Anyone going through Rolex withdrawal?

[Arran]

Yikes. Seeing my wife's watch and all the cool things it can do out of the box (cooler now that I've started adding apps) I'm starting to wonder if this could be a re-run of how digital cameras replaced film cameras?

If the price of a basic Apple watch comes down to iPod nano levels in a few years, high adoption seems likely. Conventional, low-end watches would be dead.

The high end mechanicals will persist (just like high end film cameras still have a dedicated following) but "dumb" watches in the $100-300 range may be toast. The sub $100 "disposables" are probably safe.

 

[dotnet]

Yikes. Seeing my wife's watch and all the cool things it can do out of the box (cooler now that I've started adding apps) I'm starting to wonder if this could be a re-run of how digital cameras replaced film cameras?

If the price of a basic Apple watch comes down to iPod nano levels in a few years, high adoption seems likely. Conventional, low-end watches would be dead.

The high end mechanicals will persist (just like high end film cameras still have a dedicated following) but "dumb" watches in the $100-300 range may be toast. The sub $100 "disposables" are probably safe.

Almost anything that ever existed persisted in one way or another. We still have steam trains, abacuses, archery, you name it. The question is, will it be able to sustain an industry. In 2011 Rolex put out over 750,000 watches (with just 2,800 or so employees – so much for the myth that they take a year to make your watch). That scale will not be sustained unless they adapt radically. The Swiss watch industry was decimated once before with the advent of the quartz watch. They need nimble and visionary leadership to avoid the same now with the advent of smartwatches (on a large scale).

 

[chrsb]

A very plausible scenario that AW will reduce mechanical watch usage.
Personally, I haven't worn my Patek in months because my lifestyle has no need for dress watches... But it was for matrimonial celebration so I think I will be keeping it to pass down to my son.

I was thinking along those lines when I contemplated buying an Apple Watch. I thought I'm spending $800 on a watch that won't be worth anything/function in 5 years. I'd like to hand down my mechanicals to my son also. Though the one I look forward to the most to hand down isn't the most expensive one, it's my military issue Swiss Army watch I wore through my service and for years afterwards.

I don't think a lot of people appreciate the craftsmanship of a nice mechanical, they're like artwork. It's something that will continue to function year after year. My collection of Tags will outlive me with some maintenance and still do what they were intended to do, tell time.

Btw, I did get a SS Apple Watch.

 

[dotnet]

My collection of Tags will outlive me with some maintenance and still do what they were intended to do, tell time.

I'm sure they will, and that's the beauty of devices that can simply use your body movements as power source. However, each service will likely cost you more than an Apple Watch.

 

[kupkakez]

I sold off all of my designer watches (which were only worn purely for looks/fashion) as I knew once i got the AW I'd never wear them again. I love my sport. I'm looking forward to picking up at least a black band so I can swap between both black and white. Can't wait to see some third party bands.

 

[Wallabe]

I sold off all of my designer watches (which were only worn purely for looks/fashion) as I knew once i got the AW I'd never wear them again. I love my sport. I'm looking forward to picking up at least a black band so I can swap between both black and white. Can't wait to see some third party bands.

That's basically what I'm trying to get to here. You can pay $5,000 or $30,000 for a watch, and may wear it occasionally like at a wedding, but after that, it'll just sit in the closet, wasting away. Each time you have to maintain it, the cost of ownership goes up. Some claim they bought theirs for $500 decades ago and is now worth $8K-$10K. I wonder how much of that was the cost of ownership up to that point. Now each time you service your watch, it costs close to or even more than an Apple Watch SS with link bracelet. And when you want to pass it down to your children, you're actually passing onto them a liability. For them to be able to continue to wear it, they would also have to service it after you pass it onto them. Because it's so old and the price is high from of all the previous added cost of ownership, servicing a decades old watch is even more expensive than servicing a recently manufactured Rolex/Omega. Sure, there is a market for older watches, just the same way there is a market for classic cars, but when you consider the cost, it comes to a point where you are better off buying a new model than owning and maintaining a classic.

That Rolex or Omega might give you a euphoria feeling for a short period of time, but other than the feeling of being well-off, it's money wasted and isn't useful. Useful in the context of using it frequently and making full use of your purchase, instead of wearing it once in a long time, like at a wedding.

