Anyone else read the story today in the New York Times on watch collecting...higher end stuff mainly? I thought it almost completely ignored everyone who doesn't spend 10k and up on Rolexes.

 

Which, I guess, was the point. Don't get me wrong, it was well-researched and written but how about a story once in a while for the majority of collectors who can't spend a bundle?

 

link?

 

you aren't spending enough for one

but anyway: http://bfy.tw/Mruh

 

Yes, I've read it. Nothing new under the sun in this article. It is also focused on rich people making money with watch "investing"... so the sub-$1000 timepieces are obviously out-of-scope of the article. No one cares about the "normal" collectors like (some of) us.

Which is good as it still allows our "normal" collections to thrive

 

Well, I am far from rich, and it is the sub $1k pieces that have allowed me to build my collection into what it is today.

 

There is an earlier thread about it: https://omegaforums.net/threads/dont-let-anyone-ever-tell-you-that-you-dont-have-deep-pockets.91923/

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/style/collectible-watches.html
Here's the direct link for anyone who wants to take a look. As I said, it's great that people are coming into this hobby/addiction/home-wrecking frenzy, but let's hear it for those of us with less-deep pockets!

 

Interesting read. Yes, the writer spent time doing the research. However, he doesn't really relate it to other asset classes, which would have been more useful.

 

Just what we need, more rich newbies who are only interested in which watches will appreciate.

 

Not just Rolex, but of course the Speedmaster has been a major beneficiary of this trend. Amazing what the Ed White commands today.