Horological Meandering

pplater
5432

• Show profile
• Show other posts

An open question...

Stop and think about it for just a moment; is there just one thing that all of our ‘precious toys’ have in common?

“Easy", you say: “they all tell the time”. Not if you’re the owner of the Haldimann H8, or the Romain Jerome double tourbillon, they don’t. “They all fit on our wrists”. What about all of our pocket-watch collecting friends? The differences are far more numerous than the similarities: cases of metal, plastic, ceramic, wood, stone, bone; round cases, square ones, tank, tonneau, cushion, spaceship-shaped, frog-shaped, oval, tubular; dials of silver, gold, sapphire, meteorite, enamel or no dials at all; analogue, digital, both; mechanical, quartz, electronic, hybrid; simple, complicated or uber-complicated; fragile or bullet-proof; one hand, two hands, ten hands or none; straps, bracelets, lanyards, fobs; new, old, vintage, antique  - and on and on and on and on…..

Perhaps – perhaps – the one thing that all of these diverse items have that is common to each and every one of them is a value: whether it be small or great; sentimental or empirical; permanent or temporary; increasing or decreasing; substantial or ephemeral.

In that context, then, why is it that we, as a like-minded group of individuals with very diverse horological interests, find it difficult to converse freely about the one thing that is the common feature across our interests?

At this point in the discussion it is important to differentiate between ‘value’ and ‘price’, although obviously the two concepts are inextricably linked. To be fair, that is not easily done: someone as sage and as erudite as ThomasM, for example, could probably fill a book on the nuances between ‘value’ and ‘price’. Maybe, though, for the reasons mentioned here, we could usefully create our own definitions and thereby prescribe our own 'regulations'.

We don’t discuss ‘price’ on this site, and for most purposes that is exactly as it should be. That credo means that we can focus on the inherent merit in the pieces which are the subject of our interest without being…. distracted… by ‘unworthy’ financial considerations. In that way also we pull down, not create, walls within the community.

Can we discuss value, though? Unlike price, it is the same question whether we are talking of a disposable Swatch or a JLC Hybris Mechanica. Unlike the ‘price’ question it shouldn’t, or needn’t, alienate anyone in the community. Whatever our resources, whatever the state of our collection, whatever the depth of our passion, it is a question on which we will all have a view and can all contribute equally.

Perhaps the better question is: do we want to discuss value ?

What has prompted the thought (if you will pardon a momentary lapse into use of the ‘p’ word) is the increasingly eye-watering prices being sought for some of the newer models from the large houses and the recent creations of the Independent watchmakers. There are all sorts of interesting intellectual propositions to be analysed here. Is a new Calatrava objectively more valuable, by the several orders of magnitude suggested, than a vintage Calatrava in good condition? It has the same number of parts, same precious metal case, same chronometric values, same level of workmanship, very similar aesthetic: why the gulf in ‘value’?  Indeed, for all the same reasons is a vintage Patek chronograph objectively more valuable, by the several orders of magnitude suggested at auctions, than a new Patek chronograph? Will there be twice as much ‘value’ in Roger Smith’s next creation as in his last? Moreover, did the last creation represent ‘good’ value, or ‘fair’ value? Does a minute repeating chronograph represent ‘good’ value or ‘fair’ value compared to a Ferrari, or an original Roy Lichtenstein, or a small Tuscan farmhouse, all of which will involve an identical drain on the purse?

Your posts confirm that you are all intelligent, sensible, thoughtful people (and before you laugh at that observation, Amanico is the exception to prove the rule….). Is it not possible for us, then, to find a mature way to carry on a discussion or a debate as to the ‘value’ of the pieces which we hoard and pore over, without having the discussion descend into the grubby libels and boasts which might otherwise characterise posts about 'price'? Can we not synthesise a collective view or a reference point on the fairness, or the absurdity, as the case may be, of movements in auction realisations; of increasingly frequent increases in catalogue pricelists; of fees for commissions being selected (apparently) by throwing a dart at numbers in a telephone book?

Over to you. Is there any point in us being able to have an open discussion about ‘value’ in this forum? Would you wish to be able to do that from time to time? Can the conversation be self-regulated or should it be moderated? What topics would you like to explore?

Cheers,

pplater.