Guitar vs Amps Prices - Guitar Manufacturers are Taking the Mickey

Tall_martin

They are both marketed as luxury items.  100 years ago watched are utilitarian, something to tell time. They are not jewelleries.

I have my great great grandfathers watch. Silver case that’s been engraved with his initials in copperplate. Approx age 100. Approx value £50.

Why- because the company that made it made tens of thousands of them. All in solid silver, all with space for engraving

Neil

RaymondLin said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Neil said:

1. Components in a Rolex are not "as cheap as shit" , they are incredibly finely machined.

2. "Assembly non complex" . Have you ever tried assembling the 220 odd minuscule components in the movement and making it run to chronometer specs? I have. It's not like putting four screws into a Fender neck/body combination.

3. Of course you can pay what you like but Men's Rolexes start at £4100 and a Submariner is £5750. 

They seem like incredible value to me compared to a "Masterbilt" Fender.  

A Rolex might be "incredibly finely machined" but they are still mass market goods (sales of 800,000 a year plus) with all the actual manufacture being done by automated machines. Even when it comes to assembly of the movement all process are done on, or with the aid of, a specialised machine in order to ensure accuracy.  I doubt you have access to such machinery, which is probably why you view assembly as being laborious, but Rolex is geared towards mass manufacture and, like all companies, does all it can to minimise its unit costs.

Due in part to its bespoke manufacturing machinery - and even more so because Rolex is an image and marketing led company - it releases no photographs of its actual manufacturing processes, only those final assembly stages that look good in the advertising photos. Yes, a Rolex will cost more to make than a Seiko 5, in the same way as an R9 costs more to make than a Harley Benton, but we are still comparing apples with apples, and many of the things that add to the cost of a Rolex - such as individually applied dial markers - hardly make it a better watch, even if they give it a little more kudos as 'man jewelry'.

I don't see how any 'luxury' watch can be considered to be "incredible value". Rolex are a classic examples of Veblen goods and the unit manufacturing cost is likely to be less than 1/30th of the retail price - perhaps significantly less than this - certainly much less than the generally accepted rule of manufacturing which holds that unit costs should be no more than 1/10th of the final retail price. Then there is the cost of ownership, with Rolex doing all it can to keep servicing and repair in house, so enabling it to gouge its customers even after purchase.

Just look at the way the prices of luxury watches have increased over the years as they have gone from utilitarian to 'luxury' items. For example, the original Rolex Sub-Mariner cost $150  in 1953. Adjusted for inflation Rolex's No-Date 114060 - which is practically the same watch - should be $1,440 today. The Daytona Steel has been made since 1957, adjusted for inflation it should cost $2,228. On Rolex's site today's Euro price for those watches, including Vat, is 7,450 €  and 12,400 € respectively. Rolex's localisation won't let me check today's Dollar or Sterling price, but it is still clear that todays prices are out of all proportion to their historic price, when their manufacturing cost, in todays high-tech, automated world is likely to be lower than it has ever been.

A Rolex can only be considered to offer "incredible value" in comparison to a Masterbuilt Fender if that £8,000 Fender the OP referred to cost less than about £270 to make. That said, I would bet that the cost of making that Fender wasn't vastly more than this....

Bottom line: neither luxury watches nor expensive guitars can be considered to offer value for money, and in both cases the selling price has very little to do with manufacturing costs and a whole lot to do with the power of marketing.

I agree totally.

800,000 Rolex a year works out at....

If you consider that they only work 12 hrs a day, Monday to Friday...

Thats 3,076 a day.
Which equates to 256 an hour.
Which is 4.2 Rolex a Minute
So a new Rolex comes off a production line (it is a production line no doubt), less than every 15 seconds.

By the time I finish writing this post about 4 would have come off the line.

And look at this watch.  £299 !!!

Fully mechanical, it has every right to have another zero at the end of it but because it doesn't have the brand and history behind it, it's "just" £299, and I doubt they are losing money either.

https://www.marloewatchcompany.com/collections/coniston/products/coniston-speed-edition?variant=31588408787033

Image courtesy of Robbie Khan

You are not really comparing like to like though are you?

Rather like comparing a Squier to a Masterbuilt.

They both look the same, but there the comparison ends.

The watch you posted has a Chinese built movement (I know Miyota are Japanese) and probably Chinese made.

It's not a bad looking watch and reasonably priced but if you want a Rolex that is what the heart wants.

Let alone the fact that if you bought Rolex in the past or even the right models now you can make a nice profit. Not something you can really do with other watches IME. 

