The Watch Appreciation Thread - Part two (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, Jaeger LeCoultre,

[bdavro23]

Not for nothing, this has a list price of $9,500 and is available for much less on the street. I dont care if all they changed is the name from JLC to Montblanc, this is a legit time piece.

*Obviously not my picture...

 

[wristandfeet]

Here is my JLC perpetual: hommage to the aforementioned montblanc (which I love btw)

Frankly, Montblanc, IWC, Panerai, JLC, and Cartier all get serviced by the same dudes at Richemont Service Center. No matter how well the movements are designed (aka JLC), the watches are only as good as the quality of the routine service.

In this sense, the long term quality of aforementioned brands watches would all asymptote toward the (not very high) bar that the current service center sets forth.

Once I came to this realization, I started buying shoes instead

 

[MrUnderwood]

@wristandfeet

This is so funny; i have similar thoughts - not exactly in regards to the service but more the movements. I have been struggling with either purchasing a IWC Mark XVI or a Omega 2254 - but the more i learn about "modified ETA movements" that they have branded their own "in-house" calibre the harder it gets to justify their price point.

Basically, you are paying a premium for the name and perhaps (this is murky waters) some improvements - but it is difficult to say how much - the Omega 2254 seems more engineered.

ETA produces serious movements, that have passed the test of time and should NOT be look downed upon - the questions is rather, why not purchasing other brands with similar ETA movements for a alot less. I am starting to consider a nice Tissot with one of the good ETA's in stead.

 

[bdavro23]

@wristandfeet

This is so funny; i have similar thoughts - not exactly in regards to the service but more the movements. I have been struggling with either purchasing a IWC Mark XVI or a Omega 2254 - but the more i learn about "modified ETA movements" that they have branded their own "in-house" calibre the harder it gets to justify their price point.

Basically, you are paying a premium for the name and perhaps (this is murky waters) some improvements - but it is difficult to say how much - the Omega 2254 seems more engineered.

ETA produces serious movements, that have passed the test of time and should NOT be look downed upon - the questions is rather, why not purchasing other brands with similar ETA movements for a alot less. I am starting to consider a nice Tissot with one of the good ETA's in stead.

Interestingly, the in house issue is a relatively recent one. 50 years ago, maybe a bit more, there were very few in house movements. Movement makers provided movements and watchmakers put them in cases based on their needs/ price/ etc. Everyone did this, including Rolex, AP, Patek, etc. I feel like the in house movement became a justification for higher prices and brand differentiation. I myself have fallen victim to the "well it isnt an in house movement" mentality, but I think I am more put off by the lack of value (I'm admittedly cheap) that many makers put into their watches. I have a Hamilton Field watch that I absolutely love. It has what I consider to be the perfect dial and it was I think the cheapest watch I've had since I started buying them. It also has (I believe) the same movement in it as an IWC Petit Prince with the blue sunburst dial, which I think is just gorgeous. The Hamilton retails for I think $495, the IWC $3,950. I am more than happy to pay a premium for better finishing, etc, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me that there is an additional $3,500 worth of value in the IWC over the Hamilton. In other words, what am I paying for? It just feels a little lazy at what I perceive to be an inflated price.

Thoughts?

 

[wristandfeet]

@wristandfeet

This is so funny; i have similar thoughts - not exactly in regards to the service but more the movements. I have been struggling with either purchasing a IWC Mark XVI or a Omega 2254 - but the more i learn about "modified ETA movements" that they have branded their own "in-house" calibre the harder it gets to justify their price point.

Basically, you are paying a premium for the name and perhaps (this is murky waters) some improvements - but it is difficult to say how much - the Omega 2254 seems more engineered.

ETA produces serious movements, that have passed the test of time and should NOT be look downed upon - the questions is rather, why not purchasing other brands with similar ETA movements for a alot less. I am starting to consider a nice Tissot with one of the good ETA's in stead.

Interestingly, the in house issue is a relatively recent one. 50 years ago, maybe a bit more, there were very few in house movements. Movement makers provided movements and watchmakers put them in cases based on their needs/ price/ etc. Everyone did this, including Rolex, AP, Patek, etc. I feel like the in house movement became a justification for higher prices and brand differentiation. I myself have fallen victim to the "well it isnt an in house movement" mentality, but I think I am more put off by the lack of value (I'm admittedly cheap) that many makers put into their watches. I have a Hamilton Field watch that I absolutely love. It has what I consider to be the perfect dial and it was I think the cheapest watch I've had since I started buying them. It also has (I believe) the same movement in it as an IWC Petit Prince with the blue sunburst dial, which I think is just gorgeous. The Hamilton retails for I think $495, the IWC $3,950. I am more than happy to pay a premium for better finishing, etc, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me that there is an additional $3,500 worth of value in the IWC over the Hamilton. In other words, what am I paying for? It just feels a little lazy at what I perceive to be an inflated price.

