or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...) - Page 2542  

post #38116 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by academe View Post

lol8[1].gif

How about Richard Mille?

I am not down on Richard Mille. Unlike Hublot, the concept is not intrinsically wrong or ugly, though I personally wouldn't wear one of the watches.
post #38117 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

FOO HATE ALL.

SHOCKING!

Also, c'mon now, its THE FOO
Quote:
Originally Posted by academe View Post

My dislike of Hublot's is sadly not objective. I could see how - individually - they might be nice design objects, but something about the brand just screams nouveau riche mobsters.

Well, that is a lot of the crowd that bought into the brand post revival. But I think their history is cool, and Biver is a genius.
Quote:
Originally Posted by academe View Post

lol8[1].gif

How about Richard Mille?

Love the concept and mechanics, hate the aesthetics, so would never kop outside of flipping to make $$$.
post #38118 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

Well, that is a lot of the crowd that bought into the brand post revival. But I think their history is cool, and Biver is a genius.

Biver is a great businessman and CEO, but that doesn't make Hublot watches less ugly. Also, what history? I thought the brand came about in the early eighties, pointedly attempting to copycat the porthole concept from Audemars, and predominantly based on quartz movements.

I remember very distinctly, about 8-9 years ago, when the revived Hublot came on the scene. Timezone was still an independent forum and much, much more active. It was the Styleforum of watches. Everyone hated the Big Bang. It was universally made fun of and verbally assaulted. Then, out of the sky blue, a very influential member announced he acquired one and started posting pictures of it. Next thing you know, everyone else is pouring praise all over the damned thing and more and more specimens starting popping up in the picture threads. Sad. I always wondered if that member (can't remember his screen name) got a freebie from Hublot. If so, Biver truly is a genius.
post #38119 of 48312

I really like the ROO Safari for some reason.  Best of the bunch.

post #38120 of 48312

I don't lust after it, but I like it.  It's sufficiently silly to lack any pretence.  I'd wear it for sure, and grin every time I looked at it.

post #38121 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbarwick View Post
 

 

Your IG is full of amazing cars, watches, and food.  You have great taste in my favorite food course...the desserts!!!

Thanks JB!  If we ever meet up to chat watches we will have to be sure to do it over desserts!!!  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiasGendrick View Post


I don't consider it stupid, necessarily, but I don't think that a prestige watch brand is ever an investment. It will never produce reliable income. At best, there is now and then a particular model that ends up being desirable to collectors and increasing in value.

To be clear, though, this is speculation, nt investment. Warren Buffet would be quick to point this out.

I have only bought a couple of high end watches new. The rest I've bought used or inherited. The used market often shaves 50% or more out of a watch in great condition. A few scuffs on the case and bracelet would be inevitable anyway. And a good movement kept well serviced will last for generations.

I doubt I will ever buy Patek, Nardin, etc, and other "super prestige" brands. I imagine the price of manufacturing is closer to 10% of those list prices. They remind me of the infamous Hermes alligator peacoat. It costs 250,000. A top quality alligator skin goes for around 2k. It might use 2-4 skins. A great tailor works for $60-80 an hour. So even if the materials were 8,000 and manufacturing cost were 3,200...that would be 4.48% of the MSRP.

To me, that much markup will always be insane. That's the domain of the ultra wealthy who have forgotten what savvy spending is, and looks like. I have much more respect for someone who makes a great secondhand Rolex purchase. Just my opinion.

Interesting point of view.  Although, I think much of it, as Stitchy pointed out is far too over simplified.  As Stitchy covered these issues very well I just waned to address a few things.

 

I'm curious where you got the idea that the cost of producing watches is merely 10% of the MRSP?  Is that documented some where or merely a figure you have come up with out of thin air?

 

Also, I couldn't help but laugh at your statement about "Having more respect for someone who makes a great second hand Rolex purchase [ Than those of us who bought them new]."  

I think its great when people find a second hand watch in amazing condition and get a great deal.  Who doesn't love that idea?  Still, your premise doesn't always work.  I could have bought a used Rolex Daytona 16520 in 1995 for $7,500...because they were so popular, demand out stripped supply and they were being flipped for nearly twice retail in a span of 24 hours.  New ones were tough to find.  I searched for six months and found an AD willing to sell me a new one at list price for $4,350.  So I guess I did better than some guys that bought it used for $7,500.  In fact I've purchased several pieces new, that are worth quite a bit more than I paid for them.  No, they aren't investments and I won't be retiring on them, but unlike some of the used ones out there mine are in mint condition, have all boxes, papers, and I had a full warranty (which came in handy on 2 occasions).  If you have greater respect for those who have purchased used watches, so be it.  I've always thought respect is something that is earned based on something far more substantial than whether someone purchased a watch (be it new or used).  

post #38122 of 48312
If you know what you are doing, you can often get a new watch for close to the price of a used one in like new condition.

