SDC Weekly 30; Rolex 1Q2024 price list; F.P. Journe rumours, Vintage watch guides
SDC Weekly 30; Rolex 1Q2024 price list; F.P. Journe rumours, Vintage watch guides
Predictions for 2024, A history of new year’s resolutions, Shortage of watchmakers, The happiest man in the world, and Mind Traps.
Happy New Year to you and yours… You’re allowed to say that until today, latest… according to Larry David:
One of my ~10 favourite shows of all time! May 2024 bring you good fortune, and be the springboard to achieving all you hope to accomplish, and more. If you’re new to the SDC Weekly, you can peruse the older editions here.
Last week I got a few specific pieces data points about Rolex price increases in the U.K - and this week I managed to get hold of a leaked Italian pricelist - you can download the whole thing at the very bottom of this post.
Let’s dig in.
ScrewDownCrown is a reader-supported guide to the world of watch collecting, behavioural psychology, & other first world problems.
Paid subscribers get access to this newsletter when it drops. Free subscribers usually get it a week later.
⚠️ NOTE TO SUBSCRIBERS: Some email applications may truncate this post. If so, or if you’d prefer, you can read it all online here. Alternatively, click on “View entire message,” and you’ll be able to view the entire thing in your email app.
Thanks for reading!
😒 New Year’s Resolution?
I have rarely thought of a new year having any particular meaning - life goes on, and our ability to achieve our goals is not determined by the date, but by our desire to prioritise these goals in our lives.
That said, psychologists say a “fresh start” approach is a great way to achieve goals. A fresh start is the concept of choosing a landmark date (for example, a new year) for starting a new goal.
In one study, researchers offered university employees an opportunity to choose between increasing their contributions to a savings plan immediately or at a specified future point in time connected to a “fresh start” date. That framing increased the likelihood that the recipient would choose to increase contributions at that future point in time without decreasing their likelihood of increasing contributions immediately.
Participants in another study who were given a landmark date instead of a random one were likelier to start a new goal.
Temporal landmarks seem to work because they allow people to distance themselves from the “old you” and create a “new you.”
“People’s strengthened motivation to begin pursuing their aspirations following such temporal landmarks originates in part from the psychological disassociation these landmarks induce from a person’s past, imperfect self.”
Bear in mind, however… setting unattainable goals can wreck your mental health. Letting go of a goal can feel like you are giving up and this can cause people to feel undeserved shame. A 2022 study found that the greater the number of ‘frozen goals’ people had on their plate, the more they experienced symptoms of stress, anxiety, and depression. The study also found that increased anxiety was associated with goal unattainability and that being committed to a highly unattainable goal was linked to a higher risk of depressive symptoms.
Goals are still important, because people who say they ‘do not have time’ for any particular hobby, task or initiative, have simply chosen to prioritise other things and have overlooked the simple task of setting actual goals. This is a point I do not wish to labour, because this is probably common knowledge by now… but if this is not about goals, what is the resolution I want to discuss?
Well… One thing which I have found to have an enormous impact on me, is the company I keep; as the saying goes, if you hang out with pigs often enough, you will eventually start smelling like sh*t. The same logic applies to positive people with positive traits.
So as a watch collector, this is quite an important insight to keep in mind. If you find yourself regularly in discussion with, or associating with collectors who discuss watch prices and values, you might eventually be inclined to do this more often. If you engage in frequent discussion with collectors who discuss design, history and strategy of watch brands (just examples of discussion topics), you might begin to think about this more often, and perhaps focus more on these topics than other attributes of watch collecting.
The same applies to Instagram of course - if you follow hype-accounts who tend to glamourise hype watches, and content tailored to beating the algorithm… you are more likely to find yourself lusting after this stuff too - that is literally what social media exists to accomplish. You may find yourself claiming you truly like a Daytona or Royal Oak… and that’s fine - but don’t be surprised to learn that your choices on who to follow, what to ‘like’ or not, and which accounts show up most in your feed will all have contributed to your current ‘taste’.
