This week's ScrewDownCrown delves into the plummeting vintage watch market, LVMH vs Hermès watch war, features vs products in horology, and other industry updates. From rare Patek Philippes to Rolex patents, we cover the latest news and offer unique perspectives on the world of watches.
Questions to ponder: are there watches that are great products without any great features? Think of a basic Seiko diver.
How about watches that aren't great products even though they have great features? Ultra thick complicated watches come to mind.
Are most watches just stuck in one of the two scenarios described above, and you really need the watch to be a great product and have great features to be a great watch?
Interesting questions... to the first, I think not. In the example, it's stand out feature, I would describe, as being an affordable dive watch.
As for 'great products' - isn't that just subjective? You're the best person to share examples in this bucket - all the weird and wonderful watches you love, the "first of X and the best of Y" stuff you love - you probably see these as great products... for their features, or for the accomplishments they represent - but the list of people who agree with you is typically short (awareness more than accuracy)
Do you really need a great product or a great feature, to be dubbed a great watch. Yes, definitely. Even if the 'great feature' is "recognisability and/or status value."
On the 'one more' I suppose that's addressed already, my answer is no, because yes, provenance in that example is a valued feature to some.
I particularly enjoyed the last two sections this week, important and relevant reminders and tips for self improvement seem in short supply these days...maybe I'm not looking in the right places. Anyway, good call outs!
Also enjoyed the essay on telepathy, what a comprehensive history and something I never would have come across myself. If interested, The Why Files YouTube channel covers a lot of those gov't programs mentioned. The presenter has an interesting background, but foremost he's a great story teller and a skeptic. He sort of draws you into the story/background as if it is all fact, but then spends the back half doing some debunking of the popular narratives, leaving the open questions, open.
I grew up near one of the foremost centers for spiritualism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Lily Dale, NY. Interesting history to read about if interested in the topic.
I read Swithinbank’s article and found myself confused at the conclusions reached. It seemed very short sighted in general and lacking a basic understanding of markets, economics, human nature and psychology. A quick look at the watch market in general clearly shows watches at every price point from low end mechanicals from Timex to higher end quartz watches from AP, Patek, FP Journe to name a few. Patek knows the damage they would cause long term to their brand by providing a quartz watch below the 4910 model, which I believe is the most affordable Patek at retail, roughly $16,000. US. But I digress. The consumer who buys a luxury brand watch on their wrist for the status, for show, and clout are not going to buy the less expensive quartz version, it defeats their purpose of what they are wanting to communicate. Similarly, several manufacturers have had the ability to scale larger and larger and increase production to meet their demand. They don’t intentionally, the do grow but much slower to insure demand paces their supply while they can focus on selling the experience of acquiring a finely crafted piece. It is precisely the scarcity, the story behind the watch, the nature of the brand that separates these luxury and high luxury brands from the rest with their price points and their allure. All of this would be sacrificed at the alter of shortsighted, short term gains to boost sales now and loose later with a dilution of the brand equity and story. Rolex and Patek lead out of the quartz crises of the 1970s by refocusing on luxury and not playing the quartz game. Why would they return to it. Apple total sales of their wearable apple watches are par with the Swiss watch industry as a whole each year. One could argue we need the Patek, the AP, the Rolex smart watch. The smart watch (I don’t like calling it a watch) is bigger seller than quartz, so why not make that argument? TAG has a smart watch and its stupidly expensive compared to Garmin, Apple, etc…. It didn’t seem to help TAG gain market share. Perhaps in the end I am not sophisticated enough to understand the argument presented by Swithinbank. I will instead get lost thinking about product vs feature and what features become products to themselves. That was great by the way. N.
We are aligned, unsurprisingly perhaps! The fundamental point is the narrative behind mechanical movements is too powerful to allow quartz to fill the void - not in the current setup anyway. It was quite useful to go down the path of explaining myself, having slated the view last week, and being challenged on it. I only became more certain of the conclusion!
Oh for sure. I also recently started journalling too. That's a whole new perspective too. It's not so much the record-keeping, but the process of purposefully archiving a day - bit by bit - which is quite enlightening. Slightly off topic, but tangential in that it is another source of clarity as it were.
