https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-54631014
Nice watch. Basically a Sub Explorer or is that too simplisitic?
Not sure what it's called.Quote:
Originally Posted by kildareman
If you missed that, here's the Steinhart one a bit cheaper:
https://www.steinhartwatches.de/en/o...e-vintage.html
Why can't rolex go back to making nice watches like that?
Printed vanilla lume, no wg surrounds or ceramic bezel or other shit they use to justify the prices. Classic, classy, stylish and simple.
Now's it all bling bling, waiting lists and randomised serial numbers. Cynical Veblen crap.
More tea, Vicar?
Happy for the owners.
I guess in 2070, people will be complaining why don’t they make Rolexes like they used to do in the 20s:-)
Missing lume... I wouldn't have paid a tenner for it :icon_biggrin:
Where's Jedley with the wrist shot then :thumbsup:
He will be along shortly ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallasey Runner
It's going to be him or less than a handful of others. Wrist shot would be nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallasey Runner
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Backward point
There'll be a book on Rolex sometime the next 10 years titled "The Rolex Story: From Bubblebacks to Bubble Burst"Quote:
Originally Posted by RAJEN
[QUOTE=Rev-O;5563445
There'll be a book on Rolex sometime the next 10 years titled "The Rolex Story: From Bubblebacks to Bubble Burst"[/QUOTE]
It may happen but
A. How hard some try, they can’t will it to happen
B. I would not recommend holding your breath for that to happen.
All the miners that taught me to dive wore Seiko's :suspicion:
Once you start to manipulate the market (by restricting supply, randomising serial numbers etc) AND unnecessarily pissing people off (waiting list and withholding papers) then your days are numbered.Quote:
Originally Posted by RAJEN
And that's without the demographics, which are against wristwatches. (Look at what once VERY expensive pocket watches now sell for on ebay.)
Give it time (be that another five or ten years) and prices will fall. And once they start to soften people sell up before they drop further and that accelerates the decline. They won’t fall all the way back but people will certainly take a hit.
I wonder what it costs Rolex to make a watch. At a guess, I’d say a high three figure sum, maybe £800 tops. Call it a grand. Hell, call it £1200, £1500 even. They do it all-house (full vertical integration) with massive economies of scale. And we all know that there's no real rarity (scarcity is created by Rolex) and that the intrinsic value isn't huge (it's not made of some unique and finite material). So these things are "worth" (working to normal margins, without extra padding and inflating the price) maybe 2 or 3 grand. 4 tops. People gonna start wondering where all the money goes. First candidate is the marketing budget. It sure pays to advertise!
We all know this. And I think it's unsustainable. That's just my opinion. Fanboys gonna argue because they are heavily invested and no-one want to be last on the Ponzi scheme or admit that the Emperor's new clothes haven't even got a coaxial movement.
Anyone who thinks this isn't a bubble is wrong, in my opinion and for all the reasons I've given.
Back to the watch in the OP:
Vintage is always good (they ain’t making them any more ha ha). But a new ss model? No.
And £175k would buy a nice 2 or 3 bed house in some parts of Nottinghamshire. A place to live and either £500 pcm in rent or NOT paying £500 pcm in mortgage. Either way, £6k pa in your pocket and a solid asset.
Buyer's commission is 20% plus VAT so the purchaser will not pay the hammer price of £175,000 but at least £217,000.
It would not surprise me if a good Explorer-dial Submariner were not sold on quite quickly with a big mark-up on that amount.
Do that just a few times a year and all of a sudden the property investment might not compare so well, especially if property itself may suffer some "revaluation." Do it regularly and there's no comparison, but it generally takes those who do it a lot of air miles, great knowledge, resources and balls!
H
Sure, that's the nature of a bubble. While it's rising there are big buck to be made. Tulips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton
If the Buyer is prepared to pay the money, then it is his right to go ahead and buy it. I suspect most of those moaning about the fact couldn't afford it anyway and are squawking like some noisy little kid who can't get a cream cake.
