by Ian Skellern
Greubel Forsey makes some of the finest hand-finished wristwatches in the world. And at upwards of $150,000, the prices of those watches reflect their inherent quality.
I would love to own a Greubel Forsey, but cannot hope to ever buy one . . . well, not unless I convince my wife to sell our house spend the rest of our lives in a tent.
Greubel Forsey Invention Piece 1
You might drool over a platinum Patek Philippe minute repeater, a rare vintage Rolex Paul Newman Daytona, or a George Daniels pocket watch, all the while knowing that your fantasy will always be out of reach.
Patek Philippe Caliber 5078P minute repeater
Not because the cost is just a little bit out of your grasp, but because it is at least ten times or more expensive than you could ever hope to afford.
Now imagine you wake up tomorrow and that in-your-wildest-dreams watch now only costs 10 percent of what it did yesterday. Admittedly that’s still very expensive, but now it’s within reach.
You might have to forget the new car, skip the luxury holiday, and tighten your belt for a while, but you can now own that fantasy watch you have long dreamed of.
Decisions, decisions: will I take the Romain Gauthier Logical One or Greubel Forsey Invention Piece 1? At 90 percent less than yesterday, why not both?
And there’s no rush: in this imaginary tomorrow prices have permanently dropped 90 percent thanks to a series of massive breakthroughs in production efficiencies, so you can take your time and save up to make the financial setback easily manageable.
It might take a year or so, but that dream watch will be yours.
Imagine how you will feel when that dream comes true. Are you . . .
A. Ecstatic
B. Overjoyed
C. Feeling a deep inner joy
or
D. None of the above
Unfortunately, the truth is more likely to be D, none of the above, because having the very tangible possibility of realizing a dream has the effect of downgrading it and replacing it with something even more unobtainable.
That’s the nature of who we are (or who many of us are, anyway).
If Greubel Forsey tourbillons and Patek Philippe minute repeaters start costing what Omega and Rolex wristwatches do today, then our lust for them would also drop to the level of our lust for standard Omegas and Rolexes today: i.e., high but not oxygen-deprivation-altitude high.
This modern Rolex Sea-Dweller 43mm offers incredible value for money compared to well-preserved historic timepieces by the brand
In the eighteenth century, it took English watchmaker John Harrison six years to make his H4 watch, which won the British Admiralty Prize for being accurate and reliable enough to find longitude at sea. Harrison’s design was replicable, but the watches were so expensive that only a few naval captains were entrusted with the devices as they cost the equivalent of millions of dollars today.
On its trial voyage from England to Jamaica, Harrison’s H4 lost just 5 seconds after 81 days at sea, a level of accuracy so incredible at the time that the British Admiralty thought it must be either an error or fluke and demanded a retrial.
Today we can buy watches with much higher precision and much higher reliability than Harrison’s H4 for less than for less than $100. But unless it is being used as an essential tool, our appreciation of watches (or anything else) isn’t based on its quality but its attainability.
The same goes for cars. In 1947 Enzo Ferrari presented his first Ferrari, the 125 S. Its 12-cylinder motor produced 118 bhp (87 kw), powering the race-winning car to a top speed of around 170 km/h (110 mph). Today a sporty VW Golf has a 50 percent higher top speed, 100 percent more power, much higher reliability, much higher levels of luxury and comfort, and much better fuel economy. And it is much, much more affordable. But how many people lust over the relatively affordable modern Golf compared to the astronomically priced LaFerrari?
We want what we can’t have, that’s human nature.
And if we get what we want, we go on to setting the bar even higher and desiring something else. That’s the collector mindset, and whether you are a collector or not, there’s a bit of that in us all.
At both the 2017 SIHH and Baselworld fairs there appeared to be more and more reasonably priced watches. And that’s certainly a good thing as watch collectors and consumers should get better value for their hard-earned money.
Just don’t think that new pricing attitude will make watch collectors and aficionados any happier in the mid to long term. Unfortunately it’s just more likely to just have us all expecting (and wanting) more.
