The frenzied world of rare watches
vanityfair.comI came into collecting modest watches around 2010. There was certainly a renewed interest in mechanical watches at the time, a lot of it being driven by things like MaleFashionAdvice on Reddit. I believe MFA had a significant hand in rescuing Seiko from obscurity with the SNK809 and SKX007. Old Seiko mechanical chronographs like the 6139 could be had readily for less than a thousand dollars. I had a beautifully restored one I bought and sold for around $300. The same watch is worth at least three times that today.
At that time, it was still possible to acquire steel Rolexes at "modest" prices. As a goal to celebrate my (future) career achievements, I set my sights on a birth year Submariner - which were attainable at the $3,500+ price points at that time.
You can't really buy a Submariner for less than $10k today. As mentioned in the article, Rolex dealers and others play crazy games where stainless models are virtually unobtanium. Even trickle down brands (Tudor, for example) have ridden the wave. I can no longer afford, nor do I want to afford, a birth year submariner. To me, the beauty in those watches is that they are tools; they were built to serve a purpose.
I ended up lucking into a Tudor Pelagos Left Hand Drive. The ultimate tool watch - light titanium, great lume, etc. I wear it. I wear it hard. It's been with me for dozens of life momentous events. When the watch craze passes, I hope I can pass it down to my kiddo as a reminder of my existence.
Re: built for a purpose, I think a lot of folks today just see Rolex as a luxury brand, but when Sean Connery walked out of the waves in Dr No wearing a Rolex, it was because it was precisely the sort of robust, fault-tolerant timepiece a super-spy WOULD wear. Moreover, back then, they weren't NEARLY so expensive. Rolex's prices have drastically outpaced inflation FOR SURE.
I had thought I'd buy a Subbie, too, but even at the turn of the century they had gotten a bit nuts. I opted for a Seamaster instead, at HALF the price.
>I can pass it down to my kiddo
As I noted uptopic, my first fancy watch was a 1970s Rolex I inherited from MY dad. Someone will inherit it from me. My friend C. has his grandfather's steel Rolex; his son will inherit that one.
That's a nice thing about mechs you can't really get out of electronics.
Spot on. Bond wearing a Submariner with a tuxedo woumd be like showing up to a black tie event wearing a Casio G Shock today.
so funny you say that. I wear a g shock with my tux.
And you probably shouldn't. Great watch, but inappropriate with a suit or tux.
I think you could pull off a Casioak :)
And kind of a "tell", in-story, that he was not some posh twat.
That watch was pure product placement, you can see the sequence here: https://timeandtidewatches.com/the-complete-list-of-bond-wat...
It was not product placement as we think of it today, i.e. paid product placement; sometimes filmmakers use products that the character would use without any other motivation, in order to add depth to the character. (Aston Martin didn't pay them, either.)
In 1962, pretty much the only watch that someone in Bond's role would have worn was a Rolex -- the whole idea of a waterproof dive watch was pretty novel at the time, since Rolex invented the idea in the 50s, and was already associated with intrepid adventurous types after Hillary wore one on Everest (again, because pretty much nothing else was up to the task).
I believe the Bond wore it Dr No on a NATO (nylon) strap, not leather; it's definitely a NATO in some of the later films, but shifts to the iconic bracelet eventually (e.g., certainly by the time Roger Moore wore one with an absurd magnet and unbelievable spinning saw in Live and Let Die a decade later).
Anyway, that site isn't a great reference. It's got some things wrong. The traditional story about the watch in that film is that they got to the beach scene without a watch for Connery, or without a proper one, and the scene was shot with Cubby Broccoli's watch to get at least the right brand in the shot. That story has been printed and repeated a shitload of times, but all the principals are long dead so I have no idea if it's been verified properly in recent times. (In Googling for references for this reply, I saw a new version of the story, which is that the watch was Connery's own; I've never read that before.)
I was mostly pointing out the sequence from Rolex > Seiko > Omega.
> Rolex invented the idea in the 50s
Your timeline is off: “In 1922, Rolex launched the Submarine – a watch attached on a hinge inside a second, outer case, whose bezel and crystal screwed down to make the outer case watertight.” https://www.rolex.com/about-rolex-watches/waterproofness.htm...
What they don’t say is the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms and Zodiac Sea Wolf both predate the iconic Rolex Submariner. By 1962 there where quite a few dive watches though rarely owned by people that used them for diving.
As to product placement that also goes back to the 1920’s films. By 1962 they where commonplace, though as you say hard to prove. Much like payola of the day, brands could make deals with individuals rather than the movie it’s self. Really it’s mostly the prominence in the early bond films that suggest otherwise.
I think even back then a Rolex would run you at least 1-2 months salary. Granted money went further back then... but if you consider the median tech salary, a lot of Rolexes are still 1-2 months salary away.
You absolutely can get a sub for sub $10k, new (if you're willing to go on the waiting list and buy your dealer a bottle of something special), or old if you don't have a specific vintage in mind.
