Is the pursuit of perfection in luxury watchmaking a relic of the past? Today we explore the '80% solution' sweeping the industry, and why it might be the biggest threat to true horological excellence in decades.
Well articulated and I tend to agree with most of what defines haute horology, innovation etc. and the overall thoughts being presented. While rarity and luxury can coexist and often do. I depart in scarcity being a requirement of luxury. The rare nature can be a by product of the other tenants mentioned in the article, even a constraint if you will by the process. But the constraints can be overcome and that would not change the nature of the products innovation, craftsmanship, artistry, etc… only its quantity. Status and value due to scarcity are correlated, but they are not attributes of luxury. That is a false attribute sold by advertisers and embraced by collectors because rarity can matter in collecting. Think of trading cards, a scare card in good condition is valuable to the collecting world, even selling for millions of dollars. It is not luxury, it has none of the hallmarks stated in the article of innovation, quality, craftsmanship or a pusuit of mastery and perfection. It is a cardboard card with an image printed on it, sold at a convenience store. It is rare, it commands a high price. It is not “haute” in any way.
The Calatrava 5227J from PP is a well made, finely finished, luxury watch. It is not however the same as the finishing and haute horology of the Chronometre Souverain Havana (my color of choice for CS) by F.P. Journe. The 5227J is also not the same haute horological art as a marquetry piece from PP’s rare handcrafts either. Both are Patek’s but they are not the same level. They have a different audience and convey a different level of craftsmanship and artistry. Innovation may not be present at typical 5227J but it is in the Fortissimo. We cannot look at a manufacturer with a catalog of 128 different models and say they are all the same. If the world of horology was filled with watchmakers who were all George Danniels and Francois-Paul Journe etc.. we would perhaps not recognize them. The genius, the true legends at the highest levels have dedicated themselves to their game, to their craft. We collect their works not because of the rarity of the work, but because of what it represents to us. The essence imbued in the watch. Be it the dedicate hands that crafted a dial that could hang in any gallery or the decorated movement that captures your attention as loose track of time while you gaze in admiration.
I am with you 97%. Rarity is a dangerous game to play, in absolute terms Patek is rare, any Patek is rare, making up only 0.002 of watches produced globally. With any particular model in the catalogue being 0.000017% of watches made annually. So in absolute terms they are rare. Rolex is a luxury watch so is Omega, they are not haute horology and they are vastly more common than a Patek or Lange or an. F.P Journe. But F.P Journe on the other hand is 90X more common and not rare compared to a Philippe Dufour in relative terms. That does not change the exquisite nature, the haute horology that you so aptly described of the F.P. Journe, especially the Chronometre Souverain Havana that needs to join the collection as some point and time.
I hope I have conveyed my thoughts correctly on this. This was a fantastic read, great food for thought. I will keep the hours spent writing and sorting my thoughts on this subject matter to myself. It was a great thought provoking article that had me personally exploring with many drafts and versions of how to better define luxury and haute horology. There are levels and tiers to luxury. So thank you for the thought provoking article that forced some deep thought and defining of items for myself. It only makes me a better collector and enthusiast when my thinking is refined.
Comments like these are exactly why I write these divisive posts. You have no idea how I hesitated with that “Publish” button for this one.
Look, I’ve said on more than one occasion that rarity alone, does not equate to value - and I think I’ve used the example of every human waking up every morning and producing piece unique turds - and every single one, is worthless.
I think we’re aligned more than not - especially on the Patek example, hence the tongue in cheek footnote for Patek fanboys. I love poking fun - I can’t help myself.
And this is why I left that “afterthoughts” paragraph at the end - because we do align, in fact. Just like that article I wrote about “levels of wealth” - we have the same for levels of luxury / you touched on a subset of this with Dufour, Journe, Patek / but let me assure you, having grown up in Africa I personally know people who would consider a lovely G-Shock to be a luxury. To them, it absolutely is. And to them, a Patek might be the equivalent of the King of England’s crown or something.
There are no absolutes. Ever. But there is also no great discourse without poking peoples boundaries and seeing how they react 😄
Good points! I guess it’s a good debate to understand in what cases is ok for the maker of an expensive watch to cut corners? Ie perhaps the maker put more effort into the dial vs movement or vice versa. Or they poured into R&D and only have resources to produce a limited run.
This could be a good point to debate, there is however, a price point and expectation that at certain level the concessions on movement quality in exchange for dial execution cease to make any sense. It could be brand and price dependent of course. But at a haute horological level. Top to bottom quality and execution is an expectation and become the table stakes to be in that category. Appreciate the comment and the thought
I hope you’re right because that’s my expectation. We’ve all seen cases of incredible movements with lackluster dials and vice versa and these pieces have commanded 6 figure plus prices.
Love the thoughts… I’d agree with Nathan, that as some price point there’s an increase in expectations… but you’re not wrong SG; brands do defy expectations sometimes, and this is where the brands’ values and attitudes come into play. I find, for example with LVMH nd Richemont brands, their corporate HQs’ pursuit of profit has caused them to miss the forest from the trees and they continue to make concessions in order to improve the bottom line. Does it work? Yeah, in the short term. I think people will get tired after a while, and this is the erosion of brand value which will make it infinitely more difficult to sell watches at these ever-growing prices as the inherent quality (and buyers’ perception thereof) declines.
Not sure how you argue this, but I'm going to think about it and the middle ground you mention. Simulacrum, that's a big boy word I've never encountered before. Cheers 🥂
Like a pair of copy cat Loro Piana suede loafers. Luxury “looking” is not luxury at all. Great read my Friend! The threat is real and the stakes are high. 👑
Simon at Permanent Style has written about this a few times recently - the copycats.
The Open Walk / Summer Walk family of shoes is “luxurious” because they hail from an esteemed house and have an immediately recognizable silhouette. However, they have a cemented rubber sole, which I would not say is characteristic of a “luxurious” shoe. Once they’re worn down, and the off white sole has turned yellowish, they’ll need to be replaced with a new pair.
And speaking of intellectual property AND “disposable” shoes - I bought a pair of Aurelien drivers a few years ago because I liked a particular color (“Petrol”) I saw in an Instagram ad. The shoes were - and remain - roughly half the price of a pair of Tod’s drivers. I would say they are ~97% identical to the Tod’s offering. The Tod’s drivers are not better in any quantifiable way - they aren’t more comfortable, they aren’t any more durable, and they don’t look any better. Tod’s is the “default” brand in that category for many shoppers, but (Prada-owned) Car Shoe claims to have originated the style. I have never owned a pair of Car Shoe drivers, so I cannot comment on quality or value.
