Gold Apple Watch Edition Costs Between $10,000 to $17,000, Available in Limited Quantities

[Jimmyz]

Image

I was mostly joking, hence the smiley face. You also could have just told me you had a Rolex GMT, I would have believed you.

However, I still stand by my original message, which is that many watch guys do buy pieces for the movement. I know many people with very subtle watches that cost a lot of $ because of a tourbillion, minute repeater, perpetual calendar, etc. inside (like FP Journe, Lange, and other watche companies that put more emphasis on the movement).

Oh, and real watch guys rock da Audemars

 

[MeFromHere]

This is the EXACT same watch is the $350 "Sport" version except the case is a different metal. OK gold costs more than aluminum but how much gold is in the case.

Gold is worth about $1,200 per oz. let's say 2 oz max.

We can do better than that...
Right now, www.apmex.com shows an "ask" price for gold of $1,167.50 per troy oz.

The 42 mm yellow gold watch case is the one with the most gold, 69 grams according to Apple. That is 2.22 troy ounces. It's 18 kt gold, so exactly 75% of that weight, or 1.66 troy ounces, is gold. (The other 25% by weight is other metals.) So if you only count the gold content, that case has about $1,942 worth of gold in it, at today's price.

In addition to the gold content, there's significant work involved in making the alloy, casting, rolling, machining, polishing, and inspecting. That's just to make the finished case.

In addition to the case, all of the Edition bands have 18 kt gold parts. The sport band has a gold pin. The buckles and hinges are gold on both of the leather straps.

----------

How in the hell is this bright red band worth an extra $7,000? Seriously, it's the same 38 mm 18 Karat Yellow Gold Case. The only thing different is the strap and the color on the digital crown.

I checked out the straps and accessories page, and the modern buckle (in brown, no gold) is $249, while the sport strap is worth $49.

Can anyone see any reason at all why this strap adds an extra $7,000 to the watch? Shouldn't this version of the watch be $10,249? Or $11,000 since it has gold accents?

Those gold "accents" in the modern buckle strap might add up to nearly a troy ounce. That would make the melt value something like $875 at today's price. (I'm guessing about the weight, and I may be pretty far off.) I would not be surprised if the cost of manufacture for the whole strap is between $1,000 and $1,100.

 

[ggf]

These forums are so anti-Apple, it isn't even funny. Do you even read these boards?

Obviously not, the original poster was not on these forums when the ipod/iphone/ipad/ipad mini/macbook air/macbook pro/ mac pro or any other apple product was release or he/she would be used to it by now.

It would be fascinating to look at the troll to actual participant ratio for sites - I suspect apple related sites would top the list

 

[firewood]

How in the hell is this bright red band worth an extra $7,000?

Since when is any jewelry item worth thousands? Soft yellow metals and 2-caret shiny rocks dug out of the ground by poorly paid miners paid cents, go to engaged women at a price of tens of thousands of dollars. Melting, cutting and polishing doesn't cost thousands. Maybe the result is useful for corrosion protection and cutting glass, otherwise useless. People only think this stuff is worth anything because other fools will pay that much for similar rocks and metals. Same with the red band.

I prefer the tan band anyway.

 

[ggf]

Those gold "accents" in the modern buckle strap might add up to nearly a troy ounce. That would make the melt value something like $875 at today's price. (I'm guessing about the weight, and I may be pretty far off.) I would not be surprised if the cost of manufacture for the whole strap is between $1,000 and $1,100.

Irrelevant

What do you think the resale market for second hand Gold editions will be like. Even if they are obsolete technically they will sell for a substantial portion of the new price - particularly if they do keep the volumes down after the initial rush.
Apple products have high resale values
Those that can afford to will buy the latest edition and sell the old one - they will drop a few grand in the process but won't have much problem selling the old one
some people still use the 3 series iPhones

 

[Nuvi]

Are you sure about that? I know he's got some Richard Mille and Audemar Royal Oak Offshores. $5 million dollars? Does a $5m watch even exist? George Daniels watches don't even cost that, and they're about as elite as it gets (and they're not covered in diamonds!).

