Lachsersatz 0 Posted September 8, 2015 Not a brand new article, but interesting nevertheless IMO (please forgive me if already posted, I did not have any hits with the search function): http://www.trends.watch/the-rise-of-watch-prices-omega-and-the-speedmaster-standard-part-1/ http://www.trends.watch/the-rise-of-watch-prices-omega-and-the-speedmaster-standard-part-2/ Basically, it says that in 1970 an average worker in Switzerland had to work 2 days to be able to afford a Moonwatch (which was merely CHF 215 back in the days). In 1995, the average worker in Switzerland had to work 4 days to afford a Moonie (which was CHF 615 then). Whereas in 2013, the average worker had to work 23 days to afford a CHF 4,100 Moonie. The author chose the Moonwatch because the design and the movement have basically not changed from 1969 through 2013. He comes to the following conclusion: "But if we consider that between 1970 and 1995 the price and hours total increased by 2 or 3, a linear increase should position the Speedmaster between CHF 1'200 and 1'800 today. Anything beyond is an arbitrary choice from the brand... that complies with a price segmentation decided by the group's board of directors." I would like to know whether it would be possible to do the same math with a Sub, a Reverso or a Calatrava and whether the outcome would be comparable... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
court 12 Posted September 8, 2015 Yes it is possible to do the same maths with any commodity you can get the data for. We look forward to you sharing your results Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lachsersatz 0 Posted September 8, 2015 Yes it is possible to do the same maths with any commodity you can get the data for. We look forward to you sharing your results Hm... Okay.... My last sentence was supposed to be a subtle encouragement for eager and ambitious members to jump in and cover the boring and time-consuming statistics... "Supposed to be" is the key phrase here....Apparently it was neither subtle nor encouraging Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daywatch 4 Posted September 8, 2015 What is completely out of these comparisons is the high tax aspect. While You actually would really be able to buy it in former times by working 4 days, nowadays, (in Europe) to cash $400 You "only" have to make $500 but to cash $4000 it´s more like $8000 earned first and there it get´s difficult for the worker. Except in Switzerland You also have another 20% to 25% VAT-Tax on the watch itself. So while the watch is theoretically (better materials etc.) six times more expensive than it should on top You can well figure in another 6 times more work for tax progression/social security to buy a more expensive item. The factor for Rolex 1:6 is practically the same: http://www.ablogtowa...aling-analysis/ so this average looks confirmed. "-----how prices of the Rolex Submariner No-Date changed from 1957 all the way through May, 2014. In red we marked how the original 1957 price of $150 would have changed had it followed monetary inflation only. The math is simple behind this one. If we adjust the original $150 price from 1957 with inflation to 2014 US Dollars, we end up with a price of $1,265 while the watch actually costs $7,500 today. This means that one could say the no-date Rolex Submariner costs six times more than it "should." Things are not that straight-forward, however." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Takken 0 Posted September 8, 2015 There are no math on this earth that can calculate or predict how hyped one brand or another eventually will be after 30-50 years. If a brand no matter what they sell choose to rais their prices x6 times and people choose to buy it afterwards well why not keep it high... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lachsersatz 0 Posted September 9, 2015 What is completely out of these comparisons is the high tax aspect. While You actually would really be able to buy it in former times by working 4 days, nowadays, (in Europe) to cash $400 You "only" have to make $500 but to cash $4000 it´s more like $8000 earned first and there it get´s difficult for the worker. Except in Switzerland You also have another 20% to 25% VAT-Tax on the watch itself. So while the watch is theoretically (better materials etc.) six times more expensive than it should on top You can well figure in another 6 times more work for tax progression/social security to buy a more expensive item. The factor for Rolex 1:6 is practically the same: http://www.ablogtowa...aling-analysis/ so this average looks confirmed. "-----how prices of the Rolex Submariner No-Date changed from 1957 all the way through May, 2014. In red we marked how the original 1957 price of $150 would have changed had it followed monetary inflation only. The math is simple behind this one. If we adjust the original $150 price from 1957 with inflation to 2014 US Dollars, we end up with a price of $1,265 while the watch actually costs $7,500 today. This means that one could say the no-date Rolex Submariner costs six times more than it "should." Things are not that straight-forward, however." Thanks! This is what I was looking for.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShovelnTC 31 Posted September 9, 2015 What has not be factored into any of these surveys and calculations is the Bullshit factor. Back in 1957 Bullshit was existent but not to the excessive extent that it is in 2015. Back then opulence was still very common but then it usually consisted of items of actual monetary value such as actual gold or precious metals and jewels where as today brand names have taken over from actual items of value. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites