SDC Weekly 50; Kierkegaard & Watch Collecting; Behavioural Insights in Watchmaking
Kollokium's originality in design, MB&F new releases, Richemont's reshuffle, Soprana x ACM, Moser going mainstream, Fake Rolexes at Auction, Gratitude, Happiness, and Secret Chinese Drone Carriers .
In this issue, we cover Kollokium’s latest release, leadership changes at Richemont, MB&F teasers, Moser’s evolving strategy, the role of psychology in problem-solving, and expand on the notion of finding meaning in watch collecting - however daft that may seem to some!
You can catch up on the older editions of SDC Weekly here. Remember, free subscribers receive the full newsletter via email - 2 weeks after publication - so if you’re not subscribed already, that’s a good reason to do so!
Small stuff
Kollokium Projekt 01 Variant “B” Launches Today
I do not do paid promotions on SDC, and I generally avoid discussing new watch launches unless I have something meaningful to contribute beyond a simple “hey look at this new release.” In this case, the brand did not reach out to ask for a promotional post; I just think this is worth discussing. Also, one of the three founders of the brand I’m about to discuss is a friend of mine… But as he knows better than most, I don’t waste my time on “shitters”!
The brand in question is Kollukium, a design project launched by three friends at the end of 2023 with a ‘friends and family’ edition of 99 pieces.
Today, they’re introducing a new variant in a limited run of 199 pieces, available for CHF 2,666.66 (excluding VAT - available on their website):
Now, let's take a closer look at the brand’s own description of this piece:
“A work of transhumanism. Lo-fi yet three-dimensional. Is it one of those pin art boards from the 80s?A miniaturized nail art-work by Gunther Uecker? A minimalist tribute to the pioneer of the "ZERO movement" Enrico Castellani? A graphical representation of a ripple? A miniature cityscape? The dial is in fact a 3D reconstruction of an intentionally pixelated image rendered by Adobe Illustrator. If you squint your eyes, you can clearly make out 12 "maxi" hour markers, with batons for the cardinal hours and circles for the others. From a certain distance, you might even brush it off as a slightly blurry "utility" type of dial. And that’s exactly what we aimed for: low-key intrigue that you can only discover up-close.”
Frankly, I wanted to applaud the sheer novelty of this design. And I’m not alone in this sentiment – many industry heavyweights have chosen to buy one for themselves, while others who missed out are kicking themselves for not getting their hands on one. Does this make it a hype watch… a passing fad? To some extent, perhaps. But as far as I’m concerned, that doesn’t diminish the fact that it represents a much-needed breath of fresh air in an industry where so much of what we see is derivative of designs that have come before.
Now, don’t misunderstand me – there’s nothing inherently wrong with iteration. The Porsche 911 or the Rolex Submariner, for example, are iconic precisely because they are a drawn out exercise in refining and improving upon their own original design. What Kollukium has done here goes beyond that. In the wake of recent successes like Toledano and Chan’s fusion of Rolex Midas aesthetics with architectural inspiration, Kollukium has taken things a step further and created something that feels genuinely original.
In the watch world, we often spend a great deal of time and energy criticising brands and designers who seem to revel in copying or heavily borrowing from the work of others. The likes of Massena x Wei Koh, and Furlan Marri have all come under fire for this sort of thing. I believe it is just as important, if not more so, to recognise and celebrate those who make the effort to bring something truly original to the table.
And in that regard, I can only say: Chapeau, Kollukium! Well done.
MB&F Teaser
In this video by WAQT, Max Buster shares a few teasers about upcoming releases from the brand. In May, they’ll launch an iteration of the Stephen McDonnell movement, which includes an upgrade to an existing movement involving a 6th patent. Towards the end of the year, he’s launching a new MB&F which is not an HM nor an LM. Hear it from the man himself below.
Richemont is Getting a New CEO
Last Friday, Richemont announced some major changes. Nicolas Bos, a name that may not be immediately familiar to those outside the world of haute joaillerie, has been appointed as the new Chief Executive Officer of Richemont - the parent company which owns A. Lange & Söhne, Jaeger-LeCoultre, and of course, Cartier. The appointment, effective June 1st, 2024, marks a significant shift for Richemont, as Bos brings with him a wealth of experience not in the world of watchmaking, but in high jewellery.
