The watch industry has seen a fair bit of dynamism in recent years. An ownership share in Breitling has, apparently, changed hands. Richard Mille turned down an offer from Kering and, instead, Mille's children are taking an increasingly prominent role in the business. The publicly listed retailer Watches of Switzerland (WOS) is expanding geographically and diversifying their porfolio to include vintage.
One of the more significant developments, though, is definitely the acquisition of the retailer Tiffany's by the luxury group LVMH. This change in corporate ownership, alongside the departure of a prominent salesperson, created some murmurs about whether a longstanding relationship would continue. The temptation to pull Patek Philippe from display cases and replace the crown jewel of Swiss watchmaking with one of LVMH's own brands may prove simply too tempting for Tiffany's new owners. Would Tiffany's and Patek Philippe find a way to continue their relationship, one which dates to 1851?
Today, we learned the answer, and it is definitely "yes." The two companies announced a Patek Nautilus 5711 sporting Tiffany's trademark blue livery. The flags of New York City (top) and Geneva (bottom). The watch is available in a limited run of 170 examples. That production volume is not arbitrary, given that this year is the 170th anniversary of the "special relationship" between Patek and Tiffany's. The words "Tiffany & Co.," once again, adorne the watch face and, in microtype, LVMH is marked on the display caseback.
Predicting the future is not easy. But the long Nautilus wait lists ensconsced in Patek boutiques around the world probably gave Patek CEO Thierry Stern a great deal of confidence that all 170 watches would be spoken for in the blink of an eye, even at the retail price of $52,635. What is particularly interesting to me, though, is that this is the second time this year that one of the "holy trinity" Swiss watchmakers (Patek, Audemars Piguet and Vacheron) has arranged an auction to accompany a product launch. The first took place back in March, when Audemars Piguet released the Black Panther Royal Oak.
Today, we have Phillips auction house offering the new Tiffany X Patek Nautilus as the first lot in their upcoming auction in New York. One data point (the AP Black Panther launch) can be a fluke. But now we have two, and with two, you can draw a trendline. I have previously mentioned that auctions are the natural solution to the ever-hated practice of flipping (wherein someone buys an "unobtainium" watch and then immediately resells it at a profit because the secondary price exceeds the retail price). At auction, prices will naturally rise to the market-clearing level so that the number of watches available is exactly equal to the number bought at the auction-determined price. There will not be wait lists and there will not be flipping (for the most part). There are other alternatives, such as scaling up production to meet demand, but at least one brand has ruled this out.
In DMs, Hodinkee's Cole Pennington made the important point to me that auction distribution might end up excluding those who could pay the retail price but may not be able to muster the higher price realized at auction. He is absolutely right. This might make it even more difficult for new collectors to access sought-after references. There is even a solution for this, though. For example, manufacturer's coupons are often used by pharmaceutical companies to offset some of the high prices charged for medications. This is no doubt an important issue which brands must consider and resolve satisfactorily.
Perhaps due to this issue, and a few others, we have yet to see brands fully adopt auctions as a new distribution model. In all likelihood, we are quite far from that possible end state. However, luxury watch manufacturers have a reputation for caution when it comes to adjusting business practice. It has served them well throughout history. It remains to be seen if 2021's nexus of auction with watch release will morph into something more seismic for the industry. I, for one, look forward to seeing what develops in 2022.
What it might look like if Aragon and Argon watches actually went to court over the trademark dispute. My prior post described a disappointing development for those collectors hoping to acquire an Argon Spaceone watch via the brand's Kickstarter campaign. The campaign had reached over $1 million in funding when Kickstarter's management stepped in and froze the whole thing over an "intellectual property dispute." When I posted about this development on Instagram , Hodinkee editor Tony Traina noted in the comments that another brand, Aragon watches, had filed a complaint with the US Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) back in April (thanks Tony!). Argon's account replied and indicated that they had already filed a registration for their brand name and they were retaining counsel in New York City. On Tuesday, June 27 of this week, more details were offered via a lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case is filed on behalf
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.
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
Comments
Post a Comment