[HN Gopher] The frenzied world of rare watches
___________________________________________________________________
The frenzied world of rare watches
Author : adam
Score : 46 points
Date : 2022-04-26 16:47 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.vanityfair.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.vanityfair.com)
| UmYeahNo wrote:
| I've been a fan of budget Seiko mechanical watches from the 60's
| and 70's. Most of the time they run well, servicing isn't
| terribly expensive, and you can get them for usually a few
| hundred dollars, maybe a grand for a really nice specimen. What's
| cool about them is you can decipher the serial number [0] to the
| month and year they were made, so they can commemorate an event,
| even if it happened a long time ago. But you do have to watch out
| for counterfeits. [1]
|
| [0] https://retroseiko.com/seiko-serial.htm [1]
| https://www.watchesguild.com/articles/Fake-Seiko-Watch
|
| Edited to fix grammar
| jacquesm wrote:
| I have one of these, a '5' and it still keeps time just fine
| after many years. It's a completely mechanical watch, no
| batteries to replace and no frills. It will likely outlive me.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I have a "5" that went through two bracelets before dying. At
| the time Seiko wanted a flat rate ($149 or $199?) to repair.
| I got a new kinetic for less than that, and I don't have to
| set the time weekly.
| UmYeahNo wrote:
| Seiko 5's are great, rock solid, last forever. My dad handed
| down his Seiko 5 to me, it was a 1982 model, that still runs
| like a champ. Take that Apple Watch we'll see if you're still
| running in 2062.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > Take that Apple Watch we'll see if you're still running
| in 2062.
|
| To be fair, smart watches would likely last that long if it
| wasn't for planned obsolescence (via software "updates"),
| anti-repair practices (such as impossibility to disassemble
| them and source genuine parts) and vendor lock-in.
| smcl wrote:
| I bought a new Seiko 5 that gradually started running
| faster to the extent that after a couple of years it's now
| couple of seconds fast every minute. So after a day or so
| it's pretty far off the actual time. I have an Apple Watch
| now which is very nice for doing sports or sneakily firing
| off messages during meetings, but when I got the Seiko I
| was determined that if it held firm I would use it as long
| as required. Maybe I should get it serviced, it could be a
| very easy fix but I felt really let down.
|
| So yeah, seems a little bit YMMV. The Apple Watch has its
| drawbacks and definitely has a finite lifespan with little
| hope of repair in the event of a failure, but it doesn't
| let me down in the one thing a watch is supposed to do.
| adamomada wrote:
| This sounds a lot like the watch has been magnetized.
| First thing to try is degaussing it
| Nextgrid wrote:
| If you're into watches there are good channels on YouTube
| that explain watch repair such as the Watch Repair
| Channel or Wristwatch Revival.
| jacquesm wrote:
| You can just take it into a shop and have it regulated,
| won't take more than a few minutes and it will be good as
| new again.
| smcl wrote:
| I'll give it a go
| ilamont wrote:
| I am a fan of another Japanese watch brand, Citizen,
| particularly the Eco-Drive models. Solar powered, very durable,
| and they look great. Prices range from $100 for basic models to
| over $3000 for the Hakuto-R (there is some connection to the
| Japanese lunar mission,
| https://www.citizenwatch.com/us/en/product/CC4016-75E.html).
| Most Citizen watches are water resistant as well.
|
| I've had one model running continuously for 12 years. I love
| never having to charge it or change the battery.
| helij wrote:
| After a search for a perfect watch buying and then selling
| anything from very cheap to very expensive I ended up with a
| solar G-Shock square with radio timekeeping. Indestructible,
| always on and always accurate. The perfect watch.
| Terry_Roll wrote:
| I do love a G-Shock, had a few but I do break them, straps
| usually break but the casing gets scuffed and damaged from
| time to time, however they are the closest I've found to be
| indestructible which is why I keep getting them, havent
| found anything better.
| Nition wrote:
| Seconding this. Eco-Drive is great. Keeps accurate time,
| never needs a battery change or winding. Prices are
| reasonable, and they come in lots of different styles.
| cletus wrote:
| So I really like mechanical watches but I've kind of lost
| interest because it's nigh-on impossible to buy anything new
| (unless you're a high net worth individual) and the secondary
| market is utterly insane.
|
| Example: Rolex Daytona in steel retails for ~$13,000. You can buy
| that from the store and immediately sell it on the secondary
| market for $30,000+. The Patel Phillippe Nautilus 5711A is
| similar ($25-30,000 retail, $75,000+ secondary).
