Jump to content

Ballard

Members
  • Content Count

    1,443
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ballard

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. GMT is perfectly fine for everyday wearing.
  2. Ballard

    Hulk or Batman

    They are at a premium second hand as you can't get them new in AD's.
  3. My vote goes to BLNR too. I simply don't like yellow gold on a watch...
  4. Glad you like yours, maybe pick up a spare while the market is looking good :)
  5. Unless you've been keeping it in a safe, effectively never worn, then your watch will not really appreciate in value (unless it's extremely rare). By wearing it, you add wear and tear, as well as bringing the date for maintenance on the movement forward, resulting in depreciation. That said, there's no way to know what it will be worth in the future, as there are too many factors involved. It's not exactly unique or not easily available, meaning that there's plenty of competition out there, and if there's increasing wear and tear on it from it being worn constantly (or even as part of a rotation) that will continue to detract value. The only folks really making money off buying watches to resell at a later date for profit are those who are buying literally dozens of high-end luxury watches that, as a result, rarely if ever actually appear out on the market. These folks then wait several years to raise the demand and these are then sold at auction, often at multiples of the original prices. Again, function of supply and demand. I'd keep it and wear it. Save up for the others and add, then rotating them. Anything that doesn't stay in the rotation, sell.
  6. You are right, I read many stories that how fake Tudor are too hard to recognize from authentic one if you are not familiar with those watches, and I wanted to make sure not ended up with one of them. Finally, I contacted the AD and got confirmation and now i am relief.
  7. Great review, liked your attention to detail and thoughtful explanation of peculiarities of this piece. Can't say the same about this model though, but everyone to his own so enjoy it and hope it will serve you well for years to come.
  8. There certainly are some valid criticisms of the brand in his letter. However, for all his authentic interest in the brand, it seems that his own interest in the brand was fairly accidental and perhaps uninformed. He got into the brand because a friend of his mentioned it as something to look at besides Rolex, and he characterizes the brand as "We're the other guys" [presumably to Rolex]. He seems to be critical of the brand in that it has not maintained enough of a timeless aesthetic for him and it resorts to using paid celebs for marketing. I cannot help but thinking that it is not so much that IWC has changed as Mayer's projections for what the brand should be or represent were not realized. The fact is that there are many many "other guys" besides IWC, and always have been. Companies that manufacture more of their own movements, advertise much more minimally, and maintain greater reliance on classic or timeless designs than IWC. That was likely true when he learned of the brand, and that is true now. It is unclear to me that IWC ever embodied what he projected the brand to embody. It sounds like he projected a brand identity on IWC that was/is more like Glashutte Original, A. Lange & Sohne, Nomos, Hentschel, or RGM and was disappointed when the brand ultimately assumed the role he ascribed to it - the role of the big "other guy" chasing a big market share as a Rolex alternative.
  9. As a collector, I get what he's saying and I even share many of his sentiments, particularly that the general concepts he expressed can be applied to more than a smattering of other makers. I've not really had those thoughts re: IWC, but then IWC isn't a maker that moves me all that much, so I can't say I think about them at all, let alone thinking about them to the extent he has. As a consumer, I don't know that his dismay is even relevant. Either IWC make something tony20009 the consumer desires or they don't. As a consumer, my interest in IWC, or any other watch company, is purely transactional. I want a watch that meets some set of requirements and I search about until I find it. It's not about passion for watchmaking. As a business consultant, I'd say that if a company can earn the required profits from catering almost exclusively to collectors, fine. If not, however, failing to morph in accordance with market demand and other exigencies represents the height of corporate ineptitude and/or irresponsibility. No matter how commercially oriented be a company's lineup, the fact is that if it can earn sufficient profits, collectors who crave "whatever" can forget about getting from that maker for the maker will go bankrupt and produce nothing. That default may be a good thing in the long run re: the resale values of watches already held by collectors, but it's no good at all beyond that. It's sort of like one's long dead favorite aunt: the memories are lovely and comforting, but having one's aunt be still around is far better and far more satisfying. Mr. Mayer wrote:Then something changed. It would be cynical to blame it on the companys sale to Richemont Group, because I believe a company can change hands and