The Crypto Collapse Has Flooded the Market With Rolex and Patek (bloomberg.com) 109
The collapse in cryptocurrencies is easing supply of the most sought after watches on the second-hand market, depressing prices for hard-to get-Patek Philippe and Rolex models. From a report: The supply of trophy watches such as the Rolex Daytona or Patek Nautilus 5711A "is now much larger," online-watch trading platform Chrono24 said in an emailed statement. The recent swoon in cryptocurrency valuations "has directly impacted pricing of luxury watches from brands like Rolex and Patek Philippe," said the company, which is based in Karlsruhe, Germany, and has more than half a million watches listed for sale on its website. The price decline for the most sought after models is the latest indication that the once soaring second-hand luxury watch market is starting to lose pace. Surging valuations for crypto currencies had minted a new class of luxury buyers, leading to an unprecedented price increase for models particularly from brands like Rolex, Audemars Piguet and Patek. Now that many digital tokens have been hammered, these consumers are going into reverse.
What collapse? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What collapse? (Score:5, Insightful)
Crypto is still over a Trillion dollars in valuation. That's not a collapse. .
Given that the global valuation was 2.6 trillion about four months ago, I'd call that a collapse.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, crypto has declined. There is also a war in Ukraine, oil prices have surged, there are global food shortages, inflation is rising, the Fed is jacking up interest rates, and we are likely heading into a recession.
There are plenty of reasons besides crypto that people are tightening their belts and spending less on frivolous things like luxury watches.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the Fed is jacking up interest rates...
When this happens, smart money moves from the stock market and asset plays into income-earning investments after their price has come down. But so far every attempt to earn interest on Bitcoin has turned into disaster.
Re:What collapse? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What collapse? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only reason all crypto hasn't gone to zero yet is that too many rich people bought in. They will keep some of it propped up for a "bit" longer (pun intended) but once they see the writing on the wall they will exit before the little guys do. So if you are one of the little guys, I'd take what I can get now and look for better investments. If you beat the big guys on bailing, you will get more money than by waiting until the music has stopped, and there are no more musical chairs.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a little guy, and the $600 or so of my 2016 bitcoin is worth about $34,000 now. It was worth about $90,000 near the end of last year. With my regular investments, it'd be about double now (I'm not looking it up, just guessing based on worth then and now), so call it $1200.
So the question I ask myself before following your advice is, if I don't sell and BTC is zero tomorrow, did I lose $600, $1200, or $34,000?
I figure $600 or $1200 isn't enough to worry about, but $34,000 is a really, really, really, rea
Re: (Score:3)
Bitcoin is a speculative financial instrument. It isn't money until you hit the cash out button. So that vacation is just a dream right now. Your call.
Re:What collapse? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a little guy, and the $600 or so of my 2016 bitcoin is worth about $34,000 now. It was worth about $90,000 near the end of last year. With my regular investments, it'd be about double now (I'm not looking it up, just guessing based on worth then and now), so call it $1200.
So the question I ask myself before following your advice is, if I don't sell and BTC is zero tomorrow, did I lose $600, $1200, or $34,000?
I figure $600 or $1200 isn't enough to worry about, but $34,000 is a really, really, really, really nice overseas vacation for a family of four.
The fact that you were an early investor who may come out ahead in a Ponzi scheme does not demonstrate that the system generated value. Your gains are coming at the expense of people who came in later. You bought in at what we now know was a good time to capitalize on later suckers, and your unrealized gains would suggest you’ll come out ahead in the end, but, as always happens in these sorts of schemes, the later “investors” are taking it on the chin without anything to show for it other than losses.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you were an early investor who may come out ahead in a Ponzi scheme does not demonstrate that the system generated value.
Where are you seeing that I'm making that claim?
Re:What collapse? (Score:5, Funny)
Crypto is still over a Trillion dollars in valuation. That's not a collapse.
“Okay, sure, my friend may have lost more than 60% of his weight in just the last few months, but he still has plenty more he could lose before he hits 0, so I wouldn’t call it ‘unhealthy weight loss’.”
Re: (Score:2)
Losing 60% of your weight in a few months is never healthy, regardless of where you started (your risk of a heart attack skyrockets when you have rapid weight loss like that, which is why people who have bariatric surgery are put on a controlled weight loss program to mitigate those concerns), hence why I picked it as an example. Likewise, a market losing over 60% of its value in a few months is never healthy, regardless of where it started.