Thoughts?

I agree with both of the aforementioned points:

1. Questionable value proposition of ETA based luxury brand watches
2. Questionable value proposition of most (not all) "in-house" movements

I personally divide watches into two groups: tool vs art. For tool, I think the aforementioned points are particularly viable. For art, perhaps less so. I believe most of us treat watches as tools, rather than art.

Mechanical tool watches should be legible, accurate, reliable, and serviceable. In my experience, Rolex is the king in this category. Any 30+ year old Rolex can be sent to RSC and come out running COSC. And to me, the best alternative in this category is ETA. Most ETA movements can be regulated to run accurately. And the true advantage of an ETA movement is that in 10 years time , you can just replace the whole darn movement with a brand new identical ETA movement, at a fraction of a Rolex service cost. In terms of value proposition, I think a modern Rolex or a generic ETA are truly hard to beat at their respective price points, purely from a functional standpoint. (Full disclosure, I own a number of non-Rolex non-ETA tool watches that I absolutely treasure; but that's solely based on sentiment and not function.)

Timepieces that I consider as art are completely different beasts. There, the value is in the eyes of the beholder, and requires some familiarity with the the history of watchmaking, movement finishing techniques, and sometimes even the philosophy or persona of the watchmaker himself (Philip Dufour, Kari Voutilainen, Laurent Ferrier, FP Journ, Habring2). Broadly speaking, I place vintage and independents in this category. Here, functional value proposition plays a substantially lower role in determining (secondary) market price. And as with other fine arts, the secondary market price fluctuates much more with media exposure and the economy at large.

 

[firenze_rob]

^^Very helpful. Thanks.

I'm not sure about regulating the percentage of humidity, however, some larger safes allow you to put in a dehumidifying rod that plugs into an electrical outlet. There is often a small plug that can be removed to expose a small hole (in larger safes) where the cord from the dehumidifying rod comes out so it can be plugged into a wall. If its a smaller safe, he can always buy desiccant packs to remove moisture.
I've seen Rolex watches stored in safes and safe deposit boxes for years with no ill effects. They went in for service had the movements cleaned & lubricated/oiled, and when it came back the owner wore it again with no worries. There were no unusual services or repairs needed from sitting.

I'd probably be more concerned about the storage conditions if its something like a minute repeater which generally have no water resistance. I would be very concerned about moisture/condensation getting into something like that.

Thanks Dino. I think that makes sense. I bought a couple of pieces to commemorate the birth of my children; which i plan to give to them when they graduate college (assuming they don't live in my basement). I think, I won't over think it, and keep a golden rod in there; but won't obsess over it.

PSA - Everyone here knows I'm a sucker for a Heuer chronograph. Someone just listed a Heuer Skipper (autavia version) that looks pretty much unworn. Lucky timing given the recent uptick in interest in the Skipper model specifically.



http://www.ebay.com/itm/HEUER-SKIPP...507582?hash=item41caee94fe:g:FSoAAOSwagNZbxkV

 

[Dino944]

Frankly, Montblanc, IWC, Panerai, JLC, and Cartier all get serviced by the same dudes at Richemont Service Center. No matter how well the movements are designed (aka JLC), the watches are only as good as the quality of the routine service.

Sorry, but I disagree. That's like saying that because the techs at the dealership who work on Ferraris can also work on Alfa Romeos, Fiats etc... that the level of quality on everything is essentially at the level of workmanship in a Fiat.

@wristandfeet

ETA produces serious movements, that have passed the test of time and should NOT be look downed upon - the questions is rather, why not purchasing other brands with similar ETA movements for a alot less. I am starting to consider a nice Tissot with one of the good ETA's in stead.

Whether a $4,000 watch, a $2,000 and a $500 watch with the same base movements are so similar as to not be worth spending more than $500 is something every buyer has to ask himself. Hopefully, there are enough differences in finish, features, design, or whatever else appeals to a buyer that it justifies the differences in MSRP. Personally, if I could find the same base movement in a watch that was under a grand sitting in a $4,000-5,000 watch I was considering...it never sat well with me. Hence, I'd be more likely to look at other watches or brands.

