Tudor values. (No, not about Henry VIII's morals)

[Speedbird-1]

Does the almost immediate depreciation, of Tudor timepieces, affect your purchasing decision?

[~JJ]

No. I wear my Tudors hard so they wouldn’t be collectible either way. Also, they are at a low enough price point where I think about them as a consumable item. I have 3 and they have all been solid buys that I would do over again.

[kieselguhr]

Lol no. All watch purchases are effectively nil since I don’t sell.

[brandrea]

Not in the least but I have yet to own one

[-dustin]

I can't explain it, because it doesn't make sense - but Tudor is one brand I'm ok paying retail for. Probably because I think they punch well above their weight.

Pretty much everything else, though, the immediate depreciation has me looking at 'used'.

[Guppydriver]

Originally Posted by Speedbird-1

Does the almost immediate depreciation, of Tudor timepieces, affect your purchasing decision?

I'm budget conscious by necessity and no it doesn't.

The price point allays those fears for me. I'm not going to walk a 20% instant deprecation on a watch I love if said depreciation is like $800 bucks. That's worth the experience of being the first owner, spend history, and maybe having the real AD experience.

Now that same 20% or more with a JLC, GO, IWC, Chopard etc.... ? I'm going used every time because the 20% percent or more translates to thousands of dollars.

And like someone said earlier, they just freaking feel worth it.

[WatchEater666]

No, just buy used at the bottom of the depreciation curve. Same way I buy all watches

[JMP57]

Short answer is no, as I get my enjoyment from the watch. To me, Tudor offers a great watch at a reasonable price point.

[Dan Pierce]

Hell no. It's the sheer enjoyment I get from wearing them that is the true value to me.
dP

[2loaded]

Not in the least. Same goes for new vehicle purchases.

[Neil McCauley]

If it bothers you, buy one on the secondary market.

I've only owned 1 Tudor (Black Bay Pro) and I didn't get on with it. I let it go for a loss, such is life.

[Mr Ben]

There are a couple of models I consider adding from time to time and seems a no brainer to buy from a reputable dealer in mint or unworn condition when they’re available for about 30% off.

It wouldn’t stop me buying - just changes how I buy.

[Dendi]

Not at all worried about the depreciation. I wouldn't buy any watches if all I worried about was the depreciation. Tudors are awesome. That's why you should buy them.

[Bozzie1982]

Only ever bought like new tudors on the used market for that reason......i'd never pay full retail for any tudor knowing it can be had in like new condition on the grey market, just common sense.

[samson66]

Originally Posted by Neil McCauley

If it bothers you, buy one on the secondary market.

This

Same with many other brands

[S’portEye]

I bought on the secondary market. Problem solved. BTW, I love my Pelagos 39 so much, I would not have minded paying retail. Great watch.

[Harry-57]

No. I've always liked one particular model. I now have it. I love it and I don't care what it's worth. I probably won't buy another Tudor. Well, maybe just one more...

[Tim Plains]

Originally Posted by samson66

This

Same with many other brands

And cars and basically everything else in life. I often wonder if people with this mindset apply it to furniture, clothes, shoes, etc. Watches should not be viewed as financial investments.

[Neil McCauley]

Originally Posted by Tim Plains

And cars and basically everything else in life. I often wonder if people with this mindset apply it to furniture, clothes, shoes, etc. Watches should not be viewed as financial investments.

I think it's fine to think of watches as an *asset*, it's hard not to when these things we discuss are usually worth 5 figures and upwards. It's great that some of those hold their value. For those that own these pieces, great, good for them. I think it's fair to hope that you don't lose a tonne of value in something, that goes for cars and other things, too. But to me it certainly shouldn't be a prerequisite when buying. If it's the number 1 top priority, you probably can't afford it in the first place.

What I don't like, is when people get into watches because they think every watch should hold it's value, and that's the first question they ask. I see this a lot. "Will this watch hold its value?" is the first question, rather than discussing the actual watch itself.

It's amusing, because if people begun to enjoy the watches for what they actually are, they might enjoy them a bit more.

