Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Anyone going through Rolex withdrawal?

Wallabe said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is getting kind of nonsensical. His 1979 purchase at $1000 is worth $8500 today, I'd say that's a good investment. Calculating for inflation he paid $3532.23 in 2015 dollars. It still more than doubled in value.

My Rolex also more than doubled in value in 15 years so I'm pretty happy with my purchase. Although I didn't purchase it as an investment but for my enjoyment. Don't you own anything you enjoy that isn't a sound financial investment? It's also an asset, how the heck can it not be an asset? It has value.

What will the apple watch be worth in 40 years? 15 years? Heck what will it be worth in 10 months? I think you have it backwards, the apple watch is the bad "investment", although once again no one is really saying they buy either of these as an investment but rather to enjoy them.
 
McPhallus said:
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'.
Click to expand...

This. History is repeating itself. Quartz invasion in the 70s. I'm reading high end watch forums and there are stories of people doing exactly samething back then. Selling Rolex, omegas, Pateks and paying obscene amount of money for quartz watches. They are all admitting that this was one of not of the most stupidest things they have ever done
 
I find this thread one of the more interesting. And as a side note, the folks chiming in here with the expensive watches seem to be making some well measured and written posts. Way to go rich dudes!

Anyway, I think this is a huge issue. Will the Apple Watch functionality (and decent looks) win out of the MUCH better looks and personality of a nice watch. For those who don't have a nice watch or like them, what I mean by them being much better looking is how they look in the eyes of their owner. I love the way my $800 Hamilton with link band looks. I think it looks MUCH better than the SS with Link. I bought this, my first and only mechanical watch, after getting a nice bonus at work. I thought I'd never buy another watch. It isn't an heirloom that I would hand down, but I've worn it every day for more than six years now.

Anyway, when my SS arrives sometime in late May (I hope), I'm going to put that Hamilton aside. I think the functionality of the Apple Watch is going to be so great and work so well for my lifestyle that I will sacrifice wearing the better looking watch. I also think that it will not be cool to wear an Apple Watch anytime soon. I think my friends (who know I've ordered it) will be curious but it will be just another bit of evidence that I'm definitely the dorkiest of our group. But I think wrist notifications and health app stuff is going to be too compelling for me and the SS will becomes my daily driver.

So I'm preemptively a bit sad for my Hamilton. I do think mechanical watches are amazing bit of craftsmanship. But software is eating the world, and this will no exception is my guess.
 
TallManNY said:
I find this thread one of the more interesting. And as a side note, the folks chiming in here with the expensive watches seem to be making some well measured and written posts. Way to go rich dudes!

Anyway, I think this is a huge issue. Will the Apple Watch functionality (and decent looks) win out of the MUCH better looks and personality of a nice watch. For those who don't have a nice watch or like them, what I mean by them being much better looking is how they look in the eyes of their owner. I love the way my $800 Hamilton with link band looks. I think it looks MUCH better than the SS with Link. I bought this, my first and only mechanical watch, after getting a nice bonus at work. I thought I'd never buy another watch. It isn't an heirloom that I would hand down, but I've worn it every day for more than six years now.

Anyway, when my SS arrives sometime in late May (I hope), I'm going to put that Hamilton aside. I think the functionality of the Apple Watch is going to be so great and work so well for my lifestyle that I will sacrifice wearing the better looking watch. I also think that it will not be cool to wear an Apple Watch anytime soon. I think my friends (who know I've ordered it) will be curious but it will be just another bit of evidence that I'm definitely the dorkiest of our group. But I think wrist notifications and health app stuff is going to be too compelling for me and the SS will becomes my daily driver.

So I'm preemptively a bit sad for my Hamilton. I do think mechanical watches are amazing bit of craftsmanship. But software is eating the world, and this will no exception is my guess.
Click to expand...