Apparently, Bos didn’t even want the job at first. Johann Rupert (Richemont Chairman) explained during a call following Richemont’s fiscal 2024 results on Friday: “A while ago I asked him to consider the role, and he thought about it for a few months. Then he told me, ‘No, I’m having too much fun at Van Cleef, and I don’t need all the hassles of being a CEO.” Sources say, Rupert promised he would keep having fun if he accepted the CEO job. Might be BS, who knows.
Bos, a graduate of the prestigious ESSEC Business School, began his career at Richemont in 1992, working not with watches, but with the Cartier Foundation for Contemporary Art in Paris. It was a fitting start for a man who, by all accounts, possesses a deep passion for the arts, theater, and literature. In 2000, he made the move to Van Cleef & Arpels - a storied French jewellery house that has been a part of the Richemont portfolio since 1999. There, he held a variety of roles, including creative director and head of North America, before ascending to the position of Global President and CEO in 2013.
Under the leadership of Bos, Van Cleef & Arpels appears to have thrived. The brand has become a pillar of Richemont’s jewelry division, which posted impressive sales figures of 14.2 billion Euros in FY2024.
Bos, 53, has doubled annual sales at Van Cleef & Arpels since 2018 to about $2.5 billion, according to analyst estimates, increasing its importance in a jewelry division where Richemont makes most of its profit.
Rupert said the Van Cleef brand was losing about $60 million a year when Richemont acquired it for about $300 million in 1999.
via BNN Bloomberg
Bos has been a passionate advocate for the arts, spearheading Van Cleef & Arpels’ sponsorship of various artistic and educational initiatives. He has sought to elevate the profile of the jewelry category as a whole, working to foster vocations and to forge connections between jewelry, fashion, and design.
But Bos is no mere aesthete. His instrumental role in urging Johann Rupert to acquire the Italian jewelers Buccellati and Vhernier speaks to his commercial acumen too.
“We wouldn’t have bought Buccellati if Nicolas hadn’t harassed me, and we wouldn’t have bought Vhernier if he hadn’t harassed me as well”
Johann Rupert
From a watch enthusiast’s perspective, we can’t ignore the fact that Bos is clearly a jewellery guy. That said, his appreciation for the artisanal, the innovative, and the beautiful may actually serve him really well with regards to watches. Perhaps his fresh perspective, unencumbered by the weight of “tradition” in the horological maisons, may be just what Richemont needs to shake things up in a positive way? It is unlike me to be positive when it comes to Richemont, but I want to be on record with some positivity before we conclude.
Here are a few key points regarding the performance of Richemont’s Specialist Watchmakers division, which comprises A. Lange & Söhne, Baume & Mercier, IWC Schaffhausen, Jaeger-LeCoultre, Panerai, Piaget, Roger Dubuis, and Vacheron Constantin.
Sales decreased by 3% at actual exchange rates to €3.8 billion, but increased by 2% at constant exchange rates.
Performance varied across Maisons and geographies, with growth in Asia Pacific (excluding mainland China), Japan, and the Middle East & Africa being offset by declines in other locations.
What they call “Iconic collections” demonstrated resilience - that bucket includes the following lines: Lange 1, Portugieser, Reverso, Luminor, Polo, and Traditionnelle.
Combined retail and online retail sales contributed 60% of the Specialist Watchmakers’ sales, a 4% increase compared to the prior year, which they see as ‘validating the division’s direct-to-client strategy.’ I am not so sure they will be saying the same thing in 12 months’ time.
Unfavorable foreign exchange movements, and the dip in the watch market clearly affected profitability - resulting in an operating margin of 15.2%.
Bear in mind, Richemont sales were €20.6bn in total.
€14.23bn Retail
€1.2bn Online retail
€5.18bn Wholesale and royalty
Of that, here’s the contribution from each segment:
€14.24bn Jewellery Maisons (69.1%)
€3.77bn Specialist Watchmakers (18.3%)
€2.6bn Other (12.6%)
So really, it makes total sense that they hired a jewellery guy to head up what is primarily (69%) a jewellery group. Whether he will do much for watches remains to be seen - but the first thing he needs to do is get rid of that joker Schmid. 🤡
Speaking of Schmid and Lange - Rudy Chavez, President of Lange USA, has left the company. People are wondering what happened, and I understand it was just a matter of him being sick and tired of the Richemont and Lange toxicity! So he just left. Power to you, Rudy. Fu*kem!
