I quite fancy one of these but the gold version is double the price. Why so? Is the amount of gold really worth 10k?
https://www.iwc.com/gb/en/watch-coll...automatic.html
https://www.iwc.com/en/watch-collect...e-edition.html
The question is whether the extra cost for gold is worth it for you personally.
To me, the price seems perfectly reasonable. You wouldn’t be far off, assuming that the manufacturing cost of the steel watch was in the region of £1000. I don’t know the weight of that case and bezel but it’ll be in the region of needing 20g of pure gold plus the other cheaper metals in the alloy. At todays price that will add £900+ to the manufacturing cost, so double the price seems to be in the ballpark.
Absolutely it is a monstrous rip-off and the ‘rip-off’ is even worse with Platinum watches where manufacturers will bleat about the difficulties in machining Platinum whilst conveniently neglecting to mention that Platinum is currently HALF the price of gold!Originally Posted by Slamdoor
In terms of raw materials of course the amount of gold used doesn’t justify the additional cost…that’s not how luxury works. You pay for exclusivity.
I have the rose gold version of the previous model (c2007) which I bought a few years ago secondhand for well under half price. Having also previously owned the stainless steel version I’d say it was a premium worth paying as I quite like the look, the extra weight is nice and it is also a much rarer watch that you won’t see anyone else wear.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You could equally ask ‘are all high end watches a ripoff?’ unfortunately.
I think most are overpriced but then most ‘luxury goods’ are I guess. The only thing I can add is push hard for a discount and try to always use your head over your heart.
Advice that I don’t always follow!
Definitely a rip-off. Its surprising how little gold is actually used in most gold watches. Vintage gold watches can be good value if you buy right and are happy with the smaller sizes.
It's only a rip off if there's a gun pointed to your head and you are trapped into making a purchase against your will, such as for instance, electricity and petrol prices.
Nobody is forced to buy an expensive bauble and if you think the price is too high just simply walk away.
Like anything else the higher end models offer reduced 'value' compared to the entry level models, because by definition they are not aimed to appeal based on value.
As per the previous poster, value here would appear to be found in the second hand market
Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk
Precious metal watches can be a huge rip-off , your paying tens of thousands more for a rolex because of a few ounces of gold and platinum.
Sent from my Pixel 6 using TZ-UK mobile app
If you are buying a PM watch and calculating cost based on amount of gms of precious metal in it, I guess you don’t understand how these prices work. There is never enough gold or platinum to justify prices. You can look at it as a rip off or the price you pay for something less common. Except Rolex and in demand AP, PP,VC watches a lot of PM metal watches are available for a sizeable discount.
Don’t see your logic here - saying there’s a £10,000 markup on the steel so £19,000+ on gold is okay?
His argument is that there is a 1,000% markup on both models, so it's consistent.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
I don't think you can use material costs in the logic of luxury watches.
If you want to do it that way your better off going ... The steel watch would be £500 to manufacture and they sell it for 20 times this. The Gold would be £2k so 20 X this makes it a bargain!
Unless you plan on scrapping it material cost is irrelevant. What you are really paying for is a more exclusive watch. Similar to buying a steel black bay GMT V a Steel Rolex GMT. One isn't worth 10 times the other in materials costs (or quality for that matter)
Yes it is a rip off unless you have millions sitting around, it that case you can do whatever and not really suffer from being foolish with money.
Yes, it's a rip-off, but most especially with the proliferating low-precious-metal content alloys, like Omega's 'Sedna gold'. Sure it may be marginally harder wearing, and I'm aware most jewellery gold is alloyed to some extent, but you are using ruthless marketing to charge more for gold so impure it couldn't even be hallmarked...
Isn’t Sedna gold 18k, so 75% gold content? Hardly impure.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Don’t Rolex do something similar with ‘Rolesor’? I remember an AD telling me they have to use that word in the UK as technically there isn’t enough gold in it to call it gold. This was 20 years ago - I was buying a 2-tone blue sub - and he explained it was to ensure a minimum of wear between the steel and ‘rolesor’ parts. Apparently in most of the world you could call it gold but not here??
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, Rolex gold is 18k.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Exactly. All this whining about the cost of PM watches betrays an infantile naivety about how business actually works.
A high street branded watch manufacture is a consumer goods company that, like any other, must measure and manage Margin as a percentage of sales. It is an an absolutely fundamental performance metric that will be drilled into and explained to corporate execs, BoDs, and major investors. It would be a short lived management team who were stupid enough to price their premium products so low that the more they sell of them the lower Margin p.o.s becomes.
The cost of a watch doesn’t relate to the material it’s made of. As others have said it’s linked to prestige and exclusivity. The rare a watch costs more.
“ Ford... you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.” HHGTTG
Agreed - just checked it’s stamped 750. From my roselor YM40
Last edited by MartynJC (UK); 23rd July 2022 at 16:25.
“ Ford... you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.” HHGTTG
Seems you're absolutely right - I should have checked. When I've read reviews of watches using these patented alloys, they've tended to emphasise the constituents but not the proportions, so I made entirely the wrong assumption - habitual cynicism...
