Reply With QuoteDon't forget that Omega prices had already gone up significantly this year, the prices they're charging are now too expensive in my view.
I doubt that other manufacturers will be influenced by what Rolex do.
The Rolex increase is now confirmed and I notice on this forum that other brands seem to be criticised quite a lot for ambitious pricing. I’m wondering how the forum feels other brands should react. The brand that perhaps gets the most negative price comment is Omega, a maker that I see as operating in the same mid market bracket as Rolex. Now, at the moment, with the usual discount, you can pick up roughly two Seamasters for one Sub, if you can get the Sub at retail. The Sub is, no doubt, a better watch than the Seamaster, but it is not twice as good.
As I see it Omega have two choices, they increase their price to maintain the current difference or they keep prices the same, effectively admitting that the Sub is now more than twice as good.
Obviously supply and demand, marketing and fashion trends play a huge part in what makes prices realistic but I’m interested in how you all feel other brands should react. Should Omega sacrifice some sales by increasing prices but, at the same time, maintaining the current gap to Rolex? And should the higher tier makers also increase their prices to maintain the gap, and the perceived increase in quality to the masses which comes purely with having a higher price?
Don't forget that Omega prices had already gone up significantly this year, the prices they're charging are now too expensive in my view.
I doubt that other manufacturers will be influenced by what Rolex do.
It's not the first time I've heard this. Can you explain why you think that the Sub is better than the SM? I've no horse in this race, not owning either or having any particular desire to do so. What objectively makes the Sub 'better'? From this outsiders position, they seem pretty much the same...Originally Posted by Danstone
Edited to add : this really isn't an attempt to start a R v O flame war, its genuinely trying to understand why some objectively consider one to be better than the other. Please don't use it just as an excuse to start slagging one or the other off ��
It is interesting, i’ve Paid £5k for a seamaster and i’ve Paid £7k for a submariner..... they both have their place and in terms of quality i’m not good enough to judge but they certainly feel like and look like equally quality products when on the wrist. I’m Personally a big Rolex fan, but I have spoken to more than a couple of people who are adamant they wouldn’t buy or wear Rolex. They could afford them if they wanted and theyll happily spend £10k on a Breitling or omega though. I think they all have a place and a market.
The “no doubt” was my attempt at preventing the Rolex fanboys from jumping on the thread to chastise me for even daring to compare the two. In reality there is vey little difference in quality, finish, reliability etc, it comes down to personal taste.
For the brands priced above Rolex that include robust Rolex Professional alternatives amongst their models I doubt that increasing their prices would help their cause.
They should not react at all and just maintain their own pricing strategies.
The Rolex bubble is unique and should be ignored until such time as the whole fiasco deflates.
First to answer OP’s question. Other brands don’t need to do anything in response to Rolex’s price increase.
Every major brand has its own pricing policies and schedule for price changes and it does not depend on what Rolex does. The price increase is not high enough to distance Rolex from competitors or bring it in same category as watches above it.
As for Seamaster vs Sub, I consider the current Seamaster a very acceptable alternative to current Submariner and they are comparable in quality. It is a personal choice based on looks, perception of the brand and the importance of value retention in decision making. They are both quality watches with comparable performance.
As far as ambitious pricing goes, a brand can price their watches however they want. The market decides whether it will bear those or not. Rolex price increase will not affect sales much at all while Omega/GS can hike up their prices however much they want but will not sell many at full retail prices unless a limited edition/run. This is a stark reality- Atleast for now.
Looking at the grey market prices, Rolex's RRP price increase is rather modest in comparison.
Create the need and profit from the greed.
Last edited by Chinnock; 24th December 2019 at 15:24.
As Rolex gets closer and closer to real quality watches like AP then people will think twice about buying one and start to look at quality brands. Their pricing strategy of closing in on the grey price will be their downfall.
The Sub is NOT Better than the Seamaster, this is a popular fallacy. My 2254 is, just like a Sub, an automatic movement dive watch. It is waterproof to 300m, just like a Sub. It is a COSC certified movement, just like a Sub. Those are the things that make it the same as the Sub.
What makes it better than the Sub are the facts that; it's better looking than the Sub, it's cheaper than the Sub & you can walk into any AD & actually buy one.
