New materials in watchmaking
For many watch collectors inspired by more classical approaches to watchmaking, the plethora of new materials being used in contemporary watchmaking can seem quite confusing, daunting, or even incomprehensible. It gets even more complicated when you mix in those brands using new materials solely for their visual impact or trendy effect. How on earth can one determine the true technical worthiness and economic value of a particular material when applied to horology under such circumstances? Do these new materials represent real advances or are they just there for a fashionable ‘show and tell’ with one’s friends over a glass of wine?
The economic value of these new materials within watchmaking is an aspect everyone can easily relate to and therefore a good place to start. At the risk of oversimplification, and omitting discussion of R&D costs and the like, there are only three aspects to consider in this horological value equation: material costs + manufacturing = a specific value. If we take wristwatch cases as an easy example, and ignore the historical, sentimental and traditional values given to gold and platinum, this leads to some interesting calculations. The several grades of titanium used in some watches today are all relatively cheap as a material, but the manufacturing process of titanium is much more expensive than that of gold or even steel. If we are discussing cases, the result is that a titanium case in real economic terms ends up costing the same to as one of gold despite the price difference in raw materials. We forget that the wear and tear on cutters and tools of fire proofed 5-axis machines (yes, titanium dust is highly flammable!) has to be paid back in expensive man-hours when their replacement cutters and tooling – oftentimes created by hand – need to be made after only 20 cases are finished and the machines need to be totally reset for the next batch. Many brands deliberately kept the price of their watches in titanium lower that their gold models because they felt that the market would not accept such equalization between precious and mundane metals, but in recent years, due to a new awareness, this has slowly been changing. To fill out the description here, I should add that complex shapes made in most non-precious metals or materials usually increase the cost of manufacturing due to their hardness or structure, which often requires additional preliminary stages before actual cutting begins. For instance, a flat circular bezel of titanium for instance is relatively quick and easy to produce, however when a complex three-dimensional shape is involved the process is much more complex since a ‘secondary ingot’ needs to be pre-formed in a rough outline of the watch in order to save the above-mentioned wear and tear on cutting machines. Working on a regular block would slow the production process down too severely.
In the same vein, a complex case shape made in sapphire, ceramic carbon, magnesium, ALUSIC or other such materials can end up with sky high costs that make them far more valuable in their final form than if they were made of any rare metal that can be found on the Earth. Sapphire for cases and parts is quite interesting in this respect. Stettler in Switzerland is the world’s main supplier of finished sapphire glasses and parts, and master of sapphire working in every shape, form and thickness imaginable. They produce everything from protective screens for some Leica digital cameras, all the little date magnifier windows for Rolex, challenging and highly unusual case shapes for MB&F and the cases for Richard Mille’s sapphire pieces and innumerable parts for other high level clients. Although sapphire itself, grown as a ‘seeded’ crystal in laboratory environments, is not so terribly expensive as a raw material, its manufacturing process is laborious to say the least. Despite the fact that sapphire can be cut – slowly – by slightly harder diamond topped tools, the most work required in sapphire parts production involves the exact and critical dimensioning after the basic cutting has been completed, since the sapphire needs to be ground, using exactly the same techniques used for the creation of camera lenses. A milky liquid suspension filled with small abrasive particles (different sized particles are used in various steps) is rubbed for hours on end across the previously cut part until the dimensions are correct within microns. This is followed up by a similar process only for the high gloss polishing of the part. For a complete watchcase in sapphire such as that used in the RM056, this means about 2.5 months of 24/7 work executed on a single case using a specialist machine with 3 workers watching over it in shifts; it represents an astronomic value component in the final price of the timepiece, even before development of the movement and R&D are calculated into the equation.
My experience as a Swiss watch industry insider spans about 27+ years, with 20 years (and presently) in the role of company spokesman at a Swiss brand, as well as a long term background in watch journ...
I very much agree that the use of precious metals says very little about a watch, and that the value of a luxury watch is in the effort, but also the innovation that goes into the production of the watch. I understand why RMs are so expensive.
However, that still begs the question of whether the effort is worth it. I very much like titanium cases, and am willing to pay a premium. However, I would be less inclined to pay extra for something that doesn't appeal to me. RMs look very busy to me.
