Interesting WSJ article

Thank you for sharing the article, it was a great read! Going for the "whales" is a common thing in the collectibles space, I think it's okay if it works for them,though I don't agree with whaling from a moral standpoint but the good thing is that you don't have to buy it, they're not the only kid in town because we're always going to have brands like seiko (and all the other affordable micro and macro brands) swooping in at the lower end of the spectrum to fill out that demand.

Morally acceptable as long as the entry to the market is not constricted and the playing field is level.  Quality at a lower price point will meet demand.  

Intreating article, I have slowly watched in the UK as the poverty gap in increases and young folk are constantly bombarded with images of people who dnt just have luxury goods , but have them in every colour and shape.

I considers myself super lucky to own what I do , and I think prices rises might be a blessing for some as they will realise they never wanted the stuff in the first place. They just wanted to feel good/cool and are under the misguided notion and object can provide this.

its so easy to get caught up looking around  at others shiny things , but we all know that actually, the content will love are the stories behind the objects and the perspectives of others.

The is a reason the phrase "buy what you love" has stood the test of time. Such a simple statement , but so true.

Yep. I don’t give a fart in a wind storm about the morality of it, because that entire market lies in a realm I will never inhabit unless I literally pull a Jed Clampett. I find it to be gross from a purist standpoint, but if someone doesn’t have enough sense to realize they’re an idiot for spending $200,000 on a gd watch, that’s none of my business. 

I actually think it will be good for the rest of us, because I can’t help but think that those brands going into the stratosphere is related to the rise in microbrands. 

Of course it's understandable that top luxury Swiss companies are doing what they can to grow. The vast number of people who would never be able to afford a Rolex or Patek before these price rises won't really be affected by these trends. I think the other side to this article may be the explosion of microbrands over the few years, which offer innovative designs for all tastes generally for under $1000 and are helping to fill the void left by major brands. (I'm looking at you Seiko).

To me the most poignant point in the article was the reason the 40 year old dad wanted to buy a mechanical watch was to have something to eventually give to his son. Even though he was referencing a $10k Rolex, this could can hold true for any watch collection. Very, very few things we humans keep past maybe 10 years. I hope watches remain attainable for everyone no matter the budget.

Well, that may be the case if you consider a watch a consumer product and not an investment. There is some clear concentration in the Swiss watch industry. My view may be cynical, but I doubt the world has suddenly awoken to the allure of high horology. It's more likely that certain brands seems to produce watches that are viewed as appreciating assets. These buyers are not interested in quality watches at stable prices.

What could change the current dynamic is a reduction in demand with an already large supply. If we are heading into a recession we may see that sooner or later.

That reminds me of a video someone posted here a few months ago. A guy was making a SOTC video, and he was talking about a watch with a chip in the crystal. His daughter had asked to wear his watch to school one day, and when she came home, she had chipped it. He was talking about that and said “yeah I could fix it easily, but I’d rather have the reminder of the time my daughter asked to wear my watch to school.” I love that. 

The keeping us with the jones mentality is definitely commonplace now days. 

I have a few friends who say they are going to start getting some nice watches, and I say to them, only if you really love them buy them, because 5k+ sat in a box is a waste. 

I agree with the sentiment that more premium watches are what's hot rn but then again, im not a fan of these constant LE edition runs. For brands short term it offers them an oppurtunity to practice a more risky run and dont have to commit to high volumes of unsold watches since there are only a few created. But on the otherhand what tends to happen that frustrates people including myself is making a run of a watch that most certainly be popular and limiting supply causes hype and inflates the price and causes ineffecient rationing of the product (ie sells above mkt price) despite most brands not seeing this price differential from msrp to Grey prices they will with certainly sell out the moment it becomes available (moonswatch is an appropriate example.

These "moves upmarket" only do one thing - isolate the product from its target dem. I saw numerous cases of moving to smartwatches or dirt-cheap beaters, because people just saw their default choice move out of their hands. Constantly increasing prices like the Swatch Group does also angers the buyers - you walk into a shop one day, see the price of a watch, and think, "Maybe another day." You walk in another day and you see a change in pricing that has moved it away from your reach entirely. 

As is everything that is an investment collectible.   A Rolex or PP inherently holds no more  value than a quality Seiko or Orient.  Is a Bob Ross painting fine art? Only because we believe it.   Brand mystique will fade somewhat in light of tougher financial times.  Let's see what happens in the next few years.   

Further,  "moves upmarket " indicates a shift in the manufacturer's target demographics.   Their call. The outcome will be known only after the fact. 

Fascinating article and thanks for sharing. Business is still business as long as people keep paying asking prices. 

Great read on a lazy Saturday afternoon. Thank you for sharing that.

More respect for Oris given the comments in this article from senior management. Proud to be an owner of an Oris and expect to buy more before all is said and done.

Correct, from a practical standpoint a Rolex is telling the time, just like the Seiko on your wrist. It is more costly to produce, but the cost will put you in the $1k to $2k territory. The rest of the value is simply driven by demand. 

The demand also does not diminish if a new player enters the market and offers an "alternative" at lower cost, because it does not offer a history of its watches appreciating in value. A manufacturer also cannot simply decide to move into a higher market. It can offer more expensive watches, but they may not necessarily gain in value, thereby limiting demand by those with an investment-mindset.

This is just a symptom of a broader pattern occurring across multiple sectors.  As mobile phones supplant lower end cameras, for photography, so the camera makers look to the high end of their business.  For the traditional watch business, the Apple Watch and it’s many copies, alongside fitness bands, are surely just another quartz moment?

This might be changing.  Recently I’ve noticed more people wearing a watch on their left wrist and a computer on the right.  

Actually that is me.  Watches on my left, Samsung 4 on my right.  

It reminds me of how luxury car makers will continue to produce internal combustion engines for the wealthy while the rest of us transition to vehicals thats have more in common with a vacuum cleaner 👍 these objects are no longer necessary however rather then becoming obsolete they gain magnitudes of value. 

https://www.engadget.com/lamborghini-synthetic-fuels-2030s-193441991.html

Interesting read. Thanks for sharing!