Interestingly, the in house issue is a relatively recent one. 50 years ago, maybe a bit more, there were very few in house movements. Movement makers provided movements and watchmakers put them in cases based on their needs/ price/ etc. Everyone did this, including Rolex, AP, Patek, etc. I feel like the in house movement became a justification for higher prices and brand differentiation. I myself have fallen victim to the "well it isnt an in house movement" mentality, but I think I am more put off by the lack of value (I'm admittedly cheap) that many makers put into their watches. I have a Hamilton Field watch that I absolutely love. It has what I consider to be the perfect dial and it was I think the cheapest watch I've had since I started buying them. It also has (I believe) the same movement in it as an IWC Petit Prince with the blue sunburst dial, which I think is just gorgeous. The Hamilton retails for I think $495, the IWC $3,950. I am more than happy to pay a premium for better finishing, etc, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me that there is an additional $3,500 worth of value in the IWC over the Hamilton. In other words, what am I paying for? It just feels a little lazy at what I perceive to be an inflated price.

Thoughts?

Even as recently as 20 years ago there were more high end companies using outsourced movements. I think the idea that a watch using an inhouse movement is better than an outsourced movements often overlooks the idea that not all are created equally. Sales people tend to emphasize this fact as they often are just sales people who know little beyond what the sales brochure tells them.

I've never felt that having an inhouse movement was the end all be all of a watch or a reason to buy a particular watch. Sure it can help justify the cost of a watch, or be an example of commitment to horology, and the level of quality that one gets when buying watch X. In more modest price ranges, it might also be nice to know that the movement powering your $5K watch isn't largely similar to that found in a $700 watch. However, there have been some outstanding outsourced movements from brands like Lemania, JLC, Piaget, AP etc. For example Patek used Lemania CH27 movements in the 5070 and 3970. You probably wouldn't have found the Lemania base that was used in those Pateks in anything else that had an MSRP that was under $20K (so you might find the base also used in some higher end Breguets, VCs and maybe one or two others). In addition, there are collector who will tell you that the calibers used in those Pateks were of such high levels of quality and workmanship, that they rival any inhouse movements made by major high end manufacturers. I've even seen some say, that Patek's newer automatic inhouse chronograph movements are simply not finished to as high a standard was what was used in the 5070 and 3970. Patek developed their in house chronograph because then they could control costs and supply.

None of my dress watches use an in house movement. However, I chose watches which used high grade base calibers from JLC, F.Piguet, and Piaget. In fact one watch I own in a rectangular case uses a rectangular movement. In watches made around 2005 or so, most rectangular watches that used movements (even Patek and AP ) that were small round movements (sometimes from ladies watches) because it was cheaper than developing a movement specific to a particular case. I'm not saying that the movements used in the rectangular Patek or AP weren't nice...merely that they were used as a cost saving measure so they are not anything really special.

There are great watches with movements that were outsourced and great watches with inhouse movements. Its important to remember that there can be vast differences in quality and price and that one shouldn't lump all in house movements or all outsourced movements into a single category of either being in improvement or a downgrade to a watch or a brand.

 

[wristandfeet]

Sorry, but I disagree. That's like saying that because the techs at the dealership who work on Ferraris can also work on Alfa Romeos, Fiats etc... that the level of quality on everything is essentially at the level of workmanship in a Fiat.

Well, if your Ferraris can only be worked on by technicians who mostly work on Fiats, then I would think that the long run quality of the Ferrari would suffer, and the initial premium you paid for Ferrari would be lost upon subsequent service.

JLC does not supply parts outside of Richemont service center. And for most of us, sending watches to Richemont is the only option. If there were viable service alternatives readily available for JLC clients in the US, thats a different story.

 

[Dino944]

Well, if your Ferraris can only be worked on by technicians who mostly work on Fiats, then I would think that the long run quality of the Ferrari would suffer, and the initial premium you paid for Ferrari would be lost upon subsequent service.

Yes, but you are negating the idea that usually people work there way up to the more advanced items. So usually the guy learned to work on Chevys or Fiats and then moved onto Ferraris. The same is true of watches in terms of a person starts out working on basic time only pieces, then moves on to more complicated pieces.

A person who can work on the complicated or more advanced items can certainly work on the more basic items when things are slow. The entry level person isn't going to be given a perpetual calendar watch to work on when the most experienced master watchmaker is on vacation. Furthermore, I don't think that the quality of a JLC time only watch would suffer if a guy who normally works on Panerais or Baume & Mercier time only pieces (or even chronograhs) works on the JLC watch time only piece.