|
| As it happens when the current Rolex Daytona came out a few years
| ago the market wasn't anywhere near as hot and the market was
| flooded with people flipping the old model for the new. I
| happened to buy one of the old Daytonas for $10,000. Last time I
| checked it sells on the secondary market for $35,000. It's nuts.
|
| For anyone who is interested in this, the plae I would start is
| with only these two brands: Rolex (first) and Patel Phillippe
| (second). They completely dominate any sort of demand and have a
| healthy secondary market. With vintage watches you get into all
| sorts of weird preferences that make massive differences in value
| and some of those details can be pretty minor (eg rail dials
| [1]). Some go for astronomical prices, most notably the Paul
| Newman Daytonas [2], which are funny because when they were
| production watches they typically sat on shelves for years
| because no one wanted them.
|
| It's a fascinating world because what you discover is that Rolex
| are absolute masters of brand management. Like they are
| absolutely second to none. Omega, for example, produces some high
| quality watches, sometimes much better than the Rolex equivalent
| from a pure utility POV (eg Planet Ocean over DSSD). But Omega
| produces too many watches and too many models. Rolex quite
| famously has very limited product lines, which is fantastic for a
| secondary market. Rolex watches really are almost as liquid as
| cash.
|
| The other interesting thing is you get into the pedigree and
| history of each of these watches. For example, GMT watches came
| about in the 1960s to solve a need as pilots started crossing
| time zones. The Daytona was for race car drivers. Submariners
| were (and are) for divers. Sure they'r emore of a fashion item
| now but the history is fascinating.
|
| [1]: https://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-blog/resources/rolex-
| rail-...
|
| [2]: https://www.bobswatches.com/paul-newman-rolex-daytona
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| >>So I really like mechanical watches but I've kind of lost
| interest because it's nigh-on impossible to buy anything new
| (unless you're a high net worth individual)
|
| As a sanity/reality check, I think we really really need to
| distinguish "Mechanical Watch" (which can be gotten for as low
| as $25USD for a crappy cheap but functional and self-winding
| mechanical piece), and "Rolex" :->
| maigret wrote:
| Indeed, many companies serve all kinds of budgets. There is
| interesting stuff at all prices.
| adamdusty wrote:
| Bulova has dozens of amazing automatic pieces on their site for
| under $1000, many under $500.
| ilamont wrote:
| _Some go for astronomical prices, most notably the Paul Newman
| Daytonas [2], which are funny because when they were production
| watches they typically sat on shelves for years because no one
| wanted them._
|
| There was an episode of Antiques Roadshow where someone brought
| in one of these in new condition. I think the story was he had
| purchased it at the military Px in the late 60s and then it
| ended up in safe deposit box for many decades. When the auction
| expert told him it was worth $400k he literally fell down in
| shock.
|
| ETA: $500k. He bought it in the early 70s.
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2020/01/29/a...
| blakesterz wrote:
| I guess it's like any other collectable, just way WAY more
| expensive. Though I'm not sure what's lost by wearing it?
| "Such market conditions have presented a dilemma for collectors
| who actually want to show off their popular models, knowing the
| message that will send to other connoisseurs. "If you wear them,
| you're an idiot, " says one collector. "Either you paid five
| times retail, or you bought it retail and you're too stupid to
| have flipped it.""
| blantonl wrote:
| "too stupid to have flipped it"
|
| What a time to be alive when you're called stupid for not being
| a greedy "playa" flipper.
|
| Maybe some folks who waited on a waiting list for a couple
| years want to wear a watch they purchased in good health?
| Aea wrote:
| You're risking damage, you're risking theft, you're paying
| higher insurance premiums in either case, etc, etc.
| rosndo wrote:
| Damage isn't a huge problem, watches tend to be pretty sturdy
| and mere scratches aren't going to hurt resale value in most
| cases (unless you have them repaired!)
|
| Theft on the other hand is a pretty big concern, I just had a
| 100k patek ripped off my wrist. I'm very lucky though, the
| local store manager was sympathetic and managed to help me
| skip the queue for a (slightly more desirable) replacement,
| effectively nullifying any financial damage.
|
| Lesson learned, not walking around with uninsured watches no
| matter how nice the area is. Insurance premiums aren't too
| bad though.
| Aea wrote:
| Insurance on a $100K watch through Hodinkee is around $1400
| a year, although I'm sure you can get a better deal.
