SDC Weekly 79; Screw Down Crown History; 2024 Wrap Up; Longevity; Defining Quality
AP x Paw Patrol Collaboration, Jaguar’s Identity Crisis, Simon Brette’s New Release, Sotheby’s Sacks Staff, Luxury Watch Market, Consumer Trends 2025, Who is Gilbert Albert? ++
🚨 Welcome back to SDC Weekly!
Estimated reading time: ~50 mins
This post is best viewed in a browser: click here, because the Substack app sucks! (On iPhone, you’ll need to hold down here and hit ‘open link’)
2024 - That’s all folks!
Well, here we are - edition 79! Before we dive into this week’s stories, I want to take a moment to reflect on what’s been a rather wild year.
Each SDC Weekly averages 35-40 minutes of reading time, which I’m told is “way too long” by some and “not long enough” by others. SDC has published 110 posts this year1, excluding this one - a number that still surprises me to be honest. At £75/yr or £7.50 per month, that comes to £0.68 per post, or £0.82 per post depending on whether you pay annually or monthly - not to sound self-absorbed, but I thought this seemed like decent value; of course, the official ‘promise’ is 52 posts, so perhaps people have no way of knowing this in advance. Moving on, swiftly…
I’d say a typical SDC Weekly takes between 15-20 hours of research, writing and editing. That’s not including the countless WhatsApp group messages, private chats, YouTube videos and late-night conversations which shape these stories.
People often ask how it’s going, and whether doing this is worthwhile to me - so I’ll use some stats to tell the story. In 2023, a ‘good week’ meant ~3,000 views per week, but the average was around ~1000:
Now SDC is averaging around 5,000 per week, with some weeks hitting 10,000. That’s 5x growth year-on-year, which honestly feels a bit surreal.
We started 2024 with 428 subscribers, but bear in mind, I only started doing SDC Weekly in the middle of 2023. Since then, I published exactly one year’s worth of SDC Weekly posts in June 2024. Today, we’re sitting at just over 1,850 subscribers, with 318 of these being paid supporters. That’s 3x growth in premium subscriptions over six months, and 4x overall subscriber growth. Not quite the 8x growth from 2023, but that was starting from a low base so it doesn’t count :)
This chart made me smile, and for the most part, this alone makes it worthwhile:
It’s heartwarming, to say the least. Seeing how widely SDC is consumed, fills me with immense pride and joy, but more importantly, with a scary sense of responsibility. Yes, this is all a bit of banter for the most part, but as a minimum, I try to ensure what I say is accurate and not biased against any party without evidence. This can be challenging for someone as opinionated as I am, but I hope you’ve come to understand the difference between my biased personal opinions and facts.
As you know, SDC became fully paid in the last few months, which was not a decision I took lightly. This led to a dip in retention stats, but still, things aren’t looking bad at all. The most common reason for unsubscribing is ‘lack of time’ - which is fair enough given my posts are often long essays masquerading as short newsletters. The second most cited reason is ‘auto-renewal’, which tells me some of you prefer the freedom to forget about cancelling. I get it, and fair enough.
Before we move on from the numbers, I wanted to clarify something - I’m sharing these numbers in the spirit of transparency, and not at all to flex about growth or influence. There is not much to flex about anyway 😂 In the grand scheme of things, SDC Weekly is a tiny, minuscule drop in the ocean of watch media. I remain a random enthusiast with a keyboard and too many opinions, trying to serve this community the best way I know how. PS.
, I finally added an editorial policy 😉Your support - whether through paid subscriptions, comments, or even criticism - means the world to me. But believe me when I say, I don’t take it for granted. If you ever feel SDC no longer delivers value, please be sure to unsubscribe. There’s no stronger feedback than someone deciding something isn’t worth their hard-earned cash anymore. That’s the kind of signal which helps me improve and stay focused on what matters.
I’ve never seen myself as an ‘influencer’ or someone who needs to chase trends. My role, as I see it, is to be a voice for collectors who are tired of the usual marketing fluff and industry propaganda. That trust you’ve placed in me is something I aim to maintain.
—
Based on the numbers, these are the top posts from 2024 - I tried to keep it to one per month, but threw in a few others in lieu of the months which weren’t too hot:
Writing has taught me at least one thing: that I will never know which stories will resonate! Some posts (like the book reviews or podcast summaries) I spend weeks putting together but they barely registered a ripple; while quick observations about market dynamics sparked weeks of discussion. It’s a bit like watch collecting itself - the pieces you obsess over sometimes bring the least joy, while unexpected acquisitions become firm favourites.