Yes, I'm sure. Actually there are few more expensive watches around from Patek Philip and Chopard. Anyway, the 5 million is Hublot is filled with diamonds but Patek Philip timepieces are mainly about complications. Chopard again is bursting (literally) with diamonds.

----------

Irrelevant

What do you think the resale market for second hand Gold editions will be like. Even if they are obsolete technically they will sell for a substantial portion of the new price - particularly if they do keep the volumes down after the initial rush.
Apple products have high resale values
Those that can afford to will buy the latest edition and sell the old one - they will drop a few grand in the process but won't have much problem selling the old one
some people still use the 3 series iPhones

Why would anyone buy used Apple Edition watch if it doesn't sync with your host device or is otherwise hopelessly outdated? This is not some automatic Swiss watch which will hold its value for ever. This is consumer electronics which needs to link to your iPhone. If not then it's no use to anyone.

 

[Mildredop]

Even more so, 10K watch is really not a status symbol. For example, Jay-Z wears 5 million dollar Hublot. Insane? Sure but in the end of the day his five million dollar mechanical automatic watch will still be five million dollar timepiece and not some electronic garbage which Apple Edition will eventually turn into.

Very true. In fact, i would assume it'll go up in value as the years go by. Any apple watch will quickly and significantly depreciate.

----------

Image

A picture of your watch! You showed him.

----------

Chopard again is bursting (literally) with diamonds.

The watches actually burst open due to the amount of diamonds stuffed inside? Are you sure, because that sounds very unlikely.

 

[AleXXXa]

You have to either be
a) stupid
or b) filthy rich
... to even consider buying that thing which will be out of date this time next year.

Actually you have to be both.
It's not enough to just stupid, you wouldn't have 10k.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

I'm hanging to see what happens to all the Chinese early adopters queuing overnight to pick up their Gold Apple Watch in a city like Detroit when they finally get out the next morning with their watch and meet Mr Baseball bat around the corner from the Apple Store.

----------

Image

If you can afford a Rolex you should be able to afford the hair removal.

 

[AppleTools]

It's interesting that in the conference they spent the most time on the Sport edition with the long video about how great the aluminum was. The did a moderate video on the regular apple watch and the stainless steal, and then spent about 5 seconds saying the Edition watch is made of gold and costs $10k.

Easy. Most people will buy the Sport Edition. Some others will buy the higher priced models and just a few will buy the Gold Edition. So Apple will advertise them in that particular structure.

People that buy expensive watches don't care much about marketing or advertising. You see a lot of CocaCola ads, not so much of Moet for example.

----------

What I wonder is how much gold is in an Apple Watch since they are using a new method of producing the alloy. Instead of Silver and Cooper they are using ceramic elements which is supposed to save gold. At the end, I wonder how much you can get back from those $17000 if you decide to melt your watch...

 

[batchtaster]

You have to either be
a) stupid
or b) filthy rich
... to even consider buying that thing which will be out of date this time next year.

So, Apple Watch 1.0 will just stop working when Apple Watch 2.0 is released?
If you're b) then why would that be a problem in the slightest anyway? You hand it down to your lazy trust fund-riding step brother or your au pair, trade in your 2015 Aston Martin for a 2016 model, and get an Apple Watch Edition 2.0 with a band that matches your new car's paint job.

 

[Nuvi]

The watches actually burst open due to the amount of diamonds stuffed inside? Are you sure, because that sounds very unlikely.

Fair enough, saying "literally" is pushing it but as figure of speech I think this is very much "bursting with diamonds"

 

[Nuvi]

So, Apple Watch 1.0 will just stop working when Apple Watch 2.0 is released?
If you're b) then why would that be a problem in the slightest anyway? You hand it down to your lazy trust fund-riding step brother or your au pair, trade in your 2015 Aston Martin for a 2016 model, and get an Apple Watch Edition 2.0 with a band that matches your new car's paint job.

No, it won't stop working as soon as 2.0 is released but eventually it will. Within in the same period of time so called luxury watch has only lost very little or in some cases has increased in value. The luxury timepiece will work for centuries to come and with good maintenance it will gain in value and keep on working until the world ends.

