SDC Weekly 39; Vaucher revisited; Monaco scandals; 007 trivia
Why Patek should consider a sister brand, AP not planning to grow, Leap years, 4 day work weeks, Dopamine Culture, Priority vs Focus, and Non-verbal communication.
Is Audemars Piguet going to increase production? Who is a wild candidate to consider for buying Vaucher? Is Monaco run by degenerates?
Hello 👋 and welcome back to the SDC Weekly. Below, you’ll find answers to the questions posed above, and you can find the older editions of SDC Weekly here.
Business of Fashion published an interesting piece on the future of Audemars Piguet this week, in which they interview the new CEO and discuss future plans for the brand. Notably, she refutes her task as being to “ready to the company for sale” - but of course, she would say that! Another statement, however, supports her claim:
“It is not my objective to keep the growth of the past. I am here with another mandate, which is to solidify the company for long-term independence. I may take the choice to actually stop the growth for a couple of years.”
Ilaria Resta, CEO, Audemars Piguet
If she was ‘readying it for sale’, hitting the brakes on growth would reduce the AP valuation multiple, making it counterproductive. AP currently produces around 50,000 watches, and once their new facility is open, they could increase to 70,000; but the new CEO reiterates her reluctance to increase production numbers… which seems, smart! Interestingly, she made the distinction between time-only and high complications, which leaves me with the impression she is also planning to “premiumise” the portfolio. In other words, reduce production of simpler watches, in favour of producing more complicated watches in smaller quantities.
She was reluctant to say when we can expect a product with her ‘fingerprints’ on it, but implied there will be something in 2025 which she has ‘fast-tracked’. Resta also didn’t commit to AP participating in Watches & Wonders from next year, but did imply it was possible… urging the organisers to “make it more open to the public, because this industry needs to become more democratic and approachable.”
Fair play, Mrs. Resta.
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 will receive it two weeks later.
⚠️ NOTE TO SUBSCRIBERS:
Some email applications may truncate this post. You can read it all online here or click on “View entire message” at the bottom.
Thanks for reading!
💡 An updated case for Vaucher
I’ve been thinking about this since last week’s post, and wanted to put forth a case for Vaucher to be purchased by one of the bigger brands… perhaps unlikely to be a Richemont portfolio company, so perhaps Patek Phillipe, Audemars Piguet or even Omega? Let me explain.
Undertaking creative work is like exploring the Amazon Forest on foot, with no gear; especially when it also involves solving complex problems in addition to just ‘creative work’. That’s basically what its like to design a new watch, including a new movement!
Every day is likely to present a new challenge, where the designers/watchmakers can redefine the parameters, rules, and assumptions for any particular piece. Of course, reaching a final, comprehensive solution is challenging because success is completely undefined beforehand. This is the opposite of solving physics or engineering problems where success criteria are fairly objective and well-understood1. Creative problem-solving resembles the serendipitous nature of discoveries like penicillin or Viagra2. Think about Huygens and his discovery of resonance. Despite many world-changing discoveries occurring by chance, there appears to be a lack of recognition for the role of fortunate accidents in problem-solving and innovation.
When it comes to modern decision-making, there’s often a whimsical question that tickles our curiosity: Do we aim to win arguments or dance our way through actual problem-solving? It seems we've mistaken the waltz for the cha-cha, assuming that the one with the fanciest footwork always leads the way. But oh, how delightfully wrong we’ve been! In the grand ballroom of life, the waltz of winning arguments often finds itself at odds with the jovial jig of solving problems. It’s like trying to teach a fish to climb a tree - it’s just not their cup of tea, as the Mad Hatter would say!
If you think about it carefully, it becomes abundantly clear that problem-solving is not your run-of-the-mill linear narrative. No… it is better described as a meandering journey down the rabbit hole! It’s a compendium of ideas, where logic is put in the boot (trunk, for the Americans) and imagination takes the reins. As the Cheshire Cat famously quipped, “Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality.”
Granted, you aren’t Alice, and we aren’t in Wonderland; So what does this have to do with you? Well, this is about creativity, of course.
Imagine what it would be like for watchmakers and designers to have a ‘fresh start’ in Vaucher, freed from the shackles of ‘tradition’ in Patek or AP - they could easily start a sister brand - much like Tudor is for Rolex - and use this for their more whacky ideas3. One wonders how much of a burden it is to design and create for historical brands, and to what extent the people who are allowed to propose designs have already been completely brainwashed by the establishment to the point they will not dare to stray outside the boundaries set by the establishment. The odds of genuine design inspiration slapping them in the face while they are still chained to the history and tradition of the old brand, are slim, to put it mildly.