If you like lume, check out tritium watches from companies like Luminox or Traser. They have automatics that are reasonably priced and are super utilitarian. Most of their models are field or divers, so they may fit your preferences.
My personal favourite tritium that I’ve been wearing for almost 20 years: the GSAR from Marathon Watch company.
And yes the tritium half-life is real. I can still see it well-enough but it ain’t like it used to be.
To GP: I humbly submit this one as the ultimate tool watch
Seconded on the tritium fade, my oldest is around 15 years and you can tell a big difference vs newer ones.
I've had my eye on a Marathon GPM for a while, I already have a GPQ-clone with no date complication. Bertucci A5s are similar if you like compact field watches.
https://www.fullgear.watch/en/ these are supposed to use Seiko movements and you can customize the dial quite a bit, but haven't seen much about the build quality.
The GPM is honestly really underwhelming -- I tried them on at the windup fair this past weekend. There is no lack of khaki field watches out there with better build quality, not to mention actual water resistance (Hamilton being chief amongst, or other Seiko 5's)
I do love the Marathon watches - they are truly a tool of timetelling. I just happen to like my Tudor more :D
this. the speculation around watches right now is completely unhinged. my Rolex Date 34mm sold for $3k in excellent condition three years ago. the same watch now sells for nearly $6k.
I've been a fan of budget Seiko mechanical watches from the 60's and 70's. Most of the time they run well, servicing isn't terribly expensive, and you can get them for usually a few hundred dollars, maybe a grand for a really nice specimen. What's cool about them is you can decipher the serial number [0] to the month and year they were made, so they can commemorate an event, even if it happened a long time ago. But you do have to watch out for counterfeits. [1]
[0] https://retroseiko.com/seiko-serial.htm [1] https://www.watchesguild.com/articles/Fake-Seiko-Watch
Edited to fix grammar
I am a fan of another Japanese watch brand, Citizen, particularly the Eco-Drive models. Solar powered, very durable, and they look great. Prices range from $100 for basic models to over $3000 for the Hakuto-R (there is some connection to the Japanese lunar mission, https://www.citizenwatch.com/us/en/product/CC4016-75E.html). Most Citizen watches are water resistant as well.
I've had one model running continuously for 12 years. I love never having to charge it or change the battery.
Eco-drive is awesome. I used to wear an Eco-drive for ~8 years and I never had to charge it or even adjust the time – I doubt it lost more than a minute or so in all that time.
I have a couple of Seiko solar watches now. They're good too but the charging is not as good as the Eco-drive as they charge pretty poorly indoors or in cloudy weather.
As an aside, the most expensive Eco-Drive is now the Eco-Drive One at ~$5400 (https://www.sakurawatches.com/citizen-eco-drive-one-limited-...) - named so as it is only 1mm thick.
Nice. If anyone else happens to be looking for a particularly thin Eco-Drive watch, my watch is an AR1135-10E which is also very thin and much cheaper.
Looks like it's still 40% thicker than the One though.
After a search for a perfect watch buying and then selling anything from very cheap to very expensive I ended up with a solar G-Shock square with radio timekeeping. Indestructible, always on and always accurate. The perfect watch.
I do love a G-Shock, had a few but I do break them, straps usually break but the casing gets scuffed and damaged from time to time, however they are the closest I've found to be indestructible which is why I keep getting them, havent found anything better.
Seconding this. Eco-Drive is great. Keeps accurate time, never needs a battery change or winding. Prices are reasonable, and they come in lots of different styles.
I have one of these, a '5' and it still keeps time just fine after many years. It's a completely mechanical watch, no batteries to replace and no frills. It will likely outlive me.
I have a "5" that went through two bracelets before dying. At the time Seiko wanted a flat rate ($149 or $199?) to repair. I got a new kinetic for less than that, and I don't have to set the time weekly.
Seiko 5's are great, rock solid, last forever. My dad handed down his Seiko 5 to me, it was a 1982 model, that still runs like a champ. Take that Apple Watch we'll see if you're still running in 2062.
> Take that Apple Watch we'll see if you're still running in 2062.
To be fair, smart watches would likely last that long if it wasn't for planned obsolescence (via software "updates"), anti-repair practices (such as impossibility to disassemble them and source genuine parts) and vendor lock-in.
I bought a new Seiko 5 that gradually started running faster to the extent that after a couple of years it's now couple of seconds fast every minute. So after a day or so it's pretty far off the actual time. I have an Apple Watch now which is very nice for doing sports or sneakily firing off messages during meetings, but when I got the Seiko I was determined that if it held firm I would use it as long as required. Maybe I should get it serviced, it could be a very easy fix but I felt really let down.
So yeah, seems a little bit YMMV. The Apple Watch has its drawbacks and definitely has a finite lifespan with little hope of repair in the event of a failure, but it doesn't let me down in the one thing a watch is supposed to do.
If you're into watches there are good channels on YouTube that explain watch repair such as the Watch Repair Channel or Wristwatch Revival.
