How To Put Collectors First; A Cartier-signed Rolex GMT-Master from Reddit
Criticism in watch media, a Gilbert Albert Patek, a Cartier Tank to watch out for, and more vintage watches from Omega and Patek.
I promised more about watch media, so this week: Two ideas of how media should work. After that: a special Rolex GMT-Master retailed by Cartier, a Gilbert Albert Patek, and a Cartier Tank I wouldn’t buy. Since many of you are new subscribers, here are the letters I’ve written since jumping back into publishing weekly:
The Watchlist | Lennon's 2499 (Chapter 113), A Fresh Patek Calatrava 565, & An Original Aquanaut
Rarity Is Overrated, and What Even Is This Newsletter?
Welcome Back (I Left Hodinkee)
Next week, I’ll have a longer piece about media, including how this newsletter hopes to fit into its future.
Even a broken clock
The basic problem with watches, if you want to call it that, is that there’s no real reason to buy them. There are plenty of good reasons not to buy a watch. Too big. Too small. The brand’s president seems like kind of a narcissist.
Collectors can be incredibly picky, and rightly so. It’s our money. At its best, a watch can be a magical distillation of human history, culture, art, science, and craftsmanship, all in a mechanical device that fits on your wrist.
But it’s up to brands and watchmakers to create products that actually accomplish that. A difficult ask, to be sure. Often, they don’t get it quite right.
If and how watch media covers these shortcomings is the source of constant conversation.
There’s a tendency for those who have been in the watch industry for a while to put the concerns of brands and the industry as a whole first. They might also have commercial or business reasons for doing so, but, in general, they feel the best way to support the watch industry is to focus on the positive.
Recently, Wei Koh wrote in Revolution about the need for positivity in watch media, advocating for this industry-first approach.
“I think many of us are simply fatigued by the negativity,” Wei says. “To me, watch media is about offering all the best information possible for people to make up their own minds. It is not about perpetuating hyperbolic negativity as social media has become.”
First, and I get what he’s saying, but I think he’s identified a bug in human nature as much as one in the social media algorithm. Have you hung out with people lately? I hate to say it, but we love to gossip and talk sh*t.
No doubt social media amplifies this to scales unimaginable to our gossipy cavemen ancestors. But it’s in our DNA.1 This also sells short the many thoughtful comments, criticisms, and private conversations on social media every day.
“My mission is to uplift this industry and not tear it down,” Wei concludes. This perspective seems to equate positivity with “uplifting the industry,” and criticism with tearing down.2
“Noble sentiment, but there’s a fine line between being supportive and becoming a propaganda machine,” Screwdown Crown responded.
Propaganda is a bit dramatic; instead, I think of this push for positivity as the “PR agenda.” When brands or PR firms interact with media, they literally “pitch” you on releases, stories, or packages that might be interesting to you and your audience. They have a message and want you to help put it into the world.
It’s up to the media to break out of this PR agenda to find stories that are actually meaningful to readers or collectors. This might mean uplifting the industry through positivity, but not always.
“Uplifting the watch industry” also doesn’t do us much good in the long run if its companies are trying to sell a bill of goods to collectors. I don’t think that’s the case most of the time. But it certainly is some of the time, and media should readily call that out.
Let’s take an example.
In April, Cartier released the new Santos Dual Time. Shortly after, Ben Cook pointed out on social media, via Hodinkee’s coverage, that Cartier was charging $9,000 for a watch with a Sellita movement.3 I specifically remember us (Hodinkee) having to ask about the movement like five times because Cartier wasn’t readily providing that info.
Is it “negativity” to point out the movement Cartier is using, and that the Dual Time is quite expensive for what’s inside? Of course not. It is, as Wei says, offering the best information possible for collectors to make up their minds.
This is what uplifting the industry looks like. It’s seeking out information, pushing the brand to provide facts that weren’t in a press package. It’s providing criticism when something feels off. It’s asking the brand to do better, both with its product and how it presents the product.
That’s because this type of criticism comes from a different perspective: It puts the consumer and collector first.
Collector’s item
This brings us to the alternative approach to media. It doesn’t put the industry first, but instead puts the collector first, along with their concerns.
The question I thought about most when writing for a larger outlet was this: If someone went out and spent their own money based on something I wrote or a recommendation I made, would I be okay with that?
It sounds simple, but I’d like to think this should be the concern driving most watch coverage, not questions like “Will brand/PR rep/narcissistic president be happy if they read this?”
