# Is Steinhart a good watch or just a good business model?



## aristoc

i am wondering about the quality and longevity of this watch. Will it last 20, 30 or more years? will it gain value? Or is this Steinhart product just a good business model that is working because Steinhart is a good entrepreneur? He has saved money by choosing successful designs already created and re-created them using a price point and apparent quality that has attracted a lot of people.


----------



## MrDagon007

The movement is a proven ETA. This together with the decent construction at the price will make it likely that you'll enjoy a Steinhart for a long, long time. With the occasional service the movement will last for decades.
Will it gain value? Perhaps one or two limited editions will, but generally, no. Then again, very few watches gain value.


----------



## CBGrey

Can it be both?


----------



## twintop

With the proven and reliable ETA movements inside, the solid construction of the watches and decent maintanance these watches will probably last longer than us. I don't see them gaining in value due to the design, let's face it, Steinhart isn't known for it's innovitive design or features.


----------



## Ryeguy

If you are buying watches with the hope they will gain in value, I fear you are in for a disappointment - regardless of brand. Most watches (Rolex included) drop in price on the secondary market and only a select few iconic pieces become collectors items. 

I'm actually trying to think of anything I bought in 1995 that would be worth more today than when I originally purchased it.

Steinhart makes a solid watch using proven components at a fair price. This alone is good enough for me.


----------



## the_sim

I was seriously looking at buying a used Rolex as a timepiece I could enjoy for a long time and pass on to my kids. I was looking at it as an investment at first but quickly realized that with depreciation and cost of servicing a Rolex it would not be a wise investment. I figured a new Rolex would depreciate more then the price of a Steinhart every year for the first few years. Servicing a used Rolex would also cost more then the price of a new Steinhart. I decided to save my $$ and purchase a Steinhart instead which made more financial sense for me. I am not in a business that I need to have a certain image that a Rolex would project but I really liked the look of the Rolex, not the prestige. If expect my Steinhart OVR to outlast me and if it doesn't hold it's value it will be a minimal loss compared to the cost of owning a Rolex.


----------



## rossi46vr

Well Ryeguy, if you'd have bought a Rolex submariner in 1995 it would've cost you around £2k, you'd sell it today for around £3k - £4k. 
I bought my first Rolex in 1998, it was a coke Rolex GMT Master ll for £2070, we all know how much they fetch now. 
If steinhart increases its prices by say 10% per year an ocean one will cost around ?900 in 10 years time !


----------



## Ryeguy

rossi46vr said:


> Well Ryeguy, if you'd have bought a Rolex submariner in 1995 it would've cost you around £2k, you'd sell it today for around £3k - £4k.
> I bought my first Rolex in 1998, it was a coke Rolex GMT Master ll for £2070, we all know how much they fetch now.
> If steinhart increases its prices by say 10% per year an ocean one will cost around ?900 in 10 years time !


Granted, but what if I had bought an Explorer or Datejust instead of the Sub? Not nearly the same rise in value.

Take that same Sub example as above. Assume you wore it for 20 years and had it serviced 3 times in that 20 year period. What does a RSC cleaning / overhaul cost these days - $500+? By the time you add up 20 years worth of maintenance you are probably looking at a push at best. The price you might get for the watch is also assuming you didn't damage the watch too much over your ownership or over polish the lugs. Condition definitely impacts value.

If I took that same $2,000, invested it and was able to earn an average of say, 8% annually, I'd be sitting on nearly $9,500 and never worry once during that time if I knocked my bank book against a door jam!

I like Rolex. I respect the brand, but I stand by my statement that watches should not be purchased as investments.

Regarding Steinhart - probably the number one influence on future value will be if Steinhart can increase demand for their products beyond their capacity (or desire) to deliver. The primary way I see to generate that kind of demand is through an extensive, concerted advertizing campaign (i.e. the Rolex model).

I do not see Steinhart doing this, so in my estimation Steinhart will remain a high-value brand catering to the WIS market. Nothing wrong with that and I appreciate we have them as an option.