You can just take it into a shop and have it regulated, won't take more than a few minutes and it will be good as new again.
I'll give it a go
This sounds a lot like the watch has been magnetized. First thing to try is degaussing it
I wore exclusively mechanical watches for most of my life, starting with a Rolex I inherited from my dad in the mid-80s.
When he bought it, Rolex wasn't yet as insanely upmarket as they've become. It was kind of the obvious token of upper-middle-class success of the era. Dad's is the two-tone DateJust on what Rolex calls a "Jubilee" bracelet, and you've seen the color scheme and overall look on a million knock-off Citizens and Seikos.
Rolex SAYS you're supposed to service these annually, but even when I wore it daily I didn't do that. I think it's been serviced maybe 3 or 4 times since I've had it; aside from a replaced mainspring a few years back, it runs fine and keeps time as good as any mechanical. That's kind of the appeal of Rolex, or at least it was in the 60s and 70s: they're VERY VERY robust, so you especially see them on wrists of successful people in jobs that would be hard on a less robust watch. (Thinks chefs, or contractors, or -- like my dad -- veterinarians.)
I had a good dot-com era and bought a couple of my own, but nothing in precious metals or super expensive. And then, a few years ago, I was training for a half marathon and wanted a running device with GPS. I ended up with a gen-1 Apple Watch, and the damn thing was so HANDY that I upgraded to a fancier (steel, sapphire crystal) model for Series 3, and now I almost never wear the fancy mechanicals. I still LOVE them -- it's very cool that humans figured out how to keep time using springs and gears! -- but for day to day wear, it's almost always the Apple now.
Opposite for me. I don’t like wearing a watch in the evening, and I always forgot to charge the Apple Watch because it would be by the sink where I prepped dinner or somewhere. I never have to worry about charging my mechanical. I wear a brand that people obsessed with watches that appreciate don’t care about (so they lose value) but are mechanically “perfect.” Not a status symbol, I don’t have to worry about wearing it on vacation or anything. It’s a prized possession because of it’s utility.
Have to chime in with my agreement here. As an engineer, to me the beauty of the mechanical watch lies in its embodiment of "form follows function".
I read this entire article as I find the horology and the hobbyists fascinating, but my passion is strictly that of an engineer for his tool. I like robust, well made tools by companies that value craftsmanship and longevity. Status, collectability and such are superfluous in my estimation.
Now, the history of a watch is important, but that is a personal thing which you create with your own watch. Any watch can have its own story, and the most important story is the one you're living with your own watch, whether it be a Patek Phillipe or a Casio.
The tension now in mechanical watches between craftsmanship/longevity/utility and status/collect-ability is weird, and distorts the market a little.
Rolex used to be a utility watch, not a luxury watch. That's clearly changed a LOT, even to the point that I occasionally hear people say silly things about babying them (e.g., not going in the water in one, which is crazy).
Omega was less inflated when I bought my Brosnan-era "Bond" Seamaster (2531.80) back in the late 90s (and fairly so; 90s-era Seamasters have ETA movements, but Rolex is in-house, and this matters to Watch People). It was less than two grand at the time, for a crazy-robust watch I can do anything in and wear anywhere. Now the Bond thing has inflated the value of Seamasters INSANELY so they, too, are out of reach for most people.
You just have to search for a brand that for some reason isn't flashy on the used market. I have a late 2000s JLC Master Compressor, you (could) get them for a couple grand used, like I did. Not sure about the prices now. I freedive with mine, I fix cars with it on, but if you know about the movement it's a watchmaker's watch.
Fellow owner of a 2531.80 of a similar vintage. It's been on my wrist through many sailing and climbing adventures. Fantastic watch for the money and quite durable. Keeps great time for a mechanical watch as well.
I will note, however, that if you take back to the snooty jeweler you bought it from for a bracelet adjustment and then drawl "Hey, how ya make that laser shoot out?", they will not think you are funny.
I completely agree, and as something I want to pass on to my kids and grandkids, I wanted something made with the utmost attention to detail and quality. Honestly, the story about this watch will probably come from being around for 50-100 years after I'm gone, it's got a mechanical gong alarm that sounds like the "class is over" bell from the 80s. The second I heard that I was sold. So I spent my first signing bonus on it... not super inspiring, this isn't the watch from pulp fiction
Why do you take it off when prepping dinner?
And yeah, I kinda miss the never-care-about-power aspects of my mechanicals, but holy cow the AW is so useful I don't really see myself going back full time.
I don't want anything getting in the band
Ah. I cycle so much that my AW is almost always on a sport band, so I don't fret about those.
Annually?!
It is recommended to service your Rolex approximately every 10 years depending on the model and real-life usage.
https://www.rolex.com/watch-care-and-service/faq.html#:~:tex....
The modern movements are a lot more robust. It wouldn't surprise me if a 50-year old watch had 1 year as the recommended service interval.
