Não tenho ideia se os numeros dos caras estao corretos, mas caso estejam, ta uma pechincha.....
a fonte foi um post to rolex foruns:
In 1972, a US$ was worth 3.82CHF, so that a Rolex 1680 would have retailed at about 1,527 Swiss francs. Using only the CPI, that would make the current cost 7,960CHF. Today, the US$ is worth .93CHF, so the inflated present cost of that 1680 - using only the CPI - would be US$8,565! The current US MSRP is only $8,000 ... so Rolex is actually lagging the CPI for that watch. Moreover, the 1680 - despite the preferences of vintage purists - is not the watch that the 116610 is. The many improvements made in the watch would push that retail price even higher (heck, the Glidelock alone is worth another 500 bucks).
But let's look at this example even more closely. When you adjust for inflation, it means different things based on what you are considering and how its acquisition (or payment) affects those paying the price. For a luxury item like a Rolex, it is about affordability, not just the increased cost of labor and materials. So, to obtain the most accurate representation of current cost, you would have to use the GDP per capita index. This is a better scale because it includes not only personal income, but undistributed corporate income and fixed capital consumption. By the most conservative measure - nominal GDP per capita - the price of that Rolex 1680 would be - in 2011 US dollars - $13,019!
Why is a Rolex 116610 only $8,000 when it should be - adjusted for inflation - more than $13,000? Because, as has been correctly pointed out, Rolex has invested in technological advances in production methodology, as well as vertical integration of their supply chain. Rolex actually has been able to reduce the price, in current dollars, whilst delivering a more advanced product. Thank you, Rolex!
abraços