# Just Got An M4 - 17 Times Cheaper Than A Sub !



## gallch (Jan 7, 2007)

I am more than pleased with my M4 - now, here's my question....and yes, I know this might elicit a whole lot of R*l*x-bashing, please don't; this is a serious question:

What exactly is the added value that makes a Sub "worth" 17 times more than my very satisfactory M4 ? It can't all be a combination of nice wooden box and clever marketing, or can it ? I am genuinely interested in people's views as to how much of a Sub's cost represents genuine value for money and how much is just the mystery of the market. Then we can go onto Yachtmasters, which I find even more mysterious. They are nice watches, but the cost !

And just to head off one aspect at the pass so to say, I know about the idea that people are essentially just strapping their money to their wrists...I am sincerely not turned on by that idea, though ( and - cringe - I really don't want to seem arrogant, but I could actually afford a Sub or a Yachtmaster if I wanted one, I just find myself thinking of all the other things I could have had instead if I did buy one !!


----------



## media_mute (Apr 30, 2006)

I spent 4 weeks in Laos and it cost me about a grand including flights


----------



## Maple (Jan 4, 2007)

Hi,

I'm going to take a stab at this question, as I am saving up for a Sea Dweller, and when the time comes and I am standing in the AD with the SD in one hand and thousands of dollars of cash in the other, I will need to make that exact final decision.

Let me start by saying what a Rolex is NOT to me:

-It is not (IMO) the best performing watch out there

-It is not the best performing DIVE watch out there (IMO again, I am an active diver in my spare time)

-It is not the best looking watch out there (for me)

-The sum cost of it's parts and manufacturing when compared to it's price does NOT represent good value for money

-I can NOT "feel the difference in quality" when I hold one/ wear one (I have, and it is just a nice watch, not a magical experience.

So why would I spend thousands on this watch?

Here we go:

-It has a very good in-house movement in a decent case that is suitable for diving (I am a diver in my spare time)

-When compared with the Swatch Group (Omega, Tissot, ETA, etc), I prefer Rolex's business practices and ownership model. This could change as I learn more about both, but that's where I am right now.

-It has a historical lineage (COMEX) that I personally value, that few other watches have (for me). In this limited respect, I equate it more like buying old art or memorabilia than with buying a watch to tell the time with. Not everyone will like the painting or the painter, but for those that do, they are willing to pay a lot of money for some old canvas and dried paint. Another example might be a violinist wanting to buy a stratavarius (I'm not a music knowledgable person, so the analogy may not be bang on here).

-It makes a statement about the person who is wearing it (the statement may not be true of the wearer, and the person receiving the statement may or may not like the statement, but it is definately a statement). For me, that statement is: conservative, traditional, dependable, and reasonably successful financially. For others, it may be different. Again, I am not saying that these descriptors are in any way true of all people that wear Rolexes, and there are plenty of gaudy Rolexes out there that send of whole diferent message to me. At the end of the day, we all communicate messages about ourselves by what we choose to wear, how we choose to comb our hair and manage our facial hair, what aftershave we wear, or don't, and so on. Aesthetics and self image play a considerable part in the choices we make in life. What accessories we choose is just an extention of this, and I believe that these decisions in life DO make a difference.

-Following on with the last point, the right Rolex can be the equivalent to a "secret handshake", a fraternity pin, a regimental tie, and so on, which, in some circles, can open opportunity. It won't close deals, but for some, it can get you heard. Those oppotunities can sometimes be life altering.

-It holds value reasonably well in the short term, and I understand can appreciate in the long term if well cared for. Mine however will be used activly, and it's "investment" value will not come from selling it later, but in other more nebulous ways.

-Right now, it is probably the best watch based reflection of the type of character I strive to live up to, and the life I work to build for my family and myself. If that seems like a heady statement for a mere watch, bear in mind that I do not limit this focus and attention to a watch, or any of my other possessions. It is captured in every good thing that I do, and in how I handle myself if I have done a not so good thing. It is captured in how I nourish my relationships with others. My watch choice is only a small part of my internalized and externalized expression of my self image and aspirations. Yes, that sounds like a long advertisement from Rolex, Omega, or other even higher end companies trying to tell us what their products will say about us as people. Their label branding works. A lot of people hear the message, and some even believe it. I have to swim in the same ocean as those people, so I need to pay attention to the environment also.