----------



## Tallest

Rolex is up in value (like vintage Porsches and lots of other vintage stuff) is because FED etc printed a ton of money, making money cheap and this money doesnt have to work hard to create value. it goes into all these funny assets that are not producing anything and inflating their value. Once the free money printing ended last year, and interest rates will go up, you will see a bit of a different situation. Money will flow out of these types of assets into stuff that actually adds value / production, manufacturing, etc. I bet this bubble will pop, but dollar will strengthen and thus your value of rolex etc wont fall at least. So to me, a Rolex will be a fine investment but you gotta love te watch first and foremost.

As for Steinhart, I reckon it shouldn't lose too much value. Because they keep changing models, it means the runs are kinda limited and a used model will keep half its value I suppose.


----------



## Ard

I'm not quite sure I understand the point of your question but that never stops me from an answer. I don't own a Rolex but I also don't believe that fact disqualifies me from being able to comment on quality in a watch. I've been owning watches for well over 40 years and have had quite a few, these ranged from cheap watches to some rather pricy ones. I now wear a Steinhart Ocean One full time and in every aspect that I can either see with my eye or observe by its timekeeping I believe it to be of very good quality. I've made a few changes from what the watch was when I received it stock but none that affected the basic performance of the watch, just cosmetics. 

I'm going to end up a 2 watch guy and the Steinhart provided me a basis for building up my next watch which is a custom build. Without the Steinhart's quality to use as a base for comparison I probably wouldn't have started this project. 

So what was the question.......... Oh yeah, I remember, Steinhart makes a good product that will probably last a long time.

Ard


----------



## Ipromise

As others said, it will last as long as you take care of it, but very unlikely to gain value over time. They're a fantastic value, but not much to really distinguish themselves. Then again, every company has to start somewhere!


----------



## b-boy

Ryeguy said:


> If I took that same $2,000, invested it and was able to earn an average of say, 8% annually, I'd be sitting on nearly $9,500 and never worry once during that time if I knocked my bank book against a door jam!


8% annually?? Which kind of investment to get this?


----------



## texascrane

b-boy said:


> 8% annually?? Which kind of investment to get this?


Just buy an index fund. The S&P 500 averaged more than 11% return over the past 20 years and had a CAGR of over 9%.


----------



## sleauxdaddy

Quick quiz: What watches produced in the last 20 years have gained value?


----------



## xlf

Rolex? The price has been shot up as high as rocket


----------



## Paul December

"Just a good business model" ... 
I'm filing that one away with "touch base", "skill set", and "shift paradigm".


----------



## Robotaz

Steinhart is a great watch for the money in most cases.

It's always possible that a Swiss made watch goes up in value over time, if you wait long enough. I wouldn't count on it for personal financial reasons though.


----------



## mike70sk

anything mass produced will not gain value, watch or other item, if there are millions of em out there it wont go up. Only things that are scarce will gain value.


----------



## Patrick333

mike70sk said:


> anything mass produced will not gain value, watch or other item, if there are millions of em out there it wont go up. Only things that are scarce will gain value.


So you think Rolex is scarce? They all gained and continue to gain value evey year.


----------



## Ryeguy

Patrick333 said:


> So you think Rolex is scarce? They all gained and continue to gain value evey year.


Let's be honest - not all Rolex models have gained in value and not all gains have been equal across the product line. A second hand Explorer is a bargain when compared to a Sub from the same generation.

It is also hard to use Rolex as a true representation of watches as investments. Rolex values are highly dependent upon Rolex's ability to market (which they have done extremely well over the past 30 years) and control their distribution channels. Rolex don't "go on sale". Jewelers must meet certain criteria even to just carry the Rolex brand.

I have an absolute TON of respect for Rolex, but if I were to buy one it would be to wear and enjoy, not as an investment.


----------



## codeture

Ryeguy said:


> Let's be honest - not all Rolex models have gained in value and not all gains have been equal across the product line. A second hand Explorer is a bargain when compared to a Sub from the same generation.
> 
> It is also hard to use Rolex as a true representation of watches as investments. Rolex values are highly dependent upon Rolex's ability to market (which they have done extremely well over the past 30 years) and control their distribution channels. Rolex don't "go on sale". Jewelers must meet certain criteria even to just carry the Rolex brand.
> 
> I have an absolute TON of respect for Rolex, but if I were to buy one it would be to wear and enjoy, not as an investment.


