WE ALL ADMIRE AND DROOL OVER THR ROLEX WATCH WORN BY DATO SRI LIOW SOON HEE WHICH IS A "PIECE UNIQUE" OR ONE OF A KIND WARCH MADE ONLY FOR HIM RUMORED TO COST US$ 1 MILLION. BUT ARE ROLEXES ALWAYS VERY EXPENSIVE THROUGHOUT ITS HISTORY?
Have Rolex watches always been as expensive as they are now?
No Sir. Rolex watches originally were more akin to G-Shocks than Pateks. The comparison is a bit extreme, but it is fitting.
Rolex launched the Submariner in 1953, as there was an incredible attention towards scuba diving, driven by the exploits of sea explorers like Jacques Cousteau, and his famous documentary, The Silent World.
Previously, underwater activity was left to professionals and to the military. But Cousteau, with others, opened the doors of this fascinating world to the common Joes’.
I have explained much more divers watches and their evolution in my book, The Watch Manual (link in bio), but what follows is a concise story of how they came to be.
As you know, one of the main issues in scuba diving was calculating the times of decompression, and also, knowing when to begin the return towards the surface because of oxygen supply. And these activities called for a precise watch equipped with a rotating bezel.
Rolex and Blancpain launched their models - the Submariner and the Fifty Fathoms - during the same exhibit. Blancpain was backed by the French Navy: its watch was a professional model, which even Cousteau wore in his explorations. Rolex wasn’t. And it was also cheaper than the Fifty Fathoms, while having similar specs (at the beginning, a 100 meter water resistance).
The original Rolex Submariner was relatively CHEAP. It was USD 150 - and we have to note that the average US monthly wage was a little more than USD 250.
We also have to say that, while the watch went up in price, around 1984 it was still USD 1,000 when the monthly wage was around USD 1,350.
From that moment, the price started to skyrocket upwards (and not only for Submariners - the trend was similar through all the professional line).
You can check it here.
This means that every average Joe in 1953 could buy one Submariner and a half per month. The equivalent of earning a monthly wage of USD 12,000.
As a comparison, let’s take a look at the other end of the specturem, to the famous Timex.
The watch that “Takes a lickin’ but keeps on tickin’” in these tears was on sale to the public for around USD 10 to 15, and in other ads, it touted itself as “having the qualities of a USD 50 watch”.
We must conclude that while the Rolex was priced at three times the average dress watch - which is reasonable for an innovative, specialized tool designed to achieve a specific purpose. And this is a lot, but not THAT much. It would mean, in monetary terms, that a Rolex Submariner would cost around USD 2,500, given the fact that a regular dress watch from an established (but not premium) brand like Tissot or Hamilton costs around USD 800.
Which is around one third of the list price of a modern Submariner.
So, this fact would demonstrate that in 1984, Rolex fundamentally changed idea about the positioning of its watches, switching from utilitarian to high-end/luxury. Their place (and price) was taken by equivalent Tudor models.
Originally, Tudors used the equivalent Rolex model’s components, except one: the movement, which was made by a third-party like ETA instead of Rolex. The price was, of course, much lower than the equivalent Rolex model.
We can say that Rolex watches were, if not cheap, way more affordable than what they are now - and if the company management continues to maintain its strategic positioning, this is a trend that will continue in the future.
Comments
Post a Comment