In short, it is not about the watch. It is about value in art/memorabilia (which is has very subjective value), and it is about image managment. So, put in that context, is it worth it? That all depends on the potential buyer, and what that watch means to them, and what they think others will think it says about them. For me, we'll see when the time comes...


----------



## quoll (Apr 20, 2006)

O & W sell some fantastic watches - I have four. The M4 is one if those and a brilliant tool watch with plenty of its own heritage.

It is however, inspired by the Submariner, like so many other watches. While enjoying the design, let's not forget where all of these watch designs came from. Having said that, the O&W is much better value than some of its competitors.

And yes, there is absolutely no comparison value for money terms.


----------



## Regal325 (Aug 5, 2005)

Simple.....

Like so many things.......pedigree,pedigree, pedigree sorry to misquote some minor politician


----------



## Maple (Jan 4, 2007)

In fairness, I should have been more specific when I said:

"-It is not the best performing DIVE watch out there (IMO again, I am an active diver in my spare time)"

This is my opinion within the realm of recreational diving, where I look for several characteristics that the SD is not particularly strong in (large clean dial, engraved bezel without insert, strong lume)

In the realm of professional deep saturation diving, I would bow to the experts, many of whom swear by the SD and no other. In this realm, it may well be the best dive watch there is.

Cheers.


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

I think your opening post summed the old argument about 'is it worth the money?' very well, it is to some people it isnt to others....

Ive really come round to the whole Rolex 'thing' lately, I would love one, idealy a vintage 5513 Sub.....


----------



## gallch (Jan 7, 2007)

Thanks all so far for those very thoughtful posts. I am a new member here and just beginning to collect watches so am really interested to know how apparently like-minded people think about these sorts of things.

I have a quartz Nautica for day to day ( that's what you folk call a 'beater' right ? ) which I love for its big size and clean lines but I am most intrigued by automatics. I have a vintage Longines Conquest in gold which I inherited from a great-uncle many years ago....now here's thing. As you all know better than I, Longines took their brand positioning down market a few years ago. So....my uncle's watch which I had valued at GBP 1,800 20 years ago is now "worth" less than half of that even in today's money. But I get just as much pleasure from wearing it, probably more given that I am not so nervous about it now. For me, it doesn't say anything different about who I am or my image and it's the same watch...but the implication of some of the views above is that I would now be _perceived _slightly differently than I was 20 years ago when I was wearing an expensive 30 year-old watch versus today wearing a mid-priced 50 year-old watch.

Is that right ?


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

media_mute said:


> I spent 4 weeks in Laos and it cost me about a grand including flights


Eh?


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

It is just a pity they do not use that superb movement (no doubt for thats what it is!) in another style of watch which wasn't the







"Rolex" look......they may have great engineers working for them but the designers must have been locked in a cupboard decades ago!

Best regards David

I did own a GMT II briefly, because I just had to! But.....the dial was just plain difficult to read compared to others......luckily I had bought it through a very good friend in the trade and it slipped back into circulation very easily


----------



## Maple (Jan 4, 2007)

gallch said:


> ...but the implication of some of the views above is that I would now be _perceived _slightly differently than I was 20 years ago when I was wearing an expensive 30 year-old watch versus today wearing a mid-priced 50 year-old watch.
> 
> Is that right ?


I would say yes, but by a small percentage of the population, and in a small way, as a watch is really only a small part of how you choose to present yourself. But I agree, when things change, there will be difference.

That being said, always keep in mind that the difference in this case may not be "he's wearing a cheaper watch". It could well also be "he's wearing a very nice older gold watch that is probably a family heirloom, so he may be a family oriented traditionalist". Or it could be "That's a nice old gold watch, he must be a collector" or, "he's got a gold watch that must cost a fortune". It could be any number of perceptions, good, bad, or indifferent.

