https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/new-hodinkee-shop-welcome

Now selling standard models online for:

- Nomos
- Tag Heuer
- Zenith
- Ressence
- Vacheron Constantin
- Oris
- Grand Seiko

I would say this is big news, and makes it even harder for them to maintain (and claim) unbiased editorial content.

Thoughts ?

 

I’m very confused by what they think they are doing. Also pretty sure I can land that VC 1921 for less than 35k ...

 

It's all for the love of watches though !

 

Its been a while since hodinkee has become a big ad. Now even more. Dont mind. Eventually i will look for the best deal anw, and browsing their shop it wont be from them. Just more good photos too look at.
In depth of time i think this will be a bad call for them but i guess profitable in the short term.

 

In their blog announcement, they did not even claim independence of the shop from editorial writing.
They are now a retailer with some content to drive traffic to their site. Also implying if it is not on Hodinkee it is not worth it.
There are still plenty of people with more money than brains and this will work out great for Hodinkee and the brands.

 

I've never understood why anyone would buy a watch from them. For example you can pick up a nice Legend date Diver in their shop right now...for only $2300. Or you could spend 15 seconds online and pay half that.

 

Oh but the Hodinkee seal of approval!

 

Traditional media has walked this line forever. Local business advertise in local paper, that revenue sustains the paper, but then the journalists need to cover the businesses even if the news isn't flattering. And it can go beyond advertising, here in the US most local media is owned by large companies that are diversified beyond media and the papers have to cover the parent in the business section. One extreme local example is here in Chicago (US) a major city paper owned the Chicago Cubs baseball team for many years (well technically they were owned by the same parent company) and had to cover them every day in the paper as well as the TV and radio stations they owned. That is a similar feel to Hodinkee where it goes beyond just selling advertising but actually having a stake in their success. Real journalists pride themselves on not letting the business side influence their coverage, and often let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction and appear overly critical to the related businesses. So back to Hodinkee...

The big difference is that there isn't real journalism happening in the watch world, at least in the traditional fourth estate / speaking truth to power sense. Yes they cover big picture stories on the peaks and valleys of Swiss exports, major auction results, or the shuffling of CEOs, but I'm not aware of any critical watch reviews coming from Hodinkee, and don't really expect any. I suspect they will be able to look at themselves in the mirror and honestly claim that this new direction hasn't changed their coverage, because their coverage has been overly positive to begin with. The problem isn't necessarily bias, it is a lack of interest in being critical in general.

 

A couple of comments:

-Good for Ben Clymer and the gang and Hodinkee. I imagine that he has always had a certain vision for Hodinkee, which has evolved over time with the success that he has seen. At the end of the day, Hodinkee belongs to him, and whatever it becomes, good for him and I wish him all the success in the world.
-I don't think any of us should look at Hodinkee as a "journalism" website. Journalism is news. Hodinkee has always referred to their content as "editorial content." Meaning at the discretion of the the editors/writers. If you read the blurb that accompanies the opening of the new shop, they basically say they want to write about the things that make them happy, and not about the things that make them less happy. That is their prerogative. I think they are making clear (and I think they have always made clear) that they are NOT a source for critical examination of watches.
-We are all (hmm) intelligent people here, and I think we all can see through the issue here with what many forum members have written about on countless posts - conflict of interest when writing about something that can enrich those same writers. Will they ever write an article critical of Grand Seiko or NOMOS? or VC? Probably not - but they already said that they never would, and their actions over the past 10 years have shown that they will not - so why should we now expect that all of the sudden, that now they have even less reason to do so, they will start writing less than glowing articles about certain watches and manufacturers?

I got into watches a number of years ago, and Hodinkee was one of the main drivers of my initial interest. My first vintage buy was actually purely driven by a Hodinkee article - a JLC Memovox. But as my interests have matured, so have I, and I hardly ever look at Hodinkee anymore. There is much better content on forums like this, websites like @Spacefruit and @ahantel devoted to particular references...and meeting with people who share the same interests. Let's not get hung up over what Hodinkee isn't...it serves is purpose to the people who need it...and the rest of us get to hang out with the rest of us watch-obsessed degenerates that we are.