But on the plus side, with a bit of luck we should get at least a little bit more for our money.
* Note: Not surprisingly, not everyone agrees with what I have written above and it’s well worth reading the comments below. And please don’t hesitate to share your thoughts whether for or against.
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!
Not sure about this. If you’re into watches as a status symbol, then I’d agree with you. I don’t think most watch enthusiasts are crazy about watches as a sign of status. I’m into watches for the mechanics of the movement so if logical one was available for the price of an omega, I’d snap it up and be happy to own a chain and fusee watch. I would not find it boring in the least. One of my favorite watches is a 1930’s vintage chronograph. It was not expensive, but I love it because of the movement and I’m into chronographs. Again it depends what drives your interest in horology. I’ll tell you what, let’s drop the prices and find out.
Thanks for your comment Richard,
I did not mean to imply that more affordable (whatever that is to you) watches cannot be enjoyed and appreciated. I personally take great pleasure in owning and wearing the few watches I have and have no doubt that many, if not most, watch owners feel the same.
I wasn’t writing about appreciation, but lust, and I think that the very definition of lust is wanting something desperately. If you can have what you lust for you would no longer lust for it.
Regards, Ian
‘But on the plus side, with a bit of luck we should get at least a little bit more for our money.’
Occasionally, that may be true, but mostly what seems to be happening is that the cheaper watches are less well built and/or offered in cheaper metals. Witness the H11 and H12 Haldimann watches now offered in stainless steel for a bit less (albeit with fully speced movements) and the range of steel Moritz Grossmann watches in steel, offered for quite a bit less, BUT with downgraded movements (whilst increasing prices on the full-spec versions rather rapidly).
But it isn’t just the simpler watches that are cheaper because they are lower specked, Ian: tourbillons used to automatically be priced around $100,000 just because they were tourbillons, then Jaeger-LaCoultre brought out a superb Master Tourbillon for under $50,000. From the SIHH and Baselworld I had the impression that there was more value on offer, though I readily admit that I feel there is still a long way to go.
What the watch brands are slowly realizing is that, with the possible exception of Rolex, it’s impossible in the long term to have a viable business model based on premium prices due to exclusivity while benefiting from economies of scale with mass production. Either production or prices have to drop.
Regards, Ian
Weeelll.. , while I do see your point, I still see it as quite missing the point for many like us (and yourselves), and your paragraph “..massive breakthroughs in production efficiencies” hit it on the head. The very nature of the production inefficiencies is what makes it so costly as to make it unobtainable, BUT.. and here’s my point: we watch geeks understand that this is not ineffiency, but craftsmanship, and for me That is what makes one of these masterpieces a Grail Watch, not the price alone, the price alone means nothing – and we should – and in most cases do understand the man hours and manual labour that lies beneath that exhibition back of a GF or HYT. .. that is for me the entire point of these $100000+ pieces.
To put words to it I actually felt underestimated as a watch afficionado by this article (and as a car guy, there is also a substantial amount of manual labour in a LaFerrari – unlike a Golf..:)
I agree, Thor.
It’s the craftsmanship that I appreciate as well. Or in the case of a Rolex I can certainly appreciate the quality.
But appreciation isn’t lust and I stand by my claim that we lust for what we we can’t have.
Regards, Ian
Expertly crafted, and very enjoyable to read; thank you!
I would add the scarcity factor as a major caveat as well. Would I lose sleep over a certain Lange 1 LE as much if it were serially produced and popping up on collector’s markets with regularity? Likely not. It’s that perfected level of unobtainium (to borrow from Joshua) which seems to drive the lust.
Best, Colton
“Scarcity” is the point I regret not bringing up in my article Colton, as it really is at the heart of the matter.
The proof that collectors really want what they, or others, cannot have is evidenced by the astronomical prices that watches (or stamps or any other collectable) with flaws command compared to non-flawed examples.
If Patek Philippe makes 1,000 minute repeaters in platinum and 5 in steel, we know which will sell for a premium, especially in the secondary market.