The story behind Johnny Cash’s song “Ring of Fire” involves a moment of creative inspiration that reflects the unpredictable nature of artistic breakthroughs. Legend has it that June Carter, Cash’s future wife and a fellow musician, wrote the song with Merle Kilgore after dreaming about seeing flames and a ring of fire. This dream was inspired by her feelings for Cash, as she struggled with the moral implications of being in love with a married man.
June Carter later presented the song to Johnny Cash, who immediately connected with its powerful lyrics and emotional backdrop. The themes of love, passion, and turmoil in the song resonated deeply with Cash’s own life experiences and struggles. He recorded “Ring of Fire” in 1963, and it became one of his most iconic hits.
Why is this story relevant? Well, in this song, the inclusion of mariachi-style horns in the was actually a complete departure from Cash’s usual sound signature, but this is precisely what made the song as unique and memorable as it went on to become. It was something which Cash just decided to add, on a whim, because it felt right.
That creative input, which comes from true creators, is something which appears to be in low supply when it comes to big watchmaking brands, and probably speaks to the rise in popularity of independent brands. To be clear, this isn’t surprising, since they are essentially required to be more reserved, and stick to tradition - but perhaps this is a weakness?
In economics, we are taught to see everything as a trade-off. One might see them as inevitable, and as a result, constantly seek optimal points between conflicting factors. In watchmaking, it could be the difference between a thin case, or a more complex movement; or a smaller case, and a higher power reserve. Well, frankly speaking, this thinking has led to a creative deficit, because watchmakers and brands fail to recognise the transformative power of changing perceptions.
I shared an example of this in last week’s SDC, when I spoke about how Journe was able to use his creativity to have the power reserve in the CS next to the crown, and also keep the case slim. Seeing everything as a trade-off, overlooks the potential for remarkable innovations which spit in the face of those making such trade-offs!
Furthermore, I think most businesses overemphasise efficiency in free market capitalism, when instead, capitalism’s true value lies not in efficiency, but in its capacity for exploration and discovery. It would have been easy for Journe to say “hey look, the design is awesome with the power reserve at 3:00, but too bad the case is thicker” - that would have been efficient, but not innovative.
Efficiency has its merits, but capitalism should be optimised for inventiveness rather than narrow efficiency, simply because the pursuit of efficiency is likely to overlook the importance of meaning and innovation in consumer choices. To a certain extent, it is also the consumers who have been increasingly moronic in their relentless pursuit of objects with no regard for the implications of their behaviour. When Patek switched from the independent Geneva Seal to the self-policed Patek Seal, consumers didn’t penalise them - they rewarded them with increased demand, and inherently accepted lower standards. Who is to blame?
In essence, capitalism’s strength still lies in its ability to foster creativity and discovery, rather than simply optimising efficiency. That’s why we saw NVIDIA shares rocketing in recent times - they were powering the growth of AI; a clear example of capitalism rapidly rewarding creativity and innovation. One could argue that making a lousy watch/design efficiently, is actually worse than making the best watch/design badly… because you can improve the latter, but the former will always be … sh1t!
Another argument for high end brands creating sister brands, came up in the WhatsApp group I mentioned a month ago (Thanks Wouter!). In a recent Watchpro article, they explained how Breitling was able to increase prices and ‘premiumise’ while Tag Heuer failed to do so. Fundamentally, the watch market raising prices must begin at the top. If lower end watches are priced too close to higher end brands, they will rightly appear to be poor value for customers. Every brand must ‘stay in its lane’ - but as higher end brands like Patek continue to raise prices, this leaves a lot of customers’ money on the table in the lower segments. Again, Rolex had Tudor to capture those customers, but what does Patek have? Sure, one could argue they are a luxury brand and ‘don’t need’ to bother with this lower end of the spectrum, but I say: Why not? It could even serve as an entry point to the brand, by capturing younger, less affluent customers at the early stages of their collecting journey, and usher them into the main brand, Patek (for example), as they get older and earn more. This is also advantageous from a CRM perspective, since they will ‘know’ these people for a longer portion of their collecting journey.
