5 ms·

I think watches can be a bit different... At least expensive watches retain more of their value, or even go way up in the case of Rolex. It's true that for som

I think watches can be a bit different... At least expensive watches retain more of their value, or even go way up in the case of Rolex. It's true that for some, a big appeal of a good watch is the "implementation" or the mechanics or electronics that go inside, or the craft on creating it. And others use watches more as jewellery. But there's always somebody that use them to "show off": while some people will buy a "neat" Seiko, Tudor, or even Rolex, there's always one Cristiano Ronaldo that will buy the 2 million dollar gem covered version, or the tourbillon whatever. BTW, today there is people commercializing fake Rolex (and others) of a quality so high that even experts have difficulty distinguishing them from the originals. Apparently they're sold under the excuse of protecting your assets: keep your very expensive Rolex on the bank, bring this replica to the party. And they're not cheap, I think I've seen them for around 2k or 3k euro.

johnnymorgan 3y ago
People using watches as a store ify value is more a commentary on the state of fiat financial networks. A Rolex has scarcity value, and can act as a deflationary asset is what's at play there. I do believe they are having a correction right now as the luxury market starts to bottom.
hilbert42 3y ago
"I think watches can be a bit different... At least expensive watches retain more of their value, or even go way up in the case of Rolex." Buying old Rolex watches is cult activity a bit like buying Elvis's shoes or such at auction for many thousands of dollars—although the latter is likely rarer and ultimately might be of historical interest in centuries to come. Same goes for other engineered products such as old Leicaflex cameras that have sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars when equally engineered high quality products from the same era are simply junked as these days they are perceived to have no value. It mystifies me why people are so enamored with this stuff. There's nothing special about an old Rolex except they were likely near the best of breed when manufactured, but they have little intrinsic historical value nowadays in that they were very unlikely to contain new technology that altered the course of mechanical engineering at the time they were made. They have never had the historical or technical importance of Harrison's remarkable chronometers which did alter the course of history. Let me illustrate with an example: I own two of the first cavity magnetron developed during WWII that went into production and is credited with giving the Allies a huge technological advantage over the Axis Powers. Moreover, they are band new in their original cartons and in better condition than the one in this display model: https://www.theiet.org/membership/library-archives/the-iet-archives/archives-highlights/gec-wembley-laboratories-and-the-cavity-magnetron/ https://www.theiet.org/membership/library-archives/the-iet-a.... (Background info: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260521102_The_Cavity_Magnetron_Not_Just_a_British_Invention_Historical_Corner https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260521102_The_Cavit...) This is truly an historical device that altered history and changed technology—it made centimeter RADAR possible when desperately needed in WWII and it's the forerunner of the device in every microwave oven around the world—yet they're not worth a pinch of shit when compared with an old Rolex—even though there are precious few used ones still in existence (let alone brand new ones in original packaging). Seems to me, like diamonds, the outrageous values of an old Rolex come from cleaver marketing to the gullible and to those with more money than sense. Edit: years ago I bought a fake Rolex in Bangkok for about $20 as a joke, it actually kept reasonably good time and looked reasonably genuine—at least it did from a few feet away.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Signalling value is real and not related to gullibility. (There is a lot of costly signalling by animals as well.)
  - hilbert42 3y ago
    I'd argue that signalling honed by eons of evolution is significantly different to signaling dictated by fashion, it has evolutionary purpose, and it may be costly. Fashion is fickle and can change quickly. Diamonds weren't really fashionable until De Beers started its Diamonds are Forever campaign decades ago; same with jeans, they didn't become a fashion statement until the 1950s when James Dean, Marlon Brando et al appeared in them in movies. That type of signalling is only effective after marketing and often—but not always—has little beneficial outcome other than to benefit those who started the fashion or craze, and it's usually the gullible and or susceptible who pick up and run with such signals. In, say, the 1950s, unless you were a manual laborer or a gang member, it wasn't respectable to wear jeans. Back then, those who wished to become gang members—a la the 1950s Rebel Without a Cause — would follow the jeans/leather jacket dress code of the gangs, others would consider those who did as 'greasers' and or possible criminal elements. In many instances signalling can be missed altogether especially so those who are not its intended recipients, and when it's recognized its effects aren't always positive. Whenever I see someone wearing a Rolex I think 'pretentious bastard, clearly you aren't sophisticated enough to wear another classy watch that would equally signal your intent but not show you up to be a dork'.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      The seriously rich and powerful valued diamonds well before that marketing campaign (just look at the Imperial State Crown). Btw., your reaction to a rolex suggests that you are not an intended recipient anyway.
      - hilbert42 3y ago
        You're right, clearly I'm not the intended recipient. Leaving my fashion comments aside, my other principal objection is paying for something that likely has a 1000%+ markup on its manufacturing costs, one pays for the Rolex name-not the product. I'm not saying the watch isn't engineered with precision as clearly it is, but one knows something is wrong when Rolex guards its manufacturing processes the way of state secrets (no one outside the company can gain access to its plant). Of course, Rolex claims this is to protect it from industrial espionage, I'd equally argue that its highly automated precision numerical control equipment can turn watches out like sausages and the company's ongoing worry is that the world will discover how cheap they are to make. That would be a marketing and PR stuff-up par excellence. I would not buy a Rolex because I know I'd been ripped off. BTW, my grandfather was a watchmaker and jeweler and he taught me to be aware that much of the trade was build on illusion and mirrors. He didn't just repair watches, he had a precision watchmaker's lathe and similar equipment and could make parts, gears, subsections of Incabloc shock protection systems, etc. for watches and clocks that weren't available in suppliers' spares catalogs. He not only repaired jewellery but also made it. I have a gold and platinum tie pin with a black opal made by him (mind you, I wouldn't be seen dead wearing it). Right, not only have the rich and powerful always valued diamonds but also most who've come in contact with them and other precious stones have always done so. But it was only in the 20th Century, and then mainly in anglophone countries, that diamond ownership took off among us commoners as a result of cleaver marketing.
BlueTemplar 3y ago
I would love to buy one of the Ankythera watches, but since only 4+20 have ever been made, it's way out of my price range... https://www.gphg.org/horlogerie/en/watches/antikythera-sunmoon https://www.gphg.org/horlogerie/en/watches/antikythera-sunmo...