I mentioned Aurelian to provoke a discussion of sorts.
What is a copy? How do you define it? Who “owns” the exclusive right to sell … suits, shirts, knitwear, any style of shoes, watches with certain case shapes, etc. to truly discerning buyers? I hope anyone espousing this line of thinking drives a Mercedes Benz … otherwise they’ll have to endure catcalls of “Copy Cat! Broke Boi! Wannabe! Poseur!” etc. from the true cognoscenti who know that ONLY Mercedes Benz can credibly make and sell cars!
What if the definitive, essential purveyor of Product X isn’t the most expensive, or the originator of the category; rather - merely - responsible for the best product?
I think that *particularly* for a shoe with a finite / seasonal shelf life, buying Aurelien in lieu of Tod’s is eminently sensible. I just checked prices for the sake of comparison - Aurelien $270; Tod’s $695 (both for basic, suede drivers with a pebbled / “Gommino” sole and ). I cannot understand any reason to pay ~2.5x more than the Tod’s price for a product that is almost indistinguishable to the wearer (and certainly the case for any passersby, to the extent that matters). Both shoes are made in Italy - conceivably in the same factory.
I’m sure YMMV, but when it comes to finite consumables such as these shoes - there’s probably something to be said about personal feelings of authenticity conflicting with one’s practical experiences and nature as you’ve just described.
Ostensibly you like how these less expensive shoes look, and are convinced of their quality - to the extent that you may even feel that you’re getting a good deal given the Tods version is so expensive. That’s cool. If someone were to say “hey nice Tod’s, I have the same pair” - you sound like the kind of guy who would correct them; And try to explain why this is the smarter choice. For all you know, they bought it at 60% off from a Harrods sale - incidentally where I like to buy Tod’s, and I hate paying full price for anything because it feels better when I don’t. If I was a billionaire, perhaps it would feel less good. The equivalent of bending over to pick up a buck from the pavement. At what level of wealth do you not bother? What if it’s a $100 or £50 note?
The thing is - this line of thinking is, IMO, less about the merits of the products or the relative quality of the “primary” product and the “copycat” - the utility of the brand / status value for every product category will vary wildly depending on the person.
Some people don’t compromise on their shoe choice, some on clothing, some on cars… I know a guy who drives a shitty car but has a better watch collection than most. I know many more who dress to impress but have mortgages and debt. I’m rambling now because I’m being yelled at by my kids but I think you get the gist of my message. I hope so!
I have 5-6 pairs of Tod’s and 2 pairs of Aureliens.
I would definitely tell anyone who inquired that I had bought a “knockoff” pair of shoes - I would be more than happy to pass the consumer surplus along to them, of course.
Setting aside my tongue in cheek remarks above, I will agree that, e.g., Loro Piana is the progenitor of high quality suede booties and Venetian loafers with off white natural leather soles. I would rather walk barefoot than wear a pair of knock-off Open / Summer Walks, however.
Agreed. That’s because that specific look is associated more closely with LP than the driving shoe aesthetic is with any single brand (Tods, Carshoe, Gucci, TF, etc)
My solution is to buy Tods through Yoox.com at anywhere from 40-75% off and just get more of them😎…it’s a bit sick but I have probably over 30 pair ( although there are several other good brands, mostly Italian, that I buy and love) ….I’ve even bought a second identical pair a couple times of real favorites so when the first pair wear out I’ll have another ..but I’m kind of twisted in that I don’t have enough opportunities to even wear them all, indeed numerous pairs have never been worn ..it’s just another subset of my collection addictions 🙄🤷😏 (my lifestyle these days consists of daily wardrobe of shorts, t-shirts and flip-flops to deal with the Deep South Texas heat ..😝
I have a number of pairs of box fresh, unworn Gucci loafers, as well as many pairs of well worn Guccis. I much, much prefer the Tom Ford-era designs that were subtly updated by Frida Giannini to the “1953” and “Jordaan” shoes that Alessandro Michele foisted upon us. My favorite pair is in chocolate brown suede - they have been re-soled half a dozen times, perhaps more.
I find that Gucci quality has fallen as price has risen; I also have several pairs of Carmina bit loafers that are in some ways superior to the 1953 bit loafers. I would prefer to buy Gucci going forward, but I won’t spend much more for an inferior shoe (I have found leather imperfections in recent pairs of 1953s, the bits are cheaper and frequently come in garish gold tone, and the interior of the shoes are lined in some sort of rough canvas-like material that makes sockless outings a challenge).
Great article. Very informative. Loved the power reserve anecdote about CS.
True luxury is rare. If it can be mass produced then some corner is being cut. I’d rather pay for craftmanship than for a marketing budget. The marketing budget helps the flipper maintain liquidity than the collector who wants to cherish something special and uniquely created.
I think it's fair to say that not everything that is rare is luxurious, everything luxurious should be rare, as a result of what it takes to create it. The (unlimited) proliferation of limited-edition marketing is a topic for another time, albeit closely related to this one.
Furlan Marri - or anyone making anything to a specific budget, really - talking about perfectionism is stupid, and a complete triumph of marketing over reality. But does it pose such a threat to haute horlogerie watchmakers? It should be taken as an opportunity: high-end, volume watchmakers should be able to demonstrate what sets them apart - if they can't do that, then they really do have problems...
If more prestigious brands fall into the 'good enough' trap, or worse yet just try to see what they can get away with (Panerai's movements spring to mind, as Jose has documented extensively; another example I reach for all the time is the widespread adoption of faux-skeletonisation with industrial coatings in lieu of polished surfaces), that's definitely a threat, but I don't lay the blame at the door of lower-priced brands, responsible for some kind of mediocrity creep; it's about brands' ownership structures. Shareholders, VC investors and conglomerates want to see consistent year-on-year growth regardless of market conditions or the cost of true R&D. So you get wham-bam, new-year-new-dials product roll-out and genuine mechanical improvements once a decade or so, if you're lucky. It's less about 'luxury, and not' and more about 'artisan, and not'.
