If you’re new to SDC, welcome! When you have some time, check out prior editions of SDC Weekly here, or peruse the archive here.

Subscribe now

Estimated reading time: ~38 mins

In case you missed these posts in the last week:

📢 New: Community Reviews

The other day I got an email to inform me that a paid subscriber had unsubscribed from SDC. If you’ve ever done this on Substack, you will know Substack offers you an option to say why you unsubscribed. This reader was kind enough to leave one line of feedback:

“Got immensely bored by the repetitive contents”

I have always believed feedback is a gift, and this is especially true of negative feedback. So I emailed and thanked him for the feedback, and asked what he found repetitive and what he would like to see instead. The guy was super polite, and explained how he seeks insights on the psychological stuff elsewhere, and doesn’t care for the market reporting either. So really, it wasn’t a matter of him thinking SDC sucked, but more that he, personally, didn’t care much for what SDC covers. He did however offer some useful insights on what he would like to see more of, and one thing he mentioned was honest watch reviews.

Regulars will know I have only done two reviews on watches I own, and frankly, it’s not my forte. But his feedback got me thinking; I have many friends who have epic watches, and maybe they would love to talk about these watches? So I asked one of my good friends (his IG here) about a watch of his I saw in person recently. He was more than happy to answer my questions, and that makes him the first guest for this new segment in SDC.

Some of you may know about Hodinkee’s ‘Week on the Wrist’ series and that was decent; I see this new segment as more like ‘at least a few months on the wrist’. The idea is for readers to get direct feedback from regular civilians who spent their own cash on a particular watch. I expect to run these every other week, or maybe every 3 weeks… but honestly, I would be happy to run it every week if you enjoy them (which will also depend on whether I can find candidates who are willing to send me responses that frequently!). With new stuff like this, I’d really appreciate your feedback, so please let me know what you think… good and bad, I welcome all of it.

Without further ado…

Watch: Patek Philippe 5270P-017 (red dial). Purchase price: €235k

[My own edits or comments are in square brackets]

The 5270P-017 (red dial) is my third 5270P since 2021. I have owned the 5270P salmon and green dials and funnily enough, I genuinely thought that each would be my last.

The 5270P is simply a GREAT reference, this is particularly the case if you actually wear the watch regularly and don’t just covet some kind of safe queen investment piece - I’m calling out all the 5970 and 5004 owners who love to bash the 5270 here :)

As an uber-Patek-fanboi, I simply love wearing grand comps or rare hand crafts as dailies. A Patek perpetual calendar chronograph or perpetual calendar split chronograph are simply my favourite watches to put on, bar none. Picking up my 5204G was the first time I genuinely felt that I would be happy not getting another allocation ever again.

I get some kind of perverse pleasure wearing any complicated but stealthy watch to go about my mostly mundane life of school runs, grocery shops and corporate shilling. If the 5270P ever does catch someone’s eye its usually either because they too, are a genuine Patek fan/dreamer and are delighted to see a GC [Grand Complication] being worn in the wild, or they are a non-watch geek who simply appreciates the aesthetic. In both cases those encounters are always delightful; I can’t say the same for encounters when wearing a Nautilius or Aquanaut as these often come with more negative assumptions about the type of person I am… or just allocation envy.

I was surprised by just what a difference a simple colour change makes to the ownership experience of this reference. The red dial feels way more sporty but can be worn high (with suits and black tie) or casually (jeans, t-shirt etc) - it’s the perfect all round dress watch.

I gotta say I was less than happy that Patek shipped it with the old style clasp but this is typical Patek - they probably still have thousands of the old clasps in inventory and will still be shipping them for the next decade. I told my AD to tell Thierry that clients aren’t expecting a 200k GC to come with the now outdated peasant clasp. It was a joke but some truths are told in jest…

I have mixed feelings on the new more “sustainable” straps. They’re kind of cool but I am old school in that I default to a Grand Complication primarily being on a classic black croco. Mildly irritating that I’ve had to pay for a special order black croco with red stitches.

Could even be [that I] didn’t wear it much.

I wore it every day for 3 months until summer hit and I switched up to a Nautilus. Delighted with it so far and zero complaints or issues.

It’s kept time, no scratches despite being worn every day to do everything and presents as new. It’s not a watch that needs to be nannied. Only thing that has ever scratched any of my 5270Ps is the diamond from my wife’s engagement ring; she DGAF [doesn’t give a fvck] about doing so either. Dagger to the heart.

The colour graduations in the dial in different shades of natural light.

[I mentioned I got to see this watch in person, and while I was slightly put off when I saw it on IG, I have to say this dial is unbelievably good in person. The red dial is really my pick of all the variants, and so this answer may seem like some BS comment, I really have to agree here.]

[I wear it] Everyday and everywhere because I don’t save stuff for “special occasions” - life isn’t a rehearsal. Also I want my sons to see me wearing the shit out of all my cool stuff in order to learn that we own stuff and not the other way around, downside is that the greedy buggers already want to know when/if they’ll inherit it.

I’m on my third 5270 - all bought at retail with a price increase of almost 50% over time but yes, I would buy again at retail. 5270s and indeed 5204s are absolute steals on the grey market right now and I think in time people will regret not buying them at today’s secondary prices.

N/A

Only in the summer months when I would prefer to wear something more sporty as I swim, hike and bike a lot.

Much like most 911 owners know, the right way to own a 911 is to drive it daily; same goes for 5270s - my advice would simply be to make sure that you wear the hell out of it.

I thought a 5970 (G or P) would be my ultimate Patek Grand Complication grail but having obtained a great example 5970G (after my first 5270P), I was surprised to find that my experience of living with a 5270 was far superior. After having owned and enjoyed a 5270P, I actually found the experience of wearing a 5970 underwhelming. Of course it is nice when wearing the 5970 to get the Patek aficionado nod from the Geneva Seal crew, but whilst there is a part of me that does like the approval from other collectors, I am confident in my own taste to only keep what I truly enjoy wearing. The 5970G has been long sold although I retain the right to reverse that decision 😅🤣 [sic - for the emojis, I didn’t add these!]

If you are equivocating between a 5970 and 5270 do not be swayed by the weight of opinion out there that defaults to the 5970 and 5004 being superior to the 5270 and 5204, particularly if you actually want to wear and enjoy the watch on the regular. And given current basement prices on the 5270 and 5204, getting one of these might well deliver a better ROI as well as a more enjoyable ownership experience.

And that’s it… simple, short, and sweet… in the owner’s words. Again, please share your feedback on the format, any other questions you want to see in future editions, and the watches you want to see covered (ideally, if you know someone who owns a watch you’d like to see featured, please ask them to contact me. Free subscribers: you can reply to this email too!).

Leave a comment

I will end with a huge thank you to CK for agreeing to do this; I appreciate you brother!

P.S. if you’re thinking about volunteering for the next review, you can do it anonymously if you prefer.

Read more

If you’re new to SDC, welcome! When you have some time, check out prior editions of SDC Weekly here, or peruse the archive here.

Subscribe now

Estimated reading time: ~35 mins

In case you missed these last week:

🥇 Swatch selling gold below spot

Any business that generates more want than product has to pick a way to ration their stuff. The obvious method is to ration by price; raise it until enough people p1ss off. You can just make more, which of course nobody in luxury likes to do. The third option is to ration by something that isn’t money; this could be a queue, a list, purchase history, whatever.

Price is the most straightforward because price says whoever wants it most and can afford it, will get it. Making more doesn’t work out well, as we already know from examples like Omega and IWC and many others. But how about something that isn’t money? This one is interesting because when you ration by queue or by list, the gap between what the thing costs and what it’s worth doesn’t magically go away. In fact, the whole secondary market is basically a spotlight on who captures the value.

That brings us to Swatch. On 16 July, at 15:32 CEST (which is 13:32 UTC - the moment Apollo 11 left the pad in 1969 - apparently they did that on purpose!), Swatch opened applications for the MoonSwatch Mission to the Moon 1969. The watch is limited to 1,969 individually numbered pieces. The dial, hour and minute hands, crown, and chronograph pushers are all in Omega’s 18K Moonshine Gold. They use a total of 11 grams of gold, the dial is stamped Au750 and also marked “OM” for or massif (i.e., solid gold, which is a designation Omega has used on and off since the 1950s). The watch costs €600, £520, CHF 500, or US$570 excluding tax.

Gold is at €112.94 per gram as I type this. Basic maths tells us that the metal alone is worth more than the watch at retail. Has the team at Swatch forgotten how to do basic maths?

Not so basic maths

Firstly, “11 grams of 18K gold” is not 11 grams of gold. 18-karat is 750 parts per thousand pure, which just means three-quarters gold and one-quarter other metals for hardness and colour. So 11 g of 18K alloy contains maybe 8.25 g of fine gold.

At €112.94/g that’s €932 of gold in a €600 watch which is roughly 1.5x the sticker price. Across the full batch they will use 1,969 × 8.25 g = 16.24 kg of fine gold, or 522 troy ounces, or about 1.3 London Good Delivery bars - melted down and used for gold parts. The metal value at spot is therefore around €1.8m. To add some whimsy to the story, Swatch is said to have priced the gold at its 1969 value… their claim is that 11 g of 18K gold cost $11 in 1969.

Is that right? Well, sort of. There were two gold prices in 1969. The official one, propped up by central banks, was $35/oz. The free market one, after the London Gold Pool collapsed in March 1968, was around $41.76/oz that July. Looking at all four combinations:

1. 11 g fine at the official price: $12.38.

2. 8.25 g fine at the official price: $9.28.

3. 11 g fine at the free-market price: $14.77.

4. 8.25 g fine at the free-market price: $11.08.

As you can see, only one of them is $11 - which links the story nicely to Apollo 11. Swatch needed the free-market fix and the alloy conversion to get to this number. It seems that somewhere in Biel there was a person whose job was to find a gold price that produced the number 11, and they found one.

Nominative determinism for commodity markets... Sure!

Money you can’t have

“Fine,” you say, “so I buy it for €600 and I’ve got €932 of gold. Free money.” Not so fast!

You do not have €932 of gold. What you have is a gold dial with black-lacquered bevelled indices, two pushers, a crown, and two hands, all of which have to be extracted from a bioceramic case, weighed, assayed, and then refined. A refiner pays 90-something percent of spot on clean scrap, minus a lot fee; and by the way, this is not clean scrap at all. So okay, call it €800 ‘recoverable’ if you’re organised and lucky, but you will have destroyed a numbered limited edition that the market will happily pay four figures for, intact. My point is, the melt value is technically a real thing, but I’d argue it’s also just theoretical; how’s that for a sentence you could carve above the door of the whole watch industry?

That €332 value gap does write headlines, though. So many press releases talked about this gold value gap because that is the story - and if you think about it, it’s the only part of the product that a person who has never even heard of a Speedmaster can immediately understand. Gold is expensive. The watch is cheaper than gold. Weird!

Buy it now.

Two P&Ls

A standard MoonSwatch retails at €230 and Morgan Stanley pegged the gross margin at roughly 90% - this implies a bill of materials somewhere near €23 (quartz chrono, bioceramic case, garbage strap, box). If you add in some gold fabrication (casting the recycled alloy, stamping and brushing a dial, machining a crown and two pushers, hallmarking, individual numbering, certificate, etc) let’s call it €85 all-in per watch before you count any metal. That number is indeed made up, so bear with me (or scale everything to your beliefs).

Scenario A. Assume the gold is free. Well, it kind of is. The metal came from Omega spare parts dating to the 1960s and 70s; this stuff was sitting in Biel, and got recast in Swatch’s own foundry. It’s basically inventory so old that it has almost certainly been depreciated down to zero many years ago. Under that treatment, €600 minus 21% VAT is €496 of net revenue, minus €85 of cost, times 1,969 pieces. That gives them €809,000 of profit on paper, for a watch that supposedly “loses money on the metal.”

Scenario B. Gold is worth what gold is worth. Logically, this tracks more sensibly; Swatch Group could have just sold those ounces on Thursday. It’s clearly an opportunity cost of €1.83m, and now they’re facing a loss of ~€1m.

Which is the real number? I guess it’s both! The accountants get Scenario A and the CFO gets Scenario B… and if you have ever wondered how “profitable” and “value-destroying” can refer to the same activity, I present to you Exhibit A: a bioceramic example which you can strap to your wrist.

Why though?

“But this is a daft move,” you object. “They could just make 1,969 gold-dial MoonSwatches, charge €1,200, sell out in nine seconds, bank the money. There are plenty of idiots who would pay that.”

I would agree… there are! At €1,200 the maths tells us it’s nearly €1m more than they will make as it stands. That difference is the more appropriate measure of the marketing spend i.e., ~€1m of profit that Swatch seems to have thrown in the bin.

But what’s a million bucks anyway? Swatch Group did over CHF 6bn of net sales in 2025 with CHF 135m of operating profit, a 2.1% margin, down from CHF 304m the year before. Net profit was CHF 25m, down 89%. So the forgone contribution here is under 1% of group operating profit and 0.015% of revenue. It is, for our purposes, nothing. Frankly, it’s a rounding error with a great story.

And for that rounding error they got… the attention of the entire watch press inside 24 hours and even a new database. I just think that at €1,200 nobody would write excited headlines… then they’d just be another brand doing a limited edition and be accused of cash-grabbing. Having the appearance of ‘free money’ is the press release. You can’t have the money and the exciting story. Swatch chose the story, and given that the story is the only thing that’s worked for them since the first MoonSwatch, I’d have taken it too.

Underlying story

I think this goes beyond even the gold itself. Swatch has a distribution problem it has failed to solve since the first MoonSwatch. In March 2022 there were queues from Ginza to Times Square, one-per-person rules, and flippers making $2,400 against $260 retail. Fast forward to May this year and we saw with the Royal Pop, police were using tear gas in Paris, pepper spray at Roosevelt Field, and stores got shuttered in Mumbai and Singapore, with at least one arrest in Manhattan. A full set of these pops was clearing north of $25,000 on StockX before most buyers had packed up their tents on the pavements. And this was followed by a 72% resale collapse within about 48 hours. Great pictures. Terrible pictures.

So for this 1969 edition they launched this new ESTA thing (Electronic Swatch Timepiece Application). You create a Swatch account, nominate the boutique you’d collect from, and answer 32 questions (!) in two hours and fifteen minutes. The questions are a mix of Swatch history, spaceflight trivia, and some that are just… odd1. Then apparently an internal jury selects 1,969 from the pool of people who answered everything correctly. Selected applicants get 48 hours to pay online and must collect in person with ID and a printed approval.

Will this stop flippers? Obviously not. A professional reseller with a VPN, a spreadsheet of different accounts, and a large language model could get through the 32 questions faster than you could clear your inbox. The 135-minute limit is a gag anyway, it doesn’t take that long.

What this ESTA does stop is casual buyers. And what it also does is move the rationing from price, to something that isn’t price. Swatch is now trying to stop selling to whoever turns up first, and instead, they are picking.

This is like an authorised dealer’s internal list. Rolex spent the better part of a century building a global dealer network to do exactly this, and the collector world has spent the last decade furious about it. Swatch built one in a web form, over five days, and got everyone’s email address, store preference, and short-answer essays thrown in for bants.

Bourdieu would have enjoyed this. The barrier to entry moved off money, where it hadn’t worked (‘everybody can find €600 to double’), and leaned into cultural capital - do you know what Beat Time is, and would you spend your valuable time proving it? It’s basically an audition. Looks to me like a company that has spent four years being unable to tell its customers apart from its arbitrageurs has now found a filter that costs very little to implement.

I have no idea how many people applied, but we could look at this from a customer-acquisition cost perspective… 100,000 applicants, Scenario B’s €1m loss works out at €10 per completed, timed, 32-question, store-selected first-party record. At 250,000 it’s €4. Either of those are numbers a performance marketer would faint at. (Whether Swatch can lawfully do much with the data is a separate question with a GDPR-linked answer, and I’m not a lawyer; not legal advice, obviously.)

Anyway…

Nobody who wins the ballot will be melting this watch. Not one of the 1,969 will be melted for the money - in my opinion it will remain more valuable as an intact watch anyway.

Which of course means the 8.25 grams isn’t a store of value at all. It’s simply collateral for the story. Swatch used real Bloomberg-checkable metal so that you’ll believe the romance about 1969. The bottom line is that this is the most transparent hype product Swatch has ever made, because for once the gap between what you pay and what you get is literally printed on the dial and quoted on a Bloomberg screen. Swatch spent about a million euros of ‘forgone profit’ and for that money, they got a customer list, a slot in the global news cycle, and a new allocation system. Access turns out to have better margins than watches…

Cheap, at 8.25 grams a head, don’t you think?

Leave a comment

We’ve just covered how a company can spend about a million bucks buying itself a story, and get a bargain on it. To me, this raised the obvious next question: if a story can be bought cheaply in this industry, who exactly is paid to check the stories?

Read more

Quick word of thanks to SuperlativeCommenter (sick name btw!):

Posting this on Hodinkee - organically - is such a kind gesture. Thank you!

If you’re new to SDC, welcome! When you have some time, check out prior editions of SDC Weekly here, or peruse the archive here.

In case you missed it last week:

Subscribe now

Estimated reading time: ~31 mins

🧐 Walt Odets

This was a man who once took a factory-fresh Rolex Explorer apart on his bench, photographed everything he found under magnification, and concluded that a fair retail price would be $600 to $800. At the time, this watch retailed for around $2,500, and this man published the photographs he took along with some highly controversial opinions.

“The anomalies of the Rolex Explorer make it difficult to neatly summarize a personal opinion. For me, the only intriguing aspect of this watch is that a movement so lacking is [sic] basic workmanship is capable of being so accurately timed. This is, no doubt, a product of the thickness (and thus permissible loose tolerances) of the movement, and the use of computer-timed balance/spring assemblies. For the person for whom accuracy of rate in a mechanical watch is the only criterion in buying a watch, and for whom value-for-the-dollar is of little concern, the Explorer might be a choice. In the current watch market, the poor quality of the movement–and relatively good quality of the case and dial–suggests that this watch should retail in the $600 to $800 range.”

Walt Odets passed away just over a week ago. He was 79, and if you have ever read a movement review that seemed to not skip over the shortcomings of any particular watch, that style of reviewing effectively descended from Odets. William Massena said in the New York Times profile of him last summer: “He set the template on how to review a watch and how to talk about watches on the internet” and “basically, we still live in Walt’s world.”1

Some background for newer readers… before Instagram, before Hodinkee, and long before this very newsletter, the watch internet was one site, TimeZone. This was a rudimentary forum that watchmaker Richard Paige bought in 1995. Walt bought 10% of it, because, he explained to the Times three decades later: “We’ve got to have content on here, otherwise we just have a group here, people blabbering back and forth.” So he wrote the content, at the leisurely pace of about 20 reviews a year, until Paige sold the site in late 1999. The best of Odets can still be found in a corner called the Horologium2 (”I was the mayor,” Paige said, “and he was the movie star of the site.”). He was not a journalist and he was not in the trade. He was actually a clinical psychologist in Berkeley who happened to own a watchmaker’s bench, a lathe, a microscope and a macro lens, and who would disassemble a watch (his own, Paige’s, or a willing collector’s; JLC was his favourite maker) the way the rest of us open a bag of crisps. Then he would tell everyone exactly what he found, in prose that sounded like a very entertaining autopsy report.

