8 ms·
"Because at Patek he'd encounter the most extreme brand age phenomenon: artificial scarcity. You can't just buy a Nautilus. You have to spend years proving your
by jgrahamc 7mo ago
"Because at Patek he'd encounter the most extreme brand age phenomenon: artificial scarcity. You can't just buy a Nautilus. You have to spend years proving your loyalty first by buying your way through multiple tiers of other models, and then spend years on a waiting list."
Strange game, the only winning move is not to play.
I've heard other brands do this (Ferrari?) and, of course, there are lines outside "luxury" brands like Louis Vuitton. Why bother?
PS I'll stick to my Casios: https://blog.jgc.org/2025/06/the-discreet-charm-of-infrastructureless.html https://blog.jgc.org/2025/06/the-discreet-charm-of-infrastru...
- stronglikedan 7mo ago> Why bother? ego, of course
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago> ego, of course This is so silly. Do you really not have any hobbies where you spend inordinate time or money on things you could objectively accomplish quicker and cheaper, but having less fun, in other ways? Like, I ski. It’s a silly way to get up and down a hill in the 21st century. I’m not a watch guy. But mechanical watches are beautiful. There are idiots who buy them. But that doesn’t mean everyone who does is an idiot.
- kridsdale1 7mo agoWe can say all the same things about cars, but nobody thinks it’s odd that there’s a status culture about cars worth more than $75,000.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago> nobody thinks it’s odd that there’s a status culture about cars worth more than $75,000 Sure. To each their own. I drive a Subaru. I don’t think it’s weird that others like a nice car. (I also think there are douchebags who drive both.)
- bombcar 7mo agoBecause that’s only 2-5x the price of a new cheap car. A watch at $80,000 is what, 10,000x what a new cheap one is? But good for them! It’s really hard to be angry at them for buying said watch without it being some form of jealousy.
- boelboel 7mo agoCollecting watches isn't a hobby, it's pure consumerism. Sure many hobbies have (recently?) gotten way more people spending top dollars for no reason but with watch collecting there's nothing else. You're not tweaking the dials, you don't know how to make the watch, you just watch it and wear it while a technologically superior version is 500 times cheaper. There's also no natural shortage of them, they can make a trillion of these watches. At least with cars or audio equipment there's some marginal benefits once you get to crazy numbers, not the case with watches.
- s1artibartfast 7mo agoWhat is wrong with watch consumerism? It isn't like it's ruining the planet and hurting anyone. Like you said, there is no shortage and nobody will die without them.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago> You're not tweaking the dials, you don't know how to make the watch, you just watch it and wear it while a technologically superior version is 500 times cheaper This describes precisely zero watch enthusiasts I know. Each of them can open up the watch and understand what's happening. In one case, he'll disassemble the major components to clean them. (Analogous to how riders can take care of their horses and gear, or I can tune and wax my skis.) Your dismissal could be just as accurately be applied to the various programming languages many of us learn for fun. We don't know how to write its compiler. We can barely do anything useful in it. We just play with it while a technologically-superior version would take a fraction of the effort. > There's also no natural shortage of them, they can make a trillion of these watches Quartz? Obviously. Aegler/Rolex? Probably. Handmade movements? No. > At least with cars or audio equipment there's some marginal benefits once you get to crazy numbers, not the case with watches As an enthusiast of neither cars nor watches, I call total bullshit on this comparison. Anyone arguing they're getting utility out of their Ferrarri, Pagani, Omega or Audemars is full of themselves.
- measurablefunc 7mo agoVanity. Ego is something else.
- kridsdale1 7mo agoAnyone with $(80,00-250,000) (which is a lot of you) can buy a Nautilus today[1]. This status-through-martyrdom ritual to get it from retail at MSRP is utterly bizarre. [1] https://www.chrono24.com/patekphilippe/nautilus--mod106.htm https://www.chrono24.com/patekphilippe/nautilus--mod106.htm
- thot_experiment 7mo agoHoly shit that's an ugly watch too, looks like something outta chinatown lmao.