Exactly why Jony Ive gleefully said Switzerland is in trouble in the long run. Today's young people who find themselves too reliant on the Watch due to software will purchase the more expensive SS and Editon models once they're able to afford them. Craftsmanship and longevity will go out the window. Rich individuals will be replacing their Edition yearly instead of investing in a $150,000 Patek.
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
Exactly why Jony Ive gleefully said Switzerland is in trouble in the long run. Today's young people who find themselves too reliant on the Watch due to software will purchase the more expensive SS and Editon models once they're able to afford them. Craftsmanship and longevity will go out the window. Rich individuals will be replacing their Edition yearly instead of investing in a $150,000 Patek.
Click to expand...


He could also just be wrong. "Rich" people invest in luxury watches because they are unique and hold their value. An Apple Watch is not nor will ever be unique, no more so than anyones iphone. It will also depreciate in value, year after year. The AW is in the consumer electronics category, not the watch category, no matter how hard apple tries to sell it as a timeless piece of jewelry.
 
seamor0512 said:
He could also just be wrong. "Rich" people invest in luxury watches because they are unique and hold their value. An Apple Watch is not nor will ever be unique, no more so than anyones iphone. It will also depreciate in value, year after year. The AW is in the consumer electronics category, not the watch category, no matter how hard apple tries to sell it as a timeless piece of jewelry.
Click to expand...

Except Apple isn't selling the Edition as a timeless piece of jewelry. They're targeting the nouveau riche as nothing screams "I have money!" more than dropping $10,000-17,000 on an unit that'll quickly become obsolete. They'll do this on a yearly basis instead of investing in a $100,000+ ultra luxury watch that holds its value.
 
spinedoc77 said:
This is getting kind of nonsensical. His 1979 purchase at $1000 is worth $8500 today, I'd say that's a good investment. Calculating for inflation he paid $3532.23 in 2015 dollars. It still more than doubled in value.

My Rolex also more than doubled in value in 15 years so I'm pretty happy with my purchase. Although I didn't purchase it as an investment but for my enjoyment. Don't you own anything you enjoy that isn't a sound financial investment? It's also an asset, how the heck can it not be an asset? It has value.

What will the apple watch be worth in 40 years? 15 years? Heck what will it be worth in 10 months? I think you have it backwards, the apple watch is the bad "investment", although once again no one is really saying they buy either of these as an investment but rather to enjoy them.
Click to expand...

Calculating for inflation based on 2015 dollars, how much else did he spend servicing that watch?

It's not an asset because it doesn't have positive cashflow. Something that has value doesn't equal asset. For example, a house is not an asset. It may have value, but it sucks money from your pocket. If it really is an asset, why doesn't anyone own hundreds or thousands of those houses? I'd rather own hundreds and thousands of rental properties that have positive cashflow into my pocket.

A watch is a liability, not an asset. It doesn't make you money, it takes money from your pocket. There's nothing wrong with owning a luxury like the Apple Watch or a Rolex, just don't call it an asset.

I'm guessing you also call your house, car, boat, or your watch an asset.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCUu9OO5a10
 
Last edited:
"High-end time piece"
"Work of art"
"Craftsmanship"

No matter which way you argue, it's a fancy bracelet that only tells time. I would rather look at my wrist and retrieve information than look at my wrist and think about some random dude in sweatpants who made my watch. Leave the mechanical watches with grandpa and those who can't be bothered with a small display.
 
I started another thread similar to this one (I have two Tags and a Breitling) and love the discussion.
So - how long will it take a third party watch maker to release a solid gold band to go with the Edition Watches? That way it might eliminate some of this "Rolex withdrawal"!
 
I can't remember a more interesting topic in all the years I have been buying Apple products and reading MR. The AW has certainly thrown a few totally new spanners in the works!
I find the AW a very interesting gadget and may well buy one when the retail stores have them in stock. But at the end of the day it is just a new gadget with a limited lifespan like all computer products. Very useful it may be but that's about it.
It will never replace the beautiful traditional watches. A Rolex will be treasured for many years, 40 in my case, but the AW is a very disposable item.
 
Wallabe said:
Calculating for inflation based on 2015 dollars, how much else did he spend servicing that watch?

It's not an asset because it doesn't have positive cashflow. Something that has value doesn't equal asset. For example, a house is not an asset. It may have value, but it sucks money from your pocket. If it really is an asset, why doesn't anyone own hundreds or thousands of those houses? I'd rather own hundreds and thousands of rental properties that have positive cashflow into my pocket.