I guess my positivity didn’t last. 🙄
Watches of Switzerland Update
Remember how The Watches of Switzerland Group (WoS) shares tanked after the Bucherer acquisition was announced? Well, according to this update from
, WoS, the UK’s largest Rolex retailer, saw its shares spike nearly 20% in a single trading day soar after reporting better-than-expected 4Q results. This was driven by a 14% jump in US sales and a doubling of second-hand watch sales which includes Rolex sold under the ‘certified pre-owned’ program. Still, their stock price remains lower than pre-January levels, when the Bucherer acquisition was announced.Despite concerns about losing market share to Bucherer, and slowing demand from UK consumers, WoS CEO Brian Duffy remains optimistic about the company’s prospects, particularly in what he feels is an underdeveloped US market.
The company reiterated its long-term target of more than doubling sales and earnings before interest and taxes by 2028, and said it expects sales of £1.67 billion to £1.73 billion in 2025. Analysts had been expecting £1.65 billion.
WoS has been working on reducing its reliance on Rolex (which accounted for over half of 2019 turnover), and expanding its branded jewellery business. Their recent acquisition of Roberto Coin’s US operation reinforces this view, as this deal is expected to add over $150 million in jewellery sales in the current financial year - this effectively doubles their turnover from jewellery.
To quote the WatchPro article linked above:
“So Watches of Switzerland is both diversifying on the supply side while narrowing its focus when it comes to retail, and now wholesale with Roberto Coin, in its two strongest markets.
That shows notable pragmatism and flexibility for a group already generating sales of over £1.5 billion, and investors buying in today suggest they feel the group remains on track to hit turnover of £3 billion by 2028.”
It is worth remembering the Rolex/Bucherer deal is still under review by the competition authorities, and is expected to close around the middle of 2024. Until this happens, Rolex is probably being stringent with stock allocations to Bucherer, while continuing with ‘business as usual’ to WoS - so as not to raise ay red flags before the deal is signed off. After this, I would expect more of a shift in favour of Bucherer, at which time the WoS diversification strategy will truly be tested. WatchPro seems to be overly favourable towards WoS prospects, but I would suggest we don’t throw caution to the wind just yet.
Luca Soprana Collaborating with ACM?
So, this is a reach… but I got this email via A Collected Man’s mailing list yesterday with the subject line: Sitting Down With Luca Soprana. I’ve highlighted the interesting bit:
What do they mean by “we?” Could be a limited series for ACM, could be that ACM is partnering with Luca, the way they have done with Zwinz and Rexhepi. Who knows.
You may recall, I shared a few renders of Luca’s upcoming pieces a while ago, in the Dubai Watch Week edition of SDC - not sure if this is an iteration of those, or something entirely new. Whatever it is, I’m sure it’ll be awesome! Like everything else in this issue, please remember I know nothing for sure, so take it all with a pinch of salt 😂
Luxury brands do not want to “appear to advertise”
Sharing Ariel Adams’ articles on WatchPro is not an enjoyable pastime of mine, but hey, I think its relevant! In this recent post, Adams talks about watch brands being reluctant to visibly advertise in watch media, even though he asserts these brands rely on these publications to generate demand for their products.
Adams argues this “no advertising” stance is unsustainable and damaging to the watch media ecosystem. Without adequate advertising revenue, many respected publications have disappeared, leaving fewer voices to provide the independent reviews and insights collectors rely on.
His article highlights the irony of brands expecting coverage without investing in the media outlets who exist to provide it, and contends brands are essentially freeloading off a system they need to survive. He also points out the hypocrisy of brands claiming not to advertise in watch media while heavily marketing through other channels.
Of course, Adams’ angle is simple - he is arguing for transparency, and not only for brands to pay watch media more, but to then also allow them to differentiate more clearly between op-ed pieces and advertising. This, and his other recent pieces, almost read like a bit of a ‘hail mary’ series as he witnesses the demise of traditional watch media. Despite Ariel being dismissive of independent writers like myself in the previous piece of his which I shared, I don’t blame him for penning these articles.
The real issue, however, isn’t on the brand-side of the equation. It is on the consumer side. In a world where watch media compete for search rankings to get eyeballs on their webpages, which in turn drive the prices which brands will pay the media for reaching these eyeballs, what we have is a commoditised market. Every website will write the same bullsh*t for the same brands, and they’re all competing for a slice of the same proverbial pie.