In reality, watch brands are not the core of this industry. Consumers and collectors are.
As a collector or consumer, it’s increasingly easy to feel like you’re getting burned when buying a new watch, a concern that used to be most prevalent in the secondary market (especially vintage). Imagine forking over a bunch of money on a mechanical watch (say that Cartier Santos Dual Time), only later learning about its movement. For a certain type of consumer, this could cause buyer’s remorse. You might even feel like you’ve been duped.
Focusing on positivity doesn’t solve this; it can even exacerbate the issue.
There are a lot of positive things happening in the watch industry. But, an unrelenting focus on positivity creates noise and doesn’t help collectors separate what’s great from the merely mundane.
The only way to truly uplift the industry is with a balance of positivity and criticism. When done correctly, pointing out problems doesn’t come from a place of hate or negativity. Hopefully, you sincerely want a brand (or the whole watch industry) to do better.
The best people at brands already welcome and encourage this type of criticism. They respect those who give an opinion or provide constructive feedback. They know that understanding the consumer is the most important part of their job and welcome any input that might get them closer to that North Star. They don’t want positivity; they want honesty.
They understand that the watch industry doesn’t serve brands, manufacturers, marketers, or PR firms.
It serves collectors.
Unfortunately, business and commercial realities can get in the way of this, but more on that next week.
THE WATCHLIST
From Reddit to auction: A Rolex GMT-Master retailed by Cartier
It’s not often you see a watch that was posted on Reddit end up at auction. But that’s what happened with this Rolex GMT-Master ref. 1675 retailed by Cartier. It first popped up on Reddit a few months ago, with its owner asking about the value of the special watch that used to “belong to a family member.”
The owner of this GMT-Master was Joseph Bennet, a businessman and aviator who wore it while traveling the world, fly-fishing, and working in Minnesota.
Dealers and auction specialists saw the Cartier-signed Rolex pop up on Reddit, and it eventually made its way to Heritage Auction, where it’s part of the Dallas auctioneer’s Timepieces sale this Wednesday.
Over the years, Bennet kept the Cartier box, along with many of the original and service Rolex papers (on one service slip you can see “NO NEW BEZEL INSERT” and “NO NEW DIAL” charmingly written in all caps).
Through the 1970s, Cartier New York retailed Rolex watches for a brief period. On this GMT-Master, the Cartier inventory number is etched into the bottom lug.
As for the rest of the watch : It’s clearly been serviced by Rolex over the years. The case is polished, the 78360 Oyster bracelet is later than the one that would’ve originally come on this GMT-Master from 1968. Lucky for us though, the dial and bezel remain original to the watch. It’s a “long E” dial, correct for the serial number. But that cursive Cartier signature above 6 o’clock makes this otherwise ordinary GMT-Master noteworthy.
In 2020, Christie’s sold a two-tone ref. 1675 retailed by Cartier for CHF 68,750. A few months later, Eric Ku posted the watch on his wrist, calling it “perhaps the most expensive two-tone Rolex ever.”
As of Tuesday morning, this Rolex GMT-Master ref. 1675 retailed by Cartier hasn’t yet hit its reserve price of $60,000. After a few dealers vied for the watch on Reddit, it’ll be interesting to see if there’s competition for it at auction. Find it here on Heritage Auction.
Patek Philippe Ricochet ref. 788 by Gilbert Albert
In the 1960s, Gilbert Albert designed a handful of asymmetrical watches for Patek Philippe. One of the harder Albert designs to find is the Ricochet pocket watch, produced in limited numbers across four distinct reference 788s (/1 through /4). Each ref. 788 has a slightly different shape and texture, but this asymmetrical Ricochet feels the most surreal.
The organic shape of Albert’s pocket watch fits perfectly into the (left) palm, suddenly making you wonder why every pocket watch doesn’t use this irregular shape. The case and dial have a matching texture that makes the yellow-gold case glow. It’s finished off with black enamel hands and a radial sector dial.
I don’t always get excited about pocket watches, but good design is good design, whether it’s a pocket watch or a toaster oven. The Ricochet is completed with the manual Patek caliber 23-300, an impressive movement if only because it squeezes a freesprung balance and overcoil hairspring into 3mm of thickness.
Albert’s Ricochet pocket watch is a beautiful object that brings together design, craftsmanship, and watchmaking in a way you don’t often see, then or now.
The Patek ref. 788 “Ricochet” has a current bid of $20,000. Find it here on Heritage Auction.
