• Tired of adverts on RWI? - Subscribe by clicking HERE and PMing Trailboss for instructions and they will magically go away!

Why go Gen ?

lcsrep11

Active Member
19/8/17
203
93
28
That’s what I am heading to. Currently put down payment for 126711chnr. My dream watch and it gotta be gen. AD told me they should have it sometime this fall and I am th first on the list


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ive been seriously contemplating buying this watch also. Its amazing I hope you don't have to wait too long.
 

MarksandSpencer

Active Member
24/4/17
348
78
28
What about a GMT ? The sub has really grown on me lately but i always gravitate towards the GMT. Its great if you travel a lot too, very useful. Also the reps are way off if that was something that matters to you.

Yep, it's nice knowing the reps are completely off for the GMT if that is the one you want. However, for me the sub is more refined and better suited as an everyday watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lcsrep11

velox

Put Some Respect On My Name
1/5/15
3,946
245
63
I go gen for models that can't be replicated well enough to a level of at least 90%

e.g.
- 16710 GMT Master II = none of the reps are decent.. 2836-2 movement with bad handstack and bad crown/stem/tube height triggers my OCD
- 16570 Explorer II = this rep has the same problems as the 16710 GMT Master II
- Datejust Oysterquartz = no rep exist

I also go gen for models with two-tone gold or full gold because I don't believe in the gold content of reps and building a two-tone franken rep is very costly

Would love to see the oysterquartz replicated :)
 

velox

Put Some Respect On My Name
1/5/15
3,946
245
63
Well i have had a few gens including Sub 116610LN, 16610LV, Tudor Pelagos blue, Tudor GMT and many more. I can truly say that none of them made me feel special or feel better with a gen on the wrist. These might be "casual" models, not that complicated or what but i also have had reps of the exact same watches and i dont care anymore if they are rep or gen. My watches are for me, i dont care what others say (and no-one usually does) so i am very happy with my reps. Ill spend my money on travels, cars etc. instead of paying premium or to wait at the AD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stam95

peterpl

Put Some Respect On My Name
24/7/11
4,667
636
113
Well i have had a few gens including Sub 116610LN, 16610LV, Tudor Pelagos blue, Tudor GMT and many more. I can truly say that none of them made me feel special or feel better with a gen on the wrist. These might be "casual" models, not that complicated or what but i also have had reps of the exact same watches and i dont care anymore if they are rep or gen.

The reps of all these models are quite good. Especially if your one was a TC or a Noob vX sub they feel similar rep and gen. Its when you start wearing a 116613LB or a 116713LN or a DD40 or something a little more special thats when the reps and gens are far far far apart.

And that is when you feel the quality difference between the reps and gens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: velox

ericocean

Active Member
13/11/17
206
36
28
Was going to go gen Submariner this year. But I can't - Rolex won't let me - I'll be damned if I'm going to kiss AD ass and buy shit I don't need to get on some waiting list, or pay £2,000 over the odds on the grey market. Then I got hold of the ARF Sub and realised that going gen would have been a huge waste of money. Sure, there are minuscule faults in the ARF, but there are minuscule faults on the real one too. I'm totally satisfied with my ARF Sub.

I'll second that! My ARF with a gen xtal...I'm mean its just unreal, close...Ive put it beside my friends Gen and we both were floored at how perfectly close it was.
 

MarksandSpencer

Active Member
24/4/17
348
78
28
If i could have one gen only....it would be a sub. Everything could be rep. With Rolex the reps will never quite be enough.

Personally I wouldn’t suggest using a gen dial in a franken 15400 because the look will be limited by the rep hands.

I think rep 15400 Dial:hands are good enough (IMO).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's an interesting point you make, as many say the opposite, that Rolex subs are 'good enough'. Out of curiosity, would you rather have a JF 15400 and a gen sub over a gen 15400 and a V9/ARF sub?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashrams

lcsrep11

Active Member
19/8/17
203
93
28
Well i have had a few gens including Sub 116610LN, 16610LV, Tudor Pelagos blue, Tudor GMT and many more. I can truly say that none of them made me feel special or feel better with a gen on the wrist. These might be "casual" models, not that complicated or what but i also have had reps of the exact same watches and i dont care anymore if they are rep or gen. My watches are for me, i dont care what others say (and no-one usually does) so i am very happy with my reps. Ill spend my money on travels, cars etc. instead of paying premium or to wait at the AD.

what ever makes you happy dude thats all that matters at the end of the day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashrams

LV311

Horology Curious
9/2/17
9
6
0
You do make some valid points, but it is worth considering that like any business it's in Rolex's interests to ensure production costs are as low as possible, whereas their markup is as high as possible. Marketing helps to convince prospective buyers a good/service is worth the retail price being demanded for it, regardless of what is actually cost to make.