The Explorer review is the one that made him famous, or infamous, depending on which forum you grew up on. Paige bought the watch specifically for the review; he later admitted he saw a chance to “play P.T. Barnum.” It was split into two parts (one, two) in the late 1990s3, and if you’ve been reading SDC for a while, you might remember I linked to both parts way back in SDC Weekly 79. Even if you read it now, it’s surprising to see how he approached things, regardless of what the prose implied. He measured timekeeping and reported “excellent figures,” which from him probably meant a lot more than, say, a random YouTuber parroting such a phrase. The external parts got mixed marks… decent case, dial “cramped and busy,” lugs with “an unpleasant feel,” a bracelet he described as “an afterthought”… and then he opened the back and found unchamfered jewel holes with machining debris, a bridge screw so roughly finished that it gouged the plate the first time the factory installed it, brass shavings scattered through the movement, and perlage applied on top of surfaces nobody had bothered to finish. His verdict was: “the most crudely finished watch movement that I have ever personally examined.” A watch, he said, “of no horological interest whatsoever.”

That already sounds bleak, but what probably ground everyone’s gears the hardest at the time was this sentence:

“I cannot think of another consumer product in which the gulf between the publicly perceived quality and the reality I saw is as broad as with the Explorer.”

A guy who just wants to complain about a watch wouldn’t write that sentence. This sounded more like a psychologist measuring the distance between a brand and its product, and he used data to back up his claims. What followed was, in Paige’s words, “like a war.” Odets told the NYT he received about 100 emails and some even stooped to mocking his sexuality. Rolex called Paige and asked for Walt’s number, but Paige refused (”I’m not going to have them yell at him”). Entire rebuttal sites were created, honour was defended, the pile-on became its own piece of forum history.

The coda took years to arrive, but it did. One evening, long after, a Rolex employee smuggled him into a company facility in Los Angeles to look at the updated Explorer movements, with one condition: “Don’t say Walt, and don’t say Odets.” He examined them for about a quarter of an hour and concluded they “really were actually very good watches.” Eric Wind reckons Rolex moved to a faster upgrade schedule than planned because of Odets’ article, though as he says, “they probably would never admit that.” (The Times asked Rolex to comment on the review but Rolex declined.) Interviewed at 78, Odets was still cheerfully unrepentant about the original: “I mean, that was really a piece of junk.”

It would be easy to label him a Rolex hater, and plenty did just that. The record is funnier, though; asked in a 1999 forum debate whether Rolex used a Breguet overcoil (a hairspring with its outer end raised and curved inward, which keeps the spring breathing evenly and the rate consistent between positions), he conceded they did, in the calibre 3135, then added: “I don’t think of it as a watch.” Later in the same debate, a poster asked how the Rolex escapement stacked up against Patek’s and Lange’s; Odets accepted the design was sound and explained how Rolex could afford it: “They aren’t spending it on ANYTHING else.” You can call this snobbery if you like, but he owned the charge cheerfully; his beat was the top of the market, and he seems to have judged everything by whether the money you paid was actually in the object.4

That’s also why I think the whole Lange drama is more interesting than the Rolex story, though I think nobody outside the old forums remembers it. In November 1999, Peter Chong published the world’s first review of the Datograph, and Walt, who owned a few Langes himself, spent ten days on TimeZone arguing that the money spent on the watch only went as far as you could see through the caseback, and no further. He thought that behind the lavishly engraved top plate they used an under-engineered escapement and keyless works that, in his words, “could come from a mediocre watch.” The inconsistencies, he wrote, “divide the line between ‘show’ and ‘go.’” His summary: “They’re great watches, but they’re not completely honest.” And when a poster tried to summarise that into “Lange is dishonest,” he actually corrected them. He’d said there was an element of dishonesty about the watches… quite clearly a psychologist’s distinction if ever there was one. He essentially reviewed watches the way he’d assess a patient. What does this thing present itself as, what is it under the hood, and how big is the gap between the two?

Walt Whitman Odets was the son of the playwright Clifford Odets, orphaned by sixteen, raised partly in the household of Lee and Paula Strasberg, which means the family business was very literally the study of performance. He trained as a clinical psychologist and spent the late 1980s and 1990s doing serious, controversial work on the psychology of HIV-negative gay men during the AIDS epidemic. His 1995 book In the Shadow of the Epidemic made the New York Times’ notable books list; his Harper’s essay that same year argued that prevention campaigns were failing because they addressed how people ought to behave rather than what people truly felt. Do you see the connection? That essay was about public message versus the private reality which, if you think about it, is another type of gap. He spent most of his adult life, in both career and hobby, pointing out gaps.5

And if you want to know why watches, specifically, there’s some interesting data in this NYT article. On 30 November 1992, at precisely 10:22 pm, undertakers carried the body of his partner out of their Berkeley home. A week later his therapist asked how he knew the exact time, and he said: “because I looked at my watch.”

In the book, Mr. Odets wrote that he had looked at his watch because he “wanted to see something that was reliable, something that — unlike the human lives you loved and needed — could be trusted.”

That’s what a watch movement meant to him. Now if you go back and reread the Explorer review, when he talks about the gap between perceived quality and reality, you will notice it isn’t really about Rolex per se. To me, all he was doing there was checking whether the one thing that’s supposed to be trustworthy, was, in fact, trustworthy.

And the man could love, too. If the Explorer review is his infamous essay, his three days with a Lange Saxonia essay is probably his best. He begins lukewarm, at dinner with a retired-watchmaker friend, and falls for the thing in real time on the page. His Lange was “an anvil, a solid lump of a super-dense new element that ran right off the end of the periodic tables,” a watch with no charm and a “Wagnerian soul,” “a baby only an engineer-mother could love.” By day three he’s beaming back at the number 30 in the date window and closing with Oscar Wilde’s deathbed line about the wallpaper. That review was truly a psychologist’s self-report of desire overruling judgement, written by a man who knew precisely what was happening to him and was allowing it to happen anyway. Every essay about why we buy watches, including most of what I write here, also descended from that essay.

The trade knew what he was, even when the forums were burning him in effigy. Jeff Kingston, in a WatchTime interview, tells the story of meeting Jean-Claude Biver, then running Blancpain, who demanded: “Who is this Walt Odets? He is the only person who understood our 1185 chronograph movement, the only person. Who is this man?!?” Biver was still telling the story to the Times last summer: “He’s one of the rare people who spent some time to understand it.” Odets heard that Biver was “absolutely astonished that an American could understand a watch that well,” and found this hilarious; the 1185’s cleverness, he’d explain, was a vertical clutch (the chronograph engages by friction from above, like pressing two records together, instead of meshing a side-mounted gear that makes the seconds hand stutter). Then, for the rest of us: “They’re not the kind of movements you’d run over with a bus and they’d be fine, let me put it that way.”

He was, Lord knows, not always right, and not always kind. He could be imperious in debate; he read innocent questions as ambushes; in the Lange debate you will find the sentence “Your approach is rhetorical and sounds aggressive,” aimed at Peter Chong, who was asking about hairsprings. But then again, he definitely paid for every opinion with hard work. Before he told you the Explorer’s fourth wheel had cheap straight-cut teeth, he would have taken the wheel out and photographed it himself. Most modern reviews are powered by superlative adjectives; Odets powered his with disassembly and a camera. Nowadays we have more watch writing than ever before, yet almost none of it involves a screwdriver.

He also wrote one of my favourite autobiographical sentences in all of watch writing. Opening Tweaking the Mark XII, his account of swapping a fancier calibre into his IWC: “In the 1970’s, I was a pilot flying printing plates, bags of canceled checks, and the occasional dead body, also in a bag.” He earned $12 an hour doing it, wearing an Omega Seamaster his aunt gave him for graduating. No other hobbyist was writing like that, because no other hobbyist had lived like that.

Anyway, raise whatever you’re wearing on the wrist today. If it’s an Explorer, he’d have approved of the case, admired the rate, and told you to send him the movement. The gap between what a thing claims to be and what it is, will not close just because the man who measured it is gone. But hey, at least he handed us some callipers to measure it ourselves.

Leave a comment

🚦 Watch Signalling

The comments under SDC Weekly 154 were spectacular. You must read those if you missed them. They’ve given me plenty of food for thought, and today I wanted to pull on just one of the many threads exposed there. While everyone else argued about status, Captain of the good ship Curmudgeon (Hi, ) shared an observation that I thought deserved a section of its own. Rip came of age as a watch lover in the 1970s, and back then, he wrote:

Read more

If you’re new to SDC, welcome! When you have some time, check out prior editions of SDC Weekly here, or peruse the archive here.

Subscribe now

Estimated reading time: ~35 mins

In case you missed it last week:

🔨 How Watch Auctions Are Engineered to Make You Bid More

In 1989 an economist named Orley Ashenfelter went to a wine auction, and watched three identical lots of 1961 Château Palmer come up one after another. The first sold for £920. The second for £800. The third for £700. So for the same wine, just 90 or so seconds apart, the person who bought first, paid almost a third more than the person who simply waited for the subsequent lots.

Ashenfelter, being an economist, found this confusing. The law of one price (the idea that identical things should cost the same) had just been violated in front of his eyes, and, as he recorded, nobody else seemed to care. So he did what economists typically do, and gathered data on hundreds of pairs of identical wines sold in sequence across London, Chicago and San Francisco. As watch geeks you might have guessed that he found the same result nearly everywhere; when identical items are sold one after another, prices are about twice as likely to fall as to rise as you move down the list. He gave the pattern a name which has now stuck for a few decades: the afternoon effect.

I bring this up because of something Geoff Hess said in a recent interview with Johnny Davis. Hess is the global head of watches at Sotheby’s, and when Davis asked him how much of the job is psychology, Hess didn’t bother with any false modesty. “There’s a science to what we call ‘lotting’ a sale,” he said. 150 watches don’t go up in the order they arrived, or alphabetically, or by reference number; Hess says they are “placed.” There is, in his words, “a deliberate plan around where the crescendo should occur.” And then Hess said: “It really is like conducting an orchestra.”

Now, “conducting an orchestra” is the sort of thing a charming auction-house executive would say, and you could be forgiven for filing it under flattering self-mythology. I suppose in the auction world, this is the equivalent of a chef describing himself as an ‘artist’. But the more I thought about it, the more I wanted to dig into the research on this… so I did. Turns out there is a lot of peer-reviewed stuff out there, most of it written by people who have never even bid on a watch.

So today, we will learn a few things; how auctions are engineered, why the ‘crescendo’ should not fall on the last lot, and, believe it or not, how all this can explain what a colonoscopy and a charity gala have in common. 😂

Afternoon effect means the early bird overpays

We will kick off with Ashenfelter’s anomaly; why on earth would three identical wines decline in price over 90 seconds?

Read more

Lange fans rejoice… their next and final Lumen watch will be launched in 2028; it will be a Zeitwerk Minute Repeater! I’m also told we can expect a platinum Triple Split in September.

If you’re new to SDC, welcome! When you have some time, check out prior editions of SDC Weekly here, or peruse the archive here.

Subscribe now

Estimated reading time: ~34 mins

In case you missed it last week:

📊 Dynamic Pricing Revisited

If you have tried to buy a World Cup ticket this year, you already understand most of what I want to say about watch pricing, and let’s face it, you probably have the trauma to prove it.

FIFA took their ticketing platform in-house for 2026 and turned it into an Uber-for-football, in the sense that the price rises with demand. Reporting suggests 95 of the 104 matches saw a price increase, at an average of roughly 34%, with the cheapest ticket for the final starting north of two grand.1 Surge pricing, basically, is the same thing that makes Uber cost double when the train drivers are on strike. Shocker. I do get it, by the way; demand is there, the number of seats is finite, and so somebody was always going to collect that premium - usually it’s scalpers, and this time FIFA decided it might as well be… FIFA!

But it turns out, FIFA was too greedy. Demand for the less hyped group games was soft, and prices were too high to sell seats. But FIFA, being a body with around $3bn of ticket revenue riding on the idea that these things are ‘precious’, could not be seen to be cutting prices. A public price cut would have every fan who paid full whack demanding the difference back… with chargebacks and consumer-protection lawyers following close behind.2 So, allegedly, the unsold inventory started turning up in large blocks on StubHub and SeatGeek, below FIFA’s own published price, while the official site kept the original (higher) prices.3

Prices that only move up in public

With dynamic pricing in ‘prestige’ markets, the up-move and the down-move do not get equal treatment. In theory the price should float both ways but in reality, the rise happens openly and the fall happens in a hushed way - because dropping prices openly is an admission that the thing is worth less than you initially said it was, and the prestige probably won’t survive such an admission.

Airlines live with this happily, since nobody’s ego is bound up in a Tuesday fare to Faro. But luxury? They seemingly can’t afford to do this. The price itself is part of the product, so marking it down will not only cost you margin, it will inform everyone the magic has gone (as you know, economists call this a Veblen good). FIFA wanted to price like Uber and then realised it was more akin to Hermès… i.e. you can nudge prices up, but you get stuck there the moment you want to bring them back down.

What about watches?

You probably realise now, that the watch industry has been doing the same thing as FIFA for ages. It just happens slower, and perhaps with better manners for the most part.

First, there’s the annual price increases; every year the industry raises list prices a few percent, and the reason is almost always input-costs rising, Swiss franc strength, gold price rising, the tariff of the month, and so forth. To me, that is a special case of dynamic pricing; the price moves with inputs, which is the same thing a surge algorithm does, but this one only moves once or twice per year by committee - instead of once-per-minute decided by software. And of course, it only ever moves up not down. Other than a few exceptions like the Patek tariff adjustment and JLC, I cannot remember the last time a major brand sent a cheerful email announcing its watches would now cost X% less because demand had dropped.

When demand does decline, as it has done in the squeezed middle of this market for a couple years now, the brand still won’t cut prices. Instead, it lets the grey market do the cutting (and we covered examples of this via Wristcheck in a prior SDC Weekly). So your watch trades below retail on the secondary, the grey dealer sells with a markdown, and the brand keeps its list price high (and its hands clean). So just like with FIFA, the price dropped, but you were simply not allowed to watch it happen - and the loss landed on you and the grey dealer, but not the brand or watchmaker.

So when we ask whether watch brands ‘should’ adopt dynamic pricing, one could argue we are in fact asking a silly question… because they already have! More worthwhile questions might be “who pockets the difference?”, and “are consumers able to see it?”

This brings me to an interesting disagreement I had with someone who knows considerably more about this than I do; and he also has 20+ years of experience.

Max and I part ways

Max Büsser read my HM12 essay and during the course of a discussion that ensued we got onto this subject of pricing. His position, which he holds as more of a personal ethic, is that you should ‘treat people the way you would want to be treated’. He does not want fluctuating prices for two main reasons. First, if you were the customer, a moving price means you might buy at ‘the wrong moment’ and feel like you made a mistake. Second, he thinks it nudges watchmaking further toward a speculative, asset-mindset model, which is arguably bad for everyone.

I suppose this is at least an admirable perspective, and for what it’s worth I think it is half right. A stable retail price is undoubtedly a powerful anchor. It is the number you (as a consumer) measure ‘I did well’ or ‘I overpaid’ against, and taking it away does leave you slightly adrift at sea with every purchase. The behavioural economists would file Max’s worry under anticipated regret, and they would be right to do that. I respect the whole instinct… I am just not sure it is doing what Max thinks it does.

I mean, notice how fixed pricing does not actually delete one’s regret. If anything, the regret is just moved somewhere else. With a fixed price you still get to feel terrible, as the person who paid retail for a watch now worth half, or as the person who could not get allocated and paid triple to buy it off a flipper. The bad feeling was always somewhere. A moving price just changes who you are pissed off with… and the ironic part is we probably forgive the faceless flipper for charging the market price more quickly than we forgive the brand for charging the identical number - that’s likely because we have decided ‘the brand is supposed to be on our side.’ Max is, in effect, refusing to break that, and I respect the position - I just think the regret it saves is mostly being moved, NOT removed.

Read more

—

A quick PSA for Genta fans… I was speaking to Alexia Genta, who told me something interesting:

“Dad famously said he didn’t like watches, that’s because his absolute passion was painting. To him watches were constraints, but painting was freedom… Every morning he designed watches, but he couldn’t wait for the end of the day so he could lose himself in the feeling of complete freedom that a blank canvas offered him. He always defined himself as an artist before anything else. My mission is not only to preserve his watchmaking legacy, but to help realise his deepest dream to be recognised as the great painter he was.”

And so… if you’re in London today, go check this out (register here):

If you’re new to SDC, welcome! When you have some time, check out prior editions of SDC Weekly here, or find enlightenment in the archive here.

Estimated reading time: ~34 mins

Subscribe now

In case you missed these last week:

🔁 Secondary Reinforcers

Every collector has some story about why they collect - be it craft, history, flexing, or whatever mix of these or other reasons they can come up with. Most of the time these stories are lovely, but almost all of them fall apart when we view them next to the person’s full collection… typically several watches, many of which haven’t been worn in ages and there’s another #NWA in the near future.

So, you’ve passed the point you would have called ‘enough’ a long time ago, and some part of you knows it. Why are you still, at 10am on a Thursday morning, refreshing Subdial’s new-arrivals page as though it’s a lottery draw? (Not an ad, lol!)

A reader (named ) left this interesting comment on SDC Weekly 149:

Today we’ll take Foresight up on the deep-dive idea.

What is a secondary reinforcer?

Psychologists split rewards into two buckets. A primary reinforcer is something your body wants with no instruction manual - so that’s things like food, water, warmth, sleep, etc. You were born, pre-loaded, to ‘care’ about these things. A secondary reinforcer is something that means nothing to you at birth and develops a ‘pull’ by being paired, over and over, with the primary stuff.

The canonical example of this is of course money. A banknote can’t feed you or help your sleep deprivation - but it still works because you’ve learned that it reliably converts into things that can. Status and praise are in the same bucket. Another good example is the clicker a dog trainer uses; it makes a click sound that means nothing to a puppy right up until it starts predicting a treat - after which the dog will happily work for the click alone.

This whole principle has two main origin stories, and both of these famous experiments date back to the late 1800s. Ivan Pavlov with his drooling dogs in the 1890s showed how a meaningless thing like a bell can gain ‘power’ by being paired, again and again, with something that does matter, like food (this is classical conditioning). Edward Thorndike, around the same time, showed using cats in homemade puzzle boxes that we repeat whatever gets rewarded (this is instrumental conditioning, which is the basis of operant conditioning). To quote from the link above:

“While classical conditioning depends on developing associations between events, Thorndike’s law established the basis for operant conditioning: learning from the consequences of our own behavior.”

A secondary reinforcer is what you get when you put these two findings together. The pairing gives a neutral thing some sort of value, Pavlov-style - and then you work and scheme to get it, Thorndike-style.

To put it another way, money is what you’ll find at the junction of the two most famous experiments in the history of psychology. B.F. Skinner turned up mid-century and put all of this into a type of system, with levers and pigeons and reinforcement schedules… but really, he was just laying floorboards over the foundations that were already decades old.

The best real-world proof that all this does work in practice was the token economy. In the 1960s, Teodoro Ayllon and Nathan Azrin ran psychiatric wards where patients earned little tokens for self-care, bed-making, work, and could swap those tokens for sweets, cigarettes, and other small privileges. The tokens ‘functioned like money’, which is basically the main point - a worthless disc can become a powerful motivator as soon as it ‘buys’ things you want1.

I guess that is Foresight’s instinct, and it’s a pretty good shout. When you look at us humans, a huge amount of what we grind for has no value in and of itself. We then chase the proxy because, somewhere down the line, the proxy buys the real thing. A watch is an expensive proxy after all… I mean, nobody’s stomach ever grumbled for a perpetual calendar, right? (I’m sure someone will argue this point!)