If you're too scared to wear it on a common, daily basis, you're really trying to look the part, rather than be it.

Esse quam videri. To be, rather than to seem (to be).

 

[jeepik]

Not likely, my DeepSea Sea Dweller needs to be worn and my wrist is too light without it, i am so used to a super heavy watch that my wrist feels weird without one

 

[spinedoc77]

I'm very interested in this topic and everyones experiences.

My fiancé wants to get me a Rolex as a wedding gift soon but I now question the "timeless" quality that made buying a rolex make sense. I'm planning on getting an apple sport watch just for working out, running and excercising (like i would use a g-shock) but I'm afraid once I use it, I will get accustom to the features and wonder how I ever got by without it and in turn leaving mechanical watches in the rearview mirror. I wanted to get a 2015 submariner model to signify the year we get married so waiting is less of an option. I guess I could use the Apple watch for 4 or 5 months and then make a decision. Any advice?

For me the "timeless" thing is also the investment. I bought my first Rolex about 15 years ago, a present for myself when my first business did well. I have to get it appraised every couple of years for the insurance I have on it. It's more than double its value so I'd say it's a pretty good investment. It is also bulletproof, I can't believe how much I've just utterly abused it and it's in great shape.

Contrast that with even one of the more expensive apple watches, the internals will be utterly worthless in less than a year and it will really only be worth its weight in gold. If you didn't get the gold one then you really won't have that either.

Another aspect of being "timeless" is a Rolex is something you can pass on, to your son or whoever. Something that will truly last forever and still appreciate in value, something people will always pause and say how nice it is that you have one.

 

[Arran]

That's basically what I'm trying to get to here. You can pay $5,000 or $30,000 for a watch, and may wear it occasionally like at a wedding, but after that, it'll just sit in the closet, wasting away. Each time you have to maintain it, the cost of ownership goes up. Some claim they bought theirs for $500 decades ago and is now worth $8K-$10K. I wonder how much of that was the cost of ownership up to that point. Now each time you service your watch, it costs close to or even more than an Apple Watch SS with link bracelet. And when you want to pass it down to your children, you're actually passing onto them a liability. For them to be able to continue to wear it, they would also have to service it after you pass it onto them. Because it's so old and the price is high from of all the previous added cost of ownership, servicing a decades old watch is even more expensive than servicing a recently manufactured Rolex/Omega. Sure, there is a market for older watches, just the same way there is a market for classic cars, but when you consider the cost, it comes to a point where you are better off buying a new model than owning and maintaining a classic.

That Rolex or Omega might give you a euphoria feeling for a short period of time, but other than the feeling of being well-off, it's money wasted and isn't useful. Useful in the context of using it frequently and making full use of your purchase, instead of wearing it once in a long time, like at a wedding.

If you're too scared to wear it on a common, daily basis, you're really trying to look the part, rather than be it.

Esse quam videri. To be, rather than to seem (to be).

Made some good points. Uncomfortable, but good. Particularly the bit about passing on a liability. Maintenance isn't cheap and I've been sort-of ignoring it lately.

Reluctant up-vote for you.

 

[spinedoc77]

I"m not sure I understand your rant. I am saying when it comes to value, if you only wear your Rolex a few times a year, versus your daily Apple Watch or a lesser priced watch, you aren't getting much use out of your Rolex, and that money isn't well spent. If you are spending that kind of money, only to use it a few times, and the rest, it just sit in your closet safe, you're not getting much use for your money.

For inflation, there are better physical assets that maintain its value.

Here's a secret, no one buys a Rolex to tell time. Unless you are a diver there really isn't much functionality. It's a luxury buy and arguable luxury buys aren't money well spent, but you also have to factor in what enjoyment is worth to a person. You also have to factor in that the Rolex will appreciate in price over time and IS money well spent after all.

 

[richardmu]

I bought my Rolex Explorer in 1974 and have worn it most days since then. Had it serviced a few times but not recently. It still looks like new and keeps very good time. I paid £124 back then and a new version is now £4300 so you could say it's a good investment.
Have no one to hand it on to so may sell it on eBay and buy an Apple Watch. Will wait a bit longer to see how the AW pans out. No rush!