A watch is a liability, not an asset. It doesn't make you money, it takes money from your pocket. There's nothing wrong with owning a luxury like the Apple Watch or a Rolex, just don't call it an asset.

I'm guessing you also call your house, car, boat, or your watch an asset.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCUu9OO5a10
Click to expand...

Meh, I've had my Rolex 15 years and I've never serviced it, call me lazy. A house isn't an asset? Sorry but that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. At the end of the day the house and land have value. Sure it can be a negative asset as we all saw with the housing meltdown, but any investment can go sour. You know what they are not making any more of? Land. Structure your mortgage correctly, pick a 15 or 10 year mortgage, pay extra on principal, pay every week instead of monthly, use the interest, taxes and capital expenses as write offs, etc.

Plus how do you know your rentals will bring in positive cashflow? They are a business to be managed just like anything else and they can win or lose. Trust me, I've had lots of rentals and I've had to bail out of some of them. The reality ain't like those gurus (who make their money off the saps who pay for their seminars btw) say it is. Non-occupancy, losing money going to court, court ordered non paying tenants, mechanical failures (usually at 3am), snow removal, maintenance, emergency calls, etc etc all add up. Plus don't forget that rental property is still subject to the same forces owning a house are, market ups and downs, etc. Man, that brings me back to a time in my life about 15 years ago when I listened to every real estate guru out there and bought a bunch of apartment buildings, then realized the reality was different than driving to the bank counting your money every day.

A watch can be an asset, just like a coin collection or a stock investment. They can gain, lose or break even and that's the risk you take. You keep saying you can't gain money from a watch, but if I sold my watch tomorrow I would make a profit even factoring in inflation, how is that not making money?

Sorry man, you just sound like you don't have a grasp of basic finances and investing. Now I'm not saying I invest all my money on watches, hell no. But I am saying there are some watches which can be assets in that they have financial value and that value appreciates over time into a potential profit. If someone wants to diversify a bit and invest in a collectible, watch, or even precious metals it's just a matter of accepting the risk.
 
Last edited:
Wallabe said:
It's not an asset because it doesn't have positive cashflow
Click to expand...

That's a statement right out of Kiyosaki. Kiyosaki's stuff provides a good way of thinking about assets and non-assets, but in the end it has limits, just like any perspective.

Kiyosaki is heavily biased towards cash flow, because he's talking about the basics...and talking about anything else would be confusing. He is far the be-all end-all in the world of money. It's a good intro, but like anything you need to know when to let go of the oversimplified basics.

As a note, I gave my Dad a 42mm sport for his 72nd birthday and his rolex is now in a drawer somewhere. I'm sure it'll come back out after a while, but for that generation taking a phone call on your phone is really The Future. It's pretty neat now, but that was real cartoon/comic book back then, and he's really digging it.
 
Wishbrah said:
"High-end time piece"
"Work of art"
"Craftsmanship"

No matter which way you argue, it's a fancy bracelet that only tells time. I would rather look at my wrist and retrieve information than look at my wrist and think about some random dude in sweatpants who made my watch. Leave the mechanical watches with grandpa and those who can't be bothered with a small display.
Click to expand...

I keep seeing this quasi-proletarian soapbox rant every so often. You won't find anyone who says an expensive high end watch has any functionality except for maybe something like aviation or diving. I don't think ANYONE on here is arguing the merits of a high end watch based on functionality. Heck I can look at the clock on my dashboard, my phone, my PC, on the wall, etc and get as much function as my Rolex gives me. But that's not the point of owning one.
 
Wishbrah said:
"High-end time piece"
"Work of art"
"Craftsmanship"

No matter which way you argue, it's a fancy bracelet that only tells time. I would rather look at my wrist and retrieve information than look at my wrist and think about some random dude in sweatpants who made my watch. Leave the mechanical watches with grandpa and those who can't be bothered with a small display.
Click to expand...


wow, someday, when you are all grown up, you will understand.
 
Wallabe said:
Calculating for inflation based on 2015 dollars, how much else did he spend servicing that watch?