|
| If you're an enthusiast then you're paying for peace of
| mind. If you're an investor then that's the equivalent of a
| 1.4% management fee per year.
|
| The price action right now is absolutely ridiculous, but if
| you already bought at say 5x retail then that dramatically
| eats into your potential profits. It's just not worth it,
| you shove it into a safe and never let it see the light of
| day.
| usmannk wrote:
| > effectively nullifying any financial damage.
|
| Aren't you out the 100k?
| solveit wrote:
| They went on to buy a 130k market value watch for 30k
| (retail) or something
| usmannk wrote:
| Ah I see, I misread the 100k as retail (for both).
| prova_modena wrote:
| Again like you said, the reason not to wear is nothing specific
| to watches. At the high end of collectibles markets, condition
| grading is extremely fine and detailed. A knowledgeable person
| can see the difference between something that has never left
| the box and something that was used/worn once. Additionally,
| there's often a substantial value difference between a #1
| condition item and a #2 condition item. As the participants in
| any collector market become more sophisticated, condition
| difference between individual items becomes both more legible
| (as grading methods are created) and has a greater effect on
| value (as the market expands).
|
| There's also a sort of status game being described in the part
| you quoted. Self-identified collectors/dealers intentionally
| don't wear their collection in order to signal their
| understanding of the watches' value and therefore their own
| knowledge as connoisseurs.
| waynesonfire wrote:
| Oh, and let me guess, the collector would happily take the
| watch off their hands? Who's the idiot?
| overtonwhy wrote:
| Ultra wealthy people obsessed with fancy jewelry while 12% of the
| world doesn't have electricity at home. Sad. Please put your
| resources to work doing something beneficial for society. Maybe
| this film scene can move your heart: https://youtu.be/W9vj2Wf57rQ
|
| How many lives could that watch have saved?
| pmoriarty wrote:
| I wonder how many of these are counterfeit.
| bri3d wrote:
| I think that amongst the "high end," counterfeits are probably
| not that common. Dealers tend to have a reputation to maintain
| and even the best clones are easily distinguishable once the
| case-back is opened up and the movement inspected.
|
| There are a few rare Rolex models with "1:1" clones which can
| have an authentic movement installed. There may be some "high
| profile" counterfeits of these pieces floating around, but it's
| hard to say.
|
| I think that in the mid-market, counterfeits are probably more
| common than we would hope. Modern Rolex and especially Panerai
| clones are quite good, far from the Canal Street "folex" type
| watches of old. I bet that a large number of Panerai watches
| seen worn are fake. Panerai have an especially major problem
| with this because for years, they used commodity movements from
| ETA, sometimes lightly decorated (although sometimes not - see
| the "Brooklyn Bridge" Panerai scandal), rather than proprietary
| movements like Rolex. So movements were widely cloned, and for
| an even more accurate copy, one could engrave an authentic ETA
| movement with the Panerai finish and have an extremely
| difficult fake.
|
| This hobby is surprisingly open and very interesting - you can
| find forums like Replica Watch Info or /r/RepTime and learn in
| great detail the specific, minute differences between each
| replica factory's attempt at a counterfeit vs. the original.
| grog454 wrote:
| > learn in great detail the specific, minute differences
| between each replica factory's attempt at a counterfeit vs.
| the original.
|
| Can you provide some links to examples?
| Bud wrote:
| Google for "fake Rolex detection" and there's a lot of
| quality content on the first page of hits.
|
| This page seems to have some especially nice tips:
|
| https://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-blog/rolex-info/the-top-
| wa...
| bri3d wrote:
| The RWI Panerai forums have particularly, sometimes
| ridiculously, detailed breakdowns in general:
|
| https://forum.replica-
| watch.info/forum/panerai/9692510-somet...
|
| RepTime also have good movement breakdowns a lot of the
| time, this one with a focus on practicality of Rolex clone
| movements rather than gen vs rep: https://www.reddit.com/r/
| RepTime/comments/p7omhv/rolex_repli...
| Alex3917 wrote:
| Watches are a good example of the fact that, past a certain
| point, the only thing you can really do with money is paying
| other people to do your hobbies for you. Like you could learn how
| to make mechanical watches yourself, but wait, no, why not pay
| someone else to take up that hobby for you.
|
| At the same time, if you actually like doing your own hobbies
| then money loses its utility pretty quickly.