Also there is a very happy seller somewhere and that is good.
It's all about freedom.
In this world there is market for everything and in this case for collectors i’m sure that was one “incredible opportunity”. For the public like me the Steinhart is enough. Thanks for sharing
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Not me this time !!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallasey Runner
The devil is as always in the detail.... I stayed out of the bidding as a friend was interested in it , on the basis he would take a ‘punt’ ( an each way gamble ) that the mark on the dial at 2 o’clock would improve . The auction house was vary straight and showed it clearly
https://i.postimg.cc/NM6Qk0pX/F9-D66...EB35-C78-B.jpg
The value of the piece is the dial condition , marks scrapes , blistering , chips demolish that value .
If it does clean it’s a win , if it doesn’t .... well ...
I’d bet H is right , it will have gone to a dealer prepared to make the same bet , given half the uk is shut down , same for Europe , travel in person is almost impossible I’m amazed it went so strong .
Is it still a bubble if it’s been going in for 25 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev-O
That’s how long I’ve been collecting vintage watches and the prices have nit bombed yet.
For the record prices rising are not my main reason for collecting.
Bubblebacks & Princes were very collectable when I started. They don't command as much attention (or value) as they did 30 years ago. But then the world fell in love with larger watches with tool cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by watchlovr
Replaced during servicing? Why would they do that?Quote:
"It boasts a short-lived dial design, known as the 3-6-9, which was often replaced during servicing"
On that note, why do they replace watch hands (and other things) during servicing. What goes wrong with them.
But not sentimental enough to sell out at the right price [emoji57]Quote:
“”The family are naturally delighted as this was a very sentimental piece.””
what do you class as the "right" price?Quote:
Originally Posted by SydR
Wasn’t my watch to sell and I’m less sentimental than a house brick.Quote:
Originally Posted by seadog1408
Was just pointing out that people will part with‘very sentimental’ items if offered what they believe to be a high enough price.
Because in the days before collectors went mad for vintage watches, it was just a Submariner and when it went for a service it was brought back to “as new” condition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ontological
There are plenty of watches that go in fir service today and have the dial or hand replaced for various reasons; it was no different back then.
Even more so though, as just swapping the movement out for a new one rather than servicing the old one wasn’t unheard of either.
It is an interesting point, how do dial and hands that are sealed within the Watch reach a point were it is considered necessary to replace them. It would be interesting to hear from any of our watch repairers as to the red flags that tell them something needs replacing. I think in Rolex' case it is probably just cosmetic - shiny and new.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave+63
It’s nice that the family got a nice windfall, particularly if it held a lot of sentimental value. That said, the shame of it all is that in its service life, that watch will have been worn and likely cherished. Bought and sold at those prices it is destined to be a fancy trinket for a wealthy collector, seldom to be worn again.
I find that thought - that these watches sit in a safe somewhere doing anything but being worn a great shame for these great watches.
Speculating on them not only prices people out, but it takes the watches out of service - in fact totally defeating the purpose of their existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSTW
Don’t frett , I know most of the owners of the top notch example 369 ( as half of them are my old watches ) the vast majority are worn in regular rotation , whilst i get why you’d think at First glance at that price point people wouldn’t the opposite is In Fact true , if you can afford to put a few million into your watches , you generally don’t stress about actually wearing them .
With watches of that age, there’s the tritium or radium which probably does some damage. There’s also natural and artificial light passing through the crystal which causes degradation of the paint on the dial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallasey Runner
Whether its rare or not, it looks like a scruffy old watch to me and it holds zero appeal. I’m a big fan of vintage watches and I own some nice ones, but I’ve never seen the appeal of old Subs or Speedmasters unless they’re close to new condition.
Why do hands deteriorate? The old tritium lume gets very brittle with age and can drop out when the watch gets a knock. It can drop out when the hands are removed too. It can be stabilised by carefully painting clear lacquer on the back.
Well said, but you have to admire their marketing and market/supply manipulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev-O
The people who keep rambling on about bubbles are usually those who don't own them.
