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 across the street from the Timex property.
Satellite view of the soon former Timex HQ, source: Google Maps.The sale of the property may be related to Timex's November, 2020 sale of a majority stake to hedge fund Baupost Group, headquartered in Boston. Apparently, there's nothing quite like a $7.5 million cash injection to make an investment feel worthwhile. Although, considering the fact that Baupost manages a $29 billion portfolio, $7.5 million may not be a big deal.
But where is Timex moving to? I reached out to their press contact and did not receive a response. I'm not entirely surprised by this. I've observed that news media in Connecticut like to make a big deal out of the decision of a corporation to move out of the state, as does the Governor. I wouldn't blame Timex if the brand was trying to keep all this quiet so that they didn't have to field any calls from an agitated state official.
Time will tell where the company lands (pun intended). The brand's had a hot hand in recent years, with offerings designed by Giorgio Galli pleasing many collectors and enthusiasts. Let's hope their relocation doesn't disrupt that trend.
My book on the history of Rolex marketing is now available on Amazon! It debuted as the #1 New Release in its category. You can find it here.
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