Help me start my watch collection...
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,552
Likes: 1
From: Orange County
Originally Posted by PLYRS 3,Jul 11 2007, 05:53 AM
i already did.
a stamp collection, art collection, coin collection....all imply a sense of history, time, originality and value.
a $1000 watch doesn't impart any of those characteristics.
a stamp collection, art collection, coin collection....all imply a sense of history, time, originality and value.
a $1000 watch doesn't impart any of those characteristics.
A sense of originality? There are probably less of a given Oris model produced than a given Tag, Rolex, ect. Given, part of that is popularity, but it still means you're more prone to seeing someone else with the same thing on their wrist.
Time? Most watch companies from Citizen to Tag to Omega change their models on a regular basis. If you put a 1990 Omega next to a 1990 Citizen, I would bet you could tell both of them were from the same era.
History? What does this even mean? Heritage of the company? Rolex was founded in 1905. Oris was founded in 1904. Hamilton was founded in 1892. That's in inverse order of price.
Value? What's the magic point at which value becomes relevant? Obviously it's not $1000 in your opinion. Is it $2000? $10,000?
When you were a kid and had a baseball card collection, were you wrong to call it that because you didn't have a Micky Mantle rookie card? In my opinion, you could have a perfectly valid collection of Casio watches if that's what your into.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
From: Berkeley
If you are just going to get one watch, stick with one of the classics:
Blancpain
Breguet
Patek Philippe
Vacheron Constantin
But hey I don't want to be a snob, so I'll go against conventional wisdom and throw in
Audemars Piguet
Girard-Perregaux
and IWC.
Have fun shopping. I wish I had a $1000 to shop for a watch.
Blancpain
Breguet
Patek Philippe
Vacheron Constantin
But hey I don't want to be a snob, so I'll go against conventional wisdom and throw in
Audemars Piguet
Girard-Perregaux
and IWC.
Have fun shopping. I wish I had a $1000 to shop for a watch.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 23,749
Likes: 3
From: Erock's my boat!
Originally Posted by OCMusicJunkie,Jul 13 2007, 09:19 PM
There are so many holes in that statement, I'm not sure where to start.
A sense of originality? There are probably less of a given Oris model produced than a given Tag, Rolex, ect. Given, part of that is popularity, but it still means you're more prone to seeing someone else with the same thing on their wrist.
Time? Most watch companies from Citizen to Tag to Omega change their models on a regular basis. If you put a 1990 Omega next to a 1990 Citizen, I would bet you could tell both of them were from the same era.
History? What does this even mean? Heritage of the company? Rolex was founded in 1905. Oris was founded in 1904. Hamilton was founded in 1892. That's in inverse order of price.
Value? What's the magic point at which value becomes relevant? Obviously it's not $1000 in your opinion. Is it $2000? $10,000?
When you were a kid and had a baseball card collection, were you wrong to call it that because you didn't have a Micky Mantle rookie card? In my opinion, you could have a perfectly valid collection of Casio watches if that's what your into.
A sense of originality? There are probably less of a given Oris model produced than a given Tag, Rolex, ect. Given, part of that is popularity, but it still means you're more prone to seeing someone else with the same thing on their wrist.
Time? Most watch companies from Citizen to Tag to Omega change their models on a regular basis. If you put a 1990 Omega next to a 1990 Citizen, I would bet you could tell both of them were from the same era.
History? What does this even mean? Heritage of the company? Rolex was founded in 1905. Oris was founded in 1904. Hamilton was founded in 1892. That's in inverse order of price.
Value? What's the magic point at which value becomes relevant? Obviously it's not $1000 in your opinion. Is it $2000? $10,000?
When you were a kid and had a baseball card collection, were you wrong to call it that because you didn't have a Micky Mantle rookie card? In my opinion, you could have a perfectly valid collection of Casio watches if that's what your into.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,637
Likes: 0
From: Denver
Originally Posted by PLYRS 3,Jul 11 2007, 06:53 AM
i already did.
a stamp collection, art collection, coin collection....all imply a sense of history, time, originality and value.
a $1000 watch doesn't impart any of those characteristics.
a stamp collection, art collection, coin collection....all imply a sense of history, time, originality and value.
a $1000 watch doesn't impart any of those characteristics.
