How can you buy a Roger Smith watch very quickly? Are you guilty of asking stupid questions as a watch collector? What’s the final word on the new Piaget Polo 79?
Regarding the Piaget, a lot of bullshit being shared about that right now and people just repeat things without checking.. I did some research myself, and while I am still looking for the exact price of a Polo in 1979 I did find the 1977 VC 222 in solid Gold sold for 15.490DM (Deutsche Mark) as confirmed by a catalogue and price list from 1977/1978 I found (steel was 10k DM cheaper!).
This equates to just 6,673.85 USD in 1977 (or about 35k USD today adjusting for inflation), so 25k USD for a Polo in 1979 seems very far fetched.. I did find a 1974 price list from Piaget with comparable full gold pieces not listed over 7k DM, so half the price of the VC 222!
There is simply no excuse for the price no matter how some people seem to try to explain it, especially in a time where the (watch and general) market is in a decline. On the technical side people also get hung up on the Etachron, while that is a genuine disgrace on a watch this expensive, there are much bigger issues such as the general lack of hand or general fine finishing (rough machined anglage shows this) and the fact this case is made by CNC while the original was a completely hand-made affair. It's also a weak 3Hz movement without second hand, compared to a three-hand with date on the VC 222. The comparison is just ridiculous.
Piaget was much more respected back in 1979 and Gold prices did rise sharply in that year, so maybe there was some higher demand for solid gold pieces and prices were adjusted accordingly, but I doubt it was ever anywhere near 25k USD and would estimate 3,5-4,5k USD is more realistic given the prices from VC and Piaget in the 70's shared above (happy to share screenshots of the price list, which can be found on C24).
What an epic comment, and thanks for taking the time to write it and share your findings. Note to self: try harder with researching this stuff? 😂 although even taking 25k USD, the point stood - with your added data here, the point is extremely well made!
I can be pedantic too 😁: the 2455 caliber in the modern 222 caliber is designed with a (small) seconds hand, but was omitted to match the original Jumbo 222. And in general my point of it being a more sophisticated movement stands. And while the Jumbo never featured a second hand, the 222 in midsize (ref46003) did come with a central second hand, as it was using the 4Hz JLC889 caliber. So it's not universally true that the 222 is a 2 hander! 😉
I think a lot of the info in your Simplification section is pretty straightforward, but it is amazing how often we don't do these things. Being mindful is important. Utilizing mindfulness when we formulate questions and decide who to pose them to is important. I'm trying to be better about this.
A couple weeks back I asked for thoughts about a watch in a chat with a bunch of people I don't know. Why should I care what any of them think and why would I factor any of it into my decision making? Well, of course I would have loved to hear everyone say how awesome that watch is or whatever ego boosting confirmation that might have come out of it, but it wouldn't really mean anything for me as an individual deciding where to put it on my matrix. They would likely be empty affirmations and nothing more.
I turns out the only response I got was, "that watch looks cheap". I felt bad, started questioning myself, but realized I had no idea who this person was or what actual experience they had with the watch. The right question would have been, "Does anyone have this watch?" and follow up in DMs so that person could speak freely. I'm trying to do better here, hoping others can do the same.
The change behavior study was interesting, but I think conclusions can only apply to when we are being rewarded from an external source (I think the experimenters provided the incentives and they weren't something the participants already had in hand). I'm not sure it tells me much about how incentives might impact changing my own behavior if the source of the incentive comes from me. I think we've known for a long time that incentives from an external source can result in behavior changes, so I'm not sure the study adds anything new in that regard. I wonder how they could set up the incentive aspect of the study to account for this and its impact on our own behavior?
I always love your thoughtful comments. Sometimes wish I could have a pre-chat on every post because a lot of what you say gives rise to other ideas I wish I had covered!
Your reflection re framing a question and then taking the conversation to DM is on point, well said.
Isn’t our own behaviour and perceived value of incentives driven by external factors anyway? But ok, take the kids marshmallow study where they ask kids to delay gratification… is that an appropriate data source, or disqualified because they’re kids?
Appreciate the thought provoking response, and happy it was worth your time.
Let me frame it this way. Lets say the participants were made to devise their own incentive pool from their own funds or whatever and then self administer rewards from it. Would the results hold? I think not. I think people would work out normally, or not work out in this case as I believe most people quit, and they would reappropriate the incentive pool on ding dongs or whatever. In this case, they are trying to gain something they don't already have as the incentive pool is external and they don't already have it, totally different and the results would be expected I think.
The delayed gratification study is a bit fuzzy, I need to go back and look, but I remember it was a good study about delayed gratification, not necessarily internally derived incentives vs. external. Hope that makes sense, I'm sure there's probably holes in my thinking/argument, but in my head it makes sense. :D
Lost in the links 🔗🫥🫠….. back later with some pithy commentary 😬…… diverse, educational, interesting and just plain fun stuff as always! Thanks for the insights 😝😘
Regarding the Piaget, a lot of bullshit being shared about that right now and people just repeat things without checking.. I did some research myself, and while I am still looking for the exact price of a Polo in 1979 I did find the 1977 VC 222 in solid Gold sold for 15.490DM (Deutsche Mark) as confirmed by a catalogue and price list from 1977/1978 I found (steel was 10k DM cheaper!).