johnnymorgan 3y ago

People using watches as a store ify value is more a commentary on the state of fiat financial networks. A Rolex has scarcity value, and can act as a deflationary asset is what's at play there. I do believe they are having a correction right now as the luxury market starts to bottom.

hilbert42 3y ago

"I think watches can be a bit different... At least expensive watches retain more of their value, or even go way up in the case of Rolex." Buying old Rolex watches is cult activity a bit like buying Elvis's shoes or such at auction for many thousands of dollars—although the latter is likely rarer and ultimately might be of historical interest in centuries to come. Same goes for other engineered products such as old Leicaflex cameras that have sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars when equally engineered high quality products from the same era are simply junked as these days they are perceived to have no value. It mystifies me why people are so enamored with this stuff. There's nothing special about an old Rolex except they were likely near the best of breed when manufactured, but they have little intrinsic historical value nowadays in that they were very unlikely to contain new technology that altered the course of mechanical engineering at the time they were made. They have never had the historical or technical importance of Harrison's remarkable chronometers which did alter the course of history. Let me illustrate with an example: I own two of the first cavity magnetron developed during WWII that went into production and is credited with giving the Allies a huge technological advantage over the Axis Powers. Moreover, they are band new in their original cartons and in better condition than the one in this display model: https://www.theiet.org/membership/library-archives/the-iet-archives/archives-highlights/gec-wembley-laboratories-and-the-cavity-magnetron/ https://www.theiet.org/membership/library-archives/the-iet-a.... (Background info: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260521102_The_Cavity_Magnetron_Not_Just_a_British_Invention_Historical_Corner https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260521102_The_Cavit...) This is truly an historical device that altered history and changed technology—it made centimeter RADAR possible when desperately needed in WWII and it's the forerunner of the device in every microwave oven around the world—yet they're not worth a pinch of shit when compared with an old Rolex—even though there are precious few used ones still in existence (let alone brand new ones in original packaging). Seems to me, like diamonds, the outrageous values of an old Rolex come from cleaver marketing to the gullible and to those with more money than sense. Edit: years ago I bought a fake Rolex in Bangkok for about $20 as a joke, it actually kept reasonably good time and looked reasonably genuine—at least it did from a few feet away.