 

[Eric9610]

I think manny people who are buying the AW SS model have a Rolex or other high end brand of watch. When i went to a try on appointment the people around me were wearing A Rolex, Cartier, and Panerai watches.

Apple knew the target audience when designing the different models. Sport = G-shock Crowd, Watch = Rolex, Omega, Cartier and Panerai sport watches, Edition = Any watch over 20k.

Rolex and other high end brands are worn for luxury. Rolex has such a rich history and the AW will not dent this market. I have one rolex that i have worn every day for 15 years and i still purchased 2 more even though i don't wear them as frequently as my original. People like variety with accessories and watches are no different.

 

[enderg]

Beauty is in the eye…

Rolex, Omega, whatever… I never got the attraction. IMHO most are big, wide, complicated looking, way to ornamented and ostentatious… all for something that's just supposed to tell time, and they are worth a fortune!!!!!!

I just don't understand it. Same thing with people's fixation with diamonds, it's just shinny glass to me. Delicate glass at that, A diamond is forever, lol yeah, let me hit it with a $10 dollar hammer and we'll test that erroneous little slogan.

But an Apple Watch! Now we're talking, it's a little computer on my wrist! It does something, many wonderful things. Yet it's modern and sleek in a way that a Rolex can't even begin to emulate.

Your Milage May Vary

 

[seamor0512]

Rolex, Omega, whatever… I never got the attraction. IMHO most are big, wide, complicated looking, way to ornamented and ostentatious… all for something that's just supposed to tell time, and they are worth a fortune!!!!!!

I just don't understand it. Same thing with people's fixation with diamonds, it's just shinny glass to me. Delicate glass at that, A diamond is forever, lol yeah, let me hit it with a $10 dollar hammer and we'll test that erroneous little slogan.

But an Apple Watch! Now we're talking, it's a little computer on my wrist! It does something, many wonderful things. Yet it's modern and sleek in a way that a Rolex can't even begin to emulate.

Your Milage May Vary

Diamonds are delicate? really? lol, sucks for the space black people waiting for their diamond coating.

go watch the 1 meter drop test of an apple watch sport if you want to see delicate.

Take the blinders off.

 

[MartyCan]

Anyone going through Rolex withdrawal?

I have been wearing an automatic watch for the last 17 years. I own both an omega Seamaster professional and a Rolex date just.

I love my new Apple Watch. The messaging and phone notification is perfect for my work. I can now leave my phone safely on vibrate all the time. My job requires my being available 24/7.

However I am going through Rolex withdrawal! I miss the weight and the quality feel of both the Rolex and the Omega.

Anyone else?

Shoulda bought an Edition I guess.

I wore a Tag Heuer Formula 1 for the last 6 years. I loved it but I don't miss the weight at all.

 

[SHNXX]

Rolex, Omega, whatever… I never got the attraction. IMHO most are big, wide, complicated looking, way to ornamented and ostentatious… all for something that's just supposed to tell time, and they are worth a fortune!!!!!!



I just don't understand it. Same thing with people's fixation with diamonds, it's just shinny glass to me. Delicate glass at that, A diamond is forever, lol yeah, let me hit it with a $10 dollar hammer and we'll test that erroneous little slogan.



But an Apple Watch! Now we're talking, it's a little computer on my wrist! It does something, many wonderful things. Yet it's modern and sleek in a way that a Rolex can't even begin to emulate.



Your Milage May Vary

Diamonds are delicate?
Oh boy.

 

[imageone]

Rolex, Omega, whatever… I never got the attraction. IMHO most are big, wide, complicated looking, way to ornamented and ostentatious… all for something that's just supposed to tell time, and they are worth a fortune!!!!!!

I just don't understand it. Same thing with people's fixation with diamonds, it's just shinny glass to me. Delicate glass at that, A diamond is forever, lol yeah, let me hit it with a $10 dollar hammer and we'll test that erroneous little slogan.

But an Apple Watch! Now we're talking, it's a little computer on my wrist! It does something, many wonderful things. Yet it's modern and sleek in a way that a Rolex can't even begin to emulate.