 

[MrUnderwood]

I agree with both of the aforementioned points:

1. Questionable value proposition of ETA based luxury brand watches
2. Questionable value proposition of most (not all) "in-house" movements

I personally divide watches into two groups: tool vs art. For tool, I think the aforementioned points are particularly viable. For art, perhaps less so. I believe most of us treat watches as tools, rather than art.

Mechanical tool watches should be legible, accurate, reliable, and serviceable. In my experience, Rolex is the king in this category. Any 30+ year old Rolex can be sent to RSC and come out running COSC. And to me, the best alternative in this category is ETA. Most ETA movements can be regulated to run accurately. And the true advantage of an ETA movement is that in 10 years time , you can just replace the whole darn movement with a brand new identical ETA movement, at a fraction of a Rolex service cost. In terms of value proposition, I think a modern Rolex or a generic ETA are truly hard to beat at their respective price points, purely from a functional standpoint. (Full disclosure, I own a number of non-Rolex non-ETA tool watches that I absolutely treasure; but that's solely based on sentiment and not function.)

Timepieces that I consider as art are completely different beasts. There, the value is in the eyes of the beholder, and requires some familiarity with the the history of watchmaking, movement finishing techniques, and sometimes even the philosophy or persona of the watchmaker himself (Philip Dufour, Kari Voutilainen, Laurent Ferrier, FP Journ, Habring2). Broadly speaking, I place vintage and independents in this category. Here, functional value proposition plays a substantially lower role in determining (secondary) market price. And as with other fine arts, the secondary market price fluctuates much more with media exposure and the economy at large.

Very good post.

I agree with Rolex if you look in the past, i think the hefty price increases in the last 10-15? years has ruined the brand (similar to some Omega models). I still very much like their basic sports models (Explorer, Submariner), and their in-house movements actually works! But again, i think their pricing (and their high brand recognition) is probably not my cup of tea.

I like you're categories of tool and art watches too some extend, but i think there needs to be some sub-categories in the first since ETA movements are everywhere. Most of brands "entry luxury" line-up is basically ETA or "modified" ETA. If you take IWC; you need to pay SERIOUS price if you want their in-house, otherwise you are stuck with basically same movements that much less expensive watches uses. Hence paying for brand and aesthetics.

The destination where i am with watches is whether i want to pay for entry luxury (brand and design) or get a less expensive Tissot/Mido knowing that they have similar durable quality automatic ETA moments and similar quality and finish at 1/6 of the price of entry luxury.

 

[wristandfeet]

Yes, but you are negating the idea that usually people work there way up to the more advanced items. So usually the guy learned to work on Chevys or Fiats and then moved onto Ferraris. The same is true of watches in terms of a person starts out working on basic time only pieces, then moves on to more complicated pieces.

A person who can work on the complicated or more advanced items can certainly work on the more basic items when things are slow. The entry level person isn't going to be given a perpetual calendar watch to work on when the most experienced master watchmaker is on vacation. Furthermore, I don't think that the quality of a JLC time only watch would suffer if a guy who normally works on Panerais or Baume & Mercier time only pieces (or even chronograhs) works on the JLC watch time only piece.

From my personal experience (others may have different experiences), of the 4 times I've sent my JLC to Richemont, 3 were disappointing: the case gets scratched up more than before, leaving finger prints on my rotor, and time keeping came back worse than before, more than +7 seconds per day. Sending the watches back would address one issue, but create another. Not to mention the complete lack of communication with the service center. On the other hand, the two times that I sent in my ALS's to Alkis or the one time that I sent in my Rolex to RSC, no additional scratches were found, and time keeping remained spot on.

I am not an insider at the Richemont Service Center, and I don't doubt that they give lower price-point pieces to beginner watchmakers first. But the service I received there lacked the attention to detail that the beautifully designed JLC pieces (be it time only) should receive.

I do hope that Richemont addresses this, so that I can confidently buy JLC's again. Again, just my personal experience. Others may have different views.

 

[Belligero]

@wristandfeet

This is so funny; i have similar thoughts - not exactly in regards to the service but more the movements. I have been struggling with either purchasing a IWC Mark XVI or a Omega 2254 - but the more i learn about "modified ETA movements" that they have branded their own "in-house" calibre the harder it gets to justify their price point.

Basically, you are paying a premium for the name and perhaps (this is murky waters) some improvements - but it is difficult to say how much - the Omega 2254 seems more engineered.

