|
Ah, watch collecting! This insane past time that we all share! I mean honestly, let’s think about it for a moment, many of us (myself included) spend multiple paychecks on these little things that, with today’s technologies, are practically devoid of real function and are purely fanciful, impractical devices. We spend hours scouring online for information, stare at pictures, flip through magazines, travel through time zones to meet previously unknown friends….all because of this powerful pull this hobby has on us.
I could go on and on giving examples of how insane this hobby can make us, I am the freak that has chosen a holiday destination based on a proposed multi watch trade, I am the disturbed individual who has been caught polishing his watches naked, and I am the deranged person who stayed up late refreshing the Paneristi website waiting for the new SIHH releases.
I was at my good friend Khalid’s house the other day, as we were enjoying some local coffee and limited edition Swiss chocolates (lol) the discussion inevitably turned to watches, particularly Panerai and Audimars Piquet.
I was fortunate to see his watch collection up close and personal as he was showing me his wonderful new straps (I take full blame for turning him into a Strap addict!) and I pulled up pictures of the new Offshores on my iPhone, we had a laugh about how an outsider would perceive our discussion, a series of model numbers being described and acquisitions discussed, as the talk of two mental patients. Especially since the watches sprawled in front of us and the pictures we were pulling up looked almost identical to the non-informed person. We had agreed that the hobby was as obscure as many others; stamps, coins, art, vintage cars, aged cigars….all the objects of desire and collecting.
But what makes these items so desirable is as different as the people who collect them. A study in the field of understanding the peculiarities and specifics of these hobbies in general, and watch collecting specifically, would require a deep knowledge of the watch world from a buyer’s point of view, an at least basic understanding of business and marketing, and a more than passing interest in the human psyche. I don’t claim to be the most knowledgeable or experienced in any of these fields, but here are my thoughts on the subject, take them as you will.
From what I have seen, there are four main factors that define how we are attracted to a watch and its desirability, or lack thereof.
Functionality:
Before we delve into the specifics, it is important to imagine how watches came about and what they are now. There is no space here to discuss how and when the evolution of telling time came about, though man’s obsession and dependency on telling time could be traced back to the oldest civilizations, techniques constantly evolving with them; starting from simply looking up at the sun, to devices such as the sun dial, to mechanical little marvels that could be carried in a pocket, to modern day atomic clocks synchronized and able to keep a remarkable level of accuracy. During that period, many needs where identified and met, such as the chronograph for military uses and medical requirements, the perpetual calendar, the hacking function, the instant reset, the mechanical alarm….all solutions to practical problems that where later surpassed and replaced with far more effective digital era alternatives. But our obsession takes us on a trip in a narrow road forked in the river of time, where we obsess over advancements in micromechanics, a technology that should have long been abandoned, where some of us even go as far as to acquire something like a tourbillion, a device which was born out of the need to increase accuracy, and is by today’s standards exceptionally impractical, if at all effective.
Taking that into perspective, a new functionality has been associated with the wrist watch, irrelevant to its time keeping goal, that of serving as an accessory. I shy away from the world Jewelry as I find it distasteful, and writing from a man’s perspective the only acceptable accessories a man should have in his possession should have a practical nature to them, if at least in theory. Their make and design would mirror the requirements, taste, and obviously financial capabilities of their owner. The universally accepted staples across the ages have been a pen, a set of cufflinks, a wrist or pocket watch, maybe even a finely made keychain or a handsome pocket knife. Everything else, earrings, necklaces, bracelets etc on a man are purely decorative.
Most of us are not willing to let go of that aspect of our daily carry, for some it is a matter of status, so the effect on people is what is desired, for others it is a matter of taste or even expression, but we will get into that later.
That is not to say that watches now have been completely removed from their practical use, we can still claim they are tools due to the fact that it is far easier to conveniently glance at our wrists than to pull out a phone. But who are we kidding?
My first claim is that wrist watches function as accessories and an outlet for our expression. And given their inclusion into our routine, their practical functionality adds desirability (chrono, alarm, calendar or simply time etc)
Brand Image: Heritage, Manufacture Prowess, and Brand Name Status.
The brand image factor is a particularly complex and almost purely sentimental one, and I find that breaking it up into subsections makes it easier to address.
