SDC Weekly 60; AI Revolution; Moral Decline

Rolex Innovates, Bremont Re-brands, and AP Gambles; Micro brand success, Marquetry, Sky-Dweller deep dive, Vacheron Manufacture visit, Ferrari deep faked, Cybertruck, Calculator watches and more!

🚨 Welcome to another edition of SDC Weekly. Estimated reading time: ~35 mins

This week, aside from the headliners, we look at more new patents from Rolex, Bremont’s controversial rebranding efforts, and Audemars Piguet’s polarising pop culture strategy. We’ll also look at Miss Tweed’s recent investment and what this might mean for ‘micro-journalism’.

If you’re new here, welcome! You can catch up on the older editions of SDC Weekly here. As always, free subscribers receive the full newsletter (and other ad-hoc posts) via email - 3 weeks after publication - so if you’ve not subscribed already, that’s a good reason to do so.

---

Small stuff

Rolex Patents, including a ‘new’ Daytona?

This patent is dated 23 July 2024, but seems to be the same design as the Rolex Daytona 116588TBR, nicknamed “Eye Of The Tiger.” This might be the same reference in the updated case, which would make it Ref. 126588TBR. Can’t say for sure, but thought some readers might care. Perhaps they’ll (re)introduce it with new colours?

Rolex Daytona 116588TBR, nicknamed “Eye Of The Tiger Daytona”

Rolex also patented this new fastening part for hairsprings, which was filed in 2019, and only approved last week:

---

Bremont’s Buffoonery

I recently saw this piece penned by Zen Love (this is a real name) for Revolution, which attempts to paint Bremont’s recent rebranding efforts in a positive light. The author posits the British watchmaker’s dramatic shift in branding strategy, unveiled at Watches and Wonders 2024, will ultimately strengthen their position in the market. I smell bullshit. Let’s take a look.

To call out some of the main points:

• Bremont’s rebranding involved three main elements: a new logo (the “Wayfinder”), a new field watch collection (Terra Nova), and a redesign of their Supermarine dive watch line.

• The brand is moving away from its aviation-focused identity towards a more rounded approach encompassing “air, land, and sea” families of watches.

• They acknowledge the rebranding has been controversial, even among Bremont’s loyal supporters (yes, those exist!).

• Despite this, the article argues that the new collections are solid, good-looking tool watches that should appeal to a broader audience.

• The author suggests that Bremont’s identity now transcends its branding, with its journey of resilience and controversy becoming part of its personality.

• The piece concludes by framing Bremont as an underdog, suggesting that its ability to stumble and recover is endearing and admirable.

Let’s be honest, Bremont has been punching above its weight for years, and based on any worthwhile feedback I’ve seen or heard on this rebranding, has decided to push its entire brand identity out of the aircraft - sans parachute.

Is it just me, or is this article is more divorced from reality than a flat-earther at a NASA convention? Zen Love seems to be living in a parallel universe where Bremont’s rebranding is some sort of masterstroke of marketing ingenuity. As far as I am aware, it has been about as well-received as a fake watch at a brand event.

The watch community, bless their detail-obsessed hearts, is not known for embracing change with open arms. The issues, to be precise:

• The New Logo: The old “Wayfinder.” Because nothing says “we’re lost” quite like slapping a compass rose on your dial. As if Bremont looked at their only real asset as a brand (the propeller logo) and thought, “You know what? Let’s make it even more difficult to pick our watches out of a lineup, because we aren’t already struggling to find our way as a brand.”

• The Terra Nova Collection: Field watches are lovely. They’re practical, rugged, and have a certain charm. But launching a field watch collection when your entire brand identity is built on aviation is like Ferrari suddenly deciding to make combine harvesters. It’s not that they can’t; but who the fvck asked them to?

• The Supermarine Redesign: Here’s where things get truly baffling. Bremont had a distinctive dive watch. Was it to everyone’s taste? Certainly not, but it was for better or worse, recognisably Bremont. Now, they’ve redesigned it to look like... well, every other dive watch on the market. This is typical Bremont hubris: “We’ll easily grab some of that market share, and we don’t need decades of brand equity.”

The author tries to frame this as “Bremont being agile and willing to take risks.” Thing is, there’s a fine line between taking calculated risks and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The new CEO seems to have not only thrown out the baby and the bathwater but also the bathtub, the rubber duck, and the entire bathroom.

The notion that Bremont’s identity now “transcends its branding” is, frankly, laughable. A brand’s identity is intrinsically linked to its branding. It’s not something you can just shrug off like last season’s fashion. Bremont has spent years building an identity around aviation and British engineering. To suddenly pivot away from that is not transcendent; it’s tantamount to brand suicide.

Oh yes, let’s talk about this “underdog” narrative. An underdog implies there’s a favourite to overcome. Really? Bremont isn’t battling against other brands here; they’re battling against themselves. They’re creating their own hurdles, then tripping over them spectacularly; yet, we’re supposed to find this endearing? When last did you watch someone repeatedly walk into a glass door, and describe it as perseverance?

The watch industry is brutal. It’s a world where heritage is currency, and consistency is key. Brands like Rolex, Omega, and Patek Philippe didn’t get where they are by constantly reinventing themselves. They evolved, yes, but always with a clear sense of who they are and what they stand for.