Beyond that, it's the endless abuse of the word 'luxury' than anything else. You mention 'entry level luxury', which is a bit of a contradiction in terms, and something everyone will have their own definition for. Is a £500 Tissot entry-level luxury? A £1500 Longines? A £3000 Tudor? The conversation becomes 'is this a respectable level of quality for the price?', which isn't something that should trouble a maker of true luxury. Most people feel comfortable with a broader definition of 'something I don't really need/something relatively expensive/something whose emotional importance outweighs its practical value' but then the word can, as you say, mask all manner of sins. If only there were some journalists around to evaluate and criticise watches with an expert eye...
Agreed, I mentioned in another comment to @TheFamilysTime (Nathan), rarity is not a direct singnal of luxury at all. In fact, one other thing which came up in that thread, was that luxury is perhaps relative to one’s circumstances too – and it is this contradiction which you allude to at the end of your comment, and what I was referring to with ‘entry level luxury.’
The example I shared with Nate, was how a £120 G-Shock is considered to be a luxury item to a poor kid in Africa. Now, to this kid, a Rolls Royce is as much a luxury car as a Mercedes Benz S-Class, despite being half the price. As some level it all ‘blends’ into the same category of ‘luxury’ and as one’s affluence increases, all the nuances come in to focus, tending towards 8K resolution as you progress… And so, the ‘enlightened’ luxury buyer can perhaps tell that LVMH is ‘mass produced’ luxury versus Hermes, which is ‘true’ luxury, whereas someone less enlightened might lump them into the same bucket. This is what you’re talking about when you offer the examples of a £500 Tissot and so on, and you’re absolutely right.
With these nuances noted, it sounds like you’re saying there needs to be a distinction between ‘artisanal’ and ‘luxurious’ – and that conflating these terms is incorrect. Perhaps you’re right. I will take this away and chew on it – at first I thought it might be pure semantics, but the more I thought about it, the more it feels like these terms can’t just be separated for watchmaking. By strict definition, price shouldn’t matter at all, but the way the term ‘luxury watch’ is used and understood, I don’t think this separation is possible.
This reminds me of a debate between @Hamza Masood and @A Watch Critic about a “true GMT” – the point was, this terminology was adopted by the masses to refer to “a GMT with an indpendent hour hand” while the first GMT watches didn’t have this functionality. So what is a “true GMT” if it is not the first GMT watch? In this case, the term was used to mean something which was at odds with the reality of the word ‘true’ and historical facts. Feels the same here for ‘luxury’ and the use of the word in this industry.
On how the likes of Furlan Marri and others pose a threat – this is down to how willing consumers are to accept ‘reduced artisanal input’ under the banner of ‘luxury’ and what this might mean in terms of future output from brands who ought to be in the business of luxury but will choose a different path because they see consumers are none the wiser and the profit is there for the taking. This does say something about the brand, but in the end it is consumers who can, and should, vote with their wallets. The first step, however, is for them to educate themselves.
I have to be honest, it baffles me why anyone who has spent any time looking at movement finish would believe you're getting hand finishing in a sub 3K watch. I've seen people praise the "hand finishing" in Rolex and Grand Seiko movements but in both instances what you're getting is very clean industrial finishing, not hand finishing (although with GS once you get up into the high end Spring Drive stuff, like the 8 Day SD, you are getting hand finishing courtesy the Micro Artist Studio). I agree that there has been a decline in quality in high end watch movement design and finishing but I think we need to be careful about where we point fingers – at under 3K the FM DV isn't doing anything at all to reduce the value of hand finishing by folks like Dufour and Rexhep Rexhepi (and a few others). Of course the latter two and the small number of watchmakers who really do pursue fine hand finishing across their entire production (let's say Roger Smith and Kari Voutilainen, to pick a couple, whose approaches are interesting because they're stylistically very different) charge prices orders of magnitude more expensive than FM. And there are other criteria than finishing – I admire Journe's body of work very much but not even his biggest fans would claim that fine finishing is where his work excels.
After all the years in the industry, do you believe the average 'watch guy' has a decent understanding of hand finishing, to the extent they can discern different levels of finishing? (And I dont mean a Seiko SKX vs Dufour... I'm talking about Dufour vs Smith vs Voutilainen vs Rexhep vs Gauthier etc) - my view is, they can't reliably point out the differences. Now, as you say, for 3k there should be no doubt about what you're getting - so why do FM they say it? This is lying.
To posit this is in no way reducing the value of hand finishing by actual high end watchmakers, is an argument worth revisiting - that's because if this FM is indeed a gateway drug, then you're getting newcomers who are now expecting hand finishing at 3k. They ought to know better, sure. But they don't. I don't think FM should get a pass on telling outright lies just because "it probably doesn't affect anyone. "
Sure, as for the criteria beyond finishing - we're aligned of course. I used Journe as an example in the post specifically to point out merits which have nothing to do with finishing - and I agree, Journe might as well use a cheese grater too.
Well I agree with you up to a point, although I don't know, I do think it's kind of up to us to not accept things at face value and protect ourselves by becoming educated consumers. If there's one thing I have learned from covering the industry for a few decades it's that the brands in general have a very conflicted relationship with the notion of an educated consumer. To stay on the subject of movement finishing for a second, yeah it can be very tough to judge (and very expensive and/or a lot of work to judge in person, not from photos). Part of the problem is that there is not a whole heck of a lot out there on how finishing is done and what differences there are between machine executed finish, machine assisted finish, and hand-finishing – AP put out a book years ago called "High End Horological Finishing And Decoration" which is one of the very few comprehensive treatments of the subject that I've ever seen in print or online (and naturally it's long since out of print). I agree 100% that brands should be transparent about their processes, I guess I also feel, though, that as long as we uncritically accept brand claims (whether it's of finishing, or history, or movement provenance or what have you) things are not going to get any better. And I do think it's possible for the customer base for fine watchmaking to become more and better educated; even now I think the level of discourse continues to improve and evolve. As far as I can tell what has not happened in the case of FM so far is someone asking them directly, When you say entirely hand finished, what do you mean exactly? And then there's the fact that hand finishing alone doesn't mean good hand finishing. I could hand finish a watch but I will bet you ten thousand Peseux 7001s that nobody would want to buy it 😂 .
