WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 20 of 162 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
In the past 10 years or so, OMEGA has come a long way in improving their image and cementing their position in the Swiss Watch making companies all this thanks to their success in introducing new fine watches with Grade A in house movements, improved certification and control (Metas), better presentation and more boutiques...

However, despite all of the above one thing they were not able to achieve is exclusively and better retention of their values in secondary market... Their new watches can still be purchased with steep discounts to this date and comparing to some other brands they seems far off...

Few years back the price difference between Omega and some of the other high end Swiss brands was not so huge so why Omega failed (if I may say) to enjoy the same demand and enthusiasm despite their continuous efforts to upscale the brand? I know that watches are not investment but it would make us happier and more appreciative of the brand. In today's value Omega prices remain very low across their whole portfolio even the most desired models and I do not think they are helping the brand to gain / maintain the type of momentum they are lusting for...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,340 Posts
Omega, Breitling and others...its my opinion except for a couple models when you see these "high end Swiss brands" 30 to 45% off at the large grey market sellers...there is little hope for anything but long, long, long term appreciation. Think your kids, kids kids....LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
909 Posts
It's also supply and demand, like any market. You can't go into an AD and buy a Rolex SS sports watch, so second hand market prices rise. But anyone can buy any Omega at retail or even at a discount, so prices for pre-owned will naturally be lower and depreciate.

If Omega wanted prices of new and pre-owned watches to rise, they would need to be ok with selling far fewer watches and restrict availability like Rolex does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
247 Posts
They don't have the marketing domination Rolex does. Rolex is pretty much the most well known brand of anything in the world. The vast majority of the world's population has never heard of omega watches
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,695 Posts
Brands that typically do very well don't have to go a long way to improve their image. They start out the gate with a winning formula, and present themselves as discreetly improving for the sake of improvement, remain cutting edge and diversify their upper echelon offering as consumer preferences shift (as opposed to moving downstream to make the brand accessible). In the auto industry, think of Porsche.

Presenting the image of needing to improve makes any brand appear to be struggling to figure it out. Also, it's debatable but the Moonwatch is signature model among WIS while the Seamaster is what the non-WIS knows (due to James Bond). The former is utterly outdated and banks on watch fans who actually prefer handwinding and plastic crystal. Non-watch people who want one luxury watch absolutely do not want that. The latter SMP has maintained the same design language but failed to stop changing in 20+ years. Compare that to how many times the Rolex Sub has been overhauled in the last 60 years.

Last point I'll throw out there is WIS make up a fraction of a fraction of people who buy watches. While watch freaks generally find the Datejust utterly boring, it's exactly what 99% of luxury prospective watch buyers actually want. They want a GADA watch that goes casual to dress, not sport, as they are more likely wearing an Apple Watch, Fitbit, or none. It's still a single core offering but 3 variable details being the bezel, dial and bracelet let people feel a strong sense of personalization without being overwhelmed by 50 different models.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
606 Posts
It comes down to supply and demand really... but also Omega has this knack of releasing 45 versions of the same watch in different metals/colors/features which doesn't help with the exclusivity and continuity of the models. For example lets look at the Rolex Sea-Dweller. Rolex has the standard Stainless and the Two-Tone models on bracelets - that's it. Let's use the Omega Planet Ocean - it's got a Stainless steel variant, a Precious metal variant, a ceramic variant, a titanium variant... and within those it's got different colors/bracelets/straps/availability. With so many permutations and volume of them sold it's easier to acquire but then the depreciation is felt when you buy one new/used because the market has tons of them already.

I've owned my share of Omegas over the past few years and honestly you should be happy with their technology and features but quickly come to realize you're going to be loosing value as you wear it where as most Rolexs (modern SS ones from what I've seen) can be worn and maybe even sold at the same price years later.

Just my thoughts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,701 Posts
It comes down to supply and demand really... but also Omega has this knack of releasing 45 versions of the same watch in different metals/colors/features which doesn't help with the exclusivity and continuity of the models. For example lets look at the Rolex Sea-Dweller. Rolex has the standard Stainless and the Two-Tone models on bracelets - that's it. Let's use the Omega Planet Ocean - it's got a Stainless steel variant, a Precious metal variant, a ceramic variant, a titanium variant... and within those it's got different colors/bracelets/straps/availability. With so many permutations and volume of them sold it's easier to acquire but then the depreciation is felt when you buy one new/used because the market has tons of them already.

I've owned my share of Omegas over the past few years and honestly you should be happy with their technology and features but quickly come to realize you're going to be loosing value as you wear it where as most Rolexs (modern SS ones from what I've seen) can be worn and maybe even sold at the same price years later.