Rolex is an incredibly profitable institution, and despite spending hundreds of millions collectively on R&D, marketing, rent etc, production is probably the easiest place for Rolex to cut costs and one in which Rolex has the most control over. If rep factories are achieving what they are at $500 while making a 'handsome' profit, it can only be sensible to think that Rolex costs are probably quite close to what others have predicted (under $1000). Just look at Tudor they produce watches that are 80%+ Rolex quality for less than 50% of the price, and I bet they make a chunky profit so what does that spell for Rolex?

Also to finish, Rolex's main customer base only comprises of a tiny number of enthusiasts, most of their customers just want to wear the name and don't care for much else which further makes it easier for them to skimp out on both quality and quality control.

one thing to consider: because of the law of diminishing returns, the extra "unit" of quality becomes more and more expensive to make as you go up.

In in the same way going from a scooter to a super fast road bike will cost you $10000, and your "lap time" on a circuit will diminish immensely. At that point, to shed a couple seconds, you need a race bike that costs $70000
 

muiramas

Erect Aristocrat
Supporter
18/1/17
5,708
7,026
113
one thing to consider: because of the law of diminishing returns, the extra "unit" of quality becomes more and more expensive to make as you go up.

In in the same way going from a scooter to a super fast road bike will cost you $10000, and your "lap time" on a circuit will diminish immensely. At that point, to shed a couple seconds, you need a race bike that costs $70000

Poor analogy. This isnt Formula 1 or Moto GP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SuperLory

MarksandSpencer

Active Member
24/4/17
348
78
28
one thing to consider: because of the law of diminishing returns, the extra "unit" of quality becomes more and more expensive to make as you go up.

In in the same way going from a scooter to a super fast road bike will cost you $10000, and your "lap time" on a circuit will diminish immensely. At that point, to shed a couple seconds, you need a race bike that costs $70000

I also agree with muiramas, that the analogy is not comparable.

It's probably more accurate to look at the economies of scale Rolex benefits from having such a huge production quantity. Once the fixed costs of investments and the like are made (probably years ago), each unit produced becomes cheaper and cheaper as in the initial investment is now spread over a larger quantity. Plus it's not like the watches have updates all the time. There are sometimes minuscule updates, if even that occurring every now and again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashrams

Hinclimincli

I'm Pretty Popular
Certified
18/12/09
2,607
1,864
113
On the "gen is an investment" and such, I am very skeptical. Yes, you might have seen it for sale at a higher cost, but you won't be able to sell it at that amount. You essentially have two options: A) Sell it to a shop (Watchfinder here in UK, or any equivalent elsewhere) which will pay you peanuts compared to what they will put it up for sale. Or B) Sell it in a forum or Chrono24 or similar, where you will have to price it down compared to any shop you have seen (as the majority of buyers will prefer a shop because of the warranty and safety you get, especially when talking about big figures).

In any of both options, the investment is not that much profitable, unless you are talking of very specific watches, like selling now a 1675 that your grandad bought new in the sixties, or some of the old vintage subs. But buying a 116610LN or any other steel Rolex brand new at AD price is definitely NOT an investment, you might get better returns just buying any normal finance product instead of a watch.

On the Gen vs Rep... I must say I get the same buzz when I buy a gen than when I buy a rep. And it goes away equally fast, so I'd rather spend $400 once in a while than $4000 with the same frequency. If I was a billionaire, if money wasn't a problem, if, if... well, if that was the case I wouldn't probably be posting here in the first place, wouldn't I?
 

lcsrep11

Active Member
19/8/17
203
93
28
On the "gen is an investment" and such, I am very skeptical. Yes, you might have seen it for sale at a higher cost, but you won't be able to sell it at that amount. You essentially have two options: A) Sell it to a shop (Watchfinder here in UK, or any equivalent elsewhere) which will pay you peanuts compared to what they will put it up for sale. Or B) Sell it in a forum or Chrono24 or similar, where you will have to price it down compared to any shop you have seen (as the majority of buyers will prefer a shop because of the warranty and safety you get, especially when talking about big figures).

In any of both options, the investment is not that much profitable, unless you are talking of very specific watches, like selling now a 1675 that your grandad bought new in the sixties, or some of the old vintage subs. But buying a 116610LN or any other steel Rolex brand new at AD price is definitely NOT an investment, you might get better returns just buying any normal finance product instead of a watch.