At the end of the day, the price and value of a watch is only one characteristic to a watch, and not really worth getting too hung up on. The Submariner or Sea Dweller are not the most expensive watches out there (far from it) , and I would like to think that most people who buy them don't do so just to show off their money. There are some really expensive watches out there that would scream big money, but I think they are gaudy and I would not wear them, no matter what people thought. In fact, gold watches are not for me (I would not buy one myself), but if I inherited one, I would likely wear it as it speaks to my ties with my family. If we wanted a watch just to tell time with, we can get a perfectly reliable watch that will last forever for about $100. If we are going to spend more, I think we should get a watch that appeals to us personally, ideally for good reasons.

Cheers.


----------



## ETCHY (Aug 3, 2004)

I've owned an M5 & Rolex GMT Master (so they're basically the same as what you're talking about).

The O&W was a lovely watch & I regret selling it so much I intend to get another.

The Rolex however is better, IMO Rolex are greater than the sum of their parts & for me worth the money, I hate all the image bull**** & some of pratts that wear them but that's not the watches fault. Although I have to say these days i'd probably only buy a second hand one.

To be honest you can't really compare the 2 because they're not in competition with each other.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## gallch (Jan 7, 2007)

ETCHY said:


> I've owned an M5 & Rolex GMT Master (so they're basically the same as what you're talking about).
> 
> The O&W was a lovely watch & I regret selling it so much I intend to get another.
> 
> ...


I totally get the mixed message thing with the Rolex image - not all the connotations are positive given some of the folk who choose to wear Rolexes and why. I too would probably get a vintage Rolex if I get one at all ever just to try to dilute that element. I have the same mindset with cars - I love BMWs for the cars they are, am less ( much less ) keen on some of the associations, so square that circle the same way - I drive an 8 year-old 5 series, wonderful car, cost me around 30% of its on the road new list price when I got it 2 years ago and avoids all the "what a git he must be" reactions a new one MIGHT elicit; not worth the risk for me, and cheaper !

What nobody has really been able to answer yet is how much real intrinsic value there is in a Rolex watch. Anyone have any idea what the manufacturing and materials costs of a Rolex are as a percentage of its retail price - ie excluding all the advertising and marketing bull and packaging costs ?

And the same for an O & W ? - who have hardly any a & m or packaging costs, obviously.


----------



## Maple (Jan 4, 2007)

Very tough call. I doubt anyone would be able to say for sure unless O&W and Rolex publish this as public information. Also, manufacturing and materials costs are not the only critical factors in the bottom line cost of a watch. R&D and production volumes will be very influencial on final cost, and I suspect there will big differences on both of these.

That said, there is no doubt in my mind that the price to cost ratio with a Rolex is much higher than an O&W (or to put it another way, you get much less physical watch per dollar with a Rolex), but then, as discussed, the value of a Rolex has little to do with the cost of it's parts.


----------



## Barryboy (Mar 21, 2006)

Another thing....

You can wear your M5, ID3077 or whatever and even though 99% of the people don't know what it is, they don't automatically think it's a fake.

However whenever I see a Rolex being worn I always wonder if it's real. Whilst the sub is a classic design, there are just so many fakes about (some of them exceptionally good, it must be said) the cachet of wearing a Rolex is not quite what it used to be.

Rob


----------



## gallch (Jan 7, 2007)

Barryboy said:


> Another thing....
> 
> You can wear your M5, ID3077 or whatever and even though 99% of the people don't know what it is, they don't automatically think it's a fake.
> 
> ...


Do you know, I hadn't thought of that - but you are absolutely right now I come to think of it. That's exactly what I do when I see a Rolex on someone's wrist - wonder if it's real. What a shame.


----------



## ETCHY (Aug 3, 2004)

Barryboy said:


> Another thing....
> 
> You can wear your M5, ID3077 or whatever and even though 99% of the people don't know what it is, they don't automatically think it's a fake.
> 
> ...


I always quite liked the idea that when people saw my Rolex they would probably think it was a fake, as I knew it wasn't









Dave


----------



## Barryboy (Mar 21, 2006)

Of course, not every sub is good looking.....