I agree, pen to paper helps me better understand myself and my thinking on the day, subject matters etc… I ironically keep three journals all for different topics, one for my business, one for personal/ everyday life and one dedicated to watches. I will write out what I like and dislike about a watch, the emotions etc.. I want to better understand why a watch intrigues me so much or why I don’t find it interesting at all. I don’t a a watch to collection these days without better understanding more than just the statistics of the watch. Why does the 5320G move me? Why has “5320” become an adjective to describe moments? Well, now you know a bit more about me. Have a great weekend.
“but I will admit I don’t understand the market for a mid tier watch anyway” 😂😂😂😂 if someone can explain why I keep buying IWCs to me, I’ll even give them the next one instead of selling it for 25c on the dollar after!
I disagree on the MB&F vs M.A.D part - I think they have done a bad job of seperating the two. Most people when selling/flipping their MAD market it as an MB&F. So for me - the precivied value of MB&F have declined alot.
That’s super interesting to me. This is the first time I’ve heard anyone say the MAD1 has caused them to view MB&F more negatively. Fair enough, noted!
I’ve lost interest in MB&Fs in the last few years and I think MAD1 has something to do with it, though I didn’t care enough to identify why.. thanks for pointing this out!
I thought I replied to this - weirdly, it shows not. My reply was something along the lines of: I haven’t ay recollection of others sharing this sentiment, so it is news to me. Thanks for sharing.
My simple Viking mind is thinking - why use 80k-100k CHF on a Horological Machine when I can use 4k CHF on a MAD1 and they are almost the same in term of uniqueness and function?
another epic comme d`hab. I like where you have landed on the opportunities for quartz - a potential worthwhile initiative but tricky and needs to be separation from the prestige brand.
Funny you asked this… I had listed names at first, but then I thought this would give rise to unnecessary confusion because some brands already have a quartz option like Breitling aerospace or Omega X33 etc.
To answer your question: I felt it’s about being a mid tier BRAND in the hierarchy of brands they compete with. So take IWC as an example… cheaper watches, 20k sports watches, 50k perpetual calendars… maybe they will be able to put out a 3-5k quartz. But why would anyone buy that, unless they are an aspiring IWC-aficionado? How many of those exist? I posit, too few to move the needle. IWC as a brand is not Rolex or Patek, so the mass buyer market - which would be the target for quartz- is not rushing out to buy a cheaper IWC perhaps.
That could be changed with the right marketing strategy, perhaps.
Or consider Longines… they already make watches for a couple of thousand bucks. How much cheaper can they go without damaging the brand?
Omega, as mentioned, already has one quartz at around 5-6k. Doesn’t fly off the shelves. So they would need to be at around 1-2k? That would wreck the brand I feel. Hence the question of a new brand but associated with Omega - this lets aspiring buyers feel the link to a nice brand, while allowing the “proper” brand owners to not feel like their watches’ values are diluted.
Hope that answers the question, but open to further dialogue!
I suppose a 34k women's AP is probably going to do alright, because - and this might be generalising, but it is based on my observations in the hobby - women mostly don't care about the mechanical value in a watch, and care about all the other features (status, style, comfort, brand etc). On average. Not saying there aren't any female watch geeks, I know many myself. The ratio is still 10:1 or more.
So maybe that's it? The brands should focus on making more WOMEN's quartz watches. The more I sit here and think about it, the more it seems like a genius move. What's interesting to me as well, is how this also doesn't hurt the brand at all. Nobody will care that AP made a women's quartz piece. If they made a 16202 in quartz, the watch world will go mad. Genius 👏
Damn. I'm annoyed this didn't occur to me... speaks to my gender-biased thinking. Really appreciate the comment, thank you.
Questions to ponder: are there watches that are great products without any great features? Think of a basic Seiko diver.
How about watches that aren't great products even though they have great features? Ultra thick complicated watches come to mind.
Are most watches just stuck in one of the two scenarios described above, and you really need the watch to be a great product and have great features to be a great watch?
One more: are there great watches that are neither great products nor have great features? What makes them great, then? Provenance?
Interesting questions... to the first, I think not. In the example, it's stand out feature, I would describe, as being an affordable dive watch.