still maintain their course. But I can tell you the moment the entire line shifted was with the release of the Ingenieur model.Cynical as it may be, I think the Richemont acquisition a far better marker of IWC's transformation. I struggle to see what exactly changed when the Ingy was introduced in 1958 (?) that could have effected the state of affairs over which Mr. Mayer laments. The man's entitled to his opinion, but I think his reticence toward cynicism has clouded his thinking. The Richemont acquisition was very much the pivotal moment in IWC's history, much as similar takeovers were critical to other makers to which it happened. If most of those companies could have and wanted to remain independent, they would have done so. Yes, one or two acquisitions were synergistic, but the majority of them were opportunistic "savior" transactions, purely business transactions. Are there watch companies that are able largely to cater to collectors over consumers? Absolutely, yes. Dufour, Maitres du Temps, Vianny Halter, MB&F, and a great many other FDHH perimeter brands are but a few examples of such makers. They can do that profitably because of the price point at which they can sell their wares and the very small number people the company profits must support. Once a company reaches a certain critical mass, it has to also achieve sales volumes at a level that supports it. Those makers I cited can do so because at $60K+ per watch, they only need a very few customers to support the one or two people who work there, and who in all likelihood are owners (aided perhaps by one administrative employee) not employees. The luxury of having the nature and extent of choice those small companies have is a luxury a maker like IWC, PP, AP, Rolex, Omega and all the other large makers simply do not have. Aside from disagreeing with Mr. Mayer about when certain sea change events occurred, and my willingness to view the matter not only as a collector, but also from a business perspective, I share Mr. Mayer's dismay as it applies to various larger (relative to the micro-companies I noted above) companies like IWC. I choose, however, to sate my passion for the "slightly off-beat, the quirky and the individual by looking to those very small makers. Mr. Mayer may need to do the same. Lastly, Mr. Mayer paraphrased an old saw when he wrote, "Trying to be all things to everyone is a pretty good way to ensure that you wont be something special to anyone." I couldn't agree more, as a collector, consumer or consultant. The thing is I see IWC and other watch companies not as trying to be all things to all people, but rather striving to be a thing that, as a curatorial, story telling and passionate collector, isn't all that inspiring and that doesn't capture my interest all that much. They are trying to be successful, profitable makers of luxury timepieces. I can only take so much issue with their choice to drive their companies in that direction. We're in an era where any mechanical watch and the craft required to make fine ones are anachronisms. Perhaps Mr. Mayer is onto something? Perhaps all watchmakers should focus on operating the way collectors would like and let economic Darwinism take its effect? All the best. Silent as a flower, her face fell in dismay, aware that the ghost of lust ate and left, sensing that there was a different scent of perfume consuming the room, and that she had numbered and counted the he loves me, he loves me not of each petal, where the lifeless dust had settle. ― Anthony Liccione
  10. I know there are different opinions on this, but why service it when it runs fine? I've just dropped my 8 years old omega for its first service last week (after it stopped). They charge the same money whether it needs any movement parts replaced or not. So you won't really save in the long run when you proactively send it for maintenance service earlier. You can find IWC service centers on their website: Find a Retailer | IWC Schaffhausen
  11. Hello, does please anyone know if the strap on Porsche Design by IWC Sportivo with meca-quartz can be replaced ? Thanks a lot, Jakub
  12. Hi guys, Im new to this forum. Basically, I've been doing some reading around and I see that Ace Jewelers happens to be one of the sponsors of the forum, and they do give good deals. But I also read that one of the guys from their company just left his job, so he won't be in charge of doing that anymore... basically, from what i see, ace jewelers is a good and reliable place to get my first IWC especially due to the discount. Also it so happens that I happen to be studying in the netherlands, at least this semester (im not a eu citizen, so i can get tax rebate when i leave the country) Is it possible to get a good deal for the watch, or who do i go to in this forum..? Thanks in advance. (Ive done my reading.. so its not a please-help-me-im-too-lazy-to-read-up-on-my-own post.) cheers! have a great day :)
  13. Hi All, I am a big fan of a mesh bracelet on watches and was wondering if the collective wisdom on this forum thought a Portofino mesh would suit the Mark XVII? I am incredibly fortunate in that I have both the black alligator and oem fantastic bracelet already. Honest opinions gratefully received. cheers, Michael
  14. It would be best to ask before you buy.
×
×
  • Create New...