The unwanted family heirloom
We often hear of parents purchasing a watch, with the intention of passing it down to their children or other loved ones, once they reach a milestone and/or a certain age.
The romanticism behind this tradition and the creation (potentially) of a new family heirloom, is often played up by watch brands, acting as a search catalyst for their pieces and hopefully, creating new generations of would-be customers.
However, it would be presumptuous of me to assume that this always plays out as scripted. Surely there are instances where a parent's watch has been rejected by it's intended recipient. Or perhaps it was accepted, but was not treated with the same love and care that the parent had for it and so ended up damaged or at the bottom of a drawer. Or worse still, it was accepted by a child, but pawned off at a later stage to settle some debts.
What happened? Keen to hear from anyone who's had or know's someone who has gone through this experience. Conversely, if you've bought a watch for this exact purpose and hope to give it to a loved one in the future, how would it make you feel if they didn't place as great a value on it, as you did/do?
Adventures of a watch tragic.
Heirloom is a pretty foreign word to me growing up. Money was always pretty tight. When my dad heard I like watches he pulled out a Mao Zedong watch out of the drawer LOL. I just looked at him with a blank stare and he replied still works just needs a battery. #heirloomwatches
It’s an illusion that our descendants will be fighting over our “heirlooms”. That’s why I don’t spend big money on watches, rings, cuff links etc. By the time we pass on our kids will be loaded down with their own stuff and won’t have room for most of the things we leave behind.
Any heirloom that has intrinsic value could easily end up sold, unless the family is wealthy. It might not be the first generation that sells it, but by the second or third, they have no connection to the person it came from, and just see the dollar signs.
It’s an illusion that our descendants will be fighting over our “heirlooms”. That’s why I don’t spend big money on watches, rings, cuff links etc. By the time we pass on our kids will be loaded down with their own stuff and won’t have room for most of the things we leave behind.
Then Patek is lying to us!
Any heirloom that has intrinsic value could easily end up sold, unless the family is wealthy. It might not be the first generation that sells it, but by the second or third, they have no connection to the person it came from, and just see the dollar signs.
I dare say you're someone who doesn't believe in this practice?
Then Patek is lying to us!
Yes and no. Your Patek is certainly capable of still being serviceable after you pass away and it will by law go to whomever you choose. What it doubtful is that your son or grandson will choose to wear it over a little Apple or Samsung computer on his wrist. It will end up in a box of heirlooms that nobody wants to part with even if they have no use for it. Cynical, I admit, but we have a double shelf full of fancy tea cups on our dining room wall like that.
Yes and no. Your Patek is certainly capable of still being serviceable after you pass away and it will by law go to whomever you choose. What it doubtful is that your son or grandson will choose to wear it over a little Apple or Samsung computer on his wrist. It will end up in a box of heirlooms that nobody wants to part with even if they have no use for it. Cynical, I admit, but we have a double shelf full of fancy tea cups on our dining room wall like that.
This has that 'JLC Deepsea found at a thrift store' vibe to it. Or the lady who took her father's watches into Antiques Roadshow https://youtu.be/DQMNI5_JGy8
I dare say you're someone who doesn't believe in this practice?
I don't think it's a great idea, I think it's a justification to spend more money on yourself.
If you wear a watch a lot and your child likes watches, it won't matter what brand the watch is, it will be valuable to them. Buying yourself a Rolex, Omega, GS, etc., as a "heirloom" for your child, is really just buying yourself a nice watch with an excuse.
Yes and no. Your Patek is certainly capable of still being serviceable after you pass away and it will by law go to whomever you choose. What it doubtful is that your son or grandson will choose to wear it over a little Apple or Samsung computer on his wrist. It will end up in a box of heirlooms that nobody wants to part with even if they have no use for it. Cynical, I admit, but we have a double shelf full of fancy tea cups on our dining room wall like that.
This is why people who weren't rich used to hold onto things like the family bible, rather than every trinket the family had ever bought. It was one item, that stored easily, had no intrinsic value, yet contained the history of the family.
The only other heirlooms were items of daily value/use, like pots, pans, furniture, etc...
A gift is a gift. Once I give someone a gift, it is theirs to do with as they please. If I have expectations, I need to convey them at the time of giving as conditions and give them the opportunity to accept or reject the object which is no longer a gift. It's now part of a contract, usually verbal, and something acquired under a contract is not a gift. This is how I feel about all gifts, not just watches or heirlooms.
As to my watches, I have mentioned in an earlier post how I've decided who I'm giving watches to when the time comes. I will express MY sentiments regarding these pieces, hoping it will have some impact on the receiver, but allowing that now it is THEIRS. They can give it away, throw it away, sell it or smash it with a hammer. Or keep and treasure it, their call.