—
Ok, this is rambling on… So I will end with a simple thank you, again; for reading, commenting, and most importantly, for being part of this community. Your insightful commentary and feedback make this newsletter what it is.
Have a fantastic holiday season, and may your 2025 bring exactly the watches you deserve - whether you think that’s a good thing or not!
I won’t bother with an intro blurb this week, but if you’re new here, welcome! You will find older editions of SDC Weekly here.
Now, onto this week’s stories...
🎈 Small stuff
Simon Brette’s New Release
If you thought the Chronomètre Artisans couldn’t get any better, Simon Brette has dropped a rose gold bombshell which I think far surpasses the previous iterations. The new CA Rose is priced at 85,000 CHF (excl. tax), and features a black DLC-coated gold dial with hand-engraving by Yasmina Anti. Others, like Mark Kauzlarich, have already covered the details extensively, so I won’t bore you with that. Instead, let me share some insights from my chat with Simon this morning. I reached out to clarify a few things about production numbers as well as a ‘rejection’ email received by people who had already paid a deposit.
Let’s get production out of the way: Simon aims to produce 200 watches across the four editions (excluding unique pieces): Titanium (65,000 CHF, up to 99 pcs, final delivery 2028), Rose Gold (85,000 CHF, up to 50 pcs), Steel (75,000 CHF, up to 50 pcs, launching December 2025 with bracelet and choice of two straps), and Platinum (95,000 CHF, up to 50 pcs, launching December 2026 with a grey gold hand engraved dial featuring transparent light blue enamel).
Contracts, payments, and deposits: For watches delivering within two years, buyers pay 50% deposit with balance on delivery. Beyond two years, they will pay 25% up front, another 25% at the halfway point, and final 50% on delivery. All deposits are non-refundable, but thankfully, prices are locked by contract at the time a deposit is paid - none of that Roger Smith-style price inflation nonsense.
Now, let’s talk about the recent complaints regarding allocation and communication... Over the weekend, Brette told me his team sent out 1,300 emails to interested buyers. Basic maths means interested buyers had less than a 4% chance of getting an allocation. Of the lucky 50 who secured Rose Gold allocations, I’d bet every single one made the effort to meet Simon in person. So here’s some tough love - if you want one of these watches, get off your arse and put in the work. The days of securing allocations for hyped watches from your sofa or your office chair are long gone.
As for the hiccup with yesterday’s email accidentally reaching some deposit-paid clients, Brette tells me he will be reaching out to these folks to sort this out, and at least learned something new about brand communications. To be fair, these are the kinds of growing pains you’d expect from a young brand experiencing a meteoric rise; no harm no foul.
I want to end this section with a reminder about Occam’s Razor, which is like that mate who always cuts through the nonsense in watch chats. You know the one - while everyone else is spinning elaborate theories about why Simon hasn’t given them an allocation, this person just says “He probably just doesn’t like you, mate!” The principle was coined by 14th-century friar William of Ockham, and it says that when we’re faced with competing explanations, the simpler one is usually correct.
Think about it - when your kitchen clock suddenly stops working, which is more likely: a complex misalignment of planets affecting its magnetic field, or just a dead battery? This is a handy mental model for collectors to adopt, especially when it comes to situations like this one with Simon. I found it impossible to believe, that he would be taking deposits from people and then sending them rejection emails; yet, many were quick to cry foul. Why?!
Of course, like any good principle, it’s not infallible - sometimes the complex explanation is spot on, which is why I reached out directly to clarify with him. Still, as a starting point for understanding anything, Occam’s Razor helps cut away the BS and get to the truth.
Sotheby’s Sacks 100 Staff After Shocking Results
Well, this is awkward, but I can’t say we didn’t see it coming! Sotheby’s has recently laid off 100 staff members from its New York offices, mainly targeting back-office workers, junior staff, and specialists across various departments. Obviously, the timing couldn’t be more telling - their November marquee sales in New York brought in just $533.1 million compared to last year’s $1.2 billion. A proper nosedive.
A current employee at Sotheby’s London office called the situation “wild” - which is probably understating things a tiny bit. No internal announcement was made about the cuts, because nothing says “happy holidays” quite like finding out you’re redundant through the press.
This comes after they bought the Breuer building on Madison Avenue for $100 million and opened fancy new locations in Hong Kong and Paris. Talk about interesting timing - spending millions on real estate while struggling to pay art shippers and conservators.
