bring them all, then I bring the ones in the most mint condition.
     
    OMGRLX and gostang9 like this.
  6. West Slope Jul 12, 2016

    Posts
    546
    Likes
    751
    I don't know that much about the watch market but in the motorcycle world a model that is rare usually means it didn't sell well when new so they are hard to find and thus desirable to collectors. So rarity alone can lead to desirability.
     
    OMGRLX and Fritz like this.
  7. wsfarrell Jul 12, 2016

    Posts
    2,440
    Likes
    4,129
    I have a theory about Rolexes: They're very distinctive watches, and are worn by people who like to display signs of their success. "Look at me: I can afford to buy a Rolex." These people are often in sales: auto sales, yacht sales, real estate, stocks, etc. When things are good, they buy a Rolex. When things get tight, the watch is the first thing to go.
     
    OMGRLX, gatorcpa and Jking like this.
  8. Nobel Prize Spell Master! Jul 12, 2016

    Posts
    6,832
    Likes
    13,409
    There is that, for sure, but they're also good reliable and fairly low key mid level watches that strike serve well as all around watches.

    The crown makes them an identifiable icon for good or bad but theres little qiestion of the appeal of the pieces themselves. Not all, but many of the favored ones: explorer, no date subs etc even some of the OP and datejust lines are clearly less blingy and affected than the modern ceramic, super clear super saphire crystal watches around.
     
  9. Foo2rama Keeps his worms in a ball instead of a can. Jul 12, 2016

    Posts
    17,044
    Likes
    25,209
    Grey area or fuzzy solutions to this. I think its a combo of both.
     
  10. rcs914 Jul 12, 2016

    Posts
    2,496
    Likes
    3,588
    There are tons of watches out there from dead brands of good quality that are exceedingly rare - but simply don't have the desirability factor. Sometimes it's fun knowing that you own one of maybe a handful at best of existing watches of a particular model, but then sometimes part of the fun is discussing said watch with other owners - and that becomes difficult where there are no other documented owners in the watch world. Then the piece simply becomes a novelty for the most part, rather than an object of desire and pursuit.
     
  11. Jking something intelligent and witty... Jul 12, 2016

    Posts
    578
    Likes
    2,559
    I think you nailed part of it for sure...I've been in sales for 15 years and for the most part have been pretty conservative with my "flash" buys. I can't tell you how many of my co-workers over the years have bought rolexes after a good quarter, year, ect. It's why I originally started looking at rolexes when I decided to step up from my Tag before I ended up with my AT. Rolexes are EVERYWHERE so I decided to check out other brands...I've owned my omega for 6 weeks now and have yet to see another one actually being worn. In the same time I'm noticed dozens of Rolex (mostly subs and datejusts). Just my personal observations but I think your right that when the job goes south the watch hits the secondary market. Nature of the job I guess.
     
    OMGRLX, Fritz and Foo2rama like this.
  12. Andy K Dreaming about winning an OFfie one day. Jul 12, 2016

    Posts
    1,819
    Likes
    5,884
    I really can't speak to the impact of Rolex distorting the market, but the relationship (or lack thereof) between rarity and desirability is something I have given thought to. I have attempted to quantify the relative availability/scarcity of the references within a family of 1970s Omegas. It's pretty clear that ref. MD 176.010 and ref. ST 176.001 are the least common and that is quantifiable, but my gut and experiences within the online watch community, while subjective, tell me that the ST 176.007 is significantly more desirable/interesting to the typical collector.
     
    OMGRLX and Nobel Prize like this.
  13. RawArcher Measures thread drift on the Richter Scale Jul 12, 2016

    Posts
    758
    Likes
    1,680
    Said slightly differently......Rolexes are for those who sell things, buy things, and/or process things as a career. They also sell things bought or processed, or buy things sold or processed, or process things that are sold, bought, or processed. They might even repair things sold, bought, or processed. That's what Rolex wearers do for a career.
     
    OMGRLX, rcs914 and Nobel Prize like this.
  14. gatorcpa ΩF InvestiGator Staff Member Jul 12, 2016

    Posts
    12,168
    Likes
    15,625
    Accessible? Perhaps.

    Understandable? Absolutely not.

    Go read all the little nuances about certain models over on the Vintage Rolex Forum. If you make a mistake, you're looking at anywhere from a 4-figure to a 6-figure hit.

    You really have to know what you are looking at.
    gatorcpa
     
    OMGRLX and Archer like this.
  15. Nobel Prize Spell Master! Jul 12, 2016

    Posts
    6,832
    Likes
    13,409
    Not at the level I meant. You're right though on your statement.

    What i meant is that a new collector will immediately accept or "understand" that a vintage Rolex is a good buy ( even if the particular one he's looking at is not) because the Rolex brand is attached to it.

    Or in other words " 10000 ( or 20g or 30g or 5 or whatever) dollars for a 30 year old watch? What is it, why?... Oh it's a Rolex, got it!....

    Versus... Oh it's a jlc memovox....what's that? It's a Genta, VC, Patek..... Let me Google that shit first.
     
    OMGRLX likes this.
  16. al128 unsolicited co-moderation giverer Jul 13, 2016

    Posts
    2,203
    Likes
    2,017
    But then again the info is all out there for Rolex- the due diligence Is to the butter.

    Try to find some info on late 1940ies Ulysses Nardin/Blancpain/jlc/iwc.... there you are seriously alone in the woods

    So I still consider Rolex a rather save bet . Sure you better do your homework before dumping 10k on a watch/guitar/vintage can of artist Shiite.
     
    OMGRLX likes this.