 

[Mildredop]

Fair enough, saying "literally" is pushing it but as figure of speech I think this is very much "bursting with diamonds"

Image

Oh, right. I literally thought you were being literal due to your inclusion of the word 'literally'.

 

[AlecZ]

Why do the buckle and band options affect the price by several thousand dollars???

 

[Attonine]

Chopard makes a 25 million dollar watch, but it's because it's covered in giant diamonds. The most expensive watch u can buy where the value comes from the watch movement is the Vacheron Constantine Tour de I'lle (I believe).

http://www.chrono24.com/en/vacheronconstantin/tour-de-ille--id1996062.htm

Patek Sky Moon Tourbillion is also up there. I was lucky enough to be able to try one on, and it's a magnificent work of art and craftsmanship.

http://www.chrono24.com/en/patekphi...=1&dosearch=true&urlSubpath=/search/index.htm

Of course the Patek Calibre 89 takes the cake, but it's a pocket watch, so I dunno if it counts.

http://www.premierworld.me/en/2013/12/the-patek-philippe-caliber-89-2/

In this context pocket watches definitely out I think. The watches you link to and even the Vacheron movement you mention are all well below US $5 m. The only pieces I know that have gone above that are vintage pieces at auction or are covered in diamonds and hence become something you don't want to own for the sake of good taste.

It's a tricky one because Roger W Smith, who was George Daniels apprentice, makes bespoke watches, but of course prices are not published. As he only makes a handful of watches a year, they very rarely come up for auction.

If you are not aware of George Daniels and Roger W Smith and are "into" horology you should be ashamed. These two guys are the absolute pinnacle of watchmaking, more elite that Patek et al. Couple of intro articles below, but plenty of stuff, including videos on the web.

http://www.wsj.com/video/why-george...ons/4AAC4BB9-A945-4903-81A8-8CDB2A6A47E6.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-20094532
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-Its-time-visit-great-British-eccentric.html

Finally, glad to see you went for a regular Royal Oak and not an Offshore. I tried on a Royal Oak once, not sure of the exact model, but it was extra thin, for this reason it didn't work very well for me. My everyday watch is a Sea Dweller (original model), so going to an extra thin just didn't work! Anyway, at least I can do the washing up with a sense of security knowing the watch can take the splashes!

 

[orthorim]

Exactly. There are plenty of people who will spend far more than that on a watch that just tells the time.

The $10,000 Apple Watch Edition is *NOT* *NOT* *NOT* for the average person. The price tag isn't the only reason. It is for people who are willing to spend 5 figures on a watch. There are exceedingly few watches that have an intrinsic value of >$10,000 (unless you made a Moto 360-sized watch out of a solid lump of gold, or encrusted with many diamonds...) Yet people regularly pay far more than that for a watch.

I do fully agree with the arguments that a $50,000 Rolex won't become obsolete in 3 years the way an Apple Watch may, but still - people who are interested in a $10,000 Apple Watch aren't going to be the kind who care that it is obsolete in 3 years - they'll buy the $10,000 Apple Watch 2 next year. And the $10,000 Apple Watch 3 the year after that. (And still have spent less money than a $50,000 Rolex. And don't even get me started on $1 million Patek Philippe watches...)

Quite right.

You could even argue that an Apple watch wouldn't lose that much in value. What if you had a 1st edition "Edition" Apple watch? Maybe in 10 year's time, it's going to be worth $100,000. Who knows. These things happen.

Gadgets become worthless in a few years, that's true. But there's only $350 worth of "Gadget" in an Apple watch, the rest is fashion. So for a $10k watch, you could argue only $350 of that become obsolete. The rest will follow a fashion watch trajectory.

The way it works for normal watches is that some go up in price, some go down, but none go down as much as, say, a computer. The worst performing - in terms of value - Rolex is going to do pretty well - it won't lose all that much value in year one. Particularly if it was exclusive to begin with.

Think about it another way, what if - and keep in mind this is an Apple product - what if demand outstrips supply? What if Apple only sells ___NUMBER___ (say, 10,000) Gold Edition watches with the red band? What if 20,000 millionaires from around the world want to buy it?

