Doing the work required to have an opinion
Many of us hold an opinion on watches and watch collecting, but how many put in the relevant work required in order to have this opinion?
Originally published on 10 June 2024, and updated now for the second time. As usual, I came back to find this old essay so I could reference it in an upcoming post… I then felt it needed an update. I plan to do this more often as a way to help new subscribers get familiar with some of the older posts which they may not be bothered to find - so if you’ve already seen this before, just hit ‘like’ and enjoy the rest of your day!
As Rabbi Moses ben Maimon (1135–1204), commonly known as Maimonides, said: “Teach thy tongue to say I do not know, and thou shalt progress.” I have previously written here and here about our many biases as watch collectors, and today I’d like to share another take on the matter.
Many of us hold an opinion on watches and watch collecting, but how many put in the relevant work required to have this opinion?
We all are learning, modifying, or destroying ideas all the time. Rapid destruction of your ideas when the time is right is one of the most valuable qualities you can acquire. You must force yourself to consider arguments on the other side.
Charlie Munger
Making the effort required to hold an opinion means you can argue against yourself better than others can. The point of doing this, is so you can rest knowing that you won’t find anyone who is able to argue better than you can, against your own view. If you do, it becomes incumbent upon you to revisit your opinion, and if necessary, revise it accordingly.
The problem is, this counteracts our natural desire to only seek out information that confirms what we believe ‘think’ we know.
A former NFL executive Michael Lombardi came up with a really good analogy which you can listen to here – he says:
“There’s two kinds of snakes you come across. There’s the Texas Coral Snake, and the Mexican Milk Snake, and they both look exactly alike. The Texas Coral Snake is dangerous, it’s venomous, it can kill you in a minute. The Mexican Milk Snake can’t do anything to you; it’s an impostor.”
Michael Lombardi
Image source
You may be wondering what this has to do with watches, but bear with me for a minute. Why do these two snakes look alike? It’s a phenomenon in nature known as Batesian Mimicry. In the 1850s, the naturalist Henry Walter Bates found a certain set of butterflies who were clearly not of the same species but whose wings looked almost the same to the naked eye. Bates found that while the butterflies which were toxic to potential predators (the “models”) were able to operate freely and relatively unmolested, there was also a ‘mimic’ population of butterflies which wasn’t toxic at all, but also went untouched! This was because predators couldn’t take the risk of being poisoned by a mimic; and since they weren’t sure which one was poisonous, they avoided all of them.
This is nonsense and I include myself in this category too – I know very little, and my opinion deserves to be challenged and countered.
Here’s a story which Charlie Munger used in his 2007 Commencement speech to the USC Law School. He illustrates how to distinguish between the two types of knowledge: real knowledge and pretend knowledge:
I frequently tell the apocryphal story about how Max Planck, after he won the Nobel Prize, went around Germany giving the same standard lecture on the new quantum mechanics.
Over time, his chauffeur memorized the lecture and said, “Would you mind, Professor Planck, because it’s so boring to stay in our routine. [What if] I gave the lecture in Munich and you just sat in front wearing my chauffeur’s hat?” Planck said, “Why not?” And the chauffeur got up and gave this long lecture on quantum mechanics. After which a physics professor stood up and asked a perfectly ghastly question. The speaker said, “Well I’m surprised that in an advanced city like Munich I get such an elementary question. I’m going to ask my chauffeur to reply.”
Charlie Munger
Coming back to Batesian Mimicry; in the world of watches there is a similar thing which happens. Copycats are often very effective, very convincing ‘mimics’. They dress the part, they talk the talk, and they know what buttons to push… but in the end, they are merely chauffeurs. It boils down to something Richard Feynman put rather eloquently: it’s about making a distinction between knowing the name of something and just knowing something. As they can be very convincing, we must be wise enough to watch out for Batesian mimicry - even in ourselves.
This brings up an interesting and somewhat paradoxical question: who can best tell the difference between a Coral Snake and its mimics? Or between the poisonous butterflies and the non-poisonous ones? Or between the chauffeur and the expert?
That’s right, it is the protagonists themselves. The real thing knows a fake when it sees one. Of course, in the animal kingdom the definition of a real coral snake and a mimic is quite straightforward and indisputable… but in the watch world, it’s not as straightforward.
There are two angles to this with watch people. The first is a person’s fact-based knowledge about watches themselves, and that’s easy to measure and test. The second angle is more nuanced, and it’s regarding the intentions or mindset with which people collect watches.
On fact-based knowledge
Nothing is perfect. No shit, but what do I mean by that? Well, a long-time vintage Rolex dealer for example comes with the credentials and real-world experience to be able to claim ‘expertise’. Most people will believe this makes them a reliable and trustworthy source of information. After all, this is where the adage “buy the seller” comes from. Their livelihood depends on being reliable and accurate; conning the odd person is a short-sighted exercise which would likely kill their business. At least, that’s what you’d think.
