WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

41 - 47 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,625 Posts
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".
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.

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 :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,033 Posts
And drunken monkey , just saw your smart WUS rule no:2. Upps I revealed:) here comes my 2 cents support:
It's not mine, I just nabbed it from someone else on the forums (apologies for forgetting who originated it).
It still surprises me how often it is shown to be true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,883 Posts
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".
It is clear you an I disagree on this issue. You pointed out in another thread "That's just it, Swatch has positioned brands. They put them into what was four categories and within each category, they clearly positioned them in terms of hierarchy." I will simply make two points regarding Omega. One an individual can argue their relative position to Rolex until the cows return to their domicile but I would proffer that the constant barrage of polls and threads regarding Omega vs Rolex have seen Omega making strides up the "ladder" since the release of the 8500 "in-house" and its siblings. It is clear to me that they have been moving at least in the perception of the on-line WIS community, that is only one metric and arguably not the most important one but until we get profit reports from Rolex to compare to Omega that metric is unanswered.

As for price I would use the Planet Ocean as an example, the PO went up about 33% with the introduction of the 8500 versions. This is NOT the incremental price increases you seem to allude to. You simply don't increase the price of a luxury consumer good by 1/3 overnight unless your attempt is to reposition the item upward in the hierarchy real or perceived (this doesn't address some crazy currency exchange issue). I think it is clear Omega is attempting to take a more aggressive approach toward Rolex OR at least a more effective one. Again, I think they are making some inroads at least in the WIS internet community. If you don't think Omega has moved closer to Rolex in the last few years you would not be alone, however you would be in an increasingly small minority, just their ability to be able to check off "in-house" has to be seen as movement closer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,033 Posts
Your example for the PO isn't directly applicable with regards to the positioning.
It costs more because it costs more, not because of some specific positioning reason.

The SMP retained the use of the 2500 and on introduction of the 8500 PO, was priced at what the 2500PO was when it left the market.
Yes, there is the difference in spec i.e 300m vs 600m but there is also the difference in material use where the SMP has arguable more expensive manfuacturing costs.

Let's take a look at the Rolex product vs the Omega product.
What does a Submariner cost vs an SMP?
What did the old Seadweller cost vs a Planet Ocean?
Deep Sea vs a Ploprof?

Let's be clear here, while a Planet Ocean is priced similarly to a Submariner, they aren't really the same spec watch.
The Submariner isn't the same type of watch as a Planet Ocean but because of the similar price, a great many compare them as if they are.
Submariner = Seamaster Pro and y'know what, the price relative to each other has been pretty constant in the past few years from 1120 to 2500.

Omega vs Rolex has been going on for way longer than the 8500 was introduced, let alone since it was in the Planet Ocean.
Before the Planet Ocean existed and the SMP was running the 1120, it was already pitched against the regular 300m Submariner because the movement does everything the 31xx movements does and the watch costs 2/3 of what the Rolex did. Like for like, Omega has constantly pitched their products at a lower cost than Rolex because that it where it works best for them.

What I find odd about the whole Omega is chasing Rolex thing is that as far as Omega is concerned, they always have been as good as Rolex. Their position is and always has been (in the modern age) as good as Rolex but cheaper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
Agreed, if you don't like the product from the brand with history then it doesn't really matter. The diversity in collecting taste is why we have so many great modern brands. I have taken many chances on small brands and not been disappointed. But I also did not pay as much as I would have for a major brand. In my opinion the new brands have to provide something that established brands don't typically offer and most often that is customer service. I read a lot about how great the customer service from newer brands is and that is a huge selling point to me
My sentiments, exactly. Don't forget that at one point in time all the old brands were once new themselves. Who are the engineers, the designers, and the watchmakers. Do they provide excellent service, and do they accept feedback on their products. Are they priced competitively versus the historic manufacturers. These are what I would look for in a newer brand.

John
 
41 - 47 of 47 Posts
Top