Neil

Three-ColourSunburst said:

RaymondLin said:

Just look at this watch.  £299 !!!

Fully mechanical, it has every right to have another zero at the end of it but because it doesn't have the brand and history behind it, it's "just" £299, and I doubt they are losing money either.

£299! My Seiko 5 cost me £65 and - after I regulated it - it keeps time as well as my old Omega Seamaster ever did.

That's fine if you are at the cheaper end of the market (and I am a big Seiko fan) although there is no comparison between a 7s26 and any Omega or Rolex movement.

Perhaps your Seamaster needed servicing? 

Omegas and Rolex are adjusted to five positions, 7s26's are not and cannot be by virtue of the original build quality. Regulation is not the way to accuracy -  adjustment is.

A pointless discussion anyway as there are plenty of people who swear their Squier is as good as a Custom shop or whatever and anyone spending more is a mug. 

The same thing transposes over to watches and people will just buy what they feel comfortable with at a budget they can afford.

RaymondLin

Neil said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

RaymondLin said:

Just look at this watch.  £299 !!!

Fully mechanical, it has every right to have another zero at the end of it but because it doesn't have the brand and history behind it, it's "just" £299, and I doubt they are losing money either.

£299! My Seiko 5 cost me £65 and - after I regulated it - it keeps time as well as my old Omega Seamaster ever did.

That's fine if you are at the cheaper end of the market (and I am a big Seiko fan) although there is no comparison between a 7s26 and any Omega or Rolex movement.

Perhaps your Seamaster needed servicing? 

Omegas and Rolex are adjusted to five positions, 7s26's are not and cannot be by virtue of the original build quality. Regulation is not the way to accuracy -  adjustment is.

A pointless discussion anyway as there are plenty of people who swear their Squier is as good as a Custom shop or whatever and anyone spending more is a mug. 

The same thing transposes over to watches and people will just buy what they feel comfortable with at a budget they can afford.

Now THAT's a different argument - feel.

What we are talking about is technical and with watches there really is only 1 tangible criteria - Time keeping. With watches there is no playing, the only feel is how it feels on your wrist.  If an extra or few gram here and there is worth it then go ahead.  Like I said, value is relative, value for money they are not.  None of the mechanical watches will match a digital so the angle everyone of them has to rely on, Swiss or Japanese or Chinese are "human" side of the movement, which if you come down to it, something we all are a sucker to.  CNC machine? pfft, we look down upon that, handmade? Love it, even if it's less accurate, even if it has flaws, even if it's imperfect.  That's the same as guitar and watches.  Truth is that human seek don't want perfection, they only seek the idea of it.

scrumhalf

My Rolex is worth every penny I paid for it.

All 200 of them. 

skullfunkerry

guitars4you said:

In simple terms, a Strat may well be just 2 pieces of wood bolted together - But a cottage pie is essential only potato and mince meat, but I bet any of our well known TV chefs can make it taste better than me and probably you - Likewise the MB and CS team can do likewise to the Strat

Why are you tasting your guitars?

guitars4you

skullfunkerry said:

guitars4you said:

In simple terms, a Strat may well be just 2 pieces of wood bolted together - But a cottage pie is essential only potato and mince meat, but I bet any of our well known TV chefs can make it taste better than me and probably you - Likewise the MB and CS team can do likewise to the Strat

Why are you tasting your guitars?

ah yes - the taste of nitro v poly - valid point on my badly phrased English

kentuckyklira

Modern economics:

a thing is worth what people are prepared to pay for it.

Greatape

bananaman said:

Funkfingers said:

bananaman said:

There must be hundreds (thousands?) of them that are pretty much exactly the same.

There are. Most of them are mediocre. 

Just occasionally, we come across an electric guitar or bass that is outstanding - even compared to other supposedly identical examples of the exact same model.

Yeah, they are called Suhrs

Still variation in Suhrs. I'd suggest the baseline is higher than a comparably-priced Fender, but I've certainly played Suhrs I wouldn't give house room to. 

kentuckyklira

Greatape said:

bananaman said:

Funkfingers said:

bananaman said:

There must be hundreds (thousands?) of them that are pretty much exactly the same.

There are. Most of them are mediocre. 

Just occasionally, we come across an electric guitar or bass that is outstanding - even compared to other supposedly identical examples of the exact same model.

Yeah, they are called Suhrs

Still variation in Suhrs. I'd suggest the baseline is higher than a comparably-priced Fender, but I've certainly played Suhrs I wouldn't give house room to. 

