Patek Philippe

heartbreaker
818

• Show profile
• Show other posts

Rarity is a relative matter

I apologize for replying so late, I wanted to take part on this interesting thread. Indeed, I hope as soon as possible to give my contribution also to the other four themes suggested by our moderator, Jéròme, to whom we must address a big thank you!

I’m writing as a simple Patek Philippe fan, since I don't have any PP, so my judgements and opinions are in some way “from the outside"; maybe someone won't like this; if so, I’m sorry, I’ll go ahead anyway. I apologize for my poor English too. This is a problem that often prevents me from active participation in the forum, since writing in English requires me a lot of time.

That said, I immediately want to say that, yes, I do love Patek Philippe watches for their rarity.

My general idea about the rarity of a product is that it’s a very "relative" matter, because it’s linked to a lot of factors. I will develop this reasoning in two points.

1) Rarity is relative matter, especially in reference to the social category you belong to and the social environment in which you live.

If I were a sheikh, probably there wouldn't be any extravagance wearing a Patek Philippe. So, if I wanted to stand out, escaping the prevailing approval, probably I’d prefer other (more “rare”) brands.

I don’t pretend to say that my approach is optimal, indeed it’s one of my defects. It’s a feature of my bad character, that mixes individualism (however, it’s a congenital disease in every Sicilian like me) and wanting to compete following a different way. This often leads me to prefer “niche products” (not only about watches).

2) Rarity is a relative matter, because the commercial positioning of a brand isn’t immutable.

If one wants to go against the tide, purchasing the products of a "connoisseur" brand, and if one isn’t willing to unconditionally love this brand, one should be very careful about how it is managed.

At the present time, Patek Philippe is more known and sought-after compared to the past but it isn’t a "popular" brand. I don’t believe that this concept is heavily affected by price issues. For example, since a couple of years, in my home town there’s a trend that requires to ride a motorbike that costs more than € 15,000 even for the shorter downtown travelling. This trend affects all social classes or rather especially the less well-off. I conclude that even an expensive product can become "popular" if imposed by the prevailing trend. Well, if in the future this will affect the Patek Philippe watches, I’m not so sure I’ll continue to love them.

Moreover, there’s a problem closely related to “popular-but-expensive-products”: the counterfeiting. Unfortunately, my country stands at the world’s top places as a producer and buyer of counterfeited products and I have to confess that I find instinctively unpleasant those brands severely affected by this point. Currently, afaik, PP isn’t massively affected by this problem.

Finally, there's another facet, more related to the brand’s choices. The Patek Philippe’s image currently isn’t polluted by someone else’s image, for example the one of the so-called "ambassadors". The ambassadors' role is to introduce a brand to the big masses, wanting to state its "exclusiveness", rather than its "rarity". Imho, the Stern family perfectly know how to profitably run their business (they're not a charitable institution), but they’re also trying to focus on the intrinsic values of the brand; for example, I greatly appreciated the Patek Philippe Seal self-imposed rules.

As mentioned above, in point one, I don’t pretend to say that my approach is optimal; maybe, it will appear unpleasant or snobbish to some of you. Never mind, it's much worse acting like hypocrites.

Thank you for reading, ciao!