* other opinions are available.
Try rotating the bezel subsea, then you will see it's not as good as the Rolex, and as for the manual HEV, not a great idea.
I would imagine that most brands in similar markets to Rolex are more concerned with other rivals than Rolex at the moment as let’s face it, they can’t compete. Love Rolex or loathe them their marketing strategy is incredible. They have to be up there as one of the most successful companies in the world when it comes to image and desirability and sales. They could sell their in demand watches 50 times over, their previously less so in demand models are
Selling at RRP and even higher in the grey market and their higher end gold etc now have waitlists, whereas before they attracted large discounts.
Are they the best watches in their price range? Probably not. Does it matter? Definitely not. If you like the way they look, wear, quality, reliability and residuals you buy one (if you can actually get one).
The more interesting question to me is, will it last? Will Rolex put a foot wrong, misread the market or their customers? As long as they don’t try reinventing the wheel it’s unlikely but who knows?
Exactly 5 years ago I got £250 off a blnr and was offered £250 off a hulk at the same time. Who knows 2024 that could be the same again.
I think it is worth comparing the current model Omega Seamaster vs the Sub and not the 2254 which is an older and now discontinued model.
The current model Seamaster is a bit of an anomaly in so far as it is arguably better than the Planet Ocean which is Omega's flagship diver. It certainly is not inferior to it.
Vs the Sub I think we get into conjecture a bit. My PERSONAL observations having owned both are that the Sub bezel is superior, the clasp definitely so and the Oyster bracelet perhaps not quite as intricate as the more complex Seamaster bracelet but then again the Oyster bracelet is an absolute classic. Both have micro adjustments with the Sub perhaps being a bit more refined.
The Omega dial is markedly more complex and much more ornate with a high degree of workmanship. It screams quality. The helium valve at 10 o clock is part of the iconic look but in reality is a bit pointless but then again the Sub has no such facility. The Master Chronometer Co axial 8800 movement in the Seamaster is tested to a higher degree of accuracy than the Sub but it is a case of 6 of one and half a dozen of the other as if you want real accuracy get a Spring Drive or a quartz. Supposedly the coaxial movement is more reliable over time due to fewer moving parts and yet the Sub movement is known for being an absolutely legendary workhorse so who knows.
So to sum up if one compared the Sseamaster 300 current model vs a Rolex Submariner based on my personal observation I feel the watches are almost on par with the Rolex having just slightly more engineering quality on the bezel and clasp and therefore being the better watch by 10% or so. I think the Omega is finished better and actually to someone who had never heard of Rolex or Omega before if they looked at them side by side would maybe say the Omega is the higher quality looking watch but of course the Rolex is built as a conservative looking tool watch and not blinged up.
Now stick the Sub up against the Hi Beat Grand Seiko diver and it gets its backside handed to it. That's a better comparison based on RRP. I'd say the Blancpain 50 Fathoms is again a watch that is obviously superior to the Sub when you do the comparison but then again that is a £11k watch. And as a value perspective a Sub vs a MM300 again raises a few eyebrows when doing an objective analysis.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Many many opinions are available.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
I'm not sure other brands need to react at all but with regards R v O, if I could actually buy both at retail, then I would go for the Hulk over the SM, as much as I like the new Omegas. Why? I just prefer the look and I prefer some of the engineering in the Rolex. It's a classic! I think I would prefer one of Omegas quirkier models like the PloProf over the SM.
Lower their prices by 7-10%
I’ve never been that enamoured of Rolex, I can appreciate their engineering and history but their designs are too conservative for my tastes (some may say that that’s because they got it so right they became ubiquitous which is a valid point). The only watch they produce that I’d even consider would be the sky dweller but that is beyond my budget so is a non starter.
Therefore out of sheer self interest I hope other brands do not rest to this price hike and keep prices in line with inflation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree with previous posts that Omega should lower their prices.
An economic downturn is likely coming. Midrange watches like Rolex, Omega, Breitling, IWC have all got a bit above themselves. There is not enough demand for mid range watches at these prices for them all to thrive and currently Rolex are the fashion of the day. Rolex have been conservative in response to the huge demand for them and have mostly resisted the temptation to reposition themselves with an RRP matching the prices greys sell them for but not completely. They are overpriced in the longterm, underpriced in the short term. The bubble will eventually shrivel back to a more sensible level and the Rolex brand and ADs will realise this last couple of years have done them little good in terms of reputation and brand fatigue.
