How much does the age of a Rolex matter to you when considering pre-owned?

[Wcdhtwn]

First off I'm not referring to vintage models. It't the modern models I'm curious about. My question stems from a visit I paid to a reputable reseller in Houston. I looked at two watches which were priced seemingly competitively yet when asked their year of manufacture were old, though all looked like they were in excellent condition.

1. A SubcLV for $8200. It was a 2003 watch
2. A black dial Daytona for $10,500. From 1993

So I look at the trusted sellers here and see similar pricing, actually better, and their watches listed are significantly newer. Should this matter, especially if the newer Rolex's warranty is expired or nearly so? Is a SubcLV from 2003 really worth what a SubcLV from 2014 or 2015 is worth? Seems like a "no way" to me. Same for the Daytona, lightly used ones from the 2012 - 2014 seem priced better than the 10,500 from 1993, even if the watch is the same movement etc. shouldn't the age lower the price? Is there high demand for 90's and early 2000's watches driving the price up?

Anyway, it was yet another reason to go through trusted sellers here. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[GolfPunk]

The Sub LV is a 50th anniversary watch and the Daytona is a 16520 'Zenith' based Daytona, both command a high premium

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by GolfPunk

The Sub LV is a 50th anniversary watch and the Daytona is a 16520 'Zenith' based Daytona, both command a high premium

First answer nailed it. Both prices sound pretty reasonable actually.

The only issue with "old" watches, is that they're a million times more likely to have been polished at some point - something I hate.

[ryansoulsit]

Originally Posted by GolfPunk

The Sub LV is a 50th anniversary watch and the Daytona is a 16520 'Zenith' based Daytona, both command a high premium

I agree with you.

[Viffer]

It's all about choice and demand, I bought a Tudor 79190 Submariner last year a '98 model, I could have bought one of the new Tudor divers and saved some money. But I preferred the older Tudor and what's the point of spending money on something you don't like just because it's new(er).
The Submariners you mentioned are different watches, you are assuming newer is better which is fine but not always someone else's choice.

[Wcdhtwn]

Originally Posted by GolfPunk

The Sub LV is a 50th anniversary watch and the Daytona is a 16520 'Zenith' based Daytona, both command a high premium

Maybe I have the wrong term for the Sub, the one I am referring to is the Hulk, should have just called it that. I thought the 50th was the black dial green bezel. They still make the Hulk new obviously, aren't anniversary watches only made in the year of the anniversary?

The Zenith movement I didn't consider, that makes sense.

[Murdoc370]

I think the Ceramic LV Submariners werde introduced significantly later than 2003 (in 2010, iirc); that is causing the confusion.

Either it's a
116610LV (2010+)
or
16610LV (50th anniversary model) built in 2003-2009(?)

Dennis

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by Wcdhtwn

Maybe I have the wrong term for the Sub, the one I am referring to is the Hulk, should have just called it that. I thought the 50th was the black dial green bezel. They still make the Hulk new obviously, aren't anniversary watches only made in the year of the anniversary?

The Zenith movement I didn't consider, that makes sense.

A green Sub from 2003 isn't a "Hulk", god those names are stupid, it's a "Kermit". The Y and early F serials are considered to be the true anniversary models, and a 2003 should be such a watch, and will carry a pretty massive premium.

[Wcdhtwn]

Originally Posted by Viffer

It's all about choice and demand, I bought a Tudor 79190 Submariner last year a '98 model, I could have bought one of the new Tudor divers and saved some money. But I preferred the older Tudor and what's the point of spending money on something you don't like just because it's new(er).
The Submariners you mentioned are different watches, you are assuming newer is better which is fine but not always someone else's choice.

I get that but the two Tudors are different watches, I think the Tudor Subs are really cool by the way, good choice. I'm wondering more about watches that are basically the same, same dial, bezel, movement etc that are 10 - 12 years apart in age. Perhaps I still don't know the intricacies of the models well enough to know how that would affect pricing. I look at a Hulk from 2014 at $8000 and one from 2003 at $8000 and wonder why anyone would buy the older one if given the choice.

[Wcdhtwn]

Originally Posted by JP Chestnut

A green Sub from 2003 isn't a "Hulk", god those names are stupid, it's a "Kermit". The Y and early F serials are considered to be the true anniversary models, and a 2003 should be such a watch, and will carry a pretty massive premium.

OK, point of clarification for me... the Kermit is green bezel and black dial correct? The watch I saw was green bezel, green dial, definitely the Hulk. Perhaps the sales person didn't look at the year made correctly, she said 2003 but I thought the Hulk followed Kermit. Yeah, the nicknames get confusing.

[Wcdhtwn]

Originally Posted by Murdoc370

I think the Ceramic LV Submariners werde introduced significantly later than 2003 (in 2010, iirc); that is causing the confusion.

Either it's a
116610LV (2010+)
or
16610LV (50th anniversary model) built in 2003-2009(?)

Dennis

Yeah, she must have made a mistake... I was very surprised when she said 2003 as the condition looked LNIB and it definitely was a 116610LV. I've tried them on at AD's many times and know the difference between the ceramics and their predecessors.

[Timesurfer]

It does matter but It depends on the model...

[anothernewphone]

Yeah, the ceramic green Submariner Dates aren't that old. A '93 16520 for $10,500 is more than a LNIB 116520 nowadays, so I don't see the value in that.

[Woody]

I think you ned to do some more research into the various differences between the models Rolex has produced over the years. Different movements, dials, bezels, mid-cases etc. can all have a significant impact on price. If you are looking at two models of the same configuration then the determining factor for me is always condition......I have paid more for an older watch that is in better condition than a newer model. Box, papers, service history etc are all nice to have but it is the condition of the watch that counts most for me.

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by Wcdhtwn

OK, point of clarification for me... the Kermit is green bezel and black dial correct? The watch I saw was green bezel, green dial, definitely the Hulk. Perhaps the sales person didn't look at the year made correctly, she said 2003 but I thought the Hulk followed Kermit. Yeah, the nicknames get confusing.

If it's a green/green Sub in the fat case, it's much newer than 2003.

[Ru4scuba]

Originally Posted by Wcdhtwn

OK, point of clarification for me... the Kermit is green bezel and black dial correct? The watch I saw was green bezel, green dial, definitely the Hulk. Perhaps the sales person didn't look at the year made correctly, she said 2003 but I thought the Hulk followed Kermit. Yeah, the nicknames get confusing.

Correct. Hulk followed Kermit. Kermit was green bezel (metal) black dial. (2003-2009/2010)

Hulk is green bezel (ceramic) green dial. (2011 - present)

[Runnin' Rebel]

I've seen LVc for less then 8000 on here almost mint I saw 1 for I think 7400. Of course that one might've had some desk diving on the bracelet.

In any event you shouldn't pay over 8000. Unless you want BNIB, then 8200-8400

I bought mine in 2010 for 8300 Like new. Beautiful watch