This one, for example...............


















Leave you to decide if it's a real Rolex or a fake.....


----------



## MarkF (Jul 5, 2003)

gallch said:


> What nobody has really been able to answer yet is how much real intrinsic value there is in a Rolex watch. Anyone have any idea what the manufacturing and materials costs of a Rolex are as a percentage of its retail price - ie excluding all the advertising and marketing bull and packaging costs ?
> 
> And the same for an O & W ? - who have hardly any a & m or packaging costs, obviously.


I don't think you would like to know the compared intrinsic value of your Beemer and a 850 Volvo









The exclusions you mention are what go towards a large proportion of the retail costs and they are "value" built into the watch. These exclusions are why less watch savvy people aspire to owing a Rolex, I bet a large proportion of first time Rolex owners have no interest in horological matters whatsoever and there is nothing wrong with that. People perceive that they are worth the cost, and they are, if people are prepared to pay the cost.


----------



## JonW (Mar 23, 2005)

I have a couple of Rolex and, im sorry, but you just cant compare them with the O&W... its not about materials; its about more than the sum of the parts and once you own one you will see the difference, or maybe you wont... We're all different - I dont enjoy modern Omega's - I've had 'em but I just dont 'get' them... I do get vintage Omegas of course...









I dont really want to get into the whole is an ETA powered watch (ie. a Panerai) worth more than a another ETA powered watch that has the same movt and looks the same but is cheaper (say MarinMilitaire etc) any more than we should discuss the Rover K series in its various guises again.... As has been said before, it costs quite a bit more to make a Rolls Royce than a Mini, but not 17x the amount... the rest of that money goes for other intrinsic things...

If youre happy with the O&W and enjoy it then great. If you bought it hoping people would think its something its not, then im sorry for you. If people want to think my Rolex is a fake, then good luck to them - I wear it beacuse I love it, not so other people can oggle and be impressed. When most WIS are asked to chose one watch if all others had to go, most would choose a Rolex (usually a SeaDweller or GMT2)... now these are intelligent people who know watches yet they make the same choice as early 30's middle managers looking to impress... go figure!

Either way... the O&W is a fine watch but its not a Rolex for more reasons than just cost.....


----------



## gallch (Jan 7, 2007)

JonW said:


> If youre happy with the O&W and enjoy it then great. If you bought it hoping people would think its something its not, then im sorry for you.


I have to say again how good it is, as a new enthusiast, to see how many thoughtful and interested people there are out there !

To answer your question, Jon, the reason I got the O&W was actually that I had been looking at both an Omega Planet Ocean and a vintage Rolex Precision, but had never worn a watch on a bracelet before, or a dive watch. So...I thought rather than spend so much money and maybe regret it, I would buy something relatively inexpensive, with similar looks to the PO, on a bracelet and see how I got on with it, hence the M4. Of course, like the PO, the M4 draws its design cues from the Sub, which set me thinking about the whole Rolex and price differential thing. Snd now I really like the M4 in and for itself !

I agree the Sub is actually not the same deal as a watch, it's all a question of degree. And one of my concerns wearing the M4 is that people might think I hope they think it's a sub ! I don't . . .

I don't know much about the economics of watch production, but I do know a bit about jewellery, and the interesting thing there is that luxury brands sometimes deliver lower margins overall because turnover is low and the total cost of sales is very high, which is why they have to jack up the prices a long way in excess of that which the cost of the materials and workmanship alone would imply.

Btw - MarkF you may be psychic; I sold my Volvo 850 in order to get the BMW.....incidentally, the 5 series has one piece of intrinsic value for me which is virtually priceless as it is the _only _car I have ever owned in which my daughter doesn't feel car-sick...


----------



## Ironpants (Jul 1, 2005)

Hi gallch



gallch said:


> I don't know much about the economics of watch production, but I do know a bit about jewellery, and the interesting thing there is that luxury brands sometimes deliver lower margins overall because turnover is low and the total cost of sales is very high, which is why they have to jack up the prices a long way in excess of that which the cost of the materials and workmanship alone would imply.