Auction prices, which are driven (largely) by collector demand, are determined much more by rarity than quality. Supply and demand is everything.
Regards, Ian
inexplicably facile argument. by your view the only reason one would lust after a romain gauthier or greubel is due to the out of reach (for most) pricing, and not an interest in finishing, mechanics etc. If we are broaching the issue of luxury watches and pricing, we should at least address that watches should be priced commensurate with the costs associated with manufacturing and not solely positioning. the lack of enjoyment you suggest may happen if expensive watches become cheaper is more likely due to the decrease in rarity that comes with a cheaper watch, not the fact that you are paying less for it.
You have understood the point I was trying to make perfectly, Mo, but are using two terms interchangeably that I feel are very different: lust and appreciation.
I think that most of us, myself included, can appreciate watches (or anything else for that matter) for a great many different reasons including quality, craftsmanship, hand work, value for money, design, creativity, artistry, and innovation. I certainly appreciate many cheaper/more affordable watches for all of those reasons, just as I appreciate the few more expensive watches in my collection for one or more of those reasons.
But what I don’t do for any watch in my collection, or for any watch that I could afford and possess if I wished, is to “lust” for it, because if you can have something then I contend that ipso facto it’s no longer something you lust for.
And that may well be the first time I’ve ever written “ipso facto”
Regards, Ian
I have to say I completely disagree. Many collectors who buy these ultra-high-end pieces are more than 10 times wealthier than I am and make 10 times the revenues that I do (putting these pieces, in relative terms, in the same place for them where an Omega sits for me) and they don’t lose interest! I have to save for years to afford even a Rolex (but it’s “doable”, per your rationale) and I don’t lust for it any less than I would a hand made ultra-high-end piece. It’s simply that I’ll never own the latter, unfortunately.
Hello Claude,
My point was that the price would be relative to the buyer’s ability to pay. The very wealthy just aim for timepieces much higher up the scale.
Regards, Ian
I think I’m 50% agree with you, but not completely.
Let’s say, what is the worst and most hated watch? It is the watch, you really lust for, but it’s just a little bit above the price you can afford, or you even can buy it, but it would be a “deadly hit” for your budget. – it’s a joke, but it has some truth in it. It’s OK to drool at Greubel Forsey timepieces for example, but a gold Sky-Dweller for example, makes see red, because it’s not somewhere “high above”, but still not affordable
In general, the price is not the only factor – in my opinion, precise technology, history behind the brand or the passion to the watchmaking and haute horlogerie is even more important.
This article misses the point. I enjoy my watches because of how they make me feel. Their price has absolutely nothing to do with it. I recently bought the Bulova Moon Watch re-release and have enjoyed it immensely, yet its a sub $500 watch. The same for the Seiko ‘Turtle’, another sub $500 watch that is a ton of fun.
But perhaps I am into wearing watches more than into perceptions of status or any sense of attainment.
I wouldn’t lose my interest. The first watch I bought was Rolex Date and this happened only after I manage to save some money. I wish that I can watches from brands like A. Lange, De Bethune,… even I wish I can afford something like a rolex day-date platinum. Let us be realistic that for people with genuine passion for watches, the price is the only obstacle.
Maybe I’m shallow, but when I wear my more expensive watches (& on this site my most expensive watch is still very affordable), I do feel a bit special. I AM aware how much they cost and why and I feel proud to be able to wear them. That doesn’t mean I start patronising waitresses or pushing in front of the queue. But my enjoyment is based on the fact that I can afford a quality item. Quality is most easily and often measured in price. Of course there are outliers: my Casio Oceanus cost “only” £1,150 but if it had “Breitling” stamped on the dial it would cost much more. I am aware of this and feel glad I found this watch BUT I QUANTIFY IT in monetary terms. I don’t for one minute believe that anyone wearing a Laurent Ferrier is unaware of the price and the prestige of such an item. It’s simply human nature. Our entire civilisation is based on Veblen Goods. it weren’t, everyone would buy sub-£500 quartz watches.