ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Lightsped · 22 February 2016, 03:34 PM

I was browsing a few of the large online watch retailers and noticed that the Submariner (116610) is costing alittle more than the GMT Ceramic (116710).

Why is this? It would seem that since the GMT has more features and a slightly fancier band that it would cost more....

Thatguy · 22 February 2016, 03:41 PM

More demand for sub.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ltmgeller · 22 February 2016, 03:50 PM

Popularity

breitlings · 22 February 2016, 03:52 PM

the GMTc black I have been offered straight up for my 16710.

JRT · 22 February 2016, 03:52 PM

It is purely Rolex marketing strategy. But WG ceramic GMT (BLRO) costs much more than WG ceramic Sub (Smurf). Why?

CRM114 · 22 February 2016, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightsped

I was browsing a few of the large online watch retailers and noticed that the Submariner (116610) is costing alittle more than the GMT Ceramic (116710).

Why is this? It would seem that since the GMT has more features and a slightly fancier band that it would cost more....

There's very little difference in price (about 100 USD) and the standard, dateless Sub is less expensive than a GMT so the "popularity" explanation is a non-starter. The extra movement feature of the GMT (24 hour hand) vs the Sub Date is countered by the higher cost of the thicker case/increased WR of the Submariner and it's Glidelock is far more complicated/uses more material than the GMT's Easy Link. The center links on the GMT may be polished, but the Glidelock is actually far "fancier" when it comes to engineering and material (overly-so IMO, but that's another matter).

And of course, let's not forget the pearl

Muzz · 22 February 2016, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRT

It is purely Rolex marketing strategy. But WG ceramic GMT (BLRO) costs much more than WG ceramic Sub (Smurf). Why?

The insert is pricey. That is one of the factors and they can charge more for that.

Jhquek · 22 February 2016, 05:44 PM

More expensive but still more popular
So it makes sense for them to keep selling expensive

crowncollection · 22 February 2016, 07:37 PM

I doubt a valid reason exists. Subs are more popular and they can get a bit more I guess

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Star Ferry · 22 February 2016, 07:53 PM

I don't know how Rolex prices its products, but it is probably not the cost-plus method.

As others have said, it is more relevant to think about the market's demand

fskywalker · 22 February 2016, 08:03 PM

It used to be the other way around, at least on retail price. If the market demands more the Sub, then probably that's why they are more expensive as said above.

DCgator · 22 February 2016, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightsped

I was browsing a few of the large online watch retailers and noticed that the Submariner (116610) is costing alittle more than the GMT Ceramic (116710).

Why is this? It would seem that since the GMT has more features and a slightly fancier band that it would cost more....

Rolex marketing strategy is my best guess.

However, look at reverse strategy used in BLRO and WG Sub pricing.....

travisb · 22 February 2016, 08:34 PM

I would think the Glidelock clasp costs more than the Easylink as well.

CRM114 · 22 February 2016, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star Ferry

I don't know how Rolex prices its products, but it is probably not the cost-plus method.

As others have said, it is more relevant to think about the market's demand

If that were true then Rolex, being a worldwide company, would have wildly varying price guide MSRPs for different models depending on the region. What is popular in the US or London isn't necessarily the case in Tokyo, Hong Kong, or Dubai. Also, ladies' Datejusts would be more expensive than any other model, since they sell more (are most popular) of those than anything else.

Star Ferry · 22 February 2016, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRM114

If that were true then Rolex, being a worldwide company, would have wildly varying price guide MSRPs for different models depending on the region. What is popular in the US or London isn't necessarily the case in Tokyo, Hong Kong, or Dubai. Also, ladies' Datejusts would be more expensive than any other model, since they sell more (are most popular) of those than anything else.

I didn't say that the pricing was dynamic or 100% market based.. I said it wasn't cost based - and I think most on TRF will agree that luxury good pricing is far removed from the cost of production.

ash20 · 22 February 2016, 11:26 PM

The glidelock clasp and 300m water resistance vs. 100m.

Daytona88 · 22 February 2016, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travisb

I would think the Glidelock clasp costs more than the Easylink as well.

This

tpetra87 · 23 February 2016, 12:54 AM

For me it's simple. The 100 bucks extra for sub is because of the glidelock & the 300m water depth rating. Nothing to do with sub being popular ;)

Luap1976 · 23 February 2016, 01:05 AM

Glidelock costs more

Annan · 23 February 2016, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ash20

The glidelock clasp and 300m water resistance vs. 100m.

Yes.....probably this, especially due to the thicker case for increased depth rating IMO. I like them both and bought the GMT because I travel but wish the GMT also had the glidelock clasp.

joli160 · 23 February 2016, 01:31 AM

Only Rolex knows about pricing strategy

Tri-Tip · 23 February 2016, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star Ferry

I don't know how Rolex prices its products, but it is probably not the cost-plus method.

As others have said, it is more relevant to think about the market's demand

Since the price difference is about $100, barely over 1% difference, I think it can be attributed to the extra cost of the Clasp and the higher water resistance rating.

I would gladly pay $100 more for the Glidelock Clasp alone, not sure why it's not standard on all models...wish my Exp II had it.

Speed · 23 February 2016, 01:38 AM

Rolex does what it wants. Logic / Bill of Materials do not rule all.

They really print monkey with the subs so why not get what you can for them?

kingSubTT · 23 February 2016, 02:41 AM

Because James Bond didn't wear a GMT.