What doesn’t add up

All that being said, according to the theory, a secondary reinforcer that stops being cashed in for the real thing is supposed to stop working. So if a dog hears the click but never gets a treat, eventually it will do nothing when it hears the click. Trainers know this, and that’s why the general advice is to keep pairing the click with food at least some of the time - otherwise the click will become useless.

So the model predicts the chase should die down when the link breaks, and it should not carry on forever. This is awkward because unlike Foresight’s implication in his comment, “continue on regardless of the new consequences” is the opposite of what the theory says should happen.2

You might think this sinks the idea altogether, but the conditioning research has two good comebacks - which is basically why this is an SDC section and not a reply in the comments section.

Why the chase won’t die

The first comeback is that money is a special kind of secondary reinforcer - it is a generalised one, which was Skinner’s own term for it. Most learned rewards are tied to a single thing which fades when that thing stops paying out. Money is tied to nearly everything, so it pretty much never decouples from a primary reward, because you’re forever cashing some of it in for dinner. That means it can’t extinguish, because the pairing never ever stops. The same is true for status - it still ‘buys’ you tables, mates, deference, and a hearing, so the world keeps topping it up whether you asked it to or not.

The second comeback is that a behaviour lasts longest when the reward is unpredictable - this is the so-called variable-ratio schedule. A slot machine pays out after some random number of pulls, and that randomness is why people keep pulling through a losing streak. They never know if the next one is the one, so they can’t make themselves walk away. It is, as it happens, the single most extinction-proof pattern anyone has ever found.

With all that in mind, look at how you actually collect. You don’t land the grail every time you go looking, right? You get a dead lead, another dead lead, a near miss, and then, once in a long while, the right watch at the right price comes into your life and your whole nervous system lights up like the machine spitting out coins.

You are on a variable-ratio schedule!

Read more

If you’re new to SDC, welcome! When you have some time, check out prior editions of SDC Weekly here, or find enlightenment in the archive here.

Subscribe now

Estimated reading time: ~30 mins

🚀 The Escapement

Ever since The Escapement was announced, I have been getting the same two questions, over and over, in DMs and comments and WhatsApp groups. The first is ‘what actually is this thing?’ and the second is ‘how is it different from Watches and Wonders or Dubai Watch Week?’

These are fair questions, and with tickets going live imminently, I figured I should answer them to the best of my ability - once - instead of typing slightly different versions of the same reply into a dozen DMs.

For the avoidance of doubt: I co-founded this event, and I’m also its head of content. So asking me whether The Escapement is worth attending is roughly like asking Aurel Bacs if his title lot is worth buying. I will do my best to be useful anyway, and you can calibrate accordingly.

Who is “we”, anyway?

I figured I should cover this because “a few collectors decided to throw an arena event” might set off alarm bells (as it would for me too).

The founding team is split by design - half are seasoned watch enthusiasts, and half people who build large events for a living. On the collector side you’ve got names some of you will know: Anish, Horology Ancienne, myself, and a couple of others. On the production side, we have legit heavyweight experience. The three event leads have something like 75+ years between them running large-format consumer events, which includes arena takeovers, 35,000-person music festivals, that scale of stuff.

The bit that makes our economics work, though, is that one of our co-founders, Petr, owns a fabrication house that has built stands for the watch industry for over a decade (IWC, Montblanc, Hermès, Piaget and others, at Watches and Wonders and Basel before that). The same team has built Greubel Forsey boutiques in SoHo and Ginza. Because the fabricator is part of the event rather than being a vendor hired by it, we get our production at ‘cost’, with no chain of markups (from fabricator to agency to organiser). That’s the reason a brand can participate in our event for a fraction of what the equivalent would cost at other shows, and it’s the reason we could afford to cap brands instead of cramming the floor to pay the bills.

My point is that you can rest assured, this isn’t a group of enthusiasts winging it.

Who are watch events for?

Let’s start with my favourite Munger quote: ‘Show me the incentives, and I’ll show you the outcome.’ I think a useful exercise for understanding any event is to ask who pays for it, and who it needs to keep happy. Follow the money, and the experience will be self explanatory.

Watches and Wonders, for example, is a trade show. It exists so brands can present novelties to retailers and press, and the production budget (which is an eye-watering sum btw) is spent in service of that mission. Yes, they sell public tickets now, and the public days have grown, but when you attend as a collector, you are essentially a plus one in someone else’s show. The important meetings are happening behind frosted glass, the people you want to talk to are double-booked with Bucherer, and the whole machine would run exactly the same if you stayed at home. You can feel this when you’re there, in that It is mostly a B2B event that tolerates random collectors.

Dubai Watch Week is a different animal, and I genuinely love DWW; I’ve said publicly it’s the best ‘watch show’ in the world, and I stand by that description (for now, anyway!). You can touch the watches, talk to watchmakers, and it’s free! But it has two specific features worth noting... First, it’s run by a retailer, and a retailer’s incentives shape everything from which brands get prominence to how the floor is laid out. Mostly, this works out fine, but the curation logic is ultimately driven by commercial needs. Second, and this is the bigger one for you, it only happens every two years. This means that in the off-years, the collector community has... nothing. We are all dressed up with nowhere to go.

That particular gap is where The Escapement fits neatly. It is the same November weekend DWW occupied in 2025, fast-forwarded one year, and now in Abu Dhabi instead of Dubai.

So, what is it?

It’s a three-day event at Etihad Arena from 20-22 November 2026. Friday is for VIPs, media and industry. Saturday and Sunday are general admission with 10,000 tickets available across the weekend. We’ve also partnered with the city of Abu Dhabi and their various entities to really embed our event into their city’s events calendar (including their comedy festival, and their collectors’ week programming).

The brand list is capped at 50, even though the venue could physically hold more, so this was a deliberate choice and not a constraint; anyone who has trudged through a hall of 100+ exhibitors knows that past a certain point, more brands just means more noise and less of the stuff you do want to see. The brands we’ve curated run from accessible independents around 3-4K CHF all the way to pieces in the 300-400K range - Greubel Forsey, Biver, Rexhep Rexhepi, Daniel Roth, Gérald Genta, Czapek, Romain Gauthier, Ming, Simon Brette, Atelier Wen, Konstantin Chaykin, Louis Erard, Kollokium... you get the idea. These are brands we own, brands we have on order, brands we want to get to know better, or just brands which do cool things.

One more point people keep asking about... we have nothing to do with selling watches. We sell floor space and stage time to brands, and tickets to you, and that’s the entire business model. If we were taking a cut of watch sales, we’d be dealers running a dealer event, and the whole ‘for collectors, by collectors’ thing would be nonsense. How brands handle their own retail relationships in the region is none of our business.

The stage

This where I need to explain my own job… given I’ll be the one working with brands on this. The centrepiece of The Escapement is a stage - I mean an actual arena stage, anchoring the whole floor, with programming running across all three days. And the rule I’m enforcing as head of content is simple… there will be no brand representatives reading press releases you could read for yourself on Hodinkee.

A press release says the moonphase is accurate for 45 million years. It tells you the power reserve went from 60 to 72 hours. These are best described as ‘factoids’, and factoids are free; you can read them on your phone in bed. What you can’t get on your phone is the why. Why did anyone decide a 45-million-year moonphase was worth pursuing? What broke along the way? Who lost sleep over it? Those are stories, and stories are the entire reason any of us end up falling for particular watches. Nobody has ever justified a watch purchase solely with a spec sheet - people like us buy objects that mean something, and the meaning comes from the story attached to the object.

So yeah, that’s what the stage is for. Some brands will do grand keynotes, some will do something intimate and stripped back. Lang & Heyne, to give you a real example, wanted to launch a new watch for their 25th anniversary, and talk about what it took to create it, and the craftsmanship within it. We’re still working through the stage content so everything is still subject to change - but that’s the key difference with this event: we work with brands to create something we think will resonate with people like us.

We also have a separate stage which can keep folks entertained between brand segments. Here we will have things like fireside chats with collectors and panel discussions about hot topics like the hand finishing debate (btw, I’d welcome other suggestions). The panels will include and also be moderated by people from the community… and because we’re tied to no retailer and no publication, we can put whoever we want on that stage and discuss whatever we want. You’d be surprised how rare that is.

Nighttime

This is the part I’m perhaps most excited about, because it fixes my single biggest frustration with every watch event I’ve ever attended. The daytime experience at a good watch fair is fine, but the evenings are always fragmented. You’d typically have a hundred separate dinners and hotel-lobby gatherings scattered across a city, and you spend half your trip discovering the next morning that everyone you wanted to see was at the other thing. The community comes together for the day and then atomises every night, and nobody seems to question it.

So for our event, we kept everyone in the building. Each of the three nights, the arena will be transformed into an evening venue and the whole community experiences the same thing together. The VIP night is a gala with orchestral and cultural programming. The two general admission nights are, respectively, a comedy night with an A-list comedian (who is himself a watch collector), and closing ceremonies featuring a performance by an A-list musician. Names will be announced in due course, and no, I can’t say more yet (which is killing me, because these two shows alone would justify the ticket price!).

If you can’t make it

For those who can’t make it to Abu Dhabi… we’ve thought about you too. The daytime programme is being broadcast ‘professionally’ (includes a multi-camera production, a real director, on-screen graphics, hosts carrying the day, etc) by a team that has spent the past decade producing live broadcasts for some of the biggest streaming platforms on earth. Think of it like watching golf or F1; you have a lot of stuff going on in different places, and you need someone to share commentary as the director cuts to different cameras showing different scenes, and you need on-screen graphics to summarise what is going on in the shot you’re currently viewing - that’s what ‘professionally’ means (as opposed to a static camera just pointed as the stage or around the arena - that would be pointless!).

Plus, we’ve already started releasing a video series called The Road to The Escapement, where we’re visiting the participating brands and the people inside the ateliers. We’ve already shot several of these, including one where Romain Gauthier makes us fondue, which I mention purely because it’s the least press-release thing imaginable and that’s precisely the point. Rexhep’s video dropped last week, and hopefully by the time you’re reading this, we will have posted another (I think Luca Soprana, but can’t recall).

VIP versus GA

Actually, this is one other question I keep getting. A General Admission (GA) ticket gets you the weekend only; the full show, the stage programme, the activations, the comedy night and the closing performance. A VIP ticket gets you all of that too, plus the Friday, plus a dedicated VIP lounge inside the arena for all three days, and some exclusive content on the Friday. There’s also a VIP gala on Friday evening, and on all three nights the VIP tickets buy you front of stage seating as well.

The lounge is easy to explain; arenas are big, days are long, and having somewhere private to chill might be worth more to some than others. I guess more generally, it’s basically the same event with a different denominator. Only 1,000 VIP tickets will be sold, while the GA days are capped at 10,000. Same brands, same stands, same stage, same building... a tenth of the crowd.

If paying for fewer people sounds strange, consider that it’s arguably the purest luxury product there is. Most of what we call luxury is paying a premium for the absence of something… waiting, friction, queues, whatever. A first-class seat on a plane lands at the same time as economy; what you bought was space, comfort, and silence. So really, with a tenth of the crowd in the room, ‘absence’ ends up being ‘easier access’ to whatever is in the room.

There’s also one more thing, which I’ll share with the caveat that I really don’t know what shape it’ll take. Some brands have made it clear they want to look after the VIP group ‘properly’… call it a desire to serenade perhaps. What that means in practice will vary by brand and is still taking form, so I’m reporting the intent rather than promising any specifics. But if you think about it, the underlying logic is pretty sound; if you’re a brand and there are 1,000 of the most engaged collectors in the world under one roof, that’s a valuable captive audience.

None of this makes GA a ‘lesser’ product, to be clear. The weekend days are ‘the event as designed’, and they end each night with thousands of fellow collectors at a shared performance. Besides, the launch price for tickets are GA: 1600 AED ($435, £325) and VIP: 4400 AED ($1195, £895) so there’s too much value in the GA to say it’s a ‘lesser’ option. The VIP is just… more exclusive.

The way I’d frame this choice is that GA is for soaking in the show, and VIP is for longer private conversations; you’re optimising for depth, and paying for the smaller room in which depth can be achieved. Plus you get into the bigger room afterwards. You get both options, is the point.

Practical stuff

20-22 November 2026. Etihad Arena, Abu Dhabi. Saturday and Sunday are the ticketed general admission days; tickets go live on Monday 15 June at 5pm UAE time, and you can sign up for notifications on our website right now. Tickets will be sold via the Etihad Arena website (which you can also navigate to via the button on our website once it’s live). Oh, and in case you’re wondering, the arena handles all ticket sales, and they keep your money until after the event - so there’s no risk of a ‘Fyre festival’ situation; if the event doesn’t happen, they’re keeping your money safe.

Nobody has tried to put the watch community in an arena before, and first editions of anything involve a level of uncertainty that I’ve come to accept as the price of building something new. The team includes large-scale-event veterans, who have collectively launched massive events for the last 20 years… so I mean, we could not have chosen a better team! And what I can tell you is that every decision (brand cap, stage rules, shared evenings, broadcast, etc) was made by asking one question over and over... ‘what would we want?’

In November, we will find out whether we answered this correctly. I’d love for you to be in the room when we do.

Hope to see you in Abu Dhabi! ✌️

Leave a comment

Read more

As part of the build up to The Escapement in Abu Dhabi this November, we’ve started a YouTube series called The Road to the Escapement. The latest episode features Rexhep Rexhepi talking about his new dong gong. If you haven’t already, subscribe to the Escapement’s YouTube channel to catch all the upcoming videos… I think Romain Gauthier is next. These are not primarily ‘marketing’ videos for the event at all; they were paid for by us, with the primary purpose of entertaining and informing collectors like you and I - so I really hope you enjoy them (feedback always welcome, of course). Tickets for the main event will be launching soon, so keep an eye out for those via the website.

Anyway, let’s start this edition with some wise words from one of my favourite thinkers:

Real artists do all the painting themselves, not like Rembrandt

Real artists use brushes, not technology like Cartier-Bresson

Real writers write it out by hand, not like Jack Kerouac

Real musicians record it live, not like Steely Dan

Real singers sing without processing, not like Kanye West and Daft Punk

Real directors do the prep without AI, not like Martin Scorsese

It turns out that real artists have always used technology. What they have in common is intent, responsibility, and the ability to create a feeling in the audience.

“Here, I made this.”

— Seth Godin

What about real watchmakers?

If you’re new to SDC, welcome! When you have some time, check out prior editions of SDC Weekly here, or find enlightenment in the archive here.

Subscribe now

Estimated reading time: ~35 mins

🐐 A Crazy Motherfvcker

Most collecting stories follow a similar arc... you want a watch, you can’t have the watch, but then you eventually get the watch, and then you feel slightly empty and start wanting a different watch. This is the hedonic treadmill in a nutshell, and most of us know full well it’s a treadmill, and we hop on anyway because the hunt is the real drug.

Then, every once in a while, someone’s treadmill leads somewhere interesting, and the watch turns out to have been a kind of door the whole time.

This is a story about a man you probably know as @nycwatchguy. Most of the internet files him under ‘meme guy’, and the memes are decent for sure, but there’s a lot more to the man. He is by any reasonable account a successful entrepreneur who runs a sports and entertainment fund, plays pickup basketball like a pro, and a huge cat lover. He once mounted a citywide search for a lost cat that, I’m pleased to report, ended happily. For the rest of this post I’ll call him V.

Now before we go any further, I will add that V is a friend of mine, and of course, we met through watches, as us watch people tend to do. I say this so that you know to read everything that follows knowing that I (mostly) like the guy. That said, I’ve tried to stay neutral mostly because a fawning profile would bore us both, and also because quite frankly, the story holds up fine without any help from me.

The reason I decided to write this section is because it’s a great example of a watch working as a ‘key’ instead of just a wrist ornament - this will become clearer as we go along.

Where it starts

V grew up middle class in India, surrounded by wealthier friends. The thing he wanted more than anything in the fourth grade was a Casio with a built-in TV remote, so he could change the channel on people from across the room. It cost about $100 back then, which in his house was serious money, and he never got the watch. He finds it funny now that he’d drop more than that on dinner without even thinking (I can confirm he does this frequently).

At university his dad bought him a $40 quartz Timex, which became his most prized possession. In his final year he had a professor which any of us might describe as a cvnt. He was a hedge fund guy parked in academia during an SEC probe, who handed V a ‘D-’ and was mighty proud of a watch V thinks was a Glashütte Original. V never said a word to him. ‘Wanted nothing to do with him,’ he said, and the watch only emerged in his memory years later, when he started wondering why he’d become quite so obsessed.1

V’s spark came around 2011; he saw a Zenith Academy Christophe Colomb, assumed Zenith must therefore be the summit of all watchmaking, couldn’t afford the $350,000 version, and fell instead for one very specific Zenith El Primero Chronomaster.

He hunted it pre-owned across New York for months and found nothing, then mapped every watch shop in Rome on holiday and dragged a long-suffering companion to all of them. On the way back to the hotel, defeated, he wandered into a jewellery store on a whim. An older woman pulled out a roll of trade-ins, and inside it was the exact watch he had been hunting for all along. He talked her down from around $4,500 to $3,500, ‘saying I didn’t have much money, which was true’, and walked out with no box, no papers, and what he still describes as a feeling of fate.

He’s never been back to Italy since.

A mythical object

V’s god is Michael Jordan, and I don’t mean this as a figure of speech. He met MJ as a 17-year-old at summer camp, and has spent his whole life idolising the man. So, when a serious collector in Chicago messaged him in early 2021 to confirm a rumour V had been wondering about for some time, it took him by surprise. The rumour was that Urwerk had made a small number of watches for members of Grove XXIII, Jordan’s famously private golf club. There were only twenty-three pieces, never publicised, NDAs for all buyers, that sort of thing.

The Chicago collector seems to have verified it the only way such things can be verified, which is to say he accosted a stranger at his local mini market who happened to be wearing one! V immediately rang everyone he knew with a Jordan connection, starting with Urwerk’s management, who would not confirm the watch existed and, I suppose promisingly, would not deny it either.

Roughly a year passed and he kinda lost hope. Then, over lunch in Miami one day, one of V’s own fund investors clocked the Urwerk UR-220 on his wrist and asked him, ‘what the fuck is that on your wrist?’ V explained Urwerk, mentioned the Grove edition he’d been hunting for a year, and the investor said, with nonchalance, ‘oh, you want me to call him for you?’

Call who?

‘MJ.’

Well, no sh1t… but V just assumed nothing would come of it. Two days later he was in the shower when the phone rang. Dripping, he answered. ‘Is this thing called the Urwerk Grove XXIII edition?’ Yes. ‘I talked to MJ and am connecting you to his guy.’ The guy did his diligence, researched V, researched his fund, and decided he was ‘a real dude and not some joker off the street’, and V, being V, rapped out his whole life story into the phone, including the hilarious ending ‘they will bury me one day in this watch.’ A chilly December day soon after this call, a package was handed to V at the St. Regis in midtown.

One of twenty-three had arrived.

How collectors lie to themselves

At this point I’d usually cue the violins... but V is rather unsentimental about what happened next.

