The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Old 24 August 2013, 02:24 PM   #1
MAJSmith
"TRF" Member
 
MAJSmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Virginia
Posts: 154
$195!!!

I was born in the wrong decade...

[IMG][/IMG]
MAJSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 August 2013, 02:36 PM   #2
MP5
2024 Pledge Member
 
MP5's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: ATX
Posts: 2,877
Thats about $1500 today
MP5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 August 2013, 02:46 PM   #3
MAJSmith
"TRF" Member
 
MAJSmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Virginia
Posts: 154
$1500? For a 1964 Submariner? It's got to be more than that. I'd say $5000-$6000.
MAJSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 August 2013, 03:45 PM   #4
Beelzy
"TRF" Member
 
Beelzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Real Name: Chris
Location: Cen-Cal
Watch: 16610
Posts: 869
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPTSmith View Post
$1500? For a 1964 Submariner? It's got to be more than that. I'd say $5000-$6000.
I would kick my own dog to find one that cheap....that was not thrashed that is.
Beelzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 August 2013, 03:59 PM   #5
nanagno
"TRF" Member
 
nanagno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Athens-Greece
Watch: 1665 RD
Posts: 71
What cost $195 in 1964 would cost $1424.39 in 2012.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2012 and 1964,
they would cost you $195 and $26.91 respectively.
__________________
Time Will Only Tell...
nanagno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 August 2013, 04:03 PM   #6
joe100
2024 Pledge Member
 
joe100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Real Name: Joe
Location: New Mexico
Watch: Explorer
Posts: 12,752
Those were the days.
__________________
It's Espresso, not Expresso. Coffee is not a train in Italy.
-TRF Member 6982-
joe100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 August 2013, 04:21 PM   #7
slangen
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6
Omg
slangen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 August 2013, 04:46 PM   #8
Paul
"TRF" Member
 
Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,000
Some rudimentary number crunching ....

Here's my rough and quick attempt to put Rolex Sub prices over time into perspective.

Census data from 1964 had the median income for a USA-based individual (aged between 25 and 44) at $ 4,200.
So, (ignoring tax) a $195 Rolex Sub would have sucked up approx. 5 % of a fella's income back then.

Fast forward to 2012 data .... and we are led to believe the median income for the same group sits at $ 52,000.
That same 5 % allocation would amount to $2,600 and we all know that ain't gonna get him a new Rolex.

So, if I'm reading the numbers correctly, in 1964 a Rolex Submariner was indeed a bargain !
Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 August 2013, 04:56 PM   #9
bonbonson
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: philippines
Posts: 387
Those were the good ol days...... I bet during those times rolex were not yet just known for their name instead their actual craftsmanship and function. Today it is the exact opposite. name and design make everything without using the function. Thanks to that logic rolex has steadily increased prices to the point it is almost CRAZY to buy one
bonbonson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 August 2013, 05:05 PM   #10
Vincent65
"TRF" Member
 
Vincent65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 14,293
The beaten up, faded and worn old insert from that bezel is probably knocking around somewhere, and worth about 600 bucks...
Vincent65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 August 2013, 09:25 PM   #11
scottb2
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 651
guys take a closer look

unless my eyes deceive me thats a chapter ring dial - so i would say for a nice one you are looking more in the 17-25k for a perfect one -

soooooo for a buck ninety five? i would buy a bucket full


scottb2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 August 2013, 10:14 PM   #12
linesiders
2024 Pledge Member
 
linesiders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: RedSox Nation
Watch: U Talkn Bout Wilis
Posts: 5,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottb2 View Post
unless my eyes deceive me thats a chapter ring dial - so i would say for a nice one you are looking more in the 17-25k for a perfect one -

soooooo for a buck ninety five? i would buy a bucket full



This

Plus that is a real long 5
__________________
I'm a sailor peg. And I've lost my leg. Climbing up the top sails. I've lost my leg!
linesiders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 August 2013, 11:08 PM   #13
Robbyvm
"TRF" Member
 
