Patek Philippe

With all due respect, but was your last sentence ironic?

The last years have clearly shown that parts of the finance industry, notably in the US, but also elsewhere, have benefited from mechanisms which were far from being efficient, fair, and they have little to do with capitalism. Questionable state-sponsored actions have helped Wall Street institutions from drowning. There may no need to be going more into detail here at a watch forum but I would challenge your assumptions.

Count de Monet's statements may be provocative but IMHO they are justifiable.

  

I am not in the business but .....

You can finish my sentence.

Bill

Taxpayer have bailed out the banks because of the financial gambling industry and are legally the owners of the banks therefore.

Oliver Stone raises also this aspect that communism has taken over in his second Wall Street movie.

I remember a Republican senator saying back in 2008 that a bail out is not "American".

What he did not dare to say is that it would be a market intervention that is more communism than a capitalistic way of dealing with this problem.

There are even European countries that are not living in democratic states or have been living for a period of time in none democratic states as the World Bank and the IMF and the EZB have simply "installed" accountants as head of states in Italy for instance. 

I do not see any ethic in an industry that has taken the tax payer as an hostage (Barack Obama) in order to carry on with their personality disorders and drag the whole world into a mess that we will have to pay for generations by lowering living standards, loosing rights that have been fought for decades.

At the moment people are always vilifying the Russian oligarchs without looking at their own oligarchs such as the bankers. 

Back to horology: completely wrong choice of watch for a potent consumer of his calibre.

Moritz

The other topic is too heavy and should be best discussed in person. Over Email and this forum it will only lead to miscommunication and perhaps some 'heated' arguments which I actually don't mind. But this is a watch forum after all.

I have full understanding for modern, recognisable pieces as I went myself for a piece that is / was noticeable for watch fans as being a Patek.

If I would be in the position of the gentleman that is depicted here I would go for complicated vintage pieces.

The reasons are:

- these pieces are more handmade than modern pieces and have a bigger cultural value

- potent buyers are necessary to preserve such pieces as they can afford any service costs

And: they are and will be the best investment in the watch world as man will always choose the man made product over the machine made product (Karl Marx)

Best

Moritz

This message has been edited by COUNT DE MONET on 2015-03-03 06:30:52 This message has been edited by COUNT DE MONET on 2015-03-03 06:31:33

In theory it makes sense. But I think people like Ackman don't  have the time to do their homework in this area. So they opt for a practical piece that is wearable and modern. Another question would be: is he and other investors like him really the best place to preserve a cultural heritage besides the Patek museum? Not sure. Maybe. I would have to think about that one.  I think anyway there are enough Patek collectors like Pateknut on IG and Bubblewatches who appreciate Patek vintage and have the means (hopefully) to maintain them properly. We don't really need the likes of Ackman to go into vintage (that would just mean higher prices for people like me who still are looking to buy their first important vintage Patek).