Buyer Beware: Cartier Tank ‘Automatique’ ref. 17002
In our Hodinkee Radio episode about stone dials, Jasper Lijfering of Amsterdam Vintage Watches said he wouldn’t buy a vintage Onyx-dial Rolex with a crack in the dial. Onyx dials are just too common, there’s no need to compromise on quality, he explains.
Generally, I think this is how I feel about 1970s Cartier watches. These watches are common enough that you don’t need to compromise and buy an enamel dial with cracks. Sure, the larger Cartier Tank Automatique is harder to find, but not impossible.
Heritage has a Cartier Tank Automatique in its sale, but you can see it’s got a few big cracks around the hand stack. The problem is that this can only get worse over time. And it’s not like these 1970s Cartier watches were examples of haute horology. They’re mass-produced luxury. Don’t get me wrong, I like my ‘70s Tortue quite a bit. But a Rexhepi, it’s not.
This Cartier Tank Automatique ref. 17002 currently sits at $5,000, but I’d think twice before bidding.
Miscellaneous: Omega cal. 33.3, Patek 3970, and More
A few more notes from the Heritage sale:
This Blancpain Fifty Fathoms has a refinished dial, and replacement bezel and insert. Last year, I wrote a collector’s guide to the Fifty Fathoms, so check that out to see what an original Fifty Fathoms actually looks like.
This Rolex Stelline ref. 6098 passed last year and the reserve has been lowered to $40,000 (from $60,000, I think). Probably the cheapest Stelline 6098 you’ll find, if you really want one. Personally, I’d buy a different watch if I had a budget, but I get it: those star indices are awesome.
I’m sure a lot of collectors will be watching this second series Patek 3970J as results for the perpetual calendar chronograph continue to climb quickly.
Finally, this Omega cal. 33.3 chronograph (photo above) seems like the type of thing collectors used to love. In fact, this CK2079’s brother — literally one serial number before it — sold for about $75,000 at Phillips in 2018. That Phillips example had a dial that aged more evenly (and it looks like the CK2079 at Heritage has a later crown), but still. This example sits at $6,500 right now.
I was brainwashed by Hodinkee Magazine Vol. 1, where “5 collectors identified their favorite designs of all time.” Those watches were: (1) a Rolex chronograph ref. 6238, black dial (Matt Jacobson); (2) FP Journe T30 (Rich Pinto); (3) Patek 2481 cloisonne enamel (Goldberger); (4) Tudor “Monte Carlo” (Clymer); and (5) an Omega caliber 33.3 dial that looks a lot like this one (Jason Fried).
From dial design to movement, Omega cal 33.3s are the whole package. Nowadays, the Omega chronograph feels like the forgotten of these five watches.
IN THE LOUPE
Could Steampunk Save Us?, The New Yorker
I’m always going to recommend any essay that begins, “This summer, I bought my wife a vintage watch—a model called the Big Crown Pointer Date, made by the Swiss company Oris. The watch was manufactured in 1995, and is small, elegant, and mechanical, which means that it doesn’t contain a battery; instead, you wind it, and it tells the time using an ingenious system of gears.”
Christopher Ward on doubling its revenue, Financial Times
To me, Christopher Ward is more fascinating as a business story than a watch story. According to FT, the UK brand has nearly doubled its revenue in the past year, from £16.8m to £30.5m. CW says next year, sales will pass £50mn. It attributes about 40 percent of that growth to the massive success of the Bel Canto.
Brands also often discuss the shortage of CNC machines, so it’s interesting to note that Christopher Ward took a 20 percent stake in one of its CNC suppliers earlier this year.
That’s all for this week,
Tony
I’ll save my full thoughts on the impact of social media for another day.
The difference between criticism and negativity is important and I hope readers aren’t only thirsty for the latter.
Ben’s Santos Dual Time video is an example of how creators and traditional media can work together. He turned one sentence in an article into a video with 260k views. Both have their place in a healthy media ecosystem.
Thanks for writing this. Someone had to say it. People have a right to know what they are paying for. At the end of the day, if a consumer wants the product regardless of the quality, they will spend the money. But hoping that people are uneducated enough to take their money is not Okay.
Really enjoyed this article! Positivity and sugar coating are two different things. Highlighting the best elements of a watch does not have to be accompanied with withholding the undesirable features of it. The media should highlight all aspects of a watch with a critical but respectful lens. Watch media has begun to look more like marketing than journalism, and I mostly ignore it now.