Yet, anyone who has heard of Jose Pereztroika will know, buying the seller is not always safe. He has exposed numerous fakes from the likes of Christie’s, Phillips and Antiquorum to name a few… and many would argue these ought to be among the most trusted names out there. So much for buying the seller then; caveat emptor1!
There simply isn’t any perfect and indisputable source, and there are no completely reliable parties out there. Even the most highly reputable dealer will have a handful of people who think they are con artists. You may never find out the full story, but it is important to consider all data points. We must all question everything; not because I think we should live as hyper-cynics and trust nobody, but because it should become a habit to be sure that the beliefs we hold are indeed correct, according to our own standards2. This is important because when you act on these beliefs, you are acting on your own account, and if something goes wrong, it is your own reputation which will suffer. Nobody will care that you were misled by a third party.
On the intentions of others
Whose opinions do you seek, and whose opinions do you trust or value? This is another important consideration, because more often than not, we find ourselves in the watch collecting echo-chamber and what we tend to observe is how confirmation bias runs rampant. It becomes tempting to look at someone’s follower-count on Instagram, for example, and inherently assume this translates into ‘expertise’ or ‘trustworthiness’. This is nonsense and I include myself in this category too – I know very little, and my opinion deserves to be challenged and countered.
It’s worth asking ourselves one key question in our interactions with other parties: “What is their angle?” A dealer is trying to sell you their stock. A collector might be trying to hype-up something they already own, because they want its value to go up or because they truly love it and want to share the passion. An influencer may be paid to promote something, or they may just happen to love a watch they are sharing.
Anything is possible.
Aside from enjoying the discussions with other collectors, this is one of the main reasons why I put my thoughts out publicly for everyone to see, and for others to challenge them. Being on the record means I also risk being wrong, or being called out for errors or blind-spots. This means I must do my best to verify what I say, but it doesn’t mean I will never be wrong. How else would I grow, or stress-test my own views? Still, I may indeed be wrong, so there is no reason to trust what I say; other than the fact that you know I value my reputation, and would never knowingly mislead readers.
Be wary of what you read, and always question each person’s intent before you incorporate other people’s opinions into your own decision-making.
Final thoughts
This was true to a larger extent during the pandemic and immediately after it ended, and a lot of the ‘covid-collectors’ have gone back to trading stocks or Bitcoin. But even now, many people you encounter will pretend to be seasoned collectors with well-informed views that one might be fooled into thinking they can be relied upon. They will tell you tall tales about the many years of ‘experience’ they have, collecting watches, and studying the history of the craft. They will paint elaborate pictures of how their invaluable wisdom came to be.
Don’t bite.
Every single person has a unique experience; this difference can arise for any number of reasons ranging from financial circumstances to networks of friends who were able to assist… not to mention, many times people stumble onto things through sheer luck. Nearly all of this luck is not directly replicable.
Keep asking questions, take the time to form your own principles for collecting, and find your ‘why’ in watch collecting – then keep challenging yourself and testing your beliefs as you go along. It’s normal for tastes to change, and it’s okay to be wrong sometimes – that means you’re learning and growing.
This isn’t intended to be advice, as much as it is a reflection…but if pressed to suggest only one piece of advice, it would be this:
Always assume the other person you’re speaking to, knows more, and has better information than you. This will ensure you approach any conversation with an open mind. Always listen to them with the intention of understanding them, and NOT with the intention of replying to them.
There was an owl liv'd in an oak
The more he heard, the less he spoke
The less he spoke, the more he heard.
O, if men were all like that wise bird.
I realise this is how AI writes nowadays. The truth is, I used to enjoy writing in this way, using this style… “not because X, but because Y”. I used to think it was very effective when making some sort of point, but then AI came along and this type of sentence construction is usually flagged as a ‘textbook case’ of AI generated content. I have since stopped doing this, which is a shame… but reading this back, I decided to leave this in. If it’s flagged as AI, I don’t give a shit. I wrote it, and I stand by it.
A story about luck: I badly wanted one of the first Spring Drive watches from 1999. I didn't think I'd be able to afford the platinum Credor or the gold Seiko versions, and so I didn't even bother looking for them. I wanted the steel one, thinking it would be easier to find since more of them were made, and they would likely be cheaper.
I eventually got an alert on C24 and before I could really up my offer to the seller, he committed it to someone who, in his words, offered him an "insane offer". I was despondent and thought I'd never see another one again.
And yet within a year I found someone who owned, and was willing to part with, the platinium Credor version at a price that I found relatively affordable. 100% luck, and I couldn't be happier with how things turned out in this case for me with a watch I honestly believe is one of the most historically significant watches of the last 100 years.
Lovely article. I feel particularly targeted by it tho. 😂