RandomLensman 3y ago
Signalling value is real and not related to gullibility. (There is a lot of costly signalling by animals as well.)
- hilbert42 3y ago
  I'd argue that signalling honed by eons of evolution is significantly different to signaling dictated by fashion, it has evolutionary purpose, and it may be costly. Fashion is fickle and can change quickly. Diamonds weren't really fashionable until De Beers started its Diamonds are Forever campaign decades ago; same with jeans, they didn't become a fashion statement until the 1950s when James Dean, Marlon Brando et al appeared in them in movies. That type of signalling is only effective after marketing and often—but not always—has little beneficial outcome other than to benefit those who started the fashion or craze, and it's usually the gullible and or susceptible who pick up and run with such signals. In, say, the 1950s, unless you were a manual laborer or a gang member, it wasn't respectable to wear jeans. Back then, those who wished to become gang members—a la the 1950s Rebel Without a Cause — would follow the jeans/leather jacket dress code of the gangs, others would consider those who did as 'greasers' and or possible criminal elements. In many instances signalling can be missed altogether especially so those who are not its intended recipients, and when it's recognized its effects aren't always positive. Whenever I see someone wearing a Rolex I think 'pretentious bastard, clearly you aren't sophisticated enough to wear another classy watch that would equally signal your intent but not show you up to be a dork'.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    The seriously rich and powerful valued diamonds well before that marketing campaign (just look at the Imperial State Crown). Btw., your reaction to a rolex suggests that you are not an intended recipient anyway.
    - hilbert42 3y ago
      You're right, clearly I'm not the intended recipient. Leaving my fashion comments aside, my other principal objection is paying for something that likely has a 1000%+ markup on its manufacturing costs, one pays for the Rolex name-not the product. I'm not saying the watch isn't engineered with precision as clearly it is, but one knows something is wrong when Rolex guards its manufacturing processes the way of state secrets (no one outside the company can gain access to its plant). Of course, Rolex claims this is to protect it from industrial espionage, I'd equally argue that its highly automated precision numerical control equipment can turn watches out like sausages and the company's ongoing worry is that the world will discover how cheap they are to make. That would be a marketing and PR stuff-up par excellence. I would not buy a Rolex because I know I'd been ripped off. BTW, my grandfather was a watchmaker and jeweler and he taught me to be aware that much of the trade was build on illusion and mirrors. He didn't just repair watches, he had a precision watchmaker's lathe and similar equipment and could make parts, gears, subsections of Incabloc shock protection systems, etc. for watches and clocks that weren't available in suppliers' spares catalogs. He not only repaired jewellery but also made it. I have a gold and platinum tie pin with a black opal made by him (mind you, I wouldn't be seen dead wearing it). Right, not only have the rich and powerful always valued diamonds but also most who've come in contact with them and other precious stones have always done so. But it was only in the 20th Century, and then mainly in anglophone countries, that diamond ownership took off among us commoners as a result of cleaver marketing.

BlueTemplar 3y ago

I would love to buy one of the Ankythera watches, but since only 4+20 have ever been made, it's way out of my price range... https://www.gphg.org/horlogerie/en/watches/antikythera-sunmoon https://www.gphg.org/horlogerie/en/watches/antikythera-sunmo...