Just my thoughts.
you actually hit the nail on the head
there is nothing wrong with the construction
the focus is something for everyone, the world enjoys that but does not "value" it

but you also have to give the folks at Rolex credit for their advertising genius, I mean they actually twist facts as well as a politician and do it so well people line up to vote with their wallet
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,695 Posts
Like everyone has already said Rolex is not in the market for quantity but Omega is and wants everyone to wear one of their watches.

Oh not all Rolexes appreciate either.
Last #s available, Rolex makes 800K annually and Omega makes 730K annually. The assumption of going for quantity is that every prospective watch buyer wants a stainless sport watch, but it's not the case outside watch guys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
731 Posts
Perhaps I am simplifying things, but the easiest way for Omega to help improve its brand equality and subsequent resale value is to produce less watches. They are on the wrong side of the supply/demand curve. Instead of making (I'm going to make up some numbers) 250,000 Seamasters, make 100,000. Instead of making 150,000 Speedmasters, make 75,000, etc.

They are currently making too many watches for their ADs and Boutiques to bear (sell at or near retail) in the immediate-term to make enough profit to keep their shops open. So instead, they sell off to Grey dealers or the end-consumer at a steep discount to move inventory so they can afford the next allotment of product from Omega. If Omega reduced their output, then there wouldn't be a constant flooding of the market with discounted product.

If both Rolex and Omega produce around 1,000,000 watches annually, I'd argue, Rolex could afford to produce maybe 1,250,000 and still retain brand equity while Omega needs to sell maybe 500,000-750,000 to come close to the price control that Rolex (or AP or Patek) have established.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,137 Posts
In my opinion so long as Omega continue to allow AD’s to discount the brand up to around 40%, potential customers will hold off buying at retail. Now, how would you feel having bought at retail a month ago and now seeing the same item, sold by the same AD at a couple of grand less?
The result of this is that second hand prices will remain weak as the secondary market need to factor in their purchase price and margin at a price below where AD’s will discount down to. The result is that the watch owner loses out at resale unless they can sell it on privately.
Personally I think it’s all unnecessary as Omega now make some fantastic timepieces that will genuinely stand comparison against more expensive brands based on their full retail price.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,354 Posts
Maybe they need an entry level Omega like Tudor is to Rolex. Tudor pushes Rolex values up even if their own value in resale is similar to Omega resale. Bottom line Omega makes too many versions of the same watch. I agree with the poster above who posted not all Rolex rise in value.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
This may not be representative of the Omega brand as a whole but the Seamaster 2264.50 (quartz) is selling for more at this time than it did new. The only reason I use this as an example is because I had been watching the prices for several years and they had been steadily rising so I bought one for around $1250 last year. Prices for the 2264.50 are now around $2000 or greater. The watch sold at retail for $1900 new.
Most watches sold by major brands do not appreciate, depreciation is the norm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Well I'll talk about my self, as a customer I'm not happy losing too much money on every Omega watch I purchase. There is no watch in Omega line up for the past 5-8 years that have increased in price dramatically to the point that 2nd hand value overcome its original retail price.

4-5 years ago, I used to get a lot of discounts on all Rolex models with one exception SS Daytona. Today in order to be able to buy a new Rolex you need have an excellent relation with the AD and when you get a watch (this is also applicable to PP & AP however they are on different league), there is certain exclusivity and excellent value retention which makes you feel that even if you spent a lot of money it is gonna be worth it. Omega on the other hand is too easy to get and you can walk to any AD and negotiate a discount with no previous purchase history 99% of the time.

Market practice has changed and Omega needs to change in order to maintain its luster and appeal otherwise it will lose its place. It is no longer acceptable to spend too much money on a watch that does not provide exclusivity and good value retention if not appreciation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
I think Omega is doing fine. They have a rich history, build excellent watches and in my experience the after market customer service is excellent. Most people are not expecting a watch to appreciate in value, and the vast majority of people would like to walk into an AD and purchase a watch without having to buy unwanted merchandise and hope for the good graces of the staff to be able to be put on a waiting list in order to maybe buy the watch they want. As for exclusivity goes buy a Sinn and you have a watch that is about as exclusive as you can get. I like Rolex and they have fine watches but at this time the rigmarole to buy one is not worth the end result.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
I think you need to be more specific. Because some models of Omega like the snoopy and the Alaska project have appreciated quite a bit. At the end of the day it all comes down to demand and supply. If Omega control supply on the Aqua Terras, it will be a hot model within no time. Youtubers will start complaining about waiting lists, the engagement will go through the roof and the grey dealers will jack the prices up. I am very glad Omega isn't doing that.
 
1 - 20 of 162 Posts
Top