| havelhovel wrote:
| Like many things in the present day, a mechanical watch of the
| quality or provenance being discussed in this article is not
| something that can be built in one's spare time as a hobby,
| which means consumption is the only option for some truly
| interesting wrist baubles. And even though I refuse to call
| watch collecting a hobby, doing so doesn't preclude one from
| having other hobbies or interests where one may take on a more
| active role. The reality is some people can afford to have nice
| (or stupid) things while also having balanced fulfilling lives.
| kop316 wrote:
| After skimming through a large portion of George Daniel's book
| "Watchmaking", if anything, I very much appreciate how
| complicated making a mechanical watch is, and even more so, how
| easy it is to get things wrong. From what I saw, you have to
| have a lot of tooks to make your own mechanical watch, and it
| would not be something I would want to do without someone
| skilled in the craft.
|
| That is a long way of saying, I am confused on how making a
| mechanical watch is a "hobby"?
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > it would not be something I would want to do without
| someone skilled in the craft.
|
| I mean how is that different than any other hobby? I've never
| made a watch but I forage for mushrooms, and you wouldn't
| want to do that without being skilled in the craft either.
| It's pretty much the same for any hobby; the whole point of
| having a hobby is to become skilled at some esoteric thing.
| kop316 wrote:
| I would assume one could become skilled at mushroom
| foraging much, much faster and with much, much less tooling
| than creating a watch movement.
| nightski wrote:
| In my experience hobbies are typically far more expensive than
| paying someone else to do it purely due to economies of scale.
| random314 wrote:
| Not for veblen goods
| Nextgrid wrote:
| But the value of Veblen goods is based on paying for the
| real thing. If you build yourself a Rolex equivalent as
| part of your hobby it still won't be valued as a "proper"
| Rolex even if it was just as good quality-wise.
| [deleted]
| throw8383833jj wrote:
| I'm a newbie on this subject. can you really make your own
| watch? don't you need to buy all the pieces for it? or need a
| blacksmith shop or something? how much would it cost for
| someone to build a watch from scratch with no workshop or prior
| pieces on hand?
| solveit wrote:
| What people call watchmaking is actually usually watch
| assembling/repairing. As you say, you would need to be a good
| part of an entire supply chain to be able to make a watch in
| any real sense.
| kop316 wrote:
| If you are curious on actually making a watch movement, I
| recommend looking at George Daniel's book "Watchmaking". It
| is a very well put together book, but is also very
| technical.
| tempnow987 wrote:
| I'm a big fan of timex analog watches (not mechanical) for what
| its worth. They are much much less expensive than any of these
| here.
| adamomada wrote:
| You just reminded me, the other day I learned that Bill Gates,
| a man who could presumably have any watch in the world he
| wanted, has (or had recently) a $50 quartz diver made by Casio
| on his wrist. It's actually a pretty nice-looking watch, too
| (Casio Duro)
| RichardHeart wrote:
| I've got $8M of watches. Their utility to me is just to brag
| about them. Which is funny, because I'm only met with downvotes
| whenever I do :). But therein lies the rub. At a distance, people
| hate, but up close, they love. It's a perceived distance to
| cooperation. There's ingroup profit in hate at a distance. But
| when you can join a better in group, or add a new asset to the
| one you're in, it turns to love. Thus, I consider collectibles of
| all forms, a combination of social value plus a dash of scarcity
| mindset. Also, I believe the top is in, and watch values will go
| down along side equities with rising interest rates.
| mynameishere wrote:
| That's nice. I've got $8M of baseball cards. Says right here in
| this book.
| zmgsabst wrote:
| "I have two retirements worth of watches" is obviously the kind
| of bragging that puts people off.
|
| It's purely a show of higher social status which reminds them
| of suffering in their own life -- and how they will be unable
| to retire no matter how hard they work. You're making a
| triviality of their entire struggle in life.
|
| That kind of garish wealth display has led to the downfall and
| deaths of many aristocrats throughout history.
| randomhodler84 wrote:
| What is the allure of these things? They keep worse time that an
| ntp synced phone, have no internet connectivity and few features.
|
| It's all conspicuous consumption, right? If you know, you know --
| a way to signal wealth without being too brazen.