As for 'great products' - isn't that just subjective? You're the best person to share examples in this bucket - all the weird and wonderful watches you love, the "first of X and the best of Y" stuff you love - you probably see these as great products... for their features, or for the accomplishments they represent - but the list of people who agree with you is typically short (awareness more than accuracy)
Do you really need a great product or a great feature, to be dubbed a great watch. Yes, definitely. Even if the 'great feature' is "recognisability and/or status value."
On the 'one more' I suppose that's addressed already, my answer is no, because yes, provenance in that example is a valued feature to some.
I particularly enjoyed the last two sections this week, important and relevant reminders and tips for self improvement seem in short supply these days...maybe I'm not looking in the right places. Anyway, good call outs!
Also enjoyed the essay on telepathy, what a comprehensive history and something I never would have come across myself. If interested, The Why Files YouTube channel covers a lot of those gov't programs mentioned. The presenter has an interesting background, but foremost he's a great story teller and a skeptic. He sort of draws you into the story/background as if it is all fact, but then spends the back half doing some debunking of the popular narratives, leaving the open questions, open.
I grew up near one of the foremost centers for spiritualism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Lily Dale, NY. Interesting history to read about if interested in the topic.
Had me confused… “this week” is in fact edition 56 - not this one. But I quickly figured where you’re coming from 😂
Thanks man, appreciate the recommendation, will evaluate 😄👊
Sorry, I'm reading "this week's" now...I should have referred to the edition number in the above comment, 55.
Not at all - my own mistake!
I read Swithinbank’s article and found myself confused at the conclusions reached. It seemed very short sighted in general and lacking a basic understanding of markets, economics, human nature and psychology. A quick look at the watch market in general clearly shows watches at every price point from low end mechanicals from Timex to higher end quartz watches from AP, Patek, FP Journe to name a few. Patek knows the damage they would cause long term to their brand by providing a quartz watch below the 4910 model, which I believe is the most affordable Patek at retail, roughly $16,000. US. But I digress. The consumer who buys a luxury brand watch on their wrist for the status, for show, and clout are not going to buy the less expensive quartz version, it defeats their purpose of what they are wanting to communicate. Similarly, several manufacturers have had the ability to scale larger and larger and increase production to meet their demand. They don’t intentionally, the do grow but much slower to insure demand paces their supply while they can focus on selling the experience of acquiring a finely crafted piece. It is precisely the scarcity, the story behind the watch, the nature of the brand that separates these luxury and high luxury brands from the rest with their price points and their allure. All of this would be sacrificed at the alter of shortsighted, short term gains to boost sales now and loose later with a dilution of the brand equity and story. Rolex and Patek lead out of the quartz crises of the 1970s by refocusing on luxury and not playing the quartz game. Why would they return to it. Apple total sales of their wearable apple watches are par with the Swiss watch industry as a whole each year. One could argue we need the Patek, the AP, the Rolex smart watch. The smart watch (I don’t like calling it a watch) is bigger seller than quartz, so why not make that argument? TAG has a smart watch and its stupidly expensive compared to Garmin, Apple, etc…. It didn’t seem to help TAG gain market share. Perhaps in the end I am not sophisticated enough to understand the argument presented by Swithinbank. I will instead get lost thinking about product vs feature and what features become products to themselves. That was great by the way. N.
We are aligned, unsurprisingly perhaps! The fundamental point is the narrative behind mechanical movements is too powerful to allow quartz to fill the void - not in the current setup anyway. It was quite useful to go down the path of explaining myself, having slated the view last week, and being challenged on it. I only became more certain of the conclusion!
Challenging our thinking and writing through our thoughts only adds clarity and a deeper understanding.
Oh for sure. I also recently started journalling too. That's a whole new perspective too. It's not so much the record-keeping, but the process of purposefully archiving a day - bit by bit - which is quite enlightening. Slightly off topic, but tangential in that it is another source of clarity as it were.
I agree, pen to paper helps me better understand myself and my thinking on the day, subject matters etc… I ironically keep three journals all for different topics, one for my business, one for personal/ everyday life and one dedicated to watches. I will write out what I like and dislike about a watch, the emotions etc.. I want to better understand why a watch intrigues me so much or why I don’t find it interesting at all. I don’t a a watch to collection these days without better understanding more than just the statistics of the watch. Why does the 5320G move me? Why has “5320” become an adjective to describe moments? Well, now you know a bit more about me. Have a great weekend.
PS. You have email.