I wonder how long true watches will last as luxury (Score:3, Interesting)
To me, it's kind of a mystery that the really high end watch market is still at the levels it is.
I was arguing with someone recently who was saying an Apple Watch was worthless because it was "disposable", in that it would only last five years or so before you needed another - where his Rolex Time Thumper 8888X would last for 100 years and always be super valuable. He just couldn't see spending $500 on a smart watch while he had no trouble dumping $20k on a Rolex.
But I just can't see it, smart watches keep advancing and just from a functionality standpoint only maybe high end diving watches are actually more reasonably functional than some form of smart watch now.
In the end watches are just fashion also and all fashion goes out of style eventually... if the same happens to watches (and I suspect it will) what will happen to those who relied on them holding value? Even this article shows the weakness of that strategy as everyone dumping watches on the market is decreasing value a bit... I just think it might get much worse.
Re: (Score:1)
What is a fashion watch? Image result for fashion watches “Fashion watch” is a derogatory name for any watch made from a brand that: Is mostly known for selling other types of fashion accessories or clothes. Aims to sell rather cheap timepieces at a higher than average price.
High-end watches Patek, AP, VC, and Rolex are luxury items. ie jewelry. Their price is based on prestige, exclusivity, desirability, etc. Speculators are losing big time. Real collectors are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't jewelry fundamentally just fashion? Unfashionable jewelry tends to only be worth what the base materials cost. Right now, mechanical watches are in fashion, but there's no guarantee that will be the case forever.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't jewelry fundamentally just fashion?
I'm sure people wear gold in case they need to plate some conductors. Or when your ceramic tile saw wears out, you'll be glad you're wearing all those diamonds.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the same thing at first, but I understand the distinction he's making and it makes a lot of sense.
Unfashionable jewelry tends to only be worth what the base materials cost.
Maybe on the low-end, but he's not really talking about that sort of thing.
Right now, mechanical watches are in fashion, but there's no guarantee that will be the case forever.
They held their value when they weren't in fashion, so I wouldn't worry too much about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Same initial reaction here. The key is in the difference between the statistical processes that make fashion and luxury.
Re:I wonder how long true watches will last as lux (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, *fashion* and *design* are closely related but distinct concepts. Often what is fashionable is bad design.
Steve Job's favorite watch was the Seiko 6431-6030 [wornandwound.com]. This was never a fashionable watch, but it is now recognized as a masterpiece of design. It is almost a watch stripped down to the *concept* of a watch.
Compare this to the offerings of a well-known fashion watch [michaelkors.com] brand. Not *everything* on offer there is terrible, but clearly they are offering watches designed for people who don't care about design.
Good design is something that lasts; fashion by definition is something that doesn't. And good design doesn't have to be expensive and pretentious. It can be downright cheap [amazon.com], and is usually pretty simple [amazon.com].
Re: (Score:2)
good design doesn't have to be expensive and pretentious. It can be downright cheap, and is usually pretty simple.
An exquisite example of good design and simplicity is the Bauhaus inspired museum watch [movado.com] - the first wristwatch to get displayed at MOMA...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The dot stands for the sun - the intention is to suggest a sun dial [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
How are they not losing? (Score:2)
High-end watches Patek, AP, VC, and Rolex are luxury items. ie jewelry. Their price is based on prestige, exclusivity, desirability, etc. Speculators are losing big time. Real collectors are not.
Isn't this very story abut how in fact real collectors are losing value in their collections? If you have a bunch of Rolex watches they are worth less now than they were.
Maybe you can argue that it's just a dip, and the "real collectors" get a chance to buy some more and grow the collection. But I wonder if the Rol
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point is a "real" collector doesn't care what the price is except when they have to buy, you can collect pebbles on the beach, they maybe only valuable to you and you don't care. If you are buying for speculative purposes, i.e. you want to sell them in the future and make some money or to show off how expensive your watch is then you care.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok fair enough, I see what you are saying - though I think most collectors, especially high end watch collectors, are always to some degree speculators and may care if the overall value of a collection falls.
Though as you say, I'm sure there are at least a few that would maintain a collection no matter what.
Re: (Score:2)
To me, it's kind of a mystery that the really high end watch market is still at the levels it is.
