Watch flipper.

It's a mentality more than the actions, but the actions are driven by the mentality. 

If one has zero intention to keep the watch long-term, (think deathbed if selling isn't required due to actual necessity) and just are selling to play the market, I feel like that's a flipper. 

Willing to listen to opposing viewpoints, but I'm pretty solid on that definition. 

IMO, it's pretty simple.  Did the person buy the watch for the sole purpose of selling it for a profit? If so, that's a flipper.

I think that's different than when someone buys a watch he/she has every intention of keeping and it just doesn't work for them so they sell it and happen to make a profit.

That’s a good way to see it. Appreciate your input!

I think that’s in line with UnholiestJedi‘s definition as well. Appreciate your input!
 

Here's a definition:

An arbitrageur is a type of investor who attempts to profit from market inefficiencies. These inefficiencies can relate to any aspect of the markets, whether it is price, dividends, or regulation. The most common form of arbitrage is price.

Arbitrageurs exploit price inefficiencies by making simultaneous trades that offset each other to capture risk-free profits. An arbitrageur would, for example, seek out price discrepancies between stocks listed on more than one exchange by buying the undervalued shares on one exchange while short selling the same number of overvalued shares on another exchange, thus capturing risk-free profits as the prices on the two exchanges converge.

In some instances, they also seek to profit by arbitraging private information into profits. For example, a takeover arbitrageur may use information about an impending takeover to buy up a company's stock and profit from the subsequent price appreciation.

99% of human DNA is shared with chimpanzees.  Thus, we are 99% chimp.  Here's a video of how chimps behave:

That, in my estimation, is a pretty accurate representation of the cognitive capabilities of the vast majority of humanity.  As such, in our ancestral environment, we could not conceive of the idea that supply and demand must equilibrate in order for a price to be set.  And that when price is artificially set too low (MSRP) there will be shortages.  And "flippers" actually provide a valuable service by buying up supply and then making that supply available to buyers who are willing to pay market price.  And in many cases, those very same flippers, by bidding up the prices of scarce goods, help send a signal to producers to produce MORE of those scarce goods!  Let me say that again:  Flippers ensure that those who are willing to pay most and value those goods the most get access to those scarce goods.  They are doing god's work.

In our ancestral environment, we did not evolve to understand the idea of arbitrage and market-clearance.  Like, some hunter gatherer tribes that still exist today in certain rainforests have a mathematical system that consists of "One, two, or more than two."  That's it!

Given all this, it's hard to explain to people that arbitrageurs are actually doing god's work.  Instead of considering ideas of market clearance, we'd all rather...  stick our fingers in our butts and fall out of trees, I guess.

1: If the only intent is to buy a hot product and immediately sell it it is flipping. 

The rest are all reasonable since the description do not lead with the intent of flipping.

Flippers add zero value to the market. Home flippers are much different. In most cases they are refurbing a home and flipping it for a profit, hopefully. They are renovating otherwise outdated or dangerous homes. 

Let‘s add:

Flippers cause a commotion by their behavior in the industry. This hype/hysteria grabs attention of a wider range of buyers. More sales for the brands, allowing some of them to increase production (recent example: Czapek). Another side effect can be that certain brands stop deep discounting by the ADs (e.g. Omega) so buyers feel comfortable with their purchase in the absence of a steep drop in resale value. 
 

Thoughts?

The “wider range of buyers” is additional speculators/flippers making it worse for honest person wanting a watch to celebrate a milestone, or simply because they are a fan.

Czapek makes less than 800 watches a year, they are not moving the needle on the broader market, because literally only a fraction of a fraction of a single percentage point would notice. They are awesome watches, but only the die hards know what they are.

While select ADs may pretend to not want to deep discount brands, the certainly do. Only have to look so far as Jomashop to see that, especially for Omega. 

Now, does the shopper who was looking for a hot model look elsewhere? Maybe. Does a person insisting on buying Rolex for 3X price end up NOT buying several other pieces as a result?  Maybe. 