This rebranding isn’t a masterstroke; it’s a misfire. These are not the actions of an underdog, but of a brand that’s lost its way. Bremont had carved out a unique niche for itself in the crowded watch market. Now, they risk becoming just another face in the crowd.

The watch community’s reaction isn't contrarianism; it’s a justified response to a brand seemingly abandoning its core values. Bremont isn’t stumbling and getting back up; they’re actively throwing themselves down the stairs.

If Bremont wants to actually strengthen its position, it needs to remember who it is and what made people fall in love with the brand in the first place (regardless of how little I care for the brand). Otherwise, they might find themselves not just rebranding, but rebuilding from the ground up.

---

Miss Tweed Divests 10%

Miss Tweed Publishing, the parent company of the Paris-based fashion and luxury news website Miss Tweed, has sold a stake of just under 10% to BB Kapital SA, the family investment company owned by Bernd Beetz. Beetz is a prominent business leader, formerly CEO of Coty and currently chairman of German department store chain Galeria Karstadt Kaufhof. He also worked for LVMH, and was once president and CEO of Christian Dior.

The investment was supposedly made to comply with French media law due to Miss Tweed’s claim of “rapid revenue and profitability growth.” Founder Astrid Wendlandt emphasised that this investment will not affect the editorial independence of Miss Tweed, which of course plans to remain committed to fair, accurate, and balanced reporting.

Miss Tweed, launched in June 2020, operates on a subscription model, is advertising-free, and employs 15 people, mostly experienced journalists. They have over 4,000 subscribers to their Sunday newsletter, and they organise an annual “Luxury at the Summit” event in Val d’Isère, described (by themselves) as a “Davos of the industry.”

They charge €375 per year for a subscription, meaning they have a minimum revenue of €1,500,000. With 15 staff, at ~ €100k each, that’s basically all the money gone. Adjust the staff costs for more junior staff vs senior, and assume more than 4000 subscribers, and they have between €100-500k leftover for operating expenses and/or profit. Not bad, I guess! Still, this 10% stake being sold wouldn’t be worth a whole lot.

Why am I telling you this? Well, this could signal a tiny shift in the landscape of niche journalism, particularly in the luxury and watch sectors. Miss Tweed’s success as an independent, subscription-based platform demonstrates there is some demand for in-depth, exclusive reporting in these industries; demand from people who are prepared to pay for good content, and investors who are willing to value this.

This raises the question about what value is added by Miss Tweed over the freely available content.:

• Access to high-level industry information: Miss Tweed’s ability to break exclusive stories and shape industry conversations makes it valuable to investors who want insights into the luxury market.

• Potential for growth: The growth in revenue and profitability indicates there is room for expansion, possibly into new markets or adjacent sectors.

• Influence in the industry: As Miss Tweed gains prominence, it could become a more powerful player in shaping narratives and trends in the luxury and watch sectors.

• Perspective: Perhaps Miss Tweed offers insights which no other platform can offer. This is the one which holds the most value, in my opinion.

Granted, a few people have told me Miss Tweed isn’t likely to grow as much it has since inception, their content can be a little ‘tabloidy’ and they’ve previously dropped ‘breaking news’ which ended up being wrong, on more than one occasion. I used to subscribe, but cancelled it because it wasn’t worth the money to me. So perhaps this investment is really nothing to do with the quality of the output, but the numbers themselves. Still feels like a promising sign to me.

I’m not suggesting this signals some sort of seismic shift towards hyper-specialised, subscription-based content for watches. However, if Hodinkee is ‘going back to their roots’ then we should expect to see something like this play out with them too. It may not be completely paywalled, but likely to follow a Bloomberg-style model of some free articles a month and access to the whole site only if you’re a paid subscriber.

The problem Hodinkee will have, is getting people to pay at all, given what their target audience is used to. They will first have to wean themselves off brand dollars and demonstrate their willingness to offer valuable insights and content worth paying for, before anyone will actually pay for it. Ask me, I know! Which makes me think it’d be naive to assume Hodinkee’s future plans don’t involve more external capital to help them stay afloat as they prove their ability to generate valuable content, prior to flipping the pay-switch.

Anyway, maybe we’re witnessing the birth of a new era in watch journalism. It’s exciting, it’s terrifying, and it’s about as predictable as a service bill from Lange.

---

Is AP Gambling with its Legacy?

Here’s another hot take from our friends at The Hour Markers, entitled: “Is Audemars Piguet Gambling Away Its Legacy In Chasing Pop Culture Trends?” I don’t know the answer to their question, but I am 100% certain their framing of the argument is all wrong.

Let’s start with some credit where it’s due. The piece does an admirable job of laying out Audemars Piguet’s recent strategy and financial success. It aint wrong that AP has been killing it in the numbers game, consistently outperforming many of its peers. That said, the author seems to be caught in a paradox of their own making. On one hand, they’re clutching their pearls over AP’s “controversial” designs and collaborations. On the other, they’re grudgingly admitting that this strategy is working! This is like watching a magic trick and complaining about the magician’s outfit while still applauding the performance 😂

The comparison to H&M and fast fashion is bizarre. Yes, AP is moving faster and taking more risks than some of its peers, but calling this a “fast fashion” approach fundamentally misunderstands both the watch industry and AP’s strategy. These aren’t disposable trinkets churned out every season; they are, whether we like them or not, high-end watches that appear to have a finger on the pulse of contemporary culture. I’ll be the first to admit I don’t understand the appeal, but the watch community has a terrible habit of seeing the world as they are, not as it actually is.