ETA produces serious movements, that have passed the test of time and should NOT be look downed upon - the questions is rather, why not purchasing other brands with similar ETA movements for a alot less. I am starting to consider a nice Tissot with one of the good ETA's in stead.

How about a nice Datejust instead?

 

[Dino944]

Very good post.

I agree with Rolex if you look in the past, i think the hefty price increases in the last 10-15? years has ruined the brand (similar to some Omega models). I still very much like their basic sports models (Explorer, Submariner), and their in-house movements actually works! But again, i think their pricing (and their high brand recognition) is probably not my cup of tea.

I suppose everyone's experience and feelings regarding price increases vary (although none of us like them). Yes, Rolex has had price increases in the past. However, if you look at the what the competition charges, I don't think on most models the prices are reasonable for what you are getting. A friend of mine used to always buy Omegas and Breitlings and felt Rolex was overpriced. However, is opinion in light of offerings from the competition is now that Rolex pricing is reasonable relative to others.

IMHO, for many years models like the stainless steel Daytona were actually very under priced. In the 1990s the MSRP of a steel Datyona was $3800, then $4350, and then $5100 then finally $5500. Then when the latest 116520 came out around 2000/2001 it was $6000 for several years and only went to $6500 in 2005. Meanwhile in the late 90s early 2000s... a VC or AP chronograph would have run your about $11,000-12,500, Breguets and BPs were in the $9,000 range, and a Pasha Chronograph from Cartier would cost between $6800 and $9100 depending on the year.

I hate price increases, but IMHO, many other companies were overcharging relative to Rolex pricing.

From my personal experience (others may have different experiences), of the 4 times I've sent my JLC to Richemont, 3 were disappointing: the case gets scratched up more than before, leaving finger prints on my rotor, and time keep came back worse than before, more than +7 seconds per day. Sending the watches back would address one issue, but create another. Not to mention the complete lack of communication with the service center. On the other hand, the two times that I sent in my ALS's to Alkis or the one time that I sent in my Rolex to RSC, no additional scratches were found, and time keeping remained spot on.

I am not an insider at the Richemont Service Center, and I don't doubt that they give lower price-point pieces to beginner watchmakers first. But the service I received there lacked the attention to detail that the beautifully designed JLC pieces (be it time only) should receive.

I do hope that Richemont addresses this, so that I can confidently buy JLC's again. Again, just my personal experience. Others may have different views.

I'm sorry to hear about the poor service experiences you have received from Richemont. Its definitely a shame when careless employees make mistakes such as leaving finger prints on the rotor or on the inside of the sapphire crystal, or scratch the watch, etc. I will say that no service center is perfect, and I have also experienced a few issues when watches went to Rolex for service years ago...such as leaving scratches where there previously were none. I do think in recent years Rolex has service has improved. I also have a friend who years ago had numerous issues getting an Omega Seamaster serviced. In addition, I've read some comments about service that was great from Patek and AP, but I have also read about service experiences that have been less than impressive from each. I doubt any of the companies are quite as focused on the servicing aspect of watches as they are sales.

 

[wristandfeet]

@Dino944 your last sentence is the sobering truth I couldn't agree more.

 

[Dino944]

@Dino944 your last sentence is the sobering truth I couldn't agree more.

Yes, I wish I didn't feel that way. Most companies and their dealers try to make buyers feel special, telling them about how old the company is, their rich history of contributing to the world of horology, and giving them a sense that buying this watch will make them a part of "The Rolex, Patek, AP, JLC, Omega, IWC etc Family." They have launch parties for new models or around the holidays if you are deemed a good client. They also spend a ton of money on celebrity ambassadors, who don't mean sh!t to me.

However, once you are an owner, you never get the same sense of enthusiasm or interest to help you when your bring the watch in for service. I'd like to see the companies have "Service Ambassadors" - perhaps people who really work hard to make the service experience perfect from beginning to end. And how about a service party for people who have owned their watches X years or more and had service etc.

Perhaps the difference in the eyes of the company between buying and servicing is before you buy, you don't need them and they have to worry about you giving your hard earned money to a competitor. Once you own the watch, you need them for parts and service. You can't go to Rolex and bring your IWC for service...so they know you're essentially tied to them as long as you own the watch (since most companies don't sell parts to independent watch makers or service centers). Oh well, perhaps that is why as impractical as it is, my Dad used to buy a new watch, wear it till it needed service, put it in a drawer and buy a new watch, and the cycle goes on and on