Horological Meandering

ThomasM
[PuristS]
14331

• Show profile
• Show other posts

pre-Humpday Head Scratcher (this one's for you, Andrew...)

"Context is everything.

Everything is context."

I saw a man eating shark.

I saw a man eating shark in a Chinese Restaurant.

I saw a man-eating shark.

I saw a man-eating shark at the aquarium.

Arthur, aka wmclarenf1, if I'm not reading his comments incorrectly, misread the perhaps too subtle irony in most of the posts in this recent thread - click here

The issue of greater context, ie, in the form of the body of posts extant here on PuristSPro and ThePuristS (and elsewhere) should have made the specific posts in the thread clearly "tongue in cheek" (but of course, I accept that "inside jokes" such as they are can be dangerous on an "open format" forum such as this is)

AndrewD has hinted clearly several times that lingo, jargon, slang, generalizations and stereotypes can be very dangerous and especially so on a multinational, multicultural, multilingual open discussion board such as this is (though English is the basic "lingua franca" - here used loosely to mean "universal language among people joined in a common discussion where there is no single common mother tongue")

Chromatic Fugue asked recently about "The Big Three" and much of that discussion veered [or is the implication of "veered" too (mis-)leading?] into simple and subjective "listing..."

Original thread click here

But I have to wonder - how can any discussion about "The Big Three" (or "Top 10" or "Bestest 100" or...) have any meaning without the context of the original use of that term?

Any such discussion needs to have at least two, likely more, levels of consideration - the literal term/phrase itself; and the "short hand" meaning when used among a group of people with somewhat common interests and backgrounds.

The Big Three watch brands among a random sampling of twenty-somethings (with all due respect to exceptions to any "generalized group") would likely end up with Breitling, Omega, and the absolute pinnacle of watch brands, Rolex. (TM: Rolex - wink wink wink. And yes, TAG-Heuer would certainly be in this "group" - thanks, BDLJ)

When "The Big Three" came into general usage - I''ve known about the term since the 1970's, when I first took a serious interest in the world of high end brands, which is not to be confused with "high horology" - often overlapping, but not entirely coincident - and the term could very well have been in common usage long before that, though in my library of industry and general treatments on the subject dating back into the 19th century, I have seen passing references to the term as far back as the late 1950's - there were really only the three: AP, PP, VC.

The Big Three in the context of the 1970's and early 1980's:

Piaget was mostly playing around in the high end quartz arena and high end jewelry pieces;

Breguet was just starting to get a hint of life back into its "caretaker" somnabulent state, though it went through some ugliness along the way with the Chaumet financial fiasco;

Cartier's watch line was mostly an after thought to its jewelry products, despite a long history of interesting and important models throughout the 20th century;

SSIH, later SMH (after merging with ASUAG) and later still the Swatch Group, primarily through Omega, was "saving the watch world" but mostly at the mid range;

Blancpain, Lange, Glashuette-Original; and the myriad other current brand darlings weren't reborn yet;

IWC was playing mostly in the mid- and upper mid-range (as it did for most of its existence);

same for JLC (which produced great movements for the "Big Houses" but produced mainly mid range products under its own name); same for Girard-Perregaux.

Same for UN, before its revitalization under Rolf Schnyder.

How bad was it? Decades of lost or destroyed records, parts, equipment because of unhappy employees who felt abandoned by management who themselves abandoned the market sector as doomed, akin to theater patrons fleeing a burning theater...

And please, before anyone wants to argue with me about the "history," please look at the historical specimen extant - look at JLC branded pieces from the 1960's and 1970s'; look at UN pieces, GP pieces; IWC pieces...as nice as the IWC cal. 89 and cal. 85 were, as highly regarded as they were and are, I hope we don't have to stray in this thread - perhaps in another? - into a flame war arguing how the cal. 89 and 85 are as FINE (remember fine vs great?) as the AP cal. 2001 or 2120 or PP cal. 27SC or cal 12-600 (ref. 2526) (edited by TM - I was typing too fast, mixed ref and cal.).

Rolex? Um...anyone remember what Rolex was in the 1960's and early 1970's? A great watch even then, but a fine watch? I don't think so, and even Rolex themselves, at that time, didn't see themselves that way.

Is "The Big Three" high end watch brands a relevant concept today? Perhaps no more than "The Big Five" accounting firms (from the 1980's) or 6 second 0-60 mph (a big deal in the 1970's and early 1980's)

Or isn't it?

A 3.0 Porsche Turbo from 1976 is no less significant today just because it can be bested in both acceleration and top speed, not to mention survivability factor at the edge, by modern Subarus and Hyundais.

In the absolute context of "here and now, what is the best/fastest/quickest/most reliable/most accurate/most waterproof/most anti-magnetic/blah blah blah" all these things are throwaways; someone will come along and beat the superlative, just because. Jaguar XJ-220? McLaren F1? Can you say VEY-ron? (give me an F1 anyday, by the way...)

In the relative context of history, of context, of art and craftsmanship, of collectibility, which, of course, is entirely individual and personal, EXCEPT when it comes to resaleability and market liquidity and market price, historical place and context IS important. And so a continuous history of consistent positioning, production, IS important. And hence, so is the idea of "The Big Three."

Come back and revisit this in another 100 years; if Lange is still a going concern and focused on its core; if Breguet; if FP Journe; if if if...then someone can rightfully coin then "The Big Five/Ten/100"

Brand is important, or it isn't. History is important. Continuity is important. Consistency is important.

Or they aren't.

You can't have it both ways. One shouldn't say when convenient to one's point, "This is valuable because it has history" and then when not convenient to one's point, "History doesn't matter; it's all a mind wank anyway."

So too with "Brand."

Hugo Boss as a brand has been bastardized by over-commercialization and poor quality control over licensees.

Chanel has not.

Louis Vuitton?

Mouton? Lafite? Romanee Conti?

The funny thing about history - people can fake it. People can try to rewrite it.

But real history - you can't buy it. You can't speed it up.

You can only patiently, humbly wait for it.

And that's why it is pure, and that's why it is valuable.

How valuable?

1 centime?

100 Euro?

1billion Yen?

That's up to the individual; the market makers and those who are lucky enough to know what is important to them, and what it's worth to them.

Without this knowledge, one can only be a follower; one can never take advantage of the arbitrage opportunity of high intrinsic value (subjective) vis a vis low market perceived value (objective, as embodied in "price.")

Without this knowledge, one can never enjoy the greatest "value" and pleasure of all, in all these "luxuries" - that of pride of ownership, that of the the sheer joy of looking at a beautiful work of art  and craftsmanship on one's wrist; that of feeling a connection to Mr. Dufour or Mr. Voutilainen; that of gazing at the sensuous flowing lines of the Lamborghini Diablo and almost shedding tears of joy at the beauty before you, whether the damned thing starts up and runs or not.

;-)

Resale value? Bah, humbug. Focus your energies on that which allowed you to afford these things in the first place; you'll likely get far greater return on investment of your time and energies.

The piece "appreciated" 30% since you bought it?

Um...have you looked at the transaction spread between buy and sell?

The specialists "costs?"

What auction houses charge, not only in fees, but also in buyers and SELLERS premiums?

ummm...who's the greater fool here?

(oh, yeah, there's the free listing services like Collectors Marketplace, Sales Corner, Trading Post, etc. uh, huh. Free, huh? but that's another thread...)

Whew!  I can't imagine anyone sticking with this quasi-harangue all the way here, thanks if you did.

Sorry, I didn't mean for it to go this way. I guess this really isn't a head scratcher...oops...