Well I second you on the things increasing more than salaries.The hourly pay vs buying a Rolex or Omega comparisons within years proofs that. But it's the momentum some brands gain in a relatively short term with investments and the related expectations. I think it was in the 70's when SSIH merged with ASUAG fully- so its in Swatch Group since then, where Omega started to be neglected vs its own history. And those times were actually when all Swiss cantons were struggling against batteries - Quartz.I see this mentioned a lot; that Omega is being pushed to compete with Rolex and that also there is now a vacuum that Longines will fill.
Well, I keep saying this but I simply don't agree.
As far as I can tell, all of the mainstream watch brands have been in the same relative market position. Omega has pushed its competition against Rolex but it is still exactly where they have always been (since Swatch); seen as an equal by some, better by others but by and large and more importantly, that little bit cheaper - it is no coincidence that a lot of the internet buzz about Rolex being over-priced used to be based around Omega being a bargain in comparison.
All watches have gotten more expensive.
Some have attributed the speed of the price hikes as being a reaction to Rolex price hikes but that's irrelevant. The brands are still positioned where they pretty much have always been. If you can't afford one particular one now but you could have a few years ago, it isn't because of moved position, it is because of other factors such as value of currency, global economy and well, I know that my paycheck doesn't have the same "worth" as it it did five years ago even though the numbers aren't that different.
All things have gotten more expensive much faster than my salary increasing; some just more than others.
The cynic in me sees the recent push of new products across the Swatch brand range as them simply saying:
"see, we told you, now that we can stop supplying others, we can make cool new stuff for ourselves and develop".
Maybe while being picked up it's just going back where it was, to its rightful place. I am not an Omega collector neither a specialist but being into vintage brings some benefits overall. When Rolex was vitamin in the apple - buying the screw down patent from Paul Perregaux and Georges Perret - Omega was rated in the English Observatory of Kew Teddington, where it obtained 97.8, 100. being the unattainable perfection and competing with PP and UN chronometers.
I am collecting and reading some antiquarian books also,the salaries and wages through the centuries are generally compared with grain or gold value to understand the purchase value. But I've seen in WUS that watch prices are generally compared with hourly pays, and I remember the Rolex correlation should be not more than 2,500 USD now, including inflation.On the top of this figure comes the ' brand value ' I think which we like it or not Rolex did and does well - even though it sounds unreasonable I am also looking for a birthyear Submariner 5512 -
I know the brand I am collecting ' Glycine ' prices and could compare it with now.Have heard that Rolex Submariner was also USD 55 in the year 1955 ( from that ebay listing where it was sold for USD 67K from its first owner ). So if anybody knows the Omega with cal 321 prices from that times we could do something similar for it also by comparing where it was and what it became, but I guess that would deserve a separate thread.
Where were we? New & old brands Old brands have old issues...
And drunken monkey , just saw your smart WUS rule no:2. Upps I revealed here comes my 2 cents support:
What is left from Omega's last 60 years if you take Lemania out