When you consider the purpose of these brands - it is to make people feel good about themselves, and to make money doing so. Journalists exist to inform consumers, and to make a living doing so. Right now, this purpose is completely forgotten, and journalists have turned into underpaid marketing agencies for the brands; NOT serving consumers, and also doing a poor job serving the brands.
I guess what I am getting at is: Ariel needs to take a look in the mirror, and focus on what he can control. Offer genuine value to the audience he claims to serve. Do this well, and the brands will come knocking all on their own.
“But how will they survive without the brands’ money??” I hear you say… How about a subscription? How about finding advertising partners outside of the watch brand pool? Chrono24, luxury car companies, luxury yacht companies… whatever. People buying expensive watches also buy other things. If all the media competed on content quality instead of brand deals, the best ones would thrive and the sh*t ones would all shut down - both excellent outcomes if you ask me.
Yes, this is not as simple as I make it sound - hell, I have more than a handful of people who claim to love reading SDC, and regularly respond to say how much they enjoyed certain posts - but they also openly admit to being “too cheap to pay” or that they simply “don’t pay for such content.” That’s cool - to each their own. In the end, all readers get what they pay for - if they can’t or won’t pony up for content they desire, they should shut the fu*k up about advertorial content. If this means fewer eyeballs on the content, remind yourself quality > quantity.
Regarding this subject, what are your views on SDC’s approach?
What exactly is Moser up to?
There’s no way you missed this Streamliner launch. In fact, if you follow watches closely, you have probably asked yourself the same question many other enthusiasts did: How many of these will they keep pumping out? This raises the question, what the f*ck is Moser up to? I have some thoughts on this.
, an SDC subscriber, counted a minimum of 12 Streamliners in the last year: Blue Chrono 2.0, Green 2.0, Salmon, Alpine Blue, Alpine Pink, Skeleton Tourb, Small seconds blue enamel, Jade, Undefeated, Special Boutique edition Chrono, Blue sapphire, Rainbow… and then of course, this purple one which makes the unlucky thirteenth!What Moser seems to be doing, is scaling up. They appear to be abandoning the fan base who are responsible for their success, and looking to improve their reach. Perhaps ironic, given they once were the ‘cool kid’ indie who once did daring things like the Swiss Mad Watch or the Swiss Icons Watch.
Back in 2018, Moser said this:
“Many brands, even historical ones, create and produce nothing but substitute substance with artificial hype to stay relevant.”
Now, it seems they’re following the same path! I describe it as ‘abandoning’ their fan base, because the Moser brand uses the slogan “Very Rare.” People who are fans of Moser, believe this to be true, at least for now. As they develop F1 partnerships and scale up production, what is happening is they are taking actions which are disconnected from their stated values; Values which drew in the collectors who love the brand today. The ‘family’ vibe which many Moser clients love to celebrate, will be lost, and they are making a conscious choice to shift from being a small independent brand, to a semi-industrialised brand seeking larger volumes in sales.
If Moser thinks they are better off seeking a mass-market audience, what I am saying here is this pursuit is at odds with their current collector base, their current values, and their current overall brand as viewed in the collector community. What I am not saying is that there is anything inherently wrong with this shift in strategy - in fact, this may have been their long-term strategy all along! It is however, in my opinion, going to be a problem for current Moser enthusiasts.
Transparency has never been a celebrated value of the Swiss… and Moser is no exception. They talk about doing everything in-house, and beyond that, Moser also supply other brands in the industry. As far as most people understand, Moser makes their own hairsprings, balance wheels, escape wheels, escapements, pallet levers etc., but what they do not do, is develop their own movements. Their perpetual calendar was developed by Andreas Strehler, their chronograph was developed by Agenhor, which Moser ended up buying a stake in.
Let me preface this by saying: I stand corrected on the points made below, and would be more than happy to add any response from the brand within this newsletter should they wish to include it.
I have reason to believe Moser’s automatic calibers are developed at least in part, by an external supplier, and configured to the needs of Moser - so it is adapted for the various models they make. This story goes back to a time when David Candeaux was contracted to develop the automatic movement for Moser - the thing didn’t work, Moser supposedly sued him, he declared bankruptcy, and eventually Moser had to find another source. You can be the judge, but LTM SA seems to be the company doing it - some images below.
It gets more interesting. I also heard that Moser sold their interest in Precision Engineering AG to Feller Pivotages SA - and if this is true, they aren’t even making some of the parts people take for granted as being ‘in house’ with Moser such as hairsprings and escapements.
