Watch theft
What's your take on all this watch theft? Kinda sad you can't wear your watch for the fear of being mugged. Sometimes it's better to wear brands that thieves don't know. IWC, Zenith, Moser, Grand Seiko, etc...
https://timeandtidewatches.com/the-changing-reality-of-wearing-a-watch-in-new-york-city/
70 comments
Sort by
Richard
Watch enthusiast that's been collecting watches for almost 20yrs. Work in the financial industry. Hobbies and other interest: traveling, working out, music, movies/tv series, and cooking.
Boston
Member since
Last active: 6 hrs ago
Lots of threads and differing opinions, but the facts are crime is largely at an all time low and I’ve worn my watches everywhere including most of downtown NYC last week. Never had a concern over the 2 1/2 mile area I walked.
The reason watches getting stolen is suddenly getting headlines is when people who are struggling to heat their homes and buy food, the idea that someone spending a year or more worth of money on jewelry is unfathomable to most and whether we like it or not, some people relish the idea of rich people getting their comeuppance. It’s a cheap and easy headline, because fear sells.
Lots of threads and differing opinions, but the facts are crime is largely at an all time low and I’ve worn my watches everywhere including most of downtown NYC last week. Never had a concern over the 2 1/2 mile area I walked.
The reason watches getting stolen is suddenly getting headlines is when people who are struggling to heat their homes and buy food, the idea that someone spending a year or more worth of money on jewelry is unfathomable to most and whether we like it or not, some people relish the idea of rich people getting their comeuppance. It’s a cheap and easy headline, because fear sells.
Bingo. Most of our problems in the world are amplified by the media to drive clicks to their websites.
Not saying the problems don't exist, but these are overblown.
I was visiting London in June of this year, stayed at a Hilton near Paddington Station. The hotel staff advised me to either leave my Omega Seamaster World timer in the hotel safe or coverup with a long sleeve. I took their advice and changed from T-shirt to long sleeves.
These types of crimes are crimes of opportunity, if you deny these criminals the opportunity to target you, you should be fine. My understanding is most of these crimes are to finance a drug habit these criminals are on, not so that they can heat their homes or feed their kids.
I was visiting London in June of this year, stayed at a Hilton near Paddington Station. The hotel staff advised me to either leave my Omega Seamaster World timer in the hotel safe or coverup with a long sleeve. I took their advice and changed from T-shirt to long sleeves.
These types of crimes are crimes of opportunity, if you deny these criminals the opportunity to target you, you should be fine. My understanding is most of these crimes are to finance a drug habit these criminals are on, not so that they can heat their homes or feed their kids.
Yes, they are crimes of opportunity, but the coverage is for those who can’t relate. Two distinct discussions.
Be safe than sorry. I feel safe in my regular route to work and I take public transport. However, when there any change to my regular routine, I either wear full sleeves or a cheaper watch. I wear watches for my own enjoyment and not for others. I can defend myself in most situation but don’t want to take chances with a motivated thief.
Lots of threads and differing opinions, but the facts are crime is largely at an all time low and I’ve worn my watches everywhere including most of downtown NYC last week. Never had a concern over the 2 1/2 mile area I walked.
The reason watches getting stolen is suddenly getting headlines is when people who are struggling to heat their homes and buy food, the idea that someone spending a year or more worth of money on jewelry is unfathomable to most and whether we like it or not, some people relish the idea of rich people getting their comeuppance. It’s a cheap and easy headline, because fear sells.
Yes and no.
Crime has put food on my table for more than 30 years: I defend and have prosecuted thousands of people accused (usually correctly) of committing crimes.
Crime is nowhere near historical highs in American cities. The late 1980's and early 1990's were nothing like today. Crime is also not near record lows, these occurred in most places about five years ago. Crime is also not uniformly up in major cities. Some places have seen an enormous spike in homicides while property crimes have remained constant near historical lows.
