https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/style/collectible-watches.html

 

We've officially hit bubble territory. Start saving cash and buy when the market bottoms

 

Interesting article indeed.

We will see what the future brings.

Some People have realy deep pockets

 

Oh, and Ben Clymer, if you're reading this: there are no early '50's Speedmasters...

 

interesting

 

"After taking a face-plant on a long-shot $2,000 investment in American Apparel stock, just months before the company declared bankruptcy, he bought a 1982 Rolex Submariner for $13,000. It has appreciated perhaps $10,000 in two years, he said."

Which 1982 Sub is worth $23k? The very best 5513 in the world with B&P?

 

"The new Sub is a marvel of mechanical engineering..."

I guess except for the movement, which most decent watchmakers will say is not very robust, and the micro-gearing sucks, and the last great movement Rolex made was the 15XX series...

 

“Investors are not collectors, and collectors are not investors,” Mr. Khoo said

For me this says it all. I'm certainly not an investor.

 

I think it's also a little pathetic how these hot-shot celebs and business people just mindlessly pursue what's "hot," or what the watch "gurus" tell them they should buy, rather than actually learning a little about the field, and coming up with something other than a Newman Daytona to buy. To wit: the article waxes eloquently about the 1970's styling contributing in part to the popularity of the Patek Nautilus. Well, if that's the case, then the Speedmaster 125 is in for a price bump. Yeah, I know it's bulkier, but then there's more to show off...

 

with all due respect to some of the dealers quoted (who i respect a ton) the article was a bit of a mess. i personally do not observe people speculating much in watches over other asset classes--and for good reason. bid/asks are too wide, and it is too easy to get something wrong especially without expert knowledge. i think it is a boutique market without much depth except for patek and rolex. witness the huge bubble and then collapse of heuer prices in the past 18 months. some people do "trade" the market, and most people buying pieces at 5, 6 or 7 figures of course are looking at liquidity and some notion of "investment value" (i.e., it is easy to get out of a rolex daytona and hard to get out of a technos skydiver) when purchasing those pieces

and of course, it would not be the new york times without taking shots at rich people and calling for higher marginal tax rates on people who buy nice watches. i guess they realized the absurdity of having the front part of the paper pillorying the elite and the rich in 90% of the articles and then having life&style&arts pieces about the glorious lifestyles and hobbies of those same elites

just take a look at the comments about the article. . it wouldn't surprise me to see Senator Warren propose a surtax on "ultra watch collectors" soon. ..

 

But there are mid 50’s Railmasters.

 

Pics!

 

NYT fact checking fail

 

Shh... if the sheep hop on the Rolex pyramid scheme it means more goodies for the rest of us.

 

Popular TV Show from the 1950’s


Railmaster 2777-2

 

oh yeah! I forgot this one was from Canada! where I live. As in I'm also Canadian, like that watch.



dibs!

#grailwatch

 

Could be. But I think it's a quote, so either Ben spouted out an amateur Speedmaster collector's misstep, or the guy who recorded his interview heard it wrong, or assumed someone of his stature in the horological community could never screw up that badly. Like fact-checking John Mayer when he says he has more Daytonas than female recording stars he's bedded down. Sometimes you just gotta trust the expert. Either way, pretty friggin' lame for both parties involved.

 

Sexy and Canadian to boot

 

Since most Canadians live near the North Pole, Canada was a good location for Omega to sell this early antimagnetic watch.