People always say the limits to their consumerism is ultimately correlated to how much disposable income they have. But is this true for you? I saw a Paul Newman Daytona on a website for $125,000. Now maybe it's just a case where this particular watch just doesn't excite me enough, but I don't think I would ever spend that much money on this watch, regardless of how much money I have - it doesn't seem like it's a good value, somehow. Now, a Patek pocket watch with all the complications, that in a way seems justifiable. Could it therefore be related to the difficulty/time/expertise it takes to render an object?

 

I am fortunate that at this point in my life I can afford many wonderful things. While I agree with you that my spending has risen to the level of my income, I am still a value Hunter and have cap limits.

So I can afford watches in the 5 digit range but I don't see myself ever buying one. It could come from the not to distant past when I was living paycheck to paycheck. I would be to nervous to damage it and also feel pretentious while wearing one.

My answer to this is instead of buying 1 10k watch I buy 3 3k watches.

 

If I understand your question correctly, I would say that whether or not a watch is "worth" its value varies widely based on the individual.

To run with your example, let's compare the Paul Newman Daytona to something quite different, but in a similar price bracket: a Patek Philippe 5970G. The Daytona is clearly not a $125,000 watch based on its design or the quality of its components; probably 90% of its value comes from its unique design, collectability, and heritage. On the flip side, the Patek is an immaculately finished perpetual calendar chronograph, in white gold. It clearly is a $125,000 watch based on, as you put it, the difficulty/time/expertise to render it. So in this case 90% of its value stems from that (although these are also starting to become somewhat more collectible).

So, the type of watch you would rather drop 6 figures on ultimately depends on which aspect you value more. For you it sounds like the latter, for some -- many here I think, especially those who collect Speedmasters and vintage Rolex -- it's the former. And I don't think that's something that really changes based on how much money you have. You could have similar comparisons all the way down the value chain. It's just personal preference and perception of value.

 

Value, I think, puts a bit of a different spin on this question.

There could be significantly more value in a $125,000 Paul Newman than in a $3,000 Frederique Constant watch depending upon how you anticipate the value of those two watches to track moving forward.

I try to explain this when friends talk to me when they're looking to buy a new watch. I bought my first Rolex, a five digit GMT-Master II, 5 years ago for $4K - it's gone up in value. If I'd bought a new $2,000 Tag Heuer Link, I would've saved myself $2K up front, but that watch is likely worth something like $700 now, so I'd be down $1,300 rather than up a few grand. If I'd bought a good condition 1675 gilt GMT-Master for $7,500 rather than the $4K I spent on my 16760, I'd be considerably further ahead of where I'm at now. On the flip side, if I'd bought a $100K tourbillon from Ulysse Nardin, I'd probably be $60K in the hole but I'd be doing very well if I'd bought a Gallet chrono five years ago for $800....

If we're talking "value", the money spent on the watch isn't as important as anticipated future value and enjoyment of ownership. These are mechanical devices that do a relatively poor job of telling time as compared to iPhones, atomic clocks and Apple watches - there is aesthetic value, craftsmanship value and value as a collectible and I buy based on a mixture of these and try and stay on the positive side of the appreciation/depreciation line.

 

@sjg22 I think there's a difference between collectible value and personal value though. It's buying something with the intention of selling it one day versus buying something because you like it.

Of course the best watches have the best of both worlds. If you manage to get a hold of a 5970, or perhaps something like a 5711/1, you're getting an amazing watch either way and you're probably not going to lose money if you do decide to sell it.

 

@Kmart, completely agree. The issue is that it's very, very hard to discuss personal value, so you almost have to talk in "collectible value" on a forum like this. If I were lucky enough to inherit a watch from my grandfather, it might be worth as much as the Paul Newman TO ME, regardless of whether it was a Bulova or a Patek but potentially worthless to you, so not something we could really, empirically discuss.