None of this is ‘bad’ at all - it is just a matter of choices, and I mention it to emphasise this should all be a deliberate choice you make. For example, I happen to be a guy who makes memes, and this is often associated with negativity or criticism - this might have some people label me as a ‘negative person’ - now, none of this meme content is personal and I have historically tried to offer praise when brands fix problems, as much as I have doled out criticism and mockery when they screw up - but the praise is never as fun as the mockery! So if I have now earned the ‘negative title’ I am quite comfortable with it, given the only purpose is to call out BS (as opposed to being vindictive and harm brands for no apparent reason).
Anyway, there is no right answer, and everyone who is into watches will invariably gravitate towards a different niche… but I wrote all of this simply to ask you one ‘new year’ related question. In light of the above context…
Name one person you want to spend more time around in 2024, and why?
Comment below - if you can’t reasonably spend more time with them, then choose someone who you would like to have more detailed discussions with, and if you feel like it, include the topics you’d like to cover with them.
⚡ F. P. Journe Rumours?
The rumours about F.P. Journe (the man) having done “something bad” at a collectors’ dinner a month or two ago, made me think of something and I’d like to discuss it in more detail. I don’t want to fuel this stupid rumour mill, so let me add the following: I have been in touch with someone who was actually there in person, and they have explained this is all utter nonsense. I remain open to receiving any proof of wrongdoing, but until then, I have no reason to doubt this is nothing more than a smear campaign started by a watch dealer to try and drive prices down so they can profit from it. With that out of the way, let’s continue.
If you think about the rationality of disagreement, it seems obvious that people must consciously disagree on facts. In other words, people should not be able to predict how someone else’s future opinion might differ from their own current opinion.
Rational resolvability of disagreement between two arguers requires agreement about sufficiently many premises and agreement about the supporting relations between premises and conclusion. Source
Logic aside, however, I think humans actually disagree more for signalling reasons, especially in the watch collecting world. For example, being visibly persuaded by someone else is basically seen by observers as bowing to the persuader’s higher status. This naturally lends itself to thinking more generally about hidden motives in these situations.
Imagine you are facing some big important decision which depends on a single estimate, call it A. In such a scenario, it makes sense to put substantial weight on estimates of A which you get from many different sources you respect. You would try and discuss the topic to the best of your ability before your decision deadline, but if A estimates continued to vary even when the deadline arrives, you wouldn’t want to give extra weight to your own estimates, because they were yours! You are hopefully self aware enough and sufficiently self confident to admit you can make mistakes as easily as the next person.
The thing is, most estimates of A we discuss are far more removed from important concrete decisions. We care about them more because of the further conclusions that we might draw from them, and from the checks and signals they offer to help us rate and improve our thinking systems. In this case, someone else’s opinion on A is mostly useful to your thoughts because they offer hints about what to consider, and in turn, helping you to score and refine your thinking systems. So how exactly can we make use of others opinions?
If you follow this logic, you will realise it is actually really difficult to ever make use of anyone else’s thinking on any topic. As a watch collector, you will hold strong opinions on say, Audemars Piguet, and yet if you listen to another person’s explanation which is the polar opposite of your opinion, they will rarely move the needle on your own view of AP! That’s with people you know… but it gets worse on social media; Such as on Instagram comment sections, where many posts are often incomprehensible or blatantly misinformed, to the extent there is little point in trying to ask for clarification.
We all have a pretty good chance of understanding our closest friends and colleagues, but because we’ve known them for a while, have shared background, and usually understand the context they have when we seek their counsel… we understand their biases, and their communication styles, and we also tend to have a better read of their motives. The ability to have deep and widely-varying conversations with our people, is therefore a rare gift to be treasured.
So returning to our important decision where other random people have a differing opinion to our own, regarding some random estimate A, you hopefully now understand how difficult it can be to make practical use of the information you gather. Sure, if you are about to take an action that directly depends on A, you might include their estimate in a weighted average of known estimates… But if not, then what exactly are you supposed to do?
We are all capable of using our own judgements to reach conclusions about A on whatever topic we choose - our brains are also conveniently configured to change all our estimates in response to new sense perceptions and new theories. Even better, our mind can estimate outputs for most questions we ask, and even give hypothetical or counterfactual answers to what we would think if we accepted certain hypothesised perceptions or theories. Our minds do most of this quickly, smoothly, and often in our sleep.