As another data point, LTM SA also supplies another watch company I’ve never heard of, but one which highlights the versatility of the base caliber.
You can judge for yourself. This is not at all to say Moser is making bad watches, or that this practice is ‘bad’ - it is just a matter of highlighting Moser’s selective transparency. Moser is transparent about partners who add ‘marketing value’ such as Agenhor - but they would rather keep the rest private, to preserve a narrative. Not that I care, and of course, Moser isn’t the only one doing this. Établissage isn’t new.
Now, granted, Moser still does a lot of ‘upgrades’ to the movement including their moustache bridge for the balance wheel, and who knows what else. I don’t really have a problem with this approach at all, and the entire notion of getting hung up on ‘in-house’ versus not, is rather daft. The point of mentioning it here, is Moser can handle a significant production increase more easily if they are increasingly outsourcing more aspects of their production.
You might be wondering why they would want to scale up. Who will buy all these watches? My hypothesis is Moser wants to make a play for ‘mass market customers’ - i.e. NON-independent customers. The growth-driven shift from indie, to mainstream brand.
IWC, Hublot or other mainstream brands have (comparatively) large sales volumes - but they also have enormous marketing budgets, backed by billion-dollar corporations. I think Moser is making a play for a smaller piece of a bigger pie, perhaps concluding the much smaller pie of independent enthusiasts is less lucrative for a brand like theirs. For what reason, other than marketing to a wider audience, would Moser do an Undefeated Collaboration and F1 partnership?
If you’re a fan of Moser and consider yourself part of the family in “an intimate independent watchmaker,” your journey may be coming to an end. What do you think? Has the time has come for Moser to update their “Very Rare” slogan?
Enough small talk… Let’s dig in.
ScrewDownCrown is a reader-supported guide to the world of watch collecting, behavioural psychology, & other first world problems.
🧠 Behavioural Insights in Watchmaking
We often focus on solving problems through technical or engineering based approaches, but is there a case for giving more weight to solutions derived from psychological theory? The answer is obvious to me, but who am I?!
Let’s here from someone else instead. In this thought-provoking talk, Rory Sutherland advocates for reframing, as well as for leveraging insights from psychology, to improve various aspects of life from economics to public services.
First, consider the value of reframing. He gives an example in relation to smokers vs non-smokers:
“If you stand and stare out of the window on your own, you're an antisocial, friendless idiot. If you stand and stare out of the window on your own with a cigarette, you're a fucking philosopher.”
This is perhaps a silly example, but it highlights how a simple change in perception can drastically alter the experience of the same activity.
He gives another example linked with unemployment; pensioners are often happier than young unemployed individuals, despite being in similar circumstances! The difference lies in the perception of choice - pensioners believe they have chosen their situation, while the young unemployed feel it has been ‘thrust upon them.’ By rebranding unemployment as “a year off,” he explains how the upper-middle classes in England have found a way to reframe the unemployment experience positively.
Another critical factor in human happiness is the sense of control we have over our lives. Sutherland cites an interesting experiment involving two dogs in a box, where one has a button to stop an electric shock being applied to the floor of the box, while the other does not. Despite experiencing the same level of pain, the dog with the button to stop the shock (it has control) remains relatively content, while the other dog (without control) lapses into depression. This is commonly known as Learned Helpnessness.
He then applies this principle to other aspects of life, such as taxation. Sutherland suggests that the level of control we have over our taxes may matter more than the amount we pay:
“Pay 20,000 pounds in tax toward health, and you're merely feeling [like] a mug. Pay 20,000 pounds to endow a hospital ward, and you’re called a philanthropist.”
Throughout his talk, Sutherland provides several examples of how solutions which consider psychology as well as basic engineering, can be effectively implemented in real-world situations. Here’s a snippet which cuts to the heart of it:
You know my example of the Eurostar: six million pounds spent to reduce the journey time between Paris and London by about 40 minutes. For 0.01 percent of this money, you could have put wi-fi on the trains, which wouldn't have reduced the duration of the journey, but would have improved its enjoyment and its usefulness far more.
I think it's because there’s an imbalance, an asymmetry in the way we treat creative, emotionally driven psychological ideas versus the way we treat rational, numerical, spreadsheet-driven ideas. If you're a creative person, I think, quite rightly, you have to share all your ideas for approval with people much more rational than you. You have to go in and have a cost-benefit analysis, a feasibility study, an ROI study and so forth. And I think that's probably right. But this does not apply the other way around. People who have an existing framework - an economic framework, an engineering framework - feel that, actually, logic is its own answer.