On the Gen vs Rep... I must say I get the same buzz when I buy a gen than when I buy a rep. And it goes away equally fast, so I'd rather spend $400 once in a while than $4000 with the same frequency. If I was a billionaire, if money wasn't a problem, if, if... well, if that was the case I wouldn't probably be posting here in the first place, wouldn't I?

Totally disagree with you. I have a GMT Master ii owned since 2005/6 cant remember exactly. That watch i know for a fact i could seek for double the price it was then they are on watch finder for nearly 3x what it cost. I also have a Daytona 116520 which I purchased in 2012 and again i know for a fact i could get double what i paid for that too. Ive been offered 13k for the watch recently it cost me 6k. Neither watches were bought as an investment and i wear them both regularly. So not only have i had the enjoyment over the years i have a lot of profit for a small investment.
 
Last edited:

Lobster2010

Active Member
Supporter
Certified
4/9/10
420
214
43
On the "gen is an investment" and such, I am very skeptical. Yes, you might have seen it for sale at a higher cost, but you won't be able to sell it at that amount. You essentially have two options: A) Sell it to a shop (Watchfinder here in UK, or any equivalent elsewhere) which will pay you peanuts compared to what they will put it up for sale. Or B) Sell it in a forum or Chrono24 or similar, where you will have to price it down compared to any shop you have seen (as the majority of buyers will prefer a shop because of the warranty and safety you get, especially when talking about big figures).

In any of both options, the investment is not that much profitable, unless you are talking of very specific watches, like selling now a 1675 that your grandad bought new in the sixties, or some of the old vintage subs. But buying a 116610LN or any other steel Rolex brand new at AD price is definitely NOT an investment, you might get better returns just buying any normal finance product instead of a watch.

On the Gen vs Rep... I must say I get the same buzz when I buy a gen than when I buy a rep. And it goes away equally fast, so I'd rather spend $400 once in a while than $4000 with the same frequency. If I was a billionaire, if money wasn't a problem, if, if... well, if that was the case I wouldn't probably be posting here in the first place, wouldn't I?

Agreed.

The profitability story is only relevant for a very few models. But even getting these watches at retail these days is i) nearly impossible ii) too expensive.

As for gen v rep, I have had both gens and reps and the warm "feeling" of the gen diminishes after a while, especially when you factor in the servicing costs. If the rep equivalent is so well-made, I don't actually get the difference from gen that much at all. I.e., had the gen Fifty Fathoms, my noob v1 is simply too good. Had to sell the gen and went on holiday with my GF with the extra $$$ that i recouped (still at a loss though lol).

The gen world is also facing major probs with sales. If you look at Instagram, it seems every guy/gal is buying exp watches with ease. This is not the case, hence why efforts from the biggest houses to try and introduce 'cheaper' watches. I.e. Vacheron with their recent SS offerings. I could kinda save up for one, but then again, the value proposition of reps these days is amazing.

Remember, 10 years ago, reps were 60% great. Today, roughly 80% of the reps (specifically the ones talked about here etc), are nearly indistinguishable to its gen benchmark.

If I go Gen again, i am going vintage Gen only because of value proposition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yadda Yadda

lcsrep11

Active Member
19/8/17
203
93
28
Agreed.

The profitability story is only relevant for a very few models. But even getting these watches at retail these days is i) nearly impossible ii) too expensive.

As for gen v rep, I have had both gens and reps and the warm "feeling" of the gen diminishes after a while, especially when you factor in the servicing costs. If the rep equivalent is so well-made, I don't actually get the difference from gen that much at all. I.e., had the gen Fifty Fathoms, my noob v1 is simply too good. Had to sell the gen and went on holiday with my GF with the extra $$$ that i recouped (still at a loss though lol).

The gen world is also facing major probs with sales. If you look at Instagram, it seems every guy/gal is buying exp watches with ease. This is not the case, hence why efforts from the biggest houses to try and introduce 'cheaper' watches. I.e. Vacheron with their recent SS offerings. I could kinda save up for one, but then again, the value proposition of reps these days is amazing.

Remember, 10 years ago, reps were 60% great. Today, roughly 80% of the reps (specifically the ones talked about here etc), are nearly indistinguishable to its gen benchmark.

If I go Gen again, i am going vintage Gen only because of value proposition.

Anyone buying a watch as an investment would stick to a specific piece so your points a bit irrelevant. No ones going to buy a date just 36 and expect to double their money in a few years. If you keep a watch long enough it will go up in value with inflation alone though having said that. It also used to be a limited number of pieces that gained value and sold over list now its just about every sports model in the rolex line and look at stainless nautilus prices. Mental.
 