Weird as I remember the conversation very clearly - I’m not knocking Rolex, and I know they smelt/produce their own gold on-site - but why the weird branding then? I was under the impression it was just the 2-tone models, where the gold is in close proximity to, or rubbing against another harder metal or stainless steel such as is the case with a 2-tone oyster or jubilee bracelet.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As far as I am aware Rolesor is just a Rolex trademark for watches with a 2-tone bracelet. There is no indication that the gold content in the gold bit is any different to the gold content used on full PM models.
Why the weird branding you ask? Who knows, it’s just probably Rolex wanting to have a single word to cover 2-tone.
I would agree that all precious metal luxury watches are objectively a rip-off if you take them at their most base level, you have to ask yourself if it's worth it to you?
Personally, I have no interest in them because I don't earn enough money to take a gold yacht master out without being horrified I might damage or lose it, therefore the appreciation of the piece is outweighed by the negatives. If I was earning enough money to realistically replace it without issue, I'm sure the balance would shift enough for it to give me more pleasure than anxiety, or other negative feelings.
You could take the debate even further and say that white gold watches are even more of a rip off, as it just looks like a steel watch to most people, so what a rip off!
Or you could say if you know, you know. You either get it or you don’t and if you don’t, no worries, it’s not for everyone, however it is for me though :-)
Last edited by Devonian; 23rd July 2022 at 17:43.
This is my understanding too. The Rolex phrase “Rolesor” merely refers to any two tone watch of steel and gold.
Because it's not hallmarked.
In the UK (and various other countries), something can legally only be sold as "gold" if it's been hallmarked[1]. It would seem that since Rolex apparently don't want national hallmarks messing up their watches, they stick with their own brand names for their gold content.
I presume that Omega have gone the same route.
The "750" stamp shown above on the Rolex is a mark added by Rolex but is not a hallmark. It would not in the UK allow the watch to be sold as "gold".
Footnote (added because this is TZ-UK and details matter):
1: Different countries have their own hallmarking laws. It used to be that only UK hallmarks allowed an item to be sold as "gold" in the UK but at some point EU hallmarks were allowed in the UK as well. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 would have continued this rule by default after Brexit, unless or until the British Parliament legislates otherwise.
Last edited by markrlondon; 23rd July 2022 at 17:57.
This. All decent watches are rip offs.
'Precious' metal watches are just more of a rip off.
But so what. We like them apparently.
It is up to each of us to decide how much we like and want a particular watch versus how much it costs. The fact that the retail price has little connection to the product's content is neither here nor there.
Any watch over £100 is a rip off. Value is a perception and different to everyone.
Strange way way of looking at it IMO, don’t see why markup should be on just one of the raw materials.
Yes, indeed. Although I don't think I'd say there was any absolute monetary barrier. Watches sold for £5.99, for example, could easily be rip offs.
As you say, it's all about perception.
Aha! That makes perfect sense - I do remember it had something to do with the lack of a hallmark, perhaps the AD had himself confused! - I do remember him saying ‘so we can’t legally call it gold in the uk’ which would kind of make sense if f he felt anything unhallmarked is technically not gold
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Perhaps on a technicality can’t call it “gold” but 75% of the alloy is actual gold…so kinda the same thing. Perhaps I’m a bit biased.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, precious metal watches are a rip off typically compared to their steel counterparts. You could well argue the Steel watch is also a rip-off, but less so than the gold watches at 2-3x the price. None of this is to say they're not worth it, that's down to the buyer to determine.
The margin argument doesn't stack for me. It assumes the value of the watch is the sum of its variable parts only, with a % margin on top. In reality when pricing the watch a manufacturer will need to consider many fixed/variable overheads, such as extensive branding and sponsorship costs, manufacturing overheads, staff costs, HQ costs, the cost of running the boutique (or the fee paid to the AD) etc. None of these increase because of the choice to include a relatively small amount of gold into the equation.
The reality IMO is much simpler. People pay a big premium for IWC on the dial, realistically I doubt many of the same people would pay the same money for the exact same watch from an unknown brand. The job of the brands pricing teams is to work out the optimum point to charge, weighing up the value of the brand in the eyes of consumers to optimise for profit. Brands know they can get you to pay an even bigger premium (substantially bigger) if they make the product feel more exclusive; hence pricing up for precious metals well beyond the literal value increase.
My 2 cents anyway.
So why the prevalence of bulk buy or buy-two-get-the-third-free type discounts across consumer goods? Seems to me brands are more than willing to trade margin for greater actual profit.
I bet you'll get a bigger discount if you buy two IWC rather than one, which would be trading margin for revenue/profit.
Absolutely right, and often driven by whatever incentive scheme is in play at the time.
No doubt a brand like IWC will be looking to increase market share, so shifting units will be bonused at dealers, so absolutely discounts for multi purchases!
Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk
This watch is pure class. I have a Portuguese Perpetual Calender in red gold and these are epic watches for the money… used. Do not buy new!In terms of raw materials of course the amount of gold used doesn’t justify the additional cost…that’s not how luxury works. You pay for exclusivity.