Robbyvm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,239
And my guess is that we are to blaim that the prices of our vintage babies are what they are... Non collectable items don't demand premium prices... Those damned addictions...
Robbyvm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 August 2013, 11:08 PM   #14
cjohns
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Real Name: Clark
Location: Ramsey Minnesota
Watch: GMT Master II
Posts: 953
So using an average price increase of today and applying it to the 1964 price how much should a new Sub cost today?I quickly punched the numbers and came up with a VW Beetle made basically the same way as it was in 1964,,,with basic improvements would be over 60 grand if you use the Rolex pricing method !!Is today's Rolex really 40+ times better than a 64 model ?? Is my line of thinking correct or I'm I just trying to justify to my self why someone would pay this much money for a watch??
__________________
GMT Master II
126300 41 White stick smooth
Explorer 39mm SOLD ,, 114060 SOLD
NIB Sub ND SOLD,,Shouldn't have!!!Crap!
cjohns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 August 2013, 11:59 PM   #15
Kingair
"TRF" Member
 
Kingair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Real Name: Marc
Location: SoCal
Watch: Not enough ;-)
Posts: 21,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbyvm View Post
And my guess is that we are to blaim that the prices of our vintage babies are what they are... Non collectable items don't demand premium prices... Those damned addictions...
It's all our fault . . . . what a big mistake . . . .

HAGWe

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy View Post
Of course I do! You're Iconic!
Kingair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 August 2013, 12:05 AM   #16
watchcrank
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Real Name: michael
Location: Florida
Watch: explorer II cream
Posts: 1,661
Would be great to have that crystal ball. I bought my first sub used in early 80's and paid $1200. if I remember correctly with a m/fst matte dial :-) And gilt dials were about same price as no one really cared that much about them. Bought my first crème dial 16550 for $1000. and 1601 stainless/jubilee in trade! And that grand hurt as much as $10K in today's money. Just my perspective. have a great day. m
watchcrank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 August 2013, 06:14 AM   #17
kelly56
"TRF" Member
 
kelly56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Real Name: Mike
Location: Kentucky
Watch: 16610 1675 Speedy
Posts: 1,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul View Post
Here's my rough and quick attempt to put Rolex Sub prices over time into perspective.

Census data from 1964 had the median income for a USA-based individual (aged between 25 and 44) at $ 4,200.
So, (ignoring tax) a $195 Rolex Sub would have sucked up approx. 5 % of a fella's income back then.

Fast forward to 2012 data .... and we are led to believe the median income for the same group sits at $ 52,000.
That same 5 % allocation would amount to $2,600 and we all know that ain't gonna get him a new Rolex.

So, if I'm reading the numbers correctly, in 1964 a Rolex Submariner was indeed a bargain !
New Rolex pricing has become outrageous. The Sub Date I purchased in 2008 had a list price of $5,175 vs. a 2013 list price of ~ $8,000. Glad I got mine when I did.
__________________
kelly56 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 August 2013, 08:07 AM   #18
Paul
"TRF" Member
 
Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,000
When I blundered through my marketing studies ....

Rolex often popped up as a shining light with their marketing policies.

I remember reading that Rolex policy was to increase their price annually in each market at a greater level than inflation.

The commentator stated that such a pricing policy that effectively saw a commodity became a little bit more difficult to buy each year would see that item retain it's desirability and / or exclusivity.

Sounds perfectly logical to me ...... until I read Rolex's bold claim that they still produce in excess of 750,000 new watches each year. Doesn't seem that exclusive to me to warrant the outrageous prices now charged
Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 August 2013, 09:14 AM   #19
Floorguy
2024 Pledge Member
 
Floorguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Real Name: Rob
Location: Parrish fl.
Watch: Tt datejust 16233
Posts: 20,946
All you young studs have NO CLUE how nice and simple things were back then!!! If i can only turn back the clock!!!
__________________
Rolex
Omega
Tag Heuer
Floorguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 August 2013, 04:12 PM   #20
Robbyvm
"TRF" Member
 
Robbyvm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorguy View Post
All you young studs have NO CLUE how nice and simple things were back then!!! If i can only turn back the clock!!!