It's not an asset because it doesn't have positive cashflow. Something that has value doesn't equal asset. For example, a house is not an asset. It may have value, but it sucks money from your pocket. If it really is an asset, why doesn't anyone own hundreds or thousands of those houses? I'd rather own hundreds and thousands of rental properties that have positive cashflow into my pocket.

A watch is a liability, not an asset. It doesn't make you money, it takes money from your pocket. There's nothing wrong with owning a luxury like the Apple Watch or a Rolex, just don't call it an asset.

I'm guessing you also call your house, car, boat, or your watch an asset.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCUu9OO5a10
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that video, I find this fascinating and informative. (I'm not being sarcastic!)
 
I have a fully paid up house that might not be an asset by definition but it's worth a lot of money if I chose to sell it. Significantly more than I paid for it 20 years ago.
However, if I owned an expensive car it is now worth significantly less than I paid for it only a few years ago, probably 50% depreciation.
What is the point of this discussion?
 
richardmu said:
I have a fully paid up house that might not be an asset by definition but it's worth a lot of money if I chose to sell it. Significantly more than I paid for it 20 years ago.
However, if I owned an expensive car it is now worth significantly less than I paid for it only a few years ago, probably 50% depreciation.
What is the point of this discussion?
Click to expand...

That actually is an asset by definition, it's called a "real asset". So is your car, it still has some value, even if you lost money on it, it's still a something tangible you can put your hands on and sell for money.

I think we got on the topic when someone said buying an expensive watch like a Rolex was a waste of money, more so it was a loss of money. I thought it was interesting and relevant because some AW owners may be considering selling their high end watches.
 
3under2 said:
You think so? I've never had a problem with scratching. I love jewelry and wear it all. I'll just get the watch polished if it goes horribly wrong ;).
Click to expand...

I'd be more concerned about the face than the case-- I expect a certain amount of wear and tear on the case, and I can live with it. The face, though... Even with the sapphire, I feel the Watch's design leaves the face/screen more exposed than a traditional design like the DJ you posted.

I'm probably being slightly OTT about face security, though; I'm one of those people who would never dream of using my phone without a case, so I'd take it with a pinch of salt! It looks super, so if you're comfortable, that is what counts. :)
 
spinedoc77 said:
This is getting kind of nonsensical. His 1979 purchase at $1000 is worth $8500 today, I'd say that's a good investment. Calculating for inflation he paid $3532.23 in 2015 dollars. It still more than doubled in value.

My Rolex also more than doubled in value in 15 years so I'm pretty happy with my purchase. Although I didn't purchase it as an investment but for my enjoyment. Don't you own anything you enjoy that isn't a sound financial investment? It's also an asset, how the heck can it not be an asset? It has value.

What will the apple watch be worth in 40 years? 15 years? Heck what will it be worth in 10 months? I think you have it backwards, the apple watch is the bad "investment", although once again no one is really saying they buy either of these as an investment but rather to enjoy them.
Click to expand...

Apple Watch is a better investment for fitness, style, and personal well beings. Investment return does not need to be in monetary value only.

----------
seamor0512 said:
He could also just be wrong. "Rich" people invest in luxury watches because they are unique and hold their value. An Apple Watch is not nor will ever be unique, no more so than anyones iphone. It will also depreciate in value, year after year. The AW is in the consumer electronics category, not the watch category, no matter how hard apple tries to sell it as a timeless piece of jewelry.
Click to expand...

Rich people will buy Apple Watch Edition and invest the difference in business, stocks, gold, real estate instead of a jewelry watch that is likely to have overall lower aggregate demand going forward and compete for the same wrist space of Apple Watch.

They may indulge in other jewelries like bracelets for he other wrist, earrings, necklace etc.

Luxury watch industry is in trouble in the long run.

----------
Wallabe said:
Calculating for inflation based on 2015 dollars, how much else did he spend servicing that watch?

It's not an asset because it doesn't have positive cashflow. Something that has value doesn't equal asset. For example, a house is not an asset. It may have value, but it sucks money from your pocket. If it really is an asset, why doesn't anyone own hundreds or thousands of those houses? I'd rather own hundreds and thousands of rental properties that have positive cashflow into my pocket.