It may be because of inflation + currency appreciation, Rolex watches seem to be more expensive today than (let's say) two years ago.
However, in terms of investment, instead of buying gold rolex, it may be better to buy gold bar or gold mining stock.


----------



## Parkgate

lets be honest, if you buy a Steiny for say 400gbp you may make 10% in a year, or lose 20%, therefore max 440gbp min 320gbp if in superb original condition, if your looking at say a watch ten times this value, few will even get close to that price range in the real world, yes sellers want that +10% high price, but only an idiot pays it. The best way is to think 'I wont gain much but I wont lose much either, compared to anything else'.


----------



## Ticonderoga

There seems to be a lot of confusion between "going up in value" and "going up in price." Just because the price of a Rolex goes up doesn't mean it's value has gone up. If your average salary doubles in 15 years and so does the cost of a house, is the house worth more? No, it just takes more dollars (that are worth less). Looking at the value of ANY physical item, you must look at how much it's price went up MINUS inflation. 

Everyone cried when gas went to $3 a gallon but didn't realize that it was cheaper (in relative buying power) than it was 10 years earlier at $2 a gallon. 

Here's an idea, buy TWO Steins, and put the remaining $7-8k in Microsoft stock and see where you are in 20 years.


----------



## Onewatchhh

Reading the comments on Rolex and servicing costs, I think some of you could be missing a trick here - you don't HAVE to or even NEED to have a Rolex serviced by Rolex. Within the warranty period of course, but outside? Nope. And as a matter of fact, I wouldn't even entertain sending a vintage Rolex to an RSC because of the vandalism they do - new hands?!? New dial?!? Bye bye hard earned patina!!

A decent watchmaker (find a good one, they are around and I have access to one) can deliver as-good-if-not-better (a true artisan will always afford more care) service for much less £/$/? than an expensive network will demand. 

Genuine parts? Yes. 
Correct oils? Yes. 
Photographic record? Yes. (You don't get that with RSC btw) 
As finicky as I am? Yes. 

All boxes ticked for £200 or less.


----------



## aristoc

The goal could be for Steinhart to sell his company when a larger one comes looking at his business.


----------



## Ryeguy

BenF said:


> Reading the comments on Rolex and servicing costs, I think some of you could be missing a trick here - you don't HAVE to or even NEED to have a Rolex serviced by Rolex. Within the warranty period of course, but outside? Nope. And as a matter of fact, I wouldn't even entertain sending a vintage Rolex to an RSC because of the vandalism they do - new hands?!? New dial?!? Bye bye hard earned patina!!
> 
> A decent watchmaker (find a good one, they are around and I have access to one) can deliver as-good-if-not-better (a true artisan will always afford more care) service for much less £/$/? than an expensive network will demand.
> 
> Genuine parts? Yes.
> Correct oils? Yes.
> Photographic record? Yes. (You don't get that with RSC btw)
> As finicky as I am? Yes.
> 
> All boxes ticked for £200 or less.


This is getting more and more difficult. Rolex as a business has as their primary goal the capture of all potential revenue available surrounding the ownership of one of their products. To this end, Rolex is implementing strategies to better control the aftermarket service and support for their products.

There have been numerous articles about this (here is an old one that I quickly found online: Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian) but the general consensus is, if I am Rolex, why should I hand off future service revenue to some independent watchmaker when I can capture that revenue stream and increase my profits from it?

It isn't just Rolex doing this. The strategy to increase corporate revenue through service can be seen across many industries. Rolex is just taking the heat due to being a very recognizable brand who does an excellent job of controlling their parts supply chain. We could have the same discussion using consumer appliances as the product example. The days of the "shade tree mechanic" are slowly coming to an end.


----------



## ZIPPER79

Let them make their own choice, just leave them your money!



the_sim said:


> I was seriously looking at buying a used Rolex as a timepiece I could enjoy for a long time and pass on to my kids. I was looking at it as an investment at first but quickly realized that with depreciation and cost of servicing a Rolex it would not be a wise investment. I figured a new Rolex would depreciate more then the price of a Steinhart every year for the first few years. Servicing a used Rolex would also cost more then the price of a new Steinhart. I decided to save my $$ and purchase a Steinhart instead which made more financial sense for me. I am not in a business that I need to have a certain image that a Rolex would project but I really liked the look of the Rolex, not the prestige. If expect my Steinhart OVR to outlast me and if it doesn't hold it's value it will be a minimal loss compared to the cost of owning a Rolex.