Well this is a tough one as it has more than one side. We need to be aware that 99% of people are not watch geeks like we are ( from all people I know only one would fall in that category ) so expecting our family members to appreciate this hobby and wear it is a stretch. F.i.my girlfriend got 18k Omega from her great grandmother and was stuck in a drawer for many years. She appreciated the watch but was not a watch aficionado. Now after many years and my interest she slowly got into watches and has a few of them but still that watch has special meaning and is only worn on "special" occasions. Still, the fact that the watch was in drawer doesn't mean she is not appreciating it as she would never sell it but was just not a watch person. But we will get there💯
A gift is a gift. Once I give someone a gift, it is theirs to do with as they please. If I have expectations, I need to convey them at the time of giving as conditions and give them the opportunity to accept or reject the object which is no longer a gift. It's now part of a contract, usually verbal, and something acquired under a contract is not a gift. This is how I feel about all gifts, not just watches or heirlooms.
As to my watches, I have mentioned in an earlier post how I've decided who I'm giving watches to when the time comes. I will express MY sentiments regarding these pieces, hoping it will have some impact on the receiver, but allowing that now it is THEIRS. They can give it away, throw it away, sell it or smash it with a hammer. Or keep and treasure it, their call.
A very healthy and measured perspective.
I have no research to back this up, but my perception is that people are becoming less interested in having things (watches, razors, frying pans, firearms, jewelry, cabin by the lake) previously owned by their parents or grandparents. This whole "family heirloom" idea seems to have lost its luster in the last 50 years. I'm sure there are counterexamples, but in general I think that's right. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many items available in estate sales.
The watch industry (particularly Patek) has pushed the heirloom idea on THIS generation of watch buyers to boost sales, and it's clever marketing. But I wouldn't count on the NEXT generation being that excited about the legacy except to the extent there is $$ value there.
Buy it for you or buy it for someone else as a gift. But don't pretend the purchase for yourself is justified because your son will cherish it in 50 years.
I didn't get my great grandfathers Omega when I was younger and instead it was left to corrode in a drawer 😒 I wanted to have it fixed but I was told it's a waste of money... my own money!!
Eventually it was my turn to inherit the watch but it was gone, probably thrown away 🔥😡🔥
I have no research to back this up, but my perception is that people are becoming less interested in having things (watches, razors, frying pans, firearms, jewelry, cabin by the lake) previously owned by their parents or grandparents. This whole "family heirloom" idea seems to have lost its luster in the last 50 years. I'm sure there are counterexamples, but in general I think that's right. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many items available in estate sales.
The watch industry (particularly Patek) has pushed the heirloom idea on THIS generation of watch buyers to boost sales, and it's clever marketing. But I wouldn't count on the NEXT generation being that excited about the legacy except to the extent there is $$ value there.
Buy it for you or buy it for someone else as a gift. But don't pretend the purchase for yourself is justified because your son will cherish it in 50 years.
I think this is largely accurate. The value a piece might be worth, to a collector, on the secondary market is much more appealing to someone who has no interest in heirlooms, let alone watches.
It’s an illusion that our descendants will be fighting over our “heirlooms”. That’s why I don’t spend big money on watches, rings, cuff links etc. By the time we pass on our kids will be loaded down with their own stuff and won’t have room for most of the things we leave behind.
Must be nice to be upper class. Down here in the gutter, people are not loaded down with stuff. "Stuff" costs money.
I am am older person who is mostly around and involved in the hobbies and activities of considerably younger people. They find my watch hobby charming and mystifying, but they don't get it at all. If they wear a watch at all 99% wear a smartwatch or nothing.
Must be nice to be upper class. Down here in the gutter, people are not loaded down with stuff. "Stuff" costs money.
…wrote the man with 45 watches, including a wonderful selection of Accutrons. Yet you describe yourself as “staggeringly poor” and “in the gutter”.
I am not “upper class” by any stretch. My Saturn will be 14 years old in a few months and my wife drives the “new car”, a 10-yr-old Kia. We watch our expenditures carefully and my modest collection of five watches has little to no market value. Those of us of limited means, like you and me, tend to hold on to stuff just in case we need it so that we don’t have to buy it again. People with money tend to get rid of anything they don’t need because they know that they will be able to buy whatever they need at the time without difficulty.
You and I aren’t that different. I’m sure we’d get along famously over coffee or beer.
Its taken years, I bought the Accutrons for almost nothing at sales. My car is 21 years old. I'm living on $14,000 a year in a disability apartment where the hallways stink of piss and the whole front of the building is currently homeless encampments. I don't drink, smoke or do drugs, I don't even have cable TV or streaming. I average $90 a month on watches, most people here smoke more than that in cigarettes. I'm not even a man. Its amazing how you can be completely wrong about virtually everything.
Its taken years, I bought the Accutrons for almost nothing at sales. My car is 21 years old. I'm living on $14,000 a year in a disability apartment where the hallways stink of piss and the whole front of the building is currently homeless encampments. I don't drink, smoke or do drugs, I don't even have cable TV or streaming. I average $90 a month on watches, most people here smoke more than that in cigarettes. I'm not even a man. Its amazing how you can be completely wrong about virtually everything.
Thank you for being so open about your situation. I made an assumption about your gender and shouldn’t have, and apologize for that.