What they don’t say is, “Well, the numbers all seem to add up, but before I present this idea, I’ll show it to some really crazy people to see if they can come up with something better.” And so we - artificially, I think - prioritise what I’d call mechanistic ideas over psychological ideas.
Another example he gives comes from London, where the single best improvement in passenger satisfaction on the Underground came from installing dot matrix display boards on platforms, reducing the uncertainty for passengers while they wait.
Sutherland emphasises the most successful businesses and solutions are often the ones which find a sweet spot combining technical and economic factors with psychological factors. He uses Google as an example here, explaining its success is not only due to its technological prowess but also its understanding of the psychological concept of “goal dilution” - the belief that a product focused on a single function is better at that function than one that combines multiple features. When Google launched, most of its competitors were trying to be web portals, offering a wide range of services such as search, news, weather, and sports scores. Google focused on being a search engine, and they did it really well.
This left me wondering how the concepts discussed in Sutherland’s talk can be applied to the world of watches.
The idea of reframing is everywhere in the industry. In fact, how else can we explain wealthy and educated people wasting untold sums of money on little pieces of metal? This reframing concept is used by brands and collectors alike, to imbue watches with value beyond the physical object (heirlooms, totems, personal stories etc.).
Some watch brands leverage psychological solutions to enhance customer engagement and satisfaction. Take Sartory Billard and his bespoke watch service or Cartier’s NSO offering and Vacheron’s Les Cabinotiers program - these brands offering customisation options, are giving customers a sense of control and this personalisation strengthens the customer’s emotional connection to the brand and the watches they eventually create.
Quick reminder: The goal dilution effect suggests when a product or service offers multiple features or benefits, consumers may perceive each individual feature or benefit as less effective or valuable compared to a product or service that focuses on delivering just one of those features or benefits exceptionally well.
When it comes to goal dilution, watchmaking seems to work in reverse to the Google example. There is more value associated with a Perpetual Calendar + Chronograph than a regular Perpetual Calendar - that’s because it is believed to be a more impressive technical feat to combine the two. Are there any ‘specialist’ watchmakers who are light years ahead of the rest, on any particular category?
Some might say Agenhor stands out amongst chronograph makers, Patek Philippe stands out amongst Minute Repeater makers, and Rexhep Rexhepi stands out amongst purist time-only watch makers?
These classifications may not even be ‘universally agreed’ - but even if they were, I don’t think this is necessarily an intentional outcome for any of them except perhaps, Patek.
Does this leave a psychological opportunity for other watchmakers to exploit?
I can think of one successful example in this regard: Bulgari. When you think of Bulgari watches, I will bet you think of the thinness of their watches. Like Google did with search engines, Bulgari set out to capture and retain the crown for thin watches in every possible configuration, and every year they keep breaking another record for thinness.
Rolex is another brand which has tapped into psychology, but not for the ‘success’ reasoning you might be thinking… I am thinking about durability. many collectors cite Rolex as their one watch forever, with no changes allowed - because they are all but bulletproof, with their durable cases and bracelets, reliable water resistance and ultra long service intervals. I know people who have used their Rolex for 20+ years and never had them serviced1!
Ignoring the physical aspects of the watches themselves (size, durability, reliability), how about user experience with each watch or the brand itself?
We have all heard by now about the extreme difficulties experienced by many collectors who own A Lange & Sohne watches. This is a negative psychological force, but no less powerful. With the watch market reaching new lows, this seems like a great opportunity for brands to differentiate themselves in what seems to be a growing plethora of options.
Sutherland’s talk was about the importance of considering psychological factors alongside technical and economic ones when seeking solutions to problems or creating successful products and services. The way to do this, is by reframing situations, providing a sense of control, and focusing on delivering exceptional value in a specific area. In the world of luxury, emotions matter - and I think the lowest hanging fruit for all brands is twofold: 1) in the pursuit of after-sales excellence, and 2) in enhancing the relationship-building aspect of customer engagement. Both of these are about how the customer feels, and especially in a luxury purchase, that’s what matters the most.