I read the initial post as essentially asking what the upper limit in dollar value we would spend on a watch, and whether the mechanical elements of the watch would factor in to that decision (i.e. a complicated Patek seems to carry more value than a relatively off-the-shelf vintage Rolex chronograph at similar money).

Outside of some made of precious metals, my feeling is that there is zero inherent value in timepieces and the purchase price of a watch isn't a good indicator of "collectible value". We impute value based on timepieces being essentially works of art. If I got immense personal value from the mechanical sophistication of a watch, then perhaps a more complicated watch would be worth more on a personal level but this is impossible to really discuss on a forum because it's just that - a personal value. However, the overall watch collector market weighs mechanical sophistication as only one of many components in assessing value, and so I wouldn't have any qualms with buying a less complicated watch over a more complicated watch at a higher price if it was aesthetically and collectible-ly superior in my view.

 

@M'Bob you always pose the best existential questions. I just bought a limited edition Timex as a beater. I totally love it. It makes me as happy as any of the expensive new and vintage in my collection. Years ago I was looking a PP and decided JLC was a better value. I don't think I could ever justify a 100K+ mechanical watch no matter how rich I was.

 

Collectibilty vs aesthetics may also come into play. Art passion can certainly inspire what appears to be irrational spending behavior, but then, it may be worth it to the person who's coughing up the funds. (Maybe not the best metaphor, as that implies difficulty...). Nonetheless, essentially, the Newman dial brings about an $85,000 premium over the garden-variety Daytona style. I know that it's got a nice design and all, but that premium has to be collector hype, and not indicative of some sublime quality.

 

And Larry S: thank you for the kind comment.

 

Agreed. Maybe we're straying a little bit from the intent of the thread here, but I'm reminded of this thread from @Spacefruit: https://omegaforums.net/threads/doesnt-have-to-cost-a-lot-to-give-me-pleasure.56151/

My $100 Orient has given me just as much, if not more pleasure over the course of owning it than my Speedmaster. But at the same time I still feel fine with the amount of money I spent on the latter, even thought it cost many times that. If I look down at a watch on my wrist and I don't feel that the amount of money I spent on it was justified, I sell it. That's personal value. Of course that upper limit of value depends on your income and what you personally feel comfortable with having on your wrist. Life is too short to tie up funds in things you don't truly enjoy.

 

For me, I'd rather spend $125k on a Paul Newman in great shape than I would $30k on a rare early mint Speedmaster. I just personally would 'value' the Rolex more. There is also a point where I could be financially set enough for me to definitely happily lay down $125k cold hard cash for that watch (I'm not there today, but maybe some day).

I would also rather have a mint Paul Newman than a Patek with a higher complication. That's just me, and it proves the point that there are different ways we each define value.

As far as depth of pockets relative to price of luxury items, I see 4 different things at play:
1: after tax income level. Someone making $3000 USD (equivalent) per year probably thinks anyone who spends more than $300 on a watch is crazy. Similarly $30,000 a year maybe thinks $3,000 is too much, and so on. For someone making $30 million a year, a $300,000 watch might seem trivial. It's quite relative I think.
2: net worth / liquid assets / debt level. I know people earning $30,000 a year who have a lot of cash savings, and I know others making closer to $1 million who are heavily indebted and need every month to be a good month so they can keep everything afloat. I think this plays a factor in how much we are willing to spend on a watch.
3: personal preference on how to spend disposable income. We all have different preferences, I know someone with a vibrant business and strong earnings (easily double to triple my income) who has a boat worth 4x that if mine, vacations in hotels costing per night what I spend on many nights, and yet my watch collection is similar to his. He has some nice watches, but they don't carry nearly the same value to him as they do for me and so relatively speaking I put a lot more of my free cash into this hobby.
4: finally within watch collecting we have different tastes and values. Some people here have double digit numbers of watches worth well under $1000 each, and yet add it up and they have a lot of total money spent. Others have one or two watches at around $5,000 each (like me), and on and on.