Quote:
Originally Posted by kisho
Great info Tony. My next question would be if any of these watches are actually worth what what they cost? I'm starting to think no. I also feel the same as you, if given a choice, I'd pick the stainless steel.
As for the Perpetual Moon, I'm with you, the gold version with the blue dial is much nicer. Though I wouldn't be against having the steel version either.
|
The short answer is "probably not." In truth, things are a bit more complicated than that.
If you are of a mind to find a rational basis for establishing the worth of a watch, you won't find it. The fact is that above about $500, none of them are "worth it" if a rational cost-benefit analysis is what one intends to perform. The reason is that there's simply no functional benefit that any watch provides that can justify its cost.
One can pay thousands of dollars for a Rolex Oyster, but one can obtain the same build quality from similarly styled sport watches costing ~$500, sometimes even less. Indeed, any number of dive and other sport style watches, particularly those offered by myriad micro-brands, are built as well, sometimes better than is any Rolex Oyster.
One can pay about $3K for the least expensive chronometer grade watches, but the difference between the timekeeping accuracy of a chronometer and that of a non-chronometer is generally about six to twenty seconds per day. And that's just with mechanical watches. Pick a quartz watch, any quartz watch, and there's not one mechanical watch on the planet that can best it's timekeeping accuracy, which is generally stated in terms of seconds per month or year.
The closest one can get to finding any sort of "worth-it-ness" in a watch is in finding a watch that offers something that one cannot find in a competing watch. For example, consider Jacob & Co's Caligula watch. It's an animated erotica watch that uses a modified chronograph movement to display the act of copulation.
(
)
There are certainly other erotica watches that have been, perhaps even still, made, but none of them are animated. So if one really wants the animation, there's really no alternative. Now, the Caligula retailed for ~$70K, but insofar as there are no alternatives to it, sure, it's worth it.
Similarly, the Arnold & Son moonphase watch I pictured above isn't the only moonphase watch on the market, and it's not the only one that's accurate to ~125 years of moonphases, but it's the only one that looks like it looks. So again, in that regard, it's worth it.
Likewise, there are functional aspects of some mechanical watches that only certain makers offer. For example, the vast majority of makers don't offer the sidereal time or repeater function. Those that do charge very hefty sums for them. If one insists on having those features in a mechanical watch, then paying the required amount is worth it. If one can get by obtaining that information from, say, one's cell phone, it's probably not worth it.
The final conceivably tangible dimension of "worth it" pertains strictly to watches as investment items. I'm sure you can come by folks who'll regale you with their tales of having sold their watch at a profit. I'm sure that's happened for some folks. Be that as it may, watches are financially "worth it" in a way that can be relied upon to yield economic returns in only two situations:
- One is in the business of buying and selling watches
- One buys specific watches (not just a Rolex or any Patek (or any other make), for example, but a very specific Rolex or Patek, one having given serial and model numbers that are in great demand by collectors) that have already demonstrated that they consistently increase in value and there is nothing indicating that trend will stop.
Even in the second situation, the vast majority of financial instruments are better investments. The fact is that watches are made to tell time and to make one feel something. They aren't made to make money for anyone other than the maker and its retail selling partners.
The preceding discussion attempts to address the tangible aspects of "worth it." There is also an intangible aspect. For example, if one just is fascinated in some regard with watches, one may want to collect them. In collecting them, one might define a set of goals for one's collecting activities and for the collection one hopes to build. Collecting watches is no different than collecting anything else. One does it to satisfy one's interest, but make no mistake, collecting of any sort is nothing but an indulgence. So, if collecting watches is an activity that contributes to one's happiness of sorts, to the extent that a watch one buys makes one happy, it's worth it, provided it, or having it, in fact does make one as happy as one expects it to.
As goes the "happy factor," my observation is that quite a lot of folks who buy pricey watches have unrealistic expectations and end up dissatisfied with the watch. I can think of a ton of reasons why their expectations weren't met, but in the end, it comes down to folks not really knowing what they want and why, but nonetheless spending tidy sums (to them) in the hope that by doing so they'll find it.
The reality is that high end watches are all luxury goods. Call me crazy, but when when I look to buy a luxury personal property item, I ask myself whether after buying it I lost it the very next day, would I be willing and able to go back to the store the following day and replace it (assuming another one is available)? If I can answer "yes," I'll probably buy it. If my answer is no, I probably won't.
Why that approach? Mainly because luxury items are indulgences. They are things I can do without; everyone can do without them. So, in my mind, a thing is no luxury if its loss constitutes a "big hit" from which I cannot instantly recover. Instead, if it's so dear that I can't recover unaffected -- aside from being irked that I lost the first one, aside from having to spend twice the price to still have only one item instead of two -- it's more a burden or strain than it is a luxury.
And that's the thing about luxury watches, and being willing and able to spend the sums need buy ones like those noted earlier in this thread...people buy them because they can, not because there's any good or pressing reason to do so. Might there be an exception or two to that? I suppose there could be, but for most folks, overwhelmingly most folks, there isn't.
All the best.