0.02

 

I enjoy reading Hodinkee, not because it is full of serious watch journalism but because it is entertaining. I like the articles about the watches that unless I win the lottery I can never afford. Like smitty190373 says. I just look else where if I see something interesting in the vintage shop. I do feel sorry for all those people who pay hodinkee prices though. There seems to be a lot of suckers out there as the watches sell quickly.

 

Opportunity for someone who doesnt want to make money to start an honest watch "blog".

Lettuce be cereal for a moment: you can only make so much money front running vintage.

 

The thing I still have issue with is statements like this:

"That's why over on the editorial side of HODINKEE, you just see stories about the good ones. Why waste your time (and our own) covering things that simply aren't worthy of coverage?"

Because they've also covered some awful watches, purely because there were dollars in the coverage... Piaget Polo S anyone?

Do what you like, just be honest about it.

 

Wow. Just... wow.



$5,250 for a watch that can be had all day and night for less than $2,000 on eBay or forums. It's pretty obvious that what they're trying to do with a couple of their watches for sale is take advantage of someone who might not be quite as knowledgeable about the market. Has Hodinkee ever written about the CV2113? Probably not... so their readership won't know anything about it.

The brand new watches they're selling at MSRP, that's great and all. Let 'em - they can do what they like and I don't know why everybody keeps getting mad when Hodinkee monetizes themselves. They've never been held to any journalistic standard and to expect them to do so is silly. Go to any Hodinkee event and you'll see who their bread and butter really is...

 

I certainly view them as entertainment only.

I would just point out that in the article Clymer mentions his own time at Journalism school and then writes "...we brought on a stalwart of high-quality watch journalism in the United States, Jonathan Bues, as Senior Editor." He's citing examples of his site's journalism 'cred' here. I mean, he wrote "Will Holloway, who I met in the halls of Columbia Journalism School, was our second employee...", couldn't he just leave it at "who I met in college"?

Don't get me wrong, I believe that there is room in journalism for non-news like editorials, columns, and other "soft" content and I am certainly ok with Hodinkee choosing not to go the hard news route. It just seems like a mixed message that he at one point is pointing out his journalistic bona fides while at the same time expressing no interest in what is arguably the most important role a journalist plays. They don't need to do hard, honest, unbiased news at all, just maybe they should stop bringing up their journalism chops.

 

I would agree with you, provided that CV2113 is a used watch. But it doesn't actually state that on the site, so I have to assume it's a new, old stock, watch, direct from Tag. In which case, the price is in line with, or slightly below, the newer model Telemeter. One would hope, however, that it's had a service and not just been sitting on the shelf for 10 years!

 

Good point.

It may be new-old stock, could even be the very best CV2113 in the world, but it's still not worth its original '90s MSRP given examples even in incredible condition struggle to break $2,000 (and there are many; these are not old watches).

Better way to put this is: If they found a new old stock Carrera from the 1960s, would they sell it for its original $95 price tag?

Okay, okay, I'll be kind to them and adjust for inflation. Would they sell it for $700?

 

I see where you're coming from, and from a personal viewpoint I agree with you. I wouldn't pay that for it either. But given you'd be hard-pushed to find a brand new one from an AD anywhere else, I guess pricing is, at best, difficult and you can't necessarily base it purely off the used market.

 

That's true, but the market doesn't value these watches highly and just because this one has never been sold doesn't make it so desirable to merit a 150% premium over the many examples available, most of which are in demonstrably great condition. Yes, it might warrant some premium for being brand-new (IF it is, of course), but even with that premium plus a generous Hodinkee bump, it's still more than twice as expensive as it should be.

A delivery-miles 1996 Honda Accord is still a 1996 Honda Accord....

 

OVERFLATED PRICES Look @ the Oris's prices.

 

Well, there is a "trade press" certainly, but it's not meant for consumption by the end users and most watch owners/collectors are generally not aware of it.

Since watch reviews are primarily subjective by nature, even negative reviews aren't really journalism.

Cheers, Al