Urwerk made a second version for MJ. Several of the original recipients, finding the brand too avant-garde for their taste or seeing profit, sold theirs. ‘Now like 6 of my friends have them and it ain’t really THAT special to have one any more,’ he admitted. The scarcity that made the watch magic, the twenty-three, members-only, unconfirmable-by-the-brand quality of it, leaked away, as scarcity tends to. The watch he thought was his end game became, in the cold light of a maturing market, a very cool watch that a handful of his mates also owned.

I find this framing pretty useful, because the thrill was never really in the metal itself, but in the impossibility of owning it. Once you remove the impossibility you’re left with the object, and the object, however epic, obeys the same emotional depreciation curve as everything else you’ve ever lusted after. ‘Everything wears off eventually, right?’

Never ask for money

So the watch lost a little of its shine... but the relationship it opened was the polar opposite.

For three years V kept Jordan’s people in the loop on his fund, sending quarterly updates and the odd deal, and mostly heard nothing. When he started raising his next fund, he sent a note that more or less said ‘everything I’ve built traces back to loving basketball, which traces back to one man, the amount is insignificant to me, I just want to be in business with you’. And again, he heard nothing… three months of nothing. His feeling at the time was: ‘Goddamn it, never ask for money!!!’

And then, a week before he was due to fly to Geneva (to collect some watches obviously), a reply came in. This led to a meeting at his New York office, at the end of which he was told that Jordan would like to invest in the fund. V says he damn near fainted. If that wasn’t enough, the guy asked what he was doing that night, because MJ was in town.

‘Bro, I’d cancel my own wedding if it was tonight.’

He showed up at a random building downtown and finally met the man he’d idolised his whole life - but this time, as a business partner. He talked far too much, and then pulled out his Akrivia AK-06 in steel, number 23, and showed Jordan how Rexhep Rexhepi had changed the ‘25’ to a ‘23’ on the power reserve scale, as a nod to the greatest of all time.2

V says Jordan looked at him and said, ‘you’re a crazy motherfvcker man.’

It gets better, still. Jordan, apparently taken with the whole saga, flew to Geneva to meet Rexhep himself, and stopped at Urwerk HQ to sign the wall on the way. ‘If you spot MJ with an Akrivia one day,’ V says, ‘I’m taking full credit for that shit.’

What happened here?

V’s own moral is ‘if you love something enough and put it out in the universe, it will happen for you.’ It’s a lovely sentiment perhaps, and I don’t especially want to be the guy who ruins it - but I do think the more interesting perspective is a little less woo-woo.

The universe did not deliver Michael Jordan at all. V’s track record did all the hard work. The reason the phone call worked in the first place is that when Jordan’s guy went looking, he found a legit fund run by someone far more serious than the meme account would suggest. The watch got V into the room, but after that, it was the unglamorous stuff which did the work. ‘Put it out in the universe’ is a nice post for Instagram. ‘Build something a billionaire’s people can underwrite in an afternoon’ is the underlying roadmap to this sort of outcome.

This, I think, is the real lesson to take away from the story... a watch can be a key, but the key will only open the right door if there’s something worth letting in on the other side of the door - that bit is up to you.

Behind the memes

None of the above tells us what kind of collector V actually is, so I asked him some other questions to offer you a quick tour. He seems rather clear-eyed, almost to the point of bluntness, about his own record. He traded in and out of Richard Milles every few months in 2017, treating them as silly toys - turns out, each one would now be worth a New York apartment. He waited three years for a Vacheron Overseas Skeleton Perpetual, decided it was the best modern watch the brand had made, and disliked it the moment it touched his wrist. Wrong proportions, no strap could save it, ‘an expensive ass mistake.’ He sold a Logical 1 for roughly $100,000 less than it would fetch today. He is, in other words, about as fallible as you and I.

He’s also weirdly principled about taste. ‘I’m the guy who decides what gets meme’d,’ he says, only half joking, and claims he’s never once bought or sold a watch because of what the internet was doing. His logic is that if he likes something it’ll get hot eventually, so he’d rather buy ahead of the noise. The low-key watch he’s most devoted to is a Nomos World Timer NYC Edition, which says ‘5th Ave’ on the dial in place of NYC; nobody on Instagram cares about it, but he says he’ll never sell that one. He bought it after someone at Wempe messaged to say they’d found one in the safe, and he ran down Fifth Avenue to get it. There’s a version of V that is still the broke kid fresh out of college who met Ben Clymer at a Nomos event and thought a $3,000 watch was end-game stuff.

The persona costs him, mind you. The running joke in the trade is that he’s the Medici of the watch world, patron to every emerging independent. The reality, he says, is that he feels the pressure to back makers he can’t always afford to back, that brands assume NYCWatchGuy can buy anything, and that he says ‘no’ far more often than people think. Being the audience is a job, the job has a budget, and the budget is apparently not infinite.

Underneath all of this, he’ll tell you, watches come second, believe it or not. Basketball is the first love… he describes two hours on the court as his only real meditation, the one place his phone and his stress vanish - and he means it literally. He has leapt off his sofa screaming at a Steph Curry shot more times than he can count, and never once at a Hodinkee release. Watches, by contrast, mostly cause him stress, because he lacks the bottomless bank account a lot of this hobby assumes - he claims every purchase ‘legitimately hurts’ (which I call bullsh1t on, but anyway).

What watches gave him that basketball couldn’t, was the people. Here’s a specific question and answer from my interview with V:

For the most part I have had nothing but incredible experiences with the watch community, which is not what you’d expect from a bunch of rich people. As my mother always said, if you don’t have something good to say about someone, don’t say anything at all, and so I won’t be naming any names here.

I will say that very very few people have truly disappointed me in the watch community but there have certainly been a few who tried to chummy up to me and made up all sorts of fabrications, only for me to find out they were all lies and I honestly don’t even know what the end game was. There are also people who have bad mouthed me to ADs, I can only imagine to try and win themselves favor and try and cut off my allocations. I don’t know who these people are, but hopefully they’ve found something better to do with their time.

On the other hand, back in 2021 I was approached by a young guy at the Phillips auction in NYC asking if I was NYCWatchGuy and he struck up a conversation with me. This happens all the time so I never think anything of it, but sort of rolled my eyes at the time being like oh boy, here we go again. A few weeks later he messaged me and asked me to lunch. Once again, I was like eh, who is this kid but fine, I’ll oblige.

Well, fast forward 5 years later and he’s become one of my closest friends, has been an invaluable resource to me in the business world, and I’m truly glad he came up to me that day to say hello. As they say - always say hello to the person next to you on the plane because you never know, and so while I’m an introvert and will never be the first one to say hello, I’m always secretly hoping the other person will because I’m more than happy to chat!

This brings the whole story full circle and I didn’t think this was the end game when I started writing it. V once said that if you took his watches away he wouldn’t much miss the objects, but losing the people would leave a hole he couldn’t fill. The Grove XXIII Urwerk began as the most special object he’d ever owned, but later it was less so, and this ended up proving his own point for him… meaning the object itself kinda faded, but the man it introduced him to, did not.

I guess that’s all watch collecting ever really is... we tell ourselves we’re chasing the object, and sometimes, if we’re lucky and a little unhinged, the object turns out to have been a way of getting to the people.

Or, as the greatest of all time apparently put it, crazy motherfvckers, the lot of us.

Leave a comment

🚗 Ferrari says please don't buy it

At one of the anticipated launches the company has made in years, Ferrari’s head of marketing asked its biggest fans not to buy it:

“To my petrolheads that I meet, I always tell them, please don’t buy [the Luce]”

Enrico Galliera

According to him, the buyer they’re targeting is someone who already owns an electric car. What the fvck? This is a strange thing to say given that in 2025, Ferrari shipped 13,640 cars, and historically, ~80% are sold to existing owners.

Read more

I’ve been travelling for over a week now, and in between other commitments I have been working on a Ferrari Luce essay that I just cant seem to wrap up… anyway, something to look forward to, but for now, Jack Forster has done a fine job covering it here. I’m also bummed to be missing London Watch Week but if you’re in London this week, check it out here.

If you’re new to SDC, welcome! When you have some time, check out prior editions of SDC Weekly here, or find enlightenment in the archive here.

Subscribe now

Estimated reading time: ~37 mins

🎰 What You Lose When Your Watch Gets a Ticker

A few months ago I wrote about Watch Futures; this was the Kalshi-Bezel product that lets you trade contracts on whether Rolex discontinues the Pepsi, or whether the Bezel Rolex Index closes above some line at the end of the month. After that, I wrote about the Courtyard loot box; this was the $10,000 mystery pack with maths that work out badly for almost everyone who opens one.

I thought I was done with the financialisation beat for a while... but last week ArtNews reported that Kalshi has launched the same prediction-market BS for fine art. So if you’re into that sort of thing, you can now bet on whether Basquiat’s auction record breaks this year (the crowd says no), or what the priciest lot of the year sells for (the crowd is split between $250m and $300m), or whether a specific painting clears a specific price.

What I find intriguing is that the watch version came first, and the art version came second. That’s backwards, don’t you think? Regardless, I think the art version is the more revealing of the two, because it says something about the road our hobby is already a few miles down.

“Hedging” = pure fiction

Kalshi’s legal counsel says “a collector sitting on ten million dollars in impressionist paintings has no efficient way to manage that exposure—until now,” and they go on to add they are giving the art world “the same financial infrastructure the rest of the economy takes for granted.”

You know what that’s describing? Hedging. This is the respectable, grown-up reason a market like this is supposed to exist. The idea is that if you own millions of dollars of Monets and you’re nervous, you sell some contracts that pay out when Impressionist prices fall, and now you’re protected.

Except think about whether that actually works for you, the watch collector. To hedge your safe full of Pateks, you’d need a liquid market in contracts that move reliably opposite to Patek prices and settle against an index everyone trusts. We do not have that. We have things like WatchCharts, which (as I’ve noted before, and as the comments section reminds me almost every time) aggregates settled sales but is contested and not collectively exhaustive. We have Chrono24 asking prices, which are basically ‘aspirational fiction’ at best. Bezel’s Beztimate is another attempt and it still only covers what clears on one platform.

So the “hedging” pitch is mostly just decorative, right? What you get in practice is a venue to speculate, but it’s framed as risk management. Which is fine! But it’s worth calling a spade a spade, because the delta between the stated reason a product exists (managing risk) and the actual thing it does (letting you gamble on prices) is the whole story here. It is the same gap as Courtyard’s 95% buyback guarantee, which sounds like a ‘safety net’ and is really just the spread.

How does art matter?

Does the fact that the art market is doing this accelerate things in watches? I happen to think so - and I’ll offer three possible reasons for this.

The first we can call legitimacy laundering. Art is one of the oldest and most socially respectable asset classes on earth (Sotheby’s traces its first sale to 1744). As ‘proof’, just consider how nobody needs a 20-minute explanation for why a Picasso is a financial asset. It just is. So when Kalshi bolts prediction markets onto art, the watch version stops looking like a weird crypto-adjacent stunt and starts looking like one node in a purportedly normal, regulated financial system. That’s not to say the watch market became ‘more legitimate’ - this new development just allows watches to stand next to something that is already ‘more established’.

The second reason is that they get to share the infrastructure. This is all on the same platforms, it all uses the same CFTC “event contract” legalese, and we even have the same legal counsel making the same speech with the noun swapped from watches to art. So really, once you’ve built the rails for art, running watches on them costs almost nothing. Going back to the supply-side point from my loot box essay - these products proliferate because it is now cheap to build them!

For my third reason, let’s turn to NYCwatchguy’s bull case for watches. He made an argument that watches carry a massive psychological handicap which art doesn’t - that handicap was that watches have an MSRP. When a watch that retails for $70,000 sells for $900,000, your brain anchors to the retail number and screams “that’s 13x retail, this is insane.” A painting has no hang tag. “Meaning has no cost of goods sold,” he writes - which is a good line I thought. The market is just the market.

He treats the MSRP as watches’ ‘burden’, that is, retail price is the thing keeping them stuck at kindergarten while art sits in the faculty lounge. I suppose as a psychological matter, that’s fair enough.

But why not flip this and look at it the way a financial derivatives expert would. A prediction market needs one thing above all else, and that is an objective, agreed reference point to settle against. Did the contract resolve yes or no? That question has to have a straight answer, otherwise nobody will trade on it.

And here, I think watches are better collateral than art, not worse. A watch has a retail price, secondary comps, settled-sale indices, model references, serial numbers and all this other data. Art has an auctioneer’s estimate and a hammer - and this is precisely why the art contracts are forced into fuzzy wording like “will the record break” or “will the top lot clear $250m.” The very MSRP that NYCwatchguy calls the watch market’s anchor is the thing that makes a watch easier to write a bet on.

Is the bull case valid?

Give the man his due first; I agree that the pool of people who can afford ‘culturally important’ and scarce objects is growing faster than the supply of those objects, and the best objects are Schelling points (places people converge on without needing to coordinate). Everyone knows the Paul Newman Daytona, everyone seems to have now heard of Rexhep… and he’s right that most of the “this is insane” reaction is just MSRP anchoring plus unfamiliarity. He’s also right that you’re early to a market while it’s still uncomfortable, not after it’s comfortable.

I do have two pushbacks, though.

He leans hard on “art had a 250-year head start” - this is the idea that watches are simply walking art’s path but on a compressed timeline. Maybe. But that framing inherently assumes that watches must get to where art did, as if it were a law of physics. It’s really just one path among several. Art became a financial asset class, but it didn’t have to.

The other thing is how he frames watches “becoming art” as the bull case. But ‘bull case’ depends on your perspective, and in his framing, it really isn’t a good outcome for watch enthusiasts. Watches becoming art means watches becoming vaulted wall-assets you bet on instead of just being objects you wear and enjoy. The endpoint of ‘full financialisation’ might be something insane like a Journe in a vault in Delaware with a live ticker next to it - this is the sort of future I find a bit grim.

The ceiling in his story is, to me, more of a mass-cultural-damage scenario.

Thought experiment

Assume you love your watch, and today, you experience its market value somewhat ‘episodically’ through an auction result here, a forum thread there… things you can choose to look up or simply ignore. Now imagine a live prediction market trading 24/7 next to a Bezel index ticker, both flashing red and green. “Journe Résonance souscription breaks CHF 6m by December” at 41 cents, up two on the day.

More than the bet itself, the continuity is the big change here. Financial salience would go from something episodic or ‘ignorable’ to something ever-present and constant. The fact that art is now going down this path and accelerating things can maybe lead to betting on cultural objects becoming ordinary. And once it’s ordinary, it takes a lot of effort to look away from it.

And that’s not all… think about who has the edge in a watch prediction market; dealers with allocation, people who see the catalogues early, and arguably the brands themselves. Christie’s told ArtNews its conflict rules already bar employees from these markets. Watch brands have never needed rules like that, because until recently, nobody could make money trading on the colour of a Rolex release. A retail punter betting on watch prices is effectively sitting at a table where the other players can see his cards. The ‘democratisation’ here is real in the sense that anyone can play, but it is not real in the sense that everyone can win.

So, what to do with this?

Probably nothing, honestly. A prediction market is, at bottom, a kind of machine for turning collective social belief into a number. That’s not nothing, because price is, after all, a type of collective social belief represented in a number. It is what we tacitly agree something is worth right now given everything we know and feel. You can interpret that as efficient price discovery (bullish) or as something which turns watches’ meaning into a ticker (less so).

I haven’t budged from my previous conclusion; Kalshi can price your watch, but it still can’t tell you whether it was worth buying. All this financialisation infrastructure is going to keep knocking at the door whether we like it or not, and the only move that stays available to you is to keep your attention on the object and let the ticker blur into background noise. Whether that’s still possible, in a hobby that seems increasingly designed to financialise your attention, is the question we will need to answer for ourselves.

—

Related link:

Unpolished Article. It’s Too Hot Out There. When the market runs hot, ‘collecting’ can make speculation feel like curation.

Leave a comment

💰Rolex Mirrored Latour’s 25-year Escape Plan (Part 2)

In case you missed it (read Part 1 here), last week’s argument was that the watch industry’s AD system, with its allocation games and forced bundling, is basically identical to the Bordeaux wine trade’s en primeur system. I say this because both have selective distribution networks where producers dictate terms, intermediaries that absorb risk, and consumers who pay a ‘bundling tax’ for access to the good stuff. The wine model has been in operation, mostly unchanged, for a couple of hundred years; the watch industry model replicated this in about fifty years or less.

This week, we dig deeper, and explore what happens when even the producers decide that system isn’t extracting enough. In both industries, the inevitable outcome appears to be that the most powerful producers stop relying on the merchants and instead, start eating their lunch.

On 12 April 2012, Frédéric Engerer, the man who ran Château Latour for its owner François Pinault, sent a letter to the Bordeaux négociants informing them that the 2011 vintage would be Latour’s last en primeur release. From 2012 onwards, Latour would not sell its wine in barrel at all. Instead, it would hold the wine itself, in its own cellars, and release it through the négociants only when Latour decided it was ready to drink - sometimes seven years for the second wine, and 10-12 for the grand vin1.

The Bordeaux trade did not, on the whole, take this lying down. Latour was one of the five first growths - the very top of the 1855 classification I mentioned last week - and one of the biggest single beneficiaries of the en primeur system. The estate’s release prices had been hitting €500 per bottle and rising. The Bordeaux Chamber of Commerce, the négociants, and the international wine press all reacted as though Latour had announced half of Europe was leaving NATO or something along those lines.

There were 3 official reasons given at the time. First, provenance - Latour wanted to guarantee that every bottle leaving its cellars had been stored perfectly since the day it was bottled. Second, consumer preference - many drinkers had been complaining about being asked to buy ten-year-old wines two years before they were even finished. Third, control over release timing - Latour wanted to drip-feed older vintages into the market instead of emptying its cellar every spring at one price.

I said ‘official’ reasons because that was mostly BS cover. The real reason, which of course the trade understood within about 10 seconds of reading the letter, was to get more margin. A château that already commands €500 a bottle at release does not need en primeur to help with their cash flow (which was the original purpose, remember?). What it needs is to own the appreciation curve - to be the one selling the 2012 in 2024, at the 2024 price, instead of the négociant who bought it in 2013 and has been holding it in a warehouse for a decade. Pinault had spent the previous ten years renovating Latour’s cellars and reducing the proportion of each vintage sold via en primeur, in preparation for exactly this move. The plan was a decade-long capital intensive project with a mindset that was ready to take the risk onto their own books.

The next question was pretty obvious; if Latour could do this, why couldn’t others do the same? From what I’ve understood, the answer is that pulling off a Latour-style exit required enormous capital, an owner with patience for the long game, and the willingness to take on inventory risk that the négociants had previously absorbed; most châteaux can’t manage that, but clearly, Latour could.

Latour-shaped hole

What was more interesting in the years after Latour’s exit was what the négociants did with the Latour-shaped hole in their annual campaign.

A first growth dropping out of en primeur is a serious chunk of revenue removed from the Bordeaux trade, which meant the merchants needed a replacement. They didn’t find it within Bordeaux - in fact, they couldn’t, really, because the system was already maxed out on Bordeaux supply. So instead, they just expanded the franchise and built what’s now called ‘Beyond Bordeaux’, using La Place’s distribution infrastructure to sell wines that have nothing to do with Bordeaux at all.

The first non-Bordeaux wine to use La Place was Almaviva, from Chile, in 1998. Then Opus One from Napa in 2004. Then Masseto from Tuscany in 2009. By the time Latour left in 2012, the Beyond Bordeaux category had decent momentum. Today La Place distributes Penfolds (Australia), Solaia (Tuscany), Almaviva (Chile), Catena Zapata (Argentina), Vérité (California) and dozens of others, all using the same négociant–courtier–merchant model that has existed since the 17th century.