The value of a collection is intrinsic to the person collecting. If one values bellybutton lint and chooses to collect it, then it is collectible. Monetary value, history and originality can be included to describe a collection, but do not themselves define collectibility.
Your definition takes the personal perspective out of the equation. If our man OC wants to start his collection with the Oris, then this is HIS history. It is his first "major" watch purchase which is now defined as a point in time. In ten years as his collection grows, he might look back on his first mechanical watch. A sense of time and history relevant to him.
Monetary value is simply not applicable. If it were, the only collectible watch would be the most expensive. This very term would nullify any other criteria as it is the most definable. There would be one collectible watch-the most expensive- and since one watch a collection does not make, well, we have to remove value from the definition of a collection. Monetary value is important only to those with an interest in protecting, buying or selling. It doesn't define the worth of a collection, only its monetary value to others.
I think you are saying that for a collection to have value to others, it should include the criteria you mentioned. That is arguing under the assumption that a collection must have value to others for the items to be collectible. I don't believe that to be true.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,869
Likes: 2
From: Minneapolis, MN
Originally Posted by PLYRS 3,Jul 11 2007, 08:53 AM
i already did.
a stamp collection, art collection, coin collection....all imply a sense of history, time, originality and value.
a $1000 watch doesn't impart any of those characteristics.
a stamp collection, art collection, coin collection....all imply a sense of history, time, originality and value.
a $1000 watch doesn't impart any of those characteristics.
There are many vintage time pieces that belong in collections and are not expensive. For instance the history of military time pieces is robust and not exclusive to Panerai or Rolex.
What this comment does is make it sound like you are not a collector or a purveyor of history, rather a collector of price tags and social esteem.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
From: Southern Part of Heaven
Originally Posted by Nin009,Jul 17 2007, 07:04 PM
That is really an elitist statement and quite contrary to the point of collecting. Perhaps the spirit of your thoughts were lost in the words of your post.
The value of a collection is intrinsic to the person collecting. If one values bellybutton lint and chooses to collect it, then it is collectible. Monetary value, history and originality can be included to describe a collection, but do not themselves define collectibility.
Your definition takes the personal perspective out of the equation. If our man OC wants to start his collection with the Oris, then this is HIS history. It is his first "major" watch purchase which is now defined as a point in time. In ten years as his collection grows, he might look back on his first mechanical watch. A sense of time and history relevant to him.
Monetary value is simply not applicable. If it were, the only collectible watch would be the most expensive. This very term would nullify any other criteria as it is the most definable. There would be one collectible watch-the most expensive- and since one watch a collection does not make, well, we have to remove value from the definition of a collection. Monetary value is important only to those with an interest in protecting, buying or selling. It doesn't define the worth of a collection, only its monetary value to others.
I think you are saying that for a collection to have value to others, it should include the criteria you mentioned. That is arguing under the assumption that a collection must have value to others for the items to be collectible. I don't believe that to be true.
The value of a collection is intrinsic to the person collecting. If one values bellybutton lint and chooses to collect it, then it is collectible. Monetary value, history and originality can be included to describe a collection, but do not themselves define collectibility.
Your definition takes the personal perspective out of the equation. If our man OC wants to start his collection with the Oris, then this is HIS history. It is his first "major" watch purchase which is now defined as a point in time. In ten years as his collection grows, he might look back on his first mechanical watch. A sense of time and history relevant to him.
Monetary value is simply not applicable. If it were, the only collectible watch would be the most expensive. This very term would nullify any other criteria as it is the most definable. There would be one collectible watch-the most expensive- and since one watch a collection does not make, well, we have to remove value from the definition of a collection. Monetary value is important only to those with an interest in protecting, buying or selling. It doesn't define the worth of a collection, only its monetary value to others.
I think you are saying that for a collection to have value to others, it should include the criteria you mentioned. That is arguing under the assumption that a collection must have value to others for the items to be collectible. I don't believe that to be true.
