"Real luxury unfortunately for the luxury industry, is inherently not an industry and I don’t know if there is any solution to that fundamental disconnect. Luxury is inherently undemocratic in a lot of respects..."
This highlights the inherent contradiction in the universality of luxury watches.
The ubiquity of luxury watches would have us believe that rather than La Chaux-de-Fonds or the Vallée de Joux, Swiss luxury watches come from Lake Wogebon, where all the watches are above average.
Well, at least (so it seems to me, anyway) the incidence of certain watches being described as an "asset class" seems to have diminished considerably; that characterization, more than any other, struck me as the nauseating, shark-jumping essence of the past few years in Watchworld, and I'm glad to see it go, for however long it stays away.
I long ago realized that even in my peak earning years, truly superb examples of horological handcraftsmanship, the Dufours and Greubel Forseys of the world, would forever be financially out of reach. But realizing (and, many years later, accepting) that true haute horology is personally unattainable turns out to be liberating: at this point I get as much pleasure from an ultra-thin $300 Citizen Suratto Eco-Drive as I do from watches that cost 20 or 30 times as much. Okay, almost as much....
One of the things I liked about ThePuristS.com was the agreement in the community that we wouldn't talk about prices, which I can't imagine anyone trying to implement today. It was nice while it lasted and not entirely unsuccessful in creating a community of at least a little bit of meritocracy.
there are professional price trackers now, can you believe that became an actual job?
and don’t get me started on “industry analysis”, gossip dressed up as news.
this is who we are now, we have to own it. as excited as i am about the land-dweller as a consumer, i’m equally curious to see how expensive it’ll be on the secondary market.
when the discourse has lost all discernment and honor, the price is the only way to prove how fine a watch really is.
That's a great cartoon. This is another one I sometimes think about when questions of perceived value and connoisseurship come up: https://xkcd.com/915/
The financialization of watches was inevitable, and it’s irreversible. Fundamentally it’s led to more educated and more aware customers, and that more than anything else in the long run is vital to the continued health of the industry. If it’s persisted as a topic of discussion maybe it’s because the more you look the more you realize that value for money, and feeling like you’ve not been taken for a ride, are rarer than the industry ever let on.
Car collectors and art collectors learned to survive the financialization of their hobbies. Watch collectors will, too.
I mean on a certain level this whole story is sort of the equivalent of a guy on a bench in Central Park muttering under his breath, "whole god-damned town's been going to hell ever since Mayor F***ing Lindsay" but on the other hand, I think the jury is still out on whether or not we have more educated and more aware customers. Distrust doesn't necessarily lead to better education and better appreciation. Sometimes it just leads to leaving.
I think a lot of the current turmoil revolves around the reduced liquidity in the second hand market. Availability has definitely gone down, so I can only imagine that volume has as well. And if you aren’t able to easily flip a watch to the newest model, you are more likely to hold onto what you have (at least until you can).
Collectors are always going to collect, but the added post-pandemic buyer was more so an investor. If an investor can’t sell their shares, then they can’t reinvest.
I was a bit surprised by the reception of that story, although I did cheat and put a $150 alligator strap on it :D still, it's a great watch. More than seventy five bucks now, of course, but not much more
As someone who is very much inside the workbench trenches of independent watchmaking, I read your piece with a mix of agreement, reflection, and cautious optimism.
Yes, there is no denying the proliferation of dollar signs and the monetization of horology’s image. But from a maker’s perspective, we can also feel the tides shifting, not just economically but culturally. For all the noise, there is something else rising: a more educated, more discerning collector. One who knows to look for an interior angle on a bridge, or who now questions whether a “hand-finished” movement really is. This new ubiquity of horological literacy may have been an unintended consequence of social media, monetized content, and rising prices, but it has also created an audience that demands more from us.
And in that sense, we are being pushed, not just to refine our storytelling, but to improve our actual craft. I do not think it is accidental that, in the same era people are labeling interior angles on rotors,evaluating the quality of bevels on wheels, and every. single. fastener is black polished, we are also seeing some of the most serious independent work happening in years. If the high tide of price inflation has brought with it a surge in expectations, then that has also driven some of us to ask how we can offer more genuine, more transparent value, and not simply add a decimal.
This is, of course, a double-edged sword. If this pricing behavior becomes the default playbook, an uncritical upward march, then it risks becoming a parody of itself. But if it instead forces the industry to reflect, refine, and recommit to actual horological depth, then perhaps it is the pressure that was needed.
The language of luxury may need to evolve. As more collectors come to recognize the difference between design-as-luxury and horology-as-luxury, we may find that the term “luxury” can no longer be evenly applied. In time, we may see a quiet re-categorization, where certain pieces, however expensive, simply lack the horological gravity to justify the label. And conversely, where truly crafted watches, regardless of brand equity, may come to represent the future of what collectors value most.
