Bill
32042
X p l o s i v e but very valid question
First of welcome to the forum we are always happy to have
new members from around the globe.
Price is such a bad measure to capture value. I think there is obviously
a cost that each manufacturer has with each product but the price is a function
on many things namely demand and secondly willing buyer. So price rational
is really quite personal and boils down to buying what you like and what you
are willing to pay "willing Buyer". So I guess I would set the
value price issue to one side and leave it there.
On the other hand service and reliability. That is a really tough one to
answer. When you think about Patek you have no concern for either and you
expect they will be around for a very long time. But when it comes to
independents it becomes a challenge to substantiate how long anyone will be
around. We always hope forever but brands established around key
personalities need to convey into the market place their ability to
support their customers. Again a challenge by every measure.
However, anecdotal evidence supports a different thesis. If we look at
the life cycle of a watch like for instance a Rolex. Once they get to a
certain age if falls into a gray service area. Sometimes they will
not be willingly take in an old clunker. So the independent
experienced watchmaker does the repairs. So why not allow experienced
watchmaker "multi-brand" fill in the support role. The only
thing to establish is cost / price you will pay for service. I guess all this obviously after a warranty
period which I am not what that is these days.
I am sure you will hear better answers than my but ...
Bill
Price vs Value and repairs questions
X p l o s i v e but very valid question