Honestly, I´ve never played a Suhr that I liked.

Three-ColourSunburst

 if you bought Rolex in the past or even the right models now you can make a nice profit. Not something you can really do with other watches IME. 

But that is largely because they have shamelessly ramped the price up at 6-7 times the rate of inflation. If they continue to do that even the affluent buyer / Chinese / Middle Eastern market will shrink. On the other hand, if they hold their price rises nearer to inflation in order to preserve sales volume, then the perceived value of used watches will fall, as people will know that the same model won't cost another couple of thousand more a year or so up the road.

RaymondLin

Three-ColourSunburst said:

 if you bought Rolex in the past or even the right models now you can make a nice profit. Not something you can really do with other watches IME. 

But that is largely because they have shamelessly ramped the price up at 6-7 times the rate of inflation. If they continue to do that even the affluent buyer / Chinese / Middle Eastern market will shrink. On the other hand, if they hold their price rises nearer to inflation in order to preserve sales volume, then the perceived value of used watches will fall, as people will know that the same model won't cost another couple of thousand more a year or so up the road.

It's the same game Fender CS is trying at the moment.  Push new prices up and up every year.  It might work, it might not.

But then Rolex don't make £500 versions of their watches.

Three-ColourSunburst

Neil said:

Perhaps your Seamaster needed servicing? 

Omegas and Rolex are adjusted to five positions, 7s26's are not and cannot be by virtue of the original build quality.

The whole fetishisation of clockwork-watch accuracy is nothing more than a clever marketing strategy dreamed up by the Swiss watch industry. No mechanical watch can be said to be truly accurate, and paying thousands to get one that is 'only' out by 3-4 seconds per day rather than 6 or 7 is totally irrational. I'm not even that convinced that a supposed higher build quality necessarily brings greater accuracy. For example, I had a Seiko SARB033 that I adjusted myself over several days, and it was quite capable of keeping time to within 3 seconds a day, that is supposedly 'Chronometer' standards.

A clockwork watch does have a certain emotional attraction - I keep one largely because the sound reminds me of when I was a small child and I used to lay under my bed clothes listening to the ticking of my first watch, and watching the luminous seconds-hand go round in the dark. However, as functional object, a clockwork watch is at best an anachronism.

Even wearing a watch might be though of as anachronistic in today’s world, but I think there are many situations where wearing one still makes sense. For example, I think it would be very bad form if  I were to keep pulling out a phone in a meeting to check the time. However, for me a watch is a functional item and so the ‘best’ watch is one that tells the time with the greatest accuracy and with the least intervention from myself.

My everyday watch is a JDM Citizen AQ1000-66E. Accurate to better than 10 seconds a year without recourse to radio or satellite signals, quick-set time zone adjustment, perpetual calendar, solar powered, not too large, diamond-like coating etc. For me it is accurate to within 2 seconds all year round - I set it 2 seconds slow when I change to summer time, it will be then 2 seconds fast by the time I need to go back to winter time, and repeat. I got it in Japan when they first came out for about 950€ - a lot of money and no way would I pay the current retail, but it is a wonderfully functional and very nicely made thing. (Mine is about 8-years old now, but apart from mine having a smaller power reserve indicator, looks the the one in the picture below.)

Yes, I could have got a pretty accurate battery watch for a few pounds, but I hate the quality of the bracelets on cheaper watches and I was forever forgetting to adjust the date at the end of each month. I also think it still carries a bit of Kudos - although perhaps only for those who don’t think that it is just another ’throwaway’ 50-quid Citizen.

I don’t doubt that my rationalisation for buying my Citizen is probably only slightly more rational than paying thousands more for an Omega. I would also accept that  it is as equally intended to say something about myself and my values as buying a gold Rolex might be for others.

Following my own logic, I guess sooner or later I will end up wearing an Apple iWatch. We are all the victims of marketing!

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/52/93/4f/52934fc16828e1e270411316fb6ea20e.jpg

RaymondLin

During this lockdown I have not been wearing my watch on the weekend because I don’t leave the house on the weekend now. Or at least not hours on end. Meaning come Monday, all my mechanical watches are dead. A couple of weeks ago I grabbed one and put it on and went to work, knowing the time on it is wrong and I need to set it. It wasn’t until around 11:30am that I first looked at the watch and remembered that it is the wrong time. I checked my phone instead and then not look at the watch again all day.

Honestly I might just get an Apple Watch, because clearly to me I am only wearing it out of habit, like a piece of jewellery, I just like the weight on the wrist.

