-
You’re absolutely right. The point of modern homage watches with faux patina, resurrected names and fake aged lume is totally lost on me. But hey, we don’t all have to like the same things. I’ve got a black bay because it’s waterproof (Which is occasionally useful), no other reason. Everything else is old. I don’t really understand your car analogy, the last car I owned was a 1969 Dino...
Edit. Ok I thought about this a bit more. The problem is that this constant ripping off of vintage designs is causing prices of vintage watches to skyrocket (and a whole bunch of consequential effects such as more fakes in the market). This makes my hobby much more difficult. Because this doesn’t affect those who are only interested in “new-old” watches (arguably most aren’t even aware), I can see how the approach to copying old designs is perceived as victimless, but it’s not.
That argument is based on people being unaware that there is a difference between a vintage watch and a new watch, which I suggest is untrue.
Do people think that these are the same car?
I'd say that they do not - and indeed, there is nothing that links them other than a) they're both designed as small city cars and b) common (although clearly not copied) design elements.
Yet they're both, unquestionably, a Mini.
Dammit-
I don’t think the car analogy is particularly helpful as new cars are obviously more reliable, faster, economical and safer than old cars; they perform their job better than the old one. This isn’t really true for watches, an old watch will do just as good a job as a new one.
So if both of the minis above functioned equally well:
Which has more character? Which is more charming?
Which has more provenance, more of a story attached to it?
Which is scarcer?
Which will be more expensive in 10 years time?
Which has a more rewarding purchase experience?
Which brings the owner more joy to own?All the major watch brands know that they’re competing with the vintage market. So Omega using the name of an old watch somehow bestows on the new watch the same heritage identity, even though it obviously isn’t in any way the same at all. Or the little extra gifts you get (compared with the months spent building a relationship with a seller before I buy an old watch), or the artificial “scarcity” of “only” 3500 pieces and limited editions (omega still haven’t sold all their 50th or even 60th anniversary speedmasters).
I get that people know the difference between new and old, but still not why buy new. Warranty? Too fearful of buying a lemon?
Rolex and Omega sell 1 million watches a year each and still convince the public that their products are exclusive. Broadly speaking, Rolex do this by investing in their brand, and Omega by exploiting their brand.
^Just my humble opinion. YMMV. #buywhatyoulike
freddo
You’re absolutely right. The point of modern homage watches with faux patina, resurrected names and fake aged lume is totally lost on me. But hey, we don’t all have to like the same things. I’ve got a black bay because it’s waterproof (Which is occasionally useful), no other reason. Everything else is old. I don’t really understand your car analogy, the last car I owned was a 1969 Dino...
Edit. Ok I thought about this a bit more. The problem is that this constant ripping off of vintage designs is causing prices of vintage watches to skyrocket (and a whole bunch of consequential effects such as more fakes in the market). This makes my hobby much more difficult. Because this doesn’t affect those who are only interested in “new-old” watches (arguably most aren’t even aware), I can see how the approach to copying old designs is perceived as victimless, but it’s not.