6 ms·

Given that mechanical watches are not bought for their ability to report time, how do you even say what it's worth? It's really a work of technical art.

by TwoBit 6y ago

Fezzik 6y ago
Given that the technical artistry is the same as it is in numerous other fine watches, it should be relatively easy to calculate how many extra dollars a person is paying to have ‘Rolex’ stamped on the timepiece... and methinks it is a rather hefty markup.
- underlines 6y ago
  It's not the same. If you become a watchmaker in Switzerland, you'll have to do a 4 years apprenticeship/vocational education and to become a master takes years. Those people are well paid, because the GDP per capita in Switzerland is quite high and the salaries of people in this industry is high. Yes, a Seiko gives you the same, but a Swiss Certina also gives you the same for a much lower price. There are over 100 swiss watch brands and you don't have to pick a luxury brand to get a decent mechanical/automatic watch. You won't get all the hand-made stuff or heritage for that price though.
- thih9 6y ago
  > technical artistry is the same as it is in numerous other fine watches How do you compare technical artistry? E.g. the article describes testing water resistance in a strict way; is it possible to say whether it’s brand markup, or technical artistry?
  - lmz 6y ago
    Anything marked as a diver's watch (which you can find for as cheap as $300) is subject to similar tests for water pressure[1]. Rolex evidently does so for non dive watches as well. [1]: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/tale-of-two-isos-what-water-resistance-ratings-really-mean https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/tale-of-two-isos-what-wate...
Dave_Rosenthal 6y ago
Well, I guess that the fact that China can produce high-end Rolex knockoffs that are all but indistinguishable from the real thing for 5-10% the price gives you one datapoint about what it’s worth. Of course that’s with no design or marketing costs, cheaper labor, and a lot less quality control.
- cosmodisk 6y ago
  The problem with Rolex,in a same way as with Louis Vuitton, is that most products you see in public are fake. I just couldn't force myself to commit a few grand to buy a watch that does look like a Chinese knock-off,even when it's not. The sentiment isn't there for other watch brands.
  - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    Burberry, one of the UK fashion brands suffered from this. The fakes almost became a uniform for young people from working class backgrounds. Needless to say that wasn't the image Burberry wanted to create.
nullifidian 6y ago
More akin to TF2 Hats or CS:GO knives -- expensive, limited supply, status symbol with practicality approaching zero. Also look nice, but so are cheap Seikos, or cheap CS:GO skins.
- Veen 6y ago
  > with practicality approaching zero They tell the time and sometimes the date. I find that quite useful.
  - nullifidian 6y ago
    Quartz watches are much better at telling time. Some of them can tell time using GPS with atomic precision. Quartz watches don't require regular servicing, and are accurate to ±5 seconds per year for the better models. If telling time is what you want, you won't buy a mechanical watch, the same way you won't buy a wood-burning stove for cooking. Smart watches like Apple watch can also do many other things. Buying a mechanical watch is utterly irrational, if you subtract the status, scarcity, and design components.
    - Veen 6y ago
      > Buying a mechanical watch is utterly irrational, if you subtract the status, scarcity, and design components. Yes, buying something is irrational if you "subtract" all the reasons people buy it, but I don't think your conception of those reasons is accurate. I like my mechanical watch for many reasons that have nothing to do with status and scarcity. It looks good and I appreciate the quality of workmanship. I find the mechanism's complexity and delicacy beautiful. I like that it has a glass back and I can watch it work. I like that it is entirely powered by my own body's motion, and I never have to charge it or change its batteries. I find its ability to keep time through purely mechanical rather than digital processes fascinating, and a useful balance to a life that would otherwise be dominated by ones and zeroes. I find the history of the watchmaker and watchmaking interesting, and like that I wear an item that is part of a centuries-long story. I like that, if maintained well, my watch will work when I am 80 years old and I can give it to my son—something that cannot be said of an Apple Watch. I like that it doesn't have notifications and doesn't track me: it only provides useful information to me and not to the company that made it. It is less accurate than a quartz watch, but I neither need nor want atomic precision from a watch. You conflate "rational" with "utilitarian" or "practical" but they aren't the same thing at all. Even if people bought mechanical watches solely for the status and looks, that would not be "utterly irrational" because those are values of importance to them.
dmitriid 6y ago
Rolex produces 800 000 to a million watches a year. It's not a piece of art. It's a mass-production assembly line for high quality luxury products.