If that happens, that edition watch will instantly be worth $20, $30k. And the difference between supply and demand need not be dramatic. A small one will get profiteers on board and skew the scales quite dramatically right away. If there's a quick buck to be made flipping Apple watches, demand will skyrocket.

It's not a certainty - it depends on how many Apple makes, how they manage demand, and how much actual baseline demand there really is. But if something is desirable and rare...

Mark my word, internet experts. You are going to be in for a rude awakening. And maybe you'll even wish you'd have invested in a $17,000 Apple watch...

 

[Attonine]

Quite right.

You could even argue that an Apple watch wouldn't lose that much in value. What if you had a 1st edition "Edition" Apple watch? Maybe in 10 year's time, it's going to be worth $100,000. Who knows. These things happen.

Gadgets become worthless in a few years, that's true. But there's only $350 worth of "Gadget" in an Apple watch, the rest is fashion. So for a $10k watch, you could argue only $350 of that become obsolete. The rest will follow a fashion watch trajectory.

The way it works for normal watches is that some go up in price, some go down, but none go down as much as, say, a computer. The worst performing - in terms of value - Rolex is going to do pretty well - it won't lose all that much value in year one. Particularly if it was exclusive to begin with.

Think about it another way, what if - and keep in mind this is an Apple product - what if demand outstrips supply? What if Apple only sells ___NUMBER___ (say, 10,000) Gold Edition watches with the red band? What if 20,000 millionaires from around the world want to buy it?

If that happens, that edition watch will instantly be worth $20, $30k. And the difference between supply and demand need not be dramatic. A small one will get profiteers on board and skew the scales quite dramatically right away. If there's a quick buck to be made flipping Apple watches, demand will skyrocket.

It's not a certainty - it depends on how many Apple makes, how they manage demand, and how much actual baseline demand there really is. But if something is desirable and rare...

Mark my word, internet experts. You are going to be in for a rude awakening. And maybe you'll even wish you'd have invested in a $17,000 Apple watch...

We don't know how limited the numbers will be, too many and they are not exclusive enough for people to invest in. There will be demand, they will sell all of the Edition watches, no question. Will they be an investment? I'm not sure. This kind of thing does work for Leica cameras, even the digital ones. Does Apple have the same cache, are there collectors in this area, people who will buy the watch and put it in a safe without touching it? I really don't know, this is a totally new area.

 

[Teridax]

Just saw a Rolex (NOT A SMARTWATCH) in a pretty (not really my style) rose gold. Looks very classy. 42 mm, the name is Rose Gold Sky Dweller by Rolex, and can you name the price? Remember, it is 'just' a watch. No notifications coming in from your iPhone. You can't view pretty photographies on it, store music, or even make it track your run. Well, the price is around $37.000, a pretty darn high price for something, that cannot do anything besides tell time, and date in the month. So how come it is unfair to pay $17.000 for a golden, limited quantity smartwatch, as the highest price? Why is it, that your balls hurt when you see the price tag of $17.000 on a golden AppleWatch?

 

[Attonine]

The Skydweller is a pretty special watch for Rolex. It was the first new movement, or new complication they had made for a long time. It's a big deal and created a lot of buzz when released in 2012.

Don't forget, for that price you are also getting a huge chunk of gold. The bracelet is gold too.

Now, precious metal watches are not the best short term investment. Generally the prices drop dramatically, similar to a new car the moment you take it off the forecourt. Steel sports watches hold their value far better than precious metal ones. However, the Skydweller will always have a high value, they will never be cheap. Currently, I think to buy a 2012 pre owned Skydweller you only get a discount of about 1/3 (one third) off of the price of a new Skydweller.

I use a Rolex Sea Dweller (original model) as an everyday watch. To buy one of these, whether it's 24 years old or 10 years old, you are still only going to get it about 1/3 (one third) cheaper than the new price of a current Sea Dweller (the original model is now discontinued). In my case I can sell my watch for exactly the same price I bought it for around 10 years ago.

This kind of value retention cannot be said for all watches. There are some brands that retain value far better than others, and within these brands certain models that are more sought after. With the vast majority of watches, their value plummets to junk the moment to walk out of the showroom, you can't give them away, and no matter how long you keep them the value will never rise. The question is, where does the Apple watch fit in this equation?

