Richard Mille

MTF
[PuristS]
13383

• Show profile
• Show other posts

Debate in the Spirit of PuristS

Dear Andrew,

First, thank you to you and Harrods for the review.

Initially, I thought it churlish to criticise the watch as it was so generously 'exposed' to a PuristSPro review. I decided to keep my counsel with 'masterly inactivity' and 'let sleeping dogs lie'.  (How many metaphors can I mangle?)  

Then, my PuristS conscience pricked me and I had to 'throw my hat into the ring' followed by my 'tuppence worth'!

It is the raison d'etre of PuristS for cogent polite dissent.

First off, as a scientist and medical research & development boffin, I have to tip my flat-cap to Richard Mille (RM) and their boffins for succeeding in the use of advanced materials science.  Then, back to reality.

RM has turned a point of criticism into a unique selling point (USP) by producing over-engineered watches at over-inflated prices. For a time, this was an excellent tactic to distinguish themselves from the hoi polloi of tourbillon makers.  Seriously, anyone can make a working tourbillon today. Since the vast majority are not subjected to a reference observatory test and regular escapement timepieces are already pretty accurate/precise, the only objective USP is "mine is bigger than yours"; in this case "my credit limit is bigger".

Herein, 'lies the rub'. What is the price of exclusivity? What are the economics of ultra-luxury?

As one of the millions whose nett worth was 'somewhat diminuted' by the economic crashes (2008  --  ?), I may be able to relate to the 'before and after' rationale.

BEFORE

With the 'cornucopia of plenty', I appreciated the frisson of frivolous delight to possess something exclusive that most could not afford. I don't think it was a thumb-nose gesture towards the lesser pocket but more a nod of appreciation to self-worth. How do you measure success? How long it takes to earn the price of a McDonalds hamburger? Do you want to upsize that?

The price of a RM is not the cost of the materials and labour plus marketing spend. Yes, some of those items are proportionately largerr at RM:  orthorhombic titanium aluminide  --  come on  --  it has to be larger! 

Getting one of the fastest men in the world to wear one against the rules in the Olympics Mens' 100m running finals? Got to spend time, effort and money.

But, the price of a RM is the "cost it affords for the luxury of choice". Everybody can appreciate the sleekness of a Ferrari and some can even distinguish the different sounds of the engine but only the few can crash one of their own. The true price of luxury is the cost it affords for choice.

The price of a RM watch is the cost of goods plus cost of sales plus profit divided by the number of buyers.

AFTER

With the 'plimsoll of nothing' rubbing on my foredeck, I am able to dissect down to the 'bones of possession'. I have not detected any diminished appreciation of the aesthetique nor of technique. I am still in awe that a few (fewer) people still have the budget to afford the choice. In a pragmatic way, the ratio of number of watches in my drawer to the total number of watches on the market  has not changed. It remains the same 1: 1250 ratio 

Most of my favourite brands remain the same but I have finally recognised the 'brands without substance' and dumped them and their products.

The only constant is that I did not have a RM BEFORE and I do not have one AFTER; without diminution of my admiration........  

Richard Mille is still one of the best.

I apologise for my ramblings.

Regards,

MTF