The comparison to Patek Philippe’s more conservative approach is interesting, but it is also a miss for me. These are two different brands with different histories, different customer bases, and different goals. Patek’s strategy works for Patek. AP’s strategy works for AP. Suggesting that AP should be more like Patek is like telling Lewis Hamilton he should drive more like Ayrton Senna. They’re both legends, but in their own unique ways.

Perhaps the most tone-deaf aspect of this analysis is the hand-wringing over AP potentially alienating its “core clientele.” The hard truth, is AP’s core clientele in 2024 isn’t the same as it was in 1984. The watch world has changed, and AP has changed with it. Their core clientele now includes the very pop culture figures and trend-setters that the author seems so concerned about.

We also can’t ignore that parting shot about Rolex. Yes, Rolex is successful. Yes, they’re more conservative. They are also a completely different beast, making a million watches per year, and operating on a different level to AP. Comparing AP’s strategy to Rolex’s is like comparing pancakes to watches - they’re both round, but that’s about it.

From what I can tell, AP is doing at least as well as it would be doing if it didn’t do any of these absurd collaborations. The brand has - to my surprise more than anyone - managed to maintain its horological credibility while also becoming a cultural touchstone. That’s not an easy feat, and certainly not something to be dismissed as mere trend-chasing.

Is it risky? Absolutely. Could it backfire? Possibly. That said, the watch industry is changing. Customers are changing. Brands which don’t change with them also risk becoming irrelevant. AP has chosen to embrace this change, to ride the wave rather than be swept away by it. Other brands will stick to what they know, and attempt to influence customers to go along with their vision. Both approaches have merit.

So yes, this article raises some interesting points, but I think it fundamentally misunderstands AP’s strategy and its place in the modern watch market. For some brands, it’s not about chasing trends; it’s about trying to set them. More importantly, it’s not about alienating core customers, but about expanding the definition of who those core customers are. Again, I am not saying this is a good strategy or a bad one, I am reiterating how radical trend-setting is not ‘automatically’ wrong, which is what the article implies.

---

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.

---

🤖 The AI Revolution

You’ve heard the craic¹. Artificial Intelligence is coming to change everything. What does that even mean? And how might it affect the world of watches and collecting?

Ray Kurzweil, a pioneer in AI, has been in the game for 61 years. Back in 1962, when Kurzweil joined the field, AI was barely a blip on the radar. Most people hadn’t even heard of it. Those who had were sceptical, thinking it might take centuries to achieve anything meaningful.

Yet, here we are, decades later, and the landscape has indeed shifted dramatically.

You can watch the video in your own time, but I’ll cover Ray’s main points below.

The Exponential Growth of AI

Kurzweil points to a chart showing the growth of computation power over time. It’s not a gentle slope:

From 1939 to today, we’ve seen a mind-boggling 75 quadrillion-fold increase in computational power. That explains why we’re suddenly seeing large language models that actually work, seemingly out of nowhere.

This growth isn’t slowing down. It is accelerating, and it’s not just about raw computing power. AI is supercharging everything it touches.

Singularity is Closer Than We Think?

Kurzweil predicts we’ll reach artificial general intelligence (AGI)² by 2029! Others, like Elon Musk, think it could happen even sooner.

So, what happens after AGI? Kurzweil talks about the ‘singularity’ – a point where AI’s capabilities grow so rapidly that it becomes impossible for us to predict or understand what comes next. He believes this could happen by 2045, leading to a million-fold expansion of human intelligence.

AI in the Real World

AI application is not merely theoretical; It is already reshaping industries:

• Music: AI-generated songs are racking up millions of streams.

• Business: Entrepreneurs are using AI to launch and run entire companies.

• Healthcare: AI is being used for mental health support and drug discovery.

• Education: AI tutors are providing personalised learning experiences.

Kurzweil emphasises how AI is revolutionising medicine. He predicts AI will soon be coming up with cures for diseases at an unprecedented rate, potentially leading to a new milestone he calls ‘longevity escape velocity.’ This is the point where scientific progress adds more than a year to our life expectancy every year, effectively allowing us to outrun the ageing process!

Obviously it’s not all rosy. Some experts, like Eliezer Yudkowsky, are sounding alarm bells. They worry that if we rush headlong into AGI without proper safeguards, we will be risking everything – including our very existence.

What About Watches?

How does all this relate to the world of horology?

• Design and Innovation: AI could revolutionise watch design, helping create new complications or optimise existing ones. I imagine an AI that could design a completely new type of escapement or a more efficient winding system. For instance, AI could analyse the performance of thousands of existing movements to propose novel solutions to age-old problems like isochronism or power reserve efficiency. The same could be said for movement architecture, as it can correlate manufacturing capability with designs, to create the most optimal - but also technically feasible - designs for any movement.

• Manufacturing: Precision is everything in watchmaking. AI could enhance quality control processes, spotting imperfections invisible to the human eye. It might even lead to new manufacturing techniques, like AI-optimised 3D printing of complex components.

• Authentication: With valuable watches, fakes are always a concern. AI could potentially create foolproof authentication systems, analysing watches down to the microscopic level. This could involve machine learning algorithms that can identify some unique ‘fingerprint’ of each watch based on microscopic variations in finishing and assembly - this could be held in a worldwide database making authentication accessible and easy.