Anyway, I think it was an interesting subject to bring up. It's very difficult to know what realistic expectations should be at difference price points. A long time ago on Timezone someone writing under the pseudonym Watchbore, began an article thus: "People ask Watchbore two questions: Is my watch worth what I paid for it, and Is my watch a good watch? The answer to the first question is always, 'no.' The answer to the second question is, 'it depends.'"
😂 Hell, you underestimate what people would want to buy!
You raise an excellent point about the documentation of, and discourse around finishing being a gaping hole. Even now, you notice how many 'high end' watches from Patek and AP are simply rounding out the areas in a movement which are crying out for an interior angle - that's despite the fact they could make this a sharp angle by machine- instead they reserve this for the ultra-high priced watches because that's another point of differentiation. They're getting away with it because of the brand, but also because the vast majority of people buying those 80,000 watches a year, are none the wiser. This road leads nowhere pleasant.
I don't know, Jack. Watchbore was bang on. First world problems, these might be... So woe unto me.
So how do you really feel!? 😟😳😂 SAVAGE post ( but necessary) once again ensuring you won’t have to even think about losing any integrity or conflicts of interest turning down the big ad bucks from the horological giants beating down your door (NOT) 😂🤣😹 ….. love ya bro 😎 ☝🏻🥂🥲
I think luxury is actually more about authenticity than anything else no matter the effort. Sometimes luxury is effortless as long as it’s natural hence why watch brands are constantly trying to emulate nature
DJ is back! @Thad mentioned something on this point today - about the relationship with a brand, and how it makes you feel, being a part of ‘luxury’ not discussed often enough… which I think ties into your point here about effort (or effortlessness) - and I agree. Hard not to.
I think "luxury" is such a loaded term, like art I guess. Which is more "luxury" a relatively straightforward watch with little genius but tens of thousands of hours of effort or a watch that could be produced very easily and in huge numbers but was the result of a rare burst of genius that everyone else (perhaps even the creator of that first piece) just copies?
As I write this I'm wearing a Farer Green Mansfield. This watch is about a fun, colorful dial, a cushion case and a completely undeserved display back. Am I peacocking when I wear this or am I simply enjoying a watch with no pretense that is either "luxurious, nor haute horology." As those (and I) that actually use haute horology in conversation, we certainly recognize that we are the .01% of the .01% that actually give a shit about that stuff. Still, I was enraptured as I read this essay today as KF is speaking truth! It seems coincidental with the explosion of the internet (and damn rap music) that luxury goods, however they are portrayed and marketed in today's conglomerate world order, have become less about luxury and more about goods.
Hey Larry - I’m busy catching up in reverse - so you should read the comment from Nate (A family’s time) and my reply for starters.
Beyond that - I guess there are several threads - one about the consumer being less accepting of half-assed creations, the other being about luxury and how we define it / on the latter, as Nate points out, luxury has levels to it too.
Man… this could be a discussion over several hours with some cigars.
First of all exceptional thoughts as always - always makes for great reading and pensive mental review later on.
Where I take umbrage is in the classification of watches as luxury. I've never seem them as such and while that's how their current popularity would position them, as a decidedly rigid aficionado of primarily vintage ware, I've always considered the stuff I buy (relic like and anachronistic as they are) mostly tools, instruments, outdated gadgets or prehistoric devices. There is no room for them being considered extraneous to one's existence from the era where the classics were made and existed.
Extrapolating from this point of view, if watches were never luxury item (despite how they are perceived today), should they still be made using your analogy of 80% vs 99% on the spectrum of good to perfect? If I were a pilot flying with a device strapped to my wrist where my performance, judgement and the very purpose of my service relied on it, I would think the same arguments that you've applied (no compromise on quality) would still be very relevant.
I replied on your restack, not here (thanks for that btw!) ... I am copying my reply below so it remains part of the post too.
Umbrage isn’t necessary 😂… it’s all just food for thought after all. In fact another comment mentioned the idea of “affordable luxury” being an oxymoron which is also fair. Luxury is by definition, not necessary, and so, by that definition a multi-thousand dollar watch is “a luxury” - this isn’t of course the same thing as a diver using it to make it up alive or a pilot using it to ensure they don't screw something up… then it’s a tool, not a luxury. But semantics aside, thanks for sharing your thoughts and appreciate your comment!
Wow.. missed this one last week and was, cool 10 min read time sounds great…. Wait till you hit another 35 mins in the comments section. Nuff said above!
I always worry whenever someone uses the word "true", a bold claim and one that needs to be backed up pretty solidly and here I guess is where I struggled with the article.
I think you got the definition of true luxury entirely wrong. True luxury has zero to do with perfection or craftsmanship or any of that guff. True luxury is about making you feel great and guilty (after all the root of the word luxury is the same as the word lust - a deadly sin) at the same time - luxury that can be justified isnt luxury.
Now, if you ditch the link to luxury and instead recast this article in slightly different terms, such as a loss of focus on craft, then Im on board. In fact perhaps you could go further - that the link between high end watch making and luxury is actually harmful to high end watchmaking.
That as soon as a watchmaker strays from "Im making a great watch" to "Im making a luxury watch" the game is up.
... a little low resolution but enough to get the idea. On the dial side you can see some reduction gearing which transmits energy from the mainsprings to a curved rack right next to the stem. As the barrels unwind the last gear in the reduction train moves the rack, and the power reserve hand is on the pivot of the rack so it moves as well, showing the remaining power reserve.
A quick look through a couple of patent databases didn't turn up anything either, although I did find a Journe patent for a pen 😀
Well articulated and I tend to agree with most of what defines haute horology, innovation etc. and the overall thoughts being presented. While rarity and luxury can coexist and often do. I depart in scarcity being a requirement of luxury. The rare nature can be a by product of the other tenants mentioned in the article, even a constraint if you will by the process. But the constraints can be overcome and that would not change the nature of the products innovation, craftsmanship, artistry, etc… only its quantity. Status and value due to scarcity are correlated, but they are not attributes of luxury. That is a false attribute sold by advertisers and embraced by collectors because rarity can matter in collecting. Think of trading cards, a scare card in good condition is valuable to the collecting world, even selling for millions of dollars. It is not luxury, it has none of the hallmarks stated in the article of innovation, quality, craftsmanship or a pusuit of mastery and perfection. It is a cardboard card with an image printed on it, sold at a convenience store. It is rare, it commands a high price. It is not “haute” in any way.