 

[Avatar74]

I was mostly joking, hence the smiley face. You also could have just told me you had a Rolex GMT, I would have believed you.

However, I still stand by my original message, which is that many watch guys do buy pieces for the movement. I know many people with very subtle watches that cost a lot of $ because of a tourbillion, minute repeater, perpetual calendar, etc. inside (like FP Journe, Lange, and other watche companies that put more emphasis on the movement).

Oh, and real watch guys rock da Audemars

The No True Scotsman Fallacy, eh? Somewhere there's a guy with a Patek Philippe Grande Complication laughing at us all, but I'm laughing right back at him because that's an absurd amount of money to spend just to have the stars laid out as they appear above the original owner's Fifth Avenue apartment.

See, my problem is not with the idea that there are some of us out there who actually do know the back history of movements, their watchmakers, the COSC standards that certify chronometers, etc. etc. but the notion that *most* people who buy watches of this type are interested in such things is a bit of a stretch.

I would argue that actual watch enthusiasts make up a small fraction of the luxury market itself. After all, most of them are not engineers and can't the difference between the escapement clutch on a Rolex 1652/3 movement versus a Vacheron + Constantin Calibre 2260. And if the movement were the real matter of interest, then *hardcore* watch collectors who know their stuff would be looking at Rotary... one of the oldest and hardiest brands of mechanical wristwatches in Switzerland.

The difference? Rotary costs peanuts and doesn't telegraph to the world, "I'm a pompous douchebag with more money than sense."

That's why most people buy these watches... because they don't actually understand or appreciate the engineering behind the movements, but want to buy something that tells everyone their status.

 

[Nuvi]

Just saw a Rolex (NOT A SMARTWATCH) in a pretty (not really my style) rose gold. Looks very classy. 42 mm, the name is Rose Gold Sky Dweller by Rolex, and can you name the price? Remember, it is 'just' a watch. No notifications coming in from your iPhone. You can't view pretty photographies on it, store music, or even make it track your run. Well, the price is around $37.000, a pretty darn high price for something, that cannot do anything besides tell time, and date in the month. So how come it is unfair to pay $17.000 for a golden, limited quantity smartwatch, as the highest price? Why is it, that your balls hurt when you see the price tag of $17.000 on a golden AppleWatch?

Because few years from now the Rolex will still be worth 37K but Apple Edition will be worth almost nothing. When it comes down to watches only an idiot would choose Apple Watch over mechanical automatic watch. If your main interest is photographs etc. on watch then feel free to choose differently.

 

[peterdevries]

Oh, and real watch guys rock da Audemars

No offense intended, but Audemars in The Netherlands is mostly worn by professional football players and criminals (like Breitling for Bentley).

Here it is mostly Omega, Breitling, Panerai and IWC. Some people wear Rolexes, but only a small percentage.

I myself have a GMTII Black and blue bezel, and two Breitlings (Cosmonaute and the Superocean Chrono).

To address what Avatar74 is saying above: I bought them because I think these are enourmously gorgeous watches. WHat do I like about them:
GMT II: I think the Rolex design is one of the most beautiful watch designs that doesn't contain too much complicated stuff.
Cosmonaute: I love the 24 hour dial and the general Navitimer design. I also love that there are so very few people that have this watch.
Superocean Chrono: To be honest not too happy with this one, and I'm probably going to sell it.

 

[Avatar74]

If you can afford a Rolex you should be able to afford the hair removal.

But my wife likes the hairy forearm more than the watch. The hair stays.

----------

No offense intended, but Audemars in The Netherlands is mostly worn by professional football players and criminals (like Breitling for Bentley).

Here it is mostly Omega, Breitling, Panerai and IWC. Some people wear Rolexes, but only a small percentage.

For quite some time it was also Longines, though they don't have the reputation they once did. Omega would have gone the same way had it not been for Nicholas Hayek's reorg of the brand.

 

[beanbaguk]

There are only a limited number of idiots that would spend $17,000 on an Apple Watch that will be worthless in 18 months so that makes perfect sense to me.