why the price difference?

[superdog]

Originally Posted by balboa73

well for one, some that are arguing with me think im a breitling guy trolling the rolex forums

2nd, i dont like to be misrepresented when i couldent be anymore clear

what speaks volumes is the individuals attacking me doing it multiple times without adding anything to the thread in the form of an opinion with explanation

i am truly shocked that such a basic simple question has elicited this many responses

I knew you were going to be responding to that. :smoking:

Do you really care about those things?


Let it go brother. Who cares, you are on a watch forum, on the interweb.

My advice to you, stop looking at this thread. Let it go.

[Welshwatchman]

Originally Posted by balboa73

????

what are you talking about? now your bringing in a rolex sub to your 2 breitling equation?

of course the sub is more

where did i say the breitling galactic was the same watch as a rolex sub???

please show me

wow

Listen, genius.

I asked to you consider the reasoning behind Breitling having two distinct price points for the "same watch" (using your logic).

You didn't grasp this, you just asserted the fact that they do.

A Rolex Submariner likely costs the same to produce as the Breitling Galacta.

The brand value (to the general world market) of Rolex is greater than Breitling. This is not an opinion, it is empirical.

Take a Sub C into a pawnshop and they'll offer you £2.5k (an insult, I know).
Take a Galacta into a pawnshop and you'll be lucky to be offered more than £500.

Why is that, I wonder? The pawn shop knows that Rolex is a sure fire seller at a high price and the Breitling, notsomuch.

One is more sought after than the other and Rolex knows it needs not pricematch to Breitling, as BMW has to with Audi and Merc.

If you carry on trolling, I suggest we both try to ban each other and see how that turns out.

[trumpedaces]

Originally Posted by padi56

The same reason that a Ferrari costs more than a Ford.

[kilyung]

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

If you carry on trolling, I suggest we both try to ban each other and see how that turns out.

THAT was genius!

[BNA/LION]

Hum... Perhaps the guys at The Breitling Forum may be interested in this debate?
A Rolex is a Rolex and a Breitling is a watch. IMHO

[nameIess]

Originally Posted by padi56

The same reason that a Ferrari costs more than a Ford.

Wrong but close.
Top Gear did review of Ferarri vs Audi R8... The result by all terms was the R8 far much better than ferrari and costs much less than ferrari.

The conclusion was, they'd still buy ferrari!

cool episode. must see.

[Furbo]

Originally Posted by balboa73

can anyone explain to me why a Rolex sub-C costs more than a Breitling Superocean Steelfish?

both are SS and both have COSC movements

there seems to be quite the price disparity and last i checked BOTH rolex and breitling pay celebrities for marketing campaigns

lmk

This thread made me look at the mentioned Breitling, since I never heard of it before. This is also one of the reasons why Submariner is more expensive I guess.

After looking at Steelfish, I have no need to ever look at it again. Another reason.

[GolfPunk]

The Breitling Steelfish looks awful too, SubC looks amazing - there's a major reason

[Imkman]

Just read the first page.

This is a joke.

Why?
A
But why?
A
But why?

If you can't figure out 1+1 then buy a quartz for under $100. Will keep better time anyways.


And the difference is because they are ugly as sin and need to be discounted 80% from their already lower retail price to have a chance to sell.
Just turn the bezel on both. That's the difference.

[Rashid.bk]

I read three pages which basically said the same thing. This is akin to the same as Tudor vs Rolex.
I've noticed on this forum that when speaking independently of watches, there seem to be numerous reasons why watch "X" is better, but when compared to another, there seems to be a fog that comes in and makes everything jumbled up an people seem to forget why they bought their watch and why it's better than another company.

The problem Rolex has with the wis community is that they have gotten so good at marketing that now we fault them for it and almost outright call it rubbish now, yet they still buy the watch. Remember the takes a year to make debate....
Which leads me to believe that as much as some/we deny it, the watch was bought for the name and all that entitles in everyday society.

I'll be honest here in my opinion. The Rolex cost more for several reasons, most of which were stated.
Yes, brand power, supply and demand, marketing/history.
But I do believe the Rolex is indeed better designed, manufactured and assembled. The movement is superior, not just because it's in-house but because it simply works better and has better components made from the ground up for that model. The hands don't jump when I press the crown back in. I can set the time whenever I want, no restrictions regarding the old "don't set it between 10-2 o'clock" or you can damage the movement. The Rolex movement is one grade, the highest from the start, The ETA is whatever grade and then something else.

The design is immaculate and timeless on the Rolex. I may be romanticising it a bit but a Rolex looks good when ever wherever and only true gala/ballroom puritans worry about using it in certain formal occasions. It's design as a sport watch is appealing to a higher percentage of people than the Breitling. I find Breitlings to be a bit ugly(sorry Breitling guys) or at least their looks get tiring fast.

I also think the Submariner uses better materials, sure I may have fallen for the marketing hype but 904L has advantages period, gold hands and hour surrounds will look good indefinitely.

I mean it's a better watch, I don't know what to tell you really. Do some research about each watch and come up with your own opinion. But the Sub is better, but how much better in money, that's where the other stuff comes in.
My opinion of course.

I also disagree it's the same reason a Ferrari cost more than a Ford....which one, the Fiesta, or the GT, the Mustang, the F150. Sure we can take the term better into the context of needs, but along with the same marketing, status, prestige hoopla that the Rolex has the Ferrari is hand built and hand assembled and has engineering characteristics regardless of context of use, that a Ford Fiesta or F-150 cannot even understand. There's a justifiable reason it cost more, but does it need to be ten times more, maybe not, but definitely something.