👑 The Meaning of Life and Collecting - with Kierkegaard
As a watch enthusiast who is curious about philosophy, I’ve often found myself staring at the writings of Søren Kierkegaard, the Danish thinker widely regarded as the “father of existentialism.” He has come up in SDC before, and perhaps the most notable reference was in this post about envy.
It is therefore no surprise, when you Google “father of existentialism”, the first result is this post from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, highlighting Kierkegaard’s profound impact on the world of thought. Even the great Ludwig Wittgenstein, himself no intellectual lightweight, was awed by Kierkegaard's depth:
“Kierkegaard is far too deep for me, anyhow. He bewilders me without working the good effects which he would in deeper souls”
One of the central themes in Kierkegaard’s work is his critique of the ‘detached objectivity’ embraced by his philosophical predecessors and contemporaries, particularly Hegel. Don’t be turned off by the weird terminology here… To simplify the term, think of it in two parts: 1) ‘detached’ would be like a bee or fly following you around and observing your life and 2) ‘objectivity’ is what you already know; i.e., to be free from bias.
Kierkegaard argued that by attempting to write from a ‘view from nowhere,’ Hegel and others were striving for an impartiality and detachment that was ultimately impossible, given the inherently subjective nature of the human experience.
Kierkegaard’s insight was simple: By trying to eliminate subjectivity, and trying to see everything objectively, philosophy risked losing its power to inspire and thus, its relevance to our lives. After all, while scientific explanations of reality are all well and good, they don’t necessarily speak to our actual lived experiences. When we’re grappling with questions of meaning and purpose, the detached objectivity of science and philosophy can feel rather cold and offer no comfort whatsoever.
As Kierkegaard put it in his journal in 1835:
“What I really need is to get clear about what I must do, not what I must know, except insofar as knowledge must precede every act.... [T]he crucial thing is to find a truth which is truth for me, to find the idea for which I am willing to live and die.”
In other words, even if we had a complete, objective understanding of the universe, it wouldn’t necessarily tell us how to live our lives. Kierkegaard believed that by stripping away subjectivity, we also strip away meaning. To find reasons to live, we need to preserve the first-person perspective.
The question, then, is not ‘what is the meaning of life?’ but rather ‘what is the meaning of life for me?’ And the answer, Kierkegaard believed, requires a leap beyond detached objectivity. For him, that meant a leap into religious faith, but later existentialist thinkers would build on his ideas to offer more secular responses.
So what does all of this have to do with watch collecting? Just as Kierkegaard argued for the importance of subjectivity in finding meaning in life, I believe the same holds true for our hobby. The appeal of watch collecting lies not in some cold, detached analysis of timepieces, but in the deeply personal connections and meanings that each watch holds for its owner. This sounds like I am declaring my title as Captain Obvious yet again… Until you remind yourself how often you hear watch collectors debate the value of one piece over another based on technical specs and objective measures.
A watch is more than just an object to be studied and catalogued; it is a repository of memories, a symbol of achievement, and a reflection of individual taste and style. The detached objectivity of science can give us the technical specs and history of a particular watch, but it will never capture the actual lived experience of wearing and cherishing it.
For us enthusiasts, the meaning and value of our collections are deeply subjective and personal. It comes back to the stories behind each watch, the emotions they evoke, and the way they make us feel; that is fundamentally what gives our hobby its purpose and significance.
In this sense, Kierkegaard’s emphasis on the first-person perspective is essential for preserving the heart and soul of watch collecting. As long as we embrace and celebrate the subjective nature of our obsession passion, we can find some meaning and maybe even fulfillment in our hobby… just as Kierkegaard believed individuals could discover their own truth and purpose in life.
📌 Links of interest
🕵️♂️ A Rolex Daytona ‘Big Red’ 6265 with fake dial via Perezcope.
🗺
created this map of watch brands and watchmakers around the world.📉 Rob Corder worries that axing VAT rebates and the Margin Scheme are slowly strangling UK’s ultra luxury watch market. The flip side of this, is the wealthiest collectors will perhaps receive more allocations as the lower end of the luxury watch buying market turn down their UK allocations to pursue these watches outside the UK.
👋 Rolex joins the list of companies exiting South Africa.
😇 James (Jim) Simons founded quantitative trading hedge fund Renaissance Technologies - he passed away last week, and here are his 5 principles - timeless wisdom about business and life. If you prefer watching a talk, here he is (45 min video).
😣 Apple needs to explain that bug that resurfaced deleted photos.