• Market Analysis: AI could predict trends in the watch market with unprecedented accuracy, helping collectors make smarter decisions. It might analyse social media trends, economic indicators, and historical data to forecast which watches are likely to become hyped and less available, and dare I say, increase in value. The same is of course true in reverse too.

• Personalisation: AI could help create truly bespoke watches, tailoring every aspect to a collector’s preferences and even their physiology. Imagine a watch that is designed to perfectly fit the unique contours of your wrist, but also not prohibitively expensive or difficult to manufacture. I think this is probably closer than we think. Consider a modular case construction where the movement is cased in a standard shape, but it attaches to a separate outer case which is tailored to the user’s wrist. Kinda like this DeBethune, but more customised:

De Bethune DB28 Steel Wheels Sapphire Tourbillon

All that sounds good, but raises a different question. What happens to the value of watches in a world where AI has made many jobs obsolete? Will only the rarest, most historically significant pieces hold their value or be desired? This isn’t just idle speculation. As AI continues to reshape the economy, it could dramatically alter the landscape of all luxury goods, and that includes watches.

Consider this: if AI-driven automation leads to widespread job displacement, as some experts predict, how will this affect the market for luxury watches? Will there be a shrinking pool of consumers able to afford high-end watches? Or will the increased productivity brought about by AI lead to greater wealth overall, potentially expanding the luxury market?

Moreover, how will AI impact the perception of value in watches? If AI can design and manufacture watches with superhuman precision, will this diminish the perceived value of human input into craftsmanship? Or will it instead heighten appreciation for the human touch, making traditionally crafted watches even more desirable?

If we zoom out even further, consider the human element itself. Many will argue the soul of watchmaking lies in the craftsman’s touch, the tiny imperfections that make each piece unique. Could AI-assisted production threaten this? Or could it paradoxically increase the value of human-made watches by making them even rarer?

These questions don’t have ‘correct’ answers at all, but I think they’re important ones to consider, for anyone interested in the future of horology and our hobby.

The Virtual Frontier

In a previous article, I explored the idea of virtual watches in a VR world. With AI and VR advancing hand in hand, we might see a future where collectors ‘own’ and ‘wear’ virtual versions of impossible-to-obtain watches.

This isn’t just science fiction. Companies like Apple are already investing heavily in VR and AR technology. The Apple Vision Pro, set to launch in 2024, could be a game-changer for how we interact with digital content, including virtual goods like watches.

Imagine being able to ‘try on’ any watch in history, perfectly rendered in 3D. Or owning a virtual collection of rare watches that would be impossible to assemble in the physical world. AI could power these experiences, creating hyper-realistic simulations of watches down to the sweeping movement of the second hand.

Of course, this raises profound questions about the nature of collecting. Is a virtual watch collection even ‘real?’ Can it provide the same satisfaction as a physical collection? It’s easy to say ‘no’ today, but who’s to say we won’t be living in the metaverse someday? These are questions we’ll have to grapple with as technology continues to blur the lines between physical and digital reality.

Framing the Future

In another old article on framing purchase decisions, I discussed how our perceptions shape our choices. This is particularly relevant when thinking about the future of watches in an AI-driven world.

How we frame the impact of AI on watchmaking will likely influence its actual impact. If we see AI as a threat to traditional watchmaking, we might resist its integration, potentially missing out on its benefits. On the other hand, if we view AI as a tool to enhance and evolve the art of watchmaking, we might discover exciting new possibilities.

For instance, some might frame AI-assisted design as a dilution of human creativity. Yet, another obvious perspective, is AI could free watchmakers from mundane tasks, allowing them to focus on higher-level creative decisions. It’s all about how we frame the change. The Swiss watch industry is notorious for being slow to react, and resistant to change. This makes AI slightly more concerning for our hobby than other aspects in the luxury industry, and I’d argue it therefore presents both an opportunity, and a threat.

The Human Touch

Despite all this technological progress, one thing remains constant: the human desire for beauty, craftsmanship, and connection to our past. Mechanical watches survived the quartz crisis and the smartwatch wave (it seems).

This is because they’re more than just timekeeping devices. They represent art. They represent history. They represent a link to centuries of human ingenuity and craftsmanship.

Consider the story of George Daniels, widely considered the greatest watchmaker of the 20th century. Daniels created fewer than 100 watches in his lifetime, each one a masterpiece in its own right. His pursuit of chronometric precision and improved service intervals led to the invention of the co-axial escapement, a breakthrough in watchmaking that took him decades to perfect.

Source: Insight: Daniels’ Co-Axial Escapement, an Evolution of the Fasoldt Chronometer

This human element – the passion, the dedication, the life’s work poured into creating something beautiful and enduring – is what gives mechanical watches their emotional resonance. It’s what makes a Patek Philippe Grandmaster Chime or the F.P. Journe Astronomic Souveraine more than just a timekeeping device, but a work of art.

The caseback of the steel Astronomic Souveraine.

Research in psychology supports this too. Studies which investigate how people intuitively evaluate artwork as a physical extension of its creator have found that “art appreciation is not only influenced by the object’s aesthetic features, but also by key conceptual factors including beliefs about the artist’s mental state and the degree of physical connection to the work.”

