Market
Velociphile initiates a critical discussion on the luxury watch market's 'new normal,' questioning industry responses to evaporating demand and the perceived value of recent releases. His post specifically scrutinizes Vacheron Constantin's steel complications, sparking a debate on pricing, manufacturing choices, and the industry's long-term sustainability.
You are missing the whole concept of this watch. For the steel version: it is an re-edition of a quite sought after vintage piece. The execution, apart from the hands where you have got a valid point, is flawless. Further you are forgetting the movement with all its glory. You can have even a perpetual calendar nowadays at that price point but from a not high end manufacturer and that makes the whole package less "thrilling". VC is the real deal and you have to pay for it: that is the gospel her
We’re so used to these prices , does not mean we can’t question them anymore. What is the difference between VC, Nomos and Grossman? The marketing budget? Is the finishing really worth 10k etc? So I think that it is very difficult to judge but it is a discussion that has his place on this forum. The worst thing we can do is following blindly marketing messages. Br, Dirk
These are also facts to consider, compared to those others you mentioned. We pay for all this when we purchase a watch from VC and it seems to be "o.k." as one famous man said: "The higher the immaterial value of a commodity is, the higher the price" I am not a fan of "exclusivity" and find it snobbish but we pay for the myth, the aura of owning a watch from a haute horology house. In simple words: you pay for the real deal.
Just your last sentence, I would change into: you pay for what you like 😀, Have a nice WE Dirk
No one is arguing whether VC are the real deal or not but, the over expansion of the industry while the money was rolling is not our problem, nor the retraction response required of the industry is not ours to pay for for these Veblen goods. Let's just reality check that today you are pay 50% or worse for the same myth/aura and the same pieces even after adjusting for inflation. For a collector that means a simple 3 hander for the price that you could get a complication before. In a world where
Times are moving and times are changing, so do we. To think of the past is not really relevant, in this case. Do you think in the 70ies it was a better feeling to pay 60K for a watch? The only thing I feel is that the watch industry is trying to claw back the losses during the financial crisis (the financial targets they have set for themselves) from the customer. Patek is a good example for that: price increases of nearly 50% in two to three years is inconceivable in any other industry but Pate
This thread is active on the Horological Meandering forum with 25 replies. Share your knowledge with fellow collectors.
Join the Discussion →