Given that mechanical watches are not bought for their ability to report time, how do you even say what it's worth? It's really a work of technical art.

by TwoBit 6y ago

Given that mechanical watches are not bought for their ability to report time, how do you even say what it's worth? It's really a work of technical art.

Fezzik 6y ago

Given that the technical artistry is the same as it is in numerous other fine watches, it should be relatively easy to calculate how many extra dollars a person is paying to have ‘Rolex’ stamped on the timepiece... and methinks it is a rather hefty markup.

underlines 6y ago
It's not the same. If you become a watchmaker in Switzerland, you'll have to do a 4 years apprenticeship/vocational education and to become a master takes years. Those people are well paid, because the GDP per capita in Switzerland is quite high and the salaries of people in this industry is high. Yes, a Seiko gives you the same, but a Swiss Certina also gives you the same for a much lower price. There are over 100 swiss watch brands and you don't have to pick a luxury brand to get a decent mechanical/automatic watch. You won't get all the hand-made stuff or heritage for that price though.
thih9 6y ago
> technical artistry is the same as it is in numerous other fine watches How do you compare technical artistry? E.g. the article describes testing water resistance in a strict way; is it possible to say whether it’s brand markup, or technical artistry?
- lmz 6y ago
  Anything marked as a diver's watch (which you can find for as cheap as $300) is subject to similar tests for water pressure[1]. Rolex evidently does so for non dive watches as well. [1]: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/tale-of-two-isos-what-water-resistance-ratings-really-mean https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/tale-of-two-isos-what-wate...

Dave_Rosenthal 6y ago

Well, I guess that the fact that China can produce high-end Rolex knockoffs that are all but indistinguishable from the real thing for 5-10% the price gives you one datapoint about what it’s worth. Of course that’s with no design or marketing costs, cheaper labor, and a lot less quality control.

cosmodisk 6y ago
The problem with Rolex,in a same way as with Louis Vuitton, is that most products you see in public are fake. I just couldn't force myself to commit a few grand to buy a watch that does look like a Chinese knock-off,even when it's not. The sentiment isn't there for other watch brands.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  Burberry, one of the UK fashion brands suffered from this. The fakes almost became a uniform for young people from working class backgrounds. Needless to say that wasn't the image Burberry wanted to create.

nullifidian 6y ago

More akin to TF2 Hats or CS:GO knives -- expensive, limited supply, status symbol with practicality approaching zero. Also look nice, but so are cheap Seikos, or cheap CS:GO skins.

Veen 6y ago
> with practicality approaching zero They tell the time and sometimes the date. I find that quite useful.
- nullifidian 6y ago
  Quartz watches are much better at telling time. Some of them can tell time using GPS with atomic precision. Quartz watches don't require regular servicing, and are accurate to ±5 seconds per year for the better models. If telling time is what you want, you won't buy a mechanical watch, the same way you won't buy a wood-burning stove for cooking. Smart watches like Apple watch can also do many other things. Buying a mechanical watch is utterly irrational, if you subtract the status, scarcity, and design components.
  - Veen 6y ago
    > Buying a mechanical watch is utterly irrational, if you subtract the status, scarcity, and design components. Yes, buying something is irrational if you "subtract" all the reasons people buy it, but I don't think your conception of those reasons is accurate. I like my mechanical watch for many reasons that have nothing to do with status and scarcity. It looks good and I appreciate the quality of workmanship. I find the mechanism's complexity and delicacy beautiful. I like that it has a glass back and I can watch it work. I like that it is entirely powered by my own body's motion, and I never have to charge it or change its batteries. I find its ability to keep time through purely mechanical rather than digital processes fascinating, and a useful balance to a life that would otherwise be dominated by ones and zeroes. I find the history of the watchmaker and watchmaking interesting, and like that I wear an item that is part of a centuries-long story. I like that, if maintained well, my watch will work when I am 80 years old and I can give it to my son—something that cannot be said of an Apple Watch. I like that it doesn't have notifications and doesn't track me: it only provides useful information to me and not to the company that made it. It is less accurate than a quartz watch, but I neither need nor want atomic precision from a watch. You conflate "rational" with "utilitarian" or "practical" but they aren't the same thing at all. Even if people bought mechanical watches solely for the status and looks, that would not be "utterly irrational" because those are values of importance to them.

dmitriid 6y ago

Rolex produces 800 000 to a million watches a year. It's not a piece of art. It's a mass-production assembly line for high quality luxury products.