AI will undoubtedly change the watch industry, just as it’s changing everything else. It is however, unlikely to replace the fundamental appeal of a beautifully crafted mechanical watch.

Instead, the most successful brands will likely be those that are able to find ways of harnessing AI’s power while maintaining the human touch that makes their watches special. Perhaps AI will handle the precision manufacturing of base components, while human artisans focus on the high-level design and exquisite finishing that give fine watches their character - heck, Romain Gauthier already does this today, and people seem to love his watches.

Now, this point was supposed to be the end. I wrote this on Friday and Saturday, and then on Monday I stumbled upon this article about Agency. This gave rise to a whole new perspective which seemed to fit well in this section. So imagine this next section as a new section altogether, which conveniently flows from the previous one.

---

What is Agency?

Before we dive into the guts of this, let’s take a moment to align on our understanding of agency.

In the world of philosophy and artificial intelligence, agency is a bit like the ability to tell time. It isn’t just about having hands on a watch which move - we still need some understanding about what those movements mean, then we’re left with a decision about what to do with that information.

Imagine your trusty Submariner. It’s a good watch, sure, but it doesn’t decide to wake you up early on a Tuesday because it knows you’ve got a big meeting. That would be agency - the ability to perceive, think, and act independently.

When we talk about AI, we often imagine a single, unified ‘brain’ which possesses all these capabilities rolled into one - rather like how we think of ourselves. Now what if, instead of building one complex ‘AI movement’, we could create separate components and combine them in different ways? So for example:

• The Mainspring (Goals): This drives the whole operation. In a watch, it’s the stored energy that keeps everything ticking. In an AI, it’s the objectives or desired outcomes you set.

• The Gear Train (Implementation Capacity): This is how our system interacts with the world. In your watch, it’s the series of gears that translate the mainspring’s energy into the precise movement of the hands. In an AI, it might be the ability to send emails, control smart home devices, or even operate machinery.

• The Balance Wheel (Situational Awareness): This regulates the release of energy in a watch, ensuring accuracy. In our AI analogy, this is the system’s understanding of its environment and context.

• The Escapement (Planning Capacity): In a watch, this converts the mainspring’s energy into controlled, periodic releases. For our AI, this represents the ability to make decisions and formulate plans based on its goals and awareness.

Modular Intelligence

Now, here’s where it gets exciting when you consider a few possibilities for watch collectors as AI becomes (even) more ubiquitous.

• The Auction Adviser: It’s 3:00 am where you live, and a vintage piece you’ve been eyeing is up for online auction. Your AI Auction Adviser has been monitoring the market trends, cross-referencing with your collection goals and budget (that’s the mainspring and balance wheel at work). It won’t bid for you, but it does ping your phone with a gentle vibration, suggesting, “Now might be the time to place that bid, chap. This ref. is going for 15% below market value, and it’s the exact model you’ve been hunting for years.” That’s the escapement (planning) in action, giving you advice based on your parameters.

• The Collection Curator: This is like a perpetual calendar - complex, forward-thinking, and eerily prescient. Your AI Curator understands your long-term collecting strategy. It knows you’re working towards a full array of GMT-Masters. When it spots a mint condition 1675 with a rare dial, it doesn’t just notify you - it contacts the seller, negotiates within your pre-set limits, and arranges insured shipping to your local watchmaker for authentication. All you need to do is approve the final purchase. It’s using all four components - goals, implementation, awareness, and planning - to act autonomously on your behalf.

• The Dynamic Duo: Imagine two AI systems working in tandem. One system - like an advanced version of WatchCharts - constantly analyses the global watch market, tracking prices, rarity, and condition of specific models. The other, your “Personal Horologist,” intimately knows your collection, your preferences, and your wearing habits. Together, they form a powerful team. For instance, the WatchCharts notices a trend of those funky 1970s Seiko “TV dial” watches are suddenly skyrocketing in value. Your Personal Horologist knows you wear a lot of vintage-inspired casual wear and have a soft spot for quirky designs. Together, they might suggest, “Have you considered adding a Seiko 0674-5070 to your collection? It would complement your style, and based on current trends, it could be a savvy investment.” WatchCharts provides the situational awareness, while the Personal Horologist aligns this with your goals and plans.

This modular approach isn’t just pie-in-the-sky theorising. We’re already seeing glimpses of it in the watch world. By breaking down these AI capabilities into specialised components, we open up a world where technology enhances, rather than replaces, the joys of watch collecting.

Imagine the possibilities! An AI that helps you plan the perfect watch rotation for a business trip. Another that keeps track of your watches’ service history and predicts when it will time for a check-up. Or one that scans vintage watches for signs of re-luming or replacement parts, helping you avoid costly mistakes.

The beauty of this modular approach is that, just like building a watch collection, you can choose the components that matter most to you. Whether you’re a die-hard vintage enthusiast or a modern buff, there’s potential for AI to be a horological wingman, not a replacement.

As we stand on the cusp of a new era in artificial intelligence, it’s worth remembering the lessons learned from centuries of horology. The beauty of any watch exists in the harmonious interaction of its parts to form a cohesive product.

The future of AI might not be a single, inscrutable ‘black box’, but rather a collection of specialised components working in concert. By looking at AI through this lens, we can better appreciate the challenges and possibilities of creating truly intelligent systems.