Still, rather unfortunately, our minds don’t seem to have the programming to easily accommodate others’ estimates on various random A as standard input. Of course, you will know this for yourself, if others are able to articulate their reasoning in enough logical detail, we can often weave this into our own thoughts, and thus assimilate their conclusions as well. If or when this works, we reveal the magic of conversation. Conversely, if we just see people’s estimates without their supporting inputs, we are unable to guess how they reached their conclusions.
What this outlines, is a more sensible explanation for a lot of disagreement we observe: That is, while we can put some weight on others’ opinions regarding our own decisions, we have no idea how to update our mental systems to take others’ opaque opinions into account more generally. It is simply too onerous to evaluate all possible ways other people could have come to their conclusions. So while we can and do take their opinions as hints about what arguments and evidence to find or evaluate, we find it difficult to fully integrate their mere opinions as being seriously influential to our own conclusions.
What you should take away from this section is not rocket science at all, but sometimes the obvious is worth stating. Whenever you find yourself trying to validate your own beliefs, be equally open to being wrong. However, as you do so, understand that we all have an innate ability to underweight any inputs which are opaque - so when someone offers you their input, be sure they are “showing their working” and if they are unable to do so, feel confident in rejecting this input because it is more likely they are regurgitating some BS they heard from a YouTube influencer, and will therefore be unable to offer any logical reasoning. Remember, this doesn’t mean they are wrong, it just serves as a compass for where to investigate using alternative sources.
As for Journe… I have a few of his watches, and I think there is an element of schadenfreude being played out in the community, where many who have failed to get allocations are taking this opportunity to play out their frustrations, giving this rumour more legs than it deserves. This isn’t a defense of his actions, if any. All I am saying is while he may not have the best reputation, this sort of thing does not detract from my enjoyment of his watches. How many of you are fans of Michael Jackson’s music? Can any dispute he was a phenomenal musician? No. Did he do some whacky things in his spare time? Yes. Can we separate the two? Clearly, yes. So, to conclude, this rumour mill is firstly, unproven and secondly, if it were to be proven (in whatever manner), the watches and watchmaking deserve to be disconnected from the man and his actions outside of pure watchmaking. I know many will disagree, but I am here for it, and look forward to you “showing your working” when you respond.
🕰️ Vintage watch guides
Someone recently shared a message in a WhatsApp chat group which was his own attempt at documenting the progression of different case shapes, hands, hour markers and dial layouts, attributing each type or category to a specific era in history. I found this interesting, and coincidentally exchanged messages with a fellow writer and subscriber Marcus (@siemswatches on Instagram).
Turns out, Marcus has gone to great lengths to document all of this, and I thought his work was worth highlighting here, as I am sure many of you geeks will enjoy it as much as I did. He has written several posts, so I will share the key summary charts below, and I encourage you to read the full articles for more details, and additional charts which underpin the summary charts below.
A discussion about watch sizes - Full post
A deep dive into watch hands - Full posts: Part 1 and Part 2
A deep dive into case designs - Full post
A deep dive into hour markers and watch indices - Full post
A discussion about watch bezels - Full post
Conclusion
I thought this series of guides was a really useful reference for anyone keen on vintage watches, but also for any collectors who are looking to commission a bespoke piece or who are trying to improve their understanding of modern design. After all, to appreciate history and the evolution of design is a simple but important step for any genuine geek even if your interest is solely in modern watchmaking.
The key reason I say it is an important step, is because we hear many talk about their design being ‘original’, but this is often not the case. Very few things are truly original, and that’s not a bad thing in and of itself; but for collectors and consumers, I think it behooves us to be educated enough to tell the difference between true original design, or design inspired by history… or god forbid, outright stolen designs like the one from Massena and Revolution. An example of what I think of as ‘inspired by…’ is this Berneron watch. Yes, it is clearly not a Cartier Crash… but if you imagine asking a teenager who has seen their grandfather wearing a Cartier Crash for a decade, what they think of this watch… I would imagine they might quip “it reminds me of my grandfather’s watch” - that’s my point. It isn’t the same at all, but it takes elemants from the Crash and still manages to be distinctly different. I applaud that, even if the watch isn’t for me.