None of those arguments take away from the fact a flipper literally provides no value to the market place. Cool make a quick buck, but don’t pretend it is altruism. Call it capitalism, call it greed, but they do infinitely more harm compared to the zero positive aspects they bring to the table.

Note, not talking secondary dealers, that is a different topic, stictly talking the person(s) who buy at an AD with no intent on owning the actual watch

1. Yes, but if people are willing to pay exorbitant prices it ”legitimises” this practice. In an ideal world you would deny the opportunity for those to profit in this way by just not purchasing from “the flipper”, but these are watches, rationality goes out of the window. Economies grow where there is a supply and a demand; no demand, why supply, there is no payoff.
2. Depends on the motive. One would view this person with more sympathy if they suffered from buyers remorse, or needed the money for whatever reason. Also, the chances of a watch going up in value is actually quite small unless you purchase certain brands and editions, so you would need to be very shrewd in order to pull this off. Let‘s not go down this rabbit hole however, because it does detract slightly from your questions as they are worded.
3. No; surely this is just a normal occurrence when it comes to luxury items? 

What are everyone's thoughts on season ticket holders or people that scalp concert tickets? Say it sells out so quickly you cannot go to some event you planned for?

What if the grey market prices were only $10 above retail and it saves you the headache of waiting? 

Just being devil's advocate here. Maybe what we are so outraged is also the price not so much just supply. 

The fake altruism is what gets me. If they just said they wanted to make some money, I can accept that, but to act as if they are providing the world a service ugh 

You're a flipper if you bought the watch solely with the intention to resell it for a profit. Whether that's the next day, in a month or in a year, if you bought it solely with the intention to resell (especially if the piece is brand new, in box, never worn) then you are a reseller. 

If you bought a watch with the intention of wearing it and keeping it, but realised it actually wasn't for you or circumstances changed and you needed cash and you sell it for more than you bought it for (market price), I don't consider that really being a reseller. 

At the end of the day it's probably really the fault of the manufacturers for purposely making limited quantities to create scarcity and keep up the feeling of exclusivity of the brand. That said, I don't really care for resellers. 

I include the continual rotation people too. Obviously speculators are flippers, but the people that just don't hold onto anything (much) for long term because they are continually grazing at new items are flipping too, even if they consistently sell at a relative loss. Basically any new watch junkie that can't afford to both hold and keep amassing is a different type of flipper.

Is a voracious consumer a flipper in the true sense of the word here? Flippant maybe, but not really the worst offender as they do enjoy the product for a time. As a “whale” they may benefit from better access, but if they are a guaranteed customer with a large wallet then they are an easy sale. Even at the highest end of luxury, there are regular customers, and businesses need to do business.

I suspect he is referring to people who buy watches, wear them for a week and then sell them because they wanted to "experience" a watch. In this case it could be buying from stores, or other watch enthusiasts. Profit or loss doesnt factor in, just the continual churn of watches. 

In this case flipper isn't meant as a pejorative, just a description of the behaviour.

Ok, sure. I can see that.

Follow-up question: how common do you think that type of consumer is in the market? What percentage of, say, Rolex watches are lost to such a consumer? I have not researched the numbers, but for own curiousity, it would be interesting to see the demographic of Rolex buyers and contrast that to the ”flipping”, and what the watch fan‘s perspective of this “problem” seems to be. I suspect it might be grossly inflated akin to say how much the British public think asylum seekers cost the British tax payer and what they actual cost. It is probably easily available, I just have not been one to investigate it as it does not really affect my enjoyment of watches or my day-to-day. It seems to be a touchy subject, I worry I have offended one or two?
 

Ah flippers. Gotta‘ love ‘em! 🤣

 I wouldn’t say somebody who owned a watch for a year plus then decided to sell a flipper, though Rolex would is my understanding. 😉 

But getting back to flipping, my main beef is that they seem to suck up most new product. Otherwise it is just capitalism which, like it or not, provides more goods to more people than any other system. And you must remember that main land China is really a capitalist society these days, albeit a non democratic one.

