zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

Dear John and the others

I have another following question: John wrote me in his first mail:

"With the Rolex, you are really paying only for the movement and the Rolex name." What do you mean with: paying the movement. Does this mean, a) that you pay the name and reputation of the manufacturer movement or does this mean b) that you pay the (potentially) higher production cost of an Explorer?

Probably nobody can answer me this question: Are the production cost for the AT lower then the ones for the Explorer? OR: Is the internal margin Rolex applies much higher, than the margin of Omega? I guess yes. However to which extent? Probably the thruth lies somewhere in the middle: Rolex' margin (earning per sold unit) is somewhat higher but their internal production cost are somewhat higher too. What do you think?

Anyway, you wrote: "So, in a nutshell, I think that Omega gives you a much better value for the money, and a nicer looking watch."

Thanks for your comments.
Stephan

P.S. I really don't care about brand perspective and things like: "there's something special about Rolexes you cannot explain". In my eyes this is PURE marketing. And the potential reselling value doesn't mean anything to me either, since its artificial and arbitrary, based on the image of a brand. Image is value, but it's not value based on the atomic truth. I just would like to get the confirmation, that the ETA-based 2500-movement (and the ETA movements in general) are in terms of used materials of their components and in terms of ruggedness equal to any other movement. If I get this confirmation, than I will probably buy the AT.