The most difficult element for me in this discussion is reconciling what appears to be the simultaneous increase in prices and decrease in craft/quality. Examples abound, both in industrial and independent watchmaking, of watches with ever escalating prices coupled with readily apparent reductions in finissage and technical merit. Regardless of luxury status, most folks resist paying more to get less, especially when what constitutes "more" and "less" are so clearly defined and apparent. I look to the pre owned market as much if not more for the better quality as I do for the lower acquisition cost.
This is what I call(Downsizing)if you do a survey of your favourite products at the Supermarket you’ll find the container is the same size but the mass of the product has decreased.
Unfortunately you’ve binned the old container to make a comparison.
Obviously being retired I have too much time on my hands.
In response to the subtitle: No, I think enthusiasts are sick of the FOCUS on prices. Aspirational luxury as a concept is pretty well matured post-COVID, in my opinion. How much more growth can you get out of the existing framework with globalization looking in peril?
We've got to be better at differentiating those problems. Discussion centered on relative value back when that felt like the most relevant topic, but brands continuing to take price have, of course, distorted that. If prices don't fall, which can't happen without diluting brand equity, is there any other way to improve quality, which requires a much smaller scale?
That's for the secondary market too, given prices are still up ~20% post-COVID. If the focus doesn't become delivering value for collectors, I think complaints will continue indefinitely.
Intrinsic value is indeed not about price. I would say ignore the noise about price, it really doesn’t matter. Today the price may be $X but tomorrow it may be $X-1 or $X+1. The intrinsic value doesn’t change as long as 1) it has historical importance and 2) the current leadership inspires confidence.
"Real luxury unfortunately for the luxury industry, is inherently not an industry and I don’t know if there is any solution to that fundamental disconnect. Luxury is inherently undemocratic in a lot of respects..."
This highlights the inherent contradiction in the universality of luxury watches.
The ubiquity of luxury watches would have us believe that rather than La Chaux-de-Fonds or the Vallée de Joux, Swiss luxury watches come from Lake Wogebon, where all the watches are above average.
😂😂
"All watches are above average" 😂
I’ve been to Lake Wogebon,it’s beyond the black stump.
Well, at least (so it seems to me, anyway) the incidence of certain watches being described as an "asset class" seems to have diminished considerably; that characterization, more than any other, struck me as the nauseating, shark-jumping essence of the past few years in Watchworld, and I'm glad to see it go, for however long it stays away.
I long ago realized that even in my peak earning years, truly superb examples of horological handcraftsmanship, the Dufours and Greubel Forseys of the world, would forever be financially out of reach. But realizing (and, many years later, accepting) that true haute horology is personally unattainable turns out to be liberating: at this point I get as much pleasure from an ultra-thin $300 Citizen Suratto Eco-Drive as I do from watches that cost 20 or 30 times as much. Okay, almost as much....
One of the things I liked about ThePuristS.com was the agreement in the community that we wouldn't talk about prices, which I can't imagine anyone trying to implement today. It was nice while it lasted and not entirely unsuccessful in creating a community of at least a little bit of meritocracy.
there are professional price trackers now, can you believe that became an actual job?
and don’t get me started on “industry analysis”, gossip dressed up as news.
this is who we are now, we have to own it. as excited as i am about the land-dweller as a consumer, i’m equally curious to see how expensive it’ll be on the secondary market.
when the discourse has lost all discernment and honor, the price is the only way to prove how fine a watch really is.
With a passing nod to Liebling: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/dollars
But, dang it all and amen besides, can't a body just like shiny things that tick and leave questions of value to the quants?
That's a great cartoon. This is another one I sometimes think about when questions of perceived value and connoisseurship come up: https://xkcd.com/915/
The financialization of watches was inevitable, and it’s irreversible. Fundamentally it’s led to more educated and more aware customers, and that more than anything else in the long run is vital to the continued health of the industry. If it’s persisted as a topic of discussion maybe it’s because the more you look the more you realize that value for money, and feeling like you’ve not been taken for a ride, are rarer than the industry ever let on.
Car collectors and art collectors learned to survive the financialization of their hobbies. Watch collectors will, too.
I mean on a certain level this whole story is sort of the equivalent of a guy on a bench in Central Park muttering under his breath, "whole god-damned town's been going to hell ever since Mayor F***ing Lindsay" but on the other hand, I think the jury is still out on whether or not we have more educated and more aware customers. Distrust doesn't necessarily lead to better education and better appreciation. Sometimes it just leads to leaving.