----------



## Argenti

MrDagon007 said:


> The movement is a proven ETA. This together with the decent construction at the price will make it likely that you'll enjoy a Steinhart for a long, long time. With the occasional service the movement will last for decades.
> Will it gain value? Perhaps one or two limited editions will, but generally, no. Then again, very few watches gain value.


I have made a few bob on Seikos over the years....buy from Singapore, keep for 10 years, don't bother servicing them and flog em, for up to more double what you paid for them! You won't make a mint, I grant you, but they are great purchases!


----------



## flyingpicasso

Interesting that the query was about Steinhart, yet most posts mention Rolex.


----------



## Ticonderoga

flyingpicasso said:


> Interesting that the query was about Steinhart, yet most posts mention Rolex.


Interesting indeed.

A few years ago on National Public Radio I listened to an hour-long program about some groundbreaking research done by a psychologist and his team. They interviewed a lot of people at different stages in "hard times" in their lives and then compared how they viewed themselves (their relative happiness) at the time and then how they saw themselves 5 years, 10 years and 20 years later.

He gave the example of interviews of soldiers. They were asked to rate how happy they were with their choice to join the military, how happy they were in general. Most scored low in basic training and only a little higher in their early assignments. Most scored low while in the war zone. Say they gave basic training a 3 out of 10 and combat a 3 out of 10. 5 years later, they gave each a 5 and 10 years later a 6 and 20 years later they rated their time in combat an 8 or 9 and "one of the best moments of my life."

The study came to the conclusion that we, as humans, hate to think that we've made a mistake and we basically lie to ourselves to protect our egos. In the case of the soldiers, to admit that their time in the war wasn't so great meant that those years were wasted. The mind ignored the bad, the blood and the guys and focused only on the camaraderie, the victories and the ultimate survival and eventually what were bad memories became good.

I can only think that so many Rolex buyers - after coming to the Steinhart pages - might be a little in the same boat? ;-)


----------



## ponch10

just stumbled up this thread and I find it hilarious how some people casually drop financial advice here, and extrapolate future returns from past.
And don't tell me you guys are savvy watch buyers.


----------



## captainscott

I buy watches because I like and get enjoyment out of them. Watches will never be an investment for me, financially they are a poor investment but you have to have some enjoyment in life.


----------



## robmellor

A good watch imho and they give people the chance to see if they like the original ! Without the large outlay.


----------



## Earthjade

I agree that a watch is a poor investment.
Anyone thinking that Rolexes are as good as cash on the wrist are unaware that the world is experiencing asset bubbles based on all the liquidity the central banks are trying to pump into the system. They tried to raise interest rates last year and now the world economy is slowing down, so what do you think is going to happen?


----------



## pugs16

Does the latest Steinhart watches have better case and bracelet finishing? I find the case edges fairly sharp/not rounded as smooth as Seiko or other higher Swiss watches. Been itching for the Ocean 500 GMT titanium but afraid I might be disappointed.


----------



## jbsutta

Pugs16 I’m here to tell you, ya won’t be disappointed. Especially since the bracelet is tapered and bezel is magnificent.


----------



## Cpt Canuck

For me, Steinhart was an amazing upgrade from my first SKX. I went 6 years with just an SKX as I was studying in university and starting my career. After my first big promotion I bought an OT500. I was a novice enthusiast at the time and wanted a checklist watch... domed sapphire crystal, decorated movement, titanium, display case back, 500m WR, etc. I loved the SKX but wanted to step it up. I spent hours reading countless threads on 'best value drive watch around $600'. I think steinhart is a checklist watch for value oriented novice collectors. When I got the watch I was amazed at the quality... and my SKX was soon gathering dust in the nightstand... we go through phases in our watch journey and steinhart was definitely a phase for me.. now I have a Tudor BB and the steinhart is gathering dust.


----------



## JasonEdward

Owning a Steinhart Ocean 1 Bronze I would say you can't go wrong. Beautiful build quality, ETA, sapphire and looks the business..........

They seem to hold a respectable used value overall.....