Your Milage May Vary

It's all about personal preference. A Rolex is also an investment. My GMT Master was purchased new in Switzerland in 1979 for around $1,000. As soon as my Apple Watch arrives I'm sending it to a Rolex Service Center. They told me to insure it for $8,500. I don't think my Apple Watch will hold that kind of value. I'm like you, I'm not into diamonds, but again some people are and they hold some value.

 

[McPhallus]

I think you may be right. Perhaps Casio, Armitron, and Timex should be worried, but not the high-end market.

This talk reminds me of the "Quartz crisis" of the 70s, where the market was flooded with cheap digital watches from Asia, and many of the middling Swiss companies were severely damaged if not wiped out entirely. Yet they eventually came back because as great as those digital watches were, something was missing.

I think the people on this forum are going through a honeymoon phase and may end up going back in a few months once the AW has gotten more common and the newness wears off.

Those rushing to sell their omegas and rolexes might want to hold on to them for at least a year, as they may feel differently as time goes by. Just sayin'.

Sorry, but no. This is a small cross section of people who own nice watches that have bought and wear Apple Watches. If you check out watch forums, nobody is even talking about he Apple Watch. There's little to no interest. Of all the people I know who wear nice watches, none of them have bought an Apple Watch, nor are they interested in getting one either. Mechanical watches that sell for 5k+ are going to be just fine.

 

[Wallabe]

It's all about personal preference. A Rolex is also an investment. My GMT Master was purchased new in Switzerland in 1979 for around $1,000. As soon as my Apple Watch arrives I'm sending it to a Rolex Service Center. They told me to insure it for $8,500. I don't think my Apple Watch will hold that kind of value. I'm like you, I'm not into diamonds, but again some people are and they hold some value.

Seriously? They are asking you to insure it for $8,500? I think I underestimate the cost of ownership of a Rolex in my previous post.

For something that takes money from your wallet, instead of putting money into your wallet, that's not a sound investment. I guess it is, for the manufacturers.

If you happen to lose that watch or break it, just buy a new one. The insurance is already more expensive than buying a new one. http://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-gmt-master-1.html

The new model probably have better calibers.

There's nothing wrong with owning a Rolex, but from a financial education point-of-view, it is not an asset nor is it a good investment.

 

[3under2]

From this:

To this:

Woot woot! Love them both .

 

[richardmu]

Rolex, Omega, whatever… I never got the attraction. IMHO most are big, wide, complicated looking, way to ornamented and ostentatious… all for something that's just supposed to tell time, and they are worth a fortune!!!!!!

I just don't understand it. Same thing with people's fixation with diamonds, it's just shinny glass to me. Delicate glass at that, A diamond is forever, lol yeah, let me hit it with a $10 dollar hammer and we'll test that erroneous little slogan.

But an Apple Watch! Now we're talking, it's a little computer on my wrist! It does something, many wonderful things. Yet it's modern and sleek in a way that a Rolex can't even begin to emulate.

Your Milage May Vary

Big, complicated and ostentatious, I don't think so. My Rolex is smaller than the 38mm AW!

 

[telefono]

I will be going through Ulysse Nardin withdrawl once I get my Apple Watch. I honestly don't think I will wear it much at all including any of my watches in my collection. Many have been sold in the last year. Will keep the Ulysse Nardin only and sell the rest.

Apple Watch from now on

 

[anez]

Woot woot! Love them both .

God, you're brave to wear your JuC with your Watch! It looks great, though.

 

[MartyCan]

Seriously? They are asking you to insure it for $8,500? I think I underestimate the cost of ownership of a Rolex in my previous post.

For something that takes money from your wallet, instead of putting money into your wallet, that's not a sound investment. I guess it is, for the manufacturers.

If you happen to lose that watch or break it, just buy a new one. The insurance is already more expensive than buying a new one. http://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-gmt-master-1.html

The new model probably have better calibers.

There's nothing wrong with owning a Rolex, but from a financial education point-of-view, it is not an asset nor is it a good investment.

That isn't the premium to insure it. I'm pretty sure they are telling him to insure it for a replacement cost of $8500. I.e. That's what the insurance Co would pay if it were lost or stolen.

 

[Zxxv]

As the old sales line goes

Why buy a Rolex?

Sales lady - darling you can't take your yacht into a restaurant