Just look at a standard Ferrari F-40 vs a standard Chevy Corvette of the same year. The difference is eye opening to me. Seeing the Ferrari and it's design language makes me go "daaaamn, HOT!", the Corvette......yeah that's nice.... I bet people take more pictures of the F40 than the Corvette. That has nothing to do with marketing, it just speaks to people more emotionally....how much does that cost?

[up2nogood]

A few more points, in addition to Rashid's:
* thinner
* spring loaded ball bearing bezel
* far superior clasp
* better finishing

And I own both makers products.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by up2nogood

A few more points, in addition to Rashid's:
* thinner
* spring loaded ball bearing bezel
* far superior clasp
* better finishing

And I own both makers products.

Yes, very good points I just took for granted and overlooked....and with much fewer words than me.

[balboa73]

Thanks Rashid for the reply(s). I started this thread in what i thought was harmless fun to 'prove a point' to some on another thread **Breitling Forum** that the Rolex was indeed more expensive than the Breitling for reasons OTHER than 'marketing'.

The way threads work however is that some just read the opening question and hit 'reply' without reading rest of thread hence i was referred to as 'troll' for stirring the pot. Most seemed to think i was saying the Breitling was equal to the Rolex. That was my fault

Ironically to my shock most who posted at the beginning stated 'marketing' was the only difference and 'value' **for the record i am so sick and tired of people buying watches for 'value'. wear your damn watch and stop worrying about the 'value'.

Now towards end of thread the reasons such as quality, materials, movement etc began to appear Rashids reply hits the nail on the head IMHO.

was I argumentative? perhaps but only because i wanted the question answered NOT statements like 'troll'..." do you have buyers remorse over your Breitling"

All that said, this is indeed a watch Forum and it is mildly disturbing that the minute someone posts a watch a v.s watch b thread its a 'trolling' debate apparently. I guess consumers guide is one big troll magazine

Anyways thanks again Rashid and to others who 'understood' the question and answered without bias either way but instead stated facts. no need to reply with anger to this post, no need to call names.

[xjeeunitx]

Troll. Mods, please close this thread.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by balboa73

Anyways thanks again Rashid and to others who 'understood' the question and answered without bias either way but instead stated facts. no need to reply with anger to this post, no need to call names.

Thanks
I think I understood your initial question but must admit I did fall into the trap of taking the position that you were saying one was better than the other when what you actually asked was why, as opposed to stating which. There's a difference.

[KBM]

Originally Posted by superdog

Who cares. Enjoy your watches.

[Watch Professor]

Because one is a Rolex and the other a Breitling.

[jjnd08]

I am shocked this thread is still not locked...

[kilyung]

Originally Posted by balboa73

... I started this thread in what i thought was harmless fun to 'prove a point'...

I object to using this forum as an "experiment" at the expense of its members. If you had simply asked 'why is a Rolex Sub better than a Breitling SuperOcean Steelfish' then you'd have been given what you sought - a technical comparison between the two.

[mikkemus23]

My take on the subject

[sco]

Originally Posted by kilyung

I object to using this forum as an "experiment" at the expense of its members. If you had simply asked 'why is a Rolex Sub better than a Breitling SuperOcean Steelfish' then you'd have been given what you sought - a technical comparison between the two.

This exactly. I listed several actual technical differences between the watches you were comparing. I took the time to answer and then find out that it was an experiment? Please do not waste people's time. I thought I was helping instead I was being tested and my reasonable answers were ignored. Which is exactly where you stand in my book now, Balboa ... Ignored.

[SixPak]

This is a silly thread. Seriously, wear what you like. I love Rolex as much as anyone here but also enjoy other brands. To me a watch is only as good as what I think of it and not what others think.

[versatile1]

Originally Posted by balboa73

Im not knocking Rolex or Breitling I just want to know why Rolex is priced twice as much for the exact same watch?

Exact same watch? Really?

[balboa73]

Originally Posted by kilyung

I object to using this forum as an "experiment" at the expense of its members. If you had simply asked 'why is a Rolex Sub better than a Breitling SuperOcean Steelfish' then you'd have been given what you sought - a technical comparison between the two.

ok final post.

i didnt want a technical comparison.

i did ask WHY a Rolex Sub is better/costs more than a breitling superocean

in fact i even dropped a hint regarding marketing when i stated that Breitling markets their watches with celebrities as well therfore the marketing 'angle' should not have come into play.

all i wanted to know from the question was why does a rolex sub cost MORE than a Breitling superocean meanwhile i full well already knew the answer but some dont and i tried to prove a point to these people that there IS indeed a reason why Rolex Sub-C costs more than a Superocean

yes, there are those that look in the mirror and believe we overpay for Rolexes simply because we are 'duped' by their marketing campaign when MOST know that this is simply not the case. Rashid and some others said it best WHY rolex costs more.

*** as a side note i dont believe all Rolex watches that cost more than another brand means that its superior to that brand....Grand Seiko for one comes to mind I Think GS are on par with Rolex and that is easily backed up. Breitling not so much.

so again, i apologize if i offended anyone

if the mods want to lock this thread, by all means do so because SOME still dont get it

[balboa73]

Originally Posted by versatile1

Exact same watch? Really?

ok really my final post on this topic. i mean it this time. promise.

another example of someone who read the 1st question an not entire thread

no i dont believe its the exact same watch. that was the point of my thread. The rolex sub-c is superior in ALL aspects 'marketing' aside as well

mods please do lock or we will keep getting responses like this. like i said I KNOW the question was INSANE