Op-Ed: What Is “Value” in Luxury Watchmaking?

Of all the irksome internet commentary seen on any given day across horological social media, reportage, and marketing, few comments really make my blood boil more than those surrounding the perceived value of a particular timepiece. You know the one’s I’m talking about — those who immediately make an assessment based on their rudimentary knowledge of the sum of parts, and one that is often firmly anchored in distaste for the brand in question. It’s also never framed as “based on X I believe/think this should cost less” but rather stated as absolute fact that cannot be rebutted in any way.

These conversations often start with comments about how the base movement in a watch is a supplied caliber rather than in-house (by that logic, the Patek 3970 and countless others should be devalued), and often ends somewhere along the lines of “oh you’re just paying that much because it says ________ on the dial”. Don’t get me wrong, I’m the first to admit that there are watches on the market right now that I think are overpriced or overvalued in some form or fashion, but to make this assumption out of the gates takes a number of variables for granted. With that in mind, I’ve often been left pondering; how does one quantify value fairly when looking at the luxury watch category?

Before I get too far, one component needs to be made clear. While there are multiple facets to evaluate, each individual can and will have their own priorities and scale for each talking point, and all of those priorities can vary from one watch to the next. Fact of the matter is, there’s no right or wrong answer. This is one area where there’s a lot of similarity between car enthusiasts and watch enthusiasts. You can either stare at a spec sheet and be the typical obnoxious armchair critic, or you can dig deeper and acknowledge that nuts and bolts do not account for everything!

The Product Itself

Though this should be the simplest end of the proverbial stick, it’s also the one that’s fraught with misconception and oversimplification. Let’s start with the base, shall we? A base caliber does not mean plug-and-play simplicity, and an “in-house movement” does not mean grand complexity or investment. Regarding the former, the simplest example is the Zenith Daytona. Yes, the Zenith Daytona caliber is based on an El Primero, but it was substantively modified by Rolex to suit the standards that Rolex set out to meet. That Rolex caliber 4030 contains just a touch under half of its original components, and runs at a different beat rate than the original Zenith caliber did in the first place.

This is obviously one of the more dramatic examples, but it suits the point I’m trying to make. When it comes to “supplied” movements, there can still be a lot of work involved in getting it to suit the intended use. Speaking of intended use, arguments can also be made (quite easily) in favor of a standard ETA, Sellita, Soprod, or other “off-the-shelf” movement. Are you going to wear this watch daily? Is it a tool watch? If something gets banged out of place when you’re wearing it, are you fine with the idea that your watch will be out of commission because it needs to go back to Switzerland for repair (which is now often the case for in-house calibers of all sorts)? Do you value it for its durability versus its complexity?

This promptly walks us into the next category — design and finishing. There is a reasonably fair and well-understood rule in watchmaking that hand finishing is lovely and you pay through the nose for it. By now, we’ve all seen it done exceptionally well by everyone from the Holy Trinity brands down through beloved indies. On one end of the spectrum again we find the extremists. “Give me hand finishing or give me death”, they say. And if that’s all they want, so be it. That said, taking this hardline approach means ignoring otherwise fantastic watches.

Take, for example, the Bvlgari Octo Finissimo collection which uses calibers and cases that are all machine finished. If hand finishing is the be-all and end-all of horological prowess, then why did the Octo Finissimo Perpetual Calendar win the GPHG Aiguille D’Or (its “Best in Show) in 2021? Or what about H. Moser & Cie? The brand consistently delivers exceptional watches that are thoughtfully designed, and fitted with some of the most charming dials in the market. Should we discredit them for their use of machine finishing — even on the Streamliner chronograph, with its award-winning central chronograph caliber built by Jean Marc Wiederrecht, whose resume includes Chopard’s ultra-thin perpetual calendar caliber, the Harry Winston Opus 9, and several complicated creations for Van Cleef & Arpels.

These conversations about finishing often lead back to my earlier point: intended use. When I hear people talk about the movement finishing of a Speedmaster, for example, I can’t help but giggle. To clarify, I’m not referring to manufacturing precision here, I’m talking about movement finishing specifically. At the end of the day, as much as Omega tries to make the Speedmaster a fancy luxury watch, the Speedy is a tool designed to survive a trip to the moon and back, and asking for fancier finishing on it immediately reminds me of the lifted Jeeps in the Applebees parking lot with $100k in mods to make it bright and shiny. Having a Jeep that drives on pavement alone is to waste its potential, just as dolling up a tool watch to treat it so preciously merely throws all of its history and pedigree out the window. Then again, the Jeep modification scene is thriving, so if that’s what you really want, no one is stopping you (might I recommend the Speedy 321 reissue?).

Now that I think about it, maybe that last statement is why I’ll never understand Richard Mille…..

Of Hype, Heart, and Capital

This is where the conversation gets extra muddy, as the three brackets above effectively categorize the three buckets of collecting priorities, though there is ample spillover and cross-contamination between the three. When chasing that next acquisition high, if you get to the core, the driving force is one of three things. You’re either drawn to it in some sort of guttural fashion (aesthetically, its combination of complications, its historical significance, the gap it fills in your collection, etc), by the excitement or the buzz that surrounds it (scarcity, most often), or through the lens of it being a sound financial decision.

Full disclosure, I have openly and consistently said that if you’re not buying from your heart you’re doing it wrong. The “I should have this because people say I should have this” or the profiteering “I should buy this because I’ll make money off it” has always rubbed me the wrong way in this hobby, but as someone who has both won and lost on what were considered smart buys at the time, stones, glass houses, etc…..

All this to say, these factors all influence value, perceived or otherwise. Get the right crowd excited about a watch, and that number will increase tenfold. Suddenly you have a hype monster on your hands, and as we’ve seen time and time again, there are plenty of people out there willing to pay a big premium for exclusivity. To get mad at hype is to get mad at one’s own child. We’ve watched the industry flourish again (broadly speaking) since the dawn of digital watch reporting and retail, and with all this information comes more fantastic makers able to make a living. In trade, that also means a hell of a lot more people know about our little hobby, and some have deeper pockets than others. That’s capitalism, baby, and no amount of digital bitching is gonna stop those cogs from turning.

So the next time your favorite watchmaker drops a new release and the comments start getting unruly, take a deep breath and ponder — is it really worth it, to me?