Such a wonderful, thoughtful essay, Jack, thanks! And, natch, I have a few thoughts, plus one truly silly observation.
Starting with the silliness, I'm amazed that no one (at least that I've read) has pointed out that "Cubitus" sounds awfully like the first word in "decubitus ulcer," aka bedsores. And, at least for me, I can't unhear it. And it does lend a certain, um, unpleasant overtone to the matter, regardless of the merits of the watch itself. Moving on....
"No one wants to pay for content." True enough, but but but: back 40 or 50 years ago, when we all willingly paid for our daily NYTimes, in newsprint, or our weekly/monthly Newsweek or Life or Time or Atlantic magazines, printed on actual paper, no one thought of those things as "content." We thought of them as "news" or "journalism." Words can be powerful things, and I suspect that whoever permitted the online versions of journalism to be considered mere "content" is probably kicking themselves.
And your observation about Patek's seemingly un-hyped pre-eminence is fascinating. I have noted, among the most deeply horology-involved commenters online, some movement "beyond" Patek and into the truly esoteric realms embodied by Journe, Greubel Forsey, Voutilainen, et al, as the ne plus ultra of watchmaking. That said, though, your observation seems entirely on target to me among pretty much everyone other than the mega-connoisseurs--and honestly, if someone has to reach into the realm of Voutilainen to top PP, well, they've pretty much proven the point you're making, Jack. One perhaps interesting point regarding celebrity endorsement, though: Patek may not use "ambassadors," but I do recall, back 30 or 40 years ago, seeing what I'm 99% certain was a Patek ad prominently noting that no less an eminence than Albert Einstein owned one. And if that ain't begging for greatness by association, I don't know what is!
One other thing, if it's not a gross violation of online etiquette to leave two comments for one article....
I've been thinking about the "no hype" thing, since it's very intriguing. It occurs to me that somehow, there's a sense of "it's just something everyone knows," isn't there? Examples: ask most people "what's the best sports car?" and you'll almost always hear Ferrari; ask "what's the best luxury car" and you'll usually hear Rolls Royce. Ask "what's the best college in the US?" and you'll usually get Harvard in reply. And yet none of those organizations advertise much, if at all, at least not directly--yes, Ferrari participates in F1, and Harvard, well, just kinda permeates everywhere you look (CEO offices, Supreme Court justices, etc etc).
The surprise with PP, I think, is that Watchworld isn't anywhere near as commonly known as cars or universities, and yet PP has managed to put itself in the same conversations as the leaders in much more popular categories.
Hi Jack, This is a wonderful read. How could I expect anything less? I did just read that LVMH has bought iconic Paris restaurant "Chez L’Ami Louis" - the worst restaurant in the world. And I think it is well known that LVMH would love to buy Patek. The parallel is delicious.
I discovered Patek Philippe from their adverts on the back of the Economist while I was in high school (I was the kind of kid who read The Economist and Foreign Affairs when I was not skateboarding or chasing girls). I thought the ads were wonderful. It drove me to go into watch shops and ask about it. I had a pocket watch at the time that I loved. I have no idea what brand it was, but it had the hunter caseback, which I adored.
In the end, I ended up buying a Seiko Lassale before leaving for university, and replaced that with a Longines, then I bought a Grand Seiko in Japan, driving a love affair that lasted about a decade or so. I think Patek is good for the watch market in ways Rolex is not. Rolex is the 800 lb gorilla that throws its weight around, mistreats customers, and presents a swagger that is not good for anyone, especially Rolex.
Those Patek advert got me into watches. Rolex adverts just promote brand equity, not interest. The watch industry is in a dangerous place. It is a product without purpose. It is difficult to justify this long-run. The discontinuation of the Nautilus was good for everyone. The entire prestige from access system is bad in the long-run. It makes people look elsewhere. It might take twenty years or more to move the needle, but such moves tend to be permanent. A well-designed bracelet and necklace for men in tantalum, titanium, silver, palladium, rose gold,...., that could disrupt the watch industry far more than the minor quartz "crisis" that was not really a crisis as much as a rationalization. If a new generation just feels comfortable wearing a gold or platinum bracelet instead, the industry will collapse. Pocket watches are a great example of this. They were overshadowed by wrist watches in the 1920's and 1930's, but people still bought new pocket watches in reasonable numbers into the 1960's. In the end, the market was doomed, but it kept going because older customers have more money and there were collectors who spend fortunes. Eventually they all died out. I can see wrist watches going the same way, slowly until all at once.
Such a wonderful, thoughtful essay, Jack, thanks! And, natch, I have a few thoughts, plus one truly silly observation.
