Whats the appeal of steel sports watches

Buck2466

Blame Rolex😁

cicindela

Of course you can, it's Rolex 😁

BlackTalon

it would make sense that if a steel watch should not cost over $500, then it's equivalent in gold should not cost more than $500 - scrap value of steel + scrap value of gold? It seems this makes a judgement that the cost for designing, fabricating and assembling the case, movement, dial, hands, packaging, etc. should not be more then ~$250 (the distribution and retailing costs then bump that up to $500). What is the basis for believing all tool watch designs should be able to be built for that just because the case is steel/ stainless steel vs a precious metal?

Of course I would not argue if Patek Phillipe watches dropped in cost to $500 + cost difference between steel and gold...

Thomas P.

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

BlackTalon

I agree -- that is exactly my point. If you feel there is no way a steel watch should cost more then $500, then there is no way a precious metal watch should ever cost more than $1,500. But jeebus, they surely do!

I don't think it is possible to build the plants, create the machinery, pay the costs of the real estate, etc. to produce a watch for only $250 unless you source a lot of parts/ pieces from parts of the world where real estate and labor costs are very inexpensive. And while someone like Seiko can churn out tons of watches that retail for $75-$200, they also sell quite a few at higher price points, which helps them cover a large part of their bills.

Thomas P.

Yes but everybody else followed. Just look at what watches cost back in the 1960s and before from vintage ads and put those numbers into an inflation calculator. Also remember they didn't have robotics to assemble the watches back then so they had to pay a lot more for labor.

W West Slope

Interesting question, gold is actually not worth anything as it really has no "use" but yet people have killed for it for centuries. Likewise the diamond market is artificially created/controlled so the reality it all of these things are valued far more than the sum of their parts.

Buy what you like and laugh at those who choose otherwise....I mean is a new 911 like the one a friend just bought for 90k really worth double the 370Z my wife owns? On paper they are pretty comparable yet clearly people value the Porsche more.

mozartman

I've done that, Thomas, and I'm sure others here have too. Watches are actually a pretty good deal these days, at least if you buy a Seiko, or, say, a Victorinox if you want Swiss (both those brands sell watches that cost more than $500 but also many that cost less), rather than a Rolex or Omega. Remember that Omega's parent Swatch has turned Omega into its flagship luxury brand. You can certainly buy a Swatch for less than $500.

Traveler

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..)

Emeister

A little off topic perhaps but does Omega's Sedna (and whatever Rolex's new version of gold is) have a melt down value similar to gold?
Honestly don't know if it's a mixture of several elements and either harder to separate by melting, water's down the (melted) price or is just impossible to scrap for any kind of reasonable return.