I can't find the original source but Scott @ TRF says the calibers in 50 year old rolexes have a 5-year service interval: https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=679777
Watches are a good example of the fact that, past a certain point, the only thing you can really do with money is paying other people to do your hobbies for you. Like you could learn how to make mechanical watches yourself, but wait, no, why not pay someone else to take up that hobby for you.
At the same time, if you actually like doing your own hobbies then money loses its utility pretty quickly.
After skimming through a large portion of George Daniel's book "Watchmaking", if anything, I very much appreciate how complicated making a mechanical watch is, and even more so, how easy it is to get things wrong. From what I saw, you have to have a lot of tooks to make your own mechanical watch, and it would not be something I would want to do without someone skilled in the craft.
That is a long way of saying, I am confused on how making a mechanical watch is a "hobby"?
> it would not be something I would want to do without someone skilled in the craft.
I mean how is that different than any other hobby? I've never made a watch but I forage for mushrooms, and you wouldn't want to do that without being skilled in the craft either. It's pretty much the same for any hobby; the whole point of having a hobby is to become skilled at some esoteric thing.
I would assume one could become skilled at mushroom foraging much, much faster and with much, much less tooling than creating a watch movement.
Sure, but anyone with 500k to buy a watch can surely afford to buy the tools.
I’m all about DIY, my thought process when buying something usually goes like so:
“Huh, this is pretty pricy, I bet I could make that” and about 50% of the time I actually make it, the other 50% I find it on sale and buy it then…
But just because I can make things doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate someone else’s work. I can paint, but I still buy artwork from other artists.
Sometimes it’s just about appreciating other people’s work.
ok, sure they could? I don't get your point. The entry point to buy a mechanical watch isn't $500k USD. I have a 1860s mechanical pocket watch that I purchased for $60.
> the whole point of having a hobby is to become skilled at some esoteric thing
Hobbies are activities done for pleasure, nothing more.
Like many things in the present day, a mechanical watch of the quality or provenance being discussed in this article is not something that can be built in one’s spare time as a hobby, which means consumption is the only option for some truly interesting wrist baubles. And even though I refuse to call watch collecting a hobby, doing so doesn’t preclude one from having other hobbies or interests where one may take on a more active role. The reality is some people can afford to have nice (or stupid) things while also having balanced fulfilling lives.
In my experience hobbies are typically far more expensive than paying someone else to do it purely due to economies of scale.
Not for veblen goods
But the value of Veblen goods is based on paying for the real thing. If you build yourself a Rolex equivalent as part of your hobby it still won't be valued as a "proper" Rolex even if it was just as good quality-wise.
I'm a newbie on this subject. can you really make your own watch? don't you need to buy all the pieces for it? or need a blacksmith shop or something? how much would it cost for someone to build a watch from scratch with no workshop or prior pieces on hand?
What people call watchmaking is actually usually watch assembling/repairing. As you say, you would need to be a good part of an entire supply chain to be able to make a watch in any real sense.
If you are curious on actually making a watch movement, I recommend looking at George Daniel's book "Watchmaking". It is a very well put together book, but is also very technical.
I mean I can paint a picture but it's not going to be any good, and I don't think I'd want to put it on my wall.
My kids won't want it when I die either.
That's with <$100 of materials...would you spend thousands on precious metals when you have no idea how to run a watchmaking lathe? a truly handmade watch takes around 5,000 hours and that's if you know what you're doing.
A rare watch is an IYKYK item and the iconic pieces are immediately noticeable from across the room. I do wonder if the deflation in asset prices (driven by increase in interest rates) will put downward pressure on some of the craziness right now.
But for someone who is outside looking in, and wondering what the fuss is all about: A watch, especially Patek Philippe is much better for signaling status to those you want to send that signal to, while completely being unnoticeable by an audience from whom you don't want negative attention. At the same time, it appreciates like fine art that you can take with you on your wrist. It has a lot of the characteristics of investment assets that are desirable.
It's crypto v0.1.
See also the booming Rep (replica) Watch scene, where $100-300 gets you a very passable knockoff PP that signals the same, especially from across the room.
In California, IYKYK, but so do the streeet thugs. $200k is a nice payoff for 30 seconds worth of risk.¹
I bought a Casio F91W so I can turn my phone off at night and use the watch for an alarm clock. I'm happy to have the most popular watch in the world. It's simple, cheap, reliable, and has a retro look that has grown on me.
When I "got into watches" a decade ago, I got a bunch of interesting looking ones from Gearbest I think (today it'd be Aliexpress). Mechanical, quartz, retro, futuristic, large & small, multi-dial crazy kitchy contraptions and plain classy ones. Got it happily in and out of my system for couple of hundred bucks total, probably 12-18 or so different pieces :). Don't understand paying more than, say $300-400 for a watch, absolute MAX - I think there's a point up to which you get more reliability/features/functionality, and a point after which you don't.