In short, Bordeaux merchants had built a massive distribution system, and when their main supplier started shrinking away, they made it available, for a fee, to anyone else who wanted that distribution. CVBG, one of the larger négociants, today reports that Beyond Bordeaux accounts for about 20% of its turnover, with Bordeaux en primeur only 35% and Bordeaux back-vintages 45%. So essentially, the system survived the exit of its largest producer by becoming a distribution layer for other producers’ luxury inventory.

The lesson in watches, if you’re drawing the same parallels I did, is that when a system stops working for the most powerful player in it, that player moves first, and the rest of the system will be forced to adapt to whatever’s left after they’re gone.

Rolex’s version

This brings us to Rolex, which did something similar between December 2022 and August 2023 - except they did it in a compressed timeframe that ought to be slightly alarming to anyone involved in watch retail.

Read more

If you’re new to SDC, welcome! When you have some time, check out prior editions of SDC Weekly here, or find enlightenment in the archive here.

Subscribe now

Estimated reading time: ~40 mins

👠 Quality won, luxury lost

Last week, BoF covered the FT Business of Luxury Summit in Puglia, and their headline was pretty bombastic; given how many people forwarded me their Instagram post, I figured I’d add this extra section here. What underpins a lot of the article is a claim that between 2022 and 2024, the global luxury industry lost about 50 million customers (i.e. the total addressable base dropped from 400 million to 350 million). Note: all pulled quotes in this section are from the BoF article linked above.

“According to Bain’s Claudia D’Arpizio, the global luxury industry peaked at around $1.5 trillion in size in 2023, reflecting overall growth of 40–45 percent since 2015, before contracting by almost four percent by 2025.

When asked what is the greatest risk facing the luxury industry, D’Arpizio didn’t cite tariffs, the war in the Middle East or slow growth in China, but rising inequality: the risk that luxury goods are becoming markers of exclusion rather than totems of aspiration.”

If you follow the watch market, and more so if you read SDC regularly, nothing in this article should be surprising at all. The watch industry has been arguing about this for about three years now but of course, the Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry would never put out a press release saying “the aspirational class has left the building.” Other industry reports seem to dance around the situation with phrases like “K-shaped” and “uneven recovery.”

The BoF article was somewhat clarifying, in that it offers a decent summary of what has gone wrong across all luxury, and a number of people who shared it with me seem to agree that nearly everything in there has some sort of ‘watch parallel’. In fact, we’ve explored many of those parallels in the SDC already.

Aspirational class disappearing

To start, Bain’s data shows the top 2% of luxury spenders now account for 45% of all luxury purchases, up from 35% in 2021. So about half of an entire global industry is now powered by 1 buyer in 50.

I wrote about how the K-shaped economy was about to do this exact thing to watches, and here’s a follow-up explaining why the aspirational watch buyer was being squeezed from every angle. The story across luxury in general sounds eerily similar to what we see with watches. Someone buying their first £7,000 watch is checking their credit card balance, but the person buying their 5th Patek is not. When wages stagnate, when discretionary income narrows, when GLP-1 drugs and longevity clinics start competing for the same wallets… the watch market will lose the bottom of its pyramid first.

The numbers we have seen in the watch industry confirm this too; Morgan Stanley’s Ninth Swiss Watcher report shows Swiss watch volumes have more than halved since 2011, from 29.8 million units down to 14.6 million. Total industry value is up modestly over the same period, but only because the mix has drifted upmarket. I suppose you can read that in two ways. The optimistic view is that the industry is “premiumising” and that’s what industry people will tell you. The more realistic view is that fewer people are buying more expensive things, and a lot of the people who used to buy entry-level Swiss watches are simply not buying any (and one could argue, they’re buying Japanese instead, but that’s a story for another day).

Bain’s Claudia D’Arpizio (via BoF) suggests that the big price increases of recent years have been ‘hardly accepted’ by buyers unless they came with corresponding creativity and quality. Watch collectors have a more pungent term for what happens when neither of those things shows up, which I explored at length when looking at the broader luxury asset correction. Ultimately, the verdict is roughly the same.

When a brand becomes the product

“India Mahdavi, the French-Iranian architect and designer, drew a distinction between what she called “industrial luxury” and “authentic luxury.” In the industrial model, “the brand becomes the product,” she said. The experience is standardised, disconnected from place and replicated across cities and continents.”

This, for me, was the best paragraph in the BoF article. In other words, with “industrial luxury” the customer is paying for the image of the brand, and not the thing the brand is making and selling. To be honest, this describes the watch industry over the past decade quite accurately.

Morgan Stanley estimates that marketing accounts for about 8% of luxury sector revenue. For an LVMH-owned watch business chasing F1 sponsorships, celebrity ambassadors and red-carpet placements, I’d guess the figure is comparable. I called this luxoplasmosis a few months back; the argument was that brands have become so obsessed with measurable marketing metrics (like engagement rates and reach) that they have stopped asking whether their campaigns build any brand equity at all. They confuse “moves metrics on the dashboard” with “being important” and then wonder why the watches don’t sell well.

In the watch industry, “the brand becomes the product” is essentially a watch that is made as a thing to carry the logo. You may know the name, the case is nothing special, the movement may be developed by an external supplier (but the brand will never say it outright), the dial design is super forgettable… but there is a Hollywood actor who’s invested in the brand and present in every campaign, and everyone is saying this is a serious horological player. The brand budget is doing all the work which the products themselves, cannot - and eventually, the maths catches up.

Handmade fairy tale

Speaking of “the brand becomes the product” - this phrase reminded me of a discussion which went on across many Substack pages at the time it was trending. The general principle was the issue of quality, or the pretence of it. The BoF article notes that Chanel and Dior pushed handbag prices up 59% and 51% respectively from 2020 to 2023; customers wanted to know what they got for that. In many cases, the answer was nothing. It was just the same bag, but at a much higher price. Delphine Arnault herself, on stage in Puglia, conceded: “we can’t really increase the price of a product without increasing the perception of the quality.”

No sh1t!

Watches did the same thing, with the added twist that “hand finishing” was a perfect example of a substitute story for legit quality improvement. The hand finishing fairy tale essay showed that for many “artisanal” brands, the math simply does not add up. When you divide annual production by total staff and allow for the fact that humans need to eat and sleep and answer emails, the claim of “fully hand finished” becomes mathematically impossible. All these sharp inner angles people fetishise can now be cut by CNC anyway, and the bevels can be polished by machine. The “hand” in hand finishing has, for many brands, become a marketing word instead of a factual description of what actually happened in a workshop.

Saint Laurent’s CEO said “quality has won over luxury” and the general consensus is that customers are more educated about quality than they were a decade ago. They know the gap between what it costs to make a bag and what it costs to buy one. So when it comes to watches, if the watch lacks quality, the price tag will not save it. As we’ve covered repeatedly in SDC, the watch market has confirmed this in the secondary numbers. Excluding Rolex, Patek and AP, the average watch now trades at -31% or worse relative to retail. Some Patek perpetual calendars sell at auction for as much as 70% below retail. Roger Dubuis released a reissue last year, and nobody could quite explain who that watch was for. The market spoke, and what it said was that the price did not match the offer.

Dead middle

If we zoom out on what the BoF article is getting at, the luxury industry has lost the aspirational buyers, retained the wealthy buyers, and now has this giant ‘middle layer’ of brands trying to be two things at once. They are too expensive to be considered ‘value’ buys, but also too generic to be ‘prestige’ buys; so they end up losing share on both ends.

Read more

If you’re new to SDC, welcome! When you have some time, check out prior editions of SDC Weekly here, or find enlightenment in the archive here.

Subscribe now

Estimated reading time: ~35 mins

🤡 Stern, again

As I started this section, I realised it’s been a busy few months for Patek content. In April, Stern scolded anyone who’d drawn a Rolex/Bucherer parallel to his Beyer acquisition. And then quite recently, he claimed 100% of the Cubitus design and confirmed that the perpetual calendar would go to existing VIPs and not to the much-advertised ‘next generation’ of collectors. Now Robin Swithinbank has had his turn for the FT...

“I don’t want anybody going down, either, but a lot of people will be out of business.”

Kinda cool to see Stern is stating the hard truth publicly like this; the top four privately-owned Swiss watchmakers (Rolex, Patek, AP, RM) controlled about half of the luxury Swiss watch market in 2025, up from 37% in 2019. The other half is being divided among everyone else, and Stern is more or less confirming he believes that a fair chunk of that ‘everyone else’ is not going to make it.

The old multi-brand AD model that propped up so much of the mid-tier worked, in part, because of bundling. If you wanted a hot Patek (or any ‘blue chip’ watches), the dealer could make you ‘force buy’ your way to earn the privilege; a Zenith here, a Carl F. Bucherer there... which is how many brands hit their numbers without really earning true customers on product merit.

To me, this is carriage collapsing in real time; you may recall we spoke about carriage not too long ago. Patek is opening its fourth directly-owned salon at Beyer; the global point-of-sale count is down from 500 at Stern’s accession to 259 today; US retailers have been cut by two-thirds to 38 (and yet still produce 16% of revenue, which tells you the bundling game was worth a fair chunk).

On certified pre-owned, Patek’s position seems to have drifted from ‘never’ to ‘maybe one day’:

“I’m thinking about something, but it’s too early to talk about it. It will take years.”

Sure, he’s not saying it’s definitely happening, but it’s not a straight denial either, and given how much they’ve rejected the idea in the past, even this tepid framing is a step in a particular direction. EveryWatch (per the FT article) reckons Rolex CPO did roughly $600m last year, or about 10% of the global secondary Rolex market - a side business larger than the primary sales of most Swiss brands. Stern saying “they realised it’s not that easy” is fair, but the maths is the maths. If you’re Patek, you eventually must capture some of that yourself or just watch the grey market hoover it up.

Him saying “it will take years” tells us that the spreadsheet has already been built, he’s just figuring out the mechanics of making it work. So, for me, it’s now a ‘when’ not an ‘if’ for Patek CPO.

When asked about following the rest of the industry into the world’s fastest-growing luxury market, Stern said:

“Why should I go there? It’s too early. Most of the Indian clients that want Patek are living in London or travelling to Geneva and the Middle East. So it’s not my priority.”

And then, almost in the same breath, he says:

“The tourist doesn’t really have the chance to buy a Patek. The retailer has to sell to the local client.”

So how does that work? You don’t need to go to India because Indian customers are buying when they travel… but tourists can’t really buy because allocation has to go to locals. As far as I’m concerned, Stern is openly saying he doesn’t care about Indian customers - despite the fact that India makes up roughly 18% of the world’s population and is arguably the single biggest long-term opportunity in luxury watches. Indians aren’t, in his words, “my priority.”

Now to be fair, Patek definitely doesn’t need India today; they sell everything they make. But in my mind, this is the sort of thinking that lets a brand sleepwalk through a generational shift in where wealth is being created. Hermès, Cartier, and others are making moves into India because a fair chunk of future watch collectors (young, globally mobile, legacy-minded, urbanising fast) live there. If you’re Patek, sure, you can ignore that today and the customers will still find their way to you. But will they feel the same way in 20 years’ time… about a brand that couldn’t be bothered to show up?

Stern closes the interview with “there is still a lot of pleasure and possibility for the watchmaking industry.” Sure, for Patek there is. As for the brands Stern has just casually consigned to closure… perhaps a little less so.

Leave a comment

Read more

If you’re new to SDC, welcome! When you have some time, check out prior editions of SDC Weekly here, or find enlightenment in the archive here.

Subscribe now

Estimated reading time: ~30 mins

📊 Three quarters of “nice”

There is a great Warren Buffett line about how you only find out who’s been swimming naked when the tide goes out… and in this case, the Swiss watch market spent four years with the tide on its way out, and this produced a great deal of analysis about who was naked. If all the prior Morgan Stanley/WatchCharts essays I have written are anything to go by, the answer was “most of them”, and in the case of one or two, distressingly so.

If you’ve seen the 1Q26 report which WatchCharts published with Morgan Stanley last week,1 you will see the tide has now slightly turned. The WatchCharts Overall Market tracker rose +1.9% QoQ, which marks the third consecutive quarter where secondary prices have risen by more than 1%.2

25 out of 35 brands posted positive performance, and all three listed groups (LVMH, Richemont, Swatch) were in the green together for only the second time in several years. Every brand that Morgan Stanley tracks for value retention saw an improvement, which is the first time that has happened since 2022.

So I guess it’s fair to say things like ‘the market is up’ or ‘things are fine’ or ‘the recovery is pretty broad and now even applies to listed conglomerates’. The only question, really, is what the words up, fine, and broad now mean in the current market given the last four years were spent pretty much redefining all these words.

Headlines have conditions

There’s no disputing the +1.9% headline number and it is also true that three consecutive quarters of growth is the longest sustained recovery this market has had since the May 2022 peak. I’d also say that the breadth stats are even more impressive than the actual level. A year ago only 3% of tracked brands and 14% of tracked collections were posting positive QoQ performance. This quarter those figures are 71% and 76% respectively. So it seems the market has gone from a single-elevator economy - Patek up, Rolex stabilising, everyone else on the way down - to something that almost qualifies as a market-wide bounceback. But is it really?

Well, the listed groups have finally caught a break as well; Richemont +1.2% QoQ, Swatch Group +1.5%, LVMH +0.7% and of course Rolex (which is technically not listed but found in the same chart) leads at +1.7%.

So far, so green; but remember, none of these are large numbers and the year-on-year performance is still a mixed bag… Richemont -0.9%, LVMH -1.8%, Swatch +2.7%, Rolex SA +5.9%.

A reasonable person reading this report (and the prior few) could easily make the case that the watch market has stabilised, and an even stronger case that 1Q26 is the first quarter in which that stabilisation has indeed been broad. They could also cobble together a very weak case that any of this represents a return to the conditions of 2021–2022 (but that would be dumb).

The report, to its credit, is explicit about the last point; they use the phrase “four years removed from the peak of the watch market bubble in 2022”, which is the most polite way I have ever seen anyone describe three years of decline.

Read more

Today we’ll start with a guessing game… if you haven’t seen it, the Swatch homepage is teasing something (and clearly not missing an opportunity to take the p1ss out of Watches and Wonders either!):

What could this be? Well, there are some other ads floating around, and I have these two courtesy of our friend Johnny Davis at Esquire:

What’s interesting is that if you check out the SISTEM51 website, you will see the image in pink (above) matches a component on the Swatch website (circled in red):

So part 1 is solved… this will be a mechanical S51 watch. Now onto the theme - and for this, check this out:

If you look at the straps from the homepage teaser, the colours seem to line up with these characters (light blue & white = Alice, light & dark pink = Cheshire Cat, light & dark green = Mad Hatter, dark blue = Caterpillar, black could be anything really!).

Coupled with the “Wonders” text on the homepage, my prediction is that they’re launching a SISTEM51-powered Disney collaboration with an Alice in Wonderland theme. Bear in mind, Disney’s animated Alice in Wonderland was released in 1951 - which makes 2026 the movie’s 75th anniversary. Perhaps Swatch has found a way to celebrate?

Or maybe I’m just delusional… I mean, it’s fair to wonder (lol!) whether Swatch would spend so much to advertise a Disney collab… I guess we will find out on May 16th!

Leave a comment

If you’re new to SDC, welcome! When you have some time, check out prior editions of SDC Weekly here, or find enlightenment in the archive here.

Subscribe now

Estimated reading time: ~20 mins

Read more

If you’re new to SDC, welcome! When you have some time, check out prior editions of SDC Weekly here, or find enlightenment in the archive here.

Subscribe now

Estimated reading time: ~40 mins

📉 Swiss Watch Industry - March Update

Our favourite federation has dropped the March numbers, and per most reports, everything seems stable. Q1 exports came in at CHF 6.2 billion, up 1.4% (YoY) on Q1 2025 (though March itself was down 1%.) After what we saw in 2025, ‘stable’ is the closest thing to a win you could get, I suppose.

That being said, the rankings do need some sort of health warning. France appears in second place this month with a 72.4% jump, and that isn’t real demand - the FHS itself flagged it as ‘re-exports to other destinations’ as opposed to legit growth in a new market. This seems to have started in December 2025 (when France went up by 50.9%) and has continued every month since.

The simplest explanation is probably some sort of post-tariff logistics rebalancing; brands pushed inventory into the US ahead of the 39% tariff in 2025, then watched US shipments collapse, and then started shipping again once the rate fell to 15%1 in December. As the GS Guy mentions in the comments - the routing through France does nothing to change the US tariff rate - tariffs follow country of origin, not country of dispatch… which means the French routing is about something else (logistics consolidation, VAT or corporate tax optimisation?).

Nobody is willing to name names, but the suspicion is that this is partly a Richemont consolidation play. Cartier is HQ’d in Paris and controls roughly 8.7% of the Swiss watch market by retail value, so French logistics for non-US destinations would make obvious sense. Tariff arbitrage on third-country shipments is also possible - the EU has more favourable bilateral trade deals than Switzerland (with markets like India and Mexico), which means routing via France can amount to lower import duties at the final destination (compared to going direct from Switzerland). If we strip out the French anomaly, March looks more like a 3-4% decline than the headline 1% drop.

There’s another interesting story in the price segments; watches above CHF 3,000 at export (which covers most luxury watches you’d recognise) were down 0.5% in March and basically flat across Q1. This is the segment that has driven essentially all the industry’s value growth for a few years now. The Morgan Stanley/LuxeConsult report in February said that watches retailing above CHF 50,000 accounted for 89% of total industry growth in 2025. If the upper end is flat, this would mean the engine has conked out.

What kept the headline numbers respectable here is volume at the cheaper end. Steel watches were up 5.8% in units but down 9% in value, which means average steel watch values fell sharply. Either brands are shipping fewer Subs and more Hamiltons, or there’s destocking going on – but it’s probably a bit of both.

India crossed into the top 15 (+56.6%), and Mexico also continued its climb (+16.4%). UK exports were up +3.2% to make it the second biggest legit market (France being hub-exports and not real demand) behind the US for the month. The report says:

Over the entire first quarter (+1.4%), several major markets appear to have reached the bottom of the wave, including Japan (-0.4%), Hong Kong (-0.8%), and China (-0.7%).

This is being measured against the same period in 2025 (which was rough!). Greater China was down 9% in 2025 and down 23% in 2024. So Q1 2026 is better described as “still declining, but more slowly than before, and from a very low base.” I’m not sure I would call this stabilisation - what is fair to say is that the slope is flattening, but the level is still falling. The reason it looks “near flat” is that there’s not that much further down to go after two years of mega drops.

Anyway, Saudi Arabia (-16.1%) and Qatar (-24.8%) seem to show the effects of war in the Middle East… but UAE somehow held flat at +0.7%, which defies logic.

I think this is because UAE is the regional distribution and logistics hub for a large chunk of the Gulf, so the FHS export figures for UAE probably include inventory that is eventually sold to buyers in Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and even to other regional and Indian visitors who shop in Dubai.

In essence, the war is impacting the home market economies in Saudi and Qatar, but the UAE’s hub status and diversified consumer base seem to be insulating it. I do think that if tensions get worse, UAE could probably absorb even more redirected business from its neighbours, the same way it absorbed Russian capital after 2022.

Most of this stuff ends up being “insights from hindsight” because who knows what any of this means in the moment. In Q2 we will see most W&W 2026 novelties start hitting boutiques and the post-W&W ordering cycle will kick in. For now, I guess the situation is best described as fragile but stable.