Side note: Owenomics reckons the US Stock market is getting close to an AI-fuelled bubble.

---

⚖ Moral Decline

This recent study aimed to investigate the widespread perception that morality is deteriorating over time. The researchers conducted a series of studies using both archival and original data. I’ll put details in the footnotes if you’re interested³. In short, the study examines the perception of moral decline. While it doesn't definitively prove morality hasn’t declined, it presents strong evidence that the perception of decline is likely an illusion. They propose the illusion of moral decline may be due to a combination of biased exposure to negative information about current events and biased memory that tends to forget negative past events more quickly than positive ones.

First off, the sheer consistency of this illusion is staggering. For seven decades, people have been singing the same tune: “Morality is going down the sh*tter.” It doesn’t matter if you’re asking a bloke in 1950s America or a millennial in 2020… but they can’t all be right, can they?

This illusion of moral decline isn’t just a harmless cognitive quirk - it’s a perspective which shapes societies, drives politics, and influences how we interact with each other on a daily basis. Think about it. If you believe the world is becoming a moral cesspit, you’re less likely to trust strangers, less inclined to engage in community activities, and more susceptible to fear-mongering politicians promising to restore some mythical golden age of virtue. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy - believe the world’s going to hell in a hand basket, and you will probably help push it there.

That said, this is an illusion - people’s actual reports of current morality haven’t changed over time - so we’re not literally living in moral free fall. In fact, when you look at objective measures like violence and discrimination, we seem to have made significant progress over the centuries. We’re just useless at noticing it!

Where it gets interesting, is the illusion disappears when we think about people we know personally. So while we might think society at large is swirling in a moral drain, we manage to see improvement in our friends and family. This disconnect is fascinating, and suggests our pessimism about societal morality might be more about perception than reality.

So, what’s the takeaway and why are we talking about it? We’ll get to watches in a second, so bear with me. First, we need to be more critical of our own perceptions. Just because something feels true doesn’t mean it is. We all walk around with these cognitive biases that colour our view of the world, and we ought to acknowledge them.

Second, this study is a stark reminder of the power of narrative. The story we tell ourselves about moral decline is so pervasive, so consistent across time and cultures, that it’s shaped our worldview in profound ways. It has influenced our politics, our social policies, even our personal relationships. And it might be based on a load of BS.

For businesses and leaders, this research is a goldmine. Understanding this illusion could be key to more effective communication, marketing, and policy-making. It suggests that appealing to people’s perception of moral decline might be an effective strategy (as many politicians have discovered), but it also shows the potential damage of reinforcing this illusion.

In the media landscape, this study is a damning indictment of our focus on negative news. By bombarding people with stories of moral failings, an illusion is being reinforced, which could be harming society. There’s a strong case here for more balanced reporting, highlighting moral progress alongside moral failings.

Lastly, on a personal level, this study is an invitation to optimism. If our perception of moral decline is indeed an illusion, then perhaps the world isn’t as bad as we think. Perhaps we could all benefit from a bit more trust, a bit more engagement with our communities, and a bit more belief in the fundamental decency of our fellow humans.

The Watch Industry

With its rich heritage and traditional values, our industry is particularly susceptible to the illusion of moral decline. We often hear enthusiasts and journalists lamenting the ‘good old days’ of watchmaking, when artisans purportedly cared more about their craft than the bottom line. So is this perception accurate, or is it another manifestation of the illusion we’ve just discussed?

Consider the current landscape of watch journalism and media. There’s a prevailing cynicism towards advertorials and sponsored content, often seen as diluting the purity of horological appreciation. Readers and viewers tend to view such content with disdain, assuming it represents a moral decline in journalistic integrity. “In the early days,” they might say, “watch reviews were honest and unbiased.” Sure.

Let’s pause and apply our newfound understanding of the illusion of moral decline. Is it possible that this scepticism, while not entirely unfounded, is exaggerated by our cognitive biases?

First off, we’re more exposed to discussions about sponsorship and advertising now than ever before. The internet and social media have made the business side of watch journalism more transparent. This increased exposure to ‘negative information’ about current practices might be skewing our perception, making us think things are worse than they actually are.

Next, we might be romanticising the past. Were old watch magazines really free from commercial influence? Of course not. We simply forgetting or downplaying the advertorials and brand-friendly content of yesteryear.

Moreover, the watch industry’s obsession with heritage and tradition might be amplifying this illusion. Brands constantly invoke their history, implicitly suggesting that things were better ‘back then.’ This narrative, repeated ad nauseam, could be reinforcing our biased perception of moral decline in the industry.

So really, if we take a more objective view, we might see a different picture. Today’s watch media often discloses sponsorship and affiliations more transparently than before. Many outlets have established clear guidelines for sponsored content, and the proliferation of independent bloggers and YouTubers has arguably increased the diversity of voices in watch journalism. Granted, many of them tend to fall on the wrong side of this proverbial line sometimes, but everyone’s gotta eat, right?

Fine. Here are some thoughts on how we could apply these insights.

For watch journalists and media outlets, understanding this illusion is really a straightforward opportunity. Instead of defensively reacting to accusations of declining integrity, they could proactively educate their audience about the realities of modern media economics. Transparency about sponsorship, combined with demonstrably independent editorial practices, could help bridge the trust gap. When it’s sponsored, label it correctly! This will ensure people can trust what is being said when it’s NOT labelled as such.