The Calatrava 5227J from PP is a well made, finely finished, luxury watch. It is not however the same as the finishing and haute horology of the Chronometre Souverain Havana (my color of choice for CS) by F.P. Journe. The 5227J is also not the same haute horological art as a marquetry piece from PP’s rare handcrafts either. Both are Patek’s but they are not the same level. They have a different audience and convey a different level of craftsmanship and artistry. Innovation may not be present at typical 5227J but it is in the Fortissimo. We cannot look at a manufacturer with a catalog of 128 different models and say they are all the same. If the world of horology was filled with watchmakers who were all George Danniels and Francois-Paul Journe etc.. we would perhaps not recognize them. The genius, the true legends at the highest levels have dedicated themselves to their game, to their craft. We collect their works not because of the rarity of the work, but because of what it represents to us. The essence imbued in the watch. Be it the dedicate hands that crafted a dial that could hang in any gallery or the decorated movement that captures your attention as loose track of time while you gaze in admiration.
I am with you 97%. Rarity is a dangerous game to play, in absolute terms Patek is rare, any Patek is rare, making up only 0.002 of watches produced globally. With any particular model in the catalogue being 0.000017% of watches made annually. So in absolute terms they are rare. Rolex is a luxury watch so is Omega, they are not haute horology and they are vastly more common than a Patek or Lange or an. F.P Journe. But F.P Journe on the other hand is 90X more common and not rare compared to a Philippe Dufour in relative terms. That does not change the exquisite nature, the haute horology that you so aptly described of the F.P. Journe, especially the Chronometre Souverain Havana that needs to join the collection as some point and time.
I hope I have conveyed my thoughts correctly on this. This was a fantastic read, great food for thought. I will keep the hours spent writing and sorting my thoughts on this subject matter to myself. It was a great thought provoking article that had me personally exploring with many drafts and versions of how to better define luxury and haute horology. There are levels and tiers to luxury. So thank you for the thought provoking article that forced some deep thought and defining of items for myself. It only makes me a better collector and enthusiast when my thinking is refined.
Comments like these are exactly why I write these divisive posts. You have no idea how I hesitated with that “Publish” button for this one.
Look, I’ve said on more than one occasion that rarity alone, does not equate to value - and I think I’ve used the example of every human waking up every morning and producing piece unique turds - and every single one, is worthless.
I think we’re aligned more than not - especially on the Patek example, hence the tongue in cheek footnote for Patek fanboys. I love poking fun - I can’t help myself.
And this is why I left that “afterthoughts” paragraph at the end - because we do align, in fact. Just like that article I wrote about “levels of wealth” - we have the same for levels of luxury / you touched on a subset of this with Dufour, Journe, Patek / but let me assure you, having grown up in Africa I personally know people who would consider a lovely G-Shock to be a luxury. To them, it absolutely is. And to them, a Patek might be the equivalent of the King of England’s crown or something.
There are no absolutes. Ever. But there is also no great discourse without poking peoples boundaries and seeing how they react 😄
I love the discourse, the challenging of one’s positions. It’s where growth and learning come from. Have a great weekend
Amen brother, and the same to you
Good points! I guess it’s a good debate to understand in what cases is ok for the maker of an expensive watch to cut corners? Ie perhaps the maker put more effort into the dial vs movement or vice versa. Or they poured into R&D and only have resources to produce a limited run.
This could be a good point to debate, there is however, a price point and expectation that at certain level the concessions on movement quality in exchange for dial execution cease to make any sense. It could be brand and price dependent of course. But at a haute horological level. Top to bottom quality and execution is an expectation and become the table stakes to be in that category. Appreciate the comment and the thought
I hope you’re right because that’s my expectation. We’ve all seen cases of incredible movements with lackluster dials and vice versa and these pieces have commanded 6 figure plus prices.
Love the thoughts… I’d agree with Nathan, that as some price point there’s an increase in expectations… but you’re not wrong SG; brands do defy expectations sometimes, and this is where the brands’ values and attitudes come into play. I find, for example with LVMH nd Richemont brands, their corporate HQs’ pursuit of profit has caused them to miss the forest from the trees and they continue to make concessions in order to improve the bottom line. Does it work? Yeah, in the short term. I think people will get tired after a while, and this is the erosion of brand value which will make it infinitely more difficult to sell watches at these ever-growing prices as the inherent quality (and buyers’ perception thereof) declines.
Not sure how you argue this, but I'm going to think about it and the middle ground you mention. Simulacrum, that's a big boy word I've never encountered before. Cheers 🥂
Yeah, “simulacrum” was a bit of a highlight for me as well 😎😉
😄 I’m still awaiting those contemplations
Like a pair of copy cat Loro Piana suede loafers. Luxury “looking” is not luxury at all. Great read my Friend! The threat is real and the stakes are high. 👑
Amen S! 💀🥂
Simon at Permanent Style has written about this a few times recently - the copycats.
The Open Walk / Summer Walk family of shoes is “luxurious” because they hail from an esteemed house and have an immediately recognizable silhouette. However, they have a cemented rubber sole, which I would not say is characteristic of a “luxurious” shoe. Once they’re worn down, and the off white sole has turned yellowish, they’ll need to be replaced with a new pair.
And speaking of intellectual property AND “disposable” shoes - I bought a pair of Aurelien drivers a few years ago because I liked a particular color (“Petrol”) I saw in an Instagram ad. The shoes were - and remain - roughly half the price of a pair of Tod’s drivers. I would say they are ~97% identical to the Tod’s offering. The Tod’s drivers are not better in any quantifiable way - they aren’t more comfortable, they aren’t any more durable, and they don’t look any better. Tod’s is the “default” brand in that category for many shoppers, but (Prada-owned) Car Shoe claims to have originated the style. I have never owned a pair of Car Shoe drivers, so I cannot comment on quality or value.
Car Shoe drivers are well made but less stylish and chunky… but anyway, it sounds like you’re recommending Aurelien? 😂
I mentioned Aurelian to provoke a discussion of sorts.
What is a copy? How do you define it? Who “owns” the exclusive right to sell … suits, shirts, knitwear, any style of shoes, watches with certain case shapes, etc. to truly discerning buyers? I hope anyone espousing this line of thinking drives a Mercedes Benz … otherwise they’ll have to endure catcalls of “Copy Cat! Broke Boi! Wannabe! Poseur!” etc. from the true cognoscenti who know that ONLY Mercedes Benz can credibly make and sell cars!