Heritage:
Obviously, one of the most desirable features in a watch brand is a rich and accomplished history, a heritage of involvement in the extreme undertakings of humanity is particularly attractive most prominently military activities, extreme sports, and applied scientific endeavors. Some brands immediately come to the mind of the avid watch enthusiast when reminded of those fields; Panerai is the quintessential military dive instrument for example, and I can’t see a picture of a Messerschmitt Bf 109 without thinking of an IWC Pilot’s watch, and who of us has not at least considered the iconic Speedmaster for its aerospace connection. Other brands, such as Breguet or Patek Phillipe have a different kind of heritage; rather than being driven by the instrumentational needs of potential customers, these brands tend to exist in a world of their own, focusing on the art of watchmaking and horological refinement. Very few brands are akin to the indomitable Jaeger le Coultre, which has an uncanny history of involvement and accomplishment in every possible field of horology. Their watches where of the very first to be used for Deepsea diving, Military use, Sport, and at the same time has been producing extremely fanciful and delicate timepieces that can only be described as art.
Naturally, the perceived image of a brand’s heritage depends on the person’s own interests and education on the subject.
Manufacturer Prowess:
I was looking forward to writing this section, as I have been meaning to vent!
First a little definition. A “Manufacturer” is a watch company that is capable of building at least one movement completely in house, as opposed to companies that rely on third party manufacturers to supply the movements, either as a modifiable base or a final solution. But not all manufacture houses are created equal, for instance some companies outsource the manufacture of gears, many utilize third party balance springs, and some even outsource the design process. The ultimate manufacture is one that completely designs, creates, and finishes its movements in house and I could go a step further and say even create its own alloys, such as Rolex and Seiko, as an indication of its manufacturing competence.
Naturally, a company that can build its own watch movement, and more so a company that only uses in house movements, deserves more respect and attention than a company that only uses outsourced ebauches. But I feel this is getting out of hand, and we are now at a level where we are obsessing over the terminology, and losing perspective. For instance, not all in house movements are more desirable, and there are many instances where I would prefer a non in house movement.
A prime example would be the Royal Oak Offshore chronograph movement. For years, fans of the brand wished for an in house AP caliber to be housed in their Offshore cases, in place of the excellent Jaeger Le Coultre chronograph movement. AP Finally responded by building adding a chronograph on their Royal Oak caliber. I will admit to be one the people who was excited by the idea, and instantly bought a Safari.
In retrospect, I have to say that I would prefer a Safari with the Jaeger movement! For one thing, the movement was designed and built from the ground up as a chronograph, as opposed to a modified base. This also means that the pushers on the case are not aligned with the crown, and the original JLC caliber was not just another chronograph (nothing JLC ever is) and was exceptionally finished and upgraded by AP. The old Safari is more desirable in my view.
Also, if Panerai would produce a modern Radiomir with a Rolex movement, I am sure it would demand far more than its in house version, and how! Speaking of Rolex, last I checked the Zenith Daytonas where fetching a hefty premium as well.
Another pet peeve of mine is when people say something like “That Panerai has the same movement as a cheap Hamilton” or “your Breitling has the same innards as a USD400 Tissot”….please be quite. I cant stand it when someone tries to sound educated about something he clearly understands nothing about, and I despise the fact that I used to be one of those people.
The fact of the matter is that these serious brands take these proven designs, and improve them to the extent that they are barely recognizable. Panerai for instance adds a Swan neck regulator to its modified 6497 movements, redesigned the bridges, and requires a much higher level of finishing. It even increased the power reserve, that can hardly be said to be the same movement!!!
I think I might have drifted off point here, but the clear argument is that a brand’s manufacturing prowess earns it credibility and adds desirability to the models across the range, although I personally believe that perception as to models has been exaggerated as of late.
Brand Name Status:
As I previously said I believe, watches are accessories today more than they are pure tools and unfortunately many people treat them only as such. In many cases a person shopping for a new watch for apply the same criteria they would when buying any other luxury item, and brand name recognition and status counts. Which is why we are unfortunately tortured with the introduction, and worse, success, of such watches as the Chanel ceramic “divers” (rated at 50M !!!) and the Ralph Lauren things, even Dunhill and Christian Dior have “watches” for sale, which are little more than bracelets that tell time.
Middle ground watch makers such as Cartier tend to have a bit more legitimacy to their offerings, but nothing in my opinion compares to a specialized watch company such as a Breitling, Rolex, or A Lange.
Like it or not, to many people the perception of the company as exclusive, luxurious, or envy-worthy is a part of the decision making process for many less serious buyers out there.
Innovation and Technology:
Let’s face it; there have not been a serious revolution in the watch industry for what, 60 years? Sure minor leaps here and there but the basic design and implementation is about the same. The only real innovation I can think of in recent years is the Seiko Spring Drive, but that does introduce a circuit and can’t be said to be an extension of the classical watchmaker’s art. Innovation however does seem to be focused on taking the classical watchmakers craft to new levels with more complex movements, functionality, new materials, and breaking the boundaries on design.