Jack, very interesting your article. It provokes reflection for sure.
Memories of nice watch talks in a sailboat one afternoon around Manhattan. Kudos.
Great to hear from you Alexandra! One of many great memories.
Thanks for the book recommendation.
I think a lot of the current turmoil revolves around the reduced liquidity in the second hand market. Availability has definitely gone down, so I can only imagine that volume has as well. And if you aren’t able to easily flip a watch to the newest model, you are more likely to hold onto what you have (at least until you can).
Collectors are always going to collect, but the added post-pandemic buyer was more so an investor. If an investor can’t sell their shares, then they can’t reinvest.
The other thing that came from Covid and Watch blogs is provenance.
When buying an(Old Master) the provenance is in was it genuine.
In buying an old watch the provenance is in who owned it.
Who cares.
Their is a huge joke in the short pencil story 🤪
Reading this immediately made me want to re-read "A Seventy-Five Dollar Watch That Looks Like A Million Bucks". That was written in 2015.
So if you are sick of talking about prices, Jack, you started it😂.
I apologize, but I just couldn't resist.
I was a bit surprised by the reception of that story, although I did cheat and put a $150 alligator strap on it :D still, it's a great watch. More than seventy five bucks now, of course, but not much more
As someone who is very much inside the workbench trenches of independent watchmaking, I read your piece with a mix of agreement, reflection, and cautious optimism.
Yes, there is no denying the proliferation of dollar signs and the monetization of horology’s image. But from a maker’s perspective, we can also feel the tides shifting, not just economically but culturally. For all the noise, there is something else rising: a more educated, more discerning collector. One who knows to look for an interior angle on a bridge, or who now questions whether a “hand-finished” movement really is. This new ubiquity of horological literacy may have been an unintended consequence of social media, monetized content, and rising prices, but it has also created an audience that demands more from us.
And in that sense, we are being pushed, not just to refine our storytelling, but to improve our actual craft. I do not think it is accidental that, in the same era people are labeling interior angles on rotors,evaluating the quality of bevels on wheels, and every. single. fastener is black polished, we are also seeing some of the most serious independent work happening in years. If the high tide of price inflation has brought with it a surge in expectations, then that has also driven some of us to ask how we can offer more genuine, more transparent value, and not simply add a decimal.
This is, of course, a double-edged sword. If this pricing behavior becomes the default playbook, an uncritical upward march, then it risks becoming a parody of itself. But if it instead forces the industry to reflect, refine, and recommit to actual horological depth, then perhaps it is the pressure that was needed.
The language of luxury may need to evolve. As more collectors come to recognize the difference between design-as-luxury and horology-as-luxury, we may find that the term “luxury” can no longer be evenly applied. In time, we may see a quiet re-categorization, where certain pieces, however expensive, simply lack the horological gravity to justify the label. And conversely, where truly crafted watches, regardless of brand equity, may come to represent the future of what collectors value most.
As a watchmaker, I welcome that future.
I hope that your perspective prevails
The most difficult element for me in this discussion is reconciling what appears to be the simultaneous increase in prices and decrease in craft/quality. Examples abound, both in industrial and independent watchmaking, of watches with ever escalating prices coupled with readily apparent reductions in finissage and technical merit. Regardless of luxury status, most folks resist paying more to get less, especially when what constitutes "more" and "less" are so clearly defined and apparent. I look to the pre owned market as much if not more for the better quality as I do for the lower acquisition cost.
That is in fact, exactly the problem.
This is what I call(Downsizing)if you do a survey of your favourite products at the Supermarket you’ll find the container is the same size but the mass of the product has decreased.
Unfortunately you’ve binned the old container to make a comparison.
Obviously being retired I have too much time on my hands.
In response to the subtitle: No, I think enthusiasts are sick of the FOCUS on prices. Aspirational luxury as a concept is pretty well matured post-COVID, in my opinion. How much more growth can you get out of the existing framework with globalization looking in peril?
We've got to be better at differentiating those problems. Discussion centered on relative value back when that felt like the most relevant topic, but brands continuing to take price have, of course, distorted that. If prices don't fall, which can't happen without diluting brand equity, is there any other way to improve quality, which requires a much smaller scale?
That's for the secondary market too, given prices are still up ~20% post-COVID. If the focus doesn't become delivering value for collectors, I think complaints will continue indefinitely.
Sure is a luxury to be sick of talking about prices!
Intrinsic value is indeed not about price. I would say ignore the noise about price, it really doesn’t matter. Today the price may be $X but tomorrow it may be $X-1 or $X+1. The intrinsic value doesn’t change as long as 1) it has historical importance and 2) the current leadership inspires confidence.