Are Rolex watches cheaper at an airport? | Hacker News Reader

Are Rolex watches cheaper at an airport?

watchmydiamonds.com

16 pointswmd-nyc42 comments

> Even expert negotiators struggle with airport Rolex purchases. You might get 30-35% off other luxury watch brands at airports, but with Rolex, expect 20% or less – “probably less” as industry experts say. Many frequent flyers say they’ve never seen any Rolex discounts at airports.

I wouldn’t have realized you could negotiate price on anything sold in the airport. I didn’t know you could negotiate on new, high end watches in general, though, to be honest.

And yeah, I’ve never understood the people who buy duty free booze, etc. The prices never looked particularly good, and it’s going to be another thing to wrangle and schlep home when you land. I always assumed it was targeted at people from other countries with higher prices.

If an item isn't being scanned by barcode by a cashier, then it can probably be negotiated.

The DMV really doesn't appreciate my attempts

If they won't negotiate on price, consider negotiating for upgrades. Ask for an extra year on a license, or to be certified for commercial trucking.

...I joke, but in Thailand, where driving schools can administer the driving tests, not just the DMV, people do shop around for driving schools for various reasons.

Even then: Things can be negotiable. Haggling can be rejected, but that's not a hard-and-fast rule.

(It's anecdotal, but: During my brief time in big-name department store retail, one of my duties was operating a cash register. All cashiers there were able to discount anything by up to, IIRC, 30% -- without getting any special approval. It just took a few button presses.)

I think we were allowed to discount products up to 10% when I was a computer technician in a big retail store. I always felt it would be frowned upon, it wasn't something we did often.

Services, though, were very flexible. Nobody was looking at the receipt, just the work order. 80% of something beats 100% of nothing every time.

True, I think I could do up to 5% when I worked as a cashier ("team leads" could do 10%, and managers for anything more than that).

No ever asked me, but I probably would have tried if I knew it was under 5%.

The real savings are on the cartons of cigarettes.

> I’ve never understood the people who buy duty free booze, etc.

Presumably you come from a country with low taxes on alcohol.

Come to Norway, but do yourself a favour and stock up on duty free fags and booze first.

And if you go to Iceland, take advantage of the duty-free for arrivals. The limits are kind of low but nobody seems to check them too closely.

Rolex is notorious for artificially creating scarcity by not allowing you to buy most of their watches seen in store and instead put you on a waitlist.

The Rolexes you can buy on spot are typically lower (undesirable) models.

Yet to find a Rolex store that let you buy models. Even Datejusts can not be bought.

Datejust is one of the most popular models. If you're desperate for a watch just ask for the 40k precious metal version of a watch and they'll sell you one without a fuss.

still kicking myself for not buying a stainless steel daytona when I had the chance.

otoh it's now only x3 the price I would have bought it for, and I probably would have worn it to death, so maybe it was money well not-spent.

If you thought that was bad look at what hoops Hermès puts you through. In fact a lot of luxury retailers are like this. I think the buyers actually like the song and dance to a degree. Merely buying it isn't nearly so satisfying as being granted access. It becomes an even bigger status symbol.

I think it's precisely this that makes the products desirable in public. In a social class where everyone can afford everything, the real status signal become the things that require more access, not more money.

If you’re buying a Rolex watch you’re already making a blunder, trying to optimize it at an airport is like finding the least painful way to beat yourself in the head with a hammer. The best move is to not do it in the first place.

Why?

Like all fashion items you are paying an extreme premium on form for very little relative function. A $20 Casio digital watch keeps better time. The only reason to buy a Rolex is because you think it will improve your social standing or because you have extra money to burn.

You really believe anyone buys rolex to keep a good time? This argument I hear over and over. Buy $20 Casio sell it wear cheap watch, sell for $2 5 years later. If you bought datejust rolex for 4.5k in 2018 you'd sell it for 8k today minimum.

You made money and you've been wearing rolex all the time.

Being paid €500 per year for wearing rolex vs. speding money for wearing casio easy choice if you can afford it ... btw. I do wear casio too and I love it - because yeah to keep time you buy casio.

Why wouldn't you just invest the money in a mutual fund and not deal with owning a valued asset that could be stolen, damaged, or lost? Especially if you actually wear it around, I just don't see it.

It's fine to wear it for the purpose of being a status symbol, but I just don't buy that its anything but.

There are many justifications of Veblen goods, some sensible, many not so much. It's psychological; you need to have a justification to spend non-trivial amounts of money.

Some reasons I've been told why people buy luxury watches, outside of the status symbol ones:

1. As discussed, good watches tend to hold / increase their price as time goes on. This leads to the second point: people who can afford to buy a fancy watch likely have a lot of money in mutual funds/other financial instruments anyway, so a Rolex becomes "diversification" for less-rich people and a curio for the more-rich

2. People want an heirloom to give to pass on to the next generations. I've seen watches three-four generations old. In some circles, the older the watch, the more prized it is; a favorite grandchild might get your best watch. It represents the family's continued success

3. "If you are attacked on the street, you want to be able to give something to the robber so he can leave you unharmed" (never mind the fact that you probably got robbed _because_ you wore the Rolex)

Personally speaking I find many of the justifications hilarious, but this kind of thinking regarding luxury has been going on for centuries, so what do I know.