I was arguing with someone recently who was saying an Apple Watch was worthless because it was "disposable", in that it would only last five years or so before you needed another - where his Rolex Time Thumper 8888X would last for 100 years and always be super valuable. He just couldn't see spending $500 on a smart watch while he had no trouble dumping $20k on a Rolex.
But I just can't see it, smart watches keep advancing and just from a functionality standpoint only maybe high end diving watches are actually more reasonably functional than some form of smart watch now.
In the end watches are just fashion also and all fashion goes out of style eventually... if the same happens to watches (and I suspect it will) what will happen to those who relied on them holding value? Even this article shows the weakness of that strategy as everyone dumping watches on the market is decreasing value a bit... I just think it might get much worse.
I suspect for people 30+ a Rolex was still shorthand for a super-fashionable/expensive watch growing up, and to an extent while those generations still hold that belief and they have the purchasing power the value will hold.
But their value was built in the era where a wristwatch was the best portable way to tell the time, and that's all wristwatches could do which make them a reliable place to dump some value.
Now phones make the watch less valuable and the smart watch make the Rolex less useful, so yeah, at
Re:I wonder how long true watches will last as lux (Score:4, Informative)
>and the smart watch make the Rolex less useful
You are making a category error there comparing the two.
Not comparing though (Score:1)
You are making a category error there comparing the two.
They serve totally different purposes, yes.
But at some point in the future no-one will want to be without a smart watch, especially when it replaces the phone entirely.
At that point are you wearing a smart watch AND a luxury watch? I just don't see it. That's why I speak of displacement, not because it replaces the use of the other, but because the smart watch is mandatory and the luxury watch is just one of the many fashion items you wear, and thus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh. Read again. I addressed this exact point.
And yet you wrote this: Do you remember what you wrote?
At that point are you wearing a smart watch AND a luxury watch? I just don't see it. That's why I speak of displacement, not because it replaces the use of the other, but because the smart watch is mandatory and the luxury watch is just one of the many fashion items you wear, and thus optional.
Again you fail to recognize that a person wearing a luxury watch today does not do so FOR THE FUNCTIONALITY as luxury watches have been superseded functionally by cheaper, electronic watches long ago. Also you seem fixated on the false dichotomy that a person has to choose between the two. A person can own both. A person can own and wear multiple watches (especially at different times). Somehow it has escaped you that people have multiple watches in the
Litteraly jewellery (Score:5, Insightful)
But their value was built in the era where a wristwatch was the best portable way to tell the time, and that's all wristwatches could do which make them a reliable place to dump some value.
Not quite. That was merely the excuse.
Watch making grew in Switzerland as a way for goldsmiths to circumvent fundamentalist religious bans (like calvinism and other protestant variations) against "outward signs of wealth", including ornament such as jewellery. [www.fhs.swiss]
Fancy watches were the 16th century equivalent of "getting crap past the radar":
"it's not an ornamental pendent, its an important tool that gives time!"
The earliest watches weren't that precise at all (the tech wasn't really there).
Eventually, while trying to make their product even more interesting and exceptional, it evolved to a point where its precision in itself was interesting.
Precision started as a demonstration of craftsmanship to increase the percieved value of this "absolutely not a piece of jewellery, no sir, I swear!"
And in a way the modern-day ultra luxury watch brands are merely perpetuating this tradition of being an expensive piece jewellery.
Now phones make the watch less valuable and the smart watch make the Rolex less useful, so yeah, at some point that bubble is going to burst as well.
"Now photography makes painting less valuable and less useful, so yeah, at some point that bubble around painters artists is going to bust as well".
Not as much as you think.
The luxury brand will merely stop putting that much emphasis on "ultra high time-keeping precision" (just like photo-realism isn't the main point in anything more recent than impressionism), and the el-cheapo functional wrist-watch will disappear as a product category (for people who just want actually the exact time can get it from modern electronics), but the big brands will continue to try to design big expensive piece of art and jewellery masquerading as some time-keeping functionality.
Big luxury watch makers aren't mainly in the business of tracking time, they are in the business of designing expensive golden trinkets that looks nice enough for rich people to throw money at them.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think photography and painting is a good analogy. Both photography and painting can represent the world, but the former can only represent the world as it exists, not as one imagines it. The latter may not be as accurate at representing the world as it exists, but is a good medium for the imagination. They are technologies with overlapping, but far from identical use cases.