A watch is a liability, not an asset. It doesn't make you money, it takes money from your pocket. There's nothing wrong with owning a luxury like the Apple Watch or a Rolex, just don't call it an asset.

I'm guessing you also call your house, car, boat, or your watch an asset.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCUu9OO5a10
Click to expand...

Agreed. Watch "investments", other than personal enjoyment, fits the "greater fool" theory. For the value to continue to go up and have long term investment value outside of intrinsic value (such as gold contents, diamonds), you need demand.

Those extremely exclusive and limited edition watches are probably safe - not many people can afford them and not many people have them other than the ultra rich.

For watches like lower end SS Rolex that are produced in million year over year, it may be questionable about future demand (and value) when you have less net new customers/believers from those people growing up with smart watches. The tipping point is when the demand < supply. Only reason the value of Rolex is "going up" is due to new ones selling for more and people are stilling buying it, once it slows down... We will see about how good of an investment those watches are.
 
spinedoc77 said:
That actually is an asset by definition, it's called a "real asset". So is your car, it still has some value, even if you lost money on it, it's still a something tangible you can put your hands on and sell for money.

I think we got on the topic when someone said buying an expensive watch like a Rolex was a waste of money, more so it was a loss of money. I thought it was interesting and relevant because some AW owners may be considering selling their high end watches.
Click to expand...

I would say buy an AW and enjoy it for what it is. If you already have an expensive watch then hang on to it if you feel it is something nice to own or an heirloom. Don't sell it just to buy an AW, big mistake!
 
Poochi said:
Apple Watch is a better investment for fitness, style, and personal well beings. Investment return does not need to be in monetary value only.

----------



Rich people will buy Apple Watch Edition and invest the difference in business, stocks, gold, real estate instead of a jewelry watch that is likely to have overall lower aggregate demand going forward and compete for the same wrist space of Apple Watch.

They may indulge in other jewelries like bracelets for he other wrist, earrings, necklace etc.

Luxury watch industry is in trouble in the long run.

----------



Agreed. Watch "investments", other than personal enjoyment, fits the "greater fool" theory. For the value to continue to go up and have long term investment value outside of intrinsic value (such as gold contents, diamonds), you need demand.

Those extremely exclusive and limited edition watches are probably safe - not many people can afford them and not many people have them other than the ultra rich.

For watches like lower end SS Rolex that are produced in million year over year, it may be questionable about future demand (and value) when you have less net new customers/believers from those people growing up with smart watches. The tipping point is when the demand < supply. Only reason the value of Rolex is "going up" is due to new ones selling for more and people are stilling buying it, once it slows down... We will see about how good of an investment those watches are.
Click to expand...

Apple watch is a better investment for those who will use its functionality, kind of obvious? But yes that's certainly the case, but once again obvious. I believe the discussion I was having was centered primarily about financial investment though.

You may be right and the apple watch may take over the world and drive down the value of high end watches making them "greater fools". I highly doubt it, but that's my opinion. Look at how many people buy a more expensive "luxury" ipad versus something much more functional like a windows tablet, but functionality and price are not enough for them to make a dent versus apple. It's that intangible fashion, quality hardware and build, etc that helps drive sales.

Once again I didn't buy my watch as an investment, I had enough money to buy it and I have highly enjoyed it as long as I've owned it. I haven't missed the money, I don't need the money and I have money to make the investments I want to make. Not everything has to be an investment. But I am happy even not as an investment that it's doubled in value making it a smart purchase IMO. But you know profit, and silly things like that.

What are foolish purchases matters when looked at situationally. Do you think someone from a 3rd world country would think all your purchases were not foolish? I guarantee I could find something you bought that was a "foolish" purchase, and probably not something that doubled in value.

----------
richardmu said:
I would say buy an AW and enjoy it for what it is. If you already have an expensive watch then hang on to it if you feel it is something nice to own or an heirloom. Don't sell it just to buy an AW, big mistake!
Click to expand...

Absolutely, those are my thoughts as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back