There is a fascinating story about how Amazon Web Services came to be - it involves a situation where someone within Amazon proposed the idea of using the company’s existing server capacity to offer hosting services to external clients. Initially, the proposal didn’t receive overwhelming support because it lacked a compelling business case. However, during a decision meeting, someone referred to the concept as a “two-way door.”
In Amazon-speak, a “two-way door” is a decision which can be tried without significant costs or irreversible consequences. Essentially, if the idea fails, it can be reversed without much difficulty or major cost (walk back through the door!). This notion reframes decision-making, and encourages experimentation and risk-taking without the fear of catastrophic failure.
So, Amazon did it… they tested the viability of AWS without being overly concerned about the potential downsides, and AWS eventually became one of the most profitable ventures for Amazon. To me, this is a fabulous example and analogy to apply to Patek or AP, and maybe even Vacheron if Richemont executives were not such imbeciles.
Any one of them could buy Vaucher (and the rest of the hub), then use it to unleash their creativity with the added benefit of having the association to the parent brand while also keeping any negative implications at arms length from the parent company.
Have their cake, and eat it, as some say. What do you think?
👑 Royal Rivalries: Power, Politics, and Scandal in Monaco
This recent piece by Bloomberg paints a complex picture of power struggles, financial impropriety, and familial tensions within Monaco’s royal family and government, raising broader questions about governance and accountability in the principality. For watch collectors, this raises the OnlyWatch question once more… What is going on with them? That said, this piece was rather juicy, so let’s recap their findings.
The story begins with the trusted accountant of Prince Albert II of Monaco, Claude Palmero, who managed the prince’s finances and secrets for almost two decades. Palmero discreetly handled the royal family’s fortune, including hiding some of it in Panama. He also managed sensitive matters, such as personally paying for the prince’s secret apartment, so it couldn’t be traced back to him. In 2012, Palmero expressed concern to Albert about his nephews, Pierre and Andrea Casiraghi, who were seeking business opportunities in Monaco and potentially threatening Albert’s reign.
Bloomberg saw copies of Palmero’s notes:
Their “construction business is going to cause problems,” Palmero wrote in his diary. “[Pierre Casiraghi] is very ambitious and says he wants to win a lot of contracts—that we have to go through him. Careful.”
Despite Palmero’s warnings, Albert’s government favoured the Casiraghis in various business deals, leading to suspicions of preferential treatment and corruption. The story delves into the power dynamics within Monaco’s royal family and government, hinting at deeper scandals and investigations surrounding the Casiraghis’ business dealings and Albert’s rule.
The Casiraghis, sons of Princess Caroline and the late Stefano Casiraghi, play a significant role in Monaco’s business landscape. After Stefano’s tragic death, Andrea and Pierre inherited their father’s business ventures and expanded into real estate development, winning lucrative contracts with the support of Albert’s government.
Here’s a summary of the fvckery:
Business Ventures and Government Favours: The Casiraghi brothers, Pierre and Andrea, are deeply involved in various business ventures, including construction, technology, and helicopters. They have sought government support for their projects, and there are allegations of favouritism from Prince Albert II’s government toward them.
Helicopter Contract Controversy: Monacair, a company associated with the Casiraghi brothers, won a lucrative contract to operate helicopter services between Monaco and Nice. However, there are allegations of unfair advantages and government intervention in the bidding process. Criminal inquiries revealed secret communications between government officials and Monacair before bids were accepted, indicating there was likely some favouritism in the award process.
Investigations and Allegations: Investigations by French magistrates and police have uncovered evidence suggesting collusion and impropriety in awarding contracts and providing favours to the Casiraghi brothers. There are allegations of influence-peddling and corruption involving government officials and the royal family.
Palmero’s Role and Fallout: Claude Palmero, a trusted advisor to Prince Albert II, has been implicated in the controversies surrounding the Casiraghis’ business dealings. He has been accused of mismanagement and impropriety in handling the royal family’s finances, which led to a bitter feud between him and the royal family.
Economic and Political Implications: The controversies surrounding the royal family’s business dealings and government favours have raised concerns about Monaco’s reputation and its ability to combat financial crimes and corruption.
Family dynamics and historical context, including potential succession disputes, add a lot of depth to the narrative. They even go as far as suggesting Rainier considered Andrea Casiraghi as a potential successor before ultimately choosing Albert II!
