Reply With QuoteWell, they wish they were. But they're basically a posh Swatch.
http://www.austinkaye.co.uk/Omega-Ge...ce-6380-p.aspx
It was a decent watch at £900, bracelet a bit rattly and jangly due to lots of moving parts, but the ETA movement with Omega-only GMT mod very useful if you travelled. Ugly as sin, but that's a personal opinion (that bezel...) Now this 15-year-old watch is being hawked for two grand because some more recent Omegas, which are better made and finished than this, are more expensive than they used to be, and buyers are being schooled by the sellers (which is economically mindless). Is Omega in fact, now, R*l*x?
Well, they wish they were. But they're basically a posh Swatch.
Judging by the way Omega pricing has gone over the last 5-10 years it would certainly appear that the brand aspires to be considered in the same breath as the mighty crown. In fairness, it does mean that those of us who bought watches 10+ years ago are enjoying the residual values - my SMP300 is by no means rare but I could probably get back now what I paid for it in 2002. Nuts, really.Originally Posted by andrew
SGR
I love the GMT and have owned both the white and black faced variants.I wouldn't pay £2000 for one Omega service or no Omega service but I am guessing that from a bricks and mortar outlet someone will.Or some room for negotiation at least.
I remember buying a brandnew Seamaster Bond auto from the AD for €1600, not too long ago actually, and what is that model going for nowadays? Sure, some 'upgrading' is done, but still the prices are steep.
Omega would like to sit alongside Rolex, but they don't really, do they?
This is not a comment on whether their product is inferior or superior, but 20 years of getting James Bond to wear Seamasters hasn't allowed the Seamaster Professional (or even the Planet Ocean) to tackle the omnipotent Rolex Submariner.
The new ones have a certain tech appeal (Liquidmetal a la Apple, in-house-designed movement, forthcoming range of a-magnetic movements etc) but they are developing their reputation in a different way to the Big R, and marketing to a very different audience. Despite this, resellers seem to be assuming the same economic model. Anyway, existing Omegas can smirk smugly to themselves, and prospective buyers can wince at the price and resign themselves to not being able to play. Rather like Rolex, in fact - or, indeed, buying a house in the south-east of England!
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Omega was always innovative while Rolex was more evolutionary. For me that's a sign that Rolex commands the cachet it does effortlessly.
Both are great watches, but the prices are extortionate now.
And also, I agree about the bezel on that Seamaster!
Yes, they do, in everything but resale values. And of late Rolex seem to be slipping in that regard.
I wonder what happens when the macro economic bubble finally bursts?
Do you really think that that is the perception of the public?
No. The resale value is a symptom of that.
You may have noticed that I haven't said that an Omega is an inferior watch. I've made no comparison in those regards. My only point was that they don't carry the cachet of Rolex.
I don't understand the point in selective quoting to remove context.
Sorry, but no they don't. And to be honest I also don't see any decline in resale value regarding Rolex either. And I do keep an eye on the market for 20 years now...
Omega makes a darn fine watch, but when they keep increasing the prices the way they do lately, the majority of customers will choose a Rolex when prices come too close.
Buyers who "are being schooled" should just keep their money.
Then people will find out what is and is not a good investment. I reckon that Omega will bring about £500 once people come to their senses.
I think Rolex makes a compelling alternative purely at the price, but the Omega brand is aimed at a different audience. Younger, dynamic and very probably Chinese, Omega buyers are as much, or more, about the 21st century (funky materials and thoroughly modern sizing) as they are watchmaking expertise (in-house movement designs). Less of the tradition, unchanged Speedmasters aside - but retrofitting that tradition, by doubling the prices of ageing-but-not-vintage Omegas overnight, seems pretty punchy to me. You can get a 1999 Explorer II for not much more, though not from a pricey central London dealer admittedly!
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Well said Andrew. Omega are putting themselves back where they should be in the market, but lots of people don't seem to see the way they're building a client base i.e. younger watch lovers.
Sorry, but that is the last place I'd put 2k.
Theyre just not nice watches IMO
Another case of a mainstream jeweller trying it on.. They see a new Omega at £x, then take a bit off due to its age, and hope someone pays it. I like looking at the pre owned 40mm Explorer II's which they state the current retail is £5.5k, and are selling it at a bargain of £4.9k. The thing I always wonder is who actually buys them, and if they're not sold, they must go somewhere...do they auction them off?
Lets not get carried away about Omega values.
This is just Austin Kayes pricing after all, but if you really want to pay through the nose for vintage Omega, get your arse down Burlington Arcade.
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
Companies sell high-margin jewellery to punters, not clients as such (insert gag here about the other kind of client that gets screwed, perhaps that's the intent with this pricing...).
Some of AK's stock is mildly diverting, but I'll pass on their grand-plus Cosmics. Unlike the Omega boutique, theirs is an actual shop designed to encourage commerce, not a line item expense in SwatchCo's global marketing budget!
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Posting Permissions