20% off retail is achievable on most brands if you don't come across as a one-timer. Buying from Europe gets you additional discount in the form of VAT exclusions, and the value proposition will get even better if the Euro keeps losing value.
post #38123 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

Well, that is a lot of the crowd that bought into the brand post revival. But I think their history is cool, and Biver is a genius.
Love the concept and mechanics, hate the aesthetics, so would never kop outside of flipping to make $$$.

Biver is a genius, but it still doesn't elevate what Hublot is IMHO.

 

As for RM...don't care for anything about them at all.  If I got one as a gift, I'd sell/trade it for something else.  

post #38124 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

This is usually true.
As is this, but there is certainly an appeal to buying new.


Interesting juxtaposition.
This is flat wrong. You have to remember that many high end watches, specifically ones with high complications, or various innovations, and delicate case and movement making, take years and years and millions and millions of dollars in R&D. That cost has to be recouped. As does packaging, and advertising, which are part of their costs, and things we all benefit from. Not to mention that skilled master watchmakers command nice salaries and can spend up to a year on just a few pieces, and some pieces might take a full year.

Lastly, manufactures do not get MSRP for their watches. They sell to ADs at 40-50% below retail. That cuts the margin right in half off the bat. Factor in the above paragraph, and they are far from making the profits you wrongly assume.

Then you have the ADs, who sink huge amounts of money up front into inventory. As such, you have time value of money, while they sit on many pieces for quite some time, and, they are not public service operations, they are business out to make money. On top of that, they rarely get full mark up anyways with the huge amount of gray market competition and pre-owned sales, that are out there.

There is this tendency to blame businesses, especially luxury business, of gouging, or to assume they are out there just making a killing, raking money into their coffers, laughing at the silly customers who walk through their doors. That is generally a fallacy. Its a complex business, like so many others, that creates huge cash flow strains, and a constant requirement to be on top of your game as the competition is stiff and vast, and technology is ever changing, and the customer base is fickle.

Im not saying that there are not many extremely wealthy brand execs and jewelry store owners out there, but there is no reason to harbor resentment against them any different than any other wealthy and successful business owner. Its not like they are a mafia or gang, they are all legitimate business that take huge amounts of savvy and business knowledge to be as successful as they are.

Over simplfying it like you did is a disservice to everyone. Yourself included. Im not saying everyone needs to buy new, or from an AD, but at least address that avenue with the proper mindset.
I dont even know where to start with this asinine comment. Its a blanket statement, and its thoughtless, empty, condescending, and wrong. Respect whomever you want, but dont throw people under the bus just because they approach things differently than you do.

Nardin and Patek and their relative brands are all producing watches in excess of 20k. To my mind this makes them "super luxury".

The debate comes down as usual to the value of a product. Is it worth an extra tens of thousands of dollars if your watch tells you the month and year? I'm reminded of a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon: Calvin mentions that his watch doesn't say what month it is. Hobbes replies that they must figure that people who don't know what month it is probably wouldn't need a watch in the first place.

I will definitely concede your point that lots of R and D is needed to get the gears working to display years. I buy that. But consider my Hermes jacket argument again: in that example, people really are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Hermes tag. This same process goes on to a lesser extend in all sorts of fashion and style industries. Those $8000 Prada pumps didn't cost $1000 to make, etc etc.

I appreciate too that maybe most customers aren't paying MSRP for the product. I can appreciate that. My first instinct would be to let the customer purchase a watch directly from the manufacturer. If the markup is really 50%...well, I don't think that it's worth that much to have a storefront. One can always mail the watch back to re manufacturer for service and repairs (and indeed, I've had to do that for more elaborate fixes).

It's not my intention to insult and abuse people. It's their money. They can buy what they want. I just think they're being silly if they're paying 250k for a coat that cost 10k to make, or 20 k for a watch that cost 4 k to make. Again, just my opinion. As long as there are people willing to pay so much those AD's will stay in business.

And you contradict yourself when you say I can respect who I like...as long as I don't criticize anyone. ; P
post #38125 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

Biver is a great businessman and CEO, but that doesn't make Hublot watches less ugly. Also, what history? I thought the brand came about in the early eighties, pointedly attempting to copycat the porthole concept from Audemars, and predominantly based on quartz movements.