What if the definitive, essential purveyor of Product X isn’t the most expensive, or the originator of the category; rather - merely - responsible for the best product?
I think that *particularly* for a shoe with a finite / seasonal shelf life, buying Aurelien in lieu of Tod’s is eminently sensible. I just checked prices for the sake of comparison - Aurelien $270; Tod’s $695 (both for basic, suede drivers with a pebbled / “Gommino” sole and ). I cannot understand any reason to pay ~2.5x more than the Tod’s price for a product that is almost indistinguishable to the wearer (and certainly the case for any passersby, to the extent that matters). Both shoes are made in Italy - conceivably in the same factory.
I’m sure YMMV, but when it comes to finite consumables such as these shoes - there’s probably something to be said about personal feelings of authenticity conflicting with one’s practical experiences and nature as you’ve just described.
Ostensibly you like how these less expensive shoes look, and are convinced of their quality - to the extent that you may even feel that you’re getting a good deal given the Tods version is so expensive. That’s cool. If someone were to say “hey nice Tod’s, I have the same pair” - you sound like the kind of guy who would correct them; And try to explain why this is the smarter choice. For all you know, they bought it at 60% off from a Harrods sale - incidentally where I like to buy Tod’s, and I hate paying full price for anything because it feels better when I don’t. If I was a billionaire, perhaps it would feel less good. The equivalent of bending over to pick up a buck from the pavement. At what level of wealth do you not bother? What if it’s a $100 or £50 note?
The thing is - this line of thinking is, IMO, less about the merits of the products or the relative quality of the “primary” product and the “copycat” - the utility of the brand / status value for every product category will vary wildly depending on the person.
Some people don’t compromise on their shoe choice, some on clothing, some on cars… I know a guy who drives a shitty car but has a better watch collection than most. I know many more who dress to impress but have mortgages and debt. I’m rambling now because I’m being yelled at by my kids but I think you get the gist of my message. I hope so!
I have 5-6 pairs of Tod’s and 2 pairs of Aureliens.
I would definitely tell anyone who inquired that I had bought a “knockoff” pair of shoes - I would be more than happy to pass the consumer surplus along to them, of course.
Setting aside my tongue in cheek remarks above, I will agree that, e.g., Loro Piana is the progenitor of high quality suede booties and Venetian loafers with off white natural leather soles. I would rather walk barefoot than wear a pair of knock-off Open / Summer Walks, however.
Agreed. That’s because that specific look is associated more closely with LP than the driving shoe aesthetic is with any single brand (Tods, Carshoe, Gucci, TF, etc)
My solution is to buy Tods through Yoox.com at anywhere from 40-75% off and just get more of them😎…it’s a bit sick but I have probably over 30 pair ( although there are several other good brands, mostly Italian, that I buy and love) ….I’ve even bought a second identical pair a couple times of real favorites so when the first pair wear out I’ll have another ..but I’m kind of twisted in that I don’t have enough opportunities to even wear them all, indeed numerous pairs have never been worn ..it’s just another subset of my collection addictions 🙄🤷😏 (my lifestyle these days consists of daily wardrobe of shorts, t-shirts and flip-flops to deal with the Deep South Texas heat ..😝
I am similarly afflicted! 😂
I have a number of pairs of box fresh, unworn Gucci loafers, as well as many pairs of well worn Guccis. I much, much prefer the Tom Ford-era designs that were subtly updated by Frida Giannini to the “1953” and “Jordaan” shoes that Alessandro Michele foisted upon us. My favorite pair is in chocolate brown suede - they have been re-soled half a dozen times, perhaps more.
I find that Gucci quality has fallen as price has risen; I also have several pairs of Carmina bit loafers that are in some ways superior to the 1953 bit loafers. I would prefer to buy Gucci going forward, but I won’t spend much more for an inferior shoe (I have found leather imperfections in recent pairs of 1953s, the bits are cheaper and frequently come in garish gold tone, and the interior of the shoes are lined in some sort of rough canvas-like material that makes sockless outings a challenge).
These were ~$720 in 2020; now $990 (plus tax) - https://www.gucci.com/us/en/pr/men/shoes-for-men/loafers-for-men/mens-horsebit-1953-loafer-p-307929BLM001000
☝🏼👍🏼👊🏼
Great article. Very informative. Loved the power reserve anecdote about CS.
True luxury is rare. If it can be mass produced then some corner is being cut. I’d rather pay for craftmanship than for a marketing budget. The marketing budget helps the flipper maintain liquidity than the collector who wants to cherish something special and uniquely created.
Cheers SG. Well said!
I think it's fair to say that not everything that is rare is luxurious, everything luxurious should be rare, as a result of what it takes to create it. The (unlimited) proliferation of limited-edition marketing is a topic for another time, albeit closely related to this one.
Furlan Marri - or anyone making anything to a specific budget, really - talking about perfectionism is stupid, and a complete triumph of marketing over reality. But does it pose such a threat to haute horlogerie watchmakers? It should be taken as an opportunity: high-end, volume watchmakers should be able to demonstrate what sets them apart - if they can't do that, then they really do have problems...
If more prestigious brands fall into the 'good enough' trap, or worse yet just try to see what they can get away with (Panerai's movements spring to mind, as Jose has documented extensively; another example I reach for all the time is the widespread adoption of faux-skeletonisation with industrial coatings in lieu of polished surfaces), that's definitely a threat, but I don't lay the blame at the door of lower-priced brands, responsible for some kind of mediocrity creep; it's about brands' ownership structures. Shareholders, VC investors and conglomerates want to see consistent year-on-year growth regardless of market conditions or the cost of true R&D. So you get wham-bam, new-year-new-dials product roll-out and genuine mechanical improvements once a decade or so, if you're lucky. It's less about 'luxury, and not' and more about 'artisan, and not'.
Beyond that, it's the endless abuse of the word 'luxury' than anything else. You mention 'entry level luxury', which is a bit of a contradiction in terms, and something everyone will have their own definition for. Is a £500 Tissot entry-level luxury? A £1500 Longines? A £3000 Tudor? The conversation becomes 'is this a respectable level of quality for the price?', which isn't something that should trouble a maker of true luxury. Most people feel comfortable with a broader definition of 'something I don't really need/something relatively expensive/something whose emotional importance outweighs its practical value' but then the word can, as you say, mask all manner of sins. If only there were some journalists around to evaluate and criticise watches with an expert eye...