Lobster2010

Active Member
Supporter
Certified
4/9/10
420
214
43
Anyone buying a watch as an investment would stick to a specific piece so your points a bit irrelevant. No ones going to buy a date just 36 and expect to double their money in a few years. If you keep a watch long enough it will go up in value with inflation alone though having said that. It also used to be a limited number of pieces that gained value and sold over list now its just about every sports model in the rolex line and look at stainless nautilus prices. Mental.

I literally said that "The profitability story is only relevant for a very few models". Selective reading?
I agree with what you said however - not a surprise because I think we are coming from a similar corner here.
 

muiramas

Erect Aristocrat
Supporter
18/1/17
5,708
7,026
113
The gen world is also facing major probs with sales. If you look at Instagram, it seems every guy/gal is buying exp watches with ease. This is not the case, hence why efforts from the biggest houses to try and introduce 'cheaper' watches. I.e. Vacheron with their recent SS offerings. I could kinda save up for one, but then again, the value proposition of reps these days is amazing.

If I go Gen again, i am going vintage Gen only because of value proposition.

Rolex have no problems with sales. They have no shareholders to please or dividends to pay, letting them choose their own path - they’re in it for the long game. They have complete control of their market and still sell everything they make.

Contrast that with Omega, and others, who have been churning out dozens of limited editions just to get column inches in the horological press and facebook likes. You can get 30% off all of them come sale time. Richemont (Panerai, IWC, Cartier, Panerai, Jaeger-LeColture...) destroyed the best part of $600m in unsold stock this year. This isnt a problem that Rolex has.

Getting into vintage is a mugs game. Anyone with a level head will tell you there are much better ways to invest your money that do not include gambling it on a current and indeed temporary horological trend.
 

MarksandSpencer

Active Member
24/4/17
348
78
28
Anyone buying a watch as an investment would stick to a specific piece so your points a bit irrelevant. No ones going to buy a date just 36 and expect to double their money in a few years. If you keep a watch long enough it will go up in value with inflation alone though having said that. It also used to be a limited number of pieces that gained value and sold over list now its just about every sports model in the rolex line and look at stainless nautilus prices. Mental.

There is also a big difference between what watches are listed for on the grey market and what they are actually selling for. I see plenty who are trying to flip their subs for 2k above retail, but I don't see any of them selling.
 

Lobster2010

Active Member
Supporter
Certified
4/9/10
420
214
43
Rolex have no problems with sales. They have no shareholders to please or dividends to pay, letting them choose their own path - they’re in it for the long game. They have complete control of their market and still sell everything they make.

Contrast that with Omega, and others, who have been churning out dozens of limited editions just to get column inches in the horological press and facebook likes. You can get 30% off all of them come sale time. Richemont (Panerai, IWC, Cartier, Panerai, Jaeger-LeColture...) destroyed the best part of $600m in unsold stock this year. This isnt a problem that Rolex has.

Getting into vintage is a mugs game. Anyone with a level head will tell you there are much better ways to invest your money that do not include gambling it on a current and indeed temporary horological trend.

"Rolex have no problems with sales. They have no shareholders to please or dividends to pay, letting them choose their own path - they’re in it for the long game. They have complete control of their market and still sell everything they make."

Fair and true point.

"Contrast that with Omega, and others, who have been churning out dozens of limited editions just to get column inches in the horological press and facebook likes. You can get 30% off all of them come sale time. Richemont (Panerai, IWC, Cartier, Panerai, Jaeger-LeColture...) destroyed the best part of $600m in unsold stock this year. This isnt a problem that Rolex has."

Fair and true point.

"Getting into vintage is a mugs game. Anyone with a level head will tell you there are much better ways to invest your money that do not include gambling it on a current and indeed temporary horological trend."

Hmm, I think you misread my point but then also add some subjective errors.

I am interested in vintage not because of 'investments'. I buy to wear watches. I can pick up a vintage Vacheron dress watch for circa 5000 GBP - with careful analysis. This a better proposition than buying a current dress watch from them costing 15+ grande.

As for being a trend. The vintage market has existed for a while and was functioning quite well. The hype around it came from the over priced nature of the current retail trend. I stay away from the vintage Rolex and PP side as they are grossly overvalued imo. The recent Newman Daytona is testament to that. But then some would argue that this is subjective.
 

AriChoresh

Active Member
30/8/17
384
41
0
The difference between 18k gold gen to gold plated is huge...the gold plating is 5 microns and over time you wont see it, you will see the steel under it.
I'm building a Franken daydate and ill send you pictures to compare