So damned true! I once saw a video of Ben Aflek (I think I spelled that right... not a huge fan but Goodwill Hunting was cool...I digress). He seemed to know the person asking for an autograph. In the banter he told the person it's cool to admit he was going to sell the autograph.  Aflek went on to say wait until I sign for these other people 

The reason for including the Czapek example was because they recently announced their intention to move towards increasing that 800 number to 5000 annually. Similarly, Gronefeld added about a dozen more staff members to help with the number of orders pouring in.

I agree that some of the ADs are still discounting, albeit not as deeply as in the past. 

BTW: I'm not in favor of flipping and agree that it has a negative effect on the industry/hobby. However, would like to run through the exercise of vetting this out thoroughly so it is conclusive and not just another never-ending discussion. 

Appreciate your insights!

Good point! Would love to know the actual magnitude of these claims with some metrics.

My understanding (based on a conversation with a friend who used to work at a Rolex AD), is that at any given time a Rolex AD has between 125 and 150 pieces in inventory. Unfortunately, almost all of them are assigned to their regular/loyal customers. This assignment happens almost a year before the watches arrive at the AD. The Rolex AD will ask their regular customers which model they would like to have if there is one available next year. Rolex annually calls all of their ADs and informs them how many pieces they will be getting next year (total pieces without any info on the models). As these arrive throughout the year - calls are made and watches are sold according to requests matching the inventory. 

I don't particularly care about Rolex, so haven't the foggiest. 

I was talking about watch "flipping" in general, which also is used to describe people who buy and then sell lots of watches, whether affordable or luxury. I suspect this is what @OscarKlosoff was also refering to as well. 

E.g. People posting their new Seiko one week, then turning around and selling it a week later to "fund" the next thing that takes their interest. 

I apparently cast a wider net in my definition, as I don't even require that short term  of a turnaround. It's more the habitual non-permanence of ownership, even if they keep items past the warranty period. I do have to be reasonable and say that somewhere between three to five years we get into much milder cases than the more acute classic flipper who probably holds the item for a month or less.

So, again for my curiosity, is my question not valid because I used Rolex as an example? If Rolex is a dirty word on here then I apologise, I know some platforms get funny about them. I would have thought the original post was referring to brands like Rolex or Patek Philippe as they are concerned about the profit, and it is well documented how much of a markup a desirable model of one of those brands can command when supply cannot satisfy the demand. I suppose the same can be for Seiko Limited Editions, or the MoonSwatch, so perhaps this was a flaw in my interpretation. I can bow out now if people prefer if you all deem I am not actually adding anything to the discussion. I see someone agrees with your post already, so I am guessing I am possibly on the wrong side of the fence, and that’s fine.

If I may be indulged a little further, I would be more concerned with that person’s mindset if they are only satisfied for a week or so before going scorched Earth and funding something else. I do not think these types of consumers are that common; I know we are seemingly programmed to consume at a scary rate, but that is in extremis. As a sort-of final argument, I do think we are overestimating the scale of this issue until we can see some sort of data. I do not believe that once Rolex released the multicoloured Oysters last year that 10% ended up on eBay or Chrono24 at the end of the first week, but if it’s shown to be true then I can truly believe. It may have been the case for the MoonSwatch, but the price of entry on those was very low and the reward was ridiculously high (it seems like a no-brainer on paper), and again, only because people legitimise the practice by buying them at these obscene prices. 

Anyway, 1) Yes, 2) Motive-dependent, 3) and beyond, no.

I think you're assuming I'm passing judgment, or implying "flippers" hurt the market, when I have said no such thing. I was simply pointing out another "definition" of flipper that is used online when discussing watches. 

I'm not against Rolex, lots of people here discuss it. I just don't follow the Rolex trends, nor do I particularly care about the market for them as I don't buy luxury watches.