WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner
61 - 69 of 69 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,075 Posts
:think: If we could transport this forum back 60 years, I wonder if the same would have been said about
Adolf Shield?
I'm quite sure the matter would never have come up. My parents bought nice watches in the 70's, albeit Rolex. I never heard the word/concept uttered when I first started buying nicer watches in the '80s. That said, I'm sure was some other marketing fallacy that makers used to promote their fancy watches; I just don't remember it. <winks>

All the best.

The past is a ghost, the future a dream and all we ever have is now.
- Bill Cosby
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,075 Posts
How does a discussion of ETA longevity with respect to small-batch manufactures end up being a Rolex argument? Is Rolex the anti-Swatch? I see them as similar, differing mostly in price point (not so much cost point).

If Timex pin-lever watches were worth thousands of dollars on the used market, people would be maintaining them. That doesn't mean they are easily maintainable.

Rick "not seeing Rolex in the thread title" Denney
The reason usually is reading comprehension and that most folks are more keen to think transactionally or literally rather than conceptually. I don't know if that's the case here, but I do know it's the case in many threads I've read. Most of the time, it seems that folks either miss or refuse to consider that a specific watch reference is made for the sake of illustration rath because that specific watch is the matter at issue.

For a consumer the only relevant [criterion] is the retail price, not the internal production costs. And on that note, I have argued numerous times how much is a Rolex overpriced:)
Quote note: Okapi001, I'm almost certain you don't mean a bike race, thus I edited your quote, changing criterium to criterion. If you did, I misinterpreted your metaphor and I apologize.

On the contrary, the question is not one of what is relevant, but rather how relevant, how applicable, how sound are the inferences an individual makes when objective facts are not obtainable. It is both natural and right that consumers consider more than exclusively the retail price. As with any decision, the more information one can directly obtain or indirectly infer, the better able is one to make a decision with which one is comfortable.

Retail price is only one of several relevant factors. I will grant that consumers are unlikely to know what the maker's production costs are. Even so, consumers can obtain an "order of magnitude" sense of what they might be "at the most." Consumers can then use that information to arrive at a rough estimate of the nature and extent to which the retail asking price includes intangible factors versus the tangible material and labor costs. Making sense of the ratio of tangible and intangible costs is one of the main empirical inputs in the cost-benefit analysis most consumers perform when choosing among alternative products.

Overpriced:
There is no such thing as absolutely overpriced. There is only "overpriced given one's own value system," i.e., the weight given to the various things one expects to receive for the money one spends. While there are differences -- slight and great -- in the weight each of us assigns to the variables in our respective systems, there are also points of commonality -- again slight and great -- among them. We see points of broad commonality when we talk of Stauer, for example, but we see the differences when we talk of other brands.

Unless you can demonstrate your benefits, all you are left to compete with is price.
- Jeffrey Fry

OK, I'll bite, how do you know which one is cheaper?

The watch may be more expensive, but we have established in many threads that the cost of the watch is not connected to the cost of the movement....

So, the next question...

How much does a chronometer grade ETA 2892A2 movement alone cost? A Rolex 3135 movement alone?
I don't know how you and others came to such a conclusion, but I am confident that it is an incorrect conclusion. The cost of the watch's movement is very definitely connected to the retail price. The cost of the movement may not comprise the entirety or even majority share of a watch's retail price, but it certainly is a portion of the production costs and the maker/seller does intend to recoup the cost of the movement along with other costs and intangible factors.

All the best.

You can’t put a price tag on love. But if you could, I’d wait for it to go on sale.
- Jarod Kintz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
I wish some of you posters would just speak for yourselves, don't include me in some of your rationalizations. I think ETA movements will last a very long time, if the calibres are maintained appropriately; at least that is my experience for my two Eterna-Matics.

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,662 Posts
An ETA would last as long as any other comparable movement. But bringing up longevity in relation to spare parts availability really has nothing to do with the quality of the movement.
It would be like saying there are millions of VW beetles around, hence there's heaps of spare parts, hence they're very reliable.
This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but I just want to get that off my chest. The 'spare parts availability' thing comes up in every ETA thread....
(I'm very late to this thread)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,075 Posts
...

So, the next question...

How much does a chronometer grade ETA 2892A2 movement alone cost? A Rolex 3135 movement alone?
I don't know exactly, but you should be able to get a rough sense of it from this: ETA Mechanical Watch Movements. I would think it is less expensive than a chrono and more expensive than a 2824. Bear in mind the sited I provided lists the retail price for non-bulk purchases. Large quantities purchased at wholesale will be considerably less.

As for the Rolex one, I'm sure Rolex won't disclose that info, but perhaps someone who's recently had to pay for a full movement replacement could give you a sense of it.

All the best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,024 Posts
I don't know how you and others came to such a conclusion, but I am confident that it is an incorrect conclusion. The cost of the watch's movement is very definitely connected to the retail price. The cost of the movement may not comprise the entirety or even majority share of a watch's retail price, but it certainly is a portion of the production costs and the maker/seller does intend to recoup the cost of the movement along with other costs and intangible factors.
In luxury goods, and watches in particular, price is only thinly connected to cost. Do you really think it costs 10x more to make a Submariner than it does to make a Hamilton King Scuba? Uh ... No.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,075 Posts
In luxury goods, and watches in particular, price is only thinly connected to cost. Do you really think it costs 10x more to make a Submariner than it does to make a Hamilton King Scuba? Uh ... No.
It really doesn't matter what I might answer to your question. "Thinly connected" is still more connected than "not connected," which is what Lysander XIII said s/he and others had established. If they did indeed establish such a thing, I for one would really like to the evidence that led to that understanding.

I do not believe that the MSRP of any luxury item results entirely or primarily from a function having the actual production costs as the sole variable. All the same, there is definitely a connection such that as the production costs -- those pertaining to the movement, case, crystal, crown or otherwise -- increase, the MSRP of the watch will also increase. I suspect too that if those same costs decreased, the MSRP might very well not decrease.

All the best.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
- John Adams
 
61 - 69 of 69 Posts
Top