The recent inflation of prices has indeed exceeded cost/value. It’s no longer a modest proposition to add a Rolex to your collection- it’s a financial commitment (not investment). Anyone who says $4k for a Datejust or $9k for a run of the mill Submariner is cheap money is just a tool- that’s real money to anyone who has any sense- that problem solving money for many, not play money. It’s not a casual impulse buy.

I do think every serious watch collector should try to add at least one to their collection if they can. A vintage Rolex has just as much merit in a collection as a finely made pocket watch, a real military issued wrist watch, or haute horologic piece like a Patek, Lange, JLC etc...they are just part of a well rounded collection...no more, no less.
If you want a Rolex, figure out which model speaks to you- don’t get hung up on the current brand cache- it’s not about that to most collectors, it’s about the icon.

 

We’ll,

it’s a good thing this is not a stamp collecting forum. Would love to see the sensible justification for the value of stamps that cost cents to build.

 

Or baseball cards back when they were a thing (I still have my entire collection which was worth $$$$$$ back in the day).

 

Not quite the same. New stamps have a face value price. Producers don’t randomly pick a high price to create exclusivity. Secondhand stamps are pretty much valued according to scarcity.

 

Ok. Missed my point by a mile or two but sure.

 

I don't know about "poor man," but Tudor was definitely designed and marketed as a watch with Rolex quality at a lower price point. As Hans Wilsdorf put it:

“For some years now, I have been considering the idea of making a watch that our agents could sell at a more modest price than our Rolex watches, and yet one that would attain the standard of dependability for which Rolex is famous. I decided to form a separate company, with the object of making and marketing this new watch. It is called the TUDOR watch company.”

 

Don't know if it was mentioned but Rolex do not own Tudor. They have a common parent.

And I have a few of each, would only ever buy vintage Rolex, but like the new Tudors

 

Yea, not "poor man' necessarily, just "more modest man"

 

My moniker was given to me by the Squirrel for my overzealous defense of the Crown on a similar thread. Despite its recent malfeasance, these are simply great watches. Period. Are they haute horological masterpieces? Hell no. They are simply superbly built tool watches. Even my two senior citizens keep the same impeccable time as my modern GMT. As much as I curse them and their BS. They are one heck of a brand.

 

Not sure what your point is with this one.

I’m not a stamp collector, but I did sell at auction a collection of a family member that was deceased. I learned a fair bit about value when we took it for an appraisal, and the basic takeaway is that stamps are almost exclusively valued on rarity and condition. So unused stamps in sheets are more valuable then unused single stamps. Used stamps have little value unless very, very rare.

The collection I sold had many sheets (stacks of them actually) that had a good amount of value, but unfortunately had been stored in such a way that they had gotten wet enough to stick together, so much of the value was lost. If you did soak them to separate them, the glue would be removed from the backs, and again value lost.

They are of course not collected because of what it costs to make them, so it seems like an odd comparison.

Watches are sold for multiples of what it costs to make them, and that’s no secret. They are prestige items that are marketed to death, in particular by Rolex. Comparisons to stamps which are/were everyday items is an apples to donkeys comparison.

 

But there are in fact many brands that make very good watches, so Rolex is not unique in that regard by any stretch.

 

True. Just had my Aquascaphe on the wrist for a week. I admire it as well.

 

No one is claiming that Rolex is unique. And they are one heck of a brand.

 

The 'show off', 'flash', 'does anybody notice' your Rolex thing is a recurring annoyance. I never understood the urge to mention such insignifiance. I needed to vent a little...

 

If Hans Wilsdorf himself said that the Tudor brand is supposed to give you "Rolex dependability" at a lower price point, then you can't blame people for calling Tudor watches the "poor man's Rolex".

His quote also begs a couple of questions:

1. Instead of having a separate brand, why not just have a range of Rolex watches at different price points? From basic affordable dress/tool watches to expensive high end pieces. It would be akin to BMW having cars that range from a 118i all the way to an M5.

2. If Tudor watches were that good that they gave you "Rolex depebability", then why would anyone want to buy a Rolex? Everyone would just buy Tudors instead.

Seems to me that 'ol Hans was a bit of a fox who already knew a thing or two about marketing, brand image, exclusivity and all that BS that Rolex is now infamous for. He didn't establish the Tudor brand just to do humanity a service. He only did it to enhance the desirability of Rolex, his golden haired child.

 

my point is the value of any collectible, be it stamps, toys, cars or watches is based largely on the collector, not the item.

A rare stamp, let’s say a stamp that got mis printed or something…. Is, the value of a stamp. No more, no less. The value to a collector for whatever reasons or metrics it is measured maybe priceless.

why do I say that? Because of the constant evaluation of the value of Rolex over Tudor over omega over…. You name it. To demean the value of a Rolex and justify the value of a Tudor is a false equivalence. To measure how the market values them or how a collector or buyer values them; that makes sense.

But to then say the Rolex buyer is not smart because he’s overpaying when he could get a Tudor for Less….. that makes less sense to me. Of course he can get a Tudor or a seiko or many others for less. But that’s not where the value lies. It lies with the buyer.

so if the argument goes a a Rolex is not worth it’s price...even though it’s sold and purchases at that price I counter.

a Stamp isn’t either…. And yet, we also pay premium for the stamps we want.

i say stamp but it could be dolls, coins, hats or… watches.

my point it NOT to demean stamp collecting.

 

Before purchasing I did wonder about spending so much on on an ETA 2824 but I have zero buyers remorse now

 

Yes of course. I don't think anyone disputes this rather obvious thing, and when someone talked about choosing a Tudor, I believe they said it would be conditional on liking the Tudor just as much, at least that's how I read it.

However it does seem to rile up the Rolex folks when someone dares to suggest that the value to them, is not worth the current market price.

I don't generally see this sort of intense reaction with other brands, so it seems rather specific to this brand for whatever reason. I'm sure someone could earn a PhD in psychology just based on studying the specifics around the current Rolex thing...it's pretty fascinating from a human behaviour aspect.

And for good measure I'll throw in what I have to put in my posts over at WUS to have my comments be validated in any Rolex forum thread there - yes I own a Rolex.*

Cheers, Al

* - yes, over there in the Rolex forum your views are invalidated if you comment (unconditional praise for the brand is the exception) unless you actually own a Rolex, and for some unless you have bought at full price from a flipper you are only "sort of" validated. The world of Rolex is full of crazy people these days who take pride in paying way over list as a sign of "flexing" or whatever the kids call it these days.

 

I have both a vintage Tudor and a Rolex from about the same time. I like both watches and see very little difference between the two.

I also have a recent Submariner. I didn't buy it because of any marketing blurb, or to make me look better than Joe Bloggs, or because I thought it would impress the CEOs and celebrities I mix with .

I simply bought it because it was the closest thing I could find to the original Submariner I bought in 1977 and stupidly sold following my divorce.

I bought the 1977 Subbie because I liked the design, the ruggedness of the case and bracelet and it was an automatic that I could wear 24/7 in a tropical environment while participating in some rather strenuous work day activities.

Todays "Rolex" is a beast much removed from what it was in the 1970s.

As is a Tudor.

 

Perhaps this sort of intense reaction from Rolex owners is the constant bashing of the brand and often denigrating anyone who would actually buy a Rolex. What is it about Rolex that causes such disdain from so many here? I don't know...maybe it's like what came first, the chicken or the egg? What came first...Rolex owners bug people, so they complain about the brand, or Rolex owners reacting to negative comments about the brand?