Leave a comment

Fhs March2026

167KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

🤔 Thierry denies what Thierry is doing

A few weeks ago, I argued that the Beyer acquisition was not really a one-off sentimental move, and more like Patek doing the same thing Rolex did with Bucherer, but subtly - just a steady slide from wholesale toward DTC.

Thierry Stern would like you to know that he disagrees.

He spoke with Andrea Martel at NZZ for what reads like a polite scolding of anyone (hi) who has drawn the Bucherer comparison. “We don’t go the way of Rolex with Bucherer and become a dealer ourselves”, he said. “Our focus remains watchmaking.”

Straight face

I have read the interview at least 3 times and I still can’t work out how Stern squares his words with his actions. He has just bought a 266-year-old multi-brand retailer, is converting the entire 600-square-metre store into a Patek-only Salon, will lay off about 35 staff in the process, and is opening his fourth directly-owned door in a city he describes in the same interview as “perhaps even more important” than Geneva.

If that is not ‘going the way of Rolex’, it is a pretty good impression of it.

What Stern probably means is that they are not buying an entire 100-store retail group in one go. That’s fair enough. The pace is obviously slower and the perceptions matter to him. But for anyone standing on the sidelines, the direction of travel is identical and the destination is the same - more brand-controlled retail, fewer multi-brand doors, and more direct relationships with collectors plus the data that comes with them.

The difference is in how it is being portrayed; Rolex announced a deal, and Patek is telling us, with a straight face, that nothing is really changing. 🤷‍♂️

Gübelin exit

The most consequential part of the interview for me, is when he is asked about Gübelin (which sells Patek in Zurich and is, per Stern’s own description, ‘directly opposite our future salon’), he said “in such a small space, this hardly makes sense.” He then walked it back with a polite line “the future of our cooperation with Gübelin in Zurich is currently the subject of discussions.”

To me, that is their death warrant; Patek’s owner has said, on the record, that two Patek doors across the street from each other do not make sense, and one of those doors is his own - so which one do you think is going to close?

I noted before that the Beyer conversion would have second-order effects on Zurich’s retail mix, and now we know what the first one looks like. Gübelin will likely lose its Patek allocation in Zurich, which is a decent chunk of revenue for a retailer that has been a Patek partner for decades. Whether the global Gübelin-Patek relationship will survive is a separate question, but the Zurich part is likely over.

Who paid for the tariffs

Stern also admitted something else; the US slapped tariffs on Swiss watches, and then those tariffs fell from 39% to 15%. Patek raised global prices by 4% on 1 February for materials cost, and US recommended retail prices ended up 8.6% lower than where they started.

So how did Patek absorb the original tariff hit without raising end-customer retail prices? Stern told NZZ, plainly, “we have reduced the dealer margin to compensate for the tariff-related price increases.”

So when the tariffs were at 39%, Patek’s US dealers ate the cost and end customers paid the same. Patek protected its brand image and its retail prices, and the dealers got squeezed. Now that the tariffs have come down, Stern doesn’t say whether the dealer margin has been restored, or whether Patek has just pocketed the spread.

I don’t know the answer, but ask yourself; if you were running Patek and you had just taken a chunk of margin off your dealers, supposedly only until the tariffs eased, and the retail prices the customer pays were now lower than they had been before… would you give that margin back? Or would you keep it, point to the lower retail prices as evidence of consumer-friendly pricing, and let the dealers absorb that loss?

If you combine this with the Beyer conversion, the picture starts to look quite consistent. Make the multi-brand model less profitable, and wait for succession or commercial pressure to take its toll. Then step in when the family runs out of options and convert.

Slow-motion

A few other lines in the interview fit the narrative; “We don’t want to open up new markets. We don’t have enough watches for that”, is the Patek line that has been recited since at least 2010 and that is somehow always true regardless of capacity. “Our goal has never been to make as many watches as possible”, which is fine, but is also the only acceptable thing to say given that they have been stuck around 75,000 watches a year for ages and seem to be hitting a wall on production.

The capacity-constrained, growth-isn’t-the-point framing is also the perfect cover for the retail consolidation. If you cannot make more watches, you do not need more dealers. You probably need fewer, but better placed, and ideally ones you control yourself. Every sentence Stern utters about constrained production is also really just a sentence about why fewer doors and more brand-owned Salons make more sense.

From where I’m sitting, Patek’s strategy looks pretty smart. Doing it slowly and politely, and continuing to tell everyone the third-party retailer model is sacred, is actually quite shrewd. It lets you keep the relationships with the dealers who still matter, while also relying on them less over time.

We should probably stop letting the brand tell us what is happening and just observe what they actually do. Stern says they are not going the Rolex way. Maybe… but every action of the last few years (shrinking from 400+ points of sale to under 300, opening fourth and fifth and likely sixth directly-owned Salons, acquiring a long-time partner the moment a succession crisis offered an opening, squeezing dealer margins to absorb policy costs) is a step on the same road Rolex took. They are just walking it more slowly, and I suppose with better manners… but methinks Patek ADs should start counting down to a world without Pateks to bundle.

Leave a comment

🔥 Grand Feu, a week later

When Rolex launched the new off-catalogue steel Daytona I made the case that they had borrowed the term ‘Grand Feu’ from the rest of watchmaking to label a dial-making process that does not meet the 150-year-old watch industry definition. I still stand by that... looks like Fratello agreed with me as well. Hot off the press… also covered it yesterday and concluded, very appropriately I might add, with this XKCD comic:

With that, we shall continue with, to borrow Jack’s words, “the endless pleasures to be derived from the human tendency to elevate minor points of distinction to the level of doctrine.”

More than a few people pushed back in the comments on my Grand Feu post; the point, roughly, was that the new Rolex ‘Grand Feu’ dial is simply nicer to look at than the metal-substrate enamel dials you have seen in person. I have not held a new 126502 myself, only looked at photos, and enamel tends to photograph badly at the best of times… so I can’t really referee this. But let’s assume you are right, and that the new Rolex dial is the prettier object under neutral lighting.

Read more

To quote a dear friend… “perhaps the most bizarre news released around Watches and Wonders…” is that Patek has apparently instituted a policy where only one archive can be issued - ever - for any particular watch. Another friend who is close to the brand has confirmed this to be true. What this means is that if you happen to buy a watch that has had an extract issued from the archive before, you can’t ever get one again, even if it’s lost, damaged, or stolen.

And just like that, Thierry has created a new hierarchy in the pre-owned Patek market. You think he’s a wizard, or just a moron?

If you’re new to SDC, welcome! If you have time to kill, find older editions of SDC Weekly here, and longer posts in the archive here.

Subscribe now

Estimated reading time: ~30 mins, unless you want to read about W&W 2026, in which case it will be 44 mins. I put the W&W section at the very end, in case you’re tired of reading about W&W (I know I am!).

🆕 Wei Koh launches Legare

This apparently happened at Watches and Wonders but it’s likely you didn’t hear about it, because as far as I can tell… almost nobody reported on it. Wei Koh appears to have launched his watch brand; it’s called Legare. He confirmed this on camera to Tim Green of Subdial, who bumped into him at the show and conducted what is, as far as I can tell, one of only two interviews about this launch.

That is pretty weird, don’t you think?

Wei runs Revolution, and The Rake; he hosts Man of the Hour on Discovery Channel, which is a multi-part documentary series about independent watchmakers that is airing right now. He is, by his own publication’s estimation, “one of the most well-respected voices in contemporary watchmaking.” If anyone could arrange for their own brand’s launch to receive better coverage across global watch media, it ought to be this guy.

And instead, the confirmation that the thing exists comes via a chance encounter with Tim Green on a trade show floor, recorded in low-res and uploaded to social media. I’d guess this low-key approach is no accident. Wei is now the President of the GPHG Jury, and there are obvious reasons to handle the “I have just launched my own watch” moment super carefully when your new high-profile gig involves judging other people’s watches. Chris Hall wrote “Wei reportedly says that there’s no chance it’ll be put up for a GPHG while he’s jury president.” Well that’s a relief… if true.

From the Subdial interview, we know the brand is called Legare, which Wei says derives from the Latin carrying the sense of legacy or ‘to bequeath’. It is the verb root that gets you, eventually, to the English word legacy. The brand motto is “à la recherche du temps perdu”, which is French for “in search of lost time” and also, as most of you will of course know, the title of Proust’s seven-volume novel about memory, cake, and jealousy.

The watch itself is called Chapter One and it measures 37.5mm in diameter and 9.9mm thick, cased in grade 5 titanium.

Wei’s co-founder is Guillaume Tetu, who co-founded Hautlence back in 2004, left to run product and later become COO at Ralph Lauren Watch & Jewelry, and then returned to Hautlence in March 2025 as Chairman and Advisor. Quite how all of that sits alongside a separate start-up venture, I do not know; it seems like the kind of thing a lawyer would have views on, but that is apparently the arrangement. Some images from the Subdial video:

So that is the what; which is to say, it seems like a Dufour Duality, but inverted. Turns out, that is no accident.

Piguet’s pocket watch

In 2019, Sotheby’s sold a pocket watch for CHF 250,000, when the estimate going in was only CHF 7,000–10,000 - which kinda tells you everyone in the room knew what they were bidding on but the cataloguer did not have a clue.

The movement was made in 1933 by a 19-year-old student named Albert Gustav Piguet, who was graduating from the École d’Horlogerie in Le Sentier, at the time the pre-eminent watchmaking school in the Vallée de Joux. Under the supervision of the headmaster Marcel Bulleumier, six student-made double-balance pocket watches were produced between 1932 and 1934; two at 38mm, two at 43mm, and two at 48mm. Piguet’s was one of the smallest, at 38mm.

The movement architecture is the main thing to note here; it’s a single gear train driving two balance wheels linked by a differential, built to run on the principles of resonance1. Pulling that off as a graduation project, in 1933, aged 19, feels rather prodigious if you ask me.

Piguet - I suppose unsurprisingly - went on to have a highly consequential career. He joined Lemania after graduation and rose to technical director, a role he held from 1948 to 1980. During that tenure he developed the CH27 chronograph calibre, later rebadged as the Omega cal. 321 - the same one that ended up on Buzz Aldrin’s wrist on the Moon. He also developed the legendary Lemania cal. 2310, which became a base for some of the most revered vintage chronograph movements used by the big names in watchmaking. If you collect vintage chronographs, there is a good chance you have looked through a caseback at one of Albert Piguet’s designs without even knowing it. Heck, I myself have enjoyed one of these in my Breguet 3237.

Duality links

Dufour told Josué Hernandez (and I covered this back in SDC Weekly 133) that he decided to make the Duality in 1996 after seeing a 1930s double-balance pocket watch in a book from the Rockford Time Museum. His recollection was that the pocket watch had been made at a watchmaking school in Le Locle. SJX’s essay on the 2019 Sotheby’s lot suggests the school was actually Le Sentier, and that a sister example of the Piguet (from the same 1932–34 batch) was the Time Museum piece, later sold when the collection was dispersed in 2004.

Le Locle and Le Sentier are not the same place, so either Dufour is remembering a different watch, or he is mis-remembering this one, or the book mis-captioned it. Who knows... what is not in dispute is that the Piguet-style 1930s double-balance pocket watches are the conceptual ancestor of Dufour’s Duality, of which he has made about ten.

Dufour’s technical premise was that by running one balance very slightly fast and the other very slightly slow, and averaging their rates via a differential, you can tighten positional variance across the six positions. Normally you try to minimise the spread, but with two balances, the errors should in theory cancel out. It is undoubtedly an elegant piece of horological gadgetry with essentially zero commercial justification, which is perhaps why people love it.

Which brings us back to Wei’s watch.

Legare Chapter One

Legare Chapter One is 37.5mm in diameter, and Piguet’s 1933 pocket watch movement was one of the 38mm calibres from the school batch; that delta is presumably the case flange, give or take?

My point is, the whole schtick of this new watch looks like it is to take the Piguet movement lineage, the same lineage that gave us the Duality, and simply copy it. That would make the motto “à la recherche du temps perdu” rather literal; you go into the archives, find a seminal creation in watchmaking, and then just remake it with modern materials and an inverted design.

For full disclosure, I would have tried to reach out to Wei for better images and a few more specs directly, but he blocked me on Instagram a while back. I have no idea why; likely a meme that landed badly, but no hard feelings on my end. If you are reading this Wei, DMs are hypothetically open; I think the watch looks interesting and I would love to know more.

Leave a comment

🕵️ Rolex gives us a clue

At the bottom of Rolex’s Oyster 100 celebration page, you will find this little teaser:

And on Friday last week, Niccoloy shared a recently published Rolex patent on Instagram, suggesting it may be linked to whatever Rolex is about to announce.

Esquire picked it up within hours and wrote a quick story about it, speculating that this might be the 1908 getting a calendar upgrade in May. Which… fine. Rolex speculation is a sport for all of us, and I’ve played it more than once in these pages as you know. Today, instead of the usual guessing game, I want to talk about the patent itself because the ingenuity here makes me wonder why it took so long for us to see such a thing in a wristwatch.

Read more

In case you missed it, I joined over at Unpolished Watches for a fun conversation which he published over the weekend (free for all):

Unpolished Watches

The Psychology of Collecting (w/ King Flum)

One of the reasons I find watch collecting so fascinating is that it puts on full display the entire breadth of human psychology: Why we want the things we want, and how to be happy with what we already have…

Listen now

4 months ago · 11 likes · 8 comments · Tony Traina and kingflum

If you’re new to SDC, welcome! If you have time to kill, find older editions of SDC Weekly here, and longer posts in the archive here.

Estimated reading time: ~45 mins

🤓 Building a village around a genius

Chris Hall went to visit Dominique Renaud at his new atelier in Tolochenaz, and the resulting dispatch was an interesting read. I came away with a few things I hadn’t really clocked before, and since one of SDC’s ongoing fixations is how indie brands actually stay solvent once the initial hype fades, this post was of particular interest.

The headline news, if you missed it, is that there is now an HHDR Group (Haute Horlogerie Dominique Renaud) sitting above both Dominique Renaud the brand and Renaud Tixier, and this company also holds a minority stake in Niton, and owns DS Assemblage which is a supplier that fell into trouble and was eventually acquired. If that sounds suspiciously like the Kari Voutilainen playbook of buying up the struggling suppliers you depend on, that’s because it is. Hall brings this up explicitly, and CEO Michel Nieto more or less cops to the strategy. Hall writes:

“…the entire point of HHDR Group is to lean on the prodigious creative output of Dominique Renaud while putting in place structures to ensure that the master watchmaker or inspirational engineer isn’t also having to balance the P&L, sort out the social media strategy and juggle retail relationships on four continents. What looked and sounded like an overabundance of corporate structures is really a framework for getting the best out of the team’s star talent, while also attempting to protect the various brands against shocks.”

What I found most interesting was the framing of all this. Nieto’s pitch, roughly, is that Renaud is a brilliant chap who should be left alone in the attic to invent things out of Lego Technic (yes, really - Hall even shared photos), while the grown-ups downstairs deal with P&Ls, retail relationships, and social media. The goal is to build “a village around him”, and the implicit point here, is that most indies collapse because the founder-genius ends up having to be the numbers-and-admin person too.

I also didn’t know - or had forgotten - that some of the patents Renaud developed over his career are still held by previous employers, meaning he literally cannot use his own inventions in his own watches until those patents lapse. The torque indicator on the Pulse60 is one that recently came back to him - which is its own little parable about what it actually means to be an “independent” watchmaker in 2026.

The question he ends on is whether this corporate-scaffolding-around-a-creative model is the future of sustainable indie watchmaking… I thought this was an interesting question to ask in the segment right now. Good job, .

Leave a comment

🎤 Georges Kern on Universal Genève

Georges Kern recently appeared on Watch Advisor for an interview… Most of the Universal Genève segment will sound familiar by now, if you’ve followed all the press releases (here are a few: Fratello, Revolution, EuropaStar). The brand is positioned ‘in the middle’ of the traditional offerings and what you might call the bling merchants. Sizes are supposedly capped under 40mm (apart from the Dioramic I think) on the advice of an advisory board of vintage collectors whose brief from Kern was “tell me what not to do.” I thought it was impressive to see how multiple collections were launched at once (Polerouter, Compax, Cabriolet, Disco, Dioramic etc) and this helps ensure the brand doesn’t get labelled as a “Polerouter revival” effort. The whole UG operation is walled off in Geneva with its own team - distinctly separate from Breitling.

All of this is sensible, and most of it has already been dutifully written up by the watch press. The one bit nobody seems to have spoken about in much detail is where the movements come from. I mean, Revolution even went as far as calling it “in-house”:

LTM outsourcing

Well… Mr. Kern isn’t hiding anything… “LTM is producing our automatic … with the three former colleagues,” he says, almost in passing, “and we [Breitling] produce the chrono.”

LTM is Le Temps Manufactures, based in Fleurier. It’s a white-label specialist that serves roughly thirty brands from niche independents to major group-owned names and its speciality is small, high-end movements made in small batches for companies that want something better than Sellita without the capital expenditure of building a manufacture from scratch.

The UG-110 is, on all available evidence, a UG-designed calibre manufactured under exclusive contract at LTM. The integrated chronograph, Kern says, is produced by Breitling’s own manufacture. , who is typically critical of most new movements, actually likes the new UG Polerouter movement - you can read his take here. I asked him who had hacked his account when I saw his essay - he laughed, and assured me it was still him 😂.

Anyway, none of this is particularly scandalous at all. This is how most of the industry works below the top tiers, and Vaucher, Kenissi, La Joux-Perret, and many others all run similar models. Some of the watches we all admire most come out of these sorts of arrangements. That being said, the gap between “Geneva-based independent haute horlogerie house with its own manufacture movements” (which is what the UG marketing leans towards) and “designed in Geneva, manufactured on an exclusive contract at a shared specialist in Fleurier” - this feels awfully convenient to just gloss over, don’t you think? To me, this is the difference between owning the means of production and renting them on a long term lease. For years, this was frowned upon; and while I don’t think it ought to matter, simply NOT mentioning it feels a tad deceptive. Again, not a big deal, but it felt like something worth pointing out.

Reality

Stripping away all the marketing and romance of UG; Kern and Partners Group bought a dormant IP for ~ CHF 60m in December 2023 - basically a trademark and a few decades of accumulated collector reverence that other people’s enthusiasm paid for. They commissioned bespoke movements from a specialist who was already doing this kind of work for the rest of the industry. They then walled the operation off in Geneva to protect it from association with the Breitling ‘mass market’. Then they set entry price at CHF 14k-ish, which is high enough to avoid the bloodbath segment between CHF 5–10k and low enough to leave room for the complications to carry decent margin on top. Kern even assembled an advisory board to stop them embarrassing themselves on the initial execution. And now, they have launched several collections at once so the market couldn’t file the brand under any single heading before they’d finished showing their hand.

This is, by any reasonable measure, a good trade on the financial side. Partners Group took Breitling from a CHF 800m-ish valuation in 2017 to around $4.5bn by late 2022, and the UG acquisition is a natural extension of that strategy. That is, they acquire dormant equity cheap, inject competence in operations, and let the multiple expand over time. The watches don’t have to become the new Vacheron for this to work; they just have to become something that justifies a valuation materially above CHF 60m in the next private equity exit cycle, and that’s a much lower bar than the marketing implies. But then again, Breitling’s own valuation got slashed earlier this year… so it’s not all rosy.

