« Angelo's Poly Watch Repair Kit | Main | $200 Fellowes Paper Shredder Dies After After 29 Months of Light Use »
As you climb the hedonic treadmill of manly watch addiction, you may arrive where Jonny has landed at the Upscale Watch Island.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Your Information
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
These prices make my wish for the 1,100 Seiko Golgo seem cheap.
Posted by: herculodge | October 11, 2013 at 07:35 AM
I'm sure some will find this controversial, but in the big leagues----I want Rolex in my line-up. I'd go for a Rolex that fits within that budget, and I think it would be an Oyster Perpetual. Also, in the new issue of Car and Driver, toward the front, there is a full page ad for a Tudor watch that has the look of automotive sports----tachometer motif. I would want that one, though I'm not sure of the price. I know there is a myriad of great luxury watch choices out there----but for me, there is a comfort zone with Rolex----a sort of permanent pride of ownership that equates to value in my mind. I think some people have burned out on the look of a classic Rolex because of decades of knock-offs----probably numbering in the millions. But when you pick up a Rolex and put it on your wrist, it's not like the knock-offs, at least not for me. The weight, balance, quality----and in my opinion, the look----give it an edge over the others. If I were forced to spend tall dollars on a watch, that would be the one.
Posted by: Angelo | October 11, 2013 at 08:01 AM
I hear you, Angelo. Rolex are so over-rated that (in some circles) they're underrated. They are really good watches and I'd love owning a Submariner or Daytona. But the problem is the price - they are one of the worst values per dollar because of what Jeff calls the chimera effect. I'd much rather have a Seiko SBDB001, which is about half the price of a Submariner.
Jeff, I'm not buying any of those watches anytime soon. And while its certainly related to the "hedonic treadmill" its also a matter of transforming quantity for quality. I could see owning a threesome like that post in, say, ten years.
For now there are quite a few watches below $1K that I love and would like to own. I wouldn't get serious about a Breitling, that Seiko, Omega, or Kobold until two things happen: 1) I exhaust the <$2K range in terms of watches I really love, and 2) my income goes up and/or I buy only one watch a year or so.
Posted by: jonnybardo | October 11, 2013 at 02:49 PM
Jonny: In one way though, Rolex is a good value. That's resale. I think Mercedes Benz is overrated. But they do hold their value on the used market and according to a couple jewelers I know, Rolex watches hold their value better than most. They tell me they can always sell a Rolex with very little effort, so they're willing to buy them, while they pass on other luxury watches.
Posted by: Angelo | October 11, 2013 at 03:33 PM
True, Angelo. Rolex hold their value like no other watch, as far as I've heard. But in terms of the quality of the watch - the movement, build, design, and finish - the Rolex Submariner isn't really a better watch, as far as I can tell, than the Seiko MarineMaster 300m or the Orient Saturation Diver, yet the Rolex costs $7K+ and the Seiko costs $2K and the Orient $1.5K. That's what you get for reputation.
Posted by: jonnybardo | October 11, 2013 at 05:05 PM