T. Ferguson · 23 February 2016, 03:08 AM

If you need it a $100 upcharge for the Glidelock and the increase in WR is a bargain by Rolex standards. Oh, and the pearl.

Golfster · 23 February 2016, 03:25 AM

More better = more money.

Just kidding. I often wondered about the reasons behind the price structure as well.

locutus49 · 23 February 2016, 03:26 AM

There is that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingSubTT

Because James Bond didn't wear a GMT.

Gryfalcon · 23 February 2016, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingSubTT

Because James Bond didn't wear a GMT.

Hardy har har... my guess is the glidelock

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

JRT · 23 February 2016, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingSubTT

Because James Bond didn't wear a GMT.

James Bond has been wearing Omega SM for long, which still costs much less than Sub.

Yuri.Popov · 23 February 2016, 03:38 AM

Is a Rolex icon and classic!

22 February 2016, 03:34 PM	#1
Lightsped "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Georgia Watch: Sub, OP41, DJ x 4 Posts: 764	Why do Submariners cost more than GMTs? I was browsing a few of the large online watch retailers and noticed that the Submariner (116610) is costing alittle more than the GMT Ceramic (116710). Why is this? It would seem that since the GMT has more features and a slightly fancier band that it would cost more....

22 February 2016, 07:37 PM	#9
crowncollection "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Real Name: David Location: australia Posts: 20,168	I doubt a valid reason exists. Subs are more popular and they can get a bit more I guess Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk __________________ watches many

22 February 2016, 08:03 PM	#11
fskywalker 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Real Name: Francisco Location: San Juan, PR Watch: Is Ticking ! Posts: 24,793	It used to be the other way around, at least on retail price. If the market demands more the Sub, then probably that's why they are more expensive as said above. __________________ Francisco ♛ 16610 / 116264 Ω 168.022 / 2535.80.00 / 2230.50.00 / 310.30.42.50.01.002 Zenith 02.480.405 Henry Archer Eclipse 2FA security enabled

23 February 2016, 01:31 AM	#21
joli160 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: NL Watch: Yachtmaster Posts: 14,475	Only Rolex knows about pricing strategy __________________ Day Date 18238, Yachtmaster 16622, Deepsea 116660, Submariner 116619, SkyD 326935, DJ 178271, DJ 69158, Yachtmaster 169622, GMT 116713LN, GMT 126711.

23 February 2016, 02:41 AM	#24
kingSubTT "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: USA Watch: SmurfDaytonaBLNR Posts: 682	Because James Bond didn't wear a GMT. __________________ White Daytona 116520, Sub 116619LB, GMT II BLNR

22 February 2016, 03:41 PM	#2
Thatguy "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Real Name: Wayne Location: California Watch: Rolex, PAM Posts: 3,302	More demand for sub. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

22 February 2016, 03:50 PM	#3
ltmgeller 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Real Name: Mike Location: New York Watch: Rolex Posts: 21,645	Popularity

22 February 2016, 03:52 PM	#4
breitlings Banned Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Bethesda Watch: Apple TV Posts: 5,744	the GMTc black I have been offered straight up for my 16710.

22 February 2016, 03:52 PM	#5
JRT "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Location: Taiwan Watch: Rolex BLNR Posts: 2,308	It is purely Rolex marketing strategy. But WG ceramic GMT (BLRO) costs much more than WG ceramic Sub (Smurf). Why?

22 February 2016, 05:44 PM	#8
Jhquek "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Singapore Posts: 177	More expensive but still more popular So it makes sense for them to keep selling expensive

22 February 2016, 07:53 PM	#10
Star Ferry Banned Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: down by the river Posts: 4,926	I don't know how Rolex prices its products, but it is probably not the cost-plus method. As others have said, it is more relevant to think about the market's demand

22 February 2016, 08:34 PM	#13
travisb 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Real Name: Travis Location: FL / NYC Watch: Yes.. Posts: 32,523	I would think the Glidelock clasp costs more than the Easylink as well.

22 February 2016, 11:26 PM	#16
ash20 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Real Name: Abram Location: NorCal Watch: Rolex & Patek Posts: 513	The glidelock clasp and 300m water resistance vs. 100m.

23 February 2016, 12:54 AM	#18
tpetra87 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Kuala Lumpur Watch: Polar & Batman Posts: 29	For me it's simple. The 100 bucks extra for sub is because of the glidelock & the 300m water depth rating. Nothing to do with sub being popular ;)

23 February 2016, 01:05 AM	#19
Luap1976 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: London Uk Watch: 116610lnBBetaBBhar Posts: 1,003	Glidelock costs more

23 February 2016, 01:38 AM	#23
Speed "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: USA Posts: 19,706	Rolex does what it wants. Logic / Bill of Materials do not rule all. They really print monkey with the subs so why not get what you can for them?

23 February 2016, 03:08 AM	#25
T. Ferguson "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Left Coast Posts: 7,025	If you need it a $100 upcharge for the Glidelock and the increase in WR is a bargain by Rolex standards. Oh, and the pearl. __________________ *Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.*

23 February 2016, 03:25 AM	#26
Golfster "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: NorCal Posts: 722	More better = more money. Just kidding. I often wondered about the reasons behind the price structure as well.

23 February 2016, 03:38 AM	#30
Yuri.Popov "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2015 Real Name: Yuri Location: New York Watch: Rolex Submariner C Posts: 1,224	Is a Rolex icon and classic!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)