I've been posting on this forum for a while as well as collecting watches for a while. I don't want this coming off the wrong way but what is the appeal of (very expensive) steel sports watches? While I do appreciate steel sports watches for what they are for the life of me I can't get the appeal of spending over around $500 USD for a steel watch. It's just mind boggling to me especially seeing new steel watches cost over $10k USD. Ingrained in my mind is that luxury (expensive) watches are made of precious metal as in gold, platinum or palladium. What do you all think?

 

There are many reasons methinks, but probably the primary one is this - the expensive steel sports watch has more utility than an expensive dress watch because in today's modern world, people are more often in casual settings than formal. I.e. more opportunities to show off with a VC Overseas than a Patrimony (or Rolex Sub vs Cellini etc etc). Even if no one else recognizes it, you still get the utility of feeling more "in the know" than everyone else.

 

If I damage the case of a $5000 steel sports watch, I can always have it polished. I'd be terrified to actually wear a watch made with precious metal on any regular basis

 

You can have a precious metal watch case polished too. Also there is a nice patina in my opinion to worn gold. Platinum and palladium hold up pretty well not quite as well as steel but pretty well.

 

Look I didn't mean it as a cheap insult and I apologize if it came out that way. It is just mind boggling when say a Zenith G381 that is made of 18k Gold is barely over half the price of a Steel A386. The gold had a much lower production run and survival rate so why is it cheaper than the steel. What gives?

 

There are plenty of precious metal watches that are far less costly than those VCs.

 

It's just one of those things that will puzzle you for eternity.

You have firm views on luxury watches so your brain is wired so that "steel" and "luxury watch" cause circuit tripping.

 

Am I the only one?

 

Probably.

Personally, I can't see owning a tool watch in precious metal. Black & Decker doesn't make platinum drills. I've never seen a solid rose gold set of Craftsman pliers either. The watch isn't expensive because it's stainless steel.

How about we look at it from the reverse angle? Why is a stainless steel Reverso half the cost (or less) of an 18k Reverso? That small amount of gold certainly isn't worth $6000.

 

Much of the value of a fine watch is not in the material cost, nor in the craftsmanship involved. It's how much it's worth to you rather than how much it costs to make.

And how much is worth to you is determined by why you buy the watch - to solely keep time? Wrist jewelry? To be part of a great tradition older than you? To have something to hand down? To be a patron of the fine art of watchmaking? To complete a collection? To feel like you're with the in crowd? To feel superior to the in crowd? Combination of the above?

 

Those tools can't really be made out of precious metal as it is too soft. As far as the reverso I can't fathom spending thousands on a relatively new watch that hasn't hit the bottom of the depreciation curve. That's just me though.

 

It's many reasons. I just find it strange to spend $10k or more on a new steel watch. Also when I buy a watch I always think about how much over spot the watch costs. A watch is a quasi investment to me and its nice to have something that is both a collectible and bullion for as close to the price of bullion as possible though obviously some brands are more popular than others at different times.

 

I think there's something wrong when you start fixating on what the watch is actually made of ( unless you plan on melting it down some day..) - it either appeals to you or it doesn't ... Steel is the best metal for a tool watch for obvious reasons. It can still be beautifully executed and have a great deal of wrist presence if that's what you need. To me what really counts is the overall look and feel of the watch....

 

Well the color and the heft of precious metals appeal to me and even if the watch is destroyed it has value in the metal.

 

Hardly. Gold has been the prestige metal of choice across many cultures for millennia. But in recent years in our culture, the pervasiveness of men's business formal and evening formal wear has steadily faded over the past 50 years, and especially over the past 20. Once you are wearing similarly casual clothes at work or leisure, a beefy, thick, durable stainless steel watch case makes practical sense and doesn't look out of place as it might with formal wear. But as for not paying more than $500, dem's fightin' words 'round these parts.

 

They have fairly chunky gold and platinum watches too you know. hey I have nothing against sports watches and I might be tempted if it was cheap enough and if they made it a Palladium Planet Ocean. That would be nice . Are you listening Omega?

 

Blame Rolex

 

Basically you are valuing a watch by it's weight in scrap. I'm not saying that's totally invalid - but going by the same logic is it fair to value you as a person the same as 100-200lbs of horsemeat?

Methinks there are very few finished goods in the world that are reasonably valued the same as their weight in raw materials (aside from of course, raw materials)