happy_wis
290
Interesting...
Thanks a lot for sharing this extremely interesting article.
I am kind of confused though... may be due to my poor English.... Did they say that Omega sell AND buy the very same watch (i.e. that Pt Omega) in the auction?
Anyway, I think it is a good time to talk about this interesting topic...
I think we can classify these "marketing in Auction" behaviour as:
Case 1: buy a watch (that is already owned by the buyer) in an auction (to establish a "market" price)
Case 2: buy "museum-grade" watch in auction
Case 3: buy auction-grade watch (e.g. 3940, 3970) that is owned by other people in auction
Case 4: buy new/current watch (e.g. 5960, 5980) that is owned by other people in auction
To me:
Case 1 makes me sick... In auction, pushing the price above reserve by "anonymous buyer" (i.e. the seller) is fine as long as the "anonymous buyer" is not the final real buyer in the auction.
Case 2 is perfectly fine. This is what PP has been doing for years. If you had visited their museum before, you should agree.
Case 3... well... a brand should not be doing this... It is solely for "investment/marketing" purpose. I doubt PP is doing it.
Case 4... It is similar to case 1. Although many people are saying that PP is doing it, I don't see any evidence about this. Please do let me know if you know of any insider info about it.
Any comments?