You buy fashion item precisely for what it is - a fashion item. To look good, to have a nice style - to make a better social impression when you go out, to social events, business meetings, etc. This is a reality of life, clothes make a human and watch is pretty much only jewel you can wear as aman that doesn't make you look like a teenager. Obviously depends on where you hang out, how old are you and what are your priorities but this is a reality of life in some places.

Now if I have to choose a watch and I can make a choice between a losing item and likely winning item I'll take the likely wionning one. Perhaps it's like crypto or mutual funds but I'd rather buy crypto than flush money down the toilet.

So no you don't buy a watch for investment, there are better investments. No you don't buy it a fashion item to get time - I already have precise time on my phone. Not into wathches - all good. You don't like to dress nice, perhaps you live in a big city where nobody cares - no problem.

But let's not argue I'm not wise for not buying "precise time" Casio over Rolex because I have 8k on my wrist I paid 4.5k for and I've been wearing beautiful watch for 7 years now :) And yes there are better investments and million better things to buy - I could drive $2k car, I could make best investments and so on and end up like this guy: https://www.reddit.com/r/Frugal/comments/10ec45k/i_think_i_r...

It's all simply a point of view + making the best out of your money. At the end of the day it's just paper.

It's about as reliable as "investing" in cryptocurrency. The prices on luxury watches can come crashing down at any moment, especially if there's any sort of economic shock.

As a side note, my cheap, but very well calibrated, mechanical Seiko keeps time as well as a couple of cheap quartz (100% original) Casios I have. It's running at 13 seconds of error accumulated over the last 125 days (almost to the hour), which gives 104 ms of drift per day. The two Casios have ~85 ms and ~120 ms of error per day.

So you're not even paying for insane accuracy or anything like that — thanks to modern engineering, it is available in a mechanical that costs tiny fractions of a Rolex.

Surely the point of having a Rolex is to not flip it? What does it say about your status and class if you just sell it when its price doubles?

If the point is to make money wear the Casio and buy the S&P. How much is a 4.5k position in an index fund worth today?

Somehow linked: I found Lego sets more expensive in Denmark's airport than in the US retailers.

Betteridge's law of headlines applies [0].

"Duty free" is a huge trap. I haven't looked at watches (I will never understand the desire for a Rolex or other 4-figure watch), but I once checked out a duty free liquor store. I spot-checked a few bottles I could get at home and found that the "duty free" store was easily 25-50% more than what I'd pay at home.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

I guess duty-free stores were a thing decades ago when international trade was actually constrained by duties. Right now free trade is the default (or was, until Trump)

Alcohol duties are still a thing in some countries.

Many countries apply VAT for products bought in their domain, but they also have thresholds for products bought overseas and taken into the country by their residents who were travelling (otherwise I imagine even a bracelet bought at a beach in Bali would have to be declared and taxed, and there'd be long queues at customs). For things like cigarettes and alcohol they have a quantity limit, beyond which taxes do apply.

A Rolex certainly goes beyond the threshold in many countries, but maybe the thought is the buyer might be willing to risk "smuggling" it in.

Counterpoint: I came home with a 1L bottle of Sipsmith gin for like $20 thanks to the combination of duty free and post-Brexit GBP crash.

You should have looked at the cigarettes.

Just went through travel that had special duty-free exception. Alcohol against expensive alcohol taxes was cheaper. But stuff like candy was more expensive. Even without horrendous 25.5% VAT or other possible taxes...

Makes you really think where have these prices gone.

I'll stick with my $500 VFS clone. Nobody in my social circle can tell the difference anyway.

Rolex movement isn't any more accurate than a seiko 5 anyhow.

I can’t justify $12k+ on stainless steel.

I think it’s the only place where you can actually buy Rolex watches.

If these are Rolex-owned boutiques, might they still require you to have a spending history with your local Tourneau/Bucherer?

When it comes to such brands, isn't the big cost a feature? Wouldn't discounts ruin the point / the brand? Wouldn't these things carry worse status for all the customers of the brand if you can have an item with a discount? Why would the brand allow this to happen?

Am I perceiving things horribly wrongly?

No, you are partly correct. But given that brands are status symbols, the cost is only one part of the status game. There are some other things which societies consider: Do you know which models are the "best" (high resale value / rarity / age / anything else) - sometimes the price isn't the only indicator. Also, do you know where to get the biggest bang for the buck? Do you know which places/markets/etc can have better models for lower cost? Do you know the right people so that you can get new information the quickest? Getting a rare model for a relatively lower price sometimes be a bigger social win than getting it for the standard price.

Where I live, you are a chump if you pay the sticker price - getting a valuable thing for much less than that is one of the indicators of how people judge your status. The fact that brands try to control pricing only makes the "game" more interesting.

I see, makes sense, thanks!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com