My favourite / most expensive watch is still the Citizen BlueAngel Navihawk (gift when I was taking flight lessons before my enthusiasm phase). It's also however by far the most finicky / least reliable of the bunch, so go figure :-/
> Don't understand paying more than, say $300-400 for a watch, absolute MAX - I think there's a point up to which you get more reliability/features/functionality, and a point after which you don't.
People spend $3,000 for a watch so that they can show off that they have so much money that they can piss away $3,000 on a device that tells time.
I dunno...maybe I'm just a lot more pragmatic with my money. I can understand a watch being a fashion accessory, but then that's just looks. Knowing the extreme precision going on inside the watch doesn't make it look any nicer from the outside.
My money needs to go to something I can acknowledge with my senses in some way. Watch internals don't do that.
> Don't understand paying more than, say $300-400 for a watch, absolute MAX
Based on some of the other posts in this thread it seems like there are some people who wouldn't understand paying less than $3000-4000. Interesting divergence for the same hobby!
I guess it's like any other collectable, just way WAY more expensive. Though I'm not sure what's lost by wearing it?
"Such market conditions have presented a dilemma for collectors who actually want to show off their popular models, knowing the message that will send to other connoisseurs. “If you wear them, you’re an idiot, ” says one collector. “Either you paid five times retail, or you bought it retail and you’re too stupid to have flipped it.”""too stupid to have flipped it"
What a time to be alive when you're called stupid for not being a greedy "playa" flipper.
Maybe some folks who waited on a waiting list for a couple years want to wear a watch they purchased in good health?
Again like you said, the reason not to wear is nothing specific to watches. At the high end of collectibles markets, condition grading is extremely fine and detailed. A knowledgeable person can see the difference between something that has never left the box and something that was used/worn once. Additionally, there's often a substantial value difference between a #1 condition item and a #2 condition item. As the participants in any collector market become more sophisticated, condition difference between individual items becomes both more legible (as grading methods are created) and has a greater effect on value (as the market expands).
There's also a sort of status game being described in the part you quoted. Self-identified collectors/dealers intentionally don't wear their collection in order to signal their understanding of the watches' value and therefore their own knowledge as connoisseurs.
You're risking damage, you're risking theft, you're paying higher insurance premiums in either case, etc, etc.
Damage isn’t a huge problem, watches tend to be pretty sturdy and mere scratches aren’t going to hurt resale value in most cases (unless you have them repaired!)
Theft on the other hand is a pretty big concern, I just had a 100k patek ripped off my wrist. I’m very lucky though, the local store manager was sympathetic and managed to help me skip the queue for a (slightly more desirable) replacement, effectively nullifying any financial damage.
Lesson learned, not walking around with uninsured watches no matter how nice the area is. Insurance premiums aren’t too bad though.
Insurance on a $100K watch through Hodinkee is around $1400 a year, although I'm sure you can get a better deal.
If you're an enthusiast then you're paying for peace of mind. If you're an investor then that's the equivalent of a 1.4% management fee per year.
The price action right now is absolutely ridiculous, but if you already bought at say 5x retail then that dramatically eats into your potential profits. It's just not worth it, you shove it into a safe and never let it see the light of day.
If you just want to invest or collect you can get cheaper insurance with clauses about keeping the watches in a safe deposit box.
You can find waay more attractive premiums through traditional insurance brokers than via Hodinkee, but depending on the size of your collection it might not be worth the hassle as finding a decent traditional option is a headache unless you know someone who’s already gone through the trouble.
> effectively nullifying any financial damage.
Aren't you out the 100k?
They went on to buy a 130k market value watch for 30k (retail) or something
Ah I see, I misread the 100k as retail (for both).
Yeah, exactly.
Oh, and let me guess, the collector would happily take the watch off their hands? Who's the idiot?
I have been watching a lot of youtube videos from "wristwatch revival", Marshall has an oddly soothing, breezy voiceover as he services mechanical watches. Its kind of like Bob Ross.
The workmanship in even prosaic mechanical watches is neat to see as he disassembles them.
It was a weird crossing of streams when I first saw his watch channel, because I'd only known him as a Magic: the Gathering commentator and streamer. I can't even say "better known" given the relative subscriber numbers.
What is the allure of these things? They keep worse time that an ntp synced phone, have no internet connectivity and few features.
It’s all conspicuous consumption, right? If you know, you know — a way to signal wealth without being too brazen.
Did you never want something because it’s nice and inspiring? A sports car, a big Lego, a cap of your sport hero, a computer full of LED? Did you want this only to impress others? Have you had such a watch on your wrist and felt how it wore? Once you start learning about how those are built etc this becomes a small hobby that’s very nice to enjoy in all the trouble nowadays. Of course some wealthy people will buy those just because they can afford them, but those are not the collector enthusiasts who built the watch culture that allowed those brands to grow to where they are now.
Watch enthusiasts will say all tech is conspicuous consumption because it lasts so little and loses value very quick. There is little more sustainable than a Rolex that still wears nice after 50 years, and can probably hold 100 if taken care of.