Great reading, thanks for sharing.
I very much agree that the use of precious metals says very little about a watch, and that the value of a luxury watch is in the effort, but also the innovation that goes into the production of the watch. I understand why RMs are so expensive.
However, that still begs the question of whether the effort is worth it. I very much like titanium cases, and am willing to pay a premium. However, I would be less inclined to pay extra for something that doesn't appeal to me. RMs look very busy to me.
Indeed, I do understand what you mean about the effort and basically agree...However, I think this happens all the time with many products. Do we really need that extra single horsepower in the Bugatti Veyron at 1,001 hp? For that matter, we can also argue that F1 racing is a waste of time and money of ginormous proportions, and furthermore who cares who was the fastest man or woman on the track in 2021? In 100 years the Bugatti will be a rust bucket and the fastest person of 2021 replaced by the fastest athlete of 2122.
Humans just do lots of useless things, like this or like climbing mountains, just becuase they can; perhaps watches are similar, by creating or solving some form of technical ideal or aesthetic challenge?
Indeed, I do understand what you mean about the effort and basically agree...However, I think this happens all the time with many products. Do we really need that extra single horsepower in the Bugatti Veyron at 1,001 hp? For that matter, we can also argue that F1 racing is a waste of time and money of ginormous proportions, and furthermore who cares who was the fastest man or woman on the track in 2021? In 100 years the Bugatti will be a rust bucket and the fastest person of 2021 replaced by the fastest athlete of 2122.
Humans just do lots of useless things, like this or like climbing mountains, just becuase they can; perhaps watches are similar, by creating or solving some form of technical ideal or aesthetic challenge?
Yes, it very much happens with products a lot, usually around an easily quantifiable metric, like the horsepower you mentioned. The question remains whether it is simply a feature, or whether it truly delivers value. Or to use the automotive analogy once more: I once bought a Mercedes that looked good on paper and was not cheap, but its all-wheel drive system made it very slow to respond, giving it a sluggish feel while driving. Yes, the car was feature-rich, but it failed to deliver on value.
And herein also lies the difference between humans simply trying to excel and delivering value in a product. If a Japanese person polishes a clay ball (Dorodango) into a nearly perfect shiny sphere, it is astonishing in itself. Would I necessarily buy such a fragile ball, or would I have use for it? Probably not.
Then you have the concept of a Veblen-good, meaning a product that is bought for its exclusivity alone, or you may call it status. The effort makes it hard to replicate, in some sense similar to certain forms of cybercurrency, except that it is much easier to convey that status with a Richard Mille.
Sure, but as far as I can see: value seems always to be something in the eye of the beholder. I have a few Japanese sake cups here that would have the value of a Patek Philippe in Tokyo, but no-one in the EU would give me 15 euro's for them...Yes, of course there are many factors like scarcity, market, culture, etc. - but the bottom line is the perception of the individual.
As to delivering value, the Mercedes in your example probably did deliver value where 4-wheel drive is needed or useful. However, it seems it did not deliver what you expected from it in daily use. What I mean to say here in addition to the above is that the definition of 'delivering value' is also subject to many non-quantifiable, subjective interpretations.
None of us here needs a wristwatch, and none are as accurate as your iPhone. The only value they deliver - I suspect - is that watches deliver pleasurable emotions while telling the time 🤓.
Interesting and thought provoking topic. So much is based on perspective. It reminds me of George Carlin and his observation that when you're driving, anyone driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone driving faster than you is a maniac.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWPCE2tTLZQ
I have to admit that I find myself guilty of that same flawed thinking, including when it comes to watches.
My budget doesn't allow me to consider a sapphire case RM056, so I tend to view it as an extravagance reserved for those "with more money than brains". I have no doubt that I'd feel differently about it if I had the financial wherewithal to consider one without having to be concerned with affordability. Several years ago, I would have thought the same about a ceramic cased watch like the Omega "Dark Side of the Moon" Speedmaster, but now that I'm able to comfortably afford one, it no longer seems like such a stupid idea.