To be a young stud...?
Robbyvm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 August 2013, 10:32 PM   #21
SUBversive
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: ri
Watch: Sun Dial
Posts: 14,346
Ugh my time machine is still broken.
SUBversive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 August 2013, 11:12 PM   #22
wahasa
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UAE
Watch: Rolex Sub 1680
Posts: 216
how did you guys make the conversion rate to around 1500usd?
wahasa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 August 2013, 11:50 PM   #23
Vincent65
"TRF" Member
 
Vincent65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 14,293
Despite how 'cheap' that seems now, I'm sure that, in relative terms, Rolex watches then were perceived to be [almost] as expensive as they are today - as suggested by the very copy in the ad itself.
Vincent65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 August 2013, 11:05 AM   #24
vintage69
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Real Name: Bob W
Location: sunny sw
Watch: 1969 p date
Posts: 382
Remember that $200/mo was considered to be a very good paycheck when that watch was advertised. Minimum wage was $0.25/hr.
vintage69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 August 2013, 11:33 AM   #25
toy4dad
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 1
Original owner

In 1964 I was assigned to a remote station called Kagnew in Asmara, Ethiopia. On station we had a one room PX about the size of an average living room. Anyway I was told they had Rolex watches for sale. So I went with some friends and ended up buying an AirKing 5500 with silver dial. It cost me $ 87 dollars and I was only making $ 96 dollars a month. I wanted the datejust but it was priced at $ 105 !! I still have the AirKing and have worn it were ever I traveled and to every special occasion throughout my life. It's condition is as pristine today as the day I bought it
toy4dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 August 2013, 03:53 PM   #26
MAJSmith
"TRF" Member
 
MAJSmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Virginia
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by toy4dad View Post
In 1964 I was assigned to a remote station called Kagnew in Asmara, Ethiopia. On station we had a one room PX about the size of an average living room. Anyway I was told they had Rolex watches for sale. So I went with some friends and ended up buying an AirKing 5500 with silver dial. It cost me $ 87 dollars and I was only making $ 96 dollars a month. I wanted the datejust but it was priced at $ 105 !! I still have the AirKing and have worn it were ever I traveled and to every special occasion throughout my life. It's condition is as pristine today as the day I bought it
Post pics!!!
MAJSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 July 2014, 02:20 PM   #27
MILGAUSS88
"TRF" Member
 
MILGAUSS88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: mississippi river
Posts: 2,926
I believe when the Accutron debuted in 1962, the original price was over $200.
I have ads from the 1950's as well and I believe the MSRP on Omega watches were higher than the Rolex MSRP's for similar models.
MILGAUSS88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 July 2014, 02:56 PM   #28
seattleal
2024 Pledge Member
 
seattleal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Real Name: Al
Location: Out West
Watch: Gilt Subs
Posts: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAJSmith View Post
I was born in the wrong decade...

[IMG][/IMG]
Don't feel bad - I WAS born in the right decade and had my uncle buy that exact watch for me in Hong Kong in 1963. I think it was closer to $100 (Hong Kong and PX's were the place to buy Rolex in the 60's).

It was my diving watch thru the rest of the 60's until I traded it in (in Honolulu) for an Acutron diving watch.

Do you think I wish I could take that decision back?
seattleal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 July 2014, 03:09 AM   #29
ExplorerChris
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Real Name: Chris
Location: Ontario, Canada
Watch: Explorer II 16550
Posts: 1,401
I'd take a dozen
__________________
There's a crown for every achievement

A Watch Is Just A Watch
A Rolex Is A Timepiece
ExplorerChris is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Takuya Watches

Bobs Watches

Asset Appeal

My Watch LLC

OCWatches

DavidSW Watches

Coronet


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.