Blown Away: New Submariner $7,250

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Esexx

I agree, the price increase is justified for the Deep Sea, buut alittle much for the SS Sub.

Either way, I still think they are going to sell a lot of new Subs!

I'm not sure I follow this reasoning..

The Deep Sea went from 6,200 bucks up to 9,200 bucks...

The GMT has gone from 5,075 up to 7,000 bucks

the Sub is going from 6,000 bucks up to 7,250...

A 3,000 jump is justified for the Deep Sea, but the 1,250 jump for the Sub is outrageous.............. Why would that be. The engineering in both is very similar ..

I think that the original prices were a lot for a watch........ but it is a luxury product............

[PeteNYC13]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Rolex is soo over priced now, I will never, ever, buy a new one again. Its not the money but the shameless greed Rolex so flippantly expects.

__________________________________________________ _____________

As someone said earlier in the thread, they seem to sell everyone they make!

Supply and Demand is different than greed. Not everyone needs a Rolex, they are not taking advantage of anyone or forcing you to buy a Rolex to survive and feed your family. Is Porsche greedy because I can't afford a 911 turbo?
GREED? They are not selling life saving medical devices, new safety technology for cars, books for children etc. They are selling a luxury branded watch, supply and demand will let them know if they have become greedy, they don't owe us the "right" to affordable watches.

I am sorry if this goes against many people on here but Rolex is a company that has a goal of maximizing revenue, profit and value to "share holders" like most other companies. Yes, $8,000 seems high compared to the $3,000 I paid for my Sub in 2001... but, we will all decide with our wallets. I bet that they won't be in the cases very long before they are "hard to find".

Also, if they were $3,000 and everyone had them, we would all think they have sold out and that there was no "exclusivity" in owning a Rolex and they would lose revenue and customers - IMO.

I am sure this debate has gone on long before the internet and the $7,000 Sub.


-Pete

[cdweller]

Silly little correction: the pre-C sub dates MSRP was $6,400, not $6k.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by cdweller

Silly little correction: the pre-C sub dates MSRP was $6,400, not $6k.

the Sub Date MSRP is $6,000. The Sub LV MSRP is $6,400. The new ceramic LV is a whopping $7,750, $500 more than the basic ceramic Sub Date..

[nauticajoe]

Originally Posted by cdweller

Silly little correction: the pre-C sub dates MSRP was $6,400, not $6k.

I believe it was the SD that had the 6,400 msrp. The Sub 16610 msrp is still at 6K?

[zeuloa]

Originally Posted by chriseskew24

I think that Omega if they are smart will start to flood the market to become what Rolex was 10 years ago A pricey tool watch. Now they are a overly expencive luxery watch IMHO someone will have to fill the gap between 300-500 dollar watces to Super luxery watches PP, AP & now Rolex. I will never buy a new Rolex watch ever from this point forward. They are not AP & PP and dont really know why they have chose priceing inline with them????? IMHO Omega is poise to take over Rolexs old market if they do some heavy advertising. And can recreate there image as one of the best tool watch makers in the world with tons of there own history.

Rolex is officialy beyond the working mans luxery watch now. Hell I could get a decent used car for there MSRP now. I will stick to Omega

Also flippers will take a much larger hit on resale IMHO in years to come.

Although expensive, they are not pricing inline with AP and PP. Entry level models for both these brands are double or more then what the new Sub is.

[BarkMaster]

Originally Posted by PeteNYC13

... if they were $3,000 and everyone had them, we would all think they have sold out and that there was no "exclusivity" in owning a Rolex and they would lose revenue and customers - IMO.

x2

[cdweller]

Oops, Larry and Joe you are correct! My mistake!! (can you tell I own an LV, )

[Alsey]

I for one think Rolex prices are way over the top.
Rolex prices increase on average a little less than 10% per year which far outpaces wage inflation....that's really the issue.

The average household income back in 1960 was around $5000, if they increased in line with Rolex prices then current Rolex prices wouldn't be a big deal as that average household income salary would now be $160000. In 2009it was actually around $50000!!.

[Cato]

Many folks wouldn't pay over $50 for a watch.

...and you know there are lots of guys on this board who will pay $7500 for a new Subbie.

I think the admission price for having a new Subbie is well worth $7500.

[16610v]

No point to argue whether it is expansive or not, for luxury the price is not set by common sense (material cost, labor, function..etc..), but set by the willingless to pay...

Rolex know where is the equallibrium highest price where most potential customers will accept, some may think it raises too much, but alot will keep buying...

I can say,,Rolex is the super expert of setting up luxury products guideline, the best/successful model for economist to be a case studies.

[springbar]

Originally Posted by Alsey

I for one think Rolex prices are way over the top.
Rolex prices increase on average a little less than 10% per year which far outpaces wage inflation....that's really the issue.

The average household income back in 1960 was around $5000, if they increased in line with Rolex prices then current Rolex prices wouldn't be a big deal as that average household income salary would now be $160000. In 2009it was actually around $50000!!.

I don't think the average income of all households is particularly relevant. What matters is the average disposable income of the luxury watch buyer's household (executives, doctors, lawyers, etc.)

Since Rolex got out of the tool watch business and into the luxury watch business, their prices have always been slightly shocking. They do an excellent job of keeping them right at the threshold of pain for most buyers. This makes them more money, and preserves the brand's caché.

[Juggernaut]

well, let's just say I'm glad I picked up the models I like now and so later when I retire and prices are really crazy, I will have mine already!

[stanislav]

I bought Explorer in 2008 for 3500 eur, perfect watch and I still like it very much, I am glad that I have it but now I would not buy one

[Dr. Robert]

Like the Beatles sang.......All you need is cash!

[Clogger]

I wish folks would drop the romantic notion that a Sub is still a tool watch, it aint and hasn't been for years, it is a luxury item, a status symbol, a piece of jewlery etc.. and of course will command luxury prices.

No doubt if Rolex released the new sub at the same price as the 16610, we would see dozens of posts complaining that the re sale value of the old sub was trashed.

I wont be buying the new sub as I am happy with my 16610, but that is the only reason. If you want one ya are gonna have to fork out out the cash and remember it will only be more expensive next year if you are buying new, so you might as well get one in early.