Michael, I understand all your points. But I still say from my point of view, an individually numbered watch is preferable. The fact I am getting number 22 for the CF3 just makes it that much more special. However I wouldn't be put off buying a watch I wanted simply because it wasn't individually numbered.
Cheers,
Jarrod
Also to be clear, I'm totally good with limited pieces that aren't numbered (actually prefer that!), my issue is with the "One of 250". I think that's tacky .. Usually anything that's actually called Limited Edition isn't really that desirable. The most coveted limited things are those that are limited by accident, or unintentionally. Limited Edition branding is generally a marketing tactic to drive interest in an out of band product release ..
The Limited Edition game is actually quite nice. Certainly if the watch is very beautiful there is some sense of racing competition, puting pressure on you, having to decide within a few days, on a watch you probably didn't see yet, for a price that may be higher than for the regular model. So about everything screams don't do it, but sometimes you just give in, maybe because you like the watch very much, sometimes for no particular reason. I am quite good at it, in saying no even if I like the watch. Provisions for the time when I have no teeth and no legs anymore prevent me to do silly things most of the time. And IWC and others giving the opportunity to play that game: thank you very much, it is a lot of fun, even when not participating!
Kind regards,
Paul
Variety and exclusivity can be good ways to drive sales but, IMO, mixing the two does not necessarily make a good combination. A few examples:
1) Individual numbering is not important for variety purposes. But it is for exclusivity.
2) Series of 500 or 1000 watches is good for variety as most (if not all) boutiques and ADs can have the opportunity to get the product. With exclusivity the main point is that very few should have it.
3) A high rate of launching models with minor differences is good for variety. But a high frequency of occurrence and lack of significant difference reduces exclusivity.
For me personally, exclusivity is not very important while I appreciate variety. Nevertheless, I can see how IWC's current approach to limited editions can have a negative effect on brand perception.
I'm sure that limited edition numbering is something that is constantly debated at IWC HQ (or at least I really hope it is). I fully understand there are those who will not buy a LE unless they get their preferred number (and indeed even the hassle to even get to this stage of rejection alone- is at a cost to IWC).
I just hope that IWC continues to carefully consider that there are many collectors, myself included who simply will not touch a non-individual numbered LE.
So balancing those who won't buy because they don't get their chosen number vs those who won't buy a non-individual numbered LE --- IWC has shown us their current views on the matter by continuing to release... both!
regards,
thang
In general I don't care what the actual number is, as long as it has one. Being able to pick the number is great but not essential for me.
Cheers,
Jarrod
I would even argue that if they set the quantity right, the prospective customers who choose not to buy unless they get their number shouldn't matter. The edition should sell out anyway. That is on a true exclusive limited edition. If it's an edition made more for variety purposes then all sales will matter.
On the other hand, there's always a case number and that is unique. :-)
On the other hand for a guy born in e. g. 1961 it is interesting to have the watch - say - 1961/2000 or 961/1000 or 61/500 etc... :)
Best,
Robert
... With this approach Jarrod would be very old with his Lucky number 22 :-)
Best,
-christian