"If it bleeds, it leads" is an old adage in the news business. Bad new sells more than good news. That is nothing new. What is new is the prevalence of surveillance cameras that allow us to watch the crime occur. We got to see thieves take a Hublot a few months back. Video allows very local stories to be international through the internet.
If you peruse your local pawn shop you will likely see the evidence of property theft. Watches and jewelry will be well represented. Usually, they were not taken in a smash and grab on the street. Rather, it was the painter or cleaning person who had access to your home and took something that you did not notice.
These watch robbery stories are reflective of a new trend. The outrageous spike in prices has attracted a new interest from thieves. However, these anecdotes are just data points that do not reflect the sort of trend that would have me only wear a beater out in a city.
Lastly, rising prices for energy and food do not cause crime. Criminals cause crime. A small number of persons cause a great percentage of crime, either property crime or violent crime. Looking for "root causes" is a fool's errand. Sociopathy can't be fixed with a government program. We will learn in the coming years that "bail reform" can be linked (even I hesitate to say "cause") to a rise in crime because the same offenders remain in positions where they can offend and reoffend.
Crime fell for almost thirty years. We really don't know why. Crime is increasing, albeit at a slower pace. We really don't know why. When we figure it out we will have already made mistakes in trying to fix the problem. Variables will be overlooked and ignored.
Just wear your watches. If they are worth anything, insure them.
Yes and no.
Crime has put food on my table for more than 30 years: I defend and have prosecuted thousands of people accused (usually correctly) of committing crimes.
Crime is nowhere near historical highs in American cities. The late 1980's and early 1990's were nothing like today. Crime is also not near record lows, these occurred in most places about five years ago. Crime is also not uniformly up in major cities. Some places have seen an enormous spike in homicides while property crimes have remained constant near historical lows.
"If it bleeds, it leads" is an old adage in the news business. Bad new sells more than good news. That is nothing new. What is new is the prevalence of surveillance cameras that allow us to watch the crime occur. We got to see thieves take a Hublot a few months back. Video allows very local stories to be international through the internet.
If you peruse your local pawn shop you will likely see the evidence of property theft. Watches and jewelry will be well represented. Usually, they were not taken in a smash and grab on the street. Rather, it was the painter or cleaning person who had access to your home and took something that you did not notice.
These watch robbery stories are reflective of a new trend. The outrageous spike in prices has attracted a new interest from thieves. However, these anecdotes are just data points that do not reflect the sort of trend that would have me only wear a beater out in a city.
Lastly, rising prices for energy and food do not cause crime. Criminals cause crime. A small number of persons cause a great percentage of crime, either property crime or violent crime. Looking for "root causes" is a fool's errand. Sociopathy can't be fixed with a government program. We will learn in the coming years that "bail reform" can be linked (even I hesitate to say "cause") to a rise in crime because the same offenders remain in positions where they can offend and reoffend.
Crime fell for almost thirty years. We really don't know why. Crime is increasing, albeit at a slower pace. We really don't know why. When we figure it out we will have already made mistakes in trying to fix the problem. Variables will be overlooked and ignored.
Just wear your watches. If they are worth anything, insure them.
Thanks for the insights. I realize a few years ago it was lowest, but still near historic lows with a long term lookback. To your point it has fallen dramatically over 30 years and we can debate the reasons why, including improved surveillance tech, better economic conditions, etc.
To my earlier point I was trying to make; I wasn’t intentionally trying to tie rising costs to crime, more specifically what attracts media attention. If folks are struggling at home and see rich people being robbed stories on the news, it makes for an easy if it bleeds it leads story as you mentioned. Which to me are two distinct topics, but certainly feed each other.
In a forum of watch nerds, it’s still relatively rare. Also, there’s little indication that the watches stolen were because the watch itself created the target. Get insurance. Wear long sleeves. Carpe diem.
https://www.watchcrunch.com/Bobofet/posts/have-you-personally-had-a-watch-stolen-off-of-your-wrist-14072
I'm fortunate. I have a couple of watches that I love, like my Sinn 104, that no street thug would ever pay any attention to. I really don't feel like I'm making a compromise when I wear them. If I know I'm going to be somewhere that could be the least bit sketchy, I just wear those. For me, it's like any other watch selection I make in the morning - swimming? diver. Physical activity/working on the house? beater. Dinner out? dress watch. Unknown? Sinn.