It has little to do with the economics of manufacture and more to do with charging what the market will stand. Rolex's history, control of manufacture and the supply chain means they can charge a higher premium than other brands.



gallch said:


> Btw - MarkF you may be psychic; I sold my Volvo 850 in order to get the BMW.....incidentally, the 5 series has one piece of intrinsic value for me which is virtually priceless as it is the _only _car I have ever owned in which my daughter doesn't feel car-sick...


I am glad for your daughter because I dreaded weekends when we went visiting knowing there would be hours of purgatory ahead. Didn't matter what car my dad had.









Toby


----------



## MarkF (Jul 5, 2003)

Ironpants said:


> Hi gallch
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with the first bit, nothing to with it's "real" value but who created the market?

It's not cheap to change peoples perceptions. Rolex, whether you agree or not is perceived by the general public, all over the world, to be the best watch bar none! To get to that position and to keep it is not much to do with "what the market willl stand".

I will have to look into beemers, my oldest lad is now 12 and has been sick in all my cars.


----------



## gallch (Jan 7, 2007)

A postscript:

Partly because I thought I should see for myself and partly because I spotted a good deal - I have just bought a vintage "entry level" Rolex - still quite a bit more expensive than my O & W but a rather nice 1968 Oysterdate Precision. Actually another reason now I come to think of it was that I didn't previously have a manually-wound watch in my collection. So, it's on my wrist now for the first time so I am going to find out whether it makes me feel different !


----------



## grayman (May 25, 2006)

I own several O&Ws, including one that's been customized by Bill Yao at Mk II Watches. I love mine. My brother-in-law has owned a Rolex for over 20 years. He got it by winning a sales competition for his then-employer. According to him, his Rolex (I don't know the exact model, but it's not a diver) was never very accurate. Over the course of the years he chipped the edges of the crystal and broke the bracelet. It's held together with a bent paperclip. Due to his never having it serviced, its accuracy and efficiency have deteriorated. In short, my brother-in-law has never been a big fan of the Rolex. Now, to have it serviced, refurbished, and repaired, he tells me the job will cost between $750 and $1K. That's more than my most expensive watch!

I have one great issue regarding most Rolexes and their copies: The cyclops! I hate them! They completely distort the look and symmetry of the dial and they are a terrible bar to good legibility. The only Rolexes I would ever consider wearing (among those I know) are the Explorer, the non-date Submariner, and one version of the Ocean Dweller. The others IMHO are UGLY.

All the above being said, I admit that I "get" the mystique of Rolex. I think that it goes back to the fact that as long as I can recall, Rolex has always advertized in National Geographic. That association has always created a nostalgia in me for when I was growing up and dreaming of High Adventure in foreign climes. Owning a watch with that kind of tie to pleasant memories is worth a great deal; more than the intrinsic value of the watch as an object itself.

So, to sum up, would I ever buy one of the Rolex models whose appearance I like? Yes, if able to afford it, and the 710 permits.


----------



## Roger (May 17, 2003)

This is an old chestnut....

I have owned 3 O&Ws all of which I have enjoyed (for as long as any watch holds my interest!) and I have owned 2 Rolex, the first being a "dress" type. I currently own a SeaDweller which I really enjoy wearing...it has a certain "feel" which I cannot easily describe. I would have bought a Sub, but I dont like the cyclops.

There are critics of all brands, but it is quite enlightening to discover how many Rolex critics (and there are many) have never owned one...so you can probably discount 90% of the knocking as bias/prejudice or maybe jealousy.

As pointed out already, it may not be the best dive watch, it certainly isn't the best timekeeper, but if I were to be marooned somewhere and needed a tough dependable watch, the SeaDweller would fulfil the need (as probably would many others) its just that the Rolex is dependable and tough.

So...IMHO, buy whichever pleases you...wear it with pride and take no notice of critics of your choice...after all....you didnt buy it to please them, did you?

Roger


----------



## DavidH (Feb 24, 2003)

> I just find myself thinking of all the other things I could have had instead if I did buy one !!


It is what one buys when one has all the other things


----------