I have the rose gold version of the previous model (c2007) which I bought a few years ago secondhand for well under half price. Having also previously owned the stainless steel version I’d say it was a premium worth paying as I quite like the look, the extra weight is nice and it is also a much rarer watch that you won’t see anyone else wear.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
On Omega’s Sedna Gold, it’s a combination of gold (75% so 18kt), with copper and palladium. I was reading (somewhere) that there has been a lot of tinkering with the combinations of late, since gold is always combined with something. This has resulted in gold watches that are tougher, and less intensely yellow and frankly, 70s looking. This has helped to bring gold back into favour, and given rise to some of these interestingly named own brand golds.
As to being good value, if what you want is exclusivity, then you are paying exactly the right price for keeping it out of reach of a certain percentage of buyers. Exclusivity is very fairly priced in that sense. If you simply want a watch which is gold coloured, then perhaps not.
A long while back, I tried to do the math on the full-bracelet Daytona (SS, Au and Pt) to estimate approx margins.
We know the mass of each (148g, 196g, and 286g) respectively. We know the approx precious metal content and densities of the PM.
My estimate is that the full Au Daytona is around 3.4Oz and 7.1Oz Pt respectively. That, less VAT puts the cost of both models at approx £8000-8200 per ounce of contained PM. i.e. Rolex gold and platinum is 6 times and 11 times more expensive than buying the equivalent weight of PM as a metal coin or bar.
So PM watches are definitely not worth it from a PM content perspective but from an aesthetic and feel perspective, there is undoubtedly value to the beholder.
G
not just TT. I have a solid gold Rolesor YM40
“ Ford... you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.” HHGTTG
I don’t feel ripped off but gold was certainly over twice the price of the steel version of the same watch .
but my YM40 Roselor IS hallmarked. Very difficult to picture but have a look:
This is an interesting post: https://millenarywatches.com/rolex-hallmarks/
Last edited by MartynJC (UK); 24th July 2022 at 17:43.
“ Ford... you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.” HHGTTG
My YM42 Is also hallmarkedbut my YM40 Roselor IS hallmarked. Very difficult to picture but have a look:
This is an interesting post: https://millenarywatches.com/rolex-hallmarks/
Very interesting. If those are Swiss national assay/hallmarks then the watch could legally be sold as "gold" in the UK as Swiss hallmarks are recognised by UK law.
So I guess Rolex just prefer to use their own tradenames for their own (patented perhaps) gold mixes. :-)
But as the article you linked to observes, they don't hallmark two tone watches (as it's not a legal requirement in Switzerland) so those could not be sold as "gold" in the UK.
Last edited by markrlondon; 24th July 2022 at 18:33.
Your watch is not Rolesor, it's Everose.but my YM40 Roselor IS hallmarked. Very difficult to picture but have a look:
This is an interesting post: https://millenarywatches.com/rolex-hallmarks/
There are examples of TT rolesor watches out there with Hallmarks added onto the back of the bracelets for some markets. See it on older TT jubilee bracelets a lot.
Oops - so it is. But … a Roselor watch can be Everose. I have had TT but not at the moment so can’t check for any hallmark present (or not):
My Rootbeer was TT Roselor combining steel and everose gold.
As per:
So a Roselor watch can be made of steel and 18ct everose gold (or yellow gold).
“
Rolesor is the auspicious meeting of two metals on a single Rolex watch: gold and steel, with their contrasting colours and radiance, in subtly balanced harmony. The concept is simple: the bezel, the winding crown and the centre bracelet links are made of 18 ct yellow or Everose gold (Rolex’s exclusive pink gold alloy); the middle case and the outer links of the bracelet are made of Oystersteel. On white Rolesor models, the bezel alone is in 18 ct white gold.“
https://millenarywatches.com/rolex-rolesor/
Another example of a rolesor with everose was my YM
Last edited by MartynJC (UK); 25th July 2022 at 08:25.
“ Ford... you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.” HHGTTG
If you're buying a watch & and it's not an F-98W, I can confirm that you're being ripped off, regardless of whether it has a precious metal case.
Precious metal watches are not a rip off and neither are any other luxury watches. In order to be ripped off you have to be forced in to paying an amount of money that you otherwise wouldn't. That doesn't apply to any luxury watch as at any point the buyer can walk away. Luxury watches aren't a necessity, they're a luxury (it's in the name) and therefore presumably anyone who buys one is happy to do so. Rip offs are the likes of garages where you're forced to pay an amount to have a car repaired or schools where your children are forced to pay for a multi item uniform that isn't really necessary.
in regard to precious metal watches vs steel or titanium, there are many factors that influence those prices. Some have been mentioned here, some haven't. Don't for instance think that if the traded price of platinum is less than that of gold that a platinum watch must therefore be less expensive. There's no guarantee for instance that the required bar of platinum for making a watch case is less expensive than the equivalent gold bar, even when the traded prices suggest that it should be. There's also a very limited number of places that will machine precious metal watch cases compared to steel cases. Apart from the difficulties in machining them there are also the necessary security implications.
Tell why the bar of platinum might be more expensive.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
