Facebook allows Super Clone sales

I get these on my facebook feed all the time. I have a lot of watch groups that I subscribe to ... and I know I clicked one of these not really paying attention until I saw the prices... its crazy.

 

I'm not a fan of fakes, I'm also not a fan of overpaying.

Question: If it has Swiss movement and the quality is pretty darn close (most work on both is not done by hand), is the genuine watch overpriced?

If you were to take a super clone and make a few minor cosmetic changes and use your own brand name (or one of the myriad of dead Swiss ones), you would have a nice, good quality watch at a reasonable price. The only issue is the fake branding. To me the rise of these super clones (which aren't the prior junk fakes made to look like something but with no quality) is a strong sign that some of these brands are overpriced.

Regards,

Art S.

 

Real watch enthusiasts won’t buy fakes.originals will always sustain its values.it is just like f430 factory manuals versus conversions.

 

Facebook allows ads for all kinds of scam websites. For such a large company they don't seem to police their ads very well. I wonder if they are incompetent, or simply don't care.

 

Rob,

I think this is why you split out market discussion/speculation from regular Vintage. During a bubble, a hot commodity will retain value; maybe go up with enough speculation. But that means, your value is dependent on style and taste which tends to be fickle - if it's not 'fashionable' when you sell, you will lose more than a super clone buyer.

My Patek minute repeater (with ownership history, box and papers) would cost the same to make as a new one but, because it's a pocket watch, it's worth a tiny fraction of a new one. My old 330 would cost more to replicate (or use as the basis of a 'super clone' of a GTO/California) than to restore, thus I'm OK with it's value - my risk still remains, it's just lower.

For brand watches, you are paying a little extra for higher quality and R&D, the rest is marketing and profit (I would argue that IWC has a ratio more favorable to the buyer than most of the other top tier brands). If tastes/styles change, there will be no back end at resale. Also, they made a few 330s and old Patek minute repeaters, in comparison, how many watches are these companies churning out today?

Remember, you bought your watch for an amount off MSRP equivalent to two super clones - if you are buying to keep, no brainer, great call; if you are buying to possibly resell, you have more downside risk than a super clone buyer.

Regards,

Art S.

 

Luxury items aren't about value.

 

Regarding your first sentence, it depends on the value you received during the depreciation. My point is, it the intent is to show off, a super clone is better. If you are buying it for you, a clone makes no sense.

Regarding your second sentence, I'm with you 100% - I don't buy my toys to show off, I buy them to enjoy.

 

Can I ask your question with a question?

If a particular model of Rolex was $800 in 1983, and today that SAME model is $15,000+, WHY?
I'm sure nothing has changed in the movement - and if it has it surely didn't cost THAT much to upgrade.
(Datejust - which I almost bought new in 1983 but thought $800 was nuts)

And don't say the price went up because of all the knock-offs...

 

Assume inflation and any other metric you like; what is 1983's $800 today? Inflation is bad but not bad enough to be $15,000+. Also at $800 in 1983, there was room for Rolex to do marketing and brand development.

The price is $15K+ because the market will take everything Rolex can put out at that price. As a result you get mimics that are (relatively) inexpensive but of surprisingly high quality with plenty of profit margin remaining.

Look at the pocket watches I collect, I can buy the best and usually of higher quality for 1% - 10% of the cost of the equivalent of currently fashionable wrist watches - price and quality are not necessarily connected.

Regards,

Art S.

 

I can see it being $4,000 today - maybe even $5,000, but not $15,000 - and that's the 'lower' price, they are actually (on average) $16-$18,000 today.

Same as your average car back then being, let's say $8,000, today they are $40,000, so 500% more, BUT,
today's cars have significantly more features and technologies, plus they are largely built by robots,
but a Rolex Datejust really has not changed, internally or externally.

Advertising and marketing for cars is MUCH more important today, but a Rolex? It's about the same
as a Ferrari, I cannot tell you the last blatant ad I've seen for a Ferrari in the media, but I guess them
sponsoring (owning) an F1 team IS their advertising, but then again, all we see is the shield on the
side of the car, and 'FERRARI' on the rear wing - and that's it.

Since I am digressing a bit, let's think about when we were kids - how did we know Ferrari was THE
car to own, to dream about owning, when we were 10-12 years old? The next question is going to be
that is ending, I don't see kids today drooling over a Ferrari, will they still be relevent in 30 years?
Is Rolex any more than a status symbol today? They don't keep very good time compared to many others...

 

The car number makes sense. It is a similar increase to gold.

The Rolex price has little reason for the excess increase, besides an increase in perceived value by consumers, allowing much larger profit per unit AND higher production volume.

I won't argue the Ferrari case or we'll take the thread too far off course.

As for when I was a kid, I wanted a Pontiac GTO. I appreciated Ferraris but didn't contemplate them until I was making money and their values collapsed. I fell in love once I started my deep dive. As for the future, much like Duesenberg's, the value of the early cars will fluctuate as generations pass and new generations discover them - these are all rare enough to retain a threshold value.

To me, this is less likely with higher volume items. American railroad watches are beautiful and fantastic but are of trivial value. This is a reasonable, long term, model for the value path of higher volume high end modern watches as they go back out of fashion.

As I said before, buy one because you love it and you won't be disappointed.

Regards,

Art S.

 

So I have a Panda Daytona, and this kinda pissed me off:

 

If you want a Rolex, buy a Rolex.

If you want people to think you bought a Rolex, buy a clone.

 

so it wasn’t because “hey for $1,000 you can get an identical one”, it’s more so the bar for fakes keeps going up and don’t want to be scammed. It’s also about buying the seller too.

 

Feh,

I don't particularly care why the video was made, although scams are a fair point (and a concern).

It says you can get a fake that is a decent watch (good but not on par with Rolex) and is visually identical, so only you will know is fake when it's on your wrist, for $1k - $2k.

Hence my prior comment and previous posts as well.

Regards,

Art S.

PS. $1k - $2k isn't cheap - it will just about buy an 18k vintage Patek or V&C open faced pocket watch (that needs a service). What you would have bought isn't fashionable but if you open it up, it blows the doors off a genuine, new Rolex in terms of quality. None of this is about telling time, there are plenty of devices available that will do a better job at a much lower price than the fake.

 

Incompetence by design?

 

Like a cell phone, which has killed the watch trade, for the most part.

 

Watch trade seems to be doing better than ever. At least mechanical watches.

 

But as far as commoners that used to wear watches, seems like very few do anymore.
I was not talking about higher-end watches.

 

wow... that is scary. Caveat Emptor.

 

t

That means more watches for me.