For watch brands, constantly invoking the good old days might inadvertently be feeding into a negative perception of the present. Perhaps there’s room for more narratives which celebrate current innovations and craftsmanship, rather than always harking back to a mythical golden age. If Patek has changed their minimum standards to allow for mass production, just come out and say it. Explain it. I doubt people will suddenly stop buying watches from Patek! If something is finished by machine really well, say so! Why pretend it’s hand-finished?

For watch enthusiasts, this is an invitation to engage in critical thinking. Yes, be sceptical of sponsored content, but also be sceptical of your own biases. Is that vintage watch actually better-made than its modern counterpart, or are you falling prey to the illusion of past superiority?

In essence, the watch industry, with its blend of tradition and innovation, serves as a microcosm for this broader psychological phenomenon. If we start recognising and addressing the illusion of moral decline, the industry will foster a more balanced, nuanced discourse about its past, present, and future.

Ultimately, this perspective might lead to a more appreciative, less cynical watch community. One that honours its history without denigrating its present. One that can enjoy both a beautifully crafted vintage piece alongside an innovative modern watch with less human input - and do so without feeling that one represents a ‘better’ era of watchmaking morality. I mean, you already know from my visit to Romain Gauthier, he embraces modern techniques to great effect, and is proudly showcasing it. Why don’t other brands embrace this too?

In the end, this research doesn’t just challenge our perceptions - it challenges us to be better. To be more critical thinkers, more discerning consumers of information, and perhaps, just perhaps, a bit more hopeful about the state of the world, and the state of the hobby. In these turbulent times, a bit of well-founded hope might be exactly what we need.

---

📌 Links of interest

⏳ Dedicated to the Pan-Asian watch-collecting community, IAMWATCH advocates face-to-face engagements between enthusiasts and collectors with watchmakers and industry luminaries where the primary objective is the shared transmission of passion, knowledge and stories. Registration for the event is now open here.

🤼 We’ve covered each of these individually, but here’s a nice round-up of All The New CEOs In The Watch Industry.

⚙ In-Depth: The Ingenuity of the Rolex Oyster Perpetual Sky-Dweller. Pretty epic watch, pity it’s so big!

🔬 Visiting the Vacheron Constantin Manufacture. It’s funny how he doesn’t mention a single thing about Romain Gauthier who makes some of the most complicated parts for them 🙄

👨‍🎨

James Dowling

writes: An Introduction to Rolex Customisation.

🟢 Watch Microbrands Find Success in Individuality. It’s David vs. Goliath in the watch world, and these micro-Davids are riding the wave of crowdfunding and social media, filling the gap between luxury behemoths and mass-market mediocrity.

🤿 Diver finds Patek Philippe Aquanaut Travel Time lost for over a year.

🎨 Understanding Métiers d’Arts: Marquetry.

🏎 LVMH, Rolex and Formula 1: We covered it three weeks ago, but apparently it’s now (more) confirmed but not a done deal.

⭐ Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - The Greatest Rolex Hero In History.

🦹‍♂️ Woman robbed of £185K watch in front of children.

📰 Succession was basically a documentary. The battle at the heart of the Murdoch family empire is real.

📱 Apple moves forward with folding iPhone.

😒 Google’s Exclusive Reddit Access. DuckDuckGo, Bing, Mojeek, and other search engines are not returning full Reddit results any more. Wtf?

🏃‍♀️ Top 20 Highest-Paid Paris Olympics Athletes.

🌍 World's Greatest Places 2024. At least there’s one place in South Africa 😉 - but this list seems like it may have some paid placements.

😥 Ferrari Narrowly Dodges Deepfake Scam Simulating Deal-Hungry CEO. What a crazy story!

💹 The $12,000 Harvard Class Celebrities Are Fighting to Get Into - Business school professor Anita Elberse teaches celebrities how to build empires - and publishes case studies on everyone from David Beckham to MrBeast.

🔥 Too hot to sleep? Tips for a good night’s rest, even in extreme summer heat.

💲 Trump vows to sack SEC boss and end ‘persecution’ of crypto industry.

🏊‍♀️ Should You Wait To Go Swimming After Eating?

🌊 The giant metal walls keeping London above water (5 min video)

🚕 Elon Musk’s Novel and Polarizing Cybertruck.

🚶‍♀️ $5,000 Exoskeleton Pants Promise to Make You a Better Hiker.

☔ The New Gods of Weather Can Make Rain on Demand - or So They Want You to Believe.

🧾 “The ick” and “boop” are among more than 3,200 new words and phrases added to the Cambridge Dictionary this year.

🙏 Gratitude Is Clearly Good for You, So Why Is It Hard to Do?

😮 Luxury Heir Alleges His $13 Billion Hermès Fortune Has Vanished. (Hopefully you’ve already read the Hermès story.)

🏅 A lot has happened in the past ... check out this insane website to better understand The Scale of Life. Be sure to use the drop-down for categories to view other interesting stats.

---

🎈 End note

In case you missed it… here’s a wacky post from last week:

The Horological Identity Crisis: What Makes a Watch Collector Tick?