🚀 Inside Microsoft’s mission to take down the MacBook Air.
🕐 America’s Worst Time Zone: Where the clocks are off in both directions.
🎪 Lucky bloke wins a fight with Cartier after buying $14,000 earrings online for $14!
💻 The ultrathin iPad Pro turns out to be shockingly sturdy - bending video included!
📜 How translation went from the vague capturing of the spirit of a text in the romantic era to a highly standardised process in the 20th century.
🕵️♀️ Learn about Vaclav Smil: “A ruthless dissector of unwarranted assumptions who takes on environmental catastrophists and techno-optimists.”
⛪ For the first time in the US, a non-Christian church wins a battle to import ayahuasca for its religious practices.
🇨🇳 China is secretly building drone carriers.
🤖 Mad Scientists Build Dune-Inspired Stillsuit That Can Recycle Sweat.
🌌 We are about to hear echoes in the fabric of space for the first time.
⭐ Neuralink’s First Patient: ‘It Blows My Mind So Much’.
😇 The world has become more resilient to disasters, but investment is needed to save more lives.
End note
In case you missed it… here’s a post from last week about utility:
The other day I was reading a post on happiness, which linked to this incredible video.
“Don’t think about all the things you want, but don’t have. Think of all the things you don’t want, that you don’t have”
You might want to read that again, because it is more profound than it seems. It isn’t a new concept, and I would distil it down to another way to think about ‘gratitude.’ Here’s the 2x2 matrix from the video:
Bad boss, job you hate, poor health, dead children…. this list can get pretty dark, but the point is we never think about all the things in that bottom right box, and yet, this is possibly the largest box of all, filled with plenty to be grateful for.
Prof. Robert Emmons and Prof. Michael McCullough conducted a fairly famous set of studies to understand the effects of gratitude on psychological and physical well-being. They wanted to test the prevailing notion that consciously focusing on our blessings can lead to increased happiness and contentment2. What they found when they dug deeper into the data, is the improvements in positive emotions were actually caused by an increase in feelings of gratitude.
In other words, grateful emotions seemed to be driving the positive effects on well-being. To that end, I have this old post of mine which contains a very basic exercise for you to try… I hope you find it useful.
Until next time,
F
🔮Bonus link: Solar Eclipse and General Geekery
I have followed and supported this channel for many years. This video was pretty wholesome, and the moment the old guy sees the final film image, was so heartwarming. To see an enthusiast experience such joy from something so very simple, really brought some great vibes. Enjoy!
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!
This is in terms of mechanical functionality - Avoiding a service is probably not a wise idea, especially if you’re relying on it remaining water proof!
Study 1: participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: gratitude (listing things they were grateful for), hassles (listing irritants), or events (listing events that had an impact on them). Those in the gratitude condition reported more positive and optimistic appraisals of their lives, spent more time exercising, and reported fewer physical symptoms compared to the other groups.
Study 2: this involved a more intensive daily self-guided gratitude exercise over a 2-week period. Participants in the gratitude condition experienced higher levels of positive affect and were more likely to report helping someone with a personal problem or offering emotional support, compared to those in the hassles or downward social comparison conditions.
Study 3: adults with neuromuscular disease were assigned to either a gratitude condition or a control condition. Those in the gratitude condition reported greater levels of positive affect, more sleep, better sleep quality, and a greater sense of connectedness to others. The effects on well-being were also observable to the participants’ spouses or significant others.
Excellent as always, I love my microrotor and I do think it’s today very rare.. but I literally cringe every time there is a new streamliner and I am truly nervous for the day they open the floodgates on the microrotor, the watches are unique but part of the appeal was that they were rare.. not anymore as a typical moser display window these days have 10-15 SKUs on display and I’m sure many more in the vault in the back room. They need to significantly slow down the streamliner line and start looking at something fresh.
I realize this likely has nothing to do with the new CEO, but thought I would share anyway. This week ALS opened what is apparently its largest boutique in Asia. They did several group and private previews prior to opening and also offered booked time slots to visit to new space. I did both and had a great time. It seems they've actually hired enthusiasts who seem genuinely interested horology and the brand, (I shared my Pikullik and was ignored for 10 minutes by two of the staff who where fawning over it). The sales approach was also straight forward with almost everything available and clear feedback was provided around what was necessary to obtain pieces like the Odysseus. I went in very jaded and skeptical and left fairly impressed.