For instance Panerai has watches with 10 hour power reserves, and has shown the ability to innovate with the introduction of new materials like bronze, composite, and ceramics. The combination of the Radiomir case with what is now known as the Luminor bezel is an example of coming up with a new design, within its boundaries.
Many other brands, such as Jaeger, AP, and IWC show the same innovation, and is why they are highly regarded in the watch collecting community. Even start up brands like Linde Werdin demand we take notice due to their striking design, impressive functionality, and use of high tech materials.
Movement:
The movement in and within itself, might be one of the most important aspects of a potential purchase to a collector. Although I did mention the movement in a previous section, I mean here to discuss the movement naked from all other superficial aspects such as perception or mass production, but as an element within itself based on its design and implementation. Although this does extend from the Innovation and Technology section, I feel it deserves its own section.
I have written on what makes a movement desirable before, at least from my perspective. To lightly touch on it here, factors such as the design of the movement and the finishing, both technical and decorative, are determinant to what constitutes a quality and desirable caliber. Aldo, such factors as robustness, ingenuity, and simplicity or complexity are of interest as well to the educated collector, and is why most brands offer at the very least an overview of which movement is used in their various models. If you are handed a Vacheron Constantin Patrimony Chronograph and told it cost USD 80,000, you might find that hard to believe, until you flip it over. Many collectors value the quality of the movement far more than the case it houses, and is why in many watches the movement constitutes over 90% of its overall value.
Well look at that! I started this thread literally hours ago and thought I would type mu thoughts in a paragraph or two, well I have never been accused of being succinct, though I have been told I am overly analytical and boring which I am sure you have discovered by now! Sorry about the ramble, but I find it healthy to put my thoughts in ink (or e-ink as it may be). Just my thoughts, which are nothing more than my perceptions of this odd little hobby of ours.
As an aside, I came upon a great Rolex article the other day in IWW and this post reminded me of it, it speaks of how people perceived wrist watches when they were first introduced, here it is :
“Wristlets, as they were called, were reserved for women, and considered more of a passing fad than a serious timepiece. In fact, they were held in such disdain that many a gentlemen were actually quoted to say they “would sooner wear a skirt as wear a wristwatch”.
The established watchmaking community looked down on them as well. Because of their size, few believed wristlets could be made to achieve any level of accuracy, nor could they withstand the basic rigors of human activity. Therefore, very few companies produced them in quantity, with the vast majority of those being small ladies’ models, with delicate fixed wire or chain-link bracelets.
This all started to change in the nineteenth century, when soldiers discovered their usefulness during wartime situations. Pocket watches were clumsy to carry and thus difficult to operate while in combat. Therefore, soldiers fitted them into primitive “cupped” leather straps so they could be worn on the wrist, thereby freeing up their hands during battle. It is believed that Girard-Perregaux equipped the German Imperial Naval with similar pieces as early as the 1880s, which they wore on their wrists while synchronizing naval attacks, and firing artillery.
Decades later, several technological advents were credited with the British victory in the Anglo-Boer War (South Africa 1899-1902), including smokeless gunpowder, the magazine-fed rifle and even the automatic or machine gun. However, some would argue that it was a not-so-lethal device that helped turn the tide into Britain’s favor: the wristwatch.
While the British troops were superiorly trained and equipped, they were slightly outnumbered, and at a disadvantage while attacking the Boer’s heavily entrenched positions. Thanks to these recently designed weapons, a new age of war had emerged, which, now more than ever, required tactical precision. British officers achieved success by using these makeshift wristwatches to coordinate simultaneous troop movements, and synchronize flanking attacks against the Boer’s formations.
In fact, an “Unsolicited Testimonial” dated June 7, 1900, appeared in the 1901, Goldsmith’s Company Watch and Clock Catalog as follows:
“… I wore it continually in South Africa on my wrist for 3 ½ months. It kept most excellent time, and never failed me.—Faithfully yours, Capt. North Staffs. Regt.”
This testimonial appeared below an advertisement for a military pocket watch listed as The Company’s “Service” Watch, and was further described as: “The most reliable timekeeper in the World for Gentlemen going on Active Service or for rough wear.”
In 1906, the evolution of wristlets took an even bigger step with the invention of the expandable flexible bracelet, as well as the introduction of wire loops (or lugs) soldered onto small, open-faced pocket watch cases, allowing leather straps to be more easily attached. This aided their adaptation for military use and thus marked a turning point in the development of wristwatches for men.
Another timely issue was the vulnerability of the glass crystal when worn during combat. This was addressed by utilizing “pierced metal covers”, frequently called shrapnel guards. These were basically metal grills (often made of silver), placed over the dial of the watch—thereby protecting the glass from damage while still allowing the time to be easily read.”
Food for thought.
_________________
Certified watch nut.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
