San Martin vs Rolex

[Passenger]

We will just have to agree to disagree then.

Buy a £10k Rolex (new) or a pre owned Rolex at a reasonable price (not the vastly inflated over RRP prices of late) and a few years down the line, chances are you’ll get your money back.

Buy a San Martin at £300 and the chances are you’ll never see that money back.

From the Fortune linky I posted, the CEO fella from Rolex offers a different opinion, HE is attempting to pour water on the idea a Rolex is an investment,

“I don’t like it when people compare watches with stocks. This sends the wrong message and is dangerous,” Rolex’s Dufour said in an interview with Swiss outlet NZZ earlier this month. Instead, Rolex’s watches are more akin to “products” than investments, he added.

Plus the 10 k on a Rolex isn't then available to earn a guaranteed 500 gbp to a 1000 gbp p.a....plus you'll probably need to insure it, buy install a safe another 500 to a 1000, plus a 1000 a decade on servicing...never mind if you actually wear as a GADA, the refinishing of the scratches on the softer rolex steel if you want it to always look minty and box fresh will cost too...so over a decade the thing's cost you somewhere between 6,500 to 11,500, conservatively, that's the cost of ownership additional to the purchase price...plus no guarantee's inflations not eaten away at the original 10k spent on the watch, so even if you do manage to sell it for what you originally paid, your purchasing power might have been reduced by a third to a half... Basically you need the Rolex to have at least doubled in value over the decade, when you sell it on, to not be a bigly loser...I think this is why the man from Rolex made the comment he did, the man himself trying to manage owner expectations as a hedge against their potential future disappointment.

With the san martin, the worst news is you've lost 300 gbp.

[Dave+63]

From the Fortune linky I posted, the CEO fella from Rolex offers a different opinion, HE is attempting to pour water on the idea a Rolex is an investment,

“I don’t like it when people compare watches with stocks. This sends the wrong message and is dangerous,� Rolex’s Dufour said in an interview with Swiss outlet NZZ earlier this month. Instead, Rolex’s watches are more akin to “products� than investments, he added.

Plus the 10 k on a Rolex isn't then available to earn a guaranteed 500 gbp to a 1000 gbp p.a....plus you'll probably need to insure it, buy install a safe another 500 to a 1000, plus a 1000 a decade on servicing...never mind if you actually wear as a GADA, the refinishing of the scratches on the softer rolex steel if you want it to always look minty and box fresh will cost too...so over a decade the thing's cost you somewhere between 6,500 to 11,500, conservatively, that's the cost of ownership additional to the purchase price...plus no guarantee's inflations not eaten away at the original 10k spent on the watch, so even if you do manage to sell it for what you originally paid, your purchasing power might have been reduced by a third to a half... Basically you need the Rolex to have at least doubled in value over the decade, when you sell it on, to not be a bigly loser...I think this is why the man from Rolex made the comment he did, the man himself trying to manage owner expectations as a hedge against their potential future disappointment.

With the san martin, the worst news is you've lost 300 gbp.

At no point did I suggest that the Rolex be treated as an investment and the safe/insurance has been covered earlier.

I’ll spell it out simply; If you want buy a watch to wear and enjoy, the Rolex is a good option as the chances are it will be worth more than you paid for it in ten years, the San Martin will be a fiver at the car boot sale.

If you’d rather not have the Rolex then by all means invest the rest of the cash elsewhere but just remember you can’t take it with you and HMRC will try to get their hands on as much of it as they can once you’re gone.

[Passenger]

At no point did I suggest that the Rolex be treated as an investment and the safe/insurance has been covered earlier.

I’ll spell it out simply; If you want buy a watch to wear and enjoy, the Rolex is a good option as the chances are it will be worth more than you paid for it in ten years, the San Martin will be a fiver at the car boot sale.

If you’d rather not have the Rolex then by all means invest the rest of the cash elsewhere but just remember you can’t take it with you and HMRC will try to get their hands on as much of it as they can once you’re gone.

I reckon we´ll have to agree to disagree Dave. These are volatile times, plausibly forecast to only worsen thus I think your optimistic, broad assumption isn´t in tune with the current conditions, furthermore the tune the Rolex CEO himself is deliberately now playing contradicts your assumed position.

[adrianw]

If you’d rather not have the Rolex then by all means invest the rest of the cash elsewhere but just remember you can’t take it with you and HMRC will try to get their hands on as much of it as they can once you’re gone.

It's funny every time I don't buy something because I think it too extravagant my wife reminds me that I can't take it with me.