In the case of a time piece, both just tell time. The functionality is 100% identical. The only reason why anybody even makes me
Re: (Score:2)
This is insanely ignorant to the nature of photography. Its not simply 'photon capture'. Choices of location, duration, aperture, total exposure, lens choice, development, cropping and framing can all be used to distort reality into the message you want to convey. I assure you I can bend reality well beyond a point of distortion with a camera.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Litteraly jewellery (Score:4, Interesting)
Precision was also driven by industry. Clocks and watches were important as part of the navigational equipment on sailing ships. And railway companies insisted on conductors using watches that were built to precise requirements to be very accurate for their day and age.
At this point I've probably spent more of my life wearing a wrist watch than not. I wear it so I can know the time whenever I by just looking at my wrist. People talk about using their phone as a replacement and I just don't get that. Even when I have carried a cell phone dragging it out of a pocket and then fiddling with it just to see the time has seemed silly. The watch I wear is admittedly more expensive than is strictly required for the purpose, being a couple hundred dollars when brand new, but is is definitely more about function for me than accessorizing.
Proposal: Shift in purpose (Score:1)
the big brands will continue to try to design big expensive piece of art and jewellery masquerading as some time-keeping functionality.
Consider this - what if one or more of them instead shifted to create exceedingly intricate adornments for smart watches? Like a combination band and case.
Luxury watches are already absurdly large so a really complex and tough band/case would be really feasible, and would give the smart watch a high end aesthetic while not limiting you in what you could do with your expensi
Not in the same market. (Score:2)
{...} - what if one or more of them instead shifted to create exceedingly intricate adornments for smart watches? Like a combination band and case.
Luxury watches are already absurdly large so a really complex and tough band/case would be really feasible, and would give the smart watch a high end aesthetic while not limiting you in what you could do with your expensive wrist item.
The main problem is that currently smartwatches are still on a fast update treadmill and luxury jewellery makers aren't in the same market.
Luxury jewellery maker are interested in manufacturing pieces of art that are perceived by their public as "timeless" (pun intended :-P ), so that people "invest" in them, and then pass them to their children as some piece of luxurious family heirloom (again, exactly as jewellery).
It's not very compatible with a piece of tech that you throw away at minimum every 6 months
Re: (Score:3)
But their value was built in the era where a wristwatch was the best portable way to tell the time, and that's all wristwatches could do which make them a reliable place to dump some value.
Not quite. That was merely the excuse.
Watch making grew in Switzerland as a way for goldsmiths to circumvent fundamentalist religious bans (like calvinism and other protestant variations) against "outward signs of wealth", including ornament such as jewellery. [www.fhs.swiss]
Fancy watches were the 16th century equivalent of "getting crap past the radar":
"it's not an ornamental pendent, its an important tool that gives time!"
The earliest watches weren't that precise at all (the tech wasn't really there).
Eventually, while trying to make their product even more interesting and exceptional, it evolved to a point where its precision in itself was interesting.
Precision started as a demonstration of craftsmanship to increase the percieved value of this "absolutely not a piece of jewellery, no sir, I swear!"
And in a way the modern-day ultra luxury watch brands are merely perpetuating this tradition of being an expensive piece jewellery.
Definitely interesting, and I'd still agree that the success of the Rolex comes from being a piece of jewellery that disguises itself as an essential functional tool. But I think that only offers more evidence that its decline is coming.
When everybody worn time-keeping only watches the appeal of the Rolex was that it was categorically better than any other watch (even kept time better).
Now, smart watches are clearly more functional than a Rolex, so the men wearing them are now clearly sacrificing the functi
Re: (Score:2)
The luxury brand will merely stop putting that much emphasis on "ultra high time-keeping precision"
They have done that since the 80s when cheaper quartz movements were far better at keeping time. Later, electronics helped add more and more features. If someone is buying a Rolex today, it is not because the Rolex is the most precise. They are buying a luxury item that is considered a collectible.
Re:I wonder how long true watches will last as lux (Score:4, Insightful)
Smart watchs won't devalue high-end watches any more than cheap timex watches did. They look similar, but they're not the same class of product at all.
Re: I wonder how long true watches will last as lu (Score:2)
Everyone thought mechanical watches were doomed when quartz watches were invented. Whoâ(TM)d want a big, temperamental mechanical thing? They were expensive, needed regular maintenance, and the very best are far worse at keeping time than the cheapest quartz.