Nikc

I use a Polar Vantage M - it has Heart rate monitoring, GPS, a range of fitness functions, totally accurate timekeeping plus a pile of smart watch functions - wants not to like

Blaendulais

Neil said:

Blaendulais said:

Economics.  Pricing depends on demand.  End of really.  Components in a rolex cheap as shit.  Assembly non complex.  People prepared to pay 20k.  Charge 20k.   Basic business

I'll have to take issue there.

1. Components in a Rolex are not "as cheap as shit" , they are incredibly finely machined.

2. "Assembly non complex" .
Have you ever tried assembling the 220 odd minuscule components in the movement and making it run to chronometer specs? I have.
It's not like putting four screws into a Fender neck/body combination.

3. Cost 20K.
Completely wrong.
Of course you can pay what you like but Men's Rolexes start at £4100 and a Submariner is £5750. 

They seem like incredible value to me compared to a "Masterbilt" Fender.  

On my MBA, 2011, the accountancy teacher worked for rolex.  I had just bought a Daytona for 6k (you wont buy one for 12k now).  The cost of manufacture including components and labour was 300.  



Also how can point 3 be completely wrong if you can buy a rolex for 20k.? eh?

dindude

RaymondLin said:

During this lockdown I have not been wearing my watch on the weekend because I don’t leave the house on the weekend now. Or at least not hours on end. Meaning come Monday, all my mechanical watches are dead. A couple of weeks ago I grabbed one and put it on and went to work, knowing the time on it is wrong and I need to set it. It wasn’t until around 11:30am that I first looked at the watch and remembered that it is the wrong time. I checked my phone instead and then not look at the watch again all day.

Honestly I might just get an Apple Watch, because clearly to me I am only wearing it out of habit, like a piece of jewellery, I just like the weight on the wrist.

You have to charge thoseApple  blighters so you’re no further forward.

Quartz is the way, spend £400 on one and you at the top end already and get a very nice watch, when the battery runs out 6 years later, time to treat yourself to a new one again. Life is very simple when you’re not a watch snob. 

I can only imagine how liberating it would be if I wasn’t a gear snob!

Hattigol

bananaman said:

So, take a Dumble. It contains hundreds of diverse components, some of them very complex and expensive and requiring insanely expensive machinery to make. It required very, very clever people on very good wages to design and prototype it, expensive machinery and staff to make it, and it has to meet all sorts of safety standards all over the world. There's no way on earth that you could build your own. It costs about £100,000.

Now take a brand new Fender Masterbuilt Strat. It's a couple of pieces of wood and small amounts of plastic and metal. None of the components are at all expensive, or need any development as they've been around for 60 years pretty much unchanged. Nor do they take a lot of brain power to make or assemble. You could easily build your own, and plenty of people do. Price: £8k upwards.

A bargain!!!!

FTFY.

Three-ColourSunburst

Blaendulais said:

On my MBA, 2011, the accountancy teacher worked for rolex.  I had just bought a Daytona for 6k (you wont buy one for 12k now).  The cost of manufacture including components and labour was 300.  

That ties in exactly with what I have read and been told. (I taught in a business school Switzerland for several years.) Even if the manufacturing cost has gone up to around 400 now and they sell for 12k, then the current manufacturing cost-to-retail price ratio is 30:1, which is the same figure as I gave earlier. For a simpler model that sells for 5,000 we are looking at a manufacturing cost of well under 200.

RaymondLin

dindude said:

RaymondLin said:

During this lockdown I have not been wearing my watch on the weekend because I don’t leave the house on the weekend now. Or at least not hours on end. Meaning come Monday, all my mechanical watches are dead. A couple of weeks ago I grabbed one and put it on and went to work, knowing the time on it is wrong and I need to set it. It wasn’t until around 11:30am that I first looked at the watch and remembered that it is the wrong time. I checked my phone instead and then not look at the watch again all day.

Honestly I might just get an Apple Watch, because clearly to me I am only wearing it out of habit, like a piece of jewellery, I just like the weight on the wrist.

You have to charge thoseApple  blighters so you’re no further forward.

Quartz is the way, spend £400 on one and you at the top end already and get a very nice watch, when the battery runs out 6 years later, time to treat yourself to a new one again. Life is very simple when you’re not a watch snob. 

I can only imagine how liberating it would be if I wasn’t a gear snob!

True, but at least pound for pound I get more features out of something I seldom look at, at least that's the excuse if I ever get one.