Omega has the chance to positon themselves in the large price gap that exists between Rolex and Tudor. Tudor has been very successful recently and will get stronger and stronger as they gain brand recognition and fill the price segment void left by Rolex moving upward. They will be Omega’s new competition whilst Rolex do their own thing. Omega must remain a good value propositon compared to Tudor because Swatch Group’s own lower tier are very uninspiring (Tissot and Longine) and Omega don’t have the ability to compete with Rolex anymore (price and perceived value).
Yawn
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My Breitling SteelFish "feels" much more high quality watch than my Submariner. It's heavier, heftier, has more substantial bracelet, double antireflective coating, etc. If you hand it over to anyone who doesn't know anything about watches he'd say it must be much more expensive.
But it's not a Rolex Submariner. It costs three times less in the second hand market.
How can we even measure quality?
People say that "my Rolex never lost a minute in the last 20 years". Well, neither did my Casio.
Is Sub better than a Seamaster? It doesn't matter. Rolex is a superior brand and people pay for the brand name.
All Omega need to do is start restricting supply of their stainless sport models over a 5 year period and reduce the amount of different LE watches.
What people can’t have people want, this then puts the supplier in control of the purchaser.
Precisely. Needs a bit of lot term thinking.
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Might work with the Speedmaster which is the only iconic model they have. The rest got changed too often or are too newer designs to be established like many Rolex models. Restricting supply would likely just make them become invisible and forgotten about.
If not for internet hype, it would not work for Rolex either as people who are new to the brand would never see one or be able to buy one and soon move on. Eventually, I think the lack of available Rolex coupled with extreme hype will bore people to the point they get brand fatigue and move on. In the long term this cannot be sustained.
Last edited by petespendthrift; 28th December 2019 at 10:42.
I hope Omega will aim well above Tudor. Rolex aren’t invulnerable, and their current range isn’t perfect. But Omega will need to do more than put their prices up, they’ll need to give their range a makeover, and challenge the idea that what people really want in the 2020s, is the bulbous, cartoonish watches that were popular in the last decade.
And pretend it is 1950:-)
I feel a change in the zeitgeist as we enter the decadent 20s!
Why would other brands need to react... most of the other brands are already available at healthy discounts 20-70% on many pieces.
surely nobody pays RRP on Omega any longer.
Rolex could raise prices by 20% and still be less than what the Herd are currently prepared to pay for most pieces.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
AP are actually really poor quality, embarrassingly poor. I work for an AP dealer and it's a running joke about how a Flik flak is a more reliable watch than any Audemars.
This used to be Rolex big strength, superior mass produced quality. But the 32xx calibre is showing some serious teething problems.... Stay tuned...
That that would be innovative!
Sorry if off-topic, but I’ve heard Tudor is having another price increase (even after the recent one). Don’t know how true though...
What is so bad about them?
1st Jan according to the local AD. Approx 3%.
Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk
The owners of Christopher Ward said something along the lines of their prices are cost times three. When the CEO of IWC basically said the aim was to have minimum cost and maximum profit everyone went nuts. Reality is at least CW are telling you how much they are making and IWC are telling you how much they aim to make off you which is basically as much as possible.
When I got my speedmaster a couple of years ago the retail price was around about 3k, its now 4k so around a thousand pound price increase in about two years. Looking at Omega it seems across the board the seamaster the same all be it the watch has had a few upgrades the speedmaster has not.
Reality is all watch companies will simply bump up their prices to as much as they feel they can gouge out of their customers, nothing unique to Rolex or any other brand it simply comes down to how much you are willing to pay. The fact that customers are more than happy to pay several thousand pounds over retail price for a watch should be enough to tell Rolex that they can comfortably bump up the prices to anywhere they like people will still roll over and take it. All other brands have to do is a similar price hike, everyone will be too busy rending garments and howling at the moon at Rolex to even notice.
You could look at it this way, had Rolex been the company that put the first watch on the moon, imagine how much they would have milked it and what it would have done for their RRP prices, flip that forward to grey asking prices and the sky is the limit.
