IWC value

If you think IWC doesn't care about engineering and watchmaking, I respectfully disagree. But rather than debate this, please wait until SIHH 2015 (and, no, there's no hint and I won't say more).

Michael, you just started a new discussion ;-)

IWC, like many other watches, and other commodities for that matter, may well go down in value, but what also matters is the type of item you are buying. Specifically, you must consider the type of metal (precious v. non precious) you are comparing.

We can use Rolex, which many argue "keep their value," as an example. An all gold submariner will hold its value more than a stainless steel version of this watch. This may largely be tied to the rising price of gold.

A friend of mine purchased an all gold submariner with diamonds and sapphires in the dial in the late 80's/early 90's for ~15K USD. The same watch is selling today for upwards of 30K USD. While there are certainly upgrades in the movements, this large increase in value, I believe, is mainly tied to the international price of gold, diamonds, and sapphires.

The same can be said about what type of metal you purchase an IWC, PP, Paneri, or any other watch brand for that matter. There is more to valuing a watch than just the name brand. Plus, like what I took from GK's speech, owning a watch is more than the ticking parts or the engineering in it, its an emotional attachment. I cannot for the life of me figure out why someone would spend north of 600K USD for a Richard Mille watch, but that is just me. They may be great watches, but I do not have an emotional attachment to it as I do to my stainless BP.

+1 :-)

Personally, I go with my heart, as i feel a lot of the forum members do. I have tried various brands on in my price range and none of them make me smile inside and out like a IWC. That's why my first investment will be the CF3.
I have no intention on selling it but to pass it down as my pride and joy to my other pride and joy, my son.

Regards,

David

So I watched the presentation and have to say I did not find it controversial or remarkable. This is how the luxury goods industry works. If you think Rolex is any different just take a look here or here. Maybe there is a difference with PP and a few more that have a bit more conservative and traditional approach.

The only thing I found off-putting was when mr. Kern referred to the Portofino as a "beautiful and useless product". But I think that was more an ill-advised attempt at being funny than anything else.

As for my personal view on the story-telling, I think IWC takes it a bit too far for my personal taste. I very much like to read about the engineering history but couldn't care less for fighter pilot scenes with John Malkovic. And the continuous flow of "limited editions" of 500 or 1000 watches that IWC is pushing is not very exclusive to me. You don't have to think very long to figure out that 1000 watches in this segment is actually not that limited. And I doubt there is sufficient technological or other uniqueness in them to make them attractive on the collectors market or eventually become vintage classics. Also the rate at which they keep launching "limited editions" further diminishes the uniqueness. I see them more as minor variations available for shorter periods of time.

But with all this said, I don't really have to read the stories or buy the watches that don't interest me - do I? :-)

All I know is I recently got the new IWC catalog. I have spent hours reading it from cover to cover. IWC's current collection is brilliant. If this is the direction they have chosen, I couldn't be happier. They will never please all of the people all of the time. There is something for everyone. Personally I love the new Inge line up, others don't. That's life.

Cheers,

Jarrod

Cesus,

I believe what he said was the cost was the bottom third and the image is what allows the company to make a higher margin. I really hope IWC knows that the product has to provide sufficient substance to the image or it will all fall apart. When I look at the products they are launching it seems to me like they do know this.

Sure, you want to claim that here?

I'm glad it is. Why should somebody buy a used one for almost the same price as a new one? To do you a favor?

I got my watch for 8500 and that was high for it. Of I try to sell it I can barely get 7k for it. It still does not justify a 14k price tag. My sub c and panerai both hold their value really well. I'll wind up trading it in at some point later on. Last IWC for me though. Not worth the price tag.

Dude a rolex sub is 8500 new and sells for 7300-7500 used. The yacht club is forsaking 14k new and sells for 6500... Do the math. May panerai new is 9700 after prices went up and used sells for 6500. Not too bad. I owned an IWC aquatimer that I bought second hand for 2950 and new was 4600. Seriously what are are you trying to justify? IWC drops value worse than breitling.

If anyone wants to trade for a white dial IWC Portuguese let me know. I'll do it!

We're supposed to be non-commercial here, and I would ask that specific pricing not be mentioned.

But also I will say, with respect, you're picking on some bad examples. I've bought IWC at full retail and sold them for equal that. I've bought a new IWC for list (a Jubilee Portuguese) and sold it for double. The original 5002 Big Pilots Watch sells today used for 90 or 95% of its 2002 list price.

If you buy a Rolex Explorer II today for list (8100 USD, and more in Euro) you will be lucky to sell it for 6500 USD. Even the vaunted Daytona --which new sold for up to 2000 USD over list, now can be bought new for below list, and used ones for 80% of the new price.

I can give you similar examples of depreciation for Patek, Jaeger, Breguet, Audemars, Vacheron and a lot of other brands --brands that frankly are considered "higher" and are horologically finer than the two mid-priced brands you mention.

If you buy watches to make money, or to own and dispose of them in short order, you are making a huge mistake, economically and as a value judgment. And I'm unsure why you're posting here --at some point it is simply to create arguments, and without many relevant facts. I assume it's not your intention, but what you write can appear to be as a troll.

I'm not an expert in the market of used watches but it's really about supply and demand. If you buy a model, of any brand, that is desired by many others it will hold it's value. If you buy a model that is not, it will not. Also manufacturers significantly raising the list prices over time for models that have been on the market for years helps keep up the value of used ones.

On average, I would not be surprised if Rolex and Panerai hold better value than IWC simply because of brand recognition and a bigger market of people who desire one but can't or don't want to buy one new.

In any case, if you buy watches for short periods of time you better be rich enough to not bother about the financial hit on new ones, or focus on used models that are not likely to depreciate much further in the short term.

My watch buying habits over the last 15 years have been guided by two principles:

1. If you want to make a small fortune with watches, start with a large fortune then buy watches new and sell them used.

and my favorite from my good friend "Another Don", is "Don's Axiom"

1. It's going to be a used watch when I sell it,
   It might as well be a used watch when I buy it.

I have owned hundreds of watches over the years, mostly IWC, and I'll simply say that when I add it all up, my hobby hasn't cost me a dime.

You did a very good job, and probably better than I would. If I had to edit what you wrote, I would replace some with many.

:-)

Why would anyone buy a Rolex anyway? New it is overpriced, used it is to expensive, and in both cases it`s ugly....