Turns out expensive watches arenâ(TM)t about telling time.
Re: (Score:2)
Now phones make the watch less valuable and the smart watch make the Rolex less useful, so yeah, at some point that bubble is going to burst as well.
Mechanical watches like Rolex became less useful in the 80s when quartz movements became widely available. Before then accuracy and features were directly related to the quality and craftsmanship of the mechanical design. Jewel movements with natural or synthetic gems were not ornamental but integral to functionality. Features such as multiple timezones required more complicated movements and as such higher priced and higher quality watches were more desirable.
Then came cheap, mass produced quartz watches
Re: (Score:2)
Their value has nothing to do with their utility. They are Luxury goods. Wearing a Rolex or Patek or IWC, Longines etc is about showing the world you are wealthy and successful. Otherwise how else can you explain the design atrocity that are Richard Mille watches? The price is extreme yet they make your eyes bleed. But they are distinct. And wearing that distinct brand makes you look successful.
Re: (Score:2)
Their value has nothing to do with their utility. They are Luxury goods. Wearing a Rolex or Patek or IWC, Longines etc is about showing the world you are wealthy and successful. Otherwise how else can you explain the design atrocity that are Richard Mille watches? The price is extreme yet they make your eyes bleed. But they are distinct. And wearing that distinct brand makes you look successful.
Then why not a bracelet, ring, or chain? The claim isn't that Luxury watches will vanish. The claim is they have a price premium as jewellery because time-only watches were such an ubiquitous item.
In other words, when it's easy to rank everyone's watch there's a lot of value in having the nicest. When the ranking is less clear (the features of Apple vs Garmin vs FitBit vs just using your phone vs luxury watch) that "nicest watch" value goes way down.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why not a bracelet, ring, or chain? The claim isn't that Luxury watches will vanish. The claim is they have a price premium as jewellery because time-only watches were such an ubiquitous item.
Fashion doesn't have to be logical. Its a watch because watches are cool.
In other words, when it's easy to rank everyone's watch there's a lot of value in having the nicest. When the ranking is less clear (the features of Apple vs Garmin vs FitBit vs just using your phone vs luxury watch) that "nicest watch" value goes way down.
Luxury goods aren't always about being the best or most exclusive. Its about being exclusive enough. Sure, they guys at the top will want the 1 of 1s to prove their gatekeeper status. But for most Rolex owners having any Rolex is probably good enough. Because the goal was to let everyone know they have a well paying white collar job. Not that they necessarily have the best aesthetic taste or that they are the richest man in the world.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But high-end watches, like all jewelry, are accessories in terms of dress up. Yes, people may add a high-end watch as an accessory to a high-end suit, but nobody is going to care in 2022 if you are fashionably dressed sans wristwatch. It's purely optional. I haven't worn a wristwatch myself since cell phones became ubiquitous (early 00s), but I've had plenty of occasions to dress up during that time.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Now with workplace casual you can still tell at tech companies, a CEO or founder mi
Re: I wonder how long true watches will last as lu (Score:2)
Could you just clarify what a "chump" is, in this context? Is it someone who is poor, or someone who does not know what signals to send out to indicate that they are not poor, or something else?
Disclosure: : I am a scruffy peasant who cannot identify expensive clothes/shoes/jewellery by sight (or, indeed, by name. I sometimes hear/read brand names which I can only infer from context are luxury items).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on what you are trying to accomplish with what you are wearing. If you want to send the message of "I'm richer/more powerful than you" it seems the latest thing is to show up way underdressed. Nothing says "I have F-u power/money" like showing up to a meeting in a hoodie when everyone else is wearing suits and they still have to listen to what you have to say.
Even a $100k Patek is chump change to the billionaire set, so there's really nothing you can wear that's going to impress the truly wealthy
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing says "I have F-u power/money" like showing up to a meeting in a hoodie when everyone else is wearing suits and they still have to listen to what you have to say.
I'm not sure where you're from, but what this says in Silicon Valley is usually: "I am arrogant, a little autistic and don't have the best social skills, and also I don't understand the privilege level I have so that people take me seriously even though I'm dressed like crap."
Mark Zuckerberg gave this up, and really outside of crypto you don't see a ton of this anymore. As it turns out, VCs stopped taking the hoodie kids so seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me nostalgic for the pocket watch I had in another life.
