PM models appreciate in value more?

[dominic.warren]

I have one boy and two girls. I hope my son takes to watches as I have but if he doesn't ohh well. Maybe he can sell them and get something he likes at that time. I buy watches for me. But good luck with the value thing. So until you pass them on enjoy those beautiful watches in good health.

[kilyung]

Originally Posted by ras47

It seems to me that PM is softer than SS and more prone to scuffs/scratches. I'm no expert, but I'd expect SS to hold up over time better. So in 10 years or so I would expect SS watches to be in better condition. Of course that's all moot if we're talking about strictly collectors' watches that sit in their boxes in a safe.

I'm no expert but I do have a few gold watches and I can attest to their durability. Judging from my own experience and the pictures of other PM owners who actually use their watches, a Rolex is a Rolex regardless of material unless you want to keep your watch pristine in which case the material is largely irrelevant. I find it interesting that very few of the "I have a scratch/ding/booboo" threads are posted about PM watches.

[Calatrava r]

Originally Posted by ImmanuelFoods

Was pondering about Rolex as a store of value and inheritance for future generations.

Does precious metals models appreciate in value more compared to steel? Want to hear from the brothers here!

Attachment 850099


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

is the worst buy you can make unless you love the watch and will wear it often for your lifetime. The depreciation on them is incredibly bad. At auctions the older SS subs bring more than the all gold models. Really no collector interest in all gold Rolex, so nothing to drive the value.

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by kilyung

I'm no expert but I do have a few gold watches and I can attest to their durability. Judging from my own experience and the pictures of other PM owners who actually use their watches, a Rolex is a Rolex regardless of material unless you want to keep your watch pristine in which case the material is largely irrelevant. I find it interesting that very few of the "I have a scratch/ding/booboo" threads are posted about PM watches.

here ya go:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=532839

combined with this:

Hardness grades for metals used in jewelry:

Lead: 1.5
Tin: 1.5
Zinc: 2.5
Gold: 2.5-3
Silver: 2.5-3
Aluminum: 2.5-3
Copper: 3
Brass: 3
Bronze: 3
Nickel: 4
Platinum: 4-4.5
Steel: 4-4.5
Iron: 4.5
Palladium: 4.75
Rhodium: 6
Titanium: 6
Hardened steel: 7-8
Tungsten: 7.5
Tungsten carbide: 8.5-9

so it seems as if that component of palladium really strengthens the gold watch and increases it's durability. the SS watch is 4-4.5 in harness. the gold watch is about 3.0-3.5 in hardness. FWIW the platinum watch is probably harder than anything else made based on it being a mix of platinum and palladium. also, the pelagos appears to the the toughest watch made by rolex or tudor currently in terms of hardness :)

[LuminousMaximus]

Originally Posted by tkerrmd

Probably the opposite

I concur minus phylaxis...

Mike you always bring clarity...

[GB-man]

Originally Posted by Will1979

Take a sledgehammer to the Mona Lisa and a gold Rolex. Boom, Gold Rolex was a better investment. I always base my buying decisions on how they'd stand up to a sledgehammer.

tell me about it.

This just in...If you want to invest in gold, Rolex is not the medium of choice.

Doesn't mean you shouldn't buy one! They are pretty cool.

[watchwatcher]

Originally Posted by ImmanuelFoods

For the kids

Attachment 850151

Who cares when you've got two beauties like that?

Very nice...I'm sure they will be thrilled to own those pieces. And if not, they can sell them for a nice chunk of money to start their life with.

[kilyung]

When asked which of my Rolexes my kids wanted in my will, they responded "can we have the Pateks instead?"

[Base-Z]

Originally Posted by beshannon

No.

Watches are not investments and the cost of a precious metal watch far outweighs the actual value of the metal.

How long are your future generations willing to wait while your currency depreciates and you falsely believe you have increased value?

I agree, watches are not investments. My stocks and shares give me a return
on my investment. Watches are to be enjoyed in the here and now, not to
put away in a safe in a misguided belief of increasing value.

[Base-Z]

Originally Posted by kilyung

I'm no expert but I do have a few gold watches and I can attest to their durability. Judging from my own experience and the pictures of other PM owners who actually use their watches, a Rolex is a Rolex regardless of material unless you want to keep your watch pristine in which case the material is largely irrelevant. I find it interesting that very few of the "I have a scratch/ding/booboo" threads are posted about PM watches.

I will come back on the durability of gold in about 10 years. I recently bought an all gold Rolex.
I have around ten years of quality life left in me, so I intend to wear the living daylights out of it.
Then when I'm in the nursing home I will look at the beaten up lump of metal with a smile on my face.

[Craigdwh]

Originally Posted by beshannon

No.

Watches are not investments and the cost of a precious metal watch far outweighs the actual value of the metal.

How long are your future generations willing to wait while your currency depreciates and you falsely believe you have increased value?

So awesome lol. So many people just don't get it!

[GB-man]

Originally Posted by Base-Z

I will come back on the durability of gold in about 10 years. I recently bought an all gold Rolex.
I have around ten years of quality life left in me, so I intend to wear the living daylights out of it.
Then when I'm in the nursing home I will look at the beaten up lump of metal with a smile on my face.

Awesome plan

[ap1]

Your kids are gonna be ballers

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Base-Z

I will come back on the durability of gold in about 10 years. I recently bought an all gold Rolex.
I have around ten years of quality life left in me, so I intend to wear the living daylights out of it.
Then when I'm in the nursing home I will look at the beaten up lump of metal with a smile on my face.

It will mark up for sure, but the number of times I have banged my watch and it makes a mark on the gold but not SS is very minimal, thus I don't see a major difference any more. Whereas ceramic and SS or gold is light years apart.

[terryuk]

There's about $4900 of 18 carat gold in a GMT-master at today's price, for which they charge you an extra, what?, $18,000 over the SS model ?
Roughly the same for platinum.

[rolexnub]

Originally Posted by kilyung

I'm no expert but I do have a few gold watches and I can attest to their durability. Judging from my own experience and the pictures of other PM owners who actually use their watches, a Rolex is a Rolex regardless of material unless you want to keep your watch pristine in which case the material is largely irrelevant. I find it interesting that very few of the "I have a scratch/ding/booboo" threads are posted about PM watches.

Perhaps PMs are worn less often than the SS that's why very few threads on PM watches scratches/dings. Normally, TRF members who have PMs have SS also in their collection. I can only guess that they wear their SS (daily drivers and casual) more than their PMs (special occasion/events or wearing a suit which protects the watch).