No, none of those things. And I have absolutely no interest in impressing others. I own basically nothing except 256-bit numbers. Never owned a watch.
If you saw me IRL you would think I am a bum. It’s much better that way to hide in plane sight.
I agree that a lot of tech is conspicuous consumption — phones are classic example. I hadn’t considered the longevity of the devices. This does increase their value.
Why do you assume all of these things only exist to impress others? There's a lot to appreciate in the design and craftsmanship of a well made product, its impact on culture, or its significance in history. Or maybe the object simply puts a smile on your face when you see it or touch it. That new phone could make someones work day more efficient. That diamond necklace could be a gift from their loved one and a reminder of the times they shared together when they look in the mirror. It seems a bit shortsighted to suggest that expensive things only exist to impress others.
The satisfaction you get just seems very price-inefficient and lot of that price seems to be traceable to one-upsmanship. What is the special value of the diamonds in the necklace?
For expensive objects, a lot of the price goes into the limited production runs. A number of these very expensive watches ($100,000k+) might be a single unique piece or limited runs of 100. They take a lot of time to develop, the production expenses are high because of the small numbers being produced, and it's reflected in the final price. For higher end mass produced watches, the expense is in the tighter tolerances, materials, and craftsmanship. You can search for macro videos online to see the difference between a typical $500, $5,000, and $50,000 watch. The extra details and care given to the construction of the watches is impressive. Yes, some brands charge a premium for their name. I'm aware of that, however, it doesn't necessarily indicate the buyer is trying to impress others. Someone could buy a Rolex because it's one of the most iconic watches in history and in their mind it's the peak of their watch hobby.
And you see this with nearly every hobby. If you look at the audiophile community, you'll see people with $20,000 speakers in their living room, yet they live a rather modest lifestyle. You can find people spending thousands of dollars on samurai swords to hang on their bedroom wall. These people are not trying to impress the world. They have a hobby and they are able to appreciate these items.
The special value of the diamonds? People have worn diamonds for ages. It's been ingrained in our culture that diamonds are significant as they've been worn by royalty and noble figures over the years and marketed as a symbol of love. They're also the hardest naturally occurring substance on the planet and look quite nice to the eye. Did you ever see a child dress up like a princess? They didn't do it because they wanted to impress others, they did it because it made them feel special. Wearing diamonds can have that same impact. It can make someone feel special, or represent to themselves their own successes and accomplishments in life. I looked at wedding bands the other year. Many of them had diamonds hidden on the inside of the band. If the purpose of diamond jewelry was only to impress others, why would they be hidden on these rings and only known to the wearer?
I'm not going to say expensive objects or diamonds are never used to impress others. I'm only saying that's one of many reasons why someone might make such a purchase. I don't think it's appropriate to see something of value and automatically assume the owner only bought it to impress you. If you talk to them about the purchase, they might be able to talk your ear off about their passion and what that object means to them.
Except I think very few people are impressed. I definitely have a vague negative association with people who wear watches. It's just some expensive show off fashion accessory that you have to lie about getting utility out of.
That's very true that few are impressed. 99% of people don't notice expensive watch, and for the 1% who do that sometimes lead to weird discussions. But I wouldn't say this is fashion. Actually many watch enthusiasts I know of are not people you'd call fashionable at all.
>What is the allure of these things?
I like having something well made, looks nice, and will last on the order of decades. I also like not having something attached to my wrist that tries to grab my attention for every email, text, call, etc. that I get.
> They keep worse time that an ntp synced phone
There is nothing in my life that requires me to be in sync to a precision beyond +/- 30 seconds.
> have no internet connectivity and few features
Some folks (like myself) view that as a feature, not a bug. I actually like walking around without something constantly on my person that is always internet connected.
It's about appreciation of the craft itself.
Those watches have a fundamental cultural value to us.
Keeping time is now very easy and cheap but those watches reflect the history of keeping time.
And there is a tremendous amount of craftsmanship in them. Older ones are only handmade and even modern watches from high class manufacturer are still made by watchmakers.
No one buys them if they don't care or don't have the money.
Those watches have a lot of personal skill embedded in them.
It reflects the opposite of mass production.
Feel free to look for good watchmaker docus on yt.
Mechanical watches are fun. You can buy something like an Invicta with a display back for $100 and see the moving parts as it runs. Sure you have to adjust the time, wind it etc. But that is part of the charm. Like a chunky, pre digital reminder of the past.
$100 is fine, I’ve spent more on beer in a night. I can see the charm in a $100 toy you wear on your wrist for fun. Thank you for your perspective.
For me it's that there is no tech involved in a mechanical watch. No screen. No buttons. No perfectly kept time. If I don't wind it, it dies.
The watch I'm wearing on my wrist is virtually indistinguishable from one created over a hundred years ago. I think that's just neat.
Fact is that jewelry wouldn’t be a “hobby” if no one ever saw you wear it. You can espouse all the needless complexity and pass it down value, but it’s all make believe weird “you can tell a lot about a man by the watch he wears” BS.
and i'm surprised people still want to signal wealth, this day and age. I would imagine you'd be treated worse by the average person, if you're signaling wealth.