Starting with the silliness, I'm amazed that no one (at least that I've read) has pointed out that "Cubitus" sounds awfully like the first word in "decubitus ulcer," aka bedsores. And, at least for me, I can't unhear it. And it does lend a certain, um, unpleasant overtone to the matter, regardless of the merits of the watch itself. Moving on....
"No one wants to pay for content." True enough, but but but: back 40 or 50 years ago, when we all willingly paid for our daily NYTimes, in newsprint, or our weekly/monthly Newsweek or Life or Time or Atlantic magazines, printed on actual paper, no one thought of those things as "content." We thought of them as "news" or "journalism." Words can be powerful things, and I suspect that whoever permitted the online versions of journalism to be considered mere "content" is probably kicking themselves.
And your observation about Patek's seemingly un-hyped pre-eminence is fascinating. I have noted, among the most deeply horology-involved commenters online, some movement "beyond" Patek and into the truly esoteric realms embodied by Journe, Greubel Forsey, Voutilainen, et al, as the ne plus ultra of watchmaking. That said, though, your observation seems entirely on target to me among pretty much everyone other than the mega-connoisseurs--and honestly, if someone has to reach into the realm of Voutilainen to top PP, well, they've pretty much proven the point you're making, Jack. One perhaps interesting point regarding celebrity endorsement, though: Patek may not use "ambassadors," but I do recall, back 30 or 40 years ago, seeing what I'm 99% certain was a Patek ad prominently noting that no less an eminence than Albert Einstein owned one. And if that ain't begging for greatness by association, I don't know what is!
Thanks for sharing your perspective, Jack. Also, thanks for the link to the epic L’Ami Louis review.
One other thing, if it's not a gross violation of online etiquette to leave two comments for one article....
I've been thinking about the "no hype" thing, since it's very intriguing. It occurs to me that somehow, there's a sense of "it's just something everyone knows," isn't there? Examples: ask most people "what's the best sports car?" and you'll almost always hear Ferrari; ask "what's the best luxury car" and you'll usually hear Rolls Royce. Ask "what's the best college in the US?" and you'll usually get Harvard in reply. And yet none of those organizations advertise much, if at all, at least not directly--yes, Ferrari participates in F1, and Harvard, well, just kinda permeates everywhere you look (CEO offices, Supreme Court justices, etc etc).
The surprise with PP, I think, is that Watchworld isn't anywhere near as commonly known as cars or universities, and yet PP has managed to put itself in the same conversations as the leaders in much more popular categories.
Hi Jack, This is a wonderful read. How could I expect anything less? I did just read that LVMH has bought iconic Paris restaurant "Chez L’Ami Louis" - the worst restaurant in the world. And I think it is well known that LVMH would love to buy Patek. The parallel is delicious.
Thank you for sharing your (always) interesting perspective. Luxury brands have indeed evolved into strange beasts!
I discovered Patek Philippe from their adverts on the back of the Economist while I was in high school (I was the kind of kid who read The Economist and Foreign Affairs when I was not skateboarding or chasing girls). I thought the ads were wonderful. It drove me to go into watch shops and ask about it. I had a pocket watch at the time that I loved. I have no idea what brand it was, but it had the hunter caseback, which I adored.
In the end, I ended up buying a Seiko Lassale before leaving for university, and replaced that with a Longines, then I bought a Grand Seiko in Japan, driving a love affair that lasted about a decade or so. I think Patek is good for the watch market in ways Rolex is not. Rolex is the 800 lb gorilla that throws its weight around, mistreats customers, and presents a swagger that is not good for anyone, especially Rolex.
Those Patek advert got me into watches. Rolex adverts just promote brand equity, not interest. The watch industry is in a dangerous place. It is a product without purpose. It is difficult to justify this long-run. The discontinuation of the Nautilus was good for everyone. The entire prestige from access system is bad in the long-run. It makes people look elsewhere. It might take twenty years or more to move the needle, but such moves tend to be permanent. A well-designed bracelet and necklace for men in tantalum, titanium, silver, palladium, rose gold,...., that could disrupt the watch industry far more than the minor quartz "crisis" that was not really a crisis as much as a rationalization. If a new generation just feels comfortable wearing a gold or platinum bracelet instead, the industry will collapse. Pocket watches are a great example of this. They were overshadowed by wrist watches in the 1920's and 1930's, but people still bought new pocket watches in reasonable numbers into the 1960's. In the end, the market was doomed, but it kept going because older customers have more money and there were collectors who spend fortunes. Eventually they all died out. I can see wrist watches going the same way, slowly until all at once.