I buy and never intend to sell so I don't give a damn about bubble or price swings. The only advantage in a steady price growth is that it makes it easy to persuade the wife that it's a good idea to buy them.
Hmmm maybe but so what, not owning something doesn't invalidate opinion or the obverse..I own several flats in London, will readily acknowledge it's been a bubbly and manipulated market for quite some time, continues to be so with the latest wheeze being over stamp duty, also the possibility of next years MPC decision to go negative on interest rates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick P
Good for you, wear in good health etc, you've no need to take the bubble talk personally or disparage people with talk of squawking...though the cream cake did sound good.
Is price inflation that lasts at least forty years in any market really a bubble? How long was the 17th Century tulip bubble - a year ?
The price trend of vintage Rolex may sometimes jump up above or down below the long term trend, at which second point some will claim they have proof it was a bubble.
There may be a correction in the vintage market, or prices may shoot higher still if a local currency devalues, but the demand for vintage Rolex so massively outstrips supply that it will find solid support as soon as any substantial drop takes place.
Like Warren Buffet, I think a long term "hold" has proved the sensible play --- but then buying lots of watches before or in the early days of the internet has proved to be very opportune timing.
H
Yep, it's all proportionate. It depends what that amount of money means to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by jedly1
A collector I follow on Instagram was out on his mountain bike this week wearing a stainless steel Nautilus and then the next day on the bicycle again wearing a carbon AP concept. Clearly if he fell off and broke either he wouldn't be that bothered. I don't think he (or someone like him) would care about wearing a milsub or anything else like that out and about and it would go in the rotation.
Although some rotations are bigger than others. You must have watches which haven't seen daylight in years Jedly.
I also wonder how much the 07/08 crisis and subsequent devaluation of money/ cash in the bank in the sense you could no longer earn easy interest over time, use compounding, risk free, has led to a flow of greater volumes of what would otherwise be a part of some folks' rainy day fund/tier 1 savings into other 'assets', which the ubiquitous Rolex is well placed to exploit, though in fairness the whole Luxury watch thing seems more of a mainstream thing now... Plus as you mention social medias timing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton
How've they performed over 40 plus years, would be interesting.
Old article if anyone's interested, sorry if it's been posted before.
https://www.ablogtowatch.com/rolex-p...ling-analysis/
Fair point, midish 80's and onwards steady old/new inflationary surge.
Indeed. The tulip bubble was a few years at the very most (1634-7, but essentially the winter of 1636-7) and the Rolex phenomenon isn't that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton
The price of tulips went from mega high to nothing within a few days and then remained worthless. The problem was not so much the tulips but the fact that lots of wealthy people had secured loans from very eager banks. Many of these people loaned 100% of the value of their houses and lands plus other shares etc. In other words, the aristocracy and wealthy merchants had invested everything they had in tulips and when the price crashed and stayed crashed, they went from being super wealthy to being skint. The wealthy ended up on the streets and became vagrants. This was a dramatic and unimaginable event which turned society upside down and is remembered till this day.
Now returning to Rolex, most people have one Rolex, I suspect a few here have a dozen Rolex and the odd one or two may have a hundred. This will have very little effect on them and will certainly not cause them to go begging on the streets. I very much doubt if anyone has mortgaged their house against a pile of Rolex, so there is, as usual, a lot of wailing about a very unlikely event.
As Haywood said, anything with a substained and level growth over 40 years is hardly likely to crash down through the floor.
Quoting tulips is all but laughable.
My understanding of the Tulip frenzy, and part of what made it so notable, was that the investing mania spread beyond the wealthy and aristo's, traditional speculators... and that the ordinary man/woman in the street started borrowing or more likely selling their property and or any other 'domestic' assets they might have so strong was the belief it was a one way bet...I might be wrong, perhaps the Charles Mackay interpretation in 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' has over stated the case and so my 'reading' of it is coloured.
Bit of more critique and additional analysis here,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
Fascinating that bubbles keep happening.