Most people were left with incredulously blank stares after reading it. Not sure I will try that again anytime soon 😂

Here’s another quick story if you missed it:

The Cherry Creek Caper: Hyde Park Jewellers' Worst Nightmare

---

Admin note before we wrap this up

I am currently on a family vacation, the nature of which seems to leave me with little to no time for curation or reading worthy of compiling a complete edition of SDC Weekly. I have been giving this a lot of thought over the last month - more than you can imagine. I have in fact fully compiled two complete weeklies-worth of longer posts in anticipation of this holiday, hoping I would be able to squeeze in time for curating links and writing the ‘Small stuff’ pieces which come up during the week. However, upon reflection, I decided I would rather not publish a half-assed SDC Weekly at all - because it wouldn’t live up to the standards I wish to uphold for this weekly post, and I don’t apply the 80:20 rule to my weekly posts. I say this with no arrogance, but to me, SDC Weekly is something of a ‘brand’ - people have expectations when they open it up, and I want them to be met or exceeded every single time.

Don’t fret, because you will still get something to read. I have scheduled another ad-hoc write-up which you’re used to seeing. SDC Weekly will return to regular programming on 14 August 2024.

I do of course reserve the right to change my mind 😂 If I somehow find time to compile an edition I’d be proud of, then I will of course post it anyway. I simply didn’t want to half-ass my time with family, so this approach felt like a prudent way to avoid feeling guilty about trading SDC-time for family-time, and vice versa. Believe me, I remain extremely reluctant to break my 60-week streak, but I hope you’ll agree it’s for a worthy cause. Family first, and all that.

---

Alright… let’s wrap this up! These end notes have become quite reflective and philosophical in recent weeks, but from what I can tell, people enjoy it. So for as long as it feels right, I shall continue. This week, we’ll talk about an interesting phenomenon: That our most cherished wins are rarely those we pursued with white-knuckled determination.

Consider the realm of love. The man who scours dating apps with the desperation of a shipwrecked sailor grasping for flotsam often finds himself adrift in a sea of disappointment. Yet, the moment he learns to savour his own company, he might turn a corner and bump into a kindred spirit - as if the universe had been waiting for him to exhale⁴.

This principle echoes through the corridors of career and ambition. Many find that the positions they covet with burning intensity slip through their fingers, while roles they stumble upon serendipitously become the bedrock of their professional fulfilment. The agony of rejection from seemingly perfect opportunities can be brutal, yet in retrospect, these setbacks often carve the path to far more rewarding destinations.

Even in the world of horology, this phenomenon ticks away. The collector who obsesses over acquiring a particular grail might find it forever out of reach. Meanwhile, the enthusiast who maintains a sense of detachment could receive a call about a rare piece that seems to have found its way to them. The watch, like many of life’s treasures, arrives not when desperately sought, but when one is ready to appreciate its true value.

Personal growth, too, follows this paradoxical pattern. Those who strain to reshape themselves often find their efforts as futile as trying to smooth water with an iron. Yet, in moments of quiet acceptance, profound change can occur with the gentle inevitability of a flower blooming.

This is not at all advocacy for apathy or inaction. Rather, it is about striking a balance; Caring enough to set intention and take action, but not so much that the caring itself becomes a leaden weight.

In the words of the ancient Taoist philosopher Lao Tzu:

“Do you have the patience to wait
Till your mud settles and the water is clear?
Can you remain unmoving
Till the right action arises by itself?”

So let us pursue our passions with enthusiasm, but hold our desires lightly. Appreciate what we have as if it might be gone tomorrow, and approach each new pursuit with the equanimity of one who knows that true value lies not in possession, but in the journey itself.

For in the end, life’s most exquisite gifts are not those we relentlessly chase, but those that seem to find their way to us - when the time is right, when we are ready, and often when we least expect them.

Until next time 🕊

F

---

😊 Bonus link: History of the Calculator Watch

This was a fun video, and particularly nostalgic for me. Nick covers the history of Calculator watches in its golden years covering the earliest releases from 1975 through to the early 80’s. Look forward to the next parts!

---

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!

1. Craic or crack is a term for news, gossip, fun, entertainment, and enjoyable conversation, particularly prominent in Ireland.

2. Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a type of artificial intelligence (AI) that matches or surpasses human capabilities across a wide range of cognitive tasks. This is in contrast to narrow AI, which is designed for specific tasks. AGI is considered one of various definitions of strong AI.

3. Study 1 examined survey data from 220,772 US Americans over a 70-year span from 1949 to 2019. This study found that on 84.18% of the survey items, the majority of participants reported that morality had declined. Importantly, this perception remained consistent across the entire 70-year period!

Studies 2a-c were original studies conducted by the researchers. These studies asked participants to rate how “kind, honest, nice, and good” people were at various points in time. These studies consistently found that participants perceived moral decline, rating people as less moral in more recent years compared to earlier years.

Study 3 investigated whether people attributed perceived moral decline to changes within individuals over time or to differences between generations. Results indicated that participants attributed moral decline to both factors.

Study 4 analysed 107 survey items administered to 4,483,136 people across a 55-year span from 1965 to 2020. These asked about current morality and were administered at least twice, at least 10 years apart. This study found people’s reports of current morality remained stable over time, contradicting the perception of moral decline.

Studies 5a and 5b tested predictions about circumstances where the perception of moral decline might be attenuated or reversed. Study 5a found people perceived moral improvement in their personal acquaintances over time. Study 5b found that people did not perceive moral decline for periods before they were born.

4. The 2001 film Serendipity is still one of my all-time favourites!