So, if my view is not already crystal clear: taking inspiration is fine, making cheap copies and labelling it an ‘accessible rebirth’ is a waste of collectors’ money and creators’ time; the sooner this idiotic money grabbing practice stops, the better!
📌 Links of interest
📈 Fred Wilson shared his predictions for 2024, including the new developments in AI, web3, and energy.
🎤 During 2023 Grand Seiko released 73 new models, of which there were a total of zero quartz models!
📧 The History of New Year’s Resolutions.
💻 In her new book The Algorithm, journalist Hilke Schellmann investigates software that automates résumé screening and promotion recommendations, raising concerns about discrimination.
💀 This paper suggests people in western cultures unconsciously monitor for any indication that a deceased loved one is still around in their everyday life (meaning bereavement can be prolonged as a result).
🔎 The watch industry is grappling with a shortage of watchmakers according to CPIH (Convention patronale de l'industrie horlogère suisse).
📚 The happiest man in the world: Harry’s psychotic delusions bring him cheer. His psychiatrist embraces them.
☠️ A painful story by Seymour Hersh about a group of US army soldiers who went out of control amid a war in Iraq.
End note
Honestly, this edition was challenging to compile whilst on holiday, and as a result you might have noticed the links section was light … I simply have not had my regular time to read much! That said, I thought I would end with some thoughts on what we might expect this year.
Aside from the macro topic of climate change affecting our planet, I think this will spill over into the watch world as well. We saw how Dubai Watch Week was ruined temporarily by rain in 2023… I think hotter temperatures, extreme weather and signs of hitting tipping points, will have an increasingly larger influence on the risks people and nations face … and more importantly, on how they respond. Second and third-order effects might include taxes to fund climate initiatives, and this filters down to disposable income and the ability to buy watches. Talk about first world problems!
Next, we observe how global demographics are changing too. Many nations are aging and shrinking while others are getting younger and larger (particularly in South Asia and Africa). This translates into to political and economic challenges, as well as trade-offs from technologies such as AI. Imagine if Africa’s average income went up enough to allow lower income people to get into watches, even early stage pieces like Seiko or Citizen?
Finally, uncertainty is back. Money is more expensive than it has been for over a decade. The technological revolution is creating new opportunities while also writing on the wall with regards to the stranded assets of the future (both natural ones, oil in the ground that will soon serve no economic purpose; and human-created ones like firms, business models and infrastructure which will be leapfrogged or disrupted by the next).
In terms of watches, I have seen some interesting renders of ChatGPT watch designs, taking the ‘best of’ certain genres and perhaps this is a topic for a future post…but for now, I think the impact on the watch industry should be mostly positive, while also serving as a warning for brands and companies who are resistant to change. The fact that money is more expensive is merely a multiplier, because apart from competing with one other on technical aspects of their watches, brands must now also contend with customers whose purse strings are undoubtedly going to be tighter for the foreseeable future.
One final unrelated comment… as I completed this newsletter, I opened Instagram to find everyone piling into A Lange & Sohne; Essentially calling out their greed and mistreatment of customers, alongside their misguided approach to pricing. I wrote about their approach to CPO last year, and I have a highlight in my Instagram profile about their general stupidity… This screenshot from a collector’s Instagram account sums up some of the aforementioned stupidity - I agree with the online sentiment that they make great watches, but the mismanagement really needs to be addressed in 2024.
Insane, right?
Until next time!
F
🔮Bonus links: Mind traps
This is part one (21 min video) of a two-part guide on common thinking errors, many of which we have discussed before here on SDC, including Cognitive Dissonance, the Spotlight effect, Anchoring, and Gambler’s fallacy to name a few. Here’s the link to Part 2 (20 min video).
If you enjoyed this post, please click on the ❤️ button below and consider sharing it with your friends and colleagues. Thanks for reading!
Happy New Year F!
Well written and thought provoking as always.
Appreciate the links on siemswatches analysis on dials/cases/hands. Super insightful.
Soooo much cognitive dissonance and speculation on FP, including people blowing things out of proportion and outright making it up. Too often the source just traces back to some rando on reddit. Think you’re spot on with schadenfreude.