Good idea - on the 3 journals. I’m still getting to grips with one. But I like the concept. Thanks for sharing.
May your weekend be filled with 5320 moments. 🥂 😂
“but I will admit I don’t understand the market for a mid tier watch anyway” 😂😂😂😂 if someone can explain why I keep buying IWCs to me, I’ll even give them the next one instead of selling it for 25c on the dollar after!
Sucker for punishment innit :D
I disagree on the MB&F vs M.A.D part - I think they have done a bad job of seperating the two. Most people when selling/flipping their MAD market it as an MB&F. So for me - the precivied value of MB&F have declined alot.
That’s super interesting to me. This is the first time I’ve heard anyone say the MAD1 has caused them to view MB&F more negatively. Fair enough, noted!
I’ve lost interest in MB&Fs in the last few years and I think MAD1 has something to do with it, though I didn’t care enough to identify why.. thanks for pointing this out!
I thought I replied to this - weirdly, it shows not. My reply was something along the lines of: I haven’t ay recollection of others sharing this sentiment, so it is news to me. Thanks for sharing.
My simple Viking mind is thinking - why use 80k-100k CHF on a Horological Machine when I can use 4k CHF on a MAD1 and they are almost the same in term of uniqueness and function?
Ah but they aren’t. Not even close!
some great insights this week, thanks as always
Thanks A! 👊
Publishing my own take on the quartz question in two days' time, damn you... :-)
Lol! Look forward to it... unless you plan to reference this post as being "spectacularly sh*t" - in which case, I REALLY look forward to it 😂
No such luck, I’m afraid…
test
Received
another epic comme d`hab. I like where you have landed on the opportunities for quartz - a potential worthwhile initiative but tricky and needs to be separation from the prestige brand.
Love the endless supply of frenchims 😂
Thanks for the excellent discussion, really helped me think through it all.
Avec plaisir!
😘
Could you define what you mean by “mid tier”? What is the price range and other characteristics?
Funny you asked this… I had listed names at first, but then I thought this would give rise to unnecessary confusion because some brands already have a quartz option like Breitling aerospace or Omega X33 etc.
To answer your question: I felt it’s about being a mid tier BRAND in the hierarchy of brands they compete with. So take IWC as an example… cheaper watches, 20k sports watches, 50k perpetual calendars… maybe they will be able to put out a 3-5k quartz. But why would anyone buy that, unless they are an aspiring IWC-aficionado? How many of those exist? I posit, too few to move the needle. IWC as a brand is not Rolex or Patek, so the mass buyer market - which would be the target for quartz- is not rushing out to buy a cheaper IWC perhaps.
That could be changed with the right marketing strategy, perhaps.
Or consider Longines… they already make watches for a couple of thousand bucks. How much cheaper can they go without damaging the brand?
Omega, as mentioned, already has one quartz at around 5-6k. Doesn’t fly off the shelves. So they would need to be at around 1-2k? That would wreck the brand I feel. Hence the question of a new brand but associated with Omega - this lets aspiring buyers feel the link to a nice brand, while allowing the “proper” brand owners to not feel like their watches’ values are diluted.
Hope that answers the question, but open to further dialogue!
Interestingly AP has introduced a line of 33mm RO’s for women, quartz with solid case back…… 34k. More a style watch than horology, but what a price!
I suppose a 34k women's AP is probably going to do alright, because - and this might be generalising, but it is based on my observations in the hobby - women mostly don't care about the mechanical value in a watch, and care about all the other features (status, style, comfort, brand etc). On average. Not saying there aren't any female watch geeks, I know many myself. The ratio is still 10:1 or more.
So maybe that's it? The brands should focus on making more WOMEN's quartz watches. The more I sit here and think about it, the more it seems like a genius move. What's interesting to me as well, is how this also doesn't hurt the brand at all. Nobody will care that AP made a women's quartz piece. If they made a 16202 in quartz, the watch world will go mad. Genius 👏
Damn. I'm annoyed this didn't occur to me... speaks to my gender-biased thinking. Really appreciate the comment, thank you.
Patek’s 4910 in the 24 line are also higher priced luxury quartz movements as well as several Aquanauts like the 5269R or a 5267
GS 9F is probably more ‘luxurious’ but lacks the brand power.
Love the LVMH bit. 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
👊👊