New Sub c more expensive than GMTIIc??

[bumblebee]

Hi, I thought the retail price of a GMTII is higher than Sub, but now both ceramic versions are released, seems the Sub C RRP is higher than GMTIIC RRP, anyone please advise why? Is it because the demand for GMTIIc has fallen?

[exxondus]

from what I recall, sub are generally priced more expensive than GMTIIs.

Hence, with the new release, it just got back to the usual practise thats all.

[Oceanklassik]

I think TS wishes to know why the price disparity. I'll also like to know because it really doesn't make any sense (to me). The GMT model has the GMT function and date, whereas, the Sub only has a date.

Anyone expert can share?

[exxondus]

I think TS wishes to know why the price disparity. I'll also like to know because it really doesn't make any sense (to me). The GMT model has the GMT function and date, whereas, the Sub only has a date.

Anyone expert can share?

I tht the TS was comparing Sub C and GMTII C and was wondering why suddenly Sub C is more ex. thats why my reply that Rolex always price sub higher than GMT. Its just that GMTIIC was an upgrade model and when it came out since 2007, the sub was still old and hence, we saw the false notion that GMT is higher in price.

TS probably need to compare the GMTII vs Sub and not GMTIIC vs Sub.

When the Sub C came out, it just went back to Rolex's original pricing strategy of Sub > GMTII

What Ocean bro is asking, is why Rolex prices Sub > GMTII.

[Oceanklassik]

Yes correct. Be it the Sub-16610, or Sub-C vs GMTI/II or GMTII-C, I feel that the former should not be priced higher. Or I may be wrong. I don't know. For example, if a new Explorer I (latest 39mm model) sells at $8K, while the current Explorer II sells at $7K, which is more a worthy buy?

[hypersocial]

from what I recall, sub are generally priced more expensive than GMTIIs.

Hence, with the new release, it just got back to the usual practise thats all.

I fully agree with you, all along the Sub is always priced a notch higher than the GMTII. Thus with both ceramic models out, they are priced back to the original state.



As for Ocean's question, I think the Sub is priced higher due to it's popularity (James Bond's watch) and maybe for the fact that 300m water resistance needs a tougher casing, triple-lock crown. But of course this is only my personal opinion.

[wjunkie]

Sub(c) is always higher price than GMTII(c). That's the fact!

That's actually not a bad thing to me because personally, I prefer GMTII than Sub

[hypersocial]

For example, if a new Explorer I (latest 39mm model) sells at $8K, while the current Explorer II sells at $7K, which is more a worthy buy?

I think you are comparing the wrong Explorer models thus thinking why Exp I cost more than Exp II. Bare in mind, that the new Exp II is suppose to be launched soon, when that happens, I'm very sure the new Exp II pricing will surpass the new Exp I pricing.

[exxondus]

Sub(c) is always higher price than GMTII(c). That's the fact!

That's actually not a bad thing to me because personally, I prefer GMTII than Sub

but but.....but.....ur abartar is a sub!!!

ok paisei, off topic here but just couldnt resist.

[wjunkie]

but but.....but.....ur abartar is a sub!!!

ok paisei, off topic here but just couldnt resist.

No....is SeaDweller

sorry ya....off topic and i hope folks here dun mind.

[Oceanklassik]

Sub(c) is always higher price than GMTII(c). That's the fact!

That's actually not a bad thing to me because personally, I prefer GMTII than Sub

I know that's a FACT! But why?

I think you are comparing the wrong Explorer models thus thinking why Exp I cost more than Exp II. Bare in mind, that the new Exp II is suppose to be launched soon, when that happens, I'm very sure the new Exp II pricing will surpass the new Exp I pricing.

I am aware what I was comparing but the message I was trying to send across was the inappropriate pricing (at least to me). What functions do the Explorer I give (time only), and what functions from an Explorer II (time+date+GMT)? Is the ExpII more inferior in build/materials and design, and movement, than the ExpI? Is the ceramic bezel on the Sub-C of better quality than the one on the GMTII-C? Is the movement in the Sub-C much superior than the one used in the GMTII-C?

Can some experts shed some light?

[Oceanklassik]

You see, recently I was at a watch outlet browsing some watches. I was looking at the ExpI-114720 (35mm model) and the ExpII. After a brief negotiation, the difference in price between the two was only about $500-$600, of course, the ExpI being cheaper. So logically thinking, the ExpII in this case, was more worth it, right?

And I asked why so to which the SE replied that the 114720 is a discontinued model, thus, commanded a smaller discount. Yes, though it is true (on the discontinuation), and if I have no specific preference over any, the ExpII was a better bet, right?

For example, both models being new from AD, and after whatever discount has been given, if the ExpI costs $6,000 and the ExpII costs $6,500, which will you buy? And mind you, the SE die-die confirmed that the new ExpII WILL be out next year !

[bigfatpig]

Its all about supply and demand... More people go after submariner and daytona as it's more "iconic" for Rolex sports model... Thus, there is a premium to pay if you are looking to get a subC. Look at all the celebs wearing sub, I personally have not seen many celebs don a GMTIIC or not C. Naturally people would go after sub as well..

Often I see people saying "You pay lesser, but you get a more complicated movement in GMTIIC, why not? Plus it's a pilot's watch." But not all people would go for GMTIIC because of the busy bezel. Cheers.

[feilong108]

yeah...for rolex i prefer the simple 3 hands....hour min and sec...nothing more....i do not need chronos,gmt or anything else..hehehehe....

Personal preference...hehehehe

[Watcha]

It doesn't make to me too.

But I guess their pricing is according to demand / image and not how much watch you get.