Not reason alone

I agree that reason often takes a back seat, particularly in discretionary spending by obsessed persons such as myself. However, I am not in a position to indulge my passions without some analysis. In spending five figures on a watch, I need to have some assurance that it will retain a significant portion of its value in case of a rainy day or, more happily, a new object of obsession.

In the case of RM, I see your point about the capital investment required, and that certainly will have to be reflected in the cost of the product. However, I'm not sure that the cost of the machinery will be something that will continue to be reflected in the value of a RM watch as the years go by. On the other hand, I am confident that the craftsmanship of a Dufour will be in demand forever.

Yes, in many respects, Dufour and Mille represent opposite ends of the current high-end horological spectrum. Apples and oranges, as you say. But in the end, they are still both very expensive watches, and I think comparisons of value must be made by anyone considering a purchase.

Maybe some of you better versed in the RM philosophy and technology have a fuller appreciation of the value added by RM's innovative use of materials. I, however, am not convinced that the analogies to automobile racing are really apt. In automobile racing, the proof of innovation is in the pudding--does the car go faster or handle better? When these technologies are applied to watches, are the advantages as clear?