Have Omega not done the same with their numerous "limited edition" speedmasters? Reduced, automatic, moonphase, man on the moon, snoopy on the moon for goodness sake! Breitling and IWC just seem to price retail so high that when a customer gets a 20% discount they feel they have won where in reality they are just bringing the price down to what their competitors are asking. Is the speedmaster really a 4k watch? What exactly is the difference in quality between it and say a Sinn 103 thats about £1400?
Like I say, all watch companies IMO will simply charge what they think customers are willing to tolerate and they have found that customers are willing to tolerate an awful lot to pay for "Iconic" be that a sub, speedmaster, navitimer etc..... I dont think Rolex are anything unique Patek have cashed in on exactly the same thing. I went into a dealer a few years ago and asked about the Aquanaut. I was told there would be a three months wait and to leave me telephone number. Hardly half hour had passed and the phone rang with them telling me they could get one.
I dont have any particular dislike of any brand or the way they operate they are a business out to make money. It does irritate me though closet dealers flooding watch forums to bump up interest and massage the market in one way or another. There are so many watches to choose from there is absolutely no reason to hang onto Rolex coat-tails, I guess I just miss the days before there was more than a dozen or so threads on "How much is my Rolex worth" "When is the next price increase" "Why cant I get a Rolex" etc.....
Exactly this, lots of people are looking elsewhere, offer attractive prices to get them to bite!
When you have a herd mentality buying Rolex watches that they don’t even like then I don’t think it matters what companies do.
Watches are a hobby for Enthusiasts Not Economists...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you look back far enough to the 70s and into the 90s, the moon shit didn’t feature that strongly in Omegas advertising and marketing, they’ve made a much bigger deal about it over the past 10 years! I find it a bit pathetic how they cling to it, it really wasn’t such a big deal. Let’s remind ourselves, it was NASA who did the hard work in putting a man on the moon, not Omega. Sure, its historically significant but it was a long time ago, bringing out endless limited edition Speedmasters and harping on about the moon does Omega no credit.
Rolex marketing is far more credible IMO.
Welcome to the forum.
Feel free to share your collection that is ‘free from the herd mentality’ and acquired as an ‘E’nthusiast.
Thanks for the Welcome and looking forward to sharing my eclectic collection with the Forum.
I guess I have several that the Herd would consider worthy as most of mine were purchased from the late 60s to the late 90s the last being a 16518 obtained with a healthy discount.
Fads and trends come and go but the interest remains
What was available in the late 90s at very reasonable prices like the Paul Newman’s etc is now only achievable by the extremely well heeled.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Other brands should reduce their prices as much as possible to eat into Rolex's market.
When other brands are creating watches that remind you vaguely of being a pilot from an old movie and have the fake aged lume to prove it, or invent divers to evoke vague memories of watching Jaques Cousteau, having a watch in your collection that actually went to the moon is a very big deal indeed. Don’t expect them to stop going on about it any time soon! The fact that it wasn’t that important at the time is neither here nor there. Like fine vintage wine, nostalgia takes a few decades to reach its full potential.
This is true, I also think the older generation who remember the moon landing dont get so misty eyed over it, future generations must look back in wonder, what ground breaking feats have the human race achieved in the last 30-40 years - Internet, electric cars?
1960's and 70's were a golden era of space travel and engineering, in some ways we have gone back a step, Concorde could have been a stepping stone to faster aircraft, it was going across the Atlantic at 1350mph while serving caviar and champagne, yes it guzzled fuel but it was an engineering marvel which is now defunct.
The likes of Nasa and British Aerospace are being replaced by Elon Musk and drones..
Have to agree regarding Concorde, easy to overlook what a technical achievement it was. I stood next to one this year and just marvelled at it. A development blind alley unfortunately, and the Yanks hated it because it because it wasn’t theirs. We’ll never see the likes of it again.
I’m currently wearing a Speedmaster because its a nice watch, that’s good enough for me, couldn't care less whether its ancestor went to the moon. At the time of the Apollo programme I still dreamed of being an astronaut, but by ‘69 I was 11 and I’d moved on.......it’s about time Omega did the same.
Posting Permissions