Re: I wonder how long true watches will last as lu (Score:2)
You have to wind it by hand...
Re: (Score:2)
Watches are jewelry for men. They're a fashion statement, and for some, an opportunity to flash their wealth around. Their functionality borders on irrelevant.
There may have been a temporary spike in the value of very high-end watches, but I would be astonished if they did not continue to rise in the long term. Certainly their value will not be affected by smartwatches. Just like Ferrari sales aren't affected by the F150.
There Can Be Only One (Score:1)
Watches are jewelry for men. They're a fashion statement, and for some, an opportunity to flash their wealth around. Their functionality borders on irrelevant.
Yes I agree with this, however....
As smart watches grow more and more functional, the amount of people who will want to be without one will continue to shrink. As that happens, how many people will wear two watches (the smart watch and the expensive fashion statement)?
How many ultra-rich people would be out about town without a smart phone? Simply e
Re: (Score:2)
The most useful thing a smart watch can do is connect to your smartphone and display information from it. Smartphones will always be more capable than smart watches in most respects. They have a bigger screen and interface, so for anything but the simplest task, you're better off just retrieving your phone.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's just an appreciation of the art of micro mechanical design.
Because when you think about it, your $5 digital watch is far more accurate than a precision made mechanical watch - the the digital watch is good for up to 5 seconds a month drift, while a mechanical is lucky to get that within a day.
But a mechanical watch just has all that nifty gears and such inside which are so tiny it's a miracle they work together that they do. Especially when you add in all the complications they have.
I mean, a g
I don't think they're going anywhere (Score:2)
Re:I wonder how long true watches will last as lux (Score:5, Interesting)
I almost never go out of the house without a mechanical watch on my wrist. I have a number of them. None are expensive. Most of them are ones where I fixed a movement, made the physical dial for it, printed the dial (pad printing), and found hands and a case to fit.
My favourite has a Longines movement from 1939 (calibre 12.68N), a dial I made, an Omega RAF case from around 1951, and a home made leather strap. The movement (needed fixing; in particular, a new balance staff), case and strap are all gifts from friends in the "watch community". It runs within +/- 8 seconds a day.
Why do I do this? It isn't because I think that people will notice. It is because I can. :)
Best wishes,
Bob
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of things I don't do that I could do. People wouldn't notice if I wore sequined under garments. But I don't do it just because I can. I submit that there's a bit more to it than "because I can."
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. At the least it is something that takes a bit of skill, perhaps even more than wearing sequined garments. I'm really interested in the micro engineering. I also like the graphic design aspects (dials). So I revel in the ability and opportunity to express the necessary (hard won) skills in putting together watches.
I also have an interest (philosophical) in the nature of time. And an interest in how it is measured. For precision timing, I turn to my Raspberry PI based NTP server, which is reasona
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps there is something in what you say. I was once wearing a different, larger watch at a train station when a stranger asked me about it, saying he noticed it when we were on an escalator. He was particularly interested in learning about the brand. I use "F&J" as the brand for my watches. I told him that it was a DIY jobbie and "F&J" stood for "Flotsam and Jetsam". He lost interest. I suspect that he was a collector.
Mind, this is the only time anything like this has happened in about 20 y
Re: (Score:2)
This anecdotal story is certainly No Place For Disgrace.
Re: I wonder how long true watches will last as lu (Score:2, Interesting)
I bought my first Rolex at the age of 19. Iâ(TM)m 49 now. Iâ(TM)ve worn it for 30 years. It still works as accurately as it did 30 years ago. Itâ(TM)s my daily driver and it looks like it: abused and work in the ocean and sailing and playing sports and working out at the gym.
I figure Iâ(TM)ll get another 40 years out of it.
Say it cost me $20,000 in 1993. I expect to get 26,000 days out of it. $1 a day?
I have a ton of friends who get a new iwatch every year. $600.
I got the better e
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, in 20 years time it's unlikely that even with a new battery that Apple Watch will be able to do anything useful. Nothing will support it, and there will probably be some unfixed bugs that make it useless or risky to connect to anything.
Don't get me wrong, I year a Xiaomi Mi Band. It cost £20 and does all the important stuff like heart rate and step counting. I'm happy for it to only last 5 years at that price, and each to their own.