----------



## krstgor

So, just to get smth straight - in this day and age, where we have nano-tech and quantum computing, worrying about "quality" of apiece of metal and a mechanical device that hasn't changed much over the last 100 or so years is - well, to put it mildly - ridiculous.

The "quality" and "usability" of the Steinhart watch is 99?9% equal to that of a 10K Rolex. is ti worth it - that's a subjective... each to his own. In purely technical, mechanical, physical terms - there is hardly any difference, apart from what can be considered "cosmetics".

So, yes - Steinhart Rolex look-a-likes are EXCELLENT built quality watches and they are a great value for money. I myself own two - a "Sub" with balck ceramic dial and a Pepsi GMT, both in 42mm. They are gorgeous.


----------



## krstgor

So, just to get smth straight - in this day and age, where we have nano-tech and quantum computing, worrying about "quality" of apiece of metal and a mechanical device that hasn't changed much over the last 100 or so years is - well, to put it mildly - ridiculous.

The "quality" and "usability" of the Steinhart watch is 99?9% equal to that of a 10K Rolex. is ti worth it - that's a subjective... each to his own. In purely technical, mechanical, physical terms - there is hardly any difference, apart from what can be considered "cosmetics".

So, yes - Steinhart Rolex look-a-likes are EXCELLENT built quality watches and they are a great value for money. I myself own two - a "Sub" with balck ceramic dial and a Pepsi GMT, both in 42mm. They are gorgeous.

View attachment 13872707


View attachment 13872709


View attachment 13872711


----------



## pfern10

I believe Steinnharts will be reliable watches for many years to come. Considering the movements used such as eta 2824-2. Chronographs with Dubois Dépraz DD 2020. These are solid movements with proven longevity. Struggle to see how the value of these watches will increase. However, I have seen a Gnomon steinhart special edition ocean one chronograph asking for more than retail on eBay. I hope in the long term these will still be affordable and incredibly good value for money watches.


----------



## ponch10

I own both a Steinhart GMT and a Rolex SubC. I personally enjoy them both, but Rolexes are better made. The difference is in the details and the little things (hour and minute hands being fatter on Steinhart, for example), in the proportions that Rolex seems to get just right, while Steinhart not quite.

Nevertheless, for the price, Steinhart brings so much value to the table and I agree Rolexes prices are getting absurd (luckily I bought before the craziness).

I believe that any watch will bore you after a while, regardless of how expensive it was, so owning several different ones is key, but only if they are not crazy expensive.


----------



## ponch10

I own both a Steinhart GMT and a Rolex SubC. I personally enjoy them both, but Rolexes are better made. The difference is in the details and the little things (hour and minute hands being fatter on Steinhart, for example), in the proportions that Rolex seems to get just right, while Steinhart not quite.

Nevertheless, for the price, Steinhart brings so much value to the table and I agree Rolexes prices are getting absurd (luckily I bought before the craziness).

I believe that any watch will bore you after a while, regardless of how expensive it was, so owning several different ones is key, but only if they are not crazy expensive.


----------



## FBPB

My Steinhart Ocean One Vintage Red is a great everyday watch, running an ETA workhorse movement that will last a very long time and is cheap to service.

If it gets damaged, it will be a pity, but not ruinous to my bank account. 

Can't say either of those things about a Rolex.


----------



## SOGDIVER

Watches are a personal choice. I have Rolex Submariners and the Ocean One 39 Explorer 300 edition,
which is a close version to the gilt 5513 Submariner of the early 60s. The ETA 2824-2 is also used by Tudor
which is an excellent movement.
However, a Rolex rare Submariner from 1969 has appreciated enough in value to
allow me to explore tool watches with greater purchase freedom.
So, some watches produce amazing returns on usage and investment. But, you needed
to have started a few decades earlier.


----------



## cdnguyen729

The movement is proven and have a good business model if you are into homage watches. Some watches are compelling while others are just meh..It just depends on what your tastes are.


----------



## IBalogh

cdnguyen729 said:


> The movement is proven and have a good business model if you are into homage watches. Some watches are compelling while others are just meh..It just depends on what your tastes are.


With the new 39 GMT Premium 500 they started to make their own design, not just homages I hope this trend continues as the price quality ratio is really good but many people don't like homages.


----------