| maigret wrote:
| Did you never want something because it's nice and inspiring? A
| sports car, a big Lego, a cap of your sport hero, a computer
| full of LED? Did you want this only to impress others? Have you
| had such a watch on your wrist and felt how it wore? Once you
| start learning about how those are built etc this becomes a
| small hobby that's very nice to enjoy in all the trouble
| nowadays. Of course some wealthy people will buy those just
| because they can afford them, but those are not the collector
| enthusiasts who built the watch culture that allowed those
| brands to grow to where they are now.
|
| Watch enthusiasts will say all tech is conspicuous consumption
| because it lasts so little and loses value very quick. There is
| little more sustainable than a Rolex that still wears nice
| after 50 years, and can probably hold 100 if taken care of.
| randomhodler84 wrote:
| No, none of those things. And I have absolutely no interest
| in impressing others. I own basically nothing except 256-bit
| numbers. Never owned a watch.
|
| If you saw me IRL you would think I am a bum. It's much
| better that way to hide in plane sight.
|
| I agree that a lot of tech is conspicuous consumption --
| phones are classic example. I hadn't considered the longevity
| of the devices. This does increase their value.
| Guest19023892 wrote:
| Why do you assume all of these things only exist to impress
| others? There's a lot to appreciate in the design and
| craftsmanship of a well made product, its impact on
| culture, or its significance in history. Or maybe the
| object simply puts a smile on your face when you see it or
| touch it. That new phone could make someones work day more
| efficient. That diamond necklace could be a gift from their
| loved one and a reminder of the times they shared together
| when they look in the mirror. It seems a bit shortsighted
| to suggest that expensive things only exist to impress
| others.
| throw8383833jj wrote:
| and i'm surprised people still want to signal wealth, this day
| and age. I would imagine you'd be treated worse by the average
| person, if you're signaling wealth.
| adamdusty wrote:
| Only if you live entirely on the internet.
|
| I've never met anyone in real life that actually hates people
| with money.
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| >I would imagine you'd be treated worse by the average
| person, if you're signaling wealth.
|
| This runs completely counter to my personal experiences and
| observations.
| smackeyacky wrote:
| Mechanical watches are fun. You can buy something like an
| Invicta with a display back for $100 and see the moving parts
| as it runs. Sure you have to adjust the time, wind it etc. But
| that is part of the charm. Like a chunky, pre digital reminder
| of the past.
| randomhodler84 wrote:
| $100 is fine, I've spent more on beer in a night. I can see
| the charm in a $100 toy you wear on your wrist for fun. Thank
| you for your perspective.
| kop316 wrote:
| >What is the allure of these things?
|
| I like having something well made, looks nice, and will last on
| the order of decades. I also like not having something attached
| to my wrist that tries to grab my attention for every email,
| text, call, etc. that I get.
|
| > They keep worse time that an ntp synced phone
|
| There is nothing in my life that requires me to be in sync to a
| precision beyond +/- 30 seconds.
|
| > have no internet connectivity and few features
|
| Some folks (like myself) view that as a feature, not a bug. I
| actually like walking around without something constantly on my
| person that is always internet connected.
| goodpoint wrote:
| Conspicuous consumption and showing off status symbols.
| nightowl_games wrote:
| I bought a Casio F91W so I can turn my phone off at night and use
| the watch for an alarm clock. I'm happy to have the most popular
| watch in the world. It's simple, cheap, reliable, and has a retro
| look that has grown on me.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| When I "got into watches" a decade ago, I got a bunch of
| interesting looking ones from Gearbest I think (today it'd be
| Aliexpress). Mechanical, quartz, retro, futuristic, large &
| small, multi-dial crazy kitchy contraptions and plain classy
| ones. Got it happily in and out of my system for couple of
| hundred bucks _total_ , probably 12-18 or so different pieces
| :). Don't understand paying more than, say $300-400 for a
| watch, absolute _MAX_ - I think there 's a point up to which
| you get more reliability/features/functionality, and a point
| after which you don't.
|
| My favourite / most expensive watch is still the Citizen
| BlueAngel Navihawk (gift when I was taking flight lessons
| before my enthusiasm phase). It's also however by far the most
| finicky / least reliable of the bunch, so go figure :-/
| grog454 wrote:
| > Don't understand paying more than, say $300-400 for a
| watch, absolute MAX
|
| Based on some of the other posts in this thread it seems like
| there are some people who wouldn't understand paying _less_
| than $3000-4000. Interesting divergence for the same hobby!
| bri3d wrote:
| Cars are in the exact same place. Everything, even "mid-range" or
| "practical" cars, has gone ballistic valuation-wise, and owners
| are left trying to figure out whether to drive their cars or
| mothball them.
