Horolonomics

Over the past two days I've heard rumblings of a somewhat unprecedented event when it comes to watch auctions. A screengrab Instagram stories and a WatchPro forum discussion revealed that a Christies auction in Geneva started an hour late. The auction in question involved timepieces from a single owner: consignor Mohammed Zaman. When bidding began, the reserve price for watch lots was reset at a higher level, spreading confusion among participants. Hodinkee's Tony Traina has a pretty good discussion of the controversy which includes official statements from Christie's. (Note to readers: this post is a little light on imagery because the material below deals with some fundamental finance issues). I'd like to translate the "Christie's surprise" from the language of the auction world to the language of finance. Yes, you may now point back to my prior post about how watches are too often treated like financial instruments when they are not. But in thi

There comes a moment in the servicing of a watch that is probably easy to miss among the hundreds of steps required to remove a movement from a case, inspect the parts, repair anything amiss, lubricate all the pieces, and put the whole thing together again. A watch that Rolex's investigator bought at Beckertime for approximately $4,500. The lawsuit refers to this as "Counterfeit Watch One." That moment is when a watchmaker takes the dial and reattaches it to the movement. There is nothing particularly unique when it comes to the tools required or the tasks involved in this step. Instead, what is unique about this moment is that the watchmaker holds in their hand a mark that is not the property of the watchmaker and it is not exactly the property of the watch's owner. In the case of Vacheron Constantin, that mark is a Maltese Cross. For Audemars Piguet, it is the brand's initials. When it comes to Rolex, the mark is a widely recognized crown. If the reassembly

When Ben Madison chose Big Daddy Watches as the name of his business, he unknowingly described the conditions under which preowned watch dealers operate (Ben Madison is a fictional name to protect the identify of someone who is presumed innocent). An exhibit from one of the lawsuits showing trademark-infringing items which accompanied a counterfeit watch sale. Two recent lawsuits make it very clear: there is a Big Daddy, named Rolex, that stealthily watches independent watch dealers. Until I read the lawsuits, one filed against Madison and another filed against Dan Jenkins (also a fictional name), I had no idea how much effort Rolex expends when it comes to fighting fakes in the preowned market. So, I thought I would share what I learned. The Madison and Jenkins lawsuits show that there are at least two fronts along which Rolex fights counterfeits. In many ways, Rolex employs similar tactics regardless of the nature of the counterfeit. But there are also important government alli

Among many avid watch collectors, the term "in house movement" seems to elicit eyerolling disdain. Pieces of an assortment, including balance spring, from a non-Swiss movement. There is a sizeable perception that "in house" is, in fact, nothing more than an unnecessary marketing ploy designed to tease more money out of the wallet of buyers (by way of definition, an "in house" movement means that the mechanism inside a watch was predominently manufactured by a brand itself, kind of like "we make our own bread" at a restaurant). I'll confess that I'd begun to think similarly, that is, until I read a 66 page report posted by the Swiss Competition Commision on May 10, 2023. Yes, this is the kind of thing an economist finds interesting on a weekend, or at least this economist. Before we get into the details of this report, in the interest of full disclosure I should say that the original document was in a different language: lawyerese.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but I'm not sure it is worth a thousand points of data. My Mission to Mars MoonSwatch and Fifty Fathoms homage by Steeldive. The pictures from the last 10 days or so suggest that Swatch has delivered another blockbuster by way of their most recent "collaboration" with Blancpain, this one officially known as the Bioceramic Scuba Fifty Fathoms (SFF). Social media served up numerous photos of queues outside of Swatch stores ahead of the SFF launch on September 9. Plenty of aspiring owners waited long hours for their chance to buy the newest accessible riff on a design that typically commands a price in the five digit range. I'll admit that the photos convinced me that Swatch has a replicable formula for developing watches that are so in demand they can be flipped for a sizable premium. As I've done before, though, I prefer to ask the data what, exactly, is going on with the release of this timepiece. And the data

Last week, news broke in a local newspaper that Timex Group USA conditionally sold their headquarters in Middlebury, Connecticut for $7.5 million. An older Timex that belonged to a family member. The buyer plans to build a "food distribution center" on the property, but the sale will only go through if certain wetlands permits are approved. Moreover, "On May 10, the Middlebury Conservation Commission approved the permit for a food distribution center consisting of a 540,000-square-foot building and a smaller 180,000-square-foot building on a 111-acre site consisting of the 93-acre campus of the Timex property and a neighboring 18-acre property on Southford Road belonging to another Drubner family partnership." Further complicating the matter is the fact that a politician elected to state government managed to slip a clause into a two year budget bill making it even harder for the potential buyer to build the food distribution center. Said politician lives acros