Agreed, I mentioned in another comment to @TheFamilysTime (Nathan), rarity is not a direct singnal of luxury at all. In fact, one other thing which came up in that thread, was that luxury is perhaps relative to one’s circumstances too – and it is this contradiction which you allude to at the end of your comment, and what I was referring to with ‘entry level luxury.’
The example I shared with Nate, was how a £120 G-Shock is considered to be a luxury item to a poor kid in Africa. Now, to this kid, a Rolls Royce is as much a luxury car as a Mercedes Benz S-Class, despite being half the price. As some level it all ‘blends’ into the same category of ‘luxury’ and as one’s affluence increases, all the nuances come in to focus, tending towards 8K resolution as you progress… And so, the ‘enlightened’ luxury buyer can perhaps tell that LVMH is ‘mass produced’ luxury versus Hermes, which is ‘true’ luxury, whereas someone less enlightened might lump them into the same bucket. This is what you’re talking about when you offer the examples of a £500 Tissot and so on, and you’re absolutely right.
With these nuances noted, it sounds like you’re saying there needs to be a distinction between ‘artisanal’ and ‘luxurious’ – and that conflating these terms is incorrect. Perhaps you’re right. I will take this away and chew on it – at first I thought it might be pure semantics, but the more I thought about it, the more it feels like these terms can’t just be separated for watchmaking. By strict definition, price shouldn’t matter at all, but the way the term ‘luxury watch’ is used and understood, I don’t think this separation is possible.
This reminds me of a debate between @Hamza Masood and @A Watch Critic about a “true GMT” – the point was, this terminology was adopted by the masses to refer to “a GMT with an indpendent hour hand” while the first GMT watches didn’t have this functionality. So what is a “true GMT” if it is not the first GMT watch? In this case, the term was used to mean something which was at odds with the reality of the word ‘true’ and historical facts. Feels the same here for ‘luxury’ and the use of the word in this industry.
On how the likes of Furlan Marri and others pose a threat – this is down to how willing consumers are to accept ‘reduced artisanal input’ under the banner of ‘luxury’ and what this might mean in terms of future output from brands who ought to be in the business of luxury but will choose a different path because they see consumers are none the wiser and the profit is there for the taking. This does say something about the brand, but in the end it is consumers who can, and should, vote with their wallets. The first step, however, is for them to educate themselves.
I have to be honest, it baffles me why anyone who has spent any time looking at movement finish would believe you're getting hand finishing in a sub 3K watch. I've seen people praise the "hand finishing" in Rolex and Grand Seiko movements but in both instances what you're getting is very clean industrial finishing, not hand finishing (although with GS once you get up into the high end Spring Drive stuff, like the 8 Day SD, you are getting hand finishing courtesy the Micro Artist Studio). I agree that there has been a decline in quality in high end watch movement design and finishing but I think we need to be careful about where we point fingers – at under 3K the FM DV isn't doing anything at all to reduce the value of hand finishing by folks like Dufour and Rexhep Rexhepi (and a few others). Of course the latter two and the small number of watchmakers who really do pursue fine hand finishing across their entire production (let's say Roger Smith and Kari Voutilainen, to pick a couple, whose approaches are interesting because they're stylistically very different) charge prices orders of magnitude more expensive than FM. And there are other criteria than finishing – I admire Journe's body of work very much but not even his biggest fans would claim that fine finishing is where his work excels.
After all the years in the industry, do you believe the average 'watch guy' has a decent understanding of hand finishing, to the extent they can discern different levels of finishing? (And I dont mean a Seiko SKX vs Dufour... I'm talking about Dufour vs Smith vs Voutilainen vs Rexhep vs Gauthier etc) - my view is, they can't reliably point out the differences. Now, as you say, for 3k there should be no doubt about what you're getting - so why do FM they say it? This is lying.
To posit this is in no way reducing the value of hand finishing by actual high end watchmakers, is an argument worth revisiting - that's because if this FM is indeed a gateway drug, then you're getting newcomers who are now expecting hand finishing at 3k. They ought to know better, sure. But they don't. I don't think FM should get a pass on telling outright lies just because "it probably doesn't affect anyone. "
Sure, as for the criteria beyond finishing - we're aligned of course. I used Journe as an example in the post specifically to point out merits which have nothing to do with finishing - and I agree, Journe might as well use a cheese grater too.
Well I agree with you up to a point, although I don't know, I do think it's kind of up to us to not accept things at face value and protect ourselves by becoming educated consumers. If there's one thing I have learned from covering the industry for a few decades it's that the brands in general have a very conflicted relationship with the notion of an educated consumer. To stay on the subject of movement finishing for a second, yeah it can be very tough to judge (and very expensive and/or a lot of work to judge in person, not from photos). Part of the problem is that there is not a whole heck of a lot out there on how finishing is done and what differences there are between machine executed finish, machine assisted finish, and hand-finishing – AP put out a book years ago called "High End Horological Finishing And Decoration" which is one of the very few comprehensive treatments of the subject that I've ever seen in print or online (and naturally it's long since out of print). I agree 100% that brands should be transparent about their processes, I guess I also feel, though, that as long as we uncritically accept brand claims (whether it's of finishing, or history, or movement provenance or what have you) things are not going to get any better. And I do think it's possible for the customer base for fine watchmaking to become more and better educated; even now I think the level of discourse continues to improve and evolve. As far as I can tell what has not happened in the case of FM so far is someone asking them directly, When you say entirely hand finished, what do you mean exactly? And then there's the fact that hand finishing alone doesn't mean good hand finishing. I could hand finish a watch but I will bet you ten thousand Peseux 7001s that nobody would want to buy it 😂 .
Anyway, I think it was an interesting subject to bring up. It's very difficult to know what realistic expectations should be at difference price points. A long time ago on Timezone someone writing under the pseudonym Watchbore, began an article thus: "People ask Watchbore two questions: Is my watch worth what I paid for it, and Is my watch a good watch? The answer to the first question is always, 'no.' The answer to the second question is, 'it depends.'"
😂 Hell, you underestimate what people would want to buy!