So… In light of these revelations, how do we feel about the OnlyWatch tagline below? IMHO, it might as well say they are under the patronage of Bernard L. Madoff 😂
🕵️♀️ 007 Trivia
We saw this on Daniel Craig’s wrist in November last year… and yesterday, it finally dropped on the Omega website. This made me dig up something else related to 007.
This is clearly old news, but it was still news to me, and I hope it is news to you too! The Moeris 007: The Only Original Bond-Licensed Watch. I stumbled across this old article and thought it was worthy of sharing in more detail.
For the most part, this is interesting to me because we tend to associate James Bond with Omega or Rolex watches, without realising the first Bond watch was actually from this unknown brand, Moeris!
Moeris was founded in Switzerland in 1893, and gained a reputation for producing up-market watches. By the 1960s, however, the company was struggling. In an attempt to rejuvenate its image, Moeris unveiled this James Bond 007 watch at the Basel Fair in 1966. The watch featured a distinctive design with a gold-plated 25-jewel automatic ETA movement and was available in brushed stainless steel or gold-filled cases, complete with a ‘007’ signed crown. The watch appears to feature two date windows at 12/6, but the 12 marker is in fact an applied numeral marker, with thin sticks marking the rest of the hours with the date shown only at 6 o’clock.
Without a shadow of a doubt, this reminds me of the Bulgari Octo Finissimo!
The case back features an image taken from the cover of the 1963 film From Russia with Love. This week, there are two examples available on Chrono24 for £750 and £1184 respectively, which seems rather cheap if you’re a 007 enthusiast!
The presentation box is shown here from this old Bonhams listing… given its age, it seems to have held up well!
Despite its association with James Bond, the watch did not significantly improve the brand’s fortunes. In 1974, Moeris eventually shifted focus to producing pocket watches after it was acquired by Rayville SA, but this seems to have failed too, and in 1980 Moeris was taken over by Tissot. They developed skeletonised pocket watches and ladies quartz watches, but eventually stopped producing around 1985.
I may simply be in the minority here, a simpleton who doesn’t get out much - but had you heard of this watch?
📌 Links of interest
🏆 Meet the first Rolex Award for Enterprise laureate from China.
🤓 What Exactly is a Leap Year? And What Does it Mean for Watches?
👩 What Ilaria Resta Has Planned For Audemars Piguet after personally mystery shopping in their boutiques.
🎨 Rolex personalisation gets the green light from Swiss Supreme Court.
⚙ The Art of Movement Finishing - interesting article, but so blatantly biased towards the brands which A Collected Man represents; in particular, Winnerl. Capitalism at its finest, but still, a decent read.
⭐ Tell your bosses: New research shows that companies that adopt four-day workweeks see long-lasting positive benefits.
🕵️♀️ How the Pentagon Learned to Use Targeted Ads to Find Its Targets - The surprising story of how targeted ads became a precious source of geospatial intelligence.
🛃 Stop Trying to Delight Your Customers.
👹How to Break Free from Dopamine Culture - another
banger.😇 An essay on the differences between “nice” and “kind” people.
🤡 Elon Musk’s legal case against OpenAI is hilariously bad.
🤖 AI takes priority at TikTok owner ByteDance, as Sora disrupts the future of video creation.
🛍 Luxury retail is about ‘emotions, not transactions’ - the hilarious part about this, is they are interviewing the guy who founded the Bicester collection, which is basically ‘discount villages’ with outlet prices. “Luxury” eh.
🍎 Apple hit with first-ever EU fine following Spotify complaint.
🥽 “I worked exclusively in Vision Pro for a week” - here’s how it went.
🤖 The incredible one-year improvement in the walking speed of the Tesla Optimus robot.
💀 Over 600 Google Workers Urge the Company to Cut Ties With Israeli Tech Conference.
End note
A friend and subscriber,
, commented on a recent post saying my proposal of reducing your list of goals, or lowering one’s bar, is bad advice. I didn’t respond in detail, as I wanted to think it through a bit more. Here’s the phrase which he didn’t like: (From this post)So, to conclude, if you think you are prone to the planning fallacy, by having too many watches on your wish list - perhaps consider a new resolution: resolve to cut down the list to encompass exactly what you can afford. You just might get the collection you dreamed of having.
To be clear, I think there are plenty of examples in the world which can attest to the fact that we can have anything we want in life. The corollary to that, is it is less likely, perhaps impossible, that anyone can have everything they want in life at the same time4.