I have lived in the city for many years. Crime is high here. I feel like I've got some pretty good street smarts. Situational awareness goes a long way to avoiding being a victim.
Yes and no.
Crime has put food on my table for more than 30 years: I defend and have prosecuted thousands of people accused (usually correctly) of committing crimes.
Crime is nowhere near historical highs in American cities. The late 1980's and early 1990's were nothing like today. Crime is also not near record lows, these occurred in most places about five years ago. Crime is also not uniformly up in major cities. Some places have seen an enormous spike in homicides while property crimes have remained constant near historical lows.
"If it bleeds, it leads" is an old adage in the news business. Bad new sells more than good news. That is nothing new. What is new is the prevalence of surveillance cameras that allow us to watch the crime occur. We got to see thieves take a Hublot a few months back. Video allows very local stories to be international through the internet.
If you peruse your local pawn shop you will likely see the evidence of property theft. Watches and jewelry will be well represented. Usually, they were not taken in a smash and grab on the street. Rather, it was the painter or cleaning person who had access to your home and took something that you did not notice.
These watch robbery stories are reflective of a new trend. The outrageous spike in prices has attracted a new interest from thieves. However, these anecdotes are just data points that do not reflect the sort of trend that would have me only wear a beater out in a city.
Lastly, rising prices for energy and food do not cause crime. Criminals cause crime. A small number of persons cause a great percentage of crime, either property crime or violent crime. Looking for "root causes" is a fool's errand. Sociopathy can't be fixed with a government program. We will learn in the coming years that "bail reform" can be linked (even I hesitate to say "cause") to a rise in crime because the same offenders remain in positions where they can offend and reoffend.
Crime fell for almost thirty years. We really don't know why. Crime is increasing, albeit at a slower pace. We really don't know why. When we figure it out we will have already made mistakes in trying to fix the problem. Variables will be overlooked and ignored.
Just wear your watches. If they are worth anything, insure them.
Dude...
How true is it that when a watch is really expensive (I mean a lot $$$) Insurers don't take responsibility for a stolen watch unless it is in a bank inside a safe?
Yes and no.
Crime has put food on my table for more than 30 years: I defend and have prosecuted thousands of people accused (usually correctly) of committing crimes.
Crime is nowhere near historical highs in American cities. The late 1980's and early 1990's were nothing like today. Crime is also not near record lows, these occurred in most places about five years ago. Crime is also not uniformly up in major cities. Some places have seen an enormous spike in homicides while property crimes have remained constant near historical lows.
"If it bleeds, it leads" is an old adage in the news business. Bad new sells more than good news. That is nothing new. What is new is the prevalence of surveillance cameras that allow us to watch the crime occur. We got to see thieves take a Hublot a few months back. Video allows very local stories to be international through the internet.
If you peruse your local pawn shop you will likely see the evidence of property theft. Watches and jewelry will be well represented. Usually, they were not taken in a smash and grab on the street. Rather, it was the painter or cleaning person who had access to your home and took something that you did not notice.
These watch robbery stories are reflective of a new trend. The outrageous spike in prices has attracted a new interest from thieves. However, these anecdotes are just data points that do not reflect the sort of trend that would have me only wear a beater out in a city.
Lastly, rising prices for energy and food do not cause crime. Criminals cause crime. A small number of persons cause a great percentage of crime, either property crime or violent crime. Looking for "root causes" is a fool's errand. Sociopathy can't be fixed with a government program. We will learn in the coming years that "bail reform" can be linked (even I hesitate to say "cause") to a rise in crime because the same offenders remain in positions where they can offend and reoffend.