But a Rolex is a longer term investment and will lik
Re: (Score:2)
To me, it's kind of a mystery that the really high end watch market is still at the levels it is.
Why? Have you ever seen a jewelry store? Time is free. The wristwatch is the most widely socially accepted form of male jewelry there is.
Some of us actively enjoy wearing a piece of well engineered hand made jewelry.
And your friend is right about the timeframe. My father still wears his Rolex some 55 years on daily, it's just recently been serviced, and if it continues to be mistreated in the way he has been doing so it'll last another 55 years. I highly suspect an he'd be on his 20th Apple Watch by now.
In the end watches are just fashion also and all fashion goes out of style eventually...
No.
Re: I wonder how long true watches will last as lu (Score:2)
No link (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Kinda figured people here would know about archive.ph: https://archive.ph/UroFd [archive.ph]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda figured people here would know about archive.ph: https://archive.ph/UroFd [archive.ph]
Everyone knows about it. But we don't come here for a searching exercise. We come here to click an article. If the article doesn't work it shouldn't be on here. The job of an editor is to make sure and article is readable easily by an audience.
You may be desensitized to work for other people's deficiencies, but we are not. Want to post a paywalled article, post the fucking archive link in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Can I Buy Rolex Stock?
Is Rolex a publicly traded company? Unfortunately, one of the most recognized brands in the world is not public and it doesn’t seem it will be anytime soon. In other words, there’s no Rolex stock to buy. Fortunately, there are other ways for investors to dip their toes (or hands) in Rolex, as well as in stocks in the same sector.
Re: (Score:2)
The link:
https://bullishbears.com/rolex... [bullishbears.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Okay then, buy "Relox", the knockoff company. It tends to mirror the real Rolex. (I don't know if they currently have stock, but I've seen the product in the shady back stores that they warn tourists to avoid, you know, where the real action happens.)
Re: (Score:1)
The monospace Gods are punishing me for degreening the pwanet? Maybe.
Those giant watches are ugly. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And they don't even track your steps! What good are they?
Re: (Score:2)
Gawdawful ugly. No aesthetic sense whatsoever. I do not understand why anyone would want to wear one.
Because they're famously very, very expensive. They have to be that ugly to stand out & be noticed. Since when have rich people ever had good taste? Some have personal shoppers, stylists, & PR managers but whether those people have good taste or not is pretty hit-&-miss.
For something (Score:2)
Must be encrusted with gold and diamond and other shiny nonsense.
Overpriced watches are what scammers buy (Score:3)
Re:Overpriced watches are what scammers buy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Not overpriced watches, but rather specific well known models of well know brands that identify: this person has (or at least appears to have) money.
There are people running around with thousands of dollars of luxury jewelry on their wrists and you wouldn't even recognize it as such. Some of us like mechanical wrist watches (and have a distain for posers wearing Rolexes).
Crypto hasn't collapse any more then stocks (Score:2)
Crypto hasn't collapse any more then the stock market.... unless your are ignoring most of the stock market
Re: (Score:3)
Bitcoin has lost almost 2/3 of it's value since its recent peak while the S&P500 is only down 15% over the same period. Crypto's collapse has been a lot more dramatic than most of the stock market.
Re: (Score:2)
NFTs? (Score:2)
Misleading summary (Score:2)
The premise of the summary is misleading. It turns out that certain watches have been selling second hand for several times their retail sale price:
The price of a Patek Philippe Nautilus 5711A, which sells for about $35,000 at retail, surged to $240,000 in the first quarter, according to Chrono24. Now the blue-dialed steel sports watch is fetching about $190,000.
A more accurate headline would be "Item that used to sell for 7.5 times its retail value now only sells for 6 times its retail value". I doubt that the lucky people who picked up the watch at retail for $35,000 will be terribly disappointed that it is only worth $190,000 now. It seems that this particular watch would have been a superb investment, hardly evidenc
If the watch prices were driven up by crypto... (Score:2)
Pinky Rings . . . (Score:2)
Wearing a flashy watch makes me think of a Joe Pesci skit [youtube.com] on SNL. The older I get, the harder it is to see any of the complications on a high end watch, and the more I appreciate a watch that does what it needs to do well.
Is this a serious problem? (Score:2)
When one house of cards falls... (Score:1)
It's just another offshoot of the fashion industry.