Richard Mille

I was quite careful in how I raised this and I tried not to dabble on the issue of price but rather on the issue of retained value/perceived value as dictated by the free market.

In a hazardous comparison, perhaps a recent contender would be Panerai as a brand - there are so many variations of styles and prices have fluctuated in various forms especially between 2003 to 2009. As a company, they have reintroduced a number of designs and case sizes to appeal to old and new followers - whether these "retain" a certain value ultimately depends on the wearer's requirements. I have two PAMs which I like very much and would never be bothered if the prices go south as I derive satisfaction from ownership. Similar to the APs but again as the gulf between the RRP and "after-market" valuation has not been necessarily bleak, I do not feel that my purchases have depreciated much even though the market may say differently.

However, with the enthusiasm for RM at the moment, I am indeed curious whether longevity would have the opportunity to retain a captive audience hence ensuring a stable perception of value.

I am a strog believer that in a parallel sense, the true value of a watch would be what it means to you - however reality would probably price it differently and there is an ascertainble value across secondary markets that gives you a sense of what the priced value actually is.

Hope I am making sense but this is just my 2 cents.

Cheers.

  login to reply