Only if you live entirely on the internet.
I've never met anyone in real life that actually hates people with money.
Hating people with money is one thing.
Disliking ostentation of wealth is another one.
If you never met anyone that dislikes the latter... well perhaps you live in US.
>I would imagine you'd be treated worse by the average person, if you're signaling wealth.
This runs completely counter to my personal experiences and observations.
Conspicuous consumption and showing off status symbols.
The best are engineering marvels and last generations. Art with a practical purpose.
Watches are yet another YouTube subculture: https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCWxRZGPejdW2l-H19_QCbmQ
Ultra wealthy people obsessed with fancy jewelry while 12% of the world doesn't have electricity at home. Sad. Please put your resources to work doing something beneficial for society. Maybe this film scene can move your heart: https://youtu.be/W9vj2Wf57rQ
How many lives could that watch have saved?
What a cartoonish view.
I'm a big fan of timex analog watches (not mechanical) for what its worth. They are much much less expensive than any of these here.
You just reminded me, the other day I learned that Bill Gates, a man who could presumably have any watch in the world he wanted, has (or had recently) a $50 quartz diver made by Casio on his wrist. It’s actually a pretty nice-looking watch, too (Casio Duro)
If you want an idea of how crazy this can get:
https://www.chronext.com/patek-philippe/nautilus/5990-1a-001...
€449,000 <-- wtf! that's a thousand separator
Shows up as 577,960 USD for me.
EDIT: required javascript, clearly price discriminating.
Over half a million IN STEEL. Jesus.
Ironically, steel watches often cost more than their gold counterparts these days despite retailing for less.
Cars are in the exact same place. Everything, even "mid-range" or "practical" cars, has gone ballistic valuation-wise, and owners are left trying to figure out whether to drive their cars or mothball them.
I wonder how many of these are counterfeit.
I think that amongst the "high end," counterfeits are probably not that common. Dealers tend to have a reputation to maintain and even the best clones are easily distinguishable once the case-back is opened up and the movement inspected.
There are a few rare Rolex models with "1:1" clones which can have an authentic movement installed. There may be some "high profile" counterfeits of these pieces floating around, but it's hard to say.
I think that in the mid-market, counterfeits are probably more common than we would hope. Modern Rolex and especially Panerai clones are quite good, far from the Canal Street "folex" type watches of old. I bet that a large number of Panerai watches seen worn are fake. Panerai have an especially major problem with this because for years, they used commodity movements from ETA, sometimes lightly decorated (although sometimes not - see the "Brooklyn Bridge" Panerai scandal), rather than proprietary movements like Rolex. So movements were widely cloned, and for an even more accurate copy, one could engrave an authentic ETA movement with the Panerai finish and have an extremely difficult fake.
This hobby is surprisingly open and very interesting - you can find forums like Replica Watch Info or /r/RepTime and learn in great detail the specific, minute differences between each replica factory's attempt at a counterfeit vs. the original.
> learn in great detail the specific, minute differences between each replica factory's attempt at a counterfeit vs. the original.
Can you provide some links to examples?
The RWI Panerai forums have particularly, sometimes ridiculously, detailed breakdowns in general:
https://forum.replica-watch.info/forum/panerai/9692510-somet...
RepTime also have good movement breakdowns a lot of the time, this one with a focus on practicality of Rolex clone movements rather than gen vs rep: https://www.reddit.com/r/RepTime/comments/p7omhv/rolex_repli...
Google for "fake Rolex detection" and there's a lot of quality content on the first page of hits.
This page seems to have some especially nice tips:
https://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-blog/rolex-info/the-top-wa...
Watches are high status beanie babies.
So I really like mechanical watches but I've kind of lost interest because it's nigh-on impossible to buy anything new (unless you're a high net worth individual) and the secondary market is utterly insane.
Example: Rolex Daytona in steel retails for ~$13,000. You can buy that from the store and immediately sell it on the secondary market for $30,000+. The Patel Phillippe Nautilus 5711A is similar ($25-30,000 retail, $75,000+ secondary).
As it happens when the current Rolex Daytona came out a few years ago the market wasn't anywhere near as hot and the market was flooded with people flipping the old model for the new. I happened to buy one of the old Daytonas for $10,000. Last time I checked it sells on the secondary market for $35,000. It's nuts.
For anyone who is interested in this, the plae I would start is with only these two brands: Rolex (first) and Patel Phillippe (second). They completely dominate any sort of demand and have a healthy secondary market. With vintage watches you get into all sorts of weird preferences that make massive differences in value and some of those details can be pretty minor (eg rail dials [1]). Some go for astronomical prices, most notably the Paul Newman Daytonas [2], which are funny because when they were production watches they typically sat on shelves for years because no one wanted them.