[OG1982]

Monetary value does not equate to enjoyment for me when it comes to watches.

My BB54 would lose me money right now if I sold it, but luckily I have no plans on selling as it's a stellar daily. Especially with all the strap options!

[Krash]

I think it might be a good question for some of the more expensive brands that drop like a rock. But Tudors don’t cost that much to begin with. So I’d never worry about it. Like someone said above, you can always buy a used one instead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1William]

I typically buy my Tudor watches at Retail and don't mind if I take a slight loss. At such a low price point, typically below 5k, a loss is not the same as dealing with much more expensive watches. I have a lot of fun with my Tudors and if they were in the market in the 90's-2000's the same way they are now, they could have saved me an expensive Rolex ride.

[watchwatcher]

Originally Posted by 1William

I have a lot of fun with my Tudors and if they were in the market in the 90's-2000's the same way they are now, they could have saved me an expensive Rolex ride.

My experience exactly.

As far as values go...well, I know of nothing that can suck the enjoyment out of this hobby as fast as that word.

[In-N-Out]

I have the Harrods edition that I plan to wear regularly at some point but haven’t had the available wrist time yet. I expect it to depreciate heavily, but maybe keep up slightly with inflation in the long term (5-10 years). Eg: paid $4k today, get $4k in 10 years if I sell

[Dave O]

Originally Posted by Tim Plains

And cars and basically everything else in life. I often wonder if people with this mindset apply it to furniture, clothes, shoes, etc. Watches should not be viewed as financial investments.

This. To me, a watch is no different than any other purchase. That is, I fully expect the value to go down the second I walk out the door the same way it does with almost any other item you purchase. They are NOT investments.

[Jari37]

Agreed. The clichéd response to questions about depreciation is always oh god never do I ever even consider that for a second. And for some that's no doubt true. But given the cost & basic pointlessness of these items, it's a variable for some of us. By no means the main variable, but a variable nonetheless.

So I always find the vaguely scolding tone people take about this amusing.

[ERH]

like most things, is the purchase price material to your financial condition. For example, a one dollar item is generally immaterial, the resale value is irrelevant to your purchase decision. Is the Tudor immaterial to your financial condition, the 'depreciation' on purchase is also irrelevant. If the Tudor represents a material investment, it should be a material issue for you as to what it's immediate resale value is.

My long and short is that purchasing watches, houses, cars, etc. they are all consumable, your pleasure comes from having them and enjoying them. The resale value (whether immediately after purchase, or over the long term) should not be your most important consideration. Can you afford it, do you enjoy it, will you use it, then buy it and enjoy it. If you can't afford to lose it, don't buy it.

insurance plays in, you insure your car because you can't afford to lose it. You insure your house because you can't afford to lose it. You can insure your watch too. If it is insured, then enjoy it. If losing it, whether from deprecation, or from an involuntary conversion after insurance recovery is a material financial loss, then you can't afford to buy it.

[Eyas]

Originally Posted by ~JJ

No. I wear my Tudors hard so they wouldn’t be collectible either way. Also, they are at a low enough price point where I think about them as a consumable item. I have 3 and they have all been solid buys that I would do over again.

My thoughts exactly - the price is low enough the depreciation doesn't bother me ... unlike my Pateks where taking a bath on one would bother me a lot more!

[The Londonist]

Anecdotally, popular new Tudor Black Bays can go for a premium until they are in the ADs, however generally modern Tudor’s do lose value.

All except for one, the 79220N, which had a 6 month production run and came with a non-rivet oyster-style bracelet. Around a year ago, there was a new-old stock one for sale on the bracelet for about £6,000. New, it was around £2,300. Used ones in good condition are around £3,500+.

The distinction is that it really is rare and had the bracelet that everyone likes.

Would I buy one? Yes.

[996marty]

Originally Posted by Speedbird-1

Does the almost immediate depreciation, of Tudor timepieces, affect your purchasing decision?

If this is a real concern the simple answer would be to buy a vintage Tudor that not only holds its value but actually goes up in price