This equates to just 6,673.85 USD in 1977 (or about 35k USD today adjusting for inflation), so 25k USD for a Polo in 1979 seems very far fetched.. I did find a 1974 price list from Piaget with comparable full gold pieces not listed over 7k DM, so half the price of the VC 222!
There is simply no excuse for the price no matter how some people seem to try to explain it, especially in a time where the (watch and general) market is in a decline. On the technical side people also get hung up on the Etachron, while that is a genuine disgrace on a watch this expensive, there are much bigger issues such as the general lack of hand or general fine finishing (rough machined anglage shows this) and the fact this case is made by CNC while the original was a completely hand-made affair. It's also a weak 3Hz movement without second hand, compared to a three-hand with date on the VC 222. The comparison is just ridiculous.
Piaget was much more respected back in 1979 and Gold prices did rise sharply in that year, so maybe there was some higher demand for solid gold pieces and prices were adjusted accordingly, but I doubt it was ever anywhere near 25k USD and would estimate 3,5-4,5k USD is more realistic given the prices from VC and Piaget in the 70's shared above (happy to share screenshots of the price list, which can be found on C24).
What an epic comment, and thanks for taking the time to write it and share your findings. Note to self: try harder with researching this stuff? 😂 although even taking 25k USD, the point stood - with your added data here, the point is extremely well made!
The VC 222 is a two, not a three, hander.
Read and learn. ☝️
Ah of course, fair point! Mea culpa 🙏
He exist for this sort of pedantry don’t mind him 😂
I can be pedantic too 😁: the 2455 caliber in the modern 222 caliber is designed with a (small) seconds hand, but was omitted to match the original Jumbo 222. And in general my point of it being a more sophisticated movement stands. And while the Jumbo never featured a second hand, the 222 in midsize (ref46003) did come with a central second hand, as it was using the 4Hz JLC889 caliber. So it's not universally true that the 222 is a 2 hander! 😉
😂 love it. 👏
🙏
Oh my, this one took a while. Fantastic job as always :) thanks!
I do think that on a long enough timeframe optimism wins though. And in general the perception of reality really depends on our past experiences.
P.S. Hublot-curious made me giggle 🤣
Thank you for taking the time, and appreciate the note!
Agreed - 'reality' is not defined. only 'our reality' which is always unique right!
I think a lot of the info in your Simplification section is pretty straightforward, but it is amazing how often we don't do these things. Being mindful is important. Utilizing mindfulness when we formulate questions and decide who to pose them to is important. I'm trying to be better about this.
A couple weeks back I asked for thoughts about a watch in a chat with a bunch of people I don't know. Why should I care what any of them think and why would I factor any of it into my decision making? Well, of course I would have loved to hear everyone say how awesome that watch is or whatever ego boosting confirmation that might have come out of it, but it wouldn't really mean anything for me as an individual deciding where to put it on my matrix. They would likely be empty affirmations and nothing more.
I turns out the only response I got was, "that watch looks cheap". I felt bad, started questioning myself, but realized I had no idea who this person was or what actual experience they had with the watch. The right question would have been, "Does anyone have this watch?" and follow up in DMs so that person could speak freely. I'm trying to do better here, hoping others can do the same.
The change behavior study was interesting, but I think conclusions can only apply to when we are being rewarded from an external source (I think the experimenters provided the incentives and they weren't something the participants already had in hand). I'm not sure it tells me much about how incentives might impact changing my own behavior if the source of the incentive comes from me. I think we've known for a long time that incentives from an external source can result in behavior changes, so I'm not sure the study adds anything new in that regard. I wonder how they could set up the incentive aspect of the study to account for this and its impact on our own behavior?
A most enjoyable lunchtime read today, thank you!
I always love your thoughtful comments. Sometimes wish I could have a pre-chat on every post because a lot of what you say gives rise to other ideas I wish I had covered!
Your reflection re framing a question and then taking the conversation to DM is on point, well said.
Isn’t our own behaviour and perceived value of incentives driven by external factors anyway? But ok, take the kids marshmallow study where they ask kids to delay gratification… is that an appropriate data source, or disqualified because they’re kids?
Appreciate the thought provoking response, and happy it was worth your time.
Thank you for the kind words.
Let me frame it this way. Lets say the participants were made to devise their own incentive pool from their own funds or whatever and then self administer rewards from it. Would the results hold? I think not. I think people would work out normally, or not work out in this case as I believe most people quit, and they would reappropriate the incentive pool on ding dongs or whatever. In this case, they are trying to gain something they don't already have as the incentive pool is external and they don't already have it, totally different and the results would be expected I think.
The delayed gratification study is a bit fuzzy, I need to go back and look, but I remember it was a good study about delayed gratification, not necessarily internally derived incentives vs. external. Hope that makes sense, I'm sure there's probably holes in my thinking/argument, but in my head it makes sense. :D
Excellent post and some very cool links. Many thanks for the shoutout!
Cheers mate, still bamboozled at your speed 😂🥂
Thoroughly enjoyed it. Thank you
Legend. 🙏
Lost in the links 🔗🫥🫠….. back later with some pithy commentary 😬…… diverse, educational, interesting and just plain fun stuff as always! Thanks for the insights 😝😘
Look forward to your return! 😄