Joepny initiates a critical discussion about the 'hype machine' in the watch industry, specifically addressing a blog's enthusiastic coverage of a vintage Tudor Submariner 7923. He questions the lack of balanced analysis and the potential for speculation to inflate vintage watch prices, contrasting it with the genuine camaraderie and joy of watch ownership.
Another thought to ruminate on for this weekend while the very fun PuristS GTG in Europe is keeping us entertained with regular updates. I thought it’d be a good juxtaposition to compare what I’d call the good vs. not-so-good sides of our hobby: friendship/comradery & joy in ownership vs. commercialism.
Image from the internet
So the friend of watch dealers, watch blog H, ran an article today and here are snippets of the breathless writing from Ben Clymer “in true preservation class winning quality…this is an incredible, investment-grade quality…most expensive vintage Tudor to ever be sold publicly…it is often worth paying tomorrow’s price today, for the very best of the best.” The word “incredible” is used countless times in the article. The story is about a Tudor Submariner 7923 that sold for essentially $100K USD a few weeks ago and has now been re-listed by a major dealer for $350K USD. I wish I was the guy putting the 7923 up for sale, wouldn’t you? I have no objections over this listing nor the pricing.
But what I’m shaking my head about is that Ben Clymer makes no effort to add a counter-balance and deliver any cool detached analysis to his readers. This is my opinion and these are the thoughts that go through my head as I'm reading. What do we know about this specific 7923’s originality without taking the dealer’s word for it? Is it at all possible that it was put together? And what about the nasty problem of vintage fakes with Rolex/Tudor? Why should it be worth between $100K-$350K or possibly more than $350K? We need more explanation from the writer for the ecstatic declaration “incredible, investment-grade quality.” Is there a precedence or parallel that sheds more light? Is it apparent or not that speculation is involved? I’ll give credit that H ran a previous article that Ben Clymer links to which has some analysis to it but why did this writer not add his own take? And I appreciate that H may not have the time & resources to address all these questions but say something directly to add balance & perspective at minimum. It’s left to Jack Forster to add some words with perspective in the comments section. To me, this is not how you should present well-informed information to your readers. Yell very loudly, cheerleading the subject and then let others add counter-arguments in the comments. No, c'mon, I want to be taken as someone slightly less dim.
Here’s some analysis that I would like to have a watch blog tackle in depth: what is driving the vintage watch market and can we extrapolate the effect of vintage watch dealers from private individuals? What is the impact of speculation?
