Would you buy a Sub with a 2824 movement?

[FuzzyB]

As I was writing the thread asking about brand perception, this thought came to me. Would I buy a Sub with an ETA 2824 or 2892 movement? If so, how much cheaper would it need to be?

I honestly don't know if I would consider buying a Rolex if it didn't have an in-house movement. The quality of the case and craftsmanship is high, but I don't know if I would be willing to spend more than I would on a Tudor Black Bay even given the difference in materials or perceived quality.

[Chase]

I have one

[is that my watch]

for those not in the know ( me being one ) what is the 2824 movement about and what is the normal in-house movement and why the change ?

[meijlinder]

for those not in the know ( me being one ) what is the 2824 movement about and what is the normal in-house movement and why the change ?

The 2824 is an ETA movement. The Tudor pelagos first gen had eta mvmt. New gen was first with new inhouse Tudor mvmt. (can't remember name). Meant a spike in price and also service will be more expensive. But inhouse mvmt is more prestigious..

[uchinanchu]

If I liked the look of the ND Sub (and I do) or any Rolex I'd have no hesitation in purchasing one with non-proprietary movement as long as I could afford it. Similarly, unless I like the look of a watch, no movement pedigree would be able to coax my wallet open. So I'd buy a Rolex with an ETA and not be interested in a Tudor with in-house and vice versa . . . .

[FuzzyB]

What if Rolex produced an ETA-powered Sub along with the in-house Sub? What price do you think you'd pay for such a watch?

One of the reasons I asked this question is based on the variety of movements used in the IWC Aquatimer. IWC offers the Aquatime with both in-house movements and ETA-based movements. The use of ETA movements does not seem to diminish or dilute the value of the in-house powered watches.

Zenith is another brand that recently dabbled with Sellita movements for some of their watches, but that experiment did not seem to go over all that well considering they switched back to in-house movements for those watches this past year.

To me, it seems like it would be exceptionally difficult to separate the value of the movement in the Sub from the rest of the watch. The current retail price of a Sub is ~$8,500. It they offered an ETA-powered watch, how much less could it be? If it was $2k less, then you would be paying $6.5k for an ETA watch, which is significantly higher than the Tudor Pelagos, for example. If they priced it less, say $5k, then it would mean you are paying a very significant premium ($3.5k) for the movement alone.

[watchdaddy1]

I have one

I it & it will eventually be mine.

"Mwahahahaha"

Galaxy S6 Edge

[watchdaddy1]

I dont think I would pay 6.5k for an eta.
But then again I do own Panerai's w/ standard Unitas that were close to 5k

Galaxy S6 Edge

[FuzzyB]

I dont think I would pay 6.5k for an eta.
But then again I do own Panerai's w/ standard Unitas that were close to 5k

Galaxy S6 Edge

I think that much of the (surprising, perhaps) success of modern Panerai was the use of the Unitas movements. The price was high but not extremely high.

If Rolex had started out selling the Sub with a sourced movement and then moved on to an in-house movement, like Panerai had done for many models, I think it would be much easier to define the value of the Rolex movement vs. the sources movement.

If Panerai had only offered in-house movements and then tried to offer a Unitas movement, would you still have paid the price you did for yours? My guess is that, as Zenith found out, going from a sourced movement to an in-house movement is easy, but people are not accepting of the other direction.

[-JP]

I rather just have a Tudor. This is essentially what separates the two besides their more risky designs. Quality and case work is on par IMO