Three scenarios for the next few years

Knowing they use LTM movements gives us another way to think about where this goes - as opposed to relying solely on their marketing.

The first scenario, however optimistic it may sound, is that UG executes on what Kern thinks it could become. Volumes may grow slowly into the low thousands, and the relationship with LTM blossoms because LTM has every reason to protect this rather prestigious contract. The complications may even ramp up, the brand’s average selling price may drift upward into the CHF 25–35k zone, the Couture tier does what the Couture tier is supposed to do, and in ten years UG is a credible mid-sized high-end house sitting somewhere in the Lange-to-JLC band. This is the version where Partners Group get a respectable multiple on their money, and everybody wins, more or less, even if the people who bought CHF 14k steel Polerouters in 2026 don’t necessarily feel rich in 2036.

The second scenario is that the market doesn’t reward the launch pricing. The entry point pricing turns out to be too high for what most people actually want from a Universal Genève, given the brand has been invisible for decades and the fanbase was built around cheaper vintage stuff on the secondary market. Sell-through will then soften at full retail, and prices on the secondary market will go the way of most revival launches - i.e. down! Kern will adjust, trim the range, lean harder on the complications and the Couture tier where the margins are more defensible, and Gallet might pick up more of the volume hole than he will ever admit. This is not a disaster scenario per se… it would be more of a normalisation scenario.

The third scenario is some sort of convergence. Over time, it might be that the operational difficulty of running two separate movement programmes (UG via LTM, Breitling via its own manufacture) starts to cause headaches. Maybe LTM gets acquired by someone, maybe it raises prices, or worse, they become capacity-constrained. Or, maybe Breitling’s manufacturing evolves enough to suit or accommodate UG - even with minor modifications. And who knows, perhaps Partners Group (or Kern himself) decide in a few years that the overhead of keeping UG separate, just isn’t worth the cost.

In any of these worlds, UG will start looking more like a sister brand to Breitling than a peer to Lange, and the brand will then settle into something closer to what IWC became under Richemont. Essentially, it’s a mostly-competent, somewhat successful brand (ish!), but it’s no longer competing for the affection of the collectors who revered the original UGs in the first place.

Wait and see

The open question at this point is which way things drift from here. If the entry-level Polerouter holds its price on the secondary market over the next year or two, Kern will have pulled off a difficult feat, and scenario one is firmly in play. If it softens, scenario two will unfold; and you won’t need a spreadsheet to work out which one it is.

After that, it’s largely a question of what happens with Gallet (launching at the end of August or beginning of September, per Kern). If it stays in the entry tier where it was announced to be aimed at (i.e. “accessible” Sellita-powered stuff integrated into Breitling’s distribution) then UG gets to keep the high-end lane all to itself. But if Gallet starts creeping upmarket, or if UG starts “integrating” more and uses Breitling’s movements for anything other than the chronograph, that’s the third scenario - the convergence. Worth watching, but nothing dramatic - these are somewhat slow movies which will play out over a couple of years.

The rest we can mostly ignore; a lot of the noise around revival launches is just that… noise! To be clear, none of this is a prediction that UG will fail. Kern has earned the benefit of the doubt roughly three times over. The products, at least as far as early signs go, seem to be good. The advisory board did its defensive job, the design discipline is clear to see, the movements (regardless of where they’re made) also seem to be a solid effort - including the absence of a microrotor, which per Velociphile, is an upgrade. The brand probably has a future, so the only outstanding question is how successfully it permeates the market.

To me, all three scenarios are fine for Partners Group, which is perhaps the whole point of this approach. Given the acquisition price of CHF 60m, there’s probably no “disaster” outcome on the cards; if anything it’s only a range of good-to-excellent outcomes. This means the interesting question has nothing to do with financials; it’s more about whether the collectors who spent all these decades keeping Universal Genève’s name alive are going to recognise the brand in a decade - otherwise, they’ll look at what Kern has placed in the display cases and decide to go back to hunting vintage instead.

Leave a comment

🥽 Nautilus - the 50-year-old porthole

Given we’re in 2026, many in the watch industry are eagerly awaiting Patek’s news regarding the Nautilus 50th anniversary this year; so far, I’ve seen no indication that anyone knows what our boy Thierry Stern is going to do to celebrate.

I suppose the last sentence contains a lie; everybody thinks they know what Stern will do. I’ve seen a bunch of opinions all over the internet... Some Chinese-language leak accounts have supposedly listed some new Nautilus reference numbers1. The speculation market aside, consensus view for now is that Patek will release something in precious metal, and there will be no steel successor to the 5711. I’d be inclined to agree, because “Cubitus”… duh!

Anyway, before we move on to what’s coming, I think it’s worth looking back on how we got here. The Nautilus story is in fact one of the wildest ones in all of watchmaking, and a surprising amount of it is not well-known. If you’ve been collecting for a while, you probably know the broad strokes, and if you’re newer to all this, you might only know the watch as “that steel Patek that costs more than a house” without really understanding the ‘why’.

So first, I will attempt a brief history, and I want to stress ‘brief’, because people far smarter and more dedicated than I am, have already produced some epic scholarship on the Nautilus (more on them later). What I’m trying to do here is give you the story arc, flag a few bits that are surprising or underappreciated, and point you toward the deep-dive resources if you care to dive deeper.

This reminds me of something… you can think of this as the map, not the territory.

Napkin drawing

The origin story of the Nautilus has been told so many times that it’s basically mythology at this point. It’s 1974 at the Basel Trade Fair, and Gérald Genta had already designed the AP Royal Oak two years earlier - plus the Universal Genève Polerouter and Omega Constellation “C” before that. He’s sitting alone in a hotel restaurant, and across the dining room, a table of Patek executives are having dinner. Genta, apparently seized by a burst of inspiration, grabs a napkin and asks the waiter for a pencil. J.C. Biver tells a fun story about Genta’s inspiration for the design of the Nautilus:

In roughly five minutes, while watching the Patek guys eat, he sketched the foundational lines of the Nautilus. Five minutes for a design that, fifty years later, would sell for $7.56 million at auction. Not too shabby eh.

Read more

If you’re new to SDC, welcome! If you have time to kill, you’ll find older editions of SDC Weekly here, and longer posts in the archive here.

Estimated reading time: ~30 mins

🕰️ Beyer Chronometrie, 1760–2026

Beyer Chronometrie is closing… after 266 years. The world’s oldest watch retailer, founded in 1760 (around the time when George III was on the British throne), will shut its doors at the end of this year. Patek is buying the business and will convert the entire 600-square-metre, three-storey space on Zürich’s Bahnhofstrasse into another Salon, joining Geneva, Paris, and London.

The multi-brand section (Rolex, Tudor, IWC, Chanel, etc) will be removed but ~25 employees who currently staff the existing Patek boutique (which has been operating inside the Beyer space since 2011) will keep their jobs. Sadly, the remaining 35 or so staff are on their way out.

Regarding the family’s watch museum, one of the most important private horological collections in the world, SJX writes:

According to Tages-Anzeiger, the impressive watch museum now located in the basement of the Beyer store – which has been in its current spot for almost a century – is not part of the sale, and will most likely be relocated to another venue in Zurich.

I think this is one of those stories that seems to be about a shop in Zürich, but the gravity around it feels more intense… I remember seeing industry veterans react with shock when they first saw the news dropped into various chat groups. After looking into it a bit more, I think I have a better understanding of their initial reaction.

Succession problem

René Beyer, who ran the business as the eighth generation of the founding family, died unexpectedly in April 2025 at the age of 61. He had no children, and his sister Muriel Zahn-Beyer, who took over, has no children either. So that’s basically it… end of the line.

What’s crazy is how we’ve seen this movie before, quite recently in fact. Jörg Bucherer died in 2023 without heirs, and his retail empire (which is the largest watch retail group in the world) was sold to Rolex. Isn’t it curious how both family businesses had no succession plan, and then both got acquired by the dominant brand partner?

René Beyer apparently saw this coming, though. According to his sister, he’d been thinking about the future of the business for some time, and Patek had in fact acquired a minority stake in Beyer back in 2024. The full sale was, in her words, “the logical consequence of a partnership that had grown over decades.”

Beyer was one of the few retailers on earth that carried both Rolex and Patek, and these sorts of relationships exist almost entirely because of personal trust between families built over generations. If you sold Beyer to a third party (like a private equity firm, another retail group, or anyone outside the circle of trust) there would be a very real chance that Rolex or Patek (or both) would have pulled their allocation from the stores eventually. And I guess without those two brands, there is no Beyer. The business would essentially fail to continue commercially, regardless of what name sits above the door.

So the ‘choice’ faced by Muriel Zahn-Beyer was not much of a choice, all things considered. She could either sell to Patek (who already had a stake and a long-term relationship), keep a third of the employees, and preserve something... Or try to sell externally and the brands would walk away - which would effectively destroy the value of the thing she is trying to sell. I thought about whether she could have approached Rolex, but given the Bucherer deal is still fresh in everyone’s mind, I suspect the deal would not have passed due to competition laws… Rolex owning both Bucherer and Beyer might be a step too far, even for them.

Patek’s revolution

I wrote about gatekeepers and retail carriage a few months ago, and one of the things I mentioned was that Rolex and Patek were, until the Bucherer deal, the only two major Swiss watch brands that had essentially zero direct retail presence. AP had already gone almost entirely mono-brand. Cartier, Omega, everybody else in the top tier are all heavily invested in directly operated stores.

Rolex and Patek were like the anomalies in the matrix; the ones who still believed in the multi-brand retail model, or at least in letting someone else deal with leases and shop assistants while they concentrated on making watches. Then Rolex bought Bucherer, and one of those two anomalies disappeared.

Now Patek is opening yet another directly-owned Salon, and while the Stern family will probably tell you that this is a sentimental decision driven by a longstanding friendship (and it partly is - Thierry Stern did an internship at Beyer, Adelrich Beyer did an apprenticeship at Patek in 1880 and met his wife there, so the families seem close), let’s think about the real-world dynamics for a second.

Patek has been steadily reducing its retail footprint for a decade. Morgan Stanley estimates they’ve gone from over 400 points of sale to under 300 globally. The forecast is that they’ll eventually get down to under 150 doors, with a gradual expansion of directly owned Salons including maybe 10-12 additional brand-owned locations over time.

The Bond Street Salon in London generated £89 million in revenue in its 2024-25 financial year from a single shop. When you’re doing those kinds of numbers, the economic argument for owning your own retail is fairly compelling, even if you’ve spent the last century insisting that the third-party retailer model is sacred.

So I think this isn’t some sort of grand pivot for Patek at all, and more like a gradual, considered, very Patek-like slide from wholesale toward DTC. They’re just doing it politely, one dead retailer at a time, instead of making some grand strategic announcement. Besides, according to Miss Tweed, Thierry reckons it will take 10 years to pass the baton to his two sons.

Domino effect

If we zoom out a little, it might help paint a clearer picture.

Read more

Btw… If you watch only one video this week, watch this one. I had no idea Tudor still uses so much manual labour in their manufacturing process. Many perhaps think of these watches as ‘mass produced’ or fully ‘machine made’ - this video provides a look behind the curtain and I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised.

If you’re new to SDC, welcome! If you have time to spare, find older editions of SDC Weekly here, and longer posts in the archive here.

Estimated reading time: ~45 mins

🗽 HSNY at 160 - A Dispatch from The Plaza

On March 26, 1866 - just last week 160 years ago, as it happens - a group of German immigrant watchmakers sat in a tavern in downtown Manhattan and decided to start something new. They called it the Deutscher Uhrmacher Verein, which translates to the German Watchmakers Society… and this thing they started, is what later became the Horological Society of New York (HSNY). It is the oldest continuously operating watchmaking guild in America, and one of the oldest in the world.

I mention the tavern to highlight how the origin story of America’s watchmaking guild really is just a group of craftsmen having a drink together and realising they should probably band together and help each other out. That’s kinda how every good thing in this hobby starts, too - someone says something interesting at a table, and the rest follows. Even Redbar started with some lads chatting in, well, a bar called Redbar.

Anyway, here we are, 160 years later… and the HSNY’s annual gala took place on Saturday, March 21st, at The Plaza Hotel in New York City. François-Paul Journe received (in absentia) the Howard Fass Award for Lifetime Achievement. London Jewelers were honoured on the occasion of their 100th anniversary. The gala co-chairs were Romain Gauthier, Kevin O’Leary, and Roger W. Smith OBE. The Society also announced $450,000 in scholarships to 55 watchmaking students, five watchmaking schools, and three independent watchmakers - up from $160,000 the year before.

I wasn’t there - but lucky for us, my friend Ron, was.

Quick word on Ron

is a surgeon. He will also tell you he is a surgeon, at every available opportunity, because that’s apparently what surgeons do. He is a guy who enjoys thinking for the sake of thinking, almost as much as I do, and he has become somewhat infamous in the comments section of SDC posts - the kind of reader who dissects every word, nudges you toward an adjacent thread you hadn’t considered, and leaves you chewing on something for days after.

I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Ron twice in person. First, briefly at Dubai Watch Week. Then again a couple of weeks ago when he was in London with his family. There would have been a third time, but that didn’t work out for reasons we need not get into, right Ron?

Ron also writes his own Substack - Think Like a Surgeon - and is a published author. His most recent book, Triage For Watch Collecting, co-authored with his wife Rachael (also a surgeon, obvs), lays out a six-step system for collecting without regret. He is about 30 years my senior (lol!), a parent, and someone whose life advice I value pretty much because he’s been through most of the things I have yet to figure out.

When we met up in London a few days before the HSNY gala, the event came up in conversation, so I suggested he write about it. What follows is his account of the evening - his words, unedited. I sent him a handful of questions, but Ron being Ron, treated them more as starting positions than constraints. So think of this as part interview, part essay, part dispatch from inside ballroom at The Plaza.

One last thing before I hand the mic over... Ron wanted me to include a financial disclosure, so here it is: Ron and his wife paid for their own tickets and have no sponsors or financial ties which would bias his commentary. They paid for their own table, which they filled with friends who paid for their seats.

Now, over to Ron.

Before the Gala

The first question I asked Ron was for him to set the scene; walk into The Plaza and tell me what hits you first. But Ron, characteristically, went off-script because the story of the gala, he argues, doesn’t start at The Plaza, but the day before.

Ron writes:

For the first and probably not last time I’m going to go off-script here. You ask me to set the scene. Rather than beginning with the HSNY Gala on Saturday evening, I’d like to begin with the informal events preceding it. Many people come into New York City on Friday to begin their watch-based activities.

I know of many people who coordinated group visits to specific boutiques or dealers for Friday and Saturday before the Gala on Saturday night. My wife and I spent Friday night at Bucherer Time Machine for a private event to commemorate the birthday of Erika “Watch Miss GMT.” It was great fun to meet people whom I had previously known only from the online world and I also got to spend time with good friends.

At that Bucherer event and other boutiques, several people picked up special timepieces they had previously ordered or had been “on the list” and had hoped to acquire. (I saw two titanium Yacht Masters picked up within 30 minutes of each other.)

Providing a notable watch to a client just prior to the HSNY gala is good marketing as that client is likely to wear the new acquisition at the Gala and share their delight with others.

Saturday was much the same as Friday night, with more people arriving from out of town. There was increasing chatter in the various groups about meetups at various boutiques and ADs, and my wife and I, together with a number of friends went off to Jean Rousseau.

Yes, straps are important to us all! See: “Billion-Dollar Strap Gap” in your SDC 139 newsletter and discussion in the comments.

So now we get to Saturday evening. The festivities began at 6 p.m. but it’s always been my contention that it is better to arrive late than to arrive ugly. It always takes me some time to reach that state, but once it was achieved, my wife and I stopped off at the Moser Boutique in Midtown, where we met up with a small group before all heading to the gala.

One of the attendees shared with us special watches he was bringing to the gala, a pair of pièce unique watches by Biver. They had elaborate engraving on the case, lugs, and bezel and enamel dials made by the atelier of Rexhep Rexhepi. Very cool to see and it was a taste of things to come as there were many spectacular watches at the gala.

Now I can answer your question and set the scene for you as we arrive at The Plaza. Preferring to get on with the festivities, our group walked through the lobby without delay to get straight to the cocktail hour at the Terrace Room.

On the second floor in the Terrace Foyer, there was a red carpet and a sponsor backdrop against which people took photos all night.

From there we proceeded to the Terrace Room which is separate from the Grand Ballroom in which the gala itself would take place.

It’s a fantastically decorated and opulent room. The architecture certainly grabbed my eye, but what hit me first was the energy of the room. Unlike the stock photo of an empty room which I shared above, the room was packed with people wall to wall.

There was a positive energy and immediately I sensed friendliness and collegiality among the attendees. Everyone seemed happy to see everyone, as if we were one big family.

With the muted lighting and the cacophony of the assembled crowd, the room itself was merely a backdrop. My lasting impression is of the energy of the crowd.

Watches He Wore (and Why)

I also asked Ron what he wore on his wrist, because what you choose to wear to an event like this is its own kind of storytelling. He didn’t disappoint.

Ron writes:

I was drawn to the SDC newsletter years ago because you look at watch collecting through the lens of the psychological and philosophical underpinnings of our choices. Along those lines, I always double-wrist at watch events because I hope to share the narratives behind my watches, and sharing two stories will be better than sharing one. I wasn’t the only double-wrister in attendance and I also knew of a few people who brought watch rolls to share their watches with fellow watch enthusiasts.

My initial plan was to double-wrist two different gold watches to this elegant event. The first one is a c. 1913 Longines chronograph, said to be the first chronograph ever in a wristwatch.

I suppose that distinction is notable enough but here’s my personal narrative: When my wife and I finished our surgical training and began our career as full-fledged surgeons, her father got for us a pair of matching Longings pocket watch chronographs graduated to pulsations (i.e. pulsometers), c. 1907.

So I have a soft spot in my heart for early Longines chronographs. The Longines wristwatch I wore comes in a 35 mm case so I thought for the second wrist I’d wear something with a bit more heft.

My original choice for the second wrist was my wife’s gold-cased Armin Strom Mirrored Force Resonance. It is a perfect match for the HSNY gala: mechanical elegance, engineering excellence and definitely a conversation piece.

But my wife surprised me with a new watch just prior to our trip. For our upcoming wedding anniversary she found on the secondary market a watch I’ve coveted for some time, the off-catalog H. Moser & Cie x Undefeated Streamliner Chronograph Friends and Family Edition.

I had to wear that watch to the event, obviously, so now among my two prior choices I had to leave one back at the bank vault. I left the Armin Strom, and wore the Longines chronograph to pair with the Moser chronograph.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t share the watches my wife wore. Her two wrists were adorned with the Moser Streamliner Tourbillon Bucherer Blue and the MB&F SP One.

While I am at it, I think this is a good moment to also give credit to my wife, Rachael Keilin, for getting us to this point in “the journey.” Years ago, I was satisfied with having a Rolex or two, and didn’t follow the watch world that closely. My wife was interested in high horology and I lagged far behind her. During the depths of COVID and the virtual edition of Watches & Wonders in 2021, she learned of the Lange & Sohne Little Lange 1 Moonphase with Aventurine Dial and decided she had to have it. She dragged me to join her to visit the nearest Lange boutique, at Zadok in Houston, four hours away from our home. There I learned about Lange, VC, Breguet, FPJ, and other brands.

And now, here we are, on this great journey together.