| lunaru wrote:
| A rare watch is an IYKYK item and the iconic pieces are
| immediately noticeable from across the room. I do wonder if the
| deflation in asset prices (driven by increase in interest rates)
| will put downward pressure on some of the craziness right now.
|
| But for someone who is outside looking in, and wondering what the
| fuss is all about: A watch, especially Patek Philippe is much
| better for signaling status to those you want to send that signal
| to, while completely being unnoticeable by an audience from whom
| you don't want negative attention. At the same time, it
| appreciates like fine art that you can take with you on your
| wrist. It has a lot of the characteristics of investment assets
| that are desirable.
|
| It's crypto v0.1.
| zucked wrote:
| I came into collecting modest watches around 2010. There was
| certainly a renewed interest in mechanical watches at the time, a
| lot of it being driven by things like MaleFashionAdvice on
| Reddit. I believe MFA had a significant hand in rescuing Seiko
| from obscurity with the SNK809 and SKX007. Old Seiko mechanical
| chronographs like the 6139 could be had readily for less than a
| thousand dollars. I had a beautifully restored one I bought and
| sold for around $300. The same watch is worth at least three
| times that today.
|
| At that time, it was still possible to acquire steel Rolexes at
| "modest" prices. As a goal to celebrate my (future) career
| achievements, I set my sights on a birth year Submariner - which
| were attainable at the $3,500+ price points at that time.
|
| You can't really buy a Submariner for less than $10k today. As
| mentioned in the article, Rolex dealers and others play crazy
| games where stainless models are virtually unobtanium. Even
| trickle down brands (Tudor, for example) have ridden the wave. I
| can no longer afford, nor do I want to afford, a birth year
| submariner. To me, the beauty in those watches is that they are
| tools; they were built to serve a purpose.
|
| I ended up lucking into a Tudor Pelagos Left Hand Drive. The
| ultimate tool watch - light titanium, great lume, etc. I wear it.
| I wear it hard. It's been with me for dozens of life momentous
| events. When the watch craze passes, I hope I can pass it down to
| my kiddo as a reminder of my existence.
| vgeek wrote:
| If you like lume, check out tritium watches from companies like
| Luminox or Traser. They have automatics that are reasonably
| priced and are super utilitarian. Most of their models are
| field or divers, so they may fit your preferences.
| adamomada wrote:
| My personal favourite tritium that I've been wearing for
| almost 20 years: the GSAR from Marathon Watch company.
|
| And yes the tritium half-life is real. I can still see it
| well-enough but it ain't like it used to be.
|
| To GP: I humbly submit this one as the ultimate tool watch
| zucked wrote:
| I do love the Marathon watches - they are truly a tool of
| timetelling. I just happen to like my Tudor more :D
| vgeek wrote:
| Seconded on the tritium fade, my oldest is around 15 years
| and you can tell a big difference vs newer ones.
|
| I've had my eye on a Marathon GPM for a while, I already
| have a GPQ-clone with no date complication. Bertucci A5s
| are similar if you like compact field watches.
|
| https://www.fullgear.watch/en/ these are supposed to use
| Seiko movements and you can customize the dial quite a bit,
| but haven't seen much about the build quality.
| kettro wrote:
| The GPM is honestly really underwhelming -- I tried them
| on at the windup fair this past weekend. There is no lack
| of khaki field watches out there with better build
| quality, not to mention actual water resistance (Hamilton
| being chief amongst, or other Seiko 5's)
| animalgonzales wrote:
| this. the speculation around watches right now is completely
| unhinged. my Rolex Date 34mm sold for $3k in excellent
| condition three years ago. the same watch now sells for nearly
| $6k.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| Re: built for a purpose, I think a lot of folks today just see
| Rolex as a luxury brand, but when Sean Connery walked out of
| the waves in _Dr No_ wearing a Rolex, it was because it was
| precisely the sort of robust, fault-tolerant timepiece a super-
| spy WOULD wear. Moreover, back then, they weren 't NEARLY so
| expensive. Rolex's prices have drastically outpaced inflation
| FOR SURE.
|
| I had thought I'd buy a Subbie, too, but even at the turn of
| the century they had gotten a bit nuts. I opted for a Seamaster
| instead, at HALF the price.
|
| >I can pass it down to my kiddo
|
| As I noted uptopic, my first fancy watch was a 1970s Rolex I
| inherited from MY dad. Someone will inherit it from me. My
| friend C. has his grandfather's steel Rolex; his son will
| inherit that one.
