While listening to a recent episode of the A Blog to Watch Weekly podcast, a debate over strategy and pricing at the watch brand Oris caught my attention. An Oris watch. The brand has used Sellita movements. The issue at hand was this: do Oris Diver watches, featuring the in-house calibre 400 movement and priced just over $4,000, make any sense? This question is relevant because other, similar, Oris Divers with a Sellita-derived movement are available for under $3,000. At first blush, I understand and, to some extent, agree with those who question whether it makes sense for Oris to move "upmarket" and still offer lower-priced models. But I think some recent events in Switzerland suggest that buyers should strongly consider, or perhaps prefer, the newer references with in-house movements even though they may carry a premium. When any brand sources materials from other companies, they face something the field of finance refers to as "counterparty risk." Your p
Let's get some preliminaries out of the way: I don't particularly admire or respect how Patek CEO Thierry Stern responded to criticism of Cubitus, the brand's newest release. Three pocket watches on display during the 2017 Patek Philippe Grand Exhibition in NYC. Here's what he said : “The haters are mostly people who have never had a Patek and never will, so that doesn’t bother me.” Does this remark seem filled with hubris and disrespect for potential buyers? Yes. Will it matter for Patek financially? I don't think so. Let me explain. In order to understand the financial side of watch brands, we should never forget that retail buyers are not their customers (with some rare exceptions). I know that sounds crazy, but it is 5,000% true. For a brand like Patek, the primary watch market is financially mediated. There is a third party standing between brands in Switzerland and collectors. Namely, Patek sells to authorized dealers, they don't sell to collectors.