Crime fell for almost thirty years. We really don't know why. Crime is increasing, albeit at a slower pace. We really don't know why. When we figure it out we will have already made mistakes in trying to fix the problem. Variables will be overlooked and ignored.
Just wear your watches. If they are worth anything, insure them.
Ah, okay... 😄
But I agree, from a historical perspective crime is not rampant. But people are largely sensitive to the trend, the perception whether it gets better or worse.
That being said, I wouldn't wear a watch where I would consider carrying a firearm. In all other places I'm not too concerned about my watch.
Thanks for the insights. I realize a few years ago it was lowest, but still near historic lows with a long term lookback. To your point it has fallen dramatically over 30 years and we can debate the reasons why, including improved surveillance tech, better economic conditions, etc.
To my earlier point I was trying to make; I wasn’t intentionally trying to tie rising costs to crime, more specifically what attracts media attention. If folks are struggling at home and see rich people being robbed stories on the news, it makes for an easy if it bleeds it leads story as you mentioned. Which to me are two distinct topics, but certainly feed each other.
Interestingly, to me at least, it is unlikely that the reasons you listed for the decrease in crime rates have caused any significant effect. I will list three that have been studied and I believe have merit: increased incarceration, access to abortion, and removal of lead from environments. When we try to sort out which had which effect it gets tangled. Lead in the environment suppressed IQ's and impulse control. Abortion removed an entire cohort of the seemingly permanent underclass. Increased incarceration rates keep real criminals out of society. Of those three, only removing lead from paint and gasoline, did not also come with serious drawbacks.
Crime and incarceration are much higher in the U.S. than in other parts of the world. There are cultural reasons for this. Americans are truly a weird group by world standards. The outliers in terms of aggression and entrepreneurship have immigrated here since colonial times. There are studies indicating that the modern levels of Swedish social cohesion are in part because their oddballs immigrated here. I was only half joking when I called us ornery in a comment to @Velomax 's post about taxation. (The increasingly acrimonious comments there kind of underline my point. Those of us from New Jersey don't take s*** from anyone. Which of you really thought that he was going to back down and play nice?)
Wearing a high end watch in society is a big "look at me sign" unfortunately bad people will notice that. Flip your watch to the inside of your wrist or wear long sleeves. The thieves have been following Hodinkee and will know your worth to them. A rolex is a free 10 grand to them for 30 seconds of aggression
Dude...
When I was a prosecutor in New Orleans in the 1990's we figured that each automobile burglar committed 20 break-ins for every time that he was caught. For residences it was closer to 10-12 per arrest. For violent crime like armed robbery the ratio was more like 5-6 to one.
A frightening fact about violent crimes like armed robbery and aggravated rape is that they give an adrenaline rush. Bored young men are attracted to them like roller coasters.
Wage theft. You edited your comment to include something that has nothing to do with the original post.
A person taking my belongings (in this case a watch, remember those?) through force is of a different nature than an employer withholding overtime wages improperly. Fear of the forceful taking of a luxury watch is where this started. There is no fear of imminent death or great bodily harm in economic crime.
Watch Crunch will take all of this down as soon as anyone complains. Such is the burden of expertise.
You keep missing my point. There was more than a 100% increase in shootings. If we are discussing Denmark, South Carolina that might mean 2 instead of 1, but New York scales differently. The increase in shootings was significant. More coverage would be expected and warranted. I don't know what data the chart is based upon. I don't understand why we should expect a one to one ration in reports and crimes, if that is even what we are measuring. In a time when traditional media has less purchase in the culture (smaller ratings share, fewer papers sold), does number of reports tells us much about how this "overreporting" affects perception. "Crime is worse" has always been the default position for the uninformed.
It is a wonderful thing, the English language. "Misinformation" now does not mean information that is wrong. It now means information that has not been properly analyzed through a sociological lens. Sorry professor, I will not follow you, here be monsters. A very small percentage of individuals commit an enormous percentage of crime. It is more true for violent crime, but it is also true in other sorts of criminal behaviors. If this is misinformation then show your work.