He is a watch business phenom.

Well, some are ugly, most of the newer stock, but there are some models that I think are cool. Have not looked at any in years, but I recall thinking some of the ones that were a bit more simplistic looked neat. Maybe I wouldnt feel that way any more, but that is my recollection.

As far as the history, Carlo Crocco, the founder, was the first to make real headway with a rubber strap, and they were the first, I think, to really start playing around with using different materials in watches. Not just leather, steel, gold or platinum. Rubber, resin, carbon... whatever.

I mean, its not like the technological watershed moment of last century, but it was a cool innovation, and everything I have read about the founder was pretty complimentary. He seemed to have been a pretty charitable and kind fellow. Not at all a douche like many of the wearers of the brand today. He had a cool idea, he ran with it, but he, and they really, even after his departure/death/selling of the brand (I forget the history) never succeeded in taking it to the next level. Other brands did much more, and did it much better, playing with outre materials, but he gets the credit for the proliferation idea, and I think that is cool.

Also, the original model with the rubber strap was not nearly as absurd as the ones seen today, I think.

Disclaimer, this is all based on a lot of reading that I did years and years ago, so it may not all be right, but it is the best of my recollection. RFX may have some knowledge to drop about this, too.
post #38126 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

If you know what you are doing, you can often get a new watch for close to the price of a used one in like new condition.

Exactly!  This was particularly true a few years back, when I could often get deals from some ADs that were better than some competing grays.  Often the price difference between new and used made it a no brainer...go new with full warranty! 

post #38127 of 48312
Am I the only person not enamored with Laurent Ferrier? The movements are gorgeous, but the case and dial designs leave me cold. The streamlined lugs and long skinny hour/minute markers seem like token efforts to appear more modern.
post #38128 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

Thanks JB!  If we ever meet up to chat watches we will have to be sure to do it over desserts!!!  

Interesting point of view.  Although, I think much of it, as Stitchy pointed out is far too over simplified.  As Stitchy covered these issues very well I just waned to address a few things.

I'm curious where you got the idea that the cost of producing watches is merely 10% of the MRSP?  Is that documented some where or merely a figure you have come up with out of thin air?

Also, I couldn't help but laugh at your statement about "Having more respect for someone who makes a great second hand Rolex purchase [ Than those of us who bought them new]."  
I think its great when people find a second hand watch in amazing condition and get a great deal.  Who doesn't love that idea?  Still, your premise doesn't always work.  I could have bought a used Rolex Daytona 16520 in 1995 for $7,500...because they were so popular, demand out stripped supply and they were being flipped for nearly twice retail in a span of 24 hours.  New ones were tough to find.  I searched for six months and found an AD willing to sell me a new one at list price for $4,350.  So I guess I did better than some guys that bought it used for $7,500.  In fact I've purchased several pieces new, that are worth quite a bit more than I paid for them.  No, they aren't investments and I won't be retiring on them, but unlike some of the used ones out there mine are in mint condition, have all boxes, papers, and I had a full warranty (which came in handy on 2 occasions).  If you have greater respect for those who have purchased used watches, so be it.  I've always thought respect is something that is earned based on something far more substantial than whether someone purchased a watch (be it new or used).  

You make a great point. A watch purchased new for less than a watch selling used would clearly be a better buy.

My guess that a Patek, for example, costs ~10% of it's MSRP to make is a guess. Patek certainly isn't going to publish it's numbers. I'm thinking of things like this though:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/business/sales-of-luxury-goods-are-recovering-strongly.html

Luxury style and fashion dealers are consistently selling out of goods listed at 100% MSRP or even HIGHER. That is the species of vapid spending I'm describing. At one point in time the customer and the seller arrived at a fair price based on what the customer was willing to pay and what the seller was willing to take. Now, it really does seem as if people will buy whatever product at whatever price is asked. That type of casual overpayment for goods that may or may not be all that good will always seem silly to me.
post #38129 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbarwick View Post

I really like the ROO Safari for some reason.  Best of the bunch.

The Safari and the new grey-on-grey are the standouts for the new ROOs for me:



post #38130 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

Biver is a genius, but it still doesn't elevate what Hublot is IMHO.

As for RM...don't care for anything about them at all.  If I got one as a gift, I'd sell/trade it for something else.  
I feel that way about Panerai. Except that if I got one as a gift, I might wear it for a week to see if that changed my mind (unless that would hurt the resale value).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)