160 Years - Did it Feel Historic?

I asked Ron whether the 160th anniversary actually felt historic, or whether it was more of a regular party that happened to have a birthday. His answer surprised me a little.

Ron writes:

Recall that this was my first time attending the HSNY annual gala and I have never attended an HSNY event prior to this gala.

I would say that the evening felt like a visionary event as much as a historic one.

It was shown to us several times that $450,000 in scholarships were awarded this year by the HSNY. I came across a short video from last year’s HSNY gala and saw that in 2025 they announced $160,000 in scholarships. That’s a tremendous increase in just one year!

The legacy of the HSNY is a precondition for its ability to bring together so many individual collectors and industry members to the gala and to contribute financially and spiritually to the future of American watchmaking.

François-Paul Journe

For a lot of collectors, Journe now enjoys an almost mythical status. I wanted to know what the mood in the room was when his name came up, and whether Ron got any sense of the man himself. Turns out, he didn’t even show up to receive his award.

Ron writes:

The FPJ speech via video brought to mind a recent conversation you and I had in which we spoke in passing about the “Uncanny Valley.”

At some of the larger surgical conferences which I attend the meetings are held in conference rooms larger than the ballroom for the HSNY gala, and like the gala, have several large projector screens onto which are projected live video of the person speaking. On some occasions a scheduled speaker is not providing their presentation live in person but rather it is presented via a pre-recorded video.

I’ve noticed that it takes more concentration for me to focus on those presentations. Cognitively I note a difference between a speaker presented via a pre-recorded video on a large projector screen and a live speaker on that same large projection screen. My subconscious registers the pre-recorded speakers as not being part of the event unfolding in front of me.

FPJ did not attend the event in person and delivered a pre-recorded speech in French subtitled in English. From what I recall he gave his reason for not attending that it was his birthday and he was spending it at home with his elderly mother. On the video he spoke of his personal and professional history in the city of New York. Accepting the award in person on his behalf were his brother Laurent and General Manager Pierre.

To me and others at my table the award and his speech seemed perfunctory.

Honouring London Jewelers

London Jewelers were also honoured at the gala, which I found interesting because it represents the retail side of the equation, not just the maker. I asked Ron what he thought that choice says about the broader ecosystem.

Ron writes:

Through my professional affiliation with a hospital in a Catholic health system, I learned of a phrase coined by a Catholic nun who was president of a network of non-profit hospitals: “No margin, no mission.”

If we allow that it is proper for a Catholic nun to both recognize and proclaim the primacy of profit in the delivery of health care, then we have to give a nod to the retail side of the horological ecosystem.

On the retail side of the watch world, some are just here for the ride and they would just as soon be selling cars, purses, or Labubus. They are here because their forte is selling and watches happen to be the pond into which they have jumped. Even worse, there are some watch sellers with impure motives. Those we can ignore.

There are retailers who don’t know the difference between an onyx dial and one made of VANTA Black or how to swap out a strap. Those we can ignore.

The retailers we should recognize and celebrate are those who are as much watch enthusiasts as their clients. We all know those in the retail side who are eager to educate, and who get as excited as we clients and collectors are when they come across a notable watch.

I recall that when we acquired the aforementioned vintage Longines wristwatch chronograph, my wife messaged Roman Sharf, who many know only as a retailer, but we know as a kind gentleman who enjoys sharing his encyclopedic knowledge and love for watches. Roman responded with an enthusiastic two-paragraph text message about the Longines chronograph and its 13.33Z caliber. That kind of knowledge and enthusiasm is what many retailers in this space have to offer the ecosystem.

I have friends who live in Philadelphia who have the opportunity to visit with Tim Mosso and learn from him. Nearly everyone I know recognizes the positive contributions of Tim Mosso to the broader ecosystem and that’s not discounted by the fact that he works on the retail side. We need great retailers who elevate our knowledge, like Roman, Tim, and so many others.

While I have no personal experience with London Jewelers, I’ll note they’ve established a scholarship for watchmaking students, and given the recognition by the HSNY, it is clear to me that they are the type of retailer that the horological ecosystem benefits from and without whom our ecosystem could not survive.

Co-Chairs

The gala’s co-chairs were Romain Gauthier, Kevin O’Leary, and Roger Smith - three very different figures in the watch world. I asked Ron whether any of them left an impression.

Ron writes:

Let me take a bite of the juiciest part of the steak first: Kevin O’Leary. When contemplating the perception of a public figure, I often think of this tweet and reply and its commentary on the public’s perception of celebrities whom they have never met.

A couple of years ago I ran into Kevin O’Leary as a guest of events sponsored by H. Moser & Cie surrounding the F1 Miami Grand Prix. At an early evening cocktail party announcing the release of new Moser models at the time, and a day or two later at the race I was intermittently around him. Those few times that I directly interacted with him and when I observed him in conversations with others, he was an absolute gentleman, inquisitive about watches, and listened more than he spoke.

I’m a light consumer of popular culture media or “news”, so my exposure to Kevin O’Leary’s public persona is limited. He certainly appears to draw visceral responses from people.

You know Godwin’s Law, right? “As an online discussion continues, the probability of a comparison to Hitler or to Nazis approaches one.”

After the HSNY gala, in one of my watch groups more than one person shared memes from social media mocking Kevin O’Leary, including one from an Instagram watch account in which the individual remarked that it would be a dilemma if they had to choose between killing Hitler or O’Leary.

Referencing that tweet I shared above: to people who say “I just hate Kevin O’Leary”, my response is “no, honey, you don’t. You hate an artificial persona fed to you by a sophisticated marketing machine.”

One of the people seated at our table briefly spoke with Mr. O’Leary at the gala and asked for a photo. She said he was an absolute gentleman during her interaction with him. That mirrors my prior experiences with him.

Next.

Romain Gauthier happened to be seated at the table next to ours. Every time my gaze traveled in his direction, he was smiling and enjoying his interaction with the others at his table. At one point I did go up to him and say, “I need to get a picture of you and I for KingFlum” and his eyes lit up and he smiled. He was very happy upon hearing you mentioned. He left a very positive impression.

I never saw Roger Smith. Here’s what a friend in the watch world says of their interactions with him that evening:

“He remembered us from Dubai. I can say that a few of us were at Dubai Watch Week very late one of the days, just about 30 minutes to closing. Roger was still at his booth, just him and one of his employees. He spent a solid 30 minutes with us and was incredibly kind, warm, and polite.”

“ [Of their interactions with Roger Smith at the HSNY gala] For a giant of the watchmaking world, he couldn’t be any more regular of a guy. It would be easy for him to be haughty or conceited, but he’s genuinely just a very nice man.”

Scholarships

The HSNY awards watchmaking scholarships at the gala. I wanted to know whether that part of the evening stuck with Ron.

Ron writes:

The program for the gala and charity auction listed several scholarships. We learned that for 2026 the HSNY awarded $450,000 in financial aid to 55 watchmaking students, five watchmaking schools, and three independent watchmakers.

If you look at the auction results for the charity auction and do the math for the revenue from tickets sold, you might ask yourself: how much of this money is going to the scholarships? Is the charity auction really a charity?

This is another spot where the HSNY shines.

Recall that famous proverb: “Never ask a man his salary, a woman her age, or a Swiss charity to open their books.” (See here and here for examples.)

Unlike their European counterparts, all US charitable organizations including the HSNY, have to file an IRS Form 990 which provides detail of their finances. Those forms are publicly available on several online platforms readily found with a simple web query.

The HSNY takes an additional step in publishing their annual reports and an independent accountant’s review, along with their 990 forms on their website.

So I’m struck not only with the breadth of the contributions given by the HSNY but also its stewardship.

Conversations Between Courses

Events like these are often as much about the conversations between the courses as they are about the programme itself - if not more. I asked Ron who he ended up talking to, and whether any encounter surprised him.

Ron writes:

A logistical note here. The tables for the gala are placed so close together that it’s challenging to move around the room. This is probably by design as the gala organizers likely want to discourage foot traffic during the event. And, let’s be real, the more tables they can stuff into that room, the more revenue they make for their charitable causes. So during the gala, you’re going to be at your table much of the time and limited to conversation with people at your table or those adjacent to you.

The chance to mingle is at the cocktail hour preceding the gala and the after party, which is held in the same space, the Terrace Room.

The conversations which I’m still thinking about have nothing to do with the content of those conversations. Instead what I remember is the feeling I came away with.

Years ago and on separate occasions, on the internet I came across two different accounts by individuals recounting their encounters with the Dalai Lama. They both shared similar experiences: when you spoke with him, you felt an intensity of focus. He made you feel like you were the only person in the entire world.

Those are the kinds of conversation partners which leave a mark on me. I had a few of those conversations, and it speaks to the caliber of the people brought together by the HSNY gala.

Who Was in the Room?

Collector events can sometimes feel like they’re for a very specific crowd - the old guard, the ultra-wealthy, the trade… I asked Ron whether this felt ‘accessible’, or whether it felt like you felt like you needed a secret handshake to feel welcome in the room.

Ron writes:

Well of course the HSNY gala is going to have all of the above, old guard, industry, ultra-wealthy, and social media types. At no time did I feel as if the event was not accessible to all.

By way of example one of our guests was our 21-year-old daughter who lives in New York City. As expected and encouraged, she often broke free from her parents, and mingled in the crowd. She had a splendid time, and like everyone I spoke with, felt at ease with the attendees whom she met.

Empty Seat

I gave Ron a final open-ended question and asked him to tell me the one thing about the evening, good or bad, funny or unexpected, that he most wanted people to know about. This hit me hard...

Ron writes:

One of your earlier questions asked about the sense of history of the HSNY and whether or not that resonated with me. It resonated more after the fact than during the event. This ecosystem is a historic one that we too often pass off as a hobby. Let’s recognize that it borders on an obsession not only for the purveyors of the craft but for us collectors and enthusiasts. Through the wonders and ills of smart phones and social media, many of us now spend hours every single day interacting with the horological ecosystem in some manner

It is up to us all to be worthy stewards of this craft.

Lastly a personal note and a personal plea. At our table for the HSNY, we had two empty seats throughout the evening, as one couple who was to join us didn’t attend. Those spaces were for Richard Teevan and his wife. My wife and I came to know Richard years ago as he was the administrator for the H. Moser and Cie Owners and Fans Facebook Group. He was also the moderator for several other watch enthusiast Facebook groups and known in the New York City region for his eclectic watch collection.

I had last been in contact with Richard a few days before the HSNY gala. He didn’t respond to a message I sent him on Saturday, nor did he arrive at the gala.

I later found out that Richard unexpectedly passed away on Thursday, two days before the gala.

Years ago I deactivated my Facebook account as the cost greatly exceeded the benefits but I rejoined around 2023 solely to join the Moser Fan Facebook group, the group run by Richard. In that group I found that Richard had truly created a safe space for collectors at all financial brackets and for female collectors such as my wife. Almost every single Facebook group or WhatsApp thread in the watch enthusiast community will from time to time devolve into topics unwelcoming to women. Richard, and the community in the Moser fans Facebook Group never let that happen.

We don’t often get to say our final goodbyes to those who had a positive impact on our lives but at least on the Facebook group I would routinely and publicly thank Richard for his hard work in maintaining a community that brought many people together and elevated our horological ecosystem.

I have many memories of the HSNY gala including that of the empty seat at our table, a seat which should have been occupied by Richard. It’s one of many reminders that time is fleeting and that when you find someone in your life who’s making an effort to be a positive force, take a moment to thank them for their efforts.

Just as the HSNY aims to elevate the horological ecosystem for the next 160 years, so should we all.

Update (31 March): The following image was sent to me via email by :

Final thoughts

Ron’s piece started with the energy of a packed room and ended with an empty chair. I don’t think I could have planned such a crazy arc if I’d tried. I didn’t know Richard Teevan, but I do know the kind of person Ron is describing, because this community is full of them - Ron himself, is one of them. These are the sorts of people who do the unenviable work of making spaces feel safe, welcoming, and worth being part of. People like this never get honoured at galas, and are rarely thanked enough… and then one day, they’re gone, and only then do folks realise just how much the fabric of a community depended on them holding it together.

A bit of a sombre note to end on, but that I think it does highlight why the HSNY should be applauded. It was founded in a tavern by people who recognised that the craft matters, but also, that the community around it matters as well; and here we are, 160 years later, and that idea is still very much in focus. Whether it’s a German immigrant watchmaker in 1866, a Catholic nun talking about margins and mission, or a bloke running a Facebook group with kindness and consistency… the line running through all of it remains the same: the ecosystem survives because people, humans, choose to care for it.

Thank you, Ron, for taking the time to write this, and I’d be remiss if I didn’t put out a cosmic thank you to Richard, for the community he built.

I’ll end with a word of thanks to all of you who have continued to spend your valuable time leaving comments on SDC posts - I appreciate them, and I know other readers do as well. SDC - and this community - is richer because of people like you… and as the saying goes… people like us, do things like this 🙂

Leave a comment

🤑 Meylan at Moser Loves Margin

There are many amusing lines in this interview, but I particularly enjoyed the part where Edouard Meylan (CEO of H. Moser & Cie) explains his view on margin to his team:

I always tell my team: you like Formula One? You need margin. You like innovation? You need margin. You like new movements, new materials, new factories? You need margin.

A quick note before we begin. The original interview - at the time of writing this - states that Meylan wants to “maintain our entry level around $50,000.” I’ve since learned - via someone who spoke directly to Claudio Terjanian (Head of Moser USA) - that this is a typo. The figure Meylan actually said was $15,000. Clearly this is a horrible mistake, because if Moser’s entry level was indeed heading towards being $50,000, we’d be having a very different conversation… one that would probably involve questioning whether old Ed had taken up smoking crack as a recreational pursuit. I mean, a $50k floor would put Moser’s cheapest watch in the same postcode as Patek’s average retail price, so yeah, probably a typo. Anyway, at $15,000, the picture is somewhat coherent, and makes for some interesting analytical fodder. Everything you read below is based on the correct figure of $15k1.

Read more

Read more

—

Ariel Adams raised an interesting point in his recent post, Why Used Prices Dominate Industry Confidence. His general point is that the watch industry has a data problem - “no sh1t”, you might say. Specifically, he argues that pre-owned price indices (a la WatchCharts, Chrono24, Bloomberg Subdial Index) have become a proxy for ‘brand health’, when in fact, they are really just a proxy for brand popularity. Anyone who has ever eaten at a Michelin-starred restaurant with a three-month-long waitlist and sh1t food in small portions will tell you - popularity is not the same thing as quality!

Overall, he points out that the watch industry guards its data closely, so analysts default to the one thing that is freely available - pre-owned asking prices - and then draw sweeping conclusions about brand health from what is, at best, a popularity contest. Adams then argues that sales volume is a better metric, but goes on to concede it’s basically unmeasurable. He also points out that most tracked prices are asking prices, not sold prices, which is a big problem but at least it’s one we’re all acutely aware of.

Where we align

His ask-vs-sold price distinction is important and one could argue it isn’t discussed enough. Regular readers will recall that we covered exactly this problem when looking at the divergence between the Bloomberg Subdial Index and WatchCharts back in 2024 - we have two indices tracking ostensibly the same market, but producing different results because of differences in methodology, data cleaning, and how they handle discounting.

Adams is making the same point when he says the data most people cite isn’t as clean as the charts make it look. Anyone who has listed a watch on Chrono24 and then sold it for 15% below ask already knows this anyway. This reminds me, he’s actually describing a textbook instance of the streetlight effect1 i.e. using data because it’s visible rather than because it’s useful.

He’s also right that auction prices often tell you more about the competitive dynamics between six wealthy bidders than about global demand for a product. The F.P. Journe results at the end of 2025 were extraordinary, but extrapolating from them to “the brand is worth X” is really just a category error. Those prices were set by a very small number of people with very specific motivations, and not by “the broader market” in any meaningful sense.

Where we don’t align

The trouble starts when you notice what Adams doesn’t do, which is offer any alternative. His preferred metric is sales volume but by his own admission, this is unmeasurable. So the essay essentially says: “the data everyone uses is sh1t, the data I’d prefer doesn’t exist, but trust the people who travel to markets and talk to insiders.” This is an appeal for people to defer to authority - more specifically to the authority of people like... Ariel Adams. 😂

This isn’t meant to be a joke, but it’s pretty funny to me. When Adams argues that the best insights come from “constantly traveling to various parts of the market to study what is happening on the ground and with consumers,” he’s describing his own value proposition. Of course, that doesn’t make him wrong, but it’s worth keeping in your peripheral vision.

Now about a month ago, Ariel argued brands should embrace lower prices to drive volume and keep Swiss factories going strong. If you pair that sentiment with today’s argument that ‘low pre-owned prices signal healthy volume and not brand weakness’, the combined position is as follows: sell more, at lower prices, and when all those watches flood the secondary market and prices drop, that’s all good too.

Really? I mean, it’s logical if you’re optimising for factory utilisation, but much less sensible if you’re a collector who’d prefer the thing on your wrist to hold its value, or if you’re a brand that wants to preserve whatever brand equity you have left. Adams is giving advice to the industry of course; but collectors and enthusiasts reading this should remember they’re eavesdropping on someone else’s conversation. I also just think it’s bad advice overall, but that’s a separate topic for another day.

What can we do about this?

Adams left us hanging, so let’s try and fill in the blanks ourselves. If pre-owned prices are a flawed signal but sales volumes are also not readily available, what should we look at?

Triangulation instead of indexing is a good place to start. Pre-owned prices are one input, not the input. The idea is to cross-reference pre-owned prices with other information like AD allocation patterns (are waitlists growing or shrinking? how long did your mate wait for a Submariner?), CPO uptake (Rolex’s RCPO now reportedly controls 10% of global Rolex secondary sales, which is a legit signal), and grey market discount depth (if a new watch is available at 30% below retail on the grey market, that tells you something about demand regardless of what any report says). Oh, and with pre-owned prices, maybe I am stating the obvious but always search for ‘sold’ prices not ‘ask’ prices - send DMs if you have to, but trust nobody completely. 😂

Absolute values are less important than the spread. What I mean by that is the pre-owned price falling from 120% of retail to 100% is a completely different signal to one falling from 80% to 60%. The former could be defined as ‘speculation unwinding’; the latter could be a good signal of demand dropping. In short, the relationship between market price and current retail is more important than the price itself.

Watch what brands do, and attach less value to what they say. Pay attention to things like boutique openings or closings… or to production cuts or production expansion (admittedly harder to do without deep monitoring). Another signal might be to notice whether they are launching CPO programmes or ignoring the secondary market. The gist of this point is to point out that behavioural signals are harder to fake than any price chart.

Finally, try to zoom out a bit more. Monthly pre-owned price fluctuations are mostly noise, and quarterly trends are maybe signal. Annual trends can sometimes be useful, but even then, things like tariffs can muddy the water substantially. If you’re checking WatchCharts weekly and adjusting your collecting strategy accordingly, wtf are you reading SDC for!?

In conclusion… I’d say Adams is right that the industry’s got a data problem, and that too many people draw sweeping conclusions from thin evidence. However, I do not think the answer is to abandon data in favour of vibes and frequent flyer miles2. Just don’t forget you are buying a watch to wear - it is not a share you’re buying to trade. If the thing on your wrist makes you happy every time you look down at it, no price index will ever take that away from you.

If you’re new to SDC, welcome! If you have time to spare, find older editions of SDC Weekly here, and longer posts in the archive here.

Estimated reading time: ~32 mins

Subscribe now

🪈 Owning the Pipes

Read more