|
| That's a nice thing about mechs you can't really get out of
| electronics.
| dharmab wrote:
| Spot on. Bond wearing a Submariner with a tuxedo woumd be
| like showing up to a black tie event wearing a Casio G Shock
| today.
| achenatx wrote:
| so funny you say that. I wear a g shock with my tux.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| I wore exclusively mechanical watches for most of my life,
| starting with a Rolex I inherited from my dad in the mid-80s.
|
| When he bought it, Rolex wasn't yet as insanely upmarket as
| they've become. It was kind of the obvious token of upper-middle-
| class success of the era. Dad's is the two-tone DateJust on what
| Rolex calls a "Jubilee" bracelet, and you've seen the color
| scheme and overall look on a million knock-off Citizens and
| Seikos.
|
| Rolex SAYS you're supposed to service these annually, but even
| when I wore it daily I didn't do that. I think it's been serviced
| maybe 3 or 4 times since I've had it; aside from a replaced
| mainspring a few years back, it runs fine and keeps time as good
| as any mechanical. That's kind of the appeal of Rolex, or at
| least it was in the 60s and 70s: they're VERY VERY robust, so you
| especially see them on wrists of successful people in jobs that
| would be hard on a less robust watch. (Thinks chefs, or
| contractors, or -- like my dad -- veterinarians.)
|
| I had a good dot-com era and bought a couple of my own, but
| nothing in precious metals or super expensive. And then, a few
| years ago, I was training for a half marathon and wanted a
| running device with GPS. I ended up with a gen-1 Apple Watch, and
| the damn thing was so HANDY that I upgraded to a fancier (steel,
| sapphire crystal) model for Series 3, and now I almost never wear
| the fancy mechanicals. I still LOVE them -- it's very cool that
| humans figured out how to keep time using springs and gears! --
| but for day to day wear, it's almost always the Apple now.
| Domenic_S wrote:
| Annually?!
|
| _It is recommended to service your Rolex approximately every
| 10 years depending on the model and real-life usage._
|
| https://www.rolex.com/watch-care-and-
| service/faq.html#:~:tex....
| pkulak wrote:
| The modern movements are a lot more robust. It wouldn't
| surprise me if a 50-year old watch had 1 year as the
| recommended service interval.
| MarkMarine wrote:
| Opposite for me. I don't like wearing a watch in the evening,
| and I always forgot to charge the Apple Watch because it would
| be by the sink where I prepped dinner or somewhere. I never
| have to worry about charging my mechanical. I wear a brand that
| people obsessed with watches that appreciate don't care about
| (so they lose value) but are mechanically "perfect." Not a
| status symbol, I don't have to worry about wearing it on
| vacation or anything. It's a prized possession because of it's
| utility.
| thoms_a wrote:
| Have to chime in with my agreement here. As an engineer, to
| me the beauty of the mechanical watch lies in its embodiment
| of "form follows function".
|
| I read this entire article as I find the horology and the
| hobbyists fascinating, but my passion is strictly that of an
| engineer for his tool. I like robust, well made tools by
| companies that value craftsmanship and longevity. Status,
| collectability and such are superfluous in my estimation.
|
| Now, the history of a watch is important, but that is a
| personal thing which you create with your own watch. Any
| watch can have its own story, and the most important story is
| the one you're living with your own watch, whether it be a
| Patek Phillipe or a Casio.
| smackeyacky wrote:
| I have been watching a lot of youtube videos from "wristwatch
| revival", Marshall has an oddly soothing, breezy voiceover as he
| services mechanical watches. Its kind of like Bob Ross.
|
| The workmanship in even prosaic mechanical watches is neat to see
| as he disassembles them.
| thom wrote:
| It was a weird crossing of streams when I first saw his watch
| channel, because I'd only known him as a Magic: the Gathering
| commentator and streamer. I can't even say "better known" given
| the relative subscriber numbers.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| jacquesm wrote:
| If you want an idea of how crazy this can get:
|
| https://www.chronext.com/patek-philippe/nautilus/5990-1a-001...
| noja wrote:
| EUR449,000 <-- wtf! that's a thousand separator
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| Shows up as 577,960 USD for me.
|
| EDIT: required javascript, clearly price discriminating.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| Over half a million IN STEEL. Jesus.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-26 23:01 UTC)