What’s happening on March 26th then?

You were not being lazy. You were expressing your genuine sentiment and it's no more off topic to do so here than it is to share "what are you drinking today" posts or comments about the latest F1 standings in a watch forum.

Sometimes we have moments, that can relate to our watch experience, which cause us to reflect on the world around us and loss. The joy we get finding a vintage prize can be overshadowed by realizing that someone clearly cared for that watch- and is now dead- as will we be one day.

Years ago I came across a lovely gold UG bi-compax at a reasonable price, but I couldn't bring myself to buy it because of the beautiful inscription on the back in French from a wife to her husband. It made me think too much about their lives, and how and why this watch ended up here, in a dealer's hands, and not in the hands of family members who might have cherished it as an heirloom.

On the morbid side of that coin, I used to collect vintage pistols. I came across a Walther PP at a gun show that was in excellent condition albeit the blueing was pristine on one side but badly muddled on the other in a blob type pattern. It was insanely cheap so I bought it (I already had 2 but I had a thing for Walther’s). I brought it to my gunsmith and asked what could have caused the finish to have that pattern- he immediately knew.
The gun was made in 1936 (early PP) and apparently Nazi SS officers carried them as their personal carry piece since the Luger’s were known to jam. They typically carried them in the small of their back. The gun sat in a pool of blood until it was taken from the body- most likely as a war prize by a GI and brought back to the states.
I sold the the gun the next week- didn’t want the bad juju.

Yup, same. The pistol was ‘36 and a civilian model without any military proof marks (not uncommon for an officers to buy a personal carry piece on their own). Once I realized what it was, I had to get rid of it.

I have some similar issues, my grandfather brought back binoculars and 2 SS sabers. The sabers have always just been in the basement stashed somewhere my brother and I wouldn’t find and play with them (to us they were just swords… freaking swords!)…. Anyway now my brother and I have to do something with them. The binoculars can just be a piece of history, there aren’t any markings on them. The sabers though… I can’t bring myself to sell them, and don’t really want to know the people in the market to buy them, feels wrong to even collect money for them. Also have a fascination and love of history, but it’s hard to feel right about having one of those in the house.

For giggles and posterity, I went to capture the current trading prices now several weeks out from launch

(note that enough of these are still trading per day that the “lowest ask” shown below can fluctuate quite a bit over the course of a day)






While there’s an expected curve to prices, they’re so far holding pretty steady - here’s the graph for the Moon version (which I take as being fairly down the middle in terms of desirability)




I found the “Tiffany” version’s chart to be the anomaly (with a fairly straightforward explanation that probably doesn’t need writing out):







The other model with a chart I found interesting is the blue Neptune, which of course received some scrutiny for some fractional batch having a minor (and apparently temporary) color bleed incident - it’s I think the only model showing a steady and sustained climb in price since release







EDIT: worth noting that we have zero information on product supply per each model, to say much about resulting demand/price trends

For example, notice the Neptune has traded less than 1/3 the number of watches as the Tiffany; what this “means’ changes if Swatch issued only 1/3 the number of Neptunes as Tiffany, or instead issued 3X the number of Neptunes as Tiffany.

Time&Tide partnered with @watchanalytics to “dive into how the MoonSwatch collaboration with Omega has impacted Swatch.”

Worth going there to see the graphics and details, but:

“March 26th, 2022 was a landmark day for watchmaking. No, it was not the day a new escapement was born or a new material realised. It was the day a monumental collaboration, unlike anything we have seen before, debuted for sale. And … the yield of the collaboration, and the attention and traffic it commanded, clearly displayed the potential for bringing more and more people into watch buying….

Among the 19 brands owned, Omega, Longines and Tissot represent 65% of the group’s sales while the remaining brands cover only a minority part. In particular, Swatch went from being the 18th brand in terms of sales in 2017 to 27th place in 2021, covering now only 0.6% of the market.

The MoonSwatch collaboration … opened a door that most had never been able to walk through. Sure, some may dismiss the MoonSwatch as a consented plastic knockoff or homage. For others, this was a moment to own a faithful yet fun interpretation of one of Swiss watchmaking’s most beloved icons. … It speaks to those who love Swatch, who love Omega, and especially to those who have been sidelined from luxury by fiscal constraints.”



I wish the post had gone further into more interesting analytics (there’s some analysis of the Swatch Group stock prices, but not eg internet traffic, etc.)

But more so, I’m still deeply skeptical that Swatch did this primarily focused on some “revival” of Swatch Watch in any material way intended to turn the Swatch Group numbers materially.

Ironically, the argument for why that is not Swatch Group’s focus/intent is based on the same information @watchanalytics is using to argue the opposite conclusion:

Why think Swatch Group is focused primarily on the health of Swatch Watch when it only represents a tiny fraction of the Group’s revenue, and is under such direct and increasing pressure from smartwatch domination?

To me, those facts just as plausible (and from my armchair more reasonably) instead suggest that Swatch Group would be at least as interested if not mostly interested in buttressing the brand that represents over 60% of the group’s revenues and is proving immune to the pressures of smartwatch competition into the future.

Not that a perk to Swatch Watch isn’t welcome, but is Swatch Group seriously maneuvering primarily to revitalize low-end quartz wristwatches. I doubt it.

Wait, are you saying that Honor Blackman is no longer the Rolex Ambassador?

That’s a bit of a trek without a guarantee that they would have them in stock. I doubt they do holds for customers.

You already decided you didn't want one anyway, right?

Not sure this completely rules out on line sales at some point though, although people appear to be taking it that way.