- PaulHoule 7mo agoAds for Patek Philippe on the back of The Economist get more and more annoying over time. (e.g. the president writes "How Happy I am to be a Nepo Baby")
- LevGoldstein 7mo agoMy least favorite of that eras Gerald Genta designs. The original Royal Oak is comparatively far more attractive. Both are outdone by the 222 (different designer though), but it's all subjective.
- garethsprice 7mo agoIt being an "acquired taste" is part of the appeal. A lot of high-end stuff is ass-ugly on purpose. If everyone liked it because it simply looked nice, you couldn't tell who's "in the club" of other rich people. Brands will attach elaborate stories and histories to objects to make people feel cultured that they have invested time in acquiring the knowledge, but really it comes down to in-group object recognition.
- ninalanyon 7mo agoThese things are shibboleths. It doesn't really matter what they look like or whether they are actually any good for their ostensible purpose so long as they signal that you are a member of the correct group.
- 7mo ago
- julianpye 7mo agoActually in many cases it is for social KPI storytelling. I know some wealthy people and at gatherings they love to tell 5-10min long stories of exclusive processes that they followed to gain something exclusive while dropping names and numbers. The processes are easy to understand for the entire social circle (i.e. not technical or business achievements which they can't easily disclose).
- jvanderbot 7mo agoSo, hobbies. You're talking about hobbies.
- coldtea 7mo agoNo, he talks about status signalling. They might pass the time doing those things, but not as a mere passtime or hobby, like if they were sewing or playing CoD. Unlike those, doing them and telling about doing them serves a specific social purpose.
- jvanderbot 7mo agoI'm not arguing with you - you have a valid point. But I don't view hobbies as that separate from status signals within the hobbying group. Oh you play games? What games? Did you beat it? etc etc. Esoteric knowledge/practices here are status signls (Oh you reached shattered planet without xyz??). That starts to sound a lot like "Oh you aquired a lambo XYZ without usual steps abc" and that's a really fun convo in the in-group, and a total miss with the out-group.
- coldtea 7mo ago>But I don't view hobbies as that separate from status signals within the hobbying group. The difference though is that this is not meant to serve "within the hobbying group". They serves the status signal purpose when showing them to "laymen" and other rich people in general, not necessarily to other expensive car buyers or luxury watch buyers. In other words, the, typically quiet, flaunting, is done to people otherwise uninterested about the specific ting, that nonetheless recognize the exclusivity and the knowledge that it's a subtle signal of "elevated taste" and that they belong to the tasteful-rich club.
- davidw 7mo agoEconomists have a term for these kinds of things where the demand rises as prices rise: Veblen goods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
- marcosdumay 7mo agoBuying unnecessary expensive stuff is one thing. But it's hard to understand why anybody would want to display that total loyalty to a brand signal.
- fragmede 7mo agoIt taps into a very primordial "I'm better than you" urge some people need.
- animal_spirits 7mo ago"There is only sex. Everything is sex" - Robert California
- ChrisMarshallNY 7mo agoHarley Davidson, anyone?
- mtrovo 7mo agoClothes, wristwatches, cars, you name it. It's a very common play on luxury brands, Hermes Birkins is the most famous that comes to my mind and follow a very similar playbook. Apart from the KYC aspect of the process it's their way of solving the problem of artificial scarcity on the second-hand market as the article explains. They want a second hand market to exist to indicate that this is a luxury item, but too many and the price tanking with excess supply.
- kevin_thibedeau 7mo agoIt also solves the real problem of labor scarcity. If you have X master watchmakers available to make a halo product you can only get so much output from them. You can increase X, increase production efficiencies (reduce labor input), or limit supply. The first two reduce exclusivity and perceived quality so the third makes sense if you can live without growth or can grow via high pricing strategies.
- coldtea 7mo agoBecause the people bothering are precisely those that want to differentiate themselves from those who'd rather stick to their Casios :)
- jgrahamc 7mo agoAh, so these products are useful to me after all!