The obvious distinction to be made is between one’s priorities, and one’s focus. Prioritisation is setting out what is important to you. Focus is a matter of directing the majority of your energy, resources and attention towards what you deem to be your priority. If you have been reading my posts for a while, you will realise I advocate first for prioritisation, and then for laser-like focus.
In collecting, most people do not prioritise… they will have a bunch of watches on their ‘hit list’, and no real appreciation for how they rank relative to each other, or relative to their budget and preferences. They will await a call and take what they can get, or scramble to offload some watches to free up cash when an unexpected call comes in.
Sure, some do prioritise, but they lack the focus required to actually succeed. It might sound glaringly obvious, but there can only be ONE item at the top of your priority list! Even in the collectors’ matrix I proposed - there can be many watches in the top right box, but only one should be at the very top. The scoring, is the equivalent of your prioritisation exercise, and you have to begin by being honest with yourself.
Not being honest means you will have no clear plan for how to allocate your resources, and ranking is what solves this problem. In the aforementioned disagreement, my suggestion to cut down the list was specifically in the context of the planning fallacy. Outside of that, I default to considering everything you want, and then being ruthless about prioritisation to help you determine where to place your focus.
If your top ranked priority is a watch you cant afford, then the goal is clear: find ways to make more money. Start a side-hustle, sell some other assets, rob a bank… whatever it may be, you know what the goal is. If you have accurately listed and ranked your priorities, decision-making becomes easy, because there is no ambiguity regarding where you should direct your focus.
The probability of success for any outcome is directly related to how much focus you place on that outcome. As long as priorities are clear, focus is easy. In turn, the harder you focus, the higher your probability of success… ♻
That’s right Steve… the same goes for deciding what watches to buy, or not.
Until next time,
F
🔮Bonus link: The Non-Verbal Expert
Blake Eastman is deeply entrenched in the study of psychology and nonverbal behaviour5. In this video, Eastman explores diverse topics related to communication, including deciphering nonverbal cues, contrasting big talkers with silent individuals, improving communication in relationships without complaints, leveraging video feedback, and understanding power dynamics in social contexts. Three key insights:
To emulate Bill Clinton's exceptional communication skills, maintain a strong presence and consistent eye contact to convey that the other person is valued and important, even if only momentarily. This skill likely arises from a blend of natural facial expressions, vocal versatility, and acute awareness of the situation.
Utilise video feedback and cultural awareness to address discrepancies between your communication intentions and their actual impact, both verbal and nonverbal. Recognising these gaps is the initial phase of self-improvement. Seek coaching support as necessary to enhance your communication skills further.
Engaging in consistent journaling is a valuable but often overlooked method for personal growth and ensuring clarity regarding your individual benchmarks for success. Putting your thoughts into writing serves as a mechanism to organise ideas, identify inconsistencies, stimulate new insights, and validate them through external input.
Believe it or not, that “❤️ Like” button is a big deal – it serves as a proxy to new visitors of this publication’s value. If you enjoyed this post, please let others know. Thanks for reading.
Ok, maybe not quantum physics, but you get my point.
Despite the drug’s popularity today, the researchers who discovered it weren’t even looking for it. Sildenafil, the active ingredient in Viagra, was originally developed to treat cardiovascular problems. In animal tests, it seemed to work moderately well, and the animals weren’t having any obvious negative side effects. So, it was brought into a phase one clinical trial in the early 1990s, to test whether humans can tolerate a new compound.
All seemed to be going well—except for one weird thing the men enrolled in the study did when nurses went to check on them. “They found a lot of the men were lying on their stomachs,” ”A very observant nurse reported this, saying the men were embarrassed [because] they were getting erections.” John LaMattina, who was the head of research and development at Pfizer while this research was ongoing, said on a 2016 episode of the STAT Signal Podcast.
The sildenafil was working—but in the wrong part of the body. And with that, the so-called “potency pill” was born.
Granted, AP already does some questionable work using their main brand, so perhaps they are a bad example!
And this isn’t just about money. So, think bigger.
He established The Nonverbal Group in 2009, a New York-based company dedicated to behavioral research and education, specialising in dissecting and enhancing human communication through large-scale studies and advanced technologies. Additionally, Eastman served as an adjunct psychology professor at the City University of New York for six years, teaching various psychology courses. A former professional poker player, he founded School of Cards, the first physical poker school in New York City.
The Monaco piece in Bloomberg is a corker! Well spotted!
Cracking read as always 👏