Do you think COSC/METAS provide a level of safety to consumers? In that a third party has tested the movement. Obviously that doesn't help for complications. I'm disappointed with the consistency of performance of a TAG Heuer Carrera Chronograph of mine. It's within spec, but the rate changes more than I would have thought for the price bracket. Makes me think I'll stick to pieces with certifications.
Yes, I think certification helps. It gives the buyer an external floor of confidence rather than relying entirely on the brand’s own claims.
But your TAGH example is the awkward one. If it is technically within spec, the brand can say it is performing correctly. Yet a visibly variable rate can still feel underwhelming. But, remember that resting position overnight can have large a influence. Check if it is consistently affected by the same rest posiiton; COSC allows quite wide rate differences across positions.
Rather than the possibility of the entire luxury watch market collapsing as one of the contributors mentioned, might not an alternative scenario be a growing bifurcation between small batch independents and larger watch brands?
Yes, I think that’s exactly one of the more plausible outcomes. The danger is a loss of coherence in the middle. The strongest independents can survive because they sell scarcity and authorship. The biggest groups can survive because they have distribution, capital, pricing power and institutional resilience.
Awesome! This is a topic that really needs more coverage and discussion. Brands obviously don't want to discuss it and customers with first hand experience don't want to sink the value of their complications (until after they've had the chance to move them). I've had watches spend more time in service than on my wrist, one that went back and forth to service 3 times over 14 months at which point technically the 1 year service warranty had nearly expired since it was based on the date of first service. No apologies given. Never again, I'm done with complications and Richemont brands, time only indy and Rolex. This is going to come up more and more as all the new hype bubble customers who spent big money start aging out of warranties and into servicing for the first time.
Thank you for voicing the concerns loudly. I guess Lange is one of the usuals suspects here since their QC has been deteriorating substantially nowadays. 150k CHF rattrapante with some unexplained problems? “Cough* triple split *cough*
I can’t say I’m surprised at the insiders’ commentary, but I’m also simultaneously disappointed. Any specific brands where you feel they don’t operate in the ways noted above?
Brilliant! Reading this feels somewhat like confirmation of your girlfriend cheating on you when you were 99% she did in the first place.
P.s. You are making me write a followup pice to this...
Do you think COSC/METAS provide a level of safety to consumers? In that a third party has tested the movement. Obviously that doesn't help for complications. I'm disappointed with the consistency of performance of a TAG Heuer Carrera Chronograph of mine. It's within spec, but the rate changes more than I would have thought for the price bracket. Makes me think I'll stick to pieces with certifications.
Yes, I think certification helps. It gives the buyer an external floor of confidence rather than relying entirely on the brand’s own claims.
But your TAGH example is the awkward one. If it is technically within spec, the brand can say it is performing correctly. Yet a visibly variable rate can still feel underwhelming. But, remember that resting position overnight can have large a influence. Check if it is consistently affected by the same rest posiiton; COSC allows quite wide rate differences across positions.
Nice write up with lots to mull over.
Rather than the possibility of the entire luxury watch market collapsing as one of the contributors mentioned, might not an alternative scenario be a growing bifurcation between small batch independents and larger watch brands?
Yes, I think that’s exactly one of the more plausible outcomes. The danger is a loss of coherence in the middle. The strongest independents can survive because they sell scarcity and authorship. The biggest groups can survive because they have distribution, capital, pricing power and institutional resilience.
Awesome! This is a topic that really needs more coverage and discussion. Brands obviously don't want to discuss it and customers with first hand experience don't want to sink the value of their complications (until after they've had the chance to move them). I've had watches spend more time in service than on my wrist, one that went back and forth to service 3 times over 14 months at which point technically the 1 year service warranty had nearly expired since it was based on the date of first service. No apologies given. Never again, I'm done with complications and Richemont brands, time only indy and Rolex. This is going to come up more and more as all the new hype bubble customers who spent big money start aging out of warranties and into servicing for the first time.
One of the most valuable pieces I’ve read on substack to date. Thank you for the good work.
Bravo 👏
Thank you for voicing the concerns loudly. I guess Lange is one of the usuals suspects here since their QC has been deteriorating substantially nowadays. 150k CHF rattrapante with some unexplained problems? “Cough* triple split *cough*
I can’t say I’m surprised at the insiders’ commentary, but I’m also simultaneously disappointed. Any specific brands where you feel they don’t operate in the ways noted above?