- roughly 7mo agoGenuinely. All fashion, all accessories, whatever you put on your body is a signal, even if you don’t intend it to be. Your outfit is a costume, and so is everyone else’s.
- circlefavshape 7mo agoand all the world is a stage
- garethsprice 7mo agoHumans are status-seeking creatures, and status is expressed through signaling. If you're rich and so are the people around you, money alone ceases to be a differentiator. Ultra-luxury brands appeal to this by adding hoops that money alone can't clear: time, loyalty, relationships. The signal shifts from "I can afford this" to "I was invited to spend my money here." Lines outside Louis Vuitton are more down-market, aspirational luxury - an ultra-wealthy person wouldn't be caught dead queuing on a sidewalk. Patek and Ferrari operate at the level above, where the signal isn't wealth but access. (HBS calls Ferrari's version "deprivation marketing.") Is it a game worth bothering with? Enough people think so to sustain billion-dollar brands. (Of course, PG writing an essay about being too smart for fancy watches - while knowing a lot about them - is its own signaling game, just aimed at a different audience)
- keybored 7mo agoI know I’m being sold something when someone declares the science of human nature.
- observationist 7mo ago>>> ...PG writing an essay about being too smart for fancy watches Stealthy, like a submarine.
- titanomachy 7mo agoHe’s probably also too rich for fancy watches to actually be a useful signal of wealth amongst his peers.
- intuitionist 7mo agoThe price isn’t keeping anyone at that level of wealth from buying a Nautilus or a Lange 1 or a panda Daytona. But they can still flex with ultralimited pieces like Zuck’s Greubel Forsey.
- soperj 7mo agoI didn't realize that "fools and their money will soon be parted" was a flex.
- giancarlostoro 7mo agoI just want low maintenance cars. Everything else is a waste.
- zinkem 7mo ago> Strange game, the only winning move is not to play. What a tired aphorism. Just like PG's 50 year old insights.
- ChrisMarshallNY 7mo ago> Casios I've got three Oceanus watches (Casio's boutique brand). I never wear them, anymore, because of Apple Watch. I brought a couple of them in Japan. There, the G-Shock brand is very popular. They sell G-Shock watches for ridiculously (to Americans, who are used to cheap G-Shocks) high prices.
- observationist 7mo agoIt's exclusivity and sales schticks. Artificial scarcity, social status, conspicuous consumption. Same things that drive influencers to rent limos, pose on other people's private jets, pretend to buy bottles in clubs, flash fake cash, wear bling. From a birds-eye view it's less a hedonistic treadmill and more a feeding frenzy. It's a game you can play, but for the life of me, I cannot comprehend why you'd want to, there are so many other better things in life. >>> Why bother? Exactly - go give someone you love a hug, that's worth infinitely more than flexing an expensive watch.
- robocat 7mo ago> Exactly - go give someone you love a hug, that's worth infinitely more than flexing an expensive watch. Hugs are massive signals of status (who, where, initiator, awkwardness, yada yada). My fascination with the politics of hugs might be called autistic by some. I wonder whether my own status avoidance is on account of being bad at playing at ladders.
- aaron695 7mo ago[dead]
- CGMthrowaway 7mo ago>I've heard other brands do this (Ferrari?) It's called relationship-based allocation or more simply purchase history requirement, and its practiced by both Patek and Rolex but add to the list famously Hermes, Bugatti, high jewelry from VCA/Bulgari etc, getting access to prestigious artists at galleries, etc. The devil's advocate/ other side of the coin is that it's not just a moneygrab, it protects the brand image by controlling who is seen wearing / using your products. When the value of these goods is so influenced by who else has them, that kind of control is intrinsically important for the seller.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- Zak 7mo agoJay Leno, perhaps the world's most famous car collector refuses to buy a Ferrari due to practices like that.
- fud101 7mo ago>Strange game, the only winning move is not to play. pg dr. This is the answer. A pg article is clickbait at best, harmful at worst. Keep in mind this is the same man who chose to write his antiwokeness hit peace right at the cusp of the election.