Back in the 1600s, most people didn't even have a bank account and lived in shacks which were rented so it affected the aristocracy, land owners, merchants, a few of the middle classes and banks. The rammifications were huge and most people suffered due to the trickle down effect, so I think we can all safely conclude that Rolex watches are unlikely to have anywhere near a similar effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Passenger
To be fair I said:
But even then I've seen various antiques and objects d'art come and go in fashion. It's easy to end up selling at a loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev-O
But buy what you like and can afford. If it makes you money, all the better.
A wealthy friend of mine has bought a lot of art. He did that instead of buying more stocks and shares and says the pleasure he get from it is the "dividend". As he says, you can't frame a share certificate and hang it on the wall. It might perform well over time or not but it diversifies his portfolio and is as good as place as any to park some money.
For me the best part of this story is that the family who sold it seem like ordinary decent working class people. It's a life changing amount of money for them (as it would be for me and for most of us.)
I stand by all I said about Rolex today and their wicked ways though. A sort of "treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" mentality. No thanks, I'd rather have my self respect and not wear an estate agent's bling bracelet. There's far more interesting watches out there that won't get noticed by anyone but the discerning.
Dear ReverendQuote:
Originally Posted by Rev-O
The fact you don't want to wear bling is commendable, especially in your occupation. I suffered a similar fate, being a Purchasing Manager I always stood the risk of the "brown envelope" accusation so I delayed buying my first Rolex until retirement.
My house is also full of antiques which are worth no more than the price that I paid for them 30 or 40 years ago, but I enjoy them, so that's fine by me.
However I think to start equating a Rolex with a Tulip is all but scare mongering. If the price of Rolex did dip, it would never be a jumping off the top of a tall building thing, so I think all Rolex owners can sleep safely at night.
The "treat them mean and keep em keen" statement is actually a good thing. I as an owner can enjoy a few Rolex in the knowledge that I am unlikely to lose out. Rolex are looking after me and I thank them for that. If the price goes up then I am effectively being paid to wear a good quality watch and that makes me very happy indeed.
Your concern about the finances of Rolex owners is commendable but somewhat unnecessary.
TBF it now looks to some recent historians that only a fairly narrow professional class of merchants and investors ever got hurt and McKay's long unchallenged view may've been unduly coloured by subsequent pamphleteers with a moralistic spin on the event and that it wasn't on the scale we've all assumed. Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick P
Fair enough. Not tulips, then, but also not my thing. I remember wearing one a while back and a colleague (knowing I like watches but nothing else about them) saw the name on the dial and went "ooh, a Rolex". It was only an old OP (1950s) but everyone knows the name. At the time I had far more watches which I regularly wore but which went right under his radar. That watch has now gone (along with many others, on a house deposit natch). My collection (such as it is) now is smaller and worth less but is far, far more interesting. Research vs advertising. But Veblen is a business model, and if you like their watches then good for you. Personally, I don't think Rolex have made a watch in the last 30 years that I'd actually wear but that's just a matter of taste.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick P
I certainly don't lose sleep over Rolex or their customers. Each to their own.
Pax.
Right now, this very minute, I am wearing a 39mm Explorer which could never be described as bling, in fact it is rather dowdy and is my second favourite to a knacked looking Explorer11.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev-O
How wet was the pit they worked! I got away with wearing wellies.:welcoming:Quote:
Originally Posted by number2
I think you raise good points Rev, when I discuss watches with people, a fair few always say, I would like to get a Rolex, I always ask, which one? Most of them don’t know, a Rolex is a statement , not a watch, I don’t know really how I feel about that.
Glenburn (or Auchincruive 4, 5, 6, & 7) at Prestwick (adjacent to the west end of the airport runway) ran for several hundred yards under the sea. I worked with quite a few blokes who had been miners there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitfitter
https://canmore.org.uk/site/81163/au...ry-4-5-6-and-7
https://www.workinglives.org.uk/show...nt_item_id=414
coo, thats nice !! :0)Quote:
Originally Posted by David_D