3 ms·

This Apple watch is clearly not intended for people like you and me. You won't see James Bond wearing an Apple Watch and you won't see NASA strapping them aro

This Apple watch is clearly not intended for people like you and me. You won't see James Bond wearing an Apple Watch and you won't see NASA strapping them around the sleeves of space suits like an Omega Speedmaster. This is another piece of electronics that will look as dated as a CueCat or dot-matrix printer fifteen years from now. A classic timepiece, on the other hand, will retain or gain value over time. I bought my Rolex Submariner for about $6000 in 2009. Just five years later, a new Sub costs close to $9000. The value of used Rolexes is even higher. I wouldn't be surprised if my watch has doubled in value. The Apple Watch has its place: it's an alternative to a Suunto or Garmin training watch, or an everyday watch for people who wouldn't spend more than $500 on a timepiece. It's a fashion item but it's not jewelry. Like the original iPhone, its scarcity may create an initial aura of exclusivity but things will die down once you see a 14 year-old on the bus wearing one.

jawngee 12y ago
Rolex's are the worst investments in watch collecting. Rolex is highly susceptible to overshadowing, so even though a new one is more expensive than when you bought it, it doesn't mean your watch is worth that. It's worth even less if you didn't service it in 2013 and didn't keep the paperwork (Rolex's must be serviced every 3-4 years to maintain value). Of course, that doesn't mean you can't find someone dumb enough to unload it on for more than you paid it, but a collector isn't going to give you that value for it. The Rolex Daytona is the exception to this rule though, but Submariners are mass-produced and common for luxury watches. Source: I collect watches.