It's a fascinating world because what you discover is that Rolex are absolute masters of brand management. Like they are absolutely second to none. Omega, for example, produces some high quality watches, sometimes much better than the Rolex equivalent from a pure utility POV (eg Planet Ocean over DSSD). But Omega produces too many watches and too many models. Rolex quite famously has very limited product lines, which is fantastic for a secondary market. Rolex watches really are almost as liquid as cash.
The other interesting thing is you get into the pedigree and history of each of these watches. For example, GMT watches came about in the 1960s to solve a need as pilots started crossing time zones. The Daytona was for race car drivers. Submariners were (and are) for divers. Sure they'r emore of a fashion item now but the history is fascinating.
[1]: https://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-blog/resources/rolex-rail-...
Some go for astronomical prices, most notably the Paul Newman Daytonas [2], which are funny because when they were production watches they typically sat on shelves for years because no one wanted them.
There was an episode of Antiques Roadshow where someone brought in one of these in new condition. I think the story was he had purchased it at the military Px in the late 60s and then it ended up in safe deposit box for many decades. When the auction expert told him it was worth $400k he literally fell down in shock.
ETA: $500k. He bought it in the early 70s. https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2020/01/29/a...
>>So I really like mechanical watches but I've kind of lost interest because it's nigh-on impossible to buy anything new (unless you're a high net worth individual)
As a sanity/reality check, I think we really really need to distinguish "Mechanical Watch" (which can be gotten for as low as $25USD for a crappy cheap but functional and self-winding mechanical piece), and "Rolex" :->
Indeed, many companies serve all kinds of budgets. There is interesting stuff at all prices.
> You can buy that from the store and immediately sell it on the secondary market for $30,000+
This obviously can't be the full story. I'm fairly confident you didn't just discover an infinite money glitch. Whereas if it is what you are describing it that's exactly what it would be.
The issue is supply. It's limited. And of those you can't just walk into a store and buy one. You have to be a valued customer. This typically means buying things that aren't watches that have much higher profit margins (since most ADs are jewelers). Or just being a celebrity or high net worth individual.
Compare the Rolex Cosmograph Daytona new for $14,550 MSRP [1] and used (but unworn) for $42,875 [2].
[1]: https://www.rolex.com/en-us/watches/cosmograph-daytona/m1165...
[2]: https://davidsw.com/shop/watch/rolex/rolex-116500ln-cosmogra...
The problem is that a dealer won’t actually sell you a Rolex unless you’re a repeat customer or you spend an absurd amount on other random jewelry. If you just walk into a Rolex dealership and ask to buy a Submariner, you’ll be put on a list (and you’ll never get a call). If you walk in and spend $100,000 on a diamond bracelet with a large markup and also ask for a Submariner, you might get put somewhat higher on the list. The dealers know the secondary market prices and most will make sure _they_ are getting more or less the same markup even if Rolex won’t let them outright sell at the secondary market prices.
Bulova has dozens of amazing automatic pieces on their site for under $1000, many under $500.
I've got $8M of watches. Their utility to me is just to brag about them. Which is funny, because I'm only met with downvotes whenever I do :). But therein lies the rub. At a distance, people hate, but up close, they love. It's a perceived distance to cooperation. There's ingroup profit in hate at a distance. But when you can join a better in group, or add a new asset to the one you're in, it turns to love. Thus, I consider collectibles of all forms, a combination of social value plus a dash of scarcity mindset. Also, I believe the top is in, and watch values will go down along side equities with rising interest rates.
“I have two retirements worth of watches” is obviously the kind of bragging that puts people off.
It’s purely a show of higher social status which reminds them of suffering in their own life — and how they will be unable to retire no matter how hard they work. You’re making a triviality of their entire struggle in life.
That kind of garish wealth display has led to the downfall and deaths of many aristocrats throughout history.
https://richardheart.com/ Are you for real? You look like someone straight out of central casting for the next ponzi scheme docu-series on Netflix.
You're half right? thehighestofstakes.com
That's great! Do you have a favourite? Do you store them or wear them? What's your daily driver?
To a much lesser extent (financially!) I was a bit of a sneakerhead. I still have unworn pairs but recently I've made a thing of wearing everything I own (because life is short!). But man, I horded! So curious about your collection though!
My daily would be the ROLEX rose gold SARU full diamond bracelet and dial. Like collecting keyboards, once you find your end game, you really don't want to go back to anything else much. So thought I've got 26 watches or so, I really only want to wear the best of them usually. I veer from that if I'm wearing a unique color clothes, like leopard print or green, then I might switch to one of those watches. So the answer I guess is mostly storage. I embrace the idea that owning things should be fun, so wearing them is totally in the game. That being said, I don't actually use them to tell time, so I don't bother winding them anymore, they're just jewelry to me, and sometimes I'll wear one on each arm. This makes watch enthusiasts very angry. I strip away the complexity and show that it's really all just flexing, and our phones all do a better job telling time :)
I feel sorry for you.
That's nice. I've got $8M of baseball cards. Says right here in this book.