You raise an excellent point about the documentation of, and discourse around finishing being a gaping hole. Even now, you notice how many 'high end' watches from Patek and AP are simply rounding out the areas in a movement which are crying out for an interior angle - that's despite the fact they could make this a sharp angle by machine- instead they reserve this for the ultra-high priced watches because that's another point of differentiation. They're getting away with it because of the brand, but also because the vast majority of people buying those 80,000 watches a year, are none the wiser. This road leads nowhere pleasant.
I don't know, Jack. Watchbore was bang on. First world problems, these might be... So woe unto me.
So how do you really feel!? 😟😳😂 SAVAGE post ( but necessary) once again ensuring you won’t have to even think about losing any integrity or conflicts of interest turning down the big ad bucks from the horological giants beating down your door (NOT) 😂🤣😹 ….. love ya bro 😎 ☝🏻🥂🥲
Hey, I'm the trigger man, that's all. Don't hate the player... 😂
With the big guns and ammo! 💣🧨🔪🫶🏼
Listen up watch industry, this is perfect advice!!!
If only 😅
This was emotional 😳 loved it.
Have to come back for the comment section it seems
Generally “Good enough” is the enemy of everything.
Thanks for reading, and yes, agreed!
I think luxury is actually more about authenticity than anything else no matter the effort. Sometimes luxury is effortless as long as it’s natural hence why watch brands are constantly trying to emulate nature
DJ is back! @Thad mentioned something on this point today - about the relationship with a brand, and how it makes you feel, being a part of ‘luxury’ not discussed often enough… which I think ties into your point here about effort (or effortlessness) - and I agree. Hard not to.
lolllll DJ in the house 🙌
I think "luxury" is such a loaded term, like art I guess. Which is more "luxury" a relatively straightforward watch with little genius but tens of thousands of hours of effort or a watch that could be produced very easily and in huge numbers but was the result of a rare burst of genius that everyone else (perhaps even the creator of that first piece) just copies?
Well said, Pete
As I write this I'm wearing a Farer Green Mansfield. This watch is about a fun, colorful dial, a cushion case and a completely undeserved display back. Am I peacocking when I wear this or am I simply enjoying a watch with no pretense that is either "luxurious, nor haute horology." As those (and I) that actually use haute horology in conversation, we certainly recognize that we are the .01% of the .01% that actually give a shit about that stuff. Still, I was enraptured as I read this essay today as KF is speaking truth! It seems coincidental with the explosion of the internet (and damn rap music) that luxury goods, however they are portrayed and marketed in today's conglomerate world order, have become less about luxury and more about goods.
Hey Larry - I’m busy catching up in reverse - so you should read the comment from Nate (A family’s time) and my reply for starters.
Beyond that - I guess there are several threads - one about the consumer being less accepting of half-assed creations, the other being about luxury and how we define it / on the latter, as Nate points out, luxury has levels to it too.
Man… this could be a discussion over several hours with some cigars.
Wow…this post precipitated quite a bit of input and excellent insight and comments…. Glad I came back to follow up 🐾💯
Me too 😁
First of all exceptional thoughts as always - always makes for great reading and pensive mental review later on.
Where I take umbrage is in the classification of watches as luxury. I've never seem them as such and while that's how their current popularity would position them, as a decidedly rigid aficionado of primarily vintage ware, I've always considered the stuff I buy (relic like and anachronistic as they are) mostly tools, instruments, outdated gadgets or prehistoric devices. There is no room for them being considered extraneous to one's existence from the era where the classics were made and existed.
Extrapolating from this point of view, if watches were never luxury item (despite how they are perceived today), should they still be made using your analogy of 80% vs 99% on the spectrum of good to perfect? If I were a pilot flying with a device strapped to my wrist where my performance, judgement and the very purpose of my service relied on it, I would think the same arguments that you've applied (no compromise on quality) would still be very relevant.
Again, just not in the context of luxury.
I replied on your restack, not here (thanks for that btw!) ... I am copying my reply below so it remains part of the post too.
Umbrage isn’t necessary 😂… it’s all just food for thought after all. In fact another comment mentioned the idea of “affordable luxury” being an oxymoron which is also fair. Luxury is by definition, not necessary, and so, by that definition a multi-thousand dollar watch is “a luxury” - this isn’t of course the same thing as a diver using it to make it up alive or a pilot using it to ensure they don't screw something up… then it’s a tool, not a luxury. But semantics aside, thanks for sharing your thoughts and appreciate your comment!
Wow.. missed this one last week and was, cool 10 min read time sounds great…. Wait till you hit another 35 mins in the comments section. Nuff said above!
Hey I can’t predict comments 😂
I always worry whenever someone uses the word "true", a bold claim and one that needs to be backed up pretty solidly and here I guess is where I struggled with the article.
I think you got the definition of true luxury entirely wrong. True luxury has zero to do with perfection or craftsmanship or any of that guff. True luxury is about making you feel great and guilty (after all the root of the word luxury is the same as the word lust - a deadly sin) at the same time - luxury that can be justified isnt luxury.
Now, if you ditch the link to luxury and instead recast this article in slightly different terms, such as a loss of focus on craft, then Im on board. In fact perhaps you could go further - that the link between high end watch making and luxury is actually harmful to high end watchmaking.
That as soon as a watchmaker strays from "Im making a great watch" to "Im making a luxury watch" the game is up.
Hey Pete, long time! Thanks for reading, and for the thoughtful response. I just woke up, will come back to you 😄
Do you have any pictures or technical drawings of the PR complication of the CS?
Afraid not! I searched to no avail
The caliber 1304 is illustrated on Journe's website, recto and verso: https://www.fpjourne.com/sites/default/files/caliber/FPJourne-Mouvement-Calibre-1304-OK_0_0.jpg
... a little low resolution but enough to get the idea. On the dial side you can see some reduction gearing which transmits energy from the mainsprings to a curved rack right next to the stem. As the barrels unwind the last gear in the reduction train moves the rack, and the power reserve hand is on the pivot of the rack so it moves as well, showing the remaining power reserve.
A quick look through a couple of patent databases didn't turn up anything either, although I did find a Journe patent for a pen 😀
I asked someone at the brand, they will provide it in the next week I'm told. Will revert.
Lovely perspective. Have a great weekend my friend!
And you hermano 👊