The frenzied world of rare watches(vanityfair.com) |
The frenzied world of rare watches(vanityfair.com) |
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.
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.
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
[0] https://retroseiko.com/seiko-serial.htm [1] https://www.watchesguild.com/articles/Fake-Seiko-Watch
Edited to fix grammar
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.
At the same time, if you actually like doing your own hobbies then money loses its utility pretty quickly.
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.
In California, IYKYK, but so do the streeet thugs. $200k is a nice payoff for 30 seconds worth of risk.¹
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 :-/
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.
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!
"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.”"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?
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.
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.
The workmanship in even prosaic mechanical watches is neat to see as he disassembles them.
It’s all conspicuous consumption, right? If you know, you know — a way to signal wealth without being too brazen.
How many lives could that watch have saved?
https://www.chronext.com/patek-philippe/nautilus/5990-1a-001...
EDIT: required javascript, clearly price discriminating.
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.
Can you provide some links to examples?
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-...
I've had one model running continuously for 12 years. I love never having to charge it or change the battery.
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.
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.
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.
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....
That is a long way of saying, I am confused on how making a mechanical watch is a "hobby"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I've never met anyone in real life that actually hates people with money.
This runs completely counter to my personal experiences and observations.
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...
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" :->
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.
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...
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.
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!
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...
This page seems to have some especially nice tips:
https://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-blog/rolex-info/the-top-wa...
Looks like it's still 40% thicker than the One though.
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.
Disliking ostentation of wealth is another one.
If you never met anyone that dislikes the latter... well perhaps you live in US.
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.)
> 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.
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.
“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.
Hobbies are activities done for pleasure, nothing more.
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.
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 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.
Aren't you out the 100k?
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.