Remember when Abu Dhabi’s ADQ sovereign wealth fund invested nearly $1 billion in Sotheby’s back in October? Well, that cash injection doesn’t seem to have stopped the bleeding. With Patrick Drahi’s companies sitting on $60 billion in debt and some loans coming due in 2027, this might not be the last we hear about trouble at Sotheby’s.
Christie’s claims they’re not planning any similar cuts, but given how the auction market looks right now, I wouldn’t bet on it. Then again, I wouldn’t bet on anything auction houses say these days.
When you’re firing staff while expanding real estate and pushing off payments to suppliers, something’s got to give. The question is whether this is just a temporary correction or the start of something more serious in the auction world.
I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
Jaguar’s Identity Crisis
Just when you thought corporate re-brands couldn’t get more cringe-worthy, Jaguar said “hold my artisanal oat milk chai-matcha blend latte” and delivered what might be the most pretentious marketing campaign of 2024.
The iconic leaping cat is gone. In its place, we’ve got what looks like a rejected logo for a boutique condom brand (credit to Stephen Colbert for that observation). The new brand video features more pouting models than a Paris Fashion Week after party, but conspicuously… no cars 😂
“Do you sell cars?” Elon Musk snarked on X. When the guy who launched a pickup truck that looks like a PlayStation 1 rendering is mocking your marketing, you might want to rethink your life choices.
Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) has actually stopped selling new Jaguar cars in the UK ahead of this relaunch as an electric-only brand in 2026. That isn’t a big deal, given Jaguar shifted only 13,528 cars last year. To put that into perspective, Range Rover (same group) sold 58,000 units. Even Porsche’s limited-production GT division probably spits out more vehicles than Jaguar. I suppose when your SUV sibling is outselling you more than 4-to-1, something is drastically wrong. So they did need to do something drastically different. But I think they went in the wrong direction.
In the last decade Jaguar pitched itself as a rival to Audi, BMW and Mercedes. But even in its peak year of 2019, annual sales topped out at just over 610,000 – less than two-thirds the stated goal of one million. At best, for every single Jaguar XE customer, there were six BMW 3 Series buyers. Top Gear
Jaguar’s decision was to stop trying to compete with BMW and Audi (where they were getting absolutely spanked) and move upmarket with £100,000+ electric vehicles. Because apparently, the answer to not selling enough £50,000 cars is to try selling even more expensive ones. Maybe they were advised by William Massena? More on this in the next section 😉
“Nobody needs a vehicle at £120,000. You have to want one,” said Jaguar’s managing director Rawdon Glover, in what might be the most accidentally honest statement from an auto executive this year. He’s right - nobody needs a £120,000 Jaguar. The question is whether anybody wants one when they could have a Porsche Taycan or a Mercedes EQS instead. Bear in mind, even these brands are struggling to move vehicles at full price - I know a Porsche main dealer who was trying to move Taycans below retail in the last few months.
The real tragedy here isn’t just the death of the leaper - it is in fact watching the auto-industry equivalent of a 55-year-old dad ditching his cardigan for Supreme street wear and trying to learn TikTok dances.
Jaguar used to be the rebellious British brand delivering Bentley swagger for BMW money. The E-Type became legendary precisely because it gave you Ferrari performance while leaving enough change for a small house. Now they’re trying to be... what exactly? The Type 00 concept looks like what you’d get if you asked Midjourney to design a car after feeding it nothing but Cybertruck memes and Rolls-Royce brochures. Tell me I’m wrong:
Jaguar’s re-brand feels like a company trying to solve a product problem with a marketing solution; kinda like watching someone try to fix a broken engine by repainting the bodywork. Sure, the new colour might be pretty, but the car still won’t start. No amount of artistic fashion shoots or Miami art shows will change the fundamental challenge - which is no different for watch brands, if you think about it - building compelling products which justify premium prices in an increasingly crowded market. That’s the task.
The marketing certainly got people talking, but at what cost? The death of the leaper might just be the perfect metaphor for modern Jaguar - a brand so desperate to be relevant that it’s willing to euthanise its own identity. Will it work? Time will tell if that gamble pays off, but history suggests that brands which abandon their core identity rarely find success by chasing trends. They might argue there was no brand value left to save anyway.
For what it’s worth, I’d bet we will see this re-brand quietly revised within 18 months. Then again, what do I know? I’m just a guy who thinks cars in car adverts might actually help sell cars. Crazy, I know.