Sure, but as far as I can see: value seems always to be something in the eye of the beholder. I have a few Japanese sake cups here that would have the value of a Patek Philippe in Tokyo, but no-one in the EU would give me 15 euro's for them...Yes, of course there are many factors like scarcity, market, culture, etc. - but the bottom line is the perception of the individual.
As to delivering value, the Mercedes in your example probably did deliver value where 4-wheel drive is needed or useful. However, it seems it did not deliver what you expected from it in daily use. What I mean to say here in addition to the above is that the definition of 'delivering value' is also subject to many non-quantifiable, subjective interpretations.
None of us here needs a wristwatch, and none are as accurate as your iPhone. The only value they deliver - I suspect - is that watches deliver pleasurable emotions while telling the time 🤓.
The perceived value of an object is certainly very subjective, I don't disagree with you there. I'm not sure what matters most is the value the individual attributes to it, but more so the group that produces, buys, sells or trades this articles. The sake cups that you mentioned are something that you could buy or sell, and would be objectively be worth something the moment they are being bought or sold.
But I highly suspect that the sake cups also don't follow a regular pattern of supply and demand either, but are more likely a collectors item or investment object as far as their perceived value is concerned. Their desirability of those who know what these cups represent may further rise with a rise in value.
I see a similar pattern with RM. It may not matter whether a particular aspect of the watch is meaningful from a practical perspective. Just the fact that it may be hard to replicate may be enough, as it limits the availability of those watches. And that limited availability is worth something.
And I think in that sense my comparison with the Mercedes was flawed. It was in the end more or less a commodity that follows different rules.
Theodore! Nice to see you here and always a joy to listen (or read) to what you have to say!
Theodore! Nice to see you here and always a joy to listen (or read) to what you have to say!
Thanks for the kind words, much appreciated!
The perceived value of an object is certainly very subjective, I don't disagree with you there. I'm not sure what matters most is the value the individual attributes to it, but more so the group that produces, buys, sells or trades this articles. The sake cups that you mentioned are something that you could buy or sell, and would be objectively be worth something the moment they are being bought or sold.
But I highly suspect that the sake cups also don't follow a regular pattern of supply and demand either, but are more likely a collectors item or investment object as far as their perceived value is concerned. Their desirability of those who know what these cups represent may further rise with a rise in value.
I see a similar pattern with RM. It may not matter whether a particular aspect of the watch is meaningful from a practical perspective. Just the fact that it may be hard to replicate may be enough, as it limits the availability of those watches. And that limited availability is worth something.
And I think in that sense my comparison with the Mercedes was flawed. It was in the end more or less a commodity that follows different rules.
Thanks for your input. The question of limited availability seems to be normal for the whole watch industry these days, because I am still waiting for my Daytona to arrive! With Rolex's 900,000+ yearly production numbers I still hope it will happen in this lifetime 😅.
Interesting topic - great read!
How on earth can one determine the true technical worthiness and economic value of a particular material when applied to horology under such circumstances?
While I think there is some value in the actual material - I think you've explain quite effectively that the value is not necessarily in the material itself but rather in the research, tools and techniques developed to use the material in the first place. For RM (or similar watchmaker/brand), its quite easy for them to set a price or value on a watch using the equation you outlined with one addition: material costs + manufacturing + demand = a specific value. If we are talking about value as it relates to all of horology then I would say there is no value as its invaluable. And I would be using the strictest definition: having value beyond estimation.
Do these new materials represent real advances or are they just there for a fashionable ‘show and tell’ with one’s friends over a glass of wine?
I would say the answer is yes in both cases. Again, in my opinion, it's not necessarily the materials that are the real advances but rather all the work that was done in order to use/create the material in the first place. The chicken can not come before the egg of course - or maybe it's better to say you can't have one without the other.
And no doubt the way these new materials can be used is to create watches like RM which very fashionable right now. Not to take away from the actual watchmaking involved in a RM piece but the way these use these new materials effectively create incredibly distinctive watches. And intentionally or not, that makes these watches a badge of a sorts - easily signaling to others that there is something special on my wrist and yes I can afford that.
Just my two cents of course! Great read again - lots of food for thought here!