I don't believe that watch robbery is a major trend. I believe that you agree. I don't believe that race is implicated in watch robberies. I think you agree. I don't believe that poverty is implicated in watch robberies. I think that you agree. I really don't think that social class is implicated in watch robberies. I think that you agree. I believe that robberies are crimes of opportunity committed by a small percentage of persons who violate the law and that is an even smaller percentage of the population as a whole.
And yet, you will find something to disagree with.
There was a more than 100% increase in shootings in NYC from early to mid 2020. That was not reflected in any change in media reports on crime. Something like 2 years later, when shootings were actually decreasing in NYC, media reports on shootings increased massively. The point is that media reports on crime have basically nothing to do with actual levels of crime.
When you say "A very small percentage of individuals commit an enormous percentage of crime." you are begging the question of what is crime. The single most common type of "criminal" in the United States is someone who shoplifts from a store. The second most common type of criminal is an employer who violates minimum wage laws. But for how many people does that kind of "criminal" register in their mind when you say "criminals cause crime"? When we spend threads on Watchcrunch talking about "criminals," is there really no context to consider?
I also don't agree that "There is no fear of imminent death or great bodily harm in economic crime." I've done work with migrant berry pickers in Washington State, for example, whose experience strongly disagrees with that statement.
There was a more than 100% increase in shootings in NYC from early to mid 2020. That was not reflected in any change in media reports on crime. Something like 2 years later, when shootings were actually decreasing in NYC, media reports on shootings increased massively. The point is that media reports on crime have basically nothing to do with actual levels of crime.
When you say "A very small percentage of individuals commit an enormous percentage of crime." you are begging the question of what is crime. The single most common type of "criminal" in the United States is someone who shoplifts from a store. The second most common type of criminal is an employer who violates minimum wage laws. But for how many people does that kind of "criminal" register in their mind when you say "criminals cause crime"? When we spend threads on Watchcrunch talking about "criminals," is there really no context to consider?
I also don't agree that "There is no fear of imminent death or great bodily harm in economic crime." I've done work with migrant berry pickers in Washington State, for example, whose experience strongly disagrees with that statement.
Notice how I keep steering us back towards the original question which involved the forceful taking of a watch (in keeping with this being a watch forum). You have gone far afield to find areas of disagreement. You have turned to a definitional argument over the meaning of terms. It is a bit too late for that old trick, especially since it was anticipated. At this point I am well satisfied that I was correct in my original assessment.
Wage theft. You edited your comment to include something that has nothing to do with the original post.
A person taking my belongings (in this case a watch, remember those?) through force is of a different nature than an employer withholding overtime wages improperly. Fear of the forceful taking of a luxury watch is where this started. There is no fear of imminent death or great bodily harm in economic crime.
Watch Crunch will take all of this down as soon as anyone complains. Such is the burden of expertise.
My god! Every single day, in every single way, this is how I feel about you!
Dude! I already availed myself of the mute function like 10 comments ago! But, you... you are unrelenting! You are uncompromising! You are always willing and eager to argue with people, EVEN AND ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU KNOW IN YOUR HEART OF HEARTS THAT IT'S USELESS!
Notice how I keep steering us back towards the original question which involved the forceful taking of a watch (in keeping with this being a watch forum). You have gone far afield to find areas of disagreement. You have turned to a definitional argument over the meaning of terms. It is a bit too late for that old trick, especially since it was anticipated. At this point I am well satisfied that I was correct in my original assessment.
You're comfortable making blanket statements like "criminals cause crime" and yet refuse questions about what you mean by crime. I'm not looking for areas of disagreement or trying a trick, I'm pointing out poor thinking.
As I said, I was not the first person to take the discussion far afield. I am only responding to what was already posted.
To return to the original post: I agree with you and with others here that robbery of watches is not an increasing crime, and that perceptions of its increase are media driven.
You're comfortable making blanket statements like "criminals cause crime" and yet refuse questions about what you mean by crime. I'm not looking for areas of disagreement or trying a trick, I'm pointing out poor thinking.
As I said, I was not the first person to take the discussion far afield. I am only responding to what was already posted.
To return to the original post: I agree with you and with others here that robbery of watches is not an increasing crime, and that perceptions of its increase are media driven.
Usually agreement can be denoted by a simple 👍.
Usually agreement can be denoted by a simple 👍.
Glad to hear it. Take a look at that Bloomberg story if you didn't already.
No police departments were defunded.
Any source that states that? Not what I read here in a quick search
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-defund-police-transferring-money-community
Ah crime...if it was so easy to identify, qualify and quantify it we would all be living in utopia, or in the worst totalitarian regime imaginable.
Watches are getting stolen because they are easy to spot, easy to carry and hide in a hurry and can be exchanged easily for cash. It's just like in past years there was a problem with break in to parked cars to steal their radios. Now with integrated multimedia it's less common but I don't think that it's indicative that car theft declined overall and that you can park a Lambo anywhere you like.
Yes, I did that whole "appeal to authority" thing. Sorry.
Your mention of firearms makes you distinctly American. Your assessment of risk seems appropriate.
Well, since I'm an immigrant, I shall take that as a compliment. 😉
Any source that states that? Not what I read here in a quick search
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-defund-police-transferring-money-community
There is often confusion on this issue because many cities did temporarily reduce police budgets (as your link shows), but in almost every case (with the major exceptions of Austin and Portland) those reduced budgets happened for two reasons: 1. reduced city spending overall as a result of the pandemic, and 2. difficulty in hiring new police officers (so that in many cities, like Minneapolis where I live, the police department couldn't even spend all the money that was allocated to them.)
Those budget cuts are different from "defunding" which is designed to take money from police budgets to allocate that spending to different crime prevention strategies. Some cities did divert some funding from police departments in 2020 and 2021, but all of those cities have since returned spending on police departments to pre-pandemic levels.
It's important to note as well that there is no correlation at all between a city's spending on police and the changes in their crime rates in the past 3 years. In other words, some cities spent more on police and saw crime rise, other cities spent less and saw crime flat or falling. Some spent less and saw crime rise, and others spent more and saw crime fall.
There's lots of different sources on this, but here's a couple: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-city-budget-police-funding/
And: https://therealnews.com/nobody-defunded-the-police-a-study
"Our analysis of over 400 American municipal budgets found that police departments in America got more or less the same amount of money in 2021 than they did in the previous three years. The budget cuts that did pass in a handful of cities were modest compared to the size of the total budget.
We acquired budgets from 2018 to 2022 from 419 American municipalities, selected for prominence, size, location and diversity. We then extracted the amount of the city’s general fund—the bulk of city funding—which was directed to the police department, and compared those amounts across locations and years. A more thorough statistical analysis of our data is available here.
Our model found that the percentage of the general fund dedicated to law enforcement stayed consistent from 2018 to 2021—around 29%—after accounting for city- and state-level trends. If police budgets shrank (or grew), they did in proportion to the overall budget. In 2022, cities allocated about 3% less for police, but did so after the “defund” backlash was in full swing."
Just to add briefly since @Aurelian mentioned it too: it's not true that we don't know how to prevent crime. (As he put it, "looking for 'root causes' is a fools errand" because crime is a result of "sociopathy")
From improving street lighting to after-school programs to providing free healthcare to directly employing unemployed people in public works, there are hundreds of different non-criminal justice ways that have proven to reduce and prevent crime. Here's one survey of different methods US cities have successfully implemented: https://johnjayrec.nyc/2020/11/09/av2020/
Agree totally with @AllTheWatches & @UnholiestJedi. It's an issue for those who've had their watch or jewelry stolen, but the statistics support the idea that this story has been hyped up and overblown.
Theft is really getting out of hand, just a few weeks ago someone stole my fathers daytona, fortunately he is ok, but gosh! I found a platform that was made to report stolen watches, it’s called JoinTrack.org I hope this helps a bit.