Baron - Mr Red
14613
Hey Mo...
You ask a truly interesting question. I have often wondered to myself if Patek is simply the King with no clothes. One day, someone will yell.."Hey, the King is totally naked" and everyone in an instant will realise that paying Patek prices is insane.
You are also correct, I believe, when you say that a number of independent manufacturers (as well as a number of brands) produce watches that have, at the very minimum, equal quality, movement, finish etc as a similar Patek but at a much lower price. I look at the finish on many of the Lange and just marvel. I look at the technical innovation and quality of some of the JLC and, again, marvel. So, yes I agree with you on this point too.
I also think you have a point insofar as the Patek marketing has allowed it to create an image of itself that separates it from the crowd. At a recent event show-casing all the 2013 novelties, all the manufacturers were grouped in a main hall. Patek, however, had hired a room that was about one-third as big as the main hall, but it was separate from the hall, with its own seating and staff. Brilliant marketing.
However, as time has moved on for me, I have come to realise something. As an artist, I think this will resonate for you. A few years ago, i took up painting. I spent some time creating a few pictures. I would say i have about 4 or 5 that i did. I love them. They took me ages to do. Picasso, on the other hand, was prolific. He produced tens of thousands of different pieces of art. Now, my exclusive and extremely time-consuming art would fetch maybe £10 in an auction, whereas Pablo's signature on a napkin fetches thousands (maybe tens of thousands). I have a friend who is a truly talented artist. Her work is technically superb. Her stuff fetches maybe £100. There are artists today who, technically, are superior to Pablo. But it is not technical competence that creates the circumstances for his world-record prices. Da Vinci is another case in point. Most modern critics say that the technical competence of Da Vinci is way behind today's artists. Yet, how much for a Mona (Nicolas....don't answer that?).
So, where does this leave me with Patek? Well, I think what Picasso and Da Vinci did was similar to what Patek have done. All of them were pioneers of their craft. All of them brought to the table a revolutionary new way forward. And, because of this, they gained the historical recognition that comes with such pioneering. Think of the first man on the moon...Neil Armstrong. Can you name 5 other astronauts? Think of the first manned flight.....Wright Bros. I have no idea who came next. First guy to climb Everest....Hillary. Pioneers make their mark and are subsequently demanded because of their historical importance. Now, in the case of Patek, they made their mark in a number of ways. When one looks at a modern Calatrava, and compares that with what one can get for the same money with an independent, well you are right to say that the value may be better in the independent. However, I don't think that equation of value incorporates the "pioneer" value that is embedded in the Calatrava. When I buy a watch, I want all sorts of things from it. One thing that I enjoy is knowing some of the history and uniqueness of approach. I know many guys who just want technical competence as the yardstick for value. That is one of many components for me. I also can see that there is a perception bridge to gap between a manufacturer like Patek and one like JLC......both have achieved pioneer status in my view...so why Patek over JLC? Well, i think this is like comparing two great artists...... both have massive price premiums over some of the independents. I would argue that is rightly so....just as I would argue that Picasso deserves his premium even though his work is prolific and not especially technically great compared with many. Picasso was a pioneer of something extraordinary. So too was Patek.