| Post Reply | Forum | Previous | Next | Edit |
|
RE: Relative value of watches... by Mark Minor  (Registered User) Date: 03/31/2002, 16:56:25 In response to: RE: Relative value of watches... -- Forge |
This is an interesting question. When you buy a new Rolex, unless you find a dealer who is willing "to deal," it will generally depreciate for many years (depending on the model and consumer demand) before it begins to appreciate. Unless you have an extremely rare (ie., Milgauss or special combo Daytona chrongraph) the appreciation is all pretty much "relative." For example, in 1985 I purchased a new gold and stainless Submariner in Switzerland for approximately $1650.00, mainly due to a favorable exchange rate. In 1992 I sold it for $2400.00. If I had invested the money in a decent stock market fund in 1985 I would have made much more $$$. If you buy a watch for resale, you are in for the "long haul." I think an affordable high quality watch to purchase used (or new for that matter) is an Omega. I was never "smitten" by the Rolex as most people are. When I sold my Sub the dial had faded to gray, it gained 7 to 8 minutes a month, and I almost lost it due to the clasp releasing accidently several times over the years (if the inside part of the clasp is pulled it will open the band to the expansion links-sufficent to fall off the wrist). My Omega and (Seamaster Pro 300 and 120, Speedmaster Moon, and Deville Prestige) IWC (Mark XII, and Aquatimer) watches have held up better (and keep time more accurately) so far than my Rolex. They will be cheaper to factory maintain, and in my experience, will hold up BETTER than a Rolex. If all you want to do is impress people, then by all means buy a Rolex (that is one reason I got rid of mine). If you truly love a mechanical